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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
SHARON RUFO, ET AL., )
)
PLAINTIFFS, )
)
VS. )NO. SC031947
)
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., )
)
DEFENDANTS. )
_________________________________________)
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
JANUARY 15, 1997
VOLUME 43
REGINA D. CHAVEZ, CSR #8446
OFFICIAL REPORTER
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: DANIEL M. PETROCELLI ESQ.,
THOMAS LAMBERT, ESQ.,
PETER GELBLUM, ESQ., and
EDWARD MEDVENE, ESQ.
Firm: MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP
11377 West Olympic Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90064-1663
For: Plaintiff Goldman
JOHN QUINLAN KELLY, ESQ.
330 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10017-5090.
For: Plaintiff the Estate of
Nicole Brown Simpson
MICHAEL A. BREWER, ESQ.
Firm: HORNBERGER & CRISWELL
444 South Flower St.
Los Angeles, CA 90071.
For: Plaintiff Rufo
PAUL F. CALLAN, ESQ.
Firm: CALLAN, REGENSTREICH,
KOSTER & BRADY
One Whitehall St.
New York, NY 10004
For: Plaintiff Estate of.
Ronald L. Goldman
FOR THE DEFENDANTS: ROBERT C. BAKER, ESQ.,
MELISSA BLUESTEIN, ESQ., and
PHILIP BAKER, ESQ.
Firm: BAKER, SILBERBERG & KEENER
2650 Ocean Park Blvd., #300
Santa Monica, CA 90405-2936.
-and-
DANIEL LEONARD, ESQ. and
ROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQ.
Firm: BAILEY, FISHMAN & LEONARD.
6355 Riverside Blvd.
Suite 2-F
Sacramento, CA 95831
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
PLAINTIFFS' WITNESSES: PAGE
RICHARDS, GERALD
DIRECT (G) 6
CROSS(L) 21
DIRECT (G) 52
RECROSS (L) 63
MATHESON, GREGORY
DIRECT (TL) 71
CROSS(PB) 95
REDIRECT (TL) 116
RECROSS (PB) 120
FUNG, DENNIS
DIRECT (TL) 126
CROSS (B) 131
REDIRECT(L) 151
RECROSS(B) 152
FOX, RICHARD
DIRECT(M) 157
CROSS (B) 196
REDIRECT (M) 216
RECROSS (B) 218
Legend: (B) = Mr. Robert B. Baker
(BL) = Mr. Blasier
(BR) = Mr. Brewer
(C) = Mr. Callan
(G) = Mr. Gelblum
(K) = Mr. Kelly
(L) = Mr. Leonard
(M) = Mr. Medvene
(MB) = Ms. Bluestein
(P) = Mr. Petrocelli
(PB) = Mr. Philip Baker
(TL) = Mr. Lambert
INDEX OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR I.D.
PLAINTIFFS'
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
2369 Photograph of O.J. Simpsonin the 6
end zone
2369 Enlarged Board showing Mr. Simpson 68
2371 Enlargement of a photographof a 17
glove
2371 Enlarged Photo 68
2372 Enlargement of a photographof a 17
glove
2372 Enlarged Photo 68
2373 Enlargement of a photographof a 18
glove showing a label
2373 Enlarged Photo 68
2370 Chart with list of Groden issues 68
2375 Photograph 76
2375 Copy of 2374 marked by Mr. Matheson 122
2376 Photograph 77
2376 Photo of vehicle interior 123
2377 Photograph 78
2377 Copy of 2376 marked by Matheson 123
2378 Photograph 79
2378 Photo of Vehicle interior 123
2379 Photograph 80
2379 Copy of 2378 marked by Matheson 123
2380 Photograph 80
2380 Photo of interior showing floor 123
2381 Photograph 81
2382 Photograph 82
INDEX OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR I.D.
PLAINTIFFS'
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
2382 Photo of console 124
2309 Photograph of glove 88
2310 Photograph of glove 88
2384 Photograph of glove 88
2384 Photo of glove 124
2385 Photograph of glove 89
2385 Photo of glove 124
2386 Photograph of glove 89
2386 Photo of glove 124
2387 Photograph of glove 89
2387 Photo of glove 124
2388 Photograph of glove 89
2388 Photo of glove 125
2389 Photograph of glove 90
2389 Photo of glove 125
2374 Photo of interior of vehicle 122
2375 Copy of 2380 marked by Matheson 123
2383 Copy of 2382 marked by Matheson 124
2392 Plastic bag and paper bag 128
collectively
716 10 page document with one 168
photograph per page
2393 Photograph of page 1 of 168
plaintiff's exhibit 716
2394 Photograph of page 2 of 170
plaintiff's exhibit 716
2395 Photograph of page 3 of 173
plaintiff's exhibit 716
INDEX OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR I.D.
PLAINTIFFS'
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
2396 Photograph of page 4 of 178
plaintiff's exhibit 716
2397 Photograph of page 5 of 179
plaintiff's exhibit 716
2398 Photograph of page 6 of 179
plaintiff's exhibit 716
2399 Photograph of page 7 of 184
plaintiff's exhibit 716
2400 Photograph of mockup 3 188
2401 Photograph of mockup 3 190
2402 Photograph of page 10 of 190
plaintiff's exhibit 716
DEFENDANTS'
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
1925 Contact sheet 40
2390 109
2390 Photo 125
2391 109
2391 Photo 125
INDEX OF EXHIBITS RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFFS'
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
2357 66
2358 66
2359 66
2360 67
2361 67
2362 67
2363 67
2364 67
2365 67
2366 67
2367 68
2368 68
2369 68
2370 68
2371 68
2372 68
2373 68
2374 122
2375 122
2376 123
2377 123
2378 123
2379 123
2380 123
2381 123
INDEX OF EXHIBITS RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFFS'
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
2382 124
2383 124
2384 124
2385 124
2386 124
2387 124
2388 125
2389 125
2393 223
2394 223
2395 223
2396 223
2397 223
2398 223
2399 223
2400 223
2401 223
2402 223
716 224
DEFENDANTS'
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
2390 125
2391 125
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 1997
9:00 AM
DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
(PER COVER PAGE)
(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)
(The following proceedings were
held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)
MR. LEONARD: Morning, Your Honor.
I have just one brief procedural matter.
I spoke to brother counsel this morning,
and I would like the opportunity to reserve
cross-examination until Mr. Richards is returned
tomorrow, pending the Court of Appeals' decision, if
we get one today. We filed a writ this morning, and
the tact that I take on cross-examination, strategy
and so forth, will depend on whether or not he's
allowed to testify as to the Flammer photographs.
There's also another area that I think
they want to get into which involves the analysis of a
totally different photograph, the Bundy glove, and I
would object to any testimony about that.
MR. PETROCELLI: Morning, Your Honor.
I don't think he has a right to reserve
his cross-examination until tomorrow for tactical
reasons. They insisted on bifurcating, so it was at
their insistence that the Court ordered that
Mr. Richards' examination be split up.
We're doing the Groden rebuttal and they
need to do the cross-examination on that.
Tomorrow we're coming back to do the
Flammer issue, and then they can do the
cross-examination on that.
For tactical reasons, they can't break it
up -- they can't make us break up our direct, and yet
they can do a single integrated cross-examination for
purely tactical reasons, as he just said. I don't
think there's any basis for that.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, my cross-examination
is going to be brief, 45 minutes.
THE COURT: That's brief?
MR. LEONARD: Well, what's a three-hour
examination?
MR. PETROCELLI: It's not the length of time.
MR. LEONARD: There is no breaking up.
MR. PETROCELLI: You made us break it up.
THE COURT: What did the other --
MR. PETROCELLI: The other photo, Your Honor,
this -- this photo -- Mr. Richards will testify that
this is not a hole; this is debris lying on the top of
the glove. We let him testify about this at his
deposition after court yesterday, so they've examined
him on this.
I will point out that, in
interrogatories, we asked for all facts and evidence
that they had in support of a planting theory. They
told us nothing about this Bundy glove being planted,
in regard to a hole and debris. This is all brand
new, Your Honor.
We had no opportunity at all to prepare
for this new claim, which to this day, I do not
understand. But apparently, they want to make it, as
you heard Mr. Leonard so boisterously argue earlier in
the week.
We asked Mr. Richards to take a look at
these photos just the other day. He did and he
testified about them yesterday. We would like him to
testify about that as well, since this is a new claim
that they have put into the case after -- after orders
of preclusion, as well, that they weren't able to get
into any matters outside of what was in the
interrogatories. And they did.
This is brand new. We had no time,
opportunity or ability to prepare. They never made
this claim. Despite a year of hotly contested
discovery, we learned about it last week. So we would
like an opportunity to address it so the jury is not
in any way, shape or form misled.
MR. BAKER: Comes ill from the mouth of the
plaintiffs to say that it was sprung on them, when
they sprang 30 photos on us, and then have their
experts fly to Buffalo, and we have no opportunity to
review the photos at all; to come in here and say it
was sprung on us, and now we should have an
opportunity to have an expert testify to that.
2034, specifically, code sections (k) and
(l), require them -- what they have to do if they want
to amend and enlarge the designation of their expert.
They have never done that on either the
30 photos, or this photo, or anything else. We think
they ought to be precluded.
THE COURT: When was this photograph, this one
with the glove, discovered?
MR. BAKER: Well, they've had it as long as
we've had it. Since June 14. It was taken on -- on,
I think, June 14, 1994.
So they've had it since the inception of
the case.
MR. PETROCELLI: The glove photos have been
around.
But we've asked them for every fact known
to mankind on which they intend to assert planting of
evidence, in voluminous discovery. We had to go to
court three or four times to get orders.
In fact, we got the last order from this
court on what they could argue and not argue in
opening statement.
At no time did they tell us that they
were going to contend that the Bundy glove was
planted. At no time did they say that one glove had a
hole in it and the other doesn't. They didn't say any
of that, Your Honor. They talked about the Rockingham
glove.
This is brand new. We learned about this
claim when Mr. Leonard stood up in court the other day
and said now we have proof.
That's what we're.
MR. LEONARD: Submitted.
THE COURT: Okay. You may do that.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.
THE COURT: Bring the jury in.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, with regard to the
reservation of cross-examination?
THE COURT: You can cross-examine on what he's
said so far.
(Jurors resume their respective
seats.)
THE COURT: Morning.
JURORS: Morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
(Chart displayed on easel.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. GELBLUM: (continued)
Q. Morning, Mr. Richards?
A. Good morning.
Q. When we left off yesterday, we were
talking about the point that Mr. Groden made about the
photograph of Mr. Simpson in the end zone.
On the list that we have up on the easel,
the next point had to do with the shoes, the right
shoe in particular, where Mr. Groden said that there
was -- the red reflection that appears on the sole of
the right shoe should be white rather than red.
Do you agree with that?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Okay.
Let me show you a photograph.
MR. GELBLUM: Can we mark that next in order.
THE CLERK: 2369.
MR. GELBLUM: 2369.
(The instrument herein referred to
as a photograph of O.J. Simpson in
the end zone was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2369.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Does 2369 show the
reflection on the sole of the right shoe, sir?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. And what color is it?
A. It has a red tint to it.
Q. And do you agree that -- or do you think
that red is the color it should be?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. Can you explain, please.
A. Yes. If I may show this to the jury?
Basically, the right foot is slightly
angled up and over the red area of the field itself.
This pretty well is exemplified by the placement of
the heel and the shadow directly under it, it hasn't
quite crossed that small blue line there into the
white area.
The light shining down onto the field
is going to reflect back whatever area or color it is.
If the foot was over the white area, it would reflect
back white. If it's over the red area, it's going to
reflect back red.
This is a diffused light. In other
words, the light will be fairly soft but diffused in
all directions up under -- up under the foot itself.
You would expect that that would be
natural, that any color that's being -- the light
shining on it will reflect that same color.
The general position of the foot is
pretty evident even though there is some
foreshortening because of the long lens. It's pretty
well evident that it's back far enough that the
majority of the shoe is over the red area as opposed
to the white.
Q. Can you explain that foreshortening?
A. Yes.
When photographs are taken, depending on
where the photographer is with his camera, the
position, it will create anomalies that we call in
some cases, foreshortening, or wide angle distortion.
They really aren't distortions; they are
a function of where the observer is or the camera is
in comparison to other objects out in front.
If the object -- all of the objects are
far away and they're fairly close together by
themselves, the farther away they get, you will have a
foreshortening effect which will make them appear to
shorten -- to become shorter than they are.
Inversely, if you use a very wide-angle
lens, or you see things in a very wide-angle state,
things will tend to elongate.
Some of you may have seen wide-angle
pictures that are taken very closely to people's faces
which makes their nose look three times bigger than
their head, and their ears six inches behind the back
of their head. That's the inverse of foreshortening.
In this case, there was a long lens used
so the foot and the shoe would be somewhat
foreshortened.
Q. Mr. Groden also opined that there may
not -- it may -- that there shouldn't be any
reflection at all on the sole of that shoe.
Do you agree with that?
A. No, not necessarily. There -- you may
not be able to detect in a photograph a reflection,
there may not be enough light. But if the bottom of
the shoe has enough sheen or reflection to it, it very
well may record as the -- actually, the sole pattern
records on the bottom of there.
Q. Do you consider the reflection on the
bottom of the sole of the right shoe evidence of
alteration of this photograph?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Next point Mr. Groden made on the list,
we discussed what he called, I think, sort of a halo
effect on both the left and the right shoe.
Do you know what he's talking about
there?
A. On both the left and right shoe?
Q. I believe so, yes.
Do you see what he's referring to on the
soles?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it this picture?
A. Yes.
Q. Showing you Exhibit 2287.
MR. GELBLUM: Can the jurors see that?
Can he come down to the jury?
You want to come down to the jury because
we're talking about small parts on the shoes there.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. GELBLUM: If that's okay, Your Honor?
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) First, sir, if you can
point out the area where this halo effect is.
A. Basically, there's actually a halo effect
which appears around most of the image. I think the
one in question, though, is around the edges -- the
edges of the shoes, on the bottom, by the soles, by
the tip of the right shoe, and then the back here,
it's very, very -- it's difficult to see, but right at
the sole level of the left shoe, back by the heel
again.
MR. GELBLUM: For the record, we're looking at
Exhibit 2287.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Do you have an opinion
as to the cause of that halo effect?
A. Yes. It's quite common and can actually
be seen in a number of other portions of this picture
and in other pictures also.
Any time you have something that is
backlit -- slightly backlit, and this picture is
backlit, meaning that the light -- the main body of
the light is coming a little bit in back and to the
right of Mr. Simpson.
Q. How can you tell that?
A. I can tell by the highlights on the
pants, the shoulders, the forehead, the back lighting
on the hand, on the right hand, and the way the
shadows are falling here.
In this particular case, that
highlighting effect leaves a very light area anyplace
there is a distinct edge. This is a fraction of the
light actually around the edge slightly, and it takes
on the color of whatever the background or the closest
edge to it is. It can take on the color. Our eyes
kind of -- kind of force us into seeing that color.
As a matter of fact, that can be seen,
the same halo effect that goes up the side of the leg
here, as it transverses from red to white, the little
halo effect along the side of the pants, you'll see
red to white, red to white, red to white, as it goes
up the side of the pants.
Q. What would that be from?
A. Again, it's just a transition of the
light from the dark area to the light area of the
background of the field, and just where the light is,
right at the edge from -- it's being backlit, that
very bright spot is taking on the color of whatever is
nearest to it.
Q. You said you could see that on other
photographs?
A. Yes.
Q. Let me take a look at the photograph of
Mr. Simpson with Keith Byars. I think he's been
identified as -- that's Exhibit 2289.
Do you see that effect in that
photograph?
A. Actually, the effect can probably be
shown a little bit better in this photograph because
the left arm -- see this white line along the left
arm; this is the halo effect we were talking about.
That's also on the shoes, but since the
shoes are so small, it's a little indistinction to it.
We can see that it picks up a grayish bluish effect as
it goes up or grayish bluish. Then it picks up a
yellow tint when it met the background.
Again, it's a common phenomenon when
something is backlit. It will have a very slight halo
effect to it when it's backlit, and that halo effect
will take on a color of the background or sometimes
the color of the object, depending on what the color
is. But it is basically a natural phenomenon.
Q. Do you consider that halo effect on the
shoes that Mr. Groden described as evidence of
alteration of this photograph?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Mr. Groden also said that he had some
kind of problem, although he -- I think he said it was
conjecture about the two photographs adjoining the
photograph of Mr. Simpson walking through the end zone
on the contact sheet, being different exposures than
the rest of the roll.
First of all, do you agree they are
different exposures?
A. They're slightly overexposed, maybe a
stop, stop and a half, something like that.
Q. And do you see any problem with that in
terms of the authenticity of the photo of Mr. Simpson
walking through the end zone?
A. No, not particularly. This is not a
fully automatic camera like the new modern cameras of
today; it's a semi-automatic camera. So you have to
set one of the controls one way or another and
physically adjust the other control. It's very common
to be a stop or two off as you're moving from subject
to subject.
And here he was moving from a fairly dark
scene -- Mr. Simpson -- where we have dark red -- dark
pants, dark jacket, to a fairly bright scene, and he
just may have miscompensated a stop for it.
To be very candid, the entire roll is
very well exposed, for the most part.
Q. Is the photograph of Mr. Simpson walking
through the end zone properly exposed?
A. It appears to be, yes.
Q. Do you consider the exposure evidence --
an indication of -- evidence of an alteration?
A. No, I do not.
Q. The next point that Mr. Groden made had
to do with it wasn't an analysis of the photos.
You didn't see any evidence of moisture
in this photograph?
Do you see any evidence of moisture in
the photograph?
A. No.
Q. Have you seen any evidence of moisture on
any of the other frames or on any -- either of the
contact sheets Mr. Scull shot?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Okay.
You consider the lack of evidence of
moisture in the photograph evidence of alteration?
A. No, I do not.
Q. And the last point Mr. Groden made was
that the photograph of Mr. Simpson is the first frame
on the roll.
In your opinion, and in your experience,
does that have anything whatsoever to do with
alteration of a photograph?
A. No, not any, not to any technique that
I'm aware of would the first frame make any difference
whatsoever. It could have been any frame in a roll,
if it was to be altered, the first one has no
significance whatsoever.
Q. So then, do you consider any of the
points that Mr. Groden made regarding the photograph
of Mr. Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes walking to
the end zone to be evidence of alteration of that
photograph, whatsoever?
A. No, I do not.
Q. And did you, in your own examination,
determine any evidence of alteration in that
photograph?
A. I could find no characteristics in those
photographs, whatsoever, that led me to the conclusion
that any alteration had been made on the photograph
or, in particular, the shoe or pants area.
Q. Okay.
Now, I'd like to turn to another issue
entirely, sir.
Have you had an opportunity to look at
the photographs of the -- a glove --
A. Yes, sir, I have.
Q. -- at issue in this case?
Let me show you --
MR. LEONARD: For the record, objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) We place before you,
sir --
MR. GELBLUM: Can I mark the chart we were
talking about for identification next in order.
THE CLERK: That would be 2370.
MR. GELBLUM: That's the chart with the list of
Groden's issues.
(The instrument herein referred to
as a chart listing Mr. Groden's
points was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2370.)
MR. GELBLUM: I ask Mr. Foster to put on the
Elmo what was previously marked as 2309.
MR. FOSTER: 2311.
MR. GELBLUM: 2311, sorry.
(Exhibit 2311 displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) This has been
represented to be the glove that was found at the
crime scene at Bundy.
Did you have an opportunity to look at
this photograph, sir?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did you look at an enlargement of the
photograph?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Is what I'm handing you the enlargement
that you looked at?
A. This appears to be the same enlargement
that I originally looked at, and this also appears to
be a slightly reduced enlargement of the -- of the
glove.
Q. Did you look at that as well?
A. It appears to be the same one, yes.
Q. And did you also look at another
photograph that I'm handing you -- I'll mark these in
a minute -- showing the label on the glove.
A. Yes, I did.
MR. GELBLUM: Okay. I'd like to mark this
enlargement, the closest enlargement, as next in
order.
THE CLERK: 2371.
(The instrument herein referred to
as anenlargementt of a photograph
of a glove was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2371.)
MR. GELBLUM: And one slightly more distant as
2372.
(The instrument herein referred to
as an enlargement of a photograph
of a glove was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2372.)
MR. GELBLUM: And the small one showing a label
as 2373.
(The instrument herein referred to
as an enlargement of a photograph
of a glove showing a label was
marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2373.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) How did you examine
those photographs, sir?
A. Basically, I examined it using a head
loupe, the same head loupe that I used here yesterday
in court, in addition to a small second eye loupe that
is a little more powerful than that particular device.
MR. GELBLUM: Steve, can you focus -- zoom in
on the white spot.
(Elmo adjusted.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Could you come to a
conclusion, sir, about what that white spot is?
A. I was asked to examine that particular
white spot to see if I could determine what it was and
how it was orientated to the glove. In this
particular case, it was my determination that that was
a piece of debris sitting on top of the glove itself.
However, the exact material that it was,
I was not able to determine from the photographic
examination.
Q. And what was the basis for your
conclusion that it is a piece of debris sitting on top
of the glove?
A. Well, basically, the positioning, the
material that it's composed of in the back -- back
portion -- if I might, Your Honor, might I step down?
THE COURT: (Nods affirmative.)
A. It's debris back in the -- for the sake
of this particular image, on the upper portion of it,
there appears to be dirt or soil similar to the dirt
and soil up in this particular area.
And also, on the smaller reduction --
reduced portion of the photograph, there's dirt and
debris very similar to that soil. It could also be
seen on the left side of the -- the white piece of
debris.
And in further examining it, it appears
there are like little hair-like fibers in the debris
itself. Those hair-like fibers can be seen dipping
down under in the base -- on the right-hand side into
the shadow area. If we look very closely into the
shadow area, you can just see the weave or the texture
of the glove going into the shadow area.
In addition to that, in examining the
shadow itself, it was totally consistent with the
shadow of the rest of the debris as to the direction
and angle, making it consistent with the flash that
took this picture producing a shadow in the lower half
of that portion, which indicates that it is above the
surface of the glove itself.
Q. Can you explain that -- why the fact --
why there's a shadow indicating there is debris above
the surface of the glove?
A. Well, in this particular case, if a light
source which is coming from the upper left-hand corner
here is shining down in this direction on all of the
other material, and you can see it here on the back,
how the shadow falls in this direction, if this in
fact -- let's say it was a hole, this portion would be
lit and the top portion would be in shadow, and it's
the inverse of that, indicating that the material's on
top of the surface, producing a shadow directly
underneath.
Q. Okay.
Did you make a determination whether that
white material could be the lining of the glove?
A. Well, I asked to look at Plaintiffs'
Exhibit Number 2373 --
MR. GELBLUM: Let me put that on the Elmo.
A. -- to determine what the lining of the
glove is to see, if perhaps, it was a piece of lining
itself that had got lodged or possibly come from the
inside of the glove onto the surface of it.
However, the lining of the glove appears
to be a brown color as opposed to a white and doesn't
have the same texture around the top and -- or
textured material around the top and left edge, which,
as I said, appears to be a soil of some sort.
Q. Well --
MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, for the jury's
benefit, may I pass around 2371, this enlargement that
we had made?
THE COURT: You may.
(Jurors examine Exhibit 2371.)
MR. GELBLUM: I have no further questions for
the witness, Your Honor.
MR. LEONARD: Put that back up, if you will,
please.
Thank you.
Actually, the exhibit before.
MR. FOSTER: 2311.
(Exhibit 2311 is displayed.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. LEONARD:
Q. Morning, Mr. Richards.
A. Morning, sir.
Q. Let me ask you something before we get
started on some background questions and so forth.
Let's get right to this issue -- to this
issue of the glove.
You've made a determination that there's
a piece of debris on the top of the glove, correct?
A. That's my opinion, yes, sir.
Q. You're aware of the fact, are you not,
that Mr. Fung testified before this jury that there
was a cut underneath the piece of debris?
Are you aware of that?
MR. GELBLUM: Object, Your Honor, no
foundation, misstates the testimony.
MR. LEONARD: Exactly what he testified.
MR. GELBLUM: Not what he testified.
MR. BAKER: Page 63, January 8, bottom of 62,
top of 63.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Are you aware of the
fact --
THE COURT: Just a minute.
MR. PETROCELLI: It's also argumentative.
MR. GELBLUM: It's not what it says at all.
THE COURT: Approach the bench with the
reporter.
(The following proceedings were
held at the bench with the
reporter.)
MR. GELBLUM: They're saying top of -- bottom
of 62 to 63.
(Court reviews transcript.)
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection.
But Mr. Leonard could read that portion
to the witness.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
(The following proceedings were
held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Reading from page 62,
line -- page 62, line 16.
(Reading:)
And you're telling me that's not
a cut, Mr. --
Question by Mr. Baker.
-- Mr. Fung?
Well, there's an area of damage
on there; I don't know if it's a cut or
if it was caused by a rip.
Q. Now, are you telling this
jury that there was a rock in that exact
area and you have a recollection of that
when you collected the Bundy glove on
June 13, 1994?
Yes.
Q. And you didn't see the
damaged area because a rock was on it;
is that what you're telling this jury?
I'm telling you that damaged area
was where a rock was.
Q. And you couldn't see the
damaged area because there was a rock on
top of it; is that your testimony, sir?
A. I'm saying it was embedded
in that damaged area.
Q. So it was embedded in the
damaged area?
A. Yes.
Now, you were -- sir, let me put this
question to you:
You have no idea from your examination of
this photograph whether there's a damaged area
underneath that piece of debris, do you?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you have any reason to doubt
Mr. Fung's testimony that he saw a damaged area?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, argumentative, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. No, I do not.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, let's talk a
little bit about you.
Mr. Gelblum spent some considerable
amount of time going through your qualifications. He
asked you a lot of questions about your experience in
questioned documents -- examination of questioned
documents and photographic examination.
Do you remember that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, when you were testifying about your
experience, were you trying to leave the impression
with the jury that you spent a great majority of your
time examining questioned photographs?
Were you trying to leave that impression,
sir?
MR. GELBLUM: Argumentative, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
You may ask him how much time he did it.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You have testified in
how many cases, total, sir, in your career?
A. Over 100.
Q. Would you say 200?
A. Over 100. I don't -- I don't keep track
of how many cases I testified to, but I would
definitely -- I would be certain it would be over a
hundred.
Q. Now, is it fair to say, sir, that in less
than ten of those cases were you called upon to render
an opinion about whether or not a photograph was faked
or not?
Is that fair to say?
A. That's fair to say.
Q. In fact, it would be less than five?
A. That's fair to say.
Q. Would it be less than three, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is this the first case you've ever
testified in which there was an issue of whether or
not there was a photograph faked or not?
A. I have testified in a deposition
regarding a faked photograph but not in a trial court.
Q. You've never testified before a jury on
that issue, have you, sir?
A. No, sir.
Q. And in your career at the FBI, sir, you
spent the vast majority of your time when you were
examining photographs doing analysis of the photograph
to determine what images were on the photograph,
correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. For instance, to determine the height of
a bank robber from a surveillance video, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. You spent very little time at all
examining photographs to determine whether or not they
were real or fake; isn't that right, sir?
A. I spent just exactly the amount of time
that was necessary on each case.
Q. You spent, sir -- the percent of your
cases that involved the question of whether or not a
photograph was faked was very small, wasn't it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Less than one percent, wouldn't you say,
sir?
A. Probably.
Q. Did you tell that to Mr. Gelblum when he
was interviewing you before your testimony?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, argumentative,
irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you ever work in
the field of creating composite negatives, sir?
A. In the field itself?
Q. Yeah. Did you ever work making composite
negatives?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You didn't do that for a living at any
time, did you, sir?
A. Well, it was part of my duties as what I
was doing, yes.
Q. By the way, when is the last time that
you testified with regard to the allegation that a
photograph was faked?
A. As I mentioned, I only testified in a
deposition. That was about two years ago -- or,
excuse me -- it was two and a half years ago.
Q. Now, the examination of a photograph to
determine whether or not it's altered, that's not an
exact science, is it?
A. No, sir.
Q. In fact, it involves a lot of subjective
determinations on the part of the examiner, doesn't
it?
A. Yes, sir, based on experience and
education.
Q. Can you answer my question yes or no?
You can explain all you want.
MR. GELBLUM: He did. I object to the comment.
THE COURT: Question may remain.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) There are no standards,
are there, with regard to the examination of
questioned photographs?
A. Would you define for me what you mean by
standards.
Q. Yeah.
Are there any guidelines you can look to,
standards that say you should look for X, Y and Z if
you see any indicia of a fake that allows you to call
a photograph a fake? Is there anything like that that
you rely on?
A. No, sir.
Q. It's up to each individual examiner to
make a subjective decision about whether or not the
photograph is a fake, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When you make a judgment as to whether or
not a particular phenomenon or indication on a
photograph is innocent, that is it doesn't lead to a
conclusion of fakery, as opposed to culpatory, leading
to a conclusion that a photograph is a fake, you take
into account all of your past experience, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Any biases that you may bring into the
case, right?
A. I take into account any of my biases.
Q. You would agree if there is any bias you
have, that could very well influence you?
Do you agree with that, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
And you would also agree that in order to
make the ultimate determination of whether or not a
photograph is fake, you have to take into account not
just what you see within the four corners of the
photograph but all of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the photograph, the conditions under which
it was taken and the history of the negative and so
forth?
Would you agree with that, sir?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Not necessarily?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Sir, you were -- you were an FBI
investigator, Mr. -- you were actually a specialist,
you were a special agent, you were actually a field
investigator for some period of time, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And is it your testimony before this
jury, if you were going to make a determination
whether or not a photograph is a fake or not, that you
could disregard these other external factors, that is
factors that you don't see within the four corners of
the photograph?
A. One, what are the factors that we're
talking about?
Q. Whether or not there was a motivation on
the part of a photographer or his agent, for instance,
to fake the photograph, do you think that's something
that should be taken into account, sir?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, assumes facts not in
evidence, any such motivation in this case.
THE COURT: You may answer.
A. No, sir.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) That's not something
that should be taken into account?
A. Not by me.
Q. Do you think it should be taken into
account by the jury or someone who should be --
MR. GELBLUM: That's really improper; ask that
it be stricken.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Your job was to look at
these photographs with tunnel vision, looking at just
the four corners of the photographs, the negatives and
the contact sheets, to see whether you could see any
indicia of fakery, correct?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, argumentative.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Was that your job?
THE COURT: He may answer.
A. As stated, no.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) When you were told --
were you told by the plaintiffs to disregard anything
other than what you saw in the actual photographs,
negatives and contact sheet?
A. No.
Q. Did you disregard that?
A. What do you mean by disregard?
Q. Any other information you received other
than what you saw through the microscope, through the
loupe, and measured.
A. Not anything that had significance to my
exam, no.
Q. Did it have significance to your exam,
sir, that this photograph was to be sold? Did that
have -- that it was sold?
Did that have any significance, sir?
A. No.
Q. Did it have significance to you, sir,
that the photograph got into the hands of a fellow
named McElroy, as testified by Mr. Scull, was flown to
London and came back on the Concord?
Did that have any significance to you?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever talked to McElroy?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ask him about the history of the
photograph?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ask him why he had the negative
flown to London?
Did you ask him that, sir?
A. No, sir.
Q. Didn't think that was important?
A. I didn't know it was flown to London.
Q. You didn't?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you read Harry Scull's deposition?
A. I finally read Harry Scull's deposition
yesterday.
Q. Well, that's in there, isn't it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You just told the jury you didn't know
that?
A. I didn't know when I talked to
Mr. McElroy.
Q. Oh, I see.
Did you think that was important when you
read it in Scull's deposition?
A. No.
Q. Did you wonder why McElroy had the
photograph flown to London and back on the Concord?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Do you know how much
Scull got for the photograph?
A. No, sir.
Q. That wasn't important to you?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, goes to motive.
MR. GELBLUM: Not this witness.
THE COURT: This is not his expertise.
MR. GELBLUM: It's argument.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, is it true, sir,
that you can't always tell whether a photograph is
fake?
Is that true?
A. That I can't always tell?
Q. Yeah.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In fact, the technology and techniques
that exist today can be fairly sophisticated and very
good, can't they?
A. They can be, yes, sir.
Q. To the extent to where even a seasoned
examiner like you can't see any indicia of a fake?
A. Under some circumstances, yes.
Q. And by the way, you're not telling this
jury that you're 100 percent certain that this
photograph isn't a fake, are you, sir?
A. In my mind?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, I am.
Q. You're saying 100 percent?
A. I'm saying that around the area that is
in question, the feet and shoes and leg areas, my
opinion is 100 percent certain it is not a fake.
Q. Despite the fact, sir, that you testified
in your deposition, did you not, that there are
techniques out there and technology available that
could make it literally impossible under certain
circumstances -- in fact, in many cases, for
photographs to be faked with no indicia of fakery,
right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, what you do when you look to see if
there's any fakery in a photograph is you basically
look to see if there are any clues left behind,
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Clues that the photograph has been faked,
correct.
And would you agree with me, sir, that
the areas that Mr. Gelblum had up on that board, in
general terms, would be areas of clues or indicators
that a photograph would be fake?
Would you agree with that?
A. I would say the great majority would not
be.
Q. But there were some up there that were,
weren't there, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In fact, you would agree with me that the
existence of an edge that shouldn't be there is an
indicator of a faked photograph, right, that can be?
A. An edge that shouldn't be there?
Q. Yeah.
A. Be where?
Q. An edge along the side of a negative that
shouldn't be there, that -- wouldn't that be an
indication that there's been a cutout, sir?
A. In the picture area or outside of the
picture area?
Q. Outside the picture area, sir.
A. Probably not.
Q. It could be, though, isn't that right,
sir?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. It could be.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, one -- one of the
areas, also, that Mr. Groden testified to was whether
or not there was an edge along the bottom of the first
photograph, the subject photograph, that shouldn't be
there.
Do you remember that?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. And you had taken the position with this
jury that that is actually some kind of an image of a
football field; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
MR. LEONARD: Can we put that up.
Hold on, I got it right here.
Would you mind stepping down, holding
this up for the jury.
THE COURT REPORTER: What number is that,
please?
MR. LEONARD: That's 2368.
(Exhibit 2368 is displayed for
jury.)
MR. LEONARD: Can everyone see that?
(Jury panel nods affirmatively.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, is it your
testimony, sir, that that -- that these lines
represent the lines of the football field?
A. That's correct, sir.
Q. And you testified yesterday that the
camera was facing down when that photograph was --
when that image was taken.
Do you remember that, sir?
A. Facing slightly down, yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember saying yesterday that it
was facing down?
Do you remember that?
A. Facing in a down direction, relative to
the other image that I was showing on frame 12, yes,
sir.
Q. With the lens down, correct?
A. Not down. Slightly down, as I said
yesterday, pointing in a slightly down direction.
Q. Is it your testimony, sir, that you're
opining that that photograph was taken from the end
zone; is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And would you agree with me, sir, that if
the photograph is taken from the end zone, that the
person taking the photograph had to be about 60 or 70
feet off the ground?
Would you agree with me about that, sir?
A. No, I would not.
MR. LEONARD: Show that to the jury again,
please.
THE COURT: You want him to still stand there?
MR. LEONARD: No, he can resume.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
(Witness resumes witness stand.)
(Jurors pass around Exhibit 2368
among themselves.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Sir, did you compare
that photograph with any of the other images -- any of
the other images -- that image which you say is a --
is a partial photograph of the football field, with
any of the other images on the contact sheet?
A. Yes, I believe I used my frame 12 here as
an illustration to compare it with that. We passed it
around to the jury yesterday.
Q. Did you see, sir, that when -- when a
photograph was taken with the lines of the football
field, that the lines, as -- as they -- as they move
away from the position of the photographer, they got
closer and closer together?
Did you see that, sir?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. Did you see that they got -- at the end,
the last couple lines were virtually right next to
each other?
Did you see that, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You don't see that in this photograph, do
you?
A. And you wouldn't, either. Yes, sir.
Q. In fact, the last two lines are almost
equal distance from each other -- the last three
lines, isn't that right, sir?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, we also talked about the issue of
the reflection on the bottom of the shoe purported to
be worn by Mr. Simpson in that photograph.
Do you remember that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you told this jury that there you'd
expect reflection no matter what the surface was,
whether -- what the color, whether it was red, white
or green for that matter, correct?
A. I would expect that color to be reflected
onto whatever surface is directly above it, yes.
Q. Including green --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- right?
Did you have an opportunity to look at
any of the other -- there were other images there
where the foot is slightly raised, other images where
the foot of the individual in the photograph is
slightly raised.
Did you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have a chance to look at those,
sir?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. Did you notice that you can't see any
detail on the sole -- underside of the soles of any of
those photographs?
Did you notice that, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you think that was a little strange?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you notice that there's no reflection
underneath the soles on any of those photographs, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And some of those were over green and
some of those are over other colors, aren't they?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. No reflection?
A. None that I could see, no, sir.
MR. LEONARD: I'll put up some photographs.
Start with contact sheet 2 at frame 17
MR. P. BAKER: This is 1833.
(The instrument herein referred to
as contact sheet was marked for
identification as Defendants'
Exhibit No. 1925.)
(Exhibit 1925 displayed on Elmo
screen.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You're looking at frame
17, which is a photograph of --
MR. P. BAKER: I'm sorry; it's 1925.
MR. LEONARD: If you could zoom in -- there you
go.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) That's a photograph of
Marv Levi, correct?
Do you know who that is, by the way?
A. Do I?
Q. Yeah.
A. I believe he's the Buffalo Bills coach.
Q. Fine.
Take a look at the underside of the sole,
there.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You can't see any -- you can't see any
detail on the bottom of that sole, can you?
A. No, sir.
Q. And you can't see any reflection of any
green, can you, sir?
A. No, I cannot.
MR. LEONARD: The next photograph would be
C2F -- frame 15, contact sheet 2, frame 15.
Can you zoom in on the feet?
MR. P. BAKER: That's as far as that goes.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You examined that?
A. Yes, from --
MR. P. BAKER: I'm going to -- the pro has told
me how to work this thing.
MR. PETROCELLI: Well, I'm glad you learned by
the end of the trial.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Couldn't see any detail
whatsoever on the underside of the sole?
A. That's correct.
Q. No reflection, correct?
A. That's correct.
MR. LEONARD: Can we go to contact sheet 1,
frame 26.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, that's coach Don
Schula, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Same question, sir: Do you see any
detail on the bottom of the sole?
A. Yes. In that particular picture, you can
see detail.
Q. Do you see any reflection, sir?
A. No, sir.
Q. Show the jury where the detail is.
A. Could -- would you enlarge that to the
maximum capability?
Q. That's it.
A. Well, it isn't evident. But on -- I'll
explain it from here.
That's the left shoe. On the right-hand
side of the shoe, you can see the serration of the
sole itself. In other words, the design is somewhat
of a serrated design, and you can see the detail of it
on the right-hand portion of it when you look at it
under magnification.
Q. Sir, would you agree with me that the
amount of detail that you can see in that sole is
nowhere near the amount of detail you can see in the
sole of the shoe depicted in the subject photograph?
You agree with that, wouldn't you, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
You'd also agree there's no reflection
there, wouldn't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. There's no halo effect around that shoe,
is there, sir?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Well, look at it, if you don't recall.
There's no halo on that, is there, sir?
A. Well, from that particular image, I would
not be able to determine. I would have to go back and
look.
Q. Your best recollection is, there was
none?
A. Not --
MR. PETROCELLI: He was in the middle of an
answer, Your Honor, and he interrupted him.
MR. LEONARD: Excuse me.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
THE CLERK: For the record, this is Exhibit
1924.
Q. Now, you also testified, I believe --
MR. LEONARD: Can we put the photograph that
has the close-up.
Yeah.
MR. P. BAKER: This is 1830 going on the
screen.
(Exhibit 1830 displayed on the
Elmo screen.)
MR. LEONARD: If you go down to the area of the
foot, particularly the right foot, and focus as best
you can.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You testified just now
on direct examination, that the majority of that shoe
was over the red.
Do you remember saying that on direct
examination, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Some of it's over the white. Would you
agree with that, sir?
A. No, sir.
Q. Would you agree with me, sir, that there
should be some white reflection, if that is a valid
photograph, on the very tip of that shoe?
A. No, sir.
MR. LEONARD: Now, let's move -- let's pull
back on this particular image.
Do we have a number on this --
MR. P. BAKER: 1830.
MR. LEONARD: -- so the record is clear?
And if you could, try to focus on the
scratch along the right-hand side.
MR. P. BAKER: (Adjusts Elmo.)
MR. LEONARD: Not that close. Pull back a
little.
MR. P. BAKER: (Adjusts Elmo.)
MR. LEONARD: And up a little bit, please.
MR. P. BAKER: (Adjusts Elmo.)
MR. LEONARD: There we go.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, you spent a lot of
time on your direct examination talking about this --
what you described as a scratch made by the camera.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Never got a chance to examine the camera,
correct?
A. I didn't hear.
Q. You never got a chance to examine Scull's
camera, correct?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Scull told you that it had been stolen,
right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, before we get into the specifics
here, would you agree that if you were going to fake a
photograph, and that you wanted to do a thorough job
of covering your tracks, that you would attempt to
create a duplicate negative and fit it back into the
original roll that you were claiming the photograph
was taken on?
Would you agree with that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Never heard of that happening; is that
right?
A. Not in that -- not that technique as
you've just described it.
Q. Would you agree with me, sir, that if you
were going to do that, that you would try to use the
same camera to recreate the fake roll of film?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, Your Honor. He just
said he never heard of anybody doing that.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) If you were going to
use that technique that you haven't heard of?
(Laughter.)
MR. GELBLUM: Objection.
MR. PETROCELLI: Now we're in Never Never Land,
Your Honor.
MR. LEONARD: No, we're not.
MR. PETROCELLI: Well, we've been there.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object.
THE COURT: Well, it calls for speculation.
It's close, so I'll allow it.
A. No, sir.
(Laughter.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, when you -- I take
it you examined this rather closely, right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And one of the things you were looking
for was to see if there was a continuous scratch,
correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
And, first of all, this -- this
illustrates quite nicely how the first slide is out of
line with the second. Would you agree with that?
A. (No verbal response.)
Q. Do you follow that scratch up there, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
And, of course, your explanation for that
is an innocent one; that it has something to do with
the movement of the camera, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It can also be that that was inserted
into -- that was a fake negative inserted into this
film, correct?
A. No, sir.
Q. When you see a fake negative inserted
into a -- into a strip, if you don't insert it exactly
correct, it can be out of line, correct?
A. I would never -- I've never heard of, nor
would I understand, any reason to do it in that
manner.
Q. Now, if -- You are telling the jury
that -- that this scratch was caused by the camera,
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you're saying that the scratch occurs
as the film is pulled through the camera, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Is it your testimony, sir, that if the
film was moving, you wouldn't see any change in that
scratch whatsoever?
Is that what you're saying?
A. You're going to have to wind the film.
If the film was moving, you wouldn't see any change --
that kind of change.
Q. You said that the fact that this negative
is out of alignment has something to do with the fact
that the film was moving in the camera, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Wouldn't you expect to see some change in
that scratch, sir, that the scratch would move?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You don't see any between these frames,
do you, sir?
A. I wouldn't expect to, necessarily.
Q. You don't see any, do you?
A. No, sir, I do not.
MR. LEONARD: Can you put up -- yeah, put that
photograph up again.
The one that's on the Elmo, just pull it
back.
Focus on that right foot again, please.
(Mr. P. Baker adjusts Elmo.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) I want you to take a
look carefully, sir, at the positioning of that foot
on the ground, and in particular, at the position of
the heel.
You see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That heel is flat on the ground, is it
not, sir?
A. From that photograph, I cannot tell.
MR. LEONARD: Now what are we putting up?
MR. P. BAKER: This is a zoomed 1931.
(Exhibit 1931 displayed on the
Elmo screen.)
MR. LEONARD: Just zoom back first.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Let me ask you a couple
foundational questions.
You testified in your deposition that --
that the shoe was in the position where the toe is up
and it's cocked to the left, correct?
A. I said to the left. It should be -- it
should have been to the left.
Q. Cocked to the right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I want to you take a look at that
heel.
Is that heel not flat on the ground, sir?
A. No, sir.
Q. With no portion above the surface?
A. No, sir.
Q. How much is above the surface, sir?
A. A small portion in the front of the heel.
Q. Extremely small portion, right?
MR. LEONARD: Zoom in.
MR. P. BAKER: (Adjusts Elmo.)
A. It depends on how you define "extremely."
I say a small portion of it is above the ground.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Measure it.
Can you measure it?
Did you attempt to measure it?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, you've discussed in your direct
testimony a lot of experiments. You did
demonstrations; you put those in front of the jury.
Let me ask you something. Did you ever
try to replicate this photograph?
In other words, did you ever attempt to
try to take a similar photograph, sir, with -- with
someone walking in the manner that Mr. Simpson is,
with the same stride pattern?
Did you ever try to do that?
A. No, sir. That would be extremely
difficult.
Q. You didn't do that, right?
A. No, sir, I did not.
MR. LEONARD: I don't have any further
questions.
THE COURT: Ten-minute recess, ladies and
gentlemen.
MR. LEONARD: Maybe I do. Hold on.
MR. BAKER: We can take a ten-minute recess.
THE COURT: Don't talk about the case. Don't
form or express any opinions.
(Recess.)
(Jurors resume their respective
seats.)
THE COURT: Okay. You may proceed.
MR. GELBLUM: Thank you, Your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. GELBLUM: (continued)
Q. You said this is the first time -- I
think the first time you testified in court on the
subject of an altered photographed; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir, that's true.
Q. How many cases have you worked on
involving alteration of photographs?
A. Probably somewhere between 50 and 60.
Q. In all the professional organizations
that you belong to and the agencies you've worked
with, do you know anybody in the country who has
worked on more cases involving altered photographs
than you?
A. Not that I'm aware of no, sir.
Q. On those 50 or 60 cases, do you know why
those didn't come to court?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, irrelevant.
THE COURT: You may explain.
A. I'm sorry. I didn't hear.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Go ahead.
A. In about half of them, they were not
criminal matters, they were cases involving
alterations made such as in MIA cases, prisoner of war
cases, where photographs had been put forth as being
individuals who were in the military being held by
Vietnamese; those type of examinations.
The other half, approximately, were
criminal matters. However, most of them just did not
go to trial. I was called a number of times for
testimony, but the cases settled before that
particular time.
Q. I think you testified over 100 times in
court?
A. Somewhere between 100 and 200, yes, sir.
Q. And some of those involved forensic
photography issues?
A. Yes, sir, a great many of them.
Q. Do you use the same, or some of the same,
skills examining a photo for alteration as you do in
examining a photo for comparison purposes?
A. First of all, you have to have a good
understanding of the photographic process, from the
camera, to the film, to the processing techniques,
pretty well across the board.
You to have a basic knowledge through
training, education, and also just pure experience
looking at a lot of -- lot of film, lot of negatives,
lot of prints, over the years, to understand the many
characteristics in photography that you may run across
in doing an examination.
And all of these relate one way or
another, eventually, to doing an examination of
alterations.
Q. Okay.
Does the FBI, when you were working with
the FBI, get many alteration cases?
A. The FBI itself will accept cases from all
56 of the field divisions and 11,000 police
departments throughout the United States and the unit
was the special photographic unit, we would get
somewhere between three or possibly four a year of
this type of case.
Q. Did you work on those?
A. I worked on the grand majority of them.
Other agents there also worked on them, but not as
many as normally I would.
Q. So you just don't see many claims about
photographs that have been altered?
A. You just don't see many claims, yes.
Q. Mr. Leonard asked you when determining
whether a photograph had been altered is an exact
science. You said it is not, sir?
A. It is not.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. An exact science. I don't think any
science is exact. Even in mathematics there's
idiosyncrasies that don't make it exact, like pi; you
can't get an exact number for pi.
But most sciences are not exact, most
sciences require a -- a methodology and an analysis,
evaluations, and a conclusion, as a rule, and this
science follows just like most others.
Some sciences, you have to use more
experience than others, and this is one of them.
Q. In this field, training and experience is
important?
A. Very important.
Q. Mr. Leonard asked you questions about
bias.
Do you have any bias in this case?
A. I feel I do not.
Q. Have you ever had a case where you were
hired to determine some issue with respect to a
photograph and you gave your employer an answer they
didn't want?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. LEONARD: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: You may answer.
A. Yes. Particularly since I have been in
private practice, I would say probably one-third of
cases I receive, I provide the answer to my client,
and they would rather not talk to me again after that.
When I was in the FBI, I would also, even
though those were all criminal cases, and mostly all
prosecution cases that were coming in, many times I
would issue a report that was contrary to the -- to
the beliefs of the prosecution, and henceforth, the
case may or may not go to court.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, Mr. Leonard also
asked you if you had looked at anything outside the
four corners of this particular photograph in reaching
your conclusion that it has not been altered.
Did you look at any other photographs?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What photographs did you look at?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
MR. GELBLUM: He opened the door.
MR. LEONARD: Based on your prior ruling --
MR. GELBLUM: He opened the door, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Approach the bench and tell me
which door he opened.
(Laughter.)
(The following proceedings were
held at the bench with the
reporter:)
MR. GELBLUM: Mr. Leonard asked did he look at
anything else.
In fact, he looked at the Flammer
photographs. And those re-enforce his opinion --
supports his conclusion about the authenticity of the
Scull photographs and these other photographs showing
the same shoes -- just not going to go into detail of
authenticity itself or anything else.
He did ask him whether he looked at
anything else and the fact is he did.
MR. LEONARD: That was specifically in the
context of questions about motive and such things as
that. I did not intend to, nor did I communicate to
this jury anything that would open the door to the
Flammer photos. That's a subject of a writ at this
point and this --
THE COURT: All right. Save it for tomorrow.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
MR. GELBLUM: Thank you.
(The following proceedings were
held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
MR. GELBLUM: We may try to talk about that
later.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Leonard asked you
whether a -- if you could see a false edge outside the
image, whether that could be evidence of alterations.
Is there any doubt in your mind about
this false edge issue in this case?
A. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind
about the false edge issue in this case. There's no
doubt in my mind that it is the frame previous to it
that's underexposed that's taken during the initial
loading of the camera.
Q. Is there a false edge in this case?
A. No, sir.
Q. Mr. Leonard asked you whether the
photographer would have to be 60 or 70 feet above
ground to get this image, and you said no?
A. No, sir, it would not.
Q. Would you explain?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, may I?
THE COURT: (Nods affirmatively.)
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
A. I'll go through the process of loading
the camera. Let's assume this is the end zone of the
football field, and the football field is -- looking
down here, all the lines are parallel to my particular
camera. Where I'm standing, I'm just looking down the
football field, and loading the camera.
Normally, the position would be to hold
it -- pick it up, as I'm doing here, take the film out
of my, possibly, bag, and place it into the camera,
and once I get it into the camera, close the back --
close the back, look at where No. 1 is on the top of
my camera here, and click off two or three shots.
Now, if I were to hold the camera exactly
at 90 degrees to the ground, pointing straightforward,
we would see -- and if we have the photographs here --
we would see the horizon line. And the horizon line
being the image in back of here, we would see the
ground portion as we see them in Exhibit -- I mean in
frame No. 12, 13, 14, the great majority of these.
(Indicating to Exhibit 2366.)
A. As we tip the camera down, even a few
degrees, this much -- let's say 15 degrees down, the
top of the camera is no longer going to see the end of
the field, it's going to see what's in front of me to
this point on, out to a certain distance, depending on
what the tilt is.
If I were to hold it directly down, it
would see none of the field, of course.
But somewhere between 90 degrees and
looking straight down, the camera would pick up the
first few lines, and they would tend to diminish, as
they did, until it was out of the field of view any
longer.
Q. Is that the normal position for loading a
camera?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And do the lines in frame 0 diminish as
you would expect them to diminish?
A. Yes, I would.
Q. I think you told Mr. Leonard that you
would not expect to see the last couple of lines in
frame 0 right next to each other?
A. No, because basically, we're not seeing
far enough down the field. If we were seeing farther
down the field, they would continue to get closer and
closer until either we ran out of lines or eventually
they would appear all to be touching as one big line
at the end of the field, very similar to when I showed
the image of the railroad ties yesterday; we could see
the first couple ties in front of us very plainly, but
as they continued on down the track, they were no
longer distinct, they all kind of merged into one.
Q. Can you hold up the exhibit in front of
you.
What's the number on the back?
A. Yes, Exhibit 2365.
Q. And that shows the lines there?
A. Yes. This would be the closest line to
the camera. There very well may be a line closer than
that we can't see, it's out of the frame, and then
continuing up at least six lines here until we no
longer see them, but the lines will continue on down
the field to the end zone.
Q. If you say you see more lines, they would
in fact get closer and closer together?
A. Yes. If we tipped the camera up to the
horizon, we would see images very, very similar to
what we see in the other frames.
However, when you're loading the camera,
as I said, you're pointing the camera slightly down,
you're not intending to take a picture. And if you
remember the example I used yesterday, many times when
amateurs take pictures, they get pictures of their
feet or the kitchen tiles or what have you, because
they're pointing the camera basically down.
Q. Now, Mr. Leonard showed you some
photographs of some other shoes on the field, some
other people's shoes, and the soles of those shoes,
and you said, I think, you saw less detail in the
soles of those shoes than you do in the photograph of
Mr. Simpson walking across the end zone.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. That misstates his
testimony. He said he didn't see any detail except
for one. When he says soles --
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) He talked about the
detail and the soles.
Do you recall that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And why would you -- do you have an
opinion as to why you don't see the detail in those
shoes, or as much detail as the one in the
photographs?
A. Well, there may be numerous reasons: One
of them is the different types of shoes, different
types of materials on the bottom. Different lighting
conditions very well may cause it. And when we
actually look at the shoe of -- Mr. Simpson's shoe,
here at the bottom we can see -- we only see a very
small portion of the sole where the light is
reflecting off of it on the far right-hand side. All
the rest of it is black and has no detail, just like
the other shoes in the other photographs.
Q. Okay.
Mr. Leonard also showed you some of the
other shoes, and I think you said there was no
reflection visible, at least in the ones he showed you
on the other soles?
A. Yes.
Q. What could the reason for that be?
A. Well, again, because the material may not
reflect very well, the lighting may not -- there may
not be enough light to reflect that green back on up
to -- up to the black sole. There's a number of
reasons. I can't explain why it wouldn't be there
because of the numerous reasons or possibilities of
it.
In this one particular case, we do have
just enough light at just the right angle, and it is
backlit where it is reflecting up, to show just a
portion of the sole, just the edge of the sole.
Q. Okay.
And finally, Mr. Leonard asked you some
questions about the position of Mr. Simpson's foot,
his right foot, in the photograph.
In your 25 years of work in forensic
photography, is one of the things you do when you're
comparing photographs, when you're determining whether
a photograph has been altered, to look at the position
of different body parts?
A. Well, I always look to see if they're
unusual. Obviously, if the body part isn't in correct
anatomical position, in other words, if the foot isn't
facing forward, it would concern me greatly. But in
most cases, it is a natural part of viewing the
picture. I look at the body parts to make sure that
they are not completely out of sync.
Perhaps, if a person is falling, they may
be in a very contorted position which would be natural
for a person falling.
But in a contorted position, if they are
normally walking, there would have to be some other
explanation for it.
Q. And did you look at the photograph of
Mr. Simpson walking across the end zone to determine
whether his feet seemed to be in a natural and proper
position?
A. Yes. It appears to me they are.
MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further, Your Honor.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. LEONARD:
Q. When you made this determination about
the natural and appropriate position of Mr. Simpson's
feet, did you actually try to walk like that and see
if your heel would be flat on the ground, sir, and
your foot was up like that?
Did you try to do that?
A. No, sir.
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, misstates the evidence
about flat on the ground. This witness said it
wasn't.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, you went through
this demonstration here about how Harry Scull loaded
the film that day, where he was pointing the camera.
You have no idea where he loaded the film
or how he was pointing the camera, do you, sir?
A. Based on my analysis of the photograph,
yes.
Q. Did you -- you actually interviewed Harry
Scull? You talked to him, didn't you?
A. I did not interview him. I talked to
him, yes.
Q. You never asked him that, did you?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Now, you know, sir, don't you, that
there's an issue in this case regarding some
footprints that were left behind at the Bundy crime
scene?
Do you know that, sir?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, beyond the scope.
MR. LEONARD: I'll make it up.
MR. PETROCELLI: No. I want to know now.
MR. LEONARD: Okay. Let's go.
MR. GELBLUM: I want an offer of proof.
MR. LEONARD: Let's go.
MR. PETROCELLI: I guess we're going, Your
Honor.
MR. LEONARD: Well, you want to know.
MR. KELLY: So we'll go.
(The following proceedings were
held at the bench with the
reporter:)
MR. LEONARD: I guess it's my turn.
I just want to ask him if he knows that
that's an issue in this case with regard to the
footprints, and the fact that it just so happens
there's a portion of the -- of the sole that's visible
on the shoe that's not visible on the other shoes.
That's all I want to ask him.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection to that.
(Laughter.)
(The following proceedings were
held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
MR. LEONARD: No further questions.
MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, at this point I have
no further questions.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further until tomorrow,
if that comes to pass.
THE COURT: You may step down.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
MR. GELBLUM: I'd like to move in various
exhibits, if I can find my list. 2369 through 2373,
is the list I have. That's from today.
MR. FOSTER: Yesterday, starting at 2357
through 23 --
MR. GELBLUM: It's 2357 through 2373.
THE REPORTER: Those are all consecutive,
right?
MR. GELBLUM: Yes.
THE COURT: Received.
(The instrument previously marked
as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2357 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2358 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2359 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2360 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2361 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2362 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2363 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2364 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2365 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2366 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2367 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2368 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2369 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2370 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2371 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2372 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked
as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2373 was
received in evidence.)
MR. GELBLUM: I'm just going to take these away
from the stand.
(Indicating to exhibits.)
MR. LAMBERT: Plaintiffs' call Gregory
Matheson, Your Honor.
THE BAILIFF: You can retake the stand.
THE CLERK: You've been sworn previously and
you are still under oath.
Would you please state your name again
for the record.
THE WITNESS: Gregory Matheson.
MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, I'd like to go to
sidebar real quickly on this issue.
(The following proceedings were
held at the bench with the
reporter:)
MR. P. BAKER: I want to object.
I'm sorry. You here?
I want to object to this. I asked what
Mr. Matheson was going to testify to, and he was going
to testify about the glove. Now, they're bringing out
a Bronco board.
MR. PETROCELLI: No, no, no, no. I said many,
many times to him, and on the record here when you
asked me to lay out the witnesses, that Matheson and
the photographers were talking about the second Bronco
collection and the gloves. I never --
MR. P. BAKER: That was -- you never said that.
I want an offer of proof.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm not capable of making that
mistake.
Go ahead.
MR. LAMBERT: They've done -- Your Honor,
they've shown the jury a photograph that was taken on
August the 10th that they claim -- this photograph is
in evidence, which they claim shows there's no blood
in the Bronco on August the 10.
We're going to have Matheson point out
the blood that he collected, that he can see in this
photograph, and four other photographs also taken on
August the 10th.
MR. P. BAKER: What date did he collect them?
MR. LAMBERT: September the 1st.
MR. P. BAKER: That's not relevant.
MR. LAMBERT: They put the photograph in.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: We'll be dismissing the three
photographers that were on the list; Carmaney, Taggert
and Wilson. We've stipulated as to the photos.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PETROCELLI: So we only have a couple of
witnesses after today. I don't think we're going to
be here very long.
THE COURT: Good.
(The following proceedings were
held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. LAMBERT:
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Morning, Mr. Matheson.
A. Morning.
Q. Would you please tell the jury once again
what your occupation is, sir?
A. I'm assistant director of the Los Angeles
Police Department Crime Laboratory.
Q. Up in front of you here, or off to the
side, is Exhibit 211 which is the Bronco evidence
collection board.
You've testified briefly about this when
you were here last time.
You personally did some collection of
evidence from the Bronco, sir?
A. Well, not from the Bronco itself, from
parts of the Bronco that were brought into the
laboratory.
Q. When was that done?
A. September 1, 1994.
Q. And which parts of the Bronco were
brought into the laboratory?
MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm going to object.
There's no foundation as to the offer of proof.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. The left door of the driver's door, both
front seats, the center console of the vehicle, and
the steering wheel, plus there was a couple of little
trim pieces.
MR. LAMBERT: Let's put the next exhibit in
order up on the Elmo.
(Exhibit 2374 displayed on Elmo.)
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Could you identify for
the jury what it is a photograph of, sir?
A. What this photograph shows is the
driver's door, the interior of the driver's door.
This is a photograph that was taken in the laboratory.
I believe at this point, the door is actually laying
on the ground. That's one reason why the mirror is
turned flat.
You'll see in the picture three numbers,
I believe, 296, 297, 298 and 299. Those numbers are
placed as evidence item numbers next to blood items
that I collected, along with scales, to show the size
of it.
THE CLERK: That's Exhibit 2374.
MR. LAMBERT: 283 --
THE CLERK: 2374.
MR. LAMBERT: 2374.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) These were items that
you collected on September the 1st; is that what
you're saying?
A. That's correct.
Q. Would you please compare for the jury the
items that you collected from the door on September
the 1st to the items collected by Dennis Fung,
depicted in this photograph on June 14, from the door.
MR. LAMBERT: Indicating to Exhibit 211.
Q. Starting with the lowest number, No. 296,
in the photograph on the TV screen.
A. That would be stain Item 223, on the
other exhibit from the original evidence collection,
(indicating to Exhibit 211), taken from the Bronco.
Item No. 298 on the television (2374),
corresponds with what is No. 22, which is kind of a
swipe or a light smear-type of blood-stain area above
the armrest (indicating to Exhibit 211).
Q. And number 299 on the TV screen here
(indicating to Exhibit 2374) refers to a stain that's
up on the trim area. This does not -- the number is
not depicted but it corresponds with the stain that is
kind of above the 22 -- number 22 stain, up kind of
towards the front of the car a little bit up on this
trim (indicating to Exhibit 211.)
Q. So those three items that you collected
on September the 1st were re-collections of items that
Dennis Fung had already done on June 14?
MR. P. BAKER: Leading, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And when you were here
last time, Mr. Matheson, you also mentioned that of
the items that you collected off the console on
September the 1st, that some of those were items that
Mr. Fung had collected on the earlier occasion, too.
Which items are those?
A. Can I step down? (Indicating to Exhibit
211.)
Referring to this display here, the lower
right-hand photograph is a photograph of the console
that's actually taken in the laboratory. The numbers
that appear on it are numbers that I placed there
during my collection on that day.
To compare it to a collection that was
done by Mr. Fung earlier, there's a kind of a
continuous stain here that is actually item number 303
on the console which would correspond with item number
30 from the original collection, and item number 304
from my collection corresponds with the right rear of
the console, item number 31.
Q. And when you collected items 303 and 304,
were you able to determine if they had previously been
the subject of a collection effort by Mr. Fung?
MR. P. BAKER: No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. You could tell there had already been
some blood removed from that area.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, sir, I'd like to
show you some photographs taken on August the 10th by
two different LAPD photographers.
And what I'd like you to do is to examine
each of the photographs in the order in which I give
them to you, and on this copy of the photographs, I'd
like you to mark whether you see any of the blood that
you collected on September the 1st in these
photographs.
MR. LAMBERT: The first one, Your Honor, is
Exhibit 1420, already in evidence.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And if you could --
we've put the same photograph up on the Elmo here.
If you could point out to the jury any of
the blood evidence that you see in Exhibit 1420?
A. Okay.
In this particular exhibit, looking at
the photograph that's in front of me, I can make
out -- doesn't show up quite as clearly on the screen,
but in the recessed area of the driver's door handle,
there is a -- a dark stain area that would coincide
with a stain that was collected both by Mr. Fung and
by myself. In this exhibit that's the only, you know,
clear stain that I could make out.
There are some kind of hazy areas that,
you know, may or may not be blood. I know where
they're at so it makes it maybe a little easier to see
it so -- I'm not totally sure it's obvious in the
picture that's what they are. That one stain is clear
down in the recess, and when you look with a
magnifying glass --
Q. Would you take this copy of that exhibit
and mark the blood area that you can see in the
photograph?
A. It's not as clear in this copy as it is
on the original photograph.
But I'm circling an area down in the
recess of the driver's door handle.
MR. LAMBERT: And, Your Honor, could we mark
this as the next in order.
Which would be what?
MR. FOSTER: 2375.
MR. LAMBERT: 2375.
(The instrument herein described
as a photograph was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2375.)
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, I'll show you the
exhibit -- next exhibit --
MR. LAMBERT: Which will be 2376.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) This is another
photograph taken on August the 10th.
MR. LAMBERT: Steve, if you could put that up.
(The instrument herein described
as a photograph was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2376.)
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Would you point out to
the -- on the television screen, to the jury, where
you see any of the blood evidence that you collected
on September 1 in this August 10 photograph?
A. Okay.
The most apparent stain in this
photograph is the one that was collected above the arm
rest on the driver's door. In this area right here,
you can make out, you know, on the video screen, a
little bit of a darkened area that corresponds to
where that red stain was collected.
Q. Okay.
Thank you.
And on Exhibit 2377, would you please
mark where it is you could see the blood on that
particular photograph?
A. Okay.
I'm circling on 2377 the stained area
that corresponds with blood that I collected at a
later date.
(The instrument herein described
as a photograph was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2377.)
Q. Thank you.
Now, I'll show you the next photograph --
MR. LAMBERT: Which will be 23 --
THE COURT: What is on the Elmo?
MR. LAMBERT: Pardon me?
THE COURT: What do you have on the video
screen?
MR. LAMBERT: That's the next one. He beat me
to the punch.
THE COURT: Let's not confuse the jury.
MR. P. BAKER: I'm confused, if you can imagine
that.
THE COURT: I can't imagine.
Would you take that off.
MR. LAMBERT: Don't beat me to the punch,
Steve.
The next one now is going to be 23 -- 23
what? 2378. Which is another photograph taken on
September 1. And could you please put that up now,
Steve.
(The instrument herein described
as a photograph was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2378.)
MR. GELBLUM: Which one? Steve doesn't know
which one.
MR. LAMBERT: Put it up and I'll tell you if
it's the right one. No. The one you had up before.
MR. FOSTER: Okay.
MR. LAMBERT: Okay. Put it up a little higher.
There you go.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, would you point
out to the jury where you see blood that was collected
by you on September the 1st in this August 10
photograph?
A. Okay.
The area that I'm concerned with here
that shows a stained area is on that right rear area
of the console, would be right down in this area here
(indicating). You can see the darkened area. That
corresponds with the stains that were collected by
Mr. Fung and by myself on that upper corner.
Q. Would you on 23 --
MR. LAMBERT: What's the number on that? 78.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) 2379, would you mark
the area that you're describing to the jury.
(The instrument herein described
as a photograph was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2379.)
A. On 2379 I'm circling with a red pen the
right rear corner of the console showing the stained
area.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Okay.
Now, on the next exhibit --
MR. LAMBERT: Which will be 2380.
(The instrument herein described
as a photograph was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2380.)
MR. LAMBERT: Okay, Steve, the one with the
three numbers, 2380.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Would you please take a
look at that one and tell the jury if you can see any
of the blood that you collected on September the 1st
in that photograph?
A. This photograph actually shows two faint
areas of staining that was later collected. One that
was depicted earlier in a previous photograph, the
smear or swipe stained area that's above the left arm
rest on the side. And there also is another area
which is on the inner side of -- of this console,
appears right where I'm pointing to the picture, right
there.
Q. Now, I also would ask you whether this
appears to be one of the stains that you collected in
that photograph as well?
A. Yes, that's correct, that's a third area
that we talked about previously up on the trim piece
up here (indicating).
Q. Can you please mark those, then, on the
next one -- exhibit in order -- which is 2381?
(The instrument herein described
as a photograph was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2381.)
A. Okay.
On 2381, I am circling with the red pen
the stained area above the arm rest, the stained area
on that control module edge, and the stained area on
the trim piece.
Q. And finally, on Exhibit 2382, the final
photograph we have taken on August 10, could you point
out if you see any of the blood you collected on
September 1 in that photograph and then point it out
to the jury?
(The instrument herein described
as a photograph was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2382.)
A. Okay.
This photograph -- actually the
photograph shows it better than up on the video
screen. But it's very evident. The red staining on
the right rear of the console back in this area right
here which is a lower part of it. Little bit of
staining on the upper right corner where the blood was
collected from. And it does show a little bit of
staining that's on the lower right side of the
console, obviously -- or previously collected in
the -- and collected by myself at a later time.
Q. Would you, on Exhibit 2383, please mark
the spots that you just pointed out to the jury where
you see blood evidence?
A. Okay.
I'm going to put one red circle around
the combined stains on the right rear of the console
area and one red circle around the stain that appears
farther forward on the right-hand side of the console.
Q. Thank you.
MR. LAMBERT: Now, Your Honor, with your
permission, I'd ask that I pass these photographs with
the magnifying glass to the jury so they have an
opportunity to look at them themselves close up.
THE COURT: Okay.
(Photographs and magnifying glass
passed around among jurors.).
THE COURT: Turn the light on.
(Bailiff complies.)
MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, for one minute I'm
going to run back for an exhibit. Are you taking a
quick -- are you --
MR. LAMBERT: I'll wait.
MR. LEONARD: Are you waiting?
MR. LAMBERT: (Nods affirmatively.)
(Pause.)
MR. PETROCELLI: May I approach without the
reporter with Mr. Baker?
(A bench conference was held which
was not reported.)
(Counsel resume their seats.)
MR. BAKER: Why don't we go back up there.
(A bench conference was held which
was not reported.)
(The following proceedings were
held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Mr. Matheson, the
photographs from August 10 showing the blood that you
collected on September the 1st that we just passed
around, those were taken outdoors at Viertel's.
Have you ever been to the indoor
Viertel's facility where cars are stored?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Have you ever attempted to do a search of
any of the vehicles indoors at Viertel's?
A. Yes, I've been sent over to do a few car
searches in my career.
Q. Are you able to do a search for something
like these blood traces that we've been looking at in
a car indoors at Viertel's without special lighting
equipment?
MR. BAKER: Objection, outside the scope, Your
Honor. This is not rebuttal.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, may I approach on
that?
THE COURT: Oh, no.
MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Blasini, they put --
MR. P. BAKER: No speaking --
MR. PETROCELLI: It's directly rebuttal to
Mr. Blasini's testimony.
THE COURT: You may have him testify to what he
did.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) When you did car
searches at Viertel's inside the lot, did you use a
flashlight?
MR. P. BAKER: Irrelevant, Your Honor, it
doesn't have to do with this case.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes, I use flashlights.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And would you have been
able to see the evidence without a flashlight?
MR. P. BAKER: Lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. It would be very difficult.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now let's turn to
another subject.
Before you is exhibit number -- what is
this exhibit number -- 2312, the Bundy glove.
Do you recognize that glove, sir?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. The glove has some writing on it.
Would you please tell the jury what that
writing is?
A. Yes.
Appearing on the lower palm area of the
glove are my initials, GBM, along with the letter A
and an arrow pointing to an area I sampled for
testing, a D and a line pointing to an area that was
sampled for testing. On the back of the palm is a
white B with an arrow pointing to an area where I -- I
did some testing. There should also be a C which may
appear under the -- under the tag.
Q. And the marks that are on there, were
those put by you on that glove?
A. Yes, they were.
Q. And you tested this glove in what
fashion, Mr. Matheson?
A. I removed portions of the stains on there
to do serological or blood typing, type of testing.
Q. And was that conventional serology?
A. That's correct.
Q. And what were the results that you got
from that conventional serology test?
MR. P. BAKER: Objection, outside -- that's not
rebuttal.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. The results that I obtained from all four
of the stained areas that I tested off of this glove
was in an enzyme system called PGM subtyping. The
results were a 2 plus 1 plus.
Q. And is that result consistent with any of
Mr. Simpson, Nicole Brown or Ronald Goldman?
A. Yes.
MR. P. BAKER: Irrelevant, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. P. BAKER: This is not rebuttal.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
A. Yes, it is.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Who is it consistent
with?
A. Of the three, that type is consistent
with Ron Goldman.
Q. After obtaining those conventional
serology tests, was any further testing done with
regard -- in regard to this glove?
A. Not as far as serology goes, no.
Q. Why is that?
A. Well, the indication of who's blood it
was was Mr. Goldman, the glove was found at the scene
in proximity to Mr. Goldman's body, did not seem
necessary at that point to do any further testing on
this item.
Q. Is that glove that's in front of you the
same glove that you did that testing on?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Now, I'd like to show you some
photographs of the glove, the first one of which is
Exhibit 40, which is from the crime scene, and then in
addition, I'd like to show you Exhibits 2309 -- put
the number on the back.
THE COURT REPORTER: Have those been previously
marked?
MR. LAMBERT: They've been previously marked.
Yeah. 2309, 2310.
(The instrument herein described
as photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2309.)
(The instrument herein described
as photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2310.)
MR. LAMBERT: I have six new -- what's the next
number?
MR. FOSTER: 2384.
THE CLERK: Correct.
MR. LAMBERT: Which will be 2384.
(The instrument herein described
as photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2384.)
MR. LAMBERT: 2385.
(The instrument herein described
as photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2385.)
MR. LAMBERT: 2386.
(The instrument herein described
as photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2386.)
MR. LAMBERT: 2387.
(The instrument herein described
as photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2387.)
MR. LAMBERT: 2388.
(The instrument herein described
as photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2388.)
MR. LAMBERT: And 2389.
(The instrument herein described
as photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2389.)
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) I would ask you,
Mr. Matheson, if you could compare first the glove to
the crime scene photograph, Exhibit 40, and tell me if
the glove depicted in the crime scene is the same as
the glove in front of you?
MR. P. BAKER: Lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
(Witness examines glove and photo
with magnifying glass.)
A. Yes it is.
Q. And could you point out to the jury --
MR. LAMBERT: Do we have this up on the screen,
please, Steve, Exhibit Number 40.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Could you point out to
the jury on the Elmo up here, the stains on the crime
scene photograph that appear on the glove here in
court?
A. Again, some of it is a little more
difficult to see up on the video screen, but I was
making the comparison, just both a general appearance
of the glove, but in particular there are a number
of -- of stained areas or stains on the glove that
appear in the photograph. There's two in this
vicinity, and then along kind of drooling kind of
stain on this side along with a larger pooled area of
blood along this area of the glove and a stain up
towards the kind of palm area.
From looking at the location of those
stains, and looking at the glove itself, even though
you no longer have the chips of blood or the chunks of
blood that are visible in this picture, on the glove,
you can make out stained areas that are the same in
appearance. There's -- in the lower portion of the
glove itself, as a matter of fact, one of the stains
sampled for testing is D. There's the -- two kind of
roundish stains that appear here and here. There's
the elongated kind of what I call a drooling type of
stain that appears across here. An area of staining
here near this notch in