(BY MR. LEONARD) When we took the break, we were talking about when you traveled to Buffalo to examine what was represented to you to be the original negative of the subject photograph.
Did you examine the original negative of it?
Okay.
And did -- by the way, you also had an opportunity to read Harry Scull's, the photographer's deposition; is that right?
And Mr. Scull represented in his deposition that that -- that the negative had never been duplicated, that the negative that you ultimately were shown was the original negative, correct?
Okay.
And when you were in Buffalo, did you also examine some other items, other than the original -- what was purported to be the original negative of this particular photograph?
Yes.
I viewed what purported to be the Scull negatives of three separate rolls of film and three contact sheets made from those negatives, one each, and a series of individual 8-by-10 photographs, very similar to what was supplied to me, that being a full-size 8-by-10 of what I'm calling frame 11, meaning sheet one or roll one, frame one.
And the 1-1 is the photograph that purports to show Mr. Simpson walking across the football field?
That's what I'm calling 1-1.
Also, a lower portion of the body showing the feet in that photograph, as well. And as I recall, for two other individual frames, also showing Mr. Simpson, one by himself holding a microphone, and one with a football player.
Now, as a result of your examination and analysis of these items, have you come to any conclusion with regard to the authenticity of the subject photograph?
On initial observation, noticing problems, discrepancy between what appears actually on the negative itself and the surrounding area, comparisons of that negative to the others on the roll, and the other roll, measurements, positioning, color balance and endless -- I can't say endless -- a number of problems with it.
Okay. Now, have you, for purposes of illustration before the jury here, have you prepared some slides that demonstrate some of these problems that you've identified?
Okay. Let's put up the -- first of all, let's illustrate the contact sheet that contains frame 1-1.
MR. P. BAKER: This is 1832.
Can you pull back -- first of all, pull back to get a full view of the contact sheet.
Can you focus that a little bit better.
Now, you can take that down (indicating to Elmo screen).
(BY MR. LEONARD) Now, first of all, where was -- where is 1.1, the image of Mr. Simpson? Where is that located on the contact sheet?
Now, you can take that down, put up the next slide, please.
MR. P. BAKER: This is going to be a set of slides marked next in order.
This will be slide number one.
(BY MR. LEONARD) Before we go on to the next image, you had indicated earlier when we were talking, in theory, that if you were going to alter a photograph and then attempt to hide the fact that you altered it, and create a copy negative, you would want to insert it either at the first -- as the first or last frame; is that correct?
That is what I testified to, yes. If I -- if I were to do this, and I were going to make it as easy as possible, myself, I would use either the first or the last one.
The next image up, please.
If you could, pull back a little bit, please.
Now, what is in the exhibit number, please?
MR. P. BAKER: Number 1 of 2282.
This illustrates frame 1-1 and frame 1-2. That 1-1 and 1-2, the first two frames exposed on -- on that roll of film.
Now, is there anything of significance that is indicated on that slide that you -- with regard to your opinion?
Specifically in this -- in this case, there's two things that stand out. Number 1 frame, 1-1, is as we view it here, which is at the bottom, is slightly too far to the right.
(Continuing.) The difference is the degree of the black line between the edge, the sharp edge of the -- of the paper and the edge of the frames themselves.
Yes.
The edge of -- the right-hand edge of frame 1-1 comes right up against the paper as a very, very thin line.
The one for the next frame over is out of alignment; it's too far over to the left.
Actually, the one for 1-2 is where it's supposed to be. It is in the same positioning as all of the other frames on the contact sheet. The only one that falls too far to the right is frame 1-1.
We were discussing before the -- the idea and the concept of registration or positioning.
On a high quality camera, such as a Canon, Minolta, Nikkon, Pentax, any of those like it, you have what is known as the frame aperture. The frame aperture is what delineates the border. It creates the border of the individual frame, and it is fixed; it never changes.
You have film guides top and bottom that hold the film in line and parallel to the -- to the -- to the frame aperture itself. And you have a back pressure plate that keeps the film flat.
When you make the exposure, a shutter allows light to come in and strike the film. The thing that keeps it from spreading out and going into where the next frame would be is this frame aperture.
All cameras have frame apertures. The thing is that it doesn't move; the position never changes; it is fixed.
Now, the difference between 1-1, which is slightly to the right, and 1-2 is minimal, is it not?
It's extremely significant.
You wouldn't expect to find any change, in fact. Nowhere else on either of the first two contact sheets do you find a single instance of this happening, except in this one spot.
And again, relating back to what you were -- what you had told us in general terms about creating a copy negative, assuming that this is a composite negative, what does that tell you?
Well, it would tell me that in all probability, frame 1-1 did not get onto this film using the same camera as all of the other pictures.
All of the other pictures fall exactly where you would expect them to, in exactly the correct position and spacing. The alignment is -- alignment is the same, side to side, exactly where you would expect it to be.
This particular one falls just too far to the right.
In fact, to clarify it, just to be absolutely correct, we're looking at the film sideways. Theoretically, we should be looking at it horizontally, which means that the --
The other way. That's it.
Frame 1-1 is actually too close to the bottom of the film. The frame numbering is at the top; the identification, the type of film, et cetera, et cetera, the film speed, which is G400, indicating 400 grain film or speed film.
You can see -- in fact, it's easier to see it this way, (indicating) too, that you have the frame itself coming directly to the piece of paper, and then this greater spacing, this black line here.
Now, this works, when you do it from the outside of the frame or from the inside. And it doesn't from -- it does it from either end, either the bottom end or the top end.
This -- this particular slide shows what I observed on the contact sheet.
There is a secondary edge here. (Indicating.)
What I mean by that is, the bottom of the frame line itself is, of course, where it turns from light to dark or black.
The edge, the normal edge of the paper itself -- I'm sorry -- of the film itself, is where it goes from this lighter dark area here, to total darkness or black.
For now, you've indicated there seems to be a horizontal line close to the actual bottom line of the frame.
There appears also to be a slight shift of the gray values above and below, that changes exactly at the point where that second edge occurs.
Now, can you explain the significance of that with regard to whether or not this is a copy negative?
If this represents -- you see here how it's extremely dark here?
Now, with a negative, the more light you get, the darker it gets when you print a negative. In other words, there is --
Is it possible to sharpen that just a little bit, please.
Thank you. That's -- oops.
(Continuing.) This area here has the least amount of light held back. It's striking, so it burns it in; it becomes darker.
This area between this horizontal line, as we view it here, and that darker area, has a gray value that appears to be slightly lighter than the area above it, indicating that this might be, in fact, a false edge or some kind of an add-on by relating to that type of phenomenon.
There is no natural situation in photography that would give you that false edge by itself. Where the film ends it should just end. We should not see anything of that nature. It does not occur naturally.
KEY QUOTEAnd keeping in mind the process that you've described of creating a copy negative, how can that false edge be explained?
If you were going to create a counterfeit of some kind of a fabricated negative, you would need a way of registering it, you'd need it to fall into a specific place.
If you were going to deal with that sort of a situation, it might leave you with a false edge.
In other words, if you were to photograph it against something else, you would end up with a false edge, which would look something like that.
One of the strange things that I noticed when this print was supplied to me is that it showed, fortunately, the area around the edge of the print itself, of the frame itself on the sides, although not on the top or bottom -- it did on the bottom but not on the top.
What is odd is there is what appears to be some kind of a line running between the edge of the frame itself and the sprocket hole area. There is no natural phenomenon to allow for it. This -- the film itself was not created with a line already on there.
The odd thing about it is that it kicks back light, and kicking back light, it reflects light back into the paper itself and tends to make it glow a bit. So that where you've got the perforations on the film, it ignites, visually, the line in that area. Where you don't have the light gathering effect of a sprocket hole, it turns to operate black then, and when you have another sprocket hole, it comes on then. This could be the indication of a false edge.
In other words, if you were going to create a composite and mechanically photograph another negative in register against another piece of film, and the light kicked back from the sprocket holes, it would give you exactly that type of effect.
This is one of the most curious things that I found on there, and the issue is this: The frame 1-1 is slightly longer than the adjacent frames, that is, if you measure it with a compass with a fixed position, you'll find that the compass actually spans the exact width, or height, actually, because the way we're looking at it now, this way, edge to edge, precisely. But against the one in question, the compass falls within the boarders. It's very slight, but it is there.
Well, as I said before, the frame aperture determines the size and the border of the actual image. If indeed it's legitimate, and if it comes from the same camera, it should be absolutely identical. It should never change from frame to frame.
Unfortunately, the negative itself has been cut apart. Everything beyond the first five images is on a second -- second, third, fourth, and what have you, strip of five each. The first two have been cut away from numbers 3, 4 and 5, so the only two we can accurately determine to measure between the two are frame 1-1 and frame 1-2.
Since we don't know how this would have been created, we don't know for a fact that the rest of them are actually accurate within -- within the sizing.
However, the frame sizing is smaller on every other frame except frame 1-1, in any case.
Phil, can we -- Mr. Baker, can we possibly please use the backlit large one on this one, please.
This one is very difficult to see. It's a lot easier to see backlit as you actually look at the print itself.
What this refers to is the -- can we blow that up a bit. Can we get in closer just right about in here. (Indicating to photo.)
It really doesn't show up very well here.
But examining the print, the original print that was sent to me, I discovered that there was an entity along here that gives what appears to be -- appears to be sort of an elongated S shape that appears to be retouching, physical retouching, using perhaps a brush or something of that nature.
It's virtually impossible to see here, but if you can examine it on the actual photograph there it shows up very, very well. The problem is it's very, very dark, and very difficult to see in this nature, but the positioning is right along in here.
Why don't you indicate that for the record. I can't see what he was marking.
MR. P. BAKER: 1931.
Verbally describe it then. He was just pointing up there.
MR. P. BAKER: I've got a laser copy.
(BY MR. LEONARD) I suggest you hold up both the copy and the print, if you could, and walk slowly in front of the jury and demonstrate --
You can make your explanation there, and then with the Court's permission, then you can walk down slowly and show the jurors.
Okay.
Where I've indicated in red here is the approximate location on the original print of where there is what looks like almost a worm, that is like little lines that appear to be retouching lines that are diagonal, and it's dark against dark, it's very difficult to see.
Backlighting it, in other words, using the backlit stand, it shows up much clearer, but -- may I just hand it and they can pass it?
Of all the things I found on that film, this is the most difficult to see on that type of viewing situation.
Yes.
There's a sharp delineation through the leg that comes down, goes straight across horizontally at a point in the leg. This is the right leg. The tonal value below that is lighter than it is above that. There's a point where that changes, and what appears to be possible retouching marks at exactly the point where the tone changes in the leg, it appears sharper than other things that are within the leg itself.
(BY MR. LEONARD) What significance does this -- what does this demonstrate, this slide, sir?
The bottom of the shoe on the right foot appears to be reflecting light, indicating a sole pattern. Based on the positioning of that shoe over the line, it's my opinion that should be reflecting white instead of red, as the angle at which the light would travel in a straight line between the camera lens and the shoe should be reflecting, as it would with a mirror coming this way, if it it's reflecting anything legitimately at all, it should be reflecting off of white below the tip of the sole. But whoever did this had it reflect as red instead of white. And the angle seems wrong.
You talked about earlier the registration of elements in a composite or altered photograph.
In your opinion, is this an example of a malregistration, if you will?
If you could, what I'd like to you do, Mr. Baker, is to focus in on the right shoe.
That's the left shoe.
MR. P. BAKER: I know that. It's a negative. It's backwards.
Although it's easier to see in the actual photographs themselves, could we try to focus it a little bit more, please?
Thank you. Good.
The edge of the shoe comes to this point, the red reflection, for want of a better term, extends beyond the edge of the shoe. In other words, we should see no red image beyond where the black ends.
If someone had used that matte insert process to reflect down and insert the sole pattern at the bottom of the shoe, it should fall in register where it belongs on the sole of the shoe. In fact, it extends beyond the edge of the shoe itself.
(BY MR. LEONARD) By the way, as you look at that photograph, do you see any indication whatsoever of any moisture or the ground being wet at all?
No, none.
As a matter of fact, one of the first things I looked for was that kind of indication when I was at Buffalo.
The bottom of the -- the bottom of the shoe, the sides of the shoe, you would expect that it would have observed some moisture and appear as darker spots.
There is no indication whatsoever, there's no glistening or reflecting of light, of stadium lights or sunlight or anything else, into the camera itself at any point, indicating that the shoe is dry.
The surrounding ground, too, there's no indication of any puddling, gathering of water splashing. One might assume as the heel hit the ground it might cause water to splash up if it were wet.
Objection, move to strike as speculation. There's no indication that there was anything about the weather conditions or the field conditions at the time.
(BY MR. LEONARD) Now, just on one other observation with regard to that photograph, does the heel appear to be flat on the ground, the heel of that shoe?
The heel itself appears to be virtually horizontal, yes, flat against the ground with no indication of any spacing above this area at all.
(BY MR. LEONARD) Okay. Now, did -- we're not going to use this, I can see that it's not really acceptable, but before we move to the two different -- the two prints to actually illustrate this, just tell us -- you can turn it around now. Tell us what you're trying to illustrate with this slide?
Every slide, every frame on both contact sheets has a slightly cyan tint, that is slightly blue to blue-green. Cyan is a specific color that's a blue to blue-green type of tint.
Every single frame on both of the two contact sheets shows that, except the frame in question, which is frame 1-1, which has an overall magenta or pinkish tint to it. Is the only one that doesn't fit visually.
Okay.
Let me see if I can find the original prints.
MR. P. BAKER: First one 1930, the second one 1921.
(BY MR. LEONARD) Now, once again, due to the technical problem here, we're going to have to have you try to illustrate this to the jury by showing you photographs.
And if you would just stand up, and first of all show the jury where the best place on the two photographs is to illustrate this point.
The two prints in question show a reflective value. Frame 1-1 shows a magenta or pinkish tint, to the point where just inspecting this photograph I thought it was a pink shirt instead of a white shirt.
In the shadow areas, in other words, where the -- where the white becomes darker, or what you'd expect it to be in a neutral situation, gray, it becomes extremely magenta or pinkish in tone. That's on this one and only this one.
Yes, please.
Again, if you could illustrate where on the photograph they can best observe this phenomenon?
Yes. Around the area of the collar or where the -- where the jacket tends to cast shadows against the -- against the shirt, anyplace where it gets dark, where it falls into shadow, the overall tint is cyan on every picture except frame 1-1 where it's magenta.
Are these new exhibits numbers or is this --
MR. P. BAKER: First one is 1930, second one is 1921.
THE COURT REPORTER: 1-1 is 1930 and --
MR. P. BAKER: And the second one is 1921.
(BY MR. LEONARD) Before we move on to this, what is the significance in the difference in hue the magenta with all the other frames and the cyan -- excuse me -- the cyan with all the other frames and the magenta with the questioned frame, what is the significance of that, sir?
Well, when viewed as the contact sheet itself, in fact, we see that overall neutral to cyan tint on every frame except 1-1, which makes 1-1 visually not fit, the balance is off, and the -- and the problem that I described before with trying to exactly match a color balance during a recreation would, in fact, be indicated possibly by this, as well as a slightly out of focus attitude of that particular frame.
This slide represents that the adjacent frames to the -- to the frames that show Mr. Simpson are extremely overexposed. There is a --
The normal exposure, normal skin tone reflective values of the red, green, whatever, this is a normal reflective green, which is what we expect to see, and what we do in fact see in every other negative that appears in number 1 and number 2.
But the ones surrounding -- the ones near Mr. Simpson are extremely overexposed, and they're the only ones that are overexposed, indicating that perhaps someone had tried at some point to balance frames of him to the mean roll and perhaps did not bother to make any kind of a correction around the ones close to him. It's conjecture, but there is a problem with that, because the exposures are so dead-on for all the rest.
(BY MR. LEONARD) Now, based on -- strike that.
Now, the factors that you have discussed and you have illustrated through the slides that you demonstrated to the jury, are those the factors that you relied on in reaching your conclusion that there is a high probability that the frame in question was altered?
My conclusion is that there is a high likelihood of forgery.
In all probability, frame 1-1 did not get onto this film using the same camera as all of the other pictures.
Every single frame on both of the two contact sheets shows that, except the frame in question, which is frame 1-1, which has an overall magenta or pinkish tint to it. Is the only one that doesn't fit visually.
There is no natural situation in photography that would give you that false edge by itself. Where the film ends it should just end. We should not see anything of that nature. It does not occur naturally.
The frame in question, the compass falls within the borders. It's very slight, but it is there.