I want to -- what I want to demonstrate is that, if you use the state-of-the-art digital equipment and you do the proper cover-up, if you will, techniques, you -- it's very difficult to discern.
Wait a minute. Okay.
You can combine all of these techniques if you want to. For instance, if you -- if you digitally manipulate a photograph and you don't see something, like you -- like you can air-brush it or use some other technique, the point is, it's extremely difficult to -- to discern digital manipulation. That's all I'm going to elicit from him. That -- that these techniques can be combined. These --
-- please.
What is it exactly that this witness is going to testify to with regards to --
He's going to say there are several indicators of it, that the picture has been manipulated. There's a whole list of them. For instance --
Then I'll -- excuse me. You know, if you let me talk, we'll get through this a lot faster.
He is going to say there's something wrong with the picture; is that right?
All of those techniques are various techniques that he knows of, and can alter the picture, but he doesn't know which one affected it?
He sees indications of air-brushing. He also sees the fact that the -- that the -- that the -- as he's described here, that there's some indication that elements are out of register which are an indicator of matte technique.
No. He's going to say that you can't -- you can't tell whether it's been digitized, if it's -- it's one point that -- that it's a very sophisticated technique. All right? And can I -- I'll explain it to you.
He's going to say it's a very sophisticated technique, and that you can -- you can rephotograph the digitally created image with, for instance, with a type of film that has a rather large grain, and it masks the pixelization. The way you can determine whether a photograph has been digitally manipulated is because it has a very distinctive -- I'll call it grain structure. It's really pixels.
One more point.
There's evidence that this -- that the photograph -- that what was represented to us as being an original negative is a duplicate negative, if -- that it's out of register. There's a couple different points.
There's no legitimate reason for what was represented to us in the original negative to be a duplicate negative. That is, there's very strong circumstantial evidence that it's been -- it's been tampered with.
And my point is that, if there -- if there were more than one method -- for instance, if there was masking, if there was air-brushing, and underneath all of that, there had been an original digital manipulation, if it's done right, you wouldn't be able to see the original digital manipulation.
It's like, we've got a murder case going here with circumstantial evidence. There's circumstantial evidence that the photograph has been altered in two of these ways.
And the photograph also went -- went to Paris or London and back on a Concord.
That's pretty unusual. That came out in Scull's deposition. There's some -- there's a lot -- there's a lot of circumstances surrounding the photograph that are unusual.
The guy claims he lost his camera and his camera was rebought --
All I'm trying to argue is that there are circumstantial indicators that this -- beyond the actual looking at the photograph or where it lines up with the others on the contact sheet, which indicated -- indicate that it was duplicated, or at least there's a suspicious break in the chain of custody.
See if I understand your argument.
Your argument is that his testimony is going -- and some other evidence, or some evidence is going to show that these are duplicate negatives.
And that -- that is an element that you contend is supportive of an opinion that it's been tampered with?
If you just let me talk, we'd get through this real fast.
And that you'd like to ask him about the digitizing, because that is one of the methods that can be used to alter it.
But this witness could not establish that, in fact, was the one that was used, only that it can -- that could have been used, and he would not be able to know.
No. But it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, as their expert has admitted, if it's done right, in the proper --
So your main contention is that, if you feel there's sufficient evidence in which this witness can say that there are elements to support an argument that it was altered, because there was a duplicate negative, and that part of the altering could be by various methods, including digitizing?
KEY QUOTEIt's like, we've got a murder case going here with circumstantial evidence. There's circumstantial evidence that the photograph has been altered in two of these ways.
You know, if you let me talk, we'll get through this a lot faster.
The photograph also went -- went to Paris or London and back on a Concord.
So your main contention is that, if you feel there's sufficient evidence in which this witness can say that there are elements to support an argument that it was altered, because there was a duplicate negative, and that part of the altering could be by various methods, including digitizing?