Plaintiff's attorney Peter Gelblum systematically dismantled defense photo-authentication expert Robert Groden's credentials on cross-examination. Gelblum exposed that Groden — a JFK assassination author who sold videotapes in Dealey Plaza — had no formal training in photo analysis, no professional certifications, had been paid exactly twice (outside the House Committee) to authenticate photographs, and had inflated his resume. The session ended dramatically when Gelblum implied Groden had been deposed by the Assassination Records Review Board for theft of government documents, prompting a mistrial motion that was denied and a judicial admonishment to the jury.
# 1 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Groden, you ever spoken with a gentleman named Pat Clark at Hy Zazula and Associates in New York City?
# 3 Q: Before you took this assignment, Mr. Groden, you knew that the defendant and his lawyers were trying to prove the picture was a fake, right?
# 4 A: I knew there was an issue relating to that, yes.
# 5 Q: You knew the defendant and his lawyers were trying to prove the picture was a fake?
# 7 MR. LEONARD: Objection. That's argumentative.
# 8 THE COURT: Overruled.
# 9 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) The answer is yes, you did know that?
# 11 Q: And you knew you wouldn't be asked to come to court to testify unless you said it was a fake, right?
KEY QUOTE # 12 MR. LEONARD: Argumentative, Your Honor.
# 13 THE COURT: Overruled.
# 14 A: I would assume I would not have been called if I'd have not found that.
KEY QUOTE # 15 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) How much time did you spend with Mr. Leonard preparing for your testimony, on Wednesday?
# 16 A: Two or three hours.
# 17 Q: You went over your opinion you would be—
# 18 A: Basically, we went over photographs that morning, nothing else.
# 19 Q: And you went over what you—what you were going to say when you got on the stand, correct?
# 20 A: We discussed, yes, things relating to the photographs.
# 21 Q: You looked at photographs?
# 23 Q: Mr. Leonard looked at the photographs?
# 25 Q: And you and he both had the contact sheets that we have today, so you had all the pictures in front of you?
# 26 A: We had the two contact sheets and the enlargements that we discussed, yes.
# 27 Q: Now, Mr. Leonard asked you whether you were a professional witness, and you said you were not; is that right?
# 29 Q: And you're also not a professional photo analyst, are you?
# 30 A: Well, I've been paid.
# 31 Q: Yes-or-no question, sir?
# 35 Q: And have you ever had any formal training in analyzing photographs?
# 36 A: I have my own experience, yes.
# 37 Q: The question was asked, have you ever had any formal training in learning how to determine whether a photograph is authentic?
# 39 Q: You've never taught a course in photography, right?
# 41 Q: Never published anything in the field of questioned photographs, correct?
# 42 MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
# 43 THE COURT: Overruled.
# 44 MR. GELBLUM: I can ask again:
# 45 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) You never published anything in the field of questioned photographs, correct?
# 46 MR. LEONARD: Withdrawn.
# 48 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) Remember having your deposition taken in this case—
# 50 Q: -- just couple months ago?
# 52 Q: Page 43, line 24, Mr. Leonard. Remember being asked this question: (Reading:)
# 53 Q: And you've never published anything in the area—in the field of questioned photographs?
# 56 A: No. Remember giving that testimony?
# 57 A: Relating to a textbook situation, yes; but I have spoken about—
# 60 Q: Mr. Groden, you don't have to make an argument.
# 61 A: I'm not trying to.
# 62 Q: Remember giving that testimony that you had never published anything in the field of questioned photographs?
# 63 A: We've clarified it as a textbook. In that case, yes; that is true.
# 64 Q: Would you like to see it? Let me put the testimony up on the Elmo. There was a second question, sir, page 43, line 24. See that, sir? (Reading:)
# 65 Q: And you never published anything in the area of the in the field of questioned photographs.
# 68 A: No. You see that?
# 70 MR. GELBLUM: Okay. You can take it off. (Mr. Foster complies.)
# 71 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) Would you tell the jury which professional organizations you belong to in the field of questioned photographs?
# 73 Q: How about in the—the field of photography with a professional organization?
# 75 Q: Do you know the names of any professional organizations that deal with questioned photographs?
# 77 Q: Are you certified by any professional organization in the area of authenticating photographs?
# 79 Q: Have you ever received any awards for photo analysis work?
# 81 Q: And before this case, you've never qualified to testify as an expert in court, have you?
# 83 Q: This is your first time in court as an expert, right?
# 85 Q: Pretty exited about doing this?
# 86 A: Not particularly.
# 87 Q: New way for you to make some money?
# 88 A: Strange question.
# 89 Q: Can you answer it?
# 90 A: Would you repeat the question.
# 91 Q: Yeah. You see this as a new way for you to make some money in your career, sir, testifying as an expert in court?
# 93 Q: How much you being paid, by the way?
# 95 Q: That's how much you've been paid so far?
# 97 Q: What's your daily rate?
# 101 Q: And have you been paid everything you've billed?
# 103 Q: And have you done some work you haven't billed for yet?
# 104 A: I'm here today. Yes.
# 105 Q: Okay. You already got paid for Wednesday—
# 108 A: That's not true. Yes, I have been, yes.
# 109 Q: That's pretty serious money for you, isn't it, Mr. Groden, $8,000?
# 111 Q: Well, as recently as a few months ago, weren't you spending some of your time out on the street in Dealey Plaza, hawking videotapes?
KEY QUOTE # 112 A: I was selling my videotapes, yes.
# 113 Q: Out on the street in Dallas?
# 115 Q: Now, why don't you tell the jury what you do for a living?
# 117 Q: What do you write about?
# 118 A: The assassination of President Kennedy.
# 119 Q: Mr. Leonard asked you something about if you retained an interest in the Kennedy assassination since the late '70s. Do you remember that?
# 121 Q: Little more than an interest in it, isn't it, sir?
# 123 Q: It's your life, isn't it?
# 124 A: It's my life's work.
# 125 Q: Okay. How many books have you written about the Kennedy assassination?
# 126 A: I've been involved in writing five books on the case.
# 127 Q: You haven't written a book about any other subject, have you?
# 129 Q: And how many videotapes did you produce about the Kennedy assassination?
# 131 Q: Was one of them reedited, and—two forms of one of them?
# 132 A: That's correct, yes.
# 133 Q: Which one is that?
# 134 A: It's called JFK, The Case for Conspiracy.
# 135 Q: And you also have consulted on some movies about the Kennedy assassination?
# 137 Q: Is there anything else you do for a living?
# 139 Q: Can you tell the jury what the JFK Presidential Limo Tour is, sir?
# 140 A: The JFK Limo Tour is a recreation of the motorcade route for students of history, people who are concerned with the issues of the assassination. And it—it started, I believe, last August in Dallas.
# 141 Q: And what's your role in that?
# 145 Q: You had some role in August?
# 147 Q: And you would write, and what happens is, they take—is it a mock-up of the actual presidential limo that President Kennedy was shot in?
# 149 Q: You drive that from Love Field, where he landed that day, and take that route, and end up at Parkland Hospital?
# 151 Q: You have speakers in the car that have the gunshots and things like that—
# 153 Q: And you sit in the car and narrate?
# 155 Q: Do you not repair photo-processing machines anymore?
# 156 A: I haven't in many, many months.
# 157 Q: Are you doing any photo processing these days?
# 158 A: Not these days, no.
# 159 Q: When did you stop doing that work?
# 160 A: Possibly, last summer. I would say a year ago this past summer.
# 161 Q: Before your deposition on September 27?
# 165 Q: Don't you recall telling me on September 27, that you repair photo-processing machines?
# 166 A: I do. You just asked me whether I was still doing it now, and I said I haven't done it in several months.
# 167 Q: You said you stopped before your deposition, right?
# 168 A: Well, I would still do it if the opportunity came up. I'm not doing it now.
# 169 Q: Okay. But you weren't doing it at the time of the deposition, even though you told me you were, right?
# 170 MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative.
# 171 THE COURT: Sustained.
# 172 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, Mr. Leonard asked you some questions on Wednesday about the House Select Committee on Assassination. Do you remember that?
# 174 Q: Is that the only one congressional committee you've been a consultant to?
# 175 A: As a formal consultant, yes.
# 176 Q: Now, in terms of your education, you dropped out of high school after the 11th grade; is that right?
# 178 Q: Okay. Then you spent a year in the Army?
# 180 Q: And a year of college in the Army?
# 182 Q: No photographic courses during that year?
# 186 Q: Why did you leave the Army after one year?
# 187 MR. LEONARD: Objection. Not relevant.
# 188 THE COURT: I don't know if it is or not.
# 189 MR. LEONARD: Can we approach?
# 190 THE COURT: You may.
# 191 (The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.) # 192 MR. GELBLUM: What our argument, Your Honor, is going to be, is that this man is not playing with a full deck and was discharged from the Army; it is related to that.
# 193 THE COURT: Excuse me?
# 194 MR. GELBLUM: His discharge from the Army is related to instability.
# 196 THE COURT: You have to be a little more specific than that.
# 197 MR. GELBLUM: Medical reasons relating to his inability to cope with military life.
# 198 MR. LEONARD: What does that have to do with anything?
# 199 MR. GELBLUM: Our contention is that this man is not a particularly stable person. He doesn't have any business testifying in court at all, much less as an expert.
# 200 MR. LEONARD: Number one is, why wasn't this raised during the voir dire, if you felt he was unstable. You were making an argument that he wasn't an expert. Number two, how can you—the guy's 51 years old—you're trying to connect up a problem which he may or may not have had when he was 18 years old to now. Is that what you're trying to do, based on—on a—on perceived problems he had in the Army? How is that relevant?
# 201 MR. GELBLUM: Remember, Dan, you went back to when he was 12 or 13 years old when his interest in photography—
# 202 MR. LEONARD: I remember, yeah.
# 203 MR. GELBLUM: This is more recent.
# 204 THE COURT: I'll allow you reasonable—
# 205 MR. GELBLUM: It's just one question. I'm just going to ask him the reason. Whatever he says—
# 206 THE COURT: All right.
# 207 (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) # 208 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) Sir, you left the Army after only one year because of some health problem; is that right?
# 210 Q: What was the problem?
# 213 A: Sinus problems. There are actually two—two separate issues. One was a sinus problem that they were not able to resolve, and the second was the fact that I was—I was beaten up by a sergeant. And to sweep it under the rug, they gave me a discharge instead.
# 214 Q: Did you have some inability to cope with military life, sir?
# 215 MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative, irrelevant.
# 216 THE COURT: Overruled.
# 218 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) Yeah.
# 219 A: I coped with it for a year until the discharge.
# 220 Q: Didn't you testify before the Rockefeller Commission, sir, in the 1970s sometime?
# 222 Q: Didn't you tell them the reason you left the Army was you had an inability to cope with military life, having something to do with a medical problem?
# 223 A: I don't recall what I said to them back then.
# 224 Q: Would you like to see your testimony?
# 226 (Mr. Gelblum hands document to witness.) # 227 MR. LEONARD: Can I see it, Counsel?
# 228 MR. GELBLUM: Before he gives the answer.
# 229 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) Wait. Before you give this answer, do you recognize this as your Rockefeller Commission testimony?
# 230 A: No, I don't, but it might well be.
# 231 MR. GELBLUM: Want to look it over?
# 232 MR. LEONARD: May we have a date?
# 233 MR. GELBLUM: I don't—I have just an excerpt.
# 234 MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, can we approach?
# 235 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) When did you testify before the Rockefeller Commission?
# 237 Q: Does that look like your testimony?
# 238 A: I can't say that it is; I can't say it isn't. I don't recognize this as my testimony.
# 241 Q: You sure you testified before the Rockefeller Commission?
# 243 Q: What did you testify about?
# 244 A: About the Kennedy assassination.
# 245 Q: Remember being questioned at length about your credentials?
# 246 A: No, I don't have any—
# 247 Q: Why don't you read that over. (Witness reviews document.)
# 248 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) You recognize that now as your Rockefeller Commission testimony?
# 251 A: I don't know. I have not seen my Rockefeller Commission testimony since I gave it.
# 252 Q: You don't remember being questioned about your credentials by the Rockefeller Commission?
# 253 MR. LEONARD: Asked and answered.
# 254 A: It was more than 20 years ago.
# 255 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) That's when your experience with altered photographs is, 20 years ago?
# 256 MR. LEONARD: Objection. Misstates his testimony. It's argumentative.
# 257 THE COURT: Sustained.
# 258 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, speaking about that experience, Mr. Leonard had you talk about your experience creating fake photographs on Wednesday. Remember that?
# 260 Q: That was mostly what you talked about, was creating advertisements with a can of hair spray in the air. Remember that?
# 262 Q: Now, when that's created, what elements—is that created from that fake advertising?
# 263 A: It—it can vary. Depends on what's submitted. It could be flat art; it could be slides; it could be negatives; it could be photographic prints. It could be any number of things.
# 264 Q: Those are things that are submitted and created for the purpose of creating that composite photograph, correct?
# 266 Q: It's not taking a photograph as to be taken for some other purpose and altering it, correct?
# 267 A: That could happen if somebody wanted a background that was taken for some other reason.
# 268 Q: Is—you just said, generally speaking, you're taking pictures or other elements that are made for the purpose of creating this composite, and then you create the composite, correct?
# 269 A: That's a fair assessment, yes.
# 270 Q: Now, you also testified on Wednesday that you—this is a quote—"I believe I occasionally consult with others regarding the authenticity of photographs." Is that right?
# 271 A: That is correct.
# 272 Q: "Occasionally" means that, in your entire life, there have been two times where somebody has paid you to try to determine the authenticity of a photograph, correct?
# 273 A: I can't say that's accurate, no.
# 274 Q: Do you remember testifying Wednesday morning, outside the presence of the jury, sir, in this courtroom?
# 276 Q: And do you remember we talked about this, and you identified two times where you had done that? You going to change your testimony now?
# 277 A: I don't want to change anything. What you asked me then, I do not believe is what you asked me now.
# 278 Q: Isn't it true, sir, that in your entire life, that you have been paid to determine whether a photograph is authentic exactly twice?
# 279 A: That is not true.
# 280 Q: Okay. How many times, sir?
# 281 A: I can't tell you how many times. I can tell you several occasions, more than two.
# 282 Q: Okay. Did you forget to mention those at your deposition two months ago, sir, three months ago?
# 283 MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative.
# 284 THE COURT: Sustained.
# 285 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) Do you remember having your deposition taken?
# 287 Q: Remember I asked you about all the times you had been paid to determine the authenticity of photographs? Remember that question? And you remember how many you listed?
# 288 A: I don't remember exactly how many. I don't remember the terms of the question.
# 289 Q: In fact, at the time of the deposition, you actually identified once, didn't you?
# 291 Q: Do you have a problem with your memory?
# 292 A: You've just asked me a question.
# 293 Q: Answer my question. Do you have a problem—
# 294 MR. LEONARD: Argumentative.
# 295 THE COURT: Overruled.
# 296 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) This is a real question, sir. Do you have a problem with your memory?
# 297 A: My memory is not always the greatest.
KEY QUOTE # 298 Q: You've had some strokes, sir?
# 300 Q: And did it affect your memory?
# 302 Q: Okay. I'd like to you look at—
# 303 MR. GELBLUM: Mr. Leonard, this is on pages 30 to 31 of the deposition.
# 304 (BY MR. GELBLUM) If you can review this, sir, starting at page 30, line—line 2 -- I'm sorry. Up here, page 29, line 21, down to page 31 line 17. (Witness reviews transcript.) # 306 Q: Okay. Remember I asked you about jobs you had, where somebody had paid you for determining the authenticity of a photograph?
# 308 Q: You said the National Enquirer, 14 years ago?
# 310 Q: And then you said—I asked you if there were any others, and you said, "none I can think of right at the moment"?
# 312 Q: And then you thought of another one?
# 313 A: How do you mean?
# 314 Q: Did you think of another one because you told me at deposition there was the one?
# 315 A: No. During the deposition, you asked me, except for the House Assassinations Committee.
# 316 Q: You weren't a paid consultant?
# 317 A: For the House Committee?
# 320 Q: And your job there was what?
# 321 A: Many things, such as determining the authenticity of photographs.
# 322 Q: Let me put aside the House Committee for a second. We'll deal with that in quite a bit of detail later on. Putting that aside, how many times have you been paid to determine the authenticity of a photograph?
# 323 A: Not counting the House Assassinations Committee, as I recall, twice.
# 324 Q: Twice. So, a minute ago, when I asked you how many times, you said you couldn't remember. It's three, right? Two plus the house? That's 3?
# 325 A: I did it several times for the House Committee. It wasn't just once.
# 326 Q: That's one job, right? The House and then two other jobs?
# 328 Q: Okay. And let's talk about those two jobs. One was the National Enquirer, 14 years ago?
# 330 Q: That was something about a voodoo ritual?
# 332 Q: And in fact, you didn't have to examine that closely; you looked at it and saw there was static electricity that was causing the problem?
# 334 Q: That wasn't an altered photograph, right?
# 336 Q: How much were you paid for that, by the way?
# 337 A: I don't recall at all.
# 338 Q: You sure you got paid?
# 339 A: Pretty much so, yes.
# 340 Q: Now, the second one was—was what? What was your second job that you had where somebody paid you to determine the authenticity of a photograph?
# 341 MR. LEONARD: I assume we're still setting aside the House—
# 342 MR. GELBLUM: We are indeed.
# 344 A: Someone came to me about—about four years ago, and had a series of photographs that purported to show what was claimed to be spiritual entities within a photograph. And I was asked to see if I could find any evidence of tampering with the photographs.
# 345 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) And again, it was pretty easy to look at. You looked at it and saw there was fogging on the print, right?
# 346 A: That is correct.
# 347 Q: Well, not a big, detailed analysis of altered photographs, right?
# 348 A: Not to determine that, no.
# 349 Q: All right. And again, putting aside the House Committee for a minute, in addition to those two, there's only one other time in your life when somebody has asked to you determine the authenticity of a photograph, where you didn't get paid, correct?
# 350 A: No, that's not true.
# 351 Q: Well— Reading from your deposition, starting at page 31, line 18.
# 352 Q: Now, tell me about any time that you've worked for somebody else, without getting paid, where the job involved determining the authenticity of a negative or a print.
# 353 MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'm going to object. That is—there's—that's a different question than he just asked. He asked if he had ever been asked by anyone. Now's he asked him if he ever worked for anyone. That's a different question. I object to that.
# 354 THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer it.
# 355 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) All right. Let me ask you this one, sir, since we're apparently splitting hairs up there.
# 356 MR. LEONARD: Objection. Move to strike that statement.
# 357 THE COURT: Stricken.
# 358 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) Other than the National Enquirer and this other photo with the nothing gone, and the—and the spirits, how many times have you worked for somebody without getting paid, determining the authenticity of a photograph?
# 359 MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
# 360 THE COURT: Overruled.
# 361 A: How would you define "worked?" Looking at a photograph, studying it? What do you mean by that?
# 362 Q: Well, did you just phase out for a second? Didn't you hear your counsel use the word "work" and you nodded?
# 363 A: No. I nodded that you were misrepresenting the question.
# 364 Q: I see. Let's read the deposition now. Now, tell me about any time that you've worked for somebody else without getting paid, where the job involved determining the authenticity of a negative or a print. You didn't say anything about not understanding the word "worked."
# 365 A: About a month ago, a new photograph turned up in Dallas that shows the road sign that's blocking the view from Abraham (phonetic) section up—standpoint from where the president was in this photograph, which had never been seen before, seemed to show what appeared to be a bullet hole in the sign. Now, if there had been a bullet hole there, it would have been very interesting, because it would have proven other than what was found. What it actually was, it was just a printing mistake. The way I determined that was the so-called bullet hole was about 300 percent sharper than the rest of the picture, which is a physical impossibility with photographic signs.
# 366 Q: Did you get the negative?
# 367 A: No, but I can get the negative.
# 369 A: Just from the print itself, I could determine that—I could determine that if it had been a closer situation, if it hadn't been so incredibly obvious to me, if it had looked genuine, I would have had to—I would have to examine the negative to determine one way or the other.
# 370 Q: Did you determine that was a printing error or a deliberate forgery?
# 371 A: No; it seemed to be an error. It didn't seem to be a forgery.
# 372 Q: And that's the same thing with the National Enquirer photo of the spirit; it was static electricity in the negative?
# 373 A: In that particular case, yes.
# 374 MR. LEONARD: I'm going to object at this point.
# 375 MR. GELBLUM: It's the next couple of questions.
# 376 Q: Any other time where somebody else has asked to you determine whether a photograph was authentic?
# 377 A: None that I can think of at the moment. But if I do, I'll let you know.
# 378 Q: Now is the time?
# 379 A: No. I can't think of any right now. Remember that testimony?
# 381 Q: Now, you have a resume, don't you, sir?
# 383 Q: Mr. Leonard didn't use this yesterday, but I want to show it to you.
# 384 MR. GELBLUM: If we could have this marked next in order.
# 386 (The instrument herein referred to as Copy of Mr. Groden's resume was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2284.) # 387 MR. LEONARD: Peter, can I see a copy of that, please.
# 388 MR. GELBLUM: Yes. (Mr. Gelblum hands Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2284 to the witness.)
# 389 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) Take a look at that and confirm if that's your resume—actually, three pages of a resume and another five pages of what you call a profile?
# 393 Q: And you created this document, these documents?
# 395 Q: Now, this resume starts out on the first page, work history, right?
# 397 Q: And the first entry is videotape production and editing?
# 399 Q: Let the jury see what are you're looking at here. (Document displayed on Elmo.)
# 400 Q: First entry is videotape production and editing, next entry is photographic optical affects experience, right?
# 402 Q: And you say in the second sentence there that you've worked on many major motion pictures including one called "Executive Action." What did you do on that movie, sir?
# 403 A: I was a consultant, not hired by the production company itself, but had made suggestions to deal with the creation of motorcade footage relating to the assassination. In other words, finding relevant footage and connecting between the production company as liaison and the optical house where it was produced.
# 404 Q: Who did you make those suggestions to?
# 405 A: Well, among others, there were probably a couple of researchers involved, I did, from the optical house itself.
# 406 Q: You didn't get a credit on the film, did you?
# 408 Q: And on the second page—I'm sorry, the bottom of the first page, Steve, I apologize— there's another heading down there, photographic laboratory technician?
# 410 Q: And on the second page you say you're familiar with all portions of black-and-white lab work; is that right?
# 412 Q: And then we get some management experience, and there's your repair work, and then now we get your photographic consultant work, right?
# 414 Q: Okay. Now, the first sentence says: (Reading:) Robert Groden has been a photographic consultant for the United States House of Representatives since 1975.
# 415 Q: That's just not true, is it, sir?
# 416 A: It certainly is true.
# 417 Q: You just told us that you worked for the House Select Committee in the late '70s and that's the only committee you've been a consultant for, right?
# 419 Q: Okay. And that sentence goes on to say: (Reading:) And was staff photographic consultant with the initial capital letters to the House Select Committee on assassination from 1975 to 1979.
# 420 Q: That's not true either, is it, sir?
# 422 Q: Well, remember testifying here on Wednesday? Was your memory that bad?
# 423 MR. LEONARD: Objection, argumentative.
# 424 THE COURT: Sustained.
# 425 Q: Remember testifying Wednesday, sir? Do you remember testifying in this court on Wednesday?
# 429 Q: Do you remember the dates you gave the jury then?
# 430 A: From the middle of 1976 until the middle of 1979.
# 431 Q: Right. And this says 1975, right?
# 432 A: I was working with the people who were creating the committee. I was helping raise support for it.
# 433 Q: Oh, okay. But you weren't, in fact, called a consultant in 1975, were you?
# 435 Q: Okay. You then say that you authored the dissenting opinion report for the Committee. That's also not true, is it, sir?
# 437 Q: Well, in fact what you wrote was something called "comments" on the panel's report, right?
# 439 Q: Okay. And the Committee printed a page before your little comments saying that they disagreed with you, right?
# 441 Q: And this was a panel of photographic experts that you were a consultant to, right?
# 443 Q: You disagreed with the panel of photographic experts, right?
# 444 A: In many issues, yes.
# 445 Q: Okay. And they did not adopt your conclusions at all. In fact, they rejected them, right?
# 446 A: They adopted some, they rejected some.
# 447 Q: This was not a dissenting report for the Committee, this was just your little add-on that they agreed to publish for you, right?
# 448 A: No, they asked me to publish my opinions.
# 449 Q: No. You asked them if you could publish—if they would publish it, right?
# 450 A: I don't believe so.
# 451 Q: Okay. Let's take a look. I'm going to show you portions of the appendix to the hearings, it's Volume 6 from the Senate—from the House Select Committee on Assassinations, page 295.
# 452 MR. LEONARD: May I look, so I see that before it's published in any way.
# 453 MR. GELBLUM: Yeah. (Witness reviews document.)
# 454 Q: Is this your—sorry, wrong side of the pen. Is this the letter you wrote to the chairman of the Committee in January 3, 1979?
# 456 Q: And you asked them to publish it, right?
# 457 A: I was told by Jane Downey (phonetic) that this is the form it should take.
# 458 Q: Somebody told you to ask them?
# 460 Q: Do you agree now that you did ask them?
# 461 MR. LEONARD: Objection, argumentative.
# 462 THE COURT: Sustained.
# 463 Q: Well, here's the preface that the Committee wrote.
# 464 THE COURT: Why don't you show it to Mr. Leonard if you're going to use it.
# 466 THE COURT: Mr. Gelblum. (Mr. Gelblum shows document to Mr. Leonard.)
# 467 MR. GELBLUM: I think I may have an extra copy.
# 468 MR. LEONARD: Is this mine?
# 470 MR. LEONARD: I'd love to keep it. Okay, thanks.
# 471 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) See the last sentence of the first paragraph. It says: (Reading:) As a consultant to the Committee, Groden was given access to the work of the photographic evidence panel and asked that the Committee publish his comments on the panel's report.
# 472 Q: Is that a true statement?
# 475 A: But only in the respect that's what I was told I had—the way I had to represent the question, the issue.
# 476 MR. LEONARD: You going to read the rest of it now or do I have to?
# 477 MR. GELBLUM: I'll read the rest of it later or more of it later.
# 478 MR. BAKER: Can we have that identified by number.
# 479 THE CLERK: Next in order. 2285.
# 480 (The instrument herein described as a Curriculum Vitae of Robert Groden was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2285.) # 483 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, you know a man named Robert Blakey?
# 486 A: G. Robert Blakey is the—or was the director of the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
# 488 A: He was the director and chief counsel, as I recall, of the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
# 489 MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this line of questioning. May we approach briefly?
# 490 THE COURT: You may.
# 491 (The following proceedings were held at the bench with the reporter:) # 492 MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object to this. I thought we were talking about the photographs in this case. If he wants to go back and relitigate the assassination, the conspiracy theory, we're willing to do that. I mean he's prepared to justify his opinions in this case. I didn't ask him any of his opinions in that case. I simply asked him if he was a photographic consultant. He was. The rest of that report says he made an important contribution to the Committee.
# 493 MR. GELBLUM: That's one line.
# 494 MR. LEONARD: Yeah, it's an important line.
# 495 MR. GELBLUM: The rest of it says that they disagree with him, he made lots of mistakes.
# 496 THE COURT: How much longer are you going to go through this?
# 497 MR. GELBLUM: Not much further.
# 498 MR. LEONARD: I want an offer of proof.
# 499 MR. GELBLUM: You don't get it. Your Honor, he's relying on this Committee as his sole claim to fame for any credibility of any kind of expertise.
# 500 MR. LEONARD: No, that's not true.
# 501 THE COURT: I'm not prepared to litigate the contents of that report.
# 502 MR. GELBLUM: I'm not going to ask my more questions about his report.
# 503 MR. LEONARD: That's an absolute misstatement. His primary expertise is the fact that he did this—
# 504 THE COURT: Mr. Leonard, you submitted that as part of his qualifications. He has a right to cross-examine.
# 505 (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.) # 506 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Blakey was the director of the Committee?
# 507 A: As I recall, the director and chief counsel.
# 508 Q: Okay. You've heard him say that.
# 509 MR. LEONARD: Objection, hearsay, Your Honor.
# 510 THE COURT: Sustained.
# 511 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) You think Mr. Blakey would vouch for your—
# 512 MR. LEONARD: Objection, irrelevant, hearsay.
# 513 THE COURT: Sustained. Argumentative.
# 514 MR. LEONARD: Argumentative. Ask the jury be admonished.
# 515 THE COURT: Jury is admonished that anything Mr. Blakey has said has not been received into evidence. You're to disregard any reference thereto.
# 516 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, your resume goes on to say that he was called upon to testify about the photographic evidence in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy before four governmental investigative bodies; the Rockefeller Commission— that's the one you couldn't recognize in your testimony, right?
# 517 MR. LEONARD: Objection. That's argumentative.
# 518 MR. GELBLUM: I showed him the transcript.
# 519 MR. LEONARD: That assumes the transcript is authentic.
# 520 THE COURT: Sustained.
# 521 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) When you did the Rockefeller Commission, you were you showed the Zapruder film?
# 522 A: Yes, among other things.
# 523 Q: You didn't testify about altered photographs, did you?
# 524 A: I said it was 21 years ago. I don't recall exactly what I testified to, but I know the Zapruder film was one of the issues.
# 525 Q: Altered photographs was not one of the issues, right?
# 526 A: I can't say that. I don't know that.
# 527 Q: You don't remember whether it was?
# 528 A: Over 20 years ago, no, I don't—
# 529 Q: The Senate Intelligence Committee, showed them the Zapruder film?
# 531 Q: What did you do with them?
# 532 A: Spoke about various issues relating to the assassination questions that were raised by the photographic evidence and the Zapruder film.
# 533 Q: What year was that?
# 534 A: As I recall, that was 19 -- probably— probably around 1977 or so.
# 535 Q: You didn't testify about altered photographs there, did you?
# 537 Q: Okay. And then we have the House Select Committee, which we've talked about. Then you say: (Reading:) I've been called upon to testify before the Assassination Record Review Board.
# 539 Q: What is the Assassination Record Review Board?
# 540 A: The Assassination Record Review Board does—an investigation is going on now to try to determine what issues relating to the assassination, photographic and documentary, should be released to the public.
# 541 Q: You didn't testify, you didn't give expert testimony before them about altered photographs, did you?
# 542 A: I believe I did.
# 543 Q: Well, in fact, sir, you were deposed twice by the Assassination Records Review Board relating to your theft of photos from the government when you worked in the House Select Committee, correct?
# 544 MR. LEONARD: Objection. That—There's a lack of foundation. It's argumentative. I'd asked to approach at this point.
# 545 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) Isn't that correct?
# 546 THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer yes or no.
# 547 A: No, that is not. If you're asking if I stole photographs from the government, the answer is absolutely no.
# 548 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) I'm asking you the subject of what you put on your resume is your testimony before the Assassination Records Review Board, it was not expert testimony, it was depositions that you were required to submit to about the subject of your theft of government documents, correct?
# 549 MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, first of all, there's no inconsistency. It's also argumentative. It's—
# 550 MR. GELBLUM: This is a speaking objection.
# 551 MR. LEONARD: It's a lack of foundation. I'd ask to approach. This is character assassination. It has nothing to do with the photographs in this case.
# 552 THE COURT: Bring your proof.
# 553 MR. PETROCELLI: I'd ask—
# 554 MR. LEONARD: Ask some questions about the photographs.
# 555 THE COURT: Mr. Leonard.
# 556 MR. GELBLUM: I'd ask the jury be admonished and Mr. Leonard be admonished in front of the jury about these improper remarks.
# 557 THE COURT: I think I'd admonish both of you to stop your outbursts.
# 558 (The following proceedings were held at the bench with the reporter:) # 559 MR. BAKER: I'll stand in between them.
# 560 THE COURT: Good idea. Where's the proof?
# 561 MR. GELBLUM: I spoke with the man who took the deposition. I don't have the documents. I don't have depositions. I have to subpoena him. I have a subpoena I can serve—
# 562 THE COURT: Excuse me.
# 563 MR. GELBLUM: I don't have the depositions, Your Honor. I spoke with the man who took the depositions for the Assassination Records Review Board and he told me that this is what happened.
# 564 MR. LEONARD: What happened?
# 565 MR. GELBLUM: The man was deposed twice. He knows full well it's absolutely true, and he took—a man named Jeremy Gunn (phonetic) from the Assassination Review Board took his deposition twice in June of this year and a little later.
# 566 THE COURT: Why don't you have the depositions?
# 567 MR. GELBLUM: Because I just found out about it last week, Your Honor. I just found this man.
# 568 THE COURT: I'm not going to permit you to admit these inflammatory accusations without some proof.
# 569 MR. LEONARD: He said—
# 570 MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor—
# 571 MR. PETROCELLI: He admits he was in a deposition.
# 572 THE COURT: Excuse me. You just got somebody that I don't know anything about telling you—
# 573 MR. GELBLUM: I'll give you his phone number.
# 574 THE COURT: I don't want his phone number.
# 575 MR. GELBLUM: He is the man who took the deposition.
# 576 THE COURT: I'm not letting you shoot from the hip.
# 577 MR. GELBLUM: I'm not shooting from the hip.
# 578 THE COURT: Don't do it.
# 579 MR. GELBLUM: I have documents.
# 580 THE COURT: Don't do it.
# 581 MR. LEONARD: I move for mistrial.
# 582 MR. GELBLUM: Oh—
# 583 MR. LEONARD: Yes. He put before the jury— he said you were deposed because you did steal, that's outrageous. They cleared him.
# 584 MR. PETROCELLI: Shhh.
# 585 MR. LEONARD: I move for a mistrial.
# 586 THE COURT: You're request for a mistrial is denied.
# 587 MR. GELBLUM: Can I ask him if he was deposed?
# 588 THE COURT: No. I don't like the way you asked him based on what you know.
# 589 MR. LEONARD: Ask the jury be admonished there is no evidence that he stole anything.
# 590 MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, what better evidence—
# 591 THE COURT: You don't have any evidence at this point.
# 592 MR. GELBLUM: The person who took the deposition—
# 593 THE COURT: Where is he?
# 594 MR. GELBLUM: He's in Washington, D.C.
# 595 THE COURT: Exactly.
# 596 MR. GELBLUM: If you want—
# 597 THE COURT: Exactly.
# 598 MR. GELBLUM: I'll bring him in. We'll subpoena the records and bring him in.
# 599 THE COURT: You bring him in. But you're not going to do it now.
# 600 MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, he's on the stand, I have to ask him the question. It's absolutely true, Your Honor. It is absolutely true.
# 601 MR. LEONARD: What's true?
# 602 THE COURT: You're not going to ask it in that fashion.
# 603 MR. GELBLUM: Let me ask it—
# 604 THE COURT: You've already done your damage.
# 605 MR. GELBLUM: Let me ask him whether he's been deposed.
# 606 THE COURT: You've already done the damage. And you can ask him whether he's been deposed, period.
# 607 MR. GELBLUM: On the subject—
# 608 MR. PETROCELLI: Can we ask him about the subject matter?
# 610 MR. LEONARD: He already did that and misrepresented to the jury—
# 611 MR. GELBLUM: I did not.
# 612 MR. LEONARD: You did.
# 613 MR. GELBLUM: I did not. Knock it off.
# 614 THE COURT: I'm not going to permit this.
# 615 MR. LEONARD: Ask the—
# 616 MR. GELBLUM: I ask him if he's been deposed—
# 617 THE COURT: You already asked him—
# 618 MR. GELBLUM: I thought you could ask him that, but he didn't answer that question. If you go back in the record, he doesn't answer.
# 619 THE COURT: You can ask him if he's been deposed, period.
# 620 MR. GELBLUM: Okay, fine.
# 621 MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I ask that the jury be—he made a representation in his question—
# 622 THE COURT: I'm not going to—I have already admonished them.
# 623 MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
# 624 MR. LEONARD: I ask that they be admonished.
# 625 THE COURT: You've already asked me. I said I would. Why do you have to ask me again?
# 626 (The following proceedings were heal in open court in the presence of the jury.) # 627 THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, the Court is instructing you to disregard Mr. Gelblum's question to the effect that the question accuses this witness of having stole anything. This is a case in which the law requires that evidence be produced to show a fact. The plaintiff or any counsel, even defense counsel, cannot establish evidence by innuendo. That was a question that had innuendo in it. There is no evidence whatsoever before you to show that this witness stole anything at any time. Everybody understand that?
KEY QUOTE # 629 MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
# 630 THE COURT: Now, let's cut out that type of question.
# 631 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Groden, isn't it true you've been deposed by the Assassination Report Review Board twice this year?
# 632 A: That is correct.
# 633 Q: On the next page of your resume you say Mr. Groden has been called to present photographic evidence as an expert consultant in the Manning case, international bombing incidents, and several other court cases. Do you see that?
# 635 Q: In fact, you never testified in court as an expert on photographic evidence before this case, correct?
# 636 A: That is correct.
# 637 Q: But you have appeared on—what does it say, 2,000 television and radio shows?
# 638 A: Approximately, yes.
# 639 Q: That includes nine times on "Inside Edition"? You want to look at page three of your profile?
# 641 Q: "Oprah Winfrey" and "Geraldo," right?
# 643 Q: Now, turn to the last page of the profile, please. It talks about your videotape you produced?
# 645 Q: And I think you told us before that the "Case for Conspiracy" you re-edited and are selling a second version; is that right?
# 647 Q: And that's because somebody asked you to take some footage out?
# 648 MR. LEONARD: Objection, hearsay, irrelevant. Ask to approach.
# 649 (The Court reviewed real-time computer screen.) # 650 THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. Your request to approach is denied.
# 651 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) Okay. Are you using footage in that videotape from somebody named Haskel (phonetic)?
# 653 Q: And somebody else named Tower (phonetic)?
# 655 Q: Did you have their authorization to use that?
# 656 MR. LEONARD: Objection, irrelevant.
# 657 THE COURT: Overruled.
# 658 A: I had permission from the agent, for Steve Haskel prior to it's use. And I had not had permission from Tina Tower. I tried to get it but could not locate her, she had changed her name and moved to a different town.
# 659 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) So you used the footage anyway?
# 660 A: Yes. I had done a lot of work for her that I had not been paid for and I didn't think that she would mind.
# 661 Q: And is she suing you now because of that?
# 662 MR. LEONARD: Objection, irrelevant.
# 663 THE COURT: Overruled.
# 664 A: Yes, she has filed suit.
# 665 Q: (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, turning to the photograph in this case—
# 666 THE COURT: Okay. We'll take a 10-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen.