Received. (The instrument herein described as Photo of Mr. Simpson was marked and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 770.)
Plaintiffs call Gerald Richards. GERALD RICHARDS, called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and testified as follows:
You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
I'm currently a private consultant, and lecture in the field of questioned document and photographic examinations. In addition to that, I'm currently under contract to the FBI laboratory to assist in training new examiners in the special photographic unit and also assist with various case work on a one- or two-day a week basis. I'm also assistant professorial lecturer at George Washington University graduate school where I teach two forensic courses; one in the field of questioned document examination and one in the field of forensic photography, which as a matter of fact is going as we speak.
Yes. Forensic photography basically -- the word forensic means any science as it relates to law. Forensic photography is any type of photography that would relate to a legal matter such as crime scene photography, accident photography, studio photography where we use ultraviolet or infrared portions of the spectrum to view different pieces of evidence, macrophotography, microphotography, where we look for -- macrophotography, where we look basically at very small things microscopically. Macrophotography would be very small photographs, in essence.
Yes. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in photography. I also have a Master of Science degree in secondary education. In addition to that, I have taken several graduate level courses from G.W. University -- George Washington University, excuse me, in the area of forensic science, including questioned document examination, law courses, et cetera. I've also taken -- taken a forensic photography course through University of Virginia at the FBI Academy at Quantico, Virginia.
Well, initially, upon my appointment back in the early 70's as a special agent, I was assigned to a 16-week training school at FBI Academy, and from there I went on to the Atlanta and Baltimore divisions as an investigator in the field. At that point I was promoted to a supervisory position at FBI headquarters, wherein I was assigned to the FBI laboratory as a supervisor in that particular division. Upon arrival, I was placed into a three-year training program where basically for the following three years, I did virtually nothing but work under the supervision of more experienced examiners, attend lectures, go to different schools, visit different companies such as Kodak or Polaroid or what have you, to determine how and to what breadth examination is needed to be or could be provided for the bureau.
Upon the completion of that program, the Director of the FBI certified me in both the area of questioned documents examination and also the examination of photographic evidence. From that particular point in time, I spent approximately the next ten years on the bench, working cases day after day until such time I was promoted to a unit chief's position in the document operations and research unit of the laboratory. I was in that position for about a year, and then laterally transferred to the special photographic unit, where I became unit chief of that particular unit until my retirement in 1963 -- excuse me -- 1993.
Yes, I do. Excuse me for a -- may I stop for a little glass of water here. My voice is giving out. (Pause for witness to take a sip of water.)
Yes, I do. I belong to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, which I am a fellow and have been a fellow for approximately 20 years in that organization.
Well, basically it's a ranking within the organization. You have to achieve certainly -- you have to present papers and apply for the different levels. It is a level within the organization itself.
It is the largest forensic organization in the world, and it consists of about, I think, somewhere in the vicinity of 22 or 2300 members, forensic scientists from around the world.
Yes. I'm a member of the American Board of Questioned -- Forensic Questioned Document Examiners, which I am also a diplomat in. I'm a member of the American Society of Photograph Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, which I have been certified as a certified photograph photogrammetrist.
A photogrammetrist is a person who, to simplify it, basically makes measurements from photographs. A good example of that might be, every map you look at, people don't go out and actually measure the map, what they do is many photographs are made and they make the measurements from the photographs and create a map where you -- we use the same type of things, like trying to determine the approximate height of a bank robber from the photographs.
Yes. I'm twice past president of the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists, which is one of the seven regional forensic organizations in the United States. I'm also a member of EPIC, the Evidence Photography International Council, and a member of the Photographic Historic Society of New England, which is, I believe, the largest historic -- photographic historic society in the U.S.
Yes. I have received an audiovisual award from the Federal Photographers Association, and in addition to that, several years ago I received a medal from the director of the CIA for, in essence, ten years of work in the area of providing different services to the intelligence organizations and communities in both photography and document work, such as doing examinations of missing-in-action servicemen, et cetera. It's called the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement.
Examination per se, yes and no, and I'll explain it to you. I have published articles such as the "Applications of Electronic Video Techniques to Infrared and Ultraviolet Examinations." Even though it was described in a technique, it was regarding the technique as it applies to examinations. I also wrote an article, basically the FBI's past, present, and I believe it's -- I forgot the title. It's been a number of years ago. "Future Applications of Photogrammetry." I wrote another article, co-authored actually, it was a two-part article on image processing organization and systems for legal applications, which was, as I said, co-authored with another individual.
Does that list -- I won't take the time to go through them, but various papers that you have presented to professional meetings and lectures you've given?
Yes, it does. (The instrument herein referred to as curriculum vitae of Gerald Richards was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1828.)
I've actually been working in photography for many, many, many years. All the way from high school on through -- as I said, I have a Bachelor of Science degree in photography. But in photographic examination per se, since I arrived at the FBI laboratory and began my training period back in the early 70's, approximately 20-some years.
Over those 20-plus years of working -- examining photographs, have you become familiar with the science of alteration of photographs, when a photograph's been altered?
Now, in connection with this matter, did you examine various materials relating to a photograph taken by Harry Scull of Mr. Simpson at a football game on September 26, 1993?
I examined two sets of negatives from two rolls of film. In addition to the negatives, I also examined contact sheets of those negatives and also various enlargements which were all produced under my direction. I examined them basically through a number -- a number of physical techniques.
In essence, most of them are visual or using some type of measuring instrument. In this particular case, I used a Bausch & Lomb stereomicroscope having a zoom capability -- it was a zoom microscope of I believe 32. It can go up to as high as 120X in that particular case. Also, I used various magnifiers or loupes, as they are called in the profession, various degrees of magnification, various types of light sources such as direct light, transmitted light, coaxial light, which means the light comes down -- straight down from the top or from the microscope. Same view you're looking at. We used a number -- I used a number of different measuring devices, including just simple scales and also highly accurate glass scales to make measurements of the negatives and proof sheets.
Were you examining the negatives and the proof sheets and the print to determine whether you could find any signs of alteration?
Yes, I was asked specifically to determine if the photograph of Mr. Simpson, if he had any -- he or any portion of his body, in particular the shoe area, had been altered or changed to any degree.
Well, there's a number of things you're looking for. You have two areas of -- to examine, really, if you break them down. The first area is the film itself. Is the film -- the piece of film that you are looking at that's in question in here or the picture of Mr. Simpson, is it part of the remainder of the roll that you're dealing with. So you can also use that as part of your examination. In order to do that, we must look at things like the code numbers along the side that tells what type of film it is. Also, in addition to that, any scratches or marks that are continuous, made either by the camera, the processor, or any other artifact along that line to show a continuation along the entire roll. And then in this case -- this was a cut roll. If the roll is continuous, you don't have to worry too much about any further type of examination as far as cut edges go. In this case, the frames were cut up, which is natural for people storing photographs like that. We wanted to compare each one of the cut edges to make sure that, say, frame 1 and 2 matched 3 and 4, et cetera, on down throughout the roll, and nothing was substituted in between. That was done both visually and microscopically, and in addition to that, I believe I used a micrometer to make sure that the emulsion was the same thickness through the entire roll.
A micrometer is a measuring device. It's a small metallic device that measures the thickness of objects.
Yes. That would get into the second portion of the examination, which would be examining the image itself. That's possibly more extensive than the first part, where we're basically looking for physical defects, scratches, like I said, anomalies in the film, which you do find from time to time, anomalies in the film. In this particular case I also looked at the grain and the grain structure under a variety of magnifications, including high magnification. In this particular case, I scanned the entire negative millimeter by millimeter across the entire negative until I viewed it all. In addition to that, we looked for image structure and I -- what I mean by image structure, is the image structured correctly as it should be photographically. If we have an image of an object such as Mr. Simpson standing there, where does the -- where does the image start to blur in the background and where does it start to blur in the foreground. That's called depth of field. Depending on the lens being used, that would make that -- that cutoff point a different -- different point. Also things -- we look for things like perspective, is the perspective in the photograph correct. Also, dimensional sizes, are all the parts we're looking at the right size for the plane or the position the object should be in, or are some too big or some too small where they shouldn't be or out of angle where they shouldn't be. We also look for things called cut lines. One of the most common ways to alter photographs is a technique called cut-and-paste. When you cut something out, you paste it in and make a copy of it, that leaves very distinctive lines. Many times you can detect, also, the shadows of the object cut out probably won't match exactly the shadows that are within the photograph, or the intensity -- or the light intensity itself, and as we mentioned before, the grain structure -- the grain structure may be different because of different films. This is just a few of the things we're looking for continuously as we're examining the different pieces of film.
Yes; retouching marks, also, from either a brush, crayon, scalpel or air brush. All of them are used in the retouching process.
Yes. We looked for signs of digital alteration. And basically what this is, is, instead of cutting and pasting, you use actual photographs -- it's done in the computer, where the image is, what they call digitized, or broken down into very small pieces, actually, little, teeny squares, starting at one end, and broken down into squares all along one row, and then the next row down, next row down, until you form the parts of the entire image. Then you usually -- those parts are enlarged -- whatever manipulation is being done, it is done, and then it's reduced again. Well, many times, when it's enlarged and reduced again, you get what you call pixelization. What you can see, the little, jagged edges of the square, particularly on the edges, where things go from black to white or very distinct color or shade change. Many times, it's very evident.
Thank you. (The instrument herein referred to as an enlargement of Exhibit 1830 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2357 .)
(BY MR. GELBLUM) As a result of your examination of the negatives, the contact sheets, and the prints, did you find any indication, whatsoever, of any alteration anywhere in this photograph?
After close examination of this photograph, I could find no indication whatsoever of any type of idiosyncrasy to it, abrasion, any sign of touch-up, any sign of alteration to any portion of the photograph, and particularly to the shoe area.
KEY QUOTEDid you come to any conclusion as a result of your examination as to whether anybody changed the shoes that Mr. Simpson is wearing in that photograph? In other words, inserted new shoes into the photograph?
Well, normally, I'm not fortunate enough to get this good of a photograph. Normally, the photographs I get are usually very poor quality and do not allow me to come to a positive conclusion. But in this particular case, there's no doubt in my mind regarding the shoes in this particular photograph, that these have not been altered or changed in any way.
All right. Have you also had the opportunity, sir, to examine photographs taken before the same football game by an E. J. Flammer?
After close examination of this photograph, I could find no indication whatsoever of any type of idiosyncrasy to it, abrasion, any sign of touch-up, any sign of alteration to any portion of the photograph, and particularly to the shoe area.
Normally, the photographs I get are usually very poor quality and do not allow me to come to a positive conclusion. But in this particular case, there's no doubt in my mind regarding the shoes in this particular photograph, that these have not been altered or changed in any way.
I scanned the entire negative millimeter by millimeter across the entire negative until I viewed it all.