Morning, sir.

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?

That's my opinion, yes, sir.

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?

Object, Your Honor, no foundation, misstates the testimony.

Exactly what he testified.

Not what he testified.

Page 63, January 8, bottom of 62, top of 63.

(BY MR. LEONARD) Are you aware of the fact --

Just a minute.

It's also argumentative.

It's not what it says at all.

Approach the bench with the reporter. (The following proceedings were held at the bench with the reporter.)

They're saying top of -- bottom of 62 to 63. (Court reviews transcript.)

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.)

(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.

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.

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.

And you couldn't see the damaged area because there was a rock on top of it; is that your testimony, sir?

I'm saying it was embedded in that damaged area.

So it was embedded in the damaged area?

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?

No, I do not.

Do you have any reason to doubt Mr. Fung's testimony that he saw a damaged area?

Objection, argumentative, Your Honor.

Overruled.

No, I do not.

(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?

Yes, sir.

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?

Argumentative, Your Honor.

Sustained. You may ask him how much time he did it.

(BY MR. LEONARD) You have testified in how many cases, total, sir, in your career?

Over 100.

Would you say 200?

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.

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?

That's fair to say.

In fact, it would be less than five?

That's fair to say.

Yes, sir.

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?

I have testified in a deposition regarding a faked photograph but not in a trial court.

You've never testified before a jury on that issue, have you, sir?

No, sir.

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?

Yes, sir.

For instance, to determine the height of a bank robber from a surveillance video, correct?

Correct.

You spent very little time at all examining photographs to determine whether or not they were real or fake; isn't that right, sir?

I spent just exactly the amount of time that was necessary on each case.

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?

Yes, sir.

Less than one percent, wouldn't you say, sir?

Probably.

Did you tell that to Mr. Gelblum when he was interviewing you before your testimony?

Objection, argumentative, irrelevant.

Sustained.

(BY MR. LEONARD) Did you ever work in the field of creating composite negatives, sir?

In the field itself?

Yeah. Did you ever work making composite negatives?

Yes, sir.

You didn't do that for a living at any time, did you, sir?

Well, it was part of my duties as what I was doing, yes.

By the way, when is the last time that you testified with regard to the allegation that a photograph was faked?

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.

Now, the examination of a photograph to determine whether or not it's altered, that's not an exact science, is it?

No, sir.

In fact, it involves a lot of subjective determinations on the part of the examiner, doesn't it?

Yes, sir, based on experience and education.

Can you answer my question yes or no? You can explain all you want.

He did. I object to the comment.

Question may remain.

(BY MR. LEONARD) There are no standards, are there, with regard to the examination of questioned photographs?

Would you define for me what you mean by standards.

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?

No, sir.

Yes, sir.

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?

Yes, sir.

Any biases that you may bring into the case, right?

I take into account any of my biases.

You would agree if there is any bias you have, that could very well influence you? Do you agree with that, sir?

Yes.

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?

Not necessarily.

Not necessarily?

Not necessarily.

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?

Yes, sir.

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?

One, what are the factors that we're talking about?

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?

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence, any such motivation in this case.

You may answer.

No, sir.

(BY MR. LEONARD) That's not something that should be taken into account?

Not by me.

Do you think it should be taken into account by the jury or someone who should be --

That's really improper; ask that it be stricken.

Sustained.

(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?

Objection, argumentative.

(BY MR. LEONARD) Was that your job?

He may answer.

As stated, no.

(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?

No.

Did you disregard that?

What do you mean by disregard?

Any other information you received other than what you saw through the microscope, through the loupe, and measured.

Not anything that had significance to my exam, no.

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?

No.

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?

No, sir.

Have you ever talked to McElroy?

Yes, sir.

Did you ask him about the history of the photograph?

No, sir.

Did you ask him why he had the negative flown to London? Did you ask him that, sir?

No, sir.

Didn't think that was important?

I didn't know it was flown to London.

You didn't?

No, sir.

Did you read Harry Scull's deposition?

I finally read Harry Scull's deposition yesterday.

Well, that's in there, isn't it?

Yes, sir.

You just told the jury you didn't know that?

I didn't know when I talked to Mr. McElroy.

Oh, I see. Did you think that was important when you read it in Scull's deposition?

No.

Did you wonder why McElroy had the photograph flown to London and back on the Concord?

Objection, relevance.

Sustained.

(BY MR. LEONARD) Do you know how much Scull got for the photograph?

No, sir.

That wasn't important to you?

Objection, relevance, Your Honor.

Sustained.

Your Honor, goes to motive.

Not this witness.

This is not his expertise.

It's argument.

(BY MR. LEONARD) Now, is it true, sir, that you can't always tell whether a photograph is fake? Is that true?

That I can't always tell?

Yeah.

Yes, sir.

In fact, the technology and techniques that exist today can be fairly sophisticated and very good, can't they?

They can be, yes, sir.

To the extent to where even a seasoned examiner like you can't see any indicia of a fake?

Under some circumstances, yes.

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?

In my mind?

Yes.

Yes, I am.

You're saying 100 percent?

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?

Yes, sir.

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?

Correct.

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?

I would say the great majority would not be.

But there were some up there that were, weren't there, sir?

Yes, sir.

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?

An edge that shouldn't be there?

Yeah.

Be where?

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?

In the picture area or outside of the picture area?

Outside the picture area, sir.

Probably not.

It could be, though, isn't that right, sir?

Objection, relevance, Your Honor.

Overruled.

It could be.

(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?

Yes, sir, I do.

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?

That's correct.

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?

That's 2368. (Exhibit 2368 is displayed for jury.)

Can everyone see that? (Jury panel nods affirmatively.)

(BY MR. LEONARD) Now, is it your testimony, sir, that that -- that these lines represent the lines of the football field?

That's correct, sir.

And you testified yesterday that the camera was facing down when that photograph was -- when that image was taken. Do you remember that, sir?

Facing slightly down, yes, sir.

Do you remember saying yesterday that it was facing down? Do you remember that?

Facing in a down direction, relative to the other image that I was showing on frame 12, yes, sir.

With the lens down, correct?

Not down. Slightly down, as I said yesterday, pointing in a slightly down direction.

Is it your testimony, sir, that you're opining that that photograph was taken from the end zone; is that right?

Yes, sir.

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?

No, I would not.

Show that to the jury again, please.

You want him to still stand there?

No, he can resume.

Thank you. (Witness resumes witness stand.) (Jurors pass around Exhibit 2368 among themselves.)

(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?

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.

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?

Yes, sir, I did.

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?

Yes, sir.

You don't see that in this photograph, do you?

And you wouldn't, either. Yes, sir.

In fact, the last two lines are almost equal distance from each other -- the last three lines, isn't that right, sir?

That's correct.

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?

Yes, sir.

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?

I would expect that color to be reflected onto whatever surface is directly above it, yes.

Including green --

Yes, sir.

-- 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?

Yes, sir.

Did you have a chance to look at those, sir?

Yes, sir, I did.

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?

Yes, sir.

Did you think that was a little strange?

No, sir.

Did you notice that there's no reflection underneath the soles on any of those photographs, sir?

Yes, sir.

And some of those were over green and some of those are over other colors, aren't they?

Yes, sir.

No reflection?

None that I could see, no, sir.

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.)

(BY MR. LEONARD) You're looking at frame 17, which is a photograph of --

MR. P. BAKER: I'm sorry; it's 1925.

If you could zoom in -- there you go.

(BY MR. LEONARD) That's a photograph of Marv Levi, correct? Do you know who that is, by the way?

Do I?

Yeah.

I believe he's the Buffalo Bills coach.

Fine. Take a look at the underside of the sole, there.

Yes, sir.

You can't see any -- you can't see any detail on the bottom of that sole, can you?

No, sir.

And you can't see any reflection of any green, can you, sir?

No, I cannot.

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.

(BY MR. LEONARD) You examined that?

Yes, from --

MR. P. BAKER: I'm going to -- the pro has told me how to work this thing.

Well, I'm glad you learned by the end of the trial.

(BY MR. LEONARD) Couldn't see any detail whatsoever on the underside of the sole?

That's correct.

No reflection, correct?

That's correct.

Can we go to contact sheet 1, frame 26.

(BY MR. LEONARD) Now, that's coach Don Schula, correct?

Correct.

Same question, sir: Do you see any detail on the bottom of the sole?

Yes. In that particular picture, you can see detail.

Do you see any reflection, sir?

No, sir.

Show the jury where the detail is.

Could -- would you enlarge that to the maximum capability?

That's it.

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.

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?

Yes, sir.

Okay. You'd also agree there's no reflection there, wouldn't you?

Yes, sir.

There's no halo effect around that shoe, is there, sir?

Not that I recall.

Well, look at it, if you don't recall. There's no halo on that, is there, sir?

Well, from that particular image, I would not be able to determine. I would have to go back and look.

Your best recollection is, there was none?

Not --

He was in the middle of an answer, Your Honor, and he interrupted him.

Excuse me.

You may proceed.

Thank you.

For the record, this is Exhibit 1924.

Now, you also testified, I believe --

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.)

If you go down to the area of the foot, particularly the right foot, and focus as best you can.

(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?

Yes, sir.

Some of it's over the white. Would you agree with that, sir?

No, sir.

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?

No, sir.

Now, let's move -- let's pull back on this particular image. Do we have a number on this --

MR. P. BAKER: 1830.

-- 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.)

Not that close. Pull back a little.

MR. P. BAKER: (Adjusts Elmo.)

And up a little bit, please.

MR. P. BAKER: (Adjusts Elmo.)

There we go.

(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.

Yes, sir.

Never got a chance to examine the camera, correct?

I didn't hear.

You never got a chance to examine Scull's camera, correct?

No, sir, I did not.

Scull told you that it had been stolen, right?

Yes, sir.

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?

No, sir.

Never heard of that happening; is that right?

Not in that -- not that technique as you've just described it.

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?

Objection, Your Honor. He just said he never heard of anybody doing that.

Objection.

No, we're not.

Well, we've been there.

Your Honor, I object.

Well, it calls for speculation. It's close, so I'll allow it.

No, sir. (Laughter.)

(BY MR. LEONARD) Now, when you -- I take it you examined this rather closely, right?

Yes, sir.

And one of the things you were looking for was to see if there was a continuous scratch, correct?

Yes, sir.

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?

Do you follow that scratch up there, sir?

Yes, sir.

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?

Yes, sir.

It can also be that that was inserted into -- that was a fake negative inserted into this film, correct?

No, sir.

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?

I would never -- I've never heard of, nor would I understand, any reason to do it in that manner.

Now, if -- You are telling the jury that -- that this scratch was caused by the camera, correct?

Correct.

And you're saying that the scratch occurs as the film is pulled through the camera, correct?

Correct.

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?

You're going to have to wind the film. If the film was moving, you wouldn't see any change -- that kind of change.

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?

Correct.

Wouldn't you expect to see some change in that scratch, sir, that the scratch would move?

Yes, sir.

You don't see any between these frames, do you, sir?

I wouldn't expect to, necessarily.

You don't see any, do you?

No, sir, I do not.

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.)

(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?

Yes, sir.

That heel is flat on the ground, is it not, sir?

From that photograph, I cannot tell.

Now what are we putting up?

MR. P. BAKER: This is a zoomed 1931. (Exhibit 1931 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Just zoom back first.

(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?

I said to the left. It should be -- it should have been to the left.

Cocked to the right?

Yes.

Now, I want to you take a look at that heel. Is that heel not flat on the ground, sir?

No, sir.

With no portion above the surface?

No, sir.

How much is above the surface, sir?

A small portion in the front of the heel.

Extremely small portion, right?

Zoom in.

MR. P. BAKER: (Adjusts Elmo.)

It depends on how you define "extremely." I say a small portion of it is above the ground.

(BY MR. LEONARD) Measure it. Can you measure it? Did you attempt to measure it?

No, sir.

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?

You didn't do that, right?

No, sir, I did not.

I don't have any further questions.

Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen.

Maybe I do. Hold on.

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.)

Okay. You may proceed.

Thank you, Your Honor. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM: (continued)

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?