When we left off yesterday, we were talking about the point that Mr. Groden made about the photograph of Mr. Simpson in the end zone. On the list that we have up on the easel, the next point had to do with the shoes, the right shoe in particular, where Mr. Groden said that there was -- the red reflection that appears on the sole of the right shoe should be white rather than red. Do you agree with that?
2369. (The instrument herein referred to as a photograph of O.J. Simpson in the end zone was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2369.)
Yes. If I may show this to the jury? Basically, the right foot is slightly angled up and over the red area of the field itself. This pretty well is exemplified by the placement of the heel and the shadow directly under it, it hasn't quite crossed that small blue line there into the white area. The light shining down onto the field is going to reflect back whatever area or color it is. If the foot was over the white area, it would reflect back white. If it's over the red area, it's going to reflect back red. This is a diffused light. In other words, the light will be fairly soft but diffused in all directions up under -- up under the foot itself. You would expect that that would be natural, that any color that's being -- the light shining on it will reflect that same color. The general position of the foot is pretty evident even though there is some foreshortening because of the long lens. It's pretty well evident that it's back far enough that the majority of the shoe is over the red area as opposed to the white.
Yes. When photographs are taken, depending on where the photographer is with his camera, the position, it will create anomalies that we call in some cases, foreshortening, or wide angle distortion. They really aren't distortions; they are a function of where the observer is or the camera is in comparison to other objects out in front. If the object -- all of the objects are far away and they're fairly close together by themselves, the farther away they get, you will have a foreshortening effect which will make them appear to shorten -- to become shorter than they are. Inversely, if you use a very wide-angle lens, or you see things in a very wide-angle state, things will tend to elongate. Some of you may have seen wide-angle pictures that are taken very closely to people's faces which makes their nose look three times bigger than their head, and their ears six inches behind the back of their head. That's the inverse of foreshortening. In this case, there was a long lens used so the foot and the shoe would be somewhat foreshortened.
Mr. Groden also opined that there may not -- it may -- that there shouldn't be any reflection at all on the sole of that shoe. Do you agree with that?
No, not necessarily. There -- you may not be able to detect in a photograph a reflection, there may not be enough light. But if the bottom of the shoe has enough sheen or reflection to it, it very well may record as the -- actually, the sole pattern records on the bottom of there.
Do you consider the reflection on the bottom of the sole of the right shoe evidence of alteration of this photograph?
Next point Mr. Groden made on the list, we discussed what he called, I think, sort of a halo effect on both the left and the right shoe. Do you know what he's talking about there?
Can the jurors see that? Can he come down to the jury? You want to come down to the jury because we're talking about small parts on the shoes there.
Basically, there's actually a halo effect which appears around most of the image. I think the one in question, though, is around the edges -- the edges of the shoes, on the bottom, by the soles, by the tip of the right shoe, and then the back here, it's very, very -- it's difficult to see, but right at the sole level of the left shoe, back by the heel again.
Yes. It's quite common and can actually be seen in a number of other portions of this picture and in other pictures also. Any time you have something that is backlit -- slightly backlit, and this picture is backlit, meaning that the light -- the main body of the light is coming a little bit in back and to the right of Mr. Simpson.
I can tell by the highlights on the pants, the shoulders, the forehead, the back lighting on the hand, on the right hand, and the way the shadows are falling here. In this particular case, that highlighting effect leaves a very light area anyplace there is a distinct edge. This is a fraction of the light actually around the edge slightly, and it takes on the color of whatever the background or the closest edge to it is. It can take on the color. Our eyes kind of -- kind of force us into seeing that color. As a matter of fact, that can be seen, the same halo effect that goes up the side of the leg here, as it transverses from red to white, the little halo effect along the side of the pants, you'll see red to white, red to white, red to white, as it goes up the side of the pants.
Again, it's just a transition of the light from the dark area to the light area of the background of the field, and just where the light is, right at the edge from -- it's being backlit, that very bright spot is taking on the color of whatever is nearest to it.
Let me take a look at the photograph of Mr. Simpson with Keith Byars. I think he's been identified as -- that's Exhibit 2289. Do you see that effect in that photograph?
Actually, the effect can probably be shown a little bit better in this photograph because the left arm -- see this white line along the left arm; this is the halo effect we were talking about. That's also on the shoes, but since the shoes are so small, it's a little indistinction to it. We can see that it picks up a grayish bluish effect as it goes up or grayish bluish. Then it picks up a yellow tint when it met the background. Again, it's a common phenomenon when something is backlit. It will have a very slight halo effect to it when it's backlit, and that halo effect will take on a color of the background or sometimes the color of the object, depending on what the color is. But it is basically a natural phenomenon.
Do you consider that halo effect on the shoes that Mr. Groden described as evidence of alteration of this photograph?
Mr. Groden also said that he had some kind of problem, although he -- I think he said it was conjecture about the two photographs adjoining the photograph of Mr. Simpson walking through the end zone on the contact sheet, being different exposures than the rest of the roll. First of all, do you agree they are different exposures?
And do you see any problem with that in terms of the authenticity of the photo of Mr. Simpson walking through the end zone?
No, not particularly. This is not a fully automatic camera like the new modern cameras of today; it's a semi-automatic camera. So you have to set one of the controls one way or another and physically adjust the other control. It's very common to be a stop or two off as you're moving from subject to subject. And here he was moving from a fairly dark scene -- Mr. Simpson -- where we have dark red -- dark pants, dark jacket, to a fairly bright scene, and he just may have miscompensated a stop for it. To be very candid, the entire roll is very well exposed, for the most part.
The next point that Mr. Groden made had to do with it wasn't an analysis of the photos. You didn't see any evidence of moisture in this photograph? Do you see any evidence of moisture in the photograph?
Have you seen any evidence of moisture on any of the other frames or on any -- either of the contact sheets Mr. Scull shot?
Okay. You consider the lack of evidence of moisture in the photograph evidence of alteration?
And the last point Mr. Groden made was that the photograph of Mr. Simpson is the first frame on the roll. In your opinion, and in your experience, does that have anything whatsoever to do with alteration of a photograph?
No, not any, not to any technique that I'm aware of would the first frame make any difference whatsoever. It could have been any frame in a roll, if it was to be altered, the first one has no significance whatsoever.
So then, do you consider any of the points that Mr. Groden made regarding the photograph of Mr. Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes walking to the end zone to be evidence of alteration of that photograph, whatsoever?
And did you, in your own examination, determine any evidence of alteration in that photograph?
I could find no characteristics in those photographs, whatsoever, that led me to the conclusion that any alteration had been made on the photograph or, in particular, the shoe or pants area.
KEY QUOTEOkay. Now, I'd like to turn to another issue entirely, sir. Have you had an opportunity to look at the photographs of the -- a glove --
That's the chart with the list of Groden's issues. (The instrument herein referred to as a chart listing Mr. Groden's points was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2370.)
(BY MR. GELBLUM) This has been represented to be the glove that was found at the crime scene at Bundy. Did you have an opportunity to look at this photograph, sir?
This appears to be the same enlargement that I originally looked at, and this also appears to be a slightly reduced enlargement of the -- of the glove.
And did you also look at another photograph that I'm handing you -- I'll mark these in a minute -- showing the label on the glove.
Okay. I'd like to mark this enlargement, the closest enlargement, as next in order.
2371. (The instrument herein referred to as anenlargementt of a photograph of a glove was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2371.)
And one slightly more distant as 2372. (The instrument herein referred to as an enlargement of a photograph of a glove was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2372.)
And the small one showing a label as 2373. (The instrument herein referred to as an enlargement of a photograph of a glove showing a label was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2373.)
Basically, I examined it using a head loupe, the same head loupe that I used here yesterday in court, in addition to a small second eye loupe that is a little more powerful than that particular device.
I was asked to examine that particular white spot to see if I could determine what it was and how it was orientated to the glove. In this particular case, it was my determination that that was a piece of debris sitting on top of the glove itself. However, the exact material that it was, I was not able to determine from the photographic examination.
And what was the basis for your conclusion that it is a piece of debris sitting on top of the glove?
Well, basically, the positioning, the material that it's composed of in the back -- back portion -- if I might, Your Honor, might I step down?
It's debris back in the -- for the sake of this particular image, on the upper portion of it, there appears to be dirt or soil similar to the dirt and soil up in this particular area. And also, on the smaller reduction -- reduced portion of the photograph, there's dirt and debris very similar to that soil. It could also be seen on the left side of the -- the white piece of debris. And in further examining it, it appears there are like little hair-like fibers in the debris itself. Those hair-like fibers can be seen dipping down under in the base -- on the right-hand side into the shadow area. If we look very closely into the shadow area, you can just see the weave or the texture of the glove going into the shadow area. In addition to that, in examining the shadow itself, it was totally consistent with the shadow of the rest of the debris as to the direction and angle, making it consistent with the flash that took this picture producing a shadow in the lower half of that portion, which indicates that it is above the surface of the glove itself.
Can you explain that -- why the fact -- why there's a shadow indicating there is debris above the surface of the glove?
Well, in this particular case, if a light source which is coming from the upper left-hand corner here is shining down in this direction on all of the other material, and you can see it here on the back, how the shadow falls in this direction, if this in fact -- let's say it was a hole, this portion would be lit and the top portion would be in shadow, and it's the inverse of that, indicating that the material's on top of the surface, producing a shadow directly underneath.
Okay. Did you make a determination whether that white material could be the lining of the glove?
-- to determine what the lining of the glove is to see, if perhaps, it was a piece of lining itself that had got lodged or possibly come from the inside of the glove onto the surface of it. However, the lining of the glove appears to be a brown color as opposed to a white and doesn't have the same texture around the top and -- or textured material around the top and left edge, which, as I said, appears to be a soil of some sort.
Your Honor, for the jury's benefit, may I pass around 2371, this enlargement that we had made?
I could find no characteristics in those photographs, whatsoever, that led me to the conclusion that any alteration had been made on the photograph or, in particular, the shoe or pants area.
If the foot was over the white area, it would reflect back white. If it's over the red area, it's going to reflect back red.
Those hair-like fibers can be seen dipping down under in the base -- on the right-hand side into the shadow area... the shadow itself was totally consistent with the shadow of the rest of the debris as to the direction and angle.
The first one has no significance whatsoever. It could have been any frame in a roll, if it was to be altered, the first one has no significance whatsoever.