In all the professional organizations that you belong to and the agencies you've worked with, do you know anybody in the country who has worked on more cases involving altered photographs than you?
In about half of them, they were not criminal matters, they were cases involving alterations made such as in MIA cases, prisoner of war cases, where photographs had been put forth as being individuals who were in the military being held by Vietnamese; those type of examinations. The other half, approximately, were criminal matters. However, most of them just did not go to trial. I was called a number of times for testimony, but the cases settled before that particular time.
Do you use the same, or some of the same, skills examining a photo for alteration as you do in examining a photo for comparison purposes?
First of all, you have to have a good understanding of the photographic process, from the camera, to the film, to the processing techniques, pretty well across the board. You to have a basic knowledge through training, education, and also just pure experience looking at a lot of -- lot of film, lot of negatives, lot of prints, over the years, to understand the many characteristics in photography that you may run across in doing an examination. And all of these relate one way or another, eventually, to doing an examination of alterations.
The FBI itself will accept cases from all 56 of the field divisions and 11,000 police departments throughout the United States and the unit was the special photographic unit, we would get somewhere between three or possibly four a year of this type of case.
I worked on the grand majority of them. Other agents there also worked on them, but not as many as normally I would.
Mr. Leonard asked you when determining whether a photograph had been altered is an exact science. You said it is not, sir?
An exact science. I don't think any science is exact. Even in mathematics there's idiosyncrasies that don't make it exact, like pi; you can't get an exact number for pi. But most sciences are not exact, most sciences require a -- a methodology and an analysis, evaluations, and a conclusion, as a rule, and this science follows just like most others. Some sciences, you have to use more experience than others, and this is one of them.
KEY QUOTEHave you ever had a case where you were hired to determine some issue with respect to a photograph and you gave your employer an answer they didn't want?
Yes. Particularly since I have been in private practice, I would say probably one-third of cases I receive, I provide the answer to my client, and they would rather not talk to me again after that. When I was in the FBI, I would also, even though those were all criminal cases, and mostly all prosecution cases that were coming in, many times I would issue a report that was contrary to the -- to the beliefs of the prosecution, and henceforth, the case may or may not go to court.
(BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, Mr. Leonard also asked you if you had looked at anything outside the four corners of this particular photograph in reaching your conclusion that it has not been altered. Did you look at any other photographs?
Approach the bench and tell me which door he opened. (Laughter.) (The following proceedings were held at the bench with the reporter:)
KEY QUOTEMr. Leonard asked did he look at anything else. In fact, he looked at the Flammer photographs. And those re-enforce his opinion -- supports his conclusion about the authenticity of the Scull photographs and these other photographs showing the same shoes -- just not going to go into detail of authenticity itself or anything else. He did ask him whether he looked at anything else and the fact is he did.
That was specifically in the context of questions about motive and such things as that. I did not intend to, nor did I communicate to this jury anything that would open the door to the Flammer photos. That's a subject of a writ at this point and this --
MR. GELBLUM: Thank you. (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.)
(BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Leonard asked you whether a -- if you could see a false edge outside the image, whether that could be evidence of alterations. Is there any doubt in your mind about this false edge issue in this case?
There's absolutely no doubt in my mind about the false edge issue in this case. There's no doubt in my mind that it is the frame previous to it that's underexposed that's taken during the initial loading of the camera.
KEY QUOTEMr. Leonard asked you whether the photographer would have to be 60 or 70 feet above ground to get this image, and you said no?
I'll go through the process of loading the camera. Let's assume this is the end zone of the football field, and the football field is -- looking down here, all the lines are parallel to my particular camera. Where I'm standing, I'm just looking down the football field, and loading the camera. Normally, the position would be to hold it -- pick it up, as I'm doing here, take the film out of my, possibly, bag, and place it into the camera, and once I get it into the camera, close the back -- close the back, look at where No. 1 is on the top of my camera here, and click off two or three shots. Now, if I were to hold the camera exactly at 90 degrees to the ground, pointing straightforward, we would see -- and if we have the photographs here -- we would see the horizon line. And the horizon line being the image in back of here, we would see the ground portion as we see them in Exhibit -- I mean in frame No. 12, 13, 14, the great majority of these. (Indicating to Exhibit 2366.)
As we tip the camera down, even a few degrees, this much -- let's say 15 degrees down, the top of the camera is no longer going to see the end of the field, it's going to see what's in front of me to this point on, out to a certain distance, depending on what the tilt is. If I were to hold it directly down, it would see none of the field, of course. But somewhere between 90 degrees and looking straight down, the camera would pick up the first few lines, and they would tend to diminish, as they did, until it was out of the field of view any longer.
I think you told Mr. Leonard that you would not expect to see the last couple of lines in frame 0 right next to each other?
No, because basically, we're not seeing far enough down the field. If we were seeing farther down the field, they would continue to get closer and closer until either we ran out of lines or eventually they would appear all to be touching as one big line at the end of the field, very similar to when I showed the image of the railroad ties yesterday; we could see the first couple ties in front of us very plainly, but as they continued on down the track, they were no longer distinct, they all kind of merged into one.
Yes. This would be the closest line to the camera. There very well may be a line closer than that we can't see, it's out of the frame, and then continuing up at least six lines here until we no longer see them, but the lines will continue on down the field to the end zone.
Yes. If we tipped the camera up to the horizon, we would see images very, very similar to what we see in the other frames. However, when you're loading the camera, as I said, you're pointing the camera slightly down, you're not intending to take a picture. And if you remember the example I used yesterday, many times when amateurs take pictures, they get pictures of their feet or the kitchen tiles or what have you, because they're pointing the camera basically down.
Now, Mr. Leonard showed you some photographs of some other shoes on the field, some other people's shoes, and the soles of those shoes, and you said, I think, you saw less detail in the soles of those shoes than you do in the photograph of Mr. Simpson walking across the end zone.
Objection. That misstates his testimony. He said he didn't see any detail except for one. When he says soles --
And why would you -- do you have an opinion as to why you don't see the detail in those shoes, or as much detail as the one in the photographs?
Well, there may be numerous reasons: One of them is the different types of shoes, different types of materials on the bottom. Different lighting conditions very well may cause it. And when we actually look at the shoe of -- Mr. Simpson's shoe, here at the bottom we can see -- we only see a very small portion of the sole where the light is reflecting off of it on the far right-hand side. All the rest of it is black and has no detail, just like the other shoes in the other photographs.
Okay. Mr. Leonard also showed you some of the other shoes, and I think you said there was no reflection visible, at least in the ones he showed you on the other soles?
Well, again, because the material may not reflect very well, the lighting may not -- there may not be enough light to reflect that green back on up to -- up to the black sole. There's a number of reasons. I can't explain why it wouldn't be there because of the numerous reasons or possibilities of it. In this one particular case, we do have just enough light at just the right angle, and it is backlit where it is reflecting up, to show just a portion of the sole, just the edge of the sole.
Okay. And finally, Mr. Leonard asked you some questions about the position of Mr. Simpson's foot, his right foot, in the photograph. In your 25 years of work in forensic photography, is one of the things you do when you're comparing photographs, when you're determining whether a photograph has been altered, to look at the position of different body parts?
Well, I always look to see if they're unusual. Obviously, if the body part isn't in correct anatomical position, in other words, if the foot isn't facing forward, it would concern me greatly. But in most cases, it is a natural part of viewing the picture. I look at the body parts to make sure that they are not completely out of sync. Perhaps, if a person is falling, they may be in a very contorted position which would be natural for a person falling. But in a contorted position, if they are normally walking, there would have to be some other explanation for it.
And did you look at the photograph of Mr. Simpson walking across the end zone to determine whether his feet seemed to be in a natural and proper position?
There's absolutely no doubt in my mind about the false edge issue in this case. There's no doubt in my mind that it is the frame previous to it that's underexposed that's taken during the initial loading of the camera.
I would say probably one-third of cases I receive, I provide the answer to my client, and they would rather not talk to me again after that.
An exact science. I don't think any science is exact. Even in mathematics there's idiosyncrasies that don't make it exact, like pi; you can't get an exact number for pi.
Approach the bench and tell me which door he opened.