Direct examination of FBI photograph expert

📄 Direct examination of FBI photograph expert — Thursday, January 16, 1997

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1997\JAN\16\DIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-FBI-PHOT.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 43 of 57

◀ Re-redirect examination of Bradley Popovich Redirect examination of FBI photograph expert ▶

Examiner: Peter Gelblum
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Thursday, January 16, 1997 • Utterances: 47

FBI photograph expert testifies that he examined the original negatives, contact sheets, and enlargements of photographs taken by EJ Flammer on September 26, 1993 in Buffalo, New York, and found no signs of alteration or substitution in any of them. His conclusion reinforces his earlier testimony about the Scull photograph, as both sets of images show Simpson wearing the same clothing — jacket, tie, shirt, pants, and shoes — with no evidence of manipulation.

# 1 A:

Afternoon.

# 2 Q:

Sir, did you recently have the opportunity to examine certain photographs taken by a gentleman named EJ Flammer on September 26, 1993, in Buffalo, New York?

# 3 A:

Yes, I did.

# 4 Q:

I've placed before you on the witness stand certain prints. Are those prints of the photographs you examined?

# 5 MR. GELBLUM:

For the record, those are Exhibits 2324 through 2353.

# 6 A:

It's mixed up here. (Witness reviews photographs.)

# 7 A:

Yes, sir. Appears to be -- a number of them appear to be repeated.

# 8 Q:

Okay. What exactly did you examine, sir?

# 9 A:

I examined the original negatives, proof sheets, or contact sheets, 11 by 14 and 20 by 24 enlargements.

# 10 Q:

Where did you conduct this examination?

# 11 A:

For most of that material, I conducted the examination in Buffalo, New York.

# 12 Q:

Did you examine all the negatives of the 30 photographs?

# 13 A:

Yes, I did.

# 14 Q:

Does that include a negative 7A, the one that was published in November 1993 in the Buffalo Bills weekly?

# 15 A:

Yes, it did.

# 16 MR. GELBLUM:

Would you put that one up, please, just to remind the jury what we're talking about.

# 17 Q:

Did you examine the negative of that print, sir?

# 18 A:

Yes, sir. Yes, I did.

# 19 Q:

And were you examining the various materials you just identified, including the negatives, to determine whether there were any signs of alteration?

# 20 A:

Yes, sir.

# 21 Q:

Did you pay particular attention to any particular part of the negatives?

# 22 A:

The image of Mr. Simpson, and in particular, the lower portion of his body including his pants and shoes.

# 23 Q:

And what equipment did you use to conduct this examination?

# 24 A:

I used again a Bausch and Lomb stereomicroscope with a zoom lens system in it, a number of eye loupes varying from 3 to approximately 12 power. I also used a variety of scales, measuring devices. Again, I also used a variety of lighting sources.

# 25 Q:

Okay. Was there any equipment that you used when you examined the Scull photograph which you testified to about two days ago here in court, that you did not use this time?

# 26 A:

The only thing I did not do on these was use a micrometer to determine the thickness of the film. And it was simply because I forgot to bring the micrometer with me.

KEY QUOTE

# 27 Q:

Did that affect your examination in any way, sir?

# 28 A:

No, sir, it did not.

# 29 Q:

When you testified a few days ago, you told the jury what you were looking for, the kind of things you were looking for, you examined the Scull photograph -- prints and contact sheets, and the kind of examination you conducted. Did you do the same thing when you examined the Flammer negatives and contact sheets and prints?

# 30 A:

Yes, sir, basically the same procedure.

# 31 Q:

Okay. At the conclusion of your examination, did you find any signs, whatsoever, of any alteration in any of the Flammer negatives, contact sheets, or prints?

# 32 A:

No, I could not.

# 33 Q:

Is it your conclusion there were no signs of alteration in those materials?

# 34 A:

Yes, sir. Based on my analysis of the negatives, the contact sheets, and the enlargements that I had made -- actually, I did not say before I had 8 by 10, 11 by 14, and 20 by 24 enlargements made for examination purposes, and I could find no discernible evidence of alteration or substitution in any of the photographs involving Mr. Simpson.

# 35 Q:

And does that conclusion regarding the Flammer photographs have any bearing, any affect at all, on your conclusion regarding the Scull photograph that you testified to a few days ago?

# 36 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, I'm going to object to that, beyond the scope based on your earlier ruling with regard to my cross-examination.

# 37 THE COURT:

Well, the scope's been enlarged, I think. Overruled.

# 38 A:

Yes, sir, of course. That supports it substantially, that we have images and different poses, different situations of an individual having the same identical clothing, including jacket, tie, shirts, pants and shoes. With the absence of any type of suggestion or indication of alteration, it has just substantiated the conclusion I had regarding the Scull photograph.

# 39 Q:

Thank you, sir.

# 40 MR. LAMBERT:

I have nothing further. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD:

# 41 Q:

Nice to see you again, Mr. Richards.

# 42 A:

My pleasure, sir.

# 43 Q:

Now, did you say that you examined the negative that was purported to be the source for that photograph that was published in the Buffalo Bills News?

# 44 A:

Yes, sir, I did.

# 45 Q:

Okay. You were never provided with the actual black-and-white print that was utilized for that photograph, were you?

# 46 A:

No, sir, I never was.

# 47 Q:

Now, you said that you examined all of the negatives; is that right?

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Witness

No, I could not. ... Based on my analysis of the negatives, the contact sheets, and the enlargements that I had made... I could find no discernible evidence of alteration or substitution in any of the photographs involving Mr. Simpson.

Core conclusion of the examination — authenticates the Flammer photographs showing Simpson's clothing.

Witness

That supports it substantially, that we have images and different poses, different situations of an individual having the same identical clothing, including jacket, tie, shirts, pants and shoes. With the absence of any type of suggestion or indication of alteration, it has just substantiated the conclusion I had regarding the Scull photograph.

Links the Flammer photographs to the Scull photograph analysis, compounding the authentication of Simpson's shoe/clothing evidence.

Witness

The only thing I did not do on these was use a micrometer to determine the thickness of the film. And it was simply because I forgot to bring the micrometer with me.

Minor admission that opens a potential cross-examination angle on completeness of methodology.

Evidence (3)

Exhibits 2324 through 2353

Prints of photographs taken by EJ Flammer on September 26, 1993 in Buffalo, New York

introduced and examined

Informal

Original negatives, proof/contact sheets, 11x14 and 20x24 enlargements of the Flammer photographs

examined for signs of alteration

Informal

Negative 7A — the image published in November 1993 in the Buffalo Bills weekly

specifically identified and examined

Notable Exchanges (2)

MR. LEONARD•THE COURT

Leonard objected that the question about the Flammer findings bearing on the Scull photograph was beyond scope based on an earlier ruling; court overruled, noting the scope had been enlarged.

strategic

MR. LEONARD•Witness

Cross begins with Leonard probing that the witness was never provided the actual black-and-white print used for the Buffalo Bills News publication — only the negative — setting up a potential gap in the authentication chain.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Witness (Richards)

incomplete examination

Leonard elicited that the witness forgot to bring his micrometer and did not measure film thickness as he had with the Scull photograph, and also that he was never provided the actual black-and-white print used in the Buffalo Bills News publication.

Witness Demeanor

(Witness reviews photographs.)

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 8830 • 47 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103