Did you see any sign of alteration in negative 7-A, the one reprinted in the Buffalo Bills Weekly?
Does the fact the negative from that photograph was printed in November, 1993, some eight months before the murders in this case, have any affect in your opinion in terms of motivation?
As far as motivation goes, I would think if you were going to alter a photograph, you would definitely want -- not want to have it published ahead of the -- the subjective time that's in question.
Okay. Does having access to the original negatives make your determination more certain or less certain?
Well, continuous scratches -- the reason I look for scratches, let's put it this way, the reason I look for scratches particularly is usually only in -- for the most part, in cut negatives where we have negatives that are cut, so I can determine that, in fact, at one time they were contiguous -- continuously one negative. But there may be many, many types of scratches. Some due to camera, some due to the processor, some due to mishandling, sometimes just placing in and out of the enlarger will cause scratches. Some of those won't match up because they've been produced on the negative after the actual cutting has been done. Just as long as the majority of them have been matched up, I can be fairly confident in my own mind this was one negative, all at one time, no one has substituted, let's say a proportion of five images into that group. That's the basic reason we look at the scratches.
You were asked a question by Mr. Gelblum about a photograph that was purported to have been published. You have no idea what the chain of custody of that negative was, do you, sir?
if you were going to alter a photograph, you would definitely want -- not want to have it published ahead of the -- the subjective time that's in question.
Just as long as the majority of them have been matched up, I can be fairly confident in my own mind this was one negative, all at one time, no one has substituted, let's say a proportion of five images into that group.