Morning.

Because it's been quite a while since We've been here, I thought we'd start by summarizing where we were, about the point you were making about the photograph in question. Try to write on the easel here. The first problem that we discussed -- the first issue we discussed on the cross-examination was the blue lining that you saw on the picture of Mr. Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes, between the image and the sprocket holes, correct?

I believe that was the first one.

The blue line?

Yeah.

I'm just going to write blue line up here.

Your Honor, I'm going to object to going through the cross-examination again. This has been asked and answered.

Very quickly.

Overruled. Go ahead.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) And you acknowledged, at one point, that that could be a scratch, correct?

Yes, I believe so.

Okay. And we also looked at some of the other photographs, and again we saw blue lines between the image and the sprocket holes, but you said those were different than the ones on this picture; is that right?

That's correct.

Okay. The next -- next point we talked about was the alignment of the -- of the photographs, correct, the alignment of the frames?

Yes.

Steve, could you put up 1832, please, on the monitor. (Exhibit 1832 displayed.)

(BY MR. GELBLUM) And your point was that No. 1 and No. 2, No. 1 being the picture of Mr. Simpson with the Bruno Magli shoes, were not aligned, right?

1 and 2 were not aligned.

You're saying that those are the only adjoining frames on the contact sheet that were not aligned?

That's correct.

We looked at some others and you disagreed about -- with -- about them being misaligned?

Yes, that's correct.

Did you look at other contact sheets, too, to see if there were any out of alignment?

Yes.

You found none of those were out of alignment either?

That's correct.

On this point, I think you did agree with me that there is some?

Your Honor, I'm going to object. He's now back on this point of asking specific questions. This has all been asked and answered.

This is going to take less than five minutes to bring it up to speed. There are points to be made later that have to do with the totality of his evidence. I have to get it in before the jury. It's fair.

Ask it in the form of a question, not in the form of an argument.

That's fine, Your Honor.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Do you recall that we discussed that there is some play in the back of a camera that allows the film to move through?

You made that representation.

And you agree with me that there is normally some play?

I don't believe that I agreed with that. I said that -- that it would vary from camera to camera.

Right. And -- but you -- in any event, you said that that play that varies from camera to camera would not account for the misalignment, in your opinion?

Not by this amount, no.

And then the next point we discussed was the -- the issue of the length. Your opinion is that the photograph of Mr. Simpson wearing the Bruno Magli shoes is longer than the other frames, correct?

That's correct.

And I want to make sure, did you compare it only to the one next to it or did you compare it to every other frame on the contact sheet?

Well, to be fair, since the first two are disconnected from all the others, the only one we can rely on as being together are the first two, I would think that to be fair in the argument we can only compare the first two.

Is that all you compared?

No, I compared the rest as well.

And your testimony was that this frame of Mr. Simpson is longer than all the other frames?

Yes.

And we talked about that at your deposition, and you had said that you had enlarged the contact sheet eight times, to make it eight times bigger, and at that measurement, at this size, you measured it, the measurement was approximately a quarter of a millimeter longer, right?

As I pointed out, that was a rough approximation, it wasn't accurate.

I think you said it was an arbitrary figure?

Yes. The way it was actually stated was it wasn't a quarter of a millimeter, a quarter of a millimeter, give or take.

Anyway that was an arbitrary figure?

Yes.

And you made that eight times enlargement on a photocopying machine, not a photographic enlarger, is that right?

That's correct.

And you believe that the photocopy image is an absolutely 100 percent accurate, precise reproduction of the size of what it's coping?

My opinion is that a photocopying machine does not give the option for -- for photographic manipulation. It's just a straight scan copy, rather than a photographic copy.

But do you believe that the copy does not distort or stretch the image in any way whatsoever, the photocopy?

It's my opinion that it probably doesn't. I have no personal knowledge whether it does or doesn't. I'm not a photocopying machine expert.

So if the photocopy does distort or stretch the image, the image would not necessarily be valid?

Objection, lack of foundation.

Sustained. (Court reviews real time screen.)

(BY MR. GELBLUM) You don't know whether it's an accurate reproduction?

Objection, lack of foundation, called for speculation.

Overruled. This man works on copy machines.

No, I don't think that's represented.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Is it true you don't know whether the photocopy accurately and precisely reproduces the size of the image?

I have no way of knowing whether any particular machine might be different than another.

Where did you have your copies made, the eight times enlargements?

I have them made in Dallas at -- I believe it was either Kinko's or something of that nature.

Okay. The next point we discussed was the point about the edge.

Steve, can you put up -- do you have the slides? I think it's 2282, exhibit slide No. 3.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) All right. And we discussed -- you said that there was an extra edge down here at the bottom, is that right, that has some parallel lines in it?

Yes, there is a horizontal and several vertical lines.

And your opinion was that there was no natural process in photography that could possibly account for that?

That's correct. There's no photographic reason I can find for that.

You agreed though, that frame zero which comes just before the frame we're looking at here could, in theory, as the photographer's loading the camera and clicking the film through, be underexposed through the length of the camera and produce underexposed images, correct?

In theory.

Right. And I asked you whether those parallel lines can be an underexposed image of the lines in the football field that we see in other frames, and you said there's no way in the world?

No.

Objection. He's going back through cross-examination. He's going point by point.

I'm about to sustain that objection

I'm about done.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) The last point that we went through last time was something about the left leg.

You can take this off, Steve Steve, do you have the exhibit number for these enlargements.

Yes, 2287. (Exhibit 2287 displayed.)

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Putting up 2287, this was the enlargement of Mr. Simpson wearing the Bruno Magli shoes. You said that there is a retouching mark, what you perceive to be a retouching mark on the left leg right above a fold in the pants, right?

Near a fold in the pants, yes.

Okay. Now, another point that you mentioned with Mr. Leonard was a problem with the right leg as well.

Can everyone see this? You said -- Do you have the slide for that one? I apologize. It's No. 7. 2282 and No. 7.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) You said that you observed some kind of linear tonal change across the leg; is that right?

That's correct, with retouching marks attached to it.

Now, you remember at your deposition, we went through -- you gave me a list of the observations you had made at that time that you said led you to the conclusion that the photograph is probably a fake, remember that?

Yes.

And you didn't mention this, did you?

I had interpreted that as being wind effect, that's the way I had spoken about at the deposition.

You didn't mention a linear tonal change across the right leg at all at your deposition, did you?

Not with that -- not with that phraseology, no.

Well, you didn't.

Put up 2291, please. (Exhibit 2291 displayed.)

(BY MR. GELBLUM) This was the list of your observations that you gave me at the deposition, that you said were all the observations you made regarding the photograph being a fake, right?

Yes.

I'll hand you a copy of it so you can see it better. There's nothing at all on there about a linear tonal change in the right leg, is there?

It's not on this, but we did discuss it.

We didn't discuss linear tonal change in the right leg, did we, sir?

Three -- we discussed three differences in the two lengths that appear to be different responses to wind; one being affected, the other one not. That was the same issue I was talking about.

There's nothing on the piece of paper you gave me at your deposition that you said was the complete list of your observations about anything about wind difference; is there, sir?

No, there's nothing on that.

Okay. When did you come up with that one, sir?

Objection. Argumentative, Your Honor.

Overruled.

We had discussed it at the deposition and I had told you at that time it was a complete list. Before we left we had more issues than are on that list. You know that.

I know you did not discuss that. Your lawyer can point it out in his examination.

I object to this argument in front of the jury.

Sustained.

You can take that down, Steve. Put up 1832 again, please.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Another point you made with Mr. Leonard on direct examination was about the tint of the photograph of Mr. Simpson wearing the Bruno Magli shoes. Do you recall that?

Yes.

You said that all the other frames have a slightly blue or blue to green tint, and this frame alone has a pinkish tint or magenta tint, right?

That's correct.

Okay.

Is that the whole sheet, Steve? (Elmo adjusted.)

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Did you know, Mr. Groden, that of all the other frames on the contact sheet, other than this one, there's a green field evident, and in this one Mr. Simpson is walking on a red and white end zone?

Of course, yes.

Did you notice that? Okay. But you don't think that could account for the different tint?

No.

There are different kinds of reflections that photographers deal with, right?

Yes.

There something called spectral reflection. You heard of spectral reflection?

Yes.

Spectral reflection is what happens when light hits a shiny surface and bounces off something like a mirror, it comes right in and goes out, right, out the same angle?

Doesn't necessarily have to be the same angle.

It's a pretty clean reflection?

Yes.

And diffused reflection, on the other hand, is when light hits on a non-shiny surface like a football field, and light diffuses out in all directions, correct?

Theoretically.

Okay. Now, I think -- as an example of this difference in tint, other than this green and red you pointed to --

You can take that down, Steve. Mr. Simpson's shirt, again, I'm putting up 2287.

Yeah.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) And we'll put it here, if you don't mind, and I'll show it to you first, and then show it to the jury. The light's not good here. You said that the pinkish tint was so pronounced you thought Mr. Simpson was wearing a pink shirt in this picture?

I said I had to find out whether it was pink or not because it does appear so pink, especially in the shadow areas.

You said you thought he was wearing a pink shirt rather than a white?

I said I had to find out -- it appears to me that, possibly, he was wearing a pink shirt.

In this picture?

Yes.

I'll show this to the jury. Your eyes tell you that that is a pink shirt?

Can I see it again? (Witness reviews photograph.)

Yeah. Look in the shadow areas, you can definitely see that. See.

I'm not talking about shadows. I'm talking about a pink shirt. You said it was a pink shirt, right?

Objection, argumentative.

Overruled.

The shirt itself in the photograph.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Groden, you said you thought it was a pink shirt, right?

Objection, that's asked and answered.

Overruled.

That's not what I said.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) All right. Turn to your testimony on December 18, direct examination, page 190, trial testimony, lines 20 to 24, this is on your examination by Mr. Leonard.

What page?

Page 190.

Okay.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) The two prints in question show a reflective value. Frame 1-1 shows a magenta and pinkish tint to a point of where just inspected this photograph, I thought it was a pink shirt instead of a white shirt.

I stand corrected. What I meant was --

Thank you.

I had to find out whether it was.

I didn't ask you what you meant. I just asked you what you said. Are you saying that shirt in that picture is a fake?

No, of course not.

You know Mr. Simpson sat where you sat and admitted it was his shirt, don't you? end oj01061a BEGIN SECTION OJ0106-2.TRF

I have no way of knowing that.

You didn't know that?

No. I don't doubt that it's his shirt.

Now, another point you made with Mr. Leonard had to do with the right shoe.

Can you put up the slides, Steve, that show the reflection on the bottom of the shoe.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) You said that the red reflection on the sole of the right shoe should be white, correct?

From my analysis of it, it appears that it should be white, that's correct.

That's based entirely on your perception that his foot is over the white area, correct?

No.

All right.

No, it's based on the angle of the bottom of the shoe as well.

It's your opinion, based on your perception, that the shoe is over the white area on the field, correct?

I didn't say that. I just said -- I just said it's not true.

Look at your -- look at your trial testimony.

Page 185, Mr. Leonard, lines 20 to 23. I can read the whole sentence if you want. Got it? December 18, page 185.

Okay.

Okay.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) (Reading:). The bottom of the shoe on the right foot appears to be reflecting light, indicating a sole pattern based on the positioning of that shoe over the line. It's my opinion that should be reflecting white instead of red. Is that what you said?

The position of the shoe, yes.

You weren't saying it's over the -- onto the white?

No, I said the positioning of the -- of the shoe over the line, the shoe is over the line.

So you're saying the shoe is over the line. Okay.

It's above the line.

Where is the tip of the shoe in your perception, sir?

In this particular case it's very difficult to tell because you don't have a side view. However, the angle of the bottom of the shoe would reflect off the white rather than the red.

Well, Mr. Groden, the red reflection goes all the way back down here, doesn't it? This is your slide, sir.

Yeah.

The reflection goes --

It could be lightened up to show it better.

There you go. (Elmo readjusted.)

The red reflection goes how far back?

The red reflection goes on the outside extending beyond the edge of the shoe back to the bottom back into the shadowy area.

Almost to the heel?

Yes.

You're saying that that entire shoe is -- entire part of the shoe is over the line?

No, the -- no, the entire part we're talking about the reflection of the edge here.

You're mathematics tells you that shoe and that position should be reflecting white?

It's my opinion it should be, yes.

Now, the lens that was used by Mr. Scull was a long lens, right?

Yes.

One of those long lenses that you see photographers use at football games?

Yes.

500 millimeter lens. And that kind of lens when you use it compresses space, right?

Yes, it's called foreshortening.

Right. The distance between objects seems much smaller than they actually are?

Depending on the distance from the camera, yes.

Is it your testimony, sir, that if -- even if that foot is entirely over the red, it should still be reflecting white?

Based on the angle, I believe it should be reflecting white.

Okay. And what do you mean by based on the angle?

Well, we're not talking about a ricochet effect where we're going this way and bouncing off to the far end. We're talking about a reflective situation that you see through a mirror, the mirror bounces off at a specific angle, as with the bottom of the shoe, if in fact there is any legitimate reflection at all.

Do you think there should be some reflection?

On the bottom of a shoe of that color, I would doubt it. I certainly doubt that it would, though, the way it does in this photograph.

Okay. I just want to be clear what you're saying. Now, you agree, sir, the shadow of the shoe in that picture is entirely in the red, right?

The shadow that -- which we see a shadow is, yes, but the shadow is much shorter than the actual shoe. And considering the lighting, I think that if it were a direct single point of light, it would extend farther and into the light.

Whatever shadow there is is entirely on the red, there's no shadow on the white?

Right.

Steve, would you put up the next slide, the next one for him, but on the left shoe, showing the red extending beyond the sole.

Number 6.

This is 2282, number --

6.

Thank you.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) And so you also have a problem with the left shoe, right?

That's correct.

Correct. And your problem here is that --

That's not -- that's not the right one. Sorry. Number 9. Number 9.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) The problem here is you say that the red extends beyond both the right sole and the left heel?

That's correct.

And that could just be a printing issue, couldn't it, sir?

Can you restate that.

Yeah. You're aware that colors can be changed very easily in a printing process, right?

Yes.

You can make this whole photo green if you wanted to?

Sure.

Okay. And if there's too much red in the printing, that could cause this kind of effect, couldn't it?

No, I wouldn't think so, not based on the rest of the photograph.

And diffused reflection that we discussed before could also cause this effect, right?

But it doesn't anywhere else on the shoes.

But it could cause it on the shoes -- well, the shoes are closest to the reflective surface?

If you got the reflective surface itself which has no such effect --

Sir, try to answer my question.

I think I just did.

No, I don't think you did.

Your Honor, I object to Mr. Gelblum --

I object to the witness not answering the questions.

Okay. Answer the question.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) The shoes are closest to the reflective surface, right?

Yes.

And couldn't the red that you see be a result of the reflection from the surrounding surfaces?

Objection, asked and answered.

Overruled.

I think not.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) You don't think it's possible?

I don't think that's what we're seeing. It extends beyond the physical surface itself.

Okay. Would you agree that the general lighting in this photograph is from the back -- roughly from the back?

I'll put up the whole photograph. You can take that down. (Mr. Foster complies.)

(BY MR. GELBLUM) The light seems to be coming from his right and behind a little bit?

No, I can't agree with that at all.

Okay. In any event, sir, are you aware that the kind of red aura that you claim to see in that picture is something that happens with back-lit objects?

Under certain lighting and atmospheric circumstances, I guess it could.

Okay.

Why only one picture? Why not all the rest?

We've already discussed, sir, that this is the only picture on the whole roll where somebody is walking and on a red surface, haven't we?

No, I don't believe we have.

You do have memory problems?

Objection, argumentative.

Overruled. He testified to that at the last session he was a witness at.

Yes, I have problems with memory.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Quite severe sometimes, right?

It happens.

Let me go on to the next point. You said something about you had a problem with the exposure, right, exposure between various photographs?

That's correct.

Now, exposure in a photograph depends on, oh, a whole host of factors, right?

Yes.

The size of the opening of the shutter when it's open is one factor?

Um-hum.

Right?

Yes.

And amount of time the shutter is open?

When you say shutter, you mean aperture?

Aperture.

Okay.

The time that the shutter is open?

That's correct.

The film speed?

Yes.

The amount of light at the moment the photo is clicked?

That's correct.

All sorts of things?

Um-hum.

Now, you've taken lots of pictures in your life, right?

Yes.

And you've had pictures where some of the pictures on the roll are exposed properly and some are not exposed properly?

That's correct.

You've even had situations where you got a good exposure followed by bad exposure followed by good exposure, right?

Depending on the camera, yes.

Now, what you said about this on direct examination -- I'm going to read it. I want to make sure we get it exactly right.

It's page 194, Mr. Leonard, from December 18.

Your Honor, I object unless there can be a foundation laid with this inconsistent statement.

Overruled.

Are you there?

194?

Yes, lines 3 to 11.

Of the trial testimony?

Yes. It says, "The ones near Mr. Simpson" -- I'm sorry, could you put up 1832 again.

The same?

1832, the contact sheet, yes. (Exhibit 1832 is displayed.)

Thank you.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) (Reading:). The ones near Mr. Simpson are extremely overexposed and they're the only ones that are overexposed, indicating that perhaps someone had tried, at some point, to balance frames of him to the mean roll and perhaps did not bother to make any kind of a correction around the ones close to him. It's conjecture, but there is a problem with that because the exposures are so dead on for all the rest. Do you recall that testimony?

Pretty much, yes.

And the one from Mr. Simpson is dead on, too, right?

Can -- can we focus that and top light it. (Elmo is adjusted.)

Okay. Mr. Groden, the exposure from Mr. Simpson is dead on as well? That was the point of your testimony?

Yes.

Okay. Now, sir, isn't it true that, unless you're looking for conspiracies everywhere you go in life, to the extent there's any problem with the exposures in this, the problem is that the two that are overexposed -- are overexposed, that's the only problem, isn't it?

Your Honor, I object. That's argumentative.

Overruled.

Can you repeat the question.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Yeah. The only problem with the exposures on this contact sheet is that these two, numbers 2 and 3, are overexposed, that's the only problem, right? The other exposures, including the one of Mr. Simpson, are perfectly exposed, right?

Yes, they're all normal except those two.

Now, when Mr. Simpson was -- I'm sorry -- Mr. Leonard was examining you, you added another point that you didn't make at your deposition having to do with moisture. Do you recall that?

In response to a question?

Yes, from Mr. Leonard.

I believe, if I remember correctly, I was asked whether I noticed any moisture on the shoe or on the field, and I answered as I recall.

No, no, you answered more than that. You answered you would have expected to see some moisture on the side or sole of the shoe or even some splashing where the heel hit the ground. Do you recall that?

Based on the representation that it had been raining that morning, yes.

Yeah. Who made that representation to you?

I don't recall.

Well, did you talk to any defense lawyer besides Mr. Leonard?

I've spoken with several of them.

Which one told you it was raining that morning, sir?

I don't recall. As I remember, it was -- I was told it -- or it was in the deposition somewhere along the line.

Well, I'll tell you it wasn't in the deposition. Okay. Who told you?

I don't recall.

When did they tell you?

I don't recall that either.

After the deposition, right?

Again, I don't recall.

Want to put up 2291 again, please. (Exhibit 2291 is displayed.)

(BY MR. GELBLUM) You didn't mention this point at the deposition, did you?

Wasn't a major point for me.

Well, please answer -- listen to my question and the answers will go much faster. You didn't mention it in the deposition, did you?

The answer is no.

Yet you said in court, on that stand that it was one of the first things you looked for when you went to Buffalo, right? Do you recall that?

I don't recall saying that, no.

You went to Buffalo before the deposition, didn't you?

That's correct.

You never mentioned this at the deposition, did you?

About moisture?

Yeah.

No.

In fact, Mr. Leonard is the one who told you to mention it on the stand?

I don't know.

That's a point he told you to make?

I was asked during the testimony if I saw any moisture. I said no.

You were prepared for that, sir, weren't you? You didn't hear that for the first time on the stand?

I told you I heard that it had been wet on the field.

That's correct.

Argumentative, asked and answered.

The answer may remain.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) This is a whole kind of different point. Your other points have to do with photographic anomalies?

That's correct.

This isn't a photographic anomaly, is it?

No.

You don't expect to see moisture if the field was in fact wet?

That's correct.

You have no personal information whatsoever about the field was wet at the time that picture was taken, do you?

No.

You weren't there, right?

Of course not.

You never physically observed, visually observed anything yourself -- anything yourself to show you that the field was wet, have you?

No.

You looked at the whole contact sheet, right?

That's correct.

Nobody else's shoes are wet, are they?

No.

Nobody else splashing around there?

No.

So why would you expect to see Mr. Simpson's shoes wet?

Your Honor, I object. This is argumentative.

Overruled.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) So why would you expect Mr. Simpson's shoes to be wet, sir?

I heard that it had been raining, I don't remember from where, but I would have expected that if it had been raining, his shoes would have been wet. It's not --

Sir, when you looked at other contact sheets, nobody else's shoes are wet, are they?

No.

Your Honor, I object, argumentative, asked and answered.

You've gone through that twice.

Okay.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Did you talk to a single person that was at the game?

No.

You talk to Mr. Simpson?

No.

So obviously, if the field was not wet, you wouldn't expect to see moisture, would you?

No.

Now, I want to try and figure out exactly what you're saying about this picture, sir. By the way, have I listed all the points you made about the picture that make you think that it's probably a fake?

All the points that we discussed, yes, I believe so.

I want you to tell the jury what you think was faked on this picture. Are you telling the jury, sir -- I'll withdraw that question. Are you telling the jury that somebody went in and put new shoes on a picture of Mr. Simpson?

That's a possibility, yes.

Is that what you're telling the jury?

I'm saying it's a possibility, yes.

Are you saying that's what happened?

I'm saying it's a possibility.

Are you saying somebody put new pants on Mr. Simpson?

Partial. It is possible. Partial. I don't think that somebody put a whole new set of pants.

You are aware Mr. Simpson admitted, when he was sitting in the same chair you're sitting in, the top part of the picture is, in fact, a picture of him, his head, his upper torso, his hands, his tie, his shirt, his jacket?

I was not present for his testimony.

Assume that's true.

If you want me to assume it --

Assuming that's true, what you're saying is that you think there's a possibility that somebody went in and took an existing picture of Mr. Simpson at that game, on that field, and put new pants and new shoes on his body? Is that what you're saying?

That's a possibility.

A one percent possibility?

I'd say a very large possibility. I can't -- I can't quantify that.

What? What quantity?

I can't. I just told you.

More than 50?

I'd say much more than 50.

More than 60?

Yes.

More than 65?

You're playing games, aren't you? I'm sorry --

Mr. Groden, you're up here in a very important trial.

Just a minute. You don't need that.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Groden, more than 65 percent?

Yes.

More than 70 percent?

Yes.

More than 75 percent?

Yes.

More than 80 percent?

Would you give me the question one more time, exactly as you phrased it.

If somebody went and took a picture of Mr. Simpson --

Um-hum.

-- that had been taken on September 26, 1993, in that location, the end zone of Rich Stadium in Buffalo, and put on new pants and new shoes.

I'm saying it's an extremely high possibility. I would say, to stop this, I would say greater than a 90 percent probability either the pants and/or the shoes were -- or the shoes alone were changed. If indeed that was a legitimate picture of Mr. Simpson in the first place.

Well, let's -- we'll find out what your opinion is. Was it a legitimate picture of Mr. Simpson in the first place? Bear in mind, sir, Mr. Simpson has admitted that the top part of the picture is in fact a picture of him wearing those clothes at that game.

I have no way of knowing whether there was a legitimate picture like this prior to this or not.

What do you mean?

If this picture is a composite, as I believe it to be, the whole thing could have been manufactured. I don't know that -- there could have been a whole separate picture of Mr. Simpson that I'm not even aware of. I don't know.

Taken where, on Mars?

Your Honor, I object.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Taken where?

Overruled.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Taken where?

I don't know.

Mr. Simpson -- we have a videotape that we showed of Mr. Simpson at the game. Would you like to see it?

I don't care.

At the game -- did you see the videotape?

Yes.

You've seen the videotape. He's wearing the same tie and the same shirt and the same jacket and the same pants. Have you seen that videotape?

Yes. The tonal values of the tie are different, but I would probably say it's probably the same outfit.

Well, Mr. Simpson said it's the same, so he ought to know.

I don't doubt it.

Okay. Given all that, you still think that this was not a picture taken at this game on this day?

I have no way of knowing. I didn't take the picture. You want me to assume that I know for a fact that it was taken that day, I don't know that.

You're being passed off to this jury as a photo expert. We're entitled to your opinion about what's going on with this picture.

Your Honor, I object. This witness was qualified by you as an expert in a hearing. I object to passed off. I think it's argumentative; it also misstates the state of the record.

The record is that I am not vouching for this or any other expert put on by anybody, and I don't think that's an appropriate comment for you to leave with the jury. I'm not vouching for any expert, whether it's the plaintiff expert or defense expert.

Your Honor, I object to this remark, passed off. I object to that.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Groden, in your expert --

Your Honor, I'd like a ruling.

Overruled.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) In your expert opinion, sir, was this a photograph taken of Mr. Simpson at this football game on this day in this end zone and somebody went back and put new shoes and pants on him?

And/or pants, yes. It's my opinion --

And --

It's my opinion that it could very well have been a legitimate photograph initially; in other words, there may have been a photograph of him that has in some way been altered.

And in some way -- is it greater than 90 percent chance that the way it was altered -- that new pants and new shoes were put on him?

New pants and/or --

Well --

-- certainly --

Is there --

I would say certainly shoes, yes, or -- or if, in fact, they're the shoes, have not been changed, that they have been altered in some way.

It's a very important point, sir. I want to be specific. Are you saying there's a greater than 90 percent chance that somebody put new shoes on this picture of Mr. Simpson?

Based on my analysis of the photograph, I would say yes.

And what were the original shoes?

I have no idea.

But they weren't these, right, wouldn't make any sense to replace the same shoes, right?

No.

And one of the points you made and missed, but I will, that this is the first frame on the roll, remember mentioning that with Mr. Leonard?

Um-hum. Yes.

And you found that significant 'cause that's the easiest to alter, right?

Yes.

Of course not.

Your Honor, I object.

Sustained.

Excuse me one minute, Your Honor. (Pause.)

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, when we were here last time, you talked a little bit in the course of reading the deposition excerpt that one of the things you had done recently in looking at whether a photograph was altered or not in another situation was you saw a picture of a road sign in Dealey Plaza where Mr. Kennedy was shot purported to show a bullet hole in it?

That's correct.

One of the reasons you were suspicious about that, you had seen other photographs of that road sign taken on that day and had never seen a bullet hole before?

I don't know that they testified to that, but it is accurate, yes.

So one thing that you do when you're determining authenticity of a photograph is to see whether you can find other photographs of the same object, the same scene, the same day, to see whether what you're looking at is in those photographs as well?

That would be part of it, yes.

So if there were other photographs of Mr. Simpson taken on this same day, at this same game, in this same stadium, and he's wearing the same outfit, and they're taken by a different photographer, with a different camera, and he's wearing the same pants and same shoes, that would affect your opinion, wouldn't it, sir?

Your Honor, I'm going to object. There's a lack of foundation basis. Same basis for the objection I made prior as well.

We'll tie it up.

Based on the affidavit or declaration filed on this -- in support of plaintiffs' position, motion overruled.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Can you answer the question, please.

Will you finish -- will you repeat the question or finish it.

Sir, if there were other photographs of Mr. Simpson taken on the same day, September 26, 1993, in the same stadium, same football game, different camera, different photographer, and Mr. Simpson has the same clothes on, same jacket, same tie, same shirt, same belt, same pants, same shoes, wouldn't that compel you to conclude that your testimony that these shoes have been put on is wrong?

Same objection.

No.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) It wouldn't?

It would not change what I found in the photograph.

You've answered the question.

I did.

Let me show you some photographs, sir.

Your Honor, this is outside the scope. Also, based on the previous answer, these are irrelevant at this point.

Overruled.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) See a photograph here of Mr. Simpson with five other gentlemen standing on a football field?

Yes.

Okay. And here's an enlargement of the bottom half of that photograph. Do you see that? Do you see the shoes Mr. Simpson is wearing?

Yes.

Okay. Show you some more.

Your Honor, these are our only prints. If I may, I'd like to pass them around to the jury once Mr. Groden has looked at them.

If you want to. Mark them.

I'll mark the first one, the group photo --

2295.

2295. (The instrument herein described as a group photo was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2295.)

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Does 2295 change your opinion, sir?

About what I found?

About whether -- about your opinion that somebody added shoes to Mr. Scull's photograph.

Doesn't change my opinion at all.

Okay.

Mark the next one, which is an enlargement of the bottom half of 2295. That's 2296. (The instrument herein described as an enlargement of bottom half of Exhibit 2295 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2296.)

(BY MR. GELBLUM) I ask you if that one changes your opinion, sir?

Does not.

Okay.

Mark next in order a photograph of Mr. Simpson signing an autograph for the white-haired gentleman with the blue jacket with a camera in his hand. It's 2297. That shows Mr. Simpson's shoes. (The instrument herein described as a photograph of Mr. Simpson with a white-haired gentleman in a blue jacket with a camera in his hand was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2297.)

(BY MR. GELBLUM) I ask you if that changes your opinion?

No.

Okay. Show you an enlargement of the bottom half of 2297 --

Which we'll mark as 2298. (The instrument herein described as enlargement of bottom half of Exhibit 2297 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2298.)

I ask you if 2298 changes your opinion?

No, it doesn't.

Show you another photograph of Mr. Simpson with another one of the gentlemen who were in 2295, this gentleman is wearing a blue shirt, blue pants and a dark blue jacket and brown shoes.

We'll mark that next in order.

2299.

2299. (The instrument herein described as a photograph of Mr. Simpson with a gentleman wearing a blue shirt, blue pants and a dark blue jacket and brown shoes was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2299.)

(BY MR. GELBLUM) And I ask you if that changes your opinion?

It does not.

And I'll show you an enlargement of the bottom half of 2299.

Which will be 2300. (The instrument herein described as an enlargement of bottom half of Exhibit 2299 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2300.)

(BY MR. GELBLUM) And I ask you if that changes your opinion, your opinion being that somebody went in and added Bruno Magli shoes to Mr. Scull's photograph?

Does not change my opinion at all.

Show you another photograph of another gentlemen who's in the overall picture.

We'll mark this as 2301. This gentleman has his jacket buttoned, he's wearing tan slacks and a brown plaid jacket. (The instrument herein described as a photograph of Mr. Simpson with a gentleman wearing a brown plaid jacket and tan slacks was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2301.)

I ask you if 2301 changes your opinion?

Does not.

And I'll show you an enlargement of the bottom half of 2301.

We'll mark that 2302. (The instrument herein described as an enlargement of bottom half of Exhibit 2301 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2302.)

(BY MR. GELBLUM) And I ask you if that changes your opinion?

Does not.

Finally, sir, I'll show you two contact sheets.

We'll mark the first one as 2303, the contact sheet on which these enlargements appear, and on this contact sheet, 2303, there are a total of 27 images of Mr. Simpson with these various gentlemen, all of which show Mr. Simpson's feet and shoes. (The instrument herein described as a contact sheet containing 27 images of Mr. Simpson was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2303.)

(BY MR. GELBLUM) And I ask you if that changes your opinion?

Nope.

And finally, it's -- 2304, another contact sheet, in the same game as the first three photographs, making a total of 30 photographs of Mr. Simpson with shoes on. (The instrument herein described as a contact sheet containing 30 photographs of Mr. Simpson was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2304.)

(BY MR. GELBLUM) And I ask you if that changes your opinion?

Does not.

Okay.

May I pass these to the jury, Your Honor?

You may.

Same objection.

Overruled.

I'm going to put the contact sheets on top because they're smaller. (Jurors review exhibits.)

Your Honor, these photographs haven't been admitted into evidence.

I'll let the jury review them --

We'll tie them up.

-- On the representation and declaration filed by plaintiff.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, Mr. Groden, you noticed, I assume, that in these photographs Mr. Simpson has a handkerchief in his pocket?

That's correct.

He doesn't have one in the photograph of him wearing the shoes that Mr. Scull took?

That's correct.

You know he does have the handkerchief in the videotape?

I don't recall the videotape.

Did you see any sign of moisture on any of these photographs I just showed you?

Yes.

You did. Where was that, sir?

The --

Which one would you like?

I'm not sure which one it was. This one. 2302. (Witness indicates to Exhibit 2302.)

You're pointing to darker spots on the leather?

Yes, which could well be moisture. It's a possibility.

You see any moisture on the field?

Nope.

And you don't know what those dark spots are?

No.

Could this be a difference in the brush of the leather, could be a number of things, right, sir?

Could be any number of things. On 2300 it shows it as well.

It being the darker spots on the shoes?

Yes.

Okay. Now, you knew about these photos before you took the stand today, right?

I heard about them, yes.

And you discussed them with Mr. Leonard before you took the stand, didn't you?

That's correct.

Okay. You discussed what you're going to say about them?

No.

You discussed the pictures?

Yes.

Now, your bottom line opinion, sir, on the photograph of Mr. Scull -- by Mr. Scull showing Mr. Simpson wearing the Bruno Magli shoes, is that you think on balance it's probably not genuine, it's probably a fake, but you're not sure; isn't that correct?

No one could be 100 percent sure.

Please answer my question.

On balance, yes.

But you're not sure, correct?

No.

Am I correct that you're not sure?

Would you put up the deposition, please. This is page 14, lines 5 to 12.

Massive is the wrong word. I would say overwhelming.

Your bottom line opinion here is that you observed what you perceive are some problems with the negative?

Yes.

I'd say that that's accurate, yeah. Now, particularly after seeing these new photographs of Mr. Simpson wearing the same shoes, isn't it particularly clear that you're not sure about these, about Mr. Scull's photos?

It doesn't change my opinion, no.

Okay.

No further questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case, don't form or express an opinion. (Recess.) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY

Good morning, Mr. Groden?