Re-redirect examination of Robert Groden

📄 Re-redirect examination of Robert Groden — Monday, January 6, 1997

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1997\JAN\6\RE-REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-ROB.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 36 of 57

◀ Redirect examination of Robert Groden Direct examination of Rolf Rokahr ▶

Witness: Robert Groden
Examiner: Dan Leonard
Called by: Defense • Date: Monday, January 6, 1997 • Utterances: 113

Plaintiff's counsel Gelblum recrossed defense photo expert Robert Groden, pressing him on the logical consistency of his opinion that OJ Simpson's shoes were digitally added to the 'Scull photo.' Gelblum forced Groden to concede that if 30 authenticated photographs of Simpson wearing the same Bruno Magli shoes existed — including ones published before the murders — that would affect his overall conclusion. The proceeding ended with a batch of exhibits moved into evidence and a transition to the Rokahr Rolf deposition.

# 1 A:

None at all, no.

# 2 MR. LEONARD:

I don't have any further questions.

# 3 MR. GELBLUM:

Just a few, Your Honor. Put 1832 up, please. (Exhibit 1832 displayed.) RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY

# 4 A:

Last point. We were just talking about, Mr. Groden, would be a what you call the disappearing point.

# 5 MR. PETROCELLI:

Vanishing.

# 6 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) The vanishing point?

# 7 A:

Yes.

# 8 Q:

If you're looking at lines from the sideline, if you're looking at the lines as they're going around from you?

# 9 A:

Yes.

# 10 Q:

If you're looking at the lines so you're perpendicular to the lines --

# 11 MR. GELBLUM:

Can you focus on line -- on No. 12, please.

# 12 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) If you're looking at the lines across the field, rather on the field, looking down the field --

# 13 MR. GELBLUM:

Can you sharpen the lines in here, please, Steve, if you can.

# 14 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) There's no vanishing point, is there?

# 15 A:

There's the equivalent of a vanishing point.

# 16 Q:

What happens -- you said the lines get closer together as you go back, right?

# 17 A:

Equal distance, closer together, right.

# 18 MR. GELBLUM:

Take that down, Steve. (Indicating to Elmo.)

# 19 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, by the way, on that same point, we talked before the -- before the break we were talking about that image, we were talking about what could happen on the frame numbered 0, remember that, right?

# 20 A:

Yes.

# 21 Q:

And I asked you if there was a zero zero and you said no, that's silly, just a 0?

# 22 A:

No, I said -- you said zero zero zero.

# 23 Q:

There is a zero zero?

# 24 A:

There is a zero, there is a zero zero.

# 25 Q:

You saw that on these contact sheets?

# 26 A:

No, I didn't look.

# 27 Q:

You want to look?

# 28 A:

If you like.

# 29 Q:

Your see a zero zero?

# 30 A:

Yes.

# 31 Q:

Now, Mr. Leonard asked you a whole bunch of questions about the scratches. Are you now conceding that that blue line is in fact a scratch, sir?

# 32 A:

I'm not conceding it. I'm saying if it is a scratch then there are certain issues that relate to it.

# 33 Q:

If it is a scratch that supports your point about alignment, right?

# 34 A:

Yes.

# 35 Q:

But if it's not a scratch it doesn't support your point about alignment, right, at least that mark doesn't, right?

# 36 MR. LEONARD:

Objection, Your Honor, lack of foundation, vague.

# 37 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 38 A:

My point as to the alignment doesn't rely on that scratch, it's just a point. You said it was a scratch, you.

# 39 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Well, you just went through a whole series of questions with Mr. Leonard about the scratch. Remember that he called it a scratch. If this is a scratch, if it is a scratch, right?

# 40 A:

Yes.

# 41 Q:

Remember that?

# 42 A:

Oh, sure.

# 43 Q:

Is it a scratch?

# 44 A:

I don't think that it's a scratch. It appears there's more than one.

# 45 Q:

If it's not a scratch, then everything you just did with Mr. Leonard -- we can do this outright. Everything you did with Mr. Leonard about the scratch being equal distance or not equal distance from the frame?

# 46 A:

No matter what, it is a parallel line to the sprocket holes. Therefore, it still proves the point whether there's a scratch or not.

KEY QUOTE

# 47 Q:

You just don't know whether it's a scratch or not?

# 48 A:

No.

# 49 Q:

Now, you talked about the strokes you had which were caused by a fall?

# 50 A:

That's correct.

# 51 Q:

At a Toyota dealership?

# 52 A:

That's correct.

# 53 Q:

That also affected your vision, didn't it?

# 54 A:

It affected my -- Yes.

# 55 Q:

Blurriness in your right eye?

# 56 A:

Yes. Actually, a slightly detached retina.

KEY QUOTE

# 57 Q:

Now, you said that the -- I think you said something about if you saw 100 new photos of Mr. Simpson wearing the same shoes, that it wouldn't make a difference to you in your analysis of the Scull photo?

# 58 A:

Doesn't change my mind.

# 59 Q:

Doesn't change that you say you saw a retouching mark, you say you saw a problem with the length, and all those things we went through, right?

# 60 A:

Yes.

# 61 Q:

On at least some of them you said there could be an innocent explanation like exposures, this could be a scratch as opposed to some other problem, right?

# 62 A:

Theoretically.

# 63 Q:

Okay. So if you see 100 other photos or 30 other photos of Mr. Simpson wearing this same exact outfit including the same exact shoes, doesn't that have some bearing on your opinion -- on your conclusion that you draw from these observations that somebody added shoes to the Scull photo?

# 64 A:

I don't know that those are the same shoes. I don't know.

# 65 Q:

Assume for a second they're the same shoes, okay. Please assume they're the same shoes.

# 66 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor --

# 67 THE COURT:

I --

# 68 MR. GELBLUM:

I want to ask a hypothetical to this.

# 69 MR. LEONARD:

There's no basis for that.

# 70 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 71 MR. GELBLUM:

We'll tie it up.

# 72 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Assume they're the same shoes, Mr. Groden, assume we've seen 30 other photographs with those shoes. Doesn't that affect your opinion that the Scull photo -- somebody put new shoes on the Scull photo?

# 73 A:

It doesn't affect at all what I found in the photographs; the anomalies are there.

KEY QUOTE

# 74 Q:

You're not answering my question. I'm asking about the conclusion that you draw from the anomalies. Let's assume for a second that you really saw everything that you say you saw, retouching marks, blue lines, length issues, all that stuff, let's say you saw all that, If, however, you see 30 other photographs of Mr. Simpson wearing those shoes, doesn't that cause you to pause a little bit and say wait, maybe there's some other explanation for those observations I saw, other than somebody putting new shoes on him, because here's 30 other pictures of him with those same shoes; yes or no?

# 75 A:

If I were able to authenticate the other photographs as genuine then it probably would.

# 76 Q:

Okay. Thank you. Now, Mr. Leonard also referred to this -- let me use the word "miraculous" discovery of those pictures. Do you remember that?

# 77 A:

Yes.

# 78 Q:

You're aware, sir, that one of those photographs was published in November 1993?

# 79 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, I'm going to object to this.

# 80 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 81 MR. LEONARD:

Thank you.

# 82 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) If you were --

# 83 MR. LEONARD:

I move to strike, Your Honor.

# 84 THE COURT:

Stricken.

# 85 Q:

Did you do any searching of any publications, sir, to see if there had been any published photos of Mr. Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes prior to the murders?

# 86 A:

No.

# 87 Q:

Wouldn't that make a difference to you if there were, in fact, photos of him published prior to any issue arising, what kind of shoes Mr. Simpson owned before these murders occurred and Bruno Magli footprints were found at the scene?

# 88 A:

Again, to answer your question as accurately as I can, it wouldn't change what I found in that photograph.

# 89 Q:

Again, Mr. Groden, we're talking about your conclusion that you have -- you're drawing from what you found in the photograph. Just as you said, if you found that there were other photographs, if they were found to be authentic, of Mr. Simpson wearing those shoes, that might indeed change your conclusion that you draw from your observations about the shoes being added, if, in fact, you found that a photograph had been published prior to the murders --

# 90 MR. LEONARD:

Objection.

# 91 Q:

-- of Mr. Simpson wearing those Bruno Magli shoes as he's seen wearing in the Scull photograph, wouldn't that affect the conclusion you draw from your observations?

# 92 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, improper, hypothetical.

# 93 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 94 A:

If the photographers -- if I could confirm -- if I confirm that the photographs are legitimate, and if they can be proven that those were, in fact, Bruno Magli shoes in the photographs, I would say that it would affect my -- my overall conclusion.

KEY QUOTE

# 95 MR. GELBLUM:

No further questions.

# 96 ROBERT GRODEN:

But --

# 97 MR. LEONARD:

Nothing, Your Honor.

# 98 THE COURT:

You may step down.

# 99 MR. GELBLUM:

Your Honor, I'd like to move into evidence the following exhibits: 1832, 1921, 1924, 1930, 2071, 2072, 2076, 2284, 2286 through 2291, and 2295 through 2304. (The instrument herein described as Photograph of defendant was Marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 1832.) (The instrument herein described as Photograph was marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 2072.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendant's Exhibit No. 1921) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendant's Exhibit No. 1924) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendant's Exhibit No 1930) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendant's Exhibit No 2282.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendant's Exhibit No 2284.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendant's Exhibit No 2286.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2291.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendant's Exhibit No 2295.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendant's Exhibit No 2304.)

# 100 THE COURT:

I'm not going to receive those until --

# 101 MR. GELBLUM:

Those last ones, okay. Also, there was one I used and I did not mark when we were here before, which is the article from the Globe Magazine.

# 102 THE COURT:

I won't receive that until you authenticate that.

# 103 MR. GELBLUM:

Mr. Groden authenticated that's what he said it was. I didn't give it a number, what the next -- not Globe article.

# 104 MR. LEONARD:

We don't have any objection to that.

# 105 THE COURT:

All right it's received.

# 106 THE CLERK:

That will be marked as 2305.

# 107 MR. GELBLUM:

Thank you. (The instrument herein referred to as Globe publication was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2305.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No 2305.)

# 108 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, we move in 1832, 1833, 1835, and 2282.

# 109 THE COURT:

Okay. Received. (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1832 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1833 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1835 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2282 was received in evidence.)

# 110 MR. LEONARD:

Thank you, Your Honor.

# 111 THE COURT:

Next.

MR. P. BAKER: We're going to read the deposition of Rothcar Rolf.

# 112 MR. LEONARD:

We need to retrieve an exhibit from the back room. I get to be the witness this time, Your Honor. (Selected portions of the deposition of Rothcar Rolf were read by Defendants' Counsel, Mr. P. Baker reading the questions, and Mr. Leonard reading the answers.) ROKAHR ROLF, was called as a witness on behalf of the Defendants, was duly sworn, and testified as follows:

MR. P. BAKER: Page 5, line 7. (Reading:)

# 113 Q:

Can you please state your name for the record.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Groden

It doesn't affect at all what I found in the photographs; the anomalies are there.

Groden resists connecting his observations to his conclusions — Gelblum's key line of attack is that the two are inseparable.

Groden

If the photographers -- if I could confirm -- if I confirm that the photographs are legitimate, and if they can be proven that those were, in fact, Bruno Magli shoes in the photographs, I would say that it would affect my -- my overall conclusion.

The critical concession Gelblum was driving toward — authenticated photos of Simpson in the shoes would undermine Groden's forgery conclusion.

Groden

No matter what, it is a parallel line to the sprocket holes. Therefore, it still proves the point whether there's a scratch or not.

Groden tries to preserve his alignment argument even after being cornered on whether the blue line is actually a scratch.

Groden

Actually, a slightly detached retina.

Gelblum elicits that Groden's stroke also caused a partially detached retina — directly undermining his credibility as a photo analyst.

Evidence (5)

Defendant's Exhibit 1832

Photograph of defendant (the Scull photo at issue)

displayed, moved into evidence

Defendant's Exhibits 1833, 1835

Photographs (related Scull series)

received into evidence

Defendant's Exhibit 2282

Photograph

received into evidence

Plaintiff's Exhibits 1921, 1924, 1930, 2071, 2072, 2076, 2284, 2286-2291, 2295-2304

Photographs of Simpson, partially received

moved into evidence; some deferred pending authentication

Plaintiff's Exhibit 2305

Globe magazine publication

marked and received after Leonard stated no objection

Notable Exchanges (4)

Gelblum•Groden

Gelblum methodically forced Groden to distinguish between his observations (anomalies in the photo) and his conclusion (shoes were added). After Groden repeatedly conflated the two, Gelblum extracted the concession that authenticated pre-murder photos of Simpson in Bruno Magli shoes would change his conclusion.

strategic

Gelblum•Groden

Gelblum questioned Groden about strokes from a fall at a Toyota dealership and a partially detached retina affecting his vision — implicitly challenging his qualifications as a photo analyst.

undermining

Gelblum•Groden•Leonard

Gelblum tried to reference a photograph published in November 1993 but Leonard objected and the court sustained and struck the reference, preventing that line of questioning.

procedural

Leonard•Court

Leonard joked 'I get to be the witness this time, Your Honor' when he volunteered to read the Rokahr Rolf deposition answers.

light

Light Moments (1)

Leonard

Leonard volunteered to read the deponent's answers in the Rokahr Rolf deposition reading, quipping 'I get to be the witness this time, Your Honor.'

Credibility Attacks (3)

⚔ Groden

medical condition/physical limitation

Gelblum elicited that Groden suffered strokes from a fall at a Toyota dealership and has a partially detached retina affecting his vision — attacking his ability to reliably analyze photographic anomalies.

⚔ Groden

internal inconsistency

Gelblum exposed that Groden could not confirm whether the blue line was a scratch, undermining the entire series of questions Leonard had just walked him through on that point.

⚔ Groden

failure to investigate

Gelblum established that Groden never searched publications to determine if photos of Simpson in Bruno Magli shoes had been published before the murders — suggesting confirmation bias in his analysis.

Objections

5 objections (1 sustained, 3 overruled)

Proceeding 8747 • 113 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103