Before we get into some of the substance here I want to go through, based on some of Mr. Gelblum's questions in cross-examination, some of your background again. Mr. Gelblum asked you on cross-examination about your experience in the military and particularly the reason for and the basis for your leaving the military. Do you remember that?
A sergeant in my company was drunk and beat me up and to keep it under the rug, they gave me a discharge because of an existing sinus problem that I had that they weren't able to deal with. That was the excuse, but the real reason was, in fact, I had been beaten up by the sergeant.
(BY MR. LEONARD) Now, do you think that the fact that you were beaten up -- by the way, how old were you, sir?
Do you think the fact that you were beaten up when you were 18 years old by an anti-Semitic sergeant has anything to do with your ability to observe the phenomena that you observed and also to explain them to the jury?
Mr. Gelblum asked you about strokes that you had had. How did you happen to have strokes, can you explain that to the jury?
About two years ago I was walking in a parking lot and slipped on a patch of ice and hit my head, which precipitated a series of strokes.
Do you think that has affected your ability whatsoever to analyze the photograph and to explain your analysis to the jury?
Now, Mr. Gelblum got into some extent your experience with the House Assassination Committee. Do you remember that?
And in particular he was asking you if you had done any actual analysis of photographs on behalf of, or in conjunction with your work with the Kennedys, do you remember those questions?
Okay. And you were working in conjunction -- you weren't a member of the panel, you were working in conjunction with the panel; is that correct?
And was there -- did there come a time when a proficiency test was undertaken of the panel and that you participated in that? In other words, a test to determine the proficiency of the experts and also yourself in analyzing and determining whether the photographs are fake or real?
A few members of the photo panel were assigned to create four sets of photographs, genuine photographs that look genuine, genuine photographs that appear to be fake, fake photographs that appear genuine, and fake photographs that were obviously fake. And the set of all four of those were placed as a package, they were numbered and packaged, and a written test was given to the entire photo panel and myself to determine the ability to detect phonies and to detect fake phonies, in fact.
Mr. Gelblum asked you if you had dropped out of high school. Did you drop out of high school, sir?
We didn't have very much money and my going to school and remaining there was a strain on my mother. My mother and father had just separated and it was my sister, myself and my mother, and it was a real financial drain on her.
When I was in the army I took the general equivalency diploma, GED test and passed it with flying colors, and also got a year's college credit the same way.
Does the fact that you had to drop out of high school, you think that affects your ability to do the analysis you did here and to explain your results to the jury; you think that affects it at all, sir?
Mr. Gelblum asked you about a situation where you had contributed to a story to the Globe newspaper. Do you remember that?
(BY MR. LEONARD) Explain to the jury, No. 1, what that -- what the story was, in general terms, and whether or not it was your purpose to sell photographs as opposed to the story itself, sir?
When I was a staff photographic consultant to the House Assassinations Committee I had made the discovery that the autopsy photographs of President Kennedy, at least some of them, were questionable as to their authenticity based on physical anomalies within the photograph itself, and my knowledge of the statements of Dallas doctors who had worked on President Kennedy in the lifesaving efforts on November 22nd of '63, and also of medical personnel who had worked on the -- on the president after that time and in Bethesda Naval Hospital. The photographs did not show what was described by every one of the doctors. I had gone to the Chief Counsel of the House Committee which was Professor Blakey and suggested, very strongly, perhaps it would be a good idea to show those questionable photographs to the Dallas doctors to determine their authenticity. For two solid years Professor Blakey refused to do it. When the committee broke up and didn't exist anymore I was very disturbed by the fact that this had not been resolved, so I took copies of autopsy photographs and went to the Dallas doctors and other witnesses who dealt with the body, including Dealey Plaza witnesses, and I showed them the photographs, and every single one of them without exception said that the photographs were indeed fake, and I then knew that I was correct. And I felt that the public needed to know this, I thought it was a major issue, and an issue of the Kennedy assassination.
Now, was -- was the Globe, the Globe newspaper your first choice of a medium to get this out to the public, sir?
Did you -- had you attempted to go to other publications to try to get this story out to people?
Now, Mr. Gelblum also asked you about the backyard photograph of Oswald; do you remember that?
Now, there was -- there were some people in the committee that agreed and some that disagreed with regard to that; is that true, sir?
Subsequent to your analysis -- by the way, there are others who agreed with you in that respect; is that correct?
Yes, within the committee. Also photographic experts for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Scotland Yard have also agreed.
Now, when you were on cross-examination today, you were shown some photographs of the court to show Mr. Simpson wearing particular shoes and particular clothing. When was the first time you've ever seen those photographs?
Mr. Gelblum asked you if we had spoken about the photographs. Did we speak about the photographs?
Was it your understanding, sir, that those photographs have just been miraculously discovered since you testified here last?
(BY MR. LEONARD) Is it your understanding, sir, that those photographs have just arisen for the first time since you testified here?
Do you have any idea who created the photograph, when the photograph was taken, whether or not the photograph was sold to a tabloid or anything like that, sir?
Now, you said to this jury that seeing those photographs for a short period of time, just glimpsing them does not change your opinion about your analysis of this photograph. Tell the jury why, sir.
The anomalies, the problems that I found within that photograph are still there. Existence of other photographs that have not been verified, which I haven't had a chance to examine, don't change the fact that the problems of that photograph are there, they certainly are, and 100 more pictures are not going to change that.
KEY QUOTENow, let's get -- let's talk a little bit about a couple of other points that Mr. Gelblum raised on cross-examination about the photograph itself.
I'd like to put up the first image, please. I don't believe this has been marked. Has it? Oh, it has.
MR. P. BAKER: This is 1835. (Exhibit 1835 displayed.)
Is there also a portion of the -- very small portion of the bottom edge or the side edge depending on how you look at it, of 1.2?
(BY MR. LEONARD) All right. Now, you see the vertical line -- and actually there appears to be two lines; there's one vertical line that runs -- it appears to run across from 1-1, to 1-2; do you see that, sir?
(BY MR. LEONARD) Have you had a chance to -- you've had a chance to look at this image, have you not, sir?
Okay. First of all, is there anything about this image that supports your opinion that this first, that 1.1 is -- is out of register? That is, that 1.1 is not aligned with 1.2?
It's extremely obvious here without -- without even measuring it, though I guess we could measure it if we want to, that the difference between -- the space between the scratch itself and the edge of frame 1-1 is much closer than it is on 1-2. 1-2 is, I'd say, probably twice as far away from the scratch, indicating even better than a straight edge that it's out of alignment.
Okay. Now, if this is -- if this is supposed to be a mechanical scratch from a camera, okay, would you assume that it would be straight?
(BY MR. LEONARD) Now, utilizing this same image, sir, is there another way that you can demonstrate the fact that this negative or this frame is out of line, out of register?
Yes. It's kind of difficult here because you can't see the sprocket holes, but by measuring the sprocket holes to the edge of the frame the picture is measurably closer to the sprocket holes on the right side as we view it than it is on the left.
(BY MR. LEONARD) Now, if you point out the outline of the sprocket hole, sir, in particular the left edge of the sprocket hole.
Can we try to focus a little more. Great. Okay. This is the left edge of the sprocket hole here and this is the edge of the frame.
Now, the distance between the -- that distance is larger than the distance on the right-hand side, that is the same measurement that is from the edge of the sprocket hole to the edge of the frame; is that right?
Now, you were asked questions about whether or not the negative could be out of line or out of register by virtue or as a result of some play or movement in the film; is that correct? Do you remember that?
And you expressed an opinion that it wouldn't be possible for it to be that out of line; is that correct?
Again, I want you to assume now that for purposes of my question that, in fact, the line along the right-hand side between the sprocket hole and the edge of the film is a mechanical scratch from the camera. Are you with me?
Okay. Does -- Would you expect the -- if there was movement in the film would you expect that line, that scratch to be straight, sir?
Okay. If there was movement, if there was play in the film and the film was jiggling, would you expect that line to be straight or would you expect that there would be indicia of the movement within the scratch, sir?
If the film were shifting from a -- running horizontally, it's shifting top to bottom, would you expect the scratch to be diagonal by the degree that the frames would be out, and that's not the case.
What you're saying is that if the camera was moving you'd expect to see a shift in the line; is that correct?
That's correct. In order for the -- in order for the frame to have been off because of film movement, you would expect that that line would be diagonal in the same direction as the shift of the frame.
So if it was shifting to the right you'd expect some shifting in the line; is that correct?
Now, if -- let's assume that that is a scratch from the camera in question, all right, the camera that was actually used to take whatever image was there before. If you were going to create a copy negative, a composite negative, and you wanted to hide your tracks would you use the same camera, sir?
Well, scratches from a camera could be I guess compared to fingerprints; they should be unique or unique to some degree to each camera. In other words, if there's a manufacturing flaw in one particular camera, a burr, for instance, that could cause a scratch and you wouldn't expect to find that on every camera.
Again, and we saw this happen in the investigation of the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald, scratches were determined to be linked to that particular camera. And in this particular case, if indeed these are scratches, that could be linked to that camera, you would want to have those scratches on the -- on the film.
Now, assuming that you're making a copy, composite negative, and you want to cover your tracks, what do you do with the camera once you -- what would you do with the camera once you created the copy negative?
This is frame 1-1 from the contact sheet showing the edge of the film against the edge of the contact sheet itself.
Now, you were asked on -- on cross-examination if that could be actually a photographic image on -- on what would be I guess 00, and in particular the photographic image of the football field. Can you explain to the jury how that is impossible, sir?
Okay. Mr. Baker, if you could just kind of come in and make this as large as possible, side to side, I'd appreciate it.
MR. P. BAKER: That's as high as it goes.
Upon the suggestion of Mr. Gelblum that this might be the football field, I have spent a little more time checking this out because it sounds so ridiculous and I found out that in fact it could not be that. No. 1, if this is the edge of an incoming frame line as he's suggesting, how is it that the so-called lines of the football field extend beyond the edge of the frame where no light could possibly hit. No. 1.
KEY QUOTEWell, how would you know how far the ball had traveled if you didn't have an accurate measurement between the lines. They would have to be an equal distance from each other. They'd have to have a vanishing point. If these were parallel lines and if the photographer were shooting away, either on purpose or by accident, there would be a vanishing point which is --
Why don't you -- let's put -- we can illustrate that. Why don't you put up -- with the Court's permission, I can put up the drawing pad.
No matter what the focal lengths of the lens is, whether it's a wide angle lens like a 28 or 35 millimeter or a normal lens like a 50 to 85 millimeter or a wide angle lens -- I'm sorry, a telephoto lens like a 500, 1500, something of that nature, I end up with something called a vanishing point. That's something used in art as well as photography, and that is at some point away from the lens you're going to have a point where parallel lines run together. If you stand on a railroad track and look towards the distance they tend to run together, and the point where they disappear and become one line is call the vanishing point. If the camera lens is here and aiming this way, and there are lines on a football field they would appear like this, and depending on the focal length of the lens they would still all run together. These are absolutely parallel. So that's another problem with it. The third problem is that they are far too sharp and they're too narrow. Lines on the football field would be much wider than this. The other problem is that these are blue and lines on the football field would be white. There's probably other problems too, but I think the major problem is that this image falls outside of where the frame line would be. That's a photographic impossibility.
Is there anything, sir, that has been discussed on your cross-examination including the photographs that you were shown for the first time that changes your opinion at all with regard to this photograph?
The sergeant was anti-Semitic and I'm Jewish.
I got 100 percent.
He claimed it was stolen.
Upon the suggestion of Mr. Gelblum that this might be the football field, I have spent a little more time checking this out because it sounds so ridiculous and I found out that in fact it could not be that.
The anomalies, the problems that I found within that photograph are still there. Existence of other photographs that have not been verified, which I haven't had a chance to examine, don't change the fact that the problems of that photograph are there, they certainly are, and 100 more pictures are not going to change that.