SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
JANUARY 14, 1997
VOLUME 42

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
THE COURT: Morning.
JURORS: Morning.
MR. PETROCELLI: Good morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, yesterday you listened to
cross-examination regarding a certain exhibit, that was Exhibit 732;
a writing that purports to be a letter from Nicole Brown Simpson
allegedly directed to defendant Simpson. And it had been the
intention of the Court to give you an instruction on that,
especially at the conclusion of the trial, but since this has been
kind of a long trial and there have been several instances where
evidence has been received for a limited purpose, and this is one of
those instances where the evidence was received for a limited
purpose, I've come to the conclusion that it's best to advise you at
this time what the limitation is so that when at the end of the case
you get the final instructions, you won't have to search out the
particular item that we have referenced to, and if you're making
notes you can make notes on it at this time. You're instructed that
the letter of Nicole Brown Simpson directed to defendant Simpson,
that is Exhibit 732, was received into evidence for the limited
purpose of allowing plaintiffs to offer evidence of the state of
mind of Nicole Brown Simpson regarding the relationship between
Nicole Brown Simpson and defendant Simpson, and it cannot be
considered by you as proof of any truth of any matter that is
self-contained or alleged in the letter; in other words, the
substance of the letter. The letter cannot be used as evidence to
establish anything in the letter, the truth of anything in the
letter. It's received only for the purpose of allowing the
plaintiffs to offer evidence as to what the state of mind of Nicole
Brown Simpson was with respect to her relationship with Mr. Simpson
during that period of time. Everybody understand the limitation?
JURORS: Yes, sir.
MR. BAKER: May we approach?
THE COURT: You may.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the
reporter:)
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I just want the record to reflect that we
were not given the opportunity to review that instruction just given
to the jury before you did read it to the jury and I think that
under California law we're required to review all of the
instructions before they're given to the jury. No. 2, Exhibit 732
has not been offered into evidence, to my knowledge, it was never
offered at conclusion of the plaintiffs' case. No. 3, the Court's
characterization of it as a letter, I think, gives it more credence
than it's entitled to. I wanted to make those objections.
MR. PETROCELLI: We are offering it into evidence.
MR. BAKER: I would object to it, Your Honor. They only asked for --
they only asked questions about one portion of that letter, and it
had -- where Nicole said that she called the cops because she was
afraid for her life. And it seems to me that we would do away with
most of the problems with that letter if they want to put that
portion of it in and redact all the rest, because that's the only
portion that got before the jury; that's one thing, but to put that
entire letter in when Mr. Simpson was not asked about it, and then
not given a chance to explain anything about it, would be, in my
view, improper.
MR. PETROCELLI: We first --
THE COURT: Well, No. 1, the reason the Court has addressed the jury
with regards to this matter is that it was being received for a
limited purpose. To not advise the jury as to this limited purpose
would be prejudicial to the defendant, and to wait until the end
would be doubly hard on the jury. So I'm doing it for the
convenience of the jury. With regard to formal instructions, I
invite you to offer formal instructions. This is simply a limiting
advisement to the jury for the purpose for which it was received.
No. 2, I agree with counsel that only a portion of it was referred
to in the examination and I think it is objectionable with regards
to the rest of the letter.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I'd like to respond.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. PETROCELLI: The portions that I'm interested in are the ones I
read out loud in oral argument.
THE COURT: Oral argument. I thought it was an examination.
MR. PETROCELLI: No. In the argument before the -- the witness took
the witness stand you asked me what I wanted to --
THE COURT: Um-hum.
MR. PETROCELLI: -- use in the letter, what I wanted to seek to
offer. I read you the portions, and those limited portions are what
I'm offering into evidence.
THE COURT: Then you offer the redacted version of it. Let Mr. Baker
take a look at it to raise his further objection to it.
MR. BAKER: He -- he says to you that the areas he wants to go into,
that's what you ruled upon. Then when Mr. Simpson gets on the stand
he doesn't ask him about those areas at all, so Mr. Simpson doesn't
explain those areas. He asked him about one area and that was the
area relative to the note that just suggested -- where Nicole said
she was essentially afraid for her life, that's why she called the
police on January 1, 1989. To now say he can put in evidence other
portions of that letter that were before -- Mr. Simpson was never
interrogated about seems to me to be absolutely improper.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Petrocelli can offer that in his rebuttal. You
can call Mr. Simpson back at this time to rebut those items. The
question is what is admissible as evidence when he offers it. At
this point perhaps the Court should not receive it into evidence, so
I won't receive it into evidence until your rebuttal and then --
MR. PETROCELLI: You want me to prepare a redacted version of it?
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.
THE COURT: With regards to advising the jury that it is an exhibit,
if you want I'll tell them it's not received until I actually
receive it, if it makes you feel any better.
MR. BAKER: And that it's a writing, No. 2, and No. 3, that there's
no evidence that Mr. Simpson ever received this from her.
THE COURT: I didn't say he did.
MR. PETROCELLI: Didn't say he did. That's argument at this point.
(The following proceedings were held in open court In the presence
of the jury.)
THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, Exhibit No. 732 is not
formally received as yet into evidence. It has been referred to in
the evidence, so you're to consider the limitation to the portion
thus far received, and if and when the document itself is received,
then at the end of trial the Court's going to read to you the same
or similar instruction with regards to it. Okay.
MR. P. BAKER: Defense calls Donald Thompson back. DONALD THOMPSON,
called as a witness on behalf of the Defendant, was previously duly
sworn and testified further as follows:
THE CLERK: Sir, you have been sworn previously. Would you state your
name again for the record.
THE WITNESS: Yes. Donald Thompson.
THE CLERK: Thank you. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. P. BAKER:
Q. Morning, Mr. Thompson.
A. Good morning.
Q. You were at 360 North Rockingham on June 13, 1994, were you not?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. You received some orders from Detective Vannatter that day, did
you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Detective Vannatter told you to handcuff O.J. Simpson when he
arrived there, did he not?
MR. KELLY: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) If Mr. Vannatter told this jury that he didn't
tell you that, he would have lied to this jury, correct?
A. No.
MR. MEDVENE: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. The jury is to disregard that question.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Detective Vannatter told you to handcuff O.J.
Simpson when you got there on the 13th; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Mr. Thompson, I want to show you a vehicle impound report which
they marked as Civil 271. Have you seen that document before?
(Witness reviews document.)
A. Yes, I have.
Q. That's the impound report prepared by your partner?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Angela Guzman?
A. Yes.
Q. It was prepared on June 13, 1994, at 3:30 p.m.?
A. Yes. I'm not familiar with this, though.
Q. Okay. It was prepared at 3:30 p.m. on June 13, 1994?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And that vehicle impound report referred to the 1994 Ford Bronco
parked out on the west side of Rockingham?
A. It does.
Q. And that impound report was prepared in the normal course and
business of your work there, correct?
A. Yes, it was.
MR. P. BAKER: I have no further questions.
THE COURT: Cross-examine.
MR. P. BAKER: Move 271 into evidence, Judge.
THE COURT: Received.
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 271.) CROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. MEDVENE:
Q. Officer Thompson -- I notice that on the impound report there's a
check under the Y column for battery and generator?
A. Yes.
MR. P. BAKER: Outside the scope, Judge.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you explain the circumstances under which
those checks were put there?
MR. P. BAKER: No foundation that he knows.
THE COURT: Testified he compared it. Overruled.
A. Under those particular items -- you mentioned battery and
alternator.
Q. Yes, sir?
A. Well, the vehicle impound report here states that there was a
battery and an alternator that, in fact, should be unknown because
--
MR. P. BAKER: Judge, I'm going to object to this. It calls for
hearsay. He just testified his partner prepared the report.
THE COURT: Did you prepare it or your partner prepare it?
THE WITNESS: It was prepared by my partner, sir, but my partner and
I are responsible for the report since both our names are on it.
THE COURT: Lay a foundation as to his personal knowledge.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) What hours, approximately, were you at
Rockingham on the morning of June 13?
A. I arrived at Rockingham approximately at 8 o'clock in the morning
and I left the scene about 3:45 that afternoon.
Q. And what was your assignment in terms of the Bronco, and
supervision and security of the Bronco?
A. My assignment was to protect the Bronco and also to protect the
property in general.
Q. Did your -- did your fellow officer, Ms. Guzman, under your
supervision, prepare the report that's been marked 271?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you sign on the report and write your name on the report?

A. Yes. My name is on the report.
Q. Was the report made in your presence?
MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. He hasn't said he
filled out the report or saw it filled out.
THE COURT: Well, so far you haven't reached a point of objection.
Overruled.
A. I'm sorry. Repeat the question again, please.
Q. Yes. Was the report filled out by Officer Guzman in your
presence?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you sign the report?
A. No. Neither officer signs the report. We put our -- we print
our names there.
Q. Did you print your name there?
A. My name isn't printed -- well, my name is printed on here but I
didn't print my name on it, and we usually don't do that. One
partner will print both officers' names on it. The officer
completing the report will do that.
Q. And who printed both officers' names on this?
A. Officer Guzman did.
Q. You told us the report was prepared in your presence and under
your supervision?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Was the vehicle, the Ford Bronco, ever opened in your presence
between the time you arrived at Rockingham and the time you filled
out the impound report?
A. No, it wasn't.
Q. Okay. Could you explain why battery and alternator were checked
if the car and the hood were never opened?
MR. P. BAKER: No foundation, calls for speculation, calls for
hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Was the battery and hood ever opened?
MR. P. BAKER: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. No.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did the car, to you, appear operable and
workable?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. Did the car, in any way, appear to be stripped?
A. No.
Q. Did you assume the car had a battery and alternator in it?
A. That assumption could be made, yes.
Q. Did you make that assumption?
A. No. I didn't make the assumption, no. My partner made the
assumption.
MR. P. BAKER: Objection, move to strike.
THE COURT: Stricken. Jury to disregard that last answer.
Q. When you sign or when you permitted your name -- strike that. You
saw this report after it was filled out, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you believe at the time you signed the report that since the
vehicle appeared not stripped and operable that it had a battery and
accelerator -- or a battery and an alternator in it, even though the
hood was never opened?
MR. P. BAKER: Irrelevant, misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did the vehicle appear locked at all times,
Officer Thompson, when you saw it at Rockingham from the time you
came on duty to the time the impound report was filled out somewhere
around 3:30?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. And did you ever see anyone attempt to unlock the vehicle?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Did you ever see anyone inside the vehicle?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever attempt to unlock the vehicle?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Did you ever open the hood?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever see anyone open the hood?
A. No.
MR. MEDVENE: I have no further questions. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. P. BAKER:
Q. Did you maintain a constant watch over that Bronco, Officer
Thompson?
A. A constant watch?
Q. While you were there, did you have your eyes on the Bronco the
whole time you were there?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. When you handcuffed Mr. Simpson pursuant to Detective Vannatter's
orders, were you inside the compound?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Were you looking at the Bronco?
A. No.
MR. P. BAKER: Nothing further.
THE COURT: You may step down.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
MR. LEONARD: Call Arnelle Simpson. ARNELLE SIMPSON, called as a
witness on behalf of the Defendant, was duly sworn and testified as
follows:
THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in
the cause now pending before this Court shall be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE WITNESS: I do.
THE CLERK: Please state and spell your name for the record.
THE WITNESS: Arnelle Lorraine Simpson, A-r-n-e-l-l-e L-o-r-r-a-i-n-e
S-i-m-p-s-o-n. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. LEONARD:
Q. Morning, Ms. Simpson.
A. Good morning.
Q. You are O.J. Simpson's daughter?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Are you his oldest child?
A. Yes.
Q. What's your date of birth?
A. 12/4/68.
Q. Does that have another significance, that date?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. What's that?
A. It was the same day that my dad received the Heisman Trophy.
Q. Now, just briefly I'd like to get some background on you. You
grew up in the Los Angeles area?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. And you went to grammar and high school here?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And when did you graduate from high school?
A. In '87.
Q. And did you go on to college after that?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Where did you go to college?
A. I first attended University of Colorado at Boulder. Then I
transferred to Howard University in Washington, D.C.
Q. And when did you graduate from Howard University?
A. '92.
Q. Now, during the period that you were at -- away at college, would
you come back and visit from time to time?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you see your mother?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you stay with her when you came back to visit most of
the time?
A. Sometimes.
Q. Okay. And sometimes you'd stay with your dad?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And during the period that you were away at college, your
father was living at Rockingham?
A. Off and on, yes.
Q. Okay. Now, I want to direct your attention to the morning of June
13, 1994. First of all, where had you been the night before, that
was the night of June 12?
A. I was out at the movies.
Q. What time did you return home approximately?
A. I had to have returned home around 12:30; between 12 and 12:30.
Q. By the way, did you have a vehicle that you drove?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was that?
A. A Saab.
Q. Black Saab?
A. Black Saab.
MR. LEONARD: If I can -- with the assistance of Mr. Baker, I just
need a diagram at this point. If I can approach.
THE COURT:
(Nods affirmatively.)
MR. LEONARD: This is Civil 116, for the record.
(Exhibit 116 is displayed.)
MR. LEONARD: I'm going to try to position it so you can see it and
the jury can see it. Everyone see it in the jury?
(The jury panel nods affirmatively.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Can you see it?
A. Um-hum.
Q. Okay. Now, I think there's a pointer -- I see there's a
retractable pointer there. If you would just step down for a minute,
please, Ms. Simpson. Just take a look at that diagram. Do you
recognize that diagram as -- as a schematic or diagram of the
residence at Rockingham?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. By the way, before we get to this, I think I skipped
something. When you returned to Los Angeles from college in '92, did
you live at Rockingham too, start to live there?
A. No.
Q. When did you move back into Rockingham?
A. I moved back into Rockingham, March of '93.
Q. And you lived there continually until June 12 and thereafter?
A. Yes.
Q. '94?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, just -- I want you to show the jury, when you pulled
into Rockingham after returning from the movies on the -- in the
early morning of June 13, show us where you parked your Saab?
A. I pulled in here, Ashford, and I drove all the way to here
(indicating).
Q. And you parked it right there?
A. Parked my car there.
Q. Was there another vehicle in front of your car when you parked?
A. Yes.
Q. What was that?
A. My dad's Bentley.
Q. And you never moved that -- your vehicle until sometime the next
-- late the next morning or next afternoon, is that correct, on the
13th?
A. Did I move my car?
Q. Yeah.
A. No, I did not.
Q. Until when, approximately?
A. Oh, God, not until later on that week.
Q. Okay. Now, at some point early in the morning on the 13th, was
there a knock at your door --
A. Yes.
Q. -- where you were staying? Show the jury where your room was,
where you were staying that night?
A. Right here
(indicating to Exhibit 116.)
Q. Now, describe to the jury what happened after you heard the knock
on the door?
A. Two men knocked on my door. I opened the door. They asked me who
I was. I told them who I was. They asked me where my father was and
I told them that I didn't know where he was but I knew somebody that
could get in touch with him. At that point, I put my clothes on to
go into the house.
Q. At that point, did the police -- do you recall which -- we've had
several police detectives testify here. Do you recall which ones,
right now, came to your door and spoke to you?
A. Vannatter and Lange.
Q. Okay. Was there another police officer that you saw at some point
up on the terrace?
A. Yes, there's two more police officers that I saw that day.
Q. Okay. Now, they came to your door, they knocked on your door,
they asked you where your father was, right?
A. Yes.
Q. At that point, did they ask you any other questions, such as did
you hear any strange noises, did you see anything unusual or are
there any people that are injured on the property, anything like
that?
A. No.
Q. Just asked you if you knew where your father was?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you put your clothes on, and the officers accompanied you
back into the house; is that right?
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I'm going to object at this point to
leading. We're past foundation.
MR. LEONARD: It's foundation.
MR. PETROCELLI: No, it's not.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) What did you do next?
A. They followed me into the house and -- I left my room to go into
the house.
Q. Show us the route you took?
A. I left my room to go into the house going this way.
Q. Um-hum.
A. And I went around and went to the front door.
Q. Okay. Now, you've -- what you've described is going around the
north side of the house, correct?
A. Yes, going through here, the backyard.
Q. You're going by the pool in a northerly direction?
A. Yes. And going on the side of the house.
Q. The north side of the house along that path --
A. Yes.
Q. -- that runs in between the house and Ashford Street, correct?
A. Correct. And then this way.
Q. Okay. Now, why did you go that way?
A. Because I had to go inside the house.
Q. Okay. Now, three detectives have testified before this jury that
you went right in -- there's a back door right here?
A. Yeah, there's a door right here.
Q. They testified that you had your keys out and you had to open up
a lock with the keys and you went in that way. Did you do that
night?
A. No. It's impossible.
MR. PETROCELLI: Object to the mischaracterization of the testimony.
MR. LEONARD: They testified --
THE COURT: Excuse me.
MR. PETROCELLI: I think he misstated the details of their testimony.

THE COURT: Okay. Strike that. And ask the question as to what she
did.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you go in the back door?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You can resume your seat.
MR. PETROCELLI: For the record, these are exhibits and photos I've
not seen before, not on the joint trial statement, but I have no
objection.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
MR. BAKER: Half of your exhibits are not on the joint trial
statement
(indicating to photographs shown to him by Mr. Leonard).
MR. LEONARD: I'll show you what I'll mark next in order.
THE CLERK: 2318.
(The instrument herein described as a photo was marked for
identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2318.)
MR. LEONARD: And 2319.
(The instrument herein described as a photo was marked for
identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2319.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) I ask you to take a look at those two
photographs, Ms. Simpson. I'm going to ask you if they accurately
depict the back door that we've just been talking about as it
existed on June 12 -- excuse me -- the morning of June 13, 1994?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there a lock on that door --
A. No.
Q. -- that you can open with a key from the outside?
A. No, there's not.
Q. Is there an alarm and was there on June 13, 1994?
A. No.
Q. Is there a key pad to activate the alarm there?
A. No.
Q. Was there on the morning of June 13, 1994?
A. No.
Q. Now, when you -- after you walked all the way around with the
detectives, did you enter the house?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay.
MR. LEONARD: This is depicting 22 -- what's the second one?
THE CLERK: 2319.
MR. LEONARD: 2319.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Is that correct, Ms. Simpson?
A. Yes.
(Exhibit 2319 is displayed on Elmo.)
MR. LEONARD: If we could show 2318.
MR. BAKER: Why don't you zoom in on the door handle.
(Elmo is adjusted to zoom in on door handle.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Again, that was the handle that was on that door
on the morning of June 13, 1994?
A. Correct.
Q. I just want to show -- no, that's fine, we'll get it back
(indicating to exhibit in the witness' possession). Now, what was
the purpose of going into the house?
A. I was going into the house to go to get in touch with somebody
that could find out where my dad was.
Q. At that point, can you tell the jury whether or not you knew that
your father was out of town?
A. I knew he was out of town but I didn't know where he was.
Q. And who was it that you were going to contact to find out where
he was?
A. I was going to call Kathy Randa.
Q. Who is Kathy Randa?
A. My father's personal secretary.
Q. Now, you --
A. Assistant.
Q. You had to -- tell us what you did as you entered the house --
before you entered?
A. I had to turn off the alarm and open the door with my key.
Q. Now, when you got inside, did you -- did you call Kathy Randa?
A. I went into the kitchen and went to call her, realizing that I
didn't have her home phone number, so I had to -- to go to my car to
get my phone book.
Q. All right. And how did you do that, how -- describe where you
went to get the phone book and how you got there?
A. Do you want me to get up?
Q. Yes, please.
(Witness approaches Exhibit 116.)
A. I used the phone which is like somewhere in this area, and I
walked out the kitchen door to walk this way to my car, and I went
into the trunk of my car to get my phone book out.
Q. Now, did you get your phone book out?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Now, at the point you got the phone book out, can you tell us
whether or not you had a discussion with the police officers that
were with you, the detectives?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Describe for us the discussion, please.
A. I was going out to the car, I had asked, I believe Lange, I said
you have to tell me what's going on, I'm not understanding, you're
scaring me, can you please tell me what has happened. And at that
point he told me that Nicole -- he asked me if I knew Nicole Brown
Simpson, and I said yes. And he said that she had been killed and
that -- at her house and that there was somebody else with her.
Q. Okay. How did you react?
A. I was shocked, I was stunned, I was upset, confused, scared.
Q. You can resume the stand. Now, at that point, did you reenter the
house?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did you call Kathy Randa?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And at some point did you turn the phone over to the police?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Now, I want to -- I'm going to come back to this -- this point. I
want to ask you some other questions first. Would you -- could you
tell the jury whether or not from the period, let's say, January 1,
1994, until Nicole's death, that you would have occasion to go over
and visit with Nicole on Bundy?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you sometimes take care of the children, Justin and
Sydney?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you sometimes transport the children back and forth
from Bundy to Rockingham?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Which vehicles would you use to do that?
A. Either my car or the Bronco or Nicole's car.
Q. Would Nicole sometimes use the Bronco during that period?
A. Yes.
Q. And would she transport the kids back and forth with the Bronco?
A. Yes, she would.
Q. And the dogs?
A. Yes.
Q. And you would do that as well?
A. Um-hum. Yes.
Q. Let's talk about the dogs for a minute. We've seen a photograph
of a dog laying in the driveway named Chachi. Would you describe
Chachi as a swift, greyhound-type dog?
A. No.
Q. Did Chachi sometimes have trouble getting around?
A. Sometimes.
Q. Okay. But let me ask you this: Do you recall occasions when you
were living at Rockingham when Chachi would get out of the gate
nonetheless?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Was -- was the issue -- and let me ask you this: There were
other dogs that would be at Rockingham from time to time, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. There was a dog named Kato?
A. Yes.
Q. As opposed to the person Kato?
A. Yes.
Q. And would Kato -- Kato would be going back and forth from Bundy
to Rockingham, sometimes he'd be at Bundy, sometimes at Rockingham?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) How often, if you can tell us, would you see
Kato at Rockingham?
A. Off and on. It was -- you'd just see him, depending, you know --
he would be there off and on. No particular, you know, Monday
through Wednesday. He would just come and go.
Q. Tell us whether or not there was a problem with Kato running out
of the gate?
A. There was a problem with all the dogs running out of the gate. We
had two other dogs -- well, one other dog also that would
occasionally go out the gate, and it would be a problem because of
the neighbors. And our dogs are very lazy so they would sit in the
middle of the street and not move when the cars came around.
Q. And the -- let's -- first of all, I want to direct your attention
to January 1, '94 through June 12, '94. At that time, is it fair to
say the only dogs around would be Chachi and Kato?
A. Yes. And Chubbs, but he had passed in February of that year I
believe.
Q. Now, did this -- did the dogs getting out and laying in the
street, did that generate complaints from neighbors?
A. Yeah.
Q. Now, as a result of that, did you have a -- were you conscious of
the dogs running out, did you have any particular habit with regard
to being vigilant when you drove your car out of the gate?
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I'm going to object. The only issue as
to dogs is the dog Chachi on June 12, the only dog --
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor --
MR. PETROCELLI: The only dog on the property.
MR. LEONARD: I object.
MR. PETROCELLI: This is irrelevant.
MR. LEONARD: Excuse me. He's arguing in front of the jury. If he
wants to approach the side bar --
THE COURT: Sustained, irrelevant as to other dogs.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, can we approach?
THE COURT: No.
MR. LEONARD: Can we approach?
THE COURT: No.
MR. LEONARD: I guess I shouldn't ask the third time.
THE COURT: No.
MR. LEONARD: Okay.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Can you tell us whether or not you were aware of
your father being concerned about dogs leaving the property?
MR. PETROCELLI: Calls for hearsay, speculation, lack of foundation.
THE COURT: You may answer yes or no.
A. Yes.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) And did you -- tell us whether or not you know
if your father had a particular habit with regard to when he left
the property with his car in relation to that property?
A. Yes. We all did.
Q. What was that?
A. To, you know, pulling into Ashford gate, we have a clicker, so as
soon as we get in we usually close the gate. But going out of the
Rockingham gate, it's on a timer, so normally we would pull out,
kind of wait there until the -- till the gate closed and then pull
out, to make sure the dogs wouldn't get out.
Q. Okay. I want to go back to the morning of June 13 now. After the
phone call with Kathy Randa, did you at any point talk to your
father?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. Tell us how that --
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, hearsay.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Tell us how that --
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Tell us, first of all, when the first
conversation you had with your father occurred?
A. I believe that my father called after Kathy and I know that they
had a conversation with my father; I can't remember if he called or
if they called them.
Q. Okay. When you say them, who are you referring to?
A. Vannatter and Lange.
Q. Okay.
A. And at that point, I had to -- I had a discussion with Lange
about the kids and getting the kids and picking them up. I told them
that I just couldn't do it by myself, I would have to call somebody,

A.C., to help me. So as I was walking to my room to change, 'cause I
was in my pajamas, the phone rang again, and I picked up the phone,
it was my father, and I had a discussion with him then.
Q. Tell us what you recall of that discussion?
MR. PETROCELLI: Hearsay, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. LEONARD: Can we approach?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the
reporter.)
MR. LEONARD: This is in direct rebuttal or it's meeting directly the
argument this guy's going to make for sure
(indicating to Mr. Petrocelli). Based on the testimony from the
passenger Partridge on the plane ride back that Simpson knew some of
the details, they already started off -- details of the murders,
they already started out by putting Phillips on the stand to suggest
that he never said -- gave any details and that O.J. didn't even ask
what happened, if you recall, that Phillips says he didn't say, "How
did it happen." And they then put Partridge on to say O.J. -- this
is -- there were two people, and so this is -- this is absolutely
relevant and absolutely a fair response to that.
MR. PETROCELLI: There's no impeachment exception to the hearsay
rule. If it's hearsay, it's hearsay, regardless of the purpose. He
can't offer admission statements of his own client. They're
self-serving. He can't put witnesses on the stand to -- I can
offer in statements of O.J. Simpson. You can't get on the stand and
put in statements of O.J. Simpson by your witnesses. These are
clearly hearsay. They're not covered by an exception to the hearsay
rule.
MR. LEONARD: It goes to Simpson's state of mind. They're trying to
suggest consciousness of guilt, that he's talking to Partridge and
he knows some details and --
MR. PETROCELLI: Wait. And you could have asked him those questions
yesterday.
MR. LEONARD: And they're trying to cut off our proof. That's what
they're trying to do here.
MR. PETROCELLI: It's self-serving hearsay.
THE COURT: How do you get around self-serving hearsay?
MR. LEONARD: It's not offered for the truth; therefore, it's not
hearsay.
MR. PETROCELLI: It is absolutely offered for the truth, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It's not offered for the truth of it?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, we have a right to elicit this. They have
-- we've had a lot of state of mind exceptions to the hearsay rule
floating around here.
THE COURT: Who's the state of mind?
MR. LEONARD: Simpson's state of mind. It's going to the state of
mind. The full conversation will be that when he said, what
happened, what happened, now, obviously, that shows a consciousness
of innocence; he doesn't know what happened, number one. And number
two, she tells him what she knows, which explains how Partridge --
how he could know that to tell Partridge, okay. And that's in direct
rebuttal to hearsay of Simpson. And number three -- I can't remember
right now, but I know -- I know it was a good point. Oh, yeah. I can
elicit -- I'm sure you're going to allow me to elicit his demeanor
during the call and his reaction.
THE COURT: She could see his demeanor through the phone?
MR. LEONARD: She could hear his reaction, his verbal demeanor, she
could hear how he reacted.
MR. PETROCELLI: This is all hearsay.
MR. LEONARD: That isn't hearsay. That's definitely offered, his
reaction to it is not
(sic) offered.
MR. PETROCELLI: Her statements -- her statements are not her
statements. He can elicit what she said, not what he said.
MR. LEONARD: Well, that's really -- I mean, you have the completion
doctrine.
MR. PETROCELLI: That's been the rule of the law for a long time.
That's what we've been observing in this courtroom; otherwise, you
could put in --
THE COURT: It's self-serving hearsay. It's also evidence of
cooperation. Overruled.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence
of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You were -- we were discussing your conversation
with your father that morning when he called in to the house. Tell
us what you recall of that discussion, please.
A. He had called and he had said, "Arnelle, what's going on?" I had
said, "Dad, I don't know. It's crazy. I'm scared. They tell me I
have to go pick up the kids." He had said, "What's going on? What's
going on?" And I said, "I don't know. They just keep saying that
Nicole is dead and that there was somebody else with her."
Q. Now, can you tell us what your father's reaction was when you
told him that -- when you gave him that information, his demeanor,
at least, you could tell from his voice, from what he said.
A. Shocked, very upset, sad. Confused.
Q. Now, moving to one final area. In the month preceding Nicole's
death, did you ever hear your father complain that Nicole was
keeping the children from him?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Hearsay, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That's sustained.
MR. LEONARD: Can we approach?
THE COURT: No.
MR. LEONARD: I don't have any further questions. CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY
MR. PETROCELLI:
Q. Morning, Ms. Simpson.
A. Good morning.
Q. Let's get this business of the dog out of the way.
MR. PETROCELLI: Can you put up the exhibit?
MR. FOSTER: 1984.
(Exhibit 1984 displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) That's Chachi, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that the Ashford gate or the Rockingham gate?
A. It looks like the Ashford gate, Ashford gate.
Q. And the gate is open, right?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Now, it is true that as of June 12, Chachi was badly arthritic?
Correct?
A. True.
Q. And it is also true, that as of June 12, it was not Chachi's
habit to run outside when the gates opened, correct?
A. No.
Q. Correct?
A. No.
Q. It's not?
A. Not correct.
Q. It was his habit?
A. Sometimes.
Q. But generally, he did not run outside of the gate when the gates
opened, correct?
MR. LEONARD: It's a she --
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Excuse me. Generally, Chachi did not run
outside when the gates opened?
A. Sometimes, she did.
Q. But again, generally, she did not, correct?
A. Generally . . . correct.
Q. Okay. And, in fact, when you came home that evening, one o'clock
in the morning, June 13 --
A. Yes.
Q. -- you came up Ashford, approached the Ashford gate, and made a
left into the Ashford driveway, right?
A. True.
Q. And Chachi didn't run outside, right?
A. No. But then, also, when I pulled in, I stopped and waited for
the gate to close, so she wouldn't have a chance to run out.
Q. Nothing unusual happened and you didn't see the dog running
outside toward the gate, correct?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. I object to that. He appears to be reading
from the deposition, not an inconsistent statement.
THE COURT: He can posture however he wants.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Is that correct?
A. Can you repeat the question, please.
Q. Yeah. When when you came in that evening, nothing unusual
occurred with regard to Chachi, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And Chachi was the only dog on the property on that
evening, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Now, let's talk a little bit about -- let's talk a little
bit about the layout here of the property. You lived, Ms. Simpson,
in these rooms back here, where it says "Arnelle's room," right?
A. Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: The exhibit number is what, here?
MR. FOSTER: 116.
MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me. 116. Right.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) And there's a door -- these are French doors
that go into the main residence, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is -- there's a door here at the end. In fact, we just
saw the picture of it. That doesn't have the lock on the outside,
right?
A. True.
Q. And that's a door that you use frequently, and used when you were
living there in June of 1994, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And, in fact, that's the quickest way, now, to get into the
house. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And your normal procedure would be to go to that door, and if it
was not locked, you would go inside that door, right?
A. Depending on what time of the day it is, yes.
Q. And if the door is locked, then you're out of luck and have you
to go all the way around to the front, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And if the door is not locked, you can go in, right?
A. True.
Q. Now, there's no alarm pad on the outside of this door, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So you don't know when you're about to open the door, whether or
not the alarm is on, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, if you open that door and the alarm is on, you hear a
beeping sound, and you have a certain amount of time to go and
deactivate that alarm, right?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object. There is absolutely no foundation
for that question. It's beyond the scope and it misstates the
evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: Repeat the question, please.
MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah.
(The reporter read the record as follows:)
Q. Now, if you open that door and the alarm is on, you hear a
beeping sound, and you have a certain amount of time to go and
deactivate that alarm, right?
A. I'm saying that there is no -- the alarm goes off automatically.
There's no time for me to run to turn the alarm off. I -- I -- I
have to do it immediately.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Do you remember giving testimony at the
criminal trial?
A. Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'd like to -- I'm going to look at page 35698, Mr.
Leonard. Reading from the top of the page:
Q. There's an alarm sensor for the rear door, isn't there?
A. Yes.
Q. And that alarm sensor has a 40 second delay, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So if you enter through the rear door, you have 40 seconds to
get to a key pad to disarm the alarm, correct?
A. Yes. When -- you gave that testimony under oath in the criminal
case -- do you remember that?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, on the morning of June 13, when you were awakened by the
police officers -- By the way, Detectives Vannatter and Lange, they
treated you well that morning, right?
A. Yeah.
Q. You had no complaint?
A. No.
Q. They didn't ransack your room, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. They didn't ransack the house or do anything like that, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, when you -- when they came to your room, obviously, seeing
police officers or police detectives early in the morning, that must
have been frightening for you, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were confused and frazzled and frightened, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And after you left the room, your purpose in mind was to
try to locate your father, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you took with you some keys, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you had a phone book that was in your car, in the Saab?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, in order to walk from your room with the detectives,
you have to walk past that rear door, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And then walk all the way around to the front, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, it is your testimony that you did not go into the rear door,
right?
A. I did not.
Q. It's also your testimony that you didn't even check to see if it
was locked or unlocked, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So you had no idea whether it was locked or unlocked at that
particular point in time; is that your testimony?
A. Yeah. Because only -- at 5:30 in the morning, the alarm would be
on. It would be my natural instinct to go to the front door.
Q. But you didn't check?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You didn't know at that point in time, when you were walking past
the rear door, whether the alarm was on or off?
A. I assumed it was on.
Q. You didn't know?
A. I assumed that it was on.
Q. I know you assumed it. But you didn't know for a fact, right?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. All right. And it's your testimony that when you were first told
by some of the detectives about Nicole's death, you would already be
inside of the house and had come out, on your way to the car, right?

A. No.
Q. And it was on your way to the car that you were informed of
Nicole's death?
A. True.
Q. After you had been inside, right?
A. True.
Q. So the sequence of event is, you went inside the house, came out;
and then, on your way to the car, is when you learned about Nicole?
A. Actually, on our way from the car, back into the house.
Q. Back into the house?
A. Yes.
Q. Having already been in the house?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And before then, you didn't know anything about Nicole
have been killed?
A. No.
Q. And when you were outside, on your way back into the house, and
when you were first told by the detectives about it, you were very,
immediately and visibly, shaken and upset?
A. Most definitely.
Q. In terms of your schedule that week, Ms. Simpson, as I understand
it, your father was out of town Tuesday through Friday night?
A. Correct.
Q. And you slept over a girlfriend's house Friday, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you didn't see your father Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or
Friday, correct?
A. I don't -- it's hard for me to say during the week, no.
Q. Well, when he was out of town?
A. Yeah.
Q. And you didn't come back to Rockingham Friday night, right?
A. True.
Q. And on Saturday, you came back to Rockingham, and then you left
and went out with some girlfriends, and came back and spent most of
the time in your room, right?
A. Came home -- I didn't come home until Saturday evening, I guess.
Then I stayed home for the rest of that evening.
Q. And your father was out Saturday evening, and you didn't see him
Saturday evening?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Then you got up the next morning, and by the time you left the
house -- it was to go to see a girlfriend -- it was around noontime,
right?
A. No. I went to church Sunday morning.
Q. Right. Then came back?
A. Yes.
Q. Then you left about noontime, I think?
A. Yes.
Q. And you didn't see your father that morning, either?
A. No.
Q. You were gone all day Sunday and did not return until, as you've
said, sometime around 1:00 in the morning, right?
A. True.
Q. So you really hadn't seen your father in a long time, right?
A. Yeah.
Q. And you hadn't spoken to him in that while?
A. Correct. Correct.
Q. It's also true that, as of the moment the police officers
awakened you Monday morning, June 13, you had no idea where your dad
was, right?
A. I didn't -- no, I didn't know his whereabouts.
MR. PETROCELLI: I have nothing further. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. LEONARD:
Q. Following up on Mr. Petrocelli's last question, you knew your
father was out of town?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Leading
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you -- did you not know that your father was
out of town?
A. I knew he was going to be in and out of town. I didn't know
exactly where.
Q. Was it or was it not a planned trip, to your knowledge?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Leading, lacks foundation, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I knew that he was going out of town.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Okay. Now, you were shown some testimony from
the criminal trial with regard to this issue of the delay on the
alarm?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that -- were you incorrect at the criminal trial?
A. What I was trying to relay was that, when you turn on the alarm,
there is a delay.
Q. So when you leave, there's a delay?
A. Exactly.
Q. That's the state now and it was the state then?
A. True.
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Is there any question in your mind that you
entered through the front door and went around the north side of the
house?
A. It's my normal practice, like, during the week, if Gigi is home,
to go through the back door. If I know on the weekend that she's not
there, it is my practice to go to the front door, either at night or
in the morning.
Q. That's what you did that morning?
A. Exactly.
MR. LEONARD: I don't have any further questions.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. PETROCELLI:
Q. Now, in the criminal trial, when you were asked about this
40-second delay, you were specifically asked about entering through
the rear door and disarming the house -- disarming the alarm from
the inside of the house, correct?
A. Repeat that.
Q. You were specifically asked, when you answered the question about
the 40-second delay about entering the house through the rear door
and disarming the alarm from the inside of the house, correct, not
arming it when you leave the house, but this disarming it when you
enter the house. That was your testimony in the criminal trial?
A. You're asking me that?
Q. Yes. That was what you were asked and those were the answers that
you gave, right?
A. I'm confused. Please bear with me.
Q. Okay. No problem.
MR. PETROCELLI: Can you put this on the Elmo, Steve.
(Copy of criminal trial testimony displayed on the Elmo screen.)
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Can you see that, Ms. Simpson?
A. Yes, I can.
Q. Okay. And those were the questions and answers that you gave at
the criminal trial?
(Witness reviews transcript.)
Q. And you see the reference to the maid's room?
A. Um-hum.
Q. Now, outside the maid's room, where the laundry room is, that's
on the outside of the inside of the house?
A. Yes.
Q. And going to that key pad, when you enter the rear door, if the
alarm is on, you can disarm the alarm from the key pad on the inside
of the house that's near the maid's room, right?
A. That room or the front door.
Q. Or the front door?
A. Yes.
Q. In fact, there's one upstairs?
A. Yes.
MR. LEONARD: Object. Beyond the scope. He is now talking about a
different door.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) So if you enter through the rear door, you
have 40 seconds to get to a key pad to disarm the alarm, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the maid's room has a key pad in it for the alarm, right? Not
in the maid's room, but just outside it?
A. Yeah.
Q. And what you were talking about is how you disarm the alarm from
the inside of the house when you enter through the rear door,
because the rear door has a 40-second delay on it, as you laid out
in your testimony in the criminal trial, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay.
MR. PETROCELLI: You can take that off, Steve. I have nothing
further. FUR
THER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. LEONARD:
Q. Ms. Simpson, when you testified in the criminal trial, did you
testify just as you did today, that you went around and went in the
front door?
A. Yes, I did.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you. No further questions.
MR. PETROCELLI: Nothing.
THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down.
MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, we have a number of exhibits to move into
evidence at this time. There's one remaining witness. We're close to
a stipulation with Mr. Lambert's request that he be put over until,
potentially, surrebuttal.
THE COURT: I don't see Mr. Lambert.
MR. P. BAKER: I know.
MR. PETROCELLI: He sent you a revised stipulation, asking to hear
back from you. Do you have it?
MR. P. BAKER: I do not have the stipulation. Correct.
MR. BAKER: Other than the stipulation and these exhibits, the
defense rests, Your Honor.
MR. PETROCELLI: Reserve on the exhibits, as they've reserved on
ours.
THE COURT: Okay. Ten-minute recess.
MR. BAKER: Do you want us to read these in?
THE COURT: Whenever you want to do it.
MR. BAKER: I don't know.
THE CLERK: We need to read them in if there are any objections or
anything.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm not sure what they are. Why don't you read them,
and we'll let you know.
MR. P. BAKER: Ready Gina?
THE REPORTER: Yes.
MR. P. BAKER: 835, 847, 859, 860, 862, 878, 887, 891, 892, 901, 905,
911, 915, 918, 924, 925, 926, 939, 943, 955, 987, 992, 1025, 1174,
1178, 1180, 1187, 1248, 1279, 1281, 1303, 1321, 1324, 1342, 1349,
1350, 1352, 1353, 1359, 1360, 1362, 1366, 1367, 1368, 1375, 1376,
1422, 1436, 1532, 1730, 1798, 1869, 1870, 1877, 1885, 2024, 2038,
2040, 2046. 2049 is not identified on the record, but it was
referenced during Dr. Lee's testimony by a videotape. 2100, 21 --
2104, 2105, 2106, 2107, 2108, 2130, 2131, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135,
2136, 2146, 2147, 2166, 2249, 2253, 2263, 2266, 2267, 2276, 2277,
2278, 2279, 2280, 2283, 2307, 2308, 2314, 2315, 2316, 2318, 2319.
THE COURT: Okay. Subject to objection, they're all received.
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 835 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 847 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 859 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 860 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 862 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 878 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 887 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 891 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 892 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 901 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 905 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 911 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 915 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 918 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 924 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 925 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 926 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 939 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 943 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 955 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 987 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 992 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1025 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1174 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1178 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1180 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1187 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1248 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1279 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1281 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1303 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1321 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1324 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1342 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1349 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1350 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1352 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1353 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1359 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1360 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1362 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1366 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1367 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1368 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1375 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1376 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1422 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1436 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1532 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1730 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1798 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1869 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1870 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1877 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1885 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2024 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2038 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2040 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2046 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2049 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2100 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2104 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2105 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2106 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2107 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2108 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2130 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2131 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2132 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2133 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2134 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2135 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2136 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2146 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2147 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2166 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2249 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2253 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2263 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2266 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2267 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2276 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2277 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2278 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2279 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2280 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2283 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2307 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2308 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2314 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2315 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2316 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2318 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2319 was
received in evidence.)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, ten minutes' recess. Don't talk
about the case. Don't form or express any opinions.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, we have been informed that a couple of
witnesses are proposed by the plaintiffs in their rebuttal case. One
is Dennis Fung. We would object to Mr. Fung being recalled by the
plaintiffs in rebuttal. Anything that we put into evidence through
Mr. Fung while he was on the stand last week, they had the
opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Fung in the courtroom. And in our
view -- I mean they then, you know, in my opinion woodshed him, they
get him in here, in the jury room, and then now they want to recall
him, I guess, to change some of his testimony. Well, regardless of
what they want to recall him for, every item that we opened up when
he was here last week, they had an opportunity to cross-examine him
and fully cross-examine him, and that's their opportunity. They
can't now come back, and in my view of rebuttal evidence, in the
case and try to additionally put on new evidence. And well, it's not
new evidence. It's to alter evidence that he's already put on. And I
think that is inappropriate rebuttal and ought not be allowed. No. 2
is the same situation. They told us they want to put on Leslie
Gardner. Leslie Gardner was their witness. We haven't put on one bit
of evidence about Leslie Gardner, who you may recall was the
equipment person for the exercise video, and we haven't put on any
evidence relative to the clothing or anything else concerning the
clothing, what was at the exercise video and et cetera. And hence,
we would object to anything about Leslie Gardner especially since we
heard that they wanted to put her on today, and we are required to
get three days notice like throughout the trial, and we just heard
about this one, I believe it was this morning.
MR. P. BAKER: Last night.
MR. BAKER: Last night. We would object to her going on, in any
event, today. I think she ought to be precluded in her intent. This
has to stop sometime. You can't put on witnesses and then say we're
going to change this testimony and change that testimony. The idea
-- they had full opportunity to examine Leslie Gardner. They had
full opportunity to examine Dennis Fung. We would object to those
two witnesses.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, yesterday Mr. Simpson testified that
Leslie Gardner did not give him any cotton-type sweat suit outfits
at any time in connection with the exercise video. And she will be
called to impeach him on that point. It's a very critical point.
They are taking the position, contrary to Ms. Gardner's testimony in
our case, that she provided him cashmere. She did not provide him
cashmere. She acquired a cashmere suit, returned it, and gave Mr.
Simpson some other items including cotton. And she will so testify.
And it's directly responsive to his testimony yesterday, and I
didn't even hear the testimony until about 4:15. Immediately when
Mr. Simpson stepped off the stand, I told Mr. Baker that we were
calling Leslie Gardner. We've contacted Ms. Gardner. The only time
she's available to testify this week is this afternoon. We're going
to have her on for literally three minutes, five minutes tops. And
I've just given you the offer of proof as to -- And by the way, this
is important because they're going to argue that the jury -- that
Leslie Gardner testified that she provided cashmere clothing and
she did not so testify. Secondly, as to Dennis Fung, they're making
this argument, frankly a new argument now, that the Bundy glove is
planted, and they tried to elicit some testimony from Mr. Fung that
there was a hole in this -- in the glove that was in the photograph,
and the glove here in court does not have a hole, and create this
real sinister mystery. We are going to call several witnesses that
have been identified several days ago to rebut that assertion. It's
as simple as that. They have the burden of proof on this planting
issue.
THE COURT: What are you calling Mr. Fung for?
MR. PETROCELLI: To rebut that assertion. He will provide testimony
in regard to his observations of the glove; the photograph. He's had
more time to study the photograph. And we have photographers coming
in and we have Mr. Matheson coming in. This was a photograph put in
front of Mr. Fung for the first time. He had never seen it before,
never. Mr. Baker asked some very strident, leading questions, and
there was some confusion from Mr. -- testimony from Mr. Fung in
regard to that photograph, and we want to set the record straight.
We don't want the jury to be misled in any way, shape or form.
They're trying to take the position, Your Honor, that that glove
that was here in court and that glove that was there in the
criminal court is not the same glove found at the murder scene; a
preposterous assertion. We need to make sure we set the record
straight on that. Again, Mr. Fung's testimony would be very, very
brief. There's no prejudice at all and this is rebuttal to their
argument of planting. I don't even understand why they think that
Dennis Fung, just because he previously testified in our case, can't
come back. They called him. We're entitled to call other witnesses
back in regard to the topics that they raised.
MR. BAKER: Well, Mr. --
MR. PETROCELLI: We're talking about very short witnesses. In fact,
our rebuttal case should be concluded by Thursday.
MR. BAKER: I'm underwhelmed, No. 1, by their assertion that because
it's short that means it should come in. The point is that whatever
Mr. Fung said on the witness stand they had a right to cross-examine
him right then. They had the opportunity to cross-examine him right
then and they did cross-examine him right then. I asked him no
leading questions. Page 59, I said:
(Mr. Baker read a portion of the transcript of Dennis Fung.)
Q. How did you, in your view, in looking at the gloves, did you
determine where the cuts were on those gloves, if any? We were --
we're talking about the gloves now?
Q. Yes, the gloves. Yes, sir. I switched to the gloves, sorry.
A. I did note when I got back to the laboratory some cuts on them.
MR. BAKER: That's what he testified to. That was not leading or
suggestive. That's what he testified to. Then we went into what he
said was the cuts on the left glove or the Bundy glove. Now, they
had opportunities to fully examine him at the time. They get these
police witnesses in here, they get them in the back room, they
woodshed them, and they come in here and say we want the jury to
know the truth. Nonsense, they don't want the jury to know the
truth. They want to win the lawsuit. And I would suggest the Leslie
Gardner issue -- he made a representation to this court that Mr.
Simpson said he was never given any cotton sweats at the exercise
video in May of 1994. That's untrue. What he testified was that he
never took any cotton sweats from there. There is no reason to
call her now except that they believe they left something out of
their case. It's not rebuttal to anything. I would suggest that
neither of these witnesses can be called.
THE COURT: All right. You may.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.
THE COURT: Bring in the jury.
MR. BAKER: What a shock.
MR. BAKER: And the three-day rule is out the window, too, Your
Honor, along with 2034 and Kennemer.
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
MR. GELBLUM: Plaintiffs call Sandra Claiborne. SANDRA CLAIBORNE,
called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and
testified as follows:
THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in
the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE WITNESS: I do.
THE BAILIFF: Please be seated.
THE CLERK: And would you please state and spell your name for the
record.
THE WITNESS: Sandra Claiborne, S-a-n-d-r-a C-l-a-i-b-o-r-n-e. DIRECT
EXAMINATION BY
MR. GELBLUM:
Q. Morning, Ms. Claiborne?
A. Morning.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. I am a forensic print specialist.
Q. Who do you work for?
A. For the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Police Department.
Q. How long have you had that job?
A. I've been with the police department for 12 and a half years.
I've been a forensic print specialist for seven and a half years.
Q. And were you working in that position then, on June 13, 1994?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Were you on duty that night?
A. Yes.
Q. The night of June 12, the morning of June 13?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. At some point did you get a call to go to a crime scene at 875
South Bundy Drive in Brentwood?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you recall what time you arrived?
A. Around 3:00 a.m.
Q. And do you recall what time you left?
A. Little after 8:00 a.m.
Q. Okay. And what work did you do at the crime scene?
A. The only thing that I did was I printed the front door, printed
the front side and the back side.
Q. Of the condominium?
A. Yes.
Q. And was that the last thing you did before you left?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. You left right after you finished that?
A. Shortly thereafter, yes.
Q. And how long did that take you to do?
A. Less than an hour.
Q. So you left a little after 8, and it took you a little less than
an hour, you were printing during that front work around 7 o'clock;
is that right?
MR. P. BAKER: Leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) What time would you estimate you started
printing the door?
A. Around 7:00 a.m.
Q. Now, what did you do between the time you arrived around 3:00
a.m. and around 7 a.m. when you started printing the door?
A. I was sitting inside one of the police vehicles.
Q. Were you sitting with anyone else?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Who was that?
A. The photographer Dieter Rokahr.
Q. Rokahr?
A. Yes.
Q. Is he also known as Rolf?
A. I don't know.
Q. You know him as Dieter?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay. Were you and he sitting in the car for a long time?
A. Yes. Yes, we were.
Q. Several hours?
A. Yes.
MR. P. BAKER: Leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) About how long were you in the car, do you have
any idea?
A. Several hours.
Q. What were you waiting for?
A. Waiting for one of the investigating officers to tell us to start
working.
Q. At some point did a detective come to the car?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And did the detective ask Mr. Rokahr to come into the scene, into
the crime scene?
A. Yes. He went in before I did.
Q. Is that the normal -- is that normal for the photographer to go
in first?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. About how long before -- am I right that you went into the crime
scene around 7?
A. Yes.
Q. And about how long before you went in to the crime scene did Mr.
Rokahr go into the crime scene to take pictures?
A. No more than 20 to 30 minutes.
Q. So if you went in around 7, he would have gone in around what
time?
MR. P. BAKER: Leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Between 6:20, 6:40, somewhere around there.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And did you see him come back to the car after
that?
A. No, I don't recall.
Q. Okay. Do you recall whether it was light outside when Mr. Rokahr
went into the crime scene for the first time?
A. Yes, it was light.
Q. Okay. I want to show you Exhibit 1388.
MR. GELBLUM: Is this 1388?
MR. FOSTER: Yes.
(Exhibit 1388 displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Can you see that from there?
A. Bring it a little closer.
MR. PETROCELLI: Put it up against the TV.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) I'll put it here. Can you see it?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. It's been testified to that these are the first photographs
that Mr. Rokahr took at the crime scene, around the crime scene, and
then the last -- inside the crime -- the last two inside the crime
scene. Do you recall, as you can see in some of these pictures, the
sky getting light as you were sitting with Mr. Rokahr before he went
in?
MR. P. BAKER: Leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Do you recall it getting light before Mr. Rokahr
went in?
MR. P. BAKER: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled. That's what she testified to.
A. Yes, I recall it getting light.
MR. GELBLUM: I have no further questions.
THE COURT: Cross-examine.
MR. P. BAKER: Ms. Claiborne, are you a fingerprint specialist,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You testified that you arrived at about 3 o'clock?
A. Yes.
Q. The Bundy crime-scene log says 3:55. You would agree with that,
would you not?
A. That's incorrect. It should say 2:55.
Q. Would you like to look at Exhibit 829. That's your name.
MR. P. BAKER: Do you want to see it, Mr. Gelblum?
MR. GELBLUM: I'm sorry?
MR. P. BAKER: Do you want to see it?
MR. GELBLUM: No.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) 8 -- I'm losing my mind. 829, what time does it
say you signed in there?
A. It's 0255.
Q. That's a 2?
A. That's a 2. Yes, it is.
Q. That's not a 3?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Mr. Rokahr, was he there when you arrived?
A. Pardon?
Q. Was Mr. Rokahr already there when you arrived?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did you see Mr. Rokahr -- Strike that. How much time did you
spend with Mr. Gelblum before you came on the stand today?
A. Only about 10 minutes.
Q. Did Mr. Gelblum tell you that they kind of had a problem, they
had Mark Fuhrman pointing at a Bundy glove before he went to
Rockingham?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection.
MR. P. BAKER: If he asked her.
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Did he tell you that Mr. Rokahr had testified
that that picture was taken at night? Did he ever tell you that?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: I'll overrule that.
A. Yes, he mentioned that.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) He told that you Rolf Rokahr testified that
this picture was taken at night, correct?
MR. GELBLUM: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Okay. You didn't see Mr. Rokahr take the
overalls at Bundy, did you?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Did you see Mr. Fuhrman wearing a jacket at 875 South Bundy?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Did you see Mr. Fuhrman lift up the Bundy
glove?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, asked and answered, ask that these questions
be stricken.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Did you ever see Mark Fuhrman at 875 South
Bundy?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Did you tell Mr. Gelblum that?
A. I'm not sure if I mentioned that or not.
Q. Did he ever ask you, Ms. Claiborne, did you see Mark Fuhrman
there?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) It's relevant whether or not she saw this photo
taken.
THE COURT: You can ask her whether that was photo was taken.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Did you see Mark Fuhrman pointing to a glove
when that photograph was taken?
A. I don't recall that.
Q. You never saw that photograph, Ms. Claiborne, right?
A. That particular photograph, no.
Q. Okay. And you never saw the overalls taken prior to that picture,
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you never saw Mr. Rokahr take any photos of the sidewalk
going south on Bundy, did you?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. No.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) And if Mr. Rokahr testified that he took these
pictures before that, you wouldn't have any reason to disagree with
him, would you?
MR. GELBLUM: I'm sorry. Can I have the question read back.
THE COURT: You may.
MR. P. BAKER: I'll reask it.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) If Mr. Rokahr testified he took the overalls
before he took this picture of Mark Fuhrman, you wouldn't have any
reason to disagree with him, would you?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You --
THE COURT: That's not hearsay.
MR. GELBLUM: He's asking her to comment about the hearsay.
THE COURT: Excuse me.
MR. GELBLUM: It's also argumentative, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'll sustain that.
MR. P. BAKER: They can just keep throwing up whatever they want.
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, ask that be stricken.
THE COURT: It's stricken.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You never saw Rolf Rokahr take the pictures of
the Ferrari, did you?
A. No.
Q. You never saw him stand out in front of the Bundy condominium and
take the pictures, did you?
A. No.
Q. You never saw him take the pictures directly after that, of the
walkway, did you?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. And did Mr. Gelblum ever ask you if you saw Rolf Rokahr do that?
A. I don't believe he did.
Q. He never asked you?
A. No.
Q. You don't know when this picture was taken, Exhibit 13 -- it's
Criminal 1328?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You never looked through the lens when Rolf
Rokahr took photos, did you?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You have no idea when that photograph was
taken, do you?
A. No, I don't.
Q. And you would agree, Ms. Claiborne, that the photographer who
took the photo may have a better idea of when this photo was taken
as opposed to you, correct?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Ms. Claiborne, are you a latent fingerprint
specialist, correct?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. You assisted in the collection of 17 latent prints at 875 South
Bundy?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, outside the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Not one matched O.J?
MR. GELBLUM: Outside the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained. Excuse me. Jury to disregard that.
MR. P. BAKER: I'll take her and call her back.
THE COURT: I don't care what you do. But you know better than that.
MR. P. BAKER: I'll reopen on that one issue.
THE COURT: You can reopen.
MR. P. BAKER: Okay.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You know that 17 fingerprints were taken at the
Bundy scene, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Not one matched O.J. Simpson, correct?
A. To my knowledge, no.
MR. P. BAKER: Nothing further.
MR. KELLY: Can I ask some questions regarding the aspects of
fingerprints, Judge? They just --
THE COURT: Why don't you agree among yourselves who's going to go
next.
MR. GELBLUM: Give us a minute, Your Honor.
THE CLERK: For the record, the criminal exhibits referred to as 1328
is actually Defense Exhibit 1310.
MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, may I, to clarify, ask questions about the
photograph --
THE COURT: Excused.
MR. GELBLUM: May I ask questions about the photograph and Mr. Kelly
ask questions about the fingerprints since they were allowed to
reopen and that was his area.
MR. P. BAKER: I object to them telling me --
THE COURT: Go ahead.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Ms. Claiborne, is there any doubt whatsoever in
your mind that it was light out when the Detective asked Mr. Rokahr
to come and take pictures?
MR. P. BAKER: Objection, she doesn't know if it was the first time.
She has no independent knowledge of that.
MR. GELBLUM: It's a question.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection as to form. There's no
evidence to show that she was there when any question was asked of
Mr. Rokahr for the first time.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Ms. Claiborne, were you with Mr. Rokahr from the
time you got there until when he was called into the crime scene?
A. The majority of the time, yes.
Q. Okay. Did you see any detective other than -- about 6:30, I think
you said, 6:20 to 6:40, approach and ask him to come to the crime
scene to take pictures?
A. No, I didn't see anyone.
Q. Other than around 6:20 to 6:40?
A. That's correct.
Q. That's the time you saw anybody come and ask him to take
pictures?
A. Yes.
Q. And you did not see him return after that?
A. No, I didn't see him return.
Q. And it was light out when -- the time you saw somebody come and
ask him to take pictures?
A. Yes, it was.
MR. GELBLUM: Okay. I have nothing further. FUR
THER DIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. KELLY:
Q. Morning, Ms. Claiborne.
A. Good morning.
Q. You were there the morning of the 13th regarding lifting
potential fingerprints from the crime scene; is that correct?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Did you, in fact, lift 17 fingerprints from 875 South Bundy that
morning?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Were you present there while someone else did?
A. No, I wasn't present the entire time. I left after 8 o'clock that
morning.
Q. Okay. Did there come a time, though, that you gained access to a
number of fingerprints that were lifted from that location?
A. Yes. I saw the prints, yes.
Q. Okay. There were 17 of them; is that correct?
A. Somewhere around that number. I don't have the paperwork in front
of me so I'm not sure.
Q. You remember there were some steps taken to determine whether
those prints could be matched up to certain individuals; is that
correct?
A. Yes. But I'm not responsible for any of that. I didn't do
anything with those prints.
Q. Okay. But you knew enough to know that none of those prints had
been definitively matched to Mr. Simpson?
A. That is correct.
Q. Were you also familiar with the fact that three of those prints
that had been lifted had not been eliminated as potential left hand
prints of Mr. Simpson?
MR. P. BAKER: Outside the scope, misstates the evidence, lack of
foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I don't know anything about those prints.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Well, you indicated you knew that they were not
definitively matched up to Mr. Simpson?
A. I knew -- I don't know the exact number that were not matched.
Q. Isn't it also a fact there were some prints that were potential
prints of Mr. Simpson's left hand also?
MR. P. BAKER: No foundation in light of her answer.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) By the way, would you agree with me that it would
be impossible for that individual wearing gloves to leave prints?
MR. P. BAKER: Argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Do you know who any of those prints were
definitely matched up to that were recovered from the residence?
A. I know there was some prints that were not identified to anyone.
Q. Okay. And do you know there were some prints that were, what we
call, partial prints that could not be definitively matched to
certain individuals?
MR. P. BAKER: No foundation.
THE COURT: If you know.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Partial prints?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Okay. And isn't it a fact that some of these partial prints could
not be eliminated as potential prints of Mr. Simpson's?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. And that three -- that some of these prints could not be
eliminated as potential left-handed prints of Mr. Simpson's; is that
correct?
MR. P. BAKER: Argumentative, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Is that correct?
A. It's correct.
Q. Okay.
MR. KELLY: I have no further questions. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. P. BAKER:
Q. You couldn't identify anybody as to those prints that you
couldn't identify, true?
A. No. I know there was some prints that could not be identified to
anyone.
Q. And they could match anyone on the planet, right?
A. Yes, they could.
Q. And not one matched O.J. Simpson, right, not one at 875 South
Bundy matched O.J. Simpson?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you never saw Mr. Rokahr take this picture, right?
A. No, I didn't see him take it.
Q. And you don't know what time of day this picture was taken,
right?
A. No, I can't say for sure what time it was.
MR. P. BAKER: Nothing further.
MR. KELLY: Nothing, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You're excused.
MR. KELLY: E.J. Flammer, Your Honor. E.J. FLAMMER, called as a
witness on behalf of Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and testified as
follows:
THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in
the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God~?
THE WITNESS: I do.
THE CLERK: Please be seated. Sir, if you would please state and
spell your name for the record.
THE WITNESS: E.J. Flammer. E., J., F, as in Frank, l-a-m-m-e-r.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. KELLY:
Q. Morning, Mr. Flammer.
A. Morning.
Q. How old are you?
A. 24.
Q. And what city do you currently live in?
A. Hamburg, New York.
Q. And is that a suburb of Buffalo?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. How long have you lived there for?
A. My whole life.
Q. And are you currently employed?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And where are you employed?
A. I'm employed at Bates Jackson Engraving Company.
Q. How long you worked there?
A. Since the summer of '92.
Q. In addition to your -- you work there full time?
A. Yes.
Q. And in addition to your full-time employment there, do you have
any other profession that you engage in also?
A. I -- yes, I do, I take pictures professionally as a freelancer on
the side.
Q. As a photographer?
A. Yes.
Q. And how many years have you been engaged in the photography
profession?
A. I have been taking pictures since my sophomore -- junior year in
high school.
Q. Up to and including the present?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, what I'd like to do -- by the way, did you attend college?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Where?
A. At Canisius College, Buffalo, New York.
Q. Did you graduate?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Are you taking any postgraduate studies?
A. Yes, I'm working on my Master's in Business Administration there
as well.
Q. Let me finish my question before you give your answers, okay, Mr.
Flammer.
A. Sure.
Q. Now, I want to draw your attention to September 26, 1993. Do you
recall where you were on that particular date?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Where was that?
A. I was at Rich Stadium.
Q. And for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what does Rich
Stadium serve as?
A. Rich Stadium is the home field for the Buffalo Bills.
Q. Professional football?
A. Professional football team.
Q. For what purpose did you happen to be at Rich Stadium on
September 26, 1993?
A. There were two reasons. The first reason was to take pictures for
the Monday Morning Quarterback Club as a promotional event that they
were having celebrating O.J. Simpson's 2,003 yards, the anniversary
of that date. There was a promotional picture to be done before the
game. I was also there to shoot the actual game itself for the
Buffalo Bills Report.
Q. Okay. You indicated you're 24 now?
A. Correct.
Q. So you'd have been 20, 21, at the time?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, why you, of any other photographers, why were you hired to
take these pictures for the Monday Morning Quarterback Club on this
day?
A. My father was the president of the Monday Morning Quarterback
Club.
Q. Okay. And what time did you arrive at the stadium that day?
A. I arrived around 10 o'clock in the morning.
Q. And what was your understanding of what those photos were to be
used for that day?
A. The photos were to be used for publication and just as a general
promotion for the event itself, to help sell tickets and things like
that.
Q. Okay. And what time did you arrive at the stadium?
A. 10 o'clock.
Q. And after your arrival there at Rich Stadium, did you have
occasion to see Mr. Simpson?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did you know Mr. Simpson by sight, prior to that day?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And how did you know him by sight?
A. I grew up in Buffalo. O.J. Simpson's a landmark around there.
Q. You have nothing against Mr. Simpson?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Now, in what context did you see Mr. Simpson that morning after
you arrived there at 10 a.m.?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. Under what circumstances did you see Mr. Simpson -- what happened
next after you got there and you saw Mr. Simpson?
A. We were -- I was taken to the field with the other members that
are -- that I was to take the pictures with, and Mr. Simpson
happened to be walking up towards the press box, and one of the
people in the picture --
THE REPORTER: Can you repeat that, please.
THE WITNESS: One of the people in the picture called Mr. Simpson
back to the field as he was walking up to the press box.
Q. Who was that individual that called out to Mr. Simpson?
A. Bill Munson.
Q. Okay. And when Mr. Simpson came back down to the field, did you
then take some photographs?
A. Yes, I did. There was a time when I set up the shot where --
lined the people up, the people in the picture, you know, did meet
Mr. Simpson, talk to him a little bit, shook his hand. They did give
him a Monday Morning Quarterback Club pin, which is --
Q. Try to speak up a little.
A. I'm sorry about that. They gave him a Monday Morning Quarterback
Club pin for the picture, which some of the other members of the
club were wearing at the time.
MR. KELLY: Can I have the next in order, please.
THE CLERK: 2320.
MR. KELLY: Okay. I'm sorry, did we get --
THE CLERK: 2320.
(The instrument herein described as a Monday Morning Quarterback
Club pin was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.
2320.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Mr. Flammer, I'm going to show you a button. Do
you recognize that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what do you recognize it as?
A. This is my Monday Morning Quarterback Club pin. I'm a member of
the club as well.
Q. Is that the same type of button you saw Mr. Simpson put on for
the photograph that day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If you can just leave it there.
A. Sure.
Q. Okay. If I could have it back.
A. Sure.
MR. KELLY: Your Honor, if I could just pass this around while I
continue with my questioning also if that's all right.
THE COURT: You may.
(Pin is passed around to jurors.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, you indicated that you took a number of
photographs then with a group of people posing with Mr. Simpson; is
that right?
A. That is correct.
Q. And you recall who those other individuals were who were posing

A. Yes, I do.
Q. What were their names?
A. Bill Munson and Dennis Lynch from the Buffalo Bills were in the
picture. My father, Ed Flammer, who was the president of the
Quarterback Club, Jerry Flashner, and I believe Mike Lacata was the
other person in the picture with Mr. Simpson.
Q. Why were those other persons posing with Mr. Simpson?
A. They were members of the committee that were chosen to help
promote and to organize the dinner -- the dinner celebration that I
was taking the picture to promote.
Q. This dinner celebration was a commemorative for Mr. Simpson in
particular, was it not?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, how many pictures did you take of those individuals at that
time, did you shoot?
A. There were 30 pictures that were taken.
Q. And were those all group photos or what was the breakup?
A. They were not all group photos. The majority of them were group
photos, though, but there were three individual shots done as well
with Mr. Simpson and one other person.
Q. And what type of camera equipment did you use on that particular
day in taking those pictures?
A. It was a 35 millimeter camera, Canon T90, with a Vivitar 283
flash used to fill in the shadows, I used a 285 F4 zoom lens to
shoot this as well on 400 speed film color negative.
Q. Do you still have all that equipment in your possession that you
used that day to take those photographs?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you have it with you?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Can you just pull it up briefly so the ladies and gentlemen of
the jury can see that equipment.
(Witness complies, removes camera from bag and displays camera and
flash.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now -- if you could speak into the mike.
A. Okay.
Q. You're fading on us.
A. Sorry about that.
Q. Now, the way you have that equipment set up right now, is that
the way you utilized the equipment that day of September 26 of '93
in taking those 30 photos?
A. For the most part. If there was any change in it at all, it would
be the flash may have been tipped up a little bit just to bounce the
light to even out a little bit, but other than that...
Q. And how much time did you spend taking those 30 photographs?
A. If it was ten minutes it was a long time. It was not that long a
period of time.
Q. And what, if anything -- first of all, did you have film in the
camera when you started the shooting initially?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you have a new roll?
A. Yes, brand new roll.
Q. What did you do in terms of putting the film in the camera, first
of all?
A. The film was loaded in the camera as the shot was being set up,
as they say. And after I -- it popped off the first 27 pictures,
there was another roll that was loaded in because I had rewound the
first roll before the third person had spoken up and said they
wanted an individual shot of Mr. Simpson.
Q. Now, when you were done with the first 27 photos, what, if
anything, did you do with that roll of film that was in the camera?
A. The beginning part of the film, which is very common practice for
photographers, was torn off, just to indicate that that roll had
been -- so it doesn't get reshot during the course of the game. I
had a whole Bills game to shoot, which I would probably shoot close
to 10 rolls of film.
Q. What do you do after you do the tear?
A. The film was taken out, torn, and put into the front pocket of my
fanny pack.
Q. The fanny pack is something you were carrying with you that
entire day?
A. Correct.
Q. Put another roll in the camera?
A. Correct.
Q. Then what did you do?
A. Shot the other three pictures with Mr. Flashner and Mr. Simpson.
Q. And after you took those last three photos with Flashner and Mr.
Simpson, what, if anything, did you do then?
A. What I did was kind of turned the camera off and walked into the
photographer's locker room and just waited for the game to start.
Q. And did you utilize the rest of that film that had the initial 38
shots on it?
A. The rest of that roll was shot during warmups of the game.
Q. Do you recall who they were playing that day, by the way?
A. Miami Dolphins.
Q. Now, what did you do with that second roll of film when you were
done with it?
A. The same procedure. When the roll was complete, I used up -- the
leader was torn off, put into the front part of the fanny pack, and
a new roll loaded in.
Q. And what was the -- by the way, up to when that second roll was
completed, did you take other rolls of the game that day also?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, after the game, did there come a time that you took some
further steps with the film, those first two rolls that you utilized
that day?
A. Yes. The rolls were taken to Nova, N-o-v-a, Photo, which is a
professional lab that I would normally take my Bills film to on
Monday morning for processing.
Q. And that's what you did that Monday after the game?
A. Correct.
Q. And did you have any prints made of the negatives at that time?
A. Yes. I would have taken as requested -- Dennis Lynch from the
Bills was to take some 5-by-7's for people in the picture just kind
of that -- that you -- just a -- just a memento from that day. There
was six 5 by 7's that were made, distributed to Dennis Lynch, that
were all color, plus there was a black-and-white print made for
publication for the paper, the Buffalo Bills Report, which I was
working for.
Q. Now, you indicated you only made six prints that day at Nova; is
that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And the others were just left as negatives?
A. Correct.
Q. All right. I should say everything was left as a negative but you
only made six prints from all the negatives from the day before?
A. There was a seventh print made, this was a black-and-white. There
were seven; six color, one black-and-white.
Q. Now, with regard to the six prints that were made, what did you
do with them subsequently after they were made?
A. They were distributed to Dennis Lynch and he distributed them
from there.
Q. And you also indicated that through the -- a certain connection
of yours -- and in making these prints, you were to be paid for this
project, were you not?
A. That is correct.
Q. And did you happen to submit -- submit a bill to the Buffalo
Bills for the six --
A. Yes, the six 5-by-7's were billed to the Buffalo Bills directly.
Q. And did they pay that bill?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. To you?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. I'm going to ask you to identify this, first of all.
MR. BAKER: May I see it.
MR. KELLY: Before he sees it?
MR. BAKER: I mean that's customary, isn't it?
MR. GELBLUM: Well, I guess he'll go along with it.
(Mr. Kelly shows document to Mr. Baker.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) I'm going to ask you to look at both of those
items, Mr. Flammer.
A. Sure.
Q. Maybe you can identify it?
A. The first is the invoice, invoice number 2012, which has on it
two different items; the first would be the O.J. Simpson six 5-by-7
color prints, the second is another photo that I had taken at a
different date.
Q. And when did you make up that invoice for submission to the
Bills?
A. That was billed October 17 of '93.
Q. If I could see that again, please.
A. Sure.
Q. Is that what you were just referring to, Mr. Flammer?
A. Yes.
Q. The invoice you submitted to the Bills?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now --
MR. KELLY: If you could back it up.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And could you point to the part that describes --
well, first of all, the date up there, does that indicate the date
that you generated that invoice?
A. That is correct.
Q. Okay. And down below, where it says "Description" and it says
"5-by-7 Custom Color Prints" --
A. Um-hum.
Q. -- "O.J. Simpson" it says "Quantity."
MR. KELLY: If you could back off a little bit, Steve. Okay. Take it
across, left to right, Steve.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And it's got the rates at 6.95 per print; is that
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. The total for those six prints was 41.70; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And there's some other photos --
MR. KELLY: If you can go back and do the same thing, Steve.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Where we have quantity five, and 5-by-7 custom
color prints flag wavers, the rate, were those photos taken this
day?
A. I don't believe they were taken on the same day.
Q. Okay. They're not related to this --
A. No.
Q. -- promotional photography?
A. They're separate.
Q. Okay. And --
MR. KELLY: You can take that down, Steve.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And you also indicated there in front of you,
that you had been paid by the Bills for this job?
A. That is correct.
Q. And what is that you have in front of you there?
A. This is the check stub from the Buffalo Bills paying that
invoice.
Q. Okay. And what's the date on that?
A. The invoice date is on here of 10/17 and the date of payment is
11/23.
Q. Of what year?
A. '93.
Q. '93.
MR. KELLY: Can you back off a little first, Steve.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Is that the stub that had a check attached to it,
that was sent to you from the Bills as a result of the invoice
submitted?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
MR. KELLY: And if you could bring it a little closer, Steve.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) It shows the date. That's the date that that check
was issued; is that correct?
A. Correct.
MR. KELLY: And if you could back it off into the left a little
bit, Steve.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Invoice date 11/17/93, is that the date of your
invoice?
A. Yes.
MR. GELBLUM: 10/17.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) 10/17, I'm sorry. And 76.45 is the amount you
invoiced for that complete set of prints; is that right?
A. Yes.
THE CLERK: The invoice we marked 2321, and the check stub 2322.
(The instrument herein described as an invoice was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2321.)
(The instrument herein described as a check stub was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2322.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, Mr. Flammer, you indicated that on the 26th
of September, '93, you went into Rich Stadium to take these shots;
is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. And not just anybody is allowed to walk into Rich Stadium for
this purpose, are they?
A. No, they're not.
Q. What is it that enables you to get into Rich Stadium for
practicing your profession?
A. A field credential.
Q. Did you have a field credential for that day?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Ask you to take a look at this and see if you could identify that
for me?
A. Yes. That is my field credential for that game on the 26th.
Q. Does that reflect the date that it would be used on?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the date on there?
A. Sunday, September 26, 1993.
Q. Okay. Thanks.
THE CLERK: 2323.
(The instrument herein described as a field credential was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2323.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, Mr. Flammer, is that the pass you wore that
day that enabled you to get into Rich Stadium to take the photos
that we've been speaking of?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that the Bills-Dolphins game?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, in addition to those six prints you indicated you billed the
Buffalo Bills for, did you develop or have prints made from any
other negatives after that time that you took the photos?
A. There was one other negative that was developed in
black-and-white for the publication for the Buffalo Bills Report.
Q. And who developed that particular black-and-white print from the
negative?
A. I did, in my own darkroom.
Q. Where is that darkroom located?
A. In the basement of my house.
Q. And do you recall what particular frame of negative that print
was made from?
A. 7-
A.
Q. Okay. And did there come a time that you ever saw -- first of
all, what did you do with that black-and-white print after you made
it yourself?
A. The print was made in my darkroom and delivered to the editor of
the paper with the other prints from that game and for publication
going for the next month.
Q. And by the way, what did you do with the six prints that you
made?
A. Those were distributed to Dennis Lynch of the Bills.
Q. Did there come a time that you ever saw the reproduction of that
black-and-white print that you had made in your darkroom that day?
A. Yes. It appeared in the Buffalo Bills Report.
MR. KELLY: 2317.
(Counsel hands Exhibit 2317 to witness.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Do you recognize, first of all, that publication?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What do you recognize it to be?
A. This is the Buffalo Bills Report.
Q. Okay. And how was that received, first of all, by people who get
the Report?
A. It was a monthly publication that was mailed to subscription
holders.
Q. Are you a subscription holder?
A. Because I was photo editor, they put me on the subscription list.

Q. Did there come a time that you received that particular
publication?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the date of that particular publication?
A. November of 1993.
Q. And did that black-and-white print that you had made yourself, in
the basement of your own house, appear in that publication?
A. Yes.
Q. On what page does it appear on?
A. Of the first section, it appears on page 19.
Q. If you could hold that up for the ladies and gentlemen of the
jury.
(Witness complies.)
Q. And that's the photograph that was generated by you personally,
from negative 7-A in the basement of your house?
A. Right, correct.
Q. And did you actually ever have occasion to make a color print
from that same frame that appeared in that Bills Report?
A. I'm almost positive that there was the same frame that was the
six 5-by-7's or the five 5-by-7's that were distributed to Denny
Lynch.
Q. Going to ask you to look at an exhibit that was marked
previously as 2303 and see if you, first of all, recognize what that
is?
A. Yes. This is a color contact sheet from the negatives shot that
day.
Q. Does that reflect the negative 75 that was used to make the
photograph that appeared in the Bills Report publication?
A. Yes.
Q. If I can have that for a moment?
A. Sure.
MR. KELLY: Steve, hold onto that, please.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Is that part of the contact sheet of your original
negatives 75, that was used to generate the publication, Bills
Report?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Take it down, Steve.
(Mr. Foster removes contact sheet photographs from Elmo.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) I'm going to ask you to look at these photographs.
Now, in looking through those 30 photographs, do you recognize them?

A. Yes.
Q. What do you recognize them to be?
A. Those were the photos that I took that day.
Q. And were generated from the 30 negatives you had taken for the
Quarterback Club?
A. Yes.
MR. KELLY: Your Honor, if we could have those marked next in order
sequentially.
THE CLERK: How many are there?
MR. KELLY: There are 30, but --
MR. PETROCELLI: They're different sizes. Just mark them sequentially
all 30.
THE CLERK: Starting with 2324.
(The instruments herein referred to as photos were marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2324, 2325, 2326, 2327,
2328, 2329, 2330, 2331, 2332, 2333, 2334, 2335, 2336, 2337, 2338,
2339, 2340, 2341, 2342, 2343, 2344, 2345, 2346, 2347, 2348, 2349,
2350, 2351, 2352, 2353.)
THE CLERK: I'll have to mark them one by one, as you go. When you
refer to them, just mark the back of them.
Q. Now, Mr. Flammer, you had indicated that on the Monday after the
September 26, 1993 game, you had those six prints made, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you have any other -- actually, what did you do with all
the negatives after you had those six prints made on that Monday
after the game?
A. The negatives were put into a three-ring binder in the darkroom
at my house.
Q. And were they there for a number of years?
A. Yes.
MR. BAKER: That's leading, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And tell me, when was the next time you had
occasion to look at those negatives after that? Was it that Monday
you had put them in the three-ring binder in the basement?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell me when the next time you had occasion to look at
those negatives?
A. The negatives were then looked at December 27, 1996.
Q. And after you looked at those negatives, did you have occasion to
have prints made from them?
A. The prints that were made were for my agent, yes.
Q. And when were those prints made?
A. Those were made Monday, the 30th -- I believe it would have
been the 30th of December.
Q. Of December of what year?
A. '96.
Q. And when I asked you before when the next time you saw those
after 1993, you said December 27. What year was that?
A. 1996.
Q. Okay. And, by the way, did you make an affirmative effort to go
look for those negatives at this time.
MR. BAKER: This is leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KELLY: I'll withdraw the question.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, was December 30 of 1996 the first time you
generated prints from all 30 of those negatives?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall meeting with me on the afternoon of December
30, 1996?
MR. BAKER: I want to object. I want to approach.
THE COURT: You may.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the
reporter.)
MR. BAKER: First of all, Your Honor, I don't want -- I would object
to Mr. Kelly bringing up anything about any expert going into
Buffalo or Hamburg and looking at these photos, under 2034
(l) and 2034
(k), because now nothing in either of those sections' requirements,
when you want to designate an expert to -- additional expert
testimony, not one requirement in either of those code sections has
been adhered to, in addition to what I put on the record yesterday.
Second of all, I don't think that -- that Mr. Kelly can get out of
this witness his self-serving -- whatever he did with this witness.
And let me just say, this witness wouldn't talk to us. He wouldn't
say one word to us. He says, no, I won't even tell you whether or
not Scull's a friend, 'cause you got to talk to Mr. Kelly. So that
Mr. Kelly's apparently his lawyer. And I would object to him
discussing any conversations and hearsay conversations that took
place.
MR. KELLY: I was -- all I was going to ask him was if he provided me
with prints from those negatives on that date, an that was it.
THE COURT: Okay. You may ask that.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the
presence of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Mr. Flammer, on December 30, did you provide me
with some prints that had been generated from those 30 negatives?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall how many you gave to me at this time?
A. I believe it was four.
Q. Now, in addition to the prints you've provided me on December 30,
did you take any steps to market or sell these 30 prints?
A. Yes. I had hired an agent and spoken to a lawyer, who happens to
be a family friend, and is my cousin's husband.
Q. The lawyer is?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And the agent, when did you hire him to market these
photos?
A. That was the -- I actually didn't sign a formal agreement with
him until the evening of the 30th.
Q. When you had spoken?
A. I had spoken to him before that.
Q. And do you know whether or not these prints, or copies of these
prints, had been sold?
A. I had been advised by my attorney that the three major networks
have purchased -- purchased rights to them.
Q. Okay. And do you know for how much?
A. No, I do not.
Q. By the way, have you ever been contacted by any representatives
of Mr. Simpson's defense team?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Okay. Mr. Flammer, if you could, just look through here. And
would you be able to identify the print generated from negative 7A?
A. Yes.
Q. If you could, look on the back, sir.
A.
(The witness complies.)
(Mr. Kelly hands photo to counsel.)
MR. KELLY: It says 2329.
(Exhibit 2329 displayed on Elmo screen.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Is that a print generated from that same negative,
7A, that, again, that you made the black-and-white photo that was
used in the Buffalo Bills Report in November of 1993?
A. Yes.
THE COURT: What was that -- was this? You mark these as exhibits
now?
MR. KELLY: Excuse me. They have been marked.
THE COURT: What is this one?
MR. FOSTER: 2329.
MR. GELBLUM: It's one of the 30, Your Honor.
MR. KELLY: You can take that off, Steve.
(Exhibit 2329 removed from Elmo screen.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Mr. Flammer, you indicated that the first thing
you did after that shoot that day, on September 26, 1993, was
generate negatives; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And so, from September 26, 1993, have you maintained custody and
control of those negatives?
A. Yes.
Q. And, by the way, do you have those negatives here with you today?

A. Yes, I do.
Q. If you could, pull them out, please.
(Witness removes negatives from briefcase. )
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And what are you holding in your hands? If you
could, describe each one and hold them up for --
A. I'm holding two clear file storage -- plastic sleeving, holding
the group shots and two of the individual shots with Mr. Simpson on
this roll. And this roll over here would be the other three photos,
along with some warm-up shots of the Buffalo Bills.
Q. If I could see those for a minute, please.
(Witness hands negatives to Mr. Kelly.)
MR. KELLY: Will these show up on the Elmo?
(Negatives displayed on Elmo screen.)
MR. FOSTER: They might need to be taken out of the plastic.
MR. KELLY: Can you focus to make up the --
MR. BAKER: You going to mark these? If we're going to show them, I
want them marked.
THE COURT: Marked for identification only.
THE CLERK: 2354.
MR. KELLY: 23 --
THE CLERK: 54.
MR. KELLY: 2354.
(The instrument herein referred to as Negatives contained in plastic
sleeving of photographs taken by Mr. Flammer on September 26, 1993,
was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2354.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Looking at that 75, it appears sort of x-ray image
on the screen. Is that the negative we've been referring to that
generated the black and white that then appeared in the Bills
Report?
A. Yes.
MR. KELLY: If you could back off a little bit, show the entire
strip.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And that wasn't the first picture in the roll
taken, was it?
A. No, it was not.
Q. You have never taken any steps to separate that frame or any
frame from your other strips of negatives, have you?
A. No.
MR. KELLY: And if you could, just throw the other one up, too,
Steve. We'll mark that for identification, also.
MR. GELBLUM: 2355.
(The instrument herein referred to as Negatives contained in plastic
sleeving of photographs taken by Mr. Flammer on September 26, 1993,
was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2355.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) By the way, did you date those plastic pages on
the day you took the pictures?
A. Most of the time. I would, if I wasn't just marking the top of
the sleeve or the contents, it was probably a date put on it, as
well. That one does happen to be marked.
Q. Okay. And that was done at the time you put the sleeve --
A. Correct.
Q. And the other one had a date?
A. Yes.
Q. And you indicated you've had control over these the during the
time you've had them?
A. Yes.
Q. Pages of negatives; is that correct?
A. Yes.
MR. BAKER: Objection. Leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. Could I see the group photo one more time.
MR. FOSTER: 7?
MR. KELLY: Yeah. If you could, back off a little bit.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Mr. Flammer, could just identify the people in
here one more time. Who's that individual right there
(indicating)?
MR. BAKER: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled?
A. That is Bill Munson.
MR. KELLY: Back off a little bit, Steve.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And that individual right there
(indicating)?
A. That is Danny Lynch.
Q. Who is Danny Lynch?
A. Danny Lynch is the -- I believe he's the PR director for the
team.
Q. Okay. This individual right here?
A. That is Mike Lacata.
Q. Mr. Simpson?
A. Mr. Simpson.
Q. This individual right there?
A. Jerry Flashner.
Q. That gentleman right here?
(Indicating.)
A. Ed Flammer.
Q. Your father?
A. Yes.
Q. He's the one responsible for getting you this shoot?
A. Yes.
MR. KELLY: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Cross-examine. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. BAKER:
Q. Mr. Flammer, you testified that no one from Mr. Simpson's
attorneys tried to contact you. We just tried to contact you in the
hall, and you won't talk to us, would you?
A. That is correct.
Q. In other words, you've been informed by Mr. Kelly not to discuss
anything with any of the defense lawyers for Mr. Simpson; isn't that
true?
A. That is not true.
Q. Didn't you just tell my son, Phillip, that you couldn't talk even
-- you couldn't discuss even whether or not Mr. Scull was your
friend, because Mr. Kelly told you not to?
A. That is not true.
Q. You didn't just say that you had to discuss --
A. I did say Mr. Kelly is aware of that situation. I didn't know --
and he introduced himself as your son. He could have been anyone,
anybody from the media, or anyone along those lines.
Q. You follow the criminal trial, the Simpson criminal trial?
A. Not very closely.
Q. Now, your lawyer is Mike Kramer, is he not? Mark Kramer?
A. Mark Kramer.
Q. And Mark Kramer, on Monday, January 6, 1997, was on -- on
television, talking about these photos, right?
A. I can't say for sure, but. . .
Q. Now, did you tell your attorney that you, in fact, followed the
O.J. Simpson criminal trial closely?
MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay.
MR. PETROCELLI: We have a privilege.
MR. KELLY: Possess a privilege.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: I'll show the Court the transcript where the attorney
waived the privilege, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The attorney can't waive the client's privilege.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Is it your testimony that you didn't follow the
O.J. Simpson criminal trial at all, sir?
A. Not at all, but, I -- I mean, I did follow --
Q. And is it your testimony that these photos never came to mind,
from September of 1993, after the criminal trial started in June of
-- strike that -- in September of 1994, throughout the whole time
period, until December 28, 1996, right?
A. That is correct.
Q. And Mr. Scull, Harry Scull, Jr., he's a friend of yours, right?
A. Not really, not a friend.
Q. Well how many freelance photographers are there in Buffalo?
A. There are quite a few. I can't tell you an exact amount.
Q. How many of you get on the -- he's about your age?
A. He's a little bit older.
Q. He's about your age, though, isn't he?
A. Probably pretty close.
Q. And he was on the football field that day, was he?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. Did you see him only on the football field that day?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did you ever check to see whether or not -- the log to determine
whether or not you and Mr. Scull had ever signed in for the
September 26, 1993 game was missing at Buffalo?
A. Yes, it is missing.
Q. And it's the only log that is missing in four years for the
sign-in of anybody that went on the field; isn't that right, sir?
MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You are aware that that's the only log that is
missing in four years of games for people who went on Rich Field,
'cause you tried to get that log, didn't you?
MR. KELLY: Same objection. Calls for hearsay; argumentative;
speculative; no foundation.
MR. BAKER: And any other known objection known to God or man.
MR. KELLY: Et cetera.
THE COURT: I'll sustain it only as to form. Sounds like two
questions.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Okay. We'll have one at a time.
MR. KELLY: Split objection in half.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You attempted to get the log to see if you could
prove that you were even there, right?
A. I did call, yes.
Q. And it is the -- is the only log missing in four years, and you
learned that in your request to try to find the log?
MR. KELLY: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
A. Yes.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And, by the way, sir, you got $41.70 for the first
six pictures, right?
A. That is correct.
Q. And can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury your
minimum asking price for these pictures?
A. I am not privy to that information.
Q. You told there's -- well, let me put it this way: Did your
attorney -- you testified we didn't contact you relative to these
photos; that is, anybody from Mr. Simpson's team. You don't know how
many times we contacted Mark Kramer to find -- to get the negatives,
correct?
A. He never mentioned it to me.
Q. You are well aware that, to determine whether or not a photograph
has been altered, if it can be determined at -- at all, you need the
original negatives. True?
A. True.
Q. And you have never allowed the defense to see any original
negatives. Correct?
MR. KELLY: Objection. Argumentative, and as to form, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question please.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Neither you nor your attorney has ever allowed
anybody from the defense side to view those negatives that you have
brought with you today; isn't that true, sir?
A. To my knowledge, we have not been contacted about that.
Q. You never allowed it, have you?
A. Never been contacted, sir.
Q. And you don't know if we contacted your lawyer and asked your
lawyer. He wouldn't return any calls, right?
MR. KELLY: Objection. Argumentative; no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you copyrighted this photograph, right?
A. In other words --
Q. Well, I think it's all on the back of every one of those.
A. Which photo is that?
Q. I don't know. It's just one of them.
A. Yeah.
Q. This is what I'm getting at.
A. Sure.
Q. And Rob McElroy, he's a freelance photographer around Buffalo,
isn't he?
A. That is correct.
Q. And his main job is not an agent; his main job is freelance
photographer?
A. Right.
MR. KELLY: Objection.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And this is what you have on the back of every
picture: A copyrighted photograph, not to be videotaped,
photographed, photocopied, or otherwise reproduced in any way,
analog, digital, and cannot be used by any person, organization, or
media without the permission of the photographer or his agent.
Right?
A. Yes.
Q. More at 11:00, huh? In any event, the agent is Rob McCelroy,
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. He just happens to be, at a happenstance, the same -- very same
agent of Harry Scull, Jr., right?
A. Correct.
Q. Just happenstance. And his main job isn't an agent at all, is it?

A. No.
Q. And he's the fellow that sold the Scull photograph to the
National Enquirer for $17,000 and gave Scull $5,000, right?
MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay; argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, do you know whether Mr. Rob McCelroy sold
that Scull photo to the National Enquirer for $17,000?
MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay again, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You signed a contract with Mr. Rob McCelroy,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you are well aware that you're probably going to get 40, 50
thousand bucks for those, rather than $41.70; isn't that right?
MR. KELLY: Objection. Argumentative. He indicated he has no
knowledge.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I have no idea.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Are you sitting here, sir, telling this jury, you
have no idea as to the amount of money that you have put down as a
minimum amount, you'll sell these photos?
A. That has not -- I have not been privy to any of this
information.
Q. Have you tried to insulate that from you because Mr. Kelly flew
up to Buffalo and told you, don't have any knowledge of how much
money, because Mr. Baker sure as heck will ask you how much money
you're getting for those photos.
MR. KELLY: Objection. Interesting, but argumentative, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did he tell you words to that effect, sir?
A. Can you repeat the question again?
Q. Yeah, sure. Did Mr. Kelly fly up to Buffalo from his hometown in
New York and tell you, look, isolate yourself from any dollar
amounts from these photos; isolate yourself. Don't know what you're
going to get from those photos, so that when Baker asks you a
question about the photos, you won't have the answer?
A. It was not direct from Mr. Kelly.
Q. Who's it directed from?
A. My attorney.
MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay; privilege.
THE COURT: I didn't get the last question, when you interrupted.
What's the last question?
(The reporter read the record as follows:
Q. Who's it directed from?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BAKER: Did we get the answer in, because I didn't -- did we get
an answer in?
THE COURT REPORTER: The answer was, "my attorney."
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So it was your attorney who told you not to know
how much money you're going to get from this?
A. I don't know if those were the exact words.
Q. But pretty close?
MR. BAKER: I can see, Your Honor. We're going to lunch.
THE COURT: 1:30, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case.
Don't form or express any opinions.
(At 12:05 P.M., a luncheon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the
same day.) SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1997
1:45 PM DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE APPEARANCES:

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)
(Jurors resume their respective seats.) CROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. BAKER:
Q. Now, Mr. Flammer, did somebody buying your photos -- did they pay
for your airfare?
A. Can you repeat the question.
Q. Did one of the media groups, did they pay for your airfare out
here?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. How many appearances do you have scheduled as soon as you get off
the stand to go on television?
A. Zero.
Q. Not a one?
A. Not a one.
Q. Do you have a PR guy in addition to the agent and lawyer you
have?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, have you been informed of any dollar amount of offers made
on your photos?
A. No, sir.
Q. Not one?
A. Not one.
Q. And you've made sure that you don't get informed of that until
after you get off this witness stand, right?
A. Can you repeat that question.
Q. You have made sure that you're not informed of any of the offers
that you have to sell those photos so that you and Rob McElroy don't
make money until after you get off the witness stand, correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. All right. And have you tried -- have you tried to sell those
photos to the National Enquirer?
A. Personally?
Q. Or do you know if your lawyer or your agent has?
A. I do not have that knowledge.
Q. And have you insulated -- attempted to insulate yourself from
that knowledge as well, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. That was particularly so you could testify in this case, right?
A. Not particularly.
Q. Were you told if you testified in this case the price of the
photos was increased?
A. No.
Q. Not at all?
A. No.
Q. Now, you told this jury that you discovered those photos on the
27, right?
A. That is correct.
Q. Friday, December 27, you told them that under penalty of perjury?

A. Right.
Q. You told this Court, by way of declaration, that you discovered
the photos under penalty of perjury on the weekend of the 28, 29,
right? Let me show it to you.
A. Okay.
Q. I don't want to -- this is from the official court file filed on
this case. That is your signature?
A. That is correct.
Q. That was prepared, of course, by Mr. Kelly for you to sign?
A. I believe so.
Q. And he was working with your attorney, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And now, so you said there, the 28, 29, under penalty of perjury,
you told this jury the 27?
A. Friday being part of that weekend, I would consider it . . .
Q. Tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury if you have December 27
anywhere on that declaration, sir?
A. No, it is not.
Q. Okay. Now, relative to -- is it your testimony, sir, that you
were O.J.'ed out; that's why you didn't discover these things for
two and a half years after the murders?
A. Can you repeat that question.
Q. Well, your attorney indicated that you were O.J.'ed out after the
criminal trial, that's why you didn't discover the photos, when he
was interviewed by Katie Couric; is that true?
MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay, Your Honor, what his
attorney said.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I don't remember personally telling him that, no.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I don't mean to be flip, and after the criminal
trial, I was just O.J.'ed out. Do you know where that phrase came
from?
MR. KELLY: Objection.
THE COURT: That's hearsay, sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Do you know if that's the exact phrase Scull used
for his failure to have purportedly found his photographs for a year
and a half?
MR. KELLY: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained, calls for hearsay, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, Scull's depo was taken in Buffalo on July 1,
1996. You were aware of that?
A. If you say.
Q. Well, it was on all -- it was on every station in Buffalo, wasn't
it?
A. Could have been.
Q. Well, it was in the newspaper?
A. Could have been.
Q. Well, did you see it, hear about it?
MR. KELLY: Objection, relevance, Your Honor, also argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled. I presume it's foundational to something.
A. July 1, I was personally and probably on the golf course, that's
why I didn't see it.
Q. Well, it was -- for days, it was in the paper that we were back
there, we took Mr. Scull's photo -- Is it your testimony, sir, that
you never heard when Mr. Scull, from Buffalo, New York, was getting
paid for a photograph of O.J. Simpson showing the shoes; is that
your testimony?
A. No, that's not my testimony.
Q. So even when you heard about Scull getting paid for it, you have
nothing -- you don't -- nothing triggers your mind about this
momentous event where your father was in the photograph and they
were celebrating 20 years, after O.J. Simpson had rushed for 2,000
yards, right?
A. Not particularly.
Q. Nothing. And it just so happened that on December 27, 8 or 9,
that miraculously, you go oh, my God, there's 30 photographs of O.J.
Simpson with shoes, right?
A. Yes.
Q. You -- you have -- you keep the invoice, you keep the check, and
you don't find the photographs or the negatives for two and a half
years; is that right?
A. That's correct. I believe I testified earlier, sir, that I'm not
actively in the freelance business. Now I'm more along the lines
working for the printing and engraving company.
Q. I see. So you kept all of that, and 30 months later you found
this, and it's kind of like finding a Rembrandt in your attic?
A. You can liken it to that.
Q. You're just out here going to make a whole bunch of money and be
on television and just do great with this, right?
A. If that's what happens.
Q. You bet.
MR. BAKER: Thanks. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. KELLY:
Q. Couple minutes, Mr. Flammer. First of all, back in 1993 and '94,
would it be fair to say that Mr. Simpson was a very popular figure
up in Buffalo?
A. Sure.
Q. Was he a popular figure within the Bills organization?
MR. BAKER: Objection, outside the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Were you familiar with a lots of the people in the
Bill's organization in 1993, 1994?
A. Yes.
MR. BAKER: Outside the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Mr. Flammer, did you have any discussions with
your attorney regarding making those negatives available to the
defense as well as us in this particular case?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did you have any objection at any time to making those
negatives available to Mr. Simpson's defense team?
A. Not at all.
Q. As a matter of fact, the negatives are being held by the court
right now, are they not?
A. I believe so.
Q. And do you have any objection whatsoever to leaving them with the
court for a day or two so Mr. Simpson or his experts can examine
them?
A. Not at all.
MR. KELLY: I have nothing further.
MR. BAKER: Nothing further. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. BAKER:
Q. Oh, did you call your lawyer as we asked you to over the break
since you -- and find out how much they had been offering?
A. I attempted to get a hold of Mr. Kramer and Mr. Kramer is in
route back to Buffalo.
Q. Wait a minute. You didn't ask Mr. Kramer -- you testified earlier
that you didn't know whether Mr. Kramer had been contacted by us at
all this morning, you testified to that, did you not?
A. You asked me to --
Q. Did you not testify this morning that you didn't know whether
Mr. Kramer had been contacted by any of Mr. Simpson's lawyers?
A. That's correct.
Q. You didn't contact him over the lunch hour, correct, you weren't
able to reach him?
A. I was not able to reach him.
Q. You just testified to Mr. Kelly right in this courtroom that we
had contacted your attorney and you had no objection if he turned
over the negatives to us?
MR. KELLY: I believe that misstates his testimony, he said that he
had no objection, he discussed with his attorney.
MR. BAKER: Let him answer the question. Do you have an objection?
MR. KELLY: I have an objection to the form of the question,
misstates his testimony.
THE COURT: Answer the question if you can.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Are you --
A. Can you repeat your question, please.
Q. You're not telling this jury that you have information that we
attempted to get the negatives, and your lawyer said you can do
whatever you want and -- or you can look at the negatives; you're
not attempting to tell this jury that, are you, Mr. Flammer?
A. Can you repeat that one more time.
Q. Are you attempting to tell this jury that we made efforts to
get the negatives, these 30 photographs, and that you said to your
lawyer, go ahead, give them to them, they can do whatever they want
with the negatives; you're not attempting to tell this jury that,
are you, sir?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And you testified this morning --
A. Um-hum.
Q. -- that you didn't know whether we had ever even contacted your
attorney, correct, didn't you?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you or did you not? And you haven't since that testimony came
into this courtroom, you have not contacted or been able to speak
with your attorney, true?
A. Correct.
MR. BAKER: Thank you. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. KELLY:
Q. Mr. Flammer, you instructed your attorney to make the negatives
available to Mr. Simpson's lawyers, did they not?
MR. BAKER: That's leading.
A. That's correct.
MR. BAKER: Move to strike the question and the answer.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And relative to the time you located those
negatives, when did you give him that instruction?
A. Immediately.
Q. Okay. One more thing. When you were asked about insulating
yourself, is it true that the reason you insulated yourself from the
amount of the sale was to make your testimony not biased or colored
here at trial?
MR. BAKER: Leading, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KELLY: I have no further questions.
MR. BAKER: Nothing further.
THE COURT: You're excused.
MR. KELLY: Your Honor, at this time I would like to move in a number
of items, which would be 2317, 2295, 2296, 2297, 2298, 2299, 2300,
2301, 2302, 2303, 2304, 2320, 2321, 2322, 2323, 2324 through 2353,
and 2354 and 2355.
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2317.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2295.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2296.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2297.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2298.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2299.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2300.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2301.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2302.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2303.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2304.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2320.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2321.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2322.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2323.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2324.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2325.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2326.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2327.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2328.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2329.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2330.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2331.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2332.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2333.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2334.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2335.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2336.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2337.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2338.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2339.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2340.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2341.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2342.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2343.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2344.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2345.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2346.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2347.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2348.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2349.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2350.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2351.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2352.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2353.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2354.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2355.)
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I'd like to mark that next, 2356, and move
the declaration in.
(The instrument herein described as Copy of Declaration of E.J.
Flammer was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No.
2356.)
THE COURT: Okay. There being no objection both the defense --
THE CLERK: Does anybody have an objection to a copy of the
declaration being marked?
MR. BAKER: No.
THE CLERK: Okay. MS. MOLINARO: We call, for the record, Miss Leslie
Gardner.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, we object. This is not rebuttal.
THE COURT: Objection previously made and ruled on. Same ruling.
THE CLERK: You were sworn previously. Can you state your name for
the record. You are still under oath.
THE WITNESS: Leslie Gardner. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. MOLINARO:
Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Gardner.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. Ms. Gardner, you testified before this jury about a month ago on
December 4; do you remember?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Just for purposes of reintroducing you to the jury, you were the
sole wardrobe stylist for the exercise video that Mr. Simpson filmed
on May 25, 26 and 27 of 1994; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Now, as the wardrobe stylist on that video, did you
acquire black sweat clothing for Mr. Simpson to wear in that video?
MR. LEONARD: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q.
(BY MS. MOLINARO) You may answer.
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Yesterday, Mr. Simpson testified --
MR. LEONARD: Objection, calls for hearsay and it's argumentative.
THE COURT: It's not hearsay.
MR. LEONARD: It's argumentative. MS. MOLINARO: I'm going to read the
testimony we're rebutting.
MR. LEONARD: Objection to that statement to the jury. I also object
that this is an argumentative question, you can tell from the
get-go.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection to reading the testimony. You
can ask her a question.
Q.
(BY MS. MOLINARO) Ms. Gardner, did Mr. Simpson ever wear a black D&K
sweat shirt in the video?
A. No, never wore it in the video.
Q. Do you know why that sweat suit was not used in the video?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. The sweat suit was the wrong size.
Q. Did Mr. Simpson ever ask you if he could keep the top to that
cashmere sweat suit?
A. No.
Q. And this is a black D&K cashmere sweat suit, right?
A. Correct.
Q. You did order one for him at his request?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. What happened to the black D&K sweat suit?
A. I sent it back to New York.
Q. That's because it was the wrong size?
A. Because it was the wrong size.
Q. Mrs. Gardner, did you buy black cotton sweat clothing for Mr.
Simpson to wear on the video?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes, I did.
Q.
(BY MS. MOLINARO) What articles of black cotton sweat clothing did
you buy for Mr. Simpson to wear in the video?
A. I bought at least one sweat jacket and at least one pair of sweat
pants.
Q. Ms. Gardner, I'm going to show you now on the television monitor
what's been marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2219.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this. It's already
gone into in detail. 2219 was identified by this witness; she
testified to it. This is all asked and answered, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q.
(BY MS. MOLINARO) Ms. Gardner, this is a photograph of Mr. Simpson
and trainer Richard Walsh that I showed you last time; do you
remember that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Did you buy the black zip front black sweat jacket Mr. Simpson
wearing in that photograph?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that a D&K cashmere sweat jacket?
A. No, it's not.
Q. Where did you buy that black sweat jacket?
A. I bought that black sweat jacket at Bullocks Men's Store.
Q. What material is it made of?
A. That would be cotton fleece.
Q. Did you buy the black sweat pants that Mr. Simpson is wearing in
that photograph?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What name brand of pants is that?
A. Reebok. MS. MOLINARO: I'm going to put the next photograph on the
monitor. This is Exhibit 2226.
Q.
(BY MS. MOLINARO) Ms. Gardner, I showed you this photograph last
time you testified; do you remember?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did you buy the black zip front sweat jacket that Mr.
Simpson is wearing in that photograph?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that a D&K cashmere jacket?
A. No, it's not.
Q. Where did you buy that black sweat jacket?
A. I bought that black sweat jacket at Bullocks Men's Store.
Q. What material is it made of?
A. Cotton fleece.
Q. The next photograph up for you is Exhibit 2220. This is another
picture that I had shown you last time you testified. Do you
remember?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you buy the black sweat pants that Mr. Simpson is wearing in
that photograph?
A. Yes.
Q. What name brand of sweat pants are they?
A. Reebok.
Q. Now, I'm going to show you first --
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I have an objection at this point. I would
like to approach with the exhibit.
THE COURT: You may.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the
reporter):
MR. LEONARD: I've never seen this before. It's not on their list.
MS. MOLINARO: Yeah, it is. It's previously marked. What exhibit
number is it?
MR. FOSTER: 770. MS. MOLINARO: It's 770.
MR. PETROCELLI: We're not interested in the writing.
MR. LEONARD: I want to see it.
MR. PETROCELLI: I just want you to know we're only going to put in
this picture.
MR. LEONARD: I object to that, Your Honor. There's no authenticity
-- there's no way to authenticate that, when it was taken, at what
point. MS. MOLINARO: She can testify to all that.
MR. LEONARD: So she knows when it was taken? MS. MOLINARO: Yes.
THE COURT: Overruled.
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
Q.
(BY MS. MOLINARO) Ms. Gardner, if you can look at the TV monitor.
THE COURT: Which exhibit is this? MS. MOLINARO: This is Exhibit 770.

THE COURT: Thank you.
Q.
(BY MS. MOLINARO) I want you to take a look at that photograph and
let me know if you recognize what's depicted in that photograph?
A. Yes.
Q. What's that?
A. That's Mr. Simpson.
Q. Do you know when this photograph was taken?
A. That was taken during the third day of filming.
Q. That would be what date; do you recall?
A. Third day of the video filming.
Q. Do you know where the picture was taken?
A. That would be his trophy room.
Q. Okay. Would you look at the black sweat pants that Mr. Simpson is
wearing in that photograph. Did you buy those black sweat pants for
Mr. Simpson?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Where did you buy those sweat pants?
A. I bought those either at Bullocks Men's Store or Reebok.
Q. What material is the black sweats pants made of?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Those are cotton fleece.
Q.
(BY MS. MOLINARO) Ms. Gardner, after the filming of the exercise
video was complete, did Mr. Simpson return to you any of the black
sweat clothing that he is wearing in any of the four photographs
that I showed you?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. No, he didn't. MS. MOLINARO: Thank you. Nothing further at this
time, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Cross-examination. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. LEONARD:
Q. Nice to see you again. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. LEONARD:
Q. When you were asked the same questions, virtually, by Ms.
Molinaro at the last session when you were here, you never once
mentioned the word cotton, isn't that right, ma'am? MS. MOLINARO:
Objection, lacks foundation, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Isn't that right?
A. I wasn't asked about the fabrics.
Q. That's right. Okay. But I asked you about it out in the hallway.
Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. We were sitting with Ms. Fink
(phonetic). You see her at the end of the table?
A. Right.
Q. Do you remember me asking -- you said something to me about
fleece. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. And I said to you, do you know whether or not it's cotton fleece
or a mixture of cotton and synthetic, and you said you did not know.
Do you remember that, ma'am?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you have testified about some black clothing, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And I asked you last time if you have any idea what happened to
the clothing and you said no, you said that the clothing was given
to the talent, Mr. Simpson, remember?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said you had no idea whether he kept it or not. Isn't
that what you testified to?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's the state of your testimony now, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. By the way, none of these garments were blue-black, were they?
A. Blue-black meaning?
Q. Blue-black.
A. Blue-black.
Q. They were black, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So you have no idea, as you sit here on this stand, whether that
was cotton fleece or a mixture of cotton and synthetic; isn't that
right, ma'am?
A. That's right.
Q. You testified to this jury under questioning by Ms. Molinaro that
it was cotton?
A. Cotton to me means cotton or cotton-synthetic blend.
Q. Did you have this discussion with Ms. Molinaro before you got on
the stand? Did she ask you, when you say cotton fleece, is it a
mixture or is it cotton? Did she ask you that? MS. MOLINARO:
Objection, calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. That's knowledge of mine, knowing if it's cotton or cotton blend.

Q. Did he ask you that?
A. Did she ask me?
Q. Did she ask you the question I asked you when you were here
before, which is, you can't tell what it is, whether it's a
cotton-synthetic mixture or cotton fleece? Did she ask you that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you told her you couldn't tell, didn't you?
A. Correct.
Q. Thank you.
MR. LEONARD: No further questions. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS.
MOLINARO:
Q. Ms. Gardner, when -- in your profession as a wardrobe stylist,
when you use the term cotton fleece -- first of all, explain to us
what fleece means.
MR. LEONARD: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. LEONARD: Irrelevant at this point.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Fleece is sweatshirt material, fluffy type of cotton material.
Q.
(BY MS. MOLINARO) And cotton fleece can mean what to you in your
industry?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, irrelevant. She just testified what her
knowledge is.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Cotton fleece to me means material you make sweatshirts out of,
which is either 100 percent cotton or a cotton blend.
Q.
(BY MS. MOLINARO) When you say cotton blend, what does that mean?
A. 50 percent cotton, 50 percent probably polyester.
Q. If a garment is 100 percent cotton, what kind of fiber is it made
off?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Cotton.
Q. 100 percent?
A. 100 percent cotton.
Q. If a garment is 50 percent cotton, 50 percent polyester blend,
what kind of fiber is it made of?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, there's a lack of foundation on this witness
whether she can testify to that or not. Where's the foundation?
THE COURT: She's the stylist for the video. Overruled.
A. Cotton-poly blend could be -- would be 50 percent of the fibers
are cotton, 50 percent are polyester.
Q.
(BY MS. MOLINARO) Of the 50 percent that are -- of the fibers that
are cotton, what are they made of?
A. 100 percent cotton.
Q. Did Mr. Simpson ever return to you any of the articles of black
sweat clothing I showed you in those four photographs?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Asked and answered.
Q.
(BY MS. MOLINARO) To your knowledge, Ms. Gardner, did Mr. Simpson
return those articles of black sweat clothing that I showed you in
those four photographs, to anyone?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, lack of foundation, asked and answered the
first time. MS. MOLINARO: To her knowledge, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection if she didn't receive it
herself. Then the rest of it is hearsay.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q.
(BY MS. MOLINARO) Ms. Gardner, did you see Mr. Simpson give any of
those black sweat clothing items to anybody?
A. No, I didn't see --
Q. Did any of the members of the production crew come up to you --

MR. LEONARD: Calls for hearsay.
Q.
(BY MS. MOLINARO) Did you see any member of the production crew walk
off the set with those items of clothing?
A. No, I didn't. MS. MOLINARO: Nothing further. RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY
MR. LEONARD:
Q. Do you think if someone is wearing -- since you seem to be an
expert on fabrics, do you think if someone is wearing a fabric at a
crime scene that's half polyester and half cotton, then they'd only
shed the cotton fibers and not the polyester? MS. MOLINARO:
Objection, calls -- lacks foundation.
MR. LEONARD: I agree.
THE COURT: If you agree, you must withdraw the question.
(Laughter.)
MR. LEONARD: Did I say that? Let me ask it again.
THE COURT: If you ask it differently.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Based on your expertise, ma'am, in fabrics, do
you think it's possible that if someone was wearing a fabric on
their clothing that was half cotton and half polyester, that they
would only shed the cotton fibers and not the polyester? Do you
think that's possible? MS. MOLINARO: Objection, lacks foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I know nothing about shedding fibers.
MR. LEONARD: Okay. Thank you. MS. MOLINARO: Nothing further, Your
Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: You may step down. MS. MOLINARO: Your Honor, I need to
move into evidence, 770.
THE COURT: Received.
(The instrument herein described as Photo of Mr. Simpson was marked
and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 770.)
MR. GELBLUM: Plaintiffs call Gerald Richards. GERALD RICHARDS,
called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and
testified as follows:
THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in
the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE WITNESS: I do.
THE CLERK: And, sir, if you would please state and spell your name
for the record.
THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. It is Gerald B. Richards, R-i-c-h-a-r-d-s.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. GELBLUM:
Q. Tell us your occupation, Mr. Richards.
A. I'm currently a private consultant, and lecture in the field of
questioned document and photographic examinations. In addition to
that, I'm currently under contract to the FBI laboratory to assist
in training new examiners in the special photographic unit and also
assist with various case work on a one- or two-day a week basis. I'm
also assistant professorial lecturer at George Washington University
graduate school where I teach two forensic courses; one in the field
of questioned document examination and one in the field of forensic
photography, which as a matter of fact is going as we speak.
Q. Do you have that covered for you?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell the jury what forensic photography is, please?
A. Yes. Forensic photography basically -- the word forensic means
any science as it relates to law. Forensic photography is any type
of photography that would relate to a legal matter such as crime
scene photography, accident photography, studio photography where we
use ultraviolet or infrared portions of the spectrum to view
different pieces of evidence, macrophotography, microphotography,
where we look for -- macrophotography, where we look basically at
very small things microscopically. Macrophotography would be very
small photographs, in essence.
Q. Can you tell -- briefly tell the jury what your formal education
is, starting with college?
A. Yes. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in photography. I also
have a Master of Science degree in secondary education. In addition
to that, I have taken several graduate level courses from G.W.
University -- George Washington University, excuse me, in the area
of forensic science, including questioned document examination, law
courses, et cetera. I've also taken -- taken a forensic photography
course through University of Virginia at the FBI Academy at
Quantico, Virginia.
Q. Did you used to work for the FBI?
A. Yes. Yes, sir. I was a special agent with the FBI for
approximately 23 years.
Q. Did you -- What divisions of the FBI did you work in?
A. Well, initially, upon my appointment back in the early 70's as a
special agent, I was assigned to a 16-week training school at FBI
Academy, and from there I went on to the Atlanta and Baltimore
divisions as an investigator in the field. At that point I was
promoted to a supervisory position at FBI headquarters, wherein I
was assigned to the FBI laboratory as a supervisor in that
particular division. Upon arrival, I was placed into a three-year
training program where basically for the following three years, I
did virtually nothing but work under the supervision of more
experienced examiners, attend lectures, go to different schools,
visit different companies such as Kodak or Polaroid or what have
you, to determine how and to what breadth examination is needed to
be or could be provided for the bureau.
Q. Is that examinations of photographs you're talking about?
A. Both examinations of photographs and documents, questioned
documents.
Q. And that was a three-year program?
A. Yes, that was a three-year program.
Q. You receive any certification at the end of that program?
A. Upon the completion of that program, the Director of the FBI
certified me in both the area of questioned documents examination
and also the examination of photographic evidence. From that
particular point in time, I spent approximately the next ten years
on the bench, working cases day after day until such time I was
promoted to a unit chief's position in the document operations and
research unit of the laboratory. I was in that position for about a
year, and then laterally transferred to the special photographic
unit, where I became unit chief of that particular unit until my
retirement in 1963 -- excuse me -- 1993.
Q. So how long were you the head of the -- what is it, special
photographic unit at the FBI?
A. Even though I worked in the unit for about ten years, I was chief
of it for about six.
Q. Okay. That was up until 1993?
A. Yes.
Q. And you retired at that point?
A. Yes, in December of '93.
Q. Do you belong to any professional organizations, sir?
A. Yes, I do. Excuse me for a -- may I stop for a little glass of
water here. My voice is giving out.
(Pause for witness to take a sip of water.)
A. Yes, I do. I belong to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences,
which I am a fellow and have been a fellow for approximately 20
years in that organization.
Q. Is it -- what's a fellow?
A. Well, basically it's a ranking within the organization. You have
to achieve certainly -- you have to present papers and apply for the
different levels. It is a level within the organization itself.
Q. Is it the lowest level?
A. No. It would be the highest level in the organization.
Q. What is the American Academy of Forensic Sciences?
A. It is the largest forensic organization in the world, and it
consists of about, I think, somewhere in the vicinity of 22 or 2300
members, forensic scientists from around the world.
Q. Any other professional organizations you belong to?
A. Yes. I'm a member of the American Board of Questioned -- Forensic
Questioned Document Examiners, which I am also a diplomat in. I'm
a member of the American Society of Photograph Photogrammetry and
Remote Sensing, which I have been certified as a certified
photograph photogrammetrist.
Q. What is that?
A. A photogrammetrist is a person who, to simplify it, basically
makes measurements from photographs. A good example of that might
be, every map you look at, people don't go out and actually measure
the map, what they do is many photographs are made and they make the
measurements from the photographs and create a map where you -- we
use the same type of things, like trying to determine the
approximate height of a bank robber from the photographs.
Q. You belong to any other professional organizations?
A. Yes. I'm twice past president of the Mid-Atlantic Association of
Forensic Scientists, which is one of the seven regional forensic
organizations in the United States. I'm also a member of EPIC, the
Evidence Photography International Council, and a member of the
Photographic Historic Society of New England, which is, I believe,
the largest historic -- photographic historic society in the U.S.
Q. Have you received any significant awards in your career, sir?
A. Yes. I have received an audiovisual award from the Federal
Photographers Association, and in addition to that, several years
ago I received a medal from the director of the CIA for, in essence,
ten years of work in the area of providing different services to the
intelligence organizations and communities in both photography and
document work, such as doing examinations of missing-in-action
servicemen, et cetera. It's called the National Intelligence Medal
of Achievement.
Q. Have you published any articles in the area of photographic
examination?
A. Examination per se, yes and no, and I'll explain it to you. I
have published articles such as the "Applications of Electronic
Video Techniques to Infrared and Ultraviolet Examinations." Even
though it was described in a technique, it was regarding the
technique as it applies to examinations. I also wrote an article,
basically the FBI's past, present, and I believe it's -- I forgot
the title. It's been a number of years ago. "Future Applications of
Photogrammetry." I wrote another article, co-authored actually, it
was a two-part article on image processing organization and systems
for legal applications, which was, as I said, co-authored with
another individual.
Q. Let me show you --
MR. GELBLUM: We'll mark next in order --
THE CLERK: 2357.
MR. LEONARD: Do you need this back?
MR. GELBLUM: No, I have it. What's the number?
MR. FOSTER: 1828.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) I believe I'll show you what's been marked as
1828.
THE CLERK: So we don't need --
MR. GELBLUM: Yeah. I apologize.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Is that your curriculum vitae?
A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. Does that list -- I won't take the time to go through them, but
various papers that you have presented to professional meetings and
lectures you've given?
A. Yes, it does.
(The instrument herein referred to as curriculum vitae of Gerald
Richards was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.
1828.)
Q. How long have you been working in the field of photographic
examination?
A. I've actually been working in photography for many, many, many
years. All the way from high school on through -- as I said, I have
a Bachelor of Science degree in photography. But in photographic
examination per se, since I arrived at the FBI laboratory and began
my training period back in the early 70's, approximately 20-some
years.
Q. 20-some?
A. Yes.
Q. Over those 20-plus years of working -- examining photographs,
have you become familiar with the science of alteration of
photographs, when a photograph's been altered?
A. Yes, sir, I have.
Q. Have you learned to detect alteration in photographs?
A. Yes, sir, I have.
Q. Now, in connection with this matter, did you examine various
materials relating to a photograph taken by Harry Scull of Mr.
Simpson at a football game on September 26, 1993?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. What did you examine?
A. I examined two sets of negatives from two rolls of film. In
addition to the negatives, I also examined contact sheets of those
negatives and also various enlargements which were all produced
under my direction. I examined them basically through a number --
a number of physical techniques.
Q. What techniques?
A. In essence, most of them are visual or using some type of
measuring instrument. In this particular case, I used a Bausch &
Lomb stereomicroscope having a zoom capability -- it was a zoom
microscope of I believe 32. It can go up to as high as 120X in that
particular case. Also, I used various magnifiers or loupes, as they
are called in the profession, various degrees of magnification,
various types of light sources such as direct light, transmitted
light, coaxial light, which means the light comes down -- straight
down from the top or from the microscope. Same view you're looking
at. We used a number -- I used a number of different measuring
devices, including just simple scales and also highly accurate glass
scales to make measurements of the negatives and proof sheets.
Q. Were you examining the negatives and the proof sheets and the
print to determine whether you could find any signs of alteration?
A. Yes, I was asked specifically to determine if the photograph of
Mr. Simpson, if he had any -- he or any portion of his body, in
particular the shoe area, had been altered or changed to any
degree.
Q. Did you pay particular attention to the shoe area?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What were some of the things you were looking for?
A. Well, there's a number of things you're looking for. You have two
areas of -- to examine, really, if you break them down. The first
area is the film itself. Is the film -- the piece of film that you
are looking at that's in question in here or the picture of Mr.
Simpson, is it part of the remainder of the roll that you're dealing
with. So you can also use that as part of your examination. In order
to do that, we must look at things like the code numbers along the
side that tells what type of film it is. Also, in addition to that,
any scratches or marks that are continuous, made either by the
camera, the processor, or any other artifact along that line to show
a continuation along the entire roll. And then in this case -- this
was a cut roll. If the roll is continuous, you don't have to worry
too much about any further type of examination as far as cut edges
go. In this case, the frames were cut up, which is natural for
people storing photographs like that. We wanted to compare each one
of the cut edges to make sure that, say, frame 1 and 2 matched 3 and
4, et cetera, on down throughout the roll, and nothing was
substituted in between. That was done both visually and
microscopically, and in addition to that, I believe I used a
micrometer to make sure that the emulsion was the same thickness
through the entire roll.
Q. What's a micrometer?
A. A micrometer is a measuring device. It's a small metallic device
that measures the thickness of objects.
Q. Did you examine the grain of prints in the --
A. Yes. That would get into the second portion of the examination,
which would be examining the image itself. That's possibly more
extensive than the first part, where we're basically looking for
physical defects, scratches, like I said, anomalies in the film,
which you do find from time to time, anomalies in the film. In this
particular case I also looked at the grain and the grain structure
under a variety of magnifications, including high magnification. In
this particular case, I scanned the entire negative millimeter by
millimeter across the entire negative until I viewed it all. In
addition to that, we looked for image structure and I -- what I mean
by image structure, is the image structured correctly as it should
be photographically. If we have an image of an object such as Mr.
Simpson standing there, where does the -- where does the image start
to blur in the background and where does it start to blur in the
foreground. That's called depth of field. Depending on the lens
being used, that would make that -- that cutoff point a different --
different point. Also things -- we look for things like perspective,
is the perspective in the photograph correct. Also, dimensional
sizes, are all the parts we're looking at the right size for the
plane or the position the object should be in, or are some too big
or some too small where they shouldn't be or out of angle where they
shouldn't be. We also look for things called cut lines. One of the
most common ways to alter photographs is a technique called
cut-and-paste. When you cut something out, you paste it in and make
a copy of it, that leaves very distinctive lines. Many times you can
detect, also, the shadows of the object cut out probably won't match
exactly the shadows that are within the photograph, or the intensity
-- or the light intensity itself, and as we mentioned before, the
grain structure -- the grain structure may be different because of
different films. This is just a few of the things we're looking for
continuously as we're examining the different pieces of film.
Q. Did you work for retouching marks?
A. Yes; retouching marks, also, from either a brush, crayon, scalpel
or air brush. All of them are used in the retouching process.
Q. Did you look for signs of digital alteration?
A. Yes. We looked for signs of digital alteration. And basically
what this is, is, instead of cutting and pasting, you use actual
photographs -- it's done in the computer, where the image is, what
they call digitized, or broken down into very small pieces,
actually, little, teeny squares, starting at one end, and broken
down into squares all along one row, and then the next row down,
next row down, until you form the parts of the entire image. Then
you usually -- those parts are enlarged -- whatever manipulation is
being done, it is done, and then it's reduced again. Well, many
times, when it's enlarged and reduced again, you get what you call
pixelization. What you can see, the little, jagged edges of the
square, particularly on the edges, where things go from black to
white or very distinct color or shade change. Many times, it's very
evident.
Q. Just so we're clear, I want to put this up. Is this the
photograph we're talking about?
A. Yes, this was the photograph; yes, sir.
Q. That's the document you're looking at to determine whether there
are any alterations?
MR. FOSTER: It's an enlarged version of 1830.
MR. GELBLUM: Give it another number. Next number, please.
THE CLERK: Wait. 2357.
MR. GELBLUM: Thank you.
(The instrument herein referred to as an enlargement of Exhibit 1830
was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2357 .)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) As a result of your examination of the
negatives, the contact sheets, and the prints, did you find any
indication, whatsoever, of any alteration anywhere in this
photograph?
A. After close examination of this photograph, I could find no
indication whatsoever of any type of idiosyncrasy to it, abrasion,
any sign of touch-up, any sign of alteration to any portion of the
photograph, and particularly to the shoe area.
Q. Did you find anything that even raised any suspicions in your
mind?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Did you come to any conclusion as a result of your examination as
to whether anybody changed the shoes that Mr. Simpson is wearing in
that photograph? In other words, inserted new shoes into the
photograph?
A. Well, normally, I'm not fortunate enough to get this good of a
photograph. Normally, the photographs I get are usually very poor
quality and do not allow me to come to a positive conclusion. But in
this particular case, there's no doubt in my mind regarding the
shoes in this particular photograph, that these have not been
altered or changed in any way.
Q. No doubt?
A. No doubt.
Q. All right. Have you also had the opportunity, sir, to examine
photographs taken before the same football game by an E. J. Flammer?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. I move to side bar.
THE COURT: Approach the bench.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the
reporter.)
MR. LEONARD: I can't believe he asked the question. This is exactly
the area that you excluded yesterday. This is -- this is a violation
--
THE COURT: I haven't excluded it; I gave you the opportunity to take
it up.
MR. BAKER: Wait a minute. You told us yesterday that they couldn't
put him on until Thursday.
THE COURT: Yeah. I didn't exclude it.
MR. BAKER: Well --
THE COURT: Now you want to wait till Thursday? Fine.
MR. BAKER: Wait.
MR. GELBLUM: He's not going to testify as to authenticity of the
Flammer photos; he's going to testify as to the effect of his
examination of the Flammer photos on his opinion about the Scull
photo.
MR. LEONARD: It's the same --
THE COURT: Excuse me.
MR. GELBLUM: I'm not going to ask him if he thought the Flammer
photos are authentic; I'm going to ask him whether his examination
of the Flammer photos have any impact on his opinion of the Scull
photos. I'm not going to ask him anything about the authenticity.
MR. LEONARD: It's the same thing. It's a sandbag. What am I supposed
to do then? The implication is that he examined them, and we have
no way to combat that at this point. This is not right. That's
exactly what he were trying to avoid.
MR. PETROCELLI: I want to get my two cents in here. I offered this
guy for deposition yesterday, if they want, on the Flammer. We're
continuing to offer him up on Flammer after court today, tomorrow
morning. He's in town now. We would like it separate and apart,
independent from this examination, which has nothing to do with
authenticity itself and alteration. What we would like to propose is
that, if they want, they can take his deposition, so we can put him
on for that separate purpose before we rest our case this week. But
in terms of this issue, he is simply assuming that picture, you
know, the Flammer photos are authentic. It does have an impact on
that opinion. We asked the same questions of Mr. Groden. Mr. Groden
testified that, assuming the photos were authentic, the Flammer
photos, they would affect his opinion. He's entitled to go into that
same area. And lastly, I would like to add for the record here that,
Mr. Simpson, yesterday -- and I have the testimony right up on the
screen on the computer -- said that these Flammer pictures were
bogus, too; thereby, for the first time putting that issue into play
in this case. He said, that's me, but that's not my shoes. He
directly challenged the authenticity of the photos.
THE COURT: Well, from an evidentiary standpoint, I think that's
clearly what I did tell the defense; that they had an opportunity to
take it up. I assume they're taking it up.
MR. BAKER: We are taking it up. Not only that, this belated talking
about a deposition. 2034
(k) and 2034
(l) give exact criteria, what you have to do. They haven't given --
done any of it. We'll take it up.
MR. PETROCELLI: Take it up? Have you filed it?
MR. BAKER: I don't have to answer your questions.
THE COURT: The question is, I gave you until Thursday.
MR. BAKER: That -- that you're saying I'm not looking for
impeachment with regards to whether they're a fraud or not. That's
what you said. That led us to believe that you were not going to let
him technically impeach the photographs. Now, of course, you've
changed your mind again, and we'll just take it up and see what
happens.
MR. LEONARD: What do we do now?
THE COURT: When do you expect a response from the Court of Appeals?
MR. BAKER: I don't have any idea what the Court of Appeals does.
THE COURT: Has it been filed?
MR. BAKER: No. It will be filed, hopefully, today or early tomorrow.

THE COURT: Okay. Include in your filing that the Court is going to
permit the examination of the photograph, as well as by this
witness' testimony. That is because the impeaching item is the
photograph itself. And the testimony of this witness is not
contradicting opinion testimony, but simply establishing the
authenticity of the impeaching material itself.
MR. BAKER: If you can call a horse a cow, you can't.
MR. GELBLUM: Can I ask him now, assuming --
THE COURT: No, wait till Thursday.
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. We'll wait till Thursday.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence
of the jury.)
MR. GELBLUM: We'll come back to that.
THE COURT: Okay. Proceed.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, a man named Robert Groden testified here as
an expert for the defense about various problems that he said he
found with this photograph. Have you reviewed Mr. Baden's testimony?

A. Yes, I have.
Q. And have you reviewed the negative, the photographs regarding the
issues that Mr. Groden raised?
A. Yes, I have, sir.
MR. LEONARD: I'm going to object at this point ask to approach once
again.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. GELBLUM: I want to put on the record, he did this to Groden. I
object to disrupting the examination.
THE COURT: Just do it up here, please.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the
reporter.)
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'm going to object to any testimony that
requires any testing or any examination that he did after his
deposition. That is the rules. I mean, I don't know what else he'll
go back and look at. I thought he did a thorough examination. Now
he's gone back and he's looking at the photos again. I didn't have a
chance to depose him on that.
MR. GELBLUM: This is nonsense. We asked for Groden's deposition for
months and months; they never gave it to us. They chose to take this
deposition, knowing he was rebutting Groden on his deposition.
MR. PETROCELLI: On the record at the deposition --
MR. LEONARD: Who cares what you said on the record?
MR. GELBLUM: Please let me finish. That his opinions are going to
include rebuttal to Groden. Of course, they had not produced Groden
for a deposition. We didn't have a chance. It's their problem.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'll show it to you on the record. I specifically
reserved it.
MR. LEONARD: That doesn't matter, what you do on the record in a
deposition, what do you mean -- you're not a judge. The point is
that, do we -- I thought there was a rule in California that it
doesn't matter who goes first; each side is limited to the -- to the
opinions that are put, that are expounded in the deposition and
the work that was done. I thought that's what discovery was all
about. So that puts us -- it becomes a game. I mean, then I wait
until their guy goes, and then I can impeach him.
MR. GELBLUM: Our man designated expressly on rebuttal.
MR. LEONARD: What do you mean?
MR. GELBLUM: Designated as rebuttal, as you well know, and you
refused to produce your expert. That's your problem.
MR. LEONARD: There's no refusing. That's ridiculous.
MR. PETROCELLI: On deposition, this guy, Groden -- they had another
expert; they dumped him. This guy Groden wasn't retained until at
the last minute, way after Richards. I was concerned that they
insisted on Richards' deposition before Groden. I said, look, I'll
give you Richards, but I'm specifically reserving Richards' right to
rebut expressly to Groden, because that's the only reason I'm
getting him, Richards. I'm not going to put him on in my case in
chief if he rebuts their position. He is saying I can't review this
trial testimony, and that's his whole function.
MR. LEONARD: Where is the rule that you can call an expert and allow
him to do additional work? I don't understand where that is in the
code. How am I supposed to discover what the guy is saying? I don't
understand that. I depose him, and then Groden is deposed. Now they
can -- they can bring him in for --
THE COURT: Mr. Groden deposed?
MR. LEONARD: Yes.
MR. GELBLUM: He was deposed.
THE COURT: After?
MR. GELBLUM: Well, that was their scheduling choice.
MR. LEONARD: Do you --how does it work? I get to depose him again? I
don't understand that.
THE COURT: You want to?
MR. LEONARD: Yeah, I do. Let's shut it down.
MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, that's ridiculous.
MR. LEONARD: I want to know what he's saying.
MR. GELBLUM: That's ridiculous. They made a decision.
THE COURT: I'll exercise my discretion and let Mr. Leonard depose
him between now and Thursday. Okay.
MR. GELBLUM: So -- he has to leave, Your Honor. He came in from
Montana. This is outrageous.
MR. PETROCELLI: It's a huge problem. I'm not sure he's available on
Thursday, without checking with him.
THE COURT: Why don't you ask him?
MR. PETROCELLI: Can we take a break now?
THE COURT: Okay.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence
of the jury.)
THE COURT: Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about
the case. Don't form or express any opinions about the case.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor. There really, as I see it,
are three different issues here: One is whether the defense should
be given an opportunity to take Mr. Bodziak's deposition; second,
whether they should be able to take Mr. Richard's deposition with
regard to the Flammer photos, and third, whether they should be able
to take Mr. Richards' deposition in regard to his principal rebuttal
testimony in response to Mr. Groden. As to the first two points,
Mr. Bodziak's and Mr. Richards' analysis of the Flammer photos, we
offered depositions at least a day ago; we're for sure on the record
yesterday, and I haven't heard any word whether they want to take
those depositions. They said they wanted to go to the Court of
Appeals. These witnesses are in town for the next day or two and
they are available to be deposed. I would propose that Mr. Richards
be deposed after court today on the Flammer photos and that Mr.
Bodziak be deposed tomorrow on his opinion that the shoes in the
Flammer photos are Bruno Magli's. If they are indeed able to testify
on Thursday, the depositions will be out of the way. We don't
believe they should be entitled to break up our rebuttal case, which
is only a couple of days, in any event. And I still haven't heard
from them what they want to do in that regard. However, I don't
believe it's fair to suspend Mr. Richards' deposition on Groden's
testimony and give them a crack at his deposition -- taking his
deposition before we continue our examination. They insisted on
taking Richards' deposition in Washington, D.C. before Groden was
made available to us. I told them you better wait until after we do
Groden because Mr. Richards is going to respond to Groden, and they
insisted on doing Richards first. The reason was they wanted to
know what he was going to say so they could feed it to Mr. Groden so
he could incorporate that into his analysis. They went ahead on
September 6 in Washington, D.C. I flew all the way out there. Mr.
Leonard took a deposition by telephone because of the rain, and
after he took Mr. Richards' deposition, at the end I said to him --
on page 43:
(Mr. Petrocelli read from a portion of the deposition transcript of
Mr. Richards.) Let me state for the record, Mr. Leonard, that in
addition to rendering this opinion, Mr. Richards will testify in
rebuttal to Mr. Groden, but since Mr. Groden has not yet given his
opinion or given a deposition we are going to have to reserve
further testimony by Mr. Richards until such time as Groden is made
available.
MR. PETROCELLI: Groden is, of course, the defense witness. Then on
the next page he asked Mr. Richards if he had any other opinions
he's testified to, and he said no. And I said, plus the rebuttal,
and Mr. Leonard said, right. And by the way, in response to my
reservation, Mr. Leonard said okay. So he acknowledged my position
and agreed with it. And then at the very end, he didn't object, he
didn't state anything for the record, he said okay, and he said
right. He could have said anything he wanted. And then finally, Your
Honor, on this point, at the very end of the deposition I said:
(Mr. Petrocelli read from a portion of the deposition transcript of
Mr. Richards.) Look, we have been asking for some time, Dan, to get
the deposition of Robert Groden, your photographic guy. Mr. Leonard:
Better check with Phil on that one.
MR. PETROCELLI: And I then said:
(Mr. Petrocelli read from a portion of the deposition transcript of
Mr. Richards.) Let me indicate for the record we need to take the
deposition in a week or so, otherwise we'll have to move to preclude
him from testifying. We made clear to Mr. Baker in correspondence
we want to know the position of this guy prior to opening
statements, and certainly prior to jury selection. We have no idea
whether you're going to have Mr. Groden, if so what he's going to
say. We need to get word back on that right away.
MR. PETROCELLI: Now, after Groden's deposition -- Richards'
deposition was taken September 6 and Groden's deposition was taken
September 27. It's now January. After Groden's deposition they never
once asked us for the opportunity to take Mr. Richards' deposition
again. Not once. After Mr. Groden testified in this court, they
never asked to produce Richards' for deposition. Now we're in front
of the jury and they want to stop him from testifying in response to
their expert witness. There's no basis for it, Your Honor. I don't
see why they should be able to interrupt our direct examination and
take a deposition because they want to find out more information.
They've been playing games with this situation since day one. They
have no right to insist on a deposition now in the middle of our
examination. He's a rebuttal witness. They had every opportunity
to find out and they chose not to, and I don't think they should be
rewarded for that. We're happy to make them available on the Flammer
-- we'll make Bodziak available. We have to do that immediately.
These witnesses are out-of-towners, time is of the essence.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I agree with what Mr. Petrocelli stated on
the record completely. He says we are going to have to reserve
further testimony. My interpretation of that is he was following the
rule, which means if you're going to amend your declaration, under
Rule 30 -- 2034
(k), you have to give notice. He says we never asked them. They
never gave us any notice that this witness, as he just testified to,
was going to give any additional -- was going to do additional
testing and examination of the photo, which he did after Groden's
deposition. So we're prejudiced. That's what the rule says. It says
if you're going to go beyond what's given in the deposition, that
you have to give some notice. He never gave us any notice.
MR. PETROCELLI: The notice of our designation is rebuttal to Mr.
Groden, anything Mr. Groden says. That's what a rebuttal expert is.
This is sheer nonsense. They're playing games. They're trying to
disrupt our case, Your Honor, and it's obvious. There have been six
or seven outbursts from the other side of this table all week. You
know, we're trying to keep our cool here and get to the end of this.
They're just trying to muck it up as much as they can, and that's
all this is and nothing more.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I took this man's deposition in good faith.
Mr. Petrocelli said he's going to reserve testimony. I understood
that he would proffer him for additional depositions, as he should
have. He's now going to render additional opinions beyond his
initial examination of the photos, which I relied on. I asked him,
are you going to do anything further -- I mean, are you going to --
is that all the opinions that you have. The guy went back, he
reexamined the photographs. I have no idea what he's going to say. I
have a right to depose him as Your Honor suggested at the side bar.
I'd like to do that.
MR. PETROCELLI: In the middle of our direct examination? Give me a
break.
MR. LEONARD: Actually, he says this is in their -- it's general
substance of testimony that this expert is suspected -- expected to
give -- Mr. Richards will testify as to the authenticity of related
matters concerning certain photographic evidence. I don't see
anything about Groden in there --
MR. BAKER: There's nothing about impeachment of a witness.
MR. LEONARD: -- and I relied on that.
MR. PETROCELLI: This is nonsense. If they relied on it --
MR. GELBLUM: It's rebuttal to Groden.
MR. PETROCELLI: Why didn't he ask for his deposition since --
MR. GELBLUM: September.
MR. LEONARD: You didn't give us notice that he was going to change
his opinion.
MR. PETROCELLI: He didn't change his opinion. Cut it out.
MR. LEONARD: He's rendering --
MR. PETROCELLI: I submit, Your Honor --
MR. LEONARD: -- opinions based on --
MR. PETROCELLI: -- Whatever Your Honor decides.
MR. LEONARD: -- examination of the photographs --
MR. PETROCELLI: I submit let's just get the trial over with, Your
Honor.
MR. BAKER: Then rest.
(Laughter.)
MR. PETROCELLI: I could have rested a long time ago, Mr. Baker, a
long time ago.
THE COURT: I think the Court will not pursue this matter any further
with regards to further rebuttal of Mr. Groden as far as these
photographs are concerned. With regards to the testimony as to the
Flammer photos, if the defense wants to take a deposition, they can.
If they don't want to, they don't have to. The Court has indicated
at sidebar and at this time that the Court is permitting the Flammer
photographs as impeachment in and of themselves, and the plaintiffs
are allowed to authenticate that photograph in however manner they
wish to do, and I will permit it with this witness or any other
witness they are offering to authenticate that photo.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'd like know from the defense, do you want to take
Mr. Richards' deposition today after court on the Flammer
photographs? He's available now.
MR. BAKER: We'll do it tomorrow.
MR. PETROCELLI: We can't do it tomorrow because we're in court
tomorrow and Bodziak is available to you tomorrow for deposition.
MR. BAKER: We'll do them both tomorrow. You've got 14 lawyers over
there. You can have one of them sit there.
MR. PETROCELLI: Well, I don't -- we can't do them both tomorrow,
Mr. Baker. We'll do one today and one tomorrow after court.
MR. BAKER: I'm not going to do a deposition today.
MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Leonard can take the deposition on the Flammer
photographs. It will take half an hour right after court.
THE COURT: Excuse me. Mr. Leonard, you can take his deposition if
you want, if you don't want to, you can forego it.
MR. BAKER: He has other things to prepare for.
MR. PETROCELLI: Can we proceed?
THE COURT: Yes. Bring the jury in.
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
MR. GELBLUM: Thank you, Your Honor. DIRECT EXAMINATON
(continued) BY
MR. GELBLUM:
Q. Mr. Richards, when we broke we were beginning to talk about the
points Mr. Groden made when he was here on the witness stand. Did
you review his testimony?
A. Yes, I did. Sure.
Q. Okay. And you reviewed various points that he made?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. I'm going to put up a chart that was made while Mr. Groden
was on the stand which listed the various points that he made.
MR. PETROCELLI: Nobody sneeze now.
(Indicating to chart displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Do you recall from reading the testimony that
one of the points Mr. Groden made was about a blue line that he
observed between the sprocket holes and the image on the photograph
of Mr. Simpson walking across the end zone?
A. Yes, I do.
MR. GELBLUM: And for the record, Your Honor, I put up a different
copy of that photograph that I had before. This is Exhibit 2287, the
one we're looking at now.
(Exhibit 2287 displayed.)
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, may I observe from over here?
MR. PETROCELLI: Put it over here.
(Mr. Petrocelli adjusts chart.)
MR. PETROCELLI: I just want to make sure you folks can see. Can you
see?
JURORS:
(Nod.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.
THE COURT: Why don't you give him some scotch tape or something.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Groden said there was no natural phenomenon
in photography that could possibly cause that blue line. Did you
read that testimony?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Was he right about that?
A. No, sir, he was not.
Q. Have you examined the blue line that Mr. Groden observed?
A. Yes, sir, I have.
Q. Okay. Have you determined what caused that blue line?
A. Yes, sir, I have.
Q. What is that?
A. Basically, the blue line on the photograph showing Mr. Simpson is
a scratch line from the rails of the Canon F1 camera. It's quite a
common scratch line, as a matter of fact, and it does continue on
through the remainder of that roll sporadically, and through the
second roll also. And in actuality, you should many times see two
little blue lines on the side there from the scratch itself as the
film is wound through it one way and then pulled back the other way.
So many times I can see them very, very close together, but in
essence particularly the Canon F1. And I'm fairly familiar with that
camera; when I was Unit Chief of the Special Photographic Unit we
had 1500 of them in our inventory. So that particular one leaves
those types of scratches quite commonly. However, there are other
cameras that also will leave scratches very, very similar to that.
They are microscopic. You basically have a very difficult time even
seeing them. Normally, most photographers don't really concern
themselves with it that much. But, in essence, as the film is yanked
through, particularly with a motor drive, it leaves either a long
line or little dash lines all the way through the film.
Q. By the way, Mr. Groden also said that the frame of Mr. Simpson
walking through the end zone was the only frame on the entire
contact sheet that had that blue line. Was that true?
A. No. The great majority of them have that blue line; I mean the
same type of blue line, either on the bottom and the top or just
one or the other. The line will actually form on either the bottom
or the top right next to the sprocket holes. On some of the frames,
you no longer see the bottom and it starts appearing on the top.
It's kind of a random thing. The line itself will be on the entire
film, but the printing of it, many times will be sporadic, and you
won't see the actual blue come through in its entirety.
Q. I'm going to show you what we showed to Mr. Groden as Exhibits
2288 and 2289. Are those enlargements that you had prepared?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. And by the way, is 2287 that's up leaning against the monitor,
one you also prepared?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Can you see blue lines on those frames as well?
A. Yes, sir. If I might turn these towards the jury; I assume it's
Exhibit 2288. This is one of the frames that we can see the blue
lines on both the top and the bottom. Right next to the sprocket
hole we see two little, small blue lines. You have to realize that
the blue lines -- the difference between them is possibly somewhere
in the vicinity of five-hundredths of an inch apart; very, very
small.
MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, may I have the witness come closer to the
jury so they can see the lines?
THE COURT: All right.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. See if I can get down easily.
(Witness approaches jurors.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) First of all, you want to show them the line on
2287, the photo of Mr. Simpson in the end zone?
A. Sure. The lines we're referring to here are right next to the
sprocket holes. You can see them; they're little blue dashes, they
go all along Exhibit No. 2287 on the top -- excuse me. This would be
the bottom only here. They go continually along, and you just see a
shade of blue right up next to the frame. We can see those same blue
lines right here. Actually, this is where we got a double set.
MR. GELBLUM: That's 2288, for the record.
A. Yes, 2288. Along the bottom here, again, we can see the double
set-- the double set here, the double set here, and in this
particular case we can see the ones on the top also all the way
through.
(Indicating.) On Exhibit No. 2289, we can see very distinctly the
same type of little blue dash -- little blue scratch. And this is
one of many types of scratches you'll find on film, but it's a very
predominant one, as I said, on the Canon F1 camera.
Q. Can you demonstrate -- did you bring a Canon F1 camera with you?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Can you demonstrate to the jury how those scratches would be
caused?
A. Your Honor, may I? This is a camera virtually identical to the
one that Mr. Scull used. It's a Canon F1. It's no longer
manufactured. It's an older model, and it has a motor drive on it as
used by Mr. Scull. The only difference is he used a much longer lens
and also what's called a monopod to hold the camera up. In essence,
what's causing the scratches in this particular case are called
rails. These actually support the film. There's four of them; two of
them support the face of the film and two of them keep the film in
-- in the position vertically. What causes the scratches is right at
the very end of the middle support rails; you see how they end right
next to what's called a sprocket. This sprocket is what actually
pulls the film through. There are two little roller bars on the
back of the camera which, when you close it, push the film in at
that particular point. And they'll leave little bitty scratches each
time the motor drive pulls it on through there. When it pulls it
this way, they're usually short little scratches. When you rewind --
you rewind the camera back, they're long scratches. I've got a roll
of film. I'll show you how that mechanism actually works.
Q. Would you -- Mr. Richards, you might want to come over to this
location if it's okay with the judge, so more of the jurors can get
a closer look.
A. Let's see. I'll try to demonstrate all the way around so
everybody can see it. Basically, when I close the back here, right
here by this little sprocket, it pushes the film in. And when the
film goes through it pulls across there and leaves those tiny,
little scratches. It's a fairly sharp area. It's an area right at
the end of the film there.
(Indicating to film.)
Q. Do those scratches appear on additional frames besides the three
we looked at; 2287, 2288 and 2289?
A. About 75 percent of the frames have those scratches somewhere in
the vicinity there all the way throughout both rolls of film. As I
said, they're quite common. As a matter of fact, some of the cameras
that I have personally, including this camera, make them quite
readily, the same identical types of scratches.
Q. And you're confident that's what caused those marks?
A. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, I photographed the ones from this
camera and actually drove a roll of film through here and made a
small -- took out the small piece of film that has the scratch in
it, which is virtually, almost impossible to see without some
magnification, unless you get it just exactly right. I did make a
photograph through a microscope, not the best photograph I've ever
made, by the way, but a proof by a microscope that distinctly shows
the scratches through there.
MR. GELBLUM: Can we put the microscopic enlargements on the Elmo.
MR. FOSTER: 2358
MR. GELBLUM: That will be 2358.
THE CLERK: Okay.
(The instrument herein described as a microscopic enlargement
photograph of film was marked for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2358.)
Q. Can you explain to the jury what's on the Elmo, please?
A. Oh, okay. Sure. Let's -- I'll take this one, I guess. Again, the
short little blue scratches here that we see that look like little
dashes just above the sprocket holes are basically the same little
scratches we have here along the edge of the sprocket holes made by
this particular camera. Like I say, it's quite a common
characteristic. You'll find it on a lot of cameras besides the Canon
F1, but the -- and the F1 is noted for it because of the way one
rail ends at the sprocket holes. The newer cameras, the rails are
built so they don't end at this point; it's a nice smooth edge
across there, so many of them won't form that type of scratch.
Q. Why is the camera scratch that's on the Elmo not blue?
A. This is off the actual film before it's processed. This is after
it's processed and printed. So when it's been printed the color
turns up blue. It doesn't necessarily always turn up blue. It
depends how deep that scratch is for that particular camera.
Q. So is that -- in your opinion, is that blue line that appears on
you said 75 percent of the frames on that contact sheet evidence of
alteration of any kind?
A. No, sir. As a matter of fact, it's scratches like this that I use
to tell if the film came from the same camera. When I'm looking at
pieces of film, those scratches have to match where the films are
cut. If they don't match where the films are cut, then I obviously
have a problem in dealing with that piece of film. So I put the film
together, look at it microscopically and make sure that those
scratches match each other where they've been cut into pieces.
Q. Okay. I'm just going to put an X through this No. 1 to indicate
your testimony that that is not evidence of alteration. The next
point that I discussed with Mr. Groden was the alignment of the
frame of Mr. Simpson walking through the end zone with the adjoining
frame. Did you read Mr. Groden's testimony on that subject?
A. Yes, I did, sir.
Q. Okay. And Mr. Groden testified that those were the only two
frames on the entire -- both contact sheets shot by Mr. Scull that
were not in alignment. Was that true?
A. No, it was not.
Q. Okay. Did you find others that were not in alignment?
A. Yes, sir, several.
Q. Can you show the jury.
A. I believe I brought a couple of enlargements along. And also, I
have a contact sheet here that we might put on the Elmo to
demonstrate it.
Q. So you can physically see what we're talking about --
MR. GELBLUM: Are these marked? Yes, those are the two. Your Honor,
I'm going to mark next two in order.
THE CLERK: 2359 and 2360.
MR. GELBLUM: Write it on the back.
(The instrument herein described as Enlargement was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2359.)
(The instrument herein described as Enlargement was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2360.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Did you have 2359 and 2360 prepared, sir?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Ask you explain to the jury what they are?
A. Yeah. These I had prepared just for demonstrative evidence to
show the jury and the Court how -- how big these movements are and
also demonstrate how they're produced. Remember, when a canister of
film or cassette of film goes into a camera and the film is brought
across there, the whole purpose of that film is -- in there going
through this particularly with a motor drive is its ability to move
across the camera. It has to have enough motion in there, it has to
have enough tolerances so that the camera can let the film go
through fairly easy -- fairly easy rate so it doesn't scratch it,
doesn't hurt it. If it's too tight, it will jam the film up. If it's
too loose, it will wobble all over the place. The picture in
question here of Mr. Simpson standing there, when you look at it in
relationship -- it is frame 1, when you look at in relationship to
frame 2, frame 2, as we look, and I'll orientate it so Mr. Simpson's
head is to my right towards frame 2, frame 2 appears to be slightly
higher, and I've drawn a scratch line through the emulsion all the
way across and continued it on so you can get a feel for how much
distance we are actually looking at there. The distance if it is
measured on the negative is less than 1/250th of an inch. Now, you
say how can we see that? Well, our eyes are very perceptive to small
variations, particularly on a line like that, you can see on the
contact sheet, but it is a very, very small amount of movement
relatively, well within the tolerances of film moving up and down
within the camera. I prepared another chart of frame 1 and 2 of the
second roll of film; frame 1 being a Dolphin football player -- I
don't know which one; sorry -- and then another picture of Mr.
Simpson on there, and you draw a line across there, you will find
just about the same identical amount of distance between frame 1 and
frame 2. It really happens most commonly on frame 1 and frame 2 for
the simple reason when the film is first put in, it's reasonably
loose, and the cassette itself is not tight. So the film has an
ability to move. And if I might show it -- I don't know if it would
be better to show on the Elmo or in person.
MR. GELBLUM: May the witness approach the Elmo?
THE WITNESS: I'll bring this along so I can use it also.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Can you -- are the lines on 2359, 2360, are they
easy to see from a distance?
A. No. They're difficult to see from a distance.
MR. GELBLUM: Can I pass those to the jury?
THE COURT: They can only look at one thing at a time.
MR. GELBLUM: I'll wait until we're done with his Elmo demonstration.

(Witness approaches Elmo.)
A. I'm going to move in very closely to the rails on here so you can
see the rail and the film at the same time, and I'm going to press
down on the film, and you can see the amount of movement we're
dealing with there, up and down.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'm going to object at this point and
approach side bar.
THE COURT: Okay.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the
reporter.)
MR. LEONARD: I object to this demonstration. Number one, obviously
this isn't the camera in question because that was supposedly
stolen. Number two, he's demonstrating this with the camera open.
When that camera is closed, there's not nearly that much play. And I
think it's misleading the jury.
MR. GELBLUM: Cross-examination.
MR. LEONARD: It's -- the purpose of the camera closed is to secure
the film.
MR. GELBLUM: Cross-examination.
THE COURT: Overruled.
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Please continue, sir.
A. Thank you. As I said, the motion here is actually somewhat more
than 1/250th of an inch, and you can see on being the top and the
bottom by the way the second rail there, the one we see by the
sprocket holes, the very end of it, right at that point is what
causes the little scratches you saw before, but currently it's
motion we're looking at here as the film is originally put in. I'll
hold it up because this may be a little easier to see here. The
cassette itself has a lot of freedom and latitude to move up and
down as we press the motor drive, particularly if we're shooting
fairly fast, that film obviously will move each time that you yank
it through there. It has the capability to move it slightly up or
slightly down, that positions where the frame is as it goes through
there. One other sample that it asked if it was shown anywhere else
is on frame 16 and 17.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Of which contact sheet?
A. Of the contact sheet showing Mr. Simpson.
Q. Which is Exhibit 1832, you mean the one with Mr. Simpson walking
through the end zone?
A. Yes. I'm sorry. Let's see if we can make this work here.
Q. I'm sorry, is that a contact sheet that you prepared, sir?
A. Yes, this is a slightly underexposed contact sheet because it's
easier to see through transmitted light.
MR. GELBLUM: We need a new number for that.
THE CLERK: 2361.
(The instrument herein described as a contact sheet was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2361.)
THE WITNESS: What I'm going to do is pull it back just far enough
so we can see 16 and 17 and then line it up with those two and show
that 18, 19 and 20 line up with it. Take me just a moment to align
them. It will take me a moment. I'm not sure if you can see it
readily, but in -- there is a two -- is it too far away yet?
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) First of all, you're talking about the numbers
-- you're talking about numbers on negative strip --
A. Yes.
Q. -- 17, 18?
A. Still too far away.
Q. I think --
A. I think we can almost see it there.
Q. Yes.
A. It's behind up on 16, 16 on the base, you can see a very small,
yeah, on 18.
Q. Is that right here?
A. Yes, and it continues through 19 and 22. When I looked at it
through a magnifier, it's about the same distance on the
enlargements which I made which are easier to see. In essence, it's
something that's somewhat random if -- as the film goes through
there, if the photographer might have put his camera upside down and
the cassette shifted a little forward, and again, we're talking
about 1/10th of a millimeter, which is about 1/250th of an inch,
have it shifted a little bit, that frame is going to shift a little
bit. It might as it gets pulled back move one more a little bit as
it gets pulled through there also quite often and it happens with
most cameras, you get shifting, it's most common on the first few
frames but you'll find it throughout.
Q. Is that an unusual situation in Canon F1s or other cameras?
A. No, it's quite common.
MR. GELBLUM: With the Court's permission, I'd like to pass to the
jury 2359 and 2360. Those are the ones that have the line through
one. You saw these, right?
MR. LEONARD: No.
MR. GELBLUM: If you saw these before court, these are the same ones.

(Mr. Leonard reviews exhibits.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You consider that misalignment evidence of
alteration, sir?
A. No, sir. It's quite a common function of the camera, and again,
it's based on the tolerances that the manufacturers make to allow
the film to go through, and as I mentioned before, unless you look
extremely closely, you'd never notice it. It really has little
significance.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I move to strike that last comment.
THE COURT: Denied.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, on this point, same point, Mr. Groden made
another point that if the camera -- if the film was moving in the
camera --
MR. GELBLUM: You can take that down
(indicating to Elmo).
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) If the film was moving in the camera, you would
expect to see a shift in the scratch as well, if in fact it was a
scratch, in the same proportion as the film was moving? Did you read
that testimony?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Not necessarily. You have to remember that these two occurrences
are happening not simultaneously, they're happening separately.
Again, that's possibly easiest to show with the F1 itself, but the
image is formed in the center here where the hole is. That allows --
where the shutter opens up and allows the light through. The scratch
is formed off to the right here. So the image may be formed with the
cassette and the film pushed up here, but when you press the button
it yanks it through, as I said, and pulls it down or pulls it up. It
doesn't necessarily have to coincide with the -- with the format or
the frame of the image itself that's being created.
Q. Is the scratch made at the same time as the image is exposed?
A. No. The film as exposed -- I guess the easiest way is to
demonstrate it. The image is now wrong one. Now being exposed, and
when I released the shutter it's on but no image is being exposed on
bulk. I relies it now -- the scratch is being made. It's two
different functions altogether.
Q. Mr. Groden also told this jury that the frame of Mr. Simpson
walking through the end zone was longer than all of the other frames
on the contact sheet. Did you read that testimony?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Was that true?
A. No, it was not.
Q. How do you know?
A. Well, I measured when -- when I was -- when I originally examined
the negatives themselves as a matter of course, that particular
negative I measured and I measured it against the next closest one,
which was negative number 2. Both negatives had the identical
dimensions, which was 36-by-24, which is a normal -- 36 millimeters
by 24 millimeters, which is a normal 35 millimeter negative. I also
made the same measurements on the contact sheet, and the contact
sheet is an exact one-to-one representative of the -- of the
negative.
Q. Can you tell the jury how a contact sheet is made, very briefly?
A. Yes. Basically the piece of paper that makes a contact sheet --
and just as easy to pull one out -- such as this is placed down on
an easel. The film in this case for these contact sheets -- there's
two ways of doing it. You can leave the film in the sleeves, those
plastic sleeves that they come in, or you can take them out and you
can lay them down one by one, place them on top of the paper, put a
piece of glass on top of that and expose it with a light source.
That makes the contact sheet so it's pressed one to one to the
paper. So any measurements that are on the contact sheet will be the
same exact measurements that are on the negative. There's no
reduction or enlargement because of the way it's produced. In this
particular case, the press measurements I made were with a very
precise scale that measures to 1 -- basically 1/10th of a
millimeter, which is the equivalent of 1/254th of an inch, or
1/250th of an inch, to round it out.
Q. Was there any difference in size between this frame of Mr.
Simpson walking through the end zone and any of the other frames on
the contact sheet?
A. No, there wasn't a tenth of a millimeter variation. There was no
variation whatsoever. It was exactly 36 millimeters.
Q. Have you also measured -- compared the frame of Mr. Simpson
walking through the end zone to another frame on the roll with a
compass, as Mr. Groden said he did?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Was there any difference at all?
A. None at all.
Q. Dead on?
A. Right on.
Q. Perhaps while the jury's passing these around, do you want -- can
you set up and demonstrate to the jury on the Elmo the measurements
that you made.
A. Yes, I could, with the judge's permission. Thank you, sir. The
scale that I use is a highly precise scale, as I said. It measures
to about 1/10th of a millimeter, 1/250th of an inch. If you'll
pardon me on this, because it is so precise and the lines are so
small, it's made on glass, and I have to use magnification myself to
be able to see the lines. So if you'll hold on a second.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You're going to be using that -- the same
underexposed contact sheet?
A. Yes.
Q. Exhibit 2361?
A. The reason I used an underexposed contact sheet, because the
portions we're interested in measuring here and viewing are not the
image portions, but they're actually the edges, the dark part, and
by underexposing the negative, we can actually see the detail in
those much, much better. This is the scale that I'm using. Again,
the lines are so thin, you really can't see them readily without
some type of magnification. It's traceable back to the old National
Bureau of Standards, and like I said, it has a dimension -- the
smallest dimension you can read on there is 1/10th of a millimeter.
What I will try to do is -- if we can get the other one on, there we
go -- blow it up so you can actually see the scale on the -- on the
images themselves show no differences. Would you do me a favor and
go on up there and see when it's clear. I can't see when it's
clearest.
Q. Almost?
A. Is it almost there?
Q. Right there, for my eyes anyway.
A. You actually have to get close to see it.
Q. What's that you're putting on your head?
A. This is just a double loupe I use for examination. It allows me
to see the image much, much clearer. It has two magnifiers. I
believe it -- this is a 5 X magnifier in the glass and it has
another loupe for the right eye, 10 X, so I can see the lines to
place them exactly on the edge of the photographs. This is what I
usually use for most of my examinations, as a matter of fact. The
first one we're going to look at, a picture of Mr. Simpson, I'll
place the zero line right on the right portion, and if you look at
the monitor, it should read exactly 3.6.
Q. You can see the zero on the left side there, sir?
A. Okay, let me move it over, okay, let's do that. Right there. Can
we see both of them now?
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Yes.
A. There it is. And I think you can observe, if you can see it, it
falls right on the 6, 3.6, not 3.61 or 3.59, but 3.6, right on the
button.
Q. Before you move on, sir, you say 3, the numbers at the top of the
scale, 01, 02, 03, what are those?
A. Those are centimeters.
Q. Smaller numbers?
A. Smaller numbers are millimeters.
Q. So that's 36 millimeters?
A. It's 36 millimeters.
Q. Is that a standard size for 35 millimeter film?
A. That is the standard size.
Q. Okay. We'll move over to frame 2 and do basically the same thing.

A. There we go.
Q. And again, you're reading 36 --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- is that right?
A. Exactly.
Q. Thank you. And did you do the same kinds of measurements with
other frames on the contact sheet?
A. I randomly went through and measured probably 15 more frames --
10 to 15 more frames on this contact, and then I also measured the
ones on the second roll, and all of them measured exactly 36
millimeters.
Q. Now, Mr. Groden said that he made a photocopy at a Kinko's or
some such place and made his measurements on that. Is that an
accurate way to make a measurement for any legitimate photographic
expert?
A. No, it really is not.
Q. Why not?
A. Well, in the area of photogrammetry or making measurements from
photographs, one cardinal rule, you never use a photocopy, and the
simple reason for it, as most document examiners know in that field,
is most photocopiers do not reproduce exactly what you think they
may produce. In other words, most photocopiers will slightly enlarge
or slightly reduce in one direction or both directions, depending on
the photocopier, and I'd say 90-plus percent of them will do this.
You never know how much it's going to expand. It does not do it many
times linearly even, so that the expansion may vary across a page. I
brought a little chart that -- basically it's just a graph I pulled
out of my desk drawer, and ran it through my photo machine before I
came here and taped it together to show you how much off my
particular one is that I have in my office. But virtually it works
with almost any photo machine.
MR. GELBLUM: We'll mark that next in order.
A. In this particular case, my photo machine -- photocopier is off
in both directions significantly.
THE CLERK: Next in order is 2362.
MR. LEONARD: I'm going to object. Beyond the scope of discovery.
THE COURT: Overruled.
(The instrument herein referred to as Document depicting squares
was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2362.)
A. Mr. Gelblum, if you can tell Mr. Foster -- if Mr. Foster will
show the upper left-hand corner fairly close to see the area to see
that fairly lined up. I don't know if you can see the red. You can
pick it up, Mr. Foster, to show . . .
Q. Lift the top?
A. One is overlaid right on top of the other one. A red one in
combination with the black one.
Q. Which is the original?
A. The original is red it's Mylar based graph you can buy in most
art stores. Again, I use it as a demonstrative sample to show you
why you can't do it from photocopies, why you can't make
measurements. Now go to the lower -- excuse me -- lower right-hand
corner. As we go down, you're going to see the squares come apart.
Q. Did you make this as a separate one to one photocopy?
A. Yeah, ran it through my photocopy machine, aligning the left-hand
corner. You can see how much difference there is by the time you get
down to the lower right. If you're enlarging two photographs the
same way, two square photographs the same way, and then enlarging
them beyond enlargements factor of the photo copier, the one on the
left-hand side, which would be your upper left-hand corner which we
just saw, would be one size, and the one to the right would be
another size. It would have -- in this particular case it would have
elongated, and when you make measurements, they wouldn't match.
Q. Let's cross out the light as evidence of alteration, then.
(Indicating to handwritten chart.) Next point I talked about with
Mr. Groden was, he suggested there was some sort of a false edge
underneath the frame of Mr. Simpson walking through the end zone.
MR. GELBLUM: Steve, do you have the slide there, Mr. Groden's slide?
Put up 2282, 3, just to remind the jury what we're talking about.
Enlarge that
(indicating to Elmo). Move it up please, Steve.
(Mr. Foster adjusts exhibit on Elmo.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Did you read Mr. Groden's testimony about what
he called a false edge on the photograph down here?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you agree that's a false edge?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Mr. Groden said there was no natural situation in photography
that would give you that false edge by itself. Is that true?
A. No. This is really -- I was a little confused initially by it
because I couldn't quite understand what was being said because it
is such a common thing and it's just such a natural thing that most
first-year photo students immediately would know what it was.
Q. And what is it, sir?
A. It's basically the first frame, which is called -- particularly
on Fuji film, is called frame 0. There's also a frame 00 that's
before frame number 1. And if I might use the camera again to help
demonstrate. When you load your film into a camera, any camera such
as this -- let's see if it's going to load back up here. We load the
camera up when the cassette comes out, when you take it out of the
box and out of the container, you have a little -- the leader. This
is the leader of the film and the leader is already exposed, as you
can see. What you do is place it onto the other end by the sprocket
so the take up reel can pull it on through, as we've demonstrated
a couple times. I just fired it the first time there. Normally, when
you would load it in, the next step would be to close the back of
the camera and then fire a couple more times until the 1 shows on
the top of your camera. I think most people have experience doing
this. Well, what you don't realize is just before that film is in
there now, still hasn't been exposed, it hasn't been exposed to the
light. So if you don't have a cap over the front of the camera or
you don't put your hand over it, which is my habit of doing it, when
you fire it like that, actually two exposures are being made,
they're not anything you're planning, but they are being made
nonetheless, and most people have experienced when they get a roll
of film back, many times the first one is a picture of their feet,
the floor or the ceiling, that's the first one, and it's usually
frame 0, and the first thing you do is throw it away. Well, in this
particular case, what has happened is frame 0 came up, and it's
actually a picture of the football field at the stadium there, and
when it was taken, it was clicked off with a pair of scissors. And I
did -- again, if Mr. Foster would assist.
Q. I'm sure he can.
A. I did a little drawing and ran a roll through showing frame 0 and
00 and clipped it off in the same -- approximate same manner, just
to illustrate to you what has happened here, and then made a
demonstrative chart to actually show you the football field.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GELBLUM: Which one should we put up first?
THE WITNESS: Put first on top, then the negatives. I'd like to show
them at the same time.
MR. GELBLUM: We'll mark the white paper with the --
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Is that a computer-generated graphic?
A. Yes.
MR. GELBLUM: We'll mark that as 23 --
THE CLERK: 63.
MR. GELBLUM: -- 63, and the roll of negatives as 2364.
(The instrument herein described as a computer-generated graphic was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2363.)
(The instrument herein described as a roll of negatives was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 2364.)
A. The computer-generated graphic here is something I made up on my
computer very quickly. I want to make sure I'm out of the way here.
This illustrates what would be frame 1, and the frame 0 where it was
cut off, because, again, this was unwanted film. It was
underexposed. It wasn't meant to be taken. It was just cut off, and
it wasn't done too awful neatly, it's just a pair of scissors and
clipped right off at this point. If you put on the negatives just
below it, just push that up a little bit, and put them on below it,
and then is it on back light, back light. This is a roll that I took
-- back it off, if you would, just a little bit, please. Little
more. Little more. Little more. Little more. There we go.
(Indicating to Elmo screen.) Okay. This -- the leader -- the whole
seven inches of film here is called the leader, basically. And on
here, we have just a portion of the first picture, because this
portion has been exposed. I pulled it out to put it into the
sprocket and the take-up reel. The next shot, which is frame 00, is
this shot
(indicating). And I just literally shot it in the hotel room, just
to put a picture on there that you could see. And then the next one
is frame 0, which was in the same hotel room, just so you could see.
Then I clipped it off, just leaving a little slice left on it,
exactly like is on the photograph of Mr. Simpson. And then this
would be the equivalent -- this next frame here of Mr. Simpson's
photograph here. In essence, what it is, is, when it was processed,
it was just cut off. In examining it very closely, I found it is a
picture of the field. When Mr. Scull loads -- loaded his camera --
when you normally load an F 1, you do not load it in a turn like the
picture of Mr. Simpson is taken in, horizontal. You load it -- I
mean, in a vertical. You load it in a horizontal manner. Again, if
you you're not paying attention, the wrong lens, you have no lens
covers for -- most of them do not -- you're just loading it as you
saw me load it there. Before he loaded it --
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object. This calls for speculation at
this point. He has no idea what Scull did.
THE COURT: It's the witness's opinion on how it was done. Overruled.

A.
(Continuing.) And if we take an image, what I had done on this
demonstrative chart here --
Q. Marked next in order as 2365?
(The instrument herein referred to as demonstrative chart was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2365.)
A. 2365. -- is, I have -- I had just the bottom portion underexposed
again, so that we could see the actual portion in question at the
bottom here. And if you turn it horizontal, like the film would have
been loaded through, we can see white lines, diminishing as they go
up the frame. These are the white lines of the field while standing
at the end zone. And, as a matter of fact, if you look very, very
closely at the third line here, you can actually see a little red at
the top white, and then a little blue, and the 20-yard line at that
stadium, as can be illustrated. I think we have a picture of that.
Do we have the enlarged contact sheet?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, we may have to pass this around to make
it easier to see than on the contact.
MR. GELBLUM: We'll mark 2366, the enlarged contact sheet of the roll
that has the picture of Mr. Simpson walking through the end zone.
(The instrument herein referred to as Enlarged contact sheet of the
roll that has the picture of Mr. Simpson walking through the end
zone, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.
2366.)
A.
(Continuing.) If we compare it with the exact contact sheet, we can
see, if we go to frame such as -- just select one kind of here at
random frame 12, we can see the lines, the white lines diminishing
or into the background, the same way we can see these white lines.
Of course, this is a much bigger blow-up. There is a much bigger
enlargement. The lines of diminishing off into the background, as
they are here in this case, the camera was pointed down, so all we
see is ground. In this case, the camera was pointed slightly off.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You're saying the second in the case or contact
sheet?
A. Yes.
Q. When you're pointing down, you're talking about 2356?
A. Right.
Q. I'm sorry. It's 2365. The enlargements of Mr. Simpson's leg.
THE CLERK: That's a chart?
MR. GELBLUM: 2365 is the enlargement of the frame in question, and
the 2366 is the enlarged contact sheet.
A. In addition, if we looked at 2366, the contact sheet, at frame
25, we can see the blue, red, and white lines, as that can just be
seen on the third line from the bottom going up. You can just barely
see the colors in it.
Q. I'm going to put that on the Elmo and see if we can see that.
A. It may be difficult on the Elmo.
Q. You can pass it around.
MR. LEONARD: A point of clarification, is it the witness testimony
--
MR. GELBLUM: This isn't cross-examination.
MR. LEONARD: NO, I'm -- it's important.
MR. GELBLUM: In the middle of my examination -- if he's got an
objection to make --
MR. LEONARD: I don't have an objection. I didn't understand why,
when they're talking about the two exhibits -- I'm trying to take
notes.
MR. GELBLUM: 2365 is the enlargement we're about to put on the Elmo
of the bottom half of the frame in question of Mr. Simpson walking
through the end zone. 2366 is the contact sheet.
THE CLERK: I -- may I, for the record -- which demonstrative chart
is that, 2365?
MR. GELBLUM: Which one? The computer graphic?
THE COURT: That's 2363.
MR. GELBLUM: And the 23 -- negatives, 2364.
THE CLERK: The next one I have is a demonstrative chart.
MR. FOSTER: This is 2365.
THE CLERK: Is that also known as the demonstrative chart?
THE WITNESS: I used the term. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to.
MR. GELBLUM: Can we pass around 2365 to the jury?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Can you tell the jury what you're pointing out
with the red, white, and blue lines?
A. Yes. You have to tune it in. On the orientation it was taken,
this would be the line
(indicating). This would be the closest line to the photographer,
the second one. And this is the third one here
(indicating). That's probably the 20-yard line. Then it goes on --
on up until you no longer see it in there. It probably would be best
to pass this one along, too, so you can see how the lines do
diminish as you go.
Q. Before you pass them, let me ask a couple more questions about
them. Mr. Groden said that it was ridiculous to say that what you're
saying is true, because among other reasons, there would be a
vanishing point you would see in those lines. Did you read that
testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that right?
A. No, it is not. If the photographer is at the end of the field;
the lines are parallel to his plane. In other words, they're
parallel to the plane of the field. It's very similar to, if we look
up at the lights, or if you happen to be looking up in this
direction, in which you can see in the jury, if you look at
different lines of the light, as we look down, they get shorter and
shorter and shorter. And you can see it much better, like, out in
the hallway. As we look down, each one of the horizontal lines will
tend to compress or diminish, the farther it gets away.
Q. Did you bring an exhibit to demonstrate that?
A. Yes, I did. In fact, I actually brought one because Mr. Groden
suggested that a railroad track --
MR. LEONARD: Same objection.
A. -- was the best example.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Of what?
A. Of this phenomenon.
MR. LEONARD: Can I have a ruling, Your Honor?
THE COURT: I don't know what the objection is.
MR. LEONARD: It's the continuing objection that I made at the side
bar --
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. LEONARD: -- beyond discovery.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FOSTER: 2367?
MR. GELBLUM: Yes; 2367?
THE CLERK: I'm sorry. Yes, next in order.
(The instrument herein referred to as Artist's drawing of a railroad
track was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.
2367.)
MR. GELBLUM: Would you put that up, please, the right-hand side --
the other side. Move it over --
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Can you demonstrate what we're talking about
with a vanishing point?
A. Can you sharpen that up just a little bit? This is just an
artist's drawing of a railroad track. And he is correct in saying
that the lines here on the railroad tracks themselves, along with
the wires above, all go to a vanishing point. What this means is,
any lines that are parallel in a picture, will go to some -- some
vanishing point -- actually, one of three vanishing points that are
in a picture -- most artists and most photographers are well aware
of it -- however, one -- one vanishing point can be infinity. It
usually is when you have parallel lines that are parallel with the
film plane. In this case, he was talking about the railroad tracks.
What I am talking about is the ties in between them. And if you look
at the ties, each one of these ties stay parallel with each other as
they get smaller and smaller and smaller, and closer and closer
together, as they go away from us, or as they're viewed away from
us. The same way the lines in the field do here, and really the
same way the lines do in the field here.
(Indicating.)
Q. When you say "here," you're talking about Exhibits 2365 and 2366?

A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, finally, on this -- before we pass that around, Mr.
Groden also said that this couldn't be lines on the field, because
the lines went past the edge of the horizontal edge there. Is that
right?
A.
(No verbal response.)
Q. That the frame --
A. No. On figure 2365, we can see the edge of the frame here.
(Indicating.) And this is the edge of the frame.
(Indicating.) We can also see where the corner is the same as the
corner of the frame above it, which has Mr. Simpson in it. And the
corner down here
(indicating), it's just a clipped-off edge of the frame. Also, the
distance between these frames -- and if I might have the one showing
the full one of Mr. Simpson we had initially. No, that's with the
26. I'm sorry. First and second frame.
Q. Oh. This one?
A. Yes. If we look --
MR. GELBLUM: That's 2359.
A. -- at the distance -- this isn't the best. There's another one
that shows this particular frame at the bottom.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) There. Mr. Richards, is this the one you're
talking about?
A. That's the one I'm talking about.
MR. GELBLUM: Again, next in order.
THE CLERK: 2368.
(The instrument herein referred to as Enlargement was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2368.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Is this another enlargement you had made?
A. Yes. It is 2368. You can see the distance between frame 0, down
here, and frame 18 is illustrated at the bottom of the print. And
it's the same identical distance as it is between frame 1 of Mr.
Simpson and frame 2 up above. Again, this vertical position is not
normally how a camera's held when it is loaded. It is held in this
direction, horizontally. And again, this is a photograph of the
field that was useless to the photographer, and it was just cut off
when he put them -- inserted them into the -- into his sleeves for
storage.
Q. Why don't we pass around 2365 and 2366, then. Again which line on
2365, you see the red, white, and blue on the 20-yard line?
A. You have to turn it the way it should be naturally done. It would
be the third one up from the bottom. We have 1, 2, 3, as we're going
from bottom to top.
Q. Is it fair to say you don't consider that little image there
evidence of alteration?
A. That's fair to say, yes, sir.
Q. The next point on the chart that Mr. Groden made is that he said
he saw a retouching mark in the left pants leg. Did you read that
testimony?
A. Yes, I did.
MR. GELBLUM: Steve, could you put on the monitor, please, 2282,
number 68. This was Mr. Groden's exhibit, to remind the jury what
we're talking about here.
(Exhibit 2282 displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) He said there was a discontinuity in the grain
pattern in the lower leg. Did you examine the negative and the
contact sheet and the prints of this photograph in that area?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. All right. Did you see any sign whatsoever of retouching?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you see any discontinuity in the grain pattern?
A. The grain pattern is consistent throughout. The shade is
different, but the grain pattern is consistent throughout.
Q. Now, Mr. Groden said he saw the retouching mark in print -- what
he called a retouching mark on a print, not on the negative. If you,
as a photographic expert, see some kind of a mark or something that
looks strange on a print, would you assume immediately that that is
some evidence of alteration?
A. Well, no. If I'm examining a photograph and I see a mark that I
do not understand what it is, I do not automatically attribute it to
falsification or alteration or changing it. It's just a mark I don't
understand, and it has to go through two more procedures. One, I
have to find out what it is. And when I find out what it is from, it
is a natural mark that would be placed on there either through the
processing or through the -- caused by the camera or perhaps some
defect in the film, which happens really quite often, I would
attribute it to that, and continue on. If I found it was some
indication of alteration, then I would label it as such. If I did
not know either way, that's the way I would have to label it, as I
don't know either way, because I contribute it to something.
Q. Can anomalies appear on prints because of the printing process,
as opposed to -- and would not show up on the negative?
A. Yes; it happens all the time. As a matter of fact, in many of the
prints that I have brought here today, there's a thing called
neutron rings that you can see quite readily. They drive people who
do printing crazy. But if they are small neutron rings, and you
don't know what it is, and you've never been exposed to it before,
you really don't understand what it is, you could very easily take
that anomaly for a retouch mark.
Q. If you see an anomaly on a print, would you want to look at the
negative to see where it came from, or if it just came from the
print?
A. Most definitely I would want a second print made, to make sure it
wasn't of the print itself. If the second print doesn't have the
anomaly, obviously, it was from the first print. And then secondly,
I would like, if that shows the same basic -- if I got two prints
showing the same mark, that is obviously coming from the negative,
and I would want to examine it.
Q. So do you see anything in the lower leg that, to you, is evidence
of alteration of the left leg?
A. No. I looked at that particular pants leg, as I mentioned, with
low magnification, high magnification, all the way to 60 power,
under a microscope. I could find no suggestion, no indication
whatsoever of retouch marks or alterations.
Q. During your 25 of years of experience examining photographs, did
you come to learn what retouching marks look like?
A. Yes, I have.
MR. GELBLUM: Now, Steve, can you put up the next one, which is
2282-7, number 7 again, Mr. Groden's exhibit.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Groden testified that there was a -- what he
called a linear tone, a change across the right leg. Did you
review that testimony?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did you review the photograph to see what he was talking
about?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And do you see what he's talking about?
A. No, I do not. And, in essence, I examined it; I can find no
significant linear tone, a change. What I mean by "significant" is,
you do have tone, a change throughout there, as you can see. You
have light areas and dark areas in the shadow areas of the pants,
and partially where they're highlighted as they're folding back and
forth. That's a tone change. But there is nothing inconsistent with
that pants leg blowing in the breeze as a man is walking along.
There is nothing in there that suggests that it would be a retouch
mark or anything of that nature. It appears to be a highlight at the
top of a fold, or what appears -- what I understand to be the mark
that he has -- he is suggesting.
Q. Let me show you 2287, which is the full-frame enlargements of the
negative -- of the contact sheet of Mr. Simpson walking through the
end zone. Can you show the jury, are there any tonal changes on
the leg, other than the one Mr. Groden's talking about?
A. Not that I can -- well there's tonal changes throughout the
entire leg. As I said, at each fold of the leg, the tone changes
from light to dark, from shadow to highlight area. As it goes,
continues on down from, you know, at the very lower portion of the
leg, it was like a little snakey structure here of just the cloth
rippling as you're walking along. And again, that's perfectly
natural.
Q. Is this the area you're talking about?
(Indicating.)
A. Yes.
Q. Pointing on the monitor to the little ripple in the lower leg?
A. Yes, it would be.
Q. Does that appear to you to be evidence of alteration?
A. No.
Q. Do you see any evidence of alteration in the lower right pants
leg?
A. No, I do not.
MR. GELBLUM: You can take that down.
(Indicating to Elmo.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Groden also said, as reflected on the
chart I have in front of the jury there, that he saw a problem,
because the frame of Mr. Simpson walking through the end zone had an
overall reddish tint, and the other frames on the contact sheet had
an overall cyan, or bluish-green tint. Did you read that testimony?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did you see what he was talking about?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And is that evidence of alteration, in your mind?
A. No, not in this particular case. And I don't have the contact
sheet. I think the jury might be passing it around. That's quite
common. Things reflect color, and there's a lot of color in these
pictures. As a matter of fact, the blue monitor shining here
reflects blue, or projects blue on the black cardboard underneath
it. So the black cardboard takes on a blue tint to it. Mr. Simpson
is surrounded by red, so some of that red diffused light is showing
on, particularly white, or white shadow areas or dark shadow areas.
It will show up on both. The reason that it's nowhere else as almost
every other photograph in that frame, is the shadow areas are
green or cyan, which is -- actually, cyan is a combination of blue
and green -- is because they're standing -- most of the uniforms on
there are cyan, and he's standing on green grass for most of them,
so that those colors are being reflected into the white areas. And
that's what you're seeing. Again, this is another tremendous
problem, many times, for people who print color film, because they
can't get those out very easily, without shifting the rest of the
colors. They can't make white pure white without shifting the rest
of the colors to get rid of those natural reflections. That, you'll
find, is quite natural, for Mr. Simpson's shirt to be reflected red
in there, since he's surrounded by red. He's standing on red. And
the other people in all of the other frames are standing on a green
turf, which is reflecting back to them.
Q. Is that an example of diffused reflection?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Can you explain to the jury what diffused reflection is?
A. There's two basic types of reflection: Diffused and spectral.
Spectral reflection is like a mirror angle of incident equals angle
of reflection. You shine a light in, it hits a mirror; whatever
angle it is, it is the same angle it comes off the mirror. Diffused
angle is lights that strike it, diffuses some all directions: Soft
clothing, soft materials. Nonreflective materials diffuse light.
They reflect light, but they don't reflect it in a specific
direction. And if you have something close to it, it will -- it will
reflect that light into that object, which will tint it.
Q. Would an Astroturf field create spectral or diffused?
A. All diffused. There's nothing shiny out there to reflect light.
Q. You consider this tint example of alteration?
A. No.
MR. GELBLUM: Would this be a good place to stop?
THE COURT: Yes. Okay, ladies and gentlemen, 8:30 tomorrow. Don't
talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions. Don't read
anything or watch anything about this.
(The instrument herein referred to as Photograph showing item #102
was marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 1310.)
(The instrument herein referred to as contact sheet was marked for
identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 1388.)
(The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of Mr. Simpson was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1830.)
(At 4:30 P.M., an adjournment was taken until Wednesday, January 15, 1997, at 8:30 A.M.)