> BTW, I didn't know you were involved with Simpson trial. Folks, we have > a heavyweight. Let me clarify. I was not involved with the trial. I worked with an ex-student of mine (Larry White) who at the time had become the Technical Editor of Popular Photography magazine. Pop Photo was contacted by the Enquirer to authenticate the veracity of a single photograph on a roll of film of OJ Simpson walking across a field with shoes plainly visible. The shoes were identified as Bruno Magli shoes that he claimed never to have owned. We examined the negative and did all kinds of measurements and looked for clues but found nothing that would indicate anything out of the ordinary. We concluded the photograph was genuine with a very high degree of certainty. Having done this work for the Enquirer however probably saved both Larry and me from getting involved in the civil trial - I doubt that the legal system would have "found" us for this task anyway. One of our critics was the same person who claimed shoddy CIA and FBI handling of the photographic items related to the Kennedy assasination. I was asked to also give my opinion about that work to Congress (by way of a person who actually held the contract and gave the final deposition) - my conclusion? No evidence of tampering or retouching or any other photographic fakery. But that was BC ... before computers (so to speak). Simpson was after computers so it was (is) a bit harder to claim 100% certainty in cases where the stakes and the potential for fakery high. Oh, 6' 1"", 200 lbs - is it diet time?? Andy > > http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/space/1770273 > -- > God said, Let there be light! > Divine Light: Photography by Rev. Sidney Flack > 2507 E. 2nd Street > Tulsa, OK 74104-1903 > http://www.divinelightphotography.com
