| One of the most interesting aspects of the Simpson Civil Trail was the introducion of the Scull/Flammer photo purported to be Simpson wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoes on the 23rd of September, 1993.
Originally published in The NATIONAL ENQUIRER {presented here on our page 2}. Factually, two photos were published; the first later appeared at the Civil Trail; it shown OJ Simpson walking across a football field, and purported to show the Bruno Magli sole. The second appeared some time later; it purported to show Simpson -- on the same day -- sitting in the shoeshine chair.
Several interesting things are associated with these photographs.
- The shadow at the foot of football field photo is toward the photographer. The affect of this is to cast the sole into shadow. Based exclusively on the physical laws governing photography, the appearance of detail on the sole defies nature. Therefore, the reflective light needed to illuminate the sole isn't where it should be -- isn't focused in the correct direction. If one was to fake a photo, the sole of the shoe is the only area which need be tampered with -- as such focus your attention there, and not at possible differences in the remainder of Simpson's broadcast wardrobe.
- With regard to the shoeshine photo, the National Enquirer apparently saw fit to follow the lead of TIME MAGAZINE and darken Simpson's skin tones.
However, this apparently was not to emphasize his race -- instead, it covered the fact that the shoes were also edited/darkened. Note the hotspots in the photograph. Those are caused by the use of an electric stobe, or flash. In light of the huge financial return -- $12,000 per week for the Scull/Flammer photos. This darkening is very significant.
Look at the feet, the way Simpson is seated. The front portion of his shoes are aligned with the light. By the nature of the footrest, the majority of the sole on BOTH his shoes is exposed. This photo, with the sole directly illuminated, is far more valuble than the rear lit field photo -- yet has not gotten the play.
WHY?
-- Why did the National Enquirer darken the soles to the extent that they could no longer be used to establish the nature of the shoe sole?
-- Why did the plaintiffs fail to introduce this picture into evidence?
Could it be that this picture is exculpitory? That it proves the field photo was forged? What are the probabilities that the National Enquirer purchased the shoeshine negatives and "lost them"?
|