|
Background Per standard operating
procedure, photographic evidence of the Foster death scene was collected.
This evidence consisted of at least 24 high quality 35 millimeter color
photographs and an unknown number of backup Polaroid
"Anyone who could have seen the scene as it was that day, would not have any doubt in their mind that this was a self inflicted gunshot wound." We will have to take
Cheryl's word for it. No one will ever see the death scene as it
was that day ... all the 35 millimeter photographs of the scene were ruined.
Officer Peter Simonello was the Park Police ID officer at the scene and took at least twenty-four 35 mm photographs; from Simonello's deposition of July 14, 1994:.
A: I believe I took the whole roll, which would be 24 photographs Kenneth Starr devotes
two sentences to the topic on page 73 of his report. Starr doesn't
seem to know if the film was underdeveloped or underexposed. In the
body of the report Starr says that there were problems developing the film,
yet in a footnote says that the negatives were underexposed: Polaroids taken at a crime or death scene develop immediately, and thus are useful in the event that problems subsequently occur in developing other film (such as occurred here).[212] ... [212] The 35-millimeter photographs were underexposed; thus the Polaroids were of greater investigative utility.
PHOTOGRAPHIC Camera
Never Checked
Q You said earlier you thought the camera might have been malfunctioning. A After I got the results back I figured the camera was malfunctioning Q Was the camera ever sent off site to be looked at or to see if there was anything wrong with it? A I don't believe it was, no. ... There was no investigation into the development process. Technician Larry Romans of the Park Police developed the photographs (Simonello deposition at [656]). There is no record that Romans was never asked about his development of the 35 mm photographic evidence of the Foster death scene. Did the loss of this valuable evidence result from underexposed negatives? Was the development process compromised? As of this writing, all we know is that all of the 35 mm photographic evidence is supposed to have been ruined, exactly how is not at all clear, as Kenneth Starr never investigated the ruined evidence. Was
the photographic evidence underexposed or underdeveloped?
Officer Simonello was
on vacation when his photographs were processed an upon return he was told
negatives had been underdeveloped. In his deposition Simonello was
asked how long it took to develop the 35 mm evidence from the death scene
and said [656]:
Q: And how long did it take in this case?The difference between underexposed and underdeveloped negatives is important. Information in underdeveloped negatives can be recovered more easily than information in underexposed negatives. Underdeveloped negatives can be re-processed to bring out the information in them, while underexposed negatives may not have captured the information to begin with.
The
FBI Tells Simonella They Obtained Clear Prints From The Ruined Negatives
According to Simonello's sworn deposition, the interviewing agents showed him clear 8-by-10 photographic prints and told him that the prints had been made from the supposedly ruined negatives of the death scene. Simonello said he was amazed. For some unexplained reason Investigator Rolla attended Simonello's FBI interview and was allowed to sit in. In Rolla's deposition to senate investigators, he recounts how both he and Simonello were astounded by the fact that the FBI had been able to enhance the ruined photographs, "We were looking at them and saying, damn, how did you do that, that's fantastic technology[!!]". Rolla then offered an explanation.
Rolla's
Explanation
Rolla begins his answer by saying, "I know what this is", and then goes on to tell the senate investigators that it had all been a mistake; apparently, there had been a mix-up by the FBI agents. Rolla explains that after Simonello left his interview with the FBI, Rolla stayed behind and one of the FBI agents told him that there had been a mix-up. The agent said that the photos were not made from the recovered 35 mm negatives, but were actually enlargements of a couple of the remaining backup Polaroids. Since Simonello had already left, he didn't hear this explanation of the FBI mistake. So, there you have it ... Simonello was gone and didn't hear the explanation that the FBI agents were mistaken when they initially claimed that the photographs were made from the 35 mm negatives.
The curious thing about Rolla's explanation is that Rolla failed to explain the mixup to his colleague for over two months. Even though both Rolla and Simonello were astounded when they thought the FBI had recovered the ruined 35 mm negatives and even though the FBI had explained it to Rolla, Rolla failed to explain the mystery to his colleague. Rolla never explained the mix-up to Simonello in the two and a half months between Simonello's FBI interview and his deposition.Even though the incident was so clear in Rolla's mind that when asked about being shown photographs by the FBI Rolla begins his response by saying "I know what this is", Rolla seems to have forgotten to explain the the mix-up to Simonello. Rolla and Simonello were working out of the
same building, yet apparently Rolla never told Simonello that the mystery
had been solved ... not once at the water cooler, or passing
in the parking lot, or standing next to each other at the
urinal or at the vending machine, not once did Rolla say to
Simonello, "Hey Pete, remember when the FBI told us that they had enhanced
the Foster photo's, and we were so amazed? Well, the mystery has been solved.
It seems there was a mix-up ...."
Rolla gave his deposition on July 21, 1994, exactly one week to the day after Simonello told senate investigators that the FBI had recovered the ruined negatives. Here is a timeline:
Summary
|
Investigator
John Rolla
