Second camera adding doubt

Lolita Harper

Each day of testimony regarding the authenticity of the digital

videotape that captured an alleged rape in the Corona del Mar home of

an Orange County assistant sheriff reveals more details, more

possibilities and more legal strategy.

Thursday was no different, as it was revealed that two video

cameras were involved in the pending case and defense attorneys

specified that San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department officials were the

culprits in their tape-tampering defense.

Video expert attorneys testified to the workings of two models of

Sony cameras; the older, larger, DCR-VX1000 and the newer, compact

DCR-TRV8 model. A shadow of the larger camera can be seen on the tape

of the incident, but the camera seized by police, which contained the

tape that prompted 24 felony counts against Gregory Haidl, Keith

Spann and Kyle Nachreiner, was the smaller one.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Dan Hess said the explanation is simple.

“[Gregory] Haidl had two cameras,” Hess said. “We think the

filming was done on the larger camera and then when he went to the

party to show it off, he put it in a Handy Cam to cruise around.”

Defense attorneys say the difference between cameras is

significant when arguing about tape defects that were noticed by both

defense and prosecution video experts. Experts from both sides who

studied the tape that the prosecution is holding as evidence say they

saw a split second of black frames in the middle of the tape, and

what appeared to be a “fluttering” image at the end of the tape. It’s

the cause of the fluttering that the experts don’t agree on.

Videographer and prosecution witness David Dustin said the

fluttering was most likely the result of the camera operator shutting

it off at the time of recording, which was July 6, 2002. Videographer

and defense witness Joe Micalizzi said that’s impossible and that

“fluttering images” can only be the result of editing or copying.

The defense says the tape that originally stored the alleged

incident -- not the tape that the prosecution is contending is the

original -- had material taken out, then was copied to another

digital tape and pawned off as “the original.” Veteran defense

attorney John Barnett, who was the attorney of record in the Rodney

King trial, added to that theory Thursday.

“The tape that was seized [by the police] was the original,”

Barnett said. “It was turned over to the police and the police

redacted the copy from 90 minutes to 60 minutes. I don’t know who did

it yet, but it was in San Bernardino when it happened. That is

unmistakably clear.”

Micalizzi, who testified as a defense expert, said it’s possible

to record 90 minutes of footage onto a 60-minute tape if the camera

were in the “long play mode” -- more commonly know as “LP mode.”

Because the camera moves at a slower speed in “long play mode,” it

allows more footage to be captured, he said.

Once in the hands of those who wanted to manipulate it, Micalizzi

said, the 90 minutes were edited and transferred to a new, 60-minute

tape, which Micalizzi says was pawned off as the original.

“And the beauty of digital is that you can have identical quality

using both those modes,” Micalizzi said.

Hess said both sides agreed that San Bernardino Sheriff’s

Department Deputy Daniel Futscher accidentally recorded over

two-thirds of a second of tape, which would account for the flash of

black in the middle of what’s being called the “couch scene.” He said

defense attorneys continue to fixate on small details because the

larger picture makes the crime obvious, he said. The digital medium

is very new -- only 9 years old -- and complex, Hess said. The

defense is calling attention to little things, such as the flutter

when none of it really matters, Hess said.

San Bernardino officials who were called to testify have

consistently denied any tampering with the tape.

“They are just trying to plant a bug in the judge’s mind,” Hess

said. “Why would San Bernardino [Sheriff’s Department officials] do

all this? They had only two hours with the tape and have no digital

camera or copying equipment. Give me a break.”

There is still 20 minutes of video that allegedly shows an

unconscious 16-year-old girl being sexually violated with a number of

objects, Hess said. And that is criminal, he added.

If convicted, Haidl, 18, Spann and Nachreiner, both 19, face up to

55 years in prison. Hearings will continue at 9 a.m. Monday in Santa

Ana Superior Court, room C45.

* LOLITA HARPER is the community forum editor. She may be reached

at (949) 574-4275 or at [email protected].