Blank spot on videotape under scrutiny

Lolita Harper

A black flash in the middle of a videotaped sex scene that has become

the focus of rape charges against three teenage boys shows a

different date than the rest of the incident, suggesting some sort of

editing, a video expert testified Tuesday.

Joe Micalizzi, a videographer hired by the defense to examine a

copy of the digital tape that captured various sexual acts being

performed on a 16-year-old girl by the three defendants, said he saw

21 frames of black and 21 frozen frames, which suggested tampering.

The authenticity of the tape that allegedly shows Gregory Haidl --

son of Assistant Sheriff Don Haidl of Corona del Mar -- Keith Spann

and Kyle Nachreiner using a pool cue, a cigarette lighter and bottle

in a sexual manner has become the forefront of the argument in the

case, which has yet to seat a jury.

Attorneys on both sides have argued about the integrity of the

digital tape, which prosecutors claim to be the original used to

record the alleged incident. Defense attorneys argue the camcorder,

in which the tape was found, changed hands so many times -- and so

many various copies of the tape were made -- that it is impossible to

tell if the tape Deputy Dist. Atty. Dan Hess plans to show the jury

contains a “true depiction” of everything that happened July 6, 2002,

during a party at the elder Haidl’s home.

“The dilemma is today you cannot tell an original from a copy when

the editing is [digitally] done,” Micalizzi said in Santa Ana

Superior Court. “If it is done in a digitally based editing program,

one could manipulate it and send it out as the original.”

However, there were “artifacts” that suggest there was editing

done, Micalizzi said, including a series of black frames that -- when

looked at frame by frame -- actually have a different date than the

rest of the sexual scenes.

During one sex scene, which is time stamped as July 6, 2002, a

short black glitch appears on the screen, and then the image

continues, with the participants in the same positions, Micalizzi

said. When slowed down, that black glitch is actually a series of 21

black frames, which account for about two-thirds of a second, he

said.

Micalizzi said it is his opinion that the black frames were caused

by sloppy editing, which created a gap in the video and caused the

screen to show black. He also admitted that the black could have been

created by somebody rerecording on July 8, 2002 but only for a split

second -- pressing record and stop all within the fraction of a

second timeframe.

Hess argued the black frames were created by a nudge in the camera

while it was recording, which would account for the short time lapse.

It is a far cry from the 17 minutes and 38 seconds that defense

experts have argued are missing from the tape.

“There is only two-thirds of a second that frames are black,” Hess

said. “The frames [on either side of the black portion] are only one

second apart and everyone is in the same position.”

Micalizzi admitted that a nudge was one possibility and Hess held

firm that the District Attorney’s Office had the original tape, which

captured the alleged crime.

Testimony from all the witnesses who had access to either the

camcorder or the digital tape, who watched the alleged incident,

concluded Tuesday at noon. Superior Court Judge Francisco Briseno

will hear arguments from the attorneys at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday

regarding whose burden it is -- the prosecution or the defense -- to

prove their claims to be true.

* LOLITA HARPER is the community forum editor. She also writes

columns Wednesdays and Fridays. She may be reached at (949) 574-4275

or by e-mail at lolita.harper@latimes.com.