American cinematographer (Oct 1933)

October 1933 • American Cinematographer 227 Photo by John P. Cooper, A. S. C. 16mm. Camera Exposes Insurance Frauds by C. B. Harris O N THE morning of November 29th, 1929, while standing on the rear platform of a Los Angeles Railway car a collision occurred, allegedly causing Mr. R to be thrown forwards, striking the rear of a seat in front of him, and then to be thrown backwards, in turn striking his back against some object in the rear. He was not thrown from the car, he did not fall to the floor of the car nor was he rendered unconscious. The allegations in the complaint were as follows: “That the patient was greatly and grievously wounded and injured, temporarily and permanently; and that he sustained a severe concussion of the brain resulting in headaches, visual blur- ring attacks, redness of the right eye, sensation of explosion in the right fronto-parietal region, sleeplessness, dragging of the left leg and coldness of the left leg; and also suffered from deep pains in front of right thigh and knee; and also emotional disturbances, as well as severe nervous shock and tremors; contusions of the occiput, spine, both jaws and a lot more complications that would read as though the American Expeditionary forces had been wiped out. $100,000 was asked by Mr. R but the jury awarded him $30,000. This large sum seemed to work like magic on the victim. He invested it in a gold mine. Investigators found him working about the mine, pick and shovel, carrying and hauling. They spotted a 16mm camera on him at a distance, using a telephoto lense. Unfortunately however, in this case, by the time the case was brought to court the gold mine had played out ... a complete failure. This is a case taken directly from the files of Dr. William Louis Weber, chief surgeon, Pacific Electric Railway Co. Another interesting case presented by Dr. Weber was where the victim was in an automobile accident with a street car. He claimed to be bed ridden. His wife con- ducted a rooming house and one morning a young chap moved in who developed a great hobby for Amateur motion picture photography. The victim having nothing tcydo took a great interest in the young fellow’s hobby and permitted him to take a few pictures of him. As the acquaintance ripened they went horseback riding together, as well as boating and swimming. Motion pictures were taken of this by the young chap, who of course was an investigator for the Railway company. These were presented in court and the suit for $75,000 was naturally thrown out. This was a case where a few hundred feet of film saved that company a very large sum. It was our belief that it might be necessary when secur- ing pictures of this sort to establish something or somebody in the film itelf to determine time of the taking of the picture, however, according to the evidence presented in cases in the past, it has been only necessary to swear in the photographer, for him to give his evidence, identify the film and then have the film projected. However in some cases according to H. H. Dolley, a prominent investigator of Los Angeles, when it was felt that the defendant might attempt to establish the fact that the pictures were taken before the accident they contrived to get a second person in the film with him or have ad- ditional witnesses. Dolley tells of an interesting case in connection with Ramon Navarro, the motion picture star who was sued for a very large amount after an auto accident. The defendant claimed total disability. However through the 16mm camera he was shown carrying rock, launching a motor boat, horse- back riding and otherwise doing strenuous work. Of course, telling about what these pictures contained seems like easy work. The operator must be ingenious, and many times a bit crafty to lure his victim before the lense, Frequently the telephoto lense is brought into use. In the Navarro case a cameraman was stationed in an empty house across from a building being erected and the man was shown working on heavy construction work. Dolley points out that it is absolutely necessary to identify the man at his work. That is, a long shot that does not de- finitely identify him can easily be fought by the defense attorney. It is for this reason that the close-up, and the use of the telephoto lense is so important. While it may not be necessary to be an absolute close-up, it must be close enough to identify the man. Another case recently which was photographed by Park Reis, A. S. C. was a man who had been awarded $500.00 a month for an accident which happened somewhere in the east, which he claimed had made him blind. The only trace the insurance company had of this man was through his post office box address in Los Angeles. The box was watched dili- gently and the man identified by operatives. His habits of ar- riving and leaving the post office were noted. Then a 16 mm camera was brought to the post office. A f 1.9 lense was used and super-sensitive film shot at 8 frames a second. The picture showed the man opening the post office box, taking out his mail, opening it and reading it. Then on another occasion they stationed themselves across from where he parked his car, with a telephoto lense on the camera. This scene showed him getting into the car, driv- (Continued on Page 236)