First of all, the witness himself just volunteered himself how he, you know, wanted to take a lie detector test. It was refused.
Trying to argue --
-- Trying to argue that he had taken what he would have asked, and that's exactly what Mr. Baker argued to the jury in his opening statement, on page 110 of the transcript, that he had no reason to say what he said here other than to suggest that Mr. Simpson was totally innocent, and had he taken the test, which he was happy to do, he would have passed it.
And he has absolutely opened the door on that issue, and I am entitled to follow up, to demonstrate not only did he -- did he take it, but he failed it, Your Honor.
Well, two things:
One, he never took a lie detector test.
Two, he didn't fail a lie detector test.
And three, a letter sent to Vannatter and Lange, as well as also the D.A.'s office, indicating that there was a lie -- they would offer for him to take a lie detector test at the same time that they offered the services of Baden, and he offered the services of Lee, and let the chips fall where they may, the LAPD refused all of that.
Now, to infer that he has taken a lie detector test and failed it is absolutely false.
I've not inferred he -- I'm asking the question. He opened the door. I have the right to ask him.
We know he went to take the test the 14th, 15th, at the offices of Edward Gelb.
It's all outlined in the book.
I'm going to ask him about it, Your Honor, particularly since he opened the door wide open.
No, no. There's a couple of things -- and I want to make a record relative to that book. And I want to make a record relative to the Court's ruling that you say that that book -- because we have not filed a lawsuit, we have waived any attorney-client privilege.
That is, to me, absolutely without foundation.
And the -- in the law anywhere, we have never waived any attorney-client privilege. The fact that somebody else attempts to waive an attorney-client privilege for Mr. Simpson does not waive it for him at all.
And he has never waived it.
And I think the Court's ruling is improper.
And I think for them to bring this up is terribly improper. That is all because Kardashian waives the attorney-client privilege, or does whatever he does and gives an interview for a book because he gets 40 percent of the proceeds.
And it's my understanding, presently he's under investigation by the state bar over exactly this.
That doesn't waive his privilege. Only the holder of the privilege can waive it. The holder is O.J. Simpson.
We've heard, Your Honor, one month ago, when this book came out, counsel of record in this case, F. Lee Bailey, Mr. Leonard's partner, went on national television on the Larry King Show, and spoke openly about this test, openly.
Notwithstanding the Court's gag order, he talked about how Mr. Simpson went there, and he didn't think they asked all the right control questions, and on and on.
And the point is, basically, this -- not only did the witness get it out to the jury, but Mr. Baker, in opening statement -- we didn't utter a word about polygraph tests, and he opened that door. And he cannot have it both ways.
The book -- this book was put out by Simpson's colleague, Schiller, who wrote his first book with him. He, in consultation not only with Kardashian, but with all of Mr. Simpson's lawyers, all of them, Dershowitz and Cochran and -- what's that other guy -- Scheck, and Neufeld and on and on.
This book has been in the works for a long time. They never once filed any action to enjoin it. They never ever tried to stop the publication of it.
You can't simply allow material to go out there and then claim it's privileged without doing anything to stop the publication of it.
That is an absolute waiver.
A waiver doesn't have to be in writing. Waivers are frequently implications and acquiescence.
Wait a second. That is not true. His representations are absolutely false. And that's why he's making a bunch of accusations he has no foundation to make.
Peter Neufeld wrote every lawyer in this case, as Mr. Simpson's lawyer, he wrote Random House, he wrote Schiller, and he said, if you do what you say you're going to do, there's going to be a lawsuit and there is going to be a lawsuit.
And for him to say we have acquiesced and waived it is absolutely an absolute bold-faced lie. It is a --
I think it's an outrage.
Simpson has done everything possible to stop that book.
We represented to the Court and read portions of a letter to this Court, November 28 letter, and there has been at least four or five more pieces of communication to Schiller, to Random House, and to all of his lawyers, that they have not -- that he has not waived the attorney-client privilege.
Now, to say that he's waived it by acquiescence is a bold-faced lie. It hasn't happened. He has never waived it.
About mid-September.
I had a conversation with Mr. Scheck in early September, when they indicated that they were going to publish this book.
And there was a plethora of communications back and forth ordering them not to.
My understanding is they got a representation that the book wasn't going to be published. And then it was published. And that's why there was no injunction filed for it.
But Mr. Neufeld -- we'll get the communications, and he can wait on this until we get the communications. I will get the communications from Peter Neufeld and have them faxed.
This tells the tale. (Indicating to transcript.) This is a red herring about what -- Mr. Simpson sat for interviews for this book. He gave all the tapes up. That's how -- they gave the tapes -- he gave his notes up, too.
Why does Mr. Baker tell the jury that Mr. Simpson was more than happy to take a lie detector test, but they refused, other than to suggest that he was innocent and would have passed the test?
This -- that's the only inference he wanted the jury to draw.
I have the right to ask him. We know he went to take the test the 14th, 15th, at the offices of Edward Gelb. It's all outlined in the book.
That is an absolute bold-faced lie. It is a --
No, I will not lower my voice.
That is all because Kardashian waives the attorney-client privilege, or does whatever he does and gives an interview for a book because he gets 40 percent of the proceeds.
I'll stand on my ruling. Overruled.