The court entered an order and granting our motion in limine regarding this evidence of other killers cause it cannot be.
Regarding evidence of other killers, third parties because it cannot be linked up in any way to the situation in this case. And this is -- this falls squarely within that order, Your Honor. That's what we had moved on and that's what Your Honor granted.
Your Honor, this is totally different. This is offered to show that the LAPD zeroed in on my client, never ever looked at any other, any other evidence. And the people that are intricately involved, the same people that are working for Mr. Silverberg and Knupp now.
Your Honor specifically ruled on this. This is the very sort of thing you're not able to inquire about and that's what we moved on because he cannot link it up in any way, shape or form to any of the facts of this case. He can't sit there litigating all these clues in front of the jury.
Not scrolling up.
The two motions came, the motion that the plaintiff made with regard to any theories of other people such as a motion had to do with theories of drug lords or other people who theoretically committed this offense. That motion, I don't think, covers what any percipient witness saw with regards to a potential suspect. So long as this is not going to be the basis of concocting some theory of some drug lord, I don't have a problem with that.
Your Honor, that's a different motion. Number 8 is the one that's on point here that I'm referring to that we made.
No, right here, Your Honor. He eliciting that the LAPD did not follow up on these clues. That's precisely what's barred unless the defendant can make an offer of proof as to what clues or leads would have produced under that case that we cited. And what he is doing is he's pointing out one clue and he can, that's 500 of them. That was the idea of the whole motion.
The significant difference is that this is a witness on the scene at the time at or about the time. I'm going permit the defendant to go further on that person to what that person saw. That's different from pointing to some conspiracy theory or to some other drug lord or somebody else.
He's gone beyond what the person saw. His point of this is what the LAPD did with regard to this information, not what -- I have no objection to the person's observations, Your Honor. That's not what I'm quarreling about. I'm quarreling about getting into LAPD's investigation of that person's information. That's not relevant under -- that falls within the order. If he wants to say what Telerino saw and heard at the time of the scene, fine. I've got no problem with that. But what's the relevance of what the LAPD did with regards to Talerino, that doesn't go anywhere. That was why we made this motion.
Talerino testified that all leading to OJ Simpson, that's been on the new media. Marcia Clark had a press conference 56 hours after these murders and says there is only one suspect. And the reason there is only one suspect is because OJ Simpson was their suspect and they excluded everybody else.
I think it's relevant so have this jury understand because a big issue is being made if not OJ, who? And so I'm not saying who, but I've got to say the reason that nobody can tell is because LAPD with this -- and a bunch of other things, did not follow normal police procedures and did a very poor investigation, a very poor collection of the crime scene evidence. And obviously, what I would request is that you, if you have any problems with this, you can move to strike it afterwards. I mean this is not, this is not the end all to the case but this is very important.
Well, I don't want this to be your wedge. I don't want this to be the wedge by which we get into the collateral theory of drug lords. What's her name?
KEY QUOTEMy point is that Thomas Talerino can come and testify and state his observations as well as any other witness, but --
To the extent that Mr. Baker is trying to say that the police department focused on Simpson, to that extent, I will permit it.
KEY QUOTENo, you're to argue that they focused on Simpson and not on anybody else. They already made up their mind as to Simpson. I think that's the tenor of his argument.
Well, we'll see.
(The following proceedings were resumed in open
court in the presence of the jury:)
Marcia Clark had a press conference 56 hours after these murders and says there is only one suspect. And the reason there is only one suspect is because OJ Simpson was their suspect and they excluded everybody else.
I don't want this to be your wedge. I don't want this to be the wedge by which we get into the collateral theory of drug lords. What's her name?
To the extent that Mr. Baker is trying to say that the police department focused on Simpson, to that extent, I will permit it. It's very narrow.
If he wants to say what Telerino saw and heard at the time of the scene, fine. I've got no problem with that. But what's the relevance of what the LAPD did with regards to Talerino, that doesn't go anywhere.