I have two exhibits I neglected to move in. I will move them in, 1439 and the new one, 2097.
Your Honor, with regard to 2097, I have two objections: One would be, the times that were testified to were just rough approximations and basically guesses by the witness. And secondly, there are indications put on there, such as Detective Roberts, where there's not even a setting or scenario in which to situate him, and they still placed his name and time on that.
Also, I don't believe it's an accurate reflection of the geographic area or the layout of the premises, or an accurate reflection of the times and positions of people, as to what was testified to.
I simply agreed to the foundation basis as to the diagram itself, and not any entries that may have been subsequently made.
These are times he testified to.
There is no time by Roberts and Phillips -- whether there was testimony by Roberts and Phillips at Bundy.
That Officer Riske indicated that he could not even find the kitchen on the diagram, not unless Mr. Blasier made markings and an arrow and diagram, and set a time and situated Officer Riske in a kitchen that he was not even able to identify or locate.
One other issue: That's the issue, as the court is well aware from the testimony this morning, when Officer Riske was put on the stand, Mr. Kelly asked Officer Riske, number one, to describe his duties, which were to identify evidence, preserve evidence. Then he went in detail what he did to preserve the evidence. And the point being that this jury has heard from their first witness that, basically, the LAPD collected all the evidence and preserved all the evidence and preserved the crime scene.
Our view is, obviously, LAPD did not collect all of the evidence. LAPD did not preserve the evidence. And this is what we went into in detail vis a vis the opening statements. And you allowed me to do that after Mr. Petrocelli objected. And I think the Karush case, or whatever it is, is patently different than what you're talking about. We're not talking about different types of techniques; we're talking about what they have set forth in both in their opening statement and here in their first witness, that the LAPD did their job. And basically, the tenor is, there's only one suspect: That's my client.
We're saying the LAPD did not do their job relative to the evidence. And every time there's an objection, the Court sustains it. And so I wanted to get a ruling relative to that, because we're not talking about collection techniques; we're talking about the absence of collection after they identified and photographed evidence at the crime scene.
And we need this. This is relevant for two theories. It's relevant, one, the theory that they say LAPD did everything great and they protected the crime scene; they collected all of the relevant evidence; and there's only one suspect: That's Mr. Simpson.
We say LAPD did not do everything great. They did not collect all the evidence. And the reason there was only one suspect is because of what they didn't do, perhaps, but that's for our argument. That's to be implied as circumstantial evidence.
But I certainly wanted to get the Court's ruling before we went further, in view of what was a and wasn't a motion or anything else. It was just a brief relative to the questioning of witnesses and then the Court sustaining objections. So I wanted to get that cleared up before I went further with Mr. Terrazas, and very definitely before we go further into this case, sir.
Your Honor, with regard to the questioning of Police Officer Riske, his testimony was, he was there to identify and preserve the evidence only, and offered absolutely no testimony as to the collection of evidence or any other procedures involved, and further investigation of the evidence or processing of it. He just basically said, I was there to preserve it and make sure it was not disturbed. And his testimony went no further than that.
Your Honor, the position we had argued when we filed the motion originally is simply that evidence that is not collected is not relevant because they can't tie it in any way to the case. What's relevant is the integrity of the evidence that was collected and whether that evidence tends to identify or not identify Mr. Simpson.
But all of the things that were not done and that might have been done, don't tell us anything, and they consume undue time; they're confusing to the jury, and indeed could well be prejudicial.
Respectfully, I think they tell us a lot. They tell us about a rush to judgment; they tell us an awful lot about what was being done by the LAPD and what was not being done. These people stand exactly in the shadows of the LAPD.
The Court, at the outset, had made a ruling; and that was on September 17. And essentially, the ruling is this: The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant, and based on part of the evidence that they are offering, was a person who committed the acts resulting in the deaths.
This is not a case of the defendant defending against a criminal accusation by showing the shortcomings in any of the police investigations, as to raise a reasonable as to the police officers; this is not a case against the Los Angeles Police Department for, as I said before, committing malpractice. It's not a case where the defendant is suing LAPD for not pursuing evidence that would have proved his innocence.
The only issue in this case, really, is whether or not the evidence that is being offered by the plaintiff has proper foundation, and whether or not the evidence supports the plaintiffs' position with regards to connecting the defendant with the offense.
Whether or not the police department did or did not act within certain protocols of police investigation or not, other than the fact that if they spoiled some evidence or affected it, the evidence of the case, some of the evidence being offered, all their shortcomings, in the Court's opinion, do not go to the issue of efficacy of plaintiffs' evidence, and I am going to continue to sustain objections thereon.
So I'm clear, in terms, Your Honor called this a civil murder case, all the evidence they're putting on.
Mr. Baker, I'm not married to any term that I may have used at one point or another.
KEY QUOTEWell, when they identify evidence, are you telling us that they identify evidence by photograph?
In other words, as this Court is fully aware, they have a duty to recognize, and as Officer Riske indicated, to I.D. evidence and preserve that evidence.
If it's I.D.'d and preserved and then lost, I assume we get to talk about that.
All right. The only thing I am saying, Mr. Baker, is that you're not going to be able to talk about the evidence that they didn't find or failed to find.
All right. Bring the jury in.
For the record, let me say the reason I would allow it is because it goes to the weight of the evidence.
Your Honor, just so we don't interrupt any examination with unnecessary objections, as I understand it, the evidence that Mr. Baker can freely question concerning the evidence that we are offering to prove the defendant's guilt, the physical evidence that we are offering, but not with respect to other evidence that was not collected and not used at all.
Wait a minute. We're talking about two different things here, Judge. I want to be clear on it. Let's get very specific.
They documented -- that is, the LAPD documented -- and there will be testimony that the coroner was asked to take the blood off of Nicole's back because that blood could not have been the victim's blood.
By the way, she was lying.
That was never done. That blood was destroyed. We will never know where that blood went to.
There was a triangular piece of plain paper that existed in the photographs by the envelope that is of some significance, according to the criminalist that we have retained, and indeed the criminalist they have retained says that's evidence that should have been -- it was documented by the photograph -- should have been collected; it should have been preserved.
It never was preserved; it never was collected. If it was, it was lost subsequently.
We've got the lens, two lenses in the glasses. Those two lenses were checked. Those two lenses went to LAPD's I.D. There is now one lens.
That's the type of evidence we're talking about that goes to the weight, as you say.
No, I don't think so. That's the kind of evidence that's not coming in because it's not being offered. It has to have probative value. The fact that it's no longer here has no probative value as to --
-- It does have probative value to rushing to judgment. You can't cherry-pick the evidence you want, and that's what LAPD did.
This is not a case of the defendant defending against a criminal accusation by showing the shortcomings in any of the police investigations... It's not a case where the defendant is suing LAPD for not pursuing evidence that would have proved his innocence.
They tell us about a rush to judgment; they tell us an awful lot about what was being done by the LAPD and what was not being done. These people stand exactly in the shadows of the LAPD.
Mr. Baker, I'm not married to any term that I may have used at one point or another.
You can't cherry-pick the evidence you want, and that's what LAPD did.