Recross-examination of Neill Freeman

📄 Recross-examination of Neill Freeman — Thursday, February 6, 1997

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1997\FEB\6\RECROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-NEILL-F.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 55 of 57

◀ Redirect examination of Neill Freeman Exhibit rulings ▶

Witness: Neill Freeman
Examiner: Robert Baker
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Thursday, February 6, 1997 • Utterances: 29

Baker conducts a brief recross of Neill Freeman, a financial expert witness, focusing on the nature of OJ Simpson's income — specifically whether book/video profits were one-time deals versus recurring income, and the scope of Simpson's outstanding attorney fees from both trials. Baker highlights that large income figures came from non-recurring sources and that Simpson's legal debt remains substantial.

# 1 MR. BAKER:

Put up 2415 again. (Exhibit 2415 is displayed on Elmo.)

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

# 2 Q:

Okay. Now, this was income in 1993, '94, right?

# 3 A:

At the time I testified to it a few moments ago, I was not sure of the day. That appears that it's in early 1995.

# 4 Q:

Okay. So it would be 1994 income?

# 5 A:

No, sir. It's current income.

# 6 Q:

Now, how much is income at -- what's the monthly income at 2.5 million a year?

# 7 A:

It's about $200,000 a month.

# 8 Q:

And the book and the videos where you say Mr. Simpson -- you had it categorized as his profit on the murders.

KEY QUOTE

# 9 A:

Yes, sir.

# 10 Q:

Those were both one shot deals, correct?

# 11 A:

Yes, sir.

# 12 Q:

You wouldn't use that to assert that he was going to make that kind of income, correct?

# 13 A:

Well, I think that you have a series of one shot deals that produce income over time.

# 14 Q:

And there's no one shot deals in 1996 that you were aware of, the last half?

# 15 A:

I hadn't been provided any information, no, sir.

# 16 Q:

Well, you got the computer printouts of all the income that Mr. Simpson made in 1996. That's how you did those charts; isn't that correct?

# 17 A:

Well, I got redacted computer printouts, that's correct, and they were limited to those categories and that's how I summarized it.

KEY QUOTE

# 18 Q:

Now, what were Mr. Simpson's attorneys' fees for the criminal trial?

# 19 A:

I can tell you what the balances are.

# 20 Q:

Do you know what he paid total?

# 21 A:

No, sir. You haven't given us that information. As of December 31, about 2.8 -- almost $2.9 million for both trials and including --

KEY QUOTE

# 22 Q:

That's still owed; is that correct?

# 23 A:

Yes, sir.

# 24 Q:

And then there's $200,000 roughly for attorney fees for the custody hearings?

# 25 A:

That's correct. 188,000.

# 26 Q:

And in addition, Mr. Simpson -- you don't know if he's paid 2, 3, $4 million already in attorney fees to the criminal lawyers?

# 27 A:

We don't know, no, sir.

# 28 Q:

Nothing further.

# 29 MR. GELBLUM:

Nothing further, Your Honor.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Witness

I got redacted computer printouts, that's correct, and they were limited to those categories and that's how I summarized it.

Reveals the basis for Freeman's income charts was incomplete, redacted financial data — undermining the reliability of his projections.

Witness

You haven't given us that information. As of December 31, about 2.8 -- almost $2.9 million for both trials and including --

Shifts blame to Baker's side for incomplete disclosure while confirming massive outstanding legal debt.

Robert Baker

And the book and the videos where you say Mr. Simpson -- you had it categorized as his profit on the murders.

Baker pointedly uses the witness's own characterization to emphasize the inflammatory framing Freeman applied to Simpson's income.

Evidence (1)

2415

Financial document showing Simpson's income, displayed on the Elmo — appears to reflect early 1995 / 1994 income figures

discussed

Notable Exchanges (2)

Robert Baker•Witness

Baker challenges whether book and video proceeds — labeled by Freeman as 'profit on the murders' — were one-time events and therefore unreliable as a basis for projecting ongoing income. Freeman concedes they are one-shot deals but argues a series of them produces ongoing income.

strategic

Robert Baker•Witness

Baker establishes that Freeman worked from redacted computer printouts and did not know the full amount Simpson had already paid in criminal trial attorney fees — potentially $2-4 million unaccounted for.

revealing

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Neill Freeman

incomplete data / limited disclosure

Baker highlights that Freeman's income analysis was based on redacted printouts limited to certain categories, and that he lacked information on total criminal trial attorney fee payments already made by Simpson.

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 8897 • 29 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103