I've told it to my family a number of times over the years just because it was the only time I've ever seen two people fight like that.
She does not say as she said on national television that she went and ran in and told it to her employer. I think that's another inconsistency we can bring in.
The fact she doesn't say something and said in court is not inconsistent, it's lacking -- it's an omission. She was not put through a question answer period during her interview. Secondly, this Court has not allowed any interviews to be played thus far of any witnesses that have taken the stand for any reason. It's an out-of-court statement. It's just -- it's rank hearsay and there's no reason it should be admitted now, especially to serve as a foundation for the next witness they're going to call. They want to call their next witness and ask him certain questions regarding this incident. Any recollection he might have, we have no objection to that. Certainly, we strongly object to any playing of any video at this time, as we have to any other videotape of any other witness, Your Honor.
Well, thus far I can't fathom the relevance of what it is you're trying to offer. What is it you're trying to offer?
The statement is that I -- after this incident I, India Allen, ran in, said to Dr. Shipp, my employer, that I just saw Nicole Brown Simpson strike O.J. Simpson. Her employer said to her --
Excuse me, O.J. Simpson strike Nicole Brown Simpson, and her employer, Dr. Shipp, apparently said to her, don't worry about it, that's just the way they are, she asked if she -- I should call the police.
The statement I just said, Your Honor. She was interviewed on national television after her testimony and she makes this statement which she never stated before and actually contradicts what I just read to you. She was asked how many times have you told this story that you always get mixed up. She responded, I have -- I told only my family. She didn't say anything about going in and telling Dr. Shipp. And that was the question -- I'm sure Mr. Kelly is going to say the question was never put to her. I think we obviously know why. Because Dr. Shipp is going to come in here and say he has absolutely no recollection of that event ever occurring. I think it's very important. It goes directly to her credibility on -- on this -- this issue. And also again, she made the statement that we were asked -- she was asked why didn't you come forward before. And one of the reasons that she articulated was that she didn't want to get into the limelight, she wanted to avoid it, and here she is going on two different national television programs. So again, it goes directly to her credibility.
First of all, her answer was not that she only told it to my people, family, she said I told it to my family a number of times over the year. She doesn't say I only told it to my family. Secondly, they had an opportunity to ask if she told anybody else about it or pursued further subsequent action that day, they did not address any questions regarding that on their cross-examination of her. For them to say they want to introduce a videotape, there's no reason if it -- it's not inconsistent with her prior testimony, it's just additional information or statements regarding subsequent actions or discussions she may have had that she wasn't asked about on the stand. We won't have the opportunity to discuss this with her, question her about it at a subsequent time. It's hearsay judge.
They're trying to set up an impeachment by setting up a statement that she made in a television show not under oath or in this trial, then bring in another witness to contradict it. You can't do that, Your Honor, it's hearsay. They had a chance to ask her whatever they wanted in the initial examination and it's -- I would object as irrelevant, prejudicial, 352, hearsay, improper impeachment, no foundation.
KEY QUOTEJust one other point. If we need to -- we don't want to have to bring her in because of a medical problem she has; that's one of the reasons that we're trying to do it from this. If we have to bring her in, we'll do it. We can go from there.
Bring her in. We can examine her then. We object to playing television shows in court. Substitute for testimony.
No. We impeached with a prior inconsistent statement after a proper foundation while the witness was on the stand.
This isn't inconsistent? How many times have you told this story that you always get mixed up. She doesn't mention the first time she ever told it to anybody according to her when she ran in excitedly.
You want to impeach her with Dr. Shipp, go ahead. But I don't think that the video is going to impeach her in that regard. Bring the jury in.
KEY QUOTEYour Honor, we ask that this witness be ordered back to the courtroom, India Allen.
All right. Let's -- since Mr. Kelly has control over that, can we have on the record, her address.
Can we approach? We don't need the reporter. (The following proceedings were held at the bench without a reporter:) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held at the bench with the reporter:)
What did you advise me as to what Mr. Fiato's testimony pertains to?
MR. P. BAKER: Mr. Fiato is going to testify that he had two conversation with Phil Vannatter in which Mr. Vannatter told him at a hotel room that Mr. Simpson was a suspect when he went to Rockingham. That's direct impeachment of what Phil Vannatter said during the trial, more importantly, what he said on this stand. He was asked that question. He was asked whether he was suspicious of O.J. Simpson. He denied it each and every time. The motion in limine was filed before the September 17 hearing in which the plaintiffs tried to preclude all introduction or all argument regarding search warrants.
That it's irrelevant. He ruled on the probable cause, the suspect issue, and the hearsay.
I'll stand by my ruling. I'll say there's something that's in way of impeachment. I'll permit it.
For the record, I would like to note there's been no question asked of Mr. Vannatter whether -- about whether he had made such statement to Mr. Fiato, so therefore this testimony is not impeaching 'cause there isn't any previous statement to which this is contrary.
KEY QUOTEAll I want is an order for Dr. Shipp's subpoena continuing. That's all. When we -- he's in the courtroom now.
You said you are going to finish Monday. I'm going to hold you to it.
MR. P. BAKER: Monday afternoon.
You may proceed. (Selected portions of the trial transcript of Lawrence Fiato were read by counsel, Mr. P. Baker reading the questions, and Mr. Baker reading the answers.)
MR. P. BAKER: L-a-w-r-e-n-c-e, last name F-i-a-t-o. Page 46,589, line 6. (Reading:)
She was asked how many times have you told this story that you always get mixed up. She responded, I have -- I told only my family. She didn't say anything about going in and telling Dr. Shipp.
They're trying to set up an impeachment by setting up a statement that she made in a television show not under oath or in this trial, then bring in another witness to contradict it. You can't do that, Your Honor, it's hearsay.
You want to impeach her with Dr. Shipp, go ahead. But I don't think that the video is going to impeach her in that regard.
I don't know whether to deny that or not, Judge.
For the record, I would like to note there's been no question asked of Mr. Vannatter whether -- about whether he had made such statement to Mr. Fiato, so therefore this testimony is not impeaching 'cause there isn't any previous statement to which this is contrary.