All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is present before the court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Uelmen, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Neufeld. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Goldberg, Mr. Darden. The jury is not present. And the jury is up in the holding lounge upstairs and I recollect that I saw Michele Kestler this morning come in with a city attorney.
Your Honor, one matter I wanted to bring to the Court's attention and perhaps get some clarification. Yesterday the Court asked Miss Clark whether or not she could establish a foundation, as I recall it, for some alleged videos of our client with gloves which we had seen in the past and Miss Clark smiled at your Honor and said "Absolutely." We are informed that yesterday after court Susan Childs of the District Attorney's office called various members of the media and said Miss Clark had been misquoted or had been misunderstood regarding their ability to lay a foundation regarding these items. And as an Officer of the Court I'm just trying to get a clarification of what is true and what was meant by what Miss Clark said. If there is some misunderstanding, we have a right to know that and we want to know exactly, and you have a right obviously to know what was meant. If they are backing up--if you read the L.A. Times today you will see some mention of that I think--forgive me. I forgot who I was talking to.
It is not out of disrespect for the L.A. Times, but I found that it is not helpful for me to read news media reports of this case because I don't want to be influenced by anything.
KEY QUOTEI understand, your Honor. Certainly. We share that view on occasion ourselves. Your Honor, but at any rate, I rise to ask for a clarification of whether Miss Clark is saying she can lay a foundation that these gloves are similar? Are these the exact same gloves? The information we got, and much of the media well, these are going to be the same gloves and we know that is not true, so I think we should have some clarification of that and I wanted to do that early on.
Good morning. I don't try my case in the press and I don't read the papers to see how I should respond to counsel in court. I think it was very clear to the Court what I said and that is all that matters. What the L.A. Times thinks I said, or any other reporter, makes no difference to me. The Court understood me and the Court questioned us at side bar and I don't think there is any misunderstanding between the Court and myself or counsel and I don't think any further clarification is required.
KEY QUOTEWe did discuss this matter twice, once in open court and once at the side bar, and at the side bar my recollection was that we discussed the nature of the stitching and a few other--
One more thing is that whether or not counsel puts in the glove drying experiment, the People's position that those gloves and those photographs--excuse me--of photographs of Mr. Simpson wearing those gloves will be relevant on rebuttal, regardless of what the Defense does with respect to experiments or not, because they are relevant to disprove the conspiracy theory. There are many reasons why those glove photographs will come in in rebuttal, we also believe, regardless of whether or not they come in during the Defense case. There was simply one chance to put them in during the Defense case. There may be others, but if there are not, on rebuttal to refute the conspiracy theme and to refute the planting theme that the Defense has throughout carried in this case, I think--
So I take it the bottom line, Miss Clark, is that you stand by your statements on the record of yesterday?
That is fine then, because the only thing I wanted to point out, when Susan Childs who represents that office makes calls saying she was misquoted, I think we have a right to inquire upon that and that is all we have done, your Honor.
We vigorously dispute that. They will never be able to prove these gloves--that our client wore those gloves and you will see. And the last thing I would like to say is that we have opened no doors on this. If they had this information, Judge, they would have put it in in their case in chief and they didn't and we will vigorously oppose any attempt on rebuttal at that time.
All right. Just for counsel's information, late yesterday I received from the FBI a package of photographs and videotapes regarding shoes and gloves that my staff is cataloguing right now and will make available to you--
I don't try my case in the press and I don't read the papers to see how I should respond to counsel in court. I think it was very clear to the Court what I said and that is all that matters.
It is not out of disrespect for the L.A. Times, but I found that it is not helpful for me to read news media reports of this case because I don't want to be influenced by anything.
They will never be able to prove these gloves--that our client wore those gloves and you will see.
late yesterday I received from the FBI a package of photographs and videotapes regarding shoes and gloves that my staff is cataloguing right now and will make available to you later this morning.