Yes, your Honor. It is our position that--that Miss Clark's hypothetical on recross about the blood being wet while the socks were lying on the floor in Mr. Simpson's room opens the door to MacDonell's testifying about the drying time of blood, because she is putting out the suggestion that it would still be wet. It is this witness' opinion that it wouldn't be wet. As a matter of due process we have the right to rebut her argument, and if we can't rebut it, our hands are tied and Mr. Simpson is unable to, under the confrontation clause, under the due process clause, put on a defense to this suggestion put forth by the Prosecution.

No, your Honor. A hypothetical that does not implicate the sock drying experiment does not allow them to get into that sock drying experiment which is properly ruled to be irrelevant because of such--of such lack of similarity. The reason that sock drying experiment was inadmissible is because of its lack of substantial similarity and that reason still applies. We don't have similar conditions that are required for its relevance. It is not relevant and that is why I posed a hypothetical. Counsel is entitled to counter that with his own hypothetical. That is fine. And the hypothetical that counsel obviously counters with and has gone into at length already is that if the stains are already dried, then it could not have occurred in that fashion, and that is the appropriate method. But to go into an experiment that was properly ruled irrelevant because no effort was even made, admittedly not made, to replicate the conditions, has no basis in fact at all and no basis in law.

I'm not going to ask him about the sock drying experiment. He is going to base his opinion based on his forty years' of expertise in drying times.

All right. The Court's previous rulings stands.