Thank you.

All right.

I want one, too.

We are over at the side bar. You guys both ask entirely too many questions. All right.

Sorry, Judge.

I have only asked one question about travel so far.

Do you think the jury is really interested in that?

Judge, only one lawyer.

Yeah.

Your Honor, I believe yesterday through Miss Clark's questioning she opened the door for me to bring out the fact that they did do presumptive testing on the sock for two reasons: Okay. No. 1, she brought out the fact that he both examined the socks microscopically and then certain chemical tests were done, and the suggestion was that Mr. Matheson was outside the room. So I'm going to have to describe what those chemical tests were.

More importantly, late in the day during her cross-examination she asked, "Well, you didn't do any typing on those red balls," suggesting in fact that that we confirmed that is blood other than the visual inspection. I would call the Court's attention to the manner of the drains in Mr. Simpson's house where the People were precluded from bringing out that they did presumptive testing on the drain. The Court ruled at that time that if we made any suggestion that it wasn't blood in the drainpipes, okay, that that would then open the door to bring out the presumptive tests. Miss Clark's question about the failure to do typing tests on those red balls I believe is the same thing. In fact, she said in the very next question, "Well, let's even assume for the moment that they are blood balls." I think she caught herself and realized what she had just done. But I think that for both those reasons, your Honor, I am entitled to ask this witness about the presumptive tests part because, as I said, there is already testimony about the chemical tests that they did on April 2nd and the second reason being for a suggestion that we haven't done anything to indicate the proof of those red balls are blood.

No, your Honor. That--the--counsel is now trying to use his witness' own nonresponsive answer. I never intended to elicit from him that he performed such a test. He volunteered that in an effort, as he has frequently done, to interject into the record matters that he knows he is not allowed to get into which he knows I'm not asking for. But counsel really has all that he wants in my requesting of him whether or not it was typed, because the issue of that was not to dispute that was blood, and I've pretty much--although there have been times that I said, well, we assume it is blood--I have pretty much conceded that--certainly not fought the assertion that it might be. All I was saying was we don't know whose it is, if it is blood. That is not fighting the assertion that it is blood. That is--counsel is using the camel's nose argument, but it is his nose that is in the tent and not mine.

All right. Can you show me the question and answer you are referring to?

I don't have the transcript. It is based on my recollection.

I don't see how that would possibly let it in, your Honor. All I'm saying, it is blood; you don't know whose it is.

I will ask Blasier.

Your Honor, there was a second issue that I wanted to raise while we are here so we don't waste time.

All right.

I don't want to jump back up here.

What is the second issue?

The second issue is that the witness attempted to get in the sock drying experiment. He knew what I was asking him, deliberately interjected a matter that was totally irrelevant to my question. My question had nothing to do with the phenolphthalein test or the application of distilled water. He knew it very well.

And we stopped it real quick.

It also wasn't the sock drying experiment he was referring to.

Let's proceed.

If counsel intends to use that answer to open up the door that has been closed by the Court--

I'm not going to.

All right.