All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Scheck, Mr. Blasier. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Goldberg and Miss Lewis. The jury is not present. Counsel, the record should reflect that on Friday evening, August the 18th, the Court, in the presence of counsel, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Scheck, Mr. Neufeld for the Defense, and Mr. Hodgman and Mr. Yochelson and Mr. Fairtlough on behalf of the Prosecution, in the company of the investigating officers, went to the Bundy crime scene to determine whether or not the conditions were satisfactorily adjusted so that they were substantially similar to the conditions as they were on June the 12th, 1994. And after approximately an hour at the crime scene on Friday evening, after extensive discussion, comparison of photographs, modification of lighting, et cetera, et cetera, the Prosecution chose to withdraw their request for a crime scene view at nighttime. And as a result the Court canceled the viewing that was scheduled for Sunday evening, August the 20th, and that is my recollection of what occurred. Any comment as to that particular issue?
Just so the record is clear, that the Court made every effort to substantially replicate what occurred and the critical factor was the light that was near the gate where the body of Nicole Brown Simpson lay, and once that had been repaired, the decision was made.
All right. The problem being is that the photographs really didn't give us a clear angle or clear appreciation of the angle of that light, and as we discussed on the record last week, photographs are dependent upon the speed of the film, the aperture, the exposure. And so it is hard from the photographs themselves to recreate the lighting conditions as they existed that evening, so there was a Defense objection to begin with and then the Prosecution withdrew their request. All right. Mr. Scheck, anything else on that issue?
Yes. But the Court's concern that the lighting be restored as much as possible to the condition as it was that day was a wise one, because when we did do that, I think it was clear to all parties that there was substantially more illumination on our visit last Friday evening than there was the previous visit, and that was more in keeping with what is depicted in the photograph taken that evening by the police.
Well, you objected, you won, so I guess there is nothing much more to say, is there?
KEY QUOTEOnly, your Honor, briefly, that the neighbor who lived next door to Ms. Brown indicated that the lighting as it existed on the night--on this last Friday night, was considerably brighter than it had been on the night of June the 12th, and he said, according to his memory, that was not representative. Detective Lange similarly indicated that the lighting no longer represented its condition, that it was considerably brighter on Friday night than it had been.
All right. Since the Court could not substantially recreate the conditions then, I think this is the appropriate decision. All right. This morning the Court directed counsel to confer with regard to the next witness, Defense witness, who is Mr. Ragle is my understanding. And Mr. Goldberg, you are handling that matter?
the Prosecution chose to withdraw their request for a crime scene view at nighttime. And as a result the Court canceled the viewing that was scheduled for Sunday evening, August the 20th
when we did do that, I think it was clear to all parties that there was substantially more illumination on our visit last Friday evening than there was the previous visit, and that was more in keeping with what is depicted in the photograph taken that evening by the police.
the neighbor who lived next door to Ms. Brown indicated that the lighting as it existed on the night--on this last Friday night, was considerably brighter than it had been on the night of June the 12th
Well, you objected, you won, so I guess there is nothing much more to say, is there?