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. Blasier, Mr. Uelmen, Mr. Scheck. The People are represented by Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Darden. The jury is not present. Counsel, with regard to the schedule today, just to refresh your recollections, this afternoon we have to break at 3:45. One of our jurors has a dentist appointment that the transportation is difficult and the sheriff's department has asked that we break at 3:45 to allow that juror to be transported to the dentist. Isn't that thrilling to have two sheriff's deputies drag you to the dentist? We will take a break at 3:45 for fifteen minutes and then at four o'clock we will take up the evidentiary issue as to the Chicago telephone calls, that hearing. We will--I understand that counsel for Mr. Fuhrman wishes to be heard on the issue of getting copies of the so-called Fuhrman tapes. I anticipate a representative from the city of Los Angeles will appear to request from the court copies of those audiotapes and any transcripts that are in existence, so we will have those hearings at four o'clock. And today is--and we will just go until we finish those hearings. All right.
Your Honor, with respect to scheduling, I don't expect until the afternoon that we will get to the issue of the sock, but we have the submitted proposed stipulation having to do with what the testimony of counsel would be concerning the sock examination and in my letter I said February 15th. It is February 16th. So we have the proposed stipulations about what Mr. Harmon, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Blasier and myself would testify to.
Which I propose that the court just read to the jury at the appropriate time. That is my proposal.
Well, we submitted this memorandum to the court and to counsel yesterday. I don't know what their position is on this.
This is the first time I saw it, your Honor, although Mr. Scheck did mention something about a stipulation to me and I didn't quite understand what he was saying. I think it was yesterday.
All right. Then Mr. Goldberg, why don't you take the morning to take a look at it, or the lunch hour, and then we will come back and before we hit the sock issue then we will take it up again.
Your Honor, there were several issues that we wanted to take up that we did not need to get to yesterday for the evidence that was presented in the afternoon. One was as to the question of the sock--excuse me--the swatch drying experiment. I don't know whether we need to bring that up now or whether that can be reserved for the afternoon. Maybe Mr. Scheck can let us know about that.
Your Honor, may I propose--we were served with that memo yesterday, so if I could suggest, we would like an opportunity to give a written reply and we can take it up Friday morning.
The other issue, your Honor, we've discussed before the question of trying to get examination quality photographs of at least these exhibits that counsel has put on the board. They gave us photographs of photographs and it is not a technical dispute. The problem is, is that when you are looking at tiny little parallel lines and the like and you are trying to decide what is that and where did it come from, and such, it can't really be done with a photo of a photo. So I think the People are entitled to actual photographs, and even possibly the negatives, although it is conceivable that the photographs themselves might suffice.
Well, I wanted actual photographs of everything on the Defendant's boards with the--the only things that I think I have photographs of now--I'm not talking about my photographs. The only things of theirs where I think I actually have photographs are the photographs that were taken by Dr. Lee on the 25th of June at Bundy and Rockingham. I believe what Defense provided to me in that regard appears to be an actual photograph, as opposed to a photo of a photo. Other than that, everything else that I've received from the Defense is a photo of a photo. So that is one issue. The other issue as to some of the boards, is that particularly in the area of the hair and trace examinations, there are a series of boards that talk about evidence found. We believe that the term "Evidence" is argumentative in that context in the sense that the things that are found are sometimes soil, debris, that would not have--
Hair and trace or stuff if the court prefers. I would like stuff, but hair and trace would be fine. That is a technical term as opposed to evidence, which implies that it is something that has a probative evidentiary significance in this case. Because obviously the People will be arguing, as we are entitled to, that these items do not--and I believe from my conversations with Dr. Lee he would agree with that, at least as to many, if not most of these items. So we do feel that the term "Evidence" is a loaded concept and an argumentative one.
All right. That objection as to the use of the word "Evidence" on the board is overruled. It is not an inappropriate phrase in the context of this case. All right. As to the--Mr. Scheck--excuse me. Mr. Goldberg, would you prepare a list of the items, the actual photographs, keyed to the exhibits, so I know specifically which photos you want produced, because I agree with you that if you are going to have your own expert do recomparisons of items, you need to have an actual photograph. But I need to have a specific list for any order that I issue, so if you will submit that to the court, and time is of the essence, because if they are photographs that have to be reproduced from photographs, obviously that will take some time.
Isn't that thrilling to have two sheriff's deputies drag you to the dentist?
So what do you call it? Stuff?
Do you really find yourself compelled to argue this?
It is not like we don't have a lot of things to do.