ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL. DO WE HAVE MR. HARMON OR MR. CLARKE ANYWHERE ABOUT?
YES, WE DO, YOUR HONOR, AND THEY ARE PREPARED TO COME IN AND ADDRESS THE COURT. THEY JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU WANTED TO DO IT AT THIS MOMENT.
ALL RIGHT. SERGEANT ROSSI, WHY DON'T YOU HAVE A SEAT. NO, NOT THERE. THAT IS A JUROR'S SEAT.
MISS CLARK, WHEN DID MR. HARMON RECEIVE WORD TO BE HERE? I THOUGHT I TOLD HIM TO BE HERE AT 9:00.
I THINK THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING, YOUR HONOR. HE INDICATED HE DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER YOU WANTED TO DO IT BY LETTER OR IN PERSON, SO WE MADE A PHONE CALL.
AHA, MR. HARMON. ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY, MR. BLAISER, MR. SCHECK. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MR. DARDEN, MR. HARMON AND MS. CLARK. MR. HARMON, I HAVE JUST RECEIVED YOUR LATER DATED TODAY'S DATE INDICATING THAT THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION WILL CONDUCT THE EDTA TESTS THAT THEY PROPOSE ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY THE 20TH, AND THAT YOU WILL BE DOING THAT ON ITEMS 13, WHICH ARE THE SOCKS, 59 AND -- WHICH I BELIEVE IS A REFERENCE SAMPLE FROM NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, 72, WHICH IS A NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON REFERENCE SWATCH, 86, WHICH IS A -- APPARENTLY A SWATCH CUT FROM THE BLACK DRESS THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WAS WEARING, NO. 117, WHICH IS APPARENTLY A SWATCH FROM A -- EXCUSE ME. 117, WHICH IS A SWATCH TAKEN FROM THE REAR GATE, WHICH APPARENTLY IS AT -- PRESENTLY AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN BERKELEY UNDERGOING RFLP TESTING, AND NO. 17, WHICH IS THE DEFENDANT'S REFERENCE SAMPLE; IS THAT CORRECT?
ALL RIGHT. THE OTHER BIOLOGICAL ITEMS THAT YOU LIST IN PARAGRAPH 2, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION, PURSUANT TO MR. SCHECK'S PROPOSAL YESTERDAY, TO RELEASE THOSE ITEMS FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION WITH THEIR AGREEMENT THAT THEY WILL NOT TEST OR CONSUME ANY OF THE SAMPLES, CORRECT?
THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR, AND WITH THE PROVISIONS THAT YOU MADE IN YOUR COURT ORDER LAST WEEK ABOUT US BEING ABLE TO BE PRESENT AND VIDEOTAPE.
YES. I THINK THIS GOES SOMEWHAT TO ALLEVIATING OUR CONCERNS, BUT A FEW QUESTIONS. NO. 1, WITH RESPECT TO ITEM 13, THE SOCK, WE HAVE A STRONG DESIRE TO EXAMINE THE SOCK ITSELF. MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS THAT THERE IS A CUTTING FROM THE SOCK AND I PRESUME THAT THAT IS WHAT THE PROSECUTION INTENDS TO PERFORM THIS TEST ON, AND SO, UMM, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE SOCK AVAILABLE FOR IMMEDIATE EXAMINATION. THAT IS REALLY CRITICAL.
I WOULD INDICATE THAT IN TERMS OF TIMING, I REALLY THINK THAT OUR NEEDS IN THIS REGARD TAKE PRECEDENCE BECAUSE ANY TESTIMONY THAT WILL BE OFFERED BY THE PRESENCE OF EDTA IS CERTAINLY GOING TO BE SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPEARANCE, FOR EXAMPLE, OF MR. FUNG ON THE WITNESS STAND AND WE NEED AN OPPORTUNITY TO PHYSICALLY EXAMINE THAT SOCK, TO HAVE A TRAINED CRIMINALIST EXAMINE THAT SOCK. AT THIS POINT ALL THAT HAS BEEN PERMITTED IS DR. BLAKE TAKING PICTURES OF IT AND THAT REALLY ISN'T THE SAME THING. AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO PERFORM ANY DESTRUCTIVE TESTING. NOW, THEY HAVE A CUTOUT OF THE AREA WHERE BLOOD WAS FOUND, SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN FACT THAT IS ALL THEY ARE GOING TO BE SAMPLING ANYHOW WHEN THEY DO THE EDTA TESTS, SO IT IS NOT REASONABLE FOR US TO BE WITHHELD THE SOCK. THAT IS JUST -- I AM JUST MAKING THAT SUGGESTION SIMPLY BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT EDTA TESTING OUGHT TO BE PERFORMED AT ALL, GIVEN THE RECORD BEFORE THE COURT, BUT I'M JUST ASSUMING THAT FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT BEFORE I ADDRESS THE ISSUE. JUST TRYING TO BE PRACTICAL, JUST MAKING THAT ASSUMPTION. SO THE FIRST QUESTION THAT I RAISE IS WITH RESPECT TO THE SOCK. WE WANT THE ACTUAL SOCK. THEY CAN HAVE THE CUTTING THAT THEY HAVE MADE IF IN FACT THAT TESTING IS TO GO FORWARD. SECONDLY, I HAVE A SIMILAR CONCERN ABOUT ITEM 117, WHICH IS THE BUNDY REAR GATE. YOUR HONOR, THIS -- THE BUNDY RARE GATE IS AN ITEM THAT THE PROSECUTION OBVIOUSLY HAS HAD FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. THEY SENT IT OUT IN SEPTEMBER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR TESTING. IT WAS ONE OF THE MATTERS THAT WE HAD HEARINGS AND DISCUSSION ABOUT. I SEE NO GOOD CAUSE WHY THAT TESTING DIDN'T BEGIN UNTIL ESSENTIALLY THIS TRIAL BEGAN. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO -- THE DNA TESTING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE OF EDTA OR OPENING STATEMENTS. THERE IS NO GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY. AND WHAT IS TOTALLY PECULIAR, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT EVEN WHEN WE BEGAN THIS IN THE BEGINNING OF JANUARY, THEY DID NOT INDICATE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE TESTING THIS. NOW, AS FAR AS THIS SAMPLE 117 IS CONCERNED, WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THAT BEING SUBJECT TO EDTA TESTING, NO. 1, BUT NO. 2, I DON'T SEE ANY GOOD CAUSE WHY THEY SHOULD BE -- HAVE SOME PRIORITY ON THE TESTING OF THIS WHEN THEY WAITED SO LONG, FOR NO GOOD REASON THAT I CAN SEE, TO BEGIN TESTING ON THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE. FINALLY, AND THIS REALLY GETS TO THE CRUNCH OF THE ISSUE, THERE IS NO SHOWING HERE BY MR. HARMON AT ALL AS TO WHAT IS EVEN NECESSARY, HOW MUCH SAMPLE IS EVEN NECESSARY TO DO EDTA TESTING.
LAST NIGHT I LOOKED AT THE SUBMISSIONS THAT MR. HARMON MADE TO THE COURT ABOUT EDTA TESTING, WHICH HAD TO DO WITH DISCOVERING EDTA IN TIME RELEASE COLD CAPSULES, IN MOUSSE, FOOD SUBSTANCES WHERE YOU ALREADY KNOW IT IS THERE. THAT IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PROPOSITION THAN TESTING A SAMPLE WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD BE THERE. AND -- AND THIS IS REALLY THE MOST CRITICAL POINT I THINK, IS THAT MR. HARMON WAS INDICATING YESTERDAY THAT THEY HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH SAMPLE IS NECESSARY TO PERFORM THIS TEST, EVEN ASSUMING THAT IT COULD GET PAST KELLY-FRYE AND IT'S RELIABLE ON A FORENSIC SAMPLE, I MEAN NOT EVEN ADDRESSING THAT. I'M JUST SAYING IN TERMS OF WHAT IS REASONABLY NECESSARY UNDER GRIFFIN, THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MUCH SAMPLE THEY NEED, SO LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT 117, THE SAMPLE FROM THE BACK GATE. DO THEY HAVE TO TAKE, UMM --
I WILL ADDRESS THAT WHEN MR. SCHECK IS DONE. I DON'T WANT TO CUT HIM OFF. HE IS JUST GETTING STARTED.
WELL, THERE IS NO SHOWING HERE. I WAS ACTUALLY CURIOUS. THE COURT HAD INDICATED THAT IT HAD DONE SOME RESEARCH OF SOME KIND, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I MISINTERPRETED THAT YESTERDAY, ABOUT EDTA TESTING.
IF YOU WILL NOTICE THE COURT ORDER, I CITE TO A LAW REVIEW ARTICLE THAT DISCUSSES EDTA.
WELL, I DON'T WANT TO PROFESS THAT I HAVE ANYTHING MUCH GREATER, BUT I DID DISCUSS THIS MATTER WITH A DEFENSE EXPERT WHO I THINK IS CONSIDERED ONE OF THE LEADING TOXICOLOGISTS IN THE COUNTRY, DR. READERS, WHO INFORMED ME THAT BEFORE I THINK EVEN THE OPENING STATEMENT, ALTHOUGH I'M NOT SURE OF THE DATE, BUT I THINK IT IS AT SOME TIME BEFORE, MR. MATHESON OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT LABORATORY HAD MADE INQUIRY OF HIM ABOUT WHAT LITERATURE EXISTED OR WHETHER IT WAS POSSIBLE TO DO EDTA TESTING OF THIS KIND, AND OUR EXPERT SENT HIM AVAILABLE LITERATURE HERE. BUT IT IS OUR POSITION THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS TO MAKE A SHOWING AS TO ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS THE EXPECTED SENSITIVITY OF THE TEST. THAT IS TO SAY, DO THEY HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH SAMPLE WOULD BE NECESSARY TO GET A RESULT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER THAT THEY WOULD CLAIM TO BE RELIABLE? AND I'M NOT EVEN ADDRESSING WHETHER OR NOT IT COULD GET PAST KELLY-FRYE OR ANYBODY HAS EVER DONE IT BEFORE. I'M JUST SAYING -- BECAUSE I DON'T THINK ANYONE HAS -- I'M JUST SAYING THAT AS A PRELIMINARY SHOWING ON THE GROUND OF REASONABLE NECESSITY TO DESTROY SAMPLES, PRECIOUS BIOLOGICAL SAMPLES, THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TELL US HOW MUCH THEY NEED, IF THEY NEED TO CONSUME NEARLY ALL OF THE SWATCHES, THAT -- OR THEY DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THEY NEED TO CONSUME ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THEY HAVEN'T EVEN MADE A PRELIMINARY SHOWING HERE, AND THEY HAVEN'T DONE THAT, AND I DON'T SEE, FRANKLY, GIVEN THE ABSENCE OF THAT SHOWING, WHAT THE GREAT RUSH IS IN TERMS OF EDTA TESTING PRIOR TO THE DEFENSE HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY JUST TO EXAMINE ALL THE SAMPLES SO THAT WE CAN SEE WHAT THERE IS AND WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT REASONABLE TESTING, IF ANY, WE THINK WOULD BE NECESSARY, AND THEN THE COURT CAN MAKE A REASONED AND INFORMED DECISION, BASED ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, AS TO WHAT IS REASONABLY NECESSARY AND WHAT ISN'T. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN TERMS OF THE BALANCE OF EQUITIES HERE, IN TERMS OF WHO HAS THE NEED TO EXAMINE THE MATERIAL FIRST, WE MERIT PRIORITY HERE ON, NO. 117, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH THEY DIDN'T CHOOSE TO TEST UNTIL VERY LATE IN THE GAME FOR NO REASON THAT IS APPARENT TO ME. AND CERTAINLY, WITH RESPECT TO JUST LOOKING AT THE REST OF 13, THE SOCK, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO LOOK AT THE ACTUAL SOCK ITSELF AND THEY CAN RETAIN THE CUTTING IF THEY WANT FOR THE TIME BEING.
SOUNDS LIKE THEY REALLY DON'T WANT US TO FIND OUT WHAT IS IN THOSE TWO ITEMS, DOESN'T IT, YOUR HONOR? I GUESS WE NEED TO GO BACK TO LAST SUMMER AND LAST FALL AND REMIND COUNSEL THAT WHILE THEY MAY SAY WE HAVE TO HAVE -- MAKE CERTAIN SHOWINGS IN ADVANCE OF TESTING, THE LAW IN THIS STATE, IN THIS STATE, HAS ALWAYS BEEN GRIFFIN AND THAT IS A RETROSPECTIVE CONCERN. THAT IS, IF WE WANT TO INTRODUCE OUR EVIDENCE, WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WHATEVER TESTS WE HAD DONE WERE REASONABLY NECESSARY. AND THE COURT RECOGNIZED THIS WHEN YOU ISSUED YOUR ORDER THAT THERE WAS NO PROPOSITION THAT THE DEFENSE HAD LITIGATED AND CAUSED UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME. THE DEFENSE SIMPLY HAS NO RIGHT AT THAT POINT IN TIME TO INSIST THAT WE MAKE THESE SHOWINGS. THAT IS SIMPLY NOT THE LAW IN THIS STATE. WE DON'T HAVE TO SHOW WHY TESTING HAD NOT BEGUN. YOU RECOGNIZED THAT AND WE SURE DON'T HAVE TO SHOW HOW MUCH IS NECESSARY. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF WE CAN'T JUSTIFY, WHEN THEY DON'T LIKE THE ANSWERS THAT WILL CERTAINLY COME FROM THESE TESTS, IF WE CAN'T JUSTIFY WHY WE HAVE CONSUMED WHAT WE HAVE, THEN YOU HAVE SOME RIGHTS AND THEY HAVE SOME RIGHTS TO KEEP US FROM USING THE EVIDENCE, WHATEVER RESULTS ARE PRODUCED FROM IT. WE UNDERSTAND THAT. WE HAVE ALWAYS APPRECIATED THAT. I CAN TELL THE COURT THAT THE SENSITIVITY LEVEL, AND I WILL DESCRIBE WHY WE NEED THE SOCK IN A MOMENT, IS APPROXIMATELY 50 PARTS PER MILLION. NOW, I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT SIZE STAIN THAT MEANS HAS TO BE CONSUMED, I CAN'T ADDRESS THAT, BUT WE WILL ADDRESS THAT WHEN THE DEFENSE CERTAINLY COMPLAINS THAT WE HAVE PROVEN CONCLUSIVELY THAT THERE IS NO EDTA ON EITHER OF THOSE TWO STAINS. SO WE ARE PREPARED TO ABIDE BY THE PROVISIONS OF GRIFFIN, BUT THERE IS SIMPLY NO REASON FOR THE DEFENSE TO INTERRUPT OUR TESTING AT THIS POINT IN TIME, ESPECIALLY AFTER THEY HAVE FORMALLY MADE SERIOUS ACCUSATIONS ABOUT THE SOCK.
AND HAD THEY KNOWN THAT THAT IS MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE IN BUNDY, MR. COCHRAN WOULD HAVE ALLEGED THAT PERHAPS VANNATTER WENT OVER THERE AND SPRINKLED IT ON THE GATE AT SOME LATER DATE. HE JUST DIDN'T KNOW THAT BECAUSE THOSE TEST RESULTS WERE JUST MADE AVAILABLE RECENTLY TO DR. BLAKE. SO HAD THEY KNOWN THAT, THEY CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE MADE THAT ACCUSATION, AND KNOWING THAT THAT IS MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE, AND WE WILL DEFINITIVELY SHOW THAT THROUGH THE RFLP TESTS, THEY ARE BEGINNING TODAY. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE SELECTED JUST THOSE TWO ITEMS OF EVIDENCE. BUT LET ME DESCRIBE WHY WE'VE SELECTED THE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE, BECAUSE MR. SCHECK JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO GET THE IDEA THAT WE ARE TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE FAILURE TO SHOW EDTA IS PRESENT MEANS THAT IT IS NOT THERE, AND THIS IS WHY WE NEED THE SOCK. WE NEED THE SOCK BECAUSE EDTA IS PRESENT IN MANY ITEMS AND -- AND IF, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT SOCK WAS IMPROPERLY RINSED IN THE RINSE CYCLE, THERE IS EDTA IN LAUNDRY DETERGENT, SO WE NEED TO DO A SUBSTRATE CONTROL. WE NEED TO SAMPLE EXTENSIVELY FROM THAT VERY SOCK TO PROVE THAT IF THERE IS EDTA ON UNSTAINED AREAS OF THE SOCK, THAT IT IS PROBABLY FROM ONE OF THESE OTHER SOURCES IN THE ENVIRONMENT, LIKE LAUNDRY SOAP. IF THERE IS NO EDTA PRESENT IN UNSTAINED AREAS IN THE SOCK, THEN THAT SUGGESTS THAT AT LEAST THERE IS NO BACKGROUND CONTRIBUTION FROM THE SOCKS THAT COULD HAVE COME FROM SOME OTHER SOURCE. SO HAVING THE SOCK AS A CONTROL IS INDISPENSABLE TO THIS AS A SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT TO PROVE THAT THIS EXQUISITELY SENSITIVE TEST, WHEN IT SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND EDTA ANYWHERE IN ANY OF THESE ITEMS, THAT MEANS IT IS NOT THERE AND THAT IS WHY WE NEED ALL THE ITEMS THAT WE'VE DESCRIBED. WE NEED THE REFERENCE SAMPLE, 59 AND 72, FROM NICOLE. WE HAVE HAD THE O.J. CUT FROM A VERY LARGE STAINED AREA ON NICOLE'S BLACK DRESS THAT CERTAINLY MUST BE FROM HER OWN BLOOD, AND THAT IS ANOTHER CONTROL JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS NO EDTA PRESENT IN HER OWN BLOOD, BECAUSE MANY FOOD SUBSTANCES HAVE EDTA AS A PRESERVATIVE IN IT. THAT IS ANOTHER VITAL CONTROL TO THE TEST. THAT IS WHY WE'VE ALSO SENT 117, THE BUNDY REAR GATE, WHICH THE DEFENSE KNOWS IS THE -- THE TESTS ARE SHOWING THAT THAT IS MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD, AND THEN MR. SIMPSON'S REFERENCE SAMPLE. SO LEGALLY WE'VE TRIED TO PARE IT DOWN. THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO WAIT UNTIL MONDAY. THESE TESTS SHOULD BE DONE MONDAY, AND THE COURT REALIZES MONDAY IS A HOLIDAY FOR EVERYBODY, BUT THEY ARE GOING TO DO IT MONDAY AND WE ARE GOING TO GET IT TO THE EAST COAST ON FRIDAY, AND THESE TESTS, UNLESS THERE IS A POWER OUTAGE OR A BIG BLIZZARD, THEY WILL BE DONE MONDAY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY REALLY HAVEN'T ADDRESSED IS ALL OF THEIR EXPERTS, AND THIS IS SOMETHING I TOUCHED ON IN MY LETTER, WE SEEM TO HAVE DRIFTED FROM THE COURT'S ORDER OF REQUIRING THESE THINGS TO BE DONE LOCALLY ABSENT A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE, AND WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO WHOEVER IS DOING IT, BUT IT JUST SEEMS TO ME YOU HAVE ORDERED THEM TO DO IT LOCALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE CASE LAW THAT I CITED AND THEY HAVEN'T MADE ANY KIND OF SHOWING OR GOOD CAUSE. YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF HENRY LEE IS THE ONE WHO IS GOING TO LOOK AT ALL THESE OTHER ITEMS, BUT HE IS NOT COMING BACK FROM SEATTLE UNTIL THURSDAY NIGHT. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT DOCTORS BADEN AND WOLF, BUT THEY ARE NOT LOSING ANY TIME. THEY CAN LOOK AT ALL THE OTHER ITEMS THAT WE WILL MAKE AVAILABLE TO THEM AND THAT WE HAVE MADE AVAILABLE TO THEM. SO WE ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT A FEW CRITICAL ITEMS THAT IF THEY WANT TO TRY TO LOOK AT THEM MONDAY NIGHT, IF THE TESTS ARE ALL DONE BY MID-AFTERNOON, WE WILL TRY TO SHIP THEM UP TO THEM WHEREVER THEY WANT THEM TO BE SHIPPED OR WHEREVER YOU TELL US TO SHIP THEM THE SAME DAY, MONDAY. SO TO ME THIS IS A BIG TO DO ABOUT NOTHING, BUT IT CLEARLY REFLECTS THAT THEY ARE CONCERNED. THEY MADE THESE ALLEGATIONS AND THESE TEST RESULTS WILL SERIOUSLY UNDERMINE THEIR CREDIBILITY IN THE EYES OF THIS JURY BASED ON MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT.
KEY QUOTEYES. IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE, FIRST OF ALL, MR. HARMON IS EXPLAINING WHY THERE MAY BE RESULTS FINDING EDTA IN THESE MATERIALS AHEAD OF TIME THAT HE CAN THEN EXPLAIN AWAY IF THEY FIND IT. AND HE DIDN'T TELL US WHAT 50 PARTS PER MILLION MEANS IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF BLOOD THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE. IS THAT A HALF MILLILITER OF BLOOD WHICH MAY BE MORE THAN ARE ON ANY OF THESE SWATCHES? BUT I THINK HIS ARGUMENT REALLY PROVES THE WISDOM OF THE SUGGESTION THAT WE ARE PUTTING BEFORE THE COURT. BEFORE THEY TAKE -- CUT UP THAT SOCK ANY MORE AND PERFORM THE DESTRUCTIVE TESTS ON IT, EVEN IF THEY ARE USING IT FOR PURPOSES OF A SUBSTRATE CONTROL, ALL WE WANT TO DO IS LOOK AT IT, AND OUR PROPOSAL WOULD BE IS TO HAVE THOSE MATERIALS SENT, UMM, TO ALBANY, SO OUR EXPERTS, ALL OF THEM OUT THERE WITH THEIR OWN INSTRUMENTS IN A LABORATORY THAT HAS BEEN DEDICATED FOR THIS PURPOSE, CAN LOOK AT IT OVER THE WEEKEND. THAT IS WHAT WE REALLY WANT, AND THE SOCK, OF COURSE, IS ONE OF THE MOST CRITICAL ITEMS, BECAUSE WE WANT TO JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THEM. UMM, THEY CAN VIDEOTAPE, UMM, THAT -- UMM, SO THAT THERE IS NO ALLEGATION THAT ANYBODY PUT ANYTHING ON THEM. OUR REQUEST IS MERELY FOR A TRUE PHYSICAL INSPECTION AND EXAMINATION, NOT A DESTRUCTIVE TEST. THEY ARE ASKING TO PERFORM A DESTRUCTIVE TEST AND THE POINT HERE IS SIMPLY WHICH SHOULD TAKE PRIORITY? AND I DON'T SEE THE GREAT NECESSITY TO HAVE THEM DO THAT IMMEDIATELY RIGHT NOW BEFORE WE EVEN GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THEM. THAT IS ALL.
KEY QUOTEALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. AS TO ITEMS 13, 59, 72, 86 AND 117, THIS ALL BEING PROSECUTION EVIDENCE, THEY MAY MAINTAIN CONTROL OF THIS ITEM AND HAVE THAT TESTED BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION CRIMINALISTICS LABORATORY, THAT TESTING TO COMMENCE ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY THE 20TH. IMMEDIATELY UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THOSE TESTS THE PROSECUTION IS TO MAKE THOSE SAMPLES AVAILABLE IMMEDIATELY TO THE DEFENSE FOR THEIR INSPECTION AND TESTING PURSUANT TO THE COURT ORDER. THE COURT NOTES THAT AS TO THE CRITICAL ITEM NO. 13, THE SOCKS, THAT THE DEFENSE HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW THESE ITEMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ALTHOUGH NOT EXAMINE THEM IN A PRIVATE SETTING. THE PROSECUTION IS ORDERED TO TURN OVER THE ITEMS LISTED IN PARAGRAPH 2 OF MR. HARMON'S LETTER OF FEBRUARY 15 FORTHWITH TO THE DEFENSE FOR THEIR TESTING PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S PREVIOUS ORDER. AND THE NON-BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE IS LIKEWISE ORDERED TURNED OVER TO THE DEFENSE FOR THEIR TESTING. I DO MAKE A FINDING THAT GIVEN THE LOCATION OF THE DEFENSE EXPERTS, ALL OF THEM APPARENTLY ON THE EAST COAST, AND THE LABORATORY FACILITY BEING AVAILABLE IN ALBANY, NEW YORK, THAT THEY HAVE SHOWN SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO TEST THOSE MATTERS OUT OF STATE. HOWEVER, THE COURT WARNS THAT THERE WILL BE UNBELIEVABLY NEGATIVE SANCTIONS SHOULD THESE ITEMS BECOME LOST OR DESTROYED.
YOUR HONOR, COULD I JUST INJECT ONE THING? I'M NOT SURE IF YOU NOTED IN MY LETTER, MR. HODGMAN, ON NON-BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE, HAS ASKED JUST TO HAVE A COUPLE OF HOURS TO REVIEW THAT, AND I DON'T EXPECT ANYTHING WILL BE EXCEPTED, BUT I JUST WANT TO ADVISE THE COURT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE RESUME WITH SERGEANT RISKE? ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY HIGGINS, LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.
SOUNDS LIKE THEY REALLY DON'T WANT US TO FIND OUT WHAT IS IN THOSE TWO ITEMS, DOESN'T IT, YOUR HONOR?
HAD THEY KNOWN THAT, THEY CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE MADE THAT ACCUSATION, AND KNOWING THAT THAT IS MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE, AND WE WILL DEFINITIVELY SHOW THAT THROUGH THE RFLP TESTS, THEY ARE BEGINNING TODAY.
THE COURT WARNS THAT THERE WILL BE UNBELIEVABLY NEGATIVE SANCTIONS SHOULD THESE ITEMS BECOME LOST OR DESTROYED.
IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE, FIRST OF ALL, MR. HARMON IS EXPLAINING WHY THERE MAY BE RESULTS FINDING EDTA IN THESE MATERIALS AHEAD OF TIME THAT HE CAN THEN EXPLAIN AWAY IF THEY FIND IT.
HE IS FROM ANOTHER COUNTY, YOUR HONOR. MAYBE YOU SHOULD LOCK HIM UP.