BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. COUNSEL, GOOD AFTERNOON.
WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE VIDEOTAPE THAT THE -- I TAKE IT THESE ARE NOW EXCERPTS FROM THE VIDEOTAPE THAT WE VIEWED YESTERDAY?
YES. IN LINE WITH YOUR HONOR'S INSTRUCTIONS, WE HAVE NOW TRIED TO COMPLY AND I THINK WE PROVIDED YOUR HONOR AT NINE O'CLOCK. THERE IS ONE ADDITIONAL TAPE WHICH IS VERY SHORT, AND WHEN PLAYING THAT TAPE, I ASK THAT DETECTIVE LANGE BE OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM.
ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, LET ME ASK YOU THIS: DO WE HAVE AN OBJECTION FROM THE PEOPLE AS TO -- HAVE YOU SEEN THE EXCERPTS, FIRST OF ALL?
I'M GOING TO NEED TO -- ACTUALLY I THINK I'M GOING TO NEED TO PLAY IT AND SHOW THE COURT WHICH EXCERPTS. THAT MIGHT BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE THING.
OKAY. THANKS. PART OF THE PROBLEM IS SHOWN JUST BEFORE THIS FRAME AND IN THIS ONE AS WELL AND THE PROBLEM IS WITH THIS TAPE, THE EXCERPTS THAT I'M GOING TO BE POINTING OUT TO THE COURT IS THE LACK OF DEPTH, THE LACK OF PERSPECTIVE. UNDER 352 THIS TAPE IS CLEARLY MORE MISLEADING AND MORE PREJUDICIAL THAN PROBATIVE. THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE IS THAT WE HAVE A CAMERAMAN WHOSE ANGLE AND POSITION IS UNKNOWN AND THE USE OF A LENS, THE NATURE OF WHICH IS UNKNOWN. THE PROBLEM CREATED BY THIS IS THAT THERE IS NO DEPTH PERCEPTION AND IT IS MISLEADING MORE THAN INFORMATIVE. EVERYTHING LOOKS ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. YOU CAN'T SEE WHERE THE FEET ARE POSITIONED AND THE GROUND WHICH THE FEET ARE POSITIONED ON, AND THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT, TO SHOW THAT PEOPLE WERE WALKING THROUGH BLOOD AND CONTAMINATING EVIDENCE. THE TAPE FAILS TO SHOW THAT, AND EVEN WORSE THAN THAT, IT IS MISLEADING IN THAT IT TENDS TO LEAVE THE INFERENCE THAT THE FEET ARE IN BLOOD OR CONTAMINATING BLOOD AS THEY MOVE, WHEN YOU REALLY CAN'T EVEN SEE THEM, SO THE TAPE DOES NOT IN FACT INFORM YOU OF WHERE THE FEET ARE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THEM. IT MAKES IT APPEAR THAT THEY ARE STEPPING IN AREAS THAT THEY ARE NOT BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF DEPTH PERCEPTION. AND THE COURT HAS BEEN THERE SO THE COURT IS AWARE OF THE WAY THE AREA REALLY LOOKS AND YOU CAN SEE HOW FLATTENED THIS PICTURE REALLY IS.
THEY HAVE, BUT YOU CAN'T COUNT ON THE JURY TO REMEMBER EVERYTHING IN SUCH GREAT DETAIL. I TELL YOU, YOUR HONOR, I HAVE BEEN OUT TO THAT SCENE FOUR OR FIVE TIMES AND IN BETWEEN EVERY TIME I HAVE FORGOTTEN WHAT THE DISTANCES WERE REALLY LIKE. EVERY TIME I GO BACK THERE I AM SURPRISED HOW SMALL THAT AREA IS IN FRONT WHERE THE FENCES MEET TO THE NORTH AND TO THE EAST AND SURPRISED AT THE LENGTH OF THE WALKWAY, THE NUMBER OF STAIRS GOING UP AND DOWN. YOU CAN'T REMEMBER THIS ACCURATELY; NO ONE CAN. SO THE FACT THAT THE JURY WENT IS HELPFUL, BUT CERTAINLY DOES NOT RESOLVE THIS PARTICULAR PROBLEM. MOREOVER, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEIR MEMORIES FADE, THEIR ACCURATE MEMORIES WILL BE REPLACED WITH THIS MISLEADING VIDEO THAT HAS NO PROBATIVE VALUE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SHOW THE VERY THING THE DEFENSE PURPORTS TO USE IT FOR, WHICH IS WHERE THEY ARE STEPPING. AND AS WE ADVANCE THE TAPE THE COURT WILL SEE HOW BAD THIS PROBLEM GETS.
RIGHT. NOW, HERE AGAIN -- CAN WE STOP THAT? SAME PROBLEM. WE CAN'T SEE WHERE CLAUDINE RATCLIFFE, WHO IS THE WOMAN TO THE LEFT OF TOM LANGE, IS STANDING. YOU CAN'T SEE WHETHER SHE IS STANDING IN AND CLEAR AREA OR IN AN AREA THAT THE DEFENSE, AS THE DEFENSE WANTS TO ALLEGE, IS BLOODY. SAME THING WITH DETECTIVE LANGE. YOU CAN'T TELL BY THIS VIDEO WHERE HE IS ACTUALLY STANDING. THE INFERENCE THE DEFENSE WILL ASK THE JURY TO DRAW IS THAT HE IS STANDING IN BLOOD. I'M SURE THAT IS TOTALLY UNTRUE. NEVERTHELESS, THE IMPRESSION CREATED, WHICH IS A TOTALLY MISLEADING ONE, IS THAT THEY ARE OR MIGHT BE. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, THIS TAPE DOES NOTHING TO CLEAR UP THAT ISSUE. IN FACT, IT DOES THE REVERSE. IT CLOUDS THE ISSUE TO MAKE IT APPEAR ONE WAY WHEN IT IS IN FACT ANOTHER. BY THIS TAPE WOULD IT APPEARS THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE STANDING IN BLOOD, IF THE DEFENSE INFERENCE AND SPIN IS TO BE BOUGHT BY THE JURY, WHEN IN FACT THAT IS NOT THE CASE. SO WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS A PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT DOES NOT INFORM THE JURY OF TRUTH BUT ACTUALLY DISTORTS AND HIDES THE TRUTH.
THE TIME STAMP IS RIGHT OVER THE FEET, OBSCURING THE VERY POINT THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE.
AND THE COURT CAN SEE AGAIN THE TIME STAMP CONTINUED TO OBSCURE THEIR FEET AS THEY STOOD THERE. AND NOW WE HAVE A PERSON WHO COMPLETELY BLOCKS THE VIEW.
AGAIN, YOU CAN'T SEE WHERE CLAUDINE RATCLIFFE IS STANDING, WHETHER HER FEET ARE ON PLASTIC OR WHETHER THEY ARE ON THE GROUND ITSELF, WHETHER THEY ARE IN BLOOD OR IN A CLEAR SPOT. OF COURSE I MEAN EVERYTHING UP TO HERE IS LARGELY IRRELEVANT. AGAIN YOU HAVE CLAUDINE RATCLIFFE SHOWN THERE IN THE BACKGROUND. AS THE COURT CAN SEE, THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL WHETHER SHE IS STANDING OR WHETHER SHE IS WALKING.
ONCE AGAIN YOU CAN SEE DETECTIVE LANGE IS TAKING SOME CARE IN THE WAY HE STEPS, BUT WHAT YOU CAN'T SEE IS WHERE HE IS STEPPING. HIS FEET ARE OBSCURED AND THE AREA HE IS STEPPING IN IS TOTALLY OBSCURED.
SAME THING HERE. SAME PROBLEM. YOU CAN'T SEE WHERE THESE PEOPLE ARE STANDING. YOU CAN'T SEE THE AREA -- YOU CAN'T SEE THEIR FEET, YOU CAN'T SEE THE GROUND THEY ARE STANDING ON. AS THE COURT CAN SEE, AT EVERY POINT SO FAR, WHEN THE DEFENSE WOULD ASK THE JURY TO MAKE AN INFERENCE, THE VERY POINT THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE --
THIS EPITOMIZES THE PROBLEM WITH THE WHOLE TAPE. IT LOOKS AS THOUGH EVERYONE IS STANDING ON TOP OF EACH OTHER WITH NO MORE THAN TWO INCHES BETWEEN THEM. WE KNOW THAT THAT CAN'T PHYSICALLY BE THE CASE. BUT IT IS SUCH A MISLEADING AND DISTORTED CLIP THAT YOU CAN'T TELL WHERE EVERYBODY IS STANDING AND YOU CAN'T APPRECIATE THE SPACIAL DISTANCES AND YOU CERTAINLY CAN'T SEE FROM THIS DISTANCE WHERE THEIR FEET ARE. SAME PROBLEM HERE.
I THINK THAT WHAT THIS CLIP SHOWS THE COURT IS THE VERY REASON FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SECTION 352 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE. THIS IS A PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE. THIS IS A DISTORTION, THIS IS A METHOD OF CONFUSION AND IT DOES NOT INFORM THE JURY OF ANYTHING OF PROBATIVE VALUE. IN FACT, QUITE THE CONTRARY. IT OBSCURES THE FACTS THAT IT PURPORTS TO -- THAT THE DEFENSE SAYS IT PURPORTS TO SHOW, AND THAT IS WHERE PEOPLE STOOD AND WHETHER THE CRIME SCENE WAS PROPERLY HANDLED. IT DOESN'T INFORM THE JURY OF ANY OF THAT. IT IS VERY DISTORTING. IT IS VERY MISLEADING. THEY HAVE NOT PRODUCED THE CAMERAMAN WHO WOULD COME FORWARD TO TELL US -- OH, THERE IS MORE?
NO, NO, WE ARE JUST LOOKING AT THE FIRST CLIP AT THIS POINT. TAKING THEM ONE AT A TIME, MR. HARRIS.
ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE UP THE FIRST SEGMENT THAT YOU ARE OFFERING. ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER OBJECTIONS?
FURTHERMORE, AND LASTLY, THAT THEY HAVE NOT PRODUCED THE CAMERAMAN WHO COULD TELL US WHERE HE STOOD. I'M SURE IT WILL BE SOMETHING IN THE NATURE OF ACROSS THE STREET. HE WILL -- AND SOMEONE WHO WILL TELL US THE NATURE OF THE LENS HE USED. I'M SURE IT IS SOME SORT OF TELEPHOTO LENS. I'M SURE IF AN EXPERT IS CALLED -- BECAUSE WE HAVE RECEIVED CALLS FROM EXPERTS -- THEY WILL INFORM THE COURT HOW MISLEADING AND DISTORTING IT IS.
IT WON'T BE HEARSAY WHEN THEY COME IN TO TESTIFY AND IT WOULDN'T BE APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO ALLOW THE JURY TO BE MISLED THIS WAY AND THAT IS THE PURPOSE FOR 352. WE WOULD ASK THE COURT TO KEEP IT OUT FOR THAT REASON.
I WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH TO GET TO CROSS-EXAMINATION AND I WILL NOT BELABOR THIS POINT. I THINK IT IS A SAD DAY WHEN WE HAVE A VIDEOTAPE OF THE SCENE, YOUR HONOR, PROPER FOUNDATION, THE CASES SAY WE DON'T HAVE TO BRING IN THE CAMERAMAN. NO ONE IS TRYING TO MISLEAD ANYONE. MISS CLARK PROTESTS TOO MUCH, YOUR HONOR. THEY OBVIOUSLY DON'T WANT THE JURY TO SEE THIS. AS YOU HAVE POINTED OUT, WE HAVE ALL BEEN UP TO THE SCENE. THERE ARE CERTAINLY SPACIAL DISTANCES, BUT ONE CAN SEE THAT YELLOW TAPE VERY CLEAR. I WENT THROUGH YESTERDAY WITH DETECTIVE LANGE WITH REGARD TO WHAT WAS SHOWN THERE AT VARIOUS TIMES. MISS CLARK'S PROBLEM THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE PROCEEDING IS SHE IS WORRIED ABOUT WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO AND SAY. THIS TAPE IS A TAPE TAKEN THAT MORNING, YOUR HONOR, ON THREE PARTICULAR PERIODS OF TIME. IT IS TAKEN WHEN DETECTIVE LANGE GREETS MISS RATCLIFFE AND ADVISES HER WHAT IS HAPPENING. THE BODIES ARE STILL THERE. IT IS TAKEN WHEN THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON IS MOVED. IT IS TAKEN WHEN THE BODY OF MR. RON GOLDMAN IS MOVED. IT SHOWS US ALSO, IF THE COURT PLEASES, WHEN MR. JACOBO ARRIVES AT THE SCENE. WE ALSO SEE MR. FUNG, THE CRIMINALIST. THAT IS FAR MORE THAN COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAN THE HOUR SHE SPENT WITH DETAILED LITTLE QUESTIONS. AND WE ARE SHOWING EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. WHEN AND WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT A VIDEOTAPE, AN ACCURATE DEPICTION OF WHAT HAPPENS, WOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER 352? IT IS PREPOSTEROUS AND SAD YOUR HONOR IT IS REALLY SAD. FURTHER, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAVE ASKED US TO DO WITH REGARD TO THIS. WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THIS TAPE IN OPENING STATEMENT, WE PRESENTED THEM COPIES OF THIS TAPE ON JANUARY 23RD. THEY WILL DO ANYTHING THEY CAN TO AVOID HAVING THE JURY SEE AN ACTUAL TAPE OF HOW THINGS LOOKED THAT DAY. JUDGE, WITH REGARD TO ANY SPACIAL DIFFERENCES, WE HAVE A DETECTIVE OF SOME 28 YEARS' EXPERIENCE, VERY, VERY COMPETENT DETECTIVE, WHO WILL BE ABLE TO TELL WHERE PEOPLE WERE STANDING AND THAT SORT OF THING. THEY DON'T WANT THE TAPE SHOWN BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE TAPE, WE HAVE THE TAPE, AND WE ARE THE ONES TRYING TO HELP THIS JURY SEE WHAT REALLY TRANSPIRED. WHO COULD COMPLAIN ABOUT A TAPE OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? WE DIDN'T MAKE THIS UP. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE EVENTS. IT IS THE BEST RECOLLECTION OF WHAT TOOK PLACE. AND AS TO THE SPACIAL DISTANCES, WE HAVE WITNESSES, WE HAVE THE YELLOW TAPE. WE HAVE ALL BEEN OUT THERE. WE KNOW IT IS A SMALL AREA.
AND SO I THINK, YOUR HONOR, THEY HAVE OBJECTED ON THIS FOR MONTHS NOW, AT LEAST ONE MONTH. ISN'T IT TIME TO PROCEED WITH THIS, YOUR HONOR? WE HAVE LOST ONE WHOLE MORNING. WE WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH OUR CROSS-EXAMINATION AND TO GET THIS DONE. THIS IS ADMISSIBLE. IT IS APPROPRIATE. IT IS RELEVANT. IT IS A VIDEOTAPE OF WHAT TOOK PLACE, YOUR HONOR.
ITS RELEVANCE IS TO SHOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED WITH REGARD TO -- FOR INSTANCE, THE OFFICER TESTIFIES THAT HE DOESN'T REMEMBER WHETHER HE IS WEARING GLOVES OR NOT. IT SHOWS US WHO IS WEARING GLOVES AT THE SCENE, WHO IS WEARING ANYTHING OVER THEIR SHOES. IT SHOWS US WHAT THE CORONER'S PEOPLE ARE DOING AT VARIOUS TIMES. IT SHOWS US THIS PARTICULAR SCENE. AND JUDGE, THIS SCENE AND WHAT TOOK PLACE AT THIS SCENE BECOMES VERY RELEVANT IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE IF THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT APPROPRIATELY AND PROPERLY COLLECTED, IF THERE WAS CONTAMINATION AT THIS SCENE, WE HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO SHOW THIS. THIS IS A VIDEOTAPE. THIS WOULD BE ALMOST LIKE -- AND I'M SURE IN THE RODNEY KING CASE I'M SURE THE PROSECUTION ARGUED YOU CAN'T SHOW THAT TAPE, THE DEFENSE ARGUED WE COULDN'T SHOW THAT TAPE -- BUT THIS IS AN ACCURATE RECOLLECTION OF WHAT TOOK PLACE, SO WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD IT NOT BE SHOWN? IT HAS RELEVANT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE ARRIVAL OF PEOPLE, WHAT THEY DID, HOW THESE BODIES WERE PLACED, WHERE THINGS WERE, FUNG COMING IN THERE WITH HIS COLLECTION OF THINGS. THERE IS GREAT RELEVANCE AND IT ALSO GOES TO IMPEACHMENT, ALL THOSE REASONS. THIS IS A -- RELEVANT, IT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL. WE TOOK OUT THE PREJUDICIAL PART. IN FACT, I MENTIONED TO THE COURT YESTERDAY I WOULD DO THAT YESTERDAY, SO WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR MORE THAN A MONTH AND THEIR OBJECTIONS ABOUT SPACIAL DIFFERENCES ARE OBVIOUSLY CURED. WE HAVE ALL BEEN OUT THERE, YOUR HONOR, AND WE HAVE DETECTIVE LANGE.
DON'T YOU AGREE THAT THERE IS AT LEAST ONE SHOT THERE WHERE EVERYBODY IS LINED UP ON THE SIDEWALK WHEN I BELIEVE ONE OF THE BODIES IS ABOUT TO BE MOVED AND EVERYBODY IS SORT OF LINED UP AND YOU CAN'T REALLY TELL WHO IS STANDING WHERE BECAUSE OF THE LENS DISTORTION?
I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT AT ALL, YOUR HONOR. WE KNOW WHERE THESE PEOPLE ARE. THERE IS A YELLOW TAPE. THERE IS SOME PEOPLE BEYOND THE TAPE AND SOME PEOPLE WITHIN THE TAPE AND WE COULD COVER THAT WITH THE EXAMINATION WITH THE OFFICER WHO WAS THERE.
THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ADMISSIBILITY. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IT HAS TO DO WITH THE WEIGHT OF IT AND WE WILL CLARIFY THAT WITH DETECTIVE LANGE. IT IS NOT OFFERED --
THE COURT CERTAINLY HAS 352 JURISDICTION, BUT THE COURT ALSO -- THIS IS A SEARCH FOR TRUTH AND I CANNOT SEE, IF THIS IS A SEARCH FOR TRUTH BY BOTH SIDES, HOW ANYBODY COULD OBJECT TO A VIDEOTAPE OF WHAT ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE THERE. THEY ARE TALKING ALL THE TIME ABOUT THE TRUTH AND WHAT WENT ON, AND THAT IS FOLLY. WE WANT TO SHOW THIS. WE HAVE THE OFFICER THERE, YOUR HONOR, WHO CAN MAKE THIS CLEAR. AND THE PROSECUTION NEVER GIVES THE JURY ANY CREDIT. MARCIA CLARK SAYS THAT EACH TIME SHE GOES OUT THERE SHE FORGETS HOW SMALL IT IS. I THINK THESE JURORS WILL NOT FORGET HOW SMALL IT IS. I THINK LANGE IS HERE TO REMIND US, YOUR HONOR, AND THIS IS RELEVANT TESTIMONY. IT IS VERY RELEVANT. IT ALSO HAS SOME IMPEACHING ASPECTS AND WHERE THERE IS ANY EVIDENCE OR ANY POSSIBLE CONFUSION, THAT WILL BE CLEARED UP BY DETECTIVE LANGE.
CAN WE STOP RIGHT HERE? YOU SEE, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS THE SAME PROBLEM WE HAVE THROUGHOUT THE TAPE. YOU KNOW THE DEFENSE IS BASICALLY STATING THAT YOU HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO DISTORT, CONFUSE AND MISLED THE JURY. YOU CAN SEE THAT FROM THIS TAPE. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO OBJECTION TO AN ACCURATE VIDEOTAPE. FROM THE PREVIOUS SHOT YOU SAW THAT INTRODUCED THIS SEGMENT, YOU CAN TELL IT IS BEING SHOT FROM ACROSS THE STREET AT SOME DISTANCE FROM THE LOCATION, WHICH IS WHY THEY HAD TO USE THE ZOOM LENS AND THAT IS WHY EVERYTHING IS SO COMPRESSED AS IT IS SHOWN HERE. THESE PEOPLE LOOK LIKE THEY ARE WITHIN ONE INCH OF EACH OTHER. YOU CAN'T TELL WHERE THEY ARE STANDING, YOU CAN'T SEE THEIR FEET AND YOU HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO SEE THEIR FEET IN ANY PART OF THIS SEGMENT YET. THIS RIGHT HERE SHOWS THEM LITERALLY IN A DOG PILE ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. WE KNOW THAT CAN'T BE TRUE. BUT YOU CAN'T SEE WHERE THEY ARE STANDING, YOU CAN'T SEE WHERE THEIR FEET ARE, YOU CAN'T SEE THE GROUND THEY ARE STANDING ON, YOU CAN'T SEE THE SPACIAL RELATION THEN BETWEEN THEM. IF THERE WAS ANY ACCURACY TO THIS VIDEOTAPE, THE PEOPLE WOULD NOT OBJECT TO IT. THE VERY REASON THE DEFENSE WANTS IT IS BECAUSE IT IS SO MISLEADING, IT IS SO INACCURATE, IT IS SUCH A DISTORTION THE TRUTH. IF THE DEFENSE REALLY WANTS THE TRUTH, THEN IT WOULD BE CALLING THESE PEOPLE TO THE WITNESS STAND TO SAY WHERE THEY STOOD AND WHAT WERE THEY DOING AND WHETHER THEY WERE WEARING BOOTIES OR WHETHER THEY WERE WEARING GLOVES. YOU DON'T PUT ON THIS PILE OF DISTORTION AND BASICALLY LIES TO GET THE JURY TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING THAT NEVER OCCURRED, AND THAT IS WHAT IS SO UNFAIR HERE, IS THAT THIS IS -- THE NATURE OF THIS VIDEOTAPE IS GOING TO MISLEAD THEM TO THE POINT WHERE THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO REMEMBER -- THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO REMEMBER THE CRIME SCENE FROM THEIR OWN MEMORY NEARLY AS WELL AS A VERY RECENT DEPICTION ON VIDEOTAPE. I WOULD ALSO REMIND THE COURT THAT THERE IS A VIDEO THAT WILL BE SHOWN CONCERNING WHAT THE DEFENSE -- THE DEFENSE STILL FRAME PICTURE --
NEVER MIND. THE VICE AND THE PROBLEM WITH FOLLOWING THE DEFENSE LEAD ON THESE THINGS IS THAT THEY ARE DELIBERATELY HIDING THE TRUTH FROM THIS JURY --
THEY DID THAT WITH THE AMERICAN JOURNAL PHOTOGRAPH AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE JURY KNOWS TO THIS DATE THAT THE PHOTOGRAPH THEY SHOWED WAS A STILL FRAME FROM A VIDEO. THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE KNOWN THAT IN FACT IT WAS SHOT BY SOME NEWS TABLOID AGENCY HAD I NOT BROUGHT THAT OUT, HAD THE PEOPLE NOT MARKED AN EXHIBIT THAT WAS THE DUPLICATE OF THAT THAT SHOWED WHAT THAT LOGO WAS THAT THE DEFENSE BLOCKED OUT. AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE MORE TO SHOW THE COURT ABOUT THAT LATER, BUT IN SHOWING THAT TO THE JURY THEY DELIBERATELY CREATED THE INFERENCE THAT BEFORE ANY TESTING OR COLLECTION WAS DONE, OFFICERS WERE TRAIPSING UP AND DOWN THE WALKWAY. WE ARE GOING TO PROVE THAT IS NOT TRUE. WE ARE GOING TO PROVE THAT IS A LIE. AND THE PROBLEM WITH THIS TAPE IS THE VERY SAME THING. THEY HAVE AN IMPRESSION CREATED BY A DISTORTION WITH LENS AND WITH POSITION. THEY INFORM THE JURY OF NOTHING PROBATIVE. I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADMISSIBILITY AND WEIGHT, BUT IN THAT TERM THIS IS WEIGHTLESS. THIS IS REALLY NON-PROBATIVE. THE ONLY VALUE IN IT IS TO DISTORT, MISLEAD AND CONFUSE THE JURY, AND THAT IS THE VALUE THAT THE DEFENSE SEEKS TO GET FROM IT, BUT IN TRUTH THERE IS NOTHING RESEMBLING THE TRUTH THAT THIS JURY WILL GET IN THIS VIDEOTAPE.
MISS CLARK, DO YOU HAVE ACCESS -- BECAUSE APPARENTLY ONE CAN TELL, JUST BY SOME OF THE DISTANCE SHOTS, THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF VIDEO PHOTOGRAPHERS AT THE LOCATION.
AND INADVERTENTLY I HAVE MYSELF SEEN ON TELEVISION MANY VERSIONS OF THIS -- THIS SAME ACTIVITY TAKEN FROM DIFFERENT SHOTS. DO YOU HAVE ACCESS TO ANY OF THOSE?
I HAVEN'T. WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO. WE HAVE, AS A MATTER OF FACT, TRIED TO GET AHOLD OF THE CAMERAMAN WHO PRODUCED THIS TAPE AND THEY HAVE RESISTED OUR SUBPOENA.
I AM INFORMED BY MR. DARDEN THAT WE ARE TALKING TO THEIR LAWYERS IN CHICAGO, BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WHAT WE HAVE HERE --
I'M JUST -- LET ME JUST ASK YOU, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER VIDEOTAPES FROM ANY OTHER SOURCES OF THIS PARTICULAR ACTIVITY?
YOUR HONOR, AGAIN, THE PROSECUTION COULD GO BACK AND TRY TO GET O.J. SIMPSON'S MEDICAL RECORDS IN 1970 IN BUFFALO, AND EVERYBODY IN AMERICA HAS SEEN THESE VIDEOTAPES, YOUR HONOR, AND I THINK THAT THE COURT IS GOING TO SEE WHO IS BEING DISINGENUOUS. THIS IS A VIDEOTAPE. WE DIDN'T CREATE IT. THIS WAS SHOT BY LOCAL PEOPLE. SHE IS TALKING ABOUT DISTORTION AND LIES. THIS WAS SHOT BY LOCAL T.V. PEOPLE.
I THINK IT IS CHANNEL 5. I BELIEVE IT IS, YOUR HONOR, AND THE PROBLEM IS IT IS AVAILABLE TO ALL OF US. YOU TOLD US TO GO OUT AND TRY TO SUBPOENA WHATEVER WE COULD. WE ARE ALL TRYING TO DO THIS. YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO ANY PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH SHE WANTS TO STOP AT, IT IS COMMON SENSE THAT WHEN YOU SHOOT A VIDEO THAT IT IS GOING TO SHOW PEOPLE AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. DETECTIVE LANGE CAN EXPLAIN THAT. THE JURY UNDERSTANDS THAT. NOBODY IS TRYING TO MISLEAD ANYBODY. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO SHOW IS WHAT TOOK PLACE AT THE SCENE. MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT. WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS THEIR FEAR OF ANYBODY SEEING WHAT TOOK PLACE.
HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THEM PROTEST AND ARGUE FOR ONE MONTH OVER SOMETHING? THIS IS ADMISSIBLE, CLEARLY ADMISSIBLE, AND THEY HAVE DETECTIVE LANGE. EVERY OFFICER OUT THERE TO MAKE IT CLEAR. WE WILL MAKE IT CLEAR. NOBODY IS TRYING TO MISLEAD ANYBODY. ABOUT THE AMERICAN JOURNAL THING, WHAT THE COURT ALLOWED US TO DO ON AMERICAN JOURNAL WAS TO ASK WHETHER OR NOT ANYBODY HAD SEEN THAT OFFICER. WE TOOK AMERICAN JOURNAL OUT OF THE PHOTO. IT WAS A PRINT. THERE WAS NEVER ANY ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD ANYBODY ABOUT THAT. WHAT HAPPENED AT THAT --
SHE BROUGHT THE APPLES AND ORANGES UP, YOUR HONOR. YOU CAN'T SEE -- I WON'T BRING UP WHAT YOU DIDN'T SEE. THAT IS APPLES AND ORANGES, BUT SHE BROUGHT UP THE APPLES AND ORANGES, SO SINCE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FRUIT, LET ME GET BACK TO THE RIGHT FRUIT. THIS IS APPROPRIATE FRUIT FOR THIS JURY, YOUR HONOR, AND WE WILL HANDLE IT IN AN APPROPRIATE WAY AND WE HAVE WITNESSES HERE AND NOBODY IS TRYING TO DISTORT OR MISLEAD. THIS IS VIDEOTAPE OF WHAT HAPPENED THERE. YOU YOURSELF HAVE SEEN VIDEOTAPES. THEY ARE AVAILABLE TO EVERYBODY. EVERYBODY TRIES THEIR CASE THE WAY THEY WANT TO. IF THEY WANT TO HIDE WHAT TOOK PLACE OUT THERE AND TRY TO CREATE A STERILE VIEW OF ONE MAN'S OPINION BY CALLING SOMEBODY TO THE STAND, SO BE IT. IF WE WANT TO SHOW WHAT ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE SO THE JURY SEES JACOBO, SO THE JURY SEES MISS RATCLIFFE, SO THE JURY SEES PHILLIPS, WHERE HE WAS AND WHAT HE HAD TO DO, I THINK THAT IS ABSOLUTELY OUR RIGHT AND THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED BY THIS. AND IT IS UNFAIR AND OUTRAGEOUS AND WE WANT TO PROCEED WITH THIS AT THIS POINT, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVE LAID THE APPROPRIATE FOUNDATION AND WE HAVE CITED THE CASES AND WE WANT TO MOVE ON AND GET THIS THING DONE AND MOVE ON WITH OUR CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THIS WITNESS. WE HAVE LOST THIS MORNING AND NOW LOSING MUCH OF THIS AFTERNOON AND WE WANT TO MOVE ON.
KEY QUOTEDETECTIVE LANGE, NOW THAT Y9OU HAVE SEEN THAT VIDEOTAPE, CAN YOU ASCERTAIN WHERE PEOPLE ARE STANDING FROM THOSE CAMERA ANGLES?
NOT REALLY, YOUR HONOR. I'M PRETTY SURE ABOUT WHERE I WAS AND MY LOCATION, BUT I CAN'T TELL WHERE ANYONE ELSE WAS BECAUSE I CAN'T SEE THE BOTTOM OF THEIR LEGS, THEIR POSITIONS.
KEY QUOTEIS THAT THERE HAS -- THE DEFENSE HAS FAILED TO LAY ANY FOUNDATION AT ALL. I DON'T KNOW WHY MR. COCHRAN KEEPS SAYING THAT. THERE HAS BEEN NO FOUNDATION LAID FOR THIS. THERE HAS BEEN NO ONE CALLED TO AUTHENTICATE HOW IT WAS MADE. JUST BECAUSE IT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR CHANNEL 5 DOESN'T MEAN IT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THIS JURY. I THINK THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT YOU CAN SHOW ON A NEWS SHOW AND WHAT WE CAN DO IN A COURT OF LAW. IT IS NOT THAT WE ARE ACCUSING CHANNEL 5 OF ANYTHING. THAT IS NOT THEIR FAULT. THEY WERE OUT THERE TRYING TO TAKE THE MOST ACCURATE PICTURE THEY COULD FROM A DISTANCE.
RIGHT, BUT WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THIS, YOUR HONOR: CHANNEL 5 DID NOT SHOOT THAT SCENE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTRODUCING THE MATTER IN COURT. THEY SHOT A SCENE AS BEST THEY COULD FROM A LIMITED VANTAGE POINT SO THAT THEY COULD PUT IT ON TELEVISION. THAT IS ALL. THEY WEREN'T LOOKING TO ADMIT SOMETHING IN A COURT OF LAW SO THAT THEY COULD MOST ACCURATELY DEPICT EVERYTHING AT ALL. THAT WASN'T THEIR PURPOSE. THAT WASN'T THEIR FOCUS.
I AM NOT CASTING ANY ASPERSIONS ON THEM, BUT THIS IS A COURT OF LAW AND OUR STANDARDS HAVE TO BE HIGHER AND WE HAVE TO REQUIRE MORE FOR THIS JURY AND MAKE SURE THE JURY GETS THE ACCURATE TRUTH AND ALL THE TRUTH, NOT A DISTORTION AND NOT A PIECE OF THE TRUTH AND NOT A LITTLE CORNER OVER HERE THAT PLEASES THE DEFENSE, BUT THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND THAT IS WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR. IF THEY WANT TO HAVE THE JURY SEE JACOBO, THE JURY SEE RATCLIFFE, THEY KNOW WHERE TO FIND THEM. THESE PEOPLE CAN BE SUBPOENAED. THEY ARE NOT HIDING SOMEWHERE. MR. COCHRAN KNOWS THAT VERY WELL. HE DOESN'T WANT THE JURY TO GET THE TRUTH. HE DOESN'T LIKE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THE WITNESSES TAKE THE STAND AND TELL IT THE WAY IT REALLY WAS. HE DOESN'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN. WE ARE DOING IT WITH VERY PAINSTAKING CARE. HE DOESN'T LIKE THAT. HE WANTS TO SPIN THAT, HE WANTS TO DISTORT THAT, AND HE WANTS TO MAKE IT APPEAR IN A WAY THAT NEVER WAS. HE HAS GOT A TAPE THAT WAS TAKEN THAT HAPPENS TO DISTORT THE SCENE COMPLETELY. HE HAS GOT THE PERFECT VEHICLE FOR IT, BUT IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE IN A COURT OF LAW. HE CAN ENTERTAIN HIS FRIENDS WITH IT AND YELL ALL HE WANTS ABOUT HOW WE ARE HIDING THE TRUTH. WE ARE THE ONLY SIDE ON COUNSEL TABLE, YOUR HONOR, AT COUNSEL TABLE, LET ME MAKE THAT REAL CLEAR. WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THE JURY GETS THE ACCURATE EVIDENCE, THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER, AND A COMPLETE PICTURE AND THE DEFENSE WANTS TO HAND THEM A DISTORTION AND A HALF TRUTH AND THAT IS WHAT THIS IS. YES, IT TELLS YOU THAT CERTAIN PEOPLE ARE AT THE CRIME SCENE, BUT THE ONE THING THAT THE DEFENSE IS CLAIMING IT WANTS TO ADMIT IT FOR IS NEVER SHOWN BY THIS TAPE. IN FACT, YOU NEVER SEE ANYONE'S FEET, SO THEIR CLAIMED PROBATIVE VALUE IS NONEXISTENT. AND ALL WE HAVE LEFT IS PREJUDICIAL VALUE. THAT IS THE VALUE THAT IT HAS FOR THE DEFENSE IN MISLEADING THIS JURY AND THAT IS WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE REQUIRED TO PREVENT AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SEEKING THE COURT'S -- SEEKING THE COURT'S ORDER TO SAY NO, YOU CANNOT CONFUSE, NO, YOU CANNOT DISTORT. THIS JURY WILL GET THE TRUTH AND THIS TAPE IS NOT THE TRUTH.
IN THIS COURTROOM WE'VE HEARD SO MANY TIMES HOW THE PEOPLE ARE THE ONLY ONES SEEKING THE TRUTH, YOUR HONOR. WE WELCOME THEIR WITNESSES, I WELCOME LANGE, AS YOU SAW YESTERDAY. I WELCOME ALL THE WITNESSES THEY ARE GOING TO BRING. THEY CAN'T STAND THE TRUTH. WE ARE THE ONES INTRODUCING THE TRUTH HERE. WE ARE SHOWING A VIDEOTAPE. NOW, THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY CAN'T SEE SOMEBODY'S LEGS, THAT IS PREPOSTEROUS, YOUR HONOR. PART OF A VIDEOTAPE. THE BEAUTY IS YOU STAND THERE AND YOU LOOK AT IT AND YOU CAN TELL WHERE PEOPLE ARE STANDING. YOU CAN SEE THAT SOME OF THE PEOPLE ARE STANDING IN THE SHRUBBERY. YOU CAN SEE EXACTLY WHERE THEY ARE. THAT IS WHAT A VIDEOTAPE IS. I'M SURE THAT IN EVERY CASE -- YOU KNOW, IT IS AMAZING, I'M SURE PEOPLE ALL ACROSS AMERICA ARE AMAZED AT THIS ARGUMENT THAT SOMEBODY WANTS TO KEEP A VIDEOTAPE OF A SCENE OUT. YOU KNOW, JUDGE, THIS ALL WOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED APPROPRIATELY IF THE LAPD WOULD VIDEOTAPE THESE CRIME SCENES LIKE OTHER BIG CITY DEPARTMENTS DO. THEY WOULD HAVE THEIR OWN VIDEO. BUT THEY DON'T DO THAT, SO WE HAVE TO GO AND GET THE NEXT BEST THING WE CAN. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO HIDE. THEY SHOULD CHANGE THEIR PROCEDURE. WE ARE BRINGING IN WHAT WE HAVE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THEY HAVE TO LIVE WITH THAT, JUDGE. IT IS ADMISSIBLE, IMPEACHING AND RELEVANT. AND AS TO THE SPACIAL DIFFERENCES, WE CAN COVER THAT. THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE A 352 PROBLEM WHEN YOU WEIGH THIS. YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHEN THE PEOPLE STAND UP AND MAKE THESE GRANDIOSE SPEECHES THAT ARE FALLING ON DEAF EARS TO EVERYBODY. I DON'T KNOW WHO THEY ARE SPINNING IT TO. THE JURY IS NOT OUT HERE. WE ARE NOT IMPRESSED AT ALL. WE KNOW WHO IS SEEKING THE TRUTH HERE. THE QUESTION IS FOR THEM TO TALK ALL THEY WANT. JUDGE, YOU UNDERSTAND. YOU ASKED ME LAST NIGHT TO FOCUS ON THESE THREE OR FOUR AREAS. WE HAVE COME BACK AND DONE EXACTLY WHAT YOU ASKED US TO DO. WHATEVER YOU HAVE ASKED TO US DO IN THIS REGARD WE HAVE DONE IT. AND THIS IS ADMISSIBLE, AND IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION OF CONFUSION, I'M SURE IT CAN BE CLEARED UP BY BOTH SIDES. AND THIS IS A VIDEOTAPE OF WHAT ACTUALLY LAPD BROUGHT ABOUT BECAUSE THEY DON'T DO THIS AT THE LAPD LIKE OTHER DEPARTMENTS DO. IT IS THE BEST EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE IN THIS DISTANCE. I ASK THE COURT TO LET US PROCEED AT THIS POINT. YOU HAVE LISTENED TO US VERY PATIENTLY AND IT IS NOW TIME TO RULE, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS SINCE JANUARY.
AS MR. COCHRAN CONCEDES, WE HAVE TO CLEAR IT UP BY CALLING ADDITIONAL WITNESSES, THEN IT IS REALLY A 352 ISSUE.
WE ARE GOING TO WIND UP CALLING ANOTHER DOZEN WITNESSES TO CLEAR UP ALL THE MESS THAT IS MADE BY THE DISTORTION OF THAT VIDEO, SO IT IS AN UNDUE COME ASSUMPTION OF TIME AS WELL.
THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALWAYS INTERESTING TO HEAR THESE ARGUMENTS. AND I DON'T MEAN THAT FACETIOUSLY, BECAUSE I MEAN IT IS FASCINATING, SINCE IT IS A VIDEOTAPE, WHICH OSTENSIBLY IS AS ACCURATE A DEPICTION AS WE WILL EVER GET, IT IS NOT SOMEONE'S RECOLLECTION OR INTERPRETATION, IT IS THE EVENTS AS THEY UNFOLDED. AND THE COURT IS ABLE TO DISCERN, FROM LOOKING AT THE VIDEOTAPE ITSELF, THAT THIS VIDEOTAPE WAS TAKEN AT A POINT IN TIME WHEN THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR, MISS RATCLIFFE ARRIVES, SHE APPEARS TO BE BRIEFED BY DETECTIVE LANGE. WE SEE RATCLIFFE AND LANGE AT THE TOP OF THIS -- WHAT CLEARLY APPEARS TO ME TO BE THE TOP OF THE STEPS. I THEN SEE THEM MOVE DOWN TO WITHIN TWO STEPS ABOVE THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STAIRS. I OBSERVE THEM TO BE LOOKING OVER THE BODY AND LANGE APPEARS TO BE DESCRIBING TO RATCLIFFE WHAT IS THERE.
WE DO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT WHICH SHOWS THE BLOOD ON THE STEPS AND THE FOOTPRINTS WHICH APPEAR TO BE AVOIDED. WE HAVE JACOBO ARRIVE. WE SEE HIM CHECK IN WITH OFFICER CUMMINGS. WE SEE DETECTIVE LANGE TAKE CARE TO STEP OVER THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. HE THEN HOLDS A MEASURING STICK AND A RULER. HE APPEARS TO BE MEASURING THINGS AND THEN WE SEE HIM STEP INTO THE PLANTER AREA. IT APPEARS THAT WHEN HE DOES THAT, HE LOOKS AROUND AND TAKES CARE AS TO WHEN HE STEPS. TRUE, YOU CANNOT ACTUALLY SEE WHAT IT IS HE IS ACTUALLY STEPPING UPON. THAT IS EXCERPT NO. 1. AND I FIND THAT THE PROBATIVE VALUE OUTWEIGHS THE PREJUDICE ON THAT AND I WILL ALLOW IT. AS TO NO. 2, WE START WITH A DISTANCE SHOT AND THEN IT IS A -- SHOWS THE CORONERS WITH THE PLASTIC SHEETING PREPARING TO REMOVE THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND THEN THE BODY PLACED ON THE CART. AND I TAKE IT THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THAT IS THE FACT THAT THE CORONER'S PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY STANDING IN THE WALKWAY AS THEY SPREAD OUT THE PLASTIC OVER THE COTTON SHEET AND REMOVE THE BODY, INDICATING THAT THEY WERE WALKING IN THE WALKWAY WHERE THE BLOOD WAS, BUT THEY ARE NOT WALKING ON THE STEPS WHERE THE FOOTPRINTS WERE AND THE FOOTPRINTS REMAIN UNOBSCURED, SO THEY APPEARED NOT TO HAVE BEEN DISTURBED. I FIND THE PROBATIVE VALUE OUTWEIGHS THE PREJUDICIAL VALUE AND I WILL ALLOW THAT AS WELL. EXCERPT NO. 3 IS -- STARTS WITH A DISTANCE SHOT OF THE CROWD AROUND THE STEP AREA. WE SEE INVESTIGATOR FUNG STEP OUT OF THE PLANTER AREA WHERE THE BODY OF RONALD GOLDMAN WAS DISCOVERED, ALTHOUGH WE DO NOT SEE THAT BODY. WE SEE HIM COME OUT NOT WEARING GLOVES, HOWEVER, HAVING A PAPER BAG IN HIS HANDS. THE CORONERS THEN APPEAR TO SPREAD OUT ANOTHER PLASTIC SHEET AND APPEAR TO BE MOVING THE SECOND BODY WHICH IS NOW OUT ON THE WALKWAY. THAT APPEARS TO BE RONALD GOLDMAN'S BODY FROM THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. WE SEE LANGE IN THE PLANTER AREA WATCHING THE WRAPPING OF THE SECOND BODY, RONALD GOLDMAN, AND WE OBSERVE HIM TO BE MAKING MEASUREMENTS AND TAKING NOTES AT THE TIME. AND I FIND THAT THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THIS ALSO OUTWEIGHS ANY PREJUDICIAL VALUE. I WILL ALLOW THIS. HOWEVER, I AM GOING TO INSTRUCT THE JURORS THAT THEY ARE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, IN EVALUATING THESE VIDEOTAPES, THE ANGLE AND ANY DISTORTION THAT THERE MIGHT BE FROM USING THE LENSES -- THE LENSES THAT WERE ACTUALLY USED.
KEY QUOTEYOUR HONOR, THERE IS ONE OTHER -- CAN WE HAVE DETECTIVE LANGE STEP OUT? THERE IS ONE OTHER I WANT TO SHOW TODAY.
THAT ONE I HAVE CONCERN ABOUT BECAUSE IT STOPS ABRUPTLY. I WANT TO SEE THE ENTIRE TAPE FROM WHICH IT WAS TAKEN.
DETECTIVE LANGE, WHY DON'T YOU STEP OUTSIDE. DETECTIVE LANGE, WHY DON'T YOU STEP OUTSIDE.
THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR. WITH REGARD -- WE PRESENTED THE -- THIS TAPE. WE THINK THIS TAPE IS IMPEACHING. WE WOULD ASK THE COURT TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND PERHAPS WE CAN ASK THE QUESTIONS IF THERE IS OTHER PARTS OF THE TAPE, WHAT IT SHOWS.
NO. I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT SHOWS. WHAT IT SHOWS IS DETECTIVE LANGE WALKING OUT OF THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE.
RIGHT. CARRIES -- HE IS CARRYING THE TENNIS SHOES, PUTS THEM IN THE RIGHT FRONT SEAT OF THE CAR.
I THINK ANOTHER PART -- WE SAW IT LAST NIGHT, AND I THINK MR. BLASIER CAN REPRESENT HE DROVE OFF. THE POINT -- I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MR. BLASIER, BUT THE POINT IS YESTERDAY --
HE SAYS HE PUT IT IN A BOX IN THE TRUNK, HE DROVE OFF. IT IS IMPEACHING, YOUR HONOR, AND YOU CAN HEAR FROM BLASIER.
MY POINT, MR. COCHRAN, IS THAT THE TAPE THAT YOU GAVE TO ME THIS MORNING TO VIEW STOPS WITH HIM PLACING IT ON THE FRONT SEAT OF HIS CAR. HE DOESN'T ENTER THE CAR, HE DOESN'T START THE CAR, HE DOESN'T DRIVE OFF. IT JUST ENDS.
YOUR HONOR, I HAVE WATCHED THAT TAPE MANY TIMES AND WE HAD THAT DUB MADE LAST NIGHT. THAT IS BASICALLY THE END OF IT. HE DRIVES OFF, I THINK IS IN THE TAPE, BUT HE DOESN'T TAKE THE SHOES AND PUT THEM SOME PLACE ELSE. THAT IS THE END OF THE TAPE.
THIS WAS PART OF A LONG TAPE THAT WE TOOK JUST A SMALL CLIP OUT OF BECAUSE WE JUST WANTED TO ILLUSTRATE PUTTING THE SHOES ON THE FRONT SEAT. THERE WAS NOTHING SIGNIFICANT AFTER THAT.
THAT ENTIRE TAPE IS BEING COPIED. EVEN THOUGH I THINK WE HAVE ALREADY GIVEN IT TO THE PROSECUTION, WE ARE MAKING COPIES OF EVERYTHING TO GIVE THEM ANOTHER SET AS WELL AS TO PROVIDE YOU WITH A SET OF EVERYTHING WE HAVE, SO THAT TAPE IS NOW IN A STUDIO BEING COPIED.
AND THE POINT, IF I CAN SAY THIS, YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO -- IT IS IMPEACHING.
MR. COCHRAN, MR. COCHRAN, I UNDERSTAND THE VALUE. I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WANT IT, BUT I'M SAYING IT DOESN'T HAVE THE IMPEACHMENT VALUE UNTIL HE STARTS UP THE CAR AND DRIVES OUT WITH THE TENNIS SHOES STILL THERE.
I'M SURE WE CAN GET THAT PART DOWN THERE AND I'M SURE -- I CAN ASK HIM DIDN'T YOU THEN PUT THE TENNIS SHOES THERE AND DRIVE OFF? I'M SURE WE CAN GET THAT. THAT WAS JUST A POINT THAT HE DRIVES OFF. HE DROVE OUT AT THIS POINT?
SO I THINK THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT, SO I MEAN THAT THE IMPORTANT PART IS HE SAID UNDER OATH --
I UNDERSTAND WHAT HE SAID. I RECALL WHAT HE SAID, BUT IT DOESN'T BECOME PROBATIVE UNTIL HE DRIVES OFF.
I THINK WHEN HE PUTS THEM IN THAT FRONT SEAT IT IS PRETTY PROBATIVE. HE DIDN'T TELL US YESTERDAY, BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
THE TAPE ENDS WITH HIM REACHING IN AND PLACES IT ON THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE FRONT SEAT AND THEN MY TAPE ENDS --
WE WILL DO WHAT WE CAN. MR. BLASIER SAYS HE WILL GO AND GET IT RIGHT NOW, YOUR HONOR.
THIS IS A PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE. THIS IS A DISTORTION, THIS IS A METHOD OF CONFUSION AND IT DOES NOT INFORM THE JURY OF ANYTHING OF PROBATIVE VALUE.
I'M SURE IN THE RODNEY KING CASE I'M SURE THE PROSECUTION ARGUED YOU CAN'T SHOW THAT TAPE, THE DEFENSE ARGUED WE COULDN'T SHOW THAT TAPE -- BUT THIS IS AN ACCURATE RECOLLECTION OF WHAT TOOK PLACE, SO WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD IT NOT BE SHOWN?
NOT REALLY, YOUR HONOR. I'M PRETTY SURE ABOUT WHERE I WAS AND MY LOCATION, BUT I CAN'T TELL WHERE ANYONE ELSE WAS BECAUSE I CAN'T SEE THE BOTTOM OF THEIR LEGS, THEIR POSITIONS.
ALWAYS INTERESTING TO HEAR THESE ARGUMENTS. AND I DON'T MEAN THAT FACETIOUSLY, BECAUSE I MEAN IT IS FASCINATING, SINCE IT IS A VIDEOTAPE, WHICH OSTENSIBLY IS AS ACCURATE A DEPICTION AS WE WILL EVER GET, IT IS NOT SOMEONE'S RECOLLECTION OR INTERPRETATION, IT IS THE EVENTS AS THEY UNFOLDED.
SHE BROUGHT THE APPLES AND ORANGES UP, YOUR HONOR. YOU CAN'T SEE -- I WON'T BRING UP WHAT YOU DIDN'T SEE. THAT IS APPLES AND ORANGES, BUT SHE BROUGHT UP THE APPLES AND ORANGES, SO SINCE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FRUIT, LET ME GET BACK TO THE RIGHT FRUIT.