BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THE DEFENDANT IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK, MR. DARDEN, MISS LEWIS. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. COUNSEL, EARLIER THIS MORNING THE COURT DIRECTED THE DEFENSE TO PROVIDE THE COURT AND THE PROSECUTION COUNSEL A COPY OF THE AUDIOTAPE OF AN INTERVIEW OF WITNESS ROSA LOPEZ. AND THE COURT HAS RECEIVED A MICRO CASSETTE TAPE WHICH I'M GOING TO MARK COURT'S EXHIBIT NEXT IN ORDER.
AND BOTH SIDES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH A STANDARD CASSETTE COPY OF THIS INTERVIEW. THE RECORD SHOULD ALSO REFLECT THAT MOMENTS AGO COUNSEL FOR BOTH SIDES AND THE COURT IN CHAMBERS LISTENED TO THE TAPE-RECORDING OF THIS PARTICULAR INTERVIEW. ALL RIGHT. ANY COMMENT BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH THE DIRECT EXAMINATION OF ROSA LOPEZ ON THE 1335 CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION?
I THINK THE COURT WANTED TO QUERY OF MR. PAVELIC REGARDING ANY NOTES THAT HE MAY HAVE HAD.
ALL RIGHT. MR. PAVELIC IS AGAIN BEFORE THE COURT. MR. PAVELIC, YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MR. PAVELIC, YOU CAN JUST STAND RIGHT THERE AT THE -- ALL RIGHT. MR. PAVELIC, YESTERDAY AFTERNOON YOU ADVISED THE COURT THAT THERE WAS A -- YOU TAPE-RECORDED THE FIRST STATEMENT, WHICH WAS JULY, AND YOU INDICATED THAT THERE WERE NOTES WITH REGARDS TO THIS. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THOSE NOTES.
I BELIEVE THAT I INDICATED THAT I WOULD CHECK AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT I HAVE ANY NOTES, NOT ONLY PERTAINING TO THE ISSUE AT HAND, BUT OTHER NOTES. WHENEVER I TOOK A STATEMENT AND REDUCED IT TO A MEMO, I WOULD DESTROY THE NOTES THAT I WOULD TAKE AT THE SCENE, OVER THE PHONE OR IN PERSON.
SO YOU HAVE EXAMINED YOUR OFFICE AND YOUR RESIDENCE AND YOU HAVE NO ROUGH NOTES WITH REGARDS TO ANY OF THE STATEMENTS THAT YOU HAVE TAKEN WITH REGARD TO THIS CASE?
THAT IS CORRECT, SIR. ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT I HAD I WOULD FAX TO VARIOUS ATTORNEYS AND I DO NOT HAVE ANY NOTES PERTAINING TO ANY OF THE INTERVIEWS.
COULD THE COURT INQUIRE WHEN THOSE NOTES WERE DESTROYED, YOUR HONOR, DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE --
IF THE COURT PLEASE COULD INQUIRE IF IT WAS HIS HABIT AND CUSTOM ALWAYS TO DESTROY NOTES AS SOON AS THE MEMO WAS COMPLETED, THEN WHY DID HE REPRESENT TO THE COURT YESTERDAY THAT HE THOUGHT HE HAD NOTES?
I HAVE SAVED ONE NOTE FROM AN INTERVIEW THAT I CONDUCTED WITH MR. ERNESTO RIVAS AND SCOTT MATSUDA AND THE ONLY REASON THAT I SAVED THOSE NOTES, THE ORIGINAL NOTES, IS BECAUSE I HAD SOME STREETS, ADDRESSES, POSITION OF POLICE VEHICLES, THAT WERE PRESENT ON BUNDY ON JUNE 13, 1994.
COULD THE COURT ALSO INQUIRE WHY IT WAS THAT MR. PAVELIC DID NOT REMEMBER WHAT HIS HABIT AND CUSTOM WAS YESTERDAY AND NOW HE REMEMBERS?
I BELIEVE THAT IF YOU LOOK AT MY TESTIMONY YESTERDAY, THAT I WAS NOT ONLY REFERRING TO THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE INVOLVING ROSA LOPEZ, BUT ALL NOTES, AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE FILE THAT I HAD TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE NO NOTES. I DID SO IN GOOD FAITH AND I DID NOT FIND ANY.
YOUR HONOR, COULD YOU ASK HIM WHETHER OR NOT HE TOLD ANYBODY AT ALL ABOUT THIS TAPE OF ROSA LOPEZ?
WELL, MR. PAVELIC, WHEN DID YOU FIRST TELL ANY COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE THAT THIS TAPE WAS IN EXISTENCE?
WHEN I SAW THE TESTIMONY OF MR. CARL DOUGLAS YESTERDAY, IT WAS OBVIOUS TO ME THAT I DID NOT INFORM HIM OF THE TAPE, NOR DID I INFORM ANY OF THE OTHER ATTORNEYS. THAT WAS THE ONLY TIME THAT I WAS INVOLVED IN ANY TAPE-RECORDING, TAKING A STATEMENT THAT WAS TAPE-RECORDED. I IMMEDIATELY COMPLETED A REPORT IN REGARDS TO THE INTERVIEW. I SUBMITTED MY MEMO TO THE ATTORNEYS AND I PUT THE TAPE ALONG WITH TWO OR THREE HUNDRED OTHER TAPES THAT I HAD, MOST OF THEM, IF NOT ALL OF THEM, PROVIDED BY THE PROSECUTION.
PERHAPS THE COURT CAN INQUIRE WHETHER COUNSEL EVER ASKED MR. PAVELIC IF HE HAD TAPES OR NOTES.
YES, I DID, SIR. I DON'T SPECIFICALLY RECALL BEING ASKED ABOUT A TAPE. I HAD BEEN INFORMED AND ASKED REGARDING THE STATEMENTS AND NOTES THAT I KEPT OR THAT I DID IN THIS PARTICULAR INVESTIGATION. MY RESPONSE WAS THAT I HAVE ALWAYS SUBMITTED MY MEMOS IN A TIMELY MANNER AND THAT I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT I SUBMITTED.
THEN HIS STATEMENT TO THE COURT TODAY IS THAT NO ONE EVER ASKED HIM IF HE HAD ANY TAPES?
I SAID I DON'T RECALL. I AM NOT SAYING THAT I WAS NOT ASKED THAT. I JUST DO NOT RECALL, YOUR HONOR.
ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, AT THIS POINT I THINK WE WILL VISIT THE FURTHER DISCOVERY ISSUES AT A LATER TIME, AS I SUGGESTED. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. PAVELIC.
DOES HE HAVE ANY NOTES ON COMPUTER, THAT WERE PUT ON TO COMPUTER AND WHERE IS THE REST OF THE INTERVIEW OF ROSA LOPEZ?
DO YOU HAVE ANY OF THESE -- ANY OF THESE INTERVIEWS CURRENTLY HELD WITHIN ANY MEMORY FUNCTION OF ANY COMPUTER?
WITH REGARD TO COURT'S EXHIBIT 4, THE TAPE THE COURT JUST MARKED, WOULD THE COURT INQUIRE OF MR. PAVELIC IF THAT IS THE ORIGINAL CASSETTE TAPE OR IS IT A COPY?
THAT IS THE ORIGINAL CASSETTE TAPE FROM THE INTERVIEW THAT I CONDUCTED ON JULY 29, 1994.
ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF TAPE-RECORDINGS THAT YOU TURNED OVER JUST RECENTLY. YOU SAID THE MAJORITY OF WHICH WERE PROVIDED ORIGINALLY BY THE PROSECUTION, CORRECT?
I SAID MAJORITY, IF NOT ALL. LET ME QUALIFY THAT. I BELIEVE ALL OF THOSE TAPES ARE TAPES THAT WE RECEIVED AS PART OF DISCOVERY DISCLOSURE FROM THE PROSECUTION.
SO FAR AS YOU KNOW THIS IS THE ONLY TAPE-RECORDING THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR POSSESSION THAT CONCERNS ANY OF THE WITNESSES IN THIS CASE?
THIS IS THE ONLY TAPE-RECORDING THAT I HAVE IN MY POSSESSION, SIR, PERTAINING TO ANY OF THE WITNESSES.
YOUR HONOR, THERE IS STILL THE ISSUE OF THE AUGUST 18TH INTERVIEW WITH ROSA LOPEZ FOR WHICH WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO TAPE. WOULD THE COURT INQUIRE OF MR. PAVELIC IF HE TAPED THAT INTERVIEW OR WAS IT IN FACT THE SECOND INTERVIEW OR WAS IT SOME REDACTION OF AN EARLIER INTERVIEW?
THE ONLY REASON, YOUR HONOR, I TAPE-RECORDED MISS LOPEZ IN THE FIRST INTERVIEW IS BECAUSE IT WAS A ONE-ON-ONE. I DID NOT HAVE A PARTNER WITH ME AND THAT IS THE REASON WHY I TAPE-RECORDED. AT THE SECOND INTERVIEW, IF YOU WOULD LOOK AT THE STATEMENT OR THE MEMO, MR. JOHN MC NALLY WAS PRESENT WITH ME AND THERE WAS NO NEED FOR ME TO TAPE-RECORD IT.
YES, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT HAS HEARD THE TAPE AND HAS HEARD THE NATURE OF THE INTERVIEW CONDUCTED. I HAVE NEVER HEARD ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I HAVE NEVER HEARD A WITNESS BASICALLY COACHED AND TOLD WHAT TO SAY THROUGH EVERY BEND AND TURN. MRS. LOPEZ GAVE VERY LITTLE INPUT INTO THAT INTERVIEW. BASICALLY IT IS AN INTERVIEW OF MR. PAVELIC.
MISS HAMBURGER, WOULD YOU AND YOUR CLIENT STEP OUT. I JUST NOTICED THAT YOU WERE OUT THERE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF INCONSISTENCIES IN THAT TAPE, IN THAT TAPED INTERVIEW, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS THE FACT THAT SYLVIA, WHO IS MENTIONED IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF JULY 29, IS NEVER MENTIONED IN THE ACTUAL INTERVIEW THAT WE HAVE ALL LISTENED TO. FURTHERMORE, THE FACT THAT THERE IS A CONVERSATION THAT THE -- THAT MS. LOPEZ ALLUDES TO HAVING OVERHEARD AT TEN O'CLOCK BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND SOME OTHER PERSON, THAT NEVER APPEARED IN HER DIRECT TESTIMONY. THAT IS JUST TWO OF MANY GLARING INCONSISTENCIES. EVEN THOUGH THE DIRECT TESTIMONY HAS GONE FAR PAST THE POINT OF TEN O'CLOCK NOW, AND I WILL BE VERY INTERESTED TO HEAR IF MR. COCHRAN NOW GOES BACK TO THAT POINT AND TRIES TO CLEAR ALL THAT UP, BUT NEVERTHELESS, WE NEED TO HAVE THIS TAPE TRANSCRIBED AND EXAMINED BECAUSE WE ARE IN THE -- NOW WE ARE PUT IN THE POSTURE BY THE DEFENSE ARROGANCE, BY THEIR CONTEMPT FOR THE COURT'S AUTHORITY AND THE COURT'S ORDER, WE ARE PUT IN THE POSTURE NOW OF HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL BODY OF IMPEACHMENT THAT WE MUST DO WITH ROSA LOPEZ, THAT WE MUST CONFRONT HER WITH ON THIS CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION, AND WE HAVE TO BE PREPARED FOR IT, BECAUSE THE DEFENSE HAS ASSURED US THAT SHE WILL BE GONE.
I HAVE ASSURED THE COURT THAT SHE WILL BE GONE ONLY IF THE DEFENSE WANTS HER TO BE GONE, NEVERTHELESS, AFTER I THINK WE CONCLUDE CROSS-EXAMINATION, THEY WILL CONCLUDE THEY WANT HER TO BE GONE. WE THEREFORE NEED TO PREPARE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION AND WE CANNOT EFFECTIVELY CROSS-EXAMINE HER TO THE EXTENT THAT IS REQUIRED SO THAT THE JURY WILL GET THE FULL MEASURE OF HER LACK OF CREDIBILITY, UNLESS WE ARE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE, THE OPPORTUNITY THAT THE DEFENSE HAS CONTEMPTUOUSLY REFUSED TO ALLOW US. I THINK THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE WHAT I HAVE SEEN AND TO HEAR THIS TAPE WAS -- WAS JUST -- I'M SPEECHLESS. I'M SPEECHLESS TO THINK -- I'M SPEECHLESS, I KNOW, THAT TELLS YOU SOMETHING. I HAVE NEVER -- I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS. YOU KNOW, SHE WAS HANDED A SCRIPT AND MR. PAVELIC GOT ON THE TAPE AND SPOKE ALMOST NONSTOP FOR FIFTEEN TO TWENTY MINUTES GETTING HER TO AFFIRM, YES, YES, YES, YES. NO ON VERY MINOR INCONSEQUENTIAL MATTERS. AND I MIGHT ADD ALL IN ENGLISH. DURING NO TIME DID SHE INDICATE SHE COULDN'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING. AT NO TIME DID SHE TELL HIM TO SLOW DOWN OR EXPLAIN ANYTHING. SHE CORRECTED HIM ON MINOR MATTERS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE, BUT THEREFORE INDICATING THAT SHE UNDERSTOOD VERY WELL WHAT HE HAD TO STAY TO HER IN ENGLISH, AND HE SPOKE RAPIDLY.
WELL, MISS CLARK, WHETHER OR NOT A WITNESS FEELS MORE COMFORTABLE IN THEIR NATIVE LANGUAGE OR ENGLISH WHEN THEY ACTUALLY TESTIFY HERE IN COURT UNDER THESE RATHER TRYING CIRCUMSTANCES IS A FACTOR THAT IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE AT THIS POINT. THE QUESTION IS, NOW THAT YOU HAVE THE TAPE, YOU'VE HEARD IT ONCE UP IN YOUR OFFICE AND YOU HEARD IT ONCE WITH THE COURT HERE IN CHAMBERS WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL, THE TAPE IS APPROXIMATELY TWELVE OR FIFTEEN MINUTES IN LENGTH, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU NEED AN EXACT WORD FOR WORD TRANSCRIPT OR FOR 770 PURPOSES. HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED TO PREPARE TO REVIEW THIS AND PREPARE YOUR NOTES AND TO BE ABLE TO CONFRONT THESE ITEMS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION?
IN ORDER TO ADEQUATELY CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE MISS LOPEZ WE NEED TO CONFRONT HER WITH EACH AND EVERY LEADING QUESTION THAT SHE WAS ASKED, AND AS THE COURT HEARD, THERE WERE A TAPE FULL OF THEM. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO CONFRONT HER WITH EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE, SO THOSE NEED TO BE TRANSCRIBED IN ORDER TO CONFRONT HER ADEQUATELY. WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE THAT IS BEING DENIED BY THE DEFENSE MISCONDUCT, SO WE NEED A CHANCE TO PREPARE FOR THIS AND SO WE DO NEED A TRANSCRIPT OF THIS IN ORDER TO ADEQUATELY CONFRONT HER AND LET HER ANSWER FOR US WHAT HER REAL THOUGHT WAS. LET'S NOT FORGET THAT ALSO THERE WERE NOTES TAKEN OF THIS INTERVIEW, NOTES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY IMPEACHING, I AM SURE NOTES THAT PROBABLY PRECEDED THIS INTERVIEW THAT HAD TO DO WITH WHAT SHE REALLY HAD TO SAY BEFORE SHE WAS COACHED INTO SAYING WHAT THE DEFENSE WANTED TO HEAR. AND NOW MR. PAVELIC, WHO YESTERDAY TOLD THE COURT THAT HE HAD NOTES OF HER INTERVIEW, COMES TO COURT TODAY AND HAS THE NERVE TO TELL THIS COURT THAT HE HAS A HABIT AND CUSTOM OF DESTROYING ALL NOTES, A HABIT AND CUSTOM THAT HE CONVENIENTLY DIDN'T MENTION UNTIL THIS MORNING. THERE IS VERY LITTLE CREDIBILITY TO MR. PAVELIC'S ASSERTIONS AND SO WE DON'T HAVE THE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL WE SHOULD HAVE.
MISS CLARK, LET'S REFOCUS ON WHERE WE ARE. WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF DIRECT EXAMINATION DURING A CONDITIONAL EXAMINATION. YOU HAVE NOW BEEN GIVEN A TAPE-RECORDING WHICH IS THE COMPANION OF THE REPORT THAT YOU HAVE FROM JULY 29TH STATEMENT.
MISS CLARK, IT IS A COMPANION BECAUSE IT IS THE SAME DATE. I'M NOT EDITORIALIZING OR FORMING AN OPINION. I'M JUST SAYING THAT THE TWO GO TOGETHER SO YOU HAVE BOTH ITEMS.
MISS CLARK, PLEASE. MISS CLARK, MISS CLARK. MISS CLARK, PLEASE, THIS IS A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION: HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED TO PREPARE AND REVIEW THIS TAPE TO PROCEED WITH YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION?
WELL, MR. COCHRAN HAS INDICATED THAT HE HAS GOT A FEW MINUTES LEFT ON DIRECT, RIGHT?
BUT I ASSUME THAT THIS TAPE AND THIS PARTICULAR STATEMENT IS NOT THE SOLE BASIS OF YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION.
NO, BUT IT IS IN SUBSTANCE, ESPECIALLY THE INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT AND THE TAPE AND THE INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THOSE TWO AND THE THIRD STATEMENT ON AUGUST 18TH AND THE INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THOSE THREE ITEMS AND HER TESTIMONY AS GIVEN IN COURT YESTERDAY. AND WHAT WILL BE THE BALANCE OF WHATEVER SHE GIVES TODAY, SO THERE IS -- YES, THE TAPE PLAYS VERY FOCAL PART IN ALL OF THAT, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVE NOW ADDED A BODY OF IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE AND WE NEED TO GET IT TRANSCRIBED SO WE CAN CONFRONT HER PROPERLY WITH IT FOR 770 PURPOSES. SO WE NEED A STENOGRAPHER. WE ARE GOING TO NEED THE AFTERNOON TO DO THAT. I CAN APPRECIATE THE COURT'S CONCERN IN THE TIME FACTOR, BUT DON'T LOOK AT US, YOUR HONOR. YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T PUT THE COURT IN THIS POSITION.
OH, MISS CLARK, BELIEVE ME, I'M NOT PUTTING THE ONUS ON YOU AT THIS POINT. I JUST ASKED YOU A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED, KNOWING THAT I'VE GOT A SEQUESTERED JURY THAT WAS BROUGHT TO COURT YESTERDAY AND SPENT THEIR WHOLE DAY HERE AND GOT TO GO HOME?
I AM MINDFUL OF THAT YOUR HONOR. HAD THE DEFENSE NOT DENIED US THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE DISCOVERY THE COURT ORDERED --
WELL, THE LONGER WE STAND HERE TALKING ABOUT IT, THE LONGER IT WILL BE BEFORE WE ACCOMPLISH ALL THIS. WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS I'M GOING TO ORDER ALL PARTIES TO RETURN -- I'M SORRY.
JUST BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR. WITH REGARD TO THE -- THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT, AND WITHOUT EDITORIALIZING AND GETTING INTO IT, THE TAPE WAS TURNED OVER BY MR. PAVELIC. THEY HAD THE TAPE THIS MORNING BY 9:30. IT IS A TWELVE-MINUTE TAPE. THEY HAVE HEARD -- WE HAD FROM 9:30 TO ABOUT 11:00, 11:15. THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WITH IT. WHATEVER TIME THEY NEED, YOUR HONOR --
BUT THEY WERE ABLE TO LISTEN TO THE TAPE, YOUR HONOR. THE TAPE IS VERY, VERY SIMPLE AND TO THE POINT. OBVIOUSLY THEY DON'T LIKE THE CONTENTS OF THE TAPE. THIS TAPE IS AN ACTUAL TAPE OF THE CONVERSATION. THE MEMO THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THEM FOR THE 29TH AND THE 18TH ARE MEMOS THAT WERE SENT TO BOB SHAPIRO. WHATEVER THEY NEED TO DO, YOUR HONOR, WE ARE READY TO PROCEED WITHOUT ALL THE EDITORIALIZING. THE TAPE WILL SPEAK FOR ITSELF AS TO WHETHER THIS WITNESS IS CONSISTENT. WE THINK SHE IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT. WE THINK THE FACT, AS YOU POINTED OUT, THE INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED IN ENGLISH, AND SPANISH IS HER PRIMARY TONGUE, THAT WILL GO PERHAPS TO THE WEIGHT. BUT THE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE IS ALL OF THIS FLOOR SHOWING FOR THE CAMERAS AND ALL OF THESE ALLEGATIONS, YOUR HONOR, I WANT TO REMIND THE COURT OF ONE THING, WITHOUT WASTING YOUR TIME. WHEN THE THING CAME UP ABOUT SCOTT KENNEDY'S VIDEO AND WE NEEDED IT RIGHT DURING THE TRIAL, THEY HAD HAD IT SINCE JUNE. WE DIDN'T GO CRYING TO YOU, SAYING, JUDGE, THEY HAD THIS SINCE JUNE, HOLD THEM, DO ALL THESE BAD THINGS TO THEM. WE SAID WE WANT THAT TAPE. I SET ABOUT TO GET IT. THEY CAME AND PRODUCED IT AFTER I HAD GOTTEN IT FROM MR. SCOTT KENNEDY. WE PROCEEDED WITH THIS EVIDENCE AND CONTINUED WITH THIS TRIAL. WE WANT TO GO ON WITH THE TRIAL, JUDGE. ONE SIDE WANTS TO GO ON WITH THE TRIAL AND ONE SIDE ALWAYS WANTS TO DELAY AND HAVE A STOP AND THEY ARE ALWAYS CRYING AND COMPLAINING. NOW THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THIS AND THEY HAVE GOT IT. PAVELIC UNDER OATH -- AND THAT IS THE SITUATION. NONE OF US KNEW ABOUT THIS SITUATION AND THAT IS THE SITUATION. WE ARE GOING TO DEAL WITH THE OTHER DISCOVERY ISSUES, I THINK TOMORROW AFTERNOON. I WOULD LIKE TO COMPLETE DIRECT EXAMINATION AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEM PROCEED WITH THEIR CROSS, HOWEVER LONG IT IS GOING TO TAKE. THAT IS ALL I WANT TO DO. WE HAVE THE LUNCH HOUR TO LISTEN TO IT AGAIN AND EVEN IF IT IS ONLY TWELVE MINUTES, THEY HAVE GOT ALL THE DIRECT EXAMINATION, IT IS NOT GOING TO CAUSE A PROBLEM. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO TRANSCRIBE THE TAPE. WE HAVE GOT THE DIRECT EXAMINATION OF YESTERDAY AND THE DIRECT EXAMINATION AND THE TWO REPORTS FROM THE 29TH AND 18TH AND THEY HAVE GOT THE TAPE WHICH OF COURSE CAN BE TRANSCRIBED BY THE TIME WE GET TO THAT, YOUR HONOR. WE WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, I'M GOING TO DIRECT ALL PARTIES TO RETURN HERE AT TWO O'CLOCK. MISS CLARK, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO MAKE YOUR BEST EFFORTS TO GO OVER THE TAPE. I DON'T THINK YOU NEED A WORD FOR WORD TRANSCRIPT TO PROCEED FOR 770 PURPOSES. I THINK WHAT YOU CAN DO IS LISTEN TO THE TAPE, TAKE DOWN WHAT THE ANSWER IS, JUST WRITE DOWN WHAT THE ANSWERS ARE AND THE ONES THAT YOU FIND ARE INCONSISTENT, BUT LET'S SEE WHAT YOU CAN DO BETWEEN NOW AND TWO O'CLOCK. AND IN THE MEANTIME I ASSUMED THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE ONE OF YOUR STAFF MEMBERS -- ONE OF YOUR STENOGRAPHERS ATTEMPT TO MAKE A TRANSCRIPT, CORRECT?
WE WILL DO OUR BEST EFFORTS, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS DIFFICULT. THE ANSWERS ARE SIMPLE. THEY ARE YES AND NO. ACTUALLY, THEY ARE ALL YES, SO WE NEED TO TRANSCRIBE THE QUESTIONS.
NO, I UNDERSTAND, BUT I'M ASKING YOU TO DO YOUR BEST BECAUSE I WANT TO PROCEED THIS AFTERNOON, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.
I HAVE NEVER HEARD A WITNESS BASICALLY COACHED AND TOLD WHAT TO SAY THROUGH EVERY BEND AND TURN. MRS. LOPEZ GAVE VERY LITTLE INPUT INTO THAT INTERVIEW. BASICALLY IT IS AN INTERVIEW OF MR. PAVELIC.
SHE WAS HANDED A SCRIPT AND MR. PAVELIC GOT ON THE TAPE AND SPOKE ALMOST NONSTOP FOR FIFTEEN TO TWENTY MINUTES GETTING HER TO AFFIRM, YES, YES, YES, YES.
I'M SPEECHLESS. I'M SPEECHLESS, I KNOW, THAT TELLS YOU SOMETHING.
ALL OF THIS FLOOR SHOWING FOR THE CAMERAS AND ALL OF THESE ALLEGATIONS, YOUR HONOR... ONE SIDE WANTS TO GO ON WITH THE TRIAL AND ONE SIDE ALWAYS WANTS TO DELAY AND HAVE A STOP AND THEY ARE ALWAYS CRYING AND COMPLAINING.