BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT. MR. BAILEY, YOU HAD SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO COMMENT ON BEFORE WE GET TO THE JURY?
THERE IS ONE CHART THAT I JUST WANTED TO CALL THE COURT'S ATTENTION TO THAT I HAVE ONE QUESTION REGARDING, THIS ONE, YOUR HONOR. I THINK THE USE OF THE WORD "TRAIL", I THINK THAT THAT'S CONCLUSIONARY. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH "DROPS," WHATEVER. BUT I THINK "TRAIL" -- I THINK THERE'S NO REAL ISSUE ABOUT THAT. I THINK THAT'S ARGUMENTATIVE AND I THINK IT'S CONCLUSIONARY IN FORM, AND I DON'T OBJECT TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH I'VE SEEN, BUT THE LABEL I THINK IT'S A LITTLE NECESSARY LICENSE. AND I'LL TELL YOUR HONOR THAT THERE WILL BE A LOT OF EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S A TRAIL, AND I OBJECT TO THAT.
YES, YOUR HONOR. THIS WAS SHOWN TO MR. COCHRAN YESTERDAY AND THERE WAS NO OBJECTION LODGED. SECONDLY, IT IS A MATTER OF WHAT WAS OBSERVED AND WHAT WILL BE TESTIFIED TO BY THE WITNESSES, THAT THE BLOOD TRAILED AND IN FACT DID TRAIL. THERE WAS A TAILING EFFECT TO THE BLOOD THAT SHOWED THAT IT TRAILED IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION. AND SO IT'S SIMPLY DESCRIPTIVE OF WHAT THE TESTIMONY WILL BE. THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD IS. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS. COUNSEL CAN ARGUE IT'S NOT, BUT WE HAVE A SERIES OF BLOOD DROPS TO THE LEFT OF THE SERIES OF BLOODY SHOE PRINTS. IT'S A TRAIL OF BLOOD.
THAT'S HER CONCLUSION. I'M INDICATING TO THE COURT THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT THAT IS NOT A TRAIL. IT'S -- ALL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS THE EVIDENCE.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE LABEL OF THIS EVIDENCE, AND I JUST THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATE TO CALL IT A BLOOD TRAIL. SO I AM ASKING THE COURT -- WHEN I SAW THIS LAST NIGHT, WE WEREN'T ON THE RECORD OR WHATEVER. SO NOW IS THE TIME. SHE HADN'T PUT IT OUT. NOW IS THE TIME. I'M JUST SAYING WE SHOULD -- IF SHE WANTS TO CALL IT BLOOD AT BUNDY, I HAVE NO OBJECTION. I OBJECT TO THE USE OF THE WORD "TRAIL."
YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT'S A MATTER FOR COUNSEL TO ARGUE, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT -- BUT THIS IS -- THIS IS THE PEOPLE'S EVIDENCE. THIS IS THE WAY THE WITNESSES CHARACTERIZE WHAT THEY SAW, AND SO IT'S SIMPLY DESCRIPTIVE. THAT'S WHAT THE TESTIMONY IS GOING TO ELICIT. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THESE BOARDS.
THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT. IT'S A MATTER FOR BOTH COUNSEL TO ARGUE, BUT NOT ANY ARGUMENT ON THIS DOCUMENT.
WELL, COUNSEL CAN PUT UP HIS OWN BOARD AND SAY BLOOD DROPS, IT IS NOT A TRAIL. BUT OUR WITNESSES FOUND IT TO BE A TRAIL AND THAT'S WHAT THE TESTIMONY WILL SHOW AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE BOARD.
WELL, I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, YOUR HONOR. I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT THIS IS 160 FEET UP THAT WAY AND THEY FIND FOUR DROPS OF BLOOD.
FIVE DROPS OF BLOOD. THAT DOES NOT MAKE A TRAIL AMONG MOST REASONABLE EXPERTS. AND THE QUESTION IS, I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE THAT -- AT THIS POINT, I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE UNTIL AT THE END OF THE CASE. IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE.
ALL RIGHT. OBJECTION IS NOTED. IT'S OVERRULED. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE, DEPUTY MAGNERA.
I THINK THE USE OF THE WORD 'TRAIL', I THINK THAT THAT'S CONCLUSIONARY. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH 'DROPS,' WHATEVER.
I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT THIS IS 160 FEET UP THAT WAY AND THEY FIND FOUR DROPS OF BLOOD.
FIVE.
THERE WAS A TAILING EFFECT TO THE BLOOD THAT SHOWED THAT IT TRAILED IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION. AND SO IT'S SIMPLY DESCRIPTIVE OF WHAT THE TESTIMONY WILL BE.