THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I SHOULD POINT OUT THAT THE PEOPLE IN THEIR INVESTIGATION DID IN FACT CHECK THE -- I THINK THE SINK AREA AND THE SHOWER AREA, SOME AREAS IN THE BATHROOM FOR -- THE BATHROOM FLOOR FOR AREAS -- FOR INDICATION THERE MAY BE BLOOD IN THOSE AREAS. SOME OF THOSE TESTS CAME BACK POSITIVE. THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY -- THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY WITH REGARD TO THIS ENTIRE AREA AS TO THOSE TESTS AND WHAT OTHER THINGS WILL TEST POSITIVE FOR. THE COURT WILL AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME ALLOW THIS TO BE DISCUSSED. NOW --
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. WITH REGARD TO MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, WHICH I WAS ABOUT TO TALK ABOUT, THE TESTIMONY -- WE BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE WILL BE THAT BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF HER INJURIES, A LOT OF BLOOD CAME FORTH, SO THAT THE PERPETRATOR WOULD IN ALL LIKELIHOOD BE COVERED AND SOAKED AGAIN WITH HER BLOOD. WE THINK THIS WILL BECOME IMPORTANT AGAIN WHEN YOU DETERMINE THE ABSENCE OR LACK OF BLOOD CERTAINLY WITH REGARD TO MR. SIMPSON, NOT PERHAPS REGARDING THE PERPETRATORS OF THIS OFFENSE. MISS CLARK YESTERDAY TALKED ABOUT A MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARING BLACK BAG. WE EXPECT THERE WILL BE VIDEOS IN THIS CASE THAT THE BLACK BAG I PRESUME SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT WAS WHAT MR. SIMPSON BROUGHT BACK WITH HIM FROM CHICAGO. HE CAN BE SEEN CLEARLY IN THAT VIDEO WITH THAT BLACK BAG. AND I BELIEVE IT WAS IN POLICE CUSTODY. CERTAINLY AT ONE POINT, I KNOW THEY HAD IT IN THEIR CUSTODY. SO IT DIDN'T SEEM TO US A BIG MYSTERY. BUT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE AS IT DEVELOPS. BUT WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY MISSING BLACK BAG THAT MR. SIMPSON HAS OR WHATEVER. SO LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE AT ROCKINGHAM THEN, THERE'S THIS ROCKINGHAM GLOVE THAT IS SUPPOSEDLY FOUND IN AN AREA THAT YOU SAW SOME PICTURES ABOUT YESTERDAY. MR. SIMPSON'S HOME HAS A VERY, VERY NARROW PATHWAY ON THE SIDE OF HIS HOUSE. YOU SAW THE PICTURES OF THESE -- OF THIS GLOVE. IT WAS ON TOP OF SOME LEAVES. THERE WILL BE NO TESTIMONY AS I UNDERSTAND IT ABOUT ANY BLOOD DROPS LEADING TO AND FROM THAT. THEN, AS I EXPECT THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW, THERE'S A FENCE RIGHT UP THERE CLOSE BY THIS BLOOD DROP. THIS PATHWAY LEADS BASICALLY TO A BACKYARD AREA THAT'S KIND OF BASICALLY ENCLOSED. I THINK THERE'S MAYBE A GATE ON ONE SIDE. I THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO COME IN THE HOUSE ON THAT SIDE -- AND YOU'LL SEE THIS WHEN YOU GO OUT THERE -- THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO DOORS ON THAT SIDE THAT SOMEBODY COULD GO RIGHT INSIDE THE HOUSE WITHOUT CLIMBING OVER A FENCE OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. YOU WILL SEE THE EVIDENCE. AND AGAIN, YOU WILL BE THE ONE WHO CAN HELP MAKE THOSE FACTS. BUT WITH REGARD TO THIS GLOVE WHICH WAS -- AND THEN AGAIN, I THINK -- LET ME TRY TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT FOR YOU. THIS GLOVE WAS NOT FOUND BY THEM OR THE OFFICERS OR WHATEVER. THIS GLOVE WAS FOUND BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. HE FOUND IT, HE THEN INDIVIDUALLY TOOK THESE OTHER OFFICERS BACK THERE SUPPOSEDLY TO SEE IT. THEY SUPPOSEDLY BROUGHT A PHOTOGRAPHER OVER THERE TO TAKE PICTURES OF IT. ALTHOUGH YOU DIDN'T HEAR THAT YESTERDAY, THOSE ARE THE FACTS AS I UNDERSTAND THEM. AS I SAID, THERE'S NO BLOOD TRAIL TO THESE LEAVES. THE LEAVES DON'T APPEAR TO BE DISTURBED. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF ANY HAIRS, FIBERS ON THIS FENCE. AND THERE WAS TESTIMONY -- WILL BE TESTIMONY I BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE COBWEBS IN THIS AREA BEYOND THIS GLOVE. PRESUMABLY, ONE COULD INFER NOBODY HAD BEEN BACK THERE FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME TO KNOCK THOSE COBWEBS DOWN. WITH REGARD TO THIS GLOVE, THERE'S ALSO ON THIS GLOVE A CAUCASIAN HAIR ON THIS GLOVE THAT DOES NOT MATCH THE HAIR OF EITHER NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON OR RON GOLDMAN. AND MISS CLARK TOLD YOU YESTERDAY THAT HAIR SAMPLES ARE COLLECTED. AND WHO COLLECTS THEM ARE IMPORTANT. I ALLUDED TO THIS BRIEFLY, BUT WE THINK THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE NOBLE PEACE PRIZE WINNER WHO INVENTED THIS TECHNOLOGY WILL TELL YOU IT IS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE HOW THIS IS COLLECTED BECAUSE OF THE SENSITIVE NATURE, HOW VERY SMALL. YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE SOME OF THESE SAMPLES. YOU'LL HEAR THAT TESTIMONY FROM DR. CARY MULLIS. YOU WILL ALSO HEAR TESTIMONY FROM DR. JOHN GURTIS, ANOTHER LEADING EXPERT FROM DENVER WHO WE EXPECT WILL COME AND TESTIFY. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT ANY ATTEMPT TO -- IN THE EVIDENCE TO MAKE IT SEEM AS THOUGH PCR TECHNOLOGY AND DNA AND RFLP IS EASY TO UNDERSTAND. IT'S VERY COMPLEX. I THINK FROM BOTH SIDES, WE WANT TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO MAKE THIS AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE. I THINK THAT YOU WILL HEAR TESTIMONY -- AND I ASK YOU OF COURSE TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND UNTIL YOU HEAR THE EXPERTS ON BOTH SIDES, AND I THINK YOU'LL GET A CLEAR PICTURE OF THIS PARTICULAR EVIDENCE. I MENTIONED BEFORE THIS CRIME SCENE AND THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WERE ALLOWED TO WALK THROUGH THERE, MANY WITH JUST THEIR SHOES ON WALKING RIGHT THROUGH THE BLOOD. SOME HAD THOSE LITTLE BOOTIES ON. SOME HAD GLOVES, SOME DIDN'T HAVE GLOVES. PICKING UP THE EVIDENCE, THIS WILL BECOME VERY RELEVANT, IMPORTANT TO YOU AS YOU HEAR FROM THE EXPERTS ABOUT THE CONTAMINATION ASPECT OF THIS AND WHAT IT MEANS AND HOW EASY IT IS, A SNEEZE, A TOUCH, WHATEVER FOR THIS EVIDENCE TO BECOME CONTAMINATED. YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY. YOU WILL HEAR ALSO THAT THE EXPERT WHO INVENTED IT DOESN'T BELIEVE IT'S BEING PROPERLY AND APPROPRIATELY APPLIED AND IT'S NOT READY PERHAPS IN A FORENSIC SENSE TO BE USED; THAT IS TO BE USED AT A CRIME SCENE AND THEN BROUGHT TO COURT. MISS CLARK TALKED TO YOU YESTERDAY ABOUT THE MEDICAL USES OF IT. SHE TALKED ABOUT AMNIOCENTESIS. THAT WAS NICE. BUT IN AN AMNIOCENTESIS, YOU HAVE KNOWN INDIVIDUALS. YOU KNOW WHO THE FATHER AND THE MOTHER ARE, AT LEAST YOU'D BETTER KNOW WHO THEY ARE. WHEN YOU TAKE THE FLUID, YOU DO THAT IN A LAB, A CLEAN SETTING, NOT LIKE A CRIME SCENE OR WHATEVER. YOU WILL HEAR THE DISTINCTION, AS I SAID BEFORE, THIS 21ST CENTURY CYBERSPACE TECHNOLOGY USED BY PEOPLE POORLY TRAINED IN THE FIELD USING LIKE 19TH CENTURY TECHNIQUES TO COLLECT IT. MISS CLARK MENTIONED TO US YESTERDAY ABOUT JURASSIC PARK. THIS IS NOT A MOVIE. YOU CAN'T -- IT WOULD BE FANTASY TO THINK THAT YOU COULD TAKE AND MAKE DINOSAURS FROM DNA. NOBODY HAS DONE THAT. THAT'S A MOVIE, IT'S NOT REAL LIFE. SHE TALKED TO US ABOUT CZARS IN RUSSIA AND THAT SORT OF THING. IT'S ONE THING TO LOOK FOR BONES. THERE IS TECHNOLOGY THAT YOU HEAR ABOUT THAT WAS NOT USED IN THIS CASE. IT'S A DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGY ALL TOGETHER, SOME KIND OF SEQUENTIAL DNA TESTING CALLED MITOCHONDRION. I WON'T BORE YOU WITH THE TERM, BUT THAT'S NOT USED. BUT THE EXPERT WILL TELL YOU IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO THE PROCEEDING HERE, WHAT WAS DONE HERE. SO WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM THAT EVERY EFFORT WAS MADE TO EXCLUDE MR. SIMPSON, WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. YOU ARE ASKED TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND. WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT WHEN TEST RESULTS POINTED AWAY FROM MR. SIMPSON, THEY CONCLUDED SOMETHING MUST BE WRONG WITH THE TEST. OUR EXPERTS WILL TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE HUGE INTERPRETATION PROBLEMS WITH MANY OF THE TESTS PERFORMED IN THIS CASE. THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE WHERE THERE ARE MIXED SAMPLES CONTAINING BLOOD OR OTHER BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL FROM MORE THAN ONE PERSON. WE EXPECT TO SHOW THAT THE RESULTS OF SOME OF THE TESTS IN THIS CASE ARE SO AMBIGUOUS THAT TWO DIFFERENT SCIENTISTS WILL COME TO TWO DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS, BUT THE SAME RESULTS. AS I SAID EARLIER, GIVEN MR. SIMPSON'S STATEMENT TO THE POLICE, THE EVIDENCE OF ANY BLOOD IN THE BRONCO IS FAR MORE CONSISTENT WE BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW WITH MR. SIMPSON'S INNOCENCE THAN ANY GUILT, AND THE FACT THAT THERE'S ALMOST NO BLOOD OF ANYONE ELSE, IF ANY, IN THAT BRONCO IS JUST THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT IF SOMEBODY COMMITTED A CRIME AND USED THAT VEHICLE AS A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION. NOW, TO CONCLUDE THEN WITH REGARD TO MY DISCUSSION OF MISS CLARK'S OPENING STATEMENT, A NUMBER OF THINGS WERE SAID TO YOU YESTERDAY. AND JUDGE ITO AT THE END OF THE DAY ASKED YOU TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND. AS I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS CASE LAST NIGHT, I WAS CONCERNED JUST FOR A MOMENT, BECAUSE I THOUGHT ABOUT, WE DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO TALK TO THEM YET THROUGH CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND OUR CONTROL. BUT WHAT QUICKLY CAME TO MY MIND WAS THE FACT THAT THE JURY THAT WE'VE TRIED TO WORK AND PICK SINCE SEPTEMBER THAT'S BEEN SO PATIENT WOULD KEEP AN OPEN MIND. AND I AM SURE YOU WILL DO THAT, AND THAT'S ALL WE ARE ASKING. NOT ONLY FROM LAST NIGHT TO TODAY, BUT UNTIL YOU HEAR THE END OF THE CASE, BECAUSE YOU REMEMBER WHAT WE SAID AND PART OF WHAT I'M SAYING TO YOU TODAY IS THAT THE CASE WON'T BE OVER UNTIL YOU'VE HEARD ALL THE EVIDENCE AND SUMMATIONS BY THE LAWYERS. AND ALL OF YOU HAVE SAID THAT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO MAKE UP YOUR MIND BEFORE THAT, AND I THINK BOTH SIDES WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. IN HER CONCLUSION YESTERDAY, SHE INDICATED THAT -- SOMETHING ABOUT IT WAS DEVASTATING, PROOF OF SOMETHING OR OTHER IF YOU REMEMBER. IT SEEMS TO ME, AS I THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT SHE SAID, THE FACT THERE IS NO BLOOD WHERE THERE SHOULD BE BLOOD IS DEVASTATING EVIDENCE OF INNOCENCE. AND WE'LL BE TALKING MORE ABOUT THIS; THAT THE FACT OF BLOOD VOLUNTARILY GIVEN BY A DEFENDANT, MYSTERIOUSLY DISAPPEARS WHEN IT SHOULD BE THERE IS DEVASTATING EVIDENCE THAT SOMETHING IS WRONG. AND FINALLY, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE FACT THAT BLOOD MYSTERIOUSLY APPEARS ON VITAL PIECES OF EVIDENCE AND IT IS PREDICTED WHAT THE RESULTS WILL BE REGARDING DNA WHEN THAT EVIDENCE IS STILL IN THE POLICE LAB IS DEVASTATING EVIDENCE OF SOMETHING FAR MORE SINISTER. NOW, LET'S TURN OUR ATTENTION AGAIN, IF WE COULD, TO THE LASER DISK SHOWINGS. LET ME START THIS PART OF THE PRESENTATION QUICKLY BY SHOWING YOU AGAIN SOME TRAILS THAT LEAD TO INNOCENCE THAT WEREN'T PURSUED BY THE PROSECUTION TEAM. AND, YOUR HONOR, I WILL BE MOVING AHEAD. CALL OUT THE NUMBER IF YOU CAN. BEFORE WE DO THAT, MR. DOUGLAS, CAN YOU RETRIEVE THE ENVELOPE? MAY WE JUST HAVE A SECOND, YOUR HONOR?
YES. WE'RE TRYING TO NOT INVOLVE YOU IN THESE PETTY THINGS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SHOW AND TELL. MY OFFER OF PROOF IS, I AM GOING TO BE DEMONSTRATING HOPEFULLY, AS I JUST SAID, TWO OR THREE THINGS WHICH I THINK POINTS ESSENTIALLY TO OUR CLIENT'S INNOCENCE AND IN A FORENSIC REALM, INESCAPABLY. AND I AM GOING TO SAY THAT THERE'S AN ENVELOPE THAT WILL BE OPENED DURING THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL THAT'S BEEN IN THE CLERK'S POSSESSION. I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT OUT. I'M NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING. THAT'S ALL I WAS GOING TO DO. I DON'T HAVE TO TELL THEM ANYTHING. THAT'S ALL I AM GOING TO DO.
-- WHAT IS THIS? THIS IS A COMPLETE SURPRISE, OPENING STATEMENT BY AMBUSH. WHAT ABOUT DISCOVERY?
KEY QUOTEWE'VE NEVER SEEN IT. WE HAVEN'T BEEN ALLOWED TO SUBJECT IT TO OUR TESTS. HE NEVER TOLD US THEY WERE GOING TO PRODUCE THE ENVELOPE. COUNSEL KNOWS VERY WELL THE IMPACT OF THIS. THAT'S WHY HE'S DOING IT.
MY OFFER OF PROOF IS, I ASKED DEIRDRA EARLIER -- I'VE NEVER SEEN WHAT'S IN THERE EITHER, JUDGE. I WAS GOING TO INDICATE, FROM TALKING TO MR. SHAPIRO, HE JUST FINALLY TOLD ME JUST RECENTLY BY THE WAY WHAT'S IN THAT ENVELOPE. AND I'M NOT GOING TO OPEN IT. ALL I'M GOING TO INDICATE TO THE JURY IS, THAT ALONG WITH SOME OTHER EVIDENCE THAT POINTS AWAY FROM OUR CLIENT'S GUILT, THAT THIS EVIDENCE IN THIS ENVELOPE WILL BE OPEN AT SOME POINT IN THIS TRIAL. I BELIEVE THAT IT POINTS AWAY FROM -- TOWARDS HIS INNOCENCE. I'M NOT GOING TO OPEN IT.
YES, WE DO, YOUR HONOR, AND WE DON'T INTEND TO INTRODUCE ANYTHING ABOUT THE KNIFE OR ANYTHING.
BUT SEE, THEY'RE ENTITLED TO BRING IN THE FACT THAT THE POLICE WERE LOOKING FOR THIS PARTICULAR WEAPON, THEY WENT ON THIS LONG SEARCH AND THEY COULDN'T FIND IT. IT WAS PRESENT IN A PLACE WHERE -- I MEAN YOU'VE READ THE REPORT, CORRECT?
NO. THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE REPORT, YOUR HONOR. IT WAS ONLY THE DR. LEE EXAMINATION AS WITNESSED BY THE SPECIAL OR THE EXPERT APPOINTED BY THE COURT, DAVID SUGIYAMA. THERE WAS NOTHING ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THAT.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM NOT SAYING WHERE IT WAS FOUND. IT'S NOT RELEVANT. I AM NOT GOING TO TRY TO SHOW WHERE IT'S FOUND. THIS IS A COURT'S EXHIBIT AT THIS POINT. I MEAN WE'RE UP HERE AGAIN --
I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION YOU HAD THE REPORT FROM JUDGE WONG AS TO WHERE IT WAS FOUND.
WE DO NOT KNOW WHERE IT WAS FOUND, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHERE IT WAS FOUND. WE HAVE SUGIYAMA'S REPORT. THAT'S IT. AND I DOUBLE-CHECKED BY GOING BACK TO THE CLERK. THAT'S THE ONLY THING WE HAVE.
I PRESUME I HAVE THE SAME THING. THIS IS COURT'S EXHIBIT 1 WE RECEIVED. THIS IS THE COURT'S EXHIBIT. I CAN'T PICK UP THE COURT'S EXHIBIT AND TELL THEM WHAT IT IS. I'M NOT GOING TO OPEN IT. I'M NOT GOING TO VIOLATE THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY. I INDICATED TO YOU WHAT I WAS GOING TO ALLUDE TO. THEY KEEP TRYING TO STOP ME, JUDGE. I WOULD LIKE TO FINISH TODAY.
YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THIS, WE STILL DO NOT KNOW WHAT'S IN THERE. WE DO NOT KNOW FOR A FACT.
WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF THIS? THE COURT HAS JUST MADE REFERENCE TO A REPORT FROM THE SPECIAL -- FROM SPECIAL MASTER WONG, WHICH WE HAVE NEVER SEEN.
I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION YOU HAD THAT, THAT THE DEFENSE TURNED OVER A COPY OF THAT TO YOU.
COUNSEL ADMITS THAT THEY HAVE TO DISCLOSE THIS INFORMATION. THERE'S NO SUCH REPORT. I WENT TO THE COURT --
MR. COCHRAN, THE PROBLEM IS, IT IS ALSO A DISCOVERY ISSUE TOO. IF YOU INTENDED ON USING IT, YOU NEED TO HAVE DISCLOSED JUDGE WONG'S REPORT TO THE PEOPLE BY THIS TIME, DON'T YOU THINK?
WELL, I THINK -- LET ME SAY WHAT I THINK ABOUT THAT. I THINK WHEN WE ARE GOING TO USE IT. ALL I WAS GOING TO SAY IS, WE ARE GOING TO OPEN THIS IN COURT DURING SOME TIME DURING THE TRIAL.
BUT SEE, YOU'VE EXPRESSED AN INTENTION TO USE IT. IF YOU HAVEN'T TURNED OVER JUDGE WONG'S REPORT YET, WE HAVE A DISCOVERY PROBLEM.
JUDGE, WE JUST FOUND OUT FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT ANY KNIFE. THIS WAS GOING TO BE DONE AS POTENTIAL REBUTTAL EVIDENCE. WE HAD NO OBLIGATION TO TURN OVER ANYTHING THAT IS POTENTIAL REBUTTAL EVIDENCE TO WHAT THEY WOULD SAY. THEY HAVE NOW SAID THAT, CONTRARY TO WHAT WE HEARD AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, THAT THEY WENT OUT AND BOUGHT A KNIFE, THAT THEY SHOWED IT TO THE CORONER, THAT THE CORONER MADE A COMPARISON AND THAT IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE WOUNDS, THAT THEY'VE NOW ABANDONED THAT THEORY. WE JUST HEARD THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME HERE TODAY. YOU TALK ABOUT NOT GETTING DISCOVERY --
WE ARE NOT CALLING WATTENBERG. WE'RE NOT CALLING CAMACHO. NOTHING WAS SAID IN OPENING STATEMENT. WE'VE ALLUDED TO THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES.
MR. COCHRAN, I AM GOING TO PRECLUDE YOU FROM USING THIS IN OPENING STATEMENT AT THIS POINT BECAUSE I THINK IF YOU ARE INTENDING ON USING THIS, YOU NEED TO HAVE DISCLOSED IT AT THIS POINT.
LET ME JUST -- I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE AFTER YOU'VE RULED, BUT CAN I SAY ONE THING? WITH REGARD TO THIS, I WASN'T GOING TO USE IT AT ALL. I WAS GOING TO ALLUDE TO IT.
CAN I MENTION THAT, "THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THE COURT'S POSSESSION WHICH YOU WILL BECOME AWARE OF"? I DON'T HAVE TO HOLD IT. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT.
MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY. LET ME JUST POINT OUT, YOU CONSTANTLY ADMONISH US, MR. COCHRAN, ABOUT ARGUING AFTER A RULING, AND IT APPEARS YOU ARE ABOUT TO ARGUE AFTER A RULING.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET SOME INSTRUCTION FROM THE COURT. THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO DO.
BACK IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY. THEN I THINK I SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO TALK ABOUT THE POLICE WENT OUT AND SEARCHED THE ENTIRE HOUSE FOR A KNIFE AND WEAPONS AND NEVER FOUND ONE AS FAR AS I KNOW, NEVER FOUND ONE, BUT LOOKED EVERYWHERE SUPPOSEDLY.
IF YOU WILL ALLOW THE COURT REPORTER TO CHANGE PAPER SO SHE CAN FINISH THE REST OF THE AFTERNOON.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. JUST BEFORE WE GET THE DISJOININGS. I JUST WOULD INDICATE TO YOU, I EXPECT THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE, AS I INDICATED TO YOU SOMEWHAT ALREADY, THERE WAS AN INTENSIVE SEARCH OF MR. SIMPSON'S HOME LOOKING FOR ANY KIND OF A WEAPON, PRESUMABLY A KNIFE OF ANY KIND. AND I THINK DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL, THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE THAT WILL BECOME VERY RELEVANT TO YOU WITH REGARD TO THIS ENTIRE AREA AND THE PEOPLE'S THEORY WITH REGARD TO THOSE ITEMS. NOW I'LL MOVE ON, YOUR HONOR, TO THE REPORT DEALING WITH THE FINGERNAIL CLIPPINGS.
I HAD TALKED TO YOU EARLIER ABOUT THIS ANALYZED EVIDENCE REPORT. AND THIS IS THE ACTUAL REPORT OF THE SUBSTANCE FOUND UNDER MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S FINGERNAILS.
84A AND 84B. I THINK THE 18A IS A TYPO, COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, RONALD GOLDMAN OR O.J. SIMPSON AS I INDICATED TO YOU EARLIER. MR. HARRIS.
THE FACT THERE IS NO BLOOD WHERE THERE SHOULD BE BLOOD IS DEVASTATING EVIDENCE OF INNOCENCE. AND WE'LL BE TALKING MORE ABOUT THIS; THAT THE FACT OF BLOOD VOLUNTARILY GIVEN BY A DEFENDANT, MYSTERIOUSLY DISAPPEARS WHEN IT SHOULD BE THERE IS DEVASTATING EVIDENCE THAT SOMETHING IS WRONG. AND FINALLY, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE FACT THAT BLOOD MYSTERIOUSLY APPEARS ON VITAL PIECES OF EVIDENCE AND IT IS PREDICTED WHAT THE RESULTS WILL BE REGARDING DNA WHEN THAT EVIDENCE IS STILL IN THE POLICE LAB IS DEVASTATING EVIDENCE OF SOMETHING FAR MORE SINISTER.
THIS GLOVE WAS NOT FOUND BY THEM OR THE OFFICERS OR WHATEVER. THIS GLOVE WAS FOUND BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. HE FOUND IT, HE THEN INDIVIDUALLY TOOK THESE OTHER OFFICERS BACK THERE SUPPOSEDLY TO SEE IT.
YOU WILL ALSO HEAR THAT THE EXPERT WHO INVENTED IT DOESN'T BELIEVE IT'S BEING PROPERLY AND APPROPRIATELY APPLIED AND IT'S NOT READY PERHAPS IN A FORENSIC SENSE TO BE USED.
WHAT IS THIS? THIS IS A COMPLETE SURPRISE, OPENING STATEMENT BY AMBUSH. WHAT ABOUT DISCOVERY?
ALLUDING TO IT AND USING IT ARE THE SAME THING.