ALL RIGHT. WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE.

I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR THAT THEY GET TO READ LETTERS CRITICIZING US WHEN WE HAVE REAL LEGITIMATE EVIDENTIARY ISSUES AND WE HAVE TO COME TO SIDEBAR BECAUSE THEY'RE SCARED OF WHAT'S --

YOU GET TO COME TO SIDEBAR ALL THE TIME FOR SENSITIVE THINGS. COME ON. IF COUNSEL TELLS ME IT'S A SENSITIVE ISSUE, THE LEAST I CAN DO IS AFFORD THEM THE COURTESY OF FINDING OUT WHAT IT IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. MAYBE I'LL AGREE AND MAYBE I WON'T.

I'M NOT SURE, YOUR HONOR, IF MR. DARDEN IS EVEN GOING TO EXPLORE THE AREA OF POLYGRAPHS OR WHETHER HE INTENDS TO RAISE THE ISSUE.

EXCUSE ME?

HE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT POLYGRAPH? I THOUGHT YOU SAID SOMETHING. I'M HEARING THINGS.

I HAVEN'T STATED A POSITION YET.

CARL, YOU'RE INTERESTED IN THE PROBLEM WITH POLYGRAPH DISCUSSIONS AND DISCUSSION ABOUT A DREAM?

ABOUT A DREAM. THERE'S A BOOK THAT HAS COME OUT, RAGING HEART BY SHEILA WILLER, AND THERE'S AN ALLEGATION THAT SIMPSON TOLD SOMEBODY THAT HE HAD A DREAM CONCERNING NICOLE'S DEATH; AND I SUSPECT THAT SHIPP IS THE PERSON WHO WILL SAY THAT THEY HAD THIS CONVERSATION, AND I SUSPECT THAT IT'S GOING TO COME FROM THE CONTEXT OF SIMPSON TELLING SHIPP WHY SIMPSON DIDN'T TAKE A POLYGRAPH.

OKAY. LET ME ASK YOU ONE OTHER QUESTION. DO WE NEED TO PUT ON THE RECORD THE RELATIONSHIP OF MR. COCHRAN TO MR. SHIPP IN CASE THERE'S ANY REMOTE POSSIBILITY OF SOME KIND OF CONFLICT OR -- I JUST BRING THAT UP BECAUSE YOU MIGHT WANT TO TELL HIM.

I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY AT THIS POINT.

IT'S PROBABLY -- WELL, IT'S YOUR RECORD. WELL, NO. ACTUALLY IT'S OUR RECORD TOO. YEAH, I THINK YOU PROBABLY OUGHT TO. YOU CAN PROBABLY DO IT THROUGH DECLARATION OR SOMETHING, BUT IT PROBABLY OUGHT TO BE IN THE FILE.

THERE OUGHT TO BE A KNOWLEDGEABLE WAIVER OF ANY PROBLEM. BUT IN ANY EVENT, WE'LL GET TO THAT POINT. WHAT IS MR. SHIPP GOING TO TESTIFY TO?

YOUR HONOR, HE IS GOING TO TESTIFY THAT AT THE MEETING OF JUNE 13TH --

HOLD ON A SECOND.

MR. DARDEN.

THE TESTIMONY WILL BE, SHIPP WILL TESTIFY ON JUNE 13TH, 1994 DURING THE EVENING HOURS, THE LATE EVENING HOURS, THAT HE WAS AT ROCKINGHAM, THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS PREPARING TO GO TO BED, WAS ABOUT TO WALK UP THE STAIRS AND THAT HE, SHIPP, WAS ABOUT TO EXIT THE FRONT DOOR, THAT AS HE WAS ABOUT TO LEAVE, THE DEFENDANT ASKED HIM TO WALK UPSTAIRS TO THE DEFENDANT'S BEDROOM, AND SHIPP COMPLIED. THEY WENT UPSTAIRS, THEY HAD A CONVERSATION. THE DEFENDANT ASKED SHIPP, "HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FOR DNA EVIDENCE TO COME BACK?" SHIPP REPLIED, "TWO MONTHS." THE DEFENDANT TOLD SHIPP THAT THE POLICE HAD FOUND A GLOVE ON HIS PROPERTY AND THAT THE POLICE HAD ASKED HIM TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH. SHIPP REPLIES, "WELL, WHAT DID YOU SAY?" ACCORDING TO SHIPP, THE DEFENDANT CHUCKLED AND SAID, "HEY, TO BE TRUTHFUL, RON, MAN, I'VE HAD A LOT OF DREAMS ABOUT KILLING HER, AND I REALLY DON'T KNOW ABOUT TAKING THAT THING." NOW, WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE IN EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE IS THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT THEY HE HAD HAD LOTS OF DREAMS ABOUT KILLING THE VICTIM.

YOUR HONOR, I NOTICE FOR THE RECORD MR. DARDEN APPEARS TO BE READING FROM A DOCUMENT REFLECTING A CONVERSATION WITH RON SHIPP. PERHAPS IT'S HIS WORK PRODUCT. I'VE NEVER RECEIVED ANY DOCUMENT FROM RON SHIPP THAT DISCUSSES ANY SUCH CONVERSATION. I PRESUME THAT IT'S SOME SORT OF ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT AND THAT'S WHY I'VE NEVER SEEN IT.

MR. DARDEN.

YES, HE IS CORRECT. IT IS MY WORK PRODUCT. NOW, AS FAR AS THE INFORMATION I JUST CONVEYED TO THE COURT, THIS IS INFORMATION I CONVEYED TO THE -- TO MR. COCHRAN SEVERAL DAYS AGO AND IT IS ALSO RECORDED, INCLUDED IN DISCOVERY PROVIDED DEFENSE COUNSEL ALREADY. THESE ARE MY NOTES OF THE TAPED INTERVIEW THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR POSSESSION.

WELL, IT'S TRUE HE TOLD ME ABOUT THE DREAMS, ALTHOUGH NOT WITH THE SPECIFICITY THAT WE WERE TALKING FULL CONVERSATION. IT WASN'T AS CLEAR AS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING NOW, CHRIS. BUT YOU DID TELL ME THAT SHIPP WOULD TESTIFY, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT A DREAM AND WHAT HE SAID. BUT IT WAS NOT AS CLEAR AS HE DID NOW.

BUT I DID TURN OVER THE DISCOVERY AS WELL AS SUPPLIED YOU WITH THE TAPE.

YES.

OKAY.

I THINK WE SHOULD JUST PUT IT ON THE RECORD THAT YOUR CLIENT IS AWARE OF THAT AND THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.

YEAH.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S A CONFLICT. I DON'T THINK THERE'S A CONFLICT, BUT JUST IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION. WELL, WE HAVE TWO PROBLEMS HERE.

COUNSEL HAS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CASE.

CAN I BE CONFLICTED OUT?

COUNSEL, LET'S GET SERIOUS HERE A SECOND. OBVIOUSLY, THESE ARE VERY SERIOUS QUESTIONS HERE REGARDING DISCUSSIONS OF POLYGRAPH BECAUSE THE ANSWER IS IN THE CONTEXT OF, "I DON'T KNOW IF I WANT TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH, BUT I'VE HAD DREAMS ABOUT KILLING HER."

CAN I SAY SOMETHING ELSE TO FRAME THE ISSUE MORE AND MAYBE THINK MORE ABOUT THIS OVERNIGHT? IN MR. SIMPSON'S STATEMENT, WE GET TO THIS PARTICULAR POINT WHERE THE OFFICER IS ASKING HIM TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH AND HE SAYS, "I THINK I'VE GOT TO ASK MY LAWYER," WORDS TO THAT EFFECT. THAT'S WHEN WEITZMAN IS DOWN THERE. WELL, HE ISN'T DOWN THERE. HE'S HAVING CAPPUCCINO, LUNCH.

SHAPIRO WRITES A LETTER SAYING, "OUR CLIENT WILL TAKE A POLYGRAPH."

WILL.

WILL. AND JUST -- WE'LL GET THE LETTER. MARCIA TELLS ME -- I SAY, IF YOU GUYS WANT TO GO IN THAT DOOR, WE'LL BE GLAD TO TALK ABOUT IT. MARCIA THEN TELLS ME THEY DON'T WANT TO GO IN THAT DOOR. THEN SHE HAS SOME STUFF -- I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY REPORTS EITHER, MARCIA.

THERE'S NO REPORT BECAUSE HE KNOWS ABOUT IT. IT WAS ON THE PHONE.

THAT'S NOT THE TEST, JUDGE. WE HAVE SOME GROUND RULES HERE.

THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE. THE ISSUE WE ARE DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW IS MR. SHIPP AND WHETHER OR NOT THE STATEMENT COMES IN.

I JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE POLYGRAPH. IF THEY START TALKING ABOUT POLYGRAPHS, I THINK THE RULING YOU MAKE MAY BE APPLICABLE TO SOME OTHER STUFF ABOUT POLYGRAPHS. I JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW EVERYTHING.

OKAY.

WE CAN'T GO INTO POLYGRAPHS. THERE'S AN EVIDENCE CODE SECTION ON THAT. AND PROOF DOES NOT GO TO ADMISSIBILITY.

HOW COULD YOU THEN GET IN A RESPONSE BY SOMEONE WHO TALKS ABOUT A POLYGRAPH? I THINK THAT'S THE PROBLEM THEY HAVE.

HAVE YOU GOT A CASE THAT SAYS THAT WE CAN GO INTO THE PERIPHERAL DISCUSSION ABOUT WHY TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH OR WHY NOT? HAVE YOU GOT A CASE THAT SAYS THIS IS ADMISSIBLE?

THE REAL QUESTION HERE IS WHY WOULD IT BE INADMISSIBLE.

BECAUSE THERE IS A CODE SECTION THAT TALKS ABOUT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUSION OF POLYGRAPHS.

YOU KNOW WHAT? THERE'S ALSO A HEFTY AMOUNT OF CASE LAW THAT SAYS HEY, THE MENTION OF THE POLYGRAPH AND RESULTS ARE INADMISSIBLE, BUT THE QUESTIONS POSED DURING POLYGRAPH QUESTIONS ARE ADMISSIBLE. SO THE ANSWER HERE OR THE RESPONSE BY THE DEFENDANT IS GOING TO BE ADMISSIBLE.

AND MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, CITE ME A CASE THAT SAYS IN THIS SITUATION IT'S ADMISSIBLE. SIMPLE QUESTION.

DOES IT HAVE TO BE EXACTLY IN THIS SITUATION OR CAN IT --

NO, OF COURSE NOT. BUT YOU ARE THE PROPONENT OF IT. AND QUITE FRANKLY, I'M GOING TO BE LEERY OF ANYTHING THAT MENTIONS POLYGRAPH. SO DO YOU HAVE ANY AUTHORITY FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THIS?

WE'LL GET SOME.

I THINK THE REAL ISSUE HERE -- I THINK, JUDGE, IF YOU EXCISE THE REFERENCE, THE REAL ISSUE HERE IS --

THEN THE MEANING GOES AWAY.

IT DOESN'T GO AWAY THOUGH. IN THIS CASE, IT DOESN'T. HE'S ADMITTING THAT HE'S HAD DREAMS OF KILLING HER. THE MEANING IS STILL THERE. AND YOU DON'T NEED REFERENCE TO THE POLYGRAPH TO GIVE IT MEANING. THAT'S ANOTHER THING. IF YOU DID, IF YOU DID, IF YOU EXCISED IT AND THEN LOST THE MEANING, THEN IT WOULD MAKE IT UNFAIR TO EITHER SIDE. BUT THIS IS -- THE MEANING REMAINS THE SAME. HE'S HAD DREAMS ABOUT KILLING NICOLE WHETHER IT'S IN REFERENCE TO TAKING A POLYGRAPH OR NOT.

IN OTHER WORDS, ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO PUT IN ONLY THE BUSINESS ABOUT, "I'VE HAD DREAMS ABOUT KILLING NICOLE"?

THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S ALL WE ARE ASKING FOR.

CAN I READ THE STATEMENT AGAIN?

ALL RIGHT.

THE STATEMENT IS --

HE'S READING IT TO ME.

THE STATEMENT IS, "HEY, TO BE TRUTHFUL, RON, MAN, I HAVE HAD A LOT OF DREAMS ABOUT KILLING HER." AND THEN IN THE NEXT SENTENCE, HE SAYS, "I REALLY DON'T KNOW ABOUT TAKING THAT THING."

SO YOU DON'T NEED THAT LAST STATEMENT.

SO IT'S NOT WORK PRODUCT. IF HE'S QUOTING WHAT SOMEBODY TOLD HIM, THAT'S NOT WORK PRODUCT.

BUT HE'S SAYING -- WAIT, MR. DOUGLAS. LET'S NOT MIX APPLES AND ORANGES HERE BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT A TAPE RECORDING OF THIS INTERVIEW AND HE'S SAYING THOSE ARE HIS NOTES FROM THAT TAPE-RECORDING AND HOW HE PLANS ON PRESENTING IT. ALL RIGHT. I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT WHAT THAT IS. IF YOU HAVE THE STATEMENTS THAT SHIPP MADE AND THAT'S ALL THEY ARE GOING TO USE, IT'S NOT A DISCOVERY ISSUE. BUT I'LL TELL YOU, IT GIVES ME THE HEEBIE GEEBIES ANY TIME I SEE SOMETHING THAT SAYS POLYGRAPH. ALL I AM ASKING IS, BEFORE THIS COMES IN, I WANT TO SEE A CASE THAT GETS US INTO THE DOOR. AND PART OF THE PROBLEM IS, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S COMING. SO I HAVEN'T EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT POLYGRAPH. I WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS STATEMENT OBVIOUSLY SINCE I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME AUTHORITY ON IT AND I WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE PERIMETERS.

CAN WE DO IT TONIGHT? THAT'S WHY WE BROUGHT IT TO YOUR ATTENTION OBVIOUSLY. TO DARDEN'S CREDIT, HE TOLD ME ABOUT IT, THAT THIS WOULD BE A PROBLEM, AND I THINK THEY MAY NEED TO BRIEF THIS ISSUE. THEY'VE GOT ANOTHER WITNESS --

LET ME INQUIRE SINCE PROBABLY I'LL GET STUCK DOING THIS. IF WE EXCISE ALL REFERENCE TO THE POLYGRAPH --

HOW ABOUT IF YOU DO -- I MEAN DO YOU HAVE THE TAPE? CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE EXACT WORDS ARE THAT YOU ARE SEEKING AND WHAT ELSE YOU ARE GOING TO GET BESIDES THIS? HE'S OVER THERE ON THE 13TH?

HE'S OVER THERE ON THE 13TH. THEY WERE HAVING A NORMAL CONVERSATION. THE DEFENDANT SAYS, "HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FOR DNA EVIDENCE TO COME BACK?"

THAT SOUNDS OKAY.

CONTINUE WITH THE INTERVIEW? OKAY. "I HONESTLY HAD NO IDEA, BUT I TOLD HIM TWO MONTHS."

"HE WAS TELLING ME ABOUT HIS INTERVIEW. HE DID NOT NAME THE DETECTIVES. HE DID NOT NAME THE DETECTIVES. HE DID NOT NAME YOU GUYS," MEANING VANNATTER AND LANG, "BUT HE SAID HE WAS INTERVIEWED BY DETECTIVES, AND, 'THEY ASKED ME TO TAKE A LIE DETECTOR TEST,' AND I REPLIED, 'WELL, WHAT DID YOU SAY?' AND HE KIND OF CHUCKLED, AND HE SAYS, 'QUOTE, HEY, TO BE TRUTHFUL, RON, MAN, I'VE HAD A LOT OF DREAMS ABOUT KILLING HER,' UNQUOTE."

WHAT IS THE DATE OF THIS STATEMENT, CHRIS?

THE 13TH.

AND HE SAYS HE REALLY DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT TAKING THAT THING. NOW, EARLIER I WROTE IT WAS ON THE 14TH I BELIEVE.

15TH.

THIS IS WHAT HE TELLS US ON JANUARY 21, 1994. THIS IS WHAT SHIPP TELLS US. IN ADDITION TO THAT, YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT THERE IS A SCENARIO DESCRIBED IN THIS BOOK --

RAGING HEART.

YEAH. I DON'T KNOW IF -- YOU'LL FIND IT AROUND PAGE 9, SOMEONE THAT IS DESCRIBED AS LEO AND RON SHIPP AND IT DESCRIBES THIS SERIES OF EVENTS.

I DON'T WANT SHIPP TO BUY THAT BOOK. I DON'T WANT SHIPP TO BUY THAT TRASH, JUDGE, BUT LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING. THIS STATEMENT FROM SHIPP WAS TAKEN A LONG TIME AGO. THIS IS LIKE SOME RECENT FABRICATION. WE NEED TO ASK WHEN HE MADE THIS STATEMENT. WE NEED TO TELL HIM ABOUT THIS. SO YOU NEED TO HAVE THE WHOLE PICTURE. HE DIDN'T MENTION THIS WHEN HE FIRST TALKED TO HIM. THIS IS SOMETHING GIVEN JANUARY 21ST, 1995. SO YOU SHOULD HAVE THAT PERSPECTIVE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT. WELL, THEY'RE ENTITLED TO OFFER IT. WHETHER OR NOT IT'S GOT PROBATIVE VALUE AFTER YOU IMPEACH HIM WITH THAT, I DON'T KNOW.

ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THOUGH IS, WHEN THE RESPONSE IS DESCRIBED, HE FIRST KIND OF CHUCKLES, AND IT CAUSES ONE TO -- CAUSES ME AS A CROSS-EXAMINER TO SEEK TO WANT TO EXPLORE THE SUBTLETY AND THE NUANCE OF WHAT SET OFF THE CHUCKLING; AND I CAN'T FAIRLY DO THAT WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE POLYGRAPH AND THE RESPONSE TO THE POLYGRAPH, WHAT CAUSED HIM TO CHUCKLE, IS HE CHUCKLING OUT OF MORBID HUMOR, IS HE CHUCKLING BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH.

MR. DOUGLAS, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. DO YOU WANT THE FULL CONTEXT OF THIS?

I DON'T. I DON'T WANT ANY OF IT.

YOU'RE MAKING AN OBJECTION TO THE WHOLE THING?

CORRECT. BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT FAIRLY -- THE JURY CANNOT FAIRLY EVALUATE THE STATEMENT GIVEN THAT THERE'S A CHUCKLE, WHICH BELIES AT LEAST ARGUABLY, BUT COLORABLY BELIES THE STRENGTH OF THE TENOR OF THE WORDS; AND YOU CANNOT ADEQUATELY EXPLORE ALL OF THAT IN THE CONTEXT GIVEN.

WELL, LET'S DO THIS. THIS IS A SENSITIVE ISSUE. LET'S PUT ON THE RECORD THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE NEXT WITNESS TO MR. COCHRAN AND GET MR. SIMPSON'S AGREEMENT THAT HE HAS NO CONFLICT, ALL RIGHT? THEN WE WILL RETIRE FOR THE AFTERNOON. I WOULD LIKE TO RESEARCH THIS BECAUSE I HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT POLYGRAPH IN CONSIDERATION OF THIS CASE. SO I NEED TO GO LOOK -- AND IF YOU HAVE ANY CASES -- AND, COUNSEL, IF YOU HAVE ANY CASES, YOU HAVE THE COURT'S FAX NUMBER. FAX THEM TO ME. AND, YOU KNOW, I'LL BE IN TOMORROW MORNING AT 6:00, AND I WILL PICK UP THE FAXES, ANYTHING YOU FAX ME TONIGHT, AND I'LL READ THE CASES AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT FIRST THING IN THE MORNING.

ALSO FAX EACH OTHER?

ABSOLUTELY.

YOUR HONOR -- GO AHEAD, MARCIA.

I JUST WANTED TO INQUIRE BECAUSE ALL WE ARE GOING TO DO IS PUT IN THE INTERVIEW WITH THAT EXCISED. SO WHAT ISSUE IS THE COURT ASKING --

WELL, HE'S SAYING THAT THE PROBLEM IS, THE CONTEXT IS THEN TAKING THE CHALLENGE TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH.

THE BOTTOM LINE THEN, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM THE REMARK ABOUT THE POLYGRAPH DEPRIVES IT OF MEANING OR UNFAIRLY DISTORTS --

YEAH. AND I HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. NOBODY TELLS ME AHEAD OF TIME I'VE GOT TO THINK ABOUT IT.

BECAUSE YOU'RE THE JUDGE.

YOU GUYS NEVER LET ME TALK IN CHAMBERS.

ALSO, YOUR HONOR, MARCIA MENTIONED THERE WAS A WITNESS THAT I'M AWARE OF THAT KNOWS SOMETHING ABOUT THE POLYGRAPH. I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY REPORTS. I REALLY DO NOT KNOW WHAT SHE'S REFERRING TO. MAYBE I CAN GET DISCOVERY ON THAT.

WELL, IT'S REALLY NOT A SUBJECT MATTER OF DISCOVERY, BUT I'LL TELL COUNSEL.

MAYBE YOU CAN TELL ME PRIVATELY.

MAYBE I CAN DO IT IN OPEN COURT.

I WOULD LIKE TO BE TOLD.

I'LL TELL YOU.

TELL US NOW. TELL US NOW.

ON THE 15TH, WHEN WE RECEIVED THE LETTER FROM MR. SHAPIRO, WHICH HE INDICATED HE MIGHT CONSIDER TAKING A POLYGRAPH, MYSELF AND DAVID CONN, WHO WAS THEN PROSECUTING THE CASE, CALLED MR. SHAPIRO. WE HAD A CONVERSATION, THREE-WAY, AND WE ASKED HIM TO BRING HIS CLIENT IN FOR FURTHER QUESTIONING AND THEN WE WOULD ADMINISTER A POLYGRAPH IF EVERYBODY FELT LIKE DOING THAT.

MR. SHAPIRO SAID, "WELL, MY CLIENT IS VERY HEAVILY MEDICATED AND I REALLY DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO BRING HIM IN." AND THEN DAVID SUGGESTED THAT HE EASE HIM OFF THE MEDICATION SO THAT HE COULD COME IN FOR FURTHER QUESTIONING, AND MR. SHAPIRO SAID, "NO, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT. I'LL GET BACK TO YOU," AND THEN HE NEVER DID.

NO, THAT'S NOT TRUE. WHAT I SAID TO MR. CONN WAS PRETTY CLEAR. THE FINAL THING -- YOU'LL SEE IT IN THE LETTER -- I SAID THE CONDITION WOULD BE THAT BOTH SIDES WOULD STIPULATE THAT IT IS ADMISSIBLE, AND MR. CONN SAID, "WE CAN'T DO THAT. THAT'S AGAINST THE POLICY." MY LETTER SPECIFICALLY AS I RECALL -- I HAVEN'T SEEN THIS LETTER IN MONTHS, BUT IN MY LETTER, I SAID HE WOULD CONSIDER IT IF THE RESULTS WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE.

BUT OUR CONVERSATION CAME AFTER THAT LETTER. THAT'S THE POINT. BUT --

BUT YOU ARE GOING TO OFFER THIS STATEMENT WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO POLYGRAPH?

RIGHT. RIGHT. THAT WAS OUR INTENT.

OKAY.

IT HAMPERS MY ABILITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE.

I UNDERSTAND.