Thank you, your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

Good afternoon, Mr. Valerie.

Hello.

Sir, what do you do for a living?

Recent graduate of the Enderson School of Management at UCLA and currently on vacation.

Okay. You were on vacation back in June of 1994, weren't you?

Uh, just about to, yeah. I was at a--I was studying at Georgetown on an executive program there for a month.

And what city do you live?

I guess these days, Irvine would be my address.

Okay. Now, you--when you saw the Defendant, you paid special attention to him, didn't you?

Uh, did you say when I saw the Defendant? Is that what you said?

Yeah.

Okay. I didn't hear you. Yeah. I sure did.

Okay. And you don't usually look at everyone you meet as closely as you looked at the Defendant, correct?

Depends on the circumstances.

Well, when you meet other people--well, strike that. Well, when you see people in passing, do you look at them to see if they're sweating or not?

Sure.

So whenever you see someone, you look to see if they're sweating?

When I see someone, I look--I look at them, and you might notice sweating if that were the case.

Well, you testified this morning that you looked at Mr. Simpson specifically to see if he was sweating; is that right?

And in this case, that's correct.

And you hadn't heard anything about Nicole Brown's murder at that point, right?

No.

You hadn't heard anything about Ron Goldman having been murdered at Bundy, right?

No.

Well, why did you look at Mr. Simpson to see if he was sweating?

Specifically because one of the few things I know about his celebrity is the fact that he did a commercial where he ran through an airport to catch his flight, and that is the reason why I specifically looked at Mr. Simpson, given that I expected I would be the last person to board that might. I was using the telephone outside the gate and asked the attendant to let me know when the last possible moment for me to board was. So she waived over to me and I got on. So I was startled when someone got on after me, especially someone that was a celebrity.

But to answer my question, Mr. Valerie, why did you look specifically at Mr. Simpson to see if he was sweating?

The specific reason was, I imagined him having to probably run through the airport like his commercials and imagined he would be sweating. It was a summer evening, it was warm and I was heated let's say. It's a warm plane. The environment on airplane's warm. I actually looked at him to see wow, did he--he must have been running through the airport is what I imagined. So I was looking at him and I actually noticed he looked very sharp.

Did you consciously think to yourself, wow, I wonder if OJ Simpson is sweating?

Can you repeat that question?

I mean, did you actually think to yourself, I wonder if OJ Simpson is sweating?

No. The thought that came across my mind was that he looked very fresh. I was surprised about that.

You spoke to a Defense investigator on June 17, 1994; is that correct?

I think that was a Thursday?

But you spoke to a Defense investigator in June of 1994?

Yes.

Right? And you were shown a copy of a typewritten statement, your statement to that Defense investigator; is that correct?

That is not correct.

You haven't seen a copy of your statement to Defense investigator William Pavelic?

Oh, the Defense investigator?

Yes.

Yeah, I guess I did see it yesterday.

And who showed that statement to you?

Johnnie Cochran.

And where were you when Johnnie Cochran showed you that statement?

In his office.

Okay. And that was yesterday evening?

That's correct.

Okay. And what time was that?

Approximately 8:45 P.M.

Okay. And how long had you been at Mr. Cochran's office, sir, yesterday evening?

Uh, I had been there probably 40 minutes.

Okay. And how did you get there?

I drove myself there.

Okay. And when Mr. Cochran showed you that statement, did you read it?

Actually I didn't. I glanced at it, but I didn't bother to read it.

Let me hand you a single-page document and ask you if that is a copy of the statement Mr. Cochran showed you.

It appears to be, yes.

Did you indicate to the Defense investigator--well, strike that. Where in that statement to the Defense investigator does it state that you looked at Mr. Simpson for the specific purpose of determining whether or not he was sweating?

Your Honor, just a moment. I would object to the form of that question. Assumes that that question was asked.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Well, when you spoke to the Defense investigator, did you try to be honest?

This is a summary of what I said. It's not the actual transcript. We spoke for, my estimates, were probably about 45 minutes. So if that's all that was written, then I would imagine it would have been much longer for that much time.

Well, is it your testimony that you told Mr. Pavelic that you looked at Mr. Simpson specifically to see if he was sweating?

Yes, that is correct.

And is that contained in the statement here?

No, it is not.

When you looked at the statement yesterday with Mr. Cochran--and you pointed that out to him I take it?

No. I didn't--I didn't--like I said, I didn't read that statement. They just said, "These were what was--what were taken from you." I glanced at them, I noticed the key points and moved on.

I'm sorry. With Johnnie?

That is correct.

Okay. You know Mr. Cochran on a first name basis?

And Carl was there.

Carl Douglas?

That's correct.

Okay. So you refer to Mr. Cochran as Johnnie and Mr. Douglas as Carl?

That's how they asked me to refer to them and I said they can call me Steve.

And you spoke to a--you spoke to Mr. Pavelic, the Defense investigator, on June 23; is that correct?

That's correct.

And did you speak to Mr. Pavelic, the Defense investigator, in person?

No. It was via telephone.

And how long did you speak to Mr. Pavelic at that time?

Uh, again, I'm not clear on the dates. You said the 23rd. What day--what day was that? Was that the same conversation as that record has? Was it that conversation you're referring to?

Well, the first piece of paper I showed you shows the date of June 17th; is that correct?

June 17th. Okay.

Okay. That was the first time you spoke to Mr. Pavelic?

That's correct.

Okay. And you spoke to him again on the telephone; is that correct?

I believe so, yes.

And you spoke to him about six days after the first conversation, correct?

Okay.

Okay. About June 23, 1994?

I don't remember the specific date. Yes, I had a second conversation with him.

Okay. And you didn't tell Mr. Pavelic anything about looking at OJ Simpson specifically to see if he was sweating or not, did you?

Uh, frankly, I don't remember what the second specific conversation was about or if it was any different from the first time. I think all the way through this, I've stated the exact same facts. And so I think he asked me questions again in more detail, but I certainly don't remember a year later what--what the second conversation was verbatim.

And you actually spoke to the LAPD, a detective from the LAPD on June 16, 1994, correct?

Uh, I think that's correct.

Okay.

I don't have a counter in front of me. So--

Well, you spoke to Detective Kilcoyne?

Yes. I--I called him in fact.

And why did you call Detective Kilcoyne?

Uh, because by that time, it had come out that Mr. Simpson was--was implicated or had some possible connection to the case, and so I wanted to let it be known that he was on board this flight. I wasn't sure if that had been communicated to anybody. So I had called up and they passed me onto this detective. I didn't know his name at the time.

Okay. You wanted to make sure that the LAPD had all the information you had--

Correct.

--relative to Mr. Simpson on the flight to Chicago from LAX, right?

That's correct.

Okay. And did Mr.--well, did John and--Johnnie and Carl show you a copy of an LAPD statement yesterday?

Uh, yes. One statement because I made two.

Okay.

And they showed me one.

Okay. And the one statement that they showed you, was it a handwritten--

That is correct.

--copy of a statement? Yes?

Yes.

And this contains the information you gave the LAPD on June 16, right?

Correct.

Okay. And--

The summary again.

And where in the statement if at all does it show that you told the LAPD that you looked at Mr. Simpson for the specific purpose of, you know, trying to find out, to see whether or not he was sweating?

Object to the form of that question again, your Honor.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Well, you told the detectives everything you knew and saw, right?

That's correct. And that is not--everything I knew and saw is not contained in this--in this handwritten photocopy document.

Okay. You didn't tell the detective that Mr. Simpson was sweating when you saw him, did you?

Uh, yes, I did.

You did?

No. I'm sorry. I did--I said he wasn't sweating is what my statement was.

Okay. Where does it--well, strike that. You told the detective that Mr. Simpson was not sweating?

I said--the wording I used was, he looked very calm, cool and collected. His clothes were very freshly pressed and looked very well kept in--into the flight. I noticed no sweat.

And you added on the end "I noticed no sweat."

You know, you probably have this--the tape-recorded statement. So if you want to pull that up, I'm happy to go through it with you. This is not though a copy of what I said. This is someone's summary and about a paragraph.

Okay. What tape-recorded statement?

I was talking to a police investigator. There was a beeping sound. So something was on tape I assume.

May I talk to Mr. Darden?

Mr. Valerie, when you spoke to the LAPD on June 16 and when you spoke to Mr. Pavelic on June 17 and also on July 23, 1994, you didn't tell them anything about a garment bag, did you?

Uh, did I tell them anything about a garment bag.

Yeah. Did you tell Mr. Pavelic about seeing the Defendant with a garment bag?

We only discussed--we didn't really discuss--how do I say this? We discussed the bag that was in full view. Uh, he put a bag originally on the flight.

I'm sorry. But the question is, did you discuss with Mr. Pavelic on June 17 anything about a garment bag?

I think so. I don't remember.

Is that contained in the statement prepared by the Defense investigator dated June 17?

Object again to the form of the question.

Overruled. Overruled.

If you want to bring that here, I'll see if it says that. I don't remember.

In this--in this statement, it just talks about the--

But the question is, is there anything in the statement about a garment bag?

May I object to that, your Honor? Object to the form of that question because it's vague with regard to--

Overruled. Overruled.

In this summary that I have before me, it does not mention the garment bag.

And in the June 23 conversation you had with Mr. Pavelic, you didn't mention anything to him about a garment bag, did you?

Again, I believe I did mention it, yes.

All right. Have you seen Mr. Pavelic's report dated June 23, 1994?

Yes, I saw it. I didn't read it verbatim.

Okay. You saw it when?

Uh, last night I believe.

Okay. Is this a copy of it?

No. This--this I haven't seen before.

Is that a single page document dated June 23, 1994?

Yes, it is.

And does it bear the name William Pavelic at the top?

That's correct.

Is your name on that document?

Yes, it is.

Is there any mention in that document of your having told Mr. Pavelic that day about a garment bag?

Object to the form of that question again, your Honor.

Rephrase the question.

Is the term "Garment bag" mentioned in that document?

No.

How about duffel bag?

How about any bag?

Okay. How about the word "Sweat"?

It has--this document has nothing describing the flight at all. This is something else.

And in fact, that document addresses the fact that he spoke to you on June 17, doesn't it?

Correct.

Does that document say anything about any amendments to your June 17 statement?

It does not.

Does it clarify at all your June 17 statement?

Uh, does not.

And when you spoke to the LAPD on June 16, you didn't mention anything about garment bags, did you?

Asked and answered, your Honor.

Overruled.

Did you?

Can you repeat the question?

You didn't mention anything to the LAPD on June 16 about garment bags, did you?

I believe I did when I described when he came on. But it wasn't central to the fact that I wasn't bag counting. I was--the bag issue came up relative to what I saw him do with the bag he had available to him.

Mr. Valerie, did you mention anything to the LAPD about garment bags on June 16?

Asked and answered.

Overruled.

Yes or no?

I don't remember.

Is there anything contained in the June 16 LAPD statement which is before you that mentions a garment bag?

Asked and answered.

Sustained.

The first time you mention anything about the Defendant having sweat or not having any sweat on him was on October 5; is that correct?

Uh, no, that's not correct.

Well, who did you tell about that--who did you talk about the Defendant not having any sweat on him--

Asked and answered.

--first?

Overruled.

Uh, it's--to everyone I've spoken to, both police investigator and Bill Pavelic.

Well, if you told Mr. Pavelic about that, do you know why it's not contained in either of those two Defense--

Objection. Speculative.

Sustained. Sustained.

At any event, Mr. Valerie, when you got on the airplane, Mr. Simpson came on after you did; is that correct?

He came on after me, that's correct.

You paid particular attention to him, right?

I did, yes.

Okay. You looked at his hair, did you?

Sure.

Yes?

I did.

You looked at his face?

Absolutely.

And you paid particular attention to his hair and his face, right? Is that right?

Yes.

Was there something about Mr. Simpson's hair that intrigued you--

Object to the form of that question.

--that night?

Overruled. You can answer the question.

No more than anybody else's hair.

Okay. Or everybody else's hair. And you looked at his hand, right?

Later on in the flight, yes.

Okay. Are you a football fan?

Uh, marginally.

Do you follow football?

Not really.

Okay. And why did you--

I watch an occasional game.

Okay. And why did you look at Mr. Simpson's hand later on in the flight?

Uh, I was looking specifically for a championship ring.

Did you know at that time that Mr. Simpson has never won a NFL championship?

I did not know at that time.

You testified this morning that at some point during the flight, that you turned to your right and put your feet up in the chair?

Over to the--so it crossed over into the--the front--the front of the seat next to me.

Okay. And prior to that, you had your--you had placed your feet on the footrest?

Well, prior to that was takeoff, and the footrest isn't allowed to be up. So my feet were placed on the floor in front of me.

Did you tell Mr. Pavelic on June 17 that you had turned to your right to look at the Defendant during the flight?

Yes.

Is that contained in a statement there dated July 17?

No, it's not.

Object to the form of the question again.

Overruled.

No, it is not.

And is it contained in that statement dated June 23?

Object to the form. I would like the Court to see that particular statement.

Overruled.

No, it's not.

And is that contained in the report from the LAPD dated June 16, 1994?

No, it is not.

And you did speak to Detective Crotsley from the LAPD on October 5, 1994; is that correct?

That's correct.

And you saw that report over lunch today?

Yeah. That's correct.

It's not contained in that report either, is it?

Uh, again, I didn't read it in full detail. It didn't appear to be.

So is today the first time that you've ever told anyone, Mr. Valerie, that you turned to your right to face the Defendant during the flight?

No, it is not.

You told us this morning that you remained awake on the airplane for approximately one hour; is that correct?

That's an estimate. I'd say between--it could be maybe a little bit longer than that. And I woke up also later--once or twice during the flight.

So the only opportunity you had to see and view the Defendant during the flight was during that first hour; is that correct?

That is correct.

Object to the form of that.

Overruled.

But you told Mr. Pavelic on June 17 that you looked at Mr. Simpson throughout the flight; is that correct?

Uh, again, the exact wording, I don't particularly remember.

Well, would it refresh your recollection to look at Mr. Pavelic's statement dated June 17?

No, because that is only a summary like I've said throughout this. This is not any quotes of what I've said here.

Well, directing your attention to paragraph 3 of that statement dated June 17, doesn't that statement indicate or rather state that you watched Mr. Simpson throughout the flight?

I object. I object to the from of that question. I would like the Court to see the document.

Overruled.

Mr. Valerie?

The word used here was Mr. Simpson--"Mr. Valerie stated that he looked at Mr. Simpson throughout the flight because of his prominence." Uh, what that statement probably represents is the fact that throughout the flight during the periodic periods when I woke up, I looked over and viewed him.

Well--

If that's not what's communicated there, that's what indeed was meant by that.

The statement doesn't indicate that you looked at Mr. Simpson periodically during the flight, does it?

Uh, does not.

The statement says, quote, "Mr. Valerie stated that he looked at Mr. Simpson throughout the flight because of his prominence," unquote; is that correct?

Your Honor, object. He's been consistent throughout.

Overruled.

Is that correct?

All right. Let's move on.

That is a summary.

And you told us this morning that during the--during that one-hour period that you--you saw the Defendant reading something?

That is correct.

Okay. And did you watch the Defendant read throughout the entire flight?

In the moments that I watched him, I viewed him reading the document.

Well, you just read this June 17th statement again, right? Is that correct?

Uh-huh. That is correct.

And would you agree that this statement is inconsistent with what you've just told us here in court?

Object, your Honor. Object to the form of that question.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Mr. Valerie, doesn't the statement state at paragraph 4, quote, "Mr. Valerie stated that throughout the flight, Mr. Simpson was reading documents which he removed from a black duffel bag," unquote? Did I read that accurately?

Yes, I guess you did.

Was Defendant reading during that entire flight, Mr. Valerie?

I can only attest to what I viewed during the flight and during my observations of him other than the moments I saw him before take--before--before takeoff and upon landing, my views of him were reading the document. At least he was looking at it. I didn't notice if he was reading. I mean, I don't know if he was really reading or not, right?

Well, this morning, you testified that he was reading.

Argumentative.

Sustained.

Well, did you testify this morning, sir, that he was reading?

His pose appeared to be reading and that's what I would be doing if I were looking at a document.

And you told us this morning that you couldn't tell exactly what the document was; is that correct?

In terms of the subject of the document?

In terms of the identification.

I think I described it in pretty good detail.

Okay.

Other than the subject of the document, I described what I saw.

What was the subject of the document?

I don't know.

Didn't you tell Mr. Pavelic that the document was a movie script?

I said it was double-spaced typed on white 8-1/2 by 11 paper and that the documents I've seen that are double-spaced like that appeared to be--I said actually a legal document, okay, or he said, could it potentially have been a script, and I said, yeah or something like that.

So you told Mr. Pavelic that the Defendant was reading a movie script?

No, I did not. He interjected that, could it have been a movie script. I said yes, it was some document--all I described and attested to was the fact that it was a double-spaced typed document on 8-1/2 by 11 loose-leaf paper.

Well, doesn't this statement dated June 17, 1994 state, "Mr. Valerie opined that OJ was reading a movie script"?

That--

Could he finish that statement?

Yes.

I'm sorry?

I said did you complete the statement?

Is that the complete statement in the--

Okay. The statement states, your Honor, quote: "Mr. Valerie opined that OJ was reading a movie script, dot, dot, dot, dot, and he could see that the document was written in a double-spaced format," unquote. Is that what the statement says?

That's what the statement says and that is inconsistent with what I said.

Well, did you read a portion of that document? Did you yourself read a portion of the document you say is the--Mr. Simpson--

No, I could not read the document or its subject content.

Were you close enough to read it?

No. I was close enough to describe what I've described to you.

Now, you were seated on one side of the plane and Mr. Simpson was seated on the other side; is that correct?

That is correct.

And after the plane took off, did the pilot lower the cabin lights?

The main cabin lights, that's correct.

And the first class area, first class passenger area was relatively dark or dim?

The--other than Mr. Simpson's light illuminating him and his seat.

Okay. But you weren't close enough to read the document?

Objection, your Honor. That--objection. Asked and answered.

Sustained.

Well--

Thank you, your Honor.

During your June 16, 1994 interview with Detective Kilcoyne, didn't you tell him that you were close enough to read Simpson's script or contract which he read throughout the trip?

No, I did not.

Okay. Showing you again this June 16, 1994 handwritten LAPD report, is that indicated in the report three-quarters down at the bottom of the page?

By the way, is there anything in either of the three documents that I've handed you, the June 23 and June 17 documents from William Pavelic, the Defense investigator, the LAPD report by Detective Kilcoyne, is there anything in those documents that indicates that they are summaries of conversations that those persons had with you?

Your Honor, object to the form of that question. It's argumentative.

Overruled. You can answer.

Uh, not that I see here, no.

Okay. Now, you were kept in a room upstairs on the 19th floor, is that right, today?

When?

Today.

No. I went up there and just had something to eat and I've been down here in the hallway.

They have food up there?

They do.

And were you in that room along with Michael Gladden?

I don't know. I don't know who Michael Gladden is.

Were you in that room with other persons who have testified today for the Defense and who are waiting to testify?

Uh, other than Howard Bingham who I recognized from the flight and also the gentleman who sat behind me, Gary Adelson was up there. I don't know him. I recognized those two, but I don't know them, and--and they were up in the room. In fact, they were up in another room. I didn't sit with them. I sat and had something to eat and a cup of coffee out in a common area table.

The shoes that you saw Mr. Simpson wearing that night, they weren't boots, were they?

No.

And they weren't tan in color, were they?

No, they were not.

By the way, did you ever have a discussion with Mr. Gladden, with Michael Gladden regarding his description of the shoes the Defendant wore that night?

As I just stated before, I don't know who Michael Gladden is.

The shoes you saw the Defendant wearing that night were loafers, weren't they?

That is correct.

And they were black, weren't they?

My recollection is black or dark blue.

And when you testified this morning, you said that those black or dark blue loafers were European; is that correct?

I said they looked, appeared European.

When--when you spoke to Detective Crotsley on October 5, 1994, you said those were black or blue loafers, were Italian loafers, didn't you?

Italian style, that's correct. That's the word I used back then.

Is there some reason that today you used the word "European" as opposed to "Italian"?

Uh, just trying to be more precise to help you out.

Object to the from of that question, your Honor.

Sustained.

I didn't get a good chance to--

Hold on. Hold on. There's no question pending.

Did you have a good opportunity to see the shoes the Defendant wore that night?

Can you repeat the question?

I said, were you given a fair opportunity to see the shoes that the Defendant wore that night?

Yeah. Quite a good amount, yes.

Did you look at the Defendant's shoes as carefully as you looked at his face and his hair and his clothing?

Yes.

You looked at his feet?

I did.

You paid particular attention to the Defendant's feet?

Yes, I did.

And why did you do that?

Because I was--I noticed the shoes and I noticed he wasn't wearing socks with the shoes. That's what my recollection of that evening was. It was just an observation along with all the other observations I made.

I'm sorry. Did you say the Defendant wasn't wearing socks?

That's correct.

How do you know that?

Uh, because my eyesight is good and--with corrected vision, and as I know you're wearing a blue suit, he was wearing no socks.

Did you think that was odd or unusual?

Absolutely not. They fit the decor of what he was wearing.

Well, if you didn't consider that odd or unusual, why then did you pay attention to that fact?

As I paid attention to everything else that evening.

I assume that you approved of the clothing the Defendant wore. I mean--

Object. That's irrelevant and immaterial.

Sustained. It is.

I'm sorry. What kind of pants did you say the Defendant was wearing?

Uh, cotton pants. Not denim. You know, brush cotton or something. I'm not specific on the apparel terminology.

Oh, the pants weren't denim?

No. Not jeans anyway.

They weren't jeans?

They were not jeans.

They weren't Levis?

Levis is a brand. I don't know what brand they were.

You told us this morning that the Defendant was given some water by the flight attendant; is that correct?

That's correct. Had ice in it.

I'm sorry?

Had some ice in it.

You saw the Defendant--I'm sorry. You saw the flight attendant retrieve some water and bring it to the Defendant?

That's correct.

Okay. And when was that exactly?

My recollection of that was actually right before takeoff.

Okay?

But I said--I worded it "Recollection" because it could have been right after takeoff. That--the timing of that I really don't know, but I did notice he had water very--certainly within the first 15 minutes of that flight.

Okay. And when you saw the flight attendant bring the Defendant some water, did she bring him that water in a cup or a glass?

It was a small clear plastic cup.

And after the flight attendant brought the Defendant that water in that clear plastic cup, did you see her return with the bottle of water?

No, I did not, or I didn't notice it.

You didn't notice that?

Uh, no. She also served me a drink. So--I mean, I wasn't really paying attention to who was ordering what drink as we--after flight.

Didn't you see the flight attendant bring Mr. Simpson water on three or four occasions?

Not--I didn't witness three or four occasions, no.

Do you recall the flight attendant's name?

No.

Did she tell you her name?

I've never met her other than that flight. But no, I've never seen her. I don't know her name. I wouldn't even be able to pick her out.

And then again, you slept most of the flight; is that correct?

Uh, of the three and a half hour flight, I slept probably about I would say two hours, maximum two and a half hours, but in a--not in a consistent sleep. It was on and off.

And during those moments that you were awake, which must have been what, an hour to hour and a half?

Uh-huh.

Is that right?

That's correct.

Were you looking at the Defendant throughout that hour or one-and-one-half hour period?

Uh, my most intense observations of Mr. Simpson were in the first hour. After that, I mean, I--things really didn't change much from my perspective in that I saw what he looked like, saw what he wore and made the observations that I've stated to you and the police investigators.

Okay. So your observations of the--well, strike that. You would describe your observations of the Defendant as intense observations; is that right?

As what type of observations?

Intense.

Intense.

Yes.

Relative to how I may observe some other not as famous individual, I would say yes.

Okay. Now, did you see the Defendant go to the rest room?

I only saw him go once.

Okay. You didn't see the Defendant go to the rest room four or five times during the flight?

Your Honor, objection. Asked and answered.

Overruled.

I did not see him. I stated I saw him once get up to go to the bathroom.

Did you ever see the Defendant retrieve a pair of socks and put them on?

No, I did not.

Okay. Did you ever see him change his clothes at all?

No, I did not.

Did you ever see the Defendant change from tan boots to black or blue Italian loafers?

No, I did not.

Has anyone shown you a pair of Italian loafers?

No, they have not.

Mr. Cochran or Mr. Douglas didn't show you a pair?

They did not.

Can I have one moment? I'm almost finished, your Honor.

Yes.

When you went to sleep, Mr. Simpson was still awake; is that correct?

That is correct.

And when you woke up, Mr. Simpson was still awake; is that correct?

That's correct.

And what time did that plane leave--land in Chicago, Pacific time?

Again, I've been told 4:35. I don't recall exactly. And 4:35, I guess that would be Chicago time. But again, I wasn't paying particular attention to the time at that point.

Still is.

Thank you, your Honor. Thank you, Mr. Valerie.

Thank you, Mr. Darden.