Mr. Blasier prepared a very short slide presentation as he used in cross-examining with one of his prior witnesses, and we showed it to Miss Clark. There is one objection that she has that we need your Honor to rule on.
I don't believe any of these were the subject of objection, but down here, (Indicating).
There is two problems with it. In the Rockingham glove you have limb hair of black origin, which obviously includes Mr. Simpson. You also have a head hair that is of black origin but was not suitable for further comparison. But the racial conclusions are clear. Those are substantiated. So both include Mr. Simpson, so that is misleading and incorrect, misstates the testimony basically because there is hair consistent with him. Now, it is not on the level of the usual hair examiner terminology, which uses "Consistent" as their means of identification, but it is misleading to a jury who doesn't--are not that facile with the significance of the use of the term "Consistent." So I would ask that that entry be stricken and the rest of it is fine.
If it please the Court, the Prosecution defined three possible findings with respect to hairs which came right out of the FBI book; "Consistent with," "Different than" and "Inconclusive." There are no hairs on the glove identified as "Consistent with" Mr. Simpson as that term has been used here. "Inconclusive" doesn't count for anything. And the mere fact that it is a black limb hair, when they never drew any of his, or a fragment too small, doesn't put it in the "Consistent" category. All we are saying that is none of the hairs of the type found on the cap deem consistent were found on the glove and that is his testimony.
Just that it is misleading and confusing as phrased. If it is deleted, counsel can certainly ask the questions on cross-examination to elicit the fact that nothing was positively linked to Mr. Simpson, but to put it up on a screen as though there was nothing found that included Mr. Simpson is false and it is in derogation of the testimony given.
May we have just a second, Judge, to make sure we have covered everything so that we don't have to come back up here? Can we have just a second?
In the Rockingham glove you have limb hair of black origin, which obviously includes Mr. Simpson. You also have a head hair that is of black origin but was not suitable for further comparison.
The Prosecution defined three possible findings with respect to hairs which came right out of the FBI book; 'Consistent with,' 'Different than' and 'Inconclusive.' There are no hairs on the glove identified as 'Consistent with' Mr. Simpson as that term has been used here.
To put it up on a screen as though there was nothing found that included Mr. Simpson is false and it is in derogation of the testimony given.