BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. MISS CLARK, YOU WANT TO SHOW ME THIS VIDEOTAPE?

YES.

DO I HAVE A FEED PROBLEM WITH THIS TAPE?

NO, YOU DON'T.

THAT'S IT?

YES. THE PEOPLE PROPOSE TO SHOW THE VIDEO TO THE JURY.

LET ME JUST ASK ONE OTHER QUESTION. MRS. ROBERTSON, THE HARD COPY PHOTOGRAPH OF THAT OFFICER WALKING UP THE WALKWAY, WHAT DEFENSE NUMBER EXHIBIT IS THAT?

THERE'S BOTH. WE HAVE DEFENSE AND PEOPLE'S. IS IT PEOPLE'S 50 SOMETHING, DEIRDRA? AMERICAN JOURNAL.

WHEN I SAID THE HARD COPY, I MEANT -- NOT REFERRING TO DOUG BRUCKNER. JUST -- 57?

57.

ALL RIGHT. I DON'T SHOW IN MY NOTES THAT 57 WAS USED WITH REGARDS TO DETECTIVE LANGE.

NO.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE THE PRINTOUT FROM THE VIDEOTAPE, PEOPLE'S 57.

YES.

AND MY NOTES INDICATE THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO DETECTIVE LANGE.

NO, IT WAS NOT SHOWN TO DETECTIVE LANGE. I WOULD HAVE DONE IT MYSELF ON DIRECT, BUT WE HAD NOT YET OBTAINED THE VIDEO AT THAT TIME I CONDUCTED DIRECT, AND OF COURSE THAT WAS QUITE SOMETIME AGO. AND DURING THE CROSS-EXAMINATION, WE WERE ABLE TO OBTAIN THAT TAPE AND WE WILL BE PROVIDING THE CAMERAMAN'S TESTIMONY WHO SHOT THE TAPE WHO CAN INDICATE, NUMBER ONE, THAT THE FILM THAT THE COURT HAS SEEN DEPICTS THE ACTIVITIES AS THEY WERE -- AS THEY OCCURRED IN SEQUENCE, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE PORTIONS OF ACTIVITIES NOT SHOWN IN BETWEEN. THE CRIME SCENE TAPE WAS THE FIRST EVENT THAT TOOK PLACE, THE TAKING DOWN OF THAT TAPE. SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, THE OFFICERS WALKED INTO THE SCENE. AND SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, WE HAVE THE OFFICER WALKING UP THE WALK, WHICH IS THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWN BY THE DEFENSE INITIALLY TO OFFICER RISKE I THINK AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS. THE PEOPLE PROPOSE TO USE THIS TAPE TO PUT THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT HAS NOW BEEN SHOWN TO THE JURY INTO CONTEXT. THE INFERENCE THAT HAS BEEN DRAWN THROUGHOUT THE TESTIMONY OF ALL OF THE DETECTIVES -- WELL, THE INFERENCE THAT THE DEFENSE IS SEEKING TO HAVE THE JURY DRAW FROM THIS PHOTOGRAPH IS THAT THE CRIME SCENE WAS CONTAMINATED, WAS NOT MAINTAINED AND THAT EVIDENCE WAS DESTROYED AS A RESULT OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INVESTIGATION WAS CONDUCTED. THE PEOPLE SEEK TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWN AND UTILIZED BY THE DEFENSE FOR THAT PURPOSE WAS MISLEADING AND OUT OF CONTEXT. AND WHAT THIS TAPE DOES IS DEMONSTRATE JUST THAT. IT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE CRIME SCENE TAPE WAS TAKEN DOWN, THE INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN COMPLETED AND IT WAS ONLY AFTER THAT POINT THAT WE HAVE THE STILL SHOT -- AND THIS IS A STILL TAKEN FROM THAT TAPE AS THE COURT CAN SEE. IT WAS ONLY AFTER THAT POINT THAT WE HAVE THE OFFICER WALKING UP THE WALKWAY IN ORDER TO PLACE IT IN CONTEXT. BECAUSE THE DEFENSE HAS PROCEEDED WITH THAT THEORY WITH DETECTIVE LANGE'S TESTIMONY THROUGH CROSS-EXAMINATION, ATTEMPTED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ONCE AGAIN, IT WAS SHODDY WORK AND IT WAS SLOPPY WORK AND THEY DID NOT MAINTAIN THE CRIME SCENE, IT'S RELEVANT THE PEOPLE SUBMIT IN REHABILITATION --

NO. I UNDERSTAND THE RELEVANCE AND WHY YOU WANT TO PURSUE THIS. THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT IT'S APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF SOMEBODY WHO HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN THIS PHOTOGRAPH ON EITHER DIRECT OR ON CROSS. AND JUST SO THE RECORD IS STRAIGHT, THIS IS ALSO DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1011 IN SMALLER FORMAT.

THEN -- AND IN RESPONSE TO THAT, YOUR HONOR, IF THE COURT FEELS THAT THE GENERAL ATTACK OF CROSS-EXAMINATION ON DETECTIVE LANGE AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CRIME SCENE WAS HANDLED IS INSUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE A NEXIS FOR THE REDIRECT I PROPOSE TO CONDUCT WITH THIS STILL AND WITH THE VIDEO, WE WOULD SIMPLY ASK THE COURT -- LEAVE OF THE COURT TO REOPEN DIRECT. IF I HAD HAD THE VIDEO AT THE TIME OF DIRECT EXAMINATION, I WOULD HAVE SOUGHT TO ADMIT IT AT THAT TIME WITH THIS PHOTOGRAPH.

ALL RIGHT. I'LL HEAR FROM THE DEFENSE.

THE COURT HAS CORRECTLY POINTED OUT THAT WE NEVER ASKED DETECTIVE LANGE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS. IN FACT, THE ONLY QUESTION THE COURT ALLOWED US TO ASK WAS I THINK WITH RISKE SOME OFFICERS AGO WHETHER OR NOT HE COULD RECOGNIZE THAT PARTICULAR OFFICER. THAT'S THE ONLY THING --

THAT'S BECAUSE WE HAD NO FOUNDATION --

THAT'S CORRECT.

-- FOR THE TAPE.

AND THAT'S ALL THAT YOU ALLOWED US TO ASK. WE NEVER ASKED THIS DETECTIVE LANGE ABOUT THAT AT ALL. IN FACT --

PERHAPS IT WAS THE RIGHT DECISION, YOUR HONOR. BUT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF WHAT HAPPENED, I THINK THAT THIS IS NOT THE WITNESS AS WE'VE HEARD SO MANY TIMES WITH REGARD TO NOT THE TIME WITH REGARD TO THAT VIDEO. AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME IF THEY CAN LAY A FOUNDATION, THEN SO BE IT. I MEAN THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER THINGS IN THAT VIDEO ALSO. BUT I THINK THE POINT IS, COUNSEL TALKS ABOUT THAT SCENE BEING TRAIPSED ABOUT OR OUR CONTENTION REGARDING THAT. WE'VE DEMONSTRATED THAT WITH OUR OWN VIDEO OF WHAT TOOK PLACE CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THAT, WHICH THEY HAVE ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT APPROPRIATELY. AND THAT'S THE WAY TO GO ABOUT CROSS-EXAMINE -- REDIRECT EXAMINATION, ALTHOUGH WE DID SEE SOME CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THEIR WITNESS TODAY ALSO. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE AT THIS POINT AND THAT'S THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE AT SIDEBAR, YOUR HONOR.

OKAY. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

THANK YOU. YOUR HONOR, ON ANOTHER MATTER -- SOMETHING ELSE I WANTED TO BRING UP.

I'M SORRY. MISS CLARK, HAVE YOU PROVIDED A COPY OF THIS VIDEOTAPE TO THE DEFENSE?

I BELIEVE WE DID. YES, WE DID. WE GAVE THEM A COPY.

WE SAW IT YESTERDAY I THINK.

ALL RIGHT.

YOUR HONOR, WHAT CONCERNS ME IS THAT NO MATTER WHAT PURPOSE THE COURT LIMITED IT TO, THE COURT KNOWS THAT IT'S VERY GRAPHIC EVIDENCE. IN SHOWING THE JURY THAT PHOTOGRAPH DID I'M SURE ACCOMPLISH THE VERY PURPOSE FOR WHICH MR. COCHRAN INTRODUCED IT. HE SHOWED IT TO THE JURY GIVING THEM THE IMPRESSION THAT DESPITE THE OFFICER'S TESTIMONY, THAT CARE WAS TAKEN TO NOT CONTAMINATE AND NOT DESTROY EVIDENCE, THEN THAT IN FACT IT DID OCCUR. AND NOW, MR. COCHRAN'S AFRAID THAT THE JURY IS GOING TO SEE THIS TAPE AND REALIZE THAT THEY'VE BEEN SANDBAGGED. THAT'S WHY MR. COCHRAN IS OBJECTING BECAUSE OTHERWISE, HE SHOULDN'T. WHAT HE DID IS, HE TOOK A PHOTOGRAPH OUT OF CONTEXT AND USED IT IN A VERY GRAPHIC MANNER TO DEMONSTRATE SOMETHING THAT WAS A COMPLETE FALSEHOOD.

MISS CLARK, FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU AT THIS POINT, BUT THE ISSUE REALLY IS, DO I GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO REOPEN. THAT'S -- I MEAN, THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I HAVE TO ADDRESS AT THIS POINT. WHETHER OR NOT SOMEBODY'S BEING SANDBAGGED OR MISLEADING, THAT'S ARGUMENT FOR THE JURY, NOT THAT -- IT'S OF GREAT INTEREST TO ME IN AN ABSTRACT SENSE, BUT WHAT I NEED TO DETERMINE IS WHETHER OR NOT I SHALL ALLOW YOU TO REOPEN SINCE WE ALL AGREE NOW THAT NEITHER OF THESE TWO WERE USED WITH REGARDS TO THIS WITNESS, CORRECT?

YES. OF COURSE. WE DO AGREE THAT. YOUR HONOR, I JUST WANTED TO ASK THE COURT TO CONSIDER ALSO THAT --

THAT'S THE ONLY ISSUE.

UH-HUH. WOULD THE COURT CONSIDER ALSO THE FACT THAT WHEN THERE'S BEEN IMPEACHMENT IN SUCH A BROAD MANNER ON SO MANY FRONTS AND SO MANY WAYS ALL FOCUSED TOWARDS THE DEMONSTRATION OF ONE THING, WHICH IS BAD CRIME SCENE HANDLING, THAT REHABILITATION IN THIS MANNER, IN A GENERAL MANNER TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE FOCUS OF THE ATTACK HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN, THAT THERE IS -- THAT THERE HAS BEEN SOME MISLEADING INDICATIONS BY THE DEFENSE IN ALLOWING DETECTIVE LANGE TO EXPLAIN THAT YES, PEOPLE DO GET INTO CRIME SCENES AND YES, ULTIMATELY THE TAPE IS TAKEN DOWN IN RESPONSE TO THE GENERAL IMPEACHMENT THAT IT HAS GONE ON WITH RESPECT TO SPECIFIC CATEGORIES, BUT THE GENERAL THEME. I MEAN, JUST BECAUSE THE IMPEACHMENT DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY GO TO THAT PICTURE, I DON'T THINK THAT NECESSARILY PRECLUDES US FROM USING THE PICTURE IN THE VIDEOTAPE TO REHABILITATE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE CRIME SCENE HAS BEEN HANDLED BY THE LAPD. THAT'S A SUB ARGUMENT.

MAY I GIVE A SUB RESPONSE, YOUR HONOR, SUB RESPONSE TO THAT SUB ARGUMENT?

WELL, I MEAN THE REAL ISSUE IS, DO I ALLOW THE PROSECUTION TO REOPEN TO USE THIS PIECE OF EVIDENCE. THAT'S THE ONLY REAL ISSUE.

YOUR HONOR, THAT'S THE POINT. ALL THIS OTHER POSTURING AND SOMETHING ABOUT MISLEADING, YOUR HONOR, THAT'S PREPOSTEROUS. ALL WE'VE DONE, YOU ALLOWED US TO SHOW THE PHOTOGRAPH TO SEE IF THEY RECOGNIZE THIS PERSON. WE DIDN'T KNOW WHEN THAT PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN. THERE WAS ALL KINDS OF REPRESENTATIONS IT WAS TAKEN ON THE 15TH. WE KNOW THAT'S NOT TRUE NOW. IT WAS ON THE 13TH.

I NEVER MADE SUCH --

JUST A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR. MAY I CONCLUDE? WITH REGARD TO THIS, COUNSEL LIKES TO MAKE ALL THESE BIG SPEECHES ALL THE TIME. ALL WE WANT TO DO IS ASK YOUR HONOR -- THEY'RE ASKING TO REOPEN. BUT IT'S NOT WITH THIS WITNESS AND THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING, IT'S NOT WITH THIS WITNESS. AND THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE. THEY CAN BRING IT UP -- THEY CAN USE IT WITH VANNATTER, YOUR HONOR. IF SHE WANTS TO DO IT WITH THE OTHER OFFICER -- IT'S NOT US TRYING TO HIDE ALL THEIR WITNESSES, FUHRMAN, VANNATTER AND GOLDEN. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DO THAT. SO THE QUESTION ABOUT WHO'S HIDING -- SO THE POINT IS, YOUR HONOR HAS TO MAKE THAT DECISION, AND WE'LL SUBMIT IT.

ALL RIGHT.

YOU KNOW, TALK ABOUT SPEECHES, WHERE DO FUHRMAN AND VANNATTER COME INTO THIS? YOU KNOW, COUNSEL IS AMAZING. I'VE NEVER SAID JUNE 15TH. I'VE NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THIS. I'VE ALWAYS SAID THE SAME THING, THAT THE PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. AND NOW WE CAN PROVE IT'S TRUE, AND THAT'S WHAT HURTS MR. COCHRAN. BUT IT IS THE TRUTH AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE GOT. THE PROBLEM IS THAT DETECTIVE LANGE IS THE ONE WHO HANDLED BUNDY, NOT DETECTIVE VANNATTER.