All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties including the clerk are again present before the Court. Let's have the jurors, please.
As to--there's an item 118 in this case that was tested by Mr. Matheson and there has not been any testimony about it in this case heretofore. It was a knife that was found in the area of the Defendant's house, but not on his property, which was tested and has an EAP type B similar to the nails. I think it may have been mentioned by Mr. Cochran in his opening statement. We would ask to exclude evidence of that knife under 402 and the testing results.
Well, it's part of an analyzed evidence report that I would like to show the witness and there is reference to it there and I would like to be able to sanitize that out.
Yeah. We--this is the same report that has all the results that they're testifying to. We intend to ask this witness about the other EAP B that came up on this knife with blood on it, and I don't see how he can limit the testimony to just a couple of things that he tested and not include other things he tested at the same time. The credibility of this whole argument depends on how you read EAP testing and how you read the bands, and that's relevant to 118 as well and I think it's clearly fair game.
All right. I don't know anything about the facts and circumstances regarding the recovery of this alleged knife.
It was found in--outside of Mr. Simpson's estate on July 2nd, apparently had been put there at some point after the 13th. It had a lot of blood on it, is consistent with the wounds on the victims, turned over to the police and they ran the test and came up with an EAP B. I also would like to request that the Court order that that be produced tomorrow for cross-examination.
Your Honor, may I correct counsel's representation to the Court? There was a single thread of tiny speck of blood on the knife, on the very tip of the knife.
It doesn't matter, but I'll make an offer of proof that the person who found it will testify that there was a lot of blood on it.
It was found near a brick wall I think toward the back of the Rockingham estate kind of down the way from the * I believe the Rockingham side. It clearly hadn't been there the 13th. I mean, it was in relatively plain view and someone had put it there. It was wrapped in a polka dotted outfit or blouse I believe that I believe also had blood on it, although I don't think that was tested.
Your Honor, the point of this is that it's entirely irrelevant. That's the problem. If what we have on the knife--excuse me, Mr. Blasier. If what we have on the knife is type EAP B, then obviously it's not of either of our victims. The victims in this case are BA and I think BA.
Because I looked into this issue when Mr. Blasier informed me that he was going to be raising this issue with the Court and Mr. Goldberg was in the process of examining the witness and so wasn't--didn't have the opportunity to inform himself of the issues as I did. It's just more expeditious if I address it than if I sit and whisper in Mr. Goldberg's ear and have him address the Court. So what we have is an item of evidence that is entirely irrelevant based on the testing that was done.
All right. Prosecution--neither side may mention 118 until I have some more information about where it came from, when and what it is. Prosecution is ordered to produce that item in Court tomorrow morning.
Okay. And would the Court also like some documentation as to the time and method of recovery, et cetera.
We're not going to use it until I know where it came from. All right. And as I indicated, this is the first mention of this item to the Court.
May we have permission then to use a redacted copy of the analyzed evidence report at this time pending the Court's further ruling?
For today, yes. But I want all the reports produced tomorrow and the item. All right. Let's proceed. Let's have the jury, please.
Your Honor, depending on the Court's ruling, we may want--we would ask for permission to reopen if the Court were going to allow this in, because I do expect to finish my direct sometime--
Okay. I'll take that--you know, once we see what it is, we'll see. But since I know nothing about it and this is the first I've been advised of the existence of this item--but I would rather use the time with the jury to finish at least the basic blood testing.
The credibility of this whole argument depends on how you read EAP testing and how you read the bands, and that's relevant to 118 as well and I think it's clearly fair game.
If what we have on the knife is type EAP B, then obviously it's not of either of our victims. The victims in this case are BA and I think BA.
Neither side may mention 118 until I have some more information about where it came from, when and what it is. Prosecution is ordered to produce that item in Court tomorrow morning.
Is there a reason you are arguing this rather than Mr. Goldberg?