All right. Ladies and gentlemen, there's something I need to take a look at before we hit the next witness. Let me ask you to step back in the jury room.
All right. The record should reflect all the jurors have withdrawn from the courtroom. Miss Clark, you indicated you have a compact disk based video. May I see that, please?
All right. Let's clear the telestrator, please. All right. Mr. Ormond, I don't have anything on my monitor. Mr. Blasier, do you have this on your monitor?
That's it, your Honor. The shot of the Defendant in the brown coat with the brown gloves is the one that we do not have. I believe the still photographer for--
Yeah. The detail that's shown in this video, your Honor, was important to Mr. Rubin for the purpose of determining whether the stitching was consistent with the stitching of the crime scene glove--
All right. Miss Clark, as to--the record should reflect that Mr. Rubin has withdrawn from the courtroom. With regards to this 15-minute clip that's on the compact--is it a laser disk or compact disk?
Well, I object. First of all, it's cumulative. It's another brown glove. I don't think it shows anything more than what they've already put pictures on. I don't know--object to a foundation. They haven't established the foundation. So I object on both of those grounds. I don't know when it is.
Let me get that for you, your Honor, but let me simply--but let me indicate this to the court. I understand the objections to cumulative nature in the black glove, and we've pared that down conceivably. But all shots of the brown gloves that are deemed to be by our expert consistent with those purchased by Nicole Brown and those found at the crime scene and at Rockingham are clearly not cumulative because it shows the Defendant not only having them at a point in time shortly after they were purchased, but also at a point in time--also shows his habit and custom of wearing them, which means they're out in the weather. The more he wears them, the more important that is to their stretchability and as close in possible in time to the murders. This clip that is shown in the brown gloves is of the Kansas City versus the bills on January 5th, 1992. It's an important video for the expert because, as the court can tell, it's very clear in its depiction of the nature of the stitching on the fingers, the Brossier stitching on the back of the hand, and these are distinctive features to be able to identify these gloves as the type and class purchased by Nicole and, coincidentally, the type and classification of gloves found at Rockingham and Bundy. I don't know what other justification needs to be made.
Well, I understand the justification. How are you going to lay the foundation for it? I recognize the person depicted. The question is when?
Right. And for that purpose, your Honor, we subpoenaed the representative from NBC. NBC responded by sending an affidavit to the court. I believe the court is in possession of that.
Yes. If I may ask leave of the court to ask Mr. Yochelson to come down to indicate to the court because he's had all the interaction with them. They've been very uncooperative. I would ask that the court inquire of Mr. Yochelson because it's my understanding that the attorney, Miss Edgerton, has indicated that her position on behalf of NBC is that the court can force the parties to stipulate to the admissibility of the clip without the necessity of the custodian appearing to the--and we have indicated to her to the contrary repeatedly.
Anyway, may I ask leave of the court to have Mr. Yochelson address the issue since he has been in contact with them?
And I don't disagree. I totally agree with the court. We're being hamstrung by witnesses that are simply refusing to come in and testify and we need the court's assistance.
Well, how about if I turn off the video and let's see how long it takes NBC to cooperate.
KEY QUOTEIf we may, your Honor, we're going to call and make sure he's on his way. He specifically asked that I let him address you.
Miss Clark, is there a particular affidavit from mark le place concerning the particular outtake--
Good afternoon. Mr. Yochelson, there's some controversy about the foundation for the video clip which is alleged to depict the January 5th, 1992 football game, American Football Conference playoff game between the Chiefs and the Bills.
Yes, your Honor. As Miss Clark indicated, we did subpoena that footage from NBC. NBC provided that videotape in a fairly expeditious manner and at the same time provided a custodian or offered to provide a custodian of record affidavit. They did not. And their position has been throughout this that they are not obligated to provide an actual live witness. Their position is that the witness who would testify to this is located in New York and beyond this court's jurisdiction without further process of the court. Miss Edgerton filed a letter with the court today and I just got off the phone with her, and she's indicated that she attempted to contact the court within the last hour leaving voice mail. But she is attempting to--or strike that. She has contacted the court with this. It is our position, your Honor, that the affidavit under 1560 of the evidence code should suffice to lay the foundation for this videotape.
Our position is that we don't think that that does. It doesn't comply with the law. This is not a governmental agency, that they have subpoena power. They can bring somebody from New York just like we brought Miss McKinny from Georgia--from North Carolina.
All right. The problem I have, Mr. Yochelson, is that the affidavit--I agree with you that there is a manner, the subpoena duces tecum and the process and the declaration of the custodian of records, that that's ordinarily a way to avoid having to call live witnesses if there are business records that are maintained in the normal course of business and in an appropriate manner. The difficulty I have is that the declaration that is attached to Miss Edgerton's letter to the court bearing today's date, the affidavit indicates, quote, "NBC has made a diligent search for that footage and has not been able to locate it," and it refers to the videotapes of the Kansas City Chiefs, Buffalo Bills game played on January 5, 1992. So the affidavit itself does not provide a foundation. So where does that leave us?
Well, that leaves us with attempting to find another affidavit, obtain a second affidavit remedying this defect or having NBC here to explain this issue to the court. We are not going to rest until we can lay the foundation for a very simple piece of tape that should by rights be stipulated to. But I--the Defense--we've not been able to arrive at a stipulation. It seems this matter should be handled very expeditiously. Miss Edgerton informs me that she can be here tomorrow, and I would ask that we have her in first thing tomorrow and attempt to hammer this out with all the parties and NBC.
Because we handle business records all the time in this manner. But the affidavit doesn't support what you're asking for.
Well, in that case, I'm sure that we can address that issue with NBC, and we will take it up. I suggest that we hold this matter in abeyance until tomorrow morning, have Miss Edgerton in and we will settle this matter.
Well, I would suggest that you have somebody up at 5:00 o'clock tomorrow morning at the opening of business on the east coast and see if you can't expedite this matter because the matter of an appropriate declaration, that's all that's missing here.
It should be a simple thing and we will accomplish that. Of course, as Miss Clark points out, the fact is that NBC gave us this videotape. So clearly they knew what it was, in response to our request. So clearly they knew what it was and were able to locate it.
Well, my problem is, Mr. Yochelson, as much as I understand and appreciate what it is you're saying, there's an objection and the affidavit doesn't support what you're asking for.
Okay. All right. As far as scheduling then, I take it then unless and until we have this video--this is also videotape you want to use with Mr. Rubin, correct?
All right. Scheduling then. Mr. Blasier indicated he needed additional time to prepare for the cross-examination of Mr. Rubin, and, Mr. Darden, you indicated that there was a desire to have Mr. Rubin present so we can consult with his calendar. All right. Why don't you ask him to step in, Mr. Fairtlough?
Mr. Yochelson has offered to ask him to come in. I don't know that the court is aware of this, but Mr. Rubin is the only so-called expert in this entire case who has testified without any fee, for free. He has appeared here on many occasions on his own time. He has taken calls from the Defense on the east coast on his own time. He runs a business and he needs to get back to that business. I don't understand why we need to delay until Wednesday regardless of what--
Well, there's a request for additional time. And part of the difficulty though is, some of the information that Mr. Rubin produced and gave to the Prosecution was not turned over to Mr. Blasier until today. I mean, that's not a situation that the court created.
Everything that we put on today I believe was turned over prior to September 1, Judge.
Well, we had a discussion--we started off this morning discussion with the fact that Mr. Rubin's letter of July the 6th had not been disclosed to the Defense. That's how we started off this morning's discussion.
And I think we ended that discussion by the court noting that it was a preliminary, at most, conclusion on his part. He was asking for more photographs or better photographs and was--
The point being though is that he actually does refer to specific photographs and makes certain findings. That's the point. All right. Mr. Blasier, why do you need until Wednesday?
Well, I think we got I think it was a total of 47 pictures on Friday afternoon at 5:30. I spent the weekend working on this. We may be producing some exhibits. I have to coordinate some other people that I may have here in court for when Mr. Rubin testifies. We simply just need some more time. I'm looking at Thursday. I may be able to be ready by Wednesday. I'll have a better idea tonight.
I need to consult with experts that we've been in contact with. I need to see if they're available to be here Wednesday. We may be taking--making some photographic exhibits. I obviously have been here all day. So I haven't been able to do that today. That takes time.
We gave them color copies of just about all the photographs early on, your Honor. There's nothing that has been presented here today that should have been a surprise to the Defense. This is rebuttal. We all knew it was coming. We all knew we were going into the glove issue. It's really a simple issue, that is the identity of the gloves being an Aris leather light, an Aris Light or not. How much more time can be necessary to prepare to cross-examine Rubin on these issues? Beyond that, we've already litigated the issue of Brossier stitching and the "V" palm and all these other things.
We've already litigated these issue of the Brossier stitching and the "V" palm and everything else as it related to the uniqueness of the gloves. So why the extra time?
Well, a detailed--in fact, a transcript of our conversations with Mr. Rubin as they related to each of the photographs shown to him was provided to the Defense on August 31st or September the 1st, which is much more detailed than any report and, in particular, much more particular than any preliminary report or letter sent to him by us. They have a transcript of all of his opinions as they relate to each of the photographs and they've had it for 12 days now.
My recollection of that transcript is, the only photograph he said "Looks like the Aris glove to me" is the one--is one Renken picture, maybe a second. That's it. None of these other ones are referred to in the transcript and then there's one video that I think he said that's a good video. None of what we've heard except for the Renken pictures is part of that transcript. Now, this is some--I assume this is part of some later opinion, but I have nothing about that in writing. I just have to assume that he's going to get up there and say something about it.
Mr. Darden, do you have a copy of Mr. Rubin's last report or letter to you, his final report or letter?
There--I don't believe we handed over a final report. We handed over the transcript--
--of Mr. Rubin's opinions and comments as they related to each of the photographs. Mr. Rubin points out to me that it was Mrs. Blasier, Mr. Blasier's wife, who called him up and let him know that he was coming back to testify in the first place and that it was Mrs. Blasier who interviewed him on the telephone several days ago on September 1st. So none of this is a secret, Judge.
Yeah. We had no--obviously, we've been trying to prepare for this since they started making noises about doing this. We had no pictures when we talked to him before. It was a telephone conference. That's it. That was not terribly helpful.
Mr. Rubin would like to testify tomorrow morning and get back east to his business and family.
And I think that's probably why we have the objections, so that he'll be forced to go back east before he is allowed to testify in this case. This is a no brainer, Judge, as far as cross goes. They've had adequate notice.
And I'm willing to surrender People's witness, Mr. Rubin, to Mr. Blasier. He may take him anywhere he may like and do with him whatever he may want.
All right. Well, the photos are here. Mr. Rubin is here. Mr. Rubin is well known to both sides. He's been cooperative with both sides to an exceptional degree. He has provided raw materials for both sides. I think we've had the photographs now for a sufficient period of time. I am still concerned, however, about that letter of July the 6th. Mr. Blasier, be ready to go tomorrow.
One of the things that we have been doing is trying to accumulate gloves that have some of these characteristics, and we were going to produce some photographs or going to attempt to. We can't do that. And I just inform the court I can't do that. If I have to go forward tomorrow morning, I can't do that. We still have gloves coming too by the way. So we may have to have him come back.
Well, that's something that can be independently put on by somebody else by an investigator, that they found these gloves with similar characteristics. That's something you don't need to do with Mr. Rubin. But this is also not an issue that's been a mystery or is unexpected.
Which photographs he's going to identify has been until today except for the Renken pictures.
Well, first of all, your Honor, of the list of 60 names that we were given on Friday, my office has attempted to identify those witnesses for whom we have no reports, statements or any idea of what they are going to testify about.
David Adkins I believe worked with SID, but I'm not sure of the nature of his testimony.
The OIC in the photo section at SID. I believe he testified once before on the issue of the Willie Ford video.
Did he testify? If you look at the logs from Rockingham, you'll see that he arrived at Rockingham around noon that day and he will testify that he saw the socks.
All right. And before we break, Mr. Rubin, would you make yourself available to discuss these matters with Mr. Blasier this afternoon, this evening?
I need to go upstairs and get my paper work, your Honor. I have everything written down, who testifies and to what and why.
Let me give the names just so we're clear. Steve Jensen. Dennis Kilcoyne I know he's an investigator or police officer. I'm not sure what he's testifying about. I have a name that says Laufman, L-A-U-F-M-A-N, no first name. I don't know who that person is.
Mr. Laufman I believe was a witness to Cathy Randa and Skip Taft, removing a large sum of cash from Mr. Simpson's safety deposit box on June 17th and Mr. Jensen is from Cognitech. They enhanced the photographs of the gloves.
What these are are witnesses that will establish foundation for different things. But we will give--
All right. Do me a huge favor. That's my list. So how about if you don't mark on it?
Another one. Okay. Listen, what I'm going to do is, I would like to take a brief recess because we're now going to launch into an hour long hearing on Sims and RFLP. Let me order Mr. Douglas, Mr. Darden and Miss Clark to meet and confer during the recess, get your list, find out who's who, turn the names over to Mr. Douglas as to who you're going to call and who they are. All right. We'll take a--
I believe I stated all the witnesses for the next three days on Friday. I've already done that.
Let me add one other thing, your Honor. I wasn't here on Friday, your Honor. One other thing. There's a motion--the People have filed a motion to introduce expert testimony regarding domestic violence. I thought we went through that before. Dean Uelmen is here. He will not be able to respond to this motion until Friday, and we'd like to argue it next Monday.
Mr. Gordon is going to be arguing that issue for us and we intend to rest by next Monday.
I certainly hope they can rest without this witness too then, your Honor, because we got this convoluted, complex motion which was already litigated I thought. And Dean Uelmen is here. It may require a Kelly Frye, et cetera, and we are indicating we can't respond to it. His work is back up north. He's going back home. He'll respond to it by Friday. We wanted to alert the court to that.
Earlier today, Mr. Bailey told us he was ready to argue. He wanted to argue this motion this afternoon.
Well, I don't believe Mr. Bailey had seen this motion at that point. This motion requires points and authorities and we will be doing that.
I have not seen any points and authorities. They were handed to me after. I said I would be prepared to go on the papers I had in hand.
All right. Get your P's and A's as soon as you examine. I think Friday's optimistic. All right. Let's take a 15-minute recess. Then let's get the Sims' witnesses down here and we'll start into that. And, Mr. Blasier, why don't you take advantage and chat with Mr. Rubin. All right.
How about if I turn off the video and let's see how long it takes NBC to cooperate.
Mr. Rubin is the only so-called expert in this entire case who has testified without any fee, for free. He has appeared here on many occasions on his own time.
Ahh, you people.
I am willing to surrender People's witness, Mr. Rubin, to Mr. Blasier. He may take him anywhere he may like and do with him whatever he may want.
The affidavit indicates, quote, 'NBC has made a diligent search for that footage and has not been able to locate it' — and it refers to the videotapes of the Kansas City Chiefs, Buffalo Bills game played on January 5, 1992. So the affidavit itself does not provide a foundation.