All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. All right. Earlier today, Mr. Cochran, you gave the court a list of witnesses that you anticipated upcoming.
Well, I did give you a list and I asked, your Honor, in the interest of trying to move this case along to assist us with certain of the witnesses. Certainly Sherry Ray was, in fact, here and I think--I had spoke with your Honor before the break and I excused her. She'll be back tomorrow morning 9:00 clock. We do need Detective Vannatter. We do need Mr. Martz from the FBI.
Yes. Yes. We have further cross-examination of each of those parties, and that will be still I believe in our case in chief. We expect to call--excuse me, your Honor. Excuse me.
I got a note, threw me off momentarily. We're going to need to at some point after we deal with Detective Vannatter and Agent Martz--we wanted to have the Fiato brothers. I understand we--my office issued subpoenas for them today, FBI agent named Michael Wachs, W-A-C-H-S, Deputy District Attorney Dale Davidson. All those witnesses relate to the same thing, statements allegedly made by Detective Vannatter. We may not need all of them, but after Vannatter testifies, we may need some of them. And what I guess I'm indicating to the court is, I think we can pretty much wrap up the balance of our case and the surrebuttal, if not tomorrow, certainly by Wednesday morning. Given--and then there's the issue of Agent Whitehurst. And we think when you--I don't know when you plan to read the various sundry items, but we feel very strongly there's specific links to this case involving Mr. Simpson.
Well, we had agreed, Miss Clark and I had agreed--basically we want to start with Martz anyway. A lot of it depends on how he responds. But we had agreed, Miss Clark and I had agreed I think that we weren't going to make a proffer in writing necessarily because of the time, we wanted to move the case along. But if you think--if you want that, we can do it. If it'll make it easier for your Honor, we'll do that.
Well, here's the problem. You're going to make a proffer, you're going to ask me to read things, review transcripts and that sort of thing. So--
I think what we want to do is make representations to you and we'll ask you to read certain things. We got more documents today from Washington. So you tell us what's most feasible that will save you the most time so we can get this matter over and to this jury as soon as possible.
Well, I see--here's the problem. I hear the name Whitehurst bandying about. I don't know what is going on. Frankly, I try to avoid the news media reports in all of these things.
I have been successful at least as far as Mr. Whitehurst is concerned. So what are we dealing with here?
Well, let me have Mr. Blasier address that. He will be dealing with that witness, Agent Martz.
Yes, your Honor. There's a lot of material that we've been accumulating just in the last couple of days.
I'm sorry, Mr. Blasier. If we're going to talk about this, may I get Mr. Kelberg here as well as Mr. Hodgman because I was not privy for these interviews?
Okay. Yes. I think we need to do that since we're talking about a proffer here and I sense a 402 coming.
What I would suggest--we talked about this before and I think we talked about it with your Honor, that we would make a verbal presentation as to what we think is relevant, what we would like to call Agent Whitehurst for and they could respond, and then if we felt--either side felt you needed to read any of these materials, then we could direct your attention to whatever you'll need to read. There's no reason for you to read all of this.
Mr. Blasier, why don't you repeat your last 60 seconds' worth of comments for Mr. Kelberg.
My suggestion is, we both make an oral, verbal presentation to what our offer is, and then if either side feels the need to have the court review any specific materials relating to what it is they're talking about, then we can direct the court's attention to that at that time.
In general, I don't have a problem. No. 1 though, the court should be aware I talked to Mr. Eglash, who is an assistant U.S. attorney who was one of the lawyers present during the interview with Dr. Whitehurst. Apparently tomorrow, he anticipated receiving through overnight delivery a large number of documents apparently the Defense has subpoenaed with at least one, if not two additional subpoenas today, certain records out of D.C. the records are going to be provided, as I understand, to Mr. Eglash for tomorrow. I suggested that Mr. Eglash come here at 8:30 tomorrow so we could represent to the court what he represented to me, which is, he won't have the documents until about 10:30 and they believe the documents will be divided into three categories; 1, which of the documents they're willing to turn over to both sides as is. 2 I believe is a series of documents which they would ask the court to review in camera to see whether or not they are relevant, and if the court deems them relevant, to turn over to both sides in the redacted fashion suggested by the agency; and, 3, a series of documents which they believe under no circumstances should be turned over for reasons that Mr. Eglash could much better express than I. Now that I've made this representation to the court, it might save time to when--Mr. Eglash should be here tomorrow, if that becomes necessary for the court's consideration.
Well, here's the problem. If he's not going to have the documents until 10:00 o'clock in the morning, then obviously we won't get to it.
And he indicated to me it's going to take some time just to sort them into the appropriate package and have whatever paperwork they feel is necessary. He was hoping for a 1:30 appearance here with whatever materials he has been provided from Washington.
I don't have any problem with that. It may mean if we are going to call witnesses, it may be Wednesday morning.
That's fine. No. 1, has the court read any of the materials on Dr. Whitehurst which were submitted I believe on Friday, the 26-page memo and there may have been other things?
No. I have not read anything yet. I have the original memo, I have a transcript excerpt and I think there's one other item I might have in my package. I'm not sure.
Because I would ask--I think the court should read the 26-page memo. I don't think the court can get a flavor of Dr. Whitehurst without reading that memo irrespective of what additional things either side may feel is necessary for the court to read in assessing what relevancy, if any, Dr. Whitehurst has to these proceedings.
All right. Then I'll take that home if you don't object, Mr. Blasier, and read both items this evening.
Only with the understanding we have a number of documents that relate directly to the Simpson case which we think you should also review. I don't know if--we may be able to make copies for you and you can take those with you too.
I have no problem as long as I'm apprised which documents they are. I don't know if the Defense is aware--I've been upstairs. So we have been receiving documents, copies of which I have been told have simultaneously been provided to the Defense, not necessarily in the same mechanism because I believe the Defense has a lawyer back in Washington D.C. who may be getting physical possession immediately. Ours is through faxes through the United States attorney here or from a representative of the Department of Justice who is out from Washington and is receiving them I believe in an office in Westwood. The long and short is, there are a number of letters that Dr. Whitehurst sent to the inspector general's office. Much of the material has been redacted, just blacked out, but there are references in these letters to Simpson and Martz and so forth. If those are the letters--I don't know if you have them yet--I have no problem with the court reading those. We received some letters I think also from the FBI today. I have not had a chance to review those in detail. I have no problem with the court reading those. And if the court gets the second transcript, yesterday's transcript, what I'm going to ask the court to do is--I was the last lawyer to question. So my questioning primarily--I had the opportunity to ask for clarification during the course of the examination by other lawyers, primarily Mr. Blasier or Mr. Neufeld. But my questioning is the last questioning about the last 40 minutes. I ask the court to read that 40-minute segment of questions--I don't know how many pages it is--because that summarizes what I think the court needs to know about Dr. Whitehurst and his relevancy to these proceedings.
Well, let me get a running start with the items that Mr. Blasier suggests this evening. Believe it or not, I actually have other things to do with my life everyday.
My coy pond pump died on me this morning. If I don't get a new pump, I'm in trouble.
KEY QUOTEI wouldn't expect that. I think we're going to have hopefully Miss Ray, Detective Vannatter. We are trying to have Mr. Douglas check to see if Agent Martz will be out here. Those will be our next witnesses it seems before we get to Whitehurst, then the Fiato brothers--I understand they're here--FBI Agent Wachs, Dale Davidson, D.A. we have enough witnesses in the morning to take care of, and then we can get to Whitehurst at the end.
Your Honor, less we be considered to have waived anything, I'm here to--I am here to get a specific offer of proof--excuse me, Mr. Cochran--from the Defense with regard to Officer Sherry Ray, who we received discovery for just this morning and who I have had an opportunity to interview, and we have some vigorous objections to her testifying. So I don't want it to be assumed because the Defense wants to put her on that the court is going to allow her--
Well, I'd like to get a specific offer of proof from Mr. Cochran as to exactly what they would assume that Officer Ray is going to testify to because the notes with which we were provided have a lot of buzz words and inflammatory phrases that turned out not to be something that this witness could or would say that Mark Fuhrman said or did. So I would like to start with an offer of proof from Defense what they wish to call her for.
Certainly, your Honor. May I say, one other witness we potentially want we mentioned this morning, Gary Sims also. The reason I keep mentioning these witnesses, Judge, is because if we don't, they're not here. We need to make some effort to get them here as soon as possible. Now, in responding to your Honor's question, LAPD officer Sherry Ray--as an offer of proof, we will proffer the following: That she was employed by the Los Angeles Police Department between the dates of January of 1982 and I think 1993. She's off on I think some sort of stress disability leave presently. She was working with and was a partner with--on various occasions from September 1985 through about December of 1988 with Detective Mark Fuhrman. She is the first--only police officer we expect to call in this regard. She worked with him in West Los Angeles Station and she has heard--
She was his partner on occasions, but also worked--her partner most of the time was Thomas Vettraino. She would work another car, provide backup for those in the SPU unit. She has worked with him on occasion, but she was not his regular partner.
But she knows him very well. She knows and has information regarding his use of the "N" word repeatedly during this period of time. She has information regarding what she calls a code, conspiracy of silence among officers in protecting and covering for one another. She specifically uses the term--and I'm quoting so there will be no mistake about that--"It's time to pencil fuck a Nigger," which has to do with writing reports in a misleading way where they lie and change facts around to justify probable cause or to implicate someone who is otherwise innocent. She knows and can testify, as I said, about this major code of silence and something the officers routinely call "Testilying," that they use the "Testilying," and then finally, that in 1988, her last day in that particular division, she worked with this particular Officer Fuhrman who a couple of days before, that she and he had won some kind of an commendation for an arrest, grand theft arrest, and he pulled into the station at 5:00 o'clock A.M. on this date in December 1988 and said, "I've been authorized to tell you what all the male officers out here think about you." He then launches into a tirade where she feels very, very frightened and intimidated and gets out of the car, leaves her in the car, goes in the station and there's two more hours left on watch. In addition to that, when she heard him testify in February and said he never used the "N" word in 10 years, she knew he was lying then. But I asked her why didn't she come forward. She said because it would do no good, internal affairs would investigate it and do nothing about it, that in fact, she did in fact report it later on and they said, "We'll get back to you." And she gave me the name of the officer at I.A. so they never bothered calling her back. So she is off on some kind of stress disability leave now, but she was here today with a lawyer and also with her defense rep. I think, Judge, that with regard to her and anticipating the argument is cumulative, this is a lady specifically--and you'll recall that we had the two ladies, we had singer and we had Kathleen Bell and you said we could bring forward--we then had McKinny because of the tapes, we had Roderick Hodge, who is the suspect who dealt with the affront of Fuhrman. And this is an officer who worked with him on occasion, backed him up, dealt with him specifically and knows about the maneuver of that particular division and LAPD at that time. She knows a lot more, but obviously I want to limit it to make it more concise.
She could tell you a lot about the LAPD. And she doesn't make it just a few officers. She says many, more than everyone wants to admit, and I don't plan to go very far afield. I want to limit it to the things we talked about here.
Your Honor, that made me smile, when Mr. Cochran said he wanted to limit it to what he had just discussed, which was everything in the book he could possibly hope to elicit from any officer. Your Honor, Sherry Ray was assigned to West L.A. Division for three years, 1985 to 1988. During that time, she told me today that she partnered at most--and she indicated that it was a generous estimate--at most 10 times with Mark Fuhrman because, according to her, he worked the SPU unit regularly and she did not work the SPU unit. During that time, she indicates she recalls him using the "N" word, but she doesn't recall any particular time that he did so. He specifically--she specifically told me that he did not say it's time to--excuse me--pencil fuck and the "N" word. She cannot say that Mark Fuhrman said that because she has no recollection of him individually saying that. She has a recollection, to her way of thinking, of various officers at West L.A. Division using racial epithets and she has no specific recollection of any particular occasion of Mark Fuhrman using them. So the Defense proffer is based on someone who admittedly has very shaky recollection with regard to Mark Fuhrman's particular use--and admittedly had very little contact with him during what is a remote time period. And we're talking again about the 1985 to 1988 period, which is--with regard to which the court has allowed abundant impeachment evidence. We have Laura McKinny's testimony that he used the "N" word 42 times from 1985 to 1988. We have him saying in his own voice the best impeachment evidence the Defense could ever hope to have admitted in the trial. The court admitted--we have Natalie Singer saying, "There's no good "N" like a dead "N," highly inflammatory and prejudicial to the People's case I submit, a statement of his that he made back in--apparently back in 1987, Roderick Hodge testifying he addressed him as an "N" in 19--January 1987. So we have all of these witnesses who have extensively impeached Mark Fuhrman on his use of the "N" word. This witness adds nothing to it. It does not matter she's a police officer.
What they've done is put extrinsic evidence that already impeaches him extensively on his use of the "N" word and now through Roderick Hodge is addressing someone of the word. There is nothing this person adds that is probative on the impeachment issue of the very narrow issue that this court ruled was relevant for impeachment to come in. Just because she's a police officer doesn't make her testimony any more probative on this issue. In fact, according to the Defense, it would be less probative on this issue because of this conspiracy thing of theirs. At any rate, this woman's knowledge of West L.A. Division of LAPD and Mark Fuhrman is 1985 to 1988. She's never seen him since then except she did indicate to me that she--because she's been out from the department on stress leave--has watched the trial coverage extensively including his preliminary hearing testimony last year, his trial testimony in March, the what I'll call Fuhrman-McKinny tapes, 402 hearing held before your Honor and all of the Fuhrman witnesses who testified during the Defense case. She's watched all of that. But her only personal knowledge as to anything said by Mark Fuhrman dates back to 1988 at the latest and she has very little recollection of it. There's nothing that her testimony can add at this point in time that isn't almost, as a matter of law, unduly prejudicial to the People, because it's--the cumulative effect of this stuff is geometrically increased with every witness, and the last ones who testified did give that extra inflammatory edge which could very well and indeed has at least caused some members of this jury to think far afield from the evidence in this case and to go far afield from the evidence in this case. We've demonstrated over and over again that no matter how many times this man used the "N" word, no matter how bad a racist he is, there is no evidence that he had any opportunity to plant any evidence in this case or to falsify anything in this case or to do anything wrong in this case. So for the Defense to attempt yet again to put on cumulative additional evidence on this point just to further inflame the jury now there's been a little period of time between the last witnesses and this witness they want to call now is simply not right, your Honor. This is what 352 was invited--was enacted for, for example, a type of prejudice. And here, it's clear there can be no additional probative value to be gained that could possibly outweigh the prejudicial effect. His--just a couple points. His--Mr. Cochran's offer of proof with regard to his speaking to her as a female officer, there's no relevance to Mark Fuhrman's attitude toward female officers in this case. There's just no probative value there whatsoever but to inflame the predominately female jury that we have. So, your Honor, that's it. Clearly her testimony would be cumulative to all the other witnesses that have already testified on this identical issue.
Two quick points, your Honor. Thank you, Miss Lewis. The statements--the reason why I mentioned the statement with regard to the cover-up and the treatment of female officers, it corroborates exactly what Miss McKinny said. The court will recall that question was asked Miss McKinny with regard to the cover-up issue, and the court limited us to cover up vis-à-vis women officers versus men officers. It's entirely corroborative. Although they say they gave up on McKinny, they didn't. They cross-examined her, they questioned her vigorously in that regard, and I think it becomes very relevant. I also neglected to mention that she indicated to me that he did harbor racial animus toward mixed couples. She does, in fact, buttress the other witnesses on various points.
So whether Kathleen Bell or Natalie Singer or whatever--it's not cumulative because--and the thing that's so relevant about this, this is a police officer, Judge. You know, how many times in a case are we going to get a police officer who comes in and tells us about this code of silence or these officers "Testilying" or that internal affairs doesn't do their job. There is a number of officers out there who are doing this thing over and over again. This is a police officer who is saying that. Now, I think that's very, very important in a case where we've said these things do in fact exist. There are many people who don't believe these things exist and you know the problem we have establishing this. Miss Cheri Lewis stands up here now and says there's no way he could have planted this glove. We are going to demonstrate to this jury he had plenty of time to plant this glove. We will demonstrate when and exactly when he could have done it and that he has the willingness to fabricate and not that he could have done it, he did it in this case. So that's not rhetoric. I'm telling you what we expect to prove to this jury. And so this is why this is so relevant to us.
I'm not telling you I want to call five or six other witnesses. This is a police officer in a different category that I think--and I told you everything she could possibly testify with regard to the racial animus, the use of the "N" word, the attitude toward female officers, the attitude of the cover-up. That incident in December 1989 was particularly chilling to her and buttresses exactly what McKinny says in her testimony here. So it's very relevant. It's not cumulative. This idea that this is so prejudicial to these jurors is an insult to these jurors. They've seen and heard everything in this case. They are going to be able to sift through this, and I think we have to also balance this with Mr. Simpson's right to a fair trial. The People have objected to every witness we've called during the course of our case. It's just another objection and I would ask the court to allow us to call this lady. There's one other aspect of her testimony I would like to bring to the court's attention with regard to a 402 that I would like to bring also at some point.
Okay. There was--she has pending a matter in Orange County, your Honor. She has a lawyer and has no relevance at all to this case and it's a matter involving a child custody matter. And I don't see any basis for that at all. Also, Miss Lewis I understand in talking to her talked to her about a board of rights hearing. I don't think we can get into the board of rights or this other matter that's pending in Orange County. There's no convictions or anything of that nature. So I want a 402 with regard to that also.
Okay. The last two--first, apparently she does have felony charges pending in Orange County. The trial, according to her counsel, is set as zero of 10 on October 16th. Clearly that's not a conviction yet. I don't believe we could impeach her with that though. Frankly, my cocounsel aren't aware of that and I'd like an opportunity to talk to them because there may be something that would be appropriate to bring up with regard to that, and I don't want to be foreclosed from that just because we've gotten discovery at the last second and had been forced to argue this at the last second before your Honor. With regard to one thing--
In fact, I'm just getting advice that it could very well be relevant certainly towards bias and the reason for now saying these things when she did not come forth, you know, to anyone in March even though she heard Mark Fuhrman's testimony and claims that she knew that was not true.
Conspiracy and aiding in child stealing, basically having to do with her grandson I believe, grandchild. They're serious felony charges. I am sure she doesn't consider them nothing and there is serious conduct at issue.
Having conducted jury trials as to those issues before, I'm quite well aware of how volatile those are.
Yeah. A very volatile situation. In addition, Officer Ray cannot say, does not say and is not saying that Mark Fuhrman ever planted evidence, ever falsified reports, ever manufactured probable cause or ever heard anyone else--
No. Miss Lewis, the only thing I asked you to address were the pending charges and the board of rights issue. That's the only new issue that Mr. Cochran has brought up that I'm interested in ruling on.
Well, your Honor, these are serious charges that are pending against her, and the department apparently has a--stuff for which they have disciplined her as well as additional stuff which is pending. I'm not sure of the nature of it. But that type of thing can certainly go to her bias. Whether or not we even would choose to attack her credibility is an issue that hasn't even been addressed yet. Only recently we got discovery on this woman, just, you know, have become aware, and none of us have had an opportunity to confer since the court has been in session with most of the lead trial lawyers on the case throughout the day. But it's clear there are issues that would be raised and we would not necessarily go without cross-examination. This is far afield, your Honor. And as far as corroboration of Miss McKinny's testimony, does the court even want to consider that? That is so far afield, the fact that she may have testified with regard to sexist or female attitude, to have her corroborate that when that had nothing to do with anything. We're not denying that he used the "N" word 42 times. It's on tape most of the time and it seems to be the truth and we're not seeking to dispute that that is the truth.
I just wanted to add one other thing when you have the opportunity on Mr. Martz as a witness.
No. You disrupted my chain of thought here. I was about to rule on an issue, Mr. Kelberg.
I wasn't certain whether the court had heard the argument and was satisfied now that it will be in a position to rule or it was moving on to something else. I apologize to the court.
Let me think. Where was I? Do I need to hear the argument again? Never mind. No. All right. The objection is sustained for these reasons. I find the argument regarding the necessity of corroboration to have no merit. The racial animus of Detective Fuhrman was corroborated by multiple witnesses who testified to the same thing. Also, his voice is on the tape. That is abundantly apparent. There's no factual dispute that's even plausible at this point. It's a collateral issue. The proffer is remote, going to `85 to `88. It is clearly cumulative. The objection is sustained.
I'm sorry, your Honor. It is only important if the Defense is contending that Mr. Martz should be called as a witness before the court rules on the admissibility of Dr. Whitehurst's testimony. The People say that that is an incorrect position, that in fact, no. 1, the court limited the Defense in their case in chief.
Well, Mr. Kelberg, let's not even waste our time with this argument for this reason. If Detective--excuse me--if special Agent Martz is in Washington D.C. as we speak and if we're not even going to get to the Whitehurst documents in toto until sometime tomorrow afternoon and we won't even be able to go into that, what relevance might this have at this point?
I'm not interested in hearing about Agent Martz at this time, only that I would ask that you make arrangements to put him on call so that he's available.
I assume one day. Obviously he comes from the east, and as long as we can make flight arrangements to get him in here in one day. But he is cooperative. The attorney for the FBI is cooperative. We just have to notify the attorney that he is needed on a particular day and he will be here. I'm sorry that I caused such a headache.
All right. Next issue. All right. For what purpose are we going to call Detective Vannatter?
I think that Mr. Shapiro is going to be handling that. We've got further questions based upon newly discovered evidence. He has further questions of Detective Vannatter on cross-examination.
He's still a witness in this case and we have not rested. I think we can do this. Your Honor, in the so-called search for truth, I would think that we certainly would have the absolute right to do that. The court is aware of this information. We expect to use it. We can--I think it's our absolute right to recall him for that. He's the lead detective in this case. And are they saying they're not going to make him available to us? He's going to hide behind some kind of--
But I understand there's going to be--there will be a request for an offer of proof, et cetera, et cetera. So we'll go through this again.
So we don't waste any time, since I can no longer call Sherry Ray tomorrow morning, I would like to have him here.
Your Honor, I just wanted to point out, Defense indicated they wanted to recall Gary Sims, and we looked at each other and wondered as to what that was about. I believe he was just here.
Yes, your Honor. As you recall, you reviewed this material in chambers. That Mr. Sims has notes that on July 17th and on prior occasions, he observed a wet transfer in the second sock that goes from surface 1 to surface 3 in areas where there is blood that he did DNA typing which is consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson. So once again, the absence--the wet transfer through from side 1 to--surface 1 to surface 3.
Because on July 17th, when Dr. De forest and Gary Sims did their reexamination of the socks, they documented this. This was the Brady material that you reviewed and Mr. Hodgman showed you. I realize it was confusing because they gave you one labeled picture for the longest period of time, but I think that's pretty clear. Obviously, if the same transfer mechanisms existed on the second sock that did on the first, that goes substantially towards the Defense's theory as to how blood was planted on the socks.
All right. Here's the confusion that I have, Mr. Scheck, as to that issue. Wasn't Mr. Sims just here and wasn't that information already given to you prior to that?
I asked to--if you recall, I asked to make him my own witness, and the People objected.
Now, what I would do if they want, perhaps I will call Mr. Sims this evening at his home, and if we can work out a stipulation to the Prosecution as to what his testimony would be, then we can write that out. That might save us some time.
I do recollect at this time there was an objection to going into those areas on the scope objection. Miss Clark.
Yes. If I could be heard on this one, your Honor. First of all, this would not, as I understand it, be proper surrebuttal because we presented nothing in rebuttal that goes to this issue. That's first of all. And I think that one's clearly factual as a matter of record. Secondly, that means that it should have been presented in their case in chief. And the stain that they're talking about was observed by Henry Lee and by Mr. MacDonell. Why they did not elicit the testimony from those people I do not know. But they indicated that they were going to rest conditionally upon the court's determination of the admissibility of the Whitehurst issue and nothing else. And I asked the court specifically if they were limited in their conditional reopening to that issue, and the court indicated that they were. Now, with respect to--
Hold on. Okay. What we'll do is, Mr. Scheck, Mr. Neufeld, put it in writing what it is you want to present and why it wasn't presented earlier. All right.
No. Actually it's a syringe wrapper. On April 11, 1994, when I in the company of Jo-Ellyn Demetrius and Bob Blasier interviewed the nurse, Mr. Peratis, at the infirmary at the police department headquarters, we asked him which syringe he used to draw blood from Mr. Simpson on June 13th, and he opened the drawer and he showed us a syringe and he even--and he gave us all the specs on the syringe, and it's a Beck and Dickerson 10-cc syringe with the calibration right on it. We went out and we purchased these with the hope obviously of introducing them when he took the witness stand. He's not taking the witness stand as you know. He had these same syringes with him when he did the demonstration for Mr. Goldberg. However, you can't see the actual syringe in the frame. I mean, you know, it's a needle, but you can't see the calibration because the syringe being held too far away.
Let me jump way ahead of you, Mr. Neufeld. What you want to do is interview--introduce that syringe in front of the jury. So we can do this one of two ways. Either the Prosecution can stipulate that that's the syringe that is in use at the Parker Center infirmary or you'll have to get somebody from Parker Center to come over to say "This is the syringe we use."
Just so you know where we stand on this already, I gave one of these to Mr. Goldberg with the hope he would agree to the stipulation. Otherwise, what I might have to do--I want to avoid calling either Mr. Goldberg or Mr. Blasier because they were the ones who were actually there and know what he said. Now, it may be that they're using different syringes now at Parker Center. I don't know the answer to that question. But the easiest thing is for someone to stipulate, and otherwise, we will have to call additional witnesses. You're right. I want to avoid that. That is all.
Let's see. Here's the problem. As a matter of evidence, how do you propose to do that by other people's statements?
Well, no. I can call--one thing I can do if we can't get a stipulation, I would call--first of all call Hank Goldberg as to what kind of syringe Mr. Peratis was using in that demonstration he did on July 27th at his house.
No. Oppler won't know the syringe I am afraid and I already asked Miss--I think her name was Ramirez, whether she remembered it, and she didn't. So they don't have the specs on it. Mr. Goldberg was the person who had frequent conversations with Mr. Peratis and would be the person who, you know, did this with him that day. Frankly he directed it.
As a matter of hearsay, I contemplate how you are going to do that. All right. I would suggest try to stipulate first. And if not, call somebody from the infirmary as to what's in stock because B&D is the standard medical supplier.
No. No. What I am explaining is that they actually--is that Mr. Peratis showed us the package. So we know which model and everything else, and this isn't the exact duplicate of the needle described by--of the needle described by Mr. Peratis.
All right. Maybe I'm not making myself clear at this point. Okay. We will be in recess. 9:00 o'clock tomorrow morning. Thank you all.
All right. Miss Clark, check on Mr. Davidson, see if you can obtain his whereabouts. Get in touch with Mr. Sims to see if he's available and make Detective Vannatter available.
We will demonstrate when and exactly when he could have done it and that he has the willingness to fabricate and not that he could have done it, he did it in this case.
The racial animus of Detective Fuhrman was corroborated by multiple witnesses who testified to the same thing. Also, his voice is on the tape. That is abundantly apparent. There's no factual dispute that's even plausible at this point. It's a collateral issue. The proffer is remote, going to '85 to '88. It is clearly cumulative. The objection is sustained.
She has information regarding what she calls a code, conspiracy of silence among officers in protecting and covering for one another. She specifically uses the term—and I'm quoting so there will be no mistake about that—'It's time to pencil fuck a Nigger,' which has to do with writing reports in a misleading way where they lie and change facts around to justify probable cause or to implicate someone who is otherwise innocent.
My coy pond pump died on me this morning. If I don't get a new pump, I'm in trouble.
Is that a candy bar wrapper?