Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Scheck. The People are represented by Miss Clark and Mr. Darden and Mr. Fairtlough. The jury is not present. All right. And Mr. Neufeld, you have the court's permission to wear your prescription dark glasses until your--until Lenscrafters manages to fix your glasses for you. All right. Counsel, we are here to start the final arguments for both parties. We have a number of demonstrative pieces that are going to be used by the parties, and I understand there is some objections to some of these. Mr. Neufeld. Good morning, sir.
Good morning. Your Honor, first of all, I'm not most qualified to argue some of the boards because as you may recall, I wasn't even here for the early portion of the trial when some of those matters came to the forefront. What I would suggest we do, since we were also told by the Prosecution they have a whole series of slides that were specially prepared for summation that are not in evidence already, and we have to review those as well before the summation begins, what I would ask is for the court's indulgence to give Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Cochran just five minutes to look at the--at the timeline board and the so-called abuse board, which they could do very, very quickly, and at the same time we could look at the slide.
We were here, your Honor. There was some technical glitches, but one of the things we were supposed to see was their slide show. We have yet to have that screened for us. And while we are doing that--
The problem we have with the boards, which are referred to as "Evidence from the Bronco," "Evidence at Rockingham" and "Evidence at Bundy," allegedly connecting Mr. Simpson to those three scenes, is that the court made a very explicit ruling early on in this case that the People cannot use the term "Match" to refer to--to draw a connection or a nexus between hair and fiber evidence and individuals. In fact, you had to instruct Miss Clark repeatedly, when she violated that rule, to refrain from using the word "Match" and stick to "Consistent with."
So the bottom line of your objection is that you object to the wording on the board regarding the hair and the fiber?
That's correct. Not regarding the blood, because the court drew the distinction there, but regarding the hair and fiber.
Although they are allowed to argue, they are not allowed to misstate the facts, and you set very strong parameters as to what the facts were with regard to hair and fiber.
That pertains to the "Evidence from Bundy," the "Evidence at Rockingham" and the "Evidence from Bronco" boards, all three boards?
That's right. There was another board which was a timeline board, and just from my initial review, and again I would need the help of Mr. Cochran and Mr. Shapiro on this, is that there is a suggestion that Kato heard three knocks between 10:51 and 10:52, whereas his testimony both on direct and cross is 10:40 to 10:45, and there is no testimony of 10:51 to 10:52 in the record and they have no business asserting facts on a board which don't exist in the record. So at least as to that statement of fact in the board we would object to this and ask that it be changed. I think also you should bear in mind, your Honor, that I believe the Prosecution has little cards and has the technical ability to make substitutions and changes, depending on your rulings this morning, because they indicated that as to another time they were going to make a change and put a card on it. But again I would like my co-counsel to just have just a two-minute opportunity to quickly look at that board as well, because there are a lot of different times on it, and I will be the first to admit that I don't have that kind of expert familiarity with every time suggested on there, and we would just like to be able to check it.
All right. Any response to the objections regarding the boards? Miss Clark, good morning.
Yes, your Honor, if it even needs a response. I plan to argue, as the court is aware, that Mr. Deedrick can testify to what he saw through a microscope and that can only be deemed consistent, but when we consider all of the evidence in the case we know that it is his hair and this is argument. That is the reasonable inference to be drawn. At this point I should not be confined to say it is only consistent, because I'm not just talking about Mr. Deedrick's opinion or conclusion based solely on the microscopic comparison. I will make that very clear to the jury. There is not going to be any doubt in anybody's mind and I'm not going to be saying Mr. Deedrick said it was a match. Mr. Deedrick said it was consistent. That is all he can say. When we look at all of the evidence, it is his hair. That is entirely permissible; in fact, mandatory argument on this. So I don't think the court need to hear much more from me on that. With respect to the timeline--this is the problem with having lawyers argue that haven't been here on the timeline thing. Kato said that he heard the thumps and two to three minutes later he walked out of his room. Allan Park said that he was on the phone with his boss and hung up within thirty seconds of that--of seeing Kato and the Defendant out in the yard; Kato on the side yard, the Defendant in the driveway. We have his phone cell records--cell phone records that indicate that that phone call was completed at 10:55 something. It is on the board, your Honor, in any case, so I timed it by that. We have a very, very accurate way of determining when Kato went out to the side yard and when he heard the thumps based on that. Is there anything else?
Judge, I believe that the Prosecutor's argument is simply that that is when parks saw the two of them, but the phone records and his testimony, both on direct and cross, is that it could have been 10:40, it could have been as late as 10:42. That is the window. They just enlarged it by ten minutes. And there is absolutely no testimony to support that. It is--the phone records even--don't--don't--aren't consistent with that. And we can pull out in ten seconds, if you want, the portions of the transcript, so it is crystal clear, but that number, 10:52, just comes out of thin air and is not supported by the facts. And I think if you just give us a minute we will pull it for you.
No. I recollect that there is some imprecision in the times and the only times that we have are time stamps by the phone records. I agree with you there. However, I think that the Prosecution has a rational basis to make that argument and they make that argument. If it is illogical or if it doesn't make sense to the jury, they make that argument at their peril, but since they can extrapolate, so to speak, from the testimony, I think they are entitled to make that argument. All right. The other objections will be overruled with the following modification: Miss Clark, I'm concerned that the hair and fiber, to say that it is the Defendant's hair or fiber from the Bronco, when we know that the testimony is that it is consistent with, I think a labeling should be that it is consistent with.
I would understand the court's concern if it was an issue of misrepresenting to the jury what the scientific testimony was. I'm sure the court can appreciate that when everything is put together and that is the argument. These boards are a summation. These boards are not just based on Mr. Deedrick's testimony. And I will not let the jury be misled in that regard for one second. The board--the purpose of these boards is to put it all together to say when you consider everything, you know this is his hair. That is the Bronco fiber. I'm going to make it clear. I'm not going to leave any doubt in anyone's mind what Mr. Deedrick said. He could only say this, but on this board I'm asking you to consider all of the evidence and this is it, and when you put it all together you know it is his hair. And that is the purpose of closing argument, is to put it all together. So I understand the court's concern, but I can assure the court a hundred percent that the jury will not be misled by my argument. They are closing argument boards. They were not going back jury in the jury room. I'm going to tell the jury that this is based on all of the evidence, not just Mr. Deedrick, and I intend to make that very clear.
It is argument. But in any case, your Honor, the purpose of the board is to collate everything. And if I have to start fragmenting it--again, I understood for testimony, and you know, I have no--I have no disagreement with the court's concern during testimony of saying exactly what the witness was saying, but now it is argument and it is time to put it together.
Yes, your Honor. There are other boards where they refer to letters and other items of evidence that are in fact statements of the actual record in this case. This is the one instance where they have it on a board that is not an accurate statement of the record in this case. It is distortion, it is misleading, and it is a board suggesting that that is in fact the evidence and that is not the evidence. And they can modify that board, they can change the wording in it to reflect the state of the evidence, just as they have on the other boards, and it is actually disingenuous to suggest that whereas there are other boards that are accurate statements of the record, but this board I will single out and I will explain to the jury that I don't mean this to be a statement of the evidence, I just mean this to be argument, that it is misleading because it sets these boards apart from all the other boards they intend to use in their closing arguments. It just isn't fair.
All right. Thank you. All right. The objections will be overruled subject to modification during the course of counsel's argument, if it is not accurately argued. All right. How about the other exhibits?
Mr. Fairtlough, if you are going to have any remains displayed again, would you let me know.
Your Honor, the remaining slides are photograph slides? Would you like me to run through those quickly?
Your Honor, with regard to this, the first thing I would like to point out is that the court had given orders with regard to the time that these graphics were to be displayed to us and we had people here at eight o'clock this morning. We are now seeing them at about 9:20, thereafter, so they are more than an hour and twenty minutes late. I point that out because of the fact that Mr. Harris came with our--our information regarding the clips we wanted to use and he misunderstood the time. He had them in plenty time, he always gets here at 8:30 and got here somewhere apparently between 9:00 and 10:00.
I thought it was before 10:00, but this is an hour and twenty minutes. We are just now seeing these. They went through very fast and the court saw them so I won't belabor this. I want to point that out at the beginning they should be precluded, if we are going to be precluded from using our clips. It is the same thing. Theirs weren't ready; ours weren't ready. It was a misunderstanding by Mr. Harris. But the point I wanted to make was, for instance, on these boards, in looking through them very quickly, and they went very quickly, this is the problem right before argument when they do this. Talk about a Bruno Magli shoeprint and they talk about the Defendant's Bruno Maglis, I believe at one point. There is no showing that Mr. Simpson purchased or bought any Bruno Maglis in this case. They have something on there, the Defendant did not go to his children. His children were brought to him. I mean, you know, this is the most misleading kind of argument. If they want to use this, many of these things they are using at their own peril, I am warning them, they are using at their own peril. But the Defendant did not to go his children. This photograph--I don't know the point of this photograph, this kind of time sequence photograph, kind of in a map or a puzzle kind of fashion of Mr. Simpson. This idea of rejection by Paula, there is no evidence of rejection by Paula. There is testimony that Paula was at the mirage being paid for by Michael Bolton. There is no rejection by Paula. Using Kato to set up an alibi. This is just specious. In this they use at one point the term "Consistent with," which is what you said they could do. That further stands up and highlights when she says it is the Defendant's hair. The jury is not going to fall for this. Riske never testified here in uniform. What they are doing, first of all, an hour and twenty minutes late beyond your order, they are misleading and we need actually more time to actually look at these to see. Just jotting down as we went through that very very quickly. And it seems to me it is totally unfair and contrary to the spirit of what you were talking about. I contrast that with the video clips. The video clips, your Honor, are exactly what happened in this courtroom.
Still the same thing. Well, then they get precluded from that then if you are not listening to that argument. The same thing in fairness and equal playing field. These things get precluded. They weren't here on time. And now we are faced with the situation you don't want to hear the argument regarding Mr. Harris yesterday, then it seems to me this should be precluded, clearly. You said eight o'clock. It was clear.
It is really difficult, your Honor, when we saw them so fast for the first time. I need a little more time with them, quite frankly. That is all I was able to jot down as we looked for them together for the first time an hour and twenty minutes late.
They were. They were. Jonathan was here. He was here with all of the clips and the slide. They weren't ready. They were here and we were ready to go. That is the answer. That is the answer. They don't have an excuse for this one. We when here and we were ready; they were not. That is it. With respect to the points on the slides, however, your Honor, I have never had to preview my closing argument in any trial in my life. Those points on the slides are my argument.
Now, unless Defense counsel is going to be fair about this and give me their closing argument, I will review it and I will tell Mr. Cochran what I think is fair for him to argue, too. As he says, the jury is, quote-unquote, not going to fall for that, then he shouldn't be concerned. The jury won't fall for that. I think that the jury is not going to fall for their stuff. I think the jury is going to fall for reason and logic and that is what this is. But I don't have to make this argument now. The court is aware of these arguments. But those points up there are reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. If the jury doesn't agree, if the jury thinks they are unreasonable inferences, the jury knows what to do and they will do it.
What about the in the "Triggering events board" that you have there, rejection by Paula Barbieri. Where is the basis for that?
Uh-huh. During the day--he will just trace it from the afternoon. Based on the Defendant's cell phone records, we have a phone call to Nicole at 2:30 in the afternoon lasting for four minutes. Immediately after that phone call we have two calls to Paula Barbieri which were unanswered. As you recall, we had testimony from Kathleen Delaney, I think is the last name, general counsel for the mirage, and she testified to the fact that Paula had checked--had made--no, checked into the mirage on June the 12th at 1:59 p.m. So at the time that the Defendant was trying to call her she was already at--in Las Vegas at the mirage a guest of Michael Bolton. We also know that earlier in the morning, or the previous day, Paula had asked to go to the recital with him and he had told her no, that he was going to keep it a family event. We have our theory about what he intended in telling Paula not to be at the recital, which we intend to argue at the appropriate time. In any case, when he showed up at the recital he was clearly, as the witnesses have testified, in a very unusual mood, glowering, spaced out, as Candace put it, simmering.
I am reminded that whatever transpired in the phone call with Nicole at 2:30 in the afternoon clearly had something to do with that mood. In addition to the fact that when he went to the recital and the Mezzaluna date was made, he was not included and he had already told Paula not to come to the recital, so essentially--then he tries to reach Paula again later that night at 10:03, calling her twice when he was in the Bronco. Couldn't reach her at those times either. She was not home. So we know she was in Las Vegas. And I think that was the final--the last straw for him. He was abandoned by Nicole. He was abandoned by Paula and that is why we are here.
Yes. Mr. Bodziak testified that there were characteristics in the print on the carpet that were consistent with the Bruno Magli shoeprint. Would you like me to pull up the testimony?
The only reason, he wasn't here earlier this morning and I thought I could give the court a--
I had the laser disk here at eight o'clock. I did a bar code check to make sure everything was correct. Two or three of my bar codes were off so I went back up to reprint so I could show them in the correct order. At that point I came down I believe about--it was a little bit around nine o'clock.
I finished it up last night, your Honor, at about four o'clock in the morning. I was still dropping slides to laser at three o'clock last night and I was in the office bar coding until about four o'clock.
Your Honor, it is going to take a few minutes. Is there anything else you would like me to respond to?
Your Honor, it is going to take a few minutes to get this. Is there anything else we can handle? Or I won't get to that part of my argument for a while, so we can start and then I can make sure I get that to the court before we get to that point. It is going to be about ten minutes.
They have to pull the testimony off the system up there and then bring it down to the court.
We can tell you what he said. We have it. That is why they are never going to find it. They will be ten minutes and ten hours. They will not find it.
We will pull it up in just a minute. We know what he said. He did not say they were Bruno Maglis.
All right. Your Honor, I think that it was 32751 and I will just try to read this--32751--50. Okay. "I could get--I could get any of the features in this enhanced impression to correspond to the Silga sole such as I had with the other comparisons that I made and I was not able to take an overlay and actually reconstruct the exact position of that shoe to the point where I could say it was absolutely the Silga design and even go further and say it was the same. There just wasn't enough detail. And of course it is not representing the normal design of the case, but it is just wherever there happens to be some blood up in the grooves and wherever the carpet had to go up just randomly whip down the--so this would be in the negative area--in the negative areas of the shoes or the areas in the grooves so to speak."
Your Honor, they would never find it and it took ten seconds and they can't say that and they are still playing games, your Honor, talking about they couldn't find it. We found it right away. May I respond further to you, your Honor?
Yes, your Honor. What the court needs to do is see the entire testimony. Counsel has only read, of course, a small snippet from an entire section of testimony. And my recollection, and I'm certain that I'm right about this, is that they--they had--he testified, as I indicated to you previously, that there were features consistent with Bruno Magli shoeprint.
Let me just give the court an indication. Counsel left off at the portion where he read, "Or the areas in the grooves so to speak," and then the testimony was: "Yeah, I did notice that there was this area here which could possibly have been a border of a shoe and there also is some little what I call squiggles or little `s' shapes which might represent the curved areas between the design elements, but they weren't clear number or reliable enough to make any kind of a positive determination."
And then: "Can you point out the areas? Now, the upshot--there is no more testimony on this, but the upshot of the testimony was--okay. He is referring to the actual carpet and he said: "Okay. This area here was the area that I referred to that might be the border of the shoe and this area down here where it changes direction kind of like an `s" is an example of that possible--the negative area of the shoe." And then: "Can you take the rubber shoe," and that was the exemplar that he had, your Honor, "And describe for us how it is that that is possibly consistent with the sole of the Silga?
"Yes. Well, the--I don't know how well this can be seen with the light, but the--if you follow the grooves between the design element, they change direction, so there is gentle curves between those design elements and that would be the area that would be--still might be some blood in it at that point back down the driveway that far from the actual crime scene, and these little changes of directions that you can see down here, as well as this border and you really can't see any of them clear enough to make an overlay, but you can see something that suggests that, but there is just not enough detail to absolutely say that that is representative of the Silga sole.
"Okay. Were you going to point out a couple of other of these design elements that were consistent with these--this sole? "No, I think that these--these in here probably show it as well as any, and actually there is--there isn't enough clarity throughout this whole thing to really point to it and say positive that is what it represents, but rather you are seeing a change in direction and that is what you would expect if there was some blood here and the carpet tufted up."
Not for a while, your Honor. That is why--you know, we can--I mean, I think the testimony does clearly indicate he is saying it is consistent. He is not making a positive determination because there is not enough clarity for him to absolutely positively say it is a Bruno Magli. We are making inferences, your Honor, because we have Bruno Magli shoeprints going down the walkway and a bloody shoeprint with features like it on the driver's side of the carpet. I think it is only a reasonable inference that it is the Bruno Magli shoe. It is not only a reasonable inference, it is an obvious inference, so what he said was it was consistent with but he would not make a positive determination.
Yes. Two issues, Mr. Cochran: Specifically responding to the two objections that you made, the triggering events issue and the Bruno Magli issue that we just finished discussing, and the second issue being an opportunity to see all of these.
Thank you. Let me take the second issue first. The court asked Miss Clark when we she would get to this in her argument. She will never get to this in her argument. The exact same thing. This court has prided itself on being fair to both sides, trying to be fair to both sides. Yesterday you precluded us from something that everybody knows about because it is something that happened during the courtroom and we were only to give actually the--the text passages, the quotes, not even--not even view and show and tell, which we are prepared to do, which we worked all night to do. And in this instance what Mr. Neufeld was trying to tell your Honor is that at ten minutes to 9:00 he spoke to you and told you they had not shown him this show and tell at that point. Mr. Fairtlough was not back down here. It didn't work at that point. There was a glitch. So as we said, an hour and twenty minutes after your order, so under that--under that reasoning, I mean, this is a real easy one, they are precluded from doing this. If we take those kind of positions, it has to be for both sides, not just for the Defense.
Well, Mr. Cochran, on the 22nd, late in the day, Miss Chapman asked for an extension.
All right. 9:00 a.m. Came and went. Nobody showed up. At which point at 9:30 I issued that order.
Your Honor--it is something that is important. We asked for the--let's make clear what we are talking about here. What you had asked us to do was to provide by nine o'clock yesterday with a list of the items we wanted to use, not even the item because that takes an awful lot of work. Mr. Harris understood. Mr. Harris is always here by 8:30. Certainly Mr. Harris didn't do that intentionally, he would never do that. He is always here everyday. He has been here from Florida for a year and a half and certainly he would be here on time.
But the point is this, your Honor, if I might just say this, if you will allow me. Mr. Harris not getting here or being half hour, an hour late on just the actual quotes, that should not inure to the detriment of O.J. Simpson. That is unfair. And so what should happen--if you want to sanction Mr. Harris or sanction us, then do that, but not Mr. Simpson. Now, let's put it in perspective here. The reason--this is far different. This is actual text that we need to see so the jury, the fourteen people back there, don't have to spend this time. You said eight o'clock. We had people here at eight o'clock. They weren't ready at eight o'clock. Miss Clark has been caught. They weren't ready at eight o'clock. At 9:20 they were ready just like she makes this statement here about the bloody Bruno Magli shoeprint. You know, sometimes we have to have some credibility in this courtroom. So those are the facts, your Honor, so I know you said you didn't want to hear this, but you are a wise man and you have been fair in the past. If you look at this, how can we look at O.J. Simpson and say because Howard Harris didn't get a text down here that everybody knows what these clips are, it is actually the trial testimony, that O.J. Simpson should suffer from that? Mr. Harris is very sorry about that. If he got a chance to talk to you about it, that is--that is just not fair, your Honor, under the circumstances. Now we have a situation here where they come down, they don't come at eight o'clock. Neufeld tells you at ten of 9:00 we haven't seen it. At nine o'clock when he comes back we still don't see it. We have to ask to see it. And it is 9:20, and you can now see why we don't get a chance to see it, because it has all these things on it. That moves to the other point you asked me to discuss, the bloody Bruno Magli shoeprint on driver's side carpet. Judge, she can argue all she wants. The evidence does not show that. That is a lie. That is--the evidence doesn't show that. She can talk about reasonable inferences, what she would like to hope, but this just shows the desperation of the Prosecution at this eleventh hour, they would try these tricks. And they are tricks, Judge. These are nothing but tricks. It is not going to work. But I don't think we can even be part of this at this eleventh hour, so to be fair, this has to be precluded. This has to be kept out because they didn't have it here at nine o'clock. We didn't get a chance to see it. We are prejudiced by this. Even as we are arguing now there are other things that went by so fast--I'm not totally clear on all the things that were there. I happened to pick up bloody Bruno Magli shoeprint because I knew that wasn't true. But the other thing that I think you allowed me to talk about was the whole issue of Paula Barbieri. I mean, that is the rankest kind of speculation. Paula Barbieri stands by this man's side to this day. There was no indication there was ever any rejection. In fact, quite the contrary. They had made plans for later that week and there is evidence that is totally supportive and the testimony I think of the young lady, Carol Connor, on the Saturday night, June 11, when O.J. Simpson takes the pictures with the elderly women at the $25,000 plate dinner. They were absolutely lovey-dovey on Friday until Paula went to a prayer meeting. It is all to the contrary. You know, this is their fantasy, their whole case. We should have known when the Shipp thing came up. This is all about their dreams. It is not going to work, Judge, so we can't be part of that. This is unfair.
So it seems to me they are precluded. We are not saying--I would ask your Honor to consider--but under your ruling yesterday they are precluded, quite simply. It wasn't shown. And this is far more different than just telling us generally what we expected to show in clips, things that you've already seen during the course of this trial. May I have a second, your Honor?
And I am reminded by my colleague there is a far difference. Yesterday what we were going to give you was the page and line number and things we wanted to show and you also made it very clear and that is why you see Mr. John Whitney here, we could not show the face of, say, the Defendant or the lawyer asking the questions, so in going through all this we had to back all that out and that took a lot of work. There was no prejudice to them, and I trust not to your Honor, because it is a question of what had happened in this courtroom. We are talking about a search for truth. This is a lawyer's interpretation of what they would have hoped the evidence would be. There is much more prejudice to us an hour and twenty minutes later when she is about to stand up and argue for them to show us this in this rapid fire manner. We are talking about prejudice and it is prejudice to Mr. O.J. Simpson, your Honor, and so that I would say to your Honor two things: These should be precluded.
I don't see that that is tit for tat, your Honor. They wanted to use--the court made a very specific ruling. The court did not say counsel is required to submit their closing argument to the opposing counsel for editing ahead of time. The court ruled that if we wanted to use video clips they had to be--I thought it was just the Defense, but that if video clips were to be used by the Defense, they had to be submitted by the court by a time certain, and if they weren't, they wouldn't be allowed. That is a little different than what I'm allowed to argue to the jury. And we are talking substance here, because although there are the words that I intend to argue, we are not talking about a slide, you know involving a picture of something. We are not talking about videotape. Because the use of videotapes in argument is a very novel thing. So understandably the court was concerned that it be allowed to preview what counsel wanted to use, because it is an avant-garde kind of thing to do. I don't know if it has ever been done before. And the court needed to assure itself that what was done was appropriate ahead of time. But arguing reasonable inferences from the record is something that has been done for hundreds of years, your Honor. I'm doing nothing different. That is all, I'm doing is making it easier for the jury to see, just like we did in the old days and we have an easel and we get up there and write all the reasons why the Defendant was guilty. Now we have this whiz-bang stuff and I can do it on screen. That is the only difference. I have a witness that says it is consistent with this but I can't positively say. I draw reasonable inferences based on all the evidence and tell the jury, but we know it is. Is that something different and possible or something he does? I'm not doing anything different. I'm just using a screen instead of an easel to do what we have been doing for a hundred years. This is not tit for tat, your Honor. Counsel is so scared he is saying don't let her argue. Don't let her draw reasonable inferences. Don't let her put before the jury. I'm drawing inferences from the evidence and I am arguing the evidence. He wanted to use something novel that the court wanted to safeguard. I understand that. Mr. Fairtlough was down here at eight o'clock. Cheri Lewis was down here at eight o'clock. They weren't ready. They were looking at the boards. Peter Neufeld had broken his glasses. They weren't ready to see anything. We were here.
Judge, that is contrary to what Mr. Fairtlough has just said, your Honor, and Miss Clark--
He went back upstairs to fix a few bar codes, but if they had been ready to sit here and watch it at eight o'clock, we would have shown them.
Wait, wait, wait. Argument is over. I've heard enough. Thank you very much. It has been entertaining as usual. All right. The Defense is entitled to see these, since they are going to be used during the course of argument, prior to their use. We will take a 20-minute recess to allow that to happen.
Mr. Fairtlough was in fact here this morning at 8:05, because I did come down and see him seated back there and he was playing with bar codes. We did look at the charts that were physically here and I did use members of my staff to go down and get crazy glue for Mr. Neufeld to fix his glasses and that was what was occupying us for the most part. Previous ruling stands regarding videotapes. The court finds that as far as the argument is concerned, there are inferences. What a Prosecutor is allowed to do is to discuss the evidence and then draw reasonable or plausible inferences from that. I agree that perhaps some of these may not be logical, but it is argument.
No. That is the end of that argument. All right. We will take twenty minutes. Show them the exhibits.
Counsel, it is argument. I have seen them all. Show them. All right. Twenty minutes.
I see we are in fighting moods today.
That is a lie. That is--the evidence doesn't show that. She can talk about reasonable inferences, what she would like to hope, but this just shows the desperation of the Prosecution at this eleventh hour, they would try these tricks. And they are tricks, Judge.
I have never had to preview my closing argument in any trial in my life. Those points on the slides are my argument. Now, unless Defense counsel is going to be fair about this and give me their closing argument, I will review it and I will tell Mr. Cochran what I think is fair for him to argue, too.
Mr. Fairtlough was in fact here this morning at 8:05, because I did come down and see him seated back there and he was playing with bar codes. We did look at the charts that were physically here and I did use members of my staff to go down and get crazy glue for Mr. Neufeld to fix his glasses and that was what was occupying us for the most part.
It has been entertaining as usual.