Your Honor, I have a number of objections. The first one is that Miss Clark was making argument about there being no--that you should have--item 42, there should have been DNA result--kept on referring to as DNA results as showing the blood of Nicole Brown Simpson being taken from the samples. She was making this argument and she is indicating that--her argument was that the swatches and bindle 42 showed that it was the blood of Nicole Brown Simpson. Now, what's misleading and without--devoid of any factual support in the record, highly misleading is that there are no conventional serology results and no DNA test results on those swatches. So it's improper argument. There's no factual foundation at all in the record for that and it's highly misleading. That's no. 1. No. 2, she made an argument that the PCR testing here can detect DNA from Egyptian mummies.
That's not what she said. There was testimony that PCR has been used to type Egyptian mummies.
Therefore, you should be able to find DNA from degraded samples here. It seems to me, your Honor, this is highly misleading and argument that is without support in the record, the DNA typing for Egyptian mummies.
Well, that's wrong. No. 3, she misquoted--misled the jury with respect to the testimony of Dr. Baden about blood searches being planned, an excerpt that she read with respect to the testimony of Dr. Baden. She did not tell the jury and she misled them because they were--made statements about his own records, not their records on June 22nd where they talked about--
She did not mention June--she contemplated it as though discussion about the June 29th blood search when this was taking place on June 22nd. That was wrong and highly misleading. She gave a page number. I may get it wrong. I may have to go back--40098 with respect to Dr. Gerdes talking about conventional serology.
I may have misheard your page reference. Just give me that. The page reference I wrote down I don't see as relating to what she said. But definitely, the one statement that she made that is completely improper--and perhaps she doesn't know it, but the court should think back--and that is around the time that we withdrew the DNA motion, we had in writing and on the record made a request for exemplars, DNA exemplars from the officers in the case. We asked for that. If you recall, what they agreed to do was give us exemplars where DNA typing--I should say from the evidence collections, but they refused to give them to the police officers. You can check with Mr. Clarke and Mr. Harmon. You can go back and get the report. Please search your memory. We had specifically requested that. What she just told us--
Hold on. Hold on. Stop there. Tell me about 42, the blood testing on 4--what testing was done on 42?
The conventional serology. 42 is the one that gave us the EAP degraded also to a B, and I told--what I actually told the jury is, you know, it is her blood because it's under her body, pool of blood. That's what I said. And the--there was testimony concerning conventional serology done on that. I think there was--was there PCR on that? Also PCR in that. Collin did that. So there was a type on that.
Why don't we tell the results? On their board, they show conventional serology, just inconclusive typing results and the DNA typing by Mr. Yamauchi on sample 42 showed no results. Those are the facts in the record, not this nonsense that she's telling us now.
These are the most specious objections and counsel's inappropriate demeanor is something that I want to raise with the court separately when we conclude this. But I have not misrepresented anything to this jury. I have told this jury that it is her pool of blood that is underneath her body. And if there was contamination, you know, what counsel is saying doesn't disprove a thing. I said nothing--in fact, it proves it better because if it was totally degraded and no results was obtained, then it should have gotten the Defendant's type also. If, according to his testimony, contamination is correct, then that should have come up. Nothing I had said misled the jury.
KEY QUOTEI have no knowledge of that. You would not have opposed it. And Johnnie knows. He asked me to get the elimination standards for hair, and I went and I got the hair--
What I want you to do is come back with, with regard to 42, the most we could say about the blood underneath her--and the results are posted on the results board, correct?
Counsel, listen. You should understand I'm not going to go over--this has been a nine-month trial. If you want to go back through argument and fight over what the testimony was or wasn't when you have conflicting testimony about just about everything that went on in this case, we're not going to do that. The jury has been admonished that counsel can argue the facts in the case. And if they argue something that's not to the recollection of the jury, they do that at their peril. We're not going to go back and search through each and every item.
All I am asking the court to do--I think it's in accordance with proper procedure when statements are made without any factual foundation in the record, and frankly, I think if you look back at the argument here in a way that is totally misleading, there are no DNA results on sample no. 42.
How is that--you know what I'm missing here is that I said that is obviously her blood because it's under her body, and if there was contamination, that blood that was collected should have shown his type as well. How have I misled them?
No results on any of it show that and results which is--because there were no results. No result.
On their board, they show conventional serology, just inconclusive typing results and the DNA typing by Mr. Yamauchi on sample 42 showed no results. Those are the facts in the record, not this nonsense that she's telling us now.
The jury has been admonished that counsel can argue the facts in the case. And if they argue something that's not to the recollection of the jury, they do that at their peril. We're not going to go back and search through each and every item.
These are the most specious objections and counsel's inappropriate demeanor is something that I want to raise with the court separately when we conclude this.
If it was totally degraded and no results was obtained, then it should have gotten the Defendant's type also. If, according to his testimony, contamination is correct, then that should have come up. Nothing I had said misled the jury.