OJ Simpson preliminary hearing, day 5.
I lost count at 5! That doesn’t bode well for trial! Which is coming up tomorrow! but openings also lasted two days, so yeah.
Starting with the list again, because it’s fun.
Before I get to the second excerpt, and the gap filling i’ll need to do, there’s definitely some gap filling! I want to highlight something from Judge Powel’s ruling on the supression motion. This just made me wonder, that’s all.
15 First of all, before announcing the ruling
16 with regard to the 1538.5 motion, I’d just like to say
17 that both attorneys, both sides in this case, did an
18 excellent presentation, for which the court is
19 grateful. And you both gave me quite a bit to think
20 about during the last several hours.
How many hours was Judge Powel thinking about this particular motion? Was she up all night thinking about it? I guess we’ll never know, but I’m now curious!
The ruling is captured in all 3 places, I really don’t need to talk about it. Back to the main prelim we went! Detective Tom Lange took the stand. I was minding the testimony, when YOutube and my browser decided not to play nicely with each other during excerpt transition. That’s why we have redundancies.
14 Q Sir, is it part of your duties as an
15 investigating officer to direct the collection of
16 evidence and the TAKING of photographs?
17 A Yes; working with the criminalist.
18 Q And so at the crime scene, you assess what you
19 think is important, what is evidence and should be
20 preserved either by photographing or collection or both?
21 A Yes.
22 Q In this particular case, sir, the blood drops
23 you have described in People’s 19 and 20, did you direct
24 that these photographs be taken?
25 A Yes.
It was just a small gap this time. Second excerpt, 46 minutes.
Just a slight bit of gap filling, before moving on to the third excerpt!
18 Q Did you determine if any police officer checked
19 the shoes of the witnesses who discovered the bodies?
20 A It was related to me that — I believe, that was
21 done around the time that the dog’s paws were observed; but
22 i did not direct that or have personal knowledge of that.
Third excerpt, 49 minutes.
There are two trips into chambers, because there wasn’t a space for sied bars in the courtroom, during the third excerpt. One happened at the end, and one happened toward the beginning. This is the first one.
15 (the following proceedings were
16 Held in chambers: )
17 THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect that
18 we are in chambers, equivalent to side bar; We have
19 Mr. Hodgman and Miss Clark, Mr. Uelmen and Mr. Shapiro, the
20 court reporter and myself.
21 MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, your Honor.
22 We are going to object as being unduly
23 prejudicial putting three photographs together that are not
24 related.
25 One is a photograph of Mr. Simpson taken on the
26 13th, of his index finger; and right next to it are the two
27 gloves.
28 I think the inference is more than clear and the
0103
01 prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value.
02 Were the three photographs to be introduced
03 individually, we have no objection to that; But to do it on
04 this board is, to me, outrageous.
05 MS. CLARK: Well, “outrageous” is hardly the term, but
06 I would remind the court we don’t have a jury; This is a
07 preliminary hearing —
08 THE COURT: I am well aware of that.
09 MS. CLARK: — Number one.
10 And number two, if counsel has no objection to
11 them individually, then he certainly cannot legally object
12 to having them all together, collectively, on one board.
13 It simply — I don’t think I have heard a legal
14 objection that would appropriately be made at a preliminary
15 hearing.
16 I don’t think the court is going to be unduly
17 prejudiced by seeing three photographs in one spot as
18 opposed to having them shown singly.
19 THE COURT: I don’t believe that the photos —
20 MR. SHAPIRO: May I be heard just briefly?
21 I don’t believe the court is going to be
22 prejudiced at all, but there is a group of photographers
23 out there. My information is they are sending this
24 transmission worldwide to potential members of this jury,
25 if there ever should be a jury, and that by doing this,
26 there is no other purpose than to unduly influence them by
27 having this picture on the front page of some type of
28 magazine.
0104
01 THE COURT: The court was very concerned with regard
02 to photographs of the crime scene. We handled that in a
03 way I thought was appropriate for both sides.
04 I do not find that these particular photos
05 depicted in the manner that they are depicted are the same
06 nature and type as those other photos that we handled in
07 another way.
08 the mere fact that there is a picture of the hand
09 and a picture of the gloves on one board I do not feel is
10 of such a nature that we would prejudice the defendant’s
11 ability to get a fair trial should at some point he go to
12 trial.
13 So, therefore, your objection is overruled.
14 Let’s go back out.
15 MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you.
I’m just highlighting something here in the transcript that isn’t really all that important, but it’s funny, well it makes it a joke for me, anyway.
27 BY MR. SHAPIRO:
28 Q Detective Vannatter, when you caused to have
0108
01 Mr. Simpson’s index finger photographed, did you ask for a
02 criminalist to examine it?
03 A No, I did not.
04 Q Did you ask for a medical examiner to examine it?
05 A As it was being photographed?
06 Q Yes.
07 A No, sir.
08 Q Did you ask for a doctor to examine it?
09 A No, sir.
10 Q Did you ask for a nurse to examine it?
11 A At a later date I did, yes — or at a later time
12 I asked for a nurse to examine it.
13 Q I am not saying the photograph. I am saying the
14 finger.
15 A The finger, yes.
16 Q So you asked a nurse to examine it?
17 A I asked a nurse after the photograph was taken.
18 Q After the photograph?
19 A Yeah.
20 Q Did you ask a doctor, a criminalist or a medical
21 examiner?
22 A No, sir, I didn’t.
This cut will forever be known as the “Simpson cut!” We get to the nurse during this day of testimony Wow! Talk about side issues that infest an entire case. Mini-trial much? We’re going to see 2 or 3 of them in this one when we get to the trial!
Fourth excerpt, 41 minutes.
Transcript for July 7th, 1994,
In fact, here’s the second chambers trip, which mentions that vary witness.
04 (the following proceedings were
05 Held in chambers:)
06 THE COURT: All right. We are again on the record in
07 the case of people v. Simpson in chambers, without the
08 defendant. Both lawyers for the people are here, and
09 Mr. Uelmen and Mr. Shapiro are here for the defense.
10 Miss Clark.
11 MR. HODGMAN: I will address this one, your Honor.
12 THE COURT: Sorry.
13 MR. SHAPIRO: It’s about time you did something. The
14 L.A. TIMES was getting a bit nervous about your
15 involvement.
16 MR. HODGMAN: Well, they will just have to speculate,
17 I guess.
18 THE COURT: And they will do that.
19 MR. HODGMAN: Your Honor, the nature of the objection
20 is that what counsel is calling for is hearsay evidence;
21 and pursuant to evidence code section 1220 — that is their
22 client’s statement, and they cannot be legally the
23 proponent of that statement.
24 We legally, under 1220, can introduce that
25 statement. At present we don’t intend to introduce that
26 statement at the preliminary hearing.
27 THE COURT: What about Prop. 115? Has that affected
28 the ability of the defense to present what traditionally —
0111
01 and I agree with you — is classic hearsay, the exception
02 being an admission offered against a party And,
03 traditionally, it is only offered by the prosecution and
04 not by the defense?
05 But what about Prop. 115 at a preliminary
06 hearing? Has that changed that? I mean, presumably
07 hearsay evidence is admissible.
08 MR. HODGMAN: I would submit not, your Honor; We have
09 a statement of a party opponent, and only the opposing
10 party can be the proponent of that statement.
11 We are not seeking to introduce that statement.
12 And we will do some research, if you wish, to satisfy you
13 on this issue.
14 My understanding of the law, it is not
15 admissible; it is hearsay.
16 THE COURT: Mr. Shapiro.
17 MR. UELMEN: it is conceded it is hearsay, but
18 Prop. 115 makes hearsay admissible at a preliminary hearing
19 if it is offered through the testimony of a police officer
20 with five years experience.
21 We have an officer with five years experience on
22 the stand. Hearsay is admissible.
23 THE COURT: You know, that is my general
24 understanding; and that has been my ruling in other cases
25 that nobody cares about, but — in other cases that has
26 kind of been my ruling, and I have not seen anybody cite a
27 case to the contrary.
28 If you wish some time, we are taking our noon
0112
01 break. you know. I will certainly take the issue up again
02 at 1:30 in chambers and listen to what everybody has to
03 say.
04 (proceedings were had which were
05 transcribed in volume 11-a and
06 ordered sealed by the court.)
07 MR. UELMEN: Can we get some idea of what the
08 schedule looks like?
09 THE COURT: Yeah. Can we get some idea of the
10 schedule?
11 Ms. clark: Certainly.
12 After detective Vannatter concludes his
13 testimony, I will present the nurse who took the blood from
14 the defendant, unless you want to stipulate; and then I
15 will present Dennis Fung, and then I will bring greg
16 Matheson and then the coroner.
17 mr. hodgman: At present we have Dr. Irwin golden, who
18 is the deputy medical examiner, who performed the
19 autopsies, scheduled to testify tomorrow.
20 mr. shapiro: We should finish tomorrow, then.
21 THE COURT: Okay. That would be delightful.
22 ms. clark: It would.
23 mr. shapiro: I mean, if we really push today, I
24 think we should finish tomorrow unless you are going to
25 go into serology to any great — are you just going into
26 blood typing?
27 Ms. clark: Enzyme, typing and ABO; but there is no
28 d.n.a.
0113
01 mr. shapiro: And that should go fairly quickly.
02 ms. clark: Yes, I would think; Neat but not gaudy.
03 THE COURT: Have a good lunch.
04 We will meet in here at 1:30, then.
05 (at 12:02 p.m., a recess was
06 Taken until 1:30 p.m.)
We’re going to get to the nurse’s testimony right now. There was a small transcription ddifficulty with it. Ssince I do not know how to address something that I heard nearly 31 years from then, and the court reporter did not, I’m going to place it into the archival record, and allow anyone to make any interpretations they wish. In order to do this, I need to share exchanges from the transcript that took place during the testimony of Thano Peratis, who was a registered nurse at the time. Probably more than necessary, but I will need to do so to give a bit of context. I will also share a specific time code from the excerpt. I was going to try to do a test with someone’s phone, to see if what I heard can be discernable from there, but I wasn’t able to do so. I would just like to note that I did not catch this in 2022, when I was originally revisiting the case.
03 THE COURT: You may inquire.
04 MS. CLARK: Thank you, Your Honor.
05
06 DIRECT EXAMINATION
07
08 BY MS. CLARK:
09 Q Mr. Peratis, sir, can you tell us what you do
10 for a living?
11 A I’m a registered nurse.
12 Q You’re a registered nurse?
13 A Yes, Ma’am.
14 Q And are you qualified to draw blood from
15 people?
16 A Yes.
17 Q How long have you been a registered nurse?
18 A About 40 years.
19 Q And where are you employed as a registered
20 nurse?
21 A Parker Center jail.
22 Q At Parker Center jail?
23 A (No response.)
24 Q Is that “yes”?
25 A Yes, Ma’am.
That’s where the difficulty is. Simple question, simple answer, but I clearly heard Peratis say “yes, mam,” the first time. Now, it was quiet, at first it was just a little below the threshold, but I could hear it, turned up the speakers just a bit, and I was able to hear it pretty well. In 2022 I did not watch the full preliminary, but I did extensive research on this issue in particular.
I’m going to link to a time code, so that if anyone wants to, you can try and hear what I heard. Excerpt 4, starting at 22 minuts and 15 seconds.
Fifth excerpt, 38 minutes.
I didn’t find a gap between 4 and 5. There’s a small gap while transitioning from 5 to 6. Dennis Fung was the witness on the stand.
I’m going to cite the question and the answer, so that it makes more sense.
14 Q And what did you do with those items after you
15 received them from Colin Yamauchi?
16 A Once I received them, I placed them in
17 envelopes, labeled them, and booked them into S.I.D.
18 property.
Sixth excerpt, 58 minutes.
This one looked like it was going to end suddenly, then the evening recess was taken. A note about the 2 hour, and 28 minute video, it cuts off most of the testimony, and I’m just not sure why. It was only 2 hours, and 28 minutes, when we clearly have more than that in the excerpts. Transcript from July seventh, 1994.