OJ Simpson opening statements, part 1.

I’m going to attempt the first part of openings, and pretrial. As far as I recall, there were a lot of arguments before we get to the actual openings, so we may just be fleshing out discovery issues. Although I looked ahead, and it looks like we do get to some openings in the first day. We have three sources for trial archives, plus the transcript. One of them is the court TV archive. If there are gaps that are much bigger than what we were dealing with in the preliminary, and there are in some portions of the YOutube excerpts, we will be using the archived version from there, but I will link to it as we go along, so that we don’t have to find which week we’re on when we need it. for instance, we have this this excerpt before openings start. It’s a 1 hour and 38 minute pretrial motion hearing. The discovery thing doesn’t get quite innumerated on that court TV pretrial hearing,. There’s a transcript of it.
Pretrial hearing, part two. The first part of the second pretrial hearing is fighting over a video. I’ll just note that becomes routine during this case!
Part of that hearing is quite faided, and since we don’t really have anywhere else to turn for that but the transcript, I’m going to have to put this in here. It’s about a half hour of the hearing, so quite a bit of transcript!
THE COURT: WHAT ELSE?
MS. CLARK: THE REST, WE HAVE TO ADDRESS WHAT WE SEE IN THE BOARDS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHICH ONE OF THE BOARDS?
MS. CLARK: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: SURE.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)
MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH?
THE COURT: I THOUGHT THESE WERE OBJECTIONS TO THESE BOARDS HERE. I THOUGHT THAT’S WHAT WE’RE DEALING WITH.
MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVE JUST FOR THE FIRST TIME SEEN THEM THIS MORNING. I HAD FIVE MINUTES TO LOOK AT THEM DURING A BREAK IN THE PROCEEDINGS, AND WE NEED TO CONFER FOR A MOMENT TO PRESENT OUR OBJECTIONS BECAUSE THESE WERE JUST PRESENTED TO US.
THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, THEY’VE BEEN HERE ALL DAY. THEY WERE HERE ALL THROUGH THE LUNCH HOUR. I’VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK THROUGH THEM ALL. I MEAN CAN WE DO THIS — JUST GO THROUGH ONE AT A TIME, SEE IF YOU OBJECT TO IT.
MS. CLARK: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NUMBER ONE, TOP BOARD. WHERE’S THE EASEL THAT YOU ARE GOING TO USE TO PRESENT THESE THINGS, MR. DOUGLAS?
MR. DOUGLAS: SORRY, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: WHERE IS THE EASEL YOU WERE GOING TO USE TO PRESENT THE BOARDS HERE? SET ONE UP SO I CAN SEE THESE THINGS.
MR. DOUGLAS: VERY WELL.
THE COURT: MADAM REPORTER, YOU WANT TO SWITCH?
THE COURT REPORTER: NO, YOUR HONOR.
MS. CLARK: APPARENTLY, YOUR HONOR, THERE’S YET ANOTHER EXHIBIT THAT’S JUST BEING PRODUCED FOR THE FIRST TIME. WE HAVE NOT —
MR. COCHRAN: MR. DOUGLAS DID TELL THEM.
MS. CLARK: I JUST WAS TOLD ABOUT IT THIS MORNING. I’VE NEVER SEEN IT.
THE COURT: LET’S START WITH THIS ONE.
MS. CLARK: WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE RELEVANCE OF THIS COULD POSSIBLY BE.
THE COURT: THAT APPEARS TO BE A LARGE BLOWUP COLOR PHOTOGRAPH, APPEARS TO BE OF MR. SIMPSON AND FOUR OTHER INDIVIDUALS. WHAT’S THE RELEVANCE OF THIS?
MR. COCHRAN: THE RELEVANCE, YOUR HONOR, OF THIS IS — IF I MIGHT, THIS IS MR. SIMPSON. THIS PHOTOGRAPH WILL BE EVIDENCE — THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 11TH, JUST PRIOR — THERE WILL BE A LOT OF EVIDENCE BY THE PROSECUTION ABOUT MR. SIMPSON, THINGS HE WAS DOING ON OR AROUND THE 11TH AND 12TH. THIS IS — AND WITHOUT GOING INTO DETAIL REGARDING THE OFFER OF PROOF, THIS IS WHERE HE WAS THE NIGHT BEFORE. WE TALKED ABOUT EVIDENCE DOCUMENTING WHO HE WAS WITH, AND THE PEOPLE WHO HE WAS WITH ARE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH WE JUST OBTAINED TODAY, BLOWN UP NOW AND BROUGHT TO COURT. WE ADVISED MISS CLARK ABOUT IT WHEN WE FOUND OUT THIS MORNING AND WE’RE NOW PRESENTING IT, AND AS AN OFFICER OF THIS COURT, I WILL LINK THIS UP ALONG WITH THE OTHER EVIDENCE IN THE CASE.
MS. CLARK: LINK IT TO WHAT?
MR. COCHRAN: RELEVANT ISSUES AS I UNDERSTAND THEM.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NEXT ARE THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS.
MS. CLARK: THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH, YOUR HONOR, IS AN ISSUE OF REPRESENTATIVENESS. IT’S CLEAR THAT THERE ARE TARPS ON THE GATES, AND WE KNOW THAT THEY WERE NOT PLACED ON THOSE GATES UNTIL SOME TIME AFTER THE EVENTS IN QUESTION. AND THERE IS AN ISSUE OF SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES AS TO WHETHER THIS IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RENDITIONS THAT WERE IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF THE MURDERS.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT COUNSEL IS SAYING ESSENTIALLY THERE HAS BEEN NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE. I THINK AGAIN, THE EVIDENCE WE’RE TALKING ABOUT DEALS WITH SEEMS TO BE WEIGHT IF ANYTHING, NOT ADMISSIBILITY. THESE ARE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS. THEY HAVE THEIR OWN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS. THAT’S THE SITUATION.
THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, DO YOU KNOW WHEN THOSE AERIAL SHOTS WERE TAKEN?
MR. COCHRAN: GIVE ME JUST A SECOND, YOUR HONOR. I’LL CONFER WITH MR. BAILEY. IF IT’S NOT AUGUST, I’LL LET YOU KNOW.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NEXT.
MS. CLARK: THE GATES ARE NOT CHANGED.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SECOND AREA.
MS. CLARK: IS THAT THE SAME —
THE COURT: COUNSEL, WHAT I NEED IS ONE PERSON TO PRESENT — MISS CLARK, WHY DON’T YOU STEP BACK. WE NEED TO MAKE A RECORD. THE COURT REPORTER CAN’T HEAR YOU TALK ABOUT THE EXHIBITS. WHY DON’T YOU STEP BACK TO COUNSEL TABLE. PERHAPS WE COULD HAVE MR. DOUGLAS HOLD THESE UP. WHY DON’T YOU TURN THE EASEL AROUND. MISS CLARK, WHY DON’T YOU STEP BACK, PLEASE. WHY DON’T YOU TURN THE EASEL AROUND, MR. DOUGLAS, SO COUNSEL CAN SEE IT AND I CAN SEE IT. PERFECT.
MR. DOUGLAS: THIS NEXT BOARD, YOUR HONOR —
THE COURT: SOCK TIME LINE. MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: WELL, YOUR HONOR, THE CHART IS MISLEADING. AS TO JUNE 13TH, 24TH AND 29TH, THERE IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CHART THE INDICATION NO BLOOD WAS FOUND. THAT ASSUMES THAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR BLOOD ON THOSE DATES. THEY WERE NOT. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THERE WAS NO EXAMINATION FOR BLOOD.
MR. DOUGLAS: THAT, YOUR HONOR, IS GOING MORE TO THE WEIGHT THAN ADMISSIBILITY OF THE BOARD.
MS. CLARK: WELL, ACTUALLY IT GOES BEYOND THAT. IT GOES TO ADMISSIBILITY WHEN THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO ASSERT SOMETHING FOR WHICH THERE — IT WOULD BE ONE THING IF THERE WAS SOME INDICATION THAT THEY WERE SUBMITTED FOR SEROLOGICAL TESTING, AND THEN IT WOULD BE AN ISSUE. BUT THERE WAS NONE. AND COUNSEL IS AWARE OF IT. IN DISCOVERY, THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO LOOK FOR BLOOD UNTIL AUGUST 4TH. SO SAYING THERE WAS NO BLOOD FOUND ATTEMPTS TO INFER SOMETHING THAT THERE CAN BE NO PREDICATE FOR, THERE CAN BE NO FOUNDATION FOR, THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH FOR —
MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, THE SOCKS THAT WERE LOCATED AT THE FOOT OF THE BED IN MR. SIMPSON’S BEDROOM WERE EXAMINED ON THE 13TH, WERE EXAMINED BY CRIMINALISTS ALONG WITH DRS. BADEN AND WOLF AND WERE ASKED FOR THE THIRD TIME ON THE 29TH. THERE WAS NEVER ANY NOTATIONS ON ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD ON THOSE SOCKS UNTIL THE 4TH OF AUGUST, AND THAT IS WHAT IS REFLECTED ON THE CHART. THOSE ARE TRUE STATEMENTS THAT CAN BE SPUN ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OR ON REDIRECT, HOWEVER THEY CHOOSE TO SPIN THEM. BUT THE BOARD IS ACCURATE.
MS. CLARK: THE PROBLEM IS, THEY’RE MISLEADING THE JURY, YOUR HONOR. THEY’RE TRYING TO INFER — THEY’RE TRYING TO GET THE JURY TO INFER THERE WAS SEARCH FOR BLOOD AND THEY CAME UP WITH NONE. THAT NEVER OCCURRED. IF THERE WAS NO SEARCH, THEN OF COURSE NO BLOOD WAS FOUND, BUT THAT DOESN’T PROVE ANYTHING. IF YOU HAVEN’T LOOKED, OF COURSE, YOU’RE NOT GOING TO FIND ANY, AND THAT’S MISLEADING.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM.
MR. BAILEY: YOUR HONOR RAISED THE TIME OF THE TAKING OF THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS?
THE COURT: YES.
MR. BAILEY: I TOOK THEM IN EARLY AUGUST.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MR. DOUGLAS: THIS WAS A PHOTOGRAPH OF MR. SIMPSON AND HIS DAUGHTER SIDNEY AT THE RECITAL. THERE WERE SUGGESTIONS MADE IN VARIOUS OFFERS OF PROOF DURING THE DOMESTIC DISCORD AND OTHER HEARINGS THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS NEVER ABLE TO SEE HIS DAUGHTER AND IN FACT WAS NEVER ABLE TO PRESENT THE FLOWERS TO HER. THIS IS GOING TO BE A PHOTOGRAPH CONTRADICTING THAT DIRECTLY.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK. I THINK YOU’VE ALREADY MADE YOUR OBJECTION TO THAT PHOTOGRAPH.
MS. CLARK: MAY I? I THINK I HAVE AN ADDITIONAL STATEMENT TO MAKE ABOUT IT NOW THAT I HEAR COUNSEL’S OFFER OF PROOF. IF I MAY.
THE COURT: SURE.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, COUNSEL’S OFFER OF PROOF MAKES IT CLEARLY IRRELEVANT. WE ARE NEVER GOING — WE ARE GOING TO DO THE OPPOSITE ACTUALLY. WE ARE GOING TO ESTABLISH THROUGH EVIDENCE THAT HE DID SEE HIS DAUGHTER, HE DID GIVE HER FLOWERS, THERE WAS CONTACT. WE ARE GOING TO ESTABLISH THAT THROUGH MORE THAN ONE WITNESS.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NEXT MATTER.
MS. CLARK: SO THERE’S NO ISSUE THAT REQUIRES THAT PHOTOGRAPH TO BE SHOWN.
MR. DOUGLAS: THIS IS ANOTHER BOARD, YOUR HONOR, WHICH WE WILL CONTEND REFLECTS THE AMOUNT OF BLOOD THAT WAS TAKEN FROM MR. SIMPSON AND PLACED IN A BLOOD VIAL. IT WILL ACCOUNT, AS BEST AS OUR RECORDS CAN CONFIRM, THE OCCASIONS WHEN BLOOD WAS REMOVED AND IT WILL SUGGEST, AS FAR AS OUR RECORDS ARE CONCERNED, AND WHAT WE INTEND TO OFFER TO THE JURY, THAT THERE IS BLOOD UNACCOUNTED FOR.
MS. CLARK: AND BY THIS — MAY I?
THE COURT: YES.
MS. CLARK: AND BY THIS CHART, COUNSEL IS ATTEMPTING TO ARGUE THAT 2.6 MILLILITERS IS UNACCOUNTED FOR OR .8 IS UNACCOUNTED FOR?
MR. BAILEY: 1.8.
MS. CLARK: I FIND IT CONFUSING TO DISPLAY THEN BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT 2. — I DON’T KNOW. IT’S HARD TO — BUT THAT’S NOT —
MR. DOUGLAS: IT’S NOT A QUESTION WHETHER THE BOARD IS UNDULY PREJUDICIAL. AFTER WE LISTEN TO OPENING STATEMENT, WE’LL UNDERSTAND IT CLEARLY.
MS. CLARK: MAYBE THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT I DON’T WANT — I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT THAT THE JURY NOT BE CONFUSED AND MISLED. THERE ARE ASSERTIONS THERE — THE PROBLEM IS, YOUR HONOR, THAT WE HAVE ASSERTIONS OF PRESUMPTION WITH RESPECT TO THOSE NUMBERS. THAT IS UNTRUE. I BELIEVE THAT ALL OF THE EXPERTS HAVE STATED IN THEIR REPORTS, AND THEY HAVE BEEN VERY CLEAR, THAT THE AMOUNT USED WAS ABOUT, WAS APPROXIMATE, WAS JUST ABOUT. AND WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSERTION OF EIGHT MILLILITERS, THAT ISN’T BORNE OUT BY THE TESTIMONY EITHER. NURSE PERATIS, WHO TOOK THE BLOOD, INDICATED HE WAS UNSURE PRECISELY HOW MUCH. IN HIS TESTIMONY, HE’S NOT AWARE — HE THINKS HE FILLED THE TUBE UP. HE COULDN’T GIVE A PRECISE NUMBER AS TO HOW MUCH HE TOOK. HE GAVE AN ESTIMATED RANGE I BELIEVE. SO COUNSEL’S CHART IS MISLEADING IN DEROGATION OF THE FACTS.
MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, THE WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT THE AMOUNT OF BLOOD HE COLLECTED WAS BETWEEN 7.9 AND 8.1. WE ARE TRIAL LAWYERS AND WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE MAKE REPRESENTATIONS THAT WE ARE NOT ABLE TO SUPPORT, WE DO IT AT OUR OWN PERIL. THAT IS NOT A QUESTION OF RELEVANCE OR ADMISSIBILITY OF THIS BOARD. THAT IS A QUESTION THAT THEY WILL SEEK TO CONTRADICT IN TRIAL.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK, WHERE IS IT IN THE — DO YOU KNOW OFFHAND WHERE IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING TRANSCRIPT WE HAVE THAT TESTIMONY REGARDING HOW MUCH BLOOD WAS TAKEN?
MS. CLARK: I’M GOING TO LOCATE IT RIGHT NOW, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.
MR. DOUGLAS: MS. CLARK, NO OBJECTION TO THIS BOARD?
MS. CLARK: NO OBJECTION TO THAT BOARD.
THE COURT: THANK YOU.
MR. COCHRAN: FIRST ONE, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: A MAP OF LOS ANGELES.
MS. CLARK: I FIND IT LIGHTLY PREJUDICIAL, BUT NO.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MS. CLARK: RIGHT. NO OBJECTION.
MR. DOUGLAS: AMERICAN AIRLINES BOARD.
MS. CLARK: NO OBJECTION.
MR. DOUGLAS: THIS IS A BOARD ENTITLED BRONCO TIME LINE. WHAT WE AGAIN ARE SEEKING TO DISPLAY BY THIS BOARD, WHICH WILL BE NARRATED BY MR. COCHRAN DURING HIS OPENING STATEMENT, IS OUR BELIEF THAT CERTAIN THINGS OCCURRED ON CERTAIN DATES AS IT CONCERNS THE BRONCO. WHETHER THERE IS A DISPUTE FACTUALLY THAT SOMETHING DID OR DID NOT OCCUR ON THE DATES ALLEGED WILL BE QUESTIONS FOR THE JURY TO ULTIMATELY DECIDE.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK?
MS. CLARK: MAY I SEE IT? NO OBJECTION.
MR. DOUGLAS: YOU DON’T OBJECT TO THIS ONE?
MS. CLARK: NO OBJECTION.
MR. DOUGLAS: THE OTHER ONE?
MS. CLARK: NO OBJECTION.
MR. DOUGLAS: THERE ARE SEVERAL CALENDARS, YOUR HONOR, FROM JANUARY 1994 TO JUNE 1994. WE UNDERSTAND OUR OBLIGATION TO PROPERLY AUTHENTICATE AND LAY THE PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE INTRODUCTION. WE BELIEVE IN GOOD FAITH THAT WE WILL PROVIDE THE NECESSARY LINK-UPS TO JUSTIFY THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EACH OF THESE DOCUMENTS, AND THAT IS WHY IT’S DISPLAYED ON BOARDS. THEY WILL ALSO BE SHOWN ON THE OVERHEAD AS WELL.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK?
MS. CLARK: THAT WASN’T AN OFFER OF PROOF. I THOUGHT THAT COUNSEL WAS GOING TO MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF.
THE COURT: WHAT’S THE RELEVANCE OF THESE ITEMS?
MR. DOUGLAS: BECAUSE, YOUR HONOR, THEY ARE VERY RELEVANT TO SHOW A CERTAIN COURSE OF CONDUCT INCONSISTENT WITH CERTAIN SUGGESTIONS THAT MR. SIMPSON IS A STALKER, THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD CERTAIN PREOCCUPATIONS, AND THIS WILL BE VERY IMPORTANT TO DISPEL FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL THAT PARTICULAR NOTION IN THE WEEKS AND THE MONTHS LEADING TO JUNE THE 12TH. THEY’VE HAD THIS CALENDAR FOR MONTHS.
THE COURT: IS THIS MR. SIMPSON’S HANDWRITING ON THIS CALENDAR?
MR. DOUGLAS: CATHY RANDA’S, YOUR HONOR, WHO IS A WITNESS ON BOTH INDIVIDUALS’ WITNESS LIST.
THE COURT: CATHY RANDA BEING HIS PERSONAL ASSISTANT WHO MAINTAINS HIS RECORDS, CALENDAR —
MR. DOUGLAS: FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS SHE HAS, YES.
MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS A REPRODUCTION. THAT IS NOT THE ORIGINAL. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, CATHY RANDA ADMITTED THAT’S A REPRODUCTION SHE CREATED. SO WE HAVE ISSUES OF AUTHENTICITY. FURTHERMORE, IT’S BEEN THE DEFENSE’S CONTENTION ALL ALONG THAT THIS IS IRRELEVANT. MR. UELMEN HAS REPEATEDLY SO ARGUED, THAT THIS IS IRRELEVANT, THAT THIS WHOLE CALENDAR IS IRRELEVANT AND —
THE COURT: WELL, WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT REGARDING THAT THIS IS A REPRODUCTION, QUOTE, UNQUOTE?
MS. CLARK: WELL, THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS RECENTLY CREATED, NOT CREATED AT THE TIME. SO IT’S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR COUNSEL TO ESTABLISH THE AUTHENTICITY OF THIS DOCUMENT LET ALONE ITS RELEVANCE GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A STATEMENT OF THE WITNESS WHO RECREATED IT THAT SHE WAS THE ONE WHO CREATED IT AND THAT SHE IS NOT IN POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL.
MR. DOUGLAS: IT’S MY UNDERSTANDING, YOUR HONOR, THAT MR. SHAPIRO TURNED OVER THE ORIGINAL TO MR. DARDEN. THE PEOPLE HAVE THE ORIGINAL THEMSELVES.
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN. BREAKING MY OWN RULE.
MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I FINALLY GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK.
THE COURT: YOU ARE WELCOME. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL.
MR. DARDEN: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, IN THE GRAND JURY, CATHY RANDA TESTIFIED THAT SHE HAD GIVEN THE ORIGINAL CALENDAR TO AN ATTORNEY FOR MR. SIMPSON AND THAT SHE THEN WENT ABOUT CREATING OR RECREATING A SECOND CALENDAR. AND THAT SECOND CALENDAR WAS SEIZED FROM MR. SIMPSON’S OFFICE PURSUANT TO A SEARCH WARRANT. THIS IS THE RECREATION. I DO BELIEVE THAT THE — THAT EITHER THE PROSECUTION OR JUDGE CZULEGER HAS THE ORIGINAL CALENDAR, BUT THIS IS NOT THE ORIGINAL CALENDAR AND IT IS NOT ACCURATE — IT IS NOT AN ACCURATE RECREATION OF THE ORIGINAL CALENDAR. BUT STILL, THERE IS AN ISSUE OF RELEVANCY, AND I DON’T SEE IT.
THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS, I’M CONCERNED THAT THIS IS NOT THE ORIGINAL.
MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, COULD YOU HEAR FROM MR. SHAPIRO SINCE YOU BROKE THE RULE THAT ONE TIME?
THE COURT: SINCE MR. SHAPIRO IS THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY HAD CUSTODY OF THE DOCUMENT. MR. SHAPIRO, GOOD AFTERNOON.
MR. SHAPIRO: YES, YOUR HONOR. I WAS SERVED WITH A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. I CALLED MR. DARDEN ON THE PHONE. I TOLD HIM I DIDN’T HAVE THEM, BUT I WOULD ATTEMPT TO LOCATE THEM. IN THE MEANTIME, REPRODUCTIONS HAD BEEN MADE OF THE ORIGINAL, WHICH I TOLD HIM I HAD AND WHICH HE TOLD ME HE HAD. AT THAT POINT IN TIME, ATTORNEY MEL SACHS DELIVERED TO ME UNDER SEAL THE ORIGINAL DIARY. I BROUGHT IT TO YOUR HONOR UNDER SEAL BECAUSE I DID NOT THINK IT WAS PROPER FOR MR. DARDEN, WHO WAS THEN OSTENSIBLY IN CHARGE OF THE AL COWLINGS INVESTIGATION AND WHO IS OPERATING UNDER SOME TYPE OF WALL OF SEPARATION, TO HAVE THIS. YOUR HONOR THEN DIRECTED ME TO TAKE THE MATTER UP WITH JUDGE CZULEGER, WHICH I DID. JUDGE CZULEGER TOOK CUSTODY OF IT AND TURNED IT OVER TO MR. DARDEN AND SENT ME A NOTICE THAT HE HAD DONE SO.
MR. DARDEN: THAT STILL ISN’T THE ORIGINAL CALENDAR. THE ORIGINAL CALENDAR HAS OTHER NOTATIONS REGARDING BIRTHDAYS AND THINGS AND GIRL’S NAMES AND STUFF LIKE THAT, AND THIS ISN’T IT.
MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS THE OPENING STATEMENT. AND AGAIN, IF THERE ARE AREAS THAT MR. DARDEN HAS WITNESSES TO THAT THIS CALENDAR IS INCORRECT AND DOES NOT PROPERLY DEPICT MR. SIMPSON’S SCHEDULE IN THE MONTHS OF JANUARY THROUGH JUNE, THAT’S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE BROUGHT UP. I THINK A SIMPLE QUESTION CAN BE ASKED; WHETHER OR NOT A CALENDAR WAS TURNED OVER BY ME TO JUDGE CZULEGER AND IF JUDGE CZULEGER RELEASED THAT CALENDAR TO MR. DARDEN AND IF IN FACT THAT IS A PHOTOCOPY OF A CALENDAR OR THE ORIGINAL OF A CALENDAR, AND WE SHOULD PUT THIS MATTER TO REST.
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.
MR. DARDEN: THAT IS NOT A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORIGINAL CALENDAR. AND AS FAR AS AUTHENTICATION IS CONCERNED, THE LAST TIME I SAW CATHY RANDA, SHE WAS TAKING THE FIFTH. AND SO I DON’T KNOW HOW COUNSEL INTENDS TO AUTHENTICATE ANY OF THE CALENDARS AT THIS POINT ACTUALLY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DOES THE PROSECUTION HAVE IN ITS POSSESSION THE ORIGINAL OR AN ORIGINAL CALENDAR SIMILAR TO THIS?
MR. DARDEN: EITHER WE HAVE IT OR JUDGE CZULEGER HAS IT.
MR. SHAPIRO: THAT WAS THE SIMPLE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.
MR. DARDEN: I SAID THAT.
THE COURT: WAIT.
MR. SHAPIRO: I’M NOT GOING TO ARGUE. THANK YOU. THAT’S THE QUESTION WE NEEDED ANSWERED.
MR. DARDEN: THAT IS NOT A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL.
THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, THE QUESTION IS, WHO HAS THE ORIGINAL DIARY? WHERE IS IT?
MR. DARDEN: EITHER WE HAVE IT OR JUDGE CZULEGER HAS IT, OKAY. AND IF WE HAVE IT, WE’LL — I’M SURE SOMEONE IS UPSTAIRS NOW LOOKING FOR IT. SO BRING IT DOWN, FELLOWS, IF IT’S THERE, AND WE CAN RESOLVE THAT ISSUE. BUT THERE’S STILL THE ISSUE OF RELEVANCY. BUT THAT ISN’T A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL CALENDAR.
THE COURT: OKAY.
MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, THE REMAINING BOARDS — THERE IS A LEGEND FOR OUR TIME LINE TO WHICH THERE IS NO OBJECTION. THERE ARE THEN JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO WHICH I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE’S AN OBJECTION, ONE ON CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES.
MS. CLARK: WITH RESPECT TO THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS, YOUR HONOR, THERE WILL BE NO OBJECTION PROVIDING WE CAN READ THEM, MAKE SURE THEY ARE NOT ALTERED.
MR. DOUGLAS: THEY’RE CONSISTENT WITH THE COURTS RULING, MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: I JUST WANT A CHANCE TO READ IT IF THAT’S ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, STANDARD 220.
MS. CLARK: WAIT. CAN I READ IT?
THE COURT: COUNSEL, I THINK WE WILL MOVE ON. I DON’T — YOU’LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPARE IT. ASSUMING THE TEXT TO BE ACCURATE, DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION?
MS. CLARK: NO.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. DOUGLAS: THE NEXT IS PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, BURDEN OF PROOF, REASONABLE DOUBT WITH THE MORAL CERTAINTY LANGUAGE STRICKEN. NEXT IS ALIBI. AND THE LAST ONE, YOUR HONOR, IS SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE GENERALLY OR SUFFICIENCY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE GENERALLY.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT?
MS. CLARK: I THOUGHT THAT WAS A TWO-PAGE INSTRUCTION. DID IT GET CONDENSED?
THE COURT: NO. THERE IS A SECOND PAGE THAT GOES ON TO TALK ABOUT 2.01, SUFFICIENCY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THAT’S PAGE 2. THAT’S 2.01, COUNSEL.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENT, MISS CLARK?
MS. CLARK: WITH RESPECT TO THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, YOUR HONOR, THE BOARD PROFFERED BY COUNSEL DOESN’T CONFORM TO THE ALTERATIONS REQUESTED BY THE COURT.
THE COURT: WHAT DOES IT INCLUDE THAT I STRUCK?
MS. CLARK: I BELIEVE “OR AFFIRMATION”.
THE COURT: THAT’S A DETAIL THAT’S INCONSEQUENTIAL AT THIS POINT. WE MAY HAVE WITNESSES WHO MAY TESTIFY UNDER AFFIRMATION. ALL RIGHT. IS THE MATTER SUBMITTED?
MR. DOUGLAS: YES, YOUR HONOR.
MR. DARDEN: YOU WANT SOME MORE INFORMATION ON THE ISSUE OF BLOOD OR HOW MUCH BLOOD THE NURSE TOOK? YOU WANTED THE PRELIM TRANSCRIPT PAGE NUMBER?
THE COURT: YES.
MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, ONE OTHER CHART THAT WE PROVIDED A HARD COPY FOR; DERELICTIONS, DISTORTIONS AND DECEPTIONS. SHE HAS A HARD COPY OF IT AND I DON’T BELIEVE THERE’S AN OBJECTION. I’M NOT SURE.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK?
MS. CLARK: I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE IS.
THE COURT: THERE’S NO OBJECTION TO IT?
MS. CLARK: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT?
THE COURT: SURE.
(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)
MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, DOES MR. DARDEN HAVE THE ORIGINAL CALENDAR FROM UPSTAIRS THAT HE CAN COMPARE OUR CHARTS WITH?
MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY?
THE COURT: I DON’T KNOW. WE NEED TO FINISH THE FIRST ISSUE ABOUT THE DERELICTION, ET CETERA, EXHIBIT.
MS. CLARK: NO OBJECTION.

First Youtube excerpt, two hours.
The first part of what was on Youtube made it’s own separate court TV archive segment,
Just a bit of a note that the Court TV archive is only separated by week, and the dates only come from the Youtube videos themselves, and the transcript.
The court TV archive has it’s own version of openings that are done differently, and can be used for YOutube gap filling. First excerpt of openings from Court TV, 2 hours, and 39 minutes.