Xref: world alt.fan.oj-simpson:52044 alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts:265 Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts,alt.fan.oj-simpson Path: world!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!myra From: myra@netcom.com (Myra Dinnerstein) Subject: SIDEBARS - July 26, 1995 Message-ID: Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 04:24:01 GMT Approved: myra@netcom.com Lines: 251 Sender: myra@netcom3.netcom.com Sidebars from July 26, 1995 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. AND BY THE WAY, MR. BLASIER, WE ARE GOING TO GO TO 3:30 BEFORE WE TAKE A BREAK. MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE SOME CHARTS THAT I MADE FOR TODAY. YOU ARE OBJECTING TO -- MS. CLARK: CORRECT. MR. BLASIER: LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THIS IS. WE RAN THE PAINT FROM THE METAL CAN AND THE GATE ON THE 28TH. THESE ARE THE TWO AREA ION COUNTS THAT HE GOT. HE HAS JUST TESTIFIED THAT THIS COULD BE FOUR TIMES AS BIG OR FOUR TIMES AS SMALL. I HAVE ADJUSTED IT FOUR TIMES AS SMALL. THIS IS BASED ON HIS STATEMENT THAT THE QUANTITY USED IN BOTH SAMPLES IS IDENTICAL, IS TWO MICROLITERS. I INTEND TO SHOW, AND DR. RIEDERS WILL TESTIFY, THAT THAT QUANTIZATION IS NOT RELIABLE AND IT COULD BE TEN TIMES LESS. I HAVE MADE THIS FOUR TIMES -- I HAVE CHANGED IT BY A FACTOR OF FOUR TO COMPARE THOSE TWO UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS. IT IS A HYPOTHETICAL. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS COMPLETELY MISSTATING THE TESTIMONY. HE -- FIRST OF ALL, HE NEVER SAID HE COULD ADJUST IT TO MAKE IT FOUR TIMES MORE OR LESS. WHAT HE SAID WAS THAT THERE IS VARIANCE AT DIFFERENT POINTS IN THE DAY AND THAT THERE WERE TWO RUNS THAT MR. BLASIER SHOWED, TO WHICH THE PEOPLE DID NOT OBJECT, SHOWING THAT THIS WAS A RUN IN THE BEGINNING OF THE DAY, THAT WAS AT ONE PEAK -- AT ONE LEVEL, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY WHEN THERE HAD BEEN THIRTY SAMPLES RUN THROUGH THAT COLUMN IT WAS FOUR TIMES LESS, AND THAT IS BECAUSE, AS THE AGENT HAS ALREADY TESTIFIED, THE COLUMN BECOMES LESS SENSITIVE BECAUSE IT GETS DIRTY BECAUSE OF THE ALL THE CONSTANT RUNS BEING SHOT THROUGH IT. AND WHEN YOU GO FROM ONE DAY TO THE NEXT IT CAN BE ALSO A DISCREPANCY IN THE QUANTITATION. NEVERTHELESS, WHAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT FORTH, AND WHAT THIS DELIBERATELY MISSTATES, IS THAT WHEN YOU RUN THE SAMPLES AT THE SAME TIME, AND YOU MUST DO THAT, YOU WILL GET AN ACCURATE RATIO. YOU WILL NEVER GET A SITUATION WHERE ONE SAMPLE IS RUN FOUR TIMES LESS AND ONE SAMPLE IS RUN FOUR TIMES MORE THAN IN THE SAME RUN, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, WITHIN MINUTES OF EACH OTHER, SO THIS IS IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION TO THE EVIDENCE. IT IS MISS MISLEADING, CONFUSING AND IT IS DECEPTIVE BECAUSE IT IS TO THE CONTRARY OF THE TESTIMONY. THE COURT: MR. BLASIER. MR. BLASIER: NO. THIS IS NOT BASED ON -- THE GATE SAMPLE HERE IS NOT BASED ON MULTIPLYING THAT BY FOUR BECAUSE OF VARIANCE IN THE MACHINERY. THAT IS BASED ON HIS ERRONEOUS ESTIMATE OF THE QUANTITY. IF HIS QUANTITY IS WRONG, IF HE SAYS TWO MICROLITERS AND IT IS REALLY HALF A MICROLITER, IT IS NOT GOING TO DO WITH THE VARIATION IN THE MACHINERY. HE HAS TESTIFIED THAT HE HAS MUCH VARIATION. SHE IS FREE TO COME BACK AND SAY THAT IT COULD BE FOUR TIMES HIGHER THAN THAT, BUT THAT IS WHAT HE HAS TESTIFIED TO. AND DR. RIEDER WILL SAY ALSO THAT THAT IS NOT AN UNREASONABLE VARIATION GIVEN ELECTROSPRAY AND THE WAY HE DID THIS TESTING, SO THIS IS A WAY OF DEMONSTRATING THAT. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, IT IS HIGHLY -- THIS IS ACTUALLY IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE TESTIMONY AND IT IS A DECEPTIVE GRAPH THAT IS GOING TO GIVE TO THE JURY AN IDEA THAT HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN THAT DR. RIEDERS REALLY CAN'T SAY BECAUSE HE DOESN'T OPERATE THAT MACHINE. AND THAT IS THE LIMITATIONS OF HIS TESTIMONY. HE CAN SAY A LOT THINGS, BUT HE IS NOT AN OPERATOR AND HE IS REALLY NOT COMPETENT TO MAKE THESE ASSERTIONS ABOUT THE WAY THIS MACHINE OPERATES. THIS MAN IS. AGENT MARTZ IS. AND WHAT THIS DOES IS TAKE AND DISTORT HIS TESTIMONY IN A VERY GRAPHIC WAY SO THAT THE JURY IS DELIBERATELY DECEIVED ABOUT WHAT THE NATURE OF THE QUANTITATION ISSUE IS. QUANTITATION ISSUE HAS TO DO WITH BEING -- COMPARING RUNS AT DIFFERENT TIMES, NOT COMPARING RUNS AT THE SAME TIME WHEN YOU WILL GET THE RELATIVE RATIOS IN THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. BLASIER: THIS IS BASED ON HIS DATA. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE HEARD? I WOULD LIKE FOR THE -- THE COURT: I'M SORRY. MS. CLARK: I DON'T THINK THAT THE COURT CAN POSSIBLY APPRECIATE HOW DEVASTATING THAT CHART IS AND HOW DECEPTIVE IT IS. THE COURT: OVERRULED. MS. CLARK: CAN WE HAVE A 402 WITH THE AGENT? THE COURT: OVERRULED. **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) MS. CLARK: THE PROBLEM WITH THIS -- THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. BEFORE ME THERE ARE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS THAT APPEAR TO HAVE BLOOD DROPS ON THEM. MR. BLASIER: I WILL TELL YOU WHAT THESE ARE. THESE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS HE PROVIDED. THAT IS TEN MICROLITERS OF BLOOD, (INDICATING). THAT IS FIVE, (INDICATING). YOU CAN'T TELL BY THE APPEARANCE. MS. CLARK: OKAY. THE POINT OF -- THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE NOT TAKEN FOR THAT PURPOSE AT ALL. AND SO WE ARE TRYING TO SHOW PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE TAKEN FOR ONE PURPOSE TO TRY AND IMPACT ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AREA. WHAT AGENT MARTZ WAS ATTEMPTING TO DO HERE WAS SHOW DILUTION FACTORS AND WHAT HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO DO IS SHOW THAT IN ORDER TO GET THE EDTA LEVELS THAT WERE DEMONSTRATED ON THE EVIDENCE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO -- IF IT WAS INDEED PRESERVED BLOOD INITIALLY, WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO IS DILUTE IT TO THE POINT WHERE YOU COULD NO LONGER SEE BLOOD AT ALL. THAT WAS THE POINT. AND SO THESE BLOOD DROPS WERE NEVER MEASURED. THE COURT: SO YOU ARE ASKING HOW MUCH BLOOD IS IN HERE? MR. BLASIER: HE TOLD ME; TEN MICROLITERS. MS. CLARK: THERE IS NO SCALE. MR. BLASIER: THE SCALE IS THE SAME. HE TOLD ME THAT, TOO. THIS IS THE SAME AS THIS, (INDICATING). SAME SCALE. THE COURT: HE PROVIDED YOU WITH THIS? MR. BLASIER: YES, AND THIS, (INDICATING). THE COURT: AND THE QUESTION IS GOING TO BE WHAT? MR. BLASIER: WHETHER YOU CAN ACCURATELY DETERMINE QUANTITIES BY LOOKING AT SPOTS. MS. CLARK: THE UNFAIRNESS OF IT IS THE DIFFERENT SUBSTRATE OBVIOUSLY. HERE WE HAVE IT ON PAPER, HERE WE HAVE IT ON WHATEVER THAT IS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS. MR. BLASIER: HE DIDN'T USE THE SAME SUBSTRATE BETWEEN THE EVIDENCE AND HIS CONTROLS EITHER. MS. CLARK: BUT THAT IS NOT -- YEAH, BUT THAT WAS -- HE DID. HE USED THE SAME SUBSTRATE FOR THE GATE, HE USED THE COTTON SWATCH, AND FOR THE SOCK HE USED THE SOCK. MR. BLASIER: FOR THE CONTROLS HE USED HIS OWN MATERIAL. MS. CLARK: THAT IS DIFFERENT. THE COURT: HOLD ON. THE ISSUE HERE, THOUGH, IS CAN YOU SHOW SOMEBODY PHOTOGRAPHS AND ASK THEM TO TELL YOU HOW MUCH BLOOD IS THERE FROM BLOOD SPOTS? MR. BLASIER: NO. THE ISSUE IS -- THIS IS HIS OWN PHOTOGRAPHY SHOWING -- PROVING THAT YOU CANNOT LOOK AT A SPOT AND TELL HOW MUCH BLOOD IS THERE. THIS IS SMALLER AND HAS TWICE AS MUCH BLOOD. HE SAID THAT THAT IS HIS ANALYTICAL METHOD. MS. CLARK: AND YOU HAVE DIFFERENT SUBSTRATES AND DIFFERENT PURPOSES HERE. IT IS NOT THE SAME CONDITION. WE ARE ASKING HIM TO ESTIMATE UNDER DIFFERENT CONDITIONS WHEN HE WAS TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF ESTIMATING SAMPLE SIZE. MR. BLASIER: ASK HIM TO ESTIMATE? MS. CLARK: APPLES AND ORANGES. MR. BLASIER: HE TOLD ME. THE COURT: THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED. **** (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. MR. BLASIER. MR. BLASIER: THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE BEING ASKED ARE AN ATTEMPT TO SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW THAT WE HAVE SOME KIND OF BURDEN OF DOING TESTING, OF GOING FORWARD WITH TESTING, WHEN WE DON'T. AND THESE ARE IN THE FORM OF ARGUMENT AND COMMENTS ON OUR -- WHETHER WE ARE DOING TESTS OR NOT, AND THEY ARE IMPROPER. THE COURT: I'M GOING TO DIRECT THE PROSECUTION TO REPHRASE REGARDING OPPORTUNITY AND TIME TO DO TESTING. THAT IS WHAT YOU CAN ASK, WHETHER OR NOT SOMEBODY WANTED TO DO THIS, THERE WAS AMPLE OPPORTUNITY. MS. CLARK: OKAY. THE COURT: AND TIME, NOT THAT THE DEFENSE HAD ANY OBLIGATION TO DO IT, SO STAY AWAY FROM THE DEFENSE. HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY, JUST ANY SCIENTIST INTERESTED IN THIS. MR. COCHRAN: MAY I SAY SOMETHING? THE COURT: NEUTRAL QUESTION. MR. COCHRAN: IN VIEW OF THAT, SHOULDN'T WE STRIKE WHAT THEY HAVE ALREADY ASKED? THEY ASKED A SERIES OF QUESTIONS ALONG THIS LINE TO STRAIGHTEN THE RECORD OUT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE AN OBLIGATION, JUDGE. MS. CLARK: I -- MR. COCHRAN: FINISH, PLEASE? SHOULDN'T WE STRAIGHTEN THAT OUT, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: WELL, THERE IS ONLY ONE PERSON WHO GETS TO ARGUE THESE THINGS, MR. COCHRAN. MS. CLARK: THE PEOPLE'S POSITION IS THAT THE DEFENSE HAS PROFFERED THIS EVIDENCE, NOT THE PEOPLE, AND WE DID NOT PROFFER THIS WITNESS. HE IS SUBPOENAED BY THE DEFENSE AND WAS DR. RIEDERS. ALL PRIVILEGE HAS BEEN WAIVED NOW WITH RESPECT TO ANY TESTING THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE DONE BY HAVING CALLED A WITNESS, AND ACTUALLY TWO WITNESSES ON THIS ISSUE, SO I THINK IT IS FAIR COMMENT. THE COURT: YOU ARE RIGHT, IT IS FAIR COMMENT IN ARGUMENT THAT THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS, THEY HAD THE RESOURCES, THEY HAD THE PEOPLE TO DO IT; THEY DIDN'T DO IT. THAT IS ARGUMENT. AND I'M GOING TO DIRECT YOU TO REPHRASE YOUR QUESTION IN A NEUTRAL FASHION THAT ANY SCIENTIST WITH THE APPROPRIATE EQUIPMENT, YOU KNOW, SINCE THE TIME YOU COMPLETED YOUR TEST, HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THESE OTHER TESTS. MS. CLARK: UH-HUH. THE COURT: IN TIME, EQUIPMENT, SKILL, WHATEVER, THEY COULD HAVE DONE THIS, ANYBODY COULD HAVE DONE THIS, CORRECT? MS. CLARK: YES. THE COURT: IN A NEUTRAL FASHION. THAT IS A FAIR QUESTION. MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, WHILE WE ARE HERE, I WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THIS. AGENT MARTZ TOLD ME RIGHT AFTER LUNCH THERE IS TEN MICROLITERS IN EACH ONE OF THESE DROPS. I THINK HE IS BECOMING DECEPTIVE BY DENYING THAT, AND I WANT TO STATE AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT THAT IS WHAT HE TOLD ME. ORDINARILY THE PROPER WAY TO IMPEACH HIM WOULD BE TO CALL MYSELF AS A WITNESS TO SAY THAT THAT IS WHAT HE SAID. OBVIOUSLY THAT PRESENTS ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS. I'M NOT SURE HOW TO DEAL WITH THAT, BUT I -- THE COURT: LET'S NOT TAKE IT UP NOW, BECAUSE I HAVE A FEELING WE ARE NOT GOING TO FINISH WITH MARTZ THIS MORNING -- THIS AFTERNOON BECAUSE WE ARE -- ALTHOUGH YOU ARE ABOUT TO FINISH IN ABOUT TWO OR THREE MINUTES -- MS. CLARK: YEAH, EXACTLY. I'M ALMOST DONE. THE COURT: HOW ABOUT YOU? MR. BLASIER: I DON'T HAVE MUCH MORE. THE COURT: WELL, WE MAY SLOP OVER. MS. CLARK: CAN WE TRY AND FINISH? THE COURT: WE DO HAVE TO END AT 5:00 TODAY. MR. BLASIER: IF WE CAN. MS. CLARK: I THINK WE CAN. THE COURT: COUNSEL, THE THING IS, BOB WANTS TO GO INTO THIS. MR. COCHRAN: YEAH. OFF THE RECORD. MS. CLARK: I WASN'T PRESENT FOR THE CONVERSATION, BUT THE WITNESS DOESN'T REMEMBER HOW MUCH HE ACTUALLY USED AND BLASIER ASKED OFF-THE-CUFF INFORMALLY IN COURT -- THE COURT: WHAT WE WILL DO -- MS. CLARK: HE DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS IMPORTANT. THE COURT: WHAT WE WILL DO, THE POINT I WAS MAKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE ARE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO FINISH WITH THIS GUY TODAY IS WHEN WE TAKE THE RECESS, LET THE JURORS GO, BECAUSE THEIR FAMILY VISITATION IS THIS AFTERNOON, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE TO QUIT AT 5:00, WE CAN CHAT WITH AGENT MARTZ, SO LET'S NOT TAKE UP THE TIME AND TALK ABOUT IT NOW. ALL RIGHT.