FEBRUARY 1, 1995

SHOW:The O.J. Simpson Trial and Analysis
TRNO: 7 - 1
TYPE:Show; Live Report
SECT:News; Domestic
DATE:February 1, 1995
TIME:12:00 pm
HEAD:Simpson Trial - Analysis -Day 7 - Part 1
HIGH:Judge Ito is expected to decide whether a dream by O.J.
Simpson can be used in the trial. A friend says Simpson had
a dream in which the defendant said he killed Nicole Brown
Trial Attorney (LIVE); ALVIN MICHAELSON, Criminal Defense
Attorney (LIVE); JO-ELLAN DIMITRIUS, Simpson Jury
TOPIC:624- - - - - - - - -
SPEC:O.J. Simpson Stories
BODY:Simpson Trial - Analysis -Day
7 - Part 1

JIM MORET, Anchor: Hello, I'm Jim
Moret in Los Angeles. Day two of testimony in the O.J.
Simpson murder trial is about to get underway. Yesterday
the prosecution attempted to cut into O.J. Simpson's nice-
guy image, and Simpson's attorneys sought to cast doubt on
that testimony that portrayed Simpson as a spouse abuser.
Shortly, the prosecution is expected to call to the witness
stand a retired police officer, and there may be some
controversy about that. For more on what to expect today we
go live to the courthouse and CNN's Greg LaMotte.

GREG LaMOTTE, Correspondent: Well, what Judge Lance
Ito is expected to decide today is whether a dream allegedly
had by O.J. Simpson can be revealed to the jury. The
prosecution wants to call retired Los Angeles police officer
Ron Shipp. Shipp allegedly had a conversation with O.J.
Simpson just days after the killings of Nicole Brown Simpson
and Ronald Goldman. Simpson allegedly told Shipp that he
was concerned about taking a polygraph test because, he said,
he had a dream about Nicole Brown Simpson in which he killed
her. And he was concerned that that dream could influence
the test results of a polygraph test. Shipp was also a
friend of O.J. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson and counseled
them following the 1989 incident in which Simpson eventually
pled no-contest to a charge of spousal abuse. It just so
happens that Shipp is also Johnnie Cochran's cousin. Cochran
yesterday told Judge Lance Ito that because of that
relationship, he will not be doing the questioning of Shipp.
Defense attorney Carl Douglas raised some objections to
Shipp's testimony, and this morning Cochran made some
references to it.

JOHNNIE COCHRAN, Simson Attorney: Well, he can
testify, but there are certain parts of his testimony which
I think should be inadmissible, and that's what we'll be
arguing this morning, you know, without going into detail. I
think that's the only issue. I mean, he's a- he's a
witness, but I think there are certain parts about his
testimony that, at least, the judge could rule on. OK,

GREG LaMOTTE: Judge Lance Ito asked both sides to
submit case law on the issue, and then he said he would
decide the issue sometime this morning. The judge may
also decide if there is a conflict of interest regarding one
of the jurors. Apparently, one of the jurors was treated by
a doctor who happens to appear on the defense witness list.
The attorneys have been arriving over the past half hour,
most saying very little. Also today, there possibly could
be another prosecution witness - a person from the district
attorney's office, an investigator with the district
attorney's office. Jim?

JIM MORET: Thanks Greg. Let's bring in our CNN
legal experts right now. Trial attorney Greta Van Susteren
joins us from our CNN Washington bureau, and criminal
defense attorney Alvin Michaelson is with us here in Los
Angeles. Welcome to both of you.
[interviewing] Greta, let's talk about this
conflict that Greg mentioned- two conflicts actually. One,
Johnnie Cochran may be the cousin of the next witness to be
called, retired LA police officer Ron Shipp. And secondly,
the conflict that a witness may have with a defense expert
who was called- who may be called because that person is a
doctor and may be treating one of the jurors. What do you
think about both of those issues, first?

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, Trial Attorney: I think both of
the issues can easily be handled. One of the biggest
problems that Johnnie Cochran has is that he might feel
somewhat troubled by having to cross-examine someone's
related to him. So he simply passes the task to another
lawyer. Whenever there are conflicts of interest, if you
inform everybody that there is a potential conflict,
remedies can be determined. And I don't expect this would
delay the trial or cause any effect.

JIM MORET: Is the potential problem with the juror
more problematic in your opinion?

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: Well, it is more problematic,
but we've already lost one juror, and the judge is not going
to want to so easily excuse a juror and replace an alternate
because there were only 12 alternates to begin with. Now
there are only 11. What the judge may decide to do is make
that juror an alternate juror and replace that juror with an
alternate, so that we still have 12 jurors and 11
alternates. Lots of times you do shuffling around. It may
be that at the end of the trial, if we have extra alternates
left over, this one will be excused because she knows the
doctor. But there are remedies that can be made.

JIM MORET: Alvin Michaelson, how do you view these
potential conflicts?

ALVIN MICHAELSON, Criminal Defense Attorney: Well, I
agree with Greta. The first one, with respect to the-
Johnnie Cochran's cousin seems to be no problem. With
respect to the juror, I mean, I guess you would have to ask
the juror whether that might influence their ability to
decide the case. If the juror says no- there are lots of
reasons why a person's ability to judge a case may be
affected. I dare say the relationship between a juror and
her doctor- if it's a family doctor or a doctor she just saw
once, many years ago would make a difference. And the real
question is, would it influence her ability to decide the
case, and I think they just have to ask the juror. If
there's- if she says no, then there's no problem.

JIM MORET: Greta, there's a tendency, a natural
tendency, to review testimony on a day-by-day basis. Is it
more accurate to look at the cumulative effect rather than
looking at just yesterday's impact?

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: Without any question, Jim. At
the end of each day - if we look to see who won or who lost,
who's doing better - we might be able to come up with some
sort of scorecard, but it would have absolutely no impact on
how the case will end up. It's really the jury looking at
all the evidence and taking a global, exterior view of the
evidence and making a determination at the end. This isn't
a contest where you keep points on a day-to-day basis, but
it is interesting at least to sit on the sidelines and make
observations because you see how lawyers handle things, how
different lawyers do things different ways. But what really
matters? The jury's verdict at the end, after consideration
of all the evidence.

JIM MORET: Mr. Michaelson, there was an issue that
came up yesterday. Perhaps you can explain for our
audience. We saw with the second witness, there was direct
examination, then cross, the re-direct, re-cross, and it went
back and forth. How many times can that happen with each

ALVIN MICHAELSON: Well, theoretically it could go on
forever if the judge doesn't stop it. If someone raises an
issue, for example, on cross-examination, the prosecution
has the right - or the other side - has the right to put on
some re-direct testimony. If on re-direct testimony
something is raised again, for the first time, perhaps, or
at least an issue is covered that has been before that the
cross-examination- cross examiner wants to go into, they can
raise it again. And this can go on ad nauseum if the judge
doesn't stop it. Yesterday is a very good example, I think,
of what will happen if a judge doesn't step in and stop the

JIM MORET: Now, as you may have noticed, Judge Ito
once again is allowing limited movement of the camera in the
courtroom, but TV viewers still aren't seeing many of
Simpson's now-famous facial expressions, at least not close
up. Jurors, however, still have a plain view of the
defendant's every move. Last night on Larry King
Live jury consultant Jo-Ellen Dimitrius talked about
how his expressions and body language might affect the

JO-ELLAN DIMITRIUS, Simpson Jury Consultant:
Certainly, it's a concern. And yet it's something that we
face with any client that we work with because on the one
hand, do you have a client who is totally emotionless and
doesn't show any reaction to anything, or on the other hand,
somebody who's overly emotional. And you hope that what you
do is you have your client act as they normally would in any
situation, and-

LARRY KING, Talk Show Host: -You want him to be

JO-ELLAN DIMITRIUS: Right, and Mr. Simpson is very
much an individual who does react that way.

JIM MORET: Courtroom observers say jurors are
keeping a close watch on Simpson and his reactions to the
testimony. We're still waiting for today's court session to
begin. It should be in just a few moments. We'll take a
short break and be back with more of our coverage of the
Simpson trial right after this.

[commercial break]


SHOW:The O.J. Simpson Trial and Analysis
TRNO: 7 - 2
TYPE:Show; Live Report
SECT:News; Domestic
DATE:February 1, 1995
TIME:12:14 pm
HEAD:Simpson Trial - Text - Day 7 - Part 2
HIGH:The jury has not yet been called into the courtroom
while attorneys argue about a potential witness who is a
cousin of defense attorney Johnnie Cochran.
GUES:HANK GOLDBERG, Deputy District Attorney (LIVE); CARL
DOUGLAS, Simpson Attorney (LIVE);
TOPIC:624- - - - - - - - -
SPEC:O.J. Simpson Stories
BODY:Simpson Trial - Text - Day 7 -
Part 2

JIM MORET, Anchor: Court is once
again in session. The jurors are not yet in the room, but
the judge is addressing the Court. Let's listen in.

Judge LANCE ITO, Superior Court, Los Angeles:
[in progress] -by Mr. Darden. Good
morning, counsel. All right, Mr. Douglas, I've reviewed the
Estes case - 82 Cal. Ap. 3rd, 509 Estes - E-
S-T-E-S, and I've also reviewed the memorandum of Points and
Authorities filed this morning by the prosecution and,
specifically, by Miss Lewis.

HANK GOLDBERG, Deputy District Attorney: Your Honor,
this morning we found a couple of additional cases that we
wanted to cite to the Court and counsel. I- I- I apologize
for not having them in the Points and Authorities. One was
People versus Boe at 1 Cal. 4 281
[sp?] and the relevant discussion starts on
302, and the other case is also a California Supreme Court
case, People versus Pride at 3 Cal. 4 195.
Relevant discussion starts on 234.

CARL DOUGLAS, Simpson Attorney: Regrettably, Your
Honor, I've only this morning had a chance to briefly peruse
the memorandum that was submitted. I have not, of course,
had a chance to review these cases or their applicability to
the issue at hand. I expect that my cross-examination of
this witness is going to last for at least a couple of
hours. I would like, before I am required to respond with
any in depth analysis to at least be given the chance to
review these cases to examine them. I believe, Your Honor,
that the statute about which we concern ourselves is clear.
I offered a parallel to that statute in the Estes case.
Though it is not the exact statute, I do think that the
reasoning of that statute is very applicable to the issue at
hand. I do think, Your Honor, that there is another
threshold issue that is raised, and that is one of 352, as
to the- the probative nature of the substantive statement,
even in any excised form. I think that there is a tremendous
question in the- in the scientific community as to the
predictive nature of certain statements about which we
concern ourselves. They are not predictive of events that
may have occurred in the past or predictive of things in the
future, and that entire issue is one that is most properly
the subject of expert testimony. There is the very strong
likelihood that it is going to necessitate confusing of
issues, the undue use of additional time, the certain
calling of different witnesses who might be experts on this
area who might, then, be able to place these statements, even
in its excised form, in a greater-

JIM MORET: Just to bring you up to date, this is
defense attorney, Carl Douglas. Apparently the parties are
arguing about a- a specific witness that is expected to be
called and we believe that witness is Ron Shipp, a retired
L.A. police officer and Mr. Shipp is controversial for two
reasons - firstly, he is a distant cousin to defense
attorney, Johnnie Cochran. That is why Mr. Douglas is
arguing this motion as opposed to Mr. Cochran. He's excused
himself from possible cross-examination of this witness, and
also Mr. Shipp is mentioned in a new book, Raging
Heart, in which O.J. Simpson tells him that he'd had
some dreams about killing Nicole. What they're talking about
right now is what's called a 352 motion which deals with the
probative value versus the prejudicial impact, and whether
or not this- this person should be called to testify.
That's the nature of the discussion right now.

CARL DOUGLAS: -that we be allowed to examine this
witness because I'm ready to examine this witness on matters
other than this disputed area, that I be given adequate time
to do my own independent research, given this new
information, and that the witness be recalled later in the
trial, or that that portion of his testimony be held until

Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Goldberg? Mrs. Robertson
[sp?], let me ask you to, if you would, make
two photocopies of the relevant portions.

HANK GOLDBERG: Your Honor, apparently the defense
has been aware of this statement since January the 22nd,
and, obviously, if there were any issues as to legal
admissibility, there was plenty of time to research those, to
address those today. Obviously, the prosecution wants to
put the statement on as part of Mr. Shipp's testimony.
There's no reason for breaking up his testimony and having
him come back later, after counsel has had an opportunity to
do further legal research. Does the Court want the
prosecution to address our theory of admissibility, now,
and- and the issues regarding the statement?

Judge LANCE ITO: Yes.

HANK GOLDBERG: OK. All right, I- I'd first like to
start out with a discussion of the relevancy of the
statement, 'cause I think counsel seems to be suggesting,
under 352, it's not admissible, and any discussion probably
should start with an issue of why is it probative, why is it
relevant? And then I'll get into the issue of the polygraph
aspect of the statement in a second - part of my response.
As to the probative value of the statement, Your Honor has
ruled, already, in the context of the domestic violence
evidence, that the prosecution is entitled to put on
evidence in this case, and apparently spend a significant
amount of time doing so, in what I think the Court
characterized as being the equivalent of several misdemeanor
jury trials. We are entitled to put on this evidence for the
purposes of showing the defendant's mental state and showing
his intention at, or around, the time of the murder.

Judge LANCE ITO: But the- Yeah, the controverted
statement, though, is the very next day, so, I mean, we're-
we're out of the category of domestic violence, wouldn't you

HANK GOLDBERG: I- I just want to tie it in to- to
why it is relevant in the context of all of the evidence
that the Court has allowed. The purpose of that evidence is
to allow the jury to infer something, circumstantially,
about what the defendant was thinking at or around the time
of the murder, what his mental state and his motivations
were. It's circumstantial evidence because the inference,
the chain of inferences, is that we can- we can determine
from his conduct what his intention, what his mental state
must have been. The evidence pertaining to Mr. Shipp differs
in only one respect, and that is that, instead of being
circumstantial evidence of his intent and his mental state,
it's direct evidence because it's him saying, ``This is what
I've been thinking,'' and from the context of- of the
statement, it was over a period of time. Now, the
distinction there between direct and circumstantial isn't
particularly important. What- what I- what I would suggest
to the Court is important is- is the way that the vari- that
the respective sides have asked the jury and this Court to
interpret the circumstantial evidence, because what we've
said, Your Honor, is we've said, ``Look, what this evidence
shows is it shows that the defendant had an obsession with
Nicole Simpson, and that it was an obsession that led to her
murder.'' I guess what we could term the fatal obsession.
Isn't that precisely what the statement to Mr. Shipp is
saying? ``I have been dreami ng about killing my wife.''
Isn't that powerful, powerful evidence of that fatal
obsession? Except that, instead of coming in the form of
circumstantial evidence, it's coming in the form of direct
evidence. The defense, on the other hand, has a different
interpretation. They- Of the domestic violence evidence -
they say, ``No, it's not really evidence that- that shows
the defendant's state of mind in terms of a fatal obsession.
What it really shows is a cycle of benevolence.'' And
they're entitled to make that argument, Your Honor. We're
not saying that that is improper. That is a proper jury
argument, but when they are allowed to stand before the jury
and say that all the circumstantial evidence that the
prosecution has introduced simply shows a cycle of
benevolence, and we have direct evidence which conclusively
shows that that isn't true, that he really-

Judge LANCE ITO: -Well, Mr. Goldberg, let me- Let's
sort of leap ahead to what really concerns me-


Judge LANCE ITO: -because I agree with you that it's
an interesting statement. Were I in your shoes I would
probably want to get it before the jury. What concerns me
about this is two things. One, the 351.5 prohibition of any
mention of polygraph or lie detector, which is included in
the context of this statement, and secondly, the- Whether or
not it's fair or somehow fundamentally misleading to the
trier of fact to pluck this sentence out of the context in
which it was said, which is beginning and ending with
comments about polygraph. So, is it fair to pluck this out.
That's- that's the concern that I have.


Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Goldberg.


Judge LANCE ITO: I mean, that- that's the issue that
I see. Assuming you get over the relevance question,
assuming I- I agree with you that it- it has some probative
value and would be of interest to the prosecution case-


Judge LANCE ITO: -and that it- it clearly is
virtually contemporaneous to the acts in question.

HANK GOLDBERG: Yeah, I understand-

Judge LANCE ITO: -What concerns me is the context.

HANK GOLDBERG: OK. Yeah, I- I suspected that, Your
Honor, that that is where the Court's focus was- was going
to be.

Judge LANCE ITO: So, why don't we- why don't we jump
to that?

HANK GOLDBERG: OK. But, let me just point out, the
only reason that I was talking about relevancy and probative
value is that there's a spill-over effect on this question
that the Court's concerned, of- of can you sever part of the
statement out and then leave the portion about the defendant
dreaming about killing his wife, and is that fair?

Judge LANCE ITO: All right, well, Mr. Goldman, let
me ask you this, because yesterday in the discussions that I
had, nobody gave me a precise offer as to exactly what
statements were going to be-

HANK GOLDBERG: OK. Let me read the entirety of the
statement, including the portions that I believe the Court
finds to be objectionable, as well as those that the
prosecution wants to introduce. ``I was in- I was-'' Excuse

Judge LANCE ITO: Go ahead.

HANK GOLDBERG: Thank you. ```I was interviewed by
detectives and they asked me to take a lie detector test.'
And I replied, `Well, what did you say?''' - this is Mr.
Shipp talking - ``and he kind of chuckled and he says, `Hey,
to be truthful, Ron, man, I've had a lot of dreams about
killing her.' And he says, `I really don't know about taking
that thing.' He did not say he wouldn't take it, he says,
`I really don't know about taking it.''' So that is the full
context of Mr. Shipp's statement to us. The portion we want
to introduce is merely the portion that says, ``Hey, to be
truthful, Ron, man, I've had a lot of dreams about killing
her.'' That's the portion that we're interested in. But-
but, to- to get back to- to the- the issue that- that the
Court addressed, the reason that I made some comments about
relevancy is that, in our state under our constitution,
Article I, Section 28, we do have a right to truth in
evidence in this state, and there are only certain specified
exceptions to that right, and those exceptions are that a
statement can be excluded- The statement can be excluded, or
evidence can be excluded if it's privileged, which this
isn't, if it's hearsay, which this isn't, if it's 352, which
this isn't, if it's protected by the rape shield law that's
codified in 1103 and 782, which this isn't, or it it's taken
in violation of the federal constitution, wh ich it isn't,
and that's what the constitution says - of our state - it
shall be admitted. This is highly relevant evidence and it
doesn't come under any of the exceptions and, therefore,
should be admitted. Let- let me just point out that, as to
the statement that the context of the statement was relating
to the police interrogation, just to put the- the quoted
portion in- in context, Your Honor, he was talking about his
conversations with the police, in- in the context of making
the statement that I previously quoted. Therefore, the- the
issue becomes, Your Honor, are we somehow going to, contrary
to the clear policy of the Right to Truth and Evidence
Provision, exclude highly probative evidence, evidence which
really seems to blow a hole in the defense theory of a cycle
of benevolence, simply because, contained within that
statement, there are other materials that Your Honor is
rightfully concerned about, which are inadmissible and,
clearly, the law of the state does not lead us to what- what,
in our view, would be an absurd conclusion. I'd like to get
into that legal issue, now, which is, I think, what is at the
forefront of the Court's concern. And, starting with
Evidence Code, Section 356, which I believe is the section
that's relied on by counsel, which, like Evidence Code,
Section 352, I think, has been over-simplified, again and
again, by attorneys and misstated by attorneys, in terms of
what it really stands for. The Court may recall that, when
we addressed 352 last, I pointed out that oftentimes
attorneys talk about something being more prejudicial than
probative. And they cut out that word ``substantially''
more prejudicial than probative. Over and over again in
our- our courts we see attorneys saying, ``Well, Your Honor,
if they put in part of the statement, I get to put in the
whole statement.'' I think Your Honor's probably heard
that, and that is not the law of the state of California.
It never has been, yet it's- it's continuously repeated, as
if it were handed down by Moses from the Mount. It is not
what Evidence Code, Section 356 says. It's not what the
cases say that- that interpret that statute. What the
statute stands for is the very common sense proposition
that, when you put in part of a statement, and the other
side can demonstrate that it is necessary to put in another
part of that statement, to put it in context, that t hat
can be allowed. And there are a number of cases that
interpret 356 in that way, one of which we cited in our
brief, the other two which I provided this morning. One
being People versus Boe - that was at 1 Cal.
4th 281, and what it says of Evidence Code 356 is, ``The
section permits introduction only if statements on the same
subject, or which are necessary for the understanding of the
statement already introduced. The other conversation
referred to in the Evidence Code, Section 356, must have
some bearing upon or connection with the admissions or
declaration in evidence.'' So, in other words, when we need-
needed to put something in context, then we can use Evidence
Code, Section 356, to do that. I think the case of
People versus Pride is more instructive for
Your Honor, and there what happens at 3 Cal. 4
195 is the defendant gave a very lengthy tape-
recorded interview to the police, that occurred over a
course of approximately two hours, and instead of
introducing the tape recording, what the prosecution did is
they called the detective, that took the statement, to the
stand, and they asked him about only one tiny little snippet
of that conversation. That was a statement to the effect
that the defendant accounted for his whereabouts, and those
whereabouts were- were false. So the prosecution simply
wanted to prove that, in a couple sentences of that lengthy
interview, he had made a false statement. And the defense
says, ``Well, we want to put in the whole thing. We want
to put in the whole thing to show that maybe the defendant's
state of mind was such that he was confused, or wasn't
really focusing in on what the detective was asking him. We
want to put it in, maybe to show that he was giving an
estimation or an approximation in accounting for his
whereabouts, as opposed to a definitive type statement.''
Trial court there did not allow it in. And what the
California Supreme Court held was that it was properly
excluded because they reviewed the tape, themselves, and
they found that it would have been an abusive discretion to
admit the rest of the tape, because it did not support the
defendant's theory that there was psychological coercion.
It did not help to explain or account for the statement and,
in fact, the tape amply supported the prosecution's theory
that the defendant gave a positive accounting for his time,
which turned out to be false. So they held that if the
Court had admitted it, it would have been an error. So, I
think that very, very strongly supports what the prosecution
is asking Your Honor to do here. Now- now, let's take a
look back at the defendant's statement to Mr. Shipp, the
quote being, ``Hey, to be truthful, Ron, man, I've had a lot
of dreams about killing her.'' In, and of itself, the
statement is perfectly understandable, it is perfectly
clear. It's- The defendant's saying, ``I- I've dreamed about
killing this woman.'' It's very simple, very
straightforward. What is the statement that immediately
preceded that? ``I was interviewed by the detectives and
they asked me to take a lie detector test,'' and then he
chuckles. How does that possibly put any different spin on
the statement? It doesn't explain the statement, qualify
the statement, retract the statement. It doesn't do anything
to make the statement more understandable. How does the
fact that he says, ``I was offered to take a lie detector
test,'' either contribute or detract from the statement that
he was dreaming about killing his wife? Does it make it
more likely that he was dreaming about killing his
wife? Or less likely? I'd submit to you that it is
logically and entirely irrelevant, and that this- this is
evidence, this is a statement which stands alone, which is
perfectly comprehensible, perfectly understandable, in, and
of, itself, and that if you subtract the parts about the
polygraph test, you don't lose anything at all. And I think
the defense will have difficulty articulating why you did
lose something, but even if they can, then I'd ask the Court
to refer back to People versus Pride where
the defense threw out some theories, there, as well, as to
why they needed the entire tape, and- and the Court reviewed
it, made its own determination and said, ``No, I- I don't
buy that. That doesn't explain, qualify or in any detract
from the statement.



SHOW:The O.J. Simpson Trial and Analysis
TRNO: 7 - 11
TYPE:Show; Live Report
SECT:News; Domestic
DATE:February 1, 1995
TIME: 3:27 pm
HEAD:Simpson Trial - Text - Day 7 - Part 11
HIGH:The Simpson murder trials begins again following a 30-
minute recess. The witness is Simpson friend and former L.A.
officer Ronald Shipp and is answering questions about the
DARDEN, Deputy Defense Attorney (LIVE)
TOPIC:624- - - - - - - - -
SPEC:O.J. Simpson Stories
BODY:Simpson Trial - Text - Day 7 -
Part 11

JIM MORET, Anchor: Court has once
again resumed in the O.J. Simpson case. There's no audio
yet coming from the courtroom. The jurors are not yet in
place. The judge has said that he would like to admonish
witnesses regarding this morning. He explained that he wants
to be on the safe side as far as admonishing not to talk
among themselves. Right now at the podium is a Mr. Carl
Jones, who represents Marguerite Simpson Thomas, O.J.
Simpson's first wife. There was to have been a motion to
quash the subpoena for Marguerite Simpson Thomas today and
that has been delayed, and there is a new court schedule
today. Instead of taking a lunch break, court will be
concluding at approximately 5 p.m. Eastern, 2 Pacific. Mr.
Jones said he received the message and that you can move
this matter as far as quashing the subpoena to serve
Marguerite Simpson Thomas any day, and they have moved it to
tomorrow at 4 pm. Pacific. That's 7 p.m. Eastern. Just to
remind you, the judge has at the bench a kill switch,
effectively. He controls which audio leaves the courtroom.
The court has not yet allowed audio to come from the
courtroom, but you are, as you see, seeing video. That's
Carl Douglas, one of the defense attorneys. While we have
this moment, let's bring in our legal analysts. First, Greta
Van Suteren, to get a brief sense of how the day is going.
Rather, let's go to Alvin Michaelson, our legal analyst here
in Los Angeles. Mr. Michaelson, you have- on the stand
today, we've had Ron Shipp, a friend of both O.J. Simpson and
Nicole Simpson's. He's a former LAPD officer, said that he
and a number of the members of the west L.A. division
visited O.J. Simpson at his house over a period of years and
he did not sense any animosity between those members of the
L.A. police and O.J. Simpson. Do you think that that
diffuses in some way the defense suggestion that the police
are somehow out to frame O.J. Simpson?

ALVIN MICHAELSON, Legal Analyst: Well, I think it
does assist a little bit, but of course, you remember that
the defense is going to show that maybe not all the police
disliked O.J., but that a few did, including Mike Fuhrman
and perhaps some others.

JIM MORET: We once again have audio from the court,
so let's listen in to the proceedings. The camera is
tilting upward. The jury is being brought back in, and they
are going to continue. Christopher Darden, the prosecuting
attorney, has been questioning Ron Shipp. Also, one of the
comments that they're expected to elicit from Ron Shipp
concerns an alleged conversation that Shipp had with O.J.
Simpson. Allegedly this occurred after the murders. Greta
Van Susteren, what about this statement, this dream
statement, that the prosecution expects to bring into

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, Legal Analyst: What Mr. Shipp is
expected to testify to will say that O.J. Simpson said that
he had a dream about killing Nicole Simpson, and the court
has ruled that statement can come into evidence. However,
Alvin Michaelson and I are very disturbed by it, because it
really is about a fantasy, and trials are about evidence -
they're about blood, hair, blood trails, gloves, and not
about fantasy. When you eject fantasy, dreams, into a trial,
you risk creating an error with a result later in a higher
court reversing it.

JIM MORET: Once again, court is in session. The
jurors are in place. Let's listen in to the proceedings.

Judge LANCE ITO, L.A. Superior Court,: Again, on the
witness stand, Mr. Shipp, you're reminded you're still under
oath. Mr. Darden, you may resume your direct examination.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, Deputy Defense Attorney: Thank
you, Your Honor. Good afternoon sir. Good afternoon. Mr.
Shipp, a little while ago you told us that you spoke to a
detective in an attempt to see if you could take care of
this situation for Mr. Simpson?

RONALD SHIPP, Prosecution Witness: Yes, I did.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: During 1989, did the LAPD have a
policy as it related to the rest of spousal abuse suspects?

RONALD SHIPP: Yes they did. It was 273.5 pc, penal

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Now, is this something that you
taught during your domestic violence classes at the police

RONALD SHIPP: Yes, it was.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And what was that policy?

RONALD SHIPP: The policy was- what the law did was,
most victims, when they're in a battering relationship, have
a tendency to-

Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Shipp, the question is what was
the policy, not why.

RONALD SHIPP: I'm sorry. The policy was to make an
arrest if there's any kind of injury.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: So, any time there's some
indication that the victim has suffered some injury in a
spousal abuse situation, the policy required the LAPD
officer to arrest the suspect?

RONALD SHIPP: Yes, it did.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Any time there was an injury?

RONALD SHIPP: Any time there was any kind of a
willful injury by the actual suspect or batterer.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Now, you told us that you heard
on Monday, June 13th, that Nicole Brown was dead, is that


CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Where were you when you heard
the news?

RONALD SHIPP: I was in a bank. The First Interstate

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And what did you do at that

RONALD SHIPP: I called the house.


RONALD SHIPP: O.J. Simpson's house.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: The defendant, did he answer the

RONALD SHIPP: No, he did not.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Did you go to the defendant's

RONALD SHIPP: Not at that time. Not at that time.
No, I didn't.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: At some point that day, that
Monday, did you go to the defendant's home?

RONALD SHIPP: Yeah, I went there. I think I went
there, like, maybe an hour or two afterwards, a couple
hours, if I'm not mistaken.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And was the defendant at his
home when you arrived?

RONALD SHIPP: No, he wasn't.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Do you recall what time it was
when you arrived at the defendant's home?

RONALD SHIPP: The first time it might have been
roughly around, maybe two o'clock, somewhere around there.
I'm not really sure. I went there twice that day.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: So, you arrived at two o'clock
Monday, the first time, right? The defendant wasn't there?

RONALD SHIPP: No, he wasn't.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Did you go to his house a second
time, that same Monday?


CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: What time was that?

RONALD SHIPP: I think it was approximately 5:45 to
six o'clock.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Do you know where the defendant
was at two o'clock on that Monday?

RONALD SHIPP: I had no idea.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Well, when you went to the house
the second time, that evening, was he there?

RONALD SHIPP: Yes, he was.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Did you just walk into the house
as you had on prior occasions?

RONALD SHIPP: No. Once again, I pushed the buzzer.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: You were buzzed in?

RONALD SHIPP: I was buzzed in.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Who buzzed you in?

RONALD SHIPP: I can't remember. There was, you
know, like maybe ten. fifteen people there at the time.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: So you walked into the house and
there were ten or fifteen people there?

RONALD SHIPP: Yeah, around different parts of the


RONALD SHIPP: What I remember at the time, I
remember there was, if I'm not mistaken, I think Cathy Randa
was there.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: OK, and who is Cathy Randa?

RONALD SHIPP: O.J.'s assistant.


RONALD SHIPP: I remember there was Jason, if I'm not
mistaken, there was Arnelle.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Jason and Arnelle Simpson, the
defendant's two adult children?

RONALD SHIPP: Yeah. I mean, I was there over a
week's period, this is what I'm thinking on that night. And
there was also-

JIM MORET: Once again, attorneys are taking another
sidebar. We'll take a short break and be back with more of
our coverage of the Simpson trial right after this.

[Commercial break]

JIM MORET: The sidebar discussion ended just a
couple of seconds ago. Ron Shipp is once again testifying
about visiting O.J. Simpson at his house following the
murders. He said that on one occasion, some ten to fifteen
people, including Simpson's daughter Arnelle and son Jason
were also there.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, Deputy District Attorney: When
we left off, Mr. Shipp, you told us that Cathy Randa and
Jason and Arnelle Simpson were present in the house that
evening. Is that correct?

RONALD SHIPP, Prosecution Witness: What I remember,
yes. I think they-

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Okay. And who else was

RONALD SHIPP: O.J.'s sisters were both there, and
the brother-in-laws, his mom, and I think there was
grandkids there. I think a couple of O.J.'s friends- I
think Joe Stalini was there, Neal Sloan. I'm not sure if Bob
Kardashian was there. I'm not sure if he was there. I
think he was. I'm not real sure.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Robert Kardashian, seated here?

RONALD SHIPP: Yes. Robert Kardashian. And I think
there was one guy there, I'm not sure if it was one of
O.J.'s golfing buddies or whatever, that I remember.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Do you recall that person's

RONALD SHIPP: I can't remember his name.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: What are the names of Mr.
Simpson's two sisters?

RONALD SHIPP: Carmelita, and- I'm sorry. I'm
drawing a blank again, can't think of his other sister's
name right now.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And the two brother-in-laws,
what are their names, if you know?

RONALD SHIPP: Can't remember.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And you said that someone's
grandchildren were there?

RONALD SHIPP: Excuse me. It might have been O.J.'s
nieces. I'm sorry. Nieces were there.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And do you recall their names?

RONALD SHIPP: No. I can't remember.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Do you recall their ages,

RONALD SHIPP: Early twenties, maybe. Early

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: How many of them were there?
How many nieces?


CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Now, did you testify a while ago
that you were by the second time at six o'clock?

RONALD SHIPP: Yes, I did. In between 5:45 and six.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Now, what time did you leave?

RONALD SHIPP: At about eleven.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Now, when you arrived at the
house around six o'clock p.m., did you go to a particular
room or part of the house?

RONALD SHIPP: Yeah. I guess you- you would call it
his TV room.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Were there other persons or
people in the TV room?

RONALD SHIPP: Yes. There was myself, like I said,
Joe Stallini, Neal Sloan, and I think Robert Kardashian.
I'm not sure. I can't remember.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And was the television on at
that time?

RONALD SHIPP: Yes. I think there was either three
or four of them on.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And did you notice anything
unusual about the defendant's hand at that time?

RONALD SHIPP: Yes. I had noticed that he had- on
his left hand, I think, one of his fingers was bandaged,
white bandage on it.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And did you pose any question to
him at that time?

RONALD SHIPP: Yes. I asked him how he cut his hand,
how he cut his finger.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And what did he say?

RONALD SHIPP: He said he did it in Chicago.


RONALD SHIPP: Yes, he did.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: At some point, did the defendant
prepare to go upstairs to go to bed?

RONALD SHIPP: Yes, after a few hours.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And what did you prepare to do
at that time?


CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: If you know, where is the
defendant's bedroom located? Where in the house?

RONALD SHIPP: Upstairs, located on the east part,
east section of the house.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Have you ever been in the
defendant's bedroom?

RONALD SHIPP: I think maybe once or twice prior to
that night.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Now, as you prepared to leave
the defendant's home, did you walk toward the front door?


CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And where was the defendant at
that time?

RONALD SHIPP: Walking towards the stairs.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Stairs leading up, upstairs to
his bedroom?

RONALD SHIPP: Up to his bedroom.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And did he say anything to you
at that time?

RONALD SHIPP: Yes. He said, ``Ron, come upstairs
for a minute.''

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And did you go upstairs?


CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Did you go upstairs with the


CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Did you and the defendant go to
a particular room?

RONALD SHIPP: To his bedroom, yes.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And what was the first thing
that you did when you entered the defendant's bedroom?

RONALD SHIPP: The first thing I did, at his request,
was to open the cabinets where his TV was.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And what was the defendant doing
while you were doing that?

RONALD SHIPP: Starting to get undressed.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And what was he wearing,

RONALD SHIPP: I think he was wearing a white shirt,
and I can't remember what color the pants were.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Was he wearing pants?

RONALD SHIPP: Yes, he had pants on.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Did you watch the defendant as
he undressed and prepared to get ready for bed.

RONALD SHIPP: I mean, I didn't just stare at him,
but I just- I mean, I- I was looking at TV and we were
talking, you know.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Did he take his clothes off, his
pants and shirt off?

RONALD SHIPP: Yes, he did.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And what did he do with them
after he took them off?

RONALD SHIPP: He folded them, and I can't remember-
I can't remember if he hung them up or if he just laid them
down, but I remember he was very meticulous as to how he was
taking off his clothes, and being very neat.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And he's always been that way,
hasn't he? I mean, neat with his clothes?

RONALD SHIPP: Yes. Yes, he has.

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: So, what- what happened next?
What happened after the defendant neatly folded his clothes?

RONALD SHIPP: He began to ask me a couple of

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: What was the first-

RONALD SHIPP: No, excuse me. I take that back. The
first thing he said- he told me what the police had done
when they came out-