Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
AND THAT IS NOT ANYTHING MORE
THAN YOU'D NEED JUST FOR
PERSONAL USE?
>> MR. VINEBERG CONFIDED IN ME
THE EXTENT OF HIS ADDICTION
WHICH IS TEN BAGS A DAY.
SO IF YOU DO THE QUICK MATH,
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 300 BAGS
SUPPLY OF A MONTH.
YOU KNOW, I'M NOT CONTENDING
THAT EACH AND EVERY BAG WAS FOR
HIM BUT THE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT
OF DRUGS THAT WERE FOUND IN HIS
APARTMENT WERE FOR PERSONAL USE.
>> NOW, WHEN YOU SAY YOU'RE NOT
CONTENDING EACH AND EVERY BAG
WAS FOR HIM, OBVIOUSLY HIS PHONE
NUMBER WAS FOUND, PHILLIP'S
PHONE NUMBER WAS FOUND IN YOUR
CLIENT VINEBERG'S CELL PHONE.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASON
AUTHORITIES THINK HE MAY HAVE
BEEN DEALING DRUGS TO LIM.
DID YOUR CLIENT EVER GIVE, SELL
*** TO PHILIP SEYMOUR
HOFFMAN.
>> I'D RATHER NOT COMMENT ON
THAT.
BUT I WILL SAY MR. VINEBERG AND
OLYMPIAN HOFFMAN WERE FRIENDS
AND HAD BEEN FRIENDS FOR A
CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF TIME.
WHETHER THEY BONDED OVER DRUGS
OR BONDED OVER THEIR STRUGGLE TO
KICK DRUGS, THAT'S CLEARLY AN
ISSUE.
>> SO YOUR ISSUE IS WITH THE
TERM DEALER.
IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE NOT REALLY
CONTESTING THAT THEY MAY HAVE
SOLD HIM.
THEY MAY HAVE DONE DRUGS
TOGETHER.
YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY THE DEALING
ITSELF IS A DIFFERENT THING?
>> CLEARLY, NO PROFIT MOTIVE
HERE AT ALL.
AND THAT WOULD BE INFORMED BY
THE FACT THAT YOU KNOW, THE
SMALL AMOUNT OF DRUGS AND SMALL
AMOUNT OF MONEY, $1,000 IN THE
DRUG BUSINESS IS NOTHING.
IT'S RIDICULOUS.
ON TOP OF THAT, THERE WAS NO
INDICIA OF PARAPHERNALIA OR IN
THE APARTMENT WHICH WOULD
INDICATE A REAL ENTERPRISE
SUPPOSED TO HAVING DRUGS FOR
PERSONAL USE.
>> OKAY.
SO LET ME ASK YOU THIS.
ROBERT VINEBERG SAYS HE'S A
SCAPEGOAT AND TOLD THE "NEW YORK
POST" HE COULD HAVE SAVED
HOFFMAN.
WHAT DID HE MEAN WHEN HE SAID
THAT.
>> I THINK WHAT HE MEANT WAS
THAT HE HAD A PERSONAL
RELATIONSHIP WITH HOFFMAN.
AND THAT HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN A
POSITION TO ADVISE HIM OR IF HE
WAS IN TROUBLE TO ASSIST HIM IN
A CERTAIN WAY.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT HE MEANT.
>> SO WHEN PEOPLE OBVIOUSLY
THERE'S SO MUCH ATTENTION ON
THIS CASE AND THAT'S WHY YOUR
CLIENT ASK GETTING ATTENTION.
IF IT TURNS THEY CAN PROVE THAT
THE HAIN, THAT DOSE HE DIED FROM
CAME FROM ROBERT VINEBERG
WHETHER IT WAS PURCHASED WITHOUT
A PROFIT MOTIVE OR NOT, THAT
PUTS YOUR CLIENT ON THE HOOK FOR
VERY SERIOUS CHARGES.
>> I THINK CLEARLY AT THIS
POINT, THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS
REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT THE
NARCOTICS THAT MR. HOFFMAN TOOK
THAT RUTTED IN HIS OVERDOSE DID
NOT COME FROM MR. VINEBERG.
THERE WERE TWO SEPARATE STAMPS,
DIFFERENT STAMPS.
THERE WAS DIFFERENT PURITY
LEVELS.
MR. VINEBERG HAD NOT BEEN IN
CONTACT WITH MR. HOFFMAN FOR
SOME PERIOD OF TIME.
SO.
>> FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME.
YOU'RE SAYING IT WASN'T PART OF
THE RECENT STUFF THAT WAS FOUND
AND PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN, IT
DID NOT COME FROM MR. VINEBERG.
>> INITIALLY BASED ON A
STATEMENT OF AN INFORMANT, THE
PROSECUTION HAD SOME QUESTION AS
TO WHETHER MR. VINEBERG WAS THE