The police perimeter was maintained at all times, Hallice said, and to his knowledge no one was arrested outside the building. He said that police had been instructed to remain with persons they took into custody for purposes of identification only if the charge was other than criminal trespass.

The presecution attempted to introduce as evidence of the nature of the police perimeter a police film of the bust. Defense attorneys objected on the grounds that it could be used to identify the defendants and not just "for the limited purpose of defining police activity." John G. S. Flym asked that the film be permitted only if no footage was left out. The photographer testified that only portions blurred due to "improper lens opening" had been removed and that this footage had been destroyed.

Viola allowed the film to be shown, but interrupted it near the end, telling McCarthy "you are not showing what you said you would." The film mostly depicted persons being cleared from the steps and taken out of the building. Viola declared the film inadmissible as evidence.

Cambridge Police Lieutenant Daniel J. Desmond said that he was in charge of four police photographers assigned to the bust. McCarthy introduced into evidence three pictures of people being removed from the building, showing the police cordon leading into conveyance vehicles. Desmond said they were "a fair representation" of what he saw that day.

Desmond testified he saw 15 to 20 persons evacuated from the southwest door through police cordons and at least three jump out of a window. Two of these, he said, were injured. He said he never saw anyone arrested outside the building, never saw the police perimeter broken, and that the only people not in the building but inside the perimeter were "one or two reporters."

Under cross-examination, Desmond admitted that his observations were confined to the southwest door and that he had no way of knowing whether his pictures were "a fair representation" of what was happening at the other three entrances to the building.

Flym introduced into evidence a picture, which Desmond had brought into court but McCarthy had not introduced, showing a figure in a white sweater outside the building, outside the cordon through which occupants were being loaded into vans, but inside the police perimeter.

Two Cambridge police officers explained the procedure by which the people in the buses and vans--which arrived at the Third District Courthouse beginning at 5:30 a.m.--were unloaded, booked, photographed, and detained.

The defense agreed after a conference to concede that the described procedure was followed for all defendants, that all who were indeed loaded into the vehicles went through the procedure, and that--except for a few members of the press who were dismissed--all are now on trial.

The Commonwealth rested its case at 11:25 a.m.

Defense attorney Fred C. Scribner, arguing for the first of three motions of acquittal, said that the prosecution had not produced evidence of direct communication of any warning to leave the premises to any defendant. He said that Watson had an opportunity to give such a notice after the door chains were cut and he had entered the building, but did not. He argued that even if the prosecution need not prove that the defendants were aware of the warning, the warning must at least be made "in good faith" and in such a way that a reasonable person might be made aware of it. Neither of these provisions, he said, were met.

Scribner went on to say that prosecution had produced no proof that five minutes had actually elapsed between Glimp's warning and the entrance of police. He pointed out that Watson had admitted that the time could have been as little as two minutes and that it would have been impossible for all those in the building to leave during the time given.

His final point was that students had clearly been given license by Glimp ("who, we will assume for this particular argument, had control of the building") to remain inside for five minutes.

Flym, saying the Commonwealth had failed to prove that the owners of the building had participated in the decision to take action, cited the fact that while Watson said the decision was reached about 6:30 p.m., Glimp said it was made before Dean Ford's announcement from the steps of Widener around 4 p.m.

Attorney Haskell Kassler said that the prosecution had attempted to establish the identity of the defendants "in a truly unusual and novel fashion." He said that if the prosecution wanted to establish that all the defendants were actually in the building without identifying them individually, it would have to establish the existence of "a perfect and infallible net" around those taken from the building and put into the vans.