O. J. Simpson Trial Transcripts

TESTIMONY OF LAPD OFFICER ROBERT RISKE

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: GOOD MORNING, OFFICER.

MR. RISKE:  GOOD MORNING.

MS. CLARK:  CAN YOU PLEASE TELL US WHAT YOU DO FOR A LIVING?

MR. RISKE:  I’M A POLICE OFFICER FOR THE RECORD THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES.

MS. CLARK: WHERE ARE YOU ASSIGNED, SIR?

MR. RISKE:  WEST L.A.

MS. CLARK: AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN SO ASSIGNED?

MR. RISKE:  I HAVE BEEN A POLICE OFFICER FOR FOUR YEARS AND TEN MONTHS. I HAVE BEEN AT WEST L.A. THREE YEARS AND SIX MONTHS.

MS. CLARK: AND IN YOUR CAPACITY AS A POLICE OFFICER AT THE WEST L.A. DIVISION WHAT ARE YOUR DUTIES?

MR. RISKE:  I’M ASSIGNED TO PATROL. WE RESPOND TO RADIO CALLS, TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT AND CRIME PREVENTION, BASICALLY.

******

MS. CLARK: PRIOR TO BECOMING A POLICE OFFICER WHAT DID YOU DO?

MR. RISKE:  I WAS IN THE NAVY FOR SIX AND A HALF YEARS.

MS. CLARK:  AND THEN DID YOU TRAIN TO BECOME A POLICE OFFICER?

MR. RISKE:  YES.

MS. CLARK: AND WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF YOUR TRAINING?

MR. RISKE:  SIX MONTHS IN THE LOS ANGELES POLICE ACADEMY, DID A YEAR OF PROBATION.

MS. CLARK: IN THE COURSE OF YOUR TRAINING, SIR, AT THE ACADEMY, WERE YOU TRAINED IN CRIME SCENE PRESERVATION?

MR. RISKE:  THEY KIND OF GLOSS OVER IT; THEY DON’T REALLY TRAIN YOU.

MS. CLARK: DID YOU LEARN IT AT SOME POINT IN YOUR DUTIES?

MR. RISKE:  ON-THE-JOB TRAINING.

MS. CLARK: ON-THE-JOB TRAINING?

MR. RISKE:  YES, MA’AM.

MS. CLARK: MEANING WHAT?

MR. RISKE:  MEANING WHEN YOU ARE ON PROBATION YOU ARE ASSIGNED TO A TRAINING OFFICER. WHEN YOU GO TO A CRIME SCENE THEY TELL YOU WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO AND YOU DO IT; IDENTIFICATION, PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE, SETTING UP THE CRIME SCENE.

MS. CLARK: IN THE COURSE OF YOUR DUTIES IN THE PAST FOUR YEARS AND TEN MONTHS, HOW MANY CRIME SCENES HAVE YOU HAD TO PROTECT OR PRESERVE?

MR. RISKE:  I WOULD ONLY BE ESTIMATING; TWENTY.

MS. CLARK: AND HOW MANY OF THOSE INVOLVED HOMICIDES?

MR. RISKE:  PROBABLY MORE THAN HALF; FIFTEEN
.
MS. CLARK: NOW, AS OF JUNE THE 12TH OF 1994, YOU WERE ASSIGNED TO PATROL FOR THE WEST L.A. DIVISION?

MR. RISKE:  YES, MA’AM.

MS. CLARK: AT APPROXIMATELY 12:09 A.M. DID YOU RECEIVE A CALL DIRECTING YOU TO THAT GENERAL LOCATION?

MR. RISKE:  TO 874 SOUTH BUNDY, YES.

MS. CLARK: WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE CALL THAT SENT YOU TO 874 SOUTH BUNDY?

MR. RISKE:  IT CAME OUT AS A BURGLARY SUSPECT AND THE STATEMENTS OF THE CALL SAID IT WAS UNKNOWN PERSON KNOCKING ON THE VICTIM’S DOOR.

MS. CLARK: AND RINGING THE DOORBELL?

MR. RISKE:  YES, MA’AM.

MS. CLARK: AND IN RESPONSE TO THAT PARTICULAR CALL DID YOU GO TO THE LOCATION?

MR. RISKE:  YES.

MS. CLARK: TELL US WHAT HAPPENED.

MR. RISKE:  AS WE ARRIVED AT THE SCENE WE WERE FLAGGED DOWN BY TWO WITNESSES AND A DOG. THEY DIRECTED US TO 875 AND THEY SAID THERE WAS A DEAD LADY ON THE WALKWAY.

******

MS. CLARK: AND AFTER THEY TOLD YOU THAT, WHAT DID YOU DO?

MR. RISKE:  MY PARTNER AND I CROSSED THE STREET AND WENT TO THE WALKWAY AND WHAT I OBSERVED A FEMALE WHITE IN A BLACK DRESS LAYING IN A PUDDLE OF BLOOD ON THE WALKWAY.

******

MS. CLARK:  WHEN YOU APPROACHED THIS AREA, CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE LIGHTING FOR US, SIR?

MR. RISKE:  THERE IS — THERE IS REALLY NO STREET LIGHTING. THERE IS OVERHANGING TREES OVER THE WALKWAY. THERE WAS LIGHTS ON IN THE RESIDENCE, BUT THERE IS A FENCE THAT GOES IN FRONT OF THE WINDOWS, SO THE LIGHTING WAS POOR.

MS. CLARK: SO — I’M SORRY?

MR. RISKE:  THE LIGHTING WAS VERY POOR.

MS. CLARK: AND WAS THERE A LOT OF FOLIAGE, A LOT OF BUSHES AND TREES IN THAT AREA?

MR. RISKE:  YES.

MS. CLARK: SO WHEN YOU FIRST APPROACHED THE WALKWAY OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY, AS YOU APPROACHED IT, WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE ANY BLOOD ON THE WALKWAY BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY GOT THERE AND ACTUALLY LOOKED UP THE WALKWAY?

MR. RISKE:  IT ACTUALLY TOOK US A COUPLE SECONDS TO FIND THE BODY, IT WAS SO DARK.
******

MS. CLARK: AND WHAT DID YOU DO WHEN YOU STOOD THERE WITH YOUR FLASHLIGHT?

MR. RISKE:  JUST TURNED THE FLASHLIGHT ON AND SAW THE BODY AND WENT BACK AND WALKED TO THE — REQUESTED A SUPERVISOR, ADDITIONAL UNITS AND AN AMBULANCE AND THEN WE WENT BACK AND TALKED TO THE WITNESSES.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. SO AFTER YOU SAW THE BODY, YOU LEFT THE SCENE FOR A MOMENT?

MR. RISKE:  RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: AND DID WHAT?

MR. RISKE:  WENT BACK AND TALKED TO THE WITNESSES TO FIND OUT HOW THEY FOUND THE BODY AND BASICALLY WHAT HAPPENED.

MS. CLARK: AND BY “THE WITNESSES” YOU MEAN THOSE TWO PEOPLE WITH THE DOG?

MR. RISKE:  RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: AND DID THEY TELL YOU HOW THEY FOUND THE DOG?

MR. RISKE:  THEY TOLD ME THAT –

MR. COCHRAN: ANSWER THAT YES OR NO.

THE COURT: CORRECT. DID THEY TELL YOU? YES OR NO?

MR. RISKE:  YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NEXT QUESTION.

MS. CLARK: AND DID THEY TELL YOU HOW THEY HAPPENED TO GET TO 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

MR. RISKE:  YES.

MS. CLARK: DID YOU LOOK AT THE DOG?

MR. RISKE:  YES.

MS. CLARK: DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT IT?

MR. RISKE:  THERE WAS BLOOD ON HIS LEGS AND ON HIS PAWS.

******

MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT?

MR. RISKE:  WE WENT BACK TO THE SCENE, WE APPROACHED THE BODY OF THE FEMALE, AND AS WE GOT PROBABLY TWO FEET FROM HER BODY, WE DISCOVERED THE BODY OF A MALE WHITE LAYING AGAINST THE NORTH FENCE.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. HOW DID YOU — HOW DID YOU GET UP TO THE WOMAN’S BODY? WHAT DID YOU DO?

MR. RISKE:  MY PARTNER APPROACHED ON THE GRASS AND I APPROACHED WALKING THROUGH THE PLANTS RIGHT THERE, STAYING TO –

MS. CLARK: THESE BUSHES HERE ON THE LEFT, (INDICATING)?

MR. RISKE:  RIGHT. STAYING TO THE LEFT OF THE WALKWAY.

MS. CLARK: AND YOUR PARTNER, WHERE WAS HE?

MR. RISKE:  HE WAS ON THE GRASS TO THE LEFT OF THE FOLIAGE. YOU CAN’T REALLY SEE IN THIS PICTURE.

MS. CLARK:  SO YOU WERE IN THE BUSHES AND HE WAS TO THE LEFT OF YOU AS WE FACE THE PHOTOGRAPH?

MR. RISKE:  RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: DID YOU STEPPED ON THE WALKWAY?

MR. RISKE:  NO.
******

MS. CLARK: NOW, THAT WALKWAY THAT YOU SEE IN BOTH 42 ON THE SCREEN — OR IS THAT 38?
EXCUSE ME. 38 ON THE SCREEN AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS IN PEOPLE’S 43, DID YOU ILLUMINATE THAT WITH YOUR FLASHLIGHT?

MR. RISKE:  YES.

MS. CLARK: WHAT DID YOU SEE IN THAT WALKWAY?

MR. RISKE:  THERE IS A POOL OF BLOOD UNDER THE VICTIM, THE FEMALE WHITE, AND IT FLOWS DOWN TOWARDS THE SIDEWALK.

MS. CLARK: AND IN THE BLOOD DID YOU SEE ANY KIND OF PATTERNS?

MR. RISKE:  UMM, THERE WAS PAW PRINTS TOWARDS THE SIDEWALK AND THERE WAS A HEEL MARK BY THE FENCE CLOSE TO WHERE THE ENVELOPE IS.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. IF YOU COULD LOOK AT THE MONITOR, SIR, IT MIGHT BE EASIER FOR YOU ON YOUR MONITOR.

MR. RISKE:  OKAY.

MS. CLARK: DO YOU SEE — CAN YOU TELL US — DO YOU SEE THE PAW PRINTS YOU JUST DESCRIBED?

MR. RISKE:  YES.

MS. CLARK: AND AS YOU LOOKED UP THE WALKWAY WALKING THROUGH THE BUSHES, WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE ANY BLOODY SHOEPRINTS ON THAT WALKWAY?

MR. RISKE:  NOT UNTIL WE GOT RIGHT BY THE BODY. THERE WAS A HEEL PRINT.

MS. CLARK:  BUT DOWN HERE ON THE WALKWAY THAT IS ACTUALLY OUTSIDE THE GATE, DID YOU SEE ANY SHOEPRINTS?

MR. RISKE:  NO.
******
MS. CLARK: AND THIS IS THE CONDITION IN WHICH YOU FOUND THE PLACEMENT OF EVERYTHING WHEN YOU FOUND IT WHEN YOU FIRST APPROACHED?

MR. RISKE:  YES.

MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT, SIR.  NOW, AS YOU MADE THAT APPROACH YOU WERE MAKING THESE OBSERVATIONS, YOU WERE STANDING IN THE BUSHES THAT WAS NEAR THE CALL BOX YOU SHOWED US?

MR. RISKE:  THAT’S CORRECT.

MS. CLARK: NOW, YOU SAID THAT YOU SAW A BLOODY SHOEPRINT UP NEAR THE BODY OF THE VICTIMS. CAN YOU SEE THAT IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH?

MR. RISKE:  NOT REALLY. IT IS KIND OF A BAD PICTURE.

MS. CLARK: UH-HUH. I THINK WE DO HAVE A BETTER ONE.
THE SHOEPRINT THAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING, WAS IT NEAR THE ENVELOPE?

MR. RISKE:  RIGHT, JUST — JUST — IT WOULD BE WEST OF THE ENVELOPE.

******

MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AFTER YOU MADE THESE OBSERVATIONS, SIR, AND YOU WERE ABLE TO SEE — AT THAT TIME TELL US WHAT YOU SAW.

MR. RISKE:  I SAW THE ENVELOPE THERE, THE HEEL PRINT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE CLOSELY, THERE IS A GLOVE AND WHAT APPEARS TO BE A KNIT CAP UNDER THE PLANT ON THE RIGHT.

******

MS. CLARK:  AFTER YOU MADE THESE OBSERVATIONS, SIR, WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT?

MR. RISKE:  MY PARTNER AND I, SEEING THAT THE FRONT DOOR WAS OPENED AND THERE WAS A FOOTPRINT — WHAT APPEARED TO BE BLOODY FOOTPRINTS GOING TOWARD THE FRONT DOOR, WE STEPPED OVER THE FEMALE VICTIM AND WENT TO THE FOOT DOOR AND SAW THE SHOEPRINTS CONTINUE ON DOWN THE WALKWAY.
WE LOOKED IN THE HOUSE AND THERE WAS — APPEARED TO BE NO EVIDENCE OF RANSACKING OR FORCED ENTRY AND I SAW A PHONE PROBABLY FIFTEEN FEET, TWENTY FEET FROM THE FRONT DOOR, AND I ENTERED AND I CALLED THE STATION AND TOLD MY WATCH COMMANDER WHAT WE HAD.

MS. CLARK: SO WHEN YOU WERE STANDING AT THE — AT THE CALL BOX IN THE BUSHES, YOU SAW THE SHOEPRINTS LEADING UP TO THE FRONT DOOR. COULD YOU SEE WHETHER THOSE SHOEPRINTS FROM THAT POSITION CONTINUED ON PAST THE FRONT DOOR OR NOT?

MR. RISKE:  NO.

MS. CLARK: AND WHY WAS IT THAT YOU DECIDED TO STEP OVER THE BODY OF THE WOMAN AND GO INSIDE THE CONDO?

MR. RISKE:  TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY OTHER VICTIMS IN THE HOUSE OR ANY EVIDENCE IN THE HOUSE.

MS. CLARK:  WHAT ABOUT A POSSIBLE SUSPECT?

MR. RISKE:  A POSSIBLE SUSPECT.

MS. CLARK: AT THAT POINT YOU DIDN’T KNOW?

MR. RISKE: NO.

MS. CLARK: NOW, HOW WAS IT THAT — WHEN YOU STIPULATED OVER THE BODY OF THE WOMAN, DID YOU STEP IN BLOOD?

MR. RISKE:  NO.

MS. CLARK: HOW DID YOU MANAGE NOT TO DO THAT?

MR. RISKE:  BY STAYING TO THE FAR LEFT AGAINST THE FENCE AND UP THE STEPS.

MS. CLARK: YEAH. IT IS HARD TO SHOW IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, BUT YOU –

MR. RISKE:  IT SHOWS ON THIS ONE, (INDICATING).

MS. CLARK: ON THIS ONE?  IF YOU WOULD, SIR, PLEASE SHOW US WHERE THERE IS A CLEAR AREA THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO STEP OVER SO THAT YOU AVOIDED STEPPING IN THE BLOOD.

******
MR. RISKE: I STAYED IN THE PLANT RIGHT HERE, GOT NEXT TO THE FENCE, STEPPED OVER HER BODY, STAYED AGAINST THE WALL, UP TO THE STEPS TO THE FRONT DOOR.

******
MS. CLARK: NOW, AFTER YOU WENT INTO THE LOCATION — FIRST OF ALL, DID YOU LOOK AT THE DOOR?

MR. RISKE:  YES.

MS. CLARK: DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY EVIDENCE OF FORCED ENTRY?

MR. RISKE:  I DID NOTICE AND THERE WASN’T.
******
MS. CLARK: DID YOU SEE ANY BLOODY SHOEPRINTS ON THE CARPETING?

MR. RISKE:  NO.

MS. CLARK: DID YOU SEE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THERE HAD BEEN PROPERTY STREWN AROUND OR ANY EVIDENCE OF A STRUGGLE?

MR. RISKE:  NO.

MS. CLARK: DID ANYTHING APPEAR TO BE OUT OF PLACE?

MR. RISKE:  NO.

******
MS. CLARK: DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD DROPS INSIDE THE HOUSE ON THE FLOOR ANYWHERE?

MR. RISKE:  NO, I DIDN’T.

MS. CLARK:  AND YOU SAW A TELEPHONE THERE?

MR. RISKE: YES, MA’AM.

MS. CLARK: AND WHAT DID DO YOU WITH THAT PHONE?

MR. RISKE:  I CALLED MY WATCH COMMANDER AT THE STATION AND TOLD HIM WE HAD A DOUBLE HOMICIDE ON BUNDY AND I TOLD HIM THAT O.J. SIMPSON WAS SOMEHOW INVOLVED.

MS. CLARK: AND WHY DID YOU THINK THAT?

MR. RISKE:  BECAUSE WHEN WE APPROACHED RIGHT BY THE FRONT DOOR YOU COULD SEE A LITHOGRAPH ON THE NORTH WALL OF THE APARTMENT OR THE CONDOMINIUM, AND AS I GOT TO THE PHONE THERE WAS A LETTER, HAD O.J. SIMPSON AS A RETURN ADDRESS, SO I THOUGHT IT WAS HIS WIFE OR HIS GIRLFRIEND.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. NOW, BY “INVOLVED” DID YOU MEAN AS A SUSPECT?

MR. RISKE:  NO, JUST POTENTIAL VICTIM, MAYBE IT IS HIS WIFE, I DIDN’T KNOW.

******
MS. CLARK: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

MR. RISKE:  WELL, MY PARTNER AND I EXITED THE APARTMENT, TOOK THE SAME PATH DOWN THROUGH THE PLANTS. I WENT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE NORTH FENCE BY MR. GOLDMAN.

MS. CLARK:  HOW DID YOU DO THAT? DID YOU STEP THROUGH THE BLOOD SOMEHOW WHEN YOU DID THAT?

MR. RISKE:  NO, I WENT AROUND TO THE NEIGHBOR’S YARD.

******
MS. CLARK: WHAT DID YOU DO IN THAT LOCATION WHILE YOU WERE ON THE OUTSIDE OF THAT GATE?

MR. RISKE:  I APPROACHED MR. GOLDMAN. WHEN I WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE, I NOTICED THAT ONE OF HIS EYES WAS OPENED, SO I APPROACHED HIM, I SHINED MY LIGHT TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY MOVEMENT IN HIS PUPIL, AND THERE WAS NONE AND IT REMAINED FIXED AND DILATED AND I TOUCHED HIS EYEBALL WITH MY FINGER TO GET ANY INVOLUNTARY REACTION SUCH AS TWITCHING THE EYELID, MOVEMENT OF THE HEAD, JUST BASICALLY TO VERIFY THAT HE WAS DEAD.

MS. CLARK: AND YOU FOUND WHAT?

MR. RISKE:  THAT HE WAS DEAD.
******

MS. CLARK:  NOW, DURING THAT ENTIRE TIME, SIR, DID YOU STEP IN ANY BLOOD IN THE WALKWAY OR AROUND THE VICTIMS?

MR. RISKE:  NO, I DIDN’T.

MS. CLARK: OR UP ON THE STAIRS OR THE PATHWAY LEADING TO THE FRONT DOOR?

MR. RISKE:  NO, I DIDN’T.

MS. CLARK: DID YOU TOUCH ANY OF THE EVIDENCE?

MR. RISKE:  NO.

MS. CLARK: AND WHY IS THAT?

MR. RISKE:  BECAUSE I WAS TRYING TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE CRIME SCENE.

MS. CLARK: IS THAT DOING WHAT YOU ARE TRAINED TO DO, SIR?

MR. RISKE:  YES, MA’AM.

MS. CLARK: STANDARD TRAINING?

MR. RISKE:  YES.
******
MS. CLARK: AND WHERE DID YOU GO AT THAT POINT?

MR. RISKE: I WENT OUT TO THE PATROL CAR THAT WAS PARKED IN THE ALLEY AND JUST SAT WITH MY PARTNER.

MS. CLARK: WHAT WERE YOU DOING?

MR. RISKE: JUST MAINTAINING SECURITY. WE HAD BEEN RELIEVED BY THE DETECTIVES. THEY ASSUMED RESPONSIBILITY.

******

MS. CLARK: AND THAT WAS — YOU STOOD IN OR OUTSIDE THE CRIME SCENE TAPE?

MR. RISKE: OUTSIDE.

MS. CLARK: DID ANYONE ENTER THROUGH THE CRIME SCENE TAPE THAT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO DO SO WHILE YOU WERE THERE?

MR. RISKE: NO.

******

MS. CLARK: WHAT DID YOU DO IN THE FRONT OF THE LOCATION?

MR. RISKE: WE OPENED BUNDY UP TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC. SO WE JUST — ALL WE HAD WAS A CRIME SCENE FROM THE HOUSE NORTH, NICOLE’S HOUSE, AND THE HOUSE SOUTH, AND WE JUST MAINTAINED — WE SAT IN FRONT OF THAT CRIME SCENE.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.  SO WAS ANYONE ALLOWED TO WALK ON THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

MR. RISKE: NO.

MS. CLARK: WAS ANYONE ALLOWED TO WALK ON THE WALKWAY AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

MR. RISKE: NO.

******
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

******

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.  AND SO THAT WE GET THE CHRONOLOGY OF HIERARCHY THERE, YOU WERE A PATROL PERSON; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. RISKE: THAT’S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: WHO WAS YOUR IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR?

MR. RISKE: THAT NIGHT?

MR. COCHRAN: ON THAT NIGHT.

MR. RISKE: SERGEANT COON WAS THE FIELD SUPERVISOR.

******
MR. COCHRAN: AND HE’S NO RELATION TO THE OTHER SERGEANT COON.

MR. RISKE: NOT AS FAR AS I KNOW.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. AS FAR AS YOU KNOW; IS THAT RIGHT?

MR. RISKE: THAT’S CORRECT.

******

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, YOU DESCRIBED FOR MISS CLARK THAT WHEN YOU WERE AT THE LOS ANGELES POLICE ACADEMY, THAT THEY KIND OF GLOSSED OVER THIS CRIME SCENE MAINTENANCE AND TRAINING; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. RISKE: RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: AND MUCH OF WHAT YOU’VE LEARNED, YOU LEARNED ACTUALLY ON THE JOB ONCE YOU ACTUALLY GOT IN THE FIELD; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. RISKE: YES, SIR.

MR. COCHRAN:  HAVE YOU HAD ANY TRAINING IN THE SENSITIVITY OF DNA?

MR. RISKE: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: HAD ANY TRAINING WITH REGARD TO POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION OR SO CALLED PCR?

MR. RISKE: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: HAD NONE OF THAT AT ALL?

MR. RISKE: NO.

******
MR. COCHRAN: AND AT SOME POINT YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THAT YOU WENT INSIDE THE HOUSE; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. RISKE: RIGHT.

******

MR. COCHRAN: PRIOR TO PICKING UP THAT PHONE DID ANYBODY DUST IT FOR PRINTS AT ALL?

MR. RISKE: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU HAVE ANY GLOVES ON WHEN YOU PICKED UP THE PHONE?

MR. RISKE: NO.

******

MR. COCHRAN: AND YOU DESCRIBED FOR US ON MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY OCCASIONS DURING MISS CLARK’S DIRECT EXAMINATION THE GREAT PAINS YOU TOOK NOT TO WALK THROUGH THIS BLOOD OR ANY SO-CALLED FOOTPRINTS, RIGHT?

MR. RISKE: THAT’S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: AND BECAUSE YOU KNEW IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO TRY AND PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE EVIDENCE; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. RISKE: THAT’S CORRECT.
******

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, WHEN YOU WROTE — YOU WROTE OUT A REPORT REGARDING YOUR OBSERVATIONS THAT PARTICULAR MORNING; ISN’T THAT CORRECT?

MR. RISKE: I WOULDN’T CALL IT A REPORT; I MADE A STATEMENT.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. WELL, YOU WROTE OUT A STATEMENT ABOUT YOUR INVOLVEMENT ON THAT PARTICULAR MORNING?

MR. RISKE: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: AND IN WRITING THAT STATEMENT OUT YOU TRIED TO BE, OF COURSE, AS ACCURATE AS YOU COULD?

MR. RISKE:  I WROTE WHAT ACTIONS WE TOOK. I DIDN’T WRITE OUT EVERYTHING, NO.

MR. COCHRAN: THE QUESTION IS DID YOU TRY TO BE ACCURATE IN WHAT YOU WROTE?

MR. RISKE: YES.
******

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, IN THIS REPORT — YOU DON’T AT ANY PLACE IN THIS REPORT INDICATE THAT YOU WENT INSIDE THE RESIDENCE, USED THE PHONE, CALLED SERGEANT ROSSI, SAW AN ENVELOPE WITH O.J. SIMPSON’S NAME — RETURN ADDRESS THEREON AND FELT HE WAS IN ANY WAY INVOLVED?
YOU DON’T MENTION THAT, DO YOU?

MR. RISKE: I DON’T BELIEVE SO, NO.
******
MR. COCHRAN: AND YOU DON’T SEE ANYWHERE IN THAT REPORT WHERE YOU MENTIONED GOING IN AND USING MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON’S PHONE, DO YOU?

MR. RISKE: NO.

******
MR. COCHRAN: NOW, YOU WERE ASKED A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW YOU PUT UP THESE — THIS YELLOW TAPE TO SECURE THE SCENE.  DO YOU RECALL THAT?

MR. RISKE: THAT’S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: AND AGAIN THAT WAS AN EFFORT TO TRY AND KEEP INTRUDERS OUT; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. RISKE: RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: POLICE OFFICERS, HOWEVER, WERE FREE TO COME AND GO INSIDE THAT SCENE; ISN’T THAT CORRECT?

MR. RISKE: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: THEY WEREN’T FREE TO COME AND GO?

MR. RISKE: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: THERE WEREN’T A NUMBER OF POLICE OFFICERS WHO WALKED INSIDE THAT SCENE?

MR. RISKE: NO, THERE WEREN’T.

******
MR. COCHRAN: IN FACT, ON ONE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU WERE ASKED TO LOOK AT THIS MORNING, WE HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, AND DID YOU SEE HIM AND HOW HE WAS ABLE TO ACCESS THE AREA WHERE HE WAS LOOKING FOR THE KNIT CAP, WHERE HE WAS POINTING DOWN TOWARDS IT? DID YOU SEE HIM ACCESS THAT AREA?

MR. RISKE: YES, I DID.

MR. COCHRAN: DID HE HAVE ANY BOOTIES OR ANYTHING ON HIS SHOES AT THE TIME HE WAS WALKING IN THAT AREA?

MR. RISKE: NO, HE DIDN’T.

MR. COCHRAN: WERE ANY OF THE OFFICERS WEARING ANY BOOTIES ON THEIR SHOES AT ALL THAT MORNING?

MR. RISKE: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: WERE ANY OF THE OFFICERS AT ALL USING GLOVES THAT MORNING WHEN THEY WERE OUT THERE?

MR. RISKE: NOT THAT I RECALL, NO.

******

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THIS PARTICULAR EXHIBIT HERE, WAS ANY OF THIS EVIDENCE MOVED WHILE YOU WERE THERE?

MR. RISKE: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS ENVELOPE OR ANY OF THESE ITEMS MOVED?

MR. RISKE: NO.
******
MR. COCHRAN: I WANT YOU TO TAKE A LOOK, IF YOU WILL, AT THE ENVELOPE IN THESE TWO DIFFERENT PHOTOGRAPHS, PEOPLE’S 54 AND PEOPLE’S 56. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT WHAT HAS BEEN MARKED 104 IN PEOPLE’S 556. DO YOU SEE THE ENVELOPE HERE?

MR. RISKE:  YES, SIR.

MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU SEE WHERE THE GROUTING ON THE ENVELOPE — THE ENVELOPE IS ACROSS THE GROUTING? DO YOU SEE THAT?

MR. RISKE: YES, I DO.

MR. COCHRAN: LOOK AT PEOPLE’S 54, I BELIEVE. DO YOU SEE THE GROUTING HERE?

MR. RISKE: YES, SIR.

MR. COCHRAN: THE ENVELOPE IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE GROUTING?

MR. RISKE: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW THAT ENVELOPE GOT MOVED?
MR. RISKE: NO.
MR. COCHRAN: I WANT YOU TO STEP DOWN IF YOU CAN AND I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT THE GLOVE UNDER THIS FOLIAGE HERE, THIS PLANT.
CAN YOU SEE IT FROM THERE?

MR. RISKE: YES, SIR.

******

MR. COCHRAN: AND DO YOU NOTICE THAT THE “V” PART OF THE GLOVE IS ALMOST UP AGAINST THE WALKWAY THERE? DO YOU SEE THAT?

MR. RISKE: YES, SIR.

******

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. NOW, I WANT YOU NOW TO SHIFT YOUR ATTENTION OVER TO THIS NEXT EXHIBIT WHERE THERE’S A 102 MARKED HEREIN. CAN YOU SEE WHERE THE “V” PART OF THE GLOVE IS NOW POINTING IN ANOTHER DIRECTION?

MR. RISKE: YES, SIR.

MR. COCHRAN: AND THAT THE FINGERS OF THE GLOVE ARE NOW POINTED IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION ALSO?

MR. RISKE: YES, SIR.

MR. COCHRAN: THE GLOVE HAS BEEN MOVED?  DO YOU SEE THAT?

MR. RISKE:  YES, SIR.

MR. COCHRAN: WERE YOU THERE WHEN THIS HAPPENED?

MR. RISKE: NO, I WASN’T.

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU TRIED TO DO AT THIS SCENE WAS TO PRESERVE IT SO THAT EVIDENCE WAS NOT MOVED; ISN’T THAT CORRECT?

MR. RISKE: YES.
******

MR. COCHRAN: AND AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY, THIS ICE CREAM CUP WAS ON THE BANISTER AS YOU GO DOWN THE STEPS AND GOING OUT TO THE GARAGE; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. RISKE: THAT’S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU EVER LIFT THAT ICE CREAM CUP UP?

MR. RISKE: NO, I DIDN’T.

MR. COCHRAN: COULD YOU TELL FROM THE CONDITION OF THAT MELTING ICE CREAM, AS YOU HAVE DESCRIBED IT, WHAT WAS THE FLAVOR OF THE ICE CREAM?

MR. RISKE: I HAVE NO IDEA.

******

MR. COCHRAN: WHILE YOU WERE THERE DID YOU EVER SEE ANY POLICE OFFICERS DUST THIS JEEP AT ALL FOR ANY PRINTS OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE?

MR. RISKE: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU SEE ANY CRIMINALIST, WHILE YOU WERE THERE, LOOK IN THE ALLEYWAY FOR ANY TRACK MARKS OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE?

MR. RISKE: NO.

******

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER PART OF THE INTERIOR OF THE HOUSE, YOU DESCRIBED FOR US LAST WEEK HOW YOU WALKED KIND OF IN THE PLANT AREA SO YOU WOULDN’T WALK THROUGH THE BLOOD.
AND DID YOU GET YOUR SHOES MUDDY, DIRTY DOING THAT?

MR. RISKE: I DON’T THINK SO, NO.

MR. COCHRAN: WHEN YOU WENT INSIDE THE HOUSE, DID YOU TRACK ANY MUD OR DIRT INSIDE?

MR. RISKE: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?

MR. RISKE: POSITIVE.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

******

MS. CLARK: OFFICER RISKE, YOU GOT ASKED A WHOLE LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IN THIS INVESTIGATION JUST NOW BY COUNSEL, DIDN’T YOU?

MR. RISKE: YES, SIR.

MS. CLARK: WHAT IS YOUR JOB, SIR?

MR. RISKE: RESPOND TO THE CALL, SECURE THE SCENE, TO MAKE NOTIFICATIONS.
******
MS. CLARK: AND HAS IT EVER OCCURRED IN YOUR EXPERIENCE THAT REMOVAL OF BODIES FROM A SCENE WILL CAUSE SOME EVIDENCE CLOSE TO THE BODIES TO BE DISTURBED?

MR. RISKE: IN MY EXPERIENCE THEY HAVE ACTUALLY PICKED UP THE EVIDENCE AND TAGGED WHERE IT WAS AT, REMOVED THE BODY AND PUT THE EVIDENCE BACK AND TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS.

MS. CLARK: BUT IN YOUR EXPERIENCE HAVE THEY TAKEN PHOTOGRAPHS BEFORE THE BODIES WERE REMOVED?

MR. RISKE: YES.

MS. CLARK: AND IN ORDER TO PRESERVE IT EXACTLY AS IT WAS FOUND?

MR. RISKE: RIGHT.
******

MS. CLARK: NOW, YOU WERE NOT WEARING GLOVES, WERE YOU, SIR?

MR. RISKE: NO, I WASN’T.

MS. CLARK: AND DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN, HE WAS NOT WEARING GLOVES, WAS HE?

MR. RISKE: NOT WHILE I WAS THERE, NO.

******
MS. CLARK: WERE THEY HANDLING THE EVIDENCE?

MR. RISKE: NOT WHILE I WAS THERE, NO.

MS. CLARK: WERE THEY COLLECTING THE EVIDENCE?

MR. RISKE: NO.

MS. CLARK: WERE THEY DUSTING FOR PRINTS?

MR. RISKE: NO, THEY WEREN’T.

******
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN:  IN MISS CLARK’S QUESTIONING, WAS SHE SEEKING TO INFER THROUGH YOUR TESTIMONY THESE ITEMS HAVE BEEN MOVED BY THE CORONER?

MR. RISKE: I DON’T KNOW WHAT SHE WAS TRYING TO INFER.

*****

TESTIMONY OF DENNIS FUNG
MONDAY, APRIL 3, 1995
 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG:

******
MR. GOLDBERG: WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION AND YOUR ASSIGNMENT?

MR. FUNG: I AM A CRIMINALIST EMPLOYED BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT. I’M ASSIGNED TO THE FIREARMS ANALYSISUNIT OF THE SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION.

*****
MR. GOLDBERG: ON JUNE THE 13TH OF 1994, WERE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECTING CERTAIN EVIDENCE AT 360 NORTHROCKINGHAM AND 875 BUNDY IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES?

MR. FUNG: YES.

*****
MR GOLDBERG: YOU SAID YOU WERE A CRIMINALIST?

MR. FUNG: YES. A CRIMINALIST IS SOMEBODY WHO EMPLOYS THE PRINCIPLES OF THE NATURAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES TOIDENTIFY, DOCUMENT, PRESERVE AND ANALYZE EVIDENCE THAT IS RELATED TO A CRIME. HE LATER TESTIFIES TO HIS FINDINGS INA COURT OF LAW.

*****
MR. GOLDBERG: WHEN DID YOU BECOME A CRIMINALIST AT THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?
MR. FUNG: IN OCTOBER OF 1984.
*****
MR. GOLDBERG: ON THE DATE OF JUNE THE 13TH, YOU WERE WORKING WITH ANDREA MAZZOLA?
MR. FUNG: YES, I WAS.
MR. GOLDBERG:  AND WAS SHE A CRIMINALIST I?
MR. FUNG:  YES.
MR. GOLDBERG: APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY CRIME SCENES WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOU’VE INVESTIGATED OVER THE COURSE OF YOUR CAREER?
MR. FUNG: APPROXIMATELY 500 CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATIONS.
*****
MR. GOLDBERG: DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION NOW BACK TO JUNE THE 13TH OF 1994, AT APPROXIMATELY 5:30 OR SO IN THE MORNING,DID YOU RECEIVE A CALL?
MR. FUNG: YES, I DID.
*****
MR. GOLDBERG: AND WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE CALL?
MR. FUNG: IT WAS A CALL FROM CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA INFORMING ME THAT THERE WAS A HOMICIDE WE WERE REQUESTED TO RESPOND TO IN THE WEST L.A. DIVISION.
*****
MR. GOLDBERG: AND WHY DID YOU DECIDE THAT YOU WERE GOING TO BECOME THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION AS OPPOSED TO ANDREA MAZZOLA?
MR. FUNG: WHEN I FOUND OUT THAT IT WAS A HIGH PROFILE CASE AND IT WOULD BE A COMPLICATEDSCENE, I DECIDED THAT SHE SHOULD IN THE SENSE TAKE THE BACKSEAT.
*****
MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, AFTER YOU ARRIVED AT THE LOCATION AT ROCKINGHAM AT APPROXIMATELY YOU SAID 7:10 A.M., WHAT WAS THE VERY FIRST THING YOU DID WHEN YOU GOT THERE?
MR. FUNG: I WAS MET BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER, AND HE GAVE ME A BRIEFING AS TO WHAT HE HAD ATTHE CRIME SCENE AND WHAT HE WANTED ME TO DO. HE SHOWED ME A RED STAIN ON THE DRIVER DOOR OFTHE BRONCO AND A BLOOD TRAIL LEADING FROM THE BRONCO TOWARDS THE FRONT ENTRANCE OF THE RESIDENCE.
*****
MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE CELL THAT’S LABELED NO. 6 THAT SAYS COLLECT STAIN. WHAT IS MISS MAZZOLA DOING HERE?
MR. FUNG:  MISS MAZZOLA IS APPLYING THE CLOTH SWATCH TO THE STAIN ITSELF.MR. GOLDBERG: SO NOW SHE’S ACTUALLY COLLECTING THE STAIN?
MR. FUNG: YES.
*****
MR. GOLDBERG: DID YOU COLLECT A STAIN ON THE CAR DOOR OF A BRONCO THAT WAS LOCATED AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?
MR. FUNG: YES.
*****
MR. GOLDBERG: DO YOU KNOW WHO TOOK THE MEASUREMENTS OF THE VARIOUS ITEMS HERE THAT ARE LISTED IN THE CRIME SCENEIDENTIFICATION CHECKLIST?
MR. FUNG: BOTH CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA AND MYSELF WERE WORKING AS A TEAM TO MEASURE THESE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE.
MR. GOLDBERG: ARE THERE SOME CLERICAL ERRORS IN SOME OF THOSE REPORTS AND NOTES?
MR. FUNG: YES, THERE ARE.
*****
MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, WHEN YOU WERE AT THE BRONCO THAT MORNING, COULD YOU SEE ANY OTHER BLOOD INSIDE OF THE BRONCO?
MR. FUNG: I DID SEE WHAT APPEARED TO BE STAINS IN THE INTERIOR PORTION OF THE VEHICLE.
MR. GOLDBERG: WHAT DID YOU SEE WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING IN?
MR. FUNG: I SAW SOME REDDISH STAINS ON THE CONSOLE AND NEAR THE WINDOW LEDGE OF THE DRIVER DOOR
*****
MR. GOLDBERG: AT APPROXIMATELY 9:30 OR SO IN THE MORNING ON THE 13TH OF JUNE — DID YOU COLLECTANOTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?
MR. FUNG: YES.
MR. GOLDBERG: DID ANYONE GO WITH YOU TO SHOW YOU WHERE THIS WAS?
MR. FUNG: YES. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.MR. GOLDBERG: AND WHAT WAS IT THAT YOU WENT TO SEE?MR. FUNG: AT 9:30 OR APPROXIMATELY AT 9:30, THE GLOVE WAS COLLECTED. THE GLOVE WAS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THERESIDENCE AT ROCKINGHAM.
*****
MR. GOLDBERG: WHEN YOU ARE COLLECTING ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT CONTAIN POSSIBLE BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL, BUT OTHER THANBLOOD DROPS, WHAT TECHNIQUE OR TECHNIQUES WILL YOU USE?
MR. FUNG: I WILL USE ONE OF TWO TECHNIQUES: ONE IS TO WEAR A PAIR OF GLOVES AND PICK UP THE ITEM AND PLACE IT INTO A PAPER BAG, OR I WILL USE A SCOOP TECHNIQUE WHERE I WILL PLACE THE BAG NEXT TO THE ITEM TO BE COLLECTED AND PUSH IT IN WITH A CARD OR PENCIL.
MR. GOLDBERG: DO YOU RECALL SPECIFICALLY WHICH ONE YOU USED IN THIS INSTANCE WITH REGARD TO THE GLOVE THAT DETECTIVEFUHRMAN SHOWED YOU?
MR. FUNG: I DON’T RECALL WHICH ONE I USED.
*****
MR. GOLDBERG: WHEN YOU SAW THIS ITEM PRIOR TO YOU COLLECTING IT, WHAT DID THE ITEM APPEAR LIKE?
MR. FUNG: THE ITEM APPEARED TO HAVE SOME BROWNISH REDDISH STAINS ON THEM. IT WAS — APPEARED TO ME TO BE SOMEWHATDRY WITH SOME SHINY AREAS ON IT.
*****
MR. GOLDBERG: WHERE DID YOU GO AFTER YOU LEFT ROCKINGHAM THAT MORNING?
MR. FUNG: I PROCEEDED ON TO 875 SOUTH BUNDY.
*****
MR. GOLDBERG: WHAT WAS GOING ON THERE AT THE TIME THAT YOU ARRIVED AT 10:15 THAT MORNING OR SO?
MR. FUNG: THE AREA HAD QUITE A BIT OF NEWS MEDIA AROUND AND DETECTIVES AND CORONER PERSONNEL WERE PRESENT.
MR. GOLDBERG: DID YOU SEE THE CORONER PERSONNEL DOING ANYTHING AT THE SCENE, AS YOU ARRIVED?MR. FUNG: YES. THEY APPEARED TO BE PROCESSING THE BODY OF MISS SIMPSON.
*****
MR. GOLDBERG: AT SOME POINT IN TIME DID YOU GET A WALK-THROUGH OF THE LOCATION FROM DETECTIVE LANGE?
MR. FUNG: YES. DETECTIVE LANGE TOLD ME OF DIFFERENT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE HE WANTED ME TO COLLECT. HE SHOWED ME SOMECLOTHING IN THE CAGE AREA, SHOWED ME A TRAIL OF WHAT APPEARED TO BE BLOODY FOOTPRINTS AND A TRAIL OF BLOODLEADING TOWARDS THE WEST END OF THE LOCATION.MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THESE ITEMS OF BLOOD DROPS THAT YOU DESCRIBED AS BEING THE TRAIL, WHATCONDITION DID THEY APPEAR TO BE IN?
MR. FUNG: THEY APPEARED TO BE FRESH BLOOD STAINS.
*****
MR. GOLDBERG: IS THIS A PHOTOGRAPH THAT WAS TAKEN ON THE 13H OF JUNE? DID YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPARE THAT PHOTOGRAPH TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH WERE TAKEN ON JULY THE 3RD AT THE TIME THAT YOU COLLECTED 15, 16 AND 17 — 115, 116 AND 117?
MR. FUNG: YES.
*****
MR. GOLDBERG: SO IF YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK AND REPROCESS THE CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY, IF YOU COULD DO THE13TH ALL OVER AGAIN, WOULD OF YOU HAVE LIKED TO HAVE COLLECTED THE STAIN?MR. FUNG: ABSOLUTELY.
*****
MR. GOLDBERG: AND WHAT, IF ANYTHING, WERE YOU TRYING TO DETERMINE BY MEASURING THE FOOTPRINTS AND THE BLOOD DOTS?
MR. FUNG: I WAS ASKED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PERSON WAS RUNNING OR WALKING.
MR. GOLDBERG: FIRST OF ALL, DID YOU MAKE ANY PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION AS TO THE SHOE SIZE?
MR. FUNG: YES. THE PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION WAS THAT IT WAS A LARGE SHOE SIZE CONSISTENT WITH BEING WORN BY AN ADULT.
MR. GOLDBERG: AND ANOTHER THING YOU SAID YOU WERE LOOKING AT WAS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN SHOEPRINTS?FOR WHAT PURPOSE WERE YOU LOOKING AT THAT?
MR. FUNG: WHEN A PERSON RUNS, THEY WILL HAVE A LONGER DISTANCE BETWEEN EACH SHOEPRINT THAN WHEN THEY WALK.
MR. GOLDBERG: AND WAS THE DISTANCE HERE FOR AN ADULT RELATIVELY LONG CONSISTENT WITH RUNNING OR SHORTER?
MR. FUNG: IT WAS RELATIVELY SHORTER.
MR. GOLDBERG: AND FINALLY, YOU SAID THAT YOU LOOKED AT THE TRAILING OR TAILING – WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?
MR. FUNG: WHEN A DROP OF BLOOD HITS AN OBJECT, WHEN IT HAS SOME TYPE OF VELOCITY BESIDES GOING DOWN, IT WILLTYPICALLY HAVE A SPLASHING EFFECT IN THE DIRECTION THAT IT IS TRAVELING AND YOU CAN DETERMINE DIRECTION BY ANALYZINGTHAT.
*****
MR. GOLDBERG: DID YOU SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF SIGNIFICANT TAILING ON THESE BLOOD DOTS?
MR. FUNG: THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANT TRAILING, NO, OR TAILING, NO.
MR. GOLDBERG: AND WOULD THAT BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH SOMEONE THAT WAS RUNNING OR MOVING MORE SLOWLY?
MR. FUNG: THERE WOULD BE MORE TAILING WITH SOMEONE WHO WAS RUNNING.
*****
MR. GOLDBERG: AND WHAT WAS THE FIRST ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU SAW INSIDE THE HOUSE?MR. FUNG: THE FIRST ITEM OF EVIDENCE WAS A — WERE THREE RED OR A SERIES OF RED STAINS IN THE FOYER.
*****
MR. GOLDBERG: DO YOU RECALL WHAT WAS THE NEXT ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED?
MR. FUNG: THE NEXT ITEM WAS A PAIR OF SOCKS IN THE MASTER BEDROOM.
*****

TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 1995 DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. GOLDBERG:

MR. GOLDBERG: ON THE MORNING OF THE 14TH, DID YOU GO TO SOME OTHER LOCATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTING EVIDENCE?
MR. FUNG: YES. THAT WAS AT THE LAPD PRINT SHED.
MR. GOLDBERG: AND WHAT DID YOU SEE IN THE PRINT SHED WHEN YOU UNLOCKED IT?
MR. FUNG: THERE WAS A WHITE BRONCO IN THE PRINT SHED.
MR. GOLDBERG: HAD YOU SEEN THAT WHITE BRONCO BEFORE?
MR. FUNG: YES. I HAD SEEN IT THE DAY BEFORE AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM.
MR. GOLDBERG: DID YOU COLLECT SOME STAINS FROM THE BRONCO ON THIS DATE, THE 14TH?
MR. FUNG: YES, I DID.
*****.
MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE DATE OF JUNE THE 15TH OF 1994 —
MR. FUNG: YES.
MR. GOLDBERG: DID YOU RECEIVE SOME MORE EVIDENCE FROM ANOTHER CRIMINALIST IN THE MORNING OF THAT DATE?
MR. FUNG: YES, I DID. A I RECEIVED THE VICTIM’S REFERENCE BLOOD SAMPLE FROM THE CORONER.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK:
MR. SCHECK: WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT IS A PRINCIPLE OF CRIME SCENE CONTAMINATION TO FIRST PROTECT THESCENE?
MR. FUNG: YES.
MR. SCHECK: DID YOU TAKE GREAT PAINS TO TESTIFY THAT YOU OBSERVED MISS MAZZOLA COLLECT ALL THOSEBLOOD DROPS INCLUDING 52?
MR. FUNG:  YES.
MR. SCHECK: AND YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY HERE IS THAT YOU DID NOT SEE HER COLLECT 52?
MR. FUNG:  I WAS PRESENT DURING THOSE PHASES OF THE COLLECTION PROCESS.
*****
MR. SCHECK: YOU WERE ASKED BY MR. GOLDMAN, “IS ANDREA MAZZOLA AVTRAINEE,” AND YOU ANSWERED, “NO, SHE IS A CRIMINALIST.” DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?
MR. FUNG: YES.
MR. SCHECK:  NOW, WHEN YOU TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY IN AUGUST OF THIS YEAR, DIDN’T YOU TELL US THAT ANDREA MAZZOLA ON JUNE 13TH WAS STILL IN TRAINING?
MR. FUNG:  I DON’T REMEMBER MY EXACT WORDS.
*****
MR. SCHECK: ISN’T IT TRUE THAT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 55 AND 56, THAT MISS MAZZOLA WAS THE ONE WHO SWATCHED EVERY BLOODSTAIN AT BUNDY?
MR. FUNG:  THAT’S NOT ENTIRELY TRUE, NO.MR. SCHECK: WHICH ONE DID YOU SWATCH?
MR. FUNG:  I DON’T RECALL EXACTLY WHICH ONES I ASSISTED HER WITH, BUT THERE WERE PORTIONS OF STAINS WHERE IACTUALLY TOOK THE TWEEZERS AND DID THE MANIPULATION MYSELF.
*****
MR. SCHECK:  ROCKINGHAM, SHE SWATCHED THE RED STAIN ON THE HANDLE OF THE BRONCO?
MR. FUNG:  UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, YES.
MR. SCHECK:  NOW, THE BUNDY GLOVE, GLOVE FOUND AT BUNDY —
MR. FUNG:  YES.
MR. SCHECK:  ANDREA MAZZOLA WAS THE ONE THAT PICKED THAT UP, PUT IT IN THE BROWN PAPER BAG?
MR. FUNG:  YES.MR. SCHECK:  THE WATCH CAP AT BUNDY, ANDREA MAZZOLA WAS THE PERSON WHO PICKED THAT UP AND PUT IT IN THE BAG?
MR. FUNG:  YES.
*****
MR. SCHECK:  WELL, LET’S TALK ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY AT THE GRAND JURY. DO YOU RECALL BEING ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BLOOD DROPS AT BUNDY AND WHO SWATCHED THEM? A AT BUNDY, YES. “QUESTION: DID YOU ATTEMPT TO RETRIEVE AND PRESERVE THE BLOOD DRAWN THAT — THAT’S BLOOD DROPS “ANSWER: YES, I DID. “QUESTION: WHAT DID YOU DO? “ANSWER: I TRANSFERRED THE BLOOD DROPS ONTO CLOTH SQUARES OR CLOTH SWATCHES. WHAT I DID WAS WET THE CLOTH SWATCHES WITH DISTILLED WATER AND THEN APPLIED THEM TO THE STAIN, THE RED STAINS WHICH WERE LATER DETERMINED TO BE BLOOD, AND THEY WERE TRANSFERRED ON — IN THAT METHOD.” WERE YOU ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS, DID YOU GIVE THOSE ANSWERS?
MR. FUNG:  YES, I DID.
MR. SCHECK:  AND THAT WASN’T ACCURATE TESTIMONY, WAS IT?
MR. FUNG:  IT WAS ACCURATE IN THE SENSE THAT I DID PERFORM SOME OF THOSE FUNCTIONS ON — BUT I DON’T RECALL EXACTLYWHICH ONES I DID THEM ON.
*****
MR. SCHECK:  AND DID YOU HAVE ANY RELUCTANCE IN TESTIFYING THAT IT WAS ANDREA MAZZOLA THAT SWATCHED PRIMARILY ALL THE ITEMS? YOU SAID YOU SWATCHED ONE OR TWO TIMES, THE BUNDY BLOOD DROPS; IS THAT RIGHT?
MR. FUNG:  MAY HAVE BEEN MORE THAN THAT.
MR. SCHECK:  SHE DID PRIMARILY ALL THE BUNDY BLOOD DROPS, RIGHT?
MR. FUNG:  SHE DID A GOOD PORTION OF THEM, YES.
MR. SCHECK:  AND SHE DID THE ROCKINGHAM BLOOD STAINS EXCLUSIVELY?
MR. FUNG:   I WOULDN’T SAY EXCLUSIVELY.MR. SCHECK:  YES. BUT SHE DID THE MOST.
MR. FUNG:  SHE DID MOST OF IT, YES.
*****
MR. SCHECK: WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT IS A PRINCIPLE OF CRIME SCENE CONTAMINATION TO FIRST PROTECT THESCENE?
MR. FUNG: YES.
MR. SCHECK:  IF YOU SAW DETECTIVES USING PROCEDURES WHICH YOU FELT WOULD IMPAIR THE INTEGRITY OFEVIDENCE AS THEY WERE COLLECTING IT, WOULD YOU OBJECT?
MR. FUNG:  YES.
*****
MR. SCHECK: IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT THAT THE CRIMINALISTS SHOULD ARRIVE AT THE CRIME SCENE AS SOONAS POSSIBLE?
MR. FUNG:  ONCE WE RECEIVE A CALL WE TRY TO RESPOND WITHIN AN HOUR, IF IT IS POSSIBLE.
MR. SHCECK:  OKAY. SO MISS MAZZOLA CALLED YOU AT 5:30?
MR. FUNG:  YES.MR. SCHECK: AND YOU GOT TO THE SCENE AT ROCKINGHAM AT WHAT TIME YOU ARE TELLING US?
MR. FUNG:  7:10.
*****
MR. SCHECK: SO YOUR RESPONSE TIME TO ROCKINGHAM WAS AN HOUR AND FORTY MINUTES?
MR. FUNG:  YES, IT WAS.
*****
MR. SCHECK:  WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE ROCKINGHAM CRIME SCENE DID DETECTIVE VANNATTER TELL THAT YOU DETECTIVE LANGE WAS WAITING FOR YOU AT BUNDY?
MR. FUNG:  I DON’T SPECIFICALLY RECALL IF HE MENTIONED IT WAS DETECTIVE LANGE HIMSELF, BUT HE DID MENTION THERE WASANOTHER SCENE AT BUNDY.
MR. SCHECK:  AND DID HE TELL YOU THAT AT THAT SCENE IT WAS A DOUBLE HOMICIDE AND THERE WERE TWOVICTIMS’ BODIES THERE?
MR. FUNG:  YES.
MR. SCHECK:  GENERALLY SPEAKING, ISN’T IT CERTAINLY DESIRABLE FOR THE CRIMINALISTS TO ARRIVE AT A HOMICIDESCENE BEFORE THE CORONERS?
MR. FUNG:  YES.
MR. SHCECK:  AND THE REASON THAT YOU WANT TO ARRIVE AT A HOMICIDE SCENE BEFORE THE CORONERS IS YOU WANT ANOPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE SCENE AND THE EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE BEFORE THE BODIES ARE REMOVED?
MR. FUNG: YES.
*****
MR. SCHECK:  IT WAS AFTER YOUR CONVERSATION, YOUR INITIAL CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER, UMM, THATYOU REALIZED THAT, UMM, ANDREA MAZZOLA COULD NOT ACT AS THE, QUOTE, OFFICER IN CHARGE, OF THIS CASE?
MR. FUNG:  I THOUGHT IT MORE PRUDENT THAT I BE THE OFFICER IN CHARGE.
*****
MR. SCHECK: AT 7:15 WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM YOU KNEW THAT ONE OF THE VICTIMS IN THIS CASEWAS MR. SIMPSON’S EX-WIFE?
MR. FUNG:  NO.
MR. SCHECK:  DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU WERE AT MR. SIMPSON’S HOUSE?MR. FUNG:  I KNEW THAT WAS HIS RESIDENCE.
MR. SCHECK:  DID YOU KNOW THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER REGARDED MR. SIMPSON AS A SUSPECT?
MR. FUNG:  I DON’T RECALL IF HE RELAYED THAT TO ME OR NOT.
*****
MR. SCHECK: MAYBE WE COULD TURN NOW TO THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED AT ROCKINGHAM FOR A MINUTE.YOU INDICATED THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF RED BLOOD DROPS; IS THAT CORRECT, THAT YOU OBSERVED?
MR. FUNG:  YES.
MR. SCHECK:  NOW, IN TERMS OF THESE RED STAINS THAT YOU FOUND, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE PATTERN OF RED STAINS THATYOU FOUND WAS LEADING FROM THE RESIDENCE TO THE BRONCO OR THE BRONCO TO THE FRONT DOOR OF THE RESIDENCE?
MR. FUNG:  YES.
*****
MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, LET’S MOVE ON TO THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE. YOU ARRIVED THERE AT ABOUT WHAT TIME?MR. FUNG:  I ARRIVED THERE AT 10:15 IN THE MORNING.
*****
MR. SCHECK:  AND YOU TOLD US THAT YOU HAD HEARD OR YOU BELIEVED AT THAT TIME THAT THE VICTIMS WERE FIRSTDISCOVERED SOMETIME IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS?
MR. FUNG:  YES.
*****
MR. SCHECK:  BY THE TIME YOU ARRIVED AT BUNDY, IT WAS SOMETHING ON THE ORDER OF 10 HOURSTO YOUR KNOWLEDGE FROM WHEN THE BODIES WERE FIRST FOUND?
MR. FUNG:  SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
MR. SCHECK:  NOW, WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE, YOU SAW THAT THERE WAS A BLANKET OVER THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?
MR. FUNG:  I DON’T RECALL BEING THERE THAT SOON. WHEN I GOT THERE, THE BODY OF MISS SIMPSON WAS BEING PROCESSED.
MR. SCHECK:  IT WAS ON THE GROUND IN THE AREA WHERE MISS SIMPSON’S BODY WAS?
MR. FUNG:  YES.
MR. SCHECK:  AND YOU CAME TO LEARN IN YOUR INVESTIGATION THAT DAY THAT THE BLANKET HAD BEEN USED TO COVER THE BODY?
MR. FUNG:  YES.
MR. SCHECK:  AND YOU CAME TO LEARN THAT THAT BLANKET HAD COME FROM THE HOME OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?
MR. FUNG:  SINCE THEN, YES.
*****
MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, AGAIN, ASSUMING THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD BEEN IN THE BUNDY RESIDENCE AND SAT OR LAIDON THAT BLANKET, SHED HAIRS ON THAT BLANKET AND THAT BLANKET IS TAKEN AND PUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS CRIME SCENE,COULD THAT IN YOUR EXPERT OPINION BE A SOURCE OF SECONDARY TRANSFER OF HIS HAIRS TO THE CRIME SCENE?
MR. FUNG:  IT’S POSSIBLE.
MR. SCHECK:  IT WAS A TERRIBLE MISTAKE TO PUT THIS BLANKET FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE INTO THE MIDDLE OF THECRIME SCENE BECAUSE OF THE DANGERS OF CROSS CONTAMINATION OF HAIRS AND FIBERS?
MR. FUNG:  DEPENDING ON THE — HOW CLEAN THE BLANKET WAS, THAT WOULD — THAT WOULD AFFECT MY ANSWER.
MR. SCHECK:  NOW, BASED ON YOUR OBSERVATIONS AT THE CRIME SCENE THAT DAY, MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON’S BODY WAS IN THE AREA OF THAT BLANKET?
MR. FUNG:  YES.
MR. SCHECK: AND MR. GOLDMAN’S BODY WAS EVENTUALLY PLACED IN THE AREA OF THAT BLANKET?
MR. FUNG:  YES.
MR. SCHECK:  AND ASSUMING THAT BLANKET HAD HAIRS AND FIBERS AND OTHER TRACE EVIDENCE ON IT, THAT COULD BE A SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION OF ANYTHING THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND ON MR. GOLDMAN’S CLOTHING?
MR. FUNG:  I BELIEVE THE CORONER’S PERSONNEL HAD PLACED A SHEET AND A PLASTIC SHEET OVER THE BLANKET BEFORE PLACINGHIM ON IT.
MR. SCHECK:  ASSUMING THE BLANKET WAS COVERED WITH HAIRS AND FIBERS AND IT WAS PLACED IN THEMIDDLE OF THE CRIME SCENE AND HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM THE BLANKET WERE SPREAD OUT FROM THE CRIME SCENE AND ASSUMINGFURTHER THAT THE GLOVE OR THE HAT WAS DRAGGED INTO THAT AREA WHEN MR. GOLDMAN’S BODY WAS MOVED, THEY COULD HAVEBECOME CONTAMINATED WITH HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM THE BLANKET?
MR. FUNG:  POSSIBLY.
MR. SCHECK: IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO KNOW IF THAT BLANKET CONTAINED FIBERS THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENTWITH MR. SIMPSON’S BRONCO?
MR. FUNG:  POSSIBLY, YES.
MR. SCHECK:  BUT THAT BLANKET WAS LEFT AT THE CRIME SCENE AND NEVER PICKED UP FOR FUTURE ANALYSIS?
MR. FUNG:  THAT’S CORRECT.
MR. SCHECK:  THAT WAS A MISTAKE, WASN’T IT?
MR. FUNG:  IT COULD BE CONSIDERED ONE.
*****
MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, WHEN DETECTIVE LANGE REQUESTED THAT YOU BRING THE GLOVE INTO THE MIDDLE OF THEBUNDY CRIME SCENE TO SHOW IT TO HIM, YOU HAD CONCERNS THAT THERE WAS A TERRIBLE DANGER OF CROSS-CONTAMINATION?
MR. FUNG:  I KNEW THERE WAS A DANGER FOR CROSS-CONTAMINATION, YES.
*****
MR. SCHECK:  WELL, ANOTHER THING ABOUT TRACE EVIDENCE IS THAT SOMETIMES IT BECOMES AIRBORNE?
MR. FUNG:  SOMETIMES.
MR. SCHECK:  HAIRS AND FIBERS THAT MAY GET ON CLOTHING OF PEOPLE THAT ARE GATHERING EVIDENCE CAN BECOME AIRBORNE? THAT IS HOW THE TRANSFER OCCURS, RIGHT?
MR. FUNG:  THEORETICALLY, YES. TRACE EVIDENCE IS USUALLY MADE THROUGH CONTACT, SUCH AS RUBBING ONE ITEM AGAINST ANOTHER. IT CAN HAPPEN THROUGH AIRBORNE.*****LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 1995
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. SCHECK:
MR. SCHECK:  NOW, YOU BEGAN COLLECTING THE BLOOD DROPS AT BUNDY AT WHAT TIME?
MR. FUNG:  APPROXIMATELY ELEVEN O’CLOCK, 11:30, AROUND THERE.
MR. SCHECK:  YOU BEGAN PUTTING THEM IN PLASTIC BAGS AROUND ELEVEN O’CLOCK, 11:30, YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA?
MR. FUNG:  APPROXIMATELY.
*****
MR. SCHECK:  AND IT WAS HOT INSIDE THAT TRUCK?
MR. FUNG:  THERE WERE PERIODS WHEN I WENT OUT TO THE TRUCK TO MAKE SURE IT WASN’T GETTING TOO HOT.
*****
MR. SCHECK:  AND YOU DID NOT BEGIN THE PROCESS OF TAKING THOSE WET BLOOD STAINS OUT OF THOSE PLASTIC BAGS UNTIL AROUND 6:30 IN THE EVENING?
MR. FUNG:  YES.
MR. SCHECK:  SO LET’S SEE. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING ON THE ORDER OF SEVEN HOURS?
MR. FUNG:  YES.
MR. SCHECK:  IS THERE A REFRIGERATOR IN THE CRIME SCENE PROCESSING TRUCK?
MR. FUNG:  THERE IS ONE, YES.
MR. SCHECK:  YOU DIDN’T USE THAT?
MR. FUNG:  NO. THAT IS BECAUSE THE REFRIGERATOR DOESN’T — WELL, IT STOPS WORKING AFTER SEVERAL HOURS. IT DOESN’T KEEP WORKING.
*****
MR. SCHECK:  SO IT’S YOUR TESTIMONY OR IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT ON JULY 6TH, YOU WENT AT THE REQUEST OF MISS CLARK AND YOU LOOKED FOR BLOODSTAINS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR?
MR. FUNG:  THE EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR BY THE DOOR SILL, YES.
*****
MR. SCHECK:  DID YOU CONDUCT A PRESUMPTIVE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST AND YOU GOT A POSITIVE RESULT?
MR. FUNG:  YES.
*****
MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, ISN’T IT TRUE THAT YOU NEVER SAW ANY RED STAINS ON THE BOTTOM OF THAT BRONCO DOOR ON JULY 6TH?
MR. FUNG:  NO. I DID SEE A STAIN THAT GAVE A POSITIVE FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR SILL THERE.
MR. SCHECK:  ISN’T IT TRUE, MR. FUNG, THAT YOU NEVER REMOVED ANYTHING FROM THE BOTTOM OF THAT BRONCO DOOR ON JULY 6TH FOR PURPOSES OF PERFORMING A PRESUMPTIVE TEST?
MR. FUNG:  I DID PERFORM A PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON A DARK STAIN AT THE DOOR SILL OF THE DRIVER DOOR.
MR. SCHECK:  AND YOU REMOVED SOME OF THAT STAIN, SOME OF THAT EVIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF YOUR TEST?
MR. FUNG:  YES..*****

MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, ISN’T IT TRUE THAT YOU WENT OUT ON JULY 6TH TO LOOK AT THE BRONCO SIMPLY TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY FOR COURT?

MR. FUNG:  I WENT THERE SPECIFICALLY TO LOOK AT THE DRIVER DOOR SILL AND PERFORM A PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON IT.

MR. SCHECK:  DID YOU TELL ANYONE ON AUGUST 8TH THAT YOU VISITED THE VEHICLE ON JULY 6TH TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY FOR COURT?

MR. FUNG:  I DON’T RECALL SAYING THAT.*****

MR. SCHECK:  AND IS YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR, WITH RESPECT TO RED STAINS IN THE BRONCO THAT YOU’VE GIVEN TO THIS JURY IN ANY WAY MOTIVATED BY A DESIRE TO COVER FOR DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

MR. FUNG:  NO.*****

MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, YOU’VE TOLD US THAT ON THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13TH AT ROCKINGHAM, YOU RECEIVED MR. SIMPSON’S BLOOD VIAL FROM DETECTIVE VANNATTER?

MR. FUNG: YES.

MR. SCHECK:  CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR US IN AS MUCH DETAIL AS YOU CAN RECOLLECT EXACTLY HOW THIS TRANSFER OCCURRED?

MR. FUNG:  DETECTIVE VANNATTER SAID — SAID TO ME OR SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF I HAVE MR. SIMPSON’S BLOOD AND I WANT YOU TO BOOK IT (INDICATING). HE GAVE ME THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE VIAL.

MR. SCHECK:  WELL, WHAT DID YOU DO WITH IT? HOW DID YOU GET IT TO THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK?

MR. FUNG:  IT MAY HAVE BEEN IN A PAPER BAG, BUT I DON’T RECALL IF I ACTUALLY DID PUT IT IN THERE OR IT MAY HAVE BEEN PUT IN THE — IN A POSSE BOX. *****

MR. SCHECK: WHEN YOU SAW DETECTIVE LANGE ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH WITH THE SNEAKERS, YOU REALIZED THAT HE HAD TAKEN THEM HOME?

MR. FUNG:  I DON’T KNOW IF HE HAD TAKEN THEM HOME OR NOT.

MR. SCHECK: IN TERMS OF THE CUSTOM AND PRACTICE OF YOUR LABORATORY AND ITS WORKINGS WITH DETECTIVES, WOULD IT HAVE BEEN IMPROPER IF EITHER OF THESE DETECTIVES HAD KEPT THE BLOOD DRAWN FROM MR. SIMPSON ON JUNE 13TH OVERNIGHT IN THEIR PERSONAL POSSESSION AND THEN DELIVERED IT TO YOU THE NEXT MORNING ON JUNE 14TH?

MR. FUNG:  THAT WOULD DEPEND ON HOW THE BLOOD WAS STORED IN THERE WHILE IT WAS IN THEIR CUSTODY.LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 1995 9:20 A.M.

MR. SCHECK: “QUESTION: I TAKE IT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, YOU LEFT THE FOYER AREA AND RETURNED TO YOUR CRIME SCENE TRUCK? “ANSWER: YES. “QUESTION: ALL RIGHT. AND WERE YOU CARRYING THAT GRAY ENVELOPE? “ANSWER: EITHER BY ITSELF IN A POSSE BOX OR IN A PAPER BAG. “QUESTION: SO IT WOULD BE ONE OF THOSE THREE WAYS OF CARRYING IT; EITHER BY ITSELF IN YOUR HAND, IN A PAPER BAG OR IN A POSSE BOX? “ANSWER: YES.” WERE YOU ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS AND DID YOU GIVE THOSE ANSWERS YESTERDAY?

MR. FUNG: YES, I DID.

MR. SCHECK: AND WHEN YOU SAW THESE SERIES OF TAPES, MR. FUNG, YOU REALIZED THAT YOU HAD BEEN CAUGHT IN A LIE, DIDN’T YOU?

MR. FUNG: NO.

MR. SCHECK: WELL, YOU HAD TOLD THIS JURY YESTERDAY THAT YOU CARRIED THE BLOOD VIAL–BLOOD SAMPLE EITHER IN A BROWN PAPER BAG IN THE POSSE BOX OR IN YOUR HANDS, CORRECT?

MR. FUNG: THAT’S WHAT I STATED.

MR. SCHECK: BUT WHEN YOU SAW THE VIDEOTAPE, THESE VIDEOTAPES, YOU REALIZED, SIR, THAT THAT–DETECTIVE VANNATTER’S CAR WASN’T THERE WHEN YOU PUT THE BROWN PAPER BAGS AND THE POSSE BOX WAS PUT IN THE REAR OF THE CRIME SCENE VEHICLE, CORRECT?

MR. FUNG: THE–I–THAT DIDN’T COME TO MY ATTENTION AT THAT TIME, NO.
*****

MR. SCHECK: NOW, AT THIS POINT IN THE TIME, JUDGE ITO ASKED YOU WHAT WAS IN THE PLASTIC BAG BEING CARRIED BY MISS MAZZOLA?

MR. FUNG: YES.

MR. SCHECK: AND YOU TOLD HIM THE GRAY MANILA ENVELOPE CONTAINING MR. SIMPSON’S BLOOD SAMPLE?

MR. FUNG: I HAD FORGOTTEN ABOUT THE PLASTIC BAG.
*****
MR. SCHECK: NOW, ON THIS DOCUMENT, YOU CAN READ ALONG IF IT HELPS, WITH YOUR COPY, IF YOU WANT, IT REFERS TO ITEM 17, “ONE PAIR OF TENNIS SHOES, REEBOK, RECEIVED IN SEROLOGY BY D. FUNG FROM DETECTIVE LANGE,” CORRECT?

MR. FUNG: YES.

MR. SCHECK: UP IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER JUST WHERE “D. FUNG” IS THERE IS A DATE, “6/14/94”?

MR. FUNG: THAT’S CORRECT.

MR. SCHECK: AND BELOW THAT IS WRITTEN “ITEM 18, BLOOD SAMPLE IN TUBE FROM SIMPSON.”

MR. FUNG: THAT’S CORRECT.

MR. SCHECK: AT SOME TIME AFTER JUNE 15TH DID ANYBODY EVER QUESTION YOU ABOUT HOW THE BLOOD VIAL HAD BEEN LABELED 18 IN MR. YAMAUCHI’S REPORTS BUT YOU PUT IT IN YOUR PROPERTY REPORT AS 17?

MR. FUNG: BEING QUESTIONED ABOUT IT, YES.

MR. SCHECK: AND THEN AFTER WRITING THAT NOTATION YOU DECIDED TO ERASE IT?

MR. FUNG: I DID ERASE IT FROM WHAT IS HERE, YES.

MR. SCHECK: AND IN GOING THROUGH THE PAGES OF THE CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST, YOU SAW ANOTHER DOCUMENT THAT CREATED A PROBLEM FOR YOU, DIDN’T YOU?

MR. FUNG: WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

MR. SCHECK: I’M REFERRING TO PAGE 4 OF THE CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST.

MR. FUNG: WHAT ABOUT IT?

MR. SCHECK: IF THERE WERE SOMETHING FILLED IN THERE THAT SAID 5:15 AS TO THE TIME LEAVING SCENE, THAT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU WROTE ON THE GRAY ENVELOPE YOU RECEIVED FROM DETECTIVE VANNATTER?

MR. FUNG: IF THERE WAS THAT TIME THERE, YES, IT WOULD.

MR. SCHECK: AND THAT IS WHY YOU DESTROYED THE ORIGINAL PAGE 4, MR. FUNG?

MR. FUNG: THAT IS NOT TRUE.

MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, I’M GOING TO SHOW YOU EACH OF THE ORIGINALS OF THIS CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST. I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT THEM AND I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT THE UPPER LEFT-HAND CORNER OF EACH OF THE PAGES AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE–LET ME PUT IT IN ORDER FOR YOU.
MR. SCHECK: ONE OF THOSE PAGES DOESN’T HAVE STAPLE HOLES IN IT, MR. FUNG?

MR. FUNG: THAT’S CORRECT.

MR. SCHECK: THAT IS PAGE 4, ISN’T IT?

MR. FUNG: YES, IT IS.

MR. SCHECK: THAT IS BECAUSE THAT PAGE 4 IS NOT THE ORIGINAL PAGE 4?

MR. FUNG: THAT IS APPARENT TO ME NOW, YES.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG

MR. GOLDBERG: WERE YOU INVOLVED IN SOME KIND OF A CONSPIRACY WITH ANDREA MAZZOLA TO COVER UP RECEIVING SOME ITEM WITH YOUR BARE HANDS?

MR. FUNG: NO.

MR. GOLDBERG: WERE YOU INVOLVED IN ANY CONSPIRACY WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER TO ALLOW HIM TO KEEP A VIAL OVERNIGHT SO THAT YOU COULD DO WITH IT WHAT HE PLEASED?

MR. FUNG: NO.

MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. AND IN YOUR MIND, WAS THE ISSUE OF PRECISELY HOW THE BLOOD VIAL GOT FROM MR. VANNATTER, DETECTIVE VANNATTER OUT TO THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK ALL THAT IMPORTANT TO YOU?

MR. FUNG: NO, IT WAS NOT.
*****
MONDAY, APRIL 17, 1995 1:03 P.M. :REDIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. GOLDBERG

MR. GOLDBERG: SO BASED UPON WHAT YOU SAW AT THE BUNDY LOCATION IN TERMS OF THE SHOEPRINTS THAT WERE FADING OUT AND FADED OUT AT SOME POINT ALONG THE TRAIL AND WHAT YOU SAW IN THE BRONCO, WOULD YOU NECESSARILY EXPECT TO FIND BLOODY SHOEPRINTS IN THE DEFENDANT’S HOUSE?

MR. FUNG: NOT NECESSARILY, NO.

MR. GOLDBERG: WHY NOT NECESSARILY?

MR. FUNG: THERE ARE A COUPLE OF REASONS. ONE IS, THE SHOES COULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED PRIOR TO GOING INTO THE HOUSE, AND SECOND, THE–IF THE SHOES WERE STILL WORN GOING INTO THE HOUSE, THE SHOES MAY HAVE DRIED OFF OR THERE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ENOUGH BLOOD LEFT ON THE SOLES TO MAKE TRACKS.

MR. GOLDBERG: IF YOU ASSUME THAT A ASSAILANT GOT INTO THE BRONCO AND CAUSED THAT STAIN THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED, WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU IF THERE WAS NOTHING LEFT AT ALL BY THE TIME YOU GOT BACK TO ROCKINGHAM?

MR. FUNG: IT WOULD NOT SURPRISE ME.
*****

MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, WHEN YOU WERE AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION, YOU SAW A PAIR OF SOCKS IN THE MASTER BEDROOM?

MR. FUNG: YES.

MR. GOLDBERG: WERE THERE ANY SHOES THERE OR OTHER CLOTHING OR PANTS AS IF SOMEONE HAD UNDRESSED ALL OF THEIR CLOTHING IN THAT AREA?

MR. FUNG: NOT IN THAT AREA, NO.

MR. GOLDBERG: DID THAT CAUSE YOU TO BELIEVE THAT IT WAS OUT OF PLACE?

MR. FUNG: YES.
*****
MR. GOLDBERG: ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU WERE ASKED A SERIES OF QUESTIONS ABOUT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN’S TESTIMONY. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE IF ANY IS OF ADDITIONAL STAINS OUTSIDE THE BRONCO?

MR. FUNG: I DO NOW.

MR. GOLDBERG: AND WHAT DID YOU GATHER FROM MR. SCHECK’S CROSS-EXAMINATION?

MR. FUNG: THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN’S CREDIBILITY WAS WHAT THE LINE OF QUESTIONING WAS DIRECTED TOWARDS.

MR. GOLDBERG: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU EVER CONSIDER MODIFYING YOUR TESTIMONY IN ANY WAY TO HELP OUT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN OR ANY OTHER WITNESS WITH RESPECT TO WHAT YOU SAW ON THE 13TH?

MR. FUNG: NO.
*****
MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, SUPPOSE HYPOTHETICALLY THAT THE CORONER’S–BACK AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, THE CORONER’S WHITE SHEET WAS PLACED DOWN OVER THE BLANKET THAT HAD BEEN ON NICOLE AND THAT ON TOP OF THAT, THERE WAS A PLASTIC SHEET THAT WAS PUT DOWN AND THAT THAT OCCURRED BEFORE RON GOLDMAN WAS PUT ON THE PLASTIC SHEET. WOULD YOU EXPECT, GIVEN THAT HYPOTHETICAL, THERE TO BE ANY TRANSFER EVIDENCE FROM THE BLANKET TO RON GOLDMAN?

MR. FUNG: NO.

MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, IF HYPOTHETICALLY THERE WERE SALIVA FROM THE DEFENDANT THAT HAD BEEN DRIED ON THE WHITE BLANKET, COULD THAT SALIVA SOMEHOW FLOAT DOWN THE ENTIRE CRIME SCENE AND HIT THE RED GATE AND TURN RED?

MR. FUNG: NO.

*****
MR. GOLDBERG: DID YOU DO ANYTHING, SIR, OR CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA IN YOUR PRESENCE DO ANYTHING THAT COULD CAUSE THE DEFENDANT’S BLOOD TO BE ON THAT TRAIL?

MR. FUNG: NO.

MR. GOLDBERG: AND, SIR, DID YOU DO ANYTHING THAT COULD HAVE CAUSED THE DEFENDANT’S BLOOD TO SHOW UP IN THE BRONCO?

MR. FUNG: NO.

MR. GOLDBERG: DID YOU DO ANYTHING, SIR, AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE THAT COULD HAVE CAUSED THE DEFENDANT’S BLOOD TO SHOW UP ALONG THE TRIAL AND ON THE REAR GATE?

MR. FUNG: NO.

MR. GOLDBERG: AND, SIR, DID YOU DO ANYTHING OR DID CRIMINALIST–DID YOU DO ANYTHING THAT COULD HAVE CAUSED THE DEFENDANT’S HAIR AND A FIBER FROM THE BRONCO TO SHOW UP ON THE KNIT CAP?

MR. FUNG: NO.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK

MR. SCHECK: HAVE YOU WATCHED ANY OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRIAL OF PRIOR WITNESSES?

MR. FUNG: YES, I HAVE.

MR. SCHECK: DID YOU MAKE–DID YOU FORM ANY OPINION IN YOUR MIND AS TO WHAT KINDS OF ATTACKS WERE BEING MADE ON THE CREDIBILITY OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

MR. FUNG: SEEMED TO ME THAT HIS OVERALL CREDIBILITY WAS BEING QUESTIONED.

*****
MR. SCHECK: HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT YOU WENT OUT TO INSPECT THE BRONCO THE MORNING OF YOUR TESTIMONY OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING WHICH WAS JULY 6TH?
MR. FUNG: YES.
MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU INFORMED BY MISS CLARK THAT A DETECTIVE HAD TESTIFIED TO SEEING RED STAINS ON THE DOOR SILL OF THE BRONCO?
MR. FUNG: SHE HAD TOLD ME THAT A DETECTIVE HAD TOLD HER THAT STAINS WERE VISIBLE FROM THE OUTSIDE OF THE BRONCO. *****
MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU GAVE US TESTIMONY THAT THE FIBERS FROM A CARPET CAN GET INTO THE CREVICES OF SHOES?

MR. FUNG: THEY HAVE A MORE–YES.

MR. SCHECK: AND SO IF SOMEONE HAS STEPPED IN BLOOD AND THE SHOES ARE NO LONGER MAKING IMPRESSIONS OF BLOODY SHOEPRINTS ON CEMENT, WHEN A PERSON STEPS ON FIBERS, THE FIBERS WILL GO INTO THE CREVICES OF THE SHOE?

MR. FUNG: IT’S POSSIBLE.

MR. SCHECK: AND THAT WOULD BE TRUE FOR THE SHOES OF A POLICE OFFICER WHO HAD STEPPED IN BLOOD AS IT WOULD BE FOR ANY OTHER PERSON WEARING SHOES?

MR. FUNG: IF THAT WAS–YEAH. IT IS LIKELY.

MR. SCHECK: NOW, THE MAT IN THE CAR, THE BRONCO, IT DOESN’T HAVE FIBERS?

MR. FUNG: NO.

MR. SCHECK: YOU DID NOT SWATCH THE ITEMS THAT YOU SAW ON THE DOOR SILL?

MR. FUNG: THAT’S CORRECT.

TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1995 1:44 P.M.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT MISTAKES, SIR, AND YOUR WILLINGNESS TO OWN UP TO MISTAKES. IF YOU COULD DO SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY AT THE CRIME SCENE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE COLLECTED THAT STAIN ON THE 13TH?

MR. FUNG: YES.

TESTIMONY OF CARL COLBY
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN:   NOW, SIR, THROUGHOUT 1992 AND 1993, WERE YOU LIVING IN A HOME LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF SHETLAND AND GRETNA GREEN?

MR. COLBY:  YES, WE WERE LIVING ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SHETLAND AND GRETNA GREEN, TWO-STORY HOUSE CHEEK TO JOWL WITH 325.

MR. DARDEN:  OKAY. SO NICOLE BROWN’S HOME WAS DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR TO YOURS DURING APRIL OF 1992; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. COLBY:   YES, SIR.

MR. DARDEN:  YOU HAVE A SON; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. COLBY:  YES. WE HAVE A SON NOW SIX YEARS OLD WHO WAS IN SCHOOL WITH JUSTIN SIMPSON, O.J.’S SON, AND THEY WERE BEST FRIENDS AND THEY SAW EACH OTHER CONSTANTLY AND, UMM, WHEN THEY MOVED IN, ACTUALLY NEXT DOOR, IT WAS A BIG SURPRISE AND A TERRIFIC EVENT BECAUSE TWO FRIENDS WHO WENT TO SCHOOL TOGETHER WERE NOW LIVING SIDE-BY-SIDE, SO THEY SAW EACH OTHER NEARLY EVERY DAY.

MR. DARDEN:  OKAY.   AND YOU BECAME ACQUAINTED WITH THE DEFENDANT HERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. COLBY:  YES, SIR.

MR. DARDEN:  AND YOU BECAME ACQUAINTED WITH NICOLE BROWN?

MR. COLBY:  YES. MORE WITH NICOLE BROWN BECAUSE SHE LIVED THERE AND WE JUST HAD MORE ENCOUNTERS WITH HER.

MR. DARDEN:   WHEN DID NICOLE BROWN MOVE INTO THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR, IF YOU KNOW?

MR. COLBY:   UMM, I BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE BEGINNING OF 1992.

MR. DARDEN:   JANUARY, 1992?

MR. COLBY:   YES, SIR.

MR. DARDEN:   OKAY. AND WHEN SHE MOVED INTO THE HOUSE, DID THE DEFENDANT MOVE INTO THE HOUSE WITH HER?

MR. COLBY:   NO, HE DID NOT.

MR. DARDEN:   NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE LAST WEEK OF APRIL, 1992, DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO CALL 911?

MR. COLBY:   YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:   WHAT CAUSED YOU TO CALL 911?

MR. COLBY:   WELL, IT WAS AN EVENING APPROXIMATELY 10:30 OR ELEVEN O’CLOCK AT NIGHT, AND IT IS A VERY — IT IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, VERY QUIET, AND SOMETIMES BEFORE RETIRING I LOOK — JUST GO CHECK THE LOCKS AND LOOK AROUND DOWNSTAIRS AND MAKE SURE THE LIGHTS ARE OFF AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND I HAPPENED TO LOOK OUTSIDE AND I SAW A MAN OUTSIDE ON THE SIDEWALK.

MR. DARDEN:   AND WHAT WAS THAT MAN DOING?

MR. COLBY:  UMM, HE WAS STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK LOOKING AT WHAT APPARENTLY WAS THE RESIDENCE NEXT DOOR, DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH OF US.

MR. DARDEN:   AND WHAT TIME OF THE NIGHT WAS THIS?

MR. COLBY:   I WOULD SAY IT WAS APPROXIMATELY BETWEEN 10:30 AND ELEVEN O’CLOCK THAT NIGHT.

MR. DARDEN:  SO THE MAN WAS STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK?

MR. COLBY:   YES. INITIALLY WHEN I SPOTTED HIM HE WAS STANDING ABOUT FIVE YARDS SOUTH OF THE DRIVEWAY AND RELATIVELY STATIONARY LOOKING AT THE HOUSE AND THEN SINCE I SAW HIM I WAS CURIOUS AND I DIDN’T RECOGNIZE HIM, SO I THOUGHT TO MYSELF, WHAT IS A MAN OF THIS DESCRIPTION DOING OUTSIDE AT THAT TIME, SO —

MR. DARDEN:   SO YOU BECAME CURIOUS?

MR. COLBY:   YES, I WAS CURIOUS.

MR. DARDEN:   DID YOU CONTINUE TO WATCH THE MAN?

MR. COLBY:   YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:   WHAT DID YOU SEE THE MAN DO?

MR. COLBY:   I SAW HIM OBSERVE THE RESIDENCE NEXT DOOR AND THEN WALK AROUND THE CORNER, WHICH WOULD BE SOUTHERLY AND THEN WESTERLY ON SHETLAND, AND THEN GO BACK AROUND AGAIN AND LOOK AGAIN AT THAT RESIDENCE, AND I WAS A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED BECAUSE —

MR. DARDEN:   WELL, LET ME JUST STOP YOU THERE.

MR. COLBY:   ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN:   SO THAT IT IS CLEAR, WHEN YOU FIRST SAW THE MAN WHO WAS ON THE SIDEWALK FIVE FEET FROM NICOLE BROWN’S DRIVEWAY —

MR. COLBY:  YES. THEN HE WALKED IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION AND THEN BACK AROUND THE CORNER — OUR HOUSE IS ON A CORNER LIKE THIS, (INDICATING). HE THEN WENT SOUTHERLY AND THEN WESTERLY AND THEN BACK AROUND AGAIN.

MR. DARDEN:  OKAY. DID HE WALK BACK TO THE SAME SPOT HE WAS IN WHEN YOU SAW HIM INITIALLY?

MR. COLBY:   YES, HE DID.

MR. DARDEN:   HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SEE THIS MAN WALK WITHIN FIVE YARDS OF NICOLE BROWN’S DRIVEWAY AND THEN WALK BACK —

MR. COLBY:   JUST THOSE TWO INCIDENTS.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU SAW THE MAN RETURN TO A POINT WITHIN FIVE YARDS OF NICOLE BROWN’S DRIVEWAY?

MR. COLBY:   WELL, I THOUGHT THAT MAN MIGHT BE —

MR. DARDEN: WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU SAW THE MAN RETURN TO THE DRIVEWAY?

MR. COLBY:  I CALLED 911.

MR. DARDEN:  WHY DID YOU CALL 911?

MR. COLBY:   BECAUSE I FELT THAT THE GENTLEMAN IN QUESTION COULD BE A POSSIBLE BURGLAR OR INTRUDER TO MY RESIDENCE OR TO ONE OF THE RESIDENCES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

MR. DARDEN:  OKAY. AFTER YOU CALLED 911 DID YOU CONTINUE TO WATCH THE MAN?

MR. COLBY:   YES, I DID, AND WHEN I CALLED 911 I TOLD HIM —

MR. DARDEN: WHEN YOU CALLED 911 DID YOU CONTINUE TO WATCH THE MAN?

MR. COLBY:  YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:  OKAY. WHAT DID YOU SEE THE MAN DO AFTER YOU CALLED 911?

MR. COLBY:   HE WENT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POSITION AND LOOKED UPON — AT THE RESIDENCE AND THEN LEFT.

MR. DARDEN:   ALL RIGHT. NOW, AS THE MAN LEFT, DID YOU RECOGNIZE HIM?

MR. COLBY:   YES, I DID. AFTER I HAD MADE THE CALL I RECOGNIZED HIM.

MR. DARDEN:   AND WHO WAS THAT MAN?

MR. COLBY:   IT WAS MR. SIMPSON.

MR. DARDEN:   DID YOU EVER SEE THE DEFENDANT APPROACH THE FRONT DOOR OF NICOLE BROWN’S HOME THAT EVENING?

MR. COLBY:   NO, NOT THAT EVENING.

MR. DARDEN:   DID YOU EVER SEE NICOLE BROWN THAT EVENING?

MR. COLBY:   NO, I DID NOT.

MR. DARDEN:   COULD YOU SEE NICOLE BROWN’S DRIVEWAY AT ALL THAT EVENING?

MR. COLBY:   YES.

MR. DARDEN:   WAS HER VEHICLE OR HER CAR PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY?

MR. COLBY:   I DON’T REMEMBER. I DON’T BELIEVE IT WAS.

MR. DARDEN:   DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT’S CAR IN NICOLE BROWN’S DRIVEWAY?

MR. COLBY:   NO. THE DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS AROUND THE CORNER.

MR. DARDEN;   AND HOW DO YOU KNOW THE DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS AROUND THE CORNER?

MR. COLBY:  BECAUSE I SAW HIM DRIVE AWAY.

MR. DARDEN:   OKAY. DID YOU SEE HIM WALK AROUND THE CORNER?

MR. COLBY:   YES.

MR. DARDEN:   DID YOU SEE HIS CAR PARKED AROUND THE CORNER?

MR. COLBY:   I ONLY SAW IT DRIVE OFF.

*****
MR. DARDEN:   OKAY. NOW, WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU REALIZED THAT THE MAN YOU SAW LOOKING AT NICOLE BROWN’S HOME WAS IN FACT THE DEFENDANT?

MR. COLBY:   WELL, I WAS EMBARRASSED THAT I HAD CALLED 911 BECAUSE I DIDN’T FEEL THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS A THREAT TO ME OR TO ANYONE ELSE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, SO I DID NOT CALL THE POLICE BACK, BECAUSE SHORTLY THEREAFTER THE POLICE DID APPEAR AND I TOLD THEM WHO IT WAS AND WHAT THE NATURE OF THE INCIDENT HAD BEEN.

MR. DARDEN:   DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANT PRIOR TO HIM LEAVING?

MR. COLBY;   NO, I DID NOT.

MR. DARDEN:   HAD YOU EVER SEEN THE DEFENDANT ARRIVE AT NICOLE BROWN’S HOUSE LATE IN THE EVENING AND JUST STAND ON THE SIDEWALK?

MR. COLBY:   NO, ONLY THAT ONE INCIDENT.

MR. DARDEN:   DID YOU EVER SEE HIM OUTSIDE IN FRONT OF NICOLE BROWN’S HOUSE LATE AT NIGHT?

MR. COLBY:   NO, I DID NOT.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT WAS HE DOING?

MR. COLBY:   HE SEEMED TO BE HESITANT AND TO BE ATTEMPTING TO PERHAPS OBSERVE SOMETHING THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OCCURRING WITHIN THE HOUSE, BUT HE NEVER TOOK ACTION AND STEPPED ON TO THE PROPERTY OF THE HOUSE OR HE DIDN’T DO ANYTHING UNTOWARD.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO

MR. SHAPIRO:   DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT O.J. SIMPSON WAS SIMPLY WAITING FOR NICOLE SIMPSON TO ARRIVE THAT NIGHT AND MEET HER?

MR. COLBY:   I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.

MR. SHAPIRO:   DO YOU KNOW IF SHE WAS HOME?

MR. COLBY:   I DON’T KNOW THAT EITHER.

MR. SHAPIRO:   DO YOU KNOW IF THEY HAD HAD ANY PREARRANGEMENTS THAT NIGHT?

MR. COLBY:   NO.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOU WERE SLIGHTLY EMBARRASSED THAT YOU HAD CALLED THE POLICE WHEN YOU REALIZED IT WAS O.J. SIMPSON, BECAUSE THERE REALLY WAS NOTHING SUSPICIOUS THAT EVENING?

MR. COLBY:   I CAN’T SPECULATE AS TO WHETHER IT WAS SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR OR NOT. ALL I SAID IS THAT I OBSERVED THE PARTY ON THE SIDEWALK.

MR. SHAPIRO:  AND JUST A FINAL QUESTION. ONE OF THE LAWYERS IF MY OFFICE, SARA CAPLAN, CALLED YOU, DID SHE NOT?

MR. COLBY:   I DON’T REMEMBER THAT.

MR. SHAPIRO:  AND DO YOU RECALL LAST WEEK SHE CALLED AND ASKED TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT YOUR OBSERVATIONS? DO YOU REMEMBER OR NOT?

MR. COLBY:   I THINK SO.

MR. SHAPIRO:  AND YOU TOLD HER THAT YOU WOULDN’T SPEAK WITH HER?

MR. COLBY:  I BELIEVE I DID SAY I DIDN’T SPEAK TO HER.

MR. SHAPIRO:   WAS SHE RUDE IN ANY WAY TO YOU OR OFFENSIVE IN ANY WAY?

MR. COLBY:   NO, BUT I — NO.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU. NOTHING FURTHER.

TESTIMONY OF PHILIP VANNATTER
THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 1995
 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN:
MR. DARDEN:  HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A POLICE OFFICER EMPLOYED BY THE LAPD?

MR. VANNATTER: 26 YEARS PLUS. I AM ASSIGNED TO ROBBERY/HOMICIDE DIVISION.

MR. DARDEN:  NOW, WHEN LIEUTENANT ROGERS TELEPHONED YOU DID HE ADVISE YOU OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES AT BUNDY?

MR. VANNATTER: LIEUTENANT ROGERS TOLD ME THAT WE WERE ASSUMING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A DOUBLE HOMICIDE AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY AND THAT ONE OF THE VICTIMS WAS BELIEVED TO BE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON.

MR. DARDEN: AND HE TOLD YOU THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WAS O.J. SIMPSON’S EX-WIFE, DID
HE?

MR. VANNATTER: YES.

MR. DARDEN: SO WHAT TIME DID YOU ARRIVE AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY, SIR?

MR. VANNATTER: 4:05 IN THE MORNING.

MR. DARDEN: AND DID DETECTIVE PHILLIPS BRIEF YOU ON THE SITUATION AT THAT TIME?

MR. VANNATTER: HE TOLD ME THAT THERE WAS A DOUBLE HOMICIDE AT THE LOCATION, THAT ONE
OF THE VICTIMS HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED AS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, THAT TWO MINOR CHILDREN
HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE RESIDENCE AND HAD BEEN TAKEN TO WEST L.A. DIVISION FOR
SAFEKEEPING. I ASKED HIM TO GIVE ME A BRIEF WALK-THROUGH SO I COULD ACCLIMATE MYSELF
TO THE CRIME SCENE.

*****

MR. DARDEN: SO I TAKE IT THAT YOU WALKED ALL THE WAY UP TO THE GATE AREA?

MR. VANNATTER: YEAH. I WAS A LITTLE EAST OF THE GATE BACK IN THE FOLIAGE.

MR. DARDEN: AND DID YOU VIEW THE BODIES AT THAT POINT?

MR. VANNATTER: YES.

MR. DARDEN: COULD YOU SEE NICOLE BROWN?

MR. VANNATTER: YES.

MR. DARDEN: COULD YOU SEE RON GOLDMAN FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE?

MR. VANNATTER: I COULD SEE HIM BUT NOT WELL.

MR. DARDEN: DID DETECTIVE PHILLIPS POINT ANYTHING OUT TO YOU AT THAT TIME?

MR. VANNATTER: HE ILLUMINATED A PLANT AREA AT THE FEET OF THE MALE VICTIM, RON
GOLDMAN, AND A WHITE ENVELOPE THAT WAS LYING THERE AS WELL AS WHAT APPEARED TO BE A
BLUE KNIT CAP, A MAN’S LEATHER GLOVE. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SHOWED ME THE FRONT AREA. HE
POINTED OUT SEVERAL CANINE PRINTS THAT APPEARED TO BE PRINTS IN BLOOD THAT HEADED
SOUTH ON THE SIDEWALK.

MR. DARDEN: WAS THERE A VEHICLE PARKED ON THAT APRON?

MR. VANNATTER: IT WAS A JEEP CHEROKEE, BLACK IN COLOR. FIRST WHEN I WAS TAKEN BACK
THERE, I WAS DIRECTED TO THE DRIVER’S SIDE AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS POINTED OUT WHAT
APPEARED TO BE A BLOOD DROP ON THE PAVEMENT. FROM THERE WE WALKED BACK AROUND THE
JEEP AND ENTERED THE REAR OF THE LOCATION INTO THE RESIDENCE.

*****

MR. DARDEN: NOW, PRIOR TO WALKING OUT THE FRONT DOOR, DID DETECTIVE PHILLIPS CAUTION
YOU IN ANY WAY?

MR. VANNATTER: HE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE BLOOD SHOEPRINTS
LEADING WEST FROM THE CRIME SCENE TOWARD THE ALLEY. I STAYED NEAR THE WALL OF THE
RESIDENCE ON THE OUTSIDE. THE PORCH LIGHT WAS ON GIVING A LITTLE ILLUMINATION. AND I
WALKED UP TO WHERE THE VICTIMS WERE, USED MY FLASHLIGHT AND I OBSERVED THE SCENE.

*****

MR. DARDEN: AS YOU APPROACHED THE BODIES, AND THIS IS AFTER YOU EXITED THE FRONT DOOR,
DID YOU SEE ANY BLOODY FOOTPRINTS ON THE LANDING?

MR. VANNATTER: ACTUALLY I SAW THE FIRST PRINTS, THEY WERE POINTED OUT TO ME ON THE
LANDING, AND THEN I OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE MOLDED PRINTS ON THE STEPS COMING
UP, AS WELL AS BETWEEN THE TWO VICTIMS.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY “MOLDED PRINTS”?

MR. VANNATTER: THIS WOULD BE WHERE THERE WAS BLOOD THERE AND A PERSON STEPPED IN THE
BLOOD AND IT LEAVES A MOLDED IMPRESSION OF THE BOTTOM OF THE SHOE IN THE BLOOD ITSELF.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. YOU SAW THIS MOLDED FOOTPRINT ON THE STEPS?

MR. VANNATTER: I SAW IT ON THE STEPS AS WELL AS BETWEEN THE TWO VICTIMS.

MR. DARDEN: AFTER YOU EXITED THE FRONT DOOR AT BUNDY AND AFTER YOU VIEWED THE BODIES
FROM THE LANDING, DID YOU FOLLOW THE BLOODY FOOTPRINTS THAT YOU DESCRIBED TO US
EARLIER?

MR. VANNATTER: I WAS LED ALONG THE FOOTPRINTS, YES.

MR. DARDEN: DID YOU SEE ANYTHING ELSE NEAR THOSE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS?

MR. VANNATTER: I SAW FIVE BLOOD DROPS THAT LED FROM THE AREA OF THE BODIES ALONG THE
LEFT SIDE OF THE SHOEPRINTS TO THE OUT TO THE END OF THE WALKWAY.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT WAS THE SIGNIFICANCE THAT YOU ATTACHED TO THESE BLOOD DROPS?

MR. VANNATTER: WELL, THEY APPEARED TO BE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE CRIME SCENE ITSELF. IT
APPEARED TO ME THAT THE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS WERE BEING LEFT BY THE SUSPECT AS HE WAS
EXITING AND THAT HE WAS EITHER BLEEDING HIMSELF OR WAS CARRYING AN OBJECT TO HIS LEFT
THAT WAS DRIPPING BLOOD. SO HE EITHER HAD AN INJURY OR I HAD HIM DROPPING BLOOD FROM
SOME OBJECT.

*****

MR. DARDEN: AND DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD DROPS OUTSIDE THE REAR GATE?

MR. VANNATTER: YES. THERE WAS ONE ON THE APRON OF THE DRIVEWAY NORTHWEST OF THE REAR
END OF THE VEHICLE.

*****

MR. DARDEN: AS YOU WALKED DOWN THE WALKWAY AT BUNDY AND EXITED THE REAR GATE, DID
YOU NOTICE ANYTHING ON THE REAR GATE AT ALL?

MR. VANNATTER: I NOTICED WHAT APPEARED TO BE BLOOD WIPINGS ALONG THE UPPER RAIL OF THE
GATE AND WHAT APPEARED TO BE BLOOD DROPS ON THE BOTTOM RAIL OF THE GATE.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT, DETECTIVE?

MR. VANNATTER: DETECTIVE PHILLIPS HAD NOTIFIED ME THAT HE HAD BEEN ORDERED BY
COMMANDER BUSHEY TO MAKE A NOTIFICATION, A IN-PERSON NOTIFICATION. MY CONCERN AT
THAT TIME WAS, I REALIZED THAT THIS WOULD MOST LIKELY BE A VERY HEAVY MEDIA EVENT
BECAUSE OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED. I HAD BEEN EARLIER TOLD THAT THERE
WERE TWO MINOR CHILDREN IN CUSTODY, AND MY CONCERN WAS TO MAKE A NOTIFICATION,
MAKE A DISPOSITION FOR THE CHILDREN TO GET THEM OUT OF THE POLICE STATION, TO MEET MR.
SIMPSON, REALIZING THAT AT SOME POINT, I WAS GOING TO HAVE TO INTERVIEW HIM. SO WE MADE
A DECISION TO MAKE A NOTIFICATION.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU MADE THE DECISION TO NOTIFY MR. SIMPSON OF
NICOLE BROWN’S DEATH?

MR. VANNATTER: DETECTIVE PHILLIPS HAD INFORMED US THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD BEEN TO
THE LOCATION ON A PRIOR INCIDENT BACK A NUMBER OF YEARS AND WE ASKED DETECTIVE
FUHRMAN IF HE COULD LEAD US UP TO THAT LOCATION.
IT WAS OUR INTENTION, TO GO UP THERE, MEET MR. SIMPSON SO WE COULD KNOW HIM AND
ULTIMATELY INTERVIEW HIM REGARDING THIS MURDER.

*****

MR. DARDEN: DID YOU CONSIDER HIM A SUSPECT AT THAT TIME?

MR. VANNATTER: NO.

MR. DARDEN: HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO DRIVE FROM BUNDY TO MR. SIMPSON’S HOME ON
ROCKINGHAM?

MR. VANNATTER: APPROXIMATELY FIVE MINUTES.

MR. DARDEN: AS YOU DROVE PAST THAT GATE, WHAT IF ANYTHING DID YOU NOTICE?

MR. VANNATTER: I OBSERVED A WHITE BRONCO PARKED AND IT APPEARED TO ME TO HAVE BEEN
HASTILY PARKED ON THE STREET WITH THE — WITH THE BACK END A LITTLE FARTHER OUT THAN THE
FRONT END AS IF SOMEONE HAD QUICKLY PULLED IN AND JUST STOPPED AND GOT OUT AT THAT
POINT. IT APPEARED TO ME THAT THE HOUSE COULD HAVE BEEN OCCUPIED. THERE WAS A LIGHT ON
IN THE BOTTOM TOWARD THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND THERE ALSO APPEARED TO BE A LIGHT
ON UP IN THE SECOND STORY OF THE HOME. IT APPEARED THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOMEONE THERE.

*****

MR. DARDEN: WHEN YOU RANG THE BUZZER, COULD YOU HEAR ANY NOISE EMANATING FROM
INSIDE THE HOUSE?

MR. VANNATTER: I COULD HEAR RINGING COMING FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE HOME.

MR. DARDEN: HOW LONG DID YOU AND THE OTHER DETECTIVES REMAIN AT THAT GATE PUSHING THE
BUZZER?

MR. VANNATTER: PROBABLY 10 TO 15 MINUTES.

MR. DARDEN: DID YOU EVER RECEIVE A RESPONSE FROM ANYONE INSIDE THE HOUSE?

MR. VANNATTER: NO. PROBABLY WITHIN 10 TO 15 MINUTES. I WALKED AROUND AND LOOKED AT
THE BRONCO PARKED THERE. TO PUT IT IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, WHILE WE’RE RINGING THE
BUZZER, I OBSERVED A WESTEC SIGN ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE ASHFORD GATE. I WAS AWARE THAT
DETECTIVE PHILLIPS HAD A CELLULAR PHONE, AND I ASKED HIM TO MAKE A PHONE CALL TO WEST —
TO THE SECURITY COMPANY TO SEE IF WE COULD GET A PHONE NUMBER TO THE RESIDENCE.
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN POINTED OUT A STICK ON THE PARKWAY AND SOME ARTICLES THAT WERE IN
THE CARGO AREA OF THE VEHICLE.

MR. DARDEN: AND WHAT DID YOU SEE INSIDE?

MR. VANNATTER: I NOTICED A SHOVEL AND WHAT APPEARED TO BE A PIECE OF PLASTIC IN A
POCKET AREA ALONG THE PASSENGER’S REAR — REAR CARGO AREA AND WHAT APPEARED TO BE A
WHITE CLOTH OR SOMETHING IN THE BACK OF THE CAR.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT SIGNIFICANCE IF ANY DID YOU ATTACH TO THE STICK LYING ON THE PARKWAY
THERE?

MR. VANNATTER: WELL, AT THAT POINT, IT JUST DIDN’T SEEM TO FIT THE AREA AND THE LOCATION.
IT WAS A FOREIGN OBJECT IN A MANICURED — MANICURED NEIGHBORHOOD. AT THAT MOMENT, NO.
I — WHILE I WAS LOOKING IN, THERE WAS A PACKAGE IN THE BACK ALSO THAT WAS ADDRESSED I
BELIEVE ORENTHAL PRODUCTIONS, AND I KNEW MR. SIMPSON’S NAME WAS ORENTHAL JAMES. I
KNEW THAT. SO I BELIEVED AT THAT POINT, THAT POSSIBLY THIS WAS HIS VEHICLE.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

MR. VANNATTER: I WALKED UP TO THAT LOCATION. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WAS HAVING A
CONVERSATION WITH THE WESTEC OFFICER, WAS REQUESTING THE TELEPHONE NUMBER FOR THE
LOCATION.

MR. DARDEN: AT SOME POINT, DID YOU NOTICE A BLOOD SPOT –

MR. VANNATTER: YES. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN CAME TO ME AND TOLD ME THAT THE VEHICLE WAS
REGISTERED TO HORTZ — TO HERTZ CORPORATION. WHILE I WAS STANDING IN THE STREET, HE
WALKED BACK TO THE BRONCO, WAS THERE A VERY SHORT TIME AND WALKED A LITTLE WAY BACK
UP THE STREET AND CALLED ME TO COME BACK TO THE BRONCO.

*****

MR. DARDEN: WHY DID YOU WANT A CRIMINALIST AT THE LOCATION?

MR. VANNATTER: REALIZING THAT I HAD JUST LEFT A VERY BRUTAL MURDER SCENE, THAT IT
APPEARED THERE SHOULD BE PEOPLE AT THE HOME THERE AND WE WERE GETTING NO RESPONSE —
WE HAD ALSO LEARNED THAT THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A LIVE-IN MAID AT THAT POINT WITHIN
THE RESIDENCE — I BECOME CONCERNED THAT THIS COULD BE ANOTHER CRIME SCENE — THIS
COULD BE AN EXTENSION OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE WHERE SOMEONE COULD HAVE BEEN
KILLED OR INJURED OR HURT THERE. AND I KNEW THAT IF IN FACT THAT WAS THE SITUATION, THAT I
WAS GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A CRIMINALIST THERE.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU CALLED FOR A CRIMINALIST?

MR. VANNATTER: I TOLD DETECTIVE FUHRMAN THAT WITH THE INFORMATION I HAD, I WAS VERY
CONCERNED REGARDING THE OCCUPANTS OF THE HOME, THAT SOMETHING COULD BE WRONG,
THAT I FELT THAT WE NEEDED TO GO AND CHECK. I HAD A LOCATION THAT APPEARED TO BE
OCCUPIED THAT HAD LIGHTS ON IN IT. I HAD INFORMATION THAT THERE WAS SUPPOSEDLY A LIVE-IN
MAID AT THE LOCATION AND I HAD WHAT APPEARED TO ME TO BE BLOOD ON THE OUTSIDE. AFTER
LEAVING A VERY VIOLENT BLOODY MURDER SCENE, I BELIEVED SOMETHING WAS WRONG THERE. WE
NEEDED TO GO INTO THE PROPERTY.

*****

MR. DARDEN: AND YOU HAD SOME INCLINATION THAT THE BRONCO WAS OWNED BY MR. SIMPSON?

MR. VANNATTER: YES.

MR. DARDEN: DO YOU DISLIKE MR. SIMPSON FOR ANY REASON?

MR. VANNATTER: NO. I DIDN’T KNOW HIM. I THOUGHT HE WAS A GREAT FOOTBALL PLAYER.

*****

MR. DARDEN: SO ALL FOUR OF YOU APPROACHED THE FRONT DOOR AT ROCKINGHAM?

MR. VANNATTER: THAT’S CORRECT.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT DID YOU AND THE OTHER DETECTIVES DO WHEN YOU REACHED THE FRONT
DOOR?

MR. VANNATTER: KNOCKED ON THE DOOR ATTEMPTING TO AROUSE SOMEONE WITHIN THE
RESIDENCE.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER KNOCKING AT THE DOOR TWO OR THREE MINUTES?

MR. VANNATTER: I WALKED BACK TO A WALKWAY THAT RAN EAST AND WEST ALONG THE NORTH
SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE AND WALKED DOWN THAT WALKWAY. WE WALKED TO THE ENTRANCE OF
THE HOME.

MR. DARDEN: YOU KNOCKED AT THAT DOOR?

MR. VANNATTER: THAT’S CORRECT. NOT GETTING ANY RESPONSE — I DIDN’T KNOW THE OUTLAY OF
THE PROPERTY — I WANTED TO VIEW THE PROPERTY TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANYBODY DOWN, HURT,
INJURED OR ANY PERSONS THERE AT ALL.
SO WE CAME BACK OUT AND WALKED TO THIS EAST-WEST WALKWAY THAT RUNS ALONG THE
NORTH SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE. I ARRIVED AT A LOCATION JUST AT THE TOP OF THESE STAIRS AND I
OBSERVED DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND DETECTIVE LANGE AT THIS DOOR WHICH WOULD BE KAELIN’S
ROOM. NO ONE RESPONDED.

MR. DARDEN: AND WHAT HAPPENED NEXT, DETECTIVE?

MR. VANNATTER: JUST PRIOR TO KNOCKING — THERE WAS SOME LOUVERED WINDOWS THERE, AND
HE LEANED DOWN AND HE LOOKED IN AND HE SAYS, “THERE’S — I SEE SOMEONE INSIDE,” OR
SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. HE KNOCKED AT THE DOOR, AND ACTUALLY PRETTY QUICKLY, THE
DOOR WAS OPENED.

MR. DARDEN: AND SOMEONE DID COME TO THE DOOR?

MR. VANNATTER: YES.

MR. DARDEN: AND THAT IS THE PERSON WE NOW KNOW AS KATO KAELIN?

MR. VANNATTER: THAT’S CORRECT.

*****

MR. DARDEN: YOU AND THE OTHER THREE DETECTIVES WALKED DOWN TO MISS — MISS SIMPSON’S
ROOM?

MR. VANNATTER: YES.

MR. DARDEN: AND WHAT HAPPENED THERE?

MR. VANNATTER: LANGE OR PHILLIPS, KNOCKED ON THE DOOR. IT WAS PRETTY QUICKLY OPENED
AND I HAD MOVED UP BEHIND.
I HEARD PHILLIPS ASK HER IF SHE KNEW WHERE HER FATHER WAS, WE NEEDED TO GET IN TOUCH
WITH HIM, WE HAD AN EMERGENCY, AND SHE GESTURED TOWARD THE HOUSE AND SAID, “ISN’T HE
HERE,” POINTING LIKE TOWARDS THE HOUSE. AND I SAID TO HER AT THAT POINT, “I DON’T KNOW. IS
HE? CAN WE GO INSIDE AND CHECK? WE NEED TO CHECK. DO YOU HAVE A KEY?” AND SHE SAYS,
“YES.”SHE OBTAINED A KEY FROM INSIDE THE ROOM AND LED US DOWN THE WALKWAY TO THE
REAR DOOR HERE.

MR. DARDEN: WHERE DID YOU GO ONCE YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE?

MR. VANNATTER: AS WE ENTERED THE HOUSE, I ASKED ARNELLE SIMPSON WHERE THE MAID’S
QUARTERS WERE. I WANTED TO CHECK AND MAKE SURE IF THERE WAS A MAID THERE IF SHE WAS
OKAY. SHE OPENED THE DOOR TO WHAT APPEARED TO BE THE MAID’S QUARTERS. I LOOKED IN AND
EVERYTHING APPEARED TO BE IN ORDER.

MR. DARDEN WHAT DI DYOU DO AT THAT POINT?

MR. VANNATTER: I WANTED TO INSPECT THE BOTTOM FLOOR OF THE HOME TO MAKE SURE THERE
WAS NO ONE DOWN OR INJURED IN THE HOME. I STARTED WALKING BACK TO THE BAR AREA AND AS
I WAS EXITING THE KITCHEN, I WAS STOPPED BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

MR. DARDEN: DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AT THAT TIME?

MR. VANNATTER: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TOLD ME THAT HE HAD SEATED BRIAN KAELIN AND HE TOLD
ME THAT I SHOULD TALK TO KATO TO HEAR WHAT HE HAD TO SAY, AND HE GAVE ME THE INFERENCE
THAT HE WAS GOING OUT TO CHECK THE GROUNDS.  HE SAID BRIEFLY THAT KAELIN HAD TOLD HIM
THAT HE HEARD A VERY LOUD THUMP OUTSIDE HIS ROOM THAT HE THOUGHT POSSIBLY WAS AN
EARTHQUAKE.  LATER, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ASKED ME TO ACCOMPANY HIM TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF
THE RESIDENCE. HE WANTED TO SHOW ME SOMETHING.

MR. VANNATTER: I FOLLOWED HIM OUT OF THE RESIDENCE, WALKED TO THE FRONT OF THE GARAGE.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT DID YOU SEE?

MR. VANNATTER: RIGHT HERE ON THE GROUND IS AN ITEM WHICH IS A RIGHT-HAND BROWN MAN’S
LEATHER GLOVE.

MR. DARDEN: SO AT SOME POINT, THE CRIMINALIST DID ARRIVE AT THE LOCATION?

MR. VANNATTER: YES, SIR, HE DID. WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD
ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN’T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD
WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST.

MR. DARDEN: THE BLOOD THAT YOU SAW BACK AT BUNDY JUST PRIOR TO YOUR DEPARTURE A FEW
MINUTES BEFORE 5:00 IN THE MORNING –DID THAT BLOOD APPEAR TO BE DRY?

MR. VANNATTER: NO.

MR. DARDEN: DID THE GLOVE APPEAR SHINY AT ALL?

MR. VANNATTER: IT APPEARED TO BE WET WITH SOMETHING, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT SHINY OR
MOIST. IT APPEARED TO BE A LEATHER MAN’S GLOVE.

MR. DARDEN: WERE YOU THE FIRST DETECTIVE TO BE TAKEN TO VIEW THE GLOVE?

MR. VANNATTER: I DIDN’T KNOW AT THAT TIME, BUT I HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND OUT THAT I WAS
NOT.

MR. DARDEN: NOW, AND WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU SAW THE GLOVE, IF YOU RECALL?

MR. VANNATTER: IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 6:30

MR. DARDEN: HOW LONG DID YOU REMAIN ON THAT SOUTH WALKWAY?

MR. VANNATTER: NOT VERY LONG. A MINUTE OR TWO.

MR DARDEN: WHAT DID YOU ASK HIM TO DO?

MR. VANNATTER:   I ASKED HIM TO GO BACK TO THE BUNDY LOCATION TO LOOK AT THE OTHER
GLOVE AND TO MAKE SURE THAT I WAS SEEING WHAT I WAS SEEING.

MR. DARDEN: WERE YOU STILL ON MR. SIMPSON’S PROPERTY AT THAT TIME?

MR. VANNATTER: YES, IN HIS DRIVEWAY.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT DID YOU AND DETECTIVE LANGE DO AT THAT TIME?

MR. VANNATTER: WE DISCUSSED WHAT HAD BEEN FOUND, THE FACT THAT WE MAY HAVE AN
EXTENSION OF THE CRIME SCENE FROM BUNDY, AND WE MADE A DETERMINATION THAT DETECTIVE
LANGE WOULD RETURN TO THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE IMMEDIATELY AND START THAT
INVESTIGATION.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU DO AFTER DETECTIVE LANGE LEFT?

MR. VANNATTER:  I WAS IN THE DRIVEWAY OF THE RESIDENCE AN I STARTED LOOKING AROUND,
AND IN THE VICINITY OF ONE OF THE VEHICLES PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY I OBSERVED WHAT —
WHAT APPEARED TO ME TO BE A BLOOD SPOT ON THE GROUND.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT SIGNIFICANCE, IF ANY, DID YOU ATTACH TO YOUR OBSERVATION OF THAT
APPARENT BLOOD DROP?

MR. VANNATTER: WELL, SEEING THAT BLOOD DROP OBVIOUSLY TRIGGERED THE FACT THAT I HAD
SEEN WHAT APPEARED TO BE A BLOOD TRAIL LEAVING THE CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY WITH SOMEONE
THAT WAS EITHER INJURED OR CARRYING SOMETHING BLOODY THAT WAS DRIPPING, IMMEDIATELY
MADE ME THINK THAT I PICKED UP THE BLOOD TRAIL AGAIN FROM BUNDY. I WALKED LOOKING AT
THE DRIVEWAY TO SEE IF I COULD FIND ANY OTHER BLOOD DROPS. I FOUND APPROXIMATELY THREE
OR FOUR MORE DROPS BETWEEN THE REAR END OF THE BRONCO AND THE FIRST ONE THAT I
DISCOVERED. I LOOKED IN FROM THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE AND I OBSERVED WHAT
APPEARED TO BE A BLOOD SMEAR ALONG THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE CONSOLE AND WHAT
APPEARED TO BE BLOOD ON THE INSIDE OF THE DRIVER’S DOOR OF THE VEHICLE. I THEN WALKED
BACK IN THE DRIVEWAY AGAIN LOOKING AT THE BLOOD DROPS, AND FOLLOWED THEM TO THE —
FOUND AN ADDITIONAL THREE OR FOUR DROPS THAT LED TO THE FRONT DOOR OF THE LOCATION.
AT THAT POINT OTHER DETECTIVES WERE THERE AND POINTED OUT BLOOD SPOTS RIGHT IN THE
FOYER OF THE HOME TO ME.

MR. DARDEN: OTHER DETECTIVES POINTED OUT BLOOD DROPS INSIDE MR. SIMPSON’S HOME?

MR. VANNATTER: THAT’S CORRECT, YES.

MR. DARDEN: DID YOU CONTINUE TO SEARCH THAT AREA FOR OTHER BLOOD DROPS?

MR. VANNATTER: NOT AT THAT POINT, NO. A I HAD OTHER DETECTIVES THAT HAD ARRIVED THERE. I
INFORMED THEM THAT IT WAS NOW A CRIME SCENE, TO SEAL IT, NOT TO DO ANYTHING UNTIL I
RETURNED, THAT I WAS GOING TO DO A SEARCH WARRANT TO GET INTO THE RESIDENCE.

MR. DARDEN: WEREN’T YOU ALREADY INSIDE THE RESIDENCE?

MR. VANNATTER: YES, BUT I HADN’T SEARCHED IT.

*****

MR. DARDEN:        NOW, YOU EARLIER TOLD US THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS NOT A SUSPECT. AFTER YOUR
FIRST WALK THROUGH AT BUNDY WAS HE A SUSPECT?

MR. VANNATTER: NO.

MR. DARDEN:        AT SOME POINT IN TIME DID YOU CONSIDER HIM A SUSPECT?

MR. VANNATTER: ABSOLUTELY, YES.

MR. DARDEN:        AT WHAT POINT WAS IT THAT YOU CONSIDERED HIM A SUSPECT?

MR. VANNATTER:  HE BECOME A SUSPECT AS SOON AS I SAW THE GLOVE AT THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
IT APPEARED TO BE A MATCH TO THE GLOVE — THE OPPOSITE GLOVE TO THE GLOVE THAT I HAD SEEN
EARLIER AT BUNDY. AND THEN AFTER COMING OUT INTO THE DRIVEWAY AND FINDING THE BLOOD
TRAIL, HE BECAME A VERY STRONG SUSPECT.

******

MR. DARDEN:        AND HOW, IF AT ALL, DID YOUR OBSERVATIONS OF THE BLOOD INSIDE THE
BRONCO FIGURE INTO YOUR DECISION THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS A SUSPECT?

MR. VANNATTER: THAT APPEARED TO BE THE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION THAT HAD TRANSPORTED
THE BLOOD TRAIL FROM BUNDY TO ROCKINGHAM.

*****

MR. DARDEN:        WHAT STEPS DID YOU TAKE TO PRESERVE THE BRONCO?

MR. VANNATTER:  I HAD A UNIFORMED OFFICER STATIONED ON THE VEHICLE WITH INSTRUCTIONS
TO PROTECT IT, NOT TO LET ANYONE APPROACH OR DO ANYTHING WITH THE VEHICLE.

MR. DARDEN:        DID YOU SEE THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE WOMAN PEERING THROUGH THE WINDOW
OF THE BRONCO?

MR. VANNATTER: YES.

MR. DARDEN:        HOW DID THAT HAPPEN,?

MR. VANNATTER: WELL, I DON’T — I WASN’T THERE AT THAT TIME.

*****

MR. DARDEN:        WHEN YOU ARRIVED BACK AT ROCKINGHAM, YOU SAY YOU ARRIVED AT TWELVE
O’CLOCK NOON. WAS MR. SIMPSON THERE AT THE PROPERTY AT THAT TIME?

MR. VANNATTER: NO.

MR. DARDEN:         DID YOU SEE ANY LAWYERS ON THE PROPERTY?

MR. VANNATTER:  I SAW A LAWYER BY THE ROCKINGHAM GATE, YES. HOWARD WEITZMAN.

MR. DARDEN:         WHERE WAS MR. SIMPSON THE FIRST TIME YOU SAW HIM THAT DAY?

MR. VANNATTER:  WALKING ACROSS THE DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE. HE WAS
HANDCUFFED.

*****

MR. DARDEN:         DID YOU SPEAK TO OFFICER THOMPSON WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT NOON?

MR. VANNATTER:  YES.

MR. DARDEN:         WHAT DID YOU ASK HIM TO DO?

MR. VANNATTER:  TO MAKE SURE THAT MR. SIMPSON WASN’T ABLE TO ENTER THE PROPERTY IF HE
SHOWED UP THERE. I ASKED HIM TO DETAIN HIM THERE IN FRONT AND LET ME KNOW THAT HE WAS
THERE.

MR. DARDEN:         AND WHAT DID YOU DO WHEN YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT HANDCUFFED WITH
OFFICER THOMPSON?

MR. VANNATTER:  I EXITED THE RESIDENCE AND WALKED TO WHERE MR. SIMPSON WAS.

MR. DARDEN:         DID MR. WEITZMAN ASK YOU TO DO ANYTHING?

MR. VANNATTER: HE ASKED ME TO TAKE THE HANDCUFFS OFF.

MR. DARDEN:         DID YOU TAKE THE CUFFS OFF?

MR. VANNATTER:  YES.

MR. DARDEN:         WHY DID YOU TAKE THE CUFFS OFF MR. SIMPSON?

MR. VANNATTER:  BECAUSE HE WAS NOT UNDER ARREST AT THAT TIME.

MR. DARDEN:          BUT YOU CONSIDERED HIM A SUSPECT; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. VANNATTER:  HE WAS A VERY STRONG SUSPECT.

MR. DARDEN:          CAN YOU TELL US WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAD SUFFICIENT TIME TO EVALUATE
ALL OF THE EVIDENCE YOU HAD UP TO THAT POINT?

MR. VANNATTER:  I HAD ENOUGH PROBABLE CAUSE TO MAKE AN ARREST .

*****

MR. DARDEN:         NOW, DID YOU HAVE A FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH MR. WEITZMAN AFTER YOU
TOOK THE HANDCUFFS OFF THE DEFENDANT?

MR. VANNATTER:  YES.

MR. DARDEN:         WHAT DID YOU ASK MR. WEITZMAN TO DO?

MR. VANNATTER:  TO FOLLOW ME TO PARKER CENTER.

MR. DARDEN:         WAS HE UNDER ARREST?

MR. VANNATTER:  NO. I HAD ASKED HIM VOLUNTARILY TO ACCOMPANY ME TO PARKER CENTER FOR
AN INTERVIEW. HE AGREED TO. MR. WEITZMAN WANTED TO BE WITH HIM.. HE ASKED TO SPEAK WITH
HIS CLIENT AND FOR ME TO PROVIDE A ROOM FOR HIM TO SPEAK WITH HIM IN PRIVACY.

MR. DARDEN:         IF WE CAN GO BACK A MOMENT TO THAT POINT IN TIME IN WHICH YOU REMOVED
THE HANDCUFFS FROM THE DEFENDANT. AT THAT TIME DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT’S HAND?

MR. VANNATTER: YES.

MR. DARDEN:         DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL?

MR. VANNATTER:  YES. THAT HE HAD A BANDAGE ON THE MIDDLE FINGER OF HIS LEFT HAND ON THE
UPPER KNUCKLE OF THE MIDDLE FINGER.

MR. DARDEN:         WELL, WHAT SIGNIFICANCE, IF ANY, DID YOU ATTACH TO YOUR INITIAL
OBSERVATION OF THE BANDAGE?

MR. VANNATTER:  IT APPEARED THAT HE HAD AN INJURED KNUCKLE ON THE LEFT MIDDLE FINGER OF
HIS LEFT HAND. AND WELL, GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY, SEEING THE
DISTINCT SINGLE SET OF SHOEPRINTS, BLOOD SHOEPRINTS LEADING AWAY WITH BLOOD DROPS ON
THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SHOEPRINTS AND THEN TRACKING THE BLOOD TRAIL BY VEHICLE TO
ROCKINGHAM, PICKING UP THE BLOOD TRAIL AT ROCKINGHAM THAT WENT RIGHT INTO HIS HOUSE,
IT WOULD APPEAR THAT — THAT HE HAD THE INJURY THAT WAS — THAT WOULD HAVE CAUSED
THOSE BLOOD DROPS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE BLOODY FOOTPRINTS.

*****

MR. DARDEN:         NOW, PRIOR TO PHOTOGRAPHING THE DEFENDANT’S LEFT HAND DID HE REMOVE
THE BANDAGE?

MR. VANNATTER:  YES. THE BANDAGE WAS TAKEN OFF.

MR. DARDEN:         WERE YOU ABLE TO OBSERVE THE INJURY AT THAT TIME?

MR. VANNATTER:  YES. IT WAS A — HIS KNUCKLE APPEARED TO BE SWOLLEN AND IT IS THE UPPER
KNUCKLE OF THE MIDDLE FINGER OF HIS LEFT HAND, APPEARED TO BE SWOLLEN AND THERE
APPEARED TO BE A LACERATION THAT RUN UP AND DOWN ACROSS THE KNUCKLE, AND THEN
DIRECTLY BELOW THAT TOWARD THE FIRST KNUCKLE THERE APPEARED TO BE A SMALLER
LACERATION THAT RAN ACROSS THE FINGER AND DOWN.

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, MARCH 20, 1995
CROSS-EXAMINATION

MR. SHAPIRO:    IN THE CASE OF OBSERVING THE FINGER OF MR. SIMPSON YOU CONCLUDED THAT
THERE WAS A LACERATION ON THE MIDDLE KNUCKLE OF THE LEFT-HAND FINGER, AS WELL AS A
SMALLER LACERATION, AND THAT THAT LACERATION HAD CAUSED SOME SWELLING; IS THAT
CORRECT?

MR. VANNATTER:  YES.

MR. SHAPIRO:   WHAT IF HIS FINGER WAS ALWAYS SWOLLEN DUE TO A MEDICAL CONDITION AND
NOT DUE TO ANY LACERATION? WOULD THAT CONCERN YOU?

MR. VANNATTER:  I GUESS THAT COULD BE A POSSIBILITY; HOWEVER, IT APPEARED TO BE SWOLLEN
FROM THE LACERATION THAT MORNING.

MR. SHAPIRO:    WELL, WHY DON’T YOU TAKE A LOOK AT IT, WITH THE COURT’S PERMISSION, AND
TELL US IF YOU SEE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE JOINT ON THE FINGER ON THE 13TH WHEN YOU
FIRST OBSERVED IT AND TODAY. WOULD YOU MIND DOING THAT FOR US?

(DETECTIVE VANNATTER EXAMINES THE DEFENDANT’S FINGER.)

MR. SHAPIRO:   YOUR HONOR, BEFORE I PROCEED WITH FURTHER QUESTIONS, MAY MR. SIMPSON
SHOW HIS FINGER TO THE JURY BEFORE WE DO FURTHER EXAMINATION?

(THE DEFENDANT DISPLAYS HIS FINGER TO THE JURY.)

*****

MR. SHAPIRO:         ARE YOU AWARE THAT A TRAINEE WAS SENT OUT TO THE CRIME SCENE?

MR. VANNATTER:  YES.

*****

MR. SHAPIRO:   NOW, REGARDING THE SEARCH FOR A KNIFE, YOU WERE AWARE THAT MR.
SIMPSON FLEW TO CHICAGO?

MR. VANNATTER:  YES.

MR. SHAPIRO:    DID YOU CAUSE THAT AIRPLANE TO BE SEARCHED?

MR. VANNATTER:  I BELIEVE IT WAS SEARCHED, YES. I KNOW WE HAD DETECTIVES BACK THERE
DOING SEARCHES AND THERE WAS AN AIRPLANE STORAGE FACILITY THAT WAS CHECKED BECAUSE
THERE WAS A BROKEN KNIFE FOUND IN IT. BUT AS FAR AS THE AIRPLANE HE TOOK, I DON’T KNOW
THAT — I BELIEVE IT WAS CLEANED AFTER IT GOT THERE ANYWAY. SO I DON’T THINK IT WAS
SEARCHED.

MR. SHAPIRO:    YOU DON’T THINK IT WAS SEARCHED?

MR. VANNATTER:  NO. I DON’T THINK THE PLANE THAT HE FLEW ON WAS SEARCHED.

*****

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1995
 

MR. SHAPIRO:   IF YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT O.J., WOULDN’T YOU WANT TO GO UP TO HIS
BEDROOM AND SEE IF HE WAS STILL SLEEPING?

MR. VANNATTER:  IF HE HADN’T HAD BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR, YES. HE WAS ACCOUNTED FOR AT A
POINT THERE THAT MORNING.

MR. SHAPIRO:   YOUR FIRST KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF O.J. SIMPSON WAS
BECAUSE OF A PHONE CALL?

MR. VANNATTER:  YES. I HEARD ARNELLE TELL EITHER DETECTIVE PHILLIPS THAT SHE COULD MAKE A
PHONE CALL TO HIS SECRETARY AND SHE WOULD ALWAYS KNOW WHERE HE WAS AT.

*****

MR. SHAPIRO:    WHAT TIME DID YOU CONFIRM THAT O.J. SIMPSON WAS IN CHICAGO?

MR. VANNATTER:  SHORTLY AFTER SIX O’CLOCK THAT MORNING.

*****

MR. SHAPIRO:   A CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD IS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT IN ALL CASES OF HOMICIDE
INVESTIGATION, IS IT NOT?

MR. VANNATTER:  YES, SIR.

MR. SHAPIRO:   WHERE IN THE CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD DOES IT INDICATE THAT ANY OF THE
FOUR OFFICERS THERE RECOVERED A GLOVE?

MR. VANNATTER:  IT DOESN’T.

*****

MR. SHAPIRO:   YOU HAVE TOLD US ABOUT IS A PATH OF BLOOD THAT LED FROM THE CONTROL
GATE TO THE FRONT ENTRANCE OF THE HOUSE AT ROCKINGHAM; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. VANNATTER:  THERE WERE BLOOD DROPLETS THAT APPEARED TO BE A TRAIL, YES.

MR. SHAPIRO:  IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT THE PERSON WHO DID THE KILLING WAS BLEEDING AT
THE TIME HE CAME OR SHE CAME TO ROCKINGHAM?

MR. VANNATTER:  YES.

MR SHAPIRO:   THEN THERE WAS A THOROUGH SEARCH FOR BLOOD FROM THE AREA OF
ROCKINGHAM — FROM ROCKINGHAM TO THE AREA WHERE THE GLOVE WAS FOUND?

MR. VANNATTER:  YES, THAT’S CORRECT.

MR. SHAPIRO:   HOW MUCH BLOOD WAS FOUND THERE?

MR. VANNATTER:  NONE.

*******

MR. SHAPIRO:   WOULD YOU AGREE THAT HE VOLUNTARILY RETURNED TO LOS ANGELES?

MR. VANNATTER:  YES.

MR. SHAPIRO:   WOULD YOU AGREE THAT HE VOLUNTARILY SPOKE WITH YOU IN A
TAPE-RECORDED INTERVIEW WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL?

MR. VANNATTER:  YES.

MR. SHAPIRO:  DIDN’T HE VOLUNTARILY ALLOW YOU TO EXAMINE HIS FINGER?

MR. VANNATTER:  YES, HE DID.

*****

MR. SHAPIRO:    I WANT TO MAKE SURE, IT HAS JUST BEEN POINTED OUT TO ME, SO THAT THERE IS
NO MISUNDERSTANDING, WAS THERE ANY BLOOD TRAIL FOUND LEADING AWAY FROM THE GLOVE
INTO THE RESIDENCE?

MR. VANNATTER:  NO, I DIDN’T FIND ANY.

*****

MR. SHAPIRO:   I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE BRONCO. YOU SAID THAT YOU WANTED THE
BRONCO TO BE SECURE WHEN IT WAS AT ROCKINGHAM? BY “SECURED,” YOU WANTED TO MAKE
SURE THAT NO TRACE EVIDENCE COULD BE TAMPERED WITH REGARDING THAT VEHICLE?

MR. VANNATTER:  THAT’S CORRECT, YES.

MR. SHAPIRO:         AND YOU LATER FOUND OUT THAT THE PRESS WAS NOT ONLY IN THE VICINITY OF
THE BRONCO, BUT HAD SPILLED COFFEE ON THE HOOD OF THE BRONCO WHILE IT WAS BEING
SECURED BY YOUR OFFICERS, DID YOU NOT?

MR. VANNATTER:  I SAW THAT THERE WERE COFFEE STAINS TO BE DISREGARDED IN THE TOW
REPORT, YES.

MR. SHAPIRO:   AND YOU ALSO HAVE SEEN PHOTOGRAPHS OF A CIVILIAN RUNNING UP AND
TOUCHING THE EXACT AREA WHERE YOU SAW THE BLOOD, DID YOU NOT?

MR. VANNATTER:  I SAW PHOTOGRAPHS OF A — WHAT APPEARED TO BE A WOMAN LOOKING INTO
THE VEHICLE, YES.

*****

MR. SHAPIRO:    YOU EXAMINED THE INDEX FINGER OF MR. SIMPSON AND OBSERVED IT TO HAVE A
CUT WHICH YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED HERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. VANNATTER:  YES.

MR. SHAPIRO:   AND I TAKE IT YOU EXAMINED THE LEFT-HAND GLOVE AT BUNDY; IS THAT
CORRECT?

MR. VANNATTER:   I DIDN’T. I HAD IT EXAMINED.

MR. SHAPIRO:   AND WAS A CUT FOUND ON THE LEFT HAND GLOVE AT BUNDY THAT WOULD BE IN
THE AREA OF THE CUT ON O.J. SIMPSON’S LEFT HAND?

MR. VANNATTER:  NO.

*****

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION

MR. DARDEN:         DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO HOW THE PERSON WHO DROPPED THE GLOVE AT
ROCKINGHAM ENTERED THE PROPERTY?

MR. VANNATTER:  I BELIEVE HE USED A KEY TO COME THROUGH THE ROCKINGHAM GATE AFTER
PARKING THE VEHICLE IN THE STREET.

*****

MR. DARDEN:          YOU TOLD US THAT YOU DID NOT FIND THE MURDER WEAPON?

MR. VANNATTER:  THAT’S CORRECT.

MR. DARDEN:         ARE YOU SURPRISED AT ALL THAT YOU HAVEN’T FOUND THE MURDER WEAPON?

MR. VANNATTER:  NO. THE KNIFE IS A VERY EASY ITEM TO DISPOSE OF.

MR. DARDEN:         AND DID YOU FIND A BLOOD TRIAL AT ALL IN THE DEFENDANT’S BEDROOM?

MR. VANNATTER:  YES.

TESTIMONY OF DENISE BROWN
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN:  MISS BROWN, YOU ARE NICOLE BROWN’S OLDEST — OLDER SISTER?

MS. BROWN: YES, I AM.

MR. DARDEN: DO YOU HAVE OTHER SISTERS?

MS. BROWN: YES, I DO.

MR. DARDEN: HOW MANY?

MS. BROWN: THERE’S DOMINIQUE AND TANYA AND OF COURSE NICOLE.

MR. DARDEN: AND YOU ARE THE OLDEST OF THE SISTERS; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. BROWN: YES, I AM.

MR. DARDEN: AND WHAT IS YOUR FATHER’S FIRST NAME?

MS. BROWN: LOUIS BROWN.

MR. DARDEN: AND YOUR MOTHER’S NAME?

MS. BROWN: JUDITHA BROWN.

MR. DARDEN: AND WHERE DOES YOUR FAMILY RESIDE?

MS. BROWN: WE’RE IN DANA POINT, CALIFORNIA

******
MR. DARDEN: DO YOU KNOW THE DEFENDANT SEATED HERE AT THE END OF COUNSEL TABLE?

MS. BROWN: YES, I DO.

MR. DARDEN: HE’S YOUR FORMER BROTHER-IN-LAW?

MS. BROWN: YES, HE IS.

MR. DARDEN: WHEN DID YOU FIRST MEET THE DEFENDANT?

MS. BROWN: BACK IN 1977.

MR. DARDEN: AND WHERE WAS HE WHEN YOU MET HIM?

MS. BROWN: HE WAS PLAYING FOOTBALL FOR BUFFALO.

******

MR. DARDEN: MISS BROWN, YOUR SISTER NICOLE MARRIED THE DEFENDANT IN FEBRUARY 1985?

MS. BROWN: YES, SHE DID.

MR. DARDEN: DID YOU ATTEND THE WEDDING?

MS. BROWN: YES, I DID. I WAS THE MAID OF HONOR.

MR. DARDEN: DO YOU HAVE A HALF SISTER NAMED WENDY?

MS. BROWN: YES, I DO.

MR. DARDEN: AND WHERE WAS SHE LIVING IN 1987 AND 1988?

MS. BROWN: WENDY?

MR. DARDEN: YES.

MS. BROWN: IN ARIZONA.

MR. DARDEN: AND WAS THERE AN OCCASION DURING THAT TIME PERIOD IN WHICH SHE CAME FROM ARIZONA TO YOUR FAMILY’S HOME IN LAGUNA BEACH ON VACATION?

MS. BROWN: YES, SHE DID.

MR. DARDEN: AND DID SHE BRING SOMEONE WITH HER?

MS. BROWN: A GIRLFRIEND OF HERS WHO WAS ALSO LIVING THERE.

MR. DARDEN: AND WHAT IS THE GIRLFRIEND’S NAME?

MS. BROWN: JULIANNE HENDERICKS.

MR. DARDEN: AND DID YOU, YOUR SISTER WENDY, YOUR SISTER NICOLE AND JULIANNE HENDERICKS GO OUT DURING THAT VACATION PERIOD?

MS. BROWN: YES, WE DID.
MR. DARDEN: WAS THERE EVER AN OCCASION WHEN THE FOUR OF YOU AND THE DEFENDANT WENT OUT AND WENT TO THE RED ONION IN SANTA ANA?

MS. BROWN: YES, WE DID.

******

MR. DARDEN: IS THERE A BAR IN THE RED ONION?

MS. BROWN: YES.

MR. DARDEN: AND DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO DRINK?

MS. BROWN: YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN: REALLY. WHAT DID YOU DRINK?

MS. BROWN: WE WERE ALL — WELL, ACTUALLY, WE WERE ALL DOING SHOTS OF TEQUILA.

MR. DARDEN: THE DEFENDANT WAS DOING SHOTS OF TEQUILA?

MS. BROWN: YES.

MR. DARDEN: WAS NICOLE DOING SHOTS OF TEQUILA?

MS. BROWN: YES.

******
MR. DARDEN: SO THE DRINKS WERE FREE?

MS. BROWN:  I’M NOT SAYING ALL OF THEM WERE. I’M NOT SURE, BUT PEOPLE DO TEND TO BUY HIM DRINKS AND BUY US — AND THEY WERE BUYING US DRINKS TOO BECAUSE WE WERE WITH HIM.

MR. DARDEN: AND DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT DRINK SHOTS OF TEQUILA?

MS. BROWN: UH-HUH. YES.

MR. DARDEN: DID ANYTHING UNUSUAL HAPPEN THAT NIGHT IN THE RED ONION?

MS. BROWN: YES.
MR. DARDEN: WHAT WAS THAT?

MS. BROWN: WELL, WE ALL STARTED — WELL, WE WERE ALL DRINKING AND GOOFING AROUND AND BEING LOUD AND DANCING AND HAVING A GREAT TIME. AND THEN AT ONE POINT, O.J. GRABBED NICOLE’S CROTCH AND SAID, “THIS IS WHERE BABIES COME FROM AND THIS BELONGS TO ME.”
AND NICOLE JUST SORT OF WROTE IT OFF AS IF IT WAS NOTHING, LIKE — YOU KNOW, LIKE SHE WAS USED TO THAT KIND OF TREATMENT AND HE WAS LIKE — I THOUGHT IT WAS REALLY HUMILIATING IF YOU ASK ME.

MR. SHAPIRO: MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST PART AS BEING NONRESPONSIVE, CALLING FOR SPECULATION, NARRATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. DARDEN: AND WHEN HE GRABBED YOUR SISTER’S CROTCH AND SAID, “THIS IS WHERE BABIES COME FROM” — IS THAT WHAT HE SAID?

MS. BROWN: “THIS IS WHERE BABIES COME FROM AND THIS BELONGS TO ME,” AND, “THIS IS MINE.”

MR. DARDEN: AND WHEN HE SAID THIS AND WHEN HE GRABBED HER IN THE CROTCH, WERE THERE PEOPLE AROUND?

MS. BROWN: OH, YEAH. THE BAR WAS PACKED.

MR. DARDEN:  STRANGERS?

MS. BROWN: YEAH. YEAH. HE WAS TALKING TO THE STRANGERS.

MR. DARDEN: DID YOUR SISTER NICOLE REACT TO THIS AT ALL?

MS. BROWN: SHE JUST KIND OF WROTE IT OFF AND JUST, YOU KNOW, SHRUGGED HER SHOULDERS, YOU KNOW, STOP IT OR WHATEVER. I MEAN IT WAS — I DON’T KNOW. SHE DIDN’T REALLY REACT.

MR. DARDEN: DID THE DEFENDANT APPEAR MAD OR ANGRY OR UPSET WHEN HE GRABBED YOUR SISTER’S CROTCH AND MADE THESE STATEMENTS IN FRONT OF THESE STRANGERS?

MS. BROWN: NO. NO. HE WASN’T ANGRY. IT WAS HIS. THAT’S THE WAY HE — HE — JUST THE WAY HE ACTED, THE WAY — IT WAS LIKE, “THIS BELONGS TO ME. THIS IS MINE.” HE WASN’T ANGRY WHEN HE SAID IT. HE JUST MADE IT A POINT. HE WANTED IT TO BE KNOWN THAT THAT WAS HIS.

******
MR. DARDEN: LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE LA CANTINA RESTAURANT, OKAY?

MS. BROWN:  OKAY.

MR. DARDEN: ARE YOU ACQUAINTED WITH SOMEONE BY THE NAME OF ED MCCABE?

MS. BROWN: YES, I WAS.

MR. DARDEN: THIS IS SOMEONE YOU’VE KNOWN OVER THE LAST DECADE OR SO?

MS. BROWN: I’VE KNOWN ED FOR A WHILE. I USED TO DATE HIM.

MR. DARDEN: AND WHEN DID YOU STOP DATING ED MCCABE?

MS. BROWN: OH, I THINK WE MAY HAVE GONE OUT FOR A YEAR OR TWO, MAYBE TWO YEARS.

MR. DARDEN: DO YOU STILL SPEAK TO ED MCCABE?

MS. BROWN: NOT TOO OFTEN.

MR. DARDEN: AND IN WHAT CITY AND STATE DOES HE LIVE?

MS. BROWN: HE’S IN NEW YORK.

MR. DARDEN: DO YOU RECALL AN OCCASION WHEN YOU AND ED MCCABE AND NICOLE AND THE DEFENDANT WENT OUT TO DINNER?

MS. BROWN: YES, I DO.

MR. DARDEN: AND WHERE DID THE FOUR OF YOU GO AFTER YOU LEFT THE LA CANTINA RESTAURANT?

MS. BROWN: WE WENT TO O.J.’S HOUSE, O.J. AND NICOLE’S HOUSE.

MR. DARDEN: ON ROCKINGHAM?

MS. BROWN: YES.

MR. DARDEN: NOW, HAD YOU HAD SOMETHING TO DRINK AT THE RESTAURANT BEFORE?

MS. BROWN: YEAH. MARGARITAS.

MR. DARDEN: AND DID THE DEFENDANT HAVE SOMETHING TO DRINK?

MS. BROWN: YEAH. WE ALL DID.

MR. DARDEN: ALL FOUR OF YOU?

MS. BROWN:  YES.

MR. DARDEN: AND WHAT DID YOU DO WHEN YOU RETURNED TO THE DEFENDANT’S HOME ON ROCKINGHAM?

MS. BROWN: WE WERE SITTING AT THE BAR TALKING, HAVING SOME MORE DRINKS AND TALKING.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY.  WHILE YOU WERE TALKING, DID YOU SAY SOMETHING TO THE DEFENDANT?

MS. BROWN: YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT DID YOU SAY TO HIM?

MS. BROWN: I TOLD HIM HE TOOK NICOLE FOR GRANTED, AND HE BLEW UP.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, I’M GOING TO OBJECT. THE QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED. MOTION TO STRIKE THE LAST RESPONSE.

THE COURT: MISS BROWN, IF YOU WOULD, DON’T VOLUNTEER ANYTHING BEYOND THE ACTUAL QUESTION, PLEASE.

MS. BROWN: OKAY.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MR. DARDEN: YOU TOLD THE DEFENDANT THAT HE TOOK NICOLE FOR GRANTED?

MS. BROWN: YES.

MR. DARDEN: WHY DID YOU TELL HIM THAT?

MS. BROWN: BECAUSE SHE DID HAVE –

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. DARDEN: ON 352 GROUNDS, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: IT’S IRRELEVANT. WHY THIS WITNESS THINKS THAT MISS BROWN SIMPSON WAS TAKEN FOR GRANTED IS NOT RELEVANT. WHAT’S RELEVANT IS THE FACT SHE MADE THE COMMENT AND ANY REACTION TO THAT COMMENT.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT REACTION IF ANY WAS THERE BY THE DEFENDANT WHEN YOU TOLD HIM THAT HE TOOK YOUR SISTER NICOLE FOR GRANTED?

MS. BROWN: HE GOT EXTREMELY UPSET. HE –

MR. DARDEN: AND WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

MS. BROWN: HE STARTED YELLING AT ME, “I DON’T TAKE HER FOR GRANTED. I DO EVERYTHING FOR HER. I GIVE HER EVERYTHING,” AND HE CONTINUED, AND THEN A WHOLE FIGHT BROKE OUT AND PICTURES STARTED FLYING OFF THE WALLS, CLOTHES STARTED FLYING — HE RAN UPSTAIRS, GOT CLOTHES, STARTED FLYING DOWN THE STAIRS AND GRABBED NICOLE, TOLD HER TO GET OUT OF HIS HOUSE, WANTED US ALL OUT OF HIS HOUSE, PICKED HER UP, THREW HER AGAINST THE WALL, PICKED HER UP, THREW HER OUT OF THE HOUSE.
SHE ENDED UP ON HER — SHE ENDED UP FALLING. SHE ENDED UP ON HER ELBOWS AND ON HER BUTT. THEN SHE — HE THREW ED MCCABE OUT. WE WERE ALL SITTING THERE SCREAMING AND CRYING, AND THEN HE GRABBED ME AND THREW ME OUT OF THE HOUSE.

MR. DARDEN: ARE YOU OKAY, MISS BROWN?

MS. BROWN: YEAH. IT’S JUST SO HARD.  I’LL BE FINE.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, IF IT PLEASES THE COURT, CAN WE ADJOURN AND CONTINUE THIS MONDAY MORNING?

******

MR. DARDEN: MISS BROWN, WHEN WE LEFT OFF LAST FRIDAY YOU TOLD US ABOUT THE CROTCH GRABBING INCIDENT AT THE RED ONION. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

MS. BROWN: YES.

MR. DARDEN: AND YOU ALSO TALKED TO US ABOUT AN INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED AFTER YOU AND YOUR SISTER, NICOLE, AND ED MC CABE RETURNED TO THE DEFENDANT’S HOUSE AFTER AN EVENING AT THE LA CANTINA?

MS. BROWN: YES, I DID.

******

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. AND YOU MENTIONED THAT PICTURES BEGAN FLYING OFF THE WALLS. HOW — HOW WERE THOSE PICTURES REMOVED OR HOW DID THEY COME FLYING OFF THE WALL?

MS. BROWN: O.J. WAS WALKING UP THE HALL OR UP THE STAIRCASE AND HE STARTED THROWING THEM. HE TOOK THEM OFF THE WALL AND STARTED THROWING THEM DOWN.

MR. DARDEN: AND WAS HE SAYING ANYTHING TO — DID THE DEFENDANT SAY ANYTHING AS HE THREW THOSE –

MS. BROWN: HE WANTED HER OUT OF HIS HOUSE.

MR. DARDEN: THAT IS WHAT THE DEFENDANT SAID?

MS. BROWN: HE WANTED HER OUT OF HIS HOUSE AND HE CONTINUED GOING UP THE STAIRS AND HE GRABBED THE CLOTHES OUT OF HER CLOSET AND STARTED THROWING THEM DOWN ONTO THE FOYER WHERE WE WERE DOWN ON THE BOTTOM, AND CAME BACK DOWN AND GRABBED NICOLE.  HE THREW HER UP AGAINST THE WALL AND THEN HE GRABBED HER. AND THE ONLY THING I REMEMBER IS THAT IT WAS — HE LOOKED SO — HIS WHOLE FACIAL STRUCTURE CHANGED. EVERYTHING ABOUT HIM CHANGED.

MR. DARDEN: LET ME STOP YOU THERE.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD OBJECT. THAT IS NONRESPONSIVE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE WITNESS’ COMMENTS REGARDING FACIAL STRUCTURING AND CHANGE OF EXPRESSION IS STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD AND IT WAS NOT IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION. YOU ARE TO DISREGARD THAT ANSWER.
MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT’S FACE IMMEDIATELY AFTER YOU TOLD HIM THAT HE TOOK YOUR SISTER FOR GRANTED?

MS. BROWN: YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. AND WHAT, IF ANYTHING, UNUSUAL DID YOU NOTICE ABOUT HIS FACE AT THAT TIME?

MS. BROWN:  AT THAT TIME HE GOT VERY UPSET AND HE STARTED SCREAMING.

MR. DARDEN: NOW, WAS HIS ANGER MANIFESTED IN ANY WAY OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT HE BECAME — OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT HE BEGAN SCREAMING?

MS. BROWN: YEAH. HIS WHOLE FACIAL STRUCTURE CHANGED. I MEAN, EVERYTHING CHANGED ABOUT HIM.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. WHEN YOU SAY HIS FACIAL STRUCTURE CHANGED, WHAT DO YOU MEAN? ELABORATE ON THAT FOR US, PLEASE.

MS. BROWN: IT WAS CALM, QUIET, NORMAL CONVERSATION, LIKE WE WERE SITTING HERE RIGHT NOW, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT TURNED INTO — THE EYES GOT REAL ANGRY. IT WAS AS — HIS WHOLE JAW, EVERYTHING STARTED, YOU KNOW — HIS WHOLE FACE JUST CHANGED COMPLETELY WHEN HE GOT UPSET.  UMM — IT WASN’T AS IF IT WAS O.J. ANY MORE. HE LOOKED LIKE A DIFFERENT PERSON AND THAT IS WHAT NICOLE HAD ALWAYS SAID WHEN HE GETS ANGRY.

MR. DARDEN: LET ME STOP YOU THERE.

MR. SHAPIRO: MOTION TO STRIKE AS NONRESPONSIVE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.  LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU ARE TO DISREGARD THE LAST PORTION OF THE ANSWER, COMMENTS AS TO WHAT NICOLE HAD SAID ABOUT THE DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOR OR FACIAL STRUCTURE.
MISS BROWN –

MS. BROWN: SORRY.

THE COURT: — IF YOU WOULD, WOULD YOU PLEASE LISTEN CAREFULLY TO MR. DARDEN AND DEFENSE COUNSEL’S QUESTION, PLEASE ANSWER AS PRECISELY AS YOU CAN AND PLEASE DON’T VOLUNTEER ANY INFORMATION.

******
MR. DARDEN: WHERE DID YOU AND
MR. MC CABE AND YOUR SISTER GO AFTER THE DEFENDANT THREW THE THREE OF YOU OUT OF HIS HOUSE?

MS. BROWN:  WE WENT TO THE BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. AND WHY DID YOU GO TO THE BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL?

MS. BROWN:  THAT IS WHERE HE WAS STAYING, ED MC CABE.

MR. DARDEN: WERE YOU STAYING THERE AS WELL?

MS. BROWN:  WE STAYED THERE THAT NIGHT, YES.

MR. DARDEN: ED MC CABE WAS YOUR BOYFRIEND AT THE TIME?

MS. BROWN:  YES, HE WAS.

MR. DARDEN: AND DID YOU SPEND THE NIGHT AT THE BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL THAT NIGHT?

MS. BROWN:  YES, WE DID.

MR. DARDEN: DID YOUR SISTER NICOLE ALSO SPEND THE NIGHT WITH YOU THAT NIGHT?

MS. BROWN:  YES, SHE DID.

MR. DARDEN:  DID SHE EVER RETURN TO THE HOUSE?

MS. BROWN:  SHE DID THE NEXT MORNING.

MR. DARDEN: DID YOU TRY AND STOP HER FROM RETURNING TO THE HOUSE?

MS. BROWN:  YEAH, I DID. YEAH, I TOLD HER — I TOLD HER THAT SHE SHOULDN’T GO BACK. SHE SAYS, “I’M NOT GOING BACK, I’M JUST GOING TO GO PICK UP A FEW THINGS.”

MR. DARDEN: DID SHE SAY IF SHE WOULD RETURN BACK TO THE HOTEL?

MS. BROWN:  YES, SHE DID.

MR. DARDEN: SHE SAID SHE WAS GOING TO COME BACK TO YOU?
MS. BROWN:  YES, SHE DID.

MR. DARDEN: DID SHE COME BACK?

MS. BROWN:  NO, SHE DIDN’T.

MR. DARDEN: DID YOU REPORT THAT INCIDENT TO THE POLICE AT THE TIME?

MS. BROWN:  NO, I DID NOT.

MR. DARDEN: DID SHE?

MS. BROWN:  I DON’T THINK SO.

MR. DARDEN: DID ED MC CABE REPORT IT TO THE POLICE?

MS. BROWN:   NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO.

MR. DARDEN: DID YOU CONSIDER REPORTING THE INCIDENT TO THE POLICE?

MS. BROWN:  I DIDN’T.

MR. DARDEN: WHY NOT?

MS. BROWN:  I TOLD HER — I JUST TOLD HER, I SAID –

THE COURT: HOLD ON. THE QUESTION WAS DID YOU REPORT IT TO THE POLICE? DID YOU CONSIDER REPORTING IT TO THE POLICE? THE ANSWER IS YES OR NO.

MS. BROWN:  NO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: WHY DIDN’T YOU REPORT IT TO THE POLICE?

MS. BROWN:  BECAUSE SHE SAID SHE WOULD TAKE CARE OF IT.

MR. DARDEN: AND IF YOU RECALL, WHAT YEAR WAS IT THAT THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED?

MS. BROWN:  UMM, GOD, IT WAS IN THE EARLY EIGHTIES, ’82, ’83 MAYBE.
******

MR. DARDEN: MISS BROWN, AFTER YOUR SISTER NICOLE TOLD YOU THAT SHE WOULD HANDLE IT, WHY DIDN’T YOU TAKE IT UPON YOURSELF TO TAKE FURTHER STEPS TOWARD NOTIFYING THE POLICE?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MS. BROWN:  COULD YOU REPEAT THAT, PLEASE.

MR. DARDEN: WELL, YOUR SISTER TOLD YOU THAT SHE WOULD HANDLE IT, CORRECT?

MS. BROWN:  RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: DID SHE HANDLE IT?

MS. BROWN:  I GUESS IN HER OWN WAY SHE DID.

MR. DARDEN: WELL, YOU TOLD US THAT YOU EXPECTED HER TO RETURN TO THE HOTEL; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. BROWN:  YES.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. WELL, WHEN SHE DIDN’T RETURN TO THE HOTEL, DID YOU — DID YOU DO ANYTHING TOWARD FINDING OUT WHY SHE DIDN’T RETURN TO THE HOTEL?

MS. BROWN:  YOU KNOW WHAT, I REALLY DON’T REMEMBER. I JUST TOLD HER TO COME BACK.

MR. DARDEN: WELL, DID YOU DO ANYTHING TOWARD FINDING OUT IF SHE WAS OKAY?

MS. BROWN:  OH, WE HAD TALKED LATER ON, YEAH.

*******

MR. DARDEN: MISS BROWN, SHOWING WHAT YOU HAS BEEN MARKED PEOPLE’S 10 FOR IDENTIFICATION, IS THAT A PHOTOGRAPH OF YOUR SISTER, NICOLE?

MS. BROWN:  YES, IT IS.

MR. DARDEN: IS THAT A PHOTOGRAPH THAT YOU HAVE SEEN BEFORE?

MS. BROWN:  YES, IT IS.

MR. DARDEN: DO YOU KNOW WHO TOOK THAT PHOTOGRAPH?

MS. BROWN:  I DID.

MR. DARDEN: DO YOU RECALL WHEN IT WAS THAT YOU TOOK THAT PHOTOGRAPH?

MS. BROWN:  YEAH. IT WAS RIGHT AFTER THE ’89 INCIDENT.

MR. DARDEN: WAS ON IT NEW YEAR’S DAY ITSELF?

MS. BROWN:  YEAH. I THINK IT WAS A COUPLE OF DAYS LATER.

MR. DARDEN: THAT PHOTOGRAPH DEPICTS CERTAIN INJURIES TO YOUR SISTER; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. BROWN:  YES, IT DOES.

MR. DARDEN: THE SWELLING OVER HER RIGHT EYE, THAT ISN’T HOW SHE USUALLY LOOKED, IS IT?

MS. BROWN:  NO, IT IS NOT.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, MAY I SHOW THE JURY PEOPLE’S 11 FOR IDENTIFICATION?

THE COURT: YES, YOU MAY.

MR. DARDEN: MISS BROWN, SHOWING YOU PEOPLE’S 11 FOR IDENTIFICATION, IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH YOUR SISTER HAS HER RIGHT ARM RAISED; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. BROWN:  YES.

MR. DARDEN: DO YOU SEE ANY INJURY TO HER RIGHT ARM THERE?

MS. BROWN:  YES, I DO.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT DO YOU SEE?

MS. BROWN:  A BRUISE, A BIG BRUISE.

MR. DARDEN: AND DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF HER — OF HER HEAD OR FOREHEAD, DO YOU SEE ANY INJURIES TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF HER HEAD?

MS. BROWN:  YES, I DO.

MR. DARDEN: THAT IS NOT HOW SHE USUALLY LOOKED, IS IT?

MS. BROWN:  NO, IT IS NOT.

MR. DARDEN: YOU TOLD US A MOMENT AGO THAT YOU TOOK THESE PHOTOGRAPHS; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. BROWN:  YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. WOULD YOU DESCRIBE FOR US, PLEASE, THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LEAD TO YOUR TAKING THESE PHOTOGRAPHS?

MS. BROWN:  NICOLE ASKED ME TO TAKE THEM FOR HER.

******

MR. DARDEN: MISS BROWN, ARE THESE THE ONLY TWO PHOTOGRAPHS YOU TOOK?

MS. BROWN:  YES, THEY ARE.

MR. DARDEN: AFTER YOU TOOK THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THEM?

MS. BROWN:  I GAVE THEM TO NICOLE. SHE TOOK THEM.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY. AND DID YOU KNOW BACK IN 1989 WHETHER OR NOT YOUR SISTER NICOLE HAD A SAFE-DEPOSIT BOX AT UNION BANK?

MS. BROWN:  NO, I DID NOT.

******

TESTIMONY OF PABLO FENJVES
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK:  MR. FENJVES, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE DATE OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994, AS OF THAT DATE, CAN YOU TELL US APPROXIMATELY WHERE YOU LIVED?

MR. FENJVES:  I LIVED IN THE 800 BLOCK OF SOUTH GRETA GREEN.

MS. CLARK:  WHERE IS THAT IN RELATIONSHIP TO 875 SOUTH BUNDY?
******
MR. FENJVES: WE SHARE A COMMON BACK ALLEY AND I’MABOUT 60 OR 70 YARDS NORTH OF THE CONDO OF NICOLE SIMPSON BROWN.

******

MS. CLARK: NOW, WHAT PORTION OF YOUR APARTMENT FACES THAT ALLEY?

MR. FENJVES:  IT’S A THREE-STORY BUILDING AND THE TOP FLOOR IS THE MASTER BEDROOM WHICH FACES THE ALLEY, THEN THERE’S A KITCHEN, AND BELOW THAT, I HAVE MY OFFICE, AND THAT’S PRETTY MUCH SEALED OFF AND YOU CAN’T SEE OUT INTO THE ALLEY.

MS. CLARK:  IF YOU LOOK OUT YOUR MASTER BEDROOM, ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE THE BACK OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

MR. FENJVES: I’M ABLE TO SEE THE — WHAT SEEMS TO BE A PORCH AREA AND A ROW OF WINDOWS ALONG THE TOP FLOOR, BUT THAT’S ABOUT ALL I CAN SEE.
******

MS. CLARK: DID YOU KNOW NICOLE BROWN, SIR?

MR. FENJVES:  NO, I DID NOT.

MS. CLARK:  HAD YOU SEEN HER BEFORE?

MR. FENJVES:  JUST IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE HAD A SIMILAR JOGGING ROUTE AND I HAD SEEN HER IN HER CAR PULLING INTO THE ALLEY ONCE OR TWICE. THAT WAS ABOUT IT.

MS. CLARK: DID YOU HAPPEN TO — DID YOU KNOW WHERE SHE LIVED BACK IN JUNE OF 1994?

MR. FENJVES:  NO, I DIDN’T KNOW WHERE SHE LIVED AND I DIDN’T KNOW WHO SHE WAS.

MS. CLARK: ON JUNE THE 12TH OF 1994, SIR, IN THE EVENING, WHERE WERE YOU?

MR. FENJVES:  AT 10:00 O’CLOCK THAT EVENING, I WAS WATCHING THE NEWS IN THE MASTER BEDROOM ON THE THIRD FLOOR WITH MY WIFE.

MS. CLARK:  THAT’S THE MASTER BEDROOM THAT –

MR. FENJVES:  FACES THE —

MS. CLARK: — FACES THE ALLEY THAT YOU SHARE WITH 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

MR. FENJVES:  THAT IS CORRECT.

******

MS. CLARK: AND FOR HOW LONG DID YOU WATCH THE NEWS?

MR. FENJVES:  WELL, ABOUT 15 OR 20 MINUTES INTO IT, I BECAME AWARE OF A BARKING SOUND AND THEN I PROBABLY STOPPED WATCHING THE NEWS SHORTLY THEREAFTER.

MS. CLARK: SO IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES AFTER THE NEWS BEGAN THAT YOU STARTED TO HEAR A DOG BARKING?

MR. FENJVES:  YES.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, THAT MISSTATES WHAT HE JUST SAID, 15 TO 20 MINUTES.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK?

MS. CLARK: TELL US –

MR. FENJVES:  15, 20 MINUTES INTO IT, I HEARD A VERY DISTINCTIVE BARKING COMING FROM SOMEWHERE TO THE SOUTH OF WHERE I LIVE AND I WAS AWARE OF IT FOR MAYBE FIVE, SIX, SEVEN MINUTES; AND AT THAT POINT, I STOPPED WATCHING THE NEWS AND I LEFT THE MASTER BEDROOM.

MS. CLARK: WAS THERE SOMETHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THAT DOG BARKING THAT DREW YOUR ATTENTION TO IT?

MR. FENJVES:  IT WAS A — YOU KNOW, IT WAS FAIRLY PERSISTENT, IT WAS AT A SIGNIFICANT PITCH, AND AS YOU MAY RECALL, I DESCRIBED IT AT THE TIME AS A PLAINTIVE WAIL. SOUNDED LIKE A, YOU KNOW, VERY UNHAPPY ANIMAL.

******

MS. CLARK:  AND THAT’S WHAT DREW YOUR ATTENTION?

MR FENJVES: YES, IT DID.

MS. CLARK: HAD YOU EVER HEARD DOGS BARKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE?

MR. FENJVES:  YEAH, THERE’S PLENTY OF DOGS BARKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THIS WAS, AS I SAID, PERSISTENT AND UNUSUAL AND UNHAPPY.

MS. CLARK: SO DID YOU STAY AND LISTEN TO THE BARKING FOR A WHILE BEFORE YOU WENT DOWNSTAIRS?

MR. FENJVES:  UH, NO. I DON’T RECALL WHETHER I WENT AND LOOKED — I BELIEVE I MAY HAVE GOTTEN UP AND LOOKED THROUGH THE SHUTTERS, AND THEN I JUST — I WENT DOWNSTAIRS TO MY OFFICE.

MS. CLARK: ABOUT WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU WENT DOWNSTAIRS TO YOUR OFFICE?

MR. FENJVES:  I’D SAY AROUND 10:20.

MS. CLARK: AND BY THAT TIME, YOU HAD HEARD THE DOG BARKING FOR HOW LONG?

MR. FENJVES:  AS I SAID, YOU KNOW, IT COULD HAVE BEEN FIVE MINUTES. IT COULD HAVE BEEN SEVEN, EIGHT MINUTES.

******
MS. CLARK: AT THE TIME THAT YOU FIRST HEARD THE DOG BARKING, COULD YOU TELL FROM WHAT DIRECTION IT SEEMED TO BE COMING?

MR. FENJVES:  YES. IT SEEMED TO BE COMING FROM THE — BASICALLY THE AREA, SOUTH CORNER OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY.

******

MS. CLARK: AND WHEN YOU CAME BACK UPSTAIRS AT 11:00 O’CLOCK, WAS THE BARKING STILL AUDIBLE?

MR. FENJVES: YES, IT WAS.

MS. CLARK:  WHERE DID YOU GO WHEN YOU CAME UPSTAIRS AT 11:00 O’CLOCK?

MR. FENJVES:  I GOT IN BED.

MS. CLARK:  AND WHEN YOU GOT IN BED, WAS THE DOG STILL BARKING?

MR. FENJVES:  YES, HE WAS.

MS. CLARK: WHAT DID YOU DO AT THAT POINT?

MR. FENJVES:  I WAS READING FOR A LITTLE WHILE. I MENTIONED TO MY WIFE THAT, YOU KNOW, I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE DOG.
UMM, OUR OWN DOG WAS ON THE BED AND HE WAS REACTING TO THE BARKING BY GROWLING A LITTLE BIT, AND I MAY HAVE — I THINK I WENT BACK AND TOOK ANOTHER LOOK THROUGH THE SHUTTERS AND I NOTICED THE LINE OF WINDOWS AT THE RESIDENCE. AND WAS A LIGHT ON AND I ASSUMED THAT SOMEBODY WAS HOME.
AND THERE WERE A LOT OF UNITS AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE MAP THAT WERE CLOSER TO THE SOUND. SO I THOUGHT SOMEBODY MAY HAVE ALREADY DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

MS. CLARK: SO YOU FELT THAT THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOMETHING WRONG, BUT SOMEONE ELSE MAY HAVE REPORTED IT ALREADY?

MR. FENJVES:  UMM, IT WAS — YOU KNOW, IT WAS HARD TO INTERPRET WHAT WAS GOING ON. THE DOG DIDN’T SOUND AS THOUGH IT WAS IN PAIN OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT SOUNDED, AS I SAID, UNHAPPY.
******

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN:  YOU ARE NOT — YOU ARE A DOG OWNER; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. FENJVES: THAT’S RIGHT.
MR. COCHRAN: AND AS SUCH, I PRESUME YOU’VE OWNED A DOG FOR SOME NUMBER OF YEARS?

MR FENJVES:  A COUPLE OF YEARS, YEAH.

MR. COCHRAN:  YOU’RE NOT AN EXPERT IN DOGS BARKING AS SUCH, ARE YOU?

MR. FENJVES: NO, SIR. I DO NOT PRETEND TO BE.

MR. COCHRAN: AND YOU CAN’T TELL PARTICULAR PEDIGREE OF A DOG, ONE DOG OVER ANOTHER WHEN THEY BARK, CAN YOU?

MR. FENJVES:  NO, I CAN NOT, SIR.

MR. COCHRAN: AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU NEVER AT ANY TIME THAT NIGHT SAW A DOG?

MR. FENJVES: I DID NOT SEE A DOG.

******

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD RUBIN
 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

*****

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Rubin, who was your employer during 1990?

MR. RUBIN: Aris Isotoner.

MR. DARDEN: And what was your position at that time?

MR. RUBIN: I was vice president and general manager.

MR. DARDEN: When did you first begin with the company?

MR. RUBIN: I started with them in 1976.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And what were your duties in your capacity as vice president and general manager?

MR. RUBIN: I was responsible for the design, manufacturing, production, raw material, sales and marketing of all men’s
gloves.

******

MR. DARDEN: Well, was there a model or style of glove that you shipped to Bloomingdales exclusively?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And was that model 70263?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And we showed you some gloves here today; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, you did.

MR. DARDEN: And you–strike that. I take it that you’ve seen just about every model Aris ever produced, that is up until
1990?

MR. RUBIN: I’ve actually seen every model that Aris has produced. The company I believe is about 80 years old. I saw
every model that was produced from the inception of the company up until 1990.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Let me show you the glove marked 164-A, the Rockingham glove. Is this the glove that we showed
you during the afternoon break today?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, it is.

MR. DARDEN: Looking at that glove, can you tell us which style or model that glove is?

MR. RUBIN: This is the right hand of a style 70263.

MR. DARDEN: And how can you tell that?

MR. RUBIN: Well, first of all, the model was exclusive to Bloomingdales. It was only manufactured and distributed to them.
No other retailer in the United States had this model. And because of this particular type of sewing, which was unique to this
model as well as the weight of the cashmere lining, the weight of the leather utilized and the way the vent is put into the palm,
this could really not be any other style except 70263.

******

MR. DARDEN: Have you even seen it sold anywhere in the world other than in Bloomingdales?

MR. RUBIN: No, I have not.

MR. DARDEN: Let me show you what has been marked as People’s 77, the Bundy glove. Is this the glove that I showed
you earlier today?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, it is.

MR. DARDEN: And looking at this glove, can you tell us the style of this glove?

MR. RUBIN: This is the left hand of a style 70263.

MR. DARDEN: And is this an Aris Isotoner glove?

MR. RUBIN: It’s actually an Aris leather glove. It’s not an Isotoner glove.

******

MR. DARDEN: Now, is there anything special about the weight of the leather of this glove?

MR. RUBIN: Yes. This leather is approximately 30 percent lighter than conventional men’s weight leather and approximately
10 percent heavier than conventional lady’s weight leather, thus making it what was called an Aris lights glove. It was a very
light supple type product that was very well received by Bloomingdales’ customers.

MR. DARDEN: And the lining, what is the lining comprised of?

MR. RUBIN: This lining is a–what is known as a 10-gauge knit lining. It’s made with one strand of yarn, a cashmere yarn
and it is a hundred percent cashmere.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, was that style or model discontinued at some point?

MR. RUBIN: It is my understanding that as they approached 1992, since this was a model that was extremely difficult to
manufacture in any type of quantity, that gradually they did phase out of this type of sewing.

******

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

******

MR. COCHRAN: And you told us these were fairly popular–this type of glove was fairly popular; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: I did not say that.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. You didn’t say that?

MR. RUBIN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Were they? Maybe someone else said that. Were they fairly popular?

MR. RUBIN: The quantity that was manufactured in this glove was minuscule in the scheme of the amount of leather gloves
that Aris produced.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

MR. RUBIN: This particular glove was a popular style within Bloomingdales only as an exclusive style.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. RUBIN: But in the scheme of things, it was very small.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, you’re a big company. It was a big company at that time; is that right?

MR. RUBIN: It is a big company.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. I understand that. But we’re talking now about this particular style, okay?

MR. RUBIN: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, in that connection, how many of these types of gloves, the Aris light, did you order for the 1989, if
you so ordered, for the Bloomingdale stores?

MR. RUBIN: I believe it was a thousand and eight dozen.

MR. COCHRAN: A thousand and eight dozen in 1989; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: In the fall of `89 for utilization in 1990.

******

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And were all those gloves sold, a thousand and eight dozen, if you know?

MR. RUBIN: Definitely not.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And the ones that weren’t sold, what happened to them? Were they sent back to the factory?
Did they come back the next year or what?

MR. RUBIN: Generally speaking, they’re returned to the manufacturer, refurbished if necessary and held for shipment the
following year.

MR. COCHRAN: In other words, you wouldn’t throw them away at any rate, right?

MR. RUBIN: No.

******

MR. COCHRAN: So that we’re fixed–so that we’re understanding each other, when you talk about the 10,000 pairs, you’re
talking about the Aris light, right?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And so what you’re telling us is that there was something like 10,000 pairs of these gloves on order
for the 1990 season as it were; is that right?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN:  Of this particular style, right?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, of that 10,000 pairs–and of course, you had left the company at that point, but if they didn’t sell all
the 10,000 pairs that year in 1990, they would then return some of those, recycle some of those back for 1991 depending
upon the demand of the order; isn’t that right?

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

******

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. What was the first year of these Aris light gloves with the Brosser stitching were sold in the United
States to Bloomingdales?

MR. RUBIN: I believe it was 1982 or -3.

MR. COCHRAN: And with this process we’ve been talking about, did it start back in `82?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So then starting in 1982, `83, `84, `85 `86, `87, `88, `89 up to 1990, you had been making
these gloves exclusively for Bloomingdales; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And as I understand it, would I be correct in assuming that the number generally went up so that by 1989
or `90, you were in the range of 10,000 pairs of these gloves, the Aris light; is that right?

MR. RUBIN: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: And you think this continued on for `91 and `92 at least; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Well, actually what occurred was, there was a tremendous warming trend, and in 1990, the business went, you
know, substantially backwards, and I think it has actually slowed up since then. The peak sale of this product was the winter of
`89. But based upon that, that’s how the 10,000 pair came up to be because after the success of `89, they bought more for
1990.

MR. COCHRAN: Sure. I understand that. So–but basically what we’re talking about is the purchase of these gloves for up
to 10,000 pairs of these Aris light gloves over a 10-year period basically, 1982 to 1992, right?

MR. RUBIN: Yes. The quantities were extremely small though during the early years.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And when you say “Small,” what did you start out with, an estimate of what you started out with
in `82?

MR. RUBIN: A hundred dozen.

MR. COCHRAN: Hundred dozen?

MR. RUBIN: 1200 pairs.

******

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to Bloomingdales, can you tell us, in December of 1990 or thereabouts, how many
Bloomingdale stores were there in the United States?

MR. RUBIN: 13.

MR. COCHRAN: And these gloves were exclusive to Bloomingdales; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That’s correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And how many stores are there in New York in Manhattan?

MR. RUBIN: In Manhattan? One.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And they come as far west as Chicago?

MR. RUBIN: Back in 1990, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So at that time, the time you left, you were furnishing 13 Bloomingdales stores of these Aris light
gloves; is that right?

MR. RUBIN: That’s right.

******

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to the gloves that you were shown and that you saw, we all saw during the break, there is no
style number on those gloves that’s visible; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Not on the outside.

MR. COCHRAN: And if you looked at the label, you couldn’t see a 70263, could you?

MR. RUBIN: No. There’s no identification on the labels.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Is there–is there a number someplace else on the glove?

MR. RUBIN: During the manufacturing cycle, there are three sets of numbers behind the lining on the back of the gloves
during the actual manufacturing process. I don’t know if those numbers still exist today in these gloves because of the age of the
gloves. But originally, there were three sets of numbers inside, one being a size, two being a 3-digit number which indicated the
individual who actually cut the gloves, and then another 2-digit number indicating the sequence in which they were made from
the leather that was given to the cutter at a given point in time. But I don’t know if those numbers exist in there right now.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You’ve never seen–you haven’t seen those numbers with regards to the gloves before you, have
you?

MR. RUBIN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: And at no place has there ever been a lot number or style number like 70263 therein; is that correct? That
was not part of the procedure, was it?

MR. RUBIN: No. It was not part of the procedure.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, as I understand it, there are Aris Isotoner gloves all over the United States; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That’s correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And all over the world for that matter; isn’t that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That’s correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Are the–Bloomingdales is a store exclusive to the United States or are there–

MR. RUBIN: I believe their retail operations are. They may have some mail order internationally. I’m not a hundred percent
sure.

MR. COCHRAN: So back from the 10-year period, `82 to `92, would it have been possible through Bloomingdales mail
order catalog to order these particular gloves during that time frame?

MR. RUBIN: At some points in time, this particular product was in various Bloomingdales catalogs.

MR. COCHRAN: So you could be in France and order those; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: If you were on the mailing list, it’s a possibility.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, do you have any kind of a breakdown of the difference in colors? Let’s assume that in 1990, you
ordered 10,000 pairs of these Aris light gloves. Do you know how many different colors did you have at that time?

MR. RUBIN: At that time, I believe we had four colors; black, brown, gray and a medium brown.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you know the breakdown of the 10,000, how that was–how they were ordered?

MR. RUBIN: 60 percent plus would be black, approximately 30 percent or 28 percent would be brown and then the other
colors would really be just 10 percent or so.

******

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the gloves that you were shown by Mr. Darden a short time ago, in looking at those
gloves, they appear similar to you; do they not?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, they do.

MR. COCHRAN: But you can’t say they’re the exact same gloves that were sold at the same time, can you?

MR. RUBIN: When I was looking at–when we looked at the gloves earlier–was the grain of the leather, the way these
gloves were manufactured, just looking at them in this condition, they appear to be a pair that was cut out of approximately half
of a skin, and that’s what I was looking at. They appear to be a pair.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. But in looking at them, you can’t tell us for sure they’re from the same particular lot, can you?
You can’t say they’re the same, can you?

MR. RUBIN: It’s difficult.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. There’s no individual characteristics that would allow you to make that particular, even though
you can say they look similar; is that right?

MR. RUBIN: They do look similar. That’s all I can say.

******

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So in other words, what you can tell us is that that particular glove you believe is the style that
was exclusive to Bloomingdales was or could have been purchased at any time between the time frame 1982 to 1992 when
they changed the stitching, right?

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

******

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

******

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Cochran asked you some questions about the percentage of gloves sold that would be black in color
and those that would be brown in color as well as other colors. But in 1990, assuming you had 10,000 pairs of these gloves,
what percentage of those gloves would be brown?

MR. RUBIN: 30 percent.

MR. DARDEN: And what percentage of the–of that 30 percent would be size extra large?

MR. RUBIN: Eight percent. No. I’m sorry. Eight percent of the total, not eight percent of the 30.

MR. DARDEN: Eight percent of the total number of gloves would be extra large?

MR. RUBIN: Right.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Well, what percentage of the total would be extra large in size and brown in color?

MR. RUBIN: I’m not sure if I understand the question.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Well, if you had 10,000 pairs of Aris Isotoner leather light gloves.

MR. RUBIN: On a 10,000-unit basis, there would be approximately 300 units in extra large, brown totally available.

MR. DARDEN: And of those 300 units, you would expect to receive back into your factory approximately 100 pair?

MR. RUBIN: It could be that high.

******

MR. DARDEN: And so in your view then, Mr. Rubin, approximately 200 pairs of brown extra large Aris Isotoner leather
lights would have been sold during 1990?

MR. COCHRAN: Assumes a fact not in evidence, “Could be.”

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. DARDEN: In your opinion, how many size extra large, brown in color, Aris Isotoner leather light gloves would have
been sold by Bloomingdales during 1990?

MR. RUBIN: Between 200 and 240 pair.

MR. DARDEN: And did I hear you correctly? Did you testify that the lot sold to Bloomingdales during 1990 was the largest
lot?

MR. RUBIN: Largest lot of this particular style?

MR. DARDEN: Yes. Yes.

******

MR. DARDEN: What was the maximum number of brown, extra large–well, strike that. How many pairs of brown extra
large Aris leather lights would have been sold in 1992?

MR. RUBIN: There may have been 50 pair in brown, extra large.

MR. DARDEN: How about `93?

MR. RUBIN: Twice as much.

MR. DARDEN: I’m sorry. 83. Twice as much?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: About a hundred?

MR. RUBIN: Yeah.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. How many size extra large, brown in color, Aris leather light gloves would you say were sold through
Bloomingdales in 1982?

MR. RUBIN: In 1982?

MR. DARDEN: From 1982 through 1990.

MR. RUBIN: I really would be speculating at this point. I’d have to actually start to calculate what the progression was and
then factor in the consumer demand shifting from 50 percent black and brown and then shifting more toward black. If I had to
guess in total–

MR. COCHRAN: I think he’s answered the question.

THE COURT: Ask another question.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But as the years went on, the color brown in size extra large became more rare; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

******

[SIMPSON TRIES ON THE GLOVES]

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Your Honor, at this time, the People would ask that Mr. Simpson step forward and try on the glove
recovered at Bundy as well as the glove recovered at Rockingham.

THE COURT: All right. Do you want to do that?

MR. COCHRAN: No objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. He can do that seated there. All right. And I think so the jury can see, I’ll ask Mr. Simpson to stand.
All right. Mr. Darden, which glove do you have?

MR. DARDEN: This is the Bundy glove, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DARDEN: And after Mr. Simpson tries on the gloves, I would ask that he be required to step back over to the jury and
again show him his bare hands.

THE COURT: Well, we’ll get to that in a second. All right. The record should reflect that, as is our practice with these gloves,
Mr. Simpson will have a pair of latex gloves on while doing this.

MR. DARDEN: I’m handing Mr. Simpson the left glove, Rockingham.

THE COURT: That’s People’s 77?

(The Defendant complies.)

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, apparently Mr. Simpson seems to be having a problem putting the glove on his hand.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to counsel’s statements.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you. Move to strike.

MR. DARDEN: I’d also like to hand Mr. Simpson the other glove. What exhibit number?

THE COURT: This is People’s 164-A? Is that the right-hand glove?

MR. DARDEN: Yes, your Honor.

(The Defendant complies.)

THE COURT: All right. Deputy Jex, would you just take a step back, please. Thank you. All right. The record should reflect
that Mr. Simpson has both gloves–

MR. DARDEN: May he show his hands in front of the jury so that they can see–

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Simpson is indicating that his fingers aren’t all the way into the gloves, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Simpson told the jury that the gloves are too small.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, before Mr. Simpson goes back, can we ask him to replace the left glove onto his hand?

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DARDEN: Can we ask him to straighten his fingers and extend them into the glove as one normally might put a glove
on?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, object to this statement by counsel.

(The Defendant complies.)

THE COURT: All right. He appears to have pulled the gloves on, counsel. All right. Would you show that to the jury, Mr.
Simpson, in that manner?

(The Defendant complies.)

THE COURT: Thank you. Other hand, please.

(The Defendant complies.)

MR. DARDEN: Could we ask him to make a fist with his left hand with the gloves on, your Honor? Could we ask him to
make a fist with his right hand while the gloves are on, your Honor?

(The Defendant complies.)

THE COURT: He is doing both.

MR. DARDEN: Could we ask him to grasp an object in his hand, a marker perhaps, your Honor?

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Simpson.

(The Defendant complies.)

MR. DARDEN: Would we ask him to grasp the marker in his hand like this, your Honor (indicating)?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to this, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes. I agree.

MR. COCHRAN: Object to counsel–

MR. DARDEN: Could we ask him to completely grasp the marker in his hand?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Whether raised or not?

THE COURT: Yes.

(The Defendant complies.)

******

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, if it pleases the Court, could we have Mr. Rubin step down from the witness stand, walk
through the well and have a look at Mr. Simpson’s hands?

THE COURT: And this is for the purposes of the size, glove size?

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

THE COURT: Yes. Mr. Rubin, would you please do that.

MR. DARDEN: Will the Court ask Mr. Simpson to extend his hands?

THE COURT: Yes.

(The witness and Defendant comply.)

THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect that Mr. Rubin has examined both Mr. Simpson’s left and right hands. Mr.
Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Rubin, you sold thousands and thousands of leather gloves throughout the world, correct?

MR. RUBIN: That’s correct.

MR. DARDEN: What size glove would you say would fit Mr. Simpson’s hand?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of the question.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MR. RUBIN: In some styles, size large, in most styles, extra large.

MR. DARDEN: Should the gloves shown to you here in court today have fit Mr. Simpson’s hand in your opinion?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form. Calls for speculation without further foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MR. RUBIN: At one point in time, those gloves would be actually I think large on Mr. Simpson’s hand.

******

MR. DARDEN: Now, would you expect that the fact that he’s wearing latex gloves here today inhibit–would that inhibit his
ability to extend his hand through the glove?

MR. RUBIN: I personally have never put on latex gloves and tried on gloves. So I really couldn’t say. But I would say that
appears to be a factor because–

MR. COCHRAN: He’s answered the question, your Honor.

MR. RUBIN: When he showed–

THE COURT: All right. That’s fine.

MR. DARDEN: Can you give us–can you give the jury any explanation as to why Mr. Simpson couldn’t fit his hand into the
glove here today?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object. Calls for speculation. Counsel–

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Did you observe the manner in which Mr. Simpson put the gloves on today?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: And you’ve seen people put gloves on in the past?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I have.

MR. DARDEN: Did he put the gloves on in a manner consistent with what you’ve seen other people–

MR. COCHRAN: I object to that. It’s irrelevant and immaterial, your Honor. There’s no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained. The jury observed what happened.

MR. DARDEN: Anything unusual about the way Mr. Simpson put the gloves on based on your experience?

MR. COCHRAN: I object, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Could you tell whether or not he was intentionally holding his thumb in a certain position so that he couldn’t
put the gloves on?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, objection. Object to that. It’s argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. Counsel, the jury–

MR. DARDEN: I have nothing further. I apologize.

******

RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

******

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the sizes of gloves, these gloves that were made back between the period `82 to `92
that we talked about, were they made so that each extra large was the same size as the next extra large or is there some
variation in sizes?

MR. RUBIN: The intent was for them to be exactly the same. The patterns that were utilized were exactly the same size. But
each few square feet of leather does have its own characteristics as far as stretch ability.

MR. COCHRAN: So that some–one extra large might actually be smaller than another extra large. Is that a fair statement?

MR. RUBIN: That’s correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And there is that variability in the lots as they turned out; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That is correct.

******

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

******

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Rubin, yesterday you told us that you were involved for several years in the design and manufacture of
leather gloves; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, it is.

MR. DARDEN: You consider yourself an expert in gloves?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: Now, yesterday after the demonstration you stated while on the witness stand that ordinarily the Defendant’s
hands–

MR. COCHRAN: Object to this as asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: Should have fit into the gloves; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That’s correct.

MR. DARDEN: What did you mean by that?

MR. RUBIN: The gloves in the original condition would easily go onto the hands.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to this. Speculation. I object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RUBIN: Would easily go onto the hands of someone of Mr. Simpson’s size.

MR. DARDEN: The gloves you saw yesterday, did they appear to be in their original condition?

MR. RUBIN: No, they did not.

MR. DARDEN: And what was different about them?

MR. RUBIN: The primary difference was the fact that due to the tremendous amount of liquid that had been on the gloves for
a certain period of time, the gloves appeared to be shrunken in size from their original condition.

MR. COCHRAN: I object to this response, your Honor. Could the Court allow us a brief time at side bar?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. DARDEN: The liquid you are referring to, is that blood?

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel.

MR. RUBIN: I’m not a technical–

THE COURT: Hold it. He is not qualified to answer that question.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, your Honor.

MR. DARDEN: So the gloves appeared to have shrank somewhat?

MR. RUBIN: That’s correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. How much?

******

MR. RUBIN: It would appear, based upon my knowledge of what would occur when gloves are subjected to liquid such as
water, that gloves could shrink approximately 15 percent from its original size.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And the gloves that you saw here in court yesterday, did they appear to have shrank approximately–

MR. COCHRAN: Leading and suggestive, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. DARDEN: What percentage of shrinkage, if any, did you notice?

MR. COCHRAN: Assumes a fact not in evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RUBIN: Since I didn’t personally try the gloves on at any point in time, I would estimate the shrinkage of approximately
15 percent.

******

MR. DARDEN: Now, you also told us yesterday that you felt that the Defendant’s hand was what size? What size did you
say?

MR. RUBIN: Between a large in some styles and an extra large in other styles.

MR. DARDEN: In your review of his hand size he is an extra extra large?

MR. RUBIN: No.

MR. DARDEN: Are you certain of that?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And the gloves we had here in court yesterday, the Rockingham and the Bundy glove, were they designed
to fit snugly?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, they were.

MR. DARDEN: Were they designed to stretch?

MR. RUBIN: All leather gloves have some stretch.

MR. DARDEN: What size would you say the gloves are now today, that is, in their present condition?

MR. COCHRAN: Calls for speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. He said he hasn’t tried them on.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

******

MR. DARDEN: Yesterday I asked you whether or not wearing latex gloves might impede someone’s ability to place a pair of
leather gloves on their hands. Do you recall that question?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you said you had never tried to place latex gloves on or didn’t place gloves on top of the latex
gloves?

MR. RUBIN: That’s correct.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. But you did that last night; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: And you tried on a pair of gloves?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: Yes?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.

MR. DARDEN: That was after you put the latex gloves on?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: And the pair of gloves that you tried on, were they your own gloves?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I’m going to object to this. I wasn’t present. I would like to approach, if the Court please.

THE COURT: Overruled. Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you.

MR. DARDEN: The gloves that you placed on on top of the latex gloves last night, were they your own gloves?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, they were.

MR. DARDEN: And what effect, if any, did the latex gloves on your hand have in terms of your ability to place your own
gloves on?

******

MR. RUBIN: I had more difficulty in getting the personal gloves onto my hand with the latex glove on my hand than I
normally would.

MR. DARDEN: Now, leather gloves do have some degree of elasticity to them; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, it is.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And when we say elasticity in the context of leather gloves, what are we talking about?

MR. RUBIN: In the process of producing leather for the glove industry, a fat liquor type material is put into the leather which
creates elasticity. Over time, when people move their hands back and forth or when the gloves get wet, that fat liquor really
creates elasticity and it is part of the tannage process to make gloves fit better.

MR. DARDEN: So when gloves get wet what effect or impact does that have on the elasticity?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RUBIN: What happens when gloves get wet, the water or whatever it is that actually wets the glove absorbs small
amounts of the fat liquor which creates shrinkage. Over time, as the gloves try naturally, the gloves actually can come back very
close to its original shape, but they will never come back to the original size, because once a certain percentage of the fat liquor
disappears, the glove loses a little of it’s elasticity.

MR. DARDEN: So then, Mr. Rubin, is there a way to manipulate the gloves we have here in evidence, the Rockingham and
the Bundy glove, so that they can return to their original size and shape?

MR. RUBIN: These gloves will never return to the original size and shape in the condition they are in currently.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. How close can we get them to their original size and shape.

MR. COCHRAN: I object. That calls for speculation, your Honor. I don’t mean to make a speaking objection, but it is
speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

******

MR. DARDEN: In any event, Mr. Rubin, I ask that you take a look at the gloves recovered at Bundy and Rockingham and
place them on your hand and give us an indication as to what size you believe the gloves now are?

******

MR. DARDEN: Let me hand you item 9, the Rockingham glove. And this is People’s 164-A, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. That is the right hand glove. Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: What size would you say that glove is now?

****** .

MR. RUBIN: As is, in this condition right now, this is a little bit above a large, but well below an extra large at this point in
time.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, do you want to assist Mr. Darden?

MR. DARDEN: Let me show you People’s 77, LAPD item 37, the Bundy glove. Is there any point to having Mr. Rubin
change latex gloves at this point?

THE COURT: I think at this point, no.

MR. RUBIN: Okay. For starters, the lining in this particular glove has been dislodged. I can’t get my hand in it at all.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

MR. RUBIN: I would have to get a pen or something. One of the fingers, where the lining is actually tacked to the end of the
finger, is broken away.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, is there a question?

THE COURT: No.

MR. DARDEN: Last question, your Honor.

MR. DARDEN: That is, Mr. Rubin with regard to the golfing gloves that you looked at here this morning, are the size of
those gloves consistent with the size of the Defendant’s hand, in your opinion?

MR. RUBIN: These particular gloves?

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

MR. RUBIN: Yes, they should fit him.

MR. DARDEN: Thank you. Thank you.

******

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Rubin, just before the break, you testified that you could not extend your hand through the glove
marked exhibit 77; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That’s correct.

THE COURT: And, ladies and gentlemen, I should tell you, Mr. Rubin did testify that he could not get his hand into the
left-hand glove. Over the evening hours out of your presence, the glove was examined by a number of people with the Court’s
permission, and the glove was turned inside out and was examined. So that explains how the lining is dislodged from the fingers.
All right. Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: And have you attempted as best you could to replace the lining in its proper position?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I have.

MR. DARDEN: And you can extend your hand into the glove now?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I can.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you have the glove on?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I do.

MR. DARDEN: And what size is the glove now today?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, my continuing objection to this speculation.

THE COURT: Noted. Overruled. You can answer the question.

MR. RUBIN: It’s closer to a size large than an extra large.

MR. DARDEN: But when manufactured and purchased, it was an extra large?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, it was.

******

RE-CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

******

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And those gloves, when they were made between the period we talked about, 1982 to 1992,
were they in some way shrink-proof?

MR. RUBIN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Did they have some kind of treatment to keep them from shrinking?

MR. RUBIN: No.

MR. COCHRAN: The manufacturer? Not at all?

MR. RUBIN: Not at all.

MR. COCHRAN: And so the–if a person then bought gloves presumably to wear in the winter in the eastern part of the
United States, it would be anticipated those gloves would get wet; isn’t that correct?

MR. RUBIN: It would happen on occasion.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. On occasion, they would become wet; is that right? And with regard to that leather, is that one
reason why the fat liquor is–became a part of the process in preparing these gloves?

MR. RUBIN: That’s correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And the reason why the fat liquor was used was to diminish the amount of shrinkage; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: It was more so to have the leather retain its memory and create an elastic capability versus the shrinkage.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So elastic capability, which means that it can stretch; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That’s correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So that if gloves, sir–and these gloves cost a lot of money, didn’t they? They were–they were
beyond the $20 average you told us about, leather gloves; is that right?

MR. RUBIN: That’s correct.

MR. COCHRAN: So if you bought a pair of gloves in the winter of `90 and they got wet and you put them away, you’d
expect to be able to use those gloves again in the winter of `91; isn’t that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That’s correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And your product–you don’t make a product that just because they get wet or have some precipitation,
that you throw them away at the end of each use. They’re not usable gloves. They’re not one time usable gloves, are they?

MR. RUBIN: They are not disposable.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. These gloves are to last a long time. That’s one of the things you pride yourself on; isn’t that
correct?

MR. RUBIN: That’s correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And they’re made in such a fashion so they are supposed to be elastic and they come back for use; isn’t
that correct, sir?

MR. RUBIN: That’s correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, are you–as an expert, do you know–assume hypothetically these gloves were purchased in 1989
or in 1990, and let’s assume they were worn during the winter, during that time, rain and snow. You can’t tell this jury how
much those gloves shrunk during that period of time, can you?

MR. RUBIN: I cannot.

MR. COCHRAN: You have no way of knowing that, do you?

MR. RUBIN: I have no way of knowing how much liquid or rain or snow or whatever, you know, elements went onto the
product and actually how they were dried.

MR. COCHRAN: So you have no way of knowing that?

MR. RUBIN: I do not.

******

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Rubin, just a few more questions. Do you–are you aware of how much 3 cc’s of liquid amounts to?

MR. RUBIN: No, I’m not. Excuse me. 3 cc’s?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

MR. RUBIN: Yes. I’m very familiar with 3 cc’s.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you think that–I want you to assume arguendo that 3 cc’s of liquid is almost two gloves. Do you
think that amount of liquid would result in your gloves, your very expensive Aris gloves, shrinking 10 to 15 percent?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. Improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RUBIN: 3 cc’s of liquid would have no effect whatsoever on those gloves.

MR. COCHRAN: So if there’s testimony that’s there only 3 cc’s of liquid on those gloves, should have no effect at all? They
should be exactly the same size; is that correct?

MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

MR. COCHRAN: I’m asking.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that right?

MR. RUBIN: That’s correct.

******

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

******

MR. DARDEN: You also said that the crime scene gloves from Rockingham and Bundy both have some degree of elasticity;
is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That’s correct.

MR. DARDEN: But they’ve lost some of that elasticity; is that right?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Leading and suggestive.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. DARDEN: Have they lost any of the elasticity?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, they have.

******

REDIRECT EXAMINATION (FURTHER) BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: The crime scene gloves from Rockingham and Bundy, are they designed to be worn tightly just like golf
gloves?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the from of–well–

THE COURT: You can answer the question.

MR. RUBIN: The fact that they are lined, they are designed to be snug, provide warmth, but not worn exactly like golf
gloves, no.

MR. DARDEN: And you testified a moment ago that it takes a lot of effort to take off a tight pair of gloves; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: It would take some effort.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And–

THE COURT: That’s two.

MR. DARDEN: An effort consistent with a life and death struggle for one’s life I take it?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection, your Honor. Speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

******

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM BODZIAK
 

 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, what is your occupation and assignment?

MR. BODZIAK: I’m a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I’m currently assigned in the FBI laboratory as an examiner of questioned documents, footwear and tire tread evidence.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, directing your attention to what’s marked as People’s 373 for identification, the section that says “If covered shoes of a suspect may be identified or eliminated,” can you describe for us–if you need to step down you may do so–what kind of analysis you’ve performed that is signified by this portion of the chart.

 *****
 MR. BODZIAK: Directing the attention to the top portion of the chart, one of the primary purposes of footwear comparison is ultimately to examine the footwear impressions from the crime scene, which is depicted here on the right side, (Indicating), with shoes of suspects that might be obtained during the investigation. In this particular chart I’ve shown, as an example on the right, an impression from a crime scene, a test impression made from the shoe of the suspect, and on the left side a reverse photograph of the shoe of the suspect. This comparison involves the class characteristics first of the shoe, that is, the physical shape and size, the design or pattern on the bottom of the shoe, which leaves its print in the impression, and then subsequently we will draw its attention to wear characteristics. Maybe the heel may begin to wear on the edge and other wear that might be evident and would change the pattern of the shoe. The fourth area of comparison, after the size design and wear, would be things such as accidental characteristics, such as a cut mark that would also show up in the impression and would be found on both the test impression and the known shoe. These cut marks or changes to the pattern of the shoe are what makes a shoe unique and would possibly enable, if there was an adequate number of these, the positive identification of this shoe having made the impression at the crime scene.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, did you do that kind of analysis in this case?

MR. BODZIAK: No, I did not.

MR. GOLDBERG: Why was that?

MR. BODZIAK: There was no shoes that were given to me of the suspects.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, in cases that are submitted to you for analysis at the FBI, since 1973 when you’ve been working there, can you give us an estimate as to what percent, where they are submitted to you, they do not have shoes of a suspect?

MR. BODZIAK: Approximately forty percent of the case work that is submitted to us initially does not have the shoes of the suspect. A few of those may be submitted later after we provide them additional information.

MR. GOLDBERG: And are there some where the shoes are never recovered?

MR. BODZIAK: Absolutely, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in cases where the shoes are not recovered, is it, nevertheless, possible to do other kind of analysis on the shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, on the–

MR. GOLDBERG: Is that indicated on the chart?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. The second and third portions of the chart draw the attention to those kind of requests we get in situations where we do not have the shoes of a suspect, and we are asked to provide the brand name and manufacturer of the shoe and we do this by accumulating, in a reference collection, thousands of designs of shoes and searching a particular pattern from the crime scene print through that reference collection, and hopefully we will be able to determine the manufacturer and brand name of that shoe. After that, depending on the quality of the impression and the completeness of the impression at the crime scene, as well as the kind of manufacturer of the shoe in question, we may be asked to give either a general estimate of the size and that would be just through a linear measurement, or an actual specific sizing of the shoe by directly working with the manufacturer.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And these last two portions of the chart where you have discussed where it says “Brand name, manufacturer and size of the shoe,” did you perform that kind of analysis in this particular case?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir, I did.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: After you were unable to locate the design based upon your own resources, did you take some additional steps?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: What did you do?

MR. BODZIAK: In looking at the detail in the shoe impressions in the thirty photographs which I was submitted which were the impressions from the Bundy location, I observed that there were certain features about that shoe that strongly suggested that it was a high end–that is a very expensive Italian brand shoe. So I looked through our written reference material and I identified approximately 75 to 80 manufacturers and importers of high end Italian shoes and some south American shoes or Brazilian shoes, and I prepared a sketch and a–one of the photographs, a composite photograph–excuse me–a composite sketch and three photographs of heel impressions from the Bundy scene, along with a letter, and contacted those manufacturers and importers to see if they recognized or knew the origin of that particular design.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you get any information back as a result of that?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. On August 17th I received a reply from a Mr. Peter Grueterich of the Bruno Magli Uma Shoe Store in New Jersey.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did he send you anything?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. He sent me two shoes that were left over from a Bruno Magli distribution of his in 1991 and 1992. These were both right shoes. One was a size 9 and a half and one was a size 12. And I believe from looking at them they were probably samples that were just left over.

*****
 MR. BODZIAK: These are enlarged photographs on the right side of the Lorenzo at the top and the Lyon or Lyon at the bottom. The differences between those two shoes is the Lorenzo has a higher heel collar to it and the Lyon or Lyon has a lower cut as a conventional shoe would have, and those shoes were sent to me by Mr. Grueterich. The retail of those was approximately $160.00, and they were Bruno Magli shoes distributed in 1991 and `92 in six different colors. The colors were white, black, brown, blue, brandy and olive.

*****

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, showing you People’s 375 for identification, can you tell us what that is?

MR. BODZIAK: Exhibit 375 are the two shoes, the Lyon or Lyon and the Lorenzo, which were submitted to me by Mr. Peter Grueterich and which were left over from the shipment or distribution of those shoes in 1991 and 1992.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: Now, as a result of the information that you have just talked to us about, did you determine who the manufacturer was of the Bruno Magli shoe?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Well, if I could comment on the bottom of the shoe, which has the manufacturer’s name on it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Sure.

MR. BODZIAK: The bottom of the shoe has design elements–may I step down?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. BODZIAK: The bottom of the shoe has design elements which are repeated across the entire sole area, as well as the heel, and these design elements, which repeat after one another across the width and length of the shoe, are identical in size in both the heel and the sole, and they are surrounded by a perimeter, a little raised line, and then there is an outer perimeter which does not actually touch the surface of the ground, but which is a little bit raised but can touch it if there is enough weight or other factors. The same is true of the heel. And the leading edge of the heel is curved and has the notch cut off of the medial side, the inner side. This is a reverse photograph so this is actually the left–an enlargement of the left shoe, and this would be the outside of the body and this would be the inside to the right as you look at it, (Indicating). And in the center arch area also is the name “Bruno Magli,” that is b-r-u-n-o m-a-g-l-I, as well as the capital “M” for Bruno Magli, their logo in the middle of that, and at the very bottom in the shadow here, which is probably hard to see, is the words “Made in Italy” and up in the top corner here is the word “Silga,” s-I-l-g-a, which to answer your question, this is the manufacturer in Italy of this outsole.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, based upon all of the information that you had from your visit to Italy from the lasts and the soles and the photographs of the Bundy crime scene location, were you able to form an opinion regarding the size of the shoe–the size of the shoes that caused the shoeprints at Bundy location?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I was.

MR. GOLDBERG: What is that opinion?

MR. BODZIAK: That size was an American size 12 with the European size 46 sole attached to it.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, directing your attention to this chart that is entitled “Shoeprint comparison,” can you illustrate for us how it was you were able to make your comparison? Maybe you can start with one of the two shoeprints.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, may I step down?

MR. GOLDBERG: And move on to the other. Yes, please.

MR. BODZIAK: (Witness complies.) Okay. The chart entitled “Shoeprint” comparison on the left side has one of the photographs which I examined which is a bloody shoeprint from the Bundy location. At the crime scene it was marked shoeprint E, the Los Angeles Police Department called it shoeprint E and the FBI–in my report I referred to it as Q107. It is an impression of both the sole and heel. On the right side is another shoeprint which I marked FBI Q68 and which was down in the lower walkway area at the very entrance, inside the gate, and that is of a heel impression. And if whatever impression would have been up here, (Indicating), would have been–if an impression had been laid down up here, it would have been interfered with by the other blood in that area, so you can really only see the heel impression on FBI Q68. In the middle is an approximate two-time enlargement of one of the test impressions I made of the left shoe using the European sole size 46, and attached to shoeprints E and the shoeprint on the right and the left of the chart, are transparencies that are made from the same test impression that is in the center, and this allows, in the comparison and demonstration process of superimposing the features that are left in test impressions of the size 46 and other size soles, over top of the impressions that are examined at the crime scene. And by putting these over these impressions, the precise configuration of the design elements, as I had mentioned before, and how they meet the borders where they are visible in this print, as well as the design element and fragments of the border which were up in this area and made from respective areas of the shoe, correspond, and also FBI Q68, the heel impression, the overlay demonstrates that as well. You can place this overlay back and forth and see the corresponding pattern agrees. Using this method I was able to take the size 42 through 47 shoes of both left and right and I was able to make test impressions through direct physical contact in a transparency form. I was able to place these over the crime scene impressions and determine which size of the European soles made that impression and eliminate the others. And in doing so, with regard to these two, I determined the left size 46 sole positively made the impressions and the 42 through 45 and 47 soles could positively be eliminated.

MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to the print on the right that says “Shoeprints FBI Q68” even though only a heel of that is visible, you were able to determine that was a 46 European sole?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: How?

MR. BODZIAK: Because the heels, like the rest of the shoe, are distinctly different and so no other heel in the other sizes could have made that impression.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Bodziak, were you provided with any item in order to determine what the Defendant’s shoe size was?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I was.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what were you provided with?

MR. BODZIAK: I was provided with a pair of Reebok shoes that the Defendant wore.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time, I’d like to mark as People’s next in order, it would be 384 for identification. And I’m going to write a 384 on the exterior of the package, the package and its contents of what appear to be Reebok tennis shoes.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, showing you People’s 384 for identification, can you remove the item from that package and tell us what you’re doing?

MR. BODZIAK: (The witness complies.) 384 is a pair of Reebok shoes, white in color, what I would call a low profile that were represented to me as the shoes of the Defendant.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what did you do with those Reebok shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: I made measurements of the exterior length of the sole as best I could without cutting the tops off. I made measurements of the inner length of the insole and I made a direct physical comparison between them and a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe.

MR. GOLDBERG: What size did you determine the Reebok shoes to be?

MR. BODZIAK: Oh, the Reeboks are labeled U.S. size 12.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And for the record, your Honor, when he was doing his demonstration in court, he held the Bruno Magli size 12 which–shoe which comes from the box 375 up against the Reeboks which comes from the bag and its contents, which was 384 for identification, held them together with the soles, and they appeared to be the same dimension.

THE COURT: So noted.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, showing you what we’ve just marked as People’s 385-B for identification, do you recognize this?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I do.

MR. GOLDBERG: What is it?

MR. BODZIAK: This is a chart which I prepared as part of the survey of a total of 500 people, 399 which were males, and it reflects the correlation between the shoe size of a person and the height of that person.

MR. GOLDBERG: And does one of the lines on this chart pertain to an American size 12 shoe?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it does.

MR. GOLDBERG: And can we zoom in on that perhaps? All right. Well, now we don’t really have any reference point.

MR. GOLDBERG: But with respect to your study, sir, what findings did you make with respect to the height of men that wear size 12 shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: The height range was 71 to 77 inches.

MR. GOLDBERG: 71 being 5/11?

MR. BODZIAK: 5/11 to six foot five.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: Can you give us an estimation as to how quickly footprints in blood may disappear to the point where you wouldn’t see anything that you could recognize as a shoeprint, you might just see lines or squiggles or whatever?

MR. BODZIAK: There will be things that cause variables, that is the porosity of the surface, the amount of blood that’s initially stepped on, whether it’s a pool of blood or whether it’s blood that has already been coating the surfaces, is rather flat, which wouldn’t be as three dimensional. But if there’s a heavy coating of blood, it normally disappears in approximately six to 10 steps.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: Now, can you indicate for us using this chart the kinds of problems that you can confront in terms of patterns appearing different than they really would on the shoe as a result of the blood bleeding over or other kinds of problems that you might have along those lines?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. May I step down?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. If I can use the sole as well as the picture. I mentioned before the individual design elements, which are these little designs that together make up the total pattern on the shoe(Indicating), and I also mentioned the slightly raised perimeter, which confines the design elements in the sole as well as that slightly raised perimeter which confines the design elements in the heel. And that perimeter and these design elements, if you look at the shoe from the side, will both touch the surface if the surface is flat. The outer perimeter is raised. It’s actually above the level of the ground, but it’s very, very close. So if there’s a lot of liquid such as blood on this outer perimeter, depending on the amount of blood and depending on the pressure exerted in a particular shoe impression, you may get this secondary perimeter, which on the first impression here is almost complete around the heel and is also in other portions of the sole, the top left corner. You also–because there’s a lot of material on the shoe with the first step, there’s also more of a printing of the flat surface of the design element. In other words, the actual pattern of design element. But you can see darkened edges which represent that material being squeezed out. And this is known as a squeegee effect where the pressure is causing this material, whether it be blood or paint, to squeeze out to the edge of the design element. And the same would also be true where there’s excess blood in other areas such as the perimeter. This would squeeze out. In the second step, there’s now going to be less material on the sole, and most of the material on the flatter surfaces of the design element has been squeezed away. So it is very thin.

But where the edges are where that material has been squeezed out to it, your surface tension will remain. You will get more of a printing of the edge characteristics of the design element, and except in areas where–for instance, there are a couple here where you do see a filling in of the design–you’re basically getting the edge characteristics and you’re getting less of the perimeter because there’s less material on that secondary outer edge. The third step, again, you’re getting some partial outer edge, but now you’re really getting just the perimeter of the design element. And in areas now where I’m now pointing to now down in the sole area, but on the heel side, you’re starting to get just little speckles and portions, perhaps little corners or edges of that design element. And then the succeeding steps, you would get less and less until eventually you would not be able to recognize this as this pattern.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Is that why, when you’re looking at an impression at a crime scene, certain features of the design characteristics might not be apparent or might look a little bit different?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. If you were looking at this impression or perhaps the next impression that would be made, it might not look to you–if you weren’t–if you weren’t trained and experienced in looking at this, it may superficially look like a different pattern initially.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, when we were previously talking about the shoeprint comparison chart, were some of the items that you referred to on that chart represented on this Bundy chart as well?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, they were.

MR. GOLDBERG: And which items were those?

MR. BODZIAK: They were 268, which was that left heel impression and the impression which is depicted with the letter E, which was also a left impression and which is further up the walkway.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Maybe we can start then just very briefly with the Q68, if you’d like to, perhaps you can show us, showing you People’s 388 for identification, what you did in terms of comparing that footprint. And since we’ve covered it, maybe you can just indicate for us how it was–in brief how you did it.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Q68 is the same heel impression which I’ve previously demonstrated with an overlay, and this just shows the natural size rendition of that with–which is what I would have compared with what I did compare with the actual original impressions that I made of the left and right soles from size 42 from 47.

MR. GOLDBERG: And was this the area of the scene that’s–where you would enter into the gated-off or fenced-off area?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. This is the front gate which is running across the walkway, and Q68 is pretty close in the corner and it is headed in the direction of the arrow which is on the tip of Q68. So if I were to hold this up, it would be headed in this direction (Indicating).

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And actually the print was you said just a heel print; is that correct?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: Now, perhaps we can move to People’s 389 for identification which is your number Q67?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us what you did in terms of comparing that print?

MR. BODZIAK: Q67 was compared in the same manner using the original natural size enlargement and original overlays of test impressions of all of the shoe sizes. And with regard to this, I determined that although there was a tremendous amount of indistinction in here, there were some features which correlated with the size 46 left heel impression, and then the sole impression of that would be running off into a soil area, and there’s no evidence of any detail in that area on the soil. And adjacent to that is a white envelope.

MR. GOLDBERG: So what was the opinion that you rendered with respect to this item, this Q67?

MR. BODZIAK: Q67 corresponded also with the heel of the size 46 or American size 12 Bruno Magli shoe.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, directing your attention to photograph F, can you tell us what analysis you did on that and what opinions you rendered?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. F is a right foot impression. I examined all of the sole impressions, 42 through 47, with it and determined that only the right size 46, American 12 Bruno Magli shoe would have made it with that sole.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if you’re looking at that impression, Mr. Bodziak, you can see down towards the heel, there’s a portion where the blood appears to go over the overlay that you have.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: What accounts for that?

MR. BODZIAK: The–two things can account for it. One is the angle of the heel strike and the other is the amount of blood in that area may be sufficient that at the point of that heel strike, it’s squeezed out that distance from the actual strike of the heel.

MR. GOLDBERG: So is the fact that that doesn’t exactly match up mean that it’s not the shoe or in some way undermine the opinion–

MR. BODZIAK: No. This is a normal thing which I observe in impressions of this type, and what’s important is that the various edges of the elements in the reference points match the European 46 right sole and are distinctly different from all the other soles which I compared.

MR. GOLDBERG: And thinking back to the chart that we had where we were shown how shoeprints are deposited at a crime scene and how successive shoeprints look different from the first to the third–

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: –does that chart help to explain any of the phenomena that you just pointed out here in terms of why certain of the elements appear to bleed over if you will the–

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Well, there’s a lot of other things going on in this impression. There’s a lot of blood still in this area of the heel (Indicating) and something has caused the left portion of the sole and heel not to print. And what that can be caused by is just the blood would not be picked up by that part of the shoe. In other words, the shoe would step in blood and only the right portion of the shoe would be stepping in. And then as that– in this area, there’s still stifling in the heel which you get typically when you have a lot of blood, and as the heel pulls away, it’s–there’s surface tension pulling it out and it interferes some with the pattern. And then over on the edges, you do get the borders and some of the edge detail and you get the perimeter and some of the other fragments of design up in the front. You also have the grout line which, as it runs through the–dissects the right sole print, because that grout line is recessed in the concrete walkway, the shoe did not contact that surface and, therefore, did not leave a print in that area.

MR. GOLDBERG: And incidentally, when a shoe–bloody shoeprint goes over leaves, does it tend to leave a shoeprint on the leaves?

MR. BODZIAK: If a bloody impression steps on a leaf?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah.

MR. BODZIAK: If everything was perfect, if there was–if there was blood on the design element in sufficient quantity and the leaf was laying flat and the person stepped on it, it would more likely stick to the shoe. I guess it could come off and leave some impression or fragment of an impression, but it is not a particularly good medium. I cannot think of hardly any cases where I have been submitted pictures of leaves that had shoeprints on it. In theory, I guess you could get some fragments, but it’s not a good medium.

MR. GOLDBERG: Are some surfaces better than others for receiving shoeprints?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. A firm smooth surface would be the best, and any time you start to get grout lines or unevenness of the concrete tiles or real porous surfaces or other blemishes, all of those things would interfere with the impression-making process.

MR. GOLDBERG: Going back to E for a second, since the jurors had a chance to look at that up close, some of the items that you have the red arrows near seem to line up almost perfectly or perfectly and then there are other little areas that you can see where maybe the blood goes over where the pattern is. Can you explain that for us?

MR. BODZIAK: Are you referring to the front and rear of the heel?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, not so much that. But on some of the design elements in the middle, you can see that some of the design elements appear to be bigger on the impression that was left at the scene than the design element on the overlay although a slightly different shape.

MR. BODZIAK: That would be–that specific thing would be because of the squeezing out of the blood. So the design element–if the piece of paper which I’m holding in my hand, exhibit E, was the design element and had blood on it, it would squeeze blood out beyond that edge and then the blood would stay on the surface. So if you consider that on both edges, top and bottom and left and right, the overall element size would be reflected as larger than the actual shoe element that made it.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was that one of the things that you were showing us on the shoeprint chart where we had how shoeprints are deposited at crime scene and show how they fade out?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. I refer to that as a squeegee effect which is actually a printing term which we use in documents from the older printing process.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, directing your attention to 390-G for identification, can you show us what analysis you did and what opinions you arrived at on that?

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. The exhibit marked G is a left sole impression. In the rear of it, the heel is much more limited detailed than the sole portion and the heel crosses over the grout line. I compared that to the original impressions of size 42 through 47 and found that it only fit the European size 46 left sole. The item G is marked as a left impression and is heading west on the chart.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, so I don’t have to ask this question over again, on a lot of the other photographs that we’re going to discuss, are there also ones that have the squeegee effect that you’ve referred to and some of the other phenomena cause certain of the design elements or characterizations not to line up perfectly?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. That is typically what you find in blood impressions almost all of the time. The only way that you could in theory get a blood impression that printed like the test impressions I’ve showed is if you took a roller like a paint roller and very thinly coded shoe and made one impression. Then you might have such a thin coating that you wouldn’t have that squeeze out. But, of course, that doesn’t happen at crime scenes. And so whenever a shoe has to step in a large amount of blood to then leave a track, there is that excess blood which squeezes out and these types of things are normal.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now directing your attention to 390-H for identification, LAPD photograph number H, can you tell us what you did to analyze that and what opinion you arrived at?

MR. BODZIAK: S is a left heel and sole impression and it is also dissected by a grout line and it is–I compared the natural size photographs of H with all of the soles, size 42 through 47, and found that only the left size 46 sole matched this impression. H is depicted on the chart as a left impression also headed in a westerly direction.

MR. GOLDBERG: And now directing your attention to 390-I for identification, can you tell us what analysis you performed and what opinions you arrived at?

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. I is a right shoe impression, both the heel and the sole. I compared it with the size 42 through 47 soles and found that the size 46 characteristics, the European size 46, were the only ones which corresponded with this. This particular heel impression has a lot of excess squeeze out around the back of it and there is a very, very fine line that you can see from the edge of the heel, and this excess area which is void of any pattern is a squeeze-out effect due again to the amount of blood on the shoe and the angle of the heel at that point. So based on this, the size right 46 is the only sole that could have made it on the chart, I is a right shoe impression and it is heading in a westerly direction.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, directing your attention to 390-J for identification, can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinions if any you arrived at on this?

MR. BODZIAK: J is an impression, is a left sole impression. There is no heel depicted other than a slight staining here, but it’s not enough to confirm as a heel. So looking at just the sole pattern alone of this impression with the size 42 through 47 left soles, I determined that the left size 46 contains characteristics which–some of which I’ve pointed to, indicating that the 46 sole of a left shoe left that. J is marked with a left sole shape and is headed in a westerly direction.

 *****
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, looking at 190-K for identification, can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinions you arrived at on k?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. 190-K, the chart that is marked K, was an area of blood which you could clearly see the blood, but in looking for features that I have looked for in the comparisons that I have demonstrated that would be associated with this sole, there was insufficient detail in this impression to make any correlation. In other words, the impression is now becoming–this way down the side–the walkway is becoming light enough to where there is no longer enough detail in this particular one with all of the variables considered that would enable me to associate it positively with a left or right Silga sole.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: Now, directing your attention to 390-L labeled as LAPD L, can you describe for us what analysis you did on that and what conclusions you reached?

MR. BODZIAK: L is a–both a heel and sole impression. I made a comparison with the size 42 through 47 soles and determined that only the right size 46 heel and sole could have made that. When I orientated with the direction of this impression–and this L is a right sole marked so. The direction of this was in a–let’s see–was in a southerly direction actually coming out of an area of soil that parallels that sidewalk.

MR. GOLDBERG: Is that like a soil planter over there or place for shrubs?

MR. BODZIAK: There’s two or three feet of area as depicted on this diagram that contains some plants and soil.

MR. GOLDBERG: And in that particular area right around where we have L, is there any object in the planter area in terms of shrubbery that you took note of when you were out at the scene?

MR. BODZIAK: The only thing I noted at the scene, and you couldn’t help but note it, at the time I was there, which was several months after this took place, there was a tree which was hanging well over the sidewalk at that point, and I made it a point to check the photographs which were taken after the crime–

MR. GOLDBERG: On the 13th?

MR. BODZIAK: –on the 13th of June. And at that time, that tree was standing normally and straight up, and, therefore, this was something that occurred afterwards and was insignificant.

MR. GOLDBERG: And based upon your observations when you were out at the crime scene, if someone were to stand in that area facing in a southerly direction as indicated, would the shoeprints–are they visible from the street?

MR. BODZIAK: Where they’re standing here, they are because they would be in line of somebody standing out on the street. But back in the soil area, if they were just to step back into this area, even though there’s no real cover there in terms of bushes, because of this high wall and the other obstructions, a person standing back here would not be able to see them (Indicating). They would be out of the line of sight.

MR. GOLDBERG: In other words, if they were standing a little bit back of–in the–of M where the soil areas is?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And if you’re facing–if you’re standing in that location and you’re facing a southerly direction, where is this tree that you referred to? Is it–would it be to your left or to your right?

MR. BODZIAK: No. It’s pretty much in the center around M and L. somewhere right in there. But it’s a very thin tree. I mean, it’s not going to obstruct a person from standing in there.

*****
 MR. BODZIAK: Yes. M is a sole print. I compared it with the size 42 through 47 soles. I am of the opinion that the size 46, European size 46 sole, which would be the American 12, was the only sole that could have made that and those features matched. I orientated this at the Bundy location and found that M was also orientated in a southerly direction. So this is a left foot impression in the same approximate area as the right L foot impression headed in a southerly direction as if it were coming out of this area of soil.

MR. GOLDBERG: And direct your attention to 390-N for identification. Can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinion you rendered on that?

MR. BODZIAK: N is a heel impression. And at the top of the photograph, there is a part of the sole in that picture as well, and that is a heel impression which I compared with 42 through 47 soles and heels and found that the left size 46 or American size 12 made that impression. In orientating it at the scene, N is orientated as a left impression heading west along the Bundy sidewalk.

MR. GOLDBERG: And then 390-O for identification, can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinions you arrived at?

MR. BODZIAK: O is a portion of the heel and the sole impression. I compared it with the size 42 through 47 soles and found that it corresponded only with the European right 46 Silga sole. I oriented it at the Bundy scene and found it was heading in a southwesterly direction at an angle a little bit further west of L and M, but also as if it were exiting that soil area along the walkway.

MR. GOLDBERG: And then P would be another indistinct I take it from the–

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, it would.

MR. GOLDBERG: Let’s just take a quick look at that. Can you just tell us with respect to 390-P, why you concluded that that was indistinct?

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. 390-P does reflect blood, and it was in all probability made by an item of footwear as common sense would dictate, but it does not contain any of the detail necessary to compare with the Silga sole, but at the same time, it does not contain any differences that would indicate it was a different design than the Silga sole, simply getting to the point where there is insufficient blood on the shoe to make an impression that’s discernible.

MR. GOLDBERG: Or is there anything to indicate whether it would be a size European 46, American 12–

MR. BODZIAK: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: –as opposed to something else?

MR. BODZIAK: No. I couldn’t make any determination from that.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, let’s go to footprint S for identification. That starts with another series of exhibit numbers. That’s 391. Did you do an analysis on 391?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: What opinions did you conclude on that?

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. S is a heel print–let me hold it this way–is a heel print that I compared to the 42 through 47 soles and found that it corresponded with the left European size 46 heel and did not correspond with any others and, therefore, was made by a shoe from the Silga left size 46 mold. I oriented that on the walkway and found that that heel was heading in a southwesterly direction.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, directing your attention to People’s 392-X–excuse me–392, which is LAPD X for identification, can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinions you came up with on those?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. S–I’m sorry. X is the heel and part of a sole impression, and in comparing it to size 42 through 47, I determined that only the left size 46 Silga sole could have made this impression. I oriented it on the walkway and found that X was heading in a due westerly direction.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Showing you 390-Y, LAPD photograph Y, can you tell us what analysis you did on that and what conclusions that you reached?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Y is a full heel and some of the sole impression of a right shoe and I compared it with the size 42 through 47 soles, both left and right, and found that was made in a right size 46 European Silga sole. I orientated the Y at the Bundy scene as a right impression heading in a westerly direction.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. Now, I would like to change to the other half of the Bundy board. It is exhibit 387-B for identification. And Mr. Bodziak, does that have some more footprints on which you were able to make a comparison?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, directing your attention to the exhibit that has been marked as People’s 394 for identification and it says, “Q116” on it. Can you tell us what analysis you did and what opinions you rendered?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Q116 was an impression in the rear driveway area and it consisted only of the right border area of a shoe. In this case there are two parallel lines that curve for three or four inches, as well as an area up at the toe that would be associated normally through my comparisons as a toe-off, in other words, why the shoe would tilt forward and perhaps some blood up around the toe of the shoe might then be left. And in making a comparison I determined that the right size 46 test impression, particularly the inner and outer border along that area, were the same relative size and same contour, and when put in that position, this little toe-off area corresponded with the toe, so there is a strong indication that this is a right size 46 Silga sole as well.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So is this one in which you did not come to a definitive opinion?

MR. BODZIAK: I came to a definitive opinion that it was a right sole and that the characteristics which are evident there, namely, the two parallel lines, the inner and outer border along the right edge and the toe point up here, (Indicating), correspond, but there was not any of the remnants of the pattern as there were in the other impressions.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was there anything on this one that was inconsistent with the Silga sole?

MR. BODZIAK: No, there was not, and the orientation of that was in a westerly direction.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Mr. Bodziak, maybe you can look back at the display behind you of People’s exhibit 56-G and tell us if there are any footwear impressions in that exhibit that you can correlate back to our chart on the Bundy drive?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. In the lower right-hand corner of the display there is a heel impression and that heel impression is the same heel impression which was at the corner of the front gate which I had called Q68 on the chart, on the Bundy board.

MR. GOLDBERG: And on the Bundy board you had that oriented in a south–southerly direction but so it points to the west?

MR. BODZIAK: That’s correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, directing your attention to the next exhibit which is People’s–this is also a graphic photograph, your Honor–60 for identification. Are there any shoe wear impressions in that photograph that you can see and correlate back to our exhibit?

MR. BODZIAK: There are, but they are very hard to see in this photograph. The same impression that I just mentioned, is that the center of the screen about–just above the midline, and it is actually, if you were to extend the finger of the person pointing outward, it would point pretty close to it.

MR. GOLDBERG: And that would be q–

MR. BODZIAK: That would be Q68.

MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us the general area? If you can’t see Q67, just tell us the area.

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. Q67 is located over near the envelope, again pretty much in the center of the screen. But a little bit to the left of the corner of the envelope, which is closest to the bottom of the screen, you can see some pattern and that is the area of the Q67 impression and it is oriented in such a manner that the front portion of the shoe would be over into the soil area.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Bodziak, on 45-B, can you point out any other footwear impressions and correlate them to the Bundy drive chart?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. On the second step in front of the area where you can see the toe of a white shoe, there is the impression which was called impression A, which was a sole of a left shoe, which was headed in the westerly direction. That would be on the second step.

MR. GOLDBERG: And now taking a look at 45-C for identification.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. In 45-C again first looking at the second step where the toe of the white shoe is, again you can see impression A, and then going up one more step, more toward the top of the picture where the leaf is, you can see what I have marked impression B, which is more to the other side of the step. And then coming toward this side, down toward the bottom of the screen, very, very lightly, you can see one of the–it is a right impression heading back down the step, very light, which is one of the last ones that I demonstrated. That is the photograph which I called Q122, which both contained both the left and right very light impressions and it was taken at an angle, not with the ruler.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, looking at People’s 45-F for identification, can you tell us, generally speaking, what shoeprints or shoe impressions are indicated in this photograph with respect to the chart?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, we skipped a few feet since those steps, but it is basically down this walkway that impressions E, F, G, H, I, so forth as you look away off into the distance heading in a westerly direction.

MR. GOLDBERG: And there was a part of your testimony this morning where you were testifying about L and M and where they were in relationship to some shrubbery that you saw in photographs that were taken on June the 13th. Can you tell us where that shrubbery is?

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. The shrubbery is the shrubbed area to the right of the picture, beyond the railing, and in about the center area of that shrub area is a tall, thin tree and that is the tree I was referring to that at the time I went was leaning across the sidewalk, but as you can see in pictures that I checked, it was in a normal position, and that area is a couple feet deep, and it is that area where that taller tree is kind of in the center of the shrubbed area on the right that the impressions L and M come out of.

MR. GOLDBERG: And were those impressions oriented so as to be west or toward the alley of the shrub or east toward Bundy drive?

MR. BODZIAK: The L and M were oriented, as you look at this picture, to your left which would be a southerly direction.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, I would like to go back to the first part of the Bundy chart, which is People’s 387-A for identification and direct your attention to a few of these indistinct shoeprints. Let’s start with the one that was labeled K which you previously discussed. If you need to step down to–

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. (Witness complies.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Bodziak, keeping in mind what you previously told us about how shoeprints are deposited at a crime scene, when you were talking about how they become fainter and fainter–

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: –is there anything to indicate whether shoeprint K indistinct was from a design other than the Silga sole?

MR. BODZIAK: There is nothing to positively indicate that because you can’t see the design that is in that, it is too indistinct, but there could be inferences that it was not another design simply because in order to have a light impression from footwear in blood, out in this area, there would have to be some impressions preceding it that were sharper, because they had more blood on them, and so it would not be possible for a person to step in blood, leave no distinct impressions and then out in the middle here, (Indicating), which is somewhat away from anything, just leave one indistinct impression, unless it was the same shoe that was going down the sidewalk, the Silga sole, and leaving that faint–just a faint mark that you couldn’t really examine.

MR. GOLDBERG: Would your answer be similar with respect to the other indistinct shoeprints, for example, the ones that generally occur between O and A on this diagram?

MR. BODZIAK: Generally, yes. With regard to AH through AO, those are impressions where, if I might get the sole again, as you go down the step, the foot is just rolling over the corner of the step and it is squeezing out a little remnant of blood, and there is no real impression so to say those are just blood that are on the edges of the step, and so these I wouldn’t really be able to comment upon, because they are not a typical impression. But nevertheless, since all of these preceding it are indistinct until you get back to the Silga soles, the deduction from that would be a strong inference that this was the Silga sole and the reason why these become indistinct was simply the blood had worn off insufficiently to where you could no longer see this kind of detail.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And with respect to these two exhibits, were you able to include or exclude the officer’s shoeprints as having created any of the prints that you saw at the Bundy location?

MR. BODZIAK: I was able to exclude those officer’s footprints as having made any of the distinguishable, you know, the Silga design that I pointed out previously this morning. That Silga design is totally different than any of the designs of these officer’s shoes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And just for the record, the package of six photographs that I sent–just showed you, included Phillips, Fuhrman and Roberts?

MR. BODZIAK: That’s correct.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: And starting with the Bronco carpet, did you have occasion to see the Bronco carpet, LAPD item no. 33 for identification?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And where was it that you saw that?

MR. BODZIAK: I saw that at the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory.

MR. GOLDBERG: On what date?

MR. BODZIAK: I believe it was September 1st, 1994.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was anyone present when you saw it?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Present initially were Greg Matheson of the Los Angeles Police Department. There was two representatives from my laboratory to assist in the photography. Do you want the names of everyone?

MR. GOLDBERG: No, that is okay.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. There were two representatives of the Defense that were present and there were two other observers from the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory who stood in the background just to observe the procedure.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you see Mr. Matheson take any cuttings or samples from that item in your presence?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

*****
MR. GOLDBERG: [Are the shoe prints on the Bronco carpet consistent with the Bruno Magli Silga soles?]

MR. BODZIAK: No. I think that these–these in here, (Indicating), probably show it as well as any, and actually there is–there isn’t enough clarity throughout this whole thing to really point to it and say positively that is what it represents, but rather you are seeing a change of direction and that is what you would expect if there was some blood here and the carpet tuffed up. But there is also the phenomena of when you get into a Bronco that is up rather high and you step up into it with your shoe, there is going to be some movement in getting into a vehicle, and because of the thick nature of this carpeting, I wouldn’t expect to see, necessarily, a clear rendition of–at that point of the shoe.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

MR. BODZIAK: So I couldn’t eliminate and I couldn’t positively associate it with the Silga sole.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: Did you make any effort to assist law enforcement in trying to locate someone that might have sold the shoe to the Defendant, a Bruno Magli shoe?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: What did you do in terms of that?

MR. BODZIAK: Initially I obtained the distribution records from Mr. Peter Grueterich, who is the owner of the Bruno Magli store in New Jersey that distributed the shoes in this case, and that listed all of the shoes in size 12 and 13 which were sent out or distributed in 1991 and 1992. The reason included size 13 was this request was made before I ever had any samples of the soles from Silga, and I was just, as I had mentioned earlier, making that general specific determination of shoe size, just with the measurement, whereas later on I would have only needed to ask him about the size 12. But I went and requested those and I also requested a list of 40 locations in the United States and Puerto Rico which sold these shoes, and I provided that information, along with photographs of the Bruno Magli shoes which he had sent me, and provided them to the Los Angeles Police Department and to the FBI office in Los Angeles for the purposes of looking for sales records at those stores of those shoes.

MR. GOLDBERG: To your knowledge was a salesperson located who could recall having sold a Bruno Magli shoe of either the Lorenzo or Lyon type to the Defendant?

MR. BODZIAK: No. To the best of my knowledge that was never done, because every store had a problem searching their records back that far.

MR. GOLDBERG: And to your knowledge was any determination made whether or not these shoes were given to the Defendant as a gift?

MR. BODZIAK: That is a possibility.

MR. GOLDBERG: In the cases that you have analyzed you said many of the shoes are not recovered; is that correct?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Specifically limiting yourself to the cases that you have analyzed where the shoe impressions are in blood, is it uncommon not to recover shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: Shoes are an article of clothing which are very personal to most people, and they–after we wear our shoes for a while they become comfortable and we do not like to give them up, and in most of the cases I receive which do not have a lot of blood in that case, either because it is a burglary or a shooting and the person wasn’t near the victim, we find the shoes, because the person sees no reason to get rid of them and they are really not conscious of the shoes. In homicides where a lot of blood is shed and the subject steps in the blood and leaves bloody shoeprints, it is very common to not only not retrieve the shoes, but the bloody clothing as well, because it is obvious to the person who committed the crime that the clothing and the shoes are well covered with blood and that that would be incriminating and they usually discard them. In some of those cases we will recover that material from a dumpster or something, if someone sees them place it there, and then of course we would make comparisons to associate it with any suspect, but in a lot of the cases we never recover the clothing.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: With respect to item no. 86, which you first saw on September the 1st at the Los Angeles Police Department, did you have the opportunity to look at that in more detail at your laboratory?

MR. BODZIAK: I’m sorry, which item?

MR. GOLDBERG: 86, the dress?

*****
 MR. BODZIAK: Okay. I found three areas of a heel print on the front of the dress and those areas were the top left corner of a heel, the curved border, and the flat edge on the right of the heel, and I prepared an overlay over this to show those three features, because those features are also found on the left Silga sole that I have previously been describing this morning. Namely, because the cut-off nature of the medial side of the heel, the pointed nature of the left side, and the curve in between, those same features appear on the dress. The impression was too limited to make any further comparison, so I cannot say that it was made by a Silga sole, but I can say that there was an impression which did share those three features. Even though that is limited, they are there.

MR. GOLDBERG: And is this a shoe impression?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. That is a heel impression.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Bodziak, based upon your analysis of all of the items that we’ve discussed today, was there any indication that more than one pair of shoes was involved in this crime?

MR. BODZIAK: No, there was not.

MR. GOLDBERG: And based upon your comparison of the Bruno Magli shoe with the Defendant’s Reeboks, can you include him as a candidate who could have worn the shoes that created the impressions in this case?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I could include him as a candidate for possibly having worn those shoes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you. I have nothing further.

*****
 

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAILEY

*****
 MR. BAILEY: All right. Have you worked directly with your counterpart at the LAPD in cases including this one?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, I have in the past.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And what about in this case?

MR. BODZIAK: Worked in what capacity?

MR. BAILEY: Well, in an advisory capacity. How early in the game were you consulted in this matter? Can you tell me?

MR. BODZIAK: I was first–I first received the evidence I believe August 8th of 1994. I was advised that I would be receiving it a few days prior to that.

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh. So you had no input at all in the handling of the crime scene, et cetera?

MR. BODZIAK: That’s correct.

*****
 MR. BAILEY: Okay. Had you been called upon to do so, do you have the equipment and experience to have looked in the home of the victim, Nicole Brown Simpson, for any evidence of footprints going in and out or on the carpet and other places?

MR. BODZIAK: Bloody foot–

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant and beyond the scope of direct.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: Bloody footprints or any footprints?

MR. BAILEY: Any footprints.

MR. BODZIAK: Would I have the ability to look in the home? Of course.

*****
 MR. BAILEY: Were you at any time furnished any footwear impressions of the interior of the Nicole Brown Simpson home to examine or compare?

MR. BODZIAK: No.

*****
 MR. BAILEY: To your knowledge, were impressions or photographs ever attempted in the area of the soil where Mr. Goldman’s body was found?

MR. BODZIAK: I asked if there were any other impressions in this case than what I examined including casts or impressions photographed in soil. That’s a routine question which I ask in any case because for some reason, we very often don’t get all of the photographs or a person may make a cast and not think it turned out well and not send it in when in fact it may be of some value. So as a matter of routine, I asked if there were any others, and I was told there was not.

MR. BAILEY: All right. So so far as you know, you have everything?

MR. BODZIAK: That’s correct.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, you said at the close of your testimony that Mr. Simpson was a candidate for having worn the shoes whose impressions you found in the photograph.

MR. BODZIAK: That’s correct.

MR. BAILEY: Well, what do you know besides the fact that you have some size 12 Reeboks that are apparently his that would make him a candidate?

MR. BODZIAK: That would be what I was basing my statement on. I couldn’t eliminate him. He certainly, with the size foot that would wear these shoes, could wear the Bruno Magli size 12, European size 46 shoes.

MR. BAILEY: That size foot or any smaller foot within limits, correct?

MR. BODZIAK: That’s correct.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. You’re assuming that the perpetrator, whoever that may have been, wearing Bruno Magli shoes, size 46, was wearing his own shoes, aren’t you?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, you can always get into the hypotheticals of could you have borrowed someone’s shoes to commit a crime.

MR. BAILEY: Or steal?

MR. BODZIAK: Or steal them or whatever, sure. There’s always those possibilities.

*****
 MR. BAILEY: Can you not say as you examined the Reeboks these shoes didn’t make any of those prints?

MR. BODZIAK: I don’t feel they did because they would of–there would have had to have been darker impressions. If you were being totally hypothetical about it and said could one of those impressions that were very, very faint somewhere down–further down the walkway in blood have left the impression, in theory, including unrealistic things like could somebody have carried that person wearing these shoes and then put them down or could they have walked along the soil and behind it and jumped over the wall and then stepped on the sidewalk, if you include those kind of things, then I couldn’t eliminate them. But if that person were to walk through the blood down the Bundy walkway, there would be darker impressions before those light impressions.

MR. BAILEY: Do you know where these came from, Mr. Bodziak?

MR. BODZIAK: Do I know where they came from?

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh.

MR. BODZIAK: They were represented to me as shoes that Mr. Simpson said that he wore the–either the day before the crime or the day of the crime.

*****
 MR. BAILEY: Okay. What happens when officers who perhaps may be unaware of the phenomena of latent prints trample up the sidewalk before the technicians get there?

MR. BODZIAK: Latent prints of what type, sir?

MR. BAILEY: Footprints.

MR. BODZIAK: I know. But in dust, in blood, in–

MR. BAILEY: In the general circumstances in this case.

MR. BODZIAK: In this case, the only ones I’m familiar with are blood. With regard to blood, at the time they arrived, they could have marched a hundred people over them. It wouldn’t make any difference.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Would not have disturbed it or otherwise changed the pattern because it had dried, right?

MR. BODZIAK: That’s correct.

MR. BAILEY: Blood dries rather rapidly; does it not?

MR. BODZIAK: Very rapidly.

MR. BAILEY: If, assume for a minute, someone were to walk down a narrow path partially covered with leaves and partially concrete, might it be that whoever was doing the walking would leave footwear impressions of some kind?

MR. BODZIAK: On the leaves or the concrete?

MR. BAILEY: I’m not talking about bloody feet now. I’m just talking about street shoes.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. With–well, I don’t know how many leaves and how much concrete you’re talking about. But with regard to leaves, leaves–I’ve never had a case where I had a footwear impression on leaves. I’ve never in walking around–and believe–I’ve created a lot of cases for training. In walking around trying to make impressions, I’ve never had a case where I could make an impression on a leaf. As I explained earlier today, in theory, if you had a bloody shoe and you stepped on a leaf, aside from the fact it would have probably stuck to the shoe and may got–eventually got scraped off, it’s conceivable you could find a leaf or two with some partial impressions on it. It’s conceivable, but I’ve never seen one in over 20 years.

*****
 MR. BAILEY: Okay. Fine. When you began to lay out all of the positive footprints that you’ve testified here today as to left and right–

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: –and see what appears to be movement of someone both down at the gate, on the steps and then in a fairly straight line out to the west as if making good one’s escape, did you notice something very odd about the pattern?

MR. BODZIAK: About the ones that I have labeled left or right?

MR. BAILEY: Yes.

MR. BODZIAK: There’s two many of them.

MR. BAILEY: What do you mean by “Too many”?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, the person in those Bruno Magli shoes didn’t just walk down the walkway once. They went back somehow and walked down again.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, why are your impressions generally going to the west?

MR. BODZIAK: Because that’s where the blood is and they’re tracking the blood from east to west.

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh. And what about the stop and turn? I want to point specifically to I believe it’s L and m.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: These two here both facing directly into the house (Indicating).

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: You notice by the way that the left and right are on the wrong side?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: And do you have any explanation as to how those were made?

MR. BODZIAK: I wouldn’t purport to be able to reconstruct exactly what happened, but it appears likely that the person may have been standing over in that bush area where the tree was to get out of the line of sight perhaps and then came out of that area initially in the direction of the doorway and then proceeded back west again.

MR. BAILEY: All right. If the set of prints that leads up to L and M were made by the same shoes as L and M, we have a person who’s turned 90 degrees and standing like this; do we not (Indicating)?

MR. BODZIAK: Not if they’re two different sets of tracks.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. So are you assuming that we have a right but no left and a left but no right standing next to one–each other and both facing south?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I’m not assuming if that’s what’s there and I can’t explain why that is happening.

*****
 MR. BAILEY: All right. You have identified a Bruno Magli or Magli 46/size 12 shoe as the only prints, left and right, that you are able to single out, correct?

MR. BODZIAK: That’s correct.

MR. BAILEY: And no other shoe of any manufacturer have you been able to pin to any of these impressions, true?

MR. BODZIAK: That’s correct.

MR. BAILEY: So if there was more than one person running, it would appear that they were both wearing Bruno Magli 46; is that right?

MR. BODZIAK: Or one person went back–after they have worn the blood off their shoe, they went back to the front gate area, reobtained blood on their shoe through whatever activity or walking through the blood they were doing, and then exited that area again. So it could be the same person. In fact, it’s very likely that it’s the same person.

MR. BAILEY: In other words, having made good one’s escape to the alley, you’re assuming that somebody, a perpetrator then returned, stepped in more blood and made more prints?

MR. BODZIAK: If they encountered the second victim in this case or they forgot something or had some other reason to go back, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Can you show me any two prints that overlap?

MR. BODZIAK: No.

MR. BAILEY: In the event that someone had done as you suggest and left the alley and then come back for some reason and stepped in blood, would you not be likely to find at least two prints that overlap one other?

MR. BODZIAK: Not in an area that big, not necessarily.

MR. BAILEY: Well, it looks like a walking pattern on that diagram; does it not?

MR. BODZIAK: No. It looks like–it looks like two persons–two separate walkings of one person.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Is the southward facing set of prints, even though they appear to be reversed, that is to say L and m–and L is the right foot and M is the left foot, right?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Is that consistent with someone who is leaving and turns to look back for some reason?

MR. BODZIAK: No. I mean it could be, but I would think–

MR. BAILEY: Would you step up to the board–

MR. BODZIAK: Sure.

MR. BAILEY: –and tell me why that is not consistent with the prints we see? What mitigates against it?

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. You’re referring to L and m.

MR. BAILEY: Yeah.

MR. BODZIAK: And you’re saying could that person–I’m not sure your enactment of that–

MR. BAILEY: Assume that I’m running or walking west out of the alley.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. This direction (Indicating).

MR. BAILEY: And then turn in some fashion.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: 90 degrees in order to look back 180 degrees.

MR. BODZIAK: Right.

MR. BAILEY: Might that have caused those impressions?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, it would be on the opposite side.

*****
 MR. BAILEY: When you photographed or looked at the photographs of L and m–you didn’t take any of these, did you?

MR. BODZIAK: No.

MR. BAILEY: When you examined those photographs, did you see any evidence of any soil in them?

MR. BODZIAK: In the photograph–of the impressions? No.

MR. BAILEY: All right. So when you speculate that the author of L and M may have stepped backward into the soil, that is just that, isn’t it, speculation?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, it’s speculation as much as I can’t say that’s absolutely what happened. But I would not necessarily expect there to be soil from stepping back in that area. If the soil was very hard or if it was covered with low-growing vegetation, there may be nothing on the shoe and they would still be depositing blood impressions.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, you have said–and again, you’re assuming that someone wants to get out of the line of sight. Line of sight of what?

MR. BODZIAK: Whatever they’re trying to avoid. A person coming to the gate, a noise out on the front, a noise in the back, anything.

MR. BAILEY: Did you attempt to do that yourself and see if you removed yourself at all from the line of sight of either end?

MR. BODZIAK: Just by standing on the edge of the sidewalk, you’re out of the line of sight of the front. Yes, I did observe that, because when I was reconstructing the position of these, I was surprised to see them in this configuration and I was looking for an explanation of why these would be in this direction. And the one that I have given you is one of the better ones that I thought of.

*****
 MR. BAILEY: But your theory is that somebody was trying to hide from someone; is that right?

MR. BODZIAK: That’s–as I represented that as a hypothetical, that might be one plausible explanation of why L and M were heading out of that soil area.

*****
 MR. BAILEY: If your theory is correct and somebody, having committed one murder and created a lot of blood, got partway up the walkway and decided to turn around and head back, do you see the turning point anywhere in your reconstruction?

MR. BODZIAK: If–no, I do not see a point where footprints turn around, but I would not expect that that would eliminate the possibility that they did turn around.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Well, without any evidence of turn-around, supposing you had two people with the same brand and size of shoe.

MR. BODZIAK: In my opinion, that would not occur in this case.

MR. BAILEY: Why not?

MR. BODZIAK: Because in all of the cases I’ve worked, I can count on one hand the number of cases where a common shoe like this Reebok that’s sold in many, many stores, both in size and design were shared by two persons simultaneously at the crime scene. It has occurred, but only on a couple of occasions and only with common shoes. You might, for instance, with regard to certain gangs that wear the same pattern of shoes find that type of a scenario. With regard to different suspects wearing different size shoes of the same brand, I’ve only had a couple cases like this. So in most instances, if they did have the same brand shoes, they would be different sizes, and only that has occurred to my knowledge a couple times over 20 years. Those are with common shoes. These shoes were very uncommon, and most of the shoe stores around the country only carried at one time one size 12. To conjecture with what I know about this, that two people independently bought size 12 Bruno Magli shoes at different points or over different months apart from the same store or at different stores–and they were only sold by 40 stores–and just happened to commit this crime together is impossible for me to believe.

*****
 MR. BAILEY: Would it be possible for two people to arrange–knowing that footwear, particularly if you’re in the business of crime, can be almost as dangerous as a fingerprint, would it be possible for two people to arrange to arrive at a crime scene in the same footwear, make and model?

MR. BODZIAK: Of this type, Bruno Magli size 12?

MR. BAILEY: Yeah.

MR. BODZIAK: Sole to soles?

MR. BAILEY: Yes.

MR. BODZIAK: As I stated in my opinion, no.

MR. BAILEY: Do you mean to say it would be impossible to buy two pair of those shoes in the United States?

MR. BODZIAK: You’re suggesting that they intentionally did it, right?

MR. BAILEY: Absolutely.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. And the reason I’m saying no is because most people, even fairly knowledgeable people about evidence, would not have the degree of knowledge necessary to know where to find some kind of a rare shoe. I mean they would go for a common shoe like– if, presuming that that could be done with a common shoe, they would do that with a common shoe. They would not be searching for a $160 to $180 Bruno Magli shoes where they had to go halfway–you know, to different states at the same time to buy them in the same size. Just–in my opinion, it wouldn’t happen. It’s–it’s uncanny. I don’t believe it happened and I don’t believe it happens intentionally or otherwise.

MR. BAILEY: But it’s possible?

MR. BODZIAK: In my opinion–

MR. GOLDBERG: That’s argumentative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: In my opinion, it’s not even possible because it’s so ridiculous.

*****
 MR. BAILEY: Well, of course, the criminals that you know about who left footwear impressions weren’t so smart because they get caught, right?

MR. BODZIAK: And often they get caught a second time with foot impressions.

 *****
 MR. BAILEY: In any event, have you ever heard of bank robbers that wears covers or masks, funny mask or something?

MR. BODZIAK: All the time, yes.

MR. BAILEY: And that’s so that no one can testify, “I saw that face,” right?

MR. BODZIAK: Or that the bank camera will not pick up their face.

MR. BAILEY: Have you heard of others who deliberately make themselves up with some degree of expertise to look like someone they are not?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, that’s rare, but I’ve heard of it, yes.

MR. BAILEY: A higher level of profession; wouldn’t you say?

MR. BODZIAK: Or a different approach, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Well, that would cause a victim/witness to look right at the perpetrator and say, “That’s not the man”?

MR. GOLDBERG: That is not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: I guess you could make that argument, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Well, that would be the purpose of it; wouldn’t you think?

MR. BODZIAK: It certainly would be.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, haven’t you investigated crimes, Mr. Bodziak, where it was apparent that the perpetrators were trying to mislead detectives?

MR. BODZIAK: I’ve–I’ve had a couple cases where they have tried to plant evidence or create evidence to divert the attention from themselves, but that became known in the normal processing of the crime scene. There were things that didn’t make sense and it was ultimately other evidence caused them to admit that they did these things, and they confessed, but they weren’t very sophisticated.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And then there are any number of unsolved crimes where we don’t know whether that happened or not, right?

MR. BODZIAK: That’s possible, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Without a solution, you don’t know whether the planted evidence has misled the officers?

MR. BODZIAK: That’s right. Sure.

MR. BAILEY: Well, to bring to our conclusion our investigation of the possibilities that could have led to this evidence that you have compiled for us, my understanding is, your best explanation of the excess number of footprints that appears to be there is that one perpetrator wearing one pair of Bruno Magli shoes left the scene, went back, got some more blood and left the scene a second time.

*****
 MR. BAILEY: Well, when I say “The scene,” Mr. Bodziak, I mean the immediate vicinity of the killing where the bodies were found. I do not mean the general surround.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. The–there–there would have to be one person with the Bruno Magli size shoes that did exactly what you described, left a set of impressions. The blood would have been worn off their shoes, so you wouldn’t see a turnaround or a–footprints coming back, and then they would have new blood on the shoes for possible reasons, either a second victim or just walking back through the blood of the two victims and then leaving the scene again.

MR. BAILEY: All right. You are making the assumption in that scenario that before the perpetrator turns and goes back to where the bodies are found, that all the blood is gone from the soles at least so much as is capable of leaving an impression?

MR. BODZIAK: The physical evidence at the scene which doesn’t lie is making that assumption, sir.

MR. BAILEY: Show me a single print going the other way.

MR. BODZIAK: That’s my point. There is none, and yet there are two sets of tracks of the same size and design shoe. And in my opinion, because of the scarcity and the–in some cases, stores carry one pair of size 12’s and didn’t get another till a year later. The scarcity of that design rules out any possibility that there were two people simultaneously with the same pairs of shoes on, Bruno Magli size 12. So that person would have had to have turned around, and obviously the blood is no longer on their feet, they didn’t track backwards and they rebloodied the shoes and left again.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And is that the best you are able to make out of the evidence that’s before us despite the fact that there is not one single overlapping step?

MR. BODZIAK: I wouldn’t–that’s a big area. I wouldn’t expect an over– when you say “Overlapping,” you’re talking about one step touching another.

MR. BAILEY: One part of an impression overlapping–

MR. BODZIAK: Overlapping another.

MR. BAILEY: –preexisting impression from trip no. 1 in your scenario.

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. That–that is a large area. That wouldn’t be unusual at all, for those two–two sets of tracks of one person not overlapping.

MR. BAILEY: All right. What is inconsistent about that set of tracks with someone taking very small steps, about a foot at a time?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, if you look at those impressions and you try to–to reenact that as one set of impressions, stepping left and then right and covering every one of those, you would–I don’t know how to describe it, but you would look like unlike anybody that normally walks or runs. You would be dancing around. So–

*****
 

MR. BAILEY: But to the best of your knowledge, from 1992 to the date of the crime, June 12th, 1994, [no Bruno Magli shoes] were made or distributed, right?

MR. BODZIAK: They–not in this country.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, there was a European version called Lord was it?

MR. BODZIAK: Lord, l-o-r-d, yes.

MR. BAILEY: And that’s what you learned by confirming with your colleagues in Tokyo, correct?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I confirmed that at Desoga factory and in fact, they provided me with their distribution of the soles to other companies in Europe who then sold the shoe in Europe, primarily Italy. And I contacted them to determine if any Lord shoes were sold in the United States. And as thorough as I could be–since a couple of factories did go out of business and there was no one to contact, as thorough as I could be, no one had any records of selling any Lord shoes in the United States.

MR. BAILEY: All right. So you are pretty well satisfied that wherever those shoes may now be, they are Bruno Maglis?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, the likelihood is there. I certainly can’t rule out the possibility that someone went to Europe and Italy and bought a pair of ones with Lord on it and came back to the United States, but there wouldn’t be a great number of those.

MR. BAILEY: If they were purchased in the United States by whomever, they would be Bruno Maglis, correct?

MR. BODZIAK: That’s correct.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, by the way, you told us this morning when you showed us a certain table where you can give a range of heights for shoe sizes, that that’s kind of an approximate situation.

MR. BODZIAK: Oh, certainly. The purpose of that–of the chart that I prepared was simply to show that the taller you get, there’s a–the bigger your foot is, therefore, the bigger the shoe is. It’s simply a correlation.

MR. BAILEY: Generally speaking?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: There are prominent exceptions all the time; are there not?

MR. BODZIAK: Absolutely.

MR. BAILEY: Mr. Douglas, could you stand up, please?

(Mr. Douglas complies.)

MR. BAILEY: Can you estimate his height and weight and tell me what size you think his shoe ought to be?

MR. BODZIAK: I can’t estimate his weight from up here, no.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Well, would you assume that he’s about 5/10, 170 pounds?

MR. BODZIAK: How tall are you?

MR. BAILEY: 5/9.

MR. BODZIAK: Well, he looks like he’s probably about at least 5/10, maybe 5/11.

MR. BAILEY: Well, that’s just his hair.

MR. BODZIAK: You’ve got–you’ve got raised heels on. So I don’t know if you–

MR. BAILEY: I hadn’t asked you. Take a look at Mr. Douglas’ feet, tell me what size they are.

MR. BODZIAK: They’re pretty long and narrow. They’re probably–well, can I walk up and look at them closely?

MR. BAILEY: Sure. You can meet halfway.

MR. BODZIAK: They’re pretty long. They’re probably 12 or 13’s.

MR. BAILEY: That’s a little off the chart, isn’t it?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I said that that was based on 399 males and it was just to show correlation, and I readily admit that there’s exceptions, sure.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And you were working with a single size when you give that range; are you not? In other words, you said a 12 on this chart, so many inches and so many inches.

MR. BODZIAK: The purpose of the chart was just to show that a person–the general range of height of a person with a size 12.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. As I understand it, you never did get a response to your request, a factual response with details to inventory Mr. Simpson’s shoe arena?

*****
 MR. BODZIAK: I never received any additional shoes, no.

MR. BAILEY: Would it surprise you that in his shoe closet, there are sizes as small as ten and a half and as large as 13, all of which he wears?

MR. BODZIAK: Not at all. In fact, in my book, I cite that very example, where my shoes range from eight to 10 and I normally wear a nine.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. So the fact that these Bruno Maglis happened to be a 12 might fit different people of different sizes because manufacturers are not precise in their sizing. Isn’t that a fair statement?

MR. BODZIAK: They–what I was saying is that we could not eliminate Mr. Simpson. He is a candidate based on these shoes (Indicating) as the wearer of a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe and we’re saying nothing more.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MR. GOLDBERG: For the record–

MR. BAILEY: Excuse me.

MR. GOLDBERG: –when he said “These shoes,” he gestured towards the Reeboks.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: None of your impressions gave any indication as to weight?

MR. BODZIAK: There’s no valid way to do that, sir.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. So that all that you say when you say someone’s a candidate is, they could have worn those shoes that night?

MR. BODZIAK: That’s correct.

MR. BAILEY: Even if they were much too big?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I’m saying that I believe they are the same as I–when I held them up together, the same size–

MR. BAILEY: Size 12.

MR. BODZIAK: –and interior as well as exterior, and that if Mr. Simpson wore these shoes, then they would be shoes he would possibly wear a size 12 Bruno Magli.

MR. BAILEY: Well, how many people statistically could fit into those shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, there–“Could fit,” and you brought up the point earlier a person with a size nine could wear them. They certainly wouldn’t fit good. They’d be stumbling all over the place. But could they put them on? Yes. So you–you’re asking a question which I can’t give a definitive answer to obviously. Even a size 12, over nine percent of the population is size 12. So a lot of people.

MR. BAILEY: How many 11’s and 13’s?

MR. BODZIAK: I don’t know the exact percentages for those.

MR. BAILEY: Many more people, right?

MR. BODZIAK: Absolutely.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And are you saying that a person with a size eight or nine foot who tried those shoes on and laced them up would be necessarily stumbling all over himself?

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah, because I’ve tried that.

MR. BAILEY: With these shoes?

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah.

MR. BAILEY: And you fell on your face?

MR. BODZIAK: I didn’t fall on my face. But if I was trying to commit a crime, I’d never feel comfortable doing that. I wouldn’t be running down a sidewalk or even trying to get somewhere in a hurry with that. I–again, I know of one possible case in over 20 years where this happened, and a person wore his brother’s shoes. And I don’t think it was to throw anybody off. I think he didn’t have any shoes. So it became quite evident what happened because the brother was on a naval I think ship out in the Pacific and they knew it couldn’t be him. So it’s just a rare occasion. You can say hypothetically could it happen, but it doesn’t happen as a matter of regular practice.

MR. BAILEY: So your experience is that criminals just aren’t smart enough to wear oversized shoes to mislead the police; is that right?

MR. BODZIAK: My experience is that shoes are a personal item of clothing and people generally wear shoes that are theirs except for social economic reasons or hand me downs of brothers and things of that nature. An adult who is affluent enough to purchase their own shoes generally regards their shoes as their own and those are the shoes they wear. I can’t rule out the hypotheticals that you’re postulating because common sense dictates there’s no basis for ruling that out. As a practice of practice and my experience, this just doesn’t happen except in rare, rare occasions.

MR. BAILEY: In 40 percent of cases where no shoes were recovered for matching purposes as is the case here, then you have no information as to whether the perpetrator was wearing his correct size or a larger one, correct?

MR. BODZIAK: Only based on my experience of the other 60 percent, which is what I’ve just said.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Uh, 60 percent you said were people who wore their own shoes to the crime.

MR. BODZIAK: Which is pretty representative over a 20-year period of time. It’s–if you were to ask people in general whether they typically loan out their shoes, men’s athletic shoes, men’s casual shoes, they generally don’t unless there’s mitigating circumstances.

MR. BAILEY: I’m not talking about loaning anything. I’m saying that in the 40 percent you didn’t recover, for all you know, someone deliberately wore the wrong size–

MR. BODZIAK: I can’t rule the possibility out. I’m just saying it is not something I normally encounter.

MR. BAILEY: You know that killers who premeditate often disguise themselves, do you not, one way or another?

MR. BODZIAK: Who–I’m sorry? Who meditates?

MR. BAILEY: Premeditated.

MR. BODZIAK: Premeditated?

MR. BAILEY: People planning a murder–

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: –will often try to disguise themselves, will wear gloves?

MR. BODZIAK: People are much more aware of fingerprints–

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh.

MR. BODZIAK: –then they are of footprints and they are much more aware of personal identification of a face and they wear masks. They are far, far less cognizant of hiding their feet. And the hands and face don’t normally have personalized articles of clothing that they wear on them. The shoes are personalized articles of clothing. People like to wear their own shoes.

MR. BAILEY: And so far as you know, despite the fact that long before you got on the scene, criminals were being identified by their footprints, you think it’s not a subject of their concern; is that right?

MR. BODZIAK: I’m surprised it’s not–

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BODZIAK: I’m surprised it’s not, but it isn’t.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, let’s get to the Bruno Magli shoes. These shoes were made in part by a company called Uma in Italy?

MR. BODZIAK: U-m-a–

MR. BAILEY: U-m-a, whatever.

MR. BODZIAK: Bruno Magli makes them in Italy. I mean, there’s a–I don’t know the exact correct terminology for who owns what, but Bruno Magli in the United States purchases them through a Bruno Magli representative in Italy. I don’t know exactly where the u-m-a initials come in, if that’s a separate company and he owns them both or if it’s related to the Bruno Magli.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. But two different companies make two different parts of the shoe which are joined and the finished product is produced?

MR. BODZIAK: That’s correct.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And you attempted through the executives in the company to learn everything you could about these two styles of shoes, how many were made, when they were made, when they were shipped, et cetera, correct?

MR. BODZIAK: That’s correct.

MR. BAILEY: And particularly once you learned that 46 would fit the blood pattern which I assume was after you went to the factory and obtained all your exemplar soles?

MR. BODZIAK: Actually, the soles were shipped to me prior to that, and this–the trip was to confirm that and learn more about how the American size last, size 12 last was used and to assure that they didn’t use other sizes, size last or put other sizes on. And that was the purpose of the trip.

MR. BAILEY: And you satisfied yourself that they did not?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: And you learned that they did not ship Bruno Magli shoes of this type to any other country; is that correct?

MR. BODZIAK: Oh, no. They could have sold Bruno Magli shoes to other countries. I just couldn’t find a tracing of it. In other words–

MR. BAILEY: All right. The ones that came to America came through Mr. Grueterich in New Jersey?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: That was the sole distribution point for the U.S.?

MR. BODZIAK: His distribution as I understand it covers North America, South America, the Caribbean and the United States, and I believe these were the 40 stores he distributed to them. Whether Bruno Magli sold that sole in Europe through one of those other Italian factories, what names might have been on those shoes produced in Italy, I didn’t pursue that. I was only inquiring as to those people as to whether or not any of their shoes, regardless of whether they were Bruno Magli or Lord or whatever, were shipped otherwise to the United States other than the ones that Peter Grueterich sold.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Did he, if you know, drop ship to other countries or did he physically get the shoes and reship them?

MR. BODZIAK: All I know is that he told me he was the owner of that design, that they were only on Bruno Maglis and that all of the shoes that were sold in the United States were distributed by him. As to how he did the distribution, drop ship or whatever, I didn’t determine that.

MR. BAILEY: All right. During the years `91 and `92, do you know how many pair of Bruno Magli shoes period were imported through Mr. Grueterich into the United States, forgetting Canada and South America?

MR. BODZIAK: Of any design?

MR. BAILEY: No. These two.

MR. BODZIAK: Of this design?

MR. BAILEY: These two.

MR. BODZIAK: I only know for size 12, there were a total of 299 size 12’s only that were shipped in–that were distributed throughout the United States.

MR. BAILEY: Were any returned, if you know?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, obviously these two, one of these is a 12. So we’re down to 298. And I would imagine that there were some which–I know there were some which were returned and like sold as reduced prices through stores like Sims, and whether there were any left after, I–I asked him about that, and I believe he told me about three percent is a typical average, but he didn’t know the exact number in this case.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. What did these shoes run at retail before they were devalued in the secondary stores?

MR. BODZIAK: The price tag that’s still in one of these shoes says $160.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. That’s fairly expensive for a fair of shoes; wouldn’t you say?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes, sir.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. How many different stores actually receive a shipment of a size 12 shoe according to the records of Mr. Grueterich?

MR. BODZIAK: How many stores? There were a total of 40 stores in the United States including one in Puerto Rico.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And how many did each one receive, if you know?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I’d have to–there’s a large list I have that breaks that down by date that goes through. But in most cases, the shipments were one pair at a time to these stores, and then maybe six months later, as they replenish their stock, they would order another size 12, and this happened three or four shipments over a two-year period to each store. So most stores didn’t carry more than one size 12 at one time, although a few stores did.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Would you tell the Court and jury where these stores are located in the United States?

*****
 MR. BAILEY: Okay. So in California, in other words, one in Costa mesa and one in San Francisco–I thought I heard one other.

MR. BODZIAK: Two in California.

MR. BAILEY: Two in California. Many in New York, fair statement?

MR. BODZIAK: That’s correct.

MR. BAILEY: Now, are these big chains mostly or are they small individual–

MR. BODZIAK: Oh, Saks, Bloomingdales were some of the bigger stores in New York. There’s Saks all over the country.

MR. BAILEY: Right. I think you told us on direct examination that an effort was made to find out whether there was any record of any sale to Mr. Simpson.

MR. BODZIAK: An effort was made by our FBI office in Los Angeles, was directed by the FBI office and the–in conjunction with the LAPD homicide unit.

*****
 MR. BAILEY: So far as you know, it’s all negative, right?

MR. BODZIAK: At this point, yes, sir.

*****
 

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, breaking down the Bundy drive location into some discreet components, I want to ask you some questions about searching and retrieving shoeprints.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: So if detectives did a search of this area with the flashlight, would that qualify as a competent search for shoe impressions in that area?

MR. BODZIAK: If they were using the flashlights specifically in that manner and were carefully looking, that light would be adequate for finding them, yes.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to a daytime search of the area that we’ve been referring to as the walk, which is made of the tiles and the concrete, what would constitute a competent search of this area for bloody shoeprints and also possible latent shoeprints during the day?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, the bloody shoeprints of course would–for just searching for them or for recovering them?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, let’s start with searching for them.

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. Searching for them, again, just a light source that would enable you to adequately see the sidewalk area. Daylight would be better. If you were looking at night, any light source that was adequate enough to illuminate the sidewalk so you could see the sidewalk would be adequate. The brighter the light, obviously, it would make it easier.

MR. GOLDBERG: What about using–we’ve heard testimony about oblique light and alternate light and all these fancy things. What about using those on the surface that we’re referring to as the walkway, the concrete and the tile for the purposes of trying to look for latent shoeprints? Shouldn’t that have been done?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I–I have never seen a latent shoeprint except in one occasion, which was a rarity, in Florida. I haven’t seen a latent shoeprint on a concrete surface in all of the other cases I worked because concrete is inherently dusty and dirty and rough and porous. And for a flat surface, in order to see those minute residue impressions, you have to literally skim the surface, and you can’t do that with an oblique light source on concrete or concrete walkway such as this because magnified, it’s going look this (Indicating) in the light which has cast a lot of shadows and irregularities. Secondly, a residue impression would not occur on this sidewalk because–residue meaning dust or dirt, because, as I had mentioned before, whether you’re walking across the carpeting here or concrete, you’re picking up the same and redepositing the same residue and you wouldn’t see any differentiation. Only have one case where I saw someone walk across wet sand in Florida, and then the sand was deposited on the concrete and gave adequate differentiation to leave impressions. Other than that, I’ve never seen one on concrete.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well, what about using some other technique like an electrostatic dust print lifter in order to look for latent prints that might have existed on the walkway area–

MR. BODZIAK: It wouldn’t–

MR. GOLDBERG: –during the daytime search?

MR. BODZIAK: It wouldn’t be applicable for residue impressions because you’re picking up the same residue and putting it turn. The only time the electrostatic lifting device is of use is when you step on something relatively clean. So if there was an object that was clean laying across the walkway and you were picking the residue up from the normal concrete and then stepped on that clean object, then you could make a lift of that object and you may recover a footwear impression. But you wouldn’t recover it from the walkway itself.

*****
 MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And based upon that as well as your reviewing of the evidence in this case that you’ve previously discussed and your understanding of how that scene was processed, was the scene insofar as shoeprints are concerned processed in a competent manner when you’re comparing it to what you’ve grown to understand as the national standard in the forensic community?

MR. BODZIAK: With regard just to the photographs or the whole scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: The photographs and the scene.

MR. BODZIAK: The photographs were adequate. They are better than most that we receive in the laboratory.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And what about the rest of the processing?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I would have, as I previously stated, tried a protein stain or some other chemical enhancement on the impressions. In cases of bloody impressions on a light colored surface such as this walkway, in most cases, the chemical enhancement gives very little additional enhancement. But I would have tried it as a practice. If we had a pair of shoes to compare with these tracks, then perhaps that fine difference of what we might have achieved with chemical enhancement versus what we have with good photographs might have made a difference. For purposes of determining what size shoe it was and what pattern it was, which you can see already with the photographs, it wouldn’t have made any difference.

MR. GOLDBERG: So in terms of what you’re used to getting at the FBI for purposes of analysis in the area of shoeprints, was the quality of the work that was done here in terms of shoeprints pretty high?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I can only Judge by what I received; and what I received was good quality for comparison purposes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you were asked some questions about various hypotheticals in terms of how these two shoeprints–how the shoeprints, the left and right shoeprints and the indistinct ones could have been deposited at the crime scene. Do you recall that series of questions?

MR. BODZIAK: With regard to– Mr. Bailey.

MR. BODZIAK: –by M and N and O?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And, sir, is there anything that you observed in your analysis in addition to what you’ve already told us in terms of the wear characteristics of the shoes which would be helpful to us in resolving this scenario that you were given in which two individuals purchased two size 12 Bruno Magli shoes in 1991 or `92 and then saved them for a special occasion where they wanted to dress up in their nice Italian loafers for the purpose of committing a murder? Is there anything you can tell us about the wear characteristics that would help us resolve that hypothetical?

MR. BODZIAK: Only in general terms that none of the impressions showed any great degree of wear. As I’ve mentioned before, they were either unworn or of very little wear. And so, again, to the hypothetical, which I don’t agree with, that two people did this, that would also mean that they didn’t wear their shoes very much until they committed this crime, which is not what I agree with.

*****
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, in terms of the hypotheticals that you were given, is there anything that would rule out the possibility that a suspect went down the walkway and then at some point realized that he had left a hat and also a glove behind and came back for the purposes of trying to find them could not do so or became alarmed and then fled the crime scene?

MR. BODZIAK: I’m not sure what you’re asking me.

MR. GOLDBERG: Is there anything that would tell you that that did not happen or did happen?

MR. BODZIAK: Based on the footprints?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

MR. BODZIAK: Well, as I’ve stated before, I believe the same person left both sets of footprints, which means that they had to have turned back and come back to that scene. So that certainly is one of many possibilities.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you were asked whether there were any footprints that were facing in the other direction, meaning in an easterly direction on this diagram, in the area of the stairs. Was there such a footprint?

MR. BODZIAK: There’s a very light footprint coming down the stairs on the same step as impression number B. that was the enlarged photograph which I had said did not have a scale or a–it was taken at a slight angle, and to which I had two overlays taped to, one going in one direction and one in the other. One of those was coming back down the step and it–it was just a very fragment of the edge of the shoe. So because it was coming down the step, it’s possible that, again, with that weight being emphasized on that foot, there might be a little bit of blood squeezed out that wasn’t coming out before and you could have had that light impression. So that’s possible that that was a representation of the return of the person after the first walking down the sidewalk.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you show us where that is on the Bundy chart?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. The blue or purple right footwear impression, which is the center impression on the step which is marked B, is very, very light and coming back down in an easterly direction toward the original crime scene (Indicating).

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you. And, sir, in your experience with the Federal Bureau of Investigation analyzing footprints, footprint cases, have you ever heard of a case where two suspects bought two shoes of the same size with the same lack of wear characteristics on them and then walked at a crime scene in such a way so as to replicate only one person having been at the crime scene?

MR. BODZIAK: No, I haven’t.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.

MR. GOLDBERG: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Mr. Bailey.

MR. BAILEY: Nothing further, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bodziak, thank you very much, sir. You are excused.

TESTIMONY OF BRIAN “KATO” KAELIN

 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK:

MS. CLARK: MR. KAELIN, IS KATO YOUR MIDDLE NAME?
MR. KAELIN:  NICKNAME.
MS. CLARK: IS THAT WHAT PEOPLE CALL YOU INSTEAD OF BRIAN?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
MS. CLARK: YOU A LITTLE BIT NERVOUS TODAY?
MR. KAELIN: FEEL GREAT. LITTLE NERVOUS.
MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. MR. KAELIN, DID YOU KNOW SOMEONE BY THE NAME OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON BACK IN 1992?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
MS. CLARK: CAN YOU TELL US, PLEASE, HOW YOU MET HER?
MR. KAELIN: IN ASPEN, COLORADO.
MS. CLARK: AND WHAT WAS THE EVENT?
MR. KAELIN: IT WAS LIKE A CHRISTMAS BREAK AND I WENT WITH A BUDDY, AND WE MET.
MS. CLARK: AND WHAT MONTH WAS THAT, IF YOU RECALL?
MR. KAELIN: DECEMBER.
******
MS. CLARK: DID YOU GET INVOLVED IN SOME KIND OF ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP WITH HER?
MR. KAELIN: DID I?
MS. CLARK: DID YOU?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
MS. CLARK: DID YOU BECOME FRIENDS?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
*****
MS. CLARK: AFTER SEEING HER AND MEETING HER IN ASPEN IN DECEMBER OF 1992, AFTER THAT TRIP, WHEN WAS THE NEXT TIME YOU SAW NICOLE BROWN?
MR. KAELIN: I SAW HER PRETTY MUCH IN JANUARY AT HER HOUSE THAT WAS ON GRETNA GREEN.
MS. CLARK: JANUARY OF ’93 IS THAT?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
******
MS. CLARK: AND WHAT — WELL, WHAT WOULD CAUSE YOU TO GO TO
HER HOUSE IN BRENTWOOD?
MR. KAELIN: UMM, THERE WAS A PARTY AND I WAS INVITED TO GO.
******
MS. CLARK: NOW, WHEN YOU WENT TO THE PROPERTY — WHEN YOU WENT TO THAT GRETNA GREEN HOUSE, TO THE PARTY GIVEN BY NICOLE BROWN, DID YOU NOTICE THAT GUEST HOUSE IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY?
MR. KAELIN: YES, I DID.

MS. CLARK: CAN YOU TELL US WHETHER YOU HAD A DISCUSSION WITH HER ABOUT THAT GUEST HOUSE IN THE REAR?
MR. KAELIN: I DID. I –
MS. CLARK: WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF IT, OF YOUR DISCUSSION?
MR. KAELIN: I SAID, “NICOLE, WHO LIVES BACK THERE,” AND SHE SAID, “NO ONE.” AND THEN I SAID, “COULD I,” AND SHE SAYS,”WELL, IF YOU DO, YOU HAVE TO CLEAN IT OUT.” AND I SAID,”GREAT.”

MS. CLARK: SO DID YOU MAKE SOME AGREEMENT WITH HER CONCERNING PAYING RENT AND LIVING THERE?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
MS. CLARK: AND WHAT WAS YOUR AGREEMENT?
MR. KAELIN: IT WOULD BE 450 TO 500 FOR RENT AND THEN TAKE CARE OF THE KIDS, NICOLE WOULD TAKE THINGS OFF AND THAT WAS IT.
******
MS. CLARK: SO WHEN DID YOU MOVE INTO THE GRETNA GREEN HOUSE?
MR. KAELIN: IT WAS JANUARY — KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE OF JANUARY I THINK PRETTY — RIGHT AROUND THERE.
MS. CLARK: OF 1993?
MR. KAELIN: OF ’93.
******
MS. CLARK: DID — DID NICOLE BROWN DECIDE TO MOVE OUT OF GRETNA GREEN IN 1994?
MR. KAELIN:  YES.
MS. CLARK: AND DID SHE FIND ANOTHER LOCATION TO LIVE IN?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
MS. CLARK: AND WHERE WAS THAT?
MR. KAELIN: ON BUNDY.
******
MS. CLARK: SHOWING YOU THIS PHOTOGRAPH THAT’S PREVIOUSLY BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE’S 86.
MR. KAELIN: YES.
MS. CLARK: OKAY. DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT’S SHOWN THERE?
MR. KAELIN: THE TOWN HOUSE ON BUNDY.
MS. CLARK: OKAY. IS THAT THE TOWN HOUSE THAT YOU WERE DESCRIBING THAT YOU WERE GOING TO MOVE INTO WITH NICOLE?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU. NOW, DID YOU EVER MOVE INTO THAT TOWN HOUSE, SIR?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
MS. CLARK: WHY NOT?
MR. KAELIN: I WAS GOING TO MOVE IN AND I MOVED IN AT O.J.’S.
MS. CLARK: WHY NOT — WHY DID YOU DO THAT?

MR. KAELIN: BECAUSE O.J. ASKED ME TO GO TO HIS HOUSE. YOU MEAN — IT WAS PART OF THE DEAL. I WENT THERE INSTEAD OF MOVED IN WITH NICOLE. THERE’S –
MS. CLARK: WHAT DID THE DEFENDANT SAY TO YOU ABOUT MOVING
INTO HIS HOUSE INSTEAD OF NICOLE’S CONDOMINIUM OR TOWN HOUSE?
MR. KAELIN: I MEAN WE TALKED ABOUT IT AND IT WAS SORT OF LIKE THE RIGHT THING TO DO THAT — NOT TO BE THE SAME HOUSE, THAT I SHOULD PROBABLY GO THERE, AND O.J. OFFERED ME HIS PLACE. IT WAS FREE AND HE SAID WHEN — “YOU CAN STAY AS LONG AS YOU WANT AND WHEN IT’S TIME FOR YOU TO GO, HE’D LET ME KNOW.”
******
MS. CLARK: DID HE THOUGHT — DID HE INDICATE TO YOU IN SOME WAY THAT HE THOUGHT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO BE IN THE SAME HOUSE AS HER OR HE DIDN’T LIKE IT?
MR. KAELIN: WELL, NOT DIDN’T LIKE IT, BUT PROBABLY WOULDN’T BE RIGHT.
MS. CLARK: AND WHY WOULDN’T IT BE RIGHT?
MR. KAELIN: I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER.
******
MS. CLARK: DID YOU PACK UP AND MOVE ALL OF YOUR THINGS
OVER TO ROCKINGHAM?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
MS. CLARK: WHERE ON ROCKINGHAM DID YOU STAY? WHAT PART OF
THE PROPERTY?
MR. KAELIN: IT’S A — UH, IT WAS A GUEST HOUSE BY THE POOL.
******
MS. CLARK: NOW, WERE YOU AN ASPIRING ACTOR BACK THEN, SIR?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
MS. CLARK: AND YOU STILL ARE?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
MS. CLARK: DID YOU THINK IT MIGHT BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO YOU TO STAY WITH THE DEFENDANT AND GET TO KNOW HIM FOR YOUR ACTING CAREER?
MR. KAELIN: I DIDN’T THINK THAT. I NEVER ASKED FOR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I WAS GETTING RENT FREE, SO I DIDN’T — I DIDN’T ASK ANYTHING.
MS. CLARK:  UH-HUH.   DID YOU THINK THAT YOUR FRIENDSHIP WITH HIM, YOUR ACQUAINTANCESHIP, ESPECIALLY LIVING ON HIS PROPERTY MIGHT SEND ACTING ROLES YOUR WAY?
MR. KAELIN: I DIDN’T THINK THAT. I JUST — I NEVER ASKED. I WAS HOPEFULLY GETTING THINGS ON MY OWN. BUT I –YOU KNOW, IF HE DID, HE’D BRING IT UP ON HIS OWN. I DON’T THINK WE WERE GOING FOR THE SAME PARTS. I –I DON’T KNOW.
******
MS. CLARK: IN MID TO LATE MAY, DID THE DEFENDANT ASK YOU TO START LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO LIVE?
MR. KAELIN: DID HE ASK ME TO LOOK? NO.
MS. CLARK: DID HE INDICATE ANYTHING TO YOU WITH RESPECT TO HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE?
MR. KAELIN: THEIR RELATIONSHIP WAS OVER.
MS. CLARK: HE TOLD YOU THEY WERE BROKEN UP FOR GOOD?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
*******
MS. CLARK: DO YOU RECALL WHAT TIME IT WAS WHEN YOU FIRST SAW THE DEFENDANT ON THE DATE OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994?
MR. KAELIN: I THOUGHT IT WAS LIKE IN THE AFTERNOON ABOUT 2:00, 2:30.
Q AND WHERE WAS IT THAT YOU HAPPENED TO SEE HIM ON THAT — AT THAT TIME?
MR. KAELIN: IT WAS IN THE KITCHEN NOOK AREA.
MS. CLARK: DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
******
MS. CLARK: OKAY. DID HE MENTION TO YOU ANY PLANS THAT HE HAD FOR LATER ON THAT DAY?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
MS. CLARK: AND WHAT WAS THAT?
MR. KAELIN: THERE WAS A RECITAL, THE DANCE RECITAL OF SIDNEY, HIS DAUGHTER WITH NICOLE.
MS. CLARK: AND WHAT TIME DID HE PLAN TO GO TO THAT?
MR. KAELIN:  5:00 O’CLOCK RECITAL.
MS. CLARK: DID HE TALK TO YOU OR MENTION ANYTHING TO YOU ABOUT NICOLE DURING THAT CONVERSATION?
MR. KAELIN: UMM, IT WAS — THEY WEREN’T TOGETHER.
MS. CLARK: HOW DID THAT COME UP?
MR. KAELIN:  IT WAS CONVERSATION — I MEAN, I WAS READING THE PAPER AND IT WOULD COME UP ABOUT JUST NICOLE,  THAT THEIR RELATIONSHIP WAS OVER.
******
MS. CLARK: NOW, AT SOME POINT DID YOU LEAVE THE HOUSE THAT  AFTERNOON?
MR. KAELIN: YES, I DID.
MS. CLARK: WHAT TIME DID YOU LEAVE THE HOUSE?
MR. KAELIN:  I PROBABLY LEFT ABOUT 3:30 OR 4:00, TO PLAY BASKETBALL.
******
MS. CLARK: AND WHAT TIME DID YOU GET BACK?
MR. KAELIN:  I GOT BACK AT ABOUT SIX O’CLOCK.
MS. CLARK: OKAY. AND WHEN YOU GOT BACK, WHAT DID YOU DO?
MR. KAELIN: I TALKED TO O.J.
******
MS. CLARK: AND WHAT DID YOU TALK ABOUT?
MR. KAELIN: ABOUT THE GAME, ABOUT WHO WON THE GAME, THE RECITAL, HOW SYDNEY WAS AT THE RECITAL.
MS. CLARK: OKAY. WHAT DID HE SAY TO YOU ABOUT SYDNEY AT THE RECITAL?
MR. KAELIN: HE SAID SYDNEY WAS GREAT AT THE RECITAL.
*******
MS. CLARK:  WHAT DID THE DEFENDANT TELL YOU TRANSPIRED, IF ANYTHING, WITH REGARD TO HIMSELF, NICOLE AND SYDNEY?
MR. KAELIN: OKAY. THAT O.J. WANTED TO SPEND TIME WITH SYDNEY AND THAT NICOLE WASN’T GOING TO GIVE HIM THE TIME TO HAVE WITH HIS DAUGHTER, TALK TO HER AT THE RECITAL, SO THEY WENT OFF.
******
MS. CLARK: OKAY. WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID HE TELL YOU ABOUT NICOLE HERSELF AT THE RECITAL?
MR. KAELIN: ABOUT HER — HER OUTFIT THAT SHE HAD ON.
******
MS. CLARK: WHAT REMARK DID HE MAKE — WHAT, IF ANY, REMARK DID HE MAKE ABOUT WHAT SHE WAS WEARING THAT NIGHT?
MR. KAELIN: THAT IT WAS A TIGHT OUTFIT.
******
MS. CLARK: DID YOU TALK AT ALL ABOUT WHAT HE WAS GOING TO BE DOING THAT EVENING?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
MS. CLARK: WHAT DID HE TELL YOU?
MR. KAELIN: THAT HE WAS GOING TO TAKE A FLIGHT OUT, HE HAD TO PACK FOR A TRIP TO CHICAGO.
******
MS. CLARK: AND SO — AND WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
MR. KAELIN: I GAVE HIM THE MONEY AND HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO GET A HAMBURGER AND I SAID, “CAN I GO?”
MS. CLARK: YOU INVITED YOURSELF TO GO WITH HIM?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
MS. CLARK: AND WHAT WAS HIS RESPONSE TO THAT?
MR. KAELIN: “SURE.”
MS. CLARK: DID HE SEEM REAL EXCITED TO HAVE YOU COME?
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
MR. KAELIN:  WOULDN’T YOU?
*****
MS. CLARK: SO DID YOU GO WITH HIM, SIR?
MR. KAELIN: YES, I DID.
******
MS. CLARK: WHO DROVE THE CAR?
MR. KAELIN:  O.J.
MS. CLARK: AND APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU LEFT WITH HIM TO GO GET SOMETHING TO EAT?
MR. KAELIN:  APPROXIMATELY 9:10.

******
MS. CLARK: WHILE YOU WERE IN THE CAR ON THE WAY TO MC DONALD’S, DID YOU HAVE SOME CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANT?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
MS. CLARK:  WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THAT CONVERSATION?
MR. KAELIN:  THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT THE FLIGHT.
******
MS. CLARK: SO YOU GOT TO MC DONALD’S AT APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME?
MR. KAELIN: BETWEEN NINE — LIKE 9:22.
MS. CLARK:  AND DID YOU GO INTO THE MC DONALD’S OR DID YOU DO DRIVE-THROUGH?
MR. KAELIN:  DRIVE-THROUGH.

******
MS. CLARK:  ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU GOT BACK TO — WHEN YOU GOT BACK TO ROCKINGHAM, THE DEFENDANT PARKED THE CAR IN THE LOCATION YOU INDICATED ON PEOPLE’S 136, CAN YOU TELL US, SIR, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
MR. KAELIN:  AFTER THE MC DONALD’S?
MS. CLARK:  YES.
MR. KAELIN: UMM, I GOT OUT OF THE CAR AND I HAD MY FOOD AND I WALKED TOWARDS THE KITCHEN AND I THOUGHT I WAS KIND OF INVITING MYSELF, SO I TURNED AND I WENT TO MY ROOM.
******
MS. CLARK: DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
******
MS. CLARK: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
MR. KAELIN:  OKAY. SO I TOOK THE FOOD AND I WALKED DOWN THE PATH TO MY ROOM AND I STARTED EATING THE FOOD AND I MADE A PHONE CALL.
*****
MS. CLARK:  OKAY. AND WHAT DID YOU DO THEN?
MR. KAELIN:  I MADE A PHONE CALL.
MS. CLARK:  AND WHAT — AND WHAT PHONE CALL — WHO DID YOU CALL?
MR. KAELIN:  ANOTHER FRIEND, RACHEL.
MS. CLARK:  RACHEL WHAT?
MR. KAELIN: RACHEL FERRARA.
MS. CLARK:  WHAT TIME WAS IT, APPROXIMATELY, WHEN YOU PLACED THAT CALL, SIR?
MR. KAELIN: ABOUT LIKE 10:10.
******

MS. CLARK: AND THAT DURING THAT PHONE CALL YOU WERE SEATED ON THE BED WITH YOUR BACK UP AGAINST THAT HEADBOARD?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
MS. CLARK:  DURING THAT PHONE CALL, SIR, DID SOMETHING UNUSUAL OCCUR?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
MS. CLARK:  AND WHAT WAS THAT?
MR. KAELIN: I HEARD A THUMPING NOISE.
MS. CLARK:  HOW MANY THUMPS DID YOU HEAR?
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, LEADING.
COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. KAELIN: THREE.
******
MS. CLARK: WHERE DID THAT NOISE SEEM TO BE COMING FROM?
MR. KAELIN:  FROM THE BACK OF THE WALL.
******
MS. CLARK: DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING OCCUR IN YOUR ROOM AS A RESULT OF THOSE THUMPS ON THE WALL?
MR. KAELIN:  YES.
MS. CLARK: WHAT?
MR. KAELIN: THERE IS A PICTURE THAT MOVED.

MS. CLARK:  AT THAT POINT THAT YOU HEARD THE THUMPS ON THE WALL, SIR, APPROXIMATELY HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN ON THE PHONE WITH RACHEL FERRARA?
MR. KAELIN:  ABOUT A HALF HOUR.
MS. CLARK: AND SO APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU HEARD THE THUMPS ON THE WALL?
MR. KAELIN: AT ABOUT 10:40.
******
MS. CLARK: DO YOU RECALL PREVIOUSLY TESTIFYING THAT IT WAS 10:40 TO 10:45?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
*****
MS. CLARK: SO AT APPROXIMATELY 10:40 TO 10:45, WHEN YOU HEARD THE THUMPS AND YOU SAW THE PICTURE MOVE, WHAT DID YOU DO?
MR. KAELIN: WELL, I WAS ON THE PHONE STILL AND I WAS TALKING TO RACHEL AND I THOUGHT — I SAID TO RACHEL — I ASKED HER, “DID WE JUST HAVE AN EARTHQUAKE?”
MS. CLARK: DID THOSE THUMPS ALARM YOU, SIR?
MR. KAELIN: AFTER SHE SAID WE DIDN’T HAVE ONE, YES.
MS. CLARK:  AND WHY WERE YOU ALARMED?
MR. KAELIN:  WELL, IF IT WASN’T THAT, THEN I THOUGHT THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE BACK THERE.
******
MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. WHEN RACHEL TOLD YOU THAT IT WAS NOT AN EARTHQUAKE, YOU BECAME ALARMED THINKING SOMEONE WAS BACK THERE. WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

MR. KAELIN: WELL, I WAS ON THE PHONE WITH HER AND I TOLD HER THAT I WAS GOING TO CHECK ON IT.
******
MS. CLARK: AND WHEN YOU SAY YOU WERE GOING TO GO AND CHECK ON IT, WHAT DID YOU INTEND TO DO?
MR. KAELIN: WELL, THAT — SEE THE DRESSER RIGHT THERE NEXT TO THE BED? ON THE TOP DRAWER I HAVE LIKE A LITTLE LIGHT, FLASHLIGHT. I WAS GOING TO TAKE THAT LIGHT AND LOOK BEHIND THERE.
MS. CLARK: LOOK BEHIND WHERE?
MR. KAELIN: BEHIND THE PATH.
MS. CLARK: THE PATH THAT YOU HAVE EARLIER IDENTIFIED?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
MS. CLARK: HOW DID YOU FEEL ABOUT GOING BACK THERE ONTO THAT LITTLE PATHWAY?
MR. KAELIN: SCARED.
******
MS. CLARK:  ALL RIGHT. WHAT DID YOU SEE WHEN YOU WERE ON THAT PATH?
MR. KAELIN: ON THIS PATH?
MS. CLARK: YES.
MR. KAELIN:  NOTHING. I DIDN’T SEE ANYTHING UNTIL I GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY.
******
MS. CLARK: WHAT DID YOU SEE?
MR. KAELIN:  I SAW A LIMOUSINE.

******
MS. CLARK:  WHERE DID YOU GO THEN?
MR. KAELIN:  I WENT BACK OUT.
MS. CLARK:  OKAY.
MR. KAELIN: AND THE LIMO WAS STILL THERE AND I THOUGHT MAYBE I SHOULD LET THIS GUY IN, SO I WENT TO THE GATE CONTROL BOX, THERE IS A BUTTON, PRESSED AND IT OPENS UP.

******
MS. CLARK:  ALL RIGHT. WHEN THE LIMO DRIVER GOT OUT OF THE CAR, DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM?
MR. KAELIN:  YES.
MS. CLARK: WHAT DID YOU SAY?
MR. KAELIN: WELL, I KNOW I ASKED HIM ABOUT THE — IF WE HAD AN EARTHQUAKE, AND HE SAID, “NO, NOT THAT I AM AWARE OF. I HAVE BEEN SITTING THERE AND I DIDN’T FEEL ANYTHING MOVE,” AND HE HAD MENTIONED THAT HE WAS COMING UP FROM REDONDO. AND I DON’T KNOW IF I — WHAT I REMEMBER ABOUT — IF I MENTIONED ABOUT OVERSLEEPING OR NOT.  I SAID, “DID O.J. OVERSLEEP?” OR IF HE SAID IT, THAT HE OVERSLEPT, BUT THAT CAME UP AND I SAID, “OH, HE HAS GOT A FLIGHT TO CATCH.”
******
MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. AND SO AFTER YOU TOLD HIM ABOUT THAT, WHAT DID YOU DO?
MR. KAELIN: WELL, I KNOW THAT AT ONE POINT ALSO THE GOLF BAG WAS OUT IN THE FRONT. I LOADED THAT FOR HIM IN THE TRUNK AND THEN I THINK I CHECKED ON THE NOISE.
******
MS. CLARK:  OKAY. NOW, ON YOUR WAY BACK TO THE LIMO, DID ANYTHING DRAW YOUR ATTENTION?
MR. KAELIN:  YES.
MS. CLARK:  WHAT?
MR. KAELIN: I SAW THAT THERE WAS LIKE A KNAPSACK THAT WAS IN THE DRIVEWAY WHERE THE ROLLS ROYCE WAS PARKED.
******
MS. CLARK: AND WHERE DID YOU SEE THIS SMALL — THIS KNAPSACK?
MR. KAELIN: IT WAS ON THE RIGHT BACK TAILLIGHT ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT WHERE THE GRASS KIND OF WOULD START UP.
(INDICATING), AND THE LIGHT WOULD BE OUT, BUT IT WAS STICKING OUT. WITH THIS DRAWING IT IS KIND OF — I DON’T KNOW IF IT IS EXACT, BUT IT WAS ON THE GRASS PART OF IT, BUT MORE ON THE CEMENT.
*******
MS. CLARK: OKAY. AND HOW BIG WAS THAT KNAPSACK?
MR. KAELIN: IT WAS LIKE A COLLEGE KNAPSACK I THOUGHT.
MS. CLARK:  LIKE THE SIZE OF A BOOK BAG?
MR. KAELIN: UMM, A LITTLE — KIND OF LIKE THAT, (INDICATING), THE BRIEFCASE — WHATEVER THAT CASE IS THERE.
******

MS. CLARK: DID YOU SAY SOMETHING TO MR. SIMPSON ABOUT THAT DARK KNAPSACK?
MR. KAELIN: THAT I WAS GOING TO GET IT.
MS. CLARK: YOU OFFERED TO GET IT?
MR. KAELIN:  YEAH.
MS. CLARK:  AND WHAT WAS HIS RESPONSE?
MR. KAELIN:  HE WILL GET IT.
******
MS. CLARK: AND THEN WHAT DID HE DO?
MR. KAELIN: I DIDN’T PAY ATTENTION. I THINK HE GOT IT.
*******
MS. CLARK: DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE WHETHER HIS — HE HAD ANY INJURY TO EITHER HAND AT THAT TIME?
MR. KAELIN:  I DIDN’T NOTICE, NO.
*******
MS. CLARK: CAN YOU, SIR, ESTIMATE FOR US ABOUT HOW MUCH TIME YOU SPENT WITH THE DEFENDANT AFTER THE LIMO DRIVER ARRIVED?
MR. KAELIN:  AFTER THE LIMO DRIVER ARRIVED? WHEN I FIRST SAW HIM?

MS. CLARK: RIGHT. FROM THE TIME YOU FIRST SAW HIM TO THE TIME HE LEFT FOR THE AIRPORT?
MR. KAELIN:  I THINK IT WAS ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.
*******
MS. CLARK: AND ABOUT WHAT TIME DID YOU GO TO SLEEP?
MR. KAELIN:  I WENT TO TURN THE LIGHT OFF ABOUT 1:30 A.M.
*******

MS. CLARK: NOW, AT SOME POINT, WERE YOU AWAKEN?
MR. KAELIN:  YES.
MS. CLARK: BY WHAT?
MR. KAELIN: THERE WAS A KNOCKING — BANGING AT THE DOOR.
MS. CLARK:  AND WHO WAS AT THE DOOR?
MR. KAELIN:  UH, FOUR DETECTIVES.
MS. CLARK: AND DO YOU RECALL WHAT TIME IT WAS WHEN THOSE FOUR DETECTIVES KNOCKED ON YOUR DOOR OR CAME TO YOUR DOOR?
MR. KAELIN: I THOUGHT IT WAS BETWEEN 5:00 AND 6:00 A.M.
*******
MS. CLARK: WHAT HAPPENED — AT SOME POINT, WERE YOU ASKED TO LEAVE THE PROPERTY?
MR. KAELIN:  YES, I WAS.
*****
MS. CLARK: DID YOU LEAVE ON YOUR OWN OR WERE YOU ESCORTED OUT?
MR. KAELIN:  ESCORTED OUT.
MS. CLARK: BY A POLICE OFFICER?
MR. KAELIN:  YES.
MS. CLARK: WERE YOU WARNED OF ANYTHING AS YOU WERE ESCORTED OUT OF THE PROPERTY?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
MS. CLARK: AND WHAT WAS THAT?
MR. KAELIN: THEY SAID BE CAREFUL OF THE BLOOD.
MS. CLARK:  WERE THEY POINTING TO SOME AREAS ON THE GROUND?
MR. KAELIN: WELL, THEY WERE JUST KIND OF WALKING ME, AND THEY DIDN’T POINT. THEY WERE WALKING WITH ME AND THEY SAID BE CAREFUL OF THE BLOOD, AND I LOOKED DOWN.
MS. CLARK: AND DID YOU SEE BLOOD?
MR. KAELIN: YES.

******
MS. CLARK: YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF THE DEFENDANT’S FRIEND, DON’T YOU, MR. KAELIN?
MR. KAELIN: UH, YES.
MS. CLARK: YOU DID BACK IN JANUARY OF ’94?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
MS. CLARK:  YOU DID IN JUNE OF ’94?
MR. KAELIN:  YES.
MS. CLARK: AND YOU STILL DO?
MR. KAELIN: I — I’M STILL A FRIEND. I’M — I KNOW — I KNOW MY JOB IS TO BE A HUNDRED PERCENT HONEST, AND THAT’S WHAT I’M GOING TO DO.
******
MS. CLARK: NOW, YOU’VE BEEN ATTEMPTING TO ESTABLISH YOURSELF IN THE FIELD OF ACTING FOR HOW MANY YEARS, SIR?
MR. KAELIN:  A LONG TIME.
MS. CLARK: MORE THAN 10 YEARS?
MS. CLARK:  YES.
MS. CLARK: WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU’VE HAD MORE ACTING ROLES IN THE LAST NINE MONTHS SINCE THE MURDERS OF RON GOLDMAN AND NICOLE BROWN THAN YOU HAVE IN THE LAST 10 YEARS?
MR. KAELIN: YES.

******
MS. CLARK: WHAT ABOUT HIS (O.J.’S) DEMEANOR WHEN HE LEFT, WAS GETTING READY TO LEAVE FOR THE AIRPORT AFTER 11:00 O’CLOCK? HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE IT?
MR. KAELIN: RUSHED.
******
MS. CLARK: WAS — WAS HIS DEMEANOR AT THAT TIME UNUSUAL BASED ON WHAT YOU HAD SEEN OF HIM ON PRIOR OCCASIONS?
MR. KAELIN:  WELL, THAT’S ONE OF THE FIRST TIMES I’VE SEEN HIM LIKE LATE FOR SOMETHING LIKE A FLIGHT. SO I CAN’T COMPARE TO. BUT YEAH, HE WAS IN A HURRY AND IT WAS — IT WAS FRAZZLED TO GET IN THE CAR.
MS. CLARK: DO YOU RECALL TELLING ANYONE THAT HE WAS MORE NERVOUS AND FRAZZLED THAN YOU HAD EVER SEEN HIM BEFORE, THAT YOU HAD NEVER SEEN HIM IN THAT CONDITION BEFORE?
MR. KAELIN: NO. I DIDN’T SAY THAT.
*******
MS. CLARK: MR. KAELIN, YOU INDICATED YESTERDAY THAT WHEN
YOU CAME BACK FROM MC DONALD’S YOU MADE A PHONE CALL TO
YOUR FRIEND TOM IN SAN DIEGO AT 9:37; IS THAT RIGHT?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
MS. CLARK: SO YOU LAST SAW THE DEFENDANT STANDING BY THE
BENTLEY AT 9:35. WAS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY?
******
MR. KAELIN: YES.
MS. CLARK: BY MS. CLARK: AT 9:35?
MR. KAELIN: IT WOULD BE, YES, TO WALK — ABOUT 9:35, 9:36.
MS. CLARK: UH-HUH.  DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT AT 9:45?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
MS. CLARK: DID YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS AT 9:45?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
MS. CLARK: DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT AT 9:50?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
MS. CLARK: DID YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS AT 9:50?
MR. KAELIN:  NO.
MS. CLARK: DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT AT 9:55?
MR. KAELIN:  NO.
MS. CLARK: DID YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS AT 9:55?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
MS. CLARK: DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT AT 10:15?
MR. KAELIN:  NO.
MS. CLARK:  DID YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS AT 10:15?
MR. KAELIN:  NO.
MS. CLARK:  DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT AT 10:20?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
MS. CLARK: DID YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS AT 10:20?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
MS. CLARK: DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT AT 10:30?
MR. KAELIN:  NO.
MS. CLARK: DID YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS AT 10:30?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
MS. CLARK:  DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT AT 10:40?
MR. KAELIN:  NO.
MS. CLARK:  DID YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS AT 10:40?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
MS. CLARK: DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT AT 10:45?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
MS. CLARK: DO YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS AT 10:45?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
MS. CLARK: DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT AT 10:50?
MR. KAELIN:  NO.
MS. CLARK:  DID YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS AT 10:50?
MR. KAELIN:  NO.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO:
*******
MR. SHAPIRO: AND THAT DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME WHEN YOU
FIRST MET NICOLE, SHE WAS DIVORCED FROM O.J. SIMPSON?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
MR. SHAPIRO:  AND SHE WAS DATING OTHER MEN?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
******
MR. SHAPIRO: AND WAS HE (O.J.) AWARE THAT SHE WAS DATING OTHER MEN?
MR. KAELIN:  YES.
MR. SHAPIRO: AND DID HE EVER VOICE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THAT?
MR. KAELIN:  NO.
MR. SHAPIRO: DID HE EVER SHOW ANY ANGER OR UPSET — BEING
UPSET AT THE FACT THAT SHE WAS DATING OTHER MEN?
MR. KAELIN: NO.

******
MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU EVER DISCUSS WITH O.J.
WHAT YOUR RELATIONSHIP WAS WITH NICOLE?
MR. KAELIN:  NO.
MR. SHAPIRO: WAS IT EVER A CONCERN OF HIS?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
******

MR. SHAPIRO: WERE YOU EVER PRESENT WHEN
NICOLE WOULD COME OVER AND VISIT O.J. AT HIS ROCKINGHAM
HOUSE?
MR. KAELIN: WHEN I WAS THERE?
MR. SHAPIRO: YES.
MR. KAELIN: YES.
MR. SHAPIRO: AND HOW DID THEY SEEM TO GET ALONG?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. KAELIN:  OKAY. GOOD.
******
MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU EVER SEE ANY PHYSICAL CONTACT BETWEEN
THE TWO OF THEM?
MR. KAELIN: I — HE DIDN’T HIT HER. THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL CONTACT?
MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU SEE ANY PHYSICAL CONTACT AT ALL?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
MR. SHAPIRO: ANY PUSHING, SHOVING?
MR. KAELIN: NO.

*******
MR. SHAPIRO:NOW, DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME IN FEBRUARY AND
MARCH 1994, WERE O.J. AND NICOLE STILL DATING AND WAS SHE
STILL TRYING TO GET BACK TOGETHER WITH HIM?
MR. KAELIN:  I DON’T KNOW FOR SURE. IT WAS OFF AND ON, SO
IT COULD HAVE BEEN.
MR. SHAPIRO:AT SOME POINT IN TIME DID YOU LEARN THAT O.J.
HAD SAID THAT IT WASN’T WORKING OUT WITH NICOLE AND THAT
THEY WERE GOING TO GO THEIR OWN SEPARATE WAYS?
MR. KAELIN: AT SOME POINT, YES.
MR. SHAPIRO: DO YOU RECALL PRECISELY WHEN THAT WAS?
MR. KAELIN:  GOSH, PRECISELY? NOT PRECISELY, BUT — IT
COULD HAVE BEEN MARCH, BUT I CAN’T GIVE YOU A DATE.
******
MR. SHAPIRO: NOW, YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH O.J. YOU SAID WAS
AS A FRIEND.WERE YOU PART OF HIS DAY-TO-DAY LIFE?
MR. KAELIN:  NO.
MR. SHAPIRO: WOULD YOU TALK TO HIM ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU KNOW HIS COMINGS AND GOINGS?
MR. KAELIN:  NO.

******

MR. SHAPIRO: SO YOU WOULDN’T BE GENERALLY AWARE AT ANY POINT
IN TIME WHERE HE WAS OR WHAT HE WAS DOING?
MR. KAELIN: CORRECT.
******
MR. SHAPIRO:HOW WAS HE — WHAT WAS HIS DEMEANOR LIKE AT
2:30 (ON JUNE 12TH)?
MR. KAELIN: HE WAS FINE.
MR. SHAPIRO: WHEN YOU SAY “FINE” –
MR. KAELIN: HE WAS –
MR. SHAPIRO: NORMAL O.J.?
MR. KAELIN: GOT DONE GOLFING, LIKE YOU ARE NOW, I GUESS.
I GUESS NORMAL CONVERSATION.
MR. SHAPIRO: HE DIDN’T SEEM ANGRY?
MR. KAELIN:  NO.
MR. SHAPIRO: DIDN’T SEEM AGITATED?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
MR. SHAPIRO: HE DIDN’T SEEM DEPRESSED?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
MR. SHAPIRO: DIDN’T SEEM DESPONDENT?
MR. KAELIN:  NO.
MR. SHAPIRO: DIDN’T SEEM PREOCCUPIED?
MR. KAELIN: NO. I THINK HE MENTIONED THE TRIP WAS COMING
UP.
*******
MR. SHAPIRO: AND THEN YOU SAW HIM A LITTLE LATER THAT
EVENING?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
MR. SHAPIRO: ABOUT WHAT TIME?
MR. KAELIN: UMM, ABOUT 8:30, AROUND THERE, WHEN HE CAME
INTO THE ROOM.
******
MR. SHAPIRO: DID HE SEEM AGITATED AT THAT TIME?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
MR. SHAPIRO: DID HE SEEM ANGRY?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
******
MR. SHAPIRO: DID HE TALK ABOUT ANYTHING THAT WAS BOTHERING
HIM?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
*******
MR. SHAPIRO: DID HE TALK ABOUT ANY ANGER HE HAD TOWARDS
ANYONE?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
MR. SHAPIRO: AND THEN THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT GOING TO
GET A HAMBURGER?
MR. KAELIN: YES.
MR. SHAPIRO: AND YOU INVITED YOURSELF TO GO ALONG?
MR. KAELIN: YES, I DID.
MR. SHAPIRO: AND HE HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THAT?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
******
MR. SHAPIRO: DID HE SAY “I WOULD RATHER BE
ALONE”?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
******
MR. SHAPIRO: WHEN YOU PICKED UP THE GOLF BAG WITH THE CLUBS
IN IT, DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD AT THE FRONT OF THE DRIVEWAY AT 11:00 O’CLOCK?
MR. KAELIN:  NO.
MR. SHAPIRO:DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD WALKING TO THE LIMOUSINE?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
MR. SHAPIRO:DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD ANYWHERE AT 11:00 O’CLOCK
THAT NIGHT?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
MR. SHAPIRO:AND IT WASN’T UNTIL THE POLICE OFFICERS THE
NEXT MORNING TOLD YOU TO BE CAREFUL WHERE YOU WALKED THAT
YOUR ATTENTION WAS DIRECTED TOWARDS ANY BLOOD; ISN’T THAT
CORRECT?
MR. KAELIN: CORRECT.
MR. SHAPIRO:AND IT WAS DIRECTED BY THEM. YOU DIDN’T SEE
THIS ON YOUR OWN, DID YOU?
MR. KAELIN:  NO.
******
MR. SHAPIRO: AT 11:00 O’CLOCK, WHEN YOU LAST SAW O.J.
SIMPSON, DID YOU SEE ANY INJURY TO HIS INDEX FINGER ON HIS
LEFT HAND?
MR. KAELIN:  NO.
MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU SEE ANY BLEEDING ON HIS INDEX FINGER TO HIS LAST — LEFT HAND?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU SEE ANY BANDAGE ON HIS INDEX FINGER TO
HIS LEFT HAND?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
******
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK
******
MS. CLARK: AND DID YOU SPEND — DID YOU MAKE ANY EFFORT TO
OBSERVE THE DEFENDANT’S HANDS AS HE WAS GETTING READY TO
LEAVE FOR THE AIRPORT IN THE LIMOUSINE?
MR. KAELIN: NO.
MS. CLARK: HOW MUCH TIME DID YOU SPEND WITH THE DEFENDANT
FROM THE MOMENT YOU SAW HIM BY THE LIMOUSINE UNTIL HE LEFT
FOR THE AIRPORT?
MR. KAELIN: BRIEF. FROM THE TIME THAT HE — SAY THE
QUESTION AGAIN?
MS. CLARK: FROM THE TIME YOU SAW HIM STANDING NEAR THE
LIMOUSINE UNTIL THE TIME HE LEFT FOR THE AIRPORT, HOW MUCH
TIME ELAPSED BETWEEN THOSE TWO POINTS?
MR. KAELIN: TOTAL, ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.
MS CLARK: AND DURING THAT FIVE MINUTES, WHAT WAS ON YOUR
MIND, FOREMOST ON YOUR MIND?
MR. KAELIN: THE NOISE THAT I HAD HEARD.
MS. CLARK: WERE YOU MAKING ANY EFFORT TO CAREFULLY OBSERVE
THE DEFENDANT’S HANDS?
MR. KAELIN: NO.****

TESTIMONY OF ALLAN PARK
 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK:

******

MS. CLARK: AS OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994, YOU WERE EMPLOYED WHERE?

MR. PARK: FOR TOWN AND COUNTRY LIMOUSINE.

MS. CLARK: AS WHAT, SIR?

MR. PARK: AS A LIMOUSINE DRIVER.

MS. CLARK: AND HOW LONG AS OF JUNE THE 12TH HAD YOU BEEN WORKING THERE?

MR. PARK: UH, IT WAS ABOUT TWO AND A HALF, THREE MONTHS.

******
MS. CLARK: ON THE DATE OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994, DID YOU HAVE AN ORDER FOR A PICK UP ON THAT DATE FOR THE EVENING TO GO TO THE AIRPORT?

MR. PARK: UH, YES, I DID.

MS. CLARK: WHAT WAS YOUR ORDER?

MR. PARK: UH, MY ORDER WAS TO PICK UP MR. SIMPSON AT 360 ROCKINGHAM.

MS. CLARK: AT WHAT TIME?

MR. PARK: UH, 10:45.

******
MS. CLARK: AND DID YOU — WERE YOU MADE AWARE OF WHAT FLIGHT YOU HAD TO GET HIM TO?

MR. PARK: UH, NOT A FLIGHT NUMBER, BUT JUST TO GET HIM TO LAX, UH, FOR AN 11:45 FLIGHT OUT FROM AMERICAN AIRLINES.

MS. CLARK:  AND WERE YOU AWARE OF WHERE THAT FLIGHT WAS GOING TO?

MR. PARK: UH, I BELIEVE CHICAGO.

MS. CLARK: HAD YOU EVER DRIVEN MR. SIMPSON TO THE AIRPORT BEFORE?

MR. PARK: NO, I HAVEN’T.

MS. CLARK: OR HAVE YOU EVER DRIVEN — HAD YOU EVER DRIVEN MR. SIMPSON ANYWHERE BEFORE?

MR. PARK:  NO.
.
******

MS. CLARK:  SO WHAT TIME WERE YOU TRYING TO ARRIVE AT THE DEFENDANT’S HOUSE IN BRENTWOOD?

MR. PARK: 10:35.

******
MS. CLARK:  ALL RIGHT. DO YOU RECALL WHAT TIME IT WAS WHEN YOU DROVE — WHEN YOU INDICATED TO US JUST NOW, YOU TURNED RIGHT UP ONTO ROCKINGHAM AND DROVE UP ROCKINGHAM, DO YOU RECALL WHAT TIME IT WAS WHEN YOU GOT TO THE LOCATION ON ROCKINGHAM WHERE THE DEFENDANT’S HOUSE WAS?

MR. PARK: UH, IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN AROUND 9:22, 9:23.

MS. CLARK:  9:22?

MR. PARK: NO. EXCUSE ME. 10:22, 10:23. I’M SORRY.

MS. CLARK: NOW, HOW WAS IT THAT YOU — YOU KNEW WHAT THE ADDRESS WAS; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. PARK: YES.

MS. CLARK: 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM?

MR. PARK: YES.
******

MS. CLARK: SO AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE LOOKING AT THAT LOCATION, THE ADDRESS ON THE CURB, DID YOU SEE A CAR PARKED IN THAT LOCATION?

MR. PARK: NO, I DIDN’T.

MS. CLARK: YOU SEE THAT WHITE BRONCO IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, SIR?

MR. PARK: YES.

MS. CLARK: WAS THAT WHITE BRONCO THERE AT THE TIME YOU DROVE BY AT ABOUT 10:22?

MR. PARK: I DIDN’T SEE IT.

******

MS. CLARK: WHERE IN RELATION TO WHERE THAT CAR IS IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH DID YOU PARK?

MR. PARK: SAME SPOT.

******

MS. CLARK: AND THEN WHAT DID YOU DO?

MR. PARK: UH, I GOT OUT OF THE CAR AND WALKED TOWARDS THE BACK AND HAD A CIGARETTE, AND WHEN I WAS DONE, I GOT BACK IN THE CAR AND LISTENED TO THE RADIO A LITTLE BIT.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU PARKED ON ASHFORD?

MR. PARK: WHEN I PARKED ON ASHFORD?

MS. CLARK:  YES.

MR. PARK: IT WAS 10:25
****** .

MS. CLARK:  AND HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

MR. PARK: I LOOKED AT MY WATCH AND THERE’S ALSO A CLOCK ON THE RADIO.

******

MS. CLARK: AND WHAT HAPPENED NEXT AFTER YOU PARKED? WHAT DID YOU DO?

MR. PARK: UH, I GOT OUTSIDE. I WALKED TOWARDS THE BACK OF THE CAR, UH, HAD A CIGARETTE. I GOT BACK INSIDE THE CAR, LISTENED TO THE RADIO FOR A FEW MINUTES AND THEN JUST AT ABOUT 10:39, I PROCEEDED TO DRIVE UP TO THE DRIVEWAY.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. SO YOU SMOKED A CIGARETTE, LISTENED TO THE RADIO AND THEN GOT BACK INSIDE?

MR. PARK: YES.

MS. CLARK: AFTER YOU GOT BACK INSIDE, DID YOU LOOK AT THE CLOCK AGAIN?

MR. PARK: YES, I DID. I WANTED TO — I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I WAS RIGHT ON MY 10 MINUTES EARLY.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. AND YOU GOT BACK INTO THE CAR AT WHAT TIME?

MR. PARK: IT WAS AROUND 10:39.

******
MS. CLARK: AND HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

MR. PARK: FROM LOOKING AT THE CLOCKS.

******

MS. CLARK: OKAY. AND AS YOU PULLED DOWN ROCKINGHAM THIS TIME GOING SOUTHBOUND ON ROCKINGHAM AND LOOKED INTO THE ROCKINGHAM GATE, DID YOU SEE ANY CAR, WHITE BRONCO, PARKED TO THE LEFT OF THE GATE AS YOU FACED IT?

MR. PARK: NO, I DIDN’T.
******

MS. CLARK: WHEN YOU PULLED UP TO THE ASHFORD GATE, SIR, THE LOCATION SHOWN BY THE GREEN ARROW, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT TIME IT WAS?

MR. PARK: THAT WAS AT 10:40.

MS. CLARK: AND HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

MR. PARK: BECAUSE I LOOKED AT THE CLOCKS AGAIN.
******

MS. CLARK: YOU LOOKED AT YOUR CLOCK AND YOUR WATCH A LOT THAT NIGHT.

MR. PARK: A LOT.

MS. CLARK: WHY IS THAT?

MR. PARK: BECAUSE WHEN YOU’RE A LIMO DRIVER, YOU’RE SET PRETTY MUCH ON SCHEDULES. SO YOU’RE LOOKING TO SEE IF YOU’RE ON TIME, HOW LONG YOU HAVE TO GET TO THE AIRPORT, THINGS LIKE THAT.
******

MS. CLARK:  WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

MR. PARK: THAT IS WHEN I GOT OUT OF THE CAR. AND THERE IS AN INTERCOM AT THE GATE, AND I WAS USING THAT INTERCOM TO BUZZ THE HOUSE. AND I BUZZED IT AND THERE WAS NO ANSWER. I PROCEEDED TO BUZZ IT A FEW MORE TIMES. THERE WAS STILL NO ANSWER. SO I, UH — THAT’S WHEN I DECIDED TO GET BACK IN THE CAR AND, UH, CALL MY BOSS’ VOICE MAIL.

******

MS. CLARK: OKAY. NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION —
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AFTER YOU PLACED THE CALL TO DALE ST. JOHN’S PAGER, WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT?

MR. PARK: UH, I MADE THE CALL AND, UH, I LEFT THE NUMBER THAT, UH — TO CALL ME BACK, AND AFTER THAT, I GOT BACK OUT OF THE CAR AND PROCEEDED TO RING THE INTERCOM A FEW MORE TIMES.

MS. CLARK:  ALL RIGHT.AND THAT WAS AT 10:43, WAS IT, P.M.?

MR. PARK: YES, IT WAS.
******

MS. CLARK: DID YOU CALL YOUR BOSS AGAIN WHEN YOU GOT BACK IN THE CAR?

MR. PARK: NOT HIM, NO.

MS. CLARK: WHO DID YOU CALL?

MR. PARK: I CALLED MY MOM.

MS. CLARK: WHY?

MR. PARK: TO GET A PHONE NUMBER FROM HER.

MS. CLARK: AND WHY DID YOU DO THAT?

MR. PARK: BECAUSE I WASN’T SURE IF THE PAGE WENT THROUGH SO I WANTED TO TRY HIS HOME PHONE BECAUSE SOMETIMES HE DOESN’T ANSWER HIS BUSINESS PHONE AFTER A CERTAIN — CERTAIN TIME.

MS. CLARK: AND WHAT PHONE NUMBER WERE YOU TRYING TO GET FROM YOUR MOTHER?

MR. PARK: HIS HOME PHONE, HIS HOME PHONE NUMBER.

MS. CLARK: YOUR BOSS’ HOME PHONE NUMBER?

MR. PARK: YES.

MS. CLARK: AND LOOK AT THE BILL IN FRONT OF YOU, IF YOU WOULD, SIR. DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE NEXT PHONE CALL IN TIME PLACED AT 10:46 AND THIRTY SECONDS. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE PHONE NUMBER SHOWN HERE?

MR. PARK: YES, I DO.

MS. CLARK: AND WHOSE PHONE NUMBER IS THAT?

MR. PARK: THAT IS MY FATHER’S, WHICH MY MOM WAS AT.
*******

MS. CLARK: AND AFTER SHE GOT THE PHONE NUMBER FOR YOU, WHAT DID YOU DO?

MR. PARK: AT THAT TIME I DON’T REMEMBER IF I GOT OUT AND BUZZED ONE MORE TIME OR NOT, BUT I KNOW IT WAS JUST A FEW — JUST A FEW SECONDS AFTER THAT I CALLED — I CALLED HIS HOUSE.

MS. CLARK: WHEN YOU SAY “HIS HOUSE,” WHO IS THAT?

MR. PARK: DALE ST. JOHN, MY BOSS.

MS. CLARK: IS THERE A PHONE CALL INDICATED ON THAT PARTICULAR PHONE BILL IN FRONT OF YOU, PEOPLE’S 148, THAT REFLECTS THE CALL MADE TO YOUR BOSS?

MR. PARK: YES.

******
MS. CLARK: WAS THAT CALL PLACED AT 10:49:07?

MR. PARK: YES.

******
MS. CLARK: AFTER YOU CALLED YOUR BOSS AT HOME AND GOT NO ANSWER, WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT?

MR. PARK: UMM, I STEPPED BACK OUT OF THE CAR AND PROCEEDED TO RING THE BUZZER SOME MORE TIMES, STILL GOT NO ANSWER.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.  HOW MANY MORE TIMES DID YOU RING THE BUZZER AT THAT POINT, SIR?

MR. PARK: I DON’T KNOW. TWO OR THREE.

******

MS. CLARK:  ALL RIGHT.  WHEN YOU RANG THE BUZZER AGAIN A COUPLE MORE TIMES AND GOT NO ANSWER, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

MR. PARK: THE NEXT THING I REMEMBERED WAS HEARING THE CAR PHONE RING INSIDE THE CAR AND GOT BACK IN AND PICKED UP THE PHONE AND IT WAS DALE ST. JOHN.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. NOW, DO YOU SEE ON THE PHONE BILL IN FRONT OF YOU, SIR, A CALL AT 10:52 AND 17 SECONDS?

MR. PARK: YES, I DO.

******

MS. CLARK: AND AT 10:52 AND 17 SECONDS IN THE EVENING, SIR, DID YOU SPEAK TO YOUR BOSS IN THE — ON THE CAR PHONE IN THE STRETCH LIMO?

MR. PARK: YES, I DID.

******

MS. CLARK: NOW, AS YOU WERE SEATED IN THE LIMOUSINE SPEAKING TO YOUR BOSS DID YOU — DID YOU SAY SOMETHING TO YOUR BOSS?

MR. PARK: YEAH. I TOLD HIM THAT I THOUGHT NOBODY WAS HOME.

******

MS. CLARK: OKAY. WHAT DID YOUR BOSS TELL YOU?

MR. PARK: WELL, FIRST HE TOLD ME, HE SAID — HE SAID, “O.J.’S USUALLY RUNNING A LITTLE LATE SO HANG OUT UNTIL ABOUT 11:15. IF HE IS NOT THERE BY THEN, GO AHEAD AND COME ON HOME.”

MS. CLARK:  OKAY.

MR. PARK: HE ALSO ASKED — BECAUSE I TOLD HIM THERE WAS NO LIGHTS ON DOWNSTAIRS — HE ASKED ME TO LOOK AT THE PANTRY AREA, WHAT HE CALLED A PANTRY AREA WHERE THERE WAS WHAT RESEMBLED SOME SUNROOFS OR SKYLIGHTING TOWARD THE GARAGE AREA AND HE ASKED ME IF THERE WAS ANY LIGHTS ON IN THERE.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

MR. PARK: HE SAID HE USUALLY WATCHES T.V. IN THERE.

******
MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. AND DID YOU DO WHAT HE ASKED YOU TO DO? DID YOU LOOK?

MR. PARK: YES.

MS. CLARK: AND DID YOU SEE ANY LIGHTS ON IN THAT AREA?

MR. PARK:  NO, I DIDN’T.

******

MS. CLARK: AT SOME POINT DURING YOUR PHONE CONVERSATION WITH DALE ST. JOHN DID SOMETHING ATTRACT YOUR ATTENTION?

MR. PARK: YES. A WHITE MALE WALKED FROM BEHIND THE HOUSE AREA ON A PATHWAY AND HE HAD A FLASHLIGHT IN HIS HAND AND HE STOPPED — HE STOPPED BEFORE HE GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

MR. PARK: SO I — I TOLD DALE THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY IS HOME.

******

MS. CLARK: AND THAT PERSON THAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING, HAVE YOU SINCE LEARNED WHAT HIS NAME IS?

MR. PARK: YES.

MS. CLARK: AND WHAT IS HIS NAME?

MR. PARK: KATO.

******
MS. CLARK: COULD YOU TELL WHERE HE WAS LOOKING OR WHAT HE WAS DOING?

MR. PARK: HE LOOKED AT ME AND THEN HE JUST — HE STARTED TO LOOK, YOU KNOW, IN THE AREA OF THE ROCKINGHAM DRIVEWAY.

******

MS. CLARK: HOW LONG — NOW, AT THE SAME TIME THAT YOU SAW KATO KAELIN IN THE SIDE YARD, DID YOU SEE ANYTHING ELSE?

MR. PARK: YES. I SAW A FIGURE COME DOWN — WELL, NOT COME DOWN, BUT I SAW A FIGURE COME INTO THE ENTRANCEWAY OF THE HOUSE JUST ABOUT WHERE THE — WHERE THE DRIVEWAY STARTS.

******

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT HE LOOKED LIKE, WHAT THAT PERSON LOOKED LIKE.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. PARK:  SIX FOOT, 200 POUNDS.

MS. CLARK: SIX FOOT, 200 POUNDS?

MR. PARK: ALL DARK CLOTHING.

MS. CLARK: AND COULD YOU TELL ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT THIS PERSON?

MR. PARK: NO.

MS. CLARK: COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THE PERSON WAS CAUCASIAN OR AFRICAN AMERICAN?

MR. PARK: BLACK.

******

MS. CLARK: AND THIS SIX-FOOT 200-POUND AFRICAN AMERICAN PERSON IN ALL DARK CLOTHING, WAS THIS PERSON MOVING QUICKLY OR SLOWLY?

MR. PARK: NOT QUICKLY, NOT SLOWLY, A GOOD PACE WALK IT SEEMED TO BE.

MS. CLARK: AND MOVING IN WHAT DIRECTION, SIR?

MR. PARK: INTO THE HOUSE OR TOWARD THE HOUSE
.
MS. CLARK: DID YOU FORM AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER THIS WAS A MALE OR FEMALE?

MR. PARK:  NO.

******

MS. CLARK: HOW LONG AFTER YOU SAW THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON IN ALL DARK CLOTHING GO INTO THE HOUSE DID YOU CONTINUE TO TALK TO DALE ST. JOHN?

MR. PARK: OH, IT WAS JUST ANYWHERE BETWEEN TEN TO THIRTY SECONDS. IT WASN’T VERY LONG.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.  SO ON THE PHONE BILL IN FRONT OF YOU, SIR, ON THAT LAST CALL WHERE IT INDICATES 10:52 AND 17 SECONDS, DOES IT INDICATE HOW LONG THE PHONE CALL WAS FOR, THE DURATION OF THE CALL?

MR. PARK: UMM, YES, TWO MINUTES AND 55 SECONDS.

******

MS. CLARK: AND SO YOU WOULD HAVE HUNG UP WITH HIM AT 10:55 AND 12 SECONDS?

MR. PARK: YES.

MS. CLARK: AND IT WAS WITHIN THE LAST TEN TO THIRTY SECONDS OF THAT CALL AT 10 — OF ENDING THAT CALL AT 10:55 THAT YOU SAW THIS SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON GO INTO THE ENTRANCE?

MR. PARK: YES.

MS. CLARK: AFTER YOU HUNG UP WITH DALE ST. JOHN YOU SAID YOU SAT FOR ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS OR SO?

MR. PARK: YES.

******

MS. CLARK: AND AFTER THIRTY SECONDS WHAT DID YOU DO?

MR. PARK:  THAT IS WHEN I GOT BACK UP AND OUT OF THE CAR AND RANG THE INTERCOM. THIS TIME THERE WAS AN ANSWER, WHICH WAS MR. SIMPSON. HE TOLD ME THAT HE OVERSLEPT AND HE JUST GOT OUT OF THE SHOWER AND HE WOULD BE DOWN IN A MINUTE.

******
MS. CLARK: COULD YOU TELL, WHEN YOU SAW THAT SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON WALK INTO THE ENTRANCE, COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THAT PERSON WAS COMING FROM THE ROCKINGHAM DRIVEWAY OR FROM THE AREA OF THE GARAGE FROM THE SOUTH PATHWAY?

MR. PARK: NO, I COULDN’T.

MS. CLARK: COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THAT PERSON HAD ANYTHING IN HIS HAND — IN THEIR HANDS?

MR. PARK: NO.

MS. CLARK: WHEN THAT PERSON WALKED INTO THE ENTRANCE OF THE HOUSE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY CHANGE IN THE LIGHTING IN THE HOUSE?

MR. PARK: SOME LIGHTS CAME ON DOWNSTAIRS, YES.

******
MS. CLARK: MS. CLARK:  THAT PERSON THAT YOU SAW GO INTO THE HOUSE, DID HE LOOK LIKE SOMEONE YOU RECOGNIZED?

MR. PARK: NO.

MS. CLARK: DID HE LOOK LIKE MR. SIMPSON?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. PARK:  I COULDN’T TELL WHO IT WAS.

MS. CLARK: DID IT APPEAR TO BE THE SAME SIZE AS MR. SIMPSON?

MR. PARK:  YES.

******
MS. CLARK: AFTER YOU SPOKE TO MR. SIMPSON — STRIKE THAT.
HOW LONG AFTER YOU SAW THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON GO INTO THE HOUSE DID YOU SPEAK TO MR. SIMPSON ON THE INTERCOM?

******   .
MR. PARK:  IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN ANYWHERE BETWEEN THIRTY SECONDS TO A MINUTE.

MS. CLARK: AND AFTER YOU SPOKE TO MR. SIMPSON ON THE INTERCOM, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

MR. PARK: I GOT BACK INTO THE CAR AND WAITED ANOTHER TWENTY, THIRTY SECONDS AND BEFORE MR. KAELIN CAME OVER AND OPENED THE GATE.
******

MS. CLARK: AND DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH MR. KAELIN ABOUT AN EARTHQUAKE?

MR. PARK: YES. HE ASKED ME IF I FELT ONE.

******
MS. CLARK: CAN YOU REMEMBER WHAT HE WAS WEARING WHEN THE DEFENDANT CAME OUT OF THE HOUSE?

MR. PARK: WHEN HE CAME OUT OF THE HOUSE HE HAD SOME STONE WASHED JEANS AND A WHITE-COLLARED SHIRT AND HE HAD A BLACK COAT WITH HIM.  I DON’T REMEMBER IF HE WAS WEARING IT OR CARRYING IT.

MS. CLARK: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

MR. PARK: HE CARRIED DOWN WHAT LOOKED LIKE A GUCCI BAG WITH HIM THAT FOLDED IN HALF, SEEMED TO BE SOME TYPE OF GARMENT BAG. HE CAME OUT AND SET THAT ON THE GROUND NEXT TO THE BAGS, FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, AND FROM THERE I PICKED IT UP AND PUT THAT INTO THE TRUNK.  AT THAT TIME I SEEM TO REMEMBER HE WALKED OVER TO THE CARS.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. LET ME BACK YOU UP FOR A MINUTE.
CAN YOU TELL US, SIR, APPROXIMATELY HOW LONG IT WAS BETWEEN THE TIME YOU SAW THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON DRESSED IN ALL DARK CLOTHING GO INTO THE HOUSE AND THE TIME YOU SAW MR. SIMPSON COME OUT THE FRONT ENTRANCE?

MR. PARK: IT WAS SOMEWHERE AROUND FIVE OR SIX MINUTES.

******

MS. CLARK: THEN WHAT HAPPENED?

MR. PARK: AFTER THAT MR. SIMPSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE A FEW TIMES, TWO OR THREE TIMES HE WAS COMING IN AND OUT.

MS. CLARK: DID YOU EVER SEE HIM BRING ANY MORE BAGS OUT?

MR. PARK: OF THE HOUSE?

MS. CLARK: YES.

MR. PARK: NO.

MS. CLARK: WAS THE GARMENT BAG THE ONLY BAG THAT HE BROUGHT OUT?

MR. PARK: FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, YES.
*******

MS. CLARK: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

MR. PARK: UMM, SOMEWHERE IN THERE, ONE OF THOSE TIMES THERE WAS A — THERE WAS ANOTHER BAG ON THE DRIVEWAY.

MS. CLARK: WHAT KIND OF BAG WAS THAT?

MR. PARK: IT WAS ANOTHER — SEEMED TO BE SMALL DUFFEL BAG.

MS. CLARK: CAN YOU SHOW US WITH YOUR HANDS HOW BIG THAT BAG WAS?

MR. PARK: FROM WHAT I CAN REMEMBER — I SAW IT AT A DISTANCE. FROM WHAT I CAN REMEMBER, IT WAS SMALLER THAN THE OTHER TWO. IT WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, A FOOT AND A HALF — ABOUT A FOOT A HALF. A FOOT AND A HALF BY A HALF A FOOT. IT WASN’T VERY BIG, (INDICATING).

MS. CLARK: COULD YOU TELL WHAT COLOR IT WAS?

MR. PARK: IT SEEMED TO BE DARK.

*******

MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT DREW YOUR ATTENTION TO THAT BAG?

MR. PARK: WHAT — WHEN — I THINK IT WAS WHEN — WHEN MR. SIMPSON GAVE KATO THE GOLF BAGS, I WAS KIND OF LOOKING IN THAT AREA. I SAW IT ON THE GROUND.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.  NOW, WHAT HAPPENED WITH THAT BAG?

MR. PARK: UMM, IT WAS SOMETIME WHEN — WHEN KATO WAS ASKING ME FOR A FLASHLIGHT, WE WERE STANDING AROUND THE CAR AND MR. SIMPSON CAME BACK OUT.

MS. CLARK: OUT OF WHERE?

MR. PARK: I COULDN’T REMEMBER. HE JUST CAME TOWARD THE CAR. WE WERE TOWARD THE BACK OF THE TRUNK.

MS. CLARK: HE CAME TOWARD THE CAR. COULD YOU TELL IF HE CAME FROM THE ROCKINGHAM GATE LOCATION OR FROM THE HOUSE?

MR. PARK: I DON’T REMEMBER.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

MR. PARK: HE CAME OUT AND KATO OFFERED TO GO GET THE BAG AND HE SAID, “NO, NO, THAT IS OKAY. I’LL GET IT,  I’LL GET IT.

******
MS. CLARK: OKAY. AND THEN THE DEFENDANT — AFTER THE DEFENDANT SAID, “WE GOT TO GO,” WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

MR. PARK:  WE BOTH WENT TO THE CAR. I OPENED THE DOOR FOR HIM, LET HIM IN, AND GOT IN THE FRONT AND WE DROVE OFF.
******

MS. CLARK:  ALL RIGHT. ON THE WAY TO THE AIRPORT DID THE DEFENDANT SAY ANYTHING TO YOU?

MR. PARK: A FEW TIMES HE REPEATED HOW HOT HE WAS. TWO OR THREE TIMES HE SAID, “YOU KNOW, MAN, IT IS HOT.”
I TOLD HIM HE COULD TURN THE AIR CONDITIONING ON.

MS. CLARK: AND DID HE?

MR. PARK: I REMEMBER HEARING IT COME ON, YES. HE ALSO HAD THE SEAT THAT HE WAS SITTING IN, HE ALSO HAD THE WINDOW DOWN. A COUPLE TIMES, YOU KNOW, HE REPEATED, “IT DOESN’T PAY TO GET DRESSED IN A HURRY” OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT OR “I KNOW I FORGOT SOMETHING.”  I SAID, “THAT USUALLY HAPPENS WHEN YOU ARE GOING ON A TRIP.”
.
******
MS. CLARK: AFTER — DID HE REMARK ON BEING HOT AGAIN AFTER THE AIR CONDITIONING WAS ON AND THE WINDOW WAS DOWN?

MR. PARK: DID HE REMARK?

MS. CLARK: DID HE SAY IT AGAIN?

MR. PARK: NO.

MS. CLARK: DO YOU RECALL WHAT THE WEATHER WAS LIKE THAT NIGHT?

MR. PARK: FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, IT WAS MILD, HAVING OUR NORMAL JUNE GLOOM FOGGY NIGHTS.

MS. CLARK: ABOUT WHAT? WHAT ABOUT WAS THE TEMPERATURE, IF YOU RECALL?

MR. PARK: 68, 70 DEGREES. I DON’T KNOW.

MS. CLARK: WERE YOU SWEATING?

MR. PARK: NO, I WASN’T.

MS. CLARK: WERE YOU HOT?

MR. PARK:  NO.
*******

MS. CLARK: OKAY. ABOUT WHAT TIME DID YOU GET TO THE AIRPORT?

MR. PARK: IT WAS ABOUT 11:35.

******

MS. CLARK: WHEN THE DEFENDANT GOT OUT OF THE LIMOUSINE, SIR, COULD YOU OBSERVE HIM? WAS THERE LIGHTING THERE THAT YOU COULD SEE HIM?

MR. PARK: YES.

*******
MS. CLARK: COULD YOU TELL US HOW HE LOOKED? HOW DID HE APPEAR?

MR. PARK: HE SEEMED TO BE HOT.

MS. CLARK: AND WHAT DID YOU SEE THAT MADE YOU BELIEVE THAT?

MR. PARK: HE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF SWEAT ON HIS FOREHEAD.

******

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN:
******

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, THAT NIGHT, YOU WERE — YOU SAW MR. SIMPSON FOR AT LEAST THE PERIOD 10:55 OR THEREABOUTS UNTIL YOU DROPPED HIM OFF AT THE OR LEFT HIM AT THE AIRPORT THERE AT ABOUT 11:35; ISN’T THAT CORRECT?

MR. PARK: YES.
MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU LEFT HIM WITH THE SKYCAP OR LEFT HIM CHECKING HIS LUGGAGE AND THEN YOU WENT ON AND WENT BACK HOME; ISN’T THAT CORRECT?

MR. PARK: YES.

MR. COCHRAN:ALL RIGHT.  NOW, DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME, YOU HAD OCCASION, DID YOU NOT, TO SEE MR. SIMPSON’S HANDS, DIDN’T YOU?

MR. PARK: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: IN FACT, YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THAT AT ONE POINT, YOU SHOOK HIS HAND, HIS RIGHT HAND; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. PARK: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU SAW HIM, I THINK YOU’VE DESCRIBED FOR US, COMING DOWN THE STAIRS CARRYING SOME BAGS WITH HIS HANDS; ISN’T THAT CORRECT?

MR. PARK: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: AND DID YOU EVER SEE ANY BAND AIDS ON HIS LEFT HAND, ON HIS LEFT KNUCKLE, MIDDLE FINGER HERE (INDICATING)?

MR. PARK: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. YOU DIDN’T SEE ANY CUTS ON HIS HANDS THAT EVENING, DID YOU?

MR. PARK:  NO.

MR. COCHRAN: AND YOU DIDN’T SEE MR. SIMPSON BLEEDING THAT EVENING, DID YOU?

MR. PARK: NO.
*******

MR. COCHRAN: AND THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT ON SUNDAY EVENING AFTER 10:30, BETWEEN 10:30 AND 11:00 O’CLOCK, WOULD YOU SAY THAT IT WAS FAIRLY QUIET OUT THERE ON THAT STREET THAT NIGHT?

MR. PARK: IT WAS VERY QUIET
.
MR. COCHRAN: AND YOU COULD HEAR NOISES ATTENDANT TO THE STREET THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT FROM YOUR LOCATION; COULD YOU NOT?

MR. PARK: YES, YOU COULD.

******

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.  AND AT ANY TIME WHILE YOU WERE OUT THERE THAT NIGHT, DID YOU EVER HAPPEN TO HEAR A CAR DRIVE UP OR HEAR THE SOUND OF A CAR DRIVE UP AND STOP ANYWHERE AROUND THERE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. VAGUE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. PARK:  NO. THERE — I HEARD CARS. I HEARD CARS GO BY, BUT I NEVER HEARD A CAR PULL UP AND STOP, NO.

******
MR. COCHRAN: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THIS PERSON THAT YOU HAVE INDICATED THAT YOU SAW SOMEWHERE OUT THERE IN THE DRIVEWAY AREA — AND YOU’VE DESCRIBED IT SOME — WITH SOME PARTICULARITY, SO I WON’T GO INTO THAT IN DETAIL — COULD THIS PERSON HAVE HAD A ROBE ON?

MR. PARK:  COULD HAVE.

******

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. AND MR. SIMPSON SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT, “I WAS RUSHING AROUND TRYING TO GET PACKED, I’M SURE I’M FORGETTING SOMETHING,” OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. PARK: YES. EVERYBODY SAYS THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: AND THAT DIDN’T SEEM OUT OF THE ORDINARY TO YOU, DID IT?

MR. PARK: NO.

******

MR. COCHRAN: SO YOU DIDN’T THINK IT UNUSUAL THAT HE WAS SWEATING OCCASIONALLY, DID YOU? HAVING RUSHED AROUND AND TAKEN A SHOWER, IT WASN’T UNUSUAL THAT HE MIGHT BE SWEATING, WAS IT?

MR. PARK: NO.

******
REDIRECT EXAMINATIONBY MS. CLARK:

******

MS. CLARK: LET ME FIRST ASK YOU, WHEN YOU WERE AT THE DEFENDANT’S HOME ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH, WERE YOU IN A HURRY?

MR. PARK: UMM, I WAS — IT DEPENDS ON WHAT POINT IN TIME.

MS. CLARK: WELL, WHEN YOU — WHEN YOU FINALLY SAW — LET ME ASK YOU. THAT IS GOOD — THANK YOU. BY THE TIME THE DEFENDANT CAME DOWNSTAIRS TO THE LIMOUSINE WERE YOU IN A HURRY?

MR. PARK: I SEEM — YES.

******

MS. CLARK: HOW CAREFULLY WERE YOU TRYING TO OBSERVE THE DEFENDANT’S BODY AND HANDS WHEN HE CAME DOWNSTAIRS FINALLY TO THE LIMOUSINE?

MR. PARK: NOT AT ALL.

MS. CLARK: DID YOU PAY ANY ATTENTION TO HIS HAND AT ALL?

MR. PARK: NO.

****

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN:

******
MR. COCHRAN:YOU RECALL MISS CLARK ASKED YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE LOOKING OR PAYING ATTENTION TO MR. SIMPSON’S BODY OR HIS HAND. DO YOU REMEMBER THOSE QUESTIONS?

MR. PARK: YES.

MR. COCHRAN:YOU WOULD HAVE REMEMBERED, WOULD YOU HAVE NOT, IF MR. SIMPSON HAD A BAND-AID, A LARGE BAND-AID ON THIS LEFT KNUCKLE HERE? IT WOULD STAND OUT? YOU WOULD REMEMBER THAT, WOULDN’T YOU?

MR. PARK: IF I SAW IT, YES.

MR. COCHRAN: YOU NEVER SAW THAT THAT NIGHT, DID YOU?

MS. CLARK: NO.

*******

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

******
MS. CLARK: MR. PARK, DURING THE TIME THAT YOU SPENT WITH MR. SIMPSON ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH, WERE YOU LOOKING AT HIS HANDS?

MR. PARK: NO, I WASN’T.

MS. CLARK: SO IF HE HAD BEEN WEARING A BAND-AID, WOULD YOU HAVE NOTICED IT THEN?

MR. PARK:  NO.

******

TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL POSER
 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG

MR. GOLDBERG: Good morning, Mr. Poser.

MR. Poser: Good morning.

MR. GOLDBERG: What is your occupation, sir?

MR. Poser: Associate buyer for mens shoes, Bloomingdales.

MR. GOLDBERG: That is Bloomingdales in New York?

MR. Poser: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And how long have you been with Bloomingdales?

MR. Poser: Almost five years.

MR. GOLDBERG: When did you start?

MR. Poser: August of 1990.

MR. GOLDBERG: And shortly after you started, let’s say, around the winter season in 1990, did you see a Mr. Orenthal Simpson come into the store in the New York Bloomingdales?

MR. Poser: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: When you first saw him, did you recognize him?

MR. Poser: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: As being Mr. Simpson?

MR. Poser: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And do you see him in court today?

MR. Poser: Yes, I do.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you point him out for us and tell us what he is wearing today?

MR. Poser: He is wearing a gray suit and a brown and black tie and a white shirt.

THE COURT: Indicating the Defendant.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, when you first saw Mr. Simpson, were you working in the shoe department?

MR. Poser: Yes, I was.

MR. GOLDBERG: And on that particular occasion and thereafter did you sell shoes to the Defendant?

MR. Poser: Umm, yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And approximately how many occasions in total would you say you sold shoes to him?

MR. Poser: Four or five times.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, of the four or five times that you sold shoes, are there any occasions that you remember in terms of specifically what you sold?

MR. Poser: Umm, only–not particularly to the shoe level, to the individual item.

 *****
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And other than that, do you have any other specific recollections in terms of the types of shoes?

MR. Poser: Umm, he bought–he liked to buy dress casual shoes, not shoes to wear with jeans and so on.

MR. GOLDBERG: Even though–well, did you recognize that he had some type of celebrity status when you first started selling to him?

MR. Poser: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: Even though he had some type of celebrity status, did you–considering that he had that status, did you somehow also memorize the occasions when you sold him shoes and what you sold him?

MR. Poser: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, during the time period that you had sold shoes to Mr. Simpson, was Bloomingdales one of the forty stores that sold Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoes?

MR. Poser: Yes, we did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And I would like to show you what we’ve marked as People’s 375 for identification. And maybe you could take the shoes out of there and tell us if one of those is Lorenzo.

MR. Poser: This is the Lorenzo, the boot.

MR. GOLDBERG: He is indicating what has previously been referred to as the size 12 semi and demi boot, your Honor.

MR. Poser: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what colors did Bloomingdales carry those in?

MR. Poser: Black, brown and olive.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you remember whether or not you sold those shoes to the Defendant?

MR. Poser: No, I do not.

MR. GOLDBERG: You don’t have a specific recollection one way or the other?

MR. Poser: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, what price range did those shoes sell in?

MR. Poser: I remember them to be under $200.00.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And how would you classify that? Is that an athletic shoe, a dress casual shoe? What type of a shoe?

MR. Poser: It is address casual boot.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And if a person at Bloomingdales purchases items at the store with cash, is a record made of what they purchased?

MR. Poser: A record of the purchase is made, but not particular to the person who purchased it.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So there would be no record of a particular individual purchasing a particular item?

MR. Poser: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if a person–well, does Bloomingdales also have gift certificates?

MR. Poser: Yes, we do.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did they back in the time frame that you were waiting on Mr. Simpson?

MR. Poser: Yes, we did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And if a person makes a gift certificate purchase, is there a record of specifically what they purchased?

MR. Poser: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what time they purchased?

MR. Poser: No, no.

MR. GOLDBERG: When you sold shoes to the Defendant, did you ring up the sales?

MR. Poser: No, I did not.

MR. GOLDBERG: And when was the last time, if you can give us an estimate, that you would have sold shoes to the Defendant?

MR. Poser: I believe it was–I believe it was early `92, but that is–you know, in the wintertime of `92, I believe.

MR. GOLDBERG: And over this period of time that you say that the shoes were generally dress casual shoes?

MR. Poser: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: What size did the Defendant take?

MR. Poser: Size 12.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Mr. Bailey.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAILEY

MR. BAILEY: Mr. Poser, how many times have you been questioned about this same subject matter prior to today?

MR. Poser: About five, I guess.

MR. BAILEY: Five times. By whom?

MR. Poser: By some detectives.

MR. BAILEY: From the LAPD?

MR. Poser: From the LAPD, somebody from the FBI and from the Defense.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And has the subject matter always been the Lorenzo Bruno Magli shoes?

MR. Poser: No.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Any other kind of shoes been sought, if you know?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. Poser: Not–not–not at the beginning, not specifically.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. What kind of records does Bloomingdales keep when customers who charge on credit cards purchase boots?

MR. Poser: Umm, we have a journal on the register that shows what–who sold what to whom, to what credit card.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MR. Poser: As well as the receipt, a copy of the receipt that the customer signs.

MR. BAILEY: Do you have a salesman’s code so that a salesman will get credit?

MR. Poser: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: And if you sold shoes to Mr. Simpson, would you assign a code to a salesman rather than yourself?

MR. Poser: Normally I was working in conjunction with a salesperson so that salesperson I was working with would get credit for the sale.

MR. BAILEY: Their code would be on the slip; not yours?

MR. Poser: Yes, correct.

MR. BAILEY: What other information was recorded?

MR. Poser: The date, the amount of each shoe, any discount that may have been taken.

MR. BAILEY: I’m sorry?

MR. Poser: The amount–the retail cost of each shoe and any discount that may have been taken, the tax, the total purchase–what the total purchase is and the signature of the person in a charge transaction.

MR. BAILEY: Is there a code on the slip that will describe the item purchased?

MR. Poser: This is a–yes, there is–there are two–there are two types of codes. There is a UPC code, which is–

MR. BAILEY: UPC?

MR. Poser: Universal products code.

MR. BAILEY: Yes.

MR. Poser: Which was used at that time sometimes and there was a department, class, vendor and mark style code that described what the merchandise was as well.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, did you, in cooperation with the detectives, search the records of Bloomingdales looking for any evidence of a sale such as you have been asked?

MR. Poser: Personally I did no searching.

MR. BAILEY: Have you seen any records that were retrieved?

MR. Poser: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: As a result of that?

MR. Poser: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Have you examined them?

MR. Poser: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: And have you found various purchases of shoes?

MR. Poser: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: None of which were a Lorenzo Bruno Maglis, right?

MR. Poser: Honestly I didn’t know the numbers off the top of my head.

MR. BAILEY: I know.

MR. Poser: So I couldn’t say to the specifics of that.

MR. BAILEY: Have you ever been questioned about a sales slip that showed the code for this particular shoe or seen one?

MR. Poser: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, calling for hearsay.

MR. Poser: That I know of.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BAILEY: Over what period of time was this search made, do you know?

MR. Poser: I was–I was called about–I guess about six months ago I got my first call, about, so from there to present, regarding this case.

*****
 MR. BAILEY: Were you shown a Lorenzo Bruno Magli black in color by Detective Antonio of the LAPD?

MR. Poser: Yes, I was.

 *****
 MR. BAILEY: Did he ask you whether or not the boot that you had told him about was similar to the shoe he was showing you?

MR. Poser: Yes, he did.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And did you tell him, no, it was not?

MR. Poser: I said I did not–

MR. GOLDBERG: Still calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. Poser: I told him that I did not recall selling the Lorenzo boot to Mr. Simpson. I also said that for the use in buffalo, I probably would not have sold Mr. Simpson the Lorenzo boot for the climatic conditions that were there.

MR. BAILEY: Exactly. It would not do well in slush, snow and mud, would it?

MR. Poser: Correct.

MR. BAILEY: Now, you mentioned the size of Mr. Simpson’s shoes. Do you know if he always bought the same size or whether it varied from manufacturer to manufacturer?

MR. Poser: As far as I know he bought the same–he bought the same size. I remember it to be a 12.

MR. BAILEY: On how many different occasions did you fit him with new shoes?

MR. Poser: About four or five as he came in.

 *****
MR. BAILEY: Mr. Poser, would you examine these tennis shoes, please, and assume that they are shoes belonging to Mr. O.J. Simpson.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bailey, this is People’s exhibit which?

MR. BAILEY: 384 it looks like from the tag, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. These are the Reeboks?

MR. BAILEY: These are Reeboks, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. BAILEY: Can you tell me what size those shoes are?

MR. Poser: Those are size 12, U.S.

MR. BAILEY: 12 and a half perhaps?

MR. Poser: It says size 12 USA.

MR. BAILEY: And European size?

MR. Poser: European size 46 and a half.

 *****
MR. BAILEY: No further questions, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: Just briefly.
 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG

MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, you were asked whether you were shown some documents from Bloomingdales constituting records of shoe purchases?

MR. Poser: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you recall that? How many were you shown, if you recall?

MR. Poser: I believe three.

MR. GOLDBERG: And was one of them for women’s shoes?

MR. Poser: One of them I didn’t recognize the numbers on.

MR. GOLDBERG: If we–if I approached and showed you three documents, might that refresh your recollection?

MR. Poser: Yes, it would.

*****
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, can you take a look at these and see whether these are the receipts that you saw?

MR. Poser: (Witness complies.) Yes, these are.

MR. GOLDBERG: And was one of those for women’s shoes?

MR. Poser: One of them is not for men’s shoes. I assume this is the one.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So if you sold shoes to the Defendant on four or five occasions, would that seem to indicate that at least, insofar as the records you’ve seen, we do not have a record for each of those occasions?

MR. Poser: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if you had sold the Defendant–if you had–if the Defendant had wanted to purchase Bruno Magli shoes from you, the Lorenzo style, would you have sold him size 12 shoes?

MR. Poser: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And he took size 12 in every shoe that you sold?

MR. Poser: As I recall, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And was it your business to know someone’s shoe size when you were selling them shoes?

MR. Poser: Definitely, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. Thank you. I have nothing further.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BAILEY: Nothing further, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Poser, thank you very much, sir. You are excused.

MR. Poser: Thank you.

Testimony of Mark Fuhrman, Witness for the Prosecution
MARCH 9-16, 1995
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. THE PEOPLE MAY CALL THEIR NEXT WITNESS.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE PEOPLE CALL DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

MARK FUHRMAN, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. YOU DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD.
THE WITNESS: I DO.
THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT ON THE WITNESS STAND AND STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.
THE WITNESS: MARK FUHRMAN, M-A-R-K F-U-H-R-M-A-N.
THE CLERK: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: MISS CLARK.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK:

Q DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, CAN YOU TELL US HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT TESTIFYING TODAY?
A NERVOUS.
Q OKAY.
A RELUCTANT.
Q CAN YOU TELL US WHY?
A THROUGHOUT — SINCE JUNE 13, IT SEEMS THAT I HAVE SEEN A LOT OF THE EVIDENCE IGNORED AND A LOT OF PERSONAL ISSUES COME TO THE FOREFRONT. I THINK THAT IS TOO BAD.
Q OKAY. HEARD A LOT ABOUT YOURSELF IN THE PRESS, HAVE YOU?
A DAILY.
Q IN LIGHT OF THAT FACT, SIR, YOU HAVE INDICATED THAT YOU FEEL NERVOUS ABOUT TESTIFYING.
HAVE YOU GONE OVER YOUR TESTIMONY IN THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS IN ORDER TO PREPARE YOURSELF OR COURT AND THE ALLEGATIONS THAT YOU MAY HEAR FROM THE DEFENSE?
A YES.
Q AND IN THE COURSE OF THAT PARTICULAR EXAMINATION, SIR, WAS THE TOPIC OF YOUR TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE WORK YOU DID IN THIS CASE, THE ACTUAL VISITATION TO BUNDY AND ROCKINGHAM, WAS THAT DISCUSSED?
A NO.
Q IT DEALT WITH SIDE ISSUES, SIR?
A YES, IT WAS.
Q ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THAT EXERCISE?
MR. BAILEY: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I HAVE NEVER BEEN CONFRONTED WITH A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING SUCH AS THIS, SO I WAS — I THINK IT WAS A CONCERN THAT SOME OF THESE ISSUES HAVE NEVER BEEN BREACHED BEFORE.
Q BY MS. CLARK: WHEN YOU SAY YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN CONFRONTED WITH A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING SUCH AS THIS, YOU HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE, HAVEN’T YOU?
A YES.
Q IN CRIMINAL CASES?
A YES.
Q HOMICIDE CASES?
A YES.
Q SO WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY “A SITUATION LIKE THIS”?
A WELL, IT SEEMS THAT THE ISSUES WE WERE CONCERNED WITH WEREN’T EVIDENTIARY IN NATURE OR ABOUT THE CRIME; MOSTLY OF A PERSONAL NATURE.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR.
CAN YOU TELL US HOW YOU ARE EMPLOYED RIGHT NOW?
A I’M A DETECTIVE FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES CURRENTLY ASSIGNED TO WEST LOS ANGELES HOMICIDE.
Q HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN SO EMPLOYED?
A 19 YEARS SIX MONTHS.
Q AND IS THAT SINCE YOU HAVE JOINED LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?
A YES.
Q CAN YOU TELL US WHAT YOUR ASSIGNMENTS WERE ON JUNE THE 12TH AND THE 13TH?
A I WAS A DETECTIVE ASSIGNED TO WEST LOS ANGELES HOMICIDE.
Q OKAY. THAT WAS IN 1994?
A YES.
Q IN 1985 AND ’88, WHERE WERE YOU ASSIGNED, SIR?
A WEST LOS ANGELES PATROL.
Q AND WHAT WERE YOUR DUTIES IN THAT CAPACITY?
A MOSTLY A PATROL CAR.
Q NOW, IN THE WEST LOS ANGELES AREA YOU WERE ASSIGNED TO, SIR, DID THAT INCLUDE THE BRENTWOOD AREA?
A YES….

Q NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE YEAR OF 1985, SIR, WERE YOU A PATROLMAN AT THAT TIME?
A YES, I WAS.
Q DID YOU RESPOND TO A RADIO CALL WHICH LED YOU TO THE LOCATION OF 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM IN BRENTWOOD?
A YES.
Q AND YOU WERE ON DUTY AT THAT TIME, SIR, WERE YOU?
A YES, I WAS.
Q CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THE NATURE OF THAT CALL WAS?
A IT WAS A 415 FAMILY DISPUTE.
Q AND WHERE WERE YOU DIRECTED TO GO?
A 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM….

Q WHERE DID YOU GO TO WHEN YOU FIRST ARRIVED AT THE LOCATION?
A WE DROVE — I BELIEVE WE DROVE UP ROCKINGHAM TURNING ONTO ASHFORD WHICH BROUGHT US TO THE ASHFORD GATE WHICH WAS OPENED.
Q AND DID YOU DRIVE INTO THE DRIVEWAY OR PARK OUTSIDE?
A PARKED OUTSIDE.
Q WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A I WALKED INTO THE DRIVEWAY AND I SAW TWO PEOPLE IN THE DRIVEWAY.
Q WHO DID YOU SEE?
A I SAW MR. SIMPSON AND A FEMALE THAT WAS LEANING ON THE HOOD OF A CAR.
Q AND WHAT KIND OF CAR WAS THAT?
A A MERCEDES BENZ.
Q AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE FEMALE THAT YOU SAW LEANING AGAINST THE HOOD OF THE CAR?
A SHE HAD HER HANDS TO HER FACE, SO I COULDN’T TELL MUCH OF WHAT SHE LOOKED LIKE IN THE FACE. SHE LOOKED LIKE SHE HAD LIGHT HAIR AND IT WAS HARD TO JUDGE THE HEIGHT, BUT I WOULD CHARACTERIZE AS AVERAGE HEIGHT AND AVERAGE WEIGHT.
Q WHAT WAS SHE DOING?
A SHE HAD HER HANDS TO HER FACE AND SHE WAS SOBBING.
Q AND WHERE WAS THE DEFENDANT AT THAT TIME?
A HE WAS WALKING ON THE DRIVEWAY.
Q WHICH DRIVEWAY WAS THAT?
A HIS DRIVEWAY AT ROCKINGHAM, THE DRIVEWAY ON ROCKINGHAM RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE MERCEDES.
Q OKAY. DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE MERCEDES?
A THE WINDSHIELD WAS SHATTERED.
Q DID YOU LOOK TO SEE WHAT HAD BEEN THE CAUSE OF THAT WINDSHIELD GETTING SHATTERED?
A I SAW A BASEBALL BAT THAT WAS LEANING UP AGAINST THE WALL CLOSE TO THE FRONT DOOR OF THE RESIDENCE.
Q NOW, DID YOU GET A GOOD LOOK AT THE WOMAN’S FACE?
A NO.
Q COULD YOU HAVE RECOGNIZED HER AGAIN ON A LATER OCCASION?
A NO.
Q NOW, DID SHE SAY ANYTHING TO YOU AT THE TIME THAT YOU MADE CONTACT WITH HER?
A I MADE SOME INQUIRIES WHEN I FIRST WALKED UP AS IF THEY WERE THE RESIDENTS.
MR. SIMPSON RESPONDED SAYING THAT THIS WAS HIS HOUSE. AND I ASKED THE LADY WHO BROKE THE WINDSHIELD AND SHE RESPONDED “HE DID.”
Q DID THE DEFENDANT MAKE ANY RESPONSE?
A I BELIEVE HE ADMITTED THAT HE HIT IT AND STATING THAT IT WAS HIS.
Q AND WHAT WAS HIS — WHAT WAS THE DEFENDANT’S DEMEANOR AT THAT TIME?
A WELL, HE WAS AGITATED, BUT HE WASN’T OUT OF CONTROL. HE WAS JUST AGITATED.
Q COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THERE WAS ANY PHYSICAL INJURY TO THE BODY OF THE WOMAN?
A I COULDN’T TELL, NO.
Q OKAY. DID YOU SEE ANY SIGNS OF PHYSICAL INJURY TO HER?
A NO, NO.
Q AND DID YOU ASK HER IF SHE WANTED TO HAVE A REPORT PREPARED?
A YES.
Q AND HER RESPONSE?
A SHE DID NOT. SHE SAID NO….

Q AND YOUR PARTNER, DO YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS AT THE TIME YOU HAD CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT AND THE WOMAN?
A MY PARTNER WAS NEXT TO ME OR WITHIN A SHORT DISTANCE OF ME. I WAS TAKING THE LEAD TO AT LEAST ASK THE QUESTIONS.
Q OKAY.
NOW, DID THE DEFENDANT RESIST YOUR BEING ON THE PROPERTY AT ALL?
A NO.
Q DID YOU ARREST HIM?
A NO.
Q AFTER THE FEMALE INDICATED TO YOU THAT SHE DID NOT WANT TO FILE A REPORT, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A WE LEFT THE LOCATION….

Q NOW, BACK IN 1985 AND 1986, SIR, CAN YOU TELL US WHETHER YOU KNEW SOMEONE OR MET SOMEONE BY THE NAME OF KATHLEEN BELL?
A YES, I CAN TELL YOU. I DID NOT.
Q BUT YOU DO RECOGNIZE THE NAME, DON’T YOU, SIR?
A YES.
Q WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU HEARD THAT NAME?
A IT WAS IN ’94, I BELIEVE IN THE FALL OF ’94. I DON’T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT MONTH.
Q BY THE FALL YOU MEAN SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER?
A SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER.
Q AND DO YOU RECALL WHEN YOU TESTIFIED IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THIS MATTER?
A YES, I DO.
Q AND WHEN WAS THAT, SIR?
A I BELIEVE JULY 5TH AND 6TH, 1994.
Q OKAY. SO YOU FIRST HEARD HER NAME AFTER YOU TESTIFIED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?
A YES.
Q AND HOW WAS IT THAT YOU HEARD HER NAME IN CONNECTION WITH WHAT?
A IN CONNECTION WITH ALLEGATIONS OF STATEMENTS I MADE TO HER AT A DATE SOME TIME IN ’85 OR ’86.
Q AND WHERE DID YOU HEAR THOSE ALLEGATIONS, SIR?
A IN THE NEWS.
Q AND WERE YOU INFORMED ABOUT A LETTER SHE HAD WRITTEN IN JULY OF 1994 AFTER THE PRELIMINARY HEARING TO JOHNNIE COCHRAN?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THAT LETTER THIS MORNING?
A I’M NOT SURE IF I REVIEWED THAT LETTER. I DON’T BELIEVE I REVIEWED THE LETTER. I HAVE SEEN A STATEMENT, BUT I DON’T THINK IT WAS THAT INITIAL LETTER.
Q SO ARE YOU PRESENTLY VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER THAT THIS WOMAN WROTE TO MR. COCHRAN?
A OH, YES….

Q I’M GOING TO ASK YOU, SIR, WHEN WE LEFT OFF, I ASKED YOU IF YOU HAD SEEN A COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE WOMAN NAMED KATHLEEN BELL THAT SHE WROTE IN JULY OF 1994 TO MR. COCHRAN. I BELIEVE IT WAS JULY 19TH OF 1994 AND I WAS ABOUT TO ASK YOU TO READ THAT LETTER ON THE MONITOR. COULD YOU NOW DO SO, SIR?
A YES.
Q FIRST OF ALL, SIR, WITH RESPECT TO THIS PARAGRAPH, DID YOU VISIT A MARINE RECRUITING OFFICE LOCATED IN REDONDO BEACH IN 1985 TO — BETWEEN 1985 AND 1986?
A YES.
Q DO YOU REMEMBER MEETING A WOMAN NAMED KATHLEEN BELL AT THAT MARINE RECRUITING OFFICE BETWEEN 1985 AND 1986?
A NO.
Q DID ONE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ON THIS CASE ASK YOU TO WATCH LARRY KING LIVE ON TELEVISION?
A YES, THEY DID.
Q AND DO YOU RECALL APPROXIMATELY WHEN THAT WAS?
A I BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE LAST MONTH. I THINK IT WAS THE — THE PROGRAM SHE WAS ON JUST BEFORE THE MOST RECENT. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE ABOUT A MONTH.
Q SO ABOUT A MONTH AGO?
A A MONTH, YES.
Q AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE WERE YOU WATCHING LARRY KING LIVE?
A THEY ASKED ME TO JUST LOOK AT THE SHOW AND SEE IF LOOKING AT THE WOMAN JOGGED MY MEMORY.
Q AND DID YOU THEN LOOK AT THE SHOW, SIR?
A YES.
Q DID YOU SEE A WOMAN WHO CALLED HERSELF KATHLEEN BELL?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU RECOGNIZE HER?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q NEXT PARAGRAPH. OKAY. YOU’VE READ THE CONVERSATION THUS FAR AS DESCRIBED IN THE LETTER?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q DID THE CONVERSATION KATHLEEN BELL DESCRIBES IN THIS LETTER OCCUR?
A NO, IT DID NOT.
Q AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR TESTIMONY, WE REFERRED TO A PRACTICE SESSION IN WHICH THERE WERE SEVERAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS WE REFERRED TO AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR TESTIMONY. THAT PRACTICE OR MOCK CROSS-EXAMINATION, DID THAT DEAL WITH THE ANTICIPATED CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THIS SUBJECT OF KATHLEEN BELL?
A YES, IT DID.
Q DID IT DEAL WITH YOUR ACTUAL WORK ON THIS CASE AS A POLICE DETECTIVE?
A NO, IT DIDN’T.
Q AND HOW LONG DID THAT EXAMINATION TAKE PLACE FOR?
A 20 TO 30 MINUTES.
Q AND THAT CONVERSATION THAT IS DESCRIBED IN THIS LETTER FROM KATHLEEN BELL, DID THAT OCCUR, SIR?
A NO, IT DIDN’T.
Q NOW, BACK IN 1985, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT YOU RESPONDED TO THE DEFENDANT’S HOME ON — AT 360 ROCKINGHAM PURSUANT TO A CALL WHERE YOU SAW A WOMAN CRYING, LEANING UP AGAINST A MERCEDES BENZ. DO YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY, SIR?
A YES, MA’AM.
Q DID YOU EVER FILL OUT A REPORT THAT DESCRIBED THAT EVENT?
A NO, I DIDN’T.
Q NOW, YOU SAW THAT THE WOMAN INVOLVED WITH MR. SIMPSON WAS A WHITE WOMAN, DIDN’T YOU?
A YES.
Q DID YOU TAKE ANY STEPS TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THAT INCIDENT?
A NO.
Q DID YOU MAKE ANY EFFORT TO ENCOURAGE THAT THE DEFENDANT BE PROSECUTED FOR IT?
A NO.
Q DID YOU ATTEMPT TO PERSUADE MISS —
LET ME BACK UP FOR A SECOND. THE WOMAN THAT YOU SAW THERE CRYING UP AGAINST THE MERCEDES BENZ, DID YOU — HAVE YOU SINCE DETERMINED WHO THAT WAS?
A WELL, SINCE IT WAS TOLD TO ME WHO IT WAS, YES.
Q AND THAT PERSON IS?
A NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON.
Q DID YOU ATTEMPT TO PERSUADE HER TO SEEK PROSECUTION FOR THE INCIDENT?
A NO.
Q COULD YOU HAVE DONE SO?
A YES.
Q DID YOU NOTIFY ANY NEWS MEDIA ABOUT THAT INCIDENT?
A NO, I DIDN’T.
Q DID YOU CALL THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER?
A NO.
Q COULD YOU HAVE PADDED THE DEFENDANT DOWN AFTER THAT INCIDENT?
A I BELIEVE, CONSIDERING THE CALL, YES, I COULD HAVE.
Q DID YOU?
A NO.
Q COULD YOU HAVE ASKED FOR HIS IDENTIFICATION AS A RESULT OF THAT INCIDENT AT THAT TIME?
A ABSOLUTELY.
Q DID YOU?
A NO….

Q COULD YOU HAVE CALLED YOUR SUPERVISOR TO COME AND FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE INCIDENT?
A YES.
Q DID YOU?
A NO, I DIDN’T….

Q COULD YOU HAVE INTERVIEWED MR. SIMPSON CONCERNING THESE INCIDENT — THAT INCIDENT?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU?
A NO.
Q COULD YOU HAVE INTERVIEWED NICOLE BROWN CONCERNING THE INCIDENT?
A YES.
Q DID YOU?
A NO.
Q COULD YOU HAVE INSISTED ON SOME FURTHER FOLLOW-UP OF THAT INCIDENT?
A I COULD HAVE, YES.
Q DID YOU?
A NO.
Q NOW, DID YOU CONTINUE TO WORK AT WEST L.A. AFTER THAT INCIDENT, SIR?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND DID YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT AFTER 1985?
A NO.
Q NOW, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU DID NOT WRITE ANYTHING DOWN TO DESCRIBE THE INCIDENT IN ANY KIND OF REPORT BACK IN 1985. AT SOME POINT IN TIME THOUGH, DID — WERE YOU — DID YOU WRITE SOMETHING CONCERNING THAT INCIDENT?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND WHAT WAS IT THAT YOU WROTE?
A I WROTE A LETTER TO — IT WAS ADDRESSED TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, BUT IT WAS ADDRESSED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE. I’M SORRY. IT WASN’T ADDRESSED TO. IT WAS REQUESTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE.
Q OKAY. NOW, CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR US WHAT THAT IS, WHAT THAT WAS? WAS IT A LETTER? WAS IT A REPORT?
A I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE CHARACTERIZED AS A MEMO.
Q AND WHAT DID THAT MEMO CONTAIN? WHAT KIND OF INFORMATION DID IT HAVE?
A IT JUST DESCRIBED THE INCIDENT AS I REMEMBERED IT THAT OCCURRED IN 1985.
Q AND WHY DID YOU WRITE THAT MEMO, SIR?
A IT WAS REQUESTED BY A DETECTIVE THAT WAS HANDLING A CURRENT CASE IN 1989 INVOLVING MR. AND MRS. SIMPSON….

Q WAS IT YOUR IDEA TO WRITE THIS LETTER, SIR?
A NO.
Q YOU WROTE IT IN RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST OF THE CITY ATTORNEY?
A YES, VIA THE DETECTIVE HANDLING THE CASE.
Q OKAY. WHAT WAS YOUR POSITION AT THE TIME YOU WROTE THIS MEMO, SIR?
A I WAS A DETECTIVE TRAINEE.
Q STILL A POLICE OFFICER, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q OKAY. LOOK ON THE SCREEN, IF YOU WILL, SIR…. ALL RIGHT. I AM GOING TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION, SIR, FIRST OF ALL TO THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH. DO YOU RECALL WRITING THAT?
A YES, I DO.
Q AND DOES THAT DESCRIBE THE EVENTS THAT YOU’VE JUST DESCRIBED FOR THE JURY AS YOU REMEMBER THEM WHEN YOU WROTE THE MEMO?
A YES.
Q IS THAT AN ACCURATE DEPICTION OF THE EVENTS?
A YES.
Q NOW, YOU WROTE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS — OH, EXCUSE ME. YOU HAVE HERE AT THE VERY TOP LINE, SIR, A 415, FAMILY DISPUTE. CAN YOU TELL US WHAT 415 MEANS?
A IT’S A DISTURBANCE.
Q AND THAT’S A PENAL CODE SECTION, IS IT?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THIS MEMO AFTER YOU WROTE IT, SIR?
A AT THE TIME IT WAS REQUESTED, I TYPED IT AND HANDED IT DIRECTLY TO THE DETECTIVE.
Q OKAY. NOW, YOU PUT DOWN AT THE BOTTOM HERE, “IT SEEMS ODD TO REMEMBER SUCH AN EVENT, BUT IT’S NOT EVERY DAY THAT YOU RESPOND TO A CELEBRITY’S HOME FOR A FAMILY DISPUTE. FOR THIS REASON, THIS INCIDENT WAS INDELIBLY IMPRESSED IN MY MEMORY….CAN YOU TELL US WHAT YOU MEANT BY THAT, THAT IT WAS INDELIBLY PRESSED IN YOUR MEMORY?
A WELL, I HAD NEVER BEEN TO A CELEBRITY’S HOME BEFORE ON A FAMILY DISPUTE. MR. SIMPSON WAS A VERY FAMOUS MAN, AND ONCE I WALKED IN, I RECOGNIZED HIM. AND THOSE TWO THINGS WOULD MAKE IT A MEMORABLE INCIDENT.
Q UH-HUH. ARE YOU A FOOTBALL FAN, SIR?
A NOT AS MUCH AS A BASKETBALL FAN, BUT YES, I AM.
Q OKAY. AND WHEN YOU WALKED ONTO THE PROPERTY OF 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM, DID YOU IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZE HIM?
A ONCE I GOT INTO THE DRIVEWAY, YES.
Q AND WAS THAT EVENT INDELIBLY PRESSED IN YOUR MEMORY?
A MORE SO WHEN I WROTE THIS THAN PREVIOUS TO JUNE 12TH, BUT YES, IT WAS THEN.
Q ALL RIGHT. NOW, IS WEST LOS ANGELES DETECTIVES YOUR CURRENT ASSIGNMENT, SIR?
A YES, IT IS.
Q AND YOU WERE SO ASSIGNED I BELIEVE YOU TOLD US ON JUNE THE 12TH AND 13TH OF 1994?
A YES.
Q ON THE EVENING OF JUNE THE 12TH…DID YOU RECEIVE A CALL AT SOME POINT THAT NIGHT —
A YES, I DID….

Q AND WHAT TIME DID YOU GET THAT CALL?
A AT 1:05 IN THE MORNING.
Q DID IT WAKE YOU UP?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT WERE YOU TOLD IN THAT CALL?
A I WAS TOLD BY MY SUPERVISOR, THE HOMICIDE COORDINATOR, DETECTIVE RON PHILLIPS, THAT WE HAD A DOUBLE HOMICIDE AND IT WAS AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY AND THAT I WOULD MEET HIM AT THE STATION AND WE WOULD GET A VEHICLE WITH A HOMICIDE KIT AND GO OUT TO THE SCENE FROM THERE.
Q WERE YOU TOLD ANYTHING ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF EITHER VICTIM?
A YES. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SAID THAT THE FEMALE VICTIM MIGHT BE THE EX-WIFE OF O.J. SIMPSON.
Q AND WHERE DID THE CALLER TELL YOU TO GO?
A 875 SOUTH BUNDY.
Q SO WHERE DID YOU GO?
WAIT. LET ME — WHEN YOU LEFT YOUR HOME, WHERE DID YOU GO?
A TO THE POLICE STATION AT 1663 SOUTH BUTLER, WEST LOS ANGELES STATION.
Q AND DID YOU MEET SOMEONE THERE?
A YES.
Q WHO?
A DETECTIVE RON PHILLIPS.
Q AND WHAT TIME DID YOU MEET HIM?
A SHORTLY BEFORE 2:00 O’CLOCK, MAYBE 1:50.
Q DID YOU LEAVE IMMEDIATELY THEN?
A WELL, WE COLLECTED — NOT IMMEDIATELY. WE COLLECTED BRIEFCASES, FLASHLIGHTS, ANYTHING WE THOUGHT WE NIGHT NEED AT THE SCENE, PUT IT INTO A VEHICLE AND LEFT FROM THAT — FROM THE STATION PARKING LOT.
Q SO DID YOU DRIVE IN YOUR OWN CAR OR DID YOU GO WITH SOMEONE ELSE?
A WELL, WE DROVE IN OUR OWN VEHICLES TO THE STATION AND THEN PUT EVERYTHING INTO A POLICE VEHICLE AND LEFT FROM THE STATION TO GO TO THE SCENE.
Q SO YOU AND RON PHILLIPS WENT FROM THE STATION TO THE SCENE TOGETHER?
A YES. HE WAS DRIVING, I WAS PASSENGER.
Q AND DID YOU DRIVE TO 875 SOUTH BUNDY?
A YES.
Q WHAT TIME DID YOU GET THERE?
A 0210 HOURS IS WHEN WE SIGNED IN TO THE OFFICER THAT WAS RUNNING THE LOG.
Q OKAY. 2:10 A.M.?
A YES….

Q CAN YOU TELL US, SIR, IF YOU NOTED WHAT THE AMBIENT TEMPERATURE WAS WHEN YOU ARRIVED THAT NIGHT?
A I APPROXIMATED IT AT ABOUT 60 DEGREES.
Q AND WHEN YOU GOT THERE, YOU’VE ALREADY INDICATE IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS THERE WERE POLICE CARS THERE. HOW MANY, IF YOU RECALL?
A I BELIEVE I SAW AT LEAST TWO BLACK AND WHITE’S WHEN I DROVE UP AND I BELIEVE WE WERE THE FIRST PLAIN OR DETECTIVE VEHICLE.
Q UH-HUH.
A I’M NOT SURE IF I WENT — SAW ONE DOWN THE ALLEY ON DOROTHY TO THE WEST OF THE LOCATION, BUT AT LEAST TWO — TWO BLACK AND WHITE’S IN FRONT.
Q WERE THEY IN FRONT OF THE LOCATION, SIR?
A IN FRONT OF 875 BUNDY?
Q UH-HUH.
A NO. THAT STREET WAS BLOCKED OFF.
Q OKAY. NOW, YOU CHECKED IN WITH A PERSON WHO WAS KEEPING A LOG. IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID?
A YES….

Q SHOW YOU WHAT’S BEEN MARKED AS DEFENDANT’S 1006. TELL US IF YOU CAN POINT OUT YOUR NAME, SIR, AND YOUR TIME OF ARRIVAL.
A IT’S THE 10TH ENTRY ON THE LOG, 010 — 0210 HOURS. OUR DESIGNATION WAS 8W110 AND PHILLIPS AND MYSELF ARE SIGNED IN ON THAT LOG.
Q AS INVESTIGATORS?
A YES.
Q WHAT’S THAT 8W110? WHAT’S THAT?
A THAT’S RON PHILLIPS’ CALL SIGN.
Q IS THAT WHAT YOU USE WHEN YOU GET ON THE RADIO TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF?
A YES. YES.
Q NOW, WHEN YOU GOT THERE, SIR… WHO WAS THERE?
A SERGEANT ROSSI AND I BELIEVE SERGEANT COON, BUT I’M NOT SURE IF HE WAS THERE AT THAT TIME FOR ME TO SEE OR IT WAS A LITTLE LATER, MAYBE A HALF HOUR LATER….

Q OKAY. DO YOU RECALL ANY STAFF OFFICERS OR COMMAND LEVEL OFFICERS THERE WHEN YOU GOT THERE?
A NOT AT THAT TIME.
Q NOW, WHAT WAS THE CONDITION OF THE CRIME SCENE WHEN YOU FOUND IT, WHEN YOU GOT THERE AT 2:10?
A WELL, THE STREETS HAD BEEN BLOCKED OFF WITH CRIME TAPE AND POLICE VEHICLES. WE WERE ADVISED THAT CERTAIN STREETS AND ALLEYWAYS HAD BEEN BLOCKED OFF.
THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE HAD BEEN TAPED OFF AND SECURED ALL THE WAY TO DOROTHY AND TO THE NEXT STREET TO THE NORTH. THE NORTH-SOUTH ALLEYWAY DIRECTLY BEHIND THE RESIDENCE HAD BEEN BLOCKED OFF WITH POLICEMEN AT BOTH LOCATIONS TO MAKE SURE NOBODY ENTERED THE CRIME SCENE FROM EITHER DIRECTION.
Q OKAY. SO WAS THERE ANYONE MOVING AROUND INSIDE THE CRIME SCENE TAPE WHEN YOU GOT THERE?
A NO.
Q WHO WAS THE — DID YOU MAKE CONTACT WITH THE FIRST OFFICER THAT FOUND THE BODIES?
A YES. BOTH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND I DID.
Q AND WHO WAS THAT?
A OFFICER RISKE.
Q AND DID YOU MAKE CONTACT WITH SERGEANT ROSSI AS WELL?
A YES. I BELIEVE SERGEANT ROSSI WAS CONTACTED FIRST. RISKE CAME UP WHILE WE WERE SPEAKING TO HIM.
Q NOW, OFFICER RISKE, DID YOU KNOW HIM PRIOR TO THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994?
A NO. I ONLY KNEW HIM AS RISKE.
Q OKAY. DO YOU SOCIALIZE WITH OFFICER RISKE ANY?
A NO. I DIDN’T KNOW HIS FIRST NAME UNTIL I SAW IT ON THE NEWS.
Q OKAY. NOW, HE WAS A PATROL COP; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
Q DID YOU EXPECT TO SEE PATROL OFFICERS AT THAT LOCATION WHEN YOU ARRIVED, SIR?
A YES.
Q AND WHY IS THAT?
A WELL, ALMOST — ALMOST ALWAYS, A PATROL OFFICER IS THE FIRST OFFICER TO RESPOND TO A HOMICIDE SCENE. USUALLY IT’S FROM A RADIO CALL AND THEY’RE THE FIRST ONES THERE.
Q WHAT ARE PATROL OFFICERS’ DUTIES AT A CRIME SCENE?
A THE FIRST AND FOREMOST FUNCTION WOULD BE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE POSSIBLE VICTIMS ARE IN FACT VICTIMS AND HAVE EXPIRED SO TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE’S NO CHANCE OF RESUSCITATION OR SAVING THE PEOPLE THAT ARE OR PERSON THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE DEAD.
THE SECOND WOULD BE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SUSPECT EITHER HAS BEEN FOUND, LOCATED AND ARRESTED OR HE IS NOT AT THE SCENE AND MAKE SURE THAT THE SCENE IS SECURE FROM SUSPECTS AND THEN THE THIRD WOULD BE, AFTER THOSE TWO FUNCTIONS, IS PROTECT THE CRIME SCENE AND ANY EVIDENCE FOR THE DETECTIVES IN THEIR INVESTIGATION.
Q HOW MANY HOMICIDE SCENES HAVE YOU APPEARED AT? NOT HANDLED, BUT APPEARED AT.
A WELL, I’D PROBABLY SAY IT WOULD — CONSERVATIVELY, A HUNDRED FIFTY TO 200, AND GENEROUSLY, PROBABLY MORE THAN 250 TO 300.
Q OKAY. AND WHEN I SAY APPEARED AT, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT KIND OF FUNCTIONS YOU PERFORMED IN THOSE CASES, HOMICIDE SCENES YOU’VE APPEARED AT?
A WELL, FROM EARLY IN MY CAREER, TO RESPONDING JUST AS OFFICER RISKE DID TO A RADIO CALL TO ASSISTING AND BEING PART OF HOMICIDE INVESTIGATIONS TO BEING A PRIMARY INVOLVED INVESTIGATING THE HOMICIDE.
Q SO HAVE YOU EVER BEEN A FIRST OFFICER AT A HOMICIDE SCENE YOURSELF?
A YES.
Q HAVE YOU EVER GUARDED THE PERIMETER; THAT IS, GUARDED THE CRIME SCENE TAPE AT A HOMICIDE SCENE?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q HAVE YOU EVER HELPED TO SEARCH THE AREA AROUND THE CRIME SCENE FOR EVIDENCE OR SUSPECTS?
A YES.
Q HAVE YOU EVER DOOR KNOCKED IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND THE CRIME SCENE AREA TO LOOK FOR WITNESSES?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q AND HAVE YOU EVER RESPONDED TO A CRIME SCENE IN YOUR CAPACITY AS A DETECTIVE?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS HAVE YOU RESPONDED AS A DETECTIVE TO A HOMICIDE SCENE?
A I’VE BEEN A PRIMARY ON FIVE. I RESPONDED PROBABLY TO 10, MAYBE 15, SOME WHEN I WAS WORKING ROBBERY.
Q OKAY. NOW THEN, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, SIR, WHO DO YOU EXPECT TO ARRIVE AT A HOMICIDE SCENE BEFORE THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER OR HANDLING DETECTIVES DO?
A I WOULD EXPECT TO SEE THE PATROL OFFICERS THAT INITIALLY GOT THE CALL.
Q UH-HUH.
A WHAT OFFICERS THEY FELT THAT WAS NECESSARY TO SEAL OFF THE SCENE PROPERLY. I WOULD ALSO EXPECT TO SEE A SUPERVISOR IF NOT THE WATCH COMMANDER. I MIGHT EXPECT TO SEE A COMMAND STAFF OFFICER OR THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE DIVISION, EITHER BE IT DETECTIVES OR PATROL.
Q AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, SIR, WHEN YOU RESPONDED TO 875 SOUTH BUNDY, IN WHAT CAPACITY WERE YOU RESPONDING TO THAT SCENE?
A I WAS A DETECTIVE THAT WAS TO INVESTIGATE THE HOMICIDE.
Q THE — YOU WERE TO BE THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER?
A YES.
Q THEN WHAT DID YOU EXPECT TO HAVE TRANSPIRED BY THE TIME YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE?
A I EXPECTED THE SCENE TO BE SECURED, DEATH TO BE PRONOUNCED TO THE VICTIMS, THE OFFICER TO SECURE THE LOCATION, PROTECT THE EVIDENCE, TO MAKE MENTAL NOTES OF WHERE CERTAIN THINGS WERE AND TO HELP ASSIST ME IN FINDING A PATH INTO THE — A SCENE — EXCUSE ME — INTO THE SCENE.
Q OKAY. WHEN YOU SAY “HELP ASSIST ME IN FINDING A PATH INTO THE SCENE,” WHAT DID YOU MEAN?
A THE EASIEST ROUTE TO DISTURB THE LEAST AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE SO THE SCENE CAN BE INVESTIGATED.
Q THEN I TAKE IT, WAS IT YOUR EXPECTATION, SIR, THAT SOMEONE, AT LEAST ONE OFFICER WOULD ALREADY HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE CRIME SCENE AND EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE AS IT LAY — THE BODIES AS THEY LAY AND LOOKED AROUND IN GENERAL?
A YES. THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT TO FIND OUT THEIR CONDITION.
Q UH-HUH.
WAS IT — DID YOU EXPECT — DID YOU HAVE ANY EXPECTATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE IMMEDIATE CRIME SCENE AREA WOULD HAVE BEEN LOOKED THROUGH FOR SUSPECTS?
A IT WOULD HAVE TO BE.
Q AND DID YOU HAVE ANY EXPECTATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE AREA, THE IMMEDIATE CRIME SCENE AREA WOULD HAVE BEEN LOOKED THROUGH FOR WEAPONS?
A I WOULD THINK THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN, YES.
Q AND THEN OF COURSE, FOR — WAS IT ALSO YOUR EXPECTATION THAT SOMEONE WOULD HAVE ALREADY — AT LEAST ONE OFFICER, IF NOT SEVERAL, WOULD HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE CRIME SCENE TO LOOK AND SEE WHERE THE EVIDENCE WAS AND WHAT IT WAS?
A YES.
Q NOW, KNOWING THE POSSIBLE IDENTITY OF THE — ONE OF THE VICTIMS, SIR, DID YOU HAVE ANY EXPECTATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WOULD BE ANY HIGH-RANKING POLICE OFFICERS ALREADY AT THE SCENE OR COMING TO THE SCENE?
A I WOULD ASSUME THAT THERE WOULD BE A CAPTAIN THAT PROBABLY ARRIVED AT LEAST. OF COURSE, THAT HAPPENS WITH QUITE A FEW HOMICIDES. BUT I EXPECTED TO SEE SOME COMMAND OFFICERS, YES.
Q AND WAS THAT — WHY WOULD YOU EXPECT THAT BASED ON THE IDENTITY, POSSIBLE IDENTITY OF ONE OF THE VICTIMS?
A I DON’T THINK IT WOULD BE JUST THAT. I THINK A DOUBLE HOMICIDE WOULD PROBABLY — I WOULD ABSOLUTELY BE FOR SURE THAT THE DETECTIVES’ CO, COMMANDING OFFICER, WOULD ARRIVE, MAYBE THE AREA CO, CAPTAIN.
Q WHAT’S AREA CO? I AM SORRY.
A THE AREA COMMANDING OFFICER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE WEST L.A. COMMANDING OFFICER. MAYBE THE OFFICER OF THE DAY, WHICH COULD BE A CAPTAIN OR COMMANDER AND QUITE POSSIBLY MAYBE EVEN A DEPUTY CHIEF.
Q OKAY. SO IS A DOUBLE HOMICIDE UNUSUAL IN YOUR NECK OF THE WOODS IN WEST L.A.?
A I WOULD SAY SO, YES.
Q OKAY. SO BASED ON THAT ALONE, YOU EXPECTED TO SEE ALL THAT BRASS THERE?
A WELL, THAT AND THEN COUPLED WITH THE POSSIBLE IDENTITY OF ONE OF THE VICTIMS, I WOULD GUESS THAT IT WOULD BE HAPPENING, YES.
Q UMM, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU MET WITH OFFICER RISKE, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A OFFICER RISKE EXPLAINED WHAT HE HAD FOUND, HOW HE ARRIVED AT THE SCENE. IT WAS A VERY GENERAL DESCRIPTION AT THAT POINT.
HE GAVE AN INDICATION THAT HE RECEIVED A CALL OF A BURGLAR, A POSSIBLE BURGLAR THERE NOW OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT ACROSS THE STREET, AND THEN HE WENT ON TO SAY HOW HE DISCOVERED THE FRONT OF THE LOCATION AND THE BODIES.
Q OKAY. AND DID HE DESCRIBE TO YOU WHAT HE FOUND IN THE CRIME SCENE, SIR?
A YES. HE DESCRIBED IT AS HE SHOWED ME….

Q BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE SCENE DEPICTED HERE, SIR?
A YES, I DO.
Q AND WHAT IS THIS SCENE?
A THIS IS THE FRONT OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY LOOKING DUE WEST FROM THE — PROBABLY THE PARKWAY INTO THE WALKWAY OF THE RESIDENCE. THE FRONT GATE IS OPEN….

Q AND DID YOU HAVE A FLASHLIGHT WITH YOU THAT NIGHT, SIR?
A YES.
Q WHAT KIND OF FLASHLIGHT WAS THAT?
A I HAD A SMALL FLASHLIGHT THAT I HELD ON MY BELT.
Q OKAY. SIZE OF A PEN?
A YES. I BELIEVE TWO DOUBLE A BATTERIES AND ADJUSTABLE HEAD SO YOU COULD MAKE IT A WIDE BEAM OR A VERY NARROW BEAM.
Q AND DID DETECTIVE PHILLIPS HAVE A FLASHLIGHT WITH HIM?
A YES. HE HAD A LARGER FLASHLIGHT I BELIEVE. I’M NOT POSITIVE, BUT I KNOW — EXCUSE ME.
Q GO AHEAD.
A OFFICER RISKE HAD A LARGE HIGH-POWER FLASHLIGHT WITH HIM.
Q THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION. AND WERE THEY USING THEM?
A OFFICER RISKE WAS USING THE FLASHLIGHT.
Q NOW, WHAT — IS THERE ANY RULE, SIR, REGARDING CRIME SCENE EXAMINATIONS CONCERNING HOW YOU GET ACCESS TO THEM, WHERE YOU’RE ALLOWED TO GO, HOW MANY PEOPLE, THAT SORT OF THING?
A WELL, AS FEW AS POSSIBLE. THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST RULE. AND YOU WOULD WANT TO BE ABLE TO TAKE THOSE PEOPLE WITHOUT DESTROYING ANY EVIDENCE.
Q SO WHEN YOU WERE STANDING UP ON THE — IN THE — WAS THAT OUT IN THE SHRUBBERY YOU WERE STANDING THERE?
A EXCUSE ME?
Q WERE YOU STANDING ON SHRUBBERY OR GRASS OVER THERE?
A YES. IT WAS SHRUBBERY, PLANTS.
Q DID YOU STEP ON THE WALKWAY?
A NO.
Q WHERE THE BLOOD IS SHOWN HERE?
A NO.
Q DID DETECTIVE PHILLIPS DO THAT?
A NO.
Q OFFICER RISKE DO THAT?
A NO, NOT THAT I SAW.
Q OKAY. WHAT WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE FROM YOUR VANTAGE POINT WHERE THE ARROW IS SHOWN?
A WE COULD SEE A FEMALE VICTIM IN A BLACK DRESS LYING AS IS DEPICTED IN THE PHOTO, HEAD TO ALMOST DUE NORTH, FEET ALMOST DUE SOUTH SOMEWHAT FACE DOWN IN A POOL OF BLOOD. IT APPEARED THAT THAT BLOOD WAS FLOWING DOWN THE WALKWAY PREDOMINATELY IN THE CRACKS OF THE TILED WALKWAY.
Q UH-HUH.
THOSE CRACKS — DO YOU REMEMBER THAT WALKWAY, SIR?
A YES.
Q IS THAT GROUTING RECESSED? IS IT DEEPER OR LOWER THAN THE ACTUAL TILE?
A YES. IT — I CAN’T RECALL IF IT WAS ACTUAL TILE OR A PRESS THAT THEY PUT INTO THE CONCRETE TO MAKE IT APPEAR THAT WAY, BUT THERE WAS RECESSES BETWEEN THE SQUARES.
Q UH-HUH.
WHERE THE GROUTING WAS?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT OTHER THAN THE FEMALE VICTIM?
A WELL, OFFICER RISKE USED HIS FLASHLIGHT TO POINT OUT SEVERAL ITEMS.
Q AND WHAT DID HE POINT OUT TO YOU, SIR?
A HE POINTED OUT THE MALE VICTIM FOR ONE, WHICH WASN’T EASILY SEEN FROM THAT ANGLE….
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS SCENE, DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT YOU’RE SEEING HERE?
A YES.
Q IS THAT THE CONDITION IN WHICH YOU SAW THE SCENE WHEN YOU RESPONDED ON THE NIGHT OF — EARLY MORNING HOURS ACTUALLY OF JUNE THE 13TH?
A IT WASN’T THAT WELL LIT, BUT YES, THAT’S HIS POSITION.
Q OKAY. SO IT WAS EVEN DARKER THAN IT SEEMS HERE?
A IT APPEARED TO ME, YES.
Q WERE YOU ABLE TO — PLEASE DESCRIBE FOR US THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO SEE AS OFFICER RISKE POINTED IT OUT TO YOU.
A THE WHITE ENVELOPE.
Q AS SHOWN IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH?
A YES. THE MALE VICTIM.
Q IS THAT THE POSITION IN WHICH YOU SAW HIM?
A YES. THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES.
OFFICER RISKE ALSO USED HIS FLASHLIGHT IN THE — THE BUSH WITH THE LONG LEAVES AT THE FEET OF THE MALE VICTIM. HE POINTED HIS FLASHLIGHT AND SAID THAT THERE WAS A KNIT CAP AND A GLOVE THERE ALSO.
Q WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE THEM?
A I WAS ABLE TO SEE SOMETHING. IT WAS PRETTY HARD TO MAKE OUT EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE FROM THAT ANGLE.
Q OKAY. SO HE JUST TOLD YOU AT THAT POINT?
A WELL, I — YES.
Q DID YOU MAKE SOME EFFORT TO SEE THE KNIT CAP AND THE GLOVE THAT HE POINTED OUT TO YOU?
A AT THAT TIME, WE ASKED OFFICER RISKE IF THERE WAS ANOTHER WAY WE COULD COME INTO THIS CRIME SCENE.
Q AND WHY WAS THAT, SIR?
A IT WAS — WE WOULD HAVE TO STEP ONTO THE SIDEWALK WHERE ALL THE BLOOD WAS TO GET INTO THE CRIME SCENE OR TOUCH THE FENCE WHICH WE WERE STANDING NEXT TO TO GET AROUND THAT. WE DIDN’T KNOW WHAT WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE. WE PREFERRED TO GO IN ANOTHER WAY IF WE COULD.
Q OKAY. SO WERE YOU TRYING TO GET A BETTER LOOK?
A YES.
Q WITHOUT DISTURBING ANYTHING?
A YES.
Q SO WHAT DID YOU DO?
A WE RETRACED OUR STEPS BACKWARD. WE HAD A DISCUSSION. OFFICER RISKE, SAID, WELL, WE CAN GO IN THROUGH THE ALLEY THROUGH THE BACK OF THE RESIDENCE. WE WERE PLEASED WITH THAT. SO WE WALKED BACK DOWN BUNDY SOUTH AND WEST ON DOROTHY AND THEN TO THE NORTH-SOUTH ALLEY, WHICH WAS TAPED OFF, AND WE APPROACHED THE REAR OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY.
Q OKAY. NOW, AS YOU WALKED UP THE GRASSY OR SHRUBBERY AREA WHICH WOULD BE TO THE SOUTH OF THE WALKWAY, THAT’S THE FRONT WALKWAY LEADING FROM THE SIDEWALK UP TO THE FRONT STEPS —
A YES.
Q — DID YOU OBSERVE THAT WALKWAY AND THE BLOOD THAT WAS ON IT?
A YES.
Q DID YOU LOOK TO SEE WHETHER THERE WERE ANY — WHETHER THERE WERE ANY SHOEPRINTS ON THAT BLOOD ON THE FRONT WALKWAY?
A THE WALKWAY THAT’S LEADING FROM THE FEMALE VICTIM EASTBOUND?
Q RIGHT.
A I DID NOT SEE ANY.
Q OKAY. DID YOU LOOK ON THE SIDEWALK — YOU SAID YOU WALKED DOWN THE SIDEWALK SOUTH ON BUNDY AND THEN WEST ON DOROTHY?
A NO. WE WALKED IN THE STREET.
Q OKAY. DID YOU SEE ANYTHING — WELL, STRIKE THAT. WHY DID YOU WALK IN THE STREET? WHY NOT ON THE SIDEWALK?
A THE BLOOD EMPTIED ONTO THE SIDEWALK AND THERE WAS PAW PRINTS, CANINE PRINTS LEADING SOUTH ON THE SIDEWALK IN THE BLOOD.
Q I AM SORRY?
A THE PAW PRINTS WERE IN BLOOD.
Q BLOODY PAW PRINTS?
A YES.
Q DID YOU FOLLOW THOSE PAW PRINTS AS YOU WALKED DOWN THE STREET?
A THEY HEADED SOUTHBOUND AND THEN DISSIPATED….
Q YOU SAID THAT YOU SAW BLOODY PAW PRINTS GOING SOUTH ON BUNDY?
A YES.
Q OKAY. WHERE DID THEY FADE OUT, IF YOU RECALL?
A IF I REMEMBER, IT WAS JUST ABOUT AT DOROTHY.
Q AND THEN YOU INDICATED YOU WENT WHERE?
A WE WENT WEST ON DOROTHY STREET TO THE OPENING TO THE NORTH-SOUTH ALLEY THAT LED BEHIND 875 SOUTH BUNDY….

Q NOW, WHO WERE YOU WALKING — I AM SORRY, SIR.
YOU INDICATED THAT YOU LEFT THE AREA RIGHT UP NEXT TO THE MAILBOX, WENT DOWN THE SHRUBBERY AND OUT TO THE STREET. AND WHO WAS WITH YOU AT THAT TIME?
A DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND OFFICER RISKE WHO WAS LEADING.
Q WHEN YOU WENT OUT INTO THE STREET AND WALKED SOUTH ON BUNDY AND WEST ON DOROTHY, WHO WAS WITH YOU?
A OFFICER RISKE IN THE LEAD AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND MYSELF.
Q AND WHEN YOU GOT TO THIS LOCATION, SIR… WHO WAS WITH YOU?…
A OFFICER RISKE WAS IN THE LEAD — HE WENT UNDER THE TAPE AND SHOWED US WHERE TO WALK — DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND MYSELF.
Q WAS THERE AN OFFICER GUARDING THIS PERIMETER, SIR, THIS CRIME SCENE TAPE?
A I BELIEVE THERE WAS, BUT IT’S NOT DEPICTED IN THE PHOTO, BUT I BELIEVE THERE WAS SOMEONE THERE, YES.
Q DID YOU ALL GO INSIDE THE CRIME SCENE TAPE?
A YES.
Q AND THEN WHERE DID YOU GO?
A WE WENT INTO THE REAR OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY FOLLOWING OFFICER RISKE….

Q BY MS. CLARK: CAN YOU TELL US IF YOU RECALL THIS SCENE, SIR?
A YES, I DO. THAT’S THE REAR OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY.
Q OKAY. AND IS THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU FOUND IT?
A YES….

Q BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT’S SHOWN HERE?
A YES, I DO.
Q WHAT IS IT?
A IT’S THE OPEN GARAGE OF THE REAR OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY, A BLACK JEEP CHEROKEE SITTING IN THE DRIVEWAY. JUST TO THE NORTH OF THE CHEROKEE IS THE ENTRANCE TO A WALKWAY THAT LEADS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE.
Q OKAY. AND WAS THE GARAGE DOOR OPEN WHEN YOU GOT THERE?
A YES.
Q DID OFFICER RISKE GIVE YOU ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THAT?
A NO.
Q DID YOU FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT THE GARAGE DOOR HAD INITIALLY BEEN OPEN OR CLOSED WHEN HE ARRIVED?
A I DID NOT.
Q NOW, DID HE POINT ANYTHING OUT TO YOU AT THAT TIME AROUND THE AREA OF THAT VEHICLE?
A NOT AT THAT TIME.
Q WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT?
A WE FOLLOWED HIM THROUGH THE GARAGE PAST THE WHITE FERRARI AND IN —
Q YOU DESCRIBED THE WHITE FERRARI IN THE PAST TWO PHOTOGRAPHS. DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT WAS SHOWN?
A YES.
Q WAS THAT THE FERRARI YOU REFERRED TO?
A YES.
Q NOW, THE AREA TO THE RIGHT OF THE FERRARI IN THE PHOTOGRAPH, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT AS A PATH THAT YOU TOOK?
A YES. I BELIEVE THAT’S THE PATH THAT LEADS TO THE DOOR THAT LEADS INTO THE BOTTOM REAR OF THE RESIDENCE.
Q OKAY. AND WHO LED THE WAY?
A OFFICER RISKE.
Q WHEN YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE, SIR, WHAT DID YOU SEE?
A I ENTERED THE OPEN DOOR OF THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE. OFFICER RISKE POINTED OUT SOME ICE CREAM THAT WAS ON THE BANISTER AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STAIRS.
Q UH-HUH. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT ICE CREAM, SIR?
A BEN AND JERRY’S. I’D PROBABLY SAY A MEDIUM SIZE CUP.
Q WHAT DID THE ICE CREAM LOOK LIKE?
A TAN COLOR, LUMPY.
Q OKAY. AND NEXT?
A WE WALKED UP THE STAIRS THAT WERE DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THAT DOOR WHICH LED INTO A WALKWAY WHICH PASSED THE KITCHEN ON THE NORTH, A SOLID WALL ON THE RIGHT WHERE I BELIEVE THE TELEPHONE WAS AND SOME PICTURES WHICH LED INTO A LIVING ROOM AREA WITH AN OPEN FRONT DOOR AND A DINING ROOM AREA TO THE LEFT OR NORTH.
Q DURING THAT FIRST WALK THROUGH, SIR, DID YOU LOOK TO SEE WHETHER THERE WERE ANY OBVIOUS SIGNS OF DISTURBANCE OR RANSACKING OR STRUGGLE?
A I LOOKED, BUT I DIDN’T SEE ANY.
Q DID YOU SEE ANY — ANYTHING LIKE DRAWERS PULLED OUT OR PROPERTY OR ITEMS THROWN AROUND?
A NO. IT WAS VERY NEAT, VERY CLEAN, STERILE ALMOST.
Q DID YOU SEE ANY BLOODY SHOEPRINTS?
A NO.
Q DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD SMEARS ON THE WALLS?
A NO.
Q DID YOU SEE ANY HOLES IN THE WALL?
A NO.
Q BROKEN FURNITURE?
A NO.
Q SPILLED PURSES?
A NO.
Q SPILLED JEWELRY?
A NO.
Q NOW, YOU MENTIONED EARLIER SOMETHING ABOUT ROBBERY, WORKING ROBBERIES. DID YOU EVER WORK ANY BURGLARY CASES?
A YES.
Q THROUGHOUT THE COURSE — YOU’VE BEEN ON THE POLICE FORCE HOW LONG NOW?
A 19 YEARS, SIX MONTHS.
Q AND DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, SIR, HOW MANY BURGLARY CASES APPROXIMATELY OR RESIDENTIAL ROBBERY CASES HAVE YOU WORKED?
A AS FAR AS BOTH PATROL AND DETECTIVE?
Q RIGHT.
A THAT WOULD BE IN THE HUNDREDS.
Q YOU’VE SEEN EVIDENCE OF RANSACKING IN EACH OF THOSE CASES, SIR?
A NOT EACH, BUT IT’S A PREDOMINANT M.O. FACTOR ON A BURGLARY.
Q DID YOU OBSERVE ANYTHING INSIDE THIS HOUSE THAT LOOKED CONSISTENT WITH RANSACKING OR BURGLARY?
A NO….

Q OKAY. AFTER YOU GOT TO THE LIVING ROOM, THEN WHAT DID YOU DO?
A OFFICER RISKE WAS DIRECTING US AND SEEING THAT — I CAN’T RECALL IF HE SAID THAT THE DOOR WAS WIDE OPEN, BUT IT WAS AT THIS POINT.
HE WALKED US ONTO THE LANDING, AND AS HE WALKED ONTO THE LANDING, HE SHINED HIS FLASHLIGHT ON HEEL PRINTS, FOOTPRINTS, SHOEPRINTS IN BLOOD AND POINTED OUT AT LEAST ONE DROP OF BLOOD TO THE LEFT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DIDN’T STEP IN THAT AREA.
Q OKAY. WHEN YOU SAY THE DOOR, WHICH DOOR ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
A THE FRONT DOOR.
Q AND WHEN YOU GOT TO IT WITH OFFICER RISKE AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, IT WAS WIDE OPEN?
A YES….

Q DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT YOU SEE THERE, SIR? DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT?
A I RECOGNIZE THE PHOTO, YES.
Q OKAY. CAN YOU TELL US WHAT VANTAGE POINT THAT’S TAKEN FROM?
A IT APPEARS THAT IT’S TAKEN FROM THE LANDING THAT YOU WOULD WALK OUT ONTO FROM THE FRONT DOOR. LOOKING DOWN ON THE FEMALE VICTIM, YOU WOULD BE LOOKING IN A NORTH — NORTHEASTERLY DIRECTION.
Q DOES THIS DESCRIBE WHAT YOU WERE ABLE TO SEE? THIS PHOTOGRAPH IS PRETTY DARK, BUT WERE YOU ABLE TO GET THIS VIEW OF THE BODIES AND THE EVIDENCE FROM WHERE YOU WERE STANDING AT THE TOP OF THE LANDING WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND OFFICER RISKE?
A YES.
Q WERE THEY USING THEIR FLASHLIGHTS AT THE TIME, SIR?
A EXCUSE ME?
Q WERE THEY USING THEIR FLASHLIGHTS AT THE TIME?
A OFFICER RISKE WAS. HE WAS USING HIS TO POINT OUT ANY EVIDENCE OR ANYTHING OF VALUE THAT HE WANTED TO SHOW US.
Q OKAY. AND IS THAT — WHO’S THAT MAN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH THERE POINTING TO THE BUSH?

Q CAN YOU SEE, SIR — CAN YOU SEE, SIR, WHAT IS LOCATED UNDERNEATH THE BUSH?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT IS IT?
A THE FOREMOST IN THE PICTURE IS A GLOVE AND ABOVE IT APPEARS TO BE A DARK BLUE KNIT CAP.
Q NOW, WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU SAW THOSE TWO ITEMS IN PARTICULAR THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO DETECT WHAT THEY WERE?
A FROM THAT LANDING, OFFICER RISKE SHINED HIS LIGHT ON THOSE ONCE AGAIN SHOWING SEVERAL OBJECTS THAT HE HAD PREVIOUSLY SEEN.
Q OKAY. AND IT — WAS HE THE ONE WHO POINTED OUT THE GLOVE AND THE CAP UNDERNEATH THE BUSH TO YOU?
A YES.
Q WHAT ELSE DID HE POINT OUT, SIR?
A I BELIEVE HE POINTED OUT A WHITE ENVELOPE THAT WAS JUST SOUTH OF THE MALE VICTIM CLOSE TO THE SIDEWALK. HE POINTED OUT A — HE POINTED OUT A PAGER.
I BELIEVE I OBSERVED A MENU BELOW THE FEMALE VICTIM. I’M NOT SURE IF I DETERMINED IT WAS A MENU AT THAT POINT, BUT I SAW SOMETHING. AND HE MADE A POINT TO SHOW US HEEL PRINTS AND SHOEPRINTS THAT APPEARED TO BE IMPRINTED IN BLOOD THAT WERE LEADING WESTBOUND FROM THAT SCENE.
Q DID YOU AT THAT TIME NOTICE ANY SHOEPRINT NEAR THE EVIDENCE OF THE HAT AND THE GLOVE?
A YES. I SAW A SHOEPRINT, BUT IT WAS A GOOD DISTANCE FROM ME AT THAT POINT.
Q SO AT THAT TIME, WERE YOU ABLE TO DETECT ANY SHOEPRINTS NEAR THE EVIDENCE OF THE HAT AND THE GLOVE?
A IT APPEARED TO BE THAT THERE WAS A SHOEPRINT THERE, BUT I WASN’T VERY CLOSE TO IT.
Q IN ORDER TO SEE, TO DISCERN WHAT THOSE ITEMS WERE UNDERNEATH THE BUSH, WAS IT NECESSARY TO USE THE LIGHT OF THE FLASHLIGHT?
A I BELIEVE IT WAS. IT CERTAINLY AIDED DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND MYSELF TO SEE THOSE ITEMS….

Q DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT, SIR?
A I BELIEVE IT’S THE WHITE ENVELOPE I OBSERVED THAT MORNING.
Q NOW, EARLIER YOU SAID HEEL PRINT BETWEEN THE — I MEAN HEEL PRINT IN BLOOD, BLOODY HEEL PRINT NEAR THE EVIDENCE OF THE HAT AND THE GLOVE. DO YOU MEAN HEEL PRINT BY A SHOE OR BARE FOOT?
A BY A SHOE.
Q BARE FOOT. ALL RIGHT. AFTER POINTING OUT THE EVIDENCE YOU DESCRIBED, SIR, YOU SAID OFFICER RISKE POINTED THAT EVIDENCE OUT, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A HE POINTED AT THE DIRECTION THAT THE SHOEPRINTS THAT APPEARED TO BE IN THE BLOOD OF ONE OR BOTH OF THE VICTIMS WAS MARKING ITSELF ONTO THE SIDEWALK AND LEADING WESTBOUND. HE ALSO POINTED OUT SEVERAL DROPS OF BLOOD TO THE LEFT OF THOSE FOOTPRINTS….

Q BY MS. CLARK: ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE ANYTHING —
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, SIR, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE LOCATION SHOWN IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH?
A I BELIEVE THIS IS THE WALKWAY — YES. AND THIS IS THE WALKWAY LEADING WEST ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE AWAY FROM THE LANDING THAT WE WERE JUST VIEWING FROM VIEWING THE FEMALE VICTIM.
Q OKAY. IS THIS THE WALKWAY THAT LEADS OUT TO THE REAR ALLEY?
A YES.
Q TELL US WHAT ELSE YOU SEE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH.
A I SEE SHOEPRINTS THAT APPEAR TO BE DARK AND IMPRINTED IN WHAT I BELIEVED TO BE BLOOD THAT MORNING POINTING WESTBOUND….

Q THEN YOU INDICATED THAT YOU SAW BLOOD DROPS TO THE LEFT OF THOSE SHOEPRINTS?
A YES. A FEW.
Q DID SOMEONE POINT THOSE OUT TO YOU, SIR?
A YES.
Q AND WHO WAS THAT?
A OFFICER RISKE….
Q BY MS. CLARK: WHILE HE’S PRINTING, SIR, LET ME ASK YOU A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
YOU SAID YOU CAME OUT THE FRONT DOOR AND STOOD ON THE LANDING WITH OFFICER RISKE AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND LOOKED AT THE EVIDENCE AS OFFICER RISKE POINTED IT OUT WITH HIS FLASHLIGHT?
A YES.
Q DID YOU GET ANY CLOSER TO THE BODIES THAN THAT?
A NO.
Q YOU STAYED UP ON THE LANDING DID YOU?
A YES, I DID.
Q EVER GO DOWN THE STAIRS AND STEP INTO THE CRIME SCENE OR STEP OVER THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN?
A LATER THAT MORNING AFTER I RETURNED FROM ROCKINGHAM, YES.
Q NO, BUT I MEAN AT THIS TIME.
A AT THIS TIME, NO.
Q AND SO WHAT IS THE CLOSEST THAT YOU GOT TO THE BODIES OF RON GOLDMAN AND NICOLE BROWN AT THAT TIME, 2:00 A.M. IN THE MORNING?
A STANDING ABOVE THEM ON THE TOP OF THE LANDING….
Q …NOW, YOU INDICATED EARLIER, SIR, THAT OFFICER RISKE POINTED OUT BLOODY SHOEPRINTS TO YOU?
A YES….

Q BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU SEE ANY OTHER BLOODY SHOEPRINTS IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, SIR?
A I CAN NOT.
Q OKAY. DID YOU WALK WITH OFFICER RISKE THEN TOWARDS THE ALLEY DOWN THE WALKWAY?
A YES. HE DIRECTED US TO WALK TO THE RIGHT OF THE PRINTS AND YES, WE WALKED TO THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE.
Q AS YOU — AS YOU ALL WALKED, DID OFFICER RISKE LEAD YOU?
A YES.
Q AND WAS DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WITH YOU AS WELL?
A HE WAS DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF ME, YES.
Q DID YOU — WAS HE — DID OFFICER RISKE WARN YOU WHERE TO STAY AWAY FROM AS YOU WALKED DOWN THE WALKWAY TOWARDS THE ALLEY?
A YES.

Q AND DID YOU AVOID STEPPING IN ANY OF THE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS OR BLOOD DROPS?
A YES.
Q AT SOME POINT GOING WESTBOUND ON THAT WALKWAY, SIR, DID THE SHOEPRINTS FADE OUT?
A YES, THEY DID.
Q AT WHAT POINT?
A IT SEEMS BEFORE WE ENTERED INTO A STEP-DOWN AREA INTO A TROTH. I SAY TROTH. IT’S AN AREA THAT YOU STEP FOUR OR FIVE STEPS DOWN INTO AN AREA THAT LEVELS OFF FOR SEVERAL FEET, THEN STEPS LEAD UP ONCE AGAIN AND LEADS TO THE REAR GATE OF THE RESIDENCE ON THAT PATHWAY TO THE ALLEY.
Q BY THE TIME YOU GOT TO THE REAR GATE THAT LEADS OUT INTO THE ALLEY, SIR, WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE ANY MORE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS?
A I DID NOT, NO.
Q AS YOU WERE WALKING WESTBOUND IN THE ALLEY, WERE YOU FOLLOWING THOSE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS, THE PATH THAT THEY TOOK?
A I WAS FOLLOWING OFFICER RISKE AND HE WAS POINTING OUT THINGS THAT WE SHOULD NOTE, AND I SAW THEM FADE AT A CERTAIN POINT.
Q DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTE HOW MANY BLOOD DROPS TO THE LEFT OF THOSE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS YOU SAW BETWEEN THE LANDING AND THE REAR GATE?
A I DIDN’T COUNT THEM. I WOULD SAY SEVERAL, BUT I DIDN’T COUNT THEM AND I NEVER WENT BACK TO COUNT THEM. SO I COULDN’T SAY ANYTHING MORE THAN SEVERAL.
Q YOU DON’T — DO YOU HAVE A PRESENT RECOLLECTION OF THAT, HOW MANY?
A THREE TO SEVEN, THREE TO FIVE.
Q WHEN YOU GOT TO THE REAR GATE AREA, DID YOU MAKE ANY OBSERVATIONS THERE?
A OFFICER RISKE POINTED OUT SOME BLOOD ON THE GATE, SOME SMUDGING ON THE UPPER RAIL OF THE GATE. I NOTICED SOME BLOOD DROPPING ON THE CENTER OF THE GATE, THE MESH PART OF THE GATE…. THERE APPEARED TO BE EVIDENCE OF BLOOD ON THE BOTTOM RUNG OF THE GATE. I NOTICED A BLOOD SMUDGE AROUND THE DOOR TURN KNOB LOCK ON THE INTERIOR OR THE EAST SIDE OF THE GATE….

Q DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT’S SHOWN IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH, SIR?
A YES.
Q WHAT IS THAT?
A THIS IS THIS TROTH AREA THAT I WAS DESCRIBING AND THESE ARE THE STEPS LEADING OUT OF IT WESTBOUND UP TO THE REAR GATE, WHICH IN THIS PICTURE IS OPEN.
Q OKAY.
AND IS THAT THE REAR GATE WHERE YOU JUST DESCRIBED SEEING THE BLOOD DROPPING ON THE LOWER REAR — LOWER RUNG AND THE MIDDLE AND THEN THE SMUDGE ON THE LATCH?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT ELSE WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE ON THAT GATE, SIR?
A NOT AT THAT TIME, BUT LATER, I SAW A PARTIAL POSSIBLE FINGERPRINT THAT WAS ON THAT KNOB AREA.
Q DID YOU THEN WALK THROUGH THE REAR GATE, SIR, WITH OFFICER RISKE AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS?
A YES.
Q AND DID YOU — DID HE POINT ANYTHING OUT TO YOU IN THAT REAR DRIVEWAY?
A YES. THERE WAS OTHER BLOOD DROPS AND CHANGE THAT WAS STREWN ON THE DRIVEWAY TO THE NORTH OF THE JEEP.
Q WAS THERE SOME EFFORT MADE BY YOURSELF, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND OFFICER RISKE TO AVOID TOUCHING THE BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE?
A YES.
Q WHAT DID YOU DO? HOW DID YOU AVOID IT?
A EITHER KEEP YOUR HANDS IN YOUR POCKETS OR KEEP YOUR HANDS ON YOUR NOTEBOOK AND YOU DON’T TOUCH ANYTHING.
Q WAS THE REAR GATE STANDING OPEN WHEN YOU GOT TO IT?
A IT WAS OPEN.
Q DO YOU RECALL OFFICER RISKE POINTING OUT A BLOOD DROP NEAR — JUST INSIDE THE REAR GATE?
A I DON’T RECALL THAT, BUT HE COULD HAVE. HE POINTED OUT SEVERAL PIECES OF ITEMS IN THAT FIRST WALK THROUGH.
Q AND IF HE HAD, WOULD YOU HAVE AVOIDED IT, SIR?
A YES.
Q NOW, WHAT IF ANYTHING DO YOU RECALL BEING POINTED OUT TO YOU BY OFFICER RISKE OUT AT THE REAR DRIVEWAY AREA?
A THE DROPS OF BLOOD AND THE CHANGE AND HE DID MAKE A COMMENT THAT THEY DIDN’T CONTINUE INTO THE — INTO THE ALLEY. I WENT INTO THE ALLEY AND OBSERVED THAT FOR MYSELF. I COULDN’T SEE ANY.
Q AND HOW DID YOU LOOK IN THE ALLEY TO LOOK FOR BLOOD DROPS?
A USING A FLASHLIGHT.
Q THE FACT THAT YOU SAW A BLOOD DROP ON THE DRIVEWAY, BUT YOU WERE UNABLE TO OBSERVE ANY IN THE ALLEYWAY, WAS THAT SIGNIFICANT TO YOU?
A YES.
Q WHY?
A I WOULD CONCLUDE THAT THE PERSON EITHER STOPPED BLEEDING OR ENTERED SOME FORM OF TRANSPORTATION….
Q BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT, SIR.
PEOPLE’S 48-H AND I, DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT’S DEPICTED IN THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS?
A IT APPEARS TO BE THE SIZE OF BLOOD DROPS THAT I SAW ON THE REAR DRIVEWAY AND THIS APPEARS TO BE THE SMOOTH CONCRETE DRIVEWAY IN THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE.
Q IS THAT THE BLOOD DROP THAT WAS POINTED OUT TO YOU BY OFFICER RISKE THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED TO US?
A IT LOOKS LIKE MOST OF THE BLOOD DROPS THAT I SAW, YES.
Q AND TO WHAT SIDE — IF YOU’RE EXITING AS YOU WERE, AS YOU ARE EXITING THE REAR GATE WALKING WEST, COME OUT OF THE REAR GATE, THE JEEP WOULD BE TO WHAT SIDE OF YOU AND THE BLOOD DROP WOULD BE TO WHAT SIDE OF THE JEEP?
A THE BLOOD DROP WOULD BE TO THE RIGHT OF THE JEEP WHICH WOULD BE TO THE NORTH OF THE JEEP AND THE JEEP WOULD BE TO THE LEFT OR THE SOUTH OF THE DROP AND THE —
Q YEAH. OKAY. WAS THE JEEP TO THE SOUTH OF THE REAR GATE AREA?
A YES….

Q BY MS. CLARK: AND — DO YOU SEE THE JEEP THAT YOU’VE BEEN DESCRIBING TO US, SIR?
A YES. A BLACK JEEP CHEROKEE.
Q AND IS THAT THE POSITION THAT YOU FOUND IT WHEN YOU WERE SHOWN THE LOCATION BY OFFICER RISKE IN THE COMPANY OF DETECTIVE PHILLIPS?
A YES.
Q DO YOU RECALL THOSE GARBAGE CANS THERE, SIR?
A I THINK THERE WAS SOME THERE. I DON’T RECALL THEIR EXACT DESCRIPTION, BUT I THINK THERE WERE GARBAGE CANS THERE, YES.
Q FROM WHAT YOU RECALL OF THE CRIME SCENE OF THAT AREA THAT NIGHT, WAS THERE ROOM FOR A CAR TO PARK BETWEEN THE BLACK JEEP AND THE GARBAGE CANS?
A I WOULDN’T THINK SO, NO.
Q OR BETWEEN THE BLACK JEEP AND THAT WALL OR CURB THERE?
A I DON’T BELIEVE SO. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY TIGHT.
Q YOU DESCRIBED CHANGE THAT YOU SAW, SIR?
A YES.
Q DO YOU RECALL WHERE IT WAS IN RELATION TO THE JEEP?
A TO THE NORTH OF THE JEEP.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: PEOPLE’S EXHIBIT 48-K.
Q BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT, SIR?
A THAT’S A DIME AND A PENNY. I BELIEVE THE DENOMINATION OF THE CHANGE THAT I SAW ON THE GROUND WAS I BELIEVE PENNIES, DIMES AND MAYBE A NICKEL.
Q HOW FAR, IF YOU CAN RECALL, APPROXIMATELY WAS THAT CHANGE FROM THE BLOOD DROP THAT YOU SAW IN THE DRIVEWAY?
A IT WAS IN THE SAME GENERAL AREA.
Q AND WERE THERE ANY BLOODY SHOEPRINTS IN THAT DRIVEWAY AREA?
A I DID NOT SEE NONE OR SEE ANY, NO.
Q AFTER YOU WENT OUT INTO THE REAR DRIVEWAY AND ATTEMPTED TO EXAMINE THE ALLEY FOR BLOOD, WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT?
A WELL, AT THAT TIME, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND OFFICER RISKE WALKED BACK OUT ONTO DOROTHY AND I REENTERED THE HOUSE TO START CATCHING UP ON THE NOTES FROM WHAT HAD BEEN SHOWN TO ME SO FAR AND WHAT I HAD OBSERVED.
Q OKAY. NOW, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY CATCH UP ON THE NOTES?
A WELL, WE WERE WALKING AND I WAS TRYING TO MAKE — TAKE MENTAL NOTES. AND WHEN I GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING MYSELF UP-TO-DATE WITH THOSE NOTES BEFORE I LOST TRACK OF ANYTHING OFFICER RISKE BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION OR ANYTHING THAT I OBSERVED.
Q NOW, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU CUSTOMARILY DO AT SCENES THAT YOU’RE HANDLING, SIR?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THOSE NOTES?
A TO START PRELIMINARY NOTES SO I KNOW WHO TO DIRECT AND TO WHERE TO GET MY LOGISTICAL ORGANIZATION SET IN MY MIND, WHAT I’M GOING TO NEED FOR THIS SCENE, WHAT I NEED FOR CRIMINALISTS, SEROLOGISTS, TRACE EVIDENCE, FINGERPRINTS, PHOTOGRAPHS, DO I NEED LIGHT TRUCKS, DO I NEED MORE PERSONNEL, ENLARGE THE SCENE, SHRINK THE SCENE. I HAVE TO CATCH UP WITH I HAVE, WHAT NEEDS TO BE PRESERVED, HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT, HOW DO WE RECOVER IT.
SO THERE’S A LOT OF ITEMS THAT I HAVE TO START THINKING ABOUT FOR NOTIFICATIONS TO GET PEOPLE TO THE LOCATION TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO.
Q OKAY. NOW, SO YOU WALKED BACK THROUGH THE HOUSE AGAIN ENTERING THROUGH THAT SAME — EXCUSE ME. YOU REENTERED THE HOUSE THROUGH THE GARAGE; IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?
A YES.
Q AND WAS THAT THE SAME PATH GOING TO THE RIGHT OF THE FERRARI?
A YES.
Q WHERE DID YOU — DID YOU GO ALL — LOOK THROUGHOUT THE HOUSE OR DID YOU WALK STRAIGHT TO THE LIVING ROOM AREA?
A I WALKED TO THE LIVING ROOM AREA. WE HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY SHOWN THE UPSTAIRS AND THE BATHROOM.
Q WHO SHOWED YOU THAT?
A OFFICER RISKE.
Q AND WHEN WAS THAT?
A DURING THE INITIAL WALK THROUGH.
Q OKAY. SO WHEN YOU WENT IN WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND OFFICER RISKE, HE SHOWED YOU THE KITCHEN AREA, DID HE?
A YES. HE DIDN’T — WE DIDN’T WALK THROUGH THE KITCHEN AREA. WE WALKED TO THE RIGHT OF IT. HE SHOWED US — HE JUST TOOK US UPSTAIRS AND SAID THERE WAS — SHOWED US CANDLES BURNING IN THE BATH ROOM. THERE WAS CANDLES BURNING IN THE LIVING ROOM.
Q OKAY. AND DID YOU NOTICE UPSTAIRS WHAT THE CONDITION OF THE MASTER BEDROOM WAS?
A THERE WAS NOTHING DISTURBED THAT I SAW.
Q OKAY. BY DISTURBED, DID YOU SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF BLOOD?
A NO.
Q DID YOU SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF DRAWERS PULLED OUT?
A NO.
Q SEE JEWELRY THROWN AROUND?
A NO.
Q SEE CLOTHES THROWN AROUND?
A NO.
Q DID YOU SEE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS ON THE CARPETING?
A NO, I DIDN’T.
Q AND IN THE BATHROOM, DID YOU SEE ANY OF THOSE THINGS?
A NO.
Q DID YOU LOOK INTO ANY OTHER ROOMS UPSTAIRS?
A IF WE DID, WE DIDN’T ENTER THEM. WE JUST LOOKED INSIDE. THERE DIDN’T APPEAR TO BE ANYTHING THAT OFFICER RISKE HAD DISCOVERED EARLIER AND THERE DIDN’T APPEAR TO BE ANYTHING THAT WE NOTED.
Q ANYTHING?
A OF ANY UNUSUAL OR EVIDENTIARY VALUE, NOTHING THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXTERIOR.
Q OKAY.
WHEN YOU SAY NOTHING THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXTERIOR, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT, SIR?
A THERE WAS A LOT OF BLOOD EVIDENCE ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOUSE. SOMEONE HAD FLED THE SCENE THAT WAS BLEEDING. WE HAD TWO VICTIMS THAT HAD BLED QUITE A LOT.

Q AND DID YOU SEE ANY OF THAT KIND OF BLOOD OR BLEEDING INSIDE THE HOUSE?
A NOT AT ALL.
Q ANY DIRT THAT APPEARED TO HAVE BEEN TRACKED INSIDE FROM OUTSIDE THE HOUSE?
A NOT THAT I SAW, NO.
Q OR LEAVES FROM THE FOLIAGE AROUND THE CRIME SCENE OUTSIDE THE HOUSE, DID YOU SEE THAT TRACKED INSIDE?
A NO. NO.
Q SO WHEN YOU WENT BACK INSIDE AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND OFFICER RISKE WENT OUT ONTO DOROTHY, DID YOU WALK STRAIGHT THROUGH AND SIT DOWN IN THE LIVING ROOM?
A YES. I SAT DOWN ON THE EDGE OF THE COUCH NEAREST THE RIGHT SIDE OR THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE FRONT DOOR.
Q OKAY. SO WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF GOING BACK INSIDE? WAS THAT TO DO ANOTHER SEARCH?
A NO. I WANTED TO CATCH UP ON MY NOTES WHEN EVERYTHING WAS FRESH RIGHT THEN….

Q BY MS. CLARK: FIRST OF ALL, SIR, I’M GOING TO SHOW TO YOU AND ASK YOU TO TELL ME IF THESE APPEAR TO BE THE NOTES YOU TOOK IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF FEBRUARY — EXCUSE ME — JUNE THE 13TH, 1994 AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY.
A THOSE ARE MY NOTES, YES….

Q OKAY. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT WRITING, SIR?
A YES, THIS IS MY WRITING.
Q THAT’S YOUR — ARE THESE THE NOTES YOU JUST IDENTIFIED FOR US, SIR?
A EXCUSE ME?
Q ARE THOSE THE NOTES THAT YOU’VE JUST IDENTIFIED AS HAVING TAKEN ON THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE THE 13TH?
A YES.
Q NOW, WHEN YOU SAY THEY’RE BEGINNING AT THE SCENE 2:10 HOURS, IS THAT 2:10 IN THE MORNING, SIR?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT DO YOU — WHAT IS IT YOU’RE TELLING US THERE?
A I’M JUST MAKING A NOTATION MY ARRIVAL AT THE SCENE WAS AT 0210 HOURS AND I CONTACTED SERGEANT ROSSI AS THE MORNING WATCH OR A.M. WATCH COMMANDER AT WEST L.A.
Q AND THEN YOU PUT ITEM 1, OFFICER RISKE. AND IS THAT WHAT OFFICER RISKE REPORTED TO YOU, SIR, IN THAT FIRST ITEM?
A THAT’S WHAT I CONCLUDED. IN OTHER WORDS, A CONDENSED VERSION, YES.
Q NOW, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THESE NOTES? IS THIS A FORMAL REPORT THAT YOU’RE MAKING, SIR?

A NO. I MAKE NOTES LIKE THIS AND I USE A NUMERAL ON EACH ITEM AND THEN I CAN TAKE THAT NUMERAL AND TITLE A PAGE AND WRITE ABOUT THAT SUBJECT AND THEN I CAN GO BACK TO IT WITHOUT CONFUSING MYSELF.
Q OKAY. HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THESE IN TERMS OF FORMAL OR ROUGH NOTES?
A I’D CHARACTERIZE THESE AS MY FIRST IMPRESSION OR MY ROUGH NOTES.
Q AND WITH RESPECT TO ITEM 2, WAS THAT INFORMATION PASSED ON TO YOU BY OFFICER RISKE?
A YES.
Q NOW, AGAIN, WITH RESPECT TO ITEM 3 —
A YES.
Q — IS THAT WHAT WAS PASSED ONTO YOU BY OFFICER RISKE?
A YES.
Q AT THE TIME THAT YOU RESPONDED TO THE SCENE, SIR, AT 2:10 A.M., DID YOU KNOW WHAT THE CAUSE OF DEATH WAS?
A NO.
Q DID OFFICER RISKE KNOW WHAT THE CAUSE OF DEATH WAS?
A NO.
Q YOU HAVE THE LAST LINE OF PARAGRAPH 3, POSS GSW.
A YES.
Q CAN YOU INTERPRET FOR US WHAT THAT MEANS?
A IT MEANS POSSIBLE GUNSHOT WOUND….
Q AND ITEM 4, YOU INDICATE HERE THAT THE RESIDENCE APPEARS UNTOUCHED, NO RANSACKING?

A THOSE ARE MY OBSERVATIONS.

Q UH-HUH. AND IS THAT BASICALLY WHAT YOU’VE CONVEYED TO US HERE TODAY?

A YES, IT IS.

Q WAS THAT SIGNIFICANT TO YOU, SIR?
A I BELIEVE IT APPEARED WHATEVER HAPPENED WAS — HAPPENED TO WHOEVER WAS INSIDE THE RESIDENCE DID NOT EXPECT TOBE ENCOUNTERED IN ANY FORM OF CONFRONTATION.

Q UH-HUH. AND WHAT ABOUT WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER THE KILLER WENT INSIDE THE HOUSE AT ANY POINT AFTER THE MURDERS?
A I BELIEVE ITEMS 3 AND MAYBE 4 WOULD INDICATE THAT THEY DID NOT….

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 1995
9:09 A.M….
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WOULD YOU PLEASE RESUME THE WITNESS STAND….

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MS. CLARK:
Q WHEN WE LEFT OFF, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WERE WRITING NOTES, ON THE LIVING ROOM COUCH, INSIDE THE CONDOMINIUM AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, BEFORE YOU BEGAN — YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE AT A POINT TO SIT DOWN AND WRITE YOUR NOTES, WAS THERE ANY POINT YOU WERE AT THE CRIME SCENE UP UNTIL THAT TIME THAT YOU WERE ALONE?
A NO.
Q WHO WERE YOU WITH FROM THE MOMENT YOU ARRIVED AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY WITH — IN THE COMPANY OF DETECTIVE PHILLIPS IN HIS CAR, WHO WERE YOU WITH?
A DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.
Q OKAY. AFTER — WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY WHO DID YOU MEET?
A SERGEANT ROSSI AND OFFICER RISKE.
Q OKAY.
WHO WAS IT THAT TOOK YOU UP TO — UP THROUGH THE SHRUBBERY UP THE FRONT WALKWAY TO LOOK AT THE CRIME SCENE?
A OFFICER RISKE.
Q WAS DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WITH YOU AS WELL?
A YES.
Q AND AFTER THAT POINT YOU WENT — I BELIEVE YOU INDICATED YOU WENT AROUND THROUGH THE BACK AND ENTERED THROUGH THE GARAGE; IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT’S CORRECT.
Q AND WHEN YOU DID SO, WHO WAS WITH YOU?
A OFFICER RISKE AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.
Q AND AS YOU WALKED THROUGH THE HOUSE AND STEPPED DOWN ON THE LANDING TO LOOK AT THE CRIME SCENE, WHO WAS WITH YOU?
A OFFICER RISKE AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.
Q AND WHEN YOU STEPPED OUT THE FRONT DOOR AND WALKED DOWN THE WALKWAY FOLLOWING THE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS OUT TO THE ALLEY, WHO WAS WITH YOU?
A OFFICER RISKE AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.
Q AND WHEN YOU EXITED THE REAR GATE AND WENT OUT TO THE DRIVEWAY AND OBSERVED THE BLOOD DROP AND THE CHANGE, WHO WAS WITH YOU?
A OFFICER RISKE AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.
Q WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO RE-ENTER THE LOCATION, TO RE-ENTER THE CONDOMINIUM, WHERE DID OFFICER RISKE AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS GO?
A I BELIEVE THEY WALKED BACK TO DOROTHY.
Q OKAY. AT THAT POINT HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN AT THE CRIME SCENE?
A MAYBE FIFTEEN MINUTES AT THE MOST.
Q OKAY. AND WHAT WERE YOU WEARING AT THAT TIME?
A A BLUE BLAZER, TAN SLACKS, WHITE SHIRT.
Q OKAY. YOU THEN WENT INTO THE CONDOMINIUM; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q WHERE DID YOU GO TO?
A THE COUCH DIRECTLY TO THE RIGHT OR THE SOUTH OF THE FRONT DOOR.
Q WHEN YOU SAT ON THAT COUCH, WAS THE FRONT DOOR OPEN, SIR?
A YES.
Q WAS THERE ANYONE OUTSIDE THE LOCATION ON THE LANDING AT THAT TIME?
A NO.
Q AND WHEN YOU SAT DOWN TO BEGIN WRITING YOUR NOTES, WAS THAT THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU WERE SEPARATED FROM DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND OFFICER RISKE?
A YES.
Q AND AT THAT POINT HAD THE GLOVE AND THE CAP UNDERNEATH THE BUSH ALREADY BEEN POINTED OUT TO YOU FROM THE FRONT GATE AREA AND THEN AGAIN FROM THE LANDING AREA OUTSIDE THE FRONT DOOR BY OFFICER RISKE?
A YES….

Q NOW, THESE NOTES, SIR, CAN YOU TELL US WERE THESE MEANT TO BE YOUR FINAL AND DEFINITIVE NOTE AS THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER AT THAT TIME FOR THIS CRIME SCENE?
A NO. THIS WAS THE FIRST ROUND OF NOTES.
Q OKAY.
AND WHEN YOU SAY “THE FIRST ROUND OF NOTES,” SIR, CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT?
A MOST OF THESE NOTES WERE WHAT
OFFICER RISKE WAS POINTING OUT TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND MYSELF, AND WHAT I OBSERVED.
Q WHAT DID YOU INTEND TO DO — WERE THESE NOTES ROUGH NOTES?
A YES.
Q WHAT DID YOU INTEND TO DO WITH THESE NOTES LATER ON?

A USED THEM TO GO BACK TO THESE AREAS AND USE THEM AS A GUIDE IN WHAT TO GO BACK TO AND PRIORITIZE THEM.
Q OKAY.
I THINK YOU INDICATED EARLIER THAT THE ITEM NUMBERS THAT YOU HAVE ON THIS LIST, 1, 2, 3, 4, ET CETERA, THAT EACH NUMBER WOULD BE REFERENCED LATER ON IN A MORE FULL DETAILED REPORT?
A YES.
Q AND HOW WOULD YOU DO THAT? WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
A WELL, TAKING NOTES AT THE SCENE, IF IT WOULD HAVE GONE BEYOND THIS POINT, I WOULD HAVE, AS AN EXAMPLE, ITEM 3, I WOULD HAVE PUT AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE. I WOULD HAVE WROTE ANY NOTES I WANTED ABOUT ITEM 3.
IF IT WAS THREE PAGES, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PAGE 1, 2, 3, AND AT THE BOTTOM, AND THEN I WOULD KNOW THAT THAT WAS THAT OBSERVATION OR THAT POINT THAT OFFICER RISKE POINTED OUT AND I WOULD BE ABLE TO ORGANIZE IT SOMEWHAT LIKE THAT….

Q BUT YOUR OBSERVATIONS, SIR, CONCERNING WHAT YOU — WELL, YOUR DESCRIPTION OF WHAT YOU WOULD DO WITH THESE ITEMS, DOES THAT PERTAIN TO ALL OF THE ITEMS ON THE NOTES THAT WE ARE GOING THROUGH NOW?
A YES.
Q NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU BRIEFLY WENT UPSTAIRS AND SAW THE BEDROOMS YESTERDAY.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YES.
Q DID YOU SEE ROOMS THAT APPEARED TO BE CHILDREN’S ROOMS?
A I DID, BUT I DON’T RECALL EXACTLY ANYTHING ABOUT THEM.
Q DID YOU KNOW WHAT — DID YOU ASK WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CHILDREN OR WHERE THEY WERE OR DID YOU KNOW ALREADY?
A OFFICER RISKE INFORMED ME THAT THERE WERE TWO CHILDREN IN THE HOUSE AND THEY HAD BEEN TAKEN TO WEST L.A. STATION.
Q SO BY THE TIME YOU GOT THERE YOU KNEW THEY WERE ALREADY TAKEN CARE OF?
A YES.
Q AND DID HE TELL YOU THAT AS SOON AS YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE?
A I BELIEVE IT WAS THE INITIAL EXPLANATION OF WHAT HAD TRANSPIRED BEFORE WE WALKED IN THE SCENE, YES.
Q NOW, WAS OFFICER RISKE THE ONLY ONE THAT POINTED THINGS OUT TO YOU, SIR, OR WERE THERE OTHER OFFICERS THAT POINTED THINGS OUT WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY?
A JUST OFFICER RISKE.
Q SO YOU SAT DOWN AND YOU BEGAN TO WRITE THESE NOTES ON THE LIVING ROOM COUCH AND I THINK WE LEFT OFF AT 4.
AND YOU WERE DISCUSSING WITH US, SIR, THE FACT THAT YOU SAW NO EVIDENCE OF RANSACKING?
A YES.
Q WAS THAT IMPORTANT TO YOU?
A YES.
Q AND TELL US WHY.
A INITIALLY I WAS CONCERNED THAT POSSIBLY THE HOUSE WAS PART OF THE CRIME SCENE AND I WAS LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE THAT WOULD GIVE ME ANY INDICATION OF THAT.
Q AND DID YOU FIND ANY?
A NO, NOT IN THE FIRST WALK THROUGH.
Q NOW, YOU FOUND “THE STEREO WAS PLAYING AND THE LIGHTS WERE LOW, THE CANDLES WERE LIT IN THE LIVING ROOM AND IN THE UPSTAIRS BATHROOM” ACCORDING TO YOUR NOTES?
A YES.
Q DID THAT INDICATE TO YOU ANYTHING TO YOU IN TERMS OF INFORMATION USEFUL TO THE INVESTIGATION OF THESE MURDERS?
A AT THAT POINT I WOULD CONCLUDE THAT SOMEONE WAS HOME AT THAT TIME AND SOMEONE WAS PREPARING POSSIBLY TO TAKE A BATH, SOMEONE WAS LISTENING TO MUSIC….

Q ALL RIGHT.
SHOWING YOU PEOPLE’S 80, SIR, CAN YOU TELL US IF YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT IS SHOWN IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH?
A I HAVEN’T SEEN THIS SINCE JUNE 13TH, BUT THAT LOOKS ABOUT THE SAME LOCATION. I CAN’T TELL WHAT THE WRITING IS, BUT THAT APPEARS TO BE WHAT I SAW AT HER FEET, YES.
Q OKAY.
DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE WHAT YOU WERE ATTEMPTING TO DESCRIBE IN ITEM 5 OF YOUR NOTES?
A YES.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: 1, PLEASE.
Q OKAY. ITEM 6, THAT WAS THE ICE CREAM THAT YOU WERE DESCRIBING?
A YES.
Q YOU INDICATE IN THIS THAT IT SAYS, “NOT YET MELTED WHEN OFFICER RISKE ENTERED THE RESIDENCE”?
A YES.
Q OKAY. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS TOLD TO YOU BY OFFICER RISKE?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT WAS IT THAT HE INDICATED TO YOU WITH RESPECT TO THE CONDITION OF THAT ICE CREAM THAT YOU OBSERVED?
A THE BEST I CAN REMEMBER IT WAS JUST THAT IT APPEARED THAT IT HADN’T MELTED YET OR IT WAS IN THE PROCESS, BUT I DON’T KNOW HOW HE WOULD HAVE CONCLUDED THAT.
Q NOW, WHEN YOU SAW THE ICE CREAM TWO HOURS LATER, YOU EARLIER INDICATED TO US THAT IT STILL LOOKED LUMPY TO YOU?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT COLOR DID IT APPEAR TO BE?
A TAN, LIGHT BROWN.
Q DID THAT ICE CREAM HAVE ANY PARTICULAR EVIDENTIARY SIGNIFICANCE TO YOU?
A ONLY IN THAT THE HOUSE WAS SO NEAT, IT SEEMED TO BE THE ONLY ITEM OF FOOD OR ANYTHING THAT LOOKED — THAT I WOULD SAY LOOKED OUT OF PLACE, BEING AN INTRUDER INTO THE HOUSE, IN OTHER WORDS, NEVER BEING IN THE HOUSE BEFORE.
Q YOU BEING THE INTRUDER THAT IS?
A YES. YES, MA’AM.
Q OKAY.
ITEM 7, “CHILDREN, TWO, SLEEPING IN UPSTAIRS BEDROOM AWOKEN BY OFFICERS.”
WAS THAT INFORMATION GIVEN TO YOU BY ANOTHER OFFICER?
A YES.
Q BY?
A OFFICER RISKE….

Q OKAY. ITEM NO. 8, WAS THAT SOMETHING YOU OBSERVED, SIR?
A NO. OFFICER RISKE TOLD ME THAT.
Q WERE YOU ABLE TO OBSERVE IT FROM YOUR VANTAGE POINT, EITHER AT THE FRONT GATE OF THE WALKWAY WHEN YOU WERE WITH OFFICER RISKE AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, OR FROM THE LANDING OUTSIDE THE FRONT DOOR WHERE YOU OBSERVED THE CRIME SCENE IN THE COMPANY OF OFFICER RISKE AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS?
A NO. I DID NOT OBSERVE THAT FROM THAT LOCATION.
Q SO THAT WAS INFORMATION GIVEN TO YOU BY OFFICER RISKE?
A YES.
Q ITEM NO. 9. THOSE WERE THE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS THAT YOU DESCRIBED TO US EARLIER?
A YES.
Q WAS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU PERSONALLY OBSERVED?
A YES.
Q AND WAS IT ALSO POINTED OUT TO YOU BY OFFICER RISKE?
A YES, IT WAS.
Q ITEM NO. 10, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO IN THAT ITEM?
A YES, A CANVASS IS THE TERM WE USE TO DESCRIBE OFFICERS GOING TO NEIGHBORS, LOCATIONS AROUND THE CRIME SCENE, TO SEE IF THEY HEARD OR SAW ANYTHING AT ANY TIME DURING THE EVENING THAT COULD HAVE LED UP TO THE TIME OF THE MURDERS.
Q AND AS OF THE TIME YOU WERE WRITING THOSE NOTES DID YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION FROM ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS NEARBY ABOUT WHAT MAY HAVE TRANSPIRED THAT NIGHT?
A NONE.
Q SO YOU HAD NO IDEA THEN AT THE POINT — AT THAT POINT WHETHER THERE WERE ANY EYEWITNESSES OR EAR WITNESSES, PEOPLE WHO MAY HAVE HEARD THINGS OR SEEN THINGS, THAT MAY HAVE BEEN RELEVANT TO THE MURDERS?
A I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY, NO….

Q ALL RIGHT. THIS IS THE THIRD PAGE OF YOUR NOTES, SIR?
A YES.
Q ITEM NO. 13, “AT THE REAR GATE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE.” IS THAT NORTH? “N SLASH S”; IS THAT RIGHT?
A NORTH SIDE.
Q “TWO BLOOD SPOTS AT THE BOTTOM INSIDE OF THE GATE.” IS THAT WHAT YOU DESCRIBED AS HAVING SEEN IN YOUR TESTIMONY EARLIER YESTERDAY?
A YES, IT IS.
Q NOW, WHEN YOU SAY, “THIS AREA MIGHT HAVE BEEN WHERE DOG WAS KEPT,” WHEN YOU SAY “THIS AREA,” WHAT DO YOU MEAN?
A THE PATHWAY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE, IT HAD GATES AT BOTH ENDS, AND SINCE THE DOG WAS LOOSE AND I HAD ALREADY BEEN TOLD THAT, I JUST MADE A NOTE THAT THIS COULD BE THE AREA THAT THE DOG WAS KEPT. IN OTHER WORDS, IF IT DIDN’T LIVE IN THE HOME.
Q OKAY.
WHEN YOU SAY THE NORTH — THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE, YOU MEAN THAT WALKWAY THAT LEADS FROM THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE TO THE REAR ALLEY?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
AND YOU WERE SPECULATING TO YOURSELF THAT MIGHT BE WHERE THE DOG WAS KEPT?
A YES, MA’AM.
Q AND THEN IT SAYS, “SUSPECT RAN THROUGH THIS AREA. SUSPECT POSSIBLY BITTEN BY DOG,” QUESTION MARK. WHEN YOU SAY “SUSPECT RAN THROUGH THIS AREA,” THAT WAS BASED ON WHAT?
A WELL, THERE WAS THE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS —
Q UH-HUH.
A — WESTBOUND AWAY FROM THE LANDING AND THE VICTIMS. THERE WAS BLOOD DROPS TO THE LEFT OF THOSE SHOEPRINTS.
I PUT THAT IN MY NOTES TO MAKE MYSELF REMEMBER THAT A DOG WAS PROBABLY IN THAT AREA AND FOR MYSELF TO WONDER IF MAYBE THE DOG BIT THE SUSPECT.
Q OKAY.
SO THAT WAS JUST YOUR SPECULATION THEN, POSSIBLY BITTEN BY THE DOG?
A YES, MA’AM. THAT IS WHY I PUT A QUESTION MARK THERE.
Q OKAY. NO ONE HAD TOLD YOU THAT, IN OTHER WORDS?
A NO.
Q ITEM NO. 14, “THE REAR GATE, POSSIBLE BLOOD SMUDGE ON UPPER RAIL OF GATE.”
A YES.
Q AND IS THAT WHAT YOU DESCRIBED TO US AS HAVING SEEN EARLIER IN YOUR TESTIMONY YESTERDAY?
A YES.
Q AND WHEN YOU SAY, “THE UPPER RAIL OF THE GATE,” CAN YOU TELL US WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT?
DESCRIBE THE AREA YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
A YES. THE GATE IS COMPRISED OF LARGE TWO-INCH TUBING THAT APPEARED TO BE BENT AND INTO NINETY DEGREES TO CREATE THE OUTSIDE — OUTSIDE OF THE GATE AND THEN SOME TYPE OF SECURITY MESH AND RAIL IN THE MIDDLE, AND THAT LARGE TUBULAR PART OF THE GATE IS WHERE THE SMUDGE WAS ON TOP….

Q ITEM NO. 15, YOU HAVE, “REAR GATE INSIDE, DEAD BOLT TURN KNOB TYPE,” AND WHAT ARE YOU DESCRIBING THERE, SIR?
A THE TYPE OF CONVENTIONAL KNOB ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE GATE IS A LOCKING MECHANISM AND ON THE INSIDE OF THE GATE WOULD BE A TURN KNOB.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE KEY WOULD BE USED ON THE EXTERIOR AND A TURN KNOB. IF YOU ARE IN THE INSIDE, YOU WOULD NOT NEED A KEY, YOU WOULD JUST TURN A KNOB, SIMILAR TO A DEAD BOLT STYLE ON A HOUSE.
Q OKAY.
DID OFFICER RISKE TELL YOU IN WHAT CONDITION HE FOUND THAT GATE WHEN HE FIRST RESPONDED TO THE CRIME SCENE?
A I DON’T RECALL IF HE TOLD US. I SAW THAT IT WAS OPEN.
Q OKAY.
AND WHEN YOU FIRST WALKED THROUGH THAT REAR GATE FOR THE FIRST TIME WITH OFFICER RISKE AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, WAS IT STANDING OPEN, SIR, OR WAS IT PROPPED OPEN?
A IT WASN’T WIDE OPEN, BUT IT WAS OPEN MAYBE SEVERAL INCHES.
Q OKAY.
A TO A FOOT, I SUPPOSE.
Q SO DID IT HAVE TO BE PUSHED IN ORDER FOR YOU TO EXIT? DID OFFICER RISKE PUSH IT OPEN WHEN YOU EXITED?
A IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN PUSHED OPEN WITH A PEN OR A FLASHLIGHT. IT WASN’T PUSHED OPEN WITH THE BARE HAND.
Q OKAY.
AND THEN YOU SAID HERE, “POSSIBLE BLOOD SMUDGE AND VISIBLE FINGERPRINT.” CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THERE? I BELIEVE YOU ADDRESSED THAT EARLIER IN YOUR TESTIMONY.
CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT IT WAS THAT YOU SAW THAT CAUSED YOU TO WRITE THAT?
A YES. ON THE INSIDE WHERE I DESCRIBED THE DEAD BOLT STYLE LOCK ON THE INSIDE OR THE EAST SIDE OF THE GATE, THE — ON THE TURN — TURN KNOB THERE LOOKED — IT IS BRASS, BRASS-PLATED, IT LOOKED TO BE BLOOD SMUDGE ON THAT LEADING TO WHAT I SAW MIGHT BE A POSSIBLE FINGERPRINT OR A PARTIAL FINGERPRINT.
Q OKAY. AND SO YOU MADE A NOTE OF THAT?
A YES.
Q OKAY. ITEM NO. 16, “BLOODY PAW PRINTS OF LARGE DOG LEADING FROM THE RESIDENCE SOUTHBOUND ON THE SIDEWALK APPROXIMATELY SIXTY FEET SOUTH OF THE RESIDENCE.”
CAN YOU TELL US WHAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING THERE?
A YES. COMING OUT OF THE FRONT OF THE WALKWAY WHERE ALL THE BLOOD WAS — WAS FLOWING DOWN TOWARDS THE SIDEWALK, THERE WAS CANINE PAW PRINTS LEADING SOUTHBOUND ON THE WALK TOWARDS DOROTHY AND I APPROXIMATED THAT THE PAW PRINTS WERE VISIBLE FOR SIXTY FEET.
Q OKAY. AND THAT WAS YOUR PERSONAL OBSERVATION, SIR?
A YES, IT WAS.
Q AND ITEM 17 YOU WROTE, “SKI MASK, ONE GLOVE BY FEET OF MALE VICTIM.”
AND AGAIN CAN YOU TELL US, WAS THAT YOUR PERSONAL OBSERVATION?
A YES, IT WAS, BOTH DIRECTED BY OFFICER RISKE AND MY PERSONAL OBSERVATION.
Q SO THAT WAS A COMBINATION OF OFFICER RISKE’S INFORMATION TO YOU AND YOUR OWN PERSONAL OBSERVATION?
A YES….

Q BY MS. CLARK: YOU DESCRIBED IN YOUR NOTES, SIR, ITEM NO. 17, THE SKI MASK.
BASED ON YOUR OBSERVATION AT THAT TIME, WAS THAT — LET ME ASK YOU THIS:
HAD YOU GONE UP TO AND HELD IT AND LOOKED AT IT WHEN YOU WROTE THAT NOTE, SIR?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q WHAT KIND OF OBSERVATION DID YOU HAVE OF THE OBJECT YOU WERE DESCRIBING AT THE TIME YOU WROTE THAT NOTE, ITEM 17?
A WELL, IT APPEARED TO BE WHAT I USUALLY DESCRIBE AS A SKI CAP OR A SKI MASK AND IT LOOKED DULL, CLOTH AND THAT IS WHAT I CONCLUDED IT COULD POSSIBLY BE, AND THE GLOVE WAS FAIRLY OBVIOUS, THAT IT APPEARED TO BE A LEATHER TYPE GLOVE.
Q SO AT THE POINT THAT YOU WROTE THAT NOTE, YOU HAD NOT WALKED UP INTO THE CRIME SCENE AND STEPPED UP TO THE BUSH TO LOOK AT IT?
A NO, I HADN’T.
Q THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE SHOWED YOU YESTERDAY OF YOU POINTING TO THE ITEMS UNDERNEATH THAT BUSH, WHEN WAS THAT TAKEN, SIR?
A I BELIEVE THAT WAS SOMEWHERE AROUND 7:00 OR 7:15 THAT MORNING.

Q AT THAT POINT, SIR, HAD YOU ALREADY BEEN TO ROCKINGHAM AND COME BACK TO BUNDY?
A YES, MA’AM.
Q SO AT THE POINT THAT YOU WROTE THE SKI MASK, HOW CLOSE HAD YOU GOTTEN TO THAT ITEM?
A NO CLOSER THAN THE LANDING WHERE I OBSERVED THE TWO VICTIMS FROM WHERE THE FIRST SHOEPRINT —
Q THAT WAS THE CLOSEST OBSERVATION YOU HAD AT THAT POINT?
A YES….

Q OKAY.
SO ITEM NO. 17 IS BASED ON YOUR OBSERVATION OF THESE TWO ITEMS THAT YOU GOT A LOOK AT FROM THE VANTAGE POINT OF THE GATE WITH OFFICER RISKE AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND FROM THE LANDING WITH OFFICER RISKE AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS?
A YES, MA’AM….

Q BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU GOT AS FAR AS ITEM NO. 17 DOCUMENTING YOUR OBSERVATION OF A SKI MASK, ONE GLOVE BY THE FEET OF THE MALE VICTIM.
HAD YOU COMPLETED YOUR NOTES AT THAT POINT? WERE YOU ALL DONE?
A NO.
Q WHAT HAPPENED TO INTERRUPT YOU?
A WELL, BEFORE — WHILE I WAS STILL WRITING MY NOTES, DETECTIVE ROBERTS ENTERED, HE HAD JUST ARRIVED ON SCENE AND HE CAME INTO THE — INTO THE LIVING ROOM, HE WAS DIRECTED BY DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, AND HE SAID, “CAN YOU UPDATE ME OR BRING ME UP TO SPEED?”
I DID THAT BRIEFLY. I TOLD HIM — I INFORMED HIM WHAT I HAD SEEN IN THE HOUSE. I TOOK HIM ONTO THE LANDING VERY QUICKLY, POINTED OUT THERE WAS A GLOVE, A CAP, THERE WAS A MALE VICTIM, A FEMALE VICTIM, A MENU.
I SHOWED HIM THE SHOEPRINTS. I WALKED HIM BACK THE PATH. I SHOWED HIM ON THE GATE THE BLOOD. AND THIS IS AT THIS TIME IS WHEN DETECTIVE ROBERTS AND I BOTH SAW THE SMUDGE AND THAT POSSIBLE VISIBLE FINGERPRINT.
Q LET ME INTERRUPT ONE MINUTE.
DETECTIVE ROBERTS, WHO IS THAT?
A DETECTIVE ROBERTS IS A DETECTIVE ASSIGNED TO WEST L.A. HOMICIDE WHO I NORMALLY WORK WITH AS A PARTNER.
Q OKAY.
SO HE CAME INTO THE RESIDENCE. DO YOU KNOW HOW HE GOT INTO THE RESIDENCE?
A YES. HE WAS DIRECTED WHERE TO GO THROUGH THE GARAGE.
Q OKAY. AND HE CAME IN AND THE FIRST TIME YOU SAW HIM AT THAT SCENE WAS WHEN YOU WERE WRITING NOTES SITTING ON THE COUCH INSIDE THE RESIDENCE AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY?
A YES.
Q OKAY. AT THAT POINT, WHEN YOU SAW DETECTIVE ROBERTS, YOU HAD BEEN AT THE SCENE FOR HOW LONG?
A I STILL SAY THAT WOULD BE FIFTEEN MINUTES WHEN I WAS WRITING MY NOTES. THE WALK THROUGH WITH HIM COULDN’T HAVE TAKEN MORE THAN THREE OR FOUR MINUTES.
Q OKAY.
AFTER YOU WALKED HIM THROUGH THE REAR GATE OUT TO THE DRIVEWAY AREA, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A I WALKED HIM OUT THROUGH THE DRIVEWAY. I POINTED OUT THE BLOOD DROP, CHANGE. HE ALSO LOOKED IN THE ALLEY FOR BLOOD DROPS AS WE WALKED THAT WAY. HE COULD SEE NONE.
AND HE CONTINUED BACK TO DOROTHY TO WALK OUT TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE AND STAND WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.
Q OKAY.
SO DID YOU BOTH THEN WALK OUT THERE TO THE FRONT OF THE LOCATION?
A NO. I RETURNED TO THE INTERIOR OF THE RESIDENCE TO FINISH WHAT I WAS PREVIOUSLY DOING, WRITING MY NOTES.
Q OKAY.
SO WHERE WAS IT THAT YOU PARTED COMPANY WITH DETECTIVE ROBERTS?
A IN THE ALLEY.
Q WHEN YOU WENT BACK INSIDE, HOW DID YOU ENTER THE RESIDENCE THE SECOND TIME?
A THE SAME WAY. I PASSED THE FERRARI INTO THAT LOWER DOOR UP THE STAIRS.
Q WHERE DID YOU GO TO?
A I WENT TO THE SAME — SAME COUCH. I SAT ON THE EDGE OF THE COUCH.
Q AND YOU — DID YOU — WHAT DID YOU DO THERE?
A I FINISHED THE NOTES THAT LED UP TO
ITEM 17.
Q OKAY. AND AT ITEM 17 HAD YOU COMPLETED YOUR NOTES?
A NO.
Q WERE YOU AGAIN INTERRUPTED?
A YES.
Q WHAT HAPPENED?
A DETECTIVE PHILLIPS ENTERED FROM THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE AND HE CAME IN AND INFORMED ME THAT ROBBERY/HOMICIDE WOULD BE TAKING OVER THE INVESTIGATION.
Q OKAY.
AND HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN SITTING ON THE COUCH WRITING WHEN YOU WERE INTERRUPTED THAT SECOND TIME BY DETECTIVE PHILLIPS?
A MAYBE ANOTHER FIVE MINUTES, MAYBE AS MUCH AS TEN.
Q AND WHEN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS INFORMED YOU THAT ROBBERY/HOMICIDE WAS GOING TO TAKE OVER THE CASE, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A I TOLD RON OR DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, I SAID, “LET ME FINISH THESE NOTES AND THEN I WILL TURN THEM OVER TO YOU.”
Q AND WHAT WAS HIS RESPONSE?
A HE SAYS, “OKAY, FINISH THE NOTES AND THEN GIVE THEM TO ME AND I WILL GIVE THEM TO ROBBERY/HOMICIDE.”
Q AND DID YOU THEN COMPLETE YOUR NOTES?
A YES.
Q SO ITEM 17, WAS THAT MEANT TO BE YOUR LAST ENTRY IN YOUR NOTES AT THAT TIME?
A NO.
Q YOU DIDN’T COMPLETE YOUR NOTES?
A I DID NOT, NO.
Q AND WHY NOT?
A BECAUSE THE CASE WAS NO LONGER MINE.
Q OKAY.
WHAT POINT WERE YOU AT WHEN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS INTERRUPTED YOU IN WRITING? HAD YOU FINISHED ITEM 17 YET OR HAD YOU — WERE YOU IN THE MIDDLE?
A WELL, I DON’T KNOW — AT THE END OF
ITEM 17 I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH SEVERAL OTHER DETAILS ON SOME OF THESE ITEMS AND STARTED SETTING UP WHO I NEEDED TO CONTACT AT THIS SCENE TO BE ABLE TO COMPLETE THIS CRIME SCENE.
Q OKAY.
BUT INSTEAD OF THAT, YOU JUST STOPPED AT THAT POINT?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT DID YOU DO THEN?
A I WENT BACK OUT THROUGH THE GARAGE SOUTH ON THE ALLEY, DOWN DOROTHY TO BUNDY, AND REMAINED IN THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE OR THE STREET AT THE INTERSECTION OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY AND WAITED FOR ROBBERY/HOMICIDE’S ARRIVAL.
Q OKAY.
SO DID DETECTIVE PHILLIPS COME IN AND INFORM YOU ROBBERY/HOMICIDE WAS GOING TO TAKE OVER AND THEN EXIT AGAIN?
A YES. I THINK HE MADE AN INDICATION THAT HE HAD TALKED TO CHIEF FRANKLE AND HE THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD BE BEST IF ROBBERY/HOMICIDE HANDLED THE CASE.
Q OKAY.
WHEN HE INFORMED YOU OF THAT, SIR, HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN AT THE CRIME SCENE?
A ABOUT A HALF HOUR.
Q DID HE TURN AROUND AND LEAVE THEN AND YOU SAT AND FINISHED YOUR NOTES AT THAT POINT?
A YES.
Q FOR HOW LONG BEFORE YOU EXITED THE RESIDENCE?
A OH, I DON’T THINK I — I PROBABLY HAD JUST TWO OR THREE ITEMS LEFT THAT WAS CURRENTLY ON MY MIND THAT I NEEDED TO PUT DOWN THAT I THOUGHT WERE IMPORTANT.
Q OKAY. SO HOW LONG IN TERMS OF TIME WAS THAT?
A OH, A MINUTE, TWO MINUTES AT THE MOST.
Q SO YOU REMAINED A MINUTE OR TWO MINUTES AFTER DETECTIVE PHILLIPS ADVISED YOU RHD WAS TAKING OVER THE CASE?
A RIGHT. I JUST PUT DOWN THE THOUGHTS THAT I HAD WHEN HE WALKED IN AND I STOPPED.
Q AND THEN WHAT DID YOU DO?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q WHAT DID YOU DO?
A I JUST WENT OUT AND WAITED FOR ROBBERY/HOMICIDE ON THE STREET.
Q WHEN YOU SAY YOU WAITED ON THE STREET, SIR, CAN YOU TELL US WHERE ON THE STREET YOU WERE WAITING?
A IT WAS THE INTERSECTION OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY, PROBABLY JUST INSIDE THAT YELLOW TAPE OR JUST OUTSIDE, I CAN’T REMEMBER WHICH IT WAS.
Q WHO WERE YOU WITH AT THAT TIME?
A DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, LIEUTENANT SPANGLER, THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF WEST L.A. DETECTIVES. I BELIEVE A PHOTOGRAPHER HAD ARRIVED, I’M NOT POSITIVE ON THAT, AND THEN THERE IS POLICEMEN, A SUPERVISOR, UNIFORMED PERSONNEL.
Q QUITE A FEW OFFICERS AROUND BY THAT TIME, WERE THERE?
A YES. I BELIEVE DETECTIVE ROBERTS WAS STILL THERE AND DETECTIVE NOLAN WAS STILL THERE.
Q AND WERE THEY ALL STANDING WITH YOU OUTSIDE?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT DID DO YOU WHEN YOU CAME BACK OUTSIDE AND WENT TO THE INTERSECTION OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY?
A NOTHING….

Q NOW, WERE YOU STILL HOLDING YOUR NOTES WHEN YOU CAME BECOME OUTSIDE?
A I GAVE THEM TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS IMMEDIATELY.
Q OKAY. OUTSIDE AT THE INTERSECTION THERE?
A YES.
Q DID YOU EVER GO BACK TO YOUR CAR?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q THE CAR THAT YOU DROVE IN WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS?
A YES.
Q WHEN WAS THAT?
A PROBABLY SOME TIME SHORTLY THEREAFTER AFTER COMING OUT OF THE RESIDENCE.
Q AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE?
A PUT MY JACKET IN THE CAR.
Q SO YOU TOOK YOUR JACKET OFF AT THAT POINT?
A YES….

Q DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE PERSON IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH?
A YES, I DO.
Q WHO IS THAT?
A DENNIS FUNG, A CRIMINALIST.
Q HE IS POINTING TO AN AREA ON THE GATE THERE. CAN YOU TELL US, FIRST OF ALL, IS THAT THE REAR GATE AT THE LOCATION OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY?
A YES, IT IS.
Q OKAY.
AND THE AREA HE IS POINTING TO, SIR, IS THAT — DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE AREA HE IS POINTING TO?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT AREA IS THAT?
A THAT IS THE AREA I REMEMBER THAT THE SMUDGE WAS — APPEARED TO BE A BLOOD SMUDGE….

Q BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT LOCATION, SIR?
A YES, I DO.
Q AND WHAT IS THAT?
A THAT IS THE NORTH WALKWAY LEADING TOWARDS — TOWARD THE ALLEY THAT WOULD BE GOING DUE WEST TOWARDS THAT REAR GATE.
Q OKAY. SO IS THAT THE REAR GATE?
A YES, MA’AM.
Q OKAY.
AND THE POSITION THAT THIS PHOTOGRAPH IS TAKEN FROM, IS THAT INSIDE THE REAR GATE FACING THE ALLEY OR IS IT FACING EASTBOUND TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE LOCATION?
A IT IS FACING THE ALLEY FROM THE INSIDE.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: PEOPLE’S 53-B.
Q BY MS. CLARK: I’M DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION NOW TO WHAT APPEARS TO BE MARKED AS 115 AND 116 ITEMS — ITEM NUMBERS. CAN YOU TELL US IF YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT IS SHOWN?
A YES, I DO.
Q AND WHAT IS IT?
A THOSE ARE THE BLOOD DROPS THAT I SAW AT THE BOTTOM OF THE RAIL.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: 1, PLEASE.
Q BY MS. CLARK: AND ARE THOSE THE BLOOD DROPS THAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED IN YOUR NOTES IN
ITEM NO. 13, SIR?
A YES, IT IS.
MS. CLARK: THANK YOU….
Q BY MS. CLARK: WE HAVE A CLOSER-UP SHOT HERE, SIR.
DO YOU SEE WHAT IS SHOWN IN PEOPLE’S 106? DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT, SIR?
A YES, MA’AM.
Q TELL US HOW?
A THAT APPEARS TO BE THE BLOOD SMUDGE THAT I SAW ON THE UPPER PORTION OF THAT GATE FROM THE INSIDE.
Q AND IS THAT THE — THE APPEARANCE OF IT AS YOU RECALL?
A YES.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: 1, PLEASE.

Q BY MS. CLARK: NOW, WHAT KIND — WERE YOU USING ANY KIND OF FLASHLIGHT TO MAKE THE OBSERVATIONS THAT YOU DOCUMENTED IN YOUR NOTES?
A I USED THAT SMALL FLASHLIGHT THAT I KEPT ON MY BELT, YES.
Q OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU WERE STANDING OUT IN THE STREET, I THINK YOU INDICATED, THE INTERSECTION OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY, WAITING FOR ROBBERY/HOMICIDE TO ARRIVE?
A YES, MA’AM.
Q AND THERE WERE — AND WHO DID YOU SAY WAS WITH YOU, SIR?
A DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, I BELIEVE
DETECTIVE ROBERTS WAS THERE, BUT I DON’T KNOW HOW LONG, DETECTIVE NOLAN WAS THERE, BUT I DON’T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHEN HE LEFT, LIEUTENANT SPANGLER.
THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOMEBODY THAT ARRIVED FROM ROBBERY/HOMICIDE, OTHER THAN THE DETECTIVES, BUT I’M NOT SURE.
I REMEMBER SEEING LIEUTENANT — I BELIEVE HE IS LIEUTENANT ROGERS THERE AT SOME TIME, BUT I’M NOT SURE IT WAS THAT EARLY.
Q AT THAT POINT, SIR, DID YOU HAVE — WERE THERE ANY POLICE OFFICERS GUARDING THE PERIMETER, THAT IS, GUARDING THE CRIME SCENE TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM WALKING IN?
A YES, THE CRIME SCENE WAS WHAT WE WOULD CALL SEALED OFF.
Q WAS THERE ANYONE INSIDE THE CRIME SCENE TAPE AT THAT POINT?
A NO.
Q DO YOU RECALL HOW MANY BLACK AND WHITE UNITS WERE THERE?
A I WAS TOLD THERE WAS A BLACK AND WHITE UNIT THE STREET TO — THE FIRST EAST-WEST STREET TO THE NORTH OF DOROTHY AT THE ALLEY, AND I BELIEVE ONE AT THE INTERSECTION OF BUNDY AND THAT STREET.
I KNOW THERE WAS A SUPERVISOR AND A UNIT AT DOROTHY AND BUNDY. I SAW A BLACK AND WHITE DIRECTLY TO THE REAR OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY IN THE ALLEY, AND THAT IS ALL I CAN RECALL.
Q HOW MANY COMMANDING OFFICERS WERE PRESENT AT THAT TIME?
A LIEUTENANT SPANGLER WAS THE ONLY COMMANDING OFFICER.

Q ALL RIGHT.
AT SOME POINT, SIR, DID YOU MAKE CONTACT WITH ANY DETECTIVE FROM ROBBERY/HOMICIDE?
A YES.
Q AND WHERE WERE YOU WHEN THAT CONTACT WAS MADE?
A STANDING IN THE SAME LOCATION ON THE STREET.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU GO BACK INTO THE CRIME SCENE, THAT IS, UP TO THAT GATE WHERE YOU HAD GONE EARLIER WITH OFFICER RISKE OR INTO THE HOUSE OR UP ONTO THE LANDING AGAIN?
A I NEVER RETURNED TO THAT CRIME SCENE.
Q AND SO YOU WAITED OUTSIDE UNTIL ROBBERY/HOMICIDE CAME?
A YES, MA’AM.
Q AND WHEN YOU SAW DETECTIVE VANNATTER, THAT WAS WHERE?
A ON THE STREET, THE SAME LOCATION.
Q HAD YOU EVER MET HIM BEFORE?
A NO, I HADN’T.
Q WAS THAT THE FIRST TIME YOU MET?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT HAPPENED AT THAT POINT?
A I WAS INTRODUCED TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER, AS WAS RON PHILLIPS. RON PHILLIPS BRIEFED HIM ON WHAT HAD BEEN SEEN AND DONE AT THAT POINT AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER — EXCUSE ME — DETECTIVE PHILLIPS LED DETECTIVE VANNATTER THROUGH A CRIME SCENE WALK THROUGH.
Q OKAY. DID YOU GO WITH THEM?
A NO, I DIDN’T.
Q YOU REMAINED OUTSIDE?
A YES.

Q DID YOU EVER GO BACK INTO THE CRIME SCENE BEFORE GOING TO ROCKINGHAM LATER THAT MORNING?
A NO, I DIDN’T.
Q SO AFTER THE POINT THAT YOU LEFT THE RESIDENCE AFTER COMPLETING YOUR NOTES, YOU NEVER WENT BACK IN AGAIN UNTIL LATER IN THE MORNING AFTER HAVING GONE TO ROCKINGHAM?
A YES, YOU ARE CORRECT. I DID RETURN AT ABOUT 7:00, 7:15, YES.
Q SO YOU REMAINED OUT IN THE INTERSECTION AND DID YOU MEET ANYONE ELSE FROM ROBBERY/HOMICIDE AT THAT POINT?
A YES, DETECTIVE TOM LANGE.
Q OKAY.
AND WERE YOU STILL STANDING OUTSIDE AT THE INTERSECTION WHEN HE ARRIVED?
A YES, I WAS.
Q WHERE WAS DETECTIVE PHILLIPS OR DETECTIVE VANNATTER?
A I BELIEVE THEY HAD RETURNED.
DETECTIVE LANGE ARRIVED FIFTEEN, TWENTY MINUTES AFTER THEM, MAYBE A LITTLE LONGER. THEY WERE BACK OUT ON THE — IN FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE.
Q OKAY.
AND WHAT HAPPENED WHEN DETECTIVE LANGE ARRIVED?
A DETECTIVE PHILLIPS LED HIM THROUGH THE CRIME SCENE WALK THROUGH.
Q OKAY. DID YOU GO WITH THEM?
A NO.
Q WHERE DID YOU GO?
A I REMAINED ON THE STREET.
Q OKAY.
SO THEN THE CRIME SCENE WAS TOURED BY OFFICERS BEFORE YOU ARRIVED, SIR; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, MA’AM.
Q AND THEN AGAIN BY OFFICERS AFTER YOU HAD BEEN THERE?
A YES, MA’AM.
Q NOW, ONCE RHD — ROBBERY/HOMICIDE DIVISION HAD COME IN TO TAKE OVER THE CASE, WHAT WERE YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES?
A MY RESPONSIBILITIES AT THAT POINT WAS TO FOLLOW DETECTIVE PHILLIPS’ ORDERS. HE SAID WE WERE GOING TO REMAIN AT THE SCENE AND IF WE COULD BE OF ASSISTANCE, AND IF NOT, WE WOULD BE RELIEVED.
Q NOW, AT SOME POINT DID YOU LEAVE THE LOCATION OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY?
A YES, WE DID.
Q WAS THIS AFTER DETECTIVE LANGE HAD BEEN GIVEN A WALK-THROUGH BY WAS IT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS?
A YES.
Q WAS IT AFTER THAT POINT?
A YES, IT WAS….

Q OKAY.
SO AT APPROXIMATELY FIVE O’CLOCK YOU ALL DROVE OVER TO 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM.
AND HOW LONG DID — IS THAT RIGHT?
A I BELIEVE IT IS 360.
Q 360?
A 360, YES.
Q THANK YOU.
HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO GET THERE?
A FIVE, TEN MINUTES.
Q CAN YOU RECALL WHERE YOU PARKED WHEN YOU GOT TO THE LOCATION?
A YES.
Q DID YOU DRIVE UP ROCKINGHAM FROM SUNSET, DRIVE NORTH ON ROCKINGHAM?
A YES, WE DID.
Q AND AS YOU DID SO, WERE YOU LOOKING FOR THE ADDRESS OF 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM?
A YES. WELL, IT IS — IT IS PRETTY EASY OFF SUNSET. YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING NORTH OF SUNSET IS 100 AND GOES UP, SO IT IS GOING TO BE ABOUT THREE OF THE BLOCKS UP IN THAT AREA.
Q UH-HUH. OKAY.
SO DID YOU HAVE SOME IDEA OF WHERE TO LOOK WHEN YOU WERE DRIVING UP THERE?
A YES.
Q AND AS YOU DROVE UP ROCKINGHAM, DID ANYTHING ATTRACT YOUR ATTENTION?
A I NOTICED A WHITE VEHICLE PARKED BY THE DRIVEWAY ON — ON ROCKINGHAM.
Q OKAY.
AND DID YOU KNOW AT THE TIME YOU SAW THE WHITE VEHICLE THAT THAT WAS PARKED IN FRONT OF 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM?
A WELL, I THINK — I THINK THE RESIDENCE LOOKED SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR. I REMEMBERED FROM ’85 IT WAS A CORNER RESIDENCE, VERY NICE, SPACIOUS FRONT YARD WITH A WALL, I REMEMBERED THAT, WITH BRICK.
Q UH-HUH.
A AND WHEN I PASSED IT, I THINK I CONCLUDED THAT THIS IS — THIS IS THE ADDRESS.
Q AT THE TIME THAT YOU FIRST SAW THAT WHITE VEHICLE, WAS THERE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT IT THAT DREW YOUR ATTENTION OR WAS IT JUST THAT THERE WAS A WHITE CAR PARKED THERE?
A NO. I WAS ON THE PASSENGER SIDE AND WE PASSED THE VEHICLE AND IT WAS A WHITE FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLE. I JUST — I DIDN’T MAKE A — MUCH OF A NOTE OF IT; I JUST NOTICED IT.
Q OKAY.
NOW, WHERE DID YOU PARK? YOU DIDN’T PARK, ACTUALLY. WHERE DID RON PARK?
A HE TURNED RIGHT OR EASTBOUND ON ASHFORD AND PARKED JUST WEST OF THE ASHFORD GATE.
Q WERE YOU IN THE LEAD, YOUR CAR?
A YES.
Q AND DO YOU KNOW ON WHAT SIDE OF THE ASHFORD GATE THAT YOU PARKED?
A I PARKED ON THE WEST SIDE….

Q OKAY.
SO YOU WERE ALL STANDING THERE TOGETHER AT THAT — AT THE CALL BOX RINGING THE BELL?
A YES, IN THAT GENERAL AREA.
Q OKAY.
AND AFTER THE TEN OR FIFTEEN MINUTES OF RINGING WITHOUT RECEIVING AN ANSWER, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A I BELIEVE — I BELIEVE DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WAS ON HIS CELLULAR PHONE AND VANNATTER AND LANGE REMAINED AT THE GATE AND I — I WALKED WESTBOUND DOWN ASHFORD TOWARDS THE INTERSECTION OF ROCKINGHAM AND ASHFORD….

Q AND THEN WHAT?
A I WAS JUST — JUST LOOKING. I NOTICED SOME LIGHTS ON IN THE RESIDENCE THAT WERE ON THE ENTIRE TIME WE WERE THERE, AND I STARTED WALKING SOUTHBOUND ON ROCKINGHAM….
RKED A LITTLE ASKEW OR A LITTLE — TO ME IT LOOKED PARKED A LITTLE UNUSUAL FOR THAT TYPE OF PARKING….
Q WHEN WE LAST LEFT OFF, YOU WERE WALKING DOWN TOWARDS THE BRONCO; IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?
A YES, MA’AM.
Q OKAY.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: TWO, PLEASE. PEOPLE’S 62-A.
Q BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE VEHICLE THAT’S BEING SHOWN TO YOU IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, SIR?
A YES. THAT APPEARS TO BE THE VEHICLE I SAW PARKED BY THE ROCKINGHAM GATE THAT MORNING.
Q OKAY.
WAS IT PARKED IN THAT LOCATION, SIR?
A YES.
Q NOW, WHEN YOU FIRST APPROACHED THE BRONCO, YOU APPROACHED IT FROM WHAT END?
A NORTH OF THE BRONCO.
Q OKAY.
SO THAT IF YOU — AS YOU WALKED TOWARDS IT, YOU WERE FACING THE FRONT OF THE BRONCO; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
Q WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT?
A I WAS WALKING TOWARDS THE BRONCO AND I MADE THE — I NOTICED THAT IT WAS JUST PARKED JUST A LITTLE ASKEW, A LITTLE STRANGELY. IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WAS NO DIFFICULTY IN PARKING THERE, BUT YET IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS PARKED RATHER HAPHAZARDLY.
Q CAN YOU BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?
A WELL, IT APPEARED THAT IT WASN’T PULLED TO THE CURB EVENLY. THE REAR END WAS JUTTING OUT A LITTLE BIT AND THE TIRES WEREN’T STRAIGHT IN THE FRONT COMPLETELY.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: PEOPLE’S EXHIBIT 62-E.
Q BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
SHOWING YOU THIS PHOTOGRAPH, SIR, IF YOU CAN TELL US WHETHER THAT APPEARS TO BE THE SAME FORD BRONCO THAT WE JUST SAW IN THE PREVIOUS PHOTOGRAPH.
A IT APPEARS TO BE, YES.
Q AND THE POSITION IN WHICH YOU SEE IT IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE THE POSITION IN WHICH YOU SAW IT ON JUNE THE 13TH AT APPROXIMATELY 5:00 A.M.?
A YES. I CAN’T SEE IT FROM THE FRONT, BUT THE REAR APPEARS TO BE ABOUT THE SAME POSITION, YES.
Q NOW, THE BRONCO THAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT LOOKING AT HERE, IS THAT THE SAME BRONCO THAT YOU PASSED ON THE WAY TO PARKING ON ASHFORD?
A YES, MA’AM.
Q AND WHEN YOU NOTICED THAT IT WAS PARKED A LITTLE BIT ASKEW OR A LITTLE BIT HAPHAZARDLY, WERE YOU LOOKING AT IT FROM THE FRONT OR FROM THE REAR?
A FROM THE FRONT.
Q WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A I WALKED CLOSER TO THE BRONCO, AND AS I APPROACHED TO THE LEFT OF THE BRONCO, WHICH WOULD BE EAST, ON THE PARKWAY, I SAW A BROKEN PIECE OF WOOD. IT WAS WHITE WOOD WITH A FRESHLY EXPOSED PIECE OF WOOD.
Q WHY DID THAT DRAW YOUR ATTENTION?
A WELL, IT LOOKED OUT OF PLACE. THERE WAS — THIS IS A PARKWAY. THERE WAS NOTHING THAT RESEMBLED THIS. THERE WAS NO GARBAGE. THERE WAS NO LEAVES, LIMBS, ANYTHING. IT WAS JUST ODD AND I DID NOT SEE AT ANY TIME ANY TYPE OF WOOD FENCE ANYWHERE WHERE I CAME UP ROCKINGHAM OR ANYWHERE AROUND THE PREMISES….

Q SHOWING YOU PEOPLE’S 107, SIR, CAN YOU TELL US — YOU JUST DESCRIBED A WOODEN STICK THAT YOU SAW NEAR THE BRONCO SHORTLY AFTER 5:00 A.M. ON JUNE THE 13TH.
DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT’S SHOWN TO YOU IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH?
A YES. IT APPEARS TO BE A — DIRECTLY EAST OF THE RIGHT FRONT TIRE OF THE BRONCO ON THE PARKWAY.
Q I AM SORRY.
IS THAT THE POSITION IN WHICH YOU SAW IT ON THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE THE 13TH?
A YES, I BELIEVE SO.
Q AND THE NEXT PHOTOGRAPH ALSO BEEN SHOWN TO COUNSEL… SHOWING YOU PEOPLE’S 108, SIR, CAN YOU TELL US IF YOU RECOGNIZE THAT ITEM?
A YES. THAT APPEARS TO BE THE PIECE OF WOOD WITH THE EXPOSED WOOD.
Q THAT YOU SAW?
A YES.
Q WAS THERE ANY PAINT ON THAT WOOD?
A YES. IT APPEARED TO BE OLD WHITE PAINT.
Q THERE APPEARS TO BE SOME KIND OF A SMUDGE IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT, A DARKER COLOR IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT PIECE OF WOOD?
A YES.
Q BASED UPON YOUR RECOLLECTION, YOUR OBSERVATION OF THAT PIECE OF WOOD, SIR, DID THERE APPEAR TO BE ANY BLOOD ON IT?
A NO.
Q DO YOU — THAT SMUDGE THAT YOU SEE THERE, DO YOU RECALL SEEING THAT DARKER SPOT ON THE WOOD WHEN YOU OBSERVED IT?
A YES, MA’AM.
Q AND WHAT WAS IT?
A TO ME, IT LOOKED LIKE THE PATH OF A IRON NAIL THAT HAD RUSTED AND CAUSED RUST TO BE LEFT ON THE WOOD.
Q UH-HUH.
WAS THERE ANY OTHER DEBRIS AROUND THAT PIECE OF WOOD ON THE LAWN?
A I DON’T BELIEVE SO, NO….

Q AFTER YOU MADE THE OBSERVATION OF THAT PIECE OF WOOD, WHAT ELSE DID YOU DO?…
A THEN I WALKED TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE VEHICLE, THE DRIVER’S SIDE OF THE VEHICLE AND I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE VEHICLE AS I WAS WALKING DOWN THE LENGTH OF IT.
Q OKAY.
WHAT WERE YOU LOOKING FOR?
A OH, I DIDN’T KNOW. I DIDN’T KNOW WHAT I HAD SEEN.
Q SO YOU’RE JUST LOOKING AT IT?
A YES.
Q AND AT THAT POINT, WERE YOU WAITING FOR SOMEBODY — WHAT WERE YOU DOING OTHER THAN LOOKING AT THE CAR? WERE YOU WAITING FOR SOMETHING?
A I WAS WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO ANSWER THE RESIDENCE RINGER OR DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TO OBTAIN SOME INFORMATION ON THE WHEREABOUTS OF ANYONE INSIDE IF HE COULD GET A — I WAS WAITING FOR THEM TO GET SOMEONE TO ANSWER THE DOOR.
Q AND THE GATE, THE ROCKINGHAM GATE THAT THE BRONCO WAS PARKED JUST NORTH OF, WAS THAT CLOSED?
A YES, IT WAS.
Q AND THE ASHFORD GATE, WAS THAT CLOSED?
A YES, IT WAS.
Q AND THE OTHER DETECTIVES, WERE THEY AROUND THE ASHFORD GATE?
A I BELIEVE VANNATTER AND LANGE WERE IN THAT GENERAL AREA AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS THE LAST TIME I SAW HIM WAS STANDING IN THE STREET WITH A CELLULAR PHONE….

Q …ALL RIGHT.
YOU SAID YOU WALKED ON THE DRIVER’S SIDE OF THE BRONCO. AND DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT SIDE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH?
A YES, I DO.
Q WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU NOTICE ON THE DRIVER’S SIDE OF THE BRONCO AS YOU LOOKED AT IT?
A WELL, AS I WAS WALKING PAST THE VEHICLE, I NOTICED A SMALL SPOT ABOVE THE DOOR HANDLE OF THE DRIVER’S SIDE OF THE VEHICLE.
Q WHY DID THAT ATTRACT YOUR ATTENTION?
A WELL, THE VEHICLE, AS YOU CAN SEE, IS WHITE AND IT STOOD OUT SOMEWHAT. IT WAS A VERY CLEAN VEHICLE.
Q UH-HUH.
AND WERE YOU ABLE — AS YOU LOOKED AT THE CAR DOOR, WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE CLEARLY WHAT IT WAS AT FIRST GLANCE?
A NO.
Q WHAT DID YOU DO WHEN YOU NOTICED IT?
A I TOOK THE SMALL FLASHLIGHT OFF MY BELT AND I USED THAT FLASHLIGHT TO LOOK AT THE SPOT.
Q THE SAME FLASHLIGHT YOU USED AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY?
A YES, MA’AM….

Q NOW, SHOWING YOU PEOPLE’S 62-C, CAN YOU TELL US IF YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT IS SHOWN IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH?
A THAT’S THE SMALL SPOT THAT I SAW ABOVE THE DOOR HANDLE.
Q UH-HUH.
WHAT DID IT LOOK LIKE TO YOU?
A WELL, AT FIRST, IT JUST LOOKED LIKE A SPOT OF UNKNOWN ORIGIN. WHEN I TOOK THE FLASHLIGHT OUT, I LOOKED AT IT AND IT LOOKED REDDISH BROWN AND TRANSLUCENT QUALITIES TO IT AND APPEARED TO BE DRY BLOOD.
Q AFTER YOU SAW THAT, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A THEN I CONTINUED TO LOOK FARTHER AROUND THE VEHICLE. AT ONE POINT, I ACTUALLY GOT DOWN ON MY HANDS AND KNEES AND LOOKED IN THE COMPLETE DOOR AREA, AND DOWN ON THE DOOR SILL I FOUND THREE OR FOUR SMALL LITTLE LINES WITH THE SAME COLOR AND QUALITIES THAT WERE EXHIBITED ABOVE THE DOOR HANDLE.
Q OKAY.
AND THOSE — WHAT AREA OF THE DOOR? WAS THAT THE DRIVER’S DOOR, SIR?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
AND WHAT AREA OF THE DRIVER’S DOOR WOULD THAT BE THAT YOU SAW THOSE THREE OR FOUR LINES THAT LOOKED THE SAME COLOR AS THE SMUDGE SHOWN IN 62-C?
A AS YOU OPEN THE DRIVER’S DOOR, THE AREA THAT THE DRIVER’S DOOR WOULD OPEN TO EXPOSE AT THE BOTTOM WOULD BE CALLED THE DOOR SILL, AND THAT EDGE THAT IS EXPOSED TO THE EXTERIOR BUT STILL PART OF THE BOTTOM OF THE SILL, IT WAS ON THAT PART.
Q OKAY.
WHAT DID YOU THINK WHEN YOU SAW ALL THAT?
A I REALLY DIDN’T KNOW AT THAT TIME, BUT I CONTINUED TO LOOK AT THE VEHICLE TO SEE IF I COULD OBSERVE ANYTHING ELSE….

Q WHERE DID YOU LOOK?
A I ATTEMPTED TO LOOK IN THE VEHICLE WITH MY FLASHLIGHT. IT WASN’T VERY HIGH POWERED AND THERE WAS TINTED WINDOWS. SO THAT WAS SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT.
AT ONE POINT, I CUPPED MY FLASHLIGHT AND TRIED TO GET THE BEAM TO FOCUS AS MUCH AS I COULD, AND I SAW A PACKAGE IN THE REAR CARGO AREA.
MS. CLARK: OKAY.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: PEOPLE’S EXHIBIT 62-F.
Q BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT YOU SEE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, SIR?
A WELL, I BELIEVE THAT’S WHAT I SAW IN THE REAR, YES.
Q OKAY.
AND WHAT, IF ANY, IDENTIFYING INFORMATION WAS ON THOSE PACKAGES OR ANY OF THEM?
A I SAW “O.J. SIMPSON” ON THE ADDRESS OR “O.J. SIMPSON ENTERPRISES” AND “ATTENTION CATHY.”
Q UH-HUH.
AND DID THAT CAUSE YOU TO FORM SOME OPINION ABOUT WHO OWNED THE CAR, SIR?
A WELL, IT SEEMED TO BE MR. SIMPSON’S OR SOMEONE THAT WORKED FOR HIM.
Q WHAT ELSE DID YOU SEE IN THE REAR CAR — NEVER MIND. STRIKE THAT.
ALL RIGHT.
AS YOU MADE — AFTER YOU MADE THOSE OBSERVATIONS OF THE PACKAGES IN THE REAR CARGO AREA, DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING ELSE IN THE REAR CARGO AREA?
A YES, I DID.
Q WHAT WAS THAT?
A THERE WAS A SHOVEL THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET LONG. IT WAS — I CAN’T REMEMBER IF IT WAS A POINTED OR A FLAT-NOSE SHOVEL, BUT IT WAS TURNED POINT DOWN; IN OTHER WORDS, THE CUTTING EDGE DOWN, AND THERE WAS A LARGE PIECE OF HEAVY GAUGE PLASTIC THAT WAS TUCKED IN A SIDE CARGO AREA IN THE REAR PART OF THE VEHICLE.
Q CAN YOU SEE ANYTHING IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH THAT DEPICTS WHAT YOU’VE JUST DESCRIBED?
A YES, I DO.
Q AND WHERE IS THAT?
A IN THE LEFT CORNER OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH, I SEE THE SHOVEL THAT I’M DESCRIBING.
Q AND WHERE DID YOU SEE THE PLASTIC, SIR?
A THERE’S A POCKET AREA TO THE — ON THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE.
Q IN THE REAR CARGO AREA?
A IN THE REAR CARGO AREA, AND IT WAS FOLDED AND IT WAS TUCKED IN THAT AREA.
Q TUCKED IN THE POCKET?
A IT WAS A POCKET OR A NETTING. I’M NOT SURE WHICH IT WAS. IT SEEMED TO BE HELD THERE….

Q SHOWING YOU PEOPLE’S 109, SIR, DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT’S SHOWN IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH?
A YES. THAT IS THE SHOVEL I DESCRIBED.
Q IS THAT THE POSITION IN WHICH YOU SAW IT, SIR, WHEN YOU LOOKED THROUGH THE REAR CARGO WINDOW OF THE BRONCO IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE THE 13TH?
A YES, IT IS.
Q AFTER YOU MADE THOSE OBSERVATIONS, SIR, WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT?
A I WENT BACK TOWARDS ASHFORD AND I — I DIDN’T WANT TO YELL TO THE OTHER DETECTIVES, BUT I WANTED TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT SOME OF THE OBSERVATIONS I MADE.
Q AND WHO DID YOU CONTACT?
A I SAW DETECTIVE LANGE UP TOWARDS THE INTERSECTION OF ASHFORD AND ROCKINGHAM, AND I BELIEVE I WALKED THAT AREA. I DIDN’T GET REAL CLOSE, BUT I GOT CLOSE ENOUGH WHERE I DIDN’T HAVE TO USE AN ELEVATED VOICE TO COMMUNICATE, AND I GOT DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND LANGE TO COME DOWN TO THE BRONCO.
Q NOW, WHEN YOU — WHEN YOU CONTACT — MADE CONTACT WITH DETECTIVE LANGE, WHERE WAS HE?
A I THINK HE WAS ON ASHFORD AND ROCKINGHAM INTERSECTION MORE INBOARD OF ROCKINGHAM ON ASHFORD, BUT I COULD VISIBLY SEE HIM AS I WAS WALKING TOWARDS THAT DIRECTION.
Q UH-HUH.
AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WHERE WAS HE WHEN YOU MADE CONTACT WITH HIM?
A I DON’T RECALL SEEING HIM INITIALLY WHEN I TURNED AROUND. I BELIEVE HE WAS BACK TOWARDS THE GATE.
Q SO YOU CONTACTED DETECTIVE LANGE FIRST AT THE CORNER OF ASHFORD AND ROCKINGHAM?
A I BELIEVE SO, YES.
Q OKAY.
AND AFTER YOU TOLD HIM WHAT YOU’D SEEN, WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT?
A WELL, I BELIEVE I SAID, “I THINK I SAW SOMETHING ON THE BRONCO,” AND VANNATTER AND LANGE AND I BOTH WALKED DOWN THERE AT THE SAME TIME.
Q SO YOU ALL WALKED DOWN, THE THREE OF YOU TOGETHER?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT DID YOU DO THEN?
A I SHOWED THEM THE OBSERVATIONS. FIRST, THE — AS WE WERE WALKING, I DESCRIBED THE WAY THE BRONCO FIRST KIND OF GOT MY ATTENTION. THEN I SHOWED THEM THE PIECE OF WOOD AND THEN THE SPOT THAT I THOUGHT WAS BLOOD, THE FOUR SMALL MARKS THAT I THOUGHT WAS BLOOD. I DESCRIBED WHAT WAS IN THE VEHICLE AND TRIED TO USE MY FLASHLIGHT AND GIVE THEM THE ABILITY TO SEE THOSE ITEMS.
Q AND WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A AT SOME POINT, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WALKED DOWN THE STREET AND JOINED —
Q TOWARDS YOU?
A YES….
Q WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A WELL, AT THAT POINT, DETECTIVE LANGE WALKED BACK UP TOWARDS ASHFORD AND ROCKINGHAM AND I BELIEVE EVENTUALLY TO THE FRONT GATE AT ASHFORD AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND I STOOD FOR A MOMENT SEVERAL FEET IN FRONT OF THE BRONCO AND WE DISCUSSED EXACTLY WHAT WE HAD OBSERVED AND WHAT IMPACT IT WOULD HAVE ON WHAT WE WERE ATTEMPTING TO DO….

Q WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A AT SOME POINT, A CONCLUSION WAS MADE BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO GET INTO THE COMPOUND AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM….

Q ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU ASKED DETECTIVE VANNATTER IF HE WANTED YOU TO GO OVER THE WALL?
A I THINK I MADE THE STATEMENT AND THEN HE JUST SAID, “OKAY.”
Q OKAY.
SO THAT DECISION WAS UP TO HIM TO MAKE; IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES.
Q AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED?
A I JUMPED THE WALL JUST TO THE LEFT OR EAST OF THE ASHFORD GATE, LANDED ON THE OTHER SIDE, CAME AROUND AND RELEASED THE HYDRAULIC ARM TO THE GATE ON ASHFORD AND LET THE OTHER DETECTIVES INTO THE LOCATION.
Q AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A I BELIEVE DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND VANNATTER WERE SOMEWHAT AHEAD WALKING AND THEN DETECTIVE LANGE AND THEN MYSELF TRAILING AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WENT TO THE FRONT DOOR….

Q WHAT HAPPENED — YOU ALL WENT TO THAT FRONT DOOR AREA, AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED?
A I WAS STANDING TO THE REAR OF THE GROUP AND I’M NOT SURE IF VANNATTER OR PHILLIPS WERE KNOCKING. BUT FOR A COUPLE MINUTES, WE STOOD THERE AND KNOCKED AT THE FRONT DOOR AND RECEIVED NO RESPONSE….

Q WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A VANNATTER AND PHILLIPS LEFT THE FRONT DOOR AREA, AND WE ALL TURNED AND PHILLIPS AND VANNATTER STARTED WALKING BACK TOWARDS THE FRONT GATE AND THEN ENTERED A WALKWAY THAT WENT ALONGSIDE TO THE HOUSE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE.
Q DID YOU SEE ANY ANIMALS?
A YES.
Q AND WHEN DID YOU DO THAT?
A RIGHT ABOUT WHEN WE TURNED. I BELIEVE WHEN WE TURNED TO WALK IN THAT PATH.
Q AND THAT PATH, IS IT PARALLEL TO ASHFORD OR ROCKINGHAM? THE PATH?
A I AM SORRY?
Q THE PATH THAT YOU TOOK, IS IT PARALLEL TO ASHFORD OR ROCKINGHAM?
A IT’S PARALLEL TO ASHFORD….

Q ALL RIGHT.
IF YOU WOULD, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WOULD YOU STEP DOWN. USING THE POINTER, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE SHOW US THE PATH THAT YOU TOOK WITH DETECTIVES PHILLIPS, VANNATTER AND LANGE AFTER YOU KNOCKED ON THE FRONT DOOR AND GOT NO RESPONSE.
WHEN I SAY YOU, I MEAN THEY, ALL OF YOU.
A THIS AREA THAT’S MARKED AS “ENTRANCE,” THAT IS THE FRONT DOOR AREA. WE TURNED AROUND AND WALKED NORTHBOUND UNTIL WE COME TO THIS PATH THAT IS BEIGE IN COLOR ON THIS CHART AND IT’S SOMEWHAT IN KIND OF AN “S”, CIRCLES AROUND TO THE REAR OF THE — REAR OF THE RESIDENCE. IT CONTINUES AROUND AND STARTS TO GO SOUTHBOUND UP SOME STAIRS INTO A PATIO AREA NEXT TO THE POOL….

Q AND WHEN YOU GOT — WHEN YOU WALKED THROUGH THE REAR YARD AREA, WERE YOU SEARCHING OR LOOKING AROUND? WHAT WERE YOU DOING?
A I WAS REALLY DOING NOTHING. I WAS JUST FOLLOWING THESE DETECTIVES THAT WERE WALKING ALONG THIS PATHWAY.
Q OKAY.
WHAT DID YOU SEE?
A I SAW THE LAWN AND THE PATHWAY AND WALKING INTO THE POOL AREA, JUST SAW THE POOL AREA. NOTHING — NOTHING UNUSUAL.
Q WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A WE WALKED ONTO THE PATIO AREA. I THINK — I THINK PHILLIPS AND VANNATTER PROBABLY SLOWED SOMEWHAT AND LOOKED AROUND, AND I DIDN’T SEE ANYBODY VERBALIZE, BUT I KIND OF ASSUMED THAT SOMEONE SAW SOMETHING DOWN IN THIS AREA THAT THEY WANTED TO LOOK AT OR KNOCK ON. I DON’T KNOW.
THEY WALKED PAST THESE STEP AREA DOWN ONTO THIS AREA BY THE POOL AND DOWN TOWARDS THIS ROOM THAT IS DENOTED ON THIS CHART BY KAELIN’S ROOM (INDICATING)….

Q AND WHEN YOU GOT TO THE AREA MARKED — WHEN THE FOUR OF YOU GOT TO THE AREA MARKED KAELIN’S ROOM, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A I SAW DETECTIVE PHILLIPS LOOK TOWARDS THE DOOR AND HE WENT UP TO IT, AND I THINK ABOUT AT THE SAME TIME HE WAS ABOUT TO KNOCK, I COULD TELL IT WAS A GLASS PANE DOOR AND THERE WAS WOOD LOUVERS ON THE INSIDE AND SOME OF THEM WERE OPEN.
DETECTIVE PHILLIPS COULD — HE SAW SOMETHING, HE TURNED BACK AND SAID, “THERE’S A GUY ON THE BED,” OR, “THERE’S SOMEONE LYING ON THE BED,” SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND HE KNOCKED ON THE DOOR AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER, SOMEONE CAME TO THE DOOR….

Q WHO IS THAT?
A KATO KAELIN.
Q AND AFTER HE ANSWERED THE DOOR, DID SOMEONE SPEAK TO HIM?
A YES. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.
Q AND DID YOU HEAR WHAT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SAID TO HIM?
A I WAS STANDING BEHIND AND ABOVE AND I HEARD — I HEARD HIM ASK MR. KAELIN IF HE KNEW — IF MR. SIMPSON WAS IN THE HOUSE, AND THEN I’M NOT SURE IF IT WAS PHILLIPS OR ONE OF THE OTHER DETECTIVES MAKING A COMMENT THAT, “THERE MIGHT BE SOME SORT OF AN EMERGENCY, WE NEED TO KNOW,” OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.
Q AND WHAT DID — AND WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A I HEARD MR. KAELIN DIRECT ALL OF US TO MR. SIMPSON’S DAUGHTER’S ROOM WHICH HE POINTED EAST DOWN THAT WALKWAY AMONG THE BUNGALOWS AND SAID SOMETHING LIKE, “MR. SIMPSON’S DAUGHTER, ARNELLE’S ROOM IS DOWN THIS WAY,” AND I THINK HE POINTED OR DIRECTED THEM DOWN THAT WAY….

Q AND WHEN HE DIRECTED THE — WHEN HE DIRECTED ALL OF YOU TO ARNELLE’S ROOM, HE POINTED THAT OUT, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND VANNATTER AND LANGE WALKED IN THAT DIRECTION.
Q AND WHAT DID YOU DO?
A WELL, I CAME DOWN THESE STEPS AND I STAYED WITH MR. KAELIN….

Q WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT?
A I ENGAGED MR. KAELIN IN CONVERSATION WHILE THE FIRST — I BELIEVE ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS I ASKED HIM IS, “DO YOU MIND IF I LOOK AROUND?” HE REPLIED, “NO.”…

Q UH-HUH. WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A I ASKED MR. KAELIN IF THE WHITE BRONCO IN FRONT — WHO IT BELONGS TO, AND HE SAID IT WAS O.J.’S, AND I ASKED HIM IF HE DROVE IT LAST NIGHT. BUT I BELIEVE BEFORE HE ANSWERED THAT, I THINK I ASKED HIM ANOTHER QUESTION.
Q AND WHAT WAS THAT?
A IF ANYTHING UNUSUAL HAPPENED LAST NIGHT….

Q SO WHEN YOU ASKED HIM DID ANYTHING UNUSUAL HAPPEN THE NIGHT BEFORE, WHAT WAS HIS RESPONSE?
A HE SAID ABOUT 10:45 P.M. THE PREVIOUS NIGHT, I BELIEVE HE SAID HE WAS TALKING ON THE PHONE. HE SAID HE HEARD A CRASH OR A THUMP ON HIS WALL. HE THOUGHT THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN EARTHQUAKE AND HIS PICTURE SHOOK.
Q AND DID HE POINT OUT TO THE PICTURE OR THE AREA ON THE WALL WHERE HE HEARD THAT CRASH?
A YES.
Q WHERE DID HE POINT TO?
A HE POINTED TO A PICTURE TOWARDS THE RIGHT SIDE OF HIS BED, WHICH WOULD BE THE WEST SIDE OF HIS BED. HIS BED WAS — THE HEAD WAS ON THE SOUTH WALL AND THE FOOT WAS AT THE NORTH END OF THE ROOM….

Q OKAY. NOW, DID MR. KAELIN TELL YOU WHAT TIME HE HEARD THAT CRASHING SOUND OVER HIS BED ON THE WALL OVER HIS BED?
A HE SAID ABOUT 10:45 P.M.
Q AND DID HE POINT OUT THE PICTURE THAT HE SAID MOVED WHEN HE HEARD THAT CRASHING SOUND OR THAT THUMPING SOUND?
A HE POINTED OVER TOWARDS THE WALL, MADE A GESTURE AS HE WAS TALKING….

Q …DID YOU HAVE SOME FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH MR. KAELIN?
A YES. WELL, MR. KAELIN OFFERED — HE DESCRIBED THAT WHEN HE HEARD THAT NOISE, INITIALLY THOUGHT IT WAS AN EARTHQUAKE, BUT NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED. SO HE WENT OUT TO INVESTIGATE.
Q DID HE TELL YOU WHERE HE WENT TO INVESTIGATE?
A YES.
Q WHAT DID HE TELL YOU ABOUT THAT?
A HE WENT AROUND THE NORTH SIDE PAST THE POOL, NORTH SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE AND WALKED THE SAME PATHWAY THAT WE HAD USED TO APPROACH HIS — HIS ROOM.
Q AND THEN WHAT?
A HE SAID HE SAW A LIMO IN THE DRIVEWAY AND THEN HE PROCEEDED TOWARDS THE AREA WHERE HE WAS GOING TO INVESTIGATE, BUT HE DIDN’T DESCRIBE ANYTHING ANY FARTHER.
Q NOW, THE AREA ON THE WALL WHERE HE INDICATED HE HEARD THE THUMPS, COULD YOU TELL WHERE THAT — THE EXTERIOR OF THAT POINT WOULD BE ON THE PROPERTY?
A NO.
Q AND DID HE TELL YOU HOW TO GET TO THAT POINT ON THE EXTERIOR PART OF THE PROPERTY?
A NO, HE DIDN’T.
Q SO AFTER HE TOLD YOU THAT HE HAD GONE OUT TO INVESTIGATE THE THUMPS AND GOTTEN TO THE DRIVEWAY AND SEEN THE LIMO DRIVER, DID HE TELL YOU WHERE HE WENT AFTER THAT POINT?
A I DON’T RECALL THAT HE DID, NO.
Q WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A I ASKED MR. KAELIN IF HE WOULD COME WITH ME, AND WE EXITED HIS ROOM AND I LOOKED TOWARDS THE MAIN HOUSE AND I SAW THERE WAS AN OPEN DOOR, THE REAR OFF THE PATIO….

Q SO YOU WALKED IN THROUGH THE REAR DOOR?
A YES.
Q AND THAT WAS WITH MR. KAELIN?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT DID HAPPEN NEXT AFTER YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE?
A WHEN I FIRST WALKED IN, I NOTICED THIS AREA, YOU STEP DOWN WHERE THERE’S A LARGE BILLIARD TABLE AND THEN DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF WHERE WE CAME IN, THERE’S A BAR AREA WITH FOUR OR FIVE BAR STOOLS. AND I ASKED MR. KAELIN TO SIT IN ONE OF THOSE STOOLS AND RELAX AND SOMEBODY WOULD TALK TO HIM IN A MINUTE….

Q AFTER YOU GOT — YOU PUT KATO — YOU GOT — YOU TOOK KATO TO THE BAR AREA, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A I LEFT HIM AT THAT LOCATION AND I TRIED TO FIND WHERE THE DETECTIVE — THE OTHER THREE DETECTIVES HAD WALKED TO.
Q DID YOU FIND THEM?
A I WALKED TOWARDS THE FRONT DOOR. THERE’S A HALLWAY TYPE AREA. AND AS I WALKED PAST THERE, THERE WAS AN OPEN DOORWAY, AND I SAW ALL THREE DETECTIVES IN THE KITCHEN AREA….

Q AND COULD YOU SEE WHAT THEY WERE DOING IN THERE?
A I BELIEVE ONE DETECTIVE WAS ON THE PHONE, THAT DETECTIVE NOT BEING VANNATTER. I BELIEVE PHILLIPS WAS ON THE PHONE, BUT I CAN’T BE POSITIVE ABOUT THAT.
Q DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS OR DETECTIVE LANGE BEFORE LEAVING THE FRONT DOOR?
A NO.
Q WHAT WAS THE — YOU SPOKE TO DETECTIVE — YOU WERE WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, LANGE AND VANNATTER AT THE POINT THAT YOU FIRST WENT TO MR. KAELIN’S ROOM I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER; IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND WAS THAT THE LAST TIME THAT YOU SPOKE TO THEM OR YOU WERE WITH THEM BEFORE YOU WENT OUT THE FRONT DOOR? DID YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH THEM BEFORE LEAVING KATO IN THE BAR AND GOING OUT THE FRONT DOOR?
A YES. I MADE A COMMENT TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER.
Q UH-HUH.
AND WHAT WAS THAT COMMENT, SIR?
A SAID, “PHIL, WOULD YOU TALK TO THIS GUY AT THE BAR?”
Q AND OTHER THAN THAT, DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER, DETECTIVE LANGE OR DETECTIVE PHILLIPS?
A NO, NOT AT THAT TIME.
Q SO AFTER THAT REMARK TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER, YOU WENT OUT THE FRONT DOOR?
A YES.
Q AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE DID YOU DO THAT?
A I WAS TRYING TO ORIENT MYSELF FROM WHERE THIS SOUTH WALL OF KATO’S BEDROOM COULD BE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU INDICATED EARLIER, SIR, THAT WHEN YOU LOOKED INSIDE THE REAR CARGO AREA OF THE BRONCO, YOU DESCRIBED FOR US A SHOVEL AND A PIECE OF PLASTIC. DO YOU RECALL THAT, SIR?
A YES, MA’AM….

Q BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
CAN YOU TELL US, SIR, IF YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT I’M SHOWING YOU HERE, PEOPLE’S 113?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT IS IT?
A THAT LOOKS LIKE THE SHOVEL THAT I SAW IN THE REAR CARGO AREA OF THE BRONCO….

COURT ADJOURNED UNTIL MONDAY, 3/13/95.

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, MARCH 13, 1995
9:20 A.M.
THE COURT: …ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WOULD YOU PLEASE RESUME THE WITNESS STAND….
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MS. CLARK:
Q LET’S SEE. I THINK WHERE WE LEFT OFF ON FRIDAY, SIR, YOU WERE SHOWING THE JURY THE SHOVEL AND THE PLASTIC AND THE WOOD, THE PIECE OF WOOD THAT YOU SAW NEAR THE BRONCO.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YES, I DO.
Q NOW, FIRST OF ALL, THE PLASTIC, YOU INDICATED — WHERE DID YOU RECOVER THAT FROM?
A THE —
Q WHAT PART OF THE BRONCO?
YOU DIDN’T RECOVER IT.
WHERE DID YOU SEE IT?
A I SAW IT IN THE RIGHT SIDE OR THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE REAR CARGO AREA, ALONG THE SIDE OF THE VEHICLE CARGO AREA.
Q AND THAT WAS — WAS IT INSIDE SOMETHING?
A IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS IN SOME SORT OF A POCKET.
Q OKAY. YOU DID NOT RECOVER THAT ITEM?
A NO, I DIDN’T.
Q AND DID YOU RECOVER THE SHOVEL?
A NO, I DIDN’T.
Q DID YOU RECOVER THE WOOD?
A NO.

Q THAT WAS LEFT FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO RECOVER?
A YES, MA’AM.
Q OKAY.
NOW, THAT PLASTIC, DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHETHER IT BELONGS IN A BRONCO OR ANYTHING ABOUT IT?
A WELL, NOW I DO.
Q AND WHAT IS THAT?
A IT IS THE SPARE TIRE BAG….

Q WHAT ABOUT THAT SHOVEL? STANDARD EQUIPMENT ALSO?
A NO. I DON’T BELIEVE SO, NO.
Q NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. KAELIN IN WHICH HE INFORMED YOU ABOUT THE THUMPS ON THE WALL.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YES.
Q WHAT TIME DID HE SAY HE HEARD THOSE THUMPS?
A 10:45 P.M.

Q OKAY.
YOU — I THINK YOU HAD TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT YOU BROUGHT HIM INTO THE HOUSE WITH YOU AND PUT HIM IN THE BAR AREA?
A YES, MA’AM.
Q AND THEN WHAT DID YOU DO?
A THEN I WALKED TOWARDS THE FRONT DOOR AREA WHICH PASSES THE KITCHEN.
Q AND THEN WHAT?
A I SAW DETECTIVE VANNATTER IN THE KITCHEN. I TOLD DETECTIVE VANNATTER. I SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT, “PHIL, TALK TO THIS GUY AT THE BAR.”
Q OKAY. DID YOU TELL HIM WHAT TO TALK ABOUT?
A NO.
Q AND THEN WHAT DID YOU DO?
A I WALKED OUT THE FRONT DOOR OF THE RESIDENCE….

Q WHEN YOU LEFT — WHEN YOU EXITED THE FRONT DOOR, WHERE DID YOU GO?
A I WALKED OUT INTO THE DRIVEWAY AND I LOOKED TO MY LEFT TO SEE WHERE THE PROPERTY ENDED.

Q ALL RIGHT.
SIR, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STEP DOWN AND SHOW US THE ROUTE YOU TOOK WHEN YOU EXITED THE FRONT DOOR….
A I EXITED THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE WHERE ON THIS CHART IT SAYS “ENTRANCE.” I EXITED GOING WEST.
I WALKED ONTO THE DRIVEWAY AND THEN LOOKED SOUTH.
Q NOW, WHY DID YOU LOOK SOUTH?
A WELL, FROM WHERE I HAD COME FROM IN KAELIN’S ROOM, THE WALL THAT HE HEARD THE CRASH OR THE THUMP WAS ON THE SOUTH WALL.
Q UH-HUH.
AND THEN WHERE DID YOU GO?
A I WALKED DOWN TO THE DRIVEWAY AND I STARTED WALKING DOWN TOWARDS THE GARAGE. THE GARAGE COMES SOMEWHAT OUT FROM THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE.
I WALKED AROUND THE GARAGE AND WENT DOWN TO THE SOUTHERN MOST PART OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN I LOOKED TO MY LEFT, WHICH WOULD BE EAST.
Q OKAY. AND YOU LOOKED TO YOUR LEFT EASTWARD BECAUSE WHY?
A THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE DIRECTION GOING BACK TOWARDS KAELIN’S ROOM.
Q WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A I SAW A PATHWAY. IT LOOKED VERY NARROW AND DARK AND THERE WAS A CYCLONE FENCE THAT RAN ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE WITH LOOKED LIKE PLANTS FROM THE RESIDENCE TO THE SOUTH THAT HAD OVERGROWN TOWARDS THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE.
Q AND WERE THERE ANY GATES THERE?
A I BELIEVE THERE WAS A GATE THAT WAS BROKEN AT SOME POINT IN HERE, (INDICATING). I BELIEVE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN HERE, (INDICATING). I BELIEVE IT WAS LAID UP AGAINST SOME — I CAN’T REMEMBER WHAT DEBRIS WAS THERE. WHAT WAS THERE, BUT IT WAS THERE, YES.
Q SO IT WAS NOT CLOSED, THE GATE?
A NO.
Q AND SO WHAT DID YOU DO? WHERE DID YOU GO?
A WELL, I TOOK OUT MY FLASHLIGHT AND I STARTED WALKING DOWN THE PATH TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE RESIDENCE ARCHITECTURE TO FIGURE OUT WHERE KAELIN’S WALL MIGHT HAVE BEEN.
Q NOW, WHAT WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE FROM THAT FIRST GATE AREA IN TERMS OF FARTHER DOWN THE WALKWAY? WHAT WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE?
A WELL, I COULD SEE THERE WAS A LONG WALKWAY, BUT THIS WAS A LITTLE ELEVATED, SO I WAS LOOKING SOMEWHAT DOWNWARD. I SAW A LONG PATH, A LONG DARK PATH COVERED WITH LEAVES.
Q AND WHAT DID YOU EXPECT TO FIND?
A I DIDN’T KNOW. I THOUGHT POSSIBILITY SOMEBODY HAD COLLAPSED BACK THERE.
Q AND WHY — WHY DID YOU THINK THAT?
A BY KAELIN’S STATEMENT, IT WAS RATHER ODD THE THUMP ON THE WALL, NOTHING THAT FOLLOWED UP, PLUS WHAT I OBSERVED ON THE BRONCO THAT WAS PARKED ON ROCKINGHAM AND THE INABILITY TO RAISE ANYBODY IN THE RESIDENCE. THAT WAS OUR CONCERNS AT THAT POINT.
Q OKAY.
SO WHAT WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE FROM THE VANTAGE POINT OF THAT FIRST GATE AREA GOING DOWN? ANYTHING?
A NOTHING REALLY.
Q WAS IT — CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE LIGHTING IN THAT AREA?
A WELL, THE LIGHTING OUTSIDE — IT WAS GETTING LIGHT OUTSIDE BUT IT WAS — IT WAS EVEN WORSE LIGHTING BACK HERE, (INDICATING), VERY SHADED.
THESE TREES OR SHRUBS CAUSE IT TO BE DARK — DARK AND THEN THESE — ALL THESE BUILDINGS WERE MUCH HIGHER THAN — ABOUT THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE TREES AT SOME POINT, SOMETIMES HIGHER.
Q OKAY.
SO DID YOU NEED THE AID OF YOUR FLASHLIGHT IN ORDER TO SEE WHERE YOU WERE GOING?
A NOT SO MUCH TO SEE WHERE I WAS WALKING, BUT MOSTLY JUST TO LOOK FOR ANYTHING THAT I MIGHT HAVE WALKED ON….

Q AND THEN YOU — WHERE DID YOU GO AFTER YOU REACHED THAT FIRST GATE AREA?
A I GOT TO THIS AREA AND I WAS KIND OF CONFUSED BY THIS INDENTATION AND I LOOKED IN THIS AREA, (INDICATING), BUT I COULDN’T SEE ANYTHING THAT WOULD — THAT WOULD REALLY INDICATE THAT THIS IS WHERE THE NOISE WAS FROM.
I WALKED BACK OUT HERE, (INDICATING), IN THIS AREA. I BELIEVE THERE WAS ANOTHER GATE IN HERE SOMEWHERE, BUT I’M NOT SURE IF IT WAS OPENED OR CLOSED.
MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD WHEN THE WITNESS SAID, “THIS AREA” HE WAS REFERRING TO THE — BEHIND THE GARAGE AREA, THE ENTIRE AREA ON PEOPLE’S 66 THAT IS INDENTED THAT WOULD BE JUST TO THE RIGHT OF THE GARAGE AREA.
Q AND THEN YOU RECALL A SECOND GATE?
A I BELIEVE SO. IT WAS — IT WAS ALSO OPENED.
Q OKAY. NOT LOCKED?
A NOT LOCKED, NO.
Q AND DID YOU — WERE YOU — WHAT WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE WHEN YOU GOT TO THE SECOND GATE AREA IN TERMS OF FARTHER DOWN THE WALKWAY?
A THEN I WAS — AS I WAS FURTHER DOWN THE WALKWAY — I HADN’T BEEN ABLE TO SEE ANYTHING FARTHER DOWN THE WALKWAY. I WAS LOOKING AT THIS ARCHITECTURE IN HERE, (INDICATING), WHERE IT IS BEGINNING TO COME BACK OUT ADJACENT TO THE PATH….

Q DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION, SIR, TO PEOPLE’S 116, THE PHOTOGRAPH LABELED A, TELL US WHAT IS DEPICTED IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH.
A PHOTOGRAPH A IS THE FRONT OF THE GARAGE. THIS IS FACING DUE WEST.
I WALKED ALONG THE PATH AND CAME OUT IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE AND WALKED TO THIS ENTRANCE RIGHT HERE AND LOOKED EAST DOWN THE PATH, (INDICATING)….

Q AND PHOTOGRAPH B?
A PHOTOGRAPH B WOULD BE — THIS IS THE AIR CONDITIONER THAT IS JUTTING OUT WITH THE BRACING. THIS WALL LINE HERE I BELIEVE IS THE BEGINNING OF THE BUILDING, THE BUNGALOWS WHERE I BELIEVE THE OUTSIDE OF KATO’S WALL, MAYBE THE OFFICE THAT IS JUST ADJACENT TO KATO’S WALL….

Q NOW, YOU SAID YOU PASSED THROUGH THE SECOND GATE AREA?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE WHEN YOU GOT TO THE AREA OF THE SECOND GATE?
A WELL, I WAS LOOKING — INITIALLY I WAS LOOKING UP TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE — WHERE THE WALL WAS. I LOOKED UP. I SAW A SHEAR WALL THAT WENT UP QUITE A WAYS, LIKE FIFTEEN — MAYBE AS HIGH AS TWENTY FEET, AND THE PITCH OF THE ROOF WENT DIRECTLY BACK IN TOWARDS THE POOL AREA.
AND I RECALLED THAT FROM WHEN I WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE. AND I DETERMINED THAT THAT WAS PROBABLY KATO’S WALL.
Q SO AS YOU WERE LOOKING THEN AT THE OUTSIDE OF THE RESIDENCE, YOU WERE TRYING TO FIND OUT — YOU WERE TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT WALL MATCHED UP WITH THE OUTSIDE OF KATO’S ROOM?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT TIME WAS IT, IF YOU RECALL, WHEN YOU EXITED THE HOUSE AND WENT DOWN THAT SOUTH PATHWAY?
A 6:00, 6:10, 6:15.
Q WERE YOU LOOKING AT YOUR WATCH WHEN YOU WENT OUT OF THE HOUSE?
A NO. NO, MA’AM.
Q YOU ARE ESTIMATING FOR US?
A YES.
Q AND THEN AFTER YOU PASSED THROUGH THAT SECOND GATE AREA, YOU SAW THE WALL THAT APPEARED TO MATCH KATO’S WALL?
A YES.
Q THEN WHAT HAPPENED?
A I CONTINUED WALKING DOWN THE PATH, AND WHEN I GOT APPROXIMATELY FIFTEEN OR TWENTY FEET AWAY, I SAW A DARK OBJECT AND I CONTINUED TO WALK FORWARD TOWARDS THAT OBJECT.
Q COULD YOU TELL WHAT THAT DARK OBJECT WAS?
A NO, NOT UNTIL I GOT VERY CLOSE.
Q AND HOW CLOSE DID YOU GET BEFORE YOU COULD TELL WHAT IT WAS?
A SEVERAL FEET, MAYBE THREE OR FOUR, I’M NOT SURE. AT SOME POINT I COULD TELL THAT IT WAS A GLOVE.
Q AND WHEN YOU SAW THAT IT WAS A GLOVE — FIRST OF ALL, WHERE DID YOU SEE IT IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE AIR CONDITIONER SHOWN IN PEOPLE’S B AND C?
A HERE IS THE AIR CONDITIONER, (INDICATING).
Q PEOPLE’S B.
A AN I LOOKED DOWN AND THERE IS THE DARK OBJECT THAT I SAW, (INDICATING).
MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS IS POINTING TO WHAT LOOKS LIKE A SMALL DARK SPOT RIGHT NEXT — ON THE GROUND NEAR THE AIR CONDITIONER IN PHOTOGRAPH B….
Q AND IN PHOTOGRAPH C CAN YOU SEE IT?
A I — IT IS RATHER DARK, BUT I BELIEVE — HERE IS THE AIR CONDITIONER BRACING AND THEN I BELIEVE THIS IS — IT IS REALLY HARD TO SEE RIGHT IN HERE.
THIS LOOKS LIKE THE OBJECT THAT I SAW, YES.
MS. CLARK: AND FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS HAS POINTED TO TWO PRICES OF WOOD STICKING OUT OF THE WALL IN THE TOP OF PHOTOGRAPH C WHEN HE REFERRED TO THE BRACING FOR THE AIR CONDITIONER AND A DARK SPOT UNDERNEATH ON THE GROUND….

Q IN PHOTOGRAPH D, SIR, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT YOU SEE THERE?
A PHOTOGRAPH D IS A PICTURE OF WHAT NOW I IDENTIFIED AS A POSSIBLE GLOVE. THIS WAS — THIS WAS PROBABLY ABOUT THE DISTANCE, MAYBE A LITTLE FARTHER BACK, THAT I COULD TELL IT WAS PROBABLY A GLOVE.
Q AND WHEN YOU WERE ABLE TO TELL THAT IT WAS PROBABLY A GLOVE, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A WELL, I WALKED CLOSER TO LOOK AT IT.
Q OKAY. HOW CLOSE DID YOU GET TO IT?
A OH, I GOT PROBABLY AS CLOSE AS PHOTO F LOOKING DOWN AT IT.
Q OKAY.
AND WHAT DID — DID YOU JUST STAND AND LOOK DOWN AT IT? DID YOU TOUCH IT? WHAT DID YOU DO?
A I DIDN’T TOUCH IT. I LOOKED AT IT. I DIDN’T KNOW WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IT WAS….

Q CAN YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE THE APPEARANCE OF THE GLOVE, SIR.
A WELL, IT APPEARED TO BE — IT DIDN’T MATCH THE TERRAIN. THERE IS LEAVES ALL OVER THE WALKWAY. IT WAS DIRTY IN THE AREA. IT WAS
UNKEPT (SIC). THIS GLOVE DIDN’T HAVE ANY SIGNS
OF DIRT OR LEAVES OR TWIGS ON IT.
IT APPEARED A DARK LEATHER GLOVE. IT APPEARED TO BE SOMEWHAT MOIST OR STICKY. I DIDN’T TOUCH IT, BUT IT APPEARED THAT PARTS WERE STICKING TO OTHER PARTS OF THE GLOVE.
Q AND YOU WERE DESCRIBING THE WALKWAY AREA. YOU INDICATED IT WAS KIND OF DIRTY WITH LEAVES. WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE ANY — ANY FOOTPRINTS OR SHOEPRINTS OR DISTURBANCE IN THOSE LEAVES?
A NO, I DIDN’T.
Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE, WAS IT VERY THICKLY COVERED WITH LEAVES? WHAT DID IT LOOK LIKE?
A WELL, MUCH AS THIS PICTURE DEPICTS IN THIS PHOTO, THAT WAS MUCH OF THE WAY THE WALKWAY LOOKED.
Q OKAY.
AND WHEN YOU LOOKED BACK, COULD YOU SEE WHERE YOU HAD JUST WALKED ON THE WALKWAY?
A NO.
Q SO AFTER YOU GOT UP TO THE GLOVE, YOU INDICATE YOU LOOKED DOWN AT IT. WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A WELL, AT THAT POINT I WAS SOMEWHAT ALARMED AT FINDING SOMETHING SUCH AS THIS, AND NOT KNOWING IF A SUSPECT OR A VICTIM HAD LEFT SOMETHING BACK THERE, SO I CONTINUED FARTHER EAST PASSED THE AIR CONDITIONER.
Q OKAY. LET ME BACK UP ONE SECOND.
COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THAT WAS A RIGHT OR LEFT-HANDED GLOVE WHEN YOU LOOKED AT IT AT THAT TIME?
A IT APPEARED TO BE A RIGHT-HANDED GLOVE.

Q OKAY.
AND DID IT — WAS IT — WERE YOU — WHAT SIGNIFICANCE DID YOU ATTACH TO IT WHEN YOU SAW IT, IF ANY?
A WELL, IT LOOKED SIMILAR TO THE GLOVE ON THE BUNDY SCENE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU — DID YOU IMMEDIATELY THINK IT WAS A MATCH? WHAT WAS YOUR STATE OF MIND ABOUT THAT?
A OH, I DIDN’T KNOW AT THAT POINT. IT WAS A DARK-COLORED LEATHER GLOVE.
Q OKAY. AND AFTER YOU SAW THAT GLOVE, DID YOU PICK IT UP?
A NO.
Q WHAT DID YOU DO?
A I CONTINUED — I WALKED AROUND IT. I CONTINUED EASTBOUND ON THE WALKWAY.
Q DID ANYTHING DRAW YOUR ATTENTION AS YOU PASSED THE AREA OF THE GLOVE AND CONTINUED DOWN THE WALKWAY?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT WAS THAT?
A I STARTED HITTING SPIDERWEBS OR COBWEBS IN MY FACE.
Q HAD YOU HIT ANY SPIDERWEBS OR COBWEBS UP UNTIL THE TIME YOU SAW THE GLOVE?
A NO.

Q SO WHAT DID DO YOU NEXT? YOU CONTINUED DOWN THE WALKWAY?
A YES, MA’AM.
Q AND WHY?
A WELL, I DIDN’T KNOW IF I HAD SOMEONE THAT HAD GONE ALL THE WAY DOWN THE WALKWAY, WHETHER IT BE A SUSPECT OR A VICTIM. I DIDN’T KNOW THEIR CONDITION AND AT THAT POINT I DIDN’T WANT TO TURN MY BACK ON ANYONE THAT MIGHT BE WATCHING ME.
Q AND WHAT DID YOU SEE?
A I SAW NOTHING. I CONTINUED DOWN THE WALKWAY TO THE END OF THE BUILDING WHERE THERE WAS A LARGE — LARGE AREA OF BUDDING PLANTS AND SHRUBBERY.
I CONCLUDED THAT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN WHERE GARDENERS START SMALL PLANTS.
Q SO IS THAT THE — WHERE IS THAT AREA LOCATED WITH RESPECT TO THE HOUSE AND THE WALKWAY?
A IT WOULD BE IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER.
Q AT THE BACK OF THE HOUSE?
A YES.
Q SO YOU WENT ALL THE WAY BACK THERE?
A YES.
Q WHAT DID YOU THINK YOU WERE GOING TO FIND BACK THERE?
A I WAS LOOKING FOR SOMEBODY THAT HAD COLLAPSED AND GONE BACK TO THAT AREA AND QUITE POSSIBLY WAS LYING THERE….

Q OKAY.
WHEN YOU GOT TO THE REAR OF THE LOCATION YOU SAW THAT AREA AND WAS THERE — WAS IT LIKE A DIRT AREA BACK THERE?
A SOMEWHAT. THERE WAS PLANTS AND THERE WAS WILD GRASS AND THERE WAS SOME SHRUBBERY AND THERE WAS SOME PLANTS THAT LOOKED LIKE THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE OF OR PLANTED THERE ON PURPOSE.
Q DID YOU LOOK AROUND?
A YES.
Q WHAT DID — OTHER THAN WHAT YOU HAVE JUST DESCRIBED, DID YOU SEE ANYTHING ELSE?
A I FOUND NO — NO EVIDENCE OF ANYONE BEING THERE OR ANY EVIDENCE OF ANYBODY LEAVING SOMETHING IN THAT AREA, SO I LEFT.
Q OKAY. AND WHERE DID YOU GO?
A I WALKED BACK UP THE PATH WESTBOUND AND I WENT TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE AND I LOCATED DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.
Q NOW, WHEN YOU FIRST WENT BACK ON THAT WALKWAY, DID YOU KNOW WHETHER KATO HAD ALREADY GONE BACK THERE TO INVESTIGATE THE THUMPS ON THE WALL?
A NO, I DIDN’T.
Q AND YOU WALKED BACK OUT?
A YES….

Q AND WHAT DID YOU DO AT THAT TIME?
A I WALKED NORTH OR BACK TOWARD THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE AND I SAW DETECTIVE PHILLIPS IN FRONT OF THE — THE KITCHEN T.V. ROOM AREA….

Q SHOWING YOU PEOPLE’S 117, SIR, YOU INDICATED JUST NOW THAT WHEN YOU CAME OUT FROM THE SOUTH PATHWAY THAT YOU WENT TOWARDS THE HOUSE WHERE YOU SAW DETECTIVE PHILLIPS?
A YES, MA’AM.
Q DO YOU SEE THE AREA IN PEOPLE’S 117 WHERE YOU SAW DETECTIVE PHILLIPS STANDING?
A YES.
Q AND WHERE IS THAT?
A THERE IS A FIRST STORY WINDOW FACING THE CAMERA, ALMOST CENTER. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THAT PAVED AREA….

Q ALL RIGHT. WAS HE STANDING OUTSIDE, SIR?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT — DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM?
A SOMEWHAT. I JUST TOLD RON I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW HIM SOMETHING.
Q DID YOU TELL HIM WHAT YOU WANTED TO SHOW HIM?
A NO.
Q WHY NOT?
A I WANTED TO SEE HIS IMPRESSION. HE MADE SIMILAR OBSERVATIONS ON THE BUNDY SCENE THAT I HAD AND I WANTED TO SEE WHAT HE THOUGHT OF WHAT I HAD DISCOVERED ON THE PATHWAY.
Q OKAY. WHAT DID YOU DO THEN?
A I TOOK DETECTIVE PHILLIPS DOWN THAT PATHWAY AND SHOWED HIM.
Q OKAY. AND WAS THAT — DID YOU TAKE THE SAME ROUTE AS YOU HAD EARLIER?
A I DIDN’T DELAY IN CERTAIN AREAS, BUT YES.
Q SO THIS TIME YOU JUST WALKED STRAIGHT BACK?
THE COURT: YES.
Q WHEN YOU SAY “DELAY IN CERTAIN AREAS,” WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
A WELL, THE INDENTATION ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, THERE WAS A LARGE AMOUNT OF AREA THERE THAT I WALKED INTO THAT AREA TO ORIENT MYSELF. I DIDN’T DO THAT THIS TIME.
Q AND WHEN YOU TOOK DETECTIVE PHILLIPS OUT, HOW CLOSE DID YOU GET TO THE GLOVE?
A WE STOOD JUST TO THE WEST OF IT KNEELING DOWN.
Q YOU WERE KNEELING DOWN?
A YES.
Q OKAY. WAS DETECTIVE PHILLIPS KNEELING DOWN?
A I DON’T RECALL. I JUST KNELT DOWN. THAT IS A NARROW PATH. I JUST KNELT DOWN SO HE COULD ALSO OBSERVE AND POINTED.
Q AND AFTER YOU SHOWED IT — EXCUSE ME.
DID DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TOUCH THE GLOVE?
A NO.
Q DID YOU TOUCH THE GLOVE?
A NO.
Q WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A WE RETURNED TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE, AND I’M NOT SURE IF I ENTERED THE RESIDENCE OR DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SENT DETECTIVE VANNATTER, BUT I BELIEVE I AT SOME POINT TALKED TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND LANGE AND I TOOK DETECTIVE VANNATTER BACK TO THE LOCATION.
Q AND WHAT ROUTE DID YOU TAKE WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER?
A THE SAME AS DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.
Q AND HOW CLOSE DID YOU GET TO THE GLOVE WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER?
A IT WAS SIMILAR. WE APPROACHED THE GLOVE JUST TO THE WEST OF IT, OBSERVED IT AND THEN TURNED AROUND AND WALKED BACK.
Q AND DID YOU TOUCH THE GLOVE AT THAT TIME?
A NO.
Q DID DETECTIVE VANNATTER?
A NO.
Q AND AFTER YOU BOTH SAW THE GLOVE, WHERE DID YOU GO?
A WE RETURNED TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE.
Q OKAY. AND THEN WHAT DID YOU DO?
A I BELIEVE WE ENTERED THE KITCHEN AREA AND CONTACTED DETECTIVE LANGE AND I BROUGHT HIM DOWN TO THE SAME LOCATION.
Q AND WHAT DID YOU DO WITH DETECTIVE LANGE?
A THE SAME AS THE TWO OTHER DETECTIVES, LED HIM DOWN TO THE GLOVE, SHOWED HIM WHAT I HAD OBSERVED AND WE RETURNED.
Q AND DID DETECTIVE LANGE TOUCH THE GLOVE?
A NO.
Q DID YOU TOUCH THE GLOVE?
A NO.
Q WHEN YOU CAME BACK OUT WITH DETECTIVE LANGE, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A DETECTIVE LANGE AND VANNATTER WERE INVOLVED IN CONVERSATION AND I BELIEVE I STOOD AWAY FROM — FROM THAT, SO I’M NOT EXACTLY POSITIVE WHAT — WHAT THE CONVERSATION ENTAILED.
Q OKAY.
WHY DID YOU NOT INVOLVE YOURSELF IN THEIR CONVERSATION?
A WELL, THIS WAS THEIR CRIME SCENE, SO THEY WERE DISCUSSING WHAT HAD BEEN FOUND, AND IF ANYTHING, WHAT IT MEANT.
Q OKAY.
NOW, AT SOME POINT DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS ABOUT WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS?
A I DON’T RECALL. I LEARNED OF IT, YES, BUT I’M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHEN. I KNOW IT WAS AFTER I RETURNED WITH ALL THE DETECTIVES, BUT I DON’T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN.
Q WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY “AFTER YOU RETURNED WITH ALL THE DETECTIVES”?
A AFTER I CAME BACK FROM THE PATH AND NOTIFIED DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, SOMETIME AFTER I SHOWED ALL THE DETECTIVES WHAT I HAD FOUND ON THE PATH, I LEARNED OF CONVERSATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH MR. SIMPSON.
Q OKAY.
SO AT THE TIME THAT YOU FOUND THE GLOVE, YOU STILL DID NOT KNOW WHERE HE WAS OR WHERE HE HAD GONE OR WHEN HE HAD GONE THERE?
A NO.
Q AND I SAY “HE,” I’M REFERRING TO MR. SIMPSON.
A THAT’S CORRECT.
Q SO IS IT YOUR CURRENT RECOLLECTION THEN, SIR, BASED ON WHAT YOU TELL US, THAT YOU LEARNED THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS IN — WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS AT SOME POINT AFTER ALL DETECTIVES WERE TAKEN BACK TO SEE THE GLOVE?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AFTER DETECTIVE LANGE AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER HAD THAT CONVERSATION, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A THEREABOUTS SOMETIME DETECTIVE VANNATTER TOLD DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND MYSELF TO GO BACK TO BUNDY TO LOOK AT THAT GLOVE THAT WE HAD SEEN ON BUNDY.
Q AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE, SIR?
A TO SEE IF THERE WAS A SIMILARITY, IF WE HAD A RIGHT AND A LEFT, SEE IF THE COLOR AND THE LEATHER AND THE LINING MATCHED.
Q AND SO AFTER DETECTIVE VANNATTER ASKED YOU TO DO THAT, DID YOU?
A YES. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND I LEFT THE ROCKINGHAM SCENE AND WENT BACK TO BUNDY….

Q AND WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO BUNDY, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A DETECTIVE PHILLIPS INSTRUCTED ME TO GET A PHOTOGRAPHER. I DID. WE WALKED DOWN DOROTHY, ENTERED THE ALLEY AND CAME IN THROUGH THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE….

Q ALL RIGHT, SIR.
WHEN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS ASKED YOU TO GO AND GET A PHOTOGRAPHER, DID YOU DO THAT?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THAT?
A TO PHOTOGRAPH THE GLOVE IN ITS ORIGINAL POSITION, AND IF I NEEDED TO MOVE IT TO INSPECT IT ANY FURTHER, WE COULD — IN OTHER WORDS, PHOTO IT AS WE ORIGINALLY FOUND IT.
Q AND WHO IS IN THE PHOTOGRAPH, SIR?
A THAT IS VICTIM BROWN AND MYSELF.
Q AND ARE YOU POINTING TO SOMETHING UNDERNEATH THAT BUSH?
A YES, I AM.
Q AND WHAT IS THAT?
A IT IS THE GLOVE ON BUNDY.
Q AND IS THAT THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT YOU TOOK THE PHOTOGRAPHER OVER TO TAKE AT THE DIRECTION OF DETECTIVES VANNATTER AND PHILLIPS?
A YES….

Q AFTER THAT PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN, SIR, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A I RETURNED TO THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS.
Q AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE DID YOU RETURN TO THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS?
A TO INFORM THE DETECTIVES WHAT I SAW AT BUNDY.
Q NOW, BEFORE YOU LEFT FOR ROCKINGHAM AGAIN, WHEN YOU WENT OVER TO THE GLOVE ON BUNDY, SIR, WHAT DID YOU DO — YOU WERE ASKED — I THINK YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER TO COMPARE IT TO THE ONE AT ROCKINGHAM TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT LOOKED THE SAME?
A YES.
Q AND A MATCH?
A YES.
Q WHAT DID YOU DO IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE OF THAT?
A WELL, I HAD TO DETERMINE IF IT WAS A RIGHT OR A LEFT, AND I DID. IT WAS A LEFT-HANDED GLOVE.
Q AT BUNDY?
A YES. IT APPEARED TO BE THE SAME TEXTURE OF LEATHER, SAME COLOR.
Q UH-HUH.
A THE FABRIC, A MESH FABRIC, WAS THE LINING INSIDE, IT APPEARED TO BE THE SAME TEXTURE, DESIGN AND COLOR AS THE GLOVE ON ROCKINGHAM.
Q DID YOU TOUCH THE GLOVE?
A NO.
Q DID YOU MOVE IT?
A YES.
Q HOW DID YOU DO THAT?
A WITH A PEN….

Q AND HOW — WHAT DID YOU DO THAT FOR?
A I JUST LIFTED IT AND TURNED IT SO I COULD TELL IF IT WAS A RIGHT OR A LEFT AND TO LOOK AT THE LINING.
Q OKAY. AND WAS THERE SOMEONE ELSE PRESENT WHEN YOU DID THAT?
A YES.
Q WHO?
A THE PHOTOGRAPHER. I BELIEVE HE WAS MR. ROKAHR….

Q AND SO YOU WERE GOING TO REPORT BACK TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER?
A YES.
Q AND AFTER THAT WAS DONE, SIR, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WENT BACK TO ROCKINGHAM?
A YES.
Q DID YOU GO BY YOURSELF?
A YES, I DID.
Q DID YOU ASK ANYONE TO FOLLOW YOU OR PROCEED THERE AS WELL?
A YES.
Q WHO WAS THAT?
A THE PHOTOGRAPHER.
Q AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE?
A TO PHOTOGRAPH THE OTHER GLOVE AND FOR WHATEVER OTHER REASON DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND LANGE WANTED HIM AT ROCKINGHAM.
Q NOW, AFTER YOU — AFTER YOU LIFTED THE — PUT YOUR PEN INSIDE TO LIFT THE GLOVE AT BUNDY, DID YOU REPLACE IT IN THE SAME LOCATION?
A YES.
Q AS IT WAS FOUND?
A YES.
Q YOU WENT TO ROCKINGHAM THEN AND YOU TOOK THE PHOTOGRAPHER?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THAT?
A TO DOCUMENT THE POSITION OF THE GLOVE ON THE PATHWAY THAT I HAD DISCOVERED EARLIER.
Q AND WHAT DID YOU DO IN THAT REGARD WHEN YOU GOT TO ROCKINGHAM WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER?
A I BELIEVE I WAS INSTRUCTED TO SHOW HIM WHERE THE GLOVE WAS SO HE COULD PHOTOGRAPH IT, AND HE DID.
Q DID YOU TAKE HIM DOWN THAT SOUTH PATHWAY?
A YES.
Q AND AGAIN, WHAT ROUTE DID YOU TAKE TO TAKE HIM DOWN THERE?
A THE SAME AS THE OTHER THREE DETECTIVES; EASTBOUND ON THE PATH TO THE GLOVE, JUST WEST OF THE GLOVE, AND HE PHOTOGRAPHED IT….

Q YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER THAT THE — THAT YOU NOTICED IT TO BE — THE GLOVE TO BE MOIST AND STICKY.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A THAT IS THE WAY IT APPEARED, YES.
Q DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER ANY FINGERS WERE STUCK TOGETHER?
A I DO RECALL THAT THERE WAS ONE FINGER THAT WAS STUCK TO ONE PART OF THE GLOVE.
Q ALL RIGHT. WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A WE — I TOOK THE PHOTOGRAPHER BACK OUT TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE AND I RE-ENTERED THE FRONT DOOR AREA THAT LED INTO THE KITCHEN.
Q OKAY. AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE?
A TO TELL THE DETECTIVES — WELL, I HAD ALREADY PREVIOUSLY TOLD THEM WHAT I HAD FOUND, BUT THERE WAS A DISCUSSION GOING ON AND I CAME BACK THERE TO REJOIN THEM.
Q NOW, WHEN YOU WERE — LET ME BACK UP FOR A SECOND.
WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM, WERE YOU ABLE TO TELL WHETHER IT WAS RIGHT OR LEFT-HANDED?
A THE GLOVE ON ROCKINGHAM WAS A RIGHT-HANDED GLOVE.
Q AND THE PHOTOGRAPH OF IT SHOWN IN PEOPLE’S 116-E — WELL, ACTUALLY D, E AND F, IS THAT — DO THOSE DEPICT THE POSITION IN WHICH YOU ORIGINALLY FOUND IT?
A YES.
Q AND SO WERE YOU ABLE TO LOOK AT THE GLOVE AND SEE WHERE THE THUMB WAS LOCATED, WITHOUT LIFTING IT?
A YES.
Q WHO WAS INSIDE THE KITCHEN AREA WHEN YOU WENT INSIDE THE HOUSE AFTER HAVING THE GLOVE PHOTOGRAPHED?
A DETECTIVE VANNATTER, DETECTIVE — DETECTIVE VANNATTER FOR SURE. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS. THAT WAS ALL I BELIEVE I SAW WHEN I WALKED IN THERE.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS THEN AT THAT POINT AS TO WHAT YOU WERE TO DO?
A WELL, AT THAT POINT DETECTIVE VANNATTER MADE A STATEMENT THAT WE ARE GOING TO HANDLE THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS AS A CRIME SCENE AND WE NEEDED TO SEAL IT OFF, SECURE IT.
Q AND WHAT WERE YOU ASKED TO DO AT THAT POINT, IF ANYTHING?
A TO MAKE SURE NO ONE WAS IN THE HOUSE. THERE WAS — THERE WAS TWO CHILDREN IN THE HOUSE,
A MAN THAT I LATER FOUND OUT WAS MR. COWLINGS,
MISS ARNELLE SIMPSON WAS IN THE HOUSE. I THINK THAT WAS ALL.
WE ASKED THEM THAT IF THEY COULD TAKE THE CHILDREN SOMEWHERE ELSE, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO LEAVE, THAT THERE WAS SOME INVESTIGATION THAT WAS GOING TO BE DONE AT THE HOUSE.
Q AND WHERE WERE YOU?
A AT THIS TIME?
Q UH-HUH.
A I BELIEVE I WALKED OUT INTO THE LIVING ROOM AREA. I THINK I TALKED TO MR. COWLINGS THERE. I BELIEVE MISS SIMPSON WAS SOMEWHERE IN THAT GENERAL VICINITY ON THE FIRST FLOOR.
Q OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU REMAIN AT ROCKINGHAM AT THAT TIME, SIR?
A YES, I DID.
Q AND WHAT WERE YOU DOING?
A WAITING FOR A SEARCH WARRANT TO BE WRITTEN.
Q AND WHO WAS THERE WITH YOU?
A AT THAT POINT DETECTIVE VANNATTER WAS THERE MOMENTARILY, THEN HE LEFT. THERE WAS UNIFORMED OFFICERS WITH THE BRONCO AT THE FRONT OF THE ROCKINGHAM GATE, UNIFORMED OFFICERS TO THE FRONT OF ASHFORD.
DETECTIVE ROBERTS AT SOME POINT REJOINED ME AT THAT LOCATION AND I DON’T — THERE WAS SEVERAL DETECTIVES THAT ENDED UP THERE, AND I DON’T RECALL EXACTLY WHAT TIME.
Q LET ME BACK UP FOR ONE MINUTE.
YOU LEFT ROCKINGHAM TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE BUNDY GLOVE TO SEE IF IT MATCHED THE ONE YOU HAD FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?
A YES.
Q WHEN YOU DID THAT, YOU WENT WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS I THINK YOU TESTIFIED?
A YES.
Q AT SOME POINT, WHEN YOU WERE BACK AT BUNDY TO COMPARE THAT GLOVE TO THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE, DID YOU — DO YOU RECALL SEEING DETECTIVE LANGE?
A I CAN’T REMEMBER IF I SAW HIM AT THAT POINT.
Q WHEN YOU RETURNED TO THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION, DO YOU RECALL WHETHER YOU SAW DETECTIVE LANGE THERE?
A I CAN’T REMEMBER. I REMEMBER TALKING TO VANNATTER BECAUSE HE SAID WE WERE GOING TO SECURE THIS AND HANDLE IT LIKE A CRIME SCENE, AND THEN I STARTED TALKING TO MR. COWLINGS AND MISS SIMPSON.
Q THEN DID YOU REMAIN AT ROCKINGHAM FOR THE BALANCE OF THE DAY?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT WERE YOUR FUNCTIONS THERE?
A TO MAKE SURE WE JUST KEPT THE LOCATION SECURE WAITING FOR A WARRANT TO BE SIGNED….

THE COURT TOOK A BRIEF RECESS.

THE COURT: MR. BAILEY, YOU MAY COMMENCE WITH YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MARK FUHRMAN.

BY MR. BAILEY:
Q GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
A GOOD MORNING, MR. BAILEY.
Q COULD YOU TELL US WHEN IT WAS THAT YOU WERE ENLIGHTENED AS TO THE FACT THAT THE PLASTIC YOU SAW IN MR. SIMPSON’S BRONCO COMES WITH THE CAR, WHEN YOU LEARNED THAT?
A YES. I BELIEVE IT WAS SATURDAY.
Q SATURDAY.
A YES….

Q NOW, WHEN YOU FIRST SAW THE SHOVEL IN MR. SIMPSON’S BRONCO, DID YOU THINK THAT A SIGNIFICANT FIND?
A I DON’T THINK “SIGNIFICANT” WAS THE WORD I WOULD USE….

Q OKAY.
NOW, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOUR COLLEAGUES, DETECTIVES VANNATTER AND LANGE, ON THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 1994 HAD A TOTAL OF SOME THREE HOURS IN THE COMPANY OF MR. SIMPSON, CORRECT? DID YOU LEARN THAT?
A I HAD NEVER HEARD THAT TIME, NO.
Q YOU KNOW THEY TALKED THOUGH?
A YES, I UNDERSTAND….

Q DO YOU KNOW IF A FORMAL STATEMENT WAS TAKEN AT SOME POINT ON THAT DAY, JUST YES OR NO…?
A I CAN ONLY SAY THAT THROUGH OTHER SOURCES, I ASSUMED AND I HEARD, BUT I HAD NEVER SEEN ANYTHING OR HEARD ANYTHING.
Q YOU NEVER TALKED TO DETECTIVES VANNATTER AND LANGE ABOUT WHAT THE SUSPECT HAD SAID DURING THREE HOURS OF CONVERSATION?
A NO, I DIDN’T….

Q ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU EVER ASK MR. SIMPSON ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT A SHOVEL?
A I NEVER ASKED —
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ASSUMES HE EVER ASKED ANYTHING.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU?
A I’VE NEVER ASKED MR. SIMPSON ANY QUESTIONS….

Q OKAY.
IT IS TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT THE TIME OF DEATH CAN DEFINE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE POTENTIAL SUSPECTS IN A CASE?
A I THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL.
Q AND IT CAN ALSO ELIMINATE PERSONS WHO MIGHT OTHERWISE BE SUSPECTS IN THE CASE; CAN IT NOT?
A I’M SURE IT COULD, YES.
Q NOW, IN THIS CASE, DO YOU REGARD THE TIME OF DEATH OF THE VICTIMS AS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR?
A I DON’T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE CRIME SCENE ON THIS CASE.
Q YOU DON’T. OKAY.
WHEN YOU ENCOUNTERED MR. SIMPSON AND THE WOMAN YOU NOW KNOW TO BE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON IN 1985, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT BECAUSE YOU PREFER BASKETBALL OVER FOOTBALL, BUT STILL LIKE FOOTBALL, YOU KNEW WHO HE WAS AS YOU WALKED UP?
A AS I GOT CLOSE, I SAW WHO HE WAS, YES.
Q HAD YOU EVER SEEN HER BEFORE?
A NO.
Q DID YOU EVER SEE HER AGAIN UP TO THE TIME OF HER DEATH?
A NO, SIR.

Q WHEN YOU WERE AT THE SCENE, DID YOU HAVE ANY POWER TO PAT DOWN ANYBODY THERE? WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE POLICE CONDUCT?
A WHICH SCENE IS THIS, SIR?
Q ’85, THE MERCEDES.
A OH, I BELIEVE I COULD HAVE, YES.
Q WELL, MR. SIMPSON DIDN’T HAVE ANYTHING ON HIM OR IN HIS HANDS RESEMBLING A WEAPON, DID HE?
A NO.
Q NO.
WHAT WOULD BE THE BASIS THAT YOU WOULD WALK ON A PERSON’S LAND AND PAT THEM DOWN? DO YOU HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO DO THAT?
A AT SOME POINT YOU DO.
Q AND DID YOU HAVE ANY LEGAL RIGHT TO ARREST HIM?
A OH, NO, I DIDN’T.
Q SO WHEN MISS CLARK ASKED YOU ON DIRECT EXAMINATION COULD YOU HAVE ARRESTED HIM, YOUR ANSWER WAS WHAT?
A I DON’T BELIEVE I SAID I COULD HAVE ARRESTED HIM, NO….

Q NOW, IN 1994, AT 1:05 A.M., WHILE YOU WERE SOUND ASLEEP, MY UNDERSTANDING IS, YOU RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q HAD YOU SEEN MR. O.J. SIMPSON PERSONALLY BETWEEN 1985 AND JUNE OF 1994?
A NO, SIR.
Q MR. PHILLIPS TOLD YOU THAT THERE WAS A DOUBLE HOMICIDE IN BRENTWOOD AND THAT ONE OF THE VICTIMS MIGHT WELL BE THE FORMER WIFE OF MR. O.J. SIMPSON; DID HE NOT?
A YES, SIR.
Q DID THAT BRING TO YOUR MIND YOUR PRIOR ASSOCIATION WITH THE SIMPSON’S IN 1985 AS AN INVESTIGATING PATROLMAN AND AS A POTENTIAL WITNESS IN 1989? DID YOU REMEMBER THOSE THINGS?
A I DON’T BELIEVE I EVEN THOUGHT OF THAT MUCH AT THE TIME.
Q SO I TAKE IT THAT THE INDELIBLE PRESS THAT WAS IN YOUR MIND IN 1989 HAD FADED TO A DEGREE?
A NO, I DON’T BELIEVE THAT. I WAS GOING TO A HOMICIDE SCENE. I WAS MOSTLY THINKING ABOUT HOW WE WERE GOING TO HANDLE A DOUBLE HOMICIDE SCENE AND WHO WAS GETTING CALLED IN.
Q HADN’T PHILLIPS EXPLAINED TO YOU THAT BASED ON THE INFORMATION HE HAD GOTTEN, THIS WAS A SPECIAL CASE BECAUSE OF ONE OF THE VICTIMS?
A NO, HE NEVER VERBALIZED THAT.
Q HAD YOU LEARNED FROM HIM DURING THAT CONVERSATION THAT THE COMMANDER WISHED TO HAVE MR. SIMPSON PERSONALLY NOTIFIED AS OPPOSED TO TELEPHONIC NOTIFICATION?
A I BELIEVE I LEARNED THAT WHEN WE WERE EN ROUTE TO THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS.
Q OKAY.
NOW, FOLLOWING THE RECEIPT OF THIS PHONE CALL FROM DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, YOU AROSE, I TAKE IT SHOWERED AND CLEANED UP, ET CETERA, AND DROVE IN YOUR CAR TO THE WEST LOS ANGELES POLICE STATION, RIGHT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE YOU AT THAT HOUR OF THE MORNING, ASSUME TRAFFIC IS RATHER LIGHT, TO DRIVE IN FROM REDONDO BEACH?
A IT’S FAIRLY QUICK. PROBABLY 20 TO 25 MINUTES….

Q YEAH. DID YOU AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TAKE ONE OF THE AUTOMOBILES THAT BELONGS TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT?
A YES, SIR….

Q IT IS A VERY SHORT DISTANCE FROM THERE TO THE INTERSECTION OF BUNDY AND DOROTHY; IS IT NOT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND YOU AGREE THAT YOUR ARRIVAL TIME — I ASSUME YOU DO BECAUSE OF YOUR OWN NOTES — WAS 2:10 A.M.?
A YES, I DO.
Q AND THAT YOU AND PHILLIPS ARRIVED SIMULTANEOUSLY?
A YES.
Q NOW, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, YOU WERE THE FIRST DETECTIVE ON THE SCENE, YOU TWO?
A YES. BOTH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND MYSELF.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, DID YOU LEARN THAT SERGEANT ROSSI HAD BEEN THERE SINCE EARLY ON, SOMETIME BEFORE YOU?
A BEFORE I ARRIVED, YES.
Q AND DID YOU KNOW HIM PERSONALLY PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT?
A JUST AS MUCH AS HE WAS THE WATCH COMMANDER, NOTHING PERSONAL.
Q YOU DIDN’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HIS EXPERIENCE IN PRIOR HOMICIDE CASES?
A NOTHING, SIR.
Q DID YOU KNOW OFFICER RISKE PRIOR TO YOUR INTRODUCTION TO HIM IN CONNECTION WITH THIS INVESTIGATION?
A ONLY AS MUCH AS KNOWING HIS NAME WAS RISKY AND WHO THAT NAME WAS ATTACHED TO.
Q BUT YOU HADN’T WORKED WITH HIM BEFORE?
A NO, I HADN’T.
Q OKAY.
NOW, I TAKE IT THAT WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE, YOU HAD QUITE A FEW QUESTIONS AS THE INITIAL DETECTIVE TAKING OVER THE CASE?
A INITIALLY, I DIDN’T SAY HARDLY ANYTHING. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TOOK THE LEAD TALKING TO SERGEANT ROSSI.
Q OKAY.
NOW, CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME IDEA OF THE BREAK-UP IN RESPONSIBILITIES BETWEEN YOU AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS? HAD YOU WORKED A PRIOR HOMICIDE TOGETHER?
A YES.
Q THERE ARE CERTAIN TASKS THAT HAVE TO BE LOOKED AFTER IMMEDIATELY AFTER YOU GET ON THE SCENE, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q DO YOU FELLOWS DIVIDE UP THESE RESPONSIBILITIES OR DOES HE JUST TAKE CONTROL AND DIRECT YOU TO DO CERTAIN THINGS?
A NO. THERE’S A WAY WE USUALLY WORK TOGETHER.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, DID YOU AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS HAVE ANY CONVERSATION WHEREBY YOU ALLOCATED THE WORK TO BE DONE AT THIS PARTICULAR SCENE?
A NO.
Q WELL, WAS — DO YOU KNOW IF IT WAS CONTEMPLATED THAT YOU WOULD WORK SIDE BY SIDE OR THAT YOU WOULD GO OFF IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS?
A WELL, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WAS THE HOMICIDE COORDINATOR. SO HE WOULD NOT BE TAKING A LEAD ROLE. IT WOULD BE ONE OF THE OTHER DETECTIVES THAT HAD BEEN CALLED IN THAT HAD NOT YET ARRIVED.
Q OKAY.
NOW, WHAT OTHER DETECTIVES HAD BEEN CALLED IN THAT YOU LEARNED ABOUT WHEN YOU GOT THERE?
A DETECTIVE ROBERTS AND DETECTIVE NOLAN.
Q AND WHAT RANK DO THEY HOLD?
A BOTH DETECTIVE 1.
Q SO THAT YOU APART FROM DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WOULD BE THE SENIOR DETECTIVE ON-SITE?
A YES.
Q UNTIL SOMEONE ELSE ARRIVED, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND YOU SAY THAT SINCE HE’S THE HOMICIDE COORDINATOR, I GATHER THE THRUST OF THAT IS THAT YOU HAD TO DO THE FOOTWORK SO TO SPEAK?
A WELL, WORKING WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, HE USUALLY CONDUCTS MOST OF YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE NOTIFICATIONS.
Q RIGHT.
A HE COORDINATES AND HE ALLOWS THE DETECTIVES HANDLING THE CASE TO WORK THE CASE.
Q WHICH IN THIS CASE WAS YOU, CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU WERE TO DO THE DETECTING?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, WHAT DID YOU FIRST ADDRESS OF THE MANY THINGS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE LOOKED AT WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE?
A I’M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND IF YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT THE CRIME SCENE OR —
Q ALL RIGHT.
WELL, THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED WHENEVER A HOMICIDE OCCURS, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q AND YOU KNEW THIS BOTH BY VIRTUE OF YOUR TRAINING, YOUR EXPERIENCES AS PATROLMAN AT 10 OTHER HOMICIDE INVESTIGATIONS, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
IF THE VICTIMS AREN’T QUITE DEAD AS SOMETIMES IS THE CASE, THAT’S PRIORITY NUMBER ONE, TREATMENT AND ATTENTION OF THE VICTIMS, RIGHT?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU ELIMINATED THAT POSSIBILITY IN YOUR OWN MIND RATHER QUICKLY IN THIS CASE; DID YOU NOT?
A OFFICER RISKE INFORMED US OF THE SITUATION.
Q OKAY.
THE PROTECTION OF OTHERS WHO MAY BE IN DANGER BECAUSE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES EVIDENT AT THE CRIME SCENE WOULD BE PROBABLY THE NEXT CONSIDERATION; WOULD IT NOT?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU KNEW THE CHILDREN HAD BEEN IN THE HOUSE AND HAD BEEN TAKEN TO THE SAFETY OF THE POLICE STATION?
A YES.
Q DID YOU KNOW WHETHER THEY HAD BEEN ASKED AS TO WHERE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS MIGHT BE?
A I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY QUESTIONS.
Q DID YOU MAKE ANY EFFORT TO CONTACT THEM AND INQUIRE?
A NOT AT THAT TIME.
Q OKAY.
PRESERVING THE INTEGRITY OF THE CRIME SCENE IS A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TASK; IS IT NOT?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU SAW THAT YELLOW TAPE HAD BEEN PUT UP?
A YES.
Q WHAT ELSE HAD BEEN DONE TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE CRIME SCENE BEFORE YOU TOOK OVER?
A WHAT I SAW WAS, THE OFFICERS DID A VERY GOOD JOB IN SEALING OFF A VERY, VERY LARGE AREA CONSIDERING THAT THEIR ONLY KNOWLEDGE WAS THAT THE CRIME SCENE INVOLVED ONE ADDRESS OR ONE RESIDENCE. THEY SEALED OFF A VERY LARGE AREA AND HAD UNIFORMED PERSONNEL WITH THEIR VEHICLES AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS TO KEEP THAT AREA SECURE AND ANY UNAUTHORIZED PEOPLE FROM ENTERING….

Q OKAY.
NOW, HAD YOU AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS DISCUSSED AT THIS POINT THE MANNER IN WHICH MR. SIMPSON WOULD BE NOTIFIED?
A NO, I WAS NOT PRIVILEGED TO THAT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN WHAT SPECIAL STEPS WOULD BE TAKEN IN THIS CASE?
A I AM SORRY?
Q WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN THAT SPECIAL RULES HAD BEEN ISSUED BY THE BRASS IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AS TO HOW MR. SIMPSON WOULD BE NOTIFIED?
A NEVER.
Q YOU NEVER HEARD THAT?
A NO.
Q YOU’RE LEARNING TODAY THAT PHILLIPS WAS TOLD TO TELL HIM PERSONALLY RATHER THAN OVER THE TELEPHONE?
A NO. I THOUGHT YOU MEANT SPECIAL, SPECIAL WAY THAT WE WERE GOING TO NOTIFY, BEST DESIRABLE IN ANY CASE. I ONLY LEARNED FROM DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WHILE WE WERE IN THE VEHICLE THAT WE WERE GOING UP TO THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS TO MAKE A NOTIFICATION.
Q CAN YOU TELL ME WHEN THAT WAS?
A WHEN WE GOT INTO THE VEHICLE TO LEAVE.
Q TO GO TO ROCKINGHAM?
A YES, SIR.
Q THAT WAS 5:00 O’CLOCK IN THE MORNING OR THEREAFTER?
A YES, SIR.
Q WHAT’S YOUR BEST ESTIMATE?
A ABOUT 5:00 O’CLOCK.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, I WONDER IF YOU COULD HELP US, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, AND JUST GIVE US YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION OF YOUR WHEREABOUTS AT VARIOUS TIMES THAT ARE RELEVANT TO YOUR EXPERIENCES THAT MORNING, PLEASE, IN VIEW OF THE DEFENSE.
YOU RECEIVED A CALL FROM PHILLIPS AT 1:05?
A YES, SIR.
Q CAN YOU ESTIMATE AT WHAT POINT YOU WERE ACTUALLY ON THE ROAD AND HEADED TO THE STATION?
A USUALLY TAKES ME MAYBE 15, 20 MINUTES TO GET READY.
Q OKAY.
SO SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 1:15 AND 1:25?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND I THINK YOU SAID AROUND 20 MINUTES TO DRIVE IN?
A YES.
Q AND YOU ARRIVED THERE AROUND 1:50, 1:55?
A SHORTLY BEFORE 2:00, YES.

Q OKAY.
AND HAVING ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE AT 2:10, I WOULD ASSUME THAT YOU LEFT THE STATION ABOUT 2:05.
A YES.
Q OKAY.
NOW, IF YOU CAN, PLEASE TRY TO TELL US WHAT YOU WERE DOING AT 2:15, FIVE MINUTES AFTER YOU ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE.
A I BELIEVE I WAS LISTENING TO EITHER SERGEANT ROSSI OR OFFICER RISKE EXPLAIN WHAT THEY HAD DISCOVERED.
Q AND WHERE WERE YOU PHYSICALLY STANDING AS YOU LISTENED TO THIS INFORMATION?
A INSIDE THE YELLOW TAPE BEHIND A POLICE VEHICLE PARKED IN THE ROADWAY.
Q OKAY.
HOW LONG DID YOU SPEND AT THAT LOCATION GETTING THIS INFORMATION BEFORE YOU MOVED TO SOMEWHERE ELSE?
A A FEW MOMENTS. JUST LONG ENOUGH TO MAKE A FEW STATEMENTS ABOUT HOW THE BODIES WERE DISCOVERED.
Q OKAY.
WELL, A MOMENT DOESN’T HAVE A VERY CONCRETE DEFINITION. CAN YOU JUST GIVE US IN MINUTES?
A COUPLE OF MINUTES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT BY 2:15, YOU WERE LEAVING THE IMMEDIATE CRIME SCENE AND WALKING SOUTH ON DOROTHY?
A I THINK THAT WOULD BE RATHER QUICK. WE TRIED TO APPROACH TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE, BUT THEN WE TURNED AROUND AND THEN WE WENT DOWN TOWARDS DOROTHY.
Q WOULD IT BE MORE FAIR TO SAY BETWEEN 2:15 AND 2:25, YOU LEFT THE CRIME SCENE WHERE YOU, PHILLIPS AND RISKE HAD BEEN LOOKING AT THE BODIES AND WALKED BACK OUT TO THE SIDEWALK AND SOUTH ON DOROTHY?
A I THINK THAT’S TOO MUCH. NO.
Q TOO MUCH. ALL RIGHT.
I UNDERSTAND YOU SAID 2:15 WOULD BE TOO SOON. AND MY QUESTION NOW IS, WOULD IT BE BETWEEN 2:15 AND NO LATER THAN 2:25?
A I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH MAYBE NO LATER THAN 20 AFTER.
Q OKAY.
SO BY 2:20, YOU WERE ON THE MOVE.
NOW, YOU’VE DESCRIBED HOW YOU WALKED THROUGH THE SHRUBBERY I BELIEVE YOU SAID FROM OFF THE PICTURE AS YOU WERE LOOKING AT A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SCENE AND COULD VIEW THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, BUT DID NOT HAVE A VERY GOOD VIEW OF THE BODY OF THE OTHER VICTIM FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT.
AM I CORRECTLY SUMMARIZING WHAT HAPPENED?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
IN ORDER TO ATTAIN A BETTER PERSPECTIVE, YOU QUESTIONED RISKE, AS A RESULT OF WHICH YOU WALKED DOWN BUNDY TO DOROTHY AND AROUND — UP THE ALLEY AND INTO THE SIMPSON HOME, CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND OUT THE FRONT DOOR WHICH YOU UNDERSTOOD WAS FOUND OPEN BY THE OFFICERS FIRST ON THE SCENE.
A YES.
Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS THAT EXISTED AT THE MOMENT THAT YOU WALKED OUT THAT FRONT DOOR?
A I BELIEVE THERE WAS LIGHT COMING FROM THE INSIDE OF THE RESIDENCE CASCADING DOWN ONTO THE WALKWAY.
Q CASCADING DOWN?
A YES.
Q IS THAT SUGGESTING THAT THE NAKED EYE COULD SEE MOST OF THE DETAIL OF THE CRIME SCENE WITHOUT THE AID OF ARTIFICIAL ILLUMINATION BY VIRTUE OF THAT LIGHT?
A NO. THERE WAS A LOT OF SHADOWING. THERE’S A LOT OF SHRUBBERY. IT WASN’T VERY GOOD LIGHT.
Q WELL, DID YOU HAVE YOUR LITTLE FLASHLIGHT WITH YOU AT THAT TIME?
A YES….

Q THEN PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT YOU WALKED AROUND TO THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE, THE ONLY PLACE YOU HAD BEEN IS WITH THE OTHERS IN THE SHRUBBERY AT THE GATEPOST AS YOU PUT IT?
A YES, SIR.
Q TRUE?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
AT WHAT TIME WOULD YOU SAY YOU ENTERED THE RESIDENCE ASSUMING THAT YOU LEFT AT 2:20 FROM THE IMMEDIATE CRIME SCENE?
A WITHIN A MINUTE….

Q WHEN YOU ENTERED THE HOME, DID YOU GO DIRECTLY OUT THE FRONT DOOR TO VIEW THE BODIES ONCE AGAIN OR DID YOU AT THAT TIME BEGIN TO WALK AROUND AND MAKE OBSERVATIONS?
A NO. I WAS LED BY OFFICER RISKE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
THE PURPOSE IN TAKING THAT ROUTE WAS TO GET BACK TO WHERE YOU HAD STARTED, BUT IN A DIFFERENT PLACE, RIGHT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND TO GET THERE WITHOUT WALKING THROUGH THE POOLING OF BLOOD THAT WAS AROUND THE AREA, THAT WAS YOUR PURPOSE, RIGHT?
A YES. YES, SIR.
Q HOW LONG WOULD YOU SAY YOU SPENT AT THE CRIME SCENE FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT UP ON THE STEPS I BELIEVE YOU TOLD US ON THAT OCCASION?
A ONCE OFFICER RISKE BROUGHT US OUT INTO THE LANDING? JUST LONG ENOUGH TO POINT OUT A FEW ITEMS OF EVIDENCE, SHOW US THE FOOTPRINTS AND THEN WALK US BACK ALONG THE RIGHT SIDE OF THOSE SHOEPRINTS.
Q OKAY.
WELL, HOW LONG DO YOU THINK YOU SPENT THERE?
A COUPLE MINUTES.
Q MAYBE ONLY TWO?
A TWO, THREE MINUTES.
Q OKAY.
AND YOU MADE THE OBSERVATIONS YOU DESCRIBED FOR US ON DIRECT EXAMINATION ABOUT MR. GOLDMAN, THE OTHER EVIDENCE THAT WAS LYING AROUND?
A OFFICER RISKE WAS POINTING THEM OUT WITH HIS FLASHLIGHT.
Q OKAY.
THESE ARE THINGS HE HAD DISCOVERED AND HE WAS SHOWING THEM TO YOU. THESE WERE NOT THINGS THAT YOU WERE DISCOVERING AS A DETECTIVE, RIGHT?
A I WAS LISTENING AND HE WAS POINTING THEM OUT, YES, SIR, THAT’S CORRECT.
Q BUT HE ALREADY KNEW THEY WERE THERE. YOU FELLOWS WEREN’T MAKING A DISCOVERY AT THAT POINT, WERE YOU?
A NO. WE WERE QUIET LISTENING TO HIS — HIS LEAD.
Q AND HE TOLD YOU THAT HE HAD SEEN THEM THERE WHEN HE FIRST CAME ON THE SCENE A LITTLE AFTER MIDNIGHT?
A YES.
Q NOW, AFTER SPENDING TWO, THREE MINUTES THERE, WHERE DID YOU GO?
A WE WALKED DOWN ALONG THE PATHWAY THAT’S ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE, LOOKED AT THE GATE.

Q IS THIS WHERE YOU SAW THE BLOODY FOOTPRINTS?
A THE BLOODY FOOTPRINTS WERE FROM THE LANDING WESTBOUND.
Q RIGHT.
NOW, YOU’VE DESCRIBED A PATH THAT GOES DOWN SOME STEPS, LEVELS OUT AND GOES UP SOME STEPS AND OUT THE BACK GATE, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q DID I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY THAT THE LAST BLOODY FOOTPRINT THAT YOU SAW THAT NIGHT WAS ON THE CONCRETE BEFORE YOU GO DOWN THE FIRST SET OF STEPS?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: IS THAT CORRECT, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A WOULD YOU ASK THAT ONE MORE TIME?
Q YEAH.
HAVE IN MIND THAT STEPS GO UP, THERE’S A FLAT AREA GOING BY THE ENTRANCE TO THE HOME, STEPS GO DOWN, LEVELS OUT AGAIN, STEPS GO UP AND THEN YOU GO OUT THE BACK GATE. HAVE THAT SCENARIO IN MIND? DO YOU REMEMBER THAT NOW?
A YEAH. YES, I DO.
Q OKAY.
IS IT CORRECT THAT THE BLOODY FOOTPRINTS THAT YOU SAW DID NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE FIRST FLAT LEVEL?
A I DON’T RECALL THEY DID, NO….
Q YOU HAVE REFERRED TO THE DEPRESSED AREA IN THE PAST AS A TROTH OF SOME SORT; HAVE YOU NOT?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
NOW, MY QUESTION IS, DID ANY FOOTPRINTS GO DOWN THE STEPS OR INTO THE TROTH THAT YOU SAW THAT NIGHT?
A I DIDN’T SEE ANY.
Q OKAY.
HAVE YOU HAD SOME TRAINING IN FOOTPRINTS?
A SHOEPRINTS OR FOOTPRINTS?
Q SHOEPRINTS, FOOTPRINTS. HAVE YOU HAD SOME CLASSES, SOME ON-THE-JOB TRAINING OR ANYTHING THAT WOULD EDUCATE YOU AS TO THE KINDS OF FOOTPRINTS THAT CAN BE FOUND AT A CRIME SCENE AND HOW THEY CAN BE ISOLATED AND PRESERVED?
A YES.
Q YOU HAVE.
A YES….

Q DO YOU KNOW WHAT A LATENT FOOTPRINT IS?
A IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT’S NOT VISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE.
Q OKAY.
SO THAT IF THERE WERE ANY LATENT FOOTPRINTS THAT WERE ON THAT WALKWAY THAT NIGHT, THAT’S SOMETHING THAT ONLY THE CRIMINALIST COULD LIKELY PICK UP, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q IN OTHER WORDS, IF THERE HAD BEEN TWO PEOPLE, ONE STEPPED IN BLOOD AND THE OTHER DIDN’T, THERE MIGHT BE SOME LATENT FOOTPRINTS AROUND TO BE DETECTED BY SOMEBODY PROPERLY TRAINED; FAIR STATEMENT?
A I’M NOT SURE IF IT WOULD BE A FAIR STATEMENT.
Q DON’T THINK SO?
A I’M A LITTLE CONFUSED AT THE QUESTION.
Q OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET ME SEE IF I CAN CLARIFY IT SOMEWHAT.
A THANK YOU.
Q IF A LATENT FOOTPRINT, SHOEPRINT IS ONE THAT CANNOT BE SEEN WITH THE NAKED EYE BUT MUST NONETHELESS BE PROTECTED, YOU CAN ONLY PROTECT THE AREA WHERE IT MIGHT BE, CORRECT, NOT A SPECIFIC SPOT IN THAT AREA?
A I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU’RE SAYING, YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND A CRIMINALIST MIGHT LATER COME ALONG AND EITHER WITH ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT OR OBLIQUE LIGHT FIND SOME SHOEPRINT IN THE DUST THAT YOU HADN’T BEEN ABLE TO SEE FOR LACK OF TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE, TRUE?
A YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND MY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE CRIME SCENE THAT YOU WERE WALKING ON AS YOU WENT BACK UP THAT WALKWAY WITH OFFICER RISKE WAS BEING PROTECTED IN THAT FASHION.
A I BELIEVE THE WHOLE SCENE WAS BEING PROTECTED, YES.

Q OKAY.
BUT HOW DID YOU GET FROM THE FRONT TO THE BACK?
A WELL, WE HAD TO GET THERE SOME WAY.
Q AND SO YOU WALKED?
A WE WALKED AT THE BEST PATH THAT WE COULD DETERMINE AT THAT TIME.
Q BEING CAREFUL TO AVOID THE BLOODY FOOTPRINTS AND WHAT YOU THOUGHT MIGHT BE DROPS OF BLOOD?
A YES, SIR….

Q WHAT DID YOU NEXT DO?
A WALKED OUT ONTO THE DRIVEWAY. OFFICER RISKE POINTED OUT BLOOD DROPS AND SOME CHANGE.
Q YEAH.
A THEN I REENTERED THE HOUSE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, BEFORE YOU REENTERED THE HOUSE, DID YOU OR HAD YOU BEGUN TO DEVELOP A PICTURE OF THIS CRIME SCENE AND TO HAVE SOME IDEAS AS TO WHAT MIGHT BE RELEVANT AND WHAT MIGHT NOT IN THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION YOU WERE ABOUT TO CONDUCT?
A WELL, SOMEWHAT.
Q DID YOU HAVE AN OVERVIEW?
A A SLIGHT OVERVIEW.
Q ALL RIGHT.
RISKE HAD BEEN DOING HIS BEST PRIOR TO YOUR ARRIVAL TO DO THE THINGS HE HAD BEEN TRAINED TO DO, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT YOU WERE TRAINED TO DO WHEN YOU WERE A PATROLMAN AT HOMICIDE SCENES AS OPPOSED TO A DETECTIVE?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
HAD ANY CANVASSING OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TAKEN PLACE THAT YOU KNOW OF?
A I BELIEVE THERE HAD BEEN, YES.
Q AND AS I RECALL FROM YOUR NOTES, YOU SAID THE RESIDENTS WOULDN’T OPEN THE DOOR. SO NOBODY LEARNED MUCH.
A WELL, I THINK THAT WAS AN IMPRESSION OF OFFICER RISKE. I DON’T KNOW IF THAT WAS ACCURATE.
Q BUT SOMEBODY TOLD YOU?
A YES.
Q DID YOU INQUIRE ABOUT WHETHER THE CRIME SCENE HAD BEEN SEARCHED AND ITS SURROUND FOR ANY EVIDENCE OF WEAPONS, CLOTHING OR OTHER IMPLEMENTS OF CRIME?
A NO.
Q RISKE DIDN’T TELL YOU THAT THE AREA HAD BEEN LOOKED AT, GARBAGE CANS, DIPSEY-DUMPSTERS AND SO FORTH?
A I DON’T RECALL HIM MAKING ANY COMMENT, NO.
Q DO YOU RECALL DIRECTING ANYONE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT PURPOSE?
A NO.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT WHEN THERE IS DELAY IN A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION, NUMBER ONE, THE PERPETRATORS OR PERPETRATOR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, HAVE A CHANCE TO GET FURTHER AND FURTHER AWAY FROM THE SCENE, CORRECT?

A WELL, I THINK THAT WOULD BE COMMON SENSE, YES.
Q THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY PERHAPS TO PLANT EVIDENCE, TO MISLEAD THE DETECTIVES AS TIME GOES BY?
A I COULDN’T ANSWER THAT, SIR.
Q THEY HAVE TIME — THIS IS NO PART OF YOUR TRAINING I TAKE IT?
A PLANTING EVIDENCE? NO, IT ISN’T.
Q AND THEY HAVE TIME TO STRUCTURE FALSE ALIBIS ALL DURING THIS PERIOD THAT THEY ARE NOT BEING APPREHENDED?
A I WOULD PROBABLY AGREE WITH THAT.
Q AND THEY ARE FREE TO KILL AGAIN, TRUE?
A IF THAT’S THE CIRCUMSTANCE.
Q WELL, IF THEY’RE NOT APPREHENDED, PRESUMABLY THEY HAVE THE SAME FREEDOM THAT PERMITTED THEM TO ACCOMPLISH THE GRISLY SCENE THAT YOU HAD JUST VIEWED, TRUE…?
A I COULDN’T SPECULATE ON A CRIMINAL’S INTENT WHETHER HE KILLED ONCE OR A HUNDRED….

Q ALL RIGHT.
WHEN DID YOU GO INTO THE HOUSE AS BEST YOU CAN RECALL TO MAKE YOUR NOTES?
A RIGHT AFTER OFFICER RISKE LED US PAST THE DRIVEWAY INTO THE ALLEYWAY.
Q DID YOU GIVE ANY DIRECTION TO ANY OF THE OFFICERS AT THE SCENE PRIOR TO SITTING DOWN TO MAKE THE NOTES THAT WE’VE ALL VIEWED AS TO THINGS THEY OUGHT TO DO OR OUGHT NOT TO DO?
A NO. I WAS SATISFIED WITH THE CRIME SCENE, THE SECURITY OF IT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, AS YOU UNDERSTOOD IT, WHEN YOU AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WALKED UP TO THAT POST, WHAT WERE THE RULES ENFORCED ABOUT PEOPLE GOING TO THE CRIME SCENE, THE AREA WHERE YOU WERE STANDING?
A I’M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE RULES.
Q WHICH PEOPLE, IF ANY, WERE ALLOWED TO GO INSIDE THE YELLOW TAPE OF THOSE WHO WERE PRESENT WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT 2:10 A.M.?
A I WOULD SAY AT THAT POINT, CONCERNED DETECTIVES AS FAR AS APPROACHING THE SCENE.
Q JUST DETECTIVES?
A AS FAR AS APPROACHING THE SCENE?
Q RIGHT.
A THAT WOULD BE MY ASSUMPTION AT THAT POINT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU ISSUE ANY ORDERS AS TO WHO COULD AND COULD NOT CROSS THAT TAPE?
A NO.
Q WHEN DID YOU FIRST REALIZE DETECTIVE ROBERTS HAD ARRIVED?
A WHEN HE ENTERED THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE AND CAME INTO THE KITCHEN AREA.
Q AND WHAT TIME WAS THAT?
A SHORTLY BEFORE THIS CASE WAS RELIEVED FROM OUR RESPONSIBILITY.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, YOU HAVE MENTIONED THAT EVENT A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. CAN YOU TELL US, ACCORDING TO YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION, WHEN IT WAS THAT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SAID, “ROBBERY-HOMICIDE IS TAKING OVER THIS CASE”?
A WITHIN A HALF HOUR OR 40 MINUTES OF OUR ARRIVAL.
Q WELL, WOULD THE FIGURE 38 MINUTES AFTER YOU ARRIVED SEEM TO BE ABOUT CORRECT?
A I’VE NEVER READ THAT, BUT I AGREE WITH IT.
Q OKAY.
SO THAT IF YOU GOT THERE AT 2:10, THEN ABOUT 2:50 OR THEREABOUTS, YOU LEARNED THAT THIS CASE WAS NO LONGER YOURS TO LEAD, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q YOU WERE IN THE PROCESS OF WRITING YOUR NOTES ABOUT 10 MINUTES OF 3:00 WHEN YOU GOT THIS INFORMATION AS I UNDERSTAND IT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND DID YOU CEASE WRITING YOUR NOTES AT THAT POINT BECAUSE YOU HAD BEEN RELIEVED OR BECAUSE YOU LEARNED YOU HAD BEEN RELIEVED?
A I COMPLETED THE NOTES. WHEN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TOLD ME THAT WE WERE RELIEVED OF THIS, I COMPLETED THE NOTES THAT I HAD STARTED.
Q HOW MANY NOTES DID YOU WRITE AFTER YOU GOT THE INFORMATION?
A OH, THERE WAS ONLY TWO OR THREE POINTS THAT I WANTED TO PUT ON THE NOTES THAT WERE OF CONCERN.
Q BUT YOU DID THAT SUBSEQUENT?
A I BELIEVE WHEN HE WAS STANDING RIGHT THERE.
Q OKAY.
NOW, ON ANOTHER SUBJECT JUST BRIEFLY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU WERE INSTRUCTED BY SOMEONE LAST FALL TO WATCH THE LARRY KING SHOW?
A NO. THAT WAS THIS YEAR….

Q …YOU SAY YOU’RE SURE YOU NEVER MET A WOMAN NAMED KATHLEEN BELL?
A YES, SIR….
Q DID YOU EVER MEET A WOMAN THAT LOOKS LIKE THE LADY ON THE LARRY KING SHOW BY SOME OTHER NAME?
A NO.
Q IN LOOKING AT THAT FACE — HOW LONG DID YOU WATCH THE SHOW THAT NIGHT?
A ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.

Q WAS THAT ENOUGH TO SATISFY YOU THAT YOU HAD NEVER SEEN THIS WOMAN BEFORE?
A I DID NOT RECOGNIZE HER.
Q THAT WASN’T MY QUESTION.
WERE YOU SATISFIED AFTER FIVE MINUTES — AND I TAKE IT YOU DISCONTINUED VIEWING THE SHOW — THAT THE WOMAN BEING INTERVIEWED BY LARRY KING AND IDENTIFYING HERSELF AS KATHLEEN BELL WAS SOMEONE YOU HAD NEVER MET?
A THAT’S CORRECT.
Q OKAY.
IS IT NOT TRUE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE RECOLLECTED SUCH A PERSON IF YOU HAD MET THEM UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHE DESCRIBED WITHOUT GOING INTO WHAT THEY WERE?
A YES, I WOULD.
Q THAT KIND OF THING WOULD IMPRESS YOUR MEMORY THE SAME WAY THE MEETING OF O.J. SIMPSON WOULD; WOULD IT NOT?
A I DON’T THINK IN THE SAME WAY, BUT SIMILAR, YES.
Q WELL, WHAT SHE WAS DISCUSSING WAS FAIRLY OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT; IS IT NOT?
A YES, SIR.
Q OKAY.
AND IF YOU HAD ENGAGED IN THAT CONDUCT WITH THE WOMAN WHOSE IMAGE YOU WERE LOOKING AT, THAT’S NOT SOMETHING YOU WOULD SOON FORGET, IS IT?
A NO….
Q DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WOULD YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH OF A BLOND WOMAN AND TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS THE PERSON THAT WAS BEING INTERVIEWED BY LARRY KING WHEN YOU WATCHED THE SHOW AT THE REQUEST OF THE PROSECUTION.
A YES….

Q …AND DO YOU HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF JOE FAUS BEING IN YOUR COMPANY AND HERS IN THE RECRUITING STATION IN 1986 OR THEREABOUTS?
A I DO NOT.
Q OR AT ANY TIME IN YOUR LIFE?
A I DO NOT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO THAT IF HE WERE TO SAY THAT HE DID IN FACT INTRODUCE THE TWO OF YOU, YOU SAY THAT CAN’T BE TRUE, TRUE?
A IF HE SAID THAT, I DO NOT RECALL EVER MEETING THIS WOMAN IN THE RECRUITING STATION OR ANYWHERE ELSE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WELL, I’M TRYING TO GET THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A LACK OF RECOLLECTION, A FADED MEMORY AND AN ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY THAT YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS WOMAN BEFORE UNTIL YOU SAW HER ON TELEVISION. WHICH IS IT?
A I DO NOT RECOGNIZE THIS WOMAN AS ANYBODY I HAVE EVER MET.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU TESTIFIED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT NOT ONLY DID YOU NOT KNOW THIS WOMAN AND HAD NEVER MET HER, BUT YOU HAD NEVER SAID THE THINGS THAT WERE DISPLAYED ON THE ELMO IN HER LETTER, TRUE?
A YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND IS IT FAIR TO SAY THERE CAN BE NO MISTAKE IN YOUR MIND ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY IN THIS PARTICULAR?
A THAT’S CORRECT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, DO YOU KNOW A WOMAN NAMED ANDREA TERRY?
A NO, I DO NOT.
Q DID YOU EVER MEET A WOMAN STANDING SIX FEET ONE INCH NAMED ANDREA TERRY IN A BAR DOWN THERE WHERE YOU LIVE?
A NO, SIR.
Q IS THERE A BAR DOWN IN THAT AREA THAT YOU FREQUENT?
A NO LONGER, BUT YES, THERE IS.
Q BACK IN ’85?
A YES, SIR.
Q WHAT WAS THE NAME OF IT?
A HENNESSEY’S TAVERN.
Q HENNESSEY’S TAVERN.
NOW, ASK YOU WHETHER OR NOT ON AN OCCASION IN THE MIDDLE 80’S RELATED IN TIME TO YOUR GOING TO THE MARINE RECRUITING STATION FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE YOU MET WITH A WOMAN NAMED ANDREA TERRY AND KATHLEEN BELL, AN INDEPENDENT SECOND OCCASION.
A NO.
Q HAVE YOU BEEN SHOWN ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF ANDREA TERRY BY ANYONE?
A NO, I HAVE NOT.
Q DID YOU SPEND A LITTLE TIME DISCUSSING HER WITH THE PROSECUTION THIS WEEKEND?
A IT WAS MENTIONED, BUT I SAID I DON’T KNOW THIS WOMAN.
Q TELL ME ABOUT THE MENTION. WHERE WERE YOU AND WHO WERE YOU TALKING WITH?
A IT WAS JUST ASKED — EXCUSE ME? ON THE —
Q WHERE WERE YOU AND WHO WERE YOU TALKING WITH WHEN THE SUBJECT CAME UP?
A IN THIS BUILDING.
Q TALKING TO MISS CLARK OR ONE OF HER ASSOCIATES?
A YES.

Q WAS THIS BEFORE OR AFTER YOU WENT AND FOUND OUT ABOUT THE STANDARD EQUIPMENT FOR THE BRONCO?
A NO. THAT WAS AT MY RESIDENCE.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU DO THAT ON YOUR OWN OR DID SOMEONE ASK YOU TO DO IT?
A NO. SOMEONE THAT KNEW SOMEBODY CALLED ME AND SAID THAT’S WHAT THAT BAG IS.
Q BUT A LOT OF PHONE CALLS CAME IN ABOUT THAT, DIDN’T IT?
A NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. ONE.
Q OH, OKAY.
IN ANY EVENT, WERE YOU ASKED WHETHER OR NOT A WOMAN NAMED ANDREA TERRY HAD EVER MET YOU IN HENNESSEY’S TAVERN WITH OR WITHOUT KATHLEEN BELL?
A I NEVER HEARD THE LAST NAME, BUT THE FIRST NAME I DID HEAR.
Q OKAY.
DOES THE FIRST NAME MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU?
A NO.
Q ARE YOU AS SATISFIED THAT YOU DID NOT MEET KATHLEEN BELL WITH ANOTHER WOMAN IN HENNESSEY’S AS YOU ARE THAT YOU DID NOT MEET KATHLEEN BELL IN THE RECRUITING STATION?
A YES.
Q SO THAT IF ANDREA TERRY WERE TO TESTIFY THAT SHE WAS WITH YOU IN HENNESSEY’S TAVERN IN 1986 WITH KATHLEEN BELL AND HEARD REMARKS SUCH AS THE ONE WE’VE SEEN, YOU WOULD SAY THAT IS A FABRICATION, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A I DON’T KNOW WHY SHE’D DO IT, BUT YES, I WOULD.
Q NO QUESTION ABOUT IT?
A NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.
Q HAVE YOU EVER DONE ANYTHING TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE TO HURT OR OTHERWISE OFFEND ANYONE IN THE BELL FAMILY, ASSUMING THAT THERE IS ONE?
A I HAVE NO IDEA, SIR.
Q EVER HAD ANY CONTACT WITH ANY RELATIVE OR POSSIBLE RELATIVE OF KATHLEEN BELL IN YOUR CAPACITY AS A POLICEMAN?
A I WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT. THE NAME IS — BELL DOES NOT RING A —
Q THE NAME BELL DOESN’T RING A BELL. IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO SAY?
A YES. YES.
Q OKAY.
AND WHAT DOES THE NAME TERRY RING OR ANDREA?
A NOTHING.
Q OKAY.
SO UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE STATEMENT OF MR. FAUS THAT HE MADE ONE INTRODUCTION OF MISS TERRY, THAT SHE WAS IN A MEETING WITH THE TWO OF YOU OR AN ENCOUNTER WOULD BOTH BE INCORRECT; IS THAT RIGHT?
A WHAT WAS THE LAST OF THAT QUESTION, SIR?
Q LET ME BREAK THEM UP.
WE’VE ALREADY HEARD FROM YOU THAT MR. FAUS WOULD BE SERIOUSLY IN ERROR IF HE SAID HE INTRODUCED YOU TO THE WOMAN WHOSE PICTURE IS ON THE ELMO.
A YES.
Q IT NEVER HAPPENED, TRUE?
A KATHLEEN BELL? NO.
Q OKAY.
AND YOU NEVER MET HER IN HENNESSEY’S TAVERN?
A NO.
Q ON ANY OCCASION OR UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES OR WITH ANY OTHER PERSON?
A NO.
Q AND YOU HAVE NO IMAGE IN MIND OF A TALL ATTRACTIVE WOMAN NAMED ANDREA WITH WHOM YOU TALKED IN HENNESSEY’S TAVERN IN 1986?
A NONE AT ALL.
Q NONE WHATSOEVER?
A NO….

Q CAN YOU TELL US WHY YOU WERE AT THE RECRUITING STATION AND ON WHAT DAY?
A ON WHAT DAY I CAN NOT.
Q HOW MANY OCCASIONS?
A TWO OR THREE.
Q AND WHAT WAS YOUR PURPOSE IN GOING THERE?
A I ASKED SERGEANT FAUS IF THERE WAS ANY GOOD RESERVE UNITS THAT WERE — IF THEY HAD ANY OPENINGS.
Q AND HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU DO THAT?
A WELL, I FOUND THAT THERE WASN’T REALLY ANY MOVEMENT IN THE RESERVE UNITS AT THAT TIME, BUT I ENJOYED TALKING TO SERGEANT FAUS. SO I RETURNED FOR A FEW OTHER TIMES.
Q DID YOU MEET ANYONE ELSE WHILE YOU WERE THERE?
A A MR. RORE OR SERGEANT RORE.
Q SERGEANT RORE. RON RORE?
A I BELIEVE. I DON’T REMEMBER HIS FIRST NAME.
Q AND HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU MEET HIM?
A I THINK HE WAS THERE EVERY TIME.
Q AND DID YOU TALK WITH HIM ABOUT POSSIBLY ENROLLING IN A RESERVE UNIT?
A NO. I THINK HE MIGHT HAVE OVERHEARD MY PURPOSE, BUT THAT WAS DROPPED FAIRLY QUICKLY.
Q FAUS WAS THE MAIN SOURCE OF INFORMATION?
A YES.
Q AND HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SEE SERGEANT RORE?
A A COUPLE OF TIMES.
Q DID YOU SEE A MARINE WHILE YOU WERE THERE ON ANY OF THESE OCCASIONS NAMED MAX CORDOVA?
A I BELIEVE I SAW A MARINE THAT I LATER FOUND OUT WAS HIM. I DIDN’T REMEMBER HIS NAME.
Q DID YOU SPEAK TO HIM AT ALL?
A I REMEMBER HIM KIND OF IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE RECRUITING OFFICE DOING — DOING SOME TASKS.
Q DO YOU REMEMBER AN OCCASION WHEN HE POINTED OUT TO YOU SERGEANT RORE WHO WAS THEN COMING ACROSS THE STREET?
A I DON’T REMEMBER THAT, NO.
Q HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF SUCH AN EVENT?
A NO.
Q HOW LONG WERE YOU IN THE COMPANY OF MAX CORDOVA? DO YOU KNOW HIS RANK BY THE WAY?
A NO, I DON’T.
Q OKAY.
PFC, CORPORAL, SERGEANT?
A I DON’T KNOW, SIR.
Q WAS HE IN UNIFORM?
A I BELIEVE SO, YES.
Q WERE ALL OF THESE PEOPLE IN UNIFORM WHENEVER YOU SAW THEM ON THE THREE OCCASIONS THAT YOU WENT TO THE STATION?
A YES.
Q AND HOW LONG WOULD YOU STAY ON THE FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD OCCASIONS, IF YOU CAN TELL US INDIVIDUALLY?
A LONG ENOUGH TO HAVE A CUP OF COFFEE. 15, 20 MINUTES.
Q DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY CONVERSATION WITH ANY OF THESE THREE MEN OUTSIDE THE STATION?
A I THINK ONE TIME, JOE FAUS WANTED TO LOOK AT MY CAR, MY TRUCK, AND WE WALKED OUT —
Q OKAY.
DID YOU TAKE HIM OUT TO LOOK AT IT?
A I THINK I WAS LEAVING AT THAT TIME AND WE WENT OUT.
Q AND DID YOU MEET ANY OTHER PEOPLE OUT IN THE PARKING LOT THAT YOU CAN REMEMBER?
A NO.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU KNOW WHEN YOU WERE THERE IN 1986 THAT KATHLEEN BELL WORKED UPSTAIRS DIRECTLY OVER THE RECRUITING STATION IN A REAL ESTATE OFFICE?
A I WAS TOLD THAT A FEMALE THAT CAME IN THERE AT ONE TIME WORKED IN THE CENTURY 21.
Q UH-HUH.
BUT THAT FEMALE YOU SAW — DID YOU SEE A FEMALE?
A YES, I SAW A FEMALE COME IN THERE AT ONE TIME.
Q AND THAT WAS SOMEONE OTHER THAN MISS BELL?
A I DON’T KNOW. I PAID — I DIDN’T PAY MUCH ATTENTION TO WHOEVER CAME IN THERE.
Q ARE YOU NOW SAYING, SIR, THAT IF YOU’VE EVER SEEN KATHLEEN BELL, THAT YOU DIDN’T RECOGNIZE HER, BUT SHE MAY HAVE WALKED THROUGH THAT PLACE WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE? IS THAT YOUR PRESENT POSTURE?
A WELL, SHE COULD HAVE.
Q SHE COULD HAVE?
A SHE COULD HAVE WALKED IN.
Q DESCRIBE THE WOMAN YOU DID SEE.
A I COULDN’T.
Q BLOND? BRUNETTE? REDHEAD?
A I COULDN’T, SIR.
Q TALL? SHORT? STOUT? SLIM?
A I PAID ALMOST NO ATTENTION. I SAW A FEMALE WALK IN LIKE SHE KNEW PEOPLE IN THE OFFICE AND I CONTINUED MY CONVERSATION WITH MR. FAUS.
Q WELL, WITHOUT THAT INFORMATION, HOW DID YOU KNOW IT WAS A FEMALE?
A WELL, I COULD TELL IT WAS A FEMALE, SIR. BUT I DIDN’T PAY ANY —
Q YOU LOOKED AT LEAST THAT CLOSE?
A WELL, I COULD TELL SHE WAS A FEMALE.
Q OKAY.
A EXCUSE ME?
Q AND YOU COULD TELL THAT MISS BELL WAS A FEMALE, CAN’T YOU?
A YES.
Q FROM SEEING HER ON LARRY KING.
ARE YOU QUITE SURE THAT THEY ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME, THE FEMALE YOU SAW AND THE WOMAN ON THE ELMO?
A AM I SURE?
Q YEAH. ARE YOU SURE?
A I’M NOT SURE.
Q YOU’RE NOT?
A I JUST DO NOT KNOW MISS BELL.
Q SO YOU MAY HAVE SEEN MISS BELL AND YOU’RE NOW UNABLE TO RECOLLECT THAT; IS THAT SO?
A NO. I DIDN’T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO THE FEMALE THAT CAME INTO THE RECRUITING OFFICE….

LUNCH RECESS
THE COURT: MR. BAILEY, YOU MAY CONTINUE.
MR. BAILEY: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. BAILEY:

Q …ALL RIGHT.
NOW, IF WE MAY, LET’S RETURN TO THE CRIME SCENE.
YOU ARE MAKING NOTES WHEN AT AROUND 2:50 DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TELLS YOU YOU ARE OUT OF THE CASE, TRUE?
A YES. I DON’T KNOW THE EXACT TIME, BUT YES.
Q HAD IT DAWNED ON YOU BY 2:50 A.M., DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, THAT THIS WAS A CASE OF SOME MAGNITUDE, THIS HOMICIDE?
A I DON’T THINK I UNDERSTOOD EXACTLY WHAT WOULD TRANSPIRE WITH THIS CASE, NO.
Q I’M GOING TO ASK YOU AGAIN, HAD IT DAWNED ON YOU THAT THIS WAS A HOMICIDE OF SOME MAGNITUDE?
A ANY DOUBLE HOMICIDE, YES.
Q FAR AND AWAY THE MOST IMPORTANT IN WHICH YOU HAD EVER BEEN INVOLVED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE NEWS MEDIA, TRUE?
A I DIDN’T KNOW THAT AT THAT TIME.
Q DID YOU HAVE SOME OTHER CASE IN YOUR MIND THAT WAS AS IMPORTANT AS THE MURDER OF THE EX-WIFE OF O.J. SIMPSON THAT YOU HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN?
A I DIDN’T KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THE MEDIA WOULD PLAY THAT CASE UP.
Q HAVE YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN A MURDER CASE THAT ATTRACTED THE NATIONAL MEDIA IN YOUR CAREER PRIOR TO THIS ONE?
A NO, NO.
Q AND ARE YOU SAYING YOU GAVE THIS MATTER AND ITS DIMENSION NO THOUGHT AS YOU DROVE IN THAT MORNING?
A NO. I WAS WORRIED ABOUT HOW I WAS GOING TO APPROACH A DOUBLE HOMICIDE.
Q WELL, DID YOU THINK THAT YOU WERE A QUALIFIED PERSON TO INVESTIGATE A DOUBLE HOMICIDE OF THIS NATURE?
A YES.
Q YOU DIDN’T ASK FOR ANY HELP, DID YOU?
A YES.
Q YOU DID?
A YES.
Q OTHER DETECTIVES TO ASSIST YOU WHO WERE MORE EXPERIENCED?
A WELL, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WAS THERE.
Q DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WAS ASSIGNED. HE IS THE ONE THAT CALLED YOU?
A WELL, I’M SORRY, I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEANT.
Q YOU DIDN’T ASK PHILLIPS INTO THIS CASE, DID YOU?
A NO, IT WAS THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
Q THAT’S RIGHT.
AND HAD IT NOT BEEN FROM AN ORDER FROM ON HIGH, YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN PERFECTLY CONTENT TO GO FORWARD AND TAKE CHARGE OF THIS INVESTIGATION AS THE FIELD MAN, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q WITH PHILLIPS AS THE HOMICIDE SUPERVISOR AND COORDINATOR, TRUE?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU FELT THAT YOUR EXPERIENCE WAS UP TO THE JOB THAT CONFRONTED YOU, TRUE?
A YES.
Q AND IT WAS NEVER YOUR INTENT TO ASK THE BIG BOYS FROM ROBBERY/HOMICIDE TO COME HELP YOU, WAS IT?
A AT THAT TIME, NO.
Q AT ANY TIME DID YOU SUGGEST WE BETTER GET LANGE AND VANNATTER IN HERE?
A WELL, I DIDN’T KNOW LANGE AND VANNATTER.
Q DID YOU EVER SUGGEST TO ANYONE WE BETTER GET SOME OF THE MORE EXPERIENCED GUYS FROM DOWNTOWN WHO HANDLE LOTS OF HOMICIDES?
A I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE LATER IN THE DAY, YES.
Q DID YOU EVER SUGGEST THAT TO ANYONE BEFORE YOU WERE TOLD YOU ARE OFF THE CASE?
A NO.
Q DID NOT.
NOW, DID YOU EXPERIENCE ANY DISAPPOINTMENT WHATSOEVER WHEN PHILLIPS TOLD YOU YOU WERE BEING REMOVED FROM THIS MURDER CASE?
A DID I SHOW ANY DISAPPOINTMENT?
Q ANY DISAPPOINTMENT WHATSOEVER, DID YOU EXPERIENCE ANY?
A WELL, I WAS DISAPPOINTED WE LOST THE CASE.
Q SURE. DID IT GO A LITTLE FURTHER THAN THAT, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A NO, NOT AT ALL.
Q WEREN’T YOU A LITTLE BIT ANGRY THAT YOU WERE BEING SHOVED OUT OF A MURDER IN YOUR OWN TERRITORY?
A NO, NO.
Q DIDN’T BOTHER YOU A BIT?
A NONE.
Q WEREN’T YOU A FELLOW THAT HAD SPENT A GOOD PART OF HIS CAREER WAITING FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE, QUOTE, THE BIG ARREST?
A NO….

Q OKAY.
IN ANY EVENT, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHAT YOU WERE IN FACT FEELING WHEN YOU WERE TOLD YOU WERE OUT OF THE CASE AND OTHERS WOULD TAKE OVER?
A I WAS DISAPPOINTED IN LOSING A CASE THAT LOOKED VERY INTERESTING AND VERY COMPLEX.
Q OKAY.
NOW, DID YOU DECIDE TO DO SOMETHING AS A RESULT OF THIS DISPLACEMENT?
A NO.
Q WELL, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WERE PROTECTED TO A DEGREE STARTING AT 2:10 BY THE EXPERTISE OF YOU AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS ON THE CRIME SCENE ATTEMPTING TO SOLVE THE HOMICIDE IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, I TAKE IT?
IS THAT SO?
A I’M NOT SURE WHAT YOU ARE ASKING, SIR.
Q WERE YOU ENTRUSTED WITH THE SUPERVISION, YOU AND PHILLIPS, OF THIS HOMICIDE AND ITS SOLUTION AND ITS CARE?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND IS IT NOT ROUTINE THAT SOMEBODY BE IN CHARGE OF A HOMICIDE AFTER IT IS DISCOVERED?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
THERE WAS TO ONE TO TAKE OVER THAT RESPONSIBILITY UNTIL AFTER FOUR O’CLOCK, WAS THERE?
A NO, THERE WASN’T, SIR.
Q WHAT DID YOU DO BETWEEN 2:50 A.M. AND 4:05 WHEN PHILIP VANNATTER SHOWED UP ON THE SCENE…?
A WAITED FOR THEIR ARRIVAL ON THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE.
Q IN OTHER WORDS, THE WHOLE HOMICIDE SOLUTION PROCESS GROUND TO A HALT; IS THAT RIGHT?
A AT THAT MOMENT WAITING FOR THEM, YES.
Q IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WERE DISABLED TO TAKE ANY STEPS WHATSOEVER THAT YOU WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE TAKEN IF YOU WERE LEFT IN CHARGE FOR THAT HOUR AND TEN-MINUTE PERIOD?
IS THAT THE RULE IN YOUR DEPARTMENT?
A YES. I WAS RELIEVED OF THE CASE.
Q OKAY.
WERE YOU PROHIBITED FROM GIVING ANY DIRECTIONS OR TAKING ANY OF THE ROUTINE STEPS A HOMICIDE DETECTIVE MIGHT TAKE?
A YES.
Q OKAY. AND WHO TOLD YOU THAT?
A DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.
Q DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.
GIVE US HIS EXACT ORDER TO YOU THAT ACCOMPANIED THE NOTICE THAT YOU WERE OUT AND WHAT WAS THE ORDER?
A “ROBBERY/HOMICIDE IS TAKING THE CASE.”
Q DID HE SAY, “MARK, DON’T DO ANY MORE WORK ON THIS CASE”?
A NO. I UNDERSTOOD THAT.
Q WELL, YOU UNDERSTOOD IT HOW?
A I HAVE BEEN ON THE DEPARTMENT LONG ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS.
Q HOW MANY TIMES IN THE PAST HAD YOU BEEN PUSHED ASIDE IN FAVOR OF OTHER MORE SENIOR DETECTIVES, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A OH, THAT HAPPENS QUITE FREQUENTLY IN THE CITY.
Q OF THE TEN PRIOR HOMICIDES IN WHICH YOU PARTICIPATED AS A DETECTIVE, IN HOW MANY OF THOSE DID YOU GET PUSHED OUT SO OTHERS COULD TAKE OVER? DO YOU REMEMBER?
A YES.
Q HOW MANY?
A PROBABLY THREE OR FOUR.
Q ALL RIGHT. AND WHO TOOK OVER IN THOSE CASES?
A ROBBERY/HOMICIDE.
Q FROM DOWNTOWN?
A YES.
Q AND UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, BIG CASE, THAT SORT OF THING?
A OUT OF SCOPE OF OUR ABILITIES OR LOGISTICS, YES.
Q OKAY.
NOW, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IN YOUR VIEW THIS CASE WAS NOT BEYOND THE SCOPE OF YOUR ABILITIES AND YOU WERE WILLING TO CONTINUE?
A SIR, AT WHAT TIME ARE YOU ASKING ME TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION?
Q PRIOR TO 2:50 WHEN YOU GOT THE NOTICE.
A AT THAT TIME I FELT WE COULD PROBABLY HANDLE IT, YES.
Q WAS THERE ANYTHING UNUSUAL OR BIZARRE ABOUT THESE MURDERS, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE VICTIMS WAS FORMERLY MARRIED TO A WELL-KNOWN AMERICAN ICON?
A I DIDN’T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE SCENE AT THAT POINT, SO THAT WOULD BE HARD TO SAY.
Q OKAY. WELL, LET’S TALK ABOUT THE OBSERVATIONS YOU HAD MADE.
WERE YOU SOMEWHERE TRAINED IN ANY OF THE COURSES YOU TOOK, OR ANY OF THE ON-THE-JOB TRAINING, TO RECOGNIZE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WOUND OF INCISION AND A GUNSHOT WOUND?
A WELL, THEY WILL LOOK SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WERE YOU TAUGHT ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT HOW KNIFINGS ARE ACCOMPLISHED OR WHAT THEY DO TO THE BODY, DEPENDING ON WHERE THEY ARE ACCOMPLISHED?
A I DON’T SPECIFICALLY REMEMBER THAT, NO….

Q OKAY.
DID YOU CONCERN YOURSELF, BEFORE YOU WERE OFF THE CASE, AS TO FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU COULD SEE, WHICH VICTIM DIED FIRST?
A I COULDN’T TELL ANY OF THAT FROM THE SCENE.
Q DID YOU MAKE ANY OBSERVATIONS?
A I MADE NO DETAILED OBSERVATIONS THAT WOULD GIVE THAT INFORMATION.
Q DID YOU DEDUCE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, FROM THE QUANTITY OF THE BLOOD SURROUNDING THE BODY OF THE FEMALE VICTIM, THAT SHE HAD BLED VERY PROFUSELY?
A YES. I WOULD CONCLUDE THAT.
Q AND COULD WELL HAVE SUFFERED A MASSIVE INJURY TO THE CAROTID ARTERIES IN THE NECK?
A I COULDN’T ASSUME THAT.
Q YOU COULDN’T?
A NO.
Q DID YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHERE ALL THAT BLOOD CAME FROM?
A SOMEWHERE IN THE HEAD AREA, BUT I COULDN’T SEE HER FACE.
Q BUT A MASSIVE INJURY OF SOME SORT?
A YES, SIR.
Q ONE THAT PROBABLY PRODUCED DEATH VERY QUICKLY, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND PROBABLY SHE HAD NEVER MOVED FROM THE POINT AT WHICH SHE FELL, FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU SAW? A FAIR DEDUCTION?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
NOW, DID YOU NOTICE THE BLOOD ON HER BACK IN DROPLETS?
A NO, I DIDN’T.
Q YOU NEVER SAW THAT?
A NO.
Q EITHER WHEN YOU WALKED UP TO THE
GATEPOST WITH PHILLIPS OR WHEN YOU CAME BACK AROUND THE WALKWAY AND OUT THE FRONT DOOR AND LOOKED DOWN FROM THE STEPS? YOU NEVER NOTICED THE BLOOD SPECKS ON THE BACK OF THE FEMALE VICTIM?
A NO, SIR, I DIDN’T.
Q HAVE YOU TO THIS DAY SEEN THEM IN ANY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS YOU REVIEWED, INCLUDING THE ONES WE LOOKED AT IN COURT?
A NO.
Q WELL, IS IT PART OF YOUR TRAINING THAT YOU OBSERVE DETAILS OF THAT SORT WHEN YOU GO TO A HOMICIDE SCENE?
A YES.
Q AND YOU MADE NO SUCH OBSERVATION?
A NOT ON THE FIRST WALK THROUGH, NO.
Q AS YOU SIT THERE TODAY, WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF BLOOD DROPS ON THE BACK OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?
A I HAVE NEVER BEEN SHOWN ANY PHOTOS OF THOSE BLOOD DROPS.
Q CAN YOU SAY WHETHER OR NOT THEY EVER EXISTED, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE?
A TO MY KNOWLEDGE I CANNOT.
Q OKAY.
AND YOU WERE AT ONE TIME THE LEAD FIELD DETECTIVE ON THE SCENE, IS THAT WHAT WE ARE TO UNDERSTAND?
A YES, SIR.
Q OKAY.
AND YOU HAD TWO OPPORTUNITIES TO VIEW THAT BODY CLOSE UP WITH THE BACK POINTED UP TOWARD THE SKY, CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND YOU DO NOT KNOW WHETHER THE BACK WAS CLEAN OR HAD SOME SUBSTANCE ON IT?
A YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BLOOD DROPS?
Q ANY SUBSTANCE? I DIDN’T ASK THAT, SIR.
A BLOOD DROPS? NO, I DIDN’T SEE ANYTHING.
Q DID YOU SEE ANY SPECKS ON HER?
A I DID NOT TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT THE BACK, NO.
Q ON EITHER OCCASION, THE VIEW FROM ABOVE OR THE VIEW OBLIQUELY?
A NO….

Q NO.
ALL YOU HAD DONE WAS TO OBSERVE THINGS THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN DISCOVERED BY OTHERS AND WERE POINTED OUT TO YOU, CORRECT?
A EXCUSE ME. I WOULD LIKE TO CORRECT THAT.
Q OKAY.
A I SAW A PARTIAL FINGERPRINT ON THE BACK GATE AND I SAW TWO ADDITIONAL BLOOD DROPS ON THE GATE.
Q OKAY.
SO THOSE ARE THINGS THAT YOU SAW PRESUMABLY FOR THE FIRST TIME AMONG YOURSELF AND YOUR COLLEAGUES?
A YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT. AND YOU MADE DUE NOTE OF THOSE, DID YOU NOT?
A YES, I DID….

Q HAD YOU NOTICED A TELEPHONE IN THE KITCHEN?
A YES.
Q WERE YOU INTERESTED IN WHO IT WAS WHO HAD LAST SPOKEN WITH THE VICTIM, THE FEMALE VICTIM WHO LIVED ON THE PREMISES?
A AT THAT EARLY IN THE INVESTIGATION IT HADN’T OCCURRED TO ME, NO.
Q IT HADN’T OCCURRED TO YOU TO TRY TO GET IN TOUCH WITH WHOEVER WHO HAD LAST TALKED TO HER BEFORE HER DEATH?
A NO.
Q YOU KNEW OF COURSE THAT IF YOU WERE ABLE TO DO THAT, THAT WOULD ESTABLISH THE LAST MOMENT AT WHICH SHE WAS ALIVE, TRUE, OR COULD ESTABLISH?
A I THINK THAT WOULD BE A POSSIBILITY.
Q WELL, IF SOMEBODY WAS TALKING TO HER ON THE PHONE, THAT WOULD LEAD TO A FAIR INFERENCE THAT SHE WAS A LIVING PERSON, WOULDN’T IT?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q WOULDN’T IT?
A IF I COULD IDENTIFY HER VOICE ON THE PHONE.
Q JUST ASSUME THAT SOMEBODY WHO KNEW HER WAS TALKING TO HER ON THE PHONE, LIKE HER MOTHER, FOR INSTANCE, AT 9:44 P.M. IF YOU COULD HAVE LEARNED THAT, OFFICER FUHRMAN, THAT WOULD HELPED YOU IN SO FAR AS TIME OF DEATH; WOULD IT NOT?
A YES, SIR.
Q BETWEEN 9:44 AND WHEN THE BODIES WERE DISCOVERED AT MIDNIGHT, TRUE?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
NOW, DID YOU THINK TO PICK UP THE PHONE AND PUNCH THE REDIAL BUTTON?
A I WOULDN’T HAVE PICKED UP THE PHONE, SIR.
Q DID YOU THINK TO DO THAT?
A NO, I DIDN’T.
Q WAS THERE ANY RULE OF YOUR DEPARTMENT THAT SAYS YOU COULDN’T DO THAT TO FIND OUT WHO SHE HAD LAST DIALED?
A WELL, I WOULDN’T HAVE WANTED TO PICK UP THE PHONE BEFORE IT HAD BEEN PRINTED.
Q WELL, WEREN’T YOU AWARE THAT RISKE HAD ALREADY BEEN USING IT TO CALL THE STATION?
A NO, SIR.
Q HE DIDN’T TELL YOU THAT?
A NO.
Q OKAY.
AND YOU HAD NO INTEREST IN THE FACT THAT A SPEED DIAL MECHANISM MIGHT HAVE DIRECTLY CALLED THE PARENTS OF THE TWO CHILDREN OR THE FATHER OF THE TWO CHILDREN WHO HAD BEEN TAKEN AWAY?
A AT THAT TIME, NO.
Q DID NOT? OKAY.
WERE YOU ENGAGED TO ANY DEGREE IN AN EFFORT TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHO MIGHT HAVE COMMITTED THESE HOMICIDES?
A NO, SIR.
Q WELL, WERE YOU TRAINED TO LOOK INITIALLY, WHEN A HOMICIDE OCCURS, STATISTICALLY WHO MIGHT THE PERPETRATORS LIKELY BE?
A I DON’T KNOW, SIR.
Q RELATIVES, FRIENDS, PEOPLE CLOSE IN, AS OPPOSED TO TOTAL STRANGERS? ISN’T THAT AN AREA WHERE YOU ALWAYS LOOK, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEONE THAT DOESN’T APPEAR TO BE A RESIDENT, NO, THAT IS ALSO ONE OF THE VICTIMS.
Q DIDN’T YOU KNOW THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON LIVED IN THAT HOME?
A I DIDN’T KNOW THAT WAS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AT THAT POINT.
Q YOU KNEW IT WAS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AT 1:05 A.M. WHEN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TOLD YOU THAT, DIDN’T YOU?
A NO, I DIDN’T.
Q DID HE TELL YOU THIS IS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, A VICTIM?
A NO. HE SAID IT MIGHT BE. WE BELIEVE IT IS.
Q DID YOU EVER TESTIFY ON A PRIOR OCCASION THAT HE TOLD YOU IT WAS, WITHOUT EQUIVOCATION?
A COULD HAVE BEEN.
Q YOU MIGHT HAVE TESTIFIED TO THAT AND IF YOU DID, YOU NOW SAY THAT WAS WRONG?
A NO. I’M SAYING THAT NOBODY KNEW IT WAS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. THEY ASSUMED IT WAS.
Q WAS THERE EVER A POINT, PRIOR TO YOUR BEING RELIEVED, WHEN YOU TOOK IT TO BE THE FACT THAT THIS WAS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, THE VICTIM WHO LIVED IN THE HOUSE UPON WHOSE PREMISES THE BODIES WERE FOUND?
A I PERSONALLY COULD NOT CONCLUDE THAT, NO.
Q DID NOT CONCLUDE? YOU STILL THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE A PASSERBY?
A NO. WE DID NOT KNOW THE WHEREABOUTS OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND NOBODY HAD VERIFIED THAT.
Q DID YOU KNOW WHO LIVED IN THE HOUSE?
A NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON.
Q DID YOU KNOW THAT THERE WERE CHILDREN IN THE HOUSE WITH NO MOTHER WHEN THE POLICE GOT THERE?
A YES, SIR.
Q THAT DIDN’T LEAD YOU TO THE CONCLUSION THAT NICOLE WAS OUT ON THE WALKWAY?
A I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THE CHILDREN WERE ASKED.
Q DID YOU HAVE ANY INTEREST AT ALL IN THE IDENTITY OF THE MALE VICTIM?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND WHAT DID YOU DO ABOUT TRYING TO LEARN THAT IDENTITY?
A I COULD DO NOTHING.
Q YOU COULD DO NOTHING.
NOW, ARE YOU TALKING BEFORE 2:50 WHEN YOU HAD BEEN ON THE JOB FOR FORTY MINUTES OR AFTER?
A EITHER.
Q EITHER. WHY COULD YOU DO NOTHING PRIOR TO THE TIME YOU WERE RELIEVED?
A PRIOR TO I COULDN’T APPROACH THE BODY AND LOOK FOR IDENTIFICATION, AND AFTERWARDS IT WAS NO LONGER MY CASE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU COULDN’T APPROACH THE BODIES? YOU MEAN YOU COULDN’T DISTURB THEM TO GO FOR A WALLET?
A THAT’S CORRECT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
COULD YOU HAVE ASKED NEIGHBORS TO VIEW THE BODIES AND SEE IF ANYONE RECOGNIZED THE VICTIM?
A IF WE HAD A POLAROID.
Q NO. COULD YOU HAVE ASKED NEIGHBORS TO COME AND LOOK?
A I WOULD NOT HAVE ASKED NEIGHBORS TO ENTER A CRIME SCENE.
Q YOU WOULDN’T HAVE DONE THAT?
A NO, SIR.
Q COULD YOU HAVE CHECKED CARS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE OFF CHANCE THAT THIS MALE VICTIM HAD DRIVEN TO THE SCENE, AS OPPOSED TO WALKING?
A HAD I KEPT THE CASE I’M SURE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE.
Q BUT AS OF 2:50 YOU HADN’T DONE THAT EITHER?
A NO, SIR.
Q FROM 2:50 TO 4:05, AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU WENT TO THE INTERSECTION OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY AND STOOD THERE?
A THAT’S CORRECT.
Q FOR 65, 75 MINUTES YOU STOOD AT THE INTERSECTION WAITING FOR YOUR REPLACEMENT? IS THAT RIGHT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND WHAT DID DETECTIVE PHILLIPS DO DURING THAT 75-MINUTE PERIOD?
A STAND THERE AND WAIT WITH ME.
Q THE TWO OF YOU FOR 75 MINUTES STOOD STOCK STILL OR DID YOU WANDER AROUND A BIT?
A OH, WE COULD HAVE WANDERED A LITTLE BIT ON THE STREET, BUT PREDOMINANTLY STAYED IN THAT GENERAL AREA.
Q DID YOU GO BACK TO THE CRIME SCENE?
A NO.
Q DID YOU DO ANY MORE OBSERVATIONS?
A AT ONE TIME I DID MAKE AN OBSERVATION FROM THE NORTH RESIDENCE.
Q OH. I DON’T RECALL YOU MENTIONING THAT IN YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION.
DID YOU?
A I BELIEVE I DID, YES, SIR.
Q YOU DID?
A YES.
Q WELL, TELL US ABOUT IT. WHAT DID YOU DO FROM THE NORTH RESIDENCE?
A LIEUTENANT SPANGLER HAD WALKED TO THE NORTH RESIDENCE OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY AND LOOKED BETWEEN THE — THE IRON FENCE THAT WAS ABOUT THREE OR FOUR FEET FROM THE FEET OR BUTTOCKS AREA OF THE MALE VICTIM, AND HE NOTICED A PORTION OF BARE SKIN AND HE SAID, “YOU CAN SEE SOME TYPE OF A WOUND THERE” AND HE DIRECTED ME TO GO OVER THERE AND I DID, AND I LOOKED AT IT, AND IT APPEARED TO BE A LACERATION OF SOME SORT.
Q WHERE?
A I BELIEVE IT WAS ON HIS SIDE OR HIS BACK.
Q UH-HUH.
AND WHERE WERE YOU STANDING WHEN YOU OBSERVED THAT?
A THERE IS A WALKWAY THAT GOES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE WHITE WROUGHT IRON FENCE THAT SEPARATES THOSE TWO RESIDENCES BETWEEN 875 AND THE ONE TO THE NORTH.
Q WHOSE PROPERTY WERE YOU STANDING ON, AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT, WHEN YOU MADE THE OBSERVATION WITH LIEUTENANT SPANGLER?
A I DON’T KNOW.
Q DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME IT WAS WHEN YOU MADE THAT OBSERVATION?
A PROBABLY SOMEWHERE RIGHT AFTER 3:00, 3:30.
Q LONG AFTER YOU WERE OFF THE CASE THEN?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WELL THEN DID YOU NOT SPEND THE ENTIRE TIME DOWN AT THE INTERSECTION WAITING FOR MESSERS. VANNATTER AND LANGE?
A EXCEPT FOR THAT, NO.
Q ALL RIGHT.
TELL ME HOW IT OCCURRED THAT LIEUTENANT SPANGLER TOOK YOU UP THERE AS A DETECTIVE NO LONGER ON THE CASE TO MAKE THIS OBSERVATION? DID HE COME TO YOU AT THE INTERSECTION?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT. WHAT DID HE SAY?
A WELL, HE JUST WENT UP TO VIEW THE SCENE FROM THE NORTH RESIDENCE, SO HE DIDN’T DISTURB IT.
Q HOW LONG HAD HE BEEN THERE, IF YOU KNOW?
A I DON’T KNOW, SIR.
Q YOU DIDN’T SEE HIM ARRIVE?
A I DON’T KNOW WHEN HE ARRIVED, NO.
Q DID HE ARRIVE AFTER YOU OR BEFORE YOU?
A AFTER.
Q OKAY. BUT AS TO THE TIME, YOU DON’T KNOW?
A I DO NOT.
Q OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
SO HE SAID SOMETHING TO YOU ABOUT A WOUND. DID HE INVITE YOU OR DIRECT YOU? HE WAS YOUR BOSS, WASN’T HE?
A HE DIRECTED ME. HE SAID THAT THERE WAS SOME SORT OF A WOUND ON THE MALE VICTIM THAT IS VISIBLE.
Q OKAY. SO YOU WALKED BACK UP BUNDY WHERE THE BLOODY PAW PRINTS WERE?
A NO.
Q WHERE DID YOU WALK?
A I JUST WALKED UP THE STREET AND THEN ENTERED THE NORTH RESIDENCE.
Q YOU STAYED OFF THE SIDEWALK?
A YES, SIR.
Q WALKED UP THE STREET?
A YES.
Q AND WALKED AROUND WHAT WE CALL THE FENCE AGAINST WHICH THE MALE VICTIM’S BODY WAS KIND OF CRUMBLED?
A YES, SIR.
Q OKAY.
AND HOW FAR INTO THE PROPERTY DID YOU GO? HOW MANY RUNGS OF THE FENCE WOULD YOU ESTIMATE, VERTICAL WISE?
A WHERE THE MALE VICTIM WAS.
Q OKAY. CAN YOU PLACE YOURSELF WITH RESPECT TO THE FENCE?
A DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH OF THE FENCE WHERE THE VICTIM WAS.
Q ALL RIGHT. HOW LONG DID YOU SPEND THERE?
A FIVE SECONDS.
Q HOW LONG WAS LIEUTENANT SPANGLER THERE, IF HE WAS?
A HE WASN’T, BUT WHEN HE WALKED OVER THERE I THINK HE WAS JUST THERE FOR A FEW MOMENTS.
Q WHEN YOU WALKED UP THE STREET, WAS HE WALKING BESIDE YOU?
A I DON’T RECALL IF HE DID OR HE DIDN’T.
Q DID HE COME WITH YOU TO THE LOCATION TO WHOSE VIEW HE HAD COMMENDED YOU?
A I DON’T BELIEVE SO, NO.
Q ALL RIGHT. YOU BELIEVE YOU WERE ALONE AT THAT POINT?
A YES.
Q YOU WALKED. DID YOU HAVE YOUR LITTLE FLASHLIGHT?
A YES.
Q DID YOU USE IT?
A YES.
Q WERE THERE ANY OTHER LIGHTS BEING SHOWN ON THE AREA AT THAT TIME?
A NO.
Q WAS ANYBODY ELSE ON THE CRIME SCENE NEAR THE BODY INSIDE THE FENCE?
A NO.
Q WAS ANYBODY NEXT TO THE FENCE ON EITHER SIDE?
A NO.
Q WAS ANYBODY ACCOMPANYING YOU IN ANY WAY?
A NO.
Q FOR THAT VISIT?
A NO, SIR.
Q AND HOW CLOSE TO YOU WAS THE NEAREST DETECTIVE OR OFFICER, AS YOU REMEMBER?
A ON THE STREET.
Q ON THE STREET?
A YES.
Q SO THAT WOULD BE, WHAT, TWENTY FEET AT LEAST?
A PROBABLY LONGER THAN THAT.
Q MORE THAN THAT?
A YES.
Q YES.
AND YOU THINK THAT YOU WERE THERE FOR ABOUT FIVE SECONDS?
A JUST LONG ENOUGH TO LOOK AT THE WOUND.
Q OKAY. AND THEN WHERE DID YOU GO?
A I JUST WENT BACK TO THE STREET.
Q AND?
A I MADE A COMMENT TO LIEUTENANT SPANGLER, “IT LOOKS LIKE A LACERATION.”
Q OKAY. IS THAT ALL THAT YOU SAID?
A THAT IS ALL THAT I SAID.
Q DID YOU SAY ANYTHING ELSE?
A NO, SIR.
Q DID YOU THEN GO BACK TO THE INTERSECTION?
A YES.
Q YOU HAD BEEN GONE FROM THE INTERSECTION LESS THAN WHAT, THREE OR FOUR MINUTES?
A I DON’T EVEN THINK THAT LONG, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU STAY THERE WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS UNTIL DETECTIVE VANNATTER ARRIVED AT
ABOUT 4:05?
A YES.
Q DID YOU TALK TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS ABOUT THE CASE?
A I DON’T RECALL TALKING ABOUT THE CASE, NO.
Q DID YOU TALK TO HIM ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU FELLAS WERE NO LONGER ON THE CASE?
A NO.
Q DID YOU TALK AT ALL OR DID YOU JUST STAND THERE FOR AN HOUR?
A WELL, I TALKED, BUT I DON’T RECALL TALKING ABOUT THIS CASE.
Q IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT ABSOLUTELY NO DETECTING WENT ON FROM 2:50 UNTIL 4:05, EXCEPT FOR YOUR LITTLE VISIT TO THE FENCE?
A I WOULD SAY THAT IS ACCURATE.
Q NOW, DID YOU TELL PHILLIPS THAT THIS LOOKED LIKE A KNIFE WOUND, THIS WOUND OR A SHARP INSTRUMENT?
A I THINK THE TERM I USED WAS A LACERATION….

Q NOW, IS THAT THE SUM TOTAL OF THE OBSERVATIONS YOU MADE ON THAT LITTLE EXCURSION? YOU SAW A KNIFE WOUND AND THAT IS IT?
A YES, SIR.
Q NOTHING ELSE?
A I DON’T BELIEVE SO, NO.
Q HOW ABOUT A COUPLE OF GLOVES, DETECTIVE?
A EXCUSE ME?
Q DID YOU SEE A COUPLE OF GLOVES UP THERE?
A NO. I SAW ONE GLOVE.
Q YOU DIDN’T MENTION THAT A MINUTE AGO WHEN I ASKED YOU IF YOU HAD SEEN ANYTHING ELSE? YOU NOW SAY YOU SAW ONE GLOVE?
A WELL, I ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE ONE GLOVE AND THE HAT.
Q YOU HADN’T TALKED ABOUT THIS EXCURSION BEFORE, I DON’T BELIEVE, BUT I ASKED YOU IF YOU SAW ANYTHING OTHER THAN A LACERATION AND YOU SAID NO.
DO YOU WANT TO CORRECT THAT?
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. AT WHAT TIME?
MR. BAILEY: THE ONLY VISIT HE MADE TO THE FENCE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
Q DID YOU MAKE MORE THAN ONE,
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A MORE THAN ONE WHAT?
Q TO THAT VANTAGE POINT TO VIEW GOLDMAN’S BODY.
DID YOU MAKE MORE THAN THE ONE THAT YOU MADE AT THE BEHEST OF DETECTIVE SPANGLER?
A NO.
Q THAT IS THE SOLE OPPORTUNITY YOU HAD TO OBSERVE FROM THAT POINT ON THE NORTH PROPERTY, TRUE?
A YES, SIR.
Q I ASKED YOU IF YOU SAW ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE LACERATION. I BELIEVE YOU SAID NO, DID YOU?
A I THOUGHT YOU WERE SPEAKING ABOUT THE BODY.
Q YOU DID?
A YES.
Q YOU THOUGHT MY QUESTION RESTRICTED YOU FROM MENTIONING ANYTHING NOT CONNECTED WITH THE VICTIM’S BODY; IS THAT RIGHT?
A WELL, I HAD ALREADY TESTIFIED TO THE OTHER EVIDENCE I OBSERVED AND I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT NEW ITEMS THAT I HAD SEEN….

Q BUT YOU ARE SATISFIED THAT IN THE TRANSCRIPT OF YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY THERE IS MENTION OF THIS VIEW, THE LACERATION AND THE GLOVE AND THE FENCE ON THE NORTH PROPERTY? ARE YOU SATISFIED OF THAT?
A WELL, I’M NOT SURE IF I TESTIFIED TO THAT OR NOT. I THINK WE WERE WORKING UP TO THAT. WE MIGHT HAVE. I MIGHT BE INCORRECT.
Q WE WORKED UP TO IT?
A IN OTHER WORDS, WE WERE CHRONOLOGICALLY GOING THROUGH THE CRIME SCENE.
Q WELL, LOOK, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THAT TESTIMONY, ISN’T THERE, THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE VIEW THROUGH THE FENCE?
A NO, THERE ISN’T.
Q THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION, ISN’T THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A NO.
Q WHEN DISCUSSING THIS EVENT IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND TALKING ABOUT THE GLOVE, YOUR TONGUE SLIPPED AND YOU SAID “THEM,” DIDN’T YOU?
A YES.
Q AND YOU HAVE EXAMINED THAT IN THE TRANSCRIPT, HAVEN’T YOU?
A YES.
Q AND YOU KNOW IT HAS BEEN PLAYED ON VIDEO TO THE JURY? THE WORD “THEM” IS CLEAR?
A YES.
Q THAT IS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE?
A NO.
Q IT WAS NOT?
OKAY.
NOW, WHEN DETECTIVE VANNATTER CAME, YOU ARE OFF THE CASE?
A YES.
Q WHAT DID YOU DO?
A I WAITED FOR DIRECTION FROM DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.
Q YOU DON’T SPEAK TO VANNATTER, ONLY THROUGH PHILLIPS?
A WELL, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS IS MY BOSS.
Q I UNDERSTAND THAT…. WAS THERE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT YOU FELLAS, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND FUHRMAN, SHOULD DO?
A YES.
Q OKAY. AND WHAT WERE YOU DIRECTED TO DO?
A OH, AT THAT TIME FROM DETECTIVE VANNATTER?
Q YES.
A I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT WE WERE DIRECTED TO DO.
Q WHAT DID YOU IN FACT DO?
A AT SOME POINT WE LED DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND LANGE TO THE ROCKINGHAM ESTATE.
Q YOU SAY AT SOME POINT. CAN YOU HELP US A LITTLE BETTER THAN THAT? WE ARE TALKING 4:05 NOW WHEN DETECTIVE LANGE ARRIVED?
A YES, SIR.
Q VANNATTER, I’M SORRY.
A DO YOU WANT A TIME, WHAT TIME WE DID THAT?
Q CAN YOU TELL US HOW LONG YOU STAYED AT BUNDY WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER BEFORE YOU WENT TO ROCKINGHAM?
A DETECTIVE VANNATTER GOT THERE, AS YOU SAID, AT 4:05, DETECTIVE LANGE, 4:25, AND AT FIVE O’CLOCK WE LEFT FOR ROCKINGHAM.
Q ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU WENT TO ROCKINGHAM, HOW WERE YOU PAIRED?
A DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND I WERE IN A VEHICLE; HE WAS DRIVING. LANGE AND VANNATTER WERE IN THEIR VEHICLE.
Q DO YOU KNOW A PHOTOGRAPHER NAMED ROKAHR?
A YES, SIR.
Q DID YOU SEE HIM ARRIVE ON THE SCENE AT 3:25 THAT DAY?
A YES. I RECALL HE WAS THERE FAIRLY EARLY.
Q WERE YOU — DID YOU OBSERVE HIM TAKING ANY PHOTOGRAPHS?
A YES. I THINK HE WAS TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS OF SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU GIVE HIM ANY DIRECTION WITH RESPECT TO PHOTOGRAPHS THAT NEEDED TO BE TAKEN?
A NO, I DIDN’T.
Q DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATION WITH HIM AT ALL?
A NO, I DON’T BELIEVE I DID.

Q WHEN YOU LEFT FOR ROCKINGHAM DID HE GO WITH YOU?
A NO.
Q HE DID NOT?
A NO.
Q WAS THERE ANYONE WITH YOU, OTHER THAN THE FOUR DETECTIVES, INITIALLY?
A NO.
Q DID OTHERS COME AFTER YOU ARRIVED AND BEFORE YOU ENTERED THE PROPERTY?
A I BELIEVE THERE WAS A UNIFORMED VEHICLE, POLICE VEHICLE, THAT ARRIVED JUST AS WE HAD ALREADY MADE ENTRY, AND THEY STAYED AT THE FRONT GATE….

Q DID ANYONE PEER THROUGH THE GATE TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANYBODY INSIDE ON THE PREMISES, IF YOU CAN RECALL, ANY OF THE FOUR OF YOU?
A YOU CAN JUST SEE RIGHT THROUGH THE GATE. YOU DIDN’T NEED TO PEER.
Q DID ANYBODY GO UP AND TAKE A LOOK, IF YOU KNOW?
A WE WERE STANDING IN FRONT OF THE GATE.
Q ALL OF YOU?
A YES.
Q YOU HAD A FAIRLY SWEEPING VIEW OF THE INTERIOR OF THE WALLS?
A YOU MEAN OF THE DRIVEWAY, SIR, LOOKING SOUTH.
Q WERE YOU WEARING A SIDEARM THAT NIGHT?
A YES.
Q DID YOU WITHDRAW IT AT ANY TIME?
A NO.
Q DURING THE ENTIRE NIGHT?
A I COULD HAVE ON THE PATHWAY, BUT I DON’T HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION IF I DID OR I DIDN’T.
Q WELL, YOU HAVE NEVER, NEVER MENTIONED DRAWING YOUR SIDEARM UP TO THIS POINT IN PRIOR TESTIMONY, HAVE YOU?
A NO.
Q DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION NOW, AS YOU SIT THERE, THAT YOU DREW A SIDEARM?
A I CAN’T REMEMBER IF I DID OR I HAD MY HAND ON IT, BUT NO, I CAN’T.
Q YOU JUST DON’T HAVE A MEMORY ABOUT THAT, TRUE?
A THAT’S CORRECT.
Q OKAY.
DID ANYBODY DIRECT YOU TO GO DOWN AND LOOK AT THE BRONCO?
A NO.
Q THAT WAS SOMETHING YOU DECIDED TO DO ON YOUR OWN?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND THAT IS A CAR THAT YOU HAD SEEN AS YOU DROVE BY IT APPROACHING ROCKINGHAM TRAVELING NORTH COMING UP FROM SUNSET?
A YES.
Q HAD YOU ANY REASON, AS YOU PASSED BY IT, TO ASSOCIATE IT WITH MR. SIMPSON?
A NO.
Q JUST BASED ON LOOKING AT IT?
A NO.
Q HAD YOU NOTICED THAT THERE WERE VEHICLES PARKED INSIDE THE SURROUNDS, THAT IS, INSIDE THE FENCE ENCLOSURE?
A YES, I NOTICED VEHICLES INSIDE.
Q HAD YOU BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY THEM IN THE LIGHT THAT WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME?
A I DIDN’T KNOW WHAT THE LARGE LUXURY VEHICLE WAS, BUT I COULD TELL BY THE LINES OF THE ONE VEHICLE IT WAS A SAAB.
Q OKAY.
AND YOU DIDN’T KNOW WHETHER THE LARGE VEHICLE LOOKED FOREIGN MADE?
A YES, IT WAS FOREIGN MADE.
Q IT LOOKED EXPENSIVE?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
WHEN YOU WALKED DOWN TO THE BRONCO, DID YOU ASK PERMISSION FROM LIEUTENANT VANNATTER BEFORE YOU DID THAT?
A DETECTIVE VANNATTER? NO.
Q I’M SORRY, DETECTIVE VANNATTER.
DETECTIVE PHILLIPS?
A NO.
Q DETECTIVE LANGE?
A NO.
Q THIS WAS ON YOUR OWN INITIATIVE?
A YES.
Q AND YOU WERE DETECTING AT THIS POINT, I TAKE IT?
A I’M SORRY?
Q YOU WERE DETECTING?
A I WAS DETECTING.
Q YOU HAD BEEN FROZEN IN YOUR FUNCTION BY THE NOTICE OF DISMISSAL BUT NOW YOU ARE BACK AGAIN DETECTING, TRUE?
A NO. AT THAT POINT I WASN’T DETECTING; I WAS JUST WALKING.
Q YOU WEREN’T JUST BEING NOSY, WERE YOU?
A I DON’T THINK NOSY. I WAS WALKING AND I NOTICED SOMETHING ON THE BRONCO AND I CONTINUED WALKING TOWARDS IT.
Q WELL, WAS THIS A WALK THAT YOU TOOK TO GET SOME EXERCISE AND JUST HAPPENED TO TAKE YOU BY THE BRONCO? IS THAT WHAT HAPPENED?
A IT WASN’T A WALK FOR EXERCISE. I JUST WALKED DOWN TO THE CORNER AND LOOKED DOWN ROCKINGHAM, SAW THE BRONCO.
Q WAS IT A WALK SPECIFICALLY TO INSPECT THE BRONCO FOR SOME PURPOSE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A NO.
Q IT WASN’T?
A NO.
Q IS IT SIMPLY THAT YOU WERE IN ITS VICINITY AND DECIDED TO LOOK AROUND ONCE YOU GOT THERE?
A I WAS WALKING DOWN TOWARD THE ROCKINGHAM GATE. AS I WALKED TOWARD THE BRONCO I NOTICED A FEW THINGS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WHILE YOU WERE WALKING TOWARD THE ROCKINGHAM GATE, WERE YOU GOING TO TRY TO GET IN THAT GATE?
A NO.
Q HAD YOU EXAMINED IT TO SEE IF ACCESS WAS POSSIBLE?
A I DON’T THINK ACCESS WAS ON MY MIND AT THAT POINT.
Q HAD ANYBODY DIRECTED YOU TO CHECK OUT THE ROCKINGHAM GATE TO SEE IF YOU COULD GET IN?
A NO, NO.
Q AND AS YOU WALKED BY THE BRONCO, ON THE STREET SIDE, TOWARD THE CENTER OF THE STREET, HOW LIGHT WAS IT AT THAT POINT?
A IT WAS GETTING LIGHT, BUT IT WASN’T COMPLETELY DAWN YET.
Q CAN YOU HELP US AS TO WHAT TIME IT MAY HAVE BEEN WHEN YOU WALKED BY THE BRONCO, TIME OF DAY?
A 5:20, 5:25.
Q OKAY.
AND DO YOU THINK THAT THE DAWN WAS BEGINNING TO COME, SOME NATURAL LIGHT WAS ON THE SCENE AT THE TIME?
A MAYBE SOMEWHAT, YES.
Q WELL, YOU WEREN’T ABLE TO SEE INTO THE BRONCO WITHOUT YOUR FLASHLIGHT YOU TOLD US?
A THAT’S CORRECT.
Q HAD YOU BEEN WANDERING DOWN THE STREET WITH THAT LITTLE BITTY FLASHLIGHT ON, JUST KIND OF POINTING OFF TO THE SIDE?
A NO.
Q DID SOMETHING CAUSE YOU TO STOP AND TURN YOUR FLASHLIGHT ON TO INSPECT THE BRONCO?
A YES.
Q WHAT WAS THAT?
A A LITTLE SPECK ABOVE THE DOOR HANDLE ON THE DRIVER’S SIDE.
Q IS THAT SOMETHING THAT CAUGHT YOUR EYE OR SOMETHING THAT YOU DISCOVERED BY INSPECTION?
A I THINK IT IS SOMETHING THAT CAUGHT MY EYE.
Q AND AT THAT POINT YOU TURN ON YOUR FLASHLIGHT TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK?
A YES, THEN I INSPECTED.
Q OKAY.
AND AFTER YOU SEE THAT, YOU LOOK FURTHER, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AND YOU SEE SOME ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT YOU THINK MIGHT BE BLOOD?
A YES.
Q WOULD YOU DESCRIBE ONCE AGAIN WHAT IT WAS THAT YOU SAW AND WHERE YOU SAW IT; NOT THE ONE ABOVE THE DRIVER’S DOOR HANDLE, BUT ELSEWHERE?
A IN THE DOORSILL OF THE DRIVER’S DOOR DIRECTLY BELOW THE DOOR, VISIBLE FROM THE OUTSIDE ON THE EDGE OF THE DOORSILL, THREE OR FOUR LITTLE MARKS, LITTLE LINES, TRANSLUCENT RED.
Q AND TO WHOM, OTHER THAN THE DETECTIVES, DID YOU DIRECT ATTENTION AS TO THE THESE LITTLE MARKS?
A WHO DID I SHOW THOSE MARKS TO?
Q YEAH.
A DENNIS FUNG, THE CRIMINALIST.
Q OKAY. DID YOU RECOMMEND TO HIM THAT THEY WOULD BE WORTH PHOTOGRAPHING?
A I MADE NO RECOMMENDATIONS.
Q DID YOU EVER SEE A PHOTOGRAPHER AT ROCKINGHAM?
A YES.
Q WHO WAS THAT?
A I SAW MR. ROKAHR THERE.
Q WHEN?
A HE CAME BACK UP WITH ME AFTER I RETURNED TO THE BUNDY SCENE.
Q UH-HUH.
A SO THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SOME TIME AFTER 7:30.
Q DID YOU EVER SPEAK TO HIM ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHS?
A NO.
Q DO YOU KNOW IF THERE IS ANYWHERE TODAY A PHOTOGRAPH OF WHAT YOU SAY YOU SAW ON THE LOWER PART OF THE BRONCO BELOW THE DOOR?
A I HAVE NOT SEEN A PHOTOGRAPH.
Q OKAY. WAS THAT BRONCO LOCKED,
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A I DID NOT TRY TO OPEN THE DOOR.
Q EVER?
A NO.
Q NEVER TOUCHED THE DOOR HANDLE THAT WHOLE DAY, THE 13TH?
A I DID NOT.
Q OR ANY PART OF THE CAR?
A I LAID THE BACK OF MY PALM ON THE HOOD OF THE CAR TO SEE IF THE VEHICLE WAS WARM, YES, SIR.
Q TAKING ITS TEMPERATURE?
A YES, SIR.
Q YES.
A OTHER THAN THAT, NO.
Q OKAY.
WELL, YOU TOUCHED THE VEHICLE WHEN YOU CUPPED YOUR FLASHLIGHT IN ORDER TO SEE IN THROUGH THE TINTED WINDOW YOU HAVE DESCRIBED?
A NO.
Q YOU DIDN’T TOUCH IT?
A NO.
Q YOU SIMPLY CAME CLOSE?
A I TRIED TO CUP THE LIGHT SO I COULD GET A VIEW INSIDE.
Q OKAY.
AND YOU THEN BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OTHER DETECTIVES, AT LEAST I BELIEVE TOM LANGE, THE FACT THAT YOU HAD MADE THIS OBSERVATION?
A YES.
Q OKAY. DID YOU SHOW IT TO ANYONE ELSE?
A DETECTIVE VANNATTER.
Q UH-HUH.
A AND DETECTIVE LANGE AND I BELIEVE DETECTIVE PHILLIPS CAME DOWN AT SOME POINT, BUT I’M NOT SURE WHEN.
Q OKAY.
THAT WAS AS A RESULT OF YOUR RETURNING TO THE ASHFORD GATE, MENTIONING WHAT YOU HAD SEEN AND THEN WALKING BACK WITH YOU TO THE BRONCO?
A I’M NOT SURE I WALKED ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE ASHFORD GATE. I THINK I WALKED TO THE INTERSECTION OF ASHFORD AND ROCKINGHAM AND MOTIONED.
Q OKAY. BUT THEN YOU WENT BACK WITH THEM?
A YES, SIR.
Q TO POINT OUT WITH YOUR FLASHLIGHT WHAT YOU THOUGHT YOU HAD SEEN?
A YES.
Q DID YOU ALSO SHOW THEM THE INTERIOR WITH THE SHOVEL AND THE PLASTIC?
A YES. I’M NOT SURE HOW WELL THEY SAW IT, BUT I SHOWED THEM TO THE BEST I COULD, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
OF WHAT SIGNIFICANCE DID YOU DRAW AT THAT TIME FROM THE PRESENCE OF THE SHOVEL AND THE BRONCO?
A WELL, I DIDN’T KNOW. I HAD NO IDEA WHAT THAT SHOVEL MEANT.
Q AND YOU DIDN’T KNOW WHAT THE PLASTIC MEANT?
A NO.
Q BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T KNOW THEN AND DIDN’T KNOW UNTIL SATURDAY THAT IT CAME WITH THE CAR, RIGHT?
A THAT’S TRUE.
Q OKAY.
IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT IT WAS NOT AN IMPORTANT MATTER THAT WAS DISCUSSED BY YOU FELLAS, THE PRESENCE OF THE SHOVEL?
A I DON’T KNOW IF IT COULD BE ON ITS OWN — IT COULD BE IMPORTANT. COLLECTIVELY IT COULD HAVE SOME IMPACT.
Q ALL RIGHT. WHOSE IDEA WAS IT TO GO TO ROCKINGHAM, IF YOU KNOW?
A COMMANDER BUSHEY, I BELIEVE.
Q OKAY. HOW WAS THAT CONVEYED TO YOU? YOU DIDN’T SPEAK TO THE COMMANDER, DID YOU?
A NO, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS DID.
Q OKAY.
AND HOW DID YOU LEARN THAT YOU WERE GOING TO ROCKINGHAM?
A I WAS TOLD WHEN I CAME BACK FROM TALKING TO OFFICER RISKE, “GET IN THE CAR.”
Q JUST SAID, “GET IN THE CAR”?
A WELL, RON SAID, “LET’S GO,” AND I HEARD DETECTIVE LANGE AND VANNATTER, I BELIEVE IT WAS DETECTIVE LANGE SAID, “RON, MARK, LET’S GO.”
RON SAID “LET’S GO.” I GOT INTO THE CAR AND THEN HE TOLD ME WHEN WE GOT IN THE VEHICLE.
Q WHAT DID HE TELL YOU?
A HE SAID WE WERE GOING TO GO MAKE A NOTIFICATION, “TAKE US UP TO THE ROCKINGHAM HOUSE.”
Q HAD YOU TALKED TO ANYONE ON THE SCENE THAT NIGHT, ANYONE AT ALL, ABOUT YOUR PRIOR EXPERIENCES WITH MR. SIMPSON IN ’85 OR ’89, EITHER OR BOTH?
A YES, THE ’85 INCIDENT.
Q TO WHOM DID YOU CONVEY THAT?
A WHEN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WAS ON THE PHONE, HE BROKE AWAY, IT APPEARED TO BE IN MID CONVERSATION, AND ASKED IF I KNEW HOW TO GET UP TO THE SIMPSON HOUSE ON ROCKINGHAM.
Q BACK UP A MINUTE, IF WE COULD.
DETECTIVE PHILLIPS IS NOW ON THE PHONE AT ABOUT FIVE O’CLOCK?
A I THINK IT WAS A LITTLE BEFORE THAT.
Q CELLULAR PHONE?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
AND SO SOMEONE IS DISCUSSING SOMETHING THAT CAUSES HIM TO ASK YOU IF YOU KNOW YOUR WAY TO ROCKINGHAM?
A YES.
Q WHAT DID YOU TELL HIM AT THAT TIME? THAT YOU HAD BEEN THERE ONCE BEFORE?
A I WAS THERE ON A FAMILY DISPUTE A LONG TIME AGO, AND YEAH, I PROBABLY COULD GET UP THERE.
Q AND WHAT WERE YOU TOLD BY DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WAS THE PURPOSE IN THE TRIP TO ROCKINGHAM?
A WELL, WHEN WE GOT IN THE VEHICLE HE TOLD ME IT WAS TO MAKE A NOTIFICATION.
Q UH-HUH.
NOW, WERE YOU LOOKING, AS YOU PROCEEDED WITH THE CASE — I TAKE IT AT THIS POINT YOU WERE SORT OF BACK IN THE CASE? WAS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING?
A NO.
Q WELL, DID YOU KNOW THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER SAID ON JULY 6TH THAT YOU WERE IN THE CASE ALWAYS UP TO AND INCLUDING THAT DAY?
A WELL, I THINK IN MY MIND I KNOW DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND HE IS GOING TO RENDER ANY ASSISTANCE TO ROBBERY/HOMICIDE HE CAN UNTIL THEY WANT US RELIEVED, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I THOUGHT WE WERE DOING.
Q ALL RIGHT. WELL, WERE YOU ON ACTIVE DUTY, SO TO SPEAK?
A YES, SIR.
Q OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE PURPOSE WAS OF GOING TO ROCKINGHAM?
A WHEN I GOT IN THE VEHICLE I DID, YES.
Q YES. WAS IT TO LOOK FOR VICTIMS OR SUSPECTS OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT?
A NO. TO MY KNOWLEDGE IT WAS NOTIFICATION.
Q ALL RIGHT.
HAD ANYONE DETERMINED, AS OF THAT POINT, WHETHER MR. SIMPSON WAS IN TOWN?
A NO.
Q WAS THE FACT THAT HE TRAVELED A GREAT DEAL EVER DISCUSSED BY THE DETECTIVES BEFORE YOU WENT UP THERE?
A I DON’T THINK ANYBODY WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT. I DIDN’T HEAR ANYTHING.
Q OKAY.
NOW, AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TOLD US YOU BECAME SUFFICIENTLY CONCERNED THAT YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES DECIDED IT WAS NECESSARY TO FORCIBLY ENTER THE PREMISES BY CLIMBING OVER THE WALL, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q AND THAT WAS BECAUSE OF SOME CONCERN ON YOUR PART THAT THERE MIGHT BE SUSPECTS OR VICTIMS ON THE PREMISES, SOMEBODY IN NEED OF HELP?
A THAT’S CORRECT.
Q IS THAT SO?
A YES, SIR.
Q OKAY.
YOU WENT TO THE FRONT DOOR AND COULDN’T RAISE ANYONE, CORRECT?
A ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT AFTER WE ENTERED?
Q YES, AFTER YOU ALL GOT INSIDE.
A YES, SIR.
Q THEN WALKED AROUND ON THE NORTH PATH TO WHAT TURNED OUT TO BE THE BUNGALOW ROOM BELONGING TO KATO KAELIN?
A THAT’S CORRECT.
Q WHEN THE OTHERS WENT TO TALK TO ARNELLE, YOU REMAINED BEHIND?
A YES.
Q WERE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT WHO KAELIN WAS?
A YES.
Q WERE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD THE RIGHT TO BE THERE?
A HE APPEARED THAT — IT JUST APPEARED THAT HE HAD THE RIGHT TO BE THERE. I JUST DIDN’T KNOW WHO HE WAS.
Q WELL, WAS HE A SUSPECT AT THAT POINT?
A I DON’T THINK — I THINK HE WAS NOT A SUSPECT, BUT WE DIDN’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HIM AT THAT POINT.
Q OKAY. WHY DID YOU GIVE HIM A SOBRIETY TEST?
A TO MAKE SURE HE WASN’T UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL.
Q AND WHY WERE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THAT…?
A I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE HE WASN’T UNDER THE INFLUENCE.
Q AND IF HE HAD BEEN, WHAT WERE YOU GOING TO DO THEN?
A WELL, I DON’T KNOW, SIR. I PROBABLY WOULDN’T HAVE INTERVIEWED HIM RIGHT THEN OR MAYBE I WOULD HAVE TAKEN HIM INSIDE. I DON’T KNOW.
Q ALL RIGHT. YOU LOOKED AROUND THE PREMISES?
A YES.
Q WHERE HE WAS?
A YES.
Q AND MEANWHILE THE OTHERS, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HAD LEFT AND GONE INTO THE MAIN HOUSE?
A I DIDN’T KNOW WHERE THEY WERE.
Q WELL, THEY WEREN’T WITH ARNELLE ANY MORE WHEN YOU CAME OUT, WERE THEY?
A WELL, WHEN I CAME OUT, I LOOKED TO MY RIGHT AND I DIDN’T SEE THEM, SO I LOOKED TO MY LEFT AND I SAW AN OPEN DOOR.
Q UH-HUH.
KATO WENT WITH YOU INTO THE MAIN HOUSE?
A YES.
Q AND AS YOU PASSED BY THE KITCHEN, YOU HAD ALREADY SEATED HIM IN THE BAR STOOL?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND YOU SAW PHILLIPS ON THE PHONE?
A YES.
Q DID YOU KNOW HE WAS TALKING TO MR. SIMPSON?
A I DIDN’T KNOW WHO HE WAS TALKING TO, SIR.
Q DID YOU INQUIRE OF ANY OF THESE FELLOWS WHAT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WAS DOING?
A NO.
Q DID YOU SEE DETECTIVE LANGE COMFORTING ARNELLE?
A NO.
Q WHAT DID YOU SEE HIM DOING? DID YOU SEE HIM IN THE ROOM?
A I BELIEVE HE WAS IN THE ROOM, BUT I SAW DETECTIVE VANNATTER. THAT IS WHO I FOCUSED ON.
Q DID YOU SEE ARNELLE IN THE ROOM, MR. SIMPSON’S DAUGHTER?
A I BELIEVE THAT SHE WAS, BUT I’M NOT POSITIVE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, HAD YOU INTERROGATED KATO IN HIS ROOM ABOUT WHAT HE MIGHT KNOW THAT COULD HELP YOU WITH THE SOLUTION OF THIS CRIME?
A I ASKED HIM A FEW QUESTIONS. THEY WEREN’T DIRECTLY CRIME SCENE QUESTIONS, NO.
Q WELL, YOU HAD BEEN TRAINED TO INTERROGATE PEOPLE, HADN’T YOU?
A YES.
Q AND YOU ALSO HAD INTERROGATED MANY SUSPECTS IN YOUR CAREER, HAD YOU NOT?
A YES.
Q INTERROGATION IS AN IMPORTANT ART OF POLICE PROCEDURE?
A YES, SIR.
Q WERE YOU QUESTIONING HIM WITH A VIEW TOWARD LEARNING SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE IMPORTANT IN THE CASE?
A COULD BE, YES.
Q LOOKING FOR SOME LITTLE SLIP OF THE TONGUE HE MIGHT MAKE THAT COULD BE SIGNIFICANT?
A I DIDN’T KNOW WHAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR, SIR.
Q YOU DIDN’T KNOW WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR?
A NO.
Q BUT DID YOU QUESTION KATO FOR A TIME AND THEN YOU CAME OUT TO THE KITCHEN, SEATED HIM IN A BAR STOOL AND SAID TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER, “YOU OUGHT TO GO TALK TO HIM”?
A YES.
Q WHY DID YOU THINK THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER, YOUR SUPERIOR, SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO GO TALK TO KATO KAELIN ON A BAR STOOL?
A WELL, HE COULD TAKE THAT INTERVIEW AND PUT IT TO A FORMAL INTERVIEW ON PAPER WHERE —
Q YOU COULDN’T DO THAT?
A I COULDN’T AT THAT POINT UNLESS I’M DIRECTED TO BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER.
Q OKAY. BUT INSTEAD YOU DIRECTED HIM, IT SOUNDS LIKE?
A I DIDN’T DIRECT HIM. I JUST SAID, “YOU MIGHT WANT TO TALK TO THIS GUY AT THE BAR OR TALK TO THIS GUY AT THE BAR,” SOMETHING ALONG THAT —
Q WHAT WAS DETECTIVE LANGE DOING AT THIS POINT? WAS HE TIED UP DOING ANYTHING, IF YOU KNOW?
A HE WASN’T IN THE FOREFRONT OF THE KITCHEN; DETECTIVE VANNATTER WAS. I SAW HIM FIRST.
Q UH-HUH. NOW, YOU THEN WALKED OUT THE FRONT DOOR?
A YES.
Q YOU HAD NO DIRECTION FROM ANYONE TO DO THAT, DID YOU?
A NO, I DIDN’T.
Q THIS AGAIN WAS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ON HIS OWN, WAS IT NOT?
A YES.
Q YOU HAD AN IDEA THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO CHECK OUT KATO’S CLAIM THAT SOME UNUSUAL NOISE HAD OCCURRED AT ABOUT A QUARTER OF 11:00 THAT NIGHT ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE WALL OF KATO KAELIN’S ROOM?
A THAT’S CORRECT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID KATO TELL YOU, BY THE WAY, THAT O.J. HAD LEFT FOR THE AIRPORT IN THE LIMO HE HAD SEEN WHEN HE CAME OUT THAT NIGHT AFTER HEARING THE NOISE AT AROUND 11:00 P.M.
A NO.
Q DID YOU EVER ASK HIM WHAT A LIMO WAS DOING THERE AT 11:00 P.M.
A NO. I CUT HIS CONVERSATION OFF AND BROUGHT HIM INTO THE HOUSE.
Q AS A MATTER OF FACT, YOU ASKED HIM IF HE HAD HEARD ANYTHING UNUSUAL AND THEN YOU CUT HIM OFF AND SAID, “WHO DRIVES THAT BRONCO,” DIDN’T YOU?
A I BELIEVE I DID.
Q WHY DID YOU CUT HIM OFF?
A I DON’T KNOW, SIR.
Q YOU INTERRUPTED AN ANSWER TO GET A DIFFERENT ANSWER? WAS THIS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION, WHO DRIVES THAT BRONCO?
A NO. HE ANSWERED THAT QUESTION.
Q HUM?
A HE ANSWERED THAT QUESTION.
Q I KNOW THAT.
IN ORDER TO GET THAT ANSWER YOU CUT HIM OFF FROM ANSWERING THE PREVIOUS QUESTION WHICH WAS DID SOMETHING UNUSUAL HAPPEN TONIGHT OR ANYTHING UNUSUAL.
DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?
A YES.
Q OKAY. WHY WAS WHO DRIVES THE BRONCO SO IMPORTANT AS TO INTERRUPT A WITNESS?
A I CAN’T GIVE YOU —
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. IT IS THE OPPOSITE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU ASKED NO QUESTIONS ABOUT HIM HAVING SEEN MR. SIMPSON THAT NIGHT OR AT ANY GIVEN TIME?
A NO. HE HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASKED ABOUT IF HE KNEW MR. SIMPSON WAS IN THE HOUSE AND HE SAID HE DID NOT.
Q NO, BUT THEN HE TOLD YOU,
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT HE HAD BEEN AWAKENED OR HAD HIS ATTENTION DRAWN, AS HE WAS TALKING ON THE PHONE TO SOMEONE, BY A STRANGE NOISE, PICTURE THAT SHUTTERED, SOMETHING YOU SAY SOUNDED LIKE CRASHING INTO A WALL AND THAT HE THEN WENT OUTSIDE AND SAW A LIMOUSINE THERE AT ABOUT ELEVEN O’CLOCK?
ISN’T THAT WHAT HE TOLD YOU?
A SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT, YES.
Q AND YOU DIDN’T ASK HIM WHY THE LIMOUSINE WAS THERE?
A NO.
Q AND YOU DIDN’T ASK HIM IF MR. SIMPSON HAD BEEN THE ONE USING THE LIMOUSINE?
A NO, I DIDN’T.
Q KATO KAELIN DIDN’T LOOK TO YOU LIKE A FELLOW WHO RODE AROUND IN LIMOUSINES, DID HE?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q DID HE?
A IN THIS AREA OF LOS ANGELES, I DON’T THINK COULD YOU SAY THAT.
Q DO YOU THINK MAYBE HE ORDERED THE LIMOUSINE AND SOMEHOW STAYED BEHIND; IS THAT IT?
A I HAD NO IDEA, SIR.
Q HE DIDN’T TELL YOU ANYTHING ABOUT USING IT, DID HE?
A THE LIMOUSINE?
Q YEAH.
A NO, HE DIDN’T.
Q NOW, WAS IT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCOVERING WHY THE LIMOUSINE WAS THERE THAT YOU ASKED VANNATTER TO TALK TO HIM?
A NO. I WANTED VANNATTER TO TALK TO KATO ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT HE SAW AND HEARD.
Q DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WERE YOU NOT CONCERNED THAT ON THE PREMISES THERE MIGHT BE SUSPECTS THAT NIGHT, VIOLENT VICIOUS PEOPLE?
A I THINK I WAS LEANING MORE TOWARD ANOTHER VICTIM THAN I WAS A SUSPECT.
Q HAVE YOU NOT TESTIFIED THAT YOU WERE CONCERNED THAT THERE WERE SUSPECTS THERE THAT NIGHT?
A I SAID VICTIMS. I PREFACED IT WITH VICTIMS, POSSIBLY OF SUSPECTS —
Q HAD YOU NOT TESTIFIED THAT YOU WERE CONCERNED THAT THERE WERE SUSPECTS?
THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT. MR. BAILEY, HE WAS STILL ANSWERING THE QUESTION.
MR. BAILEY: I’M SORRY.
THE WITNESS: I PREFACED THAT WITH MY FIRST CONCERN WAS VICTIMS, HOSTAGE, POSSIBLE SUSPECT, YES.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: WHAT DID YOU MEAN EARLIER TODAY WHEN YOU SAID I DIDN’T WANT MY BACK TURNED TO THE OTHER END OF THE ALLEY?
A ONCE I FOUND A GLOVE, THAT PIVOTED TOWARDS MORE SUSPECT THAN VICTIM.
Q NOW, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YOU WENT OUT THERE IN THE ALLEY WHERE YOU HAD NEVER BEEN BEFORE, DID YOU NOT?
A WHAT ALLEY, SIR?
Q ALONG THE CHAINLINK FENCE WHERE KATO SAID HE HEARD A NOISE?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q DID YOU NOT?
A YES, I WENT ON THAT PATHWAY.
Q YOU WALKED THERE BY YOURSELF, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q YOU WERE WEARING NO BULLET PROOF VEST, CORRECT?
A THAT’S CORRECT.
Q YOU HAD THREE DETECTIVES WHO WERE ARMED IN THE HOUSE AND DIDN’T TELL ANY OF THEM WHERE YOU WERE GOING, CORRECT?
A THAT’S CORRECT.
Q YOU DIDN’T ASK ANY OF THEM TO COME WITH YOU TO COVER FOR YOU, CORRECT?
A THAT’S CORRECT.
Q YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY THAT DANGEROUS PEOPLE WERE ON THE PREMISES, HAD YOU NOT?
A I NEVER USED THOSE WORDS.
Q WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO THE LOCATION WHERE KATO SAID HE HEARD THE NOISE, YOU WERE ABOUT 230 FEET FROM THE BRONCO, WEREN’T YOU?
A I DON’T KNOW THE DISTANCE, SIR.
Q YOU CAN WALK THAT IN A MINUTE, CAN’T YOU?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q 235 FEET?
A YES, SIR.
Q CAN YOU WALK THAT IN A MINUTE?
A YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU KNOW AT THAT TIME THERE WAS BLOOD IN THE BRONCO?
A NO.
Q HAVE YOU EVER TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS BLOOD IN THE BRONCO?
A I’M NOT SURE IF WE TESTIFIED TO THAT IN THE PRELIM OR NOT.
Q DID YOU WIPE A GLOVE IN THE BRONCO, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A NO.
Q YOU DID NOT?
A NO.
Q WHEN YOU WENT OUT TO WHERE THE GLOVE WAS EVENTUALLY POINTED OUT TO THE OTHER DETECTIVES, HOW LONG DID YOU SPEND THERE BEFORE YOU WENT BACK TO TALK TO THEM?
A TEN, FIFTEEN MINUTES TOTALLY.
Q WHAT DID YOU DO FOR TEN TO FIFTEEN MINUTES ON THAT SCENE?
A LOOKED FOR A VICTIM OR A SUSPECT.
Q YOU LOOKED FOR A VICTIM OR SUSPECT?
A YES.
Q YOU DIDN’T DRAW YOUR GUN, CORRECT?
A I TOLD YOU I DON’T KNOW, SIR.
Q WELL, IF YOU HAD DRAWN YOUR WEAPON AND WERE AFRAID, YOU WOULD REMEMBER THAT, WOULDN’T YOU, DETECTIVE?
A SIR, AFTER TWENTY YEARS YOU DRAW THAT WEAPON UNCONSCIOUSLY —
Q DID YOU DRAW —
MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. CAN THE WITNESS BE ALLOWED TO FINISH HIS ANSWER?
MR. BAILEY: I THOUGHT HE HAD.
Q DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING MORE TO ADD?
A YES, I DO, SIR.
Q OKAY. WHAT IS IT?
A AFTER TWENTY YEARS YOU DRAW THAT WEAPON, YOU LAY IT DOWN TO THE SIDE OF YOUR LEG, YOU WALK, YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW YOU ARE DOING IT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU WALK BACK INTO AN AREA WHERE YOU KNEW NO ONE ELSE HAD BEEN BECAUSE THERE WERE COBWEBS THERE?
A NO. I TESTIFIED I DIDN’T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAD BEEN BACK THERE WALKING UPRIGHT. I DIDN’T KNOW IF SOMEBODY HAD CRAWLED.
Q ARE YOU NOW SAYING THERE ARE NO COBWEBS DOWN LOW?
A I DIDN’T GO DOWN LOW, SIR. I WAS UPRIGHT.
Q YOU ONLY FELT THEM IN YOUR FACE?
A YES.
Q YOU DON’T RECALL WHETHER YOU HAD YOUR WEAPON AT THE READY OR WHETHER IT WAS HOLSTERED AT SOME OTHER PLACE?
A IT WAS NOT AT THE READY.
Q YOU KNOW THAT YOU WERE NOT EQUIPPED WITH ANY PROTECTIVE GEAR, CORRECT?
A I WAS NOT.
Q NOW, IF THAT GLOVE HAD BEEN THERE WHERE YOU SAY YOU FOUND IT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PLACED THERE BY SOMEONE INVOLVED IN THE HOMICIDE; ISN’T THAT CONCLUSION COMPELLED?
A I WOULD ASSUME THAT, YES.
Q THAT WOULD BE A VICIOUS KILLER OF SOME SORT, WOULD IT NOT?
A YES.
Q AND YOU HUNG AROUND FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES WITH NO BACK-UP AND NO VEST DOING SOMETHING; IS THAT CORRECT?
A NO, IT ISN’T.
Q HAD ANYONE, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, SEEN THAT GLOVE THERE BEFORE YOUR ARRIVAL?
A NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WOULD YOU THINK IT IMPORTANT THAT IF THE GLOVE WERE IN THAT LOCATION, THE LIKELIHOOD WAS THAT SOMEONE HAD PLACED IT THERE WHO HAD BEEN AT BUNDY?
A YES.
Q AND THAT SOMEONE, IF IT WERE A HUMAN BEING, WOULD HAVE TO HAVE GOTTEN TO THE SPOT OR NEAR IT AND GOTTEN AWAY, TRUE?
A YES.
Q DID YOU EXAMINE THE SHRUBBERY TO SEE IF ANYONE HAD COME OVER THAT FENCE THAT MIGHT HAVE CRASHED THE WALL OR DROPPED THE GLOVE?
A THAT WAS PART OF THE PERIOD THAT I SPENT BACK THERE LOOKING FOR THOSE TYPE OF ITEMS, YES.
Q DID YOU NOT SATISFY YOURSELF THAT THERE WAS NO DAMAGE TO TWIG OR LEAF THAT WOULD HAVE PERMITTED AN ADULT TO COME OVER THAT FENCE AT OR NEAR THAT SPOT?
A IT WAS PRETTY OVERGROWN. IT WOULD BE HARD TO TELL WHAT TRANSPIRED THERE.
Q DID IT NOT SEEM LIKELY THAT WHOEVER PLACED THAT GLOVE THERE, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, HAD WALKED BACK OVER THE ALLEY OVER THE LEAVES?
THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS OR DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
Q BY MR. BAILEY: I’M SORRY, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, OVER THE LEAVES?
A YES.
Q AND THEIR TRACKS MIGHT STILL HAVE BEEN THERE WHEN YOU MADE THAT DISCOVERY, CORRECT?
A I DIDN’T SEE ANYTHING, BUT THEY COULD HAVE BEEN.
Q AND YOU COULD HAVE TAKEN THE DETECTIVE ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE FENCE AND SHOWN THE FLASHLIGHT THROUGH IT TO POINT OUT THE GLOVE, IF YOU HAD CHOSEN, COULD YOU NOT?
A NO. I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY DIFFICULT….

Q DID YOU THINK THAT WHOEVER HAD DROPPED THAT GLOVE MIGHT HAVE LEFT FOOTPRINTS?
A I DID NOT SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT, NO.
Q FOOTPRINTS THAT WERE LATENT, NOT DISCERNIBLE?
DID YOU THINK THAT THERE MIGHT BE FOOTPRINTS THERE THAT A CRIMINALIST COULD FIND THAT MIGHT SHED LIGHT ON HOW THE GLOVE GOT THERE…?

A NOT AT THAT POINT, NO.
Q BY MR. BAILEY: YOU DID NOT?
A NO.
Q DID YOU THEN CAUSE EIGHTEEN PAIRS OF FEET TO TRAMPLE THAT AREA BEFORE ANY CRIMINALIST COULD GET TO IT?
A EIGHTEEN PAIRS OF FEET?
Q EIGHTEEN PAIRS OF FEET. TWO FUHRMAN, FOUR FUHRMAN AND PHILLIPS, FOUR FUHRMAN AND VANNATTER, FOUR FUHRMAN AND LANGE AND FOUR FUHRMAN AND ROKAHR?
DID YOU DO THAT?
A YES, SIR.
Q DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, CAN YOU TELL US WHY, WHEN YOU WERE TALKING WITH KATO KAELIN IN HIS ROOM, YOU ASKED HIM WHERE YOU COULD FIND THE KEYS TO THE BRONCO?
A I NEVER ASKED HIM THAT.
Q YOU ARE QUITE SURE?
A I’M ABSOLUTELY SURE….

COURT ADJOURNED FOR THE DAY.

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 1995
9:42 A.M.
THE COURT: …YOU MAY RESUME WITH YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION.
MR. BAILEY: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. BAILEY:
Q DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW WITH YOU THE STEPS YOU HAVE TAKEN TO PREPARE YOURSELF FOR TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE.
WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME FOLLOWING THE PRELIMINARY HEARING THAT YOU MET WITH ONE OF THE PROSECUTORS, THOSE AT THE TABLE AND THOSE NOT AT THE TABLE, THAT YOU KNOW TO BE CONNECTED WITH THIS CASE, TO DISCUSS THE CASE AND/OR YOUR TESTIMONY?
A ARE YOU SAYING POST-PRELIM, SIR?
Q POST-PRELIMINARY HEARING.
A PROBABLY WITHIN THE LAST MONTH, MONTH AND A HALF.
Q DO I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO CONTACT BETWEEN YOU AND ANY OF THE PROSECUTORS IN THIS CASE UP UNTIL 1995?
A WE HAVEN’T TALKED ABOUT THIS TESTIMONY, NO.
Q ABOUT THIS CASE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN? YOU ARE VERY MUCH A PART OF THIS CASE, AREN’T YOU?
A YES, SIR.
Q YEAH. AND YOU CAUSED THAT BY FINDING AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE, DIDN’T YOU?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU KNEW FULL WELL THAT ONCE YOU CAME UP WITH A PIECE OF EVIDENCE OF THAT SORT THERE WASN’T ANYBODY THAT COULD GET YOU OUT OF THIS CASE BECAUSE YOU ARE AN ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL WITNESS, RIGHT?
DID YOU KNOW THAT…?
A SIR, THE WAY YOU PHRASED THAT, “GET ME OUT OF THIS CASE”? I WASN’T TRYING TO GET OUT OF THIS CASE.
Q SOMEBODY WAS TRYING TO GET YOU OUT. YOU TOLD US THAT IN SOME DETAIL YESTERDAY. YOU WERE OUT YOU THOUGHT?
A OH, YOU MEAN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CASE?
Q YEAH.
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE OFF THE CASE AS A DETECTIVE.
WHEN YOU STOOD FOR AN HOUR AT THE INTERSECTION OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY, YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE THROUGH, DIDN’T YOU?
A I’M STILL A DETECTIVE, SIR, BUT AS FAR AS BEING THE LEAD INVESTIGATOR, YES, THAT’S CORRECT.
Q YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE OFF THE CASE? ISN’T THAT WHAT YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
BUT WHEN YOU TURNED OUT TO FIND THIS GLOVE OVER AT ROCKINGHAM, YOU KNEW THAT YOU WOULD BE ON THE CASE AS LONG AS IT LASTED, DIDN’T YOU?
A NO….

Q DID YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU WOULD BE AN ESSENTIAL WITNESS IF YOU WERE THE FIRST TO FIND AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE?
A WELL, I COULDN’T MAKE THAT DETERMINATION AT THAT TIME, SIR. I DIDN’T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE IMPLICATION OF THE GLOVE WAS….

Q DID YOU TELL US YESTERDAY THAT WHEN YOU SPOTTED THIS GLOVE, AS YOU CLAIM, THAT YOU RECOGNIZED IT AS ONE THAT LOOKED SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON BUNDY?
A YES.
Q AND THAT YOU KNEW THAT THE ONE ON BUNDY, I BELIEVE YOU SAID, WAS A LEFT-HANDED GLOVE OR BELIEVED IT TO BE, DID YOU NOT?
A NO.
Q DID NOT? YOU NOTICED THAT THIS APPEARED TO BE A RIGHT-HANDED GLOVE?
A YES.
Q AND THE REASON THAT YOU HAD THREE DETECTIVES IN THREE SEPARATE TRIPS TRAMPLE BACK ALONG THAT PATH WAS BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO POINT OUT TO THEM THE FACT THAT THIS GLOVE LOOKED LIKE A MATCH FOR THE ONE THEY HAD SEEN OVER AT THE CRIME SCENE ON BUNDY; ISN’T THAT TRUE?
A NOT ENTIRELY. I JUST WANTED TO SHOW THEM THE EVIDENCE THAT I THOUGHT I FOUND.
Q DIDN’T YOU SAY TO THEM, “IN MY VIEW THIS LOOKS SIMILAR,” OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT?
A I BELIEVE I SAID THAT TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, BUT I DON’T BELIEVE I WENT INTO THAT DETAIL WITH THE OTHER TWO DETECTIVES, NO.
Q DID YOU SAY ANYTHING WHEN YOU TOOK MR. VANNATTER BACK THERE? ANYTHING AT ALL?
A I’M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD HAVE SAID. I BELIEVE DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TALKED TO VANNATTER AND LANGE. THEY JOINED ME AND I TOOK THEM BACK THE PATH.

Q I DIDN’T ASK YOU THAT, SIR.
WHAT I ASKED YOU WAS WHETHER OR NOT DURING THE TRIP YOU HAVE DESCRIBED, TRIP NO. 2, ACTUALLY NO. 3, IF YOU COUNT YOUR OWN, DID DETECTIVE PHILIP VANNATTER, THE BOSS IN THIS CASE, DID YOU SHARE WITH HIM YOUR OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE GLOVE OR DID YOU JUST REMAIN SILENT?
A I COULD HAVE SHARED THOSE OBSERVATIONS, YES. I DON’T RECALL SPECIFICALLY.
Q YOU RECALL PHILLIPS BUT YOU DON’T RECALL DETECTIVE VANNATTER; IS THAT RIGHT?
A INITIALLY I JUST REMEMBER TALKING TO PHILLIPS.
Q LET’S GO TO DETECTIVE LANGE.
YOU THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO BRING THE THIRD MEMBER OF THE FOUR-MAN TEAM BACK TO LOOK, DIDN’T YOU?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
AND DID YOU TELL DETECTIVE LANGE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THE RELEVANCE OF THAT GLOVE TO YOUR INVESTIGATION?
A I DON’T BELIEVE I TALKED ABOUT RELEVANCE.
Q WELL, WITHOUT USING THE WORD “RELEVANCE,” JUST POLICE TALK, DID YOU SAY “THIS LOOKS IMPORTANT, TOM”?
A NO.
Q WHAT DID YOU SAY?
A I SAID, “IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON BUNDY.”
Q YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT?
A YES, YES.
Q AND DID YOU POINT THAT OUT TO
DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, THAT NOT ONLY DID IT LOOK LIKE THE GLOVE FROM BUNDY, BUT THAT IT APPEARED TO HAVE A SUBSTANCE ON IT MAKING IT STICKY WHICH COULD WELL HAVE BEEN BLOOD?
A I’M NOT SURE IF I DID OR IF I DIDN’T.
Q BUT IT HAD BEEN THROUGH YOUR MIND, HADN’T IT?
A YES.
Q AND THE STICKY PART I TAKE IT YOU OBSERVED WHEN YOU TOOK THAT LITTLE TINY FLASHLIGHT OF YOURS AND SHINED IT ON THE GLOVE AND SAW SOMETHING OF A SHINY NATURE, AS OPPOSED TO A CAKED OR DRY SURFACE?
A IT APPEARED THAT IT HAD SOMEWHAT OF A GLEAN OR A GLISTEN TO IT.
Q OKAY.
NOW, MY QUESTION IS DID YOU BRING THAT TO THE ATTENTION OF DETECTIVE PHILLIPS?
A I COULD HAVE.
Q DID YOU BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF DETECTIVE LANGE?
A I COULD HAVE.
Q DID YOU BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER?
A I COULD HAVE.
Q YOU DON’T HAVE A MEMORY OF ANY OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS AS WE SIT HERE?
A I DON’T HAVE A MEMORY OF A SPECIFIC COMMENT THAT I MADE TO ANY OF THOSE DETECTIVES WHEN WE WERE STANDING BY THE GLOVE.
Q WERE YOU MORE INTERESTED IN SHOWING EACH DETECTIVE INDIVIDUALLY THE GLOVE OR MORE INTERESTED IN TRAMPLING UP THE PATHWAY?
A WELL, OBVIOUSLY I WAS INTERESTED IN SHOWING EACH DETECTIVE SEPARATELY AND GET A SEPARATE POINT OF VIEW OF WHAT THEY WERE VIEWING, AS I DID.
Q IS IT YOUR PRACTICE, WHEN SOMETHING IS DISCOVERED, TO PROHIBIT DETECTIVES, EXCEPT ONE AT A TIME, TO SEE YOUR DISCOVERY? IS THAT THE WAY YOU USUALLY OPERATE?
A AT A CRIME SCENE YOU WOULD WANT TO BRING IN AS FEW PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE INTO AN AREA.
Q AS FEW PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. EIGHTEEN SETS OF FEET IS A FEW PEOPLE?
A WELL, IF WE DID IT ALL AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EVEN WORSE.
Q IT WOULD?
A YES.
Q WOULDN’T YOU THINK THE FIRST FOUR TRIPS WOULD BE ENOUGH TO BLOT OUT ANY FOOTPRINTS OF THE PERPETRATOR, IF ANY THERE WERE?
A I DIDN’T SEE EVIDENCE OF ANY FOOTPRINTS….

Q NOW, WHEN YOU FIRST SAW WHAT YOU CLAIM WAS A BROWN OBJECT LAYING ON THE GROUND, AS YOU APPROACHED IT AND YOU NOTICED THAT IT WAS A GLOVE, PERHAPS A MATCH OF THE ONE YOU HAD SEEN AT BUNDY, DID YOU STOP AND THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU SHOULD NEXT DO?
A YES.
Q DID IT — DID YOU THEN EXAMINE, BY THE WAY, THE SHRUBBERY OVER THE CHAINLINK FENCE WHERE SOMEONE COULD CONCEIVABLY HAVE CLIMBED OVER?
A I DIDN’T — I DIDN’T FOCUS MY ATTENTION TO THE SHRUBBERY AT THAT TIME, NO.
Q DID YOU INSPECT IT TO SEE WHETHER IT WAS DAMAGED IN ANY WAY CONSISTENT WITH INTRUSION?
A THAT WHOLE AREA WAS OVERGROWN AND DIRTY. THAT WOULD BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO MAKE THAT CONCLUSION.
Q DID YOU LOOK FOR BROKEN TWIGS OR LEAVES THAT WERE DAMAGED IN THE SHRUBBERY ABOVE THE CHAINLINK FENCE AT THE SITUS WHERE THE GLOVE WAS SEEN?
A I DID NOT LOOK, BUT I DID NOT SEE ANY OF THAT.
Q SO YOU DIDN’T HAVE AT THAT POINT ANY INTEREST IN WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE HAD DROPPED THE GLOVE COMING OVER THE FENCE?
A MY INTEREST AT THAT POINT WAS WHO LEFT THE GLOVE AND WHAT CONDITION THEY WERE IN.
Q ALL RIGHT. LET’S ANALYZE THAT.
YOU SAID “WHAT CONDITION THEY WERE IN.” WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?
A WELL, THERE APPEARED TO BE SOMETHING ON THE GLOVE THAT COULD BE BLOOD.
Q THAT’S RIGHT. WHICH COULD WELL HAVE GOTTEN THERE IF THE KILLER HAD WORN IT WHILE SLAUGHTERING NICOLE BROWN AND RONALD GOLDMAN, CORRECT?
A POSSIBLY.
Q WELL, DID YOU THINK OF THAT,
DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A I THOUGHT OF A LOT OF THINGS AT THAT TIME.
Q DID YOU THINK OF THAT?
A THAT ALONG WITH OTHERS.
Q ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET’S TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME.
YOU CONSIDERED THAT THIS GLOVE COULD
HAVE BEEN USED IN THOSE SLAYINGS AND THAT WAS OF SIGNIFICANCE, CORRECT?
A COULD HAVE, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU DECIDE TO INQUIRE FURTHER AS A DETECTIVE TO TRY TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE AS TO WHAT IT WAS AND HOW IT GOT THERE?
A AT THAT POINT I WAS JUST LOOKING FOR A PERSON THAT LEFT IT.
Q OKAY. NOW, LET’S TALK ABOUT THE PERSON THAT LEFT IT.
I’M SURE THAT AS YOU STOOD THERE LOOKING AT AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF A BRUTAL MURDER WHOSE SCENE YOU HAD JUST VISITED A SHORT TIME BEFORE YOU BEGAN TO THINK ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE PERSON THAT MIGHT HAVE HAD CONTROL AND CUSTODY OF THAT GLOVE, CORRECT?
A NO.
Q YOU DIDN’T?
A NO.
Q WELL, DID YOU THINK A VICTIM, SOME VICTIM YOU HADN’T DISCOVERED, MIGHT HAVE TAKEN A GLOVE FROM THE SCENE OF THE CRIME AND DEPOSITED IT ON O.J. SIMPSON’S PROPERTY?
A SIR, I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANYTHING AT THAT POINT.
Q DID YOU THINK THAT?
A NO.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU THINK THAT POSSIBLY SOMEONE WHO HAD BEEN INVOLVED AS A KILLER MIGHT HAVE DEPOSITED THAT GLOVE WITTINGLY OR UNWITTINGLY ON MR. SIMPSON’S PROPERTY?
A I DID NOT THINK OF ANY OF THESE THINGS AT THAT TIME….

Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, WHAT THOUGHTS WERE YOU HAVING ABOUT YOUR SAFETY WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING AT WHAT YOU THOUGHT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DROPPED BY A KILLER?
A AT THAT TIME I WAS THINKING THAT WHO IS WATCHING ME AT THIS TIME.
Q AHA. DID YOU HAVE ANY CONCERN AT ALL THAT YOU MIGHT BE ATTACKED?
A POSSIBLY.
Q YOU ARE A POLICE OFFICER STANDING THERE WITH HIS WEAPON STICKING OUT FOR ALL TO SEE, WEREN’T YOU?
A YES.
Q ON YOUR HIP?
A YES.
Q THAT WOULD REPRESENT IN YOUR VIEW SOME KIND OF THREAT TO SOMEBODY WITH BLOOD ON HIS HANDS, WOULDN’T IT?
A YES.
Q YOU HAD NO REASON TO THINK THAT WHOEVER WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT GLOVE WAS WOUNDED, DID YOU?
A YES, I DID.
Q DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD LEADING TO OR FROM THE GLOVE IN ANY DIRECTION, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A NO.
Q WELL, IF THEY WERE WOUNDED, DID YOU THINK THEY HAD BEEN TO A DOCTOR AND GOT FIXED UP?
A I COULDN’T SPECULATE ON THAT, SIR.
Q WELL, WHY DID YOU THINK THEY WERE WOUNDED? YOU TELL ME?
A SOMEONE LEAVING THE SCENE AT BUNDY WAS BLEEDING FROM THE LEFT SIDE OF THEIR BODY.
Q YOU ARE SURE OF THAT?
A I’M NOT SURE, BUT AT THAT TIME THAT WAS A CONCLUSION THAT WE HAD MADE….

Q NOW, COMING BACK, IF WE WILL, IF WE MAY, TO BUNDY, WAS IT NOT REALLY YOUR IDEA TO SCALE THE WALL AND GO INTO MR. SIMPSON’S HOUSE, PREMISES?
A DETECTIVE VANNATTER MADE A STATEMENT THAT WE SHOULD GO IN AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO IT AND I SAID, “WELL, I WILL GO OVER THE WALL.”
Q DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IN FACT, ISN’T IT TRUE THAT YOU WENT TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND URGED UPON HIM THAT THIS WAS AN EMERGENCY SITUATION, THAT ACTION HAD TO BE TAKEN IMMEDIATELY, THAT THERE MIGHT BE VICTIMS BLEEDING TO DEATH INSIDE THE PREMISES, AND YOU FELT SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE RIGHT NOW?
ISN’T THAT WHAT HAPPENED?
A NO. THAT WAS A CONVERSATION BETWEEN VANNATTER, MYSELF, AND BOTH OF US EXPERIENCED THE SAME CONCERNS.
Q DID YOU SAY TO HIM “IN MY VIEW THIS IS AN EMERGENCY AND WE NEED TO ACT NOW”?
A YES.
Q DID YOU NOT SAY THAT TO HIM BEFORE HE MADE ANY SUCH STATEMENT TO YOU?
A HE WAS MAKING SIMILAR STATEMENTS TO ME AT THE SAME TIME IN THIS CONVERSATION.
Q AND DID YOU VOLUNTEER TO BE THE ONE THAT HURDLED THE WALL?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT. DID YOU REALIZE, WHEN YOU HURDLED THAT WALL, THAT THERE MIGHT SOME DAY BE A LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE PROPRIETY OF YOUR ACTIONS?
A NO.
Q DID YOU REALIZE, WHEN YOU HURDLED THE WALL, THAT YOU WERE INEXORABLY A PART OF THIS CASE FOR AS LONG AS IT MIGHT LAST?
A I DON’T THINK I WAS THINKING ANY OF THOSE THINGS, SIR.
Q IT DIDN’T OCCUR TO YOU?
A NO….

Q OKAY.
WHEN YOU WENT OVER THE WALL, AND LET THE OTHER OFFICERS IN, YOU PROCEEDED ULTIMATELY TO KATO KAELIN’S ROOM, CORRECT?
A YES….

Q NOW, WHEN YOU BEGAN TO TALK TO KAELIN, YOU SAID YOU DIDN’T KNOW WHO HE WAS?
A NO.
Q DO YOU REPRESENT THAT YOU DIDN’T UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS HIS CAR PARKED OUTSIDE THE ASHFORD GATE?
A NO, I DID NOT KNOW THAT.
Q DID YOU EVER QUESTION HIM ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD AN AUTOMOBILE NEARBY?
A I DID NOT, NO.
Q DID YOU VIEW HIM AS A SUSPECT?
A HE DIDN’T APPEAR TO BE SO MUCH A SUSPECT, BUT THEN AGAIN, I DIDN’T REALLY KNOW WHAT HIS FUNCTION WAS AT THE HOUSE.
Q DID YOU ASK HIM WHAT CLOTHES HE HAD WORN THAT NIGHT?
A YES.
Q DID HE SHOW YOU?
A YES.
Q DID YOU INSPECT THEM LOOKING FOR SIGNS THAT MIGHT IN SOME WAY TIE HIM TO THE HOMICIDES?
A I LOOKED AT HIS CLOTHES AND HIS SHOES, YES.
Q OKAY.
YOU TURNED HIS SHOES OVER TO LOOK AT THE SOLES TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY BLOOD ON OR IN BETWEEN THE RIDGES OF THE SOLES, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE IN DOING THAT, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY BLOOD ON THE SOLES….

Q SO I TAKE IT NOW AT THIS POINT, HAVING BEEN TO THE BRONCO AND HURDLED THE WALL AND INTERROGATING KAELIN, YOU VIEWED YOURSELF AS A DETECTIVE VERY MUCH IN THE CASE?
A WELL, I’M ALWAYS A DETECTIVE, YES.
Q IN THE SIMPSON CASE?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q IS THAT YOUR PERCEPTION OF YOURSELF?
A YES. I WAS ASKED TO ASSIST THOSE DETECTIVES, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, MR. KAELIN TOLD YOU THAT THAT CAR NORMALLY WAS DRIVEN BY MR. SIMPSON, CORRECT?
A YES. I BELIEVE HE SAID IT WAS O.J.’S VEHICLE.
Q AND YOU ASKED WHETHER HE HAD DRIVEN IT THAT NIGHT?
A I BELIEVE I DID, YES.
Q AND MR. KAELIN RESPONDED HE THOUGHT SO, BUT HE WASN’T SURE?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q CORRECT?
A I BELIEVE SO, YES.
Q THEN YOU GOT BACK TO THE QUESTION OF — ABOUT UNUSUAL OCCURRENCES, CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND THE WORD YOU USED IN SPEAKING WITH KATO WAS “UNUSUAL,” WASN’T IT?
A YES.
Q AND NOW THAT HE FINALLY DID GET A CHANCE TO ANSWER, WHAT DID HE SAY?
A HE SAID AT ABOUT 10:45 HE HEARD A CRASHING ON HIS WALL AND HE THOUGHT THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN EARTHQUAKE. HIS PICTURE SHOOK. AND THEN HE CONTINUED TO SAY THAT HE WENT OUT TO INVESTIGATE IT AND HE SAW A LIMO AT THE GATE.
Q WELL, HE NEVER SUGGESTED TO YOU THAT HE WENT BACK ALONG THE WALL BETWEEN THE WALL AND THE FENCE TO THE AREA OF THE NOISE, DID HE?
A NO, SIR….

Q DID YOU THEN AND THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, DECIDE ON YOUR OWN TO GO OUT AND INVESTIGATE THE SOURCE OF THAT SOUND?
A I DECIDED TO GO OUT AND TRY TO ORIENT MYSELF WITH THE PROPERTY AND SEE WHERE THAT SOUND COULD HAVE COME FROM, YES.
Q DID YOU DECIDE THAT YOU WOULD GO TO THE PROBABLE SOURCE AS DESCRIBED BY MR. KAELIN BY RELATING IT TO AN AIR CONDITIONER THAT PLAINLY STUCK THROUGH THE WALL?
A I THINK WHEN I WENT TO THE SOUTH BORDER AND I SAW THE PATH, I WALKED DOWN THE PATH AS A CONTINUATION OF DISCOVERING WHERE THAT SOUND OF THAT WALL WAS LOCATED.
Q WE ARE STILL BACK IN KATO’S ROOM.
I’M ASKING WHETHER OR NOT BEFORE YOU EVER LEFT THAT ROOM YOU MADE A DECISION THAT YOU WOULD GO INVESTIGATE THE SOURCE OF THE SOUND?
A I BELIEVE WHEN I WALKED — WHEN I WALKED HIM INTO THE HOUSE AND I WALKED THROUGH THE HOUSE, WHEN I TOLD PHIL, “WHY DON’T YOU TALK TO THIS GUY AT THE BAR,” I THINK I HAD DECIDED TO GO OUT AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT SOUND CAME FROM ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE WALL, YES.
Q AM I TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WAS A DECISION MADE WHILE WALKING?
A YES.
Q OKAY. WHEN YOU LEFT THE ROOM YOU HADN’T MADE THE DECISION?
A I DON’T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN IT HAPPENED, BUT I WOULD — TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION WOULD BE WHEN I WAS WALKING INTO THE HOUSE, YES.
Q BY THE TIME THAT YOU GOT TO THE HOUSE YOU HAD MADE THE DECISION, CORRECT?
A I DIDN’T REALLY — I CAN’T REALLY RECOLLECT EXACTLY AT WHAT STEP I DID, BUT I WAS WALKING HIM IN, ASKED HIM TO SIT DOWN. AND AS I WALKED OUT, I WALKED OUT TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT SOUND WOULD HAVE COME FROM ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL. SO DURING THAT PERIOD BETWEEN — BETWEEN KAELIN’S ROOM AND THE FRONT DOOR OF THE RESIDENCE OR TELLING VANNATTER IF HE WOULD TALK TO THE MAN AT THE BAR, BETWEEN THAT PERIOD I DID.
Q DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IS IT NOT TRUE THAT AS YOU DECIDED TO WALK OUT TO THE SOURCE OF THE NOISE YOU DECIDED TO GO ALONE?
A I WAS ALREADY ALONE, SIR.
Q WELL, YOU WERE WITH KAELIN WHO COULD HAVE TAKEN YOU OUT THERE, I SUPPOSE, COULD HE NOT?
A I’M SURE HE COULD HAVE.
Q YOU WERE WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER, THE LEAD, WITH WHOM YOU NEVER DISCUSSED YOUR PLANS, CORRECT?
A NO, I WASN’T WITH HIM. I YELLED TO HIM. HE WAS IN THE KITCHEN.
Q YOU WERE IN THE SAME BUILDING WITH HIM, WERE YOU NOT?
A YES.
Q YOU WERE THE GENTLEMAN THAT HAD TO STAND AT DOROTHY AND BUNDY FOR AN HOUR FOR LACK OF INSTRUCTION, ARE YOU NOT?
A YES.
Q AND YOU DECIDED, WITHOUT CONFIDING IN ANYBODY, TO GO ALONE BEHIND THAT BUILDING, CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
Q DID IT OCCUR TO YOU THAT MR. KAELIN MIGHT BE ABLE TO ASSIST YOU IN POINTING OUT THE EXACT SOURCE OF THE NOISE AS HE RECONSTRUCTED IT?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q DID YOU THINK OF THAT?
A NO….

Q HAD YOU LEARNED BY THAT TIME THAT HE LIVED IN THAT BUNGALOW?
A I THINK, YES, I CONCLUDED THAT.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WELL, WHY WOULD YOU INSTRUCT HIM TO SIT ON A BAR STOOL?
A BECAUSE I WANTED HIM TO SIT THERE.
Q WHY DID YOU WANT HIM TO SIT THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A SO DETECTIVE VANNATTER OR ANOTHER DETECTIVE COULD TALK TO HIM.
Q THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF TWO OF THEM, WOULDN’T IT?
A TWO OF WHO…?

Q ALL RIGHT.
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, THAT EVERYBODY HAS GOT TO BE SOMEPLACE?
A I AGREE.
Q AND THAT ONE PERSON CAN’T BE IN TWO PLACES?
A AGREED.
Q SO THAT IF YOU CAUSED TWO PEOPLE TO JOIN TOGETHER IN A CONVERSATION AT A SPECIFIC PLACE, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THEY WILL BE AT ANY OTHER PLACE UNTIL THE CONVERSATION IS OVER?
A I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
Q OKAY.
NOW, I WILL ASK YOU ONE MORE TIME.
DID YOU USE WORDS OF INSTRUCTION TO PHIL VANNATTER TELLING HIM, WITHOUT SUGGESTING ANY SUBJECT MATTER, GO TALK TO KAELIN?
A NOT IN THAT MANNER, BUT YES, I DID.
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU HAD ALREADY FORMULATED A PLAN THAT YOU WERE GOING TO LOOK OUT BEHIND THE BUILDING IN THE DARKNESS FOR SOMETHING, CORRECT?
A NO.
Q YOU HAD NOT?
A I DIDN’T EVEN KNOW IF THAT WAS ACCESSIBLE FROM THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE.
Q DIDN’T YOU TELL US THAT AS YOU WALKED FROM THE BUNGALOW TO THE HOUSE YOU HAD MADE A DECISION THAT YOU WOULD GO LOOK AT THE SOURCE OF THE NOISE?
A I WASN’T EVEN —
Q I’M SORRY, DID YOU SAY THAT?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
WELL, THEN AT THE TIME YOU SAID, “PHIL, GO TALK TO MR. KAELIN,” YOU WERE ON YOUR WAY, WEREN’T YOU?
A YES.
Q YOU DIDN’T HESITATE AT ALL? ONCE THAT UTTERANCE WAS OUT OF YOUR MOUTH YOU KEPT RIGHT ON MOVING?
A YES.
Q YOU SAW PHILLIPS ON THE TELEPHONE?
A YES, I BELIEVE SO.
Q AND DID YOU SEE DETECTIVE LANGE?
A I DON’T RECALL IF I SAW HIM.
Q WAS HE IN THE PROXIMITY OF ARNELLE SIMPSON APPARENTLY ENGAGED IN CONVERSATION OF SOME SORT?
A HE COULD HAVE BEEN.
Q ALL RIGHT. THAT IS FIVE PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AFTER YOU LEAVE? ALL ENGAGED IN DOING SOMETHING, RIGHT?
A YES….

Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, I WILL ASK YOU ONCE AGAIN: WAS IT NOT YOUR PURPOSE TO BE IN THE AREA ALONG THE SOUTH WALL ALONE?
A NO, IT WASN’T.
Q IT JUST WORKED OUT THAT WAY? IS THAT IT?
A I DIDN’T EVEN KNOW THE SOUTH WALL WAS ACCESSIBLE.
Q NO. IT JUST WORKED OUT THAT YOU LEFT THE HOUSE AND MADE YOUR INVESTIGATION FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES OR MORE ALONE?
A THAT IS HOW IT WORKED OUT.
Q THAT IS HOW IT WORKED OUT.
YOU NOW WALK BACK THE PATHWAY TOWARD WHAT YOU THINK WILL BE THE WALL WITH THE AIR CONDITIONER, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q AT THAT POINT YOU ARE SOLELY EXPECTING TO INQUIRE INTO POSSIBLE SOURCES OF SOMETHING THAT THUMPED THE WALL AND MADE A PICTURE SHAKE?
A THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY, YES….

Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, YOU THEN PROCEEDED DOWN A DARKENED AREA WHICH YOU NOW SAY HAD COBWEBS AT LEAST AT THE UPPER SECTION?
A YES.
Q WHEN YOU ORIGINALLY DESCRIBED THIS VENTURE, YOU DIDN’T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE COBWEBS BEING ONLY AT THE UPPER PART OF THE WALL, DID YOU?
A I THINK THAT IS THE ONLY PLACE I FELT THEM, SO I WOULDN’T HAVE GONE INTO ANYTHING LOWER.
Q THAT WASN’T MY QUESTION.
MY QUESTION WAS, WHEN YOU EARLIER DESCRIBED THIS IN JULY, YOU DIDN’T MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THE COBWEBS, OTHER THAN BEING EAST OF THE POINT WHERE THE GLOVE WAS, CORRECT?
A I THINK THAT’S CORRECT, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, WOULD YOU REVIEW WITH US, PLEASE, WHAT YOU DID FOR THE FIFTEEN MINUTES — NOW SEVEN AFTER 11:00 — FOR THE FIFTEEN MINUTES THAT YOU STAYED OUT THERE ALONE AFTER YOUR DISCOVERY AND BEFORE YOU SOUGHT TO BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF ANYONE?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
I’M SURE A LOT HAPPENED IN FIFTEEN MINUTES AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DESCRIBE EVERY DETAIL, IF YOU CAN.
A I WALKED SLOWLY DOWN THE PATHWAY GOING EAST TO THAT POTTING OR THAT LARGE PLANT AREA THAT IS PROBABLY 25-FOOT SQUARE.
Q HOW LONG DID THAT TAKE?
A THAT WAS PROBABLY SEVERAL MINUTES BACK THERE BECAUSE IT IS VERY OVERGROWN. I TRIED TO SEE FROM THE EAST PROPERTY, IF THERE WAS A FENCE. IT WAS VERY OVERGROWN. I’M NOT SURE IF IT WAS BUSHES OR IVY. I LOOKED IN THAT AREA, LOOKED FOR ANY EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING THAT HAD BEEN DROPPED OR ANY BLOOD EVIDENCE.
Q WHERE DID YOU LOOK?
A ON THE GROUND, ON THE WALLS, THE PLANTS. I RETURNED BACK WESTBOUND ON THE PATH.
Q WAIT JUST A MINUTE. HOW MUCH OF YOUR FIFTEEN MINUTES WAS SPENT BACK IN THE SMALL YARD THAT YOU VIEWED AS A SITUS FOR POTTING PLANTS?
A SEVERAL MINUTES, PROBABLY MORE THAN FIVE.
Q SEVERAL MOMENTS HAS NO REAL DEFINITIVE MEANING. COULD YOU PLEASE USE MINUTES OR SECONDS AND MINUTES TO DESCRIBE EACH STEP THAT YOU TOOK.
HOW MANY MINUTES WERE YOU PRESENT ON THE FAR SIDE OR EAST SIDE BETWEEN THE ALLEYWAY BETWEEN THE FENCE AND THE BUILDING?
A TALKING ABOUT THE PATHWAY, SIR?
Q YOU HAVE WALKED HOW MANY FEET FROM THE GLOVE TO THE END OF THE BUILDING?
A 75.
Q WELL, IF THE NORMAL WALKING RATE IS 350 FEET A MINUTE, WHAT WOULD YOU THINK YOUR RATE WAS AT THAT TIME THAT IT TOOK YOU SEVERAL MINUTES TO GO 75 FEET?
A I DIDN’T TESTIFY TO THAT, SIR.
Q I THINK YOU JUST SAID IT TOOK SEVERAL MINUTES TO GET TO THE END OF THE BUILDING A FEW MOMENTS AGO, DID YOU NOT?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q TELL ME NOW HOW LONG DID IT TAKE?
A I JUST WALKED TO THE END OF THE BUILDING AND I SPENT SEVERAL MINUTES BACK IN THAT AREA.
Q OKAY.
A AT THE END OF THE BUNGALOWS.
Q ONCE AGAIN, WOULD YOU TRY TO HELP US AVOID THE USE OF THE WORD “SEVERAL” WHICH CAN MEAN SEVERAL THINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
HOW MANY MINUTES WAS IT FROM THE DEPARTURE OF THE GLOVE FROM THE TIME YOU LEFT THE SMALL YARD AT THE BACK OF THE BUILDING?
A FIVE MINUTES.
Q YOU SPENT FIVE MINUTE THERE LOOKING AROUND WITH YOUR FLASHLIGHT?
A APPROXIMATELY.
Q YOU LOOKED ON THE WALL, THE GROUND, YOU LOOKED FOR BLOOD AND WHAT ELSE?
A ANYTHING THAT LOOKED OUT OF PLACE OR SOMETHING THAT DIDN’T BELONG.
Q WELL, IF THE GLOVE WAS DROPPED BY THE KILLER, WHY WERE YOU BACK AT THE WALL LOOKING FOR BLOOD?
A FIRST I WAS LOOKING FOR SOMEBODY THAT MIGHT HAVE COLLAPSED OR LEFT THE GLOVE, BUT I DIDN’T SEE ANYTHING OBVIOUS IN THAT AREA.
Q OKAY.
FIVE MINUTES IS ABOUT WHAT IT TOOK TO INVESTIGATE THAT LITTLE YARD?
A APPROXIMATELY.
Q OKAY. WHAT DID YOU NEXT DO?
A WALKED BACK WESTBOUND ON THE PATH.
Q TO WHERE?
A TO THE AIR CONDITIONER. I LOOKED AROUND THAT AREA.
Q HOW LONG DID YOU SPEND LOOKING AROUND THE AREA OF THE AIR CONDITIONER?
A I WOULD SAY A COUPLE MINUTES, BUT I HAD TO BRING IT DOWN TO MINUTES, TWO OR THREE MINUTES.
Q TWO OR THREE MINUTES. TELL US WHAT YOU DID DURING THAT PERIOD TO INSPECT THE AIR CONDITIONER AND IT SURROUNDINGS? WHAT DID YOU LOOK AT?
A I LOOKED AT THE AIR CONDITIONER TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANYTHING DISTURBED, ANY BLOOD, ANYTHING LEFT THERE.
I SHINED MY LIGHT ON THE BLUE PAPER OBJECT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. I LOOKED IN THAT AREA. I STEPPED PAST THAT AREA AND THEN WENT AROUND WHERE THE INDENTATION WAS FARTHER WEST.
Q UH-HUH. AND HOW LONG DID YOU SPEND THERE?
A PROBABLY MORE TIME THAN I DID BACK IN THE AREA WITH —
Q IN MINUTES?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q IN MINUTES, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A I’M TRYING TO EXPLAIN, SIR. PROBABLY MORE IN THAT AREA THAN IN THE POTTING AREA, SO I WOULD PROBABLY SAY IN EXCESS OF FIVE MINUTES, MAYBE AS MANY AS SEVEN OR EIGHT MINUTES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
WHAT DID YOU DO BETWEEN FIVE AND SEVEN MINUTES BY THE INDENTATION AREA, AS YOU CALL IT, TO COMPLETE YOUR INVESTIGATION?
A WELL, I BELIEVE THERE IS AN ELECTRICAL BOX THERE AND THERE SEEMS TO BE — I THINK THERE IS AN ENTRY TO THE UNDERNEATH OF THE HOUSE. I OPENED THAT. I TRIED TO LOOK IN THERE. IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT WITH MY FLASHLIGHT. IT WASN’T VERY POWERFUL.
I DECIDED NOT TO GO ANY FURTHER. I DIDN’T SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING AT THE ENTRY. THE VOLTAGE BOX, I LOOKED IN THAT. I LOOKED INTO THAT AREA FOR ANY TYPE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND I SAW NONE, SO I RETURNED TO THE HOUSE.
Q WHY WERE YOU LOOKING IN THE VOLTAGE BOX AT THAT POINT?
A I DON’T KNOW, SIR. I WAS LOOKING FOR ANY AREA THAT COULD HAVE HOUSED SOMETHING OR SOMEBODY.
Q THE VOLTAGE BOX, YOU THOUGHT THERE MIGHT BE SOMEBODY IN IT?
A IT WAS A VERY LARGE VOLTAGE BOX. I DIDN’T KNOW WHAT WAS —
Q THAT IS WHY YOU OPENED IT?

A. YES

Q NOBODY THERE?
A NO….

Q OKAY.
BUT YOU DID SPEND, BY YOUR OWN ESTIMATE, FIFTEEN MINUTES LOOKING AROUND BEFORE NOTIFYING YOUR SUPERIORS OF WHAT COULD BE A VERY IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, TRUE?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, IT IS APPARENT, FROM THE WAY YOU HAVE DESCRIBED YOUR ACTIONS BACK THERE, THAT YOU HAD NOT THE SLIGHTEST CONCERN FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY; IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?
A NO.
Q WELL, YOU DIDN’T DO ANYTHING TO PROTECT IT, DID YOU?
A YES.
Q WHAT?
A I’M CAPABLE OF PROTECTING MYSELF. ONCE I WAS COMMITTED I REALLY HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO GO FORWARD.
Q YOU DIDN’T HAVE THE OPTION, HAVING DISCOVERED WHAT COULD WELL HAVE BEEN THE DEPOSIT, WITTINGLY OR OTHERWISE, OF A DANGEROUS KILLER, TO GO BACK AND GET SOME HELP?
THAT OPTION WASN’T THERE?
A THE OPTION WAS THERE.
Q WHY DID YOU DECIDE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, THAT THERE WAS NO NEED TO GO GET ONE OF THE GUNS THAT WAS IN THE HOUSE TO ACCOMPANY YOU?
A I DON’T THINK IT WAS A NEED. I THINK IT WAS A JUDGMENT CALL AT THAT TIME.

Q IT WAS A JUDGMENT CALL, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOU WELL KNEW THERE WAS NO CAUSE FOR CONCERN; ISN’T THAT SO?
A NO, THAT IS NOT SO.
Q DO YOU ORDINARILY CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS OF WHAT COULD BE A DANGEROUS NATURE IN THIS FASHION?
A SOMETIMES.
Q AND YOU DO NOT PARTAKE OF THE ASSISTANCE OF YOUR MORE EXPERIENCED COLLEAGUES WHEN THEY ARE AVAILABLE, CORRECT?
A IF THEY ARE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE, OF COURSE I WOULD.
Q WELL, IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE. WOULD YOU SAY WITHIN THIRTY SECONDS’ TIME SATISFIES YOUR DEFINITION OF IMMEDIACY?
A AT THAT TIME, NO.
Q COULD YOU NOT HAVE GONE FROM THAT GLOVE TO THE FRONT DOOR OR THE KITCHEN IN LESS THAN A MINUTE, VERY, VERY EASILY THAT NIGHT, IF YOU HAD CHOSEN TO DO SO?
A YES, I COULD HAVE.
Q OKAY.
THE DECISION NOT TO DO SO WAS YOURS, WAS IT NOT?
A YES, IT WAS.
Q ALL RIGHT.
DID YOU DO ANYTHING ELSE DURING THAT 15-MINUTE PERIOD THAT YOU HAVE NOT YET DESCRIBED TO US?
A NO.
Q IN THE STUDIES OF BLOOD THAT YOU HAD IN THE SCHOOL WHERE YOU LEARNED ABOUT THE ROUND DROPS, DID YOU LEARN ANY OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES OF BLOOD THAT MIGHT BE OF INTEREST TO A DETECTIVE, PARTICULARLY ONE IN HOMICIDE CASES?
A I DON’T BELIEVE THE SPECIFICS YOU ARE ASKING. I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE ASKING, SIR.
Q WHAT HAPPENS TO BLOOD WHEN IT LEAVES THE BODY AND IS ON SOME SURFACE AND IS EXPOSED TO AIR?
A I WOULD ASSUME THAT IT WOULD COAGULATE.
Q AND THEN?
A DRY.
Q THE MOISTURE THAT IS PART OF THE BLOOD EVAPORATES IN TIME, DOES IT NOT?
A YES.
Q WHAT DID YOU LEARN, IF ANYTHING, ABOUT THE RATE AT WHICH BLOOD DRIES AT SIXTY DEGREES FAHRENHEIT, AS IT WAS THAT NIGHT, BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT?
A I DON’T RECALL ANYTHING IN THAT AREA.
Q DID YOU EVER LEARN ANY PARAMETERS OR FACTS ABOUT THE DRYING OF BLOOD?
A NOT THAT I RECALL, NO.
Q WOULD YOU NOT AGREE, FROM YOUR OWN HUMAN EXPERIENCE, QUITE APART FROM WHAT YOU LEARNED IN DETECTIVE SCHOOL, THAT THE LONGER THE BLOOD IS EXPOSED, THE MORE LIKELY IT IS THAT IT WILL BE DRIED?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHEN YOU FIRST SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU ASSOCIATE IT WITH THE NOISE THAT KATO HAD HEARD OR SAID THAT HE HEARD AT 10:45 P.M.?
A I BELIEVE WITH THE LOCATION OF THE AIR CONDITIONER, I THOUGHT YES.
Q DID YOU THINK THAT THAT NOISE MIGHT SOMEHOW HAVE BEEN TIED IN WITH THE EVENT THAT CAUSED THAT GLOVE TO BE THERE?
A I THOUGHT IT COULD HAVE BEEN, YES.
Q PERHAPS SOMEONE WAS BACK THERE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE AREA AND BUMPED INTO THE WALL AND DROPPED THE GLOVE?
A THAT WOULD BE ONE CONCLUSION, YES.
Q WELL, DID YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?
A I BELIEVE THAT SOMEONE OBVIOUSLY HAD LEFT IT THERE.
Q DID YOU THINK THAT THAT MIGHT BE A PERSON BUMPING THE WALL WHO DROPPED THE GLOVE?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO THAT YOU THEN HAD A POSSIBLE TIME PIN OF THE EVENT ITSELF? IF THE NOISE AND THE DEPOSIT OF THE GLOVE OCCURRED TOGETHER, THEN THIS HAD BEEN THERE SINCE QUARTER OF 11:00, HADN’T IT?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU WERE THERE AT 6:15, WEREN’T YOU?
A APPROXIMATELY, YES.
Q THAT IS SEVEN AND A HALF HOURS, ISN’T IT?
A YES.
Q THAT IS ENOUGH FOR BLOOD TO DRY, ISN’T IT?
A UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, YES, I’M SURE IT WOULD BE.
Q UNLESS IT IS ENCASED IN PLASTIC OR RUBBER AND EVAPORATION IS STOPPED, WOULDN’T YOU AGREE?
A NO.
Q DIDN’T IT SEEM STRANGE TO YOU THAT AFTER SEVEN AND A HALF HOURS THAT GLOVE STILL SHOWED MOIST STICKY BLOOD, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A NO. I KNEW NOTHING AT THAT TIME WHEN IT WAS DEPOSITED OR LEFT THERE.
Q YOU DIDN’T?
A NO….

Q WHEN DID YOU FIND THE GLOVE?
A THE GLOVE ON ROCKINGHAM?
Q YES.
A AT APPROXIMATELY SOMETIME BETWEEN 6:05, 6:10, 6:15….

Q OKAY.
NOW, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT AT NO TIME THAT NIGHT DID YOU INQUIRE AS TO THE WHEREABOUTS OF MR. SIMPSON DURING THE PRECEDING SIX OR EIGHT HOURS?
A WELL, I HAD HEARD, BUT I DIDN’T DO MUCH INQUIRING, NO.
Q YOU NEVER INQUIRED OF KATO?
A I’M SORRY?
Q YOU NEVER INQUIRED OF KATO?
A THAT MORNING OR THAT AFTERNOON?
Q NO, THAT MORNING?
A I NEVER TALKED TO MR. KAELIN EVER AGAIN.
Q NO, I’M TALKING ABOUT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE IN HIS BUNGALOW QUESTIONING HIM? YOU NEVER PUT THE QUESTION TO HIM ABOUT MR. SIMPSON?
A I’M SORRY, I DON’T UNDERSTAND. MR. SIMPSON WHAT?
Q DID YOU EVER ASK KATO IF HE KNEW WHERE MR. SIMPSON HAD BEEN THE PRIOR EVENING?
A I DON’T BELIEVE SO, NO.
Q OKAY.
AND WHEN HE TOLD YOU ABOUT SEEING A LIMO, DID YOU INFER OR INQUIRE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS TO TAKE MR. SIMPSON SOMEWHERE?
A NO, I DIDN’T.
Q DID YOU LEARN AT SOME POINT THAT MR. PHILLIPS, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, HAD REACHED HIM BY TELEPHONE IN CHICAGO?
A YES, LATER IN THE MORNING I DID.
Q WHEN WAS THAT?
A LATER IN THE MORNING, MAYBE AN HOUR LATER, A HALF HOUR.
Q DID YOU LEARN FROM OTHER WITNESSES IN THE COURSE OF THE DAY THAT HE HAD LEFT THE PROPERTY AT AROUND 11:00 TO GO TO THE AIRPORT?
A I DON’T BELIEVE I HEARD A TIMELINE THAT DAY ABOUT WHEN HE LEFT.
DETECTIVE VANNATTER WAS AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY AND DETECTIVE LANGE WAS ON BUNDY, SO I DIDN’T TALK TO ANYONE EXCEPT FOR PHILLIPS.
HE MIGHT HAVE MENTIONED WHEN HIS FLIGHT LEFT, BUT THAT IS ABOUT IT….

Q DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, A PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THIS CASE TOOK PLACE EARLY IN JULY, DID IT NOT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND YOU TESTIFIED BOTH ON JULY 5TH AND JULY 6TH, IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS BY MS. CLARK AND DEAN UELMEN FOR THE DEFENSE?
A YES.
Q SEVERAL DIRECT AND SEVERAL CROSS-EXAMINATIONS.
DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND WERE YOU TRYING AT THAT TIME, TO THE VERY BEST YOUR ABILITY, TO BE ACCURATE IN EACH OF YOUR VARIOUS UTTERANCES?
A YES, I WAS.
Q OKAY.
NOW, COULD YOU TURN, PLEASE, TO PAGE 41 OF THE TRANSCRIPT THAT HAS BEEN PLACED IN FRONT OF YOU.
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q I ASK YOU TO LOOK AT LINE 14.
YOU WERE ASKED BY MISS CLARK THE NATURE OF A CERTAIN CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER WHILE YOU WERE STILL WITHOUT THE PREMISES, CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND YOUR ANSWER WAS:
“I TOLD DETECTIVE VANNATTER, I SAID ‘WE GOT A REAL — WE GOT AN EMERGENCY, WE GOT A PROBLEM — WE GOT — WE DON’T KNOW IF WE HAVE PEOPLE INSIDE THAT ARE IN DANGER, DYING, BLEEDING TO DEATH. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. I DON’T CARE WHOSE HOUSE THIS IS. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. WE DON’T KNOW IF WE HAVE A MURDER, SUICIDE, A KIDNAPPING, ANOTHER VICTIM,’ AND PHIL AGREED AND WE TOOK OUR OPINIONS TO DETECTIVE LANGE AND PHILLIPS AND DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITIES.”
DO YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY?
A YES, SIR.
Q DOES THAT ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THE SEQUENCE IN WHICH YOU DETECTIVES BECAME CONCERNED OR AT LEAST EXPRESSED YOUR CONCERN ABOUT POSSIBLE VICTIMS INSIDE?
A SOMEWHAT.
Q SO THAT THIS IDEA WAS INITIATED BY DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN, WAS IT NOT?
A NO. THIS WAS A CONVERSATION BETWEEN VANNATTER AND MYSELF AND THAT IS A COLLECTIVE CONVERSATION.
Q THIS IS COLLECTIVE?
A YES. THOSE ARE MY FEELINGS ABSENT OF THE CONVERSATION — THE RECIPROCAL OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER.
Q I SEE. WELL, NOW DO YOU SEE ANYTHING, BEGINNING AT LINE 15, ABOUT VANNATTER SPEAKING TO YOU?
A NO, SIR.
Q OKAY.
DO YOU SEE THAT MOST OF WHAT I HAVE JUST RECITED IS IN QUOTES AND THUS ATTRIBUTED BY THE COURT REPORTER TO YOU TALKING ABOUT YOURSELF?
DO YOU NOTICE THAT?
A YES, SIR.
Q OKAY.
NOW, IS IT NOT THE FACT THAT THE FIRST ONE TO SUGGEST AN EMERGENCY AND THE NEED TO DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW WAS YOU?
A I DON’T KNOW IF IT WAS ME THAT FIRST SUGGESTED IT. VANNATTER AND I WERE BOTH TALKING ABOUT IT. I DON’T KNOW HOW IT CAME DOWN EXACTLY TO THAT POINT.
Q OKAY.
AFTER AUTHORITY HAD BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE NECESSARY BRASS — I THINK COMMANDER BUSHEY WAS IT?
A YES, SIR.
Q — TO GO IN WITHOUT A WARRANT —
A COMMANDER BUSHEY HAD NO SAY IN THAT, SIR.
Q OH, HE DIDN’T?
A NO.
Q VANNATTER DIDN’T CHECK WITH ANYONE?
A NO.
Q HE MADE THE DECISION?
A HE MADE THE DECISION….

Q HOW WERE YOU ELECTED TO BE THE ONE TO GO OVER THE WALL?
A PHIL MADE A STATEMENT THAT, “WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO IN. HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO IT?” AND I SAID, “WELL, I WILL GO OVER THE WALL.”
Q ALL RIGHT.
YOU VOLUNTEERED TO DO THAT IN RESPONSE TO HIS QUERY HOW CAN WE ACCOMPLISH IT, CORRECT?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
ON PAGE 46, LINE 15, WHEN YOU WERE WITH KATO KAELIN IN HIS ROOM, YOU SAY THAT YOU STAYED BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T KNOW WHO MR. KAELIN WAS AND:
“I WASN’T SURE IF HE WAS EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE THERE. I STAYED WITH HIM AND ENGAGED HIM IN A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHO HE WAS AND WHAT HE WAS DOING THERE AND A FEW OTHER THINGS.”
MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT ACCURATE?
A I BELIEVE SO, YES.
Q DID YOU DETERMINE THAT KATO KAELIN, FROM TALKING TO HIM, WAS A PROPER PERSON TO BE IN THAT HOUSE AT THAT TIME?
A I DON’T — I NEVER SAW ANY IDENTIFICATION AS FAR AS AN ADDRESS. HE MIGHT HAVE SAID HE LIVES THERE OR HE STAYS THERE.
Q OKAY.
WOULD YOU TURN TO PAGE 48, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q IT IS THE LATTER PART OF A LONG ANSWER WHICH GOES ALMOST TWO FULL PAGES.
I’M INTERESTED IN ONLY A FEW LINES. I WILL READ THE WHOLE QUESTION AND ANSWER IF YOU PREFER.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DO THAT?
A YES, SIR.
Q OKAY.
THE ORIGINAL QUESTION WAS:
“DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM,” MEANING KATO KAELIN, “AT THAT TIME,” 47 LINE 12.
“ANSWER: YES. SIMULTANEOUS WITH — I WAS WALKING — I WALKED TO THE BATHROOM WHICH I COULDN’T SEE INTO FROM WHERE I WAS STANDING AT THE DOORWAY. I WALKED IN JUST TO MAKE SURE NOBODY WAS IN THERE AND I OPENED UP THE CLOSETS TO MAKE SURE NO ONE WAS STANDING IN THE CLOSETS. I ENGAGED HIM IN CONVERSATION WHILE I WAS DOING THAT. I NOTICED A PILE OF CLOTHES TO THE — IF YOU WERE LYING IN THE BED, IT WOULD BE THE RIGHT SIDE, NEXT TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE BED AND A PAIR OF SHOES. I ASKED HIM IF THOSE WERE THE CLOTHES HE WORE AND HE SAID ‘LAST NIGHT’ AND HE SAID ‘YES’ AND I SAID, ‘MIND IF I LOOK AT THEM?’ HE SAID, ‘NO.’ I PICKED UP THE SHOES. I LOOKED AT THE SOLES. I PICKED UP THE CLOTHES AND I LOOKED AT THE CLOTHES. THERE DIDN’T APPEAR TO BE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THEM. I PUT THEM BACK WHERE THEY WERE AND I WAS STILL TALKING TO MR. KAELIN. I ASKED HIM IF THERE IS ANYTHING UNUSUAL THAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT BEFORE HE ANSWERED — BEFORE I LET HIM ANSWER, I ASKED, ‘WHO DRIVES THE BRONCO?’ HE SAYS, ‘WELL, THAT’S O.J.’S.’ I SAID, ‘IS THAT ALL? IS THAT THE ONLY PERSON THAT DRIVES IT?’ AND HE GOES, ‘YEAH.’ I ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYTHING UNUSUAL THAT HAPPENED THE PREVIOUS NIGHT. HE SAID, ‘WELL, ABOUT QUARTER TO 11:00 I HEARD SOME CRASHING ON MY WALL AND I THOUGHT THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN EARTHQUAKE, BUT THAT WAS ONLY NOISE, JUST ONE TIME AND MY PICTURE SHOOK,’ AND HE POINTED TO A PICTURE WHICH WAS JUST TO THE WEST OF HIS BED WHICH WOULD BE THE FAR RIGHT OF HIS ROOM LOOKING INTO HIS ROOM FROM THE DOORWAY. THEN HE SAID, ‘I WENT OUTSIDE TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON AND I SAW A LIMO AT THE GATE….'” “…AT THAT POINT I INTERRUPTED HIM AND I TOOK HIM INTO THE HOUSE WHERE NOW MR. SIMPSON’S DAUGHTER AND THE THREE DETECTIVES HAD ALREADY ENTERED THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE AND THE DOOR WAS OPENED.”
DID YOU GIVE THAT ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION ON YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK ON JULY 5TH?
A YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO THAT IN FACT WHEN YOU INTERRUPTED MR. KAELIN, AFTER ASKING HIM ABOUT UNUSUAL EVENTS, YOU PUT TWO QUESTIONS, NO. 1, WHOSE BRONCO IS IT, AND NO. 2, IS HE THE ONLY ONE THAT DRIVES IT, CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q WHY WAS IT IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT THEN, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?
A WELL, THERE WAS BLOOD ON THE VEHICLE.
Q OKAY.
NOW, I SUGGESTED TO YOU SOME TIME AGO THAT YOU DIRECTED DETECTIVE VANNATTER TO GO IN AND INTERROGATE KAELIN AND YOU HAD SOME DOUBTS ABOUT THAT?
A DOUBTS OF MY PRESENCE OF MIND, NO, NONE AT ALL.
Q DOUBTS ABOUT WHETHER YOU WOULD GIVE AN ORDER TO A MAN AS SUPERIOR TO YOU AS THE LEAD DETECTIVE IN THIS CASE?
A I DID NOT GIVE HIM ANY ORDER.
Q WELL, WHEN YOU DESCRIBED BRINGING KAELIN INTO THE HOUSE MISS CLARK ASKED:
“WHERE DID YOU PUT HIM?”
AND YOU SAID:
“THERE’S A BAR INSIDE THAT LOOKS LIKE A RECREATION ROOM, A BILLIARD ROOM, AND JUST TO THE RIGHT OF THAT, AS YOU ARE ENTERING THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE, THERE IS FOUR OR FIVE BARSTOOLS. I SAID, ‘WHY DON’T YOU JUST SIT HERE FOR A SECOND. ONE OF THE DETECTIVES IS GOING TO TALK FOR A FEW MINUTES. JUST SIT HERE AND RELAX.’ I CONTINUED TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE AND RIGHT BY THE KITCHEN I SAW DETECTIVE VANNATTER, AND I TOLD HIM, I SAYS, ‘TALK TO THE MAN THAT WAS IN THE BUNGALOW. HE IS SEATED AT THE BAR.’ AND I CONTINUED OUT THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE.”
NOW, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YOU HAD BEEN TALKING WITH MR. KAELIN BEFORE YOU DECIDED TO GO OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, HAD YOU NOT?
A YES.
Q WHY DID YOU FIND IT NECESSARY THAT ANOTHER DETECTIVE TAKE UP THE INTERROGATION?
A I DIDN’T THINK IT NECESSARY.
Q WHY DID YOU DIRECT DETECTIVE VANNATTER TO DO IT?
A I WAS GOING TO INVESTIGATE WHERE THE NOISE CAME FROM.
Q WHY DIDN’T YOU TELL HIM THE SUBJECT MATTER ABOUT WHICH HE OUGHT TO BE CONCERNED, IF HE WAS GOING TO INTERROGATE A WITNESS?
A NO REASON. I WANTED TO GO INVESTIGATE THE NOISE TO SEE IF WE COULD EVEN GET TO THAT SOUTH WALL.
Q WHY DID YOU NOT TELL HIM THAT YOU WERE GOING TO GO INVESTIGATE A NOISE AND HE SHOULD FINISH THE INTERROGATION?
A NO REASON.
Q NO REASON? OKAY.
ON THAT SAME PAGE.
RIGHT AFTER YOU SAID ON LINE 18:
“AND I CONTINUED OUT THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE,” MISS CLARK SAID:
“WHY?” AND YOUR RESPONSE WAS:
“WELL, I WAS — FROM THE STATEMENT HE MADE, THE CRASHING SOUND AND THE TIME THAT HE HEARD IT, COMBINED WITH THE BLOOD IN THE BRONCO, THE WAY I WAS FEELING IS THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THERE COULD BE ANOTHER VICTIM, A SUSPECT THAT HAD COLLAPSED OR ESCAPED VIA THAT ROUTE IN THE SOUTHERN BORDER OF THE HOUSE.”
DO YOU READ THE ANSWER IN FRONT OF YOU?
A I DO, SIR.
Q DO YOU AGREE THAT I HAVE CITED IT CORRECTLY AS IT APPEARS IN THE TRANSCRIPT?
A YES.
Q HOW DID YOU KNOW AT THAT JUNCTURE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, THAT THERE WAS OR WOULD BE BLOOD IN THE BRONCO?
A I DIDN’T.
Q WHY DID YOU USE THE WORD “IN”?
A I’M NOT SURE I DID.
Q IS THIS THE FIRST TIME IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT YOU USED THE WORD “IN”?
A IT IS THE FIRST TIME YOU HAVE READ IT, BUT I NEVER USED THE WORD “IN” AS FAR AS SAYING THERE WAS BLOOD IN THE BRONCO.
Q YOU DIDN’T USE THE WORD “IN”?
A I’M NOT SURE, SIR, BUT I DID NOT SEE ANY BLOOD IN THE BRONCO.
Q YOU USED THE WORD “IN” THE BRONCO AND IT WAS UNINTENTIONAL, MIGHT THAT BE, SIR, A SLIP OF THE TONGUE?
A NO, IT MIGHT NOT.
Q IT MIGHT NOT. UNLESS IT WAS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE AND IF YOU IN FACT SAID IT, YOU HAVE NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER FOR THAT MISTAKE? IS THAT THE WAY YOU WISH TO LEAVE IT?
A NO. I WISH TO LEAVE IT TO SAY THAT THERE WAS NO BLOOD THAT I OBSERVED INSIDE THE BRONCO PRIOR TO GOING INTO THE RESIDENCE THAT MORNING.
Q MY QUESTION WAS, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IF YOU DID IN FACT SAY THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAD YOU DISTURBED AT THAT POINT WAS BLOOD IN THE BRONCO AND IT WASN’T A SLIP OF THE TONGUE, WHY WOULD YOU HAVE USED THAT WORD?
A I DIDN’T SEE ANY BLOOD IN THE BRONCO, SIR.
Q WHY WOULD YOU HAVE USED THE WORD “IN,” DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, PLEASE?
A I TOLD YOU I’M NOT SURE I DID.
Q WELL, THERE IS A VIDEOTAPE OF YOUR TESTIMONY. HAVE YOU REVIEWED THAT RECENTLY?
A NO, NEVER HAVE.
Q DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD HELP TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT REPORTER MADE THIS MISTAKE OR YOU DID?
A YES, SIR.
Q OKAY. WE WILL GET TO THAT.
ON PAGE 54, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION — I’M SORRY — TOWARD THE END OF YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MISS CLARK AND AFTER SAYING THAT YOU NOTICED THE GLOVE AND IDENTIFYING IT IN A PHOTO MARKED FOR THAT HEARING AS D, I WILL ASK YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU ASKED THESE QUESTIONS AND GAVE THESE ANSWERS:
“BY MISS CLARK: WHEN YOU SAW THAT GLOVE, DID IT HAVE SOME SIGNIFICANCE TO YOU?
“ANSWER: YES. IT LOOKED VERY SIMILAR TO THE GLOVE THAT I OBSERVED ON BUNDY HOURS BEFORE.
“QUESTION: AND BASED ON THAT OBSERVATION, SIR, WHAT DID YOU DO?
“ANSWER: I LOOKED AT IT A LITTLE CLOSER. I NOTED THAT IT DID NOT MATCH THE TERRAIN….AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS A LOT OF DIRT AND LEAVES. THIS GLOVE WAS NOT DIRTY IN THE LEAST. IT LOOKED A LITTLE STICKY AND MOIST. TWO FINGERS WERE STUCK TO THE GLOVE. IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS STUCK THERE WITH SOME TYPE OF LIQUID. I DIDN’T TOUCH IT. I WENT PAST THE AIR CONDITIONING DUCT THAT YOU CAN SEE IN PHOTO A AND AS SOON AS I WENT PAST THAT AIR CONDITIONING DUCT LOOKING FOR THE PERSON THAT MIGHT HAVE DROPPED THE GLOVE, THINKING THAT THEY WERE FARTHER DOWN THE WALKWAY, I RAN INTO SPIDERWEBS IMMEDIATELY.”
DO YOU RECALL GIVING THAT ANSWER?
A YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO I TAKE IT IT IS TRUE THAT YOUR FIRST STEP AFTER SEEING THE GLOVE WAS TO GO LOOK FOR THE PERSON WHO DROPPED IT?
A YES.
Q THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING HERE?
A YES.
Q AND YOU EXPECTED THAT THE PERSON WHO DROPPED IT WOULD BE A KILLER?
A I DIDN’T KNOW THAT. AS WE BROUGHT UP BEFORE, IT WAS…

Q WHAT DID YOU EXPECT TO FIND IN THE NATURE OF THE PERSON WHO HAD DROPPED THE GLOVE?
A I HAD NO IDEA, SIR.
Q AND THAT DIDN’T CAUSE YOU ANY APPREHENSION FOR YOUR SAFETY?
A YES, IT DID.
Q WELL, DID YOU TAKE ANY PRECAUTIONS?
A YES.
Q WHAT DID YOU DO?
A I MOVED FORWARD INSTEAD OF BACKWARD.
Q YOU MOVED FORWARD IN THE DIRECTION OF DANGER, INSTEAD OF BACKWARD AWAY FROM THE DIRECTION OF DANGER WHICH WAS A PRECAUTION AS YOU VIEWED IT?
A YES. GIVING SOMEONE MY BACK WOULD BE FAR MORE HAZARDOUS THAN FACING A THREAT STRAIGHT ON.
Q I’M SORRY. I THINK YOU SAID THAT AS YOU PROCEEDED PAST THE AIR CONDITIONING DUCT, THAT IS EAST WHERE YOU HADN’T BEEN, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q YOU DID THAT LOOKING FOR THE PERSON THAT MIGHT HAVE DROPPED THE GLOVE?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q YOU SAID THAT, DIDN’T YOU?
A YES.
Q WELL, IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN THE DANGER WAS IN FRONT OF YOU AND YOUR BACK WAS PERFECTLY SAFE, WASN’T IT?
A IF I TURNED AROUND AND WENT BACK WEST IT WOULDN’T BE SAFE, SIR.
Q OH, IT WAS SAFER IN YOUR VIEW TO FORGE ON AND MAYBE ENCOUNTER A KILLER THAN IT WAS TO GET OUT OF THERE; IS THAT RIGHT?
A THAT’S CORRECT.
Q OKAY.
WHEN YOU ENCOUNTERED THE SPIDERWEBS DID IT OCCUR TO YOU THAT WHOEVER DROPPED THAT GLOVE HAD COME THE WAY YOU HAD COME AND HAD GONE BACK OUT THE SAME WAY?
A IT WAS POSSIBLE, BUT I DIDN’T KNOW THE CONDITION THAT THEY WERE IN WHEN THEY LEFT THAT GLOVE.
Q I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY CONDITION OF THE PERSON. IF THERE ARE SPIDERWEBS ACROSS A PASSAGEWAY, THE ODDS ARE FAIRLY GOOD THAT NO ONE HAS RUN THROUGH THIS RECENTLY, TRUE?
A RUN, YES; CRAWLED, UNKNOWN.
Q OR WALKED. DID YOU SEE ANY MARK ON THE GROUND INDICATING A HUMAN WAS CRAWLING THERE?
A I SAW NO MARKS ON THE PATH….

Q NOW, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IN CROSS-EXAMINATION MR. UELMEN DIRECTED SOME QUESTIONS TO YOU ABOUT YOUR ACTIVITIES AT BUNDY AND YOU DESCRIBED, AS YOU DID FOR US — PAGE 64 AT THE TOP — THAT:
“HAVING BEEN UNABLE TO SEE THE BODIES FROM YOUR ORIGINAL POSITION TO A SATISFACTORY DEGREE, RISKE TOOK YOU AROUND DOROTHY UP THE ALLEY AND IN THROUGH THE HOUSE SO YOU COULD COME OUT THE FRONT DOOR AND HAVE A BETTER VANTAGE POINT AT THE TOP OF THE STEPS WITHOUT WALKING THROUGH THE BLOOD,” CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
AND AT THE TOP OF PAGE 64 YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT, AREN’T YOU?
A YES, I AM.
Q OKAY.
“QUESTION: HOW FAR WOULD YOU SAY YOU WERE FROM WHERE THE BODIES WERE LOCATED?
“ANSWER: I WAS DIRECTLY ABOVE THE FEMALE VICTIM WHICH WAS PROBABLY THREE FEET. THE MALE VICTIM WOULD HAVE BEEN TEN FEET, TWELVE FEET.
“QUESTION: ALL RIGHT. AND FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT YOU FIRST OBSERVED THE GLOVE THAT YOU TOLD US ABOUT?
“ANSWER: NOT FIRST, NO.
“QUESTION: WHEN DID YOU FIRST OBSERVE IT?
“ANSWER: WE HAD FLASHLIGHTS. WE WERE LOOKING AT THE FEMALE VICTIM. WE LOOKED AT THE MALE VICTIM. I NOTICED THE GLOVE WHEN I WALKED AROUND TO THE — AFTER I EXITED THE RESIDENCE THE FIRST TIME AND WALKED AROUND TO THE SIDE OR THE NORTH SIDE, NORTH PERIMETER OF BUNDY OF 875 BUNDY, THERE IS AN IRON FENCE AND THROUGH THAT IRON FENCE YOU CAN GET VERY CLOSE TO THE MALE VICTIM, AND LOOKING THERE I COULD SEE THEM AT HIS FEET.”
DID YOU USE THE WORD “THEM” IN YOUR ANSWER ON JULY 5TH?
A YES, SIR. YES, SIR.
Q AND WAS THE LAST ITEM TO WHICH “THEM” COULD HAVE APPLIED IN YOUR NARRATIVE THE WORD “GLOVE”?
A SINGULAR, YES.
Q I’M SIMPLY ASKING WHETHER GLOVE, LINE 14, WAS THE ITEM YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT JUST PRIOR TO SAYING “I SAW THEM AT HIS FEET”?
A “THEM,” I WAS REFERRING TO THE KNIT CAP, THE GLOVE.
Q SHOW ME ANYWHERE ON THAT PAGE WHERE THE KNIT CAP IS MENTIONED? CAN YOU?
A THAT PAGE, NO.
Q ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.
DO YOU SEE ANYTHING ON THE PRIOR PAGE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, ABOUT THE KNIT CAP?
A DO YOU WANT ME TO LOOK AT THAT PRIOR PAGE?
Q SURE. I DON’T KNOW HOW YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION WITHOUT LOOKING AT IT. 63.
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.) I DO NOT….

Q PAGE 65, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, LINE 8:
“DOES THAT PHOTO,” REFERRING TO A PHOTO “ACCURATELY DEPICT THE GLOVE AT THE LOCATION WHERE YOU SAW IT?
“TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES.
“QUESTION: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU DIDN’T ACTUALLY PICK UP THE GLOVE TO EXAMINE IT, DID YOU?
“ANSWER: NOT AT THAT TIME, NO.”
DID YOU GIVE THAT ANSWER?
A YES.
Q AT WHAT TIME DID YOU PICK UP THE GLOVE?
A I DIDN’T. I TURNED THE GLOVE OVER WITH A PEN WHEN I RETURNED TO THE BUNDY SCENE AFTER BEING AT ROCKINGHAM.
Q AND THAT IS WHAT YOU MEANT WHEN YOU SAID, “DIDN’T PICK UP THE GLOVE AT THAT TIME”? YOU HAD IN MIND TURNING IT OVER WITH A PEN?
A I BELIEVE THAT WAS MR. UELMEN’S WORDS AND THE QUESTION. I DIDN’T USE THE WORD “PICK UP.”
Q BUT THE QUESTION WAS PUT TO YOU, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. HE SAID:
“AND YOU DIDN’T ACTUALLY PICK THE GLOVE UP TO EXAMINE IT, DID YOU?”
AND YOUR ANSWER WAS:
“NOT AT THAT TIME, NO.”
DO YOU SEE ANYTHING IN THAT ANSWER THAT REFERS TO TURNING IT OVER WITH A PEN AT ANY TIME….?

A NOT ON THAT PAGE, NO.
Q DID YOU SEE ANOTHER PAGE WHERE YOU INDICATED THAT THAT IS WHAT YOU MEANT BY LATER PICKING UP THE GLOVE?
A NO, SIR….
Q YESTERDAY, AND POSSIBLY LAST WEEK, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YOU INDICATED SOME UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHEN YOU WERE NOTIFIED THAT ONE OF THE VICTIMS WAS IN FACT THE EX-WIFE OF O.J. SIMPSON.
DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU SAID YOU COULDN’T QUITE BE SURE WHEN YOU THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS THE FACT?
A THAT THE FEMALE VICTIM WAS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?
Q YES.
A YES, SIR, I REMEMBER.
Q AS YOU SIT THERE TODAY, WHAT IS YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION AS TO WHEN YOU DECIDED OR YOUR SUPERIORS DECIDED THAT THIS WAS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON? WHAT TIME OF DAY?
A I WOULD SAY ON JUNE 13TH SOMETIME BUT I DON’T RECOLLECT WHEN.
Q ONE, TWO, THREE HOURS AFTER YOU GOT THERE?
A I HAVE NO IDEA, SIR.
Q IS IT FAIR TO INFER THAT YOU WENT TO NOTIFY MR. SIMPSON THAT HIS WIFE WAS DEAD A LITTLE AFTER 5:00, THAT YOU THOUGHT SHE WAS IN FACT DEAD, HIS EX-WIFE?
A I DIDN’T GO THERE AT MY DIRECTION, SO I BELIEVE IT WAS ASSUMED AND I BELIEVE THEY WERE GOING THERE TO FIND OUT ANYTHING ABOUT HER OR MAKE A NOTIFICATION.
Q PAGE 31, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
A (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
Q QUESTION BY MISS CLARK AT LINE 4.
“WERE YOU AWARE” — LINE 5 —
“WERE YOU AWARE OF WHO ONE OF THE — AT LEAST THE FEMALE VICTIM WAS AT THAT TIME?
“ANSWER: I WAS NOTIFIED THAT — WHEN I WAS NOTIFIED AT MY RESIDENCE AT 1:05 I WAS TOLD THAT ONE OF THE VICTIMS WAS THE EX-WIFE OF O.J. SIMPSON.
“DID YOU RELAY THAT INFORMATION TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER?

“ANSWER: IT WAS RELAYED, YES.”
NOW, AFTER YOU WERE TOLD AT 1:05 THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WAS DEAD, DID YOU CONTINUE TO DOUBT IT?
A WE HAD NO INDICATION ABSOLUTELY THAT THAT WAS THE FEMALE VICTIM.
Q DID YOU CHALLENGE MR. PHILLIPS IN ANY WAY WHEN HE TOLD YOU SHE WAS DEAD?
A THERE WAS NO CHALLENGE INVOLVED, SIR.
Q DID YOU QUESTION HIS ASSERTION AS TO HER IDENTITY?
A NO.
Q DID YOU EVER QUESTION HIM?
A I DON’T THINK I WOULD HAVE JUMPED TO THE CONCLUSION EARLY INTO THE INVESTIGATION.
Q YOU WOULDN’T HAVE JUMPED TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE IDENTITY OF THE VICTIM, EVEN THOUGH A DETECTIVE WHO WAS YOUR BOSS TOLD YOU WHAT IT WAS?
A I DIDN’T QUESTION IT….

Q NOW, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IF YOU WOULD RETURN TO THE TRANSCRIPT AND IF YOU WOULD LOOK AT PAGE 21 OF JULY 6, WHICH IS TOWARD THE END, THE THIRD DIRECT EXAMINATION.
A WHAT PAGE, SIR?
Q 21, THE SECOND DAY.
A SECOND DAY.
Q IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION THAT BEGAN ON 20TH LINE, 24:
“ALL RIGHT. WITH RESPECT TO FINDING THE GLOVE, AFTER YOU FOUND THE GLOVE, WHAT DID YOU DO? YOU SAW THE GLOVE ON THE WALK. THEN WHAT DID YOU DO?”
YOU ANSWERED:
“I CONTINUED EASTBOUND ON THE PATH THAT WENT TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY AND I SPENT I’M NOT GOING TO SAY A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME, I’M GOING TO SAY ABOUT 15 MINUTES LOOKING FOR A PERSON THAT COULD HAVE LEFT THAT GLOVE THERE WHICH INDICATED SOMEBODY WAS INJURED. I LOOKED IN ALL THE PLACES I BELIEVED A HUMAN COULD SECRET HIMSELF OR COLLAPSE IN THAT AREA AND THEN I RETURNED TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE.”
AND I ASSUME THE WORD “SECRET” WAS MEANT TO MEAN “SECRETE”.
A YES….

Q OKAY.
AND THIS IS THE SEARCH THAT TOOK YOU THE 15 MINUTES?
A YES, SIR.
Q OKAY.
NOW, THERE WAS SOME QUESTION IN YOUR MIND EARLIER TODAY AS TO WHETHER YOU HAD TOLD DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND LANGE ABOUT YOUR THOUGHTS WHEN YOU TOOK THEM DOWN TO SEE THE GLOVE. DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A I RECALL THE QUESTION, YES.
Q AND YOU WERE UNSURE AS TO WHETHER YOU HAD SAID ANYTHING TO THEM WHEN YOU WERE DOWN AT THE SCENE OF THE GLOVE?
A YEAH. I DON’T RECALL IF I DID, NO….

Q AFTER TAKING THE DETECTIVES TO VIEW THIS GLOVE, YOU WENT OUT TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND YOU JUST STOOD THERE, CORRECT?
A FOR A FEW MOMENTS, YES.
Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, WAS IT AT THAT POINT THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER ANNOUNCED THAT THIS WAS NOW A CRIME SCENE OR WAS IT LATER IN THE DAY AS YOU’VE TOLD US EARLIER?
A I THINK THERE WAS DISCUSSION AT THAT POINT, BUT AT ABOUT THAT TIME, WE WERE SENT BACK TO BUNDY, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND MYSELF.
Q WELL, DID VANNATTER SAY, “WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO HANDLE THIS LIKE A CRIME SCENE,” WITHIN MINUTES OF SEEING THE GLOVE THAT YOU HAD POINTED OUT?
A YES. BUT I THINK THAT’S DIFFERENT THAN “THIS IS NOW A CRIME SCENE.”
Q OH, I SEE. HE WAS SPECULATING ABOUT A FUTURE DECISION HE THOUGHT HE MIGHT MAKE. WAS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING?
A YES….

Q OKAY.
NOW, YOU SAID, “WHEN I FOUND THE GLOVE AND ACTUALLY REALIZED THIS GLOVE WAS VERY CLOSE IN DESCRIPTION AND COLOR TO THE GLOVE AT THE CRIME SCENE.” CAN YOU TELL US WHEN THAT POINT WAS WITHIN THIS PERIOD?
A I TESTIFIED BEFORE SEVERAL TIMES THAT WHEN I SAW THE GLOVE, IT LOOKED VERY SIMILAR TO THE GLOVE ON BUNDY.
Q THE CONNECTION WAS IMMEDIATE IN YOUR MIND?
A YES.
Q IS THAT CORRECT?
A THAT CONNECTION THAT IT LOOKED VERY SIMILAR, YES….

Q ALL RIGHT.
SO YOU DESCRIBED THAT YOU WERE CAUGHT ON A TINY TWO-FOOT PATH ALL ALONE WITH A LITTLE TINY FLASHLIGHT AND NO VEST BY WHICH YOU MEANT A BULLETPROOF VEST, CORRECT?
A YES, SIR.
Q WOULD YOU EXPLAIN TO THIS COURT HOW IT WAS THAT YOU WERE CAUGHT THERE…?

A WELL, I WAS COMMITTED TO THAT POINT.
Q COMMITTED HOW?
A BECAUSE I WAS THERE.
Q YOU HAD NOBODY WITH YOU.
A I WAS COMMITTED BY MY PRESENCE.
Q YOU DIDN’T HAVE ANYONE WITH YOU, DID YOU?
A NO.
Q YOU WEREN’T WEARING A VEST YOU’VE SAID.
A YES.
Q YOUR FLASHLIGHT WAS RATHER INADEQUATE FOR THE TASK, RIGHT?
A IT WAS NOT THE BEST IT COULD BE, NO.
Q BUT YOU COMFORTED YOURSELF THAT YOU COULD PROCEED DESPITE THESE DEFICIENCIES BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT YOU WOULD FIND A VICTIM RATHER THAN A SUSPECT?
A I WAS CONCERNED WITH THAT, YES.
Q TELL THE COURT IF YOU CAN WHY THE PRESENCE OF THE OTHER MURDER GLOVE FROM BUNDY MADE YOU THINK THAT YOU WERE ABOUT TO ENCOUNTER A VICTIM, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
A BECAUSE I DIDN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS A SUSPECT THERE OTHER THAN THE BLOODY GLOVE.
Q YOU REALIZE THAT YOU HAVE TOLD US EARLIER —
A YES.
Q — TESTIFIED UNDER OATH EARLIER —
A YES.
Q — THAT THE BLOODY GLOVE MADE YOU THINK YOU WOULD FIND A SUSPECT?
A OR A VICTIM.
Q BUT BY FAR, THE MORE LIKELY A SUSPECT YOU SAID; DID YOU NOT?
A YES.
Q BUT HERE, YOU’VE SAID ON YOUR OATH THAT THE ONLY REASON YOU PROCEEDED UNARMED AND ALONE OR AT LEAST WITHOUT A VEST AND ALONE WAS BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T EXPECT TO FIND A SUSPECT. YOU SAID THAT, DIDN’T YOU?
A YES, I DID….

Q BY MR. BAILEY: DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU DID NOT THINK THAT YOU WOULD BE IN DANGER IF YOU PROCEEDED EASTBOUND THROUGH THE COBWEBBY PATH BECAUSE WHOEVER YOU WOULD FIND WOULD BE HURT AND NOT DANGEROUS?
A I DON’T BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS NO FEELING OF DANGER, NO.
Q BUT YOU DID SAY, “I MUST ADMIT, I THINK THE ONLY REASON I PROCEEDED IS, I FELT MORE THAT I MIGHT HAVE HAD A VICTIM THAN A SUSPECT”?
A MAYBE THAT WAS A HOPE.
Q YOU NOW SAY THAT WAS A HOPE AND NOT A THOUGHT?
A NO. I’M SAYING MAYBE THAT WAS A HOPE, A PRESENCE OF MIND THEN AND AT THE PRELIM….

Q OKAY.
WHEN YOU DESCRIBED THIS EXPERIENCE YESTERDAY, YOU TOLD US THAT YOU WERE STANDING, HAVING BEEN RELIEVED, WAITING FOR YOUR REPLACEMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY, CORRECT?
A WE’RE TALKING AT THE BUNDY LOCATION NOW?
Q YES.
A OH YES, SIR. THE NORTH RESIDENCE FROM BUNDY.
Q LIEUTENANT SPANGLER, YOUR ULTIMATE BOSS IN THE BUREAU OF DETECTIVES, CAME AND BROUGHT YOU UP TO THE FENCE WHERE GOLDMAN’S BODY WAS CRUMPLED?
A YES….

Q AND THERE, LIEUTENANT SPANGLER, HAVING INVITED YOU TO TAKE A LOOK, YOU EXAMINED GOLDMAN’S BODY AND FOUND A LACERATION.
A THAT WAS OBSERVED BY LIEUTENANT SPANGLER.
Q BUT YOU SAW IT TOO?
A OH, YES, SIR.
Q AND YOU THOUGHT IT WAS A TEAR?
A I USED THE WORD “LACERATION.”
Q AND WHEN I ASKED YOU TO DESCRIBE IT FURTHER, DID YOU NOT SAY IT WAS TORN?
A NO. I SAID LACERATION IS TEARING, IT’S NOT AN INCISION.
Q OKAY.
IN ANY EVENT, WHEN I ASKED YOU IF THERE WAS ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU SAW AT THAT POINT, YOU SAID NO, DIDN’T YOU?
A YES.
Q OKAY.
NOW, ON JULY 5TH AT PAGE 64, WHICH WE HAVE REVIEWED, WHEN YOU DESCRIBE THE SAME INCIDENT, THERE IS NO MENTION WHATSOEVER OF YOUR HAVING BEEN RELIEVED, IS THERE? PAGE 64, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.
A YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE ME A LINE, SIR.
Q OKAY.
STARTING AT THE TOP, JUST READING TO YOURSELF SO THAT YOU CAN LOCATE YOURSELF AS YOU DID THIS MORNING, ON THE STEPS LOOKING DOWN AT THE FEMALE VICTIM AND NOT BEING ABLE TO CLEARLY SEE THE MALE VICTIM.
A THAT’S CORRECT.
Q OKAY.
YOU SAID THEN, LINE 14 — 12:
“WE HAD FLASHLIGHTS. WE WERE LOOKING AT THE FEMALE VICTIM. WE LOOKED AT THE MALE VICTIM.”
YOU’RE STILL ON THE STEPS, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q YOU SAID:
“I NOTICED THE GLOVE WHEN I WALKED AROUND TO THE — AFTER I EXITED THE RESIDENCE THE FIRST TIME AND WALKED AROUND TO THE SIDE ON THE NORTH SIDE, NORTH PERIMETER OF 875 BUNDY….”THERE’S AN IRON FENCE, AND THROUGH THAT IRON FENCE, YOU CAN GET VERY CLOSE TO THE MALE VICTIM. AND LOOKING THERE, I COULD SEE THEM DOWN AT HIS FEET.”
WE READ THAT EARLIER; DO YOU RECALL?
A YES, SIR….

Q ALL RIGHT.
NOW, WHEN YOU GAVE THIS TESTIMONY, HAD YOU FORGOTTEN ABOUT THE LACERATION?
A NO.
Q HAD YOU FORGOTTEN ABOUT LIEUTENANT SPANGLER?
A NO.
Q OKAY.
ONCE MORE THEN, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WE ASKED YOU TO LOOK AT PAGE 49 THIS MORNING BECAUSE OF A WORD THAT APPEARS ON LINE 23 OF THAT PAGE RELATING TO “BLOOD IN THE BRONCO.”
A YES.
Q AND YOU AGREE THAT THAT’S WHAT THE PAGE SAYS?
A I AGREE, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
BUT YOUR FEELING WAS THAT THE REPORTER MADE A MISTAKE?
A I DIDN’T SAY THAT. I JUST DID NOT MEAN “IN THE BRONCO.”
Q PARDON ME? WHAT WAS YOUR ANSWER?
A COULD YOU ASK — ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN, SIR?
Q YOU SAID THE REPORTER DIDN’T MAKE A MISTAKE, BUT THE WORD IS THERE SOMEHOW?
A I DON’T KNOW. I JUST KNOW WHAT I MEANT WHEN I TESTIFIED.
Q ALL RIGHT.
SO THAT IF YOU IN FACT USED THE WORD “IN,” YOU MISSPOKE YOURSELF?
A YES….

(AT 1:58 P.M., A VIDEOTAPE
WAS PLAYED.)

Q BY MR. BAILEY: DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?
A ABSOLUTELY, SIR.
Q OKAY.
AND WHAT DO YOU NOW SAY YOU SAID?
A “IN.”
Q “IN.”
A YES….

Q OKAY.
DID YOU SAY WHILE IN THE RECRUITING STATION AT ANY TIME DURING THOSE YEARS THAT WHEN YOU SEE A NIGGER DRIVING WITH A WHITE WOMAN, YOU PULL THEM OVER?
A NO.
Q DO YOU RECALL ANYONE ASKING YOU IF YOU DIDN’T HAVE A REASON TO PULL THEM OVER, WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
A I DON’T RECALL ANYBODY EVER ASKING ME THAT QUESTION, SIR.
Q DID YOU EVER MAKE A STATEMENT THAT IF YOU NEEDED A REASON, YOU WOULD FIND ONE?
A NO.
Q OKAY. NEXT PARAGRAPH.
DID YOU SAY AT ANY TIME IN THAT RECRUITING STATION IN THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEMALE INCLUDING KATHLEEN BELL THAT YOU’D LIKE NOTHING MORE THAN TO SEE ALL NIGGERS GATHERED TOGETHER AND KILLED?
A NO….

Q OKAY.
YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY THAT YOU DO GO INTO HENNESSEY’S TAVERN?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU DO NOT HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF THE NAME ANDREA TERRY BEING THERE…?
A NO, I DO NOT.
Q DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION IN ’85 AND ’86 IN HENNESSEY’S TAVERN WITH A TALL WOMAN WHEREIN YOU SAID THAT BLACK MEN WHO HAVE WHITE WOMEN IN THEIR COMPANY ARE VIOLATING AN ACT OF NATURE?
A NO.
Q AND THAT YOU WOULD ARREST THEM WHENEVER YOU SAW THAT OCCUR?
A NO.
Q THAT DID NOT OCCUR AT ANY TIME?
A NO.
Q AND IS THAT THE KIND OF LANGUAGE OR EXPRESSION, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, THAT YOU WOULD REMEMBER CLEARLY IF THOSE STATEMENTS HAD BEEN MADE?
A YES.
Q SO AS OF THE MOMENT, YOU WOULD SAY THAT IF EITHER KATHLEEN BELL OR ANDREA TERRY CLAIMS THAT YOU MADE THOSE STATEMENTS, THAT WOULD NECESSARILY BE FALSE?
A YES.
Q AND THAT IF JOE FOSS, THE MARINE, SAYS THAT HE IN FACT INTRODUCED YOU TO KATHLEEN BELL OUTSIDE THE RECRUITING STATION AS SHE EMERGED FROM THE COFFEE SHOP AND THAT THE TWO OF YOU TALKED ABOUT A DATE, THAT WOULD NECESSARILY BE FALSE?
A THAT’S CORRECT….
COURT ADJOURNS FOR THE DAY


TESTIMONY OF RON SHIPP
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN:   MR. SHIPP, ARE YOU ACQUAINTED WITH THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE?

MR. SHIPP:  YES, I AM.

MR. DARDEN:  HOW LONG HAVE YOU KNOWN HIM?

MR. SHIPP:  APPROXIMATELY 26 YEARS.

MR. DARDEN:  AND DO YOU RECALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH YOU FIRST MET HIM?

MR. SHIPP:  YES, I DO.

MR. DARDEN:  WHAT WERE THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES?

MR. SHIPP:   UMM, WHEN I WAS ABOUT 16 YEARS OLD MY BROTHER, MIKE, PLAYED AGAINST O.J. IN HIGH SCHOOL UP IN SAN FRANCISCO, AND HE HAD COME DOWN TO LOS ANGELES RIGHT AFTER O.J. HAD WON THE HEISMAN TROPHY, AND MYSELF, MIKE AND MY BROTHER SKIP WENT OVER TO O.J.’S HOUSE AND CONGRATULATED HIM AND THIS IS WHEN I WAS 16 YEARS OLD.

MR. DARDEN:   AND DID YOU AND THE DEFENDANT DEVELOP A FRIENDSHIP AFTER THAT INITIAL MEETING?

MR. SHIPP:  UMM, NOT — WE WEREN’T VERY CLOSE AT THAT TIME. I HAD RUN INTO HIM FROM TIME TO TIME AND, UMM, EVERY TIME I WOULD SEE HIM HE WOULD ASK ME HOW WAS MIKE DOING, AND BUT WE WEREN’T REALLY THAT CLOSE AT THAT TIME.

MR. DARDEN:  OKAY. WELL, AS THE YEARS WENT ON, DID YOU DEVELOP A CLOSER RELATIONSHIP?

MR. SHIPP:   I WOULD SAY APPROXIMATELY FROM ABOUT 1978 ON.

*****
MR. DARDEN:  YOU WERE AN LAPD OFFICER?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, I WAS.

MR. DARDEN:   WHEN DID YOU JOIN THE LAPD?

MR. SHIPP:   1974.

MR. DARDEN:   AND YOU ARE NO LONGER AN LAPD OFFICER?

MR. SHIPP:   NO, I’M NOT.

MR. DARDEN:  WHEN DID YOU LEAVE THE LAPD?

MR. SHIPP:  I BELIEVE IT WAS OCTOBER OF 1989.

MR. DARDEN:  YOU SAID THAT O.J. OR THE DEFENDANT TRUSTED YOU?

MR. SHIPP:  YES, HE DID. I FELT HE DID.

*****
MR. DARDEN:   WAS THERE A SECURITY GATE AT THE HOUSE ON ROCKINGHAM AT THAT TIME?

MR. SHIPP:  YES, THERE WAS.

MR. DARDEN:  DID IT REQUIRE A SECURITY CODE OR SOMETHING TO OPEN THE GATE?

MR. SHIPP:   NO. TO MY KNOWLEDGE THERE WAS JUST A BUTTON THAT YOU WOULD PUSH.

MR. DARDEN:   HOW ABOUT AFTER 1982? DID YOU CONTINUE YOUR RELATIONSHIP OR YOUR FRIENDSHIP WITH THE DEFENDANT?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, I DID. I DIDN’T GO BY THERE AS FREQUENT. ONCE I — I TRANSFERRED DOWNTOWN AND MAYBE I WAS — I WENT OVER THERE MAYBE ONCE EVERY MAYBE TWO, THREE WEEKS.

MR. DARDEN:  DID YOU CONTINUE TO PLAY TENNIS?

MR. SHIPP:  YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:   ON THOSE OCCASIONS WHEN YOU WENT TO THE DEFENDANT’S HOME, WHILE YOU WERE ON DUTY, DID YOU EVER TAKE OTHER OFFICERS TO THE DEFENDANT’S HOME AS WELL?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:   DID OTHER OFFICERS ALSO PLAY TENNIS?

MR. SHIPP:   THERE WAS ONLY ONE — THERE WAS ONLY OFFICER THAT I USED TO PLAY WITH. YEAH, THAT I RECALL, THERE WAS ONE OFFICER.

MR. DARDEN:   AND WHAT IS THAT OFFICER’S NAME?

MR. SHIPP:  CHUCK SMITH.

MR. DARDEN:   AND IF YOU KNOW, IS HE STILL A MEMBER OF THE LAPD?

MR. SHIPP:  YEAH, HE IS STILL AT WEST L.A.

MR. DARDEN:   DID OTHER OFFICERS ALSO VISIT THE DEFENDANT AT HIS HOME?

MR. SHIPP:   TO MY KNOWLEDGE, UMM, NO, UNLESS THEY CAME OVER WITH ME.

MR. DARDEN:   OKAY. WELL, DID YOU TAKE OFFICERS TO THE DEFENDANT’S HOME OTHER THAN CHUCK SMITH?

MR. SHIPP:  YES, I DID. IF I WAS ON PATROL, SOMETIME I WOULD TAKE PEOPLE OVER THERE. I USED TO GET A KICK OUT OF NOT TELLING THEM WHERE I WAS GOING AND RINGING THE DOORBELL AND HAVE O.J. COME OUT AND GREET THEM.

MR. DARDEN:  HOW MANY OTHER OFFICERS WOULD YOU SAY YOU TOOK TO ROCKINGHAM?

MR. SHIPP:   WOW. I WOULD HAVE TO SAY APPROXIMATELY MAYBE — MAYBE FORTY GUYS MAYBE.

MR. DARDEN:  AND WERE THESE FORTY GUYS ALL MEMBERS OF THE LAPD’S WEST L.A. DIVISION OR STATION?

MR. SHIPP:   UMM, MOST OF THEM. MOST OF THEM WERE.

MR. DARDEN:  WAS THERE EVER ANY ANIMOSITY OR HOSTILITY BETWEEN THOSE FORTY GUYS THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED AND THE DEFENDANT?

MR. SHIPP:   NO WAY. NO.

MR. DARDEN:   DID ANY OFFICER GET THE DEFENDANT’S AUTOGRAPH?

MR. SHIPP:  YES, A FEW OF THEM I GOT AUTOGRAPHS FROM O.J. FOR A FEW OF THEM. A COUPLE WERE WOMEN THAT I GOT AUTOGRAPHS FOR THEM AND THEIR KIDS, FEMALE PARTNERS.

*****
MR. DARDEN:  DID YOU EVER MEET NICOLE BROWN?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:   DO YOU RECALL WHEN THAT WAS?

MR. SHIPP:  THAT WAS EITHER ’79 OR ’80. I’M NOT SURE.

MR. DARDEN:  WERE THEY MARRIED AT THE TIME?

MR. SHIPP:   NO, THEY WEREN’T.

MR. DARDEN:   DID YOU EVER VISIT NICOLE BROWN AT ROCKINGHAM?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:   ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS?

MR. SHIPP:  I CAN’T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHEN SHE MOVED IN, SO WHENEVER SHE MOVED IN, UMM, PROBABLY ABOUT MAYBE ONCE A WEEK WHEN WE WERE ONCE AGAIN ON PATROL MOST OF THE TIME.

MR. DARDEN:   OKAY. AND DID YOU CONSIDER NICOLE BROWN A FRIEND?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:   AS YOU DID THE DEFENDANT?

MR. SHIPP:  YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:  DO YOU AND THE DEFENDANT REMAIN FRIENDS TODAY?

MR. SHIPP:   I STILL LOVE THE GUY, BUT, UMM, I DON’T KNOW. I MEAN, THIS IS A WEIRD SITUATION I’M SITTING HERE IN.

MR. DARDEN:  YOU SAY YOU STILL LOVE HIM?

MR. SHIPP:  SURE.

*****
MR. DARDEN:   NOW, DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THESE OTHER OFFICERS EVER WENT BACK TO THE DEFENDANT’S HOUSE ON THEIR OWN?

MR. SHIPP:   NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

MR. DARDEN:   WERE YOU STILL A MEMBER OF THE LAPD DURING THE FIRST WEEK OF JANUARY, 1989?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, I WAS.

MR. DARDEN:  AND DID YOU RECEIVE A TELEPHONE CALL FROM NICOLE THAT WEEK?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:   DID SHE ASK YOU TO DO SOMETHING?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, SHE DID.

MR. DARDEN:   WHAT DID SHE ASK YOU TO DO?  SHE ASKED YOU TO DO SOMETHING?

MR. SHIPP:  YES, SHE DID.

MR. DARDEN:  AND THIS WAS DURING THE TELEPHONE CALL?

MR. SHIPP:  YES, IT WAS.

MR. DARDEN:   DID YOU CALL HER OR DID SHE CALL YOU?

MR. SHIPP:   SHE CALLED ME.

*****
MR. DARDEN:   WAS SHE HYSTERICAL?

MR. SHIPP:   NO, SHE WAS NOT.

MR. DARDEN:  AND WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER SHE ASKED YOU TO DO SOMETHING?

MR. SHIPP:   I’M SORRY. WHEN I GOT OFF OF WORK I WENT OVER THERE.

MR. DARDEN: NOW, YOUR GOING OVER THERE, WAS THAT IN RESPONSE TO SOMETHING SHE ASKED TO YOU DO?

MR. SHIPP:  YES, IT WAS.

MR. DARDEN:  AND DID YOU DO EXACTLY WHAT SHE ASKED YOU TO DO?

MR. SHIPP:  YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:  YOU WENT TO THE DEFENDANT’S HOME ON ROCKINGHAM?

MR SHIPP:  YES, I DID.

 *****
MR. DARDEN:  AND HOW MANY DAYS AFTER JANUARY 1, 1989, WAS IT THAT YOU WENT TO THE DEFENDANT’S HOUSE?

MR SHIPP:  I THINK PROBABLY TWO.

MR. DARDEN:   PROBABLY WHAT?

MR. SHIPP:  TWO DAYS.

MR. DARDEN:   OKAY. SO SOMEWHERE AROUND THE 3RD OR 4TH?

MR SHIPP:   YEAH, RIGHT AROUND THE 3RD OR 4TH.

MR DARDEN:  AND DID YOU SEE NICOLE BROWN AT THAT TIME?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:   AND DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT HER AT THAT TIME?

MR. SHIPP:  YES. UMM, IF I REMEMBER, SHE HAD SOME INJURIES THAT HAD STARTED TO FADE.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT INJURIES DID YOU SEE AT THAT TIME, MR. SHIPP?

MR. SHIPP:   IF I REMEMBER — I MEAN, I COULDN’T SEE THAT WELL BECAUSE I REMEMBER SHE HAD MAKE-UP ON, BUT IF I REMEMBER THERE, WAS SOME SWELLING ABOUT HER HEAD SOMEWHERE. I REMEMBER IT WAS COVERED UP PRETTY GOOD.

MR. DARDEN:   SHE HAD MAKE-UP ON?

MR. SHIPP:   SHE HAD MAKE-UP ON.

MR. DARDEN:   COVERING HER INJURIES?

MR. SHIPP:  RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN:   BUT YOU COULD STILL SEE?

MR. SHIPP:   A LITTLE BIT OF IT.

MR. DARDEN: AND DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HER AT THAT TIME?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:   WHAT WAS HER DEMEANOR DURING THAT CONVERSATION?

MR. SHIPP:   WHEN SHE FIRST STARTED OUT SHE WAS LIKE SHE ALWAYS WOULD BE WHEN WE WOULD TALK, SHE WAS KIND OF JOKING, AND THEN AFTER A WHILE SHE JUST KIND OF GOT INTO ACTUALLY WHAT HAD HAPPENED AND STARTED TELLING ME WHAT HAD HAPPENED BETWEEN HER AND O.J.

MR. DARDEN:   DID SHE SHOW YOU ANYTHING AT THAT TIME?

MR. SHIPP:   NO, SHE DID NOT.

*****
MR. DARDEN:   AND WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE HOUSE WAS NICOLE BROWN THERE?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, SHE WAS.

MR. DARDEN:   WAS THE DEFENDANT THERE?

MR. SHIPP:   NO, HE WASN’T.

MR. DARDEN:   DID YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH NICOLE BROWN?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:  DID YOU SHOW HER THE PROFILE OF THE BATTERED WOMAN?

MR. SHIPP:  YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:   THE VICTIM’S PROFILE?

MR. SHIPP:  YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:   DID YOU DISCUSS IT WITH HER?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:   DID YOU DISCUSS WITH HER EACH OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VICTIM’S PROFILE?

MR. SHIPP:   YEAH. I SHOWED THEM TO HER AND JUST WENT DOWN, YOU KNOW, AND WE READ THEM TOGETHER.

MR. DARDEN:   DID YOU ASK HER WHICH CHARACTERISTICS SEEMED TO APPLY TO HER?

MR. SHIPP:   YOU KNOW, I REALLY CAN’T REMEMBER IF SHE ACTUALLY — IF SHE ACTUALLY CAME OUT AND SAID, WELL, YEAH, THIS IS ALL ME. I REALLY CAN’T REMEMBER THAT. I DON’T RECALL HER ACTUALLY SAYING, YEAH, THIS FITS ALL ME. IT WAS — IT WAS THE BATTERER’S THING THAT SHE FOCUSED THE MOST ON.

MR. DARDEN:   SO SHE FOCUSED MAINLY ON THE BATTERER’S PROFILE?

MR. SHIPP:   RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN:   AND DID SHE ASK YOU TO DO SOMETHING WITH THAT BATTERER’S PROFILE?

MR. SHIPP: YES, SHE DID.

MR. DARDEN:  AND DID YOU DO WHAT SHE ASKED YOU TO DO?

MR. SHIPP:  YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:   WHEN WAS THE NEXT TIME THAT YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT?

MR. SHIPP:   IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN LATER ON THAT WEEK.

MR. DARDEN:   BY THE WAY, THE SECOND TIME THAT YOU VISITED NICOLE THAT WEEK, DID SHE SHOW YOU ANYTHING?

MR. SHIPP:  YES, SHE DID.

MR. DARDEN:   WHAT DID SHE SHOW YOU?

MR. SHIPP:  SHE SHOWED ME SOME PICTURES.

*****
MR. DARDEN: WHO IS THE PERSON IN THE PHOTOGRAPH?

MR. SHIPP:   NICOLE, NICOLE BROWN.

MR. DARDEN:  THAT IS NICOLE BROWN?

MR. SHIPP:  YEAH, THERE’S NICOLE BROWN.

MR. DARDEN:   THAT PICTURE WASN’T SHOWN TO YOU ON — DURING THAT FIRST WEEK OF JANUARY, 1989?

MR. SHIPP:   NO, IT WAS NOT.

MR. DARDEN:   SHOWING YOU PEOPLE’S 10 FOR IDENTIFICATION, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT PHOTOGRAPH?

MR. SHIPP:   NO, I DO NOT.

MR. DARDEN:   WAS THAT PHOTOGRAPH SHOWN TO YOU?

MR. SHIPP:   NO, IT WAS NOT.

MR. DARDEN:   SHOWING YOU PEOPLE’S 11, WHO IS DEPICTED IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH?

MR. SHIPP:   NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON.

MR. DARDEN:   WAS THAT PHOTOGRAPH SHOWN TO YOU?

MR. SHIPP:   NO, IT WAS NOT.

MR. DARDEN:   YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS BEFORE?

MR. SHIPP:  NO, THOSE WEREN’T THE ONES THAT SHE SHOWED ME.

MR. DARDEN:   THESE ARE NOT THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON SHOWED YOU DURING THE FIRST WEEK OF JANUARY, 1989?

MR. SHIPP:  NO.

MR. DARDEN: SO THAT THE RECORD IS CLEAR, EACH OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICT NICOLE BROWN; IS THAT RIGHT?

MR. SHIPP:   THAT’S CORRECT.

MR. DARDEN:   BUT YOU WERE SHOWN SOME PHOTOGRAPHS?

MR. SHIPP:   I WAS SHOWN SOME PHOTOGRAPHS.

MR. DARDEN:   AND WERE THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, PHOTOGRAPHS OF NICOLE?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, THEY WERE.

MR. DARDEN:  HOW MANY PHOTOGRAPHS DID SHE SHOW YOU?

MR. SHIPP:  APPROXIMATELY FOUR, MAYBE FIVE.

MR. DARDEN:   WERE THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS POLAROID PHOTOGRAPHS?

MR. SHIPP:   I REALLY — I THINK — I CAN’T REMEMBER. I THINK THEY MAY HAVE BEEN. NO, SHE TOLD ME SHE TOOK THEM OF HERSELF, SO I CAN’T REALLY REMEMBER IF THEY WERE POLAROID OR NOT.

MR. DARDEN:  DO THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICT NICOLE’S FACE?

MR. SHIPP:   THEY WEREN’T REALLY THAT CLOSE UP. THEY WERE MORE — IF I REMEMBER, THEY WERE MORE OF HER BODY, THE ONES THAT I SAW.

MR. DARDEN:  OKAY. WHAT PARTS OF HER BODY WERE DEPICTED IN THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS?

MR. SHIPP:   I REMEMBER HER LEFT ARM STANDS OUT AND ALSO HER — IF I’M NOT MISTAKEN, HER LEFT — LEFT UPPER THIGH.

MR. DARDEN:   ANY OTHER PARTS OF HER BODY THAT YOU RECALL?

MR. SHIPP:   THAT IS ALL I CAN REMEMBER.

MR. DARDEN:   THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU SAW, SIR, OF NICOLE BROWN’S LEFT ARM AND THIGH, DID YOU NOTE ANY INJURY ON THOSE AREAS OF HER BODY?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:  WHAT DID YOU SEE?

MR. SHIPP:  THEY WERE LIKE BRUISES. BRUISES, YOU KNOW, DARKISH KIND OF BLUISH COLOR.

MR. DARDEN:   BY MR. DARDEN: YOU WERE HAVING A DISCUSSION, THOUGH, ABOUT THE BATTERER’S PROFILE; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. SHIPP:  CORRECT.

MR. DARDEN:   WAS IT DURING THAT DISCUSSION THAT SHE SHOWED YOU THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS?

MR. SHIPP:  YES, IT WAS.

MR. DARDEN:   AND DURING YOUR DISCUSSION OF THE BATTERER’S PROFILE DID YOU AND NICOLE BROWN AGREE ON A SPECIFIC COURSE OF ACTION?

MR. SHIPP:  UMM, YES, WE DID. THAT IS WHEN —

*****
MR. DARDEN: DID YOU INTEND TO PURSUE THE MATTER FURTHER?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:   WHAT DID YOU TELL NICOLE BROWN YOU WERE GOING TO DO?

MR. SHIPP:  THAT I WOULD MEET WITH O.J.

MR. DARDEN:  FOR WHAT REASON?

MR. SHIPP:   TO DISCUSS THE BATTERER’S PROFILES.

MR. DARDEN:   AND DID YOU MEET WITH THE DEFENDANT?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:   DID YOU SHOW HIM THE BATTERER’S PROFILE?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:  AND THAT PROFILE DOES LIST CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF A BATTERER; IS THAT RIGHT?

MR. SHIPP:   THAT’S CORRECT.

MR. DARDEN:   NOW, DURING THAT DISCUSSION DID YOU DISCUSS WITH HIM THE EVENTS OF JANUARY 1, 1989?

MR. SHIPP:  YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:  RELATE TO US THE CONTENT OF THAT CONVERSATION, PLEASE.

MR. SHIPP:   UMM, O.J. HAD SAID THAT THEY HAD GONE OUT THAT NIGHT, HE AND NICOLE, MARCUS AND KATHY, AND THEY HAD HAD A PRETTY GOOD TIME, THAT THEY HAD TOO MUCH TO DRINK, THEY WERE PARTYING TOO MUCH, AND WHEN THEY GOT BACK, THEY GOT IN AN ARGUMENT.

MR. DARDEN:  DID HE SAY WHAT THE ARGUMENT WAS ABOUT?

MR. SHIPP:  YEAH. I MEAN, HE SAID THAT THEY HAD BEEN KIND OF INTIMATE AND THEN THAT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT THEY STARTED ARGUING FOR THE MOST PART.

*****
MR. SHIPP:   FROM WHAT HE TOLD ME, THEY WERE MAKING LOVE AND I GUESS NICOLE HAD WANTED TO STOP, FOR WHATEVER REASONS, AND THEY BEGAN TO ARGUE.

MR. DARDEN:   DID HE TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

MR. SHIPP:   I BELIEVE AT THE TIME HE TOLD ME THAT NICOLE WAS THE AGGRESSOR AND CAME AFTER HIM AND THAT HE WAS ACTING IN SELF-DEFENSE.

MR. DARDEN:   WHAT DID HE SAY WHAT HE DID TO NICOLE IN SELF-DEFENSE?

MR. SHIPP:   HE HAD TOLD ME WHAT HE HAD — AT THE TIME THAT HE HAD — WAS DEFENDING HIMSELF AND THEN PUSHED HER AWAY AND HE DIDN’T REALLY HIT HER.

MR. DARDEN:   HE SAID THAT ALL HE DID WAS PUSH HER AWAY?

MR. SHIPP:  AT THE TIME.

MR. DARDEN:   DID HE SAY WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

MR. SHIPP:   UMM, I THINK HE SAID, YOU KNOW, SHE GOT HYSTERICAL AND CALLED THE POLICE ON HIM.

MR. DARDEN:  DID YOU ASK THE DEFENDANT IF HE BEAT HER UP?

MR. SHIPP:  NO, I DIDN’T. NOT AT THAT TIME I DIDN’T.

MR. DARDEN:  OKAY. CONTINUE ON THEN WITH YOUR CONVERSATION YOU WERE HAVING WITH THE DEFENDANT REGARDING THE BATTERER’S PROFILE.

MR. SHIPP:   OKAY. WHAT HAPPENED THEN IS WE WERE TALKING, AND AFTER HE EXPLAINED TO ME WHAT HAPPENED, THEN I TOLD HIM WHAT NICOLE SAID HAD HAPPENED, AND I TOLD HIM NICOLE HAD ADVISED ME THAT HE HAD HIT HER AND THAT AFTER LOOKING AT THE PROFILE SHE FELT THAT THEY ALL FIT HIM TO THE “T”.

*****
MR. DARDEN:   WHAT DID HE SAY?

MR. SHIPP:   WELL, YOU KNOW, HE SAID HE LOVED NICOLE AND HE WOULD NEVER DO ANYTHING TO HURT HER, AND IT WAS JUST — IT WAS JUST AN ISOLATED INCIDENT.

MR. DARDEN:   NOW, AT THAT POINT — I’M SORRY, HE SAID WHAT?

MR. SHIPP:  HE SAID IT WAS AN ISOLATED INCIDENT.

MR. DARDEN:  NOW, YOU TOLD US THAT YOU HEARD ON MONDAY, JUNE 13, THAT NICOLE BROWN WAS DEAD; IS THAT RIGHT?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, I DID.

*****
 MR. DARDEN:  AND DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE DEFENDANT’S HAND AT THAT TIME?

MR. SHIPP:  YES. I NOTICED THAT HE HAD ONE OF HIS — ON HIS LEFT HAND, I THINK ONE OF HIS FINGERS WAS BANDAGED, WHITE BANDAGE ON IT.

MR. DARDEN:   AND DID YOU POSE ANY QUESTIONS TO HIM AT THAT TIME?

MR. SHIPP:   YES. I ASKED HIM HOW HE CUT HIS HAND, HOW HE CUT HIS FINGER.

MR. DARDEN:   AND WHAT DID HE SAY?

MR. SHIPP:   HE SAID HE DID IT IN CHICAGO.

MR. DARDEN: YOU SAID HE SAID HE CUT HIS HAND IN CHICAGO?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, HE DID.

MR. DARDEN:   NOW, AT SOME POINT, DID THE DEFENDANT PREPARE TO GO UPSTAIRS TO GO TO BED?

MR. SHIPP:   YEAH, AFTER A FEW HOURS.

MR. DARDEN:   AND WHAT DID YOU PREPARE TO DO AT THAT TIME?

MR. SHIPP:   GO HOME.

MR. DARDEN:   IF YOU KNOW, WHERE IS THE DEFENDANT’S BEDROOM LOCATED? WHERE IN THE HOUSE?

MR. SHIPP:   UPSTAIRS LOCATED ON THE EAST — FAR EAST SECTION OF THE HOUSE.

MR DARDEN:   HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IN THE DEFENDANT’S BEDROOM?

MR. SHIPP:  I THINK MAYBE ONCE OR TWICE PRIOR TO THAT NIGHT.

MR. DARDEN:  NOW, AS YOU PREPARED TO LEAVE THE DEFENDANT’S HOME, DID YOU WALK TOWARDS THE FRONT DOOR?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:   AND WHERE WAS THE DEFENDANT AT THAT TIME?

MR. SHIPP:   WALKING TOWARDS THE STAIRS.

MR. DARDEN:   THE STAIRS LEADING UPSTAIRS TO HIS BEDROOM?

MR. SHIPP:  UP TO HIS BEDROOM.

MR. DARDEN:   AND DID HE SAY ANYTHING TO YOU AT THAT TIME?

MR. SHIPP:   YEAH. HE SAID, “RON, COME UPSTAIRS FOR A MINUTE.”

MR. DARDEN:   AND DID YOU GO UPSTAIRS?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:   DID YOU GO UPSTAIRS WITH THE DEFENDANT?

MR. SHIPP:  YES, I DID.

MR. DARDEN:  DID YOU AND THE DEFENDANT GO TO A PARTICULAR ROOM?

MR. SHIPP:   TO HIS BEDROOM, YES.

MR. DARDEN:   AND WHAT WAS THE FIRST THING THAT YOU DID WHEN YOU ENTERED THE DEFENDANT’S BEDROOM?

MR. SHIPP:   THE FIRST THING I DID AT HIS REQUEST WAS TO OPEN THE CABINETS WHERE HIS T.V. WAS.

MR. DARDEN:  AND WHAT WAS THE DEFENDANT DOING WHILE YOU WERE DOING THAT?

MR. SHIPP:   STARTING TO GET UNDRESSED.

MR. DARDEN:  NOW, WHAT WAS HE WEARING INITIALLY?

MR. SHIPP:  I THINK HE WAS WEARING A WHITE SHIRT AND I CAN’T REMEMBER WHAT COLOR THE PANTS WERE.

MR. DARDEN:   WAS HE WEARING PANTS?

MR. SHIPP:   YEAH, HE HAD PANTS ON.

MR. DARDEN:   DID YOU WATCH THE DEFENDANT AS HE UNDRESSED AND PREPARED TO GET READY FOR BED?

MR. SHIPP:  I MEAN I DIDN’T JUST STARE AT HIM. BUT I JUST — I MEAN I WAS LOOKING AT T.V. AND WE WERE TALKING, YOU KNOW.

MR. DARDEN:   ALL RIGHT.  DID HE TAKE HIS CLOTHES OFF, HIS PANTS AND SHIRT OFF?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, HE DID.

MR. DARDEN:   AND WHAT DID HE DO WITH THEM AFTER HE TOOK THEM OFF?

MR. 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.

MR. DARDEN:   AND HE’S ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY, HASN’T HE, I MEAN NEAT WITH HIS CLOTHES?

MR. SHIPP:  YEAH. YES, HE HAS.

MR. DARDEN:  SO WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE DEFENDANT NEATLY FOLDED HIS CLOTHES?

MR. SHIPP:  HE BEGAN TO ASK ME A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

MR. DARDEN:   WHAT WAS THE FIRST —

MR. 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 TO HIS HOUSE.

MR. DARDEN:  AND WHAT DID HE TELL YOU THE POLICE HAD DONE WHEN THEY CAME OUT TO HIS HOUSE?

MR. SHIPP:  HE SAID THAT THEY HAD GONE THROUGH EVERYTHING AND THAT THEY TOLD HIM THAT THEY HAD FOUND A BLOODY GLOVE, THEY TOLD HIM SOMETHING ABOUT A WATCH CAP, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND THAT THEY HAD — WHAT WAS IT? THAT’S ALL I CAN REMEMBER AT THIS TIME.

*****
MR. DARDEN:   WELL, DID HE ASK YOU ANY QUESTIONS, ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION?

MR. SHIPP:   AFTER HE TOLD ME ABOUT WHAT THEY FOUND AT HIS HOUSE, HE ASKED ME HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE DNA TO COME BACK.

MR. DARDEN:   AND AT THAT TIME, DID YOU KNOW THE CORRECT ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION?

MR. SHIPP:   I DID NOT KNOW THE CORRECT ANSWER, BUT WHAT I DID SAY, I JUST OFF THE CUFF SAY TWO MONTHS.

MR. DARDEN:   AND WHAT DID HE SAY IN RESPONSE TO YOUR INDICATION THAT IT TAKES DNA TWO MONTHS TO COME BACK?

MR. SHIPP:   HE KIND OF JOKINGLY JUST SAID, YOU KNOW, “TO BE HONEST, SHIPP –” THAT’S WHAT HE CALLED ME, SHIPP. HE SAID, “I’VE HAD SOME DREAMS OF KILLING HER.”

MR. DARDEN:   DID HE SAY HOW MANY DREAMS HE HAD HAD OF KILLING HER?

MR. SHIPP:  NO, HE DID NOT.

MR. DARDEN:  DID HE SAY IT WAS MORE THAN ONE?

MR. SHIPP:   HE JUST SAID DREAMS, PLURAL.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DOUGLAS:

MR. DOUGLAS:  NOW, IT IS TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN A FEW STATEMENTS ABOUT INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE CONCERNING THIS CASE; ISN’T THAT CORRECT?   SO DID YOU LIE WHEN YOU DIDN’T TELL ME ABOUT THAT DREAM?

MR. SHIPP:   I SURE DID.

MR. DOUBLAS:  YOU DID. OKAY.  YOU’VE LIED A FEW TIMES, HAVEN’T YOU, SIR?

MR. SHIPP:  NEVER IN COURT.

MR. DOUGLAS:   BUT YOU’VE LIED A FEW TIMES CONCERNING WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT MR. SIMPSON, TRUE?

MR. SHIPP:   YEAH, I’D SAY.

MR. DOUGLAS:   YOU LIED TO MARCIA, DIDN’T YOU?

MR. SHIPP:   WELL IF HOLDING BACK INFORMATION — THEY NEVER ASKED ME ABOUT — IF HOLDING BACK INFORMATION IS LYING. I DON’T THINK IT IS LYING. I JUST DIDN’T TELL THEM EVERYTHING.

MR. DOUGLAS:   WELL, YOU DIDN’T TELL THE POLICE AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ABOUT AN IMPORTANT CONVERSATION THAT YOU CLAIM OCCURRED, TRUE?

MR. SHIPP:  THAT’S CORRECT.

MR. DOUGLAS:   NOW, THE FIRST TIME — WITHDRAWN.  SOMETIME BEFORE TALKING WITH ME, YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH AN INVESTIGATOR WORKING ON MY BEHALF; DID YOU NOT?

MR. SHIPP:  YES, I DID.

MR. DOUGLAS:   MR. JOE BROWN. RECALL THAT?

MR. SHIPP:   OKAY. I WAS THINKING OF HOSTETLER. I’M SORRY. MR. JOE BROWN, I DID. YOU’RE RIGHT.

MR. DOUGLAS:   AND YOU NEVER TOLD JOE BROWN ABOUT THIS SUPPOSED CONVERSATION WITH YOU AND MR. SIMPSON, DID YOU?

MR. SHIPP:   NO, I DID NOT.

MR. DOUGLAS:   SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT.  YOU MET FOR 90 MINUTES WITH PHIL AND MARCIA AND BILL AND NEVER MENTIONED THIS CONVERSATION, CORRECT?

MR. SHIPP:   NEVER DID.

MR. DOUGLAS:  YOU MET FOR 25 MINUTES WITH JOE BROWN AND NEVER DISCUSSED THIS CONVERSATION, CORRECT?

MR. SHIPP:  DID NOT.

MR. DOUGLAS:   YOU MET WITH ME IN YOUR ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR 45 MINUTES AND NEVER TALKED ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION, CORRECT?

MR. SHIPP:   CORRECT.

MR. DOUGLAS:   AND YOU ARE MR. SIMPSON’S FRIEND AS FAR AS YOU THINK, CORRECT?

MR. SHIPP:   YES.

MR. DOUGLAS:   NOW, YOU SAID THAT THE REASON WHY YOU DIDN’T TELL PHIL ABOUT THE CONVERSATION WAS BECAUSE OF WHAT?

MR. SHIPP:   I SAID I DIDN’T TELL PHIL BECAUSE AT THE TIME, I REALLY DID NOT WANT TO BE REALLY INVOLVED IN ALL OF THIS AND I DIDN’T WANT TO BE GOING DOWN AS A PERSON TO NAIL O.J.

*****
MR. DOUGLAS: WHEN YOU TALKED TO MISS WELLER ABOUT THIS SUPPOSED CONVERSATION, DID YOU WANT TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS THEN?

MR. SHIPP:  YES, I DID.

MR. DOUGLAS:  DID MISS WELLER INFORM YOU THAT SHE WAS WRITING A BOOK?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, SHE DID.

MR. DOUGLAS:  AND DID SHE SUGGEST TO YOU THAT YOUR CONVERSATION WOULD BE IN THE BOOK?

MR. SHIPP:  YES, SHE DID.

MR. DOUGLAS:  AND DID YOU INTERPRET BY THE FACT THAT YOUR CONVERSATION WOULD BE IN THE BOOK THAT YOU WOULD NO LONGER BE ANONYMOUS?

MR. SHIPP:   WELL, I FELT THE ONLY ONES THAT WOULD KNOW ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION WOULD BE ME AND O.J.

*****
MR. DOUGLAS:  NOW, YOU WERE A POLICE OFFICER FOR HOW MANY YEARS?

MR. SHIPP:  15 YEARS.

MR. DOUGLAS:   AND DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR 15 YEARS AS A POLICE OFFICER, YOU INVESTIGATED CRIMES I WOULD ASSUME.

MR. SHIPP:   I DID.

MR. DOUGLAS:   AND WOULD THERE BE OCCASIONS THAT YOU WOULD READ DESCRIPTIONS ABOUT EVENTS IN EITHER NEWSPAPERS OR BOOKS THAT WOULD ASSIST YOUR INVESTIGATION OF A PENDING CRIME?

MR. SHIPP:   YES. I WOULD SAY YOU’RE CORRECT.

MR. DOUGLAS:   SO IT WAS NOT UNSUSPECTING OF YOU THAT IF SOME POLICE OFFICER WERE TO LATER READ ABOUT A CONVERSATION IN A BOOK CONCERNING A CONVERSATION THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED WITH O.J. SIMPSON, THAT SOMEONE LATER WOULD INVESTIGATE THE SOURCE OF THAT CONVERSATION, TRUE?

MR. SHIPP:   TRUE.

MR. DOUGLAS:   SO YOU KNEW, MR. SHIPP, THAT BY HAVING THIS CONVERSATION WITH MISS WELLER, THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ASSURE YOUR ANONYMITY, CORRECT?

MR. SHIPP:  MR. DOUGLAS, I WOULD SAY YOU’RE PROBABLY CORRECT.

MR. DOUGLAS:   PRIOR TO THE BOOK BEING RELEASED, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO REVIEW A DRAFT OF THE MANUSCRIPT CONCERNING YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH MISS WELLER?

MR. SHIPP:  YEAH, I DID.

MR. DOUGLAS:  HOW MANY TIMES?

MR. SHIPP:   ONCE THAT I LOOKED IT OVER. ONCE.

*****
MR. DOUGLAS:   IN YOUR MIND, WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR YOUR COMFORT THAT YOU BE ANONYMOUS?

MR. SHIPP:   YES.

MR. DOUGLAS:   IF YOU HAD NOT HAD A PROMISE OF ANONYMITY IN YOUR MIND, WERE YOU PREPARED TO SHARE INTIMATE SECRETS ABOUT MR. SIMPSON WITH A TOTAL STRANGER?

MR. SHIPP:  MR. DOUGLAS, SOMETIMES WHEN PEOPLE ARE GOING THROUGH STUFF, SOMETIMES THEY SAY THINGS THAT THEY REALLY WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW.

MR. DOUGLAS:   THAT’S NOT MY QUESTION, SIR.  MY QUESTION IS, IN YOUR MIND, WERE YOU PREPARED TO SHARE INTIMATE SECRETS ABOUT YOUR FRIEND TO A TOTAL STRANGER WITHOUT THE PROMISE OF ANONYMITY?

MR. SHIPP:  OH, NO. NO.

MR. DOUGLAS:   SO THE PROMISE OF ANONYMITY WAS THE REASON OR THE MOTIVATION FOR YOU TO SHARE INTIMATE SECRETS WITH YOUR FRIEND TO A TOTAL STRANGER?

MR. SHIPP:   CORRECT.

MR. DOUGLAS:   HAVE YOU IN THE PAST SHARED INTIMATE SECRETS ABOUT A FRIEND TO SOMEBODY WRITING A BOOK?

MR. SHIPP:  NEVER.

MR. DOUGLAS:  NEVER BEFORE?

MR. SHIPP:   NEVER.

MR. DOUGLAS:   HAVE YOU IN THE PAST LIED TO POLICE OFFICERS ABOUT A MURDER INVESTIGATION?

MR. SHIPP:  NEVER.

MR. DOUGLAS:  YOU SAY THAT THE CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON WAS EATING YOU UP. IS THAT YOUR STATEMENT?

MR. SHIPP:  THAT’S CORRECT.

MR. DOUGLAS:   AND DID YOU HOPE TO EXERCISE THIS PAIN FROM YOUR BODY BY TALKING TO SHEILA WELLER?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, I DID.

MR. DOUGLAS:  YOU DIDN’T THINK THAT YOU COULD EXERCISE THIS PAIN FROM YOUR BODY BY TALKING TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT?

MR. SHIPP:  WELL, AT THE TIME, I — TRUTHFULLY, NO, I DID NOT. I DID NOT WANT TO PUT THEM IN A CERTAIN SITUATION KNOWING THEIR PROFESSION, HOW PROFESSIONAL THESE GUYS ARE.

MR. DOUGLAS:   YOU DIDN’T WANT TO PUT THE POLICE IN THE POSITION OF KNOWING INFORMATION THAT YOU THOUGHT WAS IMPORTANT CONCERNING THE DEATH OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

MR. SHIPP:   WELL, I KNOW IF I WOULD HAVE TOLD PHIL, “OKAY, HEY, PHIL, CONFIDENCE, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO SHARE SOMETHING WITH YOU,” THERE’S NO WAY IN THE WORLD PHIL WOULD HAVE SAID, “YEAH, RON, I’M GOING TO BURY THIS.” SO I —

MR. DOUGLAS:   ISN’T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT YOU WERE HOPEFUL THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO GARNER SOME PUBLICITY BY MAKING UP FALSE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT MR. SIMPSON?

MR. SHIPP:   NO, THAT’S NOT TRUE AT ALL.

MR. DOUGLAS:   DIDN’T YOU THINK, SIR, THAT BY CONCOCTING THIS STORY ABOUT MR. SIMPSON, IT MIGHT ENHANCE YOUR OWN PERSONAL PROFILE?

MR. SHIPP:   MR. DOUGLAS, I PUT ALL MY FAITH IN GOD AND MY CONSCIENCE. SINCE NICOLE’S BEEN DEAD, I’VE FELT NOTHING BUT GUILT, MY OWN PERSONAL GUILT, THAT I DIDN’T DO AS MUCH AS I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE.

MR. DOUGLAS:  DIDN’T YOU THINK THAT BY BEING A WITNESS IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD ENHANCE YOUR OWN PERSONAL PROFILE?

MR. SHIPP:   NO, SIR.

MR. DOUGLAS:   AREN’T YOU AN ACTOR?

MR. SHIPP:   SIR, I HAVE DONE SOME ACTING, YES, I HAVE.

MR. DOUGLAS:   LET’S TALK ABOUT THAT.
HOW MUCH ACTING HAVE YOU DONE, MR. SHIPP?

MR. SHIPP:  I’VE DONE ALMOST — A BUNCH OF BIT PARTS HERE AND THERE.

*****
MR. DOUGLAS:  NOW, IS IT YOUR VERSION THAT MR. SIMPSON TOLD YOU THAT THE POLICE SAID THEY HAD FOUND A GLOVE?

MR. SHIPP:   YES. THAT’S WHAT HE TOLD ME.

MR. DOUGLAS:  AND DID HE TELL YOU THAT THEY HAD FOUND A GLOVE WITH BLOOD ON IT?

MR. SHIPP:   YEAH. THEY SAID THEY FOUND A BLOODY GLOVE. AND I DID LEAVE OUT ONE STATEMENT BECAUSE I DID — WHEN MR. DARDEN WAS QUESTIONING ME, HE DID ASK ME WHAT DOES THIS MEAN, WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN.

MR. DOUGLAS:   NOW, DID HE TELL YOU WHEN HE HAD BEEN TOLD THAT THE POLICE HAD FOUND THE BLOODY GLOVE?

MR. SHIPP:   I CAN’T REMEMBER.

MR. DOUGLAS:   YOU KNEW BY THE TIME OF YOUR CONVERSATION THAT THE POLICE HAD HAD AN INTERVIEW WITH MR. SIMPSON?

MR. SHIPP:   YEAH. OKAY. YEAH, HE DID COME FROM DOWNTOWN, CORRECT.

MR. DOUGLAS:  AND YOU KNEW THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD VOLUNTARILY GONE DOWNTOWN, SPOKE TO THE POLICE, HAD GIVEN A STATEMENT?

MR. SHIPP:   THAT’S CORRECT.

MR. DOUGLAS:   AND YOU KNEW THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD VOLUNTARILY RETURNED FROM CHICAGO TO LOS ANGELES UPON LEARNING OF THE DEATHS?

MR. SHIPP:   THAT’S CORRECT.

MR. DOUGLAS:   NOW, IS IT YOUR VERSION THAT MR. SIMPSON TOLD YOU THAT THEY ALSO FOUND A CAP?

MR. SHIPP:   IS IT MY VERSION?

MR. DOUGLAS:   DID MR. SIMPSON TELL YOU THAT THE POLICE HAD TOLD SIMPSON THAT THEY HAD ALSO FOUND A CAP?

MR. SHIPP:   THERE WERE TWO ITEMS. I’M PRETTY SURE IT WAS A CAP AND A GLOVE.

MR. DOUGLAS:   DID SIMPSON TELL YOU THAT THE POLICE HAD TOLD SIMPSON THAT THE POLICE HAD FOUND BLOOD IN THE CAR?

MR. SHIPP:   YEAH, I THINK HE DID. I’M NOT SURE. I THINK HE DID.

MR. DOUGLAS:  WELL, IF THAT STATEMENT WAS WRITTEN IN EXHIBIT 1000 —

MR. SHIPP:   UH-HUH.

MR. DOUGLAS:   — THAT SIMPSON TOLD LEO THAT THE POLICE HAD FOUND BLOOD IN THE CAR, WOULD THAT STATEMENT HAVE COME FROM YOU SINCE YOU’RE LEO?

MR. SHIPP:   THAT’S CORRECT.

MR. DOUGLAS:   DID SIMPSON TELL YOU THAT THE POLICE HAD TOLD SIMPSON THAT BLOOD WAS FOUND IN THE HOUSE, IN HIS HOUSE?

MR. SHIPP:  YES, HE DID.

MR. DOUGLAS:   NOW, IT’S YOUR POSITION THAT SIMPSON ASKED YOU ABOUT DNA EVIDENCE?

MR. SHIPP:   YES, HE DID.

MR. DOUGLAS:  DID SIMPSON ASK YOU ABOUT REGULAR BLOOD, SEROLOGICAL EVIDENCE AS WELL?

MR. SHIPP:   NO, HE DID NOT.

MR. DOUGLAS:  ISN’T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT SIMPSON NEVER ASKED YOU ANYTHING ABOUT OR MENTION TO YOU ANYTHING ABOUT A CAP BEING FOUND?

MR. SHIPP:   THAT HE NEVER MENTIONED IT TO ME?

MR. DOUGLAS:   ISN’T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT SIMPSON NEVER SAID ANYTHING TO YOU ABOUT THERE BEING BLOOD FOUND IN THE CAR?

MR. SHIPP:   NO, IT’S NOT TRUE.

MR. DOUGLAS:   ISN’T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT MR. SIMPSON SAID NOTHING TO YOU ABOUT BLOOD BEING FOUND IN THE HOUSE?

MR. SHIPP:   THAT’S NOT TRUE.

MR. DOUGLAS:   ISN’T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT YOU MENTIONED TO MR. SIMPSON THAT THE POLICE HAD FOUND THE GLOVE ON HIS PROPERTY?

MR. SHIPP:   I HAD NO IDEA WHAT THEY FOUND IN THE HOUSE. NOTHING.

MR. DOUGLAS:   DIDN’T YOU TAKE MR. SIMPSON OUT TO BEHIND THE GARAGE TO SHOW HIM THE AREA WHERE THE GLOVE WAS SUPPOSEDLY FOUND?

MR. SHIPP:   THIS IS SAD, O.J., BUT NO. THIS IS REALLY SAD.

MR. DOUGLAS: ISN’T IT TRUE, MR. SHIPP, THAT FROM 8:15, THE TIME THAT MR. SIMPSON WENT TO BED, THROUGHOUT THAT ENTIRE EVENING, SOME MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY SAT WITH HIM IN HIS ROOM BECAUSE HE WAS SO GRIEF STRICKEN?

MR. SHIPP:   THAT’S NOT TRUE. SHIRLEY ASKED ME TO GO STAY WITH HIM. SHE DIDN’T WANT O.J. TO BE ALONE. SHE SAID, “YOU STAY UP THERE WITH HIM, RON.”

*****
MR. DOUGLAS:   NOW, MR. SHIPP, LET ME CHANGE THE SUBJECT AND TALK ABOUT YOUR FRIENDSHIP WITH MR. SIMPSON.
WERE YOU AND HE CLOSE FRIENDS?

MR. SHIPP:  I WOULD SAY WE WERE PRETTY GOOD FRIENDS. WE DIDN’T — NEVER WENT OUT TO DINNER LIKE ON A REGULAR BASIS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

MR. DOUGLAS:   DID YOU EVER GO OUT TO DINNER WITH HIM AND YOU, EVER?

MR. SHIPP:   WELL, WHEN HE WAS TRYING TO HAVE ME HELP HIM GET BACK WITH NICOLE. HE WAS REAL —

MR. DOUGLAS:   YOU AND HE WENT OUT TO DINNER?

MR. SHIPP:   HE TOOK ME OUT A COUPLE OF TIMES.

MR. DOUGALS:   WHERE DID YOU GO?

MR. SHIPP:   ONE OF THE PLACES WAS RIGHT NEXT TO HIS OFFICE. I’M NOT SURE IF IT’S THE PIZZA PLACE OVER THERE.

*****
MR. DOUGLAS:  YOU’RE NOT REALLY THIS MAN’S FRIEND, ARE YOU, SIR?

MR. SHIPP:   WELL, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IF YOU WANT ME TO EXPLAIN IT, I GUESS YOU CAN SAY I WAS LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE, ONE OF HIS SERVANTS. I DID POLICE STUFF FOR HIM ALL THE TIME. I RAN LICENSE PLATES. THAT’S WHAT I WAS. I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, I LOVED THE GUY.

MR. DOUGLAS:  YOU WEREN’T THE KIND OF FRIEND THAT HE WOULD SHARE SOME PRIVATE SECRET WITH, WERE YOU, SIR?

MR. SHIPP:   NOTHING EXCEPT FOR THE 1989 BEATING WHERE HE NEEDED ME.

MR. DOUGLAS:   YOU KNOW THAT MR. SIMPSON IS AN AVID GOLFER, TRUE?

MR. SHIPP:   VERY TRUE.

MR. DOUGLAS:   EVER BEEN GOLFING WITH HIM?

MR. SHIPP:  NEVER.

MR. DOUGLAS:   EVER ASKED TO GO WITH HIM?

MR. SHIPP:   NEVER. I’M NOT THAT GOOD.

MR. DOUGLAS:   YOU DRINK A LOT, DON’T YOU?

MR. SHIPP:   I USED TO.

MR. DOUGLAS:   YOU’VE HAD A DRINKING PROBLEM, HAVEN’T YOU?

MR. SHIPP:  IN THE PAST I HAVE.

TESTIMONY OF DANNY MANDEL
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO

MR. SHAPIRO: Good morning, Mr. Mandel, and thank you for coming.
MR. MANDEL: Good morning.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you a little nervous?
MR. MANDEL: Definitely.
MR. SHAPIRO: Have you ever had the occasion to testify before?
MR. MANDEL: No, I have not.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would you briefly tell the jury what your education and background consists of.
MR. MANDEL: I have a BA from UCLA, I graduated in 1990, and currently I work at Sony Pictures in television finance. MR. SHAPIRO: I want to draw your attention and ask you to tell the jury if anything unusual happened to you on June the 12th and if there is any reason to recall that date of 1994.
MR. MANDEL: Well, just that I was in this–at Mezzaluna that evening and then happened to walk by Nicole Simpson’s house that evening.
MR. SHAPIRO: So you have–you are–obviously you are aware of what has been going on in the trial of Mr. O.J. Simpson?
MR. MANDEL: Yes, I am….
MR. SHAPIRO: Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury where you were just prior to going to Mezzaluna restaurant?
MR. MANDEL: I picked up–I was on a first date and I picked up Ellen Aaronson in her apartment.
MR. SHAPIRO: And where did Ellen Aaronson live?
MR. MANDEL: She lives on Darlington in Brentwood.
MR. SHAPIRO: And do you recall where Darlington is in relationship to a location that you–did you at some point become aware of where Nicole Brown Simpson lived?
MR. MANDEL: Yes, I did.
MR. SHAPIRO: Where in relationship to Nicole’s condominium was Miss Aaronson’s apartment?
MR. MANDEL: It is approximately one block south and one block east.
MR. SHAPIRO: What time did you arrive at Miss Aaronson’s apartment?
MR. MANDEL: At a little past eight o’clock.
MR. SHAPIRO: And did you leave there at some point in time?
MR. MANDEL: Yeah, shortly thereafter.
MR. SHAPIRO: Where did you go upon leaving the apartment?
MR. MANDEL: We walked to the restaurant….
MR. SHAPIRO: And did you have dinner at the restaurant?
MR. MANDEL: Yes, we did.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you know what time you left the restaurant?
MR. MANDEL: I would approximate 10:15 or so. . . .
MR. SHAPIRO: Which route did you take going home?
MR. MANDEL:  We left from Mezzaluna’s back door, which is on Gorham, and we walked Gorham west onto Bundy and continued Bundy until Darlington.
MR. SHAPIRO: At some point in time did you become aware of the precise location of Nicole Brown Simpson’s condominium?
MR. MANDEL: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you recall whether or not you walked by that location on June the 12th in the evening with your date, Miss Aaronson?
MR. MANDEL: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: When you walked by that area did you notice anything unusual?
MR. MANDEL: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you hear anything unusual?
MR. MANDEL: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you hear any barking dogs?
MR. MANDEL: None. . . .
MR. SHAPIRO: When you walked by that location on the 12th, did you see any blood in the area that is depicted in the photograph?
MR. MANDEL: No, I did not.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you see the shape or silhouette of the body of a person when you walked by?
MR. MANDEL: No, I did not.
MR. SHAPIRO: How can you relate what time it was?
MR. MANDEL: Well, both by knowing the credit card time and having approximation of how long I sat before I left, and then also when I was on Darlington a few houses down from Ellen’s apartment I happened to glance at my watch and–
MR. SHAPIRO: What time was it when you glanced at your watch?
MR. MANDEL: It was at the bottom of the hour, approximately 10:30. It could be a minute or two before or after.
MR. SHAPIRO: And how far was that location from 875 south Bundy when you looked at your watch?
MR. MANDEL: In time it is probably about three–three-minute walk, three or four-minute walk.
MR. SHAPIRO: Was there anything unusual whatsoever, at approximately 10:30 on June the 12th, that you recall when you walked by the condominium of Nicole
Brown Simpson?
MR. MANDEL: No. . . . .

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Now, tell us, is it your testimony, sir, that you walked past 875 south Bundy sometime between 10:20 and 10:30?
MR. MANDEL: I would say approximately 10:25.
MS. CLARK: Or between 10:25 and 10:30?
MR. MANDEL: I would say it is probably closer to 10:25 than 10:30.
MS. CLARK: So if you were walking down Bundy, passing 875 south Bundy at about 10:25, that means that you would have gone–you would have crossed Dorothy at what, at about 10:26?
MR. MANDEL: Dorothy, correct.
MS. CLARK: That means that would have been just above 875 at about 10:23?
MR. MANDEL: Sounds reasonable.
MS. CLARK: And if someone was in their home just south of Dorothy looking north on Bundy, he should have been able to see you; isn’t that right, walking south on Bundy?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. CLARK: To your knowledge, sir, are you aware that someone testified that they looked out their window from that location I just pointed to south of Dorothy, looking north on Bundy, and saw no one walking down south Bundy at approximately 10:25?
MR. MANDEL: I hadn’t heard that, no.
MS. CLARK: I have nothing further.

TESTIMONY OF DENISE PILNAK
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Good afternoon, Miss Pilnak.

MS. PILNAK: Good afternoon.

MR. COCHRAN: Miss Pilnak, do you presently reside in the 900 block of south Bundy? I won’t give your exact address.

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And back in the month of June of 1994, did you live in the 900 block of south Bundy?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: What line of work are you generally in, Miss Pilnak?

MS. PILNAK: I’ve been in the high tech publishing business for about the last 10 years.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, I’d like to direct your attention back to the date of June 12th of 1994. Do you recall that particular day?

MS. PILNAK: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: And was that a Sunday?

*****
MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to that date, June 12th, 1994, do you know the various things you did on that particular date?

MS. PILNAK: Yes, I do. . . .

MR. COCHRAN: Did you know who Miss Nicole Brown Simpson was?

MS. PILNAK: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And you knew where she lived prior to June 12th, 1994?

MS. PILNAK: No, I didn’t.

MR. COCHRAN: How did you know who she was before that?

MS. PILNAK: I used to see her running with her girlfriend Cora several times a week. But I just knew her–just living in
Brentwood, you know everyone.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you’ve lived in Brentwood for a period of time, have you?

MS. PILNAK: Yes, I have. . . .

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to the times that evening, what time did you finish dinner at Louise’s, if you know and what time did you arrive back home?

MS. PILNAK: Umm, we finished dinner sometime around–close to 9:30 and got home just a couple minutes after. It only takes about 3 minutes.

MR. COCHRAN: To get home from Louise’s?

MS. PILNAK: Yes. . . .

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, you then returned home. Did you return home in the company of anyone else?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And who was that?

MS. PILNAK: My girlfriend was over, Judy Telander. She had joined us for dinner. She had been over all day.

MR. COCHRAN: So how many people went to dinner? Four?

MS. PILNAK: Four.

MR. COCHRAN: It was Judy Telander, yourself, your mom and–

MS. PILNAK: And her husband Nick.

MR. COCHRAN: Nick. All right. Now, at some point after you returned home from dinner with Judy Telander, did your mom and Nick have occasion to leave your residence on the 900 block of south Bundy?

MS. PILNAK: Yes, they did.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you tell the jury and–the Court and jury about what time they left your residence that evening?

MS. PILNAK: Umm, when they came back, they just came in for about five minutes. So it was around 9:45 to 10 to 10:00.

MR. COCHRAN: And they were going someplace at that time?

MS. PILNAK: They were staying at my sister’s house in Torrance. So they were driving back to her home.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Now, after they left, did you have occasion to see what time it was after that as you looked
toward obtaining some messages from your machine?

MS. PILNAK: Umm, I did look at the clock because my girlfriend had been over all day using my computer.

MR. COCHRAN: And again, now, what girlfriend are we talking about?

MS. PILNAK: Judy Telander.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. What time was that that you looked at the clock?

MS. PILNAK: 10:18.

*****
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you. Now, you were about to tell us that your friend, Judy Telander, had been over pretty much all day using your computer. And so you had occasion to look at a clock or something to determine the time, and it was 10:18?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. What happened at 10:18, please?

MS. PILNAK: Umm, Judy had been over all day and I noticed the digital time. I said–I said to her, “Judy, it’s 10:18.
You’ve been here all day and I’m going out of town in a couple days. You’re going to have to leave.” So–

MR. COCHRAN: Well, you said–let’s see now. You said that she’s a friend, right?

MS. PILNAK: She’s a friend.

MR. COCHRAN: You said that in a nice way?

MS. PILNAK: In a nice way.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you said that, “You have to leave now,” or, “It’s time to go home,” right?

MS. PILNAK: Yeah. Well, “It’s time to go home,” and I said, “Let’s just print out your report and you can look at it tomorrow, and any changes, I’d be happy to make tomorrow.”

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MS. PILNAK: But I had things I had to get done.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. I understand. Did you at that time assist her in printing out anything for her before she left?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: What did you print out for Judy Telander?

MS. PILNAK: I printed out a letter that she had been working on all day, and actually it’s two pages and then about two lines on the third page. And I printed out two copies. I wasn’t sure if it was one or two. I think it was two.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you give that to her?

MS. PILNAK: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And so you parted company at about what time?

MS. PILNAK: 10:21.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And again, you’re pretty sure about that time?

MS. PILNAK: Well, I retimed everything. My little speech to her took about 45 seconds and the printing out was a minute and 25 seconds for each three-page copy. So that’s–that’s right about 3 minutes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So after the fact, you went back and redid these things yourself; is that right?

MS. PILNAK: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

MR. COCHRAN: Uh-huh means yes?

MS. PILNAK: Yes. I’m sorry.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. All right. So how did you–did you escort her out or tell us what you did when Judy Telander was leaving?

MS. PILNAK: Whenever my girlfriends leave my home, I always turn off the porch light, stand on the porch, watch until they get in their car and take off. Then I make them call me when they get home just so we know they’re safe. . . .

MR. COCHRAN: Now, when you walked out and you’re out on the porch with Judy Telander, can you describe for the jury the condition of Bundy drive that particular night, that Sunday evening?

MS. PILNAK: That Sunday evening, it was exceptionally quiet. As long as I’ve lived in that home, I never remember a night when it was absolutely still. There wasn’t a sound to be heard.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, what time is this that it’s exceptionally quiet?

MS. PILNAK: It was about–Judy and I were outside talking probably between 10:21 and about 10:25.

MR. COCHRAN: During that time, you were out on your porch; is that correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And how long had you lived at that location at that point?

MS. PILNAK: Umm, four years.

MR. COCHRAN: So in the four years you lived there, you had never heard Bundy so quiet; is that right?

MS. PILNAK: Yes. . . .

MR. COCHRAN: And so your porch is there where you and Judy Telander stood before she left; is that correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And at that time, it was about 10:25 P.M. on June 12th, 1994, right?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And it was quieter than you could ever remember it; is that correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you remember seeing any people walking around at that point?

MS. PILNAK: No.

MR. COCHRAN: See people walking? Do you remember seeing anybody walking dogs at that point?

MS. PILNAK: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you remember hearing any dogs barking at that point at 10:25?

MS. PILNAK: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, after you saw Judy Telander off, did you have occasion to come back in and do something at that time at about 10:25 P.M.?

MS. PILNAK: Umm, the minute Judy left, I picked up the telephone and called my mother to make sure she got home safely. . . .

MR. COCHRAN: As I understand your testimony, your mom and Nick had left at something like 9:45 to 9:50; is that correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And after Judy Telander left, you then called your mom at some location; is that correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And what time was it that you called your mother?

MS. PILNAK: 10:25. . . .

MR. COCHRAN: You talked to her for about three minutes, did you?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, these–you have a habit about collecting reading materials and keeping papers until you
throw them away?

MS. PILNAK: I don’t throw anything away until I’ve read it.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you collected up–what did you do? You collected up a number of papers and things?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And ultimately, you took those things and gathered them up and you took them someplace in
your house?

MS. PILNAK: Yes. Into my bedroom because I–

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, up to that time, ma’am, up to the time that you picked these newspapers up and you brushed your teeth and flossed and everything, had you heard any loud dogs barking at that time?

MS. PILNAK: No.

MR. COCHRAN: It was still very quiet out?

MS. PILNAK: I wasn’t outside, but it was–I didn’t hear any noises from outside.

MR. COCHRAN: You couldn’t hear anything from inside; is that correct?

MS. PILNAK: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: When you had been out on your porch and Judy Telander had left, it had been very, very quiet?

MS. PILNAK: Extremely quiet.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, at some point thereafter, did you hear a dog or dogs start barking?

MS. PILNAK: When I went back into the bathroom, I was drying my hands and I heard a dog barking.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And to the best of your recollection, what time was that that you heard this dog barking at that
point, your best recollection?

MS. PILNAK: About 10:35.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Nearest you can tell, that was the earliest it was?

MS. PILNAK: It could be 10:33 because I’ve retimed those activities.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Between 10:30, 10:35; is that correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you never came outside to check that dog, did you?

MS. PILNAK: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You just heard the dog barking?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And did they–did you hear this sound of barking, did it continue for a period of time?

MS. PILNAK: It continued for a long time.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Do you recall what time you went to sleep that night?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: What time did you approximately fall off to sleep?

MS. PILNAK: Well, I closed the lights off at 12:30 A.M.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You closed the lights off at 12:30. How soon after that did you go to sleep, if you know?

MS. PILNAK: Probably right afterward.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And at some point, did the dog–this dog stop barking?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Were you able to tell whether or not during that time frame of about 10:35 until you turned the lights off at 12:30, you ever heard more than one dog barking?

MS. PILNAK: I’m not sure. I heard one continuous bark for a very long time.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You can’t tell us whether or not it was one dog or a different dog or whatever, but you heard a continuous bark; is that correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And so when you finally got ready to fall asleep, did the dog–did the barking stop at some
point?

MS. PILNAK: The barking had stopped.

MR. COCHRAN: And that would have been at about 12:30 the barking stopped?

MS. PILNAK: No. It had stopped before then.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Do you know when it had stopped approximately?

MS. PILNAK: Approximately–it was a long time. I would have guessed that it–from the time it started barking, it had to be about 45 minutes or so. But I don’t know precisely.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You didn’t write anything down about that, did you?

MS. PILNAK: No. That I didn’t.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to the time of 10:15, at which time you’ve indicated you were still in your house, did you hear a dog barking at all at that time?

MS. PILNAK: No.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you came out on that porch with Judy Telander–and that was I think you’ve told us between 10:21 and 10:25–you didn’t hear any dogs barking at that time, did you?

MS. PILNAK: No. We commented on how quiet it was.

MR. COCHRAN: When you say “We,” you’re talking about you and Judy?

MS. PILNAK: Judy and I commented.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, in connection with this, do you know and are you acquainted with a man by the name of Pablo Fenjves?

MS. PILNAK: Yes, I am.

MR. COCHRAN: And how do you know who he is?

MS. PILNAK: He’s another San Vicente runner.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. He’s a person that runs in that general area with you?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you have occasion to see him a short time after he testified in this trial, in this case?

MS. PILNAK: I saw him the following day after the preliminary hearing.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Had he testified at the preliminary hearing?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to his testimony, did you have a conversation with him?

MS. PILNAK: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Did that conversation concern the time that the dog started barking on that particular night?

MS. PILNAK: Yes. . . .

MR. COCHRAN: Did you agree with him as to what time the dog start barking that night?

MS. PILNAK: No.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Argumentative, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Can I get your answer?

THE COURT: She said no.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you talk to him about that?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And where did that conversation take place?

MS. PILNAK: Umm, in front of his condominium. I was coming back from a run.

MR. COCHRAN: And how long did that conversation last?

MS. PILNAK: Probably about 10 minutes, 5 or 10 minutes.

MR. COCHRAN: And did he participate in the conversation at all?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: When was the last time you saw Mr. Pablo Fenjves?

MS. PILNAK: This morning at 8:06 A.M.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion at that time to talk about the same subject again just generally?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: About the time the dogs started barking back then?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Is there anything he said to you at any time change your mind as to what time you heard the dogs start barking?

MS. PILNAK: No. . . .

MR. COCHRAN: When you came out of the house on that Monday morning, did you see anything unusual in and about Bundy in that location?

MS. PILNAK: Yes. There was yellow tape all around the crime area.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And what time was that you made that observation?

MS. PILNAK: It’s right about 8:30.

MR. COCHRAN: Had you been aware of anything prior to that time at all?
MS. PILNAK: No.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you saw this yellow tape, you didn’t have any idea what had happened, what had taken place, did you?

MS. PILNAK: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you then go on a run?

MS. PILNAK: I did, but after I asked about what was happening in the neighborhood.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You inquired about what was going on, right?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you ascertain or find out that there had been some murders in your neighborhood?

MS. PILNAK: Yes. I was told there was a double homicide.

MR. COCHRAN: At that time, you didn’t know who was involved, did you?

MS. PILNAK: No.

MR. COCHRAN: You then went on your run?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And at some point, you returned and came back from your run; is that correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall approximately what time it was that you got back?

MS. PILNAK: Umm, probably about 10:00 o’clock or a little bit before 10:00.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And after you got back home after a little bit before 10:00 o’clock on Monday morning, June
13th, did you have occasion to talk to one or two police officers at some point?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And at that time, were you–was–did you become aware of who one of the victims was of the
homicide?

MS. PILNAK: It was prior to them coming over.

MR. COCHRAN: Before that?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you became aware that Miss Nicole Brown Simpson was one of the victims?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And that was very upsetting to you; was it not?

MS. PILNAK: Very upsetting.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you talked to the police–had they–did they come to your home?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And it was a short time after you returned from your run and after you had found out that Nicole Brown Simpson had been one of the victims of the homicide; is that right?

MS. PILNAK: Yes. . . .

MR. COCHRAN: When you talked to the police, did you talk at all about dogs barking?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall what you said at that time to the police, if anything?

MS. PILNAK: Well, because of what had happened, I was in shock and I–they asked me about what time I thought I heard the dogs barking, and I remember saying something around 11:00, 11:30.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Was that accurate?

MS. PILNAK: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you at some time later determine that wasn’t accurate?

MS. PILNAK: Yes. Later that day.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And how did you make that determination?

MS. PILNAK: Well, I–I just thought back about the events of the night, what had happened, and it was very easy to figure, you know, exactly what time I heard the dogs barking.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So before that date was out, before June 13th, 1994, were you aware that 11:00 or 11:30 was not a correct time?

MS. PILNAK: Yes. . . .

MR. COCHRAN: At some point later in time, did you ever at any point send a correcting fax or letter to any detectives in this case?

MS. PILNAK: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you did that, when was that approximately? Was that–do you know when that was?

MS. PILNAK: It was the day the trial began.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. The day this trial began; is that correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And at that time, you sent–what did you do?

MS. PILNAK: Umm, I called the District Attorney’s office and I believe I ended up speaking with Detective Vannatter.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MS. PILNAK: After making several calls, you know, just to get to the right person.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And after you talked to Detective Vannatter, did you–

MS. PILNAK: I faxed him an itinerary of that day.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You faxed him an itinerary of everything you did that day?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: The date of June 12th, 1994?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Spelling out all the things we’ve talked about here and some others that aren’t–we haven’t talked about?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you tell him at that time what time the dogs–the dog had started barking on June 12th in the evening hours?

MS. PILNAK: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And what time was that, Miss Pilnak?

MS. PILNAK: About 10:35.

MR. COCHRAN: Are you sure about that?

MS. PILNAK: Again, it could be between 10:33 and 10:35. Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: But you’re sure about that?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you have come here today pursuant to a subpoena to testify; is that correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And have you told us the truth here today about your testimony?

MS. PILNAK: Yes, I have.

MR. COCHRAN: You’re not here to prefer one side or the other, are you?

MS. PILNAK: No. Just justice.

MR. COCHRAN: Just what?

MS. PILNAK: Justice.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly. Nothing further at this point, your Honor.

THE COURT: People. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Miss Pilnak, you’re a stickler for time, are you?

MS. PILNAK: Yes, I am.

MS. CLARK: And you wear two watches; is that right?

MS. PILNAK: Not always. If I’m in a rush, you know, to the airport or I have to be someplace. I have lots of clocks in my home.

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh. And when the police officers contacted you on the morning of June the 13th, you knew that they were talking–coming to talk to you about a murder investigation, correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: And you knew that one of the victims was Nicole Brown, correct?

MS. PILNAK: I had just found out.

MS. CLARK: You didn’t know her, did you?

MS. PILNAK: No, other than in passing, when you see someone, you know, four or five times a week for six months.

MS. CLARK: You saw her in the neighborhood; is that right?

MS. PILNAK: I saw her on San Vicente Boulevard.

MS. CLARK: You didn’t go to her house?

MS. PILNAK: No.

MS. CLARK: She didn’t go to your house?

MS. PILNAK: No.

MS. CLARK: She was not a personal friend of yours?

MS. PILNAK: No.

MS. CLARK: All right. So you knew that they were talking about a murder investigation on the morning of June the 13th, correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: That’s pretty important, isn’t it?

MS. PILNAK: Yes, it is.

MS. CLARK: And you knew that what you said to the police officer would be important, didn’t you?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And so you were trying to be careful to tell them accurately whatever information you had, weren’t you?

MS. PILNAK: Yes. But I was in shock. I had just found this out minutes before they walked in. . . .

MS. CLARK: All right. Can you answer this? You were talking to the police officers. You knew that your answers to their questions would be important, correct?

MS. PILNAK: I was in shock. I guess so, but I was in–I was in shock when they came over.

MS. CLARK: There would be an objection as nonresponsive for everything except “I guess so.”

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Motion to strike.

THE COURT: The jury is to disregard the last portion of the answer. Proceed.

MS. CLARK: So you guess so, that it was important to give them the correct answers, but you didn’t, did you, at least according to your testimony today?

MS. PILNAK: At that moment in time, because of the way that I–the way I was feeling, it was the best of my recollection. I had just come in my house minutes before. I had just found out that Nicole was murdered.

MS. CLARK: Be another objection as nonresponsive, your Honor. Motion to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Now, Miss Pilnak, you’ve given several interviews to the press since this case occurred; did you not?

MS. PILNAK: Living on Bundy, I’ve had cameras in front of my face. Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you’ve spoken on television regarding your observations in this case, correct?

MS. PILNAK: I believe I have.

MS. CLARK: And as a matter of fact, you were interviewed on June the 13th outside the Bundy condo; isn’t that right?

MS. PILNAK: I think so, yes.

MS. CLARK: And on June the 14th, you were interviewed in front of Rockingham, weren’t you?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: You don’t live in Rockingham, do you?

MS. PILNAK: No. But I run there every Monday and Tuesday.

MS. CLARK: And so when you were running there on June the 14th, that was on Tuesday, you were interviewed again, correct?

MS. PILNAK: I guess so, yes.

MS. CLARK: And you told the press that–also the same thing you told the police officers, that you heard dogs barking at around shortly before midnight; isn’t that correct?

MS. PILNAK: If you say so.

MS. CLARK: Do you recall talking to the press about what time you heard dogs barking?

MS. PILNAK: Uh, I believe I do.

MS. CLARK: And do you recall talking to them on June the 14th in front of Rockingham?

MR. COCHRAN: May I approach, your Honor?

THE COURT: No. Miss Clark, yes.

MS. CLARK: Do you recall talking to a reporter for a newspaper called the Atlanta Constitution on June the 14th, 1994?

MS. PILNAK: I don’t recall that particular person.

MS. CLARK: But you recall talking to reporters on that date, correct?

MS. PILNAK: I believe so.

MS. CLARK: And you recall telling those reporters or at least one of those reporters that you remember hearing dogs barking shortly before midnight?

MS. PILNAK: I believe so.

MS. CLARK: And were you still in shock on June the 14th, Miss Pilnak?

MS. PILNAK: Well, I think for a few days I was in shock.

MS. CLARK: Were your memory–you had a memory of the events at the time that you were speaking–strike that. Would you say that your memory of what occurred on the evening of June the 12th was better on June the 13th or better on January the 25th, 1995?

MS. PILNAK: Probably January.

MS. CLARK: Your memory was better seven months later; is that right, ma’am?

MS. PILNAK: Well, if I have to choose between the two dates. . . .

MR. COCHRAN: Does your memory fade with time, Miss Pilnak, or get sharper?

MS. PILNAK: Well, when I write things down, it doesn’t fade. I can always go back and look at what I wrote down. . . .

MS. CLARK: On June the 14th, you were in shock, and you took a run up to Rockingham?

MS. PILNAK: I run every day.

MS. CLARK: Even when you’re in shock?

MS. PILNAK: Well, what I mean is, I was–I mean, this–this is a quiet neighborhood and I was shocked by what had happened. Of course. I run every day. It doesn’t mean that I can’t function.

MS. CLARK: Right. It was a shocking event, correct?

MS. PILNAK: Very shocking.

MS. CLARK: That doesn’t mean that you are medically in shock, correct?

MS. PILNAK: That’s correct.

MS. CLARK: Showing you a report that’s been marked as People’s 497? 8.

THE COURT: 498.

MS. CLARK: 498.

THE COURT: What’s the date on that report, Miss Clark?

MS. CLARK: Date on the report is June 14th.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: Do you see your name on this report?

MS. PILNAK: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: And is that your name?

MS. PILNAK: Can I say something? It’s incorrectly spelled.

MS. CLARK: Right. They have an “M” instead of an “N” in your name?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: All right. But the address on this is correct; is that right?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: That’s your address?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you spoke to the police officers on June the 13th, 1994, correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And what time was it when you spoke to them?

MS. PILNAK: Around 10:15 in the morning.

MS. CLARK: And is that–I believe you indicated on direct that it was about 10:00 o’clock when you spoke to them? Didn’t you indicate to that?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to that. Misstates the evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. PILNAK: 10:00, 10:15. I did not look at my watch when they came in.

MS. CLARK: So you can’t be precise about that time?

MS. PILNAK: No. Not that time.

MS. CLARK: Pardon?

MS. PILNAK: No.

MS. CLARK: And even though you were in a shocked condition, that did not prevent you from speaking to the reporters
on camera on June the 13th and June the 14th, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled. But I think we’ve already asked that question.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Can she answer this one?

THE COURT: We’ve already asked the question.

MS. CLARK: All right. So you recall looking at your watch when you asked Mr.–Miss Telander–

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: You recall looking at your watch when you asked her to leave, correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: But you did not look at your watch when the officers came to interrogate you about a murder investigation?

MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Showing you People’s 498. All right. I’ve folded down the identifying information on your–on the police
report. This is the report I just showed you, correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And the statement says that you indicated you heard dogs barking on the night of June the 12th at about 11:30 P.M., correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you–that’s the truth. That is what you told them on that date?

MS. PILNAK: That is what I told them on that date.

MS. CLARK: All right. And after you spoke to the police on June the 13th, you spoke to the press on June the 13th and 14th and then your next contact with the police was on January 25th, 1995, correct?

MS. PILNAK: That’s correct.

MS. CLARK: And that was after you had seen the opening statements; is that correct?

MS. PILNAK: That’s correct.

MS. CLARK: And on January the 25th, 1995, you typed out this itinerary of what you did that day, correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And I’m going to show you the first page of that and ask if you recognize–

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. I’ll approach. I’ve seen that, yes.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: And is that an accurate copy of the itinerary you typed out on January 25th, 1995?

MS. PILNAK: That is what I typed, but there were some changes made since then.

MS. CLARK: And have you furnished those changes to the Prosecution or to the police?

MS. PILNAK: Umm, I told the police and I furnished them also to the Defense.

MS. CLARK: Okay. You told the police that it could have been 10:33 and not 10:35 as you indicated in your itinerary back–that you typed in January of 1995?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And did you indicate to anyone that the dog might have been barking earlier, but you hadn’t heard it?

MR. COCHRAN: Assumes facts not in evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. PILNAK: Yes. . . .

MS. CLARK: Miss Pilnak, let me ask you something. When you were out on the porch, you were there for what period of time?

MS. PILNAK: About three or four minutes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And you went out there at 10:21?

MS. PILNAK: Approximately 10:21.

MS. CLARK: Could be 10:22?

MS. PILNAK: It could be 10:22.

MS. CLARK: All right. And when you were out there on the porch–or 10:20 by the way?

MS. PILNAK: It wasn’t 10:20 because it–by the time I said what I did to my girlfriend and printed out the report, it’s three minutes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And you–you were standing on the porch for approximately four minutes?

MS. PILNAK: Three to four minutes, yes.

MS. CLARK: While you were standing out on that porch, did you see a young couple, a boy and a girl, walking
southbound on Bundy?

MS. PILNAK: No.

MS. CLARK: Did you see a girl wearing light colored pants and a beige–

THE COURT: Blazer.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

MS. CLARK: –blazer?

THE COURT: With stripes.

MS. PILNAK: No.

MS. CLARK: Did you see a white Nissan–excuse me. Did you see a Nissan 300ZX driving northbound on Bundy?

MS. PILNAK: No, I did not.

MS. CLARK: Did you see a white–strike that. Do you have a clear view of the intersection of Bundy and Dorothy?

MS. PILNAK: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: From your porch?

MS. PILNAK: Very clear. . . .

MS. CLARK: On the night of June the 12th, when you were out on your porch, did you see any large white Ford truck?

MS. PILNAK: No.

MS. CLARK: Did you see any vehicles parked on the curb area there?

MS. PILNAK: I didn’t notice any vehicles.

MS. CLARK: Did you hear any loud voices coming from the location of the intersection of Bundy and Dorothy that night?

MS. PILNAK: No.

MS. CLARK: At any time?

MS. PILNAK: No.

MS. CLARK: Other than the sound of the dog barking at 10:33 or even possibly earlier as you’ve indicated, was that the
only sound that you heard?

MR. COCHRAN: That misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. PILNAK: Would you repeat that, please?

MS. CLARK: Yes. On the night of June the 12th, as you’ve testified, at approximately 10:33 or possibly earlier as you’ve indicated, the sound of the dog barking, was that the only sound you heard that drew your attention on the night of June the 12th?

MS. PILNAK: That–at that time, yes, but it wasn’t before 10:33. I’m positive of that.

MS. CLARK: Okay. You’re very sure of that?

MS. PILNAK: Well, I retimed my activities.

MS. CLARK: And when you say you retimed your activities–well, let me ask–let me–I’ve already shown you this page of your itinerary, correct? . . .

MS. PILNAK: Yes. But there were additions.

MS. CLARK: I’m sorry. This is the itinerary though that you typed in January–on January 25th of 1995?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And on January 25th, 1995, you were able to recall that exactly 10:18 P.M., you looked at the digital time clock on your message machine and said to Judy, quote, “Judy, it’s 10:18 and you’re going to have to leave. I’m going to Aspen in two days and I have a ton of things I have to get done. You’ve been here all day,” end quote.

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you remember saying those exact words to her; is that correct?

MS. PILNAK: I remembered saying those the following day. I didn’t just remember in January.

MS. CLARK: But you didn’t write it down the following day, did you?

MS. PILNAK: No, I did not.

MS. CLARK: You wrote it down on January 25th, 1995?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And then for the entry for 10:21 to 10:25 P.M., you indicate that you and Judy commented about the weather saying, quote, “It’s really a strange night. It’s so quiet. It’s almost eerie,” in all caps, end quote, and you recall making that exact comment to her?

MS. PILNAK: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: And you recalled that on January 25th, 1995, seven months after the event?

MS. PILNAK: I recalled it earlier also, yes.

MS. CLARK: But you only wrote it down seven months later, correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, on the second page, you indicate–I’m going to show it to you–“The dog continuously barked. I said
to myself out loud,” quote, “I hope that damn dog stops barking before I go to sleep,” end quote.

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you recall thinking those exact words at that exact time on June the 12th, 1995, correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes. Yes. I said it out loud. I remember.

MS. CLARK: And you remembered that on January 25th, 1995, correct?

MS. PILNAK: I wrote it down on January 25th. I remembered it before then.

MS. CLARK: Now, if you would tell us, where did Judy drive? What was her direction of travel?

MS. PILNAK: Judy’s car was parked right in front of my house on the street facing north, and she proceeded north to Dorothy, she made a left and–used to be able to make a left-hand turn there–and just made a U-turn right–she–she was parked here, came up and turned right in there (Indicating) and then went south.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And that was at 10:21 or 10:22?

MS. PILNAK: No. It was probably 10:24 or right at 10:25.

MS. CLARK: And you saw–while you were out on the porch, you saw no other car proceeding from Dorothy and north on Bundy?

MS. PILNAK: No other car. That’s why we commented on that night.

MS. CLARK: You did not see a 300 Nissan ZX driving westbound on Dorothy and then northbound on Bundy?

MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Now, Judy Telander is here in court with you today, isn’t she?

MS. PILNAK: Yes, she is.

MS. CLARK: And you have been waiting together in the–in a little room?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you saw Ellen Aaronson today, didn’t you?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you were waiting with her in that little room?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And how long were you all together in that room?

MS. PILNAK: Well, everybody was running in different directions, but probably a few hours, you know, since this morning. Could of–you know, four or five hours.

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh. And now, Miss Telander is somebody who has been your friend for quite a long time?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And after you were–became aware of the murders that were committed on Bundy on June the 12th, you
spoke to her about the events of that night; did you not?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: On several occasions; have you not?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: In fact, you’ve shown her this script, haven’t you, your itinerary?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Object to use of the word “Script.”

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Move to strike.

MS. CLARK: Well, there’s dialogue.

MS. CLARK: And on how many occasions would you say you’ve spoken to her about the events of that night since June
the 13th?

MS. PILNAK: Well, initially, particularly right after the preliminary hearing, a lot. Several times. I mean, I couldn’t put, you know, a number to that, but many, many times.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: Do you recall exactly how long you’ve been here today?

MS. PILNAK: Umm, I arrived about 10:15, 10:30.

MS. CLARK: And you are wearing two watches?

MS. PILNAK: Well, my first watch wasn’t working real well. So I just wanted to make sure with time.

MS. CLARK: So was it 10:15 or was it 10:30?

MS. PILNAK: I didn’t look at what time I arrived today. I’m a stickler with time when I remember things, when I look at a clock and say it’s 10:18, and then it’s very easy because I have a routine in my life. So I can very easily calculate how long things take.

MS. CLARK: Was it not a big event for you to come to court today?

MS. PILNAK: I wasn’t looking forward to it. . . .
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Miss Pilnak, I’d like to ask you a couple questions if I might. With regard to this document that we’re now about to talk about, Defendant’s 1238, as I understand it, that’s a document that you prepared and sent to Detective Vannatter; isn’t that correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And throughout this matter, when I was questioning you before, you said you were interested in justice; is that right?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: In fact, you’re a big, big support of the police, aren’t you?

MS. PILNAK: Yes, I am.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, this is the second page of the document that Miss Clark was reading to you. And do you recall that at some point, you said aloud to yourself, “I hope that so and so dog stops barking before I go to sleep”?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Remember saying that specifically?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: That’s something you remember back on the late evening hours of June 12th, 1994 or the early morning hours of June 13th; is that right?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And you went on to talk about the dog barking for a very long time; is that correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Then you put a paragraph in entitled, “No dog was barking at 10:15 P.M.”; is that correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You typed that in yourself on your computer?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you went on to indicate that, “My windows were open while my friend Judy was working on my computer.” What windows were you talking about?

MS. PILNAK: The front windows in the office.

MR. COCHRAN: And those are the front windows in your house?

MS. PILNAK: Yes. And they’re on the–the north–they’re right on Bundy and they’re the farthest north side of the house.

MR. COCHRAN: And so when you went on to say, “This room is in the front of my house and you can hear just about every noise on Bundy from it”, is that accurate?

MS. PILNAK: Yes. Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: “And I was standing on the front porch at 10:21 P.M. while Judy was in the street by her car. It was exceptionally quiet outside at that time”; is that correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And again, that was consistent with what you said when you talked to Vannatter; is that correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And even since that time, you’ve had occasion to call the police and you corrected it even further and spelled out other things that you had done that day; is that correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: As you sit here now, Miss Pilnak, is there any doubt in your mind that you did not hear any dog bark on the evening of June 12th, 1994 before 10:33 P.M. in the evening? Any doubt at all?

MS. PILNAK: There’s no doubt.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, ma’am. Thank you for coming.

MR. COCHRAN: One last question. With regard to this room that you’re in upstairs, is that a room where we’re trying to house witnesses so we can bring them down as fast as possible? Is that correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And is there an attorney left in that room with you at all times?

MS. PILNAK: Yes, there is.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: All right. So today, you’re certain of all the times you’ve testified to; is that correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And the only time you had any doubt was on the morning that you actually spoke to the police investigating these murders; is that correct?

MS. PILNAK: I had not recounted for my time, yes.

MS. CLARK: So that is correct. The only time you had doubt is when you were talking to the police officers who were investigating these murders on the morning of June the 13th?

MS. PILNAK: That and probably when I spoke with reporters.

MS. CLARK: And also when you spoke to the reporters on the 13th and the 14th, correct?

MS. PILNAK: Yes.
 

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: When you–when you talked to your mother at 10:25 as evidenced by that phone bill right before you, were you inside your house?

MS. PILNAK: Yes. I had just walked in. Judy just left.

MR. COCHRAN: So you weren’t outside looking at that point. You were inside your house, right?

MS. PILNAK: I was inside my house.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly.

MS. PILNAK: You’re welcome.

THE COURT: Anything else on that point? All right. Miss Pilnak, thank you very much. You are excused.

TESTIMONY OF MIKE NORRIS
 

 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO

MR. SHAPIRO: Good afternoon, Mr. Norris.

MR. NORRIS: Good afternoon.

 *****
 MR. SHAPIRO: Were you at the airport on June the 12th, 1994 as a courier?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And why is that date important to you?

MR. NORRIS: That was the night that we met or saw O.J. Simpson at the airport and learned the next day that his ex-wife had been murdered.

MR. SHAPIRO: When you say “We,” were you with someone else at the airport?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Who were you with?

MR. NORRIS: Mike Gladden.

MR. SHAPIRO: And is he here this afternoon?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Where were you when you–did you observe a limousine that evening?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: What time did you observe the limousine?

MR. NORRIS: Approximately 11:20 to 11:25.

MR. SHAPIRO: Where were you when you observed the limousine?

MR. NORRIS: Walking to get into our vans. We had just dropped some packages off at the airport.

MR. SHAPIRO: And did you take particular notice of this limousine?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: For any particular reason?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: What was the reason?

MR. NORRIS: It pulled up right next to our vans and kind of blocked us in.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you see someone open the door to the limousine?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Who opened the door of the limousine?

MR. NORRIS: The limousine driver.

MR. SHAPIRO: And did you see someone get out of the limousine?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you recognize that person?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Who did you recognize that person as?

MR. NORRIS: O.J. Simpson.

MR. SHAPIRO: About what time was it that you saw Mr. Simpson get out of the limousine at the airport?

MR. NORRIS: Between 11:20 and 11:25.

MR. SHAPIRO: Was he carrying anything when he got out of the limousine?

MR. NORRIS: I don’t remember him carrying anything when he got out.

MR. SHAPIRO: What did you see him do when he got out of the limousine?

MR. NORRIS: He walked to the–well, as he got out, I said, “Hey, what’s up O.J.,” and then he walked to the back of the limo.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did he respond at all to you?

MR. NORRIS: Yes, he did.

MR. SHAPIRO: What did he respond?

MR. NORRIS: He said, “Hey, what’s happening?”

MR. SHAPIRO: Did he look at you when he said that?

MR. NORRIS: Yes, he did.

MR. SHAPIRO: About how far away from you was he?

MR. NORRIS: I’d say approximately about eight feet.

MR. SHAPIRO: About the distance we are here or a little closer?

MR. NORRIS: About the same distance.

MR. SHAPIRO: And to your knowledge, did your friend say anything to Mr. Simpson?

MR. NORRIS: He asked him could he get an autograph.

MR. SHAPIRO: And did Mr. Simpson reply?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: What did he reply?

MR. NORRIS: “Hold on just a minute while I take care of my luggage.”

MR. SHAPIRO: Did he then go somewhere in the direction of the limousine?

MR. NORRIS: Yes. He went towards the back of the limousine.

MR. SHAPIRO: And did you see him do something?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: What did you see him do?

MR. NORRIS: He was in a bag, one of the bags in the back of the limousine. Well, it was on the ground.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did he open the bag?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did he appear to take something out?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Objection. This is all leading, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SHAPIRO: What did you see him do with the bag at the back of the limousine?

MR. NORRIS: He went–was going through the bag and he looked like he pulled out a piece of paper or could have been a ticket or anything like–something like that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did it appear similar to the size of what–

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SHAPIRO: Are you familiar with what airline tickets look like?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And compared to what airline tickets look like, did you have any opinion as to whether this was consistent with that?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And what was your opinion?

MR. NORRIS: That it looked like an airline ticket.

MR. SHAPIRO: What did you see Mr. Simpson do at that point in time?

MR. NORRIS: Umm, he put a bag over his shoulder and had a bag in his hand and he remembered to give Mike an autograph.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you see him sign the autograph for Mike?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you have a–can you tell us what–how Mr. Simpson appeared during the period of time that you saw him?

MR. NORRIS: Umm, he just appeared like, you know, nonchalant, just like he was going, you know, getting ready to leave on a flight. I mean–

MR. SHAPIRO: How did he look to you? Could you describe that to the jury?

MR. NORRIS: He looked natural. He was dressed real nice, you know, had on like stone-washed type denim outfit, you know, trying to look kind of young, you know, just–I mean he was just, you know, just trying to be cool, you know.

MR. SHAPIRO: And would you describe his demeanor to the jury?

MR. NORRIS: He just–I mean, he just was like smooth, just, you know, hey, just walking through like, “I’m O.J.”

MR. SHAPIRO: Did he appear to be rushed in any way?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did he appear to be distracted in any way?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did he appear to be preoccupied in any way?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you–you said he was wearing some stone-washed clothes. Is that similar to a denim material?

MR. NORRIS: Yes. Like a blue jean type material.

MR. SHAPIRO: And can you describe the hue of that material?

MR. NORRIS: Excuse me?

MR. SHAPIRO: The darkness or lightness of that material.

MR. NORRIS: It’s more of a light color. That’s–it’s like a stone wash. It’s like a lighter denim, lighter blue jean type. It wasn’t like a dark like 405 type blue jean. It was, you know, much lighter.

THE COURT: You mean 501.

MR. NORRIS: 501. Right. Sorry.

THE COURT: Just relax, Mr. Norris.

MR. NORRIS: Okay.

MR. SHAPIRO: Now, during the period that you saw O.J. Simpson, did you observe his hands?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you see any cuts on his hands?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: See any band aids on his hands?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: See any bruises on his face?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did he appear to be sweating?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did anything at all appear to be out of the ordinary to you when you saw Mr. Simpson?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: Was he cordial?

MR. NORRIS: Yes. Very. I mentioned to him that Marcus was out there earlier. I had heard Marcus was there, and he said, “Yes, I know.” And I asked him about his son, if he was still at SC, and he said, “No. He’s through.”

MR. SHAPIRO: So he had enough time for small talk for you?

MR. NORRIS: Right.

MR. SHAPIRO: And you said initially he told your friend he had to take care of his luggage, but then he came back and gave the autograph?

MR. NORRIS: Right. That’s correct.

 *****
 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Good afternoon, Mr. Norris.

MR. NORRIS: How you doing, Miss Clark?

MS. CLARK: Okay. I just have a few questions for you, sir.

MR. NORRIS: Okay.

MS. CLARK: So when you saw the Defendant on the date of June the 12th at the airport, he appeared just like you’d seen him on TV commercials and stuff, right?

MR. NORRIS: Right.

MS. CLARK: Just what you expected?

MR. NORRIS: Right.

MS. CLARK: All right. You didn’t see him at 10:00 o’clock, correct?

MR. NORRIS: No, I didn’t.

MS. CLARK: And you didn’t see him at 10:15?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MS. CLARK: Not at 10:30?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MS. CLARK: And not at 11:00 o’clock?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MS. CLARK: So you don’t know what he looked like when he got into the limousine at around 11:00 or 11:10?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MS. CLARK: You said that he was wearing stone-washed jeans, light colored denim?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Do you remember what kind of shirt he was wearing, sir?

MR. NORRIS: It was like a denim-type shirt. I have one similar to it. It’s light in color. Like, you know, a blue jean shirt.

MS. CLARK: Right. Was it long sleeved, sir?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Can you describe for us the–you indicated that–excuse me. Strike that. He went to the back of the limousine, correct?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you saw him get a bag out of the back of the trunk of the limousine?

MR. NORRIS: I didn’t see him get out.

MS. CLARK: He reached in to it?

MR. NORRIS: No. The bag was already–I believe was already out on the ground.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Can you describe that bag for us, sir?

MR. NORRIS: It was black.

MS. CLARK: Can you show us with your hands how big it was?

MR. NORRIS: I couldn’t tell you exactly how big it was.

MS. CLARK: Would the style of the bag be like a duffel bag?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: That sounds right to you?

MR. NORRIS: Uh-huh.

MS. CLARK: And could you remember–I’m sorry. Is that yes?

MR. NORRIS: Yes. I’m sorry.

MS. CLARK: And was it black?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And that was on the ground next to the trunk of the limousine, was it?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

 *****
MS. CLARK: Okay. When you saw him get out of the limousine, sir, was he carrying any small dark bag like about the size of a book bag or knapsack with him?

MR. NORRIS: I don’t recall him carrying anything.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Do you recall seeing a bag like that in his possession when you saw him at the airport on the night of June the 12th, small dark knapsack or book size bag?

MR. NORRIS: Umm, I would say the smallest bag would be like an athletic bag.

MS. CLARK: Like the one you just described to us on the ground next to the trunk of the limousine?

MR. NORRIS: Right.

MS. CLARK: That was the smallest that you saw him with?

MR. NORRIS: That would be the smallest that I would say I saw him with, yes.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So then you did not see him in possession of any smaller dark bag like the size of a book bag or knapsack?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And you did not see the Louie Vuitton garment bag?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MS. CLARK: So could you describe for us the bags that you did see him with?

MR. NORRIS: There was a golf bag, the bag that he had–that he was–had in the back of the limo, he put over his shoulder and he carried an athletic bag.

MS. CLARK: And the bag that he carried over his shoulder, what kind of bag was that, sir?

MR. NORRIS: It was a black bag.

*****
 MS. CLARK: And then your friend–at the point that your friend asked for his autograph, he had already gotten his bags, correct?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MS. CLARK: What had he done?

MR. NORRIS: He was going to the trunk to get his bags, and my friend was standing next–like at the back of the van where he was and asked him could he get that autograph.

MS. CLARK: And he said, “Hold on a second. I’ve just got to get my bags”?

MR. NORRIS: “Let me take care of my bags.” Yeah.

MS. CLARK: And then he did go take care of his bags; is that right?

MR. NORRIS: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And then he picked up that black garment bag and put it over his shoulder?

MR. NORRIS: Well, yeah. A black bag.

MS. CLARK: Okay. A black bag that looked like a garment bag?

MR. NORRIS: Could be. I don’t know.

MS. CLARK: Something he carried over his shoulder?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: All right. And then he picked up the other duffle-type bag that was on the ground; is that right?

MR. NORRIS: No. The bag that he was–that he looked like he pulled a ticket, something out of, that’s the bag he put over his shoulder.

MS. CLARK: Okay. He put that over his shoulder?

MR. NORRIS: Right.

MS. CLARK: And there was another black bag?

MR. NORRIS: An athletic bag.

MS. CLARK: An athletic bag?

MR. NORRIS: Uh-huh.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And how did he carry that athletic bag?

MR. NORRIS: In his hand.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And then he went to sign–at that point, did he go to sign your friend–give him his autograph?

MR. NORRIS: Well, he got ready to walk away, and then he remembered, he said, “Oh,” and he said, “Here,” and he gave him his autograph.

MS. CLARK: And what hand did he sign with?

MR. NORRIS: He had the–the paper I believe was in his left hand and the pen with his right hand.

MS. CLARK: So he put down the black bag?

MR. NORRIS: He had a bag–okay. Go ahead.

MS. CLARK: So did he put down both bags that he was carrying in order to do the autograph?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MS. CLARK: What did he do?

MR. NORRIS: He kept one bag on his shoulder and he wrote the autograph.

MS. CLARK: And what did he sign–which hand did he sign with?

MR. NORRIS: The right hand.

MS. CLARK: So then he was carrying the other bag over his shoulder with his left; is that right?

MR. NORRIS: No. It was on his right arm. It was a strap, a strap–he had it over on his arm, right, and he signed with his hand.

MS. CLARK: What happened to the other bag?

MR. NORRIS: The other bag he put down.

 *****
MS. CLARK: Were you studying his hands very carefully, sir, to see if there was any injury to them?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MS. CLARK: You didn’t expect him to be injured that night, did you?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MS. CLARK: Now, when he reached down into that black duffle bag, did you see him grunt or grimace in pain as he bent over?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MS. CLARK: Did he have any–seem to have any trouble unzipping that bag, sir?

MR. NORRIS: I didn’t notice him unzip it.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Did you see him take out the ticket or what appeared to be an airline ticket?

MR. NORRIS: Excuse me?

MS. CLARK: Did you see him take out what appeared to you to be an airline ticket?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And did you see him straighten up from lifting–taking that out of the duffle bag?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And did he seem to have any trouble bending over or standing up?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MS. CLARK: Now, at the time that you saw Mr. Simpson that night, sir, you did not know that the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman had occurred, did you?

MR. NORRIS: No.

 *****
MS. CLARK: You didn’t know anything about the case, correct?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MS. CLARK: And there was no particular reason that you expected to see any cut or injury on Mr. Simpson, correct?

MR. NORRIS: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And you were not studying his face or his hands or his body to examine them for bruises or cuts because you didn’t expect to find that, correct?

MR. NORRIS: Correct.

MS. CLARK: Now, was that the first time you had ever met him, the Defendant, in person?

MR. NORRIS: Umm, I’ve seen him in person before.

MS. CLARK: And how was that, sir? At the airport?

MR. NORRIS: No. When we were–when I was younger, our family went to Knotts Berry Farm, and his family was at Knotts Berry Farm.

*****
 MS. CLARK: Okay. You didn’t speak to him on those occasions?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MS. CLARK: And you saw him, he was driving in his car, was he?

MR. NORRIS: Yeah.

MS. CLARK: What kind of car was that?

MR. NORRIS: I don’t recall. It’s been–it was in like the mid 80’s.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And so are those all the contacts you’ve ever had the times you’ve seen the Defendant?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: So you only spoke to him on this one occasion on June the 12th, correct?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: So would it be fair to state that you don’t know how he usually looks in a social setting with other people, correct?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And would it be also fair to say that if there was some subtle difference in the way he was acting on the night of June the 12th, you wouldn’t know that?

MR. NORRIS: Right.

MS. CLARK: And if the Defendant had been sweating at 10:00 o’clock or 10:15 or 10:30 that night, you wouldn’t know about that, would you, sir?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MS. CLARK: And if he had been bleeding at 10:00 o’clock, 10:15 or 10:30 that night, you wouldn’t know that either, would you, sir?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NORRIS: No.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Norris.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Shapiro.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you very much, your Honor.
 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO

MR. SHAPIRO: Mr. Norris, you told us that the first time you saw Mr. Simpson was 11:20; isn’t that correct?

MR. NORRIS: Correct.

MR. SHAPIRO: So clearly, anything that happened before that, you would have no way of knowing what took place, would you?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NORRIS: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: When you looked at Mr. Simpson, are you sure that you didn’t see–well, strike that. Did you see any cuts on his hands at all?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NORRIS: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: You described the bag that he was carrying as having a strap?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And after he gave the autograph to your friend Mike, did you see where he went?

MR. NORRIS: Towards the door of the air–in the airport.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you ever see him stop at a trash can and throw anything in a trash can?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MR. SHAPIRO: And did you have any conversation with Mike relating to the way Mr. Simpson looked that night?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

 *****
 MR. SHAPIRO: How did you describe the way he looked?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you describe–did you verbalize the way he appeared?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MR. SHAPIRO: And how did he appear?

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NORRIS: He appeared to be–like I mentioned to Mike, appeared to be, you know, trying to dress young.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Objection.

THE COURT: Excuse me. Hold on. Mr. Norris, just tell us, without telling us what you told anybody else–

MR. NORRIS: Okay.

THE COURT: –how did Mr. Simpson appear to you that evening?

MR. NORRIS: He appeared to dress real young, dress real nice and, you know, just–I mean, he was dressed real casual.

MR. SHAPIRO: And his attitude and demeanor was what?

MR. NORRIS: Real nice.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Asked and answered.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you. Nothing further, your Honor.

*****
 RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: After Mr. Simpson gave your friend an autograph, Mr. Simpson walked away; is that correct?

MR. NORRIS: Correct.

MS. CLARK: You stopped observing him at that point, correct?

MR. NORRIS: As he walked to the door.

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh. Did you turn to watch him as he walked to the door?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Did he appear to limp?

MR. NORRIS: No.

MS. CLARK: Walked okay, didn’t he?

MR. NORRIS: Yes.

MS. CLARK: All right. Did you ever see him talk to the skycap at the skycap station there outside the doors?

MR. NORRIS: That’s when we left, about the time the skycap was coming back out.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So at the point when he went, got to the skycap, you took off?

MR. NORRIS: When he walked to the door to where he would meet the skycaps at, that’s where we left.

MS. CLARK: All right. So you were not present to observe any interaction between him and the skycap or anything that transpired at that point because you left?

MR. NORRIS: Right.

*****
 THE COURT: Yes, he may [be excused]. Mr. Norris, thank you very much, sir.

MR. NORRIS: All right.

TESTIMONY OF MARK PARTRIDGE
 

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Partridge, what is your occupation?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I’m a lawyer.

MR. COCHRAN: And how are you trained? What law school did you attend?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I went to Harvard law school.

MR. COCHRAN: And when did you graduate from Harvard law school?

MR. PARTRIDGE: 1981.

MR. COCHRAN: And what kind of law do you practice?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I do trademark and copyright law.

*****
MR. COCHRAN: All right. We’ll see what we can do about that. Now, I would like to direct your attention to the date of Monday, June 13th of 1994.  Remember that particular date?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion to be on a flight from Chicago to Los Angeles, American Airlines flight 1691?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And why were you on that particular flight?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I was coming to [Los Angeles]  for depositions in one of my cases.

*****
MR. COCHRAN: I want to direct your attention to this diagram once you see it and ask you whether or not you can point out generally where your seats were or seat was on that plane, Chicago to Los Angeles.

MR. PARTRIDGE: I was in this seat (Indicating). I guess that’s 9E.

*****
MR. COCHRAN: And on that flight, what was the–do you know the name of the passenger who was in 9D?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. That was Mr. Simpson.

MR. COCHRAN: That was the gentleman in this case over there, Mr. Orenthal James Simpson?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And he sat next to you, did he?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You can resume your seat, sir.

MR. PARTRIDGE: (The witness complies.)

MR. COCHRAN: Now–

MR. PARTRIDGE: Excuse me.

MR. COCHRAN: What time approximately did this plane leave Chicago to come to Los Angeles?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Approximately 9:00 in the morning.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you get on the plane first or did Mr. Simpson get on the plane?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I was on the plane first.

MR. COCHRAN: Then he came in and sat next to you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: He came in after I had been seated awhile, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And you’ve already described for us you were in the right side bulkhead seat; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, when Mr. Simpson came on the plane, did you recognize who he was?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Had you ever met him before that time?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No. Never.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you describe for this jury how Mr. Simpson appeared to you when you first saw him come in the
plane and have a seat next to you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: When I first saw him, he was dressed in a blue jean outfit.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Stone-washed blue jean shirt and stone-washed blue jean pants. And he came back to the seat next to
mine. He was there. Also, there was another woman who had the same seat assignment. So the two of them stood together for some time before he took the seat and before it was sorted out who would have which seat.

MR. COCHRAN: So as I understand it, there was some confusion as to who had that seat, 9D?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Both–

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Simpson or the other lady?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. Both of them apparently had the same seat assignment, and the stewardess sorted that out after a few minutes.

MR. COCHRAN: So it was worked out after a while and then Mr. Simpson sat there; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what did you notice about him? How did he appear to you to be at that point?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Well, at first, he seemed to be upset.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And how did you–what about him made you believe that he was upset at that point?

MR. PARTRIDGE: At that point, he seemed rushed and a bit agitated.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. At some point, did he take his seat?

MR. PARTRIDGE: He did, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And as he sat down next to you, describe for the jury how he appeared to you to be from your visual observations at that point.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Well, he sat next to me, he had–he sighed heavily and looked up, closed his eyes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And to you, it appeared as he was upset at that point?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That was my reaction, that he was upset about something.
*****

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, did the stewardess–you know when you take off on these planes, sometimes the stewardess sits in these seats and sits backwards?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. There was a jump seat just in front of where Mr. Simpson was sitting.

MR. COCHRAN: And was there a stewardess in that seat just prior to the takeoff?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, there was.

MR. COCHRAN: And did she say something to Mr. Simpson?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. She said something to the effect of, “Bad way to start the week.”

MR. COCHRAN: And did he respond?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, he did.

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: The fact that he responded will stand. Next question.

MR. COCHRAN: He did respond to that statement; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, he did.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you see him at some point make a request for some water?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. He asked for water.

MR. COCHRAN: Did the stewardess accommodate?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. She was in the jump seat. She undid her seatbelt and harness and got up and got him a glass of water.

MR. COCHRAN: And then what happened after that?

MR. PARTRIDGE: She got–also got him a bottle of water, and he drank the water. She sat back down, and then the flight was in the process of taking off.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, you were sitting right next to him and you had an opportunity to observe him during this time frame; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, at some point, the plane took off and you’re now in the air heading from Chicago to Los Angeles. Did you continue to have occasion to observe Mr. Orenthal James Simpson?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you tell us what you observed as you occupied seat 9E and he was in 9D?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Well, the next thing that happened after the takeoff was that he asked for the telephone. And the stewardess helped him get the telephone that was–I believe it was in the seat behind–that I was sitting in because we were in the bulkhead. There was not a telephone there. So she helped him get the telephone from the seat back, and he made a telephone call.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now–and you were sitting real close, and did you hear at least his part of the telephone conversation?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I could hear some of the telephone call.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Now, did he make more than one phone call during the course of–

MR. PARTRIDGE: During the course of the flight, he made quite a few phone calls.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion to look at Mr. Simpson’s hands as you sat there next to him on this flight?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Did I see his hands? Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And describe for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you observed if anything regarding his hands. See any Band-Aids at any point?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Well, initially, I saw that there was a cut on his–the knuckle of his left hand (Indicating).

MR. COCHRAN: Is that the–you’re pointing to the knuckle of the left hand. This middle finger that I’m holding up here?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. It was the knuckle of his ring finger.

MR. COCHRAN: And you could observe that?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I could see that, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you see anything else with regard to that at that point?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Well, at that point, no. Later I saw that it was wrapped in what appeared to me to be a paper towel from the rest room.

MR. COCHRAN: The time you saw him, did you ever see a Band-Aid or gauze or anything around there?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No. Only the paper towel.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, did you at some point say something to Mr. Simpson? . . .

MR. PARTRIDGE: I did make a statement to him, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And in that statement, did you inquire about–

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay.
MR. COCHRAN: Let me finish the question.

MR. COCHRAN: –inquire about what was happening with him? You can’t tell us the statement quite yet.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. . . .

MR. COCHRAN: And in his response, did that give you some idea what had happened in his life or information he just
received?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you then had an idea of what was going on in Mr. Simpson’s life at that point; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to his state of being upset or distressed, did that condition continue on as you moved westward towards Los Angeles?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. . . .

MR. COCHRAN: Did that continue to occupy much of the conversation that you had with him on your flight west?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You can answer that.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, it did.

MR. COCHRAN: And how long was that flight coming west?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Four hours approximately.

MR. COCHRAN: And during this period of time, did you see whether or not Mr. Simpson drank any of the water he was given at the outset, any additional water?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. He drank water throughout the flight.

*****
MR. COCHRAN: Did you see him go to the rest room during any of this time frame?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. He went to the rest room two or three times. . . .

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did Mr. Simpson continue to appear distressed and distraught as you described?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, he did.

MR. COCHRAN: And can you describe or give the jury a word picture as you watched him, sitting next to him, of how he
appeared to you to be without giving us any conversation?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Well, as I said, he sighed heavily several times. He made a number of phone calls as I said.

*****
MR. COCHRAN: Did he during this flight–strike that. Did the condition of his being upset and distressed continue during the flight?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, it did.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you had never met Mr. Simpson before that time, had you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No, I had not.

MR. COCHRAN: You know that one of his occupations, professions has been, he’s an actor. Do you understand that?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I understand that, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did he appear to you to be acting as you observed him there?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: You may answer?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No. I thought the way he was behaving was very sincere.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, even though he appeared to be very distressed and upset, did someone approach him and ask
him for an autograph that you observed?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. During the flight, someone passed him a note asking for an autograph.

MR. COCHRAN: And did he respond to that?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. He took the paper and gave the gentleman an autograph.

MR. COCHRAN: What was the paper that it came on?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I believe it was an airplane cocktail napkin.

MR. COCHRAN: As he did that, did he still appear to you to be upset and distraught?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. That was consistent throughout.

MR. COCHRAN: And did that trigger some sort of a thought in your mind when this happened?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, it did. I thought what a nice man this was to be doing this, having heard what I had heard about
the tragedy that was affecting his life.

MR. COCHRAN: At some point, you reached Los Angeles International Airport?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Had the state of distress and distraughtness that you talked to us about, had that remained throughout the entire flight?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. It was consistent through the flight as I said.

MR. COCHRAN: Did it come time for you all to get off of that flight?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you recall whether or not who–which of you got up first to leave that particular flight, 1691?

MR. PARTRIDGE: He was up first and got ahead of–ahead of me in the “U” leading out of the plane.

MR. COCHRAN: From the “U” leading out of the plane, did he at some point turn around and say something to you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Well, there were several people–

MS. CLARK: Objection. Hearsay.

MR. COCHRAN: You can answer that yes or no.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Could you see his lips as he was in front of you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And did he thank you at this point for your help?

MR. PARTRIDGE: He turned back, and what I could see him saying was thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Did he then leave the plane?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, he did.

MR. COCHRAN: And as he left that plane, did you see him anymore that day?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No, I did not.

MR. COCHRAN: I presume you went on about your business that day, did you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I did, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you didn’t see him when he left at that point, right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No. As I said, he was ahead of me in the line leading out of the plane and I didn’t see him when I was
off the plane.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you at some point–

MR. COCHRAN: Can I have just one second, your Honor?
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: Now, you described for us how the conversation went while you were on the plane and the information that you gathered over the period of the flight, and you’ve told us that you’re a lawyer?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And based upon those kinds of things, did you at some point feel that you should give Mr. Simpson some advice? You can answer that yes or no.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you at some point give him some advice?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. . . .

MR. COCHRAN: Now, Mr. Partridge, sir, when Mr. Simpson came on the plane, do you have a recollection of any of the bags, if he was carrying more than one bag, that he had with him at that time?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I remember that he brought back to the seat with him a black duffel or athletic bag, a leather bag.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. PARTRIDGE: And I also recall that he had a Louis Vuitton garment bag.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you recall the Louis Vuitton bag was–what happened to the Louis Vuitton bag on that flight if you know?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I don’t remember the Louis Vuitton bag very well. It was left in the first class section.

MR. COCHRAN: Like in one of those storage closets, something like that?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, sir–do you recall any other bags at this point?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. PARTRIDGE: The only one he brought back to the seat as I remember was the black leather bag.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did I ask you if you had any recollection of how he was dressed on that occasion?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. I said he was wearing a blue jean shirt and pants.

MR. COCHRAN: I see the Court is shaking his head yes. All right. Now, after this was all over and you were in Los Angeles, did you at any point after the 13th of June make an attempt to contact a police agency here in Los Angeles?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Will you tell us what you did?

MR. PARTRIDGE: On the Friday after the flight, I called the Santa Monica Police, I was staying in Santa Monica, and I was referred to another phone number which I understood to be the LAPD number, and I called that number.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you–did you–you called the LAPD number, and were you able to make contact with any police officers at that point from LAPD?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I spoke to someone. I don’t know the name of the person, I didn’t get the name, and I explained that I had been on the flight, sat next to Mr. Simpson.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And without going any further, did they send somebody out right away to take a statement from you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No, they did not.

MR. COCHRAN: Did anybody take a statement from you at all based upon that conversation, that conversation that you made on Friday?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Based on that conversation, I don’t believe so, no.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, at some point, you had occasion and you did in fact make some contact with the Defense; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. That’s right.

MR. COCHRAN: And at some point–in fact, you had a meeting in Chicago with Mr. F. Lee Bailey, the gentleman to my immediate left here; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you at some point have occasion to speak with a Detective Croxley of the LAPD?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. In October of `94, I was called by someone who identified himself as Officer Croxley.

MR. COCHRAN: And he never saw you personally. It was a telephonic interview?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. It was by telephone.

MR. COCHRAN: How long did that conversation last if you know approximately?

MR. PARTRIDGE: It was fairly brief. 10 to 15 minutes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did he ever send you a copy of that statement at all?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No. I never saw a statement based on that.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, in connection with the–your conversation with Mr. OJ Simpson on the morning of June 13th, 1994, beginning at about 9:15 in the morning, did you have occasion to write any notes with regard to the things that the
two of you talked about?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Two days later, on the 15th, I made notes of what I could recall from the flight.

MR. COCHRAN: And are they fairly lengthy notes?

MR. PARTRIDGE: They’re fairly lengthy. They’re a bit sketchy, but they’re fairly long.

MR. COCHRAN: How many pages did those notes turn out to be?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I think the typed notes are six pages.

MR. COCHRAN: And the handwritten notes are about eight pages?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That sounds about right.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you at some point share those notes with both sides in this lawsuit, both sides in this case?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. After I reached the Defense, someone at Mr. Shapiro’s office, I was called by an investigator, Mr. Pavelic as I recall, and I sent him a copy of my notes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you also–

MR. PARTRIDGE: And then after I spoke with Mr. Croxley, I offered him the same notes and eventually sent him those notes as well.

MR. COCHRAN: So both sides were provided with these notes; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I did that, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Now, in your testimony here today and in your willingness to come out pursuant to a subpoena, you tried to share with us what happened on that particular morning?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I’ve tried to, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And have you sold your story to any kind of publication prior to testifying here today?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Have you shared your published notes with anybody prior to your testimony here?

MR. PARTRIDGE: The only person–people I’ve provided my notes to have been the Defense and the Prosecution. . . .
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Good afternoon, Mr. Partridge.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Hello.

MS. CLARK: Now, the notes that you’re talking about with Mr. Cochran, those were eight pages of handwritten notes that
you wrote on June the 15th; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, that’s right.

MS. CLARK: Mr. Simpson had not been charged with any crime as of June the 15th, had he?

MR. PARTRIDGE: As far as I know, that’s right. He had not.

MS. CLARK: Yet, you sat down and wrote down eight pages of detailed notes in your own handwriting; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That’s right. Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: And those notes were all about your observations–

MR. COCHRAN: Just a moment, your Honor. Object to what those notes were all about.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: –your observations of your interaction with Mr. Simpson on the early morning flight on June the 13th, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That’s right, yes.

MS. CLARK: And then you copyrighted those notes, didn’t you, Mr. Partridge?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I put a copyright notice on the notes later when I was asked to send them to people.

MS. CLARK: As a matter of fact, isn’t it true that each and every page of those eight pages bears this–bears this logo that
I’m going to show you now on the left side of the page, happens to be page 2?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. That’s right. Each–I put that on each page.

MS. CLARK: I would like to show the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that logo that was put on each page of these eight pages of handwritten notes.

MR. COCHRAN: We have no objection to marking the notes and showing the jury the notes also if you’d like.

MS. CLARK: I just want to mark this logo, your Honor, if I may.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: I’m trying to make it lighter a little bit, your Honor. He’s hard to see. All right. And for the record, I’m going to see if we can print this out. That’s better.

MS. CLARK: That’s the copyright that you put on your notes; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: It’s a notice of copyright, yes.

MS. CLARK: And that shows a little c and a circle, 1994 and “Partridge, all rights reserved”?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And that’s on each of the eight pages of notes that you took concerning your observations of Mr. Simpson on June the 13th?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. That’s right.

MS. CLARK: And you wrote these on June the 15th, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I wrote them on June the 15th. I didn’t put that notice on them on June the 15th.

MS. CLARK: You put that notice down later, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And on June the 13th, you also gave the Defendant your card, didn’t you, sir?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: You’re not a criminal lawyer, are you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No.

MS. CLARK: You gave him that card so that he would contact you later; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I gave him the card in case anything of the flight turned out to be important for him.

MS. CLARK: And you thought your observations of his conduct on June the 13th might be important; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I thought it was possible, yes, that it might be–how he behaved on the flight might be important.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, what does that mean when you copyright something, sir? You’re a copyright lawyer.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Well, when you cop–when you write something, it’s immediately covered by copyright. I put the notice on in an effort to prevent people from copying the notes that I sent them to in an effort to prevent them from being distributed without my consent.

MS. CLARK: Doesn’t it also mean that you have a financial interest in the privacy of that matter that you copyright?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I don’t understand your question.

MS. CLARK: Well, people copyright books, don’t they?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Certainly.

MS. CLARK: So that no one else can copy that book and sell it and make a profit on it except the author and the publisher, right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: If that’s what the author chooses, yes.

MS. CLARK: Isn’t that usually what the author chooses, Mr. Partridge?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to what the author usually chooses.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. PARTRIDGE: I would say very often, the author chooses to sell the notes or their book or whatever they have chosen to copyright.

MS. CLARK: Right. And they copyright their writings so that no one else can profit from what they’ve written; isn’t that
right, sir?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That would be the case in some instances I would assume, yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, you say you called the police on June the 17th and you referred to LAPD, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That’s what I understand, yes.

MS. CLARK: And you told them that you had sat on a plane with a Defendant on the morning of June the 13th as he came back to Los Angeles, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Do you have any idea how many hundreds of clues they were investigating?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of the question. Counsel is testifying.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Do you have any idea–do you yourself have any personal knowledge of how many clues they were investigating?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I have no idea.

MS. CLARK: Could have been hundreds, right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: It could have been, yes.

MS. CLARK: Or how many witnesses they were trying to interview. You have no idea how many?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No, I don’t know how many.

MS. CLARK: Could have been hundreds; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Could have been.

MS. CLARK: And you had no idea where Mr. Simpson was on the evening of June the 12th, did you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I didn’t know where he was, no.

MS. CLARK: You had never met him?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No, I had never met him.

MS. CLARK: And the first time you ever met him was on June the 13th from that flight from Chicago to Los Angeles; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, that’s right.

MS. CLARK: And during that flight from Chicago to Los Angeles, you were observing him very carefully; were you not?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Reasonably so, yes.

MS. CLARK: And that’s why you were able to write eight pages of handwritten notes, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I wrote eight pages of what I remembered from the flight. I tried to remember as much as I could.

MS. CLARK: Because–and you knew–and you were making those close observations because you knew about the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That’s not completely correct. No, I didn’t.

MS. CLARK: No, you were not observing him closely because you knew about the murders?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MS. CLARK: You made very careful observations of Mr. Simpson’s conduct; is that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I would say reasonably so, yes.

MS. CLARK: And of his physical condition, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you were doing so at least in part because you had learned of the murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Same objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. PARTRIDGE: I can’t answer that yes or no. It’s not completely correct. It’s partially correct.

MS. CLARK: It’s partially correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: That was part of the reason you were observing him very closely, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Partially so, yes. By that, I mean, some of that I knew and some of that I didn’t know.

MS. CLARK: You knew that something big had happened, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I knew that his ex-wife was dead initially, and during the course of the flight, I learned that she had been killed, and toward the end of the flight, I learned that another person, a man, had been killed as well.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And so you learned early in the flight that his ex-wife was dead, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And that fact knowing–and you knew it was a recent event; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. I understood it had just happened.

MS. CLARK: And that caused you to pay very close attention to his physical condition and his demeanor, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: It caused me to pay attention to him. But mostly, what it caused me to do is be, I don’t know, concerned about the situation.

MS. CLARK: And that concern caused you to observe him very closely, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: As I said, reasonably so, yes.

MS. CLARK: And you observed at that time, because you were observing him closely, that there was a cut on the middle finger of his left hand; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I remember that it was a cut on the knuckles of his left hand and I recall that it was the ring finger or
middle finger.

MS. CLARK: And there was no bandage on that finger the first time you saw it, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I’m sorry. I said ring finger. I’m getting mixed up here.

MS. CLARK: Middle.

MR. PARTRIDGE: I mean middle finger. Yes.

MS. CLARK: Right. And there was no bandage on that finger the first time you saw it, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: The first time I noticed it, there was no Band-Aid. That’s right.

MS. CLARK: And it was not bleeding, was it?

MR. PARTRIDGE: It was not–I didn’t see any blood, no.

MS. CLARK: Later, you saw him wrap it in a paper towel, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: So at the first observation of it, it was not bleeding, and then later on, it seemed to be bleeding; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I never saw any blood.

MS. CLARK: Didn’t you tell the police that you saw blood seeping through the paper towel after he had wrapped it with a paper towel?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No. I never said I saw blood seeping through the paper towel.

MS. CLARK: Let me show you a copy of your statement, sir.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MS. CLARK: All right, sir. I’m showing you a form that says “Statement form” on it. Do you see your name in the upper left-hand corner?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, I do.

MS. CLARK: Mark Partridge?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Date of interview, October 6th, 1994?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, I’m going to direct your attention to the page that contains the narrative and show you this paragraph that I’m pointing to here I’ve previously shown to counsel.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Do you see the statement there?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And does that statement indicate that you told Detective Croxley that the Defendant had wrapped a paper towel from the rest room around the finger because blood was leaking out?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I don’t know that that statement indicates that that’s what I said. That’s what is stated here.

MS. CLARK: You have no recollection of ever saying that?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No, I didn’t say that.

MS. CLARK: Then is it your testimony that you never saw that finger bleeding on June the 13th?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I never saw any blood. That’s right. I saw that the finger was cut and somewhat raw, but I didn’t see any blood coming from it.

MS. CLARK: Did you see whether there was more than one cut on that finger?

MR. PARTRIDGE: It looked–looked to be kind of a jagged raw cut. I couldn’t really say if it was more than one or if it was just a rough cut that was–as opposed to a sharp straight cut.

MS. CLARK: So you could not tell whether it was more than one cut? Yes or no?

MR. PARTRIDGE: As I recall, it says I described. I could not tell if it was more than one cut.

MS. CLARK: Thank you. And if it was more than one cut, you could not tell whether both cuts were received at the same time, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That’s certainly correct.

MS. CLARK: And the notes that we’re speaking of, you gave those notes to the Defense first; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, I did.

MS. CLARK: You did not give those notes to the Prosecution until Detective Croxley contacted you in October; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. I gave them to the Prosecution after I was contacted by Officer Croxley.

MS. CLARK: In fact, that wasn’t until December of 1994; isn’t that right, sir?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I sent them to Officer Croxley in early December, yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated, sir, that someone asked the Defendant for an autograph during the flight; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And he gave it to them, didn’t he?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you indicate that the Defendant drank water throughout the flight?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And that one of the first things he did when he got on the plane was ask for water; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That was one of the first things, yes.

MS. CLARK: And then after the plane took off, he immediately requested a telephone; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. That’s right.

MS. CLARK: And the first phone call he made, could you hear who he made that phone call to? . . .

MR. PARTRIDGE: I wasn’t able to hear. I heard a name.

MS. CLARK: And the name was?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Skip.

MS. CLARK: And approximately how long did he speak to this person named Skip?

MR. PARTRIDGE: That particular call was quite brief. I would say a minute.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And I take it you’ve somewhat followed this case; have you not, sir?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Somewhat, yes. . . .

MS. CLARK: Now, you offered us the opinion, sir, that the Defendant did not appear to you to be acting, correct? Do you recall that?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

*****
MS. CLARK: You’re not a psychiatrist, are you?

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor. He’s a lawyer. He may be a psychiatrist too.

THE COURT: We don’t know. Not likely. Proceed.

MR. PARTRIDGE: No.

*****
MS. CLARK: But you do know the Defendant is an actor, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I understand that he is sometimes an actor, yes.

MS. CLARK: And you knew that on June the 13th and when you were on the flight with him; did you not?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I don’t think I did know that.

MS. CLARK: You did not know he was an actor at that time?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I only knew that from the Hertz commercials.

MS. CLARK: You had not seen any movies he had been in?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I don’t think so.

*****
MS. CLARK: Now, sir, you told us about these detailed notes that you took, eight handwritten pages, correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I–

MS. CLARK: Do you recall?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I did say that I took notes, yes.

MS. CLARK: And you just told us I believe a few questions ago that you only recall one phone call made to Skip by the
Defendant; is that right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I only recall the name once. I think, yes.

MS. CLARK: All right. I am going to show you page 6 of your notes.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Okay.

MS. CLARK: See if that refreshes your memory as to whether or not there was one call or more than one call to this person named Skip.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Okay. Yes, it does.

MS. CLARK: And how does that refresh your recollection, sir?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Well, these are my notes taken, made at the–shortly after I–and I referred to more than one call from someone named Skip. So yes, there was more than one call.

MS. CLARK: More than one, sir? Isn’t it true in your notes, you say several times?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. Several. . . .

MS. CLARK: And you spoke, sir, on direct of the tragedy that affected his life on that day?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. . . .

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Mr. Partridge, I would like to approach and I’d like to show you the eight pages of the handwritten notes that you made on June 15th, 1994, and I would like to ask you whether or not those notes reflect your handwriting.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, they do.

MR. COCHRAN: And since we’re not copyright lawyers in this courtroom, would you tell us what is the effect of your writing this little C and “1994, M. Partridge, all rights reserved”?

MR. PARTRIDGE: My intent was to prevent other people from copying these notes without my permission. I was sending them off to people and I didn’t want them released to the media or anyone else without my consent.

MR. COCHRAN: And as a trademark or copyright lawyer, you knew how to protect those particular notes; isn’t that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: This is one of the things that one can do.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. PARTRIDGE: And that’s why I did it.

MR. COCHRAN: And you’ve never tried to sell those notes, have you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No.

MR. COCHRAN: In fact, you were one of the few people in this case who’s tried to protect their quotes; isn’t that–

MS. CLARK: Objection.

MR. COCHRAN: That’s correct. Let me rephrase that.

MR. COCHRAN: In fact, as a trademark copyright lawyer, you knew how to protect those notes, right?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I knew this was one thing I could do to try to prevent them from being copied without my consent.

MR. COCHRAN: And although you had occasion to send these notes to Detective Croxley I think you said in December of 1994, you had called the Prosecution in this case first; isn’t that correct?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I’d called the police first.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. The police agencies.

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, a few other questions if I might. Are you aware that the person Skip Taft that Miss Clark was asking about is Mr. Simpson’s long-time friend and business lawyer of 20 plus years? Are you aware of that?

MR. PARTRIDGE: I was not aware of that.

MR. COCHRAN: You’re still not aware of that, are you?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Are you aware that they share office space together?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Are you aware they own property together?

MR. PARTRIDGE: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, Miss Clark, in response to the fact that you called the Santa Monica Police Department on the Friday after your flight and then you then were directed to the L.A. Police Department, asked you some questions about whether you knew how many people might be interviewed by the Los Angeles Police Department. Remember those questions?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Suppose that with regard to all of the people who were interviewed by the Los Angeles Police
Department, you were the only person in the world who sat next to him on the flight back from Chicago; isn’t that correct?

MS. CLARK: Objection. Argumentative and leading.

THE COURT: Well, “suppose,” sounds like a hypothetical question. You want to ask a direct question?

MR. COCHRAN: Let me rephrase that.

MR. COCHRAN: Were you the only person in the world–

MR. COCHRAN: Let me just get closer, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Were you the only person in the world to sit in seat 9E on flight 1691 on June 13th, 1994 from Chicago to Los Angeles on American Airlines when OJ Simpson sat in seat 9D?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes, I am.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you. Nothing further.

MS. CLARK: I just wanted to ask one question, please.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: And when you sat in that seat, sir, did you happen to observe–you said you observed what the Defendant was wearing. Did you also observe what he had on his feet?

MR. PARTRIDGE: Yes. . . .

MS. CLARK: Tell us what he was wearing on his feet, sir.

MR. PARTRIDGE: He had black leather loafers.

MS. CLARK: What kind?

*****
MR. PARTRIDGE: They were sort of woven black leather loafers. The leather was woven.

THE COURT: Thank you. . . .

TESTIMONY OF LAURA HART McKINNY
 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN:
******
MR. COCHRAN: Miss McKinny, what is your occupation?
MS. MCKINNY: I’m a filmmaker in residence at the North Carolina school of the arts school of filmmaking, professor of screen writing.
******
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, in that connection, prior to moving to North Carolina, did you live in California?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I did.
MR. COCHRAN: And how long had you lived in California prior to going to North Carolina?
MS. MCKINNY: Since I was twelve.
******
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, when you were last here in California, what was your occupation then?
MS. MCKINNY: I was a freelance writer and I worked at UCLA as a senior learning skills counselor and also at Santa Monica Malibu unified school district as a home instructor.
******
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Let’s specifically direct you back to February of 1985. And did you have occasion to meet Mark Fuhrman during that time frame?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I did.
MR. COCHRAN: Would you tell the jury where you were at the time that you first met Mark Fuhrman. You might pull the microphone up a little bit closer to you.
MS. MCKINNY: (Witness complies.) All right. I was at a cafe in Westwood. I don’t remember the name of the cafe, but I believe it was on Westwood Boulevard.
MR. COCHRAN: And what happened? How did you happen to meet Mr. Fuhrman at that time?
MS. MCKINNY: I was sitting in the outside of the cafe. There were tables on the outside and I was sitting there. I was working on my laptop computer and a man dressed in street clothes came up and asked me about my computer. That was a fairly common thing for people to do then because this was a time when laptops weren’t that familiar to people and often people would come and ask me what it was and how you used it. So this man asked me what I was doing and what that was and I explained to him that it was a laptop and explained to him how it worked.
*****
MR. COCHRAN: Thereafter, during that conversation, did you have occasion to–strike that. Were you working on some particular project at that time?
MS. MCKINNY: At the time–
MR. COCHRAN: At the time when you first met Detective Fuhrman?
MS. MCKINNY: I was transcribing some notes and at the time I was thinking about developing a story about women in the police department and to what extent they were successful in different–different kind of areas. I was thinking of particular areas of high crime.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, after you first met Mark Fuhrman in February of 1985 did you thereafter have further meetings with him?
MS. MCKINNY: (No audible response.)
MR. COCHRAN:  After your initial meeting in February of 1985?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I did.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Tell us about those meetings. And did you at some point engage him as a consultant or an advisor for a screenplay you were working on?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I did.
MR. COCHRAN: Tell us about that.
MS. MCKINNY: During our first meeting Officer Fuhrman at that time told me he was an officer, and he was interested in my idea of working on a story about women in–on the police department, and the extent to which they could succeed in areas of high crime. Officer Fuhrman had very strong views about the extent to which women–some women–
MR. DARDEN: Objection. That is a narrative.
THE COURT: Next question.
MR. COCHRAN: Well, did Officer Fuhrman have views about the ability of women to succeed in high crime areas?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, he did.
MR. COCHRAN: What were his views in that regard?
******
MS. MCKINNY: He had strong views about women’s ability to be able to succeed in areas of high crime, feeling that some of them were not capable of that, and during this particular first meeting he told me that he would—
MR. DARDEN: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained. Next question.
******
MR. COCHRAN: Did you, at or during that first meeting, make some arrangements to meet further with Mr. Fuhrman regarding his views and whether or not he could help you with interviews that you might want to conduct?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Well, tell us about what you did in that connection. Did you retain him at some point?
MS. MCKINNY: I didn’t retain him. I asked him if he would be interested in helping me give some ideas, some personal views that might help generate some thoughts about characters and police procedures and other areas that might be useful to me in helping understand the kind of frustrations that men had on the police department and women and possibly some of the cover-ups that might occur in conjunction with that. And he agreed to help me to that extent and give me some of his personal views, some ideas that he might have, and so we agreed to meet again and tape the interviews.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you told him you wanted to tape the interviews that you conducted with him, did you?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
*****
MR. COCHRAN: Now, these interviews that you had with Detective Fuhrman, were all of those interviews taped, as best you can recall?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury over what period of time did you conduct these taped interviews with Mark Fuhrman after your initial meeting with him in February of 1985?
MS. MCKINNY: Approximately from the beginning of April, April 2nd, I believe, through July, 1994.
MR. COCHRAN: So over almost a ten-year period of time you had taped interviews with this man; is that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
******
MR. COCHRAN: Now, in that connection, before you started taping these interviews, did Detective Fuhrman know that you were taping these interviews?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
******
MR. COCHRAN: What did you tell him about the conversation or the kind of things you wanted him to share with you regarding police work?
MR. DARDEN: Also calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.
MS. MCKINNY: I told him that I wanted to write a fictional piece based on fact, so it was very important to me that I had a really clear idea of what some police officers would say in a given situation, so that the instances that he would give me would be as factual and realistic as possible.
MR. COCHRAN: You asked him to be factual and realistic, did you?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
******
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to the taped interviews, over the ten-year period that we have been talking about, do you remember how many tapes you actually transcribed over that period of time?
MS. MCKINNY: Again please. How many types I transcribed?
MR. COCHRAN: How many tapes were actually transcribed? Over the ten-year period how many hours?
MS. MCKINNY: Oh, eleven to twelve hours of tape.
MR. COCHRAN: And I presume during those eleven to twelve hours you tried to be as accurate as possible, right?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
******
MR. COCHRAN: Now, during the time that you talked with Mr. Fuhrman during this ten-year period of time, did he ever use a racial epithet which I will call the “N” word, during the course of your conversations with him?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, he did.
MR. COCHRAN: And in the course of your preparation of your testimony here today can you tell the jury how many times you counted that he used that word?
MS. MCKINNY: Approximately 42.
MR. COCHRAN: 42 times?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
******
MR. COCHRAN: Can you describe for the jury under what circumstances he would use this so-called “N” word? Was he talking about?
MS. MCKINNY: Police procedures.
MR. COCHRAN: What was he talking about?
MS. MCKINNY: Let me see. The word would come up in conversation when he might be talking about how an officer might deal with a suspect or a police procedural issue or how an officer might be talking about someone in administration, just general normal language.
THE COURT: Next question.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. When you would hear these words of this particular epithet, would that have an effect upon you.
******
MS. MCKINNY: It is a base epithet. There is no way of doctoring it up and making it sound better. It is offensive and I didn’t feel good about it, hearing it; however, I was in very much of a journalistic mode and knew to be able to get the information that I needed, to be able to inquire from Officer Fuhrman, I would need to not react, not to be judgmental about hearing some of the very base offensive kinds of things that I would be hearing.
******
MR. COCHRAN: Did you say anything to him about using these words at that time?
MS. MCKINNY: No, I did not.
*******
MR. COCHRAN: Yes. During the 41 or 42 times that Mr. Fuhrman used the word “Nigger” did you–could you tell us how he appeared as he did that?
******
MS. MCKINNY: When Officer Fuhrman used the word “Nigger” it was in a very casual ordinary pattern of speech. It was nothing extraordinary. It was just conversation.
******
MR. COCHRAN: With regard to this first instance that we are going to be seeing shortly, can you give us some background? I will use–I will use the–I will read it, your Honor, and ask her to give us some background regarding this. In this particular one, I believe this is one where it was taped over and we have just a transcript; is that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That’s correct.
MR. COCHRAN: And the quote by Fuhrman is, “We have no niggers where I grew up.” Do you recall him saying that?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Is that a fair and accurate portrayal of what he said?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
******
MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to that particular one, about having no African Americans where he grew up, can you compare that with the other 42 others, from the standpoint of how he used that word in that compared to the others?
MR. DARDEN: Objection, that is irrelevant.
THE COURT: It is a vague question as well and I don’t know that anybody can really answer that question.
MR. COCHRAN: Let me try again.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay.
MR. COCHRAN: With regard to this instance where “We have no blank where I grew up,” do you have that in mind?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Can you compare that with the other 42 times or so that he used this in the course of your interviews, if there is any difference between how he used the term there and the other 42 times or so?
MR. DARDEN: Objection, misstates the testimony. Speculation, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: You may answer.
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, there is a significance difference here. This particular example is the least offensive and inflammatory in comparison to the others.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to–
THE COURT: All right. I’m going to strike that answer. Ladies and gentlemen, that is a judgment that is not–at this point in time you are to disregard that last question and answer. Next question.
MR. COCHRAN: All right, your Honor.
MR. COCHRAN: With regard to–let’s move down to the second incident we have been allowed to use for Fuhrman speaking, “They don’t do anything, they don’t go out there and initiate a contact with some six-foot-five inch Nigger that has been in prison for seven years pumping weights.” Do you recall Mr. Fuhrman saying that to you at some point?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, however I believe–
MR. DARDEN: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Next question.
MR. COCHRAN: You do recall that and that is on tape, is it not?
MS. MCKINNY: Excuse me.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. I understand. Let me just look at my question.
THE COURT: Hold on.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall that being said, Miss McKinny?
MS. MCKINNY: I recall that being said, yes.
******
(A videotape and audiotape were played.)
MR. COCHRAN: Do you recognize the voice of the person who was saying, “They don’t do anything. They don’t go out there and initiate a contact with some six-foot-five-inch Nigger that has been in prison for seven years pumping weights”? Who said that?
MS. MCKINNY: Officer Mark Fuhrman.
MR. COCHRAN: When did he say that?
MS. MCKINNY:  In April or early May of 1985.
MR. COCHRAN: And that was his voice; is that right?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: No doubt about it?
MS. MCKINNY: No doubt about it.
******
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, in these interviews that you conducted with Mr. Fuhrman did you ever at any time ask him to embellish or enhance what he was telling you.
MR. DARDEN: Objection, vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MCKINNY: No.
******
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN
*****
MR. DARDEN: Have you been attempting to sell any audiotapes other than the Fuhrman audiotapes?
MS. MCKINNY: No.
******
MR. DARDEN: Did you authorize your attorneys to sell the transcript?
MS. MCKINNY: No.
MR. DARDEN: Did you authorize them to sell the audiotapes?
MS. MCKINNY: No.
MR. DARDEN: Have you ever discussed with anyone selling the audiotapes for one-half million dollars?
MS. MCKINNY: Have I discussed that with anyone?
MR. DARDEN: Yes.
MS. MCKINNY: No, I have not discussed it with anyone.
MR. DARDEN: Have you also given–given your attorneys the authority to negotiate for the sale of the Fuhrman tapes?
MS. MCKINNY: I have authorized my attorneys to determine the value of the tapes, yes.
*****
MR. DARDEN: If you weren’t interested in selling the tapes, why did you have your attorneys contact a publisher?
MS. MCKINNY: It is more to know what the value of the tapes were and I authorized my attorneys to do that.
MR. DARDEN: And that is because you were considering selling the tapes at the time?
MS. MCKINNY: No. I wanted to know what the value of the tapes were and my attorneys advised me that it was in my best interests and they would be negligent as attorneys if they didn’t let me know exactly what the value–market value of the tapes and/or the transcripts would be.
*****
MR. DARDEN: Was it your testimony yesterday that you were offended when you heard Mark Fuhrman use that epithet?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Now, when you met with Miss Clark and Miss Lewis and Mr. Hodgman and myself on August 17, do you recall me asking you what you thought or what came to mind when you first heard Fuhrman use that epithet?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I do.
MR. DARDEN: And you told me that nothing came to mind; is that correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That’s correct, that I couldn’t remember anything coming to mind the first time. Your question was what came to mind the first time you heard that word, I believe.
MR. DARDEN: But you don’t remember what came to mind at the time?
MS. MCKINNY: No. That would have been about ten years ago. I could not remember the first time I heard that word used what came to my mind.
MR. DARDEN: You don’t remember a white police officer using this epithet in your presence and your not being offended by it?
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question and the tone of the voice.
THE COURT: Sustained. It is argumentative.
MR. DARDEN: You understand that that word is the most vile word in the English language?
MS. MCKINNY: I think it is one of the most vile words in the English language, yes.
MR. DARDEN: You think there are worse?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I certainly do. Why are we having this adversarial relationship? I don’t understand that. It is a vile word. Why do I have to define it more so than it is?
MR. DARDEN: You wrote a screenplay, right?
MS. MCKINNY: That is accurate.
MR. DARDEN: Did you use that word in the screenplay?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Did you attempt to out and sell that screenplay?
MS. MCKINNY: Certainly.
MR. DARDEN: You are using that word in your screenplay to help make money, right?
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, your Honor. That is argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.
******
MR. DARDEN: You have had one screenplay published or made into a film?
MS. MCKINNY: Have I had one screenplay made into a film?
MR. DARDEN: Yes.
MS. MCKINNY: No.
******
MR. DARDEN: When Mark Fuhrman used these words in your presence why didn’t you just tell him to stop?
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to the form of that question. I object to the form of that question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: Argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MCKINNY: For the same reason I didn’t tell him to stop when he told me of police procedures, cover-ups, other information that I felt were important for me to have a clear understanding in context of this material that I was writing. He told me many things that I thought were important for me to understand, many things I hadn’t been aware of, as did other officers of the Los Angeles Police Department, as did many of the other interviews that I did and ride-alongs I went on. I was in a journalistic mode. I was not judgmental. And I needed that information to help me write a more realistic journalistic piece and I did not ask him to stop using the type of normal ordinary language he would use or other officers would use. I needed to know how he would speak.
MR. DARDEN: You told us yesterday that there was no racial subplot to the screenplay you were planning to write, correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That is accurate.
MR. DARDEN: And yet you use this epithet in your screenplay anyway; is that also correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That is true.
******
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, you asked a moment ago why we are involved in some adversarial relationship. Do you recall asking that?
MS. MCKINNY: I felt that you were. I don’t feel adversarial toward you, but I felt that there was something negative coming from some of your questions, yes.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. You didn’t stop him the first time he used the epithet, correct?
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, that has be asked and answered.
THE COURT: It has.
MR. DARDEN: Well, you didn’t stop him the twentieth time he used the epithet?
MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: That has not. Overruled.
MR. DARDEN: Correct?
MS. MCKINNY: That’s correct.
MR. DARDEN: You didn’t stop him the fortieth or forty-second time that he used the epithet, correct?
MS. MCKINNY: I didn’t abridge his dialogue or conversation during an interview, no.
MR. DARDEN: Given the fact that you have included this epithet in your screenplay, do you feel that it is appropriate under some circumstances to utter or use this word?
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to the form of this. Object to the form of that question.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MS. MCKINNY: Do I personally feel it is appropriate?
MR. DARDEN: Yes.
MS. MCKINNY: No, I don’t.
MR. DARDEN: Why then include it in a screenplay, a screenplay that you intend to make into a movie?
MS. MCKINNY: Because it is reflective of particular officers or officer’s dialogue, feelings at a particular time. It is representative of what would be said.
******
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN
******
MR. COCHRAN: The fact that Mark Fuhrman used the “N” word more than 42 times–
MR. DARDEN: Objection. That misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: –did that make you agree with him when he was using those words?
MS. MCKINNY: (No audible response.)
MR. COCHRAN: Did you agree with him when he was using those words in that base, vile manner?
MS. MCKINNY: Of course not.
******
MR. COCHRAN: And so when these words, these vile insulting words came up, you weren’t saying these words, were you?
MS. MCKINNY: No.
MR. COCHRAN: Who was saying these words?
MS. MCKINNY: Officer Fuhrman.
******
MR. COCHRAN: Now, ma’am, with regard to your coming to California, did you voluntarily come out here and bring your tapes and transcripts out here so you could come to California and testify?
MS. MCKINNY: No, sir, I was subpoenaed by the court.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And when you were subpoenaed by a subpoena issued by Judge Ito and this court, did you resist and fight that subpoena?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I did.
******
MR. COCHRAN: Now, Mr. Darden asked you a lot of questions about why you didn’t stop Mark Fuhrman from using this “N” word or whatever. Do you recall those questions?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And is there any doubt in your mind now as you sit here that Mark Fuhrman used this horrible word 41 or more times during the time that you were talking to him? Any doubt in your mind at all?
MR. DARDEN: Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MCKINNY: No.
MR. COCHRAN: And those were his words coming from his mouth; is that right?
MS. MCKINNY: That’s correct.
******
 

TESTIMONY OF DR. HENRY LEE
 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK:

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, could you tell us what present position you hold?
DR. LEE: Currently, I’m the chief criminalist for state of Connecticut. Also, I’m the laboratory director for Connecticut State Police forensic laboratory. However, today, I come here as a–act as an independent consultant, nothing to do with my official capacity.
******
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, in terms of the side that you’re usually on in criminal cases in terms of percentages, what percentage of the time are you called by the Prosecution and what percentage of the time are you called by the Defense?
DR. LEE: Uh, approximately 95 percent is for the Prosecution, less than five percent for the Defense.
******
MR. SCHECK: All right. In terms of the different areas that you have testified in as an expert for the Prosecution and Defense, just to get through it briefly, does that include hair examination?
DR. LEE: Yes.
******
MR. SCHECK: Trace evidence?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Crime scene reconstruction?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And something that’s called blood spatter or blood splatter interpretation?
DR. LEE: It’s blood pattern interpretation.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Doctor, I would like to turn for a second to your writings. How many books or monographs or chapters in textbooks have you written?
DR. LEE: Including books or booklet, monographs or chapter, more than 20, more than 20 now.
MR. SCHECK: Are some of these books used as textbooks in forensic science?
DR. LEE: Yes.
******
MR. SCHECK: Now, let’s talk briefly about the professional associations where you’re a member. What professional associations are you a member of and that you’re active in?
DR. LEE: Approximately 20 some different professional organization. Most are dealing with forensic science. To name a few, Academy of–American Academy of Forensic Science, England Forensic Society, England Fingerprint Society, International Association of Identification, International Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Association, International Homicide Detectives Investigators’ Association and Northeastern Forensic Scientist Association, of course American Crime Laboratory Directors Association and some other organization.
******
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, how is it that you got involved in this case?
DR. LEE: This case, in June 14, I receive a phone call from attorney Shapiro, Bob Shapiro, asking me to assist in this case.
******
MR. SCHECK: Now, what were you asked to do in terms of this case for the Defense? What tasks were you asked to perform? What areas?
DR. LEE: Uh, basically involving review some physical evidence and exam, study the crime scene and crime scene pictures, photographs, try to find the scientific fact, what involved in this case. So my role is rather limited, not really involving other aspect of investigation. In addition, when the time I was called in, the crime scene already almost nonexist. So my involvement just so-called a limit review of the crime scene photographs and crime scene inspection. Physical evidence, that’s my strength. I exam quite a few pieces physical evidence.
******
MR. SCHECK: There is a discipline of analysis known as bloodstain spatter or splatter interpretation?
DR. LEE: Bloodstain pattern analysis, yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And you were making reference in your testimony so far to certain kind of bloodstain patterns?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
******
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, at this time I would ask permission to, with a bottle of red ink and paper, have Dr. Lee demonstrate different kind of bloodstain patterns.
******
MR. SCHECK: As a predicate for explaining bloodstain patterns, could you explain for us briefing something about the circulatory system as it relates to how blood comes out of the body?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir. In this closed circulation system carry the oxygen nutrient through the body and that is why we can function. Once this system interrupt, the blood will come up. Depends which part of the body. If an artery, the blood will gush out, so-called arterial spurting, arterial gushing. If a vein was cut, the blood will rush out. If just a capillary cut, the blood dripping out. Once it has come out of our body, we cannot take back any more, we cannot control any more. The environment and the physics takes over. It is no longer–can be controlled by an individual. Once the blood come out, would deposit to a surface. The surface usually is the lowest surface, whatever lowest surface. For example, here, that is–if I dripping the blood or ink onto this surface, that is the lowest surface. If I drip here, (Indicating), the carpet going to be lowest surface. It stop on the surface according to the physics, the gravity.
MR. SCHECK: Could you demonstrate for the jury, for example, you mentioned a drop, what is known as a low velocity drop?
DR. LEE: Yes. If the blood come out without any force, just dripping, going to form certain patterns. This pattern, (Indicating), generally we consider a low velocity blood drop.
MR. SCHECK: All right. The record should reflect that Dr. Lee has taken a bottle of–out of a bottle of red ink a dropper.
THE COURT: Eyedropper.
MR. SCHECK: I’m sorry, an eyedropper, and dropped it directly down onto a piece of paper.
******
MR. SCHECK: Now, on this low velocity drop, the way you did it, it was vertical?
DR. LEE: It is directly perpendicular to the surface, ninety-degree drop.
MR. SCHECK: Now, if one were to measure the diameter of those drops, could this be correlated with the source of it to the target?
DR. LEE: In general we can do an estimation. We have to know the substrata. Is this paper, carpet, pavement or wood? Each substrata surface will have different effect. You cannot use the paper to compare a carpet or use the carpet to compare the pavement; therefore, you have to know the drop size, how big a drop, and have to know the substrata. Sometime we can make some correlation. We cannot make, say, an exact determination how high.
MR. SCHECK: But can one make a reasonable approximation, in certain instances, by measuring the diameter of a vertical drop such as this with respect to where the source was?
DR. LEE: If we know every parameters, then we can make a reasonable interpretation.
MR. SCHECK: Is it therefore important, when documenting, preserving evidence at a crime scene, to make an effort to document the size of drops?
DR. LEE: Yes. We generally conduct such documentation.
MR. SCHECK: And the photographs taken in this case of the bloodstain evidence at the Bundy and Rockingham scenes, did they contain rulers in them so that such measurements could be made?
DR. LEE: I did not have opportunity to see every photograph. I cannot tell you. The photograph what I examined I did not see rulers.
*******
MR. SCHECK: So would it be fair to say that the impact angle can be determined to some extent by the width and length of the bloodstain pattern?
DR. LEE: Yes.
******
MR. SCHECK: And is that something that ought to be done when properly processing a crime scene?
DR. LEE: I usually–if a blood pattern become crucial, we document that.
******
THE COURT: No. Have you ever been to a Gallagher show?
MR. SCHECK: I have. Doesn’t he use more props?
*******
MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, I call your attention now to the board that we’ve marked 1341 entitled “Bloodstain from closed-in area of Bundy.” With the court’s permission may Dr. Lee–
THE COURT: Yes, he may.
MR. SCHECK: –get off the witness stand and with the aid of a pointer or whatever else you want to use, Dr. Lee.
******
MR. SCHECK: Now, Dr. Lee, what does the center picture in this board depict?
DR. LEE: The center picture second row second line–second column, second row, this depicts an overall view of a corner of a fenced in area at the Bundy scene.
MR. SCHECK: And Dr. Lee, are there recognizable blood spatter patterns that are highlighted in the peripheral pictures on this board?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, whose pictures are these?
DR. LEE: Those are the pictures supplied to me by attorney Shapiro.
MR. SCHECK: So these are from, to the best of your knowledge, the Prosecution?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: And with respect to these bloodstain patterns, there are no rulers in this–these pictures so that we can measure any of these deposits?
DR. LEE: I did not see any.
******
MR. SCHECK: I would like to now turn to a discussion of the socks, and I’d ask that this board be marked Defendant’s next in order.
******
MR. SCHECK: This first board marked 1352 entitled, “History of socks, item 13, June 13th, 1994 at Rockingham,” briefly, Dr. Lee, what is this?
******
DR. LEE: This board consists three picture. This three picture was supplied to me by attorney Shapiro.
THE COURT: Next question.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Picture no. 1 is a–represents what in terms of the bedroom?
DR. LEE: Depicts an overall view, shows this corner of the bedroom and a rug on the carpet, the bed and appear to be–in the center of this picture appear to be pair of socks (Indicating).
MR. SCHECK: Direct your attention to the picture on the upper right-hand corner.
DR. LEE: This picture is taken appear to be a different point of time. We see some changes in the picture. However, this pair of socks appear to be in the middle of this rug (Indicating).
******
MR. SCHECK: May I call your attention to close-up of two socks?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And what does that appear to be in relation to the picture above it?
DR. LEE: This appear to be a close-up showing this pair of same socks.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. Now, is there anything about the way those socks are lying on the carpet that is of interest in terms of subsequent analysis?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: What is it?
DR. LEE: This two socks is clearly in two different location, not on top each other. This two socks both have a similarity. The top appear to be folding downward. These two socks, both side, the tip, the toe area cannot be seen whether or not due to this photograph, two-dimensional representation or in reality was tucked in, which I don’t know. One sock appear to be crunched in a three-dimensional setting. The other one also, it’s not flat. It’s also crunched in certain fashion. These two socks, I can not determine just by looking at them inside out or outside in (Indicating).
MR. SCHECK: In terms of the proper practices for collection of these socks, what should be done?
DR. LEE: If I do it, I can not say about any other people. These two socks–
MR. GOLDBERG: Not responsive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: These two socks should be put in two separate bags. However, before I even pick it up, should noted the condition, dry, wet, moist or damp. In addition, should definite indicates inside out or outside in, the toe stuck inside or not or exposed, the top, whether or not in fact fall down works or not. A physical description and any obvious trace material or stain should be noted.
******
MR. SCHECK: And did you examine one sock and then the other sock?
DR. LEE: Yes. I exam one sock at a time.
MR. SCHECK: And between the examination of one sock to the other sock, did you change gloves?
DR. LEE: Yes, I did.
MR. SCHECK: Any question about that in your mind?
DR. LEE: No question about it.
MR. SCHECK: Now, can you tell us what you were able to observe–I think we’re–is there anything else of note on this board?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: What is that?
DR. LEE: I notice that both socks in one bag, in one envelope. I made a comment, I said why those two socks in one envelope.
MR. SCHECK: And what is the significance of putting both socks in one envelope for–in terms of forensic procedure?
DR. LEE: Start that initial moment, you pick up the socks, put in one envelope, you already contaminate both socks. You have a cross-contamination. It’s no longer its virgin state.
MR. SCHECK: Is there any significance in terms of this examination that you are not wearing a lab coat or a hair net?
DR. LEE: I wasn’t provide with a lab coat nor a hair net. After I look, these both socks already put in one envelope. Doesn’t matter what I wear, space suit, body armor. Still contaminated.

******
MR. SCHECK: All right. The board contains the phrase “Wet blood transfers” in relation to this picture. Could you please explain that?
DR. LEE: When I exam this stain carefully, it’s a contact smear made of blood. This blood has to be in wet stage to get transfer. Once it dry, you cannot transfer anymore. So that’s why I refer a close-up view of a wet blood transfer.
MR. SCHECK: And let me see if I understand this. You’re saying that what has to be wet in order to cause this kind of transfer stain?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHECK: The object that is making–
DR. LEE: The object, the surface of items on either a glove or any object have some wet blood touch this brown paper bag cause this transfer with the motion.
MR. SCHECK: And what is the photograph on the upper right-hand corner of this board entitled, “Bloodstains inside paper bag, item 78?” What does that represent?
DR. LEE: The paper bag when I look at the inside, I see wet transfer inside of the bag. The mechanism of this transfer remains the same. Has to be a wet surface, wet object with some wet blood–I’m sorry–a surface object with some wet blood contact this brown paper bag cause such transfer.
MR. SCHECK: And what is the picture, the lower right hand that says close-up wet blood transfers?
DR. LEE: The close-up shows some of the blood has soaked through other side to the exterior surface.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, is it a good procedure to put an object such as a boot that is still wet with blood inside a paper bag?
******
DR. LEE: I cannot say what LAPD procedure. I did not review it. I’ve not come here to criticize anybody. My own procedure, if I collect, I don’t put an object wet.
MR. SCHECK: And why wouldn’t you put a wet object into such a paper bag?
DR. LEE: Because a transfer, you change the pattern. If an object have two or three different type of blood grouping, because this transfer, now you may resolve some false reading.
MR. SCHECK: Is that–could create mixtures?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Where there weren’t originally mixtures?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Is that what’s sometimes known as cross-contamination?
DR. LEE: Yes.
******
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG

******
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, Dr. Lee, I wanted to just mention very briefly or ask you very briefly about one of the matters that you just alluded to a few moments ago.
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Regarding identification of human remains in cases here in the continental United States.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your most famous such case where you were personally involved at the crime scene, not at the time of the crime, but afterwards.
DR. LEE: Thank you very much.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.–was the People versus Crafts case; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
******
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And was that a case, sir, where the victim in that case, Helen Crafts, was killed by her husband and she was–he disposed of her by putting her body through a wood chipper machine?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And in that particular case is it a fair summary of what happened that the biological evidence was spread over a very significant amount of territory, about 2500 square feet, in the snow by a river as a result of the body having gone through the wood clipper machine?
DR. LEE: The majority this and probably wound up in the river. Only small fragment were found scattered around the river bank.
******
MR. GOLDBERG: Right. And just so it is clear, what was done in this case is large amounts of snow were put in buckets and then taken into tents and melted and the biological evidence would tend to fall or sink to the bottom of the bucket and all the debris would tend to rise to the top and you just throw the debris out and take the biological evidence out in the bottom?
DR. LEE: Not exactly. Any recognizable material, for example, we found a fingernail, you can recognize, you don’t have to throw in a bucket. You just taken it out. If it is bone chips, we can recognize, or a tooth. We have a team of scientists, team of investigator work together since we can see and recognizable right away, you remove it. For example, I can see a scissor, I collect a scissor. I don’t have to throw the scissor in the bucket. Things we cannot visually recognize, we use the second procedure.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that included some of the biological evidence in the case?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And Dr. Lee, when that occurred, when the items would fall to the bottom of the bucket, various different biological samples could get mixed together or were mixed together; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And it also mixed together human biological samples with others that were out there, like deer bones and the like; is that correct?
DR. LEE: Yes, correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. And despite that, sir, it was proper and you did decide to attempt DNA technology on this evidence; is that correct?
DR. LEE: That’s correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. But this case was a little while ago, as I recall, it was in the mid-eighties?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: So with the state of the technology at that time, you were not actually able to do DNA, true?
DR. LEE: No. We did some DNA work.
MR. GOLDBERG: Oh, you did?
DR. LEE: We did some X, Y, determine male, female.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. You were also able to do–when I say “You” I’m also including your laboratory people–
DR. LEE: Yes.
******
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And you were able to get results that identified the human remains in that case even though all the biological evidence was mixed together at the time that it was collected?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
******
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you agree, sir, that one of the practical realities that criminalists face who are working for law enforcement, is budgetary problems and monetary shortfalls?
DR. LEE: Yes.
******
MR. GOLDBERG: So would you agree, sir, that generally speaking, forensic resources are scarce in the sense that we can’t do all the testing and all the study in every case that we would like to do?
DR. LEE: That is absolute correct. Of course if you have the support of the leadership, for example, I have a good boss, my commissioner very supportive to forensic science, so we try to do what supposed to do. Of course impossible to do every possible test in this earth for a certain case.
******
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. All right. Have you read Mr. MacDonnell’s article on the “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”?
DR. LEE: (No audible response.)
MR. GOLDBERG: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”?
DR. LEE: I’m a Chinese. Take me a while to think about this double-talk. Absence–
******
MR. GOLDBERG: And do you agree generally with the findings of MacDonnell in this particular article?
DR. LEE: In general, yes, but the specific example he give maybe not totally cover the whole situation.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But in general do you agree with the proposition that we really can’t infer that someone cannot participate in a crime involving a bloody event simply because they don’t have blood on them, on their clothing or on their person?
DR. LEE: Again, as I indicate before, depend on situation. One example said beat up a rabbit. Rabbit, human two different scene. You beat up a rabbit, did not get blood spatter on your clothing. Doesn’t mean you beat up a human did not get blood on your body, and I guess depends on situation. If you standing a distance, firing a shot, gunshot, thirty feet away, kill somebody, I don’t expect to find blood spatter on somebody’s clothing. That is correct. However, if you put the gun next to somebody’s head, fire a shot, nothing, no clothing, block the back spatter, I expect to find some blood spatter, so it varies. I cannot in certain senses, correct. In other situation maybe not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Isn’t there a lot of forensic science literature out there that generally cautions the forensic scientists who are involved in blood spatter that you can’t really say that someone didn’t participate in a crime just because they are not covered in blood even if it is something like a stabbing?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
*******
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, sir, have you had some cases yourself in your own career as a forensic scientist where the crime scene was extremely bloody?
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yet–yet the suspect did not have a lot of blood on his clothing?
DR. LEE: Off my head I don’t really remember every crime scene I went. In general more blood, I should expect to find some blood on the suspect. Again, depends on situation. You have a shooting at a distance, yes, the victim lying there, have a lot of blood. Suspect with a long gun, you don’t expect to find that. Those are correct. If a closed compact situation, maybe different.
******
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK
******
MR. SCHECK: Dr. Lee, finally, you were asked some questions about the closed-in area of the Bundy crime scene, the absence of evidence and bloodstain patterns on cross-examination. Do you recall those?
DR. LEE: Yes.
******
MR. SCHECK: Well, let me ask you this, Dr. Lee. In a closed environment, closed-in environment with hand-to-hand combat, with multiple stab wounds, with blood stains in different places indicating multiple contact smears with vertical droplets in the areas of the different multiple contact smears, with other blood spatter cast off in different directions, with the key in one area, beeper in another area, in that kind of struggle, do you have an opinion as to whether or not an assailant or assailants would be covered with blood from the struggle?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Incomplete hypothetical.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: What is that opinion?
DR. LEE: In theory, should have some blood.
******

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG
******
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, let’s get to one of your comments about in theory, there should be some blood in response to Mr. Scheck’s line of questioning.
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Remember that?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Would that also depend upon where the suspect was standing?
DR. LEE: Uh, depends on whether or not a combat situation, hand-to-hand combat situation. You have distance, of course, the chances for getting blood on unless some material spurt or certain force, internal force or external force. You have injury on the hand, have a cast off, have other motion, that going to cast to greater distance. If in close contact, if large amount of blood come out, you going to have more blood.
******
MR. GOLDBERG: Let me ask you this, doctor. Do you recall one of your fairly well known cases back in 1984 by the name of People versus Hoeplinger where a husband beat his wife to death by hitting her numerous times in the head with a brick, drug her body out to a fish pond, drug her back into the house and then claimed that someone else broke into the home and committed the murder?
DR. LEE: 80 percent correct. Not drag to the fish pond. Never got to the fish pond.
MR. GOLDBERG: Only part way?
DR. LEE: Drug, carry to a location end of the driveway and drag into a pack of Sandril (Sic) to–near the neighbor’s house and carry the body, half drug, half carry, put back in family room on the sofa.
MR. GOLDBERG: And isn’t it true that that kind of an assault with the brick on the head by beating numerous times produces enormous amount of blood and it did so in the Hoeplinger case?
DR. LEE: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And isn’t it true that on the suspect’s jeans, there were only two drops of blood?
DR. LEE: Well, we assume that’s the original jean. I don’t have any record, but I do know he wash his T-shirt. I found a T-shirt washed in the pond.
MR. GOLDBERG: Right.
DR. LEE: But the blue jean, whether or not that’s the original blue jean, I have no or information, record of it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, you testified in court and those blue jeans were presented to a jury as being worn by the suspects–suspect, the husband at the time of the murder; is that correct?
DR. LEE: I–that’s long time ago. If you say correct, probably correct. I don’t recall. There’s thousands cases I been working on.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does that seem to be consistent with your memory?
DR. LEE: Sure. Sure.
MR. GOLDBERG: And only two blood drops?
DR. LEE: I don’t remember. If you say two drops, it’s two drop.
MR. GOLDBERG: And the scene was covered in blood, correct?
DR. LEE: Yes.
******
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, if a person were to wrap their hand around someone’s throat and slit that person’s throat–
DR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MR. GOLDBERG: –and the blood spurted forward, would you expect the assailant to be covered in blood?
DR. LEE: Probably not.
******

Testimony of Dr. Robert Huizenga
JULY 14, 1995 9:20 A.M.
 Robert Huizenga, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO

MR. SHAPIRO: You are a physician and surgeon licensed to practice in the state of California?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I am. I practice internal medicine.
*****
MR. SHAPIRO: And when did you see Mr. OJ Simpson first as a patient?

DR. HUIZENGA: I saw him first noon at June 15, 1994.

MR. SHAPIRO: And was that at someone’s suggestion other than Mr. Simpson’s?

DR. HUIZENGA: It was at your suggestion.

MR. SHAPIRO: Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what type of examination you conducted of OJ Simpson on the 15th, Wednesday.

DR. HUIZENGA: Well, when he came I did a very thorough history. Subsequently, a physical examination.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you discover during the course of that history any preexisting medical conditions or injuries?

DR. HUIZENGA: Well, initially, and probably the most troubling to me as an internist, he gave an approximately one-month history of drenching night sweats so severe that he would have to get out of bed, towel himself off and go back and sleep in the dry portion of the bed.
*****

DR. HUIZENGA: So the drenching night sweats are a sign in medicine occasionally of a significant disease. And in association with that he gave me a very strong personal family history of cancer, and in fact he himself had had carcinoid cancer of the rectum, a cancer that can be quite benign or can have more sinister implications. Correlating those symptoms with his physical exam, he had an enlarged lymph node in his right axilla, which is under the right armpit, in addition to clubbing of his fingernails, which is something that can be an inherited condition or it can be also consistent with a lung process, and those things were noted and worrisome for anything from an infection to a cancer to some other sort of autoimmune process.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you make any recommendations as a result of your initial examination and subsequent follow-up examination?

DR. HUIZENGA: The recommendation was that we biopsy that lymph node.

DR. HUIZENGA: The result of the biopsy was revealing abnormally enlarged lymph nodes, a collection of lymph nodes, and the pathology was consistent with a benign reactive lymphoid hyperplasia which may be associated with a number of diseases. Specifically we were very worried about Hodgkin’s disease and we felt that lymph node was consistent with rheumatoid arthritis.

MR. SHAPIRO: Did you discover, through your history and subsequent examination, any other surgeries that Mr. Simpson had had prior to him coming to see you?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.  Okay. In my initial history with Mr. Simpson he kind of presented with that whole array of the typical post-NFL injury syndromes. He had, of course, a number of head concussions when he was playing with the buffalo team. Specifically, he had initially a surgery on his left wrist all the way back to 1965 which significantly limited the motion in his left wrist and caused him continuing pain. He had multiple fractures, which is pretty common in football, and had visibly enlarged knuckles which also can be associated with either fractures or osteoarthritis or other rheumatologic arthritic conditions. He had a significant knee complaints. And he had subsequently on his left knee had four surgeries.

MR. SHAPIRO: Let me just see if we can put this in perspective. The first thing you told the jury was that he had a typical post-NFL syndrome. Break that down and explain what you are trying to convey to the jury.

DR. HUIZENGA: Well, when I first saw him in the office, which as I said was noon, we squeezed him in during the lunch hour, he basically was visibly limping as he came down the hall. You know, that is the first thing that strikes me. And he really was not walking properly.

MR. SHAPIRO: What is your opinion as to the condition of his knee based on your examination and the medical histories that you reviewed?

DR. HUIZENGA: He had severe wear and tear arthritis of the left knee and was a strong candidate in the relatively near future for a total knee replacement.

 MR. SHAPIRO: In your opinion how would that affect his mobility on the day you saw him?

DR. HUIZENGA: On the day I saw him he had significantly limited mobility because of the knee and actually another ankle problem that we haven’t discussed, and I think would be significantly limited in terms of fast walking, certainly in terms of slow jogging, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, that day.

*****
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, let’s go above the waist. Did you do any examination between–let’s talk about the wrist.

 DR. HUIZENGA: The left wrist. He sustained an injury, the exact nature of which I’m not exactly clear, in 1965, but needed surgery of this area. When I did an exam, usually the wrist should come up something like ninety degrees and it should kind of flap down also at about ninety degrees, so you estimate these things in the office. And his left wrist really was only able to come up about thirty or forty degrees. This is not an exact science, but you know, you kind of estimate 45 degrees, and he did not seem to break that plane. And when you forcibly tried to move it up, you know, there was no give and pain.

MR. SHAPIRO: Was there any other injuries that you observed in the arm areas?

DR. HUIZENGA: He had damage to his elbows such that when he would try to fully extend–again, the elbow should extend 180 degrees, to be perfectly straight, and he had what we call a flexion contracture. I

MR. SHAPIRO: Any other observations of the upper torso?

DR. HUIZENGA: Umm, he had multiple scars, keloids over parts of his upper body and the back, and of course the fingers and the elbows and forearms and hands. He was somewhat bowlegged, you know, in addition to the limp we described, and I think those were the–in addition to the finger things that we talked about, the large–enlargements, those were the major findings.

*****
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you notice any inflammation in the hand area?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did. He had multiple areas that were enlarged, these bony enlargements on his joints.

MR. SHAPIRO: Which hand were you referring to?

DR. HUIZENGA: This is the right hand.
*****

MR. SHAPIRO: Would you describe slowly to the jury your findings on Mr. Simpson’s right hand.

DR. HUIZENGA: His right-hand had multiple joint enlargements. Basically bony overgrowths located on the proximal joint of his thumb, this proximal phalangeal joint on his right index finger, the proximal joint on his third right finger, both the distal interphalangeal joint and the proximal interphalangeal joint on his fourth ring finger, and again distal interphalangeal joint and proximal interphalangeal joint swelling and hypertrophy on the fifth right finger.

MR. SHAPIRO: How about the left hand. Would you go through the same demonstration.

DR. HUIZENGA: Those joints were swollen with bony overgrowths signifying some type of trauma or old fractures or inflammatory or osteoarthritic disease.

*****
MR. SHAPIRO: When you saw him on the 15th did you have any opinion as to how these conditions would affect his mobility?

DR. HUIZENGA: Well, he was visibly limping to my eye, and my initial impression was that it was mainly the osteoarthritis or the wear and tear disease. But I think that really he is limited, specifically lower extremities, by his arthritis, and he certainly was limited to a way on the 15th of June where he would have a very difficult time moving quickly in his lower extremities.

MR. SHAPIRO: This is not a condition, in your opinion, that came on within two days, is it?

DR. HUIZENGA: No, I don’t believe that is–I think that these are long-lived symptoms.
*****
MR. SHAPIRO: Is that the way Mr. Simpson appeared on the 15th in your office?

DR. HUIZENGA:  Yes.  Initially I was looking over every part of his head, including his scalp, for any evidence of hematomas, which is a–after you get some direct trauma, a little bleeding under the skin, think bump, you know, you know it as a goose egg. We were looking very carefully for scratch marks. I was looking for any area of a chipped tooth and ran my fingers around all of his teeth in his mouth. We were looking for any evidence that anything had kind of pulled on his ears and looked very carefully behind his ears and examined his skin. In addition, I did a very careful physical exam of his nose. I do that routinely, looking for any evidence of the use of cocaine and his nasal passages were entirely normal. Looked very carefully on his neck for any evidence of pulling or tugging or any bruise. Basically a bruise is some evidence of direct contusion without laceration, and saw none. There was no purpura which is a black and blue type of mark if you break a blood vessel under the skin. There was no evidence of change in skin color other than some these of these old darkly pigmented evidences of old abrasions and the multiple cuts you get as a football player.

MR. SHAPIRO: Specifically did you find any evidence of bruising, scratches, cuts or abrasions?

DR. HUIZENGA: No, I did not.
*****
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you examine the right hand for any cuts or abrasions?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.   There is a jagged laceration that extends from the distal interphalangeal joint of the fourth left finger and it comes in almost a snake-like fashion and just it–it slices coming down in this way, (Indicating), and then it almost seems to change in the plane and then it is a deeper cut.

MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you. Did you observe this injury on Mr. Simpson on the 15th, as well as the 17th?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.

MR. SHAPIRO: Would you describe that to the jury.

DR. HUIZENGA: Okay. Okay. On his third finger he had a lesion that had the appearance of a fishhook and basically from the top it came down and kind of fished in a direction toward his fourth index finger.

MR. SHAPIRO: Do you have any opinion as to–let’s leave that up for a second–as to how the injury above the knuckle was caused?

DR. HUIZENGA: I believe it was by some sort of a sharp object.

MR. SHAPIRO: Not a knife?

DR. HUIZENGA: A knife is a possibility, but to me the edges looked a little bit ragged, but that was a possibility, but it seemed to me to be more consistent with glass, but certainly a sharp object can do that.

MR. SHAPIRO: In this wound, do you have an opinion as to what is more reasonable as the cause for that injury?

DR. HUIZENGA: This wound, as I said, was one of the–appeared to be slightly cleaner than the others, but I think for the constellation of all the wounds it seemed more likely that glass was the cause.

*****
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, are there certain types of activities somebody with the conditions that Mr. Simpson suffers from be capable of doing?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, there are. Rrelatively sedentary things since his cardio vascular shape wasn’t really that good that really don’t need, you know, quick movement on that knee and of course over the period of that time his ankle which was bothering him at that time.

*****
MR. SHAPIRO: Based on your examination of Mr. Simpson on the 15th, did you see any evidence other than the cuts you’ve described on the left hand of any recent injury that was visible to Mr. Simpson?

DR. HUIZENGA: Other than those on the 15th, there was no other evidence of any trauma except for several very small little also punctate abrasions that were also on the back of his left palm. But they were–appeared to be basically zigzag areas of maybe several sonometers, which were very superficial, irritation scrapes of some sort.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KELBERG

MR. KELBERG: And the examination you did on the 15th of June, you say you have no notes of that; is that correct?

DR. HUIZENGA: I have no notes of that, no.

MR. KELBERG: But you did in fact prepare a typewritten report; is that correct?

DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, where in your report did you list anything related to Mr. Simpson walking–I hate to use your terminology–like Tarzan’s grandfather or having any kind of irregular gait, g-a-I-t?

DR. HUIZENGA: Uh, that is not in the report. That was subsequently added–

*****
MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, would you agree that under normal circumstances, a doctor accepts as true the history that is given to him by the patient because of the belief that the patient has an incentive to be honest and candid with the physician in order that the physician can accurately identify any problem and subsequently treat it?

DR. HUIZENGA: In most cases, that’s true.

MR. KELBERG: Did you consider the possibility in evaluating Mr. Simpson on June 15th that he had a motive to lie regarding his symptoms?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, you have no independent basis on which to evaluate whether or not Mr. Simpson was truthful with you, fully candid or whether in fact he was pulling his punches with you, can you?

DR. HUIZENGA: My report is based on the history that I obtained from him and my observations are the observations that I made of him.
*****
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, on the 17th, if you felt that you had been unable to adequately examine Mr. Simpson on the 15th, you had an opportunity to conduct any additional examinations you required; isn’t that correct?

DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.

MR. KELBERG: You didn’t find any enlarged lymph node under the left armpit, did you, at that time?

DR. HUIZENGA: I did not.

*****
MR. KELBERG: In your training, have you been taught for identifying osteoarthritis, that when you feel around the joint, you expect to find a hardening type of feeling, a bony type of feeling?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And have you also been taught–rheumatoid arthritis is an inflammatory disease; is it not?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, if you’re concerned about rheumatoid arthritis, there’s something called a grip test that can be done, isn’t there?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, there is.

MR. KELBERG: And that’s a very simple test to do; is there not–is it not?

DR. HUIZENGA: It requires some specialized things because typically you do it with a bulb with a gauge, and we don’t have that at our office.

MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, can’t it be done in fact using a blood pressure device? You do have a blood pressure device, you know, those cuff things that you pump up and then you have a column, a sphygmomanometer I think is the fancy name for it, right?

DR. HUIZENGA: We do have that.  I could have done that test, but that’s not a typical thing to do and would be totally inappropriate for this exam.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, where is it recorded the grip strength test result in your report of June 15th?

DR. HUIZENGA: Well, there are numerous things that are normal that aren’t reported. As I said, two hours of our interreaction are certainly not recorded here.

*****
MR. KELBERG: On June 15th, did Mr. Simpson in your opinion need a knee replacement?

DR. HUIZENGA: He did not need a knee replacement on the 15th.

MR. KELBERG: And in fact, you made no effort to have him seen by an orthopedist after June 15th, between the June 15th and June 17th examinations; is that correct?

DR. HUIZENGA: The orthopedic problems were chronic and something that would bother him over a many year period and were not of an acute nature, certainly not as acute as his other pressing problems.

MR. KELBERG: And in fact, your opinion was that he had no evidence of an acute arthritic problem, that is a flare-up of any arthritic condition, whether it be osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis on June 15th, 1994; is that correct, doctor?

DR. HUIZENGA: That is not correct.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, was there any finding made by you in–covered in whatever item no. 1 is which dealt with any physical limitation of Mr. Simpson’s which in your opinion would have prevented him from murdering two human beings using a single-edged knife on June 12th of 1994?

DR. HUIZENGA: No, there was not.
*****
MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, you said in response to Mr. Shapiro’s question that a knife could give the appearance of a cut that you believe was due to glass; is that correct?

DR. HUIZENGA: I think there are certain glass cuts that can mimic knife cuts.

MR. KELBERG: And there are knife cuts that can mimic glass cuts, right?

DR. HUIZENGA: I think with a knife, if you’re–if you’re a surgeon, you can mimic a lot of things.
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JULY 17, 1995 9:41 A.M.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. KELBERG

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, in page 2 of your report you say on this night sweats issue: “The patient admits to a month-long history of nocturnal sweats severe enough to awaken him and require him to towel off his entire body, then go to sleep or other non-soaked side of the bed without associated flushing or known fever,” right?

DR. HUIZENGA: That’s correct.

MR. KELBERG: Now, if a person had an influenza and develops a fever, you would expect to see chills initially as the fever escalates, right?

DR. HUIZENGA: During the evolving phase of the fever as it is going up, you are right, you would typically see chills.

MR. KELBERG: Did you ever, prior to June 15th, 1994, receive any information as to what temperatures Mr. Simpson had over the period of, let’s say, June 10th, through June 15th?

DR. HUIZENGA: No. There are many causes of sweating, one of which is athletic endeavors or the use of your muscles in a–over a certain threshold.

MR. KELBERG: And would it be correct, doctor, that the more vigorous the physical activity, the more sweating one might expect?

DR. HUIZENGA: Given the humidity, given the patient’s level of hydration, I think that that is generally a pretty reasonable assumption.
*****
MR. KELBERG: You were his doctor for the time on June 15th, 1994; isn’t that correct?

DR. HUIZENGA: That is absolutely correct.

MR. KELBERG: In fact, doctor, from all the records you have obtained, when was the last time Mr. Simpson saw any other doctor?

DR. HUIZENGA: He last saw you–he never had a, quote-unquote, doctor. He had an orthopedic specialist, Dr. Frank Jobe, who he saw July, I believe, 13, 1993, and at that time Dr. Jobe, an orthopedic specialist, felt that OJ was in an acute rheumatoid arthritis flare and then immediately sent to him Dr. Maltz.

MR. KELBERG: And so your examination is taking place eleven months since his last examination by any physician, at least to your knowledge; is that correct?

DR. HUIZENGA: That’s correct.
*****
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you consider yourself an advocate for Mr. Simpson?

DR. HUIZENGA: I consider myself Mr. Simpson’s doctor. When someone comes into my office, I’m their doctor.

*****
MR. KELBERG: And much of medical interpretation is subjective in nature, is it not, doctor?

DR. HUIZENGA: I think that there is a degree of subjectiveness and blood tests don’t tell all that much in many instances.

MR. KELBERG: Well, for example, the grip test, for example, you said you didn’t use any kind of objective measuring device, you didn’t have one, so you had the test as you demonstrated with me, and you felt that he had normal grip strength. That is a subjective evaluation, is it not, doctor?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.

*****
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, did you ever feel that it was part of your responsibility to try and prepare a Defense for Mr. Simpson to the charges?

DR. HUIZENGA: No, absolutely not.
*****
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, can you see that–do you have the copy of this letter in your material?

DR. HUIZENGA: I don’t have a copy of that.

MR. KELBERG: So doctor, in your opinion, this doesn’t reflect that you were an advocate for Mr. Simpson in asking one of his lawyers whether this represented the kind of statement he sought?

DR. HUIZENGA: No, absolutely not. Basically in my mind it was he wanted me to summarize my entire findings and I didn’t know if that was too much or too little detail. I knew that it was all truthful. I just didn’t know if he wanted me to expand or contract because he had some problems with some of my charts apparently.
*****
MR. KELBERG: Did you consider that as part of that responsibility it was to try and get him acquitted of these charges?

DR. HUIZENGA: No, I really didn’t, as a matter of fact.

MR. KELBERG: Would you look, if you would, please, the last paragraph of that letter directed to “Dear Bob” Mr. Shapiro.

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And for the record: “The night sweats Mr. Simpson complained of may be pertinent to the Court testimony of the chauffeur who implied OJ was quite warm when he got in the limo. We need to follow up on this from a medical standpoint.” You wrote that, didn’t you, doctor?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
*****
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, you told Mr. Shapiro on direct that in your opinion Mr. Simpson could hold a knife, right?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.

MR. KELBERG: Would he also be able, in your opinion, to grab the hair of Nicole Brown Simpson and yank her head back to hyperextend her neck prior to taking a knife and slashing at her throat area? Did he have the strength in his left hand to do that, sir.

DR. HUIZENGA: In a stationary situation, yes.

MR. KELBERG: And when stationary I want to you assume she has collapsed on the walkway in front of her condominium. That’s the kind of condition you are talking about, right?

DR. HUIZENGA: That’s correct.

MR. KELBERG: And in your opinion he could do that?

DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.

MR. KELBERG: And not only could he do that, doctor, in your opinion could he then with his right hand holding a knife slit her throat? Did he have the strength in his hand to do that?

DR. HUIZENGA: Given a stationary hypothetical as you have said, yes, I believe that that would be possible.

*****
MR. KELBERG: If you wanted to portray Mr. Simpson in worse condition with respect to that knee and limitation of movement, you would have done so by giving him a greater limitation of flexion, 25 to 30, than what is described in your report as 15 to 10; is that correct?

DR. HUIZENGA: I was basically talking off the top of my best of recollections and obviously wasn’t reading my report when I gave that answer, but my report–

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, has Mr. Simpson been evaluated at your suggestion by an orthopedist, since June 15th, 1994?

DR. HUIZENGA: I discussed it with his orthopedist. His–he has no acute reasons to be seen by an orthopedist currently, so no, he has not.

MR. KELBERG: Would you agree it would be more appropriate to have his orthopedist come in and give an opinion on an area within the orthopedist’s field of specialty than for you who by your admission is not an orthopedist–

DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.

MR. KELBERG: Dr. Huizenga, wouldn’t it be appropriate, if one were concerned about orthopedic limitations of Mr. Simpson to have Dr. Jobe, his orthopedist of many years, examine him before trial, right?

DR. HUIZENGA: I’m not conducting the Defense.

*****
MR. KELBERG: My question, doctor, is what, if anything, have you done to independently evaluate any limitations Mr. Simpson may have had over the last three months of his life before June 15th, 1994?

DR. HUIZENGA: I have requested all his previous medical records, but of course those are not helpful in the last three months.

MR. KELBERG: Because he hadn’t seen a doctor for eleven months?

DR. HUIZENGA: That is exactly correct.
*****
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, assuming that these same witnesses, when asked about any observation of any kind of physical limitation or evidence of distress by Mr. Simpson indicated they saw no such limitation or distress, assuming that that is accurate testimony, would that be inconsistent with what you would expect on June 12th, given your findings of June 15th?

DR. HUIZENGA: I saw a limp on the 15th. If he had no limp on the 12th, then obviously something has changed in the interval.

MR. KELBERG: Or perhaps Mr. Simpson was faking a limp in your office?

DR. HUIZENGA: That certainly would be in the differential.
*****
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what did do you to assess the power of his upper torso?

DR. HUIZENGA: Basically looking at the flexion contractures of the elbows and the difficulty with the wrist. That is–that is–that is the only point that I’m basing that on.

MR. KELBERG: And doctor, for example, would you describe the condition of Mr. Simpson’s upper torso.

DR. HUIZENGA: Absolutely well-muscled.
*****

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, if Mr. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman after being enraged, you would expect that he would be in the throes of an adrenaline rush; is that correct?

DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
*****
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. KELBERG

MR. KELBERG: What test did you do to see Mr. Simpson ever attempt to run to see how well he could run? Did you ever ask him to run at any time?

DR. HUIZENGA: I never asked him to run.

MR. KELBERG: And that would be the best test, would it not, to see how well he could run given his arthritic condition as you found it?

DR. HUIZENGA: He told me he could not run and you’re right, I took him at his word.
*****
MR. KELBERG: All right. Now, doctor, if Mr. Simpson had had a glove on his left hand, that area would in your opinion be covered if the glove were still being worn; would it not be the situation?

DR. HUIZENGA: It would be difficult to get this sort of abrasion unless there was something inside the glove if in fact your–your premise of wearing a glove were correct, yes.
*****
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, during the recess, did you count the number of abrasions that you
identified on the left hand or wrist area of Mr. Simpson?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.

MR. KELBERG: How many separate abrasions did you identify?

DR. HUIZENGA: Seven.

MR. KELBERG: And did you also count the number of cuts to his left hand?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.

MR. KELBERG: How many did you identify?

DR. HUIZENGA: Three cuts, one of which, on the fourth finger, had both an a and B portion.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, you said that Mr. Simpson told you he got these injuries in Chicago; is that correct?

DR. HUIZENGA: No. That’s incorrect.

MR. KELBERG: That he cut it on glass?

DR. HUIZENGA: That’s correct.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want you to assume that there’s been testimony received in this case that blood that was genetically tested and found to match Mr. Simpson’s was found in the foyer and driveway areas of Mr. Simpson’s home–  Doctor, in your opinion, would the kind of cuts that you observed in Mr.
Simpson’s hand, left hand, be the kind of cuts that can leave blood drops?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, they can.
*****

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1995 9:03 A.M.
 
 CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. KELBERG
 
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you are suggesting that Mr. Simpson is not being truthful with these people regarding his medical condition because he views himself as a pitchman for a product as a result of which he is willing to say things that are not true to please the people paying him to make the speech? Is that what you are suggesting.

DR. HUIZENGA: I cannot get inside Mr. Simpson’s head.
*****
MR. SHAPIRO: Have you in any way tried to mislead this jury based on your medical findings and observations of Mr. Simpson on June the 15th?

DR. HUIZENGA: No, I haven’t.
*****
MR. SHAPIRO: And to your knowledge was Mr. Simpson treated for the last three and a half years for arthritis?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, he was.

MR. SHAPIRO: And do you believe that that was to set up some type of Defense for a crime that would be committed five years or four years later?

DR. HUIZENGA: I would not believe that, no.
*****
MR. SHAPIRO: Is there any patient that you treat that would not be capable of cutting someone with a knife?

DR. HUIZENGA: No, not unless they had a fracture on that arm or some type of obvious deformity.

*****
MR. SHAPIRO: –is your opinion any different as to whether or not Mr. Simpson had any
bruises on him when you observed him on the 15th of June?

DR. HUIZENGA: No, it is not.

*****
MR. SHAPIRO: Is the cut on the index finger of Mr. Simpson consistent with somebody who broke a drinking glass that you would find in a hotel bathroom?

DR. HUIZENGA: The middle finger, this cut–the proximal or the distal? There is two cuts on that third finger.
*****
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, you did see what you said I think originally was the commercial video?

DR. HUIZENGA: That’s correct.

MR. KELBERG: And all of the aerobic exercise that we see in that type of environment is included in the commercial video. Some of what we saw because, they didn’t multiple takes, is not included in the commercial video, correct?

DR. HUIZENGA: That’s correct.

MR. KELBERG: And the commercial video has Mr. Simpson taking golf swings and shooting a basketball and so forth; is that correct?

DR. HUIZENGA: That’s correct.

TESTIMONY OF RODERIC HODGE
 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

 *****
 MR. COCHRAN: All right. I would like to cut to the chase and get right to it. Did you formerly live in California before you moved to Illinois?

MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And I would like specifically to direct your attention back to the month of January of 1987 and specifically January 11 of 1987. Did you have occasion to see or interact with a person by the name of Mark Fuhrman?

MR. HODGE: Yes, sir, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Was he a Los Angeles police officer at that point?

MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: On that date were you taken into custody by Mr. Fuhrman?

MR. HODGE: I believe so–I believe it was that date, yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Was it the 11th or 12th or do you know the exact date?

MR. HODGE: I am unable to recall the exact date, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Was it in January of 1987?

MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And do you remember who Mr. Fuhrman’s partner was at that time?

MR. HODGE: Yes, sir. It was Vettraino. I referred to him as Vettraino. I believe it is Tom Vettraino.

MR. COCHRAN: Tom Vettraino?

MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: At some point were you placed inside of a police vehicle?

MR. HODGE: Yes, sir, I was.

MR. COCHRAN: And after you were placed inside that police vehicle were you taken somewhere?

MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you remember which officer was driving the vehicle?

MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Who, which one?

MR. HODGE: That was Vettraino.

MR. COCHRAN: Who was Vettraino’s partner officer at that time?

MR. HODGE: Officer Fuhrman.

MR. COCHRAN: And where was officer Fuhrman seated in the vehicle, if you recall?

MR. HODGE: On the passenger side of the vehicle.

MR. COCHRAN: And where were you seated?

MR. HODGE: In the rear of the vehicle.

MR. COCHRAN: Were you handcuffed at that point?

MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And did officer Fuhrman say something to you as he was seated in the right front passenger seat and you were in the rear portion of that police vehicle?

MR. HODGE: Yes, sir, he did.

MR. COCHRAN: Will you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what officer Fuhrman said to you on this date in January of 1987?

MR. HODGE: Yes, sir. At that time officer Fuhrman turned around, looked at me and told me, “I told you we would get you, Nigger.”

MR. COCHRAN: Did you hear–you heard him clearly?

MR. HODGE: Very clearly, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And when he said this to you can you describe for us the tone of voice that he used?

MR. HODGE: Anger, hatred, just something from deep inside, if you would, just–just very ugly.

MR. COCHRAN: And when he made this statement to you can you describe for the jury how you felt?

MR. DARDEN: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HODGE: Belittled, scared, very, very angry. Umm, I could use many more adjectives, but those–

MR. COCHRAN: Does that encapsulate how you felt?

MR. HODGE: Lightly, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very much for coming today. Nothing further, your Honor.

THE COURT: People.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Hodge, thank you for coming, sir. Sir, you used to live on Corning Avenue, was it?

MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: And you were arrested by Vettraino and Fuhrman on January 13, 1987; is that right?

MR. HODGE: I’m unable to recall the exact date, sir.

MR. DARDEN: By the way, did you–were you only arrested once by Vettraino and Fuhrman and placed in a police vehicle?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, object. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Trying to establish the date, your Honor.

THE COURT: The date of January, `87, is close enough.

MR. DARDEN: Perhaps I should approach then.

 *****
 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Darden, where are you going with this?

MR. DARDEN: I’m trying to establish what the date is, because–I will give this to Mr. Cochran. This is the printout on the F.I.’s with that time with Mr. Hodge. There were many, many, many, many contacts by LAPD, from the narcotics and gang units, of Mr. Hodge. Mr. Hodge was a crack dealer over on Corning Avenue, an area where crack was sold by him and members of the Playboy Gangster Crips.

 *****
 MR. COCHRAN: Judge, isn’t the issue whether or not Fuhrman arrested this man and indicated to him–the issue he was called for you limited very specifically was whether Fuhrman turned around and said, “I tell you I will get you Nigger.” That is the question. It happened in January of 1987. That is the question.

 *****
MR. DARDEN: Mr. Hodge, did you complain to the LAPD about the manner in which you were arrested by these two officers?

MR. HODGE: On which occasion, sir?

MR. DARDEN: On the occasion you just described for Mr. Cochran?

MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: You filed a formal complaint?

MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: When you were arrested, were you holding a drill or something in your hand?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of this question, your Honor. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Let me show you a copy of an IAD complaint. By the way, did you have any portion at all of the IAD minute that you filed?

MR. HODGE: At this time–

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. I think your question assumes IAD and that the jury knows what we are talking about here.

MR. DARDEN: Certainly.

MR. DARDEN: You complained to Internal Affairs Division at LAPD; is that right?

MR. HODGE: I believe it was Internal Affairs, yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. You were interviewed by them?

MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And were you interviewed by a supervising officer at West L.A. Station as well?

MR. HODGE: I believe it was a supervising officer.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And your name is Roderic T. Hodge; is that correct?

MR. HODGE: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. What is your name?

MR. HODGE: Roderic T. Hodge.

MR. DARDEN: What is your birthdate?

MR. HODGE: August 22, 1964.

MR. COCHRAN: May I see that, counsel?

THE COURT: I will give Mr. Cochran a copy.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that the–if you will just take a look at that, please, sir.

MR. HODGE: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Does that refresh your recollection that the date of arrest was January 13, 1987?

MR. HODGE: Not really, sir, but I take it–

MR. DARDEN: Does that appear to be the complaint that you filed with LAPD?

MR. HODGE: Yes, sir, it does. It appears to be.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Okay. And on the last page of that document does it indicate that you had a second interview with someone from Internal Affairs on January 23, 1987, an interview with a Sergeant Lamprey?

MR. HODGE: Yes, sir, it does indicate that.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you have such an interview?

MR. HODGE: Yes, sir, I believe so.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Nowhere in this Internal Affairs complaint is it mentioned that you complained of Fuhrman’s use of any epithets; is that correct?

MR. HODGE: I haven’t read over the entire of the interview, sir.

 *****
 MR. DARDEN: Did you see the epithet indicated here in these documents?

MR. HODGE: No, sir.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. Do you think it might be contained in some other document?

MR. COCHRAN: I object. That calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. DARDEN: At any event, thank you, Mr. Hodge.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. Thank you very kindly, your Honor.

 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Good afternoon, Mr. Hodge.

MR. HODGE: Sir.

MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Hodge, is there any doubt in your mind that in the month of January of 1987, Detective Fuhrman referred to you as a Nigger?

MR. HODGE: Sir, there’s no doubt in my mind whatsoever.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that something you’d forget?

MR. HODGE: Something you don’t forget.

*****
 MR. COCHRAN: After your encounter with Mr. Fuhrman and the other officers on that day, you went down and made a complaint for their behavior; isn’t that correct?

 *****
 MR. HODGE: Sir, I made three complaints.

*****
 MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to these documents that Mr. Darden showed you, did you notice anything unusual about the pages [of the complaint]? Would you look at the pages and look at the numbers of those pages.

 *****
 MR. COCHRAN: What do you see? Tell the jury what you see there.

MR. HODGE: Well, it goes from page 6 to page 17.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know what happened to pages 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16?

MR. HODGE: No, sir. I would have no idea.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to that document, look in the upper right-hand corner under the “Type of complaint” that you made against these officers on January 13, 1987. Do you see that?

MR. HODGE: Yes, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: And what does it say?

MR. DARDEN: Objection.

*****
 MR. DARDEN:The question went to improper–what was in the box in the upper right-hand corner shows improper tactics and excessive force, which is irrelevant.

MR. COCHRAN: Counsel is wrong about that. It does say that. Let me make an offer of proof. What it says–he opened the door on this. It says “Improper tactics, excessive force and disc,” discourtesy. Let me show you something, Judge. I have another document, summary of adjudication cases dated on March 9, 1987 through March 13th, 1987, and what it shows is that this 22-year old black male alleged improper tactics, excessive force and discourtesy against the police. It’s all blacked out. The discourtesy is the word “Nigger,” and we have the right to bring that out. They’re trying to make it seem like it wasn’t there. That’s what I indicated to the court.

*****
 THE COURT: [E]xcessive force and improper tactics are not part of this.

MR. COCHRAN: Can I ask one thing, please, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: While we are here? Your Honor, can–there’s so much noise over here. In addition to that–he didn’t mark this. Can you look at the first thing here? This man–I should be allowed to go into–I’d like you to read this part. He complains that he got pulled up by his arms by Fuhrman and suffered injuries and he was struck with a baton. In fact, in this investigation–I want to bring this out–there are nine photographs taken of this man’s injuries and another report–another report down–taken place. Look at this, Judge. He refused treatment–and they took nine photographs of his right leg–for his back where somebody put a gun in his back, right leg and thigh and his wrist where he was hit with a baton. We can bring that in. You specifically stood here again and told Mr. Darden what to do and how to conduct–not told him. Made a suggestion. Judge, when they open the door, I have the right–may I finish? I have the right to talk about discourtesy or this other thing because h