DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. THE DEFENDANT IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. DETECTIVE LUPER, WOULD YOU RETURN TO THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE.

ADALBERTO LUPER, (402) THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE EVENING ADJOURNMENT, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, DETECTIVE.

THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH, SIR.

THE WITNESS: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: DETECTIVE LUPER, ON FRIDAY WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF OFFICERS WHO WERE PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING OF THE VIDEO ON JUNE 13 OF 1994 AT ROCKINGHAM. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND DO YOU RECALL HOW MANY OFFICERS WERE ACTUALLY PRESENT?

A: UMM, LIKE I STATED, I BELIEVE THERE WAS FIVE TO SEVEN OFFICERS AND IN MY PREVIOUS TESTIMONY I THINK I GAVE FIVE OF THE OFFICERS.

Q: THERE WERE FIVE TO SEVEN?

A: YES, SIR, AND I HAVE SINCE CHECKED MY CRIME SCENE LOG AND I THINK THERE WAS ONLY FIVE.

Q: OKAY. WHO WERE THE FIVE?

A: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DETECTIVE HARPER, DETECTIVE HARO, DETECTIVE LEFALL, MYSELF AND DETECTIVE ROGERS, I BELIEVE IS THE FIFTH ONE, FROM WEST LOS ANGELES.

Q: ROGERS OR ROBERTS?

A: I'M SORRY, ROBERTS.

Q: ROBERTS IS FROM WEST L.A. AND WERE THERE OTHER NON-POLICE PERSONNEL ALSO PRESENT?

A: I BELIEVE MR. FUNG AND MISS MAZZOLLA, THE SID PHOTOGRAPHER, AND I BELIEVE THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE SID PHOTOGRAPHERS, BUT I'M NOT TOO CERTAIN ON THAT.

Q: YOU MEAN A PHOTOGRAPHER OTHER THAN MR. FORD WHO TESTIFIED BEFORE YOU ON THE STAND?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE THAT YOU RECALL BEING THERE?

A: THE PRINT PEOPLE HAD ALREADY LEFT AND THEN YOU HAD THE PATROL OFFICERS THAT WERE STATIONED OUTSIDE ON ROCKINGHAM.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT IS YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION, SIR, OF THE TIME OF THIS VIDEO SHOOT? WHAT TIME WAS IT BEING SHOT?

A: WELL, UMM, IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN SHOT BETWEEN 3:15 AND 6:45. I'M SORRY, 3:15 AND 4:45.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IN THAT TIME FRAME; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU REFERRED TO A LOG WHICH HELPS YOU VERIFY THAT ALSO, CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT SIR.

Q: OKAY. 3:15 TO 4:45. NOW, ON FRIDAY WE MENTIONED AND WE SAW ON THE VIDEO KIND OF A ZOOM-IN SHOT ON A GLOVE ON A TABLE WITH A PICTURE OF THE MINOR DAUGHTER OF MR. SIMPSON, SYDNEY. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND HOW WAS THAT GLOVE PLACED THERE ON THAT TABLE?

A: THAT WAS PLACED BY MYSELF INADVERTENTLY WHILE EXAMINING SOMEWHAT I THOUGHT WERE BLOOD SPOTS ON THE HALLWAY ON THE WOODEN FLOOR GOING FROM THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE INTO THE DEN AREA.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, THESE DID NOT TURN OUT TO BE BLOOD SPOTS; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: NO, SIR, THEY DID NOT.

Q: WHEN YOU SAY INADVERTENTLY WHAT HAPPENED? YOU HAD TAKEN THE GLOVE FROM SOMEPLACE IN THE HOUSE? YOU HAD IT IN YOUR HAND AND YOU PUT IT ON THIS TABLE?

A: YES, SIR. I HAD IT IN MY POSSESSION FROM THE TIME I PERFORMED THE SEARCH IN THE BEDROOM AND I WAS HOLDING IT BECAUSE THE INFORMATION I HAD WAS THAT WE HAD ONLY HAD ONE GLOVE AT THAT TIME AND I WANTED TO HOLD IT UNTIL DETECTIVE LANGE AND VANNATTER RESPONDED TO THE SCENE, SO WE COULD -- YOU KNOW THEY COULD MAKE A DETERMINATION WHETHER IT WAS NEEDED OR NOT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE THAT YOU HAD ONLY ONE GLOVE WAS THE ONE GLOVE THAT HAD BEEN FOUND AT HAD BUNDY LOCATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: NO, SIR, THE ONE FOUND AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION.

Q: I SEE. SO YOU KNEW ABOUT THAT GLOVE AND SO YOU THOUGHT THE GLOVE THAT YOU HAD PICKED UP PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH WARRANT, YOU WERE TRYING TO SEE IF THAT WOULD BE A MATCH TO THE GLOVE THAT HAD BEEN FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: EITHER A MATCH OR THEY COULD COMPARE IT AS TO WHAT THEY HAD FOUND.

Q: WHERE HAD YOU FOUND THIS GLOVE?

A: IT WAS FOUND IN THE TOP DRAWER OF A CHEST OF DRAWERS LOCATED ON THE NORTH -- I'M SORRY -- ON THE NORTH WALL OF THE CLOSET, I THINK ON THE EAST SIDE, I BELIEVE, EAST OR WEST SIDE. I DON'T RECALL WHICH ONE. THERE WAS TWO CHEST OF DRAWERS THERE.

Q: AND PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH WARRANT YOU PICKED IT UP AND THEN YOU PLACED IT ON THIS TABLE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

Q: THIS WAS FILMED THEN BY MR. FORD; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: THAT'S CORRECT. IT WAS ALSO PHOTOGRAPHED BY STILL PHOTOGRAPHY ALSO.

Q: NOW, AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY ALSO, THE VIDEO WAS SHOT AFTER THE RECOVERY OF ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE RESIDENCE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: NOW, DID YOU MAKE ANY NOTES OR DO YOU HAVE ANY POLICE REPORTS AT ALL WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR RECEIPT OF THE TAPE AND PLACING IT IN YOUR DRAWER AND THEN LATER IN THE FILE CABINET?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: HAVE YOU MADE ANY NOTES OR ANY REPORTS ABOUT YOUR SUBSEQUENT TURNING OVER OF THIS TAPE TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: AND SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, WHAT DATE WAS THAT THAT YOU TURNED IT OVER TO THE D.A.'S OFFICE?

A: THAT WAS -- I BELIEVE IT WAS TURNED OVER TO THEM ON MARCH 24TH.

Q: THAT WAS A FRIDAY?

A: YES, SIR.

MR. COCHRAN: VERY WELL. THANK YOU VERY KINDLY.

THE COURT: MISS LEWIS.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. LEWIS:

Q: GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE LUPER.

A: GOOD MORNING.

Q: THE GLOVE THAT YOU RECOVERED FROM THE TOP DRAWER OF THAT -- ONE OF THOSE CHEST OF DRAWERS IN THE DEFENDANT'S CLOSET, WAS THAT IN THE DEFENDANT'S MASTER BEDROOM WALK-IN CLOSET?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: WAS THAT GLOVE ALONE OR DID IT HAVE A MATE WHEN YOU RECOVERED IT?

A: IT WAS A LONE GLOVE LOCATED IN THE LEFT CORNER OF THE DRAWER.

Q: AND THE FACT THAT IT WAS A LONE GLOVE IS WHAT CAUSED YOU TO HAVE SOME CONCERN THAT IT MIGHT MATCH THE OTHER GLOVE RECOVERED ON THE PROPERTY?

A: CERTAINLY WAS A CONSIDERATION, YES, SIR.

Q: DID YOU DETERMINE THAT THAT GLOVE -- WELL, FIRST, THE GLOVE THAT YOU RECOVERED WAS A RIGHT-HANDED GLOVE?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND YOU WERE AWARE THAT THE GLOVE RECOVERED ALONG THE SOUTH PATHWAY WAS ALSO A RIGHT-HANDED GLOVE?

A: NO.

Q: I'M SORRY, I MISSPOKE. YOU BECAME AWARE OF THAT AFTER SPEAKING TO DETECTIVE LANGE OR VANNATTER LATER ON?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: NOW, YOUR DUTY AT ROCKINGHAM WAS TO DIRECT THE EXECUTION OF THE SEARCH WARRANT WHICH DETECTIVE VANNATTER HAD OBTAINED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND YOU WERE LEFT IN CHARGE OF THE SCENE FOR THAT PURPOSE BECAUSE DETECTIVES VANNATTER AND LANGE, THE MOST SENIOR LEAD DETECTIVES ON THE CASE, WENT DOWNTOWN FOR THE PURPOSE OF SPEAKING WITH MR. SIMPSON; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: WELL, I KNEW THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER HAD RESPONDED. I WAS UNAWARE THAT DETECTIVE LANGE HAD ALSO RESPONDED TO ROBBERY/HOMICIDE DIVISION.

Q: DO YOU RECALL AT THIS TIME WHAT TIME THE SID PHOTOGRAPHER ARRIVED ON THE PREMISES?

A: WHICH SID PHOTOGRAPHER?

Q: DID YOU CAUSE AN SID PHOTOGRAPHER TO COME TO TAKE CRIME SCENE PHOTOS FOR YOUR USE IN INVESTIGATING THAT LOCATION AS A CRIME SCENE?

A: THERE WAS ONE ALREADY AT THE LOCATION WHEN I ARRIVED.

Q: AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME HE HAD ARRIVED, HE OR SHE HAD ARRIVED?

A: WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE CRIME SCENE LOG, I COULDN'T BE ACCURATE, BUT IT WAS IN THE MORNING SOMETIME.

Q: WOULD THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE ROCKINGHAM CRIME SCENE LOG?

A: YES, MA'AM, IT WILL.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE A BLANK -- I MEAN AN UNMARKED UP COPY OF THAT WHICH I WILL SHOW DEFENSE COUNSEL.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, MAY THIS BE MARKED -- I'M NOT SURE WHAT EXHIBIT NUMBER -- FOR PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING?

THE COURT: FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS MOTION, I GUESS THE VIDEOTAPE IS --

MS. LEWIS: 1068 DEFENSE.

MR. COCHRAN: 1068.

THE COURT: LET'S MAKE THIS PEOPLE'S NEXT IN ORDER.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M NOT CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WE ARE SEEKING TO DO AT THIS TIME.

THE COURT: THIS IS TO REFRESH THE RECOLLECTION OF THE WITNESS IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

MS. LEWIS: YES.

THE COURT: AS TO THE TIMING OF WHEN CERTAIN PERSONNEL ARRIVED AT THE SCENE.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, THE PROBLEM IS IF HE WASN'T THERE, I'M NOT CLEAR IF JUST READING THAT DOCUMENT IS GOING TO REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION.

THE COURT: BUT IT WAS THERE WAS MY UNDERSTANDING.

MR. COCHRAN: IT DEPENDS ON WHAT TIME. LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS, YOUR HONOR.

MS. LEWIS: AND PEOPLE'S NEXT IN ORDER WOULD BE?

THE CLERK: 158.

MS. LEWIS: I'M SORRY, 1058.

THE COURT: 158, PEOPLE'S 158. (PEO'S 158 FOR ID = CRIME SCENE LOG)

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: DETECTIVE LUPER, WHAT TIME DID YOU PERSONALLY ARRIVE AT THAT ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?

A: I ARRIVED AT ABOUT 12:10, 12:15 IN THE AFTERNOON ON THE 13TH.

Q: AND YOU INDICATED THAT THE SID PHOTOGRAPHER HAD INDEED ARRIVED PRIOR TO YOUR ARRIVAL?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: NOW, HOW -- WERE YOU IN THE PRESENCE OF SID PHOTOGRAPHER WHEN THAT PHOTOGRAPHER WAS TAKING PHOTOS AT THE SCENE?

A: ON THE EXTERIOR SHOTS, NO. ON THE INTERIOR SHOTS, YES.

Q: DID YOU ATTEMPT TO DIRECT THE PHOTOGRAPHER ON THOSE INTERIOR SHOTS --

A: THAT'S --

Q: -- OF WHAT TO PHOTOGRAPH?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND YOUR PURPOSE IN DOING SO WAS TO PRESERVE FOR INVESTIGATIVE PURPOSES THE CRIME SCENE -- THE ROCKINGHAM CRIME SCENE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: DO YOU RECALL APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME YOU STARTED -- WHAT TIME YOU NOTICED, FIRST NOTICED THE SID PHOTOGRAPHER TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE CRIME SCENE?

A: UMM, QUARTER TO 1:00. IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE INSIDE OF THE RESIDENCE, IT WAS ABOUT APPROXIMATELY A QUARTER TO 1:00.

Q: EVEN THE EXTERIOR, DO YOU RECALL ABOUT WHAT TIME THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN?

A: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN 12:20 TO 12:30, I SUPPOSE, SOMEWHERE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

Q: WHEN THE SID PHOTOGRAPHER WAS TAKING PHOTOS, HAD ALL OF THE EVIDENCE WHICH YOU EVENTUALLY RECOVERED BEEN TAKEN INTO POSSESSION YET OR WAS MUCH OF IT STILL THERE, RECOGNIZING THERE WERE NOT A LOT OF THINGS BESIDES BLOOD RECOVERED ON THE 13TH?

A: THE PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WAS TO RECORD IT AS WE FOUND IT AND LATER ON, AS THE EVIDENCE WAS COLLECTED, IT WAS ALSO PHOTOGRAPHED.

MS. LEWIS: DO WE HAVE DEFENSE 1068, THE VIDEOTAPE? (BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH?

MR. COCHRAN: WE HAVE A QUESTION.

THE COURT: IT IS CUT. (BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO PLAY JUST THE BEGINNING OF DEFENSE 1068 FOR PURPOSES OF SHOWING TIMING OF THE ARRIVAL OF THE VIDEOGRAPHER. I TELL YOU WHAT --

THE COURT: THIS APPEARS TO BE MID TAPE.

MS. LEWIS: -- STOP IT AND REWIND IT ALL THE WAY. (BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: WHILE HE IS DOING THAT, DETECTIVE LUPER, AFTER COMPLETING THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE CRIME SCENE AND RECOVERING EVIDENCE, DID YOU MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO DO SOMETHING WITH REGARD TO THE PREMISES IN TERMS OF THE WAY YOU HAD FIRST FOUND THEM?

A: I RETURNED IT TO AS CLOSE AS THE WAY I HAD FOUND IT, MAYBE A LITTLE BETTER.

Q: AND THAT WAS PRIOR TO THE VIDEOTAPE BEING TAKEN?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, AND THE PURPOSE OF THAT WAS TO ENSURE THAT BOTH DETECTIVE LANGE AND VANNATTER GOT A PROPER FEEL FOR THE ROOMS AND RESIDENCE AS I HAD FOUND IT.

Q: SO THE WAY THAT SOMETHING APPEARS ON THE VIDEOTAPE MAY NOT REFLECT THE WAY IT APPEARED AT SOME POINT BETWEEN THE CRIME SCENE PHOTOS AND A POINT THEREAFTER WHEN THE EVIDENCE WAS ACTUALLY COLLECTED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: SO YOU -- ONE COULD NOT TELL OR YOU COULD NOT TELL FROM LOOKING JUST AT THE CRIME SCENE VIDEOTAPE, IN RELATION TO THE CRIME SCENE PHOTOS, YOU COULD NOT NECESSARILY TELL WHEN ITEMS -- WHEN EVIDENCE WAS COLLECTED; IS THAT ACCURATE?

A: THAT WOULD BE ACCURATE, YES, MA'AM.

Q: NOW, WHAT IS YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION AS FAR AS WHEN THE ITEMS OF REAL EVIDENCE WERE COLLECTED FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE LOCATION?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: IN TERMS OF THE TIMING, WHETHER IT WAS PRIOR OR AFTER THE SHOOTING OF THE VIDEOTAPE?

A: IT WAS PRIOR TO THE SHOOTING OF THE VIDEOTAPE, ANYWHERE FROM 2:30 TO 4:15, I WOULD SAY.

Q: AND WAS IT YOUR BELIEF THAT THE SOCKS HAD BEEN RECOVERED FROM THE CARPET IN THE MASTER BEDROOM PRIOR TO THE VIDEOTAPE BEING SHOT?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE AT THIS POINT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES, MA'AM.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: YOU HAVE WATCHED THE VIDEOTAPE, HAVE YOU NOT?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: DID YOU NOTICE THAT THE TAPE HAPPENS TO STOP BEFORE SHOWING THE LOCATION WHERE THE SOCKS HAD BEEN RECOVERED FROM?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: SO IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE THE SOCKS WERE STILL THERE WHEN THE VIDEOTAPE WAS SHOWN?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. CALLS FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS SPECULATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED, SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: SO YOU CAN'T TELL FROM LOOKING AT THE VIDEOTAPE ALONE EXACTLY WHEN THE SOCKS WERE RECOVERED; IS THAT FAIR?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION. CROSS-EXAMINATION.

THE COURT: I HAVE SEEN THE TAPE NOW FIVE TIMES AND HERE IN COURT TWO ADDITIONAL TIMES.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: WERE YOU PRESENT WITH THE VIDEOGRAPHER WHEN HE WAS VIDEOTAPING THE MASTER BEDROOM?

A: NO, MA'AM.

MS. LEWIS: IS THE TAPE BACKED UP YET? JUST PLAY THE FIRST COUPLE OF MINUTES.

(AT 9:11 A.M., DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1068, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU NOTICE DETECTIVE LUPER? AS THE TAPE IS FLOWING, IT SHOWS 2:11 APPARENTLY ON THE EQUIPMENT ITSELF?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND IS THAT THE ARRIVAL OF MR. ADKINS WHO TESTIFIED EARLIER ABOUT THE SCENE? DOES IT APPEAR TO BE THAT?

A: IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE THAT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND THAT IS DETECTIVE JIM HARPER WHO WAS SHOWN GREETING HIM?

A: YES, MA'AM.

MS. LEWIS: ALL RIGHT. YOU CAN STOP IT NOW, PLEASE.

(AT 9:11 A.M. THE VIDEOTAPE STOPPED PLAYING.)

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: AND THE -- IS YOUR ARRIVAL TIME -- YOUR ARRIVAL TIME SHOWN ON THE CRIME SCENE LOG OF ROCKINGHAM, PEOPLE'S 158 FOR IDENTIFICATION?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND DO YOU HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF EXACTLY WHEN THE VIDEOGRAPHER ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE?

A: NOT AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE CRIME SCENE LOG.

Q: WOULD IT INDEED HELP REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT CRIME SCENE LOG?

A: IT CERTAINLY WOULD.

MS. LEWIS: MAY I APPROACH?

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: SHOWING YOU PEOPLE'S 158 FOR IDENTIFICATION, THE CRIME SCENE LOG, WOULD YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND SEE IF THAT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO THE ARRIVAL OF MR. ADKINS AND MR. FORD?

A: IT WOULD APPEAR THAT IT WOULD, YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND WHAT TIME DID THEY ARRIVE?

A: TEN MINUTES AFTER 3:00 IN THE AFTERNOON.

Q: AND DO YOU HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF EXACTLY WHEN THEY LEFT AS WELL?

A: NOT AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE THEM LEAVE, BUT ACCORDING TO THE CRIME SCENE LOG IT SHOWS --

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THAT. HE ANSWERED THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: WHEN IS YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION OF THE LAST TIME YOU PERSONALLY SAW MR. ADKINS AND MR. FORD AT THE CRIME SCENE AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?

A: PROBABLY 3:45 IN THE AFTERNOON.

Q: DURING THE TIME THAT THE VIDEO WAS BEING SHOT, WAS EITHER DETECTIVE LANGE OR DETECTIVE PHILLIPS THERE?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU RECALL WHAT TIME -- DO YOU HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF WHAT TIME DETECTIVE LANGE AND/OR DETECTIVE PHILLIPS ARRIVED AT THE -- I'M SORRY, DETECTIVE VANNATTER ARRIVED AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?

A: THEY ARRIVED APPROXIMATELY TEN MINUTES AFTER 5:00, TWENTY MINUTES AFTER 5:00, RIGHT IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MS. LEWIS AND MR. HARRIS.)

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: NOW, HOW DID IT COME ABOUT THAT THIS PARTICULAR VIDEOTAPE WAS SHOT? YOU WERE IN CHARGE OF THE SEARCH WARRANT EXCUSE THERE AT THE CRIME SCENE. DID SOMEONE GIVE YOU THAT IDEA AT SOME POINT IN TIME?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, HOW DID IT COME ABOUT. VERY LONG AND VAGUE, UNINTELLIGIBLE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: DETECTIVE HARPER APPROACHED ME AFTER HIS ARRIVAL AND SUGGESTED THAT WE VIDEOTAPE THE VALUABLES IN THE RESIDENCE AND I AGREED.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: AND WHAT WAS YOUR PURPOSE IN DOING THAT?

A: THE PURPOSE WAS STRICTLY FOR CIVIL LITIGATION. WE KNEW THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD QUITE A FEW VALUABLE AND PERSONAL ARTICLES THAT HE HAD WON THROUGHOUT THE YEARS, AND WE CERTAINLY DIDN'T WANT TO BE ACCUSED AT A LATER DATE FOR EITHER BREAKING THEM UP OR STEALING THEM OR WHATEVER.

Q: SO WERE YOU THE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY MADE THE DECISION TO HAVE THAT DONE, TO HAVE THE VIDEO -- THE SCENE VIDEOTAPED?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND DID YOU DIRECT DETECTIVE HARPER, OR HARO OR SOMEONE ELSE, TO CALL SID AND HAVE SOMEONE COME OUT FOR THAT PURPOSE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND IN FACT IN TERMS OF YOUR CONCERN THAT THE CRIME SCENE NOT SUSTAIN DAMAGE WHEN THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS EXECUTED, DID YOU ENSURE THAT SOMETHING WAS DONE WITH REGARD TO THE VANITY IN THE MASTER BEDROOM AND FINGERPRINT DUST?

A: YES, MA'AM. THE VANITY -- WELL, NOT THE VANITY. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE LINEN CLOSET, I BELIEVE.

Q: WAS THERE A OCCASION WHERE NEWSPAPERS WERE PLACED TO ENSURE THAT THE DUST DID NOT HURT THE CARPETING?

A: YES, MA'AM. IT WAS A LINEN CLOSET OR A CABINET AT THE TOP OF THE STAIRS THAT PRIOR TO BEING FINGERPRINTED I REQUESTED THAT NEWSPAPER BE PUT ON THE GROUND SO AS NOT TO DAMAGE THE CARPET.

Q: YOU HAVE REVIEWED ALL OF THE CRIME SCENE PHOTOGRAPHS FROM ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES, MA'AM, I HAVE.

Q: AND OF COURSE YOU HAVE ALSO SEEN THE VIDEOTAPE AS YOU TOLD US; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: IS THERE ANYTHING SHOWN ON THE VIDEOTAPE, ANY AREA, AS BEST YOU CAN RECALL, THAT IS NOT ALSO SHOWN ON THE PHOTOGRAPHS THEMSELVES?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND WHAT AREA IS THAT?

A: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE LINEN CLOSET AREA AT THE TOP OF THE STAIRS.

Q: THE ONE YOU JUST DESCRIBED?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND DID THAT LINEN CLOSET TURN OUT TO HAVE ANY PARTICULAR EVIDENTIARY SIGNIFICANCE?

A: IT HAD NO EVIDENTIARY SIGNIFICANCE AT THE TIME, NO, MA'AM.

Q: NOTHING WAS RECOVERED FROM THAT CLOSET?

A: NO PRINTS WERE RECOVERED, NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WAS RECOVERED, NOTHING.

Q: AFTER THE VIDEOTAPE WAS COMPLETED, WAS THERE A TIME WHEN YOU PERSONALLY OBTAINED POSSESSION OF IT AGAIN OR I SHOULD SAY FOR THE FIRST TIME WHEN YOU PERSONALLY GOT THE TAPE?

A: I GOT IT ON THE 14TH IN THE MORNING.

Q: JUNE?

A: YES, MA'AM, JUNE, '94.

Q: DO YOU RECALL FROM WHOM YOU RECEIVED IT?

A: I RECEIVED IT FROM DETECTIVE HARO.

Q: AND WHERE WERE YOU AT THAT TIME?

A: I WAS IN MY OFFICE AT PARKER CENTER.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE TAPE?

A: I WENT UPSTAIRS TO THE ELECTRONIC SECTION, VIEWED IT, AND RETURNED DOWN TO THE OFFICE TO PREPARE MY EMPLOYEE REPORT REGARDING THE SEARCH, AND I WAS INFORMED THAT IT WASN'T NECESSARY BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE CAPTAIN HAD BEEN AT THE SCENE.

Q: WASN'T NECESSARY TO DO AN EMPLOYEE REPORT OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE VIDEOTAPE?

A: NO, AN EMPLOYEE REPORT REGARDING THE EXECUTION OF THE WARRANT AND HOW THE PREMISES WAS -- WERE BEFORE WE ARRIVED, AS WELL AS HOW THEY WERE LEFT.

Q: YOU INDICATED "THE CAPTAIN." IS THAT CAPTAIN GARTLAND?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: YOU INDICATED HE HAD BEEN AT THE SCENE?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: A COUPLE OF MINUTES AGO YOU INFORMED DEFENSE COUNSEL THAT THERE WERE FIVE DETECTIVES AT THE SCENE, TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION. DO YOU RECALL WHEN CAPTAIN GARTLAND WAS THERE?

A: HE WAS THERE AFTER I LEFT AND I BELIEVE COUNSEL IS MAKING REFERENCE TO WHO WAS PRESENT DURING THE TAPING OF THE RESIDENCE.

Q: NOW, WHERE DID YOU PLACE THE VIDEOTAPE AFTER TAKING POSSESSION OF IT IN THE 14TH -- ON THE 14TH?

A: I PUT IT IN MY DESK DRAWER.

Q: DID THERE COME A POINT IN TIME WHEN YOU MOVED IT TO THE ROOM AT RHD WHICH WAS SET ASIDE FOR THE SIMPSON CASE?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: WHERE INSIDE THIS ROOM DID YOU PLACE IT?

A: IT WAS PLACED IN A FILING CABINET, A LOCKING FILE CABINET, ALONG WITH SEVERAL NOTEBOOKS THAT I HAD IN MY POSSESSION.

Q: UMM, HAVE YOU BEEN PRIMARILY INVOLVED SINCE THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF THAT SEARCH WARRANT, PRIMARILY INVOLVED WITH A CERTAIN ASPECT OF THE INVESTIGATION OF CLUES AND OTHER ITEMS RELATED TO THIS CASE?

A: YES, MA'AM, I HAVE.

Q: AND WHAT AREA OF THE INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN THE FOCUS OF YOUR INVOLVEMENT?

A: CHICAGO.

Q: AND HAVE YOU MADE SEVERAL OR NUMEROUS TRIPS TO CHICAGO OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. WE CAN'T TELL WHAT THE ANSWER IS, SEVERAL OR NUMEROUS.

THE COURT: VAGUE.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: ROUGHLY HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU BEEN TO CHICAGO AS PART OF THE INVESTIGATION IN THIS CASE?

A: I HAVE BEEN THERE FOUR TIMES.

Q: AND IN ADDITION TO THE SIMPSON CASE, HAVE YOU HAD OTHER MURDER CASES WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR INVESTIGATING AND SOLVING?

A: YES, MA'AM, I HAVE FOUR OTHERS.

Q: AND DID -- IN TERMS OF WHEN THE MURDERS OCCURRED, HOW MANY OF THOSE -- IN HOW MANY OF THOSE DID THE MURDERS OCCUR PRIOR TO THE MURDERS HERE ON JUNE 12TH?

A: ALL BUT ONE.

Q: SO THREE OF THE FOUR WERE MURDER CASES WHICH CAME INTO EXISTENCE AFTER THE MURDERS IN THIS CASE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: NO, THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Q: THREE OF THE MURDERS OCCURRED AND ONE CAME INTO EXISTENCE OR ONE MURDER OCCURRED, I SHOULD SAY, AFTER THE MURDERS IN THIS CASE?

A: THAT'S RIGHT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND HAVE ANY OF THOSE FOUR CASES BEEN COMPLETED IN TERMS OF THROUGH CONVICTION OR ACQUITTAL OR SOME FINAL DISPOSITION?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, IT JUST GOES TO SHOW THAT HE WAS --

MR. COCHRAN: WE DON'T ARGUE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: SO YOU HAVE -- IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU HAVE BEEN WORKING VERY HARD, NOT ONLY ON THE SIMPSON CASE, BUT ON OTHER MURDER CASES AS WELL?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: DID THERE COME A POINT IN TIME WHEN YOU RECALLED THE EXISTENCE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL LIABILITY VIDEOTAPE?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. I WILL DECIDE WHAT IT IS.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE WITNESS: YES, MA'AM.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: AND I THINK YOU TOLD US FRIDAY, UNDER MR. COCHRAN'S QUESTIONING, THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER ALERTED YOU THAT YOU WOULD BE TESTIFYING WITH REGARD TO THE SEARCH IN THIS CASE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND SUBSEQUENT TO THAT YOU STARTED TO THINK OF CRIME SCENE PHOTOS AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT MIGHT BE AROUND IN THAT REGARD; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND WAS YOUR PURPOSE IN DOING THAT THINKING OF AIDS THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN REFRESHING YOUR RECOLLECTION OF THE EVENTS THAT TRANSPIRED DURING THE EXECUTION OF THE SEARCH WARRANT ON THE 13TH?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND IS THAT -- APPROXIMATELY AT SOME POINT AFTER THAT, IS THAT WHEN YOU THOUGHT OF THIS VIDEOTAPE AS WELL?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU THOUGHT OF IT, WHEN DID YOU -- OR WHAT DID YOU DO IN TERMS OF GOING LOOKING FOR THE VIDEOTAPE?

A: WELL, THE FIRST PLACE I WENT TO IS THE SID ELECTRONICS LAB FIGURING THAT IT HAD BEEN BOOKED; HOWEVER, I FOUND THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN BOOKED. THEN I REMEMBERED THAT I HAD SEEN IT IN THE FILING CABINET, ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHER NOTEBOOKS, EARLY ON IN -- EARLY ON IN THE YEAR, SO I WENT UP THERE AND THERE IT WAS.

Q: SO IT WAS IN THE IDENTICAL LOCATION WHERE YOU HAD LEFT IT ON JUNE -- WELL, AT SOME POINT WHEN YOU MOVED IT INTO THE WAR ROOM?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: THE WAR ROOM MEANING THE ROOM SET ASIDE AT RHD FOR THE SIMPSON CASE?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: SO IT APPEARED THAT NO ONE ELSE HAD MOVED IT OR CERTAINLY IT DID NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN MOVED AT ALL WITHIN THAT FILE CABINET? IS THAT ACCURATE?

A: THAT WOULD BE ACCURATE, YES, MA'AM.

THE COURT: HOW WAS THIS TAPE MARKED?

THE WITNESS: IT WAS MARKED WITH THE STANDARD LABEL, JUST "O.J. SIMPSON'S HOUSE."

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: YOU INDICATED FRIDAY THAT YOU -- THAT SOMEONE NOTIFIED THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE TAPE?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: DID YOU DO THAT YOURSELF OR DID SOMEONE ELSE?

A: THAT WASN'T DONE BY ME, NO, MA'AM.

Q: ARE YOU AWARE OF WHAT THE PURPOSE WAS IN DOING SO?

A: NOT REALLY.

MR. COCHRAN: CALLS FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE SAID NOT REALLY.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: IS THE -- I'M SURE THE COURT KNOWS THIS, BUT FOR THE RECORD, IS THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE -- DO THE CITY ATTORNEYS REPRESENT THE DEPARTMENT WHEN IT IS SUED FOR THINGS SUCH AS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY DURING SEARCH WARRANTS?

A: THAT'S RIGHT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: THEY ARE THE DEPARTMENT'S LAWYER SO TO SPEAK?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: NOT TO SO TO SPEAK, BUT THEY ARE?

A: YES, MA'AM.

MS. LEWIS: MAY I HAVE JUST A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY. (BRIEF PAUSE.)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MS. LEWIS AND DETECTIVE LANGE.)

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: DETECTIVE LUPER, WHY DIDN'T YOU HAVE THE VIDEOGRAPHER RECORD THE GLOVE ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROCKINGHAM?

A: WELL, THE PURPOSE OF THE -- OF THE TAPE WAS NOT TO RECORD WHERE EVIDENCE WAS LOCATED. IT WASN'T A CRIME SCENE, PER SE, TAPE. IF IT HAD BEEN, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDING THE INSIDE OF THE BRONCO AND OTHER AREAS AND JUST THAT WASN'T THE PURPOSE OF IT.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MOVE TO STRIKE THAT LAST QUESTION AND ANSWER. THE EVIDENCE -- ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. THE COURT WAS WELL AWARE THAT GLOVE HAD BEEN REMOVED EARLIER THAT MORNING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: AND WERE THE BLOOD DROPS ON THE DRIVEWAY VIDEOTAPED?

A: NO, MA'AM.

Q: NOW, DID YOU NOTICE THAT APPARENTLY A COUPLE OF BLOOD DROPS ON THE FOYER OF THE INTERIOR OF THE HOUSE WERE VIDEOTAPED?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM, I SAW THAT.

Q: AND DID YOU NOTICE THAT THE WOOD WHERE THOSE DROPS APPEAR ALSO APPEARS TO BE LIGHT-COLORED WOOD?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: SO THOSE BLOOD DROPS WOULD REPRESENT, IN ADDITION TO PERHAPS CRIME SCENE PURPOSES, DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY, WHETHER CAUSED BY LAPD OR SOMEONE ELSE, BUT THEY WOULD REPRESENT SOME MINOR AMOUNT OF DAMAGE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

MS. LEWIS: THANK YOU. I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: WITH REGARD TO THE GLOVE ALLEGEDLY FOUND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, BY THE TIME YOU ARRIVED AT THE LOCATION IN THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13, THAT GLOVE HAD LONG SINCE BEEN REMOVED; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SO THERE WOULD BE NOTHING TO PHOTOGRAPH; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

Q: NOW, BY THE WAY, WHILE YOU WERE OUT THERE ON JUNE 13TH IN THE AFTERNOON, DETECTIVE LUPER, DID YOU SEE MARCIA CLARK FROM THE D.A.'S OFFICE OUT THERE?

A: SHE WAS THERE, YES.

Q: SO SHE WAS ACTUALLY THERE? AT WHAT TIME WAS SHE THERE?

A: SHE HAD TO HAVE BEEN THERE SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF, EXCUSE ME, BETWEEN 2:20 AND THREE O'CLOCK, SOMEWHERE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

Q: AND HOW LONG DID SHE STAY, IF YOU RECALL?

A: SHE WAS THERE LONG ENOUGH TO GET A WALK-THROUGH AND THEN SHE LEFT. I DON'T KNOW. SHE WAS THERE PROBABLY FIVE, TEN, MAYBE FIFTEEN MINUTES. I DON'T KNOW.

Q: DID YOU SEE HER AT SOME TIME WHILE SHE WAS THERE SITTING AT A TABLE TALKING TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO, SIR, I DID NOT. I --

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU DID NOT SEE HER BEING BRIEFED BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AT ALL?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: WHO GAVE HER THIS WALK-THROUGH?

A: I DID.

Q: AND WHAT TIME DID THE WALK-THROUGH START, IF YOU RECALL?

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS HEARING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. IT IS PROBABLY THE MOST RELEVANT QUESTION I'VE HEARD SO FAR THIS MORNING.

MS. LEWIS: OH.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MS. LEWIS: THE RELEVANCE JUST OCCURRED TO ME.

THE COURT: THERE IS A DISCOVERY SANCTIONS ISSUE I THINK.

MR. COCHRAN: COUNSEL IS NOT USED TO THE RULES EITHER, YOUR HONOR. WE DON'T ARGUE BACK AND FORTH.

THE COURT: WE ARE IN AN INFORMAL SETTING.

MR. COCHRAN: WE CAN DO IT, JUDGE. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: NO, WE CAN'T, BUT I WILL LET IT SLIDE AT THE MOMENT, BUT WE HAVE WASTED A LOT OF TIME. ALL I'M INTERESTED IN IS WHAT HAPPENED TO THE TAPE, WHY DID IT DISAPPEAR, WHEN DID IT COME TO LIGHT, HOW DID IT COME TO LIGHT, WHO KNEW IT EXISTED AND WHEN?

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. OKAY. LET'S SEE IF WE CAN ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS REAL QUICKLY.

Q: DETECTIVE LUPER, LET'S START WITH WHO KNEW ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THIS TAPE. WE KNOW THAT YOU KNEW ABOUT IT, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: MR. FORD KNEW ABOUT IT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: MR. ADKINS KNEW ABOUT IT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: CAPTAIN GARTLAND KNEW ABOUT IT?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE BOG -- I MEAN CAPTAIN GARTLAND KNEW ABOUT IT.

Q: WELL, DID YOU TALK TO HIM ABOUT HAVING TO FILL OUT THIS REPORT OR NOT HAVING TO FILL OUT THIS REPORT?

A: NO. I WAS INFORMED THAT HE HAD BEEN AT THE SCENE, AND KNOWING THE PROCEDURE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT, IF THE CAPTAIN IS THERE, THAT NEGATES THE 15.7 OR THE EMPLOYEE REPORT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE FIVE DETECTIVES THAT WE TALKED ABOUT WHO WERE AT THE SCENE KNEW ABOUT THIS TAPE; HARO, HARPER, ET CETERA.

MS. LEWIS: WELL, OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THEY SAW THE TAPE BEING SHOT, DIDN'T THEY?

A: I KNOW THAT DETECTIVE HARO AND HARPER WERE AWARE OF THE TAPE. I WAS AWARE -- I WAS AWARE OF THE TAPE. I DON'T BELIEVE MY PARTNER WAS AWARE OF IT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF DETECTIVE ROBERTS FROM WEST L.A. WAS AWARE OF IT OR NOT.

Q: IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE WERE SOME PATROL OFFICERS ALSO AT THE LOCATION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR.

Q: AND SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, PART OF THIS TAPE WAS SHOT OUTSIDE SO PEOPLE OUTSIDE COULD SEE THAT IT WAS BEING SHOT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION. THAT DOES CALLS FOR SPECULATION. IT IS LARGE GROUNDS IN TERMS OF --

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ANYBODY OUTSIDE CLOSE ENOUGH COULD SEE THAT THE VIDEOTAPE WAS BEING SHOT OUTSIDE; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: YOU WOULD ASSUME.

Q: YOU CANNOT TELL US ABOUT LEFALL, YOUR PARTNER, WHETHER HE KNEW OR NOT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID YOU TALK TO HIM ABOUT IT AT ALL?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: YOU CAN'T TELL US WHETHER OR NOT ROBERTS KNEW?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, BACK TO MISS CLARK. MISS CLARK WAS THERE AND YOU TOOK HER ON A WALK-THROUGH AFTER THE SEARCH WARRANT HAD BEEN COMPLETED?

A: AFTER THE EVIDENCE HAD BEEN LOCATED, YES.

Q: RIGHT. SO THE SEARCH WARRANT HAD BEEN EXECUTED AT THIS POINT AND YOU TOOK HER -- TELL THE COURT BRIEFLY WHERE YOU TOOK HER ON THE WALK-THROUGH.

A: I TOOK HER ON THE BOTTOM LOCATION OF THE RESIDENCE, THE FIRST FLOOR, TO SHOW WHERE SOME OF THE PRESUMPTIVE TESTS I WANTED DONE, TOOK HER UPSTAIRS, SHOWED HER THE VANITY -- I MEAN NOT THE VANITY, I'M SORRY, THE LINEN CLOSET, AND SHOWED HER THE SOCKS AND THE BLOOD EVIDENCE THAT HAD BEEN FOUND IN THE BATHROOM, AND TOOK HER I THINK TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, SHOWED HER A WIRE THAT I WANTED CHECKED AND WHAT WAS IN THE TRASH CAN THERE BY THE ENTRYWAY TO THE OFFICE, I BELIEVE THERE WAS AN AIRLINE TICKET. AND THEN ON THE EXTERIOR THERE WAS A BENCH SEAT RIGHT THERE BY THE FRONT DOOR THAT HAD A LUGGAGE TAG THROWN ON ONE END OF IT, AND THAT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT TO HER.

Q: DID YOU MAKE A REPORT OF ALL OF YOUR OBSERVATIONS WITH MISS CLARK?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: DO YOU KNOW -- HAVE YOU SEEN ANY REPORT WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR TAKING HER THROUGH THE PREMISES AND NOTING THESE OBJECTS?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: YOU NEVER MADE A REPORT LIKE THAT, DID YOU?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: DID MARCIA CLARK SIGN IN ON THE LOG WHEN SHE CAME TO THAT RESIDENCE?

A: YOU WON'T FIND HER ON THAT LOG, NO, SIR.

Q: WHY WON'T WE?

A: GOOD QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW.

Q: WELL, WAS THERE ANY OTHER LOG THAT SHE SIGNED IN ON WHEN SHE CAME THERE?

A: TO THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?

Q: YES, SIR, ROCKINGHAM?

A: NO, SIR, NOT THAT I AM AWARE OF.

Q: SO YOU HAVE NO REPORTS WHICH TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT TIME SHE GOT THERE, SO YOU HAVE TO GIVE US ONLY YOUR INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR.

Q: WITHOUT REPORTS? SO YOU ARE NOT SURE OF THE EXACT TIME SHE GOT THERE AND THE EXACT TIME SHE LEFT, ARE YOU?

A: I'M AS SURE AS WITHIN 45 MINUTES OF WHEN SHE DID ARRIVE AND WHEN SHE MIGHT HAVE LEFT BASED ON THE SIGN-OUT LOG OF BUNDY.

Q: BUT WHY IS BUNDY RELEVANT? SHE WENT TO BUNDY AFTER SHE WAS AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: SHE WENT TO BUNDY FIRST AND THEN CAME OUT TO OUR LOCATION IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

Q: HAD YOU SEEN HER AT BUNDY?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: YOU KNOW THROUGH SUBSEQUENT INFORMATION YOU FOUND OUT SHE HAD BEEN TO BUNDY AND THEN SHE CAME TO ROCKINGHAM?

MS. LEWIS: OBJECT TO THIS AS HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: BASICALLY, YES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: BASICALLY YOU CANNOT TELL US WHAT TIME SHE GOT THERE OR WHAT TIME SHE LEFT, CAN YOU?

A: I CAN JUST GIVE YOU AN APPROXIMATION.

Q: WHAT IS YOUR APPROXIMATION?

A: SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 1420 OR 2:20 IN THE AFTERNOON TO THREE O'CLOCK.

Q: THAT SHE ARRIVED?

A: THAT IS HOW MUCH TIME SHE SPENT. THAT IS APPROXIMATE TIME.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IS THAT THE APPROXIMATE TIME THAT SHE ARRIVED OR THE TIME SHE SPENT?

A: THE ENTIRE TIME WHEN SHE ARRIVED, SPENT AND LEFT, IS JUST APPROXIMATION ON MY PART.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WAS MISS CLARK ACCOMPANIED BY ANYONE ELSE WHEN SHE ARRIVED THERE?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: SHE WAS BY HERSELF?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR.

Q: DID YOU DIDN'T SEE ANY OTHER DEPUTY D.A.'S THERE AT THAT TIME?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU SEE HER TALKING TO ANY OTHER DETECTIVES, OTHER THAN YOURSELF, WHILE SHE WAS THERE, DETECTIVE LUPER?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, YOU STAYED UNTIL ABOUT 6:35 IN THE AFTERNOON OR EVENING, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR.

Q: PER THE LOG, AND YOU WERE STILL THERE WHEN LANGE AND VANNATTER CAME; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND THEY CAME SOME TIME AFTER ABOUT 5:15 OR 5:20, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE SHOOTING OF THIS TAPE, IT IS TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT WITH REGARD TO VIDEOTAPE, ONE THE BEST WAYS OF PRESERVING EVIDENCE FOR LATER PRESENTATION TO A JURY IN A CASE WOULD BE A VIDEOTAPE OF THE CRIME SCENES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: WELL, I THINK THAT IS A MATTER OF OPINION.

Q: WELL, I'M JUST ASKING YOU. AS A DETECTIVE --

A: NO, I DISAGREE WITH THAT.

Q: YOU DON'T THINK OF AN ACTUAL VIDEOTAPE OF WHAT WENT ON WOULD BE MORE ACCURATE THAN, SAY, STILL PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: I THINK STILL PHOTOGRAPHS ARE A LOT MORE EFFECTIVE THAN VIDEO.

THE COURT: THIS AREA OF INQUIRY, ALTHOUGH INTERESTING, IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE.

MR. COCHRAN: I WILL MOVE RIGHT ON, THOUGH, YOUR HONOR. IT IS INTERESTING, THOUGH.

THE COURT: IT IS.

MR. COCHRAN: SO STIPULATED.

Q: IN THIS INSTANCE, HOWEVER, YOU SHOT THIS VIDEO PRIMARILY FOR PURPOSES OF CIVIL LIABILITY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WAS THERE A CITY ATTORNEY AT THE SCENE?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: WOULD YOU AGREE WITH MR. ADKINS IF HE INDICATED, HOWEVER, THE VIDEOTAPE ALSO SERVED A PURPOSE OF HELPING DETECTIVES IN THE COURSE OF THEIR INVESTIGATION IF THEY WANTED TO COME BACK AND SERVE ANOTHER SEARCH WARRANT AS TO THE LOCATION OF CERTAIN ITEMS?

A: WELL, I HAVE NEVER HAD AN OCCASION TO USE IT, SO I REALLY WOULDN'T WANT TO EVEN SPECULATE.

Q: YOU WOULDN'T SPECULATE ON THAT?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, YOU TOOK MISS CLARK ON A TOUR OF THE OUTSIDE OF THE PREMISES AND THE INSIDE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR.

Q: WHEN LANGE AND VANNATTER ARRIVED AT THE PREMISES, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO TALK WITH THEM?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND YOU AND DETECTIVES LANGE AND VANNATTER ALL WORKED OUT OF ROBBERY/HOMICIDE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MS. LEWIS: JUST BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. LEWIS:

Q: DETECTIVE LUPER, ACTUALLY AT THAT POINT IN TIME YOUR ONLY PURPOSE IN HAVING THAT VIDEOTAPE TAKEN WAS FOR CIVIL LIABILITY REASONS; ISN'T THAT TRUE?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION IS THAT MARCIA CLARK LEFT THE PREMISES AT ABOUT THREE O'CLOCK OR BY THREE O'CLOCK, WITHIN THAT TIME FRAME?

A: IN THAT APPROXIMATE TIME FRAME, YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND THE VIDEOGRAPHER ARRIVED APPROXIMATELY, AS WE KNOW FROM SEEING THE VIDEOTAPE, APPROXIMATELY 3:11 OR; SO, ISN'T THAT TRUE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

MS. LEWIS: THANK YOU. NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE LUPER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, OF MR. LUPER BEFORE HE LEAVES.

THE COURT: SURE.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: YOU RECALL -- DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT MR. ADKINS AND MR. FORD HAD ARRIVED PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT MISS CLARK ARRIVED?

A: NO. THEY ARRIVED AFTER MISS CLARK HAD BEEN THERE AND GONE, SIR.

Q: ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: DOES YOUR LOG -- OF COURSE THERE IS NO LOG THAT REFLECTS THAT, IS THERE?

MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION, VAGUE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IS THERE ANY LOG THAT REFLECTS THAT?

A: AS I INDICATED EARLIER, I DON'T HAVE HER CHECKED IN OR CHECKED OUT AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION AND I AM GIVING YOU THE BEST RECOLLECTION THAT I CAN.

Q: JUST ONE MORE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. SO IF YOU HAVE THEM IN AT 3:10 IN THE AFTERNOON, IT IS POSSIBLE MISS CLARK MAY HAVE BEEN THERE AS LATE AS 3:10, ISN'T IT?

MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

MR. COCHRAN: I AM ASKING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IT IS POSSIBLE, ISN'T IT?

A: NO, BECAUSE SHE WASN'T THERE -- SHE AND I STUCK TOGETHER -- EXCUSE ME -- "STUCK TOGETHER" IS A POOR USE OF THE WORD. WE WERE TOGETHER THROUGH THAT TIME WHILE SHE WAS THERE AND I DID SEE HER LEAVE BEFORE THEY ARRIVED ON THE SCENE, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU ARE SURE ABOUT THAT, RIGHT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT WHEN SHE TOLD US THAT SHE CAME PERHAPS AT 2:00, 2:10, STAYED UNTIL THREE O'CLOCK, THOSE ARE JUST ESTIMATES?

MS. LEWIS: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. HE STATED 2:20.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: 2:20?

A: THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION, YES.

Q: THE LOG INDICATES THEY ARRIVED ABOUT 3:10; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION, VAGUE AS TO WHO.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ADKINS AND FORD?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MS. LEWIS: NOTHING FURTHER, JUDGE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE LUPER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE EXCUSED, SIR.

THE WITNESS: YOU ARE WELCOME, SIR.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, ANY OTHER WITNESSES ON THIS ISSUE?

MR. COCHRAN: YES. DETECTIVE HARPER BRIEFLY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. (BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE HARPER.

JAMES ARTHUR HARPER, (402) CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE DEFENDANT, PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 402, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND TO BE SWORN. 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 STATE AND SPELL BOTH YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.

THE WITNESS: JAMES ARTHUR HARPER, H-A-R-P-E-R.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE HARPER. HOW ARE YOU THIS MORNING?

A: HOW YOU DOING.

Q: SIR, I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION BACK TO THE DATE OF JUNE 13, 1994, IN THE AFTERNOON HOURS. YOU WERE ASSIGNED AS A DETECTIVE FROM ROBBERY/HOMICIDE AND WERE AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION, WERE YOU?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION WHAT TIME DID YOU ARRIVE AT THAT LOCATION ON THAT DATE?

A: AT TEN MINUTES TO 2:00 IN THE AFTERNOON.

Q: AND DID YOU ARRIVE IN THE COMPANY OF SOME OTHER OFFICERS?

A: YES.

Q: WHO DID YOU COME WITH?

A: MY PARTNER, DETECTIVE RICHARD HARO, AND DETECTIVE CLIFF LEFALL.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER OFFICERS?

A: WE CAME IN THE SAME CAR, SO I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANYONE ELSE.

Q: SO THE THREE OF YOU CAME TOGETHER?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: HARO, YOURSELF AND LEFALL?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE LOCATION, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO SEE SOME OTHER OFFICERS THERE, SOME DETECTIVES FROM ROBBERY/HOMICIDE?

A: YES.

Q: WHO DID YOU SEE THERE?

A: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, ROBERTS, AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, DETECTIVE LUPER AND IT WAS -- IT WAS QUITE A FEW OTHER PEOPLE THERE, TOO. I DON'T RECALL ANY OTHER NAMES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO WOULD I BE CORRECT IN ASSUMING THERE WERE AT LEAST SEVEN DETECTIVES THERE AFTER YOU ARRIVED WITH YOUR THREE?

A: AT LEAST SEVEN, YES.

Q: SO IT WOULD BE AT LEAST THE THREE OF YOU, LUPER, FUHRMAN, PHILLIPS, ROBERTS, WERE ALL THERE AT THAT POINT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: NOW, AT SOME TIME AFTER YOU ARRIVED WERE YOU AWARE OF THE ARRIVAL OF A MR. ADKINS AND MR. FORD FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHIC LAB OF THE SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION?

A: YES.

Q: TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION WHAT TIME DID THEY ARRIVE?

A: I BELIEVE THEY GOT THERE ABOUT TEN MINUTES AFTER 3:00.

Q: ABOUT 3:10?

A: ABOUT 3:10, YES, SIR.

Q: AND WHEN THEY ARRIVED, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO SPEAK WITH MR. FORD, AN ACTUAL PHOTOGRAPHER, YOURSELF?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU GIVE HIM SOME INSTRUCTIONS, SIR?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WOULD YOU TELL THE COURT WHAT YOU TOLD MR. FORD UPON HIS ARRIVAL AT OR ABOUT 3:10 IN THE AFTERNOON ON JUNE 13.

A: I MET MR. FORD AND MR. ADKINS OUT FRONT AT THE ROCKINGHAM GATE AND I TOLD THEM THAT WE NEEDED THEM TO PHOTOGRAPH FIRST THE OUTSIDE OF THE -- THE ESTATE AND ALSO INSIDE AND IT WAS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES AND THAT IS BASICALLY WHAT I TOLD THEM. WE STARTED OUTSIDE. I DIRECTED THEM TO SHOOT THE OUTSIDE AND THE SIDES OF BOTH THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU SPECIFICALLY TOLD FORD TO SHOOT THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE?

A: YES, THE GARAGE AREA.

Q: AND DID YOU SEE HIM SHOOT THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE?

A: YES. I WAS STANDING RIGHT -- RIGHT NEXT TO HIM.

Q: AND THAT -- AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, THAT IS IN THE VIDEO, THE SHOOTING OF THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: WITH REGARD TO THIS ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES THAT YOU SPOKE ABOUT, THE POLICE DIDN'T DO ANY DAMAGE TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE, DID THEY?

A: NO.

Q: YOU JUST HAD THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE SHOT THOUGH; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE -- THERE IS A WALKWAY DOWN THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. WAS THERE ANY SHOTS MADE OF THAT PARTICULAR PART OF THE HOUSE, THE WALKWAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS DONE FROM A DISTANCE, FROM THE STREET AS HE WAS WALKING TOWARD -- HE WAS SHOOTING AS HE WAS WALKING TOWARD THE HOUSE.

Q: OKAY. THAT WAS DONE BY FORD?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN HOW LONG, IF YOU KNOW, DID HE SPEND SHOOTING THE EXTERIOR OF THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE?

A: PROBABLY -- HE WAS THERE A TOTAL OF PROBABLY MAYBE AN HOUR AND TEN MINUTES, BUT I THINK IT WAS ONLY LIKE 25 MINUTES OF ACTUAL FILM, FROM WHAT I REMEMBER WATCHING IT. IT WAS ONLY LIKE 25 MINUTES LONG.

Q: 25 MINUTES OF OUTSIDE AND INTERIOR?

A: YES, THE WHOLE SHOT.

Q: THE WHOLE THING? ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHILE MR. FORD WAS THERE AND SHOOTING, MARCIA CLARK CAME, DID SHE NOT?

A: I BELIEVE I REMEMBER SEEING HER THERE AT SOME POINT.

Q: AND YOU RECALL THAT WHILE SHE WAS THERE WAS FORD SHOOTING THE VIDEO DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, IF YOU RECALL?

A: I DON'T -- I DON'T RECALL IF HE WAS OR NOT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND TELL US WHAT TIME IS YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION THAT MARCIA CLARK ARRIVED ON THE SCENE?

A: WE GOT THERE -- LIKE I SAID, WE GOT THERE AT TEN MINUTES OF 2:00. WE LEFT AT 4:30, I BELIEVE, SO SHE GOT THERE SOMETIME DURING THAT TIME. I JUST REMEMBER SEEING HER BRIEFLY.

Q: BETWEEN 1:50 AND 4:30?

A: YES.

Q: HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO REVIEW ANY LOGS OR ANYTHING THAT MIGHT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHAT TIME SHE ACTUALLY ARRIVED?

A: NO, I HAVE NOT.

Q: IF SHE DOESN'T APPEAR ON THE LOG, THAT IS AN INDICATION THAT SHE JUST DIDN'T SIGN IT WHEN SHE GOT THERE?

A: THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.

Q: DO YOU RECALL -- ONCE SHE GOT THERE, TELL THE COURT WHAT YOU OBSERVED HER DOING, IF ANYTHING?

A: I BELIEVE AT ONE POINT I SAW HER TALKING TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

Q: SHE WAS SITTING AT A TABLE, WASN'T SHE, SITTING DOWN OUTSIDE TALKING TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: AT ONE POINT, YES.

Q: AND HOW LONG HAD SHE BEEN THERE AT THE TIME THAT SHE WAS SEATED AT THIS TABLE TALKING TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: I DON'T RECALL, BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING HER COME IN.

Q: SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHEN SHE HAD GOTTEN THERE?

A: NO.

Q: YOU JUST SAW HER TALKING TO HIM?

A: YES.

Q: HOW LONG DID YOU SEE THEM TALKING, IF YOU KNOW?

A: THEY STARTED OUTSIDE AND THEN I BELIEVE THEY CAME INSIDE BECAUSE OF THE HELICOPTERS AND THE NEWS PEOPLE WERE ABOVE.

Q: TAKING PICTURES OF THEM, RIGHT?

A: I ASSUME, YES.

Q: SO THE --

A: THEY CAME --

Q: SORRY?

A: THEY CAME INSIDE AND STARTED TALKING, SO TOTAL PROBABLY THAT I SAW, THE CONVERSATION HAD NOT STOPPED, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG SHE TALKED TO THEM.

Q: JUST TELL THE COURT THEN HOW MUCH TIME DID YOU SEE THEM TALKING KEEPING IN MIND YOU DIDN'T SEE THEM WHEN THEY STARTED, AND KEEPING IN MIND YOU DIDN'T SEE THEM WHEN THEY FINISHED, HOW LONG DID YOU SEE THEM TALKING?

A: MAYBE FIVE MINUTES.

Q: AND PART OF THAT CONVERSATION WAS OUTSIDE AND THEN PART WAS INSIDE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. WAS SHE ACCOMPANIED BY ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, IF YOU KNOW?

A: I BELIEVE MR. HODGMAN WAS THERE, BUT I'M NOT SURE.

Q: YOU THINK BILL HODGMAN WAS THERE?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: AND DID HE SEEM TO COME WITH HER?

A: I HAVE NO IDEA.

Q: AND WHEN SHE WAS TALKING TO FUHRMAN, WAS HODGMAN PRESENT?

A: IF IN FACT HE WAS THERE, YES, I BELIEVE THAT IS WHERE I SAW HIM.

Q: OKAY. NOW, DID YOU SEE HER TALKING WITH ANY OF THE OFFICERS WHILE SHE WAS THERE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU EVER SEE ANY OF THE OFFICERS TAKE HER ON A WALK-THROUGH OF THE PREMISES AT ROCKINGHAM WHILE SHE WAS THERE?

A: NO.

Q: WERE YOU -- DURING MOST OF THIS TIME, FROM THE TIME YOU ARRIVED THERE AT 1:50 TO 4:30, WERE YOU OUTSIDE THE PREMISES AND ALSO INSIDE?

A: YES, ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND OUTSIDE IN THE YARD BY THE GARAGE. MOSTLY IN THE GARAGE AREA.

Q: AS I UNDERSTAND IT, INSTRUCTIONS TO MR. FORD WAS TO SHOOT ANY AND EVERYTHING THAT WAS RECOVERED IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH WARRANT, RIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THAT WAS -- DID YOU COME TO KNOW THAT WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT DAY?

MS. LEWIS: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY AND ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS WHAT FORD SAID.

THE WITNESS: THAT IS NOT WHAT I TOLD HIM.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU TOLD HIM?

A: NO.

Q: YOU TOLD HIM TO SHOOT OUTSIDE?

A: CORRECT.

Q: WHEN YOU WENT INSIDE DID YOU SEE SOME OTHER DETECTIVE TALK TO HIM?

A: YES.

Q: WHO WAS THAT?

A: MY PARTNER, DETECTIVE RICHARD HARO.

Q: HARO? WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN HARO SPOKE TO HIM?

A: NO. I BELIEVE I HAD ANOTHER ASSIGNMENT IN THE GARAGE AREA SO I JUST LEFT AND TURNED HIM OVER TO HARO, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY DISCUSSED.

Q: YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY DISCUSSED, RIGHT? WHEN MARCIA CLARK WAS OUT THERE DID YOU TALK WITH HER AT ALL THAT DAY?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU KNOW WHO SHE WAS AT THAT POINT?

A: YES, I KNOW MARCIA.

Q: YOU KNEW HER FROM BEFORE?

A: YES.

Q: HAVE YOU SEEN ANY REPORTS, ANY POLICE REPORTS GENERATED IN THIS CASE THAT WOULD HELP US OUT ON THE TIMES AS TO WHEN MISS CLARK ARRIVED AND WHO SHE TALKED TO AND WHAT SHE OBSERVED?

A: I HAVE NOT PERSONALLY, NO.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I HAVE JUST A SECOND, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY, DETECTIVE HARPER, YOU NEVER, WHILE YOU WERE THERE, YOU DON'T RECALL SEEING MARCIA CLARK LEAVE AT THE TIME SHE LEFT?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: DID YOU SEE WHETHER -- HOW SHE AND MR. HODGMAN GOT THERE?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, SIR.

THE COURT: MISS LEWIS.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. LEWIS:

Q: DETECTIVE HARPER, WERE YOU PRESENT DURING JUNE 28TH AT ROCKINGHAM DURING THE EXECUTION OF THAT SEARCH WARRANT?

A: YES.

Q: MISS CLARK WAS PRESENT ON THAT OCCASION AS WELL?

A: YES.

Q: ARE YOU SURE WITHIN YOUR OWN MIND THAT IT WAS ON THE 13TH THAT YOU SAW HER TALKING TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN RATHER THAN ON THE 28TH?

A: NOW THAT I REFLECT ON IT, IT COULD HAVE BEEN ON THE 28TH, BUT I REMEMBER SEEING HER ONE OF THOSE DAYS, EITHER THE 13TH OR THE 28TH.

Q: YOU ARE NOT POSITIVE WHICH OCCASION IT WAS?

A: NOW THAT I THINK ABOUT IT, NO.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE LOG HAS ALREADY BEEN MARKED AS AN EXHIBIT IN THIS CASE. WHAT IS IT? IT HAS NOT? I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER. I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER BUT I DO HAVE ANOTHER COPY. IT WILL BE A LITTLE BIT MARKED UP.

MS. LEWIS: MAY I APPROACH?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: DETECTIVE HARPER, LOOKING AT THIS OTHER COPY OF WHAT WE KNOW AS THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE LOG FROM JUNE 13TH, DO YOU SEE AN ENTRY THERE OF MARCIA CLARK ARRIVING THERE AT APPROXIMATELY I THINK THAT SAYS TWO O'CLOCK OR 2:02 AND LEAVING AT 2:15?

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I SEE THIS REPORT? WHAT IS SHE SHOWING HIM?

THE COURT: BUNDY LOG.

MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT MARKED? SHE DIDN'T SHOW IT TO ME.

MS. LEWIS: THIS COPY IS NOT THE MARKED COPY.

MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU MIND IF I SEE IT, PLEASE?

MS. LEWIS: I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE LANGE HAS THE MARKED -- THE COURT'S COPY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. LEWIS: MAY I APPROACH?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

THE COURT: WHAT EXHIBIT NUMBER IS THAT?

MS. LEWIS: THIS IS EXHIBIT -- I GUESS IT IS DEFENSE 1006, ONE ZERO ZERO SIX.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: AND SHOWING YOU THIS ONE, DETECTIVE HARPER, IT SHOWS THE SAME AS THE COPY I JUST SHOWED YOU, THAT MISS CLARK ARRIVED AT BUNDY AT 2:02 AND LEFT BUNDY AT 2:15?

A: IS THAT BUNDY OR ROCKINGHAM?

Q: BUNDY.

A: I WAS NEVER AT --

Q: IS THAT WHAT THIS SHOWS?

A: BUT I NEVER WAS --

MR. COCHRAN: I OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS CROSS-EXAMINATION. I RECORD SPEAKS FOR ITSELF AND IT DOESN'T HELP HIM. HE WAS NEVER THERE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I ALREADY HAVE IT HERE.

MS. LEWIS: THE COURT HAS HEARD PREVIOUS TESTIMONY WITH REGARD TO THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE LOG, SO I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO CONSIDER THAT EVIDENCE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS HEARING AS WELL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE IS IT APPROXIMATELY A FIVE-MINUTE DRIVE FROM BUNDY TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: AND I THINK YOU JUST EXPLAINED TO US THAT YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO THE -- BETWEEN THE 13TH AND THE 28TH IS NOT REAL CLEAR AS FAR AS WHEN MISS CLARK WAS THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND IS IT -- COULD IT ALSO BE TRUE THAT MR. HODGMAN WAS NOT PRESENT ON THE 13TH BUT WAS PRESENT ON THE 28TH?

MR. COCHRAN: THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR. SPECULATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED, SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: YOUR RECOLLECTION OF SEEING MR. HODGMAN IS SHAKY AS FAR AS THE -- AS FAR AS WHETHER YOU SAW HIM THERE ON THE 13TH OR THE 28TH; IS THAT FAIR?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE USE OF THE WORD "SHAKY," YOUR HONOR. I'M NOT SURE --

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND WHAT "SHAKY" MEANS. I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT, DETECTIVE?

A: YES.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MS. LEWIS AND DETECTIVE LANGE.)

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE THE CRIME SCENE LOG FROM THE 28TH OF JUNE WHICH I WOULD LIKE MARKED PEOPLE'S NEXT IN ORDER, 159.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS IRRELEVANT AND MATERIAL. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE 13TH.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

(PEO'S 159 FOR ID = CRIME SCENE LOG)

MS. LEWIS: COUNSEL HAS HAD IT FOR MANY MONTHS. I'M SURE HE HAS NOT HAD OCCASION TO LOOK AT IT RECENTLY.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MS. LEWIS: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: DETECTIVE HARPER, SHOWING YOU THE LOG FROM ROCKINGHAM ON JUNE 28TH, IT SHOWS YOUR ARRIVAL TIME ON HERE AS 1500 HOURS OR THREE O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON. IS THAT AN ACCURATE ASSESSMENT OF THE TIME THAT YOU ARRIVED?

A: YES.

Q: AND IT SHOWS YOUR LEAVING AT 1816 I BELIEVE, WHICH WOULD BE 12 -- 6:16 P.M.; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT IS THE TIME THAT YOU ACTUALLY DID LEAVE ON THE 28TH?

A: YES.

Q: SO THE TIME THAT YOU WERE THERE ON THE 13TH ROUGHLY CORRESPONDS TO THE TIME YOU WERE THERE ON THE 28TH IN TERMS OF BOTH BEING IN THE AFTERNOON HOURS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND COULD THAT BE ONE CAUSE FOR YOUR LACK OF PERFECT RECOLLECTION AS FAR AS WHAT TOOK PLACE ON WHICH OCCASION AS FAR AS WHO WAS PRESENT?

A: THAT'S TRUE, BECAUSE I DON'T -- I KNOW I WAS THERE ON BOTH DAYS AND MAYBE I GOT THEM CONFUSED. OBVIOUSLY I DID.

MS. LEWIS: THANK YOU. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: JUST FINALLY, AS YOU SIT HERE NOW, YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION IS THAT MARCIA CLARK ARRIVED AT SOME TIME IN THE AFTERNOON HOURS AT THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: ON JUNE 13TH?

A: I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS THE 13TH OR THE 28TH NOW THAT I THINK ABOUT IT, BUT I KNOW ONE OF THOSE DAYS SHE WAS THERE, AND IT WAS IN THE AFTERNOON AFTER I GOT THERE.

Q: ALL RIGHT --

A: SO --

Q: BEFORE ON DIRECT EXAMINATION YOU WERE FAIRLY CLEAR THAT SHE HAD ARRIVED, YOU JUST WEREN'T SURE ABOUT HODGMAN; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: BECAUSE YOU REMEMBER THAT ON THE 13TH SHE HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU REMEMBER SHE TALKED TO FUHRMAN ON THE 13TH?

A: ONE OF THOSE DAYS, EITHER THE 28TH OR THE 13TH, AND I'M NOT SURE WHICH DAY.

Q: WAS FUHRMAN THERE ON THE 28TH?

A: I BELIEVE SO. I SAW HIM BOTH DAYS THAT I WAS THERE, THE 13TH AND THE 28TH.

Q: AND WAS ROBERTS THERE ON THE 28TH, IF YOU KNOW?

A: THE 28TH?

Q: YES, SIR.

A: I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT.

Q: AT ANY RATE, NOW I WANT YOU TO THINK BACK SO THAT WE CAN GIVE THE COURT YOUR ABSOLUTE BEST RECOLLECTION. ON THE 13TH, THE DAY THIS VIDEO WAS SHOT, THE DAY AFTER THESE BODIES WERE FOUND, YOU RECALL THAT MISS MARCIA CLARK WAS THERE AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION BETWEEN 2:30 AND THREE O'CLOCK OR SO IN THE AFTERNOON? DO YOU RECALL THAT?

MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION, THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU RECALL?

A: I CAN'T LOCK MYSELF INTO -- ONE OF THOSE DAYS, THE 13TH OR THE 28TH BECAUSE NOW THAT I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT IT, IT COULD HAVE BEEN THE 13TH OR IT COULD HAVE BEEN THE 28TH.

Q: ISN'T IT POSSIBLE SHE WAS THERE ON BOTH TIMES?

A: THERE IS A POSSIBILITY, BUT I DON'T RECALL.

Q: DO YOU RECALL HER WEARING A LIGHT-COLORED DRESS ON THE 13TH?

A: I REMEMBER HER WEARING A WHITE DRESS, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHICH DATE IT WAS.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER AT THIS POINT, YOUR HONOR, OF THIS WITNESS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE HARPER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE EXCUSED ALSO.

MS. LEWIS: JUST A SECOND, YOUR HONOR, BRIEFLY. MAY I APPROACH JUST REAL BRIEFLY?

THE COURT: KEEPING IN MIND WHAT THE ISSUES ARE HERE.

MS. LEWIS: YES, YOUR HONOR. JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. LEWIS:

Q: DOES THE LOG FROM ROCKINGHAM REFLECT FUHRMAN WAS PRESENT ON THAT DATE FROM 2:45 TO 6:40 IN THE EVENING?

A: YES, IT DOES.

MS. LEWIS: THANK YOU. NOTHING FURTHER.

MR. COCHRAN: NOTHING FURTHER OF DETECTIVE HARPER, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, DETECTIVE.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE ONE OTHER WITNESS I WOULD LIKE TO CALL, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO CALL MARCIA CLARK.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO MARCIA CLARK TESTIFYING. SHE IS THE LEAD TRIAL LAWYER IN THIS CASE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT THAT SHE WAS EVER PRESENT WHEN THE VIDEOGRAPHER WAS THERE.

MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T WANT HER MAKING THIS ARGUMENT IN FRONT OF MISS CLARK.

MS. LEWIS: MISS CLARK KNOWS THE ISSUES. THE TESTIMONY IS SHE LEFT AT 2:50 OR 3:00 --

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD OBJECT TO HER MAKING THE STATEMENT IN FRONT OF MISS --

MS. LEWIS: -- AND THE VIDEOGRAPHER ARRIVED AT 3:10.

THE COURT: NOTED. OVERRULED. ALL RIGHT. I DON'T NEED MISS CLARK'S TESTIMONY AS A WITNESS. I SIMPLY NEED HER STATEMENT TO THE COURT AS TO HER RECOLLECTION WHEN SHE WAS THERE, AND MORE PERTINENTLY, WHEN SHE FOUND OUT THIS TAPE EXISTED.

MS. LEWIS: I ASSUME MISS CLARK --

THE COURT: I ACCEPT THE REPRESENTATION OF ANY COUNSEL HERE AS OFFICERS OF THE COURT.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS FINE.

THE COURT: I DON'T NEED IT UNDER OATH FROM THE WITNESS STAND. GOOD MORNING, MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. I THOUGHT I HAD A DAY OFF. YES. I CAN TELL THE COURT EXACTLY WHEN I ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS STATEMENT TO MR. LEVIN AS WELL, BUT I ARRIVED AT APPROXIMATELY -- AT ABOUT 12:30 OR QUARTER TO 1:00. I HAD EARLIER SPOKEN TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER WHO INDICATED HE WAS GOING TO SEEK A WARRANT.

THE COURT: THIS IS THE FAMOUS HARVEY LEVIN MIS-TIME-STAMPED?

MS. CLARK: EXACTLY. EXACTLY, YOUR HONOR. AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER HAD BRIEFLY TOLD ME WHAT HE HAD IN TERMS OF PROBABLE CAUSE AND I SAID IT SOUNDS LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT IT. HE SAID HE WOULD PRESENT IT TO THE JUDGE AND HE ASKED ME TO MEET HIM AT ROCKINGHAM. I SAID THERE IS NO POINT IN MY GOING OUT THERE UNTIL YOU HAVE THE WARRANT SIGNED AND DELIVERED, PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHEN THAT IS DONE. HE CALLED AND HE TOLD ME THAT. THAT WAS AT ABOUT 10:45 I BELIEVE. I WAS WORKING ON ANOTHER CASE AND I DIDN'T LEAVE THE OFFICE UNTIL ABOUT 12:00, AND I ARRIVED I BELIEVE AT 12:30 OR QUARTER TO 1:00 AT ROCKINGHAM. I MET DETECTIVE LUPER THERE. THERE WERE VERY FEW PEOPLE THERE, IT WAS VERY QUIET, AND APPARENTLY THE DEFENDANT HAD ALREADY COME AND GONE BY THE TIME I GOT THERE. DETECTIVE LUPER WALKED ME AROUND A LITTLE BIT, I THINK ROBERTS DID, I THINK DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DID. ON THE 13TH I NEVER SAT OUTSIDE AT A TABLE WITH ANYBODY. I WAS THERE BRIEFLY. I MADE REQUESTS OF THEM CONCERNING WHAT TO PHOTOGRAPH AND IN WHAT SEQUENCE, AND THESE ARE STILL PHOTOGRAPHS, IN WHAT SEQUENCE TO PHOTOGRAPH SO THAT IT WOULD BE UNDERSTANDABLE AND CLEAR. AND I ASKED THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY PICKED UP CERTAIN ITEMS IN THE SEARCH AND HE INDICATED TO ME, DETECTIVE LUPER, THAT THERE WAS NO SEARCH TEAM AVAILABLE AT THE TIME, THEY WERE IN A HOLDING PATTERN FOR AWHILE. I HAD OTHER WORK TO DO SO I DIDN'T WAIT FOR THE SEARCH TEAM, AND I LEFT ROCKINGHAM AT ABOUT FIVE MINUTES TO 2:00. I HAD TO GO BACK DOWN TO THE 10 FREEWAY GOING EAST, SO I TOOK BUNDY DOWN AND THE CRIME SCENE WAS ON MY WAY, AND AS IS MY HABIT, I ALWAYS VISIT CRIME SCENES TO GET A FEELING FOR THE SPACIAL CONNECTIONS OF EVERYTHING AND THE DIMENSIONS AND I STOPPED BY BUNDY ON MY WAY BACK TO THE OFFICE AT ABOUT TWO O'CLOCK. I MET WITH THE OFFICER WHO HAD THE PERIMETER AT THAT TIME. I DON'T REMEMBER HIS NAME, BUT THE TAPE WAS STILL UP AND HE INDICATED NO ONE WAS ALLOWED INSIDE, AND I SAID FINE, AND I LEFT VERY SHORTLY THEREAFTER. AND I THINK THE CRIME SCENE LOG REFLECTS THAT I LEFT BUNDY. I WAS AT BUNDY FROM 2:00 TO 2:15, THAT'S CORRECT, AND I LEFT BUNDY AT LEAST AT 2:15, IF NOT 2:10, WENT BACK TO THE OFFICE. AT NO TIME DID I SEE A VIDEOGRAPHER PRESENT AT ROCKINGHAM. I CAN ASSURE THE COURT THAT IF I HAD, I WOULD BE DELIGHTED AND I WOULD HAVE ASKED THEM TO DO ONE AT BUNDY AS WELL, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW THEY WERE DOING THAT. I DID NOT LEARN OF THAT VIDEOTAPE UNTIL A COUPLE DAYS AGO WHEN ALL OF THIS -- WHEN THE DEFENSE APPARENTLY INDICATED TO US THAT IT KNEW ABOUT A VIDEOTAPE, AND THEN I ASKED, AFTER HAVING HEARD FROM SOMEONE ELSE ABOUT IT, THAT WAS IN THE LAST FEW DAYS, VERY RECENT, SO I NEVER KNEW THEY HAD ONE AND I ASKED ABOUT IT. I ASKED WHY -- FOR WHAT PURPOSE THEY PERFORMED IT AND WHY WE DIDN'T KNOW AND IF THEY DID ONE AT ROCKINGHAM, WHY DIDN'T THEY DO ONE AT BUNDY? AND THE REASON FOR THAT THEY EXPLAINED --

THE COURT: I DON'T NEED TO KNOW THE REASON.

MS. CLARK: YOU ALREADY KNOW. SO I LEARNED IT WAS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES AND THAT IS ALL I KNOW, SO I WENT TO ROCKINGHAM FIRST AND THEN I WENT TO BUNDY. AND THE CRIME SCENE LOG SHOWS WHEN I WAS AT BUNDY AND INDICATES VERY CLEARLY THAT I WAS NOT AROUND WHEN THE VIDEOGRAPHER WAS THERE. AND I SAW THE MAN COME IN TO TESTIFY. WAS THAT ON FRIDAY? I HAD NEVER SEEN HIM BEFORE IN MY LIFE, SO THAT WAS THE FIRST DAY I HAD EVER SEEN HIM.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE BEFORE ME -- I TAKE IT, MISS -- EXCUSE ME. MR. COCHRAN, HAVE YOU COMPLETED PRESENTING EVIDENCE?

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE NO OTHER FURTHER WITNESSES AT THIS POINT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE WISH TO PRESENT ANYTHING?

MS. LEWIS: WISH TO PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE?

THE COURT: YES.

MS. LEWIS: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I HAVE BEFORE ME A DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AND INCLUDING MONETARY SANCTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY. I WILL HEAR ARGUMENT.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, I DO WANT TO MAKE -- NOTE THAT I JUST RECEIVED THIS AT A QUARTER OF 9:00 THIS MORNING. I BARELY HAD TIME TO READ IT, LET ALONE TO CONFER WITH OTHER COUNSEL ON THE CASE IN TERMS OF RESPONDING TO IT. SO I WOULD REQUEST AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, A PERIOD OF TIME DURING WHICH TO CONFER WITH MY COLLEAGUES BEFORE RESPONDING.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE NO OBJECTION. IT WAS FILED THIS MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN I WILL HEAR ARGUMENT. HOW ABOUT AT 4:30?

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, 4:30 TODAY MAY BE A LITTLE TOUGH, YOUR HONOR, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.

THE COURT: OH, I FORGOT.

MR. COCHRAN: 4:30 WILL BE TOUGH TODAY. 1:30 OR -- 4:30 IS A BAD DAY.

THE COURT: YOU ARE RIGHT.

MS. LEWIS: THERE IS ANOTHER HEARING, I BELIEVE, AT 1:30.

THE COURT: RIGHT, AND WE NEED TO BE SOMEWHERE AT 5:40.

MR. COCHRAN: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. TOMORROW THEN WE WILL TAKE IT UP.

MR. COCHRAN: WHEN WAS THAT?

THE COURT: TOMORROW.

MS. LEWIS: IN THE MORNING, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: WE HAVE THE MOTION ON THE CORONER'S TESTIMONY AND MOTION ON CORONER'S PHOTOGRAPHS TODAY AT 1:30.

MR. COCHRAN: 1:30 TODAY?

THE COURT: YEAH.

MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU WANT TO DO IT AT 1:30 ALSO?

THE COURT: LET'S DO THAT TOMORROW.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO REJOIN US?

MS. LEWIS: OH, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD MOVE THAT PEOPLE'S 159 BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING AND DEFENSE 1006 BE CONSIDERED FOR THE HEARING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEY WILL BE.

MS. LEWIS: AS WELL AS PEOPLE'S 158.

THE COURT: THEY WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE MOTION.

(PEO'S 159 = IN EVID)

(PEO'S 158 = IN EVID)

(DEFENSE 1006 = IN EVID)

MR. NEUFELD: YOUR HONOR, I THINK YOU WANT TO TAKE UP THE BOARDS ALSO BEFORE THEY ARE INTRODUCED TO DENNIS FUNG.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. WHO IS GOING TO BE PRESENTING MR. FUNG?

MS. LEWIS: HANK GOLDBERG WILL BE AND I BELIEVE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF NOTIFYING HIM. AND I ALSO OFFER DEFENSE 1068 FOR PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(DEFT'S 1068 = IN EVID)

MS. LEWIS: HE AND THE BOARDS ARE ON THE WAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE ETA?

MS. LEWIS: THE LENGTH OF TIME THE ELEVATORS TAKE, WHICH CAN BE FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT MINUTES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MADAM REPORTER, DO WE NEED TO CHANGE?

REPORTER OLSON: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S CHANGE COURT REPORTERS AND THEN WE WILL START WITH THE BOARDS.

(RECESS.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL THE PARTIES ARE PRESENT. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF BOARDS APPARENTLY THAT ARE GOING TO BE USED. MR. NEUFELD, YOU HAD SOME OBJECTIONS TO SOME OF THE BOARDS?

MR. NEUFELD: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHICH BOARD? WHAT'S YOUR OBJECTION?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. NEUFELD: YOUR HONOR, AS YOU MAY RECALL, THERE WAS A RULING BY YOUR HONOR THAT THE LUMINAL TESTING AND OTHER PRESUMPTIVE TESTS WOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD IN THIS CASE, AND ONE OF THE BOARDS -- UNLESS -- I'M SORRY -- UNLESS THERE'S INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE OF ONE SORT OR ANOTHER. ONE OF THE BOARDS DEPICTS MR. FUNG STANDING NEXT TO A DRAIN IN THE SINK HOLDING UP A Q-TIP WITH A PINK COLOR ON IT TO SUGGEST THAT THIS WAS A POSITIVE RESULT FROM A PHENOLPHTALEIN TEST FOR PRESENCE OF BLOOD. NUMBER ONE, THERE WAS NO CONFIRMATORY TEST DONE EITHER OF THOSE ITEMS. NUMBER TWO, AS IT'S BEEN ALREADY BROUGHT OUT TO THE COURT, I THINK WAS THE BASIS FOR THE COURT'S RULING, THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT COULD TEST POSITIVE UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. PARTICULARLY FOR THE TWO DRAINS, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS A VAST BODY OF LITERATURE WHICH SUGGESTS THAT JUST NORMAL BACTERIA AND OTHER MICROORGANISMS, THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT COLLECT IN WET DRAINS AND DAMP DRAINS WOULD TEST POSITIVE, AND IT JUST HAS NO BASIS BEING INTRODUCED OR BROUGHT INTO THIS CASE AT THIS TIME. THE CORRECT PROCEDURE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO TAKE THE CONTENTS OUT OF THOSE DRAINS AND BRING THEM BACK TO THE LABORATORY AND DO SOME KIND OF TEST TO CONFIRM THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD OR TO REJECT THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD, AND TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, THAT WAS NEVER DONE. AND I BELIEVE A LOT OF THIS YOU ALREADY KNOW ABOUT FROM YOUR INITIAL RULING. SO I WOULD SIMPLY ASK THE COURT TO INSTRUCT THE PEOPLE TO REMOVE THOSE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE BOARD.

THE COURT: THOSE ARE YOUR OBJECTIONS?

MR. NEUFELD: WELL, AS TO THAT ONE BOARD, YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHICH BOARD IS THAT?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S THE ROCKINGHAM BOARD.

MR. NEUFELD: WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES. SOMEBODY WANT TO GIVE MR. FAIRTLOUGH A HAND HERE SO WE DON'T WASTE ALL OUR TIME?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: CAN YOU SEE THAT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: IS THIS THE ONE YOU'RE SPEAKING OF?

MR. NEUFELD: YES, YOUR HONOR. IT'S THIS PHOTOGRAPH HERE (INDICATING) WHICH DOESN'T HAVE A NUMBER ON THE PHOTOGRAPH. SO I CAN'T SAY FOR THE RECORD, BUT IT'S IN THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER AND IT'S -- HE'S HOLDING UP A Q-TIP NEXT TO A -- THE DRAIN IN THE SINK. I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE Q-TIP ITSELF HAS A REDDISH COLOR WHICH WOULD SUGGEST BLOOD, BUT IT'S NOT. THE REDDISH COLOR IS THE CHEMICAL REACTION FROM THE HYDROGEN PEROXIDE. SO IT'S EVEN MORE PREJUDICIAL FOR THAT REASON AS WELL, YOUR HONOR. SO IT'S -- IT'S THE DRAIN SHOT HERE (INDICATING), AND THEN THERE'S A SECOND DRAIN SHOT AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE LOWER -- THERE'S TWO DRAIN SHOTS ACTUALLY IN THE LOWER LEFT-HAND CORNER, AND I WOULD ASK THAT ALL THREE OF THOSE BE TAKEN OUT. I -- NUMBER 14, WHICH IS STRAIGHT DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DIAGRAM, IS IN A DIFFERENT CATEGORY BECAUSE IN 14, THEY ACTUALLY DID DO FOLLOW-UP TESTING AT THE LABORATORY, AND SO I THINK NUMBER 14 WOULD FIT WITHIN YOUR HONOR'S EXCEPTION. BUT THE DRAIN PICTURES DO NOT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, YOUR HONOR, IT WOULD BE NICE IF COUNSEL WOULD HAVE GIVEN US SOME NOTICE AS TO SPECIFICALLY WHAT HE HAD TO OBJECT TO ON THIS BOARD SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY PLOTTED OUT WHAT OUR DIRECT EXAMINATION IS GOING TO BE, AND AS THE COURT CAN NOW TELL, IT DOES INVOLVE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE THROUGH THESE BOARDS. AS TO THE PHENOLPHTALEIN TEST RESULTS, I DID NOT BRING DOWN MY LEGAL NOTEBOOK BECAUSE AGAIN, I DID NOT KNOW THAT THEY WERE GOING TO ADDRESS THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY. WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THIS PRELIMINARILY. FIRST OF ALL, BOTH SIDES HAVE BEEN INTRODUCING PHENOLPHTALEIN TESTING THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL IN FRONT OF THE JURY LEFT AND RIGHT. I POINT THAT OUT TO THE COURT, AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE A LITTLE BIT SURPRISED BY COUNSEL'S NOW OBJECTING TO IT WHEN I THINK BOTH SIDES ELICITED THAT KIND OF EVIDENCE FROM THE DETECTIVES. THE OTHER THING THAT I'D SAY IS THAT THE COURT DID RULE ON THE LUMINAL TEST. I DON'T RECALL THE COURT MAKING ANY RULING ON PHENOLPHTALEIN. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE THE PHENOLPHTALEIN TEST IN THIS CASE IS ACTUALLY A TWO-STAGE PROCESS WHICH INVOLVES THE USE OF PHENOLPHTALEIN AND THEN THE ADDITION OF HYDROGEN PEROXIDE. SO IT IS MORE SPECIFIC THAN ANY OF THE OTHER PRESUMPTIVE BLOOD TESTS INCLUDING LUMINAL. SO THE COURT'S RULING ON ONE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY APPLICABILITY TO THE OTHER. AND FINALLY IN THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS COLEMAN -- AND AGAIN, I DIDN'T BRING DOWN MY LEGAL NOTEBOOK, BUT IT'S A CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CASE -- THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DISCUSSED THE ISSUE OF PRESUMPTIVE BLOOD TESTING. IT SAYS THAT IT DOES COME IN, BUT THERE HAS TO BE SOME EVIDENCE AS TO WHAT KIND OF A TEST YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. IN THAT CASE, A POLICE OFFICER, WHO WAS NOT A CRIMINALIST, USED SOMETHING THAT WAS CALLED A HEME STICK, AND HE DIDN'T REALLY KNOW WHAT IT WAS AND THE SUPREME COURT DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ANYTHING IN THE RECORD; AND THEY SAID THAT ALTHOUGH IN CALIFORNIA THERE IS A VERY LENGTHY HISTORY -- AND THEY CITED SEVERAL MUCH EARLIER CASES OF FORENSIC BLOOD TESTING OR PRESUMPTIVE BLOOD TESTING COMING IN -- THAT YOU HAD TO HAVE SOME EVIDENCE AS TO WHAT THE TEST WAS SO THAT THE COURT COULD DETERMINE WHETHER IT WAS ONE OF THE TESTS OR ONE OF THE NATURES -- NATURE OF TESTS THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN PREVIOUS CASES AND HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE. SO I THINK THAT THE ISSUE IS PRETTY DISPOSITIVELY RESOLVED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY OUR SUPREME COURT.

THE COURT: WHAT'S THE CITE ON COLEMAN?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, AGAIN, AS I SAID, I DIDN'T BRING DOWN MY LEGAL NOTEBOOK BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY THAT WE WERE GOING TO ADDRESS THIS. PERHAPS I COULD CALL UP AND HAVE SOMEONE --

THE COURT: DO YOU ANTICIPATE GETTING TO THIS BOARD BY THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS -- BY THE CLOSE OF OUR SESSION THIS MORNING?

MR. GOLDBERG: I DON'T THINK I ANTICIPATE GETTING TO THIS BOARD BY THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS, YOUR HONOR, THIS MORNING. BUT I DO ANTICIPATE POSSIBLY DISCUSSING OTHER PHENOLPHTALEIN TESTS SUCH AS ON THE BRONCO. NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE DEFENSE HAS ANY OBJECTION TO THOSE. IN FACT, I THINK THAT WAS ALREADY ELICITED.

MR. NEUFELD: NO.

THE COURT: MY RECOLLECTION OF OUR LUMINAL TESTING IS THAT WE DID NOT DISCUSS PHTALEIN TESTING, PHENOLPHTALEIN TESTING. ALL RIGHT. MR. NEUFELD.

MR. NEUFELD: I'M SORRY. YOUR HONOR, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO A REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT PHENOLPHTALEIN TESTING WAS DONE. WE'RE OPPOSED TO THEM INTRODUCING ANY OF THE RESULTS OF THAT PHENOLPHTALEIN TESTING. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE HERE. TO SIMPLY SAY THAT THEY TESTED VARIOUS ITEMS, I MEAN THAT GOES WITHOUT SAYING. IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THEY DID. ONE OF THE -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE GENTLEMAN'S POINT ON THE ISSUE OF THE POWER OF THIS PRESUMPTIVE TEST. IT IS WIDELY KNOWN IN THE LITERATURE THAT THIS PARTICULAR TEST IS NO MORE POWERFUL OR SENSITIVE BECAUSE IT'S A TWO-STAGE TEST. THAT'S JUST THE NATURE OF THE TEST, THAT THE SECOND THANK YOU DO IS SUBJECT IT TO HYDROGEN PEROXIDE TO GET A REACTION. THERE IS LITERATURE THAT NOT ONLY TALKS ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF BACTERIA READILY SETTING OFF A POSITIVE RESULT, WHICH IS WHY MOST PRACTITIONERS WOULD NEVER DARE TO USE IT IN CONNECTION WITH A DRAIN; BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS ADDITIONAL LITERATURE THAT SUGGESTS THAT COPPER, COPPER PIPES FOR INSTANCE WILL GIVE YOU THAT SAME KIND OF POSITIVE HIT. IT'S VERY DIFFERENT TO USE A PHENOL TEST WITH DRAINS AND DRAIN PIPES THAN IT IS TO USE IT WITH THE WOODEN FLOOR FOR INSTANCE. HOWEVER, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT SAME RISK INVOLVED WHERE YOU SEE THE SMALL REDDISH SMEAR THAT YOU SEE IN NUMBER 14. WE DON'T HAVE THAT SITUATION HERE. MY RECOLLECTION WAS -- AND I'LL HAVE TO CHECK WITH THE TRANSCRIPT -- BUT THAT YOUR HONOR DID RULE ON THE PHENOL TEST AS WELL AS THE LUMINAL TEST. AND I MAY BE MISTAKEN ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT'S THE INFORMATION I HAD BEFORE I STOOD UP THIS MORNING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT DOES NOT COMPORT WITH MY RECOLLECTION. HOWEVER, MY RECOLLECTION COULD BE INACCURATE ON THAT. BUT SINCE MR. GOLDBERG INDICATES THAT HE WON'T GET TO THAT BY THE NOON HOUR, WE'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHECK. ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG, I'M GOING TO DIRECT YOU NOT TO USE THIS BOARD UNTIL WE HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESOLVE BOTH THE RECORD AND CHECKING THE COLEMAN CASE. AND, MRS. ROBERTSON, WOULD YOU ASK ONE OF THE LAW CLERKS TO LOCATE THE COLEMAN CASE FOR ME, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT.

MR. NEUFELD: YOUR HONOR, ALSO, WE WERE SHOWN ANOTHER BOARD DEALING WITH SEROLOGY RESULTS. AND NOT TO WASTE THE COURT'S TIME AT THIS POINT, IF MR. GOLDBERG CAN ASSURE US THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET TO THE SEROLOGY RESULT BOARD THIS MORNING, I CAN TAKE IT UP LATER ALSO. THERE ARE A VARIETY OF PROBLEMS WITH CERTAIN SPECIFIC RESULTS AND MORE BROADLY WITH THE FACT THAT HE INCLUDES IN THE BOARD INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS. AND SINCE I HAVE BEEN PRACTICING LAW, I'VE NEVER SEEN A SCIENTIST REPORT OUT RESULTS THAT HE OR SHE THEMSELVES DEEMED INCONCLUSIVE. IN FACT, EVEN IN THE REPORTS IN THIS CASE, TECHNICIANS SUCH AS YAMAUCHI, FOR INSTANCE, WILL SAY SINCE THE RESULTS WERE INCLUSIVE, I WILL NOT MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT THEM IN HIS REPORTS. YET ON THEIR BOARD, THEY'LL SAY THINGS LIKE INCONCLUSIVE AND THEN HAVE IN PARENTHESIS WHAT THE TENTATIVE RESULTS WERE, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT TENTATIVE RESULTS WHICH ARE INCONCLUSIVE TO THE TECHNICIAN SHOULD SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY IN THE COURTROOM IN FRONT OF THE JURY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG, WHICH BOARD IS THIS?

MR. GOLDBERG: THEY'RE BRINGING IT OUT NOW. IT'S THE SEROLOGY RESULTS BOARD. YOUR HONOR, ON THIS PARTICULAR BOARD, THE ONLY INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS THAT HAVE BEEN REPORTED, AS THE COURT CAN SEE, WITH ONE EXCEPTION ARE UNDER THE CATEGORY OF EAP OR THE ERYTHROCYTE ACID PHOSPHATASE. THE COURT MAY RECALL THAT IN MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT, HE CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS BLOOD UNDER OR SOME BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL UNDER THE NAILS OF NICOLE SIMPSON. THAT IS ITEM NUMBER 84 ON THIS BOARD, AND THAT IT WAS A EAP TYPE B, WHICH WAS INCONCLUSIVE WITH THE DEFENDANT WHO'S A BA. THE PROSECUTION'S POSITION IS GOING TO BE THAT WE WILL DEMONSTRATE IN A VARIETY OF WAYS, NOT ONLY WITH CONVENTIONAL SEROLOGY, BUT ALSO WITH DNA TESTING, IS THAT IN FACT WHAT WAS TESTED UNDERNEATH THE FINGERNAILS OF NICOLE WAS HER OWN BLOOD. IT CAN BE DONE IN A VARIETY OF WAYS, BUT PART OF THAT IS WHAT IS REPRESENTED ON THIS BOARD IN THE EAP CATEGORY. ERYTHROCYTE ACID PHOSPHATASE IS DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER GENETIC MARKERS THAT ARE USED IN THE CONVENTIONAL SYSTEMS IN THAT UNLIKE PGM SUBTYPE, IT INVOLVES NOT ONLY LOOKING AT THE BANDING PATTERN, BUT ALSO THE RELATIVE INTENSITY OF THE BANDS, WHICH MEANS THERE'S A LEVEL OF SUBJECTIVITY THAT'S INVOLVED IN INTERPRETING IT THAT'S NOT INVOLVED IN PGM SUBTYPE. THE QUESTION OF WHETHER SOMETHING IS INCONCLUSIVE OR NOT INCONCLUSIVE THEREFORE INVOLVES A QUESTION THAT IS SOMEWHAT SUBJECTIVE AND IT'S RESOLVED BY THE ANALYST. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO SHOW HERE AND WILL SHOW IS THAT THERE IS A SITUATION GOING ON AT THE CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY WHERE WE HAVE A NUMBER OF SPECIMENS THAT ARE IN STATES OF DEGRADATION WITH RESPECT TO THE EAP SYSTEM AND THAT WE CAN DEMONSTRATE CIRCUMSTANTIALLY THAT WHAT IS HAPPENING IS THAT THE EAP SUBTYPE IS DEGRADING FROM A BA TO A B, AND THIS BOARD DOES THAT ALMOST CONCLUSIVELY. THE SCIENCE ARTICLES INDICATE THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO OR ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COMMON SENSE WILL TELL YOU YOU CAN DO IS, YOU CAN LOOK AT A POOL OF BLOOD UNDER THE VICTIM OR BLOOD ON THE VICTIM'S CLOTHING WHICH YOU KNOW CIRCUMSTANTIALLY HAS TO BE HERS; AND IF YOU CAN SEE EVIDENCE OF DEGRADATION IN THAT SAMPLE IN THE EAP SYSTEM, IT GIVES YOU A VERY CLEAR INDICATION OF WHAT WOULD BE GOING ON WITH OTHER BLOOD OF THE VICTIMS SUCH AS UNDERNEATH HER FINGERNAILS. SO WE SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, ON THIS BOARD THAT ITEM 42, WHICH IS BLOOD UNDERNEATH NICOLE, IS AN INCONCLUSIVE B. WELL, WE KNOW THAT'S HERS. IT'S HER BLOOD. SO THIS PROVIDES VERY POWERFUL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO THE DEFENDANT'S -- AS TO THE PEOPLE'S POSITION THAT WHAT WE HAVE UNDER THE FINGERNAILS IS IN FACT DEGRADED BLOOD OF THE VICTIM. THIS IS A LEGITIMATE THING TO DO. IT'S LEGITIMATE CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL INFERENCES FOR A JURY TO CONSIDER AND IT'S LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFICALLY FOR OUR EXPERTS TO CONSIDER THIS. I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THERE'S NOT A SINGLE INSTANCE HERE WHERE AN INCONCLUSIVE RESULT IS BEING REPORTED THAT INCULPATES THE DEFENDANT. IN OTHER WORDS, WE DON'T HAVE ANY REPORTS OF INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS WHICH ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE DEFENDANT'S EAP TYPE AND PGM SUBTYPE, WHICH IS A BA AND ITS PGM SUBTYPE IS A TWO PLUS, TWO MINUS. SO IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE NOT USING ANY INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THAT HIS BLOOD IS AT THE SCENE. WE'RE USING IT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THAT NICOLE'S BLOOD IS UNDER HER FINGERNAILS AND IT'S COMPLETELY UNOBJECTIONABLE. I FIND --

THE COURT: WHAT IF I ALLOW TENTATIVE RESULTS?

MR. GOLDBERG: WHAT?

THE COURT: WELL, YOU SAY THESE ARE INCONCLUSIVE, BUT INDICATING, INDICATIVE OF.

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, NO. INC STANDS FOR INCONCLUSIVE. WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT WHEN THE ANALYST LOOKS AT THE PGM SUBTYPE PLATE OR THE EAP PLATE, IT'S A GEL, AND THERE'S A CERTAIN BANDING PATTERN THAT RESULTS -- THAT HE IS NOT COMFORTABLE ENOUGH WITH THAT SUBJECTIVELY TO SAY IN FACT IT IS A B, IN FACT, IT IS A BA. WHAT HE IS SAYING IS, THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, BUT I'M NOT COMFORTABLE ENOUGH TO MAKE THAT CALL WITH CERTAINTY." WHAT HE WILL BE ABLE TO SAY IS, HE WILL BE ABLE TO SAY THAT BASED UPON A VARIETY OF RESULTS -- AND I'M NOT TELLING IT TO THE COURT IN AS MUCH DETAIL AS WILL BE PRESENTED. I -- HOPEFULLY, I WON'T NEED TO FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS LEGAL ARGUMENT. WHAT HE WILL BE ABLE TO SAY IS THAT BASED UPON THE COMBINATION OF WHAT HE SEES HAPPENING WITH THE EAP RESULTS AT THIS SCENE, THAT THERE IS VERY POWERFUL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE EAP RESULTS UNDER NICOLE'S FINGERNAILS IN FACT IS LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN OR MAY HAVE BEEN A BA THAT DEGRADED INTO A B; AND WHEN THE JURY SEES IT, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO COME TO THAT CONCLUSION ON THEIR OWN EVEN WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF EXPERT TESTIMONY. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS BOARD DOES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, MAY I RESPOND ON PART OF THAT --

THE COURT: NO. MR. NEUFELD.

MR. NEUFELD: YOUR HONOR, ONE SECOND. HE IS MISSING A FUNDAMENTAL POINT HERE, AND THE FUNDAMENTAL POINT IS THAT SCIENTISTS DO NOT MAKE A HABIT, IN FACT THEY NEVER REPORT OUT IN A COURT OF LAW -- AND I'M SURE THIS IS YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE AS WELL -- ON RESULTS THAT THEY DON'T -- THAT THEY CAN'T STAND BEHIND PERIOD. WHETHER IT'S TO SOME DEGREE OF REASONABLE SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY OR SOME OTHER COMPARABLE STANDARD, THEY DON'T REPORT OUT ITEMS WHICH TO THEMSELVES ARE INCONCLUSIVE. IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF EVEN BEING TENTATIVE. LET ME GIVE YOU JUST AS AN EXAMPLE --

THE COURT: WELL, MR. NEUFELD, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE SPECIFIC HERE. DON'T WE HAVE A PROBLEM CREATED BY THE FACT THAT IN THE DEFENSE OPENING ARGUMENT, THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF EVIDENCE WAS ARGUED TO BE SOMETHING AND THEN AN EXCERPT OF A POLICE REPORT OR THE CRIMINALIST REPORT IS PUT UP AND DISPLAYED TO THE JURY AND PURPORTED TO HAVE A CERTAIN RESULT INCONSISTENT WITH THE PARTIES HERE WHEREAS THE ACTUAL TESTING INDICATES SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFERENT.

MR. NEUFELD: NO, IT DOESN'T. IT DOESN'T, YOUR HONOR. THAT'S THE POINT. HERE, FOR INSTANCE, IS THE ANALYZED EVIDENCE REPORT IN THIS CASE. AND YOU CAN JUST TAKE A LOOK AT IT. WHAT'S THE PROPER --

THE COURT: NO. I'VE SEEN IT.

MR. NEUFELD: OKAY. AND WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT THE SEROLOGISTS THEMSELVES CALL THE BLOOD SCRAPINGS UNDERNEATH HER FINGERNAILS A B. NOT AN INCONCLUSIVE, NOT A TENTATIVE. A B. WHEREAS ALL THESE OTHER ITEMS, THEY DIDN'T CALL AT ALL. AND THEY SAID, "WE WILL NOT MAKE A STATEMENT ON THEM BECAUSE IN OUR OPINION, THEY ARE INCONCLUSIVE." SO THERE'S A VERY SIGNIFICANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SEROLOGISTS' PROFESSIONAL APPROACH TO CALLING THE BLOOD SCRAPINGS BENEATH HER FINGERNAILS AS A B AND ALL THESE OTHER CHARACTERIZATIONS WHICH ARE INCONCLUSIVE AND FOR WHICH THE SEROLOGISTS DID NOT WANT TO MAKE ANY CALL AT ALL.

THE COURT: BUT SHOULDN'T THE JURY KNOW THAT THESE ITEMS WERE TESTED AND THE RESULTS OF THESE ARE INCONCLUSIVE? ISN'T THE JURY ENTITLED TO KNOW THAT?

MR. NEUFELD: OH, THE JURY IS ENTITLED TO KNOW THAT THEY'RE INCONCLUSIVE. I'M NOT DISPUTING THAT. THEY CAN JUST SAY INCONCLUSIVE. OUR DISPUTE, YOUR HONOR, IS THE SUGGESTION THEY WERE INCONCLUSIVE, BUT LOOKS LIKE AN A, INCONCLUSIVE BUT LOOKS LIKE A B, INCONCLUSIVE BUT LOOKS LIKE A BA AS REFLECTED ON THAT BOARD. THE FACT THAT THE EXAMINER SAID IT'S INCONCLUSIVE MEANS THAT HE OR SHE IS NOT WILLING TO REPORT OUT THE ACTUAL RESULT OTHER THAN TO SAY IT'S INCONCLUSIVE. THAT'S HOW SCIENTISTS WORK, THAT'S HOW TECHNICIANS WORK, AND THIS DOCUMENT BELIES THAT PROFESSIONAL APPROACH WHICH IS USED NATIONWIDE BY ALL TECHNICIANS AND SCIENTISTS WHO DO THIS EXACT KIND OF TESTING. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. IN FACT, IN THE ACTUAL REPORT HERE, THEY DON'T SAY IT LOOKS A LITTLE BIT LIKE A B OR IT LOOKS A LITTLE BIT LIKE AN AB ON THE INCONCLUSIVES. THEY GIVE NO ANSWER. THEY JUST SAY INCONCLUSIVE, WHEREAS FOR THE TYPING OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S FINGERNAILS, THEY SAY SPECIFICALLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY AT THIS POINT IN THIS STATEMENT IT'S A B. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. SO I HAVE -- WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEM SIMPLY SAYING INCONCLUSIVE. THE PROBLEM IS THEM TRYING TO HOOK THE INCONCLUSIVE WITH THE TENTATIVE RESULT WHEN THE SCIENTISTS THEMSELVES WOULD NEVER DO THAT AND DON'T DO THAT.

THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, THE -- WELL, SEE, THEY WANT TO TRY TO STRUCTURE WHAT MR. MATHESON'S OPINION IS GOING TO BE AND WHAT HE BASES THAT OPINION ON. THAT'S FOR THE EXPERT TO DECIDE. THAT'S NOT REALLY A LEGAL ISSUE. IT IS A SCIENTIFIC ONE. WHAT THEY WANT -- WHY ARE THEY SO UPSET ABOUT THIS? BECAUSE THIS ALMOST CONCLUSIVELY PROVES THAT OUR THEORY IS RIGHT AND THEIRS IS WRONG BECAUSE THE MERE FACT THAT THESE ARE INCONCLUSIVE B'S OR BA'S SHOWS THAT THERE'S DEGRADATION, WHICH IS THE VERY THING THAT WE WANT TO SHOW. SO SAYING IT'S INCONCLUSIVE, THAT DOESN'T SHOW ANYTHING. IT DOESN'T DEMONSTRATE --

THE COURT: WHEN DO YOU PLAN ON USING THIS?

MR. GOLDBERG: WHAT?

THE COURT: WHEN DO YOU PLAN ON USING THIS BOARD?

MR. GOLDBERG: THIS WILL BE USED WITH MR. MATHESON WHICH WILL BE TOWARDS THE VERY TAIL END OF MY PORTION OF THE EVIDENCE THAT I'M PRESENTING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'LL THINK ABOUT THIS ONE THEN.

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, COULD I FINISH?

THE COURT: WE'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO GET TO MR. FUNG -- THROUGH MR. FUNG THIS WEEK I SUSPECT.

MR. NEUFELD: MR. MATHESON.

THE COURT: WHO'S FIRST?

MR. GOLDBERG: MR. FUNG. WELL, I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE THEY'VE NEVER GIVEN ME CLEAR INDICATION OF OF HOW LONG THEY FEEL IT'S GOING TO TAKE ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. BUT OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD LIKE THE PROBLEM RESOLVED, YOUR HONOR, AND WE FEEL VERY, VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO GIVE MISS CLARK THE OPPORTUNITY IN HER CLOSING ARGUMENT TO STAND BEFORE THE JURY AND SAY, LOOK, WE CAN SHOW YOU WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE SCENE AND WE CAN SHOW YOU THAT THE BLOOD UNDER HER FINGERNAILS DEGRADED. IT'S THE ONLY COMMON SENSE, LOGICAL EXPLANATION.

THE COURT: MY INCLINATION, MR. GOLDBERG, IS TO WAIT UNTIL I HEAR MR. MATHESON'S TESTIMONY.

MR. GOLDBERG: IN A PRETRIAL TYPE, OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY?

THE COURT: RIGHT. DO YOU INTEND ON USING THIS IN FRONT OF THE JURY?

MR. GOLDBERG: WITH MR. MATHESON ONLY.

THE COURT: YES.

MR. GOLDBERG: WITH MR. MATHESON ONLY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S PROCEED WITH MR. FUNG, I UNDERSTAND IS YOUR NEXT WITNESS.

MR. NEUFELD: FINALLY, YOUR HONOR, THE ONLY OTHER OBJECTION WE HAVE AT THIS TIME ON THE BOARDS IS, THERE'S A SERIES OF BOARDS WHICH TRY AND REFLECT THE MOVEMENT OF CERTAIN ITEMS OF EVIDENCE BEGINNING ON JUNE 13TH RIGHT THROUGH AUGUST, SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER. AND IT WOULD BE OUR OBJECTION TO DISPLAYING THE BOARD TO THE JURY OR AT LEAST ADMITTING THOSE PORTIONS OF THE BOARD UNTIL A PROPER FOUNDATION IS LAID BY THE PROSECUTOR. IN OTHER WORDS, IF MR. FUNG CAN ONLY TESTIFY ABOUT THE HANDLING OF EVIDENCE ON JUNE 13TH AND JUNE 14TH, THEN THE REST OF THE BOARD WHICH TALKS ABOUT THOSE ITEMS THAT HE COLLECTED BEING SENT OFF IN AUGUST, SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER OR WHENEVER OF THE LABORATORIES, THAT THAT SHOULD NOT BE ON THE BOARD WHEN IT'S SHOWN TO THE JURY AT THAT TIME.

THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL BASIS OF THE OBJECTION. IS THIS LIKE THE PEEKABOO RULE IN THE EVIDENCE CODE? YOUR HONOR, PERHAPS WE CAN SHOW THE COURT THE BOARD THAT COUNSEL IS REFERRING TO. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT IS REMOTELY PREJUDICIAL OR FOR THAT MATTER, EVEN TERRIBLY INTERESTING ABOUT THESE BOARDS. IT IS SIMPLY A WAY OF BEING ABLE TO ESTABLISH SOMETHING THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE EXTREMELY TEDIOUS, BORING AND TIME-CONSUMING AND THIS WAY IS ONLY GOING TO BE SLIGHTLY TEDIOUS, BORING AND TIME-CONSUMING; AND THAT IS WHEN THE EVIDENCE CAME IN AND WHEN IT WENT OUT. AND WE JUST HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS TO DEPICT ALL THE EVIDENCE INDICATING ITS ORIGINAL PACKAGING, WHEN IT WAS RECEIVED AND THE TRANSMITTAL ENVELOPES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'M LOOKING AT A LARGE DISPLAY BOARD ENTITLED "LAPD EVIDENCE DISPOSITION SUMMARY."

MR. GOLDBERG: THIS BOARD IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE TESTIFIED TO IN PART BY A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WITNESSES INCLUDING MR. FUNG AND MISS MAZZOLA WOULD BE TESTIFYING MOSTLY TO THE ITEMS OR EXCLUSIVELY TO ITEMS IN THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THE COLUMN NEXT TO THEIR NAMES. THEN MR. MATHESON WOULD BE TESTIFYING TO CERTAIN ITEMS. MR. YAMAUCHI WOULD BE TESTIFYING TO MOSTLY TO ITEMS IN THE CELLMARK, DOJ AND FBI COLUMNS, WHICH WERE THE ONES THAT HE PREPARED, AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY WHEN THE WITNESSES COME IN FROM THOSE LABORATORIES, THEY WILL BE TESTIFYING OFF -- IT'S JUST THIS SORT OF A BOARD THAT IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE FOUNDATION FOR -- THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE TO DO IT. BUT I SEE NO REASON TO COVER UP THOSE PARTS THAT PERTAIN ONLY TO THE WITNESS THAT IS TESTIFYING AT THE GIVEN TIME WHILE WE DO IT. THE JURY CAN'T EVEN SEE WHAT'S ON THE OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS.

MR. NEUFELD: MR. GOLDBERG IS SUGGESTING THERE'S A TEDIOUS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE. ALL WE ARE SIMPLY SAYING IS THAT UNDER THE LAWS OF CALIFORNIA, ONE HAS TO LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION BEFORE EVIDENCE CAN BE INTRODUCED AND EXHIBITED TO THE JURY. AND OBVIOUSLY, MR. FUNG AND MISS MAZZOLA ARE NOT THE WITNESSES WHO CAN LAY THE PROPER FOUNDATION SUGGESTING THIS CONTINUAL CHAIN OF CERTAIN ITEMS TO THESE OTHER LABORATORIES. AS YOUR HONOR IS WELL AWARE, THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO VIGOROUSLY CHALLENGE THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN THIS CASE, HAS SO IN PRIOR PROCEEDINGS AND WILL CONTINUE TO DURING THIS TRIAL. AND THIS EXHIBIT MAKES IT ALL SEEM LIKE IT HAPPENED IN A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD FASHION, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE INITIAL WITNESSES ARE NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY TO THE SUBSEQUENT CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN TRANSFER OF VARIOUS ITEMS AT A TIME AND PLACE WHERE THEY WEREN'T INVOLVED.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED AT THIS TIME. PROSECUTION CAN USE THIS EXHIBIT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WILL BE A MOTION TO STRIKE IF THEY DON'T TIE IT ALL UP AT THE END OF -- CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE ADDRESS ONE MORE ISSUE UNLESS COUNSEL HAS OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE BOARDS?

THE COURT: NO. HE SAT DOWN, SO I ASSUME THAT MEANS NO.

MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY.

THE COURT: AND ALSO, BEFORE WE START WITH THIS NEW PHASE, MR. SHAPIRO AND MISS CLARK, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU INTRODUCE OR REINTRODUCE TO THE JURY THE NEW MEMBERS OF THE TEAMS SO TO SPEAK SITTING AT COUNSEL TABLE SO THAT THEY KNOW WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEIR PURPOSE IS FOR BEING HERE.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: THANK YOU. ONE OF THE WITNESSES THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE CALLING IS COLIN YAMAUCHI WHO DID SOME TESTING IN THIS CASE ON THE 14TH AND 15TH AND ALSO SOME CONVENTIONAL TESTING LATER IN JUNE, AND IN ADDITION, IS ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY THE WITNESS THAT WILL TESTIFY TO THE BULK OF THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN TERMS OF PACKAGING ITEMS FOR THE PURPOSES OF BEING SHIPPED OUT TO CERTAIN OTHER -- CERTAIN LABORATORIES WITH ONLY A FEW EXCEPTIONS. WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS, WE WOULD LIKE TO DIVIDE HIS TESTIMONY UP, AS I'VE DISCUSSED WITH COUNSEL ON FRIDAY, INTO TWO PARTS AND CALL HIM ONCE DURING THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY PORTION OF THE CASE AND THEN AGAIN LATER ON TO DISCUSS HIS DNA RESULTS THAT OCCURRED ON THE 14TH AND 15TH. THE WAY THAT I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WORKING, AND I DISCUSSED THIS PROPOSAL WITH COUNSEL, WAS, MR. YAMAUCHI WOULD TESTIFY THAT ON THE 14TH OF JUNE, HE WENT INTO THE EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT -- EXCUSE ME -- THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM WHERE THE EVIDENCE WAS LOCATED AND HE TOOK CERTAIN SAMPLINGS OF THAT EVIDENCE AND THEN TOOK THAT EVIDENCE TO THE SEROLOGY LABORATORY TO BEGIN HIS ANALYSIS. HIS DIRECT EXAMINATION WOULD EFFECTIVELY THEN END AT THAT POINT AND THEN SKIP TO THE 15TH WHEN HE TOOK AN ADDITIONAL SET OF SAMPLES, DESCRIBED HOW HE SAMPLED THEM, WALKED THEM UP TO THE LABORATORY DOOR IN EFFECT AND THEN SKIP OVER TO THE NEXT RELEVANT POINT IN HIS TESTIMONY WITH THOSE TWO SPOTS, THE BLANK SPOTS SO TO SPEAK INVOLVING THE ACTUAL TESTING TO BE PRESENTED LATER. SO WE WOULD ASK THE COURT'S PERMISSION TO ALLOW US TO DO THAT. I'M NOT SURE WHETHER COUNSEL OBJECTS TO THAT. AND IF THE COURT IS INCLINED TO ALLOW US TO DO THAT, AND I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY THE COURT WOULDN'T BE, THERE IS ANOTHER ISSUE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER A CERTAIN --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS WHEN WE HAVE MR. YAMAUCHI TESTIFY. I'VE HAD THE JURY SITTING BACK HERE NOW FOR ALMOST TWO HOURS AND THIS IS SOMETHING WE DON'T NEED TO DECIDE RIGHT NOW.

MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS.

MR. HARMON: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS -- 15 SECONDS, IF I COULD.

THE COURT: DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH MR. FUNG?

MR. HARMON: NO. YOUR HONOR. NO? SAVE ME A MINUTE THIS AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE'VE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: MY APOLOGIES TO YOU FOR HAVING KEPT YOU SO LONG. AS I INDICATED TO YOU LAST WEEK, WE ARE GOING TO NOW CHANGE THE FOCUS OF THE CASE TO THE ACTUAL COLLECTION AND TESTING OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. AND I INDICATED TO YOU THERE WERE A NUMBER OF PRELIMINARY ISSUES THAT I HAD TO DETERMINE TO SEE WHAT EVIDENCE WAS GOING TO BE PRESENTED TO YOU, AND JUST FOR AN EXAMPLE, THIS MORNING, I'VE TAKEN SIX PAGES OF NOTES JUST ON THE HEARINGS THAT WE'VE HAD TODAY. SO WE'VE BEEN HARD AT WORK SINCE 8:30 THIS MORNING AND I JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT WE KNOW THAT YOU'RE BACK THERE WAITING FOR US. WE HAVE SOME NEW ATTORNEYS PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM FOR THIS PHASE OF THE TRIAL. AND, MISS CLARK, LET ME START WITH YOU. DO YOU WISH TO INTRODUCE THE MEMBERS OF YOUR TEAM WHO WILL BE PRESENTING THIS EVIDENCE?

MS. CLARK: YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

MS. CLARK: I'VE INTRODUCED THESE MEMBERS OF THE TEAM AT THE TIME OF OUR OPENING STATEMENT, BUT IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE THEN. YOU'VE PROBABLY FORGOTTEN. THIS IS MR. HANK GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: GOOD MORNING.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

MS. CLARK: AND THIS IS MR. WOODY CLARKE.

MR. CLARKE: GOOD MORNING.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

MS. CLARK: AND THIS IS MR. ROCK HARMON.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

MS. CLARK: THESE GENTLEMEN WILL BE PRESENTING THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, THE COLLECTION OF IT AND THE ANALYSIS OF IT BOTH FOR CONVENTIONAL SEROLOGY AND FOR THE ANALYSIS OF DNA.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, MISS CLARK. MR. SHAPIRO.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

MR. SHAPIRO: WE HAVE THREE LAWYERS WHO WILL BE ASSISTING US IN THIS PHASE OF THE EVIDENCE, MR. PETER NEUFELD, WHO HAS BEEN WITH US SINCE THE BEGINNING BUT IS MAKING HIS FIRST APPEARANCE BEFORE THE JURY.

MR. NEUFELD: GOOD MORNING.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

MR. SHAPIRO: MR. BARRY SCHECK, WHO HAS ALSO BEEN WITH US FROM THE BEGINNING AND MAKING HIS FIRST APPEARANCE HERE.

MR. SCHECK: GOOD MORNING.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

MR. SHAPIRO: AND MR. ROBERT BLASIER WHO HAS BEEN A MEMBER OF OUR TEAM AND WILL BE AIDING IN THE PRESENCE OF EVIDENCE AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES.

MR. BLASIER: GOOD MORNING.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE'S NEXT WITNESS.

MR. GOLDBERG: PEOPLE CALL DENNIS FUNG TO THE STAND.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DENNIS FUNG, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

THE CLERK: RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE. 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: MY NAME IS DENNIS FUNG, D-E-N-N-I-S F-U-N-G.

THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG:

Q: GOOD MORNING, MR. FUNG. WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION AND YOUR ASSIGNMENT?

A: I AM A CRIMINALIST EMPLOYED BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT. I'M ASSIGNED TO THE FIREARMS ANALYSIS UNIT OF THE SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION.

Q: AND THAT'S FOR THE LAPD?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WERE YOU SO EMPLOYED ON JUNE THE 13TH OF 1994?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: SIR, ON JUNE THE 13TH OF 1994, WERE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECTING CERTAIN EVIDENCE AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM AND 875 BUNDY IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES?

A: YES.

Q: AND LATER ON JUNE THE 14TH, WERE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECTING CERTAIN EVIDENCE IN A BRONCO THAT HAD BEEN IMPOUNDED FROM THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, BEFORE GETTING INTO THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE. FIRST OF ALL, YOU SAID YOU WERE A CRIMINALIST?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT IS A CRIMINALIST, SIR?

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

Q: AND IS A CRIMINALIST SOMEONE THAT IS INVOLVED IN THE AREA OF FORENSIC SCIENCES?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT DOES THAT TERM "FORENSIC SCIENCES" INCLUDE?

A: THE FORENSICS OR FORENSIC SCIENCES IS THE DISCIPLINE THAT EMPLOYS OR USES NATURAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES SUCH AS CHEMISTRY, BIOLOGY, PHYSICS AND JUST ABOUT ANY OTHER SCIENCE YOU CAN THINK OF TO DETERMINE ISSUES RELATED TO A COURT OF LAW.

Q: SO IT'S BASICALLY A BROAD GROUP OF DIFFERENT KIND OF SCIENCES THAT ARE BROUGHT TO BEAR TO RESOLVE ISSUES REGARDING EVIDENCE IN A COURTROOM?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IN ORDER TO BECOME A CRIMINALIST, DID YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME FORMAL EDUCATION?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WHERE -- WHERE DID THAT TAKE PLACE?

A: I RECEIVED A BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN CRIMINALISTICS FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY AT LONG BEACH.

Q: SO IT'S A FOUR-YEAR DEGREE?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU RECEIVE ANY OTHER BACHELOR'S DEGREE AT THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH?

A: YES, I DID. I ALSO RECEIVED A BACHELOR OF ARTS DEGREE IN CHEMISTRY FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY AT LONG BEACH.

Q: AND WHEN WAS THAT?

A: THAT WAS IN 1985.

Q: WHEN YOU WERE GOING THROUGH COLLEGE, PARTICULARLY DURING THE CRIMES -- THE CRIMINALISTICS PORTION OF YOUR FORMAL EDUCATION, DID YOU PROCESS MOCK CRIME SCENES?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHILE YOU WERE GOING TO COLLEGE, DID YOU HAVE ANY INTERNSHIP THAT YOU WENT THROUGH?

A: YES. I DID AN INTERNSHIP AT THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE CRIME LAB.

Q: APPROXIMATELY WHEN WAS THAT?

A: THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY SEPTEMBER OF 1982 TO DECEMBER OF 1982.

Q: OKAY. AND DID THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT IN ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOY CRIMINALISTS?

A: YES, THEY DID.

Q: DID YOU EVER HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY WHEN YOU WERE INTERNING WITH THEM TO GO OUT TO CRIME SCENES AND SEE THE WAY CRIME SCENES WERE PROCESSED?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU WENT OUT TO CRIME SCENES THAT WERE PROCESSED BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT IN ORANGE COUNTY, WERE THEY PROCESSED BY CRIMINALISTS OR DID THEY USE SOME OTHER CATEGORY OF PERSONNEL?

A: THEIR CRIME SCENES THAT WERE NOT HOMICIDES WERE PROCESSED BY FORENSIC SPECIALISTS.

Q: OKAY. IS THAT WHAT THEY CALLED THEM?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT IS A FORENSIC SPECIALIST?

A: A FORENSIC SPECIALIST IS SOMEBODY WHO GOES OUT TO CRIME SCENES AND TAKES PHOTOGRAPHS AND COLLECTS EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS THE EVIDENCE ALSO.

Q: DO THEY HAVE THE SAME FORMAL EDUCATION THAT YOU HAVE IN ORDER TO BECOME A CRIMINALIST?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE THE REQUIREMENTS ARE THE SAME, NO.

Q: OKAY. IS THERE ANY SIMILAR CATEGORY OF PERSON THAT'S EMPLOYED BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. SO LAPD IS USING CRIMINALISTS AT THEIR CRIME SCENES?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, WITHIN THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY HERE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ARE THERE ALSO PEOPLE THAT ARE CALLED EVIDENCE TECHNICIANS?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT ARE THEY?

A: EVIDENCE TECHNICIANS ARE PEOPLE WHO WILL GO OUT TO CRIME SCENES AND COLLECT EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENT THE EVIDENCE ALSO.

Q: OKAY. WHEN YOU WERE ORANGE COUNTY, DID YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE CRIMINALISTS WORKING IN THE LABORATORY SETTING?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU JUST DIDN'T SEE THEM WORKING IN THE FIELD?

A: THAT'S CORRECT. YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IN ADDITION TO THE FORMAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED, HAVE YOU ALSO CONTINUED TO TAKE COURSES RELATED TO THE FIELD OF CRIMINALISTICS SINCE YOU GRADUATED?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: OKAY. AND HAVE YOU TAKEN SEMINARS BY THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF FORENSIC SCIENCES?

A: YES.

Q: AND BY THE -- WHAT IS THAT?

A: THE ACADEMY -- AMERICAN ACADEMY OF FORENSIC SCIENCES IS A PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION OF FORENSIC SCIENCES. THEY DEAL SPECIFICALLY WITH TOPICS RELATED TO MY FIELD.

Q: OKAY. AND HAVE YOU ALSO TAKEN COURSES THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINALISTS?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT IS THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINALISTS?

A: THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINALISTS IS ANOTHER PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION DEALING WITH FORENSIC SCIENCES.

Q: DO YOU HAVE THE CURRICULA VITAE THAT SUMMARIZES YOUR FORMAL EDUCATION AND SOME OF THE COURSES THAT YOU'VE TAKEN SINCE YOU GRADUATED?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND DO YOU HAVE MEMORIZED ALL THE COURSES YOU TOOK AND WHEN YOU TOOK THEM OR WOULD YOU NEED TO REFER TO THAT TO GIVE US SOME MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION?

A: I WOULD HAVE TO REFER TO THEM.

Q: CAN YOU PLEASE DO SO?

A: YES (WITNESS COMPLIES).

Q: SIR, HAVE YOU TAKEN QUITE A FEW COURSES SINCE YOU GRADUATED IN THE AREA OF CRIMINALISTICS?

A: YES.

Q: I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT JUST SELECTED COURSES FROM YOUR CURRICULA VITAE AND HAVE YOU GIVE A LITTLE INFORMATION ABOUT THESE, THE ONES THAT ARE RELEVANT TO CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION. IN 1985, DID YOU TAKE A COURSE IN BLOOD SPATTER INTERPRETATION AT LAPD?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THAT?

A: THAT INVOLVED THE RECOGNITION OF DIFFERENT BLOOD PATTERN INTERPRETATION THAT WE MIGHT FIND OUT AT CRIME SCENES.

Q: LIKE BLOOD DROPS AND BLOOD SPATTERS AND THE LIKE?

A: YES.

Q: AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO CRIMINALISTS LOOK AT THAT KIND OF INFORMATION?

A: CRIMINALISTS WOULD -- A CRIMINALIST WOULD LOOK AT THAT TYPE OF INFORMATION TO DETERMINE THE DIRECTION FROM WHICH A BLOOD WAS TRAVELING OR WHETHER IT WAS MADE BY A GUNSHOT OR MAYBE A SMALLER OR -- EXCUSE ME -- A GUNSHOT OR WAS MADE BY AN OBJECT SWIMMING AND HAVING THE BLOOD FALL OFF OF THAT OBJECT.

Q: OKAY. AND IN FEBRUARY OF 1985, DID YOU TAKE A COURSE IN FORENSIC MICROSCOPY?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT WAS THAT COURSE ABOUT?

A: THAT COURSE DEALT WITH THE TRACE OR TRACE EVIDENCE SUCH AS FIBERS AND MINERALS AND EXPLOSIVES.

Q: OKAY. AND WHAT'S TRACE EVIDENCE?

A: TRACE EVIDENCE IS SMALL PARTICLES OF EVIDENCE SUCH AS HAIR, FIBER, SOIL AND GLASS, THAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE.

Q: WHAT PURPOSE DO CRIMINALISTS LOOK AT TRACE EVIDENCE? IS IT -- ARE YOU COMPARING IT TO SOMETHING, KNOWNS TO UNKNOWNS OR --

A: YES. IT'S COMPARING KNOWNS TO UNKNOWNS OR IDENTIFYING WHAT SOMETHING IS IN CERTAIN OTHER CASES.

Q: OKAY. AND THEN IN 1989, YOU TOOK AN ADVANCED COURSE IN FORENSIC MICROSCOPY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: SO THAT WOULD BE A CONTINUATION OF WHAT WE'VE JUST -- WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED IN TERMS OF LEARNING ABOUT TRACE EVIDENCE?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND THESE KINDS OF COURSES, THE TWO COURSES IN FORENSIC MICROSCOPY, HOW DO THOSE EQUATE WITH THE COLLEGE LEVEL CRIMINALISTICS COURSE?

A: THEY'RE JUST AS RIGOROUS.

Q: SO HOW MANY UNIT EQUIVALENT WOULD YOU SAY, IF YOU CAN GIVE US THAT KIND OF INFORMATION, WOULD THESE COURSES BE TO THE ONES THAT YOU TOOK AT CAL STATE LONG BEACH?

A: FOUR-UNIT CLASS.

Q: HOW MANY?

A: FOUR-UNIT CLASS.

Q: OKAY. AND IN 1987, YOU TOOK A COURSE IN FOOTWEAR IDENTIFICATION?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS THAT COURSE ABOUT?

A: THAT WAS A COURSE TO IDENTIFY SHOEPRINT IMPRESSIONS TO A KNOWN SOURCE. IF -- FOR INSTANCE, IF I HAD A SHOEPRINT AT A CRIME SCENE AND A KNOWN SHOE OR AN UNKNOWN SHOE THAT CAME INTO THE LAB, I WOULD BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THAT SHOE AS HAVING MADE THAT SHOEPRINT.

Q: OR BEING CONSISTENT WITH IT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU ALSO TOOK SOME SEMINARS WITH THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF FORENSIC SCIENCES. ONE OF THOSE WAS IN 1991; IS THAT TRUE?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID THAT PARTICULAR SEMINAR DISCUSS TO YOUR RECOLLECTION CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IN 1990, YOU TOOK A SEMINAR AT THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINALISTS?

A: YES.

Q: DID THAT DISCUSS ANY ASPECT OF CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION TO YOUR RECALL?

A: YES, IT DID.

Q: DO YOU REMEMBER AT ALL WHAT WAS DISCUSSED THERE?

A: IN THE 1991?

Q: 1990.

A: 1990? I BELIEVE THAT WAS ONE THAT WAS INVOLVED WITH THE NIGHT STALKER CASE. THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THAT SEMINAR.

Q: OKAY. AND THEN IN '88, YOU ALSO ATTENDED A CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINALISTS MEETING?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID THAT DISCUSS CRIME SCENE PROCESSING THAT YOU RECALL?

A: YES, IT DID.

Q: NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER MEETINGS THAT YOU ALSO ATTENDED OF EITHER THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OR THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINALISTS THAT WE DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY MENTION BUT THAT ARE LISTED ON YOUR CURRICULA VITAE, DO YOU RECALL ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WHETHER THEY DISCUSSED CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION PARTICULARLY?

A: NO. I DON'T RECALL ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

Q: WHAT KINDS OF THINGS IN GENERAL ARE DISCUSSED AT THESE MEETINGS IN THE SEMINAR PORTIONS?

A: IN THE SEMINARS, ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF EVIDENCE ARE DISCUSSED AS WELL AS LEGAL ISSUES AND SOMETIMES CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION IS ALSO DISCUSSED.

Q: OKAY. AND ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINALISTS?

A: YES, I AM.

Q: AND WHEN DID YOU BECOME A MEMBER?

A: I BECAME A MEMBER IN LATE 1984.

Q: ARE YOU A MEMBER OF ANY OTHER PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS?

A: YES, I AM.

Q: WHICH ONE OR ONES?

A: I AM A MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIATION OF FIREARM AND TOOL MARK EXAMINERS.

Q: HOW MANY YEARS HAVE YOU BEEN A MEMBER OF THAT?

A: SINCE 1992.

Q: NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS SOME OF YOUR ON-THE-JOB EXPERIENCE AT LAPD. FIRST OF ALL, WHEN DID YOU BECOME A CRIMINALIST AT THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: I BECAME A CRIMINALIST IN OCTOBER OF 1984.

Q: AND YOU ALSO LISTED THE VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE LABORATORY THAT YOU'VE BEEN ASSIGNED TO AT VARIOUS TIMES ON YOUR CURRICULA VITAE?

A: YES.

Q: IN 1994 THROUGH '97 -- THROUGH '87 -- EXCUSE ME -- WHERE WERE YOU ASSIGNED?

A: I WAS ASSIGNED TO THE TOXICOLOGY UNIT FROM 1984 TO 1987.

Q: AND WHAT IS TOXICOLOGY?

A: TOXICOLOGY IS THE ANALYSIS OF BIOLOGICAL FLUIDS FOR THE PRESENCE OF TOXINS OR DRUGS.

Q: WHEN YOU SAY BIOLOGICAL FLUIDS, WHAT KINDS OF FLUIDS WERE YOU TYPICALLY ANALYZING?

A: IN OUR LAB, WE TYPICALLY ANALYZE URINE AND BLOOD.

Q: SO YOU WERE DEALING WITH BIOLOGICAL SPECIMENS WHILE YOU WERE AT TOXICOLOGY?

A: YES.

Q: AND WAS THERE ANY TRAINING OR EXPERIENCE THAT YOU FEEL WAS PARTICULARLY RELEVANT IN TERMS OF CRIME SCENE PROCESSING THAT YOU GOT AS A RESULT OF BEING IN TOXICOLOGY?

A: IN TOXICOLOGY, BASIC LABORATORY PRINCIPLES WERE EMPLOYED SUCH AS LABELING, CLEANLINESS, HYGIENE AND THE APPRECIATION FOR THE -- BEING AWARE OF CROSS CONTAMINATION ISSUES.

Q: WHEN YOU SAY CROSS CONTAMINATION, WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

A: THAT REFERS TO MIXING ONE SAMPLE WITH ANOTHER OR CONTAMINATING ONE SAMPLE WITH ANOTHER SAMPLE.

Q: YOU MEAN LIKE ONE BLOOD SAMPLE WITH ANOTHER BLOOD SAMPLE?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND IN 1987 THROUGH '89, YOU WERE ASSIGNED TO TRACE?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU'VE ALREADY DESCRIBED TO US WHAT TRACE EVIDENCE IS?

A: YES.

Q: IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT BEING ASSIGNED TO THE TRACE EVIDENCE SECTION OF THE LABORATORY THAT YOU FEEL WAS RELEVANT IN TERMS OF YOUR EXPERIENCE INVESTIGATING A CRIME SCENE?

A: THE TRACE ANALYSIS UNIT GAVE ME APPRECIATION

FOR WHAT TRACE EVIDENCE CAN DO FOR AN INVESTIGATION SUCH AS HAIR, FIBER AND PAINT. THAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE CAN BE VERY HELPFUL SOMETIMES IN A -- IN AN INVESTIGATION.

Q: DO YOU ALSO HAVE TO BE AWARE OF THE PROPER PACKAGING AND HANDLING OF SPECIMENS?

A: YES.

Q: WOULD THAT ALSO BE TRUE OF TOXICOLOGY, THAT THAT'S IMPORTANT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. WHAT ABOUT CROSS CONTAMINATION OF SAMPLES; IS THAT AN ISSUE IN TRACE?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: OKAY. AND AFTER YOU WERE ASSIGNED TO TRACE, YOU THEN WENT TO FIREARMS?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT WHERE YOU ARE NOW?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT IS YOUR EXACT TITLE POSITION IN THE CRIMINALISTICS LABORATORY?

A: I AM THE CRIMINALIST III ASSIGNED TO THE FIREARMS ANALYSIS UNIT.

Q: OKAY. AND ARE THERE ALSO CRIMINALISTS I'S AND CRIMINALIST II'S?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN DID YOU BECOME A CRIMINALIST III?

A: I BECAME A CRIMINALIST III IN JANUARY OF 1994.

Q: WHAT ARE THE LAPD REQUIREMENTS FOR BECOMING A CRIMINALIST III?

A: THE REQUIREMENTS ARE THREE UNITS OF EXPERTISE IN THE FIELD OF CRIMINALISTICS AND FIVE YEARS ON THE JOB.

Q: WELL, WHEN YOU SAY THREE UNITS OF EXPERTISE, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?

A: THE LAB IS BROKEN UP INTO DIFFERENT SECTIONS AND TO BE A CRIMINALIST III, YOU HAVE TO BE COURT QUALIFIED IN THREE OF THOSE DIFFERENT SECTIONS.

Q: SO IN YOUR CASE, WAS IT TOXICOLOGY, TRACE AND FIREARMS?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND IS THERE ANY TEST THAT'S REQUIRED OR EXAMINATION PROCESS THAT'S REQUIRED IN ORDER TO BECOME A CRIMINALIST III?

A: YES. THERE'S A WRITTEN AND ORAL EXAMINATION GIVEN BY THE LABORATORY.

Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CRIMINALIST III AND A CRIMINALIST I AND CRIMINALIST II?

A: A CRIMINALIST I IS A ENTRY LEVEL POSITION, A CRIMINALIST II IS A JOURNEY LEVEL POSITION AND A CRIMINALIST III IS A LEAD POSITION.

Q: OKAY. SO WHEN YOU FIRST CAME TO THE LABORATORY, YOU'RE A CRIMINALIST I?

A: YES.

Q: ON THE DATE OF JUNE THE 13TH, YOU WERE WORKING WITH ANDREA MAZZOLA?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: AND WAS SHE A CRIMINALIST I?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. IN TERMS OF THE DUTIES OF CRIMINALISTS AT CRIME SCENES, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CRIMINALIST I AND A CRIMINALIST II AND III?

A: A CRIMINALIST I KNOWS THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION. HOWEVER, IN OUR LABORATORY, THEY WILL -- A CRIMINALIST I WILL GO OUT WITH A CRIMINALIST III AND IF ANY DISCRETIONARY CALLS ARE NEEDED TO BE MADE, A CRIMINALIST III WILL MAKE THEM.

Q: OKAY. SO A CRIMINALIST I HAS TO BE PAIRED WITH A CRIMINALIST III AT CRIME SCENES UNDER THE CURRENT POLICIES OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU WERE FIRST STARTING OUT AND YOU WERE A CRIMINALIST I, WAS THAT ALSO TRUE?

A: THE STRUCTURE WAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THEN, BUT I WAS ALWAYS ESCORTED BY EITHER A SUPERVISOR OR A MORE EXPERIENCED CRIMINALIST IN THE LABORATORY.

Q: MEANING SOMEONE II OR HIGHER?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DURING THAT PROCESS WHEN YOU WERE A CRIMINALIST I, WERE YOU RECEIVING ON-THE-JOB EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING THEN FROM THE MORE EXPERIENCED PEOPLE IN TERMS OF HOW TO INVESTIGATE A CRIME SCENE?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. HAVE YOU YOURSELF PARTICIPATED IN ANY TRAINING OTHER THAN IN YOUR CAPACITY AS A CRIMINALIST III SUPERVISING OF A CRIMINALIST I IN TERMS OF CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION OR FORENSICS?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: AND WHERE WAS THAT?

A: I -- AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, I DID A INTERNSHIP WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

Q: NO. I MEAN WHERE YOU WERE DOING THE TRAINING.

A: OH, WHERE WHY I WAS TRAINING?

Q: HAVE YOU DONE ANY TRAINING WITHIN LAPD?

A: YES, I HAVE. I DID -- I WAS A ASSISTANT INSTRUCTOR IN A -- THE VALLEY BUREAU DETECTIVES FOR CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION BACK IN 1989.

Q: WHAT WERE YOU -- WHAT KINDS OF PRINCIPLES WERE YOU COVERING THERE? JUST GENERAL CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION OR WAS IT MORE SPECIFIC?

A: WE COVERED GENERAL THINGS. HOWEVER, BIOLOGICAL FLUID COLLECTION AND THE -- WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THOSE BIOLOGICAL FLUIDS WERE WERE DISCUSSED AS WELL AS SHOEPRINT, FOOTPRINT AND TOOL MARK EXAMINATIONS WERE ALSO DISCUSSED AT THAT.

Q: AND YOU WERE CONDUCTING THIS TRAINING WITH DETECTIVES?

A: THAT TRAINING WAS DONE WITH OTHER CRIMINALISTS FOR DETECTIVES WHO WERE THE STUDENTS.

Q: OKAY. WHY WOULD DETECTIVES BE TAUGHT HOW TO -- WELL, ARE DETECTIVES TAUGHT HOW TO COLLECT A STAIN IN CERTAIN INSTANCES?

A: YES.

Q: WHY IS THAT DONE?

A: IN SOME CASES, DETECTIVES WILL COLLECT THEIR OWN EVIDENCE IN OUR DEPARTMENT.

Q: OKAY. SO THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE COLLECTED BY A CRIMINALIST EVEN IF IT IS BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN ANY OTHER TRAINING WHERE YOU WERE PROVIDING TRAINING TO PEOPLE WITHIN LAPD?

A: YES. I ALSO WAS AN INSTRUCTOR IN THE FORENSIC PRINT SPECIALIST SCHOOL IN 1989.

Q: WHAT WERE YOU TEACHING THEM?

A: I WAS TEACHING FOOTWEAR EVIDENCE, IMPRESSION, CASTING.

Q: OKAY. WHAT ARE THE FORENSIC PRINT SPECIALISTS?

A: THE FORENSIC PRINT SPECIALISTS ARE PEOPLE WHO DO OUR FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS.

Q: ARE THEY PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION?

A: YES, THEY ARE.

Q: ARE THEY ALSO CRIMINALISTS?

A: NO, THEY ARE NOT.

Q: OKAY. SO WHAT IS THEIR BACKGROUND?

A: THEIR BACKGROUND IS SEVERAL YEARS IN THE -- WORKING WITH FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS IN THE IDENTIFICATION SECTION AND THEN THEY GO THROUGH A TRAINING PROGRAM WITHIN SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION.

Q: OKAY. APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY CRIME SCENES WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOU'VE INVESTIGATED OVER THE COURSE OF YOUR CAREER?

A: OVER THE COURSE OF MY CAREER, I'VE INVESTIGATED APPROXIMATELY 500 CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATIONS.

Q: OKAY. AND APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY TIMES WOULD YOU SAY YOU'VE QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT IN COURT TESTIFYING ABOUT CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION?

A: APPROXIMATELY 20 TIMES.

Q: NOW, WE'VE BEEN USING THE TERM "CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION." DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU'RE INTERVIEWING WITNESSES AND LOOKING FOR EYEWITNESSES AND THE LIKE AND WHAT DOES THAT ALL INCLUDE?

A: THE CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION IN -- AS IT PERTAINS TO A CRIMINALIST INVOLVES THE IDENTIFICATION AND DOCUMENTATION IN GATHERING OF EVIDENCE.

Q: OKAY. SO YOU'RE STRICTLY DEALING WITH THE EVIDENCE PORTION OF THE CASE?

A: YES. YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IN GENERAL, WHEN YOU'RE WORKING AT A CRIME SCENE WITH DETECTIVES AND THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS AT THE CRIME SCENE, WHO IS IN CHARGE BETWEEN THE CRIMINALIST AND THE DETECTIVE REGARDING THE COLLECTION OF THE EVIDENCE?

A: THE DETECTIVE IS IN CHARGE OF THE CRIME SCENE.

Q: SO HOW DOES THAT WORK?

A: THE DETECTIVE WILL TELL THE CRIMINALIST THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE -- OR WHAT HE KNOWS ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CRIME AND POINT OUT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE HE FEELS ARE SIGNIFICANT TO HIS INVESTIGATION.

Q: DOES THE CRIMINALIST DECIDE, HOWEVER, WHAT TECHNIQUES ARE GOING TO BE USED TO COLLECT THAT EVIDENCE?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WAS THAT THE CASE WITH RESPECT TO THE ROCKINGHAM CRIME SCENE IN THIS CASE?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: WHAT ABOUT THE BUNDY LOCATION?

A: SAME FOR THE BUNDY LOCATION ALSO.

Q: OKAY. NOW, AS A CRIMINALIST, DO YOU HAVE SOME DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHAT TO COLLECT AND WHAT NOT TO COLLECT?

A: YES.

Q: IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR DANGER IN TERMS OF COLLECTING TOO LITTLE EVIDENCE?

A: YES, THERE IS.

Q: WHAT IS THAT?

A: IF TOO LITTLE EVIDENCE IS COLLECTED, A GOOD REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF WHAT HAPPENED MAY NOT BE UNCOVERED AND CERTAIN ITEMS WHICH WOULD EITHER EXONERATE OR PROVE SOMEBODY'S GUILT COULD BE MISSED.

Q: IS THERE ANY PROBLEM WITH COLLECTING TOO MUCH EVIDENCE?

A: THERE IS SOME PROBLEM IN THAT IF EVERYTHING WAS COLLECTED AT A CRIME SCENE IN EVERY CASE, THERE WOULDN'T -- WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH ROOM TO STORE ALL THE EVIDENCE.

Q: WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO INUNDATE THE LABORATORY WITH EVIDENCE TO COLLECT -- I MEAN TO ANALYZE AND TO LOOK OVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER IT SHOULD BE ANALYZED?

A: THAT'S A POSSIBILITY ALSO, YES.

Q: SO DO YOU HAVE TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS BASED UPON YOUR BACKGROUND AND COMMON SENSE AS TO WHAT TO TAKE AND WHAT NOT TO TAKE?

A: YES.

Q: IN TERMS OF MAKING THAT KIND OF A DECISION, HOW DO YOU GO ABOUT DOING IT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE, PARTICULARLY BLOOD?

A: WITH BLOOD EVIDENCE, I WILL TRY TO COLLECT A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE, AND FACTORS THAT GO INTO MAKING OR DETERMINING WHAT IS REPRESENTATIVE ARE THE LOCATION OF THE BIOLOGICAL SAMPLE, THE QUALITY OF IT AND THE QUANTITY OF IT.

Q: OKAY. WELL, LET'S BREAK THAT DOWN. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY LOCATION?

A: BY LOCATION, I MEAN WHERE IT IS IN RELATION TO WHERE THE CRIME OCCURRED. IF THERE WAS A BLOODSTAIN, FOR INSTANCE, THREE MILES AWAY AND THEY THEN -- THAT WOULD BE A LESS SIGNIFICANT STAIN IF IT WAS NOT -- IF IT CANNOT BE RELATED BACK TO THE CRIME.

Q: OKAY. SO YOU'RE TRYING TO LOOK FOR STAINS THAT WOULD APPEAR TO BE MORE RELEVANT THAN OTHER STAINS WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT