|
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS, VS. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jury.) THE COURT: Juror number 206 requests December 19 and January 7 off as religious holidays. The Court will grant it. THE CLERK: Is the order -- request sealed? MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I -- you said, Judge, January 6? No? THE CLERK: 7th. THE COURT: January 7, December 19. MR. BAKER: We'll be dark? THE COURT: Yes. We can't proceed. MR. PETROCELLI: Are we in session on the 6th of January? THE COURT: I hope to be. Okay. The Court at this time will address the objection and motion to preclude the testimony of witness Nancy Ney. First of all, what is the nature of the evidence that is being offered? MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, it's set forth in the -- THE COURT: I know what that -- is this a tape or. . . MR. GELBLUM: No, it's a live witness. It's a live witness supported by corroborated -- corroborated by documents, notes that she made at the time. It's primarily live testimony; the documents are just corroboration. THE COURT: What is the specific purpose for which plaintiffs seek to offer this testimony? MR. GELBLUM: To demonstrate the victim, Nicole Brown Simpson's, state of mind. This is five days -- THE COURT: State of mind as to what? MR. GELBLUM: As to her fear of the defendant and the state of her relationship with the defendant, which is really the heart of the case. It goes to the motive of defendant to commit these crimes. Our theory of the case, Your Honor, as you probably know, is that the crimes -- the primary motivation for the crime was retaliation, not rejection, from Ms. Brown's rejection of Mr. Simpson, the termination of the relationship and the rejection, specifically on June 12, as well, after the recital. And her state of mind about the relationship, the state of the relationship, her extreme fear of the defendant, as demonstrated by the phone call with Ms. Ney. It is probative of the fact that she thought he was the one who terminated the relationship and that she would not want to be with him and would want to stay as far away from him as possible. Very much goes to her rejection of him. Mr. Simpson's position is directedly [sic] to the contrary, that he broke up with her, he terminated the relationship, he was happily on another relationship and didn't care about her anymore, had nothing to do with her. I'm sorry. He said that he still loved her, that he was on to another relationship, and that he had put that behind him and was on with his life. And this impeaches that clearly, and really goes to the heart of the motive of the case, as to what's going on in the relationship in these few days before the murders. As the Court in Zack said, antagonism, hostility, enmity in the relationship is highly probative and always relevant. That's exactly what this goes to show. THE COURT: Okay. Defense have anything further they wish to add to your written opposition? MR. BAKER: Well, just a couple things, Your Honor. I don't believe that the state of mind of Nicole Brown Simpson is an issue, nor has it ever been put in issue. It's relevant to the issues in this case, and to the case the Supreme Court said in People versus Ireland. But this is the ultimate, to me, bootstrap argument. They want to attempt, on these hearsay documents, to prove the state of mind of O.J. Simpson by asserting the state of mind of Nicole Brown Simpson on documents that I believe, that if the Court just looks at them on their face, may have some problem relative to their trustworthiness. First of all, the date has been crossed out. Second of all, the -- the second page of the sheet is not filled out, and the third page is a blank page that this woman says she wrote upon. There are contradictions in the first page and the third page of the sheet, but nonetheless, Nicole Brown Simpson is never identified as the caller. They want this Court to extrapolate that there's enough indication in these documents that it was her, and therefore, that this evidence is admissible to prove her state of mind, so we can prove the state of mind of O.J. Simpson. I don't think the law allows that, and that's why we have Evidence Code Section 1200 et seq, and they've been writing -- attempted to ride the Zack case, which doesn't stand for the proposition they used it for. They've attempted to assert that the state of mind was put in evidence by us, when, of course, it was put in evidence by them. And they attempt to use, in my view, Your Honor, a bootstrap's approach, saying -- for example, Mr. Kelly, during questioning, testified that Nicole was not afraid of him in June of 1994, so they asked a question, get an answer, and then attempt to say now it's an issue so we can bootstrap in with the -- This hearsay documents and testimony of Nancy Ney. If you have any questions relative to this, I'd be happy to -- to go into detail on -- on where the documents are, in my view -- in my view, are untrustworthy. MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, may I respond briefly? THE COURT: You may. MR. GELBLUM: Putting aside Mr. Simpson's testimony in response to Mr. Kelly's question, which was directly relevant here, he said she was not afraid of him in 1994. Mr. Baker, in his opening -- he was not forced to say anything -- said these words: That on May 22, 1994, which is a crucial date in our -- our scenario, that's the day that she terminated the relationship, he said, quote, 'she was hardly afraid of O.J. Simpson.' He said that on May 22. That's less than two weeks before this conversation where she expresses extreme fear of this man. If this testimony is not allowed in, Mr. Simpson is going to be free to get up there, as Mr. Baker has promised he will, and talk about what a rosey relationship this was; it was a mutual ending of the relationship; there were no problems; there was no fear; there was no hostility; there was no enmity, none of that. It's not true. And this evidence is highly probative of that. Ms. Brown Simpson has been silenced. She cannot come here and rebut that on the stand. This is crucial evidence to dispute and rebut the testimony Mr. Simpson is going to give. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, only briefly. I have to respond, in opening statement to what Mr. Kelly said, and the argument that he made, and that's what we were doing, discussing May 22. The fact that Mr. Gelblum wants to assert how relevant it is, does not get around the hearsay rule and does not get around the fact that she is never identified and does not get around the fact that her state of mind is not an issue in this case. And you can't prove Simpson's state of mind through the state of mind of the decedent. THE COURT: Well, the Court has reread People versus Ortiz, 38 Cal.Ap. 4th 377, and I'm reminded by Mr. Gelblum about the Zack case. I think on that basis, on the basis on which the plaintiff has represented that he is offering the testimony, the Court finds that -- that there is an exception, in view of the Evidence Code, for those purposes, and the objection is overruled. Let's bring the jury in. (The jurors resumed their respective seats.) THE COURT: Good morning. JURORS: Morning. THE COURT: Juror number 206, I received your note and we will adjourn on those days that you requested. That will be December the 19th and January the 7th. JUROR: Thank you. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, can we approach very briefly? THE COURT: Yes. THE COURT REPORTER: With the reporter? MR. LEONARD: Yes. MR. PETROCELLI: The last clip I have is 69 to the top of 73 to which he objects and it starts here and ends here. Maybe the best thing to do is take a quick look at it. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, before you start reading, obviously, I object. THE COURT: You don't even want me to read it? MR. LEONARD: Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. You're the Judge. Go ahead. THE COURT: I'm just wondering why you don't want me to read it. MR. LEONARD: Dont want you to read it? (Pause for the Court to read document.) THE COURT: To where? MR. PETROCELLI: To these next two pages. MR. PETROCELLI: And it ends with this last line right there. (Referring to page 73.) MR. PETROCELLI: The relevance of all of this is to show that Mr. Simpson, who denies striking Nicole, lied to Frank Olson to protect his image and his financial interests, all of which we are proffering to impeach his testimony here on the witness stand, that he didn't hit her in 1989, and then he had motivation to lie. MR. LEONARD: First of all, this is -- this is all going to Mr. Olson's state of mind, number one. THE COURT: Excuse me? MR. LEONARD: Go ahead. THE COURT: For the record, we are discussing pages 69 through line 1 of page 73 of the transcript of Mr. Olson's deposition. MR. LEONARD: Number one. It's going to Olson's state of mind. It has -- it's replete with references to Olson's feelings. I was stunned. I was -- I didn't believe it. I don't think he asked him anything about '89 in here; he asked him about whether he had heard of the '83 -- excuse me -- '93 incidents. There's no foundation that he had ever talked to Simpson about that. There's also a section in here about the photographs. Now, they've shown -- how many times have they shown the photographs? They didn't even show Olson these photographs. They asked him, are you aware of some photographs, and then they're asking him his opinion about whether they were consistent with what Simpson had told him. I think it's -- it's cumulative. What they've already proven, they've already gotten in through Olson, Simpson's version of the event. To the extent that contradicts what other people have said, it's there. They've already played that portion where Simpson said he shoved her. This is -- this is cumulative; it's prejudicial; it's -- it's basically Olson's reaction to this other event he has asked him about. Were you aware that Simpson was excessive by following or stalking Nicole? Okay. There's no foundation that, first of all, that in this case, that that's occurred. Number two, that he ever discussed this with Olson, if there was ever an opportunity for Olson to discuss it. There's no foundation. Finally, again, it's cumulative. It's prejudicial. THE COURT: You're repeating yourself. MR. LEONARD: A little cumulative. MR. KELLY: You're cumulative. MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, the other part I neglected to mention -- Mr. Leonard reminded me -- this also goes to show that Simpson is capable of acting in a certain way, and at the same time, withhold and hide information from people. And this goes to the demeanor case. And maybe some of this is probably the more appropriate response of their demeanor evidence. They're going to put on the fact that he signed autographs and he's acting normal before and after the murders, indicating that he couldn't have possibly committed the murders; he's a guy who worked for him 20 years, who cultivated his image, to say I never saw this side of O.J. Simpson, to prove that there is another side to Simpson that he doesn't show others; that he's perfectly capable of acting in this normal, outgoing, gregarious personality, even when he's under the utmost stress. THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. I don't think Mr. Olson's state of mind is relevant. MR. PETROCELLI: Can I have that without prejudice, if they get into this area in their case? MR. LEONARD: No. MR. PETROCELLI: I'm able to ask, Your Honor, to place some of this testimony on our rebuttal case depending on what they do with demeanor. THE COURT: The reason I am sustaining the objection is because I don't think Mr. Olson's reaction -- and that's all it is, is Mr. Olson's reaction -- that you've evoked in your examination to Mr. Simpson's conduct, I don't think they're relevant. That's like putting Mr. Olson in the jury box. That's -- MR. PETROCELLI: What about the part, like, where he said, like, in 17 years, never ever seen the guy lose his temper? MR. LEONARD: I'll agree to that part only. MR. PETROCELLI: Can I reserve some of this for rebuttal? That's all I'm asking, to revisit it with Your Honor. I won't get into his state-of-mind issues, though, okay. MR. LEONARD: We're going to -- THE COURT: The defense case -- you may make an offer and I'll make a ruling. MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor. (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) MR. LEONARD: Can you remind me what page we left off? MR. PETROCELLI: At the end of the -- yeah, at end of the -- the -- at the end of the day, we left off with the last video clip, and that will conclude our presentation. I think Mr. Leonard has some portions he wants to read in response. We're now obviously referring to the video deposition of Frank Olson. MR. BAKER: I thought you had five or ten minutes. MR. PETROCELLI: No, I've cut it out. MR. LEONARD: Okay. (Portions of the deposition of Frank Olson were read into the record as follows, Mr. Leonard reading the questions and Mr. P. Baker reading the answers.) MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, we will be reading from the same deposition. And obviously, Mr. Baker will be playing the part of Mr. Olson. If you could turn, please, Mr. Baker, to page 38, beginning at line 12. MR. P. BAKER: Okay. MR. LEONARD: (Reading:) Is that the only -- Is that the one and only time you spoke to Nicole about the incident? A. Yes. Q. And you never spoke to Mr. Simpson again about it; is that true? A. No, did not have another conversation. MR. LEONARD: Okay. Over to page 43, line 19. MR. P. BAKER: Okay. Q. And did he describe to you or say anything to you that Nicole had hit him? A. I don't recall the incident -- what he was saying to me was that Nicole was out of control and was damaging his Tiffany lamps and so forth, and she was just out of control. That's -- That's -- and I don't recall him saying whether she hit him or not. MR. LEONARD: Okay. Over to page 53, line 8. MR. P. BAKER: Okay. MR. LEONARD: (Reading:) When he returned to the subject of Nicole, did you let him talk? A. Yes. Q. And he said -- go ahead. I'm sorry. A. And he said essentially the same thing; he was very disappointed that it hadn't worked out; it was obvious that their reconciliation hasn't worked out. Q. Was this a telephone call? A. No, I was with him. Q. Where were you with him? A. I was with him at our golf club here in New Jersey. Q. You remember the date? A. It was sometime in May, end of May. He had come to New York to do a travel agency talk. Q. Would that be the ASTA regional dinner? A. That could be it. Q. Fairly significant event? A. Yes. Even asked to give a speech there. And that was on a Saturday evening, as I recall. Q. In New York City? A. In New York City. And he called me on Monday morning. I did not attend the ASTA meeting. He called me on Monday morning and wanted to get together and asked if my afternoon was free. And I met him and we played golf in the afternoon at our golf club. And then I had a -- Q. Which golf club was that -- was that? A. Arcola, A-R-C-O-L-A. Q. Did you remember the date of that? A. It was the Monday following that Saturday evening ASTA thing that he did. That was in May, I think. Q. So Saturday, 'cause May 14, then, Monday, would have been May 16? A. Yes, yes. Q. Okay. And the two of you played golf together? A. Played with two friends. Q. Who were the two friends? A. A fellow by the name of James Patton, P-A-T-T-O-N, and a Norman Williams. And then following that, we stopped to have -- Patton, myself and O.J. stopped to have -- I had a Diet Coke and O.J. had a beer, and the club was closed that day, except the golf course was open, so we went down the road to a place to have a Coke and we talked for about a half an hour, then he left, went back to New York. Q. The conversation that you had recounted moments before about Nicole, occurred on this day? A. Yes. Q. On what we believe is May 16, on Monday? A. It was the Monday after that Saturday evening, yes. Q. And did this conversation occur with you and Mr. Simpson alone with regard -- was anyone else present? A. Mr. Patton was there in the beginning, but he didn't stay long. Q. And was this at the restaurant? A. It -- this was at the bar at the -- at this restaurant. Q. What was the name of the restaurant? A. I don't recall. It's not on -- I just don't recall. Q. Did Mr. Simpson talk about Nicole at any point in time when Mr. Patton was still there? A. I don't recall. Q. Did Mr. Simpson know Mr. Patton? A. Yes. Q. They were known -- knowing -- known each other for a long time? A. He knew him from playing golf with him at the club. Q. Arcola? A. Arcola. Q. Was this conversation at the bar at the restaurant, the first time that day Mr. Simpson spoke to you about Nicole? A. I don't recall. Q. May he have spoken to you about her while you were playing golf? A. He may have. O.J. always talked to me about Nicole -- Nicole, over all the years. Q. He had spoken to you the night before, on June -- to make arrangements to play on Monday? A. No. He called me Monday morning. Q. Monday morning? A. At the office. Q. And prior to getting the call from Mr. Simpson Monday morning, May 16, had you heard that this reconciliation attempt of his and Nicole's had failed, or did you first come to learn about it that day? A. I didn't know that they had reconciled again the last time, so it was all news to me. I mean, I thought they were still away, apart from each other at the time. Q. Did Mr. Simpson tell you the reasons why the attempted reconciliation had failed -- A. No. Q. -- in his conversation with you on May 16? A. He did not; just said it was over, that their relationship was over. Q. And what was his demeanor, his facial expression, his words, led you to conclude that he was very upset about this? A. I didn't have the impression that he was upset. I had the impression that there was a finality to his relationship. For the first -- first time I had this -- he communicated a finality of the relationship with Nicole, and he was thinking about moving to New York and starting all over again, as opposed to staying in Los Angeles. Q. Now, earlier, you testified that he seemed upset by this development. A. If -- I didn't realize I said that. Q. Yes. Let me follow up on that. When he was relating this to you and conveying the impression that this was final, he did not appear to be happy about it, did he? A. No, no, he wasn't happy about it. I can't say that he was terribly distressed; I can just say that he was -- It was a different kind of emotion that I had seen from O.J. I mean, he was -- O.J. was not his usual outgoing, effusive self. I mean, he was signing autographs for kids and talking, and a mother came up to him about her son had graduated from law school, and he wrote a note out for her, and he did all those things like he normally did, but he was -- he was more melancholy than anything. I mean, it was like a change in his life, you know, that was occurring. Q. Did he indicate to you, Mr. Olson why he was contemplating moving to New York from Los Angeles? A. He just said he wanted to get away from it all. I've forgotten exactly. I told him I thought it was a good idea. MR. LEONARD: Okay. Over to page 61, line 8. Do you remember the last time, prior to the morning of May 16, when you last spoke to Mr. Simpson? A. I recall a conversation on the telephone, where he was obligated to do something for us that he had agreed to do. And it may have been this event. And there was something to do with the family. And he had already obligated himself to do this event, and he was -- he was calling me to -- not to get out of it, but to ask me how to handle -- was there any way he could possibly handle it with the people that he had -- that he had committed to. It may have been this event. But it was about a Hertz event. But there was a family obligation that he wanted to -- that he had fouled up by not recognizing the obligation of one of his children or both of his children, and he was committed to do this, and if there was any way he could -- any way he could -- and was there any way he could get out of it -- get out. Q. Get out of it? A. Get out of our event. And I referred him to the person that had organized the event. Q. Did you tell him that he couldn't get out of it? A. I told him I didn't realize or know what the commitments were, and that he had to talk to the person that organized the event. Q. Who did you refer him to? A. I just don't remember which event it was. Q. Assuming it was the ASTA regional dinner on May 14, does that cause you to remember? A. That -- then it would have been Bill Maloney, who is our Vice-President of Travel Industries Sales. Q. What does ASTA stand for? A. American Society of Travel Agents. Q. Is that the last you heard of the question of whether he could get out of the event? A. Yes. Q. Did anybody in the company come and talk to you about it after that? A. I talked to -- if this was the event, I talked to whoever it was, to find out what occurred. Q. And what did you find out? A. I found out that, whatever event it was, that he was trying to avoid, that it was impossible to get out of. I mean, there were already brochures printed or something, something. There was a lot of -- There was -- it was not easy to unwind it. I think, as I recall, the conversation was between the person and -- if it was Maloney and O.J. -- that if O.J. insisted on getting out of it, they would have released him, but it was very difficult for us as a company. Q. And to your knowledge, O.J. did not insist that he -- A. No, he did not. Whatever explanation was given to him, he accepted his responsibility. Q. And he did not insist that he get out of it? A. Right. MR. LEONARD: That's it, Your Honor. MR. PETROCELLI: Nothing further. MR. GELBLUM: Nancy Ney, Your Honor. MR. BAKER: For the record, I have -- I object under hearsay 352 and the cases cited in the brief. THE COURT: The Court's already ruled. NANCY NEY, called as a witness on behalf of Plantiff, was duly sworn and testified as follows: THE CLERK: 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: And would you please state and spell your name for the record. THE WITNESS: Certainly. My name is Nancy, N-A-N-C-Y, middle initial N, Ney, N-E-Y. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM: Q. Morning, Ms. Ney. A. Morning. Q. Do you have any relationship with an organization called Sojourn House? A. Yes, I do. Q. What is Sojourn House? A. Sojourn House is a -- there's a few different things that Sojourn does. We have a shelter, crisis shelter, that women can come and stay for four weeks when they're in crisis. Q. What kind of crisis? A. Battering. They're battered women and their children. They come, and they get counseling and help, and any kind of help they really need. And it's a safe place, and it's secret. Q. Secret? A. Secret. Q. The location is secret? A. It's a private place, yes. Q. Why is the location secret? A. So that their batterer can't find them. Q. What do you do at Sojourn House? A. One of the things I do is, I work on the hot line. Q. What's the hot line? A. It's 24 hours. There's someone there every hour of the day and night. And women call with -- battered women can call when they're in crisis or with legal problems, medical problems, any problem that might have to do with their battering situation. Q. Are you also on the Board of Directors at Sojourn? A. Yes, I am. Q. Did you work at Sojourn in June of 1994? A. Yes. Q. What did you do there at that time? A. I was working on the hot line. Q. Same thing you described? A. Yes. Q. How often did you work? A. I worked one day a week, a four-hour shift. Q. The time that you worked remain constant, or was it different each week? A. It was constant. Q. What was it? A. It was the 8:00 to 12:00, 8:00 a.m. to 12 p.m. shift, Tuesday mornings. Q. By the way, did you receive any training before you started working as a person -- working on the hot line? A. Yes. Q. What was the training? A. The State of California mandates a 40-hour training for anyone in -- working in domestic violence. Q. What does the training consist of? A. It consists of learning about the psychology of domestic abuse, what goes on in a relationship, the dynamics between the woman and her partner. We learn about children's issues, how children react to domestic violence. We learn about legal issues. Just everything that has to do with domestic violence. Q. Okay. A. And we also have support groups. Q. And you get certified by the state? A. Yes, we get a certificate, and they -- we are then able to work with battered women. Q. You had completed that training before June 7, 1994? A. Yes. Q. Were you answering the phones on the hot line on June 7, 1994? A. I was. Q. That was a Tuesday? A. Yes. Q. Did you receive a call that morning, at about 11 o'clock, from a woman who identified herself as Nicole? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did she give her last name? A. No. Q. Did you ask for it? A. I did not ask. Q. Is that unusual? A. No, it's not unusual. I never ask and they usually never tell. Q. Why is that? A. For confidentiality. MR. BAKER: Objection. Relevance and speculation. THE COURT: Overruled. A. For confidentiality, they don't want their last names known. Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Does this person, this woman who identified herself as Nicole, give you any other information about herself that would help you identify her? A. She did, yes. Q. What did she tell you? A. She told me her age. Q. What did she say? A. When -- I believe at the time was 34. I don't know exactly. But it was in her mid-thirties. Q. Okay. A. She told me that she had -- she was divorced. She told me that she had been married for eight years. She told me that she had two children, a boy and a girl, and I don't remember now the exact ages, but when I heard about the ages of the children, they were the same ages, as I recalled, not right now. I don't remember the ages. But at that point, they were the correct ages; they were under 10. Q. She told you both children were under ten? A. Under ten. Q. Did she say the gender of the children? A. She said she had a boy and a girl. Q. Did she say what part of the city she lived in? A. She said she lived in West L.A. Q. Did she tell you her ethnicity? A. She was Caucasian. Q. Okay. Did she tell you at some point during the call whether she had family in the area? A. She did say she had family in the area, yes. Q. Did she tell you at some point in the conversation whether her ex-husband knew where her family lived? MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to leading, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Did she say anything to you about prior -- I'm sorry. Let me -- I'm getting ahead of myself here. Have you -- have you heard since that date, tape recording of an October 25, 1994, 911 call made by Nicole Brown Simpson? MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. I want to approach on this. THE COURT: Overruled. Denied. A. Yes, I have heard the tape. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this. There is no foundation for any voice analysis. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And was the voice that you heard on that 911 call consistent with the voice that you heard on June 7, 1994 from this woman named Nicole? A. Yes. MR. BAKER: Leading, suggestive. Move to strike. Leading, subjective, no foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Did she say anything about her husband's occupation? A. She didn't mention his occupation specifically. But she does say that he was very high profile and she said that if she told me who he was, I would know. Q. Did she tell you who he was? A. No. Q. I'm sorry, I think I misspoke. You said she was divorced? A. She said she was divorced. Q. It was her ex-husband? A. It was her ex-husband, yes. Q. Now, did she tell you anything about what was prompting her to make this phone call? A. Yes, she did. Q. What did she say? A. She said that she was frightened. MR. BAKER: Again, hearsay, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. She said that she was very frightened. Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Did she say -- did she sound frightened to you? A. She sounded frightened to me, yes. Q. Did she say why she was frightened? A. Yes. Q. What did she tell you? A. She said that her ex-husband had been calling her on the phone. He had been -- during these calls, he would beg her to please come back to him, he needed her, needed her back with him. She said that he had been stalking her. She said that when she went to a restaurant, she would be sitting there and he'd be sitting -- she'd turn around, and he'd be there staring at her. She would go to the market; he'd be there in the next aisle, looking at her. She'd be driving down the street; she'd look in the rearview mirror, he'd be there. And she said this unnerved her and she was very frightened by it. Q. As a result of her telling you that her ex-husband was stalking her, did you ask her any questions about any other activities that her ex-husband had possibly engaged in? A. I had asked her whether he had ever beaten her. Q. And what did she say? A. She said yes. Q. Did she give you any indication about how long the beatings had been going on? A. Well, she didn't say specifically how many years the beatings had been going on, but they'd been going on throughout her marriage. Q. Okay. Did you ask her anything about any threats? A. I did ask, yes. Q. What did you ask? A. I said has he ever threatened you. Q. What -- why did you ask that? A. Because -- well, that's not -- I ask every battered woman that calls; it's a question you ask; it's an important question. Plus, this stalking worried me a lot. Q. Why is that? A. When a man stalks a woman, it's just very serious behavior. It's a red light that you need to pay attention to. Q. Is that something you learned in your training? A. Yes. Q. Did Nicole respond to your question about whether her ex-husband had threatened her? A. She did. Q. What did she say? A. She said that he had told her a few different times that if he ever caught her with another man, he would kill her. Q. Did she express any confusion during this phone call? A. She did, yes. Q. On what subject? A. She was confused because he -- that this -- his behavior so frightened her, that -- MR. BAKER: I'm going to move to strike as nonresponsive and request that the witness be ordered to answer the question, not give her interpretation. MR. GELBLUM: I think she's trying to, Your Honor. MR. BAKER: Well, I request -- THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer. A. She told me that she was -- his behavior frightened her to such an extent that she was considering -- she was asking my opinion, whether I thought it might be safer for her and her children to move back in with him. Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And did you and she discuss that subject? A. We did. Q. Did she express coming to a conclusion before the end of the call? A. By the end of the call, she had come to a conclusion. Q. What did she say? A. Well, after discussing the pros and cons, she came to the conclusion that in the long run, it would not be best for her to move back in. Q. Okay. And the reason, again, she said that, she was wondering about whether she should move back in was what? A. She -- MR. BAKER: Asked and answered. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) How long did the call last, altogether, Ms. Ney? A. I would say about 20 minutes. Q. How did the call end? A. She thanked me for helping her and letting her get out some of her feelings. And she asked me -- told me that she wanted to just think about what we talked about, and could she please call back the following week when I would be there. And I said, sure, call back anytime. Q. Did she ever call back? A. No. Q. Now, did you make some notes during the phone call? A. Yes. Q. Okay. MR. GELBLUM: I'd like to mark as next in order, 2223, a two-page document here. MR. BAKER: I'd like the original to be marked as 2223. MR. GELBLUM: The only problem I have with that, the shelter wants the original back at the conclusion of the case. I don't care. THE COURT: Is there any difference between the original and copies? MR. BAKER: Your Honor, there's going to be -- to be some testimony relative to these documents. THE COURT: Okay. Original marked. (The instrument herein referred to as Two-page document described as a call sheet filled out by Nancy Ney as a result of her telephone call with a woman named Nicole was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2223.) THE WITNESS: These -- Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Can you tell us what Exhibit 2223 is? A. Yes. This is a call sheet that, when every -- each call that comes in must be filled out, each woman that calls. Q. Mr. Baker, I think -- MR. BAKER: I certainly did, sure. Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Is Exhibit 2223 the call sheet that you filled out during your call with Nicole? A. Yes, it is. Q. The copy you have there is two pages, is the original -- this is the original the two-sided -- A. Right -- yes. Q. The top left entry is the date. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And the date you wrote down originally was May 7; is that correct? A. I did. Q. And was that the correct date? A. It was not the correct date. Q. How did you determine what the correct date was? A. Because I was not there May 7, number one. Number two, after I heard about the murders, I thought that this -- the details sounded rather familiar to me, and I went back the next Tuesday I was in and I found my sheet in with the June sheets. And I just, you know, 'cause it was the first Tuesday I was there in June, I just was automatically writing the month before, the five, and, you know, like you do in your checkbook, the first of the month. Q. After you -- You, as you just said, you learned about the murders, you thought this sounded familiar. Did you also make some additional notes shortly after that about the phone call? A. Yes. Q. I'll show you the original of these notes which we'll mark as 2224. (The instrument herein referred to as Handwritten notes of Nancy Ney was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2224.) Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Those are notes you made? A. Yes. Q. Why did you make those notes? A. Actually, I think at this point -- that was about two weeks after the murder, and I had already contacted the police department and they were going to be calling me back. And I thought that just for -- just so that I could preserve my own memory, since memories do tend to fade over time, details, that I would just write down a few little details just to jog my memory so I'd remember. MR. GELBLUM: I have no further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Cross. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER: Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Ms. Ney, you -- you testified yesterday in Orange County? MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, objection. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) -- in the custody hearing -- MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) -- of Mr. O.J. Simpson -- MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me. MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) -- did you not? MR. GELBLUM: He knows this is out of line. THE COURT: The fact that she testified, you may answer yes or no. Contents of the objection sustained. A. I did testify. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And Mr. Simpson was present at those hearings? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) At those hearings? MR. PETROCELLI: This is for the benefit of the jury -- THE COURT: Sustained. MR. PETROCELLI: -- to the question. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You talked to Natasha Roit. MR. GELBLUM: This is the same subject matter. Counsel has been cautioned to stay away from this area. THE COURT: Excuse me. Is this -- you're asking about her testimony? MR. BAKER: I'm talking about her preparation in talking to the lawyer who's representing the Simpson -- estate of Nicole Brown Simpson and the custody hearing. THE COURT: This is -- not in the trial process. Objection overruled. MR. BAKER: Relative to her preparation? THE COURT: If this was not part of her testimony or examination at the other trial, then the objection is overruled. MR. BAKER: Okay. I'm sorry. I apologize. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You talked to Natasha Roit before you testified in the custody hearings relative to Mr. Simpson's children, did you not? A. Yes. Q. How long did you talk to her? A. Do you mean on the phone or -- Q. At any -- A. The whole time, I would say no more than 20 minutes. Q. And did you go over the -- the forms that you have before you now? A. No. Q. And then you talked to Mr. Gelblum how long? A. Maybe half an hour. Q. Now, as I understand it, you're on the Board of Directors of the Sojourn House, correct? A. Yes. Q. As I understand it, the -- the form that we have here -- is this 2223? This was the form that was filled out by you, you say, on June 7, 1994, right? A. Correct. MR. BAKER: And, Phil, you want to put this on the Elmo. (Exhibit 2223 displayed on the Elmo.) MR. BAKER: Can you focus that up for me, please, if you can. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now -- now, on this form, this -- you say asked -- to ask -- has to be filled out every time there is a call that comes in, right? A. Right. Q. Okay. And on this form, that -- that form -- you have the original in front of you, do you not? A. Um-hum. Yes, I do. Q. That was filled out in ball-point pen, was it not? A. Yes. Q. And the 5-17 -- 5-7 was part of the original form, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you crossed that out sometime subsequently and wrote in, in a different pen, the "6," did you not? A. I didn't cross it out. I mean, I was not the one who did that. Q. So someone else did that? A. Yes. Q. And what's the -- what's the notation next to the 6? A. I think -- oh, it's CD. That's the woman -- one woman who does these statistics in the shelter, Cynthia Davis. Q. You, in the ethnicity, you testified here this morning, that was Caucasian, right? A. Right. Q. You didn't circle anything relative to the ethnicity, did you? A. No, I didn't. Q. Now, you said that the victim's age was mid-thirties, did you not? A. I did. Q. You didn't put anything in there relative to mid-thirties, did you? A. No. Q. And nothing in the subsequent, two-week later notes have anything about age in them either, do they? A. No. Q. And by the way, by the time you filled out the -- the notes that were two weeks later, you had read about the murders; you had seen the media barrage about the murders, correct? A. I suppose so, sure. Q. And when you say you had heard about the ages of the children, you remember testifying -- A. Yes um-hum. Q. -- earlier this morning? A. Yes. Q. You heard about the ages in the newspaper, didn't you? A. Yes. But can I answer? Q. You've answered the question. Let's go on up. I want to show you some more of the forms that you filled out. Now, down here, on -- pull it up, please, where it says (indicating to Elmo) abuser and length of relationship. A. Um-hum. Q. Now, length of relationship is right next to length of marriage, isn't it? A. Right. Q. The length of the relationship of Nicole Brown Simpson and O.J. Simpson, in 1994, was what, 17 years? A. I have no idea. Q. Now, move the form over. And you put -- put nothing relative to married number of years, did you? A. No. Q. And yet you testified that, in fact, they were married eight years, did you not? A. I did testify that -- Q. In fact, in 1994, they hadn't been married eight years, because they were divorced in 1992, they'd been married seven years; isn't that right? A. I guess so. MR. PETROCELLI: That's eight, Your Honor. MR. PETROCELLI: February 1985 to October of 1992. MR. BAKER: Maybe that's new math. In any event, I'll swear Mr. Petrocelli in; we'll put him on the stand. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In any event, Your Honor, the -- you didn't put down one thing about there how long they were married in the form, where it calls for that information, true? A. Wrong place. I put it -- I mean, I was not -- I put it in a spot that I shouldn't have put it in. Q. You were talking to her about the length of the relationship, were you not, in this 20-minute phone call, Ms. Ney? A. We were talking. I had asked -- Q. Can you answer my question? I asked you if you were talking about, at any point in the 20-minute conversation you had with her, the length of the relationship? A. Yes. Q. Yes or no? A. Yes. Q. That's important if you're talking to a person, is it not? A. Absolutely. Q. And the length of the relationship -- whether a person is married or not married, the length of the relationship is far more significant than -- than the length of the actual marriage, is it not? A. She -- Probably. Q. And if, in fact, they've been living together some six, seven, eight years, whatever it was before they were married, and they were together, that's a more significant statistic for the purpose that you were receiving this call than the length of the actual, legal, marital relationship, is it not? A. I had -- well, I had -- Q. Is it not? A. For the purpose of what I was talking to her about? Q. Sure. Talking about with this person whether or not there are acts of violence and -- and whether or not she's in jeopardy, and that relates not only to whether she's physically near the person who may be the batterer, but how long this has been going on, true? A. True. Q. And whether or not there's been an escalating nature of violence, correct? A. Yeah. She told me that. Q. Well, we'll get into that. Now, so the length of the relationship, you never put down anyplace, and as far as you're concerned, the length of the relationship being eight years is really the length of the marriage, right? A. In my mind, that was the length of the marriage. Q. Can you -- well -- and you never put down anyplace, the length of the relationship; you just made an error and put down the length of the relationship, eight years, correct? A. Correct. Q. All right. Now, you then go back. Names and ages of children, and you put "2-", correct? A. Yes. Q. Now, that could be the -- the age of one child, could it not? A. It could be, but it wasn't what I -- Q. All right. A. That wasn't it. Q. Now, you never put down the ages of the children, did you? A. No. But I know what the ages are. Q. You knew that the ages of the children had been put in the newspaper from the date of June 13 until whenever you got together with Marcia Clark in August of 1994; isn't that true? A. But that's not -- I -- Q. Can you answer -- A. I remember -- Q. -- my question for a change? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) My question, ma'am, is: You knew the ages of the children from your conversation -- from your looking at the news media before you ever talked to Marcia Clark in August of 1994? A. That's not true. Well, I did know. Where I get the ages of the children are from my recollection of the phone call. Q. And the -- you didn't -- Even in your subsequent notes that you say were done two weeks later, you didn't put the ages of the children in, did you? They're right in front of you. Take a look. A. No. I agree that I didn't. Q. Now, in your form, right on the back of the form is a -- MR. BAKER: Phil, you want to turn it over. MR. P. BAKER: I need the original. You have -- MR. BAKER: I've got the original. Let me take this. You keep the original. THE WITNESS: Okay. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, on the back of the form, right where you flip over on the same sheet of paper you were writing on -- A. Um-hum. Q. -- it says "presenting problem," right? A. Right. Q. And you left that blank, correct? A. Correct. Q. And did you normally fill out only the front page of the form when you were manning the hot lines? A. Very frequently, that would be all that would be filled out. Q. And then you went back two weeks later, you say, and put in what was the presenting problem, correct? A. There's no presenting problem. Q. Well, on your notes, your hand -- A. Oh, yeah, 'cause I remember what she said. Q. So you -- you remembered two weeks later that the presenting problem was this purported stalking and spying on her, right? A. I remembered since the phone call, yes. Q. The purported problem was this stalking and following her around, right? A. Yes. Q. And there's nothing mentioned in here about anything in restaurants, nothing in here, even in your -- in your two-week-later notes about -- A. Well -- Q. -- market, and there's nothing in here about being in the car and seeing you in the -- seeing you in the rearview mirror when driving; you would agree with that? A. I would. Q. And there was, in terms of your particular -- Well, let me ask you this: Right after the -- you publicized this, and said this was Nicole Brown, you got a lot more donations to Sojourn House -- MR. GELBLUM: Assumes facts not in evidence, publicizing this. THE COURT: Sustained. You may ask a question in that regard. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) After you -- By the way, you didn't go meet Marcia Clark until August of 1994; is that correct? A. No, I didn't meet with her until January. Q. 1995? A. Yeah. Q. And you didn't talk to anybody in the D.A.'s office or the LAPD until August of '94, correct? A. Exactly, yes. Q. And you had talked to various people in the media before August of 1994? A. I spoke with nobody in the media. Q. And it wasn't in the media at all, right? A. Not that I know of, no. Q. Now, in terms of your two-week notes, the two-week-old notes, where you say "threatened and confused " -- you see that under number 4? A. Um-hum. Yes, I do. Q. Okay. Now, you -- You, in writing on the front page -- MR. BAKER: Phil, would you go to the first page, right down at the bottom. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) She said under her current needs, she didn't -- you never wrote that she was threatened when you wrote the notes on 5-7 or 6-7, correct? A. Not in this sheet, no, I did not write that. Q. Well, this sheet that we have now on the monitor is the only sheet you wrote contemporaneous with the phone call, correct? A. Correct. Q. You didn't write that she was threatened, did you? A. No. No, I didn't. Q. And the fact if someone is threatened when they're calling in, that's significant to you, is it not? A. Certainly it was. Q. That would be the most significant thing about the caller who was calling in, if in fact they are threatened, would it not be? A. Probably, yes. Q. And if, in fact, somebody related to you that they were threatened, that's something you would want to include in the form, to make it complete, true? A. I suppose -- Well, this form -- Q. Can you answer my question, please. A. Technically, yes. Q. Well, technically. Technically that's something that you want to perpetuate, that this person is, in fact, threatened, and you want to perpetuate it in your notes; isn't that correct? A. This form -- Q. Isn't that correct? If somebody tells you, ma'am, they are threatened, you want to perpetuate it in your notes? A. In hindsight, it should have been written down. Q. Ma'am, I'm talking about when you're doing your job, not talking about hindsight or anything else. I'm talking about you trying to help or -- The purpose of this document is to memorialize what went on and with that call, so if there's a subsequent call or subsequent action, you have a source to go back to; isn't that true? A. That is not the purpose of the form. Q. Now, is it your testimony that she indicated to you that she wondered whether she would be safer to get herself and the kids back together with him? A. She did say that. Q. And -- That appears nowhere on the form, does it, on the form that you wrote contemporaneous with the phone call? A. It doesn't. Q. And is it your testimony that this person who you say identified herself as Nicole, was talking that her children were in danger? A. Yes, she -- yes, she would consider, since she was battered, that her children would be in danger. Q. Now I didn't ask you what you thought she considered; I asked you what she said to you. Did she say to you, ma'am, that it was her belief when she communicated with you, that her children were in danger? A. She didn't say that, not in so many words, no. Q. And you concluded, two weeks after the call, that she was wondering whether it would be safer for herself and the kids to move back in together, right? A. Her -- her -- her concern was her -- Q. No, I asked -- A. -- her safety. Q. Well, you concluded two weeks subsequent to your phone call, that, in fact, this woman had told you that her children were in some sort of danger, correct? A. Exactly. Q. All right. Now -- By the way, did you bring anybody here to watch you testify today? MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Relevance. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You said that the caller had said to you that -- in questions that you were asked this morning by Mr. Gelblum, that if she was with another man, her ex-husband would kill her, correct? A. Correct. Q. Now, that is something that is very, very significant in the line of work that you're in, is it not? A. It is. Q. I mean that is a threat of death to another human being, true? A. True. Q. And that is the most significant thing, according to what you've testified here today, that was told to you in this purported telephone call of June 7, 1994, correct? MR. GELBLUM: Objection, asked and answered. THE COURT: Overruled. A. When she told me about -- Q. (BY MR. BAKER) No, no, no. I asked you about, if in fact, that was the most important thing that was told to you in this 20-minute phone conversation, a threat of death to the caller? A. It was very important, yes. Q. And it does not appear anywhere on either your contemporaneous form or your two week later form, does it? A. Can I explain? Q. Can you answer the question? A. No, it doesn't. Q. And I would take it that, if in fact, she had told you that she had been threatened to be killed, that you might want to report that to some authorities, correct? A. No, I don't do that, we don't do that on the hot line. Q. All right. And did you ever ask her, for example, if she was with another man, since the threat was linked to her being with another man? A. Oh, sure. Q. That doesn't appear anywhere on either your contemporaneous form or your two week later additional form, does it? A. No. MR. BAKER: Thank you. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM: Q. What's the purpose for filling out the form, Ms. Ney? A. The purpose for filling out the form are basically for statistical purposes. Q. Meaning what? A. Well, we don't get our funding unless we write down certain things on the sheet, such as the woman's name and where she lives. Q. Is the purpose of the form to make a record for future calls? A. No, it's not. MR. BAKER: Objection, leading. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Your handwritten notes that you made two weeks later -- A. Um-hum. Q. -- did they say anything about how long Mr. Simpson -- I'm sorry -- how long -- how long Nicole had been married to her ex-husband, her high-profile husband? A. No. Wait a minute. Let me -- I'm sorry. Yes it does. Q. What does it say? A. Just says married 8 years. Q. Okay. Now, why didn't you write down Nicole's report to you that she had been threatened? A. Basically, the reason this form is filled out for statistical purposes only, really. If she had said to me that -- she had told me during the conversation she did not want to come to the shelter. I asked her whether she wanted to come. She said no. As soon as she said no to me -- if a woman says she wants to come to the shelter, this form has to be filled out very -- in great detail. Q. You then ask for the last name? A. I don't -- yeah, if she -- yes, then at that point I would -- she would -- would need to tell me her last name, she would need to tell me a lot more things, but I would need to write down a lot more things. Q. Okay. A. So when a woman calls and has no interest in coming to the shelter, basically this does not need to be filled out in such great detail. I was much more interested, at this point, in speaking to her and seeing what her issues were, and what her problems were, and trying to work with her than to get down the details of the -- just her little details she was telling me. Q. Once she told you she was not interested in coming to the shelter, what was your goal for the rest of the conversation? A. The goal for the rest of the conversation -- MR. BAKER: Objection, irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. A. The goal for the rest of the conversation was to work on her problem and to get her to a place where she could feel comfortable about her decision. I wasn't really concerned at that point on writing down the details. Q. Why not? A. Because it wouldn't have mattered. No one looks at these sheets again. Q. What's done with these sheets for people who are not going to come into the shelter, what is done with these sheets after the call? A. Someone takes them, writes down how many women called or what hours they call, and basically puts them away. They're never seen again. Q. Are they used for grant purposes? A. Yeah, grant, and to get our money every month. We get a certain amount of money from the city and the state. Q. Is the level of detail, the amount of information you put on this form, atypical, not typical of what you usually fill out for a call when a woman is not coming into the shelter? A. Sometimes a lot less is written down, quite frankly. Q. Okay. On the subject of the date -- MR. GELBLUM: Like to mark as next in order -- THE CLERK: 2225. MR. GELBLUM: 2225. MR. FOSTER: 4? THE CLERK: 25 next in order. MR. GELBLUM: Is it 5? 2225. Some calendars. (The instruments herein described as calendars for May 1994 and June 1994 were marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2225.) MR. GELBLUM: May I approach, Your Honor? THE COURT: You may. Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Do you recognize these calendars? A. Yes. Q. What are they? A. Well, they're the schedule of who's going to be on the hot line sessions. Q. Okay. And -- A. The shifts. Q. Is your name -- does your name appear on May 7? A. No. Q. Does your name appear on June 7? A. Yes. Q. What time? A. The 8 to 12 shift. Q. Is that the day that you had this call with Nicole? A. Yes. MR. GELBLUM: I have nothing further. MR. BAKER: Let me see that last calendar, please. (Mr. Gelblum hands exhibit to Mr. Baker.) RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER: Q. As I understand, Mrs. Ney, the hot line sheet, this says first assessment is not terribly relevant to get funded, right? A. No, it's not. Q. And yet it has filled out -- MR. BAKER: Phil, put up the first sheet. (Exhibit 2223 is displayed.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) It has sources to make your job easier, so that you can identify a person and just put in basically a checklist; isn't that correct? A. Correct. Q. And, for example, if someone is calling you and saying that they are -- have been a victim of domestic violence, their age is pretty important, is it not? A. Not necessarily, no. Q. Their ethnicity has no importance either? A. Not particularly. Q. And the details concerning the length of the relationship, that we've already been through? A. Um-hum. Q. And are alcohol or drugs a part of the problem, that's not important either? All you have to do is circle a yes or no, don't you? A. Sometimes I don't ask these questions because there are other things that I find, at the moment, more important, and maybe -- and it could be I even asked her, but I don't remember, I mean I -- just in hindsight, I didn't know that I'd be up here on the stand talking about this, so I guess I -- Q. Okay. But you did know you were going to be up on the stand talking about it when you did your two week memorandum -- A. No, I didn't. Q. Let me finish my question. -- you did the two week memorandum to memorialize the details you testified to in the first examination by Mr. Gelblum, to memorialize the details of the conversation, because you said the memory fades with time, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you didn't include in your memorializing the details, the crucial elements that you're now testifying to either, did you? A. Those were my notes; not for anybody else to look at. I remember the details that I felt were important. I didn't think anybody was going to be looking at these. Q. My question to you, when you wrote out the card in a totally different pen and on a -- not going back and looking at the form or -- strike that. Did you go back and look at the form when you wrote this -- A. No, I didn't. Q. -- memorandum? A. No. Q. And so you were trying, then, to memorialize all the details, because memory fades, and you left out the major details about the phone call, right? A. I was not trying to memorialize all the details. Q. Now, Mr. Gelblum showed you some calendars, and can you tell me how these calendars are filled out and who fills them out? A. There's a woman who's in charge of just that, just calls the volunteers and seeing what shifts they would like to take on which days. Q. And obviously, these have to do with scheduling, right? A. Right. Q. And these don't have anything to do with Mr. O.J. Simpson, do they? A. Not at all. Q. And Mr. O.J. Simpson's name doesn't appear on any of these, does it? A. No. Q. Would you kindly read the top of the July 1994 calendar to the jury. Whose name appears there? MR. GELBLUM: June? Q. (BY MR. BAKER) June 1994, tell them what -- just tell them what name appears on the upper right-hand corner of that calendar. Left. A. Can I read the note or -- Q. Can you just tell us . . . A. O.J. Simpson. O.J. Simpson. Q. Now, is there in that calendar any other name of any other human being that is not connected with Sojourn House? A. No. Q. And that just happened to get on there? A. I have no idea what that's doing there. The only thing I can guess -- Q. I don't want you to guess. A. Okay. Q. Nor does anyone else in this courtroom. You have no idea how my client's name is on the scheduling calendar of June 1994 -- well -- A. I -- well, I do have an idea, yes. Q. You can speculate? A. 'Cause I can read what the note here -- REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. GELBLUM: Q. Would you do that, please. A. It says, "Calls to the hot line R-E O.J. Simpson, no comment." Q. What do you understand that to mean? A. That means if anyone calls the hot line about O.J. Simpson, not to -- to say no comment. This is for everybody. MR. GELBLUM: Thank you. Nothing further. RECROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. BAKER: Q. So as early as sometime in June of 1994, there wouldn't be any calls to the Sojourn House unless you or somebody else had put out this purported call of Nicole Brown Simpson? MR. GELBLUM: Objection, calls for speculation, no foundation. THE COURT: I don't understand the question. MR. GELBLUM: He asked her if -- if somebody else would have any reason to call. How would she know? THE COURT: Overruled. A. I did not say a word to anybody in June. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Didn't ask you whether you said a word to anybody. Maybe my question -- MR. GELBLUM: That's the problem with the question. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I said that was put on that calendar because someone at Sojourn House had publicized what they wanted to publicize as a call from Nicole Brown Simpson, true? MR. GELBLUM: Objection, calls for speculation, assumes facts not in evidence. THE COURT: True. Sustained. No testimony that it was publicized. MR. BAKER: Well, that's circumstantial evidence that it is because -- MR. GELBLUM: Pardon me. MR. BAKER: -- The fact it's on there to deflect calls about O.J. Simpson. THE COURT: Sustained. Jurors to disregard that last comment by Mr. Baker. MR. BAKER: Nothing further, Your Honor. MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further. THE COURT: You may step down. Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. (Recess.) (The notes of the proceedings held in chambers at this point were ordered sealed by the Court, not to be opened, transcribed, or destroyed except upon order of a Judge of the Superior Court.) (The following proceedings were held in chambers, outside the presence of the jury.) MR. BREWER: I want to be on the record. The next witness is a Ronald Fischman being called by the plaintiff. We'd like to question him under 776. This is a witness who is a recalcitrant witness. He's here on subpoena today. In order for him to appear at the deposition he was subpoenaed. He didn't appear. There was an O.S.C. re contempt. He didn't appear for that. There was a body attachment that was issued and, ultimately, we were able to secure his attendance at the deposition. He is a friend of Mr. Simpson, has been for six years. He still is friendly with him today. We feel under those circumstances he's an adverse witness to our side of the case. We should be able to question him using legal questions under 776. MR. PETROCELLI: I would join in that, add 767 permitting him to be questioned as a hostile witness. THE COURT: Okay. You may. MR. BREWER: Thank you. (All parties exit chambers and resume their respective seats at counsel table.) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) MR. GELBLUM: Before the next witness, like to move in Exhibits 2223, 2224 and 2225. THE COURT: All right. (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2223.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2224.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2225.) THE CLERK: 2225. THE COURT REPORTER: Okay. MR. BREWER: Ron Fischman. THE CLERK: The witness is Ron Fischman. (Indicating to bailiff.) RONALD FISCHMAN, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiffs, pursuant Evidence code section 776 and 767, was duly sworn and examined as follows: THE CLERK: 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 your last name for the record. THE WITNESS: Dr. Ronald A., R-o-n-a-l-d A., Fischman, F-i-s-c-h-m-a-n. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BREWER: Q. Good morning, Dr. Fischman. Dr. Fischman, you are a neurologist and an internist; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you know Mr. Simpson, and have known him since 1990, is that true? A. That's correct. Q. And in 1990, you became familiar with the Simpson family, Nicole, O.J. Simpson and their children; is that true? A. Yes. Q. And a relationship developed between the children first, Nicole and your ex-wife Cora Fischman, then you and Mr. Simpson became quite friendly, is that true? A. Yes. Q. And you have remained friendly with him through today, is that true? A. I've -- I see him occasionally when I pick up and drop off the children. Q. When you see him, you talk to him, you have friendly conversation with him, true? A. Brief conversation. Q. And during the time period that you've known Mr. Simpson -- MR. PETROCELLI: Can you speak into the microphone? MR. BREWER: Yes, speak into the microphone. Q. (BY MR. BREWER) During the time period that you've known Mr. Simpson, you've had occasion to go to dinner with he and Nicole, true? A. Yes. Q. And you've had occasion to go over their house and visit; is that true? A. Yes. Q. And you've also had occasion to take vacations with one another; is that true? A. Yes. Q. And in fact, in 1994, you went to the Super Bowl together, true? A. Yes. Q. That was just you and your ex-wife Cora Fischman, Mr. Simpson and Nicole, true? A. Yes. Q. And you also had a vacation together in Hawaii, true? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And over the course of six years, you spent quite a bit of time with Mr. Simpson, vacationing, going to dinner, visiting at their house and so forth, true? MR. LEONARD: Objection, leading, Your Honor. MR. BREWER: You made a ruling in chambers. MR. LEONARD: Okay. THE WITNESS: Could you repeat -- MR. LEONARD: Withdrawn, Your Honor. THE WITNESS: Would you -- could you repeat the question. Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Over the course of the six years that you've known Mr. Simpson, you've had ample occasion to interact with him on vacation, going to dinner, going over to his home, going to events, things of that nature, correct? A. The events that you noted are the ones that existed, yes. Q. Okay. And while Mr. Simpson was incarcerated, you visited him on two occasions, is that true? A. That's correct. Q. Now, Dr. Fischman, focusing for the moment on the two-and-a-half, three-month period before Nicole's murder, April, May and June of 1994, you had occasion to speak with Mr. Simpson concerning his feelings about Nicole during that time frame, true? A. Yes. Q. And you spoke with him both by telephone and in person, regarding his feelings about Nicole during that time frame, true? A. Yes. Q. And the statements -- strike that. Mr. Simpson told you in or about April of 1994 that the relationship with Nicole had become a little bit rocky, true? A. What month was that again? Q. April of 1994. A. Yes, I believe that's true. Q. And Mr. Simpson had telephoned you in that same month when he was in Puerto Rico shooting a film, the film "Frogman," true, or the pilot "Frogman," true? A. Yes. Q. And he had phoned you from Puerto Rico looking for Nicole, is that true? A. I don't recall if he was specifically looking for Nicole. Q. And when Mr. Simpson telephoned you and spoke with you during the month of April, he indicated to you that he was having difficulty communicating to Nicole, true? A. Yes. Q. And he also told you that Nicole wasn't available to him and would not return his calls; he told you that, didn't he, sir? A. He was having difficulty communicating with Nicole, yes. Q. He also told you that Nicole was abrupt and short with him on those occasions when they did have telephone conversations, true? A. Yes. Q. And he also told you that Nicole was being cold -- cold, difficult, short and avoiding him, true? A. She was being difficult to reach, to communicate with, yes. Q. She was being short with him, true? A. On occasions she would be short with him. Q. She was cold and difficult for him to deal with, true? A. It became increasingly more difficult during that time frame, yes. Q. And, Dr. Fischman, Mr. Simpson told you that as a result of this, he felt as though he was being ignored, true? A. I don't recall that statement. MR. LEONARD: Can I just have an objection, vague as to time with this particular conversation. THE COURT: Overruled. I think we're talking about April through June. MR. BREWER: That's correct. A. Yes. I don't recall that specific comment. Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Okay. Sir, you remember having a deposition taken in this case? A. Yes. Q. And you understood at the time of the deposition that you were placed under oath? A. Yes. Q. And you were questioned by Mr. Petrocelli and myself during the course of that deposition? A. Yes. Q. And you understood at the time of that deposition, that the testimony that you provided therein had the same force and effect as the testimony that you're giving today in court in front of this jury, true? A. Yes, sir. Q. Like to read from your deposition testimony -- MR. LEONARD: Object. There's no foundation. He says he doesn't recall. If what he's trying to do is refresh his recollection, I don't have an objection. He said he doesn't recall. THE COURT: You may refresh his recollection. MR. BREWER: Let me put this on the Elmo. (referring to transcript). MR. LEONARD: Can we have the page. MR. BREWER: Page 69, line 10 through 11. MR. LEONARD: Before you put it -- just -- before you put it up, can I have -- MR. BREWER: Yeah. Hold one second. MR. FOSTER: 67? MR. BREWER: 69. MR. LEONARD: Which line? I'm sorry. MR. GELBLUM: 10 to 11. MR.LEONARD: That's part of an answer. You going to read the question? MR. BREWER: Yeah. Put the whole thing on the Elmo. Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Read it, Dr. Fischman, see if it refreshes his recollection. MR. BREWER: You have any objection? MR. LEONARD: (Nods.) MR. BREWER: Okay. (Transcript page is displayed.) MR. LEONARD: I think it would make more sense to put the whole thing in context, but go ahead. Q. (BY MR. BREWER) I'm going to ask, Dr. Fischman, if you could look at the answer, where it says "The Witness." And just for the moment, read that to yourself and see if that refreshes your recollection. And I'll reask the question. (Pause for witness to read transcript.) A. I said that I believe -- it says, "maybe he felt like he was being ignored." I think that accurately reflects my memory of that, yes. Q. And so that refreshes your recollection, that in discussions with Mr. Simpson, that it was your sense based upon those discussions, that he felt as though he was being ignored by Nicole, true? A. To the best of my recollection. Q. Okay. And in your discussions with Mr. Simpson during that same time frame, you felt that -- strike that -- he indicated to you that he was frustrated, true? A. Yes. Q. He indicated to you he was confused, true? A. Yes. Q. And he also indicated to you that he felt Nicole was rejecting him, true? A. I don't recall him using that word, but I'm -- I'm certain he felt that, yeah. Q. Okay. And you -- when you say you're certain he felt that, that's based upon your recollection as you sit here today of conversations you had with O.J. Simpson in the three-month period before Nicole's death, true? A. It's reflective of the combination of statements and conversations we had during that time period, yes. Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Fischman, in June of 1994, you had occasion to have a conversation with Nicole Brown in your kitchen, is that true? A. Yes. Q. And during the course of that conversation, an IRS letter came up? MR. LEONARD: I'm going to object to this as hearsay. MR. BREWER: Spontaneous declaration, state of mind. MR. LEONARD: I ask he not make speaking objections. If we could approach. THE COURT: Approach the bench. (The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.) MR. LEONARD: I assume what Mr. Brewer's trying to elicit is a statement from Nicole Brown Simpson regarding her state of mind about IRS -- the IRS letter from Mr. Simpson. I -- I understand Your Honor's ruling. Don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand it. I don't know how this fits into this state of mind exception as you have articulated in this trial. MR. PETROCELLI: This is a summary I'm showing you, Your Honor, of the testimony on this point. He testified that Nicole was extremely upset and was devastated by this letter, and it provoked an immense amount of anger, and it's critical to the understanding of what was going on in the last week, particularly since Mr. Simpson threatened Nicole and followed through by sending this letter, and this letter was a key event in what led to the final event on the 12th of June, and Nicole's reaction to it, and what happened to the -- between the parties in the ensuing days. MR. LEONARD: How can he say it was a key event? The letter -- I mean the letter is -- at best is a threat -- a financial threat at best. What does that have to do with any potential motive to murder in this case? I don't understand that; I've never understood that. MR. PETROCELLI: Because Nicole disagreed with you, she said how could he do this to the mother of his children, she was forced to leave her home with her children. That's why. MR. LEONARD: Yeah, and that's why -- exactly why you want it in. It has nothing to do with motive of murder. He just wants to smear my guy up with that statement. That's all this is for, that's all it's for. It has no probative value. If it does, the prejudicial value is outweighed. What the hell does that have to -- THE COURT: What are you offering it for? MR. PETROCELLI: Offering it to show the conduct of the parties in the last week leading up to Nicole's death, her state of mind. THE COURT: Conduct of which party? MR. PETROCELLI: The conduct of Nicole Brown Simpson. Her reaction to the letter from Mr. Simpson, what anger and hostility it provoked in her and what she did in rejecting him the remainder of that week, including on June 12, and why she did so. It explains her conduct, which is highly relevant to his motive to kill her. MR. BREWER: And let me add one thing. Because it will also help to explain her subsequent conduct, that I will get into in a moment, at the recital, where there is going to be testimony relative to Mr. Simpson's interaction with Nicole Brown Simpson at the recital. This letter is an integral part of the observations that this witness -- and the attitudes that these people expressed to one another. MR. PETROCELLI: He specifically will testify that, unlike Simpson, that there was a coldness, a chilliness, and no communication at all between Simpson and Nicole, and that Nicole took the kids and whisked them away at the end of the recital. Excuse me, you're sitting on my tie. (Referring to Mr. Leonard's elbow on Mr. Petrocelli's tie on side bar.) MR. LEONARD: I wasn't sitting on anything. Your Honor, this is -- I mean enough is enough. This is an absolute, pure, unadulterated attempt to smear my client. Especially this part about the kids. I mean that's ridiculous. This notion of a motive based upon some speculative concept that she was mad at him and then he got mad at her, I mean, Your Honor, how far are we going to go with this. MR. PETROCELLI: That's for the jury to decide, not you. MR. LEONARD: I agree. But it's also for me to point out to the Court that at some point the probative value becomes so lessened and the prejudicial value is too great, particularly the statement about the kids, that it becomes inappropriate. I really feel very strongly -- MR. BREWER: Not this close to the murders. THE COURT: It appears to the Court that the essential position of the plaintiff is that it's being offered to show Nicole Simpson's state of mind in terms of her relationship with the defendant, which appears to be contrary to the version of the relationship as testified to by Mr. Simpson, and I think, for that reason the Court will allow it. Overruled. (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.) Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Dr. Fischman, I want to direct your attention to a discussion you had with Nicole a week or so before the murders, concerning an IRS letter, in the kitchen, correct? A. Yes. Q. You had such a discussion, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. And she told you about a letter she had received from Mr. Simpson regarding a request on his part that she not list the Rockingham residence as her primary residence, true? A. Yes. MR. LEONARD: May I have a running objection. THE COURT: Yes. MR. LEONARD: Thank you. Q. (BY MR. BREWER) And during the course of this conversation that you had with Nicole, she was angry about the fact that she had received this letter, true? A. Yes, she stated that she was -- it wasn't a conversation, I was listening to her. She was very upset about having received the letter. Q. In fact, she was angrier about receiving this letter -- more angry than she had ever been -- than you had ever seen her since you had known her, true? A. She was extraordinarily angry. Q. And she told you that the reason why she was angry is she couldn't believe Mr. Simpson would do this, to put a wife -- his ex-wife, the mother of his children, and his children out on the street, true? A. That part I don't recall right now. Q. Do you recall testifying at your deposition that Nicole Simpson said to you -- MR. LEONARD: Page and line, please. MR. BREWER: Page 107, lines 4 through 7. Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Do you recall saying that, sir, that she couldn't believe O.J. would do something like that to the mother of his children? A. I believe that's what I said, yes. Q. You said that -- at your deposition, under oath, that's what she said to you in the kitchen during that conversation, true? A. I believe that's what she said, yes. Q. And she also indicated to you that Mr. Simpson was doing this because he was retaliating against her because she ended the relationship, true? A. No, that's not true. Q. She indicated to you that he was doing this to retaliate against her, didn't she, sir? A. No, that's not true. Q. Now, Mr. Fischman, I want to move ahead to the recital. There was a recital held on June 12, 1994, and your daughter was one of the participants in the recital, true? A. Yes. Q. And the recital was to be held between 5 and 6 o'clock that evening; is that correct? A. Approximately, yes. Q. And your wife -- your ex-wife was going to be there; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And you understood that Mr. Simpson and Nicole were going to be there, true? A. I didn't spend my time thinking about it, but yes, when I got there, it was apparent they were going -- both going to be there. Q. Because their daughter was also participating in the same recital, true? A. Yes. Q. When you got there -- you arrived a little bit late, is that true? A. I believe so, yes. Q. And you went into the auditorium and you sat down with your family; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And after you sat down, you turned around and made observations -- or an observation with respect to Mr. Simpson and Nicole, correct? A. Yes. Q. And they were seated at the rear of the theater, is that true? A. Yes. Q. And with respect to the observations that you made of them at that time, you sensed that there was a chill between them, correct? MR. LEONARD: Objection, calls for speculation and lack of foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Well, during the time period that you made observations of them in the theater, did you ever see them speak with one another? A. As I said in my deposition, it was a very chaotic situation with parents and children running all over the place. I turned around and I believe I saw Nicole and O.J. sitting next to each other. I don't recall them having any dialogue or conversation, but it would have been difficult to determine that based on where I was sitting. Q. So, sir, you never saw them embrace in the auditorium, did you? A. Correct. Q. You never saw them kiss, did you? A. No. Q. You never saw either one of them smile, did you? A. I don't recall. Q. In fact, you never even saw them look at one another in that auditorium, true? A. I don't recall. I wasn't in a position to see that as I -- as I've explained. Q. Um-hum. Now, at an intermission, Dr. Fischman, you went out into the lobby and you had a discussion with Mr. Simpson in the lobby; is that correct? A. No. There was no break. I think at one point I got up to stretch and O.J. was out in the lobby also, yes. Q. And you spoke with him for about 5 to 10 minutes; is that correct? A. Something like that. Q. And during that time frame, Mr. Simpson indicated to you that he was tired, true? A. Seemed that he was tired, yes. Q. And in the course of four years, during that time you had seen him tired on other occasions, hadn't you? A. Once or twice I'd seen him. Q. I mean you'd seen him come back from trips where he traveled out of town and come back into town, true? MR. LEONARD: Objection, calls for speculation. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I may have. Q. And during the course of having a conversation with Mr. Simpson in the lobby, what you observed about him is that he appeared to you to be slightly withdrawn, true? A. Yes, he was tired, fatigued, slightly withdrawn. Q. Subdued? A. Yes, somewhat. Q. And in the conversation, the brief conversation that you had with him out in the lobby, you sensed that he was frustrated in that conversation, true? A. No, I don't recall him being frustrated, demonstrating any frustration in that conversation. Q. Okay. A. There was, you know -- again, this was a lobby filled with children running around, it wasn't a one-on-one communication where we were having a heart-to-heart about the specific event or people. MR. BREWER: Move to strike as nonresponsive, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. BREWER: Can I have the deposition. Want to put up for the defense page 296, lines 17 through 25. Would you put that on the Elmo, please. MR. LEONARD: I'm sorry, pages again. MR. BREWER: Page 295 -- 296, I'm sorry. Lines 17 through 25. MR. LEONARD: Can I -- can you hold off for a second, Steve. MR. FOSTER: Sure. MR. LEONARD: Okay. MR. BREWER: Steve, go ahead. (Page 296 from transcript displayed on Elmo.) MR. BREWER: I'm going to start reading here. Go to the next page. Could you go to the next page, please, I'll give you the lines. Okay. Right there. Go back up. Mr. Leonard, lines 5 through 7. Okay. Go back up so I can start at line 17. Q. (BY MR. BREWER) All right. (Reading.) "Q. And he appeared at that point to be slightly withdrawn, is that a fair statement?" MR. BREWER: Your answer. (Reading.) "Yeah. "Q. Did he appear to be upset? "A. No. "Q. Slightly upset? "A. No. "Q. Confused? "A. No." MR. BREWER: There's an objection. (Reading.) "Q. Frustrated?" MR. BREWER: Your answer. (Reading.) "I think he may have shown some frustration in the brief conversation we had in the lobby but not afterwards." Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Were you asked those questions, sir, and did you give that answer? A. Apparently, yes, I did. Q. And that was your answer under oath in the deposition, true? A. Yes. Q. Do you want to change your sworn testimony today, Dr. Fischman? MR. LEONARD: I object. That's argumentative. THE WITNESS: Would you like to clarify it? THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BREWER) No. Just answer my question. Did you want to change the sworn testimony that you provided during the course of your deposition today in front of the jury? A. I would just say that -- Q. That's yes or no, sir? A. I stated that throughout that time O.J. had a degree of frustration with Nicole, yes. Q. And that includes frustration that you sensed during your course of interacting with him at the recital, true? A. You're trying to make it -- Q. True, sir? A. It wasn't. No, it wasn't true. It appeared to me that he may have been frustrated throughout the period. You're trying to highlight that frustration during that evening, and honestly, that's not what I sensed. MR. BREWER: Move to strike as nonresponsive. THE COURT: Stricken. Jury to disregard that answer. Q. (BY MR. BREWER) See if you can answer my question, Dr. Fischman. Do you want to change your sworn testimony that we just read from the deposition transcript that he appeared to be frustrated when you spoke with him at the recital? Do you want to change that in front of this jury here today? MR. LEONARD: Objection, argumentative. A. I believe -- THE COURT: Excuse me. A. I've answered the question. THE COURT: Excuse me. You can answer that yes or no. A. No. Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Now, Dr. Fischman, after you had occasion to speak with Mr. Simpson out in the lobby, you went back in and remained inside the auditorium until about the end of the performance; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And then you all went outside and you gathered outside and you took a photograph of Mr. Simpson at that time, correct? A. Yes, I did. MR. BREWER: Steve, could we have that -- that's 846? MR. FOSTER: 826. MR. BREWER: 826. (Exhibit 826 displayed on Elmo.) Q. (BY MR. BREWER) On the monitor we've had what's been marked and received into evidence as Exhibit 826. Is that a photograph that you took that day after the recital? A. Yes, it is. Q. And can you -- can you tell us how you came to take that photograph? A. At the end of the recital we all withdrew to the courtyard. Sydney had been -- I believe she had the last routine or one of the last routines. When they all broke, we, as I said, went to the courtyard and Sydney came to the courtyard. Shortly thereafter, my wife had requested that I take some pictures, and I did. Q. So this photograph, 826, was taken because your wife had requested that you photograph Mr. Simpson and his daughter Sydney, correct? A. I don't recall whether she specifically asked me to take that picture, or just take pictures as best I could. Q. Well, Mr. Simpson didn't ask you to take a photograph? A. That's right. Correct. Q. It was someone else? A. Yes. Q. Your wife or someone else? A. Yes. Q. True? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And when you took that photograph, that was a posed photograph, that wasn't just a candid shot, true? A. Yes. Q. And by the way, during the course of taking that photograph, or at any time that day, sir, did you ever notice any cuts to any portion of Mr. Simpson's left hand? A. No. Q. Did you ever notice any abrasions to any portion of Mr. Simpson's left hand, either that day or during the course of taking this photograph? A. No. Q. Mr. Simpson is smiling in this photograph, true? A. Yes. Q. That was the first time that you observed him smile that entire day, true? A. I was asked this at the deposition. I was trying to recall whether he smiled in the lobby, and I don't recall. He may have smiled in the lobby when we met earlier. But certainly that was the biggest smile he had during the day, yes. Q. Sir, you were asked to recall a single time that day prior to this photograph, in your deposition, when Mr. Simpson smiled and you couldn't, correct? A. Correct. Q. And the only time that you could recall Mr. Simpson smiling that entire day was when this photograph, this posed photograph was taken following the recital, true? A. That this was -- Q. True? A. He might have smiled. I don't recall. Q. Sir, he might have smiled and he might not. You can't recall one time -- Tell this jury one time that day he even smiled during this joyous occasion until after -- until that photograph was -- photograph was taken, that posed photograph? MR. LEONARD: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. True? A. As I've stated -- Q. Sir, true or false? True? A. Can you repeat the question, please. Q. You can't recall one time during the entire -- the entire recital, this joyous occasion where your children were performing, where Mr. Simpson smiled, except this posed photograph that was taken after the recital? A. At the present time that's true, yes. Q. Now, after everyone is out and you observed Nicole pull up in her vehicle and all of the kids piled into her car, true? A. I honestly don't recall seeing that happen. I believe it did occur though, yes. Q. And the Browns were also getting themselves together and they were all going to leave, true? A. Yes. Q. And Mr. Simpson came out at that time, while everyone was getting themselves together in order to leave the performance, and go their various ways, true? A. Yes. Q. And, in fact, you were going to have dinner that evening with your wife and your family, correct? A. Correct. Q. And at that time -- in fact, why don't we just show the videotape. At this time we're going to show you what's Exhibit 825. (The instrument herein described as a video of the parking area outside of the Paul Revere Middle School was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 825.) (Exhibit 825 displayed on Elmo.) Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Is that you, Dr. Fischman? A. Yes, it is. (Indicating to video.) Q. And is that Lou Brown? A. Yes. Q. And O.J. Simpson? A. Yes. Q. That's his son he just picked up? A. Yes, that was Justin. Q. That's Judy Brown? A. Yes. MR. BREWER: Okay. Stop. Stop. (Indicating to video.) Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Dr. Fischman, you see there where Mr. Simpson was smiling and laughing? A. Yes. Q. You shared a joke with him at that time, didn't you, you shared a laugh together, you and Mr. Simpson, true? A. I don't think it was a joke. Q. In fact, you told Mr. Simpson -- MR. LEONARD: Objection, hearsay. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. You told Mr. Simpson that you were going to dinner that evening with your wife and your family, your ex-wife, true? A. That's correct. Q. And you had had discussions on previous occasions with Mr. Simpson about your own marital difficulties that you were having with your ex-wife; is that true? A. Yes. Q. And when Mr. Simpson walked out of the recital, he asked you about going to dinner with him; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And when he asked you that, that's when you told him what your plans were for the evening, that you were going to go to dinner with your ex-wife, true? A. Yes. Q. And he said something like good luck; is that correct? A. I don't recall exactly what he said. Q. It was in the context of that conversation that Mr. Simpson is laughing and smiling on that video, true? A. May have been. Q. True? A. It may have been, yes. Q. That's what you testified to in your deposition, Dr. Fischman, didn't you? A. If it's -- MR. LEONARD: I object, it's argument. A. I don't remember the exact words. I'll be happy to review it if you like. MR. PETROCELLI: No speaking objections, please. MR. LEONARD: Yes, Judge. Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Dr. Fischman, Nicole left the recital with her family, correct? A. Yes. Q. And when she left the recital, that was the last time that you ever saw her alive before her murder -- her murder only hours after the recital; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And Mr. Simpson left the recital, correct? A. I believe so. Q. And the last time that you saw Mr. Simpson before Nicole was murdered, hours after that recital, was at that recital, true? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. You didn't see him or speak with him after the recital? A. No, I did not. Q. And from everything that you were able to observe about Mr. Simpson, based upon your observations and your interactions with him, concerning his demeanor and appearance, in all the years that you've known him he never appeared the way he did on June 12, 1994, at that recital, did he, sir? A. It's a difficult question to answer. Q. Did he, sir? A. He was very subdued and quiet. Q. Sir. A. That was not his normal state -- normal state. Q. In all the years that you knew O.J. Simpson, he never appeared the way he appeared at that recital to you, true? A. That's true. MR. BREWER: Nothing further. THE COURT: Cross. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD: Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Morning, Dr. Fischman. A. Morning. Q. Did you have any knowledge as of the time that you saw Mr. Simpson, as to what his schedule had been the week before. I'm talking about on June 12, what his schedule had been, what he had been doing that weekend, how much activity had been involved, if -- how much sleep he had gotten; were you aware of any of that? A. No. Q. Okay. And your testimony here, in front of this jury, is that you -- when you saw him your impression was that he was tired, right? A. Yes. Q. And quiet and withdrawn, correct? A. Right. MR. BREWER: Leading, objection. THE COURT: I'll permit it. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you think there was anything inappropriate about his demeanor or behavior? A. No. Q. You also -- Mr. Petrocelli asked you a number of questions about -- MR. BREWER: Misstates the evidence. MR. LEONARD: Excuse me, Mr. Brewer. Sorry. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Mr. Brewer asked you a number of questions about your impressions of whether or not Mr. Simpson was expressing some type of frustration in his discussion with you on that Sunday evening. Do you recall those questions? A. The questions I was asked previously? Q. Yeah. A. Yes. Q. You had a number of discussions during the spring, or at least April through June, with Mr. Simpson about his relationship with Nicole and he had expressed some frustration, right? A. Yes. Q. It's true that -- that the primary reason he was expressing frustration is because she was acting erratically; is that right? That's what Mr. Simpson told you, correct? A. Yes. Q. And he told you that, for instance, he would have trouble dealing with her about the children, especially if he called her in the morning, things like that? Do you remember him telling you that kind of thing? A. He said that he had difficulty communicating with her, and the children were part of that, yes. Q. That some days she'd be up and some days she'd be down; that's what he meant by erratic behavior when he was discussing it with you? A. I believe so, yes. Q. When you were talking about frustration that was exhibited to you by Mr. Simpson, that's the thing he was mentioning to you, that's what you were talking about when Mr. Brewer was asking you questions; is that correct? MR. BREWER: Objection, misstates the testimony. THE COURT: You may rephrase it. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) When you were talking about Mr. Simpson expressing frustration about his relationship with Nicole, his primary concern that led to the frustration, at least to the extent that he expressed it to you, was her erratic behavior; isn't that right? A. Erratic behavior was certainly the central issue, yes. Q. Okay. It sounds to me like, at least in the discussion you had about a week before Nicole's death, that she was -- she wasn't shy about talking about her problems with (sic) Mr. Simpson, she was venting? A. About Mr. Simpson or with him? Q. With him or about him. In this regard she was talking about the IRS letter, right? A. When I saw her, she would talk about the problem she might be having. Q. Okay. On that particular occasion, she was talking to you about something that made her really mad at Mr. Simpson, this IRS letter? A. Absolutely. Q. And by the way, that would have been approximately the 6th or 7th of June, something like that? A. I don't recall. I think you all have the timeline put together, and I acknowledged the date that you had ascertained as that conversation took place. Q. In that conversation, did she say anything to you about any stalking by Mr. Simpson, that he was stalking her, anything like that? A. No. Q. Did she say that he had threatened to kill her? A. No. Q. Did she say that -- that she was afraid for herself, physically, and for the children? Did she say anything like that, sir? A. No. Q. Now, you were asked questions about Mr. Simpson's demeanor, whether he smiled, whether he talked to Nicole. And you tried to explain a couple of times about your -- the difficulty you had in seeing or observing. Would you explain that to the jury, why it was that you couldn't observe Nicole and O.J. for periods of time. Can you explain that to the jury. A. Yes. My -- My family had obtained seats about two-thirds of the way up in the theater. O.J. and Nicole, as noted before, were sitting in the back. When I went in to sit with my family it was a darkened auditorium, I got there during the performance. I only glanced back briefly so I really wasn't in a position to observe them throughout the performance. Q. And Mr. Brewer asked you very vigorously about whether, and how often Mr. Simpson was smiling. Now, we saw on the videotape that Mr. Simpson smiled and laughed. Do you remember that? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And he was smiling and laughing about -- I know you don't think it was a joke, but he thought -- I guess he thought it was funny, he was smiling and laughing about your predicament at this time, correct? A. I think he was trying to make light of my predicament, yes. Q. And he never expressed anger at Nicole that night, did he, Dr. Fischman? A. Not in my presence, no. Q. He was laughing about your relationship with your wife, and that's how you left him that night; isn't that right, sir? A. That's correct. MR. LEONARD: Thank you. No further questions. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BREWER: Q. Dr. Fischman, the erratic behavior that we talked about, by erratic behavior we're talking about Nicole avoiding O.J. Simpson, true? A. Yes, at times. Q. We're talking about her not returning phone calls, true? A. Yes. Q. We're talking about her being short on the telephone with Mr. Simpson, true? A. True. Q. We're talking about her being difficult to him, true? A. Yes, true. Q. That may be what he meant when he said she was acting erratically, correct? A. I believe so. Q. Now, the conversation about Nicole's anger relative to the IRS letter, you just happened to walk in the kitchen when Nicole was talking to Cora about that issue; is that correct? A. I believe that's the case, yes. Q. And so the only thing that you heard was what you happened to overhear as a result of -- by happenstance, being in the kitchen when they were talking about it, true? A. It was my kitchen. I was getting ready to go to work so, yes, that's what I heard. Q. Now, you didn't stay for the entire conversation, did you? A. I don't recall, to be quite honest. Q. If Nicole mentioned fears that she had -- MR. LEONARD: Objection, speculation. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. LEONARD: You know what, Your Honor, if we could approach -- THE COURT: No. MR. LEONARD: Because he knows how speculating -- THE COURT: Excuse me. Just finish your examination. MR. BREWER: Thank you, Your Honor, I appreciate that. Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Dr. Fischman, with respect to the recital, you did have conversation with Mr. Simpson where you had an opportunity to observe how he appeared, and how he was feeling that day, true? A. There were two periods, one was the conversation that we had for 5 or 10 minutes in the lobby, as I mentioned earlier, and the second one was what you saw on the videotape. Q. So you had 15, 20 minutes, maybe longer, maybe shorter, of time and interaction with Mr. Simpson that day, where you could assess the things that you described about his appearance and demeanor, true? A. Yes. Q. And inside the auditorium, you anticipated from what you knew about Nicole's state of mind and Mr. Simpson's state of mind that there would be some tension between them that day, didn't you? MR. LEONARD: Objection, speculation. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. LEONARD: Irrelevant. THE COURT: Not irrelevant. Speculation. Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Well, when you got to the auditorium and you looked back, you were looking back, albeit briefly, to see if there was any tension between Mr. Simpson and Nicole, true? A. No. I didn't specifically look to see if there was any tension, no. Q. But you made that -- you made an observation that there was a chilling between them, that's what you testified to at your deposition at that time, true? A. No. MR. LEONARD: Objection. That calls for speculation. That question was specifically ruled on before and the objection was sustained, Your Honor. It was an improper question. Ask that it be stricken. THE COURT: Stricken. Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Inside the auditorium did you look back and make observations about Nicole? MR. LEONARD: Objection, asked and answered three times. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Did Nicole ever talk to you about Mr. Simpson beating her in 1989? A. No. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, beyond the scope. MR. BREWER: Nothing further. THE COURT: Recross. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD: Q. Dr. Fischman, when Mr. Simpson was talking to you about his frustration at Nicole's erratic behavior, he was -- he was telling you that sometimes she wouldn't return his phone calls, sometimes she was cold, and other -- sometimes she was fine; isn't that what he was telling you, sir, and that's why it was erratic, correct? MR. BREWER: Objection, misstates the testimony. THE COURT: I'm going to sustain it. It sounds like you're testifying. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Tell us what you understood, what he told you when he was talking about erratic behavior, sir. MR. BREWER: Asked and answered. MR. LEONARD: Based on -- he opened it up again. THE COURT: Overruled. Answer if you can. A. You know, we're talking about two people who are having a difficult relationship. THE COURT: That's not an answer. MR. BREWER: Move to strike. THE COURT: Stricken. A. Repeat the question, please. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) The question is describe for the jury what Mr. Simpson was describing for you when he told you that Nicole's behavior was erratic. A. He was describing her attitude towards him. Q. Okay. And if you could -- if you could tell us in a little bit more detail what he was telling you that -- that when he was describing her erratic behavior? A. The erratic behavior revolved around those issues that have been discussed; the phone calls, the interactions, the communication, whether they would be together or not be together. The relationship was coming apart. Q. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. MR. BREWER: Nothing further. THE COURT: Your're excused. Thank you. MR. BREWER: Your Honor, I want to move in 825, the video. MR. LEONARD: No objection. THE COURT: Okay. (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 825.) MR. BAKER: What's the number? THE COURT REPORTER: 825. MR. BREWER: Yes. MR. BLASIER: We have a motion that comes before the next witness. It's going to take a few minutes. THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, 1:30. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinion. (Jurors exit courtroom.) (The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury.) MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, the next witness is Dr. Bruce Weir, who's been called to testify to frequency numbers for DNA mixtures. I am making a motion that he be excluded from testifying for the following reasons: We had a stipulation with the plaintiffs in this case, that with respect to experts that testified in the criminal trial, if their civil trial testimony was going to be the same, then we would save money and time by not taking their depositions, since they weren't going to say anything different. We relied on that in not taking Dr. Weir's deposition. This morning, I had a paper passed to me just across the table, giving a whole new set of numbers, frequency numbers, that are different from what he testified to at the criminal trial. Further, there is one statistic on here regarding the frequency of the combined 303, 304, 305 of the Bronco that was a completely new figure. There was never frequency testified to about that at the criminal trial. Mr. Lambert indicated he used the same method but he came up with different numbers. I asked if there were any work papers. He said, no, he doesn't have any work papers. Some of these numbers are substantially different. One of them with respect to stains G1 and G2 on the Rockingham glove, the number that he testified at the criminal trial as the most frequent occurrence was 1 in 3,000. It's now 1 in 6 billion. These are substantial differences. We have not had any discovery on this. We object to him -- them calling this witness at this time based on violation of the stipulation that they signed. MR. LAMBERT: Yes, Your Honor, Dr. Weir did testify at the criminal trial about this very same subject matter, frequency calculation, just to mixtures. He's not talking about the single stains, but the mixtures only, and the only number that wasn't presented at criminal trial was one for the 303, 304 and 305 combination because that -- at the time that he testified that test hadn't been done. It was done later in the case so that's the only new mixture number that he's testifying to. Other than that, he's recalculated some of the mixture numbers and, in fact, he published these results. They know them. Everyone's seen them. They've been published in journals. That is accessible to everyone. It's basically the same testimony as before. The numbers are slightly different, but it's the same methodology that he's got on the report. In fact, you might remember, Your Honor, it was at their insistence that mixture calculations be put into evidence. They insisted that we put those into evidence at the beginning of the case. That's why we are about to do it. MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, the law requires statistics under People versus Barney. These statistic mixtures aren't available. The difference in 1 and 3,000 and 1 in 6 billion is a substantially new calculation, something new. I would move to exclude the new stain, 303, 304 and 305. I would also move to exclude any testimony about these new numbers. We've had no discovery about them at all. MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, these aren't new numbers. They've been recalculated. THE COURT: You just finished telling me that the test wasn't made until later. How could they not be new numbers? MR. LAMBERT: I agree 303, 304 and 305 is a new number. At the time of his testimony that item had not been tested by the underlying laboratory. Very late in the criminal case they did an RFLP test on 303, 304 and 305. All he's done is add that one new calculation using the same methodology that he already testified three days in the criminal trial about -- all this methodology. He's now calculated, used the same methodology to calculate it for that one stain that he did for all the other mixtures. That's the only thing that's new. And it's not even new. It's only just the same apply to the same formula in the computer to a new set of data. So there's nothing new about that. THE COURT: I'm inclined not to permit him to testify unless he's subject to a deposition. MR. LAMBERT: If you want, Your Honor, we can present him for a deposition, they can ask him about these numbers and we can call him later. THE COURT: Why can't you do that? MR. LAMBERT: I'll willing to do that, Your Honor. We can have him this afternoon. MR. PETROCELLI: He can have his deposition taken this afternoon. MR. BLASIER: I'm not prepared to do a deposition this afternoon based on new numbers I'm given this morning with no new discovery, no work papers. THE COURT: Where are his work papers? MR. LAMBERT: He doesn't have work papers. This a computer program. He simply takes the data from the Department of Justice that's already been presented, it's already in evidence, and he applies the computer program to it and he gets statistics out of it. And that's what he's prepared to testify about. THE COURT: Okay. When do you want to depose him? MR. BLASIER: I can do it tomorrow. THE COURT: Okay. Do it tomorrow. MR. LAMBERT: Very well, Your Honor. MR. PETROCELLI: We have a witness. I guess he will start right after lunch, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. 1:30. (At 11:50 A.M. a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.) SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (The jurors resumed their respective seats.) MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor. By videotape, Plaintiffs call Paula Barbieri. (An edited version of the videotaped deposition of Paula Barbieri was played in open court.) MR. PETROCELLI: Stop it for a second. Your Honor, just for clarification, the witness, throughout most of the deposition, kept referring to Sunday as June 11 -- MR. BAKER: I object -- MR. PETROCELLI: -- later on corrected it to June 12, because of the video editing, wasn't able to reflect that, just so there's no confusion. THE COURT: Okay. (An edited version of the videotaped deposition of Paula Barbieri resumed playing in open court.) MR. LEONARD: Your Honor -- MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, we'd object. It's speculation. MR. BAKER: I did in the depo. MR. LEONARD: The question is, did you understand Mr. Simpson already picked up your messages that you left on the Bentley phone. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, she indicates that from the -- MR. BAKER: Let's not have speaking objections, to coin your phrase. MR. PETROCELLI: We need to be heard. They've had these designations -- MR. BAKER: Let to go to side bar. MR. PETROCELLI: They didn't indicate to me in advance on this, and I will -- C.C.P. requires him to counter-designate and give me the objections. They did not do so. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BAKER: Does not -- THE COURT: Overruled. (An edited version of the videotaped deposition of Paula Barbieri resumed playing in open court.) MR. BAKER: It's overruled. MR. BAKER: Is it -- turn that -- wait a minute. Is it -- Turn that off. MR. PETROCELLI: You don't run the courtroom. THE COURT: Give me the code section. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. 2025. You have the code? You have the code? Your Honor, try 2025(l)(2)(I). Is that an L? And in addition, we would like to be -- to be heard on the substance of the objection. THE COURT: Okay. Based on 2025(l)(2)(I), the objection is overruled. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, we objected in the deposition. We don't have to tell him we object again. THE COURT: It must be in writing. MR. BAKER: It is in writing. It's in the deposition. MR. PETROCELLI: That's not what the Code requires. THE COURT: It's not what the Code says. MR. PETROCELLI: Can you rewind it a little bit (The videotape was rewound.) (An edited version of the videotaped deposition of Paula Barbieri resumed playing in open court.) (Videotape concluded playing.) MR. P. BAKER: Can we read our portion, Judge? MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I wanted to hand the clerk, to give to Your Honor, a copy of the deposition. We're going to have some significant objections. MR. BAKER: They better be in writing. MR. PETROCELLI: These don't have to be in writing, Your Honor, because he did not designate anything by way of videotape. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, we are required to -- and in this proceeding, there have been objections to interrogatories as they've come up, and so -- or in depositions, rather, and so since it seems that the rules are now changing, we object to any objections because they're not in writing from Mr. Petrocelli. MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, five minutes before we turned that tape on, I got for the first time, the defense designations of what they wanted read. I just got them about 1:30, 1:40 this afternoon. MR. BAKER: That's what we've been doing the whole trial, is giving designations back and forth. MR. PETROCELLI: The rule about the video designations applies when, obviously, you're preparing an edited tape in advance. We have some significant objections, both substantively and to the form of the questions, many of the topics, including beyond the scope of the -- of the direct. MR. BAKER: There is no beyond the scope, Your Honor, in a discovery deposition such as this. MR. PETROCELLI: This is trial testimony. You can read certain parts in your case. (Pause in proceedings for the Court to read the Code Book.) THE COURT: The Court finds that the previous order that the court made is restricted to the videotape portion that was viewed. That's with respect to 2025(l)(2)(I). With respect to deposition testimony that is not presented by videotape, the Court will utilize 2025, subdivision M and subdivision U. You may make your objection. You may proceed. (Portions of the deposition of Paula Barbieri were read by Mr. P. Baker reading the questions and Ms. Bluestein reading the answers.) MR. P. BAKER: Page 308, line 8. (Reading:) "Q. Did Mr. Simpson generally carry a lot of cash? "A. Yes. "Q. And when I say 'a lot of cash,' Mr. Simpson usually had in excess of $5,000 in cash on him at any given time, did he not? "A. I never counted the money, but it was always a big sort of rubber band around a lot of bills. "Q. When you saw those bills, those bills were basically $100 bills, were they not? "A. I don't recall right now. Big bills. "Q. All right. When you would -- strike that. Both of you traveled a fair amount, did you not? "A. Yes." MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. I have a stipulation from Mr. Baker on the fact that all these questions were leading and the -- it appears at page 308 in the deposition transcript. I solicited a stipulation from Mr. Baker on leading grounds. He told me I had a standing objection. That's at page 310 of the transcript which you have in front of you, at line 10. And just so I don't say anything out loud, I would direct the Court's attention to page 367, lines 13 through 19, indicating this witness's status. (Pause for the Court to review transcript.) THE COURT: I'll permit it. MR. P. BAKER: Page 310, line 5. (Reading:) "And Mr. Simpson had a grip bag that he took with him on most occasions when he traveled, did he not? "A. Yes." MR. P. BAKER: Now, page 311 line -- 311, line 3. (Reading:) In the black bag that Mr. Simpson had, he almost always had his passport in there, did he not? "A. Yes. "Q. It was customary for him to have his passport wherever he went? "A. Yes. "Q. Now, did you usually carry a passport? "A. I usually always do, except today. "Q. All right. And we talked about Mr. Simpson's golf a little bit. He was an avid golfer, was he not? "A. Yeah. "Q. That look is exactly the same look I get from my wife, by the way. "In any event, he would usually get up, if you were there, if you knew, early in the morning to go play golf, would he not? "A. Before the sun came up. "Q. And that was usually Saturday and Sunday at the very minimum, was it not? "A. Every day. "Q. Okay. All right. And were you ever aware of Mr. Simpson planning to use a disguise when he would take his children different places? "A. I believe I testified already in the Grand Jury to the Knotts Berry Farm, if I remember correctly, that at the video shoot, the video makeup girl there was helping him with something that he was doing with his children. I can't be specific. "Q. Did O.J. ever indicate to you that he would wear those disguises so he wouldn't have to give autographs and he could spend some time with his children?" MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Hearsay. THE COURT: Overruled. (Reading continued:) "A. Something about getting a tired hand. "Q. Tired hand? "A. A cast or something." MR. P. BAKER: Page 314, line 17. (Reading:) "Q. Okay. In terms of your relationship with Mr. Simpson resuming in May of 1994, that was after Mother's Day, was it not? "A. Yes, I was looking on my calendar. Is that what I pointed out to be the 10th? "Q. The 10th was -- Mother's Day, it appears to be on your calendar the 8th. "A. All right." MR. P. BAKER: Page 315, line 8. (Reading:) "Q. You saw Mr. Simpson for a total during that month-long period, just over a month long, for a total period of about a week and a half; is that right? "A. You mean 12 days. When I said 12 days, I was saying over the period of time that many days, yes. "Q. Right. And that period of time, both you and Mr. Simpson were traveling a fair amount, were you not? "A. Yes. "Q. And when you ultimately decided to break off the relationship, as you say on June 12th, that wasn't the first time in that period of one month that you had decided that the relationship may not go on; isn't that correct? "A. I don't remember. "Q. In May of 1994? "A. Yes. "Q. In May of 1994, you went to Palm Springs with Mr. Simpson, did you not? "A. Yes. "Q. And at that time, had you or he indicated that maybe the relationship would not continue? "A. Yes, actually. "Q. And who was it that indicated the relationship may not continue at that time? "A. Me. "Q. All right. And yet the relationship did continue, did it not? "A. Yes." MR. P. BAKER: Page 317, line 15. (Reading:) "Q. Now, in looking at May of 1994, you circled May 10th? "A. Yes, sir. "Q. Is that the day, to your best recollection, that you and Mr. Simpson resumed your relationship? "A. Speaking, yes. "Q. All right. The next day you went to Las Vegas. Is that true? "A. Yes, sir. "Q. And stayed in Las Vegas until May 14th? "A. Yes, sir. "Q. And at that period of time, do you have a recollection of whether Mr. Simpson was in New York? "A. Yes, playing golf, I think. "Q. Well, was that New York? "A. Yes. "Q. All right. And then you picked him up on the 16th, correct? "A. Yes, sir. "Q. And then the week of the 16th, were you both out of town? "A. The week of the 16th I was in town. "Q. You have a recollection if Mr. Simpson was in town? "A. I don't recall. "Q. All right. And in terms of the weekend of the 20th, do you have a recollection if Mr. Simpson was in town or out of town the weekend of the 20th, 21st? "A. Yes. I saw him somewhere in there from the 19th to the 21st. I can't remember where." MR. P. BAKER: Page 322, line 2. (Reading:) "Q. I want to talk to you a little bit about, again, Mr. Simpson's conduct relative to a cell phone, and you discussed earlier that he had a portable phone. Do you remember that? "A. Yes. "Q. And he had a cradle in the Bronco for the phone, did he not? "A. Yes. "Q. And he had a cradle in the Bentley for the cell phone, did he not? "A. Yes. "Q. And around the house he used the cell phone kind of as some people would use a -- "A. Portable phone. "Q. Yeah, a portable phone that's hooked to a -- or a cordless phone. Right? "A. Yeah. "Q. And it was common for him to have that phone with him and just dial rather than to go to a phone in the house. Isn't that true? "A. Sometimes he'd sit in his driveway and talk on that phone for a long period of time, or in front of my house if we drove in front of the apartment. So I don't know. "Q. And it was common for him to use that and to move that from vehicle to vehicle and keep it on his person, as well, was it not? "A. Yes, sir. "Q. In other words, when he traveled, he took the cell phone with him, did he not? "A. Yes, sir. "Q. And to your knowledge, he had one cell phone, did he not? "A. Yes, sir. "Q. Okay. Now, I want to go to that call that you made on June 12, 1994, and you suggested that you indicated to the message of the cell phone that it wasn't working and it |