|
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 COURT: Morning. JURORS: Morning, Your Honor. MR. KELLY: Your Honor, before the next witness, I need to move in 2246 and 2247, two photos from Friday, please. THE COURT: Received. (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2246 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2247 was received in evidence.) MR. PETROCELLI: Morning, Your Honor. THE COURT: Morning. MR. PETROCELLI: Morning, ladies and gentlemen. JURORS: Morning. MR. PETROCELLI: As our final witness, plaintiffs call Fred Goldman. FRED GOLDMAN, Plaintiff, called as a witness by and on his own behalf, 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: So help me God, I do. THE CLERK: Please, state and spell both your first and your last names for the record. THE WITNESS: Fred Goldman, F-r-e-d, G-o-l-d-m-a-n. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PETROCELLI: Q. Morning, Mr. Goldman. A. Morning. Q. I'd like to talk with you this morning about your relationship with your son, Ron. When was Ron born, Mr. Goldman? A. July 2, 1968. Q. And you are how old? A. Pardon me? Q. You were how old at the time. A. I was 28. Q. And you are how old now? A. Fifty-six. Q. And you turned 56 on? A. Friday. Q. This past Friday, right? A. Correct. Q. At the time Ron was born, you were married to Ron's mother, Sharon Rufo? A. Correct. Q. And did Sharon and you have another child after Ron? A. Yes, Kim. Q. And when was Kim born? A. December 26, 1971. Q. Three years between Ron and Kim? A. Yes. Q. And Kim and Ron are our your only two children? A. Yes. Q. After Ron and Kim were born, they lived with Sharon and you? A. Correct. Q. And then was there a time when Sharon and you split up? A. Yes. Q. And how old was Ron at the time? A. Ron was 6. Q. And for the first year following the end of your marriage with Sharon, who did Ron and Kim live with? A. Ron and Kim lived, for the first year, with Sharon. Q. That's when Ron was six years old? A. Yes. Q. Kim was three? A. Correct. Q. And during that time, that first year when they were with their mom, did you see your son? A. All the time. Q. And did you talk to him? A. All the time. Q. And after that first year, did Ron and Kim come to live with you? A. Yes. Q. And how old was Ron then? A. Ron was seven then, and Kim would have been four. Q. And from that time on, did Ron continue to live with you? A. Yes. Q. Okay. MR. PETROCELLI: Can we put on Exhibit 1 [sic]. These are all photographs taken from Exhibit 771. (The instrument herein referred to as Series of photographs of Fred Goldman, Ron Goldman, and Kim Goldman was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 771.) (Photograph of Ron Goldman and Kim Goldman walking with their backs to the camera, was displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Who is that a picture of, Mr. Goldman? A. Ron and Kim. Q. And is that about the time when Ron and Kim came to live with you? A. It's actually before that. It was when Ron was a little past six and Kim three. It was shortly after we were divorced. Q. And then you raised Ron and Kim on your own for a number of years, right? A. Yes. Q. And then, at some point, did you get married again? A. Yes, I did. Q. And when was that? A. 1977, I believe. Q. And -- MR. PETROCELLI: Would you put on the next picture, the second photo. THE COURT REPORTER: Exhibit number, please? MR. PETROCELLI: They're all from Exhibit 771. (Photograph of Fred Goldman wearing a tuxedo, Ron Goldman, and Kim Goldman was displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) That is a picture of Ron and Kim and you? A. Yes. Q. What is the occasion? A. The day that I got married. Q. To your second wife? A. Second wife. Q. And her name was? A. Joan. Q. And did Joan, you, Ron, and Kim all live together? A. Yes, we did. Q. For how many years? A. Four. Q. Up until the time when Ron was about what? A. '77, -- '81 -- 13 -- 13 or 14, if my math is correct. Q. And at some point in time, did your relationship with Joan come to an end? A. Yes, it did. Q. You and she were divorced? A. Yes. Q. Did Ron and Kim continue to live with you the whole time? A. The whole time. Q. Can you tell us a about your relationship with your son when he was a boy? What kind of boy was he? And we just want to share some of your thoughts about that. A. Ron was -- Ron had a smile on his face from the day he was born, and he was a happy-go-lucky kid that never seemed to have a care in the world. He was truly Kim's big brother. She always referred to him as her second father. He was always there for Kim. Q. Did you do the normal things a father and son do together? A. Yeah. We were in Indian Guides together; that's a program through the YMCA for fathers and sons. Ron was in little league, and we did all of that stuff together. Ron and I, neither one of us were major fans of -- of sports, so we did a little of that, but not a lot. But all the normal father and stuff -- father-and-son stuff. Q. Did you take vacations together? A. All the time. Q. Can you put up the next picture, Steve (Photograph depicting Fred Goldman, Ron Goldman, and Kim Goldman, who was wearing a sombrero, displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. Can you tell us about this photograph? A. That was a trip to -- the three of us went on alone. I surprised Ron and Kim. They didn't know where we were going until we got to the airport. We went to Alcapulco. Q. So the three of you were all very close growing up? A. Very much so. Q. Okay. And when Ron got into high school, did you -- did your relationship with him stay close? A. It was always close. There was something special about our relationship. No matter what, nothing ever seemed to get in the way. It was always this bond that never dissipated. When Ron went into high school, it was the same. Q. And what about discipline? A. Well, I think we had probably the normal father/son/daughter problems. The one that I can probably think of was that Ron and I had a deal about him getting to school when he first started high school. We lived about six or -- yeah, maybe five or six miles away. And there was -- there was a bus service from the school, but if you missed the bus, you were out of luck. And there were numerous times that Ron missed the bus, and I was -- became the designated driver. And we had kind of a deal at some point, that, if Ron missed the bus again, he'd have to walk to school. And he did -- and he did. And that was the last time he walked to school. Q. Did you -- MR. PETROCELLI: Could you put on the third photo. (Photograph of Ron Goldman, lying down, wearing a yellow shirt, was displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) This about high school for Ron? A. Yes. That was in 1985, December of 1985, December or January of '85. Q. And put on the next photo. (Photograph of Ron Goldman, wearing cap and gown was displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Is this Ron's high-school graduation -- A. Yes. Q. -- in Illinois? A. Yes. Q. Now, after Ron graduated from this, Mr. Goldman, what did he do? A. After he graduated from high school? Q. Yeah. A. Ron went to Pierce -- Not Pierce College -- went to Illinois State University in -- in Illinois. Q. For how long did he go there? A. Ron went for only one semester. Q. And why did he stop going to college for one semester at Illinois State? A. Like with a lot of things, we had a deal, if you would, about goals. And Ron's goal was certain grades in college. And the deal was that if he didn't make his goals at the end of first semester, he'd have to come home at the end of first semester. And he spent a little too much time playing and not enough time studying, and he ended up coming home. Q. Okay. And after he came home from college, did -- was it about that time when you married Patty? A. Yes. Patty and I got married in February of 1986. Q. And Patty brought to your family children of her own? A. Three. Q. And they are -- A. I think I just said '86. We got married in '87. She wouldn't let me forget that we missed that one. Q. And Patty's children are? A. Patty's children are Bryan, who is now 21; Michael, who is 18; and Lauren, who is 16. Q. And with Patty's three children and your two children, what did the new family do after your marriage? A. Well, three days after we got married, we put two families together and moved to California, and -- what some people, I guess, call the Brady Bunch. But I can assure you, that's not real life, but it was still a lot of fun. Q. And you moved to California? A. Moved to California three days after we got married. Q. And you moved into Agoura? A. Agoura, yes. Q. And that's where you still live? A. Still live. Q. Now, Ron was about 19 years old then? A. Ron was -- in '87, he would have been 17. He was just 18. Q. And Ron moved in with you? A. Correct. Correct. We all lived together. Q. What kind of relationship did Ron have with Patty's three children? A. Ron instantly became everybody's big brother, besides Kim. He was Brian's, Michael's, and Loren's instant big brother. Ron loved kids, and it was real easy for him to take on the additional role. Q. And what did Ron -- Well, let me ask you this: How did Ron take to living in Southern California? A. He loved it. He was like a duck to water. He absolutely loved California, loved the mountains, loved the ocean. He was in -- he was in ecstasy when he came here. Q. And what did he begin to do with himself? Did he go to school? A. Shortly after we moved here, Ron -- that's September -- started at Pierce College. Q. And how long did he stay there? A. Ron was there, again, one semester. Q. And how did Ron do in school? A. Okay. But Ron, I guess, at that point, and me later, discovered that Ron just wasn't cut out to be a student. He had other aspirations. And it was -- it was tough for me to accept that for a while, but it made sense, ultimately. Q. It was tough for you in what way? A. Well, I guess like a lot of parents, perhaps, it was my feeling that the way to -- to success was going to be college. And -- but to -- the way around success wasn't going to -- going to be -- wasn't going to be college; it was -- it was going to be other things. It was hard for me to accept that. Q. When Ron left Pierce College, did he do something with his time? A. When he left? Q. Yeah. A. Oh, yeah. Ron was always working. He had jobs during Pierce -- during Pierce. Ron actually had several jobs. He applied for a job that was -- there was one at -- Pierce, had a little -- as it was ultimately explained to me, they -- they had a little table out, looking for students to apply. And it was for a camp, to be a counselor. And Ron applied and was hired. Q. It was a camp for? A. Inner-city kids, a sleep-over camp, and Ron was hired as a counselor. Actually -- excuse me -- a nighttime counselor. Ron would go there late in the afternoon and stay overnight. Q. And Ron enjoyed helping the children? A. He loved it. I met the -- the woman that hired Ron, and she told me once that Ron was the only student from Pierce that applied that was enthusiastic, and that was the reason she hired him. And she said that Ron would stay up late with the kids, helping them with -- with their future. And she said the one thing that she remembered that Ron would always tell them, is go to school; I didn't, but you need to get your life organized. And I made enough mistakes for all of us, so don't any of you make them. Q. Did Ron, at some time, get a job working with patients at the United Cerebral Palsy Hospital? A. Yeah. Ron first got a job at a resident's home in Westlake with cerebral palsy patients. First, it was a volunteer position that ultimately turned into a paid position. He was responsible for the care of the patients, helping them get dressed, helping feed them, outings, and the like. Q. And during this time, Ron is still living with you in your home in Agoura? A. Yes, yes. Q. Now, there came a time in about 1990, when Ron decided to move out on his own? A. Yes, he did. Q. And he's about 20, 21 years old then? A. 1990, Ron was almost -- going on 22. Q. And where did Ron go? A. Ron lived first in Calabasas, and then ultimately -- he moved -- he moved a couple of times -- Woodland Hills. Q. And Ron was living in apartments, would you say, for the next several years? A. Yes. Q. And during that period of time, did you maintain a relationship with Ron? A. Always. It never stopped. Q. And what sort of things did you do together? A. I guess the normal things. You know, we spent as much time as humanly possible. I'd meet Ron for lunch, or dinner, or he'd meet us. Ron, since he lived close, it was easy to always stop by the house. Ron was always involved with everybody and if -- if some of the kids had things going on, Ron was always there for those, as well. Q. And what was Ron doing with -- with his time when he was living out -- what kind of work was he doing? A. Primarily waitering. He had a job for a short while, working for a job recruiter, but ultimately, Ron was doing a lot of work -- working as a waiter. Q. In various -- A. Various restaurants, right. Q. And did Ron have his share of screw-ups as a young man? A. He did. Without question. Probably the two biggest, or maybe the single biggest for Ron was a combination of things. Ron would say, as would Kim, that they learned to drive with a little lead foot from me. Ron got himself a pack of traffic tickets and ultimately lost his license. And then, even worse, he was picked up for driving with a suspended license, and he was, in fact, arrested. Q. And he called you from the jail? A. He called -- it was late one night. He called the house. Kim woke me up. And I went down to get him out. That happened, actually, one more time. But that time, it seems to me, almost a year later, his license had still been suspended and he had risked it again and was driving. And at that point, I was not aware of it, because he called Kim who was up at Santa Barbara, going to school. He told her that he didn't want me to know about it. He wanted to handle it on his own. And as I found out later, he went before the judge, and the judge offered him a choice of, pay a fine or go to jail for four days. And he made the choice to go to jail for four days. Q. And you didn't know about it at the time? A. I didn't know about it until after the fact, no. He said -- told us later that he wanted to handle it on his own. Q. And in regard to handling his finances, working as a waiter, how good did Ron do? A. Oh, Ron got himself into a bit of a financial pickle. He literally got himself into debt over his head. And we had numerous conversations about that. And there was some discussion at one point about filing bankruptcy. But at first, Ron wanted to try to work it out. But it -- it became way too -- way too burdensome. He wasn't making enough money through his -- his waitering job to cover that and -- And rent, et cetera. And he ultimately, after he and I went to a financial counselor to see if he could work it out, he ultimately, about six months after that, filed bankruptcy -- Q. And -- A. -- reluctantly. Q. -- how much did he owe? A. He really got himself in deep. He owed somewhere close to $12,000, real deep. Q. Did you offer to just give him the money? A. No. It was a tough decision. I didn't. I had always, I guess you can say, practiced tough-love parenting, and I -- it was something -- that was something I would have had a problem doing, bailing him out. Ron understood. Ron didn't have a problem with that. He wanted to handle it on his own. Q. As part of this, did Ron make the decision to move back into your home? A. It was in good part because of that. The ultimate move back home, finances were just getting too tough. Q. This is around 1992 -- A. 19 -- Q. -- that he moved back? A. It was either somewhere between '90 and '92. I can't remember exactly. Q. He lived at home for a period of time? A. About a year, again. Q. And while he was living at home, again, he was working in various jobs as a -- as a waiter? A. Right, correct. Q. What was your relationship like? A. Always -- it was always good. Ron -- Ron never let his relationships in any way suffer because of anything. Our relationship was always good. His relationship with everybody in the family was good. Q. And did he attend family outings and family functions? A. Always, always. The last -- The last big function that Ron attended was -- was Lauren's Bat Mitzvah in 1993, November. MR. PETROCELLI: Can you put the photo up. (Photograph of Fred Goldman, Ron Goldman, and Kim Goldman, wearing a black dress, displayed on Elmo screen.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) That's what you're referring to? A. Yeah. That was taken just before -- Q. It's November 13, 1993? A. Yes. Q. It's about seven, eight months before Ron's death? A. Right. Q. During this period of time, did Ron begin to mature and set some goals for himself? A. Yeah. Actually, it began -- it began not that long before we got here, Ron went through a transformation. He came here as a skinny kid, and Ron started to eat healthy, more healthy than ever before; started to work out; never -- stopped completely any drinking of beer or anything; never smoked -- stopped completely. His big push was to get as healthy as possible, and he did. It was amazing to see pictures of him over a couple of years. He made just enormous changes. And likewise, along with the issue of in and out of the various jobs. Ron made a decision among all of these various waiter jobs, that that was going to be his career. And we found out lots later how much. Q. Sometime in 1993, did Ron approach you about being a partner of his in business? A. Yeah. Ron came to me about oh, six or nine months before he was murdered, and said he had an idea about a restaurant that he wanted to -- to do, and wanted to know if -- if I would invest in it. I told him that the answer was yes. But did he have anything more -- more information. And he said, I'll let you know when I have more. I just want -- I just want to know if you will. Q. What did you say? A. I said yes. Q. And did you hear anything more from Ron about his plan of opening up this restaurant? A. No, I didn't. Not -- No, not from Ron, directly. Q. And after his death, did you find out something about this? A. Yeah. MR. BAKER: I'm going to object on relevancy grounds and hearsay. THE COURT: Approach the bench. (The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.) MR. PETROCELLI: I have a few more questions in this line. After Ron's death, when they went to his apartment, his father found Ron's plans to open up his restaurant, and there's a little diagram of what it was going to look like. And I'm just going to ask him a few questions about that. It's not offered for the truth of the matter, so it's not hearsay. It goes to the nature of the relationship between the two of them, which is the heart of the issue here. MR. BAKER: It doesn't go to the nature of the relationship at all. He's testified as to he would -- whether he would invest. Whether Ron had made some plans to do it or not is totally irrelevant. There's no issue of Ron ever supporting his father in this case at all. There's no economic relationship at all. And hence, it has no relevancy in this case. MR. PETROCELLI: It's not a monetary issue; it goes to the loss of society. That's the only issue that we are proffering in this case. MR. BAKER: A business enterprise doesn't go to loss of society, in my opinion, sir, and it's irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Sorry, Mr. Goldman. You were saying after Ron's death, you found out some information about his plans to open up a business, a restaurant? A. Yeah. After Ron was murdered, we were cleaning out Ron's apartment, and we found a -- a file with all kinds of information in it. There were proposed menus, ideas for the kinds of things that Ron wanted to have on the menu. He had names of various chefs that he had met, had names of people that were apparently interested in -- in -- in being involved. And he had a drawing of what he wanted his restaurant to look like. (The instrument herein referred to as a Hand-drawn Diagram of Ron Goldman's planned restaurant was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 772.) (Diagram displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. Is that the drawing on the TV? A. Yeah. I never realized how far Ron had gotten with his plans and his dreams. Q. Mr. Goldman, what is the shape of that diagram? Does it have any significance? (Pause in proceedings. Mr. Goldman sobbing.) A. I'm sorry. It's the Egyptian symbol that Ron wore around his neck. It was an Egyptian symbol, the round shape with the line across it, and then the vertical line below it, was the Egyptian symbol of an ankh. Q. What does the ankh stand for? (Pause in proceedings. Mr. Goldman sobbing.) A. It meant eternal life. Q. And Ron were the ankh around his neck? A. Yes. Q. Are you able to finish this up, Mr. Goldman? A. Yeah. Q. Okay. A. Doesn't wear it anymore; Kim wears it now. Q. And Ron talked to you about wanting to have a family? A. Yeah. Besides wanting a restaurant, Ron wanted only two other things: Wanted to be married and have children. Ron -- Ron absolutely adored kids. It was probably part of the reason why he was so good at his job at the camp; was also the reason why he took a job as -- as a tennis coach for the high-school tennis team. When we were ever with any of our friends who had little kids, as with Michael and Lauren, especially, when they were little, Ron was always like the Pied Piper. And he'd have little kids following him all over the place. And Ron wanted to have kids of his own. Q. Did he have a name picked out for his first child? A. Yeah. Q. What was that? A. Ron picked a name out of -- I'm not sure where it came from, but he had decided that he was going to name his first child Dakota, whether it was a boy or a girl. Never had that chance. Q. Mr. -- I'm sorry. Focusing on the last several months -- several months of Ron's life, did you see him during that period of time -- let's say from Lauren's Bat Mitzvah, in November of '93, till Ron's death in June of 1994? A. Yeah. We spent Thanksgiving together, my birthday in December, Kim's birthday, the end of December. Patty's birthday in February. Michael's birthday in March. Mother's Day -- Amazing I can remember these. Mother's Day in May. Something tells me I'm missing something. Q. And in between those various family events -- A. Oh, had Passover in there someplace. Q. -- did you see Ron in between those times? A. Yeah. Ron and I always found a way to see each other. He had -- he had his schedule for work, was always varying from day shifts to night shifts. But I'd either meet him at work or we'd meet somewhere. Yeah. Yeah, we always found a way to meet, or he was always coming out to the house. Q. Now, this period of time, end of '93 into '94, by then, had Ron moved out of your home again? A. Yeah. Ron moved out again. He moved --that's when he moved into Brentwood. Q. And did you ever have a chance to go to his apartment in Brentwood? A. Yes. I -- we went there numerous times. Q. Did Ron talk to you about whether he liked Brentwood, living there? A. He liked Brentwood. I wish he hadn't moved there. MR. PETROCELLI: Can you put up that last picture. (Photograph of Ron Goldman, wearing blue shorts, with his arm around a person wearing red shorts, displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) What is this photo, Mr. Goldman? A. As best as I know, that's one of the last -- last pictures taken of Ron. Q. You found that after his death? A. Yes. He was -- he played softball in Brentwood with a bunch of kids. My favorite picture of him. MR. PETROCELLI: Take it down. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) The last video you have of Ron is at the Bat Mitzvah? A. Yeah. MR. PETROCELLI: Can you play it. (Videotape originated on November 13, 1993, was played.) (Videotape concluded playing.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Mr. Goldman, did you love your son? A. Oh, God, yes. Q. Do you miss him? A. More than you can imagine. Q. Do you think about him every day? A. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't think of Ron. Q. Will your life ever be the same again? A. Never, ever be the same. A hole missing. Q. Thank you, sir. THE COURT: Take a brief, ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. (Recess.) (Jurors resumed their respective seats.) MR. BAKER: Thank you. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER: Q. I've got a few questions. Now, as I understand it, Sharon Rufo was the mother of Ron; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And Sharon Rufo, to the best of your knowledge, had not seen your son 13 or 14 years before -- for a period of 13 or 14 years before Ron's death; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you have seen her in this courtroom, have you not? A. Yes. Q. She did not, however, make it out to Ron's funeral, did she? A. I didn't hear you. Q. I apologize. She did not attend Ron's funeral. Was she -- A. She was here for Ron's funeral. Q. Now, in terms -- in your deposition you indicated I thought that she had not. MR. PETROCELLI: I don't think so, Mr. Baker. MR. BAKER: Okay. I apologize. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In terms of your notification, the LAPD did not notify you of your son's demise? A. We were notified by the coroner's office I believe. Q. And you were notified by the coroner's office at about 5 p.m. on June 13, 1994; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Now, in terms of Nicole Brown Simpson, you -- you didn't know that your son even knew her at the time he was murdered, correct? A. That's correct. Q. You did find that her phone number was in his apartment when it was cleaned up? A. As I recall, there was a phone directory that had the name Nicole in it. I don't recall the number or anything like that. Q. And just on another area, you -- since the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and your son, you have become friends with Detectives Vannatter and Lange, correct? A. You said friends? Q. Friends. A. No, I don't -- MR. PETROCELLI: Outside the scope, Your Honor. THE WITNESS: Should I answer? THE COURT: Yes. A. No, I don't know that friends is accurate. I mean I -- I consider friends someone you constantly spend a lot of time with. That's not the case. Q. Did Detective Vannatter spend -- was he at any of the fund raisers that you gave? THE COURT: Mr. Baker, if you're going to proceed on this, you're not going to call this witness on your direct. MR. BAKER: I understand. MR. PETROCELLI: I have an objection to scope. THE COURT: Overruled. Treat this as defense witness called out of order. MR. BAKER: Under 767? THE COURT: 776. MR. BAKER: That's right. A. I'm sorry, you asked -- Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You invited Detective Vannatter -- Mr. Vannatter to funds raisers that you put on, did you not? A. No, that's not true. Q. You went to Detective Vannatter's retirement party, did you not? A. We -- our family, my wife, my daughter and I went to Detective Vannatter's retirement party, correct. Q. Went to Detective Lange's retirement party? A. Correct. Q. You became friends with FBI agents Deedrick and Bodziak, correct? A. No. Q. How is it Detective Bodziak -- you have his picture with Detective Bodziak and Kim, do you know? MR. PETROCELLI: That's Deedrick. MR. BAKER: I apologize. It was Deedrick. A. If you're talking about the picture that was testified to -- Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Yes. A. -- I assume -- I don't recall, but I assume that was taken at -- at one of the retirement dinners. Q. Now, when Detective Vannatter was -- did Detective -- Deedrick come out for one of the retirement dinners? A. It was either there or it was at the police -- at the D.A.'s office. There's only a handful of places that it could have been. More likely it was at the D.A.'s office. Q. And in fact, after the criminal trial, you participated in a news conference with the detectives, as well as the district attorney, indicating your displeasure with the jury verdict? MR. PETROCELLI: Irrelevant, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Does your daughter call Mr. Vannatter Uncle Phil, ever refer to him as that? A. No. Q. Now, you've talked to Detective -- Mr. Tippin and Mr. Marlow, have you not, relative -- when they were on the LAPD investigating this case? A. As I recall, the only time I talked to Detective Tippin was when we went to Ron's apartment. Q. You've talked to Detective Marlow certainly after this case as a civil (sic) case has been prosecuted, have you not? A. I don't recall ever talking to Detective Marlow. Q. Mr. Goldman, since the trial started, how many press conferences have you held, since this trial started in September? We started jury selection on September 18, 1996. A. Press conferences? Q. Press conferences. A. As I recall, there was one when I announced my new job. Q. And you also had one out here on the front lawn of the -- of the court house after you appeared on "Larry King Live"; is that true? MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, this is really irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you -- you have now signed a book deal that -- that was discussed in your deposition; is that correct? A. My family in total is writing a book, that's correct. Q. And the guaranteed advance on that book, Mr. Goldman, is how much? MR. PETROCELLI: It's irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. A. The total advance is 450,000. Out of that, my family gets approximately half. MR. BAKER: That's all I have. MR. PETROCELLI: Nothing, Your Honor. I've got to move in Exhibit 771 and 772, and I want to reserve the right to put on any additional evidence with regard to the reservation by the defense to our exhibits 'cause they have reserved in regard to a number of exhibits. THE COURT: All right. (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 771.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 772.) MR. PETROCELLI: And finally, Your Honor, I would like to reserve the right to call Alfred Acosta pursuant to the Court's previous order. He had to go out of town on a family emergency. THE COURT: Yes. MR. PETROCELLI: And subject to those reservations, Your Honor, the plaintiffs rest. THE COURT: Thank you. Defense. MR. BAKER: Defense calls Phil Vannatter. THE COURT: You can have a seat on the witness stand. THE CLERK: You can have a seat on the witness stand. Sir, you've already been sworn. You are still under oath. Would you state your name again for the record. THE WITNESS: Philip Vannatter. PHILIP VANNATTER, called as a witness on behalf of Defendants, was previously sworn and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER: Q. Good morning. A. Good morning. Q. Mr. Vannatter, when did you arrive in southern California? A. Saturday afternoon. Q. And did you spend yesterday in any type of preparation for your testimony here today, sir? A. Yes, I had a meeting with Mr. Kelly, yesterday. Q. And how long did that meeting take? A. Approximately two hours. Q. And did you review any of the testimony that you gave, for example, at the grand jury hearing? A. No, I did not. Q. Did you review any testimony you gave at the preliminary hearing? A. I was asked questions about the trial testimony. Q. All right. And did you review the trial testimony that you had given? A. I didn't read it. I was asked questions by Mr. Kelly. Q. And did you review any of the transcripts of any of the TV shows that you've been on since the verdict of October, 1995? A. No, sir, I didn't. Q. Now, as -- as I understand it, at the time in June of 1994 when you were called on this case, you had been a detective for 26 and a half years in LAPD, correct? A. No. That's -- I had been a police officer for 26 and a half years. Q. All right. How long you been a detective? A. I transferred to detectives, I believe, in 1971, September of '71. Q. So 23 years, roughly? A. Approximately, yes. Q. Okay. And you had risen through the ranks to a Detective 3 by the time that you investigated the double murders at 875 South Bundy, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And Detective 3 was -- you were the highest ranking detective among the four detectives who were at the scene on June 13, 1994, correct? A. The highest ranking detective -- there were two other Detective 3's. Q. You were the most senior Detective 3, so you were in charge by virtue of your seniority and the fact that you were a Detective 3, correct? A. It was a dual in charge with Mr. Lange. Q. So is there a Detective 4 at the LAPD or is Detective 3 as high as you get? A. Detective 3 is an advance pay grade, as high as you go, yes. Q. So you were a Detective 3 and Tom Lange was a Detective 3, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And because you had been a Detective 3 longer, if in fact push came to shove, you were in charge, correct? A. Not necessarily. We were partners. I believe there was a month difference in our pay grade promotion. Q. And as the detective from robbery/homicide -- we're going to get into that in a minute -- you were in charge in directing the criminal fingerprint people as well as the coroner, true? A. At that crime scene? Q. Yes. A. No, sir, I wasn't. Detective Lange was. Q. All right. Now, you would agree as a detective of 23 years that there are certain fundamentals in investigating the crime scene that must be adhered to to ensure not only the integrity of the crime scene, but the chain of custody of the evidence, true? A. I'm not sure I understand what you mean, fundamentals, there are certain things that have to be done, yes. Q. Well, one of the fundamentals of a crime scene is obviously to recognize what is evidence, correct? A. Yes. MR. KELLY: Objection, Your Honor, speculative. If we're talking about this particular crime scene, that's something different. THE COURT: I'll allow a certain amount of preliminary, but after that, stay with this case. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, you didn't reinvent fundamentals of the double murders at 875 South Bundy. These are fundamentals you had to investigate crime scenes when you started investigating crime scenes 23 years ago, correct? MR. KELLY: Objection, vague. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The investigation, sir, of a crime scene has certain fundamental procedures that you go through to ensure that the crime scene integrity is maintained and that the change of custody of the evidence is preserved; you would agree with that? MR. KELLY: Same objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Each crime scene is unique in itself. So ones you're talking about could be different from crime scene to crime scene. Q. The first thing you have to do, Detective Vannatter, is to recognize what's evidence and what isn't, true? MR. KELLY: Same objection. If we could focus in on June 12. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I would -- I would hope that you would recognize what is evidence and what isn't, yes. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The second procedure that you must use in that crime scene is to collect the evidence that you recognize as to be relevant to any portion of the crime, correct? A. Yes. Q. And the third and very important step in crime scene procedure, is the documentation of what you do, correct? A. Yes. Q. And that is, that you have to document where you've been, what you've done, what evidence you've collected and where you personally have been throughout the crime scene, and your processing of a crime scene, correct? A. I -- I'm not sure. You can't do it on a minute-to-minute basis. You attempt to keep a chronological record of what had occurred, yes. Q. And then you didn't do that at all, did you, by the way, you didn't document where you were at 4 o'clock in the morning, did you? A. It was -- it was documented, yes. Q. I said you didn't document it at all, did you, sir? A. Well, I checked in at the crime scene with the log personnel, yes. Q. Did you document your movements at 875 South Bundy at all from 4 to 5 o'clock in the morning on June 13, 1994? A. Are you asking me did I write notes? Q. That's what I'm asking you. A. No, sir, I didn't. Q. And you also had investigated, by -- at least you indicated in your sworn affidavit in furtherance of a search warrant on June 28, 1994, that you investigated over 200 homicides by the time you investigated the crimes at 875 South Bundy, correct? A. Yes. Q. And so you certainly knew that documentation of your movements and what went on at a crime scene was important, true? A. Again, each crime scene is unique. If it's being done by someone else, then there's no need to duplicate that effort. Q. Okay. So you didn't feel that there was any need to document anything at 875 South Bundy when you were there from 4 to 5 o'clock in the morning, true? A. I didn't do anything other than look there one time briefly, no, I didn't. Q. So the answer to my question is no, you didn't feel any need to document anything at that crime scene, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Now, another fundamental is the preservation of evidence at a crime scene, correct? A. Yes. Q. And as I understand it, sir, when you were notified of the double homicide at -- it was approximately what, 2:30 in the morning, of June 13, 1994? A. No, sir. It was 3 o'clock in the morning. Q. In any event, you got to 875 South Bundy at approximately 4 o'clock in the morning, did you not? A. Approximately, yes. Q. And you had been a detective at West LA division of the LAPD for at least what, three years, at the time that you investigated this crime scene on behalf of robbery/homicide division, true? A. No. I was not at West LA then. I had worked there previously, yes. Q. You had worked there for three years at as a detective -- homicide detective, had you not? A. Yes, back in the mid 70's, that's correct. Q. You knew the area around 875 South Bundy, did you not? A. No, I don't think I've ever been there, except on this case. Q. You have never been down Bundy? A. No, I've been down Bundy. I've never been to that location. Q. Okay. I said -- maybe my question was unclear. I said you knew the area around the Bundy double homicide location, did you not, sir? A. I had worked at West LA and I know a lot of the city. I don't know that I knew specifically where 875 South Bundy was. Q. All right. In any event, the procedure, as I understand it, of the L.A.P.D. is that once robbery/homicide division takes over a case, that the local detectives from -- in this case, West Los Angeles, simply discontinue investigating the crime scene, right? A. They lose responsibility for the crime scene. In many, many instances they are asked to assist in the crime scene investigation. MR. BAKER: Well, pull up 19137, please. MR. KELLY: What are you referring to? MR. BAKER: Pardon? MR. KELLY: Transcript? MR. BAKER: 19137, trial. MR. KELLY: Trial. Could we have a line. MR. BAKER: Lines 27 to 4 on the other -- 19138. Are you ready? MR. KELLY: Okay. I'm sorry. (Transcript displayed on Elmo.) MR. BAKER: Bottom of the page. (Reading:) Q. Once local detectives R/H/D . . . that's robbery/homicide division . . . take over, should they continue to investigate the crime? A. No, they shouldn't. They should only maintain the security and integrity of the crime scene. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That was your testimony at the trial, was it not, sir? A. That's correct, sir. Q. And so is it true that, once robbery/homicide takes over, the entire investigation simply stops, that's LAPD procedure, right? A. I don't understand that. Q. I don't, either, but let me -- let me see if we can get it straight. At 2:45 on the morning of June 13, 1994, robbery/homicide division took over the investigation of the double homicide at 875 South Bundy, correct? A. I was not aware of that. I was aware when I got there at 4 o'clock in the morning. Q. In any event, assume that at 2:45, the robbery/homicide division takes over. That means that the local detectives from West LA are to do absolutely nothing; that is, they are not to continue their investigation, but they are only to maintain the integrity of the crime scene, correct? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay, speculative. This witness indicates he has no knowledge of that, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In the procedure that the police department uses, once robbery/homicide division takes over, the local detectives, in this case Detectives Phillips and Fuhrman, are not supposed to do any further investigation, correct? A. Well, I think that could depend on the situation. What -- Q. No, no. A. What -- Q. Maybe you didn't understand my -- You have testified, have you not, that the local detectives are not to investigate the crime scene -- to continue the investigation of the crime scene. THE COURT: Mr. Baker, I'm going to interject myself. I don't want to. I'm going to interject myself. You've already established through his agreement as to the trial testimony. We're just going around in circles. I'm sustaining my own objection. Move on, please. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, now, you knew that the call had come in at approximately 10 minutes after midnight, relative to the notification that there were two bodies found at 875 South Bundy, correct? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, what time did you think that the crime scene was -- When you got to the crime scene it was approximately 4 o'clock in the morning? A. Yes, sir. Q. You talked to Detective Phillips, did you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And he told you that -- informed you approximately what time the crime scene had been set up at 875 South Bundy? MR. KELLY: Objection, same thing, calls for hearsay, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'll permit that. A. Yes. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And so you were aware that the crime scene was already approximately four hours post discovery by the time that you arrived there, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you did not at that time, that is 4 o'clock in the morning, you did not call any criminalist, did you? A. No, sir, I didn't. Q. You did not call any coroner, did you? A. No, sir, I didn't. Q. And you were aware that you were to notify the coroner's office under the directives and procedures of LAPD immediately, true? A. I -- I don't think that means immediately when you arrive on the crime scene, that means immediately when you need their assistance at a crime scene. Q. So the word immediately is a judgment call, in your opinion, that you can decide on your own when to call a coroner, that the LAPD requirements to call the coroner immediately is a judgment call, true? A. I think what you're talking about when you say -- Q. Can you answer that yes or no, sir? A. I'm trying to, sir. Q. Well, answer it yes or no? A. I can't answer it yes or no. Q. The regulations of LAPD require you, once you get to a homicide scene, to notify the coroner, and the words in the regulations are immediately, correct? A. That's a first call notification, yes. Q. And you didn't do it, did you? A. No, sir, I didn't. Q. Now, one of the things that is important in the investigation of any homicide is the time of death, you would agree with that? MR. KELLY: Objection, Your Honor, with regard -- it's vague with regard -- THE COURT: Overruled. MR. KELLY: With regard to any homicide? A. The time of death? Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The time of death of the victims? A. That helps you with the investigation, yes. Q. And that's important in any investigation, is it not? A. Yes. Q. And to your knowledge, although the crime scene had been discovered at 12:10 on the morning of June 13, there had been absolutely no notification of the coroner when you arrived at 4 o'clock, correct? THE COURT: Sustained. That question's been asked and answered. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) When you left at 5 o'clock and -- left the crime scene, to your knowledge, there had been no notification of the coroner, true? A. True. Q. And there had been no notification of any criminalist, correct? A. True, to my knowledge. Q. Now, one of the things that can be used to determine the time of death is the temperature of the liver of the decedent? MR. PETROCELLI: I'm going to object, Your Honor. MR. KELLY: Objection. MR. PETROCELLI: This is not an issue. Secondly, we have a motion in limine, No. 11, on these points here. THE COURT: Approach the bench. (The following proceedings were held at the bench with the reporter:) MR. BAKER: Wait a minute. I object to him saying anything. This is not his witness. (Indicating to Mr. Petrocelli.) MR. BAKER: This is his witness. (Indicating to Mr. Kelly.) MR. BAKER: As I understand it, one person gets one witness. THE COURT: You haven't been observing it, Mr. Baker. MR. PETROCELLI: My objection -- in the first place, time of death was not established in any way, shape, or form by LAPD evidence or coroner evidence. It was simply the lay testimony of when they first showed up and found the bodies. We did not proffer the coroner whatsoever, for any issue about the time of death. That's number 1. Number 2, he's arguing about other superior and better techniques for investigating the homicide and for detecting evidence and so forth. That was specifically precluded by No. 11. This is not a malpractice case. Your Honor has ruled that he has to tie in the alleged omissions or acts to the evidence that we submitted in this case to show that it somehow affected the quality or integrity of it. And he is not doing so in this line of questioning at all. Particularly when he ventures into an issue that we did not even raise. MR. BAKER: First of all, they put in the issue of time of death and they opened up all of these issues through Werner Spitz. Every issue that we're going to talk about, they went through through Werner Spitz, this is fundamental in a crime scene, as to the time of death, and he's already indicated that that's fundamental. THE COURT: Excuse me. I'll permit the defense to raise and establish whether or not the time of death was established, but that's it. Proper technique, I'm sustaining the objection. MR. PETROCELLI: For the record, I want to establish that or note that Werner Spitz had never testified at all about time of death. It's simply not an issue in regard to experts. The body was discovered at around -- you know -- Sukru Boztepe discovered it a little after midnight. THE COURT: I think time of death is inherently at issue. MR. PETROCELLI: We didn't proffer it through the expert. MR. BAKER: You're talking through the time -- THE COURT: Excuse me. I think my ruling was made and it's clear. (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, we were talking about liver temperature and time of death before the objection. And I want to go back and ask you again: You were certainly aware that liver temperature of a victim can be used to establish time of death, or an estimate of time of death, true? A. Depends on the circumstances of the crime scene. That's not always true. Q. In your 23 years of being a detective, Mr. Vannatter, have you ever seen the coroner attempt and take the temperature of the victim's liver for the purpose of attempting to establish an estimate as to the time of death? A. Many, many times. And I've seen times that they haven't taken liver temperatures. Q. And in this case, they took the liver temperature in both of the victims, did they not, sir? A. Well, I was -- MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay unless he has personal knowledge, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You saw the reports in this case, and went through the reports in this case before you testified at the grand jury hearing, did you not? MR. PETROCELLI: Different case, object. MR. KELLY: Objection, different case. Still calls for testimony of hearsay from -- they're not his reports. THE COURT: Overruled. You may testify what you saw in the autopsy or coroner's report? A. I was aware that he had -- they had taken liver temperatures, yes. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you were further aware, sir, based upon your 23 years as a detective that when liver temperatures are taken, the closer they are taken to the time of death, the more accurate they are in estimating the time of death, true? MR. KELLY: Objection, vague. It's still not talking about this particular case and these victims. THE COURT: Overruled. A. That would generally be true. But again it would -- It would depend on the environment that the crime scene was in. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You had a 60 degree environment at the crime scene on Bundy, did you not? A. I believe that's correct, yes. Q. And basically, no humidity, correct? A. Basically. I believe there was a little fog or mist in the air. Q. Under the circumstances that when you arrived at the crime scene at 4 o'clock on June 13, 1994, had you called the coroner, you could have had a liver temperature taken and an estimate as to the time of death if you called the coroner, correct? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for speculation. THE COURT: That's -- that's sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, you knew in June of `1994, that the liver temperature decreases approximately -- what, a degree and a half for the first four hours after death? MR. KELLY: Same objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, did you have any knowledge as to whether or not liver temperature readings are more accurate say 10 hours after death than they would be 4 hours after death? MR. KELLY: Same objection again, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained: Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did it occur to you whatsoever, Mr. Vannatter, to call the coroner to obtain a liver temperature of the decedents at 4 o'clock in the morning on June 13, 1994? MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and answered, argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. A. No. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) It obviously didn't occur to you at 5 o'clock when you left the crime scene, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Now, at the crime scene, between 4 and 5 when you were there, did you make any efforts whatsoever to identify the second victim? A. Personally? Q. Yes, sir. A. No, sir, I didn't. Q. You didn't know -- you never tried to pull the wallet out of the second victim to see the name of the second victim? A. By California law I couldn't do that. Q. You didn't check the neighborhood to see what cars were registered to whom in that area, did you? A. Not personally. It was being done. Q. You didn't know that the second victim wasn't the target of the murders, did you? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for speculation. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: Well, it goes to his state of mind. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you have any knowledge as to who was the target and who -- or the perpetrator of these crimes, when you were at the crime scene between 4 and 5 o'clock in the morning on June 13, 1994? MR. KELLY: Objection, still calls for speculation. THE COURT: Overruled. He either knew or he didn't. A. No, I had no idea. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you then were at the crime scene for a period of one hour when, as I understand it, sir, there was a decision made to go to Rockingham, correct? A. Yes. Q. Now, at the crime scene at approximately 5 o'clock in the morning on June 13, 1994, there are at least 25 other members of LAPD, true? A. I -- I don't know the exact number but that's probably pretty close to correct, yes. Q. And your story, as I understand it, is that you personally made the decision to notify O.J. Simpson of the demise of his ex-wife, correct? A. That was discussed with myself and Mr. Lange when we made the decision, yes. Q. And your decision was made independently of any purported decision by Commander Bushey to Ron Phillips, correct? A. I would have gone whether the order was there or not, but I was also aware that there was an order by Commander Bushey for that to be done. Q. So, you -- as I understand it, you made your own determination that there should be personal notification of O.J. Simpson, correct? A. Yes. Q. And at the time you made this -- your own personal decision at 5 o'clock in the morning, you were aware that there were two victims at 875 South Bundy, correct? A. Yes. Q. You were aware that the crime scene included a hat, gloves, true? A. One glove. Not gloves, one glove. Q. Fair enough. Hat, glove, keys, pager. All of that was at the crime seen at 875 South Bundy, right? A. That's correct. Q. You were aware that there were blood drops at 875 South Bundy? A. Yes. Q. You were aware that there were blood smears at 875 South Bundy? A. Yes. Q. You were aware that there was blood drops on the back of victim Nicole Brown Simpson at 875 South Bundy? A. I -- No, I can't say that I was aware of that. I didn't do that crime scene. I -- I -- that was done by Mr. Lange. Q. You were aware that there was copious amounts of blood at 875 South Bundy? A. Yes. Q. You were aware that there were shoe prints at 875 South Bundy? A. What appeared to be shoe prints, yes. Q. You were aware that there were paw prints that went 50 feet south on the walkway on the south side toward Bundy? A. Yes. Q. All of those were at 875 South Bundy when you left the crime scene and went to Rockingham, true? A. True. Q. And at the point that that was a crime scene at 875 South Bundy, Mr. Vannatter, that was rich in evidence, correct? A. It appeared to be, yes. Q. You were also aware when you left that crime scene there would be no detective work going on because you and Detective Lange were in charge of the investigation from robbery/homicide investigation, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you were aware that basically there had been no detective work done on that crime scene for the first five hours after that crime scene had been discovered, at the time you made the decision to personally notify Mr. Simpson of the death of his ex-wife, true? A. That's correct. Q. And so there were at least 25 other people who could have gone to Rockingham to personally notify Mr. Simpson of the deaths of his ex-wife, isn't that true? A. Yes. Q. And you made the decision to personally do it at 5 a.m. in the morning, and leave the crime scene where no detective work had gone on for five hours, right? A. Yes. Q. And at the time that you left 875 South Bundy you were aware that one of the victims was the ex-wife of Mr. Simpson, true? A. Yes. Q. You were also aware that there had been an issue of domestic violence between Mr. Simpson and the victim, true? A. I was aware that there had been an incident in which a uniformed officer had gone up there, yes. Q. And in your mind, Mr. Simpson was a suspect, that's why you left 875 South Bundy and went to Rockingham; isn't that true? A. That would have been a real rush to judgment if I had went up there thinking he was a suspect. No, he was not a suspect. Q. I totally agree with you. A. He was not a suspect. Q. And, in fact, he was a suspect from the time that you arrived at 875 South Bundy; isn't that correct? A. In my mind? Q. Yes, sir. A. No, that's not correct. Q. And let's -- Was it your -- Was it your sworn testimony, sir, in the trial that Mr. Simpson was no more a suspect than Mr. Shapiro, one of his criminal attorneys? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay. MR. PETROCELLI: No foundation for prior inconsistent statement at all, got to be just the opposite. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Do you believe that Mr. Simpson was no more a suspect than Mr. Robert Shapiro, one of O.J. Simpson's criminal lawyers, at the time that you went from 875 South Bundy to Rockingham knowing that O.J. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson were divorced, and knowing that there was an issue of domestic violence between O.J. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson? MR. KELLY: Objection. Argumentative, irrelevant, compound. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: On what grounds, Your Honor? THE COURT: Grounds Mr. Kelly stated. Q. Now, you felt that the -- the evidence that there could be an emergency inside the house was based upon how the vehicle was parked, the Bronco, that was part of it, right? MR. KELLY: Objection, relevance. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Your belief that there was an emergency -- your state of mind that there was an emergency, was based upon a finding by Detective Fuhrman of a blood spot over the left door handle, a spot that you indicated was human blood over the left door handle of the Bronco, true? MR. KELLY: Objection. Once again I'd refer to your prior ruling. THE COURT: Probable cause is not an issue. You may inquire of this witness what he saw, what he did. I have allowed you this much to explain why he's there. Now, let's get on with it. I've already ruled. MR. BAKER: As I indicated, Your Honor, his state of mind is relevant relative to a rush to judgment. That's what we're getting to here. THE COURT: You can argue that. You've had all the preliminaries up to here. Now you may inquire as to what he saw and did. MR. P. BAKER: 108. (Exhibit 108 displayed.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You see on the monitor Exhibit 108? A. Yes, sir, I can see that. Q. And when you -- you went -- you were called to the Ford Bronco by Mark Fuhrman sometime before 5:45 when he went over the wall, correct? A. Yes. Q. And Mark Fuhrman was the one that discovered or purportedly discovered this mark above the left door handle on the Bronco, right? A. Yes. Q. And you can -- can you see that at all, can you see any mark on that door handle in that photograph, 108, that's on the monitor, sir? A. No, I can't see it, no. Q. At 5:45 in the morning it was dark, was it not? A. Yes, it was dark. MR. BAKER: Show him the other one. MR. P. BAKER: 109. (Exhibit 2249 displayed.) MR. BAKER: Can you focus that a little better. MR. P. BAKER: There we go. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, is what is on 109, that is on a ruler that has Mr. Rokahr's name on it, is that the mark that Detective Fuhrman pointed out to you in the dark on the morning of June 13, 1994? A. Yes. Q. And it is something, what, 3/8th of an inch long? A. I'll accept that representation. I can't tell from here. Q. A 16th of an inch high, an elliptical shape? A. Elliptical. MR. KELLY: Objection. THE COURT: Excuse me. MR. KELLY: Objection, no foundation unless this witness can testify as to the exact dimensions. Actually, I'll withdraw it, if you can answer it. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That's the mark that you say Detective Fuhrman pointed out to you before the request was made for him to go over the wall, right? MR. PETROCELLI: I'm going to object, Your Honor. It's one thing to testify what he saw and did. He keeps tying it into the same issue. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. PETROCELLI: He ought to be admonished. This is now the 30th time. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, that was -- that spot was of significance to you, Mr. Vannatter? MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative in terms of significance. We're going back to the same thing again, Your Honor, in terms of what the significance was. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Yes. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you thought that that spot that we have on the TV monitor on photo 109 was human blood, right? A. I -- yes, I did. Q. And before Detective Fuhrman and the rest of the three of you detectives entered Mr. Simpson's property, you saw absolutely nothing else that you believed was or could have been human blood, true? A. Before we entered the property? Q. That's right. A. No, sir, I didn't. Q. And did that spot on Exhibit 109 give rise in your mind to the fact that there was a possible hostage situation, that somebody was injured, bleeding or dying inside the Simpson property? MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and answered, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You thought that the Bronco was parked askew; is that right? MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and answered, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: Put up the photo, please. MR. LEONARD: Mr. Baker, I think the plaintiffs have a readily available copy of that photograph. MR. BAKER: I thought we had that. MR. LEONARD: Young Baker can't find it. THE COURT: Take a 10-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. (Recess.) (Jurors resumed their respective seats.) THE CLERK: Your Honor, for the record, the exhibit that was referred to as Exhibit 109 is not Exhibit 109. We already have a 109. This is a new exhibit, it's marked as 2249, defense exhibit. THE COURT REPORTER: 2249? THE CLERK: Correct. (The instrument herein described as a photo with a ruler with the name Rokahr on it, and a blood spot on the door handle of the Bronco was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2249.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) All right. Now, your concern prior to 5:45 was -- we talked about the spot, and you also had a concern about the way that the Bronco was parked, correct? MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and answered, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. Let's get over the hump. MR. P. BAKER: 2038. (Exhibit 2038 displayed.) (The instrument herein described as a photograph of the back view of the Bronco was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2038.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, on the monitor is 2038. That is a picture of how the Bronco was parked on -- in the early morning hours of June 13, 1994, right? A. Yes. Q. Was the back of the vehicle, in your opinion, jutting out in the street? A. The back of the vehicle was parked farther from the curb than the front of the vehicle. Q. Was the back of the vehicle in your opinion jutting out into the middle of Rockingham? A. In the middle of Rockingham, absolutely not. The vehicle appeared to be hastily parked. Q. And you determined that it was hastily parked from the location that it's in? A. It appeared to me to be hastily parked, yes, sir. Q. And the -- the white area that we see down by the tires, that's a concrete apron before the asphalt starts, is it not? A. Yes. Q. And would you agree with me that the front right tire is halfway onto that concrete apron? A. Yes. Q. And that the back tire is adjacent or an inch away from that apron? A. I didn't measure it. It's not sitting on the apron. It is away from the apron. Q. Tires on that vehicle, what, about 7, 8 inches wide? A. Probably, yes. Q. So that the difference would be what, 3, 4 inches, between where the front tire is on the apron and the back tire is not on the apron? A. I guess that's possible. I didn't know what the measure of it was. Q. And that, of course, in your professional opinion of being a detective for 23 years, indicated to you that the vehicle was hastily parked as contrasted to anything else, right? A. It appeared to be hastily parked to me, yes. Q. That's the only thing that would give you any impression of a hastily parked vehicle, is the difference of 3 or 4 inches between the front and the back tires on the concrete apron at 360 North Rockingham, right? MR. KELLY: Objection, misstates his testimony. He said he didn't even have any occasion as to measurements; he'd just be guessing. MR. PETROCELLI: Also barred by ruling number 15. It's irrelevant. THE COURT: You may testify whether it was hastily parked, period. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That was the basis of your professional opinion as an LAPD officer -- detective of 23 years, that the 4 or so inches in difference between where the front right tire was parked on the apron, and the back tire was not on the apron, that's the only thing you saw that led you to that conclusion, right? A. It appeared that the vehicle had been pulled into the curb and not leveled up, hastily parked, someone pulled in and got out. Q. And that, of course, couldn't have been done in a -- in a fashion that was over a period of time, that difference is, in your professional opinion, hastily parked? MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative, speculative, irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, based upon the location of the Bronco as seen in this exhibit, and based upon the spot that we talked about earlier, you then entered into a discussion with Detective Tom Lange concerning entering the premises of Mr. Simpson, right? MR. KELLY: Objection, misstates his testimony, Your Honor, once again. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, it goes to, obviously, this witness's credibility, sir. THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. You may inquire as to what he did. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The next thing that you did after the determination that there was a spot that could have been human blood -- you certainly didn't know that at the time, right? A. No, I didn't know that. Q. And that -- that blood, by the way, was never determined to be human blood by SID or any -- any scientific investigation done by SID, isn't that true? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay if he knows, plus relevance, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, you then have a discussion -- after you viewed the location of the vehicle and you viewed the spot, you have a discussion with Lange and you decide what we discussed earlier, that there was an emergency situation in that house, right? MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and answered, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You then ordered Fuhrman to go over the wall, did you not? MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and answered, misstates his repeated testimony as to he didn't order. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Is it your -- is it your testimony you didn't order him over the wall? THE COURT: I sustained the objection. He explained what he did already. And we're repeating it. MR. BAKER: Respectfully, Your Honor, this is -- MR. PETROCELLI: I'd -- MR. BAKER: This is cross-examination. THE COURT: You examined him on this very point. Q. Now, in view of the fact that there was a -- was a possible emergency in the Simpson property, I take it that after Detective Fuhrman gets over the wall and gets over the gate, that you all have your guns drawn, right? A. No. Q. Not a gun drawn, is there? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. A dog sitting on the front lawn hadn't moved, correct? A. That's correct. Q. The dog moved later, didn't it? A. We actually walked up and petted the dog. Q. So it looked like an emergency situation, when you looked through and saw that dog in there, right? MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative, irrelevant again. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. You did go to the front door, and no one has their guns drawn whatsoever, true? A. That's true. Q. You rang the door bell, and there was no answer, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you kind of had a hunch there would be no answer because you rung the buzzer and you heard the phone ring from outside; isn't that correct? MR. KELLY: Objection as to what his hunch was. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) It was your state of mind that you didn't anticipate when you went to the front door that anyone would answer, correct? MR. KELLY: Objection as to the relevance of his state of mind. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) After you got to the front door, you walked around the north side of the house, did you not, sir? A. Yes. Q. And you went to the guest area, in the back of the house, along the south side, true? A. Yes. Q. And you and other detectives knocked on the door of what turned out to be Mr. Kaelin's room, true? A. Other detective -- detective did, yes. Q. Had you first knocked on any of the glass sliding doors that are in the back of Mr. Simpson's house or to the -- around the pool area? A. I believe that was done by one of the other detectives. I didn't. Q. You don't have any recollection of watching that occur? A. I was -- I was looking around. I believe it was done by someone, but I didn't do it. Q. All right. And so were you in the little area -- MR. BAKER: Phil, can we get that blow-up of the diagrammatic of Rockingham -- Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Were you in the area right in front of the guest room of Mr. Kaelin, when the door was knocked upon? A. I was in the area of -- of the front door. Q. Of the door of Mr. Kaelin's room? A. As I recall, I was standing -- there were steps that went down to the walkway in front, and I was standing up on the top of the steps. Q. And Mr. Kaelin ultimately opened the door, correct? A. Yes. Q. And I assume that the four of you identified yourself as police department officers, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you heard Mr. Kaelin indicate what happened, did O.J.'s flight -- did O.J.'s plane go down? You heard that, did you not? A. No, I never heard that. Q. Well, did you hear Mr. Kaelin say anything, at anytime before 6:15 in the morning, about the flight of Mr. Simpson, you personally? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay, except for yes or no answer, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. The first he told me about -- or the first I heard about a flight was when I was directed to him by Mr. Fuhrman and I talked to him. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So it's your testimony then that when Mr. Kaelin opened the door, the first words out of his mouth were simply not anything to the effect that what happened, did O.J.'s plane go down, nothing like that occurred, because you would have heard that, standing on the step right in front of the door, true? MR. KELLY: Objection as to the form, calls for speculation, and misstates his testimony; said he heard no statement by Mr. Kaelin when he opened the door. THE COURT: Sustained. That wasn't his testimony. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You heard nothing from Mr. Kaelin that -- after the police officers identified themselves, that indicated a statement, question; what happened, did O.J.'s plane go down? Never heard anything about that out at the guest house, just after Mr. Kaelin had opened the door and the officers identified themselves, true? MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and answered, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. No, I never heard that. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you -- they were directed to -- strike that. No officer had any weapons drawn when you were back there by Mr. Kaelin's room, correct? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Then, you went to Arnelle Simpson's room, correct? A. Yes. Q. And in the back of your mind, I take it, there was still this possibility that this could be a second murder scene, there could be a homicide, somebody dead, or some kidnapping or hostage on the premise, correct? MR. KELLY: Objection, relevance. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you ask anybody else to draw their weapons before you went to Mr. Kaelin's room? A. No. Q. Did you -- after you went to Arnelle Simpson's room, did you believe that there was still an emergency situation on the property of O.J. Simpson? MR. KELLY: Objection. Same objection in terms of the circumstances and the witness's state of mind. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Once you got to the guest house where Arnelle Simpson was -- that was the second guest room in the back of the house, correct? A. I believe that's correct, yes, it was the second one. Q. And once you got there, did you -- was there -- How many detectives were there? A. I believe three. Q. And Fuhrman was left with Kato Kaelin, right? A. Fuhrman stayed with Kaelin, yes. Q. And when Fuhrman was with Kato Kaelin, initially, were you still there? A. No, I went to Arnelle Simpson's door. Q. And now, when you went to Arnelle Simpson's room, it was still your belief that Mr. Simpson was not a suspect, right? MR. KELLY: Objection. Same objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) After you aroused Arnelle Simpson -- there were three of you; that is Phillips, Lange, and yourself, went to Arnelle's door and knocked on her door; is that right? A. Yes. Q. And Fuhrman was left alone with Kato Kaelin, right? A. Yes. Q. And then, after that occurred, you went back down the alleyway -- the walkway rather, and picked up Detective Fuhrman and Kato Kaelin and went in the house, true? A. No, that's not true. I don't recall Kato Kaelin and Fuhrman being with us when we entered the house. Q. All right. So it was you and the other three detectives; is that your recollection? A. Me and the other two. Q. I'm sorry. The other two detectives and Arnelle, right? A. That's correct, yes. Q. And you went down -- you went down the walkway, correct, from Arnelle's room, up the stairs? A. Yes. Q. And did you, in fact, go in the back entrance of the house? A. That's correct, we did. Q. And is it your testimony that Arnelle Simpson had a key to get into that back door? A. I asked her if she had a key. She opened it with a key. Q. And is it your testimony, Detective Vannatter, that she turned off the alarm before she went in with a keypad on the east side of that house and that back entrance? A. I don't recall her turning off the alarm. Q. Never occurred, right? A. I don't know. I don't recall seeing her turning off an alarm. Q. It's your testimony that Arnelle Simpson and you, and the other three detectives, opened the door that is indicated on whatever exhibit -- MR. P. BAKER: 145. (Exhibit 145 displayed.) (The instrument herein described as a photograph of the glove found at 360 North Rockingham Avenue on June 13, 1994, was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 145.) Q. At the southeast opening to the -- to the property, correct? A. That's what occurred. Arnelle Simpson opened the door. Q. And no alarm went off? MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and answered. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I never heard an alarm. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you didn't walk around the north side of the property back onto the driveway and enter the front entrance after Arnelle Simpson pushed off the alarm, correct? A. No. Q. You're sure of that? A. I'm positive of that. Q. Now, in terms of your being positive of that -- Well strike that. When you went in the house, I take it by this time, because of the situation you previously described to us, the officers had their weapons drawn, correct? A. I didn't have my weapon drawn. Q. In fact, none of you did, did you? A. Not to my knowledge, no. Q. In fact, you let Arnelle Simpson go into the house first, didn't you? A. I can -- I can hear you very well. Yes, I did, she opened the door. Q. You'll hear a lot. And you let her go in first, into this emergency situation, right? MR. KELLY: Same objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Nobody proceeded into the house to do any investigation about any emergency as Los Angeles Police Officers, before Arnelle Simpson was allowed to go into the house, true? MR. KELLY: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. KELLY: Your Honor, I'd ask Mr. Baker to keep -- not keep predicating his questions about this emergency situation. He's been cautioned on it before. THE COURT: Sustained the objection. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So you don't recall when Mark Fuhrman came into the house, after you had allowed Arnelle Simpson to go into the house, before any LAPD detective, true? A. The first time I saw him in the house was after I had asked Arnelle to show me the -- the maid's quarters. I checked the maid's quarters to make sure everything was okay there. Q. So you asked Arnelle to show you the maid's quarters, right? A. That's correct. Q. And you were concerned perhaps something was wrong in the maid's quarters, right. A. I didn't know. Q. You were concerned perhaps something was wrong in the maid's quarters? A. That was a possibility. I didn't know. Q. And, in fact, you let Arnelle walk into the maid's quarters room in front of you at that time, didn't you, Detective Vannatter? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. I take it your concern wasn't very great? MR. KELLY: Objection. Ask that that comment be stricken. THE COURT: Stricken. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Then did you take -- did you then, I take it, go upstairs and investigate the upstairs portion of Mr. Simpson's house? A. Did I? No, I did not. Q. And what you did was, you sat Arnelle down and chatted with her, correct? A. I did not. Q. You waited until Kato Kaelin got there, then you sat him down and chatted with him, right? A. After he was brought to me, yes. Q. And he was brought to you by whom? A. Mark Fuhrman. Q. Where were you? A. I was leaving the kitchen area to walk back into the bar area to shine my light around the bottom floor and make sure everything was okay when he approached me. Q. The bar area is the area, according to your testimony, you just walked through, is it not? A. That's correct. Q. Are you telling us that when you walked through the bar area with Arnelle Simpson and the other three detectives, you didn't turn the lights on? A. I don't recall the lights being turned on until we got into the kitchen area. Q. So you walked through the bar area with no lights on, with Arnelle Simpson leading three detectives of the LAPD into the kitchen area, and then turning lights on in the kitchen area? A. I believe that's correct, yes. Q. So you walked through the bar area, not knowing what was in there 'cause you'd never been there before, correct? A. Never been there. Q. And you walked through the dining room area and you never been there before, correct? A. I'd never been to the location in my life. Q. And so, there was no lights on until you walked into the kitchen of the residence, and turned the lights on in the kitchen, right? A. There was a light on in the front portion of the house that illuminated part of the area there. Q. When you say light on in the front portion of the house, you are talking about the west portion of the house? A. Yes. Q. Now, you spent some time there on June 13, 1994, did you not, sir? A. At what point, sir? Q. Well, from the point of 5 to 7:30 you were at 360 North Rockingham, were you not? A. I was outside, yes, until about 5:45, and then I was inside from about 5:45, and on the grounds until approximately 7:30, yes. Q. All right. And you were in the area that includes the family room of Mr. Simpson, correct? A. In the area -- I -- I never went totally into the area. I shined my flashlight around, and it appeared okay, and I didn't go in there. Q. Well, the area where the bar is, isn't that the area where you interviewed Kato Kaelin? A. Yes. Q. The family area is right behind it, and adjacent to it, is it not? A. Yes, it is. Q. Are you telling us you never went into that area? A. I don't think I did. After -- after the maid was accounted for, and Mr. Simpson was accounted for, there was no need for me to go into the house anymore. Q. Now, let's go back -- the maid was accounted for, it was your testimony? A. Yes, I believe -- or Arnelle told me that the maid was not working, and it appeared to be the -- the room appeared to be made up, and in good order, and everything seemed fine. Q. Now, it's your testimony Arnelle told you that the maid was not working; that's your testimony, sir? A. That's a possibility. I don't recall every word that was said at the scene. But everything appeared to be in order -- in order. Mr. Simpson was accounted for, and everything seemed fine. Q. In fact, Arnelle never told you where the maid was, and that's why you went in the maid's room, isn't that true? A. I asked Arnelle where the maid's room was, so I could check the maid's room. Q. Let me see if I can make my question so you can understand it. Arnelle Simpson never told you that the maid was there or not there, and that's the reason you proceeded to the maid's room, true or untrue? A. Your -- no, that's not a true statement. I asked her where the maid's room was because I wanted to physically check it, because I had been told by Westec that there was a full-time, live-in maid at the house. Q. You don't have a recollection as you sit here now, although you've told the jury that Arnelle told you the maid was taken care of, you have no recollection of her ever saying that, do you, sir? A. I don't have a total recollection of that, no. Q. Now, in terms of your interrogation of Kato Kaelin, he was a suspect, wasn't he? MR. KELLY: Objection as to relevance, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. He was a potential suspect. Q. Well, let me ask you this: Is Mr. Simpson a potential suspect when you left 875 South Bundy at 5:00 a.m. in the morning? A. Of course he was. Anybody who had personal contact with any of the victims could have been a potential suspect. Q. He was under suspicion for the murders when you left at 5 o'clock in the morning on June 13, 1994, that is, O.J. Simpson, true? A. Not true. MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and answered repeatedly. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, when -- as I understand it, then, Detective Fuhrman was the person who had questioned Kato Kaelin out in his room, correct? A. Yes. To my knowledge, he had done that, yes. Q. Yeah. He had gotten some information from him, had he not? A. I assumed he did, yes. I wasn't there when he was talking with him. Q. And so you don't know what transpired between Mr. Kaelin and Mark Fuhrman out in his guest room at all, do you? A. I do not, no. Q. And so I take it that it would be good LAPD procedure to have Mr. Fuhrman continue the interrogation of Kato Kaelin because he already has information that he wouldn't have to go over again, true? MR. KELLY: Objection, relevance, argumentative, calls for speculation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) How long after Mr. -- Detective Fuhrman lateralled (sic) Kato Kaelin to you to interrogate, was he out of sight, that is, Mark Fuhrman? A. I would have to guess at that and -- and I think maybe 10 minutes or something like that. I'm not positive on that. Q. Now, during -- actually, he was gone from 6 o'clock, and you had previously testified that he came back to tell you about his discovery of this purported glove on the south side of Mr. Simpson's residence between 6:15 and 6:30, right? A. That's possible, yes. Q. And so he was out of sight anywhere between 15 and 30 minutes at the Simpson property, true? A. That's possible. MR. KELLY: Objection to the form in terms of this "out of sight." THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, you and Detective Phillips and Detective Lange have gotten together more than once to talk about exactly the time period we are talking about, isn't that true, in front of the D.A.'s, correct, sir? MR. KELLY: Objection as to the form. Which time period, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) From 6 o'clock in the morning till 6:30, correct? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay. THE COURT: You may answer yes or no. A. I have talked with the D.A. regarding the time frame, yes. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you've done it -- you've also talked to Detective Phillips and Detective Lange about this particular time frame and the whereabouts of Mark Fuhrman during that period, isn't that true, sir? A. Well, Detective Lange was my partner. I talked to him every day. Q. Maybe you didn't understand the question. You want me to reask it? A. Regarding Mark Fuhrman? Q. Regarding Mark Fuhrman and his whereabouts from 6 o'clock to 6:30 on June 13, 1994, you all got together and talked about where Mark Fuhrman was during that period, did you not? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay except for yes or no. THE COURT: Yes or no. A. I don't think I ever had a conversation like that. Q. Never talked to Marcia Clark, Bill Hodgman, Chris Darden or any of them about this time period, in the presence of the other detectives, correct? A. That's possible. I may have -- I know I personally had conversations with them about the events that occurred, and what I knew, and what I did. Q. All right. Now, let's -- as I understand it, then, you are in the bar area talking to Kato Kaelin, and in the kitchen area is Detectives Phillips and Lange with Arnelle Simpson, right? A. To my knowledge, that's the way it was, yes. Q. And up until this point in time, is it your testimony, and this point in time being at approximately 6 a.m. on June 13, 1994, that there had been no revelation to Arnelle Simpson that her stepmother had been murdered? A. I -- I don't know when she was informed. I was not aware of when she was informed. Q. So as I understand it, she was in your presence from the time that you knocked on her door, then -- you allowed her obviously to put some clothes on, I assume? A. Yes. Q. And after that, she walked out with you down the walkway and into, as you say, the back or east entrance, southeast entrance to the house, and then you stayed in the bar area, or did you go to the kitchen area with her? A. She led me directly to the maid's room, and after I looked at the maid's room, I walked back through, walked through the kitchen and went into the bar area. Q. Where's the maid's room? A. It would be off to the -- let me acclimate -- off to the south of the kitchen, there's a laundry room there, and the maid's room connects with the laundry room. Q. Essentially, where that depiction of a door is in the south side of the premises of Rockingham, right here (indicating to diagram)? A. Essentially, yes. Q. Then, sir, you went back into -- left Arnelle, and went back into the bar area, and was Kato being brought in at that point in time? A. Shortly after I entered there, I was approached by Fuhrman, yes. Q. Why did you go back into that area if Kato wasn't there? MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I think I answered that before. It was my intention to look into the rooms, and make sure everything was okay. Q. Now, at this point in time, had you heard anything about any noises that had been reported by Kato Kaelin? And we're talking now about 6 o'clock in the morning on June 13, 1994. MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay. THE COURT: Overruled. A. No, I had not heard anything about that. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So you didn't know anything about noises when Kato Kaelin was given to you to question, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And did Mark Fuhrman tell you that Kato Kaelin had described to him some noises? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay, Your Honor. THE COURT: You may answer yes or no. MR. KELLY: It also has to be put in a time frame, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I don't honestly know that. I know he told me that I should talk to this guy and hear what he had to say. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Mr. Vannatter, you were informed in the process of turning over Kaelin for you to question, that Kaelin had informed Fuhrman of some noises and Fuhrman was going to go out to investigate, isn't that true, sir? A. I -- again -- I think I just answered that. I don't honestly know that. I do recall him telling me that I should talk to the man and hear what he had to say. Q. Isn't it true that you were told by Fuhrman that he was going to go investigate some noises, true or untrue? A. I -- that's a possibility. I don't recall that exact conversation, but that could have happened. Q. And now you had -- from the time Mr. Fuhrman went over the gate and opened the gate for the other three detectives, approximately 10 to 15 minutes had elapsed, correct? A. An approximation, yes. Q. And during that 10 to 15 minutes, you certainly had not gone upstairs at any point in time, during that 10 to 15 minutes, correct? A. That's correct. Q. You hadn't gone into the living room, correct? A. Correct. Q. Hadn't gone into the downstairs office, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you had then been asked to talk to Kato Kaelin, and you were informed that Mark Fuhrman was going to go investigate, correct? A. I don't know whether that's correct or not. As I said, again, I don't recall that conversation. It could have occurred. Q. Well, let me ask you this: Did Mark Fuhrman ask you for any backup because he was going to go try to determine the source of any noises that had been reported to him by Kato Kaelin? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did anybody leave with Detective Fuhrman when he left the premises, or the interior portion of the house? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for speculation, except for this officer's observations, I'd object to the form of the question, Your Honor. THE COURT: Rephrase it. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) To your knowledge, did any other detective leave the interior of Mr. Simpson's house when Fuhrman exited the house? MR. KELLY: Same objection. Calls for speculation unless directed to his own observations, Your Honor. THE COURT: Did you see? You may answer that. THE WITNESS: Did I see anyone leave with him? THE COURT: Yes. THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor, I didn't. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And did you see Mark Fuhrman draw his weapon as he left the interior premises of the house? A. I didn't see him leave the house. I don't know whether he did or not. Q. Well, you didn't see him walk out the back southeast exit? A. I -- I don't know how he exited the house. I didn't see him leave the house. Q. Don't know if he went out the front, that is, the kitchen nook area? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for speculation. He indicated he didn't see him leave the house. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you had some discussions with the other officers who were interrogating Arnelle, did you not, after you had interrogated Kato Kaelin? MR. KELLY: Objection, misstates his testimony. He never indicated anybody was being interrogated at all. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I had discussions with Detective Lange all the time. He was my partner. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And at the time that this -- inside Mr. Simpson's house is, and the questioning of Arnelle Simpson, and the questioning of Kato Kaelin taking place, you subsequently learned that nobody knew exactly where Mark Fuhrman was, correct? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, up until 6:30 on the morning of June 13, 1994, there were four detectives and only one detective had discovered any evidence, that being Mark Fuhrman, right? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for an opinion on this witness's part, and it is argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. A. That's my understanding of it, yes. Q. And that was the purported blood spot on the door, right? A. And I believe the glove had been discovered by 6:30 in the morning. Q. We'll get into the glove. And so then, Detective Fuhrman comes back to you and tells you that he has made yet another discovery on the Simpson property, that being this glove, right? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Yes. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And so you then go out, walk around the front of the garage, down the south side of the house, and view this purported discovery of Mark Fuhrman's, right? A. I was led there by Mr. Fuhrman, yes. Q. Was anybody else with you, any other detective? A. At that point, no. Q. Did he tell you that he led each detective out there individually? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) To your knowledge, did Mark Fuhrman take each of the three of you out there individually? MR. KELLY: Same objection unless it's observations, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I was informed of that later, yes. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And obviously if you detectives are walking down the south side of Mr. Simpson's property in this concrete area -- (Indicating to diagram.) Q. -- if there were any latent prints, they would be destroyed by your walking there, by Ron Phillips walking there, and by Tom Lange walking there, true? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for speculation, argumentative, no foundation, et cetera. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You don't know of any reason why all three of you couldn't have gone out there, or do you? MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, when you went out there at 6:30 in the morning or thereabouts, it was light, wasn't it? A. It was getting light, yeah. Dawn was breaking, yes. Q. In fact, the sunrise was at 5:42 that morning. Take my word for it, okay. MR. KELLY: Objection to taking his word. MR. BAKER: We had a stipulation. MR. KELLY: That's fine. I'll withdraw the objection, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So by an hour later -- 45 minutes later, it was light, was it not, sir? A. It was, yeah. I could see, yes. Q. You didn't have your flashlight with you, did you? A. This was dark along the side because of the foliage alongside. (Indicating to diagram) Q. Was the foliage thick along the side? A. Appeared to be thick to me, yes. Q. And there was a Cyclone fence there, right? A. Yes. I believe it was approximately 5 foot high or so. Q. 5 foot high on the Simpson side of the fence, correct? A. Yeah, on the south side of his property. Q. Okay. But in other words, that fence borders the neighbor's property to the south of Mr. Simpson's property, correct? A. I would -- I would make that assumption, yes, sir, because that would be the property line. Q. And did you ever go into the property to the south -- I believe it's the Salingers, and look to see whether or not it was 7 feet from their driveway to the top of that fence or more? A. No, sir, I didn't. Q. Wasn't anything you investigated, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Now, in terms of your going out to where Mark Fuhrman said he had discovered the glove; you walked out, how close did you get to the glove? A. Four to five feet. Q. That would be four to five feet to the west of the glove? A. That's correct. Q. And how long did you view the glove? A. Short period of time. I don't know exactly how long. Q. Did you see any blood drops around the glove? A. No. Q. Did you see any trail of blood from the glove heading either south towards either of the entrances that border the south side of the house or north towards the air conditioner? A. No. Q. Did you see anything that remotely appeared to be insect activity on the glove, any bugs crawling on it, anything of that nature? A. I don't recall seeing any insect activity on it. Q. Did you see any dirt at all on the glove? A. It appeared to be a bloody glove. There appeared to be blood on it. There could have been dirt mixed into the glove. I don't know. It appeared to be a bloody glove. Q. Now, from five feet or six feet to the west of the glove, you viewed that and saw that there was blood on it, right? A. Appeared to be blood on it, yes. Q. And -- And you were five feet south, and you're about what, six feet tall? A. Yeah, approximately. Q. All right. And in this -- on this particular morning, would you say that you viewed blood that you thought was on that glove from that distance? A. I'm saying it appeared to be blood on the glove, yes. Q. It's your testimony here in this courtroom, that you thought from your vantage point you could tell it was human blood on that glove, correct? A. It appeared to be blood on the glove. It appeared to be a bloody glove. Q. So, being a detective of 23 years, I take it that you looked around the surrounding area to see if there was any other element that looked like blood in the area, true? A. That's true. Q. And you found absolutely none, correct? A. That's true. Q. And you obviously, because you had looked at a glove at 875 South Bundy between 4 and 5 o'clock in the morning, looked to see whether or not the shrubbery had been broken over on the south side of the fence, whether there were any branches that were down indicating somebody had recently come through this heavily wooded or hedged area, did you not? A. At the Rockingham location? Q. Yes. A. There didn't appear to be any evidence, that I saw, of anyone that had come through the heavy foliage there. Q. All right. I take it, sir, that this was because you are aware of the glove at 875 South Bundy when it was brought to you, a major discovery by Mark Fuhrman, was it not? A. It was a piece of evidence. Q. Well, now, Mr. Vannatter, you were aware that this was a high visibility, high publicity case long before you ever got to Rockingham, correct? A. I was aware that it had the potential, but the only difference between this case and any other murder case I worked as a Los Angeles Police Officer is the media coverage of this case. Every case, every murder case has the same importance to me regardless of who's involved in it. Q. You were aware that there was going to be immense pressure put on the LAPD to find a suspect in this case, certainly before you ever got to Rockingham, correct? MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative, calls for speculation, no foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. A. There's immense pressure on every case to come to a successful conclusion. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And there is much more pressure put on the LAPD to get a suspect, and to arrest a suspect, in a high profile case than there is in a case where the victims are unknown by anybody; you would agree with that? A. That may be on the higher echelon of the LAPD. That never affected me in my work. Q. Never filtered down. It never affected you at all, right? A. Never. Q. Not even in the Christian -- did you investigate the Christian Brando case? A. I did not. Q. The linkage in your mind, at 6:30 in the morning, was immediate when Mark Fuhrman says I have found a glove in the south area of Mr. Simpson's estate, was it not, sir? A. What do you mean by the linkage, you mean did he become a suspect? Q. Did you, in your own mind, think one glove Bundy, one glove Rockingham, wow, anything like that? A. Sure, I did. MR. KELLY: Objection. His state of mind with regard to that is irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled at this point. A. Sure, I did. He became a suspect at that point. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Instantly, he is a very serious suspect, that is O.J. Simpson, right? A. He became a suspect, a viable suspect, yeah. Q. He became instantly the suspect, did he not, sir? A. He became a viable suspect at that point. Q. Now, I want to go back to your observations on the morning of June 13, 1994. Now, the chain link fence comes -- goes up as you suggest, about five feet above ground level on the Simpson side of the fence, correct? A. Yeah, I believe that's correct. Q. And then there are bushes that have become -- it's become heavily wooded in that area, hasn't it? A. Yeah. It has heavy foliage, yes. Q. And the trunks -- what type of plant is that, do you know? A. No, I don't. Q. Eugenia. The Eugenia bushes have trunks on them, some of them, four and five inches thick in that area, correct? MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor -- MR. KELLY: Objection as to this area. If he wants to ask a specific question about a location -- we're just talking about an area right now. MR. PETROCELLI: He said he wasn't closer than four to five feet from the glove. THE COURT: Overruled. You may inquire. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The area I'm talking about is the area of the Eugenia bushes that go down the south side of Mr. Simpson's property. And let's just take it from where the -- well, just the garage area, down to where the glove was viewed by you. A. I'll accept that they're Eugenia. It's possible that they had big trunks. I don't -- I don't know how big they were. Q. But certainly, when you were there, you looked very closely, based upon your 23 years of being an LAPD detective, to make the determination as to if someone had used that area to enter the property, that is coming over the Cyclone fence and through the Eugenia bushes onto the concrete walkway, true? A. I didn't see any evidence of that west of the glove, and I never went east of the glove to protect the possible other evidence that may be there for the criminalist. Q. And you certainly shined your flashlight in the area east of the glove to see if there was any branches or any elements of a disturbance, correct? A. I didn't see anything, any disturbance. Q. In fact, you shined your lights and saw cobwebs in the area east of where the glove was located, indicating that no one had come through there; isn't that true, sir? A. No, that's not true. Q. Did you have a discussion with Mark Fuhrman that he had gone into that area, and had been met by cobwebs in the area to the east of where the glove was located? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In terms of your investigation of this particular area, sir, I take it that you gathered information from all sources, to come to your own opinions and conclusions, did you not, sir? A. I tried to, yes. Q. And one of those sources of information is Mark Fuhrman, because he had been back there and purportedly had been there first and found the glove, true? A. True. Q. And so all of this information flow is part of what you used to come to some conclusions and opinions relative to your detective work, true? A. True. Q. And you did discuss with Mark Fuhrman that there were cobwebs on the east side of where the glove was located, indicating that absolutely no one had come from east to west, correct? MR. KELLY: Objection. Same objection. Still calls for hearsay, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you went back to that area again on June 13, 1994, after Mark Fuhrman had been into the area and you had been into the area, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you had discussions with the other two detectives, who were also taken back into that area by Mark Fuhrman, that is Tom Lange and Ron Phillips, true? A. I did what I did. Whether Tom Lange -- Q. And in those discussions no one ever indicated to you that they saw any evidence whatsoever that anybody had gone into or through those Eugenia hedges; isn't that true. MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You concluded as a detective of 23 years' experience, based upon your own observations, your discussions with Ron Phillips, all the information that you had, that absolutely no one had come over the Cyclone fencing through the Eugenia hedge because there was absolutely no evidence of that, correct, sir? MR. KELLY: Objection, misstates his testimony, Your Honor, also calls for speculation and hearsay. THE COURT: Overruled. You may inquire as to what he saw and what he concluded. A. I didn't see any evidence of that. However, I don't know how it was put there. I don't know whether someone came over the fence or walked back there. That's -- I don't know that. But I didn't see any evidence of anybody coming over the fence. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You say, you don't know how it was put there. Let's go back just a moment, for a second. Those hedges are so thick on the south side of the property, your observations were at the time -- in the multiple times that you were on the south side of Mr. Simpson's property on June 13 and thereafter, that if somebody had come through those hedges, there would have to be evidence of it, correct? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for speculation. He's repeatedly testified he never got closer than 4 to 5 feet west of the glove in that south walkway. A. Other -- I answered this a number of times. I don't believe anybody came over the fence. I didn't see any evidence of anybody coming over the fence. MR. BAKER: Is this a good place, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. Okay. 1:30, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinion. (At 12:12 P.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.) PHILLIP VANNATTER, the witness on the stand at the time of the luncheon recess, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed.) BY MR. BAKER: Q. Now, when you -- Mr. Vannatter, you went to view that glove, it appeared to be, to your visualization wet, rather moist, and tacky. True? A. It could have been categorized as that, yes. It looked shiny. Q. It didn't appear to be dry, did it? That is, the blood you were able to visualize, did not appear to be dry, caked, or cracked, did it? A. I didn't know. I didn't get closer than four, five feet to it. Q. Maybe you visualized the glove -- you saw what you believed was human blood, or at least blood, on the glove, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you were close enough to look at it, and see that the appearance of what you thought was blood, was shiny, and it appeared to you to have the appearance of being moist and tacky, correct? A. It could have been moist; it could have been dry. I don't know. Q. You don't know? A. It appeared to have shiny areas. Q. Mr. Vannatter, if you don't know the answer to my question, please tell me, if you can, answer my question, did it appear to be shiny and moist and tacky? Yes, no, or I don't know? A. I don't really know whether it was moist and tacky. Q. All right. You never testified before, in any of the forums that you've been in, that it appeared moist and tacky. True or untrue? A. I could have. It had a shine to it that could have indicated that maybe it was moist. I don't know. I never touched it. I never got closer than four or five feet to it. Q. Did you see Mark Fuhrman pick the glove up? A. No. Q. Did you see Mark Fuhrman ever move the glove at Bundy? A. No. Q. Did you see Mark Fuhrman ever move the envelope at Bundy? A. No. Q. Now, in terms of your analysis, you were kind of lead detective at the Rockingham scene, right? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you have absolutely not one note indicating any -- any evidence that you found at the Rockingham crime scene. Would you agree with that, true? A. I didn't write any, but I caused a lot to be written. Q. You never wrote one note, sir, did you? A. Personally, I didn't. But I caused a lot to be written. Q. You caused a lot to be written by Mark Fuhrman, maybe? A. No, by the criminalist, Dennis Fung. Q. Let's talk about your observations, sir, before the criminalist ever got there. Those were never documented anyplace, were they? A. No, sir. Q. And you -- you didn't call the criminalist upon your arrival to Rockingham, did you? A. No, I did not. Q. Any more than you called the criminalist upon your arrival to Bundy, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Nor did you call -- well, strike that. Then, you -- after this glove was viewed, did you find out whether there were any cuts in that glove? MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay, unless it's his own observations. THE COURT: Sustained. (The instrument herein referred to as board entitled Glove Found at 360 North Rockingham was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 145.) (Counsel displays board entitled Glove Found at 360 North Rockingham Avenue, Exhibit 145. June 13, '94.) MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm not offering it for the truth of the matter asserted. MR. P. BAKER: That board is 145. MR. BAKER: I'm not offering that information for the truth of the matter asserted; I'm offering it for his subsequent conduct. THE COURT: Okay. Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, did -- From your visualization, can you tell if there were any cuts in the Rockingham glove? A. I never saw any. Q. Subsequently, did you find out that there were cuts in the Rockingham glove? MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay, unless it's his own observations. THE COURT: I previously overruled it because Mr. Baker said he is offering it for some other purpose. I'll entertain a motion to strike if that's not established. A. To this day, I don't know whether there were any cuts in the glove. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You never compared any cuts in the Rockingham glove to Mr. Simpson's hands, at any time, sir. Is that your testimony? A. Me? Q. Yes, you. A. No, sir, I never did. Q. All right. MR. KELLY: Objection. Ask that the previous answers now be stricken based on that response, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. I think it explains the second answer. Denied. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, after the glove had been shown to you by Mark Fuhrman, you then directed Fuhrman to go back to Bundy to compare the Rockingham glove to the Bundy glove, right? A. Yes. Q. And did Fuhrman tell you that he had had his picture taken in close proximity to the Bundy glove before he had ever been to Rockingham? MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay. MR. BAKER: It's not being offered -- THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: It's not being offered for the truth. THE COURT: I would sustain the objection. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You had no idea, when you sent Fuhrman back to Bundy to compare the gloves, that Fuhrman had already had his picture taken, pointing at the glove in close proximity. True or untrue? MR. KELLY: Same objection. THE COURT: Overruled. A. That has never occurred. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And so he never indicated to you, said, well, gee whiz, that glove looks exactly like the glove that I visualized at Bundy. He never said that to you, did he? MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: Again, it's not being offered for the truth of the matter, sir. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So now, what time is it that you sent Fuhrman back to -- to Bundy? A. I believe approximately 6:30 in the morning. Q. And by now, it was six and a half hours, and there had been no criminalist, or no investigating at 875 South Bundy. Correct? A. There had been no -- I don't remember crime-scene investigation. A canvas of the neighborhood was going on by uniform officers, and a check of the vehicles in the area was going on. Q. The actual crime scene where the victims were found, there had been no investigation into that crime scene, for, now, six and a half hours. You agree with that? A. Other than walking through and viewing the evidence that could be seen, yes, I would agree with that. Q. And by 6:30 in the morning, did you think it was appropriate to call a criminalist, Mr. Vannatter? A. Well, I had one called before that. Q. You didn't call the criminalist to the Bundy crime scene, did you? A. No, I didn't. Q. You called the criminalist to Rockingham, correct? A. Yes. Q. Now, in your years of experience, do you believe that it is appropriate for the criminalist to go from one crime scene to another crime scene and risk the possibility of contamination? MR. KELLY: Objection. Relevance, argumentative, calls for speculation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, I take it that you wouldn't have called Dennis Fung or Andrea Mazzola to go to the Rockingham crime scene, and then go on to the Bundy crime scene because of the risk of contamination, correct? MR. KELLY: Objection. Same objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, what time did the criminalists finally arrive at Rockingham? A. Shortly after 7:00 that morning. Q. What time did you call them? A. I think approximately 5:30 to 5:40 that morning. Q. And so, it took approximately an hour and a half to get there? A. Yeah. I would say that was close, yes. Q. And would that be the normal time that criminalists take to respond to a homicide crime scene? A. Well, I -- MR. KELLY: Objection to relevance in terms of a normal time to respond to a crime scene. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I don't think there would be a normal time. I think it would depend on the time of day and whether criminalists were working or not working. And it could vary. It could be from ten minutes to three hours sometimes. Q. Well, in terms of your 23 years of experience investigating 200 homicides, I take it there are certain parameters within which criminalists respond. Is that not true, sir? Is it ten minutes to three hours? Is that the parameter? A. It could be -- it could be that, yes. They don't come to every crime scene; they only come to crime scenes that they're requested to come to. Q. And they are generally requested to come to double homicides, are they not, sir? A. Maybe, maybe not. I mean -- Q. Those are the only two alternatives, right? A. Well, that's a decision made by the detective handling that crime scene, whether he feels he needs a criminalist or doesn't need a criminalist. Q. And you felt, approximately 5:30 in the morning, that you needed a criminalist, not at Bundy, but you needed a criminalist at Rockingham, right? A. Yes. Q. And so the criminalists were called. They got there about 7 o'clock in the morning. And you left Rockingham at what time, sir? A. Approximately 7:30. Q. And at 7:30, you went back to Bundy? A. I went back to -- yes, I did. Q. Now, before you went back to Bundy, were you concerned that the evidence should be secured at the Rockingham scene? A. The evidence was secured at the Rockingham scene. Q. Were you concerned that the glove on the south side of the property could be possibly lost or have -- have at the -- elimination of hair and fiber evidence on them? A. No, I was not concerned about that. It was secured. Q. All right. Let me read from your deposition in this case, taken on July 6, 199 -- I'm sorry. It is not your deposition; it is the trial transcript -- July -- preliminary hearing, July 6, 1994. Page 64, line 26 through line 7 on page 65. Okay. Now, you had, by the time you testified on July 6, 1994 -- that was about three weeks after the murders? A. That's approximately three weeks, yes. Q. And you'd already testified at the grand jury proceedings, did you not, before you ever took the stand in the preliminary hearing? A. Yes. Q. And so let me read what you testified to some three weeks after the murders. "Q. And that --" MR. KELLY: Line? Line, Mr. Baker? I'm sorry. MR. BAKER: Pardon me; I gave you the line and page. MR. KELLY: I'm sorry. Okay. MR. BAKER: Is that okay? MR. KELLY: Yes. MR. BAKER: All right. Why don't we put it on the Elmo, Phil. (Portion of transcript referred to was displayed on the Elmo screen.) "Q. And that glove that you saw on the south side of the property that you've already identified in photographs, you're concerned about the loss of evidence that you've earlier identified on that glove?" Your answer: "Oh, definitely. The glove was in the elements, was outside. There could possibly be trace evidence on it, fiber, hair, and what have you. Also, there was an animal, a dog, running loose in the residence lawn; I wanted to make sure it was protected before I left that scene." Now, that's what you testified to on July 6, 1994, is it not, sir? A. Yes. And that's what happened. Q. And so you were concerned about the glove evidence being protected, and trace evidence being on the glove, and possibly lost at that time, were you not? A. Before I left the scene? Of course. Q. And you were concerned about the fact that it was a dog that had been running loose in the front yard that you had seen while you were there at the Rockingham property, true? A. Before I left the scene, yes. Q. And there was a dog at Bundy, was there not? That's how the crime scene was discovered, isn't that true? Or did you know that? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection to compound. I don't know what time frame. THE COURT: Compound. Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You knew there was a dog at the Bundy crime scene, as well, did you not? MR. PETROCELLI: Time frame? MR. KELLY: Object -- THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) On June 13, 1994 did you know there was a dog at the Bundy crime scene? MR. PETROCELLI: Time. MR. KELLY: At what time? Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Anytime you were there, Detective Vannatter. MR. PETROCELLI: Still vague, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. Let's get on with this. A. There was not a dog there, when I was there at the crime scene. I knew there had been a dog there previously, yes. Q. Now, you then went to -- after you had gone to Bundy, you went to the West LA police station to -- to prepare a search warrant, right? A. Yes. Q. Now, you have been on -- on various television shows, protesting the fact that -- and suggesting that you have never lied, true? A. I have never lied. Q. And you said that on -- in front of Tom Brokaw on -- what was it -- March 29, in your interview on Dateline? A. If that was the date, yes. Q. Then you said it on subsequent occasions, did you not, sir? A. And I'll say it right now: I've never lied. Q. And when you produce a search warrant, as a police officer of 26 years and a detective of 13 years, you know that an affiant, that is, the person who is swearing under penalty of perjury, that everything they put in their affidavit is true and correct, is important, do you not, sir? A. To the best of my knowledge, yes. Q. And you know that it is a declaration or affidavit by you, under penalty of perjury, that carries with it the same force and effect as your testimony here in this courtroom, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you knew when you produced the declaration for the search warrant, that Mr. Simpson, had gone on an expected flight to Chicago on the early morning hours of June 13, 1994, did you not? A. No, I did not. Q. So it's your testimony in this courtroom that, although you interviewed Kato Kaelin in the bar area of Mr. Simpson's house on June 13, 1994, he never told you about any expected flight of Mr. Simpson; is that your testimony, sir? A. That's absolutely correct. Q. And I take it, as a detective of 23 years, that you would certainly, after you had known of Mr. Simpson's being a probable suspect, have interrogated Mr. Kaelin relative to the whereabouts of Mr. Simpson, correct? A. I had him interrogated. I had him transferred -- transported to West LA and interviewed, yes. Q. Well, you're sitting there with him in the bar area of Mr. Simpson's family room, as you've testified in this courtroom, Mr. Fuhrman told you to question Kato Kaelin, right? A. Yes. Q. And you questioned Kato Kaelin about the events of the previous evening, did you not, sir? A. Partially of the previous evening. He was telling me about what he had heard, and about the telephone conversation he was having, and that the limo driver had picked up Mr. Simpson. Q. So he told you the limo driver had picked up Mr. Simpson? A. Yes. Q. So you knew that much, right? A. Yes. Q. And put that on the -- MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 1797. (The instrument herein referred to as Copy of Search Warrant was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1797.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You said in your declaration to obtain a search warrant for Mr. Simpson's property at 7:30 in the morning, it was determined that -- it was determined by interviews with Simpson's daughter and a friend, Brian Kaelin, that Simpson had left on an unexpected flight to Chicago during the early-morning hours of June 13, 1994, and was last seen at the residence at approximately 2300 hours June 12, 1994. That's what you said, right? A. Yes. Q. And you even included in your own handwriting, based on interviews of Simpson's daughter and a friend, Brian Kaelin. That's your handwriting, isn't it? A. It is. Q. And that's your initial at the -- up there, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you knew, as a matter of fact, that, if there's a limo coming to pick him up, it sure as heck was an expected flight; isn't that true? A. No, that's not true. Q. Well, let me ask you this: Detective, do you think it was important to ask if the flight was expected or unexpected? MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for speculation, argumentative, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I asked where his whereabouts was, and -- and from Kaelin, who deferred to his daughter. And his daughter gave me the impression, or indicated that he -- she thought he should be home. Q. Is it your testimony -- MR. BAKER: Well, Phil, pull up Detective Vannatter's testimony on March 21, 1995, 19,616. By the way, the word -- The word that's gone. (Indicating to Elmo screen no longer displaying document.) MR. P. BAKER: There we go. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The words that "he left on unexpected flight," those are your choice of words, correct? A. That was my understanding, that it was not an expected flight. Q. I didn't ask you if it was your understanding. I said, the choice of the words, unexpected flight to Chicago, those were your words, correct? A. From my understanding, yes. Q. And you, of course, would have never put in any affidavit, under penalty of perjury, an unexpected flight, unless you truthfully believed it, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And so you had learned from Kato Kaelin and/or Arnelle Simpson, that Mr. Simpson had taken a flight to Chicago. And one or both of them told you it was unexpected, true? A. What you're asking me is, Arnelle Simpson told me that she, or indicated that she thought her father was at the residence, when I asked her where he was at. Q. Maybe you didn't understand the question. A. I understood it perfectly, sir. Q. Then answer it. A. I'm trying to, as best I can. Q. Did you -- were you told then by Kato Kaelin, that the flight to Chicago was unexpected? Yes or no? A. No, I was not. Q. In fact, you were told by Kato that he had gone to Chicago because he was doing a trip for Hertz; isn't that true? A. That's a possibility, yes. Q. Okay. MR. P. BAKER: 19616, line 18. MR. KELLY: Judge, I'd object to this. It's not inconsistent at all with his testimony just now. MR. BAKER: I think it is. THE COURT: It's not inconsistent, but since the jury's seen it, we'll leave it as such. MR. KELLY: Okay. MR. BAKER: (Reading:) "Q. At that time, were you aware of where O.J. Simpson was? Yes or no. "A. I may have been. I'm not sure. "Q. Did you ask Kato, where's O.J.? "A. Yes, I did. "Q. And did he tell you he had gone on a trip to Chicago for Hertz? "A. Yes, he did." Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, that's what you knew when you wrote it was an unexpected flight, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you knew that Mr. Simpson had gone on an expected flight for Hertz, correct? A. No, I did not. Q. So it was your choice to put the word "unexpected," when neither Kato Kaelin, or Arnelle, or anybody else told you it was unexpected; is that true? A. That was -- that was a choice of words I made from the understanding I had, that he had left and not notified anybody that he was leaving. Q. I see. So it was your view that it was unexpected because, in your -- You, first, had never heard Kato ask if O.J.'s flight had gone down, true? A. That's true. Q. And you had never asked him, Kato Kaelin, in your interview with him, whether or not the flight was expected or unexpected, because he was going on a trip for Hertz? A. I never asked him that, no. Q. And of course, if he's going on a trip and he's doing it at the request of somebody, it would be your view that that's probably unplanned and unexpected, right? A. I don't know what the trip consisted of. It was my understanding he left and didn't tell anyone where he was going, because of the responses I got from his daughter, who thought he was at the residence. Q. Well, you talked to Kato about it and you interviewed Kato about it; isn't that correct? A. I -- I asked him where -- where Mr. Simpson was. Q. You wanted to put "unexpected flight" in your search warrant so you'd be sure and get a search warrant issued; isn't that true? MR. KELLY: Objection. Irrelevant, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You put nothing -- THE COURT: Excuse me. The Court is only allowing this testimony because counsel wanted to examine with regards to whether he made an untruthful statement. With regards to the intent or purpose of the search warrant, I've already ruled on that. That's not before the jury. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In -- In terms, sir, of the declaration that you prepared at about 7:30, after you'd been at the Rockingham home, did you include in there that O.J. Simpson had been communicated with in Chicago, and voluntarily agreed to return? A. No. MR. KELLY: Objection the document, if it were at issue, it would speak for itself. It's not at issue and is irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. The answer remains. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, before you ever went to the West Los Angeles Police Department to prepare the search warrant, you had Mr. Simpson's daughter call Kathy Randa, didn't you? A. No, I didn't. Q. Arnelle Simpson had called Mr. Simpson's personal assistant to find the exact hotel Mr. Simpson was staying at; and you were aware of that, correct? A. I found that out later, yes. Q. You were all -- those three detectives -- you were all in the house within 10, 15 feet of each other when Mr. Simpson was reached on the telephone at the particular hotel he was staying in in Chicago, were you not, sir? A. I was not with Arnelle Simpson when they were making the phone calls. Q. Is it your testimony, sir, as lead detective, that you have no idea, and didn't have any idea when you left the Simpson residence at 7:30 on June 13, 1994, that there had been a communication to Mr. Simpson's assistant? They had determined where he was in Chicago on a preplanned trip, and gotten the exact hotel and room he was in? You have -- you no knowledge of any of that? MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I was informed by Detective Lange that he had been located, and that he had talked to him. And that was what I was told. Q. And were you informed by any of the detectives that this was a planned, expected trip? A. No, sir. Q. Cause you would put that in there; you wouldn't lie to any magistrate, trying to get any search warrant, would you? A. I would not lie, period. Q. And when you put in your search warrant that the blood on the door -- strike that. The mark on the door of the Bronco appeared to be human blood, later confirmed by the Scientific Investigation Division that it was human blood, that was just an error, correct? A. That was -- that was an error. But it was based on my experience and the location of the blood. And I believed it to be human blood. Q. Well -- A. I wrote it wrong. I should have said it appeared to be human blood. Q. Well, let's examine this statement that you -- that you put in your search warrant, sir. "Detectives observed what appeared to be human blood." You can put a period. MR. KELLY: I'm going to object to this. This is not inconsistent with the testimony. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You could put a period right there, couldn't you? A. I certainly could have. Q. But you put later confirmed by Scientific Investigation personnel to be human blood on the driver's door handle of the vehicle. And that was a lie; isn't that true, sir? A. That was not a lie; it was a misstatement I was told that it had been tested, and tested positive for blood. And I just -- that was a mistake on my part. Q. By 7:30 in the morning, the SID people had been there for a total of 20 minutes, and you, a detective of 23 years, knew that they could not do a positive identification for human blood in 20 minutes at the scene. True? A. I wish I was a perfect human being. I made a mistake. Q. Can you answer my question, Detective Vannatter? You knew at 7:30, when you left the scene to go help prepare the search warrant, that SID had been there, and in the form of Mr. Fung and Ms. Mazzola, for a total of about 20 minutes; and that they could not do any examination at the scene to determine that it was, in fact, human blood, correct? A. The same answer. I made a mistake. I wish I was a perfect human being. I'm not. I made a mistake. Q. You lied to the magistrate to get the search warrant issued, true? A. No, that's not true. That's nonsense. Q. Yeah. Now, let's go -- it is, in fact, is it not, sir, true that, in virtually every homicide, LAPD issues a press release? MR. KELLY: Objection as to what LAPD does with every homicide. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you give information to anyone at the police department concerning the investigation of the double homicide of Nicole Brown Simpson and an unidentified victim, at any time on June 13, 1994? A. Did I give it -- I spoke with my supervisors, of course. Q. And the reason, of course, that you went to Rockingham, had nothing to do with a follow-up investigation of the murder scene at 875 South Bundy, right? It had to do with notification, taking care of the kids, and that sort of thing, true? A. Exactly. MR. KELLY: Are you using this? MR. BAKER: Yes, I am. (Referring to document handed to Mr. Kelly.) MR. KELLY: Your Honor I'm going to object to what they proposed putting on the Elmo right now. There's certainly no foundation and there's no reason to put it up there, based on his testimony. THE COURT: Okay. Approach the bench. (The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.) MR. KELLY: Judge, it's apparently some sort of press release from the LAPD. First of all, Detective Vannatter has indicated he hasn't spoken to anybody or, as far as he knows, released any information regarding the events of June 13 that were used for any sort of press release. He's never been shown this before. It's obviously not attributed to him. There is no basis to indicate that it was attributed to him. Furthermore, it's not inconsistent with any of his testimony. He said he learned that Simpson had flown to Chicago, but it's also hearsay, too. Had flown to Chicago. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this is a document that was created by the police department, the Los Angeles Police Department. I will represent to the Court that we will have a witness who will testify that the LAPD squelched this particular press release; that this information came from him -- that is, from Vannatter, that the big issue was why no press release. There was another press release that was issued. The reason this press release wasn't issued is because they had a follow-up investigation of detectives that went to Mr. Simpson's residence. He has testified it wasn't a follow-up investigation. And I think it's very relevant to his testimony, and that it can always be stricken later. THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. You can impeach him by your other witness. If the witness is going to come forward and testify as to what you said, that's admissible. But this isn't admissible. (Indicating to document.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, what time on the morning of the 13th did the search warrant issue? A. I think -- MR. KELLY: Objection. Relevance, Your Honor, with regard to the search warrant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, sometime, Detective Vannatter, you went back to Rockingham, did you not? A. Yes. Q. What time was that? A. Approximately noon. Q. And you had been at -- after you -- well, strike that. Let's just go through it. You were at Bundy from 4:00 -- a little after 4, around 5 o'clock, correct? A. Yes. Q. And then you were at Rockingham from 5 o'clock until approximately 7:30, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you left Rockingham at 7:30, with the criminalists still there, true? A. Yes. Q. So you didn't direct what they picked up, what they didn't pick up, what was evidence, what was not evidence, correct? A. No, that's not correct. Q. Well, had you been upstairs by 7:30 and viewed any portion of the upstairs of Mr. Simpson's property by 7:30 in the morning? A. No. Q. It's your testimony that, although you'd been there for approximately two and a half hours, and you'd been inside the residence for at least an hour and 45 minutes, you never looked upstairs at all, correct? A. I did not. Q. And it's your testimony that no other police officer ever went upstairs, correct, that you know of? MR. KELLY: Time frame, judge. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Till 7:30 in the morning, when he -- when you left? A. Not to my knowledge, no one was up there. Q. Okay. And this is in the face of what could have been an extreme emergency situation. It's your testimony, you have no knowledge of any police officer going to the second level of Mr. Simpson's home, true? MR. KELLY: Objection. Asked and answered. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Once it was determined everything appeared to be okay, there was no reason for anybody to go up there. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So, the answer to my question is no, nobody went up there? A. No. Q. And you determined -- well, strike that. So after you left at 7:30, you went back to Bundy to tell your partner that you were going to get a search warrant, correct? A. Yes. Q. And how long did you remain at Bundy at this time? A. A couple of minutes. Q. Now, did you have any radio communication with your partner at any time on the 13th? A. No, I didn't. The only radios we had were in vehicles, and that would have been the only way we could talk, is if we were both in our vehicle. Q. And you hadn't gotten any telephone numbers over at Bundy? A. No. I didn't talk to him on the telephone. Q. Those telephones had been repeatedly used by the LAPD that is, the telephones inside Bundy, before the Bundy scene was ever released as a crime scene; you'd agree with that? MR. KELLY: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence, no foundation, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I've heard that, but I never saw that happen. Q. Now, how long did you stay at Bundy before you went to the West L.A. station? A. I was only there a couple of minutes. Q. And then you went to West LA and went back to Bundy, right? A. Yes. Q. After the search warrant issued, you were back at Bundy, correct? A. Yes. Q. Why? A. To stop by and check with my partner, and to let him now what was happening. Q. I see. And did you -- did you walk through the crime scene at that point in time? A. I walked up to where he was at, yes. Q. Well, you walked right up the sidewalk, and walked right in the area where the bodies had been removed before the crime scene had -- had been released, didn't you? A. There was no other way to get there. I couldn't levitate over the crime scene. I needed to speak to my partner. Q. Let's talk about whether you could levitate, Detective Phillips (sic). Do you think you had to walk on the tile? MR. KELLY: Vannatter. MR. PETROCELLI: You called him Phillips. MR. BAKER: I'm sorry. I wouldn't do that to Phillips. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you think you had to -- MR. PETROCELLI: Move to strike the comment. It's inappropriate. THE COURT: Let's get on with it. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you think you had to walk on the tiles to get to where your partner was? A. I walked on the tiles to get to where my partner was, yes. Q. You walked on the tiles and walked right in the area where the bodies and the blood was, did you not, sir? A. Yes, I did. Q. And you walked right on the blanket that had been placed on one of the victims that could have evidence on it, did you not? A. That's a possibility, yes. Q. You want to see it? A. Oh, I believe you. Q. Let's play it. MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 892. (The instrument herein referred to as a Videotape of Mr. Vannatter and others at the crime scene located at 875 South Bundy was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 892.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That's you right there, is it not, sir? A. Yes; it is the back of my head. Yes. Q. You walked right up the sidewalk where the blood was, did you not, sir? A. Yes. Q. You walked right on the blanket that had been on the body of Nicole Brown Simpson, did you not, sir? A. Yes. Q. And then walked right up the steps, where there was blood, true? A. True. Q. And that crime scene had not been released, and was not released for at least three and a half hours after that, correct? A. I don't know what time it was released. Q. Now then, you went back to Rockingham after you had walked through the crime scene at Bundy, correct? A. Yes. Q. By the way, do you think that was good practice, Detective Vannatter? MR. KELLY: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained as to good practice. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You certainly could have walked up the side of the walkway, could you not, like you came up the first time you were there at 4 o'clock in the morning? A. Yeah, I certainly could. Q. Yeah. Didn't think that was necessary? MR. KELLY: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Didn't think that was necessary, did you, sir? A. I don't -- I don't know what I was thinking. I walked in there, according to the videotape. Q. Now, after you left the Bundy crime scene, you went back to Rockingham and you thought that a serious, most probable suspect was O.J. Simpson, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you had full license to search every portion of his -- the interior of his house, did you not? A. Yes. Q. And I take it at that point, you went upstairs, true? A. No. Q. I take it that since you were aware that there was a bloody crime scene, that there were shoe prints at the crime scene, there were blood drops at the crime scene at Bundy, you wanted to do a thorough search of Mr. Simpson's house and any articles of clothing that he had, so you could make a determination as to whether or not he was, in fact, the perpetrator, or had anything to do with those crimes. True? A. True. Q. And you went into his -- his house, and you -- By the way, you had a videographer that afternoon, did you not? A. I didn't. Q. Did you ever call a videographer to that location? A. No, sir, I didn't. Q. Did you ever tell Detective Luper to move a glove out of Mr. Simpson's closet, and put it down in the living room, where it could be photographed by the videographer? A. No, sir I -- Q. You sure of that? A. Well, I -- I know -- I don't know -- I don't think I did that. Q. Are you telling this jury that you didn't go and look in Mr. Simpson's closet in his bathroom, in the area of his bedroom, for bloody clothes; is that what you are telling me? A. Me personally? Q. Yes, sir. A. The first time I got to the upstairs of his house was after 5 o'clock that evening. Q. So you came back armed with a search warrant and never went upstairs; that's your testimony, correct? A. That's exactly true. Q. All right. And you waited there, and knowing that Mr. Simpson was coming to the residence, did you not? A. No, that's not true. Q. Is it your testimony that you didn't know that Mr. Simpson was coming back from Chicago and was coming directly to 360 North Rockingham? A. I didn't know that. What I knew was, we had attempted to locate him at the Los Angeles International Airport. I was told that he had been missed. And when I got back to the location, I went into the kitchen area of the house and met with Detective Luper to organize the search, to do a grid-type search of the house. And while in there, I saw Mr. Simpson in the front yard of the house. That's why I never had a chance to get to the upstairs. Q. And was it -- did you request Mr. Simpson to be handcuffed by Officer Thompson? A. I did not. Q. Why -- Did you think it was necessary that he be handcuffed on his property -- MR. KELLY: Objection. Q. -- at noon, June 13, 1994, at 12:30? MR. KELLY: Objection. Argument, though he already testified he did not instruct Mr. Simpson -- THE COURT: That wasn't the question. Overruled. THE WITNESS: Did I think it was necessary that he be handcuffed? Q. Yes, sir. A. I took the handcuffs off. I didn't think it was necessary he had to be handcuffed. Q. Actually, Howard Weitzman asked you to have him removed from the handcuffs, didn't he? A. Asked me if I thought it was necessary, and I said no. And I took them off. Q. And then you had a conversation with Mr. Simpson, did you not? A. Just a brief conversation, yes. Q. And you requested that he go down to Parker Center with you, true? A. True. Q. And at the time that you requested him to go to Parker Center, he had -- Mr. Weitzman and Mr. Taft were there, correct? A. Yes. Q. And was it your decision make -- was it your decision that he didn't ride with his attorneys; he had to ride with you? A. I asked him if he would go with me, and he said yes. Q. Was it your decision that he ride with you, as contrasted to letting him ride with his attorneys? A. I asked Mr. Simpson if he would accompany me to Parker Center. He said yes, so I took him with me. Q. You put him in the back seat with another detective, did you not? A. I did. Q. And you had a conversation with him on the way down to Parker Center, didn't you? A. Other than to ask him how he was doing and if he was all right, and to explain what we were doing, no. Q. Did you have any conversation of any substance whatsoever with O.J. Simpson before you turned on the tape recorder in Parker Center and recorded his statement? A. I did not. Q. You didn't have any conversation about, for example, where he had been the night before? A. I did not. Q. Have no conversation with him about whether he had gone out to get a burger? A. I did not. Q. And Lange was not in the car with you, was he? A. He was not. Q. And the only two detectives that were in the room when you took a recorded statement from O.J. Simpson was you and Lange. True? A. True. Q. Now, when you took -- strike that. Mr. Simpson volunteered to go to Parker Center with you, did he not? A. Yes, he did. Q. Mr. Simpson volunteered to get in an airplane and fly back from Chicago to Los Angeles immediately when he was told of his ex-wife's murder? A. You're asking me something I have no knowledge of. Q. You never talked to Detective Phillips to determine whether or not Mr. Simpson had volunteered to get to LA as quick as possible? MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay. MR. BAKER: No. I asked if he had a conversation. THE COURT: You may answer yes or no. A. No. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, I forgot something. By the way, when you were walking through the Bundy crime scene there, and going up the walkway, and on the blanket and up the steps, you didn't wear any protective booties, did you? A. No. Q. In fact, you've never worn any booties at any crime scene you've ever been at? A. No. Q. You certainly didn't do it that day, right? A. No. Q. Now, at the -- at Parker Center, you asked to take a statement from Simpson, did you not? A. I asked to take a statement. I asked his attorneys if I could interview him, yes. Q. And they indicated to you that was fine, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you asked O.J. if you could do it, true? A. I explained the circumstances, and he agreed to talk with us. Q. Now, you, as a detective of 23 years and a police officer of 26 and a half, you felt that if Mr. Simpson's attorneys were not in the room, you would have more freedom to interrogate him, would -- did you not? MR. KELLY: Objection. Irrelevant, Your Honor. THE COURT: As to relevance, overruled. MR. KELLY: Argumentative. MR. BAKER: You're own two -- MR. KELLY: We didn't get a ruling. MR. BAKER: It's not argumentative. THE COURT: He may answer. A. I would -- I would always like to interview someone without their attorney. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you told O.J. that you wanted to, you know, you had some things that you wanted to find out about, and you had -- you wanted to discuss with him, and -- and he should give you a statement, correct? A. I -- I told him that we were going to talk to him about the murder of his ex-wife, yes. Q. Did you tell him, Detective Vannatter, that he was the only suspect you had, before you asked him to take the tape-recording? A. No, I did not. Q. Did you tell him that he was the principal suspect, and you felt that he was responsible for the murders, before you turned on the tape recorder? A. No. Q. And did you tell him that he would be best served by having an attorney in the room, before you turned on the tape recorder? A. I read him his constitutional rights. That includes that he had the right to have an attorney present. Q. In fact, you read it to him. And he said, well wait a minute, and you turned off the machine before you flipped it back on, did you not? A. That's not true, no. Q. So as far as -- it's your testimony in this courtroom, under penalty of perjury, that there is no other tape anywhere that exists between you and Mr. Simpson relative to his statement, correct? A. Another tape? Q. Yes, sir. A. Between me and Mr. Simpson? Q. Yes, sir. A. No, there's no other tape. Q. So you turned the tape-recording on. And you were aware, certainly, at that time, that is -- it's now what, 1 o'clock in the afternoon, 1:30, I believe? A. Yeah. I think it was about 1:30. Q. And you are aware, at that time, about the fact that the murders were committed with a knife, correct? A. You know, actually, it looked like blunt-force trauma to me. I looked at the crime scene. I never inspected the bodies up close until the autopsy. Q. Is it your testimony that you never had a conversation with Detective Lange, who documented 875 South Bundy, and took the measurements, and looked closely at the body, that the cause of death was penetration by a sharp object, as contrasted to blunt-force trauma? A. No. He told me there were sharp-instrument wounds. Q. Blunt-force trauma is when somebody is hit with a blunt object, like, for example, a shovel or a hammer or something like that, correct? A. Correct. Q. And -- And that crime scene is totally different in terms of how the victims looked than a crime scene where a person has been murdered with a sharp object such as a knife. You would agree with that? A. Yeah, they could or -- or they could have similar type injuries. Like I said, I never inspected the bodies closely, but I was told that they had had sharp-instrument injuries. Q. So my question -- to go back to my original question is that, before you turned on the tape recorder, you knew there were two victims, correct? A. Oh, yes. Q. You knew that they were victims of murder from a knife or knives, correct? A. Sharp instrument, yes. I didn't know it was a knife. Q. You knew that more probably than not, both victims had bled to death, correct? A. Well, I knew that they had what -- what appeared to be fatal wounds from sharp -- or from injuries, yes. Q. Is this a good place, Your Honor? THE COURT: Okay. Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. (Recess.) (The jurors resumed their respective seats.) MR. BAKER: Your Honor, may we approach just on a -- schedule matters for a moment. (A bench conference was held which was not reported.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) All right, sir. Let me ask you a couple questions before we play the tape of the interview. Now, obviously, you knew when you saw Mr. Simpson at approximately 12:30, in his yard, that he had come back from Chicago, correct? A. Yes. Q. And did you at that time request all of Mr. Simpson's luggage? A. No, I didn't. Q. In fact, you didn't request one piece of luggage, did you? A. I was given a piece of luggage. Q. Mr. Simpson walked through the gate with a bag that we have called the grip in this case, and what was called the grip in the criminal case. You know the bag I'm speaking of, do you not? A. Yes, sir; the travel bag. Q. And he also had other luggage, a golf bag and a Louis Vuitton bag that not you, nor one LAPD officer would let in Mr. Simpson's compound, isn't that true? A. I was not aware it was there. I'm sure it didn't come in if I've never seen it. Q. Well, you don't think when you saw Mr. Simpson standing there with that little duffel bag, that's what he went to Chicago with, did you? MR. KELLY: Objection. Argumentative. Calls for speculation on this witness' behavior. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. You never asked for any of Mr. Simpson's luggage at any time during your being lead Detective in the Simpson case, did you, sir? A. No. Q. In fact, the only time that the golf bag and the Louis Vuitton bag was ever brought downtown was during the criminal trial; and Mr. Simpson had his lawyers bring it in. Isn't that correct? A. I believe it's correct, yes. Q. In terms of Mr. Fuhrman was he back when you were there at noon? MR. KELLY: Objection as to the form. Where? MR. BAKER: I apologize. Poor question. Was Mark Fuhrman back at Rockingham when you returned there around noon on June 13, 1994? A. I believe he was there. I saw his partner, Brad Roberts, there, yes. Q. The last thing you had directed Mark Fuhrman to do was to go over and compare the glove that he says he found at Rockingham with the glove at 875 South Bundy, correct? A. The last thing. Q. Yeah. That's the last communication -- A. No. Q. -- you had with him before noon on June 13, 1994, correct? A. No. Q. I strike it. You did talk to him about whether or not he felt the glove was the same, did you not? A. Yes. Q. Now, you never requested Mark Fuhrman to leave Bundy and go back to Rockingham, did you? A. I think that was probably implied because I asked him to go compare the gloves and have it photographed, the one at Bundy, and let me know on it, yes. Q. Well, maybe my question was unclear to you. You never requested him to go back to Rockingham, correct? A. I asked him to let me know if the gloves appeared to be a match, yes. Q. And so Fuhrman goes from Rocking -- after he'd already been at Bundy, he goes to Rockingham, makes the discovery of the mark on the door of the Bronco, makes the discovery of a glove over on the south side of Mr. Simpson's house, goes back to Bundy and then back to Rockingham, right? A. Yes. Q. All right. And at any time during the time that you saw Mark Fuhrman, was he wearing a coat? A. I don't recall him wearing a coat. He may have at some point, but I don't recall him wearing one. Q. Not at Rockingham, not at Bundy, correct? A. Right. He could have been, sir, I don't recall him wearing one. Q. You have no recollection one way or the other, correct? A. No, sir. Q. Now, in terms of the statement, sir, when that statement was -- tape recording was begun, it was, according to the statement itself, 13:35, which is 1:35 in the afternoon, right? A. Yes. Q. And now, you had been with Mr. -- Mr. Simpson in his yard at Rockingham, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you hadn't told him anything that you knew about the murders, had you? A. No. Q. You had been with him in the automobile going down to Parker Center, correct? A. Yes. Q. And again, you had told him absolutely nothing that you knew about what was going on with the murders, correct? A. Correct. Q. And he had asked you, hadn't he? A. No, he didn't ask me anything about it. Q. You went on television, on a couple of shows, and said you thought that O.J. Simpson's demeanor was inappropriate because he never asked you about what had happened at the murders, right? A. That's right. Q. And you even said that in your deposition, isn't that true? A. Yes. Q. And then we played the tape for you where Mr. Simpson says, you guys won't tell me anything about what's going on. You recall that? A. Yes. That was like a statement; not a question. Q. Well, let's see if it's a statement or a question. Mr. Simpson, at page 23, 810 (sic), in response -- MR. KELLY: One moment, Mr. Baker. MR. BAKER: 810 (sic) is the D.A.'s number. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) (Reading:) Mr. Simpson: You guys haven't told me anything. I have no idea what happened. When you said to my daughter -- said something to me today that somebody else might have been involved, I had absolutely no idea what -- what happened. I don't know how, why or what. You guys haven't told me anything. Every time I ask you guys, you're going to tell me in a bit. Is it your statement that you had never been asked by Mr. Simpson anything about the murders in Rockingham or in the car or at Parker Center? A. That's my statement. This was never asked. Q. And when he says, every time I ask you guys, you say you're going to tell me in a bit, you don't say anything to the effect that you've never asked us at all, do you? A. I didn't say that. Did I? Don't guess. Do you have a copy of that so I can refresh my memory? Q. Sure, be happy to show it to you. Why don't you read to the jury what you said, sir. MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 783. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In response to Mr. Simpson requesting, every time I ask you guys, you say you're going to tell me in a bit. Tell the jury what you responded to? A. Well, one of us responded, I don't know whether it was myself or Lange, one of us responded, well, we don't -- we don't know a lot of the answers to the questions ourself yet, O.J. Q. And I'd like to play the tape for you now, Detective Vannatter, and I'd like you to concentrate on the tape and tell me if that was you who said those words? MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me. You're playing this portion of the tape? MR. BAKER: The whole thing. MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, may I be heard, briefly. (The following proceedings were held at the bench with the reporter:) MR. PETROCELLI: Under what legal theory is he entitled to play the tape? Self-serving, hearsay as to his client and what's the relevance of the -- playing the whole tape? It's an admission to what I introduced it against the parties. THE COURT: Excuse me? MR. PETROCELLI: It's an admission when we introduce his statement of the party. How can he put on a conversation of his client? That's inadmissible hearsay, Your Honor. MR. BAKER: It is not inadmissible. They've cherry picked this document, and it's the completion doctrine, we're entitled once they open the door. THE COURT: Excuse me? MR. BAKER: Once they open the door -- THE COURT: Wait. Let me ask him. (Indicating to Mr. Petrocelli.) THE COURT: Did the plaintiff offer a portion of this? MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, Your Honor. MR. BAKER: Then overruled. MR. PETROCELLI: Is that the theory, completion doctrine? THE COURT: (Nods.) (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) By the time you took this interview, you knew that Mr. Simpson had taken a redeye on Sunday night back to Chicago, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you knew that Mr. Simpson then had been awoken after a couple hours sleep and had caught another flight directly back to Los Angeles, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you knew he was tired when you took that interview, did you not? A. Yeah. I knew I was, too. Q. So you were both tired, right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 782. MR. BAKER: We don't need this reported because there's a transcript of it. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. BAKER: With plaintiffs' permission. MR. PETROCELLI: Yes. (Tape is played but not reported.) (Tape concludes playing at 3:44 p.m.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Mr. Vannatter, you were the person that questioned Mr. Simpson when he indicated, you guys haven't told me anything, every time I ask you guys, you're going to tell me in a bit, that was you doing the questioning, correct? A. It was me that answered it, yes. Q. It was you that not only answered it, it was you doing the questioning, was it not? A. Yeah, I asked him what he thought had happened. Q. And then you say, we don't know a lot of answers to those questions ourselves yet, O.J., correct? A. That's right. Q. And when you said you've never asked us one thing about what happened in those murders, you've never said anything to that effect? MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative. THE COURT: Argumentative. We heard the tape. I think I'll sustain the objection. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, Mr. Simpson, during the interview, indicated to you that you -- that he had some guns and that you could go take all of them, did he not? A. Yes. Q. He volunteered to take a blood test when you said there was blood all over the place, did he not? A. Yes. Q. And he didn't ask to see an attorney or anything, did he? MR. KELLY: Objection. At what time? He got -- Q. (BY MR. BAKER) When you're talking about blood all over the place, he said, I'll take a blood test, take my blood, words to that effect? MR. KELLY: Objection. A. We were talking about blood only at the Rockingham location. We never told him about blood at the Bundy location. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) All he indicated to you when you were talking about blood, was take my blood test, correct? A. Yes. In fact, he said the blood at his location -- at the Rockingham location was probably his. Q. Now, you had apparently brought up a polygraph test to Mr. Simpson previous, did you not, that is, previous to starting the tape recorder at 13:35 on the afternoon of June 13, 1994, true? A. Me? Q. Yes. A. No. Q. When you said, quote, "Did Mr. Weitzman, your lawyer, your attorney, talk to you, anything about this polygraph we brought up before," were you talking about you brought up a polygraph to Mr. Weitzman, not Mr. Simpson? A. I didn't say that. That was Detective Lange's words. Q. You were still there; you hadn't left the room yet? A. I was still there, yes. Q. And Detective Lange was not at Rockingham, was he? A. No. Q. Detective Lange was not in the vehicle when you came from Rockingham to Parker Center, was he? A. No. Q. And my question, then, again to you is, did in fact you bring up a polygraph to Mr. Weitzman in front of Mr. Simpson? A. No. Q. And did you want Mr. Simpson to take a polygraph test? A. I would have liked for him to, sure. Q. In fact, Mr. Simpson made an offer in writing to you to take a polygraph test, did he not? MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I'm going to at this point lodge an objection for the record in view of his prior position, and your instruction, and serve notice that I intend to follow up on this if this question is answered. THE COURT: Well, I'll serve notice on you that you may follow up within the parameters of my ruling, and the limitations of the rules of evidence will apply. MR. KELLY: Can I see what that is before you throw it up there? MR. BAKER: Sure. (Mr. Kelly reviews document.) MR. KELLY: Okay. I'd object to this going up there, Mr. Baker. MR. BAKER: You want to give us a ground? MR. KELLY: It's hearsay, it's self-serving, not relevant, no foundation. THE COURT: Self-serving. Sustained. MR. BAKER: You haven't even seen the document, Your Honor. MR. PETROCELLI: Would you like -- THE COURT: You told me what it was. MR. PETROCELLI: I would object to it. THE COURT: Approach the bench. MR. BAKER: It's been overruled before, you've seen it. THE COURT: You indicated it's a written request for polygraph. It's self-serving. That was the objection and it's sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you receive a written offer to have Michael Baden and Henry Lee assist you in the investigation, Detective Vannatter? A. Yes. MR. KELLY: Same objection, self-serving document. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you -- after you took the statement from Mr. Simpson, he didn't restrict in any way, shape or form the numbers of questions you could ask, correct? A. No. Q. And you asked all the questions you and your partner thought were necessary, true? A. No. I don't think that's true. Q. You had no parameters put on you in terms -- by the attorneys representing Mr. Simpson, did you? A. No, no, but I realized that if I -- MR. BAKER: I move to strike everything after "No," Your Honor, as nonresponsive. THE COURT: Stricken. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, so -- and there was nothing that was forbidden to you during that interview or Detective Lange to investigate Mr. Simpson? MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and answered several times, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. No. Q. And you were in a room in Parker Center, at the LA Police Department, downtown Los Angeles, correct? A. Yes. Q. And it was a room where no one else is present, true? A. Yes. Q. Just you, Lange and O.J. Simpson, correct? A. Yes. Q. Now, after that, you took Mr. Simpson and you had a police nurse, Thano Peratis, take blood, did you not? A. After the interview? Q. Yes. A. No, after the interview we took him to the photography lab and had his hand photographed. Q. Okay. Now, this was your prime suspect in this high-publicity case, that is, O.J. Simpson, and you had him in Parker Center, and you had him without any attorneys or anyone else around, and you took him to get his hand photographed, right? A. Yes. Q. And I take it, sir, that between you and Detective Lange, there was close to 50 years detective -- certainly at least 40 years of detective service at LAPD on that day, true? A. Yes. Q. And you were looking for anything that you felt would tie Mr. Simpson to the murders, correct? A. We were looking for evidence, yes. Q. 'Cause he was the primary and only suspect you had, right? A. At that point, there could have been other suspects. I didn't know exactly what had happened at that point. Q. Well, you didn't look for -- for any suspects, did you? A. There was an extensive investigation done. Q. So you had Mr. Simpson, this primary suspect, and you had him in Parker Center and you took him to get photographed, did you not? A. Yes, his hand. Q. And you looked at both his left hand and his right hand, did you not? A. I did not personally examine him. I saw him from a distance. Q. Are you telling these ladies and gentlemen of this jury that you, as a detective of 23 years, thinking you had a prime suspect that had a cut on his hand, didn't pick up his hand, turn it over and look for every cut on his hand? You didn't do that? A. I didn't do that. I saw the cuts on his knuckle and I had him photographed. Q. And are you telling these ladies and gentlemen of the jury that you never looked at his right hand to see if there were any cuts on his right hand? A. I didn't see any cuts on his right hand. Q. It's true -- you picked up his hands, you inspected the up -- the palmar surface, the dorsal surface on both hands to see if there were any cuts other than the cut over his knuckle on his left middle finger, true? A. No, not true. Q. How close did you get to Mr. Simpson's hand to observe the cut or to inspect it to see if there was more than a cut? MR. PETROCELLI: Assumes facts not in evidence, Your Honor. He didn't say anything about inspecting. MR. BAKER: I'll be happy to try and lay a foundation. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In terms of Mr. Simpson being the prime suspect and having a cut on his hand, and you knowing that the murders had taken place with a knife, the cut's pretty important, isn't it, sir? A. It appeared to be a piece of evidence, yes. Q. Well, I mean if this was a shooting, that piece of evidence would have different significance than a killing of two individuals with a knife or knives, true? A. According to the circumstances of the murder. I don't know. It would be according to what happened with the murder. Q. Well, let's talk about what happened, that you knew, at 2:30 on the afternoon of June 13, 1994. You knew two people were deceased, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you knew that they were murdered with knives or sharp objects, correct? A. Sharp instruments, yes. Q. And you knew that there was a cut on Mr. Simpson's hand, correct? A. That's why I photographed it, yes. Q. And you knew that he was your suspect, the primary suspect and the only suspect you had, true? A. You keep -- no, I didn't know he was the only suspect. I knew he was a suspect in that case, but there could have been more people involved. Q. You knew at the time that you -- after you took him in and photographed the hand, that he was the only suspect that you, as lead detective for this double homicide, was aware of, correct? A. Aware of at that point, yes. Q. And you also knew that there was going to be some pressure brought to bear on the LAPD by the media, to get a suspect, and to get someone arrested for this heinous crime of June 12, 1994, true? A. That wouldn't have bothered me. Q. Didn't care whether you say it bothered you or not, you knew it, didn't you? A. No, I didn't know that. Q. Oh. A. Pressure from the media really had nothing to do with investigating a case. I mean that has nothing to do with a murder case. Q. Absolutely nothing to do with anything that you did, right? A. No. Q. Oh. A. It's -- that has nothing to do with the circumstances of the murder. Q. You certainly wouldn't rush to judgments in a high publicity case? A. I wouldn't rush to judgment in any case. Q. You'd want to do a thorough and complete investigation, right? A. As best I could. Q. Part of that thorough and complete investigation is when you have the prime suspect, to inspect that prime suspect's hands once you see that there is a cut on his hand and the murder has occurred as a result of a sharp object penetrating two human beings, true? A. I photographed the cuts I saw on his hands. Q. Now, you saw when you say cuts, you saw exactly one cut, isn't that true? A. No, I saw two. Q. You saw two cuts. Did you make any notes of the two cuts, Detective Vannatter? A. No. I had them photographed and then I had them examined by the registered nurse in the jail dispensary. Q. And you saw absolutely not a single cut on Mr. Simpson's fourth finger of his left hand, did you? MR. PETROCELLI: No foundation that he looked, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I don't recall seeing it, no. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, it's certainly something you look for with any cut that you could find on Mr. Simpson's hands, isn't that true? A. I didn't -- I don't recall seeing a cut on his fourth finger. Q. I understand that, sir. In terms of the murder of two human beings with a sharp object, and you have a cut and the prime subject, you certainly looked on every finger, every digit of both hands to determine whether or not there were any other cuts, because you wanted to be a good, thorough police detective having 23 years experience and examined over a hundred homicides, right? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, asked and answered, compound, argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Sir, I photographed the cuts I observed on his hand. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You can answer my question, Detective Vannatter. And that is, you certainly would look at every digit on both the right and left hand, on the palmar aspect, the dorsal aspect, and make sure that there was not any other cuts because that could be crucial evidence, true? A. I didn't do that. I photographed the cuts I saw on his hand. Q. Are you telling the jury you never looked to see if there was anymore cuts than the obvious cut on the left knuckle of Mr. Simpson's hand; is that what your telling us? A. I'm telling you that I photographed the cuts that I observed on his hand. Q. I understand that, sir. Maybe my questions are unclear. Are you telling us you never looked except for the obvious? A. I guess if you want to put it that way, yes. Q. So you didn't want to do a thorough investigation, true? MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you then took O.J. Simpson and had blood removed from O.J. Simpson, correct? A. Yes. Q. And for the first time in your entire career as a detective, you took reference blood from Parker Center, to the crime scene that is some 15 miles away, correct? MR. KELLY: Objection. This area was covered once before on the direct case. MR. BAKER: No, it wasn't. MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, it was. THE COURT: I think it was covered on cross-examination. MR. PETROCELLI: It was indeed. MR. BAKER: That was gone into only minutely due to the Court's rulings. I request the Court's indulgence. And it will be very brief. MR. PETROCELLI: Misstates what happened. MR. KELLY: It was covered very clearly, this particular area. THE COURT: I'll allow you to examine on the issue provided you stay within your promise of being very brief. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) It was the first time you've taken blood from Parker Center out to a crime scene, true. MR. KELLY: Objection to the relevance of that particular question. THE COURT: Overruled. A. This was a unique situation. I believe this is the first time in my career I ever got a voluntary sample from a person that wasn't in custody. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you rehearse that answer with Mr. Kelly? A. Absolutely not. Q. Is the -- Now, can you answer my question. That's the first time you ever took a reference sample of blood to a crime scene, true? A. That could be, yes. Q. And you could have got a DR number and booked the evidence in Parker Center, true? MR. KELLY: Objection. This was covered thoroughly the first time, about the DR number. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Yes, I could have done that. Q. In fact, you told this jury the last time you were here you couldn't have booked the evidence at Parker Center; isn't that true, sir? A. I couldn't have booked the evidence without obtain a DR number, without knowing the item number, but it could have been done. It could have taken me a long time. I couldn't have left it without booking it. And I realized that Mr. Fung was itemizing items of evidence, and to ensure the chain of custody and control, I took it to him. Q. Ensure the chain of custody and control. MR. BAKER: Put up the map. MR. P. BAKER: This is 891. (The document herein described as a map of Los Angeles was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 891.) (Exhibit 891 displayed on Elmo.) MR. BAKER: Can you focus that. (Indicating to Elmo.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Parker Center, 150 North Los Angeles Street? A. Yes. Q. You can get a DR number at Parker Center, correct? A. I would have had to obtain one in West Los Angeles. Q. Just answer the question, Mr. Vannatter. You can get a DR number at Parker Center, can you not? A. May I properly answer the question? Q. Why don't you answer mine? A. I would have had to obtain a DR number from West Los Angeles Division. Q. And you could have gotten a DR number and they had facilities at Parker Center to book that evidence, true? A. Yes, that's true. Q. And they had -- They had facilities to book that evidence approximately a mile away at Piper Tech, right? A. That's correct. Q. And you didn't know when you retained the reference sample of Mr. Simpson, whether or not Fung was at Rockingham, or Bundy, or someplace else, true? A. I knew that the search warrant hadn't been shut down at Rockingham, and I made the assumption that he was there because they were still doing the search. Q. The answer to my question is true? You didn't know whether he was at Rockingham, at Bundy, or if he had left both of the scenes, true? A. I didn't know for sure, that's true. Q. All right. MR. BAKER: And back it off. (Indicating to Elmo.) Q. And you got back in your car and went 18.7 miles to Rockingham, correct? A. That's correct. Q. You, sir, told us the last time, that you believe you got a manila envelope out of your desk and put the vial in the manila envelope, right? A. Well, you corrected me last time and refreshed my memory. Apparently, I had taken an envelope down to Mr. Peratis because he signed it and the affidavit portion of it. Q. You never took an envelope down to Mr. Peratis. He gave you a signed evidence envelope at the time when the blood was taken, true or untrue? A. That's a possibility. I -- I know that I had a signed envelope from him. Q. Did you have one note about the chain of custody of this reference vial from the time you took it at 3:30 until you were at Rockingham at 5:26? A. No. Q. So there is no document that records this all important chain of custody from the time you took custody of the blood vial until the time you arrived at Rockingham, and the only reason we know at 5:26 is because the media taped it; isn't that true? MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative, compound. THE COURT: It's compound. Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Let me put it this way then, sir, you certainly never made a note of when you arrived at Rockingham, did you? A. No. MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and answered. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You never even got one slip of paper, a receipt or anything else from Dennis Fung for this all important 8 cc's of O.J. Simpson's reference blood, true? MR. KELLY: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence with regard to the 8 cc's. THE COURT: 8 cc's. Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Didn't have him sign a piece of paper, nothing, right? A. No. Q. And that's your idea of preserving the chain of custody, Mr. Vannatter? A. Yeah, I personally hand carried it and gave it to him. Q. And did you watch this all important piece of evidence taken to the crime scene being placed in a trash bag? A. No, sir, I didn't. Q. Did you -- Was Ms. Mazzola watching this transfer of this blood vial that contained Mr. Simpson's reference blood when you -- MR. KELLY: Objection. Q. -- when you handed it to Mr. Fung? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for speculation as to what Ms. Mazzola was doing, Your Honor. THE COURT: As to whether she was watching, as phrased I'll sustain it. You can rephrase it. MR. BAKER: Thank you. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, where were you physically when the transfer of this blood vial was made to you to -- from you to whoever it was made to? A. In the foyer of the house, right inside the front door area of the residence. Q. Who was present when this transfer was made? A. I don't know. Other than Fung and myself, I don't know. Q. Oh, was Ms. Mazzola present when you were handing this -- A. I just answered that I don't know. Q. Well, you sat through a lot of the criminal trial and sat right in the spectator section and watched it, didn't you? MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative and obviously asking for hearsay. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. KELLY: This witness's answer -- Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So you can't assist us at all, whether anybody else was present at the time that you say you transferred this vial to Mr. Fung, right? MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and answered, Your Honor. THE COURT: You may answer. A. I don't know. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So you took this gray envelope containing Mr. Simpson's vial, and you handed it to Mr. Fung, right? A. Yes. Q. And did you tell him this is O.J. Simpson's reference vial, we just took this blood at Parker Center, or words to that effect? A. I told him it was a sample of blood from Mr. Simpson, yes. Q. And what did you observe him do with it? A. I don't -- I don't know what he did with it. The criminalist controls the evidence. Once it goes to him I -- I have absolutely no control of it anymore. Q. Well, maybe I misunderstood. I thought when we started the examination of you this morning, you agreed, as you previously testified, that you were co-lead detective, you were in charge of the fingerprint people, you were in charge of the criminalists, and you were in charge of the coroner, did you not? A. Once a piece of evidence is collected, it then becomes the property of the Property Division or Scientific Investigation Division. We do not have any more control over it. Q. Didn't understand my question, sir? A. I understand it very well. Q. Then answer it. A. That's the best answer I can give you. Q. You were in charge of the criminalist when you handed the vial -- the envelope that you say contained the vial, to Mr. Fung, right? MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative and vague in terms of in charge of. THE COURT: Overruled. A. We're in charge of instructing them what portions of evidence we want collected. Once that evidence is collected, we no longer have control over those pieces of evidence. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) All right. Now -- well, you weren't -- what time did Mr. Fung arrive at Rockingham, since you were in charge of telling what evidence to collect on June 13, 1994? A. Shortly after 7 o'clock. Q. What time did he leave? A. I don't know. I wasn't there. Q. Well, what time did he come back to Rockingham, do you know that? A. I don't know that. I wasn't there. Q. So the only thing -- when you left Rockingham to go to Parker Center with O.J. Simpson, Fung wasn't there? A. I don't -- I don't recall seeing him there. I don't know where he was at that point. Q. The only thing that you recall was he was there early in the morning, at a little after 7, and wasn't there when you returned around noon, correct? A. I -- before I left there, I walked him through the evidence that had been found, and instructed him to collect that. Q. I didn't ask you when you walked him. I gave you certain time parameters. A. How else can I answer the question? He was there when I left. I don't believe he was there -- I didn't see him when I came back at 12 o'clock. I was there for approximately 5 minutes, and I left again, and I didn't get back there until after 5 o'clock that evening. Q. So when you left Parker Center with this all important piece of evidence that you were so concerned about the chain of custody, you didn't know whether the crime scene had even been released at Bundy; isn't that true? A. Yes, I knew it had been released. Q. Oh, I see. How did you know that? A. Because Mr. Lange had been notified of that by someone. MR. PETROCELLI: What exhibit is this? MR. P. BAKER: This is next in order. THE CLERK: 2250. MR. KELLY: What is it? MR. PETROCELLI: What is it? Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, how long after you arrived was this transfer made of this blood vial? A. It was made immediately. When I walked inside to see Mr. Fung, I gave it to him. Q. So you immediately walked into the premises, found Mr. Fung in the foyer, handed him the envelope, correct? A. I believe he was in the kitchen area when I first walked in. And I -- and I asked him to come over, or someone asked him to come over, and I immediately gave him the envelope. Q. And what did you see him do with the envelope? A. I don't know what he did with the envelope. Q. I didn't ask you if you knew. I said, did you visualize him do anything with the it. Did he turn around and walk away? Did he walk down the foyer, past the dining room, or into the living room? A. Sir, I don't know what he did with the envelope. Q. You don't have any recollection of what occurred, correct? A. I don't know. MR. KELLY: Objection. Asked and answered previously. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: I'd like to play the videotape of you arriving at Rockingham, and the time that Mr. Fung leaves Rockingham. MR. PETROCELLI: I assume this is not edited in any way, Mr. Baker; is that right? This tape isn't edited? You'll show the complete footage? THE COURT: Is that an objection? MR. PETROCELLI: Yes. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. BAKER: It's just like the depositions of various people, that has -- starts, it has a time on it, and it stops and it has a time on it. And it starts and it has the time on it when Mr. Fung leaves Rockingham with the trash bag. MR. PETROCELLI: I would object if it's not a continuous depiction of him. THE COURT: Overruled. If it's a segment and it's got time, that's fine. (The videotape referred to was Played in open court, "TCR 17:16:50, stopping at 17:16:53.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That's you at 5:16 and 53 seconds arriving at Rockingham, correct, sir? A. Yes. MR. BAKER: Go ahead, Phil. (The videotape referred to was played in open court, starting at 17:42:54.) MR. PETROCELLI: That's another problem, Your Honor. MR. BAKER: This is -- MR. KELLY: Your Honor, we just went back 11 minutes. MR. BAKER: Went back 11 minutes? MR. MEDVENE: Forward. MR. PETROCELLI: That was the problem I was afraid of. THE COURT: Back it up. MR. P. BAKER: Back it up? THE COURT: Yeah. MR. PETROCELLI: It's before and after, but not the during. MR. BAKER: Maybe you can get a videotape from the street into the foyer. No one else can. MR. PETROCELLI: Then don't show it. THE COURT: What's the objection? MR. KELLY: It's edited. It skips 26, 36, 26 minutes or something like that. MR. PETROCELLI: It's irrelevant. MR. KELLY: It's irrelevant, is the objection. No foundation and -- THE COURT: As I understand, the defense is offering this to show when this witness arrived at the scene, at that time and when Mr. Fung left. Is that all you're offering it for? MR. BAKER: That's all we're offering it for. THE COURT: Okay. MR. PETROCELLI: In that case, no objection to those. (The videotape referred to was again played, starting at 17:42:55.) MR. BAKER: Now, cut it, Phil. (The videotape referred to stopped playing.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, in the 24 minutes between the time you arrived and the time that the trash bag is carried out, did you have any conversations with Mr. Fung or Andrea Mazzola about the blood vial? MR. KELLY: Calls for hearsay, Your Honor. THE COURT: Answer yes or no. A. No. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You never saw Mr. Fung or Mr. Mazzola -- or Ms. Mazzola leave Rockingham after you arrived at 5:16, until they left at 5:42, correct? A. What was the question again? I never saw them leave before -- Q. You never saw them leave the premises and go outside the gate and put any evidence into the van between 5:16 and 5:42, correct? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. You don't think, you know, if that blood went directly into the trash bag or anywhere else you've never seen him and had not one conversation with him after you handed it to him? A. That's correct. Q. Now, let's talk a little bit, then -- strike that. After that, you attended, the following day, the autopsy of the two victims, right? A. Yes. Q. And after that, you went and picked up the blood of the two victims at the coroner's, did you not? MR. KELLY: Objection. Same objection as the prior sequence, Your Honor. This was all thoroughly covered on cross the last time Mr. Vannatter testified. MR. BAKER: No, it wasn't. I'm trying to get done. THE COURT: You said an hour. You're already 15 minutes after your hour. I'm just wondering whether I'm going to do a rerun -- allow to you do a rerun, consume a little more time. How much longer is this going to be? MR. BAKER: My examination of him? THE COURT: Yeah. MR. BAKER: We'll finish it by 4:30. THE COURT: Okay. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You picked up the blood at the coroner's office. You hadn't done that before, either, had you? A. No, I've picked up blood from the coroner's office before. Q. If the coroner said he'd never given it to a detective in his entire life, you wouldn't have any way of disagreeing with that, correct? MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay. THE COURT: Stricken. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) To your knowledge, was anyone other than yourself -- Detective Vannatter had custody of all of the victims' -- and the suspect, at any time from June 13, 1994 to June 17, 1994, other than yourself? MR. KELLY: Objection. THE COURT: That question -- MR. PETROCELLI: Vague. MR. BAKER: Pardon? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. THE COURT: I think you left out some important items in that question. MR. BAKER: I apologize. MR. KELLY: If he adds them, it's compound, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The only -- they were persons that you're aware of that had custody of both victims' and Mr. Simpson's blood, with nobody else being around them, being with them, is you. True? A. I don't know whether that's true or not. I don't know how it was handled after I turned it over. Q. You do know, sir, that when you take evidence, and you maintain evidence, that you are required to book it immediately, correct? MR. KELLY: Objection. Not relevant to this particular situation, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. You book it as soon as practical, yes. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The manual says the word "immediately." It didn't say that Phil Vannatter gets to use his judgment as to when "as soon as practical" is; isn't that correct, sir? A. Sometimes it's impossible to do it immediately; you do it as soon as practical. Q. And the booking of evidence on June 13, 1994, of the blood, could have been done within ten minutes at the Parker Center, true? MR. KELLY: Objection. Asked and answered. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In any event, sir, I want to go into one other area. When you took Mr. Simpson from Rockingham to Parker Center, you took his grip, or duffel bag, or travel bag, whatever it was, with you, did you not? A. I placed it into the vehicle with us, yes. Q. You had it in the front seat of your vehicle, did you not? A. Front passenger's floorboard. Q. And you testified in the criminal trial, that you got Mr. Simpson's permission to look into that grip, didn't you? MR. KELLY: Objection as to the form of the question as to what he testified to at criminal trial, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. Ask your question. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, you looked into his grip and you inspected the contents thereof, did you not? A. Yes, I did. Q. And in the grip, when you inspected it -- and by the way, you have testified both that you had permission from Mr. Simpson, and that you haven't had Mr. Simpson's permission to get into that grip; isn't that true? MR. KELLY: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Well, I don't think I ever personally asked him, but I think there was implied permission when he cooperated with us. Q. So you think that if he says, I'll give you a statement, and I'll give you blood, that that gives you permission to do anything in any of his property without asking, right? That's you your view of what the -- A. I did it, sir. Q. -- of what the Fourth Amendment -- A. I looked in the bag. MR. KELLY: Objection. THE COURT: Sustain as to Fourth Amendment, counsel. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Anyway, you looked in there, right? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you went through the contents of that grip, did you not? A. I looked at the contents to see if there was any visible blood in it, yes. Q. And you saw a passport in there, didn't you? A. I don't recall seeing a passport. Q. You saw a disguise in there, didn't you? A. No. Q. You saw items in that duffel bag or grip that Mr. Simpson kept -- there was cash in there, wasn't there? A. I don't recall seeing any cash. Q. Well, do you have a recollection of seeing anything in there? A. There was clothing in it. Q. What clothing? A. I don't know. I wasn't looking to identify each item. I was looking to see if there was any evidence of what appeared to be blood on anything. Q. It's your testimony -- MR. KELLY: Well, Your Honor I'd object and ask that the witness complete the answer to the last question before -- THE COURT: Sounds like he completed it. Ask another question. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So you don't remember the items of clothing. That's all that was in there was clothing, right? A. No, there were some other items. Q. What else was there. A. I can't tell you exactly, sir. Q. Do you have a recollection of a phone being in there, a cell phone? A. Could have been, yeah. Q. No, I didn't ask you if there could have been. There could have been an elephant in there. The question was, was there a cell phone in there, to your recollection? No recollection, right? A. I don't recall seeing one. Q. Do you recall that there was a cell phone kit, battery and charger, so that if you're away on a trip, that you've got the apparatus to recharge your cell phone? Do you recall that being in there? A. I don't recall seeing that. Q. Only things that you can recall are clothes, and you have no recollection what they are, right? A. That's absolutely correct. Q. Now, let me ask you this: You had custody of that overnight, right? A. No. Q. Well, you certainly didn't -- didn't give it back to Mr. Simpson when he left the LAPD, did you? A. I returned it to Rockingham when I went to Rockingham. Q. Maybe you didn't understand my question You certainly didn't return it to Mr. Simpson, while he was at LAPD and before he left; isn't that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And -- and you had full -- you could go in there once you decided that you had implied permission -- I take it you thought you had implied permission to do anything you wanted with that grip, do -- that is, test any item, do anything you want, correct? A. I could have booked it as evidence, yes. Q. Well, no. You'd have had to have taken it to Rockingham to do that. MR. KELLY: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You want to answer that or not? A. What I would have had to do is taken to Rockingham. Q. You could have? A. I took it to Rockingham, and returned it to him, Mr. Baker. Q. You took it to Rockingham and gave to Mr. Simpson? A. I returned it to the location, yes. Q. And while you were there, on the afternoon of the 13th, I take it that -- at least at that point, you went in and inspected Mr. Simpson's closet, right? A. Yes, I went into his closet. Q. And looked thoroughly for bloody items, did you not? A. That had already been done during the service of the search warrant. Q. Well, didn't you tell a second magistrate on June 28, 1993, that the search was ineffective; that you hadn't done a thorough search of Mr. Simpson's house? Let me see any can refresh your recollection with the search warrants, June 28. MR. MEDVENE: Page, Bob? MR. BAKER: I'm trying to get it. I'm trying to get it. MR. P. BAKER: 1798. MR. BAKER: 1798. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And there is the search warrant that you caused to be issued on June 28, 1994, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you told the magistrate that -- by words or effect, that you people just hadn't picked up enough stuff at Mr. Simpson's house pursuant to the search warrant of June 13, 1994, right? A. I would categorize it as saying it was a search for additional evidence that had not been recovered to that point. Q. Well, look at the last page, and tell us if the words about the gloves inadvertently not being taken or something to that effect -- tell us if those are your words. (Witness reviews documents.) A. Yes. Q. Now, you didn't ask to search the golf bag or the Louis Vuitton bag on June 28, 1994, did you? A. No. Q. You never asked for that, did you? A. No. Q. Now, in terms of the search warrant of June of 19 -- June 28 of 1994, you asked to look for a knife, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. Didn't find a knife, did you? A. No. Q. Did you -- do you know -- did you go upstairs in Mr. Simpson's bedroom? THE COURT: When? MR. BAKER: Pursuant to the search warrant of 6-28. I'm sorry. A. There were people assigned to search the bedroom, yes. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And did you go to the area where there's, right outside of his bathroom, the dressing area? A. There was a thorough search made of the location. Q. Anyone ever pull open the medicine cabinets to see a stiletto with a six-inch blade in there -- MR. KELLY: Objection. Q. -- on subsequent searches to June 28, 1994? MR. KELLY: No foundation. Argumentative, irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. A. There was no knife there. There was a thorough search done of the location. Q. You sure of that? A. I'm positive. Q. There wouldn't have been a knife there, and no judge (sic) ever went up there and got it after your thorough search had been accomplished? MR. KELLY: Objection. MR. PETROCELLI: Lack of foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, sir, relative to your participation in the case, you have been on how many television shows subsequent to the murder? A. Seven or eight, probably. Q. Denouncing my client, right? A. Denouncing your client? Q. Yes. A. Well, I believe your client is guilty of murder, yes. MR. BAKER: Move to strike as nonresponsive. That's about as much denouncement as you can get. MR. PETROCELLI: It was responsive. THE COURT: Overruled, I think. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That's about as much denouncement as you can get? A. The evidence indicates that to me, yes. MR. BAKER: Move to strike. Nonresponsive. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. You were just absolutely -- Strike that. How much money are you getting for writing your book? A. How much money am -- Q. Money, dollars. A. Mr. Lange and I were lucky enough to get a contract with two other people for $115,000. Q. So you, sir -- so you're cashing in on your belief, right? A. Well, like a lot of people are, I'm attempting to better my lifestyle and make some money, certainly. Q. Yeah. So you're attempting to better your lifestyle and make some money, and you want to cooperate with the plaintiffs in this case as much as you can; isn't that true, sir? A. I'm attempting to tell you the truth, as best I can recall -- Q. I see. A. -- how things occurred. Q. Now, let's try it again. Same question, second time. You are attempting to cooperate as much as you can, because you hope that your appearance on this witness stand, in this courtroom, gets you more money for your book deal; isn't that true? A. Boy, I would have given the book deal up not to testify from this stand anymore. I'm not happy to be here at all. Q. Really? A. Yeah. Q. You'll give it up? A. I'm not happy to be here, believe me. Q. You're cooperating as much as you can with the plaintiffs; isn't that true, sir. MR. KELLY: Objection as to the form, "as much as you can." Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You have -- you wouldn't shade your testimony in favor of the plaintiffs in this case, and against Mr. Simpson, regardless of your feelings; you call it right up to the middle; isn't that true? A. Again, I've attempted to tell you -- Q. And can you answer my question for a change, Detective Vannatter? A. I would not shade my testimony. I've attempted to tell you the truth, as best as I can recall, how things occurred. Q. And what you wanted to do is, you want Mr. Simpson to be held responsible, so your book deal is better, and so that you're vindicated for your inactions in investigating O.J. Simpson subsequent to June 12, 1994; isn't that true? A. Whatever happens here is out of my control. I'm here because I have been asked to be here, and I'm here because I promised the Judge that I would be here the last time I was here. I have traveled from out of state to come here. I have left my wife by herself. And I would rather not be here; I would rather be home. Q. Detective Vannatter, let's just ask a couple more questions, and I'll conclude. THE COURT: I hope so, because it's almost 430. MR. BAKER: I understand. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You were aware when you were in Indiana, before you appeared in this courtroom, before, that you couldn't have been subpoenaed from Indiana to this courtroom, correct? A. Well, I could have been subpoenaed with an out-of-state service; sure, I could. Q. No. You were aware that you could not, any more than Detective Fuhrman could be; isn't that true? MR. KELLY: Objection. Argumentative, irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you voluntarily appeared to assist the plaintiffs and to lean your testimony as far as you could for the plaintiffs. True or untrue? A. Untrue. MR. BAKER: Nothing further of this witness. THE COURT: Can I see the reporter at bench. (The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.) THE COURT: That document that you mentioned, offer -- MR. BAKER: What about it? THE COURT: I want to see it. MR. BAKER: Okay. MR. PETROCELLI: Are you talking about -- MR. KELLY: Polygraph, yeah. (Pause for Mr. Baker to retrieve document.) THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Reporter, that portion of the testimony where Mr. Baker said you have not seen -- even seen the document, Your Honor. Mr. Petrocelli would you like, and then you have on here the Court, I -- you told me what it was. That's not what I said. So I want to clarify the record. (Referring to realtime computer screen.) MR. PETROCELLI: What I recall, Your Honor saying -- THE COURT: Well -- THE REPORTER: I can't tell -- I can't tell without looking at the notes. It might have mistranned. THE COURT: I want to clarify the record today. I don't want to be in a position of coming back the day after and trying to explain why it wasn't correct at the time that it came to my attention. (Court reporter reviews Judge's realtime computer screen.) THE COURT REPORTER: I can tell, Your Honor, it was -- you said, "You told me what it was." And Mr. Petrocelli said "I would object to it." (Referring to page 163 of daily transcript.) THE COURT: Okay. (Pause for the Court to review documents.) THE COURT: Okay. The document that Mr. Baker referred to appears to be a letter dated June 15, 1994, which reads as follows: Dear Detectives Vannatter and Lange: At our meeting today, I offered to provide the services of Dr. Michael Baden, Pathologist, and Dr. Henry Lee, Criminologist, to aid in the investigation of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman. These gentlemen are employed by the state governmental agency, and, in my opinion, are the leading experts in the United States. I think it is imperative prior to internment, that a second autopsy be performed that may produce evidence relevant to the murders. Detective Tom Lange requested a polygraph of Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson will be willing to consider a polygraph examination, with the stipulation that the results would be admissible in any potential criminal investigation. We have written" -- Appears to be a new paragraph. At any rate, on the second page, quote: We have written to the coroner, requesting a second autopsy, and would like you to contact the next of kin for permission in this regard, since I feel it would be inappropriate for me to contact them directly during this period. It's signed Robert O. Shapiro. Thank you. Okay. It's my opinion that this is probably the most troublesome aspect of this case that has been brought about by the reference by defense of the polygraph, the failure of the plaintiff to object at the time, and we are in a state of our case wherein reference to the polygraph had been made. The Court is satisfied that the state of the law is, polygraphic evidence is not admissible by statute, as well as by case law in this state. And the Court is inclined to not permit the evidence in this regard. Before counsel may be permitted to make any argument in closing argument in this regard, I will visit this issue again and allow counsel to submit points and authorities in that regard. My inclination is not to permit at this point any further comment on the polygraph, because to permit comment on it, it would appear to me, it would be to permit a contention that the polygraph has probative value as to truthfulness or untruthfulness, there being no evidence being received in that regard. Number one. Number 2, the Court, having the understanding that it's not admissible evidence statutorily or by case law, that such comments should not be permitted, possibly with the exception of a stipulation by counsel that it were to be considered and there not be any such stipulation, the Court, the same preclude any reference to polygraphs pending further points and authorities on that issue. MR. PETROCELLI: For the record, I want to object to the Court's ruling. He opened the door once in opening, after your Court's limiting instruction, to which I objected because of the scope of it. He then opened it up a second time on this witness's examination. He elicited that Mr. Simpson, once again, wanted to take one. The implication being if he had taken one, he would have passed. The implication being that it was trustworthy and reliable as a scientific device. And I don't see how I could possibly be precluded at this time, after he elicited this testimony, from me responding to it. THE COURT: Mr. Petrocelli, so far as I've seen, this far, based upon all of your papers, your points and authorities, there is no admissible evidence in that regard that you can offer. MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Simpson testified that he was hooked up to a polygraph operator. And I can produce a witness that can say he did take a test, irrespective of the outcome of the test. But it's unfair for him to keep throwing this up to the jury and we can't respond to it. THE COURT: You have a witness that was present at the event? MR. PETROCELLI: We have Robert Kardashian; we have the polygraph operator, and we have whoever else was there. I'll serve a subpoena on them and bring them in. He keeps saying that Mr. Simpson would gladly and happily have taken a test. The fact is, he did take a test. THE COURT: Well, how do you get around work product and privilege? MR. PETROCELLI: How does he -- How does he get around opening up a subject matter that, at the same time, he claims is work product and privilege and then bars us -- THE COURT: Mr. Petrocelli -- MR. PETROCELLI: -- inquiring -- THE COURT: At this point, I'm going to stand on what I said today. I'm not permitting any further movement on this issue, and I'm not going to permit defense to argue this. MR. PETROCELLI: He's precluded from asking any further evidence -- questions about this? THE COURT: At this point. MR. PETROCELLI: Including his -- THE COURT: You show me some points and authorities that allows to you do that. MR. BAKER: For the record, I, first of all, have disagreed with the Court's opinion relative to the fact that -- that I opened the door in opening statement. As this Court is well aware, an opening statement is not evidence, number one. Number two, the -- the incident of this letter and the incident that he's talking about are totally separate and apart. Mr. Brewer gets up and announces to the jury in opening statement, the title of my remarks is The Presumption of Guilt, Consciousness of Guilt. This goes to the consciousness of innocence that was opened by them. And I objected to the -- any going into the polygraph test by Mr. Petrocelli. We had a side-bar. I was totally overruled. And I've also moved for mistrial on that basis. And he opened the door and represented to this jury what a purported score was, what it meant, and that Mr. Simpson took a test without any good-faith belief in any of the above. THE COURT: I've ruled on those issues already. MR. BAKER: I understand. MR. PETROCELLI: Well, for the record I did have a good-faith basis. THE COURT: Okay. (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, you are excused until tomorrow at 8:30. (The following proceedings were held at bench outside the presence of the jury and counsel.) THE CLERK: Yes. I wanted to enter into the record, I'm doing a nunc pro tunc entry in the minute order regarding Plaintiffs' Exhibit 25. It is not by reference, as I misstated on Friday, December 6. It is a photograph that was admitted in evidence. Thank you. (At 4:40 p.m., an adjournment was taken until Tuesday, December 10, 1996, at 8:30 a.m.) |