REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
DECEMBER 11, 1996

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS,

VS.

ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1996
8:40 A.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: This proceeding is without the presence of the jury.

The Court is addressing some motions. First motion the Court will address is Plaintiff Goldman's motion in limine to exclude the testimony of doctor John Gerdes concerning an alleged contamination at the SID.

You -- the moving party, go ahead.

MR. LAMBERT: Thank you Your Honor.

As we point out in our papers, Your Honor, there's really three reasons why Dr. Gerdes' testimony should be excluded in this case.

Number one, Dr. Gerdes' testimony is premised upon a study that he performed so-called validation tests and proficiency tests. These were tests done by LAPD, not on actual cases, but when they were preparing to start doing case work, or when they were testing themselves on their ability to adequately run the DQ Alpha system.

From that study, Dr. Gerdes attempts to extrapolate into giving an opinion that the actual testing done in this case could have been affected by contamination.

He doesn't say that he studied the actual test strips in this case, and discovered they were contaminated. Instead, he's saying, I looked at these validation studies; I saw evidence of contamination. And in the validation studies, therefore, there must be some -- or could be some contamination in the actual case done here.

THE COURT: What was the nature of the contamination that he allegedly found?

MR. LAMBERT: What he did, Your Honor, he looked at the DQ Alpha strips, and if they were -- let's say they were -- there's a strip for a single person. If he saw three alleles or, you know, one of the dots lit up to indicate that there was a third allele where there should only be two, he said that could be contamination, even though, as Gary Sims and Robin Cotton testified many times, that's simply called cross-hybridization.

It often produces an effect of cross-hybridization, which an experienced reader, like Sims or Cotton, or for that matter, I suppose Dr. Gerdes, understand to be that elicited every time he saw an extra allele on his chart, and he added them all up, and he said that shows evidence of contamination during these validation studies at SID.

He then goes on to say that, well, I didn't see that same evidence of contamination in the test results in this case.

But that doesn't mean it's not there; it could be the result of contamination.

Now, the problem -- and the second problem with this testimony is that, the defendants' theory of the case as explained to the jury by Mr. Baker and frankly, as is necessary, for the contamination theory to do them any good is, the contamination didn't take place during the DQ Alpha testing process by SID, which is what Dr. Gerdes studied.

Because if the contamination took place there, the only problem would be in the test results of the LAPD testing, not the test results by Cellmark or DOJ, which are testing different swatches that were sent out to them to be tested.

So in order for the defense to use contamination as a defense to the Cellmark and DOJ test results, they've got to push the contamination test results back to an earlier stage in -- of the process to the evidence processing room.

So the theory of the defense, as explained to the jury by Mr. Baker, as they attempted to develop in the cross-examination of Collin Yamauchi, is that the contamination took place in the evidence processing room when Mr. Yamauchi was sampling the evidence samples, and Mr. Simpson's reference sample.

The theory explained to the jury by Mr. Baker is that Mr. Yamauchi spilled the blood during that process, spilled the reference sample that somehow affected all of the evidence samples that he was testing, and that were ultimately sent off to Cellmark and DOJ to be tested.

Dr. Gerdes' testimony can't obviously have anything to do with what went on in the evidence processing room. What he was talking about is actual DQ Alpha test results on validation tests, not real tests, but he was looking at what he said showed these extra alleles.

That -- none of those cases -- they weren't cases. None of those validation studies that he was looking at even went through the evidence processing room, because they weren't real evidence, they were just mock samples created in the lab to see if they knew how to run the program correctly.

So what he's talking about can't have anything to do with whether Mr. Collin Yamauchi did or did not spill any blood, or whether that did or did not contaminate the evidence samples. He would be trying to confuse the jury, and extrapolate from his work on validation studies to say what Collin did somehow cause contamination. Two completely different events.

Finally, Your Honor, as I point out, they have, in responsfor admissions, admitted that the laboratories got these various DQ Alpha tests that we have now put into evidence. The DOJ got them; Cellmark got them; as you saw, LAPD got the very same results.

So it can't be that Dr. Gerdes is saying that there was something wrong in the testing process itself, and that's where contamination took place, because they've admitted these results were correct results.

They have to be saying, as indeed they are, that the contamination didn't take place during testing, but instead, during evidence handling itself. That way, Gerdes's handling in validation is irrelevant and does not support that theory at all. It is simply a method to confuse the jury about the whole contamination issue.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, Your Honor.

First of all, you've already ruled on this motion. You've ruled that the contamination study is relevant to the weight of the evidence in this case.

But beyond that, Mr. Lambert has made a number of misstatements. Dr. Gerdes will be testifying about contamination in the samples in this case.

We've already talked about stains 29 from the steering wheel, 30, 31, and the victim's reference blood samples. He's going to testify about all of those stains, and about the extraneous alleles that have shown up on all of those stains, and that they are the possible product of contamination or cross-hybridization.

Now, with respect to cross-hybridization and contamination, Dr. Gerdes will testify, which is consistent with their expert's deposition, that when you get cross-hybridization, it means you're doing the test wrong. This isn't something that happens all the time. If the tests are done properly, you shouldn't get contamination or cross-hybridization. Many times you can't tell the difference from the test; it could be one or the other.

The study that he did was on every testing strip that we could get from LAPD. They refused to give us any of their case work. All they would give us was there validation study, which presumably are the cleanest samples that they have.

And he analyzed every strip that we could get from, not a different period of time, from a span of time before the tests in this case, as well as after the tests in this case.

And he found out that there are the same alleles that are common to this case showing up unexpectedly in virtually all of the work that they have done in their lab, that we were given access to.

And all of that is relevant to the weight of the results in this case.

We have never admitted that the results in this case are the accurate results, and we went through this thoroughly at the beginning. Our admission was qualified to say that we are not admitting anything about the period of time from collection up until the time the actual test was done.

The only thing we admitted when they ran the tests, those were the results they were going to testify about, not that they were the correct results, not that the evidence was not contaminated, not that it was not collected properly. We didn't admit any of that stuff. There's nothing new here justifying the Court changing its ruling.

MR. LAMBERT: Let me just read, if I could, one other request for admissions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LAMBERT: This the first Bundy blood drop. Admit that the blood -- this is request number 14.

"Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 47 had an HLA DQ Alpha blood type 1.1, 1.2."

The response: "Admit."

And then they have the qualification about the point in time.

MR. BAKER: Read the qualification.

MR. LAMBERT: "In admitting this request for admission, the defendants will adopt the plaintiffs' definition, as communicated to the defendant, as that point in time when an item was tested by an outside laboratory, as opposed to the time of collection or any other point in time."

So they're admitting that when the lab tested item 47, it got a 1.1, 1.2.

Any testimony about them not following the correct procedures, or cross-hybridization being evidence of improper testing technique, is irrelevant in light of all those requests for admissions they've admitted. Those were the test results they do have, could have denied them, and said no, that's cross-hybridization; that there was something wrong with the way the testing was done.

But they didn't. They admitted them. All the labs got consistent results in this regard.

MR. BLASIER: That is not what we were admitting. Dr. Gerdes will testify that because of the unacceptable high risk of contamination in LAPD, which is where every one of these samples started out, you cannot rely on the results in this case.

That goes to the weight of the results, and it is certainly viable.

THE COURT: Is the defense's contention that -- that the DOJ Lab and Cellmark produced different DQ Alpha results from SID?

MR. BLASIER: No. It's our position that Cellmark and DOJ also had evidence of contamination because of 30, 31.

THE COURT: Excuse me. I'm -- I'm asking you these questions for a specific reason.

Are you contending that Cellmark and DOJ got different DQ Alpha results from SID?

MR. BLASIER: On some of the samples, yeah. On 30 and 31, 29.

MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, the difference is that on some of the samples, LAPD got no results --

MR. BLASIER: No.

MR. LAMBERT: -- They didn't get a different result.

THE COURT: 30 and 31. What is your response to that?

MR. LAMBERT: I'm doing this from memory.

My recollection is on 31, LAPD got no result, just inconclusive. They didn't get a result when they tested it.

On 30, I don't, off the top of my head, remember. But essentially, Your Honor, the test -- the DQ Alpha test results are, across the board, the same between all the laboratories.

MR. BLASIER: We went all through this with Gary Sims and Doctor --

THE COURT: I'm trying to be very specific, okay? I don't need to be deflected from what I'm asking.

Would you explain to me why those two results were --

MR. BLASIER: Sure.

THE COURT: -- Dissimilar.

MR. BLASIER: We showed the strips where they are calling a 4 allele, when -- I think it was a 4 -- when there's no dot that appears; that one of them called it at one point, didn't call it another point, that there's a 1.3 allele that shows up. That could be the result of contamination, cross-hybridization, one or the other. They can't tell the difference.

But more importantly --

THE COURT: Don't deflect me.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

THE COURT: I'm just asking you a specific question.

MR. LAMBERT: Here's the results board, Your Honor. We have the big one down there, but if I could hand this up to you, you'll see that the results from -- on number 31 for LAPD and Cellmark are the same.

MR. LAMBERT: That's 294, Your Honor.

(Pause in proceedings for the Court to review document.)

THE COURT: 31. What was the other?

MR. LAMBERT: 30. We got no result from LAPD on that one.

MR. BLASIER: Tell you what Dr. Gerdes is going to say, if you like.

(Pause in proceedings for the Court to review document.)

THE COURT: Okay, go ahead.

MR. BLASIER: He is also going to testify that those results in 30 and 31 are not valid because of the -- the extraneous alleles, which showed up in the positive controls; that because of those alleles showing up where they're not supposed to be, that those whole -- that whole series of tests is invalidated.

THE COURT: By whom?

Tests by whom?

MR. BLASIER: All of them by DOJ. I'm sorry. I think it's DOJ on 30 and 31; that they had extraneous alleles on the positive controls.

He's also going to testify that Bundy drop 52 shows evidence of contamination, as well, with an extra 1.3 allele as a result of possible cross-contamination at the crime scene.

MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, if he's going to talk about specific evidence samples, as opposed to this study that he did of validation samples and trying to extrapolate from that, I would say that at the very least, let's limit him to talking about the evidence in this case, not to the validation study and what conclusions he draws from the validation study, if he wants to come in, even though they've admitted these results, and try to undercut their admissions.

I suppose that, you know, maybe that's relevant, but certainly not the validation studies, although I think in light of the admissions, none of it is relevant.

THE COURT: You want to argue any more about number 30?

MR. BLASIER: No.

THE COURT: Okay. That's my conclusion; that Dr. Gerdes' testimony will be allowed, but will not be allowed in the area of the -- the -- what do you call that?

MR. LAMBERT: Validation study, study of the validation tests.

THE COURT: He can testify to anything else.

MR. BLASIER: It's the Court's ruling that presence of extraneous alleles in the LAPD lab is irrelevant?

THE COURT: Yes, based upon the reasons stated by the plaintiff.

So that will be the ruling.

There is a declaration by Gary Randa, submitted by the defense, with respect to service or lack of service on William Blasini. There's a counter-declaration filed by the plaintiff by Yvette Molinaro, and that Mr. Blasini, B-l-a-s-i-n-i was reached by telephone on December 10, and in Chula Vista, he resides in southern California, Chula Vista.

I'll hear from the defense.

MR. P. BAKER: Judge, we tried, as the declaration of Gary Randa attached -- we tried to serve Mr. Blasini. The two locations have had him stationed there for about 40 -- I don't know, 30 hours or something like that.

We've tried to serve Mr. Blasini; we've been unable to do so. I guess they spoke with him, didn't say that he'd appear, or that they knew exactly where he was.

We tried to reach him. I tried to move this case along by reading in his testimony -- be about 15 minutes. It's similar to the issues raised in Kardashian. They were unable to serve him. We've been unable to serve Mr. Blasini.

THE COURT: Where Ms. Molinaro?

MR. GELBLUM: She's at the office.

THE COURT: Where is Mr. Blasini residing?

MR. GELBLUM: In Chula Vista. I don't know his address, Your Honor. I have a business phone number for him, where we spoke with him.

THE COURT: Give that to the defense.

MR. GELBLUM: Be happy to.

THE COURT: Give you an opportunity to serve him.

MR. P. BAKER: Okay.

THE COURT: Order the plaintiffs to supply you with all of the information they have as to his whereabouts.

MR. P. BAKER: We attempted to serve him, Judge but . . .

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. BAKER: They didn't attempt to serve Kardashian. You let that deposition in. Why can't you let this one in?

MR. GELBLUM: We have -- it was with the glove photographer in San Francisco, so same point. They had unavailability. You ruled in their favor.

MR. P. BAKER: We served the glove photographer. We haven't been able to serve --

MR. GELBLUM: They went to the wrong place. They went to Sun Valley. That's a hundred files miles from Chula Vista.

THE COURT: Try to serve him.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, they've also filed a declaration on Mr. Meraz. I don't have a declaration. Our investigator told us he verified he worked for the gas company in Santa Monica, Mr. Meraz.

MR. P. BAKER: There's no declaration we tried to serve him. We've been unable to serve him. I'm trying to get this case moving.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, there's also -- Mr. Randa says in his declaration, he kept going back to this house. We have no information why he picked this particular house. There's no information this is this guy's address, where he lives. He says he kept going to his address, kept going back; there -- no one was there.

MR. P. BAKER: Let the record reflect we have the county records that we he lives there.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. P. BAKER: That's what we have from the county records, that he lives there. We were unable to serve him.

THE COURT: What information do you have about his whereabouts?

MR. GELBLUM: All I have is that he works for the gas company in Santa Monica.

THE COURT: What's the basis of that information?

MR. GELBLUM: An investigator's phone call to the gas company, asking for Mr. Meraz, says that he works there, but he wasn't in.

THE COURT: Where was he called at?

MR. GELBLUM: Excuse me?

THE COURT: Which gas company?

MR. GELBLUM: I don't have -- I believe it's Southern California Gas Company, an office in Santa Monica; that's where it is. I don't know.

I can find out at a break, Your Honor. I can make a phone call to the office --

THE COURT: All right I'll reserve rulings.

MR. PETROCELLI: -- And we'll provide it to the defense.

MR. GELBLUM: Of course.

THE COURT: Okay. The Willie Ford video.

I'll hear from the moving party on this.

MR. GELBLUM: On the Willie Ford video, Your Honor, as we said in the papers, there's two reasons why it's really -- it's irrelevant, under --

THE COURT: I read your moving papers.

Do you have anything else you want to add to that?

MR. GELBLUM: Just that I don't think I mentioned the legal basis relevance under 352, because it doesn't show -- it's meaningless; it doesn't show the area where the socks would be. He has --

THE COURT: It shows the bedroom, doesn't it?

MR. GELBLUM: But not the area where the socks were collected.

THE COURT: That's your contention.

MR. GELBLUM: There's another undisputed evidence. If they have evidence to the contrary, fine. The only evidence from Mr. Ford himself is that he -- his testimony -- if they have other evidence, fine.

MR. P. BAKER: There's two issues.

The video shows the room; it bolsters Mr. Ford's testimony that he did not see socks there, or we -- he would have videotaped the socks there on the rug, number one.

Number two, the issue on the counter is completely disingenuous that Rockingham sock log shows him being there from 3:10 to 4:30.

Mr. Fung sat there and said he collected blood.

THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. You're going to have to repeat that.

MR. P. BAKER: He collected item 12 in the foyer at 4:30. He collected item 14 in the master bathroom at 4:40. I believe he collected item 13, the socks, between 4:30 and 4:40.

Mr. Ford will testify he was in the bedroom at approximately 4:15. He was there before Mr. Fung collected the socks, and didn't see the socks.

This video goes to his credibility. That's what cross-examination is for. This is directly contradictory to what they argued at side bar.

MR. GELBLUM: I have no problem with Mr. Ford coming and testifying about the crime scene log, but the video, it's a 352 problem. It does not show he did; it doesn't contradict; it doesn't show the place where the socks were. And the counter on the video is admittedly off. And he admits he has no idea how far off it is.

That's the evidence, Your Honor. I have no problem with him coming in and saying he didn't see the socks; that's fine. But the video is the problem. I'm not trying to preclude the evidence, just the video.

MR. P. BAKER: Submit, Judge.

THE COURT: Motion denied.

Okay. Anything else?

MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, Your Honor.

I just found out yesterday from the defense that they intend to recall Kato Kaelin, who, as Your Honor will recall, was examined by me on direct, over my objection, specifically permitted them to go way, way beyond the scope of my direct, on the representation that he would not be called again.

And they went into areas unrelated to my examination. And I would ask that he not be permitted to be called again.

MR. P. BAKER: Two issues.

MR. BAKER: Wait.

MR. P. BAKER: Wait.

(Counsel Robert Baker and Phil Baker confer sotto voce.)

THE COURT: First team, second team.

MR. BAKER: You're going to have the second team.

THE COURT: Or the third team.

(Indicating.)

MR. LEONARD: Oh, thanks.

(Laughter.)

MR. BAKER: Where are you in this picture?

(Indicating to Mr. Blasier.)

MR. BAKER: Kato Kaelin has made a lot of statements since he left the witness stand that contradict his testimony. And I want to examine him on those statements. I could -- he's never seen a camera -- he's never met a camera he didn't like.

And further, there's an area I want to get into relative to what he has testified Mr. Simpson was wearing when he got into the limousine at approximately 11 o'clock on June 12, 1994. That area has not been gone into at all.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, you released him. They went on and they did what they did.

I don't know what Mr. Kaelin did, but he went over everything he wanted to, plus more. And I don't think he should be recalled again.

MR. BAKER: I don't know there's any legal precedent for your motion. Give us some authority that I can't call a witness to the stand.

MR. PETROCELLI: Judge Fujisaki is my authority.

THE COURT: That's not much authority.

(Laughter.)

MR. BAKER: Don't tempt me, Your Honor.

MR. PETROCELLI: I'm just relying on the prior court order, permitting Mr. Baker to take my witness out of order.

THE COURT: Okay. I'll give reasonable examination to Mr. Kaelin.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.

THE COURT: Anything else?

MR. PETROCELLI: One last thing Mr. Medvene will address.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, the defendants want to play the video of Dr. Lee. We got their designation the other day.

We're asking until Friday morning, if possible, from -- not till tomorrow morning, to counter-designate, and then a couple days for both sides, after Your Honor rules on the objections, so that the videotape can be prepared and edited properly.

We think if we had an extra day, we could limit our objections to just the key portions, so you don't have to rule on too, too many items. But there are a number of items we think in Dr. Lee's testimony that violate the previous court order on relevance of certain collection techniques and that sort of thing.

So what we're asking for is until Friday morning, if possible, to file with the Court our counter-designation. If for whatever reason that's not possible, until tomorrow, tomorrow morning, to file our counter-designation. And that's a couple days, so both sides can get the video edited properly to play.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. P. BAKER: On Henry Lee, I gave them the designation on Monday, and that was to comply with the rules and the procedures of Mr. Petrocelli -- I screwed that up -- I believe Mr. Petrocelli used in the Paula Barbieri deposition. I'm trying to comply.

We want to start it tomorrow. I've had it edited. They haven't objected to it so far. It's edited. I figured we'd have Mr. Rokahr's deposition read, Mr. Gerdes I'd start Henry Lee's deposition, we'd be able to finish sometime early Friday afternoon. And I'm just trying to comply with the promise I made you in chambers about how fast I can put this case on.

They've had enough time. They've had the deposition since September. They knew what our questions were. I've had this thing edited and they worked on it over the weekend. They knew what the issues were. And the stalling and -- it's the same exact thing that happened during Ms. Barbieri.

I want to start it tomorrow afternoon, according to our designation on Monday.

MR. MEDVENE: Your Honor, them playing the deposition next week isn't going to interfere with their case.

THE COURT: Why didn't you get on it earlier?

MR. MEDVENE: Well --

THE COURT: Why didn't you get -- you demand things of them; they have a right to demand things of you in terms of complying.

MR. MEDVENE: We haven't demanded without flexibility, Your Honor. And what we're asking is, we can -- we can give them now, unedited objections to portions of Dr. Lee's testimony. We can give that to them now.

THE COURT: Why don't you do it?

MR. MEDVENE: I'd like to be able to edit it, and go over it a little bit more thoroughly before we give it to them, because we think we can cut down some things. And all we're asking is the deposition, if they're going to play it, be played next week instead of Friday, so both sides can have a proper opportunity to edit.

We're going to have to address you on some of the objections, and we're just trying to limit it, as best we can.

MR. PETROCELLI: I think it's 2025(i).

THE COURT: The motion --

THE COURT REPORTER: Your Honor, I didn't hear you.

THE COURT: I didn't intend you to hear me.

THE COURT REPORTER: Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. P. BAKER: You've got a copy of Dr. Lee's --

THE COURT: C.C.P. 2025 subdivision (i) -- sorry -- that's subdivision (l), subdivision (I) states that:

A party intending to offer an audiotaped or videotaped recording of a deposition in evidence under subdivision (u) shall notify the Court and all parties in writing of that intent and of the parts of the deposition to be offered within sufficient time for objections to be made and ruled on by the judge to whom the case is assigned for trial or hearing, and for any editing of the tape. Objections to all part of the deposition shall be made in writing.

The notice was filed on December 9. This is December 11. Why is the request unreasonable? That's a short period of time.

MR. P. BAKER: Judge, I complied with their request on Paula Barbieri. They stated on the record that reasonable time was three days; I gave them three days. We couldn't even do -- show the video of Paula because they objected to it because we didn't give them reasonable notice.

And in this case, there's reasonable notice; they've had enough time. They had all day yesterday to do it, all day today. They've got enough time.

THE COURT: You said what in your notice?

MR. P. BAKER: For --

THE COURT: You didn't say it's required that they respond by a certain time.

MR. P. BAKER: I'm -- I'm saying that in terms of the Paula Barbieri deposition.

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. P. BAKER: They objected to us objecting to that videotape because we didn't provide them with reasonable notice.

They stated that reasonable notice was three days. I used that three days and let's put Henry Lee on December 9 -- started on December 12. They haven't objected to it yet.

They have to play by the same rules. They try to interrupt our case. We want it to flow so that I can get it done when I promised you, Judge. And we couldn't even show the Paula Barbieri videotape; we had to read it.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, the situation is different with Ms. Barbieri. They never -- we gave them our designations; they never responded with any counter-designations or objections. And then they just wanted to play things on the videotape at the time that we offered the videotape.

On Monday afternoon, they served this very lengthy designation of Dr. Lee's deposition.

Now, just to drive this point home, prior to opening statement, I wrote Mr. Baker a letter and I said, could you let us know what you intend -- or Mr. Medvene did -- what do you intend to offer by way of Dr. Lee's videotaped deposition, so we can have a lot of time to work this out.

He said, "I don't have to tell you now and I'm not going to tell you now."

I wrote him another letter last week, which I'll produce to the Court, saying, please give me Dr. Lee's videotaped designation so we can work this out.

No response.

Then I get the designations on Monday afternoon.

I had alerted him that this is going to be a serious issue because of the Court's in limine motions and all the objections that were made at the deposition, that we would need time. A very lengthy designation. Got it Monday afternoon. I've had someone working on it last night and yesterday. Probably get it in to the Court by the end of today.

I would like tomorrow morning -- be a little more reasonable -- then I'd like to have a hearing on the objections.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BAKER: I told them I was going to use all of the direct and all of the cross. To say that I didn't say what I was going to designate is nonsense. They know.

MR. PETROCELLI: That's not accurate, Mr. Baker.

MR. BAKER: We spent two and a half days back there with Henry Lee, and all I got out of Medvene was objections, objections. That is all I'm going to take out, is the objections I from got from Medvene on every question that I asked Henry Lee.

MR. BAKER: That's what the designation is. He objected to every question, regardless of the content. Regardless of giving him a standing objection to everything, he had to interject an objection; he was compelled to do it to every question from us. There was a hiccup in the room, he objected to it.

That is what was edited out of Henry Lee's depo; that is all.

To allow them now to say well, we want to have more time and we want to object more and to stop our case, and we'll have to go dark tomorrow afternoon and Friday because of them, is ridiculous. And all they want to do is interrupt the flow of our case. I don't think it's appropriate.

THE COURT: Okay. The Court will set hearing for tomorrow morning. And you have your papers in -- if you're going to have any papers in.

You have a copy of the tape?

MR. PETROCELLI: Yes.

MR. MEDVENE: Yes.

MR. BAKER: They've had it since mid-September.

THE COURT: Excuse me.

Be prepared to show the video Friday.

Okay. Bring in the jury.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Your Honor.

(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

THE COURT: Morning.

JURORS: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may proceed.

TOM LANGE, the witness on the stand at the time of the adjournment on December 10, 1996, called by the Defendants pursuant to Evidence Code Section 767, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:

THE CLERK: You are still under oath.

Would you please state your name again for the record.

THE WITNESS: Tom Lange, L-a-n-g-e.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Mr. Lange, at the time Fuhrman went over the wall, you did not have any suspicion whatsoever that O.J. Simpson may have committed the murders, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Not relevant, Your Honor. State of mind.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Your only concern was whether Mr. Simpson was dead or dying in his residence?

MR. MEDVENE: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, in terms of your -- after you said you got into the house, Mr. Simpson's house that is, through the back southeast door -- excuse me.

MR. P. BAKER: That's 116 on the board.

(Defendant's Exhibit No. 116 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You went through the den, through the bar area, into the kitchen area, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And did Vannatter follow you?

A. I don't recall whether he was beside me or right behind me. He was in the same vicinity. I don't exactly recall where everyone was standing or walking.

Q. Where was Fuhrman?

A. I believe Fuhrman was still outside with Kaelin.

Q. Is it your testimony, then, that Fuhrman did not come in with Arnelle and the other three detectives?

A. He might have come in after -- after I did. I don't recall.

My attention wasn't on Fuhrman coming in.

Q. Well, Detective Phillips was engaged in a conversation with Arnelle in the kitchen, correct?

A. Subsequently, yes.

Q. And at that period of time, Kato was still in his residence with Fuhrman; that's your testimony, is it not?

A. At the time that Phillips was talking to Arnelle in the kitchen, I am not quite clear on, because I do recall Fuhrman entering and Kato entering, and I believe Kato sat down at the bar.

But again, my attention wasn't focused on them.

Q. Were you in the kitchen nook when you don't know whether Fuhrman and Kato were in his guest house or the bar area?

A. I believe that they were in Kato's house when we entered.

Now, again, my attention wasn't on them once we'd entered, so I don't know.

Q. And you then went directly through the bar/den area, dining room, and into the kitchen nook area, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You remained in the kitchen nook area until sometime later, when Fuhrman came and got you, true?

A. That's correct.

Q. And so you don't know what happened, whether Fuhrman even entered the house; isn't that correct?

A. What happened?

Q. No. My question was: You don't even know, after you entered the house from the southeast entrance, whether Fuhrman came into the house, 'cause you didn't see it; isn't that correct?

A. No. Subsequently I saw him in the house with Kato, and Kato was at the bar.

Q. I thought you just testified that you didn't see him from the time you were in the kitchen nook until he came back and got you, and you wandered around the garage to the area where Fuhrman says he found the glove?

A. No, I didn't say that.

Q. So you didn't stay in the kitchen nook the entire time after you entered the house. True or untrue?

A. I was in that area. I walked down the hall by the washer and dryer to look at the housemaid's room.

Q. Well, you can't see the bar or the den area from the area where the washer and dryer is, can you?

A. No.

Q. And you can't see from the kitchen nook area where the bar is, where you say Kato and Vannatter was, can you?

A. If you stepped out far enough, yes, you could.

Q. If you stepped into the dining room, you could, but you can't see it from the kitchen area, can you, sir?

A. I haven't been in that house for a couple of years.

It's my recollection that I became aware that they, in fact, were back in the bar area. Now, I don't -- in fact, I can't give you exactly where I was standing. And this has to do with not just what I see, but what I hear.

Q. Well, since you were in the home of Mr. Simpson on June 13, 1994, you testified about it about four, five times, have you not?

A. Sure.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Materiality.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You have also gone on multiple -- multiple TV shows talking about your experiences, and trying to hype a book deal over your experiences with Mr. Simpson, have you not?

A. No.

Q. How many TV shows have you been on trying to hype a book deal?

A. Trying to hype a book?

Q. Hype a book deal, get one signed?

A. I don't think we've ever tried to hype a book on a TV show. We have a deal already signed.

Q. Well, you didn't until relatively recently, but you've been hyping it for about two years, trying to get a book deal?

A. No.

Q. No?

A. In fact I was against a book initially.

Q. I see.

But it was the money that changed your mind?

A. Not at all.

Q. Okay.

In any event, Mr. Lange, you went into the kitchen nook area. Did you or did you not stay in that area the entire time until Fuhrman came and got you to point out where he purportedly found the glove?

A. Other than walking to the maid's quarters, as I told you earlier.

Q. And the maid's quarters is off to the south of the kitchen, is it not?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. So you never went back into the dining room area, never went back into the bar/den area, correct?

A. I -- I might have walked toward that area. Again, I can't specifically recall every place I went, and everything I did that day.

Q. Well, you have had to recall this in conversations you had with Bill Hodgman and Marcia Clark when they asked you to recall and set forth in detail what you did at Mr. Simpson's house on June 13, 1994, isn't that true?

A. No, I don't recall them at all asking me specifically where I was at every moment that I was in that house.

Q. Well, you were certainly questioned about it for days in the criminal trial, were you not?

A. No, not about whether I walked in the kitchen and out of the kitchen, no, I don't recall any of that.

Q. Don't recall that at all?

A. No.

Q. Now, when you were in the house, did you look for any blood in the house?

A. That was the first thing that I was concerned with, would be a struggle -- sign of struggle.

Q. Maybe you didn't understand the question I just asked you. Maybe you can answer it yes or no.

Did you or did you not look for blood in the area of the house that you were in before Mark Fuhrman ever came and got you to look for this purported glove he found?

A. I looked for signs of a struggle. If that included blood, then, fine, so be it.

Q. So you went through the house, stayed in the kitchen nook area, went to the maid's area, were there for, what, a half-hour?

A. I don't think so. Probably less than that.

Q. During that period of time, it's your testimony that Phillips was in a conversation with Arnelle Simpson, correct?

A. For part of that time.

Q. And he was contacting Mr. Simpson's secretary, Kathy Randa, to find out where Mr. Simpson was, and you stayed in the kitchen area during that period of time, right?

A. Actually I believe Arnelle made the call and spoke with her initially, and I was in the area.

Q. You stayed in the kitchen area during that period of time, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you didn't know -- well, strike that.

Had you heard before you went in the kitchen nook area about any representation by Kato Kaelin of thumps or noises that he said he had heard the evening before?

A. No.

Q. Never heard that?

A. Not at that time, no.

Q. Now, during the period of time that you were with Fuhrman in the morning of the 13th at Rockingham, did he have his coat on or off?

A. I don't believe --

MR. MEDVENE: Objection in terms of vague as to time, what time, Your Honor.

THE COURT: In the morning. Overruled.

A. I don't recall him having a coat on.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) It's your recollection you had the coat -- he had a coat off the entire time?

A. I don't recall him having it on for -- whether he went to put it on, I don't know, I just don't recall him having a coat on.

Q. Now, did Fuhrman tell you that he was going to leave the house and go investigate outdoors before he left the interior of the residence?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, calls for hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, I take it that when there's four of you there, there's two lead detectives, you and Vannatter, that you are in charge of that scene as well, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that these -- Phillips you had right in front of you and he was talking to Arnelle, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you didn't know where Fuhrman was, correct?

A. No, I did know where Fuhrman was.

Q. You knew Fuhrman was out in the bar, you said you saw him out in the bar from your vantage point in the kitchen area, right?

A. During that time Fuhrman was somewhere between Kato's room and the bar area, yes.

Q. How do you know that?

A. Because I left him with Kato, as we walked in, for awhile. Kato -- my recollection is that Kato entered sometime after that. It's just what I recall.

Q. Well, Kato entered sometime after that. Do you have a recollection of Fuhrman entering -- do you have a recollection, sir, of seeing Fuhrman enter the residence?

A. Physically walking in?

Q. That's what I mean.

A. I can't say that I specifically had that recollection.

Q. Do you have a recollection as you sit her now, of Fuhrman ever being in the Simpson residence after you knocked -- after he rapped on Kato's door and before he came and got you and others to look at the glove that he says he found on the south side of Mr. Simpson's property?

A. I don't recall if he was in there or not.

Again, my attention was not focused on Mr. Fuhrman's whereabouts.

Q. Now, at any time, were you asked by Fuhrman or anybody else to provide a backup to investigate the grounds of Mr. Simpson's house?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, calls for hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You can answer yes or no.

A. A backup, I don't think I understand what you mean by a backup.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, if there is a concern, sir, of dangerous or unlawful activity on the grounds, I take it that one police officer wouldn't examine the grounds when there are four there without the assistance of others being in his or her company; would you agree with that?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Well, the concern was for victims, not suspects.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Maybe you didn't understand the question.

If there is a suspicion of dangerous activity, thumps are being heard, nobody knows what they are, and there is possible danger around the grounds of Mr. Simpson's estate or any other place, you certainly wouldn't have a police officer go into that area without being accompanied by another police officer, would you?

A. Well, it depends on what the situation is, what the officer's state of mind is.

Again, we weren't concerned with suspects at this time.

Q. Well, you don't know what Mr. Fuhrman was concerned with because you don't know what information he heard from Kato Kaelin about noises; isn't that true?

A. Not at that time. I wasn't concerned with him.

Q. If in fact there's concern that there have been thumps on the wall and there are unexplained noises and this is a place where there is a concern about it may be an extension of a crime scene at 875 South Bundy over here at 360 North Rockingham, police regulations would require at least two officers to investigate the grounds and have their weapons drawn; isn't that true, sir?

A. No, that's not true. The thumps --

Q. There were no weapons drawn at all?

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, Your Honor, the witness was in the middle of answering the question.

MR. BAKER: "No" is the only thing that's responsive to the question.

THE COURT: Finish your answer.

THE WITNESS: No, I haven't, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Finish it.

A. The thumps were many hours earlier. And we had no fear of suspects being at the location.

We entered because we feared that there may be victims at that location, and for no other reason.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You have no idea on June 13 when the thumps were 'cause you never even heard about them; isn't that true?

A. I didn't hear about it until later, but if you're asking me to --

Q. I'm asking you about --

A. -- comment on what Detective Fuhrman felt at the time, that was it, because I didn't see it, I didn't hear what went on.

Q. You don't know what Detective Fuhrman felt at the time, you don't know if he was leaving the vicinity of every police officer, and every person at that house to plant a glove, do you?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, the question is argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Do you know if Detective Fuhrman was leaving the interior of the residence, and leaving Kato Kaelin that he interrogated out in Kato's room so he would be alone by himself and have the opportunity to plant a glove?

A. Fuhrman would have had to come through the kitchen area.

Q. Do you know? You can answer that yes or no.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, question's argumentative, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Calling for Mr. Fuhrman's intent.

Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So as far as you were aware, Fuhrman was out of any sight that you had from approximately 5:40 to about 6:15, correct?

A. No, I can't say that.

Again, I didn't specifically keep a record of every movement of Mr. Fuhrman. I recall seeing him from time to time. I can't give you an accounting of what he did every minute he was there.

Q. I didn't ask you for an accounting, sir.

You've been on the stand, what, 3, 400 times?

A. It's probably a conservative estimate.

Q. And you've been interrogated by a lot of attorneys, have you not, sir?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. And you understand that it's your job while you sit on the witness stand, to answer questions, not to argue the case, do you not, sir?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. That question's argumentative and inappropriate.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So can you listen, be kind enough to listen to my questions, and attempt to answer my questions, sir.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, argumentative. Move to strike Mr. Baker's comments.

THE COURT: Ask a question.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The question is Fuhrman was out of your vision from 5:40 to 6:15, yes or no?

A. Again, I can't -- I don't know. He was in and out of my vision. I can't tell you where he was every moment. That's my answer.

Q. So your answer is I don't know, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Objection, question has been asked and answered. Mr. Baker is misstating the answer.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I do not know where Mr. Fuhrman was all the time he was there. I was focused on other things.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Let's go through in a minute here.

You arrived at about 5:06 after leaving Bundy around 5, correct?

A. Approximately.

Q. And you were outside the Rockingham property for approximately 30 minutes before you allowed Fuhrman to go over the wall, right?

A. Approximately.

Q. Fuhrman goes over the wall, you go to the front of the house, you ring the doorbell, you go around up to the north side of the house, and you go to the area, and you rapped on the glass doors that are at the back of Mr. Simpson's house, which would be the east, really, correct?

A. I don't know if -- recall rapping on them. I may have. I do recall looking in the rear doors.

Q. Then you go down, Fuhrman is rapping on Kaelin's door, says somebody's in there. Kaelin comes to the door, there's words of identification exchanged, you and Phillips at least walk down to Arnelle's room, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Arnelle gets dressed and -- and I guess she looked for a key, did she not? Went back -- I think that she had to go back and get a key, right?

A. She went back -- I believe she may have went back to get a key. I --

Q. And then it's your testimony that after she may have gone back, gotten a key, you all, that is, at least you, Phillips and Arnelle, went up the stairs and in the southeast door with the key that Arnelle Simpson got, right?

A. That's right.

Q. And all that took about what, 10 minutes?

A. I don't know how long it took.

We did enter that rear door, yes.

Q. Took about 10 minutes?

A. I don't know how long it took.

Q. Do you think it took more than that?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, asked and answered, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. From the time we actually walked from Arnelle's to the rear door, probably took less than a minute.

Q. Well, I was talking about, sir, and I thought that you understood, was over the wall to going in the house about 10 minutes?

A. Apparently, I did not understand. I did not understand.

I think it was probably a little more than that.

Q. Okay. 15?

A. Possibly.

Q. Okay. It would be at the latest 5:45 when you go into Mr. Simpson's residence, true?

A. You're trying to pin me down on minutes, and I'm kind of uncomfortable with that because we didn't log in everything we did every minute that we did it. I mean we had other things on our mind. I just can't give you an accurate accounting of that time.

Q. You didn't log anything. You didn't log one thing, did you, at Rockingham?

A. I didn't, no.

Q. You say we didn't log every minute.

You didn't log a minute, did you?

A. There was no reason for me to log anything at Rockingham.

Q. You didn't document your presence there at all, did you?

A. No, that's not true. It's documented in the chronological record.

Q. It's documented -- In fact, the record shows that you never left 875 South Bundy; isn't that true?

A. I don't know.

Q. The log at Bundy indicates you never left.

Didn't you ever look at that before you wrote the follow-up report?

A. That certainly wouldn't come into play when I'm writing my follow-up report.

Q. So you never looked at it?

A. There was no reason to look at it.

Q. Now, by 5:45 you're in the house, you walk through the back, and the next thing you see of Fuhrman is when he walks into the kitchen nook at about 6:15, right?

A. I don't recall. I may have seen him earlier. Again, I wasn't focused on Fuhrman.

I do recall seeing him in the nook area, yes.

Q. And -- And at that point in time, Fuhrman comes to you with a revelation and he says, I want you to follow me, correct?

A. No. I think Phillips came up to me and mentioned that Fuhrman had something he wanted to show me.

Q. Had Phillips already been out there when you were confronted with Fuhrman saying he wanted to see the -- wanted you to go to the south side of the house?

A. Phillips --

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Phillips had been out there earlier, yes.

Q. And was it Fuhrman that asked you, or Phillips that asked you to go out there?

A. My recollection is that Phillips approached me and said that Fuhrman had found something on a back walkway and that he was going to take me out and show it to me.

MR. P. BAKER: Number on the "Post-It" on the front.

MR. BAKER: Okay, thank you. 1174.

(The instrument herein described as an aerial view of 875 South Bundy was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1174.)

(Exhibit 1174 displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, 1174 is an aerial view of 875 South Bundy or the block of 875 South Bundy.

It's also an aerial view of Mr. Simpson's property, is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. This would be the Ashford gate, right?

A. Right.

Q. This would be the area of the guest residences, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And this is the area of the kitchen nook, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. This is taken out in front?

A. Yes.

Q. And this is the area going into the front entrance of the house, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And all of this is the shrubbery that is adjacent to the south side of Mr. Simpson's property and along that Cyclone fence, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And the vehicle in front of the house appears to be a white Ford Bronco, does it not?

A. Are you talking in the driveway there?

Q. Talking about right in front of the entrance.

A. In the driveway, yes.

Q. Yes.

Now, as I understand it, you had -- before you were informed of this amazing find of evidence, you'd already been to Bundy and you'd seen a glove, right?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, move to strike the argumentative language, amazing find.

THE COURT: It's been asked. Overruled.

A. Yes.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now -- and so Fuhrman brought you out of the kitchen nook area, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Around the house, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you walked down the side of the house, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And you walked past two doors that led into the garage and residence, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you then stopped about 6 feet or so away from the glove, correct?

A. 6, 8 feet, approximately.

Q. And that's as close as you ever got to the glove, was 6 to 8 feet, right?

A. Approximately, yes.

Q. And I take it as a detective, you have 20 plus years, you looked for a blood trail, did you not?

A. No, not at that time.

Q. Well, you never went back to the glove while it was still there, did you?

A. No.

Q. You didn't look to see if there was any blood on the ground, you didn't look to see if there was any blood or any biological matter on any leaves, you didn't look to see any of that, did you?

A. I wasn't concerned with that at that time at all.

Q. Maybe you didn't understand the question. I didn't ask your concerns.

I asked if you looked, as a detective of 20 years, on a piece of evidence that is found that may match a piece of evidence in a crime scene where a double homicide occurred, you didn't even look to see if there was blood around it, did you?

A. There was no reason for me to look. I'm not investigating that crime scene. Certainly not.

Q. You didn't look at anything else, the shrubbery, the concrete, whether there was insect activity there, whether there was dirt on the glove, you looked at none of that?

A. The crime scene was none of my concern at all at that time.

Q. I didn't ask you what your concerns were. I asked you if you looked.

A. Obviously, I didn't look because it was not a concern.

Q. And so this glove that was told to you had blood on it that may match a glove a couple of miles away at a house where a double murder had occurred of the estranged ex-wife of the owner of this house, it didn't occur to you to look at the shrubbery, the glove, to see if there was insect activity, to see if there was dirt, wasn't a concern of yours, you just looked, turned, and went back and talked to your partner, Vannatter, right?

A. No one told me it had blood on it. That's the first misstatement.

Q. Okay.

Could you see blood on it?

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, Your Honor, the witness was still answering, I believe.

THE COURT: Finish your answer.

You may finish your answer if you want.

A. I saw nothing but what to me appeared to be a glove.

As far as the rest of your question goes, that crime scene was not my concern at that time.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Were you told before you went out to the south side of Mr. Simpson's property that there was a glove with blood on it?

A. No.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, calls for hearsay, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you see any blood on the glove?

A. No.

Q. Did -- As I understand it then, Phillips had already told you that there was a glove out there?

He was the one that told you that?

A. No. I believe what Phillips stated was that Fuhrman wants to show you something. I don't even recall him saying the glove.

Q. After you saw the glove, you walked back to the front of the location where you met your partner, Detective Vannatter, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And by the time you talked to Vannatter, he'd already sent Fuhrman and Phillips back to 875 South Bundy, right?

A. I think they had just left, yes.

Q. And you then left 875 South -- or strike that.

You were -- heard Mark Fuhrman testify in the criminal trial that the glove was moist, sticky and wet, did you not?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You didn't -- you didn't see anything on the glove that looked moist, sticky or wet when you were out there viewing the glove? You turned your flashlight on it, didn't you?

A. No. It was still fairly dark. It was beginning to get light. I could see the outline of what appeared to me to be a glove. I did not want to approach it. I didn't approach it. I was only there a matter of seconds, and I returned to the front.

Q. You shined your light on the glove even though it was daylight, didn't you?

A. I don't recall that -- whether I shined the light on it or not. It seems to me it was beginning to get light.

Q. Were you the only detective that didn't see evidence of blood that was moist, wet and sticky in your conversations subsequent to the time --

MR. MEDVENE: Objection.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) -- you viewed the glove at 360 North Rockingham?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, question's argumentative and calls for conclusion.

MR. PETROCELLI: Speculation.

MR. MEDVENE: Also speculation.

THE COURT: I'm sustaining the question as somewhat unintelligible, and it's --

MR. BAKER: I guess it wasn't one of my better ones.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) All right.

You had conversations with the other detectives about this glove later on the 13th, did you not?

A. That was a pretty busy day. The glove may have been alluded to. I don't recall any specific mention about the glove.

Q. The glove was picked up by Fung and taken back to 875 South Bundy, to the crime scene, when you were there, isn't that true?

A. Yes, he had it in the criminalist truck.

Q. He had it and brought it into the crime scene, didn't he?

A. No, not that I know of.

Q. Is it your testimony that you, who were in charge of 875 South Bundy, that Dennis Fung didn't bring the glove that was found at Rockingham back to 875 South Bundy and take it up to the area where the glove had been moved at 875 South Bundy?

A. I don't recall him doing that. I did observe that glove in the truck though, because I asked to see it.

Q. You asked to see it in the truck?

A. Yes.

Q. What time was that?

A. I don't know what time. I didn't log what time it was. It was sometime probably within 10 or 15 minutes after Fung arrived at the crime scene.

Q. Now, if Dennis Fung testified that it was at your request that he brought the glove from Rockingham to 875 South Bundy, he would be misrepresenting the truth, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. The question is argumentative and calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You told Dennis Fung to bring the Rockingham glove to 875 South Bundy, didn't you?

A. No.

He brought it there as part of his investigation. He completed his work at Rockingham and brought the glove, as well as other evidence, to 875 South Bundy. When he arrived I asked if I could see the glove. I told him I wanted to see the glove, to get a look at it --

Q. Now --

A. -- We then went to the criminalist truck and I looked at the glove.

Q. There is a difference, you would agree, between looking at the glove in the criminalist truck, taking the glove out of the criminalist's truck, taking it into the area where the glove was located at 875 South Bundy, correct?

A. Certainly.

Q. And it's your testimony, so we have it perfectly clear, that you never requested Fung to take the glove found -- located by Fuhrman at Rockingham, out of the criminalist truck while it was at 875 South Bundy, and walk it to the area and -- and put it near or next to the glove that was still on the ground at 875 South Bundy?

A. I would never do that.

And I told Fung that I wanted to see the glove. It may -- he may have misinterpreted.

Q. And your testimony is that you, being the lead detective in charge of 875 South Bundy, never saw Fung with that glove in the crime scene area? And I'm talking about close to the closed-in area and by the gate of 875 South Bundy, correct?

A. I don't recall him at all having that glove there.

Again, my testimony is the same. I recall seeing the glove in the criminalist truck only.

Q. And did you see a moist, wet, tacky glove on the -- at the time -- well, strike that.

You didn't see it until after, what, at noon or thereafter?

A. It was sometime after Fung showed up. It may have been 15, 30 minutes. I don't recall exactly when it was. Sometime, obviously, after Fung had been there for a bit.

Q. Now, the glove was discovered purportedly by Fuhrman at around 6:15, right?

A. I think so.

Q. And the earliest Fung and Mazzola ever got to 875 South Bundy was 10:10 in the morning, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And I take it that the first thing they did is have you into the criminalist truck and show you the glove, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. So you -- And you left 875 South Bundy to go down and interrogate my client sometime around noon, true?

A. I believe it was about 12:30, somewhere in there.

Q. So sometime between 10:10 and 12:30, it's your testimony you went into the criminalist truck and looked at the glove in the truck, right?

A. I didn't go into the truck. The rear was opened, I peered in at the glove in the rear of the truck. I didn't enter the truck.

Q. Was the truck parked on Bundy?

A. Yes.

Q. And the rear door of the truck was open, and you walked up to the rear door of the truck, right?

A. No. We walked up there together, he unlocked the door, opened the door and showed me the glove.

Q. And when he showed you the glove, could you see blood on it, what you perceived to be blood?

A. I don't recall. I don't recall. I just recall viewing the glove. I was more interested in the inside. I was more interested in the ribbing of the glove, to see if in fact it matched the one that we had at the crime scene. I wasn't looking for blood.

Q. Now, there is, as I understand it from the pictures that we've seen, blood all over the crime scene area at 875 South Bundy; you would agree with that?

A. Certainly.

Q. And this glove was purportedly found at Rockingham, and you weren't interested in whether or not there was blood on it?

A. Not at that time. I was interested in doing my job at the Bundy crime scene. That piece of evidence had already been collected and was going to be examined.

Q. Now, if -- if Fung had taken the glove and taken it into the crime scene, you would have been upset with that and have reprimanded Fung for moving the glove from the criminalist truck into the crime scene 'cause you didn't want it in the crime scene, did you?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, argumentative, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You did not want the Rockingham glove in the crime scene for fear of contamination, isn't that true?

A. I would certainly have a fear of contamination if one was to bring evidence from another crime scene, yes.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, we're going to have a video. Is this a good time to take a break?

THE COURT: 10 minutes, ladies and gentlemen.

(Recess.)

(Jurors resumed their respective seats.)

MR. BAKER: Due to my screw-up, not Phil's, I'm going to have to wait for a new point on that video.

THE COURT: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, when you were at the criminalist's van with Fung inspecting the glove, did you inspect anything else that was in the criminalist's van, from Rockingham, at that time?

A. No, I just recall looking at the glove.

Q. And the glove was in a bag, was it not?

A. He removed it from a bag, yes.

Q. So the glove was out of -- well, strike that.

Brown paper bag, plastic bag, which, or both?

A. Seems to me it was in a brown paper bag and it was -- he pulled it out -- it was like half out of the bag when I looked at it.

Q. Okay.

So it wasn't contained, then, in any -- you know, one of those plastic zip-lock type bags, that's your recollection, sir?

A. No, I recollect it was just a brown paper bag. I believe it may have been in something earlier. I don't --

Q. It was pulled half out of the paper bag, you viewed it, Fung viewed it, it was put back in the paper bag, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And it never, to your knowledge, went from the criminalist's truck into the area where the crimes had been committed, correct?

A. I never saw it in there, no.

Q. And you didn't see blood on the gloves and you didn't see any tears in the -- or blood on that glove nor blood -- strike it. Again, I apologize.

You didn't see any blood on that glove at that time, true?

A. I wasn't looking for any blood. I just looked at the inside of the glove.

Q. The answer to the question is no, you didn't see any blood?

A. I don't recall seeing any blood.

Q. Second question, you see any tears in the glove at that time?

A. I don't believe so.

Q. Did you look for any tears in the glove?

A. No.

Q. Now, then, this was during the time between 7 -- approximately 7 o'clock in the morning when you were at 875 South Bundy on the 13th and 12:30 when you left to go to Parker Center, right?

A. It was after Fung arrived, so possibly after 10 o'clock, sometime between 10 and 12.

Q. And during the time after you had gone back to 875 South Bundy and you did the documentation that we talked about when you were here before, did you request a stride analysis to be done on the blood drops in the walkway at 875 South Bundy?

A. No, they were requested of the shoe prints.

Q. There was a stride analysis that you became aware of, true?

A. As to the shoe prints, not the blood drops.

Q. There was no stride analysis done to the blood drops in the back of -- the walkway, that's your testimony?

A. I don't know what a stride analysis is as it relates to a blood drop. I do as it relates to a shoe print.

Q. Well, the blood drops -- have you ever heard of measuring the distance between the blood drops and seeing, for example, how long a normal 32 inch gait would take to go between the blood drops to see what the time duration is between the drops?

A. No, a stride analysis would go to a shoe print, not the distances between blood drops.

Q. Have you ever attempted in the 20 years that you've been a detective, to determine, based upon the distance between blood drops that you detectives call a blood trail?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, relevance to this case, asking about some other experience, not this case.

THE COURT: I believe he's inquiring whether he's familiar with a particular analysis.

Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Particular analysis I'm talking about is did you request or make any attempt to determine the distance between blood drops on the north walkway at 875 South Bundy?

A. I don't recall specifically. That may have been discussed with the criminalist.

Q. Do you recall ever making a determination as to a normal stride or gait, how many seconds would elapse between blood drops?

A. Yes, there are basic -- there are several basic studies on that from blood hitting from different angles at different heights and different surfaces I'm aware of, yes.

Q. Did you try to analyze -- use those investigative techniques and methodology in your analysis of this crime scene?

A. To some degree.

Q. And how long did you determine there was in seconds between the blood drops on the north walkway at Bundy?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. Witness testified he didn't do that.

THE COURT: He said "to some degree."

Overruled.

A. No, that wasn't something I ever did.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, you determined that the assailant had shoe prints that went up the walkway and then turned left towards the house, correct?

A. Up the walkway as in Bundy?

Q. Yeah, was going west on the walkway.

MR. BAKER: Let me get an exhibit.

(Pause for counsel to retrieve exhibit.)

(Exhibit 2057, entitled "875 South Bundy Walkway," is displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now --

THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, Mr. Baker, does that have a number, please.

MR. BAKER: I'm sure it does.

Sorry.

MR. LEONARD: I'll look.

I don't see any number.

MR. MEDVENE: It's 2057, I believe, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, your examination of the scene at 875 South Bundy had the shoe prints going -- this is west, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And then they turn and go towards the property, do they not?

A. They -- yeah, there was one point where they did, yeah.

Q. And then they -- there was another shoe print that was angled towards the property, right?

A. I believe so.

Q. And did you ever try to do any type of gait analysis relative to those shoe prints, sir?

A. Personally, no. I requested that of a criminalist.

Q. And you have never seen one document relative to a gait analysis, correct?

A. Part of a gait analysis is the measurement -- toe to heel measurement. I believe I've seen that somewhere, but it's been some time.

Q. You would have seen nothing that would determine the elapsed time based upon a normal gait from the front of the property on Bundy west to the back of the property, correct?

A. I've never heard of such a study.

Q. Never heard of it in this case, right.

Now, in terms of the shoe prints on this particular exhibit, you will agree based upon our analysis yesterday that there are shoe prints missing from the area directly east of Nicole Brown Simpson's -- where her body was found, true?

A. Missing shoe.

Q. They're not on that document -- that exhibit, rather?

(Witness approaches exhibit.)

A. As far as these little prints here you're talking about?

Q. There were at least four shoe prints in that area, were there not, sir?

A. Seems to me there were a couple of partials. I do recall a partial heel right in this area here that I don't see on there.

Q. And obviously, if the imprint that we were looking at yesterday is a shoe print, that isn't on that exhibit that's been proposed by the plaintiffs, 2038, (sic) either, is it?

A. No.

MR. P. BAKER: Yeah.

Q. I would like to direct your attention to this video. When it concludes, I'm going to ask you whether or not this is Dennis Fung and the glove, okay.

MR. P. BAKER: Next in order, Erin.

THE CLERK: 2258.

MR. P. BAKER: 2258.

(The instrument herein described as a videotape was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2258.)

(Videotape is played beginning at counter 1:18:10 to 1:18:39.)

MR. BAKER: If you can stop it, Phil.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Was the brown bag that you saw Dennis Fung with -- Right there.

Go back.

Go forward.

(Videotape was rewound to 1:18:17.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Was that the same type of brown bag that you say you looked at the glove in, in the criminalist's truck in front of 875 South Bundy?

A. It was brown and paper. It seems to me it was smaller.

Q. If Dennis Fung indicated he was carrying that bag into the crime scene pursuant to your request, you would disagree with that?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I'd disagree he's walking away from the crime scene with that bag of evidence. I don't recall, even, at all coming into the crime scene, nor the bag of evidence, the glove or anything else.

Q. And it would be not -- certainly it would not be your request or order that he bring the glove into the crime scene, correct?

A. I would not do that.

Q. All right. Thank you.

Now, I want to get back to this particular -- the stride analysis.

(Indicating to Exhibit 2057.)

Q. So that we're clear, there was no time estimation based upon shoe prints from the front walkway to the back, as to any amount of time that would have elapsed by the assailant or assailants walking from the front to the back of the alley, true?

A. Yes.

I wouldn't know how one would go about doing that.

Q. Now, you indicated that you looked at the blood drops, did you not?

A. I did.

Q. And certainly you would agree, sir, that if blood drops form a trail on them, that you can indicate not only the direction of travel of the person who is dropping the blood, but if they fall in a round or circular pattern, that would indicate that there's possibly a normal gait, true?

A. To some degree. There are other factors depending on the height of the source that the blood comes from, and depending on the substrate, the ground, the cement or whatever it hits, so there are other considerations.

Q. In this case we've seen closeup pictures of circular blood spots, would you agree with that, on the north walkway, correct?

A. Generally circular, yes.

Q. This would indicate whoever is discharging this blood is not running, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. So we can assume, and in fact you -- the most you could assume in terms of speed would be a fast gait, correct, based upon the blood spot pattern, true?

A. I would -- probably wouldn't even say that.

Q. Normal walk?

A. Very possibly.

Q. And so in normal walking, and we can see some shoe prints, we could do a stride analysis to determine, for example, a gait set forth by the shoe print, what the stride of whoever is leaving those shoe prints is?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, limited, previous ruling, stride analysis wasn't done, similar to ruling on collection techniques.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. MEDVENE: Similar to your previous ruling on collection techniques.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And we could even do a simulation of the assailant turning because we have a shoe print that shows him turning into the building. We can assume that the assailant was also in front of the gate, and we can duplicate to some extent and reconstruct the amount of time it would take for someone to leave the shoe prints or some, more than one, can leave the shoe prints set forth on Exhibit 2038 (sic), true?

(Referring to Exhibit 2057.)

A. Could can be a very subjective thing. I mean we have the prints facing inward. Someone could be standing there for a period of time before they moved on. I would think that would be a very difficult thing to do. You can, however, do a heel to toe measurement, obviously, and -- to see if it's a normal stride.

Q. Yeah, and obviously it is somewhat subjective, because we see shoe prints that go back into the -- into an area where bushes are in this darkened area on 2038 (sic), correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the assailant could have backed into the bushes to avoid any visual observations from Bundy, correct?

A. That may have been the reason, yes.

Q. But we can make some parameter ranges of time if care had been taken, but none was done in this case; you will agree with that, sir?

A. I don't know how you would do that.

Q. Okay. Fair enough.

Now, in terms of after your being at 875 South Bundy until approximately 12:30 and going through your investigation, you were called by Phil Vannatter and requested to go to downtown LAPD, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. How were you communicated with at that time, telephone, radio, what?

A. Believe it was telephone.

Q. Phil Vannatter actually phoned the house and requested you to go down to Parker Center, correct?

A. No, it seems to me that I got a call from the office, I think I got a call from the office telling me to meet him there.

Q. And it was on the phone that was in the 875 South Bundy residence, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you hadn't had any communications via the office, or Phil Vannatter, on that phone before that time, had you?

A. I don't believe so.

Q. I mean he hadn't come over -- he'd come over to 875 South Bundy to communicate with you, had he not?

A. Yes.

Q. And hadn't used the phone before then, huh?

A. I don't believe I did, no.

Q. He came over to tell you that he was going to try to get a search warrant at about 7:30, right?

A. I believe so.

Q. When he came over about 7:30 to tell you that he was going to try to get a search warrant, that was of course after you had both been at Rockingham and Kathy Randa had communicated with Arnelle on the telephone, and everyone at that scene knew exactly where O.J. Simpson was, correct?

A. Well, I don't know if everyone knew exactly where he was.

Q. Well, I take it as lead detective, once the communication was made with Kathy Randa, that you communicated that certainly to Phil Vannatter and said there's no need to go upstairs, for example, and see if O.J. Simpson is dying or bleeding to death, we know he's in Chicago, and we know exactly what hotel he's at, and we know he's on a Hertz outing? I assume you did that?

A. Well, no, Phillips told us that, certainly.

Q. Phillips told you and Vannatter that, right?

A. I believe Vannatter was there, yes.

Q. So Vannatter certainly knew that Mr. Simpson had gone on a scheduled expected trip to Chicago before 7:30 when he came over to see you and tell you that he was going to attempt to get a search warrant to search Mr. Simpson's house, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, calls for conclusion, Your Honor, what's in Mr. Vannatter's mind.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, from the knowledge that you have of being at Rockingham, you have no doubt in your mind, sir, that Vannatter knew full well that O.J. Simpson was on an expected trip to Chicago at a Hertz outing by the time he got to 875 South Bundy and told you he was going to go to the West LA station to prepare a search warrant, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MEDVENE: Calls for speculation.

A. I don't know whether or not he knows it was expected.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And unexpected, of course, is exactly the word that is and does appear in the search warrant that you have looked at, that is Mr. Phil Vannatter telling a magistrate, under penalty of perjury, that O.J. Simpson was on an unexpected flight to Chicago. You discussed that many times with him, haven't you?

A. No, you used the word "expected" and I'm repeating your word. And no, I have not discussed it with him many times or hardly at all.

Q. Well, you've been on "Dateline" and talking about whether or not Phil Vannatter lied in the search warrant, have you not?

A. I certainly may have, yes.

Q. You've been on the "Today" show discussing whether or not Phil Vannatter lied in the search warrant, have you not?

A. I believe I have.

Q. You've been on "Larry King Live" discussing whether or not Phil Vannatter lied in the search warrant, have you not?

A. I hope so, yes.

Q. Many times, right?

A. Many. The more that I could get, the happier I would be.

Q. And now -- so you went to -- from 875 South Bundy to Parker Center to interrogate O.J. Simpson, right?

A. I did.

Q. And that interrogation started around 1:35 in the afternoon, correct? That's what the transcript says. You wouldn't argue with that?

A. I wouldn't call that an interrogation. I would call that an interview. There's a difference between an interrogation and an interview.

Q. Okay.

Let's talk about that for just a second.

As I understand your testimony, sir, you didn't even have a suspicion that the ex-husband of one of the victims was in any way responsible for the murder, when you allowed Fuhrman to go over the wall into his property, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And then he became, in your story, your version of the story, he became the prime probable suspect when the glove was found at 360 North Rockingham, right?

A. He became, what I would term, a probable cause suspect.

Q. And so you, being an experienced detective, have got O.J. Simpson down in the interrogation room at Parker Center and you have him without any lawyers present, true?

A. No.

Q. It certainly isn't your testimony that the recorded statement from 13:35 hours to 14:07 hours on June 13, 1994 was made with lawyers for Mr. Simpson present, is it, sir?

A. No. Mr. Simpson had counsel prior to that, and he was advised of his rights and they went to lunch.

Q. So you -- so you had an opportunity to have your probable cause suspect interrogated by you and your partner, Phil Vannatter, for as long as you wanted to interrogate him, without anybody objecting to any questions or instructing Mr. Simpson to answer or not to answer any questions, true?

A. That's a little misleading once again.

Q. Can you answer that. Just answer it, no.

A. It was not an interrogation. It was an interview. And there's a difference between the two.

Q. Well, the room you had him in, was it called an interview room?

A. Yes.

Q. And you certainly didn't want to inquire about anything that could be used against him in the future, you just kind of wanted to chit-chat with O.J. Simpson because you had two dead people at 875 South Bundy, right?

A. I don't --

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, argument, to form.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You wanted to interrogate O.J. Simpson, record the statement, and get as much incriminating evidence as you could from Mr. Simpson between the time that you had to question him, which was virtually unlimited, true?

A. No, this was not an interrogation. This was an interview. I mean you have to make that distinction.

With an interrogation, it's an accusatory form of an interview where you have solid evidence that puts that suspect directly to the crime, and you confront that suspect with that.

In an interview, it's more of an investigative process where you attempt to glean inconsistencies.

That's what this was. Because we had no evidence, we had no blood back or anything else that we could solidly connect to this suspect and confront him with it.

Q. You wanted to get every bit of evidence you could out of O.J. Simpson so you could find any inconsistencies?

A. We were certainly looking for inconsistencies, that's correct.

Q. So you didn't have any evidence that you thought was incriminating, is that your testimony?

A. No, not at all.

Q. All right.

A. We had circumstantial evidence that we discussed with him. This certainly -- it wasn't made to him at that time. We had blood evidence we were interested in.

Q. Now, you were not told by his lawyers there was any time limitations on your right to question Mr. Simpson, true?

A. No, I don't recall that.

Q. You felt when you walked into the interview room with Mr. Simpson, that you could interview him as long as you felt was necessary, correct?

A. Certainly.

Q. You were aware that Mr. Simpson volunteered to give you his answers to any questions you asked, true?

A. I don't know if he'd give me the answers to any questions that I asked.

Q. And all the questions in the minutes that you were in there, did Mr. Simpson ever indicate to you he wouldn't answer a question?

A. He skirted around quite a few.

Q. Oh, so it's your version that he skirted around quite a few, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you -- like you're doing?

A. Is that a question?

Q. I guess it's a statement.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection to Mr. Baker's statement. Move to strike.

THE COURT: Let's get on with the witness.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you had the right, just as I have the right here, to ask another question if you didn't feel that your question was answered, true?

A. No, because Mr. Simpson could have invoked at any time, said I refuse to speak to you anymore, and walk out of here. I don't think I can do that.

Q. I hope not.

Now, you and your partner, Vannatter, questioned O.J. Simpson for what, 35 minutes?

A. Something like that.

Q. And your primary concern was to get information out of him you could use later against him, and that's why you read him the Miranda rights, true?

A. We were required to read Miranda under those circumstances. My primary concern was getting evidence back.

Q. And so you asked him about his whereabouts, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you asked him about the cut on his finger, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you told him that -- you and your partner, Vannatter, told him he had blood all over the place, and it was a real problem, didn't you?

A. I believe Vannatter mentioned that there was blood on the Bronco, blood at his house, and they had a problem with it.

Q. He immediately said, give me a blood test, didn't he?

A. No.

Q. Let me read to you. Maybe this will refresh your recollection.

MR. PETROCELLI: Where are you reading from?

MR. BAKER: Page 22, line 19.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) (Reading:) Q. We've got some blood on

and in your car. We've got some blood

at your house. And it's sort of a

problem. Mr. Simpson: Well, take my blood

test and we'll see.

He immediately, on you telling him that there was blood on and in his car, and some blood in his house, said, give me a blood test, didn't he?

A. No. That I never seen or -- you just read it and it does not say, give me a blood test.

I'd like to see that for myself.

Q. You think I misrepresented to you, Mr. Lange?

A. Stranger things have happened.

Q. Well, they have here.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, could the witness's attention be directed also to page 16 with reference --

MR. BAKER: Mr. Medvene, why don't you let me do the examination. You'll have your chance. Fair enough?

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court --

THE COURT: Excuse me. This is his examination. You want to examine him, you can examine him after he examines him, okay.

A. Does not say, give me a blood test. It does say, well, we'll take my blood test and we will see.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, didn't you think, Mr. Lange, that O.J. Simpson was telling you that, I will submit to a blood test?

A. Yes.

Q. Didn't you think when you talked about -- well, strike that.

You have gone on various shows and you have demeaned Mr. Simpson by saying that he never asked about what happened, have you not, sir?

A. I don't know about demeaning Mr. Simpson, but I probably did make reference to that, because it's absolutely true.

Q. Would you -- you can go ahead and read what the transcript says about Mr. Simpson requesting to know from you guys what happened, and why don't you read down to "you wouldn't tell."

(Pause for witness to read portion of transcript.)

A. He didn't tell me to -- ask us to tell him anything. He says we haven't told him anything. He doesn't make any requests.

Q. Okay.

"Every time I ask you guys, you say you're going to tell me in a bit."

That's what he says, correct?

A. I don't recall him ever asking me anything about any of this case.

Q. That's what he says, isn't it: "Every time I ask you guys, you say you're going to tell me in a bit." Correct?

A. That's what is says.

Q. And that's what he said, because this is your transcript from the D.A.'s office, isn't that true?

A. That's what he said at that time. But he did not request any specifics about what happened.

Q. Well, your response then, "We don't know a lot of answers to those questions yet ourself, O.J.," he'd certainly asked some questions, or the response would be -- wouldn't be, "We don't know a lot of answers to those questions yet ourself, O.J"; you would agree with that?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. Okay.

So as I understand it, first time you ever met O.J. Simpson was on the afternoon of June 13, before this interview, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were with him about how long before you started this interview?

A. I wasn't with him the entire time. I spoke with his attorney there, Weitzman, for a short period of time.

Q. Maybe you don't understand my question, sir.

I didn't ask you about speaking with Mr. Weitzman, and I didn't ask you where you were.

I said how long were you with him before you started the interview. Can you answer that, sir?

A. Perhaps a few minutes.

Q. So you were with him a few minutes before the interview started, and you never talked to this man, ever, before that time, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Then you were with him for the 35 minutes or so of your interview, and he says, "You guys haven't told me anything, every time I ask you guys, you tell me you're going to tell me in a bit."

And you say across this country, on every nationwide television show you can get your mug on, that he has never asked about his kids or anything about how the murders happened, isn't that true, sir?

A. That's exactly true and that is the truth.

Q. And of course he was with Vannatter and had to have asked Vannatter or you guys would have jumped all over him, wouldn't you? You would have said you never asked us a question about how the murders happened, you would have corrected him, wouldn't you?

A. No, not in that particular case.

Q. No, you wouldn't, you'd just go on TV and talk about how Mr. Simpson is such a bad guy because he never asked about the murders, when you saw him a few minutes before a 35-minute interview, right?

A. No.

Q. And the reason you did that is because now you got a book deal for $110,000; isn't that true?

A. Yes.

Q. Making money off of it, right, making money off of demeaning O.J. Simpson, right?

A. Not at all. We've been vilified to unbelievable extremes in this case. And it's about time we stood up and replied. We've been lied about.

Q. You've been standing up at every television show you can, haven't you?

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. The witness was giving an answer. Mr. Baker interrupted him.

MR. BAKER: It's nonresponsive.

A. And I will continue to do that.

THE COURT: Just a minute.

I'm going to let it stand because the witness's response is in response to a question and there was no objection to the question.

MR. MEDVENE: We're not objecting. We're just saying he hadn't finished his answer, Your Honor.

MR. BAKER: I don't have anything further of this witness.

THE CLERK: For the record, that exhibit is 2057, not 2038.

MR. BAKER: I do have one thing, a whole area that I got -- oh, pardon me.

THE COURT: Mr. Baker, just a minute.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) After you finished your 35 minutes, you went and had Mr. Simpson photographed, right?

A. I don't know if we got his blood first or the photos -- I believe it was the photograph, yes.

Q. At the time you took him to be photographed there at Parker Center, you were aware of the following: One, that you had two people dead at 875 South Bundy, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were aware that those two people who had perished at 875 South Bundy were murdered with a sharp object, correct?

A. Apparently, yes.

Q. And you were aware that O.J. Simpson had a cut on his left middle finger, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you wanted to have that cut photographed, did you not?

A. I did.

Q. And of course you wanted to have any other cut or cuts photographed, too, didn't you?

A. If I would have observed other cuts, certainly.

Q. You told Mr. Simpson how you wanted the photograph posed for that so that you'd get the cut fully photographed, correct?

A. Actually, I believe the photographer did that.

Q. Well, it's after you directed him as to where the cut was and what you wanted photographed, correct?

A. Well, I explained to the photographer that we in fact wanted -- actually, there's two cuts, by the way, on that finger. We wanted him to take a photograph of the finger, and he as a consequence of that, directed it.

Q. And I assume, sir, that you as a detective with many years experience, wanted to and did inspect O.J. Simpson's hands, correct?

A. I looked at his hands. I certainly didn't look at them under any kind of high intensity lighting. I didn't look -- lift them up or anything else, but I looked at them.

Q. And I take it you asked him to spread his fingers to look at the palmar, dorsal aspects of his hands, right?

A. I don't recall doing that.

Q. Well, I take it that you wanted to see whether there was more cuts than this one cut on the outside of the middle knuckle, wouldn't you, Detective Lange?

A. Well, I saw two cuts, and that was my focus. I did look at his hands. Again, I didn't examine them under any high intensity lighting. I didn't peel his finger back, I didn't check the creases of his hands. I did look at the two cuts.

Q. I take it you looked at his adjoining fingers, did you not.

A. His adjoining fingers?

Q. Well, the ring finger is directly adjacent to the middle finger, is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And you looked at the entire hand, did you not? I mean you couldn't avoid it, it's kind of in your field of vision?

A. Not necessarily. When you have creases and hair on his hand and all, I think one would have to really take a close look before you could see, perhaps, some cuts. And again, I did a cursory -- what I would call a cursory examination. I did not peel back his fingers and check the creases of his hands.

Q. Well, let's see if I got this right.

You looked at the glove, didn't look close enough to see if there was any blood or blood trail, right? This is Rockingham. True?

A. Yeah. It was not my concern at the time.

Q. You looked at the -- and you didn't look around the area to see shrubbery or anything else?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: I take it you're going to ask a question.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) As a detective, I take it that you have, like most of us, a field of vision, that is there's certain things that you can see. If I put my hand in front of you, I take it that you could tell whether or not I had a cut on the -- well, let's just say the interior aspect of my fourth finger. Can you see that right where my hand was?

A. If I was looking for it, I might, sure.

Q. Even if you weren't looking for it, with my hand sitting like this, you'd have to see it if it was right there, by the lower knuckle, wouldn't you?

(Mr. Baker places his own hand on witness stand, palm down.)

A. It would depend on lighting, it would depend on how you had your hand, it would depend on whether you had your fingers together or spread.

MR. BAKER: Phil, we got that picture of the cut. Yeah. Let's show that.

MR. P. BAKER: This is photograph 715.

(Photograph 715 is displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That's a cut on Mr. Simpson's fourth finger, sir.

That picture was taken on the 15th of June, 1994.

Now, that cut would be, if his hands were spread, what, a quarter of an inch away, maybe a half an inch away, from the cut on the middle finger of his left hand?

A. Is there a question?

Q. Yeah.

A. What was the question?

Q. That cut that is depicted on the fourth finger of Mr. Simpson's hand on a photograph taken June 15, and looking at Mr. Simpson's hand, did he just hold his hand as I'm holding mine, just in the area I'm holding mine, that cut would have been, what, a quarter, a half an inch away from the cut on the middle finger knuckle of his left hand?

A. I suppose, depending on the positioning of the fingers, sure.

Q. And I'm sure that you, being a good detective of 20 years, you had him at least spread his hands so you could see if he had any additional cuts, right?

A. I recall me looking at his hands. I don't recall him specifically spreading them out for me. I don't recall pulling his fingers back and looking in there. I gave them a cursory examination.

Q. So you did look at them?

A. Yes.

Q. All right.

And you didn't see the cut that's depicted in --

MR. BAKER: What's the photo?

MR. P. BAKER: 715.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) -- in 715, correct?

A. I don't recall seeing that cut.

Q. And of course, if you'd seen that cut, sir, you'd have taken a picture of it, wouldn't you?

A. I would say yes.

Q. If you saw this, whatever this gouge mark is, or this discoloration, or cut, or abrasion, or whatever that is, if you saw that, you obviously would have taken a picture, had the photographer take a picture of that, true?

A. Have to get a better look at that. There -- was the hands . . .

MR. BAKER: Zoom in on that.

(Indicating to Elmo.)

A. Yeah. There appear to be other discolorations across the hands and the knuckles, appear to be.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) If you saw any discoloration that looked like a cut, you'd have directed the photographer to take a picture of it so you would have had evidence preserved, true or untrue, Mr. Lange?

A. Certainly.

Q. All right.

And the only picture that you directed the photographer to take is this picture, correct?

MR. P. BAKER: 172.

(Exhibit 172 displayed.)

A. I did.

Q. And the cut that you were interested in was this cut on his knuckle, at the middle knuckle of his middle finger, right?

A. I believe there are two cuts on there, and yes, I was interested.

Q. Are you saying that there is a cut in the area where my finger is which would be above the -- about five -- between five and five and a quarter on the ruler?

A. I think there was an additional cut in that area.

Q. Show it to us. There's a pointer there, if you'd like.

(Witness approaches Elmo screen.)

A. This is pretty grainy. If I could see a photograph or something. Seems to me there was a photograph that depicts the cuts.

(Mr. Baker approaches the witness with an actual copy of a photo.)

A. I think there was another cut down in there, in the first knuckle area. Seems to me there's another cut down in this area.

Q. Now, when you say down in this area -- let's do it by the ruler.

THE COURT: No, it's not that. It's the jury is just looking at your backs.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, you want to --

MR. PETROCELLI: Want to try this picture, Mr. Baker?

MR. P. BAKER: Here is a better photo.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You want to circle the area you say is a cut.

MR. PETROCELLI: Want to try this picture?

MR. BAKER: No.

MR. PETROCELLI: Little more clear, same day.

This one also.

(Mr. Petrocelli hands Exhibits 171 and 172 to Mr. Baker.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You want to circle on that where you say the cut is.

Do you want to look at these before you make your decision where the cut is.

MR. PETROCELLI: What's the exhibit numbers?

MR. FOSTER: 171, 172.

A. These two areas I'm circling here.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Okay.

A. This doesn't catch too well.

Q. Now, you've circled one area down by the distal joint of the middle finger, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And is the cut going parallel or approximately parallel to the ruler; is that where you believe the cut is?

A. It's kind of difficult to see because of the creases in the skin, but it appears to be partially parallel.

THE COURT: Mr. Baker, why don't you blow up that one on the screen.

MR. BAKER: All right. I'll be happy to.

THE REPORTER: What number is that, that he marked?

MR. BAKER: This is --

MR. P. BAKER: We have --

THE COURT: This is the one we marked.

MR. P. BAKER: We are to mark it with a new number now that it's marked.

THE COURT: That's fine.

THE CLERK: 2259.

(The instrument herein described as a photograph of Mr. Simpson's hand with circle drawn by Mr. Lange was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2259.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Is this line here, is that what you say is a cut?

A. I think it's down in this area, it's a little tough to tell with the creases of the skin.

Q. Is it this area right here?

A. I think it is.

Q. That would be about -- above 4 and 7/8 and going from -- in an upward direction above the ruler, correct?

A. That's where that area is, yes. Yes.

MR. BAKER: You want to zero in.

Let's just show this photo. Zero in on that. See if we can see if there's any cut there whatsoever.

THE COURT REPORTER: What are we displaying, please?

MR. P. BAKER: This is back to 172.

MR. BAKER: Now, blow that up.

(Indicating to Elmo.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In your opinion it's a cut or dried blood?

A. Seems to me there was a cut in that area.

Q. Is it your opinion that's a cut or just dried blood?

A. Seems to me there was a cut in that area.

Q. You're telling this jury, by looking at that photo, you think that's a cut, sir?

A. There was one in that area. This has been two and a half years. That's my recollection, yes.

Q. Sir, that was the photo taken, sir, pursuant to your directions on the 13th, is it not, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. And I take it that you probably agree with me to the extent that the photo -- what's depicted in the photo is more accurate than your memory of what occurred, true?

A. In this regard, certainly.

Q. Yes. In this regard, do you agree with that?

A. Certainly.

Q. And is it your testimony, are you telling the ladies and gentlemen of this jury, that what you visualize in the area that we've now blown up at about 4 and 7/8 on the ruler is a cut or isn't a cut?

A. I believe that's some type of nick. I believe it is a nick. I believe it's some type of an injury, yes.

Q. And that nick --

MR. BAKER: Back it off, Phil. Please put the other with the circles on it.

MR. P. BAKER: 2259.

(Exhibit 2259 displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That purported nick and this cut are all of the cuts, abrasions, nicks, scratches, or anything else you saw on Mr. Simpson's hand, hands on June 13, 1994, true?

A. Yes.

MR. BAKER: Nothing further.

THE CLERK: I believe we had two photographs that were marked with Detective Lange, correct?

THE COURT: No, just one.

THE CLERK: Just one.

MR. P. BAKER: 2259.

THE COURT: What did he mark?

MR. P. BAKER: We marked 172 as 2259.

THE COURT: After it was marked?

MR. P. BAKER: Right.

MR. BAKER: We can substitute another 172.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. MEDVENE: I'll put on the monitor, 715.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE:

Q. Mr. Lange, can you tell us, if you can, identify the cut that you were just referring to when you talked to Mr. Baker?

A. Right here.

Q. Okay. And your --

MR. BAKER: That photo was taken June 15?

THE COURT: What?

MR. PETROCELLI: June 15, right.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And can you identify where it is just for the record?

A. Well, it's on the left hand middle finger, what I call the first joint towards the tip of the middle finger. Excuse me.

Q. Thank you. You can take it down now.

That day, on the 13th, did you ever hold Mr. Simpson's hands in yours and inspect his left hand?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever ask him to spread his fingers so that you'd be able to observe whether or not there were any scrapes, or nicks, or cuts between his third and fourth finger on his left hand?

A. I don't recall doing that.

Q. Was your primary emphasis on the middle finger, and the left hand where there was a band-aid on the finger?

MR. BAKER: Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Where was your primary focus?

A. Middle finger of the left hand.

Q. Why was that?

A. Because I observed what appeared to be fresh injuries to it.

Q. Now, you were asked earlier about a portion of the interview with Mr. Simpson where he said in part, you guys have not told me anything, and you told Mr. Baker in substance that --

MR. BAKER: Well, I would object to him summarizing what the testimony is. That's argumentative, Your Honor. He can just ask him the question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. And you said in substance that there were specifics that Mr. Simpson had not asked you. That's the area I wanted to talk to you about.

Had you spoken to --

MR. BAKER: Well, I object that that question assumes facts not in evidence. He didn't say there were specifics Mr. Simpson hadn't asked him.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Had you spoken to Mr. Simpson, among other times, on the telephone from the Rockingham house in the early morning hours of June 13?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mr. Simpson, to the best of your knowledge, at the time was where?

A. In Chicago.

Q. And that was the first time you spoke with him?

A. Yes.

Q. What did he not ask you about, among other things, with respect to --

(Mr. Baker raised his hand.)

THE COURT: Sustained.

(Laughter.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did Mr. Simpson ask you at that time how his wife was killed?

MR. BAKER: I object to him leading.

THE COURT: You may ask leading questions. It's objectionable to ask, "what did he ask you?"

MR. BAKER: All right. Understood.

A. No.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did Mr. Simpson ask you any details of how his wife was killed?

A. No.

Q. Did Mr. Simpson ask you where the murders took place?

A. No.

Q. Did Mr. Simpson ask you how she was killed?

A. No.

Q. Did Mr. Simpson ask you what weapon was used?

A. No.

Q. Did Mr. Simpson ask you any of the questions, that in your experience, are ordinarily asked of a homicide investigator, when there's a report of the death of a close one that's related?

A. No.

Q. Did Mr. Simpson ask you, for example, how do you know that it was his wife?

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object. This is argumentative in the sense that --

THE COURT: I think you went through it once. All right. I'll sustain the objection unless . . .

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, there was also some questions by Mr. Baker about during the interview, about blood, and whether Mr. Simpson immediately had volunteered to have a blood test.

Earlier in your discussion with Mr. Simpson, prior to the portion Mr. Baker had read you, had you discussed the fact with him that various blood was found at Rockingham?

A. I believe so.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did Mr. Simpson volunteer to take a blood test?

MR. BAKER: Mr. Medvene, I object to this. He's asking him to recall what is in this. Let's go to the actual document, not his leading question about what he believes was asked at the interview.

(Pause.)

THE COURT: I'm confused by the questions.

MR. MEDVENE: Let me do what Mr. Baker had suggested. With Your Honor's permission, let's go to the specific interview.

THE COURT: And which interview are you talking about?

MR. MEDVENE: On June the 13th, when Mr. Simpson was speaking with Detectives Lange and Vannatter.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did Mr. Simpson say -- and I direct you to page 15, line 24. (Reading:)

I recall bleeding at my house,

and then I went to the Bronco. The last

thing before I did before I left, when I

was rushing was went and got my phone

out of the Bronco.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Do you recall Mr. Simpson telling you that?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he volunteer for any blood test at that time?

A. No.

Q. Do you recall --

MR. BAKER: You want to read the question from now on, so it appears that Mr. Simpson is in fact answering their question.

MR. MEDVENE: Let me read from page 15 to accommodate Mr. Baker, starting at line 22, I'll read through 26.

(Reading:) Q. That's okay. Do you

recall bleeding at all in the -- in your

truck, in the Bronco. Mr. Simpson: I recall bleeding

at my house, and then I went to the

Bronco. The last thing I did before I

left, I was rushing, was went and got my

phone out of the Bronco.

MR. MEDVENE: I direct you now, Mr. Baker, to page 16, line 11.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you or Mr. Vannatter say to Mr. Simpson: (Reading:)

So do you recall bleeding at all?

Q. And Mr. Simpson said: (Reading:)

Yeah, I mean I -- I knew I was

bleeding, but it was no big deal, I

bleed all the time. I mean it's -- I'm

always -- I play golf and stuff so

there's always something, nicks and

stuff.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Do you remember that being asked of Mr. Simpson, and Mr. Simpson giving you that answer?

A. Yes.

Q. And did he volunteer to give any blood at that time?

A. No.

Q. During the interview, before Mr. Simpson said whatever he said, did you make reference to your recollection to any blood of Mr. Simpson's being found at the Bundy location?

A. No.

MR. BAKER: I object to the question as vague, before he said whatever he said.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Before -- later in the interview, when Mr. Simpson said what Mr. Baker made reference to, about volunteering to give blood, did you tell Mr. Simpson that his blood had been found at Bundy?

A. No.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object to that question. Move to strike. There's no foundation they knew his blood had ever been found at Bundy when they interviewed him.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, you were also asked some questions, this morning I believe, about the crime scene at Rockingham, and you mentioned the crime scene at Rockingham, in effect, was not your responsibility.

What did you mean by that?

A. I was to investigate the Bundy crime scene, and Vannatter would be in charge of the Rockingham crime scene.

Q. Yesterday, Mr. Baker showed you something that he said might be a shoe print and you were unable to identify it as a shoe print.

Why is that?

A. Well, I just -- I looked at it. I can't say that it's any kind of a shoe print. I mean to me, if that were a shoe print, there would be others around there.

I mean there's just the one pattern there referring to if in fact that was a shoe print, you'd expect to find other shoe prints around it because of the large amount of blood.

Q. Well, were there any other bloody shapes of any kind that were going east on Bundy?

A. No.

Q. Is it true while there were no other bloody shapes that appeared to be shoe prints going east on Bundy, you did observe certain paw prints and blood?

A. There appeared to be animal paw prints, yes.

Q. Now, there was also a question yesterday regarding your ability to reconstruct the murder in terms of who was attacked first, and who died first; that series of questions.

Are you able, not having been present, to give any definite opinion as to who was attacked first, or who died first, or who necessarily was standing where?

A. I don't think there was anyway I can do that.

Q. And why is that?

A. Well, as you mentioned, part of it is I wasn't there. It was --- as the investigator all I can do is go by the physical evidence at the crime scene, and looking at that crime scene there are probably three or four possible scenarios.

Q. Now, as a result of the fact that it's not possible to reconstruct exactly what happened with respect to the two murders, is there any evidence, to your knowledge, to indicate a second suspect?

A. No.

Q. And why do you say that?

A. I have one set of bloody shoe prints at the crime scene. The victims were killed in a similar fashion, the wounds are similar. There appears, in my mind, to be a common murder weapon because of the mixture of blood found at the scene at the bottom of Mr. Goldman's boot. There's just absolutely no evidence of a second suspect.

Q. What does that tell you -- by the way, when you say a common weapon, why do you say that? By common weapon you mean used by one person?

A. One weapon used by one person on both victims. Because of a mixture of blood found on the boot, the form of a blood droplet, perhaps a cast off, what I would term a common murder weapon that had the blood of both victims on it.

MR. MEDVENE: I have nothing further. Thank you.

REDIRECT EXAMINATON BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Let me ask you this. You say you talked to O.J. Simpson from Rockingham?

A. Yes.

Q. I thought you just testified the first time you talked to him was five minutes before you started the interview at Parker Center?

A. In person.

Q. Oh, you just meant in person when you answered that question?

A. Well, that was the impression I got from you when you asked that question.

Q. I asked the question, sir, have you ever talked to O.J. Simpson before you were at Parker Center, and you answered that question, did you not, in the negative?

A. I was under the impression that you meant face to face, in person.

Q. Did you ever talk to --

A. If I gave you the wrong impression, I did, I'm sorry.

Q. Did you ever talk to -- you mean in person?

A. It did when you mentioned that, yes.

Q. So it was -- you just failed to admit, you just omitted this purported conversation you say you had with O.J. Simpson from the Rockingham house?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you omit it or did you not?

A. I was just reminded of that conversation I had with Mr. Simpson when Mr. Medvene brought it up. At that time I didn't recall it. I thought you were alluding to an in-person type interview.

Q. You went out and talked to Mr. Medvene, and were reminded of a conversation you now say you had with Mr. Simpson on June 13, 1994, over the telephone, rights?

A. When he just asked that question, yes.

Q. And just -- there had been no, of course, communication with you before he would have had to -- Strike that.

Just his questions just kind of brought it to your mind, right?

A. Refreshed my memory of the fact that I did indeed have a telephonic conversation.

Q. And his other questions just refreshed your memory as to what Mr. Simpson didn't ask, right?

A. I'm aware of what he didn't ask.

Q. Let me ask you this question:

Mr. Simpson called Rockingham and called Bundy from the airplane multiple times; you're aware of that?

A. I'm aware.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, outside the scope of our examination.

THE COURT: Overruled?

A. I'm aware of the one call to Rockingham because I took it.

Q. Well, you were aware he talked to Phillips from Rockingham before you ever talked to him, if you ever did?

A. Oh, I did. Phillips --

Q. You were aware of a phone call from Phillips, were you not?

A. Phillips called Simpson. Simpson didn't call Phillips.

Q. You were aware that Simpson called Rockingham at least three or four more times that morning while he was on an airplane trying to get back to his house, and to the murder scene of his ex-wife, correct?

A. He may have.

Q. And he called Bundy three or four more times trying to get information relative to what had happened, and what had occurred, and talked to police officers who picked up the phone at Bundy?

You're aware of that, are you not?

A. I don't recall that.

Q. Well, before you go on national television and excoriated Mr. Simpson for not having inquired about what you thought was appropriate, you'd sure want to find out who he talked to besides you, wouldn't you, or do you just want to be one-sided?

A. No. I was probably more concerned with what Mr. Simpson asked me as his interviewer, and my partner and this -- now that you brought it up, none of those questions were asked.

Q. Now, you -- You say that you can't reconstruct the murder scene at 875 South Bundy, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. But you can reconstruct it enough, when Mr. Medvene asks you questions, to determine that there is, in your view, a single murder weapon, right?

A. I can interpret the evidence that I see at the scene. That doesn't extend itself to knowing exactly what happened, how it happened, and when it happened.

MR. BAKER: Get the board.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And we'll start talking about the -- the evidence at the scene, Mr. Lange.

Now, at the scene there was, you say, a drop, or was it multiple drops, or was it multiple smears and stains on -- of combined blood of Nicole and Ron Goldman?

A. I was alluding to one drop which was a mixture of blood of Mr. Goldman and Ms. Brown on the boot -- sole of the boot of Mr. Goldman.

Q. Now, was there, in your opinion, in your reconstruction slant unreconstruction, did the bodies of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson ever touch?

A. I'm sorry. You had your hand in front.

Did they touch?

Q. Sure. Did she ever -- they ever come in contact?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, previously asked and answered, outside the copy of examination.

MR. BAKER: I think he opened this whole area up on reconstruction.

MR. MEDVENE: We just followed up.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I don't know if they touched or not.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, you certainly didn't know, except from hearsay information, whether or not a blood drop on the boot of Mr. Goldman contains Nicole Brown Simpson's blood and Ron Goldman's blood, true?

A. I was made aware of that, obviously, subsequent to that investigation, yes.

Q. And I take it that in terms of your reconstruction, you'd want to get all of the serology results, not just one single drop of blood, wouldn't you?

A. Well, it would depend on what you're looking for, certainly.

Q. We're looking for a reconstruction so that you can come into court, under penalty of perjury, and tell this jury that you believe there's one assailant because of a single drop of blood.

And that is the single drop of blood that is where? Why don't you come over on the sole of Mr. Goldman's boot and point it out to us.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. That misstates his testimony, Your Honor, one set of bloody footprints and a number of other things --

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Show us the blood that had blood drops --

THE COURT: Just a minute. Objection sustained.

With regard to the rest of it, you may go to the board and show where the blood you referred to in your last answer is.

MR. P. BAKER: That's board 1342.

(Exhibit 1342 displayed.)

A. Referring to this blood drop here on the sole of the left boot.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury the position of that boot when the blood drop was dropped on it?

A. I would have no idea, not being there.

Q. Well, don't you do any accident or murder reconstruction?

A. To that extent, no.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. Not to that extent, no.

Q. Well, you described it as a blood drop, correct?

A. Blood drop, perhaps in the form of a cast off of a common murder weapon.

Q. A blood drop and a cast off are not the same, are they?

A. In the form of a cast off, Counselor.

Q. You said there was a blood drop, and that gave you the impression that there was a single weapon used, true?

A. I believe I mentioned in the form of a cast off. That -- I would term that a blood drop, fine.

Q. You think this is a blood drop, correct?

A. To me a blood drop in the form of a cast off, correct.

Q. A cast off is a description that criminalists use to determine -- depict blood that has been flung from something, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you know whether his boot was up, down, sideways, how it was when this blood drop dropped?

A. No, I couldn't.

Q. Now, did you in the sense of -- did you know that there were blood transfers between the clothing of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?

Apparently you didn't know from the look on your face?

A. Transfers?

Q. Blood transfers from clothing of Nicole Brown Simpson to Ron Goldman.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, assumes facts, Your Honor.

THE COURT: What's the question. Overruled.

A. I don't know of any transfers of clothing, no.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, do you know that Ron Goldman's blood was found on the clothing of Nicole --

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You want to come here.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the reporter:)

MR. PETROCELLI: The --

THE COURT: In as much as this portion of the testimony was a long time ago, there's an objection raised as to whether or not that is an item that was not in evidence.

MR. BLASIER: It was -- it was Renee Montgomery's testimony where it had the charts about the number of stains, transfers.

THE COURT: Who is Renee?

MR. BLASIER: She was from the Department of Justice. Renee Montgomery. And she testified about 23 stains, 13 from Goldman to Brown, and I think 6 the other way. Something -- I had the exact -- I don't have the exact numbers. That was her testimony. There was blood from each victim on the other person's clothing.

MR. PETROCELLI: She never testified there was transfer between the victims. I have questions about the accuracy of that representation. I'd have to go back and check the testimony, but if he just rephrases his testimony (sic) instead of assumes it is a fact, just ask whether or not he knows something, we can avoid the debate here.

THE COURT: I'm not -- if in fact that is true, he has a right to ask the question.

MR. PETROCELLI: I don't believe there's any evidence to that effect. I'll have to check the record at lunch time. I can't probably do it in the short time we have now.

MR. MEDVENE: In addition to that, Your Honor, it's not relevant to what the question was on.

THE COURT: You could have stopped when -- but you opened it up, and so we're going through a whole afternoon of examination apparently.

MR. PETROCELLI: I don't think that's --

MR. BAKER: That's true.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I don't think that's a fair comment at all. We've been through Bundy extensively in the first examination. We have a right to do some recross.

(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, Mr. Lange were you aware that there was -- I think it was 14 separate stains of Ron Goldman's blood on Nicole Brown Simpson's, and I believe 6 or 8 stains of Nicole's blood on Ron Goldman's clothes?

A. It's been sometime since I've reviewed serological reports. It may well be. I don't recall that.

Q. That was of no significance to you?

A. It would have been of some significance back then certainly, but again, I haven't seen those possibly in over two years.

Q. It's never mentioned in your follow-up report, is it?

A. I don't think we had those reports -- results when I did my follow-up report.

Q. Now, if you have a cast off of the blood from a murder weapon, and the boot is in an upright position as it is depicted here, you would anticipate that the blood would run down the sole for half an inch, three-quarter of an inch, right?

(Referring to board entitled "Blood stains from closed in area of Bundy.")

A. I couldn't say. Not necessarily.

Q. To get a pattern as indicated in the photograph, in the lower right-hand picture on the board, the boot has to be virtually in an upright position, that is the sole facing upward, true?

A. The sole facing skyward.

Q. Skyward.

And that's impossible, isn't it?

A. Well, I would think so.

This here does appear to be somewhat elongated. Perhaps it struck as the boot is there.

Q. So as the boot is there?

A. Only speculation.

Q. In your reconstruction of the murder scene, that boot in a cast off pattern of a blood drop would only elongate, what, an eighth of an inch, sixteenth of an inch?

A. I can't say for sure.

Q. Now, in your version of reconstruction, we had blood on the fence -- that's the north fence, right?

A. Yes.

Q. We had blood pooling by the concrete walk, stone walk, correct?

A. Pooling?

Q. Pooling.

A. Blood drops. I don't know that it's pooling.

Q. Look over here.

Tell the jury, because you were at the scene and inspected the scene, and you knew where the blood was, that was blood pooling behind -- north of the fence, was it not, sir?

A. Looks like several drops to me. I suppose, once again, we can make a subjective call, where you would call it pooling and I might call it drops of blood. I don't --

Q. This is a drop in this area here, and down here is just a couple of drops?

A. No. I said it appears to be several drops of blood.

Q. This is in fact blood pooling, is it not, sir?

A. I think that's a subjective term.

Q. Well, let's see if we can define it for you.

MR. P. BAKER: This is 2166.

(Exhibit 2166 displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I take it you believe that's just a couple of drops, right?

A. Once again, counselor, I never said it was a couple of drops. I said it looks to me to be several drops of blood.

Q. Well, how much is several? Is that five or is it 500?

A. I would -- I would have no way of knowing.

Q. Well, you were there and you looked at it.

And this is blood, this is blood, this is blood, this is blood, and this is blood, all the way over to the stone area, correct?

(Indicating.)

A. Yes.

Q. And obviously, sir, that took some time to be deposited there, did it not?

A. I don't think I can say that.

If that would be arterial bleeding it could be a couple of seconds.

Q. Now, the area where that blood is in your reconstruction, is behind where the body of Ron Goldman was found, correct?

A. Behind and north of, yes.

MR. BAKER: I'm sorry to do this, but let's put this photo up.

MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 88.

(Exhibit 88 displayed.)

Q. The area we're looking at is -- see that blood smear behind Mr. Goldman?

A. Um-hum.

Q. See that blood smear?

(Indicating.)

A. Same blood smear, right.

Q. Appears to be.

(Indicating to board entitled "Blood stains from closed-in area at Bundy."

MR. BAKER: Take it off, please.

(Indicating to Elmo.)

Q. You were at the autopsy and looked at the autopsy report?

A. I did review it sometime later, yes.

Q. There was no external arterial bleeding at all, was there, from Mr. Goldman?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Well --

A. There was a lot of blood, I know that.

Q. We've just shown you the picture, sir, showing his back to the area where that blood pooled, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you know from being at the autopsy, and doing your own reconstruction, that there was no wound on the back of his neck, and no wound on the back.

There was a wound in his lower side which was the side that was pointed upwards at the time that he was found, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And there is no wound on his body that would explain the blood poolings that I have shown you, isn't that true, unless he was standing upright and the blood was exiting his -- bleeding from his neck, down his left side, down his left shoe?

A. Not necessarily. He had quite a bit of bleeding from his leg. There was obviously a struggle that went on here. The blood could have been deposited during the time of the struggle. It's -- again, it's approximately, speculation.

Q. Well, obviously, the blood was deposited during the time of the struggle, don't you think?

A. That's what I said.

Q. Well, you said could have been.

It's obvious that it, in fact, was deposited at that time, true?

A. I think we can assume that it probably was, in fact, deposited at the time this occurred, yes.

Q. So at least in your scenario of events, Mr. Goldman was inside the gate, then he was around on the east fence, and at some point therein the keys were lost, correct?

A. I don't know if they were lost. There were keys found there, yes.

Q. These keys that are shown in the lower -- center lower picture are the keys that were left at the crime scene, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, this whole area was gone into extensively earlier.

THE COURT: Mr. Medvene, we can do it again.

Mr. Medvene, you asked this witness to reconstruct and state the basis for his theory and --

MR. MEDVENE: No, we didn't.

THE COURT: Mr. Baker's entitled to cross-examine on that basis.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And these keys had no blood on them at the crime scene, and had blood on them when they were returned to the owner; isn't that true?

A. No. I think they were splattered at the crime scene.

Q. You see any blood on those keys whatsoever?

A. I don't think you can see both sides of the keys. I don't think you can see everything there.

Q. Did you note anywhere in any LAPD document relative to the investigation of this crime scene that there was blood on those keys, sir?

A. No. I wouldn't have touched the keys. The criminalist collected them.

Q. From your review of the documents in this case, have you ever seen a document that indicates the keys had blood on them?

A. I don't recall seeing that.

Q. The keys were lost and they were underneath some foliage in the caged or closed-in area, correct?

A. Partially.

Q. And then the struggle continued back to the area where the hole was dug during the crime scene, during the struggle, correct?

A. I don't know that there's anyway that we can put that into a sequence.

Q. Well, you said in your opinion, it was probable that it was done during the -- during the struggle, did you not, sir?

A. Well, during the struggle, certainly. But I'm not going to tell you that the keys were dropped, and the hole was dug, then the blood was dropped. I can't tell you that.

Q. Well, so you don't know how the struggle took place, whether the -- the pager that was flung to the north of where the blood pooled, you don't know what sequence that occurred in?

A. I don't think the evidence gives us that.

I think, as I testified, there are probably three or four scenarios for the way this could have happened. I can't tell you exactly what happened and when it happened.

Q. You don't know whether the envelope was dropped with the glasses in it?

A. I can't tell you when, no.

Q. You don't know if that envelope was handed to Nicole Brown Simpson, because the LAPD took absolutely no fingerprints off of it?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection.

THE COURT: That's argumentative. Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Was -- Was there any fingerprints taken off the envelope that was found between the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson --

THE COURT: Sustained.

You know, I'm allowing you some latitude. I'm not going to go back and redo the whole examination. You have -- you have latitude to examine with respect to the basis for his theory that he testified to, and Mr. Medvene's examination.

But beyond that I'm not going to revisit the original examination.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Let's go back to the boot for a minute.

On the boot, did you notice the cut in the same boot where you say the blood drop was a cast away -- you now say was a cast away drop?

A. Yes, I believe there was a slice in both boots.

Q. Slice in both boots?

A. I believe that's my recollection, yes.

Q. In fact, the LA Police Department -- you never noticed a slice in both boots until that boot was examined by Henry Lee?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, materiality.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: Is this a good point?

THE COURT: 1:30, ladies and gentlemen.

Don't talk about the case, don't form or express any opinion.

(At 12:00 P.M. a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)

SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11,1996
1:39 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

MR. MEDVENE: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

At the break, Mr. Baker informed me he had no further questions of Mr. Lange.

We have no questions.

I think, subject to Mr. Baker moving in some exhibits, Mr. Lange's been released, pursuant to the agreement with Mr. Baker.

MR. BAKER: I got the Court's message.

THE COURT: I didn't send one.

MR. BAKER: Relative to Exhibits 2257, 2258 and 2259.

Thank you.

(The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2257 for identification, was received in evidence.)

(The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2258 for identification, was received in evidence.)

(The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2259 for identification, was received in evidence.)

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, under 767, we recall Susan Brockbank.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I have a standing objection on these city employees.

THE COURT: You have a standing ruling.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.

And we can treat them, under cross, both ways, then, right?

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.

MR. BAKER: I would object to them treating under cross.

I just place it on the record.

THE COURT: Okay.

SUSAN BROCKBANK was called as a witness on behalf of the defendants pursuant Evidence Code 767, was previously duly sworn, and testified further as follows:

THE CLERK: And you are still under oath. And would you please state your name again, for the record.

THE WITNESS: Susan Brockbank.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Brockbank.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. You are a criminalist with the Police Department, SID division, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And at the time that you worked on the Simpson case, you were assigned to the hair and trace unit, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, previously, you testified -- and let me put on the Elmo 464, the first page of 464.

(Defendant's Exhibit No. 464, first page, displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. You recall being asked questions by the plaintiffs and testifying about the dates that you collected -- or that various items were collected and the dates that they were sent to the FBI and what the FBI numbers were, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And then 464 is just a different part, basically saying the name again, when items were collected and when they were sent to the FBI?

A. Yes.

Q. It's accurate you did far more work in this case than just that in terms of analyzing evidence?

A. Than just what?

Q. Than just collecting them on one date and sending them to the FBI on another date?

A. Yes, I did more than that.

Q. You are an expert trained in the analysis of hair and fiber, are you not?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Okay.

Now, would you agree with me that comparing hair evidence with such things as fingerprints, DNA conventional serology, that hair evidence is the least discriminating of all of those types of evidence?

A. I don't know that it's the least discriminating. We don't generate numbers like those other things do.

I mean, with a fingerprint, you can make a positive identification.

Q. Right.

A. With a hair exam, you can't.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. And with -- with your example of blood analysis, they give you frequency numbers in the population, and with hair, we don't do that, either.

Q. All you can say with hair is, it could have come from that person; then again, it might not have?

A. Well, either it could have come from them, or it did not come from them, yes.

Q. But when you say it could have come from them, you can't say that conclusively, that it did come from a particular person, can you?

A. No.

Q. And you can't -- there are no -- no tables of data anywhere that helps you narrow down how many other people it could possibly have come from, either; isn't that correct?

A. No -- I mean, that's correct.

Q. And the same is true of fiber evidence, is it not?

It's not terribly discriminating, in that about the only thing you can say is that two fibers could have had a common source, for the most part?

A. Unless you have like a patch of fabric that you're piecing back together, where you have a physical match, in that case, you could say, you know, you have a positive identification.

But if you don't have a patch of fabric, if you're dealing with single fibers, then yes, um-hum.

Q. And none of the fiber evidence in this case is like a patch of cloth that you can exactly match up to a source, correct?

A. None that I'm aware of.

Q. Okay.

Now, would you agree that, with respect to hair and fiber evidence at a crime scene, that one of the things that you would like to know, as a criminalist or investigator, is whether or not the suspect was a frequent visitor to the area where hair and fiber evidence might have been found?

A. That would be an additional piece of information, sure.

Q. Okay.

The evidence would be of more value if you found someone's hair or fiber when they'd never been to that location, supposedly, correct?

A. (No verbal response.)

Q. I didn't ask that very well.

A. You mean -- more significant, you mean?

Q. Yes.

A. I think so, yes.

Q. And one of the reasons for that is that hair and fiber pretty much stay around for a long time, don't they?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) They don't break down like blood tests?

A. Well, with time, they will break down, yes.

Q. A lot of time, right?

A. Well, it takes -- it takes a bit of time for them, yeah, to totally disintegrate. But --

Q. I mean, you can have a fiber that you find in one location. That it may have been there for months, and you have no way of knowing whether it was put there this morning or was there five months ago, do you?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Relevance, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. No.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And you have no way of knowing how many intermediate places it might have been between where it originally came from and where you found it, correct?

A. Not really, no.

Q. Okay.

And you never did an analysis of the soil area around 875 South Bundy to determine how common hairs consistent with Mr. Simpson might be in that area, did you?

A. No, I did not.

Q. And you didn't do any analysis like that to determine how common carpet fibers, that might be consistent with his Bronco, were in that area, did you?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Now, hair and trace evidence, oftentimes, is very difficult to see with the naked eye, is it not?

A. I guess it depends on what -- on what the surface is that the hair is on, or what the circumstances are surrounding, you know, each individual case.

Q. Okay.

Would you agree that you don't -- that's not the kind of assessment that you made in the field; that is, when there's hair or fiber evidence on a piece of evidence, it's something you determine in the lab?

A. Not always, no.

Q. Primarily?

A. I don't know even primarily. It's, you know, really a case-by-case basis. If you have, you know, you're out in the field and you have an object like this (indicating to witness stand), where you see hairs over to the side of it, you may collect it right then at the time.

Q. Okay.

Would you agree with this, as a general rule, that kind of analysis is done in the laboratory under controlled conditions?

A. The analysis is performed in a -- in the lab, yes. But removal isn't always, no.

Q. Okay.

In this, case are you aware of any single hair or fiber sample that was picked up at the scene, as opposed to taken off of a piece of evidence back at the lab?

A. I believe there might have been some hairs and fibers collected by either Mr. Fung or Ms. Mazzola, like from a blood stain or something.

I'm just going on memory here.

Q. You --

A. So --

Q. -- you have a specific recollection of any such example like that which was found at the scene as opposed to taken off a piece of evidence later?

A. That's what I'm describing for you now.

Q. You think of one?

A. I think so. Yes.

Q. Any others?

A. Again, just going on my memory, none that I can think of.

Q. When you examine items of evidence in the lab, you do so under very controlled conditions, do you not?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And you have a closed-in room that has no air currents in it?

There's minimal air current as possible, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's because hairs and fibers -- fibers in particular -- can get moved from one thing to another just by waving at them in some cases, correct?

A. Not -- not so much. I mean, it may be possible for something to move from one place to another, but I don't know that it happens with any frequency.

Q. Why do you avoid air currents in the room that you use to examine items?

A. So that you don't lose evidence.

Q. Because the air current could cause you to lose it, huh?

A. Well, they could cause it to drop off of your working surface and onto the floor, and then it's pretty much lost.

Q. You're very careful that you don't have other people walking around in the same room that you're doing these kinds of analysis in; is that fair to say?

A. Well, in our lab, we have one -- one room, mainly, in the trace unit that is used for that type of analysis.

And there are generally other people working in the same room. They may be walking around; they may not be.

Q. Now, with respect to hair analysis, we heard testimony from Agent Deedrick about certain characteristics that you look at when you examine a hair to see if it could have come from a particular person, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, it's accurate, is it not, that there is no uniform list of characteristics that everybody uses; is that correct?

A. That everybody -- you mean -- what do you mean by "everybody," everybody?

Q. All examiners that --

A. Hair examiners?

Q. -- As you are?

A. From agency to agency, I think that will differ within a given agency. There's usually some sort of -- of a form, or release of form at describing hairs.

Q. In your work, you do have a form that you fill out in detail as to what characteristics you think you've observed for a particular hair, don't you?

A. We use a form, along with just written, verbal notes.

Q. And you're careful to write down all the things that you observe, so if you have to reconstruct it later, you can do so from your paperwork, correct?

A. Just to, you know, refresh your memory and what not, but an actual comparison isn't done on paper.

Q. You write down -- I'm sorry.

You write down the findings, the characteristics of what you saw and what you think is similar, correct?

A. Yeah, we see a particular hair, we write down the characteristics; we write notes whether we believe it's similar to a known sample or not.

Q. Special Agent Deedrick doesn't do any of that?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Calls for speculation.

MR. BLASIER: I'll try to lay the foundation

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You took a lot of this evidence back, and worked with Doug Deedrick in the FBI lab; watched him work?

A. I watched him some of the time.

I was there not every minute.

Q. You had a chance to evaluate his paperwork compared to yourself, haven't you?

A. Not all of it.

I did see some of his notes, but I don't know that I've seen everything that he did.

Q. You know that he does not keep detailed notes about what he looks at like you do?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. No foundation --

THE COURT: She watched him do his work.

MR. GELBLUM: -- in this case.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GELBLUM: The question is overbroad.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. MR. BLASIER: In this case, your notes are much better than his, aren't they?

A. I don't know that you'd say better. They're just different. He uses --

Q. Yours has something in them; his doesn't, correct?

A. His --

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Try another question.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, on August 4 of 1994, you examined the socks found at Rockingham for the first time; is that accurate?

A. Can I refer to my notes --

Q. Sure.

A. -- for that.

(Pause for witness to review notes in blue notebook, taken from her briefcase.)

THE WITNESS: What was the date, again?

Q. August 4, 1994.

A. Take me just a minute to find it in my notes.

Yes, it was August 4.

(Witness reviews notes.)

Q. That was the first time, to your knowledge, that the socks were examined for any fiber evidence; is that correct?

A. That was the only time I examined them for fiber evidence.

Q. And when they were given to you, both socks were contained in one single bag, were they not?

A. Actually, I was called over to the serology unit, and the socks were already out on the lab bench.

Q. So you don't know how they'd been preserved prior to that time, whether they had been in separate bags or not?

A. No, I don't actually recall the packaging on them.

Q. Now, you also, as part of your work in the case, had measured various gloves at various times, have you not?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you measured the Rockingham and the Bundy gloves shortly after they were seized, correct?

A. (No verbal response.)

Q. In June of '94?

A. Well, let's see.

The first time I examined them was on June 19.

Q. Of '94?

A. Oh, wait a minute. Hold on just one second.

Q. Sure.

A. I'm sorry.

It was June 21 of 1994.

Q. Okay.

You measured both gloves, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you measured them a second time, I think, almost a year later, in the middle of criminal trial?

A. Yes. That was June 19, '95.

Q. Isn't it accurate that -- well, withdrawn.

You also measured a pair of new Aris leather lights, extra large, produced by the prosecution in the criminal case, correct?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And it's accurate, is it not, that the size of the Rockingham and Bundy gloves that you measured, both times you measured them, in 1994 and 1995, were much smaller than the extra large Aris, the new ones that were provided by the prosecution, correct?

A. Yes. The measurements actually were up to about an inch, I think, and an eighth smaller.

Q. Substantially smaller?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. They were definitely smaller.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And the Rockingham glove, between June of '94 and June of '95, at the time they were tried on by Mr. Simpson, actually had gotten a little bigger, hadn't they?

A. The right glove, which was item number 9?

Q. Correct.

A. Measured slightly larger, my notes say, up to a quarter inch on length of three of the five fingers.

So it was slightly larger than my original measurement.

Q. Larger in the criminal trial than when you measured them back in June of '94, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, one of the items that you examined was a -- a sample of carpet from the Bronco, correct?

A. Yes.

(Defendant's Exhibit No. 419 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. And looking at 419, do you recognize the pictures in Exhibit 419 as being the piece of carpet that you examined on various occasions?

A. That does appear to be it, yes.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. That does appear to be it.

Q. Okay.

And can you tell us -- these certainly aren't life-size pictures -- can you tell us the dimensions -- actually, we have a ruler here. The piece of carpeting was -- appears to be almost three feet long, I don't know, maybe two feet wide.

Does that sound about right?

A. That sounds about right.

Q. And this carpeting was actually cut out of the Bronco, the front driver's side of the Bronco, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. To your knowledge?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, when you cut a piece of carpet, isn't it true that the carpet fibers get very fragile along the edges, in the sense that you're likely to get stuff falling off of that if you're not careful?

A. Yes. You usually get some yarns falling off.

Q. Okay.

And the carpet fibers that you had examined, or found, on other pieces of evidence in this case, were all extremely small, weren't they?

A. Can you repeat that?

Q. Yeah.

The carpet fibers that you found on some pieces of evidence in this case, were fairly small, weren't they?

A. I never measured any of the fibers that I removed on anything.

Q. Do you recall whether they were small?

A. No, I don't.

Q. When did you first examine that carpet?

A. Let me check again, my notes.

(Witness reviews notes from blue notebook binder.)

THE WITNESS: Sorry, my notebook isn't as organized as I thought it was.

Okay.

Yeah, I examined the carpet on July 22 of 1994, along with Collin Yamauchi and John Taggart (phonetic).

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And did you examine it at other times, as well?

A. That was really the only time I examined it. I did -- I think -- well, I don't even know if I was the one that did it, or I just accompanied Bill Bodziak in looking at that one other time.

Q. Okay.

When you looked at it in -- what you said, July?

A. July 22.

Q. Now, it was contained in a box, was it not?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. And that came to be known in the criminal trial as box number 2, didn't it?

A. Yes, it did.

MR. BLASIER: And can we have the next in order.

THE CLERK: Going to be 2260, marked by reference to DR number 94-0-17431.

(The instrument herein referred to as A cardboard box with tape on it, was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2260 by reference to DR number 94-0-17431.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show you 2260.

Can you -- can you tell me if this is box number 2?

(Witness examines Defendants' Exhibit 2260.)

A. Yes, it appears to be.

Q. Okay.

And there's a label on the side, is there not, that describes the contents of that box, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And let me put a copy of that on the Elmo.

MR. BLASIER: Maybe we can make this the next one 22 --

THE CLERK: 61.

MR. BLASIER: 61.

(The instrument herein referred to as A copy of a label describing the contents of Defendants' Exhibit 2260 was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2261.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Would you agree that appears to be a copy of the label that is on box number 2?

A. Yes, it appears to be.

Q. Now, that piece of carpet, when you examined it for the first time in July, was too big to fit into a paper bag, was it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And it had -- had been rolled up into butcher paper, correct?

A. The carpet itself was kind of folded up.

Q. Um-hum?

A. That was wrapped in butcher paper.

Q. Okay.

And it was scotch-taped?

A. No. The brown tape that you see on the box --

Q. Um-hum?

A. -- it was taped with that.

Q. So it was taped up?

A. Yes.

Q. And isn't it accurate that, in that same box, in July, when you examined the carpet, both Rockingham and Bundy gloves were in the same box?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. Is it also true that the knit cap that you examined was kept in that very same box?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Now, is there -- you would agree that there was evidence from three different scenes kept in that same box together, correct?

A. Yes, I guess there was.

Q. And each time you take something out, they were in bags of course, in the box, correct except for the carpet?

A. Yeah. Each of the items were individually wrapped inside the box.

Q. Each time you open a bag that has an item like a glove, a cap, you check the bag, because oftentimes, stuff falls off of it into the bag, correct?

A. When I'm examining the item, I check inside the bag?

Q. Yeah.

A. Yes.

Q. So -- because that's a frequent occurrence, stuff falling off?

A. Sure.

Q. And, in fact, if you would look closely in this box, you'll see -- why don't you take a look.

There's scotch tape in here. There appears to be some residual of something stuck to the scotch-tape inside.

MR. GELBLUM: I object. There's been no chain of custody preserved on this box.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. GELBLUM: There's been no chain of custody preserved on this box. I don't know where it's been since last year.

THE COURT: Better approach. Approach the bench, then.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.)

THE COURT: You want chain of custody?

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor --

THE COURT: You want chain of custody?

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, I examined the box. They've had the box at their office.

Right?

MR. BLASIER: No. It's been here the whole time.

MR. GELBLUM: No, there's no physical evidence. There was physical evidence at their office.

THE COURT: I'll give you chain of custody.

MR. GELBLUM: Good. I was told by them they took all defense exhibits to their office. If that's not true, that's fine.

MR. BLASIER: No.

MR. GELBLUM: To come right from the courthouse to here. If it came right from the courthouse here, even in the criminal courts building, Your Honor, we had access to it; they had access to it.

I'm not challenging them to use the box. Just the debris in the box doesn't prove anything at this late date. That's all I'm talking about.

THE COURT: You want chain of custody, I'll give you what we have.

MR. GELBLUM: Before you got it, Your Honor, it was in the Criminal Courts Building.

THE COURT: I'll give you what we have.

THE CLERK: I got it from the LAPD, from somebody at SID. I called -- initially, I called my supervisor to try to get him to do it. It took him about a day and a half. He couldn't do anything.

So I called Hank Goldberg. I checked the transcript, and the D.A. that was using the exhibit in the criminal trial is Hank Goldberg. He gave me one number to call.

I called about three people, including Gregory Matheson.

And then I got Mr. Matheson on the phone. I recognized his name as a witness in the case. So I told him I didn't want to talk to him; I had to talk to counsel and to the Court first, that I was trying to locate a box.

And he said, well, the correct person to call for the box is this other person. He gave me the number.

So I called the person at the other number. I got -- I got -- gee, what happened then.

MR. GELBLUM: Is the bottom line, it went from SID to the courthouse?

THE COURT: That's the bottom line?

THE CLERK: The bottom line is, LAPD contacted me.

THE COURT: Went through a lot of trouble just because of that gentleman right there.

MR. P. BAKER: I'm sorry.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: I take it the objection is withdrawn.

MR. GELBLUM: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Q. BY MR. BLASIER: Ms. Brockbank, you would agree there are pieces of scotch tape in there that appear to have something attached to them?

(Witness examines inside of Defendants' Exhibit 2260.)

A. I see two pieces of scotch tape and the -- well, they're stuck to the side of the box.

Q. Okay.

Now, would you agree that when you opened that carpeting in July for the first time, a lot of carpet fibers came off of it, flaked off of the edges of it?

A. I don't recall if any flaked off or not, actually.

I examined the carpet. I was looking at the shoe print. And we kept the carpet, you know, on the paper that actually it was wrapped in, somewhat.

Q. Do you recall examining the paper to see whether anything came off the carpet?

A. No, that wasn't the reason I was looking for the -- at the carpet at the time; I was looking at the shoe print that was on it.

Q. Okay.

So you never examined it to see if fibers readily came off of it at that time?

A. Never.

Q. Okay.

Now, you make it a practice to, if possible, only examine one item at a time in the lab, correct?

A. Unless I'm making a comparison between two different items.

Q. Right. The purpose for that is to prevent items fiber evidence from one item getting onto another piece of evidence, if possible, correct?

A. Just to prevent that potential, yes.

Q. And, of course, you have no control over what happens at a crime scene, before the evidence gets to you, as to that possibly happening, do you?

A. I have no control over the crime scene at all, no.

Q. Okay.

Now, is it accurate that on the various pieces of evidence that you examined in this case, you found many animal fibers, dog fibers, dog hairs?

A. On which?

Q. On the various items of physical evidence in this case.

A. There were animal hairs on a lot of the different items, yes.

Q. That was a fairly common finding for you, wasn't it?

A. Yes. And I didn't report it any more than that, just saying animal hairs.

Q. Yeah.

And fibers can be trans -- and hair can be transported in a dog's coat?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Vague. I didn't understand the question.

THE COURT: Sounds like a pretty simple question. Overruled.

A. If someone's head made contact with the dog's coat and left hairs on it, is that what you're asking?

Q. If the dog picked up any hair or fiber at one location, it would be a pretty good vehicle to move it to another location, wouldn't it?

A. It may. Or its hairs or whatever it is transporting may just fall off after a few steps.

Q. And be found someplace, right?

A. Possibly on the ground.

Q. Now, the knit cap, how many times did you examine the knit cap in this case?

A. Um, I believe twice. But just let me check.

Twice. Once on June 21 and once on June 23.

Q. And is it accurate that, on neither of those occasions, you discovered a carpet fiber?

A. I don't know if I did or didn't.

I removed hairs and fibers from the hat on the first date, and all I noted was fibers.

You don't make any notation as to whether it's a carpet fiber or any other type of fiber, just that it is a fiber.

Q. Are you aware of Douglas Deedrick examining that hat yet a third time at the FBI lab in your presence, correct?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. And it was then that -- that a fiber consistent with the Bronco carpet's fiber was found, correct?

A. I believe so.

Q. Okay.

Now, the Bronco carpet fiber up there -- let me show you 1195.

Is it accurate, with respect to the Bronco, you didn't find any hair consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson or Ronald Goldman?

A. I didn't perform any of the comparisons in this case. They were all done by Doug Deedrick.

Q. You're aware of the results, are you not?

A. Of some of them, not all of them.

Q. Are you aware of any hair consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson or Ronald Goldman being found in the Bronco?

MR. GELBLUM: I object. Mr. Deedrick was here; he testified.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. BY MR. BLASIER: Did you find any hair from the Bronco consistent with either two people?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Asked and answered. She said she didn't --

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. Again, I didn't make any comparisons at all, so . . . I don't know.

Q. You examined the glove, did you not?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you found no hair on either of the gloves consistent with O.J. Simpson's head hairs, did you?

MR. GELBLUM: Same objection. Witness said she didn't do any comparisons.

MR. BLASIER: She just said she examined the gloves.

MR. GELBLUM: Not -- no comparisons.

THE COURT: She said she didn't do any comparison on the hat.

MR. GELBLUM: I thought she said --

THE COURT: I may be mistaken. She is going to say that. Let me hear it.

A. I did not perform any comparisons in the case at all. They were all done by Doug Deedrick.

THE COURT: All right. Then the objection is sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Ms. Brockbank, you never found, on any piece of evidence in this case, a single blue, black or blue-black cashmere fiber, did you?

A. Again, I don't know. When I removed fiber evidence, all I did was describe it as fibers. I didn't go any further than that; so I may have, I may not have.

Q. Check your notes and tell us if you found any blue, black, or blue-black cashmere fibers.

A. On?

Q. Anything.

MR. GELBLUM: Objection, Your Honor. She just said she doesn't have that kind of information in her notes.

THE COURT: I'm going to sustain it. You want to lay more foundation, you may inquire.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You were present when Doug Deedrick examined this evidence, as well, weren't you?

A. I was present in the lab.

Q. You're aware what the findings are, aren't you?

A. Not all of them, no.

Q. Much of them?

A. Maybe some of them.

Q. Are you aware that -- did you find, or did anybody find, to your knowledge, any blue, black, or blue-black cashmere fiber on any piece of evidence from the Bundy crime scene?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Same objection. Mr. Deedrick testified to the findings.

THE COURT: The question is overruled to the extent that it applies to whatever she observed Mr. Deedrick discovered.

Do you understand the question? In your presence, whatever you observed, if anything.

A. Well, Mr. Deedrick was performing the examinations and comparisons of all the hair and fiber evidence. And occasionally, he would call something to my attention. I would come and I would look.

I don't recall, off the top of my head, seeing a blue-black cashmere. I don't know if he did. I don't recall that.

Q. He never called it to your attention, did he?

A. I don't recall what he called to my attention at this point in time.

Q. You don't recall him ever bringing that to your attention, do you?

MR. GELBLUM: Hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: I have no further questions.

Wait a second.

Q. BY MR. BLASIER: Did you -- haven't you reviewed Doug Deedrick's reports of all of his findings in this case?

A. No. I've never seen -- I saw his very first one that he put out. That's the only one I've ever seen.

Q. That was at about what time?

A. That was shortly after my visit to the FBI lab.

Q. Okay.

After that time, you -- they no longer had you doing any work on the case?

A. No. I actually, before that time --

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

That's all I have.

MR. GELBLUM: Just a couple, Your Honor. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM:

Q. In box number 2, where the carpet fiber and the cap and the gloves were found, were stored, were each of those items individually wrapped?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. How were they wrapped?

A. The -- the caps and both of the gloves were each individually wrapped in paper bags, which were folded over and taped closed. And the piece of carpet was wrapped like I said earlier. It was actually folded up, itself, and it was wrapped with butcher paper and sealed with that brown tape that you did see on the box.

Q. Did you examine each of those wrappings during the course of your work in this case?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Were the seals tight?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. Did you see any gaps between the tape and the paper?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Is that taping, paper tape, and paper that hair and fiber can pass through?

A. Not to my knowledge.

MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further, Your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. So you observed how tight the packages were, but you didn't see much of anything else; is that right?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection, Your Honor. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, Mrs. Brockbank, in addition to both gloves, the Bundy glove and the Rockingham glove, the knit cap, and the carpeting from the Bronco, how many other items were in box number 2?

A. All the items you see on that number list there at the bottom.

Q. Count them up for me (indicating to copy of label, Defendants' Exhibit 2261.)

A. Can I have a piece of paper and a pencil so I can kind of tally them all up?

MR. GELBLUM: Speaks for itself, Your Honor.

MR. PETROCELLI: Speaks for itself.

THE COURT: Be nice for the record to have a number.

MR. BLASIER: We have 9 here, 3. Here's 14. Here's 2 here.

THE WITNESS: No. Actually, you're off already. That's why --

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

(Laughter.)

(Witness performs calculation on a piece of a paper towel off of witness stand.)

A. (Continuing.) Okay. 446 by, my count.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is there a shortage of boxes at SID?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection.

THE COURT: You may answer.

A. No.

Q. Is it common practice to store items from multiple crime scenes in the same box?

A. It does happen pretty often.

MR. BLASIER: That's all I have.

MR. GELBLUM: Nothing.

THE COURT: You are excused.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: I would move in 2260 and 61.

MR. GELBLUM: Is that the box and the label?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

(The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2260 for identification, was received in evidence.)

(The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2261 for identification, was received in evidence.)

MR. LEONARD: Call Stephen Valerie.

STEPHEN VALERIE, called as a witness on behalf of Defendants, was duly sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Please be seated.

Would you please state and spell your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: Stephen Valerie, S-t-e-p-h-e-n V-a-l-e-r-i-e.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Valerie.

Can you tell us where do you reside, sir?

A. I currently live in San Francisco.

Q. And what do you for a living?

A. I'm a consultant with Arthur Andersen.

Q. How long have you had that position?

A. About a year and a quarter.

Q. Directing your attention to June 12, 1994, in particular around 11:30 that evening, where were you?

A. 11:30, I would have been standing at a phone booth outside the American Airlines gate prior to boarding flight 667 -- flight 668.

Q. Standing outside -- you were about to board flight 668 to Chicago?

A. Yeah, in the departure area. I was using a pay phone.

Q. Did you see anyone you recognize?

A. No, not at that time.

Q. Later on, when you got -- you entered the plane?

A. I entered the plane -- I asked the gate agent to signal me over at the last possible moment to enter the plane. I was making phone calls. And so I think it was possibly around 11:40 when they waved me over and I entered the plane then.

Q. Now, when you entered the plane, where did you sit?

If you can -- if you need to, you can step down and refer to the diagram that's marked as --

MR. P. BAKER: 1180.

(The instrument herein described as a seating diagram of airplane cabin was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1180.)

Q. You can step down.

A. I think this is fine.

Q. Or you can do it from there.

A. Right. Thanks.

The seat I originally was assigned, I believe, was 5B or something. When I entered the flight, Gary Adelson was sitting in that row, and I noticed that seats 4A and 4B were free, so since I was the last one on board, I already knew that -- or expected I would be the last one on board, I took the seat 4A, which is --

Q. Is this 4A here?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Now, it indicates here that a fellow named Gary Adelson, on this diagram, was sitting next to you.

A. That's inaccurate. That's inaccurate. He was sitting in the seat right behind.

Q. He was sitting right behind you, right here?

A. That's correct.

The other thing I want to point out about that diagram, the seats look like they're not parallel to each other, they look diagonal or shifted. That's not the case. They were actually pretty flush with one another, so the view I had --

Q. Okay.

A. -- across the aisle was straight.

Q. Now, after you entered the plane and sat down, did you see anybody that you recognized?

A. As I was preparing to sit down, I took my carry-on bag and was putting it in the overhead, I noticed some commotion at the front of the plane, and someone was about to board, and that person was who I recognized to be O.J. Simpson.

Q. Okay.

You were -- you were seated at the time or actually you were standing up putting some bags away; is that right?

A. Right, when he entered the plane, and then I sat down, and then he came on board and dropped his bags on his seat for the moment, because he recognized Gary Adelson, and they shook hands at that moment, so he was standing right above me, if you will.

Q. Were you able to get a pretty good look at him?

A. Yeah. Both then -- I mean I observed him.

Q. I'm talking about at that point when you first saw him?

A. Sure. No, I looked at him, obviously, very enthusiastically, just for the fact that I recognized him from his sports fame and was wondering where he was going to sit, actually, at that moment.

Q. Okay.

Describe his demeanor, what his appearance was when you saw him -- when you first saw him?

A. I remember him coming on, and I think he was pretty excited to catch the flight, obviously. We were pretty close to taking off.

He was jovial. He came on board, he greeted the crew, they pointed to his seat. He came back.

Like I said, next thing, Gary Adelson said, hey, O.J., or something, hey, how you doing. And they shook hands. There was mention of a golf game at that moment, that they'd see each other at, or something to that effect.

And then he took his garment bag and put that in the overhead compartment and he had his -- a black duffel bag or a black leather bag on the seat next to him. He then took his seat. And he took the window seat, which would have been 4D, and sat down. The bag remained on the seat.

Q. Let me stop you right there.

Did you notice how he was dressed? Can you describe that for us?

A. Yes. He was wearing a dark button-down type of shirt, it wasn't denim, but it looked like a cotton, dark shirt with a white T-shirt underneath and had khaki cotton -- brushed cotton pants. He had leather loafers on. I won't say what country they're from. I don't know. But they were -- had -- I distinctly remember them. They were black or dark blue, they had mesh in the front, kind of a knit mesh in the front panel and -- leather shoes, and he was wearing no socks that evening.

Q. Okay.

Now, where did Mr. Simpson see -- sit in relation to you, Mr. Valerie? And let me --

A. Do you want me to get up?

Q. Yeah, if you could. It may be easier for the jury if you just point it out.

Step back just a little bit, sir, so everybody can see.

A. Right.

(Witness approaches board.)

A. This diagram isn't factual. I mean I sat in one window seat, he sat in the other, and they were directly parallel to each other.

Q. So he would -- as you were sitting facing towards the front of the plane, he was to your right?

A. That's right.

Q. Across the aisle; is that right?

A. Correct. I was on -- looking forward, I was on the left-hand side; he was on the right-hand side.

Q. So when you looked over at Mr. Simpson, you could see his -- the first thing you could see -- the closest thing you could see of him was his left shoulder, his left arm?

A. Correct.

Q. And of course the rest of his body, too, you could see that?

A. Correct.

Q. You can retake your seat.

MR. PETROCELLI: I ask that he not lead, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you notice anything unusual at all about Mr. Simpson's appearance?

A. Unusual, no. I mean the only thing that might be unusual is that he seemed quite approachable that evening, and someone of his fame, I may think, would really not be looking around as much as he did, sort of smiling and just being seemingly pleasant in that case. It was the only unusual thing I may have noticed.

Q. Did you -- did you get an opportunity to take a look at Mr. Simpson's hands?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Let me stop you for a second.

When you looked at Mr. Simpson's hands did you notice any bleeding, any cuts, anything like that on his hands?

A. I did not notice in the moment that I viewed his hand any abnormalities, cuts or blood or anything.

Q. Why were you looking at his hands?

A. I'll give you the long answer.

My knowledge of Mr. Simpson's professional career is pretty limited, and -- however, I did know he was a famous football player, and I was trying to find a way to maybe strike up a conversation with him, and so as I was looking over him in great detail, trying to find something about him that I could maybe talk about, I thought maybe he'd won a Super Bowl, and so I specifically looked at his hands, looking for a Super Bowl ring, and did not see one.

And that was the motivation for looking at his hands at this moment.

Q. And when you did that, when you looked at his hands, you didn't see anything unusual; is that right, sir?

A. Right.

Q. Now, at some point, were you -- why don't you tell us what you observed Mr. Simpson do in general during that flight, until you stopped observing him?

A. Okay.

We -- I guess he was still standing, and the flight attendant motioned for him to take a seat 'cause we were ready to -- to embark, and so he did that. And, like I said, his -- the black leather bag, smaller bag was on his seat, and he moved it underneath the seat, not in front of him, but in the seat next to him, underneath that seat.

We then took off, and it was relatively uneventful. I think he looked over and smiled on a couple of occasions. And once we took off -- actually, before we took off, he was asked if he wanted anything to drink, and he had asked for some water, but they actually didn't bring it until after we took off. A glass of ice water.

Q. Did you see Mr. Simpson doing anything during the flight?

A. Sure. Can't really describe exactly when, but within the first half an hour after takeoff, he opened his bag -- he brought his bag up to the seat -- empty seat next to him, he opened it and pulled out a manila folder which had -- looked like a document in it, and -- as well as brought a book out of the bag and put that on the seat next to him, then put the bag back underneath the seat.

Then he -- you know -- at some point afterwards, he opened up that document. And that's probably what I remember most about any actions he had on board. He was reading this eight and a half by eleven loose-leaf document which was on white paper, and the typing on it was double-spaced, so it appeared like it was some sort of contract is what I thought it looked like, some legal document. And he proceeded to read that. I think -- I think he even had a pen in his hand and maybe was making notations.

Q. Now, at some point after you made those observations, you fell asleep; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And then at some point, you obviously woke up and -- you know, you might want to lean back a little bit 'cause you might --

MR. PETROCELLI: You might want to stop leading also. Objection.

THE COURT: You're leading a little bit.

MR. LEONARD: Only trying to get through it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I know. Appreciate it.

MR. LEONARD: Thank you.

THE COURT: Try not to eat the microphone.

MR. LEONARD: Yeah, that bothers him.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) After you woke up at some point, what happened next, after you woke up?

A. Basically -- the flight was about a three and a half hour flight. I was awake for about the first hour and that's when I noticed most of the things that I have described, and will describe to you this afternoon.

But I did, on occasion, wake up intermittently throughout the flight and just noticed little details.

Again, he seemed to look over a couple times. I mean I thought I -- I think I was possibly staring, possibly more than I would have for any other passenger. He would kind of glance over and he smiled and didn't seem too worried about my observations.

And he read that document. He had it out, from my memory, most of the time throughout the flight. I never saw him read the other book that was out.

Q. Okay.

Now, directing your attention to after you woke up, you ultimately deplaned, is that -- or you exited the plane?

A. That's right. We arrived in Chicago at what's been said to me about 4:30, 5:00 in the morning. I did -- wasn't paying attention. I know it was quite early.

Q. At that point did you observe Mr. Simpson?

A. Yeah. We --

Q. Okay.

What did you observe at that point about Mr. Simpson? For instance, did you have any exchange with him, just tell us what your interaction was, if any, with Mr. Simpson at any point when you were exiting the plane?

A. Sure. Well, we both got up and grabbed our belongings.

And I guess generally I noticed he looked pretty groggy. As well as I did. I noticed his eyes were red, at least compared to how he looked when I noticed him when he got on board.

I probably didn't look any better.

We got up, moved to the aisle, and he was ahead of me, and we got to the front by the main exit door in the front of the plane, and he was standing in front of me.

His right shoulder had his duffle -- his garment bag over his shoulder, and his left hand had his black leather bag, and it was thrown over -- sort of thrown over his shoulder.

He was facing diagonally, waiting to exit the plane, so I had sometime to look at him at that moment.

And I then made my only comments to him of the evening. I said, you better be careful, someone might think you're going to be doing another Hertz commercial. And he kind of, you know, grinned at that moment and said, well, I happen to be here in Chicago with Hertz anyway, or something like that.

And at that moment the door flew open and we both exited, like everyone else, pretty quickly off that plane.

Q. And that's the last you saw of Mr. Simpson?

A. I had some observations as well, out in the -- in the Chicago terminal. We both exited. He was met by a gentleman. At the time, I didn't know who he was or where he was from. But he had kind of strawberry blond hair, larger gentleman, he was also wearing khaki pants and a button-down shirt. And they exchanged -- they shook hands there. And we all walked out of the -- walked down the Chicago terminal.

And the last I saw of him, he went toward baggage claim.

I was connecting to a flight to Washington, D.C.

That was the last I saw of him.

Q. Now, you said earlier something about that you were surprised at the way Mr. Simpson was acting.

You had never met Mr. Simpson before, right?

A. That's correct; never had.

Q. Okay.

And you said that you had -- you had been staring at Mr. Simpson?

A. Yeah. I was, again, trying to get some connection to him, whether that be, you know, a ring or a brand of clothing that I may wear, just something where I could strike up a conversation with him. And he -- in those observations, he certainly looked over and smiled over and, you know, seemed approachable.

Q. You never got the courage to walk up to him until you walked out of the plane?

A. No.

And I can't believe the dumb thing I said to him at the end.

MR. LEONARD: Nothing further. Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Valerie.

You never met O.J. Simpson before, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. So you have -- you have no idea as you're sitting there in the airplane, how he behaved when he was under times of great stress, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And nor would you have had any idea how O.J. Simpson would conduct himself if he were under severe distress, correct?

A. That -- that is absolutely correct.

Q. And you had seen his smiling face on television before, right?

A. The only time I've ever seen Mr. Simpson was on television, that's correct.

Q. And you were aware of his public persona as a person with a smiling face, correct?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, argumentative, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. In the observations I had of him over his career, he did definitely seem a friendly, approachable person.

Q. And what you're really saying to this jury is how O.J. Simpson projected himself on that airplane on that evening, correct?

MR. LEONARD: Objection.

THE COURT: That's sustained.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Well, you're testifying as to observations based on how Mr. Simpson appeared in a public setting, correct, on an airplane?

A. My observations of him were frankly only my observations of him. I guess the only commentary would be what my expectation of him would have been in that he smiled over and seemed approachable, that fit with the public image that I have of him, yes.

Q. Okay.

And, of course, you didn't have any clue what he was thinking during that airplane flight, right?

MR. LEONARD: Argumentative, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) In other words, you didn't know what was on his mind?

MR. LEONARD: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) He didn't tell you anything about what was on his mind, right?

A. He did not.

Q. And you only had observations of him during that -- the first hour of the flight, right?

A. That is correct, and a couple brief interludes where I -- in the middle of the flight.

Q. So --

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, that misstates his testimony. He also testified --

MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me.

MR. LEONARD: Well, he's misstating the testimony. He just got done testifying --

MR. PETROCELLI: He can answer the questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Let's talk about the time that you're on the airplane together, sitting down, okay.

You only made some observations of him in the first hour of the flight, right?

A. In terms of describing most of what I saw --

Q. Yes.

A. -- that was in the first hour.

I guess my commentary, to add on, is that I woke up a couple times and noticed pretty much the same viewpoint. I mean you're on a plane, you're sitting in a seat that -- usually you have a seat belt on, so the scenario didn't really change a lot. And so I saw him a couple times. He didn't seem like anything had changed.

Q. You slept for a couple hours of that flight?

A. That's correct.

Q. And all the times that you managed to look at Mr. Simpson, whether it be during that first hour or a few times in the ensuing hours, you never once saw him sleeping, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And you, of course, are not aware of all the things that he did when you were not looking at him, correct?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, that's inane.

THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) For example, did you see the pilot, Wayne Stanfield, approach Mr. Simpson?

A. I did not observe the pilot have any contact with Mr. Simpson.

Q. You saw Mr. Simpson go to the restroom how many times?

A. One time.

Q. And that's all, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And if -- and most of your observations that you testified to are based on that first hour, right?

A. That is correct.

Q. And you said that you saw him reading a document, in your direct examination.

Do you recall that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. In fact, you don't know what he was reading, do you?

A. I do not.

Q. Okay.

A. Just how I described it.

Q. You do not know if he was reading anything, do you?

A. I smile, because it reminds me of the criminal trial.

But he was glancing at the document and his eyes were going over it, so -- I don't, in fact, know if he was reading, but it appeared -- I would be reading if I were gazing at a document in that way.

Q. In other words, what you saw was him looking at paper?

A. That's correct.

Q. You don't know whether he was focusing, reading, concentrating or what?

A. That's correct.

MR. LEONARD: Objection, argumentative, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Okay.

Now, the -- let's focus on some of your other observations regarding his hands.

These observations that you gave in your direct testimony about his hands and whether he had cuts and so forth, were based in that -- were made in that one-hour period of time when, from time to time, you looked at him, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. When he got on the plane, you did not really have a good view or clear view of his hands, right?

A. When he got on the plane, I wasn't looking at his hands at all.

Q. When he got off the plane, you were not looking at his hands also, correct?

A. That is also correct.

Q. Okay.

So all of your observations regarding his hands were made while you are sitting in seat 4A and he is sitting in seat 4D, right?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, in the criminal trial, you testified that you were able to rotate yourself in your seat, in 4A, sort of against the window, in order to get a good look at him, right?

A. Well, I rotated myself in order to be more comfortable in the seat, to use the back of -- the wall of the plane as a headrest. That also gave me a direct view of Mr. Simpson.

Q. And you also testified in the criminal trial that in order to facilitate that position, you elevated the seat rest and put your legs out on the seat rest, correct?

A. I mentioned that -- in the criminal trial, that I lifted the leg rest in the seat next to me. But in fact that is not the case. There was no leg rest.

To give you a little background --

Q. Let me do this question by question.

A. All right.

Q. And we'll get there. Just want to make sure that your answers are clear.

A. Yes.

Q. In the criminal trial, when you -- first time you testified to these observations that you're now testifying to were in the criminal trial, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And in the criminal trial, you testified that you were able to get a very clear view of Mr. Simpson because you rotated yourself in the position that you have just described and you -- and you put your foot up on the foot rest that comes out from under the seats of that airplane, correct?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, argumentative, misstates his testimony.

THE COURT: Doesn't sound like it. Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Correct, sir?

Just answer yes or no and then I'll ask you the follow-up question.

MR. LEONARD: Also compound as phrased.

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Answer.

A. I don't know what I'm answering yes to specifically. If you could restate the question. If you're going to use yes or no for me, please make the statement a statement.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) In the criminal trial, did you not testify that you rotated -- leaned in an angle, had your feet up elevated on the leg rest of the other seat as well as your own leg rest, so that you could have just a little bit more leg room, so in that position you could have a pretty clear view of Mr. Simpson throughout the flight?

Did you give that testimony, sir, under oath, in the criminal trial?

A. I don't believe those were my exact words but you may be reading those.

Q. Well, do you -- page --

MR. PETROCELLI: 36704, put it on the Elmo, Steve.

(Transcript displayed on the Elmo.)

MR. BAKER: What line?

MR. PETROCELLI: Line -- I guess 15, 16, in that area.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Do you see that testimony, sir?

THE COURT: If you hold it still.

MR. PETROCELLI: Can you hold it still?

Thank you.

(Referring to Elmo.)

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) In the criminal trial you gave that testimony, correct?

A. That's what appears here.

Q. Let me follow up.

And then you also gave testimony further on in your criminal trial testimony, page 36744, line 1.

MR. LEONARD: 744.

MR. PETROCELLI: 36744.

MR. LEONARD: Hold on.

MR. PETROCELLI: Sure.

Put it on.

THE COURT: Wait a minute. Let Mr. Leonard see it.

MR. PETROCELLI: I'm sorry. Tell me when you're ready.

MR. LEONARD: Which line are we at?

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) And you gave this answer as well -- "Well, prior to that was take off and the foot rest isn't allowed to be up, so my feet were placed on the floor in front of me."

Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, in fact, sir, that testimony that I just showed you in both places was wrong, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. There is -- is no --

A. It was wrong.

Q. Excuse me.

There is no foot rest on that plane, correct?

A. Yes. In fact, there was no leg rest.

Q. So you were not able to put your leg out, and extend it, and sit in that position as you watched Mr. Simpson who was directly across from you, because there was no leg rest, right?

A. That's not correct. I did sit in that position. And that's what I want to explain. I've flown on American Airlines, documented over 470,000 miles, so -- my normal position in first class is to raise the leg rest, so when I described it that evening -- I remember distinctly leaning over and leaning back and putting my legs over.

And in most cases I would put up a leg rest. So I misspoke. I said there was a leg rest. In fact, I put my leg -- one foot on the seat, the other laying down. You know, this wasn't a constant position, by the way, this was -- this was a position to get more comfortable in those confined seats.

But that was the general direction I was facing and --

Q. Just so we get the story straight now, there was no leg rest and you didn't put your leg on a leg rest, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. What you said about your observations in the criminal trial was wrong, correct?

A. Regarding the leg rest?

Q. Correct.

MR. LEONARD: Objection, vague. Which observations?

MR. PETROCELLI: The ones I just put on the TV monitor, that everybody in the courtroom knows we're talking about.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Specifically regarding the leg rest, I state here today that I misspoke, that there was no leg rest on there, and I only used that commentary to describe the position, and that was based upon my long and number of flights with that airline.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Well, in fact, as your testimony showed, you mentioned the leg rest in order to support your testimony that you were able to get a straight view of Mr. Simpson, because he was right opposite you in the next seat across the aisle, and you turned yourself, and had your leg up, and you were able to sit there in sort of a prolonged period of time.

MR. LEONARD: Objection, argumentative.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Is that true, sir?

MR. LEONARD: Compound.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Now, you also said that that chart is wrong, correct?

MR. PETROCELLI: What is it?

MR. FOSTER: 1160.

MR. P. BAKER: 1180.

THE CLERK: 1180.

MR. FOSTER: 1180.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You said it's wrong because it's not staggered as depicted on that -- on that chart, correct?

That was your testimony in response to Mr. Leonard's questions, correct?

A. Yeah, it's inaccurate. The chart is inaccurate.

Q. Okay.

And the reason it's inaccurate is 'cause you said Mr. Simpson's seat in 4 -- in 4A was right opposite your seat across the aisle, right?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, misstates.

Q. Or 4D. Whatever it was. You're in 4A, he's in 4D?

A. Correct.

Q. Your testimony is you were actually opposite one another, not staggered like that?

A. Yeah, my testimony is --

Q. Okay?

A. -- that this is a diagram from American Airlines and that is a standard -- or even from Boeing, potentially, and basically it is a standard configuration, but each airline can modify those seats in their own way.

Q. Why don't we look at this picture, sir.

MR. LEONARD: May I see that?

MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah.

What exhibit?

MR. FOSTER: Next in order.

THE CLERK: Next 2262. The photograph.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Let me show you this photograph, sir, of the first class cabin.

MR. BAKER: I object. He can show him the photograph, not his representations of what it is.

THE COURT: Overruled.

(Witness views photograph.)

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) That look like the cabin that you sat in that night?

A. I have no way to tell.

Q. You would agree, sir, that these seats are staggered?

A. Yeah, I would say in that photo they look staggered.

Q. You would agree that the seats in row 4 are staggered, and are not opposite one another, sir?

A. Yeah. I would say they look staggered.

I mean this is a two-dimensional illustration. I'd say it looks staggered by maybe 8 or 10 inches in that photo.

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object -- object.

MR. LEONARD: Objection, no foundation.

THE COURT: Well, receive it subject to motion to strike.

I presume you are going to be able to lay a foundation.

MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. LEONARD: Hold on.

MR. PETROCELLI: The ensuing witnesses in the criminal trial testified as to these photographs.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. PETROCELLI: Let's approach.

THE COURT: Okay. Bring the transcript.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the reporter:)

MR. PETROCELLI: Right outside the courtroom we have Howard Bingham, another passenger on the flight. We also have Captain Wayne Stanfield. And from their criminal testimony I believe they've identified these exhibits and Mike Brewer has constituting --

MR. LEONARD: Save your breath. I don't have any objection.

MR. PETROCELLI: You stipulate that this is the cabin?

MR. LEONARD: No. You can establish it through the witness if you want. Just --

MR. PETROCELLI: I don't want to have --

THE COURT: He's withdrawn his objection.

MR. LEONARD: Ask him whatever questions you want.

THE COURT: Why do I have to go through this exercise?

MR. PETROCELLI: You don't.

(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.)

MR. LEONARD: I withdraw that objection.

THE COURT: How long you going to be?

MR. PETROCELLI: About 10 minutes. Do you want to take a break now?

THE COURT: 10-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case, don't form or express any opinions.

(Recess.)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

THE COURT: You may resume.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Before the break, we were talking about your prior testimony on direct that the -- your seat and Mr. Simpson's seat were just opposite each other across the aisle, and I showed you an exhibit.

MR. FOSTER: Marked as the exhibit when we marked next in order.

MR. LEONARD: What number is that?

MR. PETROCELLI: Actually, Your Honor, it's been marked as 537. We'll withdraw the last number and refer to it as 537.

(The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of airplane cabin was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 537.)

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Looking at 537, you would agree that the seats are in fact not directly opposite one another, but are indeed staggered, correct?

A. Yes.

MR. PETROCELLI: Can you put this on the Elmo.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) While's he doing that, there are four seats down one aisle and three down the other, right, sir?

A. That's what I observe, yes.

Q. And you were sitting in seat 4A, which is this seat here?

(Pointing to the exhibit on the monitor.)

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.

And Mr. Simpson was sitting in the window seat, seat 4D, as you indicated, correct?

A. Again, between the diagrams and the seat numbers I'm not sure Mr. Simpson was sitting -- I'll point to it.

Q. Okay.

A. He was sitting in this seat here.

Q. Now, you indicated on the chart, when you were shown that chart, that he sat in the seat in the aisle 4, correct?

A. No, I indicated that he sat across from me. That's why I said it's not -- it's not --

Q. It's designated on the chart that Mr. Leonard showed you as aisle 4, correct?

A. Yes, it is designated there as aisle 4.

Q. Sir, you also testified in the criminal trial, page 36700, that Mr. Simpson in fact sat in seat 4D, correct, sir?

A. I stated 4D relative to this incorrect chart, when I also stated in the criminal trial --

Q. The -- well, let me read what you --

A. But I want to point out that I did not see -- have any photos, so --

Q. Let me read what you testified to.

MR. PETROCELLI: Starting at page 36999, Mr. Leonard, line 15. Actually, at line 10.

Q. What row did you occupy that night in first class?

A. I sat in what they number row 4. In fact, it was the second row on that side of the plane and the third row from Mr. Simpson's side.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Is that correct?

A. That's absolutely correct.

Q. And then, when you were asked what seat number you said 4A, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, your answer 4A was incorrect?

A. No.

Q. It's not seat 4A. You're now saying it's seat 5A based on the chart?

A. No. You're talking about my seat. I don't think that's --

Q. Excuse me. Mr. Simpson's your right. You then were asked what was Mr. Simpson's seat and you answered at line 1, seat 4D?

A. I did answer that, and I assumed it because he was sitting across from me.

Q. Now, you're saying that your trial testimony in which you identified Mr. Simpson's seat as seat 4D was incorrect?

A. It's absolutely incorrect based on this photo and my recollection now, I did point out that that diagram has always been wrong.

Q. So now you're saying that Mr. Simpson sat in seat 5D?

A. If that's what is 5D. He sat in that seat.

Q. And you said you sat in seat 4A?

A. Correct.

Q. And you will agree that seat 4A is ahead of seat 5D, correct? They're not opposite one another, correct?

A. No. I mean they're offset a little bit by that -- by that photograph, yes.

Q. Well, let's take a look at this photograph, which is Exhibit 504, another photograph of the same --

MR. LEONARD: Can I see?

MR. PETROCELLI: For the record, Civil Exhibit 538.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

(The instrument herein described as a photograph of airplane cabin seats was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 538.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Put this on, Steve.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Using this photograph, could you point out where you sat?

A. No, I cannot.

Q. Why is that, sir?

A. Because I don't see the third or the fourth row of seats on -- I don't see the fourth row of seats on the right-hand side.

Q. We'll show where you were.

A. Again, let me -- let me stop.

Q. You want to just point to where you were sitting, sir?

A. No, I won't until I know first off -- we haven't even ascertained whether or not this is the actual equipment that was being used that evening, to start with.

Q. We'll represent to you that it was, sir, based on testimony --

A. Okay.

Q. -- of other witnesses.

A. I want to be careful as we're pointing to charts. You're saying where did I sit. I don't know in fact that I sat there unless this is the actual equipment. I want this to -- I want to be very, very clear here because I want the truth to be told here.

Q. So do we.

A. Again, I don't know if this is --

Q. Let me show you another picture, picture 539. All three were identified as being the flight that Mr. Simpson took to Chicago.

A. That's much more representative. I can see the last row of seats there.

(The instrument herein described as a photograph of airplane cabin seats was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 539.)

Q. Does that help you now?

A. Yes, this one does.

(Indicating to Exhibit 539.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Let's put this one up.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) And then point out where you were sitting, and where Mr. Simpson was sitting, if you would.

(Indicating to Exhibit 539.)

THE COURT REPORTER: This is 539?

MR. PETROCELLI: Yes. 539's on the Elmo.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) And you can go up there and point to it?

A. Great.

This is the seat that Mr. Simpson sat in. And you cannot see my -- the seat I actually sat in.

Q. Mr. Simpson was three back, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. He had the window seat?

A. That's correct.

Q. You're two back and you're in the window seat?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you will agree then that you're not opposite one another, correct?

A. I would say that I am very close to opposite in that -- in that configuration.

Q. If we look at this photograph, which shows us a close-up of the seats being staggered, would you agree that you're not opposite one another, but are considerably staggered?

A. Again --

MR. LEONARD: Objection vague, considerably.

A. From this angle it has the appearance of being staggered, but appears much more exaggerated in that photo let's say.

MR. PETROCELLI: This is Exhibit 538 for the record.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Now, sir, the lights went out very early on in that flight?

A. That's correct.

Q. And --

A. The main cabin lights.

Q. And the lights were out almost from the moment the flight took off, right?

A. Yeah.

Q. So for that first hour when you made your observations, the lights were out, correct?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, vague as to lights.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) The main cabin lights were out, sir; is that correct?

A. The main cabin lights were out, yes.

Q. And your light over -- that illuminates your seat was out also, right?

A. I had it on for a little bit at the beginning of the flight or -- well, while I was awake for that period.

Q. And Mr. Simpson's light was what?

A. His light was illuminated. In fact --

Q. Now, would you agree then that you really couldn't get a pretty -- you couldn't get a close look at him to form any opinions about what was, or what was not on his hands?

Would you agree with that, sir, given you're sitting in a staggered position, you didn't have your foot up on a foot rest 'cause there is no foot rest, and that the cabin lights are off?

MR. LEONARD: Compound, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. LEONARD: And misstates as far as the lights being off and on.

THE COURT: Cabin lights were off.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Would you agree, in light of those circumstances, you really didn't have a close look at his hands, right?

A. I looked at his hands and --

Q. No. My question is you didn't have a close look at his hands?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, vague as to close.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Again, I don't know what close means by your definition or my definition.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Well, sir, you were no -- you were at least five or six feet away from him, if not more, at all times, while he was sitting in his seat and you were sitting in your seat, correct?

A. I would say about seven feet, yes.

Q. Seven feet. Right.

And you never saw his hands -- you testified previously that you didn't get a look at his hands going on the plane or off the plane, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. So the only time that you made observations of his hands, is when you and he were seven feet apart at a somewhat diagonal position relative to each other, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay.

And the lights, sir, the main cabin lights are out, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you really don't know whether he had any cuts on his hand or not, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay.

And at no time did he, for example, did you ever see between his fingers, right?

A. I did not have a detailed study of his fingers.

Q. I didn't ask you about a detailed study.

I just said, at no time did you ever see the area in between his fingers, correct?

A. Again, Mr. Petrocelli --

Q. Can you answer that yes or no, please?

A. I looked at his fingers. I saw his fingers. I didn't see any cuts.

Q. Okay.

A. And I saw it from seven feet away, if we can agree to that distance, and --

Q. In a diagonal line, right?

A. Somewhat diagonal line.

Q. No foot rest.

If Mr. Simpson had a cut inside his fourth finger, cut facing the middle finger, you were never in a position to see the inside of that fourth finger, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay.

And if Mr. Simpson had a fresh cut on the middle finger that had been washed and was cleaned and not bleeding, you wouldn't have really been able to see that either, correct.

MR. LEONARD: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. LEONARD: Fact not in evidence.

Q. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Thank you.

Now, finally, you have made some observations about clothing. You said Mr. Simpson was wearing cocky pants?

THE COURT: Khaki.

MR. PETROCELLI: I'm sorry. Khaki pants, for the record.

A. I said -- and I also described and I knew they were cotton type pants. I wasn't sure, definitely, if they were the actual color of khaki, but light colored, tan.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) As you testified in the criminal trial, they were not jeans, correct?

A. Correct, not jeans.

Q. They were not stone washed jeans?

A. Correct.

Q. And his shirt was what color, did you say?

A. A darker color. I believe blue or black.

Q. Okay.

And finally, you said that he had on European loafers, correct?

A. On the stand I said European. And to the police investigators the week after, I used the term Italian loafers. Neither of them I know to be factual. They were just used to describe a style.

Q. Now, if Mr. Simpson testified that he had on stone washed denim jeans and a light shirt going onto that airplane that night, and --

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object. That misstates the evidence.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) -- you would be mistaken?

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, that misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Mr. Simpson said he had on some kind of blue jean outfit.

That's not what you saw; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

MR. PETROCELLI: I have nothing further.

MR. LEONARD: Finished?

MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah.

REDIRECT EXAMINATON BY MR. LEONARD:

Q. Mr. Petrocelli asked you some questions that were premised upon the fact about the cabin lights being out when you were observing Mr. Simpson.

Do you remember that?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. The overhead light above Mr. Simpson's seat was illuminated every time you saw him?

MR. PETROCELLI: It's leading, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Is that right?

A. The overhead cabin light was on and I would even -- I don't know to be sure, but even -- I think the other light was on, too. I think it was very well illuminated over his seat.

Q. When the overhead cabin lights went off, the light -- the reading light, or the light over Mr. Simpson's seat remained on?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.

A. Throughout the flight.

Q. You could see his hands at that point?

A. Yes.

MR. LEONARD: Thank you.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q. You just testified that the overhead cabin lights were on, it was very well illuminated; is that what you just said?

A. No. The lights over Mr. Simpson's head. Same words broken apart.

Q. So to make this absolutely clear, the cabin is dark except for the light over Mr. Simpson's seat?

MR. LEONARD: Vague as to time, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I don't think so.

Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) During the one hour in the beginning of the flight when you made your so-called observations, correct?

A. During -- throughout the flight, when I made the observations both in the intense hour and in the moment that I woke up and gazed over, the lights, his overhead cabin light, reading lamp, was on.

Q. And all the other lights were off?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.

A. Except for the --

Q. You said it was very well illuminated. You meant just the area over Mr. Simpson's seat was very well illuminated; is that what you meant to say?

A. The area over Mr. Simpson's seat, which included his person in the seat, so he was well illuminated. And his items, his document and his book, his bag.

Q. Okay.

And again, you as you sit here now, thinking back, getting a better picture of all the circumstances, you could not tell this jury, one way or the other, whether or not he actually had cuts on his hand, correct?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative; asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.

MR. LEONARD: No further questions.

THE COURT: You're excused.

MR. P. BAKER: Defense calls Willie Ford.

WILLIE FORD, called as a witness on behalf of Defendants, was duly sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Sir, would you please state and spell your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: Willie Ford, Jr. W-i-l-l-i-e B-i-l-l F-o-r-g -- F-o-r-d.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. P. BAKER:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Ford.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. How long you been working with the police department?

A. Going on 15 years.

Q. And you've worked with SID; is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what does SID stand for?

A. Scientific Investigation Division.

Q. I want to take you back to the date of June 13, 1994. Do you recall that date?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you, at some point, receive a call to go to 360 North Rockingham?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And how did you get to 360 North Rockingham?

A. We drove our SID van up there.

Q. And who did you drive with?

A. My boss, David Atkins.

Q. And what time did you arrive at 360 North Rockingham?

A. I think approximately around 3 o'clock.

Q. Okay.

And the Rockingham log shows 3:10.

Would you agree that was about the time that you arrived there?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what was your purpose in going to 360 North Rockingham?

A. To videotape all of Mr. Simpson's personal effects that were out in the open, not to open up any drawers or any doors, to videotape anything else. Everything that was out.

Q. And what was the reason -- did you ever come to an understanding as to the reason you were supposed to videotape the residence?

A. Yes, sir. Detective, I think, Haro, says they were getting ready to lock up his place, and I was to videotape everything that was left in the room.

Q. And as I understand it, you had an RCA VHS camcorder?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what did you first -- or strike that.

On the bottom of the videotape is a time counter; is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the time counter shows the time that the videotape was recorded; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And as I understand it, you later learned that that time counter was off; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, for example, just to be clear, the time counter on your videotape shows that you were in Mr. Simpson's bedroom at approximately 3:13 p.m.; is that correct?

A. The -- on the videotape it shows that?

Q. Right.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you understand that that's not correct, true?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And by the way, what time did you leave 360 North Rockingham?

A. I would say about 4:30, I think.

Q. Okay.

And when were you in Mr. Simpson's bedroom, in relation to the time you left Rockingham?

A. I would say within about 10 minutes before that, 4:30.

Q. So if the videotape shows that you're in the Rockingham -- O.J. Simpson's master bedroom at 3:13, and that it's your understanding that you were there at about 4:20, you would agree that the time is about off -- is off about an hour and 10 minutes, true?

A. The time in the video camera was really not a factor, never established whether it was the correct time or not.

Q. But if the -- if the clock says 3:13 when you're in Mr. Simpson's bedroom, you have an independent recollection of being there around 4:15 to 4:20, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So the time counter, would be your assumption, is off by about an hour and five minutes, right?

A. I would say so.

Q. Where did you first videotape -- where did you first record when you went to Mr. Simpson's residence?

A. The criminalist hadn't finished collecting anything from inside the house as of yet, so -- so they told me to start outside with the Bronco, and cover all the vehicles on the property, and the children's play toys, lawn furniture, statuary, that sort of thing. Cover everything on the outside first, and then come to the house.

Q. So you videotaped the Bronco first?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then you videotaped up the Rockingham driveway?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then you walked around to the northern side of the residence?

A. Exactly.

Q. Did anyone ever ask you to videotape the southern walkway at 360 Rockingham?

A. No, sir.

Q. After you videotaped the north side of the residence, where did you go next?

A. To the rear of the residence.

Q. And what did you do there?

A. The pool area, patio, and the tennis court area.

Q. Okay. After you videotaped the -- I guess that would be the northeastern portion of the property, where did you go next?

A. Into the house.

Q. And how did you get into the house?

Which door?

A. I walked around on the north side, back towards the front, where I came into the foyer.

Q. You walked into the main doorway --

A. Yes, sir.

Q. -- of the residence?

Did you videotape the foyer?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you receive any instructions from Officer Haro about where he wanted you to videotape?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You receive any orders from Officer Haro about where he wanted you to videotape?

A. Yes. He wanted me to start in the foyer, and make sure that I move slow enough on the videotape to identify items everywhere on the table, on the walls, cover it thoroughly before I moved to the next room.

Q. He wanted you to do a thorough job to record, so you'd have an inventory of what was in the house?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You tried to do that, didn't you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you went into the kitchen of Mr. Simpson's residence and videotaped the kitchen?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you videotaped the wall and what was on the the shelves, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then you walked into the living room, or the I guess it would be the den, where the televisions were?

A. I think it was the office area next.

Q. And did you videotape what was inside the office?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you open up the closet and videotape everything that was in the closet?

A. We didn't open -- we just went into the closet.

Q. The door was already opened. And then where did you go next?

A. To the living room, I think it was.

Q. Okay.

And then after the living room, where did you --

A. Family room, where the television, I guess, was, and the bar and the game room.

Q. And you attempted to videotape everything you observed that was out in the open?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Pursuant to Officer Haro's orders, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did you understand that your purpose there was to basically protect the police department if anything was broken or stolen, you'd have a video cassette showing what was there --

A. Yes.

Q. -- on June 13?

Now, eventually you went upstairs at the Rockingham address?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. An did you notice any blood stains on the carpet going upstairs?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you notice any blood stains on the carpet, walking into the master bedroom?

A. No, sir.

Q. Where did you go first when you got upstairs?

A. As I can recall, there were cabinets of linen right there in the hallway, and then there was -- a first bedroom. Went into that room -- I think it was a child's room.

And I came out of there and videotaped some photographs that were on the walls, and went into the next bedroom.

Q. Did you encounter Dennis Fung at any point while you were upstairs?

A. Not directly. Out of the corner of my eye, I noticed he was just going back and forth as he was collecting the evidence.

Q. Did you have a conversation with Dennis Fung as you were walking down the hallway towards the master bedroom?

A. Yes, sir. To the point where my video light was shining toward the master bedroom. He thought I was coming in. He said "I'm not ready for you yet."

Well, I said okay and continued into the next bedroom.

Q. So as you're walking into the master bedroom, Mr. Fung says, "we're not ready for you yet?"

A. No. I'm not walking into the master bedroom at this point. I'm videotaping photographs on the hallway wall.

He thought I was coming into the master bedroom when he said, I'm not ready for you.

Q. And then at that point, you didn't go in the master bedroom?

A. No, I didn't. I turned into the next bedroom.

Q. And you walked into the second children's room?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And after you videotaped that, where did you go?

Where did you go?

A. I don't recall exactly. But there was a small area where there was a huge closet that I went into. I don't know if that was right after that bedroom or not.

But basically, after that was the master bedroom.

Q. Okay.

And when you walked into the master bedroom, did you videotape as much -- or everything that was out in the open in the master bedroom?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you were in the master bedroom at approximately 4:15 to 4:20 in the afternoon?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did you see a fireplace on the far side of the master bedroom?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you try to videotape that?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you see, as you walk into the master bedroom, a couch to the left of you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you try to videotape that?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you see kind of a reclining or, I don't know, LaZ-Boy-type chair to the left when you walked in?

A. I don't recall right now.

Q. But as I understand it, you tried to tape everything that was out in the open, when you walked into that master bedroom, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And by the way, you were there for a little bit over an hour, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the tape's only 20 to 30 minutes. Why is that?

A. Well, I'm not filming for the entire time. I'm filming just slow enough so you can see the image, and then I go on to something else.

Q. Okay.

Did you videotape any suspenders on Mr. Simpson's bed?

A. I think I did.

Q. Did you ever see any socks on the carpet in front of Mr. Simpson's bed?

A. No, sir.

Q. As I understand it, you videotaped -- there's actually two portions on that videotape when you're videotaping Mr. Simpson bedroom; is that correct?

In other words -- my question is not very good.

You walked in on the first occasion; you're standing in the room, and you videotaped from the doorway?

A. Yes.

Q. Kind of back of the room?

A. Right.

Q. At some point, you stop the tape after that. True?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you walk over to the front of the bed and videotape the left side of the room, and pan back towards the bed?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you never pointed the videotape at the carpet laying in front of the bed, right?

A. Not at the carpet, no, sir.

Q. Why was that?

A. (No verbal response.)

Q. Did you see anything open, or out, or any socks on the carpet?

A. No, sir.

MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm only going to play the portions of Mr. --

MR. KELLY: Ford.

MR. P. BAKER: I think it's Exhibit 901 -- of Mr. Ford's videotape of the master bedroom.

When you're lowest on the totem pole, you have you to work the videotape, also.

(The instrument herein referred to as Videotape taken by Willie Ford of the residence at 360 North Rockingham on June 13, 1994, was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 901.)

(Defendant's Exhibit 901, videotape, being displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) That's when you were walking into the master bedroom?

A. Yes.

Q. To the couch, to the left of Mr. Simpson's bed.

(Videotape notes the time as. 3:13 p.m.)

Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) That was the chair I was trying to describe earlier; is that true?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. That's the fireplace and there's another carpet, right?

A. Yes.

Q. That's Mr. Simpson's bed, true?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Mr. Simpson's bed from behind?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's his vanity?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then you proceed into his closet, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. During the time you were filming that videotape, you never saw any socks on that carpet, true?

A. No, sir.

Q. You never saw any blood stains on that carpet, correct?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. After you walked out of the master bedroom, you walked and filmed Mr. Simpson's closet?

A. Yes.

Q. After you went to the vanity, or I guess if you're from Louisiana, they call it a bureau.

MR. PETROCELLI: In New Jersey.

MR. LEONARD: In New Jersey, too.

MR. P. BAKER: We're very sheik in California.

Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You filmed his closet next?

A. Yes.

Q. Then you filmed his bathroom next?

A. Yes.

Q. Then you eventually left the bedroom, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And what time would this be around when you were leaving the bedroom?

A. I would say approximately 4:20.

Q. Okay.

Did you see any socks when you left the bedroom at 4:20?

A. No.

Q. And if Mr. Fung sat on that stand and said he collected two socks from that carpet between 4:30 and 4:40, someone must have put them there after you were there, true.

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Calls for hearsay, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Jury to disregard that question.

Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) There were no socks there when you left that room, true?

A. No, sir.

Yes, sir; there was no socks.

Q. You don't have a book deal, do you, Mr. Ford?

A. No, sir.

Q. You just came here to tell the truth?

A. Yes, sir.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Ford.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. There were no socks there when you left the room?

A. That's right.

Q. There were no socks when you went in the room?

A. That's right.

Q. You never saw any socks on the floor?

A. Right.

Q. Mr. Fung wasn't there when you were in the room?

A. No. He had just left.

Q. He had just left because he just finished collecting the evidence right?

A. Right.

Q. That, in fact, was your role there that day, was to film after the evidence had been collected, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. That was your whole purpose for being there?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. In fact, you started outside because somebody told you they were still working inside, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you started downstairs because you said they're still working upstairs, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you didn't go in the master bedroom because Dennis said, I'm still working in here, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So the socks weren't there because they had already been picked up, right?

A. Yes.

MR. P. BAKER: Calls for speculation and argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, you've said you work in the photo unit?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you sometimes take photographs instead of videotape?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And when you take photographs, do you put photo I.D. cards next to the evidence you're photographing?

A. We don't, but the criminalist or the detective does.

Q. Okay.

Have you seen photographs of the socks in this case with the -- with the little number 13 card next to them?

A. Yes.

MR. P. BAKER: Objection. Outside the scope, Judge.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, this is about the collection of the socks, which is exactly what this --

THE COURT: No, it's about videotaping.

MR. GELBLUM: I'll tie it up, exactly what it's about.

THE COURT: This witness is not competent on that.

MR. GELBLUM: He did it himself, Your Honor. He just said that.

THE COURT: You may call him as your own witness on rebuttal.

MR. GELBLUM: It's very brief, Your Honor; very very, brief. Few more questions about the photographing of the socks. I beg your indulgence for a few minutes.

THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And when the card, numbered card, is put next to the piece of evidence to photograph, is that generally just before it's collected?

A. Yes.

Q. And then it's collected and the card taken away?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. GELBLUM: Can you put on 728, please.

MR. P. BAKER: I'd like to see it first.

MR. GELBLUM: Sure.

(Mr. P. Baker reviews photograph.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) While he's looking, you know a photographer at LAPD named Will Song?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was he in the house that day?

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object.

MR. P. BAKER: I'd like to approach, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I don't think you have to approach. I'm going to sustain the objection.

MR. GELBLUM: What's the objection?

MR. P. BAKER: Outside the scope.

THE COURT: Yeah.

You're going have to have to lay some foundation before I'm going to allow any questioning on this photograph.

THE COURT: You want to call Mr. Ford back? He's a city employee. I'm sure he's around.

MR. GELBLUM: That's fine. We'll move on.

We'll move on.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, is it true, Mr. Ford that the only -- you have no independent recollection, as you sit here today, what time you were there, what time you left; is that right?

A. No, sir.

Q. You're basing it entirely on the crime-scene log; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you fill out the crime-scene log?

A. No, sir.

Q. How does that get -- how does that work?

A. You always report in to the officer that has control of the crime-scene log.

Q. When you come and when you go?

A. When you come and when you go.

Q. When you left that day, did you tell the officer that you were leaving?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay.

Did you see him write down what time it was?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

MR. GELBLUM: Can you put up Exhibit 200, the Rockingham log,

(Plaintiffs' Exhibit 200, Rockingham Crime-Scene Log, displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Have you ever kept a crime-scene log yourself?

A. No, sir.

Q. And you said, when you first got on the stand, you thought you got there around 3:00. And, in fact, the log shows -- do you know what time the log shows you got there?

A. I think somebody told me 3:10.

Q. Okay.

MR. GELBLUM: Back it out a little bit so you can see the times.

Okay.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Is that your name, Mr. Ford?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And Atkins is your boss. And you came and went with him?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that shows you got there at 3:10 on the log. It shows 1630 as departure?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Now, there was a Detective Haro and Detective Harbor (phonetic) there, as well, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you actually told us something about Detective Haro. You know who he is?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you leave with them?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Did you see them leaving with you?

A. No.

Q. At the same time as you?

A. No.

Q. You see anything on the log they left exactly the same time as you did, 1630?

A. Yes.

Q. But you didn't leave with them, right?

A. No. We were parked up on the hill, so I walked one way, they might have walked another.

Q. You didn't see them walking out?

A. No.

Q. As far as you know, this log could go -- it could be off 10, 15 minutes?

A. No.

MR. BAKER: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Are you friends with Dennis Fung or Andrea Mazzola?

A. Not friends, coworkers.

MR. GELBLUM: I have nothing further, Your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. P. BAKER:

Q. Mr. Ford, when you were in that room, the master bedroom, the suspenders or the straps were hanging off the side of the bed, correct?

A. I would have to look the at videotape again to recall.

MR. P. BAKER: Can you cue it up real quick?

A. Okay. Yeah. Okay.

(Videotape displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Straps are hanging over the edge of the bed, correct?

A. Yes.

MR. P. BAKER: I've got nothing further.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM:

Q. Do you know whether those straps were collected as evidence?

A. No, I don't.

MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further.

MR. P. BAKER: Nothing. Thank you.

THE COURT: Your're excused.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

MR. P. BAKER: Defense --

THE COURT: How long is your next witness?

MR. P. BAKER: Pretty short.

MR. LEONARD: Ten minutes, from our point of view.

THE COURT: How many more do you have.

MR. P. BAKER: We have two.

THE COURT: Two. Okay.

Take a short ten and bring them back in ten.

(Recess.)

(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

WAYNE STANFIELD, called as a witness by the Defendants, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: And, sir, if you would, please state an spell your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: Wayne Stanfield, W-a-y-n-e S-t-a-n-f-i-e-l-d.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD:

Q. Good afternoon captain Stanfield. Good afternoon, sir.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. Could you tell us what your occupation is.

A. I'm a commercial airline pilot.

Q. Who you do work for?

A. American Airlines.

Q. What is your rank at American?

A. I'm a captain.

Q. How long have you been a captain?

A. Starting six years.

Q. And how long have you been with American as a pilot?

A. Thirteen years.

Q. Are you -- and were you in the military, sir?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Okay.

And have you just recently retired?

A. I retired in August.

Q. And what was your rank at retirement?

A. Navy captain.

Q. Now, directing your attention to June 12, 1994, were you the pilot in charge and captain of flight 668 to Chicago from Los Angeles?

A. Yes.

Q. That flight departed at what time?

A. 11:45 p.m.

Q. At some point, did you leave the cockpit and walk back into the first-class cabin?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. I take it the co-pilot was controlling the aircraft at that time.

A. The autopilot was controlling the aircraft. The co-pilot was monitoring the autopilot.

Q. Thank you.

What was your purpose for going back into the first-class cabin, sir?

A. Well, I'd been in the seat for three hours. To stretch, to use the bathroom.

Q. Any other reason you went back there?

A. In conjunction with that, I knew that Mr. Simpson was on board, and I briefly talked to him.

Q. Okay. How did you learn that Mr. Simpson was on board?

A. The number one flight attendant -- the first-class flight attendant had indicated that he had boarded.

Q. And that was early on when you first -- just before you took off?

A. Yes, in Los Angeles.

Q. Now, why did you want to talk to Mr. Simpson?

A. The short reason or the long reason?

Q. Let's stick with the short reason, since we don't have that much time.

A. He's an admired sports figure and a person that I had admired.

Q. Okay.

And you got -- and was it your intention to have him do anything?

You just wanted to engage in conversation with him, or did you bring something back with you to have him autograph?

A. I briefly wanted to explain to him how important it was to me that he represented a -- represented positively athletics, and how important that was to me.

And then I took my logbook back to get an autograph, as well.

Q. Okay.

By the way, do you have a -- do you have a copy of the page of your logbook that Mr. Simpson ultimately autographed?

A. Yes I, do.

Q. Can you show it to me?

A. Yes. This is the logbook.

These are the copies.

Q. May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

THE WITNESS: Now, the --

MR. LEONARD: Can we mark this next?

THE CLERK: 2263.

MR. LEONARD: 2263.

MR. P. BAKER: It's been pre-marked as 1177.

THE CLERK: Then we'll take 1177.

MR. LEONARD: Thank you, Mr. Baker.

MR. P. BAKER: That was Mr. Foster.

MR. LEONARD: Thank you, Mr. Foster.

(The instrument herein referred to as Copy of a page from Captain Stanfield's logbook for June 12, 1996, autographed by O.J. Simpson, was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1177.)

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Showing you what's been marked as 1177, just for the record, can you identify that that is a copy of a portion of your logbook; is that right?

A. That is correct.

Q. And so tell us what you did. You walked back to where Mr. Simpson was sitting, correct?

A. I left the cockpit, used the forward lavatory. Upon completion and exiting the lavatory, there's a half right turn looking to the aft of the aircraft. He was seated on the right side of the aircraft, and I made eye contact. I got his attention.

Q. And as you approached Mr. Simpson, did he do anything?

Did he get up?

Did he do anything?

A. No, not initially.

When I made eye contact, I asked if it would be an imposition to talk to him.

He said no, and he sort of came up to a half crouch.

Q. What did he do at that point?

A. We both extended our hands mutually, and shook hands.

Q. At that point, did you sit down next to him?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what was the reason for sitting down next to him, sir?

A. It's easier to conduct a conversation sitting next to somebody, than standing over them.

Q. So he was -- you sat down on his left side, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. In other words, he was in the seat next to the window; is that right?

A. That is correct.

Q. And you sat down on the aisle seat?

A. That is correct.

Q. So his left side was to your right, correct?

A. That's a true statement.

Q. How long was your conversation with Mr. Simpson?

A. Several minutes. Three minutes or so.

Q. Three minutes?

A. Yes.

Q. And tell -- tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what Mr. Simpson's demeanor was during the conversation.

A. It was very warm, congenial, calm, cool, and collected.

Q. Now, at some point during this discussion, you passed your logbook to Mr. Simpson?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And he took it from you?

A. I'd asked him if it wouldn't be an imposition that I get his autograph.

He said no, that it wouldn't.

And I had my logbook, and I extended it to him, to an open page. And then he didn't have a pen, and he sort of made a gesture, well, I don't have a pen, so I loaned him my pen.

And then he signed it, as you can see.

Q. So he took the logbook in his hands like this, something like that; is that right, sir?

Why don't you show us how he took it, if you recall.

A. I can.

Q. Do you have a specific recollection of how he actually took the book in his hands from you?

A. No, I wouldn't say that I -- that I directly do, no.

Q. But in any event, he held the book in both hands at some point; is that correct?

A. He accepted it. I don't know if he accepted it with one or two hands. But he obviously was holding it with one hand while he wrote the autograph.

Q. He was holding it with his left hand while he signed with his right?

A. Yes.

Q. You were able to observe both hands at that point, sir?

A. Yes, I saw both hands.

Q. Did you see any cuts of any kind on his hands?

A. I have no recollection of any injuries or cuts, no.

Q. Any blood, any bandages, anything like that?

A. No, sir.

Q. Now, just just one final question.

What did Mr. Simpson write in the autograph?

He wrote "O.J. Simpson," his autograph, obviously, "Peace to you."

MR. LEONARD: No further questions.

THE COURT: Cross.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Is it Captain Stanfield?

A. You can call me Wayne.

MR. LEONARD: Do you want this? (Indicating to logbook.)

MR. PETROCELLI: That's all right.

(Logbook handed back to the witness.)

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) When you first encountered Mr. Simpson, this is about three hours into the flight?

A. Yes.

Q. And folks in first class were sleeping?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mr. Simpson was awake when you approached him, right?

A. Yes, he was.

Q. And at the time that you approached him, he appeared to you to be pensive, deep in thought, correct?

A. Yes.

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Is that correct, sir?

A. That is correct.

Q. That he was pensive, pensive, deep in thought?

A. Yes.

Q. All right.

Now, when you --

By the way, the flight attendant, her name is Beverly Deteresa?

A. That is correct.

Q. She's a person that you worked with for a number of years?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. She was the one who attended to first-class passengers that evening?

A. Yes.

Q. D-e-t-e-r-e-s-a; Is that right, sir?

A. I believe so. Pretty close.

Q. Okay.

Now, when you were with Mr. Simpson for the three minutes, next --

And by the way, that's the only time that you interacted with Mr. Simpson, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you had never met him before, right?

A. Yes; I had never met him before.

Q. And you have no knowledge as to how Mr. Simpson reacts or conducts himself under stress or distress, right?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. That calls for speculation. It's also argumentative.

MR. PETROCELLI: I asked him if he knows.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. That is?

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You have no knowledge of that?

A. That is true.

Q. Okay.

And you -- and you had no knowledge of what Mr. Simpson was doing at all that evening, prior to when you saw him sitting in his chair on the airplane?

A. That is true.

Q. Now, for the three minutes, then, that you sat down next to him, at no time did you examine his hands, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. At no time during the three minutes were you ever looking at his hands for the purpose of seeing cuts, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay.

And, for example, if Mr. Simpson had a cut on the inside of the fourth finger of his left hand, you would not have been able to observe that cut, correct?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. You did not see the inside part of his fourth finger on his left hand, correct?

A. I don't recall looking at the inside of his fingers, no.

Q. Okay.

So you wouldn't know, as you sit here now, what the condition of that part of the finger was that evening?

A. That's a true statement.

Q. Okay.

And you didn't see any blood or anything like that?

A. I did not see any blood.

Q. And therefore, if Mr. Simpson had a fresh cut on -- on the front of his middle finger that was washed and was not bleeding, you can't say that he did not have that cut that evening, can you?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation; argumentative.

THE COURT: I'll sustain it.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You can't say definitively whether or not he had any cuts on his middle finger, correct?

A. That is correct.

MR. PETROCELLI: Nothing else.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, can we approach just for a second?

(A bench conference was held, which was not reported.)

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD:

Q. By the way, you didn't see any blood on the logbook, correct, when Mr. Simpson was done signing it?

A. No, there was no blood.

Q. What was Mr. Simpson wearing?

A. Denim-type trousers and athletic colored polo-type shirt.

MR. LEONARD: No further questions.

THE COURT: Anything further, Mr. Petrocelli?

MR. PETROCELLI: If I start trying to pronounce the types of clothing, Your Honor I may embarrass myself, so I don't think I'm going to ask my more questions.

THE COURT: Thank you. You're excused.

(Witness excused.)

MR. LEONARD: call Howard Bingham.

HOWARD BINGHAM, called as a witness on behalf of Defendants, was duly sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE BAILIFF: Please be seated.

THE CLERK: And, sir, please state and spell your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: Howard L. Bingham, B-i-n-g-h-a-m.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Bingham.

Is it true that you're the world's greatest photographer?

A. I am a photographer, yes.

Q. Do you remember testifying at the criminal trial that you were the world's greatest photographer?

A. I do.

Q. Thank you.

Now, how long have you been a professional photographer?

A. Thirty-five years.

Q. During the course of those 35 years, did you have an opportunity to get to know Mr. O.J. Simpson?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And how, just in general terms, how did you get to know him?

A. Being around events, media events like football games and things I would say, yes.

Q. Okay.

Over the years, you photographed him?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you become an acquaintance of his?

A. I knew him, he knew me. But not, you know . . .

Q. Did you ever socialize with Mr. Simpson?

A. No, I did not.

Q. But you have, on occasion, spent time with him in hotels and such, having a drink, or something like that?

A. Not really having a drink. But just talking for minutes and things.

Q. Do you have a speech impediment?

A. I do.

Q. Do you have any difficulty in relating to the jury because of that?

A. No.

Maybe they may have a hassle with me relating to them.

THE WITNESS: Do you?

JURORS: No.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, directing your attention to June 12, 1994, were you on an American Airlines flight to Chicago from Los Angeles?

A. When was this, you say?

Q. June 12 --

A. Yes.

Q. -- 1994 were you on an American Airlines flight to Chicago from Los Angeles, that left approximately 11:45 p.m.?

A. I was.

Q. Did you have an occasion to see Mr. Simpson on that flight?

A. I did.

Q. Can you relate to us how you saw Mr. Simpson, and your interaction with him?

A. I was in my seat, in coach.

Yes, coach.

(Laughter.)

A. (Continuing.) And I saw him come on the plane right before I was going to lay down and go to sleep.

Q. Okay.

And you were able to see him from your seat back in coach, up in the first-class cabin?

A. I did.

Q. And at some point did you approach Mr. Simpson?

A. I did.

Q. And describe for us, for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what you did, what exchange or interchange you had with Mr. Simpson when you went up to the first-class cabin.

A. I got up out of my seat, went to go and say hello to him, and I talked with him a couple minutes, and then went back to the seat. And the hostess told me it was time to go.

Q. Exchanged some pleasantries?

A. Yes.

Q. Describe Mr. Simpson's demeanor during those exchanges or that exchange.

A. He said, Hi, Bingham. Where you going? You know, how's Ali, things like that.

Q. What you do mean by "How's Ali?" Who are you referring to?

A. Mohammed Ali.

Q. Is Mohammed Ali a close personal friend of yours?

A. Yes, he is.

Q. And Mr. Simpson had met Mohammed Ali through you, at some point?

A. He did not meet him through me; he was working with the media and everybody.

Q. He was aware of your relationship?

A. He was aware of my relationship with Ali.

Q. Now, can you describe with regard to Mr. Simpson's demeanor during that exchange; that is, whether he was tired, happy, sad, or something in between?

MR. BREWER: Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled. He asked for demeanor and gave examples.

THE WITNESS: His demeanor?

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Yeah.

A. Like I always, you know, he said, "Hi, Bingham. How you doing?" Things like that.

Q. So his demeanor was as it had been other times?

MR. PETROCELLI: That's leading, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, you --

How long was your discussion with Mr. Simpson?

A. Couple minutes, maybe, or less, you know, here, there.

Q. During -- okay.

And during the discussion with him, did you notice anything unusual about him?

Did you notice any cuts, any kinds of injuries to him, bruises?

MR. BREWER: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I did not.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You notice any cuts or injuries to his hands?

A. I did not.

Q. Or bandages?

A. I did not.

MR. LEONARD: I don't have any further questions.

THE COURT: Cross.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BREWER:

Q. Mr. Bingham, you've never had occasion during the periods you've known Mr. Simpson to go over to his house, for example, and visit?

A. No, I have not.

Q. He hasn't gone over to your house?

A. No, he has not.

Q. The vast majority of your contact with Mr. Simpson over the years has been through media events; is that correct?

A. It has.

Q. It's been you photographing Mr. Simpson and other athletes; is that true?

A. Yes. And being around other events with Ali, and things like that.

Q. Okay.

And directing your attention to June 12, 1994, Mr. Simpson was one of the last individuals to get on the flight; is that correct?

A. I think so.

Q. And when you say that you spoke with him, he walked up -- you walked up to first class and spoke with him, you spoke with him for anywhere from half a minute to a minute and a half; is that a fair estimate?

A. Yeah, fair estimate.

Q. We're talking about 30 seconds to a minute and a half, max, right?

A. Yeah.

Q. And in the course of that discussion, you were told to return to your seat because the plane was going to take off; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And during that same discussion, you had an opportunity to look at Mr. Simpson's hands because he was doing something with some money or something; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Do you know whether he, in fact, had any money in his hands?

A. It wasn't -- it was change, I think, in his left hand. I think he was taking something out of his pockets. I do not know exactly what.

Q. When you went up to first class to say hello to Mr. Simpson, did you tap him on the shoulder?

A. I don't know now.

Q. Did he seem a bit jumpy when you first approached him?

A. I don't remember.

Q. Did he appear to jump when you approached him, or appeared to be edgy?

A. I don't know.

Q. Have you ever told that to anyone?

A. Not that I know of, no.

Q. Are you certain of that?

A. I'm sure.

Q. Okay.

And when you spoke with Mr. Simpson, he was -- he had not taken a seat at that point, had he? He was in the -- at the point where he was getting situated in a seat?

A. He was in the middle on the arm rest there, sitting, not in the -- in his seat.

Q. He had not yet seated himself; is that true?

Is that true?

A. Yes.

Q. And the observations -- the entire observations that you made with Mr. Simpson, just so we're clear, occurred within 30 seconds at a minimum, to a minute and a half, maximum?

A. Minute and a half. I'd say it was more than 30 seconds, because I went up. He was --

MR. BREWER: Okay. Thank you, sir. Nothing further.

MR. LEONARD: No further questions.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. You're excused.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

(Witness excused.)

MR. BAKER: That's it for today.

THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, you're excused until tomorrow, 8:30.

Don't talk about the case; don't form or express any opinions.

THE COURT: Mr. Petrocelli.

THE BAILIFF: Can we have it quiet in the courtroom. The Judge is still on the bench. Quiet in the courtroom.

Thank you.

(Jurors exit the courtroom.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: Okay. The Court has another motion filed by somebody.

THE CLERK: No, that's tomorrow at 1:30.

THE COURT: Oh, that's tomorrow?

THE CLERK: Yeah.

Oh, wait. Sorry.

THE COURT: As I was saying, the Court has another motion filed by -- by plaintiff with regards to request of plaintiff Goldman for permission to take deposition of Rolf D. Rokahr.

Actually, it's a motion in the alternative. The alternative is to take -- to take the deposition or to have the Court accept additional corrections to the deposition transcript.

Had a chance to look at it?

MR. BAKER: I had a chance to look at it, and we've got more on that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BAKER: As this Court is probably aware, Rolf Rokahr was a photographer. And he testified in the criminal trial, and he testified at his deposition in May, that Mark Fuhrman, pictures of him pointing at the glove, was taken at night.

That would have been, obviously, before Mark Fuhrman went to Rockingham.

He reiterated that testimony in his deposition in this case.

Then, Mr. Gelblum, after the deposition, contacts him -- discovery is totally cut off -- and talks to him and attempts to persuade him to change his testimony.

And he did this, and we have a recorded conversation with Rolf Rokahr's daughter relative to the actions of Mr. Gelblum. And he attempted to get him to change his testimony and to make the changes that he now seeks, after discovery has been closed, after that deposition has been signed.

And we think it's outrageous conduct. He had no right to contact this witness. He had no right to attempt to get him to change his testimony, to say that those photographs were taken at -- at a time other than was testified to by a witness, under penalty of perjury on two occasions.

I think it's outrageous. I think the whole motion's outrageous.

In fact, I think it ought to be referred to the State Bar of California.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, the only thing outrageous is Mr. Baker's outrageous and scurrilous allegations. I did not try to convince anybody to change any testimony.

If you want to look at the pictures, Your Honor, dawn is breaking long before those pictures were taken. It's obvious to anybody who looks at the pictures. Mr. Rokahr agrees, without any kind of persuasive attempt by me.

I sent him the pictures. I said, "What do you think?"

He agreed. He said yep.

His daughter was on the phone the entire time. His daughter's husband is there. They're there.

There's nothing wrong with -- I can't contact a witness? Where did that outrageous statement come from?

Everyone who looks at these pictures can agree that dawn is breaking.

That was never called to his attention during his previous testimony, during his deposition whatsoever.

It's real obvious what Mr. Baker wants to do, is hide the truth from the jury. The truth is in the pictures. Dawn has broken long before Mr. Fuhrman's picture is taken.

THE COURT: Who was there at the deposition?

MR. GELBLUM: Mr. Medvene.

THE COURT: Why didn't he catch it?

MR. GELBLUM: I don't know why he didn't do it.

It doesn't matter. What matters is the truth; what matters is the pictures show dawn breaking.

THE COURT: What matters is the witness had the opportunity to look at the transcript and make corrections, and then sign it off.

MR. BAKER: All that has been -- has been accomplished.

THE COURT: I'm -- Excuse me. I thought I was talking.

MR. BAKER: I'm sorry.

MR. GELBLUM: I did not know until after I had these conversations with Mr. Rokahr that he had signed the deposition already, because he had sent the signature to Mr. -- to Art Walsh of the City Attorney's office.

Mr. Walsh didn't notify anybody until I inquired of these people a couple days ago, when it had been signed. They contacted Mr. Walsh and found out that it had.

THE COURT: I think maybe your team ought to communicate with one another.

MR. PETROCELLI: Well, no.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, the bottom line here --

THE COURT: The bottom line is this: This is not a deposition that was taken yesterday. It was a deposition --

MR. GELBLUM: Agreement; that's correct

THE COURT: It was a deposition taken in April of this year, if I read the declaration correctly.

MR. GELBLUM: That's correct.

THE COURT: All this time you had --

MR. GELBLUM: That's correct.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor --

THE COURT: Too late.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, let the jury make up their minds what the truth is?

That is, they want to hide the truth from the jury. Let them see the pictures and then let them decide.

THE COURT: You want to bring him down, bring him down.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, he's too ill to travel.

THE COURT: I'm not going to, at this late stage, get involved in this.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, a witness is able to change and correct his deposition. He's making additional changes to his deposition.

THE COURT: You had ample opportunity to prepare. April -- it is now December. The year is almost gone.

MR. GELBLUM: What's another --

THE COURT: One trial is gone; one deposition is gone. And the year is almost gone.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, the way it -- he was originally contacted, Your Honor --

THE COURT: Motion is denied.

MR. PETROCELLI: Well, Your Honor, for the record, I want to say I think the comments of Mr. Baker were not warranted.

THE COURT: I'm not concerned with Mr. Baker's comment.

MR. PETROCELLI: This a public proceeding. I don't think he has any right making those comments and talking about referring matters to the State Bar.

Maybe we ought to talk about Mr. Taft, his colleague.

THE COURT: Mr. Petrocelli, Mr. Baker, as you know, I'm not influenced by any of this personality interchange.

I've always wanted counsel to desist from that. I will continue to ask counsel to desist from that.

I made no complaints about whatever things you want to say about me. I could only make a record.

And I'm going to deny the motion because I think it's untimely. I think you had ample opportunity to make the effort to make the correction, and it's too late.

MR. GELBLUM: I'll try to bring him down so the jury knows the truth, Your Honor.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.

(At 4:30 P.M., an adjournment was taken until Thursday, December 12, 1996, at 8:30 A.M.)