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

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

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

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

(PAGES 15174 THROUGH 15192, VOLUME 90A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY, PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. COUNSEL, ANYTHING WE NEED TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE RESUME WITH THE JURY? MR. SHAPIRO.

MR. SHAPIRO: YES, YOUR HONOR, BRIEFLY, PLEASE. YOUR HONOR, ONCE BEFORE, WE WERE CONFRONTED WITH A SITUATION WHERE ALLEGED SCIENTIFIC RESULTS WERE PRESENTED IN THE MEDIA FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION BEFORE TESTS WERE DONE BY THE SCIENTISTS THEMSELVES AND NOW WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH A MORE SERIOUS PROBLEM. WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH A PROBLEM WHERE ONE OF THE PROSECUTORS IN THIS CASE HAS PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED TO YOUR HONOR ON THE RECORD SCIENTIFIC RESULTS FROM SPOTS 115, 116 AND 117 AND HAS TOLD YOUR HONOR THAT THESE STAINS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS MR. SIMPSON'S. AND ONCE AGAIN, WE ARE IN THE POSITION THAT THIS STATEMENT IS WITHOUT ANY SCIENTIFIC BASIS SINCE, REGARDING STAINS 115 AND 116, THEY HAVE YET TO BE TESTED, AND REGARDING STAIN 117, THE TEST THAT WAS COMPLETED WAS A PRELIMINARY TEST, THAT THAT TEST WAS INTERRUPTED BY A FIRE ALARM AT THE LABORATORY AND NO DEFINITIVE RESULTS WERE OBTAINED. AND FINALLY, AS MR. ROCKNE HARMON, THE EXPERT IN DNA FROM THE PROSECUTION WELL KNOWS, THAT THE RESULTS OF THOSE TESTS ARE FAR FROM DEFINITIVE AND THAT UNDER THE CHARACTERISTICS THAT WERE PRESENTED; NAMELY, A POINT -- 1.1, 1.2, THAT THERE IS A 50 PERCENT CHANCE THAT THE OFFSPRING OF MR. SIMPSON WOULD HAVE THOSE IDENTICAL GENETIC MARKERS AND FIVE TO EIGHT PERCENT OF THE POPULATION WOULD HAVE THOSE IDENTICAL GENETIC MARKERS. TO MAKE THE STATEMENT TO YOUR HONOR AND FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION THAT THIS STAIN WAS A STAIN THAT IS THE BLOOD OF MR. SIMPSON IS SCIENTIFICALLY INCORRECT, IS TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE AND WE HOPE IS NOT AGAIN GOING TO BE A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHESY MADE BY THE PROSECUTION.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, YET ANOTHER PRESS CONFERENCE HAS BEEN LAUNCHED AGAIN BY COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENSE INSIDE THIS COURTROOM. I THINK THAT THE PRESS CONFERENCES WHICH HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS AND CONTINUOUS MADE BY THE DEFENSE OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM ARE PROBABLY SUFFICIENT. I WOULD ASK IN THE FUTURE THAT THE COURT PROHIBIT THIS KIND OF RHETORIC, THAT IT IS OF NO ASSISTANCE TO THIS COURT. YOUR HONOR CERTAINLY DIDN'T NEED TO HEAR THAT EXPOSITION OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION WHICH WAS MISCHARACTERIZED BY A LAWYER WHO KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE AREA. THE TEST THAT WAS PERFORMED ON STAIN 117 WAS PCR. THAT'S NOT JUST A PRELIMINARY TEST. THAT IS A DNA TEST. AND THE ISSUE OF RELATEDNESS CONCERNING WHAT CHARACTERISTICS MIGHT BE SHARED GOES TO SIBLINGS, NOT FATHER AND SON. IF COUNSEL KNEW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS FIELD, HE WOULD KNOW THAT. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT BEFORE HE STARTS TO -- STANDS UP AND STARTS TO ACCUSE THE POLICE OR THE PROSECUTION OF SUCH SERIOUS MISCONDUCT, HE OUGHT TO AT LEAST UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. IN THIS CASE, THESE THINGS WERE TESTED, RESULTS WERE OBTAINED. THE RESULTS THAT WERE OBTAINED ARE ACCURATE AND ARE RELIABLE. THEY INDICATE THAT MR. SIMPSON IS INCLUDED, THAT THE STAINS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE BLOOD TYPES AND THE MARKERS FOUND IN MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD. WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TESTING FOR MORE MARKERS. BUT THUS FAR, NOTHING HAS BEEN MISSTATED AT ALL BY MR. HARMON. THE BLOOD RESULTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE OF MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD. AND TO WILLFULLY STAND UP HERE AND MAKE SUCH SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS WITH ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS WHATSOEVER OTHER THAN TO OBTAIN PUBLIC SPIN BACK IN THE DEFENSE FAVOR IS RECKLESS, IS IRRESPONSIBLE AND SHOULD BE SANCTIONED. AND I REALLY DO WISH THE COURT WOULD PRECLUDE THE DEFENSE FROM THIS KIND OF RHETORIC IN THE COURTROOM. THESE PRESS CONFERENCES ARE UNNECESSARY AND UNPRODUCTIVE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MS. CLARK: AND I'M SORRY I HAD TO WASTE THE COURT'S TIME EVEN SAYING THAT.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, IF I COULD RESPOND BRIEFLY TO THIS.

THE COURT: BRIEFLY.

MR. SHAPIRO: WHAT I'M REFERRING TO WAS A STATEMENT MADE ON THE RECORD TO YOUR HONOR ON FEBRUARY 15TH FROM PROSECUTOR ROCKNE HARMON. LET ME QUOTE -- LET ME QUOTE WHAT IT --

THE COURT: I RECALL. YOU DON'T NEED TO QUOTE IT BECAUSE I RECALL IT, COUNSEL.

MR. SHAPIRO: ALL RIGHT. THE SECOND THING, REGARDING THE EXPERTISE IN THIS AREA IS, I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY QUOTE FROM ONE OF THE MOST RESPECTED EXPERTS IN DNA IN THE COUNTRY, MR. ED BLAKE, WHO WAS STIPULATED AS AN EXPERT FOR BOTH SIDES.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. WHAT'S THE POINT OF THIS? IS THIS GOING TO ASSIST THE COURT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM?

THE COURT: MAYBE.

MR. SHAPIRO: YES. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. YESTERDAY, FEBRUARY 15TH, 1995, PROSECUTOR ROCKNE HARMON REPRESENTED TO YOUR HONOR THAT SAMPLES 115 --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT COUNSEL IS READING FROM. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT AND I THINK THE PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO --

THE COURT: WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH EVIDENCE BEFORE THE JURY, COUNSEL. BUT IF THIS IS A LETTER ADDRESSED TO ME, THEN WHY DON'T I HAVE IT?

MR. SHAPIRO: IT ISN'T ADDRESSED TO YOU. IT'S ADDRESSED TO ME.

THE COURT: WELL, THE COMMENT YOU JUST READ, IT IS ADDRESSED TO ME.

MR. SHAPIRO: IT IS NOT ADDRESSED TO YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: IF COUNSEL INTENDS TO READ IT IN OPEN COURT, I THINK THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO AT LEAST EXAMINE THIS LETTER.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, IF I COULD JUST PROCEED BRIEFLY --

THE COURT: WELL, MR. SHAPIRO, LET ME JUST MAKE THIS ONE COMMENT. WE HAVE DELAYED GETTING TO THE JURY FOR 45 MINUTES AT THIS POINT. YOU'VE RAISED YOUR OBJECTION. I TAKE THAT AS A WARNING TO THE COURT THAT THIS ISSUE WILL COME UP WHEN WE HIT 115, 116 AND 117. THAT'S THE VALUE IN THE COMMENT TO THE COURT. I THINK I CAN APPRECIATE WHAT THE ISSUE IS. I DON'T NEED MR. BLAKE'S COMMENTS TO ME AS TO WHAT IT IS OR ISN'T.

MR. SHAPIRO: WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION, I WOULD LIKE TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT FROM DR. BLAKE THIS AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR. AND THAT WAS THE PURPOSE, TO NOTIFY THE COURT.

THE COURT: THAT'S WHAT I TOOK IT AS. THANK YOU.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, BRIEFLY, I HAVE ANOTHER MATTER.

THE COURT: ANOTHER MATTER?

MR. DOUGLAS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, AS THE COURT IS AWARE, YESTERDAY MISS -- -- RATHER ON WEDNESDAY, I GAVE MR. DARDEN A STATEMENT OF A POTENTIAL WITNESS THAT THE DEFENSE ANTICIPATED PERHAPS CALLING AT TRIAL. I WAS DISMAYED, YOUR HONOR -- AND MR. DARDEN YESTERDAY ANNOUNCED THE NAME OF THAT WITNESS FOR THE COURT'S EDIFICATION JUST TO PUT ON THE RECORD THAT IN FACT A STATEMENT HAD BEEN GIVEN. I WAS DISMAYED YESTERDAY THAT I BEGAN RECEIVING PRESS CALLS CONCERNING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE STATEMENT THAT WAS GIVEN TO MR. DARDEN YESTERDAY QUOTING FROM ME, TO ME ASPECTS OF THE STATEMENT TELLING ME THAT THE STATEMENT HAD NOW BEEN RELEASED TO SOME MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS. I THINK THAT THAT IS OUTRAGEOUS, YOUR HONOR. AS THE COURT IS AWARE, WE ARE CURRENTLY UNDERGOING SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS WITH WITNESSES WHO ARE BEING HOUNDED BY THE PRESS. I WOULD HOPE THAT EVERYONE WOULD APPRECIATE THE IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING THE SANCTITY OF WITNESSES WHO ARE SIMPLY PLACED ON LISTS. AND THE COURT RECOGNIZES THAT IT WOULD BE IMPROPER TO RELEASE NOT ONLY THE SUBSTANCE OF ANY STATEMENTS, BUT ANY SIGNIFICANT PROPRIETARY DETAILS ABOUT WHAT WITNESSES MAY OR MAY NOT BE SAYING.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: AS I SAT THERE LISTENING TO MISS CLARK AND MR. SHAPIRO, I KNEW THAT SOMEHOW THIS MORNING I WOULD BE DRAGGED INTO THE ABYSS WITH THE REST OF THE LAWYERS IN THIS CASE, YOUR HONOR. NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT MR. DOUGLAS IS SUGGESTING HERE. ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT I GAVE THE MEDIA A COPY OF A REPORT YOU GAVE ME, MR. DOUGLAS?

MR. DOUGLAS: TALK TO THE COURT, MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: IS THAT WHAT HE IS ATTEMPTING TO SUGGEST TO THE COURT?

THE COURT: THAT'S THE INFERENCE OF WHAT I HEARD.

MR. DARDEN: WELL, I DON'T PLACE MUCH VALUE FROM THE STATEMENT MR. DOUGLAS GAVE TO US FIRST OF ALL. SECOND OF ALL, IT'S A NEGATIVE STATEMENT. IT'S NOT THE KIND OF STATEMENT THAT WILL ASSIST THE PROSECUTION. IT IS A STATEMENT THAT IS DEROGATORY IN NATURE AND RELATES TO DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN.

SO WHY WOULD WE RELEASE A STATEMENT LIKE THAT TO THE PRESS? THEY'VE BEEN LEAKING STUFF THROUGHOUT THIS CASE. THEY WERE LEAKING THINGS BEFORE I JOINED THIS CASE. THEY CONTINUE TO LEAK THINGS AND I'M OFFENDED THAT MR. DOUGLAS WOULD SUGGEST TO THE COURT THAT I WILL LEAK ANYTHING. EVERY REPORTER IN THIS COURTROOM KNOWS I DON'T LEAK ANYTHING, AND I RESENT THAT, MR. DOUGLAS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

MR. DARDEN: THE REASON I BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE OF THE REPORT, YOUR HONOR, WAS BECAUSE IT WAS GIVEN TO ME ON FEBRUARY 15, BUT DATED JANUARY 21.

THE COURT: WHICH IS WHY WE PUT IT ON THE RECORD.

MR. DARDEN: AND THAT'S WHY WE PUT IT ON THE RECORD.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. WHICH IS WHY I'M ALL THE MORE HAPPY WITH THE DECISION TO SEQUESTER THE JURY. ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

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

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

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: I TAKE IT YOU ENJOYED OUR LITTLE SOCIAL EVENT LAST NIGHT?

THE JURY: OUTSTANDING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: GOOD. ALL RIGHT. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT DETECTIVE RONALD PHILLIPS IS STILL ON THE WITNESS STAND. AND GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.

THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

RONALD PHILLIPS, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE EVENING ADJOURNMENT, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

THE COURT: DETECTIVE, YOU ARE REMINDED THAT YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. AND, MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONCLUDE YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS. YOU FEELING ALL RIGHT?

A: GOOD MORNING, MR. COCHRAN. HOW ARE YOU?

Q: FINE. FEELING ALL RIGHT?

A: FEELING FINE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. GOOD. WHEN WE BROKE YESTERDAY, SIR, I ASKED YOU WHETHER OR NOT ARNELLE SIMPSON HAD TOLD YOU THAT HER FATHER WAS OUT OF TOWN DURING THE TIME THAT YOU SPOKE TO HER AT THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE.

A: I DID NOT TALK TO MISS ARNELLE. SHE DID NOT TELL ME THAT PERSONALLY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU HEAR HER TELL ONE OF THE OTHER OFFICERS THAT?

A: SHE WAS TALKING TO TOM LANGE AFTER -- BEHIND MY BACK AFTER I WAS TALKING TO CATHY ON THE TELEPHONE.

Q: AND DID YOU HEAR HER TELL TOM LANGE THAT HER FATHER WAS OUT OF TOWN ON A TRIP?

A: I COULD NOT -- I HEARD CONVERSATION, BUT I WAS NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE CONVERSATION.

Q: IN OTHER WORDS, YOU HEARD A CONVERSATION, BUT YOU WEREN'T PAYING ATTENTION TO IT AT THAT POINT?

A: I WAS TALKING TO SOMEBODY ELSE ON THE TELEPHONE, SIR.

Q: SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SAID; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I DO NOT KNOW.

Q: ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO REVIEW ANY REPORTS FROM DETECTIVE LANGE WITH REGARD TO WHAT ARNELLE SIMPSON SAID TO HIM?

A: I REVIEWED NONE OF DETECTIVE LANGE'S REPORTS.

Q: HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO REVIEW ANY REPORTS OF WHAT KATO KAELIN SAID ABOUT O.J. SIMPSON'S WHEREABOUTS THAT MORNING?

A: JUST THE ONE THAT YOU SHOWED ME YESTERDAY, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THAT'S THE ONLY REPORT THAT YOU --

A: THAT'S THE ONLY REPORT I SEEN.

Q: IS THAT THE FIRST TIME YOU'VE SEEN THAT REPORT?

A: YES, IT IS, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AT THIS POINT OR AT SOME POINT AFTER YOU GAINED ENTRANCE INTO THE HOUSE, INSIDE THE RESIDENCE WAS LANGE, VANNATTER AND YOURSELF, IS THAT RIGHT, AMONG THE POLICE OFFICERS?

A: WE WERE THE FIRST ONES THAT ENTERED ALONG WITH ARNELLE. I HAVE NO IDEA WHO FOLLOWED. I WAS TOLD WHO HAD FOLLOWED LATER, BUT I DID NOT SEE THAT.

Q: WELL, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE ONES THAT YOU SAW. LANGE, VANNATTER AND YOURSELF AS FAR AS POLICE OFFICERS ENTERED INTO THE RESIDENCE?

A: YES.

Q: ALONG WITH ARNELLE SIMPSON, MR. SIMPSON'S DAUGHTER, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND AT THAT POINT, YOU DID NOT SEE EITHER MARK FUHRMAN OR KATO KAELIN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I DID A VERY SHORT TIME LATER.

Q: BUT I'M ASKING AT THAT POINT, YOU DID NOT SEE THEM; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I DID NOT SEE THEM ENTER THE HOUSE, NO, SIR.

Q: BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAD LAST SEEN MARK FUHRMAN, HE WAS -- WASN'T HE OUT TALKING OR GONE IN KATO KAELIN'S ROOM TALKING WITH HIM?

A: I DID NOT SEE WHERE MARK FUHRMAN WENT AFTER I LEFT MR. KATO'S ROOM AND WENT OVER TO ARNELLE'S ROOM.

Q: DID YOU FIND OUT AT SOME POINT, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD INTERVIEWED MARK -- INTERVIEWED KATO KAELIN?

A: I UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY HAD A CONVERSATION, YES.

Q: IN KATO KAELIN'S ROOM; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE THAT'S WHERE THE CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE.

Q: NOW, THIS CONVERSATION WITH ARNELLE SIMPSON AND LANGE WHICH YOU WERE ON THE PHONE, WHAT ROOM IN THE SIMPSON HOUSE DID THAT TAKE PLACE?

A: THIS WAS ALL TAKING PLACE IN THE KITCHEN RELATIVELY CLOSE TO WHERE THE TELEPHONE WAS THAT I WAS USING. THEY WERE TO MY BACK.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: -- THE DIAGRAM? AND I BELIEVE THIS WAS PEOPLE'S 6 --

MS. CLARK: 66.

THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON, THE DIAGRAM OF ROCKINGHAM?

MR. COCHRAN: PEOPLE'S 66. WE'LL JUST PUT THIS UP BRIEFLY. THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU POINT TO AND SHOW US GENERALLY WHERE THIS KITCHEN AREA IS ON PEOPLE'S 66 FOR IDENTIFICATION, SIR?

A: WELL, I BELIEVE IT'S IN THIS AREA RIGHT AROUND IN HERE SOMEPLACE (INDICATING).

Q: NOW, HE'S POINTING TO AN AREA NEAR THE BOTTOM PORTION OF THE RESIDENCE ON PEOPLE'S 66 I UNDERSTAND; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

THE COURT: OF THE MAIN RESIDENCE.

MR. COCHRAN: THE MAIN RESIDENCE.

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND THERE WAS A PHONE IN THAT LOCATION; WAS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES. IT WAS ON THE COUNTERTOP.

Q: AND AT THAT POINT, YOU HAD MADE AN EFFORT OR YOU TRIED TO FIND OUT WHERE MR. SIMPSON WAS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: WE HAD ASKED HER SOME QUESTIONS OUTSIDE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU ASKED ARNELLE WHEN YOU SAID HER?

A: WELL, SOMEONE ELSE HAD TALKED TO HER ABOUT IT OUTSIDE, AND THEN WE WALKED IN THE HOUSE AND I ASKED HER IF SHE COULD FIND SOME WAY OF TELLING ME OR GET ME IN TOUCH WITH CATHY WHO SHE HAD TOLD ME WOULD KNOW WHERE HER FATHER WAS AT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN DID YOU TALK TO CATHY RANDA?

A: AFTER ARNELLE DIALED THE PHONE NUMBER AND GOT AHOLD OF HER, YES.

Q: AND IN THE COURSE OF YOUR CONVERSATION WITH CATHY RANDA, DID YOU ASCERTAIN THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS ON A PREARRANGED TRIP TO CHICAGO?

A: THE WORD "PREARRANGED" WASN'T USED. SHE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD LEFT THE NIGHT BEFORE ON A RED EYE, THAT HE HAD FLOWN TO CHICAGO AND THAT'S WHERE HE WAS AT NOW.

Q: AND SHE KNEW ALSO WHICH HOTEL HE WAS IN ALSO; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THAT HOTEL, DO YOU RECALL?

A: THE CHICAGO O'HARE PLAZA HOTEL I BELIEVE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND SHE WAS ABLE TO GIVE YOU THIS INFORMATION AND SHE WAS COOPERATIVE; WAS SHE NOT?

A: VERY COOPERATIVE, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHAT TIME OF THE MORNING WAS THIS?

A: RIGHT JUST A FEW MINUTES AFTER 6:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AT THAT TIME, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT HOW THE TWO INDIVIDUALS HAD MET THEIR DEATH; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: NO. WE HAD NOT DONE ANY CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION AT THAT TIME.

Q: BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE IN THE CONVERSATION AT 6:49, YOU WERE TELLING THE CORONER THAT THEY MAY HAVE BEEN BLUDGEONED TO DEATH OR SHOT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: SO YOU DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THESE PARTICULAR DEATHS THAT MUCH, DID YOU?

A: I DID NOT KNOW HOW THEY HAD BEEN KILLED, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO HOW LONG DID THE CONVERSATION LAST WITH MISS CATHY RANDA, SIR?

A: OH, I WOULD SAY NO MORE THAN A MINUTE TO A MINUTE AND A HALF, JUST LONG ENOUGH TO EXPLAIN TO HER WHO I WAS AND I NEEDED THIS INFORMATION, AND SHE GAVE IT TO ME AND I SAID I WOULD CALL INFORMATION AND GET THE NUMBER BECAUSE SHE DID NOT HAVE THE NUMBER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN WAS THERE A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME IN WHICH YOU CALLED THE AREA CODE AND I PRESUME 312 IN CHICAGO?

A: I BELIEVE I CALLED 411 OR WHATEVER AND ASKED FOR THE AREA CODE FOR CHICAGO AND THEN I MADE THAT AREA CODE CALL WITH THE 4 OR 411 AND GOT THAT INFORMATION.

Q: AND THEN ARMED WITH THE INFORMATION GIVEN TO YOU BY CATHY RANDA WITH REGARD TO THE HOTEL, YOU THEN WERE ABLE TO GET THE HOTEL INFORMATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: LET'S SEE. THIS WAS SHORTLY AFTER 6:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING IN LOS ANGELES; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND YOU'RE AWARE THAT -- IF MR. SIMPSON HAD TAKEN A RED EYE TO CHICAGO, WERE YOU ABLE TO ASCERTAIN WHAT TIME HE GOT TO CHICAGO?

A: NO, SIR, I DIDN'T.

Q: AT ANY RATE, YOU KNEW THAT CHICAGO WAS ABOUT TWO HOURS AHEAD OF LOS ANGELES IN TIME; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND YOU KNEW IF HE HAD TAKEN THE PLANE THERE, HE WOULD HAVE ARRIVED SOMETIME THE EARLY MORNING HOURS IN CHICAGO OF THAT DATE OF JUNE 13TH; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I WOULD HAVE TO ASSUME SO. I'VE NEVER FLOWN TO CHICAGO, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT TAKES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU'VE FLOWN EAST, HAVE YOU NOT, AT SOME POINT IN YOUR LIFE?

A: YES.

Q: FLOWN TO NEW YORK?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU KNOW YOU ARRIVE THERE AT 5:00 OR 6:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, 6:30?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU THEN PLACED A CALL TO THE HOTEL IN CHICAGO; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND AT THAT TIME, YOU HAD NEVER BEFORE SPOKEN WITH MR. O.J. SIMPSON ON THE PHONE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: NEVER BEFORE IN MY LIFE.

Q: AND YOU WERE CONNECTED TO AN OPERATOR; WERE YOU NOT?

A: SOMEONE WHO ANSWERED THE PHONE AT THE HOTEL, YES.

Q: AND DID YOU ASK FOR MR. O.J. SIMPSON'S ROOM?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: NOW, AT THIS POINT, YOU WERE FULFILLING THE FUNCTION THAT YOU HAD BEEN ASKED TO DO EARLIER BY COMMANDER BUSHEY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WAS THERE ANY PARTICULAR REASON WHY, SINCE YOU WERE REALLY OFF THE CASE AT THIS POINT, THAT YOU DIDN'T JUST GIVE THAT TO LANGE OR VANNATTER WHO WERE NOW ON THE CASE TO DO THIS?

A: LANGE WAS AT THE PRESENT TIME TRYING TO CONSOLE ARNELLE SIMPSON WHO WAS VERY UPSET BEHIND THIS. ALL THESE THINGS WERE GOING ON AT THE SAME TIME.

Q: NO. I MEAN EVEN BEFORE THAT TIME. I UNDERSTAND EVERYBODY WAS UPSET. BUT BEFORE THAT TIME, THIS FUNCTION OF NOTIFYING MR. SIMPSON COULD HAVE BEEN DONE JUST AS EASILY BY THE DETECTIVES ON THE CASE; COULD IT NOT HAVE BEEN?

A: IT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY ANYONE.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU EVER CONSIDER HAVING LANGE OR VANNATTER DO IT?

A: NEVER CROSSED MY MIND.

Q: OKAY. NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. NOW, YOU SAID THAT BEFORE THIS PHONE CALL, ARNELLE SIMPSON WAS VERY UPSET. AND HOW WAS SHE MANIFESTING THIS STATE OF BEING UPSET?

A: I DIDN'T SAY BEFORE THE PHONE CALL. SHE WAS UPSET. I SAID, AS I WAS MAKING THE PHONE CALL AND TALKING TO HER FATHER ON THE PHONE, DETECTIVE LANGE WAS TALKING TO HER BEHIND AND OBVIOUSLY TELLING HER THE SAME THING THAT I WAS TELLING HER FATHER ON THE PHONE BECAUSE SHE STARTED TO CRY AND BECAME VERY UPSET.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU COULD HEAR THIS AS YOU WERE GOING THROUGH THIS CONVERSATION?

A: I COULD HEAR THAT THE WOMAN GOT UPSET, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND PRIOR TO YOUR DIALING THE NUMBER IN CHICAGO, HAD YOU OR LANGE IN YOUR PRESENCE TOLD ARNELLE SIMPSON ABOUT THE DEATH OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

A: I DID NOT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT LANGE TOLD HER AND WHEN?

A: I DO NOT KNOW THAT.

Q: AND THEY WERE BEHIND YOU, SO YOU COULDN'T GIVE US THE EXACT TIMING; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO NOW, YOU THEN RANG AND YOU RECEIVED THE ROOM OF A MAN, SUPPOSEDLY MR. O.J. SIMPSON; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, AS I UNDERSTAND THE LAPD POLICY -- WE TALKED ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY. FIRST OF ALL, YOU KNEW THAT O.J. SIMPSON WAS NOT THE NEXT OF KIN. THIS WAS HIS EX-WIFE, RIGHT? YOU KNEW THAT?

A: SOMEONE HAD TOLD ME THAT, YES.

Q: AND IN YOUR POLICY, LAPD POLICY, YOU WERE TO GIVE SOME KIND OF A PERSONAL NOTIFICATION IF AT ALL POSSIBLE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.

Q: WOULD IT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO CALL AND GET SOME COOPERATION FROM A CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER TO GO AND MAKE THIS NOTIFICATION PERHAPS IN A MORE GENTLE FASHION THAN AWAKING SOMEBODY UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT TELLING THEM THEIR EX-WIFE HAD BEEN KILLED? WOULD IT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE?

A: I COULD HAVE DONE IT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS. THIS IS THE WAY THAT I CHOSE TO DO IT AND I THOUGHT IT WAS DONE VERY HUMANELY AND THAT'S THE WAY I DID IT.

Q: WELL, I UNDERSTAND THIS IS THE WAY YOU DID IT. I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT OTHER WAYS YOU COULD HAVE DONE IT CONSISTENT WITH THE LAPD POLICY. AND YOU HAD SAID TO US YESTERDAY THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU WERE STRIVING FOR WAS A CERTAIN LEVEL OF SENSITIVITY.

A: YES.

Q: THAT YOU WANTED TO GET THIS DONE BECAUSE COMMANDER BUSHEY HAD TOLD YOU TO DO IT, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT PERHAPS IN COMPORTING WITH THE LAPD POLICY, CERTAINLY A WAY TO DO THIS IN COMPORTING WITH THAT POLICY WOULD BE TO GET A CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER, GIVE HIM THE FACTS OR HER THE FACTS, HAVE THEM GO TO THAT ROOM, WAKE THIS MAN UP AND ACTUALLY TELL THIS MAN IN PERSON? THAT'S PART OF THE LAPD POLICY. THAT WAS A WAY; WAS IT NOT?

A: WELL, I THINK THE SITUATION DICTATED WHAT HAPPENED BECAUSE WE HAD GONE ONTO THE PROPERTY AND WE HAD CONTACTED HIS DAUGHTER. SHE KNEW SOMETHING WAS WRONG, TO HAVE SOME POLICEMAN AT HER HOUSE AT 6:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. SHE KNEW SOMETHING WAS UP, SOMETHING WAS WRONG WITH HER FATHER OR SOMETHING --

Q: WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ARNELLE RIGHT NOW. WE KNOW SHE KNEW SOMETHING WAS UP.

A: WELL, CONTACTING ARNELLE KIND OF FORCED THE HAND.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, YOU COMFORTED ARNELLE. BUT STILL, MY QUESTION WAS, SIR, YOU COULD HAVE ARRANGED FOR A CHICAGO POLICE OFFICER TO MAKE THIS NOTIFICATION; COULD YOU NOT HAVE?

A: I CERTAINLY COULD HAVE.

Q: BUT WE DIDN'T DO THAT, DID WE?

A: I DID NOT.

Q: SO YOU THEN RANG A ROOM THAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY MR. O.J. SIMPSON'S ROOM. AND COULD YOU TELL WHETHER OR NOT THAT PERSON APPEARED TO HAVE BEEN SLEEPING AT THE TIME THAT YOU MADE THIS CALL?

A: I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THE CALL -- THIS WAS SHORTLY AFTER 6:00 O'CLOCK A.M. ON JUNE 13TH; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THIS, YOU DID IN FACT MAKE A REPORT REGARDING THIS ASPECT OF YOUR INVOLVEMENT; DID YOU NOT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND HAVE YOU SEEN THAT AND READ IT OVER RECENTLY?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND THIS REPORT THAT'S NUMBERED, COUNSEL, 00829 FROM JUNE 13, 1994, LOCATION, 360 ROCKINGHAM, LABELED STATEMENT --

MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU HAVE IT?

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU WROTE THIS STATEMENT WHEN, SIR, IN RELATION TO JUNE 13TH, 1994?

A: I BELIEVE I PROBABLY MADE IT THE FOLLOWING DAY, JUNE 14TH.

Q: AND IF YOU LOOK AT THIS STATEMENT -- LET ME APPROACH.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I, YOUR HONOR?

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WOULD THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHEN YOU ACTUALLY MADE THIS STATEMENT? LET ME JUST SHOW IT TO YOU, PLACE IT BEFORE YOU.

A: IT DOESN'T REFRESH MY MEMORY AS TO EXACTLY WHEN IT -- WHAT TIME AND WHAT DAY I DID IT. IT JUST TELLS THE DATE THAT THAT CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE ON JUNE 13TH.

Q: IT DOES SAY JUNE 13TH, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S THE DAY THE CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE.

Q: AND THIS IS A STATEMENT BY DETECTIVE III RONALD PHILLIPS, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND HAS YOUR IDENTIFYING NUMBER; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND THIS STATEMENT WAS ACCURATE AT THE TIME YOU DID IT, WHETHER YOU DID IT ON THE 13TH OR 14TH, RIGHT?

A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU TOLD MR. SIMPSON, ACCORDING TO YOUR STATEMENT, THAT -- YOU GAVE HIM YOUR NAME; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND YOU TOLD HIM THAT YOU HAD TO RELAY SOME BAD INFORMATION TO HIM; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND AT THAT POINT, WHEN YOU SAID YOU HAD TO RELAY SOME BAD INFORMATION TO HIM, DID YOU PREFACE IT BY SAYING, "YOUR CHILDREN ARE ALL RIGHT, MR. SIMPSON?" REMEMBER SAYING THAT TO HIM?

A: THE CHILDREN WERE BROUGHT UP LATER IN THE CONVERSATION.

Q: NO. I'M ASKING YOU NOW, WHEN YOU SAID, "I'VE GOT SOME BAD INFORMATION FOR YOU, BUT YOUR CHILDREN ARE ALL RIGHT," DID YOU SAY THAT AT AN EARLY POINT IN THE CONVERSATION?

A: I DON'T RECALL THAT.

Q: IS IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU SAID, "YOUR CHILDREN ARE ALL RIGHT," WORDS TO THAT EFFECT?

A: IT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE THAT I COULD HAVE SAID IT. I JUST DON'T RECALL SAYING IT.

Q: I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND. IT'S BEEN SOMETIME, RIGHT? ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THEREAFTER, YOU THEN AT SOME POINT IN THE CONVERSATION SAID TO MR. SIMPSON THAT, "YOUR EX-WIFE, NICOLE HAD BEEN KILLED"; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND WHEN YOU SAID THAT, MR. SIMPSON BECAME VERY, VERY UPSET ON THE PHONE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: IN FACT, YESTERDAY, YOU SAID THAT HE BECAME UNDERSTANDABLY OR YOU EXPECTED THAT HE WOULD BE UPSET BY THIS INFORMATION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND IN BECOMING UPSET, HE SAID TO YOU, "WHAT DO YOU MEAN SHE'S BEEN KILLED?" HE ASKED YOU THAT RIGHT OFF, DIDN'T HE? "WHAT DO YOU MEAN SHE'S BEEN KILLED," HE SAID THAT?

A: HE KEPT REPEATING HIMSELF AND TALKING TO HIMSELF OVER AND OVER AND OVER --

Q: WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION. WELL, LOOK IN FRONT OF YOUR --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. CAN THE WITNESS BE PERMITTED TO FINISH HIS ANSWER?

MR. COCHRAN: I'M TRYING TO GET IT RESPONSIVE.

THE COURT: THERE WAS A SPECIFIC QUESTION. THAT WAS NOT RESPONSIVE TO THAT QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IN REFERRING TO YOUR REPORT, IT SAYS, MR. SIMPSON REPLIED, "WHAT DO YOU MEAN SHE'S BEEN KILLED?" DO YOU REMEMBER HIM SAYING THAT? YOU WROTE THAT IN YOUR REPORT?

A: OKAY.

Q: DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND WHEN HE SAID, "WHAT DO YOU MEAN SHE'S BEEN KILLED," DID YOU SAY, "MR. SIMPSON, I'M GOING TO TELL YOU ALL ABOUT THIS. I'M GOING TO TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, HOW THE PEOPLE WERE KILLED"? YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT, DID YOU?

A: I NEVER HAD A CHANCE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU NEVER SAID THAT, DID YOU?

A: I NEVER HAD A CHANCE AND NEVER SAID IT.

Q: YOU NEVER SAID IT AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW AT THAT POINT, DID YOU? YOU COULDN'T HAVE TOLD HIM?

A: I DID NOT KNOW THE MEANS BY WHICH THEY HAD BEEN KILLED.

Q: BECAUSE 45 MINUTES LATER, WHEN YOU WERE TALKING TO THE CORONER, YOU SAID THEY MAY HAVE BEEN BLUDGEONED TO DEATH OR SHOT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I DIDN'T KNOW THE MEANS BY WHICH THEY HAD BEEN KILLED.

Q: SO YOU NEVER RESPONDED TO MR. O.J. SIMPSON'S REQUEST, "WHAT DO YOU MEAN SHE'S BEEN KILLED?" AND IT IS YOUR STATEMENT THAT HE WAS UPSET AT THIS POINT; WAS HE NOT?

A: YES, HE WAS.

Q: AND YOU EXPECTED -- AND THEN HE WENT ON TO SAY, "OH, MY GOD, NICOLE IS DEAD. OH, MY GOD," AND HE CONTINUED REPEATING HIMSELF IN AN UPSET FASHION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: AND AT SOME POINT, DIDN'T YOU TRY TO GET HIM TO GET HOLD OF HIMSELF FROM AN EMOTIONAL STANDPOINT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND HE KEPT REPEATING HIMSELF, "SHE'S BEEN KILLED? WHAT YOU DO MEAN SHE'S BEEN KILLED? OH, MY GOD, NICOLE IS DEAD," AND REPEATED HIMSELF OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: HE SEEMED TO BE VERY UPSET, RIGHT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: THIS IS THE FIRST TIME YOU HAD EVER TALKED TO HIM?

A: YES.

Q: YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD HAD ONLY ONE HOUR OF SLEEP THAT NIGHT; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: NO IDEA.

Q: YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU HAD AWAKENED HIM WITH THIS KIND OF INFORMATION, DO YOU?

A: NO, I DON'T, SIR.

Q: THEN YOU WENT ON TO SAY IN YOUR REPORT AND WHAT HAPPENED WAS, YOU TRIED TO TALK TO MR. SIMPSON. HOWEVER, FOR SEVERAL SECONDS, HE WAS REPEATING HIMSELF OVER AND OVER AGAIN ABOUT NICOLE BEING DEAD; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: HE SEEMED TO YOU TO BE STUNNED; DID HE NOT?

A: SEEMED TO BE UPSET.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN IN YOUR REPORT, YOU INDICATE, "I FINALLY WAS ABLE TO TELL MR. SIMPSON THAT WE HAD HIS CHILDREN AT THE WEST LOS ANGELES POLICE STATION." YOU SAID THAT AT SOME POINT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: THIS WAS AFTER HE WENT THROUGH BEING VERY UPSET ASKING THIS QUESTION AND TALKING IN -- REPEATING HIMSELF OVER AND OVER AGAIN?

A: I FINALLY GOT HIM TO LISTEN TO ME AGAIN, YES.

Q: NOW, YOU AS AN EXPERIENCED -- HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A LAPD OFFICER? 28 YEARS?

A: 28 YEARS.

Q: YOU'RE AN EXPERIENCED OFFICER?

A: 28 YEARS.

Q: AND YOU'VE HAD THIS TASK BEFORE, TO GIVE INFORMATION TO PEOPLE WHO'VE LOST A LOVED ONE; HAVE YOU NOT?

A: FAR TOO MANY TIMES, YES.

Q: AND IT'S ALWAYS A TOUGH SITUATION, ISN'T IT?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: DIFFERENT PEOPLE REACT DIFFERENTLY, DON'T THEY?

A: YES, THEY DO.

Q: AND THERE'S NO BOOK ANYWHERE ABOUT HOW ANYBODY ACTS WHEN THEY GO INTO A STATE OF SHOCK; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I DON'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF HOW PEOPLE GO INTO A STATE OF SHOCK.

Q: WHAT YOU TRY TO DO AS A TRAINED EXPERIENCED MEMBER OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT IS TO TRY TO BE AS SENSITIVE AS YOU CAN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I TRY MY BEST.

Q: ESPECIALLY IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU'RE NOT EVEN SEEING THIS PERSON, ARE YOU?

A: NO, I'M NOT.

Q: YOU CAN'T SEE HIS FACE OR WHATEVER, CAN YOU?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU'RE OVER A TELEPHONE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY YOUR POLICY IS MUCH BETTER; TO BE FACE TO FACE OR HAVE SOMEBODY FACE TO FACE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES. THAT'S THE POLICY. IF AT ALL PRACTICABLE, THAT'S THE POLICY.

Q: AND WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT WOULD BE A LOT MORE ACCURATE FROM THE STANDPOINT OF DETERMINING HOW THE OTHER PERSON REACTED, WHEN YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE HIM LIKE YOU AND I ARE SEEING EACH OTHER RIGHT NOW; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I WOULD RATHER HAVE DONE IT IN PERSON, YES.

Q: I UNDERSTAND. NOW, BY THE WAY, THIS STATEMENT OF YOUR CONVERSATION WITH MR. O.J. SIMPSON SHORTLY AFTER 6:00 O'CLOCK ON JUNE 13TH WAS NOT TAPE-RECORDED, WAS IT?

A: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

Q: SO WE DON'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THAT BEING TAPE-RECORDED, DO YOU?

A: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE WAS IT TAPE-RECORDED.

Q: WELL, YOU WEREN'T TAPING IT, WERE YOU?

A: I WASN'T.

Q: AND HE WASN'T EXPECTING YOUR CALL. SO HE WASN'T TAPE-RECORDING ON THAT END, WAS HE?

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WAS TAPED, SIR.

Q: OKAY. YOU'VE NEVER HEARD OR SEEN A TAPE, HAVE YOU?

A: NO, I HAVEN'T.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO WHEN YOU FINALLY WERE ABLE TO TELL MR. SIMPSON THAT "WE HAD HIS CHILDREN AT WEST LOS ANGELES POLICE STATION," MR. SIMPSON THEN SAID, "WHY DO THE POLICE HAVE MY KIDS? WHERE ARE MY KIDS"; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN YOU THEN ADVISED MR. SIMPSON THAT "WE HAD TAKEN HIS CHILDREN TO THE STATION BECAUSE WE HAD NO ONE TO TURN HIS CHILDREN OVER TO," AND THAT WITHOUT PROMPTING, MR. SIMPSON TOLD YOU THAT HE WOULD IMMEDIATELY RETURN HOME TO LOS ANGELES AS SOON AS HE COULD GET A FLIGHT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU THEN GAVE MR. SIMPSON YOUR PAGER AND STATION NUMBER SO HE COULD CALL BACK IF HE HAD ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: AND I EVEN BELIEVE MR. SIMPSON DID PAGE ME, BUT I NEVER GOT THE PAGE. IT WAS AT THE OFFICE.

Q: AND YOU BECAME AWARE THAT HE DID PAGE YOU BACK AT SOME POINT?

A: I HAD A NOTE ON MY DESK THAT I HAD RECEIVED A PAGE FROM MR. SIMPSON, YES.

Q: BUT YOU NEVER CALLED HIM BACK, DID YOU, BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T GET THE PAGER -- YOU DIDN'T GET IT IN TIME, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: BUT YOU BECAME AWARE SOMETIME AFTER THIS MR. SIMPSON PAGED YOU TO TRY TO TALK TO YOU FURTHER; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHY HE WAS PAGING ME. ALL I COULD TELL YOU, HE PAGED ME, PROBABLY WANTED TO TALK TO ME. I NEVER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO HIM.

Q: I UNDERSTAND. BUT YOU AGREE WITH ME, WOULD YOU NOT, IF HE PAGED YOU AFTER YOU GAVE HIM THE PAGER NUMBER, HE PROBABLY WANTED TO TALK TO YOU? DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

A: I WOULD IMAGINE SO.

Q: OKAY. AND WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE CHILDREN, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE CHILDREN, MR. SIMPSON SAID TO YOU, "LET ME TALK TO MY DAUGHTER ARNELLE," DIDN'T HE, AT SOME POINT?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: AND YOU THEN, BEING COOPERATIVE, YOU THEN GAVE THE PHONE TO HIS DAUGHTER ARNELLE WHO WAS ALSO UPSET THERE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND SHE WAS CRYING, WASN'T SHE, ALSO?

A: YES, SHE WAS.

Q: AND THEN YOU THEN HEARD A CONVERSATION THAT WENT ON BETWEEN ARNELLE SPEAKING INTO THE PHONE TO HER FATHER; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: WELL, SHE WAS TALKING TO HER FATHER, YES. I WASN'T PAYING TOO MUCH ATTENTION TO THE CONVERSATION.

Q: BUT YOU COULD TELL SHE WAS TALKING INTO THE PHONE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND YOU KNOW SHE WAS TALKING TO HER FATHER?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN YOU WERE TALKING TO MR. SIMPSON IN THIS FIRST PART, WHEN HE WAS REPEATING HIMSELF OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND BEING VERY UPSET AND ASKING THE QUESTION, "WHAT DO YOU MEAN SHE'S BEEN KILLED," ARNELLE WAS STANDING RIGHT THERE, WASN'T SHE, RIGHT BEHIND YOU?

A: AS I SAID, SHE WAS BEHIND ME TALKING TO DETECTIVE LANGE.

Q: HOW MANY FEET WOULD YOU SAY SHE WAS AWAY FROM YOU?

A: FIVE, SIX, SEVEN FEET, SOMEWHERE IN THAT AREA.

Q: SO CERTAINLY SHE WAS WITHIN HEARING DISTANCE?

A: WELL, I THINK THAT'S WHY DETECTIVE LANGE WAS TALKING TO HER AT THE SAME TIME, BECAUSE SHE WAS OVERHEARING MY CONVERSATION TO HER FATHER.

Q: SO I'M JUST TRYING TO ESTABLISH, SHE WAS WITHIN FIVE OR SIX FEET, WITHIN HEARING DISTANCE OF YOU WHEN YOU WERE TALKING AND WHEN LANGE WAS TALKING; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY, SIR. SO THEN SHE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HER FATHER AND SOME ARRANGEMENTS WERE MADE FOR HER TO PICK UP THE CHILDREN, AT LEAST UNTIL HE GETS BACK TO TOWN; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID SHE -- AFTER THAT CONVERSATION, DID SHE AND MR. A.C. COWLINGS THEN ARRANGE TO GO DOWN TO THE STATION AND PICK UP THE CHILDREN?

A: MR. COWLINGS ARRIVED AND ARNELLE INTRODUCED ME TO HIM AND SAID THAT THEY WERE GOING TO PICK THEM UP. SO I CALLED SERGEANT -- ANOTHER SERGEANT AT THE STATION AND INFORMED THEM OF WHO WAS COMING TO THE WEST LOS ANGELES POLICE STATION TO PICK THESE CHILDREN UP AND THAT IT WAS OKAY TO TURN THEM OVER TO THE PEOPLE THAT WERE COMING.

Q: ALL RIGHT. TO DIGRESS JUST FOR A MOMENT, WITH REGARD TO THE CHILDREN, THEY HAD BEEN DOWN AT THE STATION NOW FOR -- OH, APPROXIMATELY 12:40 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, SHORTLY AFTER MIDNIGHT, UNTIL SOMETIME AFTER 6:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WERE YOU AWARE THAT THEY WERE BEING WATCHED BY SOME POLICE OFFICERS THERE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SPECULATION. DO YOU KNOW?

THE WITNESS: I KNOW THEY WERE BEING CARED FOR, YES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: CARED FOR? YES. THEY WERE BEING CARED FOR BY POLICE OFFICERS; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU AWARE THAT WHILE THOSE POLICE OFFICERS AT THAT STATION --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I COMPLETE THE QUESTION?

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WERE YOU AWARE THAT ONE OF THOSE POLICE OFFICERS AT THAT STATION --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. I WOULD ASK TO APPROACH.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE HAVE A SECOND? WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY SIDEBARS TODAY. NO, NO SIDEBARS. LET ME HAVE A MINUTE.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, WILL YOU CONFER?

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I CONFER WITH YOU?

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU HAVE YOUR OWN SMALL SIDEBAR.

MR. COCHRAN: NO SIDEBARS.

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

MR. COCHRAN: NO SIDEBARS TODAY, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: I'M TRYING.

THE COURT: WE ARE ALL TIRED. LET'S MOVE ALONG.

MR. COCHRAN: YES, WE ALL ARE.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WERE YOU AWARE THAT ONE OF THE POLICE OFFICERS AT WEST LOS ANGELES STATION WHILE THE CHILDREN WERE THERE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE OLDEST CHILD SIDNEY? YOU CAN ANSWER THAT YES OR NO.

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU DON'T KNOW? HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANY REPORTS --

A: NO.

Q: -- OF THE REPORTED CONVERSATION?

A: NO. I KNOW THEY WERE TALKED TO BY OFFICERS FOR SEVERAL HOURS AND THERE WAS MANY CONVERSATIONS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT CONVERSATION YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OR WHAT THOSE CONVERSATIONS WERE.

Q: WELL, WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE CONVERSATION AT THIS POINT. I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF YOU WERE AWARE OF ANY SPECIFIC CONVERSATION ABOUT WHICH THERE IS A POLICE REPORT.

A: NO, SIR.

Q: YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THAT REPORT?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO AT SOME POINT THEN, BACK TO THE SITUATION WHEN MR. SIMPSON FINISHED SPEAKING WITH HIS DAUGHTER AND ARRANGEMENTS WERE MADE FOR THE CHILDREN TO BE PICKED UP, YOU DIDN'T TALK BACK TO HIM AT THAT POINT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: TALK TO WHO, SIR?

Q: BACK TO MR. SIMPSON AT THAT POINT.

A: NO, SIR.

Q: THE PHONE WAS NOT HANDED BACK TO YOU, RIGHT?

A: I BELIEVE SHE HUNG UP.

Q: SHE HUNG UP THE PHONE, RIGHT? ALL RIGHT. DID YOU ASCERTAIN WHEN YOU GOT YOUR PAGE AND DO YOU STILL HAVE THAT LITTLE MESSAGE WHEN YOU GOT THE PAGE?

A: LIKE I SAID, I GAVE HIM MY PAGER NUMBER. I ALSO GAVE HIM MY PHONE NUMBER AT THE OFFICE. AND WHEN I SAID I RECEIVED A PAGE, I WAS IN ERROR ON THAT BECAUSE I THINK HE CALLED THE STATION LOOKING FOR ME AT THE STATION BECAUSE THERE WAS A MESSAGE NOTE ON MY DESK THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD CALLED.

Q: WELL, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT, DO YOU KNOW WHEN THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY?

A: I WOULD HAVE NO IDEA. I DON'T REMEMBER WHEN, IF THERE WAS EVEN A TIME WHEN THAT MESSAGE WAS TAKEN.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ALL YOU KNOW IS HE TRIED AND YOU CAN'T TELL US WHEN THAT WAS, RIGHT?

A: HE TRIED, HE LEFT A MESSAGE.

Q: AND YOU CAN'T TELL US WHAT TIME IT WAS IS WHAT I'M ASKING.

A: NO, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. FINE. NO PROBLEM. NOW, THIS CONVERSATION THAT WE'VE JUST GONE THROUGH IN GREAT DETAIL NOW REGARDING MR. SIMPSON, HOW LONG DID THAT CONVERSATION LAST, THE TIME YOU FIRST STARTED TALKING TO HIM UNTIL THE TIME THAT YOU HANDED THE PHONE TO HIS DAUGHTER ARNELLE?

A: JUST MY PART OF THE CONVERSATION. THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE ASKING ME?

Q: WELL, THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION. THERE WERE PERIODS WHEN HE WAS VERY UPSET.

A: THE WHOLE CONVERSATION BETWEEN HE AND ARNELLE OR --

Q: NO.

A: -- JUST MYSELF AND MR. SIMPSON?

Q: JUST YOUR PART AND MR. SIMPSON, SIR.

A: BECAUSE THAT PHONE CALL KEPT GOING ON WITH ARNELLE.

Q: NOW, I AM TRYING TO FIND OUT THE PART BETWEEN PHILLIPS AND MR. O.J. SIMPSON.

A: I WOULD SAY IT WAS LESS THAN A MINUTE, A MINUTE AT MOST.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN AFTER THAT, TO BREAK IT INTO SEQUENCE, HOW LONG WAS THE CONVERSATION WITH ARNELLE SIMPSON AND HER DAD BEFORE THE PHONE WAS HUNG UP?

A: I HAVE NO IDEA. COUPLE MINUTES.

Q: YOU MOVED ON TO OTHER THINGS AT THAT POINT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN YOU NEVER TALKED TO O.J. SIMPSON AGAIN AFTER THAT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: NOW, AS AN EXPERIENCED DETECTIVE, YOU WERE ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS YESTERDAY BY MISS CLARK ABOUT DETAILS OF THIS OR WHATEVER. YOU NEVER IN THAT CONVERSATION EVER MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE KILLED, DID YOU? YOU NEVER MENTIONED THAT, DID YOU?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: YOU ONLY TALKED ABOUT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU DIDN'T KNOW ANY DETAILS ABOUT THE KILLING; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU WOULDN'T HAVE SHARED ANY DETAILS ABOUT THE KILLING OF ANYBODY THAT ASKED YOU; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: EVEN IF YOU DID KNOW, RIGHT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: SO WHEN HE ASKED YOU THE QUESTION, "WHAT DO YOU MEAN SHE'S BEEN KILLED," YOU NEVER ANSWERED THAT OR YOU COULDN'T ANSWER IT ANYWAY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I NEVER HAD A CHANCE TO ANSWER IT AND I PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE TOLD HIM THAT ANYWAYS.

Q: WELL, I HOPE YOU WOULDN'T. IT'S PART OF AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, IN THAT CONVERSATION, DIDN'T YOU THOUGH TOWARDS THE END OF THAT CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON SAY, "WHAT TIME DID YOU LEAVE LAST NIGHT"?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: DID YOU ASK HIM THAT?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: YOU NEVER ASKED HIM?

A: I NEVER ASKED HIM THAT, SIR.

Q: WELL, IN YOUR MIND, WAS HE A SUSPECT AT THAT POINT?

A: NO, HE WAS NOT.

Q: AND YOU NEVER ASKED HIM WHAT TIME HE LEFT LOS ANGELES?

A: NEVER ASKED HIM WHAT TIME HE LEFT LOS ANGELES.

Q: DO YOU RECALL HIM RESPONDING HE HAD TAKEN THE RED EYE OUT OF LOS ANGELES AT ABOUT 11:45? REMEMBER HIM SAYING THAT AT ANY POINT IN THE CONVERSATION?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: NOW, AFTER THIS CONVERSATION WE JUST FINISHED TALKING ABOUT, DID YOU SEE MARK FUHRMAN AT SOME POINT AFTER THAT -- THE CONVERSATION WITH MR. O.J. SIMPSON?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHERE DID YOU NEXT SEE HIM? WHAT ROOM WERE YOU IN WHEN YOU NEXT SAW MARK FUHRMAN?

A: IN THE BREAKFAST AREA JUST OFF THE KITCHEN. I WAS STANDING BY THE DOORS OR JUST INSIDE THE DOORS.

Q: THAT WAS STILL INSIDE THE HOUSE, IS THAT CORRECT, INSIDE THE --

A: I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY MY POSITION, WHERE I WAS, BUT IT WAS AROUND THAT AREA.

Q: CAN YOU POINT TO PEOPLE'S 66 FOR IDENTIFICATION, JUST SHOW THE JURY GENERALLY WHERE YOU WERE AT THAT POINT?

A: SOMEWHERE IN THIS AREA (INDICATING).

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHO WERE YOU STANDING THERE WITH, IF ANYONE?

A: MYSELF.

Q: JUST YOU. WHERE WAS LANGE AND VANNATTER AT THAT POINT, IF YOU KNOW?

A: I BELIEVE I RECALL VANNATTER WAS TALKING TO MR. KAELIN AND I BELIEVE TOM LANGE WAS STILL TALKING TO ARNELLE SIMPSON.

Q: DID KAELIN COME IN THE HOUSE AT SOME TIME DURING THE TIME YOU WERE TALKING TO MR. O.J. SIMPSON?

A: I SAW HIM IN THE HOUSE, YES.

Q: SO WOULD HE -- WOULD KATO KAELIN HAVE BEEN WITHIN EARSHOT OF YOUR CONVERSATION WITH O.J. SIMPSON? THE FIRST MINUTE OR SO CONVERSATION WHEN YOU WERE TALKING WITH MR. SIMPSON, WAS HE IN THAT HOUSE THEN?

A: NO. I THINK HE WAS IN ANOTHER ROOM JUST ADJACENT TO THE KITCHEN WHICH I THINK WAS CALLED THE BAR AREA OR SOMETHING. HE WAS SITTING AT A STOOL OR A BENCH OR SOMETHING IN THAT ROOM.

Q: AND HOW FAR WAS THAT AWAY FROM WHERE YOU WERE HAVING THIS PHONE CONVERSATION?

A: I DON'T REALLY REMEMBER THE --

Q: WELL, YOUR BEST ESTIMATE.

A: 15 FEET?

Q: SO HE WAS WITHIN EARSHOT OF WHAT WAS GOING ON IF HE WANTED TO LISTEN; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: DEPENDING ON HOW LOUD I WAS TALKING AND HOW WELL HE WAS LISTENING, HE PROBABLY COULD HAVE HEARD.

Q: WELL, LET'S SEE NOW. I'M ABOUT -- HOW FAR FROM YOU AM I?

A: I WOULD PROBABLY SAY WE'RE PROBABLY 15 FEET AGAIN.

Q: RIGHT. SO YOU CAN HEAR ME, I CAN HEAR YOU?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. SO ABOUT THAT DISTANCE; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT DOESN'T -- THE FACT THEY CAN HEAR EACH OTHER IN THESE CONDITIONS, WHEN THE COURTROOM IS QUIET, NOTHING ELSE IS GOING ON IS IRRELEVANT WITH MICROPHONES.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE JURY CAN TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

MR. COCHRAN: THE JURY HAS EXPERIENCE IN THAT.

THE COURT: THE JURY IS AWARE OF WHAT THE SCENE IS. THE JURY HAS BEEN IN THE KITCHEN.

MS. CLARK: BUT WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT, HE'S IN THE COURTROOM SPEAKING ON A MICROPHONE. SO IS COUNSEL. THEY WEREN'T SPEAKING ON MICROPHONES THERE.

THE COURT: THE JURY CAN SEE THE MICROPHONE. THE JURY CAN SEE THE MICROPHONE. THEY CAN SEE THE DISTANCE. THEY HAVE THEIR COMMON SENSE AS WE KNOW, RIGHT?

THE JURY: RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: SO STIPULATED, YOUR HONOR. NO SIDEBARS.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WELL, CONTINUE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ABOUT 15 FEET AWAY FROM YOU, KATO KAELIN WAS SEATED AT A BAR AREA, RIGHT?

A: GIVE OR TAKE A FEW FEET.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, TELL US WHO ELSE WAS IN THAT ROOM AT THE TIME OF THE CONVERSATION WHEN YOU WERE TALKING TO O.J. SIMPSON. WE NOW KNOW KATO KAELIN WAS 15 FEET AWAY. ARNELLE SIMPSON --

A: IN ANOTHER ROOM.

Q: OKAY. ANOTHER ROOM 15 FEET AWAY. ARNELLE SIMPSON WAS MAYBE FIVE OR SIX FEET BEHIND YOU TALKING TO TOM LANGE, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: VANNATTER WAS IN THE ROOM SOMEWHERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHERE VANNATTER WAS AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE IN THAT ROOM AT THAT TIME THAT YOU KNOW OF?

A: DID YOU MENTION TOM LANGE?

Q: YES. LANGE WAS TALKING TO ARNELLE?

A: RIGHT, AND MYSELF.

Q: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AT SOME POINT THEN, WHEN YOU MOVED OUT BY THE DOORS NEAR THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY THERE THAT YOU DEPICTED ON PEOPLE'S 66, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH MARK FUHRMAN?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND NOW, MARK FUHRMAN CAME UP TO YOU AND TOLD YOU HE HAD MADE SOME DISCOVERY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR, IT WAS MARK FUHRMAN WHO ALLEGEDLY FOUND THIS GLOVE OUT THERE NEAR KATO KAELIN'S ROOM, IS THAT CORRECT, OUTSIDE?

A: YES.

Q: AND IT WAS MARK FUHRMAN WHO ALLEGEDLY FOUND THIS SPOT ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE BRONCO; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: IT WAS MARK FUHRMAN WHO CLIMBED OVER THE WALL, LET THE TWO OF YOU -- THE REST OF YOU IN; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THE THREE OF US IN, YES.

Q: THE THREE OF YOU IN. AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE FIRST TIME HE MADE YOU AWARE OF THIS ALLEGED DISCOVERY WAS WHEN YOU WERE STANDING THERE INSIDE THE SIMPSON PREMISES AFTER THE PHONE CONVERSATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

THE COURT: WANT TO REPHRASE THE QUESTION? WHICH DISCOVERY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO THE GLOVE, WHERE WERE YOU WHEN MARK FUHRMAN APPROACHED YOU AND TALKED TO YOU ABOUT HIS ALLEGED DISCOVERY OF THE GLOVE?

A: AS I STATED BEFORE, IN THAT BREAKFAST AREA OFF THE KITCHEN SOMEWHERE RIGHT AROUND THE DOORWAY. I WAS EITHER STANDING INSIDE OR OUTSIDE. I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHERE I WAS STANDING.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND HE APPROACHED YOU AND HE HAD SOME CONVERSATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND DID HE AT THAT TIME APPROACH VANNATTER AND LANGE WHO WERE NOW THE DETECTIVES ON THE CASE AND TALK TO THEM AT THAT POINT?

A: NO. THEY WERE BACK INSIDE THE HOUSE IN THE KITCHEN.

Q: I UNDERSTAND THEY WERE IN THE HOUSE. BUT THE QUESTION WAS, DID HE APPROACH THEM AND GO AND TELL THEM ABOUT WHAT HE ALLEGEDLY FOUND?

A: NO.

Q: HE JUST TOLD YOU AT THIS POINT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND THEN BASED UPON WHAT HE TOLD YOU, IS THAT WHEN YOU CAME AROUND AND WENT OUTSIDE ON THE ROUTE THAT YOU WERE HELPED WITH -- MR. FAIRTLOUGH -- WHERE YOU KIND OF -- WHERE YOU BUMPED INTO THE WALLS HERE (INDICATING)?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU CAME OUTSIDE THIS DOOR HERE ON PEOPLE'S 66, YOU WALKED AROUND DOWN THIS NARROW AREA DOWN HERE TO THE AREA NEAR THIS WHAT'S MARKED "AIR CONDITIONER" (INDICATING); IS THAT RIGHT?

A: HE TOLD ME HE WANTED TO SHOW ME SOMETHING AND THAT'S THE ROUTE WE TOOK.

Q: FUHRMAN TOLD YOU HE WANTED TO SHOW YOU SOMETHING AND HE TOOK YOU DOWN THIS PARTICULAR ROUTE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WHAT TIME OF THE MORNING WAS THAT?

A: WELL, I WOULD HAVE TO SAY SOMEWHERE AROUND 6:10, 6:15. IT WAS AFTER THE PHONE CONVERSATION WAS MADE AT 6:05.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO WITHIN FIVE MINUTES OR SO OF THAT, FIVE OR 10 MINUTES?

A: SOMEWHERE IN THAT AREA.

Q: THE TWO OF YOU THEN WALKED BACK HERE UNTIL YOU OBSERVED WHAT COUNSEL ASKED YOU ABOUT YESTERDAY, THIS GLOVE THAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY ON THAT WALKWAY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: BY THE WAY, WHEN YOU WALKED BACK THAT WAY, DID YOU NOTICE THAT THERE WERE BERRIES BACK THERE ALSO IN THIS AREA? REMEMBER SEEING -- I'M INTO BERRIES. SO BEAR WITH ME. DID YOU NOTICE BERRIES BACK THERE ON THAT WALKWAY?

THE COURT: YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE SAID THAT, MR. COCHRAN. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO START SENDING YOU BERRIES.

MR. COCHRAN: NO. PLEASE DON'T.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU NOTICE BERRIES BACK ON THAT WALKWAY?

A: I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF DEBRIS. THERE WAS LEAVES, THERE WAS TWIGS, THERE WAS A LOT OF DEBRIS FROM PLANTS AND SO FORTH. TO TELL YOU THAT I REMEMBER A BERRY BEING BACK THERE, I DO NOT REMEMBER ANY BERRIES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU WERE LOOKING AT OTHER THINGS. AND I WANT TO SHOW YOU A PICTURE. I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THAT -- I'M GOING TO SHOW THIS TO COUNSEL FIRST.

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

THE COURT: MISS ROBERTSON, WHAT'S THE NEXT EXHIBIT?

THE CLERK: 1025.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THESE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS AFTER I CONFIRM WITH COUNSEL.

THE COURT: 1025.

MR. COCHRAN: I WILL MARK THE FIRST ONE 1025. AND I'VE SHOWN THOSE TO COUNSEL. AND I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THE NEXT ONE 1026.

(DEFT'S 1025 AND 1026 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPHS)

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU WHAT I HAVE SHOWN TO COUNSEL HERE AS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER, 1025 AND 1026.

I WOULD LIKE TO PLACE FIRST BEFORE YOU EXHIBIT -- DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1025 AND ASK YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS A FAIR REPRESENTATION OF THE WAY THIS GLOVE WAS ALLEGEDLY FOUND ON THE EARLY MORNING HOURS AT ABOUT 6:15 ON JUNE 13TH, 1994.

A: WELL, IT'S A LOT CLOSER THAN I EVER GOT TO IT, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THAT'S AS CLOSE AS I CAN REMEMBER WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE FROM THE THREE OR FOUR FEET I GOT TO IT.

Q: AND AS YOU -- YOU GOT WITHIN THREE OR FOUR FEET OF IT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AS YOU LOOKED AT THAT PARTICULAR GLOVE, DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD OR ANYTHING AROUND THE GLOVE?

A: I NEVER GOT CLOSE ENOUGH TO IT TO REALLY EXAMINE IT, SIR. I JUST LOOKED AT IT AND SAID, "WELL, YOU OUGHT TO INFORM VANNATTER AND LANGE OF THIS," AND WE WALKED BACK -- I DID NOT WALK UP TO IT AND EXAMINE IT.

Q: YOU GOT WITHIN THREE OR FOUR FEET OF IT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD DROPS OR ANYTHING LEADING TO THAT GLOVE ON THE FOLIAGE THAT'S THERE DEPICTED IN DEFENDANT'S 1025?

A: I DID NOT NOTICE ANY.

Q: AND WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE BACK THERE AT THAT TIME AT 6:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING THROUGH NATURAL LIGHT OR DID YOU HAVE TO USE YOUR FLASHLIGHTS?

A: WE USED A FLASHLIGHT AS I SAID, BECAUSE THE FOLIAGE WAS KEEPING THIS AREA DARKER THAN WAS DIRECT SUNLIGHT OR DIRECT, YOU KNOW, DAWN COMING UP. SO IT WAS DARKER THAN LET'S SAY IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE WHERE THERE WERE NO TREES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO IT WAS DARK STILL ON THE SIDE OF THAT HOUSE. DID YOU USE YOUR FLASHLIGHT ON SOMEONE ELSE'S FLASHLIGHT?

A: I HAD MY OWN.

Q: YOU GOT WITHIN FOUR OR FIVE FEET AWAY, YOU SHINED YOUR FLASHLIGHT AND THIS IS BASICALLY WHAT YOU SAW; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: IN 1025?

A: SAW A GLOVE LYING THERE.

Q: THERE WAS A FENCE TO THE SIDE OF THIS KIND OF NARROW WALKWAY? IT'S A NARROW WALKWAY; IS IT NOT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND THERE'S A FENCE NEXT TO IT, KIND OF -- HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THAT FENCE?

A: CYCLONE CHAIN LINK FENCE.

Q: DID IT HAVE LIKE A WIRE THING ACROSS THE TOP OF IT? REMEMBER LOOKING AT THE TOP OF THAT FENCE?

THE COURT: A WIRE THING ACROSS?

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S PROBABLY NOT VERY ARTFULLY DESCRIBED, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WAS IT A TYPICAL CHAIN LINK FENCE THAT HAS LIKE POINTED WIRES ON THE TOP OF THE FENCE?

THE COURT: YOU MEAN THE TWISTS AT THE TOP?

MR. COCHRAN: YES. THE TWISTS, YOUR HONOR, TWISTED WIRES AT THE TOP.

THE COURT: THE THING THAT MAKES IT HARDER TO CLIMB OVER.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S RIGHT, YOUR HONOR.

THE WITNESS: I COULD PROBABLY SAVE YOU A LOT OF TROUBLE BY TELLING YOU I DON'T REMEMBER.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL THAT DESCRIPTION AND YOU DON'T REMEMBER?

A: I DIDN'T WANT TO INTERRUPT YOU AND THE JUDGE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU DON'T REMEMBER. IT WAS A CHAIN LINK FENCE, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: IN ADDITION TO THAT, SEE THIS BLUE OBJECT HERE? REMEMBER SEEING THAT WHEN YOU SHINED YOUR FLASHLIGHT DOWN THERE?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: YOU NEVER SAW THAT BLUE OBJECT AT ALL?

A: NO.

Q: WERE YOU EVER AWARE WHETHER OR NOT THAT OBJECT WAS BOOKED AT ALL IN EVIDENCE?

A: I BELIEVE I WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS. I DID NOT SEE IT THAT MORNING.

Q: AND I AM GOING TO SHOW YOU NOW 1026. AND FROM WHAT YOU'VE SAID, THERE IS AN EVIDENCE MARKER BY 1026. IS THAT A FURTHER INDICATION THAT BLUE OBJECT WAS BOOKED AT SOME POINT?

A: I WOULD HAVE TO ASSUME THAT IT WAS BOOKED, YES.

Q: AND IN 1026, IS THAT A PRETTY FAIR APPROXIMATION OF THE WAY THE FOLIAGE -- THAT THAT GROUND WAS PRETTY MUCH COVERED WITH FOLIAGE BACK THERE?

A: YEAH. THAT'S HOW MOST OF THE AREA LOOKED BACK THERE. ALL HAD LEAVES AND DEBRIS ON THE GROUND FROM THE FOLIAGE AND THE TREE.

Q: FROM THE TREES FALLING DOWN, RIGHT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: IT'S A FAIRLY ACCURATE PHOTOGRAPH THEN. NOW, SO --

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. MR. COCHRAN, DO YOU WANT TO SHOW THOSE TO THE JURY ON THE ELMO?

MR. COCHRAN: YES, I WOULD LIKE TO, YOUR HONOR. IF COUNSEL HAS NO OBJECTION, I'LL PUT IT ON THE ELMO. WHATEVER THE COURT'S PLEASURE. WHATEVER YOUR PLEASURE. I CAN JUST PASS THEM. SHALL I PASS THEM?

THE COURT: LET'S USE THE ELMO.

MR. COCHRAN: ELMO? FINE. FIRST OF ALL, WE'LL SHOW WHAT THE OFFICER'S BEEN DESCRIBING, YOUR HONOR, AS 1025, DEFENDANT'S 1025.

THE COURT: I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY THE OTHER WAY, ISN'T IT?

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK IT'S THE OTHER WAY.

THE COURT: THE FENCE IS TO THE RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: YEAH.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS A FAIR APPROXIMATION OF WHAT YOU SAW WHEN YOU GOT WITHIN FOUR TO FIVE FEET WITH YOUR FLASHLIGHT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND YOU WERE FOUR TO FIVE FEET IN FRONT OF THIS --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. I THOUGHT THE WITNESS SAID THREE TO FOUR.

MR. COCHRAN: FOUR TO FIVE. HE SAID FOUR TO FIVE.

THE WITNESS: I SAID THREE TO FOUR:

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THREE TO FOUR? WHAT DID YOU SAY?

A: THREE TO FOUR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THREE TO FOUR. AND THE BLUE OBJECT TO THE RIGHT, YOU HAD NOT SEEN THAT THAT MORNING?

A: I HAD NOT SEEN IT.

Q: AND THERE'S THE CHAIN LINK FENCE TO THE RIGHT; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT?

MR. COCHRAN: AND 1026, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND AGAIN, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, 1026 AGAIN IS A CLOSE-UP OF THE CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH SOME KIND OF A CARD NUMBERING WHICH LED YOU TO BELIEVE THAT BLUE OBJECT WAS SOMEHOW BOOKED INTO EVIDENCE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, SO AFTER YOU MADE THESE OBSERVATIONS -- BY THE WAY, DID YOU -- STRIKE THAT. WHILE YOU WERE THERE, DID YOU EVER GET CLOSER THAN THE THREE OR FOUR FEET AND EVER REACH DOWN AND TRY TO PICK THIS ITEM UP?

A: I NEVER WENT BACK THERE AGAIN, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AFTER YOU -- FUHRMAN DECIDED TO TELL YOU ABOUT IT FIRST, DID YOU THEN WALK BACK INTO THE HOUSE WITH HIM AT THAT POINT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU SEE HIM GO AND TALK TO ANY OTHER POLICE OFFICERS THAT MORNING?

A: I BELIEVE I SAW HIM WALK UP TO VANNATTER AT THAT TIME AND --

Q: ALL RIGHT. WITHOUT TELLING US WHAT HE SAID TO VANNATTER, AFTER, DID HE HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH VANNATTER? DID FUHRMAN HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH VANNATTER?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID AT SOME POINT YOU SEE VANNATTER LEAVE THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE AND GO SOMEPLACE?

A: WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YES.

Q: WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN? DID YOU GO ALONG WITH HIM?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. HOW LONG WERE THEY GONE, IF YOU KNOW?

A: I DIDN'T PAY MUCH ATTENTION TO IT. I WOULD SAY MAYBE FIVE MINUTES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN AT SOME POINT, DID YOU SEE VANNATTER COME BACK?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: DID YOU SEE AT SOME POINT FUHRMAN TALK TO DETECTIVE LANGE?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID AT SOME POINT LANGE AND FUHRMAN LEAVE YOUR PRESENCE?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU STAY IN THE HOUSE DURING THIS TIME?

A: I THINK I WAS OUT IN THE FRONT STANDING AROUND.

Q: ALL RIGHT. JUST STANDING AROUND?

A: JUST STANDING AROUND.

Q: YOU DID A LOT OF THAT THAT MORNING, DIDN'T YOU?

A: DID IT ALL DAY.

Q: DID LANGE AND FUHRMAN LEAVE YOUR PRESENCE AT SOME POINT? WERE THEY ABLE TO LEAVE YOUR SIDE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: DID YOU SEE THEM COME BACK AT SOME POINT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WAS THERE A PHOTOGRAPHER THERE AT THAT POINT? WAS MR. ROKAHR, THE PHOTOGRAPHER, THERE AT THAT POINT?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AFTER THAT, AFTER LANGE AND FUHRMAN CAME BACK, HOW MUCH LONGER DID YOU REMAIN AT THIS ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE BEFORE YOU LEFT?

A: JUST A FEW MINUTES.

Q: AND YOU WERE STANDING OUTSIDE, AND AT SOME POINT YOU LEFT. DID YOU LEAVE WITH FUHRMAN IN THE SAME VEHICLE YOU CAME IN?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: BY THE TIME YOU LEFT, HAD OFFICERS GONZALEZ AND ASHTON ARRIVED, THE MOTOR OFFICERS IN THE BLACK AND WHITE VEHICLE? HAD THEY ARRIVED AT THAT POINT?

A: THE MOTOR OFFICERS?

Q: NOT THE MOTOR OFFICERS. THE BLACK AND WHITE PATROL OFFICERS.

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU HAD ASKED THAT THEY COME OVER THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THEY HAD ARRIVED BEFORE WE EVER ENTERED THE ESTATE.

Q: THEY WERE THERE BEFORE FUHRMAN CLIMBED OVER THE WALL, RIGHT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WERE THEY OUTSIDE OR WERE THEY INSIDE AT THIS POINT?

A: OUTSIDE.

Q: WHEN YOU SAY OUTSIDE, THEY WERE OUTSIDE ON THE STREET STILL?

A: YES, SIR. THEIR POSITION WAS TO WATCH THE BRONCO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID THEY -- THEY DIDN'T COME INSIDE THE HOUSE AT THAT POINT?

A: I DIDN'T -- I NEVER SAW THEM GO INTO THE HOUSE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BY THIS POINT, WHEN YOU WERE OUTSIDE, AFTER LANGE AND FUHRMAN WENT SOMEPLACE, HAD MR. A.C. COWLINGS ARRIVED YET?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER WHEN A.C. COWLINGS ARRIVED. I KNOW HE ARRIVED SHORTLY AFTER ARNELLE HAD CALLED HIM, BUT IF HE ARRIVED WHILE THIS WAS GOING ON OR AFTER THIS WAS GOING ON OR DURING THIS WAS GOING ON, I CAN'T REMEMBER.

Q: LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION. DID MR. COWLINGS ARRIVE BEFORE YOU LEFT TO GO BACK TO BUNDY?

A: YES, SIR. AS I SAID, ARNELLE INTRODUCED ME TO HIM AND I MADE THE PHONE CALL THAT THEY SHOULD PICK UP THE CHILDREN.

Q: SO AT ANY RATE, HE ARRIVED BEFORE YOU LEFT. AND WHAT TIME DID YOU LEAVE?

A: I WOULD IMAGINE WE LEFT SOMEWHERE AROUND 6:30.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO HE WAS THERE BEFORE THAT TIME; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN YOU MENTIONED THAT OFFICERS ASHTON AND GONZALEZ WERE WATCHING THE BRONCO; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THE BRONCO IMPOUNDED AT THAT POINT?

A: IT WAS NOT IMPOUNDED, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND SO THEY WERE JUST STANDING THERE WATCHING IT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY KEPT PEOPLE AWAY FROM THAT BRONCO?

A: I HAVE NO IDEA. I LEFT THE LOCATION.

Q: SO YOU -- HAD YOU EVER SEEN ANY PICTURES OF PEOPLE PEERING IN THE WINDOW OF THAT BRONCO?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: NEVER SEEN SUCH A PICTURE?

A: I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY PICTURES OTHER THAN WHAT I'VE SEEN IN COURT, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU LEFT, THEY WERE STILL OUTSIDE WHERE THE BRONCO WAS AND YOU AND MARK FUHRMAN LEFT AND THEN WENT BACK WHERE?

A: TO BUNDY.

Q: AND YOU ARRIVED BACK AT BUNDY AT ABOUT WHAT TIME?

A: WITHIN FIVE MINUTES AFTER LEAVING.

Q: AND WHAT TIME DID YOU GET BACK?

A: I WOULD SAY WE GOT BACK SOMEWHERE AROUND 6:35.

Q: WELL, IN LOOKING AT THE LOG HERE -- AND I THINK WE MAY HAVE COVERED THIS BRIEFLY -- THERE'S NO INDICATION THAT YOU EVER LEFT --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THERE'S NO INDICATION THAT YOU EVER LEFT BUNDY TO GO TO ROCKINGHAM, IS THERE?

A: NO, THERE'S NOT.

Q: THAT WAS YOUR FAULT, WASN'T IT?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: SO WE KNOW YOU GOT BACK THEN BY 6:40, SOMEWHERE IN THAT AREA, 6:45; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: 6:35.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU CHECK IN WITH CUMMINGS AT THAT POINT?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU WENT BACK OVER THERE, YOU JUST CONTINUED STANDING AROUND?

A: I WALKED OVER TO THE LIEUTENANTS AND THE CAPTAINS TO LET THEM KNOW WHAT HAD HAPPENED UP AT ROCKINGHAM AND --

Q: WERE THEY STILL JUST STANDING AROUND?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: THERE WAS A LOT OF STANDING AROUND. I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU IF YOU WOULD HELP US WITH THE NUMBER OF OFFICERS WHO WERE THERE STANDING AROUND AND FROM THE TIME THEY GOT THERE. CAN WE DO THAT?

A: WELL, I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT THE OFFICERS WERE DOING. AS FAR AS STANDING AROUND, EVERYBODY WAS AT A FIXED POST GUARDING THE CRIME SCENE. WHEN I SAY PEOPLE THAT I WALKED UP TO STANDING AROUND, THIS WAS MY SUPERVISOR AND THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE DIVISION THAT WE HAD NOT ASSIGNED TO A FIXED POST TO GUARD SOMETHING.

Q: OKAY. SO WHEN YOU SAID GUARD SOMETHING, WERE THEY GUARDING THIS TAPE THAT WAS AROUND THE PERIMETER THERE?

A: WELL, BOTH ENDS OF THE ALLEY, BOTH ENDS OF THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE LOCATION.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, FROM THE TIME RISKE GOT THERE AT 12:15, THE TIME YOU GOT BACK AT 6:35 OR THEREABOUTS, HOW MANY OFFICERS WOULD YOU ESTIMATE FROM THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT WERE IN AND AROUND THAT BUNDY SCENE DURING THAT TIME FRAME? WOULD THE LOG ASSIST YOU --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: LET ME FINISH THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WOULD THE LOG ASSIST YOU IN DETERMINING THAT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. COMPOUND AND IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: COMPOUND.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I'M GOING TO APPROACH AND ASK YOU TO LOOK WITH ME IN THE LOG AND SEE IF WE CAN DETERMINE HOW MANY POLICE OFFICERS HAD COME OUT TO THE SCENE THERE BETWEEN 12:15, RISKE'S ARRIVAL, AND THE TIME THAT YOU GOT BACK, YOU AND FUHRMAN GOT BACK THERE AT 6:35. WHY DON'T YOU READ IT TO YOURSELF AND SEE IF YOU CAN COUNT THEM UP AS BEST AS YOU RECALL.

A: NOT COUNTING DETECTIVES.

Q: LET'S COUNT THE DETECTIVES TOO. THEY'RE ALL LAPD OFFICERS. LET'S COUNT EVERYBODY.

A: PROBABLY 28.

Q: ABOUT 28 POLICE OFFICERS? AND BASICALLY AT THIS POINT, WERE THESE 28 OFFICERS -- AT 6:35, THE FIRST CALL, THE CORONER HAD NOT GONE OUT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: CRIMINALIST HAD NOT BEEN CALLED?

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT.

Q: WELL, LET'S LOOK AT THIS AND LET'S SEE THE LOG WHEN FUNG WAS CALLED.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION TO THE LOG. THAT WOULD NOT REFLECT --

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW. THAT WOULD ONLY TELL US WHEN HE ARRIVED, SIR. IT WOULDN'T TELL ME WHEN HE CALLED.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. COUNSEL IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: LET'S LOOK AND SEE WHEN FUNG ARRIVED.

MS. CLARK: WELL, OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THAT'S ONLY AS TO BUNDY.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I WANT TO SEE -- I'M TALKING ABOUT BUNDY AT THIS POINT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M TALKING ABOUT BUNDY.

MS. CLARK: MAY I IMPOSE ANOTHER OBJECTION? THIS WITNESS -- COUNSEL IS ATTEMPTING TO REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION. THERE'S NO INDICATION HE EVER KNEW. THIS IS NOT THE CORRECT WITNESS FOR THIS TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OVERRULED. IF HE CAN REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION FROM THIS, YES OR NO.

THE WITNESS: WELL, I BELIEVE THE FIRST TIME IT SHOWS HIM ON THE LOG IS --

THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WAIT. DO YOU KNOW FROM YOUR OWN RECOLLECTION WHEN THE CRIMINALIST, MR. FUNG, ARRIVED AT THE BUNDY ADDRESS?

THE WITNESS: NO, I DON'T.

THE COURT: DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?

THE WITNESS: ONLY IN WHAT IT SAYS, THAT HE ARRIVED --

THE COURT: NO. I'M NOT ASKING YOU WHAT THE DOCUMENT SAYS. I'M ASKING YOU, DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?

THE WITNESS: NO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. NEXT QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID FUNG EVER COME WHILE YOU WERE THERE AT 10:00 O'CLOCK THAT MORNING?

A: I SAW MR. FUNG THERE DURING THAT DAYTIME, YES. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT TIME IT WAS THAT I FIRST SAW HIM.

Q: BUT YOU WERE THERE OFF AND ON DURING THE DAY, RIGHT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND YOU LEFT, ACCORDING TO THE LOG, BY 10:00 O'CLOCK A.M. TO GO SOMEPLACE, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: FUNG HAD NOT ARRIVED AT THAT POINT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING HIM.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU SAW HIM LATER IN THE DAY WHEN YOU CAME BACK TO THE LOCATION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: BECAUSE THE CORONER CAME AT ABOUT 9:10; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN THE CORONER CAME, FUNG WAS NOT THERE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF FUNG WAS THERE.

Q: YOU DON'T REMEMBER SEEING HIM, DO YOU?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING HIM.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THESE 28 LAPD OFFICERS WHO WERE THERE THOUGH, THEY HAD VARIOUS AND SUNDRY RESPONSIBILITIES; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: MOST OF THEM DID.

Q: IN THE COURSE OF THE PEOPLE THAT YOU TALKED TO THAT MORNING, DID YOU EVER, EITHER WHEN YOU CAME BACK AT 6:35 OR EARLIER, TALK TO ANY OF THE OFFICERS THERE ABOUT TRYING TO ESTABLISH THE TIME OF DEATH OF THESE TWO BODIES?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU CAME BACK THAT AFTERNOON, DID YOU SEE MISS MARCIA CLARK AT THE SCENE THERE AT BUNDY OR ROCKINGHAM -- AT BUNDY?

A: I DON'T RECALL IF I EVER SAW MISS CLARK AT THE BUNDY LOCATION. I BELIEVE I MAY HAVE SEEN HER AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION.

Q: WELL, WOULD IT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION TO LOOK AT THE CRIME SCENE LOG REGARDING BUNDY?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: THAT WON'T REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING MARCIA CLARK AT THE BUNDY LOCATION.

Q: DO YOU EVER RECALL SEEING HER THERE TALKING TO MARK FUHRMAN OUTSIDE?

A: AT THE BUNDY LOCATION?

Q: AT ROCKINGHAM. DID YOU SEE --

A: AS I SAID, I SAW HER AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION, NOT AT THE BUNDY LOCATION.

Q: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WHAT TIME WAS THAT THAT YOU SAW HER AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?

A: I WOULD HAVE NO IDEA, REMEMBERING THAT TIME.

Q: WOULD IT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION SEEING THE CRIME SCENE LOG REGARDING THAT?

A: NO. IT WOULD NOT TELL ME WHAT TIME I SAW THEM.

Q: BUT YOU REMEMBER SEEING HER; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: NOW, DO YOU KNOW -- ALTHOUGH I KNOW YOU WERE NO LONGER THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER ON THE CASE -- HOW LONG THAT THE BUNDY LOCATION REMAINED A CRIME SCENE BEFORE THE TAPES WERE TAKEN DOWN?

A: YES. I THINK IT WAS RIGHT AROUND -- THAT I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE LOG TO BE SURE, BUT I THINK IT WAS AROUND 3:00 TO 3:30 IN THE AFTERNOON.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WOULD IT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION TO SEE THE LOG?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: I WOULD LIKE YOU TO LOOK AT THE LOG FIRST, TELL US HOW LONG IT REMAINED AT THE CRIME SCENE. SEE IF THAT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION, SIR.

A: WELL, IT'S 3 SOMETHING IN THE AFTERNOON. IT'S NOT VERY CLEAR. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S -- I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE. 1500 IS 3:00 IN THE AFTERNOON. SO IT WAS AFTER THAT.

Q: DOES THAT COMFORT WITH YOUR MEMORY, SOMETIME AFTER 3:00 O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN IT WAS NO LONGER A CRIME SCENE, TELL US WHAT THAT MEANS.

A: MEANS THAT THE YELLOW TAPE IS TAKEN DOWN, IT'S NO LONGER AN LAPD CRIME SCENE AND WE NO LONGER HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. IT'S -- BASICALLY WE LEAVE IT.

Q: AND PEOPLE ARE FREE TO COME AND GO AT THAT SCENE AT THAT POINT?

A: YES. WE NO LONGER HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THAT CRIME SCENE.

Q: AND IF EVIDENCE HAD NOT BEEN GATHERED BY THAT POINT, THERE'S A GREAT CHANCE THAT EVIDENCE COULD BE SOMEHOW COMPROMISED --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. CALLING FOR SPECULATION.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, LET ME FINISH THE QUESTION. MAYBE SHE WON'T OBJECT. I DOUBT IT, BUT LET ME SEE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IF THE CRIME SCENE WAS DETERMINED NOT TO BE A CRIME SCENE SOMETIME AFTER 3:00 O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON AND IF EVIDENCE HAD NOT BEEN COLLECTED BY THAT POINT, WAS COLLECTED LET'S SAY THREE WEEKS LATER ON JULY 3RD, THERE IS A GOOD CHANCE, IS IT NOT, THAT THAT EVIDENCE MAY HAVE BEEN COMPROMISED BY PEOPLE WHO WERE FREE TO COME AND GO ON THOSE PREMISES AFTER THE CRIME SCENE WAS RELEASED?

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU KNOW WHEN THE BLOOD WAS WASHED AWAY OR WASHED DOWN FROM THIS PARTICULAR CRIME SCENE?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: NOW, YOU DESCRIBED I THINK YESTERDAY THAT AT SOME POINT, THE PRESS APPEARED OUT THERE ABOUT 7:30 IN THE MORNING, IS THAT CORRECT, ON JUNE 13TH?

A: SOMEWHERE LATER IN THE MORNING, 7:30, 8:00 O'CLOCK, SOMEWHERE AROUND THAT TIME.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND SO WHEN THEY ARRIVED AT 7:30 OR 8:00 O'CLOCK, DID YOU SEE THEM WITH CAMERAS AS THE PRESS WILL OFTEN TIMES HAVE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND DID YOU SEE THEM TAKING PICTURES?

A: I WASN'T PAYING ANY ATTENTION TO THEM.

Q: BUT DO YOU THINK THEY WERE TAKING PICTURES?

A: I WOULD ASSUME THEY WOULD BE.

Q: WITH POWERFUL LENSES?

A: I WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION TO THEIR LENSES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO FROM 7:30 ON THEREABOUTS WHEN THE PRESS ARRIVED, YOU WERE AWARE THEY WERE THERE AND THERE WAS SOME INTEREST IN WHAT WAS GOING ON AT THIS PARTICULAR CRIME SCENE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THE INTEREST RATE WAS ESCALATING RAPIDLY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND SO BETWEEN 7:30 A.M. AND THEN 10:00 O'CLOCK WHEN YOU FIRST TOOK YOUR LEAVE FROM -- WHEN YOU TOOK YOUR LEAVE FROM THE BUNDY LOCATION, THERE WAS INCREASING AND INCREASING PRESS PRESENCE. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

A: THERE WAS A TREMENDOUS PRESS INTEREST.

Q: AT SOME POINT, AFTER YOU AND FUHRMAN CAME BACK TO THE BUNDY LOCATION, DID YOU SEE VANNATTER AND LANGE BACK AT THAT LOCATION?

A: TOM LANGE SHOWED BACK UP SHORTLY THEREAFTER.

Q: AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME IT WAS HE GOT BACK APPROXIMATELY?

A: 6:40, 6:35, 6:40, 6:45, SOMEWHERE IN THAT AREA.

Q: A SHORT TIME AFTER YOU GOT THERE, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT SHOULD BE INDICATED ON THIS LOG, SHOULD IT NOT; THAT HE HAD LEFT AND GONE TO ROCKINGHAM AND THEN CAME BACK?

A: IF IT WAS DONE ABSOLUTELY PROPERLY AND HE CHECKED OUT AND CHECKED BACK IN, THEN IT SHOULD BE THERE.

Q: AND IF HE DIDN'T DO THAT, IT WON'T BE ON THERE, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S TRUE.

Q: NOW, DID YOU DO -- WHAT IF ANYTHING DID YOU DO BETWEEN 7:00 O'CLOCK A.M. -- AFTER YOU MADE THIS FIRST CALL TO THE CORONER, YOU WERE ASSISTING TOM -- AND WE HEARD THAT YESTERDAY -- DID YOU DO ANYTHING AT THAT SCENE WITH REGARD TO ESTABLISHING THE TIME OF DEATH BETWEEN THE TIME THAT YOU CONCLUDED YOUR PHONE CALL WITH THE CORONER'S OFFICE SHORTLY AFTER 6:50 IN THE MORNING UNTIL THE TIME YOU MADE THE NEXT CALL AT 8:08 IN THE MORNING?

A: I DID NOTHING IN THAT CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION WHATSOEVER, MR. COCHRAN.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN YOU MADE THE SECOND CALL TO THE CORONER AT 8:08 AND PRIOR TO THE CORONER'S COMING AT 9:10, SAME ANSWER WOULD PERTAIN; YOU DID NOTHING?

A: I DID NOTHING.

Q: AT THIS POINT, YOU WERE ASSISTING, AS YOU'VE INDICATED TO US, TOM LANGE IN GETTING THE CORONER THERE, RIGHT?

A: WHEN HE ASKED ME TO MAKE A PHONE CALL, I DID FOR HIM.

Q: AND THEN AT SOME POINT, YOU SAW REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE ARRIVE AT THE BUNDY LOCATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WE ESTABLISHED THAT WAS ABOUT 9:10 IN THE MORNING. AND DO YOU KNOW THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE WHO CAME OUT?

A: I KNOW THAT THE FEMALE INVESTIGATOR, I BELIEVE HER NAME WAS RATCLIFFE OR RATLIFFE -- RATCLIFFE I BELIEVE. I DO NOT KNOW WHO THE ASSISTANT WAS.

Q: THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: A MALE AND A FEMALE?

A: YES.

Q: WERE THEY BOTH AFRICAN AMERICANS, DO YOU RECALL?

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT.

Q: BUT THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE THAT CAME OUT FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU RECALL, WERE YOU STILL PRESENT WHEN THE BODIES WERE REMOVED FROM THAT LOCATION, SIR?

A: I WAS STILL AT THE BUNDY LOCATION, YES.

Q: WHEN THE BODIES WERE REMOVED?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU TELL US WHAT TIME THEY WERE REMOVED, SIR?

A: NO.

Q: WOULD A REVIEW OF THE LOG AT ALL REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION IN THAT REGARD?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHO PUT THE ENTRY INTO THE LOG. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT TIME THE BODIES WERE REMOVED.

Q: YOU LEFT AT 10:00 O'CLOCK?

A: THE LOG SAYS I LEFT SOMETIME AT 10:00 O'CLOCK.

Q: WELL, WHEN DID YOU LEAVE?

A: I DON'T RECALL WHAT TIME I LEFT. I WASN'T LOOKING AT MY CLOCK EVERY TIME I LEFT AND WENT AND DID SOMETHING AND LOOKED AT IT WHEN I CAME BACK.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT WAS YOUR BEST ESTIMATE OF THE TIME YOU LEFT FOR ANY APPRECIABLE PERIOD OF TIME THAT MORNING, SIR?

A: I WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING.

Q: OKAY. WHAT IS YOUR BEST ESTIMATE OF THE TIME THE BODIES WERE TAKEN OUT OF THERE BY THE CORONER'S OFFICE?

A: I DON'T RECALL THAT EITHER.

Q: DO YOU RECALL SEEING FUNG THERE AT A TIME WHEN THE BODIES WERE STILL THERE?

A: AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED, I DON'T RECALL EVER SEEING FUNG AT THE BUNDY LOCATION.

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

THE COURT: YES.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I HAVE JUST A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? IN AN EFFORT TO AVOID A SIDEBAR, MAY I TALK TO COUNSEL?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

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

MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THE NEXT PHOTOGRAPH AS DEFENDANT'S --

THE COURT: 1027.

MR. COCHRAN: 1027. I HAVE SHOWN IT TO COUNSEL.

(DEFT'S 1027 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, IF I MIGHT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, I HAVE IN MY HAND WHAT PURPORTS TO BE A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE. AND I WILL PLACE BEFORE YOU THE PHOTOGRAPH. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT IT, AND I'LL ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPH.

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU RECOGNIZE, SIR, FIRST OF ALL THE CRIME SCENE DEPICTED THERE?

A: YES.

Q: AND I WANT YOU TO LOOK AND I WANT YOU TO SEE IF YOU CAN TELL US WHETHER OR NOT YOU RECOGNIZE THE TWO CORONER'S REPRESENTATIVES THAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT.

A: I ASSUME -- YES, I DO.

Q: AND DO YOU SEE THEM? CAN YOU POINT THEM OUT FOR ME?

A: I BELIEVE THIS IS ONE HERE AND I BELIEVE THIS IS THE OTHER ONE HERE (INDICATING).

Q: ON THE PHOTOGRAPH, HE'S POINTED TO THE LADY, YOUR HONOR, AFRICAN AMERICAN LADY AND A GENTLEMAN BENDING OVER WITH SOME KIND OF A BLUE JUMPSUIT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU SEE ANYBODY ELSE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH YOU RECOGNIZE?

A: I BELIEVE I RECOGNIZE THESE TWO GENTLEMEN HERE (INDICATING).

Q: OKAY. HE'S POINTING TO TWO GENTLEMEN IN THE FOREGROUND OF THE PICTURE. AND LET'S TAKE THE PICTURE -- AND THE ONE ON THE RIGHT IS WHO?

A: THIS GENTLEMAN HERE (INDICATING)?

Q: YES, SIR.

A: THIS IS AN OFFICER CARSON PIERCE.

Q: OKAY. AND THE ONE TO HIS LEFT, IS THAT AN OFFICER?

A: I BELIEVE THAT'S SERGEANT ED PALMER.

Q: ED PALMER?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THERE'S SOMEBODY'S BACK HERE. CAN YOU RECOGNIZE THAT PERSON?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: THERE'S A PERSON HERE WITH GRAY HAIR AND SOME KIND OF A WHITE SHIRT. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT AS PHOTOGRAPHER ROKAHR?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE HIM, YES.

Q: THAT'S THE PHOTOGRAPHER, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND UP HERE, WHO IS THIS PERSON HERE WITH APPARENTLY SOMETHING IN HIS HANDS (INDICATING)?

A: APPEARS TO LOOK LIKE DENNIS FUNG.

Q: SO THIS IS THE CRIME SCENE FROM THAT MORNING OF JUNE 13TH, 1994; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND THE CORONERS ARE STILL THERE AT THAT POINT. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT THE BODIES ARE STILL THERE AT THAT POINT?

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

MR. COCHRAN: LET ME REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ONE OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CORONER IS TO REMOVE THE BODIES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND GENERALLY WHEN THE CORONER REMOVES THE BODIES, THEY THEN LEAVE, DON'T THEY?

A: WELL, ONCE THE BODIES ARE REMOVED, THEY MAY STICK AROUND FOR A WHILE TO DO AN INVENTORY REPORT OR --

Q: I UNDERSTAND THAT.

A: -- TALK TO THE INVESTIGATOR FOR A SHORT TIME. BUT THEY LEAVE SHORTLY THEREAFTER.

Q: THEY COME TO GET THE BODIES AND TAKE THE BODIES AWAY, DON'T THEY?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, TWO CORONER REPRESENTATIVES ARE STILL AT THE SCENE, AT LEAST IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

MR. COCHRAN: THEN I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THIS ON THE ELMO IF I MIGHT. THIS IS 1027. 1027, MAKE IT AS CLEAR AS WE CAN.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT -- THE JURY DIDN'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF OUR CLOSE-UP DISCUSSION -- CAN YOU STEP OUT SO YOU CAN SEE THIS PHOTOGRAPH FROM OUT HERE? I'M SORRY TO INCONVENIENCE YOU. AND I'LL USE MY POINTER HERE. WHO IS THIS PERSON HERE (INDICATING)?

A: CARSON PIERCE.

Q: THAT'S THE POLICE OFFICER?

A: YES.

Q: FROM WEST LOS ANGELES DIVISION?

A: YES.

Q: THE OFFICER TO HIS IMMEDIATE LEFT, WHO IS THAT?

A: SERGEANT ED PALMER.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHO THIS PERSON IS HERE (INDICATING)?

A: NO, I DON'T.

Q: THIS GENTLEMAN HERE BENDING OVER (INDICATING)?

A: APPEARS TO BE ONE OF THE CORONER TECHNICIANS.

Q: THERE'S SOME WRITING ON THE BACK OF HIS JUMPSUIT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU KNOW WHAT THAT WRITING SAYS?

A: IT WOULD PROBABLY SAY CORONER.

Q: THIS LADY HERE (INDICATING) -- THAT'S A LADY; IS IT NOT?

A: I BELIEVE THAT'S MISS RATCLIFFE.

Q: SHE'S ALSO FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE?

A: YES.

Q: THIS MAN OVER HERE (INDICATING)?

A: APPEARS TO BE --

Q: WHITE HAIR?

A: -- PHOTOGRAPHER NAMED ROKAHR.

Q: THAT'S PHOTOGRAPHER ROKAHR?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU KNOW THIS PERSON BLOCKED BY THE TREE (INDICATING)?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: THIS MAN HERE (INDICATING), WHO IS THAT?

A: DENNIS FUNG.

Q: WHAT DOES FUNG APPARENTLY HAVE IN HIS HAND?

A: I HAVE NO IDEA.

Q: DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE A BAG OF SOME KIND?

A: I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HE'S HOLDING, SIR.

Q: DOES HE HAVE ANYTHING ON HIS HANDS, DO YOU KNOW?

A: I CAN'T SEE THAT EITHER.

Q: HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE IN THAT CRIME SCENE DEPICTED THERE ALTOGETHER?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT'S VAGUE. IN OR OUT --

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I'M ASKING HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE DEPICTED IN THIS PICTURE, IN THIS SCENE.

MS. CLARK: WELL, THAT'S MISLEADING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. LET'S COUNT THEM THEN. HOW MANY DO YOU SEE? ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. AT LEAST TWO OF THESE PEOPLE, IF NOT THREE ARE ON THE SIDEWALK.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I CAN'T TELL THAT FROM THE PICTURE. THE PICTURE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

MS. CLARK: NO, IT DOESN'T.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, HOLD ON. MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

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

THE WITNESS: MAY I RESUME MY SEAT, YOUR HONOR?

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THERE ARE AT LEAST EIGHT INDIVIDUALS SOMEWHERE IN AND AROUND THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE AREA WHERE THE BODIES WERE FOUND?

A: WELL, IT'S HARD TO TELL WHETHER OR NOT CARSON PIERCE AND ED PALMER ARE STANDING ON THE GRASS AREA OR IN THE STREET, BUT THEY'RE IN FRONT OF THE CRIME SCENE, YES.

Q: YES. AS I SAID, IN FRONT OF THE CRIME SCENE? WOULD YOU AGREE THERE ARE EIGHT PEOPLE DEPICTED THERE?

A: IN THAT TOTAL PICTURE, THERE'S EIGHT PEOPLE.

Q: YES. DID YOU SEE THIS SCENE WHILE YOU WERE STILL THERE?

A: THIS PARTICULAR SCENE?

Q: YES, THIS PARTICULAR SCENE. DID YOU SEE THIS -- DO YOU RECALL SEEING THAT SCENE?

A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT SCENE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WITH REGARD TO CRIME SCENE PRESERVATION AND AS AN EXPERIENCED HOMICIDE DETECTIVE, DO YOU TRY TO KEEP THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE OUT OF THE SCENE OR KEEP THE NUMBERS AS SMALL AS POSSIBLE TO KEEP FROM TRACKING UP THE AREA?

A: WELL, THAT'S THE ULTIMATE, YES.

Q: DESIRED RESULT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL THE PEOPLE, THE INDIVIDUALS WHO CAME ON THAT PARTICULAR CRIME SCENE ON THAT MORNING, WERE THERE GLOVES AVAILABLE IF THEY WANTED TO PICK UP ANYTHING AT THE SCENE THAT MORNING, IF YOU KNOW?

A: I HAVE NO IDEA. I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE ACTUAL CRIME SCENE PREPARATION OF ANY KIND WITH TOM NOLAN OR TOM LANGE.

Q: TOM LANGE? NOW, AS AN EXPERIENCED HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR, I ASSUME YOU HAVE SOME KIND OF PROCEDURES THAT PERTAIN WHETHER YOU'RE FROM ROBBERY-HOMICIDE AND WEST LOS ANGELES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: YOU HAVE SOME KIND OF PROCEDURES THAT PERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE FROM WEST LOS ANGELES OR ROBBERY-HOMICIDE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: WE HAVE THE SAME SYSTEM, YES.

Q: YOU HAVE THE SAME AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES GENERALLY, DON'T YOU?

A: THEY CAN GET A LOT MORE RESOURCES THAN WE CAN, BUT WE HAVE THE SAME BASIC EQUIPMENT THEY HAVE.

Q: FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU WANTED GLOVES TO SANITIZE THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE, WOULD YOU HAVE THAT IN WEST LOS ANGELES?

A: WE HAVE GLOVES IN THE TRUNKS OF OUR HOMICIDE VEHICLES.

Q: AND WOULD THEY HAVE THAT ALSO DOWNTOWN AT ROBBERY-HOMICIDE?

A: I WOULD HAVE NO IDEA. I'VE NEVER WORKED THERE.

Q: BUT YOU WOULD EXPECT THEY WOULD HAVE GLOVES, WOULD YOU NOT, IF YOU HAVE IT AND THEY HAVE MORE RESOURCES?

A: I WOULD ASSUME THOSE ROBBERY-HOMICIDE DETECTIVES HAVE GLOVES TOO.

Q: WHAT ABOUT BOOTIES TO WEAR OVER ONE'S SHOES? DO YOU HAVE THOSE?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: YOU DON'T CARRY THOSE AT ALL?

A: NO.

Q: THAT MORNING, DID YOU EVER SEE ANYONE AT ALL VIDEOTAPING THAT PARTICULAR SCENE FROM THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE CRIME SCENE?

A: NO.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, DO YOU HAVE MUCH MORE?

MR. COCHRAN: JUST A LITTLE MORE. THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD TIME. I'LL BE ABLE TO FINISH SHORTLY AFTER THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A 10-MINUTE COMFORT BREAK. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ON THE CASE, DON'T CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER IS SUBMITTED TO YOU, DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU REGARDING THE CASE. AND IF YOU'LL JUST STEP BACK INTO THE JURY ROOM, AND WE'LL CALL YOU BACK IN ABOUT 10 MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL TAKE A 10-MINUTE RECESS.

(RECESS.)

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

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL THE PARTIES ARE PRESENT. MR. HODGMAN, MR. SCHECK, IS THERE A MATTER THAT WE NEED TO RESOLVE?

MR. SCHECK: CAN WE APPROACH?

MR. DARDEN: THAT'S A SIDEBAR, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THEY DON'T COUNT.

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED, WITH MR. HODGMAN, MR. YOCHELSON AND MR. SCHECK PRESENT.)

THE COURT: DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

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

THE COURT: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT WE'VE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. DETECTIVE RONALD PHILLIPS IS STILL ON THE WITNESS STAND ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. AND, MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONCLUDE YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I WILL BE DOING THAT, YOUR HONOR, THIS VERY MORNING.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DEPUTY PHILLIPS, A FEW MORE QUESTIONS IF I MIGHT. YOU HAD MENTIONED IN RESPONSE TO ONE OF MISS CLARK'S QUESTIONS THAT THERE WAS SOME MEASURE OF DISAPPOINTMENT WHEN YOU WERE TAKEN OFF THIS CASE BECAUSE YOU HAD GOTTEN UP AMONG OTHER THINGS. WOULD THAT DISAPPOINTMENT HAVE BEEN MAGNIFIED IN ANY WAY BECAUSE THE MAN WHO WORKED FOR YOU, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, HAD KNOWN AT LEAST ONE OF THE VICTIMS IN THIS CASE AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO THAT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. OBJECTION. THAT'S VAGUE.

THE COURT: WELL, IT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

MR. COCHRAN: HAD INVESTIGATED -- THERE'S BEEN TESTIMONY -- WELL, LET ME RESTATE IT, YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: ASK HIM IF HE IS AWARE OF THAT FIRST.

MR. COCHRAN: I'LL TAKE CARE OF IT, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO THE LEVEL OF DISAPPOINTMENT, I'M ASKING WHETHER OR NOT IT WILL BE MAGNIFIED BY THE FACT THAT AT SOME POINT YOU LEARNED THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD INVESTIGATED A CALL AT LEAST IN 1985 INVOLVING NICOLE.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THIS IS GOING TO BE A HEARSAY OBJECTION, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. WHAT'S THE RELEVANCE OF WHAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DID TO THIS WITNESS' SENSE OF DISAPPOINTMENT OR NOT?

THE COURT: IT'S SUSTAINED AT THIS POINT ON FOUNDATIONAL GROUNDS.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.

THE COURT: YOU NEED TO ESTABLISH IF THAT WAS IN HIS MIND AT THE TIME THAT HE WAS TOLD.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AT SOME POINT, YOU BECAME AWARE THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD RESPONDED TO A CALL BACK IN 1985 AT THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: AFTER THIS CASE, YES, I WAS AWARE OF THAT.

Q: AND AT ANY TIME, WAS YOUR LEVEL OF DISAPPOINTMENT IN HAVING TO TURN THE CASE OVER TO ROBBERY-HOMICIDE AT ALL MAGNIFIED BY ANY CONTACT THAT ANY OF THE OFFICERS HAD HAD WITH THE PARTIES IN THIS CASE BEFORE THAT? THAT'S THE QUESTION.

A: THE DISAPPOINTMENT IN NOT HANDLING THIS CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME DISAPPOINTMENT NO MATTER WHAT THE CASE WAS. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE AT ALL. WE HAD JUST GOTTEN UP, WE HAD GONE OUT TO A CRIME SCENE. IT WAS OUR CASE TO INVESTIGATE. IT WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM US. THERE WAS DISAPPOINTMENT THAT WE WEREN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO INVESTIGATE THE CASE. IT WOULD HAVE MADE NO DIFFERENCE WHOSE CASE OR WHAT CASE THAT WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM US.

Q: ALL RIGHT. OKAY. NOW, I MAY HAVE ASKED YOU THIS QUESTION. I APOLOGIZE IF I DID. WITH REGARD TO THE CRIME SCENE BEING -- WAS IT -- WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN IT WAS WASHED DOWN OR CAN YOU TELL US WHEN THIS SCENE WAS WASHED DOWN?

A: I WAS NOT PRESENT, SIR.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHEN IT WAS WASHED DOWN?

A: NO, I DON'T.

Q: WHEN YOU CAME BACK LATER THAT DAY ON JUNE 13TH, HAD THE BLOOD BEEN WASHED DOWN AT THAT POINT?

A: I NEVER WENT BACK TO THE BUNDY LOCATION. I WAS NOT AT THE BUNDY LOCATION WHEN THE SCENE WAS BROKEN DOWN. I WAS AT MY OFFICE AND I NEVER WENT BACK TO THE BUNDY LOCATION THAT DAY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU KNOW OR HAVE YOU SEEN ANY RECORDS OF THE SHOE SIZES OF THE OFFICERS WHO HAD BEEN AT THE BUNDY SCENE? WAS THERE A RECORD KEPT OF THE OFFICERS' SHOE SIZES?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: OF COURSE, PRIOR TO YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU HAVE NOT WATCHED THESE PROCEEDINGS ON TELEVISION, HAVE YOU?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: DID YOU EVER PARTICIPATE IN GOING BACK OVER TO ROCKINGHAM WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER ROKAHR AT ALL THAT MORNING?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: WOULD IT BE FAIR THAT THE LAST TIME YOU SAW HIM THAT DAY ON JUNE 13TH WAS WHEN HE WAS AT THE BUNDY LOCATION?

A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING HIM ANYMORE AFTER THAT.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE MOVEMENT OF EVIDENCE, WHETHER INTENTIONALLY OR ACCIDENTAL, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU TRY NOT TO HAVE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND IF EVIDENCE IS EITHER MOVED ACCIDENTALLY OR ANY OTHER WAYS, YOU WOULD TEND TO WRITE A REPORT AND EXPLAIN THAT, IS THAT CORRECT, IN A CASE YOU WERE HANDLING?

A: IT WOULD DEPEND.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT.

MR. COCHRAN: IT'S IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY ANSWER THAT.

A: IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCE, IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT WAS HAPPENING AT THE TIME. IT DEPENDS ON WHAT EVIDENCE WAS MOVED OR WHY IT WAS MOVED OR WHO WAS MOVED. THERE COULD BE A WHOLE LITANY OF THINGS THAT MAY HAVE HAPPENED OR MAY NOT HAVE HAPPENED THAT MIGHT HAVE WANTED YOU TO MAKE A REPORT.

Q: BUT IF YOU WANTED TO EXPLAIN WHY EVIDENCE WAS MOVED, THE BEST RECORD WOULD BE TO WRITE A REPORT AS TO WHAT HAD ACTUALLY HAPPENED; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: IF YOU THOUGHT THE REPORT WAS NECESSARY TO EXPLAIN WHAT YOU HAD DONE, YES.

Q: THE PERFECT SCENE, THE PERFECT CRIME SCENE, YOU WANT EVIDENCE TO REMAIN JUST AS IT WAS WHEN YOU FOUND IT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S THE IDEAL WAY, YES.

Q: THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT PHOTOGRAPHS ARE TAKEN, PICTURES ARE TAKEN ALMOST IMMEDIATELY OR SOON THEREAFTER, BECAUSE EVIDENCE WILL TEND TO DISSIPATE OVER TIME; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YOU ALWAYS TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS BEFORE AND AFTER.

Q: AND ONE OF THE REASONS, IS IT NOT, THAT YOU WANT TO GET THE CORONER OUT THERE IS THAT THERE ARE CHANGES THAT TAKE PLACE IN BODIES OVER TIME; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: WELL, A BODY WILL BEGIN TO CHANGE, YES.

Q: YES. IN OTHER WORDS, RIGOR MORTIS MAY SET IN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S TRUE.

Q: AND YOU HAVE BEEN AT CRIME SCENES, HAVE YOU NOT, WHEN THE CORONER HAS ARRIVED AND TAKEN A LIVER TEMPERATURE OF A PARTICULAR BODY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I'VE BEEN THERE WHEN THE CORONER HAS TAKEN LIVER TEMPERATURES, YES.

Q: AND THE LIVER TEMPERATURE IS ONE OF THE WAYS THAT THE CORONER CAN EXTRAPOLATE OR TRY AND ASCERTAIN THE TIME OF DEATH; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: ONE OF SEVERAL WAYS, YES.

Q: YOU'RE AWARE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: IT'S A FACTOR THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, YES.

Q: WERE YOU AT THAT SCENE WHEN HE -- WHEN THE CORONER FINALLY ARRIVED AND WHEN LIVER TEMPERATURES WERE TAKEN IN THIS CASE?

A: NO, I WAS NOT.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY.

THE WITNESS: THANK YOU, SIR.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, REDIRECT.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. CLARK:

Q: DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, YESTERDAY, MR. COCHRAN WAS ASKING YOU QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SPECIAL ORDER 21. DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF IT, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: I'M GOING TO PUT IT ON THE ELMO SO THE JURY CAN SEE IT TOO.

MS. CLARK: FIRST, COULD YOU -- JONATHAN, CAN YOU SHOW THE TOP?

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. THAT'S THE ORDER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE SUBJECT MATTER IS NOTIFICATIONS TO THE CORONER.

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DROPPING DOWN TO THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH -- HOLD STILL. OKAY -- WHERE IT SAYS: "THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER AT THE SCENE OF A DEATH WHICH REQUIRES NOTIFICATION TO THE CORONER SHALL MAKE NOTIFICATION IMMEDIATELY UPON DETERMINING THAT THE DEATH FALLS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE CORONER'S OFFICE." FIRST OF ALL, SIR, TELL US, DOES THIS MEAN ONLY HOMICIDES?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION. HE CAN TELL US WHAT IT MEANS. IT WAS LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE THE WAY IT WAS PHRASED.

MS. CLARK: WITHDRAWN. COUNSEL IS RIGHT.

THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: CAN YOU TELL US WHAT IT MEANS, WHAT IT REFERS TO?

A: THIS REFERS TO ANY SCENE OF ANY DEATH THAT COMES WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE CORONER'S OFFICE.

Q: OKAY. DOES -- AND WHAT DOES THAT INCLUDE, SIR?

A: INCLUDES DEATHS WHERE DOCTORS DO NOT SIGN CERTIFICATES WITHIN 20 DAYS AND INCLUDES SUICIDES, INCLUDES HOMICIDES, INCLUDES ACCIDENTALS. WHENEVER AN OFFICER GOES OUT AND COMES ACROSS A DEATH.

Q: WHETHER IT'S BY CRIMINAL AGENCY OR NOT?

A: UNTIL WE DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS OR NOT, YES.

Q: OKAY. SO IN ALL THOSE CASES, THERE'S A REQUIREMENT TO NOTIFY THE CORONER?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, DROPPING DOWN TO THE SECOND PART OF THAT PARAGRAPH -- ACTUALLY, LET ME BACK UP. IT SAYS: "SHALL MAKE THE NOTIFICATION IMMEDIATELY UPON DETERMINING THAT THE DEATH FALLS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE CORONER'S OFFICE," BUT THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY: "IF THE CORONER IS NOT IMMEDIATELY NEEDED AT THE SCENE"?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT?

A: WELL, WHAT THIS PARAGRAPH IS TELLING YOU IS THAT THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER, WHO MAY NOT ALWAYS BE A DETECTIVE -- THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER AT A SUICIDE MAY NOT BE A DETECTIVE. IT MAY BE A PATROL OFFICER WHO CAME ACROSS AN OBVIOUS SUICIDE. IT MAY BE A NATURAL DEATH THAT THE DOCTOR DOESN'T WANT TO SIGN A DEATH CERTIFICATE. AND WE DON'T ALWAYS HAVE DETECTIVES ROLL ON THOSE CALLS. SO THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER AT ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WOULD BE THE PATROL OFFICER WHO IS INVESTIGATING THAT CALL OR INVESTIGATING THAT DEATH SCENE. AND WHAT THEY'RE TELLING YOU IS THAT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, TO NOTIFY THE CORONER'S OFFICE TO HAVE THE CORONER'S OFFICE COME OUT AND REMOVE THE BODY. AND IF THE CORONER IS NOT IMMEDIATELY NEEDED, THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER SHALL ADVISE THE CORONER OF AN APPROXIMATE TIME WHEN THE CORONER MAY BE NEEDED.

Q: OKAY. AND WHEN WOULD IT BE A SITUATION WHERE THE CORONER WOULD NOT IMMEDIATELY BE NEEDED?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. IT'S IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL. THIS IS NOT A SUICIDE. THESE OTHER THINGS ARE IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: WHAT WAS THE QUESTION AGAIN?

Q: BY MS. CLARK: CAN YOU GIVE US AN EXAMPLE OF A SITUATION WHERE THE CORONER WOULD NOT IMMEDIATELY BE NEEDED?

A: WELL, IT MAY BE A SUICIDE THAT THE OFFICERS MAY HAVE TO DO A SMALL AMOUNT OF INVESTIGATION TO SEE THAT IT WASN'T -- WAS A SUICIDE OR WASN'T A SUICIDE. THERE MAY BE SOME INVESTIGATING, TALKING TO FAMILY MEMBERS OR TRYING TO GET AHOLD OF A DOCTOR TO SEE IF A DOCTOR WANTED TO SIGN THE CERTIFICATE IF WE CAN FIND THAT CORRECT DOCTOR. SO NOT IMMEDIATELY MEANS IT MAY TAKE THOSE PATROL OFFICERS WHO ARE THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS AN HOUR TO GET THAT INFORMATION ALL PUT TOGETHER.

Q: WHAT ABOUT THE SITUATION WHERE IT'S A HOMICIDE?

A: HOMICIDE IS A DIFFERENT SITUATION ALTOGETHER.

Q: AND WHY IS THAT?

A: BECAUSE A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION REQUIRES THE SERVICES OF A SPECIALIZED DETECTIVE, THE HOMICIDE DETECTIVE TO COME OUT TO THAT CRIME SCENE.

Q: OKAY. AND IN THAT SITUATION, IF IT IS A HOMICIDE, IS THAT AN EXAMPLE ALSO WHERE A CORONER IS NOT IMMEDIATELY NEEDED?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION AS LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: IS THE -- IS A HOM -- IN THE CASE OF A HOMICIDE, IS THAT A CASE WHERE THE CORONER WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY NEEDED?

A: NO.

Q: AND WHY IS THAT?

A: YOU HAVE SEVERAL THINGS YOU HAVE TO DO AT A CRIME SCENE FIRST. YOU HAVE TO, NUMBER ONE, TALK TO ALL THE OFFICERS, FIND OUT WHAT YOU HAVE. YOU HAVE TO EXAMINE THE CRIME SCENE. YOU HAVE TO MEASURE YOUR CRIME SCENE OFF. YOU HAVE TO MAKE A CRIME SCENE SKETCH. YOU HAVE TO HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN OF THAT CRIME SCENE. YOU MAY HAD FINGERPRINTS NEEDED TO BE TAKEN OF THAT CRIME SCENE. SEVERAL THINGS NEED TO BE DONE BEFORE YOU BRING THE CORONER'S OFFICE IN AND ATTEMPT TO MOVE THE BODIES.

Q: SO IT SAYS IN THAT EVENT: "WHEN THE CORONER IS NOT IMMEDIATELY NEEDED, THAT THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER SHALL ADVISE THE CORONER OF AN APPROXIMATE TIME WHEN THE CORONER'S DEPUTY CAN RESPOND; AND IF NO TIME CAN BE ESTIMATED, THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER SHALL ARRANGE TO MAKE SECOND NOTIFICATION TO THE CORONER WHEN THE RESPONSE IS APPROPRIATE."

A: THAT'S WHERE WE GET OUR FIRST CALL AND SECOND CALL.

Q: AND IS THAT WHAT YOU DID IN THIS CASE?

A: YES.

Q: YOU MADE FIRST NOTIFICATION AT WHAT TIME?

A: 6:50.

Q: AND THEN YOU MADE THE SECOND NOTIFICATION TO TELL THEM TO COME STRAIGHT OUT AT WHAT TIME?

A: 8:08.

Q: AND IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, SIR: "WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATE THAT THE INVESTIGATION OF THE DEATH REQUIRES THE EXPERTISE OF A SPECIALIZED INVESTIGATOR, FOR EXAMPLE, HOMICIDE DETECTIVE, IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION TO THE CORONER SHALL BE MADE BY THE CONCERNED --"

MR. COCHRAN: I'M SORRY. I RELUCTANTLY OBJECT. IS THIS A QUESTION? WE CAN READ THE DOCUMENT ITSELF.

MS. CLARK: IT IS FOUNDATIONAL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: "-- BY THE CONCERNED SPECIALIZED INVESTIGATOR WHO RESPONDS TO THE SCENE OF THE INCIDENT." CAN YOU TELL US WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT PASSAGE?

A: WELL, THE FIRST PARAGRAPH THERE EXPLAINS THAT THIS COULD BE ANY TYPE OF DEATH THAT EVEN A PATROL OFFICER MAY BE INVESTIGATING. IT'S NATURAL OR WHATEVER. THEN THEY'RE TELLING YOU WHEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATE THAT IT IS A HOMICIDE AND YOU NEED THE EXPERTISE OF A HOMICIDE DETECTIVE. THEY'RE TELLING THAT PATROL OFFICER OR THAT OFFICER THAT'S INVESTIGATING THAT HOMICIDE OR TRAFFIC COLLISION, WHATEVER IT IS, DO NOT NOTIFY THE CORONER'S OFFICE, LET THE ASSIGNED HOMICIDE DETECTIVE WHO'S IN CHARGE OF THE CASE MAKE THE NOTIFICATION BECAUSE HE HAS ALL THIS WORK TO DO WHEN HE GETS THERE.

Q: SO WHY IS IT IMPORTANT WHO MAKES NOTIFICATION TO THE CORONER; FIRST OFFICER OR THE HOMICIDE DETECTIVE WHO EVENTUALLY IS ASSIGNED TO THE CASE?

A: IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE CORONER'S OFFICE IS THEN NOT LEFT STANDING AROUND DOING NOTHING WHEN THEY COULD BE GOING TO OTHER CALLS TO PICK UP OTHER DECEASED. IT KIND OF LETS THEM MAKE THEIR ARRANGEMENTS. AS AN EXAMPLE, IF --

Q: NO, SIR. THE QUESTION I'M ASKING IS, WHY IS IT IMPORTANT WHO MAKES NOTIFICATION TO THE CORONER, THE DETECTIVE VERSUS THE PATROL OFFICER WHO FIRST SHOWS UP?

A: BECAUSE THE DETECTIVE, WHEN HE SHOWS UP, HE CAN EVALUATE THE CRIME SCENE. HE CAN TELL HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE HIM -- WITH HIS EXPERIENCE AND HIS KNOWLEDGE, HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE HIM TO DO THIS CRIME SCENE TO GET IT READY FOR THE CORONER'S OFFICE TO COME. A PATROL OFFICER WOULD HAVE NO IDEA HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE THAT DETECTIVE TO FINISH HIS CRIME INVESTIGATION. SO FOR HIM TO MAKE A ESTIMATE OF TIME WOULD BENEFIT NOBODY.

Q: UH-HUH. SO CAN YOU TELL US, SIR, WHAT IS THE OVERALL PURPOSE OF THIS SPECIAL ORDER NUMBER 21?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS THE CHIEF'S ORDER. I'M NOT SURE THAT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WITH HIS RELATIVE EXPERIENCE IS THE BEST ONE TO GIVE US THIS. THIS IS NOT THE WITNESS I DON'T THINK --

THE COURT: WELL, DOESN'T IT PRETTY MUCH SPEAK FOR ITSELF?

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, NO. WHAT I WANT TO KNOW FROM THIS WITNESS IS WHAT HE UNDERSTANDS -- HE UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE PROBLEM IS THAT'S BEING ADDRESSED IN THIS SPECIAL ORDER AND IT DOESN'T SPEAK FOR ITSELF IN THAT REGARD BECAUSE IT WAS ADDRESSING A SPECIFIC PROBLEM, AND THAT IS THE ISSUE.

THE COURT: IT CROSS-REFERENCES THE MANUAL WHICH IS MODIFIED, WHICH IT SAYS MODIFIED, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN TOLD TO THE JURY.

MS. CLARK: AND THAT DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ITSELF. IF I CAN BE PERMITTED TO ELICIT THIS ANSWER, THE COURT WILL SEE.

THE COURT: BRIEFLY.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT IS THE OVERALL PURPOSE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THIS ORDER? WHAT PROBLEM WAS IT SEEKING TO ADDRESS?

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION. THAT'S NOT WHAT SHE SAID SHE WAS GOING TO DO. WHAT WAS IN THE CHIEF'S MIND WHEN HE ISSUED THIS ORDER IS NOT RELEVANT IN THIS CASE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR --

THE WITNESS: WELL, WHAT IT ATTEMPTS TO DO IS TO ELIMINATE THE DOWNTIME OF THE CORONER'S OFFICE STANDING AROUND AT ONE CRIME SCENE FOR FOUR OR FIVE HOURS WHEN THEY COULD BE DOING SOMETHING ELSE AT ANOTHER AREA THAT IS READY FOR THEM SO WE DON'T HAVE BODIES AND CRIME SCENES BEING BACKED UP ALL OVER THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. WHY HAVE THE CORONER'S OFFICE SITTING AROUND FOR FOUR OR FIVE HOURS AT ONE CRIME SCENE WHERE HE COULD BE PICKING UP -- I DON'T MEAN TO BE GROSS -- BUT PICKING UP TWO OR THREE NATURAL DECEASED AND WHILE HE'S STANDING AROUND WAITING FOR ONE CRIME SCENE TO BE DONE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND IF THE CORONER IS STANDING AROUND AT ONE CRIME SCENE WAITING, JUST WAITING TO BE ALLOWED INTO IT TO REMOVE THE BODIES, WHAT HAPPENS TO OTHER OFFICERS ON OTHER HOMICIDE SCENES WHO ARE WAITING FOR THE CORONER?

MR. COCHRAN: CALLS FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR. SHE SAID BRIEFLY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: WELL, THEN THOSE CRIME SCENES WOULD BEGIN TO BACK UP. WE WOULD HAVE OFFICERS STANDING AROUND WAITING FOR CORONERS TO SHOW UP AND IT WOULD JUST BECOME A DOMINO EFFECT. THIS WHOLE IDEA IS SO THAT WE HAVE RAPID RESPONSE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE; THEY CAN DO THEIR JOB, GET OUT AND GET TO ANOTHER AREA WHERE THEY'RE NEEDED, WHERE OTHER DETECTIVES OR OTHER OFFICERS ARE WAITING FOR A CORONER TO SHOW UP AT THAT LOCATION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, SIR, ON THE CORONER'S TAPE, WHEN YOU WERE SPEAKING TO MR. WILLIS, YOU TOLD HIM THAT IT WAS MR. SIMPSON IN THAT CONVERSATION. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

A: YES.

Q: WHY? WHY DID YOU TELL HIM?

A: WELL, BECAUSE I DID, NUMBER ONE. BUT NUMBER TWO IS, IF I WERE TO TELL THEM THAT WE HAD A DOUBLE HOMICIDE IN THE BRENTWOOD AREA, IT'S GOING TO CAUSE A NEWS MEDIA EVENT REGARDLESS OF WHO IS INVOLVED. IT'S JUST WE DON'T HAVE DOUBLE HOMICIDES IN THE BRENTWOOD AREA VERY OFTEN. AND SO BY TELLING HIM WHAT WE HAD AND ASKING HIM FOR HIS COOPERATION IN KEEPING IT QUIET, WE WOULD ELIMINATE THE PRESS FOR AS LONG AS POSSIBLE. TRYING TO MAKE A POINT TO HIM.

Q: UH-HUH. TO LET HIM KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT WAS?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR, THE LAST STATEMENT.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

MS. CLARK: WITHDRAWN.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SIR, YOU INDICATED I THINK ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT THERE'S A MOONLIGHTING JOB THAT YOU AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN BOTH DID?

A: USED TO DO, YES.

Q: USED TO DO AT ONE TIME. WERE YOU WORKING TOGETHER WHEN YOU DID THAT?

A: NO.

Q: YOU AND HE WOULD GO TO THE JOB TOGETHER, COME HOME TOGETHER?

A: NO, SIR. NO, MA'AM. THAT'S TWO.

Q: IT IS TWO. THAT'S OKAY. BUT YOU WOULD -- YOU DIDN'T SEE EACH OTHER THEN ON THE JOB THERE?

A: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. I THINK YOU COVERED THAT AS WELL ON THE DIRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: I THOUGHT SO.

MS. CLARK: ON DIRECT?

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. ON CROSS. IT WAS COVERED ON CROSS, THAT THEY WORK THE SAME JOB, THEY DID NOT WORK AT THE SAME TIME. WHAT'S THE JOB?

MS. CLARK: I WANT TO DO IT TOO. I AM SORRY. I'M GETTING VERY PUNCHY.

THE COURT: IT'S BEEN A LONG WEEK.

MS. CLARK: IT HAS.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ARE THERE OTHER OFFICERS OR DO OTHER OFFICERS ALSO WORK THAT SAME JOB, SIR?

A: YES. I BELIEVE THERE WAS PROBABLY 15 OF US THAT WORKED THAT LOCATION, DIFFERENT SHIFTS. IT WAS 24 HOURS AROUND THE CLOCK.

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

MS. CLARK: PEOPLE'S NEXT IN ORDER, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: 71? PEOPLE'S 71.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU. IF WE COULD MARK THIS AS PEOPLE'S 71, YOUR HONOR.

(PEO'S 71 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU -- CAN YOU SEE THAT ON THE MONITOR, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT'S BEING SHOWN THERE?

A: IT LOOKS LIKE THE REAR OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY AND THE JEEP THAT WAS PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WAS THERE ROOM TO WALK BETWEEN THE JEEP AND THE FENCE?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THERE ROOM TO PARK IN THE ALLEY BEHIND THE JEEP?

A: YES.

Q: AND WAS THERE ROOM TO PARK BEHIND THE FERRARI IN THE DRIVEWAY?

A: YES.

Q: NOW --

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

MS. CLARK: CAN YOU CUT THE FEED FOR THIS ONE, PLEASE?

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

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE NOT SEEN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: COUNSEL HAS SEEN THEM.

MR. COCHRAN: BUT I HAVE NOT SEEN THEM TODAY.

THE COURT: I BELIEVE THIS IS --

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

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

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

MS. CLARK: THIS WILL BE MARKED NEXT IN ORDER, YOUR HONOR, PEOPLE'S 72.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE'S 72.

(PEO'S 72 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SIR, YOU INDICATED DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT YOU SAW A MENU. DO YOU RECALL TESTIFYING TO THAT?

A: YES. MR. COCHRAN SHOWED ME SOMETHING ABOUT A PIZZA MAN MENU ON A STATEMENT WRITTEN BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

Q: OKAY. NOW, IN THAT STATEMENT THAT HE SHOWED YOU --

MS. CLARK: HAS THAT BEEN MARKED, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: THE STATEMENT? I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

MS. CLARK: THE REPORT?

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK IT'S FOUR PAGES.

MS. CLARK: D-1023.

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

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SHOWING YOU WHAT'S BEEN MARKED AS D-123, SIR, THE SECOND PAGE AFTER ITEM NO. 5, IT SAYS --

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, OBJECT TO THIS.

THE COURT: ARE YOU USING THIS TO REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION ON JUST TO POINT OUT SOMETHING?

MS. CLARK: I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT SOMETHING.

MR. COCHRAN: IT'S HEARSAY OTHERWISE. HAVE HIM READ IT TO HIMSELF.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU HAVE HIM READ IT TO HIMSELF AT THIS POINT.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. NOW, BASED ON YOUR READING OF THIS, DOES THIS REFER TO ONE OR TWO ITEMS?

A: TWO ITEMS.

Q: OKAY. AND ONE IS FOUND WHERE ACCORDING TO THIS NOTE?

A: ON AN UPSTAIRS COFFEE --

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I'M RELUCTANT TO OBJECT. THIS IS BEING USED FOR MEMORY REFRESHING. SHE'S NOT JUST REFERRING TO HIS NOTE. THAT'S HEARSAY.

MS. CLARK: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: CORRECT.

MS. CLARK: I'M CLEARING UP WHAT WAS DEALT WITH ON CROSS-EXAMINATION.

THE COURT: YOU NEED TO --

MR. COCHRAN: NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. LET'S WORK IT OUT.

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

MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. THERE'S A REFERENCE TO A NOTE ON AN UPSTAIRS COFFEE TABLE. DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU EVER SEE SUCH A NOTE ON A COFFEE TABLE?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. THEN DOWN HERE, THERE'S REFERENCE TO A MENU. IT SAYS, "PIZZA MENU BY FEMALE VICTIM'S LEFT LEG." DO YOU SEE THAT?

A: WELL, I SAW A MENU BY HER LEFT LEG. AND AFTER LOOKING AT THIS, I THOUGHT IT WAS A PIZZA MENU. BUT I REMEMBER NOW THAT IT WAS AN ORIENTAL MENU FROM SOME ORIENTAL TYPE RESTAURANT. IT WASN'T A PIZZA MENU.

Q: AND LOOKING AT THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT'S NOW BEEN MARKED PEOPLE'S 72 --

A: YES.

Q: -- DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT, SIR?

A: YES. THAT WAS THE ORIENTAL MENU THAT I WAS REFERRING TO THAT I INADVERTENTLY THOUGHT THAT WAS REFERRING TO.

Q: WHEN YOU SAY "THAT", YOU'RE REFERRING TO D-1023, THE PASSAGE WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT, PARAGRAPH 5?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU SAW THE DOG KATO AT THE -- AT THE BUNDY SCENE I THINK YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU KNOW OF ANY WAY TO CHECK A DOG'S TEETH TO SEE IF IT HAD BITTEN SOMEONE FOUR HOURS EARLIER?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION. ARGUMENTATIVE. IT CALLS FOR SCIENCE THAT'S OUTSIDE WITHOUT FURTHER FOUNDATION. IT'S OUTSIDE THE EXPERTISE OF THE OFFICER.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I AM SORRY?

THE COURT: ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY WAY TO TEST A DOG'S TEETH FOR HAVING BITTEN SOMEBODY RECENTLY?

MS. CLARK: NO, THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: I LIKE THAT QUESTION BETTER.

MS. CLARK: OF COURSE. CAN I TRY AGAIN, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: I LIKE MY QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: SHOULD I ANSWER YOURS?

THE COURT: WELL, I'M NOT THE LAWYER. WE'LL TRY -- I TRY TO LET THE LAWYERS TRY THEIR OWN CASES. I AM SORRY. MISS CLARK, ASK YOUR QUESTION.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. APPRECIATE IT.

THE COURT: MUCH AS I'D LIKE TO.

MS. CLARK: GO AHEAD.

THE COURT: NO. YOU DO YOUR JOB.

MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU KNOW OF ANY WAY TO CHECK A DOG'S TEETH TO SEE IF IT HAD BITTEN SOMEONE FOUR HOURS EARLIER?

A: NO.

Q: DID IT OCCUR TO YOU TO GO AND CHECK EMERGENCY ROOM MEDICAL RECORDS TO SEE IF A PERSON WHO HAD JUST KILLED TWO PEOPLE WENT AND CHECKED HIMSELF INTO AN EMERGENCY ROOM FOR A DOG BITE HE HAD GOTTEN DURING A KILLING?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: NOW, DID YOU TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SOLES OF THE SHOES OF THE FIRST OFFICERS THAT WERE ON THE SCENE?

A: YES, I DID.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE HERE A SERIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS I HAVE SHOWN TO COUNSEL. IT WOULD BE EIGHT, 12 -- 30, 30 PHOTOGRAPHS, YOUR HONOR, OF SOLES OF SHOES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I AM GOING TO HAVE MISS ROBERTSON GET A BLACK BINDER SO WE CAN PUT THOSE IN.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I TAKE IT YOU WANT THESE COLLECTIVELY AS PEOPLE'S 73?

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

(PEO'S 73 FOR ID = 30 PHOTOS, SHOE SOLES)

MS. CLARK: MAY I APPROACH?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SHOWING YOU THE ITEMS THAT HAVE NOW BEEN COLLECTIVELY MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 73 --

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: -- DO YOU RECOGNIZE --

THE COURT: THAT WAY, WE CAN PUT THEM IN A SINGLE ORDER AND THEN FLIP THROUGH THEM.

THE WITNESS: YES, I DO.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND HOW DO YOU RECOGNIZE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: I TOOK THE PHOTOGRAPHS AT WEST LOS ANGELES DETECTIVES.

Q: AT THE WEST LOS -- AT THE DETECTIVES AREA?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU TELL US WHEN THESE POLAROIDS WERE TAKEN?

A: THEY WERE TAKEN OVER A PERIOD OF SEVERAL DAYS. ALL THE OFFICERS OBVIOUSLY DON'T WORK THE SAME SHIFT, THE SAME DAY ALL AT THE SAME TIME. SO I LEFT WORD IN THE WATCH COMMANDER'S OFFICE THAT THESE PARTICULAR OFFICERS THE NEXT TIME THEY REPORTED TO WORK, TO COME UP AND SEE ME, AND THEN I CAME IN EARLY TO MEET THEM. I THEN TOOK THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THEIR SHOES. SO IT WAS OVER A PERIOD OF DAYS.

Q: BUT WAS IT WITHIN A WEEK OF THE HOMICIDES?

A: YES.

MS. CLARK: IS THERE SOME WAY WE CAN SHOW THESE TO THE JURY?

THE COURT: CAN YOU ELMO THEM ONE PAGE AT A TIME? THE ONLY PROBLEM IS, THE PROTECTIVE COVERS ON THOSE THINGS HAVE A BAD REFLECTIVE --

MS. CLARK: HAS A GLARE.

THE COURT: LET'S TRY IT.

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

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: WE NEED TO WORK HALF PAGES AT A TIME.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IS IT POSSIBLE YOU CAN JUST MOVE THE REFLECTIVE COVER JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELMOING, I MEAN JUST OPEN UP THE FLAP? YEAH. BETTER. ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, HOW ABOUT IF WE HAVE MR. FAIRTLOUGH JUST RUN THROUGH THEM, SHOW THEM A BRIEF SHOT OF EACH ONE OF THESE.

MS. CLARK: THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S SEE THE NEXT SET.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: THIS IS PAGE 543.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: PAGE 544, FIRST HALF. PAGE 547. PAGE 545, FIRST HALF. PAGE 545, SECOND HALF. PAGE 546, FIRST HALF. PAGE 546, SECOND HALF. PAGE 640, FIRST HALF. PAGE 640, SECOND HALF. PAGE 861, TWO PRINTS. PAGE 862, TWO PRINTS ONLY. PAGE 1010, TWO PRINTS ONLY. PAGE 1011, TWO PRINTS ONLY. PAGE 1174, TWO PRINTS ONLY.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: THOSE ARE THE ONES?

A: YES.

Q: SIR, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A FLAVOR OF ICE CREAM CALLED CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIE DOUGH?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU CHECK THE ICE CREAM THAT YOU FOUND IN THE BEN AND JERRY'S CUP INSIDE OF 875 BUNDY TO SEE IF THERE WERE CLUMPS OF CHOCOLATE COOKIE DOUGH IN IT?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN YOU WENT INTO THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION, SIR, YOU SAID YOU WENT IN THROUGH THE REAR DOOR --

A: YES.

Q: -- WITH ARNELLE? DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE WHETHER SHE WENT TO PUNCH IN AN ALARM KEYPAD WHEN YOU FIRST ENTERED?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: DOES THAT MEAN SHE DIDN'T DO IT?

A: I DIDN'T SEE HER DO IT. I HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER SHE DID IT OR NOT.

Q: SHE COULD HAVE. YOU JUST DON'T KNOW?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: YOU INDICATED I THINK, SIR, THAT THERE WERE LIKE -- YOU COUNTED 28 POLICE OFFICERS AT THE CRIME SCENE AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY, DIFFERENT NAMES?

A: THERE WERE 28 NAMES ON A LOG THAT SAID AT SOME TIME OR ANOTHER, THEY ARRIVED.

Q: UH-HUH. DOES THAT MEAN THAT THERE WERE 28 OFFICERS AT THAT SCENE AT THE SAME TIME?

A: COULD BE. I HAVE NO IDEA. I WASN'T KEEPING TRACK OF EVERY SINGLE OFFICER'S MOVEMENTS AND HOW MANY WERE THERE AT ANY PARTICULAR TIME.

Q: LET ME ASK YOU THIS, SIR. WAS THERE A -- DO YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN BY THE TERM "SHIFT CHANGE"?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THERE A CHANGE OF SHIFT FROM THE TIME THAT YOU FIRST WENT TO THE LOCATION OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY AT APPROXIMATELY 2:10 A.M. UNTIL 10:00 A.M. IN THE MORNING?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT?

A: THE MORNING WATCH SHIFT --

Q: HOW DOES THAT WORK?

A: -- GETS OFF AT ABOUT 7:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING AND THE DAY WATCH SHIFT COMES ON, HAS THEIR ROLL CALL 6:30 IN THE MORNING AND USUALLY HITS THE STREET BETWEEN 7:00 AND 7:15 IN THE MORNING. SO THAT'S WHEN THAT CHANGE WOULD OCCUR, AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME.

Q: UH-HUH. SO SOME OFFICERS LEAVE AT 7:15, GO OFF DUTY AND OTHERS COME ON?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT OCCURRED BETWEEN 2:00 AND 10:00 IN THE MORNING ON JUNE THE 13TH?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE. IN THIS CASE, THEY MAY NOT HAVE BEEN DONE. THEY MAY HAVE WORKED OVERTIME. OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: THEN WAS THERE A SHIFT CHANGE BETWEEN 2:00 IN THE MORNING AND 10:00 IN THE MORNING ON JUNE 13TH?

A: YES.

MS. CLARK: COULD I --

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: LET ME FIRST ASK YOU SOMETHING, SIR. DID YOU LOOK AT THE CRIME SCREEN LOG BEFORE COMING TO COURT TODAY?

A: NOT TODAY, NO.

Q: BEFORE COMING TO COURT YESTERDAY?

A: I BELIEVE I SAW IT YESTERDAY.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE WHETHER IT SHOWED OFFICERS COMING AND GOING FROM THAT CRIME SCENE?

A: WELL, THERE'S A TIME IN AND A TIME OUT ON THE CRIME SCENE LOG, YES.

Q: SO WHEN YOU WERE COUNTING ALL OF THE NAMES ON THE LIST -- LET ME SHOW IT TO YOU AND ASK YOU.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: I FORGOT MY LAST QUESTION.

THE COURT: I THINK WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE CHECKED IN AND OUT OF THE CRIME SCENE.

MS. CLARK: YES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHEN YOU WERE COUNTING ALL THE NAMES ON THE LIST, SIR, THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THEY WERE ALL THERE TOGETHER --

MR. COCHRAN: I OBJECT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DOES THAT NECESSARILY MEAN THEY WERE ALTOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME?

A: NO.

THE COURT: THIS IS A DEFENSE EXHIBIT?

MS. CLARK: 1027, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: REGARDING THIS PHOTOGRAPH, SIR, DO YOU RECALL THAT THERE WAS A PALM TREE AT THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, THE FEMALE WHO IS IN THE WHITE SHIRT LOOKING AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH, CAN YOU TELL US WHETHER SHE'S STANDING OUT ON THE SIDEWALK OR ON THE GRASS?

A: WELL, SHE'S EITHER ON THE SIDEWALK OR THE GRASS BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT SHE'S OUTSIDE OF THAT PLANTED AREA THAT'S RIGHT IN FRONT OF HER.

Q: UH-HUH. AND THE GENTLEMAN WHO'S -- LET ME USE THE LASER. CAN YOU SEE WHERE I'M POINTING WITH THE LASER, SIR? SEE THE GENTLEMAN WHOSE SHOULDER IS HERE (INDICATING)?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. CAN YOU TELL IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH WHETHER HE'S STANDING ON THAT WALKWAY WITH THE BLOOD ON IT OR WHETHER HE'S STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK AREA?

A: I CAN'T BE POSITIVE, BUT I WOULD SAY IT LOOKS LIKE HE'S PROBABLY STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION. MOVE TO STRIKE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: IT LOOKS TO YOU LIKE HE'S STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK YOU SAY?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THAT AS LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY SIR?

MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. COUNSEL CAN ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE WITNESS IS TURNED AWAY TALKING THE OTHER DIRECTION, WHICH I DIDN'T HEAR EITHER.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT DID YOU SAY, SIR?

A: I SAID IT APPEARS AS IF HE'S STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK, BUT FROM THIS ANGLE, I CAN'T BE SURE EXACTLY WHERE HE'S STANDING.

Q: UH-HUH. THIS PHOTOGRAPH, DO YOU THINK IT'S A CLEAR PHOTOGRAPH IN TERMS OF THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CRIME SCENE.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT, CRITICIZING THE PHOTOGRAPH.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. MAYBE WE CAN HAVE SOME EXPERT FROM OUR TELEPHOTO LENSES BACK HERE AS TO DISTORTION BY VARIOUS LENSES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. YOU WERE AT THE CRIME SCENE, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU KNOW THE DISTANCES BETWEEN THINGS, RIGHT?

A: ROUGHLY.

Q: DOES THIS COMPORT WITH YOUR MEMORY OF THE DISTANCES THAT YOU SAW WHEN YOU WERE THERE BETWEEN THE GATE, THE SIDEWALK, THE WALKWAY, THE PALM TREE?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THAT'S VAGUE AND THAT'S COMPOUND AND THAT'S AN UNINTELLIGIBLE QUESTION.

THE COURT: YOU KNOW, IT IS A COMPOUND QUESTION AND WE DID HAVE A VIEW OF THE SCENE BY THE JURORS. THEY DID VIEW IT FOR A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME FROM ACROSS THE STREET AND I THINK THEY KNOW THE PERSPECTIVES. I THINK THEY KNOW -- THEY TOOK NOTE OF WHERE THE PALM TREE WAS.

MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE TO ELICIT TESTIMONY, YOUR HONOR, SO I HAVE SOMETHING IN THE RECORD SO I CAN REFER BACK TO LATER.

THE COURT: WELL, YOU CAN REFER BACK TO THE VIEW OF THE SCENE.

MS. CLARK: BUT WITH RESPECT TO THIS PARTICULAR TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK SOME PARTICULAR QUESTIONS ABOUT --

MR. COCHRAN: THE COURT'S ALREADY RULED.

THE COURT: IT'S ALSO NOON.

MS. CLARK: CAN I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION THEN BEFORE WE BREAK?

THE COURT: ONE MORE.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SEE THESE OFFICERS DOWN HERE, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: WHERE DO THEY APPEAR TO BE IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE PALM TREE?

A: AGAIN, THE DEPTH PERCEPTION IS VERY BAD, BUT I WOULD SAY THEY WERE STANDING IN FRONT OF THE PALM TREE PROBABLY SOMEWHERE AROUND THE CURB OR IN THE STREET ITSELF.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE NOON HOUR. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU, DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU REGARDING THE CASE. WE'LL SEE YOU BACK HERE AT 1:30. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, YOU'RE EXCUSED AND ORDERED TO RETURN AT 1:30.

THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME SEE COUNSEL JUST BRIEFLY.

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

(AT 12:00 P.M., THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1995 1:30 P.M.

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

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL THE PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT. COUNSEL, ANYTHING WE NEED TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO JOIN US? DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

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

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