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: ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK, MR. DARDEN AND MISS LEWIS. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.

MS. LEWIS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ANYTHING WE NEED TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS IN? MR. COCHRAN? MS. LEWIS?

MS. LEWIS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. JUST BRIEFLY, YESTERDAY I FILED A MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE MOTION TO COMPEL EXPERTS NOTES AND SO FORTH, WHICH IN THE COURT'S WRITTEN RULING OF JANUARY 29 HAD ORDERED THE DEFENSE TO DISCLOSE IMMEDIATELY. I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT WAS SHORT NOTICE; HOWEVER, BECAUSE THESE ARE MATERIALS WHICH WERE PREVIOUSLY ORDERED BY THIS COURT TO BE DISCLOSED, I DON'T THINK THE NORMAL TEN-DAY PERIOD IS APPROPRIATE. SO WHAT IS THE COURT'S PLEASURE IN TERMS OF WHEN WE SHOULD CALENDAR THIS?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DOUGLAS, WHEN DO YOU THINK YOU WILL BE AVAILABLE OR ABLE TO ADDRESS THIS MATTER?

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, THE MOTION WAS FAXED TO DEAN UELMEN YESTERDAY. HE ASKED THAT WE -- THAT HE BE GIVEN UNTIL TUESDAY TO RESPOND. I WOULD ASK TO HAVE THE MATTER HEARD ON WEDNESDAY, WHICH IS LESS THAN THE TEN DAY'S NOTICE. I DO NOT THINK THAT THE MATERIALS UNDER THIS MOTION ARE PART OF THE COURT'S EARLIER DISCOVERY ORDER. I THINK, AS THE COURT WILL RECALL, WE MENTIONED THIS PARTICULAR PROBLEM AND THE NEED TO RESOLVE IT AND SO NOW IS A GOOD TIME AS ANY I THINK.

THE COURT: MISS LEWIS, ARE YOU GOING TO BE AVAILABLE WEDNESDAY?

MS. LEWIS: CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WEDNESDAY 9:00 A.M. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO COME IN?

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR. JUST THAT BEFORE -- BEFORE ANY VIDEOTAPES ARE SHOWN TO DETECTIVE LANGE, WE WANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY. SO WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT, I WOULD APPRECIATE IF COUNSEL WOULD LET US KNOW.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THIS ONE PART, I DON'T HAVE ALL OF IT YET, AND I WILL DO THAT REGARDING ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE RECEIVE, BUT MR. HARRIS CAN SHOW THE COURT THIS ONE PART. IT IS VERY, VERY SHORT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU ANTICIPATE USING THAT THIS MORNING?

MR. COCHRAN: NO, YOUR HONOR. THERE IS SO MUCH, I -- I DOUBT IT, BUT I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO LOOK AT IT. IT IS GOING TO TAKE TWO MINUTES. CAN DETECTIVE LANGE STEP OUT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: SURE.

(DETECTIVE LANGE EXITED THE COURTROOM.)

MR. COCHRAN: I DOUBT IT THIS MORNING, BUT I WOULD LIKE YOU JUST TO LOOK AT IT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. HARRIS, GOOD MORNING. DO YOU WANT TO RUN THIS FOR US, PLEASE.

MR. HARRIS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ARE THERE ANY VICTIMS?

MR. HARRIS: NO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(AT 9:15 A.M., A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK THAT IS IT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION?

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

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

MS. CLARK: IS THAT IT?

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS IT FOR NOW, MISS CLARK, AND IF THERE IS OTHERS THAT COME IN, I WILL LET YOU KNOW BEFORE I EVER SHOW IT.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

THE COURT: ANY OBJECTION?

MS. CLARK: NO OBJECTION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO COUNSEL AT THE SIDE BAR WITHOUT THE REPORTER, PLEASE.

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: DEPUTY MAGNERA.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE COURT AND DEPUTY MAGNERA.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, LET'S MOVE THE PARTIES NOW.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S FILL THE FRONT FOUR SEATS.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE. AND DEPUTY RUSSELL, CAN WE HAVE DETECTIVE LANGE, PLEASE. DEPUTY RUSSELL: YES, YOUR HONOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE LANGE, WOULD YOU PLEASE RESUME THE WITNESS STAND.

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

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

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT DETECTIVE TOM LANGE IS ON THE WITNESS STAND. GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE LANGE. YOU ARE REMINDED THAT YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH, SIR. GOOD MORNING, MR. COCHRAN. YOU MAY CONTINUE WITH YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

MR. COCHRAN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE LANGE. WHEN WE LEFT OFF YESTERDAY, SIR, I THINK WE ADDRESSED SOME ISSUES AT THE SCENE AT BUNDY AND YOU HAD SHARED WITH US, I BELIEVE, THAT IT WAS YOUR OPINION THAT MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY WAS IN FULL RIGOR, FULL RIGOR MORTIS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: OF COURSE YOU NEVER TOUCHED THE BODY, DID YOU?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: HOW DID YOU MAKE THAT DETERMINATION OF YOUR OWN INDEPENDENT KNOWLEDGE THAT SHE WAS IN FULL RIGOR WITHOUT TOUCHING THE BODY?

A: BY OBSERVING THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR EXAMINE THE BODY.

Q: SO YOU STOOD THERE AND WATCHED THEM; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, IN THAT CONNECTION YOU HAVE SHARED WITH US THAT PART OF YOUR REGULATIONS AND PART OF THE LAPD MANUAL WOULD PROHIBIT AN OFFICER FROM TOUCHING THE BODY PRIOR TO THE ARRIVAL OF THE CORONER; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: UNDER MOST CIRCUMSTANCES. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THE INVESTIGATOR MAY REQUEST THAT THE DETECTIVE ASSIST PERHAPS IN MOVING THE BODY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU OF COURSE NEVER TOUCHED THE BODY, RIGHT, BEFORE THE CORONER ARRIVED?

A: BEFORE THE CORONER ARRIVES, NO, I DON'T BELIEVE I DID.

Q: AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE -- I'M TALKING ABOUT THIS CASE?

A: YES.

Q: AND AS FAR AS YOU KNOW DETECTIVES VANNATTER, PHILLIPS NOR FUHRMAN TOUCHED THE BODY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I NEVER SAW THEM TOUCH THE BODY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU AWARE THAT OFFICER RISKE, THE FIRST PATROLMAN ON THE SCENE, TOUCHED MR. GOLDMAN'S EYE? ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?

A: ONLY THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF OFFICER RISKE.

Q: AND WHERE DID YOU SEE THAT TESTIMONY OR HEAR THAT TESTIMONY?

A: I HEARD THAT TESTIMONY.

Q: WHERE DID YOU HEAR IT? WERE YOU HERE?

A: I WAS OBSERVING IT ON TELEVISION.

Q: SO YOU WERE WATCHING TELEVISION?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU REMEMBER HE SAID HE WENT AROUND AND TOUCHED MR. GOLDMAN'S FACE I GUESS IN THE AREA OF THE EYE?

A: I THOUGHT IT WAS THE EYEBALL, MAYBE.

Q: THE EYEBALL?

A: MAYBE I AM MISTAKEN.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND OTHER THAN THAT, DO YOU KNOW OF ANYONE WHO TOUCHED THESE PARTICULAR BODIES?

A: PRIOR TO THE ARRIVAL OF THE CORONER, I DON'T BELIEVE I SAW ANYONE DO THAT.

Q: NOW, YESTERDAY YOU SHARED WITH US YOUR BELIEF THAT THERE WAS NO LIVIDITY IN THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WHILE AT THE SCENE. AND YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY?

A: I BELIEVE I TESTIFIED I DIDN'T OBSERVE ANY, THERE DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE ANY LIVIDITY.

Q: CAN YOU TELL THE COURT AND JURY WHAT IS LIVIDITY?

A: LIVIDITY IS A SINKING OF THE BLOOD IN THE BODY AFTER DEATH TO THE LOWEST POINT OF THE BODY AND THIS IS CAUSED BY A GRAVITATIONAL PULL. POSTMORTEM LIVIDITY WILL USUALLY BECOME FIXED IN THREE TO FOUR HOURS AFTER DEATH AND REMAIN FIXED.

Q: AND IS IT YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT YOU SAW NO LIVIDITY IN THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

A: THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION, YES.

Q: YOU RECALL THAT WHEN SHE WAS LAYING ON HER SIDE THERE WAS A PURPLEISH COLOR IN HER FACE, THAT YOU NOTICED CERTAIN PORTIONS OF HER BODY THAT WERE DIFFERENT COLORS?

A: I DIDN'T MAKE ANY CLOSE OBSERVATION ON LIVIDITY.

Q: DID YOU AT ANY TIME SEE HER BODY WHEN THE BLACK DRESS SHE WAS WEARING WAS IN ANY WAY PULLED UP SO IT WOULD REVEAL HER BODY

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE WITNESS: I MAY HAVE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND DO YOU RECALL SEEING LIVIDITY OR ANY DISCOLORATION OF THE SKIN AT THAT POINT?

A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING ANYTHING THAT I WOULD CALL MARKED LIVIDITY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU SAY "MARKED LIVIDITY," DID YOU SEE ANY LIVIDITY AT ALL, SIR, AS YOU THINK ABOUT IT NOW? AND YOU CAN FEEL FREE TO LOOK AT YOUR NOTES IF YOU HAVE NOTES IN THAT REGARD.

A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING ANY LIVIDITY. THAT IS NOT SAY THAT IT WASN'T THERE. THAT IS TO SAY THAT THAT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT I PARTICULARLY LOOKED FOR.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, YESTERDAY YOU SHARED WITH US THAT YOU HAD -- THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT THE CORONER'S OFFICE HAD TAKEN A LIVER TEMPERATURE OF MISS NICOLE BROWN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU RECORDED A NUMBER OF 82 FOR US AND YOU RECORDED THAT AS ABOUT 10:30 TO 10:40 A.M. ON JUNE 13; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: NOW, IN ORDER TO TAKE A LIVER TEMPERATURE DID YOU SEE THE CORONER ACTUALLY USE A SCALPEL TO ACTUALLY TAKE THE LIVER TEMPERATURE IN THIS CASE? DID YOU SEE THAT?

A: THAT IS THE METHOD THAT IS NORMALLY EMPLOYED BY THEM, YES.

Q: SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, THE METHOD IS THAT -- THE LIVER IS SOMEWHERE UNDER THE DIAPHRAGM, UNDER THE RIB CAGE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: IT IS A LITTLE LOWER THAN THAT, BUT YES.

Q: AND IN ORDER TO TAKE THIS LIVER TEMPERATURE THEY HAVE TO MAKE AN INCISION, PUT A HOLE IN THERE AND THEY TAKE THE TEMPERATURE THAT WAY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN THIS HAPPENED?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: FOR EITHER ONE OF THE BODIES?

A: I WAS PRESENT FOR MR. GOLDMAN. AS FAR AS MRS. SIMPSON, I BELIEVE THAT WAS DONE IN THE VAN, SO I DIDN'T ACTUALLY OBSERVE THAT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO WITH REGARD TO MRS. SIMPSON -- AND YOU WERE TOLD BY SOMEBODY THAT THIS WAS DONE OR YOU WERE JUST TOLD THE RESULTS?

A: NO. IT IS MY RECOLLECTION I BELIEVE I -- I REQUESTED OF THE INVESTIGATOR TO DO A LIVER TEMP. I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS DONE IMMEDIATELY WHEN THE BODY WAS REMOVED.

Q: AND SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, WHY DID YOU WANT TO HAVE A LIVER TEMPERATURE DONE, SIR?

A: IT COULD BE AN INDICATOR TO ASSIST ONE IN ESTABLISHING AN APPROXIMATE TIME OF DEATH.

Q: IN FACT, IN YOUR TWENTY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, YOU HAVE ALMOST ALWAYS TRIED TO GET LIVER TEMPERATURE WHERE POSSIBLE, WHERE YOU ARE ON THE SCENE WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS THE TIME OF DEATH; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE APPEARANCE OF THE BODY. AS AN EXAMPLE, ONE WOULDN'T WANT TO NECESSARILY DO THAT IF YOU HAD A DECOMPOSED BODY OR A BLOATED BODY.

Q: I UNDERSTAND THAT.

A: UNDER -- UNDER MOST CIRCUMSTANCES, IF YOU CAN GET A LIVER TEMPERATURE, THEN THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT IS A NORMAL THING UNDER MOST CIRCUMSTANCES. AND IN THIS INSTANCE, WITH REGARD TO MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, YOU WERE NOT PRESENT. AND DO YOU KNOW HOW THE LIVER TEMPERATURE WAS ACTUALLY TAKEN? DO YOU KNOW THAT FOR A FACT?

A: AGAIN, I DON'T RECALL OBSERVING IT MYSELF.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, A COUPLE DAYS LATER, ON THE 14TH OR THEREABOUTS, OR DAY OR SO LATER, YOU ATTENDED AN AUTOPSY IN THIS MATTER, DID YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND SO YOU WERE PRESENT WHEN THESE BODIES WERE AUTOPSIED; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: AND AT THAT TIME DID YOU SEE ANY KIND OF A ROUND HOLE IN THE BODY AT OR ABOUT THE PLACE WHERE THE LIVER WOULD BE, DO YOU REMEMBER, ON MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

A: I WOULDN'T HAVE LOOKED FOR ONE, SO I DON'T RECALL SEE ONE.

Q: SO YOU DON'T RECALL ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SO AT ANY RATE, WITHOUT SEEING THIS, YOU WERE ADVISED THAT THE LIVER TEMPERATURE WAS 82 BY THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR, MS. RATCLIFFE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO MR. GOLDMAN, YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THAT THAT -- LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. SOME SHEETS WERE PLACED DOWN UNDER THESE BODY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: NO. THE -- THERE WAS A PLASTIC SHEET PLACED OUT ON THE WALKWAY.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: AND THE BODIES WERE MOVED ONTO THE PLASTIC SHEET WHERE THE -- WHERE THEY WERE EXAMINED FOR SUCH THINGS AS RIGOR MORTIS AND LIVER TEMPERATURE AND THESE TYPES OF THINGS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AFTER THE EXAMINATION WAS CONCLUDED WITH REGARD TO MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, WAS THE SHEET LEFT THERE AND THE BODY WAS TAKEN AWAY?

A: NO. THE PLASTIC SHEET THAT SHE WAS ON REMAINED WITH HER. SHE WAS WRAPPED IN THAT SHEET.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WAS THERE SOME OTHER KIND OF SHEET LEFT THERE UNDER THE PLASTIC SHEET AFTER THE BODY WAS TAKEN AWAY?

A: THERE WAS A LIGHT COTTON BLANKET THAT WAS THERE, YES.

Q ALL RIGHT. AND THAT LIGHT COTTON BLANKET HAD BEEN PUT DOWN AT WHAT TIME, IF YOU RECALL?

A: I DON'T RECALL. IT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE BEEN SOMETIME AROUND 7:30 A.M. PERHAPS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AFTER YOU HAD COME BACK FROM THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW -- AND THEN AFTER MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY HAD BEEN MOVED, THEN MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS LIFTED AND PUT SOMEWHERE IN THAT AREA, SOMEWHERE NEAR WHERE HER BODY HAD BEEN? IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WAS HE PUT -- THERE WAS A PLASTIC SHEET PUT AROUND HIS BODY ALSO?

A: THE PLASTIC SHEET WAS LAID DOWN FIRST ON THE WALKWAY AND HE WAS PLACED ON TOP OF THAT SHEET.

Q: DID YOU AT ALL ASSIST THE CORONER'S REPRESENTATIVES IN MOVING THAT BODY OUT OF THIS VERY SMALL AREA WE DESCRIBED YESTERDAY OVER ONTO THE SHEET, MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY?

A: I DON'T RECALL IF I ASSISTED THEM OR NOT. I DON'T BELIEVE SO, BECAUSE OF THE CONFINED SPACE.

Q: THE SMALL SPACE?

A: I MAY HAVE ASSISTED IN SOME SLIGHT WAY, BUT I DON'T RECALL.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WITH REGARD TO MR. GOLDMAN, NOW WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN THE LIVER TEMPERATURE WAS TAKEN?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU -- WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU SEE THE CORONER DO IN TAKING HIS LIVER TEMPERATURE?

A: MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT IT WAS TAKEN IN THE CONVENTIONAL WAY.

Q: AND BY THAT WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "CONVENTIONAL WAY"?

A: THERE WAS A CUT MADE AROUND THE AREA AND THE THERMOMETER WAS INSERTED, TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION.

Q: AND AS YOU SIT HERE NOW CAN YOU VISUALIZE THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENING? THINK BACK.

A: I RECALL SEEING THE -- I WAS DOING SEVERAL THINGS WHILE THIS WAS GOING ON. I WAS AWARE THAT IT WAS GOING ON. MY ONLY VIVID RECOLLECTION IS OF THE THERMOMETER IN THE BODY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU RECALL SEEING THE THERMOMETER STUCK IN THE BODY?

A: I RECALL SEEING IT IN THERE, YES.

Q: OKAY. AND WHAT WAS THE LIVER TEMPERATURE OF MR. GOLDMAN THAT YOU RECEIVED?

A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS ALSO --

Q: IF YOU NEED YOUR NOTES AT ANY POINT, LET US KNOW.

A: OKAY. I BELIEVE THAT WAS ALSO 82 DEGREES.

Q: 82 DEGREES?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE AMBIENT TEMPERATURE WAS ABOUT THE SAME AS YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY?

A: YES, 70 DEGREES.

Q: 70 DEGREES ON JUNE 13?

A: YES.

Q: BY THE WAY, DID YOU EVER HAVE OCCASION, DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, TO DETERMINE THE AMBIENT TEMPERATURE AT ABOUT BETWEEN 11:00 AND TWELVE O'CLOCK P.M. ON JUNE 12?

A: I MAY WELL HAVE. I REQUESTED VARIOUS RECORDS FROM I BELIEVE THE NATIONAL WEATHER BUREAU, AND WITHOUT CHECKING THOSE, I COULDN'T TELL YOU JUST HOW FAR THEY WENT BACK.

Q: WELL, DO YOU HAVE SOME NOTES THAT WILL REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION IN THAT REGARD?

A: I HAVE A WEATHER SERVICE REPORT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU GET THAT FOR US? CAN WE GET THAT FOR YOU?

A: FINE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, WHERE DO WE LOOK?

A: WELL, IT MIGHT TAKE A MOMENT HERE.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, IF THE COURT WOULD ALLOW, I WILL ASK.

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE WITNESS: I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE REPORT.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

THE WITNESS: CONSISTING OF SEVERAL PAGES DATED AUGUST 10, 1994. I ALSO HAVE A NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE REPORT DATED JUNE 12, 1994. THERE ARE QUITE A FEW FIGURES ON HERE. IT MAY TAKE A MOMENT TO -- IS THAT 11:00 P.M.?

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: BETWEEN 11:00 AND TWELVE MIDNIGHT ON JUNE 12?

A: HERE WE GO.

THE COURT: DO YOU NEED A STRAIGHT EDGE, DETECTIVE LANGE?

THE WITNESS: WELL, I THINK I HAVE IT HERE, YOUR HONOR. IT APPEARS THAT AT 2351, WHICH WOULD BE 11:51 P.M., THE TEMPERATURE WAS 64 DEGREES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU COMPARE THIS WITH THIS OTHER GAUGE YOU HAVE FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, SIR?

THE COURT: DETECTIVE LANGE, YOU ARE LOSING YOUR MICROPHONE.

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

THE WITNESS: AT THE SANTA MONICA STATION ON THE OTHER REPORT STATES THAT AT 11:46 P.M., 66 DEGREES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND THE FIRST ONE THAT YOU READ, IS THAT FOR LOS ANGELES OR SANTA MONICA OR BRENTWOOD OR DO YOU KNOW?

A: I BELIEVE IT IS LAX, BUT I WOULD HAVE TO DOUBLE-CHECK HERE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO CAN WE -- AND YOU WERE AROUND THAT MORNING, HAVING GOTTEN UP AND COME FROM YOUR HOME, SO WOULD YOU -- WOULD YOU BELIEVE THAT THE TEMPERATURE WAS PROBABLY SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 64 TO 66, SOMEWHERE BETWEEN, SAY, 11:00 AND MIDNIGHT ON JUNE 12?

A: I --

Q: WOULD THAT BE A FAIR STATEMENT?

A: I WOULD SAY THAT WAS FAIR, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, SO WITH REGARD TO MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY, YOU WERE THEN GIVEN THIS 82 LIVER TEMPERATURE AND THE AMBIENT TEMPERATURE WAS 70 AND THEN HIS BODY WAS THEN MOVED FROM THE LOCATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, THESE BODIES WERE MOVED FROM THE BUNDY LOCATION BY THE CORONER'S REPRESENTATIVES ABOUT WHAT TIME ON JUNE 13, 1994?

A: APPROXIMATELY 10:30 OR 10:40 A.M.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW --

A: PERHAPS A LITTLE BEFORE THAT.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO MR. GOLDMAN'S SHOES, CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE JURY THE KIND OF SHOES HE WAS WEARING?

A: I WOULD CALL THEM CLOTH TYPE ATHLETIC BOOTS. THEY WERE -- THE BOTTOMS WERE RUBBER. APPEARED TO BE RUBBER. THEY APPEARED TO BE SOME TYPE OF ATHLETIC BOOTS, AND IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, THERE WAS A -- A CLOTH UPPER PART THAT WENT ALL THE WAY TO MID-CALF PERHAPS.

Q: AND THEY HAD SOME KIND OF A PATTERNED SOLE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: NOW, IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION YOU HAD OCCASION, DID YOU NOT, TO TRY AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT YOU SAW THE PATTERN THAT WAS DISPLAYED ON MR. GOLDMAN'S SHOES, WHETHER OR NOT YOU SAW THAT PATTERN IN ANY OF THAT BLOOD, WHETHER YOU HAD ANY BLOODY FOOTPRINTS FROM HIS SHOES? YOU CHECKED THAT, DIDN'T YOU?

A: I MAY HAVE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU DIDN'T FIND ANY PATTERN THAT MATCHED MR. GOLDMAN'S SHOES IN ANY OF THAT BLOOD THERE THAT DAY, DID YOU?

A: IF I HAD, I WOULD HAVE NOTED IT.

Q: AND YOU DIDN'T FIND ANY, DID YOU?

A: NO.

Q: SO AS FAR AS THE FACTS THAT EVENING, WE KNOW YOU WEREN'T THERE, SO WE HAVE TO THEORIZE ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS? IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, THAT IS PRELIMINARY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: I GENERALLY WOULD NOT THEORIZE. I WOULD GO WITH THE EVIDENCE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. BUT I'M SAYING WITH REGARD TO WHO WAS KILLED FIRST, YOU WERE NOT THERE, WERE YOU?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO IF YOU SPECULATE AS TO SOMETHING, IT IS -- THAT IS A THEORY, ISN'T IT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MS. CLARK: CONCLUSION.

THE WITNESS: AS FAR AS WHO WAS KILLED FIRST?

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YES.

A: IT WOULD BE SPECULATION BECAUSE I MIGHT HAVE TWO OR THREE VERSIONS OF WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED, ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS THERE IS ONLY ONE BODY THAT WILL MAKE THAT DETERMINATION IN THIS CASE, ISN'T THAT RIGHT, AND THAT IS THE TWELVE PEOPLE OVER THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION.

THE COURT: THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

MR. COCHRAN: ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

Q: NOW, SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, THE PATTERNS ON MR. GOLDMAN'S SHOES, YOU DID NOT FIND THOSE PATTERNS IN ANY OF THAT BLOOD WHICH WAS VERY PLENTIFUL THERE AT THE SCENE AT BUNDY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THERE WAS PLENTY OF BLOOD, YES.

Q: AND YOU DID NOT FIND THE PATTERN OF THOSE SHOES; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: IF I WERE TO SHOW YOU -- SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, I WOULD LIKE TO MARK AN EXHIBIT, COUNSEL.

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

THE COURT: 1028.

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT IS OUR NEXT ONE?

THE COURT: 1028.

(DEFT'S 1028 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE SHOWN THIS TO COUNSEL. MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE WHAT PURPORTS TO BE A WHITE PATTERNED ATHLETIC SHOE.

Q: AND I WOULD LIKE TO PLACE THIS BEFORE DETECTIVE LANGE AND ASK HIM, DOES THAT APPEAR TO YOU TO BE A FAIR PORTRAYAL OF THE BOTTOM OF MR. GOLDMAN'S SHOE THAT APPEARED AT THE CORONER'S OFFICE THERE WHERE THAT PICTURE WAS ALLEGEDLY TAKEN?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE THIS WAS TAKEN AT THE CORONER'S OFFICE, SIR.

Q: WHERE WAS IT TAKEN?

A: THIS APPEARS TO BE TAKEN AT THE CRIME SCENE.

Q: OKAY.

A: YES, THAT APPEARS TO BE MR. GOLDMAN'S RIGHT FOOT, THE BOTTOM OF HIS SHOE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DO YOU WANT TO CHECK ANY NOTES TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU DID NOT SEE OR FIND THAT PATTERN ANYWHERE? ARE YOU PRETTY SURE ABOUT THAT?

A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT PATTERN.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: I HAVE SEVERAL PAGES OF NOTES. I COULD REVIEW THEM, I SUPPOSE, BUT I DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT THERE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IF DURING THE BREAK, IF YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND ON THAT OR CHANGE YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU WILL LET US KNOW?

A: I CERTAINLY WILL.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WITH REGARD TO -- AND THIS PICTURE -- PICTURE HERE, 1028, WAS, AS BEST YOU CAN TELL, TAKEN AT THE SCENE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THERE IS A PERSON DRESSED IN BLUE WHO HAS A GLOVE ON. DO YOU RECALL SEEING ONE OF THE CORONER'S REPRESENTATIVES WITH A GLOVE ON?

A: YES.

Q: THAT MORNING?

A: YES.

Q: DID -- WERE YOU ABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE CORONERS, IN MOVING THE BODY, GOT OR TOUCHED MR. GOLDMAN'S SHOES WITH THE BLOOD THAT WAS THERE? DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: I'M NOT SURE I'M CLEAR ON YOUR QUESTION.

Q: AT ANY POINT WHEN YOU WERE AT THE SCENE, WHEN THE CORONER'S REPRESENTATIVES MOVED MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY FROM ONE LOCATION TO THE OTHER, DID YOU SEE THEM HAVE HIS SHOES COME IN CONTACT WITH ANY OF THAT BLOOD THAT WAS THERE ON THE SIDEWALK AND AROUND?

A: I DON'T RECALL EVER SEEING THE SHOES COME IN CONTACT WITH ANY BLOOD.

Q: YOU DID AT SOME POINT SEE STAINS ON THE SHOES, DID YOU NOT, BLOOD STAINS?

A: YES.

Q: BOTH ON THE TOP OF THE SHOES AND KIND OF UNDER AND TO THE SIDE OF THE SHOES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

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

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I HAVE JUST ONE SECOND?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. SORRY.

Q: WHILE AT THE SCENE THERE DID YOU EVER INSTRUCT THE CORONER'S REPRESENTATIVES TO BAG THE HANDS OF BOTH MR. SIMPSON AND MRS. -- MRS. SIMPSON AND MR. GOLDMAN?

A: NO.

Q: AND WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE OF BAGGING HANDS, REGARDING DECEDENTS?

A: IF THERE APPEARS TO BE PERHAPS EVIDENCE ON THE HANDS OR IF THERE WAS PERHAPS A FIREARM INVOLVED, THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR MAY IN FACT WANT TO BAG THE HANDS.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT IN THIS CASE.

Q: YOU DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT?

A: NO.

Q: AND IF THERE WERE EVIDENCE, LET'S SAY, UNDER MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S FINGERNAILS, BAGGING THE HANDS WOULD HELP PRESERVE ANY TRACE EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT BE UNDER HER FINGERNAILS OR ON HER HANDS; ISN'T THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS WITNESS' EXPERTISE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER.

MS. CLARK: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: AGAIN THAT WOULD BE SPECULATIVE ON MY PART. I --

Q: WELL, LET'S SEE NOW. YOU ARE A HOMICIDE DETECTIVE OF OVER TWENTY YEARS EXPERIENCE, RIGHT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS FOUNDATIONAL.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THE WAY IT IS PHRASED IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU ARE A HOMICIDE DETECTIVE OF TWENTY YEARS EXPERIENCE, AREN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN THAT CONNECTION YOU HAVE SEEN HANDS BAGGED BEFORE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: AND IF YOU KNEW THERE WERE TRACE EVIDENCE UNDER THE FINGERNAILS OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO TRY AND PRESERVE THAT?

A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS PRESERVED WITHOUT THE BAGS IS WHAT I'M GETTING AT.

Q: THE QUESTION IS WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO TRY AND PRESERVE THAT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: CERTAINLY.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND WOULDN'T THE BEST WAY TO PRESERVE IT SO IT WOULDN'T BECOME DEGRADED OR CONTAMINATED IN ANY WAY WOULD BE TO PUT BAGS OVER THE HANDS SO THEY ARE PROTECTED FOR LATER ANALYSIS? ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: WELL, THAT IS ONE WAY. THERE ARE OTHER WAYS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT ARE THE OTHER WAYS?

A: TO WRAP THE BODY IN PLASTIC AND PRESERVE THE WHOLE BODY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID THE CORONER'S OFFICE DO THAT IN THIS CASE?

A: YES.

Q: THEY WRAPPED THE BODY IN PLASTIC, BOTH BODIES?

A: PLASTIC -- THE BODIES WERE WRAPPED IN A PLASTIC SHEET INITIALLY, YES.

Q: BUT WHEN YOU WRAP THE BODY IN PLASTIC SHEETS, DON'T YOU THEN WRAP ALL OF THE CLOTHES AND ANY TRACE EVIDENCE ON THE CLOTHES IS ALL WRAPPED UP AND BROUGHT TOGETHER? ISN'T THAT ANOTHER DOWN SIDE OF THAT?

A: NO. THAT IS EXACTLY THE PURPOSE IN DOING THAT, TO KEEP EVERYTHING TOGETHER.

Q: I SEE. SO IN THIS CASE YOU ARE SAYING TO US THAT A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO BAGGING THE HANDS IS TO WRAP THESE BODIES IN PLASTIC?

MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. BEYOND THIS WITNESS' EXPERTISE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I'M NOT NECESSARILY SAYING THAT. I'M SAYING THAT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS OF DOING THINGS --

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. BUT CERTAINLY BAGGING THE HANDS WOULD --

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, YOU NEED TO LET HIM FINISH HIS ANSWER.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I'M SORRY. EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR.

Q: DID YOU FINISH?

A: I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD THAT THIS IS COMMON, VERY COMMON IN GUNSHOT CASES WHERE PERHAPS YOU WANT TO PRESERVE THE HANDS TO TAKE GUNSHOT RESIDUE EXAMINATIONS ON THE HANDS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, IN THIS CASE WE DIDN'T HAVE GUNSHOTS, SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU, IS THAT ONE OF THE WAYS OF PRESERVING TRACE EVIDENCE UNDER FINGERNAILS AND ON THE HAND WOULD HAVE BEEN TO BAG THE HANDS; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: I SUPPOSE ONE COULD SAY THAT.

Q: AND THAT WAS NOT DONE, WAS IT?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS.

Q: FOR EITHER MISS SIMPSON OR MR. GOLDMAN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, YESTERDAY YOU HAD TOLD US IN YOUR DISCUSSION OF RIGOR MORTIS, YOU GAVE US, I BELIEVE, A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT YOU BELIEVE RIGOR MORTIS TO BE AND I BELIEVE YOU TOLD US THAT YOU BELIEVE IT WAS COAGULATION OF PROTEINS IN THE BLOOD. DO YOU REMEMBER SAYING THAT YESTERDAY?

A: IT IS A STIFFENING OF THE MUSCLES IN THE BODY AFTER DEATH CAUSED BY A COAGULATION OF THE BLOOD IN THE MUSCLES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IS IT NOT TRUE THAT RIGOR MORTIS IS CAUSED BY THE COAGULATION OF PROTEINS IN MUSCLE AND NOT -- NOT PROTEINS IN THE BLOOD? IT IS THE COAGULATION OF PROTEINS IN THE MUSCLE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THIS IS BEYOND THE WITNESS' EXPERTISE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: BLOOD AND BLOOD THAT WOULD BE IN THE MUSCLE TISSUE.

Q: IN THE MUSCLE TISSUE?

A: YES.

MS. CLARK: I GUESS NOT. WITHDRAWN.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU NOTICE ANY KIND OF PURPLEISH COLOR TO MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S FACE AS SHE LAID AT THE SCENE THERE?

A: I DON'T RECALL ANY PURPLEISH COLOR.

Q: YOU DON'T RECALL THAT?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO MR. GOLDMAN, BECAUSE OF THE STRUGGLE HE WAS INVOLVED IN, WASN'T THAT AN INDICATION TO YOU, AS A SEASONED HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR, THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO PRESERVE ANY POSSIBLE TRACE EVIDENCE UNDER HIS FINGERNAILS ALSO?

A: THAT WOULD BE A CONSIDERATION, YES.

Q: AND DID YOU THINK ABOUT THAT THAT MORNING?

A: CERTAINLY.

Q: AND DID YOU THEN INSTRUCT THE CORONER TO BAG THE HANDS?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE CORONER, WE KNOW THAT THE CORONER'S REPRESENTATIVES GOT THERE AT ABOUT 9:10 AND 9:20; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: APPROXIMATELY, YES.

Q: AT WHAT POINT DID YOU INSTRUCT OR DID YOU CALL FOR THE CRIMINALIST TO COME TO THE SCENE?

A: I DID NOT SPECIFICALLY REQUEST THE CRIMINALIST TO THE SCENE. THE CRIMINALIST HAD BEEN ORIGINALLY DISPATCHED TO THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION AND IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN THE CRIMINALIST WAS THROUGH AT ROCKINGHAM THEY WOULD PROCEED TO BUNDY.

Q: LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND THIS. THE CRIMINALIST IN THIS CASE WENT TO ROCKINGHAM FIRST BEFORE THEY CAME TO THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WHO CALLED THEM TO COME TO THE ROCKINGHAM CRIME SCENE -- ROCKINGHAM SCENE?

A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS DONE BY MY PARTNER.

Q: AND WHAT YOUR PARTNER'S NAME?

A: VANNATTER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, SO THERE IS NO CONFUSION, AS BETWEEN YOU AND VANNATTER, WITH REGARD TO TIME IN GRADE AS A HOMICIDE DETECTIVE, IS HE SENIOR TO YOU?

A: NOT AS A HOMICIDE DETECTIVE, BUT TIME AND GRADE AND RANK HE IS PERHAPS THREE MONTHS SENIOR TO ME IN RANK.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO HE OUTRANKS YOU AT THE SCENE THERE?

A: THAT IS NOT REALLY THE WAY IT WORKS.

Q: WELL, I'M JUST ASKING YOU FROM THE STANDPOINT OF TIME AND GRADE IN THIS POSITION, FIRST OF ALL?

A: AS FAR AS OUR RANK STRUCTURE, YES, BY THREE MONTHS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BY THREE MONTHS?

A: HE WAS PROMOTED THREE MONTHS BEFORE I WAS.

Q: OKAY. NOW, SO THAT THE JURY IS CLEAR, THOUGH, AS BETWEEN YOU AND VANNATTER, WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THIS INVESTIGATION ON THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 12, JUNE 13 -- JUNE 13 ACTUALLY?

A: IT IS A RESPONSIBILITY THAT WOULD BE SHARED BY BOTH PARTNERS.

Q: SO YOU WERE CO-LEADERS?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU BOTH HAD EQUAL RESPONSIBILITY?

A: INITIALLY AT A CRIME SCENE THAT IS THE WAY IT STARTS OUT. IT DEPENDS. ALL CRIME SCENES ARE DIFFERENT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR CRIME SCENE. WHEN THIS CASE STARTED OUT, HE ARRIVED FIRST; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: HE WAS SENIOR IN GRADE, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT WILL NEVER CHANGE? THOSE THINGS WILL NEVER CHANGE, WILL THEY?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WITH REGARD TO HOW THE INVESTIGATION OF THIS CASE HAS CONTINUED, HAVE YOU CONTINUED AS CO-LEAD INVESTIGATORS IN THIS CASE?

A: YES.

Q: TO THIS DAY?

A: WELL, THE -- THE ROLES HAVE SOMEWHAT CHANGED AROUND A BIT, BUT BASICALLY THAT IS WHAT WE DO, WE WORK AS PARTNERS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU HAVE WORKED AS PARTNERS FOR HOW LONG?

A: WITH VANNATTER?

Q: YES, WITH VANNATTER?

A: I WANT TO SAY AS A REGULAR PARTNER APPROXIMATELY FOUR TO FIVE YEARS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHAT TIME DID THE CRIMINALISTS ARRIVE AT THE ROCKINGHAM SCENE, IF YOU KNOW, THAT MORNING, JUNE 13?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 10:10 A.M.

Q: AND THAT IS AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: I'M SORRY. I WASN'T AT ROCKINGHAM WHEN THE CRIMINALISTS ARRIVED.

Q: SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME THEY GOT THERE. WOULD THE LOG OR REVIEW OF THE LOG ASSIST YOU IN THAT REGARD AND REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A: CERTAINLY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. COCHRAN: I AM PLACING BEFORE THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR, DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 1006 AND I WILL ASK HIM TO READ IT TO HIMSELF AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT A REVIEW OF THAT DOCUMENT WOULD REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION REGARDING WITH TIME THE CRIMINALISTS ARRIVED AT THE ROCKINGHAM SCENE.

THE WITNESS: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) I BELIEVE THIS IS THE BUNDY LOG YOU HAVE HERE, SIR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. THAT IS THE BUNDY LOG?

A: YES.

Q: IS THERE A ROCKINGHAM LOG?

A: I AM NOT AWARE OF ONE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN A ROCKINGHAM LOG?

A: I AM NOT AWARE OF ONE.

Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY NOTES THAT WILL REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION WITH REGARD TO WHAT TIME THEY ARRIVED THERE?

A: I WASN'T THERE.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: SO I WOULDN'T --

Q: LET'S TRACE BACK. YOU ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM AT ABOUT 5:00 OR 5:00 A.M. IN THE MORNING?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 5:05 A.M.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU LEFT ABOUT 6:35, 6:45 IN THE MORNING?

A: ABOUT 6:45, YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU -- WHEN YOU LEFT AT 6:45 THEY HAD NOT ARRIVED?

A: THE CRIMINALISTS?

Q: THE CRIMINALISTS.

A: THEY HAD NOT ARRIVED, CORRECT.

Q: HAD THEY BEEN SUMMONED AT THAT POINT?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS ABOUT THE TIME I LEFT THAT I WAS TOLD A CRIMINALIST WAS GOING TO COME BY THE LOCATION TO DO A PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON THE VEHICLE AND THEN PROCEED TO BUNDY RIGHT AFTER THAT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHO TOLD YOU THAT?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS VANNATTER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND VANNATTER REMAINED AT THE -- AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU WENT BACK OVER TO BUNDY?

A: CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO IT WAS SOME TIME AFTER 6:45 THIS MORNING THAT THEY ARRIVED; IS THAT CORRECT, AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: THAT WOULD BE MY ASSUMPTION, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND SINCE YOU WEREN'T THERE YOU DON'T KNOW THE EXACT TIME, BUT WE KNOW THAT THEY ARRIVED AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE AT WHAT TIME?

A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY 10:10 A.M.

Q: AND THE BODIES WERE STILL THERE AT THAT POINT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN THE CRIMINALISTS ARRIVED -- LET'S GIVE THESE CRIMINALISTS SOME NAMES. YOU SAW MAZZOLLA, DID YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU SAW FUNG? YOU SAW TWO OF THEM; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN THEY ARRIVED AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE DID YOU GIVE THEM SOME INSTRUCTIONS?

A: NOT IMMEDIATELY, BUT SHORTLY THEREAFTER, YES.

Q: AND AS YOU HAD DONE WITH RATCLIFFE, THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR, YOU WOULD TAKE -- YOU TOOK RATCLIFFE AROUND THE SCENE AND ADVISED HER OF WHAT YOU HAD THERE AND WHAT YOU HAD FOUND; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: AT THE LOCATIONS OF THE BODIES AND JUST SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE HOUSE IN THE UPPER BEDROOM, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WITH REGARD TO THE ARRIVAL OF THE CRIMINALISTS, DID YOU TAKE THEM AROUND AND SHOW THEM WHAT YOU HAD THERE?

A: YES.

Q: AND IT IS IMPORTANT, IS IT NOT, DETECTIVE, FOR YOU TO COLLECT APPROPRIATELY EVIDENCE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO IT CAN BE SUBJECTED TO ANALYSIS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE? THAT IS APPROPRIATE, IS IT NOT?

A: WELL, IT WOULD BE PREFERABLE, BUT THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS HAPPEN.

Q: WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT. LET'S TALK ABOUT IT BEING PREFERABLE. YOU WOULD ALWAYS PREFER TO HAVE THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED AS SOON AS YOU SEE IT OR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: AGAIN, YOU WOULD PREFER THAT, BUT IT DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY.

Q: WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS: YOU SAID IN YOUR TESTIMONY YOU SAW SOME BLOOD SPOTS ON THE BACK -- ON THE REAR GATE THERE AT BUNDY, ON JUNE 13, 1994; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: THOSE SPOTS HAD BEEN POINTED OUT TO YOU BY DETECTIVE PHILLIPS?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU IN TURN POINTED THEM OUT TO MR. FUNG?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID YOU DIRECT MR. FUNG TO COLLECT THOSE PARTICULAR BLOOD SPOTS?

A: I DIRECTED HIM TO DO THAT AND I BELIEVE I MENTIONED TO CHECK THE ENTIRE GATE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU EXPECTED THAT TO BE DONE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, IT WAS NOT DONE ON JUNE 13TH, WAS IT?

A: NO.

Q: IN FACT, IT WASN'T DONE ON JUNE 14TH, WAS IT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND NEITHER THE 15TH?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: I WON'T GO ANY FURTHER.

Q: IN FACT, IT WAS NOT DONE UNTIL JULY 3RD, THREE WEEKS LATER; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SO DID FUNG COME BACK OUT THERE ON JULY 3RD? IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, YOU ARE AWARE THAT THE -- THIS CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY HAD BEEN WASHED DOWN AT SOME POINT ON JUNE 13 OR JUNE 14; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I AM AWARE THAT THE FRONT WALKWAY WAS WASHED DOWN.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT DATE WAS THAT?

A: I DON'T KNOW. I ASSUMED IT WAS A DAY OR TWO AFTER THE CRIME SCENE WAS STRUCK.

Q: WOULD I BE SAFE IN SAYING IT WAS DONE -- IT WAS WASHED DOWN AT LEAST BY THE 14TH OF JUNE, SIR? WOULD THAT BE SAFE?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: A DAY OR TWO AFTER JUNE 13TH WOULD BE THE 14TH OR 15TH, RIGHT?

A: I JUST ASSUMED THAT. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN IT WAS WASHED DOWN.

Q: ALL RIGHT. CERTAINLY THE CRIME SCENE ITSELF WAS BROKEN DOWN BY THREE O'CLOCK OR SO IN THE AFTERNOON ON THE 13TH; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU READ THE LOG YESTERDAY, RIGHT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THAT MEANT THAT PEOPLE WERE FREE TO GO AND COME WITH REGARD TO THOSE PREMISES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: NO.

Q: THAT MEANT THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAD FINISHED THEIR BUSINESS AT THAT LOCATION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: NO.

Q: SIR, IF YOU HAD KNOWN THAT FUNG HAD NOT COLLECTED AND SOUGHT TO PRESERVE ANY BLOOD SPOTS THAT WERE ALLEGEDLY ON THIS BACK FENCE, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE RELEASED THAT CRIME SCENE, WOULD YOU HAVE?

A: I WOULDN'T HAVE.

Q: YOU WOULDN'T HAVE, WOULD YOU?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. BUT IT WAS RELEASED ON THE 13TH; ISN'T THAT CORRECT.

A: NO, IT WAS NOT RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC.

Q: WELL -- LET'S SEE NOW. WAS THE CRIME SCENE RELEASED ON THE 13TH, SIR?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THIS IS ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: CRIME SCENE WAS SECURED. THE RESIDENCE WAS SECURED, THE GATES WERE LOCKED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WAS THE CRIME SCENE RELEASED ON THE 13TH, DETECTIVE LANGE?

A: WE COMPLETED OUR INITIAL CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION ON THE 13TH, YES, BUT I GOT THE INFERENCE THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO SAY IT WAS OPENED TO THE PUBLIC AND THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

Q: YOU SHOULDN'T TRY TO GET ANY INFERENCES FROM MY QUESTIONS.

A: I APOLOGIZE.

Q: DON'T GET ANY INFERENCES. LET ME APPROACH AND ASK YOU, I WANT YOU TO READ WHAT YOU READ FOR MISS CLARK. WHAT TIME WAS THAT CRIME SCENE RELEASED?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, THIS IS -- OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS MISLEADING.

THE COURT: 352?

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE --

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.

THE WITNESS: THE LAST ENTRY IT IS, KIND OF WRITTEN OVER, IT APPEARS TO BE 1545 PERHAPS.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: 1545 ON JUNE 13 IS WHAT TIME?

A: 3:45 P.M.

Q: IN THE AFTERNOON, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: THAT MEANS YOU TOOK THOSE -- YOU TOOK THOSE TAPES THAT HAD BEEN AROUND THAT SCENE DOWN AT THAT POINT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THE OFFICER DID, YES.

Q: AND BETWEEN THAT TIME, 3:45, ON JUNE 13TH, AND JULY 3RD, 1994, DID YOU EVER GO BACK OUT TO THE SCENE BETWEEN THOSE DATES?

A: I BELIEVE I DID.

Q: WHAT DATE DID YOU GO BACK?

A: I BELIEVE I WAS THERE ON JUNE 23RD.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THERE WAS A TEN-DAY PERIOD BETWEEN THE TIME YOU WERE THERE ON THE 13TH AND THE TIME YOU CAME BACK ON THE 23RD?

A: THAT WOULD BE TEN DAYS, BUT I'M NOT CLEAR ON WHETHER I MIGHT HAVE GONE BACK IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO DATES.

Q: DO YOU HAVE SOME NOTES THAT WILL HELP YOU IN THAT REGARD?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU LOOK AT THEM?

A: CERTAINLY.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE WITNESS: MY NOTES INDICATE I WAS AT THE LOCATION ON JUNE 16TH, BUT I DIDN'T ENTER THE PREMISES. I JUST DID A -- A MILEAGE CHECK FROM THE LOCATION.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? WHILE YOU WERE THERE ON JUNE 16 --

A: CERTAINLY.

Q: -- DID YOU NOTICE THAT THE BLOOD HAD BEEN WASHED DOWN?

A: NO.

Q: YOU DON'T RECALL OR YOU DIDN'T NOTICE IT?

A: IF THE BLOOD HAD BEEN WASHED DOWN ON THE FRONT WALKWAY?

Q: YES.

A: I DON'T RECALL MAKING THAT OBSERVATION.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT IT HADN'T BEEN DONE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

A: MY NOTES DO INDICATE I WAS THERE ON JUNE 23RD AT 10:15 A.M.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WERE YOU THERE AFTER JUNE 23RD, BEFORE JULY 3RD? WERE YOU THERE ON JULY 3RD, BY THE WAY?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: WERE THERE ANY VISIT BETWEEN THE 23RD OF JUNE AND JULY 3RD?

A: THERE WAS A VISIT ON JUNE 27TH.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER VISITS?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU HAVE TOLD US ALL THE VISITS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: AS REFLECTED BY MY NOTES, THOSE ARE THE ONLY ONES I HAVE HERE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT DESPITE ALL THOSE VISITS, THIS BLOOD THAT WAS ALLEGEDLY ON THIS BACK GATE WAS NOT COLLECTED ON ANY OF THOSE DATES THAT YOU CAME THERE, ON THE 17TH, 23RD, THE 27TH; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: IT WAS NOT COLLECTED, WAS IT?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS THE 16TH, BUT THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: 16TH. AND IT WAS FINALLY COLLECTED ON JULY 3RD, 1994; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WHAT TIME OF DAY WAS THAT?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE MORNING.

Q: WERE YOU PRESENT?

A: APPROXIMATELY 10:00 A.M.

Q: WERE YOU PRESENT?

A: YES.

Q: WITH REGARD TO BLOOD SPOTS AND BLOOD DROPS, YOU CAN'T TELL THE DATE THAT WAS PLACED THERE, CAN YOU?

A: YOU CAN'T REALLY TELL THE AGE, NO. MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. I AM GOING TO SHOW YOU A PHOTOGRAPH OF MR. FUNG. THIS, COUNSEL, IS DEFENDANT'S 1007. THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH D-1007, YOUR HONOR, AND I WANT TO PLACE IT BEFORE THE DETECTIVE AT THIS POINT.

Q: WHO IS DEPICTED IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH, SIR?

A: IT IS A CRIMINALIST FUNG.

Q: AND HE IS POINTING TO A GATE. IS THAT THE REAR GATE AT BUNDY?

A: YES.

Q: AND, UMM, WHAT DATE WAS THAT PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN, IF YOU KNOW?

A: THAT WOULD BE ON JULY 3RD.

Q: SO THIS WAS THE PHOTOGRAPH OF JULY 3RD, 1994, WHEN FUNG WAS POINTING TO THE FENCE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I PUT THIS ON THE ELMO, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS D-1007.

THE COURT: MR. HARRIS, DO YOU HAVE A SHIELD?

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU SEE THAT ON THE MONITOR?

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF DENNIS FUNG, A CRIMINALIST, TAKEN ON JULY 3RD, 1994; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU WERE OUT THERE AT THAT LOCATION?

A: YES.

Q: YOU ARE AWARE THAT AFTER THE CRIME SCENE PERIMETER WAS TAKEN DOWN BY OFFICER JONES AND PERRIDINE, P-E-R-R-D-I-N-E, THEY HAD A NUMBER OF LOOKIE-LOOS AND OTHER TOURISTS FROM THE WORLD WHO CAME IN AND AROUND THAT LOCATION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT, AREN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: YOU ALSO KNOW THAT SOME PEOPLE PLACED FLOWERS ON THE WALKWAY AT VARIOUS PLACES AROUND THE BUNDY LOCATION? YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT ALSO, AREN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: BY THE WAY, WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN THAT NO BLOOD WAS ALLEGEDLY TAKEN FROM THE BACK GATE? WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN THAT?

A: ON THAT DATE, JULY 3RD.

Q: YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF IT ON ALL THOSE OTHER VISITS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THAT LOCATION -- MAY I HAVE JUST A SECOND, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

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

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH?

THE COURT: WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. WHAT ARE WE ARGUING OVER?

MR. COCHRAN: SORRY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING OVER?

MR. COCHRAN: WE ARE NOT FIGHTING, YOUR HONOR. WE ARE SPIRITUAL AND WE ARE NOT FIGHTING. THERE IS A REPORT -- AND I'M GOING TO ASK MR. PAVELIC TO GO FOLLOW THIS UP ON THE PAGE FROM THEIR DISCOVERY -- BUT THERE IS A PROWLER IN AND AROUND 875 BUNDY STREET. I WANT TO ASK HIM IF THERE ARE PROWLERS, IF HE IS AWARE OF THE PROWLERS. SOMEONE SAID THEY WERE LOOKIE-LOOS. I MEAN, THEY DID NOT PRESERVE THE SCENE. I DON'T CARE WHAT THEY SAID, THEY CAN'T GET AROUND THIS. IT HAPPENED AT 2359 WHICH IS CLOSE TO MIDNIGHT.

THE COURT: MIDNIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: THE QUESTION IS WHAT ARE THESE NUMBERS? PAVELIC SAYS HE THINKS IT IS 13TH, SO I TOLD HIM HE HAS GOT TO PROVE THAT, WHAT THE DATE IS, AND THAT IS ALL IT IS. THEY HAVE THESE TWO MALE BLACK SUSPECTS, I GUESS, BOTH WEARING WHITE BASEBALL CAPS, POSSIBLE FIVE-ELEVEN, SIX --

MR. BAILEY: THE WITNESS MIGHT BE ABLE TO READ THAT CODE.

MR. COCHRAN: I JUST WANT TO ESTABLISH PROWLERS AROUND THERE AND ALL KIND OF THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN BETWEEN THESE THREE WEEKS WHEN THEY DIDN'T COLLECT THIS.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, THE DATE OF THIS -- THIS INDICATES THAT THE DATE IS THE 16TH OF JUNE.

MR. COCHRAN: IF HE CAN READ IT, THAT IS FINE.

MR. DARDEN: YEAH.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS BETWEEN THE 13TH AND JULY 3RD.

MS. CLARK: WAIT.

MR. COCHRAN: ONE PERSON AT A TIME.

MR. DARDEN: THAT IS THAT, SO?

MS. CLARK: THE PROBLEM IS THAT WHAT IT INDICATES IS THAT WHOEVER THE PERSON REPORTING HAS REFUSED TO LEAVE NAME AND NUMBER, THAT THERE WERE PEOPLE SEEN IN FRONT OF THE LOCATION, AROUND THE VEHICLE, IN FRONT OF LOCATION. AND WHAT JOHNNIE IS TRYING TO GET AT IS THE REAR GATE AND THERE IS NOTHING SHOWN ABOUT ANYBODY IN THE REAR OF THE LOCATION.

MR. COCHRAN: BUT --

MS. CLARK: VERY MISLEADING. HE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT DATE IT IS FOR.

MR. COCHRAN: THERE IS TWO PEOPLE TALKING, JUDGE.

MS. CLARK: HEARSAY ON HEARSAY HERE.

THE COURT: I AM NOT SURPRISED BY THIS KIND OF THING. YOU KNOW, THERE HAS BEEN -- THERE WERE PROBABLY A THOUSAND PEOPLE WHO STOPPED AND GOT OUT AND LOOKED AT THIS PLACE.

MR. COCHRAN: IF THEY WANT TO STIPULATE TO THAT, THAT IS FINE.

THE COURT: BUT THE QUESTION IS DID THIS -- WAS THE SCENE MAINTAINED AS A SECURE LOCATION OR WASN'T IT?

MR. SHAPIRO: WAS IT LOCKED?

MS. CLARK: YES, IT WAS.

MR. COCHRAN: HOW DO WE KNOW THAT?

THE COURT: WELL, SOMEBODY FROM THE FAMILY WILL COME AND SAY WE LOCKED UP.

MR. COCHRAN: YOU THINK THIS JURY IS GOING TO BUY THAT? I DON'T THINK THEY ARE. THAT IS BALONEY, JUDGE.

THE COURT: NO, NO, NO. I'M SAYING IT IS A RELATIVELY INCONSEQUENTIAL POINT, THOUGH. THE POINT IS THE POLICE LEFT SOMETIME ON THE 13TH.

MR. COCHRAN: YES.

THE COURT: THEY DIDN'T FIGURE OUT THAT THIS THING HADN'T BEEN COLLECTED UNTIL JULY 3RD AND IN THE INTERIM THERE WAS NOBODY -- YOU CAN JUST ASK HIM, BETWEEN THESE DATES WAS THERE ANY POLICE CARS OR ANY UNUSUAL SECURITY MAINTAINED THERE? NO, THERE WASN'T. YOU CAN ARGUE FROM THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. BUT I ALSO WANT TO ASK WHETHER THERE WERE PROBLEMS IN AND AROUND THE LOCATION. THIS IS A PROBLEM.

THE COURT: BUT MR. COCHRAN, I'M NOT TELLING YOU NOT TO GO INTO THIS. I'M JUST SAYING THAT THE JURORS THEMSELVES KNOW ABOUT ALL THE LOOKIE-LOOS.

MR. COCHRAN: I UNDERSTAND THAT. I UNDERSTAND THAT.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, SO YOU ARE TELLING MR. COCHRAN -- YOU ARE GIVING HIM PERMISSION TO GO INTO HEARSAY ON HEARSAY INTO A REPORT HERE THAT IS TOTALLY UNSUBSTANTIATED?

THE COURT: THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING, MISS CLARK. WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS PERSUADE HIM THAT THIS IS SO INCONSEQUENTIAL BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A THREE-WEEK TIME AT THAT TIME THAT THE CRIME SCENE WASN'T SECURED. THAT IS WHAT HE IS TRYING TO GET AT.

MR. DARDEN: HE IS TRYING TO GET OUT PROWLERS AND MEN IN BASEBALL CAPS.

MS. CLARK: THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, YOU MAY BE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, BUT EVERYBODY HAS TO TRY THEIR CASES THE WAY THEY SEE THEM AND I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO ANY DETAILS. I WANT TO ESTABLISH IT WAS NOT SECURED, THERE WAS NO POLICE CARS AT THAT SCENE.

THE COURT: RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: THERE WAS A PROWLER CALL IN AND AROUND THAT LOCATION SOME TIME IN THE MONTH OF JUNE AFTER THE 13TH.

THE COURT: SO WHAT IS YOUR OBJECTION TO THAT?

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT IS THE OBJECTION TO THAT?

MS. CLARK: I'M ASKING YOU TO PRECLUDE COUNSEL FROM USING HEARSAY DOCUMENTS TO TALK TO -- TO CROSS-EXAMINE A WITNESS WHO HAS NOT -- HAS NO FAMILIARITY WITH THE EVENTS OR WITH THE REPORT OR WITH WHATEVER THE WITNESSES WERE WHO CALLED. YOU ARE ASKING -- YOU ARE ALLOWING HIM TO SHOW A DOCUMENT THAT CONTAINS HEARSAY ON HEARSAY ON HEARSAY OF OBSERVATIONS THAT ACTUALLY DO NOT GO TO ANYTHING PERTAINING TO THE STATED PURPOSE. IT IS IRRELEVANT. IT IS HEARSAY. IT IS UNRELIABLE. COUNSEL SIMPLY WANTS TO GET OUT SOME REPORT ABOUT BASEBALL CAPS AND HE WANTS TO READ --

THE COURT: SO YOU ARE SAYING AT THIS POINT THERE IS INADEQUATE FOUNDATION AND IT IS A 352 PROBLEM? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?

MS. CLARK: YES.

THE COURT: I WILL SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.

MR. COCHRAN: WAIT A MINUTE, JUDGE.

MR. DARDEN: THE COURT HAS RULED.

MR. COCHRAN: I HADN'T BEEN HEARD. BOTH OF YOU GUYS TALKED AND THAT IS NOT FAIR. YOU ARE NOT --

MR. DARDEN: WE ARE ACCUSING YOU OF WHINING.

THE COURT: HOLD ON. HOLD ON. COUNSEL, COUNSEL, "HOLD ON" MEANS STOP. WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH -- I HAVE DISCUSSED THIS WITH YOU, MR. COCHRAN. YOU CAN ESTABLISH THE POINT THAT THIS PLACE WAS UNSECURED FOR THREE WEEKS. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. BUT WHEN WE START GETTING INTO HEARSAY PEOPLE -- CALLS TO 911, WITHOUT ANY FURTHER FOUNDATION, THAT IS -- IT IS NOT GOING TO FLY.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN I ASK HIM IF HE IS AWARE OF THE 911 CALLS, PROWLERS IN AND AROUND THAT LOCATION?

THE COURT: YOU CAN ASK IF HE IS AWARE OF ANY INTRUSIONS.

MR. COCHRAN: IF HE IS AWARE OF.

MS. CLARK: ONLY THROUGH HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR. HE OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T WITNESS IT.

THE COURT: NOT NECESSARILY.

MS. CLARK: THEN HE SHOULD BE ASKED IF HE SAW ANY PROWLERS OR INTRUDERS.

THE COURT: LET'S SUPPOSE THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS, THE TAYLORS, SAID THERE WERE PEOPLE ALL DAY AND ALL NIGHT AND THEY COME IN AND TESTIFY, THE CONDO NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS?

MS. CLARK: THEN THAT WOULD BE FINE THEN, THEY CAN COME IN AND TESTIFY TO THAT, BUT HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THAT WOULD STILL BE HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: I CAN REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION, AS YOU SAID MANY TIMES, ON ANYTHING, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: I UNDERSTAND UNDER A PROP 115 PRELIM THAT IS ONE THING, BUT THIS WITNESS YOU ARE SAYING CAN COME IN AND REPORT WHAT OTHER PEOPLE TOLD? FINE, I'VE GOT A LOT OF THINGS I'VE GOT TO ASK HIM.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. I HAVE SUSTAINED YOUR OBJECTION AT THIS POINT. THAT IS WHERE WE ARE.

MS. CLARK: AT THIS POINT HE IS ASKING TO GET INTO HEARSAY BECAUSE YOU ARE PERMITTING HIM TO ASK IF HE IS AWARE OF ANY INTRUSIONS.

THE COURT: IF HE IS AWARE.

MS. CLARK: THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.

THE COURT: THAT IS TRUE.

MR. COCHRAN: HE WILL HAVE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE COURT: WHY ARE WE ARGUING?

MS. CLARK: I DON'T KNOW.

MR. COCHRAN: BECAUSE THEY LIKE TO ARGUE WHEN THEY CAN.

THE COURT: BEATS ME. COUNSEL, WE NEED TO TAKE OUR COURT REPORTER BREAK AT THIS POINT. MADAM REPORTER, WHY DON'T YOU STAY THERE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR SHORT MORNING RECESS AT THIS TIME. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU, OR ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU REGARDING THE CASE. YOU HAVE TO STEP BACK IN THE JURY ROOM. SEE YOU BACK IN ABOUT FIFTEEN MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS FOR FIFTEEN. AND DETECTIVE LANGE, YOU CAN STEP DOWN.

(RECESS.)

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

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

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: YES. HOLD ON.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THE ITEMS THAT I WAS LOOKING FOR TO INTRODUCE INTO EVIDENCE WITH DETECTIVE LANGE HAVE BEEN RETURNED NOW. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION IS TO OPEN THESE BOXES, DETERMINE WHERE THE ITEM IS THAT I WANTED TO INTRODUCE TO DETECTIVE LANGE ON THE RECORD BECAUSE THESE ITEMS DID NOT COME BACK TO US FROM THE DEFENSE IN THE SAME CONDITION THAT THEY WERE SENT TO THE DEFENSE BY US. SO I DON'T HAVE AN INVENTORY FOR EACH ENVELOPE AND BOX TO INDICATE WHAT'S INSIDE.

THE COURT: UH-HUH. WELL, I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE DO THAT THEN, THAT WE DO THE INSPECTION AT THE NOON HOUR SINCE IT APPEARS TO ME THAT MR. COCHRAN IS JUST GETTING WARMED UP.

MS. CLARK: ALL THE MORE REASON TO DO IT NOW, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: SHE'S TRYING TO BREAK MY RHYTHM, YOUR HONOR. I HAVEN'T EVEN STARTED YET.

MS. CLARK: BREAK HIS STRIDE. THAT'S FINE.

THE COURT: I WON'T TOUCH THAT CERTAINLY. ALL RIGHT. HOW ABOUT IF WE DO THAT? WE CAN INVENTORY THE BOX ON THE RECORD AND IF -- YOU CAN INVENTORY THE BOX, AND IF NECESSARY, WE CAN PUT SOMETHING ON THE RECORD.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. IN THAT CASE, THE --

THE COURT: WHAT WE CAN DO IS, YOU CAN HAVE THE BOX -- HAVE THE COURIER GIVE THE BOX TO THE CLERK WHO WILL ACCEPT IT IN A SEALED CONDITION AND THEN COME BACK AT NOON AND WE'LL SEE WHAT'S THERE.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU. THAT WAY, HE DOESN'T HAVE TO STAY HERE.

THE COURT: CORRECT.

MS. CLARK: I APPRECIATE THAT. AND LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT HE IS -- WOULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD, SIR?

MR. SALVINO: INVESTIGATOR SALVINO, GENE SALVINO. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: WOULD YOU GIVE THAT, PLEASE, TO MRS. ROBERTSON, AND SHE WILL MAINTAIN CUSTODY OF THE BOX. EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL. CAN WE HAVE IT QUIET? THE COURT REPORTER IS TRYING TO WRITE THIS DOWN.

MS. CLARK: CAN WE DESCRIBE WHAT'S BEING HANDED OVER TO THE CLERK RIGHT NOW?

THE COURT: APPEARS TO BE A SEALED BOX AND MANILA ENVELOPE, TWO MANILA ENVELOPES.

MS. CLARK: ONE SMALLER WITH RED TAPE AND ONE LARGER WITH BLUE TAPE AND RED TAPE.

THE COURT: YES. NOTED. THREE ITEMS.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURY, 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 THAT ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT. WE'VE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. DETECTIVE TOM LANGE IS STILL ON THE WITNESS STAND ON CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, DETECTIVE LANGE.

THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. AND, MR. COCHRAN, GOOD MORNING, SIR. YOU MAY CONTINUE.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DETECTIVE LANGE, SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR, BETWEEN THE PERIOD OF JUNE 3RD AND JULY 3RD, THERE WAS NO POLICE PRESENCE AT BUNDY ON A REGULAR BASIS TO GUARD THAT LOCATION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

THE COURT: YOU WANT TO RESTATE YOUR QUESTION? I THINK YOU GOT THE DATES WRONG.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: BETWEEN THE DATES -- I AM SORRY, YOUR HONOR -- OF JUNE 13TH, 1994 AT ABOUT 3:45 IN THE AFTERNOON AND JULY 3RD, 1994, THERE WAS NO POLICE PRESENCE AT THE BUNDY LOCATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. VAGUE, POLICE PRESENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THERE WAS NO PERMANENT POLICE AT THAT LOCATION. I BELIEVE THEY WERE CALLED TO THAT LOCATION ON SEVERAL TIMES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. AND THEY WERE CALLED TO THAT LOCATION ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS TO CHASE AWAY INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

MR. COCHRAN: I AM ASKING --

MS. CLARK: CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M REQUESTING TO ASK HIM A QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU CAN ASK HIM IF HE HAS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THESE THINGS.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ARE YOU AWARE OF CALLS MADE BY -- MADE TO THAT LOCATION FOR POLICE ASSISTANCE BECAUSE OF THE CROWDS AND INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE COMING TO THAT LOCATION?

A: I HAD HEARD OF THOSE THINGS HAPPENING THROUGH THE MEDIA. I DIDN'T HAVE -- I WASN'T THERE ON A PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF IT.

Q: WELL, YOU'VE SEEN ON THE MEDIA THAT THERE WERE HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE IN AND AROUND THAT LOCATION AFTER JUNE 13TH; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY SPECIFIC POLICE CALLS THAT WERE MADE REGARDING SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS IN AND AROUND THE BUNDY LOCATION AFTER THE CRIME PERIMETER WAS TAKEN DOWN AT ABOUT 3:45 ON JUNE 13TH, 1994?

A: I DON'T RECALL ANY SPECIFIC INCIDENTS.

Q: WOULD IT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION TO SEE ANY PARTICULAR DOCUMENTS IN THAT REGARD?

A: IF THAT OCCURRED, IT CERTAINLY MAY, YES.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I BE PERMITTED, YOUR HONOR, TO ASK --

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. I THOUGHT THAT WE -- MAY WE APPROACH?

THE COURT: OVERRULED AT THIS POINT. HE CAN SHOW HIM TO SEE IF IT REFRESHES HIS RECOLLECTION.

MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH.

THE COURT: THE ISSUE IS STILL PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND 352 THOUGH.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO PLACE THIS BEFORE YOU AND ASK YOU TO READ THIS TO YOURSELF, DETECTIVE LANGE. I WANT YOU TO REVIEW THIS DOCUMENT HERE AND I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT THESE NUMBERS HERE AND I'LL ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.

A: OKAY.

Q: HAVE YOU READ THE PARTICULAR AREA THAT I DIRECTED YOU TO?

A: YES.

Q: AND HAS THE REVIEW OF THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT REFRESHED YOUR RECOLLECTION REGARDING ANY POLICE CALLS TO THE LOCATION 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

A: NO.

MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION. NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.

THE COURT: HE SAID NO.

MS. CLARK: WITHDRAWN.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. AT ANY RATE, HOW DID YOU DETERMINE THAT THERE HAD -- THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO BLOOD SAMPLES COLLECTED NEAR THE REAR GATE AREA OF BUNDY AFTER JUNE 13TH, 1994? HOW DID YOU MAKE THAT DETERMINATION?

A: THE DETERMINATION WAS MADE AS I APPROACHED THE REAR GATE AND ENTERED ON THAT DATE. I HADN'T BEEN TO THE REAR GATE PRIOR TO THAT TO EXAMINE IT. I REALLY FELT I DIDN'T HAVE ANY REASON TO. AS I WALKED THROUGH THE GATE, MYSELF AND OTHERS OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE THE BLOOD SMEAR THAT WAS OBSERVED EARLIER ON THE 13TH.

Q: SO YOU SAW IT ON JULY 3RD. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND HAD YOU MET WITH THE CRIMINALISTS AT ANY TIME BETWEEN JUNE 13TH AND JULY 3RD?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Q: SO YOU HADN'T MET WITH EITHER FUNG OR MAZZOLA TO DISCUSS THEIR WORK?

A: TO DISCUSS THEIR WORK, NO.

Q: HAD YOU READ ANY REPORTS FROM FUNG OR MAZZOLA BETWEEN THE DATES OF JUNE 13TH AND JULY 3RD?

A: NO.

Q: AND WHEN YOU WERE AT THE SCENE ON JULY 3RD, I PRESUME FROM WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, YOU WERE THERE IN THE COMPANY OF SOME OTHER OFFICERS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WERE THERE BEFORE FUNG WAS CALLED AS DEPICTED IN THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE SHOWED JUST BEFORE THE BREAK; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: WE WERE DOING A DISTRICT ATTORNEY WALK-THROUGH AND I DON'T RECALL --

Q: CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION? WERE YOU THERE BEFORE FUNG WAS THERE?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: WELL, IF YOU DIDN'T -- AT THE TIME YOU ARRIVED THERE, WHEN YOU WERE WALKING THROUGH AT THAT POINT, NO BLOOD SAMPLES HAD BEEN COLLECTED, RIGHT, ON JULY 3RD AT THAT POINT?

A: AT THE TIME OF MY ARRIVAL, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: RIGHT. BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T KNOW. YOU THOUGHT THEY HAD ALREADY BEEN TAKEN, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO IT WAS AFTER THAT THAT THE BLOOD SAMPLES OF NOVEMBER WERE TAKEN; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DO YOU REMEMBER WHETHER YOU CALLED FUNG TO COME TO THE SCENE OR WAS HE OUT THERE OR WAS HE DUE OUT THERE? WHAT HAPPENED?

A: I DON'T RECALL HOW THAT JUST HAPPENED. I MAY HAVE THAT WRITTEN SOMEWHERE.

Q: WHAT TIME OF DAY WAS IT THAT FUNG CAME TO THE SCENE ON JULY 3RD, 1994?

A: I DON'T RECALL. I THINK IT WAS PERHAPS LATE IN THE MORNING.

Q: AND BEFORE THAT TIME, DID YOU EVER READ THE PROPERTY REPORT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THESE STAINS ALLEGEDLY FROM THE REAR GATE HAD BEEN BOOKED?

A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING THE PROPERTY REPORT PRIOR TO THAT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHEN FUNG CAME OUT, WHENEVER HE ARRIVED, WERE YOU STILL PRESENT AT THAT TIME?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHO CAME WITH HIM, IF ANYONE?

A: I BELIEVE HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN BY HIMSELF, BUT I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE ANY NOTES THAT WOULD REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A: IT MAY BE IN MY NOTES.

Q: WELL, YOU MAY BE HERE AFTER LUNCH. SO CAN YOU CHECK YOUR NOTES AFTER LUNCH SO WE WON'T DELAY?

A: YES, I WILL.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND LET US KNOW IF HE CAME WITH ANYONE ELSE? WHO WERE YOU WITH AT THAT TIME?

A: I BELIEVE I ARRIVED ALONE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU MET SOME OTHER PEOPLE OUT THERE?

A: YES.

Q: WAS VANNATTER THERE THAT DAY?

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

Q: AND YOU SAID THERE WAS SOME KIND OF A D.A.'S WALK-THROUGH?

A: YES.

Q: THAT MEANS DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S WALK-THROUGH?

A: YES.

Q: WERE ANY OF THE D.A.'S TO MY IMMEDIATE RIGHT OUT AT THAT SCENE ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY?

A: YES.

Q: WAS IT A FEMALE?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT MISS MARCIA CLARK THERE?

A: YES.

Q: MR. DARDEN WASN'T THERE, WAS HE?

A: NO.

Q: ANY OTHER D.A. THERE ALONG WITH MARCIA CLARK?

A: MR. HODGMAN.

Q: SO IT WAS MARCIA CLARK AND BILL HODGMAN?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU GET THERE FIRST?

A: I THINK I DID.

Q: YOU WERE THE FIRST ONE THERE AT THE SCENE?

A: I BELIEVE I WAS.

Q: AND WHO ARRIVED NEXT AFTER YOU?

A: I DON'T WANT TO BE INACCURATE ABOUT THIS. I DON'T RECALL A SPECIFIC -- SPECIFICS AS FAR AS WHO ARRIVED WHEN.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND I PRESUME THERE WAS NO LOG THAT DAY?

A: WELL, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A LOG AS TO WHO WAS THERE.

Q: WHERE IS THE LOG?

A: WELL, IT WOULD BE IN MY MURDER BOOK.

Q: WERE YOU PLANNING TO HAVE LUNCH TODAY, BECAUSE I MIGHT IMPINGE UPON THAT A LITTLE BIT. CAN YOU CHECK THAT LOG FOR US OVER THE LUNCH HOUR?

A: MAKE A LIST, AND I'LL DO IT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MAKE A LIST OF THE THINGS WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT OVER THE LUNCH HOUR. NOW --

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

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, WITH REGARD TO YOUR TESTIMONY YESTERDAY, YOU INDICATED TO US THAT YOU HAD NOTICED SOME BLOOD SPLATTERS OR SOME BLOOD SPOTS ON THE BACK OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: AND IF WE CAN HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH. YOUR HONOR, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO CUT THE FEED ON THIS OR NOT. BUT DO YOU RECALL THIS PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH?

THE COURT: YES. YES, I DO.

MR. COCHRAN: MR. HARRIS.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MR. HARRIS, WHICH PHOTO IS THIS?

MR. HARRIS: THIS IS DEFENSE 1012.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: 1012, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU SEE --

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THIS, DETECTIVE LANGE, IS THE BACK OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. ON THAT BACK, DO YOU SEE THOSE BLOOD SPOTS OR SPATTERS?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU DIRECT THE CORONER'S OFFICE TO DO SOMETHING WITH REGARD TO THOSE PARTICULAR BLOOD SPOTS AND SPATTERS?

A: I POINTED THOSE OUT TO THE INVESTIGATOR PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OF THE VICTIM, YES.

Q: AND THAT WAS TO MISS RATCLIFFE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WHEN YOU SAY YOU POINTED THEM OUT, YOU JUST SAID, "TAKE A LOOK AT THESE"?

A: SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WERE YOU EVER ABLE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT THOSE BLOOD SPOTS AND/OR SPATTERS WERE EVER COLLECTED BY THE CORONER'S OFFICE OR BY THE CRIMINALISTS OR ANYONE AND PRESERVED AND TESTED TO DETERMINE WHOSE BLOOD THAT WAS ON HER BACK?

A: THEY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN COLLECTED BY OUR CRIMINALISTS THERE. NORMALLY, THAT WOULD BE DONE AT THE CORONER'S OFFICE, AND MY INFORMATION IS THAT IT WAS NOT DONE.

Q: IT WAS NOT DONE?

A: YES.

Q: YOU POINTED IT OUT AND IT WAS NOT DONE?

A: YES.

Q: WHY WASN'T IT DONE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK IF HE KNOWS.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: WHEN I SPOKE WITH THE CORONER'S CRIMINALIST, HE STATED TO ME THAT --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. HEARSAY.

THE COURT: DO YOU KNOW OF YOUR PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE WHY THAT WASN'T DONE OTHER THAN WHAT SOMEBODY TOLD YOU?

THE WITNESS: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: NEXT QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WOULD YOU AGREE THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO DETERMINE WHOSE BLOOD THAT WAS ON HER BACK?

A: I FELT THAT IT MIGHT BE IMPORTANT, YES.

Q: AND IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, IN AN EFFORT FOR YOU TO DETERMINE WHO THE PERPETRATORS OR PERPETRATOR WAS, THAT WOULD BE A KEY FACTOR IF THAT WAS THE PERPETRATOR'S OR PERPETRATORS' BLOOD; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO -- WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE BLOOD.

Q: AS AN INVESTIGATOR, YOU WANT TO GET AS MANY FACTS AS YOU CAN; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU DON'T WANT TO RUSH TO JUDGMENT IN THESE THINGS, DO YOU?

A: CERTAINLY NOT.

Q: SO YOU WANT TO GATHER ALL THE FACTS THAT YOU POSSIBLY CAN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND ARE YOU TELLING US THAT THAT BLOOD WAS NEVER EXAMINED OR COLLECTED IN THE CORONER'S OFFICE? IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S MY INFORMATION, YES.

Q: AND WHO DID YOU TALK TO IN THE CORONER'S OFFICE WHO GAVE YOU AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THEY DIDN'T COLLECT THAT BLOOD?

A: BE A MR. MAHANEY.

Q: MR. -- SPELL THAT FOR THE --

A: MAHANEY.

Q: CAN YOU SPELL THAT FOR US?

A: I BELIEVE IT'S M-A-H-A-N-E-Y.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THE DATE OF YOUR CONVERSATION WITH MR. MAHANEY?

A: I DON'T RECALL. IT WAS SOMETIME AFTER I GOT THE CORONER'S CRIMINALIST REPORT.

Q: AND WHEN WAS THAT?

A: I DON'T RECALL. THIS WAS PROBABLY SEVERAL MONTHS AGO.

Q: SEVERAL MONTHS AGO?

A: YES.

Q: SO FROM THE TIME YOU SAW -- YOU LAST SAW THAT PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE JUST DEPICTED ON THE SCREEN FOR THE JURY OR THAT YOU SAW THAT SCENE ON JUNE 13TH; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IT WASN'T UNTIL SEVERAL MONTHS AGO THAT YOU FOUND OUT THAT THEY HAD NOT COLLECTED THE BLOOD THAT WAS ON HER BACK?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN DID YOU INSTITUTE A CALL TO MR. MAHANEY?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT'S HIS TITLE IN THE CORONER'S OFFICE?

A: HE'S A CRIMINALIST.

Q: THEY HAVE CRIMINALISTS WITHIN THE CORONER'S OFFICE?

A: YES.

Q: IN ADDITION TO THE DOCTORS?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, THE DOCTOR WHO DID THE AUTOPSIES IN THIS CASE IS DR. GOLDEN, G-O-L-D-E-N, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND MAHANEY WAS THE CRIMINALIST ASSIGNED TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE?

A: I BELIEVE HE WAS A CRIMINALIST ON DUTY WHEN THE BODIES ARRIVED. I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY ASSIGN CRIMINALISTS PARTICULAR CASES.

Q: SO HE WOULD BE THE ONE WORKING TO DEAL WITH THIS PARTICULAR BODY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: HE WAS AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND SO WHEN YOU TALKED TO HIM -- GIVE US A LITTLE CLEARER DATE AS TO WHEN YOU TALKED TO MAHANEY ABOUT THEIR FAILURE TO COLLECT THESE SPOTS AND EXAMINE THEM. WHAT DATE WAS THAT?

A: AGAIN, I DON'T RECALL. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CORONER'S REPORT AND PERHAPS GO FROM THERE.

Q: AND AGAIN, OVER THE LUNCH HOUR, CAN YOU LOOK AT THAT FOR US?

A: PUT IT ON THE LIST.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL TRY TO GET THAT LIST. MR. DOUGLAS. THE CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD -- DID YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE CONVERSATION WITH MAHANEY AT ALL OR JUST ONE?

A: REGARDING THIS, I BELIEVE IT WAS JUST ONE.

Q: DID YOU WRITE A REPORT REGARDING THAT?

A: NO.

Q: AND YOU NEVER TALKED TO ANYBODY ELSE IN THE CORONER'S OFFICE REGARDING IT?

A: I BELIEVE I DID.

Q: AND WHO ELSE DID YOU TALK ABOUT -- TALK TO ABOUT THIS?

A: I BELIEVE I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH DR. LAKSHSMANAN.

Q: AND HE IS THE CORONER?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THAT AFTER YOUR CONVERSATION WITH MAHANEY?

A: YES.

Q: AND WAS THAT IN THE NATURE OF A COMPLAINT TO DR. LAKSHSMANAN?

A: NO. IT WAS IN THE NATURE OF A GENERAL CONVERSATION THAT I HAD WITH HIM.

Q: NOW, WERE YOU ABLE TO ASCERTAIN OF YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE THAT THIS BLOOD SPOT, THE BLOOD SPOTS ON MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BACK HAD BEEN WASHED OFF AT THE CORONER'S OFFICE? WERE YOU ABLE TO ASCERTAIN THAT?

A: FROM MY OWN KNOWLEDGE?

Q: YES, FROM YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE.

A: NO.

Q: WELL NOW, YOU AND VANNATTER ATTENDED THE POST OR THE AUTOPSY OF THESE TWO BODIES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DATE WAS THAT?

A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS ON THE 14TH OF JUNE.

Q: OKAY. JUNE 14TH. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THEN ON A TUESDAY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU WENT OVER THERE, YOU SAW THESE BODIES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AT THAT TIME, HAD THE BODIES BEEN WASHED AND PREPPED?

A: WHEN WE FIRST ARRIVED, I BELIEVE THEY HAD BEEN AT THE -- AT THE TIME OF AUTOPSY, CERTAINLY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THEY HAD BEEN WASHED AND PREPPED?

A: YES.

Q: SO AT THAT TIME, DID YOU ASK THE CORONER DR. GOLDEN AND SAY, "LOOK, DID YOU PRESERVE THAT BLOOD THAT WAS ON THE BACK?" DID YOU ASK THAT QUESTION?

A: THAT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ASKED OF DR. GOLDEN, NO.

Q: DID YOU ASK MAHANEY OR ANY CRIMINALISTS ON DUTY THAT DAY HAD THEY PRESERVED IT?

A: I DIDN'T TALK TO A CRIMINALIST THAT DAY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AS AN EXPERIENCED HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR, WHEN YOU ATTEND AN AUTOPSY, YOU'RE THERE TO OBSERVE AND TO POINT OUT CERTAIN THINGS TO THE DOCTOR WHO MAY NOT KNOW ALL THE FACTS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE DO, YES.

Q: AND YOU AGREED WITH ME YESTERDAY THAT -- AND EVERY DAY THAT IN DETERMINING THE TIME OF DEATH IN A HOMICIDE CASE, IT'S OFTEN TIMES VERY IMPORTANT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: CERTAINLY.

Q: AND NOW, YOU WERE PRESENT DURING THE AUTOPSY -- LET'S TAKE FIRST THE AUTOPSY OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. YOU WERE PRESENT DURING THAT AUTOPSY.

A: YES.

Q: HOW LONG DID THAT AUTOPSY TAKE, SIR?

A: I -- I DON'T RECALL HOW LONG. I DIDN'T TIME IT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IN YOUR BEST ESTIMATE, SIR.

A: THERE'S AN EXAMINATION OF COURSE.

Q: YES, SIR.

A: TWO EXAMINATIONS PRIOR TO AUTOPSY BY THE CRIMINALIST AND BY THE PATHOLOGIST THAT I WASN'T PRESENT FOR. THIS IS PART OF THE AUTOPSY PROCEDURE.

Q: WELL, LET'S TAKE THE PART WHERE YOU WERE PRESENT, THE PART THAT YOU DEALT WITH, SIR.

A: OKAY. THAT WOULD BE THE ACTUAL AUTOPSY. I -- PERHAPS TWO HOURS.

Q: PERHAPS TWO HOURS?

A: IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO --

Q: AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON.

A: YES.

Q: SO THAT THE EXAMINATION BY THE CRIMINALIST OR WHATEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED AT A TIME BEFORE YOU GOT THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU GOT THERE, DID YOU ASK THEM, DID YOU ASK THE CRIMINALIST ON DUTY THAT DAY IF HE HAD DONE ANYTHING REGARDING THESE BLOOD SPLATTERS ON THE BACK?

A: NOT THAT DAY, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IT WASN'T UNTIL 1995 THAT YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION. WOULD YOU SAY THIS YEAR?

A: NO. NO. IT WAS SEVERAL MONTHS AGO AFTER I RECEIVED THE CRIMINALIST REPORT OF BLOOD THAT HE HAD TAKEN FROM THE BODY.

Q: SEVERAL MONTHS AGO. AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WHAT MONTH?

A: AGAIN, I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT REPORT.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: THAT'S ON THE LIST.

Q: AT LUNCH TIME. NOW, IN YOUR ROLE THERE AT THE SCENE, DID YOU INSTRUCT THE CORONER, DR. GOLDEN, TO SAVE THE STOMACH CONTENTS OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON SO THAT WE COULD USE THOSE STOMACH CONTENTS TO EXTRAPOLATE BACKWARDS WITH REGARD TO THE DIGESTIVE PROCESS AND SEEKING TO DETERMINE --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: -- THE TIME OF DEATH?

THE COURT: COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE AT THIS POINT.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY, YOUR HONOR. MAY I SEEK TO RESTATE THAT IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T DO THAT?

THE COURT: PLEASE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU ASK THE CORONER TO SAVE THE STOMACH CONTENTS OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

A: NO.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. THAT'S NOT THIS WITNESS' JOB.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: BESIDES THAT, SHE'S WRONG.

MS. CLARK: OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF HIS EXPERTISE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU DIDN'T ASK THE CORONER TO SAVE, RIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: WOULDN'T YOU HAVE LIKED TO HAVE THE STOMACH CONTENTS AND NOT HAVE THEM THROWN AWAY?

THE COURT: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. WERE THE STOMACH CONTENTS PRESERVED IN THIS CASE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THIS IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE.

MR. COCHRAN: YOU KNOW, I CAN MAKE HIM MY OWN WITNESS FOR THIS QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: STILL OUTSIDE THE SCOPE.

MR. COCHRAN: I'LL MAKE HIM MY OWN WITNESS FOR THIS --

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. WERE THE STOMACH CONTENTS OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON PRESERVED IN THIS CASE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. COUNSEL CAN CALL HIM IN HIS OWN CASE IN CHIEF. THIS IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DIRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR ALREADY RULED ON THIS.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MS. CLARK: THE CORONER WILL BE TESTIFYING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THE CONTENTS WERE EXAMINED BY DR. GOLDEN.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WERE THEY PRESERVED, SIR, IS THE QUESTION.

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: YOU DON'T KNOW -- YOU DON'T KNOW TO THIS DATE WHETHER OR NOT THE STOMACH CONTENTS WERE PRESERVED, SIR?

A: I HAVE HEARD THAT THEY WERE NOT PRESERVED, BUT --

Q: HAVE YOU CHECKED?

A: NO.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MS. CLARK: NO. CAN THE WITNESS BE ALLOWED TO FINISH THE ANSWER, PLEASE?

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I WANT YOU TO FINISH YOUR ANSWER. SO IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING MORE TO SAY, PLEASE SAY IT.

A: I'VE COMPLETED.

Q: OKAY. AS THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN THIS CASE, HAVE YOU CHECKED TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE STOMACH CONTENTS FROM NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WERE PRESERVED IN THIS CASE SO THEY CAN BE EXAMINED?

A: I HAVE NOT PERSONALLY CHECKED, BUT I HAVE KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY WERE DESTROYED.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU ASKED THE CORONER TO DO?

A: TO DESTROY THE STOMACH CONTENTS?

Q: YES. YES.

A: NO.

Q: THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WANTED DONE?

A: NO.

Q: WITH REGARD TO A RAPE KIT ANALYSIS, DID YOU ASK THE CORONER TO PERFORM A RAPE KIT ANALYSIS ON THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

A: NO.

Q: WAS THAT DONE?

A: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

Q: NOW, DID YOU THINK THAT IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION REGARDING THE RAPE KIT ANALYSIS? AND YOU CAN ANSWER THAT YES OR NO.

A: NO.

Q: WHAT IS A RAPE KIT ANALYSIS?

A: RAPE KIT ANALYSIS WOULD INCLUDE SWABS FROM THE VAGINAL AREA, PERHAPS THE ANAL AREA IF THERE'S ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT, PERHAPS THE MOUTH.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE LOCATION OF BUNDY, YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THAT YOU SAW CANDLES BURNING IN THE LIVING ROOM; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT TIME IS THIS THESE CANDLES WERE BURNING AT THAT POINT?

A: WELL, I ARRIVED AT 4:25 A.M. SO I'M APPROXIMATING 10, 15 MINUTES AFTER THAT.

Q: SO BETWEEN 4:25, LET'S SAY BY 4:40 OR THEREABOUTS, THE CANDLES WERE BURNING; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU FIND OUT FROM TALKING TO THE OTHER OFFICERS THAT THOSE CANDLES HAD BEEN BURNING SINCE MIDNIGHT OR 12:15 OR THEREABOUTS?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU WENT UPSTAIRS IN THE BEDROOM, HOW MANY CANDLES DID YOU FIND BURNING?

A: I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY. I BELIEVE THERE WERE TWO OR THREE OR FOUR IN THE BEDROOM AND PERHAPS TWO OR THREE IN THE BATHROOM.

Q: AND THEY WERE ALL STILL BURNING?

A: YES.

Q: SO WOULD YOU SAY THERE WERE AT LEAST NINE CANDLES ALTOGETHER BURNING AT THIS POINT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WERE AWARE, WERE YOU NOT, THESE CANDLES HAD BEEN BURNING SINCE AT LEAST 12:15, THE ARRIVAL OF OFFICER RISKE, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: BY THE WAY, DID YOU IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION DIRECT THAT ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OR PICTURES BE TAKEN OF THESE BURNING CANDLES?

A: NO.

Q: DID IT EVER OCCUR TO YOU THAT WE MIGHT LOOK AT THE CANDLES AND DETERMINE THE STATE OF THEIR BURNING AT A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME AND EXTRAPOLATE BACKWARDS TO DETERMINE WHEN THEY MAY HAVE BEEN LIT? DID THAT OCCUR TO YOU EVER?

A: CERTAINLY NOT. I SEE NO WAY TO DO THAT.

Q: YOU SEE NO WAY TO DO THAT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: HOW LARGE ARE THESE CANDLES?

A: THE CANDLES WERE VARIOUS WIDTHS AND SIZES AND LENGTHS. THEY WERE ALL DIFFERENT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY PHOTOGRAPH ANYWHERE OF THESE CANDLES BURNING?

A: NO. NOT THAT I KNOW OF.

Q: WHEN YOU ARRIVED INSIDE THE HOUSE, YOU ALSO HEARD SOME MUSIC PLAYING; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: SEEMS TO ME THERE WAS MUSIC, YES.

Q: AND THAT MUSIC WAS EMANATING FROM WHAT ROOM?

A: IT WAS SOMEWHERE IN THE LIVING ROOM AREA.

Q: DID YOU EVER ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS A CD PLAYING OR WHAT WAS PLAYING?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU KNOW IF IT WAS AN FM STATION?

A: NO.

Q: WHAT KIND OF MUSIC DID YOU HEAR?

A: IT SEEMED TO ME TO BE A NEW WAVE TYPE MUSIC, INSTRUMENTALS.

Q: NEW WAVE TYPE?

A: WELL, MODERN TYPE INSTRUMENTALS.

Q: KIND OF SOFT, ROMANTIC KIND OF THING?

A: I WOULDN'T SAY ROMANTIC. IT'S JUST IN THE BACK OF MY MIND, I RECALL THIS. I MEAN I CAN'T BE MUCH MORE SPECIFIC THAN TO SAY THAT I SEEM TO RECALL A NEW WAVE TYPE OF MUSIC.

Q: DID YOU EVER GO OVER TO A STEREO OR A COMPONENT BOX OR SOMETHING AND DETERMINE WHETHER THIS WAS AN FM OR A CD OR A TAPE OR WHATEVER?

A: NO.

Q: DID ANYBODY UNDER YOUR DIRECTION EVER DO THAT?

A: NOT UNDER MY DIRECTION, NO.

Q: THERE WAS BATH WATER IN THE MASTER BEDROOM IN THE BATHTUB; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: I OBSERVED NO BATH WATER IN THE BATHROOM.

Q: YOU NEVER OBSERVED BATH WATER?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND DO YOU REMEMBER LOOKING IN THE BATHTUB?

A: YES.

Q: AND THERE WAS NO BATH WATER IN THE BATHTUB?

A: THERE WERE CANDLES ON THE TUB, BUT THERE WAS NO WATER IN THE TUB.

Q: IF OTHER OFFICERS HAVE TESTIFIED THERE WAS BATH WATER IN THE BATHTUB, DO YOU THINK ONE OF THEM LET THAT BATH WATER OUT BEFORE YOU CAME?

A: DID THEY LEAVE IT OUT? NO, BUT I BELIEVE IT DRAINED.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU HAVE NO DOUBT THAT AT SOME TIME EARLIER, THERE WAS BATH WATER IN THE BATHTUB?

A: THAT'S THE TESTIMONY OF THE ARRIVING OFFICER, THAT HE SAW BATH WATER. I DIDN'T SEE ANY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RISKY?

A: YES.

Q: YOU JUST DIDN'T SEE IT WHEN YOU GOT THERE?

A: THERE WAS NONE IN THERE WHEN I GOT THERE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE BED, YOU DESCRIBED THE BED WAS MADE, BUT RUMPLED. IN OTHER WORDS, THE COVERS WERE RUMPLED IN THE CENTER OF THE BED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YES.

Q: AND ARE THERE ANY PICTURES OR PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN OF ANY OF THIS INTERIOR AREA AT ALL?

A: OF THE BEDROOM?

Q: YES. OF THE BEDROOM.

A: NO.

Q: ANY PICTURES TAKEN OF ANY OF THOSE CANDLES IN THE BATHTUB AT ALL?

A: NO.

Q: ANY PICTURES TAKEN OF THE STEREO OR COMPONENT SYSTEM WHERE THIS MUSIC WAS EMANATING FROM?

A: NO.

Q: AND THE TELEVISION WAS ON IN THE BEDROOM ALSO UPSTAIRS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, YOU SHOWED US THE OTHER DAY -- YOU TOOK SOME PICTURES OF THE -- OF A FERRARI IN THE GARAGE AS YOU WERE COMING INSIDE THE HOUSE. BUT ONCE YOU GOT INSIDE THE HOUSE BY THAT BANISTER, DID YOU TAKE ANY PICTURES OF THE -- OF THE ICE CREAM CUP THAT WAS THERE?

A: NO.

Q: THERE ARE -- WE HAVE NO PICTURES TO THIS DATE OF THAT ICE CREAM CUP AND THE STATE OF THE ICE CREAM AT THAT POINT WHEN YOU ARRIVED?

A: WELL, IT WOULDN'T BE ACCURATE FOR ME TO SAY THAT. I BELIEVE THAT IN THAT OVERALL SHOT, IF ONE LOOKS, THEY'LL SEE A -- WHAT APPEARS TO BE A SMALL ICE CREAM CUP IN THE BLOW-UP.

Q: YOU MEAN THE PICTURE -- LET ME APPROACH IF I CAN. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT FROM PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT 74? IS THAT THE ONE TAKEN FROM THE GARAGE AREA OF THE FERRARI? IS THIS THE ONE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT (INDICATING)?

A: THIS IS A LITTLE DARKER. THIS IS THE AREA THOUGH. BUT WHEN I VIEWED THE PHOTO ON THE STAND THE OTHER DAY, IT APPEARED TO BE A POSSIBLE OUTLINE OF AN ICE CREAM CUP HERE WHERE IT WOULD NORMALLY HAVE BEEN ON THE BANISTER, BUT THERE WERE NO PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN CLOSE UP.

Q: AND WHY WAS THAT? WHY DIDN'T YOU DO THAT?

A: I FELT NO REASON TO DO THAT. IT WAS NOT PART OF MY CRIME SCENE. I WANTED TO DOCUMENT IT, THE STATE THAT IT WAS FIRST OBSERVED. I SAW NO REASON TO TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH OF MELTED ICE CREAM.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, OF COURSE, IT WAS MELTED BY 4:25. BUT YOU WERE AWARE, ARE YOU NOT, THAT WHEN OFFICER RISKE FIRST SAW IT AT 12:35 OR 12:40, IT WAS MELTING AND WAS NOT MELTED AT THAT POINT? YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE HIS DESCRIPTION IS MELTING, YES.

Q: RIGHT. YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WOULDN'T THE BEST EVIDENCE OF THAT HAVE BEEN FOR US TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THAT PHOTOGRAPH OF THAT BEN AND JERRY'S CUP WITH A PHOTOGRAPH OR A PICTURE HAVING BEEN TAKEN THAT NIGHT?

A: WELL, THERE WAS NO PHOTOGRAPHER THERE THAT NIGHT WITH OFFICER RISKE; AND AS FAR AS BEST EVIDENCE, I NEVER CONSIDERED IT EVIDENCE AT ALL.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: THAT'S WHY IT WASN'T PHOTOGRAPHED OR OTHER THINGS WEREN'T DONE WITH IT.

Q: AS THE INVESTIGATOR IN THIS CASE, YOU DON'T ALWAYS DO EVERYTHING YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO, DO YOU? YOU MAKE MISTAKES, DON'T YOU?

A: CERTAINLY.

Q: NONE OF US ARE PERFECT, ARE WE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW -- AND WITH REGARD TO THIS ICE CREAM CUP, IT WAS A BEN AND JERRY'S ICE CREAM CUP, WAS IT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, YOU DID TAKE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OR A PHOTOGRAPH OR TWO OF A KNIFE ON THE KITCHEN -- IT'S A MARBLE OR COREAN OR WHATEVER -- GRANITE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: COUNTER TOP.

Q: COUNTER TOP. WHAT DATE WAS THAT, THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN?

A: THAT WAS TAKEN ON JUNE 13TH.

Q: BY THIS PHOTOGRAPH -- BY THE PHOTOGRAPHER ROKAHR?

A: I BELIEVE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ROKAHR, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR, THAT KNIFE HAS BEEN TESTED UNDER YOUR DIRECTION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: THERE'S NO BLOOD FOUND ON THAT KNIFE, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NO FINGERPRINTS OF MR. SIMPSON FOUND ON THAT, ON THAT KNIFE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THERE WAS A LOT OF TESTIMONY YESTERDAY ABOUT FINGERPRINTS AND YOU HAD THAT AREA DUSTED FOR PRINTS INSIDE AND OUT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: TELL US AGAIN BRIEFLY WHAT AREAS, IF ANY, YOU HAD DUSTED FOR PRINTS.

A: INSIDE AND OUT?

Q: INSIDE AND OUT.

A: ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE LOCATION, I HAD THE FENCE, RUNG FENCE FINGERPRINTED AROUND THE IMMEDIATE CRIME SCENE AROUND THE VICTIMS, THE FRONT AREA MAILBOX, THE INTERCOM SYSTEM, THE GATE, STATIONARY GATE, THE FENCE AROUND THE VICTIMS AS WELL AS A RAILING.

Q: MAY I STOP YOU AT THAT POINT? DID YOU HAVE THE FRONT GATE, BOTH THE INSIDE WHERE ONE WOULD HAVE TO COME DOWN FROM THE HOUSE AND LET SOMEWHERE IN, AND THE LATCH ON THE OUTSIDE, DID YOU HAVE BOTH OF THOSE FINGERPRINTED ALSO, DUSTED FOR PRINTS?

A: YES. THE ENTIRE GATE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THE ENTIRE GATE WAS DUSTED?

A: YES.

Q: THE CALL BOX OUTSIDE, WAS THAT DUSTED?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. PLEASE PROCEED. I'M SORRY.

A: THE RAILING LEADING ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE WALKWAY ALL THE WAY TO THE REAR, THE REAR GATE, THE TWO VEHICLES PARKED AT THE REAR, ONE IN THE GARAGE AND THE BLACK GRAND CHEROKEE IN THE DRIVEWAY, THE FRONT DOOR, THE MOLDINGS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE FRONT DOOR, THE BATHROOM ON THE FIRST LEVEL AS YOU WOULD WALK IN WITH THE MOLDINGS AROUND IT, THE TELEPHONES THROUGHOUT THE RESIDENCE.

Q: DID YOU HAVE THE TELEPHONE IN THE LIVING ROOM AREA DUSTED FOR PRINTS SPECIFICALLY?

A: THERE WAS A PHONE IN THE KITCHEN AREA I BELIEVE.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: YES.

Q: WELL, DO YOU RECALL ONE ALSO IN THE LIVING ROOM AREA?

A: THERE MAY HAVE BEEN. I DON'T RECALL.

Q: WITH REGARD TO THE PHONE IN THE KITCHEN AREA --

MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO PLACE 1022 ON THE ELMO AND SHOW IT TO THE WITNESS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 1022.

MR. COCHRAN: 1022.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU SEE --

MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE MAKE IT A LITTLE CLEARER?

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU SEE THAT, WHAT'S DEPICTED THERE? AND IT'S APPARENTLY A SPEED DIALER COMPONENT OF A PHONE SUPPOSEDLY IN THE KITCHEN OF THE BUNDY RESIDENCE. DO YOU REMEMBER SEEING A PHONE IN THAT CONDITION WITH THE NAMES BY THE SPEED DIALER OF DADDY, DITA-OPA, CORA, PAM OR ROBIN, ROBIN AND PAM?

A: YOU CAN'T MAKE THEM OUT, BUT YES, I RECALL SEEING THAT.

Q: YOU REMEMBER SEEING THAT THERE THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT'S A FAIR PORTRAYAL OF HOW THAT PHONE IN THE KITCHEN APPEARED THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT OR THE DATE OF JUNE 13TH, 1994?

A: I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T RECALL. I DON'T RECALL SEEING IT LIKE THAT.

Q: YOU REMEMBER SEEING THE NAMES ON THERE; DID YOU NOT?

A: I REMEMBER SEEING SOME NAMES. I DON'T BELIEVE DADDY WAS THE TOP ONE. I DON'T RECALL NOW.

Q: BY THE WAY, DID YOU TAKE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF THAT YOURSELF?

A: NO.

Q: TAKE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: NO.

Q: SO YOU HAVE NONE, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: OKAY. DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A PHONE ANYWHERE IN THE LIVING ROOM AREA WHEN YOU FIRST WALKED IN THE HOUSE?

A: ONCE AGAIN, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION OF THAT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU SAW THE TESTIMONY OF OFFICER RISKE; DID YOU NOT?

A: I SAW PARTS OF IT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WITH REGARD TO THE -- IF THERE WAS SUCH A PHONE IN THE LIVING ROOM AREA, YOU WOULD HAVE HAD THAT DUSTED ALSO; WOULD YOU NOT HAVE?

A: MY INSTRUCTIONS WERE FOR ALL PHONES.

Q: AND YOU CAN CONTINUE ON WITH WHAT YOU HAD DUSTED IN THE INTERIOR IF YOU HAD NOT COMPLETED IT.

A: THE KNIFE SUBSEQUENT TO EXAMINATION FOR BLOOD, THE BANISTER RAILING GOING UP THE FRONT STAIRWELL ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP AND ACROSS TOWARDS THE MAIN BEDROOM, VARIOUS MOLDINGS IN THE UPSTAIRS AREA, THE BED IN THE BEDROOM, THE POSTS ON THE BED, THE TELEVISION SET, I BELIEVE AROUND THE BATHTUB OF THE MASTER BEDROOM, THE COUNTERS UP IN THAT AREA. THERE WAS A PACK OF CIGARETTES THAT I BELIEVE WAS ON THE FLOOR OF THE BATHROOM THAT WAS PRINTED. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OTHER AREAS THAT THEY DID. BASICALLY MY INSTRUCTIONS WERE TO DO EVERYTHING THAT HAD THE POSSIBILITY OF CONTAINING PRINTS.

Q: SO THIS WAS A THOROUGH JOB THAT YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE DONE TO TRY TO DETERMINE LATENT PRINTS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I CERTAINLY WANTED EVERY AREA COVERED WHERE SOMEONE MIGHT HAVE LEFT PRINTS, YES.

Q: DID YOU HAVE THE ICE CREAM CUP DUSTED AT ALL?

A: NO.

Q: AND WHAT IS A LATENT PRINT, OFFICER?

A: A LATENT PRINT IS A FINGERPRINT THAT'S NOT READILY OBSERVABLE WITH THE NAKED EYE.

Q: AND SO IN ORDER TO BRING SUCH A PRINT UP, IS THERE SOME KIND OF A POWDER THAT'S USED BY THE PRINT TECHNICIANS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN GET A PRINT FROM A PARTICULAR SUBJECT OR OBJECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND IN THIS CASE, YOU HAD A VERY THOROUGH DUSTING DONE OF THE RESIDENCE THERE AT BUNDY AND THEREAFTER YOU RECEIVED A REPORT BACK; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: AND IF I CAN SHOW THIS TO COUNSEL AND APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR, A TWO-PAGE REPORT. I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THIS AS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER.

THE COURT: I BELIEVE THAT'S 1029.

MR. COCHRAN: 1029. THANK YOU.

(DEFT'S 1029 FOR ID = 2-PAGE PRINT REPORT)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. COCHRAN: I'LL PLACE A 1029 ON THIS TWO-PAGE REPORT, YOUR HONOR, THAT'S LABELED LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION LATENT PRINT SECTION. 1029?

THE COURT: 1029.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO PLACE THIS TWO-PAGE REPORT BEFORE YOU, DETECTIVE LANGE, AND ASK YOU TO TAKE A MINUTE -- TAKE A LOOK AT THAT FIRST OF ALL.

A: OKAY.

Q: HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO SEE THAT REPORT BEFORE TODAY?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHERE HAVE YOU SEEN THAT REPORT?

A: ONE WAS FORWARDED TO ME.

Q: AND WHEN DID YOU RECEIVE IT?

A: GOSH, IT'S BEEN SOME TIME BACK. I DON'T RECALL.

Q: APPROXIMATELY.

A: THIS PARTICULAR ONE WAS PROBABLY A COUPLE WEEKS AGO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WITH REGARD TO THAT REPORT, IS THAT A REPORT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE PRINT TECHNICIANS WHO DUSTED THE AREA YOU'VE DESCRIBED FOR THE COURT AND JURY AT THE BUNDY LOCATION?

A: TO DATE, YES.

Q: AND IN CONNECTION WITH THAT REPORT, WHO WAS THE PRINT TECHNICIAN WHO DID THIS WORK?

A: WHO DID THE COMPARATIVE WORK?

Q: YES. COMPARITIVE WORK.

A: IT IS ALVARADO. EXCUSE ME. ALVARDO, A-L-V-A-R-D-O.

Q: AND SO ALVARDO WORKING UNDER YOUR DIRECTION DUSTED THESE AREAS YOU'VE DESCRIBED FOR PRINTS REGARDING BUNDY?

A: NO. MAYBE I SHOULD CLEAR THAT UP. ALVARDO DID THE COMPARISON WORK IN THE LAB. THE DUSTING AT THE SCENE WAS DONE BY FOUR DIFFERENT PERSONS.

Q: WHO WERE THEY?

A: BRAGGS, DUKE, UDESHI AND CLAIBORNE.

THE COURT: HOW DO YOU SPELL THOSE NAMES?

THE WITNESS: BRAGGS, B-R-A-G-G-S, DUKE, D-U-K-E, UDESHI APPEARS TO BE U-D-E-S-H-I, CLAIBORNE, C-L-A-I-B-O-R-N-E.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AS I UNDERSTAND IT THEN, THESE FOUR INDIVIDUALS ARE LIKE TECHNICIANS. THEY'RE THE ONES WHO WORK IN THE FIELD. THEY FOLLOW OUT -- THEY CARRY OUT YOUR INSTRUCTIONS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: THEY THEN TAKE -- AFTER THEY MAKE THE COLLECTION OF THE LATENT PRINTS, IF ANY, THEY THEN TAKE THEM DOWNTOWN TO THE SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN A COMPARISON IS MADE BY ALVARDO; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS, YES.

Q: AND THEN THE REPORT BEFORE YOU IS A TWO-PAGE REPORT BY ALVARDO; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND IN THE COURSE OF THIS, WERE YOU LOOKING TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT MR. SIMPSON'S FINGERPRINTS WERE ON ANY OF THESE PARTICULAR AREAS?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WHAT IS THE -- COUNSEL -- AND THE REPORT -- YOU HAVE A REPORT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT MR. SIMPSON'S PRINTS WERE IN ANY OF THESE LOCATIONS, DON'T YOU?

A: YES.

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

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? I'M TRYING TO AVOID A SIDEBAR.

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

MS. CLARK: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES, WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

MS. CLARK: I ATTEMPTED TO RESOLVE THIS WITH COUNSEL. MR. COCHRAN WOULD LIKE TO GET INTO THE RESULTS OF THE COMPARISONS MADE AT BUNDY, AND I SAID I DON'T OBJECT TO THAT AS LONG AS HE LET US GET INTO THE RESULTS OF THE BLOOD WORK SHOWING HIS BLOOD ON THE WALKWAY AT BUNDY. HE'S AWARE OF BOTH IN THE SAME WAY AND HE HAS THE SAME EXPERTISE WITH RESPECT TO THE RESULTS OF BOTH. THAT IS, HE'S NEITHER PRINT SPECIALIST NOR IS HE A SEROLOGIST OR A DNA ANALYST. SO IF COUNSEL WOULD LIKE TO GET INTO THE FINGERPRINTS, THEN I WOULD -- YOU KNOW, I WOULD AGREE TO THAT IF I CAN GET INTO THE BLOOD WORK.

MR. COCHRAN: SINCE I AM THE PROPONENT OF THIS, MAY I BE HEARD NOW?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL I AM GOING TO ASK THIS OFFICER IS WHAT I ASKED HIM SO FAR AND ASK -- I WANT TO FIND OUT THE FOLLOWING THINGS. NUMBER ONE, WHETHER OR NOT O.J. SIMPSON WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE THEY WERE LOOKING AT. I WANT TO FIND OUT THE OTHER PEOPLE THEY WERE LOOKING AT. AND IF SHE WANTS TO OBJECT, WE CAN BRING THE TECHNICIAN IN. IT'S NOT HIS PRINTS. IT DIDN'T COME BACK TO HIM AS I UNDERSTAND IT. I WANT TO FIND OUT WHOSE PRINTS DID COME BACK. ULTIMATELY WE WILL GET IT IN. I THINK THAT'S WHY WE ARE STOPPED AT THIS POINT. I THINK -- HE'S THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER. THE REPORT COMES BACK TO HIM. THEY'RE DOING WHAT HE ASKED THEM TO DO. HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO COMMENT ON THAT REPORT.

MS. CLARK: I HAVEN'T HEARD ONE LEGAL BASIS FOR GETTING IN A DOCUMENT THAT WAS NOT PREPARED -- LET ME FINISH -- NOT PREPARED BY THIS WITNESS THAT PERTAINS TO AN EXPERT'S ANALYSIS, COMPARISON AND CONCLUSION. NOT ONE LEGAL BASIS HAS BEEN SHOWN FOR THIS WITNESS TO TESTIFY TO COMPLETE HEARSAY. NOT ONE. I HAVEN'T HEARD IT.

MR. COCHRAN: FIRST OF ALL, THIS DOCUMENT ISN'T HEARSAY. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE THE ORIGINAL, BUT IT'S KEPT IN THE COURSE AND SCOPE OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION. THIS IS A DOCUMENT -- REPORT SENT BACK TO THIS WITNESS REGARDING THEIR FINDINGS AT HIS REQUEST AND I THINK HE CAN SO TESTIFY. HE'S THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER.

MS. CLARK: I STILL HAVEN'T HEARD ANY LEGAL BASIS TO GET IT IN, NOT ONE.

MR. COCHRAN: I JUST STATED IT, COUNSEL. BUT --

THE COURT: OKAY. OBJECTION SUSTAINED.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

MR. COCHRAN: I AM GOING TO ASK ANOTHER QUESTION.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I'M GOING TO ASK YOU A FEW OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT. THIS -- YOU ASKED TO HAVE A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS COMPARED I PRESUME TO SEE IF YOU COULD LOCATE THEIR PRINTS INSIDE BUNDY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THE TERM WE USE IS ELIMINATED.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ELIMINATED.

A: YES.

Q: YOU SOUGHT TO ELIMINATE CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND CAN YOU TELL US WHAT SUBJECTS, IF ANY, YOU SOUGHT TO ELIMINATE AS HAVING THEIR PRINTS INSIDE THE LOCATION?

A: ALL LAPD PERSONNEL AT THE SCENE, ALL CIVILIAN PERSONNEL AT THE SCENE, FAMILY MEMBERS, ANY FRIENDS THAT WE FIND MAY HAVE VISITED THE SCENE AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER, JUST BASICALLY ALL PERSONS WHO HAVE HAD ACCESS TO THAT SCENE.

Q: WELL, LET'S -- OKAY. YOU'VE GIVEN US SOME NAMES. WAS MR. SIMPSON ONE OF THE PEOPLE YOU SOUGHT TO ELIMINATE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WAS MR. COWLINGS ONE OF THE PEOPLE YOU SOUGHT TO SEE IF HE WAS ELIMINATED?

A: YES.

Q: WAS MR. MARCUS ALLEN ONE OF THE PEOPLE YOU SOUGHT TO SEE IF HE WAS ELIMINATED?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I DON'T HAVE ANY RECORD OF THAT.

Q: AND IN MAKING A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT -- ANYBODY ELSE YOU CAN RECALL WAS -- WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION. WAS FAYE RESNICK A PERSON THAT YOU SOUGHT TO ELIMINATE?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT ABOUT ROBIN GREER?

A: I DON'T RECALL IF WE RAN ROBIN GRIER'S PRINTS OR EVEN HAD HER PRINTS.

Q: WHAT ABOUT CORA FISCHMAN?

A: WE DID NOT GET CORA FISCHMAN'S PRINTS.

Q: ANYONE ELSE THAT YOU CAN RECALL THAT YOU SOUGHT TO ELIMINATE AS HAVING PRINTS AT THE BUNDY STREET LOCATION IN THE ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE AS DEPICTED ON 1029?

A: THERE WERE -- THERE'S A LIST OF NAMES, SEVERAL NAMES ON A LIST. I DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME.

Q: CAN YOU GET THAT PRETTY READILY FOR US?

A: I CAN CHECK HERE.

Q: SEE IF YOU CAN GET THAT WITHOUT TOO MUCH DELAY. BY THE WAY, WHILE YOU ARE DOING THAT, MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION OR TWO?

A: CERTAINLY.

Q: WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO THERE?

A: THIS IS MY MURDER BOOK, THE --

Q: THAT'S YOUR HOMICIDE BOOK?

A: YES. THAT'S ONE OF THEM.

Q: AND SO HOW MANY BOOKS DO YOU HAVE, HOMICIDE BOOKS DO YOU HAVE?

A: IN THIS CASE?

Q: YES, IN THIS CASE.

A: FOUR OR FIVE.

Q: AND SO --

A: JUST --

Q: OVER THE LUNCH HOUR, IF WE ASK YOU TO LOOK AT SOMETHING, YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK IN YOUR HOMICIDE BOOK TO TRY TO FIND IT?

A: IF I THINK IT'S IN HERE.

Q: AND THOSE ARE ORIGINALS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: THANK YOU.

A: THIS LIST MAY BE WITH -- WAS COMPILED BY THE LATENT PRINT UNIT AND THAT'S PERHAPS THE ONES THAT STILL HAVE IT. THIS IS AN ON-GOING PROCESS WHERE THEY ARE ADDING TO IT EVERY TIME WE COME UP WITH ANOTHER NAME. SO I AM NOT CERTAIN THAT I WOULD EVEN HAVE THAT ONGOING LIST.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WOULD IT BE EASIER FOR YOU IF WE PUT THAT ON THE LIST FOR LUNCH TIME, YOU TOOK A LOOK AT LUNCH TIME?

A: IT WOULDN'T BE EASIER, BUT I'LL DO IT.

Q: WELL --

A: HERE IT IS HERE. I AM SORRY. I DO HAVE IT.

Q: ONE LESS THING TO DO. CAN I LOOK AT THAT WITH YOU?

A: YES. THIS IS A -- APPEARS TO BE A PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS RUN AND ELIMINATED. THE CURRENT LIST, THE ONGOING LIST WOULD BE MAINTAINED BY THE PRINT UNIT AND I DON'T BELIEVE ALL THE NAMES WOULD BE ON THERE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, THIS LIST THAT YOU HAVE HERE, DO YOU MIND IF WE MARK THIS?

THE COURT: HOW ABOUT IF WE HAVE A PHOTOCOPY MADE OF IT?

THE WITNESS: PLEASE.

MR. COCHRAN: SO WE'LL GET THE CLERK TO MAKE A COPY, YOUR HONOR? MAY I PASS THAT TO THE COURT?

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WHILE WE ARE WAITING TO DO THAT, IS THAT A COMPLETE LIST OF EVERYBODY INCLUDING MR. SIMPSON?

A: ONCE AGAIN, I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS. I THINK THERE'S AN ON-GOING LIST MAINTAINED BY THE PRINT UNIT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AT THE LUNCH TIME, CAN YOU ALSO CHECK TO SEE IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER LIST OR IS THAT THE ONLY ONE YOU HAVE AT THIS POINT?

A: I BELIEVE IT'S THE ONLY ONE, BUT I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

Q: OKAY. SO WE ARE CLEAR, WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO HERE IS ELIMINATE CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL'S FINGERPRINTS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT'S THE ACTUAL LIST OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED AT THIS POINT THAT COMES OUT OF YOUR HOMICIDE BOOK; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THE LIST WOULD BE THOSE WHO ARE ELIMINATED AND THE ONES WHO ARE MADE ON PRINTS.

Q: RIGHT. AND SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR, YOU DID IN FACT MAKE SOME INDIVIDUALS ON THE PRINTS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: IN FACT, YOU MADE SOME POLICE OFFICERS, DIDN'T YOU?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. OBJECTION. OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. HE DIDN'T MAKE ANYBODY --

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WELL, THE --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. COUNSEL --

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I HAVEN'T ASKED THE QUESTION YET. THE? YOU OBJECTED TO "THE"? OKAY. LET ME SEE IF I CAN STATE A QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THERE ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE NOT ELIMINATED AND YOU HAVE THE NAMES OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND ON THAT LIST OF PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT ELIMINATED, WOULD THERE BE SOME FRIENDS OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

A: YES.

Q: AND WOULD THERE BE POLICE OFFICERS ON THAT LIST ALSO?

A: ONE POLICE OFFICER.

Q: WOULD HE BE A DETECTIVE?

MS. CLARK: WELL, YOUR HONOR, SAME OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MS. CLARK: MOTION TO STRIKE. COUNSEL CAN CALL A PRINT SPECIALIST.

THE COURT: NO. SUSTAINED, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY I PLEASE -- WE HAVE A COPY. WE'LL GIVE THE ORIGINAL BACK. MAY I MARK THIS AS 1030, YOUR HONOR, TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT?

THE COURT: YES.

THE WITNESS: I THINK THAT'S MINE. IS THAT MY ORIGINAL?

MR. COCHRAN: MAYBE -- I THOUGHT I HAD A COPY. MAY I APPROACH?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. THANKS, JUDGE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: SO YOU HAVE YOUR COPY BACK?

A: YES.

Q: THANKS.

MR. COCHRAN: I'LL MARK THIS TWO PAGES AS 1030.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 1030. BUT, MR. COCHRAN, THIS IS NOT THE PERSON WHO DID THE COMPARISON.

(DEFT'S 1030 FOR ID = 2-PAGE PRINT REPORT)

MR. COCHRAN: I UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO 1030, SO WE CAN MAKE IT CLEAR FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR, WHAT THIS IS, TELL US WHAT 1030 IS.

A: 1030 IS A PARTIAL LIST ENTITLED "HOMICIDE WORK SHEET" OF POLICE PERSONNEL WHO WERE -- WHOSE PRINTS WERE COMPARED TO LIFTS, PRINT LIFTS MADE AT THE BUNDY LOCATION.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHO IS THE PERSON WHO CAN COME IN HERE AND TELL US WHAT THE FINDINGS WERE, WHO WAS ELIMINATED AND WHO YOU MADE, WHO YOU FOUND PRINTS OF? WHO IS THAT PERSON?

A: WELL, THERE ARE PROBABLY SEVERAL DEPENDING WHEN THE INITIAL INFORMATION CAME IN. ALVARDO I BELIEVE WOULD BE ONE OF THEM. SOME OF THIS WORK IS DONE ON DAY WATCH AND SOME MAY BE DONE ON NIGHT WATCH. I THINK THE BEST WAY TO TELL WOULD BE TO CONTACT THE PRINT SUPERVISOR FOR THAT INFORMATION.

Q: THE PRINT SUPERVISOR?

A: YES. THE SUPERVISOR OF THAT UNIT.

Q: DO YOU -- I WAS ASKING YOU SOME QUESTIONS YESTERDAY AND THIS MORNING WITH REGARD TO LIVIDITY BEING PRESENT ON FIRST NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, AND REMEMBER YOU INDICATED THAT YOU DIDN'T RECALL ANY? REMEMBER THAT?

A: I DON'T RECALL ANY MARKED LAVIDITY.

Q: AND BY THE WAY, WITH REGARD TO MR. GOLDMAN, DO YOU RECALL ANY LAVIDITY ON HIS BODY?

A: HE WAS CLOTHED. I WOULDN'T HAVE OBSERVED ANY.

Q: WELL, IN ORDER TO TAKE THE LIVER TEMPERATURE, DIDN'T THEY HAVE TO RAISE UP HIS CLOTHING AT THE SCENE THERE?

A: TO THAT AREA, YES.

Q: DID YOU SEE ANY LAVIDITY THEN?

A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING ANYTHING THAT STOOD OUT TO ME.

Q: WOULD IT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION TO SEE A DOCUMENT WITH REGARD TO THAT FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE?

A: CERTAINLY MAY.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO MARK AS THE NEXT EXHIBIT 1030 IS IT?

THE COURT: 1031.

MR. COCHRAN: 1030. IT'S A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT --

THE COURT: 1031.

MR. COCHRAN: 1031, TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT, PAGE 2 AND 3, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW IT TO COUNSEL.

(DEFT'S 1031 FOR ID = 2-PAGE DOCUMENT)

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

MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE AT THE SIDEBAR. MISS CLARK, WHAT'S THE OBJECTION?

MS. CLARK: COUNSEL IS ATTEMPTING TO IMPEACH --

MR. COCHRAN: NOT IMPEACH.

MS. CLARK: HOLD IT.

MR. COCHRAN: I WILL TELL YOU WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO.

MS. CLARK: YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO IMPEACH THE OBSERVATIONS OF ONE WITNESS WITH THE OBSERVATIONS OF ANOTHER THROUGH A HEARSAY DOCUMENT? HE'S GOING TO ASK HIM TO REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION ABOUT LAVIDITY, SHOW HIM THE REPORT OF A CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR WHO MADE HIS OWN OBSERVATION. IT'S IMPROPER IMPEACHMENT. IT'S HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I BE HEARD? ALL I AM SEEKING TO DO, AS YOU SAID ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS, IS ASK HIM IF IT REFRESHES HIS RECOLLECTION. HE'S BEEN SOMEWHAT EQUIVOCATING REGARDING LAVIDITY. THERE'S LAVIDITY. THEY KNOW THAT, I KNOW THAT, EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT. I'M JUST GOING TO ASK HIM WHETHER THIS REFRESHES HIS RECOLLECTION THAT LAVIDITY WAS PRESENT AND FIXED, FULLY ESTABLISHED AND I THINK AS TO BOTH VICTIMS AND I JUST WANT TO ASK HIM THAT QUESTION. THAT'S ALL. I AM PERMITTED TO DO THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE HAVE TO RACE UP HERE EVERY FEW SECONDS, BUT THAT'S THE SITUATION. I JUST WANT TO REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION.

THE COURT: YOU CAN SEE IF IT REFRESHES HIS RECOLLECTION, BUT HE'S ALREADY TESTIFIED HE DIDN'T SEE ANY AND THAT RONALD GOLDMAN, HE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN IN A POSITION TO SEE IT. BUT YOU CAN ASK HIM.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S ALL I WANT TO DO.

MS. CLARK: CAN I ASK COUNSEL WHY IT'S HIGHLIGHTED?

MR. COCHRAN: SOMEONE ELSE HIGHLIGHTED IT.

MS. CLARK: TOP LINE ON THIS DOCUMENT.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, THE JURY IS NOT GOING TO SEE THIS.

MR. COCHRAN: IT WAS HANDED TO ME THIS WAY.

MS. CLARK: IT WAS MARKED AS AN EXHIBIT.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, A CLEAN COPY GOES IN.

MR. COCHRAN: I WILL CLEAN THIS UP. I'M AWARE OF THAT. I'M UP HERE IN THE MIDDLE OF MY EXAMINATION. I CAN'T DO EVERYTHING. I'D LIKE TO GET MY ERASER OUT --

THE COURT: AT THIS TIME, THE OBJECTION IS PREMATURE.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU A DOCUMENT THAT'S BEEN MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S 1031. IT'S A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT. AND I WANT TO ASK YOU, THE QUESTION OF LAVIDITY WHETHER OR NOT -- YOU READ TWO PARAGRAPHS. BY THE WAY, THE TWO DECEDENTS WERE GIVEN DIFFERENT CORONER'S NUMBERS; WERE THEY NOT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. I WANT YOU TO READ TWO SEPARATE PARAGRAPHS IF YOU WOULD.

A: THIS AND THIS (INDICATING)?

Q: THIS ONE AND THIS ONE (INDICATING).

A: OKAY.

Q: AND THEN I'LL ASK YOU A QUESTION.

A: OKAY.

Q: HAVE YOU READ BOTH PARAGRAPHS NOW?

A: YES. YES.

Q: AND DOES THE REVIEW OF THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT, INVESTIGATOR'S REPORT, REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS LAVIDITY PRESENT AND FIXED IN EITHER ONE OF THESE BODIES?

A: NO.

Q: IT DOESN'T REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AT ALL?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU WERE PRESENT WHEN THE AUTOPSIES WERE DONE ON BOTH INDIVIDUALS?

A: YES.

Q: AND AS YOU THINK BACK ABOUT YOUR BEING PRESENT AT THAT TIME, DOES IT IN ANY WAY -- DOES THAT IN ANY WAY REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION OF WHETHER YOU SAW LAVIDITY ON EITHER OF THESE BODIES?

A: THOSE OBSERVATIONS WOULD BE MADE PRIOR TO THE AUTOPSY AND PROBABLY MY ARRIVAL. I DON'T RECALL MAKING THOSE OBSERVATIONS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IT DOESN'T REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A: NOT AT ALL.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU RECEIVED A CALL TO RESPOND TO THIS HOMICIDE AS I UNDERSTAND IT SOMETIME IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13TH, 1994; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHO CALLED YOU AT THAT TIME, IF YOU RECALL?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS A DETECTIVE FROM DETECTIVE HEADQUARTERS, ON-DUTY DETECTIVE.

Q: AND DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT TIME IT WAS THAT YOU RECEIVED THIS CALL?

A: APPROXIMATELY 3:00 A.M.

Q: AND I PRESUME YOU WERE AT HOME IN BED AT THAT POINT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN YOU DROVE FROM YOUR HOME IN SIMI VALLEY DOWN TO THE LOCATION; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO GET FROM SIMI VALLEY TO THE LOCATION IN BRENTWOOD?

A: PERHAPS 50 MINUTES, AN HOUR. I HAVE NO -- I DON'T KNOW.

Q: YOU ARRIVED AT THE LOCATION AT ABOUT 4:25 IN THE MORNING?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU GOT THERE, VANNATTER WAS ALREADY THERE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE TWO OF YOU HAD WORKED TOGETHER FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS PRIOR TO THIS PARTICULAR TIME?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU BECAME AWARE THAT YOU WERE TAKING THIS CASE OVER FROM TWO OTHER DETECTIVES; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU HAVE NEVER WORKED BEFORE WITH MARK PHILLIPS OR FUHRMAN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: MARK FUHRMAN OR RON PHILLIPS.

Q: OR RON PHILLIPS. YOU HAD NOT WORKED BEFORE WITH HIM?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND ONCE YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE, YOU DESCRIBED FOR US HOW YOU WERE BRIEFED AND TAKEN AROUND THE SCENE PRIMARILY BY PHILLIPS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN THE COURSE OF THAT -- YOU ALL HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS. WHEN I SAY "YOU ALL," I MEAN THAT YOU AND VANNATTER AND PHILLIPS AND FUHRMAN HAD SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT YOU HAD HERE, WHAT KIND OF HOMICIDES THESE WERE AND THAT SORT OF THING; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: IT'S TRUE, IS IT NOT, SIR, THAT UPON ARRIVAL AT THE CRIME SCENE, YOU WERE MET BY DETECTIVE III, RON PHILLIPS, WEST LOS ANGELES DIVISION HOMICIDE COORDINATOR? THAT'S CORRECT; IS IT NOT?

A: HE'S ONE OF THE PEOPLE, YES.

Q: AND PHILLIPS STATED TO YOU THAT VICTIM BROWN WAS THE EX-WIFE OF O.J. SIMPSON, THE WELL-KNOWN ATHLETE/ACTOR, RIGHT?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE HE STATED THAT VERBATIM. I BELIEVE IT WAS INFORMATION THAT ONE OF THE VICTIMS APPEARED TO BE MR. SIMPSON'S EX-WIFE.

Q: WELL, LET ME -- MAYBE I CAN APPROACH AND I'LL SHOW YOU 1021.

MR. COCHRAN: COUNSEL, YOU HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS DEFENDANT'S 1021. I'M GOING TO PLACE THIS BEFORE YOU. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO ASK YOU -- AND I CAN SHOW YOU IF YOU'D LIKE. THIS IS A REPORT PREPARED BY YOU AND VANNATTER. IT'S A CONTINUOUS REPORT IN THE HOMICIDE BOOK PREPARED UNDER YOUR DIRECTION AND THAT OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. SO LET'S LOOK AT IT TOGETHER. DOES THAT REPORT INDICATE THAT: "PHILLIPS STATED THAT VICTIM BROWN WAS THE EX-WIFE OF O.J. SIMPSON, THE WELL-KNOWN ATHLETE/ACTOR"?

A: YES, IT DOES.

Q: AND DOES IT SAY ADDITIONALLY: "PHILLIPS STATED THAT MR. SIMPSON AND VICTIM ONE HAD BEEN EMBROILED IN PREVIOUS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATIONS, ONE OF THESE RESULTING IN THE ARREST OF MR. SIMPSON"? DOES THAT REPORT SAY THAT?

A: YES, IT DOES.

Q: PHILLIPS TOLD YOU THAT, DIDN'T HE?

A: NOT AT THE PARTICULAR TIME OF MY ARRIVAL, BUT HE DID PRIOR TO -- PRIOR TO GOING TO THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, HE TOLD YOU -- AND THE REPORT SAYS UPON ARRIVAL AT THE CRIME SCENE. YOU WERE MET BY DETECTIVE III PHILLIPS, RIGHT?

A: THAT WAS MEANT TO BE THE END OF THAT THOUGHT, MET BY DETECTIVE PHILLIPS. IT WAS LATER ON THAT HE MADE THAT STATEMENT.

Q: OKAY. BUT HE TOLD YOU THIS BEFORE YOU WENT OVER TO ROCKINGHAM; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY: "MR. SIMPSON RESIDED AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM PLACE IN BRENTWOOD APPROXIMATELY TWO MILES FROM THE CRIME SCENE." IS THAT WHAT IT SAYS?

A: THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS.

Q: NOW, YOU WROTE THIS, DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND AS AN EXPERIENCED POLICE OFFICER, IN WRITING THIS, YOU STRIVE TO BE AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT'S WHAT YOU DID IN THIS CASE, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND SO WHEN YOU -- BEFORE YOU WENT OVER TO ROCKINGHAM, PHILLIPS HAD TOLD YOU ALREADY THAT SIMPSON HAD BEEN EMBROILED IN THIS PREVIOUS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATION RESULTING IN O.J. SIMPSON'S ARREST, RIGHT?

A: THAT WAS A GENERAL STATEMENT.

Q: I'M ASKING, DID HE TELL YOU THAT?

A: NOT -- NOT IN FORM, NO.

Q: WELL, I'VE READ EXACTLY WHAT YOU WROTE DOWN. YOU WROTE DOWN WHAT HE TOLD YOU, DIDN'T YOU?

A: THAT'S NOT A QUOTE. THAT'S WHAT I WROTE AND WHAT I INTERPRETED FROM PHILLIPS.

Q: RIGHT. THAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING WHAT PHILLIPS WAS SAYING TO YOU, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S A GENERAL STATEMENT OF WHAT PHILLIPS TOLD ME, YES.

Q: I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WE JUST READ IT AND IT TALKED ABOUT PREVIOUS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATIONS REGARDING O.J. SIMPSON AND HIS WIFE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S MY WORDS, MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT PHILLIPS TOLD ME.

Q: RIGHT.

A: YES.

Q: THAT'S WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, YOUR WORDS.

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: PHILLIPS. I MEAN LANGE'S WORDS, RIGHT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU KNEW THIS BEFORE YOU EVER DECIDED TO GO OVER TO ROCKINGHAM, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND FURTHER, YOU ALSO TALKED TO FUHRMAN, DID YOU NOT, WHO TOLD YOU ABOUT AN INCIDENT THAT HE HAD DEALT WITH OR HAD RESPONDED TO AT THE ROCKINGHAM INCIDENT BACK IN 1985? DID YOU NOT?

A: NO. FUHRMAN TOLD PHILLIPS ABOUT AN INCIDENT THAT HE HAD RESPONDED TO AND PHILLIPS TOLD ME.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU DIDN'T TALK TO FUHRMAN, BUT YOU TALKED TO PHILLIPS WHO TALKED TO FUHRMAN, RIGHT?

A: THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. THAT'S WHAT WAS RELATED TO ME BY PHILLIPS.

Q: AND THEN PHILLIPS TOLD YOU, RIGHT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE AT 4:25 AND YOU HAVE TWO DEAD BODIES, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU'RE GIVEN THIS WALK-THROUGH BY PHILLIPS, IS THAT CORRECT, THAT YOU DESCRIBED?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND WAS IT AFTER THE WALK-THROUGH THAT PHILLIPS TOLD YOU ABOUT THIS SITUATION OF MR. SIMPSON HAVING BEEN EMBROILED IN A PREVIOUS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATION WITH HIS WIFE OR EX-WIFE OR DURING THE WALK-THROUGH?

A: NO. IT WAS JUST AFTER THAT HE TOLD ME THAT FUHRMAN HAD RESPONDED YEARS BEFORE TO A RADIO CALL AT THAT LOCATION.

Q: ALL RIGHT. MY QUESTION IS, WHEN WAS THAT? WAS IT JUST AFTER OR WHAT?

A: THAT WAS JUST AFTER THE WALK-THROUGH.

Q: JUST AFTER THE WALK-THROUGH?

A: AROUND THAT TIME, YES.

Q: AND WAS VANNATTER PRESENT ALSO AT THAT POINT?

A: HE WAS NEAR BY.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY WHERE.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT HE HEARD AT THAT POINT?

A: WHETHER HE HEARD THAT CONVERSATION?

Q: THE CONVERSATION WITH PHILLIPS, SIR.

A: HE MAY HAVE. I --

Q: NOW, YOU SAID SOMETHING EARLIER WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT INITIALLY WAS VANNATTER TAKING A MORE ACTIVE ROLE IN THIS INVESTIGATION THAN HE IS NOW?

A: I DON'T THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. LET ME STATE IT THIS WAY. YOU SAID I THINK EARLIER IN RESPONSE TO ONE OF MY QUESTIONS THAT YOU'RE CO-LEAD INVESTIGATORS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: I THOUGHT YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT SOMETHING HAD TURNED AROUND OR SOMETHING HAD CHANGED. DID YOU INDICATE THAT EARLIER TODAY?

A: I BELIEVE I WAS ALLUDING TO THE FACT THAT AFTER FIVE DAYS, THIS CASE WAS FILED WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND --

Q: WELL, LET ME STOP YOU THERE. THIS CASE WAS FILED WITHIN THE FIRST FIVE DAYS?

A: WELL, I BELIEVE I STATED AFTER THE FIRST FIVE DAYS.

Q: WAS IT FILED ON JUNE 17TH, 1994?

A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE DATE, YES.

Q: AND THESE KILLINGS HAD OCCURRED ON JUNE 12TH IN THE LATE EVENING HOURS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: SO WITHIN FIVE DAYS, BY THAT FRIDAY -- WAS 17TH FRIDAY?

A: CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BETWEEN THE 12TH AND THE 17TH, WERE YOU CO-LEAD INVESTIGATORS DURING THAT TIME?

A: YES.

Q: BETWEEN THE 17TH AND TODAY, 2-22-95, YOU STILL CO-LEAD INVESTIGATORS?

A: CERTAINLY.

Q: SAME BASIC ROLES?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, SO YOU HAD THIS CONVERSATION WHEREIN PHILLIPS TELLS YOU ABOUT THIS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATION AND YOU BECOME AWARE ALSO THAT COMMANDER BUSHEY HAS TOLD PHILLIPS TO GIVE PERSONAL NOTIFICATION TO O.J. SIMPSON; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, THERE WAS NOTHING THAT WOULD PROHIBIT YOU AS THE INVESTIGATOR NOW, YOU AND YOUR PARTNER AS THE CO-LEAD INVESTIGATORS, FROM GIVING THAT NOTIFICATION TO MR. SIMPSON; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? YOU COULD HAVE DONE IT ALSO, COULDN'T YOU?

A: I COULD HAVE.

Q: JUST LIKE YOU GAVE THE NOTIFICATION TO THE REAL NEXT OF KIN, MR. LEWIS BROWN; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: BUT IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY THAT AFTER HEARING THIS FROM PHILLIPS, ALL FOUR OF YOU --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. I AM SORRY. OBJECTION TO REAL NEXT OF KIN.

THE COURT: I'M SORRY. I COULDN'T HEAR.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION TO THE QUESTION AS PHRASED, REAL NEXT OF KIN.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I TRY TO RESTATE MY -- SHE WOULDN'T OBJECT TO THIS QUESTION, SO LET ME RESTATE IT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: SO IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY -- WELL, STRIKE THAT. YOU WERE AWARE, WERE YOU NOT, THAT VANNATTER HAD WORKED WEST LOS ANGELES? YOU WERE AWARE OF THAT AT SOME TIME IN THE PAST?

A: SOME 20 YEARS PRIOR, YES.

Q: AND WERE YOU AWARE THAT HE'S TESTIFIED HE KNEW THE AREA IN WEST LOS ANGELES AND KNEW HOW TO GET TO O.J. SIMPSON'S HOUSE ON ROCKINGHAM?

A: HE STATED TO ME THAT NIGHT THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW THE WAY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NO. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, WERE YOU AWARE THAT HE TESTIFIED BEFORE THAT HE KNEW THE AREA OF WEST LOS ANGELES, HAVING WORKED --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I FINISH THE QUESTION?

MS. CLARK: IT'S ALREADY HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU WATCH YOUR PARTNER TESTIFY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THIS CASE?

A: I DID NOT. I WAS BANNED FROM THE COURTROOM.

Q: WELL, DID YOU HAVE TELEVISION?

A: I WAS SENT INTO THE HALL AND NOT ALLOWED TO WATCH.

Q: WELL, YOU WEREN'T HERE ALL THE TIME, BUT YOU WATCHED, RIGHT?

A: AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, I WAS EXCLUDED WHILE MY PARTNER TESTIFIED AND HE WAS EXCLUDED WHILE I TESTIFIED.

Q: SO YOU DIDN'T HEAR WHAT HE SAID?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID YOU READ HIS TESTIMONY IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING TRANSCRIPT?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU TALKED TO HIM ABOUT IT, HIS TESTIMONY?

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, SAME OBJECTION.

MR. COCHRAN: I CAN ASK THAT, YES OR NO.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL DISCUSSING SPECIFICS LIKE THAT. THE ONLY CONVERSATION I HAD REGARDING YOUR QUESTION WITH VANNATTER WAS THAT EVENING.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AT ANY RATE, YOU WERE AWARE HE HAD WORKED WEST LOS ANGELES AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU AND VANNATTER WERE IN ONE CAR; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHO WAS DRIVING THAT CAR?

A: VANNATTER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOUR PURPOSE AFTER HEARING THIS FROM PHILLIPS WAS TO GO OVER AND JUST TO ESTABLISH SOME RAPPORT WITH MR. SIMPSON SO YOU COULD GET TO KNOW HIM SO HE COULD COOPERATE AS THIS INVESTIGATION PROCEEDED. IS THAT WHAT YOUR TESTIMONY IS?

A: THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS, YES.

Q: WAS ONE OF YOUR REASONS THAT YOU WENT OVER THERE BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT HE WAS A SUSPECT IN THIS CASE?

A: NO, NOT AT THAT TIME.

Q: WELL, LET'S SEE NOW. IF -- WHEN YOU GOT INSIDE THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE, IF KATO KAELIN WAS A POTENTIAL SUSPECT AND YOU LOOKED AT HIS SHOES, O.J. SIMPSON WASN'T A SUSPECT?

A: I'M NOT SAYING THAT KATO KAELIN WAS A POTENTIAL SUSPECT. I BELIEVE FUHRMAN REQUESTED TO LOOK AT HIS SHOES.

Q: WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY THAT FUHRMAN LOOKED AT HIS SHOES. DIDN'T YOU SEE FUHRMAN GIVE KATO KAELIN A NYSTAGMUS TEST? DID YOU SEE HIM LOOKING IN HIS EYES TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANYTHING AT SOME POINT? WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT?

A: HE MAY HAVE DONE THAT. I WASN'T IN THE ROOM. I WAS OUT IN THE WALKWAY. HE MAY HAVE.

Q: BUT YOU READ REPORTS, HAVE YOU NOT, ABOUT THAT?

A: I DON'T RECALL --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: HE'S THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: IT DOESN'T MATTER. THE HEARSAY RULE --

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DID YOU -- WERE YOU AWARE THAT FUHRMAN LOOKED THROUGH THIS PILE OF CLOTHES THAT WERE IN KATO KAELIN'S ROOM?

A: HE MAY HAVE. I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION. I DIDN'T SEE HIM LOOK THROUGH ANY CLOTHES.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO YOUR GOING TO THIS LOCATION, YOU DESCRIBED FOR US YOUR GOING OVER THERE, YOUR PURPOSE THEN WAS TO ESTABLISH THIS RAPPORT WITH MR. SIMPSON, RIGHT, AMONG OTHER PURPOSES?

A: THAT'S ONE REASON, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THE OTHER TWO DETECTIVES, FUHRMAN AND PHILLIPS, WERE GOING TO GO OVER THERE TO -- FOR PHILLIPS TO GIVE NOTIFICATION; IS THAT CORRECT? ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: WELL, IF MR. SIMPSON WERE AT HOME, MYSELF OR DETECTIVE VANNATTER WOULD HAVE PROBABLY ACTUALLY GIVEN THE NOTIFICATION.

Q: WELL THEN, WHY THEN WOULD YOU NEED FUHRMAN AND PHILLIPS TO GO OVER THERE?

A: BECAUSE IT WAS MY INTENT TO LEAVE BOTH DETECTIVES WITH MR. SIMPSON WHILE WE RETURNED TO THE CRIME SCENE TO COMPLETE OUR INVESTIGATION.

Q: AND WAS THAT TO ESTABLISH MORE RAPPORT WITH HIM AND KIND OF GET HIS COOPERATION? IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO DO?

A: AS FAR AS MY CONTACT?

Q: YES.

A: ONE OF THE REASONS WAS TO GET HIM TO MEET US TO ESTABLISH SOME RAPPORT AND TO GET SOME KIND OF INITIAL STATEMENT, YES.

Q: AND WERE YOU GOING TO QUESTION HIM ABOUT THESE PREVIOUS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATIONS THAT FUHRMAN HAD TOLD PHILLIPS ABOUT WHO THEN TOLD YOU ABOUT IT?

A: NO. CERTAINLY NOT AT THAT TIME.

Q: YOU WEREN'T GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT?

A: THAT WOULD BE THE LAST THING I WOULD HAVE BROUGHT UP AT THAT TIME.

Q: BUT WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO DO IS TRY TO ESTABLISH THIS RAPPORT AND LEAVE THESE DETECTIVES THERE TO TRY TO ASSIST MR. SIMPSON, RIGHT?

A: THAT WAS IN THE BACK OF MY MIND, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THAT YOU WENT OVER THERE AND HOW YOU ULTIMATELY GAINED ENTRANCE. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU HAD FUHRMAN CLIMB OVER THAT WALL; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WENT INSIDE AND YOU'VE DESCRIBED FOR US HOW YOU ULTIMATELY ENDED UP AT KATO KAELIN'S RESIDENCE, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YESTERDAY, WHEN ASKED BY MISS CLARK, YOU INDICATED THAT KATO KAELIN DID NOT TELL YOU THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD LEFT FOR CHICAGO THE NIGHT BEFORE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? DID YOU SO INDICATE?

A: I MAY HAVE. I DON'T -- I DON'T RECALL THAT BEING PUT TO HIM AS A QUESTION. I DON'T RECALL THAT BEING SAID.

Q: DO YOU RECALL THAT ARNELLE SIMPSON SAID TO YOU AND VANNATTER THAT HER FATHER WAS IN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS AFTER LEAVING THE L.A. AREA LATE THE NIGHT BEFORE? DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: SHE MAY HAVE AFTER. INITIALLY SHE DIDN'T SAY THAT THOUGH.

Q: WELL, LET ME SHOW YOU THIS REPORT AGAIN THAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT. I THINK YOU STILL HAVE YOUR COPY THERE. LET'S LOOK DOWN -- LOOK AT DEFENDANT'S 1021. LOOK AT THE NEXT TO LAST PARAGRAPH. AND I WANT TO ASK YOU IF YOU WROTE THIS AND IF ARNELLE SIMPSON SAID THIS TO YOU. "DETECTIVES WERE ALSO INFORMED BY MISS SIMPSON THAT HER FATHER WAS IN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS AFTER LEAVING THE L.A. AREA LATE THE NIGHT BEFORE. MISS SIMPSON FURTHER STATED SHE HAD RETURNED HOME AT APPROXIMATELY 0100 HOURS --" THAT'S 1:00 O'CLOCK, RIGHT?

A: 1:00 A.M.

Q: "-- AFTER ATTENDING THE MOVIES IN WESTWOOD." DID SHE TELL YOU THAT?

A: THAT STATEMENT WAS MADE SUBSEQUENT TO OTHER STATEMENTS BY MISS SIMPSON, YES.

Q: BUT DID SHE TELL YOU THAT?

A: SHE DID SUBSEQUENT, YES.

Q: IS YOUR ANSWER YES?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WITH REGARD TO KATO KAELIN, YOU OR YOUR BROTHER OFFICER WROTE A REPORT OF WHAT KATO KAELIN SAID THAT VERY MORNING WHEN YOU ALL TALKED TO HIM; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I DON'T RECALL WRITING ANY REPORT.

Q: YOU DON'T? WELL, LET ME APPROACH.

MR. COCHRAN: AND, COUNSEL, I'M REFERRING NOW TO DEFENDANT'S 1024 FOR IDENTIFICATION.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I WANT TO PLACE BEFORE YOU A REPORT DATED 6-13-94, 6:00 O'CLOCK HOURS, I PRESUME IN THE MORNING. IT INVOLVES A KAELIN --

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. OBJECTION. I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS ONE OF THE EXHIBITS ALREADY MARKED.

MS. CLARK: IT'S NOT HIS REPORT.

MR. COCHRAN: IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT IT'S NOT HIS REPORT. I WANT TO ASK ABOUT THIS REPORT.

THE COURT: AT THIS POINT, THE OBJECTION IS PREMATURE. PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THIS REPORT -- I WANT TO SHOW YOU THIS REPORT HERE. SEE KAELIN -- BRIAN GERARD KAELIN? SEE THAT?

A: YES.

Q: 3-9-59, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. COUNSEL DOESN'T NEED TO READ IT INTO THE RECORD.

THE COURT: JUST ASK HIM THE QUESTION IF HE WAS PERSONALLY PRESENT WHEN THIS STATEMENT WAS TAKEN.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO THIS STATEMENT, I WANT YOU TO READ THIS STATEMENT TO YOURSELF. I WANT YOU TO READ IT IN TOTAL. THEN I WANT TO ASK YOU A QUESTION OR TWO ABOUT IT IF I MIGHT.

A: OKAY.

Q: YOU READ THAT REPORT OVER?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU RECOGNIZE THIS AS A LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT REPORT OF SOME KIND?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE A PARTIAL STATEMENT.

Q: UH-HUH. AND DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE HANDWRITING ON THIS REPORT?

A: I THINK IT PERHAPS IS DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S.

Q: AND YOU WORKED WITH HIM A LONG TIME. DOES IT LOOK LIKE HIS HANDWRITING TO YOU?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S.

Q: AND YOU WERE PRESENT, WERE YOU NOT, WHEN VANNATTER SPOKE WITH KATO KAELIN, ISN'T THAT RIGHT, AT LEAST PART OF THE TIME?

A: NO.

Q: YOU WERE NEVER PRESENT WHEN VANNATTER WAS TALKING TO KATO KAELIN?

A: NO. VANNATTER WAS IN THE REAR AT THE BAR AREA WITH KAELIN AND I WAS WITH ARNELLE IN THE KITCHEN AREA.

Q: WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. DIDN'T KATO KAELIN TELL YOU --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M ASKING HIM SPECIFICALLY THIS QUESTION. I CAN ASK HIM THIS.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT KATO KAELIN TOLD HIM?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK WE NEED TO -- WELL, WE'LL DO IT OVER THE LUNCH HOUR. LET ME ASK --

THE COURT: BUT THEN IT WON'T BE A LUNCH HOUR.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, THAT'S OKAY, YOUR HONOR. HIS LUNCH HOUR IS RUINED ALREADY ANYWAY. SO WE'LL RUIN EVERYBODY'S EXCEPT THE JUROR'S.

THE COURT: IT DOESN'T HAVE TO RUIN MINE.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, JUDGE, WE ALL HAVE TO SUFFER TOGETHER, YOUR HONOR, IN THIS WHOLE THING.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, WE'RE ABOUT SEVEN MINUTES, SIX MINUTES TILL. DO YOU WANT TO EXCUSE THE JURY AT THIS POINT AND ARGUE THE POINT?

MR. COCHRAN: NO. I WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED A LITTLE BIT LONGER. THIS WON'T TAKE LONG, YOUR HONOR, THIS PART OF IT.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WHAT I WANT TO ASK YOU IS, YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH KATO KAELIN, DIDN'T YOU, OR YOU WERE PRESENT DURING THE CONVERSATION?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE I DID.

Q: WERE YOU PRESENT DURING A CONVERSATION WITH KATO KAELIN?

A: NO. I WAS OUTSIDE THE ROOM WHEN FUHRMAN WAS INSIDE AND I RECALL OVERHEARING SOME THINGS BEFORE PROCEEDING DOWN TO ARNELLE SIMPSON'S ROOM.

Q: WELL, IF YOU WERE LOOKING FOR O.J. SIMPSON TO ESTABLISH THIS RAPPORT AND COOPERATION WITH HIM AND YOU WERE THE CO-LEAD INVESTIGATOR, WOULDN'T IT HAVE BEEN IMPORTANT TO TALK TO ARNELLE SIMPSON AND KATO KAELIN THERE TO FIND OUT WHEN THEY LAST SAW O.J. SIMPSON?

A: BE IMPORTANT TO TALK TO ANYONE THERE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, DON'T YOU THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO ASK KATO KAELIN, "WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU SAW O.J. SIMPSON"? DID YOU WANT TO ASK THAT QUESTION?

A: INITIALLY, I WOULD PROBABLY SAY NO BECAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW WHO HE WAS AND I DIDN'T TALK TO HIM IN ANY EVENT.

Q: I SEE. BUT YOU WEREN'T -- AS AN INVESTIGATING OFFICER, YOU WEREN'T INTERESTED IN ALL IN WHAT HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO TELL YOU ABOUT WHEN HE LAST SAW HIM?

A: IT'S CERTAINLY NOT A MATTER OF ME NOT BEING INTERESTED. OF COURSE I WOULD BE INTERESTED.

Q: BUT YOU NEVER ASKED HIM THAT QUESTION, DID YOU?

A: I DIDN'T SPEAK WITH THE MAN.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU READ VANNATTER'S STATEMENT THAT WAS TAKEN ABOUT 6:00 O'CLOCK THAT MORNING, RIGHT?

MS. CLARK: WELL, OBJECTION. THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M ASKING --

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I'M ASKING, HAVE YOU READ VANNATTER'S STATEMENT?

MS. CLARK: IT'S A PARTIAL STATEMENT. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. IT'S A PARTIAL STATEMENT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. THAT PART IS OVERRULED. I'VE SUSTAINED THE OBJECTION THOUGH.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU READ VANNATTER'S STATEMENT?

A: I AM -- I'M AWARE OF THAT PARTIAL STATEMENT AND I DID NOT READ IT THAT MORNING, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. HE NEVER TOLD YOU ABOUT WHAT KATO HAD TOLD HIM?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: WELL, HE CAN SAY YES OR NO TO THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: HE CAN SAY YES OR NO.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T BELIEVE HE GOT INTO ANY DETAIL AT ALL.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. SO THEN YOU DIDN'T TALK TO KAELIN, BUT YOU THEN WENT DOWN AND TALKED TO ARNELLE SIMPSON, RIGHT?

A: WITH PHILLIPS, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND AT SOME POINT, BECAUSE WE SAW IN YOUR OWN STATEMENT, SHE TOLD YOU HER DAD WAS IN CHICAGO; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU WERE SEARCHING AROUND THAT HOUSE AND GOING ALL THROUGH THE HOUSE, DID YOU EVER GO UPSTAIRS AND LOOK IN MR. SIMPSON'S BEDROOM FOR HIM IF YOU WERE SO INTERESTED IN FINDING HIM?

A: NO. BECAUSE MR. --

Q: WELL NOW, CAN YOU ANSWER THAT YES OR NO, PLEASE?

A: I NEVER WENT UPSTAIRS.

Q: SO WHEN YOU WERE TRYING TO FIND OUT WHETHER O.J. SIMPSON WAS ON THE PREMISES OR NOT, YOU NEVER WENT UPSTAIRS TO HIS BEDROOM OR LOOKED IN THE UPSTAIRS PART OF THAT HOUSE, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU DESCRIBED FOR US YESTERDAY HOW PURSUANT TO LAPD POLICY, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO GIVE WHERE AT ALL POSSIBLE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEATH TO THE NEXT OF KIN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OR NOTIFICATION?

Q: YES.

A: PERSONAL NOTIFICATION, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IN A SITUATION -- SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR, IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU ARE DIVORCED FROM SOMEONE, WHO IS THE NEXT OF KIN?

A: WELL, IT WOULDN'T BE THE PERSON YOU WERE DIVORCED FROM.

Q: RIGHT.

A: NEXT OF KIN COULD BE ANYONE.

Q: COULD BE MAYBE THEIR PARENTS. WOULD THAT BE CORRECT?

A: IT COULD BE ANYONE WHO IS NEXT OF KIN.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU ASCERTAINED AT SOME POINT -- IN FACT, YOU KNEW WHEN YOU WERE TALKING TO PHILLIPS THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS DIVORCED FROM MRS. NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, DIDN'T YOU? YOU KNEW THAT, DIDN'T YOU?

A: I BELIEVE HE SAID EITHER DIVORCED OR SEPARATED. I DON'T BELIEVE A DISTINCTION WAS MADE AT THAT TIME.

Q: AND DO YOU KNOW IF WHETHER OR NOT COMMANDER BUSHEY KNEW THAT WHEN HE INSISTED ON GIVING O.J. SIMPSON THIS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, PERSONAL NOTICE?

A: I HAVE NO IDEA.

Q: BUT WHEN YOU GOT ON THE PHONE AND YOU CALLED MR. LOUIS BROWN'S HOUSE, YOU DIDN'T GIVE ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE -- NOTICE AT THAT POINT, DID YOU?

A: PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE?

Q: PERSONAL NOTICE.

A: AS TO WHAT?

Q: THE DEATH OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. THAT WASN'T PERSONAL NOTICE, WAS IT?

A: THAT WAS NOT IN PERSON, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU COULD HAVE CONTACTED THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT OR WHATEVER THE LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS, HAD ONE OF THOSE OFFICERS GO OVER TO THAT HOUSE IN PERSON AND MAKE NOTIFICATION. COULDN'T YOU HAVE DONE THAT?

A: I COULD HAVE. IT WAS A JUDGMENT CALL AND I DIDN'T.

Q: YOU DIDN'T DO THAT, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WITH REGARD TO THE CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON, THAT CONVERSATION WAS CONDUCTED OVER -- IN A PHONE CALL WITH PHILLIPS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IT WAS DURING THAT CONVERSATION THAT YOU DECIDED TO TELL ARNELLE WHAT HAD TAKEN PLACE, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU DESCRIBED FOR US YESTERDAY THAT SHE BECAME VERY, VERY UPSET; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU SAID IT WAS A PERIOD OF EXCITEMENT FOR EVERYONE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: EVERYONE?

Q: IT WAS A TIME FOR EXCITEMENT FOR EVERYONE AROUND THE HOUSE. WEREN'T YOU SOMEWHAT EXCITED?

A: I DON'T RECALL BEING EXCITED, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHO WAS EXCITED?

A: ARNELLE SIMPSON.

Q: SHE'S THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS EXCITED?

A: I DON'T RECALL ANYONE ELSE BEING EXCITED.

Q: DID YOU SEE PHILLIPS' TESTIMONY WHERE HE SAID IT WAS A PERIOD OF EXCITEMENT? DID PHILLIPS SEEM EXCITED TO YOU ALSO?

A: NO.

Q: SO ONLY ARNELLE WAS EXCITED INSIDE THE HOUSE THERE?

A: IN MY OPINION, YES.

Q: AND DID YOU CALL THE BROWN FAMILY DIRECTLY AFTER THE CONVERSATION WAS MADE TO MR. SIMPSON?

A: I DON'T RECALL THE TIMING. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE PHONE BILLS. IT WAS AROUND THAT TIME.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU CAN LOOK AT SOME PHONE BILLS FOR US MAYBE OVER THE LUNCH HOUR? NOW, AT SOME POINT YESTERDAY, YOU TOLD US THAT YOU LEFT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION BECAUSE YOU HAD TO GO DOWNTOWN SOMEWHERE. REMEMBER THAT?

A: NO. I BELIEVE IT WAS TO GO BACK TO THE BUNDY LOCATION.

Q: YEAH. WELL, I KNOW YOU WENT TO BUNDY. BUT AT SOME POINT, YOU LEFT BUNDY --

A: YES.

Q: -- TO GO DOWNTOWN, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WERE YOU AWARE THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD RETURNED TO TOWN?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WENT DOWNTOWN TO SEE MR. SIMPSON, DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: DOWN AT PARKER CENTER HERE IN LOS ANGELES, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU AND VANNATTER WENT DOWN TO TALK TO MR. SIMPSON; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU FOUND HIM TO BE VERY, VERY COOPERATIVE, DIDN'T YOU?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR BEYOND THE SCOPE.

MR. COCHRAN: I CAN MAKE HIM MY OWN WITNESS.

MS. CLARK: COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING.

MR. COCHRAN: SPEAKING OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: NO. THOSE ARE STATEMENTS OF LEGAL BASES. SUSTAINED AT THIS POINT.

MR. COCHRAN: I CAN MAKE HIM MY OWN WITNESS, YOUR HONOR. I CAN ASK HIM MY OWN QUESTIONS.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED AT THIS POINT. IT'S 12:00 NOON STRAIGHT UP.

MR. COCHRAN: LET ME ASK ONE MORE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU WENT DOWNTOWN. YOU SAW O.J. SIMPSON AT PARKER CENTER, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU FOUND HIM TO BE COOPERATIVE WITH YOU AT THE TIME YOU SAW HIM AT PARKER CENTER?

MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. ALL BEYOND THE SCOPE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU TOOK A STATEMENT --

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU CAN JUST SAY HE TOOK A STATEMENT FROM HIM. THAT'S WHERE WE ARE GOING TO END.

MR. COCHRAN: I'LL GO BACK TO THE OTHER QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU TOOK A STATEMENT FROM HIM, RIGHT?

A: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THERE'S WHERE WE END.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S A GOOD POINT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE NOON HOUR. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU, DON'T PERFORM ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. WE'LL SEE YOU BACK HERE AT 1:30. ALL RIGHT. LET'S CLEAR THE COURTROOM. I NEED TO DISCUSS A FEW MATTERS WITH COUNSEL. DETECTIVE LANGE, YOU CAN STEP DOWN. YOU ARE ORDERED TO RETURN AT 1:30. ACTUALLY, YOU CAN STAY HERE AND GO THROUGH YOUR BOOKS.

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

THE COURT: THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT THE JURY HAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE COURTROOM. COUNSEL, BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, IT'S THE NOON HOUR. YOU WANTED TO GO OVER THIS EVIDENCE WITH THE COURIER?

MS. CLARK: RIGHT. OH, DARN. YES, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU. IF WE COULD JUST OPEN IT ON THE RECORD. I JUST WANT TO RETAIN THE CHAIN ON THIS UNLESS COUNSEL WILL STIPULATE TO THE CHAIN.

MR. BAILEY: YOUR HONOR, MAY I PRINT OUT THE LIST OF THINGS THAT DETECTIVE LANGE --

THE COURT: YOU MAY. WHY? DOES IT MAKE A LOT OF NOISE?

MR. BAILEY: MORE THAN YOU WANT THE JURY TO HEAR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, HOW ARE WE GOING TO HANDLE THIS EVIDENCE TRANSFER?

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT DOES SHE WANT TO DO?

MS. CLARK: I JUST WANT A RECORD --

MR. SCHECK: I THINK -- MY SUGGESTION IS THAT WE SHOULD BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THIS. AND THE FIRST THING THAT I NOTED, MISS CLARK SAID THAT THERE'S NO INVENTORY LIST. AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT -- MAYBE MISS CLARK ISN'T AWARE OF THIS, BUT BEFORE WE SENT IT, IT WAS SUGGESTED WE WOULD HAVE AN INVENTORY LIST WITH EACH OF THE BOXES THAT WAS SENT, AND THERE WASN'T, AND THERE'S A VIDEOTAPE THAT WAS MADE OF EACH OF OUR EXPERTS OPENING EACH OF THESE BOXES AT EACH PARTICULAR TIME IN THE PRESENCE OF AGENTS AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OR MR. NICHOL FROM SID AND DIFFERENT PERSONNEL FROM NEW YORK STATE. SO I AM JUST CONCERNED ABOUT -- IN TERMS OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY, IF THESE THINGS HAVE BEEN RETURNED BACK TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THEY HAVE BEEN REOPENED SINCE THEN, MAYBE MISS CLARK CAN INFORM US AS TO WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN TERMS OF REOPENING. THAT'S THE FIRST TIME THEY'VE BEEN REOPENED SINCE THEY'VE BEEN BACK. IF NOT, WHAT WAS THE PROCESS. BECAUSE IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, NUMBER ONE, THE PACKAGING PROCESS WAS TAKING SOME TIME BECAUSE GREAT CARE WAS DEVOTED BY PERSONNEL FROM SID TO PHOTOGRAPHING EVERYTHING THAT WAS FIRST TAKEN OUT. AND I DID HAVE COMMUNICATIONS WITH MR. HODGMAN DURING THE COURT SESSION ABOUT ONE MATTER THAT WE HEARD YESTERDAY ABOUT, PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN OF THAT ITEM. SO I'M JUST CURIOUS, MISS CLARK, BEFORE SHE OPENS ANY PACKAGES, IF THEY HAVE BEEN OPENED BEFORE; IF SO, BY WHOM, IF THERE ARE ANY RECORDS OF IT, THAT SHE'S NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY ALLEGATION SOMETHING WAS TAKEN OUT, MISSING.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, COULD WE COME BACK AT 1:45? IF MR. SCHECK IS GOING TO MAKE SUCH A BIG DEAL -- ALL I WANT TO DO IS DOCUMENT WHAT IS IN EACH PACKAGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY. I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER IT'S BEEN OPENED BEFORE. ALL I HAVE BEEN INFORMED IS, THEY WERE NOT RETURNED IN THE SAME ORDER, THE PACKAGING, AS THEY WERE SENT; AND THEREFORE WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS IN EACH PACKAGE. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I FIND THE ITEM THAT I WANT MARKED TODAY WITH DETECTIVE LANGE AND IF I HAVE TO OPEN UP MORE THAN THE PACKAGE THAT'S CONTAINED IN THAT, THERE IS A PRESERVATION ON THE RECORD OF THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY. THAT'S ALL I WANT TO DO RIGHT NOW. I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THIS THING CAME INTO THE COURTROOM THIS MORNING BECAUSE I AM UNCERTAIN ABOUT THAT. I JUST WANT TO OPEN THESE BOXES RIGHT NOW IF I CAN ON THE RECORD AND DESCRIBE WHAT'S IN EACH OF THEM. IS THAT ALL RIGHT?

MR. SCHECK: WELL, THEN I WOULD SUGGEST IF SHE DOESN'T KNOW AND IF THERE'S ANY CONFUSION, THAT WE DO THIS A SYSTEMATIC WAY WITH THE PEOPLE AND WITH YOUR COURIERS. I WILL GO AND I WILL HAVE -- I WILL BE THERE AS A WITNESS AND WE'LL HAVE AGENTS FROM YOUR OFFICE DO IT. MISS CLARK, I THINK YOU'D BETTER DO IT CAREFULLY BECAUSE THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH CHAIN OF CUSTODY.

MS. CLARK: WHY DON'T YOU ADDRESS THE COURT, COUNSEL.

MR. SCHECK: YES. I DON'T MEAN TO SAY THIS TO YOU. YOU MAY NOT EVEN BE AWARE OF IT. BUT THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH RESPECT TO CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF AN IMPORTANT ITEM AND I JUST THINK THAT THIS SHOULD BE DONE IN A CAREFUL FASHION. AND IF THOSE HAVEN'T BEEN OPENED BEFORE, I THINK WE SHOULD JUST HAVE A CLEAR RECORD AS TO WHO'S OPENED THEM SINCE THEY CAME BACK THAT ACCORDING TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THAT THEY'RE NOT IN THE SAME ORDER IN WHICH THEY WERE SENT. IF WE ARE GOING TO DO IT, WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL AND MAKE A RECORD.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, COULD WE JUST SEE WHAT'S IN THE BOX? I WANT TO KNOW WHERE THE ITEM IS THAT I WANT TO MARK.

THE COURT: YOU'RE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT COMPROMISING ANYTHING THAT MIGHT BE IN THERE BY OPENING IT?

MS. CLARK: I AM SURE WE WILL NOT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I WAS INFORMED BY MR. HODGMAN --

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, YOU KNOW SOMETHING? THE PEOPLE'S CASE --

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, WAIT. DON'T INTERRUPT COUNSEL, PLEASE.

MR. SCHECK: I WAS INFORMED BY MR. HODGMAN, HE MADE INQUIRY WITH RESPECT TO THE PACKAGE THAT WE OPENED IN CHAMBERS YESTERDAY AND THAT THERE IS NO PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD OF HOW THAT ITEM WAS ORIGINALLY PACKAGED, AND THEY'RE STILL MAKING INQUIRY AS TO HOW THIS ITEM OF EVIDENCE WAS MISSING. IF YOU WANT, WE CAN PUT ALL THAT ON THE RECORD NOW. IT'S UP TO THE COURT.

MS. CLARK: YOU KNOW WHAT? FORGET IT.

MR. SCHECK: I'M JUST SAYING, THIS SHOULD BE HANDLED CAREFULLY. I DON'T MIND STICKING AROUND AND HAVING THE PEOPLE WITH THE COURIERS COME BACK. IF THEY'VE ALREADY OPENED IT AND CAN'T FIND SOMETHING, WE'LL CALL THE VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS AND WE'LL FIND IT AND WE'LL MAKE A CLEAR RECORD ON THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY. I DON'T THINK SHE SHOULD JUST BE OPENING THINGS IN THE COURTROOM LIKE THIS WHEN THERE'S ALREADY A SERIOUS MATTER ABOUT A CERTAIN ITEM OF EVIDENCE BEING LOST.

MS. CLARK: YOU KNOW WHAT, YOUR HONOR? I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANOTHER WORD FROM MR. SCHECK. FORGET IT. WE WON'T OPEN ANYTHING. AND WHEN THE TIME COMES FOR ME TO GO ON REDIRECT WITH DETECTIVE LANGE, I WILL DO WHAT I NEED TO DO TO INTRODUCE THE EVIDENCE, AND I'M SURE THAT IT WILL BE FINE. SO I'M WITHDRAWING MY REQUEST. THAT'S IT. WE'RE DONE. THE JUDGE ONLY ASKED US TO STAY BECAUSE OF MY REQUEST. I WITHDRAW THE REQUEST. I ASSUME THAT THERE'S NOTHING ELSE TO TALK ABOUT.

MR. SCHECK: WITH RESPECT TO COUNSEL --

MS. CLARK: MAY I BE EXCUSED, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: NO.

MR. SCHECK: I WOULD JUST ASK SHE MAKE INQUIRY OF MR. HODGMAN ABOUT A MATTER.

MS. CLARK: I HAVE WORK TO DO UPSTAIRS. LET MR. SCHECK COMMUNICATE WITH MR. HODGMAN.

THE COURT: COUNSEL.

MR. SCHECK: I'M JUST TRYING TO BE HELPFUL.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK HAS WITHDRAWN HER REQUEST. WE'RE IN RECESS.

(AT 12:15 P.M., THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1995 1:32 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. COUNSEL, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO REJOIN US?

MR. COCHRAN: NO, YOUR HONOR. THIS AFTERNOON, PROBABLY AT THE BREAK, WE WILL WANT TO SHOW SOME MORE VIDEO -- VISUAL VIDEOS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THE COURT AND COUNSEL. WE HAVE --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, MISS CLARK, ARE WE READY?

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

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ARE WE READY? LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

MS. CLARK: WAS THERE SOMETHING ELSE THAT COUNSEL WANTED TO SHOW US?

THE COURT: NO. MR. COCHRAN INDICATED THAT AT THE BREAK HE HAD SOME ADDITIONAL VIDEO.

MS. CLARK: WHY NOT SHOW US NOW?

MR. DOUGLAS: THEY ALREADY HAVE IT, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: WELL, WE NEED TO SEE -- AS WE HAVE DONE THE COURTESY TO COUNSEL THROUGHOUT THIS TRIAL, I SHOW IT TO COUNSEL BEFORE I SHOW IT TO THE WITNESS. SINCE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SHOW TO US --

MR. COCHRAN: MISS CLARK, YOU WEREN'T LISTENING. WE ARE NOT SHOWING IT TO THE WITNESS YET. JUST RELAX.

MS. CLARK: YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE GOING TO. WHY NOT DO IT NOW? WHY NOT LOOK AT IT NOW?

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

MR. COCHRAN: IT IS OUR CASE, YOUR HONOR. WE WANT TO DO IT AT THE BREAK.

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

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

(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. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.

TOM LANGE, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE NOON RECESS, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

THE COURT: DETECTIVE TOM LANGE IS STILL ON THE WITNESS STAND. GOOD AFTERNOON, DETECTIVE.

THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONTINUE WITH YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR.

GOOD AFTERNOON, THE JURY, AND DETECTIVE LANGE. DID YOU HAVE A PLEASANT LUNCH?

THE WITNESS: NOT REALLY.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M SORRY.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: WERE YOU ABLE TO GET THE ITEMS AND REFER TO THEM OVER THE LUNCH HOUR, SIR?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH WITH REGARD TO THE LIST AND MAYBE IF WE CAN HAVE A MOMENT AND SAVE SOME TIME AND TELL ME THOSE ITEMS HE WAS ABLE TO FIND AND WHATEVER?

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, DO YOU WANT TO APPROACH?

MS. CLARK: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: YES. MISS CLARK.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MS. CLARK, MR. COCHRAN AND THE WITNESS.)

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SORRY FOR THE DELAY.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: DETECTIVE LANGE, OVER THE LUNCH HOUR WERE YOU ABLE TO REVIEW ANY OF YOUR REPORTS AND DETERMINE, FIRST OF ALL, WHEN IT WAS THAT YOU RECEIVED SOME COMMUNICATION FROM MR. MAHANAY WHO IS A CRIMINALIST IN THE CORONER'S OFFICE WITH REGARD TO THEIR FAILURE TO COLLECT THE BLOOD DROPS OR SPATTERS ON NICOLE SIMPSON'S BACK?

A: MY OFFICE WAS FAXED MR. MAHANAY'S REPORT ON JUNE 23, 1994.

Q: WAS THAT JUNE 21ST?

A: IT MIGHT BE 21ST, YES.

Q: JUNE 21ST?

A: JUNE 21ST, YES.

Q: SORRY. OKAY. AND THEREAFTER DID YOU DO SOMETHING AFTER THAT?

A: YES. I TELEPHONICALLY SPOKE WITH MR. MAHANAY.

Q: AND THAT WAS --

A: APPROXIMATELY TWO TO THREE WEEKS AFTER, AND THAT IS ONLY A GUESS.

Q: AND IT WAS IN THAT CONVERSATION WHEN YOU DISCUSSED WHETHER OR NOT THE CORONER'S OFFICE HAD REMOVED OR EXAMINED OR PRESERVED THESE BLOOD SPOTS ON THE BACK; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, IN THAT CONNECTION, WHEN WE HAVE SEEN PICTURES OF HOW MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY WAS KIND OF ON HER SIDE IN A FETAL POSITION AND WHEN THE CORONER'S REPRESENTATIVES, RATCLIFFE AND -- WHAT WAS THE GENTLEMAN'S NAME WHO CAME OUT?

A: THERE WAS A DRIVER. IT IS IN THE LOG.

Q: WAS IT JACOBO, J-A-C-O-B-O?

A: POSSIBLY SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

Q: WHEN THEY CAME OUT, YOU WERE STANDING THERE WHEN HER BODY WAS PLACED ON THIS -- THIS SHEET IN THE PLASTIC; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU RECALL THAT THEY TURNED HER BODY OVER ON THE BACK SO SHE IS LYING ON HER BACK; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE THEY MAY HAVE, YES.

Q: AND SO -- DID YOU TELL THEM "BE CAREFUL, DON'T PUT THE BODY ON THE BACK BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING DO SMEAR THAT BLOOD"?

A: I POINTED THAT OUT TO THE CRIMINALIST AND I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY SAYING THAT. I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS IN A POSITION TO BE SMEARED. IT WAS CAKED AND DRIED.

Q: WELL, LET ME ASK THIS: WHAT CRIMINALIST DID YOU POINT THAT OUT TO?

A: THE INVESTIGATOR. I MISSPOKE.

Q: OKAY.

A: TO THE INVESTIGATOR WHO PUT THE BODY ON THE --

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, WHEN -- BEFORE HER BODY WAS REMOVED FROM THAT SCENE, HER BODY WAS PLACED ON ITS BACK; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: IT WAS ON THE BACK SO MUCH THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO STRAIGHTEN THE BODY OUT BECAUSE OF THE STATE OF RIGOR MORTIS.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: SO I DON'T RECALL THE BODY BEING PERFECTLY SUPINE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT AS OPPOSED TO BEING ON ITS FACE, IT WAS ON THE BACK, THOUGH; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: MORE OR LESS, YES.

Q: OKAY, SIR. AND THE PERSON THAT YOU POINTED OUT TO BE CAREFUL NOT TO SMEAR THE BLOOD ON THE BACK WOULD HAVE BEEN RATCLIFFE, THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR?

A: YES. THAT IS THE ORIGINAL PERSON I DISCUSSED THAT WITH.

Q: OKAY. AND WE HAD ASKED YOU IF YOU COULD CHECK YOUR NOTES OR YOUR HOMICIDE BOOKS AND FIND OUT ABOUT THIS JULY 3RD, 1995 -- STRIKE THAT -- JULY 3RD, 1994 VISIT TO BUNDY WHEN YOU HAVE TESTIFIED THE BLOOD SPOTS -- BLOOD SPOTS ON THE REAR GATE WERE COLLECTED. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU HAVE OCCASION OVER THE LUNCH HOUR TO LOOK AT ANY KIND OF CHRONOLOGICAL ENTRY IN THE LOG REGARDING THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOUR REVIEW OF THAT LOG INDICATE THAT YOU WERE THE FIRST ONE AT THE SCENE, OTHER THAN A POLICE OFFICER, WHO MAY HAVE GOTTEN THERE BEFORE YOU DID?

A: THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION, YES.

Q: AND THAT POLICE OFFICER WOULD HAVE BEEN DETECTIVE PAYNE?

A: YES.

Q: BY THE WAY, DETECTIVE PAYNE IS THE OFFICER WHO HAS BEEN RUNNING DOWN LEADS, IF ANY, REGARDING OTHER SUSPECTS; IS THAT CORRECT, IN THIS CASE?

A: NO. HE HAS BEEN DOING SOME OF THAT, BUT MOSTLY COORDINATE THAT TYPE OF THING.

Q: COORDINATING WHAT TYPE OF THING?

A: RUNNING DOWN LEADS, RUNNING DOWN SO-CALLED CLUES AS THEY COME IN.

Q: THE CLUES AND HIS NAME IS PAYNE, P-A-Y-N-E?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: IS HE ASSIGNED TO WEST LOS ANGELES?

A: NO HE IS ASSIGNED TO ROBBERY/HOMICIDE DIVISION.

Q: SO HE IS ONE OF YOUR PEOPLE AT ROBBERY HOMICIDE DOWNTOWN?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: THAT IS A CHORE OR TASK THAT YOU ASSIGNED HIM EARLY ON IN THIS CASE?

A: IT WAS DONE BY MY LIEUTENANT AT THE TIME.

Q: THAT IS LIEUTENANT ROGERS?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: OKAY. AT ANY RATE, SO DETECTIVE PAYNE MAY HAVE BEEN AT THE SCENE. WOULD YOU HAVE BEEN THE SECOND POLICE OFFICER THERE?

A: MORE THAN LIKELY.

Q: AND DO YOU HAVE A RECORD TO INDICATE WHAT TIME YOU ACTUALLY ARRIVED, APPROXIMATELY?

A: YES.

Q: ABOUT WHAT TIME DID YOU ARRIVE?

A: AT 9:45 A.M.

Q: ON JULY 3RD; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN AFTER YOU ARRIVED -- IT WAS SOMETIME AFTER YOU ARRIVED THAT MISS CLARK ARRIVED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHO ARRIVED FIRST AS BETWEEN MISS CLARK AND MR. HODGMAN?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: IF YOU RECALL?

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE POSSIBLE RELEVANCE OF THIS?

MR. COCHRAN: THERE MAY BE, YOUR HONOR. I WILL BE -- THERE MAY BE. I WILL BE VERY BRIEF ON THIS.

THE COURT: IF THERE IS ONLY MAYBE, THEN WE OUGHT TO MOVE ON.

MR. COCHRAN: WE WILL MOVE ON. I JUST WANT TO FIND OUT IF I CAN, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THEY DIDN'T COME TOGETHER, DID THEY?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THE TWO OF THEM, WHO ARRIVED FIRST?

A: I DON'T RECALL.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IT WAS AFTER THEY ARRIVED -- DO YOU KNOW THE TIME THEY ARRIVED?

A: IT HAD TO BE RIGHT AROUND 10:00 A.M., SHORTLY THEREAFTER.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: I BELIEVE 10:00 A.M. WAS THE MEETING TIME.

Q: AND DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT MR. FUNG, THE CRIMINALIST, WAS SUMMONED THERE AT SOME TIME THAT MORNING?

A: YES.

Q: AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME HE ARRIVED?

A: NO. IT HAD TO BE OBVIOUSLY AFTER 10:00.

Q: YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TIME HE ARRIVED?

A: NO.

Q: AND WAS A PHOTOGRAPHER SUMMONED ALSO?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE PICTURE WHICH I SHOWED YOU, THE PICTURE WHICH I SHOWED YOU EARLIER, WAS THAT TAKEN AT SOME TIME LATER THAT DAY ON JULY 3RD?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

MS. CLARK: OBJECT, VAGUE AS TO WHICH PICTURE COUNSEL IS REFERRING TO.

MR. COCHRAN: SURE, COUNSEL.

MS. CLARK: THE RECORD IS NOT CLEAR.

MR. COCHRAN: COUNSEL IS CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. THE PICTURES THAT WE SHOWED IS 1007, 1007, YOUR HONOR. THAT PICTURE OFF A PHOTOGRAPH HERE WAS TAKEN SOME TIME LATER THAT DAY, JULY 3RD, 1994; IS THAT CORRECT?

Q: WHEN YOU ARRIVED ON THE SCENE ON JULY 3RD, UP TO THAT POINT YOU HAD NOT SEEN ANY PROPERTY REPORTS, ANY REPORTS FROM THE CRIMINALIST, MR. FUNG OR MISS MAZZOLLA?

A: THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU VISUALLY LOOK AT THE REAR GATE OF THE BUNDY LOCATION THAT DAY?

A: YES, I WALKED -- SORRY.

Q: DID YOU VISUALLY LOOK AT THAT GATE?

A: YES, I WALKED IN THROUGH THAT GATE.

Q: THEREAFTER OR AFTER YOU HAD YOUR MEETING THERE, THAT IS WHEN FUNG WAS ACTUALLY CALLED TO THE SCENE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHO MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AT THAT LOCATION BETWEEN THE DATES OF JUNE 13TH AND JULY 3RD, 1994, DO YOU?

A: WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN AT THE LOCATION?

Q: YES. THERE IS NO LOG TO INDICATE WHO MAY HAVE PASSED BY THERE OR COME TO THAT LOCATION, DO YOU?

A: I HAVE MY ENTRIES ONLY. I DON'T KNOW IF SOMEONE ELSE HAS A LOG.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE NO LOG OF PEOPLE WHO WERE AT THAT SCENE DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME?

A: ON THE 3RD?

Q: NO, BETWEEN JUNE 13TH AND JULY 3RD?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, VAGUE AS TO THE LOCATION. WHAT SCENE, WHERE?

THE COURT: OVERRULED. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BUNDY.

MR. COCHRAN: TALKING ABOUT BUNDY.

MS. CLARK: WHERE AT BUNDY?

THE COURT: 875 SOUTH BUNDY.

MS. CLARK: FRONT, BACK, WHAT?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, SPEAKING OBJECTION.

Q: WOULD YOU PLEASE ANSWER?

A: THERE ARE SEVERAL LOGS IN THE BOOK AND I KNOW THAT I HAD BEEN TO THAT LOCATION PRIOR. I DON'T KNOW --

Q: WHAT I'M ASKING YOU, SIR, IS THERE WAS NO POLICE WHO MAINTAINED A PERIMETER FOR THE THREE-WEEK PERIOD OF TIME AFTER YOU TOOK THE YELLOW TAPE DOWN; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THE ENTIRE TIME? OKAY. I MISUNDERSTOOD YOUR QUESTION. NO, THERE WASN'T.

Q: OKAY. THAT IS ALL I WAS ASKING YOU, SIR. NOW, WHEN WE BROKE FOR LUNCH, WE WERE JUST ASKING YOU ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU HAD LEFT THE BUNDY SCENE AT SOMETIME AROUND NOON, WAS IT, ON JUNE 13TH, 1994?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 12:15, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU LOG OUT AT THAT POINT, IF YOU RECALL?

A: I BELIEVE I DID.

Q: AND DID YOU RECEIVE A TELEPHONE CALL OR SOMETHING THAT CAUSED YOU TO LEAVE THE LOCATION?

A: YES.

Q: WHO CALLED YOU?

A: THE STATION FROM THE DIVISION, ONE OF THE SECRETARIES.

Q: OKAY. YOU HAD A BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH HER?

A: YES.

Q: YOU LEFT AT ABOUT 12:15; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: IF I MIGHT APPROACH AGAIN, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THE LOG WHICH IS NOW DEFENDANTS 1006, THE LOG INDICATES YOU ARRIVED AT ABOUT --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, OBJECTION. THE WITNESS CAN REFRESH HIS MEMORY. COUNSEL IS READING FROM THE DOCUMENT.

MR. COCHRAN: I AM NOT TRYING TO REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION.

MS. CLARK: CAN THE WITNESS BE ALLOWED TO READ?

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE QUESTION?

MS. CLARK: THERE IS A PROPER WAY TO DO THIS, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: DO WE HAVE TO HAVE THE SPEAKING OBJECTIONS, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE QUESTION?

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THE QUESTION IS DID YOU ARRIVE AT THE SCENE AT ABOUT 4:25 IN THE MORNING?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU LEFT TO GO DOWNTOWN TO PARKER CENTER AT ABOUT 12:15?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: NOW, DOES THE LOG REFLECT THE TIME THAT YOU LEFT BUNDY TO GO OVER TO ROCKINGHAM AND THEN THE TIME THAT YOU CAME BACK FROM ROCKINGHAM TO BUNDY?

A: NO. I CHECKED OUT WITH MY LIEUTENANT AT THE SCENE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, NOW YOU CAN LOOK AT THE LOG. DID YOU INDICATE THAT? IS THAT INDICATED ON THE LOG THAT YOU LEFT AT ALL?

A: THAT WOULDN'T BE INDICATED ON THERE, NO.

Q: SO THE LOG INDICATES WHAT?

A: WHEN I FIRST ARRIVED AT THE LOCATION AND WHEN I LEFT THE LOCATION FOR THE DAY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IT DOES NOT SHOW THE ROCKINGHAM SOJOURN, RIGHT?

A: NO. AGAIN THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN MY LIEUTENANT WHO I CHECKED OUT WITH.

Q: OKAY. NOW, SO WHEN YOU WENT DOWNTOWN WERE YOU ACCOMPANIED BY ANYONE WHEN YOU WENT DOWNTOWN AT 12:15?

A: NO. I BELIEVE I WAS ALONE.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU GO ANY PLACE ELSE AFTER YOU LEFT BUNDY BEFORE HEADING DOWNTOWN?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Q: YOU DIDN'T STOP BY ROCKINGHAM AT ALL?

A: NOT AT THAT TIME, NO.

Q: OKAY. HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO GET DOWNTOWN, DO YOU RECALL?

A: PERHAPS THIRTY, FORTY MINUTES. I DON'T RECALL.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AT ANY RATE, YOU WENT DOWNTOWN TO PARKER CENTER AND THAT IS WHEN YOU FOUND MR. SIMPSON TO BE COOPERATIVE, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU TELL US HOW LONG YOU WERE IN MR. SIMPSON'S PRESENCE DURING THAT TIME?

A: APPROXIMATELY THREE HOURS, PERHAPS A LITTLE MORE.

Q: AND OF THAT THREE-HOUR PERIOD OF TIME, THE TIME YOU ACTUALLY SPOKE TO HIM WAS HOW LONG?

A: I SPOKE TO HIM OFF AND ON FOR MUCH OF THE TIME. THERE WAS A -- A FORMAL INTERVIEW PROCESS THAT TOOK A LITTLE OVER THIRTY MINUTES.

Q: I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FORMAL INTERVIEW PORTION. SO ABOUT 33 MINUTES?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DURING THE TIME THAT YOU WERE WITH MR. SIMPSON AND AFTER THE FORMAL INTERVIEW, DID YOU TAKE SOME BLOOD FROM HIM?

A: I DID NOT.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO OBJECT. THIS IS ALL BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DIRECT, ALL OF IT.

MR. COCHRAN: I ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO MAKE HIM MY WITNESS FOR THAT PURPOSE, YOUR HONOR, RATHER THAN RECALLING HIM.

THE COURT: THE OBJECTION WILL BE SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE BE HEARD, YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THAT?

THE COURT: YES.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE ARE AT SIDE BAR.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I ASK LEAVE THE COURT TO ALLOW ME LIMITED QUESTIONING AT THIS POINT. IT MAY BE TECHNICALLY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DIRECT. MY OWN WITNESS AT THIS POINT. I WANT TO ESTABLISH THE FACT OF THE BLOOD AND WHAT HAPPENED. I SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT WITHOUT BRINGING HIM BACK FOR THAT PURPOSE.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS WHY WE HAVE PEOPLE'S CASE, DEFENDANT'S CASE AND HE IS TRYING TO INTERRUPT THE PEOPLE'S CASE AND PUT ON THE DEFENSE CASE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. THE PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO STRUCTURE THEIR CASE AS THEY SEE FIT AND LIMIT THE WITNESS TO CERTAIN POINTS ON DIRECT, AND THERE IS CROSS AND THAT IS WHY WE HAVE RULES OF COURT.

THE COURT: LET ME ASK YOU THIS, QUESTION, MARCIA: ARE WE DOING -- IS SOMEBODY ELSE GOING TO TESTIFY TO THE TAKING OF THE BLOOD?

MS. CLARK: YES, SIR, THEY ARE. THAT IS WHY THIS IS NOT THE CORRECT WITNESS. HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: HE WAS THERE. HE DID HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT. HE IS THE ONE WHO ORDERED IT. HE IS THE INVESTIGATOR. THAT IS BALONEY. I AM TRYING TO ESTABLISH FOR THIS LIMITED PURPOSE HE WAS THERE AND COOPERATIVE. THAT IS WHAT I WANT TO ESTABLISH. AND I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE HIM MY WITNESS AND I'M NOT TRYING TO INTERFERE WITH THEIR CASE. THIS IS CROSS-EXAMINATION. I'M NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THE COURSE OF THEIR CASE. SHE IS ALLOWED ALL THIS LEEWAY, ALL THIS TIME, AND THAT IS ALL I'M ASKING TO DO.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, AS I TOLD YOU BEFORE, THAT ARGUMENT DOESN'T --

MR. COCHRAN: STRIKE THAT. I WOULD LIKE SOME LEEWAY WITH REGARD TO THIS. VERY LIMITED. I JUST WANT TO BRING THIS OUT AND I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO HIS GOING BACK OUT. THAT IS ALL I WANT TO DO.

MS. CLARK: COUNSEL NEEDS TO REMEMBER WHAT THE MEANING OF CROSS-EXAMINATION IS. CROSS-EXAMINATION IS AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN GONE ON INTO DIRECT AND IT IS PEOPLE'S CASE IN CHIEF AT THIS TIME. WHEN COUNSEL WANTS TO GO IN AND SHOW COOPERATIVENESS AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF, COUNSEL HAS A CASE IN CHIEF WHERE HE CAN PUT IT ALL ON IN THE APPROPRIATE MANNER AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, BUT RIGHT NOW, ESPECIALLY WITH THIS WITNESS, IT IS INAPPROPRIATE, WAY BEYOND THE SCOPE, AND THERE IS NO JUST CAUSE TO INTERRUPT THE PEOPLE'S CASE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. YOU WILL GUARANTEE, MISS CLARK, THAT DETECTIVE LANGE WILL BE AVAILABLE WHENEVER I WANT HIM?

MS. CLARK: ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I SAY SOMETHING?

THE COURT: SURE.

MR. COCHRAN: YOU ARE THE JUDGE. I DON'T NEED TO BE INSTRUCTED BY COUNSEL ON HOW TO TRY MY CASE. SHE IS GOING TO FIND OUT I DON'T NEED ANY HELP FROM HER. SO ALL I'M ASKING IS TO ALLOW US TO ASK THIS QUESTION. YOUR HONOR, ALL I'M ASKING TO DO IS BE ABLE TO ASK TO ALLOW A COUPLE QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS AND THEN I WILL MOVE ON, JUDGE. THAT IS ALL. THERE IS NO BIG DEAL ABOUT THIS.

MS. CLARK: YOU KNOW SOMETHING, YOUR HONOR, A COUPLE QUESTIONS HERE AND A COUPLE QUESTIONS HERE --

THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, MARCIA. WAIT. I SUSTAINED THE OBJECTION. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, YES, YOU CAN TAKE A WITNESS OUT OF ORDER, YOU CAN MAKE THEM YOUR OWN WITNESS, BUT IN THIS SITUATION THE PROSECUTION IS ENTITLED TO TRY THEIR CASE THE WAY THEY WANT TO TRY THEIR CASE. YOU CAN RECALL HIM DURING YOUR CASE IN CHIEF. THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: HE WILL BE AVAILABLE?

THE COURT: I WILL MAKE HIM AVAILABLE TO YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, THANKS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR.

Q: ABOUT WHAT TIME DID YOU FINISH WITH YOUR CONTACT WITH MR. SIMPSON DOWNTOWN ON JUNE 13TH IN THE AFTERNOON?

A: APPROXIMATELY 4:00 P.M.

Q: AND ABOUT 4:00 P.M. IN THE AFTERNOON?

A: APPROXIMATELY. IT MAY HAVE BEEN A LITTLE EARLIER.

Q: WELL, DIDN'T YOU FINISH ABOUT 2:30?

A: WITH MY CONTACT?

Q: YES, SEEING MR. SIMPSON?

A: I THOUGHT I WAS WITH HIM FOR APPROXIMATELY THREE HOURS.

Q: GIVE US YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION THEN.

A: MY BEST RECOLLECTION --

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS ALL BEYOND THE SCOPE.

THE COURT: THIS IS NOT BEYOND THE SCOPE BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE TIME THAT THIS DETECTIVE SPENT ON THAT DAY. I AM NOT ALLOWING HIM TO GO INTO THE CONTACT OF WHAT HE DID WITH THE DEFENDANT. THAT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: BUT AS FAR AS HIS ACTIVITY, WHERE HE WAS AT CERTAIN TIMES, THAT IS WITHIN THE SCOPE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: SO LET'S GO BACK OVER --

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THE DISTINCTION.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU ARRIVED DOWNTOWN AT PARKER CENTER WHAT TIME?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 1:00 P.M.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION NOW IS HOW LONG WERE YOU THERE BEFORE YOU LEFT PARKER CENTER?

A: APPROXIMATELY THREE HOURS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN YOU ARRIVED DOWN THERE DID YOU MEET --

A: NOT THERE. IN THE COMPANY OF MR. SIMPSON I BELIEVE WAS APPROXIMATELY THREE HOURS.

Q: OKAY. WAS THAT ALL DOWNTOWN?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND SO WOULD THAT BE AT PARKER CENTER?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WERE YOU ALSO IN THE COMPANY OF YOUR PARTNER, DETECTIVE VANNATTER?

A: FOR PART OF THAT TIME.

Q: YOU WENT SOME OTHER PLACE WHILE YOU WERE DOWNTOWN ALSO?

A: WITHIN PARKER CENTER.

Q: IN THIS SAME AREA?

A: WITHIN THE BUILDING.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THERE CAME A TIME WHEN YOU WERE CONCLUDED WITH MR. SIMPSON FOR THAT DAY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: THAT WAS AT ABOUT FOUR O'CLOCK?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS.

Q: DID MR. SIMPSON THEN LEAVE THE BUILDING AT THAT POINT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DURING THIS THREE-HOUR PERIOD OF TIME -- STRIKE THAT. AFTER HE LEFT THE BUILDING AT ABOUT FOUR O'CLOCK DID YOU THEN LEAVE THE BUILDING SHORTLY THEREAFTER?

A: SOMETIME AFTER THAT, YES.

Q: OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME IT WAS YOU LEFT THE BUILDING?

A: I WILL SAY APPROXIMATELY 4:30 PERHAPS.

Q: ABOUT 4:30 P.M.?

A: APPROXIMATELY.

Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY KIND OF LOG OR ANY KIND OF NOTES WHICH REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION REGARDING THIS, SIR?

A: I WOULDN'T HAVE MADE A RECORDATION OF WHEN I LEFT.

Q: AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANY TYPE OF -- ANY REPORT INDICATING THE EXACT TIMES?

A: THAT I LEFT THE BUILDING?

Q: THAT YOU FINISHED WITH MR. SIMPSON AND LEFT THE BUILDING?

A: NO, I WOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT.

Q: YOU LEFT THE BUILDING AT ABOUT 4:30?

A: AGAIN, THAT IS AN APPROXIMATE TIME. I BELIEVE IT WAS SOMEWHERE IN THERE.

Q: WHERE DID YOU GO AT THAT POINT?

A: I WENT TO 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM.

Q: WENT BACK OUT TO MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND HOW DID YOU GET OUT THERE?

A: I DROVE.

Q: WERE YOU DRIVING BY YOURSELF AT THIS POINT?

A: I BELIEVE I WAS.

Q: AND DID YOU HAVE SOME CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER BEFORE YOU WENT BACK OUT TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

Q: DID BOTH OF YOU THEN GO BACK OUT TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

Q: AND ABOUT WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU ARRIVED BACK AT ROCKINGHAM, IF YOU RECALL?

A: APPROXIMATELY 5:15 P.M.

Q: AND WHEN YOU GOT TO ROCKINGHAM, WAS MR. SIMPSON AT THAT LOCATION?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE HE WAS THERE AT THAT TIME.

Q: DO YOU RECALL A TIME THAT HE CAME BACK TO ROCKINGHAM THAT AFTERNOON?

A: I RECALL HIM COMING THERE. I DON'T RECALL THE TIME.

Q: YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE TIME WAS?

A: WELL, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AFTER 5:15 AND PROBABLY BEFORE 6:30, SOMEWHERE IN THERE.

Q: SOMEWHERE IN THAT TIME FRAME?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: AGAIN, DO YOU HAVE ANY REPORTS WHICH WOULD REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION REGARDING THAT TIME?

A: THE TIME OF HIS ARRIVAL?

Q: YEAH, THE TIME THAT HE GOT BACK THERE, YES?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU RECOVERED SOME REEBOK SHOES FROM MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE THERE. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU RECOVERED THESE SHOES MR. SIMPSON WAS THERE, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU HAVE A REPORT WITH REGARD TO THAT THAT INDICATES THE TIME OF THE RECOVERY OF THESE REEBOK SHOES?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS ANYTHING ABOUT THE TIME, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE A REPORT BUT IT DOESN'T TELL THE TIME?

A: THERE IS A PROPERTY REPORT, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS A TIME ON IT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, THESE TENNIS SHOES, WHERE WERE THEY RECOVERED FROM?

A: FROM THE WALK-IN CLOSET ADJACENT TO THE MASTER BEDROOM.

Q: THAT IS UPSTAIRS IN THE BEDROOM ON ROCKINGHAM?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WHERE -- DO YOU RECALL THAT ALL THE SHOES WERE LIKE KIND OF LINED UP IN SOME KIND OF SYMMETRICAL ORDER ACCORDING TO COLOR AND SORT OF THING? DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: THEY WERE WITH SEVERAL SHOES, YES, ON THE FLOOR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THERE WERE SOME TENNIS SHOES ON THE FLOOR?

A: THERE WERE TENNIS SHOES ALSO, YES.

Q: AND THESE SHOES, BASED UPON YOUR INVESTIGATION, WERE IMPORTANT TO YOU; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY THAT THEY WOULD BE OF SOME IMPORT, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU ASKED MR. SIMPSON AT SOME POINT TO POINT OUT THE SHOES HE WAS WEARING, AS YOU SAID YESTERDAY; IS THAT CORRECT, THE NIGHT BEFORE?

A: IF HE COULD RECALL THE SHOES HE WAS WEARING, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU WENT AND THEN YOU THEN PICKED UP THESE REEBOK SHOES, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: WAS VANNATTER PRESENT WHEN THIS TOOK PLACE?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THOSE SHOES, DID YOU TAKE THOSE SHOES BACK DOWNTOWN AND BOOK THEM AT PARKER CENTER?

A: I WOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT, NO.

Q: PURSUANT TO THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT MANUAL YOU WOULD HAVE TAKEN THE SHOES AND BOOKED THEM AT SOME OTHER STATION PERHAPS ON YOUR WAY HOME, COULD YOU NOT?

A: NO, I COULD NOT HAVE.

Q: YOU COULD NOT DO THAT?

A: I COULD NOT HAVE DONE THAT.

Q: WHAT DOES THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT MANUAL SAY ABOUT THE BOOKING OF EVIDENCE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER IT IS TAKEN INTO AN OFFICER'S POSSESSION?

A: GENERALLY IT SAYS THAT IT SHALL BE BOOKED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THAT MANUAL IS A GUIDE AND TO BE INTERPRETED AS SUCH TO ASSIST US TO DO OUR JOB IN A UNIFORM MANNER. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE AT ALL TIMES TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THE MANUAL SAYS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW WE ARE TALKING NOT THE EXPLANATION; WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE MANUAL, OKAY?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, OBJECTION. EDITORIALIZING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED AT THIS POINT.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: IT IS NOT A QUESTION. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I REPHRASE THE QUESTION?

THE COURT: PLEASE.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: ARE WE TALKING ABOUT SECTION 510.10 OF THE MANUAL?

A: I AM AWARE OF THE CONTENT, COUNSELOR. I HAVEN'T -- I HAVEN'T MEMORIZED THE SECTION.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET ME READ THIS TO YOU AND SEE IF THIS REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. CAN THE WITNESS BE ALLOWED TO --

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THAT IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE WAY. DO YOU WANT TO SHOW IT TO HIM?

MR. COCHRAN: SURE. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

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

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I BORROW YOUR HONOR'S MANUAL, LAPD MANUAL?

THE COURT: I RETURNED THAT BACK TO THE CHIEF'S OFFICE AFTER WE BORROWED IT.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS -- WHAT COUNSEL IS ATTEMPTING TO SHOW --

THE COURT: NO, COUNSEL.

MS. CLARK: IT IS NOT THE MANUAL.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE A SECTION OF THE MANUAL AND I WANT TO SHOW IT TO HIM.

THE COURT: IF IT IS NOT THE ACTUAL MANUAL -- WE HAVE A MANUAL AVAILABLE, DON'T WE? WHY DON'T WE PASS THIS TOPIC.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. I WILL SEE IF WE CAN GET THE MANUAL.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THE SECTION OF THE MANUAL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DEALS WITH BOOKING OF EVIDENCE AND NON-EVIDENCE GENERALLY, DOES IT NOT?

A: I BELIEVE IT MAY, YES.

Q: AND DOESN'T IT INDICATE TO YOU THAT AN EMPLOYEE SEIZING OR TAKING CUSTODY OF EVIDENCE SHALL ENSURE IT IS PROPERLY --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: I CAN ASK HIM ABOUT HIS RECOLLECTION OF WHAT IT SAYS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU CAN.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DOESN'T THE MANUAL INDICATE THAT HE SHALL BOOK EVIDENCE SEIZED WITHOUT UNNECESSARY DELAY? ISN'T THAT WHAT THE MANUAL SAYS?

A: IT SAYS THAT, BUT THAT IN FACT IS A GUIDE.

Q: CAN YOU JUST ANSWER? IS THAT WHAT THE MANUAL SAYS?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THE WITNESS IS ALLOWED TO EXPLAIN.

THE COURT: HE IS ENTITLED TO FINISH HIS ANSWER. DON'T ARGUE WITH THE WITNESS.

MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE HIM TO BE RESPONSIVE, IF THE COURT PLEASES.

THE COURT: HE IS. HE IS ANSWERING THE QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.

THE COURT: I THINK WE ARE ALL AGREED AS A GENERAL POLICY EVIDENCE SHOULD BE BOOKED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. I WANT HIM TO SAY THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: HE SAID THAT ALREADY TWICE.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.

Q: SO NOW IN THAT REGARD -- SO YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT ON JUNE 13TH; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE TAKING OF THESE PARTICULAR SHOES, YOU DID NOT BOOK THOSE SHOES ANY PLACE THAT NIGHT, DID YOU?

A: THAT NIGHT I COULDN'T HAVE, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU TOOK THOSE SHOES HOME TO SIMI VALLEY WITH YOU?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: PUT THEM IN THE BACK OF THE POLICE CAR?

A: IN THE TRUNK.

Q: IN THE BACK OF THE TRUNK OF THE CAR?

A: THEY WERE PLACED IN A CARDBOARD BOX THAT WENT INTO THE TRUNK, YES.

Q: DID YOU EXAMINE THEM VISUALLY AT -- WHEN YOU FIRST TOOK THEM?

A: YES.

Q: FROM THE CLOSET?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: AND THEN WHERE DID YOU GET THIS BOX THAT YOU PUT THEM IN?

A: I HAD A BOX IN THE TRUNK OF MY VEHICLE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU TOOK THEM -- TOOK THE SHOES AND THEN YOU PUT THEM IN THE BOX AND THEN YOU TOOK THE BOX, PUT IT IN THE TRUNK, I PRESUME, AND TOOK IT HOME, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID YOU ON JUNE 14TH, OR SOMETIME AFTER THAT, BOOK THOSE SHOES INTO PROPERTY?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU EVER BOOK THE SHOES?

A: NO. I TURNED THE SHOES OVER TO GREG MATHESON, THE CRIMINALIST, TO BE EXAMINED AND THEN HE WOULD TURN THEM OVER TO BE BOOKED.

Q: AND WHEN DID YOU TURN THE SHOES OVER TO GREG MATHESON?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 7:30 A.M. ON THE MORNING OF THE 14TH OF JUNE, '94.

Q: DO YOU HAVE A REPORT WITH YOU TODAY THAT DETAILS THIS INFORMATION THAT YOU ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT?

A: THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY REPORT THAT DETAILS THAT. POSSIBLY A LOG ENTRY, BUT THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY REPORT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE A LOG ENTRY THAT TELLS US THIS?

A: I COULD LOOK. I DON'T KNOW.

Q: COULD YOU LOOK?

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) YES, THERE IS A LOG ENTRY OF JUNE 14TH AT 7:00 A.M.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

Q: AGAIN WHAT ARE WE REFERRING TO, SIR?

A: WE ARE REFERRING TO TURNING OVER THE REEBOK SHOES THAT YOU ARE ASKING ME ABOUT.

Q: AND THE BOOK WE ARE REFERRING TO IS YOUR HOMICIDE MANUAL?

A: IT IS THE CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD.

Q: WELL, DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT SHOES ON HERE?

A: NO, IT SAYS "EVIDENCE."

Q: IT JUST SAYS "RE EVIDENCE," RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT REEBOK SHOES, DOES IT?

A: IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT REEBOK SHOES, BUT THAT WAS WHEN I TURNED THEM OVER.

Q: DO YOU SHOW -- LET'S LOOK AT THIS LOG WHILE WE ARE HERE.

DOES IT SHOW ON THIS LOG WHAT TIME IT WAS THAT YOU GOT BACK TO THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE?

A: GOT BACK TO THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE? FROM --

Q: GOT TO -- FROM PARKER CENTER? DO YOU HAVE AN INDICATION OF THAT AT ALL?

A: ON THE 13TH?

Q: YES.

A: YES, IT DOES.

Q: AND WHAT TIME DOES IT SHOW?

A: 5:20 P.M. ON THE 13TH.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE LANGE, IS THERE A KNOB THERE ON THE SECOND ONE THERE? IS THAT WHAT THE PROBLEM IS?

THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE IT IS LOOSE DOWN IN HERE. THAT MAY BE BETTER.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: SO YOUR CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD INDICATES THAT ABOUT 5:20 ON JUNE 13TH YOU CAME BACK WITH THE SEARCH WARRANT AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM?

A: I BELIEVE THE WARRANT HAD ALREADY BEEN SERVED. I CAME TO THAT LOCATION TO ASSIST IN THE SERVICE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG YOU STAYED AT THE LOCATION THAT DAY, AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?

A: APPROXIMATELY 6:30, I GUESS, PERHAPS 6:45. Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION WHERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT EVIDENCE HERE ON JUNE 14TH AT SEVEN O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING THAT YOU RECALL TURNING THESE REEBOK TENNIS SHOES OVER TO MATHESON?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT HE DID WITH THEM AT THAT POINT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: WHAT MATHESON DID WITH THE SHOES?

A: YES. I REQUESTED A PHENOL OR PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON REDDISH STAINS THAT I OBSERVED ON THE SHOES AND HE PERFORMED THAT EXAMINATION.

Q: YOU DID THAT ON THAT DATE?

A: YES.

Q: AND ARE THE SHOES STILL BOOKED INTO EVIDENCE NOW?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DO YOU KNOW THE EVIDENCE NUMBER OF THOSE PARTICULAR SHOES?

A: NOT OFFHAND. THAT WOULD BE ON THE PROPERTY REPORT.

Q: AT THE TIME YOU GAVE HIM THOSE SHOES, MATHESON, ON JUNE 14TH AT ABOUT SEVEN O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, DID YOU GIVE HIM ANY OTHER ITEMS OF EVIDENCE AT THAT POINT?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Q: THAT IS ALL YOU GAVE HIM?

A: THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO OTHER EVIDENCE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, DID YOU RECOVER AT THE BUNDY SCENE SOME CHANGE THAT WAS IN THE REAR AREA NEAR THE JEEP VEHICLE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU SEE SOME CHANGE BACK THERE?

A: YES. I BELIEVE THAT WAS RECOVERED BY THE CRIMINALIST.

Q: AND WAS THAT -- WAS THAT -- WAS THE CHANGE EVER BOOKED INTO EVIDENCE?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS.

Q: AND WHO BOOKED THAT EVIDENCE?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS CRIMINALIST FUNG.

Q: NOW, WOULD THE CRIMINALIST BOOK THAT OR WOULD THAT BE BOOKED UNDER YOUR DIRECTION?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: AS THE INVESTIGATOR?

A: THE CRIMINALIST WOULD HAVE TAGGED IT AND HAD IT PHOTOGRAPHED AND COLLECTED IT AND BOOKED IT.

Q: NOW, YOU SAW IT, THOUGH, THAT NIGHT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES. IT WAS POINTED OUT TO ME WHEN I FIRST ARRIVED.

Q: BY WHOM?

A: BY DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.

Q: SO THAT WE HAVE A WORD PICTURE, CAN YOU TELL US WHERE THIS WAS LOCATED?

A: THE TWO COINS WERE LOCATED IN THE REAR DRIVEWAY AREA NEAR THE JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE BELONGING TO THE VICTIM.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND PHILLIPS HAD SHOWN YOU THIS, HAD HE?

A: HE POINTED THEM OUT, YES.

Q: DID YOU EVER SEE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF THIS -- OF THESE COINS THAT WERE ON THE -- ON THAT REAR WALKWAY?

A: I HAVE.

Q: AND DID YOU -- DO THEY APPEAR TO BE OVER A TIRE TRACK AREA?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: I DON'T RECALL THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: JUST A SECOND, YOUR HONOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MARK AS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER TWO PHOTOGRAPHS THAT --

THE COURT: 1032 AND 1033.

MR. COCHRAN: I WILL MARK THEM 1032 AND 1033, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: HAVE YOU SHOWN THESE TO MISS CLARK?

MR. COCHRAN: 1032 AND 1033. I WILL SHOW THEM TO COUNSEL.

(DEFT'S 1032&1033 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPHS)

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

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO PLACE BEFORE YOU, IF I CAN, EXHIBITS D-1032 AND 1033 AND ASK YOU -- FIRST OF ALL, LET'S LOOK AT 1032. CAN YOU SEE WHAT IS DEPICTED THERE IN 1032?

A: IS THIS 1032 HERE?

Q: YES, SIR.

A: YES. IT APPEARS TO BE A DIME AND A PENNY.

Q: AND DO YOU RECALL IF THAT APPEARS TO BE A FAIR AND ACCURATE PORTRAYAL OF THE WAY THE DIME AND THE PENNY APPEARED WHEN YOU SAW IT WHEN PHILLIPS SHOWED IT TO YOU AT THE BUNDY LOCATION?

A: I DON'T RECALL.

Q: ALL RIGHT. LOOK AT 1033 AND TELL US WHAT YOU SEE THERE IN 1033.

A: ALSO A DIME AND A PENNY WITH A -- LOOKS LIKE A PHOTOGRAPHER'S RULE ALONGSIDE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT DIME AND THAT PENNY DEPICTED THERE?

A: I RECOGNIZE A DIME AND A PENNY. FROM THAT I WOULD ASSUME THAT THAT WOULD BE THE COINS LOCATED AT THE REAR.

Q: WELL, SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, DID YOU SEE TWO DIMES AND TWO PENNIES OR ONE DIME AND ONE PENNY?

A: MY RECOLLECTION IS ONE TIME AND A PENNY.

Q: NOW, I WANT YOU TO LOOK, FIRST OF ALL, AT -- LOOK AT 1033. THERE APPEAR TO BE TIRE TRACK MARKS ON THAT PHOTOGRAPH. DO YOU SEE THAT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND THE PENNY SEEMS TO BE RIGHT OVER THE END OF THE TIRE TRACK MARKS. DO YOU SEE THAT?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT THE WAY THAT APPEARED WHEN YOU SAW THAT ON JUNE 13TH, 1994?

A: IN THIS PHOTO HERE?

Q: YES, SIR.

A: I WOULD SAY --

Q: IT HAS THE RULER THERE.

A: I WOULD SAY THIS IS THE WAY IT APPEARED, YES.

THE COURT: WHICH ONE?

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS 1033, I BELIEVE, YOUR HONOR, HE IS REFERRING TO.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT 1032, PUT THEM ON THE ELMO, YOUR HONOR, AND THE DIME AND THE PENNY IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH APPEARS TO BE IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION, BUT DO YOU SEE TIRE TRACK MARKS UNDER THAT ALSO? DID YOU SEE THEM?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU RECALL EVER SEEING A DIME AND A PENNY IN THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IN REVIEWING YOUR REPORTS, DO YOU RECALL THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CHANGE BOOKED AT THE TIME THIS EVIDENCE WAS -- WAS RECOVERED?

A: I WILL BELIEVE IT WAS 11 CENTS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO UNDER THAT SCENARIO, THIS WOULD BE THE SAME DIME AND PENNY, RIGHT?

A: I BELIEVE SO, YES.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I PUT THIS ON THE ELMO, YOUR HONOR? FIRST OF ALL I WOULD LIKE TO PUT 1032 ON THE ELMO.

Q: AND DETECTIVE LANGE, YOU SEE RIGHT WHERE THE PENNY IS? YOU SEE THOSE -- THOSE MARKS RIGHT UNDER THAT? DO THOSE APPEAR TO YOU TO BE TRACK MARKS, TIRE TRACK MARK?

A: IT APPEARS THEY COULD BE, YES.

Q: OKAY. AND THE 118-A, THAT LITTLE CARD THERE, WHAT DOES THAT -- THAT IS AN LAPD HIM EVIDENCE CARD?

A: THAT WOULD BE THE CRIMINALIST IDENTIFICATION CARD TAKEN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PHOTOGRAPH.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND BY THE WAY, DID YOU HAVE A TIRE TRACK EXPERT COME OUT AND LOOK AT ANY OF THE TIRE TRACKS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AT THE REAR OF THAT LOCATION?

A: NO.

Q: NEVER DID THAT?

A: NO.

Q: NEVER BEEN DONE TO THIS DAY?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT 1033. NOW, THIS IS 1033 WITH THE PENNY KIND OF RIGHT ON THE EDGE OF AGAIN WHAT APPEARS TO BE SOME TIRE TRACK MARK. DO YOU SEE THOSE?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU SEE THAT LITTLE RULER THERE?

A: CORRECT.

Q: HAVE YOU SEEN A RULER LIKE THAT BEFORE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT IS THAT?

A: THAT IS A PHOTOGRAPHER'S RULE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THAT IS THE KIND OF PHOTOGRAPHER'S RULER THAT IS USED BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. AND YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT THOSE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS IN JUXTAPOSITION TO EACH OTHER RIGHT SIDE-BY-SIDE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE DO THAT?

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, CAN YOU LOOK AND SEE THE TIRE TRACK MARKS ON BOTH THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: YES.

Q: DO THEY APPEAR TO BE CONSISTENT IN 1032 AND 1033, ONE TIRE TRACK MARK THERE ALSO?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

MR. COCHRAN: I AM ASKING IF HE KNOWS.

MS. CLARK: THE PROBLEM WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHS AS WELL AS WITH EXPERTISE, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: I AM ASKING IF HE KNOWS.

MS. CLARK: FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED, WITHOUT FURTHER FOUNDATION.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.

Q: YOU HAVE BEEN A HOMICIDE DETECTIVE, AS WE HAVE ESTABLISHED, FOR 20 SOME YEARS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: APPROXIMATELY TWENTY YEARS.

Q: AND IN THE COURSE OF YOUR EXPERIENCE AS A HOMICIDE DETECTIVE YOU HAVE DEALT IN OTHER CASES WITH TIRE TRACKS?

A: I HAVE.

Q: AT SCENES OF CRIMES, HAVE YOU NOT?

A: I HAVE.

Q: AND YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE PATTERNS MADE BY DIFFERENT KINDS OF VEHICLES AS THEY LEAVE TIRE TRACKS, ARE YOU NOT?

A: NO.

Q: YOU ARE NOT FAMILIAR AT ALL WITH THAT?

A: I AM FAMILIAR THAT TIRES LEAVE PATTERNS; NOT WITH THE VEHICLES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET'S TALK ABOUT TIRES LEAVING PATTERNS. YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU HAVE IN THE PAST CALLED UPON OTHER PEOPLE IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS OF TIRE TRACKS? HAVE YOU USED THOSE IN EVIDENCE IN OTHER CASES?

A: THAT HAS HAPPENED, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. OVER THE COURSE OF YOUR 20-YEAR EXPERIENCE?

A: YES.

Q: AND GIVEN ALL YOUR EXPERIENCE IN LOOKING AT THESE TIRE TRACK MARKS DEPICTED ON 1032 AND 1033, FIRST OF ALL, YOU --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: FIRST 1033. IN 1033 YOU DO SEE TIRE TRACK MARKS IN THAT, DON'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN 1032 DO YOU SEE TIRE TRACK MARKS?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND YOU HAVE ALREADY TOLD US THAT THEY BOOKED 11 CENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CASE. DOES IT APPEAR TO YOU IN THESE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS PLACED IN JUXTAPOSITION THAT THE COINS HAVE BEEN MOVED?

A: IF THIS WERE A TRUE REPRESENTATION OF THAT MARK, IT IS LINED UP, THE LOWER ONE CERTAINLY DOES APPEAR TO BE CLOSER.

Q: THEY SEEM TO BE CLOSER TOGETHER, DO THEY NOT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU STRIVE TO DO AS AN INVESTIGATOR AT THE SCENE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVIDENCE IS NOT MOVED; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: CERTAINLY.

Q: AND IF EVIDENCE IS MOVED INADVERTENTLY, INTENTIONALLY OR ACCIDENTALLY, AS PART OF YOUR TRAINING, YOU LOG THAT OR YOU MAKE A NOTE OF THAT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I WOULD PROBABLY DO THAT. EITHER THAT OR HAVE IT DOCUMENTED SUCH AS IT IS HERE.

Q: RIGHT. YOU WOULD DOCUMENT IT IN SOME WAY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: IF I KNEW, I WOULD ATTEMPT TO DO THAT, YES.

Q: HAVE YOU SEEN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS BEFORE TODAY?

A: I HAVE SEEN THE PHOTOGRAPHS, YES.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THEM TOGETHER IN JUXTAPOSITION LIKE THIS BEFORE?

A: NO.

Q: YOU HAVE NEVER?

A: NO.

Q: AT THE SCENE, AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, WHEN YOU WERE PRESENT WHEN THESE BODIES WERE MOVED, THE BODIES OF MRS. SIMPSON AND MR. GOLDMAN, DO YOU RECALL SEEING THE EVIDENCE MOVED AT THE TIME THE BODIES WERE MOVED?

A: AT THAT TIME, NO. IT WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THAT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU DIDN'T SEE IT?

A: I DIDN'T SEE THEM BEING MOVED, NO.

Q: I MEAN EVIDENCE BEING MOVED WE ARE TALKING ABOUT?

A: I DIDN'T PHYSICALLY SEE EVIDENCE BEING MOVED, NO.

Q: OKAY. IF YOU HAD SEEN ANY EVIDENCE BEING MOVED, YOU WOULD HAVE MADE A NOTE OF IT, WOULD YOU NOT HAVE?

A: EITHER A NOTE OR DOCUMENTED IT IN SOME OTHER FASHION SUCH AS A PHOTOGRAPH.

Q: YOU WOULD HAVE TRIED TO MAKE SOME RECORDATION OF THAT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: MORE THAN LIKELY.

Q: BUT YOU DIDN'T DO THAT IN THIS CASE, RIGHT?

A: I DIDN'T.

Q: YOU DID NOT NOTE THAT IN THIS CASE, DID YOU?

A: I DID NOT NOTE THE COINS IN THE AREA.

Q: I WANT TO SHOW YOU AN EXHIBIT MARKED 1034 WITH THE COINS AND THEIR APPROXIMATE LOCATION TO THE JEEP, AND I WILL SHOW IT TO COUNSEL.

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

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE MARKED THIS AS 1034 AND I WILL APPROACH THE WITNESS IF I MIGHT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DEFENDANT'S NEXT.

(DEFT'S 1034 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: BY THE WAY, THERE IS NO QUESTION THIS IS A BLACK JEEP, RIGHT?

A: I BELIEVE THAT IS THE JEEP, RIGHT.

Q: YOU KNOW GENERALLY BECAUSE YOU WERE SHOWN BY PHILLIPS WHERE THOSE COINS WERE. CAN YOU POINT ON THAT PHOTOGRAPH, 1034, AND SHOW US GENERALLY WHERE THOSE COINS WERE RECOVERED? CAN YOU DO THAT?

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THE PEOPLE HAVE AN OBJECTION. I DON'T MIND COUNSEL USING THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT HAS --

MR. COCHRAN: CAN HE ANSWER MY QUESTION FIRST?

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE OBJECTION?

MS. CLARK: THE OBJECTION IS THAT THIS PHOTOGRAPH IS MISLEADING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, CAN HE ANSWER MY QUESTION?

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T SEE ANY COINS IN HERE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, MY QUESTION WAS THIS: IS THAT THE GENERAL AREA WHERE THE COINS WERE RECOVERED? IS THAT DEPICTED IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH, SIR, THE GENERAL AREA.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT IS VAGUE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THE GENERAL AREA AS TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE VEHICLE ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YES, SIR.

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IT WAS RECOVERED FROM THE NORTH SIDE OF THE JEEP VEHICLE; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: I BELIEVE SO. I COULD CHECK THE PROPERTY REPORT AND GET AN EXACT LOCATION FOR YOU.

Q: DO YOU WANT TO COULD THAT? WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT FOR US.

A: IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO.

MR. COCHRAN: IF THAT IS OKAY WITH THE COURT, PLEASE DO.

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.) Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: HAVE YOU UNCOVERED THE PROPERTY REPORT?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: AND MAY I READ IT, YOUR HONOR.

Q: NOW, I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO READ THAT TO YOURSELF AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN READ THAT. YOU CAN LOOK AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH, 1034, AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS THE GENERAL AREA DEPICTED IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, 1034, WHERE THIS DIME AND THIS PENNY WAS RECOVERED?

A: YES, IT APPEARS TO BE THAT GENERAL AREA.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT IS -- WHAT DOES YOUR REPORT -- WHAT DOES YOUR REFRESHED RECOLLECTION INDICATE TO YOU ABOUT WHERE THIS WAS RECOVERED?

A: ABOUT WHAT?

Q: WHAT DOES YOUR REFRESHED RECOLLECTION INDICATE TO YOU ABOUT WHERE THE DIME AND PENNY WERE RECOVERED?

A: APPROXIMATELY SIX FEET EAST OF THE WEST EDGE OF THE DRIVEWAY AND THREE FEET NORTH OF THE NORTH WALL.

MR. COCHRAN: AND YOUR HONOR, THAT IS 1034 I'M ASKING TO PUT ON THE ELMO AT THIS POINT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND THAT AREA WE HAVE ASKED YOU, THAT IS THE GENERAL AREA WHERE THIS DIME AND PENNY WERE RECOVERED, RIGHT?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: BY THE WAY, DO YOU RECALL THAT ON OR ABOUT AUGUST 27, 1994, THAT WE SAW YOU AT THE SCENE -- STRIKE THAT. THAT YOU WERE AT THE SCENE OF THE BUNDY LOCATION AND I WAS THERE WITH SOME OTHER INDIVIDUALS? DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: I BELIEVE THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE DATE, YES.

Q: DO YOU RECALL THAT ONE OF OUR INVESTIGATORS, MR. PAVELIC, POINTED OUT SOME CHANGE THAT WAS INSIDE THE GARAGE AREA ON THAT PARTICULAR DATE? DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: CHANGE?

Q: YES, PENNIES, DIMES OR SOMETHING ON THE GROUND?

A: I RECALL A CIGARETTE BUTT THAT HE MIGHT HAVE POINTED OUT. IT MAY HAVE BEEN A PENNY. I DON'T RECALL THAT.

Q: DO YOU RECALL THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME CHANGE ALSO POINTED OUT?

A: THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A PENNY OR SOMETHING. I DO SPECIFICALLY RECALL A CIGARETTE BUTT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IT HAD NOT BEEN BOOKED; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THE CIGARETTE BUTT?

Q: YES.

A: NO.

Q: AND THE PENNY HADN'T BEEN BOOKED EITHER, IF THERE WAS A PENNY THERE?

A: NO.

Q: ALSO BY THE WAY, WHILE WE WERE INSIDE THE BUNDY LOCATION ON AUGUST 27, 1994, DO YOU RECALL BEING POINTED OUT TO YOU A DARK BLUE OR BLACK KNIT CAP? DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

A: IT SEEMS TO ME THERE WAS A CAP UP IN ONE OF THE KID'S ROOMS, YES.

Q: YES. IT WAS OUTSIDE ONE OF THE KID'S ROOMS ON ONE OF THE LANDINGS. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS IN A BOX, YES.

Q: OKAY. IF I WERE TO SHOW YOU A COPY OF THE LOG, PERHAPS THIS WILL REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION REGARDING THIS -- I WILL SHOW THIS TO COUNSEL.

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

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE SHARED WITH THIS COUNSEL, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH.

Q: I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO REFER TO THIS PARTICULAR REPORT REGARDING THE AUGUST 27 TIME THAT WE WERE AT BUNDY. READ THAT TO YOURSELF, FIRST OF ALL, AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT THAT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) JUST THE FIRST PARAGRAPH?

Q: YES, THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, I'M SORRY. YOU READ IT?

A: YES.

Q: DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A: YES.

Q: THAT I ASKED YOU, ALONG WITH A MAN BY THE NAME OF JOHN MC NALLY WHO INQUIRED ABOUT A BLACK SKI CAP IN A BOX IN THE HALLWAY? DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF THE YOUNG LADY'S ROOM, SYDNEY'S ROOM; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND BY THE WAY, WAS THAT BLACK SKI CAP BOOKED AFTER WE POINTED IT OUT TO YOU?

A: NO. I HAD NO REASON TO BOOK IT.

Q: BUT YOU DID SEE IT THERE, DID YOU?

A: YOU POINTED IT OUT TO ME. YES, I DID.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WITH REGARD TO A PLASTIC HEART, DO YOU RECALL SEEING A SMALL PLASTIC HEART, ITEM 288, SOMEWHERE -- RECOVERED AT THE BUNDY LOCATION SOMEWHERE IN THE REAR OF THE BUNDY LOCATION?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, AND I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THIS AS OUR NEXT EXHIBIT, IF WE MIGHT, 103 --

THE COURT: 5.

MR. COCHRAN: -- 5.

(DEFT'S 1035 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WHERE DID YOU SEE THIS PLASTIC HEART, IF YOU RECALL, SIR?

A: IT WAS SOMEWHERE IN THE VICINITY OF THE VEHICLE, ALSO IN THE DRIVEWAY.

Q: WAS THAT NEAR WHERE THIS CHANGE WAS?

A: I THINK IT MAY HAVE BEEN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IT WAS SOMEWHERE BACK NEAR THE VEHICLE, THOUGH, BUT MAYBE IT WAS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE VEHICLE?

A: PERHAPS.

Q: I'M GOING TO APPROACH AND SHOW YOU THIS PLASTIC HEART AND ASK YOU WHETHER AS PICTURED HERE THIS IS A FAIR AND ACCURATE PORTRAYAL OF THE WAY THIS HEART APPEARS?

A: SIR, YES, IT APPEARS TO BE.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU SAW THAT -- WHEN DID YOU SEE IT?

A: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE INITIAL WALK THROUGH.

Q: WHEN PHILLIPS WAS SHOWING YOU WHAT WAS TAKING PLACE?

A: YES.

Q: THAT WILL BE ON JUNE 13TH?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND DID YOU HAVE THAT ITEM BOOKED INTO EVIDENCE?

A: IT WAS BOOKED, YES.

Q: AND BY THE WAY, NOW YOU SAW IT ON JUNE 13TH. CAN YOU LOOK IN YOUR REPORTS AND TELL US WHAT DATE WAS THAT ITEM BOOKED INTO EVIDENCE?

A: IT WAS SOMETIME AFTER THE 13TH BECAUSE I ALSO HELD THIS ITEM OUT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT. THE QUESTION WAS -- MY QUESTION WAS, WHAT DATE WAS THIS ITEM BOOKED INTO EVIDENCE?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: CAN YOU LOOK AT YOUR REPORTS AND TELL US?

A: I COULD GO THROUGH THEM. SEVERAL PAGES.

Q: COULD YOU DO THAT FOR US?

A: CERTAINLY.

MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THE ITEM, YOUR HONOR, WHILE WE ARE DOING IT. THIS IS 1035, THE HEART FOUND REAR SOUTH SIDE OF THE VEHICLE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE WITNESS: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU ARE AWARE THIS IS ITEM NO. 288, SIR?

A: THAT WOULD HAVE HELPED.

Q: I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT I HAD SAID THAT EARLIER.

A: THAT ITEM WAS BOOKED ON AUGUST 25TH.

Q: AUGUST 25, 1994?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, THIS IS AN ITEM THAT HAD BEEN RECOVERED FROM THE SCENE BY YOU ON JUNE 13TH?

A: YES.

Q: IT WAS NOT BOOKED UNTIL AUGUST WHAT?

A: 25TH.

Q: BY YOU; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, THAT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO YOUR -- THE POLICY EXPRESSED AGAIN IN YOUR MANUAL, TO BOOK THIS EVIDENCE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: CAN YOU ANSWER THAT YES OR NO, PLEASE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. IF THE WITNESS NEED TO EXPLAIN, HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO.

THE COURT: NO. YES OR NO?

THE WITNESS: I DON'T BELIEVE I CAN ANSWER THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BECAUSE AGAIN THE MANUAL IS A POLICY, BUT IT IS JUST A GUIDE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I DON'T ARGUE WITH YOU, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF YOU CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION YES OR NO. I WILL TRY AND ASK IT AGAIN.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. HE JUST SAID HE COULDN'T.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: I WANT TO REPHRASE THE QUESTION. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: THIS ITEM BOOKED AS NUMBER 288, OUR NO. 1035?

THE COURT: 1035.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: 1035 WAS SHOWN TO YOU ON THE WALK THROUGH BY PHILLIPS ON THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13TH, 1994, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU WERE AWARE OF IT, PICTURES WERE TAKEN OF IT AND IT WAS NOT BOOKED UNTIL THE LATTER PART OF AUGUST OF 1994; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT THAT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE THE IMMEDIATE BOOKING? WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT INITIALLY?

A: IT IS NOT IMMEDIATE BOOKING; THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DOES THE PROPERTY DIVISION OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, THAT IS DOWNTOWN HERE IN DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES, DOES IT CLOSE WITHIN PARTICULAR HOURS? ARE THERE CERTAIN HOURS WHEN THE PROPERTY DIVISION IS OPENED FOR BOOKING EVIDENCE?

A: YES.

Q: AND IF YOU RECOVERED EVIDENCE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, IT IS YOUR TESTIMONY THERE IS NO PROCEDURE BY WHICH AN OFFICER CAN BOOK EVIDENCE WHICH IS RECOVERED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT WITH IRREGULAR PROPERTY HOURS?

A: THE EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT IS CLOSED. THERE IS A PROPERTY DIVISION DOWNTOWN THAT IS STAFFED 24 HOURS A DAY.

Q: SO IF YOU WANTED TO BOOK SOMETHING, YOU COULD BOOK IT 24 HOURS A DAY?

A: OSTENSIBLY, YES.

Q: IF YOU GOT A DR NUMBER AND THEN YOU COULD TAKE IT DOWN AND BOOK IT IF YOU WANTED TO; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: THIS ITEM WAS BOOKED BY YOU ON WHAT DATE? AUGUST WHAT?

A: IT WAS BOOKED BY DETECTIVE PAYNE ON AUGUST 25TH.

Q: BUT DETECTIVE PAYNE WORKS FOR YOU, DOES HE NOT?

A: HE WORKS WITH ME. HE IS ASSIGNED TO THIS INVESTIGATIVE EFFORT, YES.

Q: NOW, LET'S TURN OUR ATTENTION BACK TO THE BUNDY SCENE. DO YOU RECALL WHAT TIME IT WAS THE CRIMINALIST ARRIVED AT BUNDY FROM WHERE YOU TOLD US THEY WERE AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: WHAT TIME THEY ARRIVED AT THE BUNDY LOCATION FROM ROCKINGHAM?

Q: YES, SIR.

A: I BELIEVE I TESTIFIED TO APPROXIMATELY 10:10 A.M.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU REVIEW THAT ON THE LOG AT ALL TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS ACCURATE?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: DO YOU HAVE IT UP THERE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT DOES THE LOG INDICATE?

A: THE LOG INDICATES 10:15 A.M.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND SO WE ARE CLEAR, THAT IS WHEN THIS LADY WHOSE NAME WAS RATCLIFFE AND THE -- FOLLOWED BY HER ASSOCIATE, MR. JACOBO, ARRIVED SHORTLY AFTER HER -- STRIKE THAT. STRIKE THAT. THAT IS WHEN FUNG AND MAZZOLLA CAME OVER FROM -- FROM THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION, RIGHT?

A: THAT IS WHEN THEY ARRIVED AT BUNDY; THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BY THE TIME THEY GOT THERE, THE TWO PEOPLE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE, RATCLIFFE AND JACOBO, HAD ALREADY BEEN THERE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? THEY WERE ALREADY THERE?

A: THEY WERE STILL THERE, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THE BODIES HAD NOT BEEN MOVED AT THIS POINT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE THAT PROCESS HAD STARTED.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A VIDEO OF THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE THAT EARLY MORNING HOURS VIS-A-VIS THE ARRIVAL OF THE CORONER'S REPRESENTATIVES AND THEN THE ARRIVAL OF THE CRIMINALISTS FROM ROCKINGHAM?

A: I RECALL SOME VIDEO THAT HAS BEEN PLAYED ON THE -- ON TELEVISION SEVERAL TIMES, DIFFERENT PIECES PUT TOGETHER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THE PART THAT YOU SAW, DO THEY REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AT ALL ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE BODIES HAD BEEN MOVED BY THE TIME THAT FUNG AND MAZZOLLA ARRIVED AT BUNDY FROM ROCKINGHAM?

A: AGAIN, I BELIEVE THEY WERE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT AT THE TIME.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN YOU SAY "IN THE PROCESS," WERE BOTH THE BODIES STILL IN PLACE AT THAT POINT, HAD NOT BEEN ACTUALLY MOVED, SIR?

A: I BELIEVE MR. GOLDMAN WAS. THE -- I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE OTHER VICTIM. IT WAS PRETTY CLOSE AS FAR AS FUNG'S ARRIVAL TIME TO THE TIME THAT THE SIMPSON VICTIM WAS PUT ON THE PLASTIC SHEET. IT WAS PRETTY CLOSE AROUND IN THAT TIME, SO I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE.

Q: YOU ARE NOT EXACTLY SURE, BUT PERHAPS WE CAN MAKE THAT CLEARER FOR YOU LATER. WITH REGARD TO THIS MR. JACOBO, J-A-C-O-B-O, JACOBO, HE WAS ATTIRED OR DRESSED IN SOME KIND OF A BLUE JUMPSUIT THAT SAID "CORONER" ON THE BACK; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU NOTED THAT AS HE DEALT WITH THESE BODIES, YOU SAW MR. JACOBO AND ALSO MISS RATCLIFFE WITH GLOVES ON THEIR HANDS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU HAVE SOME GLOVES ON YOUR HANDS AT THAT TIME?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: AND YOU SAW THEM HANDLE BOTH BODIES IN SEQUENCE? IN FACT, THEY HANDLED THE BODY OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON FIRST AND THEN THEY MOVED THEIR ATTENTION TO THE BODY OF MR. GOLDMAN; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU NOTED AT THE TIME THAT JACOBO DID NOT CHANGE HIS GLOVES AFTER HANDLING MRS. SIMPSON'S BODY WHEN HE THEN TRIED TO HANDLE MR. RON GOLDMAN'S BODY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I NOTED IT AT THE TIME?

Q: DID YOU NOTE THAT AT THE TIME YOU WERE STANDING AND WATCHING HIM?

A: THAT HE DID NOT CHANGE HIS GLOVES?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THAT HE USED THE SAME GLOVES WITH REGARD TO HANDLING THE BODIES?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE OBJECTION?

MS. CLARK: ASSUMES FACTS NOT EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU NOTE THAT? DID YOU SEE WHETHER OR NOT MR. JACOBO CHANGED GLOVES AFTER HE FINISHED HANDLING MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY, IF SHE WAS THE FIRST BODY HANDLED?

A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT, NO.

Q: DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN HANDLING THE BODIES?

A: ONCE AGAIN, I PERHAPS -- PERHAPS I MIGHT HAVE ASSISTED MOVING THEM. I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION. I DON'T BELIEVE I DID, BUT I CAN'T RULE THAT OUT, BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT GOING ON AND SOMEONE MAY HAVE NEEDED A LITTLE ASSISTANCE ON SOMETHING. I JUST DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION.

Q: WERE YOU WEARING GLOVES?

A: ONCE AGAIN, I BELIEVE I WAS.

Q: DID YOU CHANGE GLOVES? IF YOU HANDLED THE FIRST BODY, THE SIMPSON BODY, DID YOU CHANGE GLOVES BEFORE YOU HANDLED THE GOLDMAN?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

MR. COCHRAN: IF HE REMEMBERS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL HANDLING THE BODIES. I DON'T RECALL IF I HAD CHANGED GLOVES AT THIS LOCATION EITHER.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU SEE OR EVER SEE THAT AFTER MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS -- WAS LAYING IN A SUPINE POSITION, THAT ONE OF THE CORONER'S REPRESENTATIVES HAD TAKEN THEIR GLOVES AND DROPPED THEM ON THE BODY? DID YOU EVER SEE THAT PHOTOGRAPH?

A: I HAVE SEEN THAT PHOTOGRAPH, YES.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO BRING THIS PHOTOGRAPH UP AT THIS POINT AND MARK IT AS AN EXHIBIT. THIS WILL BE DEFENDANT'S 1036, YOUR HONOR. WE WILL HAVE TO TRY TO EXHIBIT IT I THINK.

(DEFT'S 1036 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

MR. HARRIS: CUT THE FEED.

MR. COCHRAN: CUT THE FEED ON THIS ONE, YOUR HONOR, PLEASE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, YOU SEE THOSE GLOVES ON MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY THERE?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU REMEMBER SEEING THAT SCENE ON THAT PARTICULAR DATE?

A: AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION OF THOSE GLOVES BEING LIKE THAT.

Q: YOU KNOW THAT IS MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY, DON'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU SEE THAT LADY'S FEET STANDING ON THAT SHEET OF PLASTIC THERE?

A: YES.

Q: THOSE ARE THE FEET OF MISS RATCLIFFE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: YOU RECOGNIZE THOSE AS THE SHOES SHE WAS WEARING THAT DAY?

A: I CAN'T SAY I RECOGNIZE THE SHOES, BUT I BELIEVE THAT TO BE HER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU EVER RECALL -- DO YOU RECALL WHOSE GLOVES THOSE ARE ON MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY?

A: I COULD ONLY MAKE AN ASSUMPTION THAT THEY BELONG TO THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, SPECULATION.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTING TO --

THE COURT: I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE OBJECTION?

MS. CLARK: SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THE ANSWER WILL BE STRICKEN.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THOSE GLOVES, DO YOU KNOW WHOSE GLOVES THOSE ARE?

A: NO.

Q: AND YOU RECALL SEEING THAT PARTICULAR PICTURE, WHAT IS DEPICTED THERE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU SAW THAT PARTICULAR PICTURE, THINK BACK FOR ME, WAS JACOBO WEARING GLOVES WHEN HE HANDLED THESE TWO BODIES?

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

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DO YOU RECALL AT SOME POINT RATCLIFFE WAS IN FACT WEARING GLOVES WHEN SHE WAS HANDLING THE TWO BODIES?

A: I AGAIN WOULD ASSUME THAT.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: I DIDN'T CHECK THEM FOR GLOVES OR MAKE NOTE OF THAT.

Q: AT SOME POINT DID YOU SEE HER TAKE HER GLOVES OFF AND DROP THEM ON MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE CORONER'S PROCEDURE IS WITH REGARD TO TAKING BLOOD -- GLOVES THAT APPARENTLY HAVE SOME BLOOD ON THEM AND PLACING THEM ON THE BODIES OF VICTIMS? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEIR POLICY IS REGARDING THAT?

A: WHAT THE CORONER'S POLICY IS REGARDING THAT?

Q: YES.

A: I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THERE IS A POLICY REGARDING THAT.

Q: WHEN YOU SAW THESE GLOVES PLACED ON MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY LIKE THAT, DID YOU SAY ANYTHING TO MISS RATCLIFFE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. AGAIN --

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. ASSUMING FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT? HE SAID HE SAW IT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: HE SAID HE HAS SEEN THE PHOTO.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: DID YOU EVER SEE -- YOU HAVE SEEN THIS PHOTOGRAPH THAT IS DEPICTED THERE, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU -- IS THAT A FAIR AND ACCURATE PORTRAYAL OF THE WAY THAT SCENE WAS THAT DAY?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY. I DON'T RECALL SEEING THE GLOVES.

Q: ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WHO TOOK THAT PHOTOGRAPH?

A: I WOULD IMAGINE IT IS ONE OF OUR PHOTOGRAPHERS.

Q: AND ROKAHR?

A: PROBABLY ROKAHR.

Q: AND DIDN'T YOU DIRECT THE PHOTOGRAPHS TO BE TAKEN THERE AT THE SCENE THAT DAY?

A: IN THE GENERAL SENSE, CERTAINLY, YES.

Q: AND YOU WERE STANDING RIGHT THERE WHEN THE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN, WEREN'T YOU?

A: NOT NECESSARILY. BY WAY OF EXPLANATION, WHEN WE HAVE THE BODY OUT LIKE THIS, MOST OF OUR PHOTOGRAPHERS HAVE BEEN THROUGH THERE BEFORE AND THEY WILL WORK ALSO WITH THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATORS GETTING VARIOUS VIEWS OF VARIOUS INJURIES ON THE BODIES.

I MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE DIRECTED THIS SPECIFIC PHOTOGRAPH. I WAS DOING MANY OTHER THINGS.

Q: SO YOU DON'T RECALL?

A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING THOSE GLOVES.

Q: BUT YOU KNOW THAT IS AN LAPD PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN ON JUNE 13TH, 1994, OF MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WITH MISS RATCLIFFE STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO HIM, RIGHT?

A: I WOULD SAY IT IS, YES.

Q: NOW, I MAY HAVE ASKED YOU THIS, AND IF I DO, I APOLOGIZE. DID YOU EVER TAKE THIS MAN, ROKAHR, THE PHOTOGRAPHER, INSIDE THE INTERIOR OF THE HOUSE, OTHER THAN THAT KITCHEN AREA? DID YOU EVER TAKE HIM UPSTAIRS AND HAVE HIM TAKE ANY PICTURES -- PICTURES OF ANYTHING YOU SAW INSIDE THAT HOUSE?

MS. CLARK: ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: I APOLOGIZED IN ADVANCE.

THE COURT: I WILL SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION AGAIN.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. GOOD. I WON'T ASK THAT.

Q: WITH REGARD TO ROKAHR, HE DOESN'T COME OUT AND JUST START TAKING PICTURES? HE TAKES THE PICTURES UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER, RIGHT?

A: AS A GENERAL RULE, YES.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THIS JEEP THAT WAS AT THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE, YOU TESTIFIED YESTERDAY THAT THE JEEP HAD -- THE PASSENGER SIDE DOOR WAS PARTIALLY AJAR OF THE JEEP; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: IT WAS CRACKED OPENED. IT WASN'T REALLY AJAR. IT WAS CRACKED BUT STILL -- NOT AJAR, BUT SLIGHTLY CRACKED OPENED, I WOULD SAY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU HAVE ANY PICTURES TAKEN -- PICTURES TAKEN OF THAT DOOR SO WE CAN SEE HOW IT ACTUALLY LOOKED?

A: I BELIEVE THERE WERE PICTURES TAKEN OF IT.

Q: DO YOU HAVE -- HAVE ONE SHOWING THE DOOR AJAR OR CRACKED OPEN AT ALL?

A: I KNOW THERE IS PHOTOGRAPHS OF THAT SIDE OF THE VEHICLE. I DON'T KNOW IF ONE SHOWS IT AJAR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THAT IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT. IS THERE SUCH A PHOTOGRAPH?

A: I WOULD HAVE TO -- I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

MR. COCHRAN: PERHAPS WHEN WE TAKE OUR BREAK YOU CAN HELP US WITH THAT?

THE WITNESS: CERTAINLY.

Q: NOW, SPEAKING OF CARS BEING PARKED, AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION YESTERDAY YOU TALKED ABOUT THE BRONCO BEING PARKED IN A FASHION THAT WAS ASKEW OR WHATEVER WORDS YOU USED.

HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE WAY THE BRONCO WAS PARKED WHEN YOU FIRST SAW IT?

A: THE REAR END OF THE VEHICLE APPEARED TO BE JUTTING OUT IN THE STREET MORE THAN THE FRONT END AND PARKED AT AN ANGLE IN TOWARD THE CURB FACING NORTHBOUND.

Q: YESTERDAY WE SAW A PICTURE -- PICTURE DURING THE PRESENTATION BY THE PROSECUTION -- I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT -- SEE THAT PICTURE AGAIN, YOUR HONOR. I DON'T SEE JONATHAN HERE.

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

THE COURT: DO WE KNOW WHICH PHOTOGRAPH YOU ARE LOOKING FOR?

MR. COCHRAN: WE ARE LOOKING FOR ONE OF THE BRONCO.

MS. CLARK: COUNSEL HAS ALL THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

THE COURT: I'M JUST --

MR. COCHRAN: THEY ARE NOT ON THE --

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT WE ALL HAVE THE SAME SET OF PHOTOS. I'M JUST WONDERING IF SOMEBODY RECALLS WHAT NUMBER IN EVIDENCE IT WAS.

MR. COCHRAN: YES. THIS WAS IN CROSS-EXAMINATION ALSO. DIRECT EXAMINATION AND --

MS. CHAPMAN: 62-E.

MR. COCHRAN: 62-E, YOUR HONOR. DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO CALL THAT UP?

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

MR. COCHRAN: IS THERE A PRINT? 62-E.

THE COURT: IT IS ON ONE OF THE POSTERS.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, WE HAD IT IN DIRECT EXAMINATION YESTERDAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: IT IS ON THE BOARD.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL THE COURT REPORTER REMINDS ME THAT I PROMISED TO QUIT AT 4:00 TODAY AND SO I HAVE TO TAKE MY BREAK NOW.

MR. COCHRAN: I DIDN'T HEAR WHAT YOU SAID NOW.

THE COURT: I NEED TO TAKE MY RECESS AT THIS POINT FOR THE COURT REPORTERS.

MR. COCHRAN: FINE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A 15-MINUTE RECESS. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS, DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU. ASK YOU TO STEP BACK IN THE JURY ROOM AND WE WILL STAND IN RECESS FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES. AND DETECTIVE LANGE, YOU MAY STEP DOWN.

THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.

(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. COUNSEL, ANYTHING WE NEED TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE HAVE THE JURORS REJOIN US?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR WANTED TO SHOW THE VIDEO AT THIS POINT?

THE COURT: OH, YES.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN DETECTIVE LANGE STEP OUT?

MS. CLARK: YOU ARE GOING TO SHOW IT TO HIM. WHAT'S THE POINT? SHOCK VALUE?

MR. COCHRAN: HE CAN STAY TO SAVE SOME TIME.

THE WITNESS: UP HERE, YOUR HONOR?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, WHEN IT COMES TO A POINT THAT I DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO SHOW, I WILL TRY TO LET YOUR HONOR KNOW, SEE IF WE CAN CUT THROUGH THAT.

(AT 3:09 P.M., A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

THE COURT: WELL, WE GOT COLOR BARS.

MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T WANT TO SHOW THIS PART. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT GENTLEMAN THERE?

THE WITNESS: OH, YEAH. THE ONE ON THE LEFT?

MR. COCHRAN: YES. THE ONE WITH ALL THAT HAIR. YOU RECOGNIZE THOSE TWO -- IS THAT PHILLIPS AND ROGERS?

THE WITNESS: YES. ARE WE ON THE RECORD HERE?

THE COURT: YES, WE ARE. WHY DON'T YOU USE THE MICROPHONE, DETECTIVE. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT WE'VE VIEWING A VIDEOTAPE AT THIS TIME.

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT LADY?

THE WITNESS: THAT'S RATCLIFFE ON THE LEFT.

MR. COCHRAN: CORONER'S LADY?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: WOULD THIS BE THE TIME WHERE YOU ARE TELLING HER WHAT YOU HAVE HERE?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT PHILLIPS IN THE FOREGROUND?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: ABOUT WHAT TIME WOULD THAT BE? SHORTLY AFTER 9:00 O'CLOCK IF YOU ARRIVED AT 9:10?

THE WITNESS: I WOULD SAY SO, YES.

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, THAT SHEET THAT'S OVER THE BODY, THAT SHEET THAT YOU'RE HANDLING THERE, IS THAT THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, ARE YOU SHOWING THE BACK AT THAT POINT TO HER?

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE BACK AT THAT POINT OR -- POSSIBLY. I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE WHAT I'M DOING THERE. IT'S HARD TO SEE.

MR. COCHRAN: BUT THAT'S NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY AND YOU ARE TALKING TO RATCLIFFE AND YOU ARE OVER THE BODY AND IT'S STILL IN THAT FETAL POSITION, RIGHT?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: IS THIS THE ARRIVAL OF THE COUNTY CORONER'S OFFICE WITH JACOBO?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT WOULD BE A FEW MINUTES AFTER SHE CAME AT 9:10?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: ABOUT 9:20, 9:25 PERHAPS?

THE WITNESS: SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT TIME WOULD YOU ESTIMATE THIS TO BE AT?

THE WITNESS: PERHAPS 9:15.

MR. COCHRAN: WHO DID YOU LOG IN WITH? IS THAT CUMMINGS? DO YOU KNOW?

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW.

MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT RATCLIFFE UP IN THE BACK?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT 873?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: YOU ARE TALKING TO LIEUTENANT ROGERS THERE?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT TIME THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY?

THE WITNESS: I HAVE NO IDEA.

MR. COCHRAN: WERE THOSE THE PRINT TECHNICIANS IN THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME THAT WAS?

THE WITNESS: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: NEVER MIND THIS PART. NOW, DO YOU KNOW THAT OFFICER, THAT AFRICAN-AMERICAN OFFICER, WHO THAT IS?

THE WITNESS: I WOULD RECOGNIZE HIS NAME IF I SAW IT. SERGEANT PALMER.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S PALMER?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: SERGEANT PALMER?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: THE BODIES ARE STILL THERE AT THIS POINT?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU RECOGNIZE THAT GENTLEMAN?

THE WITNESS: YES. THAT'S ME.

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT DO YOU HAVE IN YOUR HANDS?

THE WITNESS: GLOVES.

MR. COCHRAN: REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION? THE BODIES ARE STILL THERE AT THIS POINT?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THESE PERSONS DEPICTED HERE WHO ARE JUST WALKING OUT? WHO IS IN THAT LIGHT COLORED JACKET?

THE WITNESS: APPEARS TO BE THE PHOTOGRAPHER.

MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT ROKAHR OR SOMEBODY ELSE?

THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE IT'S ROKAHR.

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, WHAT'S THAT OBJECT -- NOW, IS THAT THE PLASTIC YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS REGARDING MISS SIMPSON'S BODY?

THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE SO.

MR. COCHRAN: WE'LL MOVE THROUGH THIS PART.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE WHOLE --

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK THEY HAVE A COPY OF THE WHOLE THING. I AM GOING TO SHOW THE PARTS I WANT TO SHOW AT THIS POINT. SHE CAN LOOK AT IT ON HER OWN TIME. THE FIRST BODY MOVED WAS MISS SIMPSON'S BODY?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: WE CAN GO THROUGH THIS PART. IS THAT ROKAHR THERE WITH THE WHITE HAIR?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: WE CAN SKIP THROUGH THIS PART. LIEUTENANT ROGERS IS BEING INTERVIEWED HERE. WHO IS THAT GOING THROUGH THERE NOW WITHOUT -- BARE-HANDED? IS THAT FUNG?

THE WITNESS: RIGHT TO LEFT?

MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT? YOU MAY HAVE MISSED IT? YEAH. THAT'S YOU; IS IT NOT?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, WHO IS THAT?

THE WITNESS: FUNG.

MR. COCHRAN: BARE-HANDED?

THE WITNESS: APPEARS TO BE.

MR. COCHRAN: ARE YOU WRITING NOTES THERE?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT SOME OF THE NOTES YOU HAVE IN THAT BOOK THERE?

THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE SO.

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT TIME OF DAY IS IT ABOUT NOW? THIS IS REGARDING MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY. WE CAN SKIP THROUGH THIS. WHAT TIME OF DAY IS THAT?

THE WITNESS: IT'S PROBABLY ABOUT 10:40, 10:45 PERHAPS.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. I THINK THAT'S IT, YOUR HONOR. I THINK THESE ARE WITNESSES WHO ARE NOW MAKING STATEMENTS.

(AT 3:14 P.M., THE VIDEOTAPE WAS STOPPED.)

MR. COCHRAN: COULD YOU TELL ON THERE -- DOES IT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AT ALL THAT THE LIVER TEMPERATURE OF MR. GOLDMAN WAS TAKEN THERE AT THE SCENE? DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF THAT NOW AT ALL?

THE WITNESS: I DON'T SEE THAT ON THERE, BUT I BELIEVE THAT'S WHERE IT WAS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IS THERE AN OBJECTION TO THIS?

MS. CLARK: YES. WE STILL HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE TIME AND WITH THE ANGLE. WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH DEPTH PERCEPTION. THIS IS A TELESCOPIC LENS. OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS NO MEDIA ALLOWED INSIDE THE CRIME SCENE TAPE. AND THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH DISTORTION AS WELL AS THE LACK OF FOUNDATION.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, THAT GOES TO WEIGHT, NOT ADMISSIBILITY. WE WILL LAY A FOUNDATION. WE CAN USE THE CAMERAMAN. THIS WAS TAKEN CONTEMPORANEOUSLY. WE KNOW WHAT TIME IT WAS, YOUR HONOR, 9:10 -- BETWEEN 9:10 AND 10:30. IT'S ABSOLUTELY CLEAR. THE PICTURES ARE CLEAR. WE WANT TO SHOW NOTHING OBJECTIONABLE AND I WANT TO CUT OUT ANYTHING ABOUT MOVING THE BODIES BECAUSE I DON'T WANT -- I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARY. THE WITNESS CAN LAY THE FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: WHEN DO YOU INTEND ON DOING THIS?

MR. COCHRAN: THIS AFTERNOON I THINK.

THE COURT: HOW DO WE DO IT WITHOUT SHOWING ALL THE EXTRANEOUS STUFF AND FAST FORWARDING?

MR. COCHRAN: IF I MAY ASK MY EXPERTS ABOUT IT AND FIND OUT.

MS. CLARK: WHY NOT --

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I CHECK, PLEASE, COUNSEL?

MS. CLARK: NO. MAY I MAKE AN OBJECTION, PLEASE, COUNSEL? UNDER 356, I THINK IT ALL OUGHT TO BE SHOWN INSTEAD OF HAVING PORTIONS CUT OUT SO THAT THE JURY GETS A MORE COMPLETE PICTURE. IT'S STILL DISTORTED. AND UNDER 352, EVEN THOUGH -- YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YES, THERE'S A WEIGHT AND ADMISSIBILITY ISSUE, BUT THERE COMES A POINT AFTER WHICH IT'S SIMPLY MISLEADING. AND THIS --

THE COURT: WHAT IS MISLEADING ABOUT THE VIDEOTAPE?

MS. CLARK: FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE -- AS YOU'VE NOTED, YOUR HONOR, ALREADY, CLIPS PASTED TOGETHER. IT'S ALSO TAKEN FROM AN ANGLE THAT COMPLETELY LEAVES OUT THE DEPTH AND IT'S INCOMPLETE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE STANDING OR THE SURFACE ON WHICH THEY'RE STANDING. ALL THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS, THE JURY IS GOING TO BE MISLED INTO BELIEVE THEY'RE STANDING ON BLOODY AREAS OR CONTAMINATING EVIDENCE WHEN THEY'RE PROBABLY NOT BECAUSE THE LACK OF DEPTH IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, BECAUSE IT IS DISTORTED, BECAUSE IT IS DONE OBVIOUSLY FROM A DISTANCE WITH A ZOOM LENS, MISLEADS THE JURY COMPLETELY. UNDER 352, YOU HAVE A SITUATION WHERE THE PICTURE NOT ONLY DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ITSELF, BUT SPEAKS TO A SET OF EVENTS THAT ARE VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE REALITY WAS SO YOU HAVE A MISPERCEPTION CREATED BY THE LACK OF DEPTH SHOW AND YOU HAVE CLIPS PASTED TOGETHER THAT LEAVE OUT SIGNIFICANT EVENTS THAT IS GOING TO GIVE A MISIMPRESSION TO THE JURY ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON THERE.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THE --

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MR. COCHRAN. LET ME JUST ASK A FEW QUESTIONS OF COUNSEL. THE CLIPS -- YOU'RE RIGHT. THE CAMERA SEEMS TO MOVE SEVERAL TIMES. IT SEEMS TO BE FROM DIFFERENT LOCATIONS AND/OR ZOOMS AND THEN OBVIOUSLY IT'S DIFFERENT IN TIME BECAUSE THERE'S A DIFFERENCE IN WHERE CARS ARE PARKED. I MEAN I CAN SENSE THAT. BUT IS WHAT IS ACTUALLY DEPICTED -- MY RECOLLECTION OF WHAT WAS JUST SHOWN TO IS, AS MR. COCHRAN WAS CONCENTRATING ON THREE SPECIFIC TIMES, THE ARRIVAL OF THE CORONER'S PERSONNEL, HE WAS CONCENTRATING ON THE REMOVAL OF THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND THEN THE REMOVAL OF THE BODY OF OR THE MOVING OF THE BODY, REMOVAL OF RONALD GOLDMAN.

MS. CLARK: AND THE PEOPLE'S POINT IS MULTIPLE WITH RESPECT TO THAT, YOUR HONOR. WE'VE ALREADY HAD --

THE COURT: NO. LET ME -- LET'S JUST FLUSH OUT THE CLIPS ON THE 356 ISSUE. YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU OBJECT THAT IT'S JUST CLIPS PUT TOGETHER AND YOU WOULD WANT THE WHOLE VIDEOTAPE PLAYED UNDER 356? THAT'S ONE OBJECTION THAT YOU'RE MAKING?

MS. CLARK: ONE OBJECTION I'M MAKING IF THE COURT DEEMS THIS TO BE ADMISSIBLE DESPITE PEOPLE'S OTHER OBJECTIONS TO IT. THAT AT LEAST THE ENTIRE CLIP BE SHOWN SO THAT EVERYTHING IS PLACED IN CONTEXT.

THE COURT: THAT WOULD MAKE IT THE ENTIRE SHOT, NOT THE ENTIRE CLIP.

MS. CLARK: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IS THAT AVAILABLE, THE ENTIRE VIDEO?

MR. COCHRAN: YES. YOU MEAN WHAT YOU JUST SAW THERE? YEAH. WE'LL SHOW YOU WHATEVER WE GOT. YOU WANT THE INTERVIEWS AND EVERYTHING?

THE COURT: NO. I'M ASKING, IS THE VIDEOTAPE -- IS THERE A CONTINUOUS VIDEOTAPE OR JUST START AND STOP? DOES THE CAMERA PERSON START AND STOP THE VIDEO?

MR. BLASIER: THIS IS THE VIDEO THAT WE HAD, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS ONE SOURCE. ONE SOURCE, ONE VIDEO, WHICH YOU'VE JUST SEEN, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: IS THERE ANYTHING LEFT OUT THAT'S BEEN EDITED?

MR. COCHRAN: NO.

MS. CLARK: IT'S OBVIOUSLY BEEN EDITED. THE COURT CAN SEE THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT DOESN'T HELP US. SHE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVE NO OBJECTION IF SHE WANTS TO SHOW THE ENTIRE THING.

THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, COUNSEL, WHEN YOU VIDEO SOMETHING, WHEN YOU START AND STOP AND YOU ELECT NOT TO PHOTOGRAPH SOMETHING AND TO TAPE OTHER THINGS, THAT'S EDITING.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM A PHOTOGRAPH --

THE COURT: COUNSEL, I'M NOT HEARING FROM YOU YET, MR. COCHRAN. I'M JUST ASKING INFORMATIONAL QUESTIONS. WHAT I WANT TO HEAR FROM -- I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE OBJECTIONS ARE AT THIS POINT. ALL RIGHT. I ACCEPT THE REPRESENTATION THAT IT'S FROM ONE SOURCE AND THAT -- LET'S ASSUME THAT THE CAMERA PERSON SHOT AND THEN TURNED OFF AND SHOT SOME MORE AND MOVED AROUND DIFFERENT ANGLES, THAT SORT OF THING. ALL RIGHT. SO IF I OVERRULE YOUR OBJECTION, YOU'RE SAYING WE SHOULD WATCH THE WHOLE THING.

MS. CLARK: YEAH. IF IT IS GOING TO BE SHOWN, THEN IT SHOULD ALL BE SHOWN.

THE COURT: OKAY. NOW, WHAT'S YOUR OBJECTION --

MS. CLARK: OBVIOUSLY NOT THE INTERVIEWS OF THE WITNESSES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN --

MS. CLARK: THE OTHER OBJECTION IS THAT EVEN IF WE DO -- THE PROBLEM WITH THE ENTIRE TAPE IS THAT WE HAVE A DISTORTION THAT IS UN -- IRREMEDIABLE. THE DISTORTION, IT OCCURRED BECAUSE WHOEVER IS SHOOTING IT IS SHOOTING IT FROM AN OBVIOUS DISTANCE AND DOING IT WITH A ZOOM LENS. WHAT THAT DOES IS, IT DEPRIVES THE VIEWER OF DEPTH. AND SO WHAT YOU HAVE IS PEOPLE LOOKING LIKE THEY'RE ON TOP OF EACH OTHER, AND THEY'RE NOT. IT'S A SMALL SPACE, BUT EVERYBODY IS IN A PARTICULAR PLACE AND IT IS VERY MISLEADING TO THE JURY, MAKING IT LOOK AS THOUGH THERE'S -- THERE'S A CROWDING CROWD IS EFFECT, THAT THERE WASN'T. IT'S ALSO MISLEADING TO THE JURY BECAUSE IT DOES NOT DEPICT ALL OF THE AREAS THAT WERE FREE OF BLOOD WHERE THE PEOPLE WERE STANDING. AND SO THE JURY IS LED TO BELIEVE BASED ON WHAT THEY SEE WITH THIS LACK OF DEPTH, WITH ITS LENS THAT THEY ARE STANDING IN BLOOD THAT THEY'RE NOT STANDING IN.

THE COURT: BUT LET ME ASK YOU THIS THEN, MISS CLARK. HOW IS THE JURY GOING TO BE MISLED WHEN WE HAVE THE OVERVIEW PHOTOGRAPH OF THE STEPS WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STEPS, CORRECT? AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S AREAS ON THE STAIRWAY THAT IS NOT COVERED IN BLOOD. AND WE KNOW THE TESTIMONY FROM THE OFFICERS, THE FIRST OFFICERS AND DETECTIVE LANGE, THAT THEY DID IN FACT GO UP AND DOWN THAT STAIRWELL BEING CAREFUL NOT TO STEP ON THE BLOODY AREAS, CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: THE PROBLEM IS THAT THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE NOT EVIDENT IN THIS VIDEOTAPE, AND THIS VIDEOTAPE, THE WAY IT'S SHOT BECAUSE IT IS SHOT FROM A DISTANCE, MAKES IT APPEAR THAT -- YOU ALMOST CAN'T TELL THERE ARE STEPS IN THIS VIDEOTAPE. BUT THAT PHOTOGRAPH IS NOT PRESENT IN THIS VIDEOTAPE AND YOU CAN'T SEE WHERE THESE PEOPLE ARE STANDING. SO TO PUT THE PHOTOGRAPH -- IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT THE PHOTOGRAPH TOGETHER WITH THE VIDEOTAPE TO ALLOW THE JURY TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHERE THEY'RE STANDING IS NO BLOOD.

THE COURT: MR. HARRIS, HOW LONG IS THE TAPE IN ITS ENTIRETY, ITS ENTIRE RUNNING TIME?

MR. HARRIS: WE BELIEVE IT'S ABOUT A TOTAL OF 14, 15 MINUTES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO -- WHAT I AM GOING TO NEED TO DO IS SIT DOWN AND WATCH THIS THING IN ITS ENTIRETY AND CAREFULLY EVALUATE IT. I'VE SEEN THIS ONCE NOW.

MR. COCHRAN: SURE. I HAVE ENOUGH, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO -- MAY I ADDRESS THIS?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. ANY PHOTOGRAPH, YOUR HONOR, IS -- THERE'S A DEPTH PERCEPTION PROBLEM. THEY TALK ABOUT THIS EVEN IN THEIR OWN PHOTOGRAPHS. THE PICTURES THEY HAVE UP THERE OF THE BLOOD SPOT AND THE NEAREST FOOTPRINT, THERE'S A DEPTH PERCEPTION PROBLEM. THERE'S A DEPTH PERCEPTION PROBLEM WITH REGARD TO HOW THE BRONCO WAS PARKED. IT'S ALWAYS A PROBLEM. YOU DON'T HEAR US SCREENING AND MOANING ABOUT THAT. THE QUESTION IS, YOU CAN EXPLAIN THOSE THINGS. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE PERFECT, BUT THERE'S NOTHING BETTER THAN A VIDEO. WE DIDN'T TAKE THIS VIDEO. AND IF SHE WANTS TO SHOW THE WHOLE THING -- IT WAS THROUGH SENSITIVITY THAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO SHOW THE WHOLE THING BECAUSE I DIDN'T NEED TO SHOW THE BODIES BEING DRUG OUT OF THERE AND THAT SORT OF THING. SO THAT'S THE PART I WANTED TO CUT OUT. I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH YOUR HONOR DOING THAT. WHAT I DO BELIEVE IS THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR A LONG TIME NOW. SO IF THERE'S A LEVEL OF FRUSTRATION EVIDENT, IT'S BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN SHOWING THIS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. IT IS ADMISSIBLE. WHAT COUNSEL IS TALKING ABOUT GOES TO WEIGHT. IT'S HER WITNESS ON THE STAND. HE'S PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF TALKING ABOUT THIS. YOU KNOW THE THREE OR FOUR AREAS I WANT TO GET INTO, AND I THINK WE NEED TO RESOLVE THIS AT SOME POINT. BUT I CAN PROCEED ON WITH CROSS-EXAMINATION. I HAD HOPED TO, SINCE HE IS ON THE STAND, TO DO THIS TOWARDS THE END OF MY EXAMINATION TODAY. AS I SAID, I AM WILLING TO CUT OUT CERTAIN PORTIONS, BUT WHATEVER YOUR HONOR'S PLEASURE IS.

THE COURT: WELL, MR. COCHRAN, I DON'T SEE THAT YOU'RE READY TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS TODAY BECAUSE TO HAVE TO THEN FAST FORWARD FOR THIS STUFF AND LOOK THROUGH IT, IT'S GOING TO BE DISJOINTED AND THINGS WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE JURY THAT PERHAPS THEY OUGHT NOT SEE. WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST WE DO -- WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST WE DO IS ALLOW THE COURT TO CAREFULLY REVIEW THE TAPE, AND OVER THE EVENING, YOU SHOULD PREPARE AN EXCERPT OF EACH CRITICAL SCENE THAT YOU WISH TO PRESENT.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T WE -- THAT WILL BE FINE, YOUR HONOR. WHY DON'T YOU REVIEW IT. NOW, YOU MAY DISAGREE WITH THE -- WHAT WE COME UP WITH. HOW WILL WE DO THAT? LET'S SEE. I CAN DO THAT WITH THE AREAS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THREE AREAS AT THIS POINT.

MR. COCHRAN: YES. AND WE CAN DO THAT AND LOOK AT THOSE. AND IF THERE ARE ANY OTHERS, I'LL LEAVE THOSE IN AND WE CAN TRY TO DO THAT --

THE COURT: WELL, IF YOU RECALL, TOMORROW MORNING, AS I TOLD YOU, WE'RE GOING TO START WITH THE JURY AT 11:00 TOMORROW. WE HAVE THAT OTHER IN CHAMBERS CONFERENCE AT 10:00. SO WHY DON'T WE RESOLVE THIS MATTER SAY AT 9:30.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S FINE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT WILL BE FINE, YOUR HONOR. WE'LL TRY TO COME WITH A PARED-DOWN VERSION.

THE COURT: I AM SORRY. MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: CAN WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: SURE.

MS. CLARK: WE DON'T NEED THE REPORTER.

THE COURT: WITHOUT THE REPORTER.

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: I'LL GET A COPY FOR YOU AND A COPY FOR --

THE COURT: IF POSSIBLE, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE TAPE IN ITS ENTIRETY SO I CAN TAKE IT HOME TONIGHT AND WATCH IT.

MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, THIS TAPE WE WERE WATCHING IS ALREADY A MARKED EXHIBIT. IT'S EXHIBIT NO. 2. IT WAS PLAYED ON JANUARY 23RD. WE HAVE ANOTHER COPY THAT WE CAN TAKE WITH US TONIGHT. SO YOU CAN HAVE THIS ONE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IT'S MY COPY TO BEGIN WITH, COURT'S EXHIBIT.

MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU HAVE IT ALREADY?

THE COURT: I'LL TAKE IT HOME.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S FINE. WOULD YOU LIKE A COPY OF THE VERSION WE ARE NOW WITH YOUR PERMISSION EDITING DOWN FOR 9:00 ALSO?

THE COURT: WELL, I THINK THAT OUR AGREEMENT IS THAT TOMORROW MORNING AT 9:00 O'CLOCK, YOU'LL FILE WITH THE COURT AND THE PROSECUTION THE EXCERPTS THAT YOU INTEND ON PRESENTING. AND I THINK THAT WILL JUST MAKE FOR A CLEANER PRESENTATION IN ANY EVENT.

MR. COCHRAN: FINE. OKAY.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE CAMERAMAN WHO SHOT THIS FILM, THIS FOOTAGE --

THE COURT: CAMERA PERSON.

MS. CLARK: -- CAMERA PERSON WHO SHOT THIS FOOTAGE BE DIVULGED TO US FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALLING HIM TO THE WITNESS STAND.

THE COURT: OR HER.

MS. CLARK: POSSIBLY. OR HER.

THE COURT: YOU NEVER KNOW THESE DAYS.

MS. CLARK: NO. I DON'T. AND IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME. THAT'S WHY -- IT'S JUST A WORD, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I JUST THINK YOU'RE TRYING TO LURE ME INTO SOME PROBLEM HERE.

MS. CLARK: WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CAMERAMAN.

THE COURT: AS A MATTER OF DISCOVERY, I THINK THEY'RE ENTITLED TO KNOW WHO IS THE SOURCE OF THE VIDEOTAPE.

MS. CLARK: CAN COUNSEL PLEASE TELL US? THEY'VE GOT TO KNOW NOW.

THE COURT: LET ME ASK, MR. BLASIER, DO YOU HAVE THE IDENTITY OF THE VIDEO PHOTOGRAPHER?

MR. BLASIER: I DO NOT PERSONALLY, YOUR HONOR. AND I'M NOT SURE THAT WE KNOW THAT. THESE ARE CLIPS THAT WE GOT AND I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THE SOURCE IS. WE'LL TELL THEM ANYTHING WE KNOW.

MS. CLARK: DID THIS MAGICALLY APPEAR ON THEIR DOORSTEP?

THE COURT: WELL, MISS CLARK, IT HASN'T BEEN PRESENTED TO THE JURY YET. MR. BLASIER, OVER THE EVENING HOURS, WOULD YOU MAKE YOUR BEST EFFORTS TO FIND OUT WHO THIS IS BECAUSE I THINK THE PROSECUTION IS ENTITLED DURING ANY REDIRECT OR POSSIBLY EVEN CALLING THAT PHOTOGRAPHER AS A WITNESS IN THEIR CASE IN CHIEF TO EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS THAT'S THERE AND WHAT THE TIMER MEANS AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS. THEY'RE ENTITLED TO KNOW WHO TOOK THESE.

MR. BLASIER: I'LL TRY TO TRACK IT DOWN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE RESOLVED TOMORROW MORNING AT 9:00. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. LET'S RESUME WITH THE JURY, PLEASE.

MS. CLARK: IS THERE A -- I AM SORRY. I COULDN'T HEAR, YOUR HONOR. IS THERE A TIME THAT WAS GIVEN BY WHICH WE WOULD GET THAT INFORMATION?

THE COURT: NO. I INDICATED TO YOU I THINK YOU'RE ENTITLED TO KNOW WHO THE PHOTOGRAPHER IS AND YOU ARE ENTITLED TO POTENTIALLY INTERVIEW THAT PERSON AND/OR CALL THAT PERSON AS A WITNESS --

MS. CLARK: RIGHT.

THE COURT: -- IN YOUR CASE IN CHIEF. I AGREE.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: AND I TOLD MR. BLASIER TO MAKE HIS BEST EFFORTS AND HAVE THAT INFORMATION FOR ME BY 9:00 O'CLOCK TOMORROW MORNING.

MS. CLARK: OH, GREAT.

THE COURT: AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO FIND THAT OUT BY TOMORROW MORNING.

MS. CLARK: I DIDN'T HEAR THE DEADLINE. THAT'S WHAT I WAS -- THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WELL, SOMETIMES I DON'T MAKE MYSELF CLEAR. STILL WITH US?

THE WITNESS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

(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 WE'VE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. DETECTIVE TOM LANGE IS STILL ON THE WITNESS STAND ON CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN. DETECTIVE LANGE, GOOD AFTERNOON.

THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: AND YOU ARE AGAIN REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE AT THIS POINT TO HAVE PLACED ON THE ELMO A PHOTOGRAPH WHICH I BELIEVE IS A DUPLICATE OF 62-E. AND I'LL ALSO -- I'LL ASK THE WITNESS SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, 62-E.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, CAN YOU SEE THAT ON THE -- ON YOUR MONITOR, DETECTIVE LANGE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 62-E FOR IDENTIFICATION, IS THAT A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE WAY THIS BRONCO WAS PARKED, THAT YOU SAID WAS KIND OF JUTTING OUT FROM THE CURB?

A: YES.

Q: AND LET'S TAKE A LOOK ALSO -- AS WE LOOK AT 62-E, LET'S LOOK AT DEFENDANT'S 1037.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. YOU'RE MARKING THIS NEXT IN ORDER, 1037, MR. COCHRAN?

MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD ASK THAT THIS BE MARKED DEFENDANT'S 1037, NEXT IN ORDER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(DEFT'S 1037 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND IS THAT A FAIR AND ACCURATE PORTRAYAL OF HOW THIS VEHICLE WAS JUTTING OUT FROM THE CURB?

A: THE DEPTH PERCEPTION ISN'T ALL THERE, BUT YES, THAT APPEARS TO BE THE WAY IT WAS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHEN YOU WERE AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION, YOU HAD AN OFFICER THERE OR OFFICERS THERE WHO SOUGHT TO SECURE THIS PARTICULAR VEHICLE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE THERE WERE OFFICERS THERE TO DO THAT. I DIDN'T SPEAK WITH THEM.

Q: AND THEIR JOB, HOWEVER, WAS TO TRY -- AND WAS ONE OF THE OFFICERS THERE GONZALEZ AND ASHTON --

A: I BELIEVE THOSE WERE THE NAMES, YES.

Q: AND THEIR JOB WAS TO TRY TO MAKE THAT VEHICLE SECURE UNTIL SUCH TIME IT WAS TO BE TOWED AWAY OR IMPOUNDED OR WHATEVER; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: AND I WANT TO BRING UP AND MARK AS DEFENDANT'S -- WE'LL CALL THIS DEFENDANT'S 1038.

MS. CLARK: I HAVEN'T SEEN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, YOUR HONOR. EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. MAY I ASK THAT COUNSEL TAKE IT DOWN? I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO --

THE COURT: YES.

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

MR. COCHRAN: COUNSEL HAS NOW SEEN THAT, YOUR HONOR. THERE'S NO PHOTOGRAPHS. I DON'T HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH OF THIS. THIS IS D-1038. MAY WE NOW SHOW IT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PRINT THAT?

MR. COCHRAN: WE'RE GOING TO SEE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(DEFT'S 1038 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DETECTIVE LANGE, DO YOU SEE THE BRONCO THERE IN THE FOREGROUND?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU SEE A TOW TRUCK IN THE REAR PART OF THAT PHOTOGRAPH?

A: YES.

Q: SEE THAT LADY STANDING UP CLOSE TO THE VEHICLE THERE?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU HAD LEFT ROCKINGHAM EARLIER THAT MORNING, THE OFFICERS GONZALEZ AND ASHTON WERE IN CHARGE OF SECURING THE BRONCO AND KEEPING PEOPLE AWAY FROM IT, WERE THEY?

A: I LEFT APPROXIMATELY 6:45 A.M. I'M NOT CLEAR ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAD ARRIVED AT THAT TIME.

Q: WELL, AT SOME POINT, YOU BECAME AWARE THAT PHILLIPS HAD CALLED FOR THEM TO COME OVER AND PROVIDE SECURITY AT SOME POINT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I DON'T RECALL IF PHILLIPS DID THAT.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME OF DAY THAT VEHICLE WAS TOWED AWAY ULTIMATELY ON JUNE 13TH?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY RECORDS THAT WOULD ASSIST YOU IN THAT?

A: I WASN'T AT THE LOCATION. I SUPPOSE ONE COULD CHECK THE IMPOUND REPORT.

Q: ONE COULD DO WHAT?

A: ONE COULD CHECK THE IMPOUND REPORT. I WASN'T AT THE LOCATION, SO I DON'T KNOW.

Q: COULD ONE DO THAT FOR US RIGHT NOW?

A: ONE COULD.

Q: OKAY. I'LL ASK ONE TO DO THAT.

THE COURT: IS THERE GOING TO BE A HEARSAY OBJECTION ON THAT?

MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE TO SEE FIRST OF ALL WHAT HE'S GOING TO PRODUCE. AND THEN I'LL --

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE WITNESS: THERE ARE TWO -- TWO IMPOUND REPORTS.

MR. COCHRAN: APPROACH?

THE COURT: DETECTIVE, WOULD YOU SHOW THOSE TO COUNSEL, PLEASE?

MS. CLARK: THERE WOULD BE A HEARSAY OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I FINISH READING IT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(DISCUSSION BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE WITNESS.)

THE COURT: MR. HARRIS, WERE YOU SUCCESSFUL IN PRINTING THAT OUT?

MR. HARRIS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: GOOD. THANK YOU.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, BEFORE WE SPEND A WHOLE LOT MORE TIME ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, SINCE DETECTIVE LANGE HAS TESTIFIED HE WASN'T THERE WHEN IT WAS TOWED, MY INCLINATION IS TO SUSTAIN THE HEARSAY OBJECTION.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I MOVE ON, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: PLEASE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ONE OTHER QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO THAT, DETECTIVE LANGE. WHEN YOU LEFT TO GO BACK OVER TO THE BUNDY LOCATION IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS, THE VEHICLE WAS STILL AS DEPICTED IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS WE'VE SHOWN THE JURY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: IT WAS STILL AT THE LOCATION, YES.

Q: AND ALTHOUGH YOU HAVE SOME IMPOUND REPORTS, YOU ARE NOT THE PERSON WHO COULD TELL US WHAT TIME THAT VEHICLE WAS ACTUALLY TOWED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: IN LOOKING AT THE PHOTOGRAPH ON THE BOARD THAT'S NOW BEEN PRINTED, YOU CAN'T TELL US WHO THAT LADY IS, RIGHT?

A: I HAVE NO IDEA.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. YOUR HONOR, AND WE'LL GET THE APPROPRIATE WITNESS ON THAT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, WITH REGARD TO --

MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW COUNSEL A DOCUMENT ENTITLED "CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION CHECKLIST" AND MARK THAT AS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER, 10 --

THE COURT: 39.

MR. COCHRAN: -- 39, SHOW IT TO COUNSEL.

(DEFT'S 1039 FOR ID = CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WHILE SHE'S LOOKING AT THAT, WHEN YOU WERE AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION, AFTER YOU HAD BEEN TOLD BY PHILLIPS THAT FUHRMAN HAD TOLD HIM THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATION EARLY IN THE MORNING, SO YOU WENT OVER THERE, DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: HOW LONG WERE YOU AT THAT LOCATION ALTOGETHER BEFORE YOU LEFT TO COME BACK OVER TO BUNDY?

A: I MISUNDERSTOOD. HOW LONG WAS I AT BUNDY BEFORE WE LEFT --

Q: NO. HOW LONG WERE YOU AT ROCKINGHAM BEFORE YOU -- FROM THE TIME YOU GOT THERE TO THE TIME YOU LEFT, HOW LONG WERE YOU AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: APPROXIMATELY AN HOUR AND 40 MINUTES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DURING THIS HOUR AND 40-MINUTE PERIOD OF TIME, YOU SHARED WITH US SOME OF THE EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE WITH REGARD TO THE NOTIFICATION OF THE BROWN FAMILY AND OTHER THINGS. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU SHARED WITH US I THINK YESTERDAY THAT AT SOME POINT, FUHRMAN CAME TO YOU AND ESCORTED YOU OUT AND AROUND THE SIDE, THE GARAGE SIDE OF THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WERE YOU THE FIRST OFFICER SO ESCORTED AROUND THERE?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU REMEMBER THE SEQUENCE OF OFFICERS, IF ANY, WHO WERE ESCORTED AROUND BY FUHRMAN?

A: I BELIEVE PHILLIPS. I BELIEVE PHILLIPS MIGHT HAVE BEEN FIRST AND THEN VANNATTER AND THEN MYSELF.

Q: AND DO YOU HAVE THAT WRITTEN DOWN SOMEPLACE?

A: NO.

Q: IF VANNATTER HAS INDICATED HE WAS FIRST, WOULD HE BE WRONG?

A: NOT NECESSARILY. I JUST DON'T HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION. THAT'S JUST MY BELIEF. I COULD BE WRONG.

Q: TRYING TO GET YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION NOW.

A: THAT'S WHAT I'M GIVING YOU.

Q: AND YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION NOW IS THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT PHILLIPS WAS FIRST, THAT YOU WERE SECOND?

A: IT SEEMED TO BE THAT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THAT WAY. MAYBE IT WASN'T. I WASN'T REALLY PAYING THAT MUCH ATTENTION. I HAD OTHER THINGS ON MY MIND AT THE TIME.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU HAD OTHER THINGS ON YOUR MIND. I UNDERSTAND THAT. SO AS YOU SIT HERE NOW, YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU WERE SECOND OR THIRD, DO YOU?

A: IT SEEMS TO ME I WAS PERHAPS THE LAST ONE, BUT I MIGHT BE MISTAKEN. I DON'T KNOW.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO HOW MANY WENT BACK THERE ALTOGETHER IF YOU WERE THE LAST ONE?

A: I BELIEVE THAT PHILLIPS, VANNATTER AND MYSELF ALL WENT BACK AT DIFFERENT TIMES.

Q: SO YOUR PRESENT RECOLLECTION NOW IS THAT YOU MAY HAVE BEEN THE THIRD OFFICER IN THE SEQUENCE OF THREE TAKEN BACK BY FUHRMAN; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: AGAIN, I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT IT WAS, BUT PERHAPS IT WASN'T. AGAIN, I DIDN'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO THAT.

Q: AND YOU HAVE NO REPORT THAT WOULD REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION ON THAT, RIGHT?

A: I WOULDN'T HAVE A REPORT LIKE THAT.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO THIS LOCATION, WERE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN WHEN YOU WERE BACK THERE THAT PARTICULAR MORNING?

A: THE PHOTOGRAPHER HADN'T ARRIVED WHEN I WAS THERE. I HAD LEFT BEFORE THE PHOTOGRAPHER ARRIVED.

Q: SO THE ANSWER IS NO, THERE WERE NO PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU DESCRIBED THE AREA AS -- WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU WERE TAKEN BACK THERE BY FUHRMAN?

A: APPROXIMATELY 6:25 PERHAPS. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY.

Q: AND WAS THE SUN UP BY THAT TIME?

A: IT WAS BEGINNING TO GET LIGHT. A LITTLE HARD TO TELL IF THE SUN WAS ALL THE WAY UP.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THAT AREA WAS KIND OF DARK BECAUSE OF THE FOLIAGE OVER THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU -- DID YOU HAVE THE USE OF YOUR FLASHLIGHT WHEN YOU WENT BACK THERE?

A: I DON'T RECALL IF I HAD MY FLASHLIGHT OR NOT.

Q: HOW CLOSE DID YOU GET TO THE LOCATION THAT FUHRMAN WAS TAKING YOU TO?

A: TO THE GLOVE?

Q: YES.

A: APPROXIMATELY PERHAPS SIX FEET.

Q: AND YOU NEVER GOT ANY CLOSER THAN THAT?

A: NO. I TOOK ONE LOOK AND RETURNED IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE.

Q: YOU NEVER TOUCHED THE GLOVE THAT MORNING?

A: NO.

Q: IN ONE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS, THERE'S A STICK THAT WAS SOMEWHERE AROUND THE LOCATION. WE SAW IT BRIEFLY YESTERDAY. I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS MARKED. DO YOU REMEMBER SEEING THAT STICK -- A STICK SOMEWHERE OUT IN AND AROUND ROCKINGHAM THAT MORNING?

A: YES.

Q: WHERE WAS THE STICK?

A: THERE WAS A PIECE OF SPLINTERED WOOD IF THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO, WHITE IN COLOR. IT WAS LOCATED ON THE PARKWAY ADJACENT TO THE BRONCO.

Q: AND WAS THIS STICK ULTIMATELY BOOKED INTO EVIDENCE?

A: YES.

Q: BY WHOM, IF YOU KNOW?

A: I WASN'T THERE WHEN IT WAS COLLECTED. I'M ASSUMING FUNG.

Q: AND I BELIEVE YESTERDAY WE SHOWED SOME PHOTOGRAPHS THAT HAD SOME KIND OF A BLUE OBJECT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. DO YOU REMEMBER SEEING THAT BLUE OBJECT AT ALL ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE TO THE RIGHT OF THE FENCE AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: I DIDN'T RECALL SEEING ANY BLUE OBJECT WHEN I WAS THERE.

Q: AND DID YOU SEE A PHOTOGRAPH YESTERDAY THAT HAD SUCH A BLUE OBJECT?

A: I MAY HAVE SEEN A PHOTOGRAPH.

Q: DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AT ALL?

A: PERHAPS IF YOU SHOWED IT TO ME.

MR. COCHRAN: I'LL MARK THIS AS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER, YOUR HONOR. SHOW IT TO COUNSEL. D-103 -- 1040.

THE COURT: 1040.

(DEFT'S 1040 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH OF BLUE OBJECT) MR. COCHRAN: AND I'LL MARK THE STICK AS D-1041.

(DEFT'S 1041 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH OF A STICK)

MR. COCHRAN: SHOWING THEM BOTH TO COUNSEL. YOUR HONOR, I'LL PLACE D-1040 ON THE BOARD, ON THE ELMO.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, TAKE A LOOK AT D-1040. NOW, IS THAT THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION THAT YOU RECALL THAT YOU SAW THIS GLOVE IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13TH, 1994?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE. THAT'S KIND OF A CLOSE-IN SHOT THAT --

Q: THAT'S CLOSER THAN YOU WERE TO THAT; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THE SHOT APPEARS TO BE CLOSER, YES, IF IT'S SIX FEET.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU -- LOOK TO THE RIGHT OF THAT. DO YOU SEE SOME KIND OF A -- DO YOU SEE A CARD AND THEN SOME KIND OF A BLUE OBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF THE FENCE?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU REMEMBER SEEING THAT THAT MORNING?

A: NO, I DON'T.

Q: AND SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR, THE -- CAN YOU SEE -- CAN YOU LOOK AT THE BOARD FOR A MINUTE, LOOK WITH THE BIG SCREEN? THAT AREA IN THERE IS THE AREA THAT APPEARS TO BE THE BLUE, KIND OF BLUE PACKAGE OR WHATEVER?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN HERE IS SOME KIND OF EVIDENCE CARD; IS THAT CORRECT? CAN YOU SEE THAT?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE AN EVIDENCE CARD, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO AT SOME POINT, THAT BLUE CONTAINER WAS BOOKED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE SO. I WASN'T THERE, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WITH REGARD TO THIS GLOVE AT THAT LOCATION, DID YOU CHECK OR WERE YOU ABLE TO FIND OUT WHETHER THERE WAS ANY BLOOD OR ANY BLOOD SPOTS AROUND THAT GLOVE THAT'S INDICATED IN THIS LAST EXHIBIT, D-40 -- 1040 RATHER?

A: I WOULDN'T HAVE CHECKED THAT. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE CRIMINALIST.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU KNOW IF THE CRIMINALIST DID THAT?

A: I WASN'T THERE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU KNOW IN ANY OF THE REPORTS, SINCE YOU'RE THE LEAD INVESTIGATOR IN THIS CASE, WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE ANY BLOOD DROPLETS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN AND AROUND THIS AREA WHERE THIS GLOVE WAS ALLEGEDLY FOUND?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE THERE ARE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT ABOUT ON THE FENCE? DID YOU FIND ANY BLOOD SPOTS OR ANYTHING, ANY SMEARS ON THIS FENCE TO THE RIGHT OF WHERE THAT GLOVE WAS ALLEGEDLY FOUND?

A: I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU ARE THE INVESTIGATOR, RIGHT, STILL?

A: I AM THE INVESTIGATOR AT BUNDY. WE HAD A BIFURCATION. DETECTIVE VANNATTER TOOK ROCKINGHAM AND I TOOK BUNDY AS A CRIME SCENE.

Q: BUT I MEAN, I PRESUME IN THIS CASE, BOTH BUNDY AND ROCKINGHAM ARE PART OF THIS CASE NOW; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: CERTAINLY.

Q: AND YOU ARE ONE OF THE INVESTIGATORS. YOU KNOW WHAT TOOK PLACE AT BOTH PLACES, DON'T YOU?

A: I'M NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH ROCKINGHAM AS BUNDY BECAUSE I INVESTIGATED BUNDY AND MY PARTNER INVESTIGATED ROCKINGHAM.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WILL DETECTIVE VANNATTER FAVOR US WITH HIS APPEARANCE BEFORE TOO LONG?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO BLOOD ON THAT FENCE, RIGHT?

A: AS FAR AS I KNOW, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND NO BLOOD BACK IN THIS AREA, THIS WALKWAY AREA, RIGHT?

A: I DIDN'T OBSERVE ANY.

Q: AND VANNATTER IS STILL YOUR PARTNER IN THIS CASE. YOU'RE CO-LEAD INVESTIGATORS, RIGHT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WITH REGARD TO 1041 --

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO BRING THAT UP NEXT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS -- I'M GOING TO ASK YOU WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS THE STICK THAT YOU DESCRIBED OUT IN THE PARKWAY?

A: PIECE OF SPLINTERED WOOD THAT I OBSERVED IN THE PARKWAY, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, YOU WANT TO CALL IT SPLINTERED WOOD? OKAY. THE SPLINTERED WOOD. WHERE DID YOU FIND THIS SPLINTERED WOOD ON THE PARKWAY?

A: THAT WAS THE PARKWAY NORTH OF THE ROCKINGHAM GATE AND ADJACENT TO THE BRONCO, I GUESS IT WOULD BE EAST OF THE BRONCO.

Q: AND THAT -- BECAUSE OF THAT LAPD RULER THERE OR WHATEVER, WAS THAT -- THAT WAS TAKEN, A PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN BY THE LAPD, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THIS SPLINTERED WOOD WAS BOOKED INTO EVIDENCE; WAS IT NOT?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: WERE ANY TESTS RUN ON THAT SPLINTERED WOOD?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: WAS IT NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD OR DO YOU KNOW?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD AS WELL AS PRINTS.

Q: NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD AND PRINTS?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: BY THE WAY, THIS MORNING, WHEN I WAS TALKING TO YOU ABOUT THESE REEBOK TENNIS SHOES, YOU TOLD US THAT YOU HAD THESE REEBOK TENNIS SHOES TESTED FOR BLOOD ON THEM. REMEMBER THAT?

A: YES.

Q: THERE'S NO BLOOD ON THOSE TENNIS SHOES, WAS THERE?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU HAVE A REPORT TO THAT EFFECT?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN IT'S NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD, THEY DON'T WRITE A REPORT. IS THAT WHAT HAPPENS?

A: WHEN IT'S NEGATIVE FOR A PHENOL, THAT'S CORRECT, PRESUMPTIVE TEST.

Q: YOU STILL HAVE THOSE SHOES, DO YOU, IN POLICE CUSTODY?

A: I BELIEVE THEY'RE IN EVIDENCE.

Q: NOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE ARRIVAL OF THE CRIMINALISTS AT THE BUNDY SCENE AND WE KNOW THAT AT SOME POINT IN ADDITION TO THE CRIMINALISTS, SOME TECHNICIANS CAME FROM SID TO DO THE FINGERPRINTING AND THE DUSTING; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN THAT CONNECTION, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU PEOPLE'S 84, ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING THAT PHOTOGRAPH. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE YOUNG LADY IN THE FOREGROUND OF PEOPLE'S 84?

A: YES.

Q: AND SHE SEEMS TO BE WEARING SOME GLOVES ON HER HANDS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID SHE BRING THOSE WITH HER OR WERE THOSE PROVIDED BY YOU THAT MORNING?

A: SHE BROUGHT THOSE WITH HER.

Q: AND SHE'S WEARING -- AND I DON'T -- I CHOOSE NOT TO USE THE WORD BOOTIES. SHE'S WEARING SOME COVERS FOR HER SHOES, ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SHOE COVERINGS?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT MORNING OUT THERE, AS YOU SAW THESE TECHNICIANS DOING THEIR WORK, THEY WERE GARBED IN WHITE WITH GLOVES ON AND WITH THEIR SHOES COVERED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU DIDN'T SEE MR. FUNG, THE CRIMINALIST, WITH ANY COVERS ON HIS SHOES, DID YOU?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU SEE MR. FUNG --

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. VAGUE AS TO TIME. WHEN?

MR. COCHRAN: THAT MORNING WHEN HE WAS OUT THERE AT BUNDY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

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

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU SEE -- YOU NEVER SAW FUNG WITH ANY COVERINGS ON HIS SHOES, RIGHT, THAT MORNING?

A: I NEVER OBSERVED ANY, NO.

Q: DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS WEARING GLOVES AT ANY TIME THAT MORNING?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE WAS WEARING GLOVES OR NOT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT THE TWO INDIVIDUALS FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE WERE EVER WEARING COVERINGS ON THEIR SHOES THAT MORNING, JUNE 13TH, 1994?

A: I DON'T RECALL THEM WEARING COVERINGS.

Q: AND OF COURSE, YOU WERE NOT WEARING ANY SHOE COVERINGS YOURSELF?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU EVER REMEMBER SEEING DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WITH ANY SHOE COVERINGS THAT MORNING?

A: NO.

Q: WAS HE WEARING GLOVES AT ANY TIME THAT MORNING?

A: GENERALLY IF ONE WAS GOING TO HANDLE EVIDENCE, THEY WOULD BE WEARING GLOVES, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE HE DID. I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE THOUGH.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT ABOUT FUHRMAN? DO YOU RECALL HIM WEARING EITHER SHOE COVERINGS OR GLOVES?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE HE HAD SHOE COVERINGS AND I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE GLOVES.

Q: NOW, YESTERDAY, YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT THE CONDITION OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S FEET AND YOU WERE SHOWN SOME PHOTOGRAPHS. DID YOU EVER PHOTOGRAPH THE SOLES OF HER FEET THAT PARTICULAR MORNING BEFORE HER BODY WAS TAKEN AWAY?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS A DIRECT SHOT OF THE SOLES.

Q: DID YOU EVER WALK AROUND AND LOOK AT THE SOLES OF HER FEET THAT MORNING?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHERE DID YOU -- WHERE DID YOU -- HOW DID YOU ACCOMPLISH THAT?

A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS AT THE TIME THAT THE BODY WAS MOVED.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO HER LEG -- AND I'M REFERRING NOW TO DEFENDANT'S -- STRIKE THAT -- PLAINTIFF'S 80.

MR. COCHRAN: PUT IT ON THE ELMO, YOUR HONOR, PLAINTIFF'S 80.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S LOWER PART OF HER BODY AND HER RIGHT AND LEFT LEG AND FOOT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANY DIRECT-ON SHOT OF HER -- THE BOTTOM OF HER FEET; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: THE -- WHAT IS THAT UNDER -- IS THAT HER RIGHT LEG IN THE FOREGROUND?

A: THE FOREGROUND IS THE RIGHT LEG, YES.

Q: AND WHAT IS THAT UNDER THE RIGHT LEG THERE?

A: THERE'S A THAI FAST FOOD TAKE-OUT RESTAURANT MAILER MENU.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THE LEG, AS YOU MOVE UP THE -- WAS THE RIGHT LEG, THERE APPEAR TO BE SOME MARKS ON THE LEG AS THOUGH -- WAS THAT EVER DUSTED FOR PRINTS, THAT PART OF HER LEG THAT I -- CAN YOU STEP DOWN AND SEE WHAT I'M CIRCLING NOW? THERE APPEAR TO BE SOME LITTLE MARKS --

A: THE LEG TESTED FOR PRINTS?

Q: ON THE RIGHT LEG. WAS ANYTHING DUSTED IN THAT AREA?

A: ON THE BODY ITSELF?

Q: YES, ON THE BODY.

A: NO.

Q: NOT AT ALL?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT WHEN THAT BODY WAS TAKEN TO THE CORONER'S OFFICE, YOU SAW IT ON THE NEXT DAY, DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE CRIMINALIST MAHANEY OR ANYONE ELSE DID ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO WHAT APPEARS TO BE SOME SPOTS ON THE RIGHT LEG THERE?

A: I BELIEVE THERE WAS BLOOD REMOVED BY THE CRIMINALIST FROM THE LEG.

Q: AND WHAT CRIMINALIST WAS THAT?

A: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN MAHANEY.

Q: MAKANEY?

A: MAHANEY.

Q: AND DO YOU HAVE A REPORT FOR THAT?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: CAN YOU FIND THAT? CAN YOU LOOK IT UP?

A: YES.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES. MISS CLARK.

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

MR. COCHRAN: I JUST HAVE A FEW MORE QUESTIONS IN THIS AREA, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO THE DOCUMENT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU, IT'S AN INDICATION THAT SOME BLOOD TESTING WAS DONE REGARDING SCRAPINGS ON THE RIGHT THIGH AND RIGHT CALF BY MAHANEY?

A: OF NICOLE SIMPSON, YES.

Q: OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. BY THE WAY, WHILE YOU WERE AT THE -- EITHER AT THE AUTOPSY OR SOMETIME YOU WERE AT THE CORONER'S OFFICE, WAS ANYTHING DONE WITH REGARD TO THE FINGERNAILS OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

A: I BELIEVE THERE WAS SAMPLES TAKEN.

Q: SOME CLIPPINGS FROM UNDER HER FINGERNAILS?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: FROM BOTH FINGERNAILS ON BOTH HANDS OR ON WHAT HAND? CAN YOU TELL?

A: I DON'T KNOW. I WOULD ASSUME BOTH HANDS. WITHOUT CHECKING, I COULDN'T TELL YOU.

Q: IF YOU HAD WANTED TO HAVE A RAPE KIT DONE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, YOU COULD HAVE ASKED THE CORONER, ISN'T THAT CORRECT, AS THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER?

A: I SUPPOSE I COULD HAVE ASKED. I WOULD HAVE HAD NO REASON TO DO THAT.

Q: I'M NOT ASKING YOU THAT. I'M ASKING, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK IF YOU WANTED TO; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I SUPPOSE I CAN ASK, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU'VE DONE THAT IN OTHER CASES; HAVE YOU NOT?

A: CASES WHERE RAPE IS FAIRLY OBVIOUS, YES.

Q: WELL, THAT'S ALL FINE AND GOOD. YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE FACTS -- WHAT HAD HAPPENED OUT THERE ON JUNE 12TH, DID YOU, SIR?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M ASKING HIM --

THE COURT: THAT'S SUSTAINED. YOU CAN REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HAD HAPPENED OUT THERE ON JUNE 12TH, 1994, DID YOU, SIR, WHEN YOU ARRIVED ON THE SCENE?

A: IT WAS EVIDENT TO ME WHAT HAPPENED, YES.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IT WAS EVIDENT TO YOU WHAT HAD HAPPENED?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON HAD A VISITOR THAT EVENING AFTER 10:00 O'CLOCK, A MALE VISITOR? DO YOU KNOW THAT? DO YOU KNOW THAT?

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION.

THE WITNESS: THE NIGHT OF THE MURDER?

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YES.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: WHAT'S THE OBJECTION?

MS. CLARK: ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU KNOW THAT FOR A FACT?

A: THE ONLY MALE VISITOR I'M AWARE OF IS THE OTHER VICTIM.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT SHE HAD ANY OTHER MALE VISITOR THAT NIGHT? DO YOU KNOW THAT?

A: NO.

Q: BUT IN YOUR INVESTIGATIVE CAPACITY, YOU DECIDED NOT TO ORDER THIS RAPE KIT WHICH YOU COULD HAVE ORDERED; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: IN MY OBSERVATIONS, IN MY EXPERIENCES, SEX WAS THE LAST THING ON THE MIND OF THIS ATTACKER. IT WAS AN OVERKILL, IT WAS A BRUTAL OVERKILL --

Q: I WASN'T ASKING YOU ABOUT THAT.

A: -- THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF RAPE --

Q: I WASN'T ASKING ABOUT THAT.

A: -- NO EVIDENCE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT.

Q: I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT THAT. I ASKED YOU IF YOU HAD THE RIGHT --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THAT WAS RESPONSIVE.

THE COURT: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: IT'S NOT RESPONSIVE. I MOVE TO STRIKE IT. IT WASN'T RESPONSIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, I THINK WE'RE ABOUT -- YOU WANT TO JUST WIND IT UP HERE?

MR. COCHRAN: YES, I CAN. MOVE TO STRIKE THAT LAST THING, YOUR HONOR. NOT NONRESPONSIVE.

MS. CLARK: IT WAS RESPONSIVE, YOUR HONOR. IT WAS EXACTLY WHAT WAS ASKED.

MR. COCHRAN: IT'S NOT WHAT I ASKED.

MS. CLARK: HE ASKED WHY --

THE COURT: LET ME SEE.

MS. CLARK: -- A RAPE KIT --

THE COURT: LET ME SEE.

MS. CLARK: IT'S IMPLICIT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OVERRULED. PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WITH REGARD TO -- AS AN INVESTIGATOR, DO YOU MAKE ASSUMPTIONS AND THEN STAY WITH THOSE ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE ENTIRE CASE? IS THAT WHAT HAPPENS? YOU FIGURE OUT AND LOOK IN YOUR CRYSTAL BALL OF WHAT HAPPENED AND MAKE YOUR DETERMINATION AND DISCOUNT EVERYTHING ELSE? IS THAT WHAT HAPPENED, SIR, AS AN EXPERIENCED INVESTIGATOR?

A: NO. CERTAINLY NOT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. I DIDN'T THINK SO.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND WITH REGARD TO -- FOR INSTANCE, THESE STOMACH CONTENTS --

THE COURT: MS. CLARK, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SPEAK UP A LITTLE LOUDER. WAS THAT AN ARGUMENTATIVE OBJECTION?

MS. CLARK: YES. ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, WE'RE RIGHT ABOUT THERE.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO THESE STOMACH CONTENTS, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY HELPFUL IN THIS CASE TO THIS JURY IN DETERMINING TIME OF DEATH; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS FOUR TIMES NOW.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I WAS GOING TO ASK A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, BUT I'LL RESERVE IT UNTIL TOMORROW MORNING. PERHAPS I'LL TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT TOMORROW MORNING.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. SEE YOU TOMORROW.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, IF YOU RECALL, WE HAVE -- MR. HODGMAN IS ON HIS WAY I ASSUME FOR A 4:00 O'CLOCK CONFERENCE ON OUR OTHER EVIDENTIARY ISSUES, CORRECT? AND THERE'S MR. SCHECK. OKAY. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THIS AFTERNOON. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, DON'T EXPRESS ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS WHILE THE MATTER -- UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU, DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE. AND, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I HAVE SOME OTHER PROCEEDINGS I HAVE TO ATTEND TO TOMORROW MORNING. SO WE WILL NOT GET TO YOU TOMORROW MORNING UNTIL ABOUT 10:00 O'CLOCK. ALL RIGHT? ALL RIGHT. AS TO THE JURY --

MR. BAILEY: 10:00 OR 11:00?

THE COURT: I WANT THE JURY BACK IN THE COURTHOUSE AT 10:00. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. SEE YOU TOMORROW MORNING. AND, DETECTIVE LANGE, YOU CAN STEP DOWN. YOU ARE ORDERED TO RETURN TOMORROW AT 10:00 O'CLOCK.

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

THE COURT: LET THE RECORD REFLECT THE JURORS HAVE WITHDRAWN FROM THE COURTROOM. ALL RIGHT. MR. HODGMAN, MR. SCHECK -- AND, MRS. ROBERTSON, WOULD YOU GET THAT TAPE FOR ME, PLEASE.

MR. DOUGLAS: I'M GOING TO LOOK AT IT BEFORE WE LEAVE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. HODGMAN, MR. SCHECK, WHAT'S OUR STATUS THIS AFTERNOON? IS THERE SOMETHING WE NEED TO PUT ON THE RECORD? YOU WANT TO TALK INFORMALLY FIRST?

MR. HODGMAN: NO, YOUR HONOR. NO. THERE WAS INFORMATION THAT THE COURT HAD RECEIVED THAT I FOR ONE WAS INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT, AND THEN WE HAD ANOTHER MATTER OF DISCUSSION THAT COULD POTENTIALLY INVOLVE THE COURT BUT NEED NOT GO ON THE RECORD AT THIS TIME, AND WE WERE JUST IN THE MIDST OF DISCUSSING THAT.

THE COURT: I CAN TAKE A BREAK FOR 10 MINUTES AND YOU GUYS CAN TALK AMONGST YOURSELVES.

MR. SCHECK: IF MISS CLARK -- THE ONLY OTHER THING I THOUGHT THAT WAS OUTSTANDING WAS THE PACKAGES. THAT'S THE ONLY THING.

THE COURT: HAVE YOU RESOLVED THAT WITH MR. HODGMAN?

MR. SCHECK: I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS INVOLVED.

MR. HODGMAN: NO. I WAS JUST APPRISED OF THAT SITUATION, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, I THINK WE HAVE -- WE ARE DONE FOR THE DAY AS FAR AS THE RECORD GOES. I NEED TO TALK TO MR. SCHECK, SEE IF -- REGARDING A PROPOSITION TO WORK SOMETHING OUT. WE CAN EASILY PRESENT THAT TO THE COURT TOMORROW MORNING. SO I --

THE COURT: WE HAVE A RATHER FULL PLATE TOMORROW MORNING.

MR. HODGMAN: IF NOT TOMORROW MORNING -- I THINK IF WE TAKE THE TIME RIGHT NOW, WE CAN TAKE A MINUTE OF THE COURT'S TIME. SO --

THE COURT: WELL, I HAVE PLENTY TO DO. SO -- THEN WE'LL STAND IN RECESS. I WILL BE AVAILABLE IN CHAMBERS. ALL RIGHT.

(AT 4:10 P.M., AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

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

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

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
)
PLAINTIFF, )
)
) VS. ) NO. BA097211
)
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, )
)
)
DEFENDANT. )

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1995
VOLUME 92

PAGES 15677 THROUGH 15945, INCLUSIVE

APPEARANCES: (SEE PAGE 2)

JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR #4588
CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR #2378 OFFICIAL REPORTERS

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PEOPLE: GIL GARCETTI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BY: MARCIA R. CLARK, WILLIAM W.
HODGMAN, CHRISTOPHER A. DARDEN,
CHERI A. LEWIS, ROCKNE P. HARMON,
GEORGE W. CLARKE, SCOTT M. GORDON
LYDIA C. BODIN, HANK M. GOLDBERG,
ALAN YOCHELSON AND DARRELL S.
MAVIS, DEPUTIES
18-000 CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING
210 WEST TEMPLE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT L. SHAPIRO, ESQUIRE
SARA L. CAPLAN, ESQUIRE
2121 AVENUE OF THE STARS
19TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067

JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR., ESQUIRE
BY: CARL E. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE
SHAWN SNIDER CHAPMAN, ESQUIRE
4929 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 1010
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010

GERALD F. UELMEN, ESQUIRE
ROBERT KARDASHIAN, ESQUIRE
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ESQUIRE
F. LEE BAILEY, ESQUIRE
BARRY SCHECK, ESQUIRE
ROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQUIRE

I N D E X

INDEX FOR VOLUME 92 PAGES 15677 - 15945

-----------------------------------------------------

DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.

WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 22, 1995 A.M. 15677 92
P.M. 15823 92
-----------------------------------------------------

LEGEND:

MS. CLARK - MC
MR. HODGMAN - H
MR. DARDEN D
MR. KAHN - K
MR. GOLDBERG - GB
MR. GORDON - G
MR. SHAPIRO - S
MR. COCHRAN - C
MR. DOUGLAS - CD
MR. BAILEY - B
MR. UELMEN - U
MR. SCHECK - BS
MR. NEUFELD - N

-----------------------------------------------------

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.

LANGE, TOM 92
(FREDERICK)
(RESUMED) 15684C
(RESUMED) 15826C

-----------------------------------------------------

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.

LANGE, TOM 92
(FREDERICK)
(RESUMED) 15684C
(RESUMED) 15826C

EXHIBITS

DEFENSE FOR IN
EXHIBIT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE

PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.

1028 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 15700 92
THE BODY OF VICTIM GOLDMAN AND THE BOTTOM OF
HIS RIGHT

1029 - 2-PAGE DOCUMENT 15769 92
ENTITLED "LAPD SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION
REPORT"

1030 - 2-PAGE DOCUMENT 15782 92
ENTITLED "HOMICIDE WORK SHEET"

1031 - 2-PAGE DOCUMENT 15784 92
ENTITLED "INVESTIGATOR'S REPORT"

1032 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 15861 92
THE NUMBER "118A", A DIME AND A PENNY

1033 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 15861 92
A DIME AND A PENNY AND AN LAPD RULER

1034 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 15870 92
THE BACK VIEW OF THE CRIME SCENE WITH A BLACK
VEHICLE

1035 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 15876 92
A BLUE AND WHITE HEART WITH AN LAPD RULER

1036 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 15886 92
VICTIM GOLDMAN WITH THE LEGS AND FEET OF AN
INDIVIDUAL STANDING

1037 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 15916 92
A WHITE BRONCO VEHICLE AND MAN

1038 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 15917 92
THE FRONT VIEW OF A WHITE BRONCO VEHICLE WITH
A TOW TRUCK AND INDIVIDUAL

1039 - CRIME SCENE 15921 92
INVESTIGATION CHECKLIST

1040 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 15926 92
THE SIDE OF 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM AVENUE WITH A
GLOVE AND THE NUMBER "9"

1041 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 15927 92
A SPLINTER OF WOOD WITH AN LAPD RULER