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:)

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

(AT 11:20 P.M. THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 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. 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 AND MR. DARDEN. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. COUNSEL, GOOD AFTERNOON.

MR. SHAPIRO: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: GOOD AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE VIDEOTAPE THAT THE -- I TAKE IT THESE ARE NOW EXCERPTS FROM THE VIDEOTAPE THAT WE VIEWED YESTERDAY?

MR. COCHRAN: YES. IN LINE WITH YOUR HONOR'S INSTRUCTIONS, WE HAVE NOW TRIED TO COMPLY AND I THINK WE PROVIDED YOUR HONOR AT NINE O'CLOCK. THERE IS ONE ADDITIONAL TAPE WHICH IS VERY SHORT, AND WHEN PLAYING THAT TAPE, I ASK THAT DETECTIVE LANGE BE OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM.

MS. CLARK: THE PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD WITH RESPECT TO THE TAPE, ONE OF THEM.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, LET ME ASK YOU THIS: DO WE HAVE AN OBJECTION FROM THE PEOPLE AS TO -- HAVE YOU SEEN THE EXCERPTS, FIRST OF ALL?

MS. CLARK: YES, I HAVE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU LODGE ANY OBJECTIONS TO ANY OF THE EXCERPTS?

MS. CLARK: YES, I DO.

THE COURT: WHICH ONES?

MS. CLARK: I'M GOING TO NEED TO -- ACTUALLY I THINK I'M GOING TO NEED TO PLAY IT AND SHOW THE COURT WHICH EXCERPTS. THAT MIGHT BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE THING.

THE COURT: OKAY. LET'S TAKE IT FROM THE TOP.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

(AT 1:38 P.M. A VIDEOTAPE WAS PLAYED.)

MS. CLARK: CAN WE STOP RIGHT HERE? WILL YOU STOP?

MR. HARRIS: YES.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. THANKS. PART OF THE PROBLEM IS SHOWN JUST BEFORE THIS FRAME AND IN THIS ONE AS WELL AND THE PROBLEM IS WITH THIS TAPE, THE EXCERPTS THAT I'M GOING TO BE POINTING OUT TO THE COURT IS THE LACK OF DEPTH, THE LACK OF PERSPECTIVE. UNDER 352 THIS TAPE IS CLEARLY MORE MISLEADING AND MORE PREJUDICIAL THAN PROBATIVE. THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE IS THAT WE HAVE A CAMERAMAN WHOSE ANGLE AND POSITION IS UNKNOWN AND THE USE OF A LENS, THE NATURE OF WHICH IS UNKNOWN. THE PROBLEM CREATED BY THIS IS THAT THERE IS NO DEPTH PERCEPTION AND IT IS MISLEADING MORE THAN INFORMATIVE. EVERYTHING LOOKS ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. YOU CAN'T SEE WHERE THE FEET ARE POSITIONED AND THE GROUND WHICH THE FEET ARE POSITIONED ON, AND THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT, TO SHOW THAT PEOPLE WERE WALKING THROUGH BLOOD AND CONTAMINATING EVIDENCE. THE TAPE FAILS TO SHOW THAT, AND EVEN WORSE THAN THAT, IT IS MISLEADING IN THAT IT TENDS TO LEAVE THE INFERENCE THAT THE FEET ARE IN BLOOD OR CONTAMINATING BLOOD AS THEY MOVE, WHEN YOU REALLY CAN'T EVEN SEE THEM, SO THE TAPE DOES NOT IN FACT INFORM YOU OF WHERE THE FEET ARE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THEM. IT MAKES IT APPEAR THAT THEY ARE STEPPING IN AREAS THAT THEY ARE NOT BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF DEPTH PERCEPTION. AND THE COURT HAS BEEN THERE SO THE COURT IS AWARE OF THE WAY THE AREA REALLY LOOKS AND YOU CAN SEE HOW FLATTENED THIS PICTURE REALLY IS.

THE COURT: HASN'T THE JURY ALSO BEEN THERE?

MS. CLARK: THEY HAVE, BUT YOU CAN'T COUNT ON THE JURY TO REMEMBER EVERYTHING IN SUCH GREAT DETAIL. I TELL YOU, YOUR HONOR, I HAVE BEEN OUT TO THAT SCENE FOUR OR FIVE TIMES AND IN BETWEEN EVERY TIME I HAVE FORGOTTEN WHAT THE DISTANCES WERE REALLY LIKE. EVERY TIME I GO BACK THERE I AM SURPRISED HOW SMALL THAT AREA IS IN FRONT WHERE THE FENCES MEET TO THE NORTH AND TO THE EAST AND SURPRISED AT THE LENGTH OF THE WALKWAY, THE NUMBER OF STAIRS GOING UP AND DOWN. YOU CAN'T REMEMBER THIS ACCURATELY; NO ONE CAN. SO THE FACT THAT THE JURY WENT IS HELPFUL, BUT CERTAINLY DOES NOT RESOLVE THIS PARTICULAR PROBLEM. MOREOVER, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEIR MEMORIES FADE, THEIR ACCURATE MEMORIES WILL BE REPLACED WITH THIS MISLEADING VIDEO THAT HAS NO PROBATIVE VALUE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SHOW THE VERY THING THE DEFENSE PURPORTS TO USE IT FOR, WHICH IS WHERE THEY ARE STEPPING. AND AS WE ADVANCE THE TAPE THE COURT WILL SEE HOW BAD THIS PROBLEM GETS.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, DO WE GET TO HEAR HER NARRATIVE OR LET ME RESPOND?

THE COURT: LET ME WATCH THE FIRST EXCERPT AND THEN I WILL HEAR FROM YOU.

MS. CLARK: THIS IS CALLED ARGUMENT I THINK.

(THE VIDEOTAPE CONTINUES PLAYING.)

MS. CLARK: AT THIS POINT YOU CAN AT LEAST SEE WHERE THE DETECTIVE IS STANDING.

THE COURT: DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT. NOW, HERE AGAIN -- CAN WE STOP THAT? SAME PROBLEM. WE CAN'T SEE WHERE CLAUDINE RATCLIFFE, WHO IS THE WOMAN TO THE LEFT OF TOM LANGE, IS STANDING. YOU CAN'T SEE WHETHER SHE IS STANDING IN AND CLEAR AREA OR IN AN AREA THAT THE DEFENSE, AS THE DEFENSE WANTS TO ALLEGE, IS BLOODY. SAME THING WITH DETECTIVE LANGE. YOU CAN'T TELL BY THIS VIDEO WHERE HE IS ACTUALLY STANDING. THE INFERENCE THE DEFENSE WILL ASK THE JURY TO DRAW IS THAT HE IS STANDING IN BLOOD. I'M SURE THAT IS TOTALLY UNTRUE. NEVERTHELESS, THE IMPRESSION CREATED, WHICH IS A TOTALLY MISLEADING ONE, IS THAT THEY ARE OR MIGHT BE. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, THIS TAPE DOES NOTHING TO CLEAR UP THAT ISSUE. IN FACT, IT DOES THE REVERSE. IT CLOUDS THE ISSUE TO MAKE IT APPEAR ONE WAY WHEN IT IS IN FACT ANOTHER. BY THIS TAPE WOULD IT APPEARS THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE STANDING IN BLOOD, IF THE DEFENSE INFERENCE AND SPIN IS TO BE BOUGHT BY THE JURY, WHEN IN FACT THAT IS NOT THE CASE. SO WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS A PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT DOES NOT INFORM THE JURY OF TRUTH BUT ACTUALLY DISTORTS AND HIDES THE TRUTH.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I SAY SOMETHING, YOUR HONOR?

MS. CLARK: THE TIME STAMP IS RIGHT OVER THE FEET, OBSCURING THE VERY POINT THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE.

THE COURT: LET ME HEAR MISS CLARK'S ARGUMENT FIRST AND THEN I WILL HEAR YOUR RESPONSE.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MR. HARRIS.

(THE VIDEOTAPE CONTINUES PLAYING.)

MS. CLARK: AND THE COURT CAN SEE AGAIN THE TIME STAMP CONTINUED TO OBSCURE THEIR FEET AS THEY STOOD THERE. AND NOW WE HAVE A PERSON WHO COMPLETELY BLOCKS THE VIEW.

THE COURT: DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.

MS. CLARK: AGAIN, YOU CAN'T SEE WHERE CLAUDINE RATCLIFFE IS STANDING, WHETHER HER FEET ARE ON PLASTIC OR WHETHER THEY ARE ON THE GROUND ITSELF, WHETHER THEY ARE IN BLOOD OR IN A CLEAR SPOT. OF COURSE I MEAN EVERYTHING UP TO HERE IS LARGELY IRRELEVANT. AGAIN YOU HAVE CLAUDINE RATCLIFFE SHOWN THERE IN THE BACKGROUND. AS THE COURT CAN SEE, THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL WHETHER SHE IS STANDING OR WHETHER SHE IS WALKING.

(THE VIDEOTAPE CONTINUES PLAYING.)

MS. CLARK: ONCE AGAIN YOU CAN SEE DETECTIVE LANGE IS TAKING SOME CARE IN THE WAY HE STEPS, BUT WHAT YOU CAN'T SEE IS WHERE HE IS STEPPING. HIS FEET ARE OBSCURED AND THE AREA HE IS STEPPING IN IS TOTALLY OBSCURED.

(THE VIDEOTAPE CONTINUES PLAYING.)

MS. CLARK: SAME THING HERE. SAME PROBLEM. YOU CAN'T SEE WHERE THESE PEOPLE ARE STANDING. YOU CAN'T SEE THE AREA -- YOU CAN'T SEE THEIR FEET, YOU CAN'T SEE THE GROUND THEY ARE STANDING ON. AS THE COURT CAN SEE, AT EVERY POINT SO FAR, WHEN THE DEFENSE WOULD ASK THE JURY TO MAKE AN INFERENCE, THE VERY POINT THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE --

THE COURT: IS THAT THE END OF THE FIRST CLIP, MR. HARRIS?

MR. HARRIS: IT CONTINUES ON JUST A LITTLE BIT FURTHER.

MS. CLARK: THIS EPITOMIZES THE PROBLEM WITH THE WHOLE TAPE. IT LOOKS AS THOUGH EVERYONE IS STANDING ON TOP OF EACH OTHER WITH NO MORE THAN TWO INCHES BETWEEN THEM. WE KNOW THAT THAT CAN'T PHYSICALLY BE THE CASE. BUT IT IS SUCH A MISLEADING AND DISTORTED CLIP THAT YOU CAN'T TELL WHERE EVERYBODY IS STANDING AND YOU CAN'T APPRECIATE THE SPACIAL DISTANCES AND YOU CERTAINLY CAN'T SEE FROM THIS DISTANCE WHERE THEIR FEET ARE. SAME PROBLEM HERE.

(THE VIDEOTAPE CONTINUES PLAYING.)

MS. CLARK: AGAIN HERE.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: I THINK THAT WHAT THIS CLIP SHOWS THE COURT IS THE VERY REASON FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SECTION 352 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE. THIS IS A PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE. THIS IS A DISTORTION, THIS IS A METHOD OF CONFUSION AND IT DOES NOT INFORM THE JURY OF ANYTHING OF PROBATIVE VALUE. IN FACT, QUITE THE CONTRARY. IT OBSCURES THE FACTS THAT IT PURPORTS TO -- THAT THE DEFENSE SAYS IT PURPORTS TO SHOW, AND THAT IS WHERE PEOPLE STOOD AND WHETHER THE CRIME SCENE WAS PROPERLY HANDLED. IT DOESN'T INFORM THE JURY OF ANY OF THAT. IT IS VERY DISTORTING. IT IS VERY MISLEADING. THEY HAVE NOT PRODUCED THE CAMERAMAN WHO WOULD COME FORWARD TO TELL US -- OH, THERE IS MORE?

MR. HARRIS: THERE IS MORE.

THE COURT: NO, NO, WE ARE JUST LOOKING AT THE FIRST CLIP AT THIS POINT. TAKING THEM ONE AT A TIME, MR. HARRIS.

MR. HARRIS: THIS IS STILL PART OF IT.

MR. COCHRAN: STILL PART OF THE FIRST CLIP, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: IT IS?

MR. DARDEN: I DIDN'T WATCH THIS PART OF THE TAPE. I THOUGHT THE TAPE WAS OVER.

MS. CLARK: ME, TOO.

MR. HARRIS: THERE IS A LOT OF BLANK SPACE.

MR. DARDEN: WELL, YOU SEE, NO ONE TOLD US THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: WE CAN'T TELL THEM HOW TO WATCH A TAPE.

MR. DARDEN: WE ARE NOT GOING TO SIT AND WATCH AN HOUR OF BLANK TAPE.

THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT. "WAIT" MEANS STOP. THIS LOOKS LIKE THE SAME THING OVER AGAIN.

MR. HARRIS: THAT IS. I HAVE TO REWIND IT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE UP THE FIRST SEGMENT THAT YOU ARE OFFERING. ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER OBJECTIONS?

MS. CLARK: FURTHERMORE, AND LASTLY, THAT THEY HAVE NOT PRODUCED THE CAMERAMAN WHO COULD TELL US WHERE HE STOOD. I'M SURE IT WILL BE SOMETHING IN THE NATURE OF ACROSS THE STREET. HE WILL -- AND SOMEONE WHO WILL TELL US THE NATURE OF THE LENS HE USED. I'M SURE IT IS SOME SORT OF TELEPHOTO LENS. I'M SURE IF AN EXPERT IS CALLED -- BECAUSE WE HAVE RECEIVED CALLS FROM EXPERTS -- THEY WILL INFORM THE COURT HOW MISLEADING AND DISTORTING IT IS.

MR. COCHRAN: HEARSAY.

MS. CLARK: IT WON'T BE HEARSAY WHEN THEY COME IN TO TESTIFY AND IT WOULDN'T BE APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO ALLOW THE JURY TO BE MISLED THIS WAY AND THAT IS THE PURPOSE FOR 352. WE WOULD ASK THE COURT TO KEEP IT OUT FOR THAT REASON.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH TO GET TO CROSS-EXAMINATION AND I WILL NOT BELABOR THIS POINT. I THINK IT IS A SAD DAY WHEN WE HAVE A VIDEOTAPE OF THE SCENE, YOUR HONOR, PROPER FOUNDATION, THE CASES SAY WE DON'T HAVE TO BRING IN THE CAMERAMAN. NO ONE IS TRYING TO MISLEAD ANYONE. MISS CLARK PROTESTS TOO MUCH, YOUR HONOR. THEY OBVIOUSLY DON'T WANT THE JURY TO SEE THIS. AS YOU HAVE POINTED OUT, WE HAVE ALL BEEN UP TO THE SCENE. THERE ARE CERTAINLY SPACIAL DISTANCES, BUT ONE CAN SEE THAT YELLOW TAPE VERY CLEAR. I WENT THROUGH YESTERDAY WITH DETECTIVE LANGE WITH REGARD TO WHAT WAS SHOWN THERE AT VARIOUS TIMES. MISS CLARK'S PROBLEM THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE PROCEEDING IS SHE IS WORRIED ABOUT WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO AND SAY. THIS TAPE IS A TAPE TAKEN THAT MORNING, YOUR HONOR, ON THREE PARTICULAR PERIODS OF TIME. IT IS TAKEN WHEN DETECTIVE LANGE GREETS MISS RATCLIFFE AND ADVISES HER WHAT IS HAPPENING. THE BODIES ARE STILL THERE. IT IS TAKEN WHEN THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON IS MOVED. IT IS TAKEN WHEN THE BODY OF MR. RON GOLDMAN IS MOVED. IT SHOWS US ALSO, IF THE COURT PLEASES, WHEN MR. JACOBO ARRIVES AT THE SCENE. WE ALSO SEE MR. FUNG, THE CRIMINALIST. THAT IS FAR MORE THAN COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAN THE HOUR SHE SPENT WITH DETAILED LITTLE QUESTIONS. AND WE ARE SHOWING EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. WHEN AND WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT A VIDEOTAPE, AN ACCURATE DEPICTION OF WHAT HAPPENS, WOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER 352? IT IS PREPOSTEROUS AND SAD YOUR HONOR IT IS REALLY SAD. FURTHER, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAVE ASKED US TO DO WITH REGARD TO THIS. WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THIS TAPE IN OPENING STATEMENT, WE PRESENTED THEM COPIES OF THIS TAPE ON JANUARY 23RD. THEY WILL DO ANYTHING THEY CAN TO AVOID HAVING THE JURY SEE AN ACTUAL TAPE OF HOW THINGS LOOKED THAT DAY. JUDGE, WITH REGARD TO ANY SPACIAL DIFFERENCES, WE HAVE A DETECTIVE OF SOME 28 YEARS' EXPERIENCE, VERY, VERY COMPETENT DETECTIVE, WHO WILL BE ABLE TO TELL WHERE PEOPLE WERE STANDING AND THAT SORT OF THING. THEY DON'T WANT THE TAPE SHOWN BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE TAPE, WE HAVE THE TAPE, AND WE ARE THE ONES TRYING TO HELP THIS JURY SEE WHAT REALLY TRANSPIRED. WHO COULD COMPLAIN ABOUT A TAPE OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? WE DIDN'T MAKE THIS UP. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE EVENTS. IT IS THE BEST RECOLLECTION OF WHAT TOOK PLACE. AND AS TO THE SPACIAL DISTANCES, WE HAVE WITNESSES, WE HAVE THE YELLOW TAPE. WE HAVE ALL BEEN OUT THERE. WE KNOW IT IS A SMALL AREA.

AND SO I THINK, YOUR HONOR, THEY HAVE OBJECTED ON THIS FOR MONTHS NOW, AT LEAST ONE MONTH. ISN'T IT TIME TO PROCEED WITH THIS, YOUR HONOR? WE HAVE LOST ONE WHOLE MORNING. WE WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH OUR CROSS-EXAMINATION AND TO GET THIS DONE. THIS IS ADMISSIBLE. IT IS APPROPRIATE. IT IS RELEVANT. IT IS A VIDEOTAPE OF WHAT TOOK PLACE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WHAT IS ITS RELEVANCE?

MR. COCHRAN: ITS RELEVANCE IS TO SHOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED WITH REGARD TO -- FOR INSTANCE, THE OFFICER TESTIFIES THAT HE DOESN'T REMEMBER WHETHER HE IS WEARING GLOVES OR NOT. IT SHOWS US WHO IS WEARING GLOVES AT THE SCENE, WHO IS WEARING ANYTHING OVER THEIR SHOES. IT SHOWS US WHAT THE CORONER'S PEOPLE ARE DOING AT VARIOUS TIMES. IT SHOWS US THIS PARTICULAR SCENE. AND JUDGE, THIS SCENE AND WHAT TOOK PLACE AT THIS SCENE BECOMES VERY RELEVANT IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE IF THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT APPROPRIATELY AND PROPERLY COLLECTED, IF THERE WAS CONTAMINATION AT THIS SCENE, WE HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO SHOW THIS. THIS IS A VIDEOTAPE. THIS WOULD BE ALMOST LIKE -- AND I'M SURE IN THE RODNEY KING CASE I'M SURE THE PROSECUTION ARGUED YOU CAN'T SHOW THAT TAPE, THE DEFENSE ARGUED WE COULDN'T SHOW THAT TAPE -- BUT THIS IS AN ACCURATE RECOLLECTION OF WHAT TOOK PLACE, SO WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD IT NOT BE SHOWN? IT HAS RELEVANT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE ARRIVAL OF PEOPLE, WHAT THEY DID, HOW THESE BODIES WERE PLACED, WHERE THINGS WERE, FUNG COMING IN THERE WITH HIS COLLECTION OF THINGS. THERE IS GREAT RELEVANCE AND IT ALSO GOES TO IMPEACHMENT, ALL THOSE REASONS. THIS IS A -- RELEVANT, IT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL. WE TOOK OUT THE PREJUDICIAL PART. IN FACT, I MENTIONED TO THE COURT YESTERDAY I WOULD DO THAT YESTERDAY, SO WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR MORE THAN A MONTH AND THEIR OBJECTIONS ABOUT SPACIAL DIFFERENCES ARE OBVIOUSLY CURED. WE HAVE ALL BEEN OUT THERE, YOUR HONOR, AND WE HAVE DETECTIVE LANGE.

THE COURT: DON'T YOU AGREE THAT THERE IS AT LEAST ONE SHOT THERE WHERE EVERYBODY IS LINED UP ON THE SIDEWALK WHEN I BELIEVE ONE OF THE BODIES IS ABOUT TO BE MOVED AND EVERYBODY IS SORT OF LINED UP AND YOU CAN'T REALLY TELL WHO IS STANDING WHERE BECAUSE OF THE LENS DISTORTION?

MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT AT ALL, YOUR HONOR. WE KNOW WHERE THESE PEOPLE ARE. THERE IS A YELLOW TAPE. THERE IS SOME PEOPLE BEYOND THE TAPE AND SOME PEOPLE WITHIN THE TAPE AND WE COULD COVER THAT WITH THE EXAMINATION WITH THE OFFICER WHO WAS THERE.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ADMISSIBILITY. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IT HAS TO DO WITH THE WEIGHT OF IT AND WE WILL CLARIFY THAT WITH DETECTIVE LANGE. IT IS NOT OFFERED --

THE COURT: YOU AGREE THE COURT STILL HAS 352 JURISDICTION?

MR. COCHRAN: THE COURT CERTAINLY HAS 352 JURISDICTION, BUT THE COURT ALSO -- THIS IS A SEARCH FOR TRUTH AND I CANNOT SEE, IF THIS IS A SEARCH FOR TRUTH BY BOTH SIDES, HOW ANYBODY COULD OBJECT TO A VIDEOTAPE OF WHAT ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE THERE. THEY ARE TALKING ALL THE TIME ABOUT THE TRUTH AND WHAT WENT ON, AND THAT IS FOLLY. WE WANT TO SHOW THIS. WE HAVE THE OFFICER THERE, YOUR HONOR, WHO CAN MAKE THIS CLEAR. AND THE PROSECUTION NEVER GIVES THE JURY ANY CREDIT. MARCIA CLARK SAYS THAT EACH TIME SHE GOES OUT THERE SHE FORGETS HOW SMALL IT IS. I THINK THESE JURORS WILL NOT FORGET HOW SMALL IT IS. I THINK LANGE IS HERE TO REMIND US, YOUR HONOR, AND THIS IS RELEVANT TESTIMONY. IT IS VERY RELEVANT. IT ALSO HAS SOME IMPEACHING ASPECTS AND WHERE THERE IS ANY EVIDENCE OR ANY POSSIBLE CONFUSION, THAT WILL BE CLEARED UP BY DETECTIVE LANGE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME SEE EXCERPT NO. 2.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN DETECTIVE LANGE REMAIN OUTSIDE WITH THAT?

THE COURT: I DON'T THINK WE HAVE FINISHED ALL OF THIS ONE.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. I'M SORRY.

MS. CLARK: HAVE WE FINISHED IT?

MR. HARRIS: THERE IS JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE.

(AT 1:55 P.M. THE VIDEOTAPE CONTINUES PLAYING.)

MR. HARRIS: I'M GOING TO FAST FORWARD, YOUR HONOR, TO WHERE WE LEFT OFF.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. DARDEN: WE NEED TO SEE THE BEGINNING OF THIS SEGMENT, YOUR HONOR. SEGMENT 3 OR SEGMENT 2?

THE COURT: THIS IS SEGMENT 3.

(THE VIDEOTAPE CONTINUES PLAYING.)

MS. CLARK: CAN WE STOP RIGHT HERE? YOU SEE, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS THE SAME PROBLEM WE HAVE THROUGHOUT THE TAPE. YOU KNOW THE DEFENSE IS BASICALLY STATING THAT YOU HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO DISTORT, CONFUSE AND MISLED THE JURY. YOU CAN SEE THAT FROM THIS TAPE. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO OBJECTION TO AN ACCURATE VIDEOTAPE. FROM THE PREVIOUS SHOT YOU SAW THAT INTRODUCED THIS SEGMENT, YOU CAN TELL IT IS BEING SHOT FROM ACROSS THE STREET AT SOME DISTANCE FROM THE LOCATION, WHICH IS WHY THEY HAD TO USE THE ZOOM LENS AND THAT IS WHY EVERYTHING IS SO COMPRESSED AS IT IS SHOWN HERE. THESE PEOPLE LOOK LIKE THEY ARE WITHIN ONE INCH OF EACH OTHER. YOU CAN'T TELL WHERE THEY ARE STANDING, YOU CAN'T SEE THEIR FEET AND YOU HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO SEE THEIR FEET IN ANY PART OF THIS SEGMENT YET. THIS RIGHT HERE SHOWS THEM LITERALLY IN A DOG PILE ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. WE KNOW THAT CAN'T BE TRUE. BUT YOU CAN'T SEE WHERE THEY ARE STANDING, YOU CAN'T SEE WHERE THEIR FEET ARE, YOU CAN'T SEE THE GROUND THEY ARE STANDING ON, YOU CAN'T SEE THE SPACIAL RELATION THEN BETWEEN THEM. IF THERE WAS ANY ACCURACY TO THIS VIDEOTAPE, THE PEOPLE WOULD NOT OBJECT TO IT. THE VERY REASON THE DEFENSE WANTS IT IS BECAUSE IT IS SO MISLEADING, IT IS SO INACCURATE, IT IS SUCH A DISTORTION THE TRUTH. IF THE DEFENSE REALLY WANTS THE TRUTH, THEN IT WOULD BE CALLING THESE PEOPLE TO THE WITNESS STAND TO SAY WHERE THEY STOOD AND WHAT WERE THEY DOING AND WHETHER THEY WERE WEARING BOOTIES OR WHETHER THEY WERE WEARING GLOVES. YOU DON'T PUT ON THIS PILE OF DISTORTION AND BASICALLY LIES TO GET THE JURY TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING THAT NEVER OCCURRED, AND THAT IS WHAT IS SO UNFAIR HERE, IS THAT THIS IS -- THE NATURE OF THIS VIDEOTAPE IS GOING TO MISLEAD THEM TO THE POINT WHERE THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO REMEMBER -- THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO REMEMBER THE CRIME SCENE FROM THEIR OWN MEMORY NEARLY AS WELL AS A VERY RECENT DEPICTION ON VIDEOTAPE. I WOULD ALSO REMIND THE COURT THAT THERE IS A VIDEO THAT WILL BE SHOWN CONCERNING WHAT THE DEFENSE -- THE DEFENSE STILL FRAME PICTURE --

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

MS. CLARK: NEVER MIND. THE VICE AND THE PROBLEM WITH FOLLOWING THE DEFENSE LEAD ON THESE THINGS IS THAT THEY ARE DELIBERATELY HIDING THE TRUTH FROM THIS JURY --

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS ABSOLUTELY --

MS. CLARK: -- LIKE THEY DID WITH THE AMERICAN JOURNAL.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

MS. CLARK: THEY DID THAT WITH THE AMERICAN JOURNAL PHOTOGRAPH AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE JURY KNOWS TO THIS DATE THAT THE PHOTOGRAPH THEY SHOWED WAS A STILL FRAME FROM A VIDEO. THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE KNOWN THAT IN FACT IT WAS SHOT BY SOME NEWS TABLOID AGENCY HAD I NOT BROUGHT THAT OUT, HAD THE PEOPLE NOT MARKED AN EXHIBIT THAT WAS THE DUPLICATE OF THAT THAT SHOWED WHAT THAT LOGO WAS THAT THE DEFENSE BLOCKED OUT. AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE MORE TO SHOW THE COURT ABOUT THAT LATER, BUT IN SHOWING THAT TO THE JURY THEY DELIBERATELY CREATED THE INFERENCE THAT BEFORE ANY TESTING OR COLLECTION WAS DONE, OFFICERS WERE TRAIPSING UP AND DOWN THE WALKWAY. WE ARE GOING TO PROVE THAT IS NOT TRUE. WE ARE GOING TO PROVE THAT IS A LIE. AND THE PROBLEM WITH THIS TAPE IS THE VERY SAME THING. THEY HAVE AN IMPRESSION CREATED BY A DISTORTION WITH LENS AND WITH POSITION. THEY INFORM THE JURY OF NOTHING PROBATIVE. I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADMISSIBILITY AND WEIGHT, BUT IN THAT TERM THIS IS WEIGHTLESS. THIS IS REALLY NON-PROBATIVE. THE ONLY VALUE IN IT IS TO DISTORT, MISLEAD AND CONFUSE THE JURY, AND THAT IS THE VALUE THAT THE DEFENSE SEEKS TO GET FROM IT, BUT IN TRUTH THERE IS NOTHING RESEMBLING THE TRUTH THAT THIS JURY WILL GET IN THIS VIDEOTAPE.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, DO YOU HAVE ACCESS -- BECAUSE APPARENTLY ONE CAN TELL, JUST BY SOME OF THE DISTANCE SHOTS, THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF VIDEO PHOTOGRAPHERS AT THE LOCATION.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT.

THE COURT: AND INADVERTENTLY I HAVE MYSELF SEEN ON TELEVISION MANY VERSIONS OF THIS -- THIS SAME ACTIVITY TAKEN FROM DIFFERENT SHOTS. DO YOU HAVE ACCESS TO ANY OF THOSE?

MS. CLARK: I HAVEN'T. WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO. WE HAVE, AS A MATTER OF FACT, TRIED TO GET AHOLD OF THE CAMERAMAN WHO PRODUCED THIS TAPE AND THEY HAVE RESISTED OUR SUBPOENA.

THE COURT: CHANNEL 5?

MS. CLARK: I'M NOT SURE OF THE NAME.

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

MS. CLARK: WE WILL CHECK.

MS. CLARK: I AM INFORMED BY MR. DARDEN THAT WE ARE TALKING TO THEIR LAWYERS IN CHICAGO, BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WHAT WE HAVE HERE --

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I RESPOND?

THE COURT: I'M JUST -- LET ME JUST ASK YOU, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER VIDEOTAPES FROM ANY OTHER SOURCES OF THIS PARTICULAR ACTIVITY?

MS. CLARK: NO.

MR. DARDEN: NO.

THE COURT: OKAY. MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, AGAIN, THE PROSECUTION COULD GO BACK AND TRY TO GET O.J. SIMPSON'S MEDICAL RECORDS IN 1970 IN BUFFALO, AND EVERYBODY IN AMERICA HAS SEEN THESE VIDEOTAPES, YOUR HONOR, AND I THINK THAT THE COURT IS GOING TO SEE WHO IS BEING DISINGENUOUS. THIS IS A VIDEOTAPE. WE DIDN'T CREATE IT. THIS WAS SHOT BY LOCAL PEOPLE. SHE IS TALKING ABOUT DISTORTION AND LIES. THIS WAS SHOT BY LOCAL T.V. PEOPLE.

THE COURT: AM I CORRECT THIS IS CHANNEL 5?

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK IT IS CHANNEL 5. I BELIEVE IT IS, YOUR HONOR, AND THE PROBLEM IS IT IS AVAILABLE TO ALL OF US. YOU TOLD US TO GO OUT AND TRY TO SUBPOENA WHATEVER WE COULD. WE ARE ALL TRYING TO DO THIS. YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO ANY PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH SHE WANTS TO STOP AT, IT IS COMMON SENSE THAT WHEN YOU SHOOT A VIDEO THAT IT IS GOING TO SHOW PEOPLE AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. DETECTIVE LANGE CAN EXPLAIN THAT. THE JURY UNDERSTANDS THAT. NOBODY IS TRYING TO MISLEAD ANYBODY. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO SHOW IS WHAT TOOK PLACE AT THE SCENE. MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT. WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS THEIR FEAR OF ANYBODY SEEING WHAT TOOK PLACE.

HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THEM PROTEST AND ARGUE FOR ONE MONTH OVER SOMETHING? THIS IS ADMISSIBLE, CLEARLY ADMISSIBLE, AND THEY HAVE DETECTIVE LANGE. EVERY OFFICER OUT THERE TO MAKE IT CLEAR. WE WILL MAKE IT CLEAR. NOBODY IS TRYING TO MISLEAD ANYBODY. ABOUT THE AMERICAN JOURNAL THING, WHAT THE COURT ALLOWED US TO DO ON AMERICAN JOURNAL WAS TO ASK WHETHER OR NOT ANYBODY HAD SEEN THAT OFFICER. WE TOOK AMERICAN JOURNAL OUT OF THE PHOTO. IT WAS A PRINT. THERE WAS NEVER ANY ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD ANYBODY ABOUT THAT. WHAT HAPPENED AT THAT --

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, THAT IS APPLES AND ORANGES.

MR. COCHRAN: SHE BROUGHT THE APPLES AND ORANGES UP, YOUR HONOR. YOU CAN'T SEE -- I WON'T BRING UP WHAT YOU DIDN'T SEE. THAT IS APPLES AND ORANGES, BUT SHE BROUGHT UP THE APPLES AND ORANGES, SO SINCE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FRUIT, LET ME GET BACK TO THE RIGHT FRUIT. THIS IS APPROPRIATE FRUIT FOR THIS JURY, YOUR HONOR, AND WE WILL HANDLE IT IN AN APPROPRIATE WAY AND WE HAVE WITNESSES HERE AND NOBODY IS TRYING TO DISTORT OR MISLEAD. THIS IS VIDEOTAPE OF WHAT HAPPENED THERE. YOU YOURSELF HAVE SEEN VIDEOTAPES. THEY ARE AVAILABLE TO EVERYBODY. EVERYBODY TRIES THEIR CASE THE WAY THEY WANT TO. IF THEY WANT TO HIDE WHAT TOOK PLACE OUT THERE AND TRY TO CREATE A STERILE VIEW OF ONE MAN'S OPINION BY CALLING SOMEBODY TO THE STAND, SO BE IT. IF WE WANT TO SHOW WHAT ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE SO THE JURY SEES JACOBO, SO THE JURY SEES MISS RATCLIFFE, SO THE JURY SEES PHILLIPS, WHERE HE WAS AND WHAT HE HAD TO DO, I THINK THAT IS ABSOLUTELY OUR RIGHT AND THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED BY THIS. AND IT IS UNFAIR AND OUTRAGEOUS AND WE WANT TO PROCEED WITH THIS AT THIS POINT, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVE LAID THE APPROPRIATE FOUNDATION AND WE HAVE CITED THE CASES AND WE WANT TO MOVE ON AND GET THIS THING DONE AND MOVE ON WITH OUR CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THIS WITNESS. WE HAVE LOST THIS MORNING AND NOW LOSING MUCH OF THIS AFTERNOON AND WE WANT TO MOVE ON.

THE COURT: DETECTIVE LANGE, NOW THAT Y9OU HAVE SEEN THAT VIDEOTAPE, CAN YOU ASCERTAIN WHERE PEOPLE ARE STANDING FROM THOSE CAMERA ANGLES?

THE WITNESS: NOT REALLY, YOUR HONOR. I'M PRETTY SURE ABOUT WHERE I WAS AND MY LOCATION, BUT I CAN'T TELL WHERE ANYONE ELSE WAS BECAUSE I CAN'T SEE THE BOTTOM OF THEIR LEGS, THEIR POSITIONS.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I RESPOND TO THAT?

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THERE IS ANOTHER PROBLEM WITH THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I RESPOND TO THAT?

THE COURT: YES.

MS. CLARK: IS THAT THERE HAS -- THE DEFENSE HAS FAILED TO LAY ANY FOUNDATION AT ALL. I DON'T KNOW WHY MR. COCHRAN KEEPS SAYING THAT. THERE HAS BEEN NO FOUNDATION LAID FOR THIS. THERE HAS BEEN NO ONE CALLED TO AUTHENTICATE HOW IT WAS MADE. JUST BECAUSE IT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR CHANNEL 5 DOESN'T MEAN IT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THIS JURY. I THINK THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT YOU CAN SHOW ON A NEWS SHOW AND WHAT WE CAN DO IN A COURT OF LAW. IT IS NOT THAT WE ARE ACCUSING CHANNEL 5 OF ANYTHING. THAT IS NOT THEIR FAULT. THEY WERE OUT THERE TRYING TO TAKE THE MOST ACCURATE PICTURE THEY COULD FROM A DISTANCE.

THE COURT: I'M JUST WONDERING HOW CHANNEL 5 WOULD HAVE A CHICAGO LAWYER.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT, BUT WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THIS, YOUR HONOR: CHANNEL 5 DID NOT SHOOT THAT SCENE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTRODUCING THE MATTER IN COURT. THEY SHOT A SCENE AS BEST THEY COULD FROM A LIMITED VANTAGE POINT SO THAT THEY COULD PUT IT ON TELEVISION. THAT IS ALL. THEY WEREN'T LOOKING TO ADMIT SOMETHING IN A COURT OF LAW SO THAT THEY COULD MOST ACCURATELY DEPICT EVERYTHING AT ALL. THAT WASN'T THEIR PURPOSE. THAT WASN'T THEIR FOCUS.

I AM NOT CASTING ANY ASPERSIONS ON THEM, BUT THIS IS A COURT OF LAW AND OUR STANDARDS HAVE TO BE HIGHER AND WE HAVE TO REQUIRE MORE FOR THIS JURY AND MAKE SURE THE JURY GETS THE ACCURATE TRUTH AND ALL THE TRUTH, NOT A DISTORTION AND NOT A PIECE OF THE TRUTH AND NOT A LITTLE CORNER OVER HERE THAT PLEASES THE DEFENSE, BUT THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND THAT IS WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR. IF THEY WANT TO HAVE THE JURY SEE JACOBO, THE JURY SEE RATCLIFFE, THEY KNOW WHERE TO FIND THEM. THESE PEOPLE CAN BE SUBPOENAED. THEY ARE NOT HIDING SOMEWHERE. MR. COCHRAN KNOWS THAT VERY WELL. HE DOESN'T WANT THE JURY TO GET THE TRUTH. HE DOESN'T LIKE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THE WITNESSES TAKE THE STAND AND TELL IT THE WAY IT REALLY WAS. HE DOESN'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN. WE ARE DOING IT WITH VERY PAINSTAKING CARE. HE DOESN'T LIKE THAT. HE WANTS TO SPIN THAT, HE WANTS TO DISTORT THAT, AND HE WANTS TO MAKE IT APPEAR IN A WAY THAT NEVER WAS. HE HAS GOT A TAPE THAT WAS TAKEN THAT HAPPENS TO DISTORT THE SCENE COMPLETELY. HE HAS GOT THE PERFECT VEHICLE FOR IT, BUT IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE IN A COURT OF LAW. HE CAN ENTERTAIN HIS FRIENDS WITH IT AND YELL ALL HE WANTS ABOUT HOW WE ARE HIDING THE TRUTH. WE ARE THE ONLY SIDE ON COUNSEL TABLE, YOUR HONOR, AT COUNSEL TABLE, LET ME MAKE THAT REAL CLEAR. WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THE JURY GETS THE ACCURATE EVIDENCE, THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER, AND A COMPLETE PICTURE AND THE DEFENSE WANTS TO HAND THEM A DISTORTION AND A HALF TRUTH AND THAT IS WHAT THIS IS. YES, IT TELLS YOU THAT CERTAIN PEOPLE ARE AT THE CRIME SCENE, BUT THE ONE THING THAT THE DEFENSE IS CLAIMING IT WANTS TO ADMIT IT FOR IS NEVER SHOWN BY THIS TAPE. IN FACT, YOU NEVER SEE ANYONE'S FEET, SO THEIR CLAIMED PROBATIVE VALUE IS NONEXISTENT. AND ALL WE HAVE LEFT IS PREJUDICIAL VALUE. THAT IS THE VALUE THAT IT HAS FOR THE DEFENSE IN MISLEADING THIS JURY AND THAT IS WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE REQUIRED TO PREVENT AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SEEKING THE COURT'S -- SEEKING THE COURT'S ORDER TO SAY NO, YOU CANNOT CONFUSE, NO, YOU CANNOT DISTORT. THIS JURY WILL GET THE TRUTH AND THIS TAPE IS NOT THE TRUTH.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BRIEFLY, MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: IN THIS COURTROOM WE'VE HEARD SO MANY TIMES HOW THE PEOPLE ARE THE ONLY ONES SEEKING THE TRUTH, YOUR HONOR. WE WELCOME THEIR WITNESSES, I WELCOME LANGE, AS YOU SAW YESTERDAY. I WELCOME ALL THE WITNESSES THEY ARE GOING TO BRING. THEY CAN'T STAND THE TRUTH. WE ARE THE ONES INTRODUCING THE TRUTH HERE. WE ARE SHOWING A VIDEOTAPE. NOW, THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY CAN'T SEE SOMEBODY'S LEGS, THAT IS PREPOSTEROUS, YOUR HONOR. PART OF A VIDEOTAPE. THE BEAUTY IS YOU STAND THERE AND YOU LOOK AT IT AND YOU CAN TELL WHERE PEOPLE ARE STANDING. YOU CAN SEE THAT SOME OF THE PEOPLE ARE STANDING IN THE SHRUBBERY. YOU CAN SEE EXACTLY WHERE THEY ARE. THAT IS WHAT A VIDEOTAPE IS. I'M SURE THAT IN EVERY CASE -- YOU KNOW, IT IS AMAZING, I'M SURE PEOPLE ALL ACROSS AMERICA ARE AMAZED AT THIS ARGUMENT THAT SOMEBODY WANTS TO KEEP A VIDEOTAPE OF A SCENE OUT. YOU KNOW, JUDGE, THIS ALL WOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED APPROPRIATELY IF THE LAPD WOULD VIDEOTAPE THESE CRIME SCENES LIKE OTHER BIG CITY DEPARTMENTS DO. THEY WOULD HAVE THEIR OWN VIDEO. BUT THEY DON'T DO THAT, SO WE HAVE TO GO AND GET THE NEXT BEST THING WE CAN. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO HIDE. THEY SHOULD CHANGE THEIR PROCEDURE. WE ARE BRINGING IN WHAT WE HAVE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THEY HAVE TO LIVE WITH THAT, JUDGE. IT IS ADMISSIBLE, IMPEACHING AND RELEVANT. AND AS TO THE SPACIAL DIFFERENCES, WE CAN COVER THAT. THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE A 352 PROBLEM WHEN YOU WEIGH THIS. YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHEN THE PEOPLE STAND UP AND MAKE THESE GRANDIOSE SPEECHES THAT ARE FALLING ON DEAF EARS TO EVERYBODY. I DON'T KNOW WHO THEY ARE SPINNING IT TO. THE JURY IS NOT OUT HERE. WE ARE NOT IMPRESSED AT ALL. WE KNOW WHO IS SEEKING THE TRUTH HERE. THE QUESTION IS FOR THEM TO TALK ALL THEY WANT. JUDGE, YOU UNDERSTAND. YOU ASKED ME LAST NIGHT TO FOCUS ON THESE THREE OR FOUR AREAS. WE HAVE COME BACK AND DONE EXACTLY WHAT YOU ASKED US TO DO. WHATEVER YOU HAVE ASKED TO US DO IN THIS REGARD WE HAVE DONE IT. AND THIS IS ADMISSIBLE, AND IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION OF CONFUSION, I'M SURE IT CAN BE CLEARED UP BY BOTH SIDES. AND THIS IS A VIDEOTAPE OF WHAT ACTUALLY LAPD BROUGHT ABOUT BECAUSE THEY DON'T DO THIS AT THE LAPD LIKE OTHER DEPARTMENTS DO. IT IS THE BEST EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE IN THIS DISTANCE. I ASK THE COURT TO LET US PROCEED AT THIS POINT. YOU HAVE LISTENED TO US VERY PATIENTLY AND IT IS NOW TIME TO RULE, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS SINCE JANUARY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, CAN I POINT OUT ONE THING AND I WON'T EVEN STAND UP?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, DO WE END AT SOMETIME?

MS. CLARK: AS MR. COCHRAN CONCEDES, WE HAVE TO CLEAR IT UP BY CALLING ADDITIONAL WITNESSES, THEN IT IS REALLY A 352 ISSUE.

MR. COCHRAN: I SAID IF THERE IS ANY PROBLEMS.

MS. CLARK: WE ARE GOING TO WIND UP CALLING ANOTHER DOZEN WITNESSES TO CLEAR UP ALL THE MESS THAT IS MADE BY THE DISTORTION OF THAT VIDEO, SO IT IS AN UNDUE COME ASSUMPTION OF TIME AS WELL.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALWAYS INTERESTING TO HEAR THESE ARGUMENTS. AND I DON'T MEAN THAT FACETIOUSLY, BECAUSE I MEAN IT IS FASCINATING, SINCE IT IS A VIDEOTAPE, WHICH OSTENSIBLY IS AS ACCURATE A DEPICTION AS WE WILL EVER GET, IT IS NOT SOMEONE'S RECOLLECTION OR INTERPRETATION, IT IS THE EVENTS AS THEY UNFOLDED. AND THE COURT IS ABLE TO DISCERN, FROM LOOKING AT THE VIDEOTAPE ITSELF, THAT THIS VIDEOTAPE WAS TAKEN AT A POINT IN TIME WHEN THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR, MISS RATCLIFFE ARRIVES, SHE APPEARS TO BE BRIEFED BY DETECTIVE LANGE. WE SEE RATCLIFFE AND LANGE AT THE TOP OF THIS -- WHAT CLEARLY APPEARS TO ME TO BE THE TOP OF THE STEPS. I THEN SEE THEM MOVE DOWN TO WITHIN TWO STEPS ABOVE THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STAIRS. I OBSERVE THEM TO BE LOOKING OVER THE BODY AND LANGE APPEARS TO BE DESCRIBING TO RATCLIFFE WHAT IS THERE.

WE DO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT WHICH SHOWS THE BLOOD ON THE STEPS AND THE FOOTPRINTS WHICH APPEAR TO BE AVOIDED. WE HAVE JACOBO ARRIVE. WE SEE HIM CHECK IN WITH OFFICER CUMMINGS. WE SEE DETECTIVE LANGE TAKE CARE TO STEP OVER THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. HE THEN HOLDS A MEASURING STICK AND A RULER. HE APPEARS TO BE MEASURING THINGS AND THEN WE SEE HIM STEP INTO THE PLANTER AREA. IT APPEARS THAT WHEN HE DOES THAT, HE LOOKS AROUND AND TAKES CARE AS TO WHEN HE STEPS. TRUE, YOU CANNOT ACTUALLY SEE WHAT IT IS HE IS ACTUALLY STEPPING UPON. THAT IS EXCERPT NO. 1. AND I FIND THAT THE PROBATIVE VALUE OUTWEIGHS THE PREJUDICE ON THAT AND I WILL ALLOW IT. AS TO NO. 2, WE START WITH A DISTANCE SHOT AND THEN IT IS A -- SHOWS THE CORONERS WITH THE PLASTIC SHEETING PREPARING TO REMOVE THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND THEN THE BODY PLACED ON THE CART. AND I TAKE IT THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THAT IS THE FACT THAT THE CORONER'S PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY STANDING IN THE WALKWAY AS THEY SPREAD OUT THE PLASTIC OVER THE COTTON SHEET AND REMOVE THE BODY, INDICATING THAT THEY WERE WALKING IN THE WALKWAY WHERE THE BLOOD WAS, BUT THEY ARE NOT WALKING ON THE STEPS WHERE THE FOOTPRINTS WERE AND THE FOOTPRINTS REMAIN UNOBSCURED, SO THEY APPEARED NOT TO HAVE BEEN DISTURBED. I FIND THE PROBATIVE VALUE OUTWEIGHS THE PREJUDICIAL VALUE AND I WILL ALLOW THAT AS WELL. EXCERPT NO. 3 IS -- STARTS WITH A DISTANCE SHOT OF THE CROWD AROUND THE STEP AREA. WE SEE INVESTIGATOR FUNG STEP OUT OF THE PLANTER AREA WHERE THE BODY OF RONALD GOLDMAN WAS DISCOVERED, ALTHOUGH WE DO NOT SEE THAT BODY. WE SEE HIM COME OUT NOT WEARING GLOVES, HOWEVER, HAVING A PAPER BAG IN HIS HANDS. THE CORONERS THEN APPEAR TO SPREAD OUT ANOTHER PLASTIC SHEET AND APPEAR TO BE MOVING THE SECOND BODY WHICH IS NOW OUT ON THE WALKWAY. THAT APPEARS TO BE RONALD GOLDMAN'S BODY FROM THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. WE SEE LANGE IN THE PLANTER AREA WATCHING THE WRAPPING OF THE SECOND BODY, RONALD GOLDMAN, AND WE OBSERVE HIM TO BE MAKING MEASUREMENTS AND TAKING NOTES AT THE TIME. AND I FIND THAT THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THIS ALSO OUTWEIGHS ANY PREJUDICIAL VALUE. I WILL ALLOW THIS. HOWEVER, I AM GOING TO INSTRUCT THE JURORS THAT THEY ARE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, IN EVALUATING THESE VIDEOTAPES, THE ANGLE AND ANY DISTORTION THAT THERE MIGHT BE FROM USING THE LENSES -- THE LENSES THAT WERE ACTUALLY USED.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THERE IS ONE OTHER -- CAN WE HAVE DETECTIVE LANGE STEP OUT? THERE IS ONE OTHER I WANT TO SHOW TODAY.

THE COURT: THAT ONE I HAVE CONCERN ABOUT BECAUSE IT STOPS ABRUPTLY. I WANT TO SEE THE ENTIRE TAPE FROM WHICH IT WAS TAKEN.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL --

THE COURT: DETECTIVE LANGE, WHY DON'T YOU STEP OUTSIDE. DETECTIVE LANGE, WHY DON'T YOU STEP OUTSIDE.

(DETECTIVE LANGE EXITS THE COURTROOM.)

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR. WITH REGARD -- WE PRESENTED THE -- THIS TAPE. WE THINK THIS TAPE IS IMPEACHING. WE WOULD ASK THE COURT TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND PERHAPS WE CAN ASK THE QUESTIONS IF THERE IS OTHER PARTS OF THE TAPE, WHAT IT SHOWS.

THE COURT: NO. I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT SHOWS. WHAT IT SHOWS IS DETECTIVE LANGE WALKING OUT OF THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE.

MR. COCHRAN: RIGHT.

THE COURT: WALKS TO HIS CAR.

MR. COCHRAN: RIGHT. CARRIES -- HE IS CARRYING THE TENNIS SHOES, PUTS THEM IN THE RIGHT FRONT SEAT OF THE CAR.

THE COURT: RIGHT, AND THE TAPE ENDS.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, AND --

MR. HARRIS: HE DROVE OFF.

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK ANOTHER PART -- WE SAW IT LAST NIGHT, AND I THINK MR. BLASIER CAN REPRESENT HE DROVE OFF. THE POINT -- I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MR. BLASIER, BUT THE POINT IS YESTERDAY --

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THE POINT.

MR. COCHRAN: HE SAYS HE PUT IT IN A BOX IN THE TRUNK, HE DROVE OFF. IT IS IMPEACHING, YOUR HONOR, AND YOU CAN HEAR FROM BLASIER.

THE COURT: MY POINT, MR. COCHRAN, IS THAT THE TAPE THAT YOU GAVE TO ME THIS MORNING TO VIEW STOPS WITH HIM PLACING IT ON THE FRONT SEAT OF HIS CAR. HE DOESN'T ENTER THE CAR, HE DOESN'T START THE CAR, HE DOESN'T DRIVE OFF. IT JUST ENDS.

MR. COCHRAN: PERHAPS YOU CAN HEAR FROM MR. BLASIER, YOUR HONOR.

MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE WATCHED THAT TAPE MANY TIMES AND WE HAD THAT DUB MADE LAST NIGHT. THAT IS BASICALLY THE END OF IT. HE DRIVES OFF, I THINK IS IN THE TAPE, BUT HE DOESN'T TAKE THE SHOES AND PUT THEM SOME PLACE ELSE. THAT IS THE END OF THE TAPE.

THE COURT: OUT OF CURIOSITY, WHY DID YOU CHOOSE NOT TO SHOW THEM TO ME?

MR. BLASIER: THIS WAS PART OF A LONG TAPE THAT WE TOOK JUST A SMALL CLIP OUT OF BECAUSE WE JUST WANTED TO ILLUSTRATE PUTTING THE SHOES ON THE FRONT SEAT. THERE WAS NOTHING SIGNIFICANT AFTER THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: WE CAN LET YOU SEE THAT. DO YOU HAVE THAT PART?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. BLASIER: THAT ENTIRE TAPE IS BEING COPIED. EVEN THOUGH I THINK WE HAVE ALREADY GIVEN IT TO THE PROSECUTION, WE ARE MAKING COPIES OF EVERYTHING TO GIVE THEM ANOTHER SET AS WELL AS TO PROVIDE YOU WITH A SET OF EVERYTHING WE HAVE, SO THAT TAPE IS NOW IN A STUDIO BEING COPIED.

MR. COCHRAN: AND THE POINT, IF I CAN SAY THIS, YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO -- IT IS IMPEACHING.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, MR. COCHRAN, I UNDERSTAND THE VALUE. I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WANT IT, BUT I'M SAYING IT DOESN'T HAVE THE IMPEACHMENT VALUE UNTIL HE STARTS UP THE CAR AND DRIVES OUT WITH THE TENNIS SHOES STILL THERE.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M SURE WE CAN GET THAT PART DOWN THERE AND I'M SURE -- I CAN ASK HIM DIDN'T YOU THEN PUT THE TENNIS SHOES THERE AND DRIVE OFF? I'M SURE WE CAN GET THAT. THAT WAS JUST A POINT THAT HE DRIVES OFF. HE DROVE OUT AT THIS POINT?

MR. BLASIER: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: SO I THINK THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT, SO I MEAN THAT THE IMPORTANT PART IS HE SAID UNDER OATH --

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND WHAT HE SAID. I RECALL WHAT HE SAID, BUT IT DOESN'T BECOME PROBATIVE UNTIL HE DRIVES OFF.

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK WHEN HE PUTS THEM IN THAT FRONT SEAT IT IS PRETTY PROBATIVE. HE DIDN'T TELL US YESTERDAY, BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

THE COURT: THE TAPE ENDS WITH HIM REACHING IN AND PLACES IT ON THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE FRONT SEAT AND THEN MY TAPE ENDS --

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. WILL THE COURT ALLOW US --

THE COURT: ABRUPTLY.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. COCHRAN: WE WILL DO WHAT WE CAN. MR. BLASIER SAYS HE WILL GO AND GET IT RIGHT NOW, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WELL, LET'S START WITH THE JURY WITH WHAT WE HAVE.

MR. COCHRAN: SURE. THAT IS FINE. WE WILL BE BACK.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THE COURT IS NOT ALLOWING IT IN UNTIL WE SEE THE ENTIRE TAPE?

THE COURT: THAT IS CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, 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. PLEASE BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE LANGE, WOULD YOU RETAKE THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE. 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 THAT WE HAVE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: FIRST MY APOLOGIES TO YOU FOR THE DELAY IN GETTING STARTED TODAY. OFTENTIMES, AS I HAVE EXPLAINED TO YOU, THERE ARE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES REGARDING THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE THAT THE COURT HAS NO CONTROL OVER, AND THINGS HAPPENED THIS MORNING THAT WE WERE JUST NOT ABLE TO GET STARTED WHEN WE HAD HOPED TO GET STARTED. I APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR THE INACTIVITY AND DOWN TIME. I REALIZE THAT YOU WOULD MUCH RATHER BE HERE PARTICIPATING WITH US THAN BEING COOPED UP IN THOSE LITTLE ROOMS. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE THERE, AND BELIEVE ME, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WEIGHS HEAVIEST ON MY MIND IS KNOWING WHERE YOU ARE AND WHAT YOU ARE DOING. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THESE THINGS HAPPEN AND WE TRIED TO GET UP TO SPEED AND RUNNING AS FAST AS WE COULD THIS MORNING. AND WITH THAT SAID, DETECTIVE LANGE, GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.

THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON, JUDGE.

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

MR. COCHRAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.

MR. COCHRAN: DETECTIVE LANGE.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: WHEN WE CONCLUDED OUR CROSS-EXAMINATION YESTERDAY I HAD ASKED YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS -- WHAT IS CALLED A RAPE KIT. A RAPE KIT IS BASICALLY THE ABILITY OF THE CORONER'S OFFICE TO OBTAIN TRACE EVIDENCE GENERALLY IN THE PUBIC AREA OF A MALE OR FEMALE, IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

A: YES.

Q: SO NO ONE HAS TO BE RAPED IN ORDER TO TAKE A SWAB OF THE GENITAL AREA OF MALE OR FEMALES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE THEY LOOK FOR EVIDENCE OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT PRIOR TO THAT BEING DONE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THEY MAY VERY WELL DO THAT, BUT THEY CAN TAKE THE EVIDENCE WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF A PARTICULAR RAPE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I HAVE NEVER KNOWN THAT. THERE IS USUALLY EVIDENCE OF SUCH THINGS BEFORE THAT WOULD HAPPEN.

Q: WELL, I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING YOU, IN ORDER TO COLLECT TRACE EVIDENCE, ONE COULD CHECK THE PUBIC HAIRS OF A PARTICULAR DECEDENT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: IF ONE WERE LOOKING FOR TRACE EVIDENCE, CERTAINLY.

Q: YES. AND ONE COULD CHECK THE CERVIX AREA OF A FEMALE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: CERTAINLY.

Q: AND I THINK YOU INDICATED TO US THEY DO THIS BY USING SOME KIND OF A SWAB; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, AS WELL AS VISUAL EXAMINATION.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THEN THEY CAN MAKE SOME KIND OF TRACE ANALYSIS, THE CORONER'S CRIMINALIST CAN DO THIS AFTER -- AFTER THE DECEDENT -- AFTER THESE SWABS ARE TAKEN FROM THE DECEDENT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: CERTAINLY.

Q: NOW, DETECTIVE LANGE, AT THE -- WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE AT BUNDY THERE AT 4:25, YOU KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THIS CASE EXCEPT YOU HAD TWO DEAD BODIES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: NO. I WAS INFORMED THAT ONE OF THE VICTIM'S --

Q: WHEN -- I'M TALKING WHEN YOU FIRST -- SO WE UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER, WHEN YOU FIRST GOT THERE, WHAT DID YOU KNOW?

A: THAT ONE OF THE VICTIMS WAS THE EX-WIFE OF MR. O.J. SIMPSON.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT DID YOU KNOW ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT?

A: JUST THAT THERE WAS A MALE VICTIM AND A FEMALE VICTIM.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE TIME OF DEATH, DID YOU?

A: NO.

Q: YOU DIDN'T KNOW AT THAT TIME INITIALLY HOW THE PEOPLE, HOW THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS HAD MET THEIR DEATH, DID YOU?

A: NO.

Q: AND AS PART OF YOUR INVESTIGATION AS AN INVESTIGATOR WOULD YOU AGREE WITH YOUR HOMICIDE MANUAL THAT THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AND INVESTIGATION IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT AND VERY PARAMOUNT? WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

A: I AGREE THAT ALL ASPECTS OF THE INVESTIGATION ARE VERY IMPORTANT.

Q: SPECIFICALLY THE THINGS YOU DO AT THE VERY BEGINNING; ISN'T THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

A: CERTAINLY.

Q: AND YOUR NOTE TAKING IS ALSO VERY IMPORTANT IN THAT REGARD; IS IT NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WOULD AGREE THAT IN SEEKING TO CHARGE SOMEONE WITH A DOUBLE HOMICIDE THE ISSUE OF THE TIME OF DEATH MAY BECOME VERY RELEVANT. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

A: IT COULD, YES.

Q: AND, SIR, WITH REGARD TO A PARTICULAR DECEDENT, EITHER DECEDENT IN THIS CASE, WOULDN'T YOU THINK IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO DETERMINE THE LAST INDIVIDUAL THAT EITHER ONE OF THESE DECEDENTS CAME IN CONTACT WITH?

A: THAT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.

Q: IF -- LET'S ASSUME THAT IN THE CASE OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, SHE HAD A VISITOR AT HER RESIDENCE AS LATE AS 10:30 P.M. WOULD THAT BE RELEVANT TO YOU TO KNOW THAT?

A: I HAD NO EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION THAT THAT WAS THE CASE.

Q: I DIDN'T ASK YOU THAT.

A: IF IN FACT THAT WERE THE CASE, I WOULD CERTAINLY WANT TO SPEAK WITH THAT PERSON, YES.

Q: THE QUESTION IS IF SHE HAD HAD A VISITOR AS LATE AS 10:30 P.M. ON JUNE 12, 1994, THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT, WOULD IT NOT?

A: I WOULD THINK SO.

Q: IN FACT, YOU WOULD LIKE TO KNOW OR YOU WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHOM SHE TALKED TO ON THE PHONE THAT PARTICULAR EVENING, WOULDN'T YOU?

A: CERTAINLY.

Q: AND IF YOU HAD EVIDENCE THAT SHE HAD HAD A VISITOR THAT EVENING, AS YOU SAID, YOU WOULD WANT TO TALK TO THAT PERSON, WOULDN'T YOU?

A: I WOULD.

Q: NOW, THE TWO SIMPSON CHILDREN WERE TAKEN DOWN TO THE WEST LOS ANGELES POLICE STATION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS WHAT I WAS TOLD, YES.

Q: AND AT SOME POINT YOU ARE AWARE THAT ONE OF THE OFFICERS WHO WERE LOOKING AFTER THESE CHILDREN --

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I FINISH THE STATEMENT, YOUR HONOR?

MS. CLARK: OBJECT. MAY WE APPROACH?

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I FINISH THE STATEMENT?

MS. CLARK: MAY I CONFER WITH COUNSEL?

MR. COCHRAN: SURE.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU COUNSEL WITH COUNSEL.

MS. CLARK: IN LIEU OF A SIDE BAR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

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

MS. CLARK: THERE IS A RELEVANCE OBJECTION I DON'T THINK WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO RESOLVE.

THE COURT: LET ME SEE COUNSEL.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT SIDE BAR. MR. COCHRAN, WHERE ARE WE GOING?

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE ESTABLISHED WITH HIM AND WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHO SHE TALKED WITH THAT EVENING OR WHATEVER. I WANT TO ESTABLISH, AND I WILL DO IT THROUGH SOME OTHER WITNESSES PERHAPS, THAT HE BECAME AWARE THAT THE -- OF THE OFFICERS AT WEST LOS ANGELES STATION HAD A CONVERSATION WITH SYDNEY. I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO BRING THE STATEMENT OUT AT THIS POINT.

MS. CLARK: WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE?

MR. COCHRAN: IT BECOMES VERY RELEVANT.

THE COURT: WELL --

MS. CLARK: WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE? IF HE IS AWARE OF A CONVERSATION, THAT CAN'T COME IN BECAUSE IT IS HEARSAY.

THE COURT: JUST TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT HE IS A LEAD INVESTIGATOR, HE IS AWARE THAT SOMEBODY INTERVIEWED THE KID. THAT IS ALL.

MS. CLARK: WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE?

THE COURT: THEN THEY ARE GOING TO ASK THE KID, "DID MOM HAVE ANY VISITORS OVER LAST NIGHT?"

MS. CLARK: THE KID IS NOT ON THE WITNESS STAND.

THE COURT: WELL, WHO KNOWS.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: WHO KNOWS?

THE COURT: NO, NO.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS NOT THE RULES OF DISCOVERY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOUR HONOR, AND THEY HAVEN'T PUT HIM ON THE WITNESS STAND.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR --

MS. CLARK: I HAVE LOOKED FOR THAT PURPOSE --

THE COURT: HOLD ON. YOU DON'T GET TO BOTH TALK AT THE SAME TIME.

MS. CLARK: WHAT MR. COCHRAN WANTS TO DO IS LEAVE AN INFERENCE IN THE MIND OF THIS JURY THAT SOME PROBATIVE CONVERSATION WAS HAD WITH THE CHILD CONCERNING SOMETHING HAPPENING ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDER, WITHOUT EVER CALLING THE CHILD TO COME AND TESTIFY AS TO WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SEEN AND HEARD. AND IT IS UNFAIR. THEY WILL NEVER CALL THE CHILD AND THE COURT CAN'T MAKE THEM CALL THE CHILD. WE CAN'T MAKE THEM CALL THE CHILD AND IT WOULD BE CRUEL AND INHUMANE TO CALL THE CHILD TO COME IN AND TESTIFY.

THE COURT: WHAT DID HE CHILDREN SAY TO THE OFFICERS?

MR. COCHRAN: AS I UNDERSTAND THE OFFER OF PROOF AND THE CHILDREN SAY -- AND I'M TRYING TO QUOTE IT -- THAT IS A DECISION WE HAVE TO MAKE, SHE CAN'T MAKE FOR US, NOBODY CAN MAKE FOR US. PUT HER ON THE LIST. THE CHILD SYDNEY SAYS, "MOMMY'S BEST FRIEND CALLED AND MOMMY STARTED CRYING." THAT IS WHAT THE OFFICER WROTE DOWN AT THE TIME HE HEARD THE STATEMENT. I'M NOT TRYING TO GET THAT FROM HIM, BUT I WANT TO FIND OUT IF HE TALKED TO THE CHILD OR WHATEVER. AND WE WILL MAKE A DECISION ON THIS. OBVIOUSLY MY CLIENT HAS THE SAY.

THE COURT: BUT IF SHE CALLED -- WHO IS HER BEST FRIEND? IS THAT GOING TO BE CORA?

MS. CLARK: NO ONE KNOWS. NO ONE KNOWS.

MR. COCHRAN: THE CHILD MAY KNOW.

MS. CLARK: NO.

MS. CLARK: THE CHILD, AS MR. COCHRAN --

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I TALK, MA'AM, PLEASE? IT WOULD DEPEND -- AND THIS IS A DECISION THAT OUR CLIENT HAS TO MAKE, BUT I THINK AS AN INVESTIGATING OFFICER, YOU HIT UPON IT, WE WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT HE DID. AT THIS POINT I'M NOT TRYING TO GET IN HEARSAY. I HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THIS. THAT IS ALL I'M TRYING TO DO AT THIS POINT.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, IT IS HEARSAY, AND IF MR. COCHRAN THINKS THAT THAT STATEMENT BY THE CHILD IS RELEVANT, THEN LET HIM CALL THE CHILD, BUT TO SNEAK IN SOME NASTY INFERENCE BY ASKING THIS WITNESS WHETHER HE IS AWARE OF A CONVERSATION THAT WAS HAD BY SOME OTHER OFFICER OF WHICH HE WAS INFORMED, THIRDHAND HEARSAY, HAS NO RELEVANCE, IS MISLEADING AND CONFUSING TO THE JURY. AND THE ONLY RELEVANCE IT CAN HAVE IS IF THE CHILD IS CALLED TO TESTIFY AS TO WHAT IT SAID AND WHAT IT HEARD AND WHAT IT PERCEIVED ON THAT NIGHT, AND WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THE CHILD IS REFERRING TO SOMEONE WHO CALLED THIS NIGHT OR SOMEONE SHE TALKED TO. SHE DOESN'T KNOW WHO IT IS. YOUR HONOR, THIS IS SO IMPROPER.

THE COURT: HAVE YOU INTERVIEWED THE CHILD?

MS. CLARK: NO, NO. THE FAMILY WILL NOT PERMIT IT.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD LIKE TO AND THEY WON'T LET US.

MS. CLARK: US EITHER.

MR. COCHRAN: IT WAS THAT NIGHT, YOUR HONOR, AND THAT IS ALL I PLAN TO GO INTO. MAY WE PROCEED?

MS. CLARK: THIS IS SO INAPPROPRIATE, YOUR HONOR.

MR. COCHRAN: PROBATIVE.

THE COURT: I MEAN, ARE WE GOING TO GET THE CHILD IN? IS SHE GOING TO SAY WHO MOMMY TALKED TO?

MR. COCHRAN: VERY POSSIBLY SHE WILL. I PRESUME -- MY CLIENT DOES TALK TO THE CHILDREN GENERALLY ON A WEEKLY BASIS, BUT THAT IS A DECISION HE HAS TO MAKE, YOUR HONOR, AS TO WHETHER HE WANTS TO INVOLVE HIS CHILDREN IN THIS TRIAL. YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THAT.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS FINE.

MR. COCHRAN: WHEN YOU RULE AND THEN KEEP ARGUING, IT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR US. WE WILL NEVER GET THIS TRIAL TRIED. I TOLD YOU THE PARAMETERS AND THAT IS ALL I'M GOING TO DO AT THIS POINT, AND I WILL LET THE COURT KNOW THE MOMENT THAT DECISION IS MADE. THAT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE REGARDING THE CHILDREN.

MR. DARDEN: THEN IT IS IRRELEVANT.

MS. CLARK: IRRELEVANT.

MR. COCHRAN: VERY RELEVANT WHAT HE DID AND WHAT HE KNEW. HE IS THE INVESTIGATOR, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THERE IS NO PROBATIVE VALUE UNTIL THE CHILD IS CALLED. ALL HE IS TRYING TO DO IS PLAY WITH THESE JUROR'S MINDS. HE KNOWS HE IS NOT GOING TO EVER CALL THE CHILD. HE KNOWS IT. THAT HE IS GOING TO LAY THIS INFERENCE --

THE COURT: THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I TRY TO SEE WHERE I WAS, YOUR HONOR?

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: AT SOME TIME YOU WERE AWARE THAT OFFICERS AT THE WEST L.A. STATION WERE LOOKING OUT FOR THE CHILDREN?

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES, SOMEBODY TOLD HIM THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: LET ME TRY TO RESTATE IT, YOUR HONOR.

Q: AT SOME POINT DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION YOU BECAME AWARE THAT ONE OF THE OFFICERS AT THE WEST LOS ANGELES STATION TALKED TO THE ELDER DAUGHTER, THE DAUGHTER OF MR. SIMPSON, MR. AND MRS. SIMPSON, AT WEST LOS ANGELES STATION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU KNOW THE NATURE OF THAT PURPORTED CONVERSATION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND THAT CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE AT WHAT TIME ON THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13, 1994?

A: I DON'T KNOW -- I DON'T KNOW THE TIME.

Q: IT WOULD BE AFTER THE CHILDREN WERE TAKEN DOWN TO THE STATION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I WOULD ASSUME THAT, YES.

Q: AND YOU READ THE PURPORTED STATEMENT, DID YOU NOT?

THE COURT: I THINK WE SORT OF EXCEEDED THE COURT'S LARGESSE IN ALLOWING THIS.

MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR. I APPRECIATE THE COURT'S LARGESSE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO THAT, DID YOU THEN YOURSELF, OR ANYONE AT YOUR DIRECTION, GO AND TALK TO SYDNEY SIMPSON ABOUT THE STATEMENT SHE HAD MADE?

A: I DID NOT PERSONALLY, BUT I HAD THAT DONE.

Q: AND WHO DID THAT?

A: THE BROWN FAMILY.

Q: THE BROWN FAMILY?

A: I WAS INFORMED THAT THE CHILDREN WERE --

Q: JUST A MOMENT. LET'S BE RESPONSIVE IF YOU CAN. WHO IN THE BROWN FAMILY? CAN YOU ANSWER THAT?

A: DENISE BROWN.

Q: WHEN WAS THAT?

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL. I THINK WE HAVE DENISE BROWN IN THE AUDIENCE HERE.

MR. COCHRAN: YES.

THE COURT: MISS BROWN, I'M SORRY, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE YOU ASK TO LEAVE. WE ARE DISCUSSING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT INVOLVE YOU AND THE KIDS. THANK YOU.

(DENISE BROWN EXITS THE COURTROOM.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DENISE BROWN HAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE COURTROOM.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY. YOU ASKED DENISE BROWN TO TALK TO SYDNEY SIMPSON?

A: WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU, SIR?

Q: NO, NO. I WANT YOU ANSWER MY QUESTIONS FIRST, IF YOU CAN DO THAT, PLEASE.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THERE IS AN OBJECTION. THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE AND THIS WITNESS IS ALLOWED TO EXPLAIN HIS ANSWER. COUNSEL IS CUTTING HIM OFF.

THE COURT: ASK THE QUESTION, MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: DID YOU ASK DENISE BROWN TO TALK TO SYDNEY SIMPSON?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN DID YOU ASK HER TO DO THAT?

A: SOMETIME AFTER LEARNING ABOUT THE STATEMENT.

Q: WELL, WHEN, SIR?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHEN EXACTLY.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHAT MONTH IT WAS IN?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS PROBABLY IN THE MONTH OF JULY PERHAPS.

Q: JULY OF 1994?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN AND IF SHE EVER TALKED TO SYDNEY SIMPSON?

A: NO, I WAS NOT.

Q: DID YOU WRITE A REPORT WITH REGARD TO THIS?

A: NO.

Q: THERE ARE NO POLICE REPORTS AT ALL WRITTEN WITH REGARD TO YOUR REQUEST AND WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT REGARDING THIS CONVERSATION?

A: WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO EXPLAIN AGAIN?

Q: I'M ASKING YOU -- CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION? THE QUESTION IS ARE THERE ANY REPORTS?

A: I AM TRYING TO. THERE ARE NO REPORTS.

Q: WHEN YOU MADE THE REQUEST OF DENISE BROWN TO TALK TO SYDNEY SIMPSON, DID YOU DO THAT OVER THE PHONE OR IN PERSON?

A: OVER THE PHONE.

Q: AND DID YOU YOURSELF EVER MAKE AN EFFORT TO SPEAK TO EITHER OF THE CHILDREN?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU EVER ASK ANY OTHER POLICE OFFICER TO SPEAK TO EITHER OF THE CHILDREN?

A: I DID NOT WANT TO DO THAT BECAUSE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED TO ME BY THE BROWN FAMILY.

Q: THE QUESTION IS DID YOU ASK ANY POLICE OFFICERS TO SPEAK TO EITHER OF THE CHILDREN, SIR?

A: I DID NOT.

Q: NOW, DO YOU HAVE THAT LOGGED ANYWHERE, THAT YOU ASKED DENISE BROWN TO TALK TO SYDNEY SIMPSON? IS THAT LOGGED IN YOUR LOG ANYWHERE IN ANY OF THOSE FIVE BOOKS THAT YOU HAVE THERE?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Q: DID YOU EVER TALK WITH THE POLICE OFFICER WHO SPOKE WITH SYDNEY SIMPSON ON THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13, 1994?

A: I BELIEVE I HAD THAT DONE BY ANOTHER OFFICER IN CHECKING OUT HER STATEMENT TO SEE IF IT WAS ACCURATE.

Q: THAT IS NOT WHAT I ASKED YOU. DID YOU EVER ASK -- JUST --

A: I WOULD NOT HAVE DONE IT THEN. I HAD IT DONE BY SOMEONE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHO DID YOU HAVE IT DONE BY?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.

Q: AND DID YOU WRITE A REPORT BASED UPON WHAT DETECTIVE -- WHAT YOU ASKED DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TO DO?

A: THERE WAS NOTHING TO WRITE, NO.

Q: THERE ARE NO REPORTS?

A: NO.

Q: IN THAT CONNECTION? WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE OFFICER OR OFFICERS WHO SPOKE WITH SYDNEY SIMPSON ON THE NIGHT OR THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13?

A: I DON'T RECALL. IT WAS THE FEMALE OFFICER WHO TRANSPORTED HER TO THE STATION.

Q: DO YOU HAVE A REPORT THERE THAT WOULD REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION REGARDING THAT?

A: THERE IS PROBABLY A REPORT IN THERE.

Q: CAN YOU FIND IT FOR US?

A: YES.

Q: PLEASE, SIR.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

Q: CAN YOU LOOK AT PAGE -- MAYBE I CAN APPROACH, YOUR HONOR. MAY I APPROACH AND SAVE SOME TIME?

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU SHOW THAT TO COUNSEL.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

(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, SIR, LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT CONTINUATION SHEET FORM 15.09. SHALL I MARK IT AT THIS POINT?

THE COURT: YOU ARE JUST USING IT TO REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION?

MR. COCHRAN: YES, AT THIS POINT.

THE COURT: VERY WELL.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I WILL ASK YOU TO READ THE LAST THREE PARAGRAPHS AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT THAT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION REGARDING THE NAME OF THE OFFICER WHO SPOKE TO SYDNEY SIMPSON IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13, 1994.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) OKAY.

Q: HAVE YOU NOW READ THAT?

A: YES.

Q: DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO THE NAME OF THE POLICE OFFICER THAT YOU HAD IN MIND WHO SPOKE WITH JUSTIN AND OVERHEARD A CONVERSATION BETWEEN JUSTIN AND SYDNEY THAT NIGHT?

A: I MAY HAVE MISSED THAT PART. THE OFFICER'S NAME IS THERE?

Q: MAYBE IT IS NOT IN THIS PARAGRAPH.

A: I DIDN'T SEE THE OFFICER'S NAME THERE.

Q: WHY DON'T YOU START RIGHT THERE, (INDICATING)?

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) SORRY. I DO NOT SEE THE OFFICER'S NAME. OKAY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE OFFICER WHO SPOKE WITH SYDNEY SIMPSON AND OVERHEARD THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN SYDNEY --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, OBJECTION. THIS ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: LET ME REPHRASE IT.

Q: WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE OFFICER WHO SPOKE WITH SYDNEY SIMPSON?

A: OFFICER VASQUEZ.

Q: AND IS THAT A MALE OR A FEMALE OFFICER?

A: IT IS A FEMALE.

Q: AND THAT IS AN OFFICER IN WEST LOS ANGELES?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND IS THAT THE SAME OFFICER THAT YOU ASKED PHILLIPS TO TALK WITH AT SOME POINT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER REPORTS IN CONNECTION WITH ANYTHING THAT WAS SAID TO THE CHILDREN, OTHER THAN THIS PAGE THAT I HAVE SHOWN YOU AT THIS POINT?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU MAKE MORE THAN ONE REQUEST TO DENISE BROWN -- STRIKE THAT. DID YOU REQUEST ANYBODY ELSE IN THE BROWN FAMILY TO TALK TO EITHER OF THE CHILDREN, OTHER THAN DENISE BROWN?

A: MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE REQUEST WAS MADE TO THE ENTIRE FAMILY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THAT DENISE BROWN STEPPED FORWARD? THE FAMILY CHOSE HER?

A: WHEN I MADE THE REQUEST DENISE BROWN --

Q: CAN YOU JUST ANSWER THAT? HOW DID DENISE BROWN END UP BEING THE ONE THAT WAS APPOINTED? DO YOU KNOW THAT? DID YOU ASK HER?

A: I WAS GOING TO EXPLAIN THAT.

Q: WELL, I'M TRYING TO GET YOU JUST TO ANSWER THE QUESTION?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. HE'S ALLOWED TO EXPLAIN IF HE NEEDS TO.

THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I ASK THE QUESTION?

THE COURT: YOUR QUESTION -- HE IS ALLOWED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: I AM TRYING TO ASK A SPECIFIC QUESTION SO I CAN GET A SPECIFIC ANSWER, NOT A RAMBLING LONG ANSWER.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU REPHRASE THE QUESTION THEN.

MR. COCHRAN: YES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU ASK DENISE BROWN TO TALK TO EITHER ONE OF THESE CHILDREN? YES OR NO?

A: YES.

Q: AND WAS THAT AFTER YOU HAD ASKED THE GENERAL BROWN FAMILY TO TALK TO THE CHILDREN?

A: I BELIEVE THE FIRST REQUEST WAS TO DENISE BROWN.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AS NEAR AS YOU CAN TELL, THAT WAS IN JULY OF 1994; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: I DON'T HAVE A VERY ACCURATE RECOLLECTION OF WHEN THAT WAS. IT WAS SHORTLY AFTER READING THAT REPORT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU SAY "THAT REPORT," YOU REFERRED TO THE REPORT THAT I HAVE IN MY HAND?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THIS REPORT AT THIS POINT AS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: DEFENDANT'S 1042.

THE COURT: 1042.

MR. COCHRAN: COUNSEL HAS SEEN IT, YOUR HONOR, AT THIS POINT.

(DEFT'S 1042 FOR ID = REPORT)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION DO YOU KNOW WHO FAYE RESNICK IS?

A: YES.

Q: AND HOW DID YOU BECOME AWARE OF THE NAME FAYE RESNICK DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION?

A: WHEN I LEARNED THAT FAYE RESNICK WAS A FRIEND OF VICTIM NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON.

Q: DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION DID YOU LEARN THAT FAYE RESNICK MOVED IN AND STARTED LIVING WITH NICOLE?

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

MR. COCHRAN: I AM ASKING.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: I --

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU LEARN, IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, WHETHER OR NOT FAYE RESNICK MOVED IN WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON ON FRIDAY, JUNE 3RD, 1994?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THIS IS THE SAME --

MR. COCHRAN: I AM ASKING DID HE LEARN THAT.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION DID YOU EVER ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON HAD ANYONE WHO LIVED WITH HER IN THE MONTH BEFORE JUNE 12, OTHER THAN THE CHILDREN?

A: I HAD HEARD THERE WAS SOMEONE LIVING WITH HER, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU HEARD THAT IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU PIN IT DOWN AND FIND OUT THAT SOMEONE HAD ACTUALLY MOVED IN WITH HER IN THE MONTH OF JUNE OF 1994? DID YOU ASCERTAIN THAT IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION?

A: THAT WAS INFORMATION THAT I DID RECEIVE, YES.

Q: DID YOU FIND OUT AT SOME POINT IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION THAT FAYE RESNICK MOVED IN WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON ON OR ABOUT JUNE 3RD, 1994?

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, SAME OBJECTION.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU FIND OUT?

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION. HEARSAY, NO FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THAT IS WHAT I HAD HEARD, YES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU VERIFY THAT?

A: I PERSONALLY HAD NO WAY OF VERIFYING THAT.

Q: WELL, DID YOU EVER TALK TO FAYE RESNICK?

A: I DID NOT INTERVIEW HER. I BELIEVE MY PARTNER AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE INTERVIEWED MISS RESNICK.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, WHO IS YOUR PARTNER?

A: DETECTIVE VANNATTER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AS SUCH HE IS THE CO-LEAD INVESTIGATOR IN THIS CASE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU NOT FIND OUT --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I FINISH THE QUESTION?

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU FIND OUT, IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, THAT IN TRUTH AND IN FACT FAY RESNICK BECAME A RESIDENT AT 875 --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: LET ME SEE COUNSEL AT THE SIDE BAR, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. IS THIS A DISPUTED FACT, MISS CLARK?

MS. CLARK: I'M NOT -- I'M NOT SURE WHEN FAY RESNICK LIVED WITH HER, IF THEY EVER LIVED THERE ON ANY KIND OF A PERMANENT BASIS. IT WAS AN IN AND OUT THING AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT IS A DISPUTED FACT OR NOT. COUNSEL HAS TO GO ABOUT ESTABLISHING THAT FACT IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS BY THE RULES OF EVIDENCE. IF COUNSEL WANTS TO TESTIFY, LET HIM TAKE THE WITNESS STAND AND I WILL BE DELIGHTED TO CROSS-EXAMINE, BUT THIS METHOD OF DRAGGING ALL KIND OF HEARSAY IN AND ALL KIND OF RUMORS IN BY SAYING DID YOU BECOME AWARE AND DID YOU HEAR THIS, THAT IS WHAT THE RULES OF EVIDENCE ARE FOR, YOUR HONOR, TO PRECLUDE THIS KIND OF THING. WE HAVE ALL KINDS OF SLOP IN THE RECORD NOW THAT HAS BEEN THROWN IN FRONT OF THIS JURY THROUGH COUNSEL'S METHOD OF CROSS-EXAMINATION BY SAYING HAVE YOU HEARD THIS, DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THAT? THERE IS RULES OF EVIDENCE THAT ALLOW HIM TO QUESTION AN INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN THIS MANNER. ASKING FOR HEARSAY IS ASKING FOR THINGS THAT HAVE NO FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, MY QUESTION IS VERY SIMPLE: IS THAT A DISPUTED FACT? THAT WAS A YES OR NO QUESTION. DO YOU DISPUTE THAT FAYE RESNICK RESIDED IN JUNE OF '94 AT THAT RESIDENCE?

MS. CLARK: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "RESIDED"? DID SHE SPEND THE NIGHT HERE AND THERE? MAYBE. WAS SHE THERE FOR A PERIOD OF TEN DAYS? MAYBE. I DON'T KNOW.

MR. COCHRAN: WE WILL PROVE IT, YOUR HONOR. THEY KNOW. THIS IS SUCH --

MS. CLARK: WHY DOESN'T HE PROVE IT THEN. LET HIM CALL A WITNESS.

THE COURT: NO, NO.

MR. COCHRAN: I CAN CHOOSE THE WITNESS THAT I WANT. THEY OBVIOUSLY HAVEN'T TRIED ANY CASES IN A LONG TIME, AND OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW HOW, BUT THIS IS CROSS-EXAMINATION.

MR. DARDEN: WHO IS HE TALKING ABOUT DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO TRY THE CASE?

THE COURT: WAIT, MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: IS HE THE ONLY LAWYER THAT KNOWS HOW TO TRY THE CASE?

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO HOLD YOU IN CONTEMPT.

MR. DARDEN: I SHOULD BE HELD IN CONTEMPT. I HAVE SAT HERE AND LISTENED TO --

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, I'M WARNING YOU RIGHT NOW.

MR. DARDEN: THIS CROSS-EXAMINATION IS OUT OF ORDER.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WOULD YOU PLEASE STEP IN THE JURY ROOM, PLEASE.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. MR. LANGE, YOU CAN STEP DOWN.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THE JURY HAS WITHDRAWN TO THE JURY ROOM. MR. DARDEN, LET ME GIVE YOU A PIECE OF ADVICE. TAKE ABOUT THREE DEEP BREATHS, AS I AM GOING TO DO, AND THEN CONTEMPLATE WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SAY NEXT. DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A RECESS NOW FOR A MOMENT?

MR. DARDEN: I DON'T REQUIRE A RECESS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I WILL HEAR YOUR COMMENTS AT THIS POINT. I HAVE CITED YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY RESPONSE?

MR. DARDEN: I WOULD LIKE COUNSEL, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU CAN HAVE COUNSEL. YOU HAVE COUNSEL. DO YOU WANT TO CALL YOUR COUNSEL? DO YOU WANT TO HAVE SOMEBODY FROM YOUR APPELLATE DIVISION COME DOWN?

MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON MR. DARDEN'S BEHALF, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: DO YOU REPRESENT MR. DARDEN IN THIS MATTER?

MS. CLARK: I DON'T KNOW IF I'M LEGALLY ENTITLED TO, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON HIS BEHALF.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: WHAT WE ARE ALL CONCERNED ABOUT HERE, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT THERE IS A METHOD OF CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT IS BEING CONDUCTED BY MR. COCHRAN.

THE COURT: THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN, MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: BUT THAT IS THE IMPETUS FOR THE EXCHANGE AT SIDE BAR, YOUR HONOR, AND WE ARE, ALL OF US, GREATLY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THE JURY IS GETTING.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THIS.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS THE IMPETUS.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS WHAT LED TO --

THE COURT: I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THIS.

MS. CLARK: -- THE EXCHANGE AT SIDE BAR, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: NO. MISS CLARK, I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THAT. I'M NOT INTERESTED IN THAT. I'M INTERESTED IN THE REFUSAL TO AVOID -- EXCUSE ME. THE REFUSAL TO OBEY THE COURT'S ORDER NOT TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE, NOT TO SPEAK TO THE COURT AS I WAS HEARING FROM ONE COUNSEL, NOT TO INTERRUPT THE COURT AND THE COURT GAVE THREE ADMONITIONS AND MR. DARDEN CHOSE TO IGNORE THOSE.

MS. CLARK: MR. DARDEN WAS NOT -- DID NOT CHOOSE TO IGNORE THEM. I THINK MR. DARDEN WAS SIMPLY AT THAT TIME OVERCOME WITH WHAT HAS BEEN TRANSPIRING WITH MR. COCHRAN'S CROSS-EXAMINATION. IT WAS NOT A DESIRE TO FLAUNT THE COURT'S AUTHORITY, ALTHOUGH I POINT OUT TO THE COURT THAT THE COURT'S ORDER TO STOP AND DESIST HAS BEEN IGNORED BY THE DEFENSE TIME AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN WITH NO CITATION. NO CITATION. MR. DARDEN IS SIMPLY RESPONDING TO THE EVENTS THAT HAVE BEEN OCCURRING IN THIS COURTROOM TODAY AND HAD BEEN OCCURRING THROUGHOUT CROSS-EXAMINATION. I MYSELF HAVE BECOME OVERWHELMED BY THE FACT THAT THE JURY HAS BEEN GIVEN HEARSAY, HAS BEEN GIVEN, AND THE RECORD WILL STAND BY WHAT I SAID, SLOP, IN THE FORM OF COUNSEL TESTIFYING BEFORE EVERY WITNESS.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, DIDN'T I JUST TELL YOU I DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR THAT? I AM INTERESTED IN A CONTEMPT PROCEEDING.

MS. CLARK: AND IF THE COURT WOULD LIKE TO SET THE MATTER FOR OSC, THEN WE WILL PROCEED TO OSC. I DON'T THINK IT IS REQUIRED. I THINK --

THE COURT: NO, IT IS NOT REQUIRED. I CAN DO IT SUMMARILY. DO YOU WANT TO PUSH IT TO THAT?

MS. CLARK: NO.

THE COURT: THEN HOW COME YOU HAVEN'T TAKEN THE OPPORTUNITY -- WHEN I INVITE COUNSEL TO TAKE THREE DEEP BREATHS AND THINK VERY CAREFULLY ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO SAY TO THE COURT NEXT, THAT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET UP AND SAY, "GEE, I'M SORRY, I LOST MY HEAD THERE, I APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT, I APOLOGIZE TO COUNSEL." WHEN I GET THAT RESPONSE, THEN WE MOVE ON. WHEN YOU TELL THE COURT YOU WANT TO HAVE AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, THAT IS A DIFFERENT RESPONSE. THAT SAYS YOU WANT TO FIGHT. DO YOU WANT TO FIGHT SOME MORE WITH THE COURT? YOU ARE WELCOME TO DO SO. I'M GOING TO TAKE A RECESS AND I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU AND MR. DARDEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THINK ABOUT THIS CAREFULLY WITH ABOUT TEN DEEP BREATHS PERHAPS. HAVE I MADE MYSELF CLEAR?

MS. CLARK: YOU HAVE. SHALL I TAKE OFF MY WATCH AND MY JEWELRY?

THE COURT: TEN MINUTES.

(RECESS.)

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

THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL.

MS. CLARK: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ANY FURTHER COMMENT?

MS. CLARK: WE WOULD ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO RECESS AT THIS TIME SO THAT WE CAN BE PRESENT WITH APPELLATE COUNSEL TOMORROW MORNING.

THE COURT: IT'S A PRETTY SIMPLE PROCEDURE. YOU WISH TO PURSUE THIS?

MS. CLARK: WE ARE ONLY ASKING FOR THE OPPORTUNITY AT THIS TIME TO CONFER WITH COUNSEL.

THE COURT: WELL, YOU SEEM TO HAVE TWO OPTIONS. EITHER YOU OFFER AN APOLOGY TO THE COURT AND WE PROCEED OR WE PROCEED TO A CONTEMPT HEARING. THOSE ARE YOUR CHOICES. REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE IS DENIED.

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

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

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

MS. CLARK: WE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONFER WITH COUNSEL BEFORE WE RESOLVE THIS MATTER, YOUR HONOR. AND IS THE COURT THEN NOT GOING TO AFFORD US THAT OPPORTUNITY?

THE COURT: NO.

MS. CLARK: WE COULD PROCEED WITH THE TRIAL AND RESOLVE THE MATTER AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE DAY OR IN THE MORNING TOMORROW. AND THAT WAY, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO TAKE UP ANY MORE COURT TIME WITH THIS MATTER AT THIS TIME.

THE COURT: IT'S A VERY SIMPLE WAY TO TERMINATE THIS, MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: I'M AWARE OF THAT.

THE COURT: I THINK I'VE OFFERED IT TO YOU TWICE ALREADY NOW. I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE TO DO IT A THIRD TIME. BUT I'M PREPARED TO GO FORWARD IF YOU WISH TO CHOOSE -- IF YOU CHOOSE OTHERWISE.

MS. CLARK: WELL, EVEN IF THE COURT IS PREPARED TO GO FORWARD WITH THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDING, WE'RE ENTITLED TO COUNSEL; ARE WE NOT?

THE COURT: IT'S A CIVIL CONTEMPT, COUNSEL. IT HAS TO BE ADJUDICATED IMMEDIATELY UNLESS YOU WANT TO MAKE IT A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT AND HAVE A JURY TRIAL. LOVE TO SEE THE VOIR DIRE ON THAT CASE.

MS. CLARK: ME TOO. CAN WE USE THE SAME JURY, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, YOU KNOW, ALL LEVITY ASIDE, I'VE OFFERED YOU NOW THREE TIMES AN OPPORTUNITY TO END THIS RIGHT NOW. THIS IS VERY SIMPLE. AND PERHAPS IF MR. DARDEN HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE TRANSCRIPT THAT I HAVE BEFORE ME, HE WOULD SEE THE WISDOM OF THAT.

MS. CLARK: AND PERHAPS WE WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW IT AS WELL. BUT -- WHY DON'T WE REVIEW THE TRANSCRIPT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MR. SPENCE, YOUR COMMENTS AREN'T NECESSARY. I HEARD HIM. I HAVE GREAT EARS.

MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY?

THE COURT: NEVER MIND. YOU GUYS MAKE ME FEEL LIKE MR. KIMBLE.

MS. CLARK: WHO?

THE COURT: NEVER MIND.

MS. CLARK: I'M NOT LITERATE ENOUGH.

THE COURT: LET ME SEE COUNSEL AT THE SIDEBAR WITHOUT THE REPORTER, PLEASE. MR. HODGMAN, WOULD YOU JOIN US, PLEASE.

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

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE SIDEBAR. IT APPEARS THAT THE COURT IS CORRECT, THAT PERHAPS MY COMMENTS MAY HAVE BEEN OR ARE SOMEWHAT INAPPROPRIATE. I APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT. I MEANT NO DISRESPECT. HOWEVER, I DID HAVE SOME CONCERNS AND CONCERNS I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE UP WITH THE COURT WHEN THE COURT IS AVAILABLE TO HEAR MY CONCERNS. I APOLOGIZE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, I ACCEPT YOUR APOLOGY. I APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR MY REACTION AS WELL. YOU AND I HAVE KNOWN EACH OTHER FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND I KNOW THAT YOUR RESPONSE WAS OUT OF CHARACTER AND I'LL NOTE IT AS SUCH. THANK YOU.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. MR. COCHRAN, PROCEED.

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

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WHEN WE BROKE, I BELIEVE I WAS ASKING YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE AWARE, BECAME AWARE AT SOME POINT THAT FAYE RESNICK MOVED IN WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON ON OR ABOUT JUNE 3RD, 1994.

MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION. HEARSAY, ASSUME FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION. YOU CAN ASK HIM IF HE CONDUCTED ANY INVESTIGATION REGARDING THE RESIDENCE.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT FAYE RESNICK MOVED IN THE 1ST OF JUNE, 1994 WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

A: I DID NOT PERSONALLY.

Q: AND DID YOU HAVE SOMEONE AT YOUR DIRECTION DO THAT?

A: UNDER MY DIRECTION, NO. I BELIEVE MY PARTNER MADE THAT INTERVIEW.

Q: AND YOUR PARTNER IS VANNATTER?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID VANNATTER DO TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION?

A: HE INTERVIEWED MISS RESNICK.

Q: AND WHO WAS PRESENT DURING THAT INTERVIEW?

A: I WASN'T THERE. SO --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THEN IT'S HEARSAY.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: HAVE YOU REVIEWED THE INTERVIEW, SIR?

A: I HAVE BEEN TOLD ABOUT PORTIONS OF THE INTERVIEW. I HAVE NOT READ THE INTERVIEW.

Q: YOU HAVE NOT READ IT?

A: NO. I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS PERHAPS TAPE-RECORDED ANYWAY. I'M NOT SURE.

Q: AND YOU HAVE NOT LISTENED TO THE TAPE?

A: I HAVE NOT.

Q: AND WHERE WAS THAT INTERVIEW CONDUCTED IF YOU KNOW?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: I CAN ASK IF HE KNOWS.

MS. CLARK: HE KNOWS THROUGH HEARSAY.

THE COURT: HE INDICATED HE WASN'T HERE. I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE WITNESS.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. AND IT WAS YOUR PARTNER VANNATTER WHO CONDUCTED -- ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE NEVER TALKED TO HER PERSONALLY YOURSELF?

A: JUST IN PASSING, A GREETING.

Q: BUT IN CONNECTION -- NOT ONLY JUST A GREETING, WITH CONNECTION WITH WHETHER OR NOT SHE EVER LIVED AT THAT RESIDENCE, HAVE YOU EVER QUERIED HER AT ALL?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE AKITA, THE BROWN AKITA, KATO, DID YOU SEE THAT AKITA AT ANY TIME ON JUNE 13TH, 1994, SIR?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE AFTER 4:25, WAS THE AKITA OUT IN THE STREET ANYWHERE AT THAT TIME?

A: I BELIEVE BY THAT TIME, THE ANIMAL HAD BEEN IMPOUNDED.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU HAVE AS PART OF YOUR INVESTIGATIVE DUTIES ANY TESTS OR PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN OF ANY SUBSTANCES ON THAT AKITA?

A: THERE WAS AN EXAMINATION OF THE AKITA, BUT IT WAS NOT THAT DAY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WAS THAT DONE IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION IN THIS CASE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN WAS THE EXAMINATION OF THE AKITA?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS DURING THE TIME OF THE SERVICE OF THE SECOND SEARCH WARRANT IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN ON JUNE 28TH, '94.

Q: AND WHERE WAS THIS EXAMINATION DONE, IF YOU KNOW?

A: AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM.

Q: THE AKITA WAS BACK AT MR. SIMPSON'S HOUSE AT THAT TIME?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS THAT DATE AGAIN, SIR?

A: I MAY BE MISTAKEN, BUT MY RECOLLECTION IS JUNE 28TH I BELIEVE AT THE TIME OF THE SERVICE OF THE SECOND SEARCH WARRANT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT KIND OF EXAMINATION WAS DONE AT THAT POINT, IF YOU RECALL?

A: THE ANIMAL WAS EXAMINED AS TO ITS AGGRESSIVENESS AND THERE WERE OTHER -- OTHER BEHAVIORAL TYPE TESTS DONE BY THE DOG EXPERT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHO IS THAT DOG EXPERT?

A: IT'S SERGEANT YARNELL.

Q: AND DO YOU HAVE A REPORT FROM SERGEANT YARNELL IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION?

A: THERE WAS A REPORT GENERATED, YES.

Q: MAY WE SEE THAT, PLEASE?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S HERE. I BELIEVE IT WAS TURNED OVER A COUPLE WEEKS AGO.

Q: TURNED OVER TO WHOM? THE D.A.'S OFFICE?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: AND YOU DON'T HAVE A COPY OF IT?

A: I'M NOT AWARE OF ONE. I COULD CHECK.

Q: WELL, WILL IT TAKE VERY LONG? IF YOU CAN CHECK.

A: I CAN CHECK ONE SECTION REAL QUICK HERE.

Q: YES. WOULD YOU, PLEASE?

A: I DON'T SEE IT HERE.

Q: YOU DON'T HAVE IT. BUT IT WAS BY SERGEANT YARNELL AND THAT REPORT WAS AS A RESULT OF AN EXAMINATION THAT WAS DONE ON OR ABOUT JUNE 28TH, 1994 BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: I BELIEVE SO, YES.

Q: NOW, WHAT I HAD IN MIND THOUGH, SIR, WAS, DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT ANYONE EVER CHECKED THE BLOOD THAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY ON THIS AKITA AT A TIME BEFORE JUNE 28TH, 1994?

A: I SAW NO ONE DO THAT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION IN THIS CASE, DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN OF THE AKITA BETWEEN THE PERIOD JUNE 13TH AND JUNE 28TH, 1994?

A: I DID NOT.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT YOUR CO-LEAD INVESTIGATOR VANNATTER HAD THAT DONE?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE HE DID.

Q: DID YOU IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION AS THE SENIOR LEAD INVESTIGATOR IN THIS CASE OR CO-LEAD INVESTIGATOR, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO REVIEW THE NOTES BY MARK FUHRMAN AS THEY RELATE TO THE DOG ON THAT PARTICULAR -- THE NIGHT OF JUNE 12TH, 1994?

A: I REVIEWED SOME NOTES OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND I WOULD -- DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS AN INDICATION --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I FINISH, YOUR HONOR?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THIS CAN'T BE ANYTHING ELSE.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I FINISH, PLEASE? I'LL RESTATE IT.

THE COURT: LET'S HEAR THE QUESTION, BUT IT SOUNDS SUSPICIOUS.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, LET ME RESTATE IT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: I MIGHT HAVE A SUSPICIOUS QUESTION.

MS. CLARK: COULD WE HAVE AN OFFER OF PROOF THEN AT SIDEBAR?

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I JUST ASK THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR?

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DETECTIVE --

MS. CLARK: PERHAPS HE COULD ALLOW THE COURT TO RULE.

THE COURT: LET'S HEAR THE QUESTION. BUT BE CAUTIOUS, MR. COCHRAN.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DETECTIVE LANGE, AT ANY TIME, AS THE SENIOR CO-LEAD INVESTIGATOR IN THIS CASE, DID YOU EVER CONDUCT ANY TESTS OR DIRECT ANYONE TO CONDUCT ANY TESTS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE AKITA DOG ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE 12TH MAY HAVE BITTEN ANYONE?

A: SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, YES.

Q: AND WHEN WAS THAT THAT YOU CONDUCTED THESE TESTS?

A: AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE THE TESTS OF THE -- OF JUNE 28TH.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHERE THAT AKITA HAD BEEN BETWEEN THE PERIOD OF THE 13TH AND THE 28TH OF JUNE?

A: I BELIEVE AT THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE.

Q: WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN THE AKITA WAS BROUGHT BACK TO THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU SEE -- WHEN YOU WERE AT THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS AT ABOUT 5:30 ON JUNE 13TH, 1994, DID YOU SEE THE AKITA KATO THERE?

A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING THE DOG THERE AT THAT TIME.

Q: DOES THAT MEAN IT WASN'T THERE OR YOU DON'T RECALL SEEING IT?

A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING IT.

Q: NOW, THERE ARE TWO AKITAS AT ROCKINGHAM; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: THERE'S ANOTHER AKITA -- THE BLACK DOG IS ALSO AN AKITA; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU FIND OUT THAT DOG'S NAME?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT'S THAT DOG'S NAME?

A: I BELIEVE IT'S CHA-CHI.

Q: SO THE BLACK DOG IS CHA-CHI AND THE BROWN DOG IS KATO; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, DID YOU FIND OUT -- DO YOU KNOW IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION WHO BOUGHT BOTH OF THOSE DOGS?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT, HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: IT WILL BECOME RELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE TO SEE. MAY WE HAVE AN OFFER OF PROOF?

MR. COCHRAN: IT WILL BECOME RELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU FIND OUT WHO BOUGHT THOSE DOGS?

A: I HAD HEARD WHO BOUGHT THOSE DOGS.

Q: WHO BOUGHT THEM?

MS. CLARK: WELL, OBJECTION.

THE COURT: THAT'S HEARSAY.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WELL, HOW DID YOU MAKE THAT DETERMINATION WHO BOUGHT THE DOGS?

A: I DON'T RECALL. I JUST HEARD ABOUT WHO BOUGHT THE ANIMALS. I DON'T RECALL. THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC REASON FOR SOMEONE TO DISCUSS THAT WITH ME. I JUST HEARD THAT.

Q: DO YOU HAVE A REPORT IN THAT CONNECTION?

A: AS TO WHO BOUGHT THE DOGS?

Q: AS TO WHO BOUGHT THE DOGS.

A: NO.

Q: NOW, ON JUNE 28TH, WHEN SERGEANT YARNELL WAS THERE, WERE BOTH AKITAS THERE AT THAT POINT?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, DID YOU ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT THE AKITA KATO HAD AT SOME POINT LIVED -- PRIOR TO JUNE OF 1994, HAD LIVED AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM?

A: NO.

Q: NEVER MADE THAT DETERMINATION?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU KNOW OR IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, DID YOU ASCERTAIN WHEN THE AKITA KATO WAS PURCHASED?

A: NO.

Q: WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN SERGEANT YARNELL DID WHATEVER TESTS HE DID ON THE 28TH?

A: I WAS AT THE LOCATION. I DID NOT OBSERVE THE ENTIRE EXAMINATION, BUT I SAW HIM WITH THE ANIMAL.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT HE TOOK ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE AKITA KATO THAT DAY?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT HE TOOK ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF HIS TEETH OR GUMS?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: NOW, WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT OF DOGS, DID YOU EVER USE ANY DOG TO HELP YOU IN YOUR INVESTIGATION ON OR ABOUT JUNE 13TH, 1994? DID YOU USE SUCH AS ANYTHING LIKE A SCENT DOG AT ALL? DID YOU EVER DO THAT IN YOUR INVESTIGATIONS?

A: A SCENT DOG?

Q: YES. A DOG THAT WOULD SEEK TO PICK UP A SCENT OF SOME INDIVIDUAL.

A: NO.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER DONE THAT IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION?

A: I HAVE NOT, NO.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE DOG KATO ON THAT NIGHT, YOU LOOKED INSIDE THE INTERIOR OF THAT RESIDENCE; DID YOU NOT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU SEE ANY BLOODY PAW PRINTS INSIDE THE INTERIOR OF THE RESIDENCE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU SEE ANY BLOODY PAW PRINTS THAT WENT WESTERLY TOWARD THE REAR GATE OF THAT PARTICULAR RESIDENCE?

A: NO.

Q: YOU SAW PAW PRINTS; DID YOU NOT?

A: I SAW WHAT I BELIEVED TO BE PAW PRINTS, YES.

Q: AND THE PAW PRINTS THAT YOU SAW MOVED IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION FROM THE FRONT GATE OUT TOWARD THE SIDEWALK; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: INITIALLY, YES.

Q: AND THEN DID THEY MAKE A TURN, A RIGHT TURN TO GO KIND OF SOUTHBOUND ON BUNDY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: THEN DO THEY MAKE A RIGHT TURN TO GO KIND OF WESTBOUND ON DOROTHY FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU NEVER SAW ANY PAW PRINTS EITHER GOING INSIDE THE INTERIOR OR IN THAT LONG WALKWAY THERE ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE, DID YOU?

A: NO.

Q: WHILE WE'RE ABOUT IT, AS THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER, CAN YOU TELL US, SIR, THE DISTANCE, THE APPROXIMATE DISTANCE FROM THE FRONT GATE OF BUNDY THAT WE TALKED SO MUCH ABOUT TO THE REAR GATE AT BUNDY? HOW FAR IS THAT IN FEET?

A: I BELIEVE IT'S APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED AND TEN FEET.

Q: ALL RIGHT. 110?

A: APPROXIMATELY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND TO THE SIDEWALK OF BUNDY TO THE REAR GATE WOULD BE ABOUT HOW FAR?

A: I THINK PERHAPS A HUNDRED AND TWENTY FEET. I BELIEVE THE LENGTH FROM THE SIDEWALK TO THE ALLEY IS APPROXIMATELY A HUNDRED AND TWENTY FEET. SO I COULD ONLY ESTIMATE FROM THERE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO FROM THE SIDEWALK, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SIDEWALK ON BUNDY RIGHT THERE TO THE REAR GATE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: WOULD BE ABOUT A HUNDRED AND TWENTY FEET?

A: IT MAY BE LESS BECAUSE AGAIN, I BELIEVE THE SIDEWALK TO THE REAR ALLEY IS APPROXIMATELY A HUNDRED AND TWENTY. I HAVE A SCHEMATIC THAT WOULD GIVE US A SCALED DISTANCE. BUT IF YOU'RE ASKING MY RECOLLECTION, IT'S PROBABLY A HUNDRED TO A HUNDRED AND TEN FEET, SOMEWHERE IN THERE.

Q: I WOULD LIKE -- AND I THINK WE WOULD ALL WANT YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION IF YOU CAN GIVE IT TO US, SIR.

A: WELL, IT WOULD BE -- IT WOULD BE IF I WOULD LOOK AT MY SCHEMATIC, CERTAINLY THAT WOULD TAKE --

Q: IF THAT'S NOT TOO MUCH TROUBLE. CAN YOU DO THAT?

A: CERTAINLY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE WITNESS: LOOKING AT THE GROUND FLOOR SCHEMATIC ON BUNDY --

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES. BOTH COUNSEL MAY APPROACH.

THE WITNESS: TO POINT OUT ON THE SCHEMATIC, THE SIDEWALK IS AT AN ANGLE. SO AS AN ESTIMATE, FROM THE REAR GATE TO THE FRONT SIDEWALK IS AN ESTIMATE I WOULD SAY A HUNDRED AND TWENTY FEET.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. AND LOOKING AT -- YOU'RE REFERRING TO A SCHEMATIC, WHICH WE WILL NOT MARK, YOUR HONOR, BUT THERE'S A SCHEMATIC IN HIS HOMICIDE BOOK. AND PURSUANT TO THAT SCHEMATIC, YOUR BEST ESTIMATE AT THIS POINT IS AT ABOUT A HUNDRED TWENTY FEET FROM THE FRONT OF THE SIDEWALK OF BUNDY TO THE REAR GATE OF BUNDY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. I BELIEVE YOU HAD INDICATED THE OTHER DAY THAT THE INTERCOM INSIDE THE HOUSE WORKED. SO SOMEONE STANDING OUTSIDE THAT GATE COULD SPEAK TO SOMEONE INSIDE THAT HOUSE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: BUT YOU HAD TRIED TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THE FRONT GATE -- IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO OPEN THE FRONT GATE FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? YOU TRIED TO DO THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU HAVE THE HELP OF ANYONE ELSE WHEN YOU TRIED TO DO THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE CONCLUSION YOU CAME TO, IT WAS INOPERABLE AT THE TIME YOU TESTED IT?

A: WAS ABLE TO GET A SOUND, A CLICKING SOUND OUT OF IT, BUT WE COULDN'T GET THE RELEASE TO WORK PROPERLY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU HAD NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE THAT TIME; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WHAT DATE DID YOU DO THIS TEST TO TRY TO DETERMINE WHAT WAS OPERABLE?

A: INITIALLY ON THE 13TH AND IT WAS DONE SUBSEQUENT TO THAT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DID YOU HAVE ANYONE EVER FROM THE BROWN FAMILY TO ASSIST YOU IN THAT AT ALL, IN THE COURSE OF YOUR TRYING TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT IT WORKED?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE THE BROWN FAMILY WAS THERE WHEN WE DID THIS.

Q: YOU BELIEVE THEY WERE?

A: I BELIEVE THEY WERE NOT THERE.

Q: OKAY. YOU BELIEVE THEY WERE NOT?

A: YES.

Q: SO AT THE TIMES ACTUALLY YOU TRIED IT, THE INTERCOM WORKED, BUT YOU COULD NOT RELEASE THE -- GET THE FRONT GATE OPENED FROM INSIDE THE RESIDENCE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

A: YES.

Q: IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION IN THIS CASE, DID YOU EVER HAVE OCCASION TO GO TO MR. RONALD GOLDMAN'S HOME?

A: I PERSONALLY DID NOT.

Q: DID ANYONE UNDER YOUR DIRECTION GO THERE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHO WAS THAT?

A: DETECTIVES TIPPIN AND CARR.

Q: TIPPIN AND CARR?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT T-I-P-P-I-N?

A: YES.

Q: C-A-R-R?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY FOUND OUT WHETHER -- WAS THERE A SHOWER AND BATH AT MR. GOLDMAN'S HOME?

A: THERE WAS A SHOWER AND BATH?

Q: YES.

A: I BELIEVE THERE WAS.

Q: WERE -- DID YOU TAKE, HAVE A DRAWING MADE OF THE INTERIOR OF THAT RESIDENCE?

A: I BELIEVE THERE WERE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS A SCHEMATIC.

Q: WHEN -- DO YOU RECALL WHEN TIPPIN AND CARR WENT TO THE RESIDENCE OF MR. GOLDMAN?

A: NO, I DON'T RECALL SPECIFIC DATE.

Q: IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, DID YOU ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD A ROOMMATE ON THE DATE OF JUNE 12TH, 1994?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE HE DID.

Q: NOW, DID HE DRIVE A VEHICLE TO THE BUNDY LOCATION, IF YOU KNOW, THAT NIGHT?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: AND WHAT KIND OF VEHICLE WAS THAT?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS A TOYOTA.

Q: AND DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT VEHICLE BELONGED TO HIM?

A: IT DID NOT.

Q: IT BELONGED TO SOME OTHER PERSON?

A: YES.

Q: WHERE, IF ANY, IN RELATION TO THE ADDRESS 875 SOUTH BUNDY DID YOU FIND THIS VEHICLE PARKED IF YOU FOUND IT SO PARKED?

A: IT WAS PARKED ON DOROTHY STREET ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DOROTHY FACING IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION NEAR THE ALLEY.

Q: FROM THE NORTH SIDE OF DOROTHY FACING A WESTERLY DIRECTION TOWARD THE ALLEY?

A: WESTERLY DIRECTION AND THAT WOULD BE WEST OF BUNDY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THE ALLEY THAT RUNS BEHIND BUNDY THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AT WHAT POINT AND ON WHAT DAY DID YOU DISCOVER THIS VEHICLE BELONGING TO MR. GOLDMAN OR THAT MR. GOLDMAN HAD DRIVEN THERE?

A: IT WAS DISCOVERED ON THE 13TH.

Q: AT WHAT TIME?

A: WHAT TIME?

Q: YES. WHAT TIME OF DAY, SIR?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 3:00 P.M.

Q: NOW, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WHEN YOU FIRST SAW THIS -- THE GLOVE AND THE KNIT CAP AT BUNDY, THEY WERE UNDER SOME FOLIAGE OR PLANTS OR PLANT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND HAVE YOU RECENTLY BEEN TO BUNDY? HAVE YOU BEEN THERE -- YOU WERE OUT THERE WITH THE JURY VIEW; WERE YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT PLANT THAT THE GLOVE AND THE KNIT CAP WERE UNDER APPEARS MORE FULL ON THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAN IT APPEARED AT THE TIME THE JURY VIEW. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

A: IT APPEARED ABOUT THE SAME TO ME. PERHAPS -- APPEARED ABOUT THE SAME.

Q: APPEARED ABOUT THE SAME TO YOU?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET ONE OF THE EXHIBITS, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, I WOULD ASK MR. DOUGLAS, IF THE COURT PLEASES, TO PUT 56-A ON THE --

(EXHIBIT FALLS ON COURT REPORTER.)

THE COURT: AND HE DID AN EXCELLENT JOB. YOU FOLKS ARE DETERMINED TO MAKE TODAY EXCITING.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE THE DETECTIVE STEP DOWN?

THE COURT: YES. WHY DON'T YOU TAKE THE POINTER THERE, DETECTIVE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO 56-A, JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS WHILE WE'RE HERE. THE PLANT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THE FOLIAGE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS I GUESS DEPICTED IN 56 -- IS THAT THE SAME ONE THERE IN 56-C?

A: 56-C?

Q: YEAH.

A: NO. I BELIEVE IT'S BELOW THAT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET'S LOOK --

A: THERE'S ONE HERE.

Q: OKAY. LET'S LOOK THEN AT 56-I. IT'S DEPICTED IN 56-I, IS THAT RIGHT, RIGHT HERE (INDICATING)?

A: APPEARS TO BE, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IN THAT CONNECTION, THERE -- WHAT IS DEPICTED IN 56-I APPEARS TO BE SOME DARK OBJECT AND WHAT APPEARS TO BE PERHAPS A GLOVE. AND IS THIS PHOTOGRAPH 56-I FOR IDENTIFICATION WITH A 103 MARKED THEREON, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT A FAIR AND ACCURATE PORTRAYAL OF THE WAY YOU FIRST SAW THIS CAP AND GLOVE ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY?

A: IT'S IN THE GENERAL AREA, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S IN THE EXACT LOCATION I OBSERVED.

Q: AND HAD THIS CAP AND GLOVE AT SOME POINT BEEN MOVED THAT MORNING?

A: I BELIEVE THE GLOVE WAS.

Q: AND WAS IT MOVED AFTER MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS MOVED?

A: YES. I BELIEVE SO.

Q: DID YOU EVER WRITE A REPORT INDICATING THAT THE GLOVE HAD BEEN MOVED AT ALL?

A: NO.

Q: WERE YOU AWARE AT THE TIME THAT THE GLOVE HAD BEEN MOVED?

A: NOT AT THE TIME, NO.

Q: WHEN DID YOU BECOME AWARE OF IT? WHEN THE TRIAL STARTED?

A: NO. WHEN I OBSERVED THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE GLOVE IN A DIFFERENT POSITION.

Q: WHEN YOU OBSERVED IT IN A DIFFERENT POSITION, WHY DIDN'T YOU WRITE A REPORT AT THAT TIME?

A: BECAUSE I DON'T NEED TO WRITE A REPORT. I HAVE THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

Q: BUT YOU DID NOT WRITE A REPORT?

A: I DIDN'T OBSERVE IT BEING MOVED. I HAD NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF IT BEING MOVED. ALL I HAD WERE THE PHOTOGRAPHS, AND FOR MY CERTAIN PURPOSES, THEY SPOKE FOR THEMSELVES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DID YOU TELL US THE OTHER DAY THAT YOU FELT THAT WHEN EVIDENCE HAD BEEN MOVED, THE BEST PROCEDURE WOULD BE TO TRY TO DOCUMENT THAT IF YOU COULD OF HOW AND WHY IT HAD BEEN MOVED? IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT?

A: YES. AND THE DOCUMENTATION IN MY MIND IS THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND SO -- AND THEY ARE.

MS. CLARK: WELL, PERHAPS THE WITNESS COULD BE ALLOWED TO RESUME THE WITNESS STAND FOR THE EXAMINATION.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I AM NOT FINISHED WITH IT YET. I'M NOT FINISHED WITH THIS YET.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: SO WITH REGARD TO -- SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR, WITH REGARD TO 56-I, 103, THERE'S NEVER BEEN A REPORT WRITTEN ABOUT IT BEING MOVED; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THERE'S NO REPORT.

Q: OKAY. WITH REGARD TO THE ENVELOPE THAT'S DEPICTED IN 56 -- 56-J, IN THE COURSE OF YOUR LOOKING AT PHOTOGRAPHS, DID YOU ASCERTAIN THAT IT ALSO HAD BEEN MOVED AT SOME POINT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WOULD I BE CORRECT IN ASSUMING THERE IS NO REPORT WITH REGARD TO THAT EITHER? IS THAT CORRECT?

A: SAME SITUATION.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, THIS PLANT THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT HERE IN 56-I, IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THIS PHOTOGRAPH, 56-I, WHICH WAS TAKEN I PRESUME SOMEWHERE AROUND JUNE 13TH IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS, IS A FAIR REPRESENTATION OF HOW THAT PLANT LOOKED AT THAT TIME? IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S A CLOSE-UP VIEW OF THE PLANT. PERHAPS A FAIRER REPRESENTATION WOULD BE ONE FROM THE BACK. BUT I WOULD SAY SO, YEAH. FOR WHAT WE HAVE, YEAH.

Q: THIS IS WHAT I HAVE, ALL RIGHT? AND SO BASED UPON WHAT I HAVE HERE, IS THAT A FAIR REPRESENTATION THE WAY THAT PLANT LOOKED?

A: BASED UPON WHAT YOU HAVE HERE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHEN YOU WENT OUT THERE ON THAT SUNDAY THE DAY OF THE JURY VIEW, DOES THAT LOOK TO YOU ABOUT THE SAME FULLNESS WITH REGARD TO THAT PLANT THAT YOU SAW THAT DAY?

A: ONCE AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A SHOT A LITTLE FARTHER AWAY. AGAIN, IT APPEARS TO BE ABOUT THE SAME, YEAH.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU THINK IT'S ABOUT THE SAME? I NOTICE THERE'S SOME BLOOD SPATTERS, APPARENTLY SOME BLOOD SPATTERS ON THAT PLANT. DID YOU DO ANY TESTING ON THOSE BLOOD SPATTERS?

A: THERE WERE BLOOD SPATTERS EVERYWHERE AND NOT EVERY PLANT LEAF WAS COLLECTED, NO.

Q: THAT'S NOT WHAT I ASKED YOU. I ASKED, DID YOU DO ANY TESTING OR HAVE ANY TESTING DONE REGARDING THE BLOOD SPATTERS ON THIS PARTICULAR PLANT DEPICTED IN 56-I?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WAS DONE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL I WAS ASKING. LET ME --

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD, WE'RE NOW LOOKING AT 45-A.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I JUST WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION BRIEFLY TO 45-A, PEOPLE'S 45-A FOR IDENTIFICATION, AND I WANT TO ASK YOU JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS REGARDING -- LET'S START WITH 45-D. YOU SEE 45-D HERE? IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE A PAIR OF WHITE SHOES I GUESS ON THE LANDING ABOVE WHERE THE SIMPSON BODY WAS AND A PAIR OF BLACK SHOES. FIRST OF ALL, LET'S TAKE THE WHITE SHOES. DO YOU KNOW WHOSE SHOES THOSE WERE STANDING THERE?

A: I COULD HAZARD TO GUESS.

Q: WELL, LET'S SEE. YOU WERE OUT THERE THAT DAY AND YOU SAW WHO WAS WEARING WHITE. WHO DO YOU THINK THOSE SHOES BELONGED TO?

A: I BELIEVE THEY BELONGED TO THE PHOTOGRAPHER, MR. ROKAHR.

Q: ROKAHR?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND NOW THESE BLACK SHOES ARE NOT VERY DESCRIPTIVE, BUT CAN YOU TELL US WHOSE SHOES THOSE ARE?

A: I BELIEVE THEY'RE MINE.

Q: SO YOU RECOGNIZE YOUR OWN SHOES?

A: I BELIEVE I'M WEARING THEM.

Q: SAME SHOES. LET'S SEE. I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THOSE IN EVIDENCE. NO. KIDDING. SO AT ANY RATE, THESE ARE YOUR SHOES AND THESE ARE ROKAHR'S SHOES; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: BEST YOU CAN RECALL?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND, YOUR HONOR, WE'LL HAVE ONE MORE. AND YOU ARE AWARE, ARE YOU NOT, THAT YOU CAN NOT ALWAYS SEE FOOTPRINTS WITH THE NAKED EYE. YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT, AREN'T YOU?

A: I'M SORRY. CAN'T ALWAYS WHAT?

Q: YOU ARE AWARE THAT YOU CAN NOT ALWAYS SEE FOOTPRINTS WITH THE NAKED EYE. ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?

A: IT WOULD DEPEND ON LIGHTING AND ANGLE, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE THAT YOU MIGHT NOT SEE ALL OF THEM, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, IF I MIGHT, WE'RE NOW REFERRING TO 56 -- 54, PEOPLE'S 54 AGAIN.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU ONE QUESTION ABOUT 54. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THIS SHOE STANDING RIGHT HERE ADJACENT TO THE PLANT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER? DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT BLACK SHOE?

A: THAT'S THE SAME TYPE AS I HAVE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S MINE.

Q: THAT'S NOT A POLICE ISSUED SHOE, IS IT?

A: WOULD NOT BE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO IS THAT YOUR SHOE?

A: AS I SAID, IT MAY BE BECAUSE I HAVE THOSE TYPES OF SHOES.

Q: AND SO --

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD, WE'RE LOOKING AT PEOPLE'S 54-2.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND THAT SHOE IS STANDING RIGHT IN THE GROUTING WHERE THERE'S SOME BLOOD IN THE GROUTING ADJACENT TO THE PLANT WHERE WE CAN SEE THE CAP AND GLOVE. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

A: YES.

Q: THAT'S YOU? APPEARS TO BE A MAN'S SHOE?

A: APPEARS TO BE.

Q: AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S YOUR SHOE OR NOT?

A: NO.

Q: IT'S SIMILAR, THE SAME SHOES YOU'RE WEARING, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, LET ME ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS REAR GATE AT BUNDY.

MR. COCHRAN: AND WE'LL REFER NOW, YOUR HONOR, TO 53-A.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED FOR US SOMETHING ABOUT THESE LITTLE CARDS AND HOW THESE NUMBERS ARE PLACED ON VARIOUS EXHIBITS. I WANT YOU TO LOOK FIRST OF ALL AT 53-B, AND I SEE A 115 AND 116. HOW ARE THOSE NUMBERS PLACED THERE, IF YOU RECALL?

A: THOSE ARE PLACED BY THE CRIMINALIST.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THE CRIMINALIST SELECTS A PARTICULAR NUMBER AND THEN THERE'S A PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN OF THAT PARTICULAR -- WHATEVER THEY'RE SEEKING TO DEPICT THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR FOR PERSPECTIVE FOR THE JURY, THIS 115 AND 116, IS THIS THE REAR GATE?

A: YES.

Q: AND THERE'S ALSO A 117; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS OTHER -- THERE WAS ANOTHER 115 AND 116 NUMBERS SOMEWHERE AT THAT SCENE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

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

Q: OKAY. AND YOU MAY WANT TO USE BOTH OF THESE. NOW, I WANT TO SHOW YOU -- AND I CAN SHOW YOU BOTH OF THEM AT THE SAME TIME IF YOU'D LIKE.

MR. COCHRAN: I'LL PUT THEM BOTH UP AT THE SAME TIME, IF WE CAN, YOUR HONOR, SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR. MR. DOUGLAS IS SAFELY HOLDING 53-A.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: SIR, I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT 53-A. I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT THE NUMBERS -- YOU SEE THIS 115, 116, 117 WHICH YOU'VE TOLD US IS THE REAR GATE AT BUNDY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT THIS PARTICULAR EXHIBIT, WHICH IS 48-A, ET CETERA. AND YOU SEE THIS 115 HERE?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: WHICH IS 48-G, WHICH PURPORTS TO BE A BLOOD DROP. NOW, THIS 115 HERE, WHAT IS THAT 115?

A: IT'S A PHOTO IDENTIFICATION NUMBER APPARENTLY PUT DOWN BY THE PHOTOGRAPHER AND THE CRIMINALIST.

Q: SO LET'S SEE. ARE YOU SAYING WE HAVE TWO 115'S?

A: I BELIEVE THESE WERE TAKEN ON DIFFERENT DAYS.

Q: THAT'S NOT WHAT I ASKED YOU. DO WE HAVE TWO 115'S?

A: THAT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS TO ME, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THIS 115 HERE IS A BLOOD DROP; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: AND THE 115 BACK HERE IS ALLEGEDLY A BLOOD DROP ON THE REAR GATE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE THAT WAY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IS THERE ALSO -- THERE'S A 117. NOW, IS 117 ALLEGEDLY A BLOOD DROP THAT WAS COLLECTED SUPPOSEDLY AT THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT WAS PLACED THERE BY THE PHOTOGRAPHER?

A: I'M ASSUMING THAT IT IS.

Q: WELL, YOU RECOGNIZE THAT LITTLE CARD, DON'T YOU?

A: THAT'S THE TYPE OF CARD THE PHOTOGRAPHER WOULD PUT DOWN, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW -- AND OVER HERE, IF WE LOOK AT 117, THERE'S A 117 HERE WITH REGARD TO THE FENCE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, THERE IS.

Q: NOW, WAS THAT A SEPARATE PHOTOGRAPHER OR WAS IT JUST A MISTAKE MADE? HOW DO WE HAVE THE SAME NUMBERS?

A: TWO DATES, TWO DIFFERENT TIMES, TWO DIFFERENT PHOTOGRAPHERS.

Q: LET ME SEE IF I UNDERSTAND THIS. YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT IF I -- YOU TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS ON ONE DAY, LET'S SAY ON JUNE 13TH, USE 115, 116, 117, THAT YOU COME BACK ON LET'S SAY JULY 3RD AND USE THE SAME NUMBERS?

A: NO.

Q: IS THAT ACCEPTED PROCEDURE, SIR?

A: NO, I DON'T MEAN TO TELL YOU THAT, BUT YOU MAY WANT TO ASK THAT OF THE MAN WHO DID IT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU ARE TELLING US ABOUT SEPARATE DATES. SO YOU'RE THE INVESTIGATOR. I'M JUST ASKING YOU AT THIS POINT. I DON'T HAVE HIM YET. SO WOULD THAT BE ACCEPTED PROCEDURE IN LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, PROCEDURE --

MS. CLARK: WELL, OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. HE INDICATED HE DOESN'T KNOW.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I'M GOING TO ASK THE QUESTION.

MS. CLARK: AND COUNSEL IS CONTINUING TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THIS WITNESS AND HE HAS ALREADY INDICATED HE DOESN'T KNOW.

THE COURT: SO WHAT'S THE OBJECTION? FOUNDATION?

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

MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO ASK HIM A FOUNDATIONAL QUESTION.

THE COURT: THEN FOUNDATIONAL QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO HOW THESE NUMBERS ARE GIVEN OUT BY A PHOTOGRAPHER, IT'S TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT IF ONE USED A -- IF ONE WERE A PHOTOGRAPHER AND ONE USED A 115, A 116 AND A 117 ON JUNE 13TH, THAT AT A LATER DATE, YOU USED SEQUENTIAL NUMBERS, YOU WOULD START WITH 118, 119, 120; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I CAN'T SAY THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS REASONING WAS.

Q: WELL, YOU'VE BEEN A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR FOR SOME 20 YEARS; HAVE YOU NOT?

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE.

MR. COCHRAN: I WANT TO ASK HIM A QUESTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: IF HE'S EVER --

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: HAVE YOU EVER --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: OVERRULED, COUNSEL.

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY. I COULDN'T HEAR THE COURT'S RULING.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: HAVE YOU EVER IN YOUR CAREER EVER SEEN A SITUATION WHERE THE PHOTOGRAPHER USES THE SAME NUMBERS FOR DIFFERENT PICTURES AT THE SAME CRIME SCENE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MS. CLARK: BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS WITNESS' KNOWLEDGE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I HAVE NO -- I DON'T RECALL. I MAY HAVE IN 20 YEARS. I DON'T KNOW.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WELL, DO YOU KNOW OR NOT, SIR?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: YOU DON'T KNOW?

A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT. IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT IT HASN'T HAPPENED BEFORE.

Q: OKAY. GO AHEAD.

A: I -- AGAIN, THE PERSON TO ASK WOULD BE THE PHOTOGRAPHER. HE MAY HAVE A REASON FOR DOING THIS. I DON'T KNOW.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, NOW, AS THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN THIS CASE, THE MAN IN OVERALL CHARGE AT BUNDY, RIGHT, DID YOU EVER ASK HIM WHY HE NUMBERED THE SAME NUMBERS FOR DIFFERENT BLOOD DROPS AT THE SAME SCENE? DID YOU EVER ASK HIM THAT?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE THAT EVER CAME UP.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU. YOU CAN RESUME YOUR SEAT.

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, I'M GOING TO HELP MR. DOUGLAS MOVE THIS OVER, THIS TIME SAFELY.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, THE GLOVE AT BUNDY THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT UNDER THOSE -- UNDER THAT PARTICULAR PLANT, WAS THAT A RIGHT OR LEFT-HANDED GLOVE?

A: LEFT-HANDED.

Q: AND YOU'VE HAD OCCASION TO EXAMINE THAT GLOVE; HAVE YOU NOT? YOU'VE LOOKED AT IT?

A: I LOOKED AT IT BRIEFLY AT THE SCENE AND WAS TOLD NOT TO TOUCH IT BY THE CRIMINALIST. ASIDE FROM THAT, I THINK THE NEXT TIME I SAW IT WAS RIGHT HERE IN COURT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU EVER HAD OCCASION TO LOOK AT THAT GLOVE AND MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE ANY CUTS ON THE FINGER, OUTSIDE FINGER PORTION OF THAT GLOVE?

A: I DID NOT PERSONALLY, NO.

Q: YOU NEVER LOOKED AT THAT?

A: NO.

Q: AS AN INVESTIGATOR, DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY INTEREST IN LOOKING AT THAT?

A: I WOULD HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE CRIMINALIST LOOKING AT THAT AND WHEN IT WAS EXAMINED.

Q: AND DID THE CRIMINALIST LOOK AT IT AS FAR AS YOU KNOW?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS EXAMINED, YES.

Q: AND YOU'VE SEEN SOME REPORTS IN THAT CONNECTION; HAVE YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THERE ARE NO CUTS ON THAT LEFT GLOVE, IS THERE? ARE THERE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. OBJECTION.

MR. COCHRAN: IF HE KNOWS.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. WHEN MISS CLARK SHOWED YOU THAT GLOVE I GUESS LAST WEEK HERE IN COURT, DID YOU LOOK AT IT THEN?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU SEE ANY CUTS ON THE OUTSIDE OF THIS LEFT GLOVE, LEFT-HANDED GLOVE WHICH WAS PURPORTEDLY FOUND AT BUNDY? DID YOU SEE ANY?

A: NO.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THERE'S NO OPPORTUNITY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE EYEGLASSES AND THE ENVELOPE --

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH JUST A MINUTE ON THIS AREA?

THE COURT: SURE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE'RE AT SIDEBAR.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I'M ADVISED THAT -- AND I WANTED TO ASK YOUR HONOR ABOUT THIS. THERE'S SOME CONFUSION WITH REGARD TO THIS. AS I UNDERSTAND HIS TESTIMONY, WHEN THEY ARE AT THE SCENE, THERE WERE TWO LENSES IN THESE EYEGLASSES. NOW THERE MAY BE ONLY ONE LENS. I WANTED TO INQUIRE OF THE COURT -- AND I NEED TO GET SOME GLOVES. I WANT TO ASK HIM HOW MANY LENSES ARE IN THERE. I WANTED TO TELL THE COURT WHAT I WANTED TO DO.

THE COURT: YOU NEED GLOVES.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, WHEN I LOOK IN THERE, I SEE I THINK -- AND I WANT SOME GLOVES. I DON'T WANT TO BE TOUCHING ANYTHING.

MS. CLARK: MAY I BE HEARD? NUMBER ONE, WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE? AND, NUMBER TWO, THIS WITNESS IS NOT GOING TO KNOW WHAT, IF ANYTHING -- IF THERE IS INDEED ONLY ONE LENS, WHERE THE OTHER ONE WENT. IT'S ALL BEYOND --

MR. COCHRAN: ONE PERSON, PLEASE.

MS. CLARK: IT'S ALL BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS WITNESS' KNOWLEDGE.

WE ARE ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT'S HERE AND WHAT'S IN HERE AND HE'S NOT THE ONE WHO'S BEEN IN CUSTODY OF THIS. THESE ITEMS WERE SENT TO CRIMINALISTS, AS COUNSEL KNOWS, ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

THE COURT: I THINK HE CAN ASK A QUESTION, WHILE YOU WERE AT THE SCENE -- I MEAN HE'S ALREADY TESTIFIED HE SAW THE ENVELOPE. YOU CAN ASK HIM IF HE SAW -- AND HE'S NOT THE ONE WHO COLLECTED IT.

MR. COCHRAN: YES. I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOUR HONOR. THAT'S WHY I'M UP HERE.

THE COURT: YOU CAN ASK HIM WHILE AT THE SCENE, WAS HE ABLE TO SEE INTO THE ENVELOPE THAT HE EXAMINED. YOU CAN ASK HIM IF HE SAW TWO LENSES OR ONE.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S WHY I AM HERE. THANK YOU.

MS. CLARK: AS LONG AS THE FOUNDATIONAL QUESTION IS ASKED, THAT HE LOOKED INSIDE.

THE COURT: YEAH. OKAY.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE CAN GO BACK, YOUR HONOR. MAY I PROCEED?

MR. DARDEN: THE WITNESS MAY NEED SOME GLOVES TOO.

MS. CLARK: THE WITNESS MAY NEED GLOVES.

MR. SHAPIRO: APPARENTLY THE LENS IS NOW OUTSIDE THE ENVELOPE. THE ENVELOPE WAS NOT PROPERLY SEALED. SO THERE IS A LENS THAT IS OUTSIDE THE ENVELOPE AND THERE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ANY LENS IN THE ENVELOPE.

MS. CLARK: THE WHOLE ENVELOPE IS SEALED IN A PLASTIC BAG WITH TAPE. YOU DON'T WANT TO MESS WITH THE ENVELOPE ITSELF. THAT HAPPENS TO BE EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: WELL, THE EVIDENCE RIGHT NOW. BUT WHAT YOU'RE INTERESTED IS WHAT HE SAW.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. MAY I APPROACH? WHAT IS THIS? EXHIBIT NO. 32? THANK YOU.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

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

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO PLACE BEFORE YOU PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT NO. 32, WHICH PURPORTS TO BE THE ENVELOPE AND A BAG INSIDE A PLASTIC THAT WAS ALLEGEDLY FOUND AT THE BUNDY LOCATION. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT ENVELOPE?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU RECALL LOOKING AT THAT ENVELOPE AT SOME POINT?

A: YES.

Q: ON OR ABOUT JUNE 13TH?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU LOOK INSIDE AT THE EYEGLASSES AT THAT TIME?

A: I PEERED INSIDE AN OPENING, OBSERVED SOME EYEGLASSES, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN YOU PEERED INSIDE AND LOOKED AT THE EYEGLASSES, AT THAT TIME, YOU SAW THE EYEGLASSES INTACT, DID YOU?

A: I COULD MAKE OUT THAT THEY WERE EYEGLASSES. I COULDN'T MAKE OUT THAT THEY WERE NECESSARILY INTACT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU SEE THE EYEGLASSES HAD LENSES THEREIN OR SOMEWHERE CLOSE BY?

A: I BELIEVE I DID OBSERVE A LENS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU OBSERVE ONE LENS, TWO LENSES OR WHAT?

A: IT WAS PROBABLY ONLY ONE. IT JUST APPEARED TO ME TO BE A FAIR OF PRESCRIPTION GLASSES.

Q: PRESCRIPTION GLASSES? AND YOU SAW PRESCRIPTION GLASSES WITH ONE LENS OR TWO LENSES?

A: NO. I OBSERVED ONE OF THE LENSES. THE OTHER ONE, BECAUSE OF THE ANGLE I WAS LOOKING AT, I DON'T BELIEVE I COULD OBSERVE IT.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: BUT I MAY BE WRONG. IT'S -- I JUST RECALL PEERING IN AND OPENING THE ENVELOPE AND OBSERVING WHAT APPEARED TO BE PRESCRIPTION GLASSES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID -- WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A LOOK IN THAT ENVELOPE NOW. FIRST OF ALL, LOOK IN THE ENVELOPE NOW AND SEE IF YOU ARE ABLE TO SEE THE LENSES, LENS OR LENSES?

A: NO, I'M NOT ABLE TO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. LET'S TURN IT OVER.

WHEN YOU TURN THE CONTAINER OVER, THE PACKAGE OVER, DO YOU SEE A LENS OR LENSES NOW?

A: THERE'S ONE LENS IN THE PLASTIC BAG.

Q: ALL RIGHT. LOOK CAREFULLY. DO YOU SEE ANOTHER LENS THERE?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DO YOU HAVE A REPORT WHEN IT WAS BOOKED OF HOW MANY LENSES THERE WERE IN THESE GLASSES, WHEN THIS WAS FIRST BOOKED?

A: THE REPORT ON THE GLASSES SHOULD BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE PROPERTY REPORT WHEN IT WAS BOOKED BY THE CRIMINALIST.

Q: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT? DO YOU HAVE THAT HERE TODAY?

A: YES.

Q: I'LL HOLD THIS. CAN YOU LOOK AT THAT AND TELL US WHETHER OR NOT IT INDICATES HOW MANY LENSES WERE IN THESE GLASSES?

A: IT DOES NOT INDICATE.

Q: DOES NOT INDICATE? NOW, IF ONLY ONE LENS WAS IN THE GLASSES, WOULDN'T THAT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD NOTE IN ONE OF YOUR REPORTS?

A: NO, I WOULD NOT.

Q: YOU WOULDN'T NOTE THAT AT ALL?

A: THOSE GLASSES WERE KEPT SEALED IN THAT ENVELOPE FOR A REASON.

Q: WELL, DIDN'T -- WAS IT YOU THAT TESTIFIED OR SOMEBODY TESTIFIED THEY WERE TORN OPEN SO SOMEONE COULD LOOK INSIDE? DID YOU SO TESTIFY?

A: NOT TORN OPEN. I TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS AN OPENING WHERE I COULD OBSERVE THE GLASSES INSIDE. I DIDN'T TOUCH IT AND IT WAS MAINTAINED IN THAT MANNER.

Q: WHEN YOU -- WHEN IT WAS OPEN SO YOU COULD LOOK INSIDE, HOW MANY LENSES DID YOU SEE?

A: I DID NOT OPEN IT TO LOOK INSIDE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT AT ANY RATE, THE REPORT YOU'VE JUST SEEN DOESN'T INDICATE HOW MANY LENSES WERE THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, SIR, WHILE YOU WERE AT THE SCENE THERE AT BUNDY AFTER RETURNING FROM ROCKINGHAM ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH, THERE CAME A TIME WHEN PRESS ARRIVED AT THE SCENE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU SAW THE PRESS OUT THERE AND THEY WERE TAKING VIDEO PICTURES. DID YOU NOT SEE THAT?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: AND I NOW WANT TO, YOUR HONOR, WITH YOUR HONOR'S PERMISSION MARK AS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER A VIDEOTAPE, AND I WANT TO ASK THE OFFICER SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING THAT VIDEOTAPE. MR. HARRIS, WHAT'S THE NEXT NUMBER?

THE COURT: 1043.

MR. COCHRAN: 1043, YOUR HONOR.

(DEFT'S 1043 FOR ID = VIDEOTAPE)

MR. COCHRAN: I BELIEVE IT'S CUED UP. AND I WANT TO ASK --

MS. CLARK: WERE YOU GOING TO GIVE A LIMITING INSTRUCTION?

THE COURT: I AM SORRY. HOLD ON A SECOND. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GOING TO SHOW YOU SOME VIDEOTAPE. YOU SHOULD KEEP IN MIND IN VIEWING THE VIDEOTAPE THAT THERE MAY BE SOME DISTORTION BASED UPON THE LENGTH OF THE LENS THAT IS INVOLVED IN TAKING IT. YOU SHOULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION IN REGARDING THE DEPTH PERCEPTION WITH THE VIDEO. THANK YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION, I WILL BE ASKING QUESTIONS DURING THIS AND STOPPING IT AT CERTAIN POINTS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(AT 4:14, DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, DETECTIVE LANGE, CAN YOU TELL US --

MR. COCHRAN: STOP THERE, PLEASE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU TELL US AND IDENTIFY THOSE GENTLEMEN THERE AND TELL US WHERE THIS IS TAKEN, WHERE THIS VIDEO IS TAKEN?

A: YES. I AM PICTURED THERE TO THE RIGHT.

Q: YOU ARE THE MAN WITH NO SHIRT ON?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: MOVE TO STRIKE THAT. YOU'RE THE MAN WITH NO JACKET ON. I WAS THINKING OF NO HAIR AND IT CAME OUT WRONG.

A: THANK YOU.

Q: MAN WITH NO COAT ON?

A: NO JACKET.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: THE MAN WITH HIS BACK TO US IS LIEUTENANT JOHN ROGERS. BEHIND HIM FACING US IS DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.

Q: IS THAT DETECTIVE RON PHILLIPS?

A: YES.

Q: APPARENTLY IS SOMEONE BENDING OVER IN THE STREET WITH SOME KIND OF CONTAINER THERE WITH KIND OF LIGHT, WHITE SHOES? SEE THAT PERSON?

A: YES.

Q: WHO IS THAT PERSON?

A: I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR RATCLIFFE.

Q: AND THAT'S MISS -- WHAT'S HER FIRST NAME, IF YOU RECALL?

A: I BELIEVE IT'S CLAUDINE.

Q: CLAUDINE RATCLIFFE. AND WOULD THIS BE AT THE TIME OF HER ARRIVAL AT 875 BUNDY?

A: YES.

Q: AND AS BEST WE CAN TELL, WOULD THAT BE ABOUT WHAT TIME; 9:10 IN THE MORNING ON JUNE 13TH?

A: APPROXIMATELY.

Q: NOW, IS THERE ANOTHER PERSON IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO TELL US WHO IT IS?

A: NOT WITH THIS VIEW.

Q: OKAY. WELL, WOULD YOU KEEP LOOKING. SO THIS IS ABOUT 9:10 IN THE MORNING.

MR. COCHRAN: MR. HARRIS, WILL YOU CONTINUE, PLEASE.

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.)

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, STOP IT THERE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AT THIS POINT, ARE YOU -- YOU APPARENTLY ARE HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH CLAUDINE RATCLIFFE, THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR?

A: YES.

Q: ARE YOU DESCRIBING TO HER WHAT YOU HAVE THERE? IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND I NOTICE YOU HAVE A CLIPBOARD IN YOUR HAND AT THAT POINT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT IS THAT CLIPBOARD? WHAT IS THAT?

A: WHAT IS IT? IT IS A CLIPBOARD.

Q: I MEAN, WHAT DO YOU USE IT FOR?

A: WRITING ON.

Q: OKAY. AND IS THAT PART OF WHAT YOU DO TO WRITE YOUR REPORT, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU WRITE SOME REPORTS IN THAT BOOK BEFORE YOU WITH THAT KIND OF CLIPBOARD?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: YOU MAY CONTINUE, MR. HARRIS.

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.) Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. NOW, THOSE TWO GENTLEMEN THERE IN THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE, IS THAT LIEUTENANT ROGERS TO THE RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IS THAT CAP -- RON PHILLIPS, DETECTIVE, ON THE LEFT?

A: YES.

Q: IS ROGERS YOUR IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR? HE'S A LIEUTENANT?

A: HE WAS, YES.

Q: AT THAT TIME?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHAT IS DEPICTED IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH, SIR?

A: THIS IS DETECTIVE PHILLIPS IN THE RIGHT OF THE PHOTO WITH HIS BACK TO US. I CAN'T MAKE OUT THE INDIVIDUAL.

Q: UP AT THE TOP? WELL, WE WILL PROCEED ON. SEE IF YOU CAN RECOGNIZE THE PERSON UP ON THE LANDING.

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WHO IS THE MAN UP ON THE LANDING WITHOUT A COAT?

A: I'M HAVING A HARD TIME SEEING IT FROM HERE. IT'S ME. OKAY.

Q: DOES THAT LOOK LIKE YOU?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. I THOUGHT IT WAS YOU. NOW, WHAT ARE WE SEEING HERE? IS THIS THE FRONT OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT YELLOW TAPE RUNNING AROUND, IS THAT THE PERIMETER THAT HAD BEEN PLACED UP?

A: YES.

Q: WAS TAKEN DOWN ABOUT 3:45 IN THE AFTERNOON?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. STOP IT THERE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WHO ARE THE TWO PEOPLE UP ON THE LANDING THERE?

A: THAT'S ME AGAIN AND THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR RATCLIFFE.

Q: AND IN THE FOREGROUND THERE OUT ON THE SIDEWALK OR WHATEVER, IS THAT PHILLIPS?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL CONTINUE.

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ARE YOU EXPLAINING TO HER WHAT YOU HAVE AT THIS POINT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, DO YOU NOTICE YOUR HANDS? DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ON YOUR HANDS AT THAT POINT?

A: NO.

Q: YOU DON'T HAVE ANY GLOVES OR ANYTHING ON, RIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, WHAT'S DEPICTED IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH? IS THAT ONE OF THE BODIES NOW COVERED WITH A SHEET?

A: THIS IS LOOKING WESTERLY AND THAT'S LOOKING TOWARDS THE BODY OF MISS SIMPSON.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THE LADY ON THE LEFT WHERE WE NOW STOPPED IT, IS THAT AGAIN THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. CONTINUE ON.

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ARE YOU TO THE LEFT OF HER AT THAT POINT KIND OF KNEELING DOWN?

A: TO THE LEFT OF THIS PHOTO, YES.

Q: OKAY. AND ARE YOU NEAR -- WHERE IS THE BODY OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON IN THIS PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH? DO WE KNOW?

A: THAT WOULD BE IN FRONT OF US TOWARDS THIS DIRECTION (INDICATING).

Q: IN FRONT OF US TO THE EAST, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, I NOTICE NOW A VEHICLE IS COMING UP. IT SAYS L.A. COUNTY CORONER ON IT. DO YOU RECALL THAT VEHICLE ARRIVING THAT MORNING?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT'S THE VEHICLE DRIVEN BY MISS RATCLIFFE'S ASSISTANT, MR. JACOBO?

A: YES.

Q: AND HE ARRIVED AT ABOUT WHAT TIME THAT MORNING, IF YOU RECALL?

A: I BELIEVE SHORTLY AFTER HER, SHORTLY AFTER RATCLIFFE, PERHAPS 10, 15 MINUTES.

Q: AND THE MAN THERE IN THE BLUE WITH "CORONER" WRITTEN ON THE BACK OF HIS JUMPSUIT, THAT'S MR. JACOBO?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU SAW HIM ARRIVE SOMETIME AROUND 9:20, 9:25; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHEN HE ARRIVES AT THE SCENE, HE STOPS APPARENTLY TO TALK TO SOME PARTICULAR OFFICER. AND I SEE TO THE RIGHT THAT'S LIEUTENANT ROGERS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU KNOW THE OFFICERS HE'S TALKING TO AT THAT POINT?

A: I BELIEVE IT MIGHT BE OFFICER CUMMINGS.

Q: IS HE LOGGING IN AT THAT POINT, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALSO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AGAIN?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT MISS RATCLIFFE AGAIN?

A: YES.

Q: THAT'S THE FRONT OF THE BUNDY RESIDENCE AGAIN?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT A LONG VIEW OF THE RESIDENCE THERE AT BOTH I GUESS 873 AND 875?

A: YES. LOOKING IN A NORTHWEST DIRECTION.

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AT THIS POINT, THERE ARE TWO MEN THERE --

MR. COCHRAN: WE'LL STOP IT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT YOU TALKING WITH LIEUTENANT ROGERS?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. IF YOU KNOW, HAVE THE BODIES BEEN MOVED AT THIS POINT?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. CONTINUE ON.

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AGAIN, THIS IS A VIEW TAKEN FROM THE STREET, SOMEWHERE ACROSS THE STREET; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES. APPEARS TO BE.

Q: IS THAT THE SERGEANT YOU DESCRIBED FOR US EARLIER?

A: YES.

Q: LAPD SERGEANT PALMER?

A: YES.

Q: IN THE BACKGROUND IS THE BODY OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, THERE'S SOMEBODY WHO JUST STEPPED DOWN -- APPARENTLY YOU ARE STEPPING OVER SOMETHING. IS THAT OVER MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING ON YOUR HANDS NOW?

A: YES. I'M WEARING PLASTIC RUBBERIZED GLOVES.

Q: WHERE DID YOU GET THOSE GLOVES FROM, IF YOU KNOW?

A: I CARRY THEM WITH ME.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT YOU WERE WEARING SOME GLOVES AT SOME POINT THAT DAY?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU ARE STEPPING OVER WHERE THE BODY IS STILL IN PLACE THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: THE CORONER HAS NOT MOVED THE BODY YET?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: AND ALL RIGHT. WE WILL MOVE ON.

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.)

MR. COCHRAN: STOP IT THERE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOTICE UP ON THAT LANDING THE TWO CORONER'S REPRESENTATIVES WERE STANDING THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DO YOU SEE THE SHOES OF MISS RATCLIFFE?

A: YES.

Q: AND TO HER LEFT OR EAST OF HER, THE GENTLEMAN, MR. JACOBO, APPARENTLY HAS HIS LEFT FOOT RESTING ON THE RAIL THERE; IS THAT CORRECT? DO YOU SEE THAT?

A: LOOKS TO ME THE FOOT IS ON THE WALL. I DON'T NOTICE ON THE RAILING.

Q: LET'S MOVE ON. MAYBE WE CAN SEE IT CLEARLY.

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THE LEFT FOOT IS RESTING ON SOMETHING, RIGHT?

A: YES. APPEARS TO BE.

Q: SEE THERE?

A: YES, IT DID.

Q: WHERE IS HIS FOOTING THERE?

A: IT WENT FROM THE WALL TO THE RAILING.

Q: YOU ARE BENDING DOWN TAKING SOME KIND OF MEASUREMENTS AT THIS TIME. HE'S STANDING THERE AT THIS POINT ABOVE YOU; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU'RE ABOUT TO STEP INTO THE AREA WHERE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS FOUND?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: NOW, YOU HAD NO COVERS ON YOUR SHOES AT THAT POINT, DID YOU?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. AGAIN, THAT'S YOU IN THE FOREGROUND?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, LET'S STOP IT THERE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THE GENTLEMAN THEY'VE BEEN TALKING WITH IN KIND OF A WHITE JACKET ON, WHITE HAIR, WHO IS THAT?

A: THAT'S ROKAHR, THE PHOTOGRAPHER.

Q: AND HE'S THE GENTLEMAN THAT TOOK A LOT OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS HERE?

A: YES.

Q: HE'S THE MAN WE HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY WE HAVE DUPLICATE NUMBERS, THE SAME GUY?

A: NO. I BELIEVE THERE WERE THREE DIFFERENT PHOTOGRAPHERS DEPLOYED ON THOSE TWO DIFFERENT DATES AND THE CRIMINALIST. SO IF I WANTED AN ANSWER, I WOULD PROBABLY TALK TO ALL FOUR.

Q: ALL FOUR? I WOULD HAVE TO TALK TO ALL FOUR?

A: CRIMINALIST AND THREE PHOTOGRAPHERS.

Q: BUT THAT'S ROKAHR, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S MR. ROKAHR IN THE CENTER, YES.

Q: FINE.

MR. COCHRAN: CONTINUE ON.

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WHO IS HE TALKING TO? WHO WAS THAT TO HIS LEFT?

A: IT IS -- WAIT UNTIL HE STANDS UP AGAIN. I BELIEVE IT LOOKED LIKE PHILLIPS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, THIS IS APPARENTLY A LONG VIEW FROM ACROSS THE STREET. SEE YOUR BACK THERE?

A: YES.

Q: ROKAHR IS SOMEWHERE NEAR YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. STOP IT THERE, THE VIDEOTAPE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THE PERSON WE SEE INSIDE THE YELLOW TAPE THERE, THAT'S LIEUTENANT ROGERS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I CAN'T TELL WHETHER OR NOT HE'S INSIDE THE TAPE. I CAN'T SEE BECAUSE OF THE BAND AT THE BOTTOM.

Q: ROGERS IS SOMEWHERE IN THE FOREGROUND; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHO IS THAT MAN WITH KIND OF THE SANDY HAIR, IF YOU KNOW?

A: THAT'S ASSISTANT LAB DIRECTOR STEVE JOHNSON.

Q: STEVE JOHNSON WHO WAS LAB DIRECTOR FOR WHO?

A: LAPD SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION.

Q: WHEN DID HE COME TO THE SCENE?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS PROBABLY SHORTLY BEFORE -- BEFORE THIS INDIVIDUAL.

Q: HAVE YOU SEEN HIS NAME ON THE LOG BEFORE?

A: I BELIEVE IT IS ON THE LOG, YES.

Q: CAN YOU TELL US, REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHAT TIME HE MAY HAVE ARRIVED?

A: NO.

Q: YOU DON'T KNOW?

A: I DON'T RECALL. I DIDN'T MAKE A POINT OF CHECKING. I SUPPOSE I COULD LOOK AT THE LOG.

Q: YOU DO RECALL HE WAS OUT THERE THAT DAY; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. CONTINUE ON, SIR.

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.)

MR. COCHRAN: STOP IT, THERE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WHO IS THAT GENTLEMAN THERE?

A: WHICH GENTLEMAN?

Q: THE ONE WITH THE -- AND THE KEY. THE ONE TO THE LEFT OF MR. JACOBO WHO IS IN THE BLUE JUMPSUIT.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU BACK IT UP FOR A MINUTE, MR. HARRIS?

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU RECALL WHO THAT WAS AT THAT POINT?

A: THE ONE BELOW THE MAN WITH THE --

Q: NO. CAN YOU LOOK UP? I'LL SHOW YOU. THE ONE RIGHT THERE, THE ONE RIGHT BEHIND JACOBO FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE (INDICATING).

A: I CAN'T SEE THAT AT ALL FROM HERE.

Q: OKAY. I'M NOT SURE IT WILL HELP YOU FROM THIS ANGLE. CAN YOU TELL US WHO THAT IS? ROGERS, STEVE JOHNSON, WHO THAT IS (INDICATING)?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU MAY RESUME YOUR SEAT.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, MR. HARRIS. PLEASE CONTINUE.

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AT THIS POINT, IS THIS THE PLASTIC SHEET YOU WERE TALKING TO US ABOUT?

A: YES.

Q: WHICH MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WAS PLACED ON HER BACK AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE IN A SUPINE POSITION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: WELL, SHE WAS PLACED ON THE PLASTIC. SHE WAS IN FULL RIGOR MORTIS. SO IT WOULDN'T BE A COMPLETE SUPINE POSITION.

Q: I SAID AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE IN A SUPINE POSITION AS OPPOSED TO BE LYING FACE DOWN.

A: WELL, SHE WAS PLACED ON IT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

Q: DUE TO THE RIGOR THAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED FOR US --

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. STOP THERE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU RECOGNIZE THE PEOPLE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH; DO YOU NOT?

A: YES. THERE'S MYSELF AND --

Q: THE MAN IN THE DARK SUIT IS WHO?

A: I BELIEVE THAT'S PHILLIPS.

Q: AND TO HIS LEFT IS WHOM?

A: AND THAT'S ROKAHR.

Q: AND IN THE FOREGROUND HERE, DO YOU KNOW WHO THIS IS?

A: I REALLY CAN'T TELL.

Q: CAN'T TELL?

A: NO.

Q: TO THE RIGHT THERE BENDING OVER, DO YOU KNOW WHO THAT IS? ISN'T THAT MISS --

A: I CAN'T SEE. BUT IT POSSIBLY IS RATCLIFFE.

Q: MISS RATCLIFFE?

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. CONTINUE, PLEASE, MR. HARRIS.

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, CAN YOU SEE NOW WHO THAT GENTLEMAN IS IN THE FOREGROUND?

A: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. CONTINUE ON, PLEASE.

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU STILL CAN'T TELL?

A: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. CONTINUE.

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS THE REMOVAL OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY? HER BODY WAS MOVED FIRST?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, AGAIN, IS THAT YOU IN AND AROUND THE SCENE WHERE THE BODY WAS?

A: YES.

Q: AND AT THAT POINT, WE SEE THE TWO CORONER'S ASSISTANTS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: IN THE FOREGROUND THERE, IS THAT CRIMINALIST TRAINEE, MAZZOLA, M-A-Z-Z-O-L-A?

A: APPEARS TO BE, YES.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. CONTINUE ON, PLEASE.

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, WHO IS THAT COMING THROUGH NOW WITH NO GLOVES? WHO IS THAT?

A: MR. FUNG.

Q: IS HE ONE OF THE CRIMINALISTS?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: STOP IT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU SEE HE HAS NOTHING ON HIS HANDS?

A: YES.

Q: AND HE'S CARRYING --

MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU BACK THAT UP A MINUTE, MR. HARRIS?

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.)

MR. COCHRAN: STOP IT THERE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: HE'S CARRYING A BAG OR SOMETHING IN HIS HAND?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU SEE THAT? SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR, WHO'S HERE IN THIS PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH, THE CORONER'S -- THE FEMALE CORONER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND HER NAME?

A: HER NAME?

Q: YES.

A: RATCLIFFE.

Q: RATCLIFFE. AND WE HAVE FUNG; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND IN THE FOREGROUND, WE HAVE JACOBO?

A: YES.

Q: AND FURTHER OUT BECAUSE THE PERSPECTIVE IS BAD; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, APPEARS TO BE.

Q: TO HER RIGHT IS ROKAHR, THE PHOTOGRAPHER?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN BECAUSE OF THE PERSPECTIVE, CAN YOU TELL WHO THAT IS WITH THAT DARK SUIT THERE BEHIND ROKAHR?

A: AT THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER?

Q: YEAH. RIGHT-HAND CORNER THERE, DARK BLUE SUIT, LEFT ARM.

A: I BELIEVE IT MIGHT BE OFFICER CARSON PIERCE.

Q: CARSON PIERCE?

A: YES.

Q: PERHAPS WE'LL SEE IT ON THE PHOTOGRAPH.

MR. COCHRAN: CONTINUE, PLEASE, MR. HARRIS.

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, CAN YOU SEE THAT PERSON WITH THE SANDY HAIR? IS THAT STEVE JOHNSON?

A: YES.

Q: STEVE JOHNSON?

A: YES.

Q: WHO IS THAT MAN THERE?

A: THAT'S DETECTIVE TIPPIN.

Q: TIPPIN, HE'S ONE OF THE ONES WHO TOOK THIS STATEMENT YOU TOLD US ABOUT EARLIER, T-I-P-P-I-N?

A: HE'S ONE OF THE DETECTIVES WHO WENT TO THE GOLDMAN RESIDENCE.

Q: TIPPIN AND CARR?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT, SIR.

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS NOW MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY AT THAT TIME; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: HE'S ALREADY BEEN MOVED OUT FROM THE SMALL AREA?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: NOW, STOP IT RIGHT THERE, MR. HARRIS.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THIS MAN OVER TO THE LEFT, KIND OF RUBBING HIS BROW A MOMENT AGO, IS THAT THE CRIMINALIST, MR. FUNG?

A: YES, SIR. HE'S TO THE LEFT.

Q: NOTICE HE STILL DOESN'T HAVE ANY GLOVES ON? NOTICE THAT?

A: HE DOESN'T APPEAR TO.

Q: AGAIN, YOU PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED THE CRIMINALIST. IS THAT YOU POINTING?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. CONTINUE, MR. HARRIS, PLEASE.

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU EVER USE MORE THAN ONE PAIR OF GLOVES THAT DAY IF YOU RECALL?

A: I MAY HAVE. I HAD GLOVES ON FOR A WHILE, HAD THEM OFF FOR A WHILE, HAD THEM ON. I MAY HAVE. IF I HAD TAKEN THOSE OFF, I COULDN'T HAVE PUT THEM BACK ON. SO I HAD TO PUT A DIFFERENT PAIR ON.

Q: DO YOU HAVE THAT WRITTEN DOWN ANYWHERE? IS THAT IN YOUR NOTES?

A: I TOOK MY GLOVES OFF?

Q: YES. THAT YOU CHANGED GLOVES AT THE SCENE?

A: NO.

(DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONTINUES PLAYING.)

THE COURT: I THINK THAT'S IT.

(AT 4:31 P.M., DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1043, A VIDEOTAPE, CONCLUDED PLAYING.)

MR. COCHRAN: IT'S 4:30, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: INDEED IT IS. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE AFTERNOON. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS, DON'T DISCUSS IT AMONG YOURSELVES, CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU, DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU REGARDING THE CASE. AND WE WILL BE IN SESSION ON MATTERS REGARDING THE CASE, BUT WE WILL NOT REQUIRE YOUR PRESENCE ON FRIDAY. SO SEE YOU BACK HERE ON MONDAY, 9:00 O'CLOCK. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. HAVE A NICE WEEKEND. AND, DEPUTY JACKS, CAN WE HAVE THE COURT T.V. PHOTOGRAPHER? AND, DETECTIVE LANGE, YOU MAY STEP DOWN, SIR.

THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: HAVE A NICE WEEKEND. SEE YOU MONDAY.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, YOU DID WANT MR. HODGMAN DOWN HERE, DIDN'T YOU? WE HAVE SOME BUSINESS WITH MR. BAILEY. I CAN'T GET HIM ON THE TELEPHONE, MR. HODGMAN.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, THE JURORS HAVE LEFT. WHAT'S ON OUR AGENDA NOW? WE HAVE SOME DISCOVERY MATTERS TO CLEAR UP.

MS. CLARK: WE ARE GOING TO SEE IF MR. HODGMAN HASN'T LEFT. MR. BAILEY HIS GRACIOUSLY AGREED TO ADDRESS THE MATTER TOMORROW MORNING. WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO ASCERTAIN THAT RIGHT NOW.

THE COURT: I NOTICE WE HAVE COUNSEL FOR OTHER PARTIES HERE AS WELL.

MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY?

THE COURT: I THINK MR. SACHS IS HERE, COUNSEL FOR MISS RANDA IS HERE.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I HAD SPOKEN TO MR. HODGMAN AND TO MISS ROBERTSON, AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNEW THAT 12:00 O'CLOCK TOMORROW IN THE COURTROOM, WE HAD MADE ARRANGEMENTS FOR MR. MORTON TO LOOK AT THOSE BIG PHOTOGRAPHS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. SCHECK: AND SHE HAS SAID SHE WOULD BE HERE AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER PLANS.

THE COURT: THAT'S FINE.

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE HERE FROM DOUG DEEDRICK OF THE FBI -- I SENT TWO SETS OF PHOTOGRAPHS THAT HE TOOK, 24 PHOTOGRAPHS PREPARED FROM THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN OUR CASE. AND I'M HANDING THE DEFENSE THEIR COPY AND I HAVE MY COPY. THEY'RE BOTH SEALED. I HAVEN'T OPENED EITHER ONE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PERHAPS, MR. SCHECK, IF YOU WANT, BEFORE YOU LEAVE, YOU AND MISS CLARK CAN MAKE A COMPARISON TO MAKE SURE YOU EACH HAVE A COMPLETE SET. ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO DEAL WITH? I SEE MR. SACHS.

MR. SACHS: WE'LL BE DEALING WITH YOUR CLERK.

THE COURT: GREAT. ALWAYS SCARES ME TO SEE NEW LAWYERS. ANYTHING ELSE? THEN WE'LL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL TOMORROW MORNING, 9:00 O'CLOCK. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

(AT 4:35 P.M., AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 24TH, 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

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1995
VOLUME 93

PAGES 15979 THROUGH 16122, INCLUSIVE
(PAGES 15946 THROUGH 15978, INCLUSIVE, SEALED)

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 93 PAGES 15979 - 16122

-----------------------------------------------------

DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.

THURSDAY FEBRUARY 23, 1995 A.M. 15979 93
P.M. 15980 93
-----------------------------------------------------

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 93
(FREDERICK)
(RESUMED) 16018

-----------------------------------------------------

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.

LANGE, TOM 93
(FREDERICK)
(RESUMED) 16018

EXHIBITS

DEFENSE FOR IN
EXHIBIT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE

PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.

1042 - 4-PAGE DOCUMENT 16038 93
ENTITLED "LAPD CONTINUATION SHEET FORM
15.09.0"

1043 - VIDEOTAPE OF 16096 93
CRIME SCENE

?? 16113