SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
JANUARY 6, 1997
VOLUME 37

(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. PETROCELLI: Good morning.
MR. GELBLUM: Good morning.
MR. KELLY: Morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Somebody wanted to do something out of the presence
of the jury.
MR. LEONARD: Yes, Your Honor, we have two matters. First of all, I'd
like to bring -- I don't have a written motion, but I will file one
by the close of business today. We'd like to bring to the Court's
attention that the attacks on Robert Groden that commenced in the
courtroom were continued by an agent of the plaintiff outside the
courtroom by way of a news conference that was broadcast on a local
television station, and also by an appearance or at least a
videotape on a national television program on MSNBC; that person's
name is David Lifton. He represented himself to be a photographic
consultant for the plaintiffs. He's in the courtroom today, sitting
in the second row, back there, the gentleman with glasses on the
right-hand side there. We'd ask that the plaintiffs be sanctioned,
that Mr. Lifton be excluded from the courtroom, and additional
sanction be levied against the plaintiffs; and that would be that we
bring before the jury that the plaintiffs have violated the gag
order in particular by attempting to attack Mr. Groden through this
agent of theirs. He made very derogatory remarks about Mr. Groden.
We have taken -- we had a full-blown hearing on this. We have the
tape-recordings we can present to Your Honor.
MR. GELBLUM: Morning, Your Honor. Mr. Groden is not an agent of the
plaintiffs, he's --
MR. PETROCELLI: Not Mr. Groden.
MR. GELBLUM: Mr. Lifton is not employed, is not the Mr. Lifton, is
not a photographic agent, not a consultant to the plaintiff's, he's
a member of the public who has known Mr. Groden for over 20 years
and has provided us with information regarding Mr. Groden's
background, and that is it. He's not our agent, he's not under our
control, never paid him a dime. We don't intend to pay him a dime
he's somebody just like, I'm sure defendants have a person, who
provides us with information. He's not an agent, not under our
control.
MR. LEONARD: I would like to put point out that during the
examination and cross-examination of Mr. Groden, I saw Mr. Gelblum
and Mr. Petrocelli consulting with Mr. Lifton, that Mr. Lifton came
into the building this morning with the plaintiffs party, he's
sitting in the plaintiffs' seats, it was accepted on national
television that he was a consultant, a photographic consultant for
the plaintiffs. It seems to me that if this gag order is to have any
teeth in it or have any affect, that they can't use a shill like
Lifton to make their point to the press, and in the press and
national television that's exactly what's going on, so I think that
-- that Mr. Lifton should be removed from the courtroom at a
minimum.
MR. GELBLUM: He's not a shill, he's not under our control. I can't
tell him what to say or not to say. I didn't tell him what to say or
not to say. I didn't know what he was going to say or not say. I
didn't know he was going to go on the television.
THE COURT: Has he conferred?
MR. GELBLUM: He has provided us information about Mr. Groden's
historical background, yes, Your Honor. He's not consulted with us.
He's not a photographic consultant.
THE COURT: What's his name?
MR. LEONARD: David Lifton.
THE COURT: Okay, sir, you're excluded. Step out.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. LEONARD: The other matter is a -- we filed by way of a written
motion, and I'm not sure whether -- whether it's ripe at this point
because we have gotten no indication whatsoever in written form or
even orally that the plaintiffs intend to utilize these newly
emerged photographs. I think if you -- if you had an opportunity to
read the motion, I think it speaks for itself. It's a total -- it's
a 23 and a half hour situation. We obviously are going to -- if
these photographs come into this case at all, we are going to
vigorously fight their -- their admission, we are going to attack
their authenticity naturally, and we would need -- we would need
time to do discovery on this. We need to go back and do the
deposition of the -- of the photographer who purported to take the
photographs. Interestingly enough, the middle-man or the agent who's
either attempting to or has already sold the photographs to a
tabloid is the same one who sold the Scull photograph that we're
dealing with here. We want to take his deposition. We want to take
the deposition of whoever was involved in the discovery of this
photograph including Mr. Kelly and Mr. O'Connor, another attorney
who was involved in this effort with Mr. Kelly. We think it's highly
suspicious that the photograph has emerged at this time,
particularly in view of the fact that there was -- there was an
investigation done, there were attempts at the beginning of the
criminal case to locate photographs of Mr. Simpson, particularly
among photographers at football games. So we would vigorously object
to any mention of this photograph at this juncture -- at any point
in this trial. I can tell you one thing, that if -- if they attempt
to get this in, we're going to ask for at least a two-week recess in
order to investigate and to do the appropriate discovery we need to
do to prove that this photograph is either irrelevant or faked. So
that's one thing that we'd be looking for. And I think in the
interest of fairness and in the interest of judicial efficiency and
under the laws of the State of California, particularly the
discovery statutes, this photograph has no business being in this
case at this point. We haven't even seen it yet, by the way.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, there's absolutely no basis for this
position at all. Mr. Simpson took that stand, under oath, and said
he was not wearing the shoes in that photograph, he said the
photograph was a fake. Mr. Baker told the jury the same thing. They
put this would-be expert on the stand to say that this photo is a
fake. This is about as pure impeachment as you can find, Your Honor.
You want to get on the stand and tell those kind of -- make those
kind of representations, you have to suffer the risk that you may
get caught red-handed. That is what has happened. These photos
emerged this weekend. I just got them on Saturday, Your Honor. They
were just handed --
MR. LEONARD: You haven't --
THE COURT: Excuse me. He didn't interrupt you when you were talking,
Mr. Leonard.
MR. PETROCELLI: I just got them this weekend. There are photos,
eight or nine of them, contact sheets, and everything from the same
game, Your Honor, the September 26, 1993, game, taken by a
completely different photographer unrelated to -- to Mr. Scull. In
addition, one of the photographs appeared in a Buffalo Bills
newsletter of sorts, that was printed and circulated to the public.
Mr. Simpson and his defense lawyers obviously had full access to
this. This is classical impeachment material, Your Honor, and they
don't have any right to advance disclosure of it, even if we had
obtained it in advance, which we did not. We fully intend to
confront the witnesses with the photographs that directly destroy
the representations they made to this jury, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I order you to make them available to the defense.
MR. PETROCELLI: Give them copies, Steve.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. LEONARD: We have had no opportunity to look at these photographs
to determine whether they're authentic. There's no chain of custody
that's been developed on these. I think it's highly improper for
them to be put in at this point. Your Honor, we've had no
opportunity to look at them. It would seem after the first time --
is it -- are you going to permit them to confront this witness with
these photographs when they haven't been able to establish any kind
of a chain with them, where they were taken, how they were taken,
whether they're authentic at all? I think that's highly unfair to us
at this point, Your Honor, and I would object.
MR. PETROCELLI: First of all, we will right now make copies of
everything available to you. Secondly, you have indicated a number
of times to the Court how you were going to tie things up later
on. We can authenticate these pictures through the defendant
himself, no less, Your Honor, when we question him about the
photographs and to allay any possible concern, I have produced a
sworn affidavit of the photographer who has indicated that, if
necessary, he will come to testify in this court and authenticate
the photographs.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. LEONARD: File it.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, we would like a hearing.
THE COURT: File it.
MR. LEONARD: This is something, again, I haven't seen, Your Honor.
MR. PETROCELLI: This is my only copy.
(Mr. Petrocelli hands document to clerk.)
MR. LEONARD: It's a total sandbag.
THE COURT: That's usually what impeachment amounts to, counsel.
(Court reviews document.)
THE COURT: When is this witness going to be available?
MR. PETROCELLI: We can make him available on 24-hour's notice. We
were planning to call him in our rebuttal case. I'm told the defense
is resting probably by the end of this week or early next week, and
he will probably be our first witness.
THE COURT: Okay. Serve a copy on the defense.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.
MR. LEONARD: We'd like an opportunity to depose this witness.
THE COURT: You can do whatever you can to assist you in your case.
This is rebuttal evidence.
THE COURT: Okay. Is there anything else? What about the declarations
that also were filed with respect to Ferrara and Siglar.
MR. PETROCELLI: It seems like this fellow can't serve many people,
Your Honor, but the bottom line is I don't have any objection to Ms.
Ferrara being read in by her criminal trial testimony. We'll read in
our portions.
THE COURT: There's no objection, then I will allow it.
MR. PETROCELLI: And --
THE COURT: It appears that the declaration with regards to Siglar is
sufficient on its face.
MR. PETROCELLI: As to the one regarding Mr. Siglar, I haven't yet
seen the designations. Once I see the designations, I'd be happy to
confer about our position on that.
THE COURT: Bring the jury in. Who are we starting with?
MR. GELBLUM: Mr. Groden.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. GELBLUM: He still resumes the stand.
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
THE COURT: Morning, ladies and gentlemen.
JUROR: Morning, Your Honor.
THE CLERK: You are still under oath. Would you please state your
name again for the record.
THE WITNESS: Robert -- Robert Groden.
THE CLERK: Thank you.
THE COURT: You may proceed. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. GELBLUM:
(continued)
Q. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Morning, Mr. Groden.
A. Morning.
Q. Because it's been quite a while since We've been here, I thought
we'd start by summarizing where we were, about the point you were
making about the photograph in question. Try to write on the easel
here. The first problem that we discussed -- the first issue we
discussed on the cross-examination was the blue lining that you saw
on the picture of Mr. Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes, between the
image and the sprocket holes, correct?
A. I believe that was the first one.
Q. The blue line?
A. Yeah.
Q. I'm just going to write blue line up here.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'm going to object to going through the
cross-examination again. This has been asked and answered.
MR. GELBLUM: Very quickly.
THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And you acknowledged, at one point, that that
could be a scratch, correct?
A. Yes, I believe so.
Q. Okay. And we also looked at some of the other photographs, and
again we saw blue lines between the image and the sprocket holes,
but you said those were different than the ones on this picture; is
that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. The next -- next point we talked about was the alignment
of the -- of the photographs, correct, the alignment of the frames?
A. Yes.
MR. GELBLUM: Steve, could you put up 1832, please, on the monitor.
(Exhibit 1832 displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And your point was that No. 1 and No. 2, No. 1
being the picture of Mr. Simpson with the Bruno Magli shoes, were
not aligned, right?
A. 1 and 2 were not aligned.
Q. You're saying that those are the only adjoining frames on the
contact sheet that were not aligned?
A. That's correct.
Q. We looked at some others and you disagreed about -- with -- about
them being misaligned?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Did you look at other contact sheets, too, to see if there were
any out of alignment?
A. Yes.
Q. You found none of those were out of alignment either?
A. That's correct.
Q. On this point, I think you did agree with me that there is
some?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'm going to object. He's now back on this
point of asking specific questions. This has all been asked and
answered.
MR. GELBLUM: This is going to take less than five minutes to bring
it up to speed. There are points to be made later that have to do
with the totality of his evidence. I have to get it in before the
jury. It's fair.
THE COURT: Ask it in the form of a question, not in the form of an
argument.
MR. GELBLUM: That's fine, Your Honor.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Do you recall that we discussed that there is
some play in the back of a camera that allows the film to move
through?
A. You made that representation.
Q. And you agree with me that there is normally some play?
A. I don't believe that I agreed with that. I said that -- that it
would vary from camera to camera.
Q. Right. And -- but you -- in any event, you said that that play
that varies from camera to camera would not account for the
misalignment, in your opinion?
A. Not by this amount, no.
Q. And then the next point we discussed was the -- the issue of the
length. Your opinion is that the photograph of Mr. Simpson wearing
the Bruno Magli shoes is longer than the other frames, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And I want to make sure, did you compare it only to the one next
to it or did you compare it to every other frame on the contact
sheet?
A. Well, to be fair, since the first two are disconnected from all
the others, the only one we can rely on as being together are the
first two, I would think that to be fair in the argument we can only
compare the first two.
Q. Is that all you compared?
A. No, I compared the rest as well.
Q. And your testimony was that this frame of Mr. Simpson is longer
than all the other frames?
A. Yes.
Q. And we talked about that at your deposition, and you had said
that you had enlarged the contact sheet eight times, to make it
eight times bigger, and at that measurement, at this size, you
measured it, the measurement was approximately a quarter of a
millimeter longer, right?
A. As I pointed out, that was a rough approximation, it wasn't
accurate.
Q. I think you said it was an arbitrary figure?
A. Yes. The way it was actually stated was it wasn't a quarter of
a millimeter, a quarter of a millimeter, give or take.
Q. Anyway that was an arbitrary figure?
A. Yes.
Q. And you made that eight times enlargement on a photocopying
machine, not a photographic enlarger, is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you believe that the photocopy image is an absolutely 100
percent accurate, precise reproduction of the size of what it's
coping?
A. My opinion is that a photocopying machine does not give the
option for -- for photographic manipulation. It's just a straight
scan copy, rather than a photographic copy.
Q. But do you believe that the copy does not distort or stretch the
image in any way whatsoever, the photocopy?
A. It's my opinion that it probably doesn't. I have no personal
knowledge whether it does or doesn't. I'm not a photocopying machine
expert.
Q. So if the photocopy does distort or stretch the image, the image
would not necessarily be valid?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
(Court reviews real time screen.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You don't know whether it's an accurate
reproduction?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, lack of foundation, called for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled. This man works on copy machines.
MR. LEONARD: No, I don't think that's represented.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Is it true you don't know whether the photocopy
accurately and precisely reproduces the size of the image?
A. I have no way of knowing whether any particular machine might be
different than another.
Q. Where did you have your copies made, the eight times
enlargements?
A. I have them made in Dallas at -- I believe it was either Kinko's
or something of that nature.
Q. Okay. The next point we discussed was the point about the edge.
MR. GELBLUM: Steve, can you put up -- do you have the slides? I
think it's 2282, exhibit slide No. 3.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) All right. And we discussed -- you said that
there was an extra edge down here at the bottom, is that right,
that has some parallel lines in it?
A. Yes, there is a horizontal and several vertical lines.
Q. And your opinion was that there was no natural process in
photography that could possibly account for that?
A. That's correct. There's no photographic reason I can find for
that.
Q. You agreed though, that frame zero which comes just before the
frame we're looking at here could, in theory, as the photographer's
loading the camera and clicking the film through, be underexposed
through the length of the camera and produce underexposed images,
correct?
A. In theory.
Q. Right. And I asked you whether those parallel lines can be an
underexposed image of the lines in the football field that we see in
other frames, and you said there's no way in the world?
A. No.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. He's going back through cross-examination.
He's going point by point.
THE COURT: I'm about to sustain that objection
MR. GELBLUM: I'm about done.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) The last point that we went through last time
was something about the left leg.
MR. GELBLUM: You can take this off, Steve Steve, do you have the
exhibit number for these enlargements.
MR. FOSTER: Yes, 2287.
(Exhibit 2287 displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Putting up 2287, this was the enlargement of Mr.
Simpson wearing the Bruno Magli shoes. You said that there is a
retouching mark, what you perceive to be a retouching mark on the
left leg right above a fold in the pants, right?
A. Near a fold in the pants, yes.
Q. Okay. Now, another point that you mentioned with Mr. Leonard was
a problem with the right leg as well.
MR. GELBLUM: Can everyone see this? You said -- Do you have the
slide for that one? I apologize. It's No. 7. 2282 and No. 7.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You said that you observed some kind of linear
tonal change across the leg; is that right?
A. That's correct, with retouching marks attached to it.
Q. Now, you remember at your deposition, we went through -- you gave
me a list of the observations you had made at that time that you
said led you to the conclusion that the photograph is probably a
fake, remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you didn't mention this, did you?
A. I had interpreted that as being wind effect, that's the way I had
spoken about at the deposition.
Q. You didn't mention a linear tonal change across the right leg at
all at your deposition, did you?
A. Not with that -- not with that phraseology, no.
Q. Well, you didn't.
MR. GELBLUM: Put up 2291, please.
(Exhibit 2291 displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) This was the list of your observations that you
gave me at the deposition, that you said were all the observations
you made regarding the photograph being a fake, right?
A. Yes.
Q. I'll hand you a copy of it so you can see it better. There's
nothing at all on there about a linear tonal change in the right
leg, is there?
A. It's not on this, but we did discuss it.
Q. We didn't discuss linear tonal change in the right leg, did we,
sir?
A. Three -- we discussed three differences in the two lengths that
appear to be different responses to wind; one being affected, the
other one not. That was the same issue I was talking about.
Q. There's nothing on the piece of paper you gave me at your
deposition that you said was the complete list of your observations
about anything about wind difference; is there, sir?
A. No, there's nothing on that.
Q. Okay. When did you come up with that one, sir?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. We had discussed it at the deposition and I had told you at that
time it was a complete list. Before we left we had more issues than
are on that list. You know that.
Q. I know you did not discuss that. Your lawyer can point it out in
his examination.
MR. LEONARD: I object to this argument in front of the jury.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GELBLUM: You can take that down, Steve. Put up 1832 again,
please.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Another point you made with Mr. Leonard on
direct examination was about the tint of the photograph of Mr.
Simpson wearing the Bruno Magli shoes. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. You said that all the other frames have a slightly blue or blue
to green tint, and this frame alone has a pinkish tint or magenta
tint, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay.
MR. GELBLUM: Is that the whole sheet, Steve?
(Elmo adjusted.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Did you know, Mr. Groden, that of all the other
frames on the contact sheet, other than this one, there's a green
field evident, and in this one Mr. Simpson is walking on a red and
white end zone?
A. Of course, yes.
Q. Did you notice that? Okay. But you don't think that could account
for the different tint?
A. No.
Q. There are different kinds of reflections that photographers deal
with, right?
A. Yes.
Q. There something called spectral reflection. You heard of spectral
reflection?
A. Yes.
Q. Spectral reflection is what happens when light hits a shiny
surface and bounces off something like a mirror, it comes right in
and goes out, right, out the same angle?
A. Doesn't necessarily have to be the same angle.
Q. It's a pretty clean reflection?
A. Yes.
Q. And diffused reflection, on the other hand, is when light hits on
a non-shiny surface like a football field, and light diffuses out in
all directions, correct?
A. Theoretically.
Q. Okay. Now, I think -- as an example of this difference in tint,
other than this green and red you pointed to --
MR. GELBLUM: You can take that down, Steve. Mr. Simpson's shirt,
again, I'm putting up 2287.
MR. FOSTER: Yeah.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And we'll put it here, if you don't mind, and
I'll show it to you first, and then show it to the jury. The light's
not good here. You said that the pinkish tint was so pronounced you
thought Mr. Simpson was wearing a pink shirt in this picture?
A. I said I had to find out whether it was pink or not because it
does appear so pink, especially in the shadow areas.
Q. You said you thought he was wearing a pink shirt rather than a
white?
A. I said I had to find out -- it appears to me that, possibly, he
was wearing a pink shirt.
Q. In this picture?
A. Yes.
Q. I'll show this to the jury. Your eyes tell you that that is a
pink shirt?
A. Can I see it again?
(Witness reviews photograph.)
A. Yeah. Look in the shadow areas, you can definitely see that. See.

(Indicating.)
Q. I'm not talking about shadows. I'm talking about a pink shirt.
You said it was a pink shirt, right?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. The shirt itself in the photograph.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Groden, you said you thought it was a pink
shirt, right?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, that's asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. That's not what I said.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) All right. Turn to your testimony on December
18, direct examination, page 190, trial testimony, lines 20 to 24,
this is on your examination by Mr. Leonard.
MR. LEONARD: What page?
MR. GELBLUM: Page 190.
MR. LEONARD: Okay.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) The two prints in question show a reflective
value. Frame 1-1 shows a magenta and pinkish tint to a point of
where just inspected this photograph, I thought it was a pink shirt
instead of a white shirt.
A. I stand corrected. What I meant was --
Q. Thank you.
A. I had to find out whether it was.
Q. I didn't ask you what you meant. I just asked you what you said.
Are you saying that shirt in that picture is a fake?
A. No, of course not.
Q. You know Mr. Simpson sat where you sat and admitted it was his
shirt, don't you? end oj01061a BEGIN SECTION OJ0106-2.TRF
A. I have no way of knowing that.
Q. You didn't know that?
A. No. I don't doubt that it's his shirt.
Q. Now, another point you made with Mr. Leonard had to do with the
right shoe.
MR. GELBLUM: Can you put up the slides, Steve, that show the
reflection on the bottom of the shoe.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You said that the red reflection on the sole of
the right shoe should be white, correct?
A. From my analysis of it, it appears that it should be white,
that's correct.
Q. That's based entirely on your perception that his foot is over
the white area, correct?
A. No.
Q. All right.
A. No, it's based on the angle of the bottom of the shoe as well.
Q. It's your opinion, based on your perception, that the shoe is
over the white area on the field, correct?
A. I didn't say that. I just said -- I just said it's not true.
Q. Look at your -- look at your trial testimony.
MR. GELBLUM: Page 185, Mr. Leonard, lines 20 to 23. I can read the
whole sentence if you want. Got it? December 18, page 185.
MR. LEONARD: Okay.
MR. GELBLUM: Okay.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM)
(Reading:). The bottom of the shoe on the right foot appears to be
reflecting light, indicating a sole pattern based on the positioning
of that shoe over the line. It's my opinion that should be
reflecting white instead of red. Is that what you said?
A. The position of the shoe, yes.
Q. You weren't saying it's over the -- onto the white?
A. No, I said the positioning of the -- of the shoe over the line,
the shoe is over the line.
Q. So you're saying the shoe is over the line. Okay.
A. It's above the line.
Q. Where is the tip of the shoe in your perception, sir?
A. In this particular case it's very difficult to tell because you
don't have a side view. However, the angle of the bottom of the shoe
would reflect off the white rather than the red.
Q. Well, Mr. Groden, the red reflection goes all the way back down
here, doesn't it? This is your slide, sir.
A. Yeah.
Q. The reflection goes --
A. It could be lightened up to show it better.
Q. There you go.
(Elmo readjusted.)
Q. The red reflection goes how far back?
A. The red reflection goes on the outside extending beyond the edge
of the shoe back to the bottom back into the shadowy area.
Q. Almost to the heel?
A. Yes.
Q. You're saying that that entire shoe is -- entire part of the shoe
is over the line?
A. No, the -- no, the entire part we're talking about the reflection
of the edge here.
Q. You're mathematics tells you that shoe and that position should
be reflecting white?
A. It's my opinion it should be, yes.
Q. Now, the lens that was used by Mr. Scull was a long lens, right?
A. Yes.
Q. One of those long lenses that you see photographers use at
football games?
A. Yes.
Q. 500 millimeter lens. And that kind of lens when you use it
compresses space, right?
A. Yes, it's called foreshortening.
Q. Right. The distance between objects seems much smaller than they
actually are?
A. Depending on the distance from the camera, yes.
Q. Is it your testimony, sir, that if -- even if that foot is
entirely over the red, it should still be reflecting white?
A. Based on the angle, I believe it should be reflecting white.
Q. Okay. And what do you mean by based on the angle?
A. Well, we're not talking about a ricochet effect where we're going
this way and bouncing off to the far end. We're talking about a
reflective situation that you see through a mirror, the mirror
bounces off at a specific angle, as with the bottom of the shoe, if
in fact there is any legitimate reflection at all.
Q. Do you think there should be some reflection?
A. On the bottom of a shoe of that color, I would doubt it. I
certainly doubt that it would, though, the way it does in this
photograph.
Q. Okay. I just want to be clear what you're saying. Now, you agree,
sir, the shadow of the shoe in that picture is entirely in the red,
right?
A. The shadow that -- which we see a shadow is, yes, but the shadow
is much shorter than the actual shoe. And considering the lighting,
I think that if it were a direct single point of light, it would
extend farther and into the light.
Q. Whatever shadow there is is entirely on the red, there's no
shadow on the white?
A. Right.
MR. GELBLUM: Steve, would you put up the next slide, the next one
for him, but on the left shoe, showing the red extending beyond the
sole.
MR. FOSTER: Number 6.
MR. GELBLUM: This is 2282, number --
MR. FOSTER: 6.
MR. GELBLUM: Thank you.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And so you also have a problem with the left
shoe, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Correct. And your problem here is that --
MR. GELBLUM: That's not -- that's not the right one. Sorry. Number
9. Number 9.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) The problem here is you say that the red extends
beyond both the right sole and the left heel?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that could just be a printing issue, couldn't it, sir?
A. Can you restate that.
Q. Yeah. You're aware that colors can be changed very easily in a
printing process, right?
A. Yes.
Q. You can make this whole photo green if you wanted to?
A. Sure.
Q. Okay. And if there's too much red in the printing, that could
cause this kind of effect, couldn't it?
A. No, I wouldn't think so, not based on the rest of the photograph.

Q. And diffused reflection that we discussed before could also cause
this effect, right?
A. But it doesn't anywhere else on the shoes.
Q. But it could cause it on the shoes -- well, the shoes are closest
to the reflective surface?
A. If you got the reflective surface itself which has no such
effect --
Q. Sir, try to answer my question.
A. I think I just did.
Q. No, I don't think you did.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object to Mr. Gelblum --
MR. GELBLUM: I object to the witness not answering the questions.
THE COURT: Okay. Answer the question.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) The shoes are closest to the reflective surface,
right?
A. Yes.
Q. And couldn't the red that you see be a result of the reflection
from the surrounding surfaces?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I think not.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You don't think it's possible?
A. I don't think that's what we're seeing. It extends beyond the
physical surface itself.
Q. Okay. Would you agree that the general lighting in this
photograph is from the back -- roughly from the back?
MR. GELBLUM: I'll put up the whole photograph. You can take that
down.
(Mr. Foster complies.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) The light seems to be coming from his right and
behind a little bit?
A. No, I can't agree with that at all.
Q. Okay. In any event, sir, are you aware that the kind of red aura
that you claim to see in that picture is something that happens with
back-lit objects?
A. Under certain lighting and atmospheric circumstances, I guess it
could.
Q. Okay.
A. Why only one picture? Why not all the rest?
Q. We've already discussed, sir, that this is the only picture on
the whole roll where somebody is walking and on a red surface,
haven't we?
A. No, I don't believe we have.
Q. You do have memory problems?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled. He testified to that at the last session he
was a witness at.
A. Yes, I have problems with memory.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Quite severe sometimes, right?
A. It happens.
Q. Let me go on to the next point. You said something about you had
a problem with the exposure, right, exposure between various
photographs?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, exposure in a photograph depends on, oh, a whole host of
factors, right?
A. Yes.
Q. The size of the opening of the shutter when it's open is one
factor?
A. Um-hum.
Q. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And amount of time the shutter is open?
A. When you say shutter, you mean aperture?
Q. Aperture.
A. Okay.
Q. The time that the shutter is open?
A. That's correct.
Q. The film speed?
A. Yes.
Q. The amount of light at the moment the photo is clicked?
A. That's correct.
Q. All sorts of things?
A. Um-hum.
Q. Now, you've taken lots of pictures in your life, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you've had pictures where some of the pictures on the roll
are exposed properly and some are not exposed properly?
A. That's correct.
Q. You've even had situations where you got a good exposure followed
by bad exposure followed by good exposure, right?
A. Depending on the camera, yes.
Q. Now, what you said about this on direct examination -- I'm going
to read it. I want to make sure we get it exactly right.
MR. GELBLUM: It's page 194, Mr. Leonard, from December 18.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object unless there can be a foundation
laid with this inconsistent statement.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GELBLUM: Are you there?
MR. LEONARD: 194?
MR. GELBLUM: Yes, lines 3 to 11.
MR. LEONARD: Of the trial testimony?
MR. GELBLUM: Yes. It says, "The ones near Mr. Simpson" -- I'm sorry,
could you put up 1832 again.
MR. FOSTER: The same?
MR. GELBLUM: 1832, the contact sheet, yes.
(Exhibit 1832 is displayed.)
MR. GELBLUM: Thank you.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM)
(Reading:). The ones near Mr. Simpson are extremely overexposed and
they're the only ones that are overexposed, indicating that perhaps
someone had tried, at some point, to balance frames of him to the
mean roll and perhaps did not bother to make any kind of a
correction around the ones close to him. It's conjecture, but there
is a problem with that because the exposures are so dead on for all
the rest. Do you recall that testimony?
A. Pretty much, yes.
Q. And the one from Mr. Simpson is dead on, too, right?
A. Can -- can we focus that and top light it.
(Elmo is adjusted.)
Q. Okay. Mr. Groden, the exposure from Mr. Simpson is dead on as
well? That was the point of your testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, sir, isn't it true that, unless you're looking for
conspiracies everywhere you go in life, to the extent there's any
problem with the exposures in this, the problem is that the two that
are overexposed -- are overexposed, that's the only problem, isn't
it?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object. That's argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Can you repeat the question.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Yeah. The only problem with the exposures on
this contact sheet is that these two, numbers 2 and 3, are
overexposed, that's the only problem, right? The other exposures,
including the one of Mr. Simpson, are perfectly exposed, right?
A. Yes, they're all normal except those two.
Q. Now, when Mr. Simpson was -- I'm sorry -- Mr. Leonard was
examining you, you added another point that you didn't make at your
deposition having to do with moisture. Do you recall that?
A. In response to a question?
Q. Yes, from Mr. Leonard.
A. I believe, if I remember correctly, I was asked whether I noticed
any moisture on the shoe or on the field, and I answered as I
recall.
Q. No, no, you answered more than that. You answered you would have
expected to see some moisture on the side or sole of the shoe or
even some splashing where the heel hit the ground. Do you recall
that?
A. Based on the representation that it had been raining that
morning, yes.
Q. Yeah. Who made that representation to you?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Well, did you talk to any defense lawyer besides Mr. Leonard?
A. I've spoken with several of them.
Q. Which one told you it was raining that morning, sir?
A. I don't recall. As I remember, it was -- I was told it -- or it
was in the deposition somewhere along the line.
Q. Well, I'll tell you it wasn't in the deposition. Okay. Who told
you?
A. I don't recall.
Q. When did they tell you?
A. I don't recall that either.
Q. After the deposition, right?
A. Again, I don't recall.
MR. GELBLUM: Want to put up 2291 again, please.
(Exhibit 2291 is displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) You didn't mention this point at the deposition,
did you?
A. Wasn't a major point for me.
Q. Well, please answer -- listen to my question and the answers will
go much faster. You didn't mention it in the deposition, did you?
A. The answer is no.
Q. Yet you said in court, on that stand that it was one of the first
things you looked for when you went to Buffalo, right? Do you recall
that?
A. I don't recall saying that, no.
Q. You went to Buffalo before the deposition, didn't you?
A. That's correct.
Q. You never mentioned this at the deposition, did you?
A. About moisture?
Q. Yeah.
A. No.
Q. In fact, Mr. Leonard is the one who told you to mention it on the
stand?
A. I don't know.
Q. That's a point he told you to make?
A. I was asked during the testimony if I saw any moisture. I said
no.
Q. You were prepared for that, sir, weren't you? You didn't hear
that for the first time on the stand?
A. I told you I heard that it had been wet on the field.
Q. Mr. Leonard, before you testified, told you to make a point of
saying that there was no evidence of moisture, right?
A. That's correct.
MR. LEONARD: Argumentative, asked and answered.
THE COURT: The answer may remain.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) This is a whole kind of different point. Your
other points have to do with photographic anomalies?
A. That's correct.
Q. This isn't a photographic anomaly, is it?
A. No.
Q. You don't expect to see moisture if the field was in fact wet?
A. That's correct.
Q. You have no personal information whatsoever about the field was
wet at the time that picture was taken, do you?
A. No.
Q. You weren't there, right?
A. Of course not.
Q. You never physically observed, visually observed anything
yourself -- anything yourself to show you that the field was wet,
have you?
A. No.
Q. You looked at the whole contact sheet, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Nobody else's shoes are wet, are they?
A. No.
Q. Nobody else splashing around there?
A. No.
Q. So why would you expect to see Mr. Simpson's shoes wet?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object. This is argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) So why would you expect Mr. Simpson's shoes to
be wet, sir?
A. I heard that it had been raining, I don't remember from where,
but I would have expected that if it had been raining, his shoes
would have been wet. It's not --
Q. Sir, when you looked at other contact sheets, nobody else's shoes
are wet, are they?
A. No.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object, argumentative, asked and
answered.
THE COURT: You've gone through that twice.
MR. GELBLUM: Okay.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Did you talk to a single person that was at the
game?
A. No.
Q. You talk to Mr. Simpson?
A. No.
Q. So obviously, if the field was not wet, you wouldn't expect to
see moisture, would you?
A. No.
Q. Now, I want to try and figure out exactly what you're saying
about this picture, sir. By the way, have I listed all the points
you made about the picture that make you think that it's probably a
fake?
A. All the points that we discussed, yes, I believe so.
Q. I want you to tell the jury what you think was faked on this
picture. Are you telling the jury, sir -- I'll withdraw that
question. Are you telling the jury that somebody went in and put new
shoes on a picture of Mr. Simpson?
A. That's a possibility, yes.
Q. Is that what you're telling the jury?
A. I'm saying it's a possibility, yes.
Q. Are you saying that's what happened?
A. I'm saying it's a possibility.
Q. Are you saying somebody put new pants on Mr. Simpson?
A. Partial. It is possible. Partial. I don't think that somebody put
a whole new set of pants.
Q. You are aware Mr. Simpson admitted, when he was sitting in the
same chair you're sitting in, the top part of the picture is, in
fact, a picture of him, his head, his upper torso, his hands, his
tie, his shirt, his jacket?
A. I was not present for his testimony.
Q. Assume that's true.
A. If you want me to assume it --
Q. Assuming that's true, what you're saying is that you think
there's a possibility that somebody went in and took an existing
picture of Mr. Simpson at that game, on that field, and put new
pants and new shoes on his body? Is that what you're saying?
A. That's a possibility.
Q. A one percent possibility?
A. I'd say a very large possibility. I can't -- I can't quantify
that.
Q. What? What quantity?
A. I can't. I just told you.
Q. More than 50?
A. I'd say much more than 50.
Q. More than 60?
A. Yes.
Q. More than 65?
A. You're playing games, aren't you? I'm sorry --
Q. Mr. Groden, you're up here in a very important trial.
THE COURT: Just a minute. You don't need that.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Groden, more than 65 percent?
A. Yes.
Q. More than 70 percent?
A. Yes.
Q. More than 75 percent?
A. Yes.
Q. More than 80 percent?
A. Would you give me the question one more time, exactly as you
phrased it.
Q. If somebody went and took a picture of Mr. Simpson --
A. Um-hum.
Q. -- that had been taken on September 26, 1993, in that location,
the end zone of Rich Stadium in Buffalo, and put on new pants and
new shoes.
A. I'm saying it's an extremely high possibility. I would say, to
stop this, I would say greater than a 90 percent probability either
the pants and/or the shoes were -- or the shoes alone were
changed. If indeed that was a legitimate picture of Mr. Simpson in
the first place.
Q. Well, let's -- we'll find out what your opinion is. Was it a
legitimate picture of Mr. Simpson in the first place? Bear in mind,
sir, Mr. Simpson has admitted that the top part of the picture is in
fact a picture of him wearing those clothes at that game.
A. I have no way of knowing whether there was a legitimate picture
like this prior to this or not.
Q. What do you mean?
A. If this picture is a composite, as I believe it to be, the whole
thing could have been manufactured. I don't know that -- there could
have been a whole separate picture of Mr. Simpson that I'm not even
aware of. I don't know.
Q. Taken where, on Mars?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Taken where?
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Taken where?
A. I don't know.
Q. Mr. Simpson -- we have a videotape that we showed of Mr. Simpson
at the game. Would you like to see it?
A. I don't care.
Q. At the game -- did you see the videotape?
A. Yes.
Q. You've seen the videotape. He's wearing the same tie and the same
shirt and the same jacket and the same pants. Have you seen that
videotape?
A. Yes. The tonal values of the tie are different, but I would
probably say it's probably the same outfit.
Q. Well, Mr. Simpson said it's the same, so he ought to know.
A. I don't doubt it.
Q. Okay. Given all that, you still think that this was not a picture
taken at this game on this day?
A. I have no way of knowing. I didn't take the picture. You want me
to assume that I know for a fact that it was taken that day, I don't
know that.
Q. You're being passed off to this jury as a photo expert. We're
entitled to your opinion about what's going on with this picture.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object. This witness was qualified by you
as an expert in a hearing. I object to passed off. I think it's
argumentative; it also misstates the state of the record.
THE COURT: The record is that I am not vouching for this or any
other expert put on by anybody, and I don't think that's an
appropriate comment for you to leave with the jury. I'm not vouching
for any expert, whether it's the plaintiff expert or defense expert.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object to this remark, passed off. I
object to that.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Mr. Groden, in your expert --
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'd like a ruling.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) In your expert opinion, sir, was this a
photograph taken of Mr. Simpson at this football game on this day in
this end zone and somebody went back and put new shoes and pants on
him?
A. And/or pants, yes. It's my opinion --
Q. And --
A. It's my opinion that it could very well have been a legitimate
photograph initially; in other words, there may have been a
photograph of him that has in some way been altered.
Q. And in some way -- is it greater than 90 percent chance that the
way it was altered -- that new pants and new shoes were put on him?
A. New pants and/or --
Q. Well --
A. -- certainly --
Q. Is there --
A. I would say certainly shoes, yes, or -- or if, in fact, they're
the shoes, have not been changed, that they have been altered in
some way.
Q. It's a very important point, sir. I want to be specific. Are you
saying there's a greater than 90 percent chance that somebody put
new shoes on this picture of Mr. Simpson?
A. Based on my analysis of the photograph, I would say yes.
Q. And what were the original shoes?
A. I have no idea.
Q. But they weren't these, right, wouldn't make any sense to replace
the same shoes, right?
A. No.
Q. And one of the points you made and missed, but I will, that this
is the first frame on the roll, remember mentioning that with Mr.
Leonard?
A. Um-hum. Yes.
Q. And you found that significant 'cause that's the easiest to
alter, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So by pointing out that this is the first frame on the roll, sir,
are you trying to tell this jury that what happened was, on
September 26, 1993, Mr. Scull took a photograph of Mr. Simpson,
making sure it was head to toe, making sure it was the first one on
the roll, the prime position for alteration, 'cause he knew that
nine months later somebody would kill Mr. Simpson's former wife and
Ronald Lyle Goldman and leave bloody shoe prints in Mr. Simpson's
size 12 in an extraordinarily rare shoe type to this, so that Mr.
Scull would have a picture that was in prime position to go in and
put those Bruno Magli shoes on Mr. Simpson? Is that what you're
saying?
A. Of course not.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GELBLUM: Excuse me one minute, Your Honor.
(Pause.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, when we were here last time, you talked a
little bit in the course of reading the deposition excerpt that one
of the things you had done recently in looking at whether a
photograph was altered or not in another situation was you saw a
picture of a road sign in Dealey Plaza where Mr. Kennedy was shot
purported to show a bullet hole in it?
A. That's correct.
Q. One of the reasons you were suspicious about that, you had seen
other photographs of that road sign taken on that day and had never
seen a bullet hole before?
A. I don't know that they testified to that, but it is accurate,
yes.
Q. So one thing that you do when you're determining authenticity of
a photograph is to see whether you can find other photographs of the
same object, the same scene, the same day, to see whether what
you're looking at is in those photographs as well?
A. That would be part of it, yes.
Q. So if there were other photographs of Mr. Simpson taken on this
same day, at this same game, in this same stadium, and he's wearing
the same outfit, and they're taken by a different photographer, with
a different camera, and he's wearing the same pants and same shoes,
that would affect your opinion, wouldn't it, sir?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'm going to object. There's a lack of
foundation basis. Same basis for the objection I made prior as well.

MR. GELBLUM: We'll tie it up.
THE COURT: Based on the affidavit or declaration filed on this -- in
support of plaintiffs' position, motion overruled.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Can you answer the question, please.
A. Will you finish -- will you repeat the question or finish it.
Q. Sir, if there were other photographs of Mr. Simpson taken on
the same day, September 26, 1993, in the same stadium, same football
game, different camera, different photographer, and Mr. Simpson has
the same clothes on, same jacket, same tie, same shirt, same belt,
same pants, same shoes, wouldn't that compel you to conclude that
your testimony that these shoes have been put on is wrong?
MR. LEONARD: Same objection.
A. No.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) It wouldn't?
A. It would not change what I found in the photograph.
Q. You've answered the question.
A. I did.
Q. Let me show you some photographs, sir.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, this is outside the scope. Also, based on
the previous answer, these are irrelevant at this point.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) See a photograph here of Mr. Simpson with five
other gentlemen standing on a football field?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And here's an enlargement of the bottom half of that
photograph. Do you see that? Do you see the shoes Mr. Simpson is
wearing?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Show you some more.
MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, these are our only prints. If I may, I'd
like to pass them around to the jury once Mr. Groden has looked at
them.
THE COURT: If you want to. Mark them.
MR. GELBLUM: I'll mark the first one, the group photo --
MR. FOSTER: 2295.
MR. GELBLUM: 2295.
(The instrument herein described as a group photo was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2295.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Does 2295 change your opinion, sir?
A. About what I found?
Q. About whether -- about your opinion that somebody added shoes to
Mr. Scull's photograph.
A. Doesn't change my opinion at all.
Q. Okay.
MR. GELBLUM: Mark the next one, which is an enlargement of the
bottom half of 2295. That's 2296.
(The instrument herein described as an enlargement of bottom half of
Exhibit 2295 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 2296.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) I ask you if that one changes your opinion, sir?

A. Does not.
Q. Okay.
MR. GELBLUM: Mark next in order a photograph of Mr. Simpson signing
an autograph for the white-haired gentleman with the blue jacket
with a camera in his hand. It's 2297. That shows Mr. Simpson's
shoes.
(The instrument herein described as a photograph of Mr. Simpson with
a white-haired gentleman in a blue jacket with a camera in his hand
was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2297.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) I ask you if that changes your opinion?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Show you an enlargement of the bottom half of 2297 --
MR. GELBLUM: Which we'll mark as 2298.
(The instrument herein described as enlargement of bottom half of
Exhibit 2297 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 2298.)
Q. I ask you if 2298 changes your opinion?
A. No, it doesn't.
Q. Show you another photograph of Mr. Simpson with another one of
the gentlemen who were in 2295, this gentleman is wearing a blue
shirt, blue pants and a dark blue jacket and brown shoes.
MR. GELBLUM: We'll mark that next in order.
THE CLERK: 2299.
MR. GELBLUM: 2299.
(The instrument herein described as a photograph of Mr. Simpson with
a gentleman wearing a blue shirt, blue pants and a dark blue jacket
and brown shoes was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 2299.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And I ask you if that changes your opinion?
A. It does not.
Q. And I'll show you an enlargement of the bottom half of 2299.
MR. GELBLUM: Which will be 2300.
(The instrument herein described as an enlargement of bottom half of
Exhibit 2299 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 2300.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And I ask you if that changes your opinion, your
opinion being that somebody went in and added Bruno Magli shoes to
Mr. Scull's photograph?
A. Does not change my opinion at all.
Q. Show you another photograph of another gentlemen who's in the
overall picture.
MR. GELBLUM: We'll mark this as 2301. This gentleman has his jacket
buttoned, he's wearing tan slacks and a brown plaid jacket.
(The instrument herein described as a photograph of Mr. Simpson with
a gentleman wearing a brown plaid jacket and tan slacks was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2301.)
Q. I ask you if 2301 changes your opinion?
A. Does not.
Q. And I'll show you an enlargement of the bottom half of 2301.
MR. GELBLUM: We'll mark that 2302.
(The instrument herein described as an enlargement of bottom half of
Exhibit 2301 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 2302.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And I ask you if that changes your opinion?
A. Does not.
Q. Finally, sir, I'll show you two contact sheets.
MR. GELBLUM: We'll mark the first one as 2303, the contact sheet on
which these enlargements appear, and on this contact sheet, 2303,
there are a total of 27 images of Mr. Simpson with these various
gentlemen, all of which show Mr. Simpson's feet and shoes.
(The instrument herein described as a contact sheet containing 27
images of Mr. Simpson was marked for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2303.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And I ask you if that changes your opinion?
A. Nope.
MR. GELBLUM: And finally, it's -- 2304, another contact sheet, in
the same game as the first three photographs, making a total of 30
photographs of Mr. Simpson with shoes on.
(The instrument herein described as a contact sheet containing 30
photographs of Mr. Simpson was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2304.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And I ask you if that changes your opinion?
A. Does not.
Q. Okay.
MR. GELBLUM: May I pass these to the jury, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. LEONARD: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GELBLUM: I'm going to put the contact sheets on top because
they're smaller.
(Jurors review exhibits.)
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, these photographs haven't been admitted
into evidence.
THE COURT: I'll let the jury review them --
MR. GELBLUM: We'll tie them up.
THE COURT: -- On the representation and declaration filed by
plaintiff.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, Mr. Groden, you noticed, I assume, that in
these photographs Mr. Simpson has a handkerchief in his pocket?
A. That's correct.
Q. He doesn't have one in the photograph of him wearing the shoes
that Mr. Scull took?
A. That's correct.
Q. You know he does have the handkerchief in the videotape?
A. I don't recall the videotape.
Q. Did you see any sign of moisture on any of these photographs I
just showed you?
A. Yes.
Q. You did. Where was that, sir?
A. The --
Q. Which one would you like?
A. I'm not sure which one it was. This one. 2302.
(Witness indicates to Exhibit 2302.)
Q. You're pointing to darker spots on the leather?
A. Yes, which could well be moisture. It's a possibility.
Q. You see any moisture on the field?
A. Nope.
Q. And you don't know what those dark spots are?
A. No.
Q. Could this be a difference in the brush of the leather, could be
a number of things, right, sir?
A. Could be any number of things. On 2300 it shows it as well.
Q. It being the darker spots on the shoes?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, you knew about these photos before you took the stand
today, right?
A. I heard about them, yes.
Q. And you discussed them with Mr. Leonard before you took the
stand, didn't you?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. You discussed what you're going to say about them?
A. No.
Q. You discussed the pictures?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, your bottom line opinion, sir, on the photograph of Mr.
Scull -- by Mr. Scull showing Mr. Simpson wearing the Bruno Magli
shoes, is that you think on balance it's probably not genuine, it's
probably a fake, but you're not sure; isn't that correct?
A. No one could be 100 percent sure.
Q. Please answer my question.
A. On balance, yes.
Q. But you're not sure, correct?
A. No.
Q. Am I correct that you're not sure?
A. If you're asking yes or no, the answer is yes, I, to a massive
degree of certainty, am sure that they are faked.
MR. GELBLUM: Would you put up the deposition, please. This is page
14, lines 5 to 12.
A. Massive is the wrong word. I would say overwhelming.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Say whatever you want. Right now, sir, I'm going
to look at your deposition.
(Reading:)
Q. Your bottom line opinion here is that you observed what you
perceive are some problems with the negative?
A. Yes.
Q. That leads you to think that on balance it's probably not
genuine, it's probably a fake, But you're not sure. Is that fair?
A. I'd say that that's accurate, yeah. Now, particularly after
seeing these new photographs of Mr. Simpson wearing the same shoes,
isn't it particularly clear that you're not sure about these, about
Mr. Scull's photos?
A. It doesn't change my opinion, no.
Q. Okay.
MR. GELBLUM: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about
the case, don't form or express an opinion.
(Recess.)
(Jurors resume their respective seats.) REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. LEONARD:
Q. Good morning, Mr. Groden?
A. Good morning.
Q. Before we get into some of the substance here I want to go
through, based on some of Mr. Gelblum's questions in
cross-examination, some of your background again. Mr. Gelblum asked
you on cross-examination about your experience in the military and
particularly the reason for and the basis for your leaving the
military. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell the jury -- can you explain to the jury why you left
the military?
A. A sergeant in my company was drunk and beat me up and to keep it
under the rug, they gave me a discharge because of an existing sinus
problem that I had that they weren't able to deal with. That was the
excuse, but the real reason was, in fact, I had been beaten up by
the sergeant.
Q. Why did this sergeant beat you up, sir?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, speculation, relevance.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor --
THE COURT: Overruled. You opened it.
A. The sergeant was anti-Semitic and I'm Jewish.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, do you think that the fact that you were
beaten up -- by the way, how old were you, sir?
A. 18.
Q. Do you think the fact that you were beaten up when you were 18
years old by an anti-Semitic sergeant has anything to do with your
ability to observe the phenomena that you observed and also to
explain them to the jury?
A. No, not at all.
Q. Mr. Gelblum asked you about strokes that you had had. How did you
happen to have strokes, can you explain that to the jury?
A. About two years ago I was walking in a parking lot and slipped on
a patch of ice and hit my head, which precipitated a series of
strokes.
Q. And from time to time have you some memory problems as a result
of that; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Do you think that has affected your ability whatsoever to analyze
the photograph and to explain your analysis to the jury?
A. Not at all.
Q. Now, Mr. Gelblum got into some extent your experience with the
House Assassination Committee. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. I asked you in some detail what your role was, correct, do you
remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. And in particular he was asking you if you had done any actual
analysis of photographs on behalf of, or in conjunction with your
work with the Kennedys, do you remember those questions?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in fact, did you do a photo analysis?
A. Yes.
Q. At some point, there was a panel of photographic experts,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And you were working in conjunction -- you weren't a member
of the panel, you were working in conjunction with the panel; is
that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And was there -- did there come a time when a proficiency test
was undertaken of the panel and that you participated in that? In
other words, a test to determine the proficiency of the experts and
also yourself in analyzing and determining whether the photographs
are fake or real?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Describe just in very general terms that proficiency test
that was done?
A. A few members of the photo panel were assigned to create four
sets of photographs, genuine photographs that look genuine, genuine
photographs that appear to be fake, fake photographs that appear
genuine, and fake photographs that were obviously fake. And the set
of all four of those were placed as a package, they were numbered
and packaged, and a written test was given to the entire photo panel
and myself to determine the ability to detect phonies and to detect
fake phonies, in fact.
Q. How did you do on that test?
A. I got 100 percent.
Q. Did anyone else get 100 percent?
A. No, none of them did.
Q. Mr. Gelblum asked you if you had dropped out of high school. Did
you drop out of high school, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Why was that?
A. We didn't have very much money and my going to school and
remaining there was a strain on my mother. My mother and father had
just separated and it was my sister, myself and my mother, and it
was a real financial drain on her.
Q. When you dropped out of high school is that when you went into
the military?
A. That's correct.
Q. By the way, you have a high school degree, don't you?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you get that?
A. When I was in the army I took the general equivalency diploma,
GED test and passed it with flying colors, and also got a year's
college credit the same way.
Q. Does the fact that you had to drop out of high school, you think
that affects your ability to do the analysis you did here and to
explain your results to the jury; you think that affects it at all,
sir?
A. No.
Q. Mr. Gelblum asked you about a situation where you had contributed
to a story to the Globe newspaper. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Mr. Gelblum, in his questioning, was trying to suggest that
you were --
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Explain to the jury, No. 1, what that -- what
the story was, in general terms, and whether or not it was your
purpose to sell photographs as opposed to the story itself, sir?
A. When I was a staff photographic consultant to the House
Assassinations Committee I had made the discovery that the autopsy
photographs of President Kennedy, at least some of them, were
questionable as to their authenticity based on physical anomalies
within the photograph itself, and my knowledge of the statements of
Dallas doctors who had worked on President Kennedy in the lifesaving
efforts on November 22nd of '63, and also of medical personnel who
had worked on the -- on the president after that time and in
Bethesda Naval Hospital. The photographs did not show what was
described by every one of the doctors. I had gone to the Chief
Counsel of the House Committee which was Professor Blakey and
suggested, very strongly, perhaps it would be a good idea to show
those questionable photographs to the Dallas doctors to determine
their authenticity. For two solid years Professor Blakey refused to
do it. When the committee broke up and didn't exist anymore I was
very disturbed by the fact that this had not been resolved, so I
took copies of autopsy photographs and went to the Dallas doctors
and other witnesses who dealt with the body, including Dealey Plaza
witnesses, and I showed them the photographs, and every single one
of them without exception said that the photographs were indeed
fake, and I then knew that I was correct. And I felt that the public
needed to know this, I thought it was a major issue, and an issue of
the Kennedy assassination.
Q. Now, was -- was the Globe, the Globe newspaper your first choice
of a medium to get this out to the public, sir?
A. No.
Q. Did you -- had you attempted to go to other publications to try
to get this story out to people?
A. Yes.
Q. Were your efforts unsuccessful?
A. They were unsuccessful, yes.
Q. Did you prepare a documentary on this issue of the autopsy
photographs?
A. Yes, a videotape documentary.
Q. Now, Mr. Gelblum also asked you about the backyard photograph of
Oswald; do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. You did an analysis of that photograph?
A. Yes.
Q. And you came to the opinion that the photograph was fake; is that
right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, there was -- there were some people in the committee that
agreed and some that disagreed with regard to that; is that true,
sir?
A. That is correct.
Q. Subsequent to your analysis -- by the way, there are others who
agreed with you in that respect; is that correct?
A. Yes, within the committee. Also photographic experts for the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Scotland Yard have also agreed.
Q. Now, when you were on cross-examination today, you were shown
some photographs of the court to show Mr. Simpson wearing particular
shoes and particular clothing. When was the first time you've ever
seen those photographs?
A. Right here in this courtroom a few minutes ago.
Q. Mr. Gelblum asked you if we had spoken about the photographs. Did
we speak about the photographs?
A. We did.
Q. When was our discussion with regard to the photographs, sir?
A. I believe he asked me if I had seen them, and I had not.
Q. Was it your understanding, sir, that those photographs have just
been miraculously discovered since you testified here last?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, argumentative.
MR. LEONARD: Withdrawn.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Is it your understanding, sir, that those
photographs have just arisen for the first time since you testified
here?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection.
A. That's correct.
MR. GELBLUM: His understanding is irrelevant. Move that his answer
be stricken.
THE COURT: Overruled. State of mind of this witness.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Do you have any idea, sir, whether those
photographs are authentic or not?
A. None at all.
Q. Do you have any idea who created the photograph, when the
photograph was taken, whether or not the photograph was sold to a
tabloid or anything like that, sir?
A. None at all.
Q. Now, you said to this jury that seeing those photographs for a
short period of time, just glimpsing them does not change your
opinion about your analysis of this photograph. Tell the jury why,
sir.
A. The anomalies, the problems that I found within that photograph
are still there. Existence of other photographs that have not been
verified, which I haven't had a chance to examine, don't change the
fact that the problems of that photograph are there, they certainly
are, and 100 more pictures are not going to change that.
Q. Now, let's get -- let's talk a little bit about a couple of other
points that Mr. Gelblum raised on cross-examination about the
photograph itself.
MR. LEONARD: I'd like to put up the first image, please. I don't
believe this has been marked. Has it? Oh, it has.
MR. P. BAKER: This is 1835.
(Exhibit 1835 displayed.)
MR. LEONARD: Zoom in on the right upper corner.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) First of all, I'd like to --
MR. LEONARD: Pull back, Mr. Baker, if you will.
(Elmo adjusted.)
MR. LEONARD: Can you give me the number again.
MR. P. BAKER: 1835.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) What does 1835 represent, sir?
A. Its a blowup of the frame we've been referring to as 1-1, contact
sheet 1, frame No. 1.
Q. Is there also a portion of the -- very small portion of the
bottom edge or the side edge depending on how you look at it, of
1.2?
A. That's correct. Right at the very top which is almost off the
frame here.
Q. Okay. Now --
A. Yes.
MR. LEONARD: If we can focus in.
(Elmo adjusted.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) All right. Now, you see the vertical line -- and
actually there appears to be two lines; there's one vertical line
that runs -- it appears to run across from 1-1, to 1-2; do you see
that, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Mr. Gelblum suggested in his questioning --
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, Your Honor, mischaracterizes my question.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Have you had a chance to -- you've had a chance
to look at this image, have you not, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. First of all, is there anything about this image that
supports your opinion that this first, that 1.1 is -- is out of
register? That is, that 1.1 is not aligned with 1.2?
A. Yes, definitely.
Q. Can you demonstrate that to us. You can step down with the
Court's permission.
MR. LEONARD: Can the witness step down?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
A. It's extremely obvious here without -- without even measuring it,
though I guess we could measure it if we want to, that the
difference between -- the space between the scratch itself and the
edge of frame 1-1 is much closer than it is on 1-2. 1-2 is, I'd say,
probably twice as far away from the scratch, indicating even better
than a straight edge that it's out of alignment.
Q. Okay. Now, of course, that assumes that that scratch is straight,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, if this is -- if this is supposed to be a mechanical
scratch from a camera, okay, would you assume that it would be
straight?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
MR. LEONARD: If you can pull the photograph back, please, all the
way back, please.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, utilizing this same image, sir, is there
another way that you can demonstrate the fact that this negative or
this frame is out of line, out of register?
A. Yes. It's kind of difficult here because you can't see the
sprocket holes, but by measuring the sprocket holes to the edge of
the frame the picture is measurably closer to the sprocket holes on
the right side as we view it than it is on the left.
MR. LEONARD: If you can focus in on the --
A. There we go. Now you can see it.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, if you point out the outline of the
sprocket hole, sir, in particular the left edge of the sprocket
hole.
A. Can we try to focus a little more. Great. Okay. This is the left
edge of the sprocket hole here and this is the edge of the frame.
Q. Okay. Now, can you go down to the left-hand corner. Now --
A. Okay.
Q. Directing your attention to the edge of the sprocket hole there.
A. It's right here. Right here.
(Indicating.)
Q. And the edge of the frame?
A. Right here.
(Indicating.)
Q. Now, the distance between the -- that distance is larger than the
distance on the right-hand side, that is the same measurement that
is from the edge of the sprocket hole to the edge of the frame; is
that right?
A. That is correct.
Q. Okay.
MR. LEONARD: You can pull back.
(Indicating to Elmo.)
Q. Now, you were asked questions about whether or not the negative
could be out of line or out of register by virtue or as a result of
some play or movement in the film; is that correct? Do you remember
that?
A. Yes, I remember that.
Q. And you expressed an opinion that it wouldn't be possible for it
to be that out of line; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Again, I want you to assume now that for purposes of my question
that, in fact, the line along the right-hand side between the
sprocket hole and the edge of the film is a mechanical scratch from
the camera. Are you with me?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Does -- Would you expect the -- if there was movement in
the film would you expect that line, that scratch to be straight,
sir?
A. Yes. You'd expect it to run -- well, the length of the film.
Q. Okay. If there was movement, if there was play in the film and
the film was jiggling, would you expect that line to be straight or
would you expect that there would be indicia of the movement within
the scratch, sir?
A. If the film were shifting from a -- running horizontally, it's
shifting top to bottom, would you expect the scratch to be diagonal
by the degree that the frames would be out, and that's not the case.

Q. In other words, what we have here is --
MR. LEONARD: If you can focus in on the right-hand side of the
image, please.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You see the -- what appears to be a blue lining
there, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. What you're saying is that if the camera was moving you'd expect
to see a shift in the line; is that correct?
A. That's correct. In order for the -- in order for the frame to
have been off because of film movement, you would expect that that
line would be diagonal in the same direction as the shift of the
frame.
Q. So if it was shifting to the right you'd expect some shifting in
the line; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Do you see any there, sir?
A. No.
Q. Now, if -- let's assume that that is a scratch from the camera in
question, all right, the camera that was actually used to take
whatever image was there before. If you were going to create a copy
negative, a composite negative, and you wanted to hide your tracks
would you use the same camera, sir?
A. Well, you'd have to if you expected that it would be
investigated, yes.
Q. Why?
A. Well, scratches from a camera could be I guess compared to
fingerprints; they should be unique or unique to some degree to each
camera. In other words, if there's a manufacturing flaw in one
particular camera, a burr, for instance, that could cause a scratch
and you wouldn't expect to find that on every camera.
Q. So you -- and so what would be the purpose again for using the
same camera, sir?
A. Again, and we saw this happen in the investigation of the
backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald, scratches were determined
to be linked to that particular camera. And in this particular case,
if indeed these are scratches, that could be linked to that camera,
you would want to have those scratches on the -- on the film.
Q. Now, assuming that you're making a copy, composite negative, and
you want to cover your tracks, what do you do with the camera once
you -- what would you do with the camera once you created the copy
negative?
A. You get rid of it.
Q. What did Scull say happened to the camera in this case in his
deposition, sir?
A. He claimed it was stolen.
Q. Okay. You didn't have a chance to look at the original camera,
did you?
A. No.
Q. Okay.
MR. LEONARD: You can put up the -- take that down. Yeah.
MR. P. BAKER: No. 3 of 2282.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, can you tell us what this depicts, sir?
A. This is frame 1-1 from the contact sheet showing the edge of the
film against the edge of the contact sheet itself.
Q. Okay.
A. And --
Q. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
A. I would just say it has one horizontal line and several vertical
lines.
Q. Now, you were asked on -- on cross-examination if that could be
actually a photographic image on -- on what would be I guess 00, and
in particular the photographic image of the football field. Can you
explain to the jury how that is impossible, sir?
A. Well, for several reasons.
Q. If you need to focus why don't you direct Mr. Baker's attention.
A. Okay. Mr. Baker, if you could just kind of come in and make this
as large as possible, side to side, I'd appreciate it.
MR. P. BAKER: That's as high as it goes.
MR. LEONARD: Just focus in. That's the highest focus. All right.
Okay. That's fine.
A. Can I come down?
Q. Sure.
A. Upon the suggestion of Mr. Gelblum that this might be the
football field, I have spent a little more time checking this out
because it sounds so ridiculous and I found out that in fact it
could not be that. No. 1, if this is the edge of an incoming frame
line as he's suggesting, how is it that the so-called lines of the
football field extend beyond the edge of the frame where no light
could possibly hit. No. 1.
Q. Okay.
A. No. 2, these lines are random.
Q. What do you mean by that, sir?
A. They are not an equal distance from each other.
Q. What do you know about a football field that makes that point
relevant, sir?
A. Well, how would you know how far the ball had traveled if you
didn't have an accurate measurement between the lines. They would
have to be an equal distance from each other. They'd have to have a
vanishing point. If these were parallel lines and if the
photographer were shooting away, either on purpose or by accident,
there would be a vanishing point which is --
MR. LEONARD: Why don't you -- let's put -- we can illustrate that.
Why don't you put up -- with the Court's permission, I can put up
the drawing pad.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) There's a marker.
A. There's one right there.
Q. Okay.
A. No matter what the focal lengths of the lens is, whether it's a
wide angle lens like a 28 or 35 millimeter or a normal lens like a
50 to 85 millimeter or a wide angle lens -- I'm sorry, a telephoto
lens like a 500, 1500, something of that nature, I end up with
something called a vanishing point. That's something used in art as
well as photography, and that is at some point away from the lens
you're going to have a point where parallel lines run together. If
you stand on a railroad track and look towards the distance they
tend to run together, and the point where they disappear and become
one line is call the vanishing point. If the camera lens is here and
aiming this way, and there are lines on a football field they would
appear like this, and depending on the focal length of the lens they
would still all run together. These are absolutely parallel. So
that's another problem with it. The third problem is that they are
far too sharp and they're too narrow. Lines on the football field
would be much wider than this. The other problem is that these are
blue and lines on the football field would be white. There's
probably other problems too, but I think the major problem is that
this image falls outside of where the frame line would be. That's a
photographic impossibility.
Q. You can resume the stand.
A. Thank you.
Q. Is there anything, sir, that has been discussed on your
cross-examination including the photographs that you were shown for
the first time that changes your opinion at all with regard to this
photograph?
A. None at all, no.
MR. LEONARD: I don't have any further questions.
MR. GELBLUM: Just a few, Your Honor. Put 1832 up, please.
(Exhibit 1832 displayed.) RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. GELBLUM:
A. Last point. We were just talking about, Mr. Groden, would be a
what you call the disappearing point.
MR. PETROCELLI: Vanishing.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) The vanishing point?
A. Yes.
Q. If you're looking at lines from the sideline, if you're looking
at the lines as they're going around from you?
A. Yes.
Q. If you're looking at the lines so you're perpendicular to the
lines --
MR. GELBLUM: Can you focus on line -- on No. 12, please.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) If you're looking at the lines across the field,
rather on the field, looking down the field --
MR. GELBLUM: Can you sharpen the lines in here, please, Steve, if
you can.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) There's no vanishing point, is there?
A. There's the equivalent of a vanishing point.
Q. What happens -- you said the lines get closer together as you go
back, right?
A. Equal distance, closer together, right.
MR. GELBLUM: Take that down, Steve.
(Indicating to Elmo.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, by the way, on that same point, we talked
before the -- before the break we were talking about that image, we
were talking about what could happen on the frame numbered 0,
remember that, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And I asked you if there was a zero zero and you said no,
that's silly, just a 0?
A. No, I said -- you said zero zero zero.
Q. There is a zero zero?
A. There is a zero, there is a zero zero.
Q. You saw that on these contact sheets?
A. No, I didn't look.
Q. You want to look?
A. If you like.
Q. Your see a zero zero?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Mr. Leonard asked you a whole bunch of questions about the
scratches. Are you now conceding that that blue line is in fact a
scratch, sir?
A. I'm not conceding it. I'm saying if it is a scratch then there
are certain issues that relate to it.
Q. If it is a scratch that supports your point about alignment,
right?
A. Yes.
Q. But if it's not a scratch it doesn't support your point about
alignment, right, at least that mark doesn't, right?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, Your Honor, lack of foundation, vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. My point as to the alignment doesn't rely on that scratch, it's
just a point. You said it was a scratch, you.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Well, you just went through a whole series of
questions with Mr. Leonard about the scratch. Remember that he
called it a scratch. If this is a scratch, if it is a scratch,
right?
A. Yes.
Q. Remember that?
A. Oh, sure.
Q. Is it a scratch?
A. I don't think that it's a scratch. It appears there's more than
one.
Q. If it's not a scratch, then everything you just did with Mr.
Leonard -- we can do this outright. Everything you did with Mr.
Leonard about the scratch being equal distance or not equal distance
from the frame?
A. No matter what, it is a parallel line to the sprocket holes.
Therefore, it still proves the point whether there's a scratch or
not.
Q. You just don't know whether it's a scratch or not?
A. No.
Q. Now, you talked about the strokes you had which were caused by a
fall?
A. That's correct.
Q. At a Toyota dealership?
A. That's correct.
Q. That also affected your vision, didn't it?
A. It affected my -- Yes.
Q. Blurriness in your right eye?
A. Yes. Actually, a slightly detached retina.
Q. Now, you said that the -- I think you said something about if you
saw 100 new photos of Mr. Simpson wearing the same shoes, that it
wouldn't make a difference to you in your analysis of the Scull
photo?
A. Doesn't change my mind.
Q. Doesn't change that you say you saw a retouching mark, you say
you saw a problem with the length, and all those things we went
through, right?
A. Yes.
Q. On at least some of them you said there could be an innocent
explanation like exposures, this could be a scratch as opposed to
some other problem, right?
A. Theoretically.
Q. Okay. So if you see 100 other photos or 30 other photos of Mr.
Simpson wearing this same exact outfit including the same exact
shoes, doesn't that have some bearing on your opinion -- on your
conclusion that you draw from these observations that somebody added
shoes to the Scull photo?
A. I don't know that those are the same shoes. I don't know.
Q. Assume for a second they're the same shoes, okay. Please assume
they're the same shoes.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor --
THE COURT: I --
MR. GELBLUM: I want to ask a hypothetical to this.
MR. LEONARD: There's no basis for that.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GELBLUM: We'll tie it up.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Assume they're the same shoes, Mr. Groden,
assume we've seen 30 other photographs with those shoes. Doesn't
that affect your opinion that the Scull photo -- somebody put new
shoes on the Scull photo?
A. It doesn't affect at all what I found in the photographs; the
anomalies are there.
Q. You're not answering my question. I'm asking about the conclusion
that you draw from the anomalies. Let's assume for a second that you
really saw everything that you say you saw, retouching marks, blue
lines, length issues, all that stuff, let's say you saw all that,
If, however, you see 30 other photographs of Mr. Simpson wearing
those shoes, doesn't that cause you to pause a little bit and say
wait, maybe there's some other explanation for those observations
I saw, other than somebody putting new shoes on him, because here's
30 other pictures of him with those same shoes; yes or no?
A. If I were able to authenticate the other photographs as genuine
then it probably would.
Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, Mr. Leonard also referred to this -- let me
use the word "miraculous" discovery of those pictures. Do you
remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. You're aware, sir, that one of those photographs was published in
November 1993?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) If you were --
MR. LEONARD: I move to strike, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Stricken.
Q. Did you do any searching of any publications, sir, to see if
there had been any published photos of Mr. Simpson wearing Bruno
Magli shoes prior to the murders?
A. No.
Q. Wouldn't that make a difference to you if there were, in fact,
photos of him published prior to any issue arising, what kind of
shoes Mr. Simpson owned before these murders occurred and Bruno
Magli footprints were found at the scene?
A. Again, to answer your question as accurately as I can, it
wouldn't change what I found in that photograph.
Q. Again, Mr. Groden, we're talking about your conclusion that you
have -- you're drawing from what you found in the photograph. Just
as you said, if you found that there were other photographs, if they
were found to be authentic, of Mr. Simpson wearing those shoes, that
might indeed change your conclusion that you draw from your
observations about the shoes being added, if, in fact, you found
that a photograph had been published prior to the murders --
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
Q. -- of Mr. Simpson wearing those Bruno Magli shoes as he's seen
wearing in the Scull photograph, wouldn't that affect the conclusion
you draw from your observations?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, improper, hypothetical.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. If the photographers -- if I could confirm -- if I confirm that
the photographs are legitimate, and if they can be proven that those
were, in fact, Bruno Magli shoes in the photographs, I would say
that it would affect my -- my overall conclusion.
MR. GELBLUM: No further questions.
THE WITNESS: But --
MR. LEONARD: Nothing, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may step down.
MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, I'd like to move into evidence the
following exhibits: 1832, 1921, 1924, 1930, 2071, 2072, 2076, 2284,
2286 through 2291, and 2295 through 2304.
(The instrument herein described as Photograph of defendant was
Marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 1832.)
(The instrument herein described as Photograph was marked for
identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 2072.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendant's Exhibit No. 1921)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendant's Exhibit No. 1924)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendant's Exhibit No 1930)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendant's Exhibit No 2282.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendant's Exhibit No 2284.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendant's Exhibit No 2286.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2291.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendant's Exhibit No 2295.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendant's Exhibit No 2304.)
THE COURT: I'm not going to receive those until --
MR. GELBLUM: Those last ones, okay. Also, there was one I used and I
did not mark when we were here before, which is the article from the
Globe Magazine.
THE COURT: I won't receive that until you authenticate that.
MR. GELBLUM: Mr. Groden authenticated that's what he said it was. I
didn't give it a number, what the next -- not Globe article.
MR. LEONARD: We don't have any objection to that.
THE COURT: All right it's received.
THE CLERK: That will be marked as 2305.
MR. GELBLUM: Thank you.
(The instrument herein referred to as Globe publication was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2305.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No 2305.)
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, we move in 1832, 1833, 1835, and 2282.
THE COURT: Okay. Received.
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1832 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1833 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1835 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2282 was
received in evidence.)
MR. LEONARD: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Next.
MR. P. BAKER: We're going to read the deposition of Rothcar Rolf.
MR. LEONARD: We need to retrieve an exhibit from the back room. I
get to be the witness this time, Your Honor.
(Selected portions of the deposition of Rothcar Rolf were read by
Defendants' Counsel, Mr. P. Baker reading the questions, and Mr.
Leonard reading the answers.) ROKAHR ROLF, was called as a witness
on behalf of the Defendants, was duly sworn, and testified as
follows:
MR. P. BAKER: Page 5, line 7.
(Reading:)
Q. Can you please state your name for the record.
A. My name is Rokahr, R-o-k-a-h-r, my last name. middle initial.
First name is Rolf, R-o-l-f.
Q. Mr. Rokahr, we're taking this deposition in your home today?
A. That's correct.
Q. And it's my understanding that you are going to be moving fairly
soon?
A. I'll be moving in what, two days.
Q. Out of the Los Angeles area?
A. Yes. I will be living up in the Bay area.
MR. P. BAKER: Page 11, line 14.
(Reading:)
Q. As of June of 1994, by whom were you employed?
A. LAPD.
Q. And in what capacity?
A. As a photographer.
Q. And were you called to the O.J. Simpson, or 875 South Bundy crime
scene?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. About what time?
A. I would have to look at some paperwork to see what time the call
came in. But I know I arrived sometime after -- or I left the office
sometime after 2 o'clock in the morning.
MR. P. BAKER: Page 15, line 6.
(Reading:)
Q. Now, can you give me your best estimate as to what time you
arrived at 875 South Bundy?
A. Well, I would say as an estimate, considering the distance,
considering the driving location, which is nothing but freeway all
the way out to West L.
A., I would say about 15 minutes after receiving the call.
Q. If the call was received at 2:48, that would be a little after 3
o'clock?
A. I would say so.
Q. Do you remember where you parked when you got there?
A. I parked right on the corner of -- I'm not sure what it is --
possibly Dorothy and Bundy.
Q. Now, did you begin taking pictures at some point?
A. Thereafter, after arriving and after talking to some people,
trying to find out where the log-on man is, after talking to the
log-on man, I started taking photographs.
Q. Now, prior to the time you took photographs, were you given a
walk-through of the crime scene?
A. Yeah, I was.
Q. Do you remember who gave you the walk-through?
A. I don't know the officer's name.
Q. Was it a uniformed officer or a plain-clothes officer?
A. It was a uniformed officer.
Q. Describe where that officer took you.
A. He took me through the back door, where the cars are parked, up a
flight of stairs, coming through the kitchen and then part of the
living room, to the outside of the house, which at this point is the
front door, now, and he walked me about three, four feet out onto
the sidewalk in front of the front door. Usually we don't go any
farther than that because of possible evidence laying there.
Q. Are you saying that you went out the front door but you went six
or seven feet?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. You went out the front door about six or seven feet, or did you
go all the way to the --
A. Might have been four or five. I never hit the staircase.
Q. You did not go down any stairs?
A. No.
Q. Where did you go from there?
A. From there, I went back and -- basically waiting for whoever the
investigating detective would be, which turned out to be Mark
Fuhrman, for him to arrive. And since whoever was going to be the
detective in charge, he had no idea where I would be, so I decided
I'd better go up front and find him there.
Q. At some point, did Detective Fuhrman arrive?
A. He arrived shortly thereafter.
Q. Shortly after what?
A. After I left the location, going back the same way I came in, and
I waited by my car for a while.
Q. What are overall shots?
A. Overall shots consist of primarily street signs, to give us a
location as to what the street is, then a view up and down the
street from both directions.
Q. And did you take such pictures at Bundy?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What did you take those pictures in relation to Detective Fuhrman
arriving before or after?
A. I would say shortly before he arrived.
MR. P. BAKER: Page 18, skipping to line 8.
(Reading:)
Q. Approximately how long did it take you to do the overall shots?
A. I'm guessing at this point. I would say maybe 15, 20 minutes.
Q. How long did you think it took you for the walk-through?
A. I would say probably the same amount of time.
Q. Ten or 15 minutes?
A. Ten or 15 minutes.
Q. Now, this is a trial exhibit. I don't think we marked it yet,
because we have to return it to the court. Now, for the record, it
is the criminal exhibits 1366, which is the laying on the screen,
which is civil 20. Let me check. 2051
(referring to Exhibit 2051) for -- while reading this. Let me show

A. Okay.
Q. Do you recognize that?
A. I recognize this as my first roll of film taken that morning.
Q. That's what's called a contact print?
A. No, it is not.
Q. What would you call it?
A. This is a slide enlargement of a contact. The contact one would
be 24 by 36 millimeters.
Q. Now, the pictures that are depicted on that board, are they the
same order in which they were taken?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. How can you tell that?
A. By the numbering system that's built into the camera. Excuse me.
Each photograph gets a number.
MR. P. BAKER: Page 20, line 23.
(Reading:)
Q. Now, why don't you put that down to your side so we can get a
good -- I'm going to look -- he asked him to look at the contact
sheet. Can you tell us which of the shots are the overall shots?
A. It would be the very first one in the upper left-hand corner.
Then, of course, come the street signs, which give us the street
location. What we try to do is be as precise as we can be by getting
the street numbers, which I have here, 900 South Bundy, 1200 West
Dorothy. So this determines and tell us where the location is. And
then, I have several shots. The first one -- first one being, I
believe, looking east from that corner. Then the next one is looking
north at an angle.
Q. I don't need you to go over each one individually.
A. Okay.
Q. Can you tell me how many photographs on that board are overall
shots?
A. Including the street scene, so we've got two, four, five, eight,
nine -- there are nine.
Q. Now, about how long did it take you to shoot those nine shots?
A. I would say maybe five minutes, ten minutes, because it requires
some walking through the outside scene.
Q. Now, the photographs after the first nine shots, what do those
represent?
A. They're looking at the location from -- from the alley, looking
at the back of the house from the alley. And there are five of
those.
Q. What do the pictures after that -- we're up to 14, now, I think?
A. The first one is what looks like a Bronco to me, a vehicle parked
in front of the garage door.
Q. Now, which numbered photograph are you talking about, using the
contact numbers?
A. It is -- is that -- can you turn that around a little bit so I
can see it? Oh, excuse me. Now, which number it is.
MR. GELBLUM: Line 14.
A. Using the contact numbers, numbers 15 or 15
A.
Q. Can you turn that around a little bit so I can see it?
A. This one here
(indicating).
Q. Is that a vehicle in the back of 875 South Bundy?
A. That's a vehicle sitting outside of the garage or outside the
overhang.
Q. Could that be a jeep?
A. It could be a jeep; it could be a Bronco, something.
Q. What are the photographs after that one?
A. After that one is a total overview of where this vehicle is
located an overview of the alley looking north from the location.
Then a view of the -- looking east from my location -- of the second
garage door involved. Then a close-up of that location. Then a view
looking slightly southeast of that location, again showing the same
vehicle in there.
Q. Which picture are you up to now?
A. Using the contact numbers, 14.
Q. Now, I want you to skip ahead to the last two pictures on the
roll. Do you have that in mind?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Tell me how long it took you to take all the pictures up to, but
not including, those last two. Your best estimate.
A. I'm not sure. If you were to say 30 minutes, I would say that's
right. If you were to say 45 minutes, I would say that's right. It's
very difficult for me to say.
Q. Now, up until the time until the last two pictures were taken,
had Mark Fuhrman arrived?
A. He had arrived prior to those two pictures being taken.
Q. How long before those two pictures taken did he arrive?
A. Again, I wouldn't know, because I saw him walk from his car over
to the scene, at which time I had no more interest in him or who he
was.
Q. When you saw him walking from his car to the scene, did you
recognize him?
A. Close up, I recognized him, because I had worked with him before.

Q. You have any knowledge at that point as to his role in the
investigation?
A. No. I just knew he was an investigator.
Q. When you saw him walk in, you said you had no reason to pay
attention to him after that. What did you mean by that?
A. Well, there was quite a bit of brass out on the street corner,
LAPD brass. So if somebody had said he was a captain, I would have
said yes. I really had no idea who he was.
Q. At some point, did you become aware he was in charge of the
investigation?
A. Yes.
MR. P. BAKER: Turning to page 25, your answer on line 6.
MR. LEONARD:
(Reading:)
A. Shortly before those last two pictures were taken.
Q. How did you discover what his role was?
A. He said hello to me; I'm Detective Fuhrman. I said I know,
because by this time, I recognized him. And he said, let me show
you what we have in back here.
Q. How did you know he was in charge of the investigation?
A. Well, usually the directing investigator is the one who tells me
what pictures to take.
Q. Now, when you saw him arrive, can you tell us where you were in
your sequence of the first 34 pictures or so?
A. Well, the last picture before the two at the scene was looking
west toward the scene from the street.
Q. Which contact number is that?
A. That's contact number 33.
Q. So is what you are saying, 33 is around the time when you were
taking -- 33 is around the time Mark Fuhrman arrived? Tell us what
you meant by 33 in relationship to Mark Fuhrman.
A. 33 is the last pictures I took before Mark Fuhrman said to me,
let's go back -- let's go in back of the house.
Q. You -- had you seen him arrive prior to that time that you took
33?
A. Yes, I had.
Q. Approximately where in the sequence? Give me your best estimate
as where you recall him arriving, which pictures were you taking?
A. I was still doing the overall on the outside of the house. I saw
him getting out of his vehicle, not knowing who he is, just somebody
arriving. That's about as clear as I am on that.
Q. Now, I want to try and get, as best we can, a time estimate of
what happened. You indicated that you arrived a little after 3
o'clock?
A. Yes.
Q. And it took you about 10, 15 minutes to get logged in?
A. That's correct.
Q. We're up to about roughly 3:20?
A. That could be the time.
Q. And then you estimated the overall shots 25 minutes to 30 minutes
to 45 minutes?
A. For all of these, yes.
Q. We're up to 3:50 or 4:05, roughly. Does that take us up to the
time you took the last two shots?
A. No. That takes us to before that time.
Q. Okay. Then what time does that take us up to. Or what pictures
are we up to now?
A. I would say any one of the pictures from 26 contact numbers to
33.
MR. P. BAKER: Going to line 24.
Q. Now, tell me what Mark Fuhrman said to you prior to the time that
you took those last two pictures on that roll.
MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. LEONARD: Can the witness -- may I make an argument, Your Honor,
as counsel? I believe that goes to his subsequent conduct, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection.
MR. P. BAKER: Going to line 28.
(Reading:)
Q. And after he said that to you, what did you do? Going to line 11
-- I'm sorry -- page 28. Your answer at line 12?
A. Well, I finish my outdoor overall shots with number 33, which is
looking westbound from the outside of the house. That was the last
one. And then him and I walked to the back of the house, which takes
you all the way up to -- I believe it's Dorothy. Is that the first
street? I think it's Dorothy.
Q. And you can go ahead and put that board down. To get up to where
those last two pictures were taken on that roll, you -- we had
worked our way up to 3:50, to 4:05. Is that the range we're talking
about up to the point where you took the last two?
A. I would say so.
MR. GELBLUM: Finish the answer.
MR. LEONARD: We're not in the habit of looking at the time -- at
which time we take a picture.
Q. Was there any kind of lengthy delay between the first 30 pictures
and those last two?
A. No, not any -- not any extra waiting period or delay. It was just
a matter of my overall shot.
Q. Describe to me the last pictures, who said what to who. This was
taken. Who said what to who?
A. Well, Mark --
MR. GELBLUM: Objection.
MR. LEONARD: Same admission.
THE COURT: With regards to the photographs offered.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you. Read the question.
Q. Describe to me the setup as to those last two pictures: Who said
what to who when those pictures were taken, what directions were
given.
A. Mark Fuhrman said, we have something that looks like a cap and a
glove back here. And I said yes, I know, because these had been
pointed out to me before by whoever the police officer was that took
me in back of the house. And I said to him that I wanted him to
point at both items because it was very dark out there.
Q. When you say very dark, it was still nightime, was it not?
A. It was still nightime.
MR. P. BAKER: Page 78, line 17.
MR. LEONARD: I'm sorry?
MR. P. BAKER: Page 78.
MR. LEONARD: Okay.
MR. P. BAKER:
(Reading:)
Q. Now, can you tell the difference between a photograph taken an
hour before sun rises and an hour after sunrise?
A. Yes, I usually can.
Q. Can you look at, again quickly, the two last pictures on 1366,
civil 251, trial exhibit and tell us, was it still dark when those
photographs were taken?
A. The last two on here?
Q. Yes.
A. Both of them, it was still dark.
Q. Was the sun up at all?
A. No.
Q. Now, do you --
A. I use a flash with every photo I take, even if the sun shines.
Q. Your statement that those two pictures were taken while it was
still dark, is that based on your memory?
A. Not only my memory, but also looking at photographs, it's
extremely well exposed picture, if I might use that kind of
terminology, which you will get from the flash picture taken from a
close distance.
Q. How long have you been a professional photographer?
A. Probably in excess of 40 years.
Q. Do you have an opinion, as a professional photographer, looking
at the last two pictures on that roll, 1366, whether they were taken
at nighttime?
A. I would say definitely they were.
Q. Thank you.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, at this point, we would like to publish,
just pass the board.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you. I guess I can just hold it up, if that's
acceptable. Thank you.
MR. GELBLUM: That was it for their reading.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. GELBLUM: On page 9, line 12:
(Reading:)
Q. Now, Mr. Rokahr, let me ask you some questions about medication.
MR. GELBLUM: This is Mr. Blasier asking questions.
(Reading:)
Q. Are you on some medication today?
A. About 13 different ones.
Q. Can you list those medications for me?
A. My daughter can. We have them written down.
Q. Okay. Can your daughter provide a list? Will you ask her to
provide us with a list of the medication you're taking?
A. Yes, we can.
Q. Are any of the medications you're taking today affecting you
mentally in any way that you're aware of?
A. My daughter probably has more of an idea as to what they do to
me, because she said, I'll give you your pills after this is
finished. Maybe it did something to me. I'm not sure.
Q. Do you remember what day it is today?
A. I know it's a Monday, but I don't know the date.
Q. Okay.
MR. GELBLUM: I'd like to go a little out of sequence, jump ahead to
the end, where he talks about the medications. This is page 71, line
19. And it is now Mr. Medvene asking the questions.
(Reading:)
Q. Let me ask you this and then we'll be finished, I have to do this
for the record and not for embarrassing you in any way. You have
certain health problems?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Because of those problems you have to take certain --
A. Medication?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And some of them you take on a daily basis?
A. Some I take on an hourly basis.
Q. I wonder if we go through this, with Mr. Blasier's permission,
just to take some stress off Mr. Rokahr, that we can have read in
the medication that the witness takes and the attorneys agree that
that can be done.
MR. GELBLUM: And down at the bottom of 73, line 10 -- page 73, line
10, if would you read the name and the quantity. And then the
witness's daughter read into the record the medications.
A. Okay. Adapin. He takes --
MR. P. BAKER: Objection. This is irrelevant. It says earlier that he
didn't take the medications.
THE COURT: Overruled. He may read it in.
MR. LEONARD:
(Reading:)
A. Adapin. He takes 1 milligram tablet as needed. Takes -- you're
going to embarrass me here, now. Digoxin, .25 milligram. He takes
Ecotrin. Lacix -- I'm sorry. Ecotrin is 325 milligram. Lacix is 40
milligram. Mevacor is 10 milligram. Micronase is 5 milligram, Motrin
is 600 milligram. Potassium is 10 milligram. Prozac is a 20
milligram. Tegretol is 200 milligram. Testaval
(phonetic) is a 10 milligram. And MS Contin is a 15 milligram.
MR. GELBLUM: Go ahead. Read the next --
A. I take these at various times of the day.
Q. So the rest that your daughter read, it's your memory that these
are the medications you take at various time of the day?
A. I know I take those and I take them at various times of day.
Q. Have you been taking those medications, taking them at various
times of day for some period of time?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. For approximately how long a period of time?
A. It depends what the medication is for. I have something called
what's the nerve pain.
MR. GELBLUM: The daughter says neuralgia.
MR. LEONARD:
(Reading:)
A. Which is a neck pain if you've ever had shingles, it may come
back. It does come back with an extreme fury. I've had this over a
year and a half now on the right side of my body. It becomes
extremely painful. According to various M.D.s, there's no known cure
for it. The only thing they have is to make the pain a little less
painful. I guess you might say it's not a very good cure.
Q. Unfortunately, there is a need and has been a need for some
period of time to take certain pain medications?
A. That is correct.
MR. GELBLUM: Now, Mr. Leonard, can we go back up, please, to page
33, line 8.
Q. As I understand it, you finished what you describe as the overall
sometime around 4 o'clock a.m.; is that correct?
A. Are we talking about the overall on Bundy or Rockingham?
Q. Bundy.
A. Yes, I would say so.
Q. And did Detective Phillips then ask you to wait before you took
any more pictures until Detective Fuhrman arrived or came back?
MR. GELBLUM: We jump to 22 for the answer.
MR. P. BAKER: Hearsay.
MR. GELBLUM: Subsequent conduct, Your Honor. Just like they
explained to us what they took.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. LEONARD:
(Reading:)
A. I think that question came -- let me back up when I do a crime
scene, having done as many --
MR. GELBLUM: Mr. Leonard, can you slow down?
MR. LEONARD:
(Reading:)
A. When I do a crime scene, having done as many as I've done, I
usually go ahead and do my overall after I know where the actual
place is where we have a body. So I started doing my overall, and
Detective Phillips, at one point, said, why don't you wait until --
I think it was Fuhrman -- that he said until Fuhrman arrives.
MR. GELBLUM: Okay. Down to line 9.
(Reading:)
Q. Do you remember speaking to Peter Neufeld, one of Mr. Simpson's
attorneys, and him taking a statement from you?
A. I think I spoke to him more than once. I know I spoke to him in
my CO office at LAPD.
Q. Was that on, if you can remember, September 14, September 4?
A. Sorry, I don't know what the date was.
MR. BAKER: I'll object. This is outside the scope.
MR. GELBLUM: This has to do when he took the pictures. That's
exactly what the discussion with Neufeld was about.
MR. BAKER: Doesn't matter. He talked about the picture, talked --
THE COURT: Approach the bench.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the
reporter.)
THE COURT: What is the question?
MR. GELBLUM: The question is about his speaking --
THE COURT: What is the question?
MR. GELBLUM: Do you remember speaking to Mr. Neufeld -- well the
question objection was that on September 4.
THE COURT: And what was the answer?
MR. GELBLUM: I don't know what the date was.
THE COURT: What was the preceding question?
MR. GELBLUM: Do you remember speaking to Peter Neufeld, one of Mr.
Simpson's attorneys, and him taking a statement from you. The answer
was, I think I spoke to him once. I know I spoke to him in my VCO
office at LAPD.
THE COURT: What's the relevance of that?
MR. GELBLUM: The relevance is, we get to the other page, he told Mr.
Neufeld something different about sequence of taking the pictures
that he testified to in the reading that they just did entirely
different. It's a prior inconsistent statement.
THE COURT: Has he testified to that in his deposition?
MR. GELBLUM: In his deposition, yes.
THE COURT: What did he say?
MR. GELBLUM: Is it correct that you told Mr. Neufeld -- page 33 --
that you told Mr. Neufeld, that, after you finished the overall,
that Detective Phillips said in effect, will you please wait until
Fuhrman arrives. The answer: I'm not sure the time. I thought the
question was that he asked me to hold my photographs at a point
shortly after arriving, and we don't remember they may be reached in
from the statement from Neufeld.
THE COURT: Which is?
MR. GELBLUM: Then what's next thing that happened when you finished
your overall? You said Phillips said something to you. And then
you're quoted as saying who Phillips mentioned that. I don't know
whether he used Fuhrman's name. But he says, why don't you wait now
until, I think he said Fuhrman arrives.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BAKER: Then he goes on: You don't recall one way or the other if
you said that to Mr. Neufeld? I really don't. And he has no
recollection. And it goes on.
MR. GELBLUM: If he said -- if you said that to Mr. Neufeld point in
time closer to the occurrence than now, do you believe your
recollection would be better at this time? Yes, I do.
MR. BAKER: I don't know if any recollection would be better. None of
this imposed a very -- scene to you not knowing what would be coming
on. He reads part of it. He says I don't know if my memory would be
any better. This is all irrelevant.
MR. GELBLUM: It has exactly to do with the sequence he did at the
time the picture was taken, which is the only subject -- the only
purpose for this witness, was to establish when this photograph was
taken. And Mr. Neufeld, on direct examination --
THE COURT: Overruled.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence
of the jury.)
MR. GELBLUM: Back where we were at page 34, line 14.
Q. Was that on, if you can remember, September 4?
A. I'm sorry; I don't know what the date was.
Q. Do you remember at the trial there were certain questions asked
you about your meeting with Mr. Neufeld?
A. I remember the question was, do you remember me asking your
permission to put this on audio. And I said that's fine.
Q. On the occasion that was being talked about and when Mr. Neufeld
asked your permission to put the interview on audio, when was that
conversation, if you can remember?
A. I don't know. It may have been in the very beginning; it may have
been five or ten minutes into it.
Q. Well, what I'm asking is, when you spoke to Mr. Neufeld and he
wanted to record his conversation with you, when was that meeting?
A. You're asking me for the date and/or day. I have no idea. But
you probably have that on record somewhere.
Q. Was that meeting approximately September 4 of 1995, to the best
of your recollection?
A. It would -- could have been, yes.
Q. Other than that meeting with Mr. Neufeld on September 4, did you
have any other meetings with him, private meetings, just you and him
or other members of Mr. Simpson's group?
A. I think he came out to the hallway in the courthouse, where I
spoke to two of his attorneys, number 1 attorney -- trying to think
of his name.
MR. BAKER: Object to the -- to the first phase of that.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GELBLUM: Page 38, line 6.
(Reading:)
Q. Now, isn't it correct that you told Mr. Neufeld that it was after
you finished the overall, that Detective Phillips said, in effect,
that you please wait until Fuhrman arrives?
A. I'm not sure of the time frame. I thought that this question
was that he asked me to hold my photographs at a point shortly after
arriving.
MR. GELBLUM: Go ahead, continue at line 15.
A. I really don't remember.
Q. And I'll just read you this again to see if it refreshes you. I'm
reading from page 2 of the transcript that we were supplied. Peter
Neufeld: And then what's the next thing that happened when you
finished your overalls? You said something -- you said Phillips said
something to you and then you're quoted as saying, hum, Phillips
mentioned that -- I don't know whether he used Fuhrman's name, but
he says why don't you wait now until I think he said Fuhrman
arrives. Do you recall one way or another if you said that to Mr.
Neufeld?
A. I really don't.
Q. And if you said that to Mr. Neufeld in 1995, at a closer time to
the occurrence than now, would you believe your recollection would
more likely be correct at that time?
A. Yes, I do. I don't know if my recollection would have been better
at some time in '95. None of this imposed a very important scene to
me, not knowing what would be coming -- coming up after I take those
photographs.
Q. You weren't paying that much attention to it at the tame?
A. Not really.
Q. Or that much attention to the sequence?
A. The only time I pay attention to time is when I leave the scene.
Q. Okay. Over to page 43, line 1. Now, let me read you one other --
one other question and answer with Mr. Neufeld again to refresh your
recollection on this point. I read to you from page 4. Peter
Neufeld, about 6 lines down, quote, and then after you shot the
overalls, just after you finished shooting them, Detective Phillips
said to you, quote, wait till Fuhrman arrives, unquote, or, quote,
wait until Fuhrman comes back, unquote, you're not sure which
words he used. Mr. Rokahr this is on the transcript that Mr. Medvene
is reading from Mr. Neufeld conversation Mr. Rokahr says some were,
yeah. Mr. Neufeld: So that is about 4 a.m. that Phillips is telling
you that, is that right, within about 10 or 15 minutes? Mr. Rokahr
says, I would say so. Back to the deposition itself.
Q. Do you remember in substance being asked those questions by Mr.
Neufeld and giving those answers?
A. I really don't -- I really don't remember what Mr. Neufeld asked
me.
Q. Do you remember, if you were asked those questions and gave those
answers, would those have been, to the best of your knowledge,
correct answers?
MR. GELBLUM: And the answer is on the next page, line 1.
A. I tend to be extremely honest, so that would have been the best
of my recollection at least at that point.
MR. GELBLUM: Down to page 45, please, line 14.
Q. Do you remember going to your car after your conversation with
Detective Phillips and waiting there at the car for a period of time
until Detective Fuhrman arrived?
A. I remember going to my car and waiting. I could not tell you how
long or for that matter at what time that occurred rather. It was --
when I say what time it occurred, whether that was five minutes
before he arrived, a half an hour before he arrived, um, I'm not
sure.
Q. Down to the page 46, line 14. Let me, for purposes of refreshing
you, refer to page 44,077 of the criminal trial transcript at line
13. Question by Mr. Darden: After you took the overall photograph,
did you wait in your car for detectives? Answer at lines 15 and 16:
I waited. Not sure whether it was sitting in my car or just leaning
up against it. Do you remember being asked that question by Mr.
Darden and giving that answer?
A. I remember a question like that.
Q. Was that an accurate answer, to the best of your knowledge?
A. It is an accurate answer, yes.
Q. And what you're referring to there -- what you were -- I'm sorry.
And what you were referring to there was sitting in your car or
leaning up against it waiting for Mr. Fuhrman to arrive or Detective
Fuhrman to arrive; is that correct?
A. That is correct, waiting for someone to arrive who would give me
directions.
Q. Okay. Down to page 48, line 3. But at any rate, at some time
before you took pictures 34 and 35 is when Detective Phillips asked
you to wait for Detective Fuhrman, you went over to the car and you
waited for some period of time?
A. Yes.
Q. And at the car, do you remember just sitting in the car to
relax for a few minutes?
A. I'm not sure whether I was sitting in the car or just leaning up
against it for a few minutes.
Q. You weren't paying attention to exactly how much time or how long
you were in the car or by the car, were you?
A. No, I was not.
Q. In fact, at one time at the trial, in answer to Mr. Neufeld's
questions, you thought the time period would have been an hour or so
that you were waiting; isn't that true?
A. It could have been for all I know at this point.
Q. It was some period of time and you just don't recall at this
stage how long it was; is that it?
A. I really don't know. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Okay. Page 51, line 8. If you would take a look at, or possibly
you'll remember, and if not, I'll place in front of you pages 34 and
35.
A. I would not remember.
Q. Let me place that in front of you. That's what's on the screen
up there. Line 14, sir.
A. Are we talking about Kodak numbers?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Okay, I do remember now, yes.
Q. There appears to be someone pointing at something. Who is that
pointing?
A. That's Mark Fuhrman.
Q. What's he pointing at?
A. He's pointing at, I think, the cap and/or the glove or both of
them because they're in very close proximity to each other.
Q. How did he come to be pointing at them, if you know?
A. I asked him to.
Q. Page 52, line 14. Is it fair to say, Mr. Rokahr, that when Mr.
Neufeld interviewed you in what we think was September of 1995, that
at that time you hadn't remembered that you had sat in your car for
a period of time before seeing Mr. Fuhrman?
A. I don't know if I stayed in my car or just leaned up against it
outside.
Q. What I was asking was did you forget that initially when you
spoke to Mr. Neufeld in September?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Do you know whether or not you forgot that when you were first
talking to Mr. Neufeld in September?
A. I would say so, because none of it seemed to be very important at
that point.
Q. I understand. And on reflection, after it became more important,
you realized that you had first spoken to Mr. Neufeld that there was
-- there was a period of time that you were in your car -- by your
car or in your car prior to seeing Mr. Fuhrman; is that correct?
MR. P. BAKER: Leading and vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yeah, I would say so.
MR. GELBLUM: Page 54, line 18.
Q. Am I to understand you started your counter at -- was it 0000?
A. In the very beginning, yes, and I do not change if I leave one
scene and go to the next.
Q. The counter numbers would be, then, regardless of the scene, they
would be the order in which you took the pictures?
A. That is correct.
MR. GELBLUM: Page 57, line 16, Mr. Blasier. I'm just going to place
before the witness what you and I looked at before. Starts with
frame number 00 and I'm going to take them up to 118 and 119 and ask
where these were taken and ask where 120 was taken when you're
ready, Mr. Rokahr, just let me know, and come over with the
pictures.
A. Okay.
Q. The picture I'm pointing to that has the counter 000000, what is
that?
A. That would be the very first exposure on that particular roll of
film after I arrived at the Bundy scene. That's my slate picture.
Q. The counter -- the 6 zeroes in the right-hand corner, is that
what we refer to as the counter?
A. That's the counter imprinted on every negative.
Q. What you're saying is that the counter would click by one, each
picture you take?
A. That is correct.
Q. Regardless of the location you take it?
A. That's correct.
Q. And it reflects the order in which you take them?
A. That is correct.
Q. Page 70, line 2.
MR. GELBLUM: And I think that's it on this, Your Honor. Just a few
more questions, Mr. Rokahr. Under LAPD policy, you're not required
to record the exact time of each and every photograph you take, are
you?
A. No, I'm not.
Q. And you don't keep any detailed photo log, or you didn't in this
case, indicating the exact time in which you took each photo?
A. No, I am not required to, nor have I ever taken a certain time
down in writing as to when a photograph was taken.
Q. At the time you were taking these pictures, it wasn't important
to you to keep in mind any exact times; isn't that correct?
A. That is correct. It's never important really at the time when I
take the photographs unless I would be asked by a supervisor, make
sure and write down the time you take a certain photograph. Then I
would. And I don't think that has ever happened.
Q. Did it happen in this case?
A. No.
Q. So you've alleged some problem because of that, remembering exact
or rough times you took pictures?
A. I would never be able to tell you at exactly what time I took
certain photographs.
Q. Do you remember being interviewed by LAPD Detective La Falls
(phonetic) sometime in 1994?
A. Yes, I do remember.
Q. About the point -- about times -- did you tell him you arrived at
Bundy shortly after midnight?
A. That is correct. That's what I told him. I corrected that later
on, saying that's the wrong time.
Q. Is it a fair statement, Mr. Rokahr, you can't -- really can't say
when you took pictures? That's a fair statement, isn't it?
A. That's a very fair statement, because I can't.
MR. GELBLUM: That's it.
MR. P. BAKER: Page 10, line 15. Are you there?
MR. LEONARD: Yeah.
MR. GELBLUM: Okay.
MR. P. BAKER:
(Reading:)
Q. You do have a recollection -- clear recollection as you sit here
today of the criminal -- your testimony in the criminal trial?
A. About as clear as I can have, I would say, a year after the fact.

Q. Do you have a clear recollection of the work that you did in the
Simpson case when you took the crime scene photographs?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Page 45, line 23. I understand. I wasn't really talking about
the amount of time you were at the car. This is a question by Mr.
Medvene I was talking about, just so we understand the chronology.
Is it fair to say that after your conversation with Mr. -- Detective
Phillips when he said would you please wait until Detective Fuhrman
arrives, that you went to your car to wait?
A. I had started my overalls, which is the normal routine for me
even if whoever is the lead detective in the case is not there
because those are things that are needed by whoever is going to
investigate this case. So knowing what they're looking for, in other
words, overall photographs up and down the street, the street signs
and so on, I would say that occurred prior probably, probably rather
early in my overalls.
Q. Page 47, line 9. Okay. And are you refreshed now that after
Detective Phillips
(sic) said why don't you hold up on, in essence, on taking any
more pictures until Detective Phillips
(sic) arrives, that you went over to your car to wait for his
arrival?
A. I'm refreshed enough knowing the procedure that I used to work,
that I would have said something like I'm almost finished or I got
two or more to do, let me do those, so that would have been very
close to the last two photographs on the bottom of this first
exhibit here.
Q. Page 77, line 6, question by Mr. Blasier: You previously gave an
estimate --
MR. GELBLUM: I'm sorry, what page?
MR. P. BAKER: Page 77, line 6. I'm sorry.
MR. GELBLUM: Okay.
MR. P. BAKER:
(Reading:)
Q. You previously gave an estimate of various stages of the process
to take us up to picture 33 and 34; do you recall that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Is that still your best estimate?
A. I would say that's about as close as I can come in my memory.
Q. Page 79, line 17. Do you have an opinion as a professional
photographer looking at those last two pictures on that roll of 1566
whether they were taken at night time?
A. I would say definitely they were.
MR. P. BAKER: Nothing further.
MR. GELBLUM: Nothing.
MR. P. BAKER: We'd like to move in 2051.
MR. GELBLUM: No objection.
THE COURT: Received.
MR. P. BAKER: 2053.
MR. GELBLUM: It was misidentified as 2051. It's 2053.
THE CLERK: So it will be 2053.
(The instrument herein described as Photograph of walkway was marked
for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 2053.)
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 2053.)
MR. BAKER: Officer Aston, please. RICHARD ASTON, called as a witness
on behalf of Defendants, was duly sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in
the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God~?
THE WITNESS: I swear.
THE CLERK: Would you please state and spell your name.
THE WITNESS: Richard, R-i-c-h-a-r-d, Aston, A-s-t-o-n. DIRECT
EXAMINATION BY
MR. BAKER:
Q. Officer Aston, you're obviously employed by the LAPD?
A. Yes.
Q. You were employed by the LAPD on June 12, 1994?
A. Yes.
Q. And on June 13, 1994, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, on June 12, 1994, did you and your partner, Officer
Gonzalez, go to 875 South Bundy?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. And did you knock doors at that location?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you see your partner playing with a dog at the corner of
Dorothy and Bundy?
A. Playing with a dog?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. What was he doing with the dog?
A. I didn't see my partner with a dog at all.
Q. Never saw him with a dog?
A. No.
Q. Now, how long were you at Bundy?
A. Approximately two hours, perhaps a little more.
Q. And what time did you arrive?
A. A little after midnight, perhaps 12:30ish.
Q. Left there about 2:30?
A. 3 -- 2:30, 3.
Q. And you actually went up and viewed the body of Nicole Brown
Simpson at that location, did you not?
A. I viewed a body from the roadway itself. I didn't approach it.
Q. Well, you knew that was Nicole Brown Simpson's body when you
looked at the body, did you not, sir?
A. No.
Q. Are you telling us that there wasn't -- well, strike that. How
many officers were present when you were there from 12:30 to
approximately 3 a.m.?
A. When I first arrived there must have been approximately four
officers, I believe, or five. By the time that I had left, there was
substantially more perhaps.
Q. 20 to 30?
A. I don't think that many.
Q. There were over 20 officers when you left at 3 o'clock, were
there not, sir?
A. I don't recall that number.
Q. Is it your testimony that you had no conversations with any LAPD
officer that was at the scene that the body that you viewed from
Bundy was the body of Nicole Brown Simpson?
A. I may have been told that later. When I first viewed the body, I
had no idea who it was.
Q. Maybe you can answer my question. Is it your testimony that
between the time you arrived there at 12:30 and the time you left at
3, you didn't know that one of the murder victims was Nicole Brown
Simpson?
A. I believe that I could have been told that it was O.J. Simpson's
wife, but I did not know her name either.
Q. Well, you knew this was a high-profile celebrity homicide before
you left at 3 o'clock in the morning, did you not, sir?
A. Well, I didn't term it that way in my mind. Obviously, the name
was familiar to me.
Q. And now is it your testimony that what you did was knock doors
between 12:30 and 3?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, that misstates what he said, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. No, I did not.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, you had some conversations with other LAPD
officers. There was a bunch of them standing around at Dorothy and
Bundy, were they not?
A. There were officers in two separate locations. One of them was at
Bundy and Dorothy.
Q. And you were down there at Dorothy and Bundy, were you not?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And you were talking to the other officers at Dorothy and Bundy
about what was going on at the crime scene, were you not?
A. I actually spoke with officers at Bundy and Montana.
Q. My question was, you were down at the corner of Dorothy and Bundy
talking to other officers about what was going on at the crime
scene; that's true, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you also went up to Montana and were talking to officers
about what was going on, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you left the crime scene, did you make any written
report about what you had seen at 875 South Bundy?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever seen that since?
A. Approximately 15 minutes ago I saw a facsimile of it.
Q. That's the only time you've seen it?
A. Yes.
Q. The one in your handwriting?
A. Yes.
Q. What time did you arrive at Rockingham on the morning of June 13,
1994?
A. Approximately 5 a.m.
Q. Did you get there before the other detectives got there, that is
Phillips, Fuhrman, Lange and Vannatter?
A. No.
Q. They were there?
A. Yes.
Q. Had they gone over the wall by the time you arrived?
A. No.
Q. Did you -- by the way, who showed you your statement a couple
minutes ago?
A. Gentleman behind the apparatus there in the middle.
Q. Mr. Foster?
A. Yes.
Q. Had you talked to anybody about your testimony from the
plaintiffs' side before you got here today?
A. Yes.
Q. Who?
A. Mr. Medvene and Mr. Otis Marlow.
Q. Otis Marlow, he was -- at the time in June of 1994, he was an
LAPD officer?
A. I don't know.
Q. Was he a friend of yours?
A. I've never seen him before a couple weeks ago.
Q. Now, when did you talk to Mr. Medvene?
A. Yesterday, by telephone.
Q. When did you visit with Mr. Medvene before yesterday by
telephone?
A. I've never seen Mr. Medvene.
Q. When did you talk to Marlow?
A. Approximately two, three weeks ago.
Q. And did he indicate to you he was a former LAPD officer who is
now -- who had investigated the Simpson case as an LAPD officer who
is now a private investigator working for the plaintiffs?
A. Did he say that he worked as an investigator on the case?
Q. Yes, as an LAPD officer?
A. No, he did not.
Q. He didn't disclose that to you?
A. No.
Q. All right. Now, how long did you talk to Marlow?
A. Approximately 45 minutes.
Q. And did you go over the police -- LAPD impound report?
A. No.
Q. Did you discuss with Marlow what you saw on the night of June 13,
1994 and heard at the Rockingham address?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. Now, so it's your best recollection as you sit here today that
you arrived at the Rockingham address at approximately 5:00 in the
morning, right?
A. Yes.
Q. It was dark out, correct?
A. Dawn was beginning to break, but yes, it was dark.
Q. Now, how did your vehicle get to the Rockingham address? Did you
come up Sunset?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you turn on Rockingham?
A. Yes.
Q. And where did you park your -- were you driving?
A. Yes.
Q. And you parked your vehicle where?
A. At the corner of Rockingham and Ashford but on Rockingham.
MR. P. BAKER: Civil 116. The board.
(Exhibit 116 is displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Your vehicle was parked about where the word
avenue is on 116?
A. More to the point where -- the point where the diagram cuts off
at an angle, there's kind of a triangular grass section or island,
and I parked facing south on Rockingham against that curve.
Q. Over in this area?
(Indicating.)
A. Yes.
Q. So you turned your vehicle around?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, when you arrived at Rockingham, how many police
vehicles were there?
A. I believe two unmarked vehicles. There were no other
black-and-white patrol vehicles.
Q. Any other vehicles on the scene?
A. Yes. Westec Security vehicle was there, perhaps two, I can't
recall.
Q. Did you -- when you arrived, where were the four detectives?
A. Standing within the roadway, almost at the place where I stopped
the vehicle.
Q. Out by the corner of Ashford and Rockingham?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, at that point in time, did you go back over by the Ashford
gate before Fuhrman went over the wall?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you hear the conversations of the four detectives relative to
what they were talking about before they elected to go over the wall
to Mr. Simpson's property?
A. Some of the conversation, yes.
Q. And you heard them discuss that there might have been a
kidnapping, a murder, Mr. Simpson might have been bleeding inside
the house, you heard that discussion?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor, calls for hearsay evidence.
THE COURT: I'll allow it since the witness has testified previously.

MR. MEDVENE: It's also not relevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I can't recall the exact nature of the conversation although I do
remember there being some concern about what could have perhaps
occurred on the inside.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And did Fuhrman take you down to the -- to the
Bronco and show you anything that he thought was indicative of
possible foul play?
A. We went as a loose group to the vehicle, yes.
Q. So in the loose group -- did that include you and Officer
Gonzalez?
A. Yes.
Q. Anybody else in that loose group?
A. All of the rest of the investigators, I believe that the Westec
officer had I believe, by that point.
Q. Okay. So -- so, I want to set the scene. Then what you're telling
this jury is that when you went down to the Bronco, it was not just
you and it was not just Officer Gonzalez, you all, that is all six
of you went down to that vehicle to inspect it at the same time,
right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And from what you were led to believe, Fuhrman -- well,
strike that. Fuhrman had come back from looking at the -- at the
Bronco and requested that you guys come down there and show --
strike that -- come down to the Bronco so that he could show you all
what he had found, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So your impression, when all six of you together go down towards
the Bronco, is that he is now going to point out to you something
that he thinks was amiss with that vehicle, right?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor, calls for conclusion, lack of
foundation asking for his --
THE COURT: Sustained. He may testify as to what he did or what he
saw.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Your state of mind at the time that you parked at
the point of Rockingham and Ashford, down to -- down to the -- down
to the Bronco, was that Fuhrman was going to point out something to
you and the other detectives, correct?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor, relevance, his state of mind.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I'm not quite sure what I expected. I was just naturally curious,
and there was something to be seen, I assumed.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And so that I'm clear, then did you and the other
three detectives from -- plain clothes detectives and you and
officer Gonzalez go directly to the left front door of the Bronco?
A. Yes.
Q. So there was no walking any place but from the point between
Ashford and Rockingham out in the street and directly to the left
front door and looking at a purported spot over the driver door
handle, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you thought when you saw it, this is something of real
significance, right, this mark above the door handle, that was your
state of mind?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, relevance, immaterial, the case is not about
probable cause.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I made no determination as to its significance at all.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, did you make any significance to anything
that was pointed out to you on the Bronco?
A. Yes.
Q. All right.
MR. BAKER: Now, is this a good time, Your Honor? I see --
THE COURT: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, 1:30. Please don't talk
about the case, don't form or express any opinions.
(At 12:00 p.m. a recess was taken until 1:30 p.m. of the same day.)
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JANUARY 6, 1997 1:45 P.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. WEN HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE APPEARANCES:
(PER COVER PAGE.)
(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, may Mr. Baker and I approach without a
reporter for a second?
THE COURT: Yes.
(A bench conference was held which was not reported.)
MR. BAKER: Thank you, Your Honor. DIRECT EXAMINATION
(CONTINUED) BY
MR. BAKER:
Q. Officer, what did you speak with Mr. Marlow about for 45 minutes,
when you spoke to him a couple weeks ago?
A. He explained to me who he was and who he represented. He
explained that he was an ex-officer and he basically explained to me
what I was to expect with regards to questioning.
Q. Well, what did he tell you you were to expect?
A. That the focus, probably, of the question would be with regards
to the Bronco at the Rockingham scene.
Q. Did he talk to you about the impound report?
A. He asked me if I prepared it, I believe.
Q. And you observed it being prepared by your partner, correct?
A. I saw him preparing it, yes.
Q. Now, you -- is this a document that you reviewed this morning?
A. I saw this paper, yes, for a few seconds.
Q. Have you reviewed anything else in preparation for your
testimony?
A. Nothing.
Q. Now, you gave a statement to Detective Ron Phillips, did you not?

A. Yes.
Q. You ever seen that?
A. No.
Q. Now, that was part of your official police duties, was it not?
Let me give you a copy of it.
MR. P. BAKER: That's 1801.
(The instrument herein described as statement of Officer Aston was
Marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 1801.)
(Exhibit 1801 handed to witness.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) When did you give that interview to Detective Ron
Phillips?
A. A short time prior to the criminal trial.
Q. January of 1995, right?
A. Quite possible.
Q. And did you give it the same time as officer Gonzalez gave his
statement to Ron Phillips?
A. I don't know.
Q. Were you both in the room at the same time?
A. No.
Q. Do you recall giving your statement to Phillips?
A. Yes.
Q. You were alone?
A. I was within the detective office at West Los Angeles, so -- but
we were talking together.
Q. And was it recorded?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. Now, you, in giving that statement to detective Phillips, you had
a fairly clear recollection of events of the night of June 13, 1994,
correct?
A. Somewhat, yes.
Q. And you didn't indicate to Detective Phillips that all six of you
officers went to the Bronco together, did you?
A. I can't remember what I said, and I haven't read this yet.
Q. Well, look at page 2 of your statement, and down to the third
paragraph from the bottom. It says went over to the Bronco, parked
on Rockingham with his partner Gonzalez and Detective Fuhrman. Never
mentions Phillips, never mentions Lange, never mentions Vannatter,
does it?
A. No, it does not.
Q. So is it your testimony now that all six of you were together
that morning, sir, when you went over to observe the Bronco?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And that's your best recollection, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you tell Phillips that all six of you, including him, went
over to the Bronco together when you gave this statement in January
of 1995?
A. I believe so.
Q. So it had to be Phillips who made the error because you have a
clear recollection that all six of you went over there at the same
time, true?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, misstates what he said. The statement speaks
for itself. It doesn't say everyone who was there. It says two
people that were there.
MR. BAKER: That's argumentative, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Is it your view now, in looking at the statement
that you gave in January of 1995, that Phillips was wrong and he did
not mention the fact that you had informed him that you went with
him as well as all of the other detectives?
A. I believe it's omitted.
Q. You don't know why it's omitted?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, was anybody else there at the scene besides the four
detectives, yourself, and Officer Gonzalez, before 7 o'clock in the
morning?
A. Yes.
Q. Who?
A. Two I recall, Westec officers.
Q. From LAPD? Sorry, poor question.
A. I'm sorry?
Q. Was anybody else from LAPD there between the time you arrived at
around 5 o'clock in the morning and 7 a.m. in the morning of June 13
at 360 North Rockingham?
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. Detective Roberts never came by?
A. I don't know who Detective Roberts is.
Q. Didn't see any other detective other than the four that you're
aware of that includes Vannatter, Lange, Phillips and Fuhrman,
right?
A. That's correct. That's all I can recall.
Q. And you certainly knew Fuhrman and Phillips before because you
worked out of West LA, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, after you got there and you walked down -- well, strike
that. After you arrived, how long was it before you went down to the
Bronco?
A. I can't say accurately. I can approximate.
Q. Sure, give me an estimate.
A. 20, 15 minutes.
Q. So 5:15, 5:20, thereabouts?
A. Yes.
Q. And how long after you went down to the Bronco was it before
Fuhrman went over the wall?
A. I don't recall Officer Fuhrman going over the wall at all.
Q. Well, the gate. Did you see him go and actually scale the gate on
Ashford and go into Mr. Simpson's property?
A. I don't recall him doing that.
MR. BAKER: Now, Phil, could you get me the aerial photo that shows
Rockingham as well as Bundy.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, after you were -- all six of you went to the
Bronco, how long were you there around the Bronco?
A. Ten minutes, perhaps less.
Q. Ten minutes at the Bronco to look at this little spot above the
driver's door handle?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor, misstates ten minutes, perhaps
less.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. That span of time wasn't spent predominantly looking at the blood
spot on the door handle.
Q. Well, did you -- did you see any other blood spots, for example,
on the door sill?
A. I don't recall seeing any blood on the door sill.
Q. Well, now, did you have a discussion with your partner, Dennis
Gonzalez
(sic), that he saw these spots through the bottom crevice on the
driver's side door of the Bronco; did you have any discussion about
that at all?
A. No.
Q. Did he indicate to you that he had seen blood spots any place on
the Bronco other than at the door sill?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, calls for hearsay.
MR. BAKER: It's not to prove --
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Door handle, I'm sorry.
THE COURT: Asked about the conversation of a previous witness
testifying on the same subject.
A. It wasn't so much that we discussed it. As we were around the
vehicle itself, we could see into it at the same time, and from what
we saw -- the general discussion was what we saw inside the vehicle.

Q. Okay. Now, all six of you were there these ten minutes and had
this general discussion about what was inside the Bronco, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, you -- Did anyone get into the Bronco?
A. No.
Q. Did anyone attempt to get into the Bronco?
A. Nobody touched it.
Q. So you don't know if the Bronco is locked or unlocked, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And nobody knew if the Bronco was locked or unlocked, right?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, calls for speculation, lack of foundation as
to what others knew.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Are you telling this jury, Officer Aston, that
there were six officers from the LAPD around there, they determined
that there was what they thought was a blood spot over the left door
handle of this Bronco, that they thought that there might be some
emergent situation going on in Mr. Simpson's house, and not one of
the six checked the door handle of the Bronco?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor, the question is argumentative,
to form, and also misstates what the witness said.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Are you telling this jury that no one checked the
door handle of that Bronco to see if they could enter that vehicle?
MR. MEDVENE: Same Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I don't know of any reason why anybody would want to go into the
vehicle at that point anyway.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) All right. Let's get into that a little bit. Now,
you told Officer Phillips when you gave a statement to him, that you
thought there was a blood smear on the console, did you not?
A. Well, I saw one, or what appeared to be one, yes.
Q. So you thought that there was a blood smear on the console and
you didn't think there was any reason to get into the Bronco, right?

A. That's right.
Q. Now, did you talk to your partner because he said -- Dennis
Gonzalez testified there were two large drops on the console?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, calls for hearsay, he's having to speculate
on what other --
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you talk to -- strike that. Let me ask you
this: In your experience can you take a leather glove and turn blood
drops into a smear?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. MEDVENE: Foundation.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So all six of you are looking into this vehicle,
you see a blood smear on the center console and don't see any drops,
right?
A. What do we mean when you're talking about a console, are we
talking about a dash or a center console or -- I'm not quite sure
about that.
Q. All right. Let's look your statement. Look at page 2 of your
statement, down towards the bottom, second paragraph from the
bottom.
MR. BAKER: Phil, you want to put that up.
MR. MEDVENE: Objection to putting it up, Your Honor. No indication
it's impeaching.
THE COURT: I can't hear you.
MR. MEDVENE: No indication it's impeaching. It's not in evidence at
this point.
THE COURT: Okay. Sustained. Ask a question.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Have you read that paragraph?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Are we talking about the center console, Officer Aston?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see a smear any place else? You can't recall whether or
not we were talking about the center console or anything else?
A. No, I didn't see a smear but I saw a drop somewhere else.
Q. Now, you said you noticed a smear on the center console, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's what you noticed when you were out there on June 13,
1994. Absolutely no one got into that Bronco and you saw a smear on
the center console, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, you saw a blood drop on the dashboard area between the
steering wheel and the windshield, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did anybody else see anything, any blood drop in that area, that
you talked to, on June 13, 1994, when you were standing out there by
the Bronco?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, lack of foundation, calls for conclusion,
speculation what others saw, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you have a discussion with anybody that you
made this discovery and that nobody else said that's a blood drop,
that's no blood drop, did you have anything like that?
A. Yes.
Q. And nobody confirmed what you thought was a blood drop was a
blood drop, correct?
A. I believe that everybody saw the same thing I did.
Q. Okay. So there was a blood drop, as far as you are aware, between
the steering wheel and the windshield, right?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And you were clear that it was there, true?
A. True.
Q. No doubt about it whatsoever, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. All right. And then you -- you then checked -- you're the person
that actually checked to see who the ownership of this vehicle was?

A. I can't recall. I believe it would be either myself or Officer
Gonzalez.
Q. Do you have a recollection of that?
A. No.
Q. Look at last paragraph, page 2. You check with your MVT and found
that the vehicle belonged to Hertz, right?
A. That's right.
Q. You have a recollection? That refreshes your recollection? In
fact, in reviewing this statement, you don't have any indication
that anything contained in this statement is incorrect, true?
A. That's correct.
Q. Everything contained in this statement, as far as you are aware,
is true and accurate as to what you told Officer Phillips or
Detective Phillips in January of 1995, true?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, then you were the one that requested SID to come
to Rockingham?
A. I don't believe I would have the authority to do that.
Q. Well, if a detective directed you, you'd call and make sure that
SID got there, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you do that in this case or not?
A. I don't know.
Q. You don't have a recollection one way or the other, true?
A. That's true.
Q. Now, you do recall at the Rockingham site seeing officers, that
is the detectives, go around to the north side of the house, and
around and into the back, correct?
A. No.
Q. You have no recollection of that?
A. From where I was standing I had an opportunity to be able to see
them go into the property and walk along the pathway. From that
point on, the view was blocked, I didn't see where they went from
there.
Q. So you just saw them on the north side of the house going along
the pathway?
A. Yes.
Q. What time was that approximately?
A. Approximately, 5:45, 5:30.
Q. Now, when you were -- after you had observed this blood smear on
the center console, and this drop you say you saw on the instrument
panel between the steering wheel and the windshield, did you then go
back to the area around the intersection of Ashford and Rockingham?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you remain there throughout the time that you were at
Rockingham until you left the first time?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you walk down to the Ashford gate or not?
A. I had approached it once, I think, just prior to that. I don't
even think that I got onto the full court area of the driveway.
Q. Now, when you came back after your first -- your initial time at
the Bronco, was there a discussion out in front of the Ashford gate
concerning whether or not there was an emergent situation in Mr.
Simpson's estate?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, relevance, materiality, goes to probable
cause which is not an issue in this case, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may answer yes or no.
A. It's hard to do that. The actual drop wasn't in the gate when I
was -- got there. They were more in the larger portion of the
intersection itself.
Q. Maybe you didn't understand the question. I apologize. Let me see
if I can ask it again. After -- not when you got there, after you'd
gone down to the Bronco, all six of you, and were there about ten
minutes, and you came back up towards the intersection, did you not?

A. Yes.
Q. And was there subsequently a conversation in front of the Ashford
gate relative to whether or not there was some sort of emergent
situation in Mr. Simpson's house?
A. I don't have a distinct memory of that.
Q. If others testified that they stood there and discussed, after
they rang the bell, about the emergent situation in Mr. Simpson's
house, you wouldn't disagree with that?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You have no recollection of hearing the
conversation about the emergent situation in Mr. Simpson's house?
A. No.
Q. And you have no recollection of seeing Mark Fuhrman go over the
gate, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you were -- after you came back from the excursion from the
Bronco, you remained in the area between the Ashford gate and
Rockingham, right?
A. Well, I positioned myself such that I could see the Bronco from
that point.
Q. And you could see the Bronco from your vantage point, basically
on the point there between Rockingham and Ashford, right?
A. Approximately, yes.
Q. That's where you stayed, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you didn't hear any discussions about whether or not Fuhrman
was going to go over the wall?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. And you didn't see him go over the wall?
A. I don't remember seeing him.
Q. And you didn't know that he went over the wall at all the night
of June 13, 1994, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Never had any idea that this detective that you knew from the
West Los Angeles Police Department had jumped the wall and entered
Mr. Simpson's estate while you were standing guard out here at the
point between Ashford and Rockingham, right.
A. I don't recall seeing him climb a gate or scale a wall.
Q. You don't have any recollection that he even did that on the
night of June 13, true?
A. That's true.
Q. Okay. But you do recall seeing the detectives from your vantage
point, going on the north side of Mr. Simpson's property, up the
pathway and then lost sight of them, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And what time was that, did you say, I'm sorry?
A. Approximately 5:30, 5:45.
Q. And how -- and how long was it until they came back with Arnelle
Simpson?
A. I don't know specifically.
Q. Estimate. 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15, half hour, hour?
A. It's hard for me to say. Approximately, between 15 to 30 minutes.
I don't know.
Q. So sometime between 6 and 6:15?
A. I don't know.
Q. Now, you observed the detectives walk back with a black female
that was later identified to you as Arnelle Simpson, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And they walked around the path and down into the driveway, did
they not?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see any detective take Arnelle Simpson and lead her over
to the Rockingham gate to look at the Bronco?
A. No.
Q. Did you hear any detective tell Arnelle Simpson that her
stepmother had been murdered?
A. No.
Q. And you saw a group of detectives leading Arnelle Simpson from
the north path out towards the driveway area, correct?
A. I can't recall how many people were with her. I seem to recall
there not being -- perhaps one or two.
Q. Why don't you look at page 3 of your statement, fourth paragraph
down, and see if that refreshes your recollection.
A. Okay.
Q. Now, you observed two or three detectives leading her back,
right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, you never saw Arnelle Simpson or the detectives go back down
the path and toward the rear of the house again after they came
forward, isn't that true?
A. Yes, I believe it to be.
Q. And they entered the house from the front door, didn't they?
A. I don't know. I couldn't see.
Q. Well, did you ever see the detectives and Arnelle Simpson outside
after you saw the detectives escort her around on the north side of
the house at all?
A. Could you repeat that, please.
Q. Did you see Arnelle Simpson or the detectives outside of the
house after they were escorting her around on the north side?
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. And you stayed there and you were to kind of guard the premises,
right?
A. Well, I was basically there to not only make sure that nobody
entered, but also to make sure that nobody approached the Bronco, as
well, or opened it.
Q. And you stayed at that post for how long?
A. Approximately an hour to an hour and a half.
Q. Now, during that period for an hour to an hour and a half, when
was it that you used your MDT to request a criminalist to come to
the scene?
A. I don't know.
Q. Was it the beginning, was it the middle, was it the end?
A. I believe towards the later portion.
Q. And the later portion would have been about 7 a.m.?
A. Perhaps a little earlier. Between 6:00 and 7:00
Q. Well, that's a pretty good bit of time, between 6:00 and 7:00.
Can you be more specific about that?
A. No.
Q. All right. Let's go through it a bit. You got there at 5:00. By
5:45 or thereabouts you saw the detectives going up the path on the
north side of the house, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You saw within 15 to 30 minutes, 6 to 6:15, you saw them coming
back with Arnelle Simpson, correct?
A. Approximately.
Q. Was it an hour to an hour and a half after that till you left?
A. Yes.
Q. So it would have been after 7 o'clock?
A. I can't say. I don't know what time it was that I called.
Q. Well, are there any log sheets that indicate what time you used
your MVT . . . yeah, your MVT?
A. I believe there would be a record of a transmission and time.
Q. There would be a record when you used your MVT to get the
ownership of the Bronco as well as when you were communicating with
-- to get SID out there, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, you left Rockingham and drove a detective to
Bundy?
A. Yes, I did. Although I'm not quite sure as to when that happened.
I just know that I did.
Q. Now, before you left, did Fuhrman come out and tell you that he'd
found a glove back on the south side of the property?
A. No.
Q. Where was officer -- where was Gonzalez during all this period of
time?
A. I believe he also went on the property, too.
Q. Did he go in the gate?
A. I believe so.
Q. And you stayed outside the gate?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And did you ever go back down the south side of the
property to look to see where a glove was purportedly found?
A. No.
Q. Did you have any conversations with Gonzalez, your partner, about
his allegedly finding a glove?
A. No.
Q. Did you have any conversations with your partner, Dennis
Gonzalez, about the fact that Rockingham was turned into a crime
scene at any time?
A. I don't recall any.
Q. So as far as you were concerned, 360 North Rockingham wasn't a
crime scene, the entire time you were there until you left, sometime
after 7 o'clock?
A. No.
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, argumentative, misstates the testimony.
Didn't say that. Just said he didn't have any conversation with
Officer Gonzalez.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, if we could have an objection on the Evidence
Code in place of Mr. Medvene's speech. I would suggest that's what
we ought to do.
THE COURT: It's overruled.
A. The answer is no.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, why did you leave your post guarding
Rockingham and go to Bundy?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, relevance, materiality, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I was asked to transport, I think, Detective Lange back to Bundy
for a short period of time and then return with him.
Q. Well, your vehicle, as I understand it, was over here, right?
A. No.
Q. Here?
A. More towards -- further this way, towards the edge of the
picture.
(Indicating.)
Q. Over here?
A. No. Come down. Keep going. Keep going.
Q. Here?
A. That's fine. Right there.
Q. It was pointed north?
A. It was pointed this way.
Q. South?
A. Yes.
Q. And it was on the north side of the street?
A. Yes.
Q. And the two plain -- two LAPD unmarked cars were over here?
A. I'm not sure where they were positioned. I don't -- I think
perhaps one was there, but I don't know for sure.
Q. Did you see Fuhrman get out of the property to get in his vehicle
to go to Bundy?
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. Did you have any discussions as to whether anybody else had gone
to Bundy, for example, Fuhrman taking the glove back to see if it
matched?
A. No.
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor, that assumes facts not in
evidence. No fact like that.
THE COURT: Sustained. There's no testimony in that regard.
MR. BAKER: The testimony is from Ron Phillips, Your Honor.
MR. MEDVENE: We'd like there not to be an objection that misstates
Ron Phillips testimony, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you never saw Fuhrman leave, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You never saw any detective come out and get in an unmarked car
and leave, correct?
A. As far as I can recall, that's correct.
Q. And when you left both unmarked police cars were still there,
right?
A. I believe so.
Q. And so who did you take over to Bundy?
A. Detective Lange.
Q. And you were going to take him over there and then bring him back
to Rockingham. That was your testimony, right?
A. That's what I did.
Q. So you took him over to Bundy. And what was the purpose in doing
that, sir, or were you told?
A. I didn't ask and I wasn't told.
Q. And how long did Lange stay at Bundy until you took him back to
Rockingham?
A. I think about ten minutes.
Q. Okay. And during that time did you just dutifully sit in your
black and white and wait for him?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you turned around and brought Lange straight back to
Rockingham, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know approximately what time that was; was that after
7:00?
A. I don't know. I don't think it was that late. If I can recall by
the -- the available daylight, it seemed to be darker than the
normal daylight, so I would assume it would be around -- about 6 or
perhaps a little earlier, but I'm not sure.
Q. Well, you got there at 5, and then it took some period of time
for all six of you to go to the Bronco, and it took ten minutes or
so there, and then you saw the detectives go to the north side of
the house and come back ten or 15 minutes later with Arnelle. How
much after you saw Arnelle Simpson being escorted by the detectives
from the north side of house was it until you left Rockingham and
made the round trip to Bundy?
A. I don't know.
Q. Don't have any estimate whatsoever?
A. Not that would be accurate.
Q. Okay. And you think your best recollection was that it's possibly
around 6, huh?
A. That's an estimate.
Q. And when you came back with Lange, which gate did you pull to at
that time?
A. I believe that I repositioned the police car after allowing him
to exit within this small intersection at the same place where I had
initially put it in the first place or the first time.
Q. Where did you allow Lange to exit?
A. I believe within the -- the intersection.
Q. In the area of the intersection of Ashford and Rockingham?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you watch where he went?
A. No, I turned the vehicle around and parked it.
Q. Did you ever ask Lange if one of the unmarked LAPD vehicles that
was parked there when you left was one of his vehicles and why he
couldn't drive himself to Bundy?
A. No.
Q. And how long did this round trip to Bundy take to deliver Lange
and leave him there for ten minutes?
A. Approximately 15 or 20 minutes.
Q. And then you stayed at Rockingham for how long?
A. I believe until approximately 8:00, a little after.
Q. And that's when you took Kato Kaelin to West LAPD?
A. Yes.
Q. And who told to you do that?
A. I don't believe I was told directly. I believe that Officer
Gonzalez had been told by one of the investigators who then relayed
that information to me that that's what we would be doing.
Q. Is it your best estimate you got back about 7:30 from Bundy?
A. To Rockingham?
Q. Yeah. Or is it 6:30. If you say you left at 6, it was a half hour
trip, 6:30?
A. I don't know. I'm trying to give you a best estimate.
Q. Did anybody else -- did you meet up with anybody else at
Rockingham during the time that you were there?
A. As a police officer or as a citizen?
Q. A citizen. Anybody.
A. There were people who were starting to congregate now.
Q. Well, was there anybody that you kept out of the compound?
A. Mr. Cowlings did arrive later in the morning, prior to his
leaving, and he was prevented from going inside the property.
Q. Which way did Al Cowlings come?
A. From Sunset.
Q. On Rockingham?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were standing in the area of the intersection so you
could view the Bronco and you could view down Ashford, correct?
A. By the time that Mr. Cowlings arrived I was back more towards the
vehicle, the police vehicle which was --
Q. On Rockingham?
A. Somewhat farther north.
Q. And at what time did Al Cowlings arrive?
A. Approximately 7:30, 7:45.
Q. And so you obviously had to be back from this excursion over to
Bundy with Detective Lange by then, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you -- by the way, did you ever see Detective Lange again
after you dropped him off when you returned to Rockingham?
A. I don't remember. I don't know.
Q. Now, when you were -- when you were standing out there on
Rockingham in the early morning hours of June 13, 1994, that's a
pretty quiet area, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And you heard Mr. Cowlings' vehicle before you saw it, correct?
A. I remembered the vehicle approaching me fairly rapidly. I don't
know whether I heard it first or saw it first.
Q. Did it have its lights on or do you recall?
A. I don't recall.
Q. It was a white Ford Bronco just like the one you were guarding,
wasn't it?
A. Very similar.
Q. And so you restrained Mr. Cowlings from going in the property,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you let him in after a little while, true?
A. I don't think so. I don't remember him going inside.
Q. Didn't you report to anybody that there was a -- any of the
detectives inside the property that there was a black male named Al
Cowlings that had been requested to come to the property?
A. Not personally, no.
Q. Did you report it to Dennis Gonzalez or did you report it to the
detectives?
A. Officer Gonzalez was with me.
Q. All right. Did he report to anybody inside that Al Cowlings had
been requested to come to the property and could he enter the
property?
A. I don't know if Officer Gonzalez radioed to one of the
investigators that Mr. Cowlings had arrived.
Q. Now, you left -- did you say about 8, 8:10?
A. I believe so.
Q. And was any criminalist there before you left?
A. Yes.
Q. Who?
A. I believe his name is Mr. Fung.
Q. Did you talk to Mr. Fung?
A. No.
Q. Did you do anything relative to Mr. Fung? In other words, did you
observe him do anything, did you talk to Gonzalez about anything
that Fung was doing?
A. I saw Mr. Fung apply a Q Tip towards or onto the door handle of
the Bronco.
Q. Did you see Mr. Fung apply a Q Tip onto the door sill or the area
between where the bottom door sill is to see if there was any blood
in that area?
A. Not distinctly.
Q. Well, indistinctly? Did you see it at all?
A. I couldn't be certain to say yes, but I -- I'm not sure.
Q. Now, at any time did you see anybody get in the Bronco and pull
the hood release and open the hood of the Bronco while you were
there?
A. No.
MR. BAKER: Is this 1252, 1187?
MR. P. BAKER: Supposed to be.
(The instrument herein described as copy of impound report was
marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 1187.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) 1187. This is a vehicle impound report, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you see over here -- in other words, there's certain
things that you check on the vehicle impound report so that after
the vehicle has been impounded you can tell if those things have
been taken or they're missing, correct? For example, it says the
seats, inventory, seats, front seats, and yes is checked, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And what you do as a police officer in -- in impounding a vehicle
is go through the checklist that's on that impound report and make
sure you inventory everything that's on the impound report so that
in fact it can be ascertained at a later date whether or not all of
that equipment was there when the vehicle was actually impounded,
true?
A. That's the premise, yes.
Q. And that's so that the LAPD can't be held responsible if there's
no back seat, for example, if an owner comes back after it's been
impounded and says, hey, we had a back seat, that kind of thing?
A. Yes.
Q. That's just one of them. Okay. Now, under the one, two, three --
I guess it's the fourth column where it says battery, alternator,
generator, you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. It's checked yes, isn't it?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. The only way you can tell whether there's an alternator or
battery in this car is if you pop the hood?
MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, that misstates. It says UNK. Doesn't say
yes. It says UNK.
MR. BAKER: I have a different report.
MR. MEDVENE: May I see the report?
MR. BAKER: I have a different report.
MR. MEDVENE: This is a report from Officers Ashton and Gonzalez. It
says UNK, unknown. No indication that this is this officer's report.
Mr. Baker, here's the other exhibit, Gonzalez and Ashton. No
indication when that report was done, whether it was done at the
impound. Here's another -- here's the report you want to use, the
real report right here.
MR. BAKER: Awful flip today, aren't we?
MR. MEDVENE: I'm learning from you, Mr. Baker.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Let me show you this report. At 6/13, that's the
date you were there, right, 1994?
A. Yes.
Q. At 1530 hours, right?
A. That's what it indicates, yes.
MR. BAKER: Let me do the questioning. I don't get paid as much as
you do.
(Indicating to Mr. Medvene.)
MR. MEDVENE: I was trying to ask counsel. May I ask through the
Court, is that the report that we just furnished to Mr. Baker? If it
is and they have a copy, I don't have a copy now because that's my
copy. Can I approach the witness, Your Honor?
THE CLERK: Do you have an exhibit number for this? Is it 1187? Is
that the same report we're talking about?
MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, there's no indication this witness
has ever seen that impound report. I would like -- we object to the
question on lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Okay, lay a foundation.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, that vehicle was impounded about 1530 hours
on the date of June 13, 1994; isn't that correct, sir? It stayed
there from 7:30 in the morning until 3:30 in the afternoon; isn't
that true?
A. If this copy is accurate, then that's what it would indicate,
yes.
Q. And on that report that you have in front of you, it's indicated
that the battery is in place and that the alternator is in place,
correct?
THE COURT: I believe there was an objection to this particular
exhibit. Without foundation, sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, in any event, you would agree the only way
that you can determine whether or not the battery or alternator is
in the vehicle is to pop the hood, correct?
A. I don't know whether it's possible to crawl underneath a vehicle
and look up through there to find that out.
Q. You ever done that when you impounded a vehicle, looked
underneath to see if you can see the battery?
A. No.
Q. Usually the battery sits up at the top, if you have to have
wa-wa, you have a little wa-wa, right?
A. I'm not sure what wa-wa is.
Q. Water, H20. Kind of sits up there where you can get at it?
A. Sure, yes.
Q. And the alternator is kind of up on top. You know what an
alternator is; kind of sits on top, right?
A. Yes.
Q. In the Ford Bronco vehicle there's an interior hood release; is
there not?
A. I believe so.
Q. And the only way at 1530 hours that anybody could determine
whether or not there was an alternator or a battery in that vehicle
is to have been in the car, popped the hood release and looked;
isn't that true?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor, assumes facts not in evidence
that anybody at 330 hours said anything about the car and had an
alternator.
THE COURT: I don't think that was the question. Overruled.
A. I'm not super familiar with the interior design and the engine
compartment of the Frod Bronco, but I would assume that you're
correct.
MR. BAKER: That's all I have for right now, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. MEDVENE:
Q. Officer Aston, I want to show you a document headed at the top
Los Angeles Police Department Vehicle Investigation Report.
THE CLERK: Do you need a new number?
MR. MEDVENE: Yeah.
THE CLERK: 2306.
MR. MEDVENE: 2306.
(The instrument herein described as Document entitled Los Angeles
Police Department Vehicle Investigation Report was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2306.)
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you look at that report and let me know who
submitted that report?
A. It's noted that Officer Gonzalez and myself initiated the report.

Q. And is -- is that the impound report that you were making
reference to earlier that was being prepared while you were watching
the Bronco?
A. Yes.
Q. And what does that impound report show next to the words
alternator and battery?
A. Indicates that it's unknown.
Q. Was one of your jobs or assignments while you were at Rockingham
to keep the Bronco in view at all times?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you do that?
A. Yes.
Q. And from approximately what time to approximately what time did
you keep the Bronco within sight?
A. From before 6:00 when the investigators entered onto the
property, a brief break as I transported Detective Lange to Bundy,
and then from that point up until we finally left the location for
good. That would be between, perhaps 5:45, 6 o'clock and 8:00 or a
little later.
Q. And during that period of time, did you -- while you were
watching the vehicle, did you ever observe anyone enter the vehicle?

A. Nobody entered the vehicle.
Q. Ever observe anyone try to enter the vehicle?
A. Nobody touched the vehicle.
Q. And prior to the time you left, and included within the time you
were watching the vehicle, you yourself looked at the vehicle, as I
understand your answer to his -- Mr. Baker's questions; is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you observed blood inside the vehicle where you told Mr.
Baker you observed blood inside the Bronco or what appeared to be
blood; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you never entered the premise; is that right Officer Aston?
A. That's correct.
Q. And while some -- as I recall your testimony, 15 to 30 minutes
after the officers originally entered you saw some officers and Ms.
Simpson, were you in a position where if there was any conversation
you could overhear it?
A. No.
Q. After the officers entered and during that 15 to 30 minutes
before you again saw the officers with Ms. Simpson, do you know
whether or not the officers with Ms. Simpson entered the Rockingham
house from the rear? Do you know one way or the other?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Is it correct, sir, that you're not saying Detective Fuhrman did
not go over the wall, you were just saying you didn't observe him
while he was going over the wall?
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this is leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I don't recall him scaling the wall or climbing a fence. I may
have observed it. I just don't remember seeing it.
Q. So you're not saying he didn't do it, you're saying only you
didn't see it?
A. That's correct.
MR. BAKER: I object. That misstates his testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: Move that the answer be stricken.
THE COURT: He didn't see it, it may remain.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) So the record is clear, Officer Aston, are you
saying now, at this point, that you -- you are not saying Detective
Fuhrman didn't go over the wall, you didn't see him when he went
over the wall?
THE COURT: Why don't you ask a question, Mr. Medvene, instead of
trying to testify for him.
MR. MEDVENE: Yes, Your Honor.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Do you know whether or not Detective Fuhrman
went over the wall at some point, that you did not observe?
A. Yes --
Q. You say what --
A. -- I know that he went over the wall or climbed a fence, but I
don't recall him doing that.
Q. In your presence?
A. Correct.
MR. BAKER: Can I get that last answer reread, please.
MR. MEDVENE: Thank you very much. I have nothing further.
(Court reporter attempts to reread testimony but is unable to read
loud enough due to laryngitis.)
(Laughter.)
THE COURT: Sorry. Mr. Baker, maybe you could go over.
MR. BAKER: I'll peer over your shoulder.
(Indicating to court reporter.)
(Mr. Baker reviewed computer real time screen.) REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY
MR. BAKER:
Q. So your testimony here in this courtroom, Officer Aston, is you
may have seen him go over the wall, you just don't recall it, right?

A. That's correct.
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, that misstates his testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, how many times in your career have you
watched officers clamber over a wall into an estate of a celebrity?
A. I can't recall any other time.
Q. You just kind of went blank on seeing Fuhrman going over the
wall; you just don't know whether he did or didn't, right?
A. It's three years ago. I haven't testified before.
MR. BAKER: I apologize, Your Honor, I have to reopen on one small
area.
THE COURT: Um-hum.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Where you were standing when you say you saw the
smear on the console, were you and the other six LAPD members over
on the driver's side of the vehicle?
A. I can't recall whether it was on the left-hand side or the
right-hand side or the passenger side or the driver's seat side of
the console. I can -- I remember distinctly when seeing it, knowing
that it probably had occurred or had been applied when the driver
had utilized the console as a booster to be able to exit the
vehicle, but I -- but I can't recall whether it was a passenger side
seat or the driver side.
Q. So what you recall is it was right in the center, right? Let me
show you a photo that was taken on August 14 --
MR. P. BAKER: 10th.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) August 10, 1994.
MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 1420.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) If you look at the monitor, sir, this is taken
obviously from the passenger side of the vehicle. Is it your
testimony that the blood stain was on the center console in the
indented area?
A. No, sir; it was -- I said it was either on the side, right side
or the left side of the console.
Q. This or that, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. In other words, where somebody would wrap their hand around the
edge of the console to, as you say, boost themselves out of the
vehicle?
A. That's the impression I got, yes.
Q. You don't have a recollection whether it was on the driver's side
or the passenger's side, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. How big was it, two inches by four inches? Was it a quarter inch
by an eighth of an inch? What did you see?
A. I believe it was a -- perhaps three-quarters of an inch wide,
perhaps, a little more or less, and approximately three inches,
four inches long.
Q. And you saw absolutely no blood drops on the indented area,
because that's exactly where you were looking when you looked into
that Bronco, true?
A. I don't recall seeing any blood drops on the exact center of the
console.
Q. When I say "exact center," I mean anyplace on the top portion of
the console, including the indented area and down, as it slopes down
towards the front of the vehicle. Do you see any blood drops in
there whatsoever, sir?
A. From this picture, no, I don't.
Q. Did you, on June 13, 1994, see any blood drops on that center
console?
A. Blood drops, no.
Q. And you don't see any blood smears on that console, on,
certainly, on the right-hand side, do you?
A. That's correct.
Q. You don't see any blood in that picture whatsoever, do you?
A. Well, the focus isn't so sharp; but no, I don't.
Q. It was your testimony that the blood drop that you say you saw
was in front of the instrument panel, in between the steering wheel
and the windshield, right?
A. Yes.
MR. BAKER: Nothing further.
MR. MEDVENE: Nothing further. We'd move in 2306.
MR. P. BAKER: We'd move in 1801.
MR. MEDVENE: What's 1801?
MR. P. BAKER: His report, Phillips'.
THE COURT: Okay. Received.
(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2306 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1801 was
received in evidence.)
THE COURT: Ten minutes' recess, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk
about the case. Don't form or express an opinion.
(Recess.)
MR. P. BAKER: Defense calls Otis Marlow. OTIS MARLOW was called as
a witness on behalf of the Defendants, was duly sworn, and testified
as follows:
THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in
the cause now pending before this Court, shall be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE WITNESS: I do.
THE CLERK: And, sir, would you please state and spell your name for
the record.
THE WITNESS: My name is Otis Marlow, O-t-i-s M-a-r-l-o-w. DIRECT
EXAMINATION BY
MR. P. BAKER:
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Marlow.
A. Afternoon, sir.
Q. Where are you currently employed?
A. I'm a private investigator. I work for Gailey & Associates.
Q. That's a private investigator firm?
A. Yes.
Q. Do a number of LAPD officers work for that firm?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you start working for Grailey & Associates?
A. I think it's approximately one year ago today.
Q. January of 1996?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you retire from the Los Angeles Police Department?
A. January '95.
Q. And you receive pension benefits from the LAPD?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And as I understand it, when you were working at the Los Angeles
Police Department, you were work in the Robbery/Homicide Division?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And, in fact, you assisted in the investigation of the crimes at
875 South Bundy, did you not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know of any policy of the Los Angeles Police Department
that prohibits a cop from -- retiring from them being paid for work
he did when he was a public employee?
A. No, sir.
Q. You don't think it's a conflict of interest, Mr. Marlow?
A. No, sir; it's not.
Q. You can't envision a situation where a cop can retire and then
offer his services to either side for work he did while he was a
cop?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You don't think that's a conflict of interest?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Relevance. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) When did you first start working on the
investigation of the crimes at 875 South Bundy?
A. Approximately a day or two after the discovery of the crimes.
Q. As I understand it, you attended a squad-room meeting with
Lieutenant Bowen and Lieutenant Rodgers?
A. Yes.
Q. At that meeting, a number of robbery/homicide detectives were
there, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And how many robbery/homicide detectives were there in June of
1994?
A. In robbery, I'm not exactly sure of the number. I don't want to
mislead you. I think the entire division has 75 sworn personnel work
there, but in the homicide section, I think there may be 25 or 30
of us that work homicide, and it's broken up into two squads.
Q. A couple days after the crimes, Lieutenant Bowen and Lieutenant
Rodgers got the robbery/homicide detectives in the squad room?
A. I don't think -- I don't want to mislead you. I did speak to the
lieutenant about the case.
Q. Okay. Well, there were a number of detectives in that meeting,
weren't there?
A. You know, there were a lot of meetings over the time. I just
don't want to mislead you at all. I'm not sure how many people were
present. I don't know there was really a meeting or anything. There
were several detectives that worked at my table. I worked the major
crime section. All the lieutenant asked us to, help us with -- lots
of clues were coming in -- and to help us work the clues. And so I
said, sure, I will.
Q. He also asked that if any of the detectives had free time, to try
to assist in the investigation, didn't he?
A. By working the clues, that's what he meant.
Q. Only the clues?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He didn't ask you to -- the detectives at any other time to
assist in the investigation, right?
A. I don't -- I'm not sure I understood that.
Q. Mr. Marlow, did Lieutenant Bowen or Lieutenant Rodgers, at that
squad-room meeting, ask any of the detectives if they had free time,
to assist in the investigation?
A. Yes. "In the investigation" would be working the clues.
Q. Okay.
A. We didn't handle the investigation. They had assigned detectives
to that, Vannatter and Lange, and it is another squad completely, to
help with the investigation as part of the clues. That's what I
worked.
Q. You just worked the clues in the investigation at the crime scene
of 875 South Bundy, right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You worked -- strike that. What was clue detail?
A. Clue detail is, a lot of clues would come in constantly. People
would phone in various clues as to -- regarding the crime. And some
would be, you know, obviously, very kind of silly, and others would
-- they might be something to investigate. But whatever the clue
was, it was assigned to a detective. And we tried to run out the
clue to the -- to the end there and write a report as to what we
did.
Q. So as I understand it, you take the phone calls. This was a
pretty high-profile case, wasn't it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you would sit in the -- down in Parker Center; you'd receive
some calls; and if you thought the calls had merit, you'd follow up
on them, right?
A. No. Every call that came in was some kind of a clue, was written
down. It wasn't up to me to determine the merit of the clue. We
write the clue down, and whatever the person may say or whatever the
clue may be. And we'd write it down just as they told it to you, so
another investigator could pick it up. I didn't receive all of the
clues. I mean, I did take some. People would call in; I'd write it
down. But we have a section in the police department called
detective headquarters. They're open 24 hours a day. And clues would
go into their office, also. And we have a special form -- it's an
LAPD form -- because --
Q. The "We Tip" form?
A. Very similar to "We Tip."
Q. What you do is turn in the form to the lead investigator, who
was -- who was it, Commander Watts at that time?
A. Well, it was -- it was Detective Watts. And he was designated by
Lieutenant Rodgers, who was a squad leader. Lieutenant Rodgers made
Watts the -- what we call -- they call the clue complaint captain,
but he is a detective. And all the clues went to him, so we could
log all the clues in, so everybody -- everything can be logged and
distributed out to investigators that were working the clues.
Q. So if you got a clue that you thought would have merit, you'd
write it down and you'd submit it?
A. Right.
Q. And then from -- even if it -- then would you have to wait for
orders from a superior before you'd follow up on that clue, right?
A. I'm not sure. I didn't quite understand.
Q. You had a clue that you thought had merit, you'd write it down
and submit it; true?
A. That's right.
Q. You wouldn't follow up on it on your own?
A. That's correct.
Q. And then you'd have to wait for a response by one of the
superiors before you could ever do any work on the incoming clue,
true?
A. That's correct.
Q. How many detectives were working clue detail approximately one to
two weeks after the crimes?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Relevance, Your Honor.
MR. PETROCELLI: We also have order number 8 that applies here.
THE COURT: Sustained. You may ask this witness what he did.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Did you ever have any meetings with any other
detectives about the clues you were following?
A. Sure.
Q. How many?
A. Probably -- there were about, in my section of the table, there
were about four guys, four detectives, and we were working together
on my squad. And we even talk about this: Listen, I've got to do
this clue or that clue, try to coordinate things between us.
Q. You weren't the only four detectives following up clues?
A. No, there were more than us.
Q. You never had any of the meetings with any of the other officers
following up the clues, true?
A. I'm sure we spoke. I can't remember exactly what meetings we
might have had or anything like that, but we did speak among each
other. We did not not communicate; we always try to communicate.
Q. There were no formal meetings between all the detectives
following up on clue detail, correct?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Relevance.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You didn't just work sewer detail -- clue
detail; you also worked in the sewers in this investigation, didn't
you?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. And what did that involve, Officer Marlow? Or, you don't go by
"officer" anymore, correct?
A. You can call me anything, sir. That's fine.
Q. Mr. Marlow, what did sewer detail involve?
A. There was four of us on the sewer detail: Myself, Detective
Bercham, Detective Quak and my partner, Dave Martin. And what I --
what we did is, that we tried to search all of the sewers and look
in all the sewers from Bundy to Rockingham in various routes in
various streets. We searched all of the sewers, slid into what we
could. Then, some of them, you can't get into, we put our flashlight
into it, in a search for evidence. This is a day or two after the
crime.
Q. You were looking for anything suspicious?
A. That's right.
Q. You never found any?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you take any notes of that sewer detail?
A. Yeah, there were notes taken. I took some notes as to what
streets we were on, either myself or Dave Martin did, my partner. I
don't have any specific recollection as to where the notes are now.
I don't know if I turned them in or --
Q. You have no recollection of turning those notes in?
A. Oh no, sir. No.
Q. Did you -- you also worked on the -- well, strike that. You also
attended a block-party meeting around 360 North Rockingham a couple
weeks after the crime?
A. It wasn't a block party.
Q. It was a block meeting?
A. It was a --
Q. Homeowners --
A. -- block club meeting.
Q. Who ordered you to do that?
A. No one.
Q. You just went on your own?
A. We were invited.
Q. By whom?
A. The lady that was putting on the block -- not party, but the
block meeting.
Q. And she called you?
A. It was a neighborhood watch. It's a neighborhood watch type of
meeting.
Q. She called you up personally, Mr. Marlow, and asked you to come?
A. No, not me.
Q. This was a high-profile case and you were trying to do anything
to get involved with it, weren't you?
A. No, sir. I -- that's all I handle is high-profile cases, every
case I handle. This is just among one of them. But I've worked
homicide for 20 years.
Q. The Simpson criminal case had about the same media attention as
all the other cases you've handled, right? Is that what you're
telling this jury?
A. No, sir; that's not true.
Q. You take any notes at that block meeting?
A. No, sir.
Q. That wasn't clue detail, was it?
A. No, sir.
Q. You also were at the -- strike that. You also interviewed the
gardners behind Mr. Simpson's residence?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. No one told to you do that, did they?
A. No, sir.
Q. You didn't take any notes of that, did you?
A. No, sir.
Q. You interviewed the neighbors of Mr. Simpson, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You didn't take any notes of that, did you?
A. No, sir.
Q. You interviewed Mr. Simpson's neighbor's housekeeper, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Didn't take any notes of that, did you?
A. No, sir.
Q. Who ordered to you do that?
A. Nobody.
Q. You just did it on your own?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And lots of other detectives were running out in the city on
their own inclination because this is a high-profile case, true?
A. No.
MR. GELBLUM: Objection.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You worked the June 28 search?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you take any notes of that?
A. No, sir.
Q. I want to show you a picture, Mr. Marlow.
MR. P. BAKER: Mark it next in order.
THE CLERK: 2307.
(The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of Mr. Marlow in
closet was marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No.
2307.)
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Is that you, Mr. Marlow?
(Indicating to picture shown on the Elmo screen.)
A. Yes, sir, it is.
MR. P. BAKER: Steve, can you zoom in on Mr. Marlow's hand.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) That is Mr. Simpson's closet, by the way, isn't
it?
A. Yes, this is his closet.
Q. What is that in you left hand, Mr. Marlow?
A. I don't know.
Q. It's a note pad, isn't it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You ever submit those notes?
A. No, sir.
Q. Does that refresh your recollection that you did take notes on
that day?
A. No, sir.
Q. That doesn't?
A. No, sir. I always carry a notebook like that. I've got one with
me.
Q. You always walking around with it opened up?
A. No, sir, I don't always do that. I probably made a notation, but
I don't know what it is or why.
Q. Is that a pencil in your left hand?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You know why you didn't turn in those notes, Mr. Marlow?
A. No, sir.
Q. You also work -- By the way, who from West L.
A. -- which detectives from the West L.
A. department were at the June 28 search? Do you recall?
A. Yes. Detective Roberts, Detective Fuhrman. There was a female
detective there, and I don't recall her name. There could have
been others. I didn't know those two until after that case or after
that search.
Q. Detective Fuhrman was in the bedroom with you, wasn't he, during
the search warrants?
A. Yes.
Q. Detective Phillips was in the bedroom with you during the search?

A. Yes.
Q. You understood the robbery/homicide division had taken over the
case 15 days ago? You were aware of that, weren't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did it ever cross your mind what Fuhrman and Phillips were doing
there, because authority had transferred to HRD 15 days earlier --
MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Relevance, whether it crossed his mind.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Now, you also searched along the southern
walkway on June 28, didn't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You walked along --
MR. P. BAKER: Let me get a board real quick. This is Exhibit 116.
(Exhibit displayed on the easel.)
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You searched the area -- let me get out of the
way -- down along the southern walkway on the fences toward the
neighborhood yard, right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what were you looking for?
A. We were looking for maybe a knife, any blood, any clothing.
Q. You didn't find anything, did you?
A. No, sir.
Q. Who ordered you to search along the southern walkway?
A. I was just assisting the criminalist. He was in there working; I
thought I'd help him.
Q. Which criminalist was that?
A. I don't know his name.
Q. You did that on your own?
A. Sure.
Q. You just walked over there and kind of looked through the bushes
to see if you could see any blood or any weapon or any clothing,
right?
A. I was with the criminalist. Yes, I was helping him out. We help
each other out.
Q. You did that without any orders?
A. Sure. I don't have to be told everything to do. I try to help out
as much as I can.
Q. No criminalist said no, wait; don't go in there. Did you have
gloves on?
A. No.
Q. You did you have booties on?
A. No.
Q. You just went in there?
A. This is all -- I have -- what you need in there is combat boots.
There's thick ivy in there.
Q. You searched around. You didn't see anything?
A. That's right.
Q. Did you take any notes of that?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, you started working at Gailey & Associates in January of
'96, right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Since that time, you've been active in assisting the plaintiffs
in the civil case, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. You helped prepare witnesses, haven't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You've called up people like Officer Marlow and told him what
questions to be wary of?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection.
A. I didn't call myself up.
MR. PETROCELLI: He's Officer Marlow.
MR. P. BAKER: It's the vacation.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Officer Ashton?
A. I didn't call him up; no, sir.
Q. You never called Officer Ashton?
A. Oh, I talked to him in person.
Q. When did you do that?
A. I don't know. It's been about three weeks ago, I guess.
Q. What did you tell him?
A. I just told him I was investigating; I worked for the Goldman
family, plaintiffs' attorneys; I was investigating the case, and I
wanted to know what part he played in it.
Q. That's all you asked him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You didn't tell him what type of questions he may be asked when
he was on the stand?
A. Well, I just -- no. We -- I didn't know -- I didn't know what
question --
Q. That's a yes or no. Yes, you didn't tell him what questions he
should be looking out for, right?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you -- how long did this conversation last?
A. This was at West L.
A. station. Probably an hour or so, maybe a little longer.
Q. Did you tell him you were a -- you were a former cop?
A. I don't know that I did or not. I may have. I mean, I'm proud
of the fact that I was a police officer.
Q. I'm very happy.
A. I may have told him that.
MR. GELBLUM: Ask Mr. Baker's comments be stricken.
THE COURT: Stricken.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Did you tell him that the defense was going to
ask him about his observations of the Bronco of June -- on June 13,
1994?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you tell him that the defense was going to ask him about his
whereabouts on the morning of June 13, '94?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you tell him that the defense was going to ask him about his
observations of Gonzalez and the dog on June 13, 1994?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you tell him that they were going to ask that -- the defense
was going to ask Officer Ashton about the vehicle impound in court?
A. On that -- yes, sir, on that, I may have. Yes.
Q. Who told you to tell him all this?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, Your Honor. Work product.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Since you started working on the civil case,
you've had a number of contacts with the officers down at Parker
Center, true?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You called up -- when Phil Vannatter still worked there, you
called him up and asked him questions whenever you wanted to, right?

A. Yeah, I may have talked to Phil a lot. I don't remember what
specific questions I may have asked him.
Q. When Lange still worked there, you called up Lange and asked him
some questions?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Tony, Lange's replacement, you'd call up when you needed
something or had questions?
A. If I had any questions, I'd ask him, yes.
Q. And you always got unequivocal assistance from the LAPD when you
needed help, right?
A. Depends on what I'd ask for.
Q. Well, what did you ask for that you didn't get help on?
A. I'd never put them in a position to give me something I shouldn't
have. I wouldn't do that. As a police officer, I wouldn't ask them
to do anything like that. Any information I got from them would be
anything that was already discoverable to both sides.
Q. So you'd just call up Parker Center -- strike that. You
understand that 10,197 documents were turned over to the plaintiffs
in November of '95 --
MR. GELBLUM: That -- objection --
Q. -- that weren't turned over to the defense until May of '96?
THE COURT: Objection sustained. Jury to disregard that question.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Would it surprise you that when the defense
tried to contact L.
A. Police Department officers, they wouldn't give them the courtesy
of a return phone call?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Relevance.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. P. BAKER: Nothing further.
THE COURT: Cross. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. GELBLUM:
Q. Mr. Marlow, were you asked to help out on the sewer detail?
A. Yes, sir. I just don't remember exactly how it started up,
whether it came in on the clue, or -- I don't know how that -- that
particular clue developed or why we were even doing it. Maybe we
were told to do it. I don't remember. I remember doing it. I'll
never forget that. I'm not sure whose idea it was to do that.
Q. And were you asked to help out on the June 28 search?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. You didn't just walk over there one day and say, "Hi, guys; can I
help out"?
A. No. They asked for volunteers for the search. They needed help.
Q. You went and volunteered?
A. Well, sure.
Q. And with all the work you did in this case, did you respond to
requests for help?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. GELBLUM: I have nothing further.
MR. P. BAKER: Nothing further.
THE COURT: You may step down.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. LEONARD: Call Paul Tippin. PAUL TIPPIN, called as a witness on
behalf of Defendants, was duly sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in
the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE WITNESS: I do.
THE CLERK: And, sir, would you please state and spell your name.
THE WITNESS: Paul S. Tippin, T-i-p-p-i-n. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. LEONARD:
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Tippin.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. How are you employed?
A. I'm currently employed for the Orange County District Attorney's
office as an investigator.
Q. How long have you had that position, sir?
A. For approximately a year.
Q. Now, have you ever worked for Gailey & Associates?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Okay. And when did you first start working for Gailey &
Associates?
A. I went to work for Gailey & Associates August 6, 1995.
Q. Okay. And Gailey & Associates is a private investigation firm; is
that right, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you were a Los Angeles police officer for some period of
time prior to working for Grailey & Associates; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long were you employed at the Los Angeles Police Department?
A. Twenty-six years.
Q. And what was the highest rank that you attained, sir?
A. Detective 3.
Q. Okay. And did you have any officer rank: Sergeant, lieutenant,
captain?
A. It was rank of Detective 3.
Q. Okay. So you weren't a lieutenant or captain?
A. No, sir.
Q. And you were assigned to what department during the investigation
of the Simpson case?
A. I was assigned to robbery/homicide division, in the homicide
special section.
Q. And you were involved to some degree in the investigation of the
crimes at 875 South Bundy; is that right, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, were you ever engaged by the plaintiff in this case to
investigate anything dealing with the civil case, sir?
A. Gailey Associates was hired by the firm, yes.
Q. Okay. And did you take part in any investigation?
A. At the very beginning, yes.
Q. And as part of that investigation, did you have some contact with
a fellow -- or your former colleagues at the Los Angeles Police
Department?
A. I may have, yes.
Q. Okay. Now, you certainly utilized the knowledge that you had
obtained from your personal involvement in the criminal
investigation when you were at the Los Angeles Police Department, in
your assistance of the plaintiffs in this case; is that right, sir?
A. I would say so, yes.
Q. There's no question about that in your mind, is there?
A. No.
Q. Now, one of the things that you did when you were involved in the
investigation of the killings at 875 South Bundy was that you
interviewed the watch commander who was on duty on the night of June
12, 1994, correct?
A. No.
Q. Did you interview an individual named Sergeant Merrin?
A. No.
Q. Remember that?
A. I don't remember that, no.
Q. Now, one of the things that -- are you saying you didn't do it or
you just don't have a memory of it right now?
A. I don't believe I did, but I don't have any recollection as to
it. If there's a report I could refresh my memory, maybe it would
help, but I don't believe I did, no.
Q. Let me see if I can refresh it in another way. Do you remember
having a discussion with a Sergeant Merrin when he said to you --
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, hearsay.
MR. LEONARD: I'm trying to refresh his recollection. They've done
that several times
MR. PETROCELLI: You can't get into the contact, Your Honor.
MR. GELBLUM: They have done this several times.
THE COURT: If you want to refresh his recollection show him
something.
MR. LEONARD: Show him something?
MR. GELBLUM: Without publishing.
MR. LEONARD: Fine. May I approach?
THE COURT: You may.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) I'll show you what will be marked next in order.

THE CLERK: 2308.
MR. LEONARD: 2308.
(The instrument herein described as a handwritten chronological
log was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2308.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) I show you that document 2308 and ask you to
take a look at it and let me --
MR. LEONARD: You know what, before I do that let me show it to you.
MR. GELBLUM: Thank you.
MR. LEONARD: I'm sorry, Mr. Gelblum.
(Mr. Gelblum reviews Exhibit 2308.)
Q. I show you what's been marked as 2308. Take a look at that, take
your time, and I'll ask you some questions.
(Witness reviews Exhibit 2308.)
A. Okay.
Q. First of all, is that your handwriting, sir?
A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. Now, does that refresh your -- strike that. In generic terms,
what is that?
A. This is my chronological log that I hand wrote. It's not a
statement, it's a chronological log.
Q. I understand. But that is part of the record of the report that
you created in this case to document, at least in part, what you did
and what you found out, correct?
A. It's my chronological log, yes.
Q. It's a report that you prepared, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And you prepared that in the regular course of your
duties and your employment as a police officer; isn't that right,
sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's a report that you regularly prepare, don't you,
something like that?
A. A chronological log as to what I did, yes.
Q. You've done hundreds of those in cases haven't you, sir?
A. I wouldn't say hundreds, but I've done a lot.
Q. Okay. Now, having read that, does that refresh your recollection,
sir, that you interviewed a Sergeant Merrin?
A. No, it does not.
Q. Did you interview a Sergeant Merrin?
A. According to my log, I talked with him on the phone, yes.
Q. Do you recall Sergeant Merrin telling you that he had received a
call around 10:30 on June 12 -- on the evening of June 12, 1994, in
which a woman asked him if there had been a reported double homicide
in West L.
A., do you remember that?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, hearsay.
MR. LEONARD: It's in the police report.
MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, the phone call is another level of hearsay.

(Court reviews real time screen.)
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Let me make sure I understand your testimony.
That's your handwriting, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Have you ever heard of a Sergeant Merrin?
A. It's in my log, but I don't remember specifically talking with
him, no.
Q. Do you remember generally talking with him?
A. Here again, there was so much going on. It's in my log so I
obviously talked with him, but I do not generally remember talking
to him, no.
Q. Do you have any reason to believe that you would have put
something in your log that you had not heard from Sergeant Merrin,
sir?
A. Well, I'm not disputing the fact that I talked with him. I just
don't remember it.
Q. And that document doesn't refresh your recollection?
A. No, it doesn't.
Q. Do you have any memory problems, sir?
A. No, sir.
Q. What does EOW mean?
A. End of watch.
Q. What indication on that document as to the end of watch on June
12, 1994, say?
A. It states end of watch was at 10:45 p.m.
Q. Okay. And Sergeant Merrin had indicated that he had received this
call prior to the end of watch, correct, sir?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, hearsay, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The witness may testify what's on that document.
MR. GELBLUM: Why, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Excuse me. Because it's --
MR. GELBLUM: Not as to what somebody else told him.
THE COURT: If it's in that report, that report can come in, it's
part of official records.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you, Your Honor.
A. Would you repeat the question.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Yes. At what time does -- is it not true that
Sergeant Merrin indicated, at least according to your official
report there, that he had received this call prior to the EOW or the
end of the watch, and the end of watch was at 10:45 p.m., sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It also indicates in there that he had received a call from a
woman asking if a double homicide had been reported in West LA;
isn't that right, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you were involved, obviously, in running down some clues in
this case, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And, in fact, the date of that notation is July 7, is it not,
sir?
A. Yes.
Q. You know -- sir, you know that there were no other double
homicides in West LA on June 12 -- on the evening of June 12, other
than the one that occurred at 875 South Bundy, don't you?
A. I don't know that for sure, but I suspect that's true, yes.
Q. You would bet on it, wouldn't you, sir.
MR. GELBLUM: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Do you have any reason to doubt that there were
no others, sir?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Your best recollection -- your best knowledge, as you sit
on this stand, there was only one and that was at 875 South Bundy,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. I take it you followed up on that clue, did you?
A. No, not that I recall.
Q. Okay. Now, you also were involved in the interview of an
individual named Brian Kato Kaelin, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You interviewed Kaelin at about what time on the morning of June
13, 1994?
A. I didn't speak to him on the morning of June 13.
Q. When did you speak to him, sir?
A. It would have been the early afternoon.
Q. At what time?
A. Approximately 1, 1:30 p.m.
Q. You were with your partner, Carr; is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That was Detective Carr?
A. Yes.
Q. You created a report from the interview?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you created a handwritten report, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Let me show you what has been previously marked as
2198. Take a look at that. I'm going to ask you some questions.
(Witness reviews Exhibit 2198.)
A. The first page is not mine.
Q. Well, let's stop right there then. Do you have any idea who's
writing that is?
A. No, I don't.
Q. I want you to review the document, just the first page, and tell
me if you can tell by the content of the document or any other
indication on the document who created it? I ask you now if you
recognize the handwriting. Now, I'm asking you another question.
Can you tell by the content who created that document? Just the
first page.
(Witness reviews document.)
A. I don't know who wrote this.
Q. All right. Tell you what. Tear off that page.
(Witness complies)
Q. Now, take a look at the rest, the remainder of the document.
MR. LEONARD: For the record, the witness removed the first page of
what has been marked for identification as 2198.
A. This is my handwritten notes with Mr. Kaelin.
Q. Okay. (BY MR. LEONARD) When you say this, you're referring, for
the record, to the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7-page handwritten documents
that remains after you've torn away the first page of 21 --
MR. P. BAKER: 98.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) -- 2198?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were subpoenaed to appear here today?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you receive that subpoena?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance.
MR. LEONARD: I'll prove it up, Your Honor?
A. I believe it was possibly December 15.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, I take it that upon receiving the subpoena
you took it upon yourself to try to prepare yourself to testify in
this case; is that right, sir?
A. I wasn't told exactly what I was going to testify to, no.
Q. Did you bother, for instance, to -- I assume you had in mind that
it would be about the Simpson case, right? I mean about your
investigation in the criminal case. Did that thought enter your
mind, sir?
A. Well, that could encompass very many things.
Q. Okay. Well, let me ask you this. When you got the subpoena, did
you contact -- did you have any discussion with the plaintiffs'
attorney?
A. I talked with them, yes.
Q. Okay. Did you ask them what they thought you might be asked by
defense counsel?
A. I was told that I was going to probably be questioned as to a
statement.
Q. And it was this statement, right?
A. I believe it was, yes.
Q. And so you naturally reviewed this statement before getting on
the stand?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. You have it pretty well in mind, do you, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there anything you think needs to be corrected, anything --
having reviewed the statement, anything you think is incorrect?
A. No.
Q. And again, you had plenty of opportunities to look at it and make
sure that it comported with your memory, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. In fact, you used it to refresh your memory, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, what's been marked as 2198 is your report of your interview
with Kato Kaelin, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. By the way, you say this was there -- this occurred at -- and I
guess you can refresh your recollection, it occurred at 3:30 in the
afternoon on June 13, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. That's right at the top and it's dated, right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. By the way, that's the proper way to create a report, you put a
date and time; isn't that right, sir?
A. I do, yes.
Q. Well, that's proper police procedure?
A. Yes.
Q. You need to know when the report was taken and ideally what time
it was taken, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And a report that doesn't contain that is a deficient report;
isn't that right? Wouldn't you agree with that?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance, calls for conclusion.
MR. LEONARD: Based on previous testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained. You may argue it, counsel, but --
MR. LEONARD: I'm asking a police officer --
THE COURT: You may ask him about this one
MR. LEONARD: I will.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, certainly as of -- in your mind, as of 1:30
in the afternoon on June 13, 1994, Mr. Simpson was a suspect in the
killings at 875 South Bundy; isn't that true, sir?
A. I would say he would be one, yes.
Q. Okay. Who were the other suspects?
A. At that point in time I couldn't tell you. I didn't know enough
about the investigation, plus it wasn't my investigation.
Q. When you set out to interview Mr. Kaelin, did you feel you knew
enough about the investigation to undertake the interview of this
witness?
A. No.
Q. Really. Did you tell anybody about that?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, argumentative.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you tell any other police officer that you
didn't think you had enough information to conduct an interview of
Mr. Kaelin at the time you did it, sir? Did you do that?
A. Well, you have to understand --
Q. Can you answer my question yes or no, please, and then you can
explain it. Can you answer yes or no, did you tell any other police
officer, any supervisor, that you felt that you didn't have enough
information to interview Mr. Kaelin as you've just told the jury.
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance.
MR. LEONARD: Yes or no?
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GELBLUM: It's argumentative as well.
MR. LEONARD: It goes to --
THE COURT: What's the relevance of whether he told anybody.
Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) All right. You didn't have enough information.
Did you know, sir, that it would be important in interviewing this
witness to account for every movement that he observed of Mr.
Simpson; did you think that was important at the time?
A. Well, I have to go back.
Q. Can you answer yes or no, sir?
A. I can't, no.
Q. So right now you don't -- as you sit here, you don't remember or
you don't know if you thought it was important at the time that you
interviewed Mr. Kaelin to be able to ask Mr. Kaelin about all of Mr.
Simpson's movements on June 12, 1994, that he observed; is that what
you want to leave with the jury?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance, whether this witness thought a
particular aspect is important or not.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, this is cross-examination. I want to get --

THE COURT: This is cross-examination?
MR. LEONARD: Yes. Yeah, it is. And I want to ask him his state of
mind when he created this report.
MR. GELBLUM: Relevance, Your Honor.
MR. LEONARD: I'll show how it's relevant.
MR. GELBLUM: Can we have an offer of proof.
THE COURT: This witness hasn't testified before.
MR. LEONARD: He's worked for the plaintiffs.
THE COURT: Doesn't make it cross-examination.
MR. LEONARD: I ask that he be treated as an adverse witness.
THE COURT: You may treat him as an adverse witness, but it's still
not cross-examination.
MR. LEONARD: Well, I think --
THE COURT: It's not. You're offering him as a witness.
MR. LEONARD: I want to lead him, and I assume you're going to --
THE COURT: You may lead him, but it's not cross-examination. That's
the only point I want to make.
MR. LEONARD: Okay. Can I have a ruling on the question?
THE COURT: If I can find it.
MR. LEONARD: You know what, I'll withdraw it.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You did ask Mr. Kaelin questions about what he
observed of Mr. Simpson's movements that night, did you not?
A. I asked him a number of questions about a lot of things.
Q. Don't you want to answer my question, sir?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, argumentative, move that it be stricken.
THE COURT: That's a legitimate question. Overruled.
A. Would you repeat that again. I'm sorry.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Yes. Did you, among other things, ask Mr. Kaelin
about his observations of Mr. Simpson's movements that night, sir?
Can you answer that yes or no.
A. Yes.
Q. That was one of the goals you had in mind when you set forth to
interview Mr. Kaelin, was it not, sir?
A. That was one of my goals, to find out a lot of things, yes.
Q. Thank you. And one of the things you wanted to find out was Mr.
Simpson's movements that night as observed by Mr. Kaelin, right?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: It has been, but just to keep things moving, overruled.
MR. LEONARD: I appreciated that, Your Honor.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Okay. Now, did you listen carefully to what Mr.
Kaelin told you, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you record carefully what Mr. Kaelin told you, sir?
A. As best I could, yes.
Q. Okay. And you recorded in your notes that Mr. Kaelin saw OJ
Simpson enter through the front after they came back from
McDonald's, did you not, sir? And that's on page 26 of your report
at the bottom.
A. Yes, that's on my statement.
Q. That's what Kaelin told you, isn't it?
A. I assume he did, yes.
Q. Well, you would have no reason to put that in there if he didn't
tell you that, would you?
A. No.
Q. Okay.
MR. LEONARD: I don't have any further questions.
MR. P. BAKER: Wait a second.
MR. LEONARD: Or maybe I do.
(Mr. P. Baker and Mr. Leonard converse sotto voce.)
MR. LEONARD: Good thing he's here.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You also, as part of your discussions with Mr.
Kaelin, and as reported in your report, you were asking background
questions about the victims, at least about Nicole Brown Simpson, as
well as Mr. Simpson; is that correct?
A. I was trying to learn as much as I could about everyone, yes.
Q. And one of the things that you were doing is you were asking
questions, at least in general terms, about Nicole Brown Simpson's
lifestyle; for instance, her friends, that type of thing, isn't that
right, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And if you look on page -- this is the fifth page, sir, of your
report. Excuse me, it would be the sixth page. You see a notation on
the report, it says friends, you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Dash Nicole dash used coke. Do you see that, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What does that indicate there, sir, what were you tying to say in
the report, what did Kaelin tell you in that report?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance, Your Honor, and hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Well, there must have been a question, and I don't know
specifically what the question was, but it had to do with use of
narcotics or something, and he said she used coke.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, there's also a list of friends down there.
Do you see that right underneath that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And there's a list. Is Cora Fischman -- that's the first friend
listed; isn't that right, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. LEONARD: I don't have any further questions.
THE COURT: Cross-examination. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. GELBLUM:
Q. Did you know what Kato's relationship was with Nicole?
A. Not specifically, until I started talking with him and he
indicated certain things.
Q. Okay. And did he tell you that Cora Fischman used coke?
MR. BAKER: Objection, there's no foundation.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'm going to object to that.
MR. GELBLUM: The document is ambiguous.
MR. LEONARD: He hasn't testified it was ambiguous.
MR. GELBLUM: He wasn't asked.
MR. LEONARD: I'm objecting. There's no basis for him --
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Did Mr. Kaelin tell you that Nicole's friends
used coke as well?
A. I don't remember him saying that.
Q. Okay. And did he also list Faye Resnick as one of her friends?
A. Yes.
Q. And Chris Jenner?
A. Yes.
Q. And someone named Cici?
A. Yes.
Q. And her three sisters?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Kaelin listed all those people as her friends?
A. Yes.
Q. And again, you have no idea how close Kato was with Nicole at
this point in time?
A. No.
Q. Now, back on page 3, I guess page 2 after you ripped the first
page off, where you wrote down about the entering through the side
of the house into his room and OJ entered through the front, you see
that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have a tape recorder going at the time?
A. No, sir.
Q. So you couldn't check back your notes against the tape recorder?
A. No, sir.
Q. Were you taking shorthand or was this exactly what you were
writing as it was being spoken?
A. Well, most of my statements here is brief.
Q. Okay. Are these the actual notes you were taking as Mr. Kaelin
was speaking?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And are you confident that you got down verbatim every
single word that he said?
A. Not every word, no.
Q. Now, at the time you took this statement had you ever been to
Rockingham?
A. No, sir.
Q. And do you think you wrote down what Mr. Kaelin said in sequence
about him entering through the side of the house and into his room
and then OJ entering the front in the sequence he said those words?
Do you think --
A. Yes.
Q. And so you hadn't ever been there. So at the time he told you
that, did you know that if Mr. Kaelin entered around the side of the
house into his room he couldn't possibly see what was going on in
the front of the house?
MR. LEONARD: I object, that's argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Did Mr. Kaelin tell you from his room he could
not see the front of the house?
A. No, he did not.
Q. Did he tell you that if he entered through the side of the house
into his room, he would not be able to tell what Mr. Simpson was
doing in the front of the house?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object as argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Have you been to Rockingham since then?
A. On one occasion, yes.
Q. Okay. And you're aware that you can't see the front of the house
from Mr. Kaelin's room?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, on this clue sheet that Mr. Leonard asked you some questions
about, do you still have that in front of you?
A. No, sir.
Q. Does your clue indicate who the caller was that told -- that
asked Officer Merrin something about a double homicide on the west
side?
A. No, sir, just states female caller.
Q. It doesn't say whether the female caller was employed?
A. No.
MR. LEONARD: Why doesn't Mr. Gelblum testify.
MR. GELBLUM: I'm showing him the document.
MR. LEONARD: I object to the leading.
MR. GELBLUM: You want him to get out what on the document?
THE COURT: Excuse me. The record will show that Mr. Gelblum went to
the witness and pointed to the document that the defense used to
refresh the witness' recollection. How is that leading? That's not
leading.
Q. Does the document say where the caller was from?
A. I was looking at a different section. It does say at the
beginning, a few lines up, that the caller was with Channel 4 News.
Q. This was a media person calling in?
A. Yes.
Q. And, in fact, on the sheet, is there some follow-up showing
calling Channel 4 News?
A. The next line is a contact to a Pete Noise
(phonetic) from Channel 4 News.
Q. And back in the main entry, does that reflect what Officer Merrin
told this person from Channel 4 News about whether he had heard
anything about a double homicide? In other words, Officer Merrin's
response to the media call, to the Channel 4 call?
A. Well, he indicated that he didn't know of one.
THE CLERK: For the record, is there an exhibit number for that?
MR. GELBLUM: There was.
THE CLERK: Is this 2308?
MR. GELBLUM: I think it was.
THE CLERK: Thank you.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Now, finally, sir, sorry to move back and forth.
Back again to your notes of the Kaelin interview, did Mr. Kaelin
give you any details at all about these friends?
A. No.
Q. And you didn't write down any details about them, right, just
listed them?
A. They were listed for further investigation to be done.
Q. Okay. He didn't give you any details about the nature of or
extent of his relationship with Nicole?
A. No.
Q. Or the nature and extent of her relationship with any of these
friends?
A. No.
Q. Or the nature and extent of any asserted drug use?
A. Not really, no.
Q. Did he tell you anything about how he knew that anybody used
drugs?
A. No.
MR. GELBLUM: Okay. No further questions.
THE COURT: Redirect. REDIRECT EXAMINATION
MR. LEONARD:
Q. Did you just testify that Mr. Kaelin gave you no details about
his relationship with Nicole Brown Simpson; is that what you said?
A. I don't know how far you want to go with relationship. There are
occasions in the statement about where he met her and those types of
things, and also that he had never had sex with her.
Q. Well, that's pretty detailed, isn't it?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, argumentative.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, withdrawn.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Isn't there a whole page of notes or page and a
quarter of -- the first page and a quarter of these notes have to do
with where he met Nicole and the fact he had been living in a room
in her house; isn't that right, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Take a look at it.
A. Yes, it does.
Q. And from that, that's what -- and when Mr. Kaelin told you about
the drug use, didn't you assume that he knew that from the fact that
he had been living with her?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance.
MR. LEONARD: I'm asking -- he opened this, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained as to what he assumed.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You were asked the question, did you follow up
or did you ask any questions of Kaelin about how he knew about the
drug use. Do you remember Mr. Gelblum just asking you that?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, you assumed he knew from the fact that he lived with her,
didn't you, sir?
MR. GELBLUM: Same objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Isn't it true, sir, that you didn't follow up
because you assumed that he knew that from living with her, sir,
isn't that right?
MR. GELBLUM: Same objection.
THE COURT: That you may answer.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
A. I didn't assume anything as to what he was saying, no.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Okay. Why didn't you follow up, why didn't you
ask him more questions about that?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I really can't give you an answer. I was taking as much
information from him as I could, and the background of the people
that were involved in this, and I didn't ask him any further
questions as far as the narcotics.
Q. Now, the representation that was made by the caller to Sergeant
Merrin at approximately 10 to 10:30 on June 12, 1994, was that the
-- that the caller was with Channel 4 News; isn't that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And a call was made subsequent to Channel 4 News it was
discovered that from whoever Mr. Noise is, that he couldn't
determine that anyone had made such a call, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the follow-up after that? Did you go back and talk to
Sergeant Merrin about this situation?
A. No.
Q. Just left it?
A. Yes.
MR. LEONARD: No further questions.
MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further.
THE COURT: You're excused.
THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. P. BAKER: Judge, I can read one deposition, might take 20
minutes.
THE COURT: You got 25.
MR. P. BAKER: I was going to read Rachel Ferrara. Do you guys have
that? Defense calls Rachel Ferrara. RACHEL FERRARA, called as a
witness on behalf of the Defendants, previous testimony transcript
was read as follows:
MR. P. BAKER: Page 20,458, line 5.
(Testimony of Rachel Ferrara was read into the record; Ms. Bluestein
reading the answers and Mr. P. Baker reading the questions.)
MR. P. BAKER:
(Reading:)
Q. Ms. Ferrara, are you a friend of someone by the name of Brian
Kaelin, also known as Kato Kaelin?
A. Yes.
Q. How long have you known him?
A. I have known him since March of '94.
Q. And during the time that you knew him in 1994, where was he
living?
A. O.J.'s guest house.
Q. What was the address of that house?
A. 360 North Rockingham.
Q. In Brentwood?
A. Uh-huh. Yes.
Q. And had you ever visited him at the guest house?
A. Yes.
Q. So you know what it looks like?
A. Yes.
Q. On June the 12th, 1994, did you receive a call from Kato Kaelin?
A. Yes.
Q. At approximately what time?
A. Approximately 10:20.
Q. And where were -- where were you when you got this call?
A. At home.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. At home.
Q. Without giving us your address, where was that? Was the address
the same? Tell us the general area you were living in on June the
12th of 1994?
A. It is West LA, Palms.
Q. Okay. About how many miles from Rockingham and Brentwood would
that be?
A. Ten miles. That is a guess. I really don't know.
Q. Okay. At 10:20 p.m., what were you doing when you got that phone
call from Mr. Kaelin?
A. I was watching TV. Not much.
Q. Did you have a conversation with him?
A. Yes.
MR. P. BAKER: Page 20,461, line 9.
(Reading:) Now, did Kato talk to you about what he had done earlier
that evening?
A. Somewhat, yes.
Q. Did he talk to you about going to McDonald's with Mr. Simpson?
A. Yes.
Q. During the course of your conversation, did you happen to ask
Kato Kaelin what time it was?
A. Yes.
Q. And how did you happen to recall that?
A. Because we were going to go out and do something and I asked him
-- I was trying to figure out if it was too late, and he said -- so
I asked him what time it was, and he said 10:30.
Q. Now, you were supposed to go out with him that night, were you?
A. Yes -- well, I don't know out, but...
Q. Get together?
A. Yes.
Q. And so after he told you it was 10:30, at some point after that,
did something unusual occur during the course of your conversation
with him?
A. Yes.
Q. What was that?
A. Well, he described it as an earthquake. He, um, he said there was
a bang on his wall.
Q. Okay. And about how long after you had asked the time and he told
you it was 10:30 did he describe an earthquake occurring?
A. After 10:30.
Q. Right. You asked him what time it was, he said 10:30, correct?
A. Right.
Q. At some point after that he described an earthquake occurring?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. How long after that time when he said it was 10:30 did he
describe hearing an earthquake?
A. Approximately 10 minutes.
Q. How did he describe that earthquake sound?
A. He said it was a bang.
Q. When he told you about that, how did he sound?
A. He sounded confused and startled and concerned.
MR. P. BAKER: Page 20,463, line 5.
(Reading:)
Q. Did he indicate to you in any way that he was -- how did he
indicate to you that he was concerned?
A. Well, because we tried to figure out what it was, and he said was
there an earthquake, and I had the TV on, so I said no, for one
thing, I didn't feel anything, and also because they usually report
it right away, some sort of indication, and, um, just because he
kept referring back to it in the conversation.
Q. Okay. After he --
A. And it was also -- and it also knocked his picture.
Q. He said it moved the picture on his wall?
A. Right.
Q. After he -- after you said no, it was not an earthquake --
A. Yes.
Q. -- did he indicate some concern to you?
A. Yes.
Q. And what concern was that?
A. We thought maybe somebody was outside.
Q. All right. But you continued to talk to him for a while after
that, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. About how long?
A. Approximately 10 minutes or so.
Q. Okay. During that 10 minutes that he continued to -- that you
continued to talk to him, did the subject of that bang come up
again?
A. Yes.
Q. How many times?
A. Oh, I don't know how many times. I just know that it came up
again.
MR. P. BAKER: Page 20472, line 11.
(Reading:)
Q. Just before he hung up with you, did he give you some
instruction?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was that?
A. He said if he doesn't call back in 10 minutes to call the police.

Q. What was his tone of voice when he told you that?
A. It was -- I don't remember.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. I don't remember his tone of voice. It wasn't urgent.
Q. Were you concerned?
A. Not at the moment, not that much.
Q. Did he indicate at any point that he wanted to go out and find
what caused the noise?
A. Yes.
Q. And about what time was it that you hung up?
A. Approximately 10:50.
MR. P. BAKER: Page 20,483.
(Reading:)
Q. And in fact between the period of March, 1994 and June 12, 1994,
you had occasion to go over to the Simpson residence; is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you spent some time over there; is that correct?
A. Not a lot, but yes.
Q. Did you spend some evenings there?
A. One or two evenings.
Q. On how many occasions would you say you went over there?
A. I went over there in the daytime a few times, so I would say five
or six.
Q. All right. During that time frame?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Sometime in the day and sometime in the evening; is
that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And did you ever see Mr. O.J. Simpson during any of these times
that you went over there?
A. Never.
Q. So the five or six times you went over there between March of
1994 and June 12 of 1994, you never saw Mr. O.J. Simpson, right?
A. Never.
Q. On this particular evening that we are talking about, June 12,
1994, do you recall that you received a phone call from Mr. Kaelin
that evening; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And to the best of your recollection, that phone call was
somewhere approximately 10:30 p.m., the first phone call; is that
right?
A. Approximately 10:30.
Q. You were talking to him by 10:30 that evening?
A. We were talking during 10:30, but it was before 10:30.
Q. The first call was about what time, 10:20?
A. Yes.
Q. And at 10:30 you were still talking; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You had some plans of possibly getting together that evening; is
that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. As it turned out, you didn't get together that evening, did you?
A. No.
Q. And as I understand your testimony, that evening you had perhaps
three conversations all together, is that correct, three telephone
conversations?
A. Yes, I guess you could put it like that.
Q. It was during the first conversation that -- while talking to Mr.
Kaelin he described for you a bang on the wall of his residence or
something of that nature; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall he used the term "bang on the wall;" is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. At first, as I understand it, he thought it was an earthquake,
and because you were watching television, you were aware at least
there was no indication of an earthquake at this time; is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right.
A. Well, that is not the only indication, but I didn't feel
anything.
Q. So you didn't feel anything?
A. Right.
Q. You didn't see any mention of it either; is that correct?
A. Right.
Q. You were approximately 10 miles from where he was at that point;
is that correct?
A. That is an approximate. I'm not sure.
Q. You were in Palms somewhere; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, after he told you about this bang on the wall, there came
a time when this conversation -- the first conversation terminated;
is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us about what time that first conversation
terminated?
A. Around 10:50.
Q. And at that point you expected that Mr. Kaelin would call back
again; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And so that we are clear, if you can help us with this, what time
did he call back after the first conversation, what was the time of
the second conversation?
A. Approximately 11:05.
Q. So perhaps 15 minutes later he called back; is that correct?
A. Right.
Q. Do you know, or were you able to ascertain whether or not Mr.
Kaelin had seen Mr. Simpson between the two phone calls, between
10:50 and 11:05, were you able to ascertain that?
A. Yes.
Q. That was based upon something that he told you?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you discuss with -- did you discuss with Mr. Kaelin that
night that Mr. Simpson was going to Chicago on an airplane at all?
A. Discuss?
Q. Yeah, did you guys talk about that?
A. It wasn't like a whole topic discussed. It was mentioned.
Q. I'm not talking about a topic. Did you have occasion to mention
that in the course of your conversation?
A. Yes, yes.
MR. P. BAKER: That's all I have.
MR. PETROCELLI: Page 20,470, starting at line 15.
(Testimony of Rachel Ferrara was read into the record; Ms. Bluestein
reading the answers and Mr. Petrocelli reading the questions.)
MR. PETROCELLI:
(Reading:) CROSS-EXAMINATION
Q. After the bang on the wall, at some point did Mr. Kaelin indicate
to you that he wanted to terminate the conversation?
A. Yes.
Q. And were you expecting at the time he terminated the conversation
to hear back from him again?
A. Yes.
MR. P. BAKER: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI:
(Reading:)
Q. After you hung up from him, did you leave your apartment?
A. No.
Q. Why didn't you leave your apartment?
A. Because I didn't plan on leaving.
Q. Okay. Were you waiting for him to call back?
A. Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: Page 20,473, line 8.
(Reading:)
Q. Did you ever hear back from Mr. Kaelin that night after you hung
up at 10:50?
A. Yes.
Q. And what time was it approximately when you heard back from
him?
A. I would say approximately 11:05, 5 after 11.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. 5 after 11.
Q. Okay. And did you have a conversation with him about what
occurred after he hung up with you at 10:50?
A. Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: Question starting at line 27.
(Reading:)
Q. During your conversation with Mr. Kaelin, when you resumed your
conversation after 11 o'clock or 11:05, did something interrupt your
telephone call with him?
A. Yes.
Q. And how -- approximately how long had you been speaking, if you
remember, at the point that the phone call was interrupted?
A. Approximately 10 minutes.
Q. Are you familiar with the feature on telephones called call
waiting?
A. Yes.
Q. So are you familiar with what occurs when someone calls while
you're on the line if you have call waiting?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is that?
A. The -- it clicks or beeps or actually it clicks.
Q. Okay. And during your conversation with Mr. Kaelin after 11
o'clock p.m. after you had been speaking to him for awhile, did
something interrupt your call?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was that?
A. Call waiting on his line.
Q. On his line. And did he click off onto the other line?
A. Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: Go to page 20,479, starting at line 7.
(Reading:)
Q. And after he clicked back on, you had some further conversation
with him, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And for how long did you speak to him after he clicked back on?
A. After he clicked back over?
Q. Yes.
A. Not very long. He --
Q. Complete your answer.
A. Just a couple of minutes, and then he went outside.
Q. And then did he call you back again after he came back inside?
A. Yes.
Q. And about how long was it that you spoke after he called you back
the third time?
A. The third time?
Q. Right.
A. Um, it was for a long time, an hour and a half.
Q. Okay. About what time did you hang up with him?
A. I don't know what time. I would have to calculate it and figure
it out. I guess, let's see, 12:30, 1 o'clock.
Q. Okay.
MR. PETROCELLI: Page 20,481, line 19.
(Reading:)
Q. And how long had you known Kato Kaelin prior to June 12, 1994?
A. Well, for just -- well, since March, so...
Q. All right. So you've known him since March of 1994; is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You met him in connection with this movie production we were
talking about?
A. Yes.
Q. And during that period of time between March, 1994 and June of
1994, did a relationship of some kind develop between you and Mr.
Kaelin?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was that relationship?
A. We were friends and we were dating.
Q. Dating?
A. Yes.
Q. And you came to know him pretty well as of June 12 of 1994?
A. Yes.
MR. LEONARD: Objection, rel --
MR. P. BAKER: Objection, relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI:
(Reading:)
Q. Did you find him to be a fairly honest and straightforward person
in your dealings with him?
MR. P. BAKER: Same objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PETROCELLI: These are Mr. Cochran's questions.
THE COURT: I don't care whose it is. There's an objection. I
sustained it.
MR. PETROCELLI: They go directly to the nature of the relationship,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PETROCELLI: Next question.
(Reading:) Did he tell you the truth as far as you knew?
MR. P. BAKER: Same objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Continuing on to 20,487 at line 22. Okay.
Referring to a -- it's one of the telephone conversations.
(Reading:)
Q. Was that in the first conversation or in the second one?
A. That was -- that was in the second.
Q. Second conversation?
A. Yes.
Q. After he came back; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And in the second conversation -- how long did that conversation
last?
A. Second conversation lasted, oh, approximately 10 minutes.
Q. So about 11:15 or thereabouts?
A. Yes.
Q. And then after that there was a period of time and then you had a
third conversation; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So if the second conversation ended at about 11:15 --
A. Uh-huh.
Q. -- can you help us when the third conversation began, when he
called you back?
A. When it began?
Q. Yes, what time did you start?
A. Well, probably -- he wasn't outside for very long, so I would say
10 minutes later, so 11:20.
Q. So your best recollection is that the third conversation would
have started about 11:25 or thereabouts?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. I understand these are just estimates, is that correct,
your best estimate?
A. Best estimate, yes.
Q. And this third conversation was the one you shared with us that
may have lasted up to an hour and a half; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. In the second conversation, did Mr. Kaelin say to you that he had
seen a limousine outside in the driveway?
A. Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. I assume you're going to sustain objections,
Your Honor, to further questions about Kaelin's honesty and so
forth.
THE COURT: Just a minute.
MR. PETROCELLI: It's at page 20,489. I think because they're reading
this in I ought to have the opportunity to --
MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor --
MR. PETROCELLI: -- Have the opportunity to read the testimony.
(Pause.)
THE COURT: Okay, I'll set aside the former ruling. I'll allow the
question with regards to his honesty under 780 of the Evidence Code.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.
MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, I'd like to object, outside the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI:
(Reading:) We're going back to page 20,482. Okay?
MS. BLUESTEIN: Okay.
MR. PETROCELLI: Referring to your knowledge of Kaelin, okay,
starting at line 13.
Q. Did you find him to be a fairly honest and straightforward person
in your dealings with him?
A. Definitely.
Q. Did he tell you the truth as far as you knew?
A. As far as I knew.
MR. PETROCELLI: And over at page 20,489, line 25, actually going
down to, "Do you believe that Kato Kaelin is an honest and credible
person?" And your answer is at line 5.
(READING:)
A. I do believe that he is an honest and credible person.
Q. An honest and credible person?
A. Yes.
Q. Why do you say that?
A. Because I -- I know him.
Q. You still consider yourself a friend?
A. He's very moral.
Q. This is based upon the time you have known him since March of
1994; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
MR. PETROCELLI: And finally, page 20,497 at line 5.
(READING:)
Q. You have indicated to Mr. Cochran that many of your time
estimates are approximate, do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there one particular time that night when you absolutely
determined what time it was during your conversation with Mr.
Kaelin?
A. Yes.
Q. And when was that?
A. 10:30.
Q. Okay. And that was how long before he told you about the bang?
A. About 10 minutes before.
Q. Okay.
MR. PETROCELLI: No further questions.
MR. P. BAKER: Continuing, line 20, okay.
(Reading:) REDIRECT EXAMINATION
(READING:)
Q. You are certain of that time?
A. Yes.
Q. And why is that?
A. Um, just because of how much longer we talked.
MR. P. BAKER: Page 20,498, line 10.
Q. When you just indicated to us you were certain of the time of
10:30, did you pay specific attention at that point to what time it
was?
A. Well, I was aware of it.
Q. Okay. You directed -- did you direct your attention to what time
it was at that point?
A. At 10:30?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do to determine what time it was?
A. I asked Kato what time it was.
Q. Okay. So other than the time of 10:30 and the 10 minutes after
that you have just indicated to us, are you certain of any of the
other times you have mentioned or are those approximated?
A. Well, I'm certain of the -- of the -- of the 11:05.
Q. I mean I know it was after -- wait, okay.
A. I mean I know it was after, um, yeah, I would say I'm certain.
Q. What are you certain of?
A. Of the times.
MR. P. BAKER: Nothing further.
MR. PETROCELLI: That's okay, Your Honor, nothing further.
THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we will adjourn until
Wednesday, 8:30. Don't talk about the case, don't form or express
any opinions. Merry Christmas.

(At 4:25 P.M. an adjournment was taken until Wednesday, January 8, 1997, at 8:30 A.M.)