SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
JANUARY 10, 1996
VOLUME 40

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Guess we're going to finish the Henry Lee tape.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE:
(continued)
Q. When we were talking at the break—
A. Yes.
Q. -- about the envelope, and we went rather quickly, in fairness, I
wanted to quickly go over for you again so you could see—see the
exhibits.
A. Right.
Q. First, I have marked Exhibit 16, a photo, that's 103?
A. Yes.
Q. I have marked as 17, a photo, that's 109?
A. 109.
Q. In the confusion caused by me, and I apologize, Dr. Lee, this
morning I believe you looked at those two photos and thought that
there were two 209's and you wondered how could there be two 209's.
In looking—
A. In reexamination, that one is 000103. The other one is 000109,
two different numbers.
Q. We don't have two 209's?
A. You don't have two 209's.
Q. We don't have two 109's?
A. You are absolutely correct. Just 103, 109.
Q. Right. And the 103 is Exhibit 16 and the 109 is Exhibit 17?
A. Yes, correct.
Q. The second point that we just to make specifically, if we look at
Exhibit 17, which is 109, you have circled for us— there are three
blue circles, and the middle circle is—and the middle circle is the
second blood drop that we were talking about?
A. Yes.
Q. And this—this is a—if we were to look at 103, you can also see,
though it's not circled, the second blood drop on the right-hand
side, and maybe you could put a blue mark around it. It's fainter.
A. Second blood drop never become an issue. It's in the picture
provide to me long time ago.
Q. I understand.
A. Is the first drop which I only have privilege this morning just
now before lunch seeing this picture, the first blood drop when the
picture provide to me.
Q. Right. We're --
A. And through the defense attorney it's not there.
Q. Right. We're looking at the defense exhibit. What is that one,
Dr. Lee?
A. 1313.
Q. And it doesn't show?
A. Up in here.
Q. Which is maybe a second or third generation?
A. Generation which—
Q. Wait. Wait. Are you able to get video. I can't . . . Go ahead,
Dr. Lee.
A. The photograph provided to me may be a second or third
generation. This area did not show a red blood stain. The area do
show a bunch of leaves—leaves, a series leave, trace material. And
in this photo now you don't see him anymore.
Q. That won't be a loss, Doctor.
(Indicating to videographer.)
A. The photography received through the discovery did not show the
second drop, did show the first drop. Subsequently, this morning
before noon, you show me this new photograph, No. 109.
Q. Photo No. 109, which is Exhibit 17?
A. 17, which clearly shows a second drop here. So this could be an
artifact, maybe not, a bouncing light effect maybe during the
reproduction, the sequence of reproduction, just like I described
yesterday, somehow the image lost during reprint.
Q. And, Dr. Lee, if we were to look at Exhibit 16, which is 103 --
A. Yes.
Q. -- we don't have it circled, that would also show the second
blood drop?
A. Yes. It clearly shows the second drop which is not in here,
again, because in the printing and reproduction, image disappears.
Q. Would you mind putting a blue circle around the second drop on
what's been marked on Exhibit 16?
A. More than happy to.
Q. Now, if we can then look at the photos that were taken, which
would be 209 --
A. Yes.
Q. -- two photos, the one in my right hand is Exhibit 18; is that
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. The one in my left hand is Exhibit 19, this one?
A. The number you put down?
Q. Yes.
A. 19.
Q. Yes. And in each of those—in Exhibit 18 you've been good enough
to circle the second blood drop?
A. Yes.
Q. And in Exhibit 19 the second blood drop also shows?
A. Excellent. Yes.
Q. Would you mind circling it in blue?
A. Yes.
(Witness complies, marks photo.)
Q. And these are the blood drops that, as you pointed out, because
of the second or third generation photo you received you were not
able to see in the defense exhibit that was previously talked about?

A. That's exactly my point. When I compare these two photographs,
one photograph, previous one, has an image in the second one, not in
the first one. Today after providing me with new photography, can
see it's here. In fact, was here. It's not a bouncing light effect.
Again, it's during the reproduction.
Q. Now, the next area I think we can do relatively quickly, Dr. Lee,
is the—the imprint area—
A. Yes.
Q. -- of the testimony. And is it—Is it correct that you've told us
that an imprint is something that could be caused by a large variety
of objects having a similar design to what is imprinted on whatever
surface we're talking about when we say there is an imprint?
A. Yes.
Q. And cutting through everything, is it a fair statement that as
far as the Bundy walkway is concerned—
A. Yes.
Q. -- The only—strike that. As far as the Bundy walkway is
concerned, other than the Bruno Magli footprints that have been
previously identified by agent Bodziak and yourself—
A. Yes.
Q. -- the only other imprint on the walkway that you're able to say
with any scientific certainty is a shoe print has been marked by you
and identified by you in what's been marked 1337A?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you've been gracious enough to draw a line around the sock.
A. Yes.
Q. Is it correct—strike that. Do you remember, as you sit here, what
tile you saw that parallel line imprint on?
A. I don't remember. It's been too long. I don't remember.
Q. Would it be fair to say though, in terms of cutting through, that
you— your first time at the scene I believe you told us was June 25?

A. Yes.
Q. In 1994?
A. Correct.
Q. And as you're sitting here, you don't know if that particular
imprint that you've identified was put on the scene after the
murders or not?
A. I don't know.
Q. Now, so that I'm clear, in terms of the other imprint testimony
which dealt with the piece of paper, the envelope and the jeans, am
I correct in understanding your testimony that you're not able to
state with any scientific certainty that any imprint you might see
on any of those objects are shoe prints other than a Bruno Magli
shoe print?
A. My conclusion with all those evidence I observed, those are
consistent with bloody imprint evidence. Nothing more, nothing less.

Q. Have you no idea what caused them?
A. No.
Q. All right. Thank you. When you say no, you mean yes, you have no
idea what caused it?
A. No. I mean no, not say yes. I have no idea.
Q. I see.
A. What's the cause.
Q. Now, you don't—is it—Have you seen—let me show you what we'll
mark as next in order. I don't know if you've ever seen this before,
it's Exhibit 21, which is a blow-up of the sock?
A. Yes.
Q. This purports to be a picture of the socks as they were found by
an LAPD officer in Mr. Simpson's bedroom?
A. Correct.
Q. Do the socks in your looking at 21 with a microscope appear to be
inside out?
A. One of the socks definite inside out. The second one consistent
with inside out. Of course, if they have a proper documentation that
day of notes and description and a better photograph... Again, this
issue, inside out, outside in, it's not an issue if you do crime
scene procedure correctly.
Q. Now, if the socks were inside out, as a possible explanation for
whatever was on side 3, that it was a transference from an
individual's finger who might have been bleeding, who took the sock
off, and when he was pulling the sock off, and the bottom portion
... as shown?
A. Anything is possible, I did not study—I didn't study the
mechanism. All I report is scientific fact. I observe a half dozen
or more red little tiny ball anchor on the fabric.
Q. But you're not expressing any scientific opinion on whether those
balls appeared there as a result of someone who had the socks on,
taking them off, or whether they appeared there because of some
other reason?
A. No. I'm not offering any opinion. Only opinion I can offer is
somehow the wet blood has to get transfer, that, and also very
limited amount.
Q. Now, how big is the spot you were talking about seeing on side 3?
Let me step back for a minute. Whatever you saw, you don't know
whether or not it was even blood because it was never tested to see
if it was blood; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And so it's also correct that—Strike that. On side 1 of the sock
at the ankle there was a test of certain of the blood that was
there, and that was found by Mr. Sims to be Nicole Brown's blood?
A. Yes.
Q. Would it be fair to say that on side 3 we not only don't know if
it was blood, but even if it was, who's it is?
A. Definite we don't know. Of course, you can always go back and
test it and see whether or not that's blood, whose blood it is.
Q. What I was asking, maybe not too well, on that particular sock
you looked at, was there what a criminalist would call a transfer of
blood on the upper portion of the sock?
A. Yes. Apparently reports found some O.J. Simpson DNA? Right.
Q. Right. Okay. Was there also—was there not in addition through a
transfer—what appeared to be a transfer smear on the top portion of
the sock with Mr. Simpson's blood, also some of Mr. Simpson's blood
found around the toe area of the sock?
A. Again, said DN
A. You cannot mistake blood.
Q. Okay, DN
A.
A. DN
A. Because all those areas been cut, I cannot independently verify.
I have no reason to doubt DOJ—Simpson— Mr. Sims' result they found
DNA match O.J. Simpson. So the DNA was found on socks.
Q. Now, do you know Gary Sims?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know him to be a competent, reputable scientist?
A. Oh, yes. Excellent scientist.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, can we approach just a second.
THE COURT: You may.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with reporter:)
THE COURT: Page?
MR. LEONARD: It's page 333.
(Mr. Leonard is reading from a portion of Dr. Henry Lee's videotaped
deposition transcript.)
Q. Do you know him—
MR. LEONARD: Bottom of the page.
(Mr. Leonard is reading from a portion of Dr. Henry Lee's videotaped
deposition transcript.)
Q. Do you know him to be a competent, reputable scientist.
A. Yes, oh yes. Excellent scientist.
Q. Everybody in the case is an excellent scientist except few—
MR. LEONARD: The remainder of the answer was cut off.
MR. MEDVENE: The remainder of the answer is not responsive. But the
question—excuse me, Mr. Leonard. The question was with respect to
Gary Sims, do you know him to be competent, reputable scientist. His
answer oh, yes, excellent scientist. His answer is not responsive to
the question we asked and it wasn't previously designated.
MR. LEONARD: But it's the answer and they can't just cut out an
answer—part of an answer. That's not a proper way to designate.
THE COURT: When it relates to Sims.
MR. LEONARD: They didn't object.
THE COURT: Overruled.
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
(Videotaped deposition of Dr. Henry Lee resumed.)
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Let's talk for a moment if we could about these
swatches. Would you agree with the proposition that the threshold
between wet and dry is somewhat fuzzy. Most importantly dry material
does in fact contain some water. Proteins, for example, bind water
very tenaciously. Would you agree with that same statement?
A. I would agree 70 percent of it and—
Q. Let me ask, sir, if you were asked on Monday August 28, 1995 --
A. Yes.
Q. -- the following question by Mr. Goldberg. And let me—let me step
back, if I might, for a minute. You participated in a book called
Forensic Science Handbook with Richard Sapperstein?
A. Yes.
Q. And did Mr. Goldberg in a court proceeding ask you—I can repeat
the question, if you want?
A. I think if I search my memory correctly, he misquote me. That's
not my chapter. He quote somebody else's chapter.
Q. Let me ask you if you were asked this question—
A. Yes.
Q. -- at page 43143, line 22, and gave this answer at 43144, line 2.

(During the videotaped deposition of Dr. Henry Lee, Mr. Medvene read
a portion of the criminal trial transcript, with examination by Mr.
Goldberg.)
Q. (BY MR. GOLDBERG) Sir, do you agree with the proposition that the
threshold between wet and dry is somewhat fuzzy? Most importantly,
dry material does in fact contain some water. Proteins, for example,
bind water very tenaciously?
A. Yes, agree.
(In the videotaped deposition of Dr. Henry Lee, Mr. Medvene ceased
reading from the criminal trial transcript of Dr. Henry Lee.)
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Were you asked that question, sir, and did you
give that answer to the best of your knowledge on Monday, August 28,
1995?
A. I vaguely remember the question. However, if you—I did not review
the transcript, but read— continues. The following—more questions, I
think I said that's not my chapter also. I agree, as I just
indicated, with the majority.
Q. Is it right?
A. Yeah.
Q. Would you agree, sir—and again, I quote:
(During the videotaped deposition of Dr. Henry Lee, Mr. Medvene read
a portion of the criminal trial transcript, with examination by Mr.
Goldberg.)
Q. (BY MR. GOLDBERG) The water content of dried material is in
equilibrium with the fractional saturation of water vapor in the
surrounding atmosphere, that is the relative humidity. Thus, for
example, blood drying on equilibrium in air at 25 percent relative
humidity may contain about 5 percent of its total weight in water.
A. May, yes.
(In the videotaped deposition of Dr. Henry Lee, Mr. Medvene ceased
reading from the criminal trial transcript of Dr. Henry Lee.)
A. May, yes.
Q. All right. Would you agree, sir, that if the swatches were dried
at 75 percent relative humidity, that the percentage of water that
might remain in the swatches, a reasonable estimate would be about
20 percent?
A. May. May, yes.
Q. Just a few more, sir. Is it true that the bottom line, so to
speak, is that after something is drying it still has to have water
in it?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you also agree, Dr. Lee, that there are a lot of
variables in determining how long it would take something to dry?
A. Yes.
Q. And that the amount of time it would require for a blood stain to
dry is dependent upon various factors such as weather conditions,
temperature, air movement, humidity, size, depth of stain or blood
pool, and the nature of the surface upon which the blood is shed?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. And lastly, Doctor, is it true the reason material such as this
was put in a treatise that you were involved with was to get across
to the forensic science students to be careful because it's hard to
figure out how long something's going to take to dry even in the
laboratory?
A. That's one point. Another point is to let the student know when
they collect the evidence, preserve the evidence, to be very
careful, make sure it's dry. If it's wet, you should document it's
wet.
Q. Well, in terms of what was wrong, what you're saying is that
there were—if they were completely dry, there was a wet transfer?
A. Transfer.
Q. And there shouldn't be?
A. Shouldn't be.
Q. That's all you're talking about?
A. Yeah, that's all I'm talking about.
Q. Isn't it true, initially, that Gary Sims reported this in his
notes, I believe, prior to the time you made your observations?
A. No.
Q. I'm not saying that you saw his observations. But at a point in
time prior to the time that you saw the bindles, he reported in his
notes that there were these wet transfers, both on this bindle and
on a few other bindles?
A. Maybe he should testify on that, "I observe some wet transfer."
Q. But isn't it true that you're knowledgeable that he did put that
in his notes of his observations?
A. To give him credit, he should—LAPD people should do that first
place.
Q. I understand. I see.
A. Then the whole controversy would be resolved.
Q. I see. But I guess where we are, to your knowledge, to give him
credit, if that's the appropriate word, he did report the transfer
prior to the time that you reported it; isn't that true?
A. I have no idea who found it first or second. I did my own
independent—
Q. I see.
A. -- study, observe that.
Q. But you're aware, are you not—and I'm not trying to quarrel with
you.
A. Uh-huh.
Q. You're aware, are you not, that Mr. Sims also found the transfer
and reported it in writing?
A. In his notes. He did not report that in his laboratory report.
Q. He reported it in his notes, did he not?
A. No. He documented in his note. That's one thing. You report it in
your writing, like my report—laboratory report. I noticed wet
transfer, that's in report. Report it in writing.
Q. Where did he report it?
A. He did not report. He document in his notes. I don't—I did not
watch his testimony. If he testifies, say I observe this wet
transfer, then he report in his testimony. I did not read his
laboratory report. In other words—I assume he issued a lab report.
If he said, Item 47, I found wet transfer, that's called report in
writing.
Q. To the best of your knowledge—
A. Somebody can say, well, I observed, but I kept in my mind. You
still say somebody observed. Do you see what I mean?
Q. Isn't it true that, to the best of your knowledge, Mr. Sims wrote
down—
A. Document in his note.
Q. -- that he documented in his notes—
A. Yes.
Q. -- the transfer, and those notes were turned over to Mr.
Simpson's counsel?
A. I guess so.
Q. You know that, don't you, Doctor?
A. Yeah, I guess so. Turned to which one...
Q. He has so many. But to one of them?
A. One of them.
Q. Okay.
A. Too many of them.
Q. And you do know that?
A. I know that. Of course I know that. I read the notes. This
morning, you show me the note again. Yesterday, Mr. Baker showed me
the note. Of course I know the note.
Q. All right. Isn't it true also, to your knowledge, that there
were—there was another bindle, I believe, bindle 42 --
A. Yes.
Q. -- where there was a wet transfer?
A. Yeah. 42 also a wet transfer. 42 much easier to explain because
the pattern perfect match.
Q. Let me step back for a minute.
A. Yes.
Q. On 42 where there was a wet transfer—
A. Yes.
Q. -- this is something that, and I—right, it should not have
occurred if the swatches were completely dried when they were taken
from the test tube and put in the bindle?
A. Right.
Q. But—and the way—strike that. The ordinary procedure is to
transfer the swatches once they're dry?
A. Yes.
Q. So here, once again, there's someone apparently thinking the
swatches are dry when they weren't because they have the transfer in
bindle 42?
A. Yes.
Q. And bindle 42, to the best of your knowledge, when it was
analyzed, was Nicole Brown's blood?
A. I guess so.
Q. And there is no question that—strike that. There is no reason
that you would know of why somebody would try to plant Nicole
Brown's blood on a particular swatch since she was the victim of
this murder; isn't that right?
A. How do I know. There are so many people, so many things happen.
This is not a fair question to ask me.
Q. But—
A. In the past we have had some law enforcement officers plant
evidence for no reason.
Q. But you have no scientific evidence to support any statement that
in this case a law enforcement officer—
A. No.
Q. -- planted any evidence?
A. By all means, no, I have no independent knowledge. I only report
scientific fact.
Q. All right.
A. I see the wet transfer and didn't matter whatever way you cut it,
something wrong, either in that document or that drawing, they just
did not meet the standard.
Q. What you're saying—and I think we're done—
A. Yes.
Q. -- is that, by all means, you're not saying you have any
scientific fact to show that any LA police officer planted or did
anything, cheating, with any evidence?
A. I did not testify.
Q. All right. So that statement is correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, in connection with your testimony here the last couple days,
what did you do to prepare yourself for the testimony?
A. Not much.
Q. When you say—When you say not much, did you have any meetings
with any of the attorneys for Mr. Simpson or with Mr. Sheck?
A. I just got back from China, Taiwan and Japan, as you probably
know, so unless they show up in other country, not much. The day
before the testimony I met previously with Mr. Baker—attorney Baker
and Mr. Sheck, told about what time to start.
Q. When you say you met briefly, when was it that you met with them,
was that—your testimony was on—starting on Saturday?
A. So Friday night.
Q. You didn't meet with them until Friday evening?
A. Evening, late afternoon, or evening.
Q. And about how long did that meeting take place?
A. Pretty short because I have to rush to another engagement. I
don't look at time.
Q. I understand. Would you say more or less than three hours?
A. Probably.
Q. About three hours?
A. Three hours, three and a half, two and a half. Doesn't really
matter.
(Videotape is halted.)
(Pause.)
(Videotaped deposition of Dr. Henry Lee resumes being played, with
Mr. Baker examining.) REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:
Q. Dr. Lee, let me go back to this drying. I want to read what was
said in your transcript on August 28, 1995, because maybe it was
misread to you. Page 43142 in the criminal trial transcript
(During the videotaped deposition of Dr. Henry Lee, Mr. Baker read a
portion of the criminal trial transcript.)
Q. And is that because there is a threshold between wet and dry—
strike that. And is that because the threshold between wet and dry
is somewhat fuzzy.
A. Wet and dry. That's not fuzzy at all.
Q. Whether wet or dry, but they are in between, damp, not soaking
wet. What's the definition of the wet, what kind of—you get into a
semantic issue.
THE COURT: Can you hold up a minute. Where are you?
MR. P. BAKER: 325.
MR. MEDVENE: 357.
MR. LEONARD: 357.
MR. P. BAKER: It's the redirect.
MR. MEDVENE: Right now, 357, line 11.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
(Mr. Baker read an answer given by Dr. Lee from a portion of the
criminal trial transcript.)
A. If it is not dry. Anything else I call wet.
(In the videotaped deposition of Dr. Henry Lee, Mr. Baker ceased
reading from the criminal trial transcript of Dr. Henry Lee.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Was that your testimony back in August 28, 1995,
of the criminal trial?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Dr. Lee, in a laboratory procedure, the conditions are
somewhat constant, are they not?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Mr.—strike that. Dr. Lee, you heard Mr. Medvene ask you some
questions about the sock being inside out, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you also determine— well, strike that. And the
proposition that was proffered to you was basically if Mr. Simpson
had blood on his hand or finger, and pressed side 3 of the sock that
was outside—strike that—that was inside out, that that could account
for the blood that you found when you examined the socks, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And for that to have taken place—
MR. LEONARD: 363, Your Honor, line 10.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The area cut out on the sock—on sides 1 and 2
would have—in other words, the blood on side 1 and 2 was in the
exact same position as you found red balls on side 3, correct?
A. Should be similar position. If press hard enough side 4 should
have some blood stain, too.
Q. And so it would have to be a coincidence if Mr. Simpson put blood
on side 3 when the sock was inside out in the amazing same spot that
had a cut out previously by someone in the sock that you examined,
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, Mr. Medvene talked to you about, and I don't know if I can
get there with this . . . talked to you about— Where did you put
that other exhibit?
(Pause in tape.)
MR. P. BAKER: 366.
THE COURT: Where are you going now?
MR. P. BAKER: 366. 367, line 7.
THE COURT: You already read that, didn't you.
THE COURT: 367 from line 4 through 10 was read the first time
around.
MR. P. BAKER: We didn't get to the redirect.
THE COURT: Huh?
MR. P. BAKER: We haven't played any of the redirect yet.
THE COURT: Oh, okay.
MR. BAKER: Phil, back it up.
(Pause.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That would— you mean you found a parallel line
pattern; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And got 70 plus pairs of shoes with a parallel line sole on them
subsequent—
(Tape halted.)
MR. PETROCELLI: That was sustained, that area.
THE COURT: The second part was sustained. The Court overruled it to
line 10. Line 11 is sustained.
(Tape resumes playing.)
(Tape halted.)
MR. BAKER: Phil's future is not in the entertainment world, not in
editing.
THE COURT: Not in editing.
MR. P. BAKER: Okay.
MR. FOSTER: Page 368, line 11.
MR. LEONARD: 368, 11.
(Tape resumes playing.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The envelope, correct?
A. This is the envelope.
Q. And if we look at the lower right-hand corner we see where Mr.
Goldman's body is, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And the envelope is directly or pretty much—
MR. PETROCELLI: That was all supposed to be stricken, too, Your
Honor,
MR. BAKER: I didn't think this was stricken.
THE COURT: There was no objection to 368 -- well, strike that.
368:06 through 369:07 was sustained. Let's take a 10-minute recess.
I understand you have the copy of the minute order to assist you.
Okay.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)
MR. KELLY: Judge, one matter just before—in anticipation of Mr.
Simpson taking the stand. Back in September, as a result of the
defendant's motion in limine No. 3, this Court had ruled that
plaintiffs could not put Mr. Simpson's character in issue,
specifically forbid us to go into any allegations of purported drug
use or infidelities of Mr. Simpson unless, of course, he put his
character in issue. Mr. Baker in his opening statement and
subsequent to that, he's given some indication that he would put
Nicole Brown's Simpson character in issue even though we have not in
our case thus far. He's brought up mention of in his opening
statement in particular the parties, visiting with prostitutes,
heavy drug users into the home, being with a lot of different men,
allegations of purported drug use, excessive drinking, erratic
behavior and also mention of a terminated pregnancy after separation
from Mr. Simpson. We've heard no evidence of that thus far, and I
suspect that he may try to put this in through Mr. Simpson's own
testimony. It's my position, Judge, that first of all, these things
are totally irrelevant, that there's been no evidence presented that
in any way would indicate that Nicole Brown Simpson's lifestyle or
character or any of that had anything to do with these murders.
Secondly, Mr. Simpson alone is the only one who has testified as to
any purported drug use or excessive drinking of Nicole Brown
Simpson. He based that only on conversations he had had with Nicole,
and clearly she's not here to defend herself with regard to that.
And finally, Judge, if this is put in issue, we have a number of
witnesses, and all the depositions taken to date, indicate nothing
but Nicole Brown Simpson was simply a wonderful person, and we're
going to be forced to bring in a parade of witnesses to testify as
to what a good person she was if character is put in issue. And we
think that would be an undue consumption of the Court's time and
certainly misleading to the issues of fact. And all I would ask at
this time is to reenforce the Court's ruling of the other day that
no allegations of drug use or excessive drinking of Nicole Brown
Simpson be put into issue, certainly not any of her alleged romantic
interests after her separation from Mr. Simpson, and specifically
the defense be barred from any testimony regarding the purported
terminated pregnancy. It's just not relevant to any of the issues,
Your Honor.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this was—these issues were raised by
plaintiffs. They were raised by the plaintiffs by saying that Mr.
Simpson was in a jealous rage when these murders took place, and
indicating to this jury that that's the cause of the rage, is that
he had this thing for Nicole that he couldn't get over. This goes to
the issue—the very issues amounting to their relationship. He put
their relationship in issue in opening statement. It's been an issue
in the whole case. And it will, I assume, continue to be an issue
through final argument. Now, I'm certainly entitled to combat that
issue with the testimony of my client, and I intend to do so. And
had they not talked about the relationship between my client and
Nicole, it wouldn't have come in ever because it wouldn't have been
necessary. They have bandied that about for four months. I obviously
have to defend on that issue, and intend to.
MR. KELLY: Your Honor, it's not the relationship. It's the specific
issues I've mentioned. You'll—it's alleged drug use or excessive
drinking or her romantic interests. And, first of all, we didn't put
these issues before the jury, before the Court, or at issue at all.
What we put at issue was possibly the relationship, which Mr.
Simpson certainly allowed to comment upon, but the—these specific
things Mr. Baker mentioned in his opening occurred before the
reconciliation. Even so, it has nothing to do even in terms of a
non-motive, in terms of that, Your Honor, these are all '92
incidences, early '93 incidences, even before the reconciliation, so
they have no bearing on the relationship or non-motive for that
affect, Your Honor, and it's just—it's just not relevant to the
killing. We have put nothing forward that suggests in any way it has
anything to do with these killings, nor has the defense in their
part of the case also, Your Honor.
MR. BAKER: Drug use and drinking goes to the erratic behavior that
Mr. Simpson will testify to. And that was a problem and concerned
him and he talked to Juditha Brown about it. He raised that issue
with Juditha Brown in all the telephone calls. The relationship—I
mean we have spent basically three weeks on an incident of July 1,
1989 --
MR. KELLY: January.
MR. BAKER: January, I'm sorry. And to an outsider, you would think
that's the incident we're here on trial on, and of course that was
some five and a half years before these murders took place. That
seemed to be terribly relevant. 1984 incident in the relationship
seemed to be terribly relevant. And the romantic interest—they say
he was extremely jealous and he was in a jealous rage. The incident
that took place to her romantic interests is that he had, for
example, the incident that he witnessed, I mean he didn't go into
any rage, he didn't go into the house and go into a rage. These the
jury's entitled to hear. They've raised them and trumpeted them
throughout the country. Now it's time for Mr. Simpson to explain.
MR. KELLY: Your Honor, with regard to the incidences of violence,
that's a separate issue supported by P V. Zack. With regard to the
specific things—as I say, they're way before the reconciliation, and
the only thing I can add, if Mr. Simpson is going to testify to
these things in terms of a non-motive or would be a reason for him
not to have these strong feelings towards Nicole Brown Simpson or
commit the murder, we should in fact be then allowed to bring in
evidence of any purported drug use of his or infidelities or
romantic interest he may have to show it wouldn't provide a non
motive for motive for him, and the whole character issue should be
front and center.
THE COURT: It would be nice if you would bring these things up in a
timely fashion when we have time to address these things instead of
right in the middle of taking evidence on something else.
MR. KELLY: Judge, I didn't know if we'd have another break. That's
why.
THE COURT: We had a whole day where we did nothing. Remember? Or
were you in town?
MR. KELLY: I was in town. The issue was raised just the other day
with Mr. Tippin again, and I wanted to reenforce it.
THE COURT: We sat here and did nothing all day.
MR. KELLY: Excuse me?
THE COURT: We did nothing except— Mr. Petrocelli came in with Levi's
on.
MR. KELLY: I can't be responsible for his dress code.
THE COURT: Then Mr. Baker and Mr. Petrocelli came in with matters.
Why do you do it now? Right in the middle when we're trying to
finish other matters?
MR. KELLI: I thought it was important before Mr. Simpson takes the
stand and I felt it was—
THE COURT: Do it in a little more timely fashion, please. I'll
reserve judgment on it. Bring the jury in. Let's finish this video
examination. Get it out of here.
THE BAILIFF: Jury walking.
MR. PETROCELLI: They were blue jeans, Your Honor, Guess jeans
everyone.
(Laughter.)
MR. P. BAKER: Judge, the transcript starts on 369, line 13, through
to 374, line 15.
THE COURT: 369?
MR. P. BAKER: Line 13, through 374, line 15. That's the end of the
defense, and they have a couple more questions and that's it.
THE COURT: By the way, are you going to file any responsive
pleadings?
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: When?
MR. PETROCELLI: Monday morning, first thing. We just got them late
yesterday and they're very thick and we're here in court.
THE COURT: I read them.
MR. PETROCELLI: You ready to rule?
THE COURT: Well, what I'm trying to get at is—
MR. PETROCELLI: Well—
THE COURT: -- you got a whole staff of lawyers. I don't know why
these things come the way they do.
MR. PETROCELLI: It's a big stack of papers at the end of the day
yesterday and I was working very late last night.
THE COURT: I got that second paper in the morning. Didn't you get it
in the morning?
MR. PETROCELLI: No, we did not.
MR. BAKER: I—
MR. PETROCELLI: We got in the afternoon.
MR. BAKER: I put it on the desk at the—at 1:30, the same time it was
given to the Judge.
MR. PETROCELLI: I didn't get it.
MR. BAKER: Yes, it was—
THE COURT: We're—
MR. BAKER: I'm in court 8:30 to 4:30. If you want we can argue—
THE COURT: Mr. Gelblum was not here this morning.
MR. GELBLUM: I was not sitting at the beach, Your Honor. I was
working very late myself.
MR. LEONARD: He was looking for the fourth book.
MR. PETROCELLI: Prepared to argue the rebuttal—the rebuttal case at
any time, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You know, Monday's a little bit late. These are not new
issues.
MR. PETROCELLI: Prepared to argue the Fuhrman one and the rebuttal
one at—we'll just—we'll argue it orally, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BAKER: The rebuttal one will be—
MR. PETROCELLI: The McKinney one, we have time to look at all the
references that they're talking about. We can argue the law on all
of them if you like.
THE COURT: All right. Fine.
MR. BAKER: The rebuttal one would then be helpful, if we could argue
that today, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Bring them in.
(Jurors resumed their respective seats.)
MR. PETROCELLI: 1:30, Your Honor, right after lunch, first thing?
THE COURT: Maybe sooner.
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay. Play it.
(Tape of deposition of Dr. Henry Lee resumes playing.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And we have just looked at where the location of
the two bodies of the murder victims were. And then as we—let's zoom
and I'll show you one other diagram so that we can hopefully get
oriented relative to time and place. Let me put up first this
diagram which was the prosecution's in the criminal trial and it's
593.
(Criminal trial Exhibit 593 displayed on video.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You see the logo down here, the directional logo?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, that would indicate, would it not, that the area behind the
body of Mr. Goldman was north?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, there is—Mr. Medvene suggested to you that there was—he
called this the north—the back gate area?
A. Yes.
Q. There's no gate there, is there?
A. Fence.
Q. All right. So let's call that the north fence area. May we?
A. Sure.
Q. All right. And then let's call the area where I am pointing the
east fence area. Fair enough?
A. Fair enough.
Q. All right. And if we look at the Exhibit 593 again, the piece of
paper was over by what is drawn the head of Nicole Brown Simpson's
body, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. The envelope was in the area on the dirt area adjacent to the
walk, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. The keys that we see in this photograph, which is third from the
top in this, is at the foot of Mr. Goldman's body, true?
A. True.
Q. And the beeper that we see in the upper left-hand photo in the
second photo on the left would be back behind the area—behind the
tree area, is that not correct, and to the west of it?
A. Behind the post, yes.
Q. All right. And we have a post that looks like it's stabilizing
that tree, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And from your view of the scene, is this green area right at the
head of Mr. Goldman's body the area where the tree comes up, that
the post is directly behind it or on the north side of it?
A. Maybe, maybe not. I don't know.
Q. In any event, we have blood transfer in the pictures we have
available all the way down the east fence area, do we not?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, certainly we can see blood transfer almost to the corner
and we see a drop in the upper right-hand corner, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And we don't know what's above that because nobody ever took any
pictures of it, true? In addition to the blood going down the east
side, we have blood going on the north side of the fence past the
area where the pole is, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And we have a significant amount of blood that's past the area of
the pole, do we not, on both sides, on the Nicole Brown Simpson
property and on the Ellinger property that's adjacent to it, isn't
that true?
A. Yes.
Q. And we have a depression that extends from the—virtually the
corner of the northeast side of the enclosed or caged-in area that
extends beyond the tree for another however distance and then there
is another area that has blood dripping down on the fence and down
on the dirt on both sides of the fence, correct?
A. Yeah, consistent with—
Q. Is all—then we have fresh leaves that you've talked about, we
have bloody leaves and we have blood in the area of the tree, do we
not?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, is that consistent with— with—the envelope being in the
position, the piece of paper being in the position over by the head,
the envelope being in the position adjacent to the walkway, blood
down the east side, depression in the area, I'm talking about keys
here, beeper over here, and blood on the north side, is that all
consistent with a struggle that—as well as the dead leaves and the
blood that's on the ground, that takes a period of time?
A. It's all related—if it's all related, it consistent with the
struggle.
Q. And we also have blood on the shoes and we have on the boots of
Mr. Goldman, that is subsequently then encased in dirt, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that means that he had to step into wet blood and then step
into dirt, correct?
A. Both.
Q. And then we have, in addition to that, sir, we have a cut—fresh
cut on the toe of Mr. Goldman's boot that is consistent with a fresh
knife cut, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And in addition to that, we have a beeper that is—would appear
more probably than not outside the fenced-in area, correct?
A. It appears to be.
(Tape halted.)
MR. P. BAKER: End of defense redirect. We—they just have a couple
more questions.
MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, we've agreed with Mr. Baker, we
have one question to read and an answer, to put—a brief question and
answer that's going to be played in context. 381, line 4 through 11.

(Reading:)
Q. So, Dr. Lee, with due deference, you're not suggesting, are you,
that because you didn't get to do the work that you indicate you
suggest that the L.
A. Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
various scientific agencies that were involved in analysis here,
were not perfectly capable of solving the crime and presenting
adequate evidence?
A. I cannot comment on that issue.
(Tape is played.)
Q. Are you saying—when you say you cannot comment on it, Doctor, are
you suggesting that by taking, for example, different pictures than
were taken, the DNA results showing Mr. Simpson's blood, Ms. Brown's
blood, Mr. Goldman's blood at various locations of the crime scene
would be in any way changed? You're not suggesting—
A. No, I'm not suggesting that.
MR. MEDVENE: There's nothing further now.
(Tape is halted.)
MR. LEONARD: A brief reading, Your Honor. Your Honor, this is the
deposition of Gary Siglar taken on May 14, 1996, May 21 and May 23
of 1996, by me. Page 4, line 1.
(Reading:)
(Reading of deposition of Gary Siglar, questions being read by Mr.
Leonard and answers being read by Mr. P. Baker.)
Q. Would you state your name for the record, spelling your last
name, please.
A. It's Gary, middle initial L, Siglar, S-i-g-l-a-r.
Q. Where are you presently employed?
A. Los Angeles County Department of Coroner.
Q. What is your present position there?
A. I'm a supervising criminalist II, Roman numeral—number II.
Q. How long have you held that position including that designation?
A. Well, I've held the designation since about 1980 when I was
employed with the sheriff's department.
Q. Okay.
A. And I've been with the—I was chief of the laboratories division
when I came to the coroner's office in 1982, and now my current
position is the one I held at the sheriff's department.
Q. Let's go back through that in a little bit more detail. When did
you join the coroner's office?
A. May of 1982.
Q. When you first joined the coroner's office what was your
position?
A. Chief of forensic laboratories.
Q. What was your next position after that, and if you can, give me a
date?
A. Forensic science consultant was the next position, and—let's see.

Q. As best you can recollect?
A. I think I was in that position up until about three years ago and
I held that position for about three years, so it would be six years
ago, up until three years ago.
Q. So you held the position from 1982 until approximately what—
A. No.
Q. I am going to let you do the math.
A. No, 1982, when I came over, I was chief of forensic laboratory.
Q. Until?
A. I became forensic science consultant about six years ago. So that
would be about 1990.
Q. Okay.
A. Through 1993.
Q. In 1993, what was your position?
A. Supervising criminalist 2.
Q. Now, you say that prior to joining the coroner's office, you
worked for the sheriff's—
A. Yes.
Q. -- department?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you first start working for the sheriff's department?
A. November of 1970.
Q. What was your first position there?
A. Criminalist.
Q. Any designation?
A. No.
Q. Criminalist?
A. I believe at the time it was known as criminalist 1. Now called
criminalist. But it was criminalist 1.
Q. In general terms, what were your duties and responsibilities?
A. I worked in all sections of the laboratory, blood alcohol testing
section, the physical evidence, trace evidence section, narcotics
analysis section. There is another section, I'm leaving one out—oh,
the serology section.
Q. Again, in general terms, what did you do in those sections?
A. I did analytical work and corresponding courtroom testimony on my
findings.
Q. Prior to joining the sheriff's department in November of 1970,
had you ever worked as a criminalist?
A. No.
MR. LEONARD: Over to page 122, line 5, still from the first volume.
MR. P. BAKER: Okay.
MR. LEONARD:
(Reading:)
Q. Focusing just for a minute on the Simpson-Goldman case, was there
a criminalist response team involved in that case?
A. No criminalist responded on that case.
Q. And just so the record is clear, that's from the coroner's office
criminalist response team.
Q. Ratcliffe responded?
A. Correct.
Q. And another gentleman by the name of John Jacoby?
A. John Jacoby.
Q. Who are they?
A. John Jacoby is one of the police. He's the gentleman that
releases evidence to the crime labs.
Q. So he was under your control?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. Wait a minute. No, he wasn't assigned to me at that time, I don't
believe. I believe it was after that. Yes, it was after that. No. At
that time, he was working in the morgue management section.
Q. And what was his exact job title, if you know?
A. Student worker.
Q. Now he works for you?
A. Yes.
Q. What is his job title now?
A. The same.
Q. He's still a student worker?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any idea how long he had been working for the
coroner's office prior to June 12, 1994?
A. I mean, it's a hunch. I think it's around—possibly around a year.

Q. When you—that's a guess, you say?
A. That's a guess.
Q. With regard to Ratcliffe, what was your job title on June 12,
1994, if you know?
A. Coroner's investigator 2.
Q. Was she a criminalist?
A. No.
Q. Explain to me the difference between a criminalist and a
coroner's investigator.
A. A coroner's investigator is a person that has some college
education, but a degree isn't required. But they investigate the
circumstances of the scene, and act as the eyes and ears of a
doctor, because we can't afford to send doctors out on every crime
scene, and so they act on their behalf. And they may seal a house
for the next of kin; they examine the body and may bring in personal
property. And they supervise the coroner's aspects at a scene.
Doesn't have to be a homicide, any scene. A criminalist is trained
in the natural sciences and is taught to apply the natural sciences
to the identification and comparison of physical evidence.
Q. As of June 12, 1994, did coroner's investigators have any
responsibilities for the collection of physical evidence at crime
scenes?
A. They're qualified to collect some physical evidence at crime
scenes, not all.
Q. How about a student working, such as Mr. Jacoby, in the morgue
management section? Did he have any responsibility as of June 12,
1994 with the collection of physical evidence at a crime scene?
A. No.
Q. To your knowledge, did Mr. Jacoby have any training whatsoever in
the preservation of a crime scene as of June 12, 1994?
A. No.
Q. To your knowledge, did Ms. Ratcliffe have any training whatsoever
in the preservation of a crime scene as of June 12, 1994?
A. I believe she did.
Q. Why do you believe that?
A. She has worked closely with the criminalistic staff, and she has
a technical degree in one of the sciences, and for a while, was
working hand in hand with our criminalists. And I believe she has
some training in that area.
Q. You mentioned that a criminalist response team was not involved
in the Goldman—let me read the question. You mentioned that a
criminalist response team was not involved in the—a coroner's
criminalist response team, was not involved in the Goldman/Simpson
case; is that right?
A. That's right.
Q. Do you know why?
A. Because the investigators that were involved did not call out for
a criminalist.
Q. And no DME, deputy medical examiner, was involved at the crime
scene in the Goldman/Simpson case; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
MR. LEONARD: Over to 128, line 9.
(Reading:)
Q. But you think it was a problem that criminalists were weren't
called out, correct?
A. It would have been appropriate for a criminalist to respond to
this case.
MR. LEONARD: Over to 129, line 1.
(Reading:)
Q. Why, in your opinion, would it have been appropriate for a
criminalist to be called to this particular crime scene?
A. In general, because it was a double homicide, and fairly complex.
And we can't respond with the—with criminalists to every scene,
either, every homicide. But depending on the circumstances, it's a
judgment call.
Q. To your knowledge, were criminalists available to be called to
this crime scene?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Over to page—we have to go to the—I think it's the second
volume, page 359.
A. Okay.
Q. In the first section of your deposition, you talked about a
ten-hour delay. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. What is your best memory as to the delay?
A. Ten.
Q. What do you mean? I take it late call-out means just another way
of talking about the delay, right?
A. Right.
Q. Now, what is liver temperature? What relationship, if any, does
that have to a late call-out?
A. Well, that's an example of a time-sensitive measurement that the
coroner makes.
Q. So what are you saying is that, the efficacy of the
liver-temperature analysis is affected by delay in time in doing it;
is that correct?
A. The liver measurements, yes.
Q. The longer from the time of deaths the measurement is undertaken,
the less accurate it is, or the less helpful it is, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And what is the purpose of taking liver temperature?
A. To help the DME in determining the time of death.
Q. In this case, the liver temperature was taken at least ten hours
after the death, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. At least?
A. At least.
Q. Okay. And that's inappropriate, correct?
A. Correct.
MR. LEONARD: Back to page 13, line 7.
(Reading:)
Q. And during your tenure at the sheriff's department, was there a
department called the Scientific Investigation Department or
Division?
A. SID is the equivalent organization within LAPD called scientific
services Bureau, SSB.
Q. Are you familiar with the SID, in general terms, at LAPD?
A. Yes.
Q. Just tell me, what does that department—what do they do? What are
their normal functions, if you know?
A. Well, one of their major functions, the one I know the most
about, is their criminalistics laboratory, the—one of the elements
of SID.
Q. Anything else you are familiar with that they do?
A. Their firearms identification section is in SID. I believe their
polygraph is. I'm not too sure about the other functions. Primarily
criminalists.
Q. Skipping for a second, in 1994, in your position with the
coroner's office, would you be in contact regularly with
representatives of the of the LAPD's SID?
A. On an occasional basis, not regularly, except—one of my sections
is the evidence handling section. And they were in contact
frequently with the evidence people over there.
Q. Is it fair to say that the SID section of the LAPD department
would be the section that would normally be in contact with the
coroner's office to pick up evidence?
A. Yes.
Q. And that would be the normal practice?
A. Yes.
Q. And that has been your experience in the time that you've been
with the coroner's department; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay.
MR. LEONARD: Back over to 327. And that would be in the second
volume?
MR. P. BAKER: I've got it.
MR. LEONARD: Got it?
(Reading:)
Q. I want you to take a look quickly at item B on exhibit 1032-C. It
indicates, quote: "EDTA typing blood." Number one, quote: "Both
vials were refrigerated," parentheses, his -- Oh, end of
parentheses, "prior to release to Detective Vannatter by me." End of
quote.
A. Yes.
Q. What does that indicate? Why did you put that in this memo?
A. I know what it means. I don't know why I put it in there.
Q. Well, first of all, let me—let me ask you what it means in lay
terms.
A. It means that the EDTA whole blood for typing were contained in
the histopathology laboratory refrigerator, and that I released them
to Vannatter.
Q. There's a heading, EDTA typing blood. What does that refer to?
A. That—that's the status of the EDTA typing blood; that is what
happened to them.
Q. In other words, both vials were blood that contained EDTA?
A. Correct.
Q. And those were turned over directly to Detective Vannatter by
you?
A. Correct.
Q. There's no question in your mind about that, right?
A. I remember.
Q. You remember distinctly don't you?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Because that is something that usually doesn't happen, correct?
A. Correct. Well, yes, it does usually happen.
Q. Okay.
A. We routinely release EDTA blood to the crime lab.
Q. Oh, I understand that. But you testified earlier that you
routinely release evidentiary items such as EDTA typing blood to the
SID section, to the LAPD correct?
A. Most, eventually.
Q. That is by far the most frequent at the LAPD that you released
these types of things to; isn't that fair to say?
A. It's by far the most common.
Q. Right.
A. But it's not rare that we release it to a concerned detective.
That's not a rare, isolated event. It's not frequent, but it
happens.
Q. But the typical, normal procedure would be for the SID to come
over and pick up something, like an EDTA typing blood sample
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, I want to you take a look at what I'm going to mark, the
following group of documents. I've got 364 A and B. We will get to
the bottom of it. I would like you to take a look at what has been
marked as 1037. Just count the pages, so I can represent for the
record how many there are, please.
A. Five.
Q. That is a five-page document, at least as I put it together, and
we are going to ask you some questions about that. Take a look at it
right now.
A. Okay.
Q. Have you had a chance to look at what is marked as 1037?
A. Yes.
Q. First of all, I have put it together in any kind of proper order,
if you know what I am talking about?
A. Yes.
Q. Good. That's half the battle.
A. Yes, it's in sequence.
Q. What is this 1037?
A. The top page is the autopsy evidence log.
Q. And just in real general terms, what is that?
A. It's an accounting of what was checked at autopsy, in this case,
Goldman.
Q. But some of these subsequent pages also deal with Nicole Brown;
is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And at the top page is the autopsy collection looking
relative to Goldman, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. The next page is an evidence log, or portion of evidence log
relating to?
A. Ronald Goldman.
Q. What is an evidence log?
A. It's the master log for all the evidence in the department, how
it's released and who it's released to.
Q. It shows when it came in, right?
A. Right.
Q. Who collected it, right?
A. Correct.
Q. When it was collected?
A. Right.
Q. What was done with it in the coroner's office, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Where it was stored?
A. Correct.
Q. Who did what with it in the coroner's office, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And then, ultimately, to whom it was released?
A. Yes.
Q. And by whom it was released?
A. Correct.
MR. LEONARD: Skipping over to 333.
(Reading:)
Q. First I want to you look at the evidence log with Goldman, and I
misspoke here. I meant Nicole Brown. Where it says Simpson, I meant
Nicole Brown Simpson. I am going to ask you this question: Is it
true that, except for the typing blood samples, but Goldman and
Brown, every other item of evidence that was turned over to the LAPD
was turned over to the SID? If I am incorrect, please just let me
know.
A. Yes.
Q. The answer is yes?
A. Yes.
Q. And those two items, the typing blood samples for Nicole Brown
Simpson and Ron Goldman, were, in fact, turned over not to SID, but
Detective Phillips?
A. Correct.
Q. What date was that?
A. 24th, which is the whole blood.
Q. Yes. Well, the items that were turned over to Vannatter, first of
all, for Goldman, what is the date that it was turned over?
A. June 15, '94.
Q. With regard to Brown or Simpson?
A. Same date.
Q. Okay. Is there a time on there?
A. 8:45 in the morning.
Q. For both, right?
A. For both.
Q. And you were the individual that actually turned them over to
Vannatter, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Prior to June 15, 1994, when is the last time you had turned over
blood typing such as that to a homicide detective?
A. I don't think I ever released any whole blood to anybody at the
coroner's office, to anybody, besides this case.
Q. I didn't understand your answer.
A. I don't—
Q. Let me make sure the question is clear. Prior to June 15, 1994,
when was the last time, if any, you recall turning over this type
of, what I am going to call blood sample, to a homicide detective?
A. I don't believe I did.
Q. With the LAPD, you have never done that before?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Are you aware of anyone else in the evidence section—is that a
fair statement, fair description?
A. Yes.
Q. When is the last time that you were aware of anyone else in the
evidence section, prior to June 15, 1994, turning over this type of
blood sample to a homicide detective?
A. I can't give you an exact date, but I've seen it occur.
Q. And can you tell me—can you give my any description whatsoever
the last time, prior to June 15, 1994, that you observed this occur,
the name of the case, the name of the detective, anything—anything
to help me to identify that?
A. No.
Q. You're sure?
A. Very sure.
Q. How long before June 15, 1994, did you observe this occur?
A. I would say within a few years of that date.
Q. Well, within five years?
A. Within that time.
Q. Would it have been within one year?
A. I don't recall specifically.
Q. Is it fair to say that it's a very rare—it's fair to say that
it's a very rare occurrence, isn't it?
A. No, I don't think I would characterize it very rare.
Q. You have never—
A. I would say it's uncommon.
Q. You never did it before?
A. No.
Q. And you are telling me, unless I am mistaken, you have a
recollection of a single occasion within several years prior to June
15, 1994, where you are even aware of it occurring? Isn't that fair
to say, sir?
A. I would characterize it as I've seen it occur a few times over
the 12 years I've been with the coroner's office.
Q. Five times, maybe?
A. Maybe.
Q. Maybe. Thank you. Do you know that Detective Vannatter went to
Dr. Golden first to try to get those blood samples? Do you know
that?
A. No.
Q. This is the first time you're hearing that?
A. Yes.
Q. That's not part of the procedure? In other words, the DME, deputy
medical examiner, doing the autopsy would never be in possession of
those, would he?
A. No.
MR. LEONARD: Nothing further.
MR. MEDVENE: We have nothing, Your Honor.
MR. BAKER: Call O.J. Simpson.
THE COURT: Just a minute. Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)
THE COURT: All right, at this time we're proceeding in the absence
of jurors and we're going to address the motions—I believe there are
four motions—filed by the defense. First motion that the Court
addresses is defendants' motion to preclude rebuttal testimony of
Terry Lee, Roger Martz, Bradley Popovich and Richard Fox. I've read
the moving papers. Plaintiff want to be heard?
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, your Honor. Under California Civil Code Section
607, rebuttal evidence is proper when offered to disprove evidence
offered by the other party's case in chief. It is not proper, for
example, where you're merely reiterating matters that were
previously covered in the plaintiff's case in chief. Classically,
rebuttal is appropriate where you are proffering experts to rebut
the experts offered by the defense. Now, as I understand the
argument of the defense here, they are somehow contending that
because of certain matters being mentioned in my opening statement,
that we somehow are now barred from bringing up by way of rebuttal
and have somehow inherited the burden of proof on those matters. Our
rebuttal case, Your Honor, will principally consist of points
directed to four issues. One is the photo issue regarding the shoes.
We have a couple witnesses to call to rebut the defense contention
that the photograph that was offered into evidence taken by
photographer Scull is a fraud, and they offered their expert, Mr.
Groden, and we are going to offer Mr. Richards and Mr. Flammer and
Mr. Bodziak, and perhaps maybe even Mr. Simpson, depending on what
happens in the cross-examination.
THE COURT: Would you identify who those people are, what they're
going to testify?
MR. PETROCELLI: Gerald Richards is an expert who will rebut the
expert testimony of Charles Groden—Robert Groden, excuse me.
(Laughter.)
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm going to hear about this. E.J. Flammer is the
photographer who took the photograph—photographs that were
introduced to impeach not only Mr. Groden, but also Mr. Simpson, and
he will authenticate the photographs. Mr. Bodziak will testify that
the shoes in those photographs are in fact Bruno Magli shoes,
Lorenzo, same as—as in the Scull photograph. In addition to that
issue, the defense has raised the so-called planting issue. They've
said that the socks were planted, and they offered an expert by the
name of MacDonell who talked about little balls of blood. We will
rebut that testimony with our expert, Richard Fox. The defense
contends that blood was planted in one aspect. They offered a guy
named Rieders who talked about the presence of EDTA where it
shouldn't be, and we will rebut that with the testimony of Dr. Terry
Lee. The defense has offered evidence with regard to the second
Bronco collection of blood, attempting to indicate that that blood
had not been there previously and therefore was planted, and we will
present some of the SID photographers who took the photos on which
the defense is relying to explain away those assertions. The defense
has argued that the glove is planted. Recently they introduced some
testimony from Mr. Fung with regard to the so-called hole, which is
in fact not a hole, and we will offer a glove photographer and
perhaps Greg Matheson to rebut that assertion. In addition, the
defense offered the testimony of Rolf Rokahr to indicate that a
photograph was taken at a particular time, and that somehow,
although it's unclear to me how, proves that a glove was planted. We
will present the testimony of Sandra Claiborne of SID who was with
Mr. Rokahr and will testify about the timing of the photograph. The
defense has attempted to prove in their case that other blood
evidence that may not have been planted was nonetheless
contaminated, and they relied principally on their expert named
Gerdes, and we will call our expert, Popovich, to rebut some of the
Gerdes points. And finally, depending particularly on what happens
on Mr. Simpson's examination and what he proffers by—with regard to
issues of the— concerning the relationship between himself and
Nicole Brown Simpson, we may call some witnesses on that issue. The
Court will be reminded that one of our fact witnesses was
unavailable in the first— when we were presenting our case in chief.
His name is Alfred Acosta. And the Court gave us permission to call
him out of order when it was our turn in rebuttal, and we plan to
call him if indeed he is available. Finally, Your Honor, in terms of
the law, here, I would cite to the Court the case of Diamond Drinks
Lime Company versus American River Constructors, 16 Cal.Ap.3d 581,
which makes it clear that under, those, in this case, we are
absolutely entitled to put on this sort of rebuttal evidence, and
the case of Charlieville versus Metropolitan Trust company of
California 1236 Cal.Ap. 349. The last point I'm going to make is, if
the Court will remember back in the opening statement that I made,
Baker made an objection to my even bringing up any evidence by way
of rebuttal to his witnesses, claiming that he may decide not to
call those witnesses and therefore I had to wait until the end of my
case, and the court sustained that position. And that was at page 63
of the transcript from opening statements. And Mr. Baker said,
"Opening statement is what their case is, what their evidence is
going to prove, what—they have a burden of proving it, not to rebut
what our position may or may not be at time of trial." Okay. And he
goes on to say, "In my opinion, they've got to save that for the
conclusion of the case." And that's precisely what we're doing. And
in regard to all of the issues on which we seek to offer rebuttal, I
might add, they have the burden of proof. We can't acquire the
burden of proof when they respond to that fair affirmative defense
opens by mentioning them in our opening statement. That's never been
the law and wouldn't make any sense. They're going to have the
burden of proof. We will argue on these issues, that the photographs
are a fraud, that any evidence was planted or that any evidence was
contaminated, they will have the burden, they put it on in their
case, and we're responding to it.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I haven't looked at the Charlieville case,
which is even older than I am, or the Diamond case, because we
didn't—we didn't get any of this from Mr. Petrocelli. But as this
court is aware, these are all—for example, these are all designated
expert witnesses. And my objection to his opening statement did not
go to Mr. Petrocelli, for example, asserting that we will have
experts that will assert there is no contamination, we will have
experts that will assert that these photographs are not phony.
They—he could certainly have said that and put that evidence on, and
had an obligation at the time that he presented his case in chief to
call all the expert witnesses that he had designated in his case. He
chose, for tactical reasons, as a ploy, not to put those experts on
so that they—that he could have a tactical—what he thinks is a
tactical advantage at the end of the case. The cases that we cited
to you indicate that that is totally inappropriate. Those issues
were issues in this case before his law firm ever got involved in
the case. Those issues have permeated the criminal trial, they have
permeated this trial. Those expert witnesses should have been called
in his case in chief. And now—I guess Bodziak was called in his case
in chief. And now, from what I've just heard, he seems to think that
he's entitled to call Bodziak again for these, quote, newly
discovered photographs that were taken over three years ago. Now,
that seems to me to destroy any alleged 2034 designation of experts.
And I believe that certainly he's entitled to call people relative
to the issue of the Bronco photographs that—that we assert show no
blood on August—early August, as contrasted to August 26 when
there's blood all over the console, the August 10 photograph, the
August 26, and certainly he's entitled to call relative to the issue
of whether or not that is in fact a hole or a pebble in the glove
that was raised. The other issues were well known to him, and our
position is, and I think it's supported by the code section and the
cases we cited, he cannot attempt to sandbag his case in chief, and
for political and tactical ployish reasons, withhold all those
experts until now. They have been known and they should have been in
his case in chief. And if in fact that happens, then this case goes
on another month, because we have then surrebuttal to those—those
people.
THE COURT: I don't think so.
MR. BAKER: Well, I'll tell you—
THE COURT: It's not going to go on for another month.
THE COURT: Well, it depends upon your rulings. You can't call five
experts, one who has already been on the stand, and—maybe six
experts, and suggest that we shouldn't have any surrebuttal to those
people.
THE COURT: All right. The Court has read the moving papers, has read
the cases cited by the defendant, and I'm satisfied that under these
circumstances, the fact that any mention in the opening statement in
and of itself did not obligate the plaintiff to offer rebuttal to
the various specific defenses raised by the defendant in their
defense. The rebuttal evidence appears to this Court, based upon
representation of counsel, that's what they're going to testify to,
going specifically to the issues raised by the affirmative defenses
submitted by the defense to the jury. And the motions to preclude
the presentation of the rebuttal witnesses are denied. That is as to
both the—there's a separate motion filed as to—as to the
photographs. I include this order as covering the photographs as
well. Particularly with regards to the photographs, the
representation is that the plaintiffs did not have the photographs
until they had rested their case in chief. Under those
circumstances, they had no duty to offer any evidence of that nature
in their case in chief.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, just to—a clarification on that.
THE COURT: Yeah. Yes.
MR. BAKER: You're not suggesting now they can submit those to an
expert witness and have that expert witness come in here, and
Bodziak has already testified, and testify to the authenticity of
those photographs, which we have not raised any such issue yet,
obviously.
MR. PETROCELLI: I don't understand what he's saying.
THE COURT: I don't either.
MR. BAKER: Okay. Fair enough. You're not saying that Bodziak, who
came in here and testified as to—as to the shoes, can now come back
in and say that these are in fact Bruno Magli shoes? He's going to
be limited to what he testified to in the criminal trial and what he
testified to—because he was a designated expert under the
stipulation. And now they're suggesting that Bodziak come into this
courtroom and expand his testimony because he was subject to the
stipulation and then his deposition was taken for the Scull photo.
Okay. Then—but that limited the amount of what he reviewed, and
you're not, I take it, suggesting 2034 is waived.
THE COURT: What is your—
MR. PETROCELLI: We don't know what position they're taking. If he
takes the position that these photographs—that these shoes that are
in the Flammer photographs are not Bruno Magli shoes, then Mr.
Bodziak will so testify that they are. We don't even know what their
position is. If he concedes the position, then he won't be
necessary.
MR. BAKER: I don't have to concede anything.
THE COURT: Sir, just a minute.
MR. BAKER: 2034 says—
THE COURT: If you offer evidence or testimony that the Flammer
photographs don't show Bruno Magli shoes, then I think the Court is
going to rule that plaintiffs can rebut with Bodziak or—
MR. BAKER: Regardless, 2034 we know that—
THE COURT: I don't think 2034 has any application to these
circumstances.
MR. BAKER: You don't think Kennemer does either.
THE COURT: Mr. Baker, I'm making my rulings. You know where you can
go with them.
MR. BAKER: I've been there before.
THE COURT: Okay. Now, next motion the Court will address is—defense
memorandum, I guess, is the motion. Defense memorandum of law re
admissibility of Mark Fuhrman statements contained in tapes of Laura
Hart-McKinney. Go ahead.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, this is obviously— we're revisiting the
Fuhrman issue here from a slightly different angle. This was—as I
think is clear from the moving papers and perhaps as Your Honor
already knows from other sources, Detective Fuhrman spoke to a Laura
Hart-McKinny, who is a wanna-be playwright, and he gave her a lot of
information about his personal experiences, including several
admissions with regard to police misconduct and also planting
evidence and so forth and so on, and also his indication of his
racial animus. There's really no question that these are classic
statements against penal interests. I think we set that forth in
the—in our moving papers. So I think there's also no question that
these are absolutely relevant to this case. We have raised, as Your
Honor knows, the issue of whether or not the glove on the Rockingham
property was planted and whether or not other evidence was planted,
including blood, and now we have the issue of this disappearing hole
in the Bundy glove. So we think that when we have evidence that one
of the primary, if not the primary, actors, particularly with
regards to the Rockingham glove, has a—someone who is an
acknowledged racist, and according to the statements he made, felon,
then I think that that's something that this court should permit the
jury to hear. I think it's relevant and I think it's clear, again,
these are clearly statements against penal interests. We've already
filed—I might as well argue it now. We've also filed a separate
motion arguing that some of what we'll call in the past Mr.
Fuhrman's substantive testimony at the criminal trial also amounts
to statements against penal interest, particularly in view of the
context in which the statements were made. And we've listed
those—all those 20 different areas on pages 4 through 7 of the
memorandum. And I would cite in particular the case People versus
Gordon, which sets out the standard that suspicious conduct alone
can be amount to statement against penal interest at least set up
the circumstances under which might otherwise be a nonincriminating
statement, is in fact a statement against penal interest. So we
would ask the Court at this point to admit at least these portions
as we set out in our memoranda of Detective Fuhrman's prior
testimony. I mean we have a situation, as Your Honor knows, where
one of the primary investigators and actors in the case is not here
because he chooses not to be here. And I don't think it's fair. I
don't think it's a right thing at all. I think our case is highly
prejudiced. We can't really stop him from running away. I don't
think you should let the plaintiffs hide him at this point. I think
he's in this case and I think—
THE COURT: Plaintiffs are hiding him?
MR. LEONARD: Well, I don't—I think we should be allowed—yes, by
their objection to his prior testimony. Exactly. And I think we
should be allowed to present this to the jury. I think it's relevant
and I think it falls within the exception to the hearsay rule. Thank
you.
MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, plaintiffs aren't hiding anyone.
We attempted also to take his testimony. We'll address first the
contention that his criminal trial testimony should be admissible.
This has been before Your Honor twice. The request has been denied
twice. Now, belatedly, the claim is that the otherwise innocent
statements are somehow admissions against penal interests. There's
no case that supports that. The law is clear that one has to know,
or have some reason to know, that this statement one is making is
against his penal interest. There's no case that holds, as the
defendants argue, that an otherwise innocent statement or testimony
during an investigation that no one reasonably could have known
would subject someone to some penal consequence, falls within the
penal exception to the hearsay rule. Really, what this is about,
Your Honor, is getting in some testimony of Mr. Fuhrman in an
attempt I think, as was pointed out earlier, to set up that
testimony so they can then try to impeach it with a second string of
the proverbial ball that other statements made in the—in the
McKinney tape. On the statements on the McKinney tape, we know that
they're all hearsay. They claim again against penal interest, which
is curious, since the statements are ten years old. So how could
trial statements they're trying to impeach, be impeached by
something allegedly against his penal interest, if the statute
really would have run? But more than that, primarily, there's
nothing to impeach. Detective Fuhrman did not testify in this case,
so the statements they offer of him are not relevant for any
purpose. And I might note, Your Honor, that, in the earlier criminal
case, even in a situation where Detective Fuhrman did testify, or
when Detective Fuhrman, in each and every instance cited the 18
cited—and the comments in the '94 tape, were all held not relevant,
even when he did testify. And, of course, this is a totally
different case, because both sides have attempted to question him,
and he has chosen not to testify. So we say for all of those
reasons, Your Honor, that the—any of the transcript portions cited
should not be admissible.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, just one statement that Mr. Medvene made is
absolutely incorrect: After the preliminary hearing, one of the
statements Fuhrman made is, "I'm the key witness in the biggest case
of the century. You know if I go down, they lose the case. The glove
is everything. Drop the glove, because you are going down." Now,
that's—that's something that was uttered after he had already been
involved in—in the case, 1994, in July.
MR. MEDVENE: He also says, by the way, in that same tape, that he
did nothing wrong; and anybody that thinks he did anything, one, is
a psycho, and everything he did was appropriate. But aside from
that, that very statement in the prior criminal case where he did
testify, was not permitted in under 352. Here, most importantly,
there's nothing to impeach, because the man has not testified.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I would note for the record, since we're
now talking about what some other judge did, that there was no
argument made that I'm aware of along these lines in any statements
against penal interests.
THE COURT: Submitted?
MR. MEDVENE: Submitted.
THE COURT: All right. With regards to the taped statements of
Fuhrman, of Laura Hart McKinney, I am of the opinion that those
statements which are included as part of the memorandum or moving
papers, do not constitute admissions against penal interest. I think
they are further not only hearsay, but remote. Not relevant. And
whatever probative value they may have is far outweighed by the
prejudicial fact, particularly in view of the lack of connection
with the evidence on this case, and in the absence of the
opportunity of plaintiff to cross-examine both Fuhrman and McKinney,
defendant having also filed a declaration that McKinney, likewise,
is not available for examination.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, may I make a comment on the last point so
the record is clear?
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. LEONARD: McKinney was clearly cross-examined at the criminal
trial. We'd be proffering the tapes through her testimony, both at a
voir dire and also in—actually in front of the jury. So that under
the prior testimony exception, that would be covered, just so the
record's clear.
THE COURT: That's a nice segue into the second ruling. The Court had
previously ruled as to Fuhrman's criminal trial testimony, that it
was inadmissible, because of the effect of Evidence Code Sections
1291 and 1292. I think the same principle applies to Hart McKinney's
criminal trial testimony. The Court ruled previously as to Fuhrman,
and now rules as to Hart McKinney, that the plaintiffs were not in
the same position, did not have the same interests and motive within
the mention of sections 1291 and 1292 of the Evidence Code. And this
is something I've already previously ruled on, I believe, on
November 18, 1996, that the criminal trial testimony of Fuhrman, and
now of Hart McKinney, are not admissible. I further find that, with
regards to the contention that Fuhrman's criminal trial testimony
constitutes a statement against his penal interests, I find that
argument to be untenable, and that motion is likewise denied.
MR. LEONARD: So the record is clear, Your Honor, you—as I understood
you, your earlier ruling, because you're now incorporating that into
your ruling with regard to Hart McKinney, you made the ruling, as I
understood it, that—that it was because Fuhrman was called as a—on
direct testimony by the prosecution, who had the same—basically the
same interest as the plaintiffs. That was the distinction I thought
you were making. You even called it a technical rule. Now, we have
the opposite situation with regard to Hart McKinney. She was called
by the defense and was, in fact, cross-examined by the prosecutors,
who had the exact same interests as the plaintiffs. So I want to
make sure that's clear.
THE COURT: That makes it doubly objectionable, in my opinion, under
1291 and 1292.
MR. LEONARD: Well, that, I don't understand.
THE COURT: Well, there you are. Okay. I'll hear argument—further
argument, and I will ask for an offer of proof as to the proposed
testimony of the defendant with regards to specific aspects of the
decedent's character. I want to anticipate and address the issues of
relevance and whether or not the Court should permit the questions.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I intend to inquire of Mr. Simpson on the
specific incidents raised by the plaintiffs in this case; that is,
the 1984 incident, the 1989 incident, the 1993 incident. I intend to
go into his feelings and discussions with Nicole in some detail,
between January 1 of 1994 and June 12 of 1994.
THE COURT: Well, the objections seem to not go to those; it just
seems to go to something else.
MR. BAKER: Well, that's what I'm going to be inquiring of Mr.
Simpson about, those specific issues, the reasons, the rationale,
what was said, what transpired during the conversations that
occurred, and what gave rise to those incidents, and to explain what
happened at those incidents. And those all, of course, were raised
by the plaintiffs.
MR. KELLY: Your Honor, most of these things, such as '93, as I said,
first of all, go before the reconciliation and maybe purported to
have something to do with alleged drug use, which would have nothing
to do with, as I understand it, nonmotive of Mr. Simpson to commit
these murders. As I said, they are totally irrelevant to the murders
of June 12, 1994. I have absolutely no objection to Mr. Simpson
testifying as to his feelings regarding Nicole or things like that
in 1994. My objections are to, one, prior alleged drug use of any
sort by Nicole Brown Simpson; two, her romantic interests prior to
1994, which there's been no evidence of any of. I have no objection
of none of—if none of that's been brought up. I think Mr. Baker
indicated in his opening statement he's going to bring out
testimony, one about a terminated pregnancy that occurred in 1992,
which is totally irrelevant, and made some mention of an observation
Mr. Simpson had made in '93 regarding a sex act between Ms. Simpson
and someone else, which will be totally irrelevant, also.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, they have made the entire relationship of Mr.
Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson relevant back to '84.
THE COURT: Would you address the contention of Mr. Kelly with
regards to the drug use? What do you intend to offer on that?
MR. BAKER: The argument that was raised by them in the October 25,
1993 incident goes to the issue of that argument commenced as a
result of Nicole Brown Simpson dealing—having interactions with drug
dealers, having interactions with known prostitutes, and having
those people around her home. Mr. Simpson didn't like it, didn't
want it, and had an argument with her about it. They raised the
issue. It seems to me that he has the right, certainly under
Evidence Code Section 1227, to—to talk about what was said. He has
the right to explain his actions. There's been a character
assassination that's gone on from day one in this case. It goes back
to '84.
THE COURT: 1992 pregnancy?
MR. BAKER: 1992 pregnancy goes to the issue, they are saying Mr.
Simpson had this jealous rage and couldn't stand to not be with
Nicole Brown Simpson. What we said in opening statement, and what I
intend to elicit from Mr. Simpson on the witness stand, is, in fact,
that they—that Mr. Simpson was her confidant. You can tell—
THE COURT: Well, what are you raising the pregnancy for, is what I'm
trying to get at.
MR. BAKER: Well, it's certainly the ultimate communication that this
man was never in a jealous rage, or she wouldn't have told him—they
were separated—she certainly wouldn't have confided in him if she
thought that he was jealous and that he was going to—
THE COURT: Tell me what his testimony is going to be with regards to
the pregnancy. I'm trying to fathom the materiality for—
MR. BAKER: That she told him that she got pregnant by someone else
and was considering terminating the pregnancy, which she ultimately
did. And he listened to her and counseled her relative to that
issue.
THE COURT: Okay. 1993 sex act.
MR. BAKER: They have painted Mr. Simpson as this jealous person, who
is absolutely—in this absolutely jealous rage; that he got mad every
time; he couldn't stand to see her with another man; he saw in
her—from at the Treiste restaurant in April of 1992; he went over to
her house that night; in the front room, she was engaged in the sex
acts with this other man, with the front room open. They got—
THE COURT: Is it—
MR. BAKER: '92.
MR. KELLY: April of '92.
THE COURT: Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
MR. BAKER: The draperies were open. Mr. Simpson turned around and
left. He then called his wife the next day, had a discussion, that
it was inappropriate, perhaps, to do that with the kids there. They
-- she—they—I've got stereo here.
THE COURT: I noticed.
(Indicating to Mr. Leonard speaking in his ear.)
MR. BAKER: As I recall, the plaintiffs raised that with Kato Kaelin,
while he was on the stand. And I think it's important for Mr.
Simpson to be able to explain to a jury that he didn't get into any
jealous rage about it. He is entitled to do that.
THE COURT: All right. And something about 1994.
MR. BAKER: Well, I think we're going to talk about his relationship,
just her erratic behavior. I'm not going to talk—if the jury wants
to conclude that her being what he concluded to be a normal, loving
woman, being one day and having basically that exhibit symptoms that
were consistent with, as he described it, a nervous breakdown the
very next day, they conclude whatever they want relative to that.
But I'm not going to go into the fact that if she was using drugs at
this time—
MR. KELLY: Your Honor, I think it was during Dr. Barry Michel's
deposition there was substance abuse. There's no firsthand knowledge
of—there's no testimony that he ever saw Nicole using drugs in 1994,
when pointedly asked.
MR. BAKER: That's when you asked—
THE COURT: Let him finish.
MR. KELLY: With regards to those other things, the '92 pregnancy
issue, the '92 observation of the sex act, these were all prior to
the reconciliation, Judge. And we have conceded there was a time of
separation, and they did get back together, and they had a
relationship for over a year then. What might be at issue would be
what happened at the very end. But we—this thing with 1992, I think
Mr. Baker's words, in his opening was, she was like a butterfly,
spreading her wings at that time, and had lots of men. And none of
that during the separation period, when she was away from Mr.
Simpson, and prior to the reconciliation, has nothing to do with how
the murders occurred or whether they indicate motive, nonmotive, or
anything else in 1994. So they have no objection to 1994, as long as
it's not speculative. But these earlier things are just character
assassinations. She is not here to defend herself. This Court
already ruled that Mr. Simpson's alleged infidelity and drug use
cannot be gone into. We'll be dealing with this in a vacuum with our
witnesses to rebut this. And the very least I would ask, to put it
in context, how Mr. Simpson's state of mind might be with all this,
that we be allowed to inquire the same of Mr. Simpson.
MR. PETROCELLI: Before Your Honor rules, I would like to be heard on
one point here. Mr. Simpson did, in fact, testify that he was not—he
did not see any drug use by Nicole in 1994. My concern is that this
issue might be argued as an explanation for an alternative killer,
Your Honor. And I think for that purpose, it is not relevant and
violates the teachings of People versus Kaurish. If Mr. Baker wants
to admit it for the purpose he asserted, namely, to undercut motive,
that's one thing; and Your Honor will have to decide to what extent
that evidence is admissible and relevant. But I would ask that if it
does come in, that it not—that it come in for the limited purpose
only, and not to suggest that Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald
Goldman may have been killed by some unspecified third parties, or
just because Mr. Simpson says Nicole was cohorting with people
involved with drugs and prostitution. That's my concern. I think it
violates the Court's prior rulings. I think it violates People
versus Kaurish, and I think it's violative of Section 352 of the
Evidence Code.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, two more points, just briefly, in response.
Number one, it's interesting that Mr. Kelly should talk about the
'92 viewing of the sex act.
THE COURT: I don't want to hear any more about that.
MR. LEONARD: Okay.
THE COURT: I'd like to hear about the issue that Mr. Kelly—Mr.
Petrocelli raised.
MR. LEONARD: I would like to say that than one of the issues that
they raised, especially through Judy Brown, if I recall, directly,
is that Mr. Simpson was calling quote, unquote, obsessively, that he
was calling her—
THE COURT: I don't think that's what he—
MR. LEONARD: -- that he called her—
THE COURT: Can I make it easier for you?
MR. LEONARD: Yeah.
THE COURT: All right. The Court will overrule the objection and
allow the defendant to testify as to those matters. And it's my
intention to allow it only for the purpose of controverting the
defendant's state of mind and the existence or nonexistence of
motive. And it's my intention to preclude and admonish counsel not
to argue that as a basis for a theory that a third party did kill
her. If you want to argue that—
MR. KELLY: With regard to which specific issue?
THE COURT: I'm not talking to you, Mr. Kelly; I'm talking to—
MR. KELLY: I'm sorry, Judge.
MR. BAKER: We can worry about what we argue about when we argue.
THE COURT: No. I'm telling you right now, that's my ruling. If it's
your intention to violate that order, I'm not going to permit it.
MR. BAKER: I don't have any intention of violating any of the
Court's orders. I adhere to the Court's orders.
THE COURT: Your last statement leads me to be a little bit concerned
that it's not your intention to abide with it. I am satisfied that
you have always abided by the Court's order.
MR. BAKER: I will abide by your court order. If I have to go
upstairs and get it reversed before closing argument, that's
something else. We don't have to visit that until that point in
time.
THE COURT: Good.
MR. BAKER: I won't violate your court orders. I don't violate your
court orders.
THE COURT: That's the rulings that the Court makes. 1:30 for jurors
and everyone.
(At 11:50
A.M., a luncheon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, JANUARY 10, 1997 1:45 PM
DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE. APPEARANCES:
(Per Cover Page)
(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
MR. BAKER: Orenthal James Simpson.
THE CLERK: You've been sworn previously. You're still under oath.
Would you please state your name again for the record.
MR. LAMARQUE: Orenthal James Simpson. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR.
BAKER:
Q. 0J, when you were born?
A. July 9, 1947.
Q. How many brothers and sisters did you have?
A. I have one brother and two sisters.
Q. Is one of your sister's here today?
A. My older sister, Mattie Shirley.
Q. Where were you born?
A. San Francisco—Stanford Hospital in San Francisco.
Q. Did you grow up in San Francisco?
A. Yes. I was in San Francisco until I came to U.S.C.
Q. Now, what grammar school did you go to?
A. We went to numerous grammar schools. We moved around quite a bit.

Q. Where did you move around quite a bit?
A. We lived in government housing projects and on two of the
occasions, I guess maybe three of the occasions, they tore them down
and moved us to another government housing project, until I was in
high school.
Q. Now, did you participate in athletics in junior high school?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you participate in?
A. Primarily, outside of the schoolyard, baseball and soccer.
Q. Now, when did you meet Al Cowlings'?
A. I—actually, it's hard to say. Very early on, around the third
grade. He used to sort of hang out with my brother, and we all lived
on the trailer hills, so it's kind of a cornucopia of guys
everywhere. He was just a guy I knew. We began to become very close
friends because we would have to catch the bus home together in high
school when he went out for football. But I knew him from the third
grade on.
Q. Now, you went to Galileo High; is that correct?
A. Yes, Galileo High.
Q. And what sports did you participate in there?
A. Baseball for a while, track and football.
Q. Okay. And how far away from the high school did you live?
A. Almost across town. We were part of the sort of post World War II
baby boom, so we had to go to designated high schools, and we
caught—I had to catch about three buses to get to school.
Q. And those weren't school buses, were they?
A. No, public buses.
Q. And that's—you and AC, when you're playing football, used to
catch the same buses home and that's how you became close friends?
A. We became very close during that period of time.
Q. Now, after you left Galileo High, where did you go, OJ.
A. I went to City College of San Francisco for a—turned out a year
and a half, and then I transferred to USC?
Q. Okay. Did you play football at San Francisco?
A. Yes, I ran track and played football at CCSF.
Q. And at San Francisco City College, did you do well in sports?
A. Yeah, I did well in sports on every level, but I think because of
the talent that was at CCSF it showed itself a little more.
Q. And did Al Cowlings, as well, go to CCSF?
A. Yes. Al dropped out of high school right after football season
and after I had done real well in junior college, I talked him
back—to get his high school diploma. Then the following year he came
to the City College and ended up, consequently, one year behind me
through college.
Q. Do you know if any of your records, are they still held by you at
CCSF?
A. I really don't know.
Q. But you basically set the record book at City College when you
went there, did you not?
A. Most of the national records I broke in junior—in City College.
Q. You transferred to the University of Southern California here in
LA in '67?
A. Yes, spring of '67.
Q. And in the fall season of '67 you started as tailback for USC?
A. That's correct.
Q. And did you, in fact, marry your first wife, Marguerite, in the
fall of 1967?
A. Yes. We were engaged before I came to USC, and after a semester
at USC I went back and got her in San Franciso, married her, and
brought her to USC
Q. Your first season at USC, the Trojans were the national
champions?
A. Yes. We were the national champions in both track and football.
Q. And you were one of the four people that set the world record for
four by 100 relay?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you also, at that time—Marguerite, after you were married,
she moved down here to Los Angeles with you?
A. We were married the summer of '67, and I brought her—after the
wedding, the next day, we drove down to Los Angeles.
Q. All right. Now, you set national rushing records for carrying a
football in 1967, did you not, sir?
A. That's correct.
Q. And in 1968 you played for USC, as well, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And in that year USC did not win the national championship?
A. No. I think we ended up maybe third.
Q. And you won the Heisman Trophy, did you not?
A. That's correct.
Q. And what's the Heisman Trophy?
A. I think it goes to the college athlete that, in my understanding,
that did the best job for his school, you know, exemplified college
athletics, the best player.
Q. The best college football player in the country, is it not?
A. Yeah, according to who votes for you.
Q. Now, the same day you received the Heisman Trophy in New York,
Arnelle was born, your first daughter?
A. Yes. I was waiting to get the award and sort of nervous about my
speech, and I knew my wife was in labor, and a guy handed me the
note right as I was standing up to give the speech, that I had a
baby girl.
Q. Now, after you left S.C., what did you then do?
A. Athletically, after a long negotiation I signed with the Buffalo
Bills in the fall of—I mean the fall of '69, I guess it was.
Q. And did you move back to Buffalo?
A. During the football season I lived in Buffalo, yes.
Q. And in the off-season where did you live?
A. Los Angeles.
Q. And how long were you with Buffalo?
A. For nine years.
Q. Now, right after you started playing football for Buffalo, you
became a spokesman for Chevrolet, did you not?
A. Actually, I signed numerous contracts before I signed with the
Buffalo Bills. I signed with ABC, Chevrolet, and RC Cola before I
signed with the Buffalo Bills?
Q. And you—at the time that you were really in your rookie season,
were you approached by any sports writers relative to writing a
book?
A. Well, not necessarily a writer. I was— I think I was approached
by a couple of publishers to write a book.
Q. And tell the jury what was the outcome of—how was this book put
together?
A. Well, once they approached me to write the book, I—I went about
finding a person to write it for me. And my agent at the time, the
only agent I ever had, I only had him for a year or two years, then
he went out and found a guy named Pete Outstell who I think wrote
for "Newsweek" and "Sports Illustrated," a guy who he had met. And
Pete then met with me on a few occasions and, you know, we did taped
interviews, and it was a pretty hectic time for me because I was
late getting to Buffalo and he lived in New York, and he went about
writing the book.
Q. Now, that was your rookie season with Buffalo, was it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall, when you were on the stand in November, Mr.
Petrocelli asked you about whether or not you had written whether or
not you could lie effectively, do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. Is this the book that Mr. Outstell
(phonetic) wrote, you approved or looked at the galley?
A. Yes.
Q. And he quoted one little line on page 57 out of that book. And
can you tell us the incident that was being referred to when Mr.
Petrocelli indicated that you had written that you could lie
effectively?
A. Well, you know, they have this thing in the NFL where they haze
the—the rookies. They would tell us there were free turkeys and we'd
have to go to this town to get them, and the town was 50 miles away,
and there was no turkeys. I started doing jokes on the veterans. I
told one guy that came in, I said the coach was looking for a guy
named Paul Costas, that he had been traded, and boy—or words to that
effect, and he was pretty upset, and all of the veterans were upset.
And it turned out one of the veterans, I don't know if it was Paul
McGuire or Joe O'Donnell, he said OJ, I know he's lying because he
looks serious, and I said how did you notice, I thought I was a
pretty good liar. It was all about a joke that I was playing on one
of the veteran players.
Q. And when you—both before and after in that book, relates the
story that you've just told the jury, does it not?
A. Yes. And Mr. Petrocelli's question was in context of an
interchange between Joe O'Donnell and I, or Paul McGuire, and I
can't recall which one it was, I haven't read the book. It was NBC
News, it was an interchange between us about the joke I had just
played on them.
Q. You have never bragged about being an effective liar, have you?
A. No.
Q. You have never attempted to lie, have you, on anything that's
important, relative to your life, sir?
A. No.
Q. Now, Buffalo—you stayed with the Buffalo Bills for how long, sir?

A. I played with the Bills from '69 until, I believe, '77. And then
I was about to retire, but they kept me from retiring by trading me
to my home town, San Francisco.
Q. While at Buffalo you were the most valuable player three times?
A. I believe NFL twice and AFC three or four times.
Q. How many times were you All-Pro?
A. I don't remember.
Q. You were the first man in the history of the National Football

A. Yes.
Q. And you're—during that period of time, that is from '69 to '77,
did you ever attempt to alter a contract that you had with the team?

A. No. Of course, I had an understanding with the owner, whenever I
had a good year we'd sit down and talk about it. So I did have some
contracts renegotiated. I had one very celebrated holdout at the end
of, I guess, going into the 1976 season where I didn't go to
training camp and I actually did the Olympics for ABC in Montreal.
The basis for that, the Bills had lost some key players, and I knew
that the only way that this team was going to be a competitive team
would be to trade me and get players for me, and at the time, Mr.
Carroll Rosenbloom of the Rams was offering some first-string
players, and I argued with the Bills. It wasn't for money.
Eventually the trade date ended. Mr. Pete Roselle and the owner of
the Bills talked to me and they came out and offered me a big
contract to go back to Buffalo, because I was going to retire. And I
went back. And exactly what I predicted happened, the team—the team
was horrible for the next two or three years. And we should have
made the trade. And eventually they made the trade and the team
almost immediately went to the playoffs.
Q. Now, in your NFL history, did you ever get thrown out of a
football game?
A. Once, yes.
Q. That was for what?
A. It was against New England, and a guy hit me sort of late, named
Mel Longford, big defensive end, and I jumped up and threw a punch
at him, and a teammate of mine, Reggie McKinsey, went to grab him
but somehow got flipped over, and Mel had Reggie on the ground, and
I had Mel's helmet, and the referee kept telling me to let the
helmet go, and I wouldn't let him go until he let Reggie go. So
because I didn't follow the instructions of the referee, I was
kicked out of the game.
Q. In all—by the way, how big was this guy that you decided to take
a swing at?
A. Mel, about 6, 6; 260, 270.
Q. In all the games that you played with the NFL, whether they were
preseason, during the season, did you ever have any other
altercation in your entire career?
A. Other than arguments. But I knew early on in my career in high
school, especially in junior college, college and pro ball, that
people would try to provoke me to get me in fights to get me out of
the game, so I had to learn early on to sort of harness and focus on
the game and focus whatever that energy was to play in the game and
not—not get distracted.
Q. Did you ever tell a fan during the years that you were in the NFL
that you didn't have enough time for an autograph?
A. No.
Q. You ever spit on a referee?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever tell anyone during the whole time that you were—from
the time that you became a personality or a celebrity, have you ever
told people you don't have time to give an autograph?
A. No. I mean there's been times I'm running through an airport and
people are chasing me for autographs, but if they catch me by the
time I get to the plane, I'll sign them. But outside of that, if
I—if I was standing around, I always sign autographs.
Q. And now, in 1977, you were traded to San Francisco?
A. Correct.
Q. And did you buy a condominium up there?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Why?
A. Well, I had—you know, I grew up in San Francisco and never lived
in a home that was ours, and when I went to San Francisco—I had
purchased a home in—in Los Angeles when I first came out of college,
one for myself and one for my mother, and when I got to San
Francisco, I just wanted to have my own place in San Francisco. It
was sort of a dream of mine to have a place around Lombard Street,
where the crooked street was, and it was a few streets from my high
school, and I bought a condominium.
Q. And you lived there during the regular season?
A. I lived there during the two football seasons that I played
there.
Q. And did you live in L.
A. in the off-season?
A. During the off-season I came back to Los Angeles and lived there.

Q. Now, it was also in 1977 that you met Nicole Brown?
A. That's correct.
Q. And how long after you met her, did you and she become an item,
if you will?
A. Well, that's hard to say. We became a public item possibly a year
after I met her.
Q. In about 1978?
A. Yes, we became pretty public about it.
Q. And when did—when did you purchase Rockingham—the house you have
at 360 North Rockingham?
A. I think at the end of '7 -- at the end of probably—I'm guessing
it's '76. I know it was before I met Nicole, so I had purchased it
around that time.
Q. And did—in 1977, '78, did you start redecorating Rockingham?
A. When I first bought it, what happened, when I first bought the
house, it went through an extensive remodeling job before I moved in
it. So that was throughout 1977. Over the years after that,
obviously, I redecorated and remodeled it on numerous occasions.
Q. And did Nicole, did she assist in the— assist you in the
redecorating of the house after you purchased it in '76, '77?
A. No. Nicole and I moved into the house— not until the 80's, and
once we got into the house in the 80's, she decorated it.
Q. Now, in terms of—of 1979, did you retire from football?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Were you traded in '79?
A. No, no, I just retired.
Q. And when—when you left the game of football, all modesty aside,
you were known as the fastest running back that had ever played the
game; is that correct?
A. By some. I think it was debatable. Jim Brown had quite a
reputation. Jim Sales I liked. But by some, yes.
Q. At your retirement ceremony you said fame, popularity and money
take wings; only one thing endures, and that's character?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you believe that?
A. Yes, I believe that's what got even me through all of this.
Q. You walked away from the podium, did you ever carry a football
again?
A. No.
Q. What did you do after you had left the game that had made you a
personality, a celebrity known throughout the world?
A. Well, all my life I had tried to be the most conscientious of
athletes. I think I worked harder than anybody. I think I was in the
best condition of any person. I tried to adhere to all the rules of
good sportsmanship and fair play. I think everybody I ever played
with would say I was the hardest working guy on the team. I
literally dropped out for a couple years. I continued to work. I was
working for Hertz. I was doing a few movies. But outside of that,
what I did was I pretty much joined what I called the mass
population. I started going out and doing all the things that my
contemporaries were doing.
Q. And at that time did you have a contract with Hertz?
A. Yes.
Q. And was it NBC or ABC, then?
A. Um, hum, I believe when I retired I was—it wasn't a sports
contract. I was producing a film for NBC.
Q. Now, at that point in time, you and Nicole were residing
together, is that correct, when you left San Francisco?
A. When I retired, yes.
Q. And tell us about the relationship that you had. Let's just pick,
oh, 1979 to 1983.
A. Well, we—you know, we lived together and—she had an apartment in
Los Angeles, and we lived together that last year in San Francisco.
When we came back to Los Angeles, as I said, she had an apartment
and I was living in a condominium, at a hotel, I believe. After a
while we moved into a rented house together. And I think sometime in
1980, I moved back into Rockingham and she moved back in with me.
Q. And Nicole's obviously a very attractive woman and nobody has
ever said you were ugly. Did you have a great life? Did you travel,
did you go to clubs, did you enjoy the celebrity status that you had
attained at that time, sir?
A. Yes, we did. I believe we were very much in love. We traveled all
over the world. Our house was always loaded with people. On
weekends, we were just packed with people. On every major holiday,
all of my friends who were either single or didn't have a
girlfriend, or bachelor, we would feed, you know Christmas or
Thanksgiving. So I would say—I would—I can't imagine anybody's home
being so full of friends at virtually all times as our home was.
Q. And did you enjoy the relationship that you had with Nicole in
those years of 1979, 1983, 1984?
A. It was super, yes, totally enjoyed it.
Q. And did you ever during that period of time, for example, take
and hit Nicole outside of an animal clinic?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Now, I want to show you a photo, because I think that you were in
Orange County during the time that lady testified.
MR. P. BAKER: 2194.
(Exhibit 2194 displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, O.J., where was that picture taken?
A. I believe that's in Monte Carlo.
Q. And did Nicole usually wear head bands?
A. Only if we were playing tennis. I was in Monte Carlo for—for a
tennis tournament, and we were playing tennis every day, so
basically if we were playing tennis, she would wear a headband. I
believe one occasion at—some very fancy outfit she had on, that was
a headband she had once. But basically only to play tennis.
Q. A headband wasn't one of her favorite attires, was it?
A. No. I think I recall once she did an ad and she had a headband
with some fancy clothes on, and she thought it was a dumb—a dumb ad,
but—but I guess they ran it anyway.
Q. And let me ask you about—
MR. BAKER: Put up the other one.
MR. P. BAKER: 2222.
(Exhibit 2222 displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did Nicole often wear a fur coat?
A. If we were—like in New York or it was cold or, you know, a
situation like this I think we're possibly in Aspen or Vail there
(indicating to photo) that's a coat that she bought herself there
after a trip to Las Vegas and yeah, under those circumstances, yes.
Q. Well, did she ever wear one during the day in Los Angeles,
California, that you were aware of?
A. I never recall her ever doing that, ever.
Q. Did she have a gold spandex exercise suit that she'd wear under
that coat, or did you ever see that in your life?
A. Never, ever.
Q. And did you ever pull into an animal clinic when Nicole was
picking up the dogs and physically hit her?
A. Never.
MR. BAKER: Thank you. You can take that picture down.
(Mr. P. Baker removed Exhibit 2222 from Elmo.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I want to talk a little bit about—in 1984, did you
have an incident where you were in your property and you were
sitting on Nicole's Mercedes?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, Sergeant Mark Day came in here under penalty of
perjury, and said that you had a baseball bat, and there were dents
on the top of the car, there were dents on the side of the car and
there were dents on the hood of the car. Would you tell the ladies
and gentlemen of the jury whether or not that car had a top?
A. That car was a convertible. It was a convertible Mercedes.
Everyone knows that. That particular night, it didn't even have the
roof up on it. And I heard Detective Day's testimony in the other
trial I was in, and he said it was a hard top. I recall his arrival,
and I know, outside of coming through the front gate, he never even
walked over to the car. If he had, he would have known it was a
convertible Mercedes. I don't think anyone disputes that it would
have been impossible for it to have three dents, which he testified
to in our other trial, in the roof, in the hard top. It wasn't a
hard top.
Q. Now, what was going—why do you have a baseball bat, anyway?
You're a football player.
A. I used to hold a baseball game—we had like a weekly baseball
game. Like now, if you came around my house, you'd see—well, my kids
are around, so you see a lot of basketballs and bats, or golf clubs,
which are mine, around the various parts of my property then. Not
only did I have—I played baseball also, I had a pole so—I don't know
what you call the poles. Normally it's a big ball on it.
Q. Tether?
A. Tether, but I would have for awhile a tether, but then I had a
little—smaller ball on it. It was like you swing it and you hit the
ball, just practice hitting the ball.
Q. And describe what—what was occurring and what happened in this
incident in 1984?
A. Well, I had—Nicole and I had been dating for quite awhile at this
point, maybe five years, and—and I guess maybe a year previous to
that, we had gotten engaged. After we had gotten engaged, two or
three of our friends had gotten engaged and all of them were
married. And I was still holding out from getting married, so we had
a running thing going on about me marrying her. This was at a point
in time when she wanted me to set a date. It was in the fall of '84,
not '85 that it's been testified to. She wanted me to get married,
and I was procrastinating. And she had gone out with a friend, and I
guess they had some drinks. When she came in, she parked the car and
we were talking about it, 'cause we had had a conversation before
she left. April was sitting on the front of her car. As I had
previously testified to, I was bouncing the bat. As I was sitting on
the car, the head of the bat would hit her tire and bounce up. And
we were talking. And a few times, I guess, it hit her hubcap. At one
point she moved my leg and said, "If you dent my hubcap, you're
going have to pay for it." And I kind of took the bat and hit the
windshield and said, "And I'll pay for that, too." And she went
inside and hit a button for Westec, and came back out. And about
the—by the time Westec or whoever followed them came in, it was
pretty much over. But she wanted to make sure that I paid for the
crack in the window. And it was a crack, because she continued to
drive the car for about two or three months before it got fixed.
Q. Did you pay for it?
A. I paid for everything around the house that was broken, no matter
who broke it, her or myself or whoever.
Q. And you didn't consider that a major incident, did you?
A. No.
Q. Did she ever tell you that she thought that was a major incident?

A. No.
Q. In fact, you got married after that, didn't you?
A. Well, I think a couple days after that, I set a day—or at least
she picked the date, 'cause I wanted to get married in the summer,
and she said no. And we got married on what was essentially
groundhog's day.
Q. February 2, 1986, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And by 1986, O.J., had—
A. 1985. I'm sorry.
Q. Five, I got. That's right, five?
A. Yeah.
Q. By July of 1985, what were you doing relative to NBC?
A. I think I was doing Monday Night Football.
Q. That was on ABC.
A. ABC. I was back at ABC by that time.
Q. Did that require you to do a lot of traveling?
A. Yes. At least during football season, I would travel on weekends.
We were required to be in town, I believe it was 24 hours—it may
have been 48 hours, but basically, normally, was 24 hours before the
game. And sometimes I would leave on Friday night, Saturday night,
or something, to go to that town.
Q. Okay. Now, when did—when was Sydney born?
A. Sydney was born just about nine months— well, we went on our
honeymoon—our plan was for her to get pregnant—and she was born
October 17, roughly, you know, nine months after our wedding.
Q. Okay. And during that 1985, 1986, 1987, how was your
relationship? Describe it to the jury.
A. I—it was a good relationship, obviously. We were very much in
love. If there was any problem— Nicole took being a mom probably as
seriously as anyone I—I have known in my life, and would never leave
the kids. Where it became a problem is that I was constantly trying
to get her—after Sydney was—I remember it was after the football
season, and Sydney was getting a little—six, seven months—to take a
trip, any trip, a weekend trip, and Nicole just would not do it. And
that went on for a couple of years, where Judy and I would try to
conspire together to try to get Nicole to leave the kids for a
weekend. But Nicole, I think, all her life, she wanted to be a
mother, and she was just—she wouldn't leave those kids—wouldn't
leave this kid. And when Justin came around, it almost went to a new
level.
Q. Now, during that period of time, did you have a place down in
Laguna?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. And that was on Victoria Beach, was it?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Now, describe Victoria Beach for us. How—how far, for example,
are the—are the homes from the water?
A. The beach was about roughly 600 yards, 'cause we'd work out, run
the beach, her and I, virtually every morning. But unlike what you
might think when you think of these, the homes were about—depending
on what time of the year—as close as that clock to the break of the
water. And sometimes the water would literally come up and hit your
fence. So—and there were homes that were, like, six or eight feet
apart, all the way down the beach. So the beach was a very
enclosed—very close beach.
Q. Was it usually in the summer months, June, July, August, was
it—was it usually crowded at that beach?
A. Always crowded. As a matter of fact, when I would go down—I'd
play golf, so I would get up and I'd play golf very early. I'd get
up at 6:00 or 7:00. I would take all our beach chairs and put
them—and designate an area for us, especially around the Fourth of
July, for my family and the Browns and all our friends. I'd put 10,
12, chairs out on the beach early in the morning, and sort of clean
up a little bit—sometimes my neighbor would come out and help—so
that when I came back from golf and our friends came over, that we
would have an area to sit on the beach, because it's very dense, as
far as people were concerned, during the summer months.
Q. Now, in July of 1986 -- well, let me ask you this question first:
Did you usually host a softball tournament around the Fourth of
July?
A. Right up until my son was born, a few years later, I would first
host the game for years. I would host a big softball game, the
Fourth of July game. And when the game was over, I'd host a barbecue
at my house, which—which virtually everybody was invited to. We
would have three or four hundred people show up. If your
family—family was in town, you just brought your family. And people
would come and go. And we'd feed everybody. And I had pinball
machines for all the kids. We would—it wasn't until after the fourth
that I would come—come down to Laguna. Once our kids began to be
born, it was a little too tough for Nicole. Because one rule in my
house was, no matter who you were, if you came to my party, knowing
it or not, you got thrown in the pool. And the only person that
never got in the pool was Kareem Abdul Jabaar, because he didn't
want to go in the pool. So I would—after, I would imagine, '87 or
so, Nicole would leave to go to Laguna maybe the morning of the
Fourth, and I would play the softball game and stuff, and come down
after.
Q. Now, in 1986, you weren't in Laguna on July 3, were you?
A. No.
Q. You weren't in Laguna on July 1, were you?
A. No.
Q. You were up in Los Angeles?
A. Yes.
Q. And your softball tournament was up here?
A. Yes. I also, I believe, during that time, I think I was shooting
a TV series at this time, also. I'm not 100 percent. I know during
that period of time I was shooting a show called First Intent.
Q. Okay. And in addition to the football work that you were doing,
you did movie work and commercials; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you do—was part of your job as a spokesperson for Hertz, to
attend golf tournaments and play golf with some of their customers?
A. Yes. By the—after we had kids, I started playing golf to try to
change my lifestyle a little bit, and I started—I got a little
addicted to the game of golf, which I am to this day.
Q. Before golf, you played what?
A. Tennis.
Q. And when did you start taking up golf?
A. Seriously, I would say actually around the time my kids were
born. I started—I may have played once in a while before then, but
by the time '85 came and Sydney was born, I started taking it very
seriously and got—got addicted to the game.
Q. Now, how often did you have to leave town—I'm not talking about
during the football season when you were doing commentating—how
often during the rest of the year would you have to leave town, if
there was any kind of norm with your schedule?
A. You know, in recent years, it became more and more, as you know,
in recent—more recent years, after that, in the mid '80s, not all
that much. I would say possibly a week, a month I would have been
out of town when it wasn't football season, because quite often
during football season, if I went to a game and I had some
assignments out of town, I'd just stay out of town until the next
game, then come home.
Q. Now, when did you acquire the—the apartment in New York?
A. After I signed a contract with NBC in 1989, we lived in—we rented
a place in New York, but Nicole wanted—because we had two kids, she
wanted a more permanent place. So going into 1990, I went back to
New York and we scouted out—we found the condo and we bought it.
Q. Now, I want to come back to that in just a minute. But, in 1989,
we've heard an enormous amount about a July 1, 1989 incident in this
courtroom.
MR. KELLY: January.
MR. BAKER: What did I say? January. I said July?
MR. KELLY: Yes.
MR. BAKER: January 1 is the first day we've heard an enormous
amount. I'm sorry. I missta