JANUARY 10, 1996

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Guess we're going to finish the Henry Lee tape.
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
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
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. 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:)
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.
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,
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.
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
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
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
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
Q. I see.
A. -- study, observe that.
Q. But you're aware, are you not—and I'm not trying to quarrel with
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
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
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
(Videotape is halted.)
(Videotaped deposition of Dr. Henry Lee resumes being played, with
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. 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,
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
MR. P. BAKER: We didn't get to the redirect.
MR. P. BAKER: We haven't played any of the redirect yet.
THE COURT: Oh, okay.
MR. BAKER: Phil, back it up.
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
(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
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
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.
(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
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
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
MR. P. BAKER: Judge, the transcript starts on 369, line 13, through
to 374, line 15.
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
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, Your Honor.
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—
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. 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—
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
MR. PETROCELLI: Prepared to argue the Fuhrman one and the rebuttal
one at—we'll just—we'll argue it orally, Your Honor.
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.
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
(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
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
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.

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 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
A. Chief of forensic laboratories.
Q. What was your next position after that, and if you can, give me a
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Q. And during your tenure at the sheriff's department, was there a
department called the Scientific Investigation Department or
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
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
MR. P. BAKER: I've got it.
MR. LEONARD: Got it?
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
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
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
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
Q. But the typical, normal procedure would be for the SID to come
over and pick up something, like an EDTA typing blood sample
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,
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.
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
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
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.
(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.
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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—
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.
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?
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
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.)
(Per Cover Page)
(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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Q. Now, during that period of time, did you have a place down in
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
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
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
MR. KELLY: January.
MR. BAKER: What did I say? January. I said July?
MR. BAKER: January 1 is the first day we've heard an enormous
amount. I'm sorry. I misstated the day.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You went to a New Year's Eve party?
A. Yes, we went to a New Year's Eve party with a lot of friends at—a
partner in Boston—a friends's house, and we had a great time.
Q. Was there any argument at the—at the New Year's Eve party at all?

A. None at all.
Q. O.J., had you had too much to drink that night?
A. Yeah. I—you know, if I would have been stopped by the police, I
don't think I could have passed a test.
Q. In your opinion, had Nicole had too much to drink that night?
A. Certainly, as much as I did.
Q. And you got home, obviously, after midnight on January 1, 1989?
A. Yes.
Q. And you obviously had an argument, correct?
A. At some point, we started to have an argument. It was hard. She
was upset about something at some point, and I really didn't
understand what it was. And it turned into an argument.
Q. Explain to the ladies and gentlemen what the argument was about,
what was it over.
A. Evidently, Nicole had had a conversation with a girl named
Kathryn, who eventually—I can't recall her last name—it's Kathryn
Allen now, Marcus Allen's wife—and Marcus wanted to buy Kathryn some
earrings for Christmas. And I had taken him to a jeweler that I'd
often used, to get a good deal on the earrings. At the party, at one
point, Kathryn was showing the earrings to Nicole, and Nicole was
sort of gushing over the earrings. And Kathryn evidently said
something to Nicole: "Well, look what you got," basically referring
to some string of diamonds that Nicole was wearing. And I think
Nicole misinterpreted that to think that I had bought some
diamond—some earrings or something, and given them to someone else.
Kathryn and her spoke the next day, and—and I guess they
straightened it out. And, you know, by then, a lot had happened. And
I apologized to Nicole, had also apologized—basically, it was Nicole
misinterpreting a conversation she had with Kathryn Allen.
Q. And it was from—your understanding of the argument, it was over
her belief that you had bought somebody other than her, earrings?
A. That's right.
Q. Now, you have testified on this witness stand that you didn't
slap her, you didn't hit her, you never shoved her, you never
knocked her down. We've seen pictures, O.J., that looks like her
face is bruised. Did you slap her? Did you hit her? Did you knock
her down?
A. I didn't slap her. I didn't hit her. My purpose was not to injure
her in any way, shape, or form. But I was very physical with her.
Once we got physical with one another, and my attempts to get her
out of my bedroom, but I had no purpose to injure her at all. My
only purpose was to get her out of my bedroom.
Q. You ever take your hand back, close your fist, and intentionally
hit Nicole?
A. Of course not. She would have looked a little different than she
looked if I hit anybody, for that matter.
Q. Did you ever take your hand, either back-handed or open-handed,
and hit her intentionally?
A. No.
Q. You are not telling this jury that, in the wrestling that ensued
on the morning of January 1, 1989, that one part of your hand or
your elbow or your forearm—you're not telling us that that didn't
come in contact with the face of Nicole, are you?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Are you telling us that no part of your hands,
your arm, your shoulder, your elbow, ever came in contact with
A. No. I'm saying what I told Detective Merrill, who investigated it
the next day, that I was very physical with her, and I was totally,
100 percent responsible for whatever I did that night; and for her
sustaining the injuries as she did. I told him that; I told her
that. And I've never denied that to anybody on this earth— that was,
any relevant people: The police, Nicole, Nicole's family, the
Court—that I wasn't responsible for what injuries she sustained that
night. No matter how they happened, I was responsible for it. But I
also told them then, that I never hit her or slapped her.
Q. Now, Nicole was about 5-8, 135 pounds?
A. Yes.
Q. Was she in good physical shape all the time you knew her?
A. When she wasn't pregnant, yes.
Q. And was she a strong woman, in your opinion?
A. Yes.
Q. How long did this wrestling match, this tussling—how long did it
take place, O.J.? Do you have a recollection?
A. Not really. It may have been a couple of minutes, maybe.
Q. Do you have a recollection, as you sit here now, ever placing
your hand, your arm, your shoulder, your elbow, your forearm—you
know where it was?
A. No.
Q. The day—I guess the day following the incident, you talked to
Sergeant Merrill did you not?
A. Yes. I was—I was at the house. Nicole and I had just talked
about, to an extent, what happened, and we agreed we needed to both
have a little space from it. And at some point, she called me to the
phone and said that a detective would like to speak to you. And we
were sitting there, and I spoke to Detective Merrill.
Q. And did you tell him what you told this jury?
A. Exactly.
Q. You didn't alter it from January 2, 1989?
A. Or 3 or 4. I don't remember exactly what day it was.
Q. To today, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. In that particular incident, you wanted her out of your bedroom;
is that correct, sir?
A. Yes. I had locked her out, and somehow, she got a key and got
back in.
Q. And then you wanted her out, and the wrestling ensued; is that
A. Yeah. She sort of jumped on me. I was on the bed.
Q. You wrestled off the bed, onto the floor?
A. Yes.
Q. You got her out of the bedroom, correct?
A. Yeah. Eventually, yes.
Q. It was during that period of time that, to the best of your
knowledge, Nicole sustained the injuries that we've seen in the
A. I would assume so. I really couldn't tell you. As I said, I was
told that she fell outside, but I didn't see her fall outside.
Q. Outside of your door?
A. Outside of my house.
Q. Well, you certainly weren't wrestling her outside of your house,
were you?
A. No.
Q. We've seen pictures of her with mud on some—looked like sweat
pants or workout pants?
A. But I had never seen that that night. I never saw the muddy pants
until I saw a picture, you know, later.
Q. She didn't have that, obviously, when she was in the house, did
A. No.
Q. Did—after the wrestling occurred— that was about 3 o'clock in the
A. I would imagine so, yes.
Q. After the wrestling occurred on January 1, did you ever—ever
physically harm Nicole again in your life?
A. Never.
Q. Now, when you went downstairs, and— there was a police officer by
the name of Ed Ward there, was there not?
A. Yes.
Q. What did that police officer tell you concerning—what was his
first words to you concerning the incident?
A. I think he said something—I think he asked me what happened. And
I—and I began to tell him. Then he said something that, she should
divorce you, or words to that effect. I couldn't tell you exactly.
He called me an asshole; I know that. And I asked him—I said, "Well,
who are you? I thought you were supposed to be diffusing the
situation." And he had—he said something else to me. And we started
having an argument.
Q. And was Michelle, your housekeeper, did—was she out there at that
point in time?
A. Yes, I believe so.
Q. Was Arnelle out there at that point?
A. Arnelle then came out, I believe.
Q. And was it Arnelle and Michelle who urged you to leave?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you—you were concerned about that incident, weren't you?
A. Yeah. I think anybody would be.
Q. You were concerned about—you'd never done anything like that in
your life?
A. Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: I don't want to interrupt, but he's leading
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PETROCELLI: Let the witness testify.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did—What did you do to change what would happen in
the future, O.J.?
A. Well, I was very disappointed in myself, you know, the next day,
when I saw her. And we were talking. And I was very disappointed in
myself. I felt that something was wrong if we had to get physical
with one another. Over the next month—and I wrote her a couple of
letters. One night, we were having dinner, and she was serving
dinner. While she was fixing dinner, I wrote her a note, because—I
was sitting in the kitchen with her and the kids. I immediately got
started seeking counseling. And her and I went together and apart
from one another, to try to understand how it happened.
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, because we were forbidden any discovery
into any of this, and even made motions.
THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take a ten-minute
recess. Don't talk about the case; don't form or express any
(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)
THE BAILIFF: Is the hallway—it's clear now.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, Your Honor. We sought specifically discovery in
regard to these counseling sessions that were conducted by Dr.
Burton Kitay. The defense objected, and orders were issued
precluding any discovery whatsoever. And I think it's unfair and
improper for him to now be testifying about things that he barred us
from delving into during discovery.
MR. BAKER: They certainly weren't barred into taking Burton Kitay
and Barry Michel's depo that counseling sessions took place.
Precisely, exactly what he discussed with Mr. Simpson, that's
exactly what he talked about, is that they took place. As relative
to what he did to change things, we are not going into the
counseling sessions. And I make that representation to the Court.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.
THE COURT: I take it that's an objection. Objection is overruled.
However, it's contingent upon no examination about the contents of
the counseling.
MR. BAKER: Understood.
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, 0J, in terms of—I want to go back again to
this '89 incident. In addition to going to counseling, did you do
any—and writing letters to Nicole, did you do anything else?
A. Yes. By the end of the month—we took a trip to Hawaii together
and things were, you know, for the most part back to normal with us.
We had such a good time in Hawaii that I felt—I don't know. As I
said, I was somewhat disappointed in myself. So I called my lawyer
and had him draft a note, you know, to let Nicole know that—you
know, how bad I felt about it, that if I ever did anything in the
future, physically, out of anger towards her, that my prenuptial
agreement would be null and void, retroactively be null and void,
which, you know—we had a pretty heady negotiation because she was
anti-prenuptial agreement when we got married. And I don't know, it
just may have been more of governor for myself. But I don't know. I
just felt real bad about it and I just wanted to have—for her to
have more assurances that even though she wasn't asking for it, that
if in the future, if anything remotely like that happened again,
that I would be punished beyond what anybody else could do to me at
this time, to the tune of millions of dollars.
Q. Now, at that time, you were a relatively wealthy man, were you
A. At that time, yes.
Q. That's before you met a lot of lawyers?
A. Yes. Now there's a lot of wealthy lawyers.
Q. And you had this prenuptial agreement that had been negotiated
back in 1985; is that right, sir?
A. Yes. I—in my first divorce I felt it cost more to negotiate the
settlement than what I had to split, and I—I—I didn't want it to
happen again. It became sort of a common thing. I had a couple of
friends who were ladies who had gotten married and they forced the
guy to sign prenuptials. It was a pretty common thing at the time.
Q. The point is in 1989, you then said in a legal document that if
you ever struck her in anger or did anything in anger again, she got
half of anything you had?
A. That's correct.
Q. Had a value of 3, $4 million?
A. Yeah, 4, $5 million.
Q. At the time you did that, the criminal charges against you were
pending, were they not?
A. Yeah, I believe so. I believe we had— I believe—I'm not so sure.
It was the end of the month or the beginning of the next month. I
believe I was in Hawaii and it was something I wanted to do.
Q. And you did whatever the Court told you, didn't you?
A. Whatever the Court told me, I did, yes.
Q. And this was not to in any way minimize whatever the Court system
was going to do relative to the incident of 1/1/89, correct?
A. Well, Nicole stated she wouldn't testify, and the Court had
already—I think I already knew that—the Court was going to do
whatever they were going to do, the City attorney was going to
prosecute, so it really had no bearing on that one way or the other.

Q. From that day forward you never had a physical altercation with
Nicole, did you?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, in 1990, 1991, you would go back with Nicole and the kids in
New York during the football season; is that correct?
A. Yes. We bought a place in New York and they would come back and
live there during the season. It was beginning to get difficult
'cause Sydney was starting preschool and school was going—coming up,
and we had at the same time totally remodeled our house in Los
Q. Okay. Now, in the 1991, '92 season, did Nicole go back to New
York with you?
A. No. Actually, 1991 was the first time ever that she didn't go
back because Sydney had started school, regular school, I believe,
and so she didn't want Sydney to be transferring schools. And so the
fall of '91 was the first time that we were ever apart really for
any—any type of substantial period of time.
Q. Now, when you came back in January of 1991, did Nicole indicate
to you that she wanted to separate?
A. January 6, we went to lunch. She said she wanted to have lunch.
And when we went to lunch she told me she wanted to separate. It was
a total shock.
Q. You were devastated, weren't you, OJ?
A. Yes, I was. Just the week before she had told me, as well as some
friends of ours, that she was never more in love with us. Previous
to that, her mother and her had come back to New York to spend a few
days with me, and we were all commenting on how great things were
going. So I was caught totally off guard by it.
Q. And you were seriously in love with Nicole, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And how long did you spend after January 6 of 1992 trying to get
her to reconsider?
A. When she moved out at the end of January or the first of
February, she had found a place about five, six blocks away. And I
was—I took it pretty hard for about three months. And during that
period of time I did everything I could to talk her into— you know,
let's not split—splitting. Even though I sort of instigated the
divorce proceedings, I didn't want us to split. Over the next three
or four months, you know, we ate dinner together three or four
nights a week with the kids. We went to Disneyland together and did
all those things together. She began to, I guess, casually date, and
about four months later, after a trip to Mexico, she came to my
house to tell me that she had met a guy that she was going to get
serious with. And from that point on I never ever made any kind of
overtures about us getting back together. As a matter of fact, I
kind of went on with my life and met a person I was interested in a
few days later.
Q. Well, explain—if you're trying to get back together, explain what
you meant to this jury, what you meant by you instigated the
A. Nicole wanted to separate at one point. I had been through this
before and I didn't want us to live apart because—one of her reasons
she wanted to separate was she said she had lived with me since she
was 18, that she wanted some free time, she just needed to get on
her own for a while. After she had moved out I just felt that
it—from what I knew, it would take a year at least to divorce, and I
felt I didn't want to go a whole year of paying the temporary
alimony, and doing all that, and then a year later realize that we
weren't going to get back together and then proceed with divorce
proceedings which would go another year. I said let's just start the
divorce proceedings. If you don't file, I'm going to file and that
will still give us pretty—a lot of time, so a year from now, if we
change our minds we won't have to divorce. So, we proceeded to—we
began divorce proceedings.
Q. And now, this is 1992, right, sir?
A. This is—yeah, it was. Basically she moved out at the end of
January and this was still about May of '92, and then I think our
divorce was final in October of '92.
Q. All right. Now, during the divorce itself, that was a litigated
divorce? In other words, you actually—there were depositions, you
actually went to trial in that matter, did you not, sir?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. And did you give a deposition in that?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did you testify relative to the January 1, 1989, incident as
you testified essentially in this courtroom today?
A. In the deposition and, I believe, also during the Court
Q. Now, Nicole, did she also testify in a deposition in that divorce
A. Yes, she did.
Q. Did she indicate that she had ever been physically struck by you
after the July—July, January 1, 1989, incident?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: 1227 of the Evidence Code, Your Honor.
MR. PETROCELLI: State—Not to him in a separate proceeding.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Was there any indication in your divorce
proceeding that—by Nicole that you had ever been physical with her
subsequent to January 1, 1989?
A. None.
Q. That included deposition and any testimony that you gave,
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Nicole, did she testify in the trial of that matter?
A. She didn't show up that day. She—I guess the judge was going to
say she was in contempt but—instead she came to my house. The day
she was supposed to testify, she didn't show up, and no one knew
where she was, and that night when I came home she was at my house,
and she didn't want to testify.
Q. Now, in the whole year from January to October of 1992, did you
and Nicole ever argue about anything other than money?
A. And we didn't have any argument about that. I think it's only
stress between us in the nine months or so it took us to have a
divorce is money. I think on one instance we had two sort of
altercations or arguments. One was—I think I inadvertently said
something to a guy about her new boyfriend and I thought she had
told the guy and evidently she didn't and she came to my son's
kickball game and was upset with me that I had mentioned something
to him. She had found a guy and she had come to me for advice about
the guy, a guy named Joseph. And I assumed she had told this other
guy, Keith, who she always said wasn't her boyfriend, just he was a
friend, and I had inadvertently—when I was picking my son up and
they drove up, I sort of gave him my condolences, Keith, and I
didn't realize that she hadn't told him yet. So she came to the
kickball game and was pretty upset with me about that. The only
other argument in these 10 months that we had was when I came back
from the Olympics, my bookkeeper noticed there was a bill for golf
and lunch on my personal account down in Laguna. Nicole and I both
had separate accounts. She had taken a couple of guys down and
evidently charged all their golf and food on my account and I was
pretty upset about that. But in this whole period of time we never
argued about any other thing, who she was dating or who I was dating
or anything.
Q. Now, in April of 1992, was it Trieste restaurant that opened?
A. I believe so.
Q. And you were in that restaurant with some friends?
A. Yeah. I arrived at the restaurant, and when I arrived at this
restaurant I saw some of her friends right at the door, sitting at
the bar, and I said oh, hey, guys, what's going on? I said is Nicole
here? They said she was. I went to the end of the bar where she was
standing with a guy named Rainey England, an old friend—one of
Denise's old—ex-boyfriend. I said could we talk alone? Because we
had made sort of a loose agreement that if one of was in a
place—this is because of another time we ran into each—that if one
of us was in a place, whoever was there first, the other one would
have to leave if it was a problem. So I said, well, look, the people
I'm joining are already here and seated. And she said, well, we're
about to be seated. And we both said it was no problem and so we
both stayed.
Q. After that restaurant did you go by her house on Gretna Green?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Is that when you saw her in the front room window?
A. Yes.
Q. And she was engaged in a sexual activity with another man?
A. Yes. As I was approaching the front door—I was actually going to
see if her car was there to see if she was home. If she was, I would
have rung the doorbell, if she wasn't I'd have gone home. As I was
approaching the front door, there was a window, and I looked and I
could see her head and then as I stepped to the window I could see
that obviously something was happening and—you know.
Q. Did you go into a rage, OJ?
A. No. I think I was a little stunned. When I turned to leave, as I
was going out the fence, I hit a doorbell and continued and went
Q. Why did you hit a doorbell?
A. I wanted to alert them that it was pretty easy to be seen, I mean
it was sort of out in the open if I could see it walking to her
front door, you know, even though it was late, it was sort of
obvious, I mean it was sort of a little open for it—I don't know if
they heard the doorbell or not, but I went home.
Q. Did you ever see the gentleman she was with after that time in
April of 1992?
A. Well, at the—at that time I didn't know who she was with. The
next day I—you know, I—when I went over to her house to talk to her
about it after—around lunch, she was with the guy, and I guess sort
of let me know it was him, and we talked about not so much him, but
basically about how we would now start dealing with the kids,
because we were both going to start dating. Even though she said it
was a mistake, what had taken place that night, they had been
drinking too much. And the fact that I felt they had to be a little
more discreet with the kids in the house.
Q. You didn't have any words with the man that was with Nicole the
next day, did you?
A. We had no argument. I—after I—her and I spoke, I went out and
shook his hand. And I saw him on numerous occasions throughout the
summer, and whenever I saw him, I just asked him about his golf
game, because he was a golfer.
Q. Now, Nicole kind of used you—and you alluded to it here in the
courtroom today. She used you as kind of a sounding board during
that period of time, all through the time that you were going
through this litigated divorce, did she not?
A. Yes. Shortly after that, she had met a guy, as I mentioned, and
that she was going to get serious about a guy named Joseph, but she
wasn't sure if he had really split up with his girlfriend or not.
She wanted my advice about it.
Q. And she continued to hold you in confidence throughout the
pendency of the divorce, did she not?
A. Yes.
Q. And in the summer of '92, when she became pregnant, she told you
about that, did she not?
A. Yeah, well, she—I think I had called her or she had called me, I
was back East, and she was sort of upset and at one point made a
comment to me that, you know, if Paula gets pregnant, we'll never
get back together, and I said, well, where did that come from? At
that time she just spilled out that she had done something stupid,
she had gotten herself pregnant, she wasn't really asking for
advice. I think she needed someone to talk to. My understanding was,
and I guess Cora Fischman, she didn't want her parents to know. We
were the only two she spoke about it with.
Q. And during the actual trial of the divorce, did you go out to
dinner with her every night?
A. Yeah, every time we went to court, mostly she came to court with
her lawyer, I would drive her back to her lawyers or—and then we
would go meet, I think during the actual last few days of the
divorce, every day we left court, her and I would go and—and have
sushi or something together.
Q. Now, the divorce became final in October of 1992, and you were at
that point in time—that's the football season, is it not?
A. Yes, I would have to make a special trip out to go to court
for—you know, to show up in court.
Q. Now, Thanksgiving of 1992, were you supposed to have the kids
with you back in New York?
A. Yes. What we did was—one issue that never came up in court, we
told the judge that we had worked out all our things about the kids,
because we never had any differences about the kids, we were always
together with the kids. And what we were going to do the first year
was spend all the major holidays together and then after that, see
whatever was happening in our relationships with the other people we
were involved with. So the plan was for her to come back to New York
on Christmas—I mean on Thanksgiving, because I have to work on
Thanksgiving, the Thanksgiving Day game. I have to arrange with NBC
not to be at the game, which I would normally be, but to be in the
studio. But a few days before Thanksgiving, she called me to tell me
she wasn't coming back and wasn't bringing the kids back.
Q. Now, throughout the time that you and Nicole were together and
throughout the time that you and Nicole were apart, was she a
fabulous mother?
A. Always.
Q. Was she terrific with the kids?
A. I felt so, yes.
Q. You and she did not have an argument about the children, did you?

A. No.
Q. Now—
A. I mean I think like most wives, she always wanted me to be around
more, but I had to work.
Q. Now, the situation, Thanksgiving of 1992, was upsetting to you,
was it not?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. The situation when she had canceled coming back to New York for
Thanksgiving with the kids was upsetting to you, was it not?
A. Very much so. I had gone to a lot of trouble with the powers at
NBC to be—I mean in New York at the time instead of in Detroit. I
had— you know, her and I had always put our differences aside no
matter what they might be for the kids, and for her to tell me she
wasn't coming back with no explanation, yes, it was upsetting.
Q. You wanted her—your kids back there, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And so what happened at Christmas, about a month later?
A. Well, right after Thanksgiving, I called my lawyer and I told him
what had happened and I said, well, I guess we're going to have to
start rotating holidays. I want my kids for Christmas. And he
started some litigation with their lawyer and—and we solved it
almost immediately, that the kids would come back to New York for
Christmas as long as a responsible adult would bring them, and my
oldest daughter brought—we agreed would bring my kids back to spend
Christmas with me.
Q. Okay. Now—and they did come back, didn't they?
A. They came back I believe on Monday or Tuesday and—
Q. And then what happened after the kids got back; did you get a
call from Nicole?
A. Yeah. That Christmas, I—the day before Christmas, I—Nicole
called, and she was very emotional and she said she couldn't believe
that she wasn't going to be with the kids on Christmas. And even
though it was sort of a problem with me, 'cause I had a girlfriend
back in New York. I knew she was going to go visit her mother, I
said, well, you can come back and as a matter of fact, I'll pay your
ticket. And I got her a first class ticket. I told her she just
couldn't stay in my apartment with me. And she came back, stayed a
block away at a hotel and, you know, every morning would come over,
and we did everything, you know, we went to all the Christmas shows
and the Big Apple Circus and ice skating, and we really had a
fabulous three days together.
Q. Now, was it during that Christmas of 1992 after you had been
divorced only a couple of months that Nicole made overtures about
wanting to get back together?
A. Well, what she did was, she—after the Saturday, I believe, there,
they were going to leave Sunday, and she packed all the kids'
clothes and they ate and the kids had gone to bed and she went back
to her hotel, and while I was laying in bed, going through my notes
for the games that I had to comment on the next day, she called
and—and wanted to thank me for the—for the week, she wanted to
explain what happened at Thanksgiving. Evidently, her and her
boyfriend had had a fight leading up to it. And she wanted to know
what happened to us. And I told her, hey, you left me, I didn't
leave you. But my attitude was I didn't want to discuss it. We had
three days, great days, together, and I said, look, let's not mess
it up now. And I told her she had to be there early the next day
'cause I had to go to the studio and the limo would be at my house
at 9 o'clock. I literally sort of—after that, sort of avoided
talking to her as much as I could.
Q. Why, O.J., did you avoid talking to her, after you had three
great days in Christmas of 1992?
A. Well, you know, I had a different life, she had a different life,
the kids were happy from what I had gathered. She was happy. 'Cause
friends would say they saw her in Aspen and various—Mexico and
various places. And it seemed to me that every time I would talk to
her, I would get sort of involved in whatever was going on in her
life, it was a boyfriend or whatever, you know; and I just reached
the point where my life was going well, I was—business-wise, I was
making more money than I ever made in my life. I was in what I
thought was a healthy relationship. And I realized that most of the
problems I was dealing with seemed to be hers and—and I didn't want
to deal with anything other than the kids. So I gave— I told her—I
told my housekeeper, Michelle, and I told Kathy Randa that, you
know, if Nicole called, that if it's about the kids, let me know
immediately. If—ask her—if it's not about the kids, I don't want to
hear about it.
Q. And when was the next time, then, you talked to her after
Christmas of 1992?
A. I saw her very briefly, her and her mother, when I was—the day
after the Super Bowl, February 1. I had picked my kids up from
school, and they were going to spend a few days with me, and when I
went by the house to get their clothes, her and her mother were out
front, and her father—mother came over and gave me a hug and Nicole
came over and felt—started—attempted to start an altercation. And I
just wouldn't hear it. I just got in my car and I waited for my
kids, and outside of that two or three minutes, I—I don't think I
spoke to her at all during—from Christmas till mid-March.
Q. Now, when you use the word altercation, you mean an oral
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in March of 1993, did the relationship between you and
Nicole change somewhat?
A. I don't know, I guess maybe somewhat, but not really with—what
happened was that at some point—she called me in mid-March, and—and
I had answered the phone, and it was, as I said, the first time I
had spoken to her, really, in—essentially in a—in two or three
months, and she said she really needed to talk to me and felt that I
was upset with her, and I told her I wasn't, and she asked why
wouldn't I return her phone calls, 'cause I had been getting through
Michelle and—through Nicole, I mean sometimes up to five calls a
day, and she was sending me cookies on occasion and musical tapes
with love songs on them. And I—you know, she thought I was mad at
her. I told her I wasn't, I just didn't want to have any hassles.
And she needed to talk to me. And somehow—someone else called, so
the conversation ended. About two hours later, she showed up at my
house with my kids and a couple of tapes and a letter.
Q. And, O.J., is this the—the letter that she showed up with in
A. Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: Same exhibit?
MR. BAKER: I don't know the exhibits. You know better than me.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And, O.J., it was -- Do you have any idea what
exhibit number it is, Steve?
MR. FOSTER: It's either 1314 or—
MR. GELBLUM: No, no; those are his letters.
MR. P. BAKER: Should it be next in order.
MR. PETROCELLI: It's Exhibit 1161.
MR. BAKER: 1161, your boss says, Steve.
(Referring to Exhibit 1161.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Is that what he has in front of him?
MR. BAKER: No, I got it.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, in this letter, O.J., she indicates that the
problems you had before the divorce were caused mainly by her, does
she not?
A. Yes.
Q. You didn't agree with that, you thought that you had caused most
of the problems that led to the divorce in 1992; isn't that true?
A. Yeah, I felt that even though she said that the things that I
thought that I had done previous to the last few years leading up to
the divorce problem, I possibly had more to do with it than
anything. I felt it was my fault that we split up the first time.
Q. Now, she indicates that you weren't controlling, that she was;
did she tell you that?
A. Yes.
Q. She suggested that she wanted to come home and wanted to be a
family again; did she tell you that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did she tell you that she just never wanted to leave your side
A. Yes.
Q. Did she tell you to watch the tapes that she had delivered with
the letter?
A. Yes.
Q. Did she tell you that you're her one and only true love?
A. Yes.
Q. And did she say, I will love you forever and always?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you watch the tapes?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Well, at the time, I didn't want to get back together. I was
happy in my life. As I said, I was earning more money than I had
ever earned. I was happy with my golf game. I was in a very healthy,
what I thought, relationship. My kids were happy. And this was so
out of the blue. I mean, this—I was just totally flabbergasted. I
mean there had been no indication of this before then. My thoughts
were that—I thought she was in a—in a relationship with a guy that
she had, I believed, gotten pregnant with the year before, and I did
not know that she had split up on New Year's, you know, and she
actually had told me that before I read the letter, she told me
essentially everything that was in the letter, before I read it,
so—cause as I've said, I was just totally shocked by it—
Q. Now—
A. -- and I assumed something was wrong. And I think I called
her—may have called her mother, may have. I know I talked to Cora,
wondering what happened with Nicole. I thought she had a fight with
her boyfriend or something, 'cause it didn't make sense to me,
having not seen me in all this period of time, that she could be in
love with me. And she told me that, I never told you I wasn't in
love with you. I told you—I mean, I never told you I didn't love
you; I just wasn't in love with you. I didn't know how she could
fall back in love with me, not having seen me for three or four
Q. After the letter was delivered and Nicole came over and delivered
the tapes, did she then kind of appear at places where you were,
A. Well, what I told her—I told her was, I wasn't interested in
getting back together. I did tell her, I think what we should do is
what I suggested the year before; we should spend more time together
with the kids. At least once a week, we should do something together
as a family. Because we hadn't been doing that since, you know,
since I left to go to New York, really, or probably since I got the
divorce. So what we started to do was, at—I thought, would have
maybe one day a week would start, you know, having dinner together
or going to Magic Mountain, or something. What turned out, she
started every day either coming to the golf course, something she
had never done before, or coming to my house, or just showing up at
my office.
Q. And at some point in time, did you think that you should perhaps
A. Well—
Q. -- her proposal?
A. Well, some things that happened—I became aware of some things
that had happened with her and some people that I knew. She was—I
don't know. She was the girl that I had always known for 15 years.
She was making a big effort, because she was taking golf lessons.
Her—and then all her girlfriends would show up taking golf lessons.
And I always—always enjoyed the times that he we spent with the
kids. I began to get somewhat confused. I—began to be a little
friction with my girlfriends and I, that Nicole would be—a few times
when Paula was coming over, Nicole was at the house, and I didn't
even know she was there. So I flew to San Francisco, to talk to my
Q. Why did you fly to San Francisco to talk to your mother?
A. My mother. I had to get some advice from her. And essentially
what she told me was, you know, for the kids' sake, maybe you should
at least understand why she wants to get back together, and— and
understand what your feelings were. Because I did have and always
have had feelings for Nicole. So I—so I sort of took my mother's
advice and I came back to Los Angeles. I called Nicole and I said,
"We need to get away from everybody for two or three days, 'cause I
need to talk to you and I need to find out what's going on." And we
Q. Where did you go?
A. We went to Mexico, Cabo San Lucas.
Q. And after you had been at Cabo San Lucas for a few days, did you
and she work out an agreement to attempt to reconcile?
A. No. I still didn't know if I wanted to do it.
Q. And when did you finally come to a conclusion that maybe you and
Nicole would give it another try?
A. A few months after this. I think we're in May again. Some friends
and I were going to Mexico, and as we were leaving our house one
morning, the limo was there to go to the airport, Nicole showed up,
and she was coming over to borrow some golf equipment to go play—to
hit golf balls. And she became aware that we were going to Mexico,
'cause I hadn't told her. I did tell her I would call her and give
her the number that I was at. So when I called her once we got to
Mexico, she informed me that her and her girlfriends and her and the
kids were coming down the next day. And while they were down there,
after the first week, my friends, who are golf buddies of mine and
their girlfriends then, and/or wives left. I stayed over a few days,
over with a friend. And my kids kept asking me, dad, you know, why
don't you stay. And Nicole asked me why don't I stay, since I had
nothing to get back to L.
A. with—I mean for. I stayed two or three more days, but I stayed
where I was, which was about 15 miles away from where they were. But
I was spending most of my days with them. During that period of
time, we talked and agreed to, you know, I kind of laid down what I
felt were ground rules, and we agreed to give it a chance.
Q. And tell us just basically what were kind of the ground rules
that you and Nicole had agreed upon to try to reconcile?
A. Well, the first thing—because what was happening while I was
there was—evidently, a similar thing had happened with the girl she
was with. And while we were there, that girl was having some
argument with—she was—it was Faye Resnick—was trying to get back
with her boyfriend. And she had left him for some guy, and she was
giving him a lot of heat to move back into the house with him, and
he didn't want it. So I told her, "Don't put any heat on me to move
back in. I don't want my kids to move back in, and if this didn't
work, they have to move out again. You're not going to move back if
we try this." And she said, "Well, if we have an argument, then
we're going to split up." So then I said, "Okay. We'll try a year.
No matter what, we'll stay together for a year." And that—there was
one friend of hers, a Robin Gray, I believe. I told her that I would
not socialize with this girl and did not want this girl around my
house. Not that she couldn't socialize with her, because she did
continue from time to time to socialize with her, but she was the
only person that I told her I would not socialize with. As I said, I
didn't know Faye Resnick and these people at the time; I just met
them on this trip.
Q. Okay. Now, and did you and she try to—to work it out; that is, go
through a period of a year and to try to get back together?
A. Yes, we did. We spent a lot of time together and had some great
Q. Now, that was May of 1993?
A. That was actually Mother's Day of 1993.
Q. And during that summer, did Nicole and the kids spend a lot of
time at your house?
A. We spent just about 95 percent of the time—either I slept at
their house or they slept at my house. I mean, the kids had always,
during— when I was in L.
A.—had always stayed at both houses. But now we were staying with
one another at both houses, not only just with the kids.
Q. And tell me, O.J., well, relative to your house, is it a house
that there are people there basically constantly?
A. Well, my whole life, I've always had people around. Friends—you
know, when it was Marguerite and I—Nicole was probably a little more
extroverted than Marguerite—it was probably more friends around. But
as it is now, as you see, on weekends and stuff, my house is always
loaded with friends and people.
Q. And the kids would have kids over and in the back and in the
A. Yes.
Q. And they spent an awful lot of time at your place during the
summer of 1993, did they not?
A. Yes. With—some nights, I was the only adult with five or six
kids, you know.
Q. And I want to move to this October 23, 1993 incident.
MR. BAKER: 25. I'm sorry. I wrote it down here wrong. Thank you.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) During October and— September and October, did you
customarily, once a week or so, go over and have dinner at Nicole's
A. No. What was going on—I was an incredibly busy during this period
of time—I was living and working in New York, but I was also
shooting a picture, a Naked Gun movie. I live here in Los Angeles,
so my weeks would be—I would be in New York Sunday, here Monday,
Chicago and somewhere doing the interview Tuesday, back in LA
Wednesday or Thursday, and then back to New York for the weekend. So
during about a month or two period of time, I was catching maybe two
redeyes a week from here to New York and and other cities. So I was
very, very busy.
Q. And did—were you—on November 25, 19 -- November—October 25, 1993,
were you at Nicole's house for dinner that night?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you have a disagreement?
A. We had an argument later, the second time I was at her house.
Q. So what happened?
A. Well, during the course of going back and forth and shooting the
movie—I was on the set of my film one day, and a girl named
Alexander or something, Alexandria, I guess—I don't know her last
name— she was—she was a stand-in for Anna Nicole Smith— came up to
me and was telling me that, "You don't seem like a bad guy." I said,
"Why would you think I was a bad guy?" She proceeded to tell me what
a guy named Keith Slomowitz said about me. It sort of upset me a
little bit, so I asked her to get Keith on the phone. And we both
called Keith, and he wasn't there, so we left a message for him. But
from the call, she proceeded to tell me things about Keith's drug
problems, Nicole and drugs, and her and stuff, you know. I didn't
know this girl. I wasn't comfortable, because when we started
talking about it, there were other people around. And when I went
home, I went to Nicole's house after, and I made mention to her, and
I told her that next time you talk to Keith—because I think from
time to time she talked to Keith, and it didn't bother me—you tell
him he was out of line, what he said to her. I believe I went out of
town the next day, and came back the following day. And after work,
I went to Nicole's house, or, you know. And she had told me that he
had called and she had explained to him that she understood that
when people split up— evidently, Alexandria and this guy had split
up— that they say things about one another. And I got a little upset
about that, because I felt, why are you making excuses for this guy.
And I went home because I felt myself getting angry, so I went home.

Q. And what happened after you got home?
A. When I got home, Nicole called, and I was on the other phone, and
I told her I'd call her back And I called her back. We began to talk
about it. And she said to me that, I had always promised that we
would talk everything out and argue it out, and now here I am,
leaving, and I wouldn't talk about it. And I gather I was leaving
town the next day again to go back east, so I thought about it and
got in my car and went to her house. I got there. She was trying to
change her cars around, and we ended up talking while we were trying
to get her Ferrari in the garage. We started talking about this, and
slowly became an argument. We ended up on her patio in the back of
her house. And she was smoking a cigarette, and she yelled at me
that, you know, why would you believe this Alexandria or whatever. I
don't know. She wrote a book about, you know, with these other—with
these other prostitutes, I guess, about making love in LA She's one
of those girls. And Nicole yelled that she was a hooker, and that
she had started a fight with Heidi Fleiss at the Monkey Bar that
started the whole Heidi Fleiss thing. I started to say, what the
hell are you doing with hookers? This girl said she stayed here; you
gave her a party here, and why are these girls around here. Like
most arguments, she said something about Paula, about a wedding
frame when we were apart. And I know this is complicated, but
evidently, when Nicole and I was apart, I was looking for a frame
one day to put a picture of Paula in, and I ended up using a frame
that had previously had our wedding picture in it. And Nicole
brought that up. I wasn't even aware of it. She said something about
Paula. And I said to her, what about all of these pictures? And at
that time, she turned, she went in the house. I was walking behind
her. And she sort of slammed the door and kicked the door, and
proceeded to point out all the pictures in her home with guys that I
didn't know. And I picked up my son's album and proceeded to turn
the pictures where my son was sitting in Keith Slomowitz' lap. And
of course, I had witnessed this thing with her and Keith, and I had
never told her to take this picture out of the album. As a matter of
fact, never told her to take any of these pictures out of her house.
And I was a little upset that she would bring up one picture with
Paula in a picture frame. It's stupid, I know. But when you have
arguments, that's what happens. And while I was venting and she was
in the kitchen, Kato Kaelin showed up, and I began to vent to Kato.
I wasn't aware that Nicole had gone upstairs. And at one point, I
was in my venting, I walked, looking for her, and went upstairs. And
I didn't realize she was on the phone with the police. And I came
downstairs and vented. At one point, she came downstairs in the room
that I was in, still venting, not quite as loudly, and picked up the
telephone in that room. And I assumed she was on the phone with her
mother. By then, Kato and I was moving out to the patio, you know,
'cause by then, our conversation was with one another. I think at
one point, she said something about she was going to call the cops.
And I said, "Well, call the cops. What am I supposed to do, run now,
because you don't like the way the argument is going?" And then the
police showed up.
Q. All right. And at the time, she was upstairs and then came
downstairs; is that correct?
A. Yeah. She was up—I went upstairs at one point, and her door was
locked. I asked why was the door locked. You were the one that asked
me to come back here to argue. And she asked me to leave, and then I
walked back downstairs.
Q. Now—and then you went out of the patio door, into Kato's—
A. Out in the patio. I think eventually Kato and I ended up in his
room. I think we were in back, in his room, when the police came.
Q. There was nothing physical about that?
A. No, no. It was just an argument.
Q. You never threatened anything physical?
A. No.
Q. And was she yelling at you when you were—when you were yelling at
A. Yes.
Q. Did you believe that she was ever afraid of any physical contact
that you would make, based upon what she did on October 25, 1993?
A. Well, she certainly wasn't afraid when we were having the
argument, and she certainly wasn't afraid when she came back
downstairs, before the police showed up. So I didn't think she was
Q. Were you out of control, in your opinion?
A. I don't believe so. But I kicked the door. Maybe I shouldn't have
kicked the door. It was just a re—reflex, because I was walking
behind her when she closed it.
Q. All right. Sir, now, did—from that day forward, did you ever have
any real argument?
A. No. The next day, she contacted me to apologize for calling the
police. And from that day forward, other than—most of the problems
we had was concerning some problems she had, not with me, but with
other people.
Q. Now—
THE COURT: Take a break. Five minutes, ladies and gentlemen. Make it
ten. Make sure you bring them back in ten.
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Sir, tell the jury about the incident of October
25, 1993, that didn't cause a rift in the relationship that you had
with Nicole? That was over soon or was it not?
A. It was over that night.
Q. And then you continued to see Nicole while you continued to be
very busy that fall and early that year?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, during October, November, December of 1993, were you still
shooting a movie?
A. I think we were finishing right around that time. I had just
finished and had—maybe had to do some voice-overs, but it was in
October. It may have spilled a little bit into November. I'm not 100
percent sure. It was around that time it was finishing.
Q. Did you go to back to New York?
A. Yes.
Q. And you remained back in New York—I mean, basically, as your
place of residence until after the football season?
A. Basically, yes.
Q. Now, between October of—well, like in the later part of December
of 1993, did you come to learn that Nicole was going to move from
Gretna Green?
A. Well, she had found a place a little earlier than that and she
was going to move and it fell through. And then she had found this
place on Gretna—I mean on Bundy, and eventually moved there. But she
was—she wanted to move back home. And I still wasn't ready. I said
we have to wait a year. And so she had to look for a place because
her lease was—her lease was really up on Gretna Green, and she
wanted to move back in with me. But I said, hey, I said a year. And
so she was kind of in a pinch. She had to—she didn't want to rent
again. She wanted to buy a place and consequently proceeded to
attempt to sell her condo in San Francisco, a gift I had given her,
you know, upon our marriage.
Q. All right. Now, the condo in San Francisco was the one that you
purchased when you had been playing for the San Francisco 49ers?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you got married you turned over the title of that
property free and clear to Nicole, right?
A. Yes. My mother told me that the devil works through idle hands.
And so I was encouraging her to work and encouraging her to be a
little independent of me, so I wanted her to have her own income,
and I knew there was a healthy income coming from the renter of that
Q. After you had left San Francisco as a 49er that property became
rental property?
A. Yeah. I had been renting it out for years.
Q. So the income from that property was Nicole's and that property
was Nicole's?
A. Yeah. I gifted her free and clear so that she would have—if she
was having kids and she doesn't really want to work, even though she
did some decorating, I wanted her to have an income. We always kept
our finances separate. And I just wanted to make sure she had an
income separated from mine, that she would have an income.
Q. Now, it was during that period in December of 1993 that she had
sold the condo in San Francisco?
A. Yeah. She had some problems because she had once sold it, then
decided she—agreed to trade it and there was a lot of complications
going on that I tried to stay out of. And being in New York it was
sort of easy. But she would call me for advice from time to time.
Q. Generally speaking, that condo had appreciated in value from the
time that you had purchased it and indeed from the time that it had
been gifted to Nicole, had it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And the difference, that is of—of the value that it had
originally and the value that it appreciated to would be taxable;
that was your overall basic understanding, was it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And so she wanted to trade it, so that she wouldn't pay any taxes
on the appreciation, for another piece of property, correct?
A. That's what I came to understand.
Q. And one of the conditions of the trade would be that whatever
property she traded it for had to be the same type, i.e., rental
property, right?
A. That's what I came to understand, yes.
Q. Okay. And so her problem was that if she didn't have rental
property, she had to pay taxes, right?
A. I believe so.
Q. And what was the approximate amount of those taxes?
A. I believe 70 or $80,000.
Q. Now, she then bought Bundy and moved into Bundy, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, before she had purchased it, that was with the money from
the sale of the San Francisco condo?
A. That and—see, I never paid alimony. I just did a cash settlement
with her. Part of the cash settlement was X amount of dollars, I
believe, to go to housing. So between the two she bought Bundy.
Q. Okay. The tax problems generated by her moving in was that the
taxes became due and she moved in, correct, if you know? And I'm not
trying to—
A. At the time I didn't know. I always assumed you had six months or
a year to deal with that.
Q. Okay. Six months, did she then during the period of January of
1994 to the time of her untimely death, did she use your house as
her address?
A. Yes. What she did was—I got a call from my housekeeper telling
me, in December, that Nicole came over and told her that if anybody
called her there just to say she wasn't home, and if any messages or
mail came in for her, to put it aside. And then my housekeeper,
Michelle, called me and asked what that was about. And then I
consequently called Nicole and asked her, to see what this was
about, and she began to explain this to me. I encouraged her to pay
the taxes, buy the house, don't carry any paper, so that down the
line if anything happens you got a house to stay in. And her
feelings were why should she pay the taxes since we were going to
get back together anyway and she was going to rent the property
anyway. So we went back and forth on that. And I finally said, look,
okay, you can use my house as an address only if you take—call your
tax guy and find out how much money you owe in taxes, take that
money, put it in an account so that if we don't get back together,
you can pay the taxes and you don't lose the house and she did that.
So on her death, as I understand it, she had two accounts even
though she had, I guess, loaned her dad some money out of that
account to pay her taxes.
Q. All right. Now, you had no objection to her using your residence
until—your residence address as her residence address as long as the
reconciliation period was ongoing?
A. As long as there was a chance. I understood her argument that if
we got back together why pay the taxes since I—if I was going to—
since I was going to rent the house out. At the same time I was very
up in the air. I was very skeptical, honestly, even though we were
getting along, that we would get back together. And I wanted to make
sure if we didn't, she had the money to pay her taxes.
Q. Now, Kato Kaelin had lived with her at the Gretna Green address,
had he not?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have a discussion with Nicole relative to him moving into
the condominium on 875 South Bundy?
A. Yes. As I said, she was about to move, she thought she had to
move quickly, just before this, and I guess her and Ron Fischman had
found a place, I guess she was using Ron's advice, she was going to
move into. At that point she had—she wrote a note for Kato telling
Kato, you have to find a place to live because I'm going to move. I
was at her house having dinner and I saw the note and I said to her
then, you know, well, if he's stuck for a place he can use my guest
house, I'm not around. So here it was a little later and she was
moving into Bundy and she came and showed me the floor plans and was
telling me her thoughts, and she asked me would it bother me if Kato
moved in. I said yes, it would. One, there's no room for him. Two,
under the same roof—I don't think it's right for my kids to be under
the same roof with anybody. I had no problem with Kato, hadn't for
the six months he had been living at her place. And she said, well,
I'll tell him. Then she asked me to tell him. And when I called him
I said, look, I have a problem here. He said oh, that's fine, geez,
when is she moving. I said, I think tomorrow. And he says, well, I'm
kind of stuck with a place, I've got to find a place. I said, look,
you can use my guest house until you find a place. And he said, can
I? And I think, within hours, he was in my guest house.
Q. Did he offer to pay any rent?
A. I actually told him—he asked how much. And I actually told him,
no, it's nothing until you find a place, but continue to help her,
continue to do whatever you were doing with her. And I gather they
had a rift not long after that.
Q. Okay. In any event, then, Kato moved into your guest house close
to the 1st of January of 1994?
A. I wasn't around, but I know he moved in that same day. We had the
conversation 'cause I was around then.
Q. During January, February, March and April, were you basically out
of the Los Angeles area?
A. Yes.
Q. What were you doing?
A. Well, the football season didn't end until just about February.
And then once it ended, I spent a lot of time in February, March in
Florida. I have certain obligations that may not sound like
obligations; I'm playing a charity golf tournament. It's almost like
payback time like for me, like Marino, Shula, who helped me out
during the football season. And then because of football, I'm so
busy, have an obligation to Hertz, and to various companies that I
work for to, you know, to do the work that I do for them. So I'm—I
was out of town. And when I was in town I basically was at Nicole's
house or the golf course.
Q. Now, when did you go to Puerto Rico to shoot a movie?
A. In April.
Q. And how long were your in Puerto Rico?
A. Three and a half to four weeks.
Q. Okay. Now, during that period of time, did you have a lot of
telephone communication with Nicole?
A. Yes.
Q. And during that period of time were you somewhat concerned about
A. Very much so.
Q. Tell us why you were concerned about Nicole?
A. Well, when I left to go to Puerto Rico, I—actually, the day that
I left—I had spent a great weekend with Nicole at her house, she had
just returned from Mexico, and for the first time in the year that
we had started our reconciliation—I had always said to my friends or
even to her family that I was skeptical there—about us getting back
together. I thought it was too much work. That day, as I was going
to the airport, I actually called her mother and her father from the
limousine and told them for the first time, maybe this thing will
work, I just had some nice—a couple of nice months with your
daughter. We just spent a great loving weekend together. You know,
maybe I was wrong, maybe this thing will work. I went to Puerto
Rico. She was supposed to join me the next week and we were to go to
a wedding in Miami from Puerto Rico. But when I would call her I
literally didn't know who I was talking to from day to day. One day
she was upset about something and wouldn't tell me. The next day she
would apologize and said she loved me. The next day I couldn't even
get a word out of her. So I was real concerned about what was going
on. I kept asking her what's going on and I started talking to her
mother and to one of her friends.
Q. Now, OJ, you are a person who, putting it mildly, uses the
telephone a lot, would you agree?
A. Yes.
Q. And during the time that—after you— she wanted to separate and in
early 1992, did you talk a lot with her mother on the phone?
A. When we first separated I talked to her mother all the time. I
mean her mother, as I said, was almost like a shrink for me.
Q. And did you also communicate a lot with the family in April of
1994 when you noticed unusual behavior?
A. Not really a lot. I think only a few times. I talked to Judy
after about two weeks when I was very much concerned around the—the
week leading up, I believe, to the 20 or the 22. I was very
concerned and I called Judy and I told Judy you should call Nicole
and talk to her, something's going on, and I was concerned about
Q. And you were out of the country at this time?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when did you return from Puerto Rico to Southern California,
A. I came back either the last day of April or the first day of May.

Q. And during the time that you were in Puerto Rico, did this
behavior where one day she was the Nicole that you knew and the next
day the Nicole that you didn't know, did that continue?
A. Well, right up until a few days before I came home, about
mid-week she called or I called—I don't recall, and she apologized
to me for the way she had acted the last few weeks. She sort of
blamed a few things; what her friends were going through, and she
told me she loved me, when I was coming home she wanted to be at the
airport to get me and all of that, and she was. But by then I felt I
didn't like what was going on and I had told her mother that week
that, you know, I didn't like what was going on and I was ready to
leave the relationship.
Q. Now, May of 1994, when you got back, were you—were you working,
shooting a film at that time?
A. Yes, we still had another week to go on shooting the film.
Q. And where was that being shot?
A. Once I got home, I think somewhere in the Valley, I can't recall,
near Chatsworth.
Q. Okay. But in any event, certainly in the Southern California
A. Yes.
Q. Now, had you made arrangements with Nicole to be with her and go
down to Laguna for Mother's Day?
A. Yes. When I got back, not the first day I got back, but the next
day, I sat her down and told her I wasn't happy with what was going
on and, you know, maybe it wasn't working and we had—she had a
little suggestion about us dating each other and maybe we shouldn't
talk about all these other things and act like we were on our first
or second date. And so that Wednesday, even though I was still
working, after work I picked her up, we went out and had a good
time. Then I said, okay, Saturday night is our night. I had to work
that week. She went out a few more nights and went to Laguna. And
Friday night, after work, work was over about 3 in the morning, it
was the last shoot for the film, I drove directly from Chatsworth to
Laguna so that I would be able to attend my nephew's, Denise Brown's
son, first communion the next morning, and consequently go out with
Nicole that night.
Q. What happened after you got down to Laguna?
A. Well, I got there early in the morning and went to bed. Got up
early. We went to the affair. When the affair was over, we went to
the Brown's house. There was a lot of tension at the Brown's house,
mainly between Nicole and Denise, because Nicole had made a comment
about Sean.
MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
A. There was this tension there. Nicole went home to my house, to my
condo, and went to sleep. It was like 11:30, 12 -- And went to
sleep. I stayed there and talked to the Browns a—a little bit about
my concern. And everybody seemed concerned. And I then spent most of
the day going around getting Mother's Day gifts for Judy, for
Denise, for Dominique, they're all mothers in the house, to get them
at least flowers and to buy a gift for Nicole. And every time I went
to the apartment, Nicole was asleep. And the kids were with us at
the Browns' house. And about 6, I went to the house and took a nap
and I woke up and had to wake her up and said, Nicole, you got to
get up, we're going out to dinner. And she got dressed, and when we
got to the—I had warmed the car up. And when she came to the front
door, she started shaking and just—I can't even describe it. Just
started saying, I can't do this, and shaking and—she couldn't
explain what she was feeling, she couldn't explain what was going
on, and, you know, I was—I was sort of lost. And I finally got her
seated, calmed her down. We went and dropped some things off at the
Browns' house. Went to dinner. Had a nice dinner. Ran into a friend
of ours named Matlin, and really had a very pleasant dinner and came
back. But I told the Brown family the next day what had transpired
and my concerns about it. We went on to have a very nice Mother's
Day at the Browns' house.
Q. Did you then have a conversation—have a conversation the
following day with Nicole about the fact that you were probably
going to go your separate ways or she would have to go to
A. I'm not sure if it was that night or the next night, I gave her
sort of an ultimatum, I said I can't do this anymore, I said, look,
I'll try it throughout the summer if you go back to counseling.
'Cause she had been to counseling, I guess, leading up to her asking
me to get back in the relationship. She really—wasn't really into
coming—going back to counseling. And we talked and we decided that
it just, you know, that maybe we got back together too soon. I mean
it was, you know, that, but it wasn't working, and we decided to go
our separate ways for now, anyway.
Q. And that was Mother's Day weekend?
A. That was either that night—it was either that Sunday night or the
next night, I'm not sure. It seemed to me it was that night. I might
have come over the next night because I didn't want to talk that
night. I don't totally recall. It was one of those two days that I—I
told her that I— something had happened.
Q. And you had, during the time following the separation in 1992 and
the divorce, a girlfriend named Paula Barbieri, did you not?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you had told Paula—or tell us what you had told Paula when
you went back with—the year May of 1993?
A. I told her—we had gone to lunch, to a restaurant in Los Angeles,
and I told her what my thoughts were and I told her about my
feelings towards Nicole and the family and essentially, you know,
what my mother told me, that I don't know if I could ever have a
full relationship with another person until I resolved what was
happening in this relationship, I mean with Nicole, and I felt an
obligation to try to get back into that relationship and give it a
shot. Paula was hurt, but she was totally understanding. And we
split. A year later, I—
Q. That's what I was getting to.
A. Yeah. A year later, I had gone to the office the next day and
informed my office that it was sort of over with Nicole and I, and
Kathy Randa, my assistant, said, you won't believe this—
MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
A. I became aware that Paula Barbieri was coming in town that night,
and so I made arrangements to cancel her limo and to be at the
airport, after I found out she didn't have a boyfriend, and—and I
picked her up at the airport. I took her to dinner. We talked, and
at that time really didn't decide if we would try it again. She just
said, let me think about it a few days. And essentially we started
seeing each other again.
Q. And this was after approximately May 10 of 1994?
A. Right around—she was coming back I believe from—Mother's Day
having been spent with her mother in Florida, so it was the day
after Mother's Day or two days after Mother's Day.
Q. Okay. Now, thereafter, did you continue to see Paula Barbieri?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were in public with Paula after the 10th or 12th or
A. Yes, even that very first week, around the 13th or 14th I
believe, Ron Fischman—well, right around that time, Ron Fischman
came to me and said that Cora—
MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
A. I became aware that someone who knew Nicole had seen me with
Paula and wanted to know what was going on, and I explained to them
that I was back with Paula.
Q. Okay. Now, in—in May of 1994 -- by the way, when was Nicole's
A. May 19.
Q. Now, during the time that you were split up with her, even May of
'92, after she had requested separation, did you give her a birthday
A. I always gave—I think the only time I didn't give her a gift was
our anniversary of '93, and it—evidently it bothered her. But
previous— when—even when we were apart, I always sent her flowers or
sent her something. I gave her a watch, I think, for Christmas. I
always gave her something, even though we were divorced.
Q. And did you get a gift for her for her birthday on May 19, 1994?
A. Yes.
Q. What was it?
A. A gold Cartier cigarette lighter.
Q. Now, did you buy a gift for the kids to give their mother?
A. No.
Q. And what happened relative to this bracelet that was discussed on
the tape with the LAPD?
A. Well, the same day that I bought the gold cigarette lighter—it
was—it was a gift that was almost like, okay, 'cause I'd always be
on Nicole for years about smoking, so it was like my relinquishing,
here's a gift, I thought it was kind of humorous. I went and bought
Paula, because our anniversary was going to be like the 22nd when we
first dated, a bracelet that matched some other jewelry I had given
her. That was totally unlike anything I had given Nicole but—this
was, I think, sapphires and diamonds. I don't think it was expensive
at all, but, you know, it's been described as a very expensive
bracelet. While we were downstairs and I was having my kids—'cause
Nicole had double pneumonia—was in bed, I was having my kids sign
this birthday gift, they said, what did we give Mommy? I thought,
geez, I can't give her a cigarette lighter from the kids. So I went
down to the car and got the other thing and gave her that from the
kids and the cigarette lighter from me.
Q. Okay. And that—let's just talk a little bit about Nicole and—and
her having this double pneumonia. Was—we're in May of 1994?
A. Yes.
Q. Had Nicole ever in the 15 -- or 17 years, rather, that you had
been seeing each other, had she ever been sick?
A. Never. Never. This was just about the healthiest person I knew
Q. Go ahead.
A. And I said—near the end of the first week of our being apart, I
went to New York. I came back, and I got a call from her or I was
talking to the kids or something, and she said she was really sick,
she was going to have to go to a doctor or something, and she
sounded horrible. And I—I guess—I went and got her some soup and
brought it to her house. She was at the doctor's. And after work
that week I would go over to her house to kind of nurse her and help
her and actually talk to her. I was trying to get her to look at
whatever it was going on in her life to have her have double
pneumonia in a person that I had never seen sick in the 15 years
I've known her in her life.
Q. Now, did you have conversations about the illness and about what
was going on in her life?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you suggest that she do?
A. My main point was to try to get her to go back to therapy. And
she pretended that week, at least, talked that—sort of agreed that
maybe she should.
Q. At that point in time, Nicole wasn't taking much of your advice;
you would agree with that?
A. Well, you know, I only gave her—that week is probably the only
time I gave her advice that wasn't, you know, solicited. Because I
was concerned about her. But Nicole was doing what she wanted to do.
I mean I never in the years that—even in the year we were back
together, other than the fact that I wouldn't socialize with one
girl because of her— what she was doing, I never talked to her about
who she went out with or what she did when she went out, if she went
out regularly, and I never—we never had a discussion about who she
went out with or what she did when she was out. I—I pretty much left
that up to her.
Q. Now, did—did she subsequently give you that bracelet back?
A. Yes. On the 22nd of the month of May, I was hosting a fund raiser
for my kids preschool. So I had families and their kids. I give a
big picnic every year to help raise money for the preschool. And
Nicole came over and she had—I guess was somewhat over the flu, and
she was outside mixing. At one point, I was watching, I guess, NBA
championship with some of the other fathers, and she came in the
room and sort of laid on my—on the couch and at one point she got up
and went upstairs. And I was socializing with all the people. And I
went up to check on her, and she was in my bed, and wanted us to
talk, but I, you know, I didn't want to talk. I was a little
concerned about her being in my bed as well. I had 3 or 400 people
at my house. And I told her I'd come over to her house I believe
that night to talk to her and—
Q. Did you?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And what happened when you went over to her house on the evening
of May 22?
A. Well, we talked about a lot of things. We talked about some money
that she had that—she had cashed a check, $10,000 check, that was
supposed to come to me, and she had cashed it and she didn't have
the money to give me. We talked about the TV. I had bought a TV and
put it in her bedroom that—that had head phones, because I go to bed
about 8 o'clock and I wake up about 1 o'clock and I watch TV. And to
keep her from waking up, I put a TV in her room. We were talking
about exchanging those things. And during the course of that, you
didn't really buy this bracelet for me, and I kind of smiled, and I
didn't really answer her, and she gave me the bracelet back. And we
talked about what we could do to make everything better with the
kids, and we had agreed that—that we would at least one week—one day
a week do some things together. And I think the general attitude
between us was I either—at least from her to me, was that we had
gotten back too soon. And I kind of went along with that, even
though I didn't totally agree with it.
Q. All right. Now, after the 22nd of May, the following weekend, you
went down to the desert; did you, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was—that was Memorial Day weekend?
A. Yes, I believe so.
Q. Okay. And—and was it before Memorial Day weekend that Nicole had
called you relative to Faye Resnick wanting to go to the birth
defect charity event that you put on at Cedars?
A. I believe so, but it was—it—it was all—those were all within a
day or so of one another.
Q. Explain what that—that whole event was that—that—Nicole called
you, and she was upset with you at that time, correct?
A. Yeah, she was yelling at me. I had, years previous—ten years,
eleven years ago, had gone and helped start a—a program to raise
funds for a—childbirth defects at Cedars-Sinai Hospital, and they
wanted to honor me. And I suggested, don't honor me; let's make it a
sports banquet, 'cause we don't have one in L.
A. And I proceeded to go out and get sports celebrities—Joe
DiMaggio, Joe Montana, various people over the years, to come in and
accept these awards. And it became L.
A.'s biggest sports event. We've raised millions of dollars for—for,
you know, testing and childbirth defects, at Cedars. In any event,
the previous year, when Nicole and I had just got back together, I
let her fill my table, which was ten or twelve people, so that I
could meet her friends, the people that she had been hanging around
with in the time that we were apart. And she had filled the table
with this group of people. Now, it was the next year, and some of
the people that went were, like, Christian Reichart, who is Faye
Resnick's fiancee, Ron Fischman, who is Cora Fischman's husband. So
this year, with the event coming up, I had at some point invited
Christian Reichart, because we had been doing some business
together, and he enjoyed it the year before. And I invited Ron
Fischman and his son Michael, because I knew Michael would like it,
and Ron liked it. I didn't invite Faye or Cora because I was going
to be with Paula. And evidently, that didn't sit well with Faye
Resnick. And I was consequently called and said, why am I not
coming. And I said, "Well, I'll be with Paula." She said, "Well, we
love you; we love Nicole. I want to know Paula. And we'll know
whoever Nicole's dating." So I said, "Okay. You can come." And I
don't think that is the way she communicated it to Nicole, because
when Nicole called, yelling at me—
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection that part.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PETROCELLI: Speculation.
(Continuing.) Well, in any event, Nicole called me and was yelling
at me about inviting her friends to this event. And I got angry with
her, and I said, "First of all, I didn't invite her. And secondly, I
never told you who to hang around with. You had all my friends come
to your event, and maybe"—for the first time, I mentioned about
something that she had taken it a little further with one of my
friends. And she hung up on me. And then I called Christian and
Faye, and I spoke to Christian first, and he said she had just got
off the phone with Nicole.
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection to these conversations, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
(Continuing.) I spoke to Chistian and spoke to Faye. And my basic
words to them, or at least to Faye—my words to Faye was, "You call
Nicole right now and you tell her that you invited yourself to this
thing." And then she told me something about Paula and why Nicole
was feeling the way she was feeling.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Okay. Now, after that conversation in late May of
1994, did you make a decision relative to yourself and Nicole?
A. Yes. I said, not only because of that—I mean, it was, as I said,
numerous things have happened. That was pretty much the last straw
for me. And so my attitude—because of the other things that
happened, even that month, with my—with my new housekeeper, after
what had happened with my previous housekeeper, I just decided that
I needed the distance—I needed to distance myself. And I left a
message for Nicole. I informed my assistant and my housekeeper that,
if it was about the kids, you know, we could communicate. If it—it's
not about the kids, I don't want to hear about all these other
Q. Now, she had involved you, with the exception of the period from
December of 1992 to March of 1993 -- and we're talking about now, up
to the end of May 1993 -- and all of the problems that she had, had
she not?
A. She would come to me with for advice or whatever. You know.
Q. She had an automobile accident in—what was it, January of '94?
A. Yes.
Q. And she and Faye switched drivers on that—
MR. KELLY: Objection. He is now leading.
THE COURT: Sustained. Jury to disregard that question.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) What happened? What did Nicole tell you, just
about the driver situation, in that motor-vehicle accident?
A. Well, whatever had transpired leading up to it, they—Nicole had
rear-ended an elderly man and his grandson, and was—was afraid,
really, because they had lied to the police about who was driving
the car. And she thought that one of the people that were—that were
witnessing it was going to tell, because I guess they—once the tow
truck came, they left with the tow-truck driver, and she was afraid
one of them was going to tell, because she thought her license had
been suspended. But I guess Faye had a lawyer who had helped her in
the past with problems.
MR. KELLY: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
(Continuing.) There was a lawyer they wanted me to talk to, who was
going to handle the case.
MR. KELLY: Objection. "They wanted."
THE COURT: Sustained.
A. There was a lawyer—
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Let me just ask you a different question. That was
a serious accident, wasn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Nicole was in her Ferrari?
A. Yes.
Q. And where, after she rear-ended this car, was the back of that
car in relation to the windshield of her Ferrari?
MR. KELLY: Objection, unless he had personal observation.
THE COURT: Lay a foundation.
MR. BAKER: 1227 of the Evidence Code, Your Honor.
MR. PETROCELLI: The only problem I'm having, I don't know whether
he's reporting a conversation with Nicole or something else.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did Nicole tell you how serious the accident was?
A. Yes.
Q. What did she tell you about the positions of the automobiles
after the accident had taken place?
A. Well, she was crying, and she said that they had gone totally
under the front of her Ferrari, had gone totally under the car, and
the car had come up on her front hood and had come right to her
front window, and was sitting there. And I—I was, you know, I said,
"Nick, what if that car would have come through the window?" And I
really sort of got on her about what had been transpiring leading up
to the accident, and the fact that they weren't honest with the
police. And she was—I mean, her words to me was, she didn't want me
to tell her parents. She said they'd "kill me if they knew that I
did this." So her big problem was, don't tell her parents. And which
I never did until—actually, until I was in jail, I believe.
Q. All right. Now, she had confided in you, or not confided, but
brought you in as—as kind of a counselor, if you will, on a lot of
problems that she had during the period between the time she asked
for space and May of 1994?
A. Yes.
Q. And at the end of May of 1994, did you conclude that you had to,
as you suggested—
MR. PETROCELLI: Don't lead, Mr. Baker, please.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you separate yourself from her life, except as
related to the kids?
MR. PETROCELLI: I have the same objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PETROCELLI: I don't mind if he testifies; foundational, for
three hours.
THE COURT: Excuse me. Let's not have any comment like that. Just ask
a question in the manner in which would be acceptable to the Court.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) What did you decide to do relative to your
relationship with Nicole after— towards the end of May 1994?
A. Well, because of these, as I say, some problems that she had with
both my housekeepers, and even Kato, in my home, I—I just—I—you
know, I just felt I needed to separate myself from her and give her
no real excuse, other than the kids, to come by my home. As I said,
it was—it seemed to be problem after problem after problem. And
whenever I would speak to her, it was about the various problems her
friends were going through, or as I said, the disruption in my
household with my first housekeeper, Michelle, and then after even
her and Cora found my second housekeeper, it began to be disruptive
with myself. My second housekeeper, who came to me with real concern
about conversations she had—
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection to these conversations.
THE COURT: I'll sustain my own objection. It's not very responsive
to the question you asked.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Okay. Now, in June of 1994 -- well, strike that.
Let's go back to Memorial Day weekend. Did you go down to the
A. Yes.
Q. And did you play golf?
A. Yes.
Q. And did this upset anybody in particular?
A. Paula Barbieri, yes.
Q. And did she spend the entire weekend with you?
A. No. She left.
Q. And did you spend any great deal of time talking to Jackie Cooper
about the—about your relationship with Nicole?
A. I—in terms of he felt that his wife was about to leave him, which
she did. In terms of trying to explain to him, you know, about, you
know, commiserate with him about the problem he was having.
Obviously, like most people, I shared with him things that had
happened in my relationship.
Q. And were you disappointed that the year's attempt to
reconciliation hadn't worked?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you express that to anybody?
A. If they asked me, yes.
Q. And by Memorial Day weekend, had you— well, strike that. Did
Paula break up with you often?
A. Well, I say broke—break up. She gets, you know—well, yes. But it
was, you know, as always, her answer to leave and say we're broken
up. That happened on numerous occasions. Virtually every single one
of the situations pertained to me playing golf.
Q. I know the feeling. Now, relative to the week after Memorial Day
weekend, where were you?
A. After Memorial Day weekend, I think I came home. I believe I came
back for—I came home for—for a period of time. And you—Yes, I did.
Because, you know, the day I got home, Paula and I got back
together, and we went to a party that week. And then the following
week, I had a very busy schedule. I—I had to play back east and go
to numerous cities.
Q. All right. Now, did you request—
THE COURT: You're the pitcher.
MR. BAKER: Pardon?
THE COURT: You're in control.
MR. BAKER: I wish that were true. I get—
THE COURT: Whenever you want to break—I'm just watching. It's
getting close.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Let's just ask you one more question in that
regard. And that is: Did you request your attorney to—or Kathy to
send a letter relative to Nicole not to use your address as her
A. Yes.
Q. And did you do that to be mean, to be—
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. It's leading.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you turn her in to IRS for not paying taxes?
A. No.
Q. Did you intend to turn her in to the IRS for not paying taxes?
A. No.
Q. What was your purpose in sending her a letter relative to not
using your address as her address?
A. My first purpose—and why it came up was, to keep her from coming
to my house and—and harassing my housekeeper. On that—I'm sure that
was part of it. That had to do with—I had a concern; I spoke to
Nicole's mother about it—about what was going on with her. And I
didn't want her to lose her house. And I—I never had a problem with
the IRS in my life. And I—since—during that period of time, that she
was going to create some problems for herself, and I did not want to
see my kids lose this house, because it was a very nice house, and
they liked it.
Q. Now, did she ever indicate to you that she was angry about that?
A. To me, no.
Q. Mr. Simpson, from 1977, to and including the present, did you
love Nicole Brown Simpson?
A. Yes, very much so.
Q. And you told this jury that you never harmed her, never touched
her physically, in any way, shape, or form after January 1, 1989?
A. That's absolutely correct.
Q. This a good place, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes. Ladies and gentlemen, you're adjourned until 8:30 on
Monday. Don't talk to anyone, form or express any opinions. Don't
watch any news programs, radio, TV, or otherwise. Don't permit
anyone to make any statements to you about this case. Above all, try
to avoid—free yourself from any influences that might affect your
ability to be fair and independent jurors on this case. All right.
You've been very good to this time, and I hope you will continue to
do that. Have a nice weekend. We'll see you Monday.
JUROR: Thanks, Your Honor.
(At 4:31 P.M., an adjournment was taken until Monday, January 13, 1997, at 8:30 A.M.)