SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
JANUARY 14, 1997
VOLUME 42

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
THE COURT: Morning.
JURORS: Morning.
MR. PETROCELLI: Good morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, yesterday you listened to
cross-examination regarding a certain exhibit, that was Exhibit 732;
a writing that purports to be a letter from Nicole Brown Simpson
allegedly directed to defendant Simpson. And it had been the
intention of the Court to give you an instruction on that,
especially at the conclusion of the trial, but since this has been
kind of a long trial and there have been several instances where
evidence has been received for a limited purpose, and this is one of
those instances where the evidence was received for a limited
purpose, I've come to the conclusion that it's best to advise you at
this time what the limitation is so that when at the end of the case
you get the final instructions, you won't have to search out the
particular item that we have referenced to, and if you're making
notes you can make notes on it at this time. You're instructed that
the letter of Nicole Brown Simpson directed to defendant Simpson,
that is Exhibit 732, was received into evidence for the limited
purpose of allowing plaintiffs to offer evidence of the state of
mind of Nicole Brown Simpson regarding the relationship between
Nicole Brown Simpson and defendant Simpson, and it cannot be
considered by you as proof of any truth of any matter that is
self-contained or alleged in the letter; in other words, the
substance of the letter. The letter cannot be used as evidence to
establish anything in the letter, the truth of anything in the
letter. It's received only for the purpose of allowing the
plaintiffs to offer evidence as to what the state of mind of Nicole
Brown Simpson was with respect to her relationship with Mr. Simpson
during that period of time. Everybody understand the limitation?
JURORS: Yes, sir.
MR. BAKER: May we approach?
THE COURT: You may.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the
reporter:)
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I just want the record to reflect that we
were not given the opportunity to review that instruction just given
to the jury before you did read it to the jury and I think that
under California law we're required to review all of the
instructions before they're given to the jury. No. 2, Exhibit 732
has not been offered into evidence, to my knowledge, it was never
offered at conclusion of the plaintiffs' case. No. 3, the Court's
characterization of it as a letter, I think, gives it more credence
than it's entitled to. I wanted to make those objections.
MR. PETROCELLI: We are offering it into evidence.
MR. BAKER: I would object to it, Your Honor. They only asked for --
they only asked questions about one portion of that letter, and it
had -- where Nicole said that she called the cops because she was
afraid for her life. And it seems to me that we would do away with
most of the problems with that letter if they want to put that
portion of it in and redact all the rest, because that's the only
portion that got before the jury; that's one thing, but to put that
entire letter in when Mr. Simpson was not asked about it, and then
not given a chance to explain anything about it, would be, in my
view, improper.
MR. PETROCELLI: We first --
THE COURT: Well, No. 1, the reason the Court has addressed the jury
with regards to this matter is that it was being received for a
limited purpose. To not advise the jury as to this limited purpose
would be prejudicial to the defendant, and to wait until the end
would be doubly hard on the jury. So I'm doing it for the
convenience of the jury. With regard to formal instructions, I
invite you to offer formal instructions. This is simply a limiting
advisement to the jury for the purpose for which it was received.
No. 2, I agree with counsel that only a portion of it was referred
to in the examination and I think it is objectionable with regards
to the rest of the letter.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I'd like to respond.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. PETROCELLI: The portions that I'm interested in are the ones I
read out loud in oral argument.
THE COURT: Oral argument. I thought it was an examination.
MR. PETROCELLI: No. In the argument before the -- the witness took
the witness stand you asked me what I wanted to --
THE COURT: Um-hum.
MR. PETROCELLI: -- use in the letter, what I wanted to seek to
offer. I read you the portions, and those limited portions are what
I'm offering into evidence.
THE COURT: Then you offer the redacted version of it. Let Mr. Baker
take a look at it to raise his further objection to it.
MR. BAKER: He -- he says to you that the areas he wants to go into,
that's what you ruled upon. Then when Mr. Simpson gets on the stand
he doesn't ask him about those areas at all, so Mr. Simpson doesn't
explain those areas. He asked him about one area and that was the
area relative to the note that just suggested -- where Nicole said
she was essentially afraid for her life, that's why she called the
police on January 1, 1989. To now say he can put in evidence other
portions of that letter that were before -- Mr. Simpson was never
interrogated about seems to me to be absolutely improper.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Petrocelli can offer that in his rebuttal. You
can call Mr. Simpson back at this time to rebut those items. The
question is what is admissible as evidence when he offers it. At
this point perhaps the Court should not receive it into evidence, so
I won't receive it into evidence until your rebuttal and then --
MR. PETROCELLI: You want me to prepare a redacted version of it?
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.
THE COURT: With regards to advising the jury that it is an exhibit,
if you want I'll tell them it's not received until I actually
receive it, if it makes you feel any better.
MR. BAKER: And that it's a writing, No. 2, and No. 3, that there's
no evidence that Mr. Simpson ever received this from her.
THE COURT: I didn't say he did.
MR. PETROCELLI: Didn't say he did. That's argument at this point.
(The following proceedings were held in open court In the presence
of the jury.)
THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, Exhibit No. 732 is not
formally received as yet into evidence. It has been referred to in
the evidence, so you're to consider the limitation to the portion
thus far received, and if and when the document itself is received,
then at the end of trial the Court's going to read to you the same
or similar instruction with regards to it. Okay.
MR. P. BAKER: Defense calls Donald Thompson back. DONALD THOMPSON,
called as a witness on behalf of the Defendant, was previously duly
sworn and testified further as follows:
THE CLERK: Sir, you have been sworn previously. Would you state your
name again for the record.
THE WITNESS: Yes. Donald Thompson.
THE CLERK: Thank you. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. P. BAKER:
Q. Morning, Mr. Thompson.
A. Good morning.
Q. You were at 360 North Rockingham on June 13, 1994, were you not?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. You received some orders from Detective Vannatter that day, did
you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Detective Vannatter told you to handcuff O.J. Simpson when he
arrived there, did he not?
MR. KELLY: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) If Mr. Vannatter told this jury that he didn't
tell you that, he would have lied to this jury, correct?
A. No.
MR. MEDVENE: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. The jury is to disregard that question.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Detective Vannatter told you to handcuff O.J.
Simpson when you got there on the 13th; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Mr. Thompson, I want to show you a vehicle impound report which
they marked as Civil 271. Have you seen that document before?
(Witness reviews document.)
A. Yes, I have.
Q. That's the impound report prepared by your partner?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Angela Guzman?
A. Yes.
Q. It was prepared on June 13, 1994, at 3:30 p.m.?
A. Yes. I'm not familiar with this, though.
Q. Okay. It was prepared at 3:30 p.m. on June 13, 1994?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And that vehicle impound report referred to the 1994 Ford Bronco
parked out on the west side of Rockingham?
A. It does.
Q. And that impound report was prepared in the normal course and
business of your work there, correct?
A. Yes, it was.
MR. P. BAKER: I have no further questions.
THE COURT: Cross-examine.
MR. P. BAKER: Move 271 into evidence, Judge.
THE COURT: Received.
(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 271.) CROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. MEDVENE:
Q. Officer Thompson -- I notice that on the impound report there's a
check under the Y column for battery and generator?
A. Yes.
MR. P. BAKER: Outside the scope, Judge.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you explain the circumstances under which
those checks were put there?
MR. P. BAKER: No foundation that he knows.
THE COURT: Testified he compared it. Overruled.
A. Under those particular items -- you mentioned battery and
alternator.
Q. Yes, sir?
A. Well, the vehicle impound report here states that there was a
battery and an alternator that, in fact, should be unknown because
--
MR. P. BAKER: Judge, I'm going to object to this. It calls for
hearsay. He just testified his partner prepared the report.
THE COURT: Did you prepare it or your partner prepare it?
THE WITNESS: It was prepared by my partner, sir, but my partner and
I are responsible for the report since both our names are on it.
THE COURT: Lay a foundation as to his personal knowledge.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) What hours, approximately, were you at
Rockingham on the morning of June 13?
A. I arrived at Rockingham approximately at 8 o'clock in the morning
and I left the scene about 3:45 that afternoon.
Q. And what was your assignment in terms of the Bronco, and
supervision and security of the Bronco?
A. My assignment was to protect the Bronco and also to protect the
property in general.
Q. Did your -- did your fellow officer, Ms. Guzman, under your
supervision, prepare the report that's been marked 271?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you sign on the report and write your name on the report?

A. Yes. My name is on the report.
Q. Was the report made in your presence?
MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. He hasn't said he
filled out the report or saw it filled out.
THE COURT: Well, so far you haven't reached a point of objection.
Overruled.
A. I'm sorry. Repeat the question again, please.
Q. Yes. Was the report filled out by Officer Guzman in your
presence?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you sign the report?
A. No. Neither officer signs the report. We put our -- we print
our names there.
Q. Did you print your name there?
A. My name isn't printed -- well, my name is printed on here but I
didn't print my name on it, and we usually don't do that. One
partner will print both officers' names on it. The officer
completing the report will do that.
Q. And who printed both officers' names on this?
A. Officer Guzman did.
Q. You told us the report was prepared in your presence and under
your supervision?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Was the vehicle, the Ford Bronco, ever opened in your presence
between the time you arrived at Rockingham and the time you filled
out the impound report?
A. No, it wasn't.
Q. Okay. Could you explain why battery and alternator were checked
if the car and the hood were never opened?
MR. P. BAKER: No foundation, calls for speculation, calls for
hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Was the battery and hood ever opened?
MR. P. BAKER: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. No.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did the car, to you, appear operable and
workable?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. Did the car, in any way, appear to be stripped?
A. No.
Q. Did you assume the car had a battery and alternator in it?
A. That assumption could be made, yes.
Q. Did you make that assumption?
A. No. I didn't make the assumption, no. My partner made the
assumption.
MR. P. BAKER: Objection, move to strike.
THE COURT: Stricken. Jury to disregard that last answer.
Q. When you sign or when you permitted your name -- strike that. You
saw this report after it was filled out, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you believe at the time you signed the report that since the
vehicle appeared not stripped and operable that it had a battery and
accelerator -- or a battery and an alternator in it, even though the
hood was never opened?
MR. P. BAKER: Irrelevant, misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did the vehicle appear locked at all times,
Officer Thompson, when you saw it at Rockingham from the time you
came on duty to the time the impound report was filled out somewhere
around 3:30?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. And did you ever see anyone attempt to unlock the vehicle?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Did you ever see anyone inside the vehicle?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever attempt to unlock the vehicle?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Did you ever open the hood?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever see anyone open the hood?
A. No.
MR. MEDVENE: I have no further questions. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. P. BAKER:
Q. Did you maintain a constant watch over that Bronco, Officer
Thompson?
A. A constant watch?
Q. While you were there, did you have your eyes on the Bronco the
whole time you were there?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. When you handcuffed Mr. Simpson pursuant to Detective Vannatter's
orders, were you inside the compound?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Were you looking at the Bronco?
A. No.
MR. P. BAKER: Nothing further.
THE COURT: You may step down.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
MR. LEONARD: Call Arnelle Simpson. ARNELLE SIMPSON, called as a
witness on behalf of the Defendant, was duly sworn and testified as
follows:
THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in
the cause now pending before this Court shall be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE WITNESS: I do.
THE CLERK: Please state and spell your name for the record.
THE WITNESS: Arnelle Lorraine Simpson, A-r-n-e-l-l-e L-o-r-r-a-i-n-e
S-i-m-p-s-o-n. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. LEONARD:
Q. Morning, Ms. Simpson.
A. Good morning.
Q. You are O.J. Simpson's daughter?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Are you his oldest child?
A. Yes.
Q. What's your date of birth?
A. 12/4/68.
Q. Does that have another significance, that date?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. What's that?
A. It was the same day that my dad received the Heisman Trophy.
Q. Now, just briefly I'd like to get some background on you. You
grew up in the Los Angeles area?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. And you went to grammar and high school here?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And when did you graduate from high school?
A. In '87.
Q. And did you go on to college after that?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Where did you go to college?
A. I first attended University of Colorado at Boulder. Then I
transferred to Howard University in Washington, D.C.
Q. And when did you graduate from Howard University?
A. '92.
Q. Now, during the period that you were at -- away at college, would
you come back and visit from time to time?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you see your mother?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you stay with her when you came back to visit most of
the time?
A. Sometimes.
Q. Okay. And sometimes you'd stay with your dad?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And during the period that you were away at college, your
father was living at Rockingham?
A. Off and on, yes.
Q. Okay. Now, I want to direct your attention to the morning of June
13, 1994. First of all, where had you been the night before, that
was the night of June 12?
A. I was out at the movies.
Q. What time did you return home approximately?
A. I had to have returned home around 12:30; between 12 and 12:30.
Q. By the way, did you have a vehicle that you drove?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was that?
A. A Saab.
Q. Black Saab?
A. Black Saab.
MR. LEONARD: If I can -- with the assistance of Mr. Baker, I just
need a diagram at this point. If I can approach.
THE COURT:
(Nods affirmatively.)
MR. LEONARD: This is Civil 116, for the record.
(Exhibit 116 is displayed.)
MR. LEONARD: I'm going to try to position it so you can see it and
the jury can see it. Everyone see it in the jury?
(The jury panel nods affirmatively.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Can you see it?
A. Um-hum.
Q. Okay. Now, I think there's a pointer -- I see there's a
retractable pointer there. If you would just step down for a minute,
please, Ms. Simpson. Just take a look at that diagram. Do you
recognize that diagram as -- as a schematic or diagram of the
residence at Rockingham?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. By the way, before we get to this, I think I skipped
something. When you returned to Los Angeles from college in '92, did
you live at Rockingham too, start to live there?
A. No.
Q. When did you move back into Rockingham?
A. I moved back into Rockingham, March of '93.
Q. And you lived there continually until June 12 and thereafter?
A. Yes.
Q. '94?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, just -- I want you to show the jury, when you pulled
into Rockingham after returning from the movies on the -- in the
early morning of June 13, show us where you parked your Saab?
A. I pulled in here, Ashford, and I drove all the way to here
(indicating).
Q. And you parked it right there?
A. Parked my car there.
Q. Was there another vehicle in front of your car when you parked?
A. Yes.
Q. What was that?
A. My dad's Bentley.
Q. And you never moved that -- your vehicle until sometime the next
-- late the next morning or next afternoon, is that correct, on the
13th?
A. Did I move my car?
Q. Yeah.
A. No, I did not.
Q. Until when, approximately?
A. Oh, God, not until later on that week.
Q. Okay. Now, at some point early in the morning on the 13th, was
there a knock at your door --
A. Yes.
Q. -- where you were staying? Show the jury where your room was,
where you were staying that night?
A. Right here
(indicating to Exhibit 116.)
Q. Now, describe to the jury what happened after you heard the knock
on the door?
A. Two men knocked on my door. I opened the door. They asked me who
I was. I told them who I was. They asked me where my father was and
I told them that I didn't know where he was but I knew somebody that
could get in touch with him. At that point, I put my clothes on to
go into the house.
Q. At that point, did the police -- do you recall which -- we've had
several police detectives testify here. Do you recall which ones,
right now, came to your door and spoke to you?
A. Vannatter and Lange.
Q. Okay. Was there another police officer that you saw at some point
up on the terrace?
A. Yes, there's two more police officers that I saw that day.
Q. Okay. Now, they came to your door, they knocked on your door,
they asked you where your father was, right?
A. Yes.
Q. At that point, did they ask you any other questions, such as did
you hear any strange noises, did you see anything unusual or are
there any people that are injured on the property, anything like
that?
A. No.
Q. Just asked you if you knew where your father was?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you put your clothes on, and the officers accompanied you
back into the house; is that right?
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I'm going to object at this point to
leading. We're past foundation.
MR. LEONARD: It's foundation.
MR. PETROCELLI: No, it's not.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) What did you do next?
A. They followed me into the house and -- I left my room to go into
the house.
Q. Show us the route you took?
A. I left my room to go into the house going this way.
Q. Um-hum.
A. And I went around and went to the front door.
Q. Okay. Now, you've -- what you've described is going around the
north side of the house, correct?
A. Yes, going through here, the backyard.
Q. You're going by the pool in a northerly direction?
A. Yes. And going on the side of the house.
Q. The north side of the house along that path --
A. Yes.
Q. -- that runs in between the house and Ashford Street, correct?
A. Correct. And then this way.
Q. Okay. Now, why did you go that way?
A. Because I had to go inside the house.
Q. Okay. Now, three detectives have testified before this jury that
you went right in -- there's a back door right here?
A. Yeah, there's a door right here.
Q. They testified that you had your keys out and you had to open up
a lock with the keys and you went in that way. Did you do that
night?
A. No. It's impossible.
MR. PETROCELLI: Object to the mischaracterization of the testimony.
MR. LEONARD: They testified --
THE COURT: Excuse me.
MR. PETROCELLI: I think he misstated the details of their testimony.

THE COURT: Okay. Strike that. And ask the question as to what she
did.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you go in the back door?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You can resume your seat.
MR. PETROCELLI: For the record, these are exhibits and photos I've
not seen before, not on the joint trial statement, but I have no
objection.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
MR. BAKER: Half of your exhibits are not on the joint trial
statement
(indicating to photographs shown to him by Mr. Leonard).
MR. LEONARD: I'll show you what I'll mark next in order.
THE CLERK: 2318.
(The instrument herein described as a photo was marked for
identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2318.)
MR. LEONARD: And 2319.
(The instrument herein described as a photo was marked for
identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2319.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) I ask you to take a look at those two
photographs, Ms. Simpson. I'm going to ask you if they accurately
depict the back door that we've just been talking about as it
existed on June 12 -- excuse me -- the morning of June 13, 1994?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there a lock on that door --
A. No.
Q. -- that you can open with a key from the outside?
A. No, there's not.
Q. Is there an alarm and was there on June 13, 1994?
A. No.
Q. Is there a key pad to activate the alarm there?
A. No.
Q. Was there on the morning of June 13, 1994?
A. No.
Q. Now, when you -- after you walked all the way around with the
detectives, did you enter the house?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay.
MR. LEONARD: This is depicting 22 -- what's the second one?
THE CLERK: 2319.
MR. LEONARD: 2319.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Is that correct, Ms. Simpson?
A. Yes.
(Exhibit 2319 is displayed on Elmo.)
MR. LEONARD: If we could show 2318.
MR. BAKER: Why don't you zoom in on the door handle.
(Elmo is adjusted to zoom in on door handle.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Again, that was the handle that was on that door
on the morning of June 13, 1994?
A. Correct.
Q. I just want to show -- no, that's fine, we'll get it back
(indicating to exhibit in the witness' possession). Now, what was
the purpose of going into the house?
A. I was going into the house to go to get in touch with somebody
that could find out where my dad was.
Q. At that point, can you tell the jury whether or not you knew that
your father was out of town?
A. I knew he was out of town but I didn't know where he was.
Q. And who was it that you were going to contact to find out where
he was?
A. I was going to call Kathy Randa.
Q. Who is Kathy Randa?
A. My father's personal secretary.
Q. Now, you --
A. Assistant.
Q. You had to -- tell us what you did as you entered the house --
before you entered?
A. I had to turn off the alarm and open the door with my key.
Q. Now, when you got inside, did you -- did you call Kathy Randa?
A. I went into the kitchen and went to call her, realizing that I
didn't have her home phone number, so I had to -- to go to my car to
get my phone book.
Q. All right. And how did you do that, how -- describe where you
went to get the phone book and how you got there?
A. Do you want me to get up?
Q. Yes, please.
(Witness approaches Exhibit 116.)
A. I used the phone which is like somewhere in this area, and I
walked out the kitchen door to walk this way to my car, and I went
into the trunk of my car to get my phone book out.
Q. Now, did you get your phone book out?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Now, at the point you got the phone book out, can you tell us
whether or not you had a discussion with the police officers that
were with you, the detectives?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Describe for us the discussion, please.
A. I was going out to the car, I had asked, I believe Lange, I said
you have to tell me what's going on, I'm not understanding, you're
scaring me, can you please tell me what has happened. And at that
point he told me that Nicole -- he asked me if I knew Nicole Brown
Simpson, and I said yes. And he said that she had been killed and
that -- at her house and that there was somebody else with her.
Q. Okay. How did you react?
A. I was shocked, I was stunned, I was upset, confused, scared.
Q. You can resume the stand. Now, at that point, did you reenter the
house?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did you call Kathy Randa?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And at some point did you turn the phone over to the police?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Now, I want to -- I'm going to come back to this -- this point. I
want to ask you some other questions first. Would you -- could you
tell the jury whether or not from the period, let's say, January 1,
1994, until Nicole's death, that you would have occasion to go over
and visit with Nicole on Bundy?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you sometimes take care of the children, Justin and
Sydney?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you sometimes transport the children back and forth
from Bundy to Rockingham?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Which vehicles would you use to do that?
A. Either my car or the Bronco or Nicole's car.
Q. Would Nicole sometimes use the Bronco during that period?
A. Yes.
Q. And would she transport the kids back and forth with the Bronco?
A. Yes, she would.
Q. And the dogs?
A. Yes.
Q. And you would do that as well?
A. Um-hum. Yes.
Q. Let's talk about the dogs for a minute. We've seen a photograph
of a dog laying in the driveway named Chachi. Would you describe
Chachi as a swift, greyhound-type dog?
A. No.
Q. Did Chachi sometimes have trouble getting around?
A. Sometimes.
Q. Okay. But let me ask you this: Do you recall occasions when you
were living at Rockingham when Chachi would get out of the gate
nonetheless?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Was -- was the issue -- and let me ask you this: There were
other dogs that would be at Rockingham from time to time, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. There was a dog named Kato?
A. Yes.
Q. As opposed to the person Kato?
A. Yes.
Q. And would Kato -- Kato would be going back and forth from Bundy
to Rockingham, sometimes he'd be at Bundy, sometimes at Rockingham?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) How often, if you can tell us, would you see
Kato at Rockingham?
A. Off and on. It was -- you'd just see him, depending, you know --
he would be there off and on. No particular, you know, Monday
through Wednesday. He would just come and go.
Q. Tell us whether or not there was a problem with Kato running out
of the gate?
A. There was a problem with all the dogs running out of the gate. We
had two other dogs -- well, one other dog also that would
occasionally go out the gate, and it would be a problem because of
the neighbors. And our dogs are very lazy so they would sit in the
middle of the street and not move when the cars came around.
Q. And the -- let's -- first of all, I want to direct your attention
to January 1, '94 through June 12, '94. At that time, is it fair to
say the only dogs around would be Chachi and Kato?
A. Yes. And Chubbs, but he had passed in February of that year I
believe.
Q. Now, did this -- did the dogs getting out and laying in the
street, did that generate complaints from neighbors?
A. Yeah.
Q. Now, as a result of that, did you have a -- were you conscious of
the dogs running out, did you have any particular habit with regard
to being vigilant when you drove your car out of the gate?
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I'm going to object. The only issue as
to dogs is the dog Chachi on June 12, the only dog --
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor --
MR. PETROCELLI: The only dog on the property.
MR. LEONARD: I object.
MR. PETROCELLI: This is irrelevant.
MR. LEONARD: Excuse me. He's arguing in front of the jury. If he
wants to approach the side bar --
THE COURT: Sustained, irrelevant as to other dogs.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, can we approach?
THE COURT: No.
MR. LEONARD: Can we approach?
THE COURT: No.
MR. LEONARD: I guess I shouldn't ask the third time.
THE COURT: No.
MR. LEONARD: Okay.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Can you tell us whether or not you were aware of
your father being concerned about dogs leaving the property?
MR. PETROCELLI: Calls for hearsay, speculation, lack of foundation.
THE COURT: You may answer yes or no.
A. Yes.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) And did you -- tell us whether or not you know
if your father had a particular habit with regard to when he left
the property with his car in relation to that property?
A. Yes. We all did.
Q. What was that?
A. To, you know, pulling into Ashford gate, we have a clicker, so as
soon as we get in we usually close the gate. But going out of the
Rockingham gate, it's on a timer, so normally we would pull out,
kind of wait there until the -- till the gate closed and then pull
out, to make sure the dogs wouldn't get out.
Q. Okay. I want to go back to the morning of June 13 now. After the
phone call with Kathy Randa, did you at any point talk to your
father?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. Tell us how that --
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, hearsay.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Tell us how that --
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Tell us, first of all, when the first
conversation you had with your father occurred?
A. I believe that my father called after Kathy and I know that they
had a conversation with my father; I can't remember if he called or
if they called them.
Q. Okay. When you say them, who are you referring to?
A. Vannatter and Lange.
Q. Okay.
A. And at that point, I had to -- I had a discussion with Lange
about the kids and getting the kids and picking them up. I told them
that I just couldn't do it by myself, I would have to call somebody,

A.C., to help me. So as I was walking to my room to change, 'cause I
was in my pajamas, the phone rang again, and I picked up the phone,
it was my father, and I had a discussion with him then.
Q. Tell us what you recall of that discussion?
MR. PETROCELLI: Hearsay, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. LEONARD: Can we approach?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the
reporter.)
MR. LEONARD: This is in direct rebuttal or it's meeting directly the
argument this guy's going to make for sure
(indicating to Mr. Petrocelli). Based on the testimony from the
passenger Partridge on the plane ride back that Simpson knew some of
the details, they already started off -- details of the murders,
they already started out by putting Phillips on the stand to suggest
that he never said -- gave any details and that O.J. didn't even ask
what happened, if you recall, that Phillips says he didn't say, "How
did it happen." And they then put Partridge on to say O.J. -- this
is -- there were two people, and so this is -- this is absolutely
relevant and absolutely a fair response to that.
MR. PETROCELLI: There's no impeachment exception to the hearsay
rule. If it's hearsay, it's hearsay, regardless of the purpose. He
can't offer admission statements of his own client. They're
self-serving. He can't put witnesses on the stand to -- I can
offer in statements of O.J. Simpson. You can't get on the stand and
put in statements of O.J. Simpson by your witnesses. These are
clearly hearsay. They're not covered by an exception to the hearsay
rule.
MR. LEONARD: It goes to Simpson's state of mind. They're trying to
suggest consciousness of guilt, that he's talking to Partridge and
he knows some details and --
MR. PETROCELLI: Wait. And you could have asked him those questions
yesterday.
MR. LEONARD: And they're trying to cut off our proof. That's what
they're trying to do here.
MR. PETROCELLI: It's self-serving hearsay.
THE COURT: How do you get around self-serving hearsay?
MR. LEONARD: It's not offered for the truth; therefore, it's not
hearsay.
MR. PETROCELLI: It is absolutely offered for the truth, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It's not offered for the truth of it?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, we have a right to elicit this. They have
-- we've had a lot of state of mind exceptions to the hearsay rule
floating around here.
THE COURT: Who's the state of mind?
MR. LEONARD: Simpson's state of mind. It's going to the state of
mind. The full conversation will be that when he said, what
happened, what happened, now, obviously, that shows a consciousness
of innocence; he doesn't know what happened, number one. And number
two, she tells him what she knows, which explains how Partridge --
how he could know that to tell Partridge, okay. And that's in direct
rebuttal to hearsay of Simpson. And number three -- I can't remember
right now, but I know -- I know it was a good point. Oh, yeah. I can
elicit -- I'm sure you're going to allow me to elicit his demeanor
during the call and his reaction.
THE COURT: She could see his demeanor through the phone?
MR. LEONARD: She could hear his reaction, his verbal demeanor, she
could hear how he reacted.
MR. PETROCELLI: This is all hearsay.
MR. LEONARD: That isn't hearsay. That's definitely offered, his
reaction to it is not
(sic) offered.
MR. PETROCELLI: Her statements -- her statements are not her
statements. He can elicit what she said, not what he said.
MR. LEONARD: Well, that's really -- I mean, you have the completion
doctrine.
MR. PETROCELLI: That's been the rule of the law for a long time.
That's what we've been observing in this courtroom; otherwise, you
could put in --
THE COURT: It's self-serving hearsay. It's also evidence of
cooperation. Overruled.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence
of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You were -- we were discussing your conversation
with your father that morning when he called in to the house. Tell
us what you recall of that discussion, please.
A. He had called and he had said, "Arnelle, what's going on?" I had
said, "Dad, I don't know. It's crazy. I'm scared. They tell me I
have to go pick up the kids." He had said, "What's going on? What's
going on?" And I said, "I don't know. They just keep saying that
Nicole is dead and that there was somebody else with her."
Q. Now, can you tell us what your father's reaction was when you
told him that -- when you gave him that information, his demeanor,
at least, you could tell from his voice, from what he said.
A. Shocked, very upset, sad. Confused.
Q. Now, moving to one final area. In the month preceding Nicole's
death, did you ever hear your father complain that Nicole was
keeping the children from him?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Hearsay, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That's sustained.
MR. LEONARD: Can we approach?
THE COURT: No.
MR. LEONARD: I don't have any further questions. CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY
MR. PETROCELLI:
Q. Morning, Ms. Simpson.
A. Good morning.
Q. Let's get this business of the dog out of the way.
MR. PETROCELLI: Can you put up the exhibit?
MR. FOSTER: 1984.
(Exhibit 1984 displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) That's Chachi, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that the Ashford gate or the Rockingham gate?
A. It looks like the Ashford gate, Ashford gate.
Q. And the gate is open, right?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Now, it is true that as of June 12, Chachi was badly arthritic?
Correct?
A. True.
Q. And it is also true, that as of June 12, it was not Chachi's
habit to run outside when the gates opened, correct?
A. No.
Q. Correct?
A. No.
Q. It's not?
A. Not correct.
Q. It was his habit?
A. Sometimes.
Q. But generally, he did not run outside of the gate when the gates
opened, correct?
MR. LEONARD: It's a she --
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Excuse me. Generally, Chachi did not run
outside when the gates opened?
A. Sometimes, she did.
Q. But again, generally, she did not, correct?
A. Generally . . . correct.
Q. Okay. And, in fact, when you came home that evening, one o'clock
in the morning, June 13 --
A. Yes.
Q. -- you came up Ashford, approached the Ashford gate, and made a
left into the Ashford driveway, right?
A. True.
Q. And Chachi didn't run outside, right?
A. No. But then, also, when I pulled in, I stopped and waited for
the gate to close, so she wouldn't have a chance to run out.
Q. Nothing unusual happened and you didn't see the dog running
outside toward the gate, correct?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. I object to that. He appears to be reading
from the deposition, not an inconsistent statement.
THE COURT: He can posture however he wants.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Is that correct?
A. Can you repeat the question, please.
Q. Yeah. When when you came in that evening, nothing unusual
occurred with regard to Chachi, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And Chachi was the only dog on the property on that
evening, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Now, let's talk a little bit about -- let's talk a little
bit about the layout here of the property. You lived, Ms. Simpson,
in these rooms back here, where it says "Arnelle's room," right?
A. Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: The exhibit number is what, here?
MR. FOSTER: 116.
MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me. 116. Right.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) And there's a door -- these are French doors
that go into the main residence, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is -- there's a door here at the end. In fact, we just
saw the picture of it. That doesn't have the lock on the outside,
right?
A. True.
Q. And that's a door that you use frequently, and used when you were
living there in June of 1994, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And, in fact, that's the quickest way, now, to get into the
house. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And your normal procedure would be to go to that door, and if it
was not locked, you would go inside that door, right?
A. Depending on what time of the day it is, yes.
Q. And if the door is locked, then you're out of luck and have you
to go all the way around to the front, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And if the door is not locked, you can go in, right?
A. True.
Q. Now, there's no alarm pad on the outside of this door, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So you don't know when you're about to open the door, whether or
not the alarm is on, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, if you open that door and the alarm is on, you hear a
beeping sound, and you have a certain amount of time to go and
deactivate that alarm, right?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object. There is absolutely no foundation
for that question. It's beyond the scope and it misstates the
evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: Repeat the question, please.
MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah.
(The reporter read the record as follows:)
Q. Now, if you open that door and the alarm is on, you hear a
beeping sound, and you have a certain amount of time to go and
deactivate that alarm, right?
A. I'm saying that there is no -- the alarm goes off automatically.
There's no time for me to run to turn the alarm off. I -- I -- I
have to do it immediately.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Do you remember giving testimony at the
criminal trial?
A. Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'd like to -- I'm going to look at page 35698, Mr.
Leonard. Reading from the top of the page:
Q. There's an alarm sensor for the rear door, isn't there?
A. Yes.
Q. And that alarm sensor has a 40 second delay, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So if you enter through the rear door, you have 40 seconds to
get to a key pad to disarm the alarm, correct?
A. Yes. When -- you gave that testimony under oath in the criminal
case -- do you remember that?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, on the morning of June 13, when you were awakened by the
police officers -- By the way, Detectives Vannatter and Lange, they
treated you well that morning, right?
A. Yeah.
Q. You had no complaint?
A. No.
Q. They didn't ransack your room, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. They didn't ransack the house or do anything like that, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, when you -- when they came to your room, obviously, seeing
police officers or police detectives early in the morning, that must
have been frightening for you, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were confused and frazzled and frightened, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And after you left the room, your purpose in mind was to
try to locate your father, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you took with you some keys, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you had a phone book that was in your car, in the Saab?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, in order to walk from your room with the detectives,
you have to walk past that rear door, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And then walk all the way around to the front, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, it is your testimony that you did not go into the rear door,
right?
A. I did not.
Q. It's also your testimony that you didn't even check to see if it
was locked or unlocked, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So you had no idea whether it was locked or unlocked at that
particular point in time; is that your testimony?
A. Yeah. Because only -- at 5:30 in the morning, the alarm would be
on. It would be my natural instinct to go to the front door.
Q. But you didn't check?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You didn't know at that point in time, when you were walking past
the rear door, whether the alarm was on or off?
A. I assumed it was on.
Q. You didn't know?
A. I assumed that it was on.
Q. I know you assumed it. But you didn't know for a fact, right?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. All right. And it's your testimony that when you were first told
by some of the detectives about Nicole's death, you would already be
inside of the house and had come out, on your way to the car, right?

A. No.
Q. And it was on your way to the car that you were informed of
Nicole's death?
A. True.
Q. After you had been inside, right?
A. True.
Q. So the sequence of event is, you went inside the house, came out;
and then, on your way to the car, is when you learned about Nicole?
A. Actually, on our way from the car, back into the house.
Q. Back into the house?
A. Yes.
Q. Having already been in the house?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And before then, you didn't know anything about Nicole
have been killed?
A. No.
Q. And when you were outside, on your way back into the house, and
when you were first told by the detectives about it, you were very,
immediately and visibly, shaken and upset?
A. Most definitely.
Q. In terms of your schedule that week, Ms. Simpson, as I understand
it, your father was out of town Tuesday through Friday night?
A. Correct.
Q. And you slept over a girlfriend's house Friday, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you didn't see your father Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or
Friday, correct?
A. I don't -- it's hard for me to say during the week, no.
Q. Well, when he was out of town?
A. Yeah.
Q. And you didn't come back to Rockingham Friday night, right?
A. True.
Q. And on Saturday, you came back to Rockingham, and then you left
and went out with some girlfriends, and came back and spent most of
the time in your room, right?
A. Came home -- I didn't come home until Saturday evening, I guess.
Then I stayed home for the rest of that evening.
Q. And your father was out Saturday evening, and you didn't see him
Saturday evening?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Then you got up the next morning, and by the time you left the
house -- it was to go to see a girlfriend -- it was around noontime,
right?
A. No. I went to church Sunday morning.
Q. Right. Then came back?
A. Yes.
Q. Then you left about noontime, I think?
A. Yes.
Q. And you didn't see your father that morning, either?
A. No.
Q. You were gone all day Sunday and did not return until, as you've
said, sometime around 1:00 in the morning, right?
A. True.
Q. So you really hadn't seen your father in a long time, right?
A. Yeah.
Q. And you hadn't spoken to him in that while?
A. Correct. Correct.
Q. It's also true that, as of the moment the police officers
awakened you Monday morning, June 13, you had no idea where your dad
was, right?
A. I didn't -- no, I didn't know his whereabouts.
MR. PETROCELLI: I have nothing further. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. LEONARD:
Q. Following up on Mr. Petrocelli's last question, you knew your
father was out of town?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Leading
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you -- did you not know that your father was
out of town?
A. I knew he was going to be in and out of town. I didn't know
exactly where.
Q. Was it or was it not a planned trip, to your knowledge?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Leading, lacks foundation, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I knew that he was going out of town.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Okay. Now, you were shown some testimony from
the criminal trial with regard to this issue of the delay on the
alarm?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that -- were you incorrect at the criminal trial?
A. What I was trying to relay was that, when you turn on the alarm,
there is a delay.
Q. So when you leave, there's a delay?
A. Exactly.
Q. That's the state now and it was the state then?
A. True.
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Is there any question in your mind that you
entered through the front door and went around the north side of the
house?
A. It's my normal practice, like, during the week, if Gigi is home,
to go through the back door. If I know on the weekend that she's not
there, it is my practice to go to the front door, either at night or
in the morning.
Q. That's what you did that morning?
A. Exactly.
MR. LEONARD: I don't have any further questions.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. PETROCELLI:
Q. Now, in the criminal trial, when you were asked about this
40-second delay, you were specifically asked about entering through
the rear door and disarming the house -- disarming the alarm from
the inside of the house, correct?
A. Repeat that.
Q. You were specifically asked, when you answered the question about
the 40-second delay about entering the house through the rear door
and disarming the alarm from the inside of the house, correct, not
arming it when you leave the house, but this disarming it when you
enter the house. That was your testimony in the criminal trial?
A. You're asking me that?
Q. Yes. That was what you were asked and those were the answers that
you gave, right?
A. I'm confused. Please bear with me.
Q. Okay. No problem.
MR. PETROCELLI: Can you put this on the Elmo, Steve.
(Copy of criminal trial testimony displayed on the Elmo screen.)
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Can you see that, Ms. Simpson?
A. Yes, I can.
Q. Okay. And those were the questions and answers that you gave at
the criminal trial?
(Witness reviews transcript.)
Q. And you see the reference to the maid's room?
A. Um-hum.
Q. Now, outside the maid's room, where the laundry room is, that's
on the outside of the inside of the house?
A. Yes.
Q. And going to that key pad, when you enter the rear door, if the
alarm is on, you can disarm the alarm from the key pad on the inside
of the house that's near the maid's room, right?
A. That room or the front door.
Q. Or the front door?
A. Yes.
Q. In fact, there's one upstairs?
A. Yes.
MR. LEONARD: Object. Beyond the scope. He is now talking about a
different door.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) So if you enter through the rear door, you
have 40 seconds to get to a key pad to disarm the alarm, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the maid's room has a key pad in it for the alarm, right? Not
in the maid's room, but just outside it?
A. Yeah.
Q. And what you were talking about is how you disarm the alarm from
the inside of the house when you enter through the rear door,
because the rear door has a 40-second delay on it, as you laid out
in your testimony in the criminal trial, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay.
MR. PETROCELLI: You can take that off, Steve. I have nothing
further. FUR
THER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. LEONARD:
Q. Ms. Simpson, when you testified in the criminal trial, did you
testify just as you did today, that you went around and went in the
front door?
A. Yes, I did.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you. No further questions.
MR. PETROCELLI: Nothing.
THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down.
MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, we have a number of exhibits to move into
evidence at this time. There's one remaining witness. We're close to
a stipulation with Mr. Lambert's request that he be put over until,
potentially, surrebuttal.
THE COURT: I don't see Mr. Lambert.
MR. P. BAKER: I know.
MR. PETROCELLI: He sent you a revised stipulation, asking to hear
back from you. Do you have it?
MR. P. BAKER: I do not have the stipulation. Correct.
MR. BAKER: Other than the stipulation and these exhibits, the
defense rests, Your Honor.
MR. PETROCELLI: Reserve on the exhibits, as they've reserved on
ours.
THE COURT: Okay. Ten-minute recess.
MR. BAKER: Do you want us to read these in?
THE COURT: Whenever you want to do it.
MR. BAKER: I don't know.
THE CLERK: We need to read them in if there are any objections or
anything.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm not sure what they are. Why don't you read them,
and we'll let you know.
MR. P. BAKER: Ready Gina?
THE REPORTER: Yes.
MR. P. BAKER: 835, 847, 859, 860, 862, 878, 887, 891, 892, 901, 905,
911, 915, 918, 924, 925, 926, 939, 943, 955, 987, 992, 1025, 1174,
1178, 1180, 1187, 1248, 1279, 1281, 1303, 1321, 1324, 1342, 1349,
1350, 1352, 1353, 1359, 1360, 1362, 1366, 1367, 1368, 1375, 1376,
1422, 1436, 1532, 1730, 1798, 1869, 1870, 1877, 1885, 2024, 2038,
2040, 2046. 2049 is not identified on the record, but it was
referenced during Dr. Lee's testimony by a videotape. 2100, 21 --
2104, 2105, 2106, 2107, 2108, 2130, 2131, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135,
2136, 2146, 2147, 2166, 2249, 2253, 2263, 2266, 2267, 2276, 2277,
2278, 2279, 2280, 2283, 2307, 2308, 2314, 2315, 2316, 2318, 2319.
THE COURT: Okay. Subject to objection, they're all received.
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 835 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 847 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 859 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 860 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 862 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 878 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 887 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 891 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 892 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 901 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 905 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 911 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 915 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 918 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 924 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 925 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 926 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 939 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 943 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 955 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 987 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 992 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1025 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1174 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1178 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1180 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1187 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1248 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1279 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1281 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1303 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1321 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1324 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1342 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1349 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1350 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1352 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1353 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1359 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1360 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1362 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1366 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1367 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1368 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1375 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1376 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1422 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1436 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1532 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1730 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1798 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1869 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1870 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1877 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1885 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2024 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2038 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2040 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2046 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2049 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2100 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2104 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2105 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2106 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2107 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2108 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2130 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2131 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2132 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2133 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2134 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2135 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2136 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2146 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2147 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2166 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2249 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2253 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2263 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2266 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2267 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2276 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2277 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2278 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2279 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2280 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2283 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2307 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2308 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2314 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2315 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2316 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2318 was
received in evidence.)
(The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2319 was
received in evidence.)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, ten minutes' recess. Don't talk
about the case. Don't form or express any opinions.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, we have been informed that a couple of
witnesses are proposed by the plaintiffs in their rebuttal case. One
is Dennis Fung. We would object to Mr. Fung being recalled by the
plaintiffs in rebuttal. Anything that we put into evidence through
Mr. Fung while he was on the stand last week, they had the
opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Fung in the courtroom. And in our
view -- I mean they then, you know, in my opinion woodshed him, they
get him in here, in the jury room, and then now they want to recall
him, I guess, to change some of his testimony. Well, regardless of
what they want to recall him for, every item that we opened up when
he was here last week, they had an opportunity to cross-examine him
and fully cross-examine him, and that's their opportunity. They
can't now come back, and in my view of rebuttal evidence, in the
case and try to additionally put on new evidence. And well, it's not
new evidence. It's to alter evidence that he's already put on. And I
think that is inappropriate rebuttal and ought not be allowed. No. 2
is the same situation. They told us they want to put on Leslie
Gardner. Leslie Gardner was their witness. We haven't put on one bit
of evidence about Leslie Gardner, who you may recall was the
equipment person for the exercise video, and we haven't put on any
evidence relative to the clothing or anything else concerning the
clothing, what was at the exercise video and et cetera. And hence,
we would object to anything about Leslie Gardner especially since we
heard that they wanted to put her on today, and we are required to
get three days notice like throughout the trial, and we just heard
about this one, I believe it was this morning.
MR. P. BAKER: Last night.
MR. BAKER: Last night. We would object to her going on, in any
event, today. I think she ought to be precluded in her intent. This
has to stop sometime. You can't put on witnesses and then say we're
going to change this testimony and change that testimony. The idea
-- they had full opportunity to examine Leslie Gardner. They had
full opportunity to examine Dennis Fung. We would object to those
two witnesses.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, yesterday Mr. Simpson testified that
Leslie Gardner did not give him any cotton-type sweat suit outfits
at any time in connection with the exercise video. And she will be
called to impeach him on that point. It's a very critical point.
They are taking the position, contrary to Ms. Gardner's testimony in
our case, that she provided him cashmere. She did not provide him
cashmere. She acquired a cashmere suit, returned it, and gave Mr.
Simpson some other items including cotton. And she will so testify.
And it's directly responsive to his testimony yesterday, and I
didn't even hear the testimony until about 4:15. Immediately when
Mr. Simpson stepped off the stand, I told Mr. Baker that we were
calling Leslie Gardner. We've contacted Ms. Gardner. The only time
she's available to testify this week is this afternoon. We're going
to have her on for literally three minutes, five minutes tops. And
I've just given you the offer of proof as to -- And by the way, this
is important because they're going to argue that the jury -- that
Leslie Gardner testified that she provided cashmere clothing and
she did not so testify. Secondly, as to Dennis Fung, they're making
this argument, frankly a new argument now, that the Bundy glove is
planted, and they tried to elicit some testimony from Mr. Fung that
there was a hole in this -- in the glove that was in the photograph,
and the glove here in court does not have a hole, and create this
real sinister mystery. We are going to call several witnesses that
have been identified several days ago to rebut that assertion. It's
as simple as that. They have the burden of proof on this planting
issue.
THE COURT: What are you calling Mr. Fung for?
MR. PETROCELLI: To rebut that assertion. He will provide testimony
in regard to his observations of the glove; the photograph. He's had
more time to study the photograph. And we have photographers coming
in and we have Mr. Matheson coming in. This was a photograph put in
front of Mr. Fung for the first time. He had never seen it before,
never. Mr. Baker asked some very strident, leading questions, and
there was some confusion from Mr. -- testimony from Mr. Fung in
regard to that photograph, and we want to set the record straight.
We don't want the jury to be misled in any way, shape or form.
They're trying to take the position, Your Honor, that that glove
that was here in court and that glove that was there in the
criminal court is not the same glove found at the murder scene; a
preposterous assertion. We need to make sure we set the record
straight on that. Again, Mr. Fung's testimony would be very, very
brief. There's no prejudice at all and this is rebuttal to their
argument of planting. I don't even understand why they think that
Dennis Fung, just because he previously testified in our case, can't
come back. They called him. We're entitled to call other witnesses
back in regard to the topics that they raised.
MR. BAKER: Well, Mr. --
MR. PETROCELLI: We're talking about very short witnesses. In fact,
our rebuttal case should be concluded by Thursday.
MR. BAKER: I'm underwhelmed, No. 1, by their assertion that because
it's short that means it should come in. The point is that whatever
Mr. Fung said on the witness stand they had a right to cross-examine
him right then. They had the opportunity to cross-examine him right
then and they did cross-examine him right then. I asked him no
leading questions. Page 59, I said:
(Mr. Baker read a portion of the transcript of Dennis Fung.)
Q. How did you, in your view, in looking at the gloves, did you
determine where the cuts were on those gloves, if any? We were --
we're talking about the gloves now?
Q. Yes, the gloves. Yes, sir. I switched to the gloves, sorry.
A. I did note when I got back to the laboratory some cuts on them.
MR. BAKER: That's what he testified to. That was not leading or
suggestive. That's what he testified to. Then we went into what he
said was the cuts on the left glove or the Bundy glove. Now, they
had opportunities to fully examine him at the time. They get these
police witnesses in here, they get them in the back room, they
woodshed them, and they come in here and say we want the jury to
know the truth. Nonsense, they don't want the jury to know the
truth. They want to win the lawsuit. And I would suggest the Leslie
Gardner issue -- he made a representation to this court that Mr.
Simpson said he was never given any cotton sweats at the exercise
video in May of 1994. That's untrue. What he testified was that he
never took any cotton sweats from there. There is no reason to
call her now except that they believe they left something out of
their case. It's not rebuttal to anything. I would suggest that
neither of these witnesses can be called.
THE COURT: All right. You may.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.
THE COURT: Bring in the jury.
MR. BAKER: What a shock.
MR. BAKER: And the three-day rule is out the window, too, Your
Honor, along with 2034 and Kennemer.
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
MR. GELBLUM: Plaintiffs call Sandra Claiborne. SANDRA CLAIBORNE,
called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and
testified as follows:
THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in
the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE WITNESS: I do.
THE BAILIFF: Please be seated.
THE CLERK: And would you please state and spell your name for the
record.
THE WITNESS: Sandra Claiborne, S-a-n-d-r-a C-l-a-i-b-o-r-n-e. DIRECT
EXAMINATION BY
MR. GELBLUM:
Q. Morning, Ms. Claiborne?
A. Morning.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. I am a forensic print specialist.
Q. Who do you work for?
A. For the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Police Department.
Q. How long have you had that job?
A. I've been with the police department for 12 and a half years.
I've been a forensic print specialist for seven and a half years.
Q. And were you working in that position then, on June 13, 1994?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Were you on duty that night?
A. Yes.
Q. The night of June 12, the morning of June 13?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. At some point did you get a call to go to a crime scene at 875
South Bundy Drive in Brentwood?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you recall what time you arrived?
A. Around 3:00 a.m.
Q. And do you recall what time you left?
A. Little after 8:00 a.m.
Q. Okay. And what work did you do at the crime scene?
A. The only thing that I did was I printed the front door, printed
the front side and the back side.
Q. Of the condominium?
A. Yes.
Q. And was that the last thing you did before you left?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. You left right after you finished that?
A. Shortly thereafter, yes.
Q. And how long did that take you to do?
A. Less than an hour.
Q. So you left a little after 8, and it took you a little less than
an hour, you were printing during that front work around 7 o'clock;
is that right?
MR. P. BAKER: Leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) What time would you estimate you started
printing the door?
A. Around 7:00 a.m.
Q. Now, what did you do between the time you arrived around 3:00
a.m. and around 7 a.m. when you started printing the door?
A. I was sitting inside one of the police vehicles.
Q. Were you sitting with anyone else?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Who was that?
A. The photographer Dieter Rokahr.
Q. Rokahr?
A. Yes.
Q. Is he also known as Rolf?
A. I don't know.
Q. You know him as Dieter?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay. Were you and he sitting in the car for a long time?
A. Yes. Yes, we were.
Q. Several hours?
A. Yes.
MR. P. BAKER: Leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) About how long were you in the car, do you have
any idea?
A. Several hours.
Q. What were you waiting for?
A. Waiting for one of the investigating officers to tell us to start
working.
Q. At some point did a detective come to the car?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And did the detective ask Mr. Rokahr to come into the scene, into
the crime scene?
A. Yes. He went in before I did.
Q. Is that the normal -- is that normal for the photographer to go
in first?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. About how long before -- am I right that you went into the crime
scene around 7?
A. Yes.
Q. And about how long before you went in to the crime scene did Mr.
Rokahr go into the crime scene to take pictures?
A. No more than 20 to 30 minutes.
Q. So if you went in around 7, he would have gone in around what
time?
MR. P. BAKER: Leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Between 6:20, 6:40, somewhere around there.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And did you see him come back to the car after
that?
A. No, I don't recall.
Q. Okay. Do you recall whether it was light outside when Mr. Rokahr
went into the crime scene for the first time?
A. Yes, it was light.
Q. Okay. I want to show you Exhibit 1388.
MR. GELBLUM: Is this 1388?
MR. FOSTER: Yes.
(Exhibit 1388 displayed.)
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Can you see that from there?
A. Bring it a little closer.
MR. PETROCELLI: Put it up against the TV.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) I'll put it here. Can you see it?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. It's been testified to that these are the first photographs
that Mr. Rokahr took at the crime scene, around the crime scene, and
then the last -- inside the crime -- the last two inside the crime
scene. Do you recall, as you can see in some of these pictures, the
sky getting light as you were sitting with Mr. Rokahr before he went
in?
MR. P. BAKER: Leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Do you recall it getting light before Mr. Rokahr
went in?
MR. P. BAKER: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled. That's what she testified to.
A. Yes, I recall it getting light.
MR. GELBLUM: I have no further questions.
THE COURT: Cross-examine.
MR. P. BAKER: Ms. Claiborne, are you a fingerprint specialist,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You testified that you arrived at about 3 o'clock?
A. Yes.
Q. The Bundy crime-scene log says 3:55. You would agree with that,
would you not?
A. That's incorrect. It should say 2:55.
Q. Would you like to look at Exhibit 829. That's your name.
MR. P. BAKER: Do you want to see it, Mr. Gelblum?
MR. GELBLUM: I'm sorry?
MR. P. BAKER: Do you want to see it?
MR. GELBLUM: No.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) 8 -- I'm losing my mind. 829, what time does it
say you signed in there?
A. It's 0255.
Q. That's a 2?
A. That's a 2. Yes, it is.
Q. That's not a 3?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Mr. Rokahr, was he there when you arrived?
A. Pardon?
Q. Was Mr. Rokahr already there when you arrived?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did you see Mr. Rokahr -- Strike that. How much time did you
spend with Mr. Gelblum before you came on the stand today?
A. Only about 10 minutes.
Q. Did Mr. Gelblum tell you that they kind of had a problem, they
had Mark Fuhrman pointing at a Bundy glove before he went to
Rockingham?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection.
MR. P. BAKER: If he asked her.
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Did he tell you that Mr. Rokahr had testified
that that picture was taken at night? Did he ever tell you that?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: I'll overrule that.
A. Yes, he mentioned that.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) He told that you Rolf Rokahr testified that
this picture was taken at night, correct?
MR. GELBLUM: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Okay. You didn't see Mr. Rokahr take the
overalls at Bundy, did you?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Did you see Mr. Fuhrman wearing a jacket at 875 South Bundy?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Did you see Mr. Fuhrman lift up the Bundy
glove?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, asked and answered, ask that these questions
be stricken.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Did you ever see Mark Fuhrman at 875 South
Bundy?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Did you tell Mr. Gelblum that?
A. I'm not sure if I mentioned that or not.
Q. Did he ever ask you, Ms. Claiborne, did you see Mark Fuhrman
there?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) It's relevant whether or not she saw this photo
taken.
THE COURT: You can ask her whether that was photo was taken.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Did you see Mark Fuhrman pointing to a glove
when that photograph was taken?
A. I don't recall that.
Q. You never saw that photograph, Ms. Claiborne, right?
A. That particular photograph, no.
Q. Okay. And you never saw the overalls taken prior to that picture,
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you never saw Mr. Rokahr take any photos of the sidewalk
going south on Bundy, did you?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. No.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) And if Mr. Rokahr testified that he took these
pictures before that, you wouldn't have any reason to disagree with
him, would you?
MR. GELBLUM: I'm sorry. Can I have the question read back.
THE COURT: You may.
MR. P. BAKER: I'll reask it.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) If Mr. Rokahr testified he took the overalls
before he took this picture of Mark Fuhrman, you wouldn't have any
reason to disagree with him, would you?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You --
THE COURT: That's not hearsay.
MR. GELBLUM: He's asking her to comment about the hearsay.
THE COURT: Excuse me.
MR. GELBLUM: It's also argumentative, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'll sustain that.
MR. P. BAKER: They can just keep throwing up whatever they want.
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, ask that be stricken.
THE COURT: It's stricken.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You never saw Rolf Rokahr take the pictures of
the Ferrari, did you?
A. No.
Q. You never saw him stand out in front of the Bundy condominium and
take the pictures, did you?
A. No.
Q. You never saw him take the pictures directly after that, of the
walkway, did you?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. And did Mr. Gelblum ever ask you if you saw Rolf Rokahr do that?
A. I don't believe he did.
Q. He never asked you?
A. No.
Q. You don't know when this picture was taken, Exhibit 13 -- it's
Criminal 1328?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You never looked through the lens when Rolf
Rokahr took photos, did you?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, relevance.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You have no idea when that photograph was
taken, do you?
A. No, I don't.
Q. And you would agree, Ms. Claiborne, that the photographer who
took the photo may have a better idea of when this photo was taken
as opposed to you, correct?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Ms. Claiborne, are you a latent fingerprint
specialist, correct?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. You assisted in the collection of 17 latent prints at 875 South
Bundy?
MR. GELBLUM: Objection, outside the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Not one matched O.J?
MR. GELBLUM: Outside the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained. Excuse me. Jury to disregard that.
MR. P. BAKER: I'll take her and call her back.
THE COURT: I don't care what you do. But you know better than that.
MR. P. BAKER: I'll reopen on that one issue.
THE COURT: You can reopen.
MR. P. BAKER: Okay.
Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You know that 17 fingerprints were taken at the
Bundy scene, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Not one matched O.J. Simpson, correct?
A. To my knowledge, no.
MR. P. BAKER: Nothing further.
MR. KELLY: Can I ask some questions regarding the aspects of
fingerprints, Judge? They just --
THE COURT: Why don't you agree among yourselves who's going to go
next.
MR. GELBLUM: Give us a minute, Your Honor.
THE CLERK: For the record, the criminal exhibits referred to as 1328
is actually Defense Exhibit 1310.
MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, may I, to clarify, ask questions about the
photograph --
THE COURT: Excused.
MR. GELBLUM: May I ask questions about the photograph and Mr. Kelly
ask questions about the fingerprints since they were allowed to
reopen and that was his area.
MR. P. BAKER: I object to them telling me --
THE COURT: Go ahead.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Ms. Claiborne, is there any doubt whatsoever in
your mind that it was light out when the Detective asked Mr. Rokahr
to come and take pictures?
MR. P. BAKER: Objection, she doesn't know if it was the first time.
She has no independent knowledge of that.
MR. GELBLUM: It's a question.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection as to form. There's no
evidence to show that she was there when any question was asked of
Mr. Rokahr for the first time.
Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Ms. Claiborne, were you with Mr. Rokahr from the
time you got there until when he was called into the crime scene?
A. The majority of the time, yes.
Q. Okay. Did you see any detective other than -- about 6:30, I think
you said, 6:20 to 6:40, approach and ask him to come to the crime
scene to take pictures?
A. No, I didn't see anyone.
Q. Other than around 6:20 to 6:40?
A. That's correct.
Q. That's the time you saw anybody come and ask him to take
pictures?
A. Yes.
Q. And you did not see him return after that?
A. No, I didn't see him return.
Q. And it was light out when -- the time you saw somebody come and
ask him to take pictures?
A. Yes, it was.
MR. GELBLUM: Okay. I have nothing further. FUR
THER DIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. KELLY:
Q. Morning, Ms. Claiborne.
A. Good morning.
Q. You were there the morning of the 13th regarding lifting
potential fingerprints from the crime scene; is that correct?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Did you, in fact, lift 17 fingerprints from 875 South Bundy that
morning?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Were you present there while someone else did?
A. No, I wasn't present the entire time. I left after 8 o'clock that
morning.
Q. Okay. Did there come a time, though, that you gained access to a
number of fingerprints that were lifted from that location?
A. Yes. I saw the prints, yes.
Q. Okay. There were 17 of them; is that correct?
A. Somewhere around that number. I don't have the paperwork in front
of me so I'm not sure.
Q. You remember there were some steps taken to determine whether
those prints could be matched up to certain individuals; is that
correct?
A. Yes. But I'm not responsible for any of that. I didn't do
anything with those prints.
Q. Okay. But you knew enough to know that none of those prints had
been definitively matched to Mr. Simpson?
A. That is correct.
Q. Were you also familiar with the fact that three of those prints
that had been lifted had not been eliminated as potential left hand
prints of Mr. Simpson?
MR. P. BAKER: Outside the scope, misstates the evidence, lack of
foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I don't know anything about those prints.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Well, you indicated you knew that they were not
definitively matched up to Mr. Simpson?
A. I knew -- I don't know the exact number that were not matched.
Q. Isn't it also a fact there were some prints that were potential
prints of Mr. Simpson's left hand also?
MR. P. BAKER: No foundation in light of her answer.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) By the way, would you agree with me that it would
be impossible for that individual wearing gloves to leave prints?
MR. P. BAKER: Argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Do you know who any of those prints were
definitely matched up to that were recovered from the residence?
A. I know there was some prints that were not identified to anyone.
Q. Okay. And do you know there were some prints that were, what we
call, partial prints that could not be definitively matched to
certain individuals?
MR. P. BAKER: No foundation.
THE COURT: If you know.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Partial prints?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Okay. And isn't it a fact that some of these partial prints could
not be eliminated as potential prints of Mr. Simpson's?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. And that three -- that some of these prints could not be
eliminated as potential left-handed prints of Mr. Simpson's; is that
correct?
MR. P. BAKER: Argumentative, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Is that correct?
A. It's correct.
Q. Okay.
MR. KELLY: I have no further questions. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. P. BAKER:
Q. You couldn't identify anybody as to those prints that you
couldn't identify, true?
A. No. I know there was some prints that could not be identified to
anyone.
Q. And they could match anyone on the planet, right?
A. Yes, they could.
Q. And not one matched O.J. Simpson, right, not one at 875 South
Bundy matched O.J. Simpson?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you never saw Mr. Rokahr take this picture, right?
A. No, I didn't see him take it.
Q. And you don't know what time of day this picture was taken,
right?
A. No, I can't say for sure what time it was.
MR. P. BAKER: Nothing further.
MR. KELLY: Nothing, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You're excused.
MR. KELLY: E.J. Flammer, Your Honor. E.J. FLAMMER, called as a
witness on behalf of Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and testified as
follows:
THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in
the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God~?
THE WITNESS: I do.
THE CLERK: Please be seated. Sir, if you would please state and
spell your name for the record.
THE WITNESS: E.J. Flammer. E., J., F, as in Frank, l-a-m-m-e-r.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. KELLY:
Q. Morning, Mr. Flammer.
A. Morning.
Q. How old are you?
A. 24.
Q. And what city do you currently live in?
A. Hamburg, New York.
Q. And is that a suburb of Buffalo?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. How long have you lived there for?
A. My whole life.
Q. And are you currently employed?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And where are you employed?
A. I'm employed at Bates Jackson Engraving Company.
Q. How long you worked there?
A. Since the summer of '92.
Q. In addition to your -- you work there full time?
A. Yes.
Q. And in addition to your full-time employment there, do you have
any other profession that you engage in also?
A. I -- yes, I do, I take pictures professionally as a freelancer on
the side.
Q. As a photographer?
A. Yes.
Q. And how many years have you been engaged in the photography
profession?
A. I have been taking pictures since my sophomore -- junior year in
high school.
Q. Up to and including the present?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, what I'd like to do -- by the way, did you attend college?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Where?
A. At Canisius College, Buffalo, New York.
Q. Did you graduate?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Are you taking any postgraduate studies?
A. Yes, I'm working on my Master's in Business Administration there
as well.
Q. Let me finish my question before you give your answers, okay, Mr.
Flammer.
A. Sure.
Q. Now, I want to draw your attention to September 26, 1993. Do you
recall where you were on that particular date?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Where was that?
A. I was at Rich Stadium.
Q. And for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what does Rich
Stadium serve as?
A. Rich Stadium is the home field for the Buffalo Bills.
Q. Professional football?
A. Professional football team.
Q. For what purpose did you happen to be at Rich Stadium on
September 26, 1993?
A. There were two reasons. The first reason was to take pictures for
the Monday Morning Quarterback Club as a promotional event that they
were having celebrating O.J. Simpson's 2,003 yards, the anniversary
of that date. There was a promotional picture to be done before the
game. I was also there to shoot the actual game itself for the
Buffalo Bills Report.
Q. Okay. You indicated you're 24 now?
A. Correct.
Q. So you'd have been 20, 21, at the time?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, why you, of any other photographers, why were you hired to
take these pictures for the Monday Morning Quarterback Club on this
day?
A. My father was the president of the Monday Morning Quarterback
Club.
Q. Okay. And what time did you arrive at the stadium that day?
A. I arrived around 10 o'clock in the morning.
Q. And what was your understanding of what those photos were to be
used for that day?
A. The photos were to be used for publication and just as a general
promotion for the event itself, to help sell tickets and things like
that.
Q. Okay. And what time did you arrive at the stadium?
A. 10 o'clock.
Q. And after your arrival there at Rich Stadium, did you have
occasion to see Mr. Simpson?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did you know Mr. Simpson by sight, prior to that day?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And how did you know him by sight?
A. I grew up in Buffalo. O.J. Simpson's a landmark around there.
Q. You have nothing against Mr. Simpson?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Now, in what context did you see Mr. Simpson that morning after
you arrived there at 10 a.m.?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. Under what circumstances did you see Mr. Simpson -- what happened
next after you got there and you saw Mr. Simpson?
A. We were -- I was taken to the field with the other members that
are -- that I was to take the pictures with, and Mr. Simpson
happened to be walking up towards the press box, and one of the
people in the picture --
THE REPORTER: Can you repeat that, please.
THE WITNESS: One of the people in the picture called Mr. Simpson
back to the field as he was walking up to the press box.
Q. Who was that individual that called out to Mr. Simpson?
A. Bill Munson.
Q. Okay. And when Mr. Simpson came back down to the field, did you
then take some photographs?
A. Yes, I did. There was a time when I set up the shot where --
lined the people up, the people in the picture, you know, did meet
Mr. Simpson, talk to him a little bit, shook his hand. They did give
him a Monday Morning Quarterback Club pin, which is --
Q. Try to speak up a little.
A. I'm sorry about that. They gave him a Monday Morning Quarterback
Club pin for the picture, which some of the other members of the
club were wearing at the time.
MR. KELLY: Can I have the next in order, please.
THE CLERK: 2320.
MR. KELLY: Okay. I'm sorry, did we get --
THE CLERK: 2320.
(The instrument herein described as a Monday Morning Quarterback
Club pin was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.
2320.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Mr. Flammer, I'm going to show you a button. Do
you recognize that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what do you recognize it as?
A. This is my Monday Morning Quarterback Club pin. I'm a member of
the club as well.
Q. Is that the same type of button you saw Mr. Simpson put on for
the photograph that day?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If you can just leave it there.
A. Sure.
Q. Okay. If I could have it back.
A. Sure.
MR. KELLY: Your Honor, if I could just pass this around while I
continue with my questioning also if that's all right.
THE COURT: You may.
(Pin is passed around to jurors.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, you indicated that you took a number of
photographs then with a group of people posing with Mr. Simpson; is
that right?
A. That is correct.
Q. And you recall who those other individuals were who were posing

A. Yes, I do.
Q. What were their names?
A. Bill Munson and Dennis Lynch from the Buffalo Bills were in the
picture. My father, Ed Flammer, who was the president of the
Quarterback Club, Jerry Flashner, and I believe Mike Lacata was the
other person in the picture with Mr. Simpson.
Q. Why were those other persons posing with Mr. Simpson?
A. They were members of the committee that were chosen to help
promote and to organize the dinner -- the dinner celebration that I
was taking the picture to promote.
Q. This dinner celebration was a commemorative for Mr. Simpson in
particular, was it not?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, how many pictures did you take of those individuals at that
time, did you shoot?
A. There were 30 pictures that were taken.
Q. And were those all group photos or what was the breakup?
A. They were not all group photos. The majority of them were group
photos, though, but there were three individual shots done as well
with Mr. Simpson and one other person.
Q. And what type of camera equipment did you use on that particular
day in taking those pictures?
A. It was a 35 millimeter camera, Canon T90, with a Vivitar 283
flash used to fill in the shadows, I used a 285 F4 zoom lens to
shoot this as well on 400 speed film color negative.
Q. Do you still have all that equipment in your possession that you
used that day to take those photographs?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you have it with you?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Can you just pull it up briefly so the ladies and gentlemen of
the jury can see that equipment.
(Witness complies, removes camera from bag and displays camera and
flash.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now -- if you could speak into the mike.
A. Okay.
Q. You're fading on us.
A. Sorry about that.
Q. Now, the way you have that equipment set up right now, is that
the way you utilized the equipment that day of September 26 of '93
in taking those 30 photos?
A. For the most part. If there was any change in it at all, it would
be the flash may have been tipped up a little bit just to bounce the
light to even out a little bit, but other than that...
Q. And how much time did you spend taking those 30 photographs?
A. If it was ten minutes it was a long time. It was not that long a
period of time.
Q. And what, if anything -- first of all, did you have film in the
camera when you started the shooting initially?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you have a new roll?
A. Yes, brand new roll.
Q. What did you do in terms of putting the film in the camera, first
of all?
A. The film was loaded in the camera as the shot was being set up,
as they say. And after I -- it popped off the first 27 pictures,
there was another roll that was loaded in because I had rewound the
first roll before the third person had spoken up and said they
wanted an individual shot of Mr. Simpson.
Q. Now, when you were done with the first 27 photos, what, if
anything, did you do with that roll of film that was in the camera?
A. The beginning part of the film, which is very common practice for
photographers, was torn off, just to indicate that that roll had
been -- so it doesn't get reshot during the course of the game. I
had a whole Bills game to shoot, which I would probably shoot close
to 10 rolls of film.
Q. What do you do after you do the tear?
A. The film was taken out, torn, and put into the front pocket of my
fanny pack.
Q. The fanny pack is something you were carrying with you that
entire day?
A. Correct.
Q. Put another roll in the camera?
A. Correct.
Q. Then what did you do?
A. Shot the other three pictures with Mr. Flashner and Mr. Simpson.
Q. And after you took those last three photos with Flashner and Mr.
Simpson, what, if anything, did you do then?
A. What I did was kind of turned the camera off and walked into the
photographer's locker room and just waited for the game to start.
Q. And did you utilize the rest of that film that had the initial 38
shots on it?
A. The rest of that roll was shot during warmups of the game.
Q. Do you recall who they were playing that day, by the way?
A. Miami Dolphins.
Q. Now, what did you do with that second roll of film when you were
done with it?
A. The same procedure. When the roll was complete, I used up -- the
leader was torn off, put into the front part of the fanny pack, and
a new roll loaded in.
Q. And what was the -- by the way, up to when that second roll was
completed, did you take other rolls of the game that day also?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, after the game, did there come a time that you took some
further steps with the film, those first two rolls that you utilized
that day?
A. Yes. The rolls were taken to Nova, N-o-v-a, Photo, which is a
professional lab that I would normally take my Bills film to on
Monday morning for processing.
Q. And that's what you did that Monday after the game?
A. Correct.
Q. And did you have any prints made of the negatives at that time?
A. Yes. I would have taken as requested -- Dennis Lynch from the
Bills was to take some 5-by-7's for people in the picture just kind
of that -- that you -- just a -- just a memento from that day. There
was six 5 by 7's that were made, distributed to Dennis Lynch, that
were all color, plus there was a black-and-white print made for
publication for the paper, the Buffalo Bills Report, which I was
working for.
Q. Now, you indicated you only made six prints that day at Nova; is
that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And the others were just left as negatives?
A. Correct.
Q. All right. I should say everything was left as a negative but you
only made six prints from all the negatives from the day before?
A. There was a seventh print made, this was a black-and-white. There
were seven; six color, one black-and-white.
Q. Now, with regard to the six prints that were made, what did you
do with them subsequently after they were made?
A. They were distributed to Dennis Lynch and he distributed them
from there.
Q. And you also indicated that through the -- a certain connection
of yours -- and in making these prints, you were to be paid for this
project, were you not?
A. That is correct.
Q. And did you happen to submit -- submit a bill to the Buffalo
Bills for the six --
A. Yes, the six 5-by-7's were billed to the Buffalo Bills directly.
Q. And did they pay that bill?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. To you?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. I'm going to ask you to identify this, first of all.
MR. BAKER: May I see it.
MR. KELLY: Before he sees it?
MR. BAKER: I mean that's customary, isn't it?
MR. GELBLUM: Well, I guess he'll go along with it.
(Mr. Kelly shows document to Mr. Baker.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) I'm going to ask you to look at both of those
items, Mr. Flammer.
A. Sure.
Q. Maybe you can identify it?
A. The first is the invoice, invoice number 2012, which has on it
two different items; the first would be the O.J. Simpson six 5-by-7
color prints, the second is another photo that I had taken at a
different date.
Q. And when did you make up that invoice for submission to the
Bills?
A. That was billed October 17 of '93.
Q. If I could see that again, please.
A. Sure.
Q. Is that what you were just referring to, Mr. Flammer?
A. Yes.
Q. The invoice you submitted to the Bills?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now --
MR. KELLY: If you could back it up.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And could you point to the part that describes --
well, first of all, the date up there, does that indicate the date
that you generated that invoice?
A. That is correct.
Q. Okay. And down below, where it says "Description" and it says
"5-by-7 Custom Color Prints" --
A. Um-hum.
Q. -- "O.J. Simpson" it says "Quantity."
MR. KELLY: If you could back off a little bit, Steve. Okay. Take it
across, left to right, Steve.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And it's got the rates at 6.95 per print; is that
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. The total for those six prints was 41.70; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And there's some other photos --
MR. KELLY: If you can go back and do the same thing, Steve.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Where we have quantity five, and 5-by-7 custom
color prints flag wavers, the rate, were those photos taken this
day?
A. I don't believe they were taken on the same day.
Q. Okay. They're not related to this --
A. No.
Q. -- promotional photography?
A. They're separate.
Q. Okay. And --
MR. KELLY: You can take that down, Steve.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And you also indicated there in front of you,
that you had been paid by the Bills for this job?
A. That is correct.
Q. And what is that you have in front of you there?
A. This is the check stub from the Buffalo Bills paying that
invoice.
Q. Okay. And what's the date on that?
A. The invoice date is on here of 10/17 and the date of payment is
11/23.
Q. Of what year?
A. '93.
Q. '93.
MR. KELLY: Can you back off a little first, Steve.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Is that the stub that had a check attached to it,
that was sent to you from the Bills as a result of the invoice
submitted?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
MR. KELLY: And if you could bring it a little closer, Steve.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) It shows the date. That's the date that that check
was issued; is that correct?
A. Correct.
MR. KELLY: And if you could back it off into the left a little
bit, Steve.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Invoice date 11/17/93, is that the date of your
invoice?
A. Yes.
MR. GELBLUM: 10/17.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) 10/17, I'm sorry. And 76.45 is the amount you
invoiced for that complete set of prints; is that right?
A. Yes.
THE CLERK: The invoice we marked 2321, and the check stub 2322.
(The instrument herein described as an invoice was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2321.)
(The instrument herein described as a check stub was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2322.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, Mr. Flammer, you indicated that on the 26th
of September, '93, you went into Rich Stadium to take these shots;
is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. And not just anybody is allowed to walk into Rich Stadium for
this purpose, are they?
A. No, they're not.
Q. What is it that enables you to get into Rich Stadium for
practicing your profession?
A. A field credential.
Q. Did you have a field credential for that day?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Ask you to take a look at this and see if you could identify that
for me?
A. Yes. That is my field credential for that game on the 26th.
Q. Does that reflect the date that it would be used on?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the date on there?
A. Sunday, September 26, 1993.
Q. Okay. Thanks.
THE CLERK: 2323.
(The instrument herein described as a field credential was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2323.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, Mr. Flammer, is that the pass you wore that
day that enabled you to get into Rich Stadium to take the photos
that we've been speaking of?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that the Bills-Dolphins game?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, in addition to those six prints you indicated you billed the
Buffalo Bills for, did you develop or have prints made from any
other negatives after that time that you took the photos?
A. There was one other negative that was developed in
black-and-white for the publication for the Buffalo Bills Report.
Q. And who developed that particular black-and-white print from the
negative?
A. I did, in my own darkroom.
Q. Where is that darkroom located?
A. In the basement of my house.
Q. And do you recall what particular frame of negative that print
was made from?
A. 7-
A.
Q. Okay. And did there come a time that you ever saw -- first of
all, what did you do with that black-and-white print after you made
it yourself?
A. The print was made in my darkroom and delivered to the editor of
the paper with the other prints from that game and for publication
going for the next month.
Q. And by the way, what did you do with the six prints that you
made?
A. Those were distributed to Dennis Lynch of the Bills.
Q. Did there come a time that you ever saw the reproduction of that
black-and-white print that you had made in your darkroom that day?
A. Yes. It appeared in the Buffalo Bills Report.
MR. KELLY: 2317.
(Counsel hands Exhibit 2317 to witness.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Do you recognize, first of all, that publication?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What do you recognize it to be?
A. This is the Buffalo Bills Report.
Q. Okay. And how was that received, first of all, by people who get
the Report?
A. It was a monthly publication that was mailed to subscription
holders.
Q. Are you a subscription holder?
A. Because I was photo editor, they put me on the subscription list.

Q. Did there come a time that you received that particular
publication?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the date of that particular publication?
A. November of 1993.
Q. And did that black-and-white print that you had made yourself, in
the basement of your own house, appear in that publication?
A. Yes.
Q. On what page does it appear on?
A. Of the first section, it appears on page 19.
Q. If you could hold that up for the ladies and gentlemen of the
jury.
(Witness complies.)
Q. And that's the photograph that was generated by you personally,
from negative 7-A in the basement of your house?
A. Right, correct.
Q. And did you actually ever have occasion to make a color print
from that same frame that appeared in that Bills Report?
A. I'm almost positive that there was the same frame that was the
six 5-by-7's or the five 5-by-7's that were distributed to Denny
Lynch.
Q. Going to ask you to look at an exhibit that was marked
previously as 2303 and see if you, first of all, recognize what that
is?
A. Yes. This is a color contact sheet from the negatives shot that
day.
Q. Does that reflect the negative 75 that was used to make the
photograph that appeared in the Bills Report publication?
A. Yes.
Q. If I can have that for a moment?
A. Sure.
MR. KELLY: Steve, hold onto that, please.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Is that part of the contact sheet of your original
negatives 75, that was used to generate the publication, Bills
Report?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Take it down, Steve.
(Mr. Foster removes contact sheet photographs from Elmo.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) I'm going to ask you to look at these photographs.
Now, in looking through those 30 photographs, do you recognize them?

A. Yes.
Q. What do you recognize them to be?
A. Those were the photos that I took that day.
Q. And were generated from the 30 negatives you had taken for the
Quarterback Club?
A. Yes.
MR. KELLY: Your Honor, if we could have those marked next in order
sequentially.
THE CLERK: How many are there?
MR. KELLY: There are 30, but --
MR. PETROCELLI: They're different sizes. Just mark them sequentially
all 30.
THE CLERK: Starting with 2324.
(The instruments herein referred to as photos were marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2324, 2325, 2326, 2327,
2328, 2329, 2330, 2331, 2332, 2333, 2334, 2335, 2336, 2337, 2338,
2339, 2340, 2341, 2342, 2343, 2344, 2345, 2346, 2347, 2348, 2349,
2350, 2351, 2352, 2353.)
THE CLERK: I'll have to mark them one by one, as you go. When you
refer to them, just mark the back of them.
Q. Now, Mr. Flammer, you had indicated that on the Monday after the
September 26, 1993 game, you had those six prints made, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you have any other -- actually, what did you do with all
the negatives after you had those six prints made on that Monday
after the game?
A. The negatives were put into a three-ring binder in the darkroom
at my house.
Q. And were they there for a number of years?
A. Yes.
MR. BAKER: That's leading, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And tell me, when was the next time you had
occasion to look at those negatives after that? Was it that Monday
you had put them in the three-ring binder in the basement?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell me when the next time you had occasion to look at
those negatives?
A. The negatives were then looked at December 27, 1996.
Q. And after you looked at those negatives, did you have occasion to
have prints made from them?
A. The prints that were made were for my agent, yes.
Q. And when were those prints made?
A. Those were made Monday, the 30th -- I believe it would have
been the 30th of December.
Q. Of December of what year?
A. '96.
Q. And when I asked you before when the next time you saw those
after 1993, you said December 27. What year was that?
A. 1996.
Q. Okay. And, by the way, did you make an affirmative effort to go
look for those negatives at this time.
MR. BAKER: This is leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KELLY: I'll withdraw the question.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, was December 30 of 1996 the first time you
generated prints from all 30 of those negatives?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall meeting with me on the afternoon of December
30, 1996?
MR. BAKER: I want to object. I want to approach.
THE COURT: You may.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the
reporter.)
MR. BAKER: First of all, Your Honor, I don't want -- I would object
to Mr. Kelly bringing up anything about any expert going into
Buffalo or Hamburg and looking at these photos, under 2034
(l) and 2034
(k), because now nothing in either of those sections' requirements,
when you want to designate an expert to -- additional expert
testimony, not one requirement in either of those code sections has
been adhered to, in addition to what I put on the record yesterday.
Second of all, I don't think that -- that Mr. Kelly can get out of
this witness his self-serving -- whatever he did with this witness.
And let me just say, this witness wouldn't talk to us. He wouldn't
say one word to us. He says, no, I won't even tell you whether or
not Scull's a friend, 'cause you got to talk to Mr. Kelly. So that
Mr. Kelly's apparently his lawyer. And I would object to him
discussing any conversations and hearsay conversations that took
place.
MR. KELLY: I was -- all I was going to ask him was if he provided me
with prints from those negatives on that date, an that was it.
THE COURT: Okay. You may ask that.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the
presence of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Mr. Flammer, on December 30, did you provide me
with some prints that had been generated from those 30 negatives?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall how many you gave to me at this time?
A. I believe it was four.
Q. Now, in addition to the prints you've provided me on December 30,
did you take any steps to market or sell these 30 prints?
A. Yes. I had hired an agent and spoken to a lawyer, who happens to
be a family friend, and is my cousin's husband.
Q. The lawyer is?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And the agent, when did you hire him to market these
photos?
A. That was the -- I actually didn't sign a formal agreement with
him until the evening of the 30th.
Q. When you had spoken?
A. I had spoken to him before that.
Q. And do you know whether or not these prints, or copies of these
prints, had been sold?
A. I had been advised by my attorney that the three major networks
have purchased -- purchased rights to them.
Q. Okay. And do you know for how much?
A. No, I do not.
Q. By the way, have you ever been contacted by any representatives
of Mr. Simpson's defense team?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Okay. Mr. Flammer, if you could, just look through here. And
would you be able to identify the print generated from negative 7A?
A. Yes.
Q. If you could, look on the back, sir.
A.
(The witness complies.)
(Mr. Kelly hands photo to counsel.)
MR. KELLY: It says 2329.
(Exhibit 2329 displayed on Elmo screen.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Is that a print generated from that same negative,
7A, that, again, that you made the black-and-white photo that was
used in the Buffalo Bills Report in November of 1993?
A. Yes.
THE COURT: What was that -- was this? You mark these as exhibits
now?
MR. KELLY: Excuse me. They have been marked.
THE COURT: What is this one?
MR. FOSTER: 2329.
MR. GELBLUM: It's one of the 30, Your Honor.
MR. KELLY: You can take that off, Steve.
(Exhibit 2329 removed from Elmo screen.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Mr. Flammer, you indicated that the first thing
you did after that shoot that day, on September 26, 1993, was
generate negatives; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And so, from September 26, 1993, have you maintained custody and
control of those negatives?
A. Yes.
Q. And, by the way, do you have those negatives here with you today?

A. Yes, I do.
Q. If you could, pull them out, please.
(Witness removes negatives from briefcase. )
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And what are you holding in your hands? If you
could, describe each one and hold them up for --
A. I'm holding two clear file storage -- plastic sleeving, holding
the group shots and two of the individual shots with Mr. Simpson on
this roll. And this roll over here would be the other three photos,
along with some warm-up shots of the Buffalo Bills.
Q. If I could see those for a minute, please.
(Witness hands negatives to Mr. Kelly.)
MR. KELLY: Will these show up on the Elmo?
(Negatives displayed on Elmo screen.)
MR. FOSTER: They might need to be taken out of the plastic.
MR. KELLY: Can you focus to make up the --
MR. BAKER: You going to mark these? If we're going to show them, I
want them marked.
THE COURT: Marked for identification only.
THE CLERK: 2354.
MR. KELLY: 23 --
THE CLERK: 54.
MR. KELLY: 2354.
(The instrument herein referred to as Negatives contained in plastic
sleeving of photographs taken by Mr. Flammer on September 26, 1993,
was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2354.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Looking at that 75, it appears sort of x-ray image
on the screen. Is that the negative we've been referring to that
generated the black and white that then appeared in the Bills
Report?
A. Yes.
MR. KELLY: If you could back off a little bit, show the entire
strip.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And that wasn't the first picture in the roll
taken, was it?
A. No, it was not.
Q. You have never taken any steps to separate that frame or any
frame from your other strips of negatives, have you?
A. No.
MR. KELLY: And if you could, just throw the other one up, too,
Steve. We'll mark that for identification, also.
MR. GELBLUM: 2355.
(The instrument herein referred to as Negatives contained in plastic
sleeving of photographs taken by Mr. Flammer on September 26, 1993,
was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2355.)
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) By the way, did you date those plastic pages on
the day you took the pictures?
A. Most of the time. I would, if I wasn't just marking the top of
the sleeve or the contents, it was probably a date put on it, as
well. That one does happen to be marked.
Q. Okay. And that was done at the time you put the sleeve --
A. Correct.
Q. And the other one had a date?
A. Yes.
Q. And you indicated you've had control over these the during the
time you've had them?
A. Yes.
Q. Pages of negatives; is that correct?
A. Yes.
MR. BAKER: Objection. Leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. Could I see the group photo one more time.
MR. FOSTER: 7?
MR. KELLY: Yeah. If you could, back off a little bit.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Mr. Flammer, could just identify the people in
here one more time. Who's that individual right there
(indicating)?
MR. BAKER: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled?
A. That is Bill Munson.
MR. KELLY: Back off a little bit, Steve.
Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And that individual right there
(indicating)?
A. That is Danny Lynch.
Q. Who is Danny Lynch?
A. Danny Lynch is the -- I believe he's the PR director for the
team.
Q. Okay. This individual right here?
A. That is Mike Lacata.
Q. Mr. Simpson?
A. Mr. Simpson.
Q. This individual right there?
A. Jerry Flashner.
Q. That gentleman right here?
(Indicating.)
A. Ed Flammer.
Q. Your father?
A. Yes.
Q. He's the one responsible for getting you this shoot?
A. Yes.
MR. KELLY: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Cross-examine. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. BAKER:
Q. Mr. Flammer, you testified that no one from Mr. Simpson's
attorneys tried to contact you. We just tried to contact you in the
hall, and you won't talk to us, would you?
A. That is correct.
Q. In other words, you've been informed by Mr. Kelly not to discuss
anything with any of the defense lawyers for Mr. Simpson; isn't that
true?
A. That is not true.
Q. Didn't you just tell my son, Phillip, that you couldn't talk even
-- you couldn't discuss even whether or not Mr. Scull was your
friend, because Mr. Kelly told you not to?
A. That is not true.
Q. You didn't just say that you had to discuss --
A. I did say Mr. Kelly is aware of that situation. I didn't know --
and he introduced himself as your son. He could have been anyone,
anybody from the media, or anyone along those lines.
Q. You follow the criminal trial, the Simpson criminal trial?
A. Not very closely.
Q. Now, your lawyer is Mike Kramer, is he not? Mark Kramer?
A. Mark Kramer.
Q. And Mark Kramer, on Monday, January 6, 1997, was on -- on
television, talking about these photos, right?
A. I can't say for sure, but. . .
Q. Now, did you tell your attorney that you, in fact, followed the
O.J. Simpson criminal trial closely?
MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay.
MR. PETROCELLI: We have a privilege.
MR. KELLY: Possess a privilege.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: I'll show the Court the transcript where the attorney
waived the privilege, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The attorney can't waive the client's privilege.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Is it your testimony that you didn't follow the
O.J. Simpson criminal trial at all, sir?
A. Not at all, but, I -- I mean, I did follow --
Q. And is it your testimony that these photos never came to mind,
from September of 1993, after the criminal trial started in June of
-- strike that -- in September of 1994, throughout the whole time
period, until December 28, 1996, right?
A. That is correct.
Q. And Mr. Scull, Harry Scull, Jr., he's a friend of yours, right?
A. Not really, not a friend.
Q. Well how many freelance photographers are there in Buffalo?
A. There are quite a few. I can't tell you an exact amount.
Q. How many of you get on the -- he's about your age?
A. He's a little bit older.
Q. He's about your age, though, isn't he?
A. Probably pretty close.
Q. And he was on the football field that day, was he?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. Did you see him only on the football field that day?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Did you ever check to see whether or not -- the log to determine
whether or not you and Mr. Scull had ever signed in for the
September 26, 1993 game was missing at Buffalo?
A. Yes, it is missing.
Q. And it's the only log that is missing in four years for the
sign-in of anybody that went on the field; isn't that right, sir?
MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You are aware that that's the only log that is
missing in four years of games for people who went on Rich Field,
'cause you tried to get that log, didn't you?
MR. KELLY: Same objection. Calls for hearsay; argumentative;
speculative; no foundation.
MR. BAKER: And any other known objection known to God or man.
MR. KELLY: Et cetera.
THE COURT: I'll sustain it only as to form. Sounds like two
questions.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Okay. We'll have one at a time.
MR. KELLY: Split objection in half.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You attempted to get the log to see if you could
prove that you were even there, right?
A. I did call, yes.
Q. And it is the -- is the only log missing in four years, and you
learned that in your request to try to find the log?
MR. KELLY: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
A. Yes.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And, by the way, sir, you got $41.70 for the first
six pictures, right?
A. That is correct.
Q. And can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury your
minimum asking price for these pictures?
A. I am not privy to that information.
Q. You told there's -- well, let me put it this way: Did your
attorney -- you testified we didn't contact you relative to these
photos; that is, anybody from Mr. Simpson's team. You don't know how
many times we contacted Mark Kramer to find -- to get the negatives,
correct?
A. He never mentioned it to me.
Q. You are well aware that, to determine whether or not a photograph
has been altered, if it can be determined at -- at all, you need the
original negatives. True?
A. True.
Q. And you have never allowed the defense to see any original
negatives. Correct?
MR. KELLY: Objection. Argumentative, and as to form, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question please.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Neither you nor your attorney has ever allowed
anybody from the defense side to view those negatives that you have
brought with you today; isn't that true, sir?
A. To my knowledge, we have not been contacted about that.
Q. You never allowed it, have you?
A. Never been contacted, sir.
Q. And you don't know if we contacted your lawyer and asked your
lawyer. He wouldn't return any calls, right?
MR. KELLY: Objection. Argumentative; no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you copyrighted this photograph, right?
A. In other words --
Q. Well, I think it's all on the back of every one of those.
A. Which photo is that?
Q. I don't know. It's just one of them.
A. Yeah.
Q. This is what I'm getting at.
A. Sure.
Q. And Rob McElroy, he's a freelance photographer around Buffalo,
isn't he?
A. That is correct.
Q. And his main job is not an agent; his main job is freelance
photographer?
A. Right.
MR. KELLY: Objection.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And this is what you have on the back of every
picture: A copyrighted photograph, not to be videotaped,
photographed, photocopied, or otherwise reproduced in any way,
analog, digital, and cannot be used by any person, organization, or
media without the permission of the photographer or his agent.
Right?
A. Yes.
Q. More at 11:00, huh? In any event, the agent is Rob McCelroy,
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. He just happens to be, at a happenstance, the same -- very same
agent of Harry Scull, Jr., right?
A. Correct.
Q. Just happenstance. And his main job isn't an agent at all, is it?

A. No.
Q. And he's the fellow that sold the Scull photograph to the
National Enquirer for $17,000 and gave Scull $5,000, right?
MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay; argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, do you know whether Mr. Rob McCelroy sold
that Scull photo to the National Enquirer for $17,000?
MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay again, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You signed a contract with Mr. Rob McCelroy,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you are well aware that you're probably going to get 40, 50
thousand bucks for those, rather than $41.70; isn't that right?
MR. KELLY: Objection. Argumentative. He indicated he has no
knowledge.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I have no idea.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Are you sitting here, sir, telling this jury, you
have no idea as to the amount of money that you have put down as a
minimum amount, you'll sell these photos?
A. That has not -- I have not been privy to any of this
information.
Q. Have you tried to insulate that from you because Mr. Kelly flew
up to Buffalo and told you, don't have any knowledge of how much
money, because Mr. Baker sure as heck will ask you how much money
you're getting for those photos.
MR. KELLY: Objection. Interesting, but argumentative, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did he tell you words to that effect, sir?
A. Can you repeat the question again?
Q. Yeah, sure. Did Mr. Kelly fly up to Buffalo from his hometown in
New York and tell you, look, isolate yourself from any dollar
amounts from these photos; isolate yourself. Don't know what you're
going to get from those photos, so that when Baker asks you a
question about the photos, you won't have the answer?
A. It was not direct from Mr. Kelly.
Q. Who's it directed from?
A. My attorney.
MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay; privilege.
THE COURT: I didn't get the last question, when you interrupted.
What's the last question?
(The reporter read the record as follows:
Q. Who's it directed from?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BAKER: Did we get the answer in, because I didn't -- did we get
an answer in?
THE COURT REPORTER: The answer was, "my attorney."
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So it was your attorney who told you not to know
how much money you're going to get from this?
A. I don't know if those were the exact words.
Q. But pretty close?
MR. BAKER: I can see, Your Honor. We're going to lunch.
THE COURT: 1:30, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case.
Don't form or express any opinions.
(At 12:05 P.M., a luncheon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the
same day.) SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1997
1:45 PM DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE APPEARANCES:

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)
(Jurors resume their respective seats.) CROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. BAKER:<