|
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, MARCH 6, 1995 9:14 A.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.) (JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. PRESENT IS DETECTIVE TOM LANGE WHO WAS THE WITNESS WHO WAS ON THE WITNESS STAND WHEN WE BROKE TO DO THE 1335. COUNSEL, ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE PROCEED? MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: ONLY, YOUR HONOR, ON FRIDAY BEFORE WE LEFT I INFORMED COUNSEL THAT I WOULD BE ASKING TO CALL A WITNESS OUT OF ORDER, MR. MARK STORFER, AND COUNSEL INDICATED THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. MR. COCHRAN: NO PROBLEM. THE COURT: OUT OF CURIOSITY, WHAT IS MR. STORFER GOING TO BE TESTIFYING TO? MS. CLARK: HE WAS ANOTHER NEIGHBOR IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE COURT: OKAY. MS. CLARK: AND I WOULD HAVE CALLED HIM SOONER, BUT HE WAS IN GUAM. THE COURT: OKAY. SOON TO RETURN? MS. CLARK: YES. THE COURT: I WILL GO WITH HIM. ALL RIGHT. MRS. ROBERTSON, LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE. (BRIEF PAUSE.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. THE COURT: MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. THE PEOPLE CALL MR. MARK STORFER. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AT THIS TIME WE ARE GOING -- FIRST OF ALL, GOOD MORNING. THE JURY: GOOD MORNING. THE COURT: I HAVEN'T SEEN YOU ALL IN A WHILE. I'M GLAD TO HAVE YOU BACK. I'M SURE YOU ARE GLAD TO BE BACK. WE ARE GOING TO BE TAKING A WITNESS OUT OF ORDER. THAT MEANS THAT, AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DETECTIVE TOM LANGE AND WE ARE GOING TO INTERRUPT THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DETECTIVE LANGE TO PRESENT ANOTHER WITNESS TO YOU THIS MORNING, BECAUSE THIS PERSON, I BELIEVE, STILL RESIDES OUTSIDE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. IS THAT CORRECT? MS. CLARK: THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND WILL BE RETURNING? MS. CLARK: YES. THE COURT: YOU MAY PROCEED, MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: GOOD MORNING. (BRIEF PAUSE.) MS. CLARK: THE PEOPLE CALL MR. MARK STORFER. MARK STORFER, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. 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 HAVE A SEAT ON THE WITNESS STAND AND STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD. THE WITNESS: MARK STORFER, M-A-R-K, S-T-O-R-F, AS IN FRANK, E-R. THE CLERK: THANK YOU. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, MR. STORFER. YOU CAN JUST SLIDE THE MICROPHONE JUST SLIGHTLY TO YOU. THERE YOU GO. PERFECT. MS. CLARK: SPEAK INTO IT LIKE A TELEPHONE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK: Q: ALL RIGHT. MR. STORFER, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION BACK TO THE DATE OF JUNE 12, 1994, ON THAT DATE, SIR, WHERE WERE YOU LIVING? A: AT 12100 DOROTHY STREET. Q: AND WHERE IS THAT, CAN YOU TELL US, SIR, IN RELATIONSHIP TO 875 SOUTH BUNDY? A: THIS HOUSE IS ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY. Q: OKAY. WE HAVE HERE A CHART THAT HAS BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 26. IF YOU WOULD STEP DOWN, SIR. FIRST LOOK AT IT FOR A MINUTE SO THAT YOU CAN ORIENT YOURSELF. A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) Q: AND IF YOU CAN TELL US WHETHER THERE IS A BOX THERE THAT IS -- THAT INDICATES WHERE YOU WERE LIVING? A: NO, THERE IS NOT. Q: OKAY. THERE IS A BOX, HOWEVER, MARKED IN PURPLE MARKED "STORFER." IF THAT IS NOT CORRECT, CAN YOU TELL US WHERE YOUR HOUSE WOULD HAVE BEEN LOCATED? A: SURE, (INDICATING). Q: DOWN IN THIS LOWER CORNER? A: THAT'S CORRECT. MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR, WE WILL HAVE THIS CORRECTED TO INDICATE -- Q: SO YOU WERE AT THE CORNER OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY DOWN AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: NOW, FROM THAT LOCATION, SIR, DID YOU HAVE ANY WINDOWS THAT FACED NORTH ON BUNDY? A: MAY I SIT DOWN? Q: OF COURSE. SORRY. A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) YES, I DID. Q: ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH, SIR, AT APPROXIMATELY 10:00 P.M., WHERE WERE YOU? A: UMM, IN BED WITH MY WIFE. Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU HAVE A SON AT THAT TIME? A: YES, I DO. I DID. Q: AND STILL? A: YES. Q: CAN YOU TELL US, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU DID WITH YOUR SON THAT EVENING? A: YES. HE HAD FALLEN ASLEEP IN OUR BED AROUND THAT TIME. Q: AT AROUND TEN O'CLOCK? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: DID YOU TAKE HIM OUT OF YOUR BED AND PUT HIM INTO HIS BED AT SOME POINT? A: YES, I DID. AFTER HE FELL ASLEEP -- SHALL I PROCEED? Q: GO AHEAD. A: -- I BROUGHT HIM DOWNSTAIRS TO HIS ROOM, WHICH WAS ON THE LOWER LEVEL. OUR BEDROOM WAS ON THE UPPER LEVEL. AND AS I WAS TAKING HIM DOWNSTAIRS, I HEARD A DOG BARK. Q: WHY DID THAT ATTRACT YOUR ATTENTION? A: I WAS CONCERNED THAT IT WOULD WAKE UP MY SON, IT WAS THAT LOUD AND PERSISTENT. Q: HAVE YOU HEARD BARKING THAT LOUD AND PERSISTENT BEFORE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? A: NO, I HAD NOT. Q: NOW, DID YOU SEE WHAT TIME IT WAS BEFORE YOU LEFT THE BEDROOM HOLDING YOUR SON? A: NO, I DID NOT. Q: WAS THERE ANY POINT AT WHICH YOU NOTICED WHAT TIME IT WAS? A: YES. AFTER I PUT HIM IN HIS BED, CLOSED A FEW LIGHTS DOWNSTAIRS AND THEN UPSTAIRS, I HAD REMARKED TO MY WIFE THAT THESE DOGS WERE -- MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS NONRESPONSIVE, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU PUT YOUR SON BACK IN HIS BED AND THEN YOU WENT UPSTAIRS? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND YOU REMARKED SOMETHING TO YOUR WIFE ABOUT THE DOGS? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AT THAT POINT DID YOU LOOK TO SEE WHAT TIME IT WAS? A: YES, I DID. Q: AND WHAT TIME WAS IT? A: IT WAS 10:28 ON THE DIGITAL DISPLAY ON OUR T.V. Q: NOW, IS THAT THE ACCURATE TIME, SIR? A: WE TYPICALLY SET OUR CLOCKS ABOUT FIVE MINUTES FAST, SO I PRESUME IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FIVE MINUTES EARLIER. Q: OKAY. 10:23? A: CORRECT. Q: AND AT THAT POINT IT WAS ALREADY, WHAT? GIVE US AN ESTIMATE HOW LONG AFTER YOU HEARD THE DOG BARKING? A: PROBABLY A GOOD THREE MINUTES. Q: SO WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU ESTIMATE YOU HAD FIRST HEARD THE DOG BARKING? A: ABOUT 10:20 P.M. Q: NOW, WHEN YOU GOT INTO BED WITH YOUR WIFE IT WAS ABOUT -- I'M SORRY. YOU GOT BACK INTO THE ROOM AT 10:23? A: 10:28 IS WHEN I LOOKED AT THE T.V., WHICH WAS A COUPLE OF MINUTES AFTER I HAD GOTTEN INTO THE ROOM. Q: RIGHT. OKAY. SO GIVEN THAT YOU SET YOUR CLOCKS FASTER, AS YOU INDICATED FIVE MINUTES, WAS ABOUT 10:23? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: WHAT DID YOU DO AT THAT POINT? A: UMM, I LOOKED OUT THE WINDOW OF OUR BEDROOM THAT FACES NORTH TOWARDS BUNDY TO SEE IF I COULD SEE WHERE THAT DOG WAS OR WHAT WAS GOING ON. IT WAS PRETTY DARK AND I COULDN'T SEE ANYTHING UNUSUAL AND I COULDN'T LOCATE THE DOG. I ALSO LOOKED OUT THE WEST FACING WINDOW OF OUR BEDROOM TO SEE IF THE DOG WAS FURTHER OVER TO THE WEST. WE FACED THE ALLEY ON THE WEST SIDE AND I COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING AT THAT TIME EITHER. Q: OKAY. WHEN YOU SAY YOU LOOKED WEST, WERE YOU LOOKING DOWN DOROTHY? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: WHEN YOU LOOKED NORTH, YOU LOOKED NORTH UP BUNDY? A: UP BUNDY, IN THE FRONT OF THE DOROTHY AS WELL. Q: WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE ANYONE WALKING DOWN THE STREET AT THAT TIME? A: NO, I DID NOT. Q: AND FOR HOW LONG DID YOU LOOK OUT THE WINDOW? A: UMM, JUST VERY BRIEFLY INITIALLY AND THEN WE WENT TO BED AND I HAD SLEPT VERY LIGHTLY BECAUSE THE DOG HAD CONTINUED TO BARK. DOZE OFF, WAKE UP, DOZE OFF, WAKE UP, AND I KEPT LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW PERIODICALLY. Q: THROUGHOUT THE NIGHT? A: UMM, ABOUT 12:15 WHEN I LOOKED OUT THE WINDOW. MR. COCHRAN: LEADING QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. OBJECTION, LEADING QUESTION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MS. CLARK: AT SOME POINT -- WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS: UP UNTIL ABOUT 12:15 WHEN YOU LOOKED OUT YOUR WINDOW, DID YOU LOOK NORTH ON BUNDY ON EACH OCCASION? A: YES. Q: AND FROM THE FIRST TIME YOU LOOKED NORTH ON BUNDY AT ABOUT 10:23 UNTIL THE LAST TIME YOU LOOKED NORTH ON BUNDY AT 12:15, DID YOU SEE ANYONE WALKING DOWN THE STREET SOUTHBOUND OR NORTHBOUND ON BUNDY? A: NO, I DID NOT. Q: AT 12:15, WHEN YOU LOOKED OUT YOUR WINDOW, WHAT DID YOU SEE? A: I SAW A NUMBER OF POLICE CARS WITH THEIR LIGHTS ON AND YELLOW POLICE TAPE BLOCKING OFF BOTH DOROTHY AND BUNDY ON TWO CORNERS. Q: DURING THE TIME THAT YOU KEPT LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW UP UNTIL 12:15, WERE YOU STILL ABLE TO HEAR THE DOG BARKING? A: YES, I WAS. Q: WAS THERE SOMETHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS BARKING THAT DREW YOUR ATTENTION? A: UMM, IT WAS VERY PERSISTENT. THE DOG CONTINUED TO BARK AND STOPPED JUST LONG ENOUGH TO TAKE A BREATH AND BARK SOME MORE. HE WHINED OR YELPED PERIODICALLY. Q: NOW, HAD YOU EVER HEARD BARKING LIKE THAT COMING FROM THAT AREA? A: UMM, NO, I HAD NOT. Q: WHEN I SAY "THAT AREA," WHAT AREA DID IT SEEM TO BE COMING FROM? A: FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE WHICH IS NORTH FACING. Q: WOULD THAT BE FROM THE LOCATION -- GENERAL VICINITY OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY? MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MS. CLARK: NORTH OF YOUR LOCATION WOULD BE UP BUNDY, CORRECT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND IS 875 SOUTH BUNDY NORTH OF YOUR LOCATION? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND DID THE BARKING APPEAR TO COME FROM THAT AREA? MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT. LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND WHERE DID THE BARKING SEEM TO BE COMING FROM IN RELATIONSHIP TO 875 SOUTH BUNDY? A: FROM THAT DIRECTION. Q: AND AT 12:15, WHEN YOU LOOKED OUTSIDE, YOU SAW THE POLICE. WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE ANY DOGS? A: YES, I DID. I SAW A WHITE MEDIUM-SIZED LONG-HAIRED TYPE OF DOG TIED TO A STREET SIGN ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER. Q: OF -- A: OF BUNDY AND DOROTHY. Q: OKAY. SIR, IF YOU COULD STEP DOWN AND LOOK AT THE ANIMAL SHOWN IN PEOPLE'S 26, CAN YOU TELL US -- THERE IS A PHOTOGRAPH AT THE BOTTOM THERE. A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) Q: CAN YOU TELL US IF YOU RECOGNIZE THAT DOG? A: IT LOOKS VERY SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT I SAW TIED UP. Q: AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY? A: THE NORTHEAST CORNER, CORRECT. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MS. CLARK: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE WITNESS: THANK YOU. THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN: Q: GOOD MORNING, MR. STORFER. A: GOOD MORNING. Q: AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU ARE TELLING US THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF POLICE CARS OUT THERE ABOUT 12:15 IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13, 1994? A: MORE THAN ONE, YES. Q: BY A NUMBER, WHAT NUMBER? GIVE US THE TOTAL NUMBER. A: I REMEMBER SEEING ONE ON BUNDY, JUST BEYOND THE YELLOW TAPE. I SAW ONE ON DOROTHY PARKED JUST OPPOSITE OUR HOUSE, AND I BELIEVE I SAW ONE IN THE ALLEY FACING OUR HOUSE. Q: SO YOU SAW AT LEAST THREE POLICE CARS THERE BY 12:15, IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? A: THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING, YES. Q: AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY, THE FIRST TIME YOU LOOKED AT THE CLOCK IN REFERENCE TO THIS DOG BARKING, THE CLOCK ON YOUR T.V. SAID 10:28 P.M.; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR? A: YES, IT IS. Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THIS PARTICULAR CLOCK, WHEN HAD YOU LAST SET THAT CLOCK, IF EVER? A: UMM, PROBABLY NOT IN A LONG WHILE. Q: SO HOW LONG DID YOU HAVE THAT T.V.? A: OH, SIX, EIGHT YEARS. Q: AND WOULD YOU SAY YOU HAD NOT SET IT DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME? A: OH, NO, I HAD SET IT IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME. Q: YOU JUST HAVE NO IDEA WHEN IT WAS BEFORE JUNE 12, 1994, THAT YOU HAD LAST SET IT? A: WELL, I HAD SET IT ONE TIME WHEN WE MOVED TO THAT LOCATION IN APRIL, BECAUSE THE POWER CAME OUT, SO I HAD TO RESET IT IN APRIL. Q: APRIL OF WHAT YEAR? A: SAME YEAR, 1994; THAT'S CORRECT. Q: HAD YOU SET IT AFTER THAT? A: NOT TO MY RECOLLECTION. Q: DO YOU KNOW IF YOUR WIFE HAD SET IT AT ALL AFTER THAT? A: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU DISCUSS THAT WITH HER AT ALL? A: NO, I HAVE NOT. Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE NOT TALKED TO HER ABOUT THAT? BUT YOU CAN TELL US THE LAST TIME YOU SET IT WAS IN APRIL OF 1994; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THAT'S THE LAST TIME I REMEMBER SETTING IT, CORRECT. Q: THAT YOU CAN TELL US ABOUT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AT THAT TIME WHEN YOU SAW IT THIS EVENING IT SAID 10:28 P.M. OR THEREABOUTS, RIGHT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, FROM YOUR LOCATION -- AND SO THAT IT IS CLEAR FROM THE RECORD, THIS DIAGRAM THAT WAS PLACED ON THE BOARD HERE, WHICH WE WILL REFER TO AS PEOPLE'S NUMBER -- MS. CLARK: 26. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: -- 26 FOR IDENTIFICATION, THE HOUSE IS LABELED "MARK STORFER" IS IN THE WRONG LOCATION ON THIS DIAGRAM; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: YOU ARE MOREOVER ON THIS CORNER. YOU ARE ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: DOROTHY AND BUNDY? AND FROM YOUR WINDOW, DO YOU HAVE A WINDOW THAT FACES -- YOU CAN LOOK DOWN THE ALLEY; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND AT SOME POINT THAT EVENING YOU LOOKED DOWN THIS ALLEY, THE ALLEY THAT RUNS PARALLEL TO BUNDY AND INTERSECTS HERE WITH DOROTHY; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. I CAN ONLY SEE TO THE NORTH ON THE ALLEY. Q: YOU CAN SEE NORTH, LOOKING UP THE ALLEY NORTH; IS THAT RIGHT? A: RIGHT. Q: ABOUT WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU FIRST LOOKED UP THAT ALLEY, SIR? A: APPROXIMATELY 10:28. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THIS IS ABOUT THE TIME THAT YOU FIRST BECAME AWARE OF THE TIME THAT APPEARED ON YOUR TELEVISION; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND WHEN YOU LOOKED UP THAT ALLEY, DID YOU SEE ANY VEHICLES OR ANY CARS? A: NO, I DID NOT. Q: DID YOU SEE ANY PERSONS AT ALL, ANY PEOPLE WALKING? A: NO, I DID NOT. Q: WHAT DID YOU SEE, IF ANYTHING? A: I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING. Q: YOU SAW -- JUST LOOKED UP THE ALLEY AND SAW BASICALLY NOTHING? A: EMPTY ALLEY, ASPHALT. Q: DIDN'T SEE ANY CARS, DIDN'T SEE ANY PEOPLE; IS THAT RIGHT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: OKAY. THIS WAS AT ABOUT 10:28, ACCORDING TO YOUR CLOCK? A: ACCORDING TO THE CLOCK; THAT'S CORRECT. Q: NOW, FROM ANOTHER WINDOW OF YOUR RESIDENCE WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE NORTH ON BUNDY AT ALL? A: THERE ARE OTHER WINDOWS I COULD SEE NORTH ON BUNDY, BUT I DID NOT LOOK OUT THOSE WINDOWS. Q: YOU DIDN'T LOOK OUT THOSE WINDOWS? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: SO AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY THAT EVENING, YOU NEVER SAW ANY PEOPLE TALKING DOWN BUNDY IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION TOWARD DOROTHY FROM NORTH TO SOUTH? YOU NEVER SAW THAT? A: NOT BETWEEN 10:28 AND 12:15, CORRECT. Q: ALL RIGHT. DURING THE TIME THAT YOU LOOKED. NOW, BETWEEN 10:28 AND 12:15, HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU LOOK OUT THE WINDOW? A: I THINK MAYBE A COUPLE OF TIMES. Q: THAT MEANS TWO? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DURING ONE OF THOSE TIMES YOU LOOKED UP THE ALLEY; IS THAT RIGHT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: ANSWER OUT LOUD SO SHE CAN TAKE IT DOWN. SO ONE OF THE TIMES YOU LOOKED NORTH UP THE ALLEY, RIGHT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: YOU SAW NOTHING DURING ONE OF THOSE TIMES. ANOTHER TIME DID YOU LOOK UP THE ALLEY OR DID YOU LOOK UP BUNDY OR BOTH? A: I DON'T THINK I LOOKED UP THE ALLEY. IT WAS PROBABLY ON DOROTHY AND MAYBE THE BEGINNING PART OF BUNDY. Q: OKAY. AND SO YOU NEVER -- DID YOU EVER SEE A LADY AND A MAN WALKING DOWN BUNDY ON THE WEST SIDE OF BUNDY ANY TIME AROUND 10:28 OR THEREAFTER? A: NO, I DID NOT. Q: DID YOU EVER HEAR ANY SOUNDS COMING FROM NORTH OF BUNDY? DID YOU EVER HEAR ANY SCREAM OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE? A: JUST THE DOG BARK. Q: DID YOU EVER HEAR ANY SCREAMS, FIRST OF ALL? A: NO, I DID NOT. Q: DID YOU EVER HEAR ANYBODY YELL, "HEY, HEY, HEY" AT ALL THAT NIGHT? A: NO, I DID NOT. Q: SO YOU NEVER HEARD ANY SOUND AT ALL THAT NIGHT BETWEEN 10:28 AND 12:15? A: NOT BESIDES THE DOG BARKING. Q: I'M TALKING ABOUT HUMAN BEINGS NOW. A: NO HUMAN BEING SOUNDS. Q: YOU NEVER SAW ANY HUMAN BEINGS, RIGHT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: OKAY. BUT YOU HEARD THIS DOG BARK; IS THAT RIGHT? A: YES. Q: AND IT IS YOUR TESTIMONY THAT AT 12:15 WHEN YOU LOOKED OUTSIDE THE DOG WAS TIED TO A POST OR SOMETHING OUTSIDE? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: YOU ARE SURE ABOUT THAT, RIGHT? A: YUP. Q: OKAY. STEP DOWN FOR US AND SHOW US WHERE THIS DOG WAS TIED UP AT 12:15 A.M. ON JUNE 12. A: RIGHT HERE ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER. MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE GET THAT MARKED SOME WAY? I WOULD LIKE TO MARK WHERE HE HAS THAT IN SOME FASHION. MS. CLARK: SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, YOUR HONOR, THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY. MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT MARKED UP THERE, PLEASE. THE COURT: IT IS THE PROSECUTION'S EXHIBIT AT THIS POINT. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING SIMILAR THAT YOU CAN USE? MR. COCHRAN: NO, YOUR HONOR, BUT IT IS GOING TO BE AN EXHIBIT FOR THE COURT AND FOR THE RECORD THE JURY, IT SEEMS TO ME. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO PRESERVE IT LATER ON. MS. CLARK: THE TESTIMONY SAYS IT. THE COURT: HE HAS JUST POINTED TO IT IN FRONT OF THE JURY, SO I ASSUME THAT THEY CAN RECALL THAT. MR. COCHRAN: VERY WELL. Q: SO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY ON PEOPLE'S 28 FOR IDENTIFICATION IS WHERE YOU SAW THIS DOG TIED; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: YOU COULD SEE THE DOG FROM YOUR WINDOW? A: YES, I COULD. Q: DID YOU LOOK OUT THE WINDOW AT 12:15 AND SEE THE DOG THERE? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AT THAT TIME WAS THE DOG BARKING AT THAT POINT? A: YES, HE WAS OR IT. Q: I'M SORRY? A: IT; IT WAS. Q: IT WAS. DID YOU EVER HEAR ANY MORE THAN ONE DOG BARKING THAT NIGHT? A: NO, I DID NOT. Q: AND WAS THAT THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU SAW A DOG THAT NIGHT AT ABOUT 12:15? A: YES, IT WAS. Q: THAT WAS RIGHT ABOUT THE SAME TIME THAT YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN THESE THREE POLICE CARS THAT YOU DESCRIBED FOR US; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: DID YOU AT THAT POINT, AROUND 12:15, TALK TO ANY POLICE OFFICERS AT THAT POINT? A: NOT AT THAT TIME, NO. Q: YOU DID AT SOME LATER TIME TALK TO SOME POLICE OFFICERS? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DID THEY WRITE A REPORT OUT AT ALL WHEN THEY TALKED TO YOU THAT EVENING? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION. MR. COCHRAN: I'M ASKING. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID THE POLICE WRITE A REPORT UP? A: THE OFFICER HAD A LITTLE BLUE MENU CARD AND I SAW HIM JOT A FEW THINGS DOWN ON THERE. Q: DID HE? YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH WITH REGARD TO THAT? THE COURT: SURE. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: OVER AT SIDE BAR. MR. COCHRAN: IF THERE IS AN F.I. CARD, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT. MS. CLARK: COUNSEL HAS ALL THE F.I. CARDS. COUNSEL HAS WHAT THEY WROTE ON THIS WITNESS. MR. COCHRAN: MAY I FINISH, PLEASE, COUNSEL? I DON'T RECALL SEEING THIS. OBVIOUSLY THERE IS HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF PAGES, SO I'M NOT SAYING WE DON'T HAVE IT AT THIS POINT. I'M JUST ASKING IF IT IS HERE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT. MS. CLARK: I DIDN'T BRING IT WITH ME. MR. COCHRAN: WHETHER WE HAVE IT OR NOT, WE CAN DEAL WITH THAT LATER, BUT OBVIOUSLY I CAN'T SAY FOR SURE THAT WE HAVE IT. THE COURT: YOU DON'T HAVE IT PRESENT? MS. CLARK: NO, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OKAY. MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE GET IT DOWN HERE? (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU EVER FIND OUT THE NAME OF THE OFFICER WHO TALKED TO YOU? A: NO, I DO NOT KNOW HIS NAME. Q: ABOUT WHAT TIME DID THIS OFFICER TALK TO YOU? A: ABOUT 2:20 A.M. Q: 2:20? A: APPROXIMATELY. Q: WAS THE OFFICER IN PLAIN CLOTHES OR UNIFORM? A: UNIFORM. Q: DID YOU EVER ASCERTAIN THE NAME OF THAT POLICE OFFICER? A: NO, I DID NOT. Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE OFFICER FOR US? A: HARDLY. Q: MALE, FEMALE? A: MALE, MEDIUM HEIGHT. Q: OKAY. A: A LITTLE BIT GREATER THAN MEDIUM BUILD. Q: ALL RIGHT. CAUCASIAN? A: CAUCASIAN, I BELIEVE. Q: OKAY. AND HOW LONG DID YOU TALK TO HIM AT THAT TIME? A: MAYBE TWO OR THREE MINUTES. Q: YOU SAW HIM WRITE SOMETHING DOWN ON A CARD, SOME KIND OF A PAD? A: I SAW HIM JOT DOWN SOME NOTE, YES. Q: AT THAT TIME YOU SPOKE TO HIM ABOUT WHAT YOU HAD HEARD THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: NOW, PRIOR TO SEEING THIS POLICE OFFICER HAD YOU DOZED OFF IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS THAT DAY? A: YES. Q: THEN YOU WOULD WAKE BACK UP -- YOU WOULD AWAKEN AND YOU WOULD HEAR THE DOG BARK; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THAT'S CORRECT, UNTIL I HEARD THE DOORBELL RING. Q: THEN YOU WERE AWAKENED AND YOU CAME DOWNSTAIRS; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: WAS YOUR SON ABLE TO REMAIN -- SLEEP THROUGH THIS ALL? A: YES, HE WAS. Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THIS MATTER, YOU GAVE A STATEMENT TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ON JANUARY 1ST, 1995; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES, IT IS. Q: IN THIS BUILDING? A: NO, IN MY HOME. Q: AT YOUR HOME. AND AT THAT TIME YOU INDICATED THAT YOU HAD BROUGHT YOUR SON DOWN TO BED SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 10:20 AND 10:30 THAT NIGHT; IS THAT CORRECT? A: CORRECT. Q: AND AT THAT TIME YOU INDICATED THAT YOU LOOKED OUT THE WINDOW AND YOU COULDN'T SEE WHERE THIS BARKING WAS COMING FROM; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND SO WOULD I BE CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT YOU NEVER SAW A DOG UNTIL YOU SAID YOU SAW THIS DOG TIED UP NEAR DOROTHY AND BUNDY THERE ON THE CORNER AT ABOUT 12:15; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: YOU NEVER TOLD THE INVESTIGATOR ABOUT SEEING A CLOCK ON YOUR TELEVISION THAT SAID 10:28 P.M., DID YOU, OR A.M. -- OR P.M. RATHER? A: I DON'T REMEMBER. Q: YOU NEVER MENTIONED THAT TO HIM? A: I DON'T REMEMBER. Q: WOULD IT BE HELPFUL FOR YOU TO REVIEW YOUR STATEMENT? A: SURE. MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: YES. MR. COCHRAN: I PLACE BEFORE HIM, COUNSEL, A STATEMENT TAKEN OF MARK STORFER ON JANUARY 1ST, 1995, INVESTIGATOR BY THE NAME OF MICHAEL STEVENS. IT IS FAIRLY SHORT. IT IS ABOUT FOUR PAGES. Q: WHY DON'T YOU READ THAT TO YOURSELF QUICKLY, IF YOU CAN? A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) IT MENTIONS HERE ABOUT LOOKING AT A CLOCK. THAT WOULD BE THE CLOCK. Q: THE QUESTION IS DID YOU TELL HIM AT THAT TIME THAT YOU LOOKED AT THE CLOCK AND IT SAID 10:28 P.M.? DID IT SAY THAT? A: IT DOES NOT SAY THAT. Q: ALL RIGHT. DOES IT SAY ANYTHING AT ALL ON THERE ABOUT THE CLOCK MAY HAVE BEEN FIVE MINUTES FAST? A: NO. Q: DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THAT? YOU DIDN'T TELL HIM THAT AT THAT TIME, DID YOU? A: NOT AT THAT TIME. Q: THIS INTERVIEW WAS ALSO TAPE-RECORDED, WAS IT NOT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU WOKE UP AT ABOUT 1:30 A.M. THAT MORNING; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? A: ABOUT 2:20, 2:15, 2:20 WHEN THE DOORBELL RANG. Q: YOU HADN'T AWAKENED AT 1:30? A: NOT TO MY RECOLLECTION, NO. Q: ALL RIGHT. LET ME SEE IF THIS REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION AT ALL, PAGE 2 OF YOUR STATEMENT. COUNSEL, BOTTOM -- LINE 27 AND 28. JUST READ THIS PART TO YOURSELF. A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) Q: HAVE YOU HEAD THAT TO YOURSELF? A: YES, I HAVE. Q: DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AT ALL WITH REGARD TO WHAT YOU SAID TO INVESTIGATOR STEVENS? A: NO, BUT I MUST HAVE SAID IT. Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU TELL HIM THAT: "I THINK I WOKE UP AT 1:30 AND OF COURSE IT WAS STILL BARKING." DID YOU SAY THAT TO HIM? A: THAT IS WHAT THE TRANSCRIPT SAYS. Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU RECALL SAYING THAT? A: I DON'T RECALL. Q: OKAY. WOULD YOUR MEMORY HAVE BEEN BETTER ON JANUARY 1ST THAN IT IS NOW, DO YOU THINK? A: I DON'T KNOW. Q: ALL RIGHT. IF YOU SAID THIS ON A TAPE, YOU WERE TRYING TO TELL THE TRUTH, WERE YOU NOT? A: SURE. Q: SO YOU WERE TRYING TO BE AS ACCURATE AS YOU COULD? A: YEAH. Q: AT SOME POINT DID YOU NOTICE ANY YELLOW TAPE LINES AROUND THE PERIMETER THERE AT DOROTHY AND BUNDY, SIR? A: YES. Q: AND WHEN DID YOU NOTICE THAT? A: APPROXIMATELY 12:15. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND 12:15 YOU NOTICED THAT? A: YES. Q: AND YOU KNOW THAT AT 12:15 WHEN YOU NOTICED THAT, THAT IS WHEN YOU SAW THOSE THREE POLICE CARS, RIGHT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND THIS YELLOW TAPE WAS KIND OF A PERIMETER AROUND THE AREA THERE AT BUNDY; IS THAT CORRECT? A: IT WAS ON TWO CORNERS. Q: OKAY. TELL US -- DESCRIBE FOR THE JURY AT 12:15 WHERE THIS YELLOW TAPE WAS. A: SURE. IT CROSSED THE NORTH SIDE OF BUNDY FROM EAST TO WEST. Q: OKAY. A: AND THE WEST SIDE OF DOROTHY FROM NORTH TO SOUTH. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IT LOOKED AS THOUGH THAT YELLOW TAPE WOULD KEEP PEOPLE FROM COMING IN THE AREA? A: YES. Q: SEEMED LIKE A PERIMETER TO YOU? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IT WAS AT 12:15 THAT YOU SAW THIS, RIGHT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND THIS IS AT THE SAME TIME THAT YOU SAW THE DOG TIED UP ON THE CORNER ALSO, RIGHT? A: YES. Q: AND UP TO THE TIME THAT YOU TALKED TO THE POLICE AFTER TWO O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, WOULD THE -- WOULD I BE CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT YOU STILL HAD NOT SEEN ANY VEHICLES OUT THERE, ANY OTHER VEHICLES EITHER IN THE ALLEY OR UP ON THE BUNDY? A: BESIDES THE POLICE CARS, THAT'S CORRECT. Q: RIGHT. YOU HAD NOT SEEN ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL EITHER IN THE ALLEY OR UP ON BUNDY? A: THAT IS CORRECT. Q: YOU ARE SURE ABOUT THE TIME YOU HAVE TOLD US ABOUT TODAY, RIGHT? A: YES. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, MR. STORFER. THE COURT: MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK: Q: SHOWING YOU YOUR -- THE STATEMENT THAT MR. COCHRAN SHOWED YOU, LINES 19 AND 20 ON PAGE 2, DID YOU INDICATE THERE THAT YOU LOOKED AT THE CLOCK AND THAT IS HOW YOU REMEMBER IT WAS BETWEEN 10:20 AND 10:30? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND YOU GAVE THAT ESTIMATE -- WHEN YOU GAVE THAT ESTIMATE, WERE YOU AWARE OF YOUR HABIT THAT YOU HAVE EARLIER TESTIFIED TO OF SETTING YOUR CLOCKS FIVE MINUTES AHEAD? A: YES, I WAS. Q: SO AT THIS TIME IS IT YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT YOU HEARD THE DOG BARKING -- BEGIN TO BARK AT 10:20? A: THAT'S CORRECT. MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: WELL, THE ANSWER WILL STAND. SAME TESTIMONY THAT WE HAD ON DIRECT. PROCEED. Q: BY MS. CLARK: THE FIRST TIME YOU LOOKED OUT YOUR WINDOW, SIR, DID YOU LOOK AT THE ALLEY -- WHEN I SAY "THE ALLEY," WHAT ALLEY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? A: THE ALLEY TO THE WEST OF MY HOUSE AND TO THE WEST OF BUNDY, RUNNING PARALLEL WITH BUNDY. Q: OKAY. WOULD THAT BE THE ALLEY THAT RUNS BEHIND THE AREA OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY? A: THAT'S CORRECT. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. AND YOU LOOKED OUT -- YOU LOOKED OUT YOUR WINDOW -- THE FIRST TIME YOU LOOKED OUT YOUR WINDOW, WAS THAT WHEN YOU FIRST GOT BACK TO YOUR BEDROOM FROM HAVING PUT YOUR SON TO BED? A: YES. Q: OKAY. WHAT TIME WAS IT YOU THOUGHT THAT WAS? A: MY CLOCK SAID 10:28 SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT 10:23. Q: 10:23. AND WHERE DID YOU LOOK FIRST? A: I LOOKED ON DOROTHY RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE FIRST. MR. FAIRTLOUGH: P-38. Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU LOOKING AT THE MONITOR, SIR? A: YES, I AM. Q: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT AREA? A: UMM, YES, THAT IS THE ALLEY. Q: OKAY. HAVE I EVER SHOWN YOU ANY PICTURES BEFORE? A: NO, YOU HAVE NOT. Q: OKAY. SO THIS IS THE FIRST TIME YOU HAVE EVER SEEN THIS? A: YES, IT IS. Q: OKAY. WHEN YOU SAY IT IS THE ALLEY, DO YOU MEAN THE ALLEY THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED RUNNING BEHIND 875 SOUTH BUNDY? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: HOW FAR UP THE ALLEY WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE FROM YOUR HOUSE? A: UMM, MAYBE 50 FEET. Q: WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE AS FAR AS THE MAN STANDING -- CAN YOU SEE THE MAN STANDING THERE TO THE RIGHT OF THE POLICE CAR? A: YES, I CAN. Q: WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE THAT FAR UP THE ALLEY? A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO. Q: HOW FAR UP THE ALLEY WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE, IF YOU CAN LOCATE A POINT IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH? A: PROBABLY BEHIND THOSE CARS PARKED ON THE RIGHT SIDE PERPENDICULAR TO THE ALLEY. Q: OKAY. THERE IS A CAR THAT YOU SEE -- MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE MARK THAT, YOUR HONOR? MS. CLARK: EXCUSE ME. MAY I COMPLETE MY QUESTIONING OF THE WITNESS? THE COURT: YES, PLEASE. Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU SEE A CAR THAT IS PARKED FACING IN TOWARDS THE BUILDING WHERE THERE IS LIGHTS IN THE BALCONY? A: YES, I DO. Q: IS THAT THE ONE YOU ARE REFERRING TO AS FAR UP AS YOU CAN SEE? A: NOT QUITE THAT FAR. Q: JUST BEFORE THAT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO GUIDE THE ARROW. A: OKAY. Q: TELL THE ARROW WHERE TO GO. A: DOWN, STOP, TO THE RIGHT. STOP. A LITTLE BIT UP AND A BIT LEFT. BEHIND THE CARS. SOMEWHERE ABOUT THERE, (INDICATING). MS. CLARK: COULD YOU PLEASE PUT -- THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU. THE WITNESS: I COULD SEE ACROSS THE ALLEY FROM THAT POINT. MS. CLARK: COULD THIS BE MARKED AS 38-A, YOUR HONOR? MR. FAIRTLOUGH: 38-D. THE COURT: 38-D, AS IN DAVID. WE ARE GOING TO PRINT THIS. MS. CLARK: D, AS IN DAVID. ALL RIGHT. (PEO'S 38-D FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH) (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) Q: BY MS. CLARK: SO THE FIRST TIME YOU LOOKED OUT YOUR WINDOW, THE FIRST PLACE YOU LOOKED WAS? A: ON DOROTHY IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE. Q: THAT WAS AT 10:23 YOU SAID? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: YOU ALSO AT THAT TIME LOOKED DOWN THE ALLEY? A: YES, I DID. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MR. FAIRTLOUGH: YOUR HONOR, PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT NO. 50. MS. CLARK: BOY, IT IS DARK ON THE SCREEN, ISN'T IT? CAN YOU LIGHTEN THAT? MR. FAIRTLOUGH: HUM? (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MS. CLARK: LET ME LOOK AT YOUR MONITOR. Q: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE LOCATION SHOWN IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH, SIR? A: IT APPEARS TO BE BUNDY STREET. Q: AND CAN YOU TELL WHICH DIRECTION YOU ARE LOOKING ON BUNDY IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH? A: I BELIEVE FACING NORTH. Q: OKAY. DOES THIS PHOTOGRAPH GIVE YOU AS GOOD A VIEW NORTH ON BUNDY AS YOU HAD FROM YOUR APARTMENT OR FROM YOUR RESIDENCE WINDOW ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH? A: NO, IT DOES NOT. Q: ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE FARTHER UP NORTH ON BUNDY FROM YOUR WINDOW? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: OKAY. BUT THAT IS THE LOCATION IN WHICH YOU WERE LOOKING? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND WHEN YOU LOOKED OUT YOUR WINDOW FOR THE FIRST TIME AT 10:23, YOU LOOKED FIRST NORTH ON BUNDY? THAT WAS THE FIRST PLACE YOU LOOKED? A: I ACTUALLY LOOKED ON DOROTHY FIRST, THEN NORTH ON BUNDY, THEN THE ALLEY. Q: SO WHEN YOU LOOKED ON DOROTHY, IN WHICH DIRECTION ON DOROTHY DID YOU LOOK? A: BOTH DIRECTIONS, EAST AND WEST IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE. Q: DID YOU SEE ANYONE ON THE STREET ON -- EITHER EAST OR WEST OF DOROTHY? A: NO, I DID NOT. Q: AND THEN YOU LOOKED WHERE? A: NORTH ON BUNDY. Q: DID YOU SEE ANYONE WALKING EITHER UP OR DOWN THE STREET AT THAT TIME? A: NO, I DID NOT. Q: NORTH ON BUNDY? DID YOU SEE ANYONE IN THE ALLEY? A: NO, I DID NOT. Q: DO YOU RECALL -- AND THEN DID YOU SAY YOU LOOKED OUT THE WINDOW AGAIN AT SOME LATER POINT? A: YES, I DID. Q: WHEN WAS THAT? A: MAYBE AROUND 11:00. Q: AND WHEN YOU LOOKED OUT THE WINDOW AT 11:00, WHERE DID YOU LOOK? A: ON DOROTHY AND ON BUNDY. Q: DID YOU LOOK EAST AND WEST ON DOROTHY? A: YES, I DID. Q: DID YOU SEE ANYONE? A: NO, I DID NOT. Q: WHEN YOU LOOKED ON BUNDY, DID YOU LOOK NORTH AGAIN? A: YES, I DID. Q: DID YOU SEE ANYONE? A: NO, I DID NOT. Q: YOU ALSO DID NOT SEE A DOG? A: NO, I DID NOT. Q: COULD YOU STILL HEAR THE BARKING? A: YES, I COULD. Q: DID YOU LOOK UP THE ALLEY AT THAT TIME? A: I DON'T RECOLLECT LOOKING UP THE ALLEY AT THAT TIME. Q: AND THEN DID YOU GET BACK IN BED? A: YES, I DID. Q: DID YOU GET UP AGAIN? A: YES. Q: AND WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU GOT UP AGAIN? A: MAYBE AROUND 11:30'ISH. Q: DID YOU LOOK OUT THE WINDOW AGAIN? A: YES, I DID. Q: WHERE DID YOU LOOK AT THAT POINT? A: ON DOROTHY. Q: EAST AND WEST? A: EAST AND WEST. Q: DID YOU SEE ANYONE? A: NO, I DID NOT. Q: DID YOU LOOK UP NORTH ON BUNDY AGAIN? A: I DON'T RECOLLECT. Q: OKAY. A: PROBABLY NOT. Q: WERE YOU STILL ABLE TO HEAR BARKING? A: YES, I WAS. Q: AND THEN WHAT DID YOU DO? A: WENT BACK TO BED. Q: DID YOU GET UP AGAIN? A: YES, I DID. Q: WHAT TIME? A: AT ABOUT 12:15. Q: IS THAT WHEN YOU SAW POLICE CARS? A: YES, IT IS. Q: IS THAT WHEN YOU SAW THE DOG? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: WHEN YOU LOOKED -- SO ON EACH OCCASION WHEN YOU LOOKED OUT YOUR WINDOW IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU SAW NO ONE WALKING NORTH OR SOUTH ON BUNDY OR ON DOROTHY OR IN THE ALLEY BEHIND 875 SOUTH BUNDY? A: THAT'S CORRECT. MS. CLARK: AND THE -- YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY, I WOULD LIKE TO CORRECT THE EXHIBIT MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 26 BASED ON THIS WITNESS' TESTIMONY. THE COURT: CERTAINLY. WHY DON'T WE HAVE MR. STORFER PLACE THE MARKERS. MS. CLARK: IF WE COULD LET HIM POINT IT OUT TO MR. FAIRTLOUGH, BECAUSE THESE ARE STICKY. (BRIEF PAUSE.) MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS IS POINTING AGAIN TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER AND MR. FAIRTLOUGH HAS PLACED THE ICON IN THAT LOCATION. Q: MR. STORFER, IS YOUR RESIDENCE ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE 12TH NOW CORRECTLY INDICATED ON THE DIAGRAM MARKED PEOPLE'S 26? A: YES, IT IS. Q: AND THE WINDOW YOU DESCRIBED DOES FACE NORTH AS INDICATED ON THAT DIAGRAM? A: THAT'S CORRECT. MS. CLARK: THANK YOU. I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER. THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, ANY RECROSS? MR. COCHRAN: YES. A FEW QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN: Q: YOU DESCRIBED IN LOOKING AT -- MAY WE HAVE 38-D BACK UP, PLEASE? (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY. Q: AND, UMM, MR. STORFER, YOU HAVE SHARED WITH US AND HELPED US BY PLACING AN ARROW HOW FAR YOU COULD SEE UP THAT ALLEYWAY. AND MY QUESTION IS ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS, IF ANY, AFTER THE FIRST TIME YOU LOOKED UP THE ALLEY THAT NIGHT AT ABOUT AFTER TEN -- THE CLOCK HAD SAID 10:28 OR THEREABOUTS -- MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. MR. COCHRAN: THE CLOCK SAID 10:28. MS. CLARK: THE WITNESS TESTIFIED THE TIME WAS 10:20, 10:23. THE COURT: THE CLOCK SAID. OVERRULED. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. Q: WITH REGARD TO THAT, HOW MANY TIMES AFTER THE CLOCK SAID 10:28 DID YOU LOOK UP AT THAT LITTLE ARROW AS DEPICTED THERE ON PEOPLE'S 38-D? A: NONE UNTIL ABOUT -- NONE BEYOND THAT TIME. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION? I'M ASKING YOU HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU LOOK UP THE ALLEY AFTER YOU LOOKED THIS FIRST TIME THAT EVENING? A: NONE. Q: OKAY. SO YOU ONLY LOOKED ONE TIME? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: ALL RIGHT. HOW MANY TIMES ALTOGETHER THAT EVENING DID YOU LOOK UP BUNDY, NORTH ON BUNDY? A: THREE OR FOUR, INCLUDING THE EARLY MORNING. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU LOOK EAST AND WEST ON DOROTHY? A: PROBABLY ABOUT FOUR TIMES. Q: AND YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THAT -- AGAIN THAT YOU SAW THE DOG WAS TIED AT THE POST AT ABOUT 12:15. DO YOU RECALL THAT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND DID YOU LOOK AT YOUR CLOCK AGAIN AT THAT POINT? A: YES. Q: SO ACTUALLY THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 12:10 THEN, WOULDN'T, IT IF YOUR CLOCK WAS APPROXIMATELY FIVE MINUTES FAST? A: APPROXIMATELY, YES. Q: THESE POLICE CARS THAT YOU SAW OUT THERE, THEY WOULD ALSO BE AT ABOUT 12:10; IS THAT RIGHT? A: APPROXIMATELY. Q: WITH REGARD TO THIS CLOCK, YOU HAD LAST SET THIS CLOCK IN APRIL OF 1994? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, ASKED AND ANSWERED. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU LAST SET THAT CLOCK IN APRIL OF 1994; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THAT IS THE LAST TIME I REMEMBER SETTING IT. Q: YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOUR WIFE HAD RESET IT OR YOU HAD ANY KIND OF POWER OUTAGES BETWEEN APRIL AND JUNE OF 1994 TO CHECK THE ACCURACY? A: NO, I DO NOT. Q: SO YOU ARE GIVING US YOUR BEST ESTIMATE; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THIS YELLOW TAPE THAT YOU SAW AGAIN AT ABOUT 12:15, IF YOUR CLOCK WAS FAST IT WOULD BE 12:10, IF IT WAS SLOW IT WOULD BE EVEN LATER; IS THAT RIGHT? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. STORFER. THANK YOU. THE COURT: MR. STORFER, WHEN YOU SAW THE DOG TIED ACROSS THE STREET TO THE STREET SIGN, DID IT CONTINUE TO BARK? THE WITNESS: YES, IT DID. THE COURT: ANYTHING ELSE? FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK: Q: MR. STORFER, YOU INDICATED THE FIRST TIME YOU LOOKED AT THE CLOCK. WHEN, IF EVER, DID YOU LOOK AT THE CLOCK AGAIN? A: I MUST HAVE LOOKED EACH TIME THAT I GOT UP TO LOOK OUT THE WINDOW. Q: DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC MEMORY OF DOING THAT? A: NO, I DON'T. Q: DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC MEMORY OF LOOKING AT THE CLOCK THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU -- WHEN YOU FIRST CAME UPSTAIRS TO YOUR BEDROOM? A: VERY MUCH SO, YES. Q: OKAY. THE TIME AFTER THAT, WHEN YOU GOT UP TO LOOK OUT THE WINDOW, DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC MEMORY OF LOOKING AT YOUR CLOCK? A: NOT SPECIFICALLY, NO. Q: SO WITH RESPECT TO THE TIMES THAT YOU ARE GIVING US AFTER THE FIRST TIME YOU LOOKED OUT THE WINDOW WHEN YOU FIRST GOT BACK TO YOUR BEDROOM, ARE THOSE TIMES APPROXIMATELY? MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE. THE WITNESS: YES, THEY ARE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. MS. CLARK: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER. FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN: Q: BUT AGAIN, MR. STORFER, YOU ARE TRYING TO BE AS ACCURATE AS YOU CAN IN GIVING US THESE TIMES? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: YOU BELIEVE YOU DID LOOK AT THE CLOCK OTHER TIMES THAT EVENING WHEN YOU GOT UP; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. STORFER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING IN. YOU ARE NOW EXCUSED. THE WITNESS: THANK YOU. (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, ARE WE READY TO RESUME WITH DETECTIVE LANGE? MS. CLARK: YES. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. TOM LANGE, HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY SWORN, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS: THE COURT: GOOD MORNING AGAIN, DETECTIVE. THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT DETECTIVE TOM LANGE HAS RESUMED THE WITNESS STAND. THE DETECTIVE HAS BEEN REMINDED HE IS STILL UNDER OATH. AND MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY RESUME YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR. CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. COCHRAN: Q: GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE LANGE. A: GOOD MORNING. Q: YOU HAVEN'T RETIRED YET, HAVE YOU? A: NOT YET. Q: STILL THERE? OKAY. GREAT. GOOD TO HAVE YOU BACK. YOU HAVE HAD OCCASION, HAVE YOU NOT, DETECTIVE LANGE, TO DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, MR. DARDEN AND MISS CLARK? A: YES. Q: AND DURING THE BREAKS YOU HAVE HAD OCCASION TO TALK ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? A: ON OCCASION, YES. Q: AND SOMETIMES DURING THE LUNCH HOUR YOU HAVE HAD OCCASION TO GO UP AND DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY; IS THAT CORRECT? A: NOT RECENTLY, BUT I HAVE. Q: WELL, WHEN YOU WERE LAST TESTIFYING? A: YES. Q: YOU HAVEN'T BEEN HERE RECENTLY, I TRUST, HAVE YOU? A: NO. Q: NOW, IN THAT CONNECTION DID MR. DARDEN TELL YOU THAT YOU OUGHT TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE IN YOUR ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS BECAUSE I WAS MAKING POINTS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION? DID HE TELL YOU THAT? A: FOR ME TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE. Q: YES, IN YOUR ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS, AND TO VOLUNTEER THINGS, BECAUSE I WAS MAKING POINTS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION? A: NO, I DON'T BELIEVE HE TOLD ME TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE. Q: YOU DON'T BELIEVE HE TOLD YOU THAT? A: NO. Q: DID YOU HAVE OCCASION -- I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU AN ARTICLE -- YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH FIRST AND SHOW THE COURT SOMETHING, IF I MIGHT. THE COURT: YES. WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE AT THE SIDE BAR. MR. COCHRAN, ARE YOU GOING TO SHOW ME SOMETHING FROM THE L.A. TIMES? MR. COCHRAN: FROM FRIDAY FEBRUARY 24TH. I THINK THIS WAS AFTER HE HAD GOTTEN OFF THE STAND. I DON'T KNOW IF HE TESTIFIED LAST THURSDAY THE 23RD OR THEREABOUTS. I WOULD LIKE TO READ SOMETHING INTO THE RECORD, IF THE COURT PLEASES. I WILL JUST READ THIS WHOLE PARAGRAPH. "ACCORDING TO ANOTHER SOURCE CLOSE TO THE PROSECUTION, DARDEN'S OWN SUPERIORS WERE DISPLEASED WHEN HE ALLOWED HIM TO BE INTERVIEWED WEDNESDAY NIGHT BY TALK SHOW PERSONALITY GERALDO RIVERA. DURING THE COURSE OF THAT INTERVIEW, WHICH DARDEN INSISTS HE DID NOT KNOW WAS BEING BROADCAST, THE PROSECUTOR APPEARED TO CRITICIZE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE OFFICERS WHO HAVE TESTIFIED IN THE CASE. 'I WOULD LIKE THE OFFICERS TO BE A BIT MORE AGGRESSIVE,' HE SAID. 'THEY ARE ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS BEING PUT TO THEM ON CROSS-EXAMINATION AND SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS I THINK ARE A BIT RIDICULOUS AND I WISH THAT THEY WOULD POINT THAT OUT TO THE JURY ON OCCASION. I'M SURE, PAREN, COCHRAN, END PAREN, IS SCORING SOME POINTS WITH THIS.'" AND SO I WANT TO ASK HIM IF THAT -- IF HE WAS TOLD THAT AND IF HE READ THAT ARTICLE AND BECAME AWARE OF THAT. THE COURT: I THOUGHT YOU JUST ASKED HIM IF HE HAD BEEN TOLD THAT. MR. COCHRAN: I DID ASK HIM, BUT I WANT TO ASK HIM IF HE WAS AWARE. THE COURT: YOU CAN ASK HIM IF HE READ THE ARTICLE. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF HIM READING THE ARTICLE? EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL. MR. COCHRAN: TALK TO THE JUDGE. THE COURT: MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: SO AM I NOW. I WOULD LIKE TO DO SO UNINTERRUPTED. THIS ARTICLE IS SOMETHING, PERHAPS IF IT IS EVEN ACCURATELY STATED, ONE PROSECUTOR'S OPINION STATED TO SOMEONE ELSE, NOT STATED TO THIS DETECTIVE. THE ONLY APPROPRIATE QUESTION IS DID HE TELL YOU THAT? ANSWER, NO, AND THAT IS IT. I CAN'T SEE ANY OTHER RELEVANCE TO IT. THE COURT: OR HAS IT BEEN COMMUNICATED -- HAS THAT THOUGHT BEEN COMMUNICATED TO YOU BY ANYBODY ELSE? MS. CLARK: LET HIM LOOK AT THE ARTICLE. MR. COCHRAN: LET THE JUDGE LOOK AT IT. MS. CLARK: YES. LET ME INDICATE SOMETHING ELSE, YOUR HONOR, THAT I FIND EXTREMELY UNETHICAL, COUNSEL PRODUCING THINGS -- ARTICLES AND NEWSPAPERS IN FRONT OF THIS JURY WITHOUT PREVIOUSLY INFORMING US, OBVIOUSLY HAD THIS DOWN IN COURT READY TO BE PRODUCED. IT SHOULD BE TOLD TO US. WE SHOULD ADDRESS IT AT SIDE BAR BEFORE HE BRANDISHES IT BEFORE THE JURY IN THIS MATTER. MR. COCHRAN: CROSS-EXAMINATION I AM NOT BRANDISHING ANYTHING. CROSS-EXAMINATION. JUST LIKE FRIDAY I BROUGHT IT OVER HERE AND ASKED TO APPROACH THE BENCH. I AM SHOWING IT TO THE COURT NOW. MS. CLARK: HE WAVED IT IN FRONT OF THE JURY. MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS CROSS-EXAMINATION. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. CHILDREN, CHILDREN, THANK YOU. THAT WILL BE ENOUGH. IF WE ARE GOING TO USE THINGS LIKE THIS, THOUGH, YOU NEED TO SHOW COUNSEL. MR. COCHRAN: I AM DOING JUST LIKE THEY DID ON FRIDAY. THE COURT: YOU CAN ASK HIM IF THAT THOUGHT HAS BEEN COMMUNICATED TO HIM BY ANYBODY ELSE AND IF HE READ ANY NEWSPAPER COVERAGE THAT MIGHT INCLUDE THAT THOUGHT AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT HAS IMPACTED HIS TESTIMONY OR NOT, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, NO. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. Q: DETECTIVE LANGE, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO READ ANY NEWSPAPER ARTICLES WHEREIN MR. DARDEN WAS QUOTED -- THE COURT: NO, NO, NO. NEWSPAPER ARTICLES BEARING ON HIS TESTIMONY -- MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. THE COURT: -- IN THE COURTROOM. MR. COCHRAN: RESTATE IT, YOUR HONOR. Q: DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO READ ANY NEWSPAPER ARTICLES BEARING UPON YOUR TESTIMONY AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD BE MORE AGGRESSIVE IN YOUR ANSWERS? A: NO. Q: DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATION AT ALL WITH MR. DARDEN ABOUT THE WAY YOU WERE ANSWERING QUESTIONS LAST WEEK, THAT IS THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY THE 20TH? A: WE DISCUSSED VARIOUS PARTS OF THE TESTIMONY. Q: AND WHAT DID HE TELL YOU ABOUT THE WAY YOU WERE ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS? A: I DON'T RECALL ANYTHING SPECIFIC ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AS FAR AS HOW I WAS ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS. Q: WELL, GIVE US YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION ABOUT WHAT HE SAID. DID HE CRITICIZE YOU DURING DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM? A: NO, I DON'T BELIEVE I WAS CRITICIZED. Q: YOU DIDN'T TAKE IT AS CRITICISM? A: NO. MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. THE COURT: OVERRULED. MR. COCHRAN: I AM ASKING IF HE DID TAKE IT AS CRITICISM. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WHAT DID HE SAY TO YOU? A: AGAIN I HAVE NO SPECIFICS AS FAR AS EXACTLY WHAT WAS SAID, BUT I CERTAINLY DIDN'T TAKE IT AS CRITICISM. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WITH REGARD TO MISS CLARK, WHAT DID SHE SAY TO YOU ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY, IF ANYTHING? A: AGAIN, I DON'T RECALL ANY SPECIFICS. I DON'T RECALL ANY CRITICISM, HOWEVER. Q: WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THAT YOU SPOKE WITH THESE TWO LAWYERS, EITHER OF THESE TWO LAWYERS, ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY HERE TODAY? A: AT LEAST A WEEK AGO, PERHAPS LONGER. Q: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AFTER YOU CONCLUDED YOUR TESTIMONY THE LAST TIME YOU WERE HERE? A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS ON A THURSDAY. I DON'T RECALL IF IT WAS AFTER OR PRIOR. Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU DON'T RECALL IF YOU TALKED TO HIM EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER THAT? A: WELL, I'M TRYING TO THINK BACK. I BELIEVE I TESTIFIED A WEEK AGO THURSDAY THE LAST TIME, AND I DON'T -- I DON'T RECALL IF THERE IS ANY DISCUSSION ON MY TESTIMONY THAT FRIDAY OR IT WAS BEFORE. I JUST DON'T RECALL. Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT WAS SAID AT THAT TIME, THAT YOU RECALL? A: I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY WHAT WAS SAID. WE WERE DISCUSSING MY TESTIMONY AND WHAT I WOULD BE TESTIFYING TO. Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU RECALL A CONVERSATION THAT YOU AND I HAD WHEREIN YOU INDICATED THAT YOU VERY OFTEN DON'T LISTEN TO LAWYERS ANYWAY? A: NO, I DON'T. Q: YOU DON'T REMEMBER THAT CONVERSATION? A: NO. Q: DOES THAT SOUND LIKE SOMETHING YOU MIGHT SAY? A: THAT I DON'T LISTEN TO LAWYERS OFTEN? Q: YOU DON'T LISTEN TO WHAT LAWYERS SAY VERY OFTEN ANYWAY? A: I THINK I WOULD BE VERY CAREFUL IF I SAID THAT. Q: YOU DON'T RECALL SAYING THAT? A: NO, I DON'T. MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH AGAIN JUST FOR A MOMENT WITH COUNSEL? (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WHAT HAVE YOU GOT? MR. COCHRAN: I WANT TO SHOW THE COURT THIS AND SHOW COUNSEL A COPY OF THIS AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO READ THIS. THERE WERE ONLY TWO COPIES THAT WERE SENT TO ME. (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. COCHRAN: THAT WAS YESTERDAY'S PAPER IN ALBANY, NEW YORK. MS. CLARK: HOW IS THIS RELEVANT TO CROSS OF THIS DETECTIVE? (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: OKAY. SO -- ALL RIGHT. YOU ARE REFERRING TO -- MR. COCHRAN: SAME ARTICLE. THE COURT: SAME ARTICLE. MS. CLARK: I DON'T SEE THE RELEVANCE. MR. COCHRAN: MAY I BE HEARD, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN: ESSENTIALLY, FIRST OF ALL, THE RELEVANCE IS I WENT INTO SOME DETAIL WITH DETECTIVE LANGE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT -- YOU ALLOWED ME -- AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE HAD BEEN ANY CONTROVERSY WITH THE CORONER'S OFFICE WHEN THEY LOOKED AT THIS, WHATEVER, THERE HAD BEEN SOME CONCERN OR PROBLEMS EXPRESSED BY ANYBODY IN THE CORONER'S OFFICE, AND HE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT AT ALL. AND THIS MAN GAVE A SPEECH, WHICH WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A TAPE, HE JUST GAVE A SPEECH SATURDAY, WHERE HE SUPPOSEDLY -- THE NO. 3 L.A. CORONER -- WHO SAYS THAT, THIS IS A QUOTE, "DROPPED THE BALL," THEY HAVE DONE THIS ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. HE TALKS ABOUT TEN HOURS. THEY GET THE CALL ON THIS CASE AND WE GET THERE AND YOU WANT US TO TELL -- YOU WANT TO TELL US WHEN HE DIED, HE ASKED INCREDULOUSLY. EVERYBODY TRAMPLED AROUND. WHOSE FOOTPRINTS ARE THOSE? YOURS? THEIRS?" HE GOES ON TO TALK ABOUT THE EXACT TIME OF DEATH. "SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION IN THE CASE WAS NEVER DETERMINED, ONLY APPROXIMATED TO BE AROUND 10:15 THE NIGHT OF JUNE 12." SO I THINK I AM PERMITTED TO ASK HIM WHETHER OR NOT IT IS TRUE THAT MR. JIMENEZ, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF THE L.A. COUNTY CORONER'S OFFICE, HAS IN FACT COMPLAINED IN THE PAST AND ASK HIM IF HE IS AWARE OF THIS ARTICLE, BECAUSE JIMENEZ IS GOING TO BE A WITNESS IN THIS CASE. AND I THINK THIS IS CROSS-EXAMINATION, VERY RELEVANT. MS. CLARK: "THIS IS CROSS-EXAMINATION" IS NOT A LEGAL GROUND TO GET IN THERE AND ASK QUESTIONS OF A WITNESS WHO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CORONER'S OFFICE. THIS IS NOT IMPEACHMENT OF DETECTIVE LANGE. DETECTIVE LANGE HAS INDICATED HE HAS NOT HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THIS AND IS NOT RELEVANT TO HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION. IF COUNSEL WANT TO CALL THE WITNESS, THAT IS THE APPROPRIATE MEANS BY WHICH TO CRITICIZE THEIR PROCEDURES. THE COURT: SO THE OBJECTION IS HEARSAY? MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY. OBJECTION, HEARSAY. ALSO OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT. AND OBJECTION, BEYOND THE SCOPE. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. COCHRAN: THIS GOES TO A PRIOR STATEMENT. I ASKED HIM THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD EVER HEARD, AND I THINK THE COURT HAD POINTED OUT -- THE COURT: BUT WHEN WAS THIS SPEECH GIVEN? MR. COCHRAN: SATURDAY. MS. CLARK: AND THE QUESTION -- THE WITNESS WAS ASKED -- MR. COCHRAN: BUT YOUR HONOR -- MAY I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COURT TO ALLOW US -- ALLOW ME TO CONCLUDE BEFORE COUNSEL KEEPS INTERRUPTING. THEY HAVE DROPPED THE BALL. THEY HAVE DONE ON THIS NUMEROUS OCCASIONS. JUDGE, HE IS TALKING ABOUT IN CASES -- TALKING ABOUT IT BEFORE, HE IS TALKING ABOUT THE DUTY TO NOTIFY. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. YOU CAN CALL MR. JIMENEZ. YOU CAN ASK THIS DETECTIVE IF HE HAS DISCUSSED THIS WITH MR. JIMENEZ OR IF HE HAS DISCUSSED IT WITH ANYBODY AT THE CORONER'S OFFICE, THE WAY THE LAPD HANDLED CALLING THE CORONER. YOU ASK HIM THAT, BUT YOU CAN'T ASK HIM SPECIFICS FROM THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE. MR. COCHRAN: YES. OKAY. SO WE ARE CLEAR, I WANT TO ASK HIM ABOUT JIMENEZ, I GUESS. THE COURT: HAS HE EVER DISCUSSED IT WITH HIM? MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. AND I'M GOING TO ASK -- HE TOLD ME THERE WAS NEVER ANY CONTROVERSY AND THIS GUY SAYS THERE HAS BEEN IN THE PAST, AND HE IS THE THIRD-RANKING GUY THERE. MS. CLARK: SO THIS DETECTIVE IS NOT AWARE OF IT. SO YOU ARE TRYING TO IMPEACH THIS DETECTIVE WITH INFORMATION HE IS NOT AWARE OF. YOU JUST CALL YOUR WITNESS, COUNSEL. DON'T YOU KNOW HOW TO TRY A LAWSUIT? IS THIS MY COPY? THE COURT: I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION AT THIS POINT AS HEARSAY. IF YOU WANT TO ASK HIM ABOUT SINCE HE TESTIFIED IS HE AWARE OF ANY OTHER CONTROVERSY ABOUT IT, YES OR NO -- MR. COCHRAN: ASK HIM ABOUT CONTROVERSY WITH JIMENEZ AND THAT SORT OF THING? THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NO, NO, ANY OTHER CONTROVERSY REGARDING CALL OUT. MR. COCHRAN: I CAN'T MENTION JIMENEZ? THE COURT: YOU CAN MENTION JIMENEZ, IF HE HAS EVER DISCUSSED IT OR HEARD OF ANY CRITICISM. THAT IS ALL. MS. CLARK: BUT NO MENTION OF ANY NEWSPAPER ARTICLES? NO MENTION OF A NEWSPAPER ARTICLES? IS THAT THE COURT'S RULING? THE COURT: AT THIS POINT, NO. MR. COCHRAN: AT THIS POINT, JUDGE, HEARSAY, BUT IF IT IMPEACHES THIS MAN, THE PROBLEM THEY HAVE, JUDGE, LET ME -- THE COURT: NEWSPAPER ARTICLES DON'T IMPEACH WITNESSES UNLESS THE PERSON QUOTED, COUNSEL. MR. COCHRAN: IT MAY NOT, BUT WHAT I AM INDICATING TO THE COURT -- THE COURT: HEARSAY. MR. COCHRAN: THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE GIVES YOU GOOD FAITH TO ASK THIS QUESTION, IT SEEMS TO ME. THE COURT: IT GIVES YOU GOOD FAITH TO ASK THE QUESTION ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY CONTROVERSY, SURE, THAT IS IT, BUT THAT IS ABOUT THE EXTENT OF IT. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. Q: DETECTIVE LANGE, DO YOU RECALL WHEN YOU WERE TESTIFYING BEFORE I ASKED YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE AWARE OF A CONTROVERSY BETWEEN LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE L.A. COUNTY CORONER'S OFFICE REGARDING LAPD'S FAILURE TO PROMPTLY REPORT THE DEATH OF INDIVIDUALS AT CRIME SCENES? DO YOU REMEMBER THOSE QUESTIONS? A: A CONTROVERSY? Q: YES. A: I DON'T RECALL A CONTROVERSY. Q: ALL RIGHT. I ASKED YOU -- I'M ASKING YOU DO YOU REMEMBER ME ASKING YOU THOSE SERIES OF QUESTIONS? A: I RECALL SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU INDICATED TO US THAT YOU DIDN'T RECALL ANY PARTICULAR CONTROVERSY; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: HAVE YOU EVER AT ANY TIME SPOKEN WITH A MR. JUAN J. JIMENEZ, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CORONER'S OPERATIONS BUREAU? A: I KNOW WHO MR. JIMENEZ IS. I HAVE NEVER HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM. Q: YOU HAVE TALKED TO HIM AT ALL? A: I -- IN PASSING, NOT ABOUT ANY SPECIFIC CASE. Q: ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU TALKED TO HIM -- ARE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER OR NOT MR. JIMENEZ HAD ANY KIND OF OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITY ON THE SIMPSON CASE? A: NO, I'M NOT. Q: HAVE YOU EVER TALKED TO HIM ABOUT THE QUESTION OF TIME OF DEATH AS IT RELATES TO THE SIMPSON CASE? A: I DON'T RECALL TALKING TO MR. JIMENEZ. I RECALL TALKING TO DR. LAKSHMANAN AND DR. GOLDEN REGARDING THAT. Q: AND WAS JIMENEZ PRESENT AT THAT TIME, IF YOU RECALL? A: NO. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT YOU HAVE TALKED TO HIM BUT PERHAPS NOT ABOUT THIS CASE? A: I MAY HAVE. I HAVE SPOKEN WITH DOZENS AND DOZENS OF PEOPLE REGARDING THIS CASE AND MANY AT THE CORONER'S OFFICE. I JUST DON'T HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION SPEAKING WITH MR. JIMENEZ ABOUT THE CASE. Q: AT ANY TIME WHEN YOU HAVE TALKED TO MR. JIMENEZ IN THE PAST HAS HE VOICED ANY COMPLAINT FROM THE CORONER'S DEPARTMENT ABOUT THE LAPD'S FAILURE TO REPORT OR TO CALL THE CORONER'S OFFICE PROMPTLY TO REPORT DEATHS OF INDIVIDUALS? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, HEARSAY. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL ANY COMPLAINTS FROM MR. JIMENEZ. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU DO NOT? A: NO. Q: DO YOU RECALL ANY COMPLAINTS FROM DR. LAKSHMANAN, THE CORONER OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY? A: NO. I WOULDN'T CALL IT COMPLAINTS. Q: WELL, WHAT WOULD YOU CALL IT? WHAT DID HE SAY? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, HEARSAY. THE COURT: HEARSAY, SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WELL, HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE WHAT DR. LAKSHMANAN SAID TO YOU? MS. CLARK: CALLS FOR HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR, BASED ON -- THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: HAS DR. LAKSHMANAN EVER COMPLAINED TO YOU ABOUT THE LAPD'S FAILURE TO NOTIFY THEM PROMPTLY? A: NO. MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. WITHDRAWN. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND CAN YOU TELL US WHEN IT WAS -- WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU SPOKE WITH MR. JUAN J. JIMENEZ, APPROXIMATELY? A: IT HASN'T BEEN RECENT AND I COULDN'T TELL YOU A DATE. Q: OKAY. NOW, DETECTIVE LANGE, WHEN LAST WE WERE HERE, WE TALKED ABOUT THE NOTEBOOKS THAT YOU HAD AND YOU WERE KIND ENOUGH TO GO AND LOOK THROUGH THESE NOTEBOOKS THAT YOU HAD. DO YOU RECALL THAT? A: YES. Q: AND ON ONE OF THE VIDEOS YOU ARE SEEN WRITING ON KIND OF A CLIPBOARD. DO YOU RECALL THAT? A: YES. Q: AND, UMM, WHAT WERE YOU DOING WHEN YOU WERE WRITING ON THAT CLIPBOARD AT THE BUNDY SCENE THERE? A: I WAS WRITING CRIME SCENE NOTES. Q: AND WERE THOSE NOTES -- DID THOSE NOTES BECOME ORIGINALS IN THOSE BOOKS THAT YOU HAD WHEN YOU WERE HERE LAST WEEK? A: YES. Q: IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WROTE SOMETHING DOWN AND YOU PUT THOSE DIRECTLY INTO THE HOMICIDE BOOK? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: DO YOU HAVE AN ORIGINAL COPY OF THE NOTES THAT YOU WERE WRITING ON THE MORNING -- THE COURT: ORIGINAL COPY? MR. COCHRAN: STRIKE THAT. Q: DO YOU HAVE AN ORIGINAL OF THE NOTES -- THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR -- THE ORIGINAL OF THE NOTES THAT YOU WERE WRITING ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13, 1994, THE ONES WHAT I SEE YOU WRITING IN THE VIDEO? A: YES, I DO. Q: AND CAN WE SEE THOSE? A: CERTAINLY. MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, IT IS TIME FOR OUR BREAK AT THIS POINT, SO WE WILL TAKE A 15-MINUTE BREAK. YOU AND DETECTIVE LANGE CAN LOOK AT THE NOTES IN THE NOTEBOOK. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU. PLEASE DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T LET ANYBODY TALK TO YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE, DON'T PERFORM ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL SEE YOU BACK HERE IN ABOUT FIFTEEN MINUTES. SHORT RECESS. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. (RECESS.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:) THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. THE DEFENDANT IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH COUNSEL, PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED. IS MR. DARDEN GOING TO JOIN US? MS. CLARK: HE'S RIGHT HERE. THE COURT: THERE HE IS. I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE HIM BACK THERE CHATTING WITH THE NEW YORK TIMES. MR. DARDEN: GETTING MR. COCHRAN MORE EVIDENCE. THE COURT: MISS ROBERTSON, LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:) THE COURT: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT DETECTIVE TOM LANGE IS STILL ON THE WITNESS STAND. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, DETECTIVE. YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONTINUE WITH YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, DETECTIVE LANGE. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: JUST WHEN WE TOOK THE BREAK, WE WERE LOOKING -- WE HAD AN OCCASION DURING THE BREAK TO LOOK AT YOUR NOTES AND WITH REGARD TO THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THE NOTES, WHAT'S CONTAINED IN THE BOOK BEFORE YOU ARE YOUR ORIGINAL NOTES THAT WERE WRITTEN AT OR ABOUT THE TIME OF YOUR OBSERVATIONS AT THE SCENE; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND YOU SHARED THOSE WITH ME, AND BY AND LARGE, I HAVE COPIES OF THOSE; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: NOW, FOR INSTANCE -- I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION OF THE LIVER TEMPERATURE ON NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, FROM A CHRONOLOGICAL STANDPOINT, I BELIEVE YOU TOLD US THAT HER LIVER TEMPERATURE WAS TAKEN AFTER MR. GOLDMAN'S TEMPERATURE; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION. Q: BECAUSE HIS WAS TAKEN AT THE SCENE IS YOUR RECOLLECTION AND THEN HERS WAS TAKEN LATER IN THE CORONER'S VAN; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND SO -- NOW, CHRONOLOGICALLY, LOOKING AT YOUR NOTES, AT THE BOTTOM OF 0548, YOU HAVE HER LIVER TEMPERATURE. WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN PUT IN THERE AFTER YOU DISCOVERED THAT INFORMATION? LOOK AT THE BOTTOM OF 0548. A: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT IN THERE AT THE TIME THAT I RECEIVED THE INFORMATION, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT THE FACT IT MAY COME BEFORE GOLDMAN, YOU KEPT IT IN ORDER UNDER NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THE FACT THAT IT CAME BEFORE GOLDMAN? I BELIEVE IT WAS SUBSEQUENT TO GOLDMAN. Q: WELL, THE FACT THAT IN YOUR NOTES, IT APPEARS AT A TIME BEFORE WE TALK ABOUT MR. GOLDMAN IS OF NO PARTICULAR CONSEQUENCE; IS THAT CORRECT? A: OTHER THAN THAT'S THE TIME THAT THE TEMPERATURE WAS TAKEN. Q: AND IS IT YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT WITH REGARD TO THE LIVER TEMPERATURES OF BOTH INDIVIDUALS, THAT THEY BOTH HAVE THE SAME LIVER TEMPERATURE? A: YES. Q: AND IT'S YOUR RECOLLECTION AGAIN THAT YOU SAW THE LIVER TEMPERATURE OF GOLDMAN BEING TAKEN THERE AT THE SCENE, RIGHT? A: I BELIEVE I DID, YES. Q: AND FROM LOOKING -- REMEMBERING THAT VIDEO, BOTH BODIES WERE BASICALLY MOVED TO ABOUT THE SAME PLACE BEFORE THEY WERE PLACED ON THE CORONER'S GURNEYS; IS THAT CORRECT? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. VAGUE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION. MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU REMEMBER SEEING THE VIDEO, DO YOU NOT, WITH REGARD TO THE REMOVAL OF THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON? A: YES. Q: AND THEREAFTER, MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS BROUGHT OVER TO THAT SAME GENERAL AREA ON THE WALKWAY BEFORE IT WAS PLACED ON THE GURNEY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND WERE BOTH BODIES REMOVED BY THIS CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR BY THE NAME OF JACOBO? A: WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF RATCLIFFE, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT IS -- IF YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN THEIR TWO PARTICULAR FUNCTIONS WITH THE CORONER'S OFFICE, THE LADY, MISS RATCLIFFE AND THE GENTLEMAN WHO WAS WEARING THE BLUE -- BLUE JUMPSUIT? A: MISS RATCLIFFE IS A CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR AND THE OTHER GENTLEMAN IS A CORONER'S DRIVER AND ASSISTANT. Q: AND HAVE YOU WORKED OR MET -- WORKED WITH THOSE TWO INDIVIDUALS BEFORE ON OTHER OCCASIONS? A: I DON'T RECALL IF I HAVE OR NOT. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, LAST WEEK, I HAD ASKED YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ENVELOPE THAT CONTAINS THE ONE LENS THERE. DO YOU RECALL THAT? A: YES. Q: NOW, THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU HAD OCCASION TO LOOK INSIDE THAT -- MS. CLARK: WELL, OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY, CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. MS. CLARK: DETECTIVE LANGE NEVER SO TESTIFIED. HE COULDN'T TELL. THE COURT: HE JUST SAID YES. MS. CLARK: NO. COUNSEL ASSERTED -- THE COURT: LET ME SEE COUNSEL AT SIDEBAR WITHOUT THE REPORTER. (A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, ARE YOU GOING TO WITHDRAW THE LAST QUESTION AND ANSWER REGARDING THE ENVELOPE? MR. COCHRAN, ARE YOU GOING TO WITHDRAW THE LAST QUESTION -- MR. COCHRAN: YEAH, I WILL, YOUR HONOR. JUST FOR CLARITY, I'M GOING TO MOVE THIS MATTER ALONG. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE LAST QUESTION AND ANSWER. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO THE ENVELOPE THAT WAS FOUND AT THE SCENE THAT CONTAINED THE EYEGLASSES, DO YOU RECALL SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT LAST WEEK? A: YES. Q: CAN YOU TELL US WHAT DATE IT WAS THAT YOU HAD OCCASION, IF ANY, TO LOOK INSIDE THAT ENVELOPE? A: I PEERED INSIDE AN OPENING OF THE ENVELOPE ON THE MORNING OF THE 13TH. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU PEERED INSIDE AN OPENING IN THE ENVELOPE AT THAT TIME? A: WELL, STANDING -- BASICALLY STANDING OVER IT. Q: AND THAT WAS IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR BUNDY CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION? A: YES. Q: AND WHEN YOU SAID THERE WAS AN OPENING, DID YOU MAKE AN OPENING TO IT OR WAS THERE ALREADY AN OPENING IN THE ENVELOPE AT THAT POINT? A: NO. THERE WAS A SMALL OPENING THAT I COULD PEER INTO. Q: WAS THE ENVELOPE -- HOW WAS IT LAYING? WAS IT LAYING -- WAS THERE SOME WRITING ON THAT ENVELOPE? A: THERE WAS WRITING ON THE UNDERSIDE, THE BOTTOM SIDE. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT THE PART WITH THE WRITING WAS LYING -- WAS AGAINST THE GROUND; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOUR OBSERVATIONS WERE MADE AS YOU STOOD ABOVE THE ENVELOPE AND YOU -- AND DID YOU PEER INSIDE OF IT? A: YES. Q: AND WHEN YOU LOOKED INSIDE, WHAT DID YOU SEE, DETECTIVE LANGE, IF ANYTHING? A: WHAT APPEARED TO BE A PAIR OF EYEGLASSES. Q: AND DID YOU NOTICE AT THAT TIME HOW MANY LENSES THAT THESE EYEGLASSES HAD? A: NO. I WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE THAT. Q: SO AT THIS POINT, YOU CAN'T TELL US WHETHER IT WAS ONE LENS OR TWO LENSES; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: DID YOU EVER IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION GO BACK AND ASCERTAIN WHEN THE GLASSES WERE FOUND OVER AT MEZZALUNA HOW MANY LENSES THERE WERE? A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO. Q: SO DID YOU EVER TALK TO THE OWNER OF THE GLASSES WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT -- AT SOME POINT, I PRESUME THEY HAD TWO LENSES IN THOSE GLASSES, CORRECT? THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. COUNSEL, WHY DON'T YOU APPROACH WITHOUT THE REPORTER, PLEASE. (A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND JUDITHA BROWN.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. COCHRAN. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE GLASSES ARE NOT HERE TODAY. SO IN THAT CONNECTION, I'M PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO MARK AS A PHOTOGRAPH OF WHAT PURPORTS TO BE THE ENVELOPE, SHOW THIS TO DETECTIVE LANGE, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DEFENSE NEXT IN ORDER IS 1047. MR. COCHRAN: 1047. (DEFT'S 1047 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH) (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MS. CLARK: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR, WITH THE REPORTER? THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WE ARE OVER HERE AT THE SIDEBAR. THIS APPEARS TO BE A PHOTOGRAPH OF WHAT APPEARS TO ME TO BE THE ENVELOPE. MS. CLARK: AND THE PROBLEM IS THAT IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, IT IS NOT IN THE CONDITION IN WHICH THEY FOUND IT. THIS IS A CRIMINALIST PHOTOGRAPH. SO IT WAS STRETCHED OUT AND FLATTENED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DOCUMENTING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE BLOOD PATTERN AND SHOWING WHERE THEY SAMPLED BLOOD. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE RELEVANT TO THIS WITNESS' TESTIMONY BECAUSE HE IS NOT A CRIMINALIST. HE WASN'T PRESENT WHEN THE PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN AND HE CAN'T TESTIFY TO HOW IT CAME TO BE IN THIS CONDITION OR HOW IT COMPARES TO THE WAY HE SAW IT. THERE'S JUST NO RELEVANCE TO IT AND IT WOULD CALL FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN. MR. COCHRAN: I ASKED YOUR HONOR'S CLERK FOR THE ENVELOPE. I'M GOING TO ASK HIM HOW HE LOOKED INSIDE THE ENVELOPE. THAT'S WHAT I WANT IT FOR. THE ENVELOPE ISN'T HERE. HOW CAN I MAKE THE DETERMINATION? THAT'S ALL I HAVE. MS. CLARK: IT IS TOO HERE. THE ENVELOPE IS HERE. THE COURT: NO. MR. COCHRAN: THE ENVELOPE ISN'T HERE. WHY DO YOU THINK I'M SEEKING TO USE THIS? WHY DO YOU KEEP LYING ON THE RECORD? MS. CLARK: DON'T YOU DARE SAY THAT TO ME AGAIN, COUNSEL, USE THAT WORD. THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. MS. CLARK: THE ENVELOPE WAS MARKED -- THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. THANK YOU. THE ENVELOPE IS IN EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, IF YOU RECALL, WE AGREED TO RELEASE CERTAIN ITEMS OF EVIDENCE FOR TESTING BACK TO LAPD SID. THAT'S WHERE IT IS. THIS MORNING. MS. CLARK: THIS MORNING? THE COURT: THIS MORNING. MS. CLARK: THE PROBLEM IS, YOUR HONOR, THAT -- THE COURT: DO ME A HUGE FAVOR TOO. WHEN I SAY WAIT, IT MEANS LIKE WE'RE IN A WRESTLING MATCH WHEN THE REFEREE SAYS BREAK. MR. DARDEN: I LEARNED MY LESSON. MS. CLARK: I WAS NOT AWARE IT HAD BEEN RELEASED FROM EVIDENCE BECAUSE I REMEMBER MARKING IT. THE PROBLEM WITH THIS PHOTOGRAPH IS, WE DON'T KNOW WHEN IT WAS TAKEN. IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT IN THE CONDITION IN WHICH IT WAS FOUND BECAUSE THE COURT SAW THE ENVELOPE WHEN WE MARKED IT AND THE WITNESS TESTIFIED TO THE MANNER IN WHICH HE SAW IT. THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO ANY IMPEACHMENT OF THIS WITNESS BECAUSE IT'S BEEN ALTERED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE CRIMINALIST TAKING THE PHOTOGRAPH. I DON'T KNOW WHO TOOK IT. I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT WAS TAKEN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS DONE TO IT TO PUT IT IN THIS POSITION. THE COURT: THIS IS THE FBI, AND I ASSUME IT'S BECAUSE OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE MAYBE POSSIBLY FOOTPRINTS ON IT. MS. CLARK: IT MAY VERY WELL BE. BUT WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THIS WITNESS' KNOWLEDGE? IT'S NOT IMPEACHING OF THIS WITNESS BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE HAS ALTERED IT. MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE -- THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN. MR. COCHRAN: INTERESTINGLY -- THIS IS FOR IMPEACHMENT. I'M TRYING TO ASK HIM WHAT HE LOOKED AT -- HOW HE LOOKED AT IT. AND IF HE SAYS -- THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH WE GOT I PRESUME FROM THEM. I JUST WANT TO ASK HIM WHETHER OR NOT HE CAN LOOK AT THAT AND SHOW US AND TELL US WHERE HE LOOKED. HE SAID HE LOOKED IN THE ENVELOPE. I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT -- THE COURT: LET ME ASK, DON'T WE HAVE A CLOSE-UP PHOTOGRAPH OF THIS THING AT THE CRIME SCENE WHERE YOU CAN LOOK AT IT? MS. CLARK: THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT. IF HE WANTS TO SHOW SOMETHING AT THE CRIME LAB -- THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE YOUR PHOTO BOOK? MS. CLARK: UH-HUH. THE COURT: LET'S SEE YOUR PHOTO BOOK. MR. DARDEN: CAN WE GO OFF THE RECORD? THE COURT: YES. OFF THE RECORD. (A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.) THE COURT: THE ONE THAT YOU NEED TO LOOK AT IS PROBABLY THIS ONE HERE (INDICATING) BECAUSE THIS IS BEFORE IT'S MOVED. THIS IS AFTER THE CRIMINALIST HAS MOVED IT. IT'S BEEN MOVED. SO PROBABLY PEOPLE'S 104 IS THE ONE WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT HERE. MR. COCHRAN: THIS ONE HERE? THE COURT: YEAH. 104. THEY HAVE IT ON LASER, RIGHT, P-104? MS. CLARK: P-104. MR. COCHRAN: WE CAN PUT IT ON THE ELMO, WHATEVER. I JUST WANT TO ASK HIM SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW HE PEERED INTO IT. THIS IS THE ONE AFTER IT'S BEEN MOVED, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: NO. MS. CLARK: THAT'S THE ONE BEFORE AFTER THE CORONER TOOK -- YOUR HONOR, I DON'T HAVE THESE PICTURES. MR. DARDEN: THIS ONE SHOULD BE OURS NOW. MR. COCHRAN: PROBABLY ONE OF THE THINGS CARL BROUGHT THAT HE PROBABLY GOT FROM BOB BLASIER. THIS MAY BE EXPERT STUFF. THE COURT: WHAT HAPPENED, I GOT -- YOU GOT MY CALL LATE FRIDAY NIGHT I'M SURE. I GOT ANOTHER PACKAGE OF STUFF FROM THE FBI, THAT HE LEFT A MESSAGE AND I THINK SCHECK CAME AND CHECKED IT OUT FIRST. THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT THAT IS. MS. CLARK: OH, NO. THE COURT: TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH, I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS. I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THEM. I'M NOT CERTAIN THOUGH. MS. CLARK: SO THE DEFENSE HAS ALL THIS PACKAGE OF PHOTOGRAPHS WE DON'T HAVE? THE COURT: YEAH. ALL SHOEPRINTS. MS. CLARK: AND IS THERE A REPORT? THE COURT: WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT WHEN WE BREAK FOR LUNCH. MS. CLARK: YOU DON'T HAVE AN EXTRA COPY? THE COURT: NO. I ONLY HAVE ONE SET. MS. CLARK: WE NEED THE DEFENSE TO BRING THAT IN. THERE'S ONLY ONE SET? THE COURT: ONE SET. YOU HAVE MY SET. MR. COCHRAN: TALK TO BLASIER. THE COURT: WE WILL TALK ABOUT IT AT NOON. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, YOU'RE GOING TO WITHDRAW 1047? MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. (DEFT'S 1047 = WITHDRAWN) MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPH. I THINK IT'S PEOPLE'S 104 I GUESS FOR IDENTIFICATION. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ON THE ELMO. DETECTIVE LANGE, WITH REGARD TO -- THE COURT: I THINK MR. FAIRTLOUGH NEEDS THE BAR CODE BACK. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.) THE COURT: CAN WE BRING THAT UP? Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DETECTIVE LANGE, HAVE YOU SEEN THAT, WHAT'S DEPICTED THERE BEFORE, SIR? A: YES. Q: AND WAS THE ENVELOPE IN THAT APPROXIMATE CONDITION WHEN YOU SAW IT AT THE SCENE BEFORE YOU PEERED INSIDE OF IT? A: I BELIEVE SO. Q: IF YOU CAN TELL US -- AND YOU MAY HAVE TO STEP DOWN. WHAT I WANTED TO FIND OUT WAS, HOW DID YOU PEER INSIDE THE ENVELOPE? SINCE WE DON'T HAVE THE ENVELOPE HERE THIS MORNING IS THE PROBLEM. SO IF YOU CAN HELP US WITH THAT AND PAINT A WORD PICTURE FOR THE JURY AS TO HOW YOU PEERED INSIDE THE ENVELOPE, SIR. A: WELL, I PEERED INSIDE IT BY STANDING OVER IT AND BENDING OVER. IF YOU NOTICE, IN THE UPPER LEFT QUADRANT THERE IS THE OPENING THAT I EARLIER ALLUDED TO, AND THAT'S WHAT I LOOKED INTO. Q: WHEN YOU SAY THE UPPER LEFT QUADRANT -- A: YES. Q: -- CAN YOU STEP DOWN AND POINT THAT OUT SO EVERYBODY IS CLEAR? DO YOU NEED A POINTER? A: I HAVE ONE. I BELIEVE IT'S RIGHT OUT IN THIS AREA RIGHT HERE (INDICATING). MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, HE'S INDICATING IN THE UPPER LEFT QUADRANT OF THE ENVELOPE NEAR THE TOP. THE COURT: YES. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. AND SO YOU LOOKED INSIDE FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR? A: YES. Q: AND WHAT DID YOU SEE? NOW, YOU SAW THESE GLASSES. THEN YOU SAW WHAT ELSE? A: IT APPEARED TO ME TO BE A PAIR OF GLASSES. I DIDN'T SEE A WHOLE LOT MORE. YOU CAN'T SEE A WHOLE LOT THROUGH THAT LITTLE CRACK. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU NEVER -- THAT'S AS MUCH AS YOU SAW AT THAT TIME; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND IN YOUR NOTES, DID YOU EVER ASCERTAIN -- WELL, YOU MAY RESUME YOUR SEAT, SIR. DID YOU EVER ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE LENS INSIDE THAT ENVELOPE? A: I DID NOT. Q: AND SO YOU DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT; IS THAT CORRECT? A: I DON'T KNOW. Q: WERE YOU EVER TOLD AFTER YOU WERE ON THE WITNESS STAND LAST WEEK THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE LENS FOUND IN THAT ENVELOPE AT SOME LATER TIME? WERE YOU EVER TOLD THAT? A: I BELIEVE YOU MENTIONED THAT. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DID ANYBODY ELSE EVER TELL YOU THAT OTHER THAN MYSELF IN QUESTIONS? A: NO. Q: NOW, DID YOU NOTE THIS IN YOUR NOTES AT ALL AS TO ANYTHING ABOUT LENSES, THE NOTES THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT? A: NO. Q: SO YOU DON'T INDICATE IN YOUR NOTES WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE ONE LENS OR TWO LENSES? A: AGAIN, I DON'T RECALL SEEING ONE OR TWO LENSES. Q: YOU JUST SAW THESE GLASSES; IS THAT RIGHT? A: THEY APPEARED TO BE A PAIR OF GLASSES IN THE ENVELOPE, YES. Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A -- EVER A PICTURE TAKEN OF THESE GLASSES AT THE TIME THE ENVELOPE WAS BOOKED? A: AT THE TIME IT WAS BOOKED? Q: YES. A: I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN, NO. Q: IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BOOKED IN THAT SAME CONDITION AS IT NOW APPEARS ON THE ELMO? A: IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, YES. Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO -- I ASKED YOU SOME QUESTIONS BEFORE ABOUT THE MOVING EVIDENCE. IN ANY OF YOUR NOTES OR ANY OF YOUR REPORTS, DID YOU EVER AT ANY TIME NOTE THAT ANY OF THE EVIDENCE HAD ACTUALLY BEEN MOVED? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED. MR. COCHRAN: WELL, IT'S PRELIMINARY. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: NO. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND THE EVIDENCE AS I UNDERSTAND IT THAT WE HAVE OF THE EVIDENCE BEING MOVED ARE THE PHOTOS THEMSELVES; IS THAT CORRECT? A: PHOTOGRAPHS. THAT'S CORRECT. Q: DID YOU EVER -- DID YOU FIND SOME KIND OF A BONITA ECUADOR LABEL SOMEWHERE OUT AT THAT SCENE THAT DAY? A: YES. Q: AND WHAT IS A BONITA ECUADOR LABEL? A: IT APPEARED TO ME TO BE A SMALL STICKER LABEL THAT PERHAPS WOULD GO ON A PIECE OF FRUIT. Q: AND WHERE DID YOU FIND THIS PARTICULAR LABEL, SIR? A: IT WAS FOUND NEAR THE EAST POLE OF THE STATIONARY GATE EAST OF THE SIDEWALK I BELIEVE TWO OR THREE INCHES FROM THAT LOCATION. Q: WHERE IS THAT LABEL NOW? A: I BELIEVE IT WAS BOOKED INTO EVIDENCE. Q: ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU SEEN IT RECENTLY? A: NO. Q: AND WHEN YOU SAY IT WAS FOUND NEAR THE EAST POLE, WHERE WAS IT? WAS IT ON THE GROUND? WHERE WAS IT? A: IT WAS ON THE GROUND, YES. Q: AND IT WAS THEN BOOKED INTO EVIDENCE; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THAT, WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU SAW THAT LABEL? A: THE LAST TIME I SAW IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE DAY OF THE 13TH. Q: AND WOULD THAT BE THE KIND OF LABEL THAT MIGHT BE ON LIKE A BANANA, SOME KIND OF FRUIT? A: I SUPPOSE IT'S POSSIBLE. Q: YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT LABEL IS TODAY, DO YOU? A: WHERE IT IS? Q: YES. WHERE IT IS PRESENTLY. A: IT'S AT SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION. Q: SO IT WOULD STILL BE AT LAPD? A: YES. Q: SO IF WE WANTED TO GET IT BROUGHT OVER, YOU COULD DO THAT FOR US? A: I COULD PROBABLY SEE THAT IT WAS DONE, YES. Q: OVER THE LUNCH HOUR? A: CERTAINLY. Q: DO YOU RECALL ANY PHOTOGRAPHS BEING TAKEN OF THAT LABEL? A: THE LABEL APPEARS IN ONE PHOTOGRAPH, BUT NOT A CLOSE-UP SHOT. IT'S AN OVERALL SHOT. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WITH REGARD TO MR. GOLDMAN, DID YOU ON THE DATE OF JUNE 13TH OR ANY TIME AROUND THAT TIME CONDUCT ANY INVESTIGATION BY GOING PERSONALLY TO MR. GOLDMAN'S APARTMENT TO TRY AND TRACE HIS ACTIVITIES ON THE EVENING HOURS OF JUNE 12TH, 1994? A: I DID NOT. I HAD TWO OTHER DETECTIVES DO THAT. Q: AND WHO WERE THEY? A: DETECTIVES TIPPIN AND CARR. Q: AND WHAT DID YOU HAVE THEM DO, IF YOU RECALL? A: THEY WENT TO MR. GOLDMAN'S RESIDENCE. Q: LET ME -- CAN I STOP YOU THERE FOR A MINUTE? WHEN DID THEY FIRST GO TO MR. GOLDMAN'S RESIDENCE? A: WHEN? Q: YES. WHEN, SIR? A: I DON'T RECALL. IT WAS AFTER THE 13TH. I DON'T SPECIFICALLY RECALL THE DATE. THEY HAVE A LOG. Q: THEY HAVE A LOG? A: YES. Q: DOES YOUR LOG INDICATE AT ALL WHEN THEY WENT? A: I DON'T BELIEVE IT WOULD BE IN MY LOG. IT SHOULD BE IN THEIR LOG. Q: OKAY. AND THAT WOULD BE TIPPIN AND WHO ELSE? A: CARR. Q: AND CARR? NOW -- I INTERRUPTED YOU. WHAT DID THEY DO AS BEST YOU CAN RECALL WITH REGARD TO MR. GOLDMAN? A: CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION AT MR. GOLDMAN'S APARTMENT. Q: AND DID THEY GO THROUGH SOME KIND OF A DAYBOOK OR NOTEBOOK OF HIS AND LOOK THROUGH CERTAIN PAPERS? IS THAT CORRECT? A: I BELIEVE THEY DID. Q: AND WE'VE BEEN PROVIDED WITH COPIES OF THAT; IS THAT CORRECT? A: I BELIEVE SO. Q: NOW, IN THAT CONNECTION, AS THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN THIS CASE, WOULD IT BE RELEVANT TO YOU TO KNOW, FOR INSTANCE, WHAT TIME MR. GOLDMAN HAD HIS LAST MEAL THAT EVENING? A: CERTAINLY COULD BE, YES. Q: AND DID YOU ASCERTAIN WHERE AND WHEN HE HAD HIS LAST MEAL, AT WHAT TIME? A: I DID NOT. Q: YOU DID NOT DO THAT? A: NO. Q: WITH REGARD TO MR. GOLDMAN'S STOMACH CONTENTS, THEY WERE NOT THROWN AWAY AS WITH MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? A: THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. Q: AND SO THE STOMACH CONTENTS WERE AVAILABLE. AND HAVE YOU IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION HAD OCCASION TO EXAMINE THE STOMACH CONTENTS OR DISCUSSED THAT WITH THE CORONER TO ASSIST YOU IN EXTRAPOLATING BACKWARDS AS TO WHEN MR. GOLDMAN MIGHT HAVE HAD HIS LAST MEAL PRIOR TO THE TIME OF HIS DEATH? A: THAT EXAMINATION -- MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THAT'S NOT RELEVANT. BEYOND THE SCOPE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: THAT EXAMINATION WOULD BE CONDUCTED BY THE CORONER'S OFFICE. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU AS A -- YOU WERE PRESENT DURING THE AUTOPSY; WERE YOU NOT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: YOU ARE THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER, ONE OF THEM; IS THAT RIGHT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: TIME OF DEATH IS CRITICAL IN THIS CASE; IS IT NOT? A: YES. Q: AND DID YOU TALK TO THE CORONER'S OFFICE ABOUT THESE STOMACH CONTENTS OF MR. GOLDMAN TRYING TO DETERMINE WHEN AND -- WHEN HE HAD HIS LAST MEAL, AT WHAT TIME? A: WE DISCUSSED TIME OF DEATH IN REGARDS TO STOMACH CONTENTS AND THE FACT THAT DIGESTION COULD BE RETARDED IF ONE WERE UNDER A GREAT DEAL OF STRESS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE FINDINGS REGARDING THE CONTENTS OF THE STOMACH MAY NOT ALWAYS BE ACCURATE. Q: WELL, WHO TOLD YOU THAT ANYONE WAS UNDER A GREAT DEAL OF STRESS? A: WHO TOLD ME? Q: YES. WHO TOLD YOU THAT? A: THAT'S MY OPINION, THAT BOTH OF THESE VICTIMS WOULD CERTAINLY BE UNDER A GREAT DEAL OF STRESS. Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE STOMACH CONTENTS AND THE CONDITION THEY EXISTED BEFORE THE TIME OF DEATH, OFFICER; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? IN OTHER WORDS -- ISN'T THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? A: I DON'T KNOW. I ASSUMED YOU WERE ASKING ME ABOUT STOMACH CONTENTS AS THEY RELATE TO TIME OF DEATH. Q: YES, SIR. DID YOU DO ANYTHING TO DETERMINE WHAT TIME MR. GOLDMAN HAD HIS LAST MEAL? A: NO. MR. GOLDMAN HAD BEEN WORKING -- Q: I UNDERSTAND THAT. A: -- SEVERAL HOURS PRIOR TO THAT, AND AS FAR AS I -- MY INFORMATION WAS, HE DIDN'T HAVE A MEAL. HE MAY HAVE EATEN SOMETHING, BUT I HAD NO INFORMATION AS TO HIM EATING A MEAL. Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU -- WOULD IT BE IMPORTANT IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION TO TRY AND DETERMINE WHERE MR. GOLDMAN WENT AFTER HE GOT OFF WORK? A: YES. Q: DID YOU DO ANYTHING TO TRY AND DETERMINE THAT? A: YES. Q: AND WHAT DID YOU DO IN THAT CONNECTION? A: DETECTIVES TIPPIN AND CARR INVESTIGATED AT MR. GOLDMAN'S APARTMENT AND FOUND CLOTHING THAT HE HAD BEEN WEARING THAT NIGHT AT WORK AT MEZZALUNA. Q: WERE THE CLOTHING -- WAS THAT CLOTHING IN A BAG OF SOME KIND? A: I DON'T RECALL IF IT WAS IN A BAG OR NOT. Q: DID YOU LOOK INSIDE THE POCKETS OF THAT CLOTHING? A: DID I? NO. Q: DID THEY LOOK INSIDE THE POCKETS, IF YOU KNOW? A: I DON'T KNOW. Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE ANY NOTES FOUND IN OR ABOUT THOSE -- THE CLOTHING OF MR. GOLDMAN'S? A: NONE WERE BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION. MR. COCHRAN: LET ME ASK YOUR HONOR ABOUT SOME EVIDENCE IF I MIGHT. THE COURT: SURE. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) MR. COCHRAN: I DIDN'T WANT TO APPROACH THE BENCH. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THIS WAS HERE. THE COURT: THAT'S GOLDMAN'S CLOTHING? MR. COCHRAN: YES. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: YOU MAY. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I'M GOING TO PLACE WHAT I THINK IS PEOPLE'S 30 FOR IDENTIFICATION BEFORE YOU AND ASK YOU TO OPEN THIS BAG AND TAKE THE CONTENTS OUT. THIS PURPORTS TO BE MR. GOLDMAN'S CLOTHES HE WAS WEARING SOMETIME EARLIER THAT EVENING; IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT CORRECT, DETECTIVE LANGE? A: I'M CHECKING. THEY APPEAR TO BE, YES. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO REMOVE THEM? Q: YES, PLEASE. A: REMOVING A PAIR OF PANTS, APPEARS TO BE A SHIRT ON A HANGER. Q: IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE IN THE BAG? A: THERE'S A NOTE, APPEARS TO BE. Q: WOULD YOU TAKE THAT OUT? A: "ONE PIECE GREEN PAPER WITH WRITING FROM BROWN PAPER BAG DATED 2-18-95." Q: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU OPEN THAT? A: TEARING A PIECE OF TAPE THAT'S INITIALED ON THE BACK. IT'S A GREEN SCRAP OF PAPER. Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT -- LET'S LOOK AT THAT PAPER. HAVE YOU SEEN THIS BEFORE? A: NO. Q: WHAT IS THIS PAPER? A: APPEARS TO BE SOME KIND OF A SHOPPING LIST. Q: A LAUNDRY LIST? A SHOPPING LIST? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, THIS -- WHAT IS -- WHY DON'T YOU READ WHAT THAT HAS ON IT. A: VEGETABLES, TURKEY, TOMATOES, LETTUCE, CHICKEN, ASPARAGUS, BROCCOLI, SUGAR FREE ICE CREAM. I CAN'T MAKE OUT THIS ONE HERE (INDICATING). PRETZELS PERHAPS. Q: HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT LIST BEFORE? A: NO. Q: AND THIS BAG WITH REGARD TO -- THIS -- THIS IS A PAVILION'S BAG, VONS PAVILION BAG? HOW WERE THESE CLOTHES RECOVERED AND WHAT IS THE CONNECTION OF THE BAG WITH THE CLOTHES? A: ONCE AGAIN, THEY WERE RECOVERED BY DETECTIVES TIPPIN AND CARR. I WASN'T THERE. I COULDN'T ANSWER THAT. Q: BUT IT WAS BOOKED IN THE VONS PAVILION BAG ALONG WITH THIS ENVELOPE; IS THAT CORRECT? A: APPARENTLY. Q: DID THEY -- DID THE DETECTIVES -- AND DO YOU SEE BANANA ON THERE ALSO? THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. COUNSEL, WITHOUT THE REPORTER. (A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND THE GOLDMAN FAMILY.) THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONTINUE. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THIS BAG AND THE ENVELOPE AND THE GREEN LIST IS NOW IN EVIDENCE -- IS NOW MARKED FOR EVIDENCE; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU KNOW WHO WROTE THAT LIST? A: NO. Q: HAD YOU EVER SEEN THAT GREEN LIST BEFORE THIS? A: NO, I HAVEN'T. Q: HAVE YOU LOOKED INSIDE THOSE CLOTHES, LOOKED IN THE POCKETS OF THOSE CLOTHES BEFORE? A: I HAVE NOT. Q: CAN YOU DO THAT? A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) Q: YOU HAVE NOW LOOKED INSIDE EACH OF THE POCKETS? A: YES. Q: DID YOU FIND ANYTHING IN THERE? A: NO. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE LIST, WE DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT WHOSE HANDWRITING THAT IS? A: I DON'T. CORRECT. Q: AND IS THERE -- I WAS ASKING JUST BEFORE THE COURT CALLED US OVER, IS THERE A BANANA ON THE TOP OF THAT LIST ON THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE LIST? A: YES. Q: THIS BONITA ECUADOR LABEL, IS THAT A LABEL FOUND ON BANANAS OFT TIMES? A: I DON'T KNOW. Q: YOU'VE NEVER SEEN THAT? A: NO. Q: NOW -- NOW, WITH REGARD TO THESE CLOTHES, WERE THESE CLOTHES RECOVERED BY THE TWO DETECTIVES FROM THE APARTMENT THAT NIGHT? A: THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. Q: AND THEY THEN BOOKED IT INTO EVIDENCE THERE AFTER IN THE CONDITION WE JUST SAW IT; IS THAT RIGHT? A: I BELIEVE SO. Q: DID YOU -- IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION AND THE GENTLEMEN THAT YOU USED IN THIS INVESTIGATION, DID YOU EVER TRY AND ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT AFTER MR. GOLDMAN LEFT WORK HE WENT SOMEPLACE AND ATE? A: I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT CAME UP DUE TO THE FACT WE BELIEVE HE WENT DIRECTLY TO HIS HOME AND CHANGED IN THE TIME THAT HE LEFT THE MEZZALUNA. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IF HE HAD A FULL STOMACH OF FOOD, UNDIGESTED FOOD, WOULD THAT INDICATE TO YOU THAT IF HE DIDN'T EAT AT MEZZALUNA AND STILL HAD A FULL STOMACH OF FOOD AT THE TIME OF DEATH, THAT HE MAY HAVE EATEN SOMEPLACE? A: IT'S POSSIBLE, SURE. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AS SUCH, AS AN INVESTIGATOR -- MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AS AN INVESTIGATOR, DON'T YOU WANT TO DETERMINE ALL KINDS OF POSSIBILITIES, SIR? CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION? A: ALL KINDS OF POSSIBILITIES IN REGARDS TO WHAT? Q: WELL, ALL THE VARIOUS POSSIBLE SCENARIOS. DON'T YOU WANT TO CONSIDER THAT? A: SCENARIOS? Q: WELL, LET ME REPHRASE IT, SIR. WITH REGARD TO MR. GOLDMAN'S STOMACH CONTENTS, THAT'S AN INDICATION HE HAD EATEN SOMETHING SOMEWHERE THAT NIGHT. DID YOU GO BACK AND CHECK AT MEZZALUNA AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD A MEAL AT MEZZALUNA BEFORE HE LEFT? A: I DON'T BELIEVE HE DID. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOUR ANSWER IS YES, YOU CHECKED THAT, AND HE DIDN'T. ALL RIGHT. IF HE DIDN'T EAT AT MEZZALUNA, AS AN INVESTIGATOR, DID YOU THEN SAY, WELL, I'D BETTER CHECK AND SEE WHERE HE HAD THIS MEAL, IF ANY? DID YOU CHECK THAT OUT IS MY QUESTION. A: THAT DID NOT COME INTO PLAY, NO. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU DIDN'T CHECK IT OUT. IS THAT YOUR ANSWER? A: I HAD NO REASON TO. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND -- THE QUESTION IS, DID YOU CHECK IT OUT? A: THE ANSWER IS NO. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND SO WHEN YOU WERE AT THE CORONER'S OFFICE AND AT THE TIME OF THE AUTOPSY, WITH REGARD TO THESE STOMACH CONTENTS, YOU HAVE NOT HAD ANYONE IN THE CORONER'S OFFICE TO TRY AND DETERMINE BY LOOKING AT THE STOMACH CONTENTS WHEN MR. GOLDMAN MIGHT HAVE HAD HIS LAST MEAL AS WE SIT HERE NOW; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THAT'S WHAT THEY DO AT THE CORONER'S OFFICE. SO -- Q: I'M ASKING YOU WHAT YOU DID IN THIS CASE. A: I DIDN'T EXAMINE THE CONTENTS. I DON'T EXAMINE STOMACH CONTENTS. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DID YOU HAVE ANY EXPERT MEDICAL FORENSIC PERSON LOOK AT THESE STOMACH CONTENTS TO TRY AND DETERMINE HOW LONG HE HAD HAD THIS MEAL BEFORE HE DIED? DID YOU DO THAT? A: DID I DO THAT? Q: YES. A: NO. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE CORONER'S OFFICE. Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU ASK THE CORONER, ANY CORONER TO DO THAT? A: AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THEIR PURVIEW. Q: AND YOU WOULD NEVER MAKE THAT SUGGESTION TO THEM AT ALL? A: TO -- Q: TO THE CORONER'S OFFICE? DON'T YOU WORK TOGETHER WITH THEM? A: WHAT SUGGESTION? Q: THAT THEY LOOK AT THE STOMACH CONTENTS TO TRY AND DETERMINE THE TIME OF DEATH. A: I BELIEVE THE CORONER'S OFFICE DOES THAT. WE DON'T NORMALLY DICTATE TO THEM HOW TO DO THEIR INVESTIGATIONS. Q: AND YOU MADE NO SUGGESTION TO THEM AT ALL REGARDING THE STOMACH CONTENTS IN THIS CASE? A: I DON'T BELIEVE I DID. Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY REPORTS FROM THEM REGARDING THE GOLDMAN STOMACH CONTENTS? A: ANY REPORTS IN THAT -- Q: FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE. A: -- WOULD BE IN THE CORONER'S PROTOCOL. Q: DID YOU EVER HAVE OCCASION TO LOOK AT MR. GOLDMAN'S BEEPER ENTRIES? REMEMBER YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THAT HE HAD A BEEPER THERE AT THE SCENE? DID YOU GO BACK AND TRY TO LOOK AT EARLIER BEEPER ENTRIES ON JUNE 12TH, 1994? A: YES. YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THAT? A: THERE WERE NONE. Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE ITEMS FOUND AT THE GOLDMAN APARTMENT, DID YOU FIND ANY INFORMATION WHERE MR. GOLDMAN HAD MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S PHONE NUMBER THEREON? A: AGAIN, I DIDN'T INVESTIGATE OR EXAMINE ANYTHING AT THAT LOCATION. THAT MAY -- THAT MAY HAVE HAPPENED. I DON'T RECALL SEEING IT. Q: ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO LOOK AT THE NOTES OF ITEMS TAKEN FROM I GUESS THE GOLDMAN APARTMENT? A: NOT IN SOME TIME. Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU RECALL THAT MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S PHONE NUMBER APPEARS TWICE IN THESE COPIES? DO YOU RECALL THAT? A: THAT MAY WELL BE. MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: YOU MAY. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IF I WERE TO SHOW YOU A COPY, WOULD THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION PERHAPS? A: PERHAPS. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, MAY THE GOLDMAN'S RETURN TO THE COURTROOM NOW? THE COURT: I WAS THINKING ABOUT THAT. BUT THEN WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THE APARTMENT AGAIN. MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I PLACE BEFORE -- I HAVE SHOWN THESE TO COUNSEL. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT THIS. READ THIS TO YOURSELF FIRST OF ALL. IT'S DA003953. YOU SEE THAT? A: YES. Q: AND THERE'S APPARENTLY A PHONE NUMBER THERE. WITHOUT READING THAT PHONE NUMBER, THERE IS A PHONE NUMBER THERE ALSO, RIGHT? A: YES. Q: AND LOOK ALSO NEXT AT DA003955. DO YOU SEE THAT NAME THERE? A: YES. Q: SEE THAT PHONE NUMBER THERE? A: THAT IS CORRECT. Q: OKAY. DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE NICOLE SIMPSON? A: YES. Q: AND HER PHONE NUMBER? A: YES. Q: AND SO YOU SEE AT LEAST ON TWO OCCASIONS HER NUMBERS FOUND ON THESE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE ALLEGEDLY FOUND IN MR. GOLDMAN'S APARTMENT? A: YES. Q: AND IN FAIRNESS TO -- THERE ARE OTHER FEMALE NUMBERS -- OTHER FEMALE NAMES WITH NUMBERS THERE ALSO; IS THAT RIGHT? A: YES, THERE ARE. YES. Q: BUT HER NUMBER IS IN THERE TWICE; IS THAT RIGHT? A: THAT IS CORRECT. Q: DOES THIS REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION? A: YES. Q: BY THE WAY, HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO REVIEW THESE DOCUMENTS HERE WHICH PURPORT TO HAVE COME EITHER FROM SOME KIND OF A BOOKLET OR SOMETHING INSIDE THE APARTMENT? A: NOT RECENTLY. Q: DID YOU EVER REVIEW THEM? A: I BELIEVE INITIALLY I DID, YES. Q: DID YOU FOLLOW UP ON ANY OF THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE CONTAINED IN THIS -- THIS INFORMATION? A: I DON'T RECALL IF I SPECIFICALLY DID OR TIPPIN AND CARR DID OR IF IT WAS DONE AT ALL. Q: DID YOU FIND OUT WHAT DESIGN WRAP IS? MR. COCHRAN: DESIGN WRAP, W-R-A-P, YOUR HONOR. THE WITNESS: NO. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT A BUSINESS THAT MR. GOLDMAN WAS INVOLVED IN? A: I DON'T KNOW. Q: YOU NEVER LOOKED AT THAT EITHER? A: NO. Q: DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT MR. GOLDMAN MAY HAVE BEEN THE TARGET OF THE ASSASSIN OR ASSASSINS THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT? DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT AT ALL? A: THE TARGET OF AN ASSASSIN? Q: NO. WAS HE THE TARGET -- MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: -- OF THE PERPETRATORS ON JUNE 12TH, THE PERPETRATOR OR PERPETRATORS ON JUNE 12TH, 1994 WHEN HE CAME TO MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE? DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT AS A POSSIBLE THEORY? A: THAT HE WOULD BE THE TARGET? Q: YES. LET ME SEE IF I CAN MAKE IT SO YOU UNDERSTAND IT. DID YOU EVER, AS THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN THIS CASE, EVER CONSIDER ANY OTHER THEORY THAN THAT O.J. SIMPSON WAS THE ONLY PERPETRATOR IN THIS CASE? A: ANY OTHER THEORY? Q: YES. ANY OTHER THEORY, ANY OTHER POSSIBILITIES? A: I HAD ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER EVIDENCE THAT WOULD POINT ME IN ANY OTHER DIRECTION. Q: DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT MR. GOLDMAN COULD HAVE BEEN A PERSON FOLLOWED TO THAT LOCATION? DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT AT ALL? A: I THINK IT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE HE WAS FOLLOWED. Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU THINK -- DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT SOMETHING REGARDING HIM OR HIS BACKGROUND MAY HAVE LED SOME PERSON OR PERSONS TO FOLLOW HIM THERE TO THAT LOCATION? A: I HAD NO EVIDENCE AT ALL TO SUGGEST THAT. Q: AND SO DID YOU EVER PURSUE THAT OR LOOK AT IT AT ALL? A: THERE WAS NOTHING TO PURSUE. THERE WAS NOTHING TO SHOW ANY EVIDENCE TO THAT. Q: YOU NEVER LOOKED AT ANY -- YOU NEVER LOOKED AT ANY OF THE PEOPLE IN HIS BOOK OR MADE ANY DETERMINATIONS ABOUT HIS BACKGROUND. YOU DIDN'T DO THAT? A: AGAIN, I BELIEVE I DID GO THROUGH THE BOOK INITIALLY. I BELIEVE TIPPIN AND CARR DID, BUT THERE WAS NOTHING IN THAT BOOK TO LEAD IN ANY OTHER DIRECTION. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT, RIGHT? A: ABOUT -- Q: ABOUT FOLLOWING UP ON ANY OTHER LEADS OR ANYTHING REGARDING MR. GOLDMAN. A: I DIDN'T SEE ANY OTHER LEADS TO FOLLOW UP ON. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WITH REGARD TO MR. GOLDMAN, YOU I BELIEVE SHARED WITH US THAT HE DROVE A VEHICLE TO MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE THAT NIGHT; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND YOU KNOW WHAT TIME HE GOT OFF WORK; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: YOU KNOW AT SOME POINT HE CAME HOME; IS THAT CORRECT? A: I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED, YES. Q: AND WERE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER -- AND HE CHANGED CLOTHES; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: ARE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER OR NOT HE SHOWERED BEFORE HE LEFT HIS PLACE? A: NO. Q: YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? A: NO. Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT -- WHEN DID TIPPIN AND CARR GET THERE? WAS IT -- WERE THEY ABLE TO MAKE ANY KIND OF DETERMINATION BY GETTING TO THE SCENE OR MR. GOLDMAN'S RESIDENCE QUICKLY AFTER THESE BODIES WERE DISCOVERED? A: THEY DIDN'T RESPOND TILL THE NEXT DAY I BELIEVE. Q: SO THE NEXT DAY WOULD HAVE BEEN WHAT DAY? THE 13TH OR THE 14TH? A: I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY. I BELIEVE IT WAS THE 14TH. Q: SO THE 14TH OF JUNE? A: IT MAY HAVE BEEN THE 13TH. I DON'T HAVE THEIR LOG AND I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT IN MONTHS. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO AT ANY RATE, YOU CAN'T TELL US WHETHER OR NOT HE SHOWERED OR WHATEVER; IS THAT CORRECT? A: I CAN'T. THAT'S CORRECT. Q: YOU CAN NOT TELL US -- AND THEN YOU CAN'T TELL US WHETHER OR NOT HE WENT AND HAD A MEAL OR ATE WITH SOMEBODY, CAN YOU? A: IT'S MY INFORMATION AND MY BELIEF THAT HE DIDN'T. Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT YET YOU KNOW THAT HE HAD A STOMACH OF FOOD, UNDIGESTED FOOD; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? A: I BELIEVE HE DID. Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU CAN'T -- AS YOU SIT HERE NOW, YOU CAN'T TELL US WHEN HE ATE THAT FOOD, CAN YOU? A: SPECIFICALLY, NO. Q: YES. ALL RIGHT. A: BUT I AM AWARE THAT HE WORKS AT A RESTAURANT AND PROBABLY ATE DURING THAT TIME. Q: BUT, SIR, DID YOU NOT TELL US YOU SPOKE AT MEZZALUNA AND THEY TOLD YOU HE HAD NOT EATEN THERE THAT EVENING? DID YOU CHECK ON THAT? DID YOU TELL US THAT? A: NOT A -- NECESSARILY TO SIT DOWN AND HAVE A MEAL. BUT WHETHER HE WAS OBSERVED DURING HIS ENTIRE TOUR OF DUTY THERE, I DON'T KNOW. HE MAY HAVE WELL EATEN SOMETHING THERE. Q: WELL, PERHAPS HE DID. BUT IF HE ATE AT 6:00 O'CLOCK IN THE EVENING, YOU WOULD EXPECT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIGESTED; WOULD YOU NOT HAVE? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE OF HIS EXPERTISE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. MR. COCHRAN: WELL, THAT'S COMMON SENSE. MS. CLARK: THIS IS NOT A DOCTOR. HE DOESN'T KNOW. THE COURT: FOUNDATION? MS. CLARK: NO FOUNDATION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO -- AS A HUMAN BEING, AS AN INVESTIGATOR, AS SOMEONE WITH COMMON SENSE, IF ONE EATS A MEAL AT 6:00 O'CLOCK P.M., WOULD YOU EXPECT THAT THAT MEAL THROUGH THE DIGESTIVE PROCESSES WOULD HAVE STARTED TO BECOME DIGESTED OVER A PERIOD OF FOUR OR FIVE HOURS? MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WOULD YOU EXPECT THAT? MS. CLARK: NO FOUNDATION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. WHY DON'T YOU ASK A FEW FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS. MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AS A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR FOR 20 PLUS YEARS, YOU'VE ATTENDED A NUMBER OF AUTOPSIES; HAVE YOU NOT? A: YES. Q: AND YOU'VE SEEN STOMACH CONTENTS ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS; HAVE YOU NOT? A: YES. Q: AND YOU KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THE RATE AT WHICH THE BODY DIGESTS FOOD; DO YOU NOT? A: YES. Q: AND YOU KNOW THAT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, THE BODY WILL DIGEST FOOD AND PROCESS THAT. YOU KNOW THAT, DON'T YOU? A: YES. Q: AND YOU KNOW THAT IF A PERSON HAS RELATIVELY UNDIGESTED FOOD, THAT'S AN INDICATION THAT THEY HAVE RECENTLY HAD A MEAL; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR? A: POSSIBLY. MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION. WE HAVE NO FOUNDATION. MR. COCHRAN: THERE'S FOUNDATION, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OVERRULED. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. I FORGOT WHAT THE QUESTION WAS NOW, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: IT'S SORT OF A RHETORICAL -- I MEAN ARGUMENTATIVE QUESTION IN THE SENSE THAT IF YOU HAVE FULL STOMACH CONTENTS -- MR. COCHRAN: WELL, LET ME SEE IF I CAN REPHRASE IT IN A FASHION THAT WILL NOT BE. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND YOU KNOW BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE THAT IF A PERSON HAS A RELATIVELY FULL UNDIGESTED STOMACH OF FOOD, IT'S AN INDICATION THEY HAVE PROBABLY EATEN RECENTLY BEFORE THEY MET THEIR DEATH. ISN'T THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? A: DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU MEAN BY RECENTLY. Q: WELL, WITHIN AN HOUR OR SO. A: AGAIN, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY TRUE. THE DIGESTION CAN BE RETARDED. Q: SIR, IF YOUR DIGESTION -- OF COURSE, WHEN YOU DIE, THE DIGESTIVE PROCESS STOPS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IF YOU -- ARE YOU TELLING US THAT THIS STRESSFUL SITUATION OF THE FIGHT THAT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN MR. GOLDMAN AND WHOEVER THE PERPETRATOR OR PERPETRATORS WERE THAT NIGHT LASTED FOR HALF HOUR OR SO DO YOU THINK? A: NO. Q: THINK IT WAS A STRESSFUL SITUATION THAT LASTED FOR 15 MINUTES OR MORE? A: I DON'T BELIEVE IT DID. Q: LET'S TALK ABOUT THE TIME BEFORE THE STRESSFUL SITUATION WHEN YOUR BODY WOULD NORMALLY PROCESS AND DIGEST FOOD. OKAY? IN THAT INSTANCE, IN THIS CASE, HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO ANY EXPERT FORENSIC PATHOLOGISTS ABOUT THE STATE OF THE STOMACH CONTENTS OF MR. GOLDMAN THAT NIGHT AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT EXPERT CAN HELP US AND ASSIST US IN DETERMINING WHEN MR. GOLDMAN HAD HIS LAST MEAL? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. IRRELEVANT, BEYOND THE SCOPE. MR. COCHRAN: IT'S VERY RELEVANT, YOUR HONOR. MS. CLARK: NO FOUNDATION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. MR. COCHRAN: SPEAKING OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. YOU MAY ANSWER. HAVE YOU? A: REGARDING TIME OF DEATH? Q: YES. A: YES. THAT AND THE OTHER FACTORS, AND A TIME OF DEATH WAS GIVEN TO ME BETWEEN 9:00 P.M. AND 12:00 MIDNIGHT, CLOSER TO 9:00. Q: THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION I ASKED YOU. THE QUESTION -- A: I AM SORRY. Q: -- DID YOU TALK TO A FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST WITH REGARD TO MR. GOLDMAN'S STOMACH CONTENTS AND WHETHER THAT FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST WOULD BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THE STATE OF THOSE STOMACH CONTENTS AND ASSIST US IN DETERMINING WHEN MR. GOLDMAN HAD HIS LAST MEAL? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: SPECIFICALLY AS TO THE STOMACH CONTENTS? Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YES. A: NO. Q: WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STOMACH CONTENTS. NO IS THE ANSWER? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND SO HERE WE ARE AND YOU -- STRIKE THAT. WHAT DOCTORS HAVE YOU TALKED TO WITH CONNECTION -- FORENSIC DOCTORS HAVE YOU TALKED TO IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CASE IN YOUR INVESTIGATION? CAN YOU GIVE US THEIR NAMES? A: DR. GOLDEN. Q: HE'S THE GENTLEMAN WHO PERFORMED THE TWO AUTOPSIES? A: CORRECT. Q: ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE CORONER'S OFFICE HAS PREPARED A LIST OF AT LEAST 16 ITEMS THAT THEY THEMSELVES -- MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THAT, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WITH REGARD TO DR. GOLDEN -- GIVE US THE NAME OF THE OTHER DOCTORS. A: DR. LAKSHSMANAN. Q: HE IS THE CORONER? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. WHO ELSE? A: DR. SHERRY. Q: SPELL THAT FOR US. A: S-H-E-R-R-Y. Q: S-H? A: S-H-E-R-R-Y. Q: ALL RIGHT. WHOM ELSE? A: I BELIEVE THAT'S IT. Q: AT ANY RATE, WHEN YOU WERE AT THE SCENE AT BUNDY IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS, YOU WERE NEVER -- YOU NEVER DISPATCHED ANY POLICE OFFICERS TO GO TO MR. GOLDMAN'S HOME AND SEARCH FOR ANY CLUES AT THAT TIME, DID YOU? A: I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE HE LIVED AT THAT TIME. Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, YOU FOUND OUT SOMETIME THAT DAY; DID YOU NOT? A: I BELIEVE IT WAS LATER, LATER ON. Q: IT WAS SOMETIME ON THE 13TH, WASN'T IT, OFFICER? A: I DON'T RECALL WHEN IT WAS. Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO MR. GOLDMAN, I BELIEVE YOU'VE INDICATED TO US THAT THERE WERE NO BLOODY FOOTPRINTS WHICH MATCHED HIS SHOES AT THE SCENE THERE AT BUNDY; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND HIS SHOES HAD QUITE A BIT OF MUD UNDER THE BOTTOM OF THEM; DID THEY NOT? A: I BELIEVE THERE WAS MUD OR DIRT. Q: AND THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE AREA WHERE YOU SHOWED US EARLIER WHERE THIS ALTERCATION TOOK PLACE AND WHERE THE GROUND WAS DUG UP; IS THAT CORRECT? A: I WOULD SAY SO. Q: AND WAS THERE SOME SORT OF -- DID YOU FIND SOME SORT OF A STAIN OR BLOOD DROP UNDER HIS SHOES AT ALL? A: THERE WERE BLOOD DROPLETS ON THE SOLES OF HIS SHOES, YES. Q: AND WERE YOU -- IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, WERE YOU ABLE TO ASCERTAIN HOW THOSE BLOOD DROPS OR DROPLETS GOT UNDER HIS SHOES? A: I HAVE AN OPINION HOW THEY GOT THERE. Q: YOU WERE NOT PRESENT OF COURSE, RIGHT? A: WHEN THE BLOOD DROPLETS WERE DEPOSITED? Q: YOU WERE NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THIS ALTERCATION. THE COURT: HOLD ON, COUNSEL. YOU GUYS ARE DRIVING THE COURT REPORTER NUTS THIS MORNING. YOU'RE BOTH TALKING OVER EACH OTHER. MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. SORRY. LET ME START OVER. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU WERE NOT PRESENT -- MR. COCHRAN: LET ME STRIKE THAT, YOUR HONOR. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO -- WAS THERE MORE THAN -- WAS THERE ONE BLOOD DROP OR MORE THAN ONE BLOOD DROP UNDER MR. GOLDMAN'S SHOES? A: MORE THAN ONE. Q: HOW MANY ALTOGETHER? A: THERE WERE SEVERAL I BELIEVE ON BOTH -- SOLES OF BOTH SHOES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DID YOU CONDUCT SOME TESTS ON THOSE BLOOD DROPS OR TRY TO CONDUCT SOME TESTS TO DETERMINE WHEN THOSE BLOOD DROPS WERE PLACED THERE UNDER HIS SHOES? A: I PERSONALLY DID NOT, BUT THERE WERE TESTS CONDUCTED. Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU DIDN'T DO IT PERSONALLY? A: NO. Q: IT WAS CLEAR TO YOU HE HAD NOT WALKED THROUGH ANY BLOOD ON THAT WALKWAY THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT; IS THAT CORRECT? A: I DON'T BELIEVE HE DID. Q: AND SO IN THAT INSTANCE, YOU NEVER -- YOU -- STRIKE THAT. YOU'VE DESCRIBED FOR US EARLIER THAT YOU DON'T RECALL SEEING ANY BLOOD UNDER THE FEET OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON EITHER; IS THAT CORRECT? DID YOU TELL US THAT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND ONCE YOU MADE YOUR -- ONCE YOU CAME TO YOUR CONCLUSION OR YOU DEVELOPED YOUR THEORY THAT SHE WAS KILLED FIRST, IT'S TRUE, IS IT NOT, YOU NEVER LOOKED AT ANY OTHER POSSIBLE THEORIES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? A: MY THEORY THAT SHE WAS KILLED -- THAT'S NOT MY THEORY, THAT SHE WAS KILLED FIRST. THAT WAS IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION AS TO SOMETHING THAT MAY HAVE POSSIBLY HAPPENED. I CAN'T TELL YOU WHO WAS KILLED FIRST. Q: IS THAT YOUR THEORY, THAT SHE WAS KILLED FIRST? A: NO. Q: THAT'S NOT YOUR THEORY? A: NO. Q: YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT? A: I DON'T KNOW. Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU DON'T KNOW BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T THERE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? A: CERTAINLY. Q: AND ISN'T THE WHOLE REASON -- AS A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR, DON'T YOU TRY TO GATHER ALL OF THE FACTS TOGETHER AND THEN TRY TO PUT THOSE FACTS TOGETHER AND COME TO SOME KIND OF A WELL-REASONED CONCLUSION? DON'T YOU DO THAT? A: WELL, CERTAINLY. Q: IN THE COURSE OF THAT, DON'T YOU NEED ALL THE FACTS AS IT RELATES TO THE CASE? A: IT'S GOOD TO HAVE ALL THE FACTS, ALL THAT YOU CAN GET, YES. Q: IF YOU JUMP TO A CONCLUSION SOMETIMES, DON'T YOU FIND OUT LATER THAT THERE WERE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU COULD HAVE LOOKED AT BY MAKING A QUICK DECISION IN A PARTICULAR CASE? ISN'T THAT TRUE? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT'S VAGUE, ARGUMENTATIVE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME THAT IT'S NOT GOOD INVESTIGATIVE PRACTICES TO RUSH TO JUDGMENT IN A CASE. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? A: CERTAINLY. Q: AND IN THIS CASE, YOU'VE DESCRIBED FOR US THAT THESE CRIMES OCCURRED ON THE EVENING HOURS OF JUNE 12TH, 1994; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND I BELIEVE YOU SHARED WITH US EARLY ON THAT THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE WAS FILED ON JUNE 17TH, 1994; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND THAT WAS ON A FRIDAY; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND WHO WAS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHO FILED THESE CHARGES? A: MARCIA CLARK. Q: AND MISS CLARK WAS AT THE SCENE OF ROCKINGHAM ON WHAT DATE? WHAT'S THE FIRST TIME SHE CAME TO ROCKINGHAM THAT YOU KNEW OF? A: I BELIEVE SHE WAS THERE ON THE 13TH. Q: ON THAT MONDAY? A: YES. Q: AND APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME? A: I WASN'T THERE. I DON'T KNOW. Q: WHEN YOU CAME BACK FROM BEING DOWNTOWN AT PARKER CENTER AFTER ABOUT 5:00 O'CLOCK IN THE EVENING, WAS SHE THERE AT THAT TIME OR HAD SHE LEFT BY THAT TIME, IF YOU KNOW? A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING HER THERE. Q: YOU DO NOT RECALL SEEING HER THERE? A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING HER THERE MONDAY EVENING. Q: ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT ROCKINGHAM. YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THAT YOU'RE GOING OVER TO ROCKINGHAM FROM BUNDY. YOU RECALL THAT. A: YES. Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THIS SMALL RED SPOT ON THE BRONCO, DID YOU SEE THAT YOURSELF? A: YES. Q: WHO POINTED THAT OUT TO YOU? A: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. Q: MARK FUHRMAN POINTED THAT OUT TO YOU ALSO? A: YES. Q: AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE JURY THE SIZE OF THAT -- THIS PURPORTED RED SPOT ON THE BRONCO? A: I -- AS TO SIZE, I -- IT CERTAINLY WASN'T WHAT I WOULD CALL A DIME SIZE. IT WOULD PROBABLY BE MUCH SMALLER THAN THAT. Q: WOULD YOU SAY IT WAS SMALLER THAN AN ERASER HEAD OF A PENCIL? A: I WOULD SAY PERHAPS ABOUT THAT SIZE, MAYBE SMALLER. Q: AND WHEN YOU WERE OUT THERE, DID YOU HAVE ANY PICTURES TAKEN OF THIS SPOT OR SPECK? A: I LEFT BEFORE THE PHOTOGRAPHER SHOWED UP. Q: COULD YOU SEE THAT WITH THE NAKED EYE? A: YES. Q: AND DID YOU -- WAS IT -- WHEN YOU WERE SHOWN THIS BY MARK FUHRMAN, DID YOU HAVE YOUR FLASHLIGHT OR WAS IT LIGHT OUT BY THIS TIME? A: IT WAS LIGHT ENOUGH TO SEE. Q: AND WHEN YOU WERE SHOWN THIS BY FUHRMAN, WERE YOU THE ONLY ONE THERE AT THAT TIME? A: I BELIEVE SO. I THINK PHILLIPS AND VANNATTER WERE DOWN THE STREET JUST A BIT. Q: AND IF YOU KNOW, WERE YOU THE FIRST ONE SHOWN THAT IN SEQUENCE? A: I WAS THE CLOSEST TO FUHRMAN. SO I BELIEVE I WAS. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND HE CALLED YOU OVER TO SHOW THIS TO YOU. AND AFTER YOU SAW THIS SMALL PERHAPS ERASER HEAD SIZE SPOT OR SPECK, DID YOU AT THAT POINT LOOK INSIDE THE CAR YOURSELF, LOOK INSIDE THIS VEHICLE? A: AT THAT POINT, NO. Q: YOU DIDN'T LOOK INSIDE WITH THE USE OF FLASHLIGHTS AT ALL? A: NOT AT THAT POINT, NO. Q: AND THIS WAS THE VEHICLE THAT WAS PARKED KIND OF AT THIS FUNNY ANGLE; IS THAT CORRECT? A: IT APPEARED TO BE JETTING OUT. THE REAR END APPEARED TO BE JETTING OUT A LITTLE BIT, YES. Q: NOW, YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE -- YOU HAD INFORMATION THAT YOU THOUGHT THAT THE MAID WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE. WHERE DID YOU GET THAT INFORMATION FROM? A: IT WAS RELAYED TO ME BY DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AFTER SPEAKING WITH WESTEC. Q: THIS WAS A SUNDAY EVENING, EARLY MONDAY MORNING; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THIS WAS EARLY MONDAY MORNING. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU ARE AWARE THAT MAIDS HAVE DAYS OFF, ARE YOU? A: SOME DO AND SOME DON'T I IMAGINE. Q: AND YOU -- THIS WAS HEARSAY INFORMATION YOU GOT FROM DETECTIVE PHILLIPS ABOUT THE MAID SUPPOSEDLY BEING THERE; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THAT WOULD BE PROBABLY HEARSAY, YES. Q: NOW, YOU SAW -- MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT'S REALLY HEARSAY. THEY'RE NOT IN COURT. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU SAW TWO VEHICLES IN THE DRIVEWAY THAT EVENING? A: YES. THAT MORNING. Q: AND AT THE TIME THAT -- BEFORE -- AT THE TIME THAT YOU DIRECTED MARK FUHRMAN TO GO OVER THIS WALL, AT THAT POINT, HAD YOU FOCUSED ON MR. O.J. SIMPSON AS A SUSPECT IN THIS CASE? A: NO. Q: SO THE THINGS YOU HAD SEEN UP TO THAT POINT DID NOT CAUSE YOU TO BELIEVE HE WAS A SUSPECT, RIGHT? A: I SPECIFICALLY RECALL DISCUSSING IT WITH PHILLIPS, FUHRMAN AND VANNATTER THAT WE FELT WE HAD AN EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE AND THAT SOMEONE INSIDE COULD BE BLEEDING OR WORSE. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU WERE GOING IN TO SAVE BODIES; IS THAT RIGHT? A: WE WERE GOING IN TO INVESTIGATE IF ANYONE IN FACT HAD BEEN A VICTIM, YES. Q: AND BEFORE YOU WENT INSIDE, DID YOU LOOK INSIDE THE BRONCO ANYMORE AT ALL, EITHER VISUALLY OR THROUGH THE USE OF YOUR FLASHLIGHT? A: I DON'T BELIEVE I DID AT THAT TIME, NO. Q: YOU BELIEVE WHAT? A: AT THAT TIME, NO. Q: WHEN BOTH YOU AND VANNATTER WERE AT THE ROCKINGHAM SCENE BEFORE YOU WENT OVER -- HAD FUHRMAN CLIMB OVER THIS FENCE, WHO WAS IN CHARGE? A: IT WOULD BE VANNATTER AND MYSELF WORKING AS PARTNERS. IT WASN'T ONE PERSON THAT WOULD BE IN CHARGE. Q: SO YOU WERE BOTH CO-PARTNERS OR CO-LEAD INVESTIGATORS AT THAT POINT? A: YES. Q: NOW, YOU SHARED WITH US YOUR NOTES THAT WERE WRITTEN CHRONOLOGICALLY AT THE SCENE ON THAT PARTICULAR DATE, JUNE 13TH, 1994. WITH REGARD TO THE ALLEGED BLOOD SPOTS THAT WERE ON THE REAR GATE, DID YOU EVER WRITE DOWN OR LOG THAT THE BLOOD SPOTS WERE -- THAT THERE WERE BLOOD SPOTS ON THAT REAR GATE IN YOUR NOTES? A: I DON'T BELIEVE I DID. Q: AND THAT -- WOULDN'T THAT HAVE BEEN AN IMPORTANT CIRCUMSTANCE? A: NOT NECESSARILY. THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE CRIMINALISTS COLLECTING THEM. Q: I SEE. SO A REVIEW OF YOUR NOTES INDICATE YOU DIDN'T WRITE THAT DOWN, RIGHT? A: I DON'T BELIEVE I DID. Q: AND THAT EVIDENCE, IF IT WAS THERE, WAS NOT COLLECTED UNTIL APPROXIMATELY THREE WEEKS LATER ON JULY 3RD; IS THAT RIGHT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND ON JULY 3RD, YOU WERE GOING TO SHOW THE D.A.'S WALK THROUGH AT THAT LOCATION; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: MISS CLARK AND THEN MR. HODGMAN; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND YOU CALLED, AS I UNDERSTAND, THE CRIMINALISTS TO THE SCENE AFTER YOU GOT OUT THERE ON JULY 3RD, IS THAT CORRECT, AFTER 10:00 CLOCK IN THE MORNING? A: I BELIEVE THAT'S -- THE COURT: ARE WE GOING INTO SOMETHING NEW ON THIS BECAUSE WE VISITED THIS ONCE THOROUGHLY BEFORE. MR. COCHRAN: YEAH. JUST -- THIS IS COMING IN, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. Q: MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: WITH REGARD TO THE LIGHTING THAT YOU SAW AT THE BUNDY LOCATION, DO YOU RECALL TESTIFYING BEFORE THE GRAND JURY IN THIS MATTER REGARDING THE LIGHTING AND THE CONDITION OF THE LIGHTING AT THE BUNDY SCENE? A: I RECALL TESTIFYING AT THE GRAND JURY, BUT NOT AS TO SPECIFICS OF THE LIGHTING. Q: LET ME ASK YOU IF YOU WERE ASKED THESE QUESTIONS AND GAVE THESE ANSWERS. I THINK IT'S PAGE -- (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.) Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: "QUESTION: SIR, WHEN YOU ARRIVED, CAN YOU TELL ME IF YOU NOTICED THE LIGHTING IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING THERE? WAS THERE ANY? "ANSWER: THERE WAS A PORCH LIGHT UP THE PORCH. "QUESTION: UP ON THE LANDING? "ANSWER: YES. "QUESTION: DOES THAT ILLUMINATE THE WALKWAY? "ANSWER: YES. "QUESTION: IN ANY EFFECTIVE WAY? "ANSWER: IT WOULD HAVE ILLUMINATED IT SOME WAY. THE LIGHTING I WOULDN'T SAY WAS EXCELLENT, BUT IT WAS FAR FROM BEING DARK. IT WAS ILLUMINATED." DOES THAT -- DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION OF YOUR TESTIMONY AT THE GRAND JURY? A: I WOULD SAY THAT IF THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS, CERTAINLY THAT'S WHAT I SAID. Q: AND AS YOU THINK ABOUT IT AS YOU SIT HERE NOW, IS THAT A FAIR -- (BRIEF PAUSE.) Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND WENT ON TO SAY: "THAT WAS THE CONDITION YOU FOUND IT IN? "ANSWER: YES." NOW, AS YOU THINK ABOUT IT AS YOU SIT HERE NOW, IS THAT A FAIR AND ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF THE LIGHTING THAT YOU SAW OUT ON BUNDY ON THAT NIGHT OF JUNE 12TH, IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13TH? A: NO. CERTAINLY THAT'S NOT ALL THE LIGHTING. THAT WAS THE PORCH LIGHT. Q: I KNOW THERE'S OTHER LIGHTS. BUT IS THAT A -- WITH REGARD TO THE LIGHTING THAT CAME FROM THE PORCH LIGHT, IS THAT A FAIR AND ACCURATE STATEMENT OF THE LIGHTING THAT CAME FROM THAT PORCH LIGHT? A: AS TO THE WALKWAY, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, THERE WERE OTHER LIGHTS ALSO; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND OVERALL, WOULD YOU SAY THE LIGHTING THERE WAS -- MADE THE PREMISES FAR FROM BEING DARK? A: WELL, THAT WOULD BE A SUBJECTIVE CALL. I -- IT CERTAINLY WASN'T PITCH BLACK TO THE EXTENT YOU COULDN'T SEE ANYTHING. I WOULD SAY THE LIGHTING WAS POOR, BUT STILL LIGHT ENOUGH WHERE YOU COULD SEE CERTAIN THINGS. Q: ALL RIGHT. WITH REGARD TO THE BLOOD SPOTS THAT WERE GOING IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION TOWARD THE REAR OF THE 875 LOCATION, DO YOU REMEMBER THOSE? A: YES. Q: YOU DESCRIBED FOR US I BELIEVE ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT AT ONE POINT, YOU SAW FOOTSTEPS THAT TURNED TOWARD THE HOUSE. DO YOU RECALL THAT? A: THEY APPEARED TO, YES. Q: AND IT WAS -- CAN YOU POINT OUT IF I WERE TO SHOW YOU, WHICH I BELIEVE IS 43-A OR HAVE 43-A PUT UP. MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE GET 43-A? Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: PERHAPS YOU CAN POINT THAT OUT FOR US. MR. FAIRTLOUGH: YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE YOU'LL HAVE TO CUT THE FEED FOR THIS PHOTO. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. COCHRAN: WHILE MR. FAIRTLOUGH IS LOOKING AT THAT, MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: YOU MAY. MR. COCHRAN: I'LL APPROACH AND PLACE A PHOTOGRAPH BEFORE HIM. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DETECTIVE LANGE, I AM GOING TO PLACE A PHOTOGRAPH BEFORE YOU. I'M NOT SURE OF THE NUMBER OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH, BUT I SEE THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S NUMBER 112 IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH OFF TO THE LEFT TOWARDS THE HOUSE. I'M GOING TO PLACE THIS BEFORE YOU. CAN YOU LOOK AT THAT PHOTOGRAPH? DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT'S DEPICTED THERE? A: YES. THIS IS THE WALKWAY LOOKING WEST. Q: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU LOOK AT THAT PHOTOGRAPH AND BEFORE I PUT IT ON THE ELMO, AND CAN YOU SHOW ME WHERE THOSE FOOTSTEPS ARE THAT POINT TOWARD THE HOUSE -- A: NO. Q: -- IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH? YOU CAN'T SHOW? A: NO. Q: ALL RIGHT. I BELIEVE YOU WERE SHOWN THIS PHOTOGRAPH BEFORE AND YOU WERE ABLE TO SAY THERE WAS A DISTANCE OF PERHAPS THREE FEET BETWEEN WHERE THERE'S A FOOTPRINT AND WHERE YOU FOUND A DROP OF BLOOD; IS THAT CORRECT, APPROXIMATELY? A: LOOKS LIKE A LITTLE MORE, BUT YES, APPROXIMATELY. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT IS YOUR RECOLLECTION REGARDING -- THERE WAS A BLOOD DROP FOUND AT THE NUMBER OF THE CARD THAT INDICATES 112; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: WHAT IS YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION OF HOW FAR BEHIND THAT PURPORTED BLOOD DROP WAS THE CLOSEST SET OF FOOTPRINTS? A: I DON'T RECALL. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE STRIDE ANALYSIS OR THE SCHEMATIC OR SOME BETTER PHOTOGRAPHS THAN THIS. Q: DID YOU NOT TELL US THERE WAS SOME KIND OF A MEASUREMENT WITH REGARD TO THE TILE OR WHATEVER, HOW FAR EACH OF THOSE TILES -- WHAT'S THE DISTANCE OF EACH TILE? A: I BELIEVE IT'S 11 AND A HALF BY 11 AND A HALF. Q: AND YOUR RECOLLECTION, YOUR BELIEF WAS THAT THAT 112 WAS PERHAPS THREE, THREE AND A HALF FEET FROM THE NEAREST FOOTPRINTS; IS THAT CORRECT? A: I BELIEVE THE NEAREST FOOTPRINTS DEPICTED HERE. THIS IS A VERY POOR PHOTOGRAPH. IT'S HARD TO TELL WITH THE SUNLIGHT ON THERE. Q: ALL RIGHT. THIS IS ONE OF YOUR PHOTOGRAPHS, BUT I'LL SEE IF WE CAN GET A BETTER ONE. A: ALL RIGHT. Q: NOW, CAN YOU LOOK ON THERE AND TELL US WHERE THE FOOTPRINTS WERE TURNED TOWARD THE HOUSE? A: NO. AGAIN, IF I COULD SEE A SCHEMATIC OR A BETTER PHOTOGRAPH -- Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE -- YOU MENTIONED A COUPLE OF TIMES A STRIDE ANALYSIS. DO YOU USE SOME KIND OF AN EXPERT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON WHO WAS -- DROPPED THIS BLOOD, WAS THAT PERSON RUNNING OR WALKING? DID YOU FIND -- USE SOMEBODY TO TRY TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION? A: THERE WERE PERSONS WHO LOOKED AT THAT, YES. Q: AND YOU GOT A REPORT IN THAT CONNECTION? YOU CAN ANSWER THAT YES OR NO. A: WELL, I HAVE A PARTIAL REPORT ON THE STRIDE ANALYSIS AS TO THE BLOOD. I DON'T -- Q: PARTIAL REPORT ON STRIDE ANALYSIS? A: YES. Q: IT'S YOUR OPINION THAT THE PERSON WHO WAS HEADING WESTBOUND TOWARD THAT ALLEYWAY WAS DRIPPING BLOOD; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND IN THAT CONNECTION, YOU AND I DISCUSSED THAT THAT WAS A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 120 FEET GIVE OR TAKE; IS THAT CORRECT? A: APPROXIMATELY, YES. Q: AND IN THAT 120 FEET DISTANCE FROM THE FRONT TO THE BACK, YOU FOUND WHAT YOU BELIEVED TO BE FOUR BLOOD DROPS; IS THAT CORRECT? A: WELL, IT WOULD BE FIVE INCLUDING THE ONE IN THE ALLEY. Q: WELL, THIS ONE IN THE ALLEY WHICH I'M SEPARATING OUT, THAT'S IN THE ALLEY. BUT FOUR IN THIS WALKWAY AREA; IS THAT RIGHT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: FOUR -- FOUR BLOOD DROPS IN THIS 120 FEET AREA; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND THEN A FIFTH ONE WOULD BE IN THE ALLEYWAY; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND WE'VE ESTABLISHED THERE'S NO WAY YOU COULD DATE THOSE FOOTPRINTS, RIGHT? A: DATE THE FOOTPRINTS? Q: STRIKE THAT. THERE'S NO WAY YOU COULD DATE ANY BLOOD DROPS? A: ONE CANNOT NECESSARILY TELL THE AGE OF BLOOD, NO. Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THIS MATTER, DID YOU HAVE AN EXPERT WHO DID ANY KIND OF BLOOD SPATTER ANALYSIS REGARDING THESE BLOOD DROPS? A: THERE WAS SOMEONE WHO DID LOOK AT THE BLOOD SPATTER, YES. Q: |