|
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: AND DO YOU HAVE SUCH AN EXPERT? A: I DON'T, NO. Q: BY THE WAY, WITH REGARD TO THE EYEGLASSES, WERE THE EYEGLASSES EVER CHECKED OR ANALYZED FOR ANY TRACE EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT BE ON THEM, ON THE GLASSES? A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I BELIEVE IN FACT THAT THEY ARE STILL IN THE ENVELOPE BECAUSE TESTS ARE BEING CONDUCTED AND WERE BEING CONDUCTED ON THE ENVELOPE. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOUR ANSWER IS, YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE EYEGLASSES HAVE BEEN EXAMINED FOR TRACE EVIDENCE? A: I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S BEEN IN THE CUSTODY OF THE CRIMINALISTS FOR SOME TIME. Q: ALL RIGHT. AGAIN -- BUT NOW, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE CRIMINALIST. THE CRIMINALIST WORKS HOWEVER UNDER YOUR DIRECTION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? A: AT THE CRIME SCENE, YES. Q: AND -- WELL, THE CRIMINALIST IS NOT A POLICE OFFICER. A: THAT'S CORRECT. THEY'VE CIVILIAN. Q: CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE? A: YES. Q: YOU CALL THEM TO THE SCENE; IS THAT CORRECT? A: GENERALLY, YES. Q: AND IN THIS CASE, DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT TIME YOU CALLED THE CRIMINALIST TO THE SCENE? A: I DID NOT CALL THE CRIMINALIST. THE CRIMINALIST I BELIEVE WAS CALLED BY SOMEONE ELSE TO THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHO CALLED THEM TO THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION? A: I HAD RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM MY PARTNER THAT THE CRIMINALIST WAS EN ROUTE THERE. SO IT WAS EITHER HIM OR HE HAD SOMEONE DO IT. Q: SO YOU'RE NOT FOR SURE WHO CALLED? A: NO. Q: BUT AT ANY RATE, SO WE'RE CLEAR, THE CRIMINALIST WENT TO THE ROCKINGHAM SCENE BEFORE EVER COMING TO THE BUNDY LOCATION, RIGHT? A: YES. Q: AND WHAT WAS YOUR BEST APPROXIMATION OF WHAT TIME THE CRIMINALIST ARRIVED AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE? A: THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, I BELIEVE THE CRIMINALIST ARRIVED AT APPROXIMATELY 10:00, 10:15, SOMEWHERE IN THERE. Q: AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROXIMATELY AN HOUR AFTER THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR ARRIVED THERE AT ABOUT 9:10; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: IN YOUR INVESTIGATIONS, DO YOU NORMALLY LIKE TO HAVE A CRIMINALIST THERE BEFORE THE CORONER ARRIVES? A: UNDER IDEAL CIRCUMSTANCES, I WOULD LIKE EVERYONE THERE AS SOON AS THEY CAN GET THERE. Q: AND AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE. ISN'T THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? A: CERTAINLY. Q: HELPS YOU DO YOUR JOB BETTER; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? A: I WOULD SAY SO. Q: SO IN THIS INSTANCE, IF THE -- IF RISKE ARRIVED TO THE SCENE AT 12:10, THE FIRST CRIMINALIST ON THE SCENE WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE ABOUT -- AFTER 10:00 CLOCK, 10:15. SO PERHAPS THAT WOULD BE 10 HOURS AND FIVE MINUTES LATER; IS THAT RIGHT? A: I BELIEVE THAT'S THE WAY IT FIGURES, YES. Q: THE BODIES HAD BEEN MOVED BY THE TIME THE TWO CRIMINALISTS GOT THERE? A: I BELIEVE THEY ARRIVED AT THE TIME THAT THEY WERE GETTING EXAMINED BY THE -- AND MOVED, YES, ABOUT THAT TIME. Q: NOW -- MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THERE'S AN EXHIBIT THAT I THINK -- I WANT TO CHECK WITH COUNSEL. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. COCHRAN: MAY I JUST HAVE A SECOND? (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE IN MY HAND EXHIBIT DEFENDANT'S 1039, YOUR HONOR. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE APPROACH? THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: YES. WHAT COUNSEL IS ATTEMPTING TO SHOW TO DETECTIVE LANGE IS SOMETHING FILLED OUT BY FUNG. I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT DETECTIVE LANGE HAS EVER SEEN IT. IT CERTAINLY HAS NO RELEVANCE TO HIS TESTIMONY OR HIS PART IN THE CASE. THE COURT: I ASSUME IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH TIME. MR. COCHRAN: NO, IT DOESN'T. MAY I TELL YOU, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: SURE. MR. COCHRAN: THIS ONE QUESTION I WANT TO ASK HIM -- I SEE OFFICER IN CHARGE, NAME MAZZOLA, ADDITIONAL NAME FUNG. SO I WANT TO ASK HIM WHETHER OR NOT MAZZOLA WAS THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, A TRAINEE WAS IN CHARGE. THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION. THIS IS THEIR FORM. MS. CLARK: THIS IS NOT THIS DETECTIVE'S FORM. HE DIDN'T FILL IT OUT. COUNSEL KNOWS VERY WELL THAT THAT WAS A MISTAKE. MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T KNOW IT WAS A MISTAKE. MS. CLARK: IF COUNSEL WANTS TO CROSS-EXAMINE SOMEONE ABOUT IT, IT SHOULD BE THE ONE WHO FILLED IT OUT OR WHO HAS SOME PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. THIS WITNESS IS NOT THE RIGHT WITNESS. HE DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. THIS IS A CRIMINALIST FORM, NOT A DETECTIVE FORM. HE'S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. IF COUNSEL WANTS TO ASK THIS DETECTIVE WHO HE LEFT IN CHARGE AND WHO HE FELT WAS IN CHARGE OF THE CRIME SCENE, THAT'S ONE THING. BUT TO ATTEMPT TO IMPEACH THIS DETECTIVE WITH A FORM FILLED OUT BY SOMEONE ELSE IS REALLY IMPROPER IMPEACHMENT. MR. COCHRAN: MAY I PROCEED, YOUR HONOR? I DON'T KNOW WHY WE ARE UP HERE. ALL I WANT TO ASK HIM -- IT INDICATES ON THIS FORM CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION CHECKLIST. I'M PERMITTED TO ASK THIS. SHE MAY LIKE TO TRY HER CASE THAT WAY. I WANT TO TRY MY CASE THIS WAY. THE COURT: WHAT ARE WE GOING TO ASK? MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THAT ALSO? THE COURT: NO. YOU ARE GOING TO ASK THIS DETECTIVE WHO THE CRIMINALIST IN CHARGE WAS? MR. COCHRAN: I'M GOING TO ASK HIM WHO THE CRIMINALIST WAS AND WHAT DOES THIS MEAN, OIC MEAN. IS SOMEBODY GOING TO COME IN SAYING THAT? I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW WHO WROTE THIS, BUT I'M NOT PRECLUDED FROM ASKING THAT. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ASKED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO WHAT COUNSEL WANTS TO ELICIT THROUGH HEARSAY. COUNSEL KEEPS DOING THIS AND GOING OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARY OF WHAT A WITNESS CAN TESTIFY TO USING INAPPROPRIATE DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION. THE COURT: I AGREE AT THIS POINT THERE'S INSUFFICIENT FOUNDATION TO ASK ABOUT THAT, BUT HE CAN ASK SOME QUESTIONS AS TO WHO THE CRIMINALIST WAS WHO WAS ASSIGNED TO THE CASE. MS. CLARK: WITHOUT THIS DOCUMENT. THE COURT: SO FAR. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DETECTIVE LANGE, WHO WERE THE CRIMINALISTS WHO WERE -- WHO ULTIMATELY CAME TO THE BUNDY LOCATION ON THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13TH, 1994? A: FUNG AND MAZZOLA. Q: AND WHAT DOES THE INITIALS OIC MEAN? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. VAGUE, IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WHAT DOES OIC MEAN? A: I DON'T KNOW. Q: IF YOU -- ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH A FORM CALLED THE "CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION CHECKLIST"? A: I BELIEVE IT'S A FORM THAT'S USED BY CRIMINALISTS IN THE FIELD. Q: HAVE YOU SEEN THAT FORM BEFORE? A: PROBABLY HAVE. Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THE TERM "SEARCH TEAM OIC NAME," DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS? A: I CAN ONLY ASSUME IT'S SCIENTIFIC -- MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. SPECULATION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: IT'S SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION FORM. I'M ASSUMING THAT THAT WOULD BE THEIR CRIMINALIST SEARCH TEAM AT A CRIME SCENE. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. AND AS BETWEEN MAZZOLA AND FUNG, WHO WAS THE MOST EXPERIENCED, IF YOU KNOW? A: I BELIEVE FUNG. Q: AND WERE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER -- OF HOW MANY CRIME SCENES BEFORE THIS MAZZOLA HAD WORKED ON BEFORE THIS PARTICULAR CASE ON JUNE 13TH, 1994? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. HEARSAY, IRRELEVANT. MR. COCHRAN: IF HE KNOWS. THE COURT: OVERRULED. IF YOU KNOW. THE WITNESS: NOT AT THAT TIME, NO. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, YOU HAD WORKED WITH FUNG BEFORE THIS DATE OF JUNE 1994. YOU KNEW HIM? A: I KNEW WHO HE WAS. I DON'T RECALL WORKING ANY SPECIFIC CASES WITH HIM. Q: AND AS BETWEEN MAZZOLA AND FUNG, IF YOU KNOW, WHICH WAS THE OFFICER IN CHARGE? WHICH OF THE TWO OF THEM WERE IN CHARGE? A: I WOULD HAVE SAID FUNG. MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. MAY I SHOW HIM THIS FORM, YOUR HONOR, AT THIS POINT? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. NO FOUNDATION. THE COURT: YOU CAN SHOW IT TO HIM. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: PLACING BEFORE YOU 1039. THE COURT: SEE IF IT REFRESHES HIS RECOLLECTION. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ASK YOU WHETHER OR NOT 1039 REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHICH WAS IN CHARGE. MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT WAS NOT THE QUESTION AND HE HAS NO NEED TO REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION AS TO WHO WAS IN CHARGE. THIS DETECTIVE HAS INDICATED HE KNOWS. THE COURT: OVERRULED. MS. CLARK: THE QUESTION IS IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: YOU WANT MY INTERPRETATION OF THIS? Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NO. I WANT YOU TO READ IT TO YOURSELF. THE COURT: WHETHER OR NOT IT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHICH CRIMINALIST WAS IN CHARGE. THE WITNESS: NO. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IT DOES NOT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION? A: NO. Q: ALL RIGHT. BY THE WAY, THIS PARTICULAR FORM, IS THIS THE FORM THAT YOU THOUGHT IT WAS, A CRIMINALIST FORM? A: NO, IT'S NOT. Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT IS THIS FORM THEN, "CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION CHECKLIST"? A: THIS IS A FORM USED BY SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION FOR THEIR PURPOSES. Q: AND THAT'S PART OF THE LAPD? A: IT'S PART OF THE LAPD. IT'S NOT A FORM THAT I USE OR AM FAMILIAR WITH. Q: ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT FORM BEFORE? A: I BELIEVE IN THIS CASE, I PROBABLY HAVE, YES. IT'S IN -- IT SHOULD BE PART OF SID'S NOTES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AS SUCH, AS BETWEEN FUNG AND MAZZOLA, MAZZOLA AND FUNG, YOU DIDN'T CALL EITHER ONE OF THEM ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY; IS THAT RIGHT? A: NO. MR. COCHRAN: A LITTLE BIT MORE. SO -- THE COURT: KEEP GOING. MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. I MAY NOT FINISH, BUT -- Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, WERE YOU PRESENT AT THE BUNDY LOCATION WHEN THE KNIT CAP WAS TAKEN BY SOMEONE, BY THE CRIMINALIST PRESUMABLY TO BE BOOKED INTO EVIDENCE? A: I DON'T KNOW IF I WAS THERE OR NOT. Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF THAT AT ALL? A: NO. Q: DO YOU KNOW -- DO YOU REMEMBER SEEING FUNG AT THAT LOCATION? A: OH, YES. Q: DO YOU REMEMBER SEEING MAZZOLA AT THE LOCATION? A: YES. Q: DO YOU REMEMBER WHETHER OR NOT AT SOME POINT, FUNG WAS PLACING ITEMS OF EVIDENCE INTO A PAPER BAG OF SOME KIND? A: I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY SEEING HIM DO THAT. I RECALL HIM BEING WITH THE GLOVE AND WHEN I EXAMINED THE GLOVE, BUT PUTTING IT IN THE BAG AT THAT TIME, I BELIEVE THAT WAS IN THE CRIMINALIST WAGON, IN THE TRUCK. Q: ALL RIGHT. WE TALKED BRIEFLY ABOUT THIS BEFORE. YOU HAD ASKED AND WAS ASSISTED -- YOU WERE ASSISTED BY PHILLIPS IN CALLING THE CORONER'S OFFICE FOR THE FIRST CALL; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND IN YOUR NOTES THAT YOU WROTE DOWN, YOU INDICATED SOMETHING ABOUT THE CALL BEING AT 7:35 IS IT? THAT CALL WAS LATER THAN 7:35; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? A: I DON'T RECALL WRITING 7:35. Q: WELL, LET'S REFER TO YOUR NOTES, THE CRIME SCENE NOTES. MS. CLARK: CAN WE HAVE A PAGE, COUNSEL? MR. COCHRAN: I THINK IT'S 054 IS WHAT I SEE, COUNSEL. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THE FIRST PAGE, DETECTIVE. A: 0547? Q: YES. MY "7" IS CUT OFF. DO YOU SEE AT THE VERY TOP THERE, IT SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT HEATH NOTIFIED? DO YOU SEE THAT? A: YES. Q: SEEMS LIKE THAT WAS WRITTEN OVER. WHAT DOES THAT SAY IN YOUR NOTES? A: "CORONER INVESTIGATOR HEATH NOTIFIED 0735." Q: 0735, THAT'S 7:35 IN THE MORNING? A: YES. Q: AND YOU KNOW NOW FROM THE REPORTS IN THIS CASE THAT THE CORONER WAS FIRST CALLED AT PERHAPS 6:49, 6:50 IN THE MORNING; IS THAT RIGHT? A: SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YES. Q: AND THAT THE SECOND CALL WAS ABOUT 8:08 IN THE MORNING; IS THAT CORRECT? A: I DON'T RECALL, BUT PERHAPS, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AT THE TIME THAT YOU HAD PHILLIPS CALL THE CORONER THE FIRST TIME, DID YOU KNOW THAT MR. GOLDMAN AND MISS BROWN HAD -- MISS BROWN SIMPSON HAD DIED FROM KNIFE WOUNDS? A: AT THE TIME OF THE FIRST CORONER'S NOTIFICATION? Q: YES. THE ONE JUST BEFORE 7:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. A: NOT FOR SURE, NO. Q: WELL, YOU DIDN'T THINK THEY HAD BEEN BLUDGEONED TO DEATH, DID YOU? A: DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE. Q: YOU COULD SEE -- YOU COULD SEE BOTH THEIR BODIES; COULD YOU NOT? A: YES. Q: AND YOU DIDN'T THINK THEY HAD BEEN SHOT, DID YOU, AT THAT POINT? A: I COULDN'T SAY. Q: YOU HAD NO IDEA AT ALL? A: I FELT THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN A COMBINATION OF THINGS CERTAINLY. WE MORE OR LESS RESERVE JUDGMENT UNTIL THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR GETS THERE AND WE CAN EXAMINE FURTHER. Q: AND WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE THEORY THAT THEY -- IN TELLING THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR THAT, "WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER THESE BODIES WERE BLUDGEONED TO DEATH OR SHOT," BECAUSE THAT WAS THE STATE OF YOUR MIND AT THAT TIME WHEN THE CORONER'S FIRST CALL WAS MADE SHORTLY BEFORE 7:00 O'CLOCK ON JUNE 13, 1994? A: I DIDN'T KNOW. Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU EVER AT ANY TIME BEFORE IT WAS COLLECTED EVER EXAMINE THIS GLOVE THAT WE'VE SEEN DEPICTED AT THE BUNDY LOCATION? A: DID I EXAMINE IT? Q: YES, SIR. A: WHEN? Q: THAT MORNING BEFORE IT WAS EVER COLLECTED BY ANYONE. A: IN THE PRESENCE OF MR. FUNG, YES. Q: AND THIS IS BEFORE FUNG -- DID FUNG COLLECT IT AFTER THAT, IF YOU KNOW? A: I BELIEVE IT HAD BEEN COLLECTED. Q: AND BY COLLECTED, WHAT DO WE MEAN? A: PICKED IT UP. I BELIEVE IT HAD BEEN PICKED UP, AND IN FACT WHAT I HAD TESTIFIED TO WAS, I OBSERVED IT IN THE TRUCK. HE WAS POINTING OUT TO ME THAT THERE -- TO BE CAREFUL OF THE GLOVE, THAT THERE WERE HAIRS AND FIBERS ON IT. Q: FUNG POINTED THIS OUT FOR YOU, CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THAT GLOVE, THERE WERE CAUCASIAN HAIRS ON THAT GLOVE; IS THAT CORRECT? A: I DON'T KNOW. Q: YOU DON'T KNOW THAT WHETHER THERE WERE CAUCASIAN HAIRS ON THAT GLOVE? A: NO. Q: WERE THERE CAUCASIAN HAIRS ON EITHER OF THE GLOVES? A: I DON'T KNOW. Q: YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT AT ALL? A: I HAVE HEARD THAT -- I DON'T KNOW -- Q: NOT WHAT YOU HEARD. JUST WHAT YOU KNOW. MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. HOW ELSE WOULD HE KNOW? MR. COCHRAN: I'M ASKING HIM WHAT HE KNOWS AND HE WILL HAVE TO TELL US AS THE INVESTIGATOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. MS. CLARK: HEARSAY. THE COURT: AND HE WILL HAVE TO TELL US AFTER LUNCH. MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE NOON HOUR AT THIS TIME. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU FINALLY. DETECTIVE LANGE, YOU ARE EXCUSED AND ORDERED BACK FOR 1:30. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, 1:30. WE'RE IN RECESS. (AT 12:01 P.M., THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.) LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, MARCH 6, 1995 2:20 P.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: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. THE DEFENDANT IS PRESENT WITH COUNSEL, MR. COCHRAN, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. BAILEY. MR. COCHRAN, ARE YOU PREPARED TO GO FORWARD? MR. COCHRAN: I AM PREPARED TO GO FORWARD, YOUR HONOR. PROBABLY AT SOME POINT I'M GOING TO NEED MR. HARRIS FOR THE ELMO, ET CETERA, BUT I CAN GO FORWARD. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN: I GUESS I PRESUME THEY ARE ALL LOCKED OUT OF THE BUILDING. THE COURT: WELL, WE HAVE MR. FAIRTLOUGH. MR. DARDEN: JUDGE, THE WREATH, CAN WE HAVE THIS REMOVED? (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. AND DEPUTY BROWNING, AS THE SPECTATORS WANDER IN, YOU CAN LET THEM IN, BUT ADMONISH THEM TO BE QUIET. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, MY APOLOGIES TO YOU FOR THE DELAY IN GETTING STARTED. WE HAD A BOMB SCARE DOWN ON THE BOTTOM FLOOR AND THE SHERIFFS AND THE LAPD HAD TO EVACUATE TWO OF THE FLOORS, THEY HAD TO STOP ALL OF THE ELEVATORS. THIS IS A DAY WE STARTED OUT, THINGS WERE GOING SO WELL, AND NATURALLY SOMETHING HAD TO HAPPEN, SO THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE DELAY. THE BUILDING HAS BEEN SECURE, IT IS NOT A PROBLEM, AND WE ARE READY TO PROCEED AND AS SPECTATORS TRICKLE IN THERE WILL BE A LITTLE MORE DISRUPTION THAN NORMAL, BECAUSE NORMALLY WHEN WE START THE COURT SESSION NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO ENTER THE COURTROOM, BUT BECAUSE OF THE LATE START, I'M GOING TO LET PEOPLE WANDER IN ON SCOUT'S HONOR THAT THEY WILL BE QUIET, THAT THEY DO SO. TOM LANGE, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE NOON RECESS, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS: THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY RESUME WITH YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON. MR. COCHRAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, DETECTIVE LANGE. CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. COCHRAN: Q: OVER THE LUNCH HOUR WERE YOU ABLE TO FIND THE BONITA ECUADOR LABEL, THE PICTURE THEREOF? A: I BELIEVE IT IS IN EVIDENCE. I DIDN'T GET IT. Q: YOU BELIEVE IT IS IN EVIDENCE WHERE? IN THIS COURTROOM? A: NO, I BELIEVE IT IS AT SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION. Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH OF IT? A: THERE IS AN OVERALL PHOTOGRAPH, AS I STATED, BUT THERE IS NOT A CLOSE-UP PHOTOGRAPH. IT IS NOT A VERY GOOD PHOTOGRAPH. Q: DO YOU HAVE THAT WITH YOU? A: NO. Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT DOES THIS OVERALL PHOTOGRAPH SHOW? A: IT SHOWS LOOKING DOWN ON THE WALKWAY AT THE STATIONARY GATE AT THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE WALKWAY. Q: AND IF YOU SAW AN OVERALL PHOTOGRAPH NOW COULD YOU POINT IT OUT FOR US? A: YES. Q: BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN MARKED IN THIS CASE, HAS IT? A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO. Q: LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIND OUT AND GIVE US AN APPROXIMATION OF WHERE THIS LABEL WAS FOUND. ALL RIGHT. (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: MR. FAIRTLOUGH, DO YOU WANT TO GIVE MR. COCHRAN A HAND FISHING FOR THOSE EXHIBITS, PLEASE. MR. FAIRTLOUGH: SURE. THE COURT: SO WE DON'T LOSE THE EASEL AGAIN. MR. FAIRTLOUGH: YES, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: LET ME HAVE MR. FAIRTLOUGH GIVE YOU A HAND WITH THAT. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. COCHRAN: CAN THE WITNESS STEP DOWN OFF THERE, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: CERTAINLY. (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, PERHAPS WE CAN JUST CUT THE FEED NOW TO BRIEFLY SHOW -- PUT ON THE BOARD PLAINTIFF'S 43. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE PHOTOGRAPHERS ARE DIRECTED NOT TO TAKE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF THIS ITEM. MR. COCHRAN: SPECIFICALLY 43-D. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 43-D, AS IN DAVID. MR. COCHRAN: D, AS IN DAVID. Q: WHILE WE ARE HERE, ON 43-D, BLOCKING THE VIEWS, CAN YOU SHOW US WHERE THIS BONITA ECUADOR LABEL WAS FOUND IN RELATION TO THE POST AT THE FRONT GATE? A: YES. RIGHT HERE, (INDICATING). MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. YOUR HONOR, HE IS POINTING TO AN AREA JUST TO THE RIGHT OF THE POST ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE WALKWAY. Q: IS THAT RIGHT? A: YES. Q: SOUTH SIDE OF THE WALKWAY AND IT IS LIKE A LITTLE LABEL? A: YES. Q: IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND THAT IS DEPICTED IN 43-D? A: YES. Q: HAVE YOU SEEN THE OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH ARE CLEARER WITH REGARD TO THAT? MS. CLARK: EXCUSE ME? THE WITNESS: NO. MS. CLARK: WITH MR. FAIRTLOUGH'S ASSISTANCE WE HAVE LOCATED ONE THAT DOES ACTUALLY DEPICT THIS LABEL. APPEARS TO BE A FRUIT TYPE LABEL RIGHT THERE. AND WE CAN PUT IT ON THE ELMO AND BLOW IT UP. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. COCHRAN: I WILL MARK THIS AS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: 1047. MR. COCHRAN: 1047. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DEFENSE 1047. (DEFT'S 1047 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH) MR. COCHRAN: PUT IT ON THE ELMO AND THEN I THINK EVERYONE CAN SEE IT. Q: AND CAN YOU SEE -- WE WILL HAVE TO CLEAR IT UP, FIRST. ALL RIGHT. NOW, CAN YOU SEE ON YOUR MONITOR? A: YES. Q: AND IS THAT A FOOT -- IS THAT A MAN'S SHOE? A: IT APPEARS TO BE, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. IS THAT -- WILL YOU POINT OUT FOR US -- OR LET ME ASK YOU THIS: IS THE BONITA ECUADOR LABEL TO THE LEFT OF THAT MAN'S LEFT SHOE THERE? A: YES, TO THE LEFT OF THE SHOE AND TO THE RIGHT OF THE POST. Q: ALL RIGHT. THAT IS THE POST ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE WALKWAY AT THE FRONT GATE; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR? A: THAT IS THE STATIONARY GATE TO THE SOUTH OF THE WALKWAY, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. THAT IS THE LOCATION; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. FAIRTLOUGH. YOUR HONOR, WHILE WE ARE ABOUT IT AND WE ARE LOOKING AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS, LET ME PUT PEOPLE'S 48 FOR IDENTIFICATION UP, PLEASE. (BRIEF PAUSE.) Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THIS -- I HAVE NOW PLACED, DETECTIVE LANGE, PEOPLE'S 48 AND 48-A, A LARGER PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PHOTOGRAPH I SHOWED YOU THIS MORNING. I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT THE CARD LABELED "112." WHAT IS THAT? A: 112 INDICATES THE LOCATION OF A BLOOD DROP. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND CAN YOU SHOW US THE CLOSEST FOOTPRINT TO THAT BLOOD DROP? A: IT APPEARS TO BE A FOOTPRINT HERE, (INDICATING). Q: ALL RIGHT. A: LITTLE HARD TO TELL BECAUSE OF THE LIGHTING. PERHAPS ANOTHER ONE HERE, (INDICATING). Q: ALL RIGHT. IN THE FOREGROUND THERE ARE SOME, WHAT APPEAR TO BE FOOTPRINTS, IF YOU COULD TELL? A: THIS APPEARS TO BE ONE HERE, YES. Q: NOW, CAN YOU SEE ON THAT PHOTOGRAPH 48-A WHERE YOU SAY THERE IS A POINT WHERE THE INDIVIDUALS OR INDIVIDUAL TURNS TOWARD THE BUILDING, THERE ARE TWO FOOTPRINTS THAT ARE GOING TOWARD THE BUILDING? CAN YOU SEE THIS DEPICTED IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH? A: IT COULD BE APPROXIMATELY IN THIS AREA HERE, (INDICATING). Q: NOW, YOU ARE REFERRING TO AN AREA IN THE CENTER -- ABOUT THE CENTER OF 48-A; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND DESCRIBE FOR THE JURY HOW THOSE FOOTPRINTS -- HOW -- WHICH DIRECTION THEY WERE POINTING, THE SHOEPRINTS? A: THE FRONT WAS MORE OR LESS POINTED TOWARDS THE LEFT INDICATING SOMEONE MAY HAVE BEEN TURNING AROUND. Q: IS THAT THE ONLY PLACE THAT YOU SEE SHOEPRINTS POINTING TOWARD THE PARTICULAR BUILDING? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. WHILE YOU ARE UP, SIR, WITH REGARD TO 48-F, DO YOU RECALL THAT THERE WAS SOME BERRIES OR SOME KIND OF PLANT MATERIAL ON THAT BACK GATE AS YOU WALKED OUT THE WALKWAY THERE? A: QUITE A BIT OF DEBRIS, YES. Q: WAS THERE A TREE ABOVE THAT? A: THERE ARE BUSHES AND TREES OFF TO THE RIGHT OF THE PHOTOGRAPH, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. WITH REGARD TO THIS TRASH CAN BACK HERE DEPICTED ON 48-J, IS THAT ONE OF THE AREAS THAT WAS SEARCHED EITHER FOR WEAPONS OR ANY KIND OF BLOODY CLOTHES OR WHATEVER? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. DOES THIS PICTURE HERE SEEK TO ILLUMINATE OR PORTRAY THAT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR AGAIN, ON THE RIGHT SIDE OR THE NORTH SIDE OF THIS JEEP CHEROKEE, THAT IS WHERE SOME OF THIS CHANGE WAS FOUND; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: I'M NOT TOTALLY CLEAR, DETECTIVE LANGE. DID YOU FIND ONE DIME AND ONE PENNY OR TWO DIMES AND TWO PENNIES? A: MY RECOLLECTION IS ONE DIME AND ONE PENNY. Q: IS THAT WHAT WAS BOOKED? A: YES. Q: WHEN YOU LOOKED -- DETECTIVE, TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR NOTES IN YOUR REPORT AND SEE IF THERE IS AN INDICATION THERE WERE REALLY TWO DIMES AND TWO PENNIES. A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) Q: LOOK AT PAGE 0555. A: STATES TWO DIMES AND TWO PENNIES IN THE DRIVEWAY NORTH OF THE JEEP. Q: IS THAT WHAT IS DEPICTED IN THAT AREA IN 48-F, I GUESS IT WAS, NEAR THE TRASH CAN? A: IT SEEMS TO ME THERE WAS ONE DIME AND ONE PENNY. Q: WELL, WHAT DOES YOUR REPORT SAY? A: THE NOTES SAY TWO DIMES AND TWO PENNIES. Q: YOU WROTE THAT? IS THAT IN YOUR HANDWRITING? A: YES. Q: WHICH IS IT, TWO DIMES AND TWO PENNIES? A: I OBSERVED TWO DIMES AND TWO PENNIES IF THAT IS WHAT WAS WRITTEN THERE. Q: THAT WAS WRITTEN CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH YOUR OBSERVATION; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: IF YOU ONLY BOOKED ONE DIME AND ONE PENNY, WHY DID YOU DO THAT? A: I DIDN'T BOOK ANYTHING. THE CRIMINALIST COLLECTED AND BOOKED ALL THOSE ITEMS. THE COURT: DETECTIVE, CAN I GET YOU TO USE THE MICROPHONE THERE, PLEASE. THE WITNESS: YES. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: BUT THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT TO THE CRIMINALIST BY YOU? THEY DID WHAT YOU TOLD THEM TO DO? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: SO IF YOU SAW TWO DIMES AND TWO PENNIES, YOU WOULD HAVE ASKED THEM TO BOOK TWO DIMES AND TWO PENNIES? A: YES. Q: YOU WOULDN'T LEAVE EVIDENCE OUT THERE, WOULD YOU? A: NO. Q: THIS IS THE SAME AREA, HOWEVER, WHERE NEAR THE RIGHT FRONT TIRE OF THIS PARTICULAR JEEP THIS SMALL BLUE GLASS PLASTIC HEART WAS LOCATED; ISN'T THAT RIGHT? A: THAT IS CORRECT. Q: THAT BLUE PLASTIC HEART, WAS THAT ALSO POINTED OUT BY YOU TO THE CRIMINALIST? A: I BELIEVE SO. Q: AND I THINK YOUR TESTIMONY WAS IT WAS NOT BOOKED UNTIL AUGUST; IS THAT RIGHT, AUGUST OF '94? A: YES. Q: DO YOU KNOW WHEN THE DIME AND PENNY OR DIMES AND PENNIES WERE FINALLY BOOKED? A: I WOULD HAVE TO CONSULT THE CRIMINALIST REPORT. Q: DO YOU HAVE THAT IN YOUR REPORT THERE? A: YES. Q: CAN DO YOU THAT FOR US? THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, CAN WE HAVE MR. DOUGLAS OR SOMEONE MOVE THAT DIAGRAM BACK, BECAUSE IT IS BLOCKING THE VIEW OF SOME OF THE JURORS. MR. COCHRAN: I CAN DO THAT, YOUR HONOR. (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: THAT IS PLENTY. MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT BETTER? THE COURT: THAT IS PLENTY. THANK YOU. THE WITNESS: YES, IT IS IN THE CRIMINALIST REPORT, ITEM 53. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND WHAT DOES THAT REPORT INDICATE? A: A DIME AND A PENNY TOTALING 11 CENTS RECOVERED FROM THE DRIVEWAY SIX FEET EAST OF THE WEST GATE. Q: PRESUMABLY THAT WAS WHAT WAS BOOKED INTO EVIDENCE? A: CORRECT. Q: WHAT DATE WAS THAT BOOKED? A: ON 6/15/94. Q: YOU SAW THIS ON 6/13; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND THE PLASTIC HEART, DO YOU HAVE THE DATE THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY BOOKED? A: IT WAS BOOKED ON AUGUST 25, '94. Q: THAT WAS THE PLASTIC HEART? A: YES. Q: IF IT IS NOT TOO MUCH TROUBLE, WHAT DATE WAS THE BONITA ECUADOR LABEL BOOKED? A: THAT WILL BE JUNE 15TH ALSO. Q: AND THEY WERE FIRST SEEN ON THE 13TH; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND AGAIN, YOUR MANUAL -- THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT MANUAL CALLS FOR EVIDENCE TO BE BOOKED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? A: UNDER CERTAIN GUIDELINES. THAT IS -- THAT IS A GUIDE. IT IS NOT A HARD AND FAST RULE. IF THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT IS CONSTANTLY COMING IN, WHY, IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE BOOKED IMMEDIATELY. Q: WELL, DETECTIVE, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS A GUIDELINE, BUT YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO CARRY EVIDENCE AROUND WITH YOU IN YOUR POCKET OR TAKE IT HOME IF YOU CAN BOOK IT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? A: GENERALLY NOT. UMM -- Q: AS A MATTER OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY, ISN'T THE BEST PROCEDURE -- MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. THE WITNESS OBVIOUSLY HAD NOT FINISHED HIS ANSWER. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU HAVE MORE TO SAY, SIR? A: THERE ARE TIMES WHEN EVIDENCE WOULD BE SECURED AT OUR OFFICE AT ROBBERY/HOMICIDE DIVISION. Q: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IN A USUAL PROCEDURE. IF YOU SEE EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE, THE BEST PROCEDURE WOULD NORMALLY BE TO SECURE THAT EVIDENCE, BRING IT BACK AND BOOK IT AND KEEP THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY INTACT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? A: THAT WOULD BE THE PREFERABLE METHOD, UNLESS SOME OTHER SITUATION EXISTED PREVENTING THAT. Q: ALL RIGHT. THAT IS WHAT THE MANUAL, YOUR MANUAL, HAS IN MIND WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT BOOKING EVIDENCE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? A: AS A GUIDE, YES. Q: THAT IS THE WAY YOU WERE TRAINED; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR? A: AGAIN, YES, AS A GUIDE. Q: OKAY. AS A GUIDE IN THIS CASE THE SNEAKERS WERE NOT BOOKED THE SAME DAY THEY WERE RECOVERED, WERE THEY? A: THEY COULDN'T HAVE BEEN. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THE -- THE COURT: I THINK WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS, HAVEN'T WE? MR. COCHRAN: I AM MOVING ON, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. Q: NEITHER WAS THE -- MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD WAS NOT BOOKED THE SAME DAY IT WAS RECOVERED, WAS IT? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THIS WITNESS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. MR. COCHRAN: IF HE KNOWS, YOUR HONOR. HE WAS THERE. THE COURT: HE WASN'T THERE. MR. COCHRAN: HOW DO WE KNOW THAT? THE COURT: WERE YOU THERE? THE WITNESS: I WAS AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION LATER THAT EVENING. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WELL, THE BLOOD WAS THERE, WASN'T IT? A: WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT BY. Q: WITH VANNATTER, RIGHT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WAS FUNG THERE AT THAT TIME? A: I BELIEVE HE WAS. Q: DID YOU EVER SEE VANNATTER GIVE THAT BLOOD TO FUNG? A: NO. Q: NOW, THAT WAS ON JUNE 13TH AFTER FIVE O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND YOU PREVIOUSLY TOLD US THAT ON JUNE 14TH, THE NEXT DAY, WHICH WOULD BE TUESDAY, YOU WERE DOWNTOWN AT THE SID LAB; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AS EARLY AS SEVEN O'CLOCK THAT MORNING? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND THE BLOOD WAS BOOKED FINALLY AT WHAT TIME? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THE COURT: DO YOU KNOW? MS. CLARK: APPLES AND ORANGES. THE COURT: WAIT. THE WITNESS: I KNOW THAT WE HAVE 24 HOURS TO BOOK BLOOD AND I KNOW IT WAS TURNED OVER TO THE CRIMINALIST. ASIDE FROM THAT, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME IT WAS TURNED OVER ACTUALLY? A: NO. Q: IF YOU LOOKED AT YOUR CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD FOR JUNE 14, 1994, WOULD THAT TEND TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION? A: I CAN CHECK. Q: CAN YOU LOOK AT THAT AND LOOK AT PAGE 00007. A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) OKAY. Q: AND IS THAT AN INDICATION THAT YOU WERE AT SID LAB ON 6/14/94 AT ABOUT SEVEN O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING? A: YES. Q: AND THIS IS IN YOUR OWN HANDWRITING? A: YES, IT IS. Q: WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT CONFERRING WITH CRIMINALIST MATHESON AND WONG, WHO IS WONG? A: WONG IS ANOTHER CRIMINALIST WHO WAS PRESENT. Q: ALL RIGHT. THAT IS NOT FUNG? A: NO. Q: SOMEBODY ELSE? A: I DON'T BELIEVE FUNG WAS AT THAT LOCATION. THE COURT: HOW COULD YOU CONFUSE FUNG AND WONG? MR. COCHRAN: I SAID THAT WASN'T FUNG OR WONG. HE HAS WONG HERE, YOUR HONOR. I'M ASKING HIM THAT WAS NOT FUNG BECAUSE I DON'T SEE FUNG DOWN HERE. LET ME ASK ANOTHER QUESTION. Q: DID YOU INDICATE EARLIER THAT FUNG -- THAT THE BLOOD WAS TURNED OVER TO FUNG THE NEXT MORNING? DID YOU INDICATE THAT AT SOME POINT? A: MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD? Q: YES. A: I MAY HAVE INDICATED THAT IT WAS BY MY PARTNER. Q: ALL RIGHT. IN YOUR NOTES -- I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE AT ANY TIME AT THAT LAB THAT MORNING YOU SAW FUNG, NOT WUNG (SIC)? A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING HIM. THAT IS NOT HIS NORMAL OFFICE. HE'S OUT OF NORTHEAST STATION. WHAT I WOULD HAVE DONE IS WRITTEN DOWN THE NAME OF THE PERSONS WHO WERE PRESENT. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR YOUR STATEMENT THAT YOU HAVE TO BOOK BLOOD WITHIN 24 HOURS? A: YOU ALLUDED TO THE MANUAL AND THAT IS IN THE MANUAL, THAT WE HAVE 24 HOURS IN WHICH TO BOOK BLOOD. Q: DOESN'T IT ALSO SAY YOU SHOULD BOOK IT ABSOLUTELY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE? A: I BELIEVE IT SAYS 24 HOURS. Q: DOESN'T IT SAY YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BOOK IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, HOWEVER? A: AGAIN, IN REGARDS TO BLOOD, I BELIEVE IT DOES SAY WITHIN 24 HOURS. Q: ALL RIGHT. DOES IT SAY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND NO LATER THAN 24 HOURS? A: AS FAR AS BLOOD, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I BELIEVE IT IS 24 HOURS. Q: IS IT ALSO SUPPOSED TO BE REFRIGERATED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, THE BLOOD? A: FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THAT IS PREFERABLE. Q: AND WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO TAKE BLOOD HOME WITH YOU AT NIGHT AND BRING IT BACK THE NEXT MORNING? A: TAKE BLOOD HOME? Q: YES, TO TAKE A VIAL OF BLOOD HOME AND BROOK IT THE NEXT MORNING AFTER YOU TOOK IT, LET'S SAY, AT TWO O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON, 2:30 IN THE AFTERNOON ON A GIVEN DAY? A: I NEVER HEARD OF THAT HAPPENING. I WOULD NOT DO THAT, NO. Q: YOU WOULDN'T DO THAT? A: NO. Q: NOW, IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION IN THIS CASE, DID YOU OR DETECTIVE PAYNE, UNDER YOUR DIRECTION, HAVE OCCASION TO INVESTIGATE A COMPLAINT BY MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON OF ANNOYING PHONE CALLS? A: I DID NOT. MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. IRRELEVANT. ASK TO APPROACH. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. THE OBJECTION IS RELEVANCE? MR. COCHRAN: AS AN OFFER OF PROOF, IN A CASE WHERE THE INVESTIGATOR IS GOING TO LOOK AT REPORTS FROM 1992 OF HAVING ANNOYING PHONE CALLS WHERE A MALE WOULD CALL UP AND MAKE ALL KIND OF SEXUAL TERRIBLE THINGS, AND I THINK THAT IS RELEVANT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF IN '92 IF THIS HAPPENS, WHETHER OR NOT HE KNEW ABOUT THIS OR LOOKED AT THIS, AND THE POSSIBLE SUSPECT, AND THERE WAS A SUSPECT IN THAT MATTER. CERTAINLY THAT IS RELEVANT. MS. CLARK: AND THE CASE WAS CLOSED AND IT WAS CLEARED. MR. COCHRAN: IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS? SHE WAS KILLED TWO YEARS LATER AND THEY ARE GOING BACK TO '89? WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE? I AM NOT PERMITTED TO GO INTO AND ASK ABOUT THAT? MS. CLARK: A CASE THAT OCCURRED TWO YEARS AGO, WAS CLEARED TWO YEARS AGO WELL. FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T REMEMBER IT BEING NEARLY AS GRAPHIC AS COUNSEL IS DESCRIBING, BUT A CASE THAT WAS RESOLVED TWO YEARS AGO AND DETERMINED TO BE NOTHING. THERE WAS NOTHING BUT AN ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD AND CONFUSE THIS JURY. MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS PREPOSTEROUS. THEY HAVE A REPORT OVER THERE OF ANNOYING PHONE CALLS. THEY HAVE THE NAME OF A MAN WHO SUPPOSEDLY THEY FOUND WAS MAKING THESE PHONE CALLS, AND THAT IS ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT. THE COURT: DO WE HAVE A HALL PROBLEM HERE? MR. COCHRAN: HUM? THE COURT: DON'T WE HAVE A HALL PROBLEM HERE? MR. COCHRAN: I THINK ANYBODY WHO HARASSES SOMEONE OR MAKES PHONE CALLS AND SAYS THINGS -- IS THE COURT SAYING TO ME YOU ARE LIMITED ONLY TO SOMEBODY WHO CALLS AND SAYS, "I'M GOING TO KILL YOU"? THE COURT: NO, NO, NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. THE COURT: I'M JUST ASKING DO WE HAVE A HALL PROBLEM HERE? MR. COCHRAN: I'M SORRY I THOUGHT YOU SAID A CALL PROBLEM. THE COURT: HALL. MS. CLARK: HALL. THE COURT: HALL. MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T THINK SO, BUT -- MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T KNOW IF COUNSEL EVEN KNOWS WHAT THAT MEANS. MR. COCHRAN: BUT I'M NOT CLEAR. THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, WE DON'T NEED TO TRADE THE PERSONAL SHOTS BACK AND FORTH. MR. COCHRAN: I AM NOT TALKING TO HER; I'M TALKING TO YOU. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN: SHE CAN DO WHATEVER SHE WANTS TO DO. MS. CLARK: WE DO HAVE -- MR. COCHRAN: I THINK WITH REGARD TO THIS, YOUR HONOR, UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION I CAN BE PERMITTED TO ASK HIM, AS THE CO-LEAD INVESTIGATOR WHETHER OR NOT HE LOOKED AT THIS. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR -- MR. COCHRAN: THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT WANTING TO GET OUT THE FACTS. I THINK WE HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH CROSS-EXAMINATION. THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING EXCEPT LOOK AT ONE PERSON. THE COURT: MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THERE HAS BEEN NO OFFER OF PROOF SHOWN YET. ALL COUNSEL IS REPEATEDLY STATING TO THE COURT IS HE HAS THE NAME OF A MAN THAT WAS FOUND TO BE THE SOURCE OF PHONE CALLS TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE MURDERS. COUNSEL HAS MADE NO SHOWING TO THIS COURT CONCERNING HIS OPPORTUNITY OR ANY MOTIVE OR ANYTHING LIKE LINKING HIM TO THIS CRIME WHATSOEVER. UNDER HALL THIS IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF SITUATION THE COURTS HAVE FOUND TO BE INADMISSIBLE AS BEING MISLEADING AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. IF COUNSEL CAN COME UP WITH SOME MORE INFORMATION THAT SOMEHOW LINKS THIS GUY TO THIS CASE OR LINKS HIM TO NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AT THE MOMENT RELEVANT FOR THE MURDERS, THAT IS A DIFFERENT STORY, BUT WE HAVE NOTHING HERE, NOTHING MORE THAN THE USUAL RANK SINISTER INNUENDO THROWN OUT TO MISLEAD AND CONFUSE THE JURY. THERE IS NO RELEVANCE TO THIS MAN AT ALL OR HIS NAME. IT HAS NEVER BEEN CONNECTED. THE COURT: AT THIS POINT I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE HALL OBJECTION. WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A LOOK AT IT. UNFORTUNATELY -- MR. COCHRAN: I UNDERSTAND ABOUT HALL. THE COURT: LET ME JUST TELL YOU SOMETHING. YOU KNOW, OUR SCHEDULE HAS US ENDING AT 3:00 AND ONE OF THE JURORS HAS A MEDICAL APPOINTMENT AT 4:00, SO WE HAVE TO QUIT AT 3:00, I UNDERSTAND. SO YOU'VE GOT SOME TIME TO LOOK AT IT, BUT I THINK YOU'VE GOT A HALL PROBLEM. MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I THINK THAT I HAVE MORE OF AN OFFER OF PROOF. I HAVE THE ACTUAL REPORT HERE, BUT -- AND I THINK THAT THERE WILL BE NOT BE A HALL PROBLEM, AS I INDICATED, BUT I WILL DEAL WITH THAT. THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU LOOK AT IT OVERNIGHT AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT IT TOMORROW. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR. Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO -- I ASKED YOU SOME QUESTIONS EARLIER ABOUT FAYE RESNICK. DO YOU KNOW WHERE FAYE RESNICK WAS ON THE DATE OF JUNE 3, 1994. MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION IN THIS CASE DID YOU EVER LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITY THAT DRUGS WERE A FACTOR IN THESE KILLINGS? A: SUPERFICIALLY WE LOOKED AT THE POSSIBILITY OF DRUGS; HOWEVER -- Q: YOU HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION. YOU LOOKED AT THE POSSIBILITY OF DRUGS. MS. CLARK: COUNSEL -- MR. COCHRAN: I ASKED HIM IF HE EVER LOOKED AT THE POSSIBILITY OF DRUGS AND HE ANSWERED THAT. HE SAID "YES, SUPERFICIALLY." THE COURT: ANSWER YES OR NO. THE WITNESS: YES. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU ANSWER, "YES, SUPERFICIALLY"? A: YES. Q: AND IN THAT CONNECTION DID YOU LOOK AT THE BACKGROUND OF FAYE RESNICK BETWEEN THE PERIOD OF JUNE 3RD, 1994, AND JUNE 12, 1994? A: NO. Q: WERE YOU AWARE THAT SHE HAD MOVED IN WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AT SOME TIME -- MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: -- AFTER JUNE 3RD OF 1994? ON OR AFTER JUNE 3RD, 1994, WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I HAD HEARD THAT. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. WERE YOU AWARE THAT ON OR ABOUT JUNE 8TH, 1994, SHE WAS PLACED IN A DRUG -- MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, HEARSAY. OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION. MR. COCHRAN: I AM ASKING IF HE BECAME AWARE, YOUR HONOR, IF I CAN FINISH THE QUESTION. THE COURT: ASSUMING FACTS THAT AREN'T IN EVIDENCE. SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU OF COURSE HAVE READ OR HEARD A TAPED STATEMENT TAKEN FROM FAYE RESNICK, HAVE YOU NOT? A: I DON'T BELIEVE I'VE HEARD THAT STATEMENT, NO. Q: HAVE YOU READ OR HEARD A STATEMENT TAKEN FROM CHRISTIAN -- DR. CHRISTIAN REICHARDT? A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO. Q: DO YOU KNOW WHERE FAYE RESNICK RESIDED AFTER JUNE 8TH, 1994? A: NO. Q: HAVE YOU TALKED WITH CORA FICHMAN IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR INVESTIGATION IN THIS CASE? A: I HAVE NOT PERSONALLY, NO. Q: BUT SHE IS ONE OF THE WITNESSES THAT YOU'VE HAD TALKED TO BY OTHER INVESTIGATORS? A: SHE WAS AN UNCOOPERATIVE WITNESS. WE ATTEMPTED TO SPEAK WITH HER SEVERAL TIMES, YES. Q: HAVE YOU SEEN A STATEMENT FROM HER UP TO THIS POINT? A: I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS A STATEMENT. Q: WELL, IN THIS SUPERFICIAL INVESTIGATION YOU DID REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF DRUGS, WHAT DID YOU DO? A: IN ANY MURDER THERE IS ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY OF DRUGS -- Q: CAN YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION? WHAT DID YOU DO WITH REGARD TO YOUR SUPERFICIAL INVESTIGATION REGARDING DRUGS IN THIS CASE; NOT ANY MURDER? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE WITNESS: CONSIDERED THE POSSIBILITY THAT DRUGS MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED BY LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE OF DRUGS AT THE SCENE OR BECOMING AWARE OF ANY KNOWLEDGE THAT THE VICTIM MIGHT HAVE HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH DRUGS. THAT IS NORMALLY SOMETHING WE WOULD DO UNLESS WE HAD ANOTHER DIRECTION TO GO. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WE HAD ANOTHER DIRECTION TO GO. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND WITH REGARD TO GATHERING EVIDENCE, SIR, YOU HAVE TO GO OUT -- PART OF BEING AN INVESTIGATOR IS TO INVESTIGATE TO TRY TO TURN UP EVIDENCE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND IF YOU KNEW THAT THERE WERE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD LIVED AT THIS RESIDENCE, WHO MIGHT HAVE SOME BEARING ON DRUGS, WOULD IT BE REASONABLE FOR YOU TO GO AND TALK TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS, YOU PERSONALLY, AS THE LEAD INVESTIGATOR? A: IF YOU HAD NO OTHER DIRECTION TO GO AND THAT WAS THE LOGICAL SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND ONCE YOU MAKE A DECISION THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE DIRECTION TO GO, THEN YOU DON'T GO AND LOOK AT ANYTHING ELSE IS THAT CORRECT, SIR? A: NO, THAT IS NOT THE CASE AT ALL. IF THERE IS CERTAIN EVIDENCE POINTING IN ONE DIRECTION, YOU WOULD BE REMISS NOT TO FOLLOW UP ON IT. Q: ALL RIGHT. A: THAT IS THE SITUATION HERE. Q: DOESN'T THAT MEAN YOU ALSO SHOULD FOLLOW UP OTHER EVIDENCE ALSO? A: IF IT IS AVAILABLE. IF THERE IS OTHER EVIDENCE, WE CERTAINLY WOULD. Q: DID YOU FOLLOW UP IN THIS CASE THE OTHER EVIDENCE REGARDING DRUGS? A: THERE WAS NO OTHER EVIDENCE. Q: DID YOU TALK TO FAYE RESNICK PERSONALLY? A: I DID NOT. Q: DID VANNATTER TALK TO HER PERSONALLY? A: I BELIEVE HE INTERVIEWED HER, YES. Q: THAT IS A TAPED STATEMENT? A: I BELIEVE IT IS. Q: WILL HE BE TESTIFYING LATER ON THIS WEEK? A: I DON'T KNOW. Q: STILL YOUR PARTNER? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: YOU HAVE TALKED TO HIM ABOUT HIS CONVERSATION WITH FAYE RESNICK, DID YOU NOT? A: BRIEFLY. Q: DID YOU TALK TO ANYONE ELSE IN YOUR SUPERFICIAL EXAMINATION OR INVESTIGATION REGARDING THE ASPECT OF DRUGS? A: NO. Q: IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION DOES THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT EVER USE DOGS FOR TRACKING OR MAINTAINING SCENTS IN ANY HOMICIDE CASE YOU KNOW ABOUT. A: I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THAT. Q: HAVE YOU DONE THAT IN THE 20 PLUS YEARS YOU HAVE BEEN A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR? A: I HAVE NEVER DONE IT AND NEVER HEARD OF IT. Q: RIGHT BEFORE WE BROKE TODAY AT LUNCH I WAS ASKING YOU ABOUT HAIRS ON THE GLOVES. DO YOU RECALL THAT? A: YES. Q: DO YOUR REPORTS INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE CAUCASIAN HAIRS ON THE GLOVE FOUND AT BUNDY? A: THE REPORT DOES INDICATE CAUCASIAN HAIR, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. WERE THERE ANY CAUCASIAN HAIRS FOUND ON THE OTHER GLOVE THAT WAS FOUND? A: THAT IS MY INFORMATION, YES. Q: ON BOTH GLOVES? A: I BELIEVE SO. Q: CAUCASIAN HAIRS? WERE THERE NEGROID HAIRS FOUND ON EITHER/OR BOTH OF THOSE GLOVES, IF YOU RECALL? A: I DON'T RECALL. Q: FORGIVE ME IF I HAVE ASKED YOU THIS BEFORE. WITH REGARD TO THIS WALKWAY WHERE THE BODIES WERE FOUND, WHAT IS THE WIDTH OF THAT PARTICULAR WALKWAY? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: IF YOU CAN TELL US? A: OFFHAND I BELIEVE IT IS THREE FEET 11 INCHES OR FOUR FEET. Q: RIGHT AT FOUR FEET? A: APPROXIMATELY FOUR FEET. Q: AND -- A: I BELIEVE IT VARIES. Q: I'M SORRY? A: I BELIEVE IT VARIES A LITTLE BIT. Q: OKAY. BUT SOMEWHERE CLOSE TO FOUR FEET; IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? A: YES. Q: IF YOU RECALL, DID YOUR PARTNER, DETECTIVE VANNATTER, CHANGE CLOTHES AT ALL ON THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13, 1994? A: I DON'T RECALL HIM CHANGING CLOTHES. Q: YOU HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF THAT? A: I DON'T THINK HE HAD ANY CLOTHES TO CHANGE INTO. Q: ALL RIGHT. WERE THE TWO OF YOU IN SEPARATE CARS WHEN YOU LEFT PARKER CENTER? A: YES. Q: YOU DROVE BACK TO ROCKINGHAM SEPARATELY? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: THE VEHICLE THAT MR. KAELIN HAD PARKED AT THE CURB THERE AT ROCKINGHAM ON THE MORNING -- EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13, WAS THAT A NISSAN Z VEHICLE? A: I BELIEVE SO. Q: IN YOUR REPORT AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, I THINK THERE IS A REFERENCE TO A DUMPSTER IN THE ALLEY. IS THAT DUMPSTER IN THE ALLEY -- DO YOU HAVE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF THAT, WHERE THAT WAS LOCATED? A: YEAH. I BELIEVE THERE ARE, YES. Q: AND WAS THAT ONE OF THE PLACES THAT WERE SEARCHED FOR EITHER BLOODY CLOTHES OR WEAPONS OR KNIVES OR THINGS OF THAT NATURE? A: YES. Q: AND I PRESUME YOU DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CASE, RIGHT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: NOW, IN THAT CONNECTION, WITH REGARD TO KNIVES, YOU RECOVERED A NUMBER OF KNIVES THAT WERE TURNED INTO YOU IN CONNECTION WITH THE SEARCH OR SEARCHES DONE AFTER JUNE 13, 1994; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN PURCHASING A KNIFE YOURSELF? A: NO. Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO MR. GOLDMAN, DID YOUR INVESTIGATION AT ANY POINT TURN UP THAT HE WAS A YOUNG MAN WHO WORKED OUT REGULARLY, WAS PHYSICALLY FIT? A: THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. Q: AND THAT IN SOME OF THE CARDS THAT YOU FOUND IN HIS MATERIALS, YOU SAW THE CARD OF A PERSONAL TRAINER AND A GYM THAT HE MIGHT HAVE ATTENDED ALSO, DID YOU NOT? A: I BELIEVE THERE WAS ONE, YES. Q: AND WERE YOU ABLE TO ASCERTAIN HOW MANY WOUNDS, IF ANY, HE SUSTAINED AT THE TIME OF HIS DEMISE? THE COURT: KIND OF VAGUE, ISN'T IT, "WOUNDS"? MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WERE YOU ABLE TO ASCERTAIN HOW MANY TIMES MR. GOLDMAN WAS STABBED DURING THE INCIDENT IN WHICH HE MET HIS DEATH? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, HEARSAY. THE COURT: OVERRULED. WERE YOU PRESENT AT THE AUTOPSY? THE WITNESS: YES, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: NEXT QUESTION. Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WERE YOU ABLE TO SO ASCERTAIN? A: IT SEEMS TO ME THERE WERE SEVEN OR EIGHT STAB WOUNDS. Q: SEVEN OR EIGHT. IS THAT THE TOTAL NUMBER? A: AS FAR AS STABBING WOUNDS, I BELIEVE SO. Q: WERE THERE OTHER WOUNDS? A: THERE WERE SLASHING WOUNDS, SUPERFICIAL CUTS. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO -- A: I BELIEVE A CONTUSION. Q: STAB WOUND, SLASHING WOUNDS, CONTUSIONS? A: ABRASIONS, CONTUSIONS TO THE REAR OF THE HAND AND FINGERS. Q: ALTOGETHER HOW MANY WOUNDS WERE THERE, IF YOU KNOW, BASED UPON YOUR OBSERVATION OF THE AUTOPSY? A: AS TO EACH ABRASION AND CONTUSION? Q: YES, ALTOGETHER? A: I -- I WOULD HAVE NO IDEA. IF YOU WERE TO COUNT EACH ABRASION AND EACH CONTUSION ON EACH FINGER AND THE BACK OF THE HAND -- Q: I UNDERSTAND. A: AS FAR AS FATAL WOUND, I BELIEVE THERE WERE SOMETHING LIKE FOUR FATAL WOUNDS. Q: NOW, IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION IN THIS MATTER DID YOU AT ANY TIME EVER INVESTIGATE ANY RELATIONSHIPS MR. GOLDMAN MAY HAVE HAD TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD ANY ENEMIES OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE? A: I SPOKE WITH A FORMER GIRLFRIEND AND THERE WERE OTHER INTERVIEWS BY OTHER DETECTIVES. Q: ALL RIGHT. LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU DID. WHEN DID YOU DO THAT? A: I DON'T RECALL THE SPECIFIC -- Q: WELL, APPROXIMATELY WHEN DID YOU HAVE THIS INTERVIEW? A: THERE IS AN INTERVIEW ON FILE. AGAIN, I DON'T RECALL. IT WAS -- I DON'T KNOW. Q: ALL RIGHT. IS THAT THE ONLY INTERVIEW THAT YOU CONDUCTED, SIR, PERSONALLY? A: IN REGARDS TO A FORMER GIRLFRIEND, I BELIEVE, YES, THE ONLY ONE I CONDUCTED. Q: DID YOU TALK TO ANY OTHER FORMER FRIENDS OR PRESENT FRIENDS? A: PERSONALLY I DID NOT. Q: DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO INVESTIGATE MR. GOLDMAN'S CONTACT WITH A BUSINESS CALLED DESIGN WRAP, W-R-A-P? A: I DID NOT. Q: DID ANYBODY UNDER YOUR DIRECTION DO THAT? A: I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK. I DON'T RECALL THAT. Q: AND WHERE WOULD YOU LOOK? A: MUCH OF THAT INVESTIGATION INITIALLY WAS CONDUCTED BY DETECTIVE TIPPIN AND CARR. PERHAPS IN THEIR LOG; PERHAPS IN THEIR BOOK. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AT THE CRIME SCENE, AMONG OFFICERS AND PEOPLE WHO COME TO A CRIME SCENE, EATING AND DRINKING ARE NOT PERMITTED; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND OFFICERS ARE TRAINED NOT TO EAT AND DRINK AT CRIME SCENES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? A: IN THE SPECIFIC CRIME SCENE, CERTAINLY THAT'S CORRECT, YES. Q: AND YOU HAVE TESTIFIED IN THIS MATTER THAT AT LEAST -- EARLIER -- THAT IF YOU SAW SOMEONE DOING THAT, YOU WOULD JUMP ON THEM RIGHT AWAY, RIGHT? A: IF I SAW THEM, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. IF YOU SAW EVEN ANYONE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE EATING OR DRINKING, YOU WOULD CURTAIL THIS ACTIVITY ALSO, WOULDN'T YOU? A: YES. Q: SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO HAVE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? A: IF IT WERE OUTSIDE OF THE CRIME SCENE, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. IF IT WERE CERTAINLY NEAR EVIDENCE, CERTAINLY NEAR THE BODIES, YES. Q: WE ARE TALKING ABOUT INSIDE THE CRIME SCENE. A: THAT'S MY SAME RESPONSE. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WITH REGARD TO SOMEONE SMOKING, YOU WOULDN'T ALLOW THAT EITHER, WOULD YOU? A: NOT AT THE CRIME SCENE. Q: THE CRIME SCENE. NOW, LAST WEEK WHEN I ASKED YOU, YOU WERE SHARING WITH US THAT YOU TOOK THESE SNEAKERS AND YOU PUT THEM IN THE TRUNK OF YOUR CAR AND TOOK THEM HOME. DO YOU RECALL THAT? A: YES. MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU A VIDEO AT THIS POINT NOW, IF I CAN, YOUR HONOR. MS. CLARK: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS. THE COURT: WE HAVE SEEN THIS. MR. COCHRAN: COUNSEL, LET ME SEE YOU WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT I SUSTAINED THE OBJECTION PRELIMINARILY BECAUSE THE VIDEOTAPE STOPS WITH HIM PUTTING THE SHOES IN THE CAR. MR. COCHRAN: YES. YOU ASKED US TO GO BACK AND TRY TO GET IT AND I THOUGHT WE REPRESENTED WITH COUNSEL PRESENT THAT ALL WE COULD SHOW IS HIM GETTING INSIDE THE CAR, NOT DRIVING AWAY. BLASIER DID THAT THAT SAME NIGHT AND I THOUGHT THEY GAVE HIM A COPY OF IT. MS. CLARK: NO, NO. THE COURT: MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT YOU INDICATED YOU WERE GOING TO GET THE VIDEOTAPE TO SHOW HIM DRIVING OFF BECAUSE THAT WAS THE POINT. MR. COCHRAN: THE VIDEOTAPE -- I THINK WHAT HAPPENS YOU ASKED US IF YOU -- FIRST OF ALL, YOUR HONOR, WE TRIED TO COMPLY WHAT YOU ASKED TO US DO. WE WENT THAT SAME NIGHT AND WE -- I THOUGHT WE HAD INDICATED TO YOU THAT THE INDICATION WAS THAT ALL THE TAPE WE HAD SHOWS WAS HIM GETTING INSIDE THE CAR, CLOSING THE DOOR. IT DOESN'T HAVE HIM DRIVING OFF. BUT THIS SHOWS THAT THE SHOES INSIDE THE CAR, SO IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME VIDEO, THEY HAVE SEEN IT, AND IT IS ONLY A VERY LITTLE BIT AFTERWARDS. THEY SHOWED VIDEOS, JUDGE, OF THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS THINGS WITHOUT ANY FOUNDATION OR ANYTHING. EVERY TIME WE WANT TO SHOW A VIDEO WE HAVE GOT TO GO THROUGH HOOPS. THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, IT IS NOT JUMPING THROUGH HOOPS AND IT JUST THAT THE TAPE ABRUPTLY ENDS AND IT DOESN'T SHOW HIM LEAVING THE SCENE. MR. COCHRAN: YOU ASKED US TO DO WHAT WE DID AND THE REPRESENTATION WE HAD -- AND I WILL HAVE BLASIER COME UP HERE -- IS WHAT HAPPENS IS HE GETS IN THE CAR AND CLOSES THE DOOR AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT SHOWS HIM DRIVING OFF, BUT HE IS INSIDE THE CAR. MS. CLARK: WE HAVE NOT SEEN THAT ADDITIONAL PORTION, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY THE COURT SUSTAINED THE OBJECTION. THE COURT: LET'S DO THIS: WE'VE GOT TO QUIT FOR THE JURY. MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO THE SID QUESTION, CAN YOU REPRESENT WHAT YOU DID AFTER THE COURT'S REMARKS THE OTHER DAY? MR. BLASIER: I WENT AND GOT THE MASTER TAPE, KCBS TAPE THAT WE SUBMITTED BEFORE WE PUT OUT THE COPIES A LONG TIME AGO. THIS CLIP IS ON THE END OF THAT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DOES IT -- MR. COCHRAN: SO I DON'T KNOW WHY I CAN'T SHOW IT, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: WELL, WE ARE GOING TO LET THE JURY GO AND THEN WE WILL ARGUE ABOUT IT. MR. COCHRAN: WHAT IS THERE TO ARGUE ABOUT? THE COURT: BECAUSE IT JUST STOPS. IF IT SHOWS THE GUY CLOSING THE DOOR AND DRIVING OFF -- MR. COCHRAN: WHAT DOES IT SHOW? MR. BLASIER: I HAVEN'T SEEN THE END OF IT LATELY. THE COURT: REMEMBER, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS. MR. COCHRAN: HE WENT AND DID WHAT YOU ASKED HIM TO DO, AS BEST HE COULD. MS. CLARK: IT IS NOT FAIR, YOUR HONOR. HE IS NOT SHOWING THESE THINGS BEFORE HE MARKS THEM. THE COURT: I'M GOING TO LET THE JURY GO AND WE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT IT. MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. MS. CLARK: MAY I ASK, WHILE WE ARE HERE, ALSO, IF COUNSEL HAS SOME VIDEOTAPE CONCERNING SMOKING, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT. HE RAISED THAT ISSUE WITH DETECTIVE LANGE. THE COURT: WELL, WE WILL SEE. MS. CLARK: LET'S DO IT ALL NOW. THE COURT: LET'S LET THE JURY GO FIRST AND THEN WE WILL ARGUE ABOUT IT. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AS FAR AS THE JURY IS CONCERNED, I'M GOING TO STAND IN RECESS NOW UNTIL TOMORROW MORNING AT NINE O'CLOCK. I NEED TO LOOK AT SOME VIDEOTAPES OUT OF YOUR PRESENCE. REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T LET ANYBODY CONTACT OR COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE, NOR ARE YOU TO PERFORM ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN FINALLY SUBMITTED TO YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL SEE YOU BACK HERE TOMORROW MORNING AT NINE O'CLOCK. ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S TAKE THE JURY OUT AND THEN WE WILL RECONVENE FOR DNA ISSUES AND VIDEOTAPES. (RECESS.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD. ALL PARTIES ARE PRESENT. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. MR. HARRIS, WERE YOU GOING TO SHOW US A VIDEOTAPE? MR. HARRIS: YES, YOUR HONOR. MR. COCHRAN: MAY I ASK DETECTIVE LANGE TO STEP OUT AT THIS POINT? THE COURT: YES. MR. HARRIS, WHY DON'T YOU HOLD IT THERE. ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE LANGE, TOMORROW MORNING, 9:00 O'CLOCK. DETECTIVE LANGE: YES, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: THANK YOU. (DETECTIVE LANGE EXITS THE COURTROOM.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE WITNESS HAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE COURTROOM. MR. HARRIS. (AT 3:12 P.M., A VIDEOTAPE WAS PLAYED.) MR. COCHRAN: I THINK THAT'S ALL WE HAD, YOUR HONOR. WE HAD THAT ADDITIONAL PORTION. (AT 3:14 P.M., THE VIDEOTAPE CONCLUDES PLAYING.) MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, SINCE WE HAVE THE VCR RUNNING AT THIS TIME, MAY I INQUIRE OF THE DEFENSE, IS THERE ANY OTHER VIDEOTAPE THEY WISH TO SHOW THE WITNESS? THEY'VE ALLUDED TO PEOPLE EATING AND DRINKING AND OTHER THINGS ALREADY. MR. COCHRAN: MR. BLASIER WILL TAKE OVER. MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, THIS VIDEOTAPE I BELIEVE WAS THE ONE WE PLAYED ON JANUARY 24TH THAT'S ALREADY BEEN MARKED AND IS IN AS A COURT EXHIBIT. THERE WAS A SECOND VIDEOTAPE WE PLAYED IN CONNECTION WITH THE OPENING THAT DIDN'T GET MARKED, BUT IT WAS PLAYED. THE DEFENSE WAS PROVIDED A COPY OR THE PROSECUTION OF BOTH OF THOSE TAPES BACK AROUND THE TIME OF OPENING. SINCE THIS EXCERPT WAS MADE, I TOOK ALL OF THE TAPES OF CLIPS THAT WE HAVE, PUT THEM ALL ON A TWO-VOLUME SET WHICH WAS PROVIDED AGAIN TO THE PROSECUTION I THINK ON FRIDAY. THE COURT: TWO VOLUMES? MR. BLASIER: TWO VOLUMES. IT HAS EVERYTHING PUT TOGETHER. THERE'S A LOT OF DUPLICATION, BUT IT'S ALL THERE. SO THEY'VE HAD THIS QUITE SOMETIME. THEY HAVE IT AGAIN. THEY CAN LOOK AT IT ANY TIME THEY WANT. THOSE ARE ALL THE VIDEOS THAT WE HAVE UP UNTIL WE RECENTLY SUBPOENAED SOME MORE FROM SOME TELEVISION STATIONS. I DON'T KNOW -- WE'RE STILL WAITING FOR THOSE TO COME IN. BUT UP UNTIL A WEEK OR SO AGO, THIS IS EVERYTHING WE HAVE, TAPES FROM ALL THE STATIONS. MR. DARDEN: YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE COUNSEL'S INVITATION TO US TO LOOK AT THE VIDEOS THAT HE'S GIVEN US, BUT WE HAVE HOURS, A NUMBER OF HOURS OF VIDEOS. SO WE CAN'T ANTICIPATE WHICH 10-SECOND SEGMENT OF THE HOURS OF VIDEOS THEY'VE GIVEN US THAT THEY INTEND TO PRESENT TO A WITNESS. BUT AS TO THIS PARTICULAR VIDEO, I -- (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MR. DARDEN: OUR OBJECTION TO THIS VIDEOTAPE STANDS. IT'S IRRELEVANT. WHAT DOES IT PROVE OR DISPROVE? THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN. MR. COCHRAN: I THEY WE'VE DONE WHAT THE COURT ASKED US TO DO. I THINK IT'S IMPEACHING. THE DOOR CLOSES. I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW IT TOMORROW MORNING. THE COURT RECALLS HIS TESTIMONY. THIS CONTRADICTS HIS TESTIMONY. I WANT TO SHOW IT AND MOVE ON. THE COURT: WELL, IF YOU RECALL, MY CONCERN WAS THAT IT JUST ABRUPTLY STOPS AT ONE POINT AND DOESN'T SHOW HIM ACTUALLY DRIVE OFF, AND HIS TESTIMONY WAS THAT HE PUT THE SHOES IN THE TRUNK, AS I RECOLLECT, AND THEN DROVE FROM THE SCENE. MR. COCHRAN: BOX. THE COURT: AND IT APPEARS THAT HE GETS IN THE CAR, CLOSES THE DOOR AND -- BUT THE CAR DOESN'T MOVE. BUT I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT GIVEN THE CRUSH OF NEWS PHOTOGRAPHERS AND OTHER PEOPLE, IT'S UNLIKELY THAT HE WOULD HAVE OPENED THE DOOR AND GOTTEN OUT AND DONE ANYTHING OTHER THAN DRIVE OFF AT THAT POINT, PREFERABLY DRIVING OVER SOME OF THE REPORTERS THERE. BUT -- I MEAN, I CAN'T THINK THAT HE WOULD GET OUT OF THAT CAR AND DO OTHER THAN DRIVE AWAY. SO I'M -- ANY OTHER COMMENT? MS. CLARK: NO. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO ALLOW THE TAPE. MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO -- MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD -- AS I UNDERSTAND IT, MR. DARDEN IS ASKING ARE THERE ANY OTHER TAPES GOING TO BE SHOWN TO THIS WITNESS. NO. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HOW MUCH MORE DO YOU ANTICIPATE, MR. COCHRAN? MR. COCHRAN: OF DETECTIVE LANGE? NOT MORE THAN 10 MINUTES. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHAT'S YOUR GUESS, MISS CLARK, AS FAR AS REDIRECT? MS. CLARK: AN HOUR. AN HOUR. MR. COCHRAN: HOW LONG WAS THAT? THE COURT: HOUR. SO WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CONCLUDE DETECTIVE LANGE TOMORROW MORNING? MS. CLARK: THEN THERE'S RECROSS. SO -- MR. DARDEN: FOR THE RECORD, WE WERE GIVEN AN HOUR AND A HALF OR SO OF VIDEOTAPED INFORMATION JUST THIS PAST FRIDAY. AND SO THAT COUNSEL IS AWARE, WE OBJECT TO THE INTRODUCTION OF ANY PORTION OF THAT VIDEOTAPE AND WE WOULD ASK THAT COUNSEL DISCUSS WITH US HIS INTENTION TO USE ANY PORTION OF THAT TAPE PRIOR TO ACTUALLY PRESENTING IT TO A WITNESS OR FLASHING IT IN FRONT OF THE JURY. MR. COCHRAN: WHAT TAPE IS HE TALKING ABOUT? THE COURT: WELL, THE COURT WILL VIEW OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY ANY VIDEOTAPE BEFORE IT'S SHOWN TO THE JURY. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE, COUNSEL, ON THIS ISSUE? MR. COCHRAN: NO. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE ON TO THE -- I'M SORRY. MR. BAILEY. MR. BAILEY: MAY I INQUIRE IF THE WITNESS LIST AS OF LAST FRIDAY REMAINS CONSTANT? MS. CLARK: RIGHT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE STILL ON THE SCHEDULE THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED THE DEFENSE? MS. CLARK: YES. THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE YOUR -- IS MR. HODGMAN AVAILABLE TO DISCUSS OUR DISCOVERY MATTERS WITH MR. SCHECK? MS. CLARK: YES, HE IS. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MS. CLARK: WE'LL CALL HIM. THE COURT: IS HE ON HIS WAY DOWN? ARE THE ELEVATORS OPERATING? ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK, MY UNDERSTANDING IS, THIS IS JUST A MATTER OF MAKING ADDITIONAL SAMPLES AVAILABLE FOR LONGER PERIODS OF TIME? MR. SCHECK: THERE WERE THREE MATTERS AT ISSUE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BEFORE WE -- I'M JUST -- IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? MR. SCHECK: YEAH. THE ONE THING I THINK WAS OF MOST IMMEDIATE CONCERN IS, THERE IS A COURIER EN ROUTE TO WASHINGTON. I THINK WE HAD RAISED THAT EARLIER WITH THE COURT. THE COURT: WELL, LET'S WAIT UNTIL MR. HODGMAN GETS HERE. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF THAT'S WHAT THE ISSUE WAS. MR. SCHECK: DID YOU RECEIVE THE LETTER? THE COURT: YES. I GOT A LETTER FAXED TO ME THIS AFTERNOON. I READ IT ONCE. WHAT'S OUR ETA ON MR. HODGMAN? ON HIS WAY? OKAY. (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MRS. ROBERTSON, WOULD YOU GET MR. SCHECK'S LETTER OFF OF MY DESK, PLEASE. I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY MR. NEUFELD'S LETTER. MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR? (A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE THE SO-CALLED DNA EXPERTS HERE. LET'S PROCEED. MR. HODGMAN, MR. SCHECK. MR. HODGMAN: YES. GOOD AFTERNOON. THE COURT: I SEE YOU BROUGHT REINFORCEMENT, MS. KAHN. MR. HODGMAN: YES. SHE WANTED TO FIND HER WAY BACK TO THE COURT. SO I SHOWED HER THE WAY. YOUR HONOR, I GUESS I'LL OPEN THE PROCEEDINGS BY SAYING WE ARE IN RECEIPT OF A LETTER FROM MR. NEUFELD, MR. SCHECK AND MR. BLASIER, AND I ASSUME THAT THE COURT IS IN POSSESSION OF THIS LETTER AS WELL. THE COURT: YES. MR. HODGMAN: ON PAGE 2 OF THAT LETTER, THERE ARE THREE REQUESTS BEING MADE OF THE PROSECUTION, AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THOSE REQUESTS. ITEM 1, IN ESSENCE, THE DEFENSE IS ASKING THAT THE SOCKS, LAPD ITEM NO. 13, AS WELL AS A PAIR OF SHOES, WHICH WE'VE NOW IDENTIFIED AS LAPD ITEM NO. 415, BE SENT TO DR. HENRY LEE'S LAB IN NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT. AND, YOUR HONOR, THE PEOPLE OPPOSE THAT REQUEST. FIRST OF ALL, THE SHOES NOW IDENTIFIED AS ITEM NO. 415 ARE HERE. I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL JUST AS I WAS LEAVING FOR COURT CONFIRMING THAT THOSE SHOES HAD JUST BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM THE PROPERTY DIVISION TO THE SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION. SO THE SHOES ARE NOT IN WASHINGTON D.C. THEY ARE NOT AT THE FBI LAB. THEY ARE HERE IN LOS ANGELES. WE HAVE A COURIER EN ROUTE TO WASHINGTON RIGHT NOW TO PICK UP THE SOCKS AND RETURN WITH THEM TO LOS ANGELES TOMORROW. IF THE COURT WILL RECALL ITS ORDER OF FEBRUARY THE 8TH, THE COURT STATED THAT EXAMINATION AND TESTING SHALL BE CONDUCTED LOCALLY UNLESS GOOD CAUSE IS MADE BY AFFIDAVIT OR OTHER SIMILAR SHOWING. WITH REGARD TO ITEM 1, THE SOCKS AND THE SHOES, I WOULD SUBMIT THAT NO GOOD CAUSE HAS BEEN SHOWN AND THAT WE WILL MAKE THOSE ITEMS AVAILABLE LOCALLY AT THE LAPD SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION, BUT THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE PEOPLE TO INCUR THE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE OF REROUTING OUR COURIER TO NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT, AND NO NEED HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE IT UP ITEM BY ITEM. ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK, WITH REGARD TO THE SHOES AND THE SOCKS. MR. SCHECK: WELL, THE FIRST POINT TO BE MADE IS THAT, AS THE LETTER INDICATES AND I'M SURE WE'LL GET INTO, THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION UNFORTUNATELY ON SATURDAY AS TO WHERE IMPORTANT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE WERE THAT IMPEDED EXAMINATION. AND IT WAS BELIEVED AT THE TIME ON SATURDAY THAT THOSE SHOES WERE IN WASHINGTON. SO -- AND WE SPOKE TO MR. HODGMAN, CALLED HIM BEFORE THIS LETTER WAS EVEN FAXED, APPRISED HIM OF THIS SITUATION, AND I THINK IT WAS HIS LAST INQUIRY JUST BEFORE HE CAME DOWN HERE, HE WAS ABLE TO DETERMINE WHERE THE SHOES WAS. SO THAT'S THE REASON. BUT THE KEY POINT IS THE SOCKS. THE COURT: FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING, BUT LET'S SORT OF CUT TO THE CHASE. WE'VE GOT THE SHOES, WE'VE GOT THE SOCKS. BOTH ARE GOING TO BE HERE -- THE SHOES ARE HERE, THE SOCKS WILL BE HERE TOMORROW, CORRECT? MR. HODGMAN: YES. MR. SCHECK: THAT'S THE PROBLEM. AS THE COURT RECALLS, WE SET UP THIS EXAMINATION AT LAPD PAINSTAKINGLY OVER THE LAST TWO WEEKS. IT WAS ANTICIPATED CERTAINLY THAT THE TESTING AT THE FBI WOULD BE DONE I THINK IT WAS A WEEK AGO MONDAY SO THAT THE SOCKS WOULD BE HERE AND WE COULD HAVE AN EXAMINATION OF THE SOCKS, THE SHOES, THE DRESS, THE SHIRT, THE RELEVANT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE, MR. BODZIAK'S REPORTS SO ALL THAT EVIDENCE COULD BE LOOKED AT AS A WHOLE INTELLIGENTLY BY OUR EXPERTS. AS THE COURT RECALLS, BECAUSE OF THIS COURIER PROBLEM, THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SEND A COURIER OUT EARLIER IN THE WEEK TO BRING THE SOCK BACK SO THAT IT COULD BE PRODUCED ON SATURDAY, THE SOCK WAS UNAVAILABLE. I THINK -- THE COURT: WELL, HERE'S -- LET'S FORGET ABOUT ALL OF THAT. THAT'S ALL IN THE PAST. THE SOCK WILL BE HERE TOMORROW. THE SHOES ARE HERE. HOW DO WE GET THEM TESTED BY THE DEFENSE? MR. SCHECK: WELL, WE -- THE TESTS AND THE EXAMINATION HAS TO BE DONE BY DR. LEE -- THE COURT: OKAY. MR. SCHECK: -- WHO IS THE ONE THAT HAS BEEN DOING EXTENSIVE RESEARCH INTO IT. DR. LEE WAS HERE -- YOU KNOW, CHANGED ALL HIS SCHEDULING, CAME DOWN HERE, WAS HERE TO DO THIS, COULDN'T GET IT DONE ON SATURDAY. HE'S NOW IN DENVER, HE HAS TO GO BACK TO THE EAST COAST. HE HAS RESPONSIBILITIES THERE. AND IT SEEMED TO US THAT THE MOST EXPEDITIOUS AND BEST THING TO DO IN TERMS OF EXPENSE FRANKLY TO BOTH SIDES IN THIS MATTER WAS, SINCE THE COURIER WAS GOING OUT, THAT THE SOCKS COULD BE TAKEN BY THAT ONE COURIER TO DR. LEE'S LABORATORY IN NEW HAVEN SO THAT HE CAN PERFORM HIS TESTS AND EXAMINATION ON THAT SOCK. THE PROBLEM WE HAVE IS THAT THE CONDITIONS THAT DR. LEE AND MR. MORTON AND THE OTHER EXPERTS HAVE TO WORK UNDER AT LAPD ARE FAR FROM IDEAL. IN FACT, IN CERTAIN INSTANCES, THEY'RE INADEQUATE FOR PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING THESE TESTS. THEY NEED THEIR OWN EQUIPMENT, SPECIAL EQUIPMENT, PARTICULARLY FOR THE EXAMINATION OF THESE SOCKS AND HAIRS AND FIBERS WE'LL GET INTO. SO DR. LEE HAS STRONGLY URGED US TO TRY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. AND IT SEEMED TO ME I HAD TO BRING THIS TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION -- I THINK WE EVEN RAISED IT LAST WEEK AS A POSSIBILITY WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR THAT NO COURIER WAS GOING TO BE SENT OUT LAST WEEK TO GET THE SOCK FOR SATURDAY; THAT THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY WHEN THAT COURIER CAME BACK, THAT THAT COURIER COULD -- ALREADY IN THE EAST COAST, COULD GO TO DR. LEE'S LAB AND TAKE IT. WE RAISED THAT LAST WEEK AND WE WANTED TO BRING THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE THAT'S CRITICAL EVIDENCE, IT'S COMING IN SOON AND WE WANT TO HAVE OUR -- THE COURT: SO YOU ARE SUGGESTING THAT WE HAVE A COURIER STOP AT THE FBI, GO TO DR. LEE'S LAB AND THEN BRING IT BACK HERE TO L.A. MR. SCHECK: THAT'S RIGHT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHAT ABOUT THE SHOES? MR. SCHECK: WELL, THE SHOES, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD PREFER THAT HE HAVE THOSE AT THE SAME TIME. BUT IF ALL WE CAN GET ARE THE SOCKS, WE'LL TAKE THE SOCKS BECAUSE THAT'S CRITICAL. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO LOOK AT AND EXAMINE THE SHOES IF THEY'RE HERE IN L.A.? MR. SCHECK: WELL, WHAT WE WERE ABLE TO DO FOR THE PRESENT PERIOD WAS LOOK AT ONE SET OF SHOES IN THE LAB. OBVIOUSLY THE OTHER SET WERE THERE, BUT NOBODY KNEW IT. I KNOW THAT THE EXAMINATIONS OF DR. LEE WANTS TO PERFORM ON THE SOCKS. THERE'S ONE SEPARATE SET HE WANTS TO PERFORM ON THE SOCKS AND ONE SET THAT HE WANTS TO PERFORM ON THE SOCKS AND THE SHOES IN COMBINATION. BUT THE MORE PAINSTAKING ONES IMMEDIATELY JUST CONCERN THE SOCKS. SO THAT WOULD SOLVE A LOT OF OUR NEEDS IF HE GOT A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THOSE SOCKS RIGHT AWAY. THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE SOCKS AND THE SHOES IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE LATER IN THE TRIAL, BUT I WOULD EXPECT IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS THE SOCKS ARE COMING IN, AND SO HE WANTS TO SEE THOSE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. HODGMAN, WHAT IS THE ADDITIONAL -- WHAT OBJECTION DO YOU HAVE TO THE SOCKS GOING TO DR. LEE'S LABORATORY OTHER THAN THE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE? MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, THERE'S BEEN NO DEMONSTRATION OF GOOD CAUSE. I WOULD POINT OUT TO THE COURT THAT BASED UPON SYLLABUS OF SORTS THAT WE PRESENTED TO THE COURT LAST WEEK, THAT THESE SOCKS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE DEFENSE ON FOUR OCCASIONS INCLUDING ONE SEVERAL-HOUR EXAMINATION BY DR. LEE AT LAPD SID JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO. SO WE HAVE THE MATTER OF ADDITIONAL EXPENSE. WE HAVE THE FACT THAT THESE SOCKS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED MULTIPLE TIMES BY THE DEFENSE THUS FAR, AND DR. LEE CAN COME HERE. PART OF THE PROBLEM, AS DESCRIBED OR CHARACTERIZED BY THE DEFENSE WITH SATURDAY, IS THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO GET A LOT DONE IN THE SAME SPACE. THERE IS A CONFERENCE ROOM OVER AT LAPD SID WHICH SEEMED TO BE SUITABLE WHEN DR. LEE EXAMINED THOSE SOCKS THE FIRST TIME AROUND A FEW WEEKS AGO. ON THIS PARTICULAR OCCASION THIS LAST SATURDAY, WE HAD MR. MORTON AT ONE END OF A LARGE CONFERENCE TABLE, MR. LEE AT THE OTHER END, AND THINGS WERE A BIT CROWDED. IF WE REMOVED HALF OF THE EXAMINERS FOR PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING A SINGLE EXAMINATION, I THINK ONCE THE EQUIPMENT IS BROUGHT IN, WHATEVER EQUIPMENT THE DEFENSE WANTS TO BRING IN, THE CONDITIONS OR THE PROBLEM WITH THE CONDITIONS WILL BE SOLVED. SO THE PEOPLE OBJECT, THAT THERE'S NO SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE. WE ASK THAT THIS EXAMINATION BE DONE LOCALLY. IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, WE ONLY HAVE A COURIER WHO WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO TAKE THE SOCKS. WE STILL HAVE THE MATTER OF HAVING A MONITOR OR SPECIAL MASTER OR SOMEONE LIKE THAT WHO WOULD HAVE TO BE ARRANGED IF WE WERE TO GO TO THE NEW HAVEN LAB. SO OUR POSITION IS, LET'S HAVE DR. LEE COME HERE AND EXAMINE THE SOCKS AT LAPD SID. THE COURT: WHEN DO YOU ANTICIPATE IN YOUR CONSULTATIONS WITH MISS CLARK WHEN THOSE SOCKS WILL BE OFFERED INTO EVIDENCE BY THE PEOPLE? MR. HODGMAN: I CAN'T ADDRESS THAT, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK, WHEN IS THE SOONEST DR. LEE CAN COME TO LOS ANGELES AND USE LAB FACILITIES HERE AND EXAMINE THE SOCKS? MR. SCHECK: I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT IMMEDIATELY, BUT I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THAT BEFORE THE SOCKS WERE TAKEN TO THE FBI FOR TESTING, WHEN THAT WAS ANNOUNCED AND DECIDED, WE FLEW DR. LEE IN FOR THE FIRST MEANINGFUL EXAMINATION OF THE SOCKS, THE FIRST TIME ANY EXPERT COULD TOUCH AND REALLY EXAMINE THE SOCKS. HE DID THAT AT THE LAST MINUTE. IF YOU RECALL, WE FLEW HIM DOWN AT 6:55 IN THE MORNING FROM SEATTLE TO GO TO THE LAB. WE GOT A MICROSCOPE THAT WAS THE BEST THAT COULD BE OBTAINED ON QUICK NOTICE THAT WAS NOT NEARLY POWERFUL ENOUGH, AND HE WAS ABLE TO ESSENTIALLY START A FIRST EXAMINATION. SINCE THEN, THEY'VE BEEN TESTED AGAIN. THERE ARE COMPLICATED THINGS HE HAS TO DO. THERE'S AN INFRARED VIDEOTAPE THAT WAS TAKEN BY THE PROSECUTION'S EXPERTS OF THE SOCK IN VARIOUS SPOTS. THEY'VE HAD MR. ENGLERT LOOK AT IT. THEY'VE HAD VARIOUS DIFFERENT EXPERTS LOOK AT IT FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME. WE REALLY HAVE TO STUDY THE SOCK. THE CONDITIONS MOST RESPECTFULLY AT LAPD AND THE VARIOUS EQUIPMENT THAT'S NEEDED ARE WILLFULLY INADEQUATE FOR THAT PURPOSE. AND IF THE COURT DESIRES AN AFFIDAVIT FROM DR. LEE TO THAT EFFECT IMMEDIATELY, YOU KNOW, I WILL LOCATE HIM TO GET IT. BUT THE REASON -- THE COURT: THE QUESTION IS, WHEN IS HE AVAILABLE TO COME TO LOS ANGELES AND DO THIS? MR. SCHECK: I DON'T THINK HE'S AVAILABLE TO MY KNOWLEDGE TO COME TO LOS ANGELES FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT WEEK, AND I KNOW IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR HIM TO MAKE THIS TIME. THAT'S WHY WE TRIED TO MAKE THESE ARRANGEMENTS FOR SATURDAY. THE COURT: ARE THERE ANY OTHER LAB FACILITIES HERE IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES THAT DR. LEE WOULD FIND ACCEPTABLE TO USE? MR. SCHECK: WE'VE INVESTIGATED THIS, AND THE PROBLEM IS GETTING ALL THE EQUIPMENT THAT'S NECESSARY IN ONE PLACE AT ONE TIME AND GETTING THE MATERIAL THERE. FRANKLY, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WAS EXPENDED IN OVERTIME IN OPENING UP THE LAPD LAB TO GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO IN THERE WHERE THE FACILITIES WERE INADEQUATE FOR STUDYING THIS EVIDENCE FOR LOTS OF PURPOSES I'M SURE COSTS MONEY. AND I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THE COST OF THIS COURIER STAYING OVER AN EXTRA DAY TO TAKE THE SOCKS -- OR TWO DAYS TO TAKE THE SOCKS TO NEW HAVEN FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ONE EXAMINATION COULD POSSIBLY BE AS HIGH AS THE COSTS OF OPENING UP THAT WHOLE LAB, ARRANGING FOR THINGS TO BE BROUGHT OVER, HAVING A PHOTOGRAPHER COME, HAVING DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND EVERYBODY ELSE SIT AND WATCH, TAKE NOTES AND MAKE ALL THOSE LOGISTICAL ARRANGEMENTS. THE COURT: THERE'S NO OTHER LAB FACILITY HERE IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES THAT'S AVAILABLE TO YOU FOR THIS TESTING THAT WOULD BE ADEQUATE? (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. SCHECK: WE HAVE MADE INQUIRY AND WE HAVE NOT FOUND ANYTHING THAT APPROACHES THE INSTRUMENTATION THAT DR. LEE HAS AVAILABLE TO HIM IN HIS LAB. AFTER ALL, HE IS PERHAPS THE FOREMOST EXPERT IN THESE AREAS IN THE COUNTRY AND HE HAS LOTS OF STATE OF THE ART EQUIPMENT THAT ARE NOT AVAILABLE THAT WE CAN FIND AT ANY ONE LAB IN THIS IMMEDIATE VICINITY. SO IT WOULD BE -- THE COURT: I HAVE TO TELL YOU, MR. SCHECK, THAT I AGREE WITH MR. HODGMAN'S POSITION THAT THE INDICATION WAS, I WOULD ALLOW THIS TESTING TO GO ON OUTSIDE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IF THERE WAS A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE, WHICH I HAVEN'T SEEN HERE. I MEAN, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT STEREOSCOPIC MICROSCOPES, WHICH I'M SURE THEY'RE A DIME A DOZEN. MR. SCHECK: OH, NO. THE COURT: SURE THEY ARE. MR. SCHECK: A DIME A DOZEN? MR. SHAPIRO: A THOUSAND DOLLARS A DAY. THE COURT: I MEAN THEY'RE AVAILABLE HERE IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. MR. SCHECK: WELL, THERE ARE OTHER FACILITIES AND OTHER KINDS OF TESTS THAT HE I THINK INTENDS TO DO. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK, THEN WHY DON'T WE DO THIS? WHY DON'T YOU GET A DECLARATION FROM DR. LEE AS TO WHAT IT IS HE WANTS TO DO, WHAT KIND OF EQUIPMENT HE NEEDS. I NEED EXACT DECLARATION FROM YOU THAT ALL OF THIS EQUIPMENT ISN'T AVAILABLE HERE LOCALLY AND THAT THERE'S GOOD REASON TO HAVE TO DO IT OTHERWISE. THEN MY PROBABLE -- IF I DO GRANT THAT, I WILL PROBABLY REQUIRE YOU TO PAY THE COST FOR THAT. MR. SCHECK: PAY THE COST OF? THE COURT: THE ADDITIONAL COURIER COST. THE SCHECK: THE ADDITIONAL COURIER COST FOR GOING OUT THERE. THE COURT: RIGHT. MR. SCHECK: WELL, I THINK THAT FRANKLY, THAT WOULD BE FAR PREFERABLE TO US AND FAR LESS EXPENSIVE FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND FOR EVERYBODY ELSE FOR US TO PAY THAT COURIER. I'M SURE IT WOULDN'T EVEN BE APPROACHING WHAT IT TAKES TO RENT ALL THE EQUIPMENT AND BRING EVERYBODY OVER INTO A SITUATION THAT ISN'T GOING TO BE AS GOOD AS IT WOULD BE IF IT WERE SENT OUT THERE. SO WHAT I'M REALLY URGING THE COURT IS THAT PART OF THE GOOD CAUSE IS, IF IT'S DONE THE WAY THAT WE URGE IT BE DONE, IT'S CHEAPER. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NUMBER 2. MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THAT, WE WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO EXPLORE WITH LABS LOCALLY ONCE WE OBTAINED THE AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION FROM DR. LEE WHAT EQUIPMENT HE NEEDS BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT CAN BE DONE LOCALLY AND WE WOULD PREFER THAT IT BE DONE LOCALLY. THE COURT: THAT'S WHY I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN AFFIDAVIT TELLING ME WHAT KIND OF EQUIPMENT WE NEED AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. MR. HODGMAN: SEE, THAT COURIER IS GOING TO BE GETTING ON A JET TOMORROW MORNING IN WASHINGTON TO BRING THE SOCKS BACK. I AM INFORMED THE SOCKS WILL BE BACK HERE AT 3:00 P.M. TOMORROW. SO THAT'S THE TIME LINE WE'RE DEALING WITH. BUT, YOUR HONOR, OUR PREFERENCE IS, LET'S DO IT LOCALLY. IF IT HAS TO BE AN INDEPENDENT LAB, THEN IT CAN BE AN INDEPENDENT LAB THAT HAS -- PRESUMABLY HAS THE EQUIPMENT THAT DR. LEE REQUIRES AND THE DEFENSE HAS CHOSEN -- THE COURT: BUT I'M NOT RESTRICTING THIS TO THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. I MEAN ANY CONTIGUOUS COUNTY. I KNOW THERE ARE SOME GOOD CRIME LABS DOWN IN ORANGE COUNTY, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. I'M SURE WE CAN FIND A LAB SOMEWHERE, SHERIFF'S LAB, WHO KNOWS. MR. HODGMAN: THERE'S ONE ADDITIONAL WRINKLE IN THE SOCKS, YOUR HONOR, AND THAT IS THIS. PARDON ME. THE COURT: IT'S A LITTLE LATE IN THE AFTERNOON TO BE DOING THAT TO ME, MR. HODGMAN. MR. HODGMAN: MR. SCHECK INFORMED ME THAT DR. LEE WOULD LIKE TO DO SOME CUTTING WITH REGARD TO THE SOCKS. AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, THAT'S GOING TO NECESSITATE CERTAIN SPECIALIZED PERSONNEL FROM OUR PART -- ON OUR PART TO BE ABLE TO OBSERVE WHAT GOES ON. SO THAT GETS FOLDED INTO THE MIX AS WELL. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, LIKE I SAY, WHEN I SEE THE AFFIDAVIT OF GOOD CAUSE, I'LL THINK ABOUT IT. AND WE'LL SEE -- YOU'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, MR. HODGMAN. ALL RIGHT. THAT ONE IS STILL ON THE TABLE. ALL RIGHT. NUMBER 2, TRACE EVIDENCE. MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO NUMBER 2, ONCE AGAIN, WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE THIS TRACE EVIDENCE WHICH -- OTHER THAN THE ITEMS FROM WHICH IT WAS COLLECTED, BUT OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY NOT SPECIFIED IN THE DEFENSE REQUEST, HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY THE DEFENSE. THIS -- AS THE COURT WILL RECALL, THE TRACE, THAT IS THE HAIR AND FIBER EVIDENCE, THAT WAS EXAMINED BY MR. SHOLBERG IN VIRGINIA SOME MONTHS AGO. IN ADDITION, MR. MORTON HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW THIS TRACE EVIDENCE IN ALBANY JUST A FEW SHORT WEEKS AGO. SO, AGAIN, AS WE HAVE REQUEST FOR MOVEMENT OF THIS TRACE EVIDENCE, I'M ASKING THAT IT BE DONE LOCALLY INTO THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS WE'RE CONTEMPLATING FOR ITEM NO. 1. THAT IS, IT CAN BE DONE LOCALLY. HERE, THE DEFENSE WAS AWARE OF THE SITUATION OF THE CONFERENCE ROOM SITUATION. THE SETTING WAS CHOSEN, WE OPENED UP THE LAPD LAB AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE ACCEPTABLE. AND WE RECEIVED A DECLARATION TODAY THAT SOMEHOW IT WAS UNACCEPTABLE BECAUSE THE DEFENSE APPARENTLY TRIED TO DO TOO MUCH ON ONE DAY. SO, AGAIN, I WOULD SUBMIT THAT IF WE'RE A LITTLE BIT -- IF THE DEFENSE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE REASONABLE IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY TRY TO ACCOMPLISH OVER AT LAPD, MR. MORTON'S EXAMINATION CAN BE DONE AT LAPD OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SOME LOCAL LAB NEARBY WITHOUT NECESSITATING GREAT MOVEMENT OF THESE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE. THE COURT: MR. SCHECK. MR. SCHECK: YES. WE WOULD RELY ON MR. MORTON'S AFFIDAVIT. I BEG TO DIFFER WITH MR. HODGMAN ABOUT WHAT COULD OR COULD NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED AND WHAT SPACE WAS OR WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND WHAT WAS ANTICIPATED. WE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO NECESSARILY STAY IN THAT ONE ROOM. A REQUEST WAS MADE TO GO INTO THE MICROSCOPY ROOM BY MR. MORTON, AND MR. MATHESON INFORMED HIM THAT IT WAS AGAINST POLICY FOR HIM TO DO SO. I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S ANY SERIOUS QUESTION AMONG CRIMINALISTS OR FRANKLY EVEN THE PEOPLE IN LAPD THAT THE KIND OF EXAMINATION THAT'S NECESSARY TO LOOK AT ALL THESE HAIRS AND FIBERS AS MR. MORTON DESCRIBES ABSOLUTELY CANNOT BE CONDUCTED UNDER THOSE KINDS OF CONDITIONS. IT TAKES A LONG PERIOD OF TIME TO GO THROUGH THESE BINDLES, SOME OF WHICH WE HAVE CREATED BECAUSE WE FOUND NEW EVIDENCE ON THE SAME KEY PIECES OF -- THE SAME ITEMS THAT PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN EXAMINED BY THE PROSECUTION'S EXPERTS. WE FOUND MORE. WE WANT TO LOOK AT ALL THAT TOGETHER. HE HAS TO -- SOME SLIDES HAVE BEEN MOUNTED. TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT A MOUNTED SLIDE, IT'S EASIER. BUT IT TURNS OUT UPON EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE, THAT MOST OF THIS IS NOT MOUNTED. SO WHAT HE HAS TO DO IS CAREFULLY GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE THINGS, LOOK AT THEM, DECIDE WHICH ONES TO MOUNT. IT'S A PAINSTAKING PROCESS. IT CAN'T BE DONE IN A MARATHON SESSION. THE COURT: WHAT I GOT OUT OF MR. MORTON'S DECLARATION IS THAT HE SAYS, IT'S PAINSTAKING, IT'S TIME-CONSUMING, IT TAKES A LOT OF TIME AND I NEED MORE TIME. THAT'S WHAT I GOT OUT OF THE THREE PAGES HERE. MR. SCHECK: YES. AND ALSO, THAT THE WAY THAT THIS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST IN ALMOST EVERY OTHER CASE THAT HE DEALS WITH WITH RARE EXCEPTION IS THAT ORDINARILY, THE EVIDENCE IS SIMPLY SENT TO HIS LABORATORY BY VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS IN CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING LOS ANGELES PROSECUTORS AND SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT ON OTHER OCCASIONS, AND IT'S TAKEN TO HIS LAB AND HE LOOKS THROUGH IT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. HODGMAN, WHY CAN'T WE DO THAT IN THIS CASE? MR. MORTON IS LOCAL, SEMI-LOCAL, ALAMEDA COUNTY, WELL KNOWN TO YOU, WELL KNOWN TO ME. MR. HODGMAN: AND THE REASON WHY, YOUR HONOR, IS THEY'VE ALREADY HAD TWO SHOTS AT THIS VERY SAME EVIDENCE. MR. SHOLBERG LAST FALL -- AND THE ALBANY TRIP WAS ARRANGED AT GREAT EXPENSE, THAT THE DEFENSE HAD THREE DAYS TO EXAMINE THIS EVIDENCE BACK IN ALBANY OR AT LEAST THE BETTER PART OF TWO DAYS. MR. MORTON WAS THERE. WHY IS IT THAT WE NEED TO DO IT AGAIN? I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY GOOD CAUSE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT YET. THE COURT: WELL, LET'S ASSUME THAT I ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT THAT THERE'S SO MUCH OF THIS STUFF, THIS TRACE EVIDENCE AND THAT IT'S VERY TIME-CONSUMING TO LOOK AT. HOW WOULD YOU PROPOSE WE ALLOW MR. MORTON TWO OR THREE ADDITIONAL DAYS TO LOOK AT THIS STUFF? MR. HODGMAN: I WOULD SUBMIT, YOUR HONOR, THAT MR. MORTON -- WELL, IF YOU FEEL HE NEEDS TWO OR THREE MORE DAYS. BUT THEY HAVE HAD TIME. BUT PUTTING THE TIME ISSUE ASIDE, WE WOULD LIKE THE EVIDENCE TO REMAIN LOCALLY. AS THE COURT SAW FIT IN ITS ORDER, WE HAVE A PREFERENCE FOR THIS TYPE OF EVIDENCE TO BE EXAMINED LOCALLY. IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, I WOULD SUBMIT WE EITHER USE THE LAPD FACILITIES, MR. MORTON CAN BRING IN WHAT HE NEEDS -- AGAIN, PART OF THE PROBLEMS OF THIS PAST SATURDAY WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO DO TOO MUCH IN THE SPACE THAT WAS CHOSEN. THAT CAN BE REMEDIED BY SIMPLY BEING REASONABLE IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN THE SPACE THAT IS GIVEN TO THEM AND IN THE TIME THAT IS ALLOWED. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK, MR. MORTON DOES NOT INCLUDE IN HIS AFFIDAVIT ANY INDICATIONS AS TO WHAT EQUIPMENT HE NEEDS FOR THIS EXAMINATION. MR. SCHECK: YES. WELL, I THINK IT'S KNOWN TO THE PROSECUTION THAT IT'S A COMPARISON MICROSCOPE. AND THE ONLY ONE WE WERE ABLE TO GET FROM HIM DOWN HERE THAT WAS LIKE HIS WAS NOT, AS HE SAID, UP TO HIS STANDARDS OF THE ONE HE HAS IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. NOW, THIS IS IN CALIFORNIA. IT'S IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. AND THERE'S -- THEY WOULDN'T LET US USE THE MICROSCOPY ROOM AT LAPD. IT DOESN'T HAVE COMPARABLE EQUIPMENT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. AND IT IS JUST NOT REASONABLE GIVEN THE FACT THAT THEY HAD THESE FIBERS AND HAIRS AND WERE LOOKING AT THEM FROM THE 8TH OF AUGUST THROUGH THE 7TH OF SEPTEMBER AT THE FBI IN THEIR FACILITIES. THIS TAKES TIMES. AND IT IS -- WE DID THE BEST WE COULD UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IN ALBANY. WE'VE GENERATED YET NEW EVIDENCE FROM THE SAME ITEMS RECOVERED AT THE SCENE. AND FRANKLY, RIGHT NOW, WE'RE ONLY FOCUSING ON THE MOST IMPORTANT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED OR ARE GOING TO BE INTRODUCED IN THE TRIAL, AND THERE'S A NEED FOR US TO GET THIS DONE EXPEDITIOUSLY. HE'S WILLING TO SIT THERE, GET RID OF ALL HIS OTHER CASES AND SIT THERE AND GET THIS DONE JUST BY LOOKING AT THIS THREE DAYS IN A ROW. THE COURT: WHAT WOULD BE INVOLVED AS FAR AS COURIER AND SPECIAL MASTER SERVICES? MR. SCHECK: WELL, I WOULD SAY THIS. I AT THIS POINT, GIVEN THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE, I WOULD WELCOME THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL MASTER TO GO THROUGH THIS DISCOVERY. NOTHING COULD BE BETTER FROM MY POINT OF VIEW TO TRY TO WORK THIS OUT AS BEST AS POSSIBLE. I DON'T KNOW. IT'S UP TO THE PROSECUTION. I MEAN THEY CAN HAVE SOMEBODY SIT IN THE ROOM AND PHOTOGRAPH HIM LOOKING AT A MICROSCOPE FOR THREE DAYS OR THEY CAN DO WHAT'S USUALLY DONE AND LET HIM LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD POINT OUT ONCE AGAIN, THERE IS STILL THE ISSUE OF WHY WHEN THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY IN ALBANY AND TIME IN THE LAB OF THEIR CHOOSING -- THE COURT: WELL, YOU KNOW -- MR. HODGMAN: AND LAPD WILL MAKE THE ROOM AVAILABLE. THEY CAN BRING IN WHAT EQUIPMENT THEY WANT TO BRING IN, AND THEN IT'S MR. MORTON'S TIME. LAPD WILL ALLOW THE TIME THERE AT SID. WHY DO WE HAVE TO MOVE THE EVIDENCE? NO GOOD CAUSE HAS BEEN SHOWN. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY WE SHOULD DO IT THIS WAY. I THINK WHAT YOU NEED TO DO -- I AGREE MR. MORTON SHOULD HAVE ADDITIONAL TIME TO LOOK AT THESE THINGS. THE PROSECUTION ISN'T WILLING TO LET IT GO TO ALAMEDA WITHOUT A FIGHT. I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING HERE THAT THE EQUIPMENT IS COMPLETELY INADEQUATE. MR. SCHECK: WELL, I THINK -- I THINK HE SPELLS OUT PRETTY CLEARLY ABOUT THE WORKING CONDITIONS AND -- THE COURT: WORKING CONDITIONS DOESN'T TELL ME ANYTHING. WHAT I NEED TO KNOW IS, I NEED A MODEL X, XYZ STEREOSCOPIC COMPARISON MICROSCOPE, YOU KNOW, I NEED THIS LIGHT SOURCE, I NEED THAT, THAT, THAT, IT'S NOT AVAILABLE HERE. MR. SCHECK: HE DID INDICATE IN HIS AFFIDAVIT THAT IN ADDITION, A RENTED COMPARISON MICROSCOPE OF LIMITED CAPACITY WAS MADE AVAILABLE. IT TAKES ABOUT AN HOUR TO SET THAT UP. THAT WAS THE BEST MICROSCOPE -- WE GOT IT FROM MR. SUGIYAMA I BELIEVE -- THAT WE COULD FIND IN THE AREA TO DO IT FOR THESE PURPOSES. HE -- THE COURT: SO WHAT'S INVOLVED WITH HIM BRINGING HIS MICROSCOPE? MR. SCHECK: HE CAN'T DO IT. WE'VE ASKED HIM THAT ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. IT'S JUST NOT MOVABLE. IT'S PLANTED IN HIS LAB APPARENTLY. HE SAYS IT'S JUST NOT TRANSPORTABLE. WE'VE ASKED HIM TO -- THE COURT: WHAT'S THE NAME OF THIS MICROSCOPE? MR. SCHECK: I DON'T KNOW. I'LL HAVE TO FIND OUT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HAVE HIM CALL MY CLERK THIS EVENING WITH THE NAME, NUMBER, MODEL NUMBER, WHO MANUFACTURES IT, WHO RUNS IT. I'LL FIND YOU ONE. OR MORE APPROPRIATELY, MY LAW CLERKS WILL FIND YOU ONE. MR. SCHECK: THE ONLY OTHER THING I WOULD NOTE IS THAT IN TERMS OF THE WORKING CONDITIONS, ONE PROBLEM IS THAT EVERY TIME THAT A BINDLE WAS OPENED OR HE WAS LOOKING AT A SLIDE, SOMEBODY WOULD COME RUNNING OVER, TAKE A PICTURE OF IT. THERE WAS A DANGER OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, YOU KNOW, BEING BLOWN ACROSS THE TABLE. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT AND UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, AND I THINK EVERYBODY RECOGNIZED IT. IT WASN'T THE NATURE OF THE ROOM. IT WAS THE NATURE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE COURT: OKAY. WELL, GET ME THE MODEL NUMBER, NAME, SERIAL NUMBER, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. I'LL FIND YOU ONE. ALL RIGHT. LAST MATTER ARE THE UPDATED TRACKING LISTS. MR. HODGMAN. MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THAT, I HAVE TO RELY UPON INFORMATION THAT I WAS GIVEN BY MR. MATHESON LAST WEEK. WITH REGARD TO THE SETS INFORMATION -- AND THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO ACHIEVE A PRINTOUT OF THE INFORMATION LAST WEEK AND APPARENTLY THE PRINTER, BE IT ANTIQUATED OR OTHERWISE INADEQUATE, BROKE DOWN. THERE WAS SOME SORT OF MELTDOWN WITH THE PRINTER. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE? WHEN CAN YOU HAVE THESE THINGS AVAILABLE? MR. HODGMAN: MR. MATHESON WAS OFF TODAY. I DON'T KNOW. HE INFORMED ME LAST WEEK THAT THEY WERE GETTING SOME NEW SOFTWARE WHICH WOULD ALLOW THEM TO BE ABLE TO PRINT OUT THE SETS INFORMATION, BUT THAT WAS GOING TO BE ARRIVING WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF LAST WEEK. AND WITH REGARD TO THE APINS INFORMATION, AT THIS POINT, I DON'T KNOW. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. MATHESON WILL BE IN TOMORROW? MR. HODGMAN: YES. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T YOU REPORT BACK TO ME BY THE CLOSE OF THE MORNING SESSION TOMORROW AS TO WHEN THESE ITEMS WILL BE AVAILABLE BECAUSE I THINK THE DEFENSE IS ENTITLED TO LOOK AT THOSE. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE? MR. SCHECK: YES. MR. HODGMAN: IF I MAY, YOUR HONOR. ONE POINT WITH REGARD TO THE HAIR AND FIBER INFORMATION. I REALIZE THE COURT IS TRYING TO CRAFT A WAY FOR THE DEFENSE EXPERTS TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT. I WOULD SIMPLY POINT OUT THEY HAD OPPORTUNITY AND TIME BEFORE. THEY'VE HAD THE ALBANY -- THE COURT: WELL, THE PROBLEM IS, EVERY TIME WE LOOK AT THESE THINGS THOUGH, THERE'S AN EVER-EXPANDING NUMBER OF ARTICLE ITEMS TO LOOK AT. AND THIS STUFF REALLY IS TIME-CONSUMING. IT REALLY IS. IF YOU'VE EVER DONE ANY MICROSCOPY BEFORE, IT'S VERY TEDIOUS, TIME-CONSUMING STUFF TO DO. MR. HODGMAN: VERY WELL. MR. SCHECK: ONE MORE MATTER I SHOULD BRING TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION I DIDN'T INCLUDE IN THE LETTER BECAUSE I WAS MAKING INQUIRY ABOUT LABS IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA IN TRYING TO GET EXPERTS. WHEN WE WERE IN THE LAB ON SATURDAY, WE WERE GIVEN ACCESS TO THE ORIGINAL COPIES OF NOTES BY CRIMINALISTS. AND AN EXAMINATION OF THAT REVEALS TO US THAT WE NEED TO HAVE THOSE LOOKED AT BY A QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS EXAMINER. AND I CAN PROVIDE TO THE PROSECUTION THE EXACT ITEMS THAT WE HAVE IN MIND. I KNOW MR. GOLDBERG WAS SITTING THERE WITH ME FOR QUITE A FEW HOURS AND SAW ME TABBING EVERY PAGE, SO HE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR, WHAT ITEMS ARE IN ISSUE. BUT I WANT TO PUT HIM ON NOTICE THAT THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH THOSE PARTICULAR -- WITH THAT NOTEBOOK OF ITEMS THAT WERE FILLED OUT BY THE CRIMINALISTS, THE ORIGINALS OF WHICH WE FIRST SAW ON SATURDAY. DR. LEE TOOK A LOOK AT THOSE AS WELL. AND WE KNOW WE WANT AN EXAMINATION OF THOSE DOCUMENTS. I'VE MADE INQUIRY OF A LAB IN LOS ANGELES THAT I KNOW COULD BE AVAILABLE, A MR. HARRIS. HOWEVER, HE CAN'T DO THE CASE BECAUSE OF OTHER TIME COMMITMENTS. AND SO I'M LOOKING FOR ANOTHER EXPERT WHO I CAN HAVE GO AND USE THIS LAB IN LOS ANGELES. I ASSUME THAT THAT PLAN GIVEN THE CONSTRAINTS HERE IS A SAMPLING. BUT I WANTED TO PUT THEM ON NOTICE THAT'S SOMETHING WE WANT TO DO RIGHT AWAY. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. HODGMAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, THIS MAY BE SOMETHING THEY WANT TO DO, BUT I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY JUSTIFICATION OR REASON WHY. IF THE DEFENSE EITHER BY WAY OF MOTION OR BY WAY OF LETTER PERHAPS -- THE COURT: I ASSUME THAT WAS JUST MR. SCHECK PUTTING YOU ON NOTICE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT MAY OCCUR. MR. HODGMAN: OKAY. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK: AND FRANKLY, I DON'T KNOW WHY -- I GUESS MY PROBLEM HERE IS, I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFICULTIES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. BUT WE ARE ONLY TRYING TO GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT'S PUT ON. WE ARE IN AN UNUSUAL SITUATION. I'VE LOOKED AT THE COURT'S RULING ON THE TESTING QUESTION AND READ IT AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, AND MY CONCERN THAT I'VE EXPRESSED BEFORE TO THE COURT, AND JUST TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD, IS THAT WHEN THE COURT MADE ITS RULING THAT THE PROSECUTION COULD HAVE -- COULD CONTINUE TESTING THROUGH THE TRIAL WITHOUT ANY PARTICULAR TIME LIMITS BALANCING THE DEFENDANT'S NEED FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL AND THE SITUATION WE WERE THROWN INTO. ONE CONSEQUENCE HOWEVER THAT WASN'T SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED OR EVEN ARGUED BY ME OR CONSIDERED IS THAT, AS ALL THESE ITEMS WERE ESSENTIALLY BEING FROZEN FOR PURPOSES OF POTENTIAL DNA TESTING, GENETIC TESTING AND WHATEVER OTHER KINDS OF TESTING THEY WANTED TO CONTINUE TO PERFORM AS THIS CASE WENT ON, THAT MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE DEFENSE TO GET ACCESS TO DO ITS TESTING UNTIL THE PROSECUTION WAS FINISHED. SO WHAT WE HAVE GOING ON IN THIS TRIAL IS AN UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF OUR EXPERTS WHO -- THE COURT: WELL, MR. SCHECK, I'VE AGREED THAT I THINK YOU ARE ENTITLED TO TEST THIS STUFF. MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SEE YOU ALL TOMORROW, 9:00 O'CLOCK. MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, MAY MR. HODGMAN AND I APPROACH? THE COURT: SURE. (A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.) (AT 4:05 P.M., AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL, TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1995, 9:00 A.M.) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
MONDAY, MARCH 6, 1995
PAGES 17182 THROUGH 17406, INCLUSIVE APPEARANCES: (SEE PAGE 2)
JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR #4588 APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PEOPLE: GIL GARCETTI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT L. SHAPIRO, ESQUIRE
JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR., ESQUIRE
GERALD F. UELMEN, ESQUIRE I N D E X INDEX FOR VOLUME 100 PAGES 17182 - 17406 ----------------------------------------------------- DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.
MONDAY MARCH 6, 1995 A.M. 17182 100 LEGEND:
MS. CLARK - MC ----------------------------------------------------- CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
PEOPLE'S
STORFER, MARK 17186MC 17194C 17212MC 17222C 100
LANGE, TOM 100 ------------------------------------------------------- ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
PEOPLE'S
STORFER, MARK 17186MC 17194C 17212MC 17222C 100
LANGE, TOM 100 EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S FOR IN EXHIBIT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
38-D - PHOTOGRAPH OF 17216 100 -----------------------------------------------------
PEOPLE'S FOR IN EXHIBIT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
1047 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 17338 100 ?? 17245
|