DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED; ALSO APPEARING, MR. ARTHUR WALSH, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY, AND MR. ROBERT H. TOURTELOT, ESQUIRE.)

(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. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK, MR. DARDEN AND MISS LEWIS. ALSO PRESENT, MR. WALSH FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, MR. TOURTELOT ON BEHALF OF MR. FUHRMAN. COUNSEL, THE FIRST MATTER WE HAVE ON THE COURT'S CALENDAR TODAY IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE -- OR A CONTINUATION OF THE PITCHESS MOTION REGARDING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. MR. DOUGLAS.

MR. DOUGLAS: MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, THERE REALLY IS, AS I SEE IT, NO REAL BASIS TO CHALLENGE THE RELEVANCE OF THE SOUGHT INFORMATION AND THE FACT THAT IN FACT THIS INFORMATION WOULD BE CRITICAL TO A FULL CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. FUHRMAN. I THINK, YOUR HONOR, IN THIS REGARD, IT WILL BE IMPORTANT TO REVIEW NOT ONLY THE PERSONNEL FILES FROM PARKER CENTER, BUT ANY RELEVANT PERSONNEL FILES FROM WEST LOS ANGELES AS WELL. I'M UNSURE WHETHER THE COURT HAD THE BENEFIT OF REVIEWING EACH OF THE SEPARATE PERSONNEL FILES LAST FALL WHEN THE COURT REVIEWED AND VISITED THIS QUESTION EARLIER CONCERNING MR. FUHRMAN, BUT I SPECIFICALLY IN THIS MOTION -- THIS AMENDED MOTION, SOUGHT TO HAVE THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATORY FILES OF EACH PARTICULAR OFFICE, BECAUSE I AM INFORMED THAT IT IS THE PRACTICE OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT TO RETAIN A PERSONNEL FILE AT THE LOCAL DIVISION LEVEL AND A SEPARATE FILE DOWNTOWN AT PARKER CENTER. THERE ARE, YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE, THREE AREAS OF INQUIRY THAT I DO NOT THINK THERE IS REALLY ANY DISPUTE TO THE WISDOM OF HAVING AN IN CAMERA REVIEW, AND ALL THAT WE ARE SEEKING BY THIS MOTION AGAIN IS AN IN CAMERA REVIEW. I THINK THAT THE COURT CAN TAKE NOTICE OF THE RECORD THAT WAS MADE IN THE OTHER HEARING, THE CHALLENGES THAT WERE MADE THERE AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF EXAMINING THE PERSONNEL FILE OF MR. FUHRMAN AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE ISSUES OF RELEVANCE THAT MAY BE GERMANE TO DISCOVERY. THE THREE AREAS THAT WE ARE SEEKING, THOUGH, CONCERNS AN INVESTIGATION THAT WAS PUBLISHED THAT WAS CONDUCTED BY THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION AFTER MR. TOOBIN'S ARTICLE WAS RELEASED IN THE NEWYORKER MAGAZINE. THE DETAILS OF THAT INVESTIGATION, YOUR HONOR, WILL IMPEACH WITNESSES WHO MAY WELL TESTIFY IN THE FUTURE, BUT MAY ALSO BE VERY GERMANE TO OUR ATTEMPTS TO FURTHER IMPEACH WITNESSES WHO HAVE TESTIFIED IN THE PAST. I AM STRUCK, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT OFFICERS RISKI, ROSSI, LANGE AND PHILLIPS WERE ALL PRESENT AT THE SCENE BEFORE THE ARRIVAL OR NEAR IN TIME TO THE ARRIVAL OF MR. FUHRMAN, AND I AM CERTAIN OR I SUSPECT THAT EACH OF THESE OFFICERS WERE AMONG THE FOURTEEN OR SO THAT WERE INTERVIEWED IN CONNECTION WITH THAT EARLIER INVESTIGATION. I THINK IT ALSO VERY IMPORTANT, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE INVESTIGATION OVER THE POSSESSION OF SOME CARTOON OR OTHER PICTURE THAT MAY HAVE INCLUDED A NAZI-LIKE SYMBOL OR INSIGNIA IS ANOTHER MATTER THAT HAS SOME POSSIBLE RELEVANCE TO A FULL CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. FUHRMAN. THIS INFORMATION, AS THE COURT IS AWARE, CAME TO EVERYONE'S KNOWLEDGE THROUGH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WHO INFORMED BOTH COUNSEL AND THE COURT OF THEIR AWARENESS OF THIS INVESTIGATION. WE WERE ALSO INFORMED IN CHAMBERS OF THE D.A.'S AWARENESS OF AN INVESTIGATION THAT OCCURRED OVER STATEMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY MR. FUHRMAN SUGGESTING THAT MR. FUHRMAN MAY HAVE HAD SOME INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF MISS BROWN SIMPSON OR IN FACT PORTIONS OF HER ANATOMY. CLEARLY BOTH AREAS OF INQUIRY ARE VERY GERMANE TO THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE PUT FORWARD AND TO THE AREAS THAT THE COURT HAS ALREADY RULED IS RELEVANT. AS TO THE THIRD AREA, CERTAINLY IF IN FACT THERE IS ANY PROOF THAT THERE WAS SOME PERSONAL CONTACT OR ACQUAINTANCESHIP BETWEEN MR. FUHRMAN AND MISS SIMPSON, THAT WOULD BE VERY PROBATIVE IN PROVIDING PERHAPS SOME BIAS OR BASIS FOR BIAS OR BASIS FOR SOME OTHER ILL WILL OR MOTIVE AGAINST MR. SIMPSON IN PARTICULAR. CERTAINLY IF THERE IS SOMETHING TO SUGGEST THAT MR. FUHRMAN WAS IN POSSESSION OF SOME NAZI-LIKE SYMBOL OR OTHER CARTOON OR IN ANY OTHER CONTEXT, THAT ALSO WOULD BE VERY RELEVANT TO OUR CLAIM THAT MR. FUHRMAN MAY WELL HARBOR CERTAIN RACIAL ATTITUDES OR THOUGHTS OR OPINIONS THAT MIGHT BE CONTRARY TO A FAIR AIRING OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE AND THAT MIGHT BE VERY RELEVANT TO A JURY'S ASSESSMENT OF HIS CREDIBILITY AS A WITNESS. I THINK THAT THERE IS NO CHALLENGE THAT THESE INVESTIGATIONS EXISTED. I THINK THERE CAN BE NO REAL CONTRAVENTION THAT IN FACT IT IS NECESSARY FOR A FULL EXAMINATION OF MR. FUHRMAN THAT WE RECEIVE THESE DOCUMENTS. THESE ARE NOT MATTERS THAT WE ARE ON A FISHING EXPEDITION ABOUT OR PULLING OUT OF THIN AIR. IN TWO OF THE THREE AREAS WE WERE INFORMED BY THE D.A.'S OFFICE THAT IN FACT THESE INVESTIGATIONS HAD RECENTLY BEEN COMPLETED AND THAT THE ONLY MECHANISM BY WHICH THE DOCUMENTS COULD BE OBTAINED WOULD BE BY THE FILING OF THIS MOTION.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. WALSH. GOOD MORNING, SIR.

MR. WALSH: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE A COUPLE POINTS UPON WHICH I AGREE WITH MR. DOUGLAS AND A COUPLE THAT I DISAGREE. FIRST OF ALL, I CERTAINLY AGREE THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE TO HAVE AN IN CAMERA REVIEW OF ANY DOCUMENTS WHICH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT MIGHT POSSESS WHICH BEAR ON THE MATTERS RAISED BY MR. DOUGLAS' MOTION. SECOND, I AGREE THAT THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF A PREVIOUSLY HELD PITCHESS MOTION. WE ARE NOT CHALLENGING MATERIALITY; HOWEVER, A DETERMINATION OF RELEVANCE, UNLIKE MR. DOUGLAS' POSITION, WILL BE MADE BY YOU IN CHAMBERS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1043 AND 1045. AND ASSUMING THAT THERE ARE DOCUMENTS WHICH RELATE TO THE MATTERS DESCRIBED IN MR. DOUGLAS' MOTION, I HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT THE COURT WILL MAKE THAT DETERMINATION OF RELEVANCE AFTER IT HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE DOCUMENTS. AND WE ARE PREPARED AT THIS TIME TO GO IN CHAMBERS AT THE COURT'S CONVENIENCE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS LEWIS, DO YOU WISH TO BE HEARD ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION?

MS. LEWIS: ONLY TO SAY, YOUR HONOR, THAT I AM CONFIDENT THE COURT WILL FIND NOTHING WITHIN ANY OF THESE FILES TO BE RELEVANT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. TOURTELOT.

MR. TOURTELOT: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. BASICALLY I ECHO WHAT MR. WALSH SAID. WITH RESPECT TO THE PERSONNEL FILES, WE HAVE NO OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, AS WE DIDN'T HAVE AN OBJECTION IN AUGUST, REVIEWING IN CAMERA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EVIDENCE CODE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S PERSONNEL RECORDS. WE DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM THEN AND WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM NOW. AS TO THE ALLEGED RUMORS THAT ARE PART OF AN ALLEGED INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION, WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. I ONLY KNOW WHAT I READ IN THE PAPER. ONE OF THE RUMORS WAS THAT -- THAT --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MS. LEWIS AND MR. TOURTELOT.)

MR. TOURTELOT: WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAS NO INFORMATION AS TO WHAT THOSE ARE ABOUT. I HAVE NO INFORMATION. AS YOUR HONOR KNOWS, INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATIONS, IF ONE IS TAKING PLACE, GO ON IN A PROCESS. THEY INTERVIEW DIFFERENT OFFICERS TO ASK THAT -- THAT THE COURT ORDER THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION OF THE LAPD TO RELEASE WHATEVER MATERIAL THEY HAVE AS TO AN INVESTIGATION THAT MAY BE IN PROCESS WOULD BE VERY UNFAIR TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IF INDEED IT WAS ABOUT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THESE ARE ONLY RUMORS, UNSUBSTANTIATED RUMORS. AND I WOULD SAY WITH RESPECT TO THE PERSONNEL FILES, WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO YOUR HONOR REVIEWING THOSE IN CAMERA. WE DIDN'T THE LAST TIME. AND I AM CONFIDENT YOUR HONOR WILL FIND THERE IS NOTHING IN THOSE FILES THAT WILL BE RELEVANT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS. BUT TO START DIGGING INTO INTERNAL AFFAIRS IN CONNECTION WITH AN INVESTIGATION THAT IS IN SOME STAGE OF -- OF INVESTIGATION, IS TERRIBLY UNFAIR. WAIT UNTIL IT IS COMPLETED, IF IN FACT THERE IS SUCH AN INVESTIGATION. THESE ARE JUST UNSUBSTANTIATED RUMORS THAT WERE FLOATED UP AND ALL OF A SUDDEN I READ IN THE L.A. TIMES THAT INTERNAL AFFAIRS IS ALLEGEDLY INVESTIGATING RUMORS WITH RESPECT TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. TOURTELOT: SO I WOULD ASK THAT YOU DENY THE MOTION AS TO THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND THAT YOU WOULD REVIEW DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S PERSONNEL RECORDS IN CAMERA.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. TOURTELOT.

MR. DOUGLAS: BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR. MR. TOURTELOT WASN'T PRIVY TO THE CONVERSATIONS IN CHAMBERS WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE FILING OF THIS MOTION, BUT WE WERE NOTIFIED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT THERE WAS AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION AND IT HAD BEEN HOPED THAT THE D.A.'S OFFICE WOULD BE ABLE THEMSELVES TO OBTAIN THE RESULTS OF THAT INVESTIGATION AT ITS CONCLUSION. ONCE THE INVESTIGATION HAD BEEN CONCLUDED, WE WERE THEN NOTIFIED BY THE D.A.'S OFFICE THAT WE WOULD BE UNABLE -- THEY WOULD BE UNABLE TO OBTAIN THE RESULTS OF THAT INVESTIGATION SAVE FOR BY THE FILING OF THIS MOTION, AND IT WAS NOT ANY RUMORS BUT OUR BEING PLACED ON NOTICE BY THE D.A.'S OFFICE THAT THERE WAS THIS INVESTIGATION, THAT IT HAD BEEN CONCLUDED AND THAT THE ONLY WAY THAT THE RESULTS WOULD BE RELEASED WOULD BE BY THE FILING OF THIS MOTION THAT INSTITUTED THIS PROCEDURE TODAY. AND WE ARE SPECIFICALLY LOOKING AT THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION AND THOSE RECORDS AND THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN MY REQUEST.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. DOUGLAS. MISS CLARK, LET ME ASK YOU, WHEN DO YOU ANTICIPATE, IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS, ASSUMING THAT WE FINISH DETECTIVE LANGE TODAY, WHEN DO YOU ANTICIPATE CALLING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AS A WITNESS?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MS. CLARK: MR. DARDEN INFORMS ME THAT HE WILL BE FOLLOWING DETECTIVE LANGE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. WALSH, THEN WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS I ANTICIPATE IT WILL TAKE US THE REMAINDER OF THE MORNING, AT THE VERY LEAST, TO CONCLUDE DETECTIVE LANGE. WE HAVE NOT FINISHED CROSS-EXAMINATION AND WE HAVE REDIRECT, RECROSS.

MS. CLARK: RE, RE.

THE COURT: RE, RE, RE. OKAY. WHAT I'M GOING TO DO -- MR. WALSH, IS THE CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS PRESENT?

MR. WALSH: YES, HE IS YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO ORDER THE CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS -- WHO IS THAT PERSON?

MR. WALSH: SERGEANT JACK ROSE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SERGEANT ROSE, I'M GOING TO ORDER YOU TO RETURN TO THIS COURTROOM AT 12:00 NOON WITH THE PERSONNEL RECORDS THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. SERGEANT ROSE: YES.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, I WILL CONDUCT THE IN CAMERA REVIEW AT NOONTIME. I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH THE JURY AND GET THAT DONE AND THEN I WILL CONDUCT THE IN CAMERA REVIEW OVER THE LUNCH HOUR. ANYTHING ELSE?

MS. CLARK: NO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, MISS CLARK, ANYTHING WE NEED TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO REJOIN US?

MR. COCHRAN: NO, I DON'T THINK SO.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

THE COURT: MISS CLARK?

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO JOIN US?

MS. CLARK: NOT THAT I AM AWARE OF.

THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, 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. ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE LANGE, WOULD YOU RETAKE THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE.

TOM LANGE, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE EVENING ADJOURNMENT, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT DETECTIVE TOM LANGE IS STILL ON THE WITNESS STAND. GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE LANGE.

THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH.

THE WITNESS: YES.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY PROCEED WITH YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

MR. COCHRAN: AND I HOPE CONCLUDE, YOUR HONOR. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE LANGE.

A: GOOD MORNING.

Q: AT THE END OF THE DAY YESTERDAY WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE MEETING THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE, I BELIEVE ON JUNE 14, 1994, AT THE SID LAB, AND I HAD ASKED YOU TO REFER TO YOUR CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD, PAGE 00007. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN THAT MEETING YOU HAD INDICATED THAT YOU HAD CONFERRED WITH CRIMINALIST MATHESON, WONG, YAMAUCHI THAT MORNING AT OR ABOUT THE TIME OR BEFORE THE SNEAKERS WERE TURNED OVER. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: I BELIEVE I CONFERRED WITH MATHESON, AND WONG AND YAMAGUCHI (SIC) WERE PRESENT.

Q: NOW, WOULD YOU BE SURPRISED TO LEARN THAT THE SID UNIT HAS NEVER HAD A MR. WONG IN THE LAST SEVENTEEN YEARS?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: WOULD YOU BE SURPRISED TO LEARN THAT?

A: NOT NECESSARILY.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE, IRRELEVANT, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: COULD YOU HAVE MISPLACED AND MEANT FUNG WHEN YOU SAID WONG?

A: CERTAINLY POSSIBLE.

Q: NOW, IN FACT YOU DID IN FACT SEE OR TALK WITH MR. FUNG THAT PARTICULAR MORNING, DID YOU NOT, OF JUNE 14, 1994?

A: I MAY HAVE.

Q: HAVE YOU SEEN THE PROPERTY REPORT WITH REGARD TO THE REEBOK SHOES THAT WERE TURNED OVER?

A: I BELIEVE I HAVE.

MR. COCHRAN: COUNSEL.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: I WANT TO PLACE BEFORE YOU A PROPERTY REPORT. I THINK IT IS DATED 6/15/94 AND IT DEALS WITH ITEM NO. 18, OF THE EVIDENCE, AND READ THAT TO YOURSELF, AND I WANT TO ASK YOU A QUESTION WITH REGARD TO IT.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) OKAY.

Q: YOU READ THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHAT TIME YOU ACTUALLY TURNED THE SNEAKERS OVER TO THE INDIVIDUALS AT THE SID LAB?

A: IT STATES 8:30. I TURNED THEM OVER TO MR. MATHESON AT APPROXIMATELY 7:00 A.M. FOR AN EXAMINATION.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THAT WAS SOME KIND OF A DETERMINATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS BLOOD ON THOSE TENNIS SHOES?

A: YES. I HAD ASKED THAT HE DO A PRESUMPTIVE EXAMINATION.

Q: AND THAT EXAMINATION, THE PRESUMPTIVE EXAMINATION, TOOK ONLY A FEW MINUTES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THEN YOU BECAME -- I THINK YOU HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE THAT THE -- THESE TENNIS SHOES WERE NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND SO -- WELL, THEN IF THAT IS -- WAS THIS AROUND SEVEN O'CLOCK YOU DID THAT?

A: THAT IS APPROXIMATELY THE TIME THAT I ARRIVED AND TURNED THEM OVER, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED FOR THE NEXT HOUR AND A HALF OR SO, IF YOU RECALL?

A: I WASN'T THERE FOR AN HOUR AND A HALF.

Q: SO WHEN THE PROPERTY INDICATES THAT IT WAS TURNED OVER -- RECEIVED FROM DETECTIVE LANGE AT 8:30, ON 1/14/94 (SIC); IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I WOULD SAY THAT IT WAS RECEIVED BY THE LAB AND 7:00 OR APPROXIMATELY 7:00 A.M. AND WAS PROBABLY TURNED OVER TO MR. FUNG AT APPROXIMATELY 8:30 AS INDICATED.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THIS REPORT IS A REPORT DONE BY FUNG AND MAZZOLLA; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: AND PERHAPS I SHOULD MARK THIS REPORT, SINCE I'M REFERRING TO IT, AS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, NO FOUNDATION. THIS IS NOT THE WITNESS WHO PREPARED THE REPORT.

THE COURT: 1048.

MR. COCHRAN: 1048.

(DEFT'S 1048 FOR ID = PROPERTY REPORT)

THE COURT: NOT TALKING ABOUT ADMISSIBILITY. IT IS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.

MR. COCHRAN: YES.

Q: AND READ THIS MIDDLE PART HERE WITH REGARD TO -- READ THAT TO YOURSELF WITH REGARD TO THE CRIMINALIST AND THE LAB.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) OKAY.

Q: YOU READ THAT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU WERE AWARE THAT THE ITEM WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, THE REEBOKS, WAS IN FACT RECOVERED BY CRIMINALIST FUNG IN THE PARTICULAR LAB ON JUNE 14, 1994; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT IS WHAT IT STATES.

Q: IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING ALSO?

A: I BELIEVE THAT IS A FIGURE OF SPEECH AS FAR AS BEING "RECOVERED." IT WAS TAKEN INTO HIS CUSTODY. I IMAGINE YOU COULD SAY IT EITHER WAY.

Q: OR RECEIVED, IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

A: CERTAINLY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU TELL US OR DESCRIBE FOR US THE EQUIPMENT THAT IS KEPT IN YOUR VEHICLE WHEN YOU GO OUT TO THE SCENE OF A HOMICIDE, SUCH AS PLASTIC BAGS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE? CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT FOR US?

A: I DO HAVE SOME PLASTIC BAGS, ENVELOPES, DISPOSABLE RUBBER GLOVES. I BELIEVE WE HAVE AN AIDS KIT.

Q: WHAT IS THAT?

A: AIDS KIT FOR THE RECOVERY OF SYRINGES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE YOU CAN RECALL?

A: NOTEBOOKS, PENCILS, FLASHLIGHTS, RULES, MEASURING DEVICES, MEASURING TAPE.

Q: NOW, YOU HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS WITH MISS RATCLIFFE, THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR, ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13, 1994; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I HAD CONVERSATION WITH HER, YES.

Q: CAN YOU GIVE US AN ESTIMATE OF HOW -- APPROXIMATELY HOW LONG YOU TALKED TO HER THAT MORNING WHILE SHE WAS AT THE SCENE?

A: THERE WERE MORE THAN ONE CONVERSATION. IT WAS OFF AND ON. I WAS DOING OTHER THINGS AND I REALLY COULDN'T SAY.

Q: DO YOU HAVE AN ESTIMATE AT ALL OF HOW LONG ALTOGETHER YOU MAY HAVE SPOKEN TO HER IN ALL THE VARIOUS CONVERSATIONS, SIR?

A: AS FAR AS STRICTLY CONVERSATION?

Q: YES, SIR, CONVERSATIONS.

A: IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO SAY.

Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY ESTIMATE AT ALL?

A: I COULDN'T PIN MYSELF DOWN TO AN ESTIMATE. PERHAPS STRICTLY CONVERSATION, MAYBE 15, 20, 25 MINUTES, MAYBE LONGER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SOMEWHERE 15 MINUTES, OR LONGER, WOULD THAT BE A FAIR STATEMENT?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: I JUST DON'T KNOW.

Q: YOU HAVE NO NOTES WHICH WOULD REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION IN THAT REGARD?

A: AS FAR AS HOW LONG THAT I SPOKE WITH HER?

Q: YES.

A: I WOULDN'T HAVE ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YESTERDAY WE TOUCHED UPON BRIEFLY THE FACT THAT YOUR NOTES DO NOT REFLECT ANY SPOTS THAT RESEMBLE BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: IN ADDITION TO THAT YOU DID IN FACT A DIAGRAM OR A SKETCH OF THAT REAR GATE IN YOUR NOTES ALSO, DID YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU DON'T PLACE ANY SPOTS OR ANY INDICATION OF ANY BLOOD IN YOUR DIAGRAM IN YOUR NOTES EITHER, DO YOU?

A: NO, I WOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT.

Q: SO THE ANSWER IS YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT IN YOUR NOTES; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE SCENE AT BUNDY, AND IN ONE OF THE VIDEOS WE SAW THAT AT SOME POINT A SHEET WAS EITHER PLACED OVER THE BODY OR A SHEET WAS OVER THE BODY. DO YOU RECALL SEEING THAT?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS A BLANKET, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IT WAS WHITE IN COLOR, WAS IT NOT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THAT, THIS PARTICULAR SHEET OR BLANKET, DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT THAT SHEET WAS TAKEN AND BOOKED AS EVIDENCE?

A: NO, I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS.

Q: WAS THERE ONE BLANKET OR SHEET FOR EACH BODY OR WAS IT THE SAME SHEET FOR -- FOR THE TWO BODIES?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: DID YOU HAVE TWO SHEETS OR ONE SHEET?

A: NO, THERE WAS ONLY ONE SHEET AND THAT WAS TO COVER THE ONE VICTIM FROM PUBLIC VIEW.

Q: THAT WAS MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WHEN THE -- WHEN THAT SCENE, THE CRIME SCENE WAS BROKEN DOWN, THAT SHEET WAS JUST LEFT ON THE GROUND; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

Q: NOW, IT IS IMPORTANT, IS IT NOT, AS AN EXPERIENCED INVESTIGATOR, FOR YOU TO ATTEMPT TO PRESERVE ANY POSSIBLE TRACE EVIDENCE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: TRACE EVIDENCE, CERTAINLY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND TRACE EVIDENCE CAN BE VERY FRAGILE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: IT CAN BE.

Q: AND SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING, WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF TRACE EVIDENCE?

A: TRACE EVIDENCE CAN BE HAIR OR FIBERS OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF EVIDENCE, DEBRIS, THAT MAY NOT BE READILY VISIBLE TO THE HUMAN EYE.

Q: AND TRACE EVIDENCE CAN BE MOVED FROM ONE SURFACE TO THE OTHER PRETTY EASILY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I GUESS THAT WOULD DEPEND.

Q: AND THAT MIGHT BE PARTICULARLY TRUE OF THINGS SUCH AS HAIR AND FIBERS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, THAT MIGHT COME OFF A BODY?

A: IT IS POSSIBLE.

Q: BLOOD ON A BODY CAN BE WIPED OFF IF THE BODY COME IN CONTACT WITH SOMETHING OF THE NATURE OF EITHER A SHEET OR A BLANKET; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: IT WOULD DEPEND ON HOW THAT BLANKET OR SHEET WERE PLACED ON THE BODY.

Q: BUT THE BLOOD COULD IN FACT COME OFF ON THAT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR, ON A SHEET OR A BLANKET?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I WOULDN'T KNOW. IT WOULD DEPEND ON IF THE BLOOD WAS DRY OR IF IT WERE WET AND HOW THE BLANKET OR SHEET WERE PLACED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: BUT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IT COULD COME OFF; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I SUPPOSE IT IS POSSIBLE.

Q: IN FACT, IN THIS CASE THERE WERE WHAT YOU TESTIFIED TO BLOOD DROPS OR BLOOD SPATTERS ON THE BACK OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, THAT YOU SAW AT THE SCENE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WHICH WERE NOT PRESERVED; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: DID YOU TAKE ANY STEPS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BLANKET OR SHEET DID NOT WIPE OFF THE BLOOD SPOTS ON MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT STEPS DID YOU TAKE?

A: TO PLACE THE BLANKET VERY GINGERLY OVER THE VICTIM, AND WHEN THE BLANKETS WERE REMOVED THE BLOOD SPOTS WERE STILL IN TACT, AS EVIDENCED BY THE PHOTOGRAPH.

Q: WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU SAW THIS BLANKET AT THAT SCENE THAT MORNING?

A: WHEN I LEFT.

Q: WHAT TIME WAS THAT, APPROXIMATELY?

A: APPROXIMATELY NOON, I BELIEVE, PERHAPS 12:15.

Q: WHEN YOU LEFT TO GO DOWNTOWN?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND AT THAT TIME -- AND SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, THAT PARTICULAR BLANKET WAS WHITE IN COLOR, WAS IT NOT?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: AND IT WAS NEVER PRESERVED OR KEPT OR BOOKED BY ANYONE, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, OF THE LAPD; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, I WANT TO SHOW YOU AT THIS POINT NOW, SIR, A VIDEO AND ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AFTER IT IS SHOWN.

THE COURT: WHICH VIDEO IS THIS, MR. COCHRAN?

MR. COCHRAN: THE ONE WE DEALT WITH YESTERDAY, YOUR HONOR, THE VIDEO INVOLVING THE DETECTIVE.

(AT 8:45 A.M., DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1049, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU MAKE THAT CLEARER ON THE BIG SCREEN, YOUR HONOR?

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ARE THOSE TWO MEMBERS OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: YES.

Q: THIS IS AT THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE, IS IT, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: WHO IS THAT GENTLEMAN WHO THE CAMERA IS FOCUSED ON THERE?

A: THAT IS MY PARTNER, MR. VANNATTER, AND MYSELF.

Q: STOP IT RIGHT THERE. WHAT IS THAT UNDER YOUR RIGHT ARM?

A: IT IS A PAIR OF REEBOK TENNIS SHOES, SIZE 12.

Q: ARE THOSE THE TENNIS SHOES WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND THE GENTLEMAN WALKING WITH THE TENNIS SHOES ON HIS ARM, THAT IS YOU; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ARE YOU LEAVING THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION AT THIS POINT?

A: YES.

Q: AND AFTER YOU CLOSED THE DOOR, DID YOU DRIVE OFF FROM THE LOCATION AT THAT POINT?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THAT TAPE, I GUESS, AS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER, I GUESS.

THE COURT: 1049.

MR. COCHRAN: 1049.

THE COURT: IS THAT CORRECT, MRS. ROBERTSON?

THE CLERK: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.

(DEFT'S 1049 FOR ID = VIDEOTAPE RE REEBOKS)

THE COURT: 1049.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO DISCUSS THE CONTENTS OF THIS TAPE WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SINCE WE WERE IN COURT LAST EVENING?

A: THE CONTENTS?

Q: YES, WHAT WAS ON THIS PARTICULAR TAPE.

A: I HAVE SEEN THE TAPE MANY TIMES. I HAVEN'T DISCUSSED ANYTHING.

Q: THE QUESTION IS DID YOU DISCUSS THIS WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SINCE WE WERE IN COURT LAST EVENING?

A: NO.

Q: YOU DID NOT DISCUSS IT LAST NIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU DID NOT DISCUSS IT THIS MORNING?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AT THE CONCLUSION OF THAT TAPE, AFTER YOU PLACED THOSE REEBOK TENNIS SHOES IN THE FRONT SEAT, DID YOU DRIVE OFF?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU GO HOME AT THAT POINT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU SEE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED TO YOU IN THAT VIDEO THOSE SHOES WERE PLACED IN ANY KIND OF A BOX?

A: THOSE SHOES WERE PLACED IN A BOX ONCE I RETURNED TO MY HOME, AND PLACED INTO THE TRUNK OF MY VEHICLE.

Q: WHEN YOU GOT HOME?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: BUT YOU DIDN'T DO THAT AT THE SCENE THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: AS YOUR TAPE SHOWS, THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF MEDIA AND I WAS GETTING PUSHED AND SHOVED AND THAT MY ONLY INTEREST WAS TO GET AWAY FROM THE MEDIA.

Q: I SEE. SO WHEN YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE, YOU DIDN'T TELL US ABOUT THE MEDIA?

A: I DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT THE MEDIA?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: LEGAL GROUND?

MS. CLARK: HE WASN'T ASKED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WHEN YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE THAT YOU PLACED THE REEBOK SHOES IN A BOX IN YOUR TRUNK THAT PARTICULAR DAY, YOU NEVER TOLD US THAT YOU HAD PLACED THE REEBOKS UNDER YOUR ARM AND PLACED THEM IN THE FRONT SEAT OF YOUR CAR AND DROVE ALL THE WAY HOME; IS THAT CORRECT, DID YOU? YOU NEVER TOLD US THAT, DID YOU?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE I WAS EVER ASKED THAT.

Q: THE QUESTION IS DID YOU TELL US THAT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU TELL US THAT?

A: COULD I HAVE THAT QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE.

Q: DID YOU AT ANY TIME IN THE PRESENCE OF THIS JURY TELL US THAT YOU HAD PLACED THE REEBOK SHOES UNDER YOUR ARM AND PLACED THEM IN THE FRONT SEAT OF THE CAR AND DROVE ALL THE WAY HOME BEFORE PLACING THEM IN THE TRUNK. DID YOU EVER TELL US THAT?

A: I BELIEVE I TOLD YOU THAT I PLACED THEM IN THE TRUNK OF MY VEHICLE AND THAT IS ULTIMATELY WHAT HAPPENED.

Q: I'M ASKING YOU DID YOU TELL US THAT YOU PLACED THEM IN THE FRONT SEAT OF THE CAR, DETECTIVE?

A: I HAD ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO TELL YOU THAT, NO.

Q: WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER? DID YOU TELL US THAT?

A: NO.

Q: YOU DID NOT?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU SEE MR. FUNG AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION AT OR ABOUT FIVE -- AFTER FIVE O'CLOCK THAT AFTERNOON?

A: I DID.

Q: YOU SAW HIM THERE?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: DID YOU TALK TO HIM THAT AFTERNOON?

A: I BELIEVE THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION, YES.

Q: COULD YOU HAVE GIVEN THE SHOES TO MR. FUNG AT ROCKINGHAM THAT AFTERNOON, SINCE HE ENDED UP GETTING THEM THE NEXT MORNING ON THE 14TH?

A: HE APPARENTLY DID, BUT I WANTED TO TAKE THEM TO THE LAB AND HAVE THEM EXAMINED THERE. I WASN'T AWARE MR. FUNG WAS GOING TO BE AT THE LAB. MR. FUNG WORKS AT NORTHEAST STATION, WHICH IS SOME DISTANCE FROM THE LAB.

Q: WELL, MR. FUNG WAS THE CRIMINALIST WHO HAD BEEN AT THE SCENE COLLECTING EVIDENCE, BOTH SCENES, ROCKINGHAM AND BUNDY, ALL DAY THAT DAY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU COULD HAVE GIVEN THESE REEBOKS TO HIM; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: I COULD HAVE. MR. FUNG WAS A VERY BUSY MAN. I WANTED THESE PRESUMPTIVE TESTS DONE AT THE LAB AND TURNED OVER AT THAT TIME.

Q: I'M SURE HE WAS A BUSY MAN. THE QUESTION IS YOU COULD HAVE GIVEN THESE REEBOKS TO MR. FUNG ON THAT MONDAY EVENING AFTER FIVE O'CLOCK IN THE EVENING; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I COULD HAVE, CERTAINLY.

Q: AND WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOUR BEST ESTIMATE THAT YOU WERE GETTING IN THE CAR AND PLACING THESE REEBOKS ON THE FRONT SEAT? WHAT TIME WAS THAT?

A: I DON'T KNOW. PERHAPS SIX O'CLOCK.

Q: ON JUNE 14?

A: NO, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN JUNE 13.

Q: I MEAN JUNE 13. AND HOW LONG WAS YOUR DRIVE HOME?

A: APPROXIMATELY AN HOUR.

Q: HOW MANY MILES IS THAT?

A: IT IS APPROXIMATELY 36, 38 MILES.

Q: AND IT IS YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THERE WAS NO WAY YOU COULD BOOK THE ITEM, THE REEBOK SHOES, AT THAT TIME OF DAY BECAUSE THE PROPERTY ROOM WAS CLOSED AND YOU COULDN'T GET A DR NUMBER?

A: WELL, NOT ONLY WAS THE ECU CLOSED, THERE WAS NO DR NUMBER THAT HAD BEEN OBTAINED. THE CRIMINALIST WAS BOOKING THE ITEMS AND THEY HAD TO BE GIVEN AN ITEM NUMBER.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO A NUMBER OF OTHER ITEMS THAT WERE RECOVERED AT BUNDY AND/OR ROCKINGHAM, THE CRIMINALIST BOOKED THOSE ITEMS THEMSELVES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, I BELIEVE ON THE 15TH.

Q: BUT THIS ONE ITEM YOU BROUGHT BACK THE NEXT DAY ON THE 14TH MORNING, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. CLARK:

Q: DETECTIVE LANGE, LET'S TALK ABOUT THOSE REEBOKS FOR A MINUTE, SIR. WHAT SIZE WERE THEY?

A: SIZE 12.

Q: AND WERE YOU AWARE OF THE SIZE OF THE -- ARE YOU AWARE OF THE SIZE OF THE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS AT BUNDY?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT SIZE ARE THEY?

A: SIZE 12.

Q: NOW, THE SOLE PATTERN OF THE REEBOKS, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, DID NOT MATCH THE PATTERN OF THE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS FOUND AT BUNDY; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT AS LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW, SIR, WHETHER THE SOLE PATTERN OF THE REEBOKS THAT YOU SEIZED FROM ROCKINGHAM ON JUNE 13 MATCHES THE SOLE PATTERN FOUND FROM THE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS AT BUNDY?

A: YES, I DO.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION. THEY WERE POINTED OUT TO HIM, YOUR HONOR. TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

MS. CLARK: CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR.

Q: THE REEBOKS THAT WERE POINTED OUT TO YOU AT ROCKINGHAM ON JUNE 13, WHICH YOU TOOK INTO CUSTODY, ARE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER THOSE SOLE PATTERNS MATCHED THE SOLE PATTERNS OF THE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS FOUND AT BUNDY?

A: YES.

Q: AND DO THEY?

A: THEY DO NOT.

Q: NOW, WHO POINTED THOSE SHOES OUT TO YOU?

A: MR. SIMPSON, THE DEFENDANT.

Q: AND PURSUANT TO WHAT? HOW DID HE HAPPEN TO POINT THEM OUT TO YOU? DID YOU ASK HIM A QUESTION?

A: I ASKED MR. SIMPSON IF HE RECALLED WHAT SHOES HE WAS WEARING THE PREVIOUS EVENING AND HE POINTED THEM OUT AND STATED HE BELIEVED THAT THOSE MIGHT BE THE SHOES THAT HE HAD ON.

Q: AND BASED UPON THAT YOU TOOK THEM INTO CUSTODY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: BUT IN FACT THE PATTERN DID NOT MATCH THE SHOEPRINTS AT BUNDY?

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE. ASKED AND ANSWERED.

MS. CLARK: FOUNDATIONAL.

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE.

THE COURT: IT IS LEADING.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: BUT THE SHOE PATTERN OF THE SHOES THAT HE POINTED OUT TO YOU CLAIMING THAT HE HAD WORN THEM THE NIGHT BEFORE, DID THEY MATCH THE SHOE PATTERN OF THE BLOODY SHOEPRINT AT BUNDY?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION AS ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO, THEY DID NOT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU WERE ATTEMPTING TO ALSO TEST THEM FOR BLOOD? IS THAT WHY YOU TOOK THEM INTO CUSTODY, SIR?

A: THAT IS ONE REASON.

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE AGAIN, YOUR HONOR. LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE. HER WITNESS.

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY. OKAY.

THE COURT: SLOW DOWN. WE'VE GOT ALL DAY.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS WHAT I WAS HOPING TO AVOID, BUT OKAY.

Q: SIR, WHY DID YOU TAKE THOSE SHOES INTO CUSTODY?

A: BECAUSE MR. SIMPSON SAID HE BELIEVED THOSE MIGHT BE THE SHOES HE HAD ON THE NIGHT BEFORE. I WANTED TO DETERMINE THE SIZE OF THOSE SHOES AND I WANTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY MIGHT CONTAIN BLOOD.

Q: AND IS THAT -- SO YOU TOOK THEM, I THINK YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER, TO SID?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WHAT TIME DID YOU TAKE THEM IN?

A: I ARRIVED AT SID THE FOLLOWING MORNING AT APPROXIMATELY 7:00 A.M.

Q: OKAY. WHAT TEST DID YOU REQUEST BE PERFORMED ON THEM?

A: A PRESUMPTIVE BLOOD TEST.

Q: AND ARE YOU AWARE OF THE RESULTS OF THAT TEST, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT ARE THE RESULTS?

A: NEGATIVE.

Q: NO BLOOD?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DO YOU -- EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. MAY I HAVE A MOMENT?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU WERE -- YOU WERE ASKED EARLIER ABOUT A GREEN PIECE OF PAPER FOUND IN THE GROCERY BAG CONTAINING RON GOLDMAN'S CLOTHING THAT HE WORE AT MEZZALUNA ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE 12TH?

THE COURT: TIME OUT. TIME OUT. I THINK WE HAVE TO ASK THE GOLDMANS TO STEP OUT.

MS. CLARK: OH, YES. I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SORRY, FOLKS.

(THE GOLDMAN FAMILY EXITS THE COURTROOM.)

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

Q: DO YOU RECALL THAT, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT GREEN PIECE OF PAPER, WHAT DID IT LOOK LIKE TO YOU?

A: LOOKED LIKE A SHOPPING LIST.

Q: AND DO YOU -- ARE YOU PRESENTLY AWARE OF THE -- OF WHERE THAT CAME FROM?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHERE IS THAT?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, IS HE PRESENTLY AWARE. THE QUESTION WAS WAS HE AWARE WHEN I ASKED HIM YESTERDAY, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD LIKE TO BE CLEAR ON THAT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I WAS APPROACHED BY --

MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM, SIR?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: HEARSAY.

THE COURT: HE CAN SAY THAT HE KNOWS WHERE IT CAME FROM, YES OR NO. WHAT THE ANSWER IS IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE HEARSAY. HE CAN SAY YES OR NO, HE IS AWARE.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ARE YOU THE SOURCE OF THAT, SIR?

A: NO.

Q: AND THE GROCERY BAG IN WHICH THE CLOTHING WAS CONTAINED, DID THE POLICE DEPARTMENT PROVIDE THAT GROCERY BAG?

A: NO.

Q: THE CLOTHES AND THE CONTENTS OF RON GOLDMAN'S APARTMENT, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT -- WHAT WAS DONE WITH THEM?

A: AS FAR AS THE CLOTHING, MOST OF THE ITEMS OF CLOTHING WERE PICKED UP BY THE FAMILY.

Q: AND SO THE FAMILY TOOK THE ITEMS OF CLOTHING?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT. THIS IS LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE AND THAT IS NOT WHAT THE TESTIMONY IS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION, PLEASE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: YES. WHO TOOK THE ITEMS OF CLOTHING OUT OF RON GOLDMAN'S APARTMENT?

A: THE GOLDMAN FAMILY.

Q: AND YOU SAW YESTERDAY THE CLOTHING THAT WAS IN THE SHOPPING BAG?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. WAS THAT CLOTHING EVER IN POLICE CUSTODY?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW HOW THAT --

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE THAT LAST ANSWER, WAS THAT CLOTHING EVER IN POLICE CUSTODY, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS VAGUE. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU HAPPEN TO -- DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW HOW THAT CLOTHING CAME INTO THE PRESENCE OF THIS COURTROOM?

THE COURT: HAVEN'T WE HAD TESTIMONY FROM MISS GOLDMAN ABOUT THIS?

MS. CLARK: (NODS HEAD UP AND DOWN.)

THE COURT: I THINK THE JURY KNOWS WHERE THE CLOTHES CAME FROM.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. WELL, THEN PERHAPS I SHOULD ADVISE THE COURT AND COUNSEL THAT THE NEXT WITNESS WILL BE PATTY GOLDMAN. OKAY? COUNSEL?

MR. COCHRAN: I DIDN'T HEAR YOU.

MS. CLARK: THE NEXT WITNESS WILL BE PATTY GOLDMAN.

MR. COCHRAN: FINE.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SIR, DO YOU KNOW WHAT KIND OF SHOE CREATED THE SHOEPRINT FOUND -- THE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS?

THE COURT: MISS CLARK. I'M SORRY. ARE WE DONE WITH THE CLOTHES?

MS. CLARK: YES, WE ARE. WE CAN LET THE GOLDMANS BACK IN.

THE COURT: MS. MORAN, WOULD YOU INVITE THE GOLDMANS BACK IN, PLEASE. MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: ARE YOU AWARE THE TYPE OF SHOE THAT CREATED THE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS FOUND AT BUNDY?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THIS, AND IT IS IMPROPER.

THE COURT: I THINK YOU CAN ASK HAS HE CONDUCTED INVESTIGATION REGARDING THE TYPE OF SHOE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: HAVE YOU CONDUCTED INVESTIGATION REGARDING THE KIND OF SHOE THAT CREATED THE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS FOUND AT BUNDY, SIR?

A: YES, I AM.

Q: AND WHAT KIND OF SHOE IS THAT?

MR. COCHRAN: HEARSAY. JUST A MOMENT. HEARSAY. MAY WE APPROACH ON THIS? HEARSAY.

THE COURT: CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION AT THIS POINT AND I THINK WE ARE ASSUMING FACTS THAT AREN'T IN EVIDENCE AT THIS POINT.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS TRUE. WE ARE GOING TO GET TO IT, THOUGH.

MR. COCHRAN: GET TO IT IN DUE TIME, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I WILL SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION AT THIS POINT. I'M SURE WE WILL LEARN A LOT ABOUT SHOES.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS TRUE. I MEAN, WE WILL.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SIR, YOU INDICATED THAT -- EXCUSE ME. YOU INDICATED THAT YOU DID NOT DIAGRAM ANY OF THE BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE AT BUNDY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: OKAY. YOU DID CREATE -- DID YOU CREATE DIAGRAMS OF THE BUNDY LOCATION, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT IS PART OF YOUR CRIME SCENE NOTES?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU DIAGRAM ON THOSE NOTES ANYWHERE ANY OF THE BLOOD THAT WAS FOUND AT THE SCENE AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, IT WAS INDICATED IN YOUR NOTES THAT YOU SAW TWO DIMES AND TWO PENNIES AT THE REAR DRIVEWAY OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY. DO YOU RECALL THAT, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: YOU ALSO REVIEWED ALL THE PHOTOGRAPHS, DID YOU?

A: YES.

Q: IN ANY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS DID YOU SEE TWO DIMES AND TWO PENNIES?

A: NO, THAT IS A MISTAKE, AND I ERRED IN WRITING TWO DOWN.

Q: SO THAT WAS A MISTAKE YOU MADE IN YOUR NOTES?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU ARE A HUMAN BEING?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS SELF-SERVING. WE CAN ALL SEE HIM.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DO MAKE MISTAKES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU BOOKED THE CHANGE AND THAT --

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, I HEARD THE COMMENT.

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT COMMENT? I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING.

THE COURT: I HEARD THE COMMENT.

MR. COCHRAN: I DIDN'T MAKE ANY COMMENT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I HEARD THE COMMENT. PROCEED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU BOOKED THE CHANGE AND THE BANANA LABEL, THAT LABEL THAT YOU POINTED OUT THIS PICTURE, YOU INDICATED YOU BOOKED THEM ON JUNE 15TH?

A: THEY WERE ACTUALLY BOOKED BY THE CRIMINALIST, YES.

Q: OKAY. COULD YOU -- WERE THEY SEIZED ON THE 13TH, SIR, THOSE ITEMS?

A: YES, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO TELL US HOW THAT WORKS? WHY IS IT THAT IT WAS SEIZED ON THE 13TH BUT THE PAPERWORK SHOWS BOOKING ON THE 15TH?

A: WHEN THE CRIMINALIST SEIZES AN ITEM, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES IT IS IN POLICE CUSTODY AND BOOKED. IT IS JUST NOT ADMINISTRATIVELY CORRECT UNTIL THEY -- A NUMBER IS ASSIGNED AND IT GETS PLACED INTO AN ENVIRONMENT AND LOGGED IN, BUT AS FAR AS OUR PURPOSES GO, WHEN THE CRIMINALIST TAKES POSSESSION, IT IS IN THEIR POSSESSION, IT HAS BEEN BOOKED.

Q: OKAY.

A: THE OTHER IS JUST AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.

Q: OKAY. SO WAS IT IN THE CUSTODY FROM THE CRIMINALIST FROM THE 13TH WHEN IT WAS PICKED UP AT THE SCENE?

A: AS OF THE 13TH, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: OKAY. SO WHAT DOES THE DATE OF JUNE 15TH REFLECT?

A: THE ACTUAL DAY THAT IT WAS LOGGED IN AT THE PROPERTY WHEN A DR NUMBER HAD BEEN ASSIGNED AND ACTUAL ITEM NUMBERS HAD BEEN ASSIGNED TO EACH ITEM.

Q: OKAY. DID THAT MEAN THAT THERE WAS ANY CHANGE IN THE WAY IN WHICH IT WAS BEING SECURED OR KEPT?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. IT IS LEADING.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DOES THE -- WHAT DOES THE DATE OF -- HUM. FROM JUNE 13TH TO JUNE 15TH, WITH RESPECT TO THOSE ITEMS, SIR, OR ANY OF THE ITEMS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, DOES THE DATE OF JUNE THE 15TH REFLECT ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ITEM IS BEING KEPT?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION. THAT IS ALSO LEADING. OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. SO IS THERE ANY CUSTODIAL SIGNIFICANCE, IN TERMS OF WHERE THE ITEMS ARE BEING KEPT, IN THE DATE OF JUNE 15TH?

MR. COCHRAN: I OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION AGAIN.

THE COURT: "CUSTODIAL" IS KIND OF A VAGUE QUESTION, VAGUE TERM.

MS. CLARK: I WILL TRY AND FIX IT.

Q: LET ME TRY AND BE MORE PRECISE, DETECTIVE LANGE. WHAT DOES THE DATE OF JUNE 15TH REFLECT WITH RESPECT TO WHERE THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE ARE BEING KEPT OR HELD?

A: NOTHING. THEY ARE ALL IN THE POSSESSION OF SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION. IT IS JUST A FORMAL LOGGING IN OR BOOKING OF THE ITEMS.

Q: NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU DID NOT DIAGRAM ANY OF THE BLOOD AT THE CRIME SCENE AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: THAT IS NOT NORMALLY SOMETHING THAT I WOULD DO. IF THERE WOULD BE ANY DIAGRAMMING OR COLLECTION, THAT WOULD BE UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE CRIMINALIST.

Q: OKAY. WHICH WOULD BE MR. FUNG?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. YOU INDICATED, SIR, I BELIEVE EARLIER, THAT YOU BOOKED THAT LITTLE PLASTIC HEART THAT WAS FOUND ON THE GROUND ON AUGUST 25TH?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WHERE WAS IT BEFORE THEN?

A: IT WAS SECURED AT ROBBERY/HOMICIDE DIVISION, PARKER CENTER.

Q: OKAY. SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BOOKED AND BEING SECURED IN THE ROBBERY/HOMICIDE DIVISION?

A: THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN ASSIGNED A BOOKING NUMBER AND IT HASN'T ACTUALLY BEEN LOGGED IN AT PROPERTY DIVISION.

Q: WHAT ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF THE ITEM ITSELF, ANY DIFFERENCE THERE?

A: NO. IT WOULD REMAIN THE SAME.

THE COURT: DEPUTY, SEIZE THAT BEEPER, PLEASE, DEPUTY RUSSELL. THANK YOU. PROCEED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN THE BLOOD SAMPLE WAS TAKEN FROM THE DEFENDANT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHERE DID IT GO AFTER THAT?

A: IT WENT INTO MY PARTNER'S POSSESSION.

Q: DETECTIVE VANNATTER?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN WHAT?

A: IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS TRANSPORTED.

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE HIS UNDERSTANDING, YOUR HONOR. THE BEST EVIDENCE IS VANNATTER.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. DID YOU SEE IT AFTER THE BLOOD SAMPLE WAS DRAWN FROM THE DEFENDANT AND GIVEN TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN DID YOU SEE IT?

A: AT THE TIME IT WAS WITHDRAWN AND TURNED OVER.

Q: OKAY. AND AFTER IT WAS TURNED OVER TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER, DID YOU SEE THE BLOOD -- THE VIAL OF BLOOD AGAIN?

A: NO.

Q: SO WERE YOU AROUND WHEN THAT VIAL OF BLOOD WAS ULTIMATELY BOOKED INTO EVIDENCE OR INTO SID?

A: NO. THAT WAS BOOKED BY CRIMINALIST FUNG.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION. I MOVE TO STRIKE. THE ANSWER IS NO. I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LATTER PART.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. WE WILL STRIKE THE LAST PART OF THE ANSWER. THE ANSWER IS NO, SINCE HE WASN'T PRESENT.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT.

THE COURT: PROCEED. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE LAST PART OF THE ANSWER.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SO DO YOU KNOW WHEN IT WAS ULTIMATELY BOOKED?

A: NO.

Q: OR BY WHOM?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT HAIR AND TRACE EVIDENCE. REMEMBER THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THE KNIT CAP THAT WAS FOUND NEXT TO THE GLOVE UNDER THE PLANT AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU CONDUCT ANY INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY HAIR OR TRACE EVIDENCE TO BE FOUND ON THAT CAP?

A: I PERSONALLY DID NOT. THERE WAS ONE CONDUCTED.

Q: AND ARE YOU AWARE OF THE RESULTS OF THAT EXAMINATION?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE CAN SAY YES OR NO, HE IS AWARE.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WAS THERE ANYTHING THAT -- ANYTHING ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THAT INVESTIGATION INTO THE HAIR AND TRACE EVIDENCE IN THE KNIT CAP THAT CAUSED YOU TO ELIMINATE MR. SIMPSON AS A SUSPECT?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. MOVE TO STRIKE. I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH. OBJECT AS HEARSAY.

THE COURT: LET ME SEE COUNSEL AT THE SIDE BAR WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE ARE AT THE SIDE BAR. MISS CLARK, I THINK THE QUESTION AND ANSWER CALLED FOR A CONCLUSION WITHOUT ANY FOUNDATION.

MS. CLARK: HERE IS WHAT I'M GOING AT, YOUR HONOR: MR. COCHRAN WENT INTO SOME LENGTH DISCUSSING WHETHER DETECTIVE LANGE HAD EXPLORED ANY OTHER LEADS.

THE COURT: UH-HUH.

MS. CLARK: WHETHER HE HAD DONE -- BASICALLY THE WHOLE TENOR IS HAVE YOU DONE AN ADEQUATE INVESTIGATION OR RUSHED TO JUDGMENT.

THE COURT: UH-HUH.

MS. CLARK: I THINK IT IS A FAIR REDIRECT TO GO INTO.

THE COURT: I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH THAT. WHAT I'M SAYING, TO ASK HIM WAS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE CAP, THE TRACE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS ABOUT THE CAP THAT CAUSED YOU TO ELIMINATE MR. SIMPSON AS A WITNESS, AND THAT -- THAT IS CALLING FOR A CONCLUSION WITHOUT A FOUNDATION. IF HE -- YOU KNOW, HE IS AWARE OF THE REPORTS, HE HAS TALKED TO THE CRIMINALIST, HE HAS SEEN, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE CONTENTS. WAS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT ANY OF THE REPORTS REGARDING THE ANALYSIS OF THIS THING THAT CAUSED YOU TO ELIMINATE MR. SIMPSON? NO. I MEAN, THAT IS --

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I BE HEARD, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: SURE.

MR. COCHRAN: I WAS PRECLUDED FROM GOING INTO THESE LINES, FINGERPRINTS AND THESE KIND OF THINGS. THE COURT AGREED WITH COUNSEL. THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT WITNESS, THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT WITNESS, AND IT IS HEARSAY AND THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT WITNESS. I NEVER ASKED HIM ABOUT THE KNIT CAP. I ASKED HIM ABOUT CAUCASIAN HAIRS WHICH WERE FOUND ON THE GLOVES. THAT IS WHAT I ASKED. I DIDN'T ASK HIM ABOUT THE KNIT CAP. WE HAVE BEEN TOLD BEFORE WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR THOSE WITNESSES TO GET IN HERE.

THE COURT: YOU WERE ALLOWED TO GO INTO A LOT OF OTHER DIFFERENT THINGS THERE.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, I DON'T FOLLOW THAT, YOUR HONOR. I WASN'T ALLOWED TO GO INTO ANYTHING THAT WAS HEARSAY BECAUSE THE COURT STOPPED US.

THE COURT: THAT IS NOT HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: IF HE IS RELYING UPON SOMEBODY ELSE'S OPINION OR REPORT, YOUR HONOR, THAT IS HEARSAY.

THE COURT: BUT HE IS THE LEAD INVESTIGATOR. HE IS ENTITLED TO HAVE SOME OPINIONS HERE.

MR. COCHRAN: YES. HE HAS SOME OPINIONS AND WE HAVE SEEN WHAT THEY ARE. I'M JUST SAYING THAT IS HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PROCEED.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

Q: YES. DETECTIVE LANGE, DID YOU REVIEW THE REPORTS OF THE CRIMINALIST'S ANALYSIS OF THE HAIR AND TRACE EVIDENCE FOUND ON THE KNIT CAP AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

A: YES.

Q: AND ENGAGE IN CONVERSATIONS CONCERNING THE RESULTS OF THAT ANALYSIS, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: AND BASED ON ALL OF THAT WAS THERE ANYTHING THAT CAUSED YOU TO ELIMINATE MR. SIMPSON AS A SUSPECT IN THE CASE?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THIS QUESTION. THIS IS HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO, THERE WASN'T.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, DO YOU ALSO -- DID YOU EXAMINE THE REPORTS OF CRIMINALISTS AND EXPERTS CONCERNING THE ANALYSIS OF THE BLOOD FOUND ON THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE REPORTS THAT YOU REVIEWED --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, LET ME SEE YOU BEGIN AGAIN AT SIDE BAR.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE BACK OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. MISS CLARK, I LET YOU GO INTO THAT OTHER BUSINESS ABOUT THE TRACE EVIDENCE BECAUSE MR. COCHRAN WENT INTO THE BUSINESS ABOUT THE HAIRS.

MS. CLARK: BUT --

THE COURT: BUT HE HASN'T GONE INTO ANYTHING ON BLOOD.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE THIS, YOUR HONOR. MOVE TO --

THE COURT: IT IS A QUESTION. I CUT HER OFF AT THE QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: BUT YOUR HONOR, A COUPLE TIMES --

THE COURT: EXCEEDING THE SCOPE OF THE CROSS.

MS. CLARK: CAN I ASK THE COURT A QUESTION THEN?

THE COURT: SURE.

MS. CLARK: YOU ARE RIGHT. WHAT I'M GOING AT IS THE RUSH TO JUDGMENT ISSUE AND THIS WAS FOUNDATIONAL TO THE FACT THAT WHAT WE HAD, ON JUNE 17 AT THE TIME OF FILING, WHICH THIS WAS A CENTRAL KEY THEME OF THE DEFENSE, BUT BY THE 17TH, WHEN WE FILED, WE HAD PCR RESULTS ON THE BLOOD TRAIL AT BUNDY, ON THE BRONCO, AND ON THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM.

THE COURT: UH-HUH.

MS. CLARK: SO WE HAD QUITE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE BY THE TIME OF FILING.

THE COURT: LET ME SUGGEST THAT YOU DO THIS, THOUGH: LET ME SUGGEST THAT -- I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THAT IS AN ARGUMENT THAT MR. COCHRAN HAS MADE THAT YOU WANT TO COUNTER, BUT LET ME SUGGEST YOU DO THIS: PUT ON THAT OTHER STUFF, THEN YOU CAN BRING HIM BACK TO SAY WHAT INFORMATION DID YOU HAVE? YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ALREADY HEARD THE TESTIMONY AND THERE IS A FOUNDATION FOR IT. WHAT DID YOU HAVE ON JUNE THE 17TH? THIS INFORMATION, THIS INFORMATION, THIS INFORMATION.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY I OBJECT?

MS. CLARK: WHAT ABOUT THIS, YOUR HONOR: WHAT IF I DO THIS, BECAUSE WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS AVOID RECALLING WITNESSES. THIS CASE IS GOING TO GO ON FOR THE NEXT CENTURY.

THE COURT: LANGE IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE.

MS. CLARK: NO, HE IS NOT, BUT I HATE TO HAVE TO RECALL WITNESSES WHEN WE CAN GET THIS DONE NOW. AND HERE IS A NON-HEARSAY WAY TO DO IT. LET ME ASK THE COURT FOR GUIDANCE TO THIS. IF I COULD ASK HIM AS OF JUNE 17TH WHEN YOU SUBMITTED THE CASE FOR FILING WERE YOU AWARE OF THE RESULTS OF TESTING DONE ON THIS, THIS, AND THIS?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THIS.

MS. CLARK: NOTHING ELSE.

MR. COCHRAN: I OBJECT.

MS. CLARK: BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T CALL FOR HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: BUT I OBJECT.

THE COURT: HOLD ON.

MS. CLARK: THAT DOESN'T CALL FOR HEARSAY OR THE CONTENTS. IT GOES TO HIS STATE OF MIND WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED INTO ISSUE BY COUNSEL IN TALKING ABOUT THE RUSH TO JUDGMENT. AND THIS IS A FAIR COUNTER TO THAT WITHOUT ASKING FOR THE RESULTS OF ANY TESTS. GOES TO HIS STATE OF MIND WITHOUT ADMITTING THE RESULTS. ALLOWS HIM TO EXPLAIN THAT HE WAS AWARE OF CERTAIN THINGS AT THE TIME OF JUNE THE 17TH THAT GOES COUNTER TO COUNSEL'S --

THE COURT: KEEP YOUR VOICE DOWN AS WELL.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I BE HEARD, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO THIS, I DID NOT GO INTO THE BLOOD ASPECT BECAUSE I WAS TOLD, AND THE COURT SUSTAINED OBJECTIONS, THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT WITNESS FOR THAT, IT IS HEARSAY OTHERWISE. AND I JUST OBJECT TO THE COURT GIVING GUIDANCE TO THE PROSECUTION, YOUR HONOR. I DON'T THINK THAT IS FAIR TO THE DEFENDANT IN THIS MATTER.

AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD -- THEY DON'T NEED ANY HELP. I CERTAINLY DON'T NEED ANY HELP. THE COURT JUMPED ON ME YESTERDAY BECAUSE OF WONG AND FUNG. I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE, BUT I KNEW HE HAD MISTAKEN THAT. TO DO THAT IN FRONT OF THE JURY, BECAUSE HE WAS WRONG ABOUT IT --

THE COURT: WELL, DOESN'T THAT JUST MAKE YOUR POINT ALL THE MORE?

MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD NOT LIKE THE COURT'S INTERFERENCE. THE COURT MAY BE SENSITIVE ABOUT THAT, I KNOW. I GREW UP IN THIS AREA. I WENT TO L.A. HIGH SCHOOL, SO I KNOW A LOT ABOUT DIVERSITY, SO I TAKE UMBRAGE TO THAT. THAT IS NOT A PROBLEM WITH ME. BUT I KNEW THIS OFFICER DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME KIND OF ATTITUDE AND HE TALKED TO MATHESON AND FOUND THAT, SO I AM JUST POINTING THAT OUT. SO I WOULD ASK THE COURT, THEY DON'T NEED ANY HELP WITH THEIR CASE, YOUR HONOR, AND THE RULES ARE GOOD FOR BOTH SIDES AND THIS IS HEARSAY. I HAVE A THEORY OF RUSHING TO JUDGMENT RELATING TO HIM, THEN SHE CAN DEAL WITH THAT. IF SHE HAS OTHER WITNESSES, SHE CAN BRING THEM ON, AND I THINK THAT IS WHAT THE COURT RULED AND I THINK THAT IS FAIR.

THE COURT: HERE IS THE PROBLEM, MR. COCHRAN: I'M NOT HELPING THE PROSECUTION. I'M JUST SUGGESTING A SMOOTHER WAY TO DO THIS BECAUSE THAT IS MY JOB.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL --

THE COURT: WE HAVE TWO THINGS: FIRST, YOU SAY YOU ARE OBJECTING TO HER QUESTIONS REGARDING WHAT INFORMATION DID HE HAVE AT A CERTAIN POINT IN TIME AS HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: YES, IT IS HEARSAY. HE SAYS HE GOES AND TALKS TO THESE PEOPLE AND PRESCRIPTION REPORTS.

THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT. BUT THEN YOU OBJECT TO MY SUGGESTING A WAY TO DO THIS THAT COMES AFTER THE TESTIMONY OF THOSE WITNESSES.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YES.

THE COURT: WHICH WAY WOULD YOU LIKE IT? WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO LET THIS STUFF IN AS A NON-HEARSAY STATE OF MIND OR DO YOU WANT ME TO HAVE THEM PUT THEM IN LATER? WHICH WOULD YOU LIKE, MR. COCHRAN?

MR. COCHRAN: LET ME SAY THIS: I DON'T FOLLOW -- THOSE DON'T NECESSARILY LOGICALLY FOLLOW. IF THEY ARE DEALING WITH HEARSAY AND I WANT TO MAKE IT A SHORTER WAY SO THEY COULD MOVE ALONG, I DON'T THINK THAT IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE. I THINK THEY HAVE TO GO INTO IT THE RIGHT WAY. THEY WAIT UNTIL THE RIGHT WITNESS COMES IN AND DEAL WITH THAT AT THAT TIME. THAT IS WHAT WE WERE TOLD.

WHEN THEY GET THE PCR AND DNA WE ARE GOING TO DEAL WITH IT THEN.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, THE ONLY THING THAT I PRECLUDED YOU FROM GOING INTO YESTERDAY WAS FAYE RESNICK, BECAUSE THIS DETECTIVE SAID I DIDN'T TALK TO HER, I WASN'T AWARE OF WHAT HER INTERVIEW HAD TO SAY.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL --

THE COURT: AND TO THEN BOOTSTRAP THAT IN WITH WERE YOU AWARE OF SOME DRUG PROBLEMS OVER AT BUNDY ADDRESS, THAT IS -- YOU KNOW, THAT WAS NOT THE RIGHT WITNESS.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOU MAY BE RIGHT AND I BACKED OFF OF THAT.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. COCHRAN: I ASKED HIM WAS IT VANNATTER AND I BACKED UP. I DIDN'T TRY TO COME UP WITH SOME OTHER WILD THEORY TO CHANGE YOUR MIND. YOU RULED ON THIS AND I WAS JUST SAYING THAT MY OBJECTION FROM THE STANDPOINT OF MY CLIENT AND OUR SIDE, THAT WE DON'T ASK FOR ANY SUGGESTIONS, WE DON'T NEED ANY HELP. AND I WOULD JUST ASK THE COURT NOT TO GIVE THEM ANY HELP EITHER. I THINK THAT IS THE APPROPRIATE WAY OF DOING IT. JUDGE, WE HAVE MR. DARDEN ON NATIONAL T.V. SAYING THE JUDGE IS MY BUD.

MS. CLARK: WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF THIS? WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF THIS?

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK --

MS. CLARK: WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE UP HERE FOR? MR. COCHRAN IS GOING OFF ON WILD TANGENTS.

THE COURT: HOLD ON.

MR. COCHRAN: MR. DARDEN IS SAYING ON NATIONAL T.V. THE JUDGE IS MY BUD AND THE COURT SUGGESTS TO HIM -- AND THAT IS ALL I'M SAYING. HE DID SAY THAT.

MS. CLARK: I DON'T KNOW WHAT COUNSEL IS REFERRING TO. COULD WE JUST DISCUSS THE ISSUE AT HAND HERE?

MR. DARDEN: BY THE WAY, I ALSO SAID I LOVED MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: HE HAS ALWAYS SAID THAT.

MS. CLARK: YOU KNOW, WE WANT -- DON'T HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THAT RIGHT HERE. ALL I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS THE ISSUE RELEGATING FORM OVER SUBSTANCE. WE ALL KNOW THAT THE EVIDENCE IS COMING IN.

THE COURT: THE OBJECTION IS HEARSAY. WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE?

MS. CLARK: MY RESPONSE IS I'M OFFERING FOR A NON-HEARSAY PURPOSE FOR THE OFFICER'S STATE OF MIND TO REBUT THE INFERENCE CREATED BY COUNSEL ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT THERE WAS A RUSH OF JUDGMENT. I'M NOT ASKING TO ADMIT THE RESULTS. I'M ASKING TO EXPLORE -- THAT THIS DETECTIVE WAS AWARE OF RESULTS OF CERTAIN THINGS AT THE TIME HE WENT TO FILE. THE RESULTS WILL COME IN. THE COURT COULD ALSO ALLOW THE RESULTS IN AND HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE RESULTS IN SUBJECT TO A MOTION TO STRIKE WHEN IT IS ULTIMATELY PROVEN UP, BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT IS COMING.

MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE --

MS. CLARK: IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF IF; IT IS A QUESTION OF WHEN. AND TO HAVE THIS WITNESS HAVE TO BE RECALLED --

THE COURT: HOLD ON.

MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE --

THE COURT: WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THE NON-HEARSAY USE?

MR. COCHRAN: BECAUSE IT IS IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL THEN. HIS STATE OF MIND IS IRRELEVANT. THAT IS ONLY WITH REGARD TO THIS, YOUR HONOR. HE'S THE INVESTIGATOR IN THIS CASE. HE EITHER DID OR DIDN'T DO CERTAIN THINGS. THIS EVIDENCE IS GOING TO COME IN AS HEARSAY. THAT IS TRYING TO BACK DOOR WHAT SHE COULDN'T DO OTHERWISE BY THAT SAME ANALYSIS, JUDGE. I COULD HAVE LOOKED AT YOU AND SAID SINCE HE'S VANNATTER'S PARTNER AND WE KNOW VANNATTER IS GOING TO BE CALLED, I CAN GO INTO FAYE RESNICK RIGHT NOW. BUT WE HAVE THE RULES. AND THE QUESTION IS OUR WILLINGNESS TO ABIDE BY THE RULES. I THINK THAT IS THE POINT THAT THE PROSECUTION IS NOT DOING. AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO SUSTAIN THIS. THIS IS HEARSAY.

MS. CLARK: SUCH TORTURED LOGIC.

THE COURT: WELL, WE'VE GOT APPLES AND ORANGES. I AM GOING TO OVERRULE THE HEARSAY OBJECTION, BUT I'M GOING TO TELL THE JURY IT IS ONLY FOR HIS STATE OF MIND.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN I BE HEARD?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: HIS STATE OF MIND?

MS. CLARK: YOU MADE IT RELEVANT.

THE COURT: YEAH.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SIR, AFTER THE -- I BELIEVE -- WAS THE BRONCO FOUND PARKED OUTSIDE THE GATE -- THE DEFENDANT'S BRONCO PARKED OUTSIDE THE GATE AT ROCKINGHAM SEIZED ON JUNE 13TH?

A: YES.

Q: AND WAS IT SUBMITTED FOR TESTING?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THE GLOVE FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM, WAS THAT SEIZED ON JUNE 13TH?

A: YES.

Q: AND SUBMITTED FOR TESTING, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE KNIT CAP, WAS THAT SEIZED ON JUNE THE 13TH AS WELL?

A: YES.

Q: AND ALSO SUBMITTED FOR TESTING?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE BLOOD AT THE BLOOD TRAIL FOUND AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY, WAS THAT COLLECTED ON JUNE 13TH ALSO?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THAT FORM, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. CHARACTERIZATION AS A TRAIL.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

Q: THE BLOOD DROPS FOUND GOING ON THE WALKWAY FROM THE VICTIM'S OUT TO THE ALLEY BEHIND 875 SOUTHBOUND, WERE THOSE COLLECTED ON JUNE 13TH AND SUBMITTED FOR TESTING?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, WHEN WAS IT THAT YOU SUBMITTED THE CASE FOR FILING?

A: JUNE 17TH.

Q: BY THAT TIME, SIR, WERE YOU AWARE OF THE RESULTS OF THE TESTING OF THE BLOOD COLLECTED AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

A: YES.

Q: AND WERE YOU AWARE OF THE RESULTS OF SOME OF THE TESTS CONDUCTED ON THE BLOOD SEIZED FROM THE BRONCO AND SUBMITTED FOR TESTING?

A: YES.

Q: AND BY THAT TIME WERE YOU ALSO AWARE OF THE RESULTS OF THE TESTING OF THE GLOVE FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

Q: AND UPON BECOMING AWARE OF ALL OF THOSE RESULTS, SIR, WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE CASE?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THIS. HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I PRESENTED TO THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO SEEK A FILING.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. SIR, BEFORE YOU LEFT FOR -- YOU WERE AT ROCKINGHAM INITIALLY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: INITIALLY?

Q: I MEAN BEFORE YOU WENT BACK TO BUNDY TO DO THE ACTUAL CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION, I'M SORRY.

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. FOUNDATIONAL.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AT THE TIME THAT YOU LEFT ROCKINGHAM TO RETURN TO BUNDY, WHAT WAS YOUR STATE OF MIND CONCERNING WHAT YOU THOUGHT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH A CRIMINALIST TO RESPOND TO BUNDY?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THE FORM. IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL, HIS STATE OF MIND.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WELL, DID YOU CALL FOR ANOTHER CRIMINALIST TO PROCEED TO THE BUNDY LOCATION WHEN YOU LEFT FOR ROCKINGHAM?

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE WITNESS: NO.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHY NOT?

A: BECAUSE IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING --

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO HIS UNDERSTANDING AS NONRESPONSIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THE CRIMINALIST WAS TO PROCEED TO ROCKINGHAM AND DO A QUICK PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON THE BLOOD ON THE DOOR OF THE BRONCO AND THEN PROCEED DIRECTLY TO BUNDY, SO THERE WAS NO NEED TO.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. SO WHEN YOU GOT TO -- WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO BUNDY, WHAT TIME WAS IT?

A: I BELIEVE I ARRIVED AT APPROXIMATELY 6:45 OR 6:50 A.M.

Q: AND WHAT WAS YOUR EXPECTATION WHEN YOU GOT THERE REGARDING A CRIMINALIST?

MR. COCHRAN: ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE AGAIN, "EXPECTATION," YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THAT THE CRIMINALIST WOULD BE FORTHCOMING SHORTLY.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU EVER WASH DOWN THAT FRONT WALKWAY THAT LEADS FROM THE SIDEWALK UP TO THE STEPS AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHO DID?

A: YES.

Q: WHO?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THIS, YOUR HONOR. UNLESS HE HAS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, IT IS HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID ANY MEMBER OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WASH DOWN THAT FRONT WALKWAY?

A: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: IF HE KNOWS, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE WAS THE REAR AREA AND THE REAR GATE AREA IN THE DRIVEWAY OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY EVER WASHED DOWN?

A: IT WAS NOT.

Q: NOW, AFTER THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CRIME SCENE AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY WAS COMPLETED ON JUNE THE 13TH, WHAT WAS THE -- HOW WAS THE LOCATION MAINTAINED WITH RESPECT TO THE GATES?

A: BOTH GATES WERE CLOSED AND LOCKED AND THE HOUSE ITSELF WAS LOCKED AND SECURED.

Q: HOW MANY UNITS ARE THERE IN THAT -- AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY, SIR?

A: IT IS A DUPLEX AND THERE ARE TWO CONDOS ATTACHED.

Q: OKAY. SO NICOLE AND ONE OTHER?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU INDICATED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT THERE WERE REPORTS OF PUBLIC PEOPLE AT BUNDY. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: REPORTS OF PEOPLE?

Q: PUBLIC PEOPLE AROUND THE AREA OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

A: THERE WERE, YES.

Q: OKAY.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I'M NOT CLEAR WHAT "PUBLIC PEOPLE" IS.

MS. CLARK: I MEAN AS OPPOSED TO --

MR. COCHRAN: VAGUE.

MS. CLARK: -- POLICE PEOPLE.

THE COURT: NON-POLICE, NON-RESIDENTS?

MS. CLARK: NON-POLICE, NON-RESIDENTS.

THE WITNESS: THERE WERE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ARE YOU AWARE OF -- YOU ARE AWARE OF THOSE REPORTS?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND MR. COCHRAN DISCUSSED THOSE WITH YOU ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. DO YOU RECALL?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT -- WHAT AREA AROUND 875 SOUTH BUNDY DID THOSE REPORTS PERTAIN TO?

A: THE FRONT OF THE LOCATION.

Q: LIKE AROUND THE SIDEWALK?

A: SIDEWALK, YES.

Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY -- ARE YOU IN POSSESSION OF ANY REPORTS THAT INDICATE THAT THERE WERE NON-RESIDENTS LURKING AROUND THE REAR GATE OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: HEARSAY.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY REPORTED INCIDENTS CONCERNING NON-PUBLIC -- EXCUSE ME -- NON-RESIDENTS AROUND THE REAR GATE AREA OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

MR. COCHRAN: SAME QUESTION. I OBJECT, YOUR HONOR, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WAS THERE -- THE FRONT AND THE REAR GATE AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, DO THOSE GIVE ACCESS TO THE OTHER SIDE, TO ANOTHER DUPLEX IN ANY WAY?

A: NO.

Q: WHO HAS ACCESS TO THOSE GATES?

MR. COCHRAN: VAGUE, YOUR HONOR. WHAT GATES? VAGUE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO THOSE GATES GO SOLELY TO NICOLE'S CONDOMINIUM OR ALSO ALLOW ACCESS TO OTHER NEIGHBORS?

A: STRICTLY TO THE ONE CONDOMINIUM.

THE COURT: YOU HAVE TO RECALL, THE JURY HAS SEEN THE WALKWAY.

MS. CLARK: IT HAS BEEN A WHILE.

Q: NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU VISITED BUNDY BETWEEN JUNE THE 13TH AND JULY THE 3RD?

A: YES.

Q: AND DO YOU RECALL WHY?

A: THERE WERE RETURN VISITS TO THE CRIME SCENE TO CHECK ON VARIOUS THINGS. I HAVE NEVER BEEN INVOLVED IN A CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION THAT I DIDN'T RETURN.

Q: SO IS THAT UNUSUAL FOR YOU TO DO, TO GO BACK SEVERAL TIMES TO A CRIME SCENE?

A: NO. ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS VERY USUAL AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE DONE AT EVERY CRIME SCENE.

Q: WELL, CAN YOU TELL US WHY?

A: BECAUSE INITIALLY THERE MAY BE THINGS THAT YOU'VE MISSED. YOU MAY WANT TO RETURN AT A DIFFERENT TIME OF DAY. YOU MAY WANT TO RECHECK WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY DONE. YOU MAY WANT TO SEARCH FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF THINGS THAT COULD HAPPEN OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. YOU MAY NOT CATCH EVERYTHING THE FIRST TIME BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT GOING ON.

Q: OKAY. AND SO DID YOU -- DID THAT OCCUR IN THIS CASE?

A: YES.

Q: SO BETWEEN JUNE THE 13TH AND JULY THE 3RD, WHERE DID YOU GO? WHERE ABOUT THAT LOCATION OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY DID YOU GO?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION. BETWEEN? THAT IS VAGUE AS TO WHAT DATE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

THE COURT: SEE IF WE CAN NARROW IT DOWN A LITTLE MORE TIMEWISE.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

Q: DO YOU RECALL HOW MANY TIMES YOU WENT BACK TO THE LOCATION BETWEEN JUNE 13TH AND JULY THE 3RD?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS TWO OR THREE TIMES.

Q: OKAY. ON ANY OF -- ON EACH OF THOSE OCCASIONS, THOSE TWO OR THREE TIMES, SIR, DO YOU RECALL WHERE YOU WENT?

A: YES.

Q: WHERE?

A: TO THE FRONT OF THE LOCATION, TO THE AREA OF THE VICINITY WHERE THE BODIES WERE LOCATED, AND TO THE INTERIOR OF THE HOUSE, TO EXAMINE THE INTERIOR.

Q: DID YOU EVER GO TO THE REAR GATE AREA ON ANY OF THOSE OCCASIONS?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN AFTER JUNE 13TH WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU WENT THROUGH THE REAR GATE AREA?

A: I BELIEVE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN JULY 3RD.

Q: OKAY. AND ON JULY THE 3RD -- ON THE FIRST TIME YOU RETURNED TO THE REAR GATE AREA AFTER JUNE THE 13TH, WHICH WAS, AS YOU HAVE INDICATED, JULY THE 3RD, WHAT DID YOU SEE?

A: I OBSERVED A SMEAR OF BLOOD -- THE FIRST THING I OBSERVED IS A SMEAR OF BLOOD ON THE UPPER RUNG OF THE REAR GATE THAT I HAD OBSERVED ON JUNE 13TH. ADDITIONALLY, THERE APPEARED TO BE THE SAME TWO DROPLETS OF BLOOD ON THE LOWER RUNG OF THAT GATE.

Q: THE SAME TWO --

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

THE WITNESS: THEY APPEARED TO BE THE SAME TWO.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT, SIR? YOU SAID THE SAME TWO BLOOD DROPS?

A: IT APPEARED TO BE THE SAME TWO DROPLETS THAT I HAD OBSERVED EARLIER ON JUNE 13TH ON THE INNER LOWER RUNG OF THAT REAR GATE.

Q: AND BASED ON THAT OBSERVATION YOU DID WHAT?

A: MADE INQUIRY AND REQUESTED MR. FUNG, THE CRIMINALIST.

Q: AND WERE THOSE BLOOD DROPS ON THE REAR GATE SUBMITTED FOR DNA ANALYSIS, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: AND ARE YOU AWARE OF THOSE RESULTS?

A: YES, I AM.

Q: NOW, I THINK YOU INDICATED ALSO THAT ON AUGUST THE 27TH YOU TOOK THE DEFENSE TEAM, THE DEFENDANT -- EXCUSE ME -- THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY -- DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AND THEIR INVESTIGATORS ON A WALK THROUGH 875 SOUTH BUNDY. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: AND THEIR CRIMINALIST, YES.

Q: AND THEIR CRIMINALIST?

A: YES.

Q: AND I THINK YOU INDICATED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT THEIR -- THAT THEIR INVESTIGATION -- ONE OF THEIR INVESTIGATORS POINTED OUT CHANGE INSIDE THE GARAGE OF THE LOCATION OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

A: I BELIEVE THERE WAS ONE OR TWO PENNIES LYING ON THE FLOOR OF THE GARAGE.

Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU SEIZE THOSE PENNIES?

A: NO.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: THOSE PENNIES WERE ISOLATED FROM THE CRIME SCENE. THE GARAGE DOOR WAS SECURED AT THE TIME THIS OCCURRED. THERE WAS NO BLOOD IN THE GARAGE AREA. THERE WAS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT ANY SUSPECT HAD EVER VISITED THAT AREA.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I MOVE TO STRIKE.

THE WITNESS: OR THAT IT HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CRIME SCENE.

MR. COCHRAN: I MOVE TO STRIKE AS CONCLUSIONARY, YOUR HONOR. OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT DO YOU MEAN "THE GARAGE DOOR WAS SECURED AT THE TIME"?

A: IT WAS CLOSED.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION. HE WASN'T THERE. MAY WE BE HEARD?

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: THE GARAGE DOOR WAS CLOSED AT WHAT TIME, SIR?

A: THE TIME OF THE MURDER.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THAT. HOW WOULD HE KNOW THAT? I OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. COUNSEL, OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. AND YOU INDICATED ALSO -- SO THE PENNIES WERE INSIDE THE GARAGE, SIR?

A: INSIDE THE SECURED GARAGE, YES.

Q: AND ON AUGUST 27TH DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD NEAR THOSE PENNIES, SIR?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, CONVERSELY, YOU INDICATED TO THE JURY THAT YOU -- EARLIER, I BELIEVE, THAT YOU FOUND A DIME AND THE PENNY ON THE REAR DRIVEWAY THAT YOU SAW JUNE 13TH TO BE IMPORTANT?

A: TO ME IT WAS, YES.

Q: CAN YOU TELL US WHY?

A: THE DIME AND THE PENNY WERE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE BLOOD DROPLET IN THE REAR ALLEY. IT APPEARED TO DROP TO ME FROM A STATIONARY SOURCE INDICATING THAT SOURCE MAY HAVE BEEN STANDING STILL REACHING IN THEIR POCKET PERHAPS FOR KEYS AND INADVERTENTLY DROPPING THE COINS GOING FOR THE KEYS. THE BLOOD DROPLET HAD NO TAILING AND IT APPEARED TO COME FROM A STATIONARY SOURCE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, WE NEED TO TAKE OUR MORNING BREAK AT THIS POINT. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A 15-RECESS AT THIS TIME. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T LET ANYBODY COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. STAND IN RECESS FOR FIFTEEN.

(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. ALL PARTIES ARE PRESENT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE'VE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. DETECTIVE LANGE IS STILL ON THE WITNESS STAND ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MISS CLARK. AND, DETECTIVE LANGE, GOOD MORNING AGAIN. YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH.

THE WITNESS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SIR, WE WERE TALKING EARLIER ABOUT THE REEBOK'S THAT THE DEFENDANT POINTED OUT TO YOU ON JUNE THE 13TH?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, YOU -- YOU -- I THINK YOU ALREADY TESTIFIED THAT YOU TOOK THEM AT THAT POINT --

MR. COCHRAN: BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. IT'S FOUNDATIONAL.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU TOOK THEM AT THAT POINT FROM HIS CLOSET; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN WHERE DID YOU GO?

A: I PROCEEDED DOWN -- DOWN TO THE FIRST LEVEL AND OUT TO MY VEHICLE.

Q: DO YOU RECALL, SIR, ABOUT WHAT TIME IT WAS WHEN YOU DID THAT?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 6:15, 6:30 P.M., SOMEWHERE IN THERE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU LEFT THE RESIDENCE, WHEN YOU EXITED THE HOUSE AT ROCKINGHAM, DID YOU SEE MR. FUNG ANYWHERE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU KNOW IF HE WAS EVEN STILL THERE AT ROCKINGHAM?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION. LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T BELIEVE HE WAS.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU WERE -- WE WERE TALKING EARLIER ABOUT THE -- JUST BEFORE THE BREAK ABOUT THE WALK THROUGH ON AUGUST 27TH WITH THE DEFENSE TEAM.

A: YES.

Q: MR. COCHRAN MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT A KNIT CAP THAT WAS POINTED OUT TO YOU BY ONE OF THE INVESTIGATORS OR THE CRIMINALIST FOR THE DEFENSE.

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS BY MR. COCHRAN HIMSELF.

Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU SEIZE THAT KNIT CAP THAT HE POINTED OUT TO YOU, SIR?

A: NO.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: THE KNIT CAP WAS IN THE HOUSE ON THE UPPER LEVEL IN FRONT OF ONE OF THE KID'S ROOMS AND APPEARED TO BE ONE OF THE KID'S CAPS.

Q: A CHILD'S CAP?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU EVER ASK THAT A TIRE TRACK EXPERT LOOK AT TIRE TRACKS IN THE REAR ALLEY BEHIND 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

A: NO.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: P-38.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT, SIR. DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT'S SHOWN IN P-38 ON THE SCREEN NOW?

A: YES. IT'S LOOKING IN THE ALLEY IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION BEHIND THE BUNDY LOCATION.

Q: AND IS THAT THE ALLEY BEHIND 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, IS THAT ALLEY, IS IT CEMENT OR IS IT ASPHALT?

A: IT'S ASPHALT.

Q: AND YOU INDICATED JUST NOW, SIR, THAT YOU DID NOT ASK THAT A TIRE TRACK EXPERT EXAMINE THE ALLEYWAY BEHIND THE LOCATION OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY.

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: OKAY. COULD YOU PLEASE TELL THE JURY WHY NOT?

A: IT'S A VERY COMMONLY USED SURFACE. THERE ARE MANY, MANY TIRE TRACKS SUPERIMPOSED OVER ONE ANOTHER AND THERE WOULD JUST BE NO WAY TO DISTINGUISH ONE FROM ANOTHER.

Q: AND HAVE YOU EVER -- WELL, WHEN YOU WERE OUT THERE, DID YOU LOOK AT THE ALLEYWAY BEHIND 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY I INTERPOSE AN OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO THIS AREA? BEYOND THE EXPERTISE OF THIS WITNESS. WE'RE TALKING TWO SEPARATE THINGS.

THE COURT: OVERRULED AT THIS POINT.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU YOURSELF LOOK AT THE ALLEYWAY BEHIND 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

A: YES.

Q: WERE YOU ABLE TO OBSERVE ANY DISTINGUISHABLE TIRE TRACKS YOURSELF?

A: NOTHING DISTINGUISHABLE.

Q: TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, SIR, IS THERE ANY WAY TO TELL WHEN TIRE TRACKS ARE MADE?

A: I DON'T KNOW OF ANY.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE, NO FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. DO YOU WANT TO DO A LITTLE MORE FOUNDATION WITH THIS DETECTIVE AS TO TIRE TRACKS?

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SIR, HAVE YOU EVER ASKED THAT A TIRE TRACKS EXPERT BE CALLED OUT TO A SCENE TO EXAMINE --

A: YES.

Q: AND HAVE YOU CONSULTED AND CONFERRED WITH THEM CONCERNING THEIR FINDINGS AT ANY PARTICULAR CRIME SCENES?

A: YES.

Q: ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS, SIR, APPROXIMATELY?

A: I -- THERE HAVEN'T BEEN THAT MANY QUITE FRANKLY. EIGHT, 10 MAYBE TIMES AT THE MOST.

Q: AND HAVE YOU CONSULTED WITH THEM ABOUT WHAT THEY LOOK FOR IN TIRE TRACKS?

A: YES.

Q: AND HAVE YOU CONSULTED WITH THEM ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE ABLE TO TELL YOU BY LOOKING AT TIRE TRACKS?

A: YES.

Q: AND HAVE YOU EVER -- HAVE THEY EVER TESTIFIED IN ANY OF THE CASES THAT YOU HAVE PREPARED OR CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATIONS IN?

A: YES.

Q: BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE THEN WITH THEM, SIR, ARE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE ABLE TO TELL -- THEY ARE ABLE TO TELL WHETHER -- WHEN TIRE TRACKS ARE MADE?

A: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FROM OF THAT QUESTION. HEARSAY, NO FOUNDATION, IT'S HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NO WHAT?

A: I NEVER HEARD ANYONE BE ABLE TO TESTIFY TO THE -- THE AGE OF THE TIRE TRACK.

Q: ALL RIGHT, SIR. NOW, YOU WERE ASKED ALSO BY COUNSEL ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT ANY EXAMINATION WAS DONE ON THE DOG, NICOLE'S AKITA ON HIS TEETH TO SEE IF HE HAD BITTEN ANYONE RECENTLY.

A: YES.

Q: ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY KIND OF EXAMINATION THAT COULD EVER TELL YOU THAT?

A: I'VE NEVER HEARD OF ONE.

Q: NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT -- EARLIER ON CROSS-EXAMINATION AS WELL THAT THE DETECTIVE OR OFFICER HEIDER SPOKE TO SIDNEY SIMPSON, THAT'S THE LITTLE GIRL, NICOLE'S DAUGHTER?

A: ONE OF THE OFFICERS DID, YES. I DON'T RECALL THE NAME.

Q: AND I THINK YOU INDICATED THAT YOU ASKED DENISE BROWN TO SPEAK TO HER, TO SIDNEY?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION. LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

MS. CLARK: IT'S FOUNDATIONAL.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES, I DID.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. AND DID YOU PREPARE A REPORT OF YOUR REQUEST OF DENISE BROWN TO SPEAK TO SIDNEY SIMPSON?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. FIRST OF ALL, WHY DIDN'T YOU WRITE A REPORT OF THAT REQUEST?

A: THE RESULTS OF THE INTERVIEW WERE NEGATIVE. THERE WAS NO REASON TO --

MR. COCHRAN: I OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. WHY DIDN'T YOU HAVE AN OFFICER SPEAK TO SIDNEY?

A: I WAS INFORMED BY DENISE BROWN THAT BOTH CHILDREN WERE UNDER THE CARE OF A CHILD PSYCHOLOGIST AND THEY NOT ONLY THOUGHT IT WOULD NOT BE A GOOD IDEA FOR ME TO INTERVIEW THE CHILDREN, BUT THEY WOULD NOT PERMIT IT.

Q: OKAY. DOES THAT CONTINUE TO BE THE CASE, SIR?

A: TO MY KNOWLEDGE, YES.

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. ALSO, YOU INDICATED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, SIR, THAT YOU HAD -- YOU ASKED DETECTIVE RON PHILLIPS TO SPEAK TO OFFICER VASQUEZ CONCERNING SIDNEY SIMPSON AND THE CONTACT THAT SHE HAD WITH THE OFFICERS AT WEST L.A. STATION BEFORE SHE WAS PICKED UP LATER IN THE MORNING. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: AND YOU INDICATED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT YOU MADE NO REPORT OF DETECTIVE PHILLIPS' CONVERSATION WITH OFFICER VASQUEZ CONCERNING SIDNEY SIMPSON'S BEHAVIOR AT THE STATION. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: WHY WAS THERE NO REPORT WRITTEN CONCERNING SIDNEY SIMPSON'S CONVERSATION OR BEHAVIOR AT THE POLICE STATION?

A: THERE WAS NOTHING MORE TO SAY. THE REPORT HAD ALREADY BEEN WRITTEN.

Q: CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT, SIR?

A: THE REPORT WAS WRITTEN AS TO THE INTERVIEW BY THE FEMALE OFFICER. IT WENT NO FARTHER THAN THAT. FROM THAT, I MADE AN INQUIRY WITH THE BROWN FAMILY.

Q: OKAY. AND THEN -- SO YOU ATTEMPTED TO FOLLOW UP WHAT WAS IN THAT REPORT THROUGH THE BROWN FAMILY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY? SO AFTER YOU READ THAT REPORT, SIR, WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: I CONTACTED THE BROWN FAMILY.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU MADE SOME REQUESTS OF SOMEONE IN THE FAMILY?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS THAT?

A: I REQUESTED THAT DENISE BROWN AND THE FAMILY TALK TO SIDNEY REGARDING THE STATEMENT.

Q: AND DID THEY DO SO, SIR, AT YOUR REQUEST?

A: YES.

Q: AND AS A RESULT OF HAVING DONE SO, WHAT HAPPENED?

A: I RECEIVED A CALL A FEW DAYS AFTER THAT FROM DENISE BROWN, AND SHE STATED THAT SHE --

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION. HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THIS IS HEARSAY.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID THE INFORMATION YOU RECEIVED FROM DENISE BROWN CAUSE YOU TO GENERATE ANY FURTHER REPORT, SIR?

A: NO.

Q: OR CONDUCT ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION, SIR?

A: NO.

Q: OR ATTACH ANY SIGNIFICANCE TO THE REPORT WRITTEN BY OFFICER HEIDER AND VASQUEZ?

A: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT, SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE LAST QUESTION AND ANSWER.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. AT -- WHEN YOU WERE AT ROCKINGHAM, SIR, I BELIEVE YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WERE NEARBY WHEN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS MADE THE PHONE CALL TO CHICAGO TO NOTIFY THE DEFENDANT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WERE -- WHO WERE YOU WITH AT THAT TIME?

A: I WAS IN THE VICINITY OF ARNELLE SIMPSON.

Q: OKAY. NOW, ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, SIR, YOU INDICATED IN RESPONSE TO ONE OF MR. COCHRAN'S QUESTIONS THAT ARNELLE TOLD YOU THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS IN CHICAGO BUT THAT SHE TOLD YOU THAT SUBSEQUENT.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION. THIS IS LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I THOUGHT I MEANT THAT ARNELLE SIMPSON TOLD ME THAT AFTER SHE MADE A TELEPHONE CALL TO CATHY RANDA.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. PRIOR TO THE PHONE CALL THAT ARNELLE MADE TO CATHY RANDA, DID YOU ASK HER THE DEFENDANT'S WHEREABOUTS?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE I DID.

Q: DID SOMEONE ASK HER?

A: I BELIEVE MY PARTNER DID.

Q: OKAY. AND WHAT WAS HER RESPONSE?

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU -- DID SHE GIVE YOU ANY INFORMATION CONCERNING WHERE THE DEFENDANT COULD BE FOUND?

MR. COCHRAN: HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: SHE DIDN'T KNOW.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S HEARSAY. MOVE TO STRIKE IT.

THE COURT: THAT WILL BE STRICKEN. THE QUESTION IS, DID SHE GIVE YOU ANY INFORMATION, YES OR NO.

THE WITNESS: AS TO HIS WHEREABOUTS, NO.

THE COURT: NEXT QUESTION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHEN YOU WERE AT THE LOCATION, SIR, AT THAT TIME, APPROXIMATELY 6:00 A.M., DID YOU GO UPSTAIRS TO LOOK FOR MR. SIMPSON OR ANY POSSIBLE INJURED VICTIMS?

A: NO.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: BY THAT TIME, WE'D BEEN INFORMED THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS IN CHICAGO.

MR. COCHRAN: HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR. OBJECT TO THE FORM.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY?

A: HAD BEEN INFORMED THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS IN CHICAGO. WAS NO NEED TO GO UPSTAIRS.

Q: SO WHEN YOU -- WHEN YOU FIRST ENTERED THE HOUSE, SIR, HOW LONG DID IT TAKE FROM THE POINT OF ENTRY INTO THE HOUSE WITH ARNELLE SIMPSON TO THE POINT WHEN THE PHONE CALL WAS MADE TO TRY TO LOCATE MR. SIMPSON?

A: IT WAS A MATTER OF MINUTES. IT WASN'T A LONG TIME AT ALL.

Q: WAS THERE ANY SEARCH CONDUCTED PRIOR TO THAT PHONE CALL?

A: THE ONLY THING I DID CLOSE TO A SEARCH WAS, I ENTERED THE HOUSEKEEPER'S QUARTERS.

Q: THE MAID'S ROOM?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHY WAS THAT?

A: TO CHECK ON THE WELFARE OF THE HOUSEMAID IF SHE WERE THERE -- IF SHE WAS THERE OR INJURED OR WHATEVER.

Q: SO WHAT EVENTS TRANSPIRED BETWEEN THE TIME YOU ENTERED THROUGH THE REAR DOOR AND YOU MADE THE PHONE CALL TO TRY AND LOCATE MR. SIMPSON?

A: I WALKED THROUGH THE HOUSE THROUGH THE KITCHEN INTO THE MAID'S QUARTERS. I CHECKED THAT. I CAME BACK OUT. ARNELLE SIMPSON WAS IN THE KITCHEN AREA WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, AND AT THAT TIME, THEY WERE MAKING PHONE CALLS.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE, SIR, WHO WAS WITH YOU WHEN YOU FIRST WENT IN THROUGH THE BACK DOOR WITH ARNELLE?

A: DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND I BELIEVE DETECTIVE VANNATTER WAS BEHIND US AND FUHRMAN.

Q: I AM SORRY. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: YES.

Q: WHERE WAS HE?

A: HE WAS BEHIND US WITH KATO KAELIN.

Q: AND THEN YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE MAKING THAT -- EXCUSE ME -- DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WAS MAKING THE PHONE CALL TO -- WAS ON THE PHONE WITH CATHY RANDA AND THEN LATER THE DEFENDANT, WAS MARK FUHRMAN STANDING BY YOU?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE HE WAS.

Q: WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU SAW MARK FUHRMAN PRIOR TO MAKING THE PHONE CALLS?

A: AT THE TIME I ENTERED THE REAR OF THE HOUSE.

Q: AFTER THAT POINT, DID YOU SEE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WHEN YOU WERE -- AT THE TIME THAT THE PHONE CALLS WERE BEING MADE?

A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING HIM AT THE TIME, NO.

Q: WHEN WAS THE NEXT TIME THAT YOU ACTUALLY SAW DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AFTER YOU ALL ENTERED THE HOUSE THROUGH THE REAR DOOR?

A: IT WAS AT THE TIME THAT HE APPROACHED ME.

Q: AND DID WHAT?

A: AND ASKED ME TO STEP OUTSIDE WITH HIM.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU WERE -- DID YOU SEE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH MR. KAELIN?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, WERE YOU AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER THE LEAD INVESTIGATORS THERE THAT NIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: SO DID -- WHAT DID THAT MEAN IN TERMS OF HOW YOU GUIDED THE ACTIONS OF THE OTHER OFFICERS PRESENT?

A: WHAT DID THAT MEAN IN HOW I GUIDED THE OTHER OFFICERS?

Q: YEAH. WERE THEY ALLOWED TO JUST GO AHEAD AND DO ANYTHING THEY WANTED TO INVESTIGATION WISE AT ROCKINGHAM OR AT BUNDY?

A: NO. THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT WE WERE TAKING OVER THE INVESTIGATION.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I MOVE TO STRIKE THAT, "THEY UNDERSTOOD." CALLS FOR SPECULATION, WHAT THEY UNDERSTOOD.

THE COURT: IT'S A CONCLUSION BY THE WITNESS AS TO WHAT THEY UNDERSTOOD. WHY DON'T YOU REASK THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING, SIR, OF WHAT THEIR ABILITY TO INVESTIGATE AND MAKE DECISIONS AT ROCKINGHAM OR AT BUNDY ON THAT NIGHT?

A: THAT THE DECISIONS WOULD BE MADE BY MY PARTNER AND MYSELF.

Q: OKAY. NOW, DID YOU SEE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN GO IN AND SPEAK TO MR. KAELIN?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND DID YOU APPROVE OF HIM DOING SO?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHY?

A: WE HAD MORE AREAS TO CHECK. MR. FUHRMAN WAS IN FRONT OF ME AND HE KNOCKED ON THE DOOR. IT WAS MOST LOGICAL THAT HE SPEAK TO KATO KAELIN.

Q: AND HAD YOU NOT APPROVED OF HIM GOING IN TO SPEAK TO MR. KAELIN, WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE?

A: I WOULD HAVE PREVENTED IT.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION. IT'S NOT RELEVANT. ALSO, IMMATERIAL.

MS. CLARK: HE KNOWS WHAT HE WOULD DO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I WOULD HAVE PREVENTED IT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. SIR, I AM GOING TO ASK YOU A SERIES OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CROSS-EXAMINATION CONCERNING THE CORONER AND SHOW YOU SOME PICTURES.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS GOING TO BE EXHIBIT 45.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. FIRST OF ALL, SIR, YOU SEE THAT ONE WHITE SHOE IN THE BOTTOM PORTION OF THE PHOTOGRAPH?

A: YES.

Q: ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT -- DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF WHETHER THERE WAS ANY BLOOD IN THE AREA OF THAT WHITE SHOE?

A: THERE WAS NONE.

MS. CLARK: NEXT.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: EXHIBIT 45-C.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AGAIN, YOU SEE THE WHITE SHOE IN THE BOTTOM OF THE PHOTOGRAPH?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHOSE SHOE THAT IS?

A: I BELIEVE IT'S THE PHOTOGRAPHER, MR. ROKAHR.

Q: AND DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF WHETHER THERE WAS ANY BLOOD IN THE AREA WHERE THAT SHOE IS IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH?

A: THERE WAS NONE.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: EXHIBIT 45-D.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU SEE THE SHOES IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: AND ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE LOCATION -- WITH THE CONDITION OF THE LOCATION WHERE THOSE SHOES WERE ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH, EARLY MORNING HOURS, JUNE THE 13TH?

A: YES.

Q: ANY BLOOD IN THOSE AREAS, SIR?

A: THE ONLY BLOOD IS --

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. THE PICTURE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. ANYTHING THAT APPEARS TO YOU TO BE BLOOD.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE APPROACH WITH REGARD TO THIS PHOTOGRAPH BECAUSE I THINK IT'S VAGUE, THIS PART OF THE QUESTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MS. CLARK: HOW CAN THE PHOTOGRAPH BE VAGUE?

THE COURT: PROCEED.

MS. CLARK: OH, I AM SORRY.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF THE APPEARANCE OF THE LOCATION WHERE THOSE SHOES ARE SHOWN IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH FROM YOUR OBSERVATION ON THE NIGHT OF -- ON THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE THE 13TH?

A: YES. IT'S THE WALKWAY ABOVE THE BODIES GOING WEST.

Q: OKAY. AND DO YOU RECALL BY LOOKING AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH WHERE ON THAT WALKWAY THESE SHOES ARE?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THERE BLOOD IN THAT AREA, SIR?

A: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, OBJECT. I MOVE TO STRIKE THAT ANSWER, "IN THAT AREA." THAT'S VAGUE.

THE COURT: WHERE THE SHOES ARE WAS THE QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: IN THAT AREA?

THE COURT: WHERE THE SHOES ARE.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, THAT'S -- WELL, THE PICTURE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. I'LL WITHDRAW IT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: THANK YOU. YOU WERE ALSO ASKED, SIR, WHETHER OR NOT THE HANDS OF THE VICTIMS WERE BAGGED.

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WERE THEY BAGGED, SIR?

A: NO.

Q: CAN YOU TELL US, PLEASE, WHY NOT?

A: IT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE THAT ONE WOULD BAG THE HANDS OF A VICTIM WHO'S INVOLVED IN A GUNSHOT FURY TO BE PRESERVED FOR GUNSHOT RESIDUE EXAMINATIONS. THESE HANDS AND THE ENTIRE BODIES WERE PRESERVED IN PLASTIC SHEETS. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY BAGGING OF HANDS OTHER THAN FOR GUNSHOT RESIDUE EXAMINATION.

Q: CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN TO US, SIR, WHAT IS GUNSHOT RESIDUE?

A: GUNSHOT RESIDUE IS POWDER OR MOLTED METAL MATERIALS THAT COULD BE PART OF A BACK BLAST FROM A HANDGUN THAT COULD TRANSFER THEMSELVES IN ONE -- IN ONE'S HAND IF THEY WERE IN CONTACT WITH A FIREARM IF IT WERE -- IF IT WENT OFF.

Q: OKAY. SO WHAT WILL -- WHAT WILL AN EXPERT DETECT IF HE EXAMINES THE HANDS OF A VICTIM WHO HAS BEEN SHOT OR FIRED A WEAPON?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. NO FOUNDATION, HEARSAY, SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: WHETHER THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS THAT THAT PARTICULAR PERSON WOULD HAVE BEEN HOLDING A HANDGUN WHEN IT WAS DISCHARGED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, SIR, BY THE TIME THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR ARRIVED, WAS THERE SOME DETERMINATION MADE AS TO THE CAUSE OF DEATH?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THAT?

A: SLASHING AND STAB WOUNDS.

Q: AND WAS THERE A DETERMINATION MADE WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER OR NOT ANY FIREARM HAD BEEN USED?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THAT?

A: IT'S MY OPINION NONE HAD BEEN USED.

Q: SO WAS THERE ANY REASON TO BAG THE HANDS OF THE VICTIMS?

A: I SAW NONE.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I SAW NONE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, THE ENTIRE BODIES OF THE VICTIMS WERE BAGGED?

A: CORRECT.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THAT?

A: TO PRESERVE ANY TRACE EVIDENCE OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT BE ON THE BODIES TO BE EXAMINED AT THE CORONER'S OFFICE.

Q: AND WOULD -- WOULD THAT PROCEDURE OF BAGGING THE BODIES -- WHAT WOULD THAT DO WITH RESPECT TO ANY TRACE OR FIBER EVIDENCE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ON THE BODY?

A: IT WOULD MAINTAIN IT.

Q: NOW, THE NAIL SCRAPINGS OF THE BLOOD FOUND UNDER NICOLE SIMPSON'S NAILS?

A: YES.

Q: WAS DNA TESTING CONDUCTED ON THOSE SCRAPINGS, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: AND ARE YOU AWARE OF THE RESULTS OF THOSE SCRAPINGS THAT -- THE DNA TESTS ON THE NAIL SCRAPINGS?

A: YES, I AM.

Q: AND DID THAT TESTING REVEAL THE BLOOD TO BE HERS?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: YES.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE THAT.

THE COURT: NO. CALLS FOR HEARSAY. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE LAST QUESTION AND ANSWER. PROCEED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WITH --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID THE RESULTS OF THE TEST OF THE NAIL SCRAPINGS UNDER NICOLE SIMPSON'S NAILS CAUSE YOU TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION INTO ANY OTHER SUSPECT?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, YOU SPOKE EARLIER ABOUT WOUNDS ON THE HANDS OF RON GOLDMAN. DO YOU RECALL THAT, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: AND I THINK YOU ALSO DISCUSSED SCOOPED OUT DIRT IN THE LOCATION THAT WAS NEAR TO HIS BODY?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT IF ANYTHING DID THAT TELL YOU, THE WOUNDS ON THE HANDS AND THE SCOOPED OUT DIRT?

A: IN THE AUTOPSY, I OBSERVED CONTUSIONS AND ABRASIONS TO THE REAR OF THE HANDS OF MR. GOLDMAN, ON THE FINGERS AND TO THE REAR OF THE HAND AREA ITSELF. IT INDICATED TO ME THAT HE WAS PROBABLY INVOLVED IN A DEFENSIVE STRUGGLE AND HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO FIGHT BACK AND THAT HE WAS FLAILING HIS ARMS AND HIS HANDS, VERY POSSIBLY RUNNING THEM INTO THE TREE, PERHAPS THE METAL RUNG FENCE OR ONE OF THE STUMPS, SUSTAINING THOSE WOUNDS. I OBSERVED VERY LITTLE ABRASIONS OR CONTUSIONS DIRECTLY OVER THE KNUCKLES.

Q: WHAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT? I MEAN, WHY WERE YOU LOOKING FOR ABRASIONS OR CONTUSIONS OVER THE TOP OF THE KNUCKLES?

A: IF ONE HAD ABRASIONS OR CONTUSIONS DIRECTLY OVER THE KNUCKLES, IT WOULD INDICATE TO ME THAT PERHAPS THAT PERSON STRUCK THEIR ASSAILANT WITH A CLOSED FIST.

Q: AND DID YOU SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT ON THE HANDS OF RON GOLDMAN THAT -- ANY EVIDENCE THAT WOULD INDICATE TO YOU THAT HE HAD STRUCK THE PERSON WHO ATTACKED HIM WITH A CLOSED FIST?

A: NOTHING TO ME THAT WAS OVERLY SIGNIFICANT. AGAIN, THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF BRUISING, CONTUSIONS AND ABRASIONS ALL OVER THE HAND, BUT MOST OF IT WAS ON THE FINGERS AND THE BACK OF THE HAND.

Q: NOW, WHAT ABOUT THOSE KEYS? YOU FOUND -- YOU INDICATED EARLIER ON DIRECT AND ON CROSS THAT YOU FOUND KEYS NEAR THE BODY OF RON GOLDMAN. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: COUNSEL WAS ASKING YOU WHETHER KEYS COULD BE USED AS A WEAPON. OKAY. NOW, FIRST OF ALL, SIR, HOW MANY CASES HAVE YOU HAD INVOLVING MURDER BY MEANS OF A KNIFE?

A: BY MEANS OF A KNIFE?

Q: UH-HUH. YES.

A: I'D SAY IN EXCESS OF A HUNDRED.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND HOW EFFECTIVE DO YOU THINK A SET OF CAR KEYS OR A SET OF KEYS WOULD BE IN -- TO DEFEND ONE'S SELF AGAINST A KNIFE ATTACK?

A: I WOULD --

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I WOULD -- I WOULDN'T THINK IT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE AT ALL.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, THE FACT THAT YOU FOUND THE KEYS BY THE BODY NEXT TO RON GOLDMAN, DID THAT TELL YOU ANYTHING WITH RESPECT TO OR WHETHER OR NOT THOSE KEYS IN FACT WERE USED IN ANY -- IN ANY WAY AS A WEAPON OR AS A DEFENSIVE MEASURE?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE THEY WERE. I BELIEVE IT INDICATES TO ME THAT THERE'S A STRONG POSSIBILITY MR. GOLDMAN WAS SURPRISED.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY. CAN YOU SAY THAT --

A: IT INDICATES TO ME THE STRONG POSSIBILITY THAT MR. GOLDMAN WAS SURPRISED IN THE ATTACK.

Q: AND DROPPED THE KEYS?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THAT'S LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND AS A RESULT OF BEING SURPRISED, DID WHAT?

A: AND DROPPED THE KEYS.

Q: LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING, SIR, ABOUT THE CONDITION IN WHICH YOU FOUND RON GOLDMAN.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: YOUR HONOR, YOU ARE GOING TO NEED TO CUT THE FEED.

THE COURT: YES.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: THIS IS EXHIBIT 43-E.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT, SIR. LOOK AT THE SHIRT OF MR. GOLDMAN. IS THAT THE CONDITION IN WHICH YOU FOUND HIM, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: THE SHIRT APPEARS TO BE PULLED UP IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, IT DOES.

Q: WHAT IF ANYTHING DID YOU CONCLUDE CONCERNING THE MOVEMENTS OF MR. GOLDMAN BASED ON THE CONDITION OF HIS CLOTHING AND THE POSITION OF THAT SHIRT PULLED UP AS IT IS?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THE FORM. THERE'S NO FOUNDATION FOR THIS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THAT HE WAS IN A DEFENSIVE STRUGGLE AND THAT THE ASSAILANT VERY POSSIBLY HAD GRABBED THAT SHIRT AND PULLED IT UP TO THAT -- TO WHERE YOU SEE IT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WAS THE SHIRT -- WERE THE SLEEVES PULLED OVER HIS HAND OR THE SHIRT PULLED OVER HIS HAND, EITHER HAND OF MR. GOLDMAN?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS PULLED DOWN A BIT.

Q: DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY BASED ON YOUR OBSERVATIONS, SIR, THAT MR. GOLDMAN WAS DRAGGED AT ANY POINT BY THE ASSAILANT AT THE -- AT THAT SCENE?

A: I SAW NO EVIDENCE OF DRAG MARKS, NO.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. YOU WERE ASKED ALSO ABOUT LIVIDITY ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN TO US WHAT THAT IS?

A: WELL, MORTIS LIVIDITY IS THE MOVEMENT OF THE BLOOD AND THE BODY TO ITS LOWEST POINT AFTER DEATH USUALLY OCCURRING WITHIN TWO TO THREE HOURS CAUSED BY A GRAVITATIONAL PULL.

Q: NOW, WHAT DOES LIVIDITY HAVE TO DO WITH THE TIME OF DEATH?

A: THE TIME OF DEATH --

MR. COCHRAN: ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WITHOUT FOUNDATION AT THIS POINT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT DOES LIVIDITY HAVE TO DO WITH THE TIME OF DEATH?

THE COURT: WITHOUT FOUNDATION, COUNSEL.

MS. CLARK: OH, I'M SORRY. HE HEARD YOUR RULING AND I DIDN'T. THAT'S WHY --

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SIR, HOW MANY HOMICIDE CASES HAVE YOU HAD?

A: BEEN INVOLVED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN APPROXIMATELY 250 INVESTIGATIONS.

Q: AND IN EACH OF THOSE CASES, SIR, HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO DISCUSS THE INVESTIGATION WITH THE CORONER?

A: YES.

Q: AND HAVE YOU HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CORONER IN EACH OF THOSE CASES CONCERNING THE SUBJECT OF LIVIDITY?

A: AT TIMES.

Q: HAVE YOU READ ARTICLES OR BOOKS ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF LIVIDITY?

A: YES.

Q: AND HAVE YOU HEARD TESTIMONY FROM CORONERS CONCERNING THE SUBJECT OF LIVIDITY?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, CAN YOU TELL US, SIR, WHAT DOES LIVIDITY HAVE TO DO WITH THE TIME OF DEATH?

A: I KNOW OF NONE.

Q: WHAT IS LIVIDITY USED FOR?

A: LIVIDITY CAN BE USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A PERSON WAS MOVED AFTER THEY'VE BEEN KILLED.

Q: AND HOW IS THAT DETERMINED?

A: AS AN EXAMPLE, IF ONE --

MR. COCHRAN: I OBJECT. NO FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: IF ONE WERE FOUND IN A SUPINE POSITION OR ON THEIR BACK AND LIVIDITY WAS PRESENT OVER THE FRONT PART OF THEIR BODY, IT WOULD INDICATE THAT THEY'D PROBABLY BEEN MOVED AFTER DEATH.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. WAS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT EITHER OF -- EITHER THE BODY OF RON GOLDMAN OR NICOLE BROWN HAD BEEN MOVED AFTER THE TIME OF DEATH?

A: I SAW NONE.

Q: AND WAS ANY BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION BY THE CORONER AT THE TIME OF AUTOPSY?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU MADE YOUR OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING LIVIDITY, SIR, WHERE WERE YOU?

A: I WAS AT THE CRIME SCENE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND I ASSUME THEN YOU WERE EXAM -- THAT WAS BASED ON YOUR OBSERVATIONS -- IT'S GOING TO BE LEADING. YOU MADE OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING LIVIDITY AT THE CRIME SCENE, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: AND WERE THE BODIES OF EITHER RON GOLDMAN OR NICOLE BROWN WASHED OR UNCLOTHED AT THAT TIME?

A: NO.

Q: WERE THEY BOTH CLOTHED?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THE BLOOD THAT WAS IN THE WALKWAY LEADING UP FROM THE SIDEWALK TO THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN, WAS THERE -- YOU KNOW, THE BLOOD THAT TRICKLED DOWN, I THINK YOU INDICATED EARLIER YOU SAW PAW PRINTS IN THAT BLOOD?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. COULD YOU SEE -- WAS THERE AN OBVIOUS SOURCE TO YOU OF THAT BLOOD?

A: THE SOURCE TO ME WAS VICTIM NICOLE BROWN.

Q: HOW MANY AUTOPSIES HAVE YOU ATTENDED, SIR?

A: PERHAPS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF A HUNDRED AND 50, MAYBE MORE.

Q: IS IT -- WHOSE JOB IS IT, SIR, TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT STOMACH CONTENTS SHOULD BE SAVED?

A: CORONER'S OFFICE.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: BEYOND --

THE WITNESS: IT'S THE CORONER'S OFFICE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ARE YOU A DOCTOR, SIR?

A: NO.

Q: IS IT YOUR JOB TO TELL THEM WHAT TO DO WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER YOU SAVE THE STOMACH CONTENTS OR NOT?

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: HAVE YOU EVER TOLD THE CORONER TO SAVE STOMACH CONTENTS OR NOT TO SAVE THEM?

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S IRRELEVANT AND LEADING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, IN YOUR PRESENCE -- WERE YOU PRESENT AT THE AUTOPSIES IN THIS CASE, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU OBSERVE WHAT IF ANYTHING THE CORONER DID WITH RESPECT TO THE STOMACH CONTENT OF RON GOLDMAN AND NICOLE BROWN?

A: NO.

Q: YOU DID NOT OBSERVE THAT?

A: NO. WHAT THEY DID TO THEM SUBSEQUENT?

Q: NO. DURING THE AUTOPSY.

A: I OBSERVED THE CORONERS EXAMINE THE CONTENTS.

Q: OF EACH -- THAT IS FOR RON GOLDMAN AND FOR NICOLE BROWN?

A: YES.

Q: THEY DID THAT IN YOUR PRESENCE, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID THEY DISCUSS THE FINDINGS THAT THEY MADE BASED ON THEIR EXAMINATION OF THE STOMACH CONTENTS WITH YOU?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: WAS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT RON GOLDMAN HAD A FULL STOMACH AT THE TIME OF AUTOPSY?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE WAS THERE. YOU WERE THERE WHEN THIS WAS EXAMINED?

THE WITNESS: YES.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. WAS RON GOLDMAN'S STOMACH FULL AT THE TIME OF AUTOPSY, SIR?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Q: BASED ON THE EXAMINATION OF THE -- WELL, LET ME ASK YOU A DIFFERENT QUESTION. WHY -- YOU INDICATED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT YOU DID NOT INVESTIGATE THE ISSUE AS TO WHEN RON GOLDMAN HAD HIS LAST MEAL. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU TELL US WHY NOT?

A: IT APPEARED TO ME THAT HE HAD JUST LEFT HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS. THE RELEVANCE JUST WASN'T THERE.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: BECAUSE I WASN'T AWARE THAT HE HAD HAD A MEAL. I WAS AWARE THAT HE JUST LEFT HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS. IT REALLY DIDN'T COME INTO PLAY.

Q: WOULDN'T IT HAVE HELPED YOU TO DETERMINE TIME OF DEATH IF YOU HAD FOUND OUT WHEN HE HAD LAST EATEN?

A: IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, I DON'T SEE HOW.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: BECAUSE IT DIDN'T COME INTO PLAY. I WAS MORE CONCERNED WHERE HE'D BEEN PRIOR TO BEING KILLED.

Q: COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT? I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

A: COULD I HAVE THAT QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE?

Q: SURE.

A: MAYBE -- MAYBE I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

Q: YEAH. I ASKED YOU WHY YOU DIDN'T INVESTIGATE INTO WHETHER -- WHAT TIME HE HAD HIS LAST MEAL. I ASKED YOU WHY -- WHY YOU DIDN'T THINK THAT DETERMINATION WOULD HELP YOU TO DETERMINE MORE PRECISELY THE TIME OF DEATH.

A: BECAUSE I KNEW WHERE HE HAD BEEN AT APPROXIMATELY I BELIEVE 9:40 P.M. THAT TO ME WAS IMPORTANT. THE MEAL WASN'T. I KNEW THAT HE -- IT WAS APPARENT TO ME HE HAD GONE HOME AND CHANGED AND WENT TO THE BUNDY LOCATION.

Q: AND WHAT DID THAT HAVE TO DO WITH -- WITH NOT INVESTIGATING WHEN HE HAD HIS LAST MEAL?

A: WHAT DID THAT HAVE TO DO WITH --

Q: RIGHT. WHY DID THAT MAKE DETERMINING WHEN HE HAD HIS LAST MEAL LESS IMPORTANT TO YOU? THE FACT THAT YOU KNEW WHEN HE LEFT HIS PLACE OF WORK --

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THIS QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: -- WHAT DID THAT HAVE TO DO WITH IT?

MR. COCHRAN: COUNSEL IS CROSS-EXAMINING THE WITNESS.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I'M SORRY. COULD YOU REPEAT THAT?

Q: BY MS. CLARK: YES. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT BECAME LAST IMPORTANT TO FIND OUT WHEN RON GOLDMAN HAD HIS LAST MEAL BECAUSE YOU KNEW WHEN HE LEFT HIS PLACE OF WORK.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION. VAGUE. THIS IS --

THE COURT: DO YOU UNDERSTAND -- HOLD ON. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION?

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW IF I FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS. NO.

THE COURT: IT'S VAGUE.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. IT MUST BE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU SAID THAT YOU -- ALL RIGHT, SIR. YOU WERE ASKED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT -- QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER YOU INVESTIGATED INTO -- TO FIND OUT WHEN RON GOLDMAN HAD HIS LAST MEAL IN ORDER TO PINPOINT HIS TIME OF DEATH.

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE IN ALL HOMICIDE CASES, HOW PRECISE IS -- IS THE DETERMINATION OF TIME OF DEATH BASED ON THE ANALYSIS OF STOMACH CONTENT?

A: IT'S NOT PRECISE.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. JUST A MOMENT. OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. I WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THAT. BEYOND THE SCOPE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: THERE'S NO FOUNDATION. BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS WITNESS' EXPERTISE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE SAID IT'S NOT PRECISE. THAT DOESN'T TELL US A LOT EITHER WAY. ANSWER WILL STAND. PROCEED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, SIR, AND BASED ON THE PRIOR HOMICIDE EXPERIENCE YOU'VE HAD, WHAT IS THE MOST NARROW TIME FRAME YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO BE GIVEN BY A CORONER BASED ON THE ANALYSIS OF STOMACH CONTENTS?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT. IRRELEVANT AND MATERIAL AS TO WHAT'S HAPPENED. I WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THAT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: AS TO TIME OF DEATH, I'VE NEVER KNOWN TIME OF DEATH TO BE UNDER TWO TO THREE HOURS.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. NOW, I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT STOMACH CONTENTS.

A: STOMACH CONTENTS?

Q: YEAH. STOMACH CONTENTS ALONE.

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST ANSWER.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE LAST QUESTION AND ANSWER. IT'S NONRESPONSIVE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE, SIR, HUNDREDS OF HOMICIDE CASES, HOW MANY -- HOW PRECISE CAN THE CORONER -- HAS THE CORONER EVER BEEN WITH RESPECT TO TIME OF DEATH BASED SOLELY ON THE ANALYSIS OF STOMACH CONTENTS?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: HAS IT EVER BEEN YOUR EXPERIENCE THAT A CORONER HAS BEEN ABLE TO PINPOINT THE TIME OF DEATH BASED ON THE ANALYSIS OF STOMACH CONTENT?

A: NEVER.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION. IT'S LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION.

THE COURT: THAT'S OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NEVER.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NEVER?

A: I'VE NEVER HEARD OF THAT.

Q: SO WHEN YOU DETERMINE THAT -- DID YOU MAKE SOME DETERMINATION BASED ON YOUR INVESTIGATION AS TO WHEN RON GOLDMAN WAS LAST SEEN ALIVE?

A: YES.

Q: BY THE PUBLIC.

A: BY THE PUBLIC?

Q: BY OTHER PEOPLE.

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WHEN DID YOU DETERMINE THAT TO BE?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. IT'S WITHOUT FOUNDATION. IT'S SPECULATION.

THE COURT: WELL, WE'VE ALREADY HAD TESTIMONY FROM THE PEOPLE FROM MEZZALUNA. COUNSEL, I MEAN -- I'M MAKING THAT POINT TO MISS CLARK. DON'T WE ALREADY HAVE THAT IN THE RECORD, WHEN HE WAS LAST SEEN?

MS. CLARK: THIS IS JUST FOUNDATIONAL, YOUR HONOR, TO -- I MEAN --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PROCEED. HE'S ALREADY TESTIFIED TO THE TIME THOUGH.

MS. CLARK: HE HAS?

THE COURT: I THOUGHT HE SAID 9:40.

MS. CLARK: OH, OKAY.

THE COURT: ABOUT THREE MINUTES AGO.

MS. CLARK: I'M GETTING LOST IN MY OWN SHUFFLE.

THE COURT: OKAY.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. YOU DETERMINED THE TIME THAT MR. GOLDMAN LEFT MEZZALUNA, CORRECT?

A: APPROXIMATELY, YES.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU -- DID YOU ALSO DETERMINE FROM THE FIRST OFFICER ON THE SCENE WHEN HE -- HIS BODY WAS FOUND?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THE TIME LAPSE BETWEEN THOSE TWO TIMES, WHEN HE WAS LAST SEEN AND WHEN HIS BODY WAS FOUND?

A: APPROXIMATELY TWO HOURS AND 30 MINUTES.

Q: OKAY. WHAT IS THE MOST -- IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, SIR, HAVE YOU EVER HAD A CORONER TESTIFY TO A PRECISE TIME OF DEATH TO THE MINUTE?

A: NEVER.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: IRRELEVANT, IMMATERIAL, CALLS FOR SPECULATION, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NEVER.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT IS -- IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, HAS A CORONER BEEN ABLE TO DO IN TERMS OF TIME FRAME IN ANY HOMICIDE CASE YOU'VE EVER HANDLED?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, OBJECT TO WHAT THE CORONER COULD DO.

THE COURT: I THINK WE OUGHT TO HAVE THE CORONER TELL US ABOUT THIS.

MS. CLARK: WELL, YOUR HONOR, IT WAS GONE INTO ON CROSS-EXAMINATION.

THE COURT: NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

MS. CLARK: THIS IS THE LAST QUESTION.

THE COURT: THE LAST QUESTION?

MS. CLARK: ON THIS AREA.

THE COURT: WHAT'S THE LAST QUESTION?

MS. CLARK: ON THE CORONER ISSUE. WHAT'S THE -- WHAT WAS IT?

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT IS -- IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, WHAT IS THE NARROWEST TIME FRAME THE CORONER HAS BEEN ABLE TO GIVE YOU WITH RESPECT TO TIME OF DEATH?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THAT'S REALLY VAGUE BECAUSE THAT DEPENDS ON SO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS. EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE IS DIFFERENT.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHY -- I'M JUST ASKING FOR -- IN HIS EXPERIENCE, WHAT'S THE BEST HE'S EVER BEEN ABLE TO DO.

MR. COCHRAN: THE COURT'S RULED.

THE COURT: I KNOW. I THINK IT'S VAGUE AT THIS POINT. THERE'S A 352 OBJECTION. BECAUSE THEN HE'S GOT TO TELL US WHAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IN THAT CASE.

MS. CLARK: LET ME ASK A DIFFERENT ONE THEN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ASK A DIFFERENT LAST QUESTION.

MS. CLARK: A DIFFERENT LAST QUESTION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. YOU DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS A TIME FRAME OF APPROXIMATELY TWO AND A HALF HOURS BETWEEN THE TIME RON GOLDMAN WAS LAST SEEN AND HIS BODY WAS FOUND; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: HAS THE CORONER IN YOUR EXPERIENCE EVER TESTIFIED TO A TIME RANGE LESS THAN THAT --

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: -- AS TO TIME OF DEATH?

MR. COCHRAN: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE MOVE ON?

Q: BY MS. CLARK: MR. COCHRAN ASKED YOU ON CROSS-EXAMINATION SEVERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT TIME THE CORONER WAS CALLED. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

A: YES.

Q: BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE, SIR, IF YOU HAD CALLED THE CORONER AT 4:30 WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE, COULD THE CORONER HAVE TOLD YOU WHETHER THE MURDER OCCURRED AT 10:15, 10:30 -- 10:15 VERSUS 10:30 VERSUS 10:45?

A: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM. JUST A MOMENT. CALLS FOR SPECULATION. MOVE TO STRIKE THE ANSWER.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. HOLD ON. SUSTAINED. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE LAST QUESTION AND ANSWER.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH?

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE APPROACH?

THE COURT: SURE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT SIDEBAR.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, WHEN WE WERE HERE BEFORE -- I ASKED TO COME FIRST. YOUR HONOR, WHEN WE WERE HERE BEFORE, I ASKED YOUR HONOR TO ADMONISH DETECTIVE LANGE. AND THE JURY -- IF YOU WATCH THE JURY, THEY'RE NOT IMPRESSED WITH THIS. HE KEEPS VOLUNTEERING ANSWERS. THIS IS AN EXPERIENCED WITNESS. AND I ASKED YOU BEFORE TO ADMONISH HIM TO STOP ANSWERING QUESTIONS THAT QUICKLY. THIS IS SOME KIND OF A ROUTINE THEY'VE ADOPTED. I THINK IT'S UNFAIR. HE'S DONE THAT THREE OR FOUR TIMES TODAY. IT'S NOT RIGHT, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD ASK YOU TO ADMONISH HIM.

THE COURT: I THINK THE ANSWER WAS YES, WHICH HARDLY IS VOLUNTEERING INFORMATION.

MR. COCHRAN: BUT, YOUR HONOR, THERE WAS AN OBJECTION. AND THIS IS AN EXPERIENCED WITNESS. HE'S VOLUNTEERING -- BECAUSE HE KNOWS NOT TO ANSWER UNTIL THERE'S A RULING. HE'S BEEN AN OFFICER 28 YEARS. HE KNOWS NOT TO ANSWER UNTIL YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO RULE.

THE COURT: I'LL INSTRUCT HIM.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: YES. COUNSEL WENT INTO SOME LENGTH, GREAT LENGTH --

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, EXCUSE ME. LET ME JUST CUT TO THE CHASE. FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING. THE CHASE IS, YOU'RE ASKING HIM QUESTIONS CALLING FOR HIM TO SPECULATE ABOUT WHAT CORONERS DO AND TESTIFY TO, AND THAT'S REALLY NOT -- THAT'S BEYOND HIS EXPERTISE. TELLING US WHAT CORONERS TESTIFY TO IS HEARSAY AND IT'S SPECULATION.

MS. CLARK: I UNDERSTAND. AND THE ONLY REASON I'M EVEN GOING INTO IT -- I MEAN THERE'S NO ARGUMENT WITH THAT, YOUR HONOR. BUT HIS STATE OF MIND IN THIS SITUATION HAS BEEN CALLED INTO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION, ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO WHEN THE CORONER WAS CALLED. BUT HIS KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING --

THE COURT: WAIT. ISN'T THE LOGICAL QUESTION IF YOU HAD CALLED --

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: NO. HOLD ON, MR. COCHRAN. THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD BE OF INTEREST HERE IS THAT. IF HE COULD HAVE CALLED HIM AT 4:30, HOW LONG WOULD IT HAVE BEEN BEFORE THEY COULD HAVE MOVED THE BODY? THE ONLY POINT IS, IF HE COULD HAVE CALLED HIM AT 4:30, WHETHER OR NOT THEY COULD HAVE MORE EASILY DETERMINED CAUSE OF DEATH OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. BEYOND THIS WITNESS' SCOPE OF EXPERTISE.

MS. CLARK: WELL, NOT REALLY. IN THIS -- JUST IN THIS -- WELL --

THE COURT: YES, IT IS.

MS. CLARK: LET ME -- I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT WHAT HIS UNDERSTANDING WAS, HIS BELIEF. YOU KNOW, PART OF THE ISSUE IS WHAT THE COURT HAS POINTED OUT, THAT, YOU KNOW -- BUT THE OTHER PART OF THE ISSUE IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE HOMICIDE COP, THAT NO MATTER -- WHETHER IT'S ALREADY WHAT, FOUR HOURS, SINCE THE BODIES HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED, NO MATTER WHETHER HE CALLS THEM NOW OR HE CALLS THEM AT THREE OR FOUR HOURS FROM NOW, THEY'RE STILL NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GIVE A BETTER RANGE THAN TWO OR THREE HOURS.

THE COURT: HE'S NOT QUALIFIED TO TELL US THAT.

MS. CLARK: ALL HE'S SAYING -- I'M NOT EVEN ASKING FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER HERE. I'M SAYING, WHAT HIS STATE OF MIND IS, HE KNOWS CERTAIN THINGS AND THAT BASED ON HIS KNOWLEDGE, HE CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION A CERTAIN WAY. COUNSEL HAS GONE INTO GREAT LENGTH TO IMPEACH THAT STATE OF MIND AND HIS EXPERTISE, AND HE HAS A REASON FOR WHAT HE DID. WHETHER HE'S RIGHT OR WRONG DOESN'T MATTER. IT'S WHETHER IT'S TRUE OR NOT.

THE COURT: I'LL SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION BECAUSE IT'S BEYOND THIS GUY'S EXPERTISE TO TESTIFY TO THIS.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: IT'S NOT EVEN BASED ON STATE OF MIND.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE FINISH? HOW LONG? WILL IT BE THE REST OF THE MORNING?

THE COURT: I ASSUME SO.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE LANGE, WHEN YOU HEAR ONE OF THE PARTIES MAKING AN OBJECTION, WOULD YOU PLEASE WAIT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION UNTIL I'VE HAD A CHANCE TO RULE ON THE OBJECTION?

THE WITNESS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT, SIR. IF YOU HAD CALLED THE CORONER AT 4:30 A.M. WHEN YOU FIRST ARRIVED AT THE SCENE, COULD YOU HAVE ALLOWED THE CORONER INTO THE CRIME SCENE TO EXAMINE AND REMOVE THE BODIES?

A: NO.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: BECAUSE AT THAT TIME, WE HADN'T COMPLETED OUR CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION.

Q: NOW, YOU ALSO INDICATED THAT YOU SAW CANDLES BURNING INSIDE THE RESIDENCE WHEN YOU LOOKED INSIDE 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT TIME THOSE CANDLES WERE LIT?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW BIG THEY WERE AT THE TIME THEY WERE LIT?

A: NO.

Q: HOW FAST OR SLOW THOSE KIND OF CANDLES BURN?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHETHER YOU CAN TELL A CANDLE BURNING FOR TWO HOURS, HOW DIFFERENT IT LOOKS FROM A CANDLE BURNING TWO HOURS AND 15 MINUTES?

A: I WOULD HAVE NO IDEA.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU INDICATED THAT YOU DID NOT CONSIDER THE ICE CREAM TO BE IMPORTANT OR YOU DIDN'T CONSIDER IT TO BE EVIDENCE. DO YOU --

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE SUMMARY, YOUR HONOR. OBJECT TO THE SUMMARY. LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU RECALL TESTIFYING TO THAT IN RESPONSE TO ONE OF MR. COCHRAN'S QUESTIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: TO WHICH THERE'S AN OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. MR. COCHRAN, OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US, PLEASE, WHY YOU DID NOT CONSIDER IT TO BE EVIDENCE?

A: I WAS AWARE THAT SMALL CHILDREN LIVED AT THE LOCATION AND THEY COULD VERY POSSIBLY BE EATING ICE CREAM, LEAVE OUT HALF-EATEN ICE CREAM. THE CUP ITSELF WAS NOT IN THE VICINITY OF THE BODIES OR THE CRIME SCENE. IT WAS IN THE REAR OF THE LOCATION. IT WAS IN A SECURED AREA AT THE REAR OF THE LOCATION. IT WAS UNCLEAR WHETHER IT WAS MELTED OR MELTING ICE CREAM, BUT LUMPY. LUMPY DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN MELTED, AND I JUST HAD -- HAD NO TIE-IN TO WHAT OCCURRED IN THE FRONT OF THE LOCATION.

Q: OKAY. WELL, IF YOU HAD -- IF YOU HAD PHOTOGRAPHED THE ICE CREAM, WOULD THAT HAVE GIVEN US -- WHAT KIND OF EVIDENCE WOULD THAT BE FOR US IN TERMS OF ITS MELTED OR FROZEN CONDITION?

MR. COCHRAN: THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION. WE DON'T HAVE ANY --

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU -- COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THE ICE CREAM HAD LUMPS IN IT?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION. IT'S THIS WITNESS' --

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. AT THIS TIME -- WHICH TIME?

MS. CLARK: OH, I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: WHEN HE LOOKED AT IT, WERE THERE LUMPS IN IT? HAD THERE BEEN A PHOTOGRAPH, COULD YOU TELL THERE WERE LUMPS IN IT? VAGUE. WHAT?

MS. CLARK: SHOULD I PICK ONE OF THEM?

THE COURT: I CAN THINK OF THREE MORE.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU -- WHEN YOU OBSERVED THE ICE CREAM, SIR, ON THE REAR BANISTER, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT HAD LUMPS IN IT OR CHUNKS IN IT?

A: APPEARED TO ME THAT THERE MIGHT BE A MALT -- A LUMPY AREA INSIDE, YES.

Q: AND DID YOU CONDUCT SOME INVESTIGATION INTO WHAT KIND OF ICE CREAM IT WAS?

A: YES.

Q: AND HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THE KIND OF ICE CREAM SOLD BY BEN AND JERRY'S KNOWN AS CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIE DOUGH?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM. THAT'S LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

THE COURT: IT IS. SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU -- HAVE YOU HEARD OF CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIE DOUGH?

THE COURT: WHAT INVESTIGATION DID YOU DO WITH REGARD TO THE ICE CREAM?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION.

MS. CLARK: WELL, I DID THAT ONE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I JUST WANT TO MOVE THIS ALONG, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: I UNDERSTAND, BUT --

Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU CONDUCTED -- YOU CONDUCTED SOME INVESTIGATION CONCERNING THE ICE CREAM THAT WAS FOUND IN THAT BEN AND JERRY'S CUP, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE WHAT KIND WAS IN THAT CUP?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT KIND WAS IT?

A: CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIE DOUGH.

MR. COCHRAN: JUST A MOMENT. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. WITHOUT FOUNDATION AT THIS POINT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: HOW DID YOU CONDUCT THAT INVESTIGATION? WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: I CONTACTED THE BROWN FAMILY AND INQUIRED OF THEM IF THEY WOULD SPEAK WITH THE CHILDREN.

Q: NOW, YOU -- DID YOU, BASED ON THAT INVESTIGATION, MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO OBSERVE A PARTICULAR KIND OF ICE CREAM?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S VAGUE, YOUR HONOR. VAGUE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND WHAT KIND OF ICE CREAM DID YOU PICK OUT TO OBSERVE?

A: CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIE DOUGH.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU OBSERVE ABOUT THAT ICE CREAM?

A: THAT AFTER IT HAD MELTED --

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THIS QUESTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THAT AFTER IT HAD MELTED, IT APPEARED TO BE LUMPY.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU INDICATED, SIR, IN YOUR GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, IT WAS POINTED OUT SOMETHING REGARDING THE LIGHTING ON THE PORCH AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WERE REFERRED TO PAGE 292. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO REFER BACK TO THAT PASSAGE THAT WAS POINTED OUT TO YOU BY COUNSEL ON CROSS-EXAMINATION AND ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE KNOW WHAT HE'S REFERRING TO?

THE COURT: PAGE 292.

MS. CLARK: 292 FROM LINES 16 DOWN TO THE BOTTOM.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

THE WITNESS: YES.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, YOU INDICATE -- TELL ME, SIR, ARE THESE YOUR ANSWERS AND RESPONSES TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS? LINE 16: "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 ON 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." FIRST OF ALL, SIR, WITH RESPECT TO THOSE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THOSE AS HAVING BEEN POSED TO YOU AND THOSE BEING YOUR ANSWERS AT THE GRAND JURY?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT WALKWAY ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

A: THE WALKWAY THAT PROCEEDS ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE WESTERLY, EAST-WEST PAST THE FRONT ENTRANCE.

Q: ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE WALKWAY AT THE TOP OF THE STEPS OR THE WALKWAY THAT LEADS DOWN TO THE SIDEWALK?

A: THE TOP OF THE STEPS NEAR THE FRONT ENTRANCE.

Q: SO THE PORCH LIGHT THAT YOU REFERRED TO, SIR, REFERRED TO IN THAT PASSAGE, DID IT ILLUMINATE THE BODIES OF THE VICTIMS IN ANY WAY?

A: NO.

Q: DID IT ILLUMINATE THE FRONT WALKWAY THAT GOES FROM THE STEPS DOWN TO THE SIDEWALK, 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

A: NO.

Q: NOW --

MS. CLARK: WELL, MAYBE WE SHOULD START THE VIDEO.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: IN TH