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

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(PAGES 17939 THROUGH 17951, VOLUME 102A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

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

MS. CLARK: MAY I APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT? I HAD A VERY URGENT, SERIOUS MATTER COME UP THIS MORNING.

THE COURT: I WAITED.

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY?

THE COURT: I WAITED. THERE'S A COLD SEASON GOING AROUND.

MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY?

THE COURT: THERE'S A COLD AND FLU SEASON GOING AROUND.

MS. CLARK: OH, YES. ONLY MY HOUSE.

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. THE DEFENDANT IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY, PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK, MR. DARDEN, MISS LEWIS. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. COUNSEL, IS THERE ANYTHING WE NEED TO ADDRESS BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO JOIN US FOR THE CONCLUSION OF DETECTIVE LANGE'S TESTIMONY? I THINK DETECTIVE LANGE ANTICIPATES RETIRING ONE OF THESE DAYS.

MS. CLARK: I THINK HE WANTS TO KEEP GOING. HE'S SO USED TO IT, HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO GO BACK TO RHD.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S START. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

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

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR, WITH THE REPORTER?

THE COURT: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, THERE'S A YOUNG LADY WHOSE TAKING IT OFF NOW, WEARING THAT PIN, ANGEL PIN. I WANTED TO HAVE HER TAKE THAT PIN OFF.

THE COURT: THAT'S WHAT IT WAS?

MR. COCHRAN: YES.

THE COURT: THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WE'RE HERE?

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE. IT'S A VIOLATION OF YOUR ORDER, ISN'T IT?

THE COURT: YES. THANK YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. HAVING TO START THE MORNING WITH A SIDEBAR CONFERENCE, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A GOOD SIGN. ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT DETECTIVE TOM LANGE IS AGAIN ON OUR WITNESS STAND. HE IS ON RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN.

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

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE LANGE.

THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: DETECTIVE, YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONCLUDE YOUR RECROSS-EXAMINATION.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR. APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE LANGE. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: DETECTIVE LANGE, HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO SPEAK TO MISS CLARK ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY SINCE YOU'VE BEEN OFF THE STAND YESTERDAY?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE WE SPOKE.

Q: YOU NEVER SPOKE LAST NAME --

A: I SAW HER BRIEFLY LAST NIGHT. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION.

Q: YOU HAD SOME BRIEF DISCUSSION LAST NIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT'S ABOUT YOUR RE-REDIRECT?

A: NO. IT WAS MORE OR LESS WHAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY IN COURT REGARDING YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

Q: OKAY. SO YOU JUST DISCUSSED THAT. VERY WELL. THAT WAS LAST NIGHT UP IN HER OFFICE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I SAW HER BRIEFLY IN HER OFFICE, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT, SIR. NOW, YESTERDAY, YOU MENTIONED SEEING A VIDEO LAST FRIDAY WHEREIN YOU SAW SOME CANDLES BURNING I PRESUME INSIDE THE LIVING ROOM AREA OF THE BUNDY ADDRESS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT WAS A VIDEO FROM A -- SOME T.V. PHOTOGRAPHER OR VIDEO CAMERA, IS THAT CORRECT, THAT YOU COULD TELL?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS BLANKET THAT WE SAW IN THE VIDEO WE SHOWED YOU YESTERDAY. DO YOU KNOW WHERE THAT BLANKET CAME FROM?

A: I BELIEVE THE INSIDE OF THE HOUSE.

Q: SO IT WAS THE VIDEO THAT WAS -- IT WAS -- STRIKE THAT. IT WAS A BLANKET INSIDE THE BROWN SIMPSON HOME; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND IT WAS TAKEN OUT OF THERE? DO YOU KNOW WHAT KIND OF MATERIAL THIS BLANKET WAS MADE OF?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS COTTON.

Q: AND WHO TOOK THIS BLANKET OUT AND PUT IT OVER THE BODY? WHO DID THAT?

A: I DID IT.

Q: AND WHERE DID YOU FIND THIS BLANKET, SIR?

A: INSIDE THE HOUSE.

Q: I UNDERSTAND THAT. WHEREABOUTS FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE?

A: I BELIEVE SOMEONE MIGHT HAVE RETRIEVED IT FOR ME FROM UPSTAIRS SOMEWHERE. I DON'T RECALL.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO ALL YOU KNOW, IT WAS BROUGHT DOWN TO YOU AND THEN YOU THEN USED IT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE SO, YES.

Q: AND AS I UNDERSTAND FROM YOUR TESTIMONY YESTERDAY AND LOOKING AT THE VIDEO, THE LAST TIME YOU SAW THAT BLANKET WAS LEFT ON THE GROUND WHEN YOU LEFT THE LOCATION ABOUT 12:00 O'CLOCK ON JUNE 13TH; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, YESTERDAY, YOU SHARED WITH US SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT WHEN YOU WERE SEARCHING THE CONDO IN THIS SUPERFICIAL SEARCH FOR DRUG MATERIAL AND I THINK YOU SAID YOU LOOKED AROUND THE CONDO; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I DID.

Q: DID YOU EVER ACTUALLY LOOK INSIDE ANY DRAWERS IN ANY OF THE ROOMS YOURSELF?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE I DID ON THAT PARTICULAR MORNING.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU SEARCH THROUGH ANY CLOSETS ON THAT PARTICULAR MORNING, JUNE 13TH?

A: I DID LOOK IN THE CLOSETS. AS FAR AS ACTUALLY SEARCHING AND REMOVING ITEMS, NO, BUT I DID LOOK IN CLOSETS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU SEARCH IN THE GARAGE AREA IN ANY CABINETS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN LOCATED IN THAT GARAGE AREA, SIR?

A: I DID NOT ENTER ANY CABINETS, NO.

Q: DID YOU SEARCH UNDER THE BEDS OR ANY OF THE MATTRESS UNDER THE BED AT ALL?

A: I BELIEVE I PEERED UNDER THE BED. I DON'T RECALL.

Q: AND WITH REGARD TO THE PHOTOGRAPHER YESTERDAY -- WE HAD A VIDEO -- IS MR. ROKAHR A SWORN POLICE PERSONNEL?

A: NO.

Q: HE'S A PHOTOGRAPHER HIRED BY WHAT DIVISION?

A: HE'S ASSIGNED TO SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION.

Q: IS HE A FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE, IF YOU KNOW?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE ANYMORE. I BELIEVE HE'S OFF WITH A HEALTH PROBLEM.

Q: ALL RIGHT. HE'S NOT THERE NOW, BUT HE WAS BACK IN JUNE OF COURSE, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: WAS HE FULL-TIME AT THAT TIME, SIR?

A: I BELIEVE HE WAS.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO YESTERDAY, WE TALKED BRIEFLY ABOUT DRUG KILLINGS AND ASKED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THEM. YOU HAVE FOUND IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, HAVE YOU NOT, THAT VERY OFTEN, WHEN A DRUG KILLING IS TO SEND A MESSAGE, THEY'RE ALSO CRIMES OF RAGE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: WHEN A MESSAGE IS SENT?

Q: YES. WHEN THE MESSAGE -- WHEN THE KILLING IS TO SEND A MESSAGE, THEY'RE VERY OFTEN CRIMES OF RAGE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: WELL, I GUESS THAT IS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.

Q: WELL, SIR, I IMAGINE EVERYTHING IS AS YOU'VE SHARED YOUR INTERPRETATION WITH US. I'M ASKING YOU NOW ABOUT DRUG KILLINGS. IT'S TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT SOMETIMES WHEN YOU HAVE THIS COLOMBIAN NECKLACE KILLINGS WE TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY, THEY'RE CRIMES OF RAGE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I NEVER HANDLED A COLOMBIAN NECKLACE KILLING. I WOULD IMAGINE, HOWEVER, IF SOMEONE WERE TO KILL SOMEONE, THAT THERE CERTAINLY WOULD BE SOME RAGE INVOLVED TO THAT EXTENT.

Q: AND WHERE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT OVERKILL, SOMETIMES YOU SEE IN THESE CRIMES OF MESSAGE THERE'S OVERKILL ALSO; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, AT ROCKINGHAM, YOU SPOKE ABOUT THE BRONCO, AND I THINK AT ONE POINT YOU TALKED ABOUT A LEFT-HAND SIDE DOOR HANDLE. DO YOU RECALL YOUR TESTIMONY IN THAT REGARD?

A: YES.

Q: DOESN'T MEAN SOMEONE COULDN'T OPEN THE DOOR WITH THEIR RIGHT HAND, DOES IT?

A: THEY COULD, BUT IT WOULD BE IN AN AWKWARD ACKWARD POSITION.

Q: SO YOUR ANSWER IS, IT COULD BE OPENED WITH THE RIGHT HAND OR EITHER HAND; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. MISSTATES HIS TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, IN THAT CONNECTION, SIR, YOU ALSO SHARED WITH US THAT YOU BELIEVED THAT AT THE TIME I BELIEVE YOU FIRST SAW THIS ERASER HEAD SIZE SPOT ON THE BRONCO THAT THE DOORS OF THE BRONCO WERE LOCKED. DID YOU SO INDICATE?

A: I BELIEVE THEY WERE LOCKED.

Q: DID YOU EVER CHECK THE HANDLE? DID YOU GO AND TOUCH THE HANDLE WITH YOUR LEFT HAND SO IT WOULDN'T BE AWKWARD AND MAKE A DETERMINATION WHETHER THOSE DOORS WERE LOCKED?

A: I NEVER TOUCHED THE VEHICLE.

Q: SO THAT WAS JUST YOUR BELIEF THAT IT WAS LOCKED. YOU NEVER CHECKED IT AT THAT POINT, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID YOU LOOK INSIDE THAT BRONCO EITHER WITH A NAKED EYE OR A FLASHLIGHT, LOOK INSIDE TO SEE IF YOU SAW ANY BLOOD INSIDE THERE AT THAT POINT ON JUNE 13TH?

A: I PEERED IN THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE AND OBSERVED SOME ITEMS IN THE REAR. I DID NOT PEER INTO THE FRONT.

Q: I COULDN'T HEAR YOUR -- YOU DROPPED YOUR VOICE.

A: I DID NOT PEER INTO THE FRONT. I PEERED INTO THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE AND OBSERVED SOME ITEMS IN THE REAR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU WERE ASKED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WHEN ARNELLE TOLD YOU THAT HER FATHER WAS IN CHICAGO. IN THE STATEMENT THAT I READ TO YOU BEFORE -- AND I'LL BE GLAD TO SHOW IT TO YOU AGAIN. IN THAT STATEMENT THAT WAS WRITTEN BY YOU IN YOUR REPORT, YOU INDICATED THAT MISS ARNELLE SIMPSON SAID THAT HER FATHER WAS IN CHICAGO; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IN THAT STATEMENT, YOU DON'T MENTION ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT CATHY RANDA OR WHAT YOU HEARD FROM CATHY RANDA, DO YOU?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE I DO.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THIS PARTICULAR CASE, ARE YOU AWARE THAT WHEN MR. SIMPSON RETURNED FROM CHICAGO VOLUNTARILY AND ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM, HE WAS IMMEDIATELY HANDCUFFED BY THE POLICE THERE? ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT?

A: I HAD SEEN THAT, YES.

Q: YOU SAW THAT ON VIDEO?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU WEREN'T THERE AT THAT POINT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU WERE AT OR ABOUT THAT TIME STILL, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, YOU WERE AT BUNDY AND THEN YOU THEN WENT DOWNTOWN TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION WITH MR. SIMPSON; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DO YOU KNOW IF HE WAS HANDCUFFED WHEN HE WENT DOWNTOWN?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE HE WAS.

Q: HE WAS HANDCUFFED AT THE SCENE, CORRECT?

A: WHEN HE INITIALLY ARRIVED, I BELIEVE ONE OF THE OFFICERS ON THE PERIMETER DID HANDCUFF HIM BRIEFLY, YES.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO -- YOU MENTIONED THAT MR. O.J. SIMPSON HAD A CUT FINGER ON HIS LEFT HAND; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND HE GAVE YOU AN EXPLANATION OF HOW HE GOT THAT CUT ON HIS LEFT HAND; DID HE NOT? HE CAN ANSWER THAT YES OR NO.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: DID HE GIVE AN EXPLANATION, YES OR NO.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE YOU WERE GOING TO CHECK ON SOMETHING ANYHOW ON THIS YESTERDAY. MAY WE APPROACH?

THE COURT: YES.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, HOW MANY TIMES DOES THE COURT HAVE TO MAKE A RULING? YOU KNOW, COUNSEL WENT AHEAD AND ASKED THE QUESTION IN FRONT OF THE JURY WITHOUT ASKING TO APPROACH THE BENCH. IF COUNSEL WANTED TO DO SOMETHING TO OVERCOME THE RULING THAT THE COURT MADE YESTERDAY -- WHICH IS BY THE WAY A STANDARD RULING MADE IN EVERY CRIMINAL COURT IN THIS LAND, THAT HIS ATTEMPT TO GET IN THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT IS HEARSAY, IS ABSOLUTELY ACCEPTED BY ALL ATTORNEYS WHERE COUNSEL CAN'T CLAIM HE DID NOT KNOW THAT. THIS IS DESPICABLE. THIS IS REPREHENSIBLE BEHAVIOR. THE COURT MADE ITS RULING THAT IT'S HEARSAY, AND COUNSEL INSISTED ON APPROACHING THE BENCH TO BROACH THE SUBJECT MATTER BEFORE HE RAISED IT AGAIN AND NOW HE'S DELIBERATELY DONE THE EXACT OPPOSITE, RAISED IT IN FRONT OF THE JURY WITHOUT TRYING TO ASK THE COURT FOR SOME RELIEF FROM ITS PRIOR RULING, WHICH BY THE WAY IS A RULING THAT I HAVE NEVER SEEN MADE DIFFERENTLY IN ANY COURT.

MR. COCHRAN: I ASKED TO APPROACH -- COUNSEL KEEPS MAKING THESE MACHINATIONS.

MS. CLARK: AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO CITE COUNSEL FOR MISCONDUCT.

MR. COCHRAN: -- AT THE END OF THE DAY YESTERDAY. ALL I ASKED -- THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER OR NOT -- SHE BRINGS OUT, YOUR HONOR, THIS LAWYER, THIS LAWYER SHOULD NOT BE HEARD. SCREAMING DOESN'T MAKE SHRILLNESS. WHEN COUNSEL STANDS UP HERE AND SAYS SHE'S NEVER HEARD ANY DIFFERENT RULING, THAT'S MORE LIES. I DON'T WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT, BUT -- YOUR HONOR, ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION, SHE BROUGHT IN THE FACT THAT THIS MAN HAD A CUT FINGER. ALL I'M ASKING IS WHETHER OR NOT IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, TALKING TO HIM, DID HE GIVE YOU AN EXPLANATION. THAT IS NOT HEARSAY. HE GAVE YOU AN EXPLANATION, THAT IS NOT HEARSAY. I DIDN'T ASK WHAT HE SAID. IT'S NOT HEARSAY. AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOUR HONOR INDICATED YOU WERE GOING TO CHECK BACK WITH YOUR NOTES AND SEE WHERE SHE OPENS THE DOOR WITH REGARD TO THE CUT FINGER AND THEN HE GIVES AN EXPLANATION HOW HE GOT THE CUT FINGER. AND, JUDGE, FURTHER, AS AN OFFER OF PROOF, THEY INVESTIGATED IN CHICAGO AND THEY FOUND GLASS IN A FACE BASIN OR WHATEVER CONTEXT SHATTERED WITH BLOOD, YOUR HONOR, WITH A TOWEL THEREON. THAT'S TOTALLY UNFAIR. WE HAVE A CUT FINGER IN THIS CASE AND I CAN'T BRING THAT OUT FROM THIS INVESTIGATOR, SIR?

THE COURT: BUT THE QUESTION WAS, "DID YOU EXAMINE HIS HAND?" IT WASN'T THAT HE MAKE A STATEMENT TO YOU. SO TO SAY -- HERE'S THE PROBLEM, JOHNNIE. WHEN YOU ASK, "DID HE GIVE YOU AN EXPLANATION," THE QUESTION ITSELF SAYS THAT HE SAID SOMETHING THAT EXPLAINS THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, THAT'S JUST THE QUESTION. HE NEVER ANSWERED IT. BUT, JUDGE, IF HE SAYS YES, THAT'S ALL I CAN GO INTO. WE'RE ALLOWED TO ASK, "DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION," "YES," AND --

THE COURT: "DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION REGARDING THE FINGER," YES, THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: I DIDN'T ASK HIM FOR THE EXPLANATION. "DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION REGARDING A CUT FINGER?" "YES." BUT, JUDGE, THE OTHER POINT IS THIS. YOU WERE GOING TO CHECK YOUR NOTES WHERE THEY OPEN THIS UP AND BRING OUT THIS INFORMATION ABOUT THE CUT FINGER. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD A CHANCE TO DO IT. YOU SAID AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU WOULD.

THE COURT: MY RECOLLECTION IS, SHE ASKED, "DID HE SAY SOMETHING BACK TO YOU?"

MR. COCHRAN: HAS THE COURT HAD A CHANCE TO CHECK THAT?

THE COURT: I HAVE NOT.

MR. COCHRAN: I EXPECT TO FINISH WITH HIM SHORTLY.

THE COURT: HE'S AVAILABLE.

MR. COCHRAN: WOULD YOU -- WELL, WHAT'S THE QUESTION I AM PERMITTED TO ASK?

THE COURT: "DID YOU DISCUSS WITH HIM THE CUT ON THE FINGER, YES OR NO."

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: AN EXPLANATION GIVES A CONNOTATION.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU DISCUSS WITH MR. SIMPSON HIS CUT FINGER? CAN YOU ANSWER THAT YES OR NO?

A: YES.

Q: AND WAS THAT WHEN YOU WERE DOWNTOWN AT THE PARKER CENTER AFTER 1:30 ON JUNE 13TH, 1994, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, AS PART OF YOUR INVESTIGATION HERE, YOU ALSO -- DID YOU SEND OFFICERS TO CHICAGO AS PART OF THE INVESTIGATION?

A: YES, I DID.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE OFFICER OR OFFICERS YOU SENT TO CHICAGO?

A: DETECTIVES LUPER --

MS. CLARK: EXCEEDS THE SCOPE, TOTALLY EXCEEDS THE SCOPE.

MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE HIM MY OWN WITNESS FOR THIS POINT, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: HE CAN CALL HIM IN HIS CASE IN CHIEF.

MR. COCHRAN: SHE'S ARGUING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: HOLD ON. HOLD ON. OVERRULED. PROCEED.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE OFFICER OR OFFICERS YOU SENT TO CHICAGO, SIR, IN THIS CASE?

A: DETECTIVES LUPER, L-U-P-E-R, AND LE FALL, CAPITAL L-E CAPITAL F-A-L-L.

Q: AND CAN YOU TELL US, DETECTIVE, WHEN THEY WENT TO CHICAGO AS PART OF THIS INVESTIGATION?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS SHORTLY AFTER THE MURDERS, A WEEK OR SO, 10 DAYS. I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY.

Q: A WEEK --

A: PERHAPS LONGER.

Q: A WEEK OR SO AFTER JUNE 12TH; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: PERHAPS. I DON'T HAVE THE LOG IN FRONT OF ME.

Q: NOW, IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, SIR, YOU HAD AN EXTENSIVE SEARCH CONDUCTED LOOKING FOR BLOODY CLOTHES AND LOOKING FOR A BLOODY KNIFE OR KNIVES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THERE WERE SEARCHES, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHERE ALL DID YOU HAVE SEARCHED? WHERE DID YOU HAVE SEARCHED?

MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THERE WERE SEARCHES FOR BLOODY CLOTHING AROUND THE LOCATION AT BUNDY, TRASH CANS AT THE LOCATION, A DUMPSTER IN THE ADJOINING CONDOMINIUM, THE ALLEYWAY, THE SHRUBBERIES AROUND THE HOUSE, IMMEDIATE AREA. THERE WAS SEARCHES CONDUCTED ON FOOT BETWEEN THE BUNDY AND THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATIONS, VARIOUS TRASH CANS, TRASH CONTAINERS. THERE WAS A VACANT FIELD OFF OF SUNSET THAT WAS SEARCHED AS WERE SEVERAL AREAS THAT CAME TO OUR ATTENTION BY VARIOUS LEADS THAT WE RECEIVED THAT ARE DOCUMENTED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND YOU DOCUMENTED ALL THESE SEARCHES? DID YOU SEARCH IN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS?

A: THERE WAS A SEARCH IN CHICAGO, YES.

Q: AND WAS THAT DONE BY CHICAGO POLICE OR BY DETECTIVES LUPER AND LE FALL, IF YOU KNOW?

A: BOTH.

Q: SO WHEN THEY WENT BACK, THEY ALSO SEARCHED, BUT YOU ALSO HAD IT DONE BY CHICAGO POLICE WHO WORKED WITH YOU; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THE CHICAGO POLICE ASSISTED US.

Q: AND DURING THE COURSE OF THESE VARIOUS SEARCHES, A NUMBER OF WEAPONS WERE TURNED IN, IS THAT CORRECT, THAT YOU FOUND A NUMBER OF WEAPONS?

A: THERE WERE SOME KNIVES THAT WERE FOUND, YES.

Q: DID YOU EVER FIND ANY BLOODY CLOTHES?

MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE WITNESS: NO.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THIS CASE, YOU SHARED WITH US YESTERDAY THAT YOU HAD INTERVIEWED SOME ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY WITNESSES, THEREABOUTS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE THERE WAS SOMETHING LIKE A HUNDRED SEVENTY FORMAL INTERVIEWS, YES.

Q: FORMAL INTERVIEWS. AND YOU'VE ALSO BEEN ALL AROUND THE WORLD IN TALKING TO PEOPLE IN CONNECTION WITH THIS INVESTIGATION, ISN'T THAT CORRECT, YOU AS AN INVESTIGATOR?

A: I HAVEN'T PHYSICALLY BEEN AROUND THE WORLD. WE'VE HAD INFORMATION WE RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PARTS OF THE WORLD, YES.

Q: WELL, I'M NOT TALKING SO MUCH ABOUT YOU. I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU AS THE LEAD INVESTIGATOR, YOU'VE HAD OCCASION TO HAVE PEOPLE GO TO PLACES AROUND THE WORLD IN THE COURSE OF THIS INVESTIGATION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: I WOULDN'T SAY AROUND THE WORLD. THIS COUNTRY.

Q: WELL, HAVEN'T YOU HAD SOMEBODY GO TO ITALY?

A: I HAVE NOT, NO.

Q: HAVE YOU HAD ANYBODY IN CONNECTION -- ONE OF THE INVESTIGATORS IN THIS CASE GO TO ITALY?

A: I HAVE NOT. I BELIEVE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE MAY HAVE.

Q: WELL, THAT'S PART OF THE PROSECUTION TEAM, ISN'T IT, SIR?

A: YES, BUT THAT WASN'T DONE AT MY DIRECTION.

Q: ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU HAD INDIVIDUALS GO TO NEW YORK?

A: YES.

Q: HAD INDIVIDUALS GO TO CONNECTICUT?

A: YES.

Q: INDIVIDUALS GO TO ALASKA?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THIS IS ALL VAGUE. FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALASKA?

A: I DON'T RECALL ALASKA.

Q: MIAMI, FLORIDA?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. VAGUE. SEARCH FOR BLOODY CLOTHING? WHAT?

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: MIAMI, FLORIDA?

A: I DON'T RECALL SENDING ANYBODY TO FLORIDA.

Q: BAHAMAS?

A: ON THIS CASE, NO.

Q: WHAT OTHER JURISDICTIONS HAVE YOU SENT PEOPLE TO UNDER YOUR JURISDICTION?

A: ALABAMA.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER STATES?

A: THERE MAY BE ONE OR TWO OTHERS. I DON'T RECALL.

Q: YOU CAN'T THINK OF THEM NOW?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ANY FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS?

A: I DON'T RECALL SENDING ANYONE TO A FOREIGN JURISDICTION.

Q: NOW, IN THE ICE CREAM -- WHAT ABOUT MISSOURI? SEND SOMEBODY TO MISSOURI?

A: YES. THERE WAS SOMEONE SENT TO MISSOURI.

Q: IN THE ICE CREAM EXAMPLE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY, THERE WERE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BEN AND JERRY ICE CREAM, SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR, THE -- IN THE TESTS DONE BY THE DETECTIVE, THAT PARTICULAR ICE CREAM IN THE CONTAINER MELTED IN ABOUT AN HOUR AND 15 MINUTES; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, ARE YOU AWARE OF A LADY BY THE NAME OF CORA FISCHMAN?

A: YES.

Q: AND HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO REVIEW ANY STATEMENTS TAKEN FROM HER?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO CORA FISCHMAN, ARE YOU AWARE THAT SHE WAS A FRIEND OF --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: AS TO CORA FISCHMAN, YOUR HONOR? I WOULD ASK LEAVE -- MAY WE APPROACH?

THE COURT: YES.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD -- I WANTED TO COME UP FOR TWO REASONS. WITH REGARD TO CORA FISCHMAN, AS AN OFFER OF PROOF, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK HIM WHETHER OR NOT IN CONNECTION WITH HIS EXAMINATION OR HIS INVESTIGATION REGARDING DRUG-RELATED HOMICIDES, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN RELEVANT TO HIM TO HEAR A STATEMENT FROM ONE OF NICOLE BROWN'S FRIEND, ONE OF NICOLE SIMPSON'S CLOSE FRIENDS THAT, "IF O.J. IS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS CRIME, WE'RE ALL IN TROUBLE," SOMEBODY WHO RAN AROUND WITH HER, VERY CLOSE TO HER. AS AN OFFER OF PROOF, I THINK THE EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE THAT'S WHAT CORA FISCHMAN AND SEVERAL OTHER LADIES HAD SAID AS EARLY AS THE 13TH. SO I WANT TO ASK ABOUT CORA FISCHMAN, WHAT HE KNOWS ABOUT HER AND ESTABLISH SHE IS A FRIEND. IF THE COURT IS RULING THAT IT'S BEYOND THE SCOPE AND I CAN'T DO IT, I WANT TO FIND OUT NOW -- ASK LEAVE TO MAKE HIM MY WITNESS TO FIND OUT NOW IF WE COULD.

MS. CLARK: WHY DOES HE HAVE TO DO IT IN THE PEOPLE'S CASE AND NOT IN THE DEFENSE'S CASE? MR. COCHRAN WILL HAVE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO CALL EVERY WITNESS HE WANTS TO CALL IN HIS CASE. THE PROBLEM WE'RE HAVING HERE IS, WHY WE ARE ON THE EIGHTH DAY OF EXAMINATION OF THIS DETECTIVE IS IS THAT MR. COCHRAN IS ATTEMPTING TO USE DETECTIVE LANGE FAR BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PEOPLE'S CASE TO ESTABLISH THINGS THAT ARE HEARSAY, SPECULATION, INNUENDO AND BRING IN STATEMENTS OF ALL THE WITNESSES THAT HE WANTS TO CALL. MR. COCHRAN HAS TO PROVE HIS OWN CASE AND HE HAS TO PROVE IT IN HIS OWN WAY THROUGH HIS OWN WITNESSES AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, BUT NOT BY CROSS-EXAMINING MY WITNESS. HE'S GOING FAR BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THINGS WE DID IN DIRECT. THE RULES OF COURT EXIST FOR A REASON. MR. COCHRAN WANTS TO TALK ABOUT EVERY WITNESS IN MY CASE IN CHIEF. I THINK HE SHOULD FOLLOW THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND CALL HIS WITNESSES AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAYBE SHE HASN'T LEARNED DEFENDANT DOESN'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING. I'M JUST ASKING YOUR HONOR -- I'M NOT TALKING TO HER. I'M ASKING YOU WHETHER I'M PERMITTED TO DO THAT. THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING.

THE COURT: IT EXCEEDS THE SCOPE.

MR. COCHRAN: IF I CAN'T DO IT WITH THIS WITNESS, THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED.

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

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: REGARDING YOUR THEORY THAT YOU SHARED WITH US I GUESS THE DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY NOW REGARDING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE KILLER HERE, WOULD YOU AGREE YOU CAN NOT -- YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO RULE OUT A SECOND KILLER IF ONE OF THE ASSAILANTS AT THE SCENE HAD BEEN STANDING IN THE DIRT AREA AND EITHER WALKED OUT BEFORE MISS SIMPSON STARTED TO BLEED OR WALKED OUT AS YOU DID, WITHOUT GETTING BLOOD ON HIS OR HER FEET? DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT, THAT WOULD TEND TO INDICATE THAT -- DEBUNK YOUR THEORY OF A SINGLE KILLER?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO, IT WOULDN'T.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IT WOULDN'T IF SOMEBODY WAS IN THE DIRT AND WALKED OUT AND YOU NEVER WERE AWARE THEY WERE THERE? THAT WOULDN'T DEBUNK YOUR THEORY ABOUT A SINGLE KILLER?

A: WITH THE AMOUNT OF BLOOD AT THAT LOCATION, I WOULD HAVE SEEN SOME KIND OF A SHOEPRINT GOING THROUGH THAT BLOOD THE OTHER WAY.

Q: BUT, SIR, THE PART OF THE QUESTION I ASKED YOU WAS, IF THE PERSON WALKED OUT BEFORE THE BLOOD HAD STARTED TO FLOW, IF THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE, THEN YOU WOULD NOT KNOW, WOULD YOU? ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: I AM SORRY?

Q: YOU WOULD NOT KNOW, WOULD YOU, SIR?

A: IF SOMEONE HAD LEFT PRIOR TO THE KILLING?

Q: YES. NO. LEFT PRIOR TO MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON STARTING TO BLEED AS SHE DID SO SO PROFUSELY.

A: PROBABLY NOT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL I WAS ASKING. NOW, YESTERDAY, YOU SHARED WITH US THE FACT THAT YOU HAD -- ONE OF THE PUBLICATIONS YOU HAD LOOKED AT WAS A PUBLICATION BY LAMOYNE SNYDER.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I ONLY HAVE ONE COPY. I WANT TO SHOW THIS OF COURSE TO COUNSEL. THEN I WANT TO APPROACH THE WITNESS.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE GET TWO COPIES OF THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE IT'S SHOWN?

MS. CLARK: COUNSEL IS NOT TELLING ME WHAT HE WANTS TO SHOW.

THE COURT: HOW MANY PAGES IS THIS, MR. COCHRAN?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, IT IS --

THE COURT: PERHAPS WE CAN HAVE ONE OF THE LAW CLERKS STEP OUT.

MR. COCHRAN: IT'S ABOUT SEVEN PAGES, YOUR HONOR. I WANT TO USE PORTIONS OF SEVERAL OF THE PAGES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S --

MR. COCHRAN: AND I CAN -- WHILE THEY'RE DOING THAT, IF THE COURT PLEASES, I CAN DO SOMETHING ELSE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: HOW ABOUT FIVE COPIES? THANK YOU. COUNSEL, PROCEED.

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

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THIS PUBLICATION WE ARE ABOUT TO GET, THAT'S LAMOYNE SNYDER AND THAT'S A BOOK ON HOMICIDAL INVESTIGATIONS YOU REFERRED TO YESTERDAY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THERE IS A BOOK BY LAMOYNE SNYDER ON HOMICIDE INVESTIGATIONS, YES, SEVERAL EDITIONS I BELIEVE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU RECALL WHAT EDITION YOU HAD READ SOME 10 OR 15 YEARS AGO?

A: NO.

Q: YOU DON'T AT THIS POINT?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WITH REGARD TO -- MISS CLARK ASKED YOU SEVERAL DAYS AGO WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAD SEEN ANY PAY AND OWE NOTES, I PRESUME PAY AND OWE NOTES BEING SOME INDICATION THAT SOMEBODY OWED FOR SOME DRUGS OBTAINED. REMEMBER THOSE QUESTIONS?

A: THOSE ARE THOSE TYPES OF NOTES SOMETIMES FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN NARCOTICS, YES.

Q: YOU RECALL BEING ASKED ABOUT THAT, RIGHT?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: DID YOU EVER AT ANY TIME GO TO EXODUS AND TALK WITH OR SEE FAYE RESNICK TO SEE IF SHE HAD ANY PAY AND OWE NOTES AT EXODUS?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, AT THE AUTOPSY -- YOU WERE PRESENT DURING THE ENTIRE AUTOPSY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU SEE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN DURING THE AUTOPSY, SPECIFICALLY OF MR. GOLDMAN'S HANDS?

A: I BELIEVE THERE WERE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN PRIOR. GENERALLY WHAT THEY WILL DO IS CLEAN THE BODIES UP AND TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL AUTOPSY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU A PHOTOGRAPH THAT PURPORTS TO BE MR. GOLDMAN'S HANDS.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, ASK THE PHOTOGRAPH -- CUT THE FEE, YOUR HONOR? I BELIEVE IT'S THE HAND.

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE PRESENT AT OR ABOUT THE TIME THAT THIS PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN OF MR. GOLDMAN'S HANDS AT THE CORONER'S OFFICE ON OR ABOUT JUNE 15TH, 1994?

A: IT WAS PROBABLY -- I AM SORRY?

THE COURT: APPEARS TO BE A RIGHT HAND.

MR. COCHRAN: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE WITNESS: I WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THIS PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH. I BELIEVE THESE WERE TAKEN ACTUALLY PRIOR TO AUTOPSY AND SUBSEQUENT CLEAN UP.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: BUT YOU IN FACT SAW MR. GOLDMAN'S HANDS ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY; DID YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WOULD THIS -- IS THIS PHOTOGRAPH A FAIR AND ACCURATE PORTRAYAL OF THE WAY HIS HANDS APPEARED AT OR ABOUT THAT TIME, THE BRUISES ON THE RIGHT HAND AND RIGHT KNUCKLE AREA?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THIS EXHIBIT AS DEFENDANT'S 1050 IF I CAN.

THE COURT: 1050.

(DEFT'S 1050 FOR ID = PHOTO, GOLDMAN'S RT HAND)

MR. COCHRAN: WE ARE HAVING THAT MARKED NOW AT THIS POINT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AND WITH REGARD TO THE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUALS --

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I WANT TO HAVE THE COURT CUT THE FEED AND SHOW ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPH. SHOWING IT TO COUNSEL, YOUR HONOR.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: 1050.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I'VE SHOWN COUNSEL A PHOTOGRAPH WHICH I'LL NOW MARK AS DEFENDANT'S 1051 IF THE COURT WOULD ALLOW.

(DEFT'S 1051 FOR ID = PHOTO)

MR. COCHRAN: AND, YOUR HONOR, COUNSEL AND I HAVE BLOCKED OUT THE FACE OR TRIED TO BLOCK OUT THE FACE OF THE PHOTOGRAPH AND THE COURT MAY WANT TO CUT THE FEED, KEEP THE FEED CUT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS DEFENDANT'S 1051. CAN YOU SEE THAT --

MR. COCHRAN: PULL IT BACK A LITTLE BIT, MR. HARRIS, PLEASE, SIR. MORE.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU -- WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN YOU SAW THIS PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH OF APPARENTLY THE RIGHT HAND OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WITH FINGERNAILS, ET CETERA, APPARENTLY ALONG -- BEING HELD BY SOMEONE WHO HAS GLOVES ON EXAMINING THOSE HANDS?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHERE WAS THAT PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN?

A: I RECALL THOSE TYPES OF PHOTOGRAPHS BEING TAKEN AT THE SCENE, BUT I CAN NOT ORIENT THIS PARTICULAR ONE. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS WAS TAKEN.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU SEE THE JEWELRY ON THE LEFT HAND OF THE PERSON WHO'S HOLDING MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S HAND? SEE THE JEWELRY?

A: YES.

Q: AND DOES THAT APPEAR TO YOU -- SEEING THAT JEWELRY, DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT WAS PERHAPS A FEMALE WHO WAS WEARING THAT KIND OF JEWELRY?

A: MAY WELL BE. DOESN'T REFRESH MY RECOLLECTION.

Q: WELL, AT THE SCENE, IF THIS PICTURE WAS TAKEN AT THE SCENE, WERE THERE ANY OTHER FEMALES THERE WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH THE BODIES OTHER THAN MISS RATCLIFFE, THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR, THAT WE'VE SEEN EARLIER?

A: NO.

Q: SO BEST -- YOUR BELIEF IS, IT'S PROBABLY MISS RATCLIFFE; IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT'S SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WELL, WHO DO YOU THINK THAT IS?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION.

THE COURT: HE INDICATED HE DOESN'T KNOW.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU BELIEVE THAT PICTURE WAS TAKEN AT THE SCENE HOWEVER?

A: AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW. IT MAY HAVE BEEN AT THE CORONER'S OFFICE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. VERY WELL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW, YOU YESTERDAY HAD INDICATED TO US READING FROM OR BEING AWARE OF A PUBLICATION BY LAMOYNE SNYDER AND I THINK YOU TOLD US THAT YOU DON'T KNOW THE EDITION, BUT I THINK YOU TOLD US WAS SOMEWHERE, PERHAPS 10 OR 15 YEARS AGO; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: PERHAPS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH AND I -- THE COURT HAS NOW PROVIDED US WITH SOME COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION, AND I'M JUST ASKING YOU TO PLACE A COPY HERE FOR YOU AND I WILL ASK YOU A COUPLE QUESTIONS IF I MIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: AND I GUESS, YOUR HONOR -- I GUESS I SHOULD PROBABLY MARK THIS SO THAT WE HAVE A NUMBER TO REFER TO. AND THIS WILL BE DEFENDANT'S 105 --

THE COURT: -2.

MR. COCHRAN: -2.

(DEFT'S 1052 FOR ID = PUBLICATION)

MS. CLARK: PERHAPS THE PEOPLE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO READ THIS BEFORE COUNSEL BEGINS HIS EXAMINATION ON THE MATERIAL. WE HAVE JUST THIS MINUTE BEEN GIVEN THIS BY COUNSEL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. TAKE A MOMENT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: AND, MR. COCHRAN, THERE APPEARS TO BE CHECKMARKS ALONG THE TEXT. IS THAT --

MR. COCHRAN: YES. AND WE'LL BLOCK THOSE OUT, TRY TO MAKE A CLEAN COPY.

MR. COCHRAN: WHILE COUNSEL IS LOOKING AT THAT, YOUR HONOR, MAY I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION IN A DIFFERENT AREA?

THE COURT: NO. THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO CONCENTRATE ON WHAT THEY'RE READING.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MISS HAYSLETT, HERE'S A COPY FOR YOU.

MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WITH THE REPORTER.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT SIDEBAR.

MS. CLARK: THIS IS RIDICULOUS. AT THE LAST MINUTE, WE ARE -- I MEAN COUNSEL DIDN'T EVEN OFFER. WE HAD TO ASK FOR A COPY OF WHAT HE WAS GOING TO SHOW THE WITNESS. WE ARE NOW BEING REQUIRED TO READ AND DIGEST IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY. COUNSEL OBVIOUSLY HAD THIS SINCE -- COULD HAVE GIVEN IT TO US THIS MORNING OR ACTUALLY LAST NIGHT. AND WE WOULD LIKE THE ENTIRE TEXT, NOT JUST A FEW PAGES THAT HE'S GIVEN US.

THE COURT: IS THIS A FAX?

MR. COCHRAN: FAX. COUNSEL, AS USUAL, DOESN'T KNOW WHAT SHE IS TALKING ABOUT. THIS WITNESS BROUGHT THIS UP IN HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION -- IN HIS DIRECT EXAMINATION, YOUR HONOR, YESTERDAY AS TO BOOKS THAT HE HAS READ. I'M CERTAINLY PERMITTED TO ASK HIM JUST A FEW QUESTIONS, WHICH IS WHAT I WANT TO DO. INSTEAD OF COUNSEL PANICKING, PERHAPS SHE CAN WAIT UNTIL SHE HEARS THE QUESTIONS, FEW QUESTIONS I WANT TO ASK. HE'S THE ONE WHO TOLD ME -- VOLUNTEERED ON THE STAND ABOUT LAMOYNE SNYDER AND IT'S PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE --

MS. CLARK: THE FACT THAT COUNSEL WANTS TO ASK A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THE PEOPLE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO READ WHAT HE PLANS TO BASE THE QUESTIONS ON. COUNSEL, IF HE'S BEEN PRACTICING AS LONG AS HE SAYS HE HAS, CERTAINLY KNOWS WE'RE ENTITLED TO REVIEW MATERIALS HE INTENDS TO SHOW A WITNESS FOR PROPOSED QUESTIONS. COUNSEL IS SIMPLY VIOLATING A VERY BASIC TENENT OF COURTROOM PROCEDURE. WE ARE NOT PANICKING. WE WANT TO USE THIS FOR OURSELVES. WE NEED THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT IT FAIRLY. AND THIS IS VERY UNFAIR, WHAT'S BEING DONE. IT'S UP TO THE COURT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ENGAGING IN FAIR PRACTICES HERE.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, HOW MUCH MORE TIME DO YOU NEED TO REVIEW THIS?

MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE HALF AN HOUR AT A MINIMUM. I HAVE GOT QUESTIONS I'M GOING TO NEED TO ASK ON THIS. IF COUNSEL WANTS TO GO INTO THIS, FINE. THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF REDIRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS WITNESS TALKED ABOUT HE RELIED UPON THIS. HE BROUGHT THIS UP YESTERDAY. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO INTO IT, GET IT --

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, I DON'T --

MR. COCHRAN: I JUST WANT TO SAY ONE THING, YOUR HONOR. COUNSEL MADE THIS SHRILL KIND OF STATEMENT, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS HER WITNESS. SHE HAS AN OBLIGATION -- SHE'S A TRAINED LAWYER -- TO HAVE THIS PUBLICATION.

THE COURT: IF, MR. COCHRAN, YOU FEEL THAT WAY -- AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO RESPOND TO THAT. YOU ARE ENTITLED TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS GIVEN THE ANSWERS WE GOT. MISS CLARK IS ENTITLED TO REVIEW IT. IF SHE SAYS SHE WANTS A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TO REVIEW IT, I'M GOING TO LET HER HAVE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME.

MR. COCHRAN: THEY ALWAYS WANT --

MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE ENTIRE PUBLICATION, NOT JUST THIS PORTION. COUNSEL HAS LIFTED OUT JUST A FEW PAGES.

MR. COCHRAN: SHE CAN GET IT FROM THE WITNESS.

MS. CLARK: I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS THE -- WE STILL DON'T KNOW IF THIS PUBLICATION IS THE 1953 EDITION.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, I AGREE THAT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO READ IT. ALL RIGHT. I AM GOING TO TAKE A RECESS RIGHT NOW FOR 15, 20 MINUTES. SIT DOWN, CONCENTRATE, READ IT. I READ IT. IT'S NOTHING THAT'S AMAZING.

MR. COCHRAN: NOT AMAZING, BUT RELIED UPON.

MS. CLARK: NO, BUT THE COURT IS GOING TO HAVE TO PLAN -- FRAME QUESTIONS FROM IT. I LIKE IT. I WANT TO USE IT.

THE COURT: WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DO IT? I WOULD LIKE TO.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE PROCEED, YOUR HONOR, AND FINISH THE WITNESS?

THE COURT: NO. LET'S TAKE A BRIEF RECESS. ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T WANT TO VIOLATE THE TWO-ATTORNEY RULE. I WANT TO JUST ASK HIM IF HE THINKS THAT'S THE VOLUME HE READ. IF IT ISN'T, IT'S MOOT AND WE CAN JUST GO ON.

THE COURT: WE'LL TAKE A RECESS. YOU CAN CHAT WITH THE WITNESS. YOU CAN ASK HIM.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. BUT SOME OF THIS STUFF -- YOU KNOW, MOST OF THIS STUFF ARE TRUISMS.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I AM GOING TO TAKE A BRIEF RECESS JUST SO WE'RE NOT ALL SITTING HERE WAITING FOR COUNSEL TO FINISH READING THE MATERIALS. THEY ARE TECHNICAL MATERIALS. SO THEY DO NEED AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ THEM. I'M SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFICULTY THEY'RE IN WHEN THINGS ARE JUST PRESENTED. I AM GOING TO ASK YOU TO STEP BACK. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE WITH ANYONE, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE DON'T TALK TO ANYBODY ABOUT IT, DON'T LET ANYBODY TALK TO YOU, DON'T PERFORM ANY DELIBERATIONS WHILE YOU'RE BACK THERE. AND WE'LL SEE YOU PROBABLY ABOUT 15, 20 MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

(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 AGAIN PRESENT, EXCEPT THE JURY. COUNSEL, CAN WE PROCEED? MISS CLARK?

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY?

THE COURT: HAVE YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO FINISH READING THAT?

MS. CLARK: I HAVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE. MR. BAILEY, DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?

MR. BAILEY: NO, YOUR HONOR. I'M JUST ANTICIPATING THE JURY WILL COME THROUGH THE DOOR.

THE COURT: OH.

(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. PLEASE BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. AGAIN, DETECTIVE LANGE, WOULD YOU SWING THE MICROPHONE OVER THERE, PLEASE.

THE WITNESS: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

MR. COCHRAN: A FEW MORE QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR.

Q: DETECTIVE LANGE, WITH REGARD TO AREAS THAT WERE SEARCHED BY YOU ON OR AFTER JUNE 13 OR UNDER YOUR INVESTIGATION, DID YOU HAVE ANY SEARCHES CONDUCTED OF ANY AIRPLANES GOING TO CHICAGO OR COMING BACK FROM CHICAGO?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: WHAT IS THAT?

A: I DON'T RECALL ANY SEARCHES OF AIRPLANES.

Q: YOU DON'T RECALL WHETHER OR NOT AN AMERICAN AIRLINES PLANE WAS SEARCHED UNDER YOUR DIRECTION OR UNDER ANYONE'S DIRECTION IN THIS CASE?

A: I DON'T RECALL AN AIRLINE -- AN AIRPLANE BEING SEARCHED.

Q: NO LAVATORIES IN THE AIRPLANES EITHER; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THERE WAS AN INQUIRY REGARDING A LAVATORY ON AN AIRPLANE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS ACTUALLY SEARCHED, THOUGH.

Q: ALL RIGHT, SIR. NOW, JUST BEFORE OR AFTER THE BREAK I PLACED BEFORE YOU A PUBLICATION ENTITLED "HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION BY LEMOYNE SNYDER." THIS IS AN OLD EDITION, A '53 EDITION, AND AT THAT TIME IT WAS THE SEVENTH PRINTING. HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO REVIEW ANY PORTIONS OF THE SEVEN OR EIGHT PAGES THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED BEFORE YOU?

A: YES.

Q: I WANT TO ASK YOU JUST A FEW QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, THERE IS NO FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IS THIS A PUBLICATION BY LEMOYNE SNYDER THAT YOU RELIED UPON, THAT YOU SPOKE ABOUT YESTERDAY WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT PUBLICATIONS YOU HAD RELIED UPON IN FORMING VARIOUS OPINIONS IN THIS CASE?

A: IT IS ONE PUBLICATION I HAVE READ, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS SEVERAL YEARS AFTER THIS WAS PRINTED.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, SOME THINGS WITH REGARD TO HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION DON'T CHANGE FROM VOLUME TO VOLUME; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: CERTAINLY.

Q: AND I WANT TO ASK YOU A COUPLE QUESTIONS, IF I CAN, ABOUT IT, AND ASK YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE WITH WHAT IS IN THE PUBLICATION.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THIS IS NOT THE PUBLICATION HE RELIED ON.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS THE PUBLICATION, BY THE SAME AUTHOR AND IT IS AN EARLIER EDITION.

MS. CLARK: 1953.

THE COURT: THERE IS A FOUNDATIONAL OBJECTION?

MS. CLARK: FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THIS, THEN THE EDITION THAT YOU READ -- WHAT PRINTING WAS THE EDITION THAT YOU READ?

A: I DON'T RECALL.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WITH REGARD TO THAT, YOU ARE NOT AWARE IF THERE IS ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THIS PRINTING THAT I HAVE BEFORE YOU HERE IN DEFENDANT'S 1052 AND THE PRINTING THAT YOU READ SOME TEN OR FIFTEEN YEARS AGO, ARE YOU?

A: I COULDN'T SAY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND FOR INSTANCE, WITH REGARD TO THE GOLDEN RULE OF HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION, AS FAR AS YOU ARE CONCERNED, THAT RULE --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: -- HASN'T CHANGED, HAS IT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, NO FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATING THE TIME OF DEATH, WHEN YOU READ -- DID YOU READ THAT PARTICULAR PORTION OF THE PUBLICATION OF LEMOYNE AND SNYDER THAT YOU REFERRED TO YESTERDAY IN YOUR TESTIMONY? DID YOU READ THAT CHAPTER DEALING WITH ESTIMATING THE TIME OF DEATH?

MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: I WILL LAY THE FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ASK HIM IF HE READ IT.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU READ THAT? AND WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATING THE TIME OF DEATH IN CHAPTER 3 IN THE PAPER YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU THERE, WHAT YOU READ TEN OR FIFTEEN YEARS AGO IS CONSISTENT, IS IT NOT, WITH WHAT IS THERE IN THE PUBLICATION BY THE SAME AUTHOR, AN EARLIER PRINTING; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT, YES.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR, REGARDING THAT, IF YOU MIGHT.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATING THE TIME OF DEATH, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT: "IT IS ALWAYS IMPORTANT TO KNOW AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE THE TIME WHEN THE VICTIM EXPIRED. IN THE ABSENCE OF WITNESSES THIS INFORMATION MUST BE OBTAINED FROM AN EXAMINATION OF THE BODY ITSELF." DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT SO FAR?

A: YES.

Q: "GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE SOONER AFTER DEATH THE BODY IS FOUND, THE MORE DEFINITELY CAN THE ACTUAL TIME OF DEATH BE FIXED." DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT SO FAR?

A: GENERALLY YES.

Q: "HOWEVER, IT IS USUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO ESTABLISH ACCURATELY THE HOUR AND MINUTE WHEN LIFE CEASED." DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND SO WITH REGARD TO THE BODY, AS YOU HAVE TOLD US, THE EXAMINATION OF THE BODY, THAT IS DONE BY THE CORONER; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND SO IF THIS IS A PUBLICATION THAT YOU AGREED WITH AND BASE YOUR OPINION ON, DO YOU AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO, AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE AFTER DISCOVERY OF THE BODY, TO HAVE THE BODY EXAMINED BY SOMEONE TRAINED TO DO THAT AND IN THIS INSTANCE THE CORONER? IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

A: I WOULD AGREE WITH WHAT IS WRITTEN HERE, THAT IT IS -- GENERALLY SPEAKING, THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE EVER HEARD OF THE GOLDEN RULE OF HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION?

A: NO.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER READ THE GOLDEN RULE OF HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION AS SET FORTH ON PAGE 28 IN THE LEMOYNE SNYDER PUBLICATION?

A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT SINCE I READ THE BOOK MANY YEARS AGO. I MAY WELL HAVE.

Q: LET ME ASK YOU IF YOU AGREE WITH THIS AND MAYBE IT WILL REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION. DO YOU AGREE THAT: "UNDER THE GOLDEN RULE OF HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION THAT ONE SHOULD NEVER TOUCH, CHANGE OR ALTER ANYTHING UNTIL IDENTIFIED" COMMA, "MEASURED AND PHOTOGRAPHED" ? DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT SO FAR?

A: GENERALLY THAT IS CORRECT, YES.

Q: "THAT WHEN A BODY OR AN ARTICLE HAS BEEN MOVED," COMMA, "IT CAN NEVER BE RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL POSITION"? DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, DURING THE BREAK I WAS NOT ABLE TO SPEAK WITH YOU IN CONNECTION WITH THIS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: NO, SIR, THAT IS NOT CORRECT. WE SPOKE OUTSIDE.

Q: WE SPOKE IN THE RESTROOM BUT NOT ABOUT THIS PARTICULARLY, DID WE?

A: YES, SIR, WE DID.

Q: WHEN YOU FIRST LEFT THE STAND, I WENT UP TO TRY AND TALK TO YOU, DID THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY TELL YOU NOT TO TALK TO ME AT THAT POINT?

A: NO, THEY DID NOT. THEY CALLED ME OVER TO THEIR TABLE.

Q: I WAS NOT ABLE TO TALK TO YOU?

A: WELL, I CAN'T TALK TO EVERYONE AT ONCE.

Q: DIDN'T YOU SAY, "I'M ON THE STAND MR. COCHRAN. I'VE GOT TO GO TALKED TO THEM FIRST"?

A: I MAY HAVE SAID SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THEY SIGNALED ME FIRST SO I WALKED OVER THERE AND YOU WALKED BETWEEN US.

Q: WASN'T I WAS STANDING UP BY THE JURY AS THE JURY LEFT THE ROOM BEFORE THEY EVER CALLED YOU AND I STARTED TO TALK TO YOU AND MR. DARDEN THEN CALLED YOU AND THE OTHERS CALLED YOU AFTER THAT? ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YOU WERE QUICKER TO GET OVER HERE, YES.

Q: THE JUDGE DIRECTED ME TO GET OVER THERE AND I GOT THERE FIRST AND YOU WALKED PAST ME AND WENT OVER THERE TO TALK TO THEM; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YOU WERE QUICKER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, I WON'T COMMENT ON THAT. NOW, WITH REGARD TO THIS PUBLICATION CALLED "HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION," SIR, THE PART I GUESS ON PAGE 38 THAT DEALS WITH EXAMINATION OF STOMACH CONTENTS, DO YOU RECALL YESTERDAY WE TALKED ABOUT STOMACH CONTENTS? AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU WHETHER OR NOT THIS PARTICULAR -- THESE PARAGRAPHS DEALING WITH STOMACH CONTENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU READ SOME TEN OR FIFTEEN YEARS AGO WHEN YOU READ THIS PUBLICATION AND WHICH YOU RELIED UPON IN FORMULATING SOME OF YOUR OPINIONS IN THIS CASE.

A: OKAY.

Q: HAVE YOU READ THAT?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU READ SOME TEN OR FIFTEEN YEARS AGO?

A: I CAN'T SAY FOR SURE. I CAN'T SAY.

Q: LET ME SEE IF THIS WILL REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AT ALL THEN AND SEE IF YOU AGREE WITH THIS -- THESE STATEMENTS. "A PROCEDURE WHICH IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE IN FIXING THE TIME OF DEATH IS THE EXAMINATION OF THE STOMACH CONTENTS." DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS HEARSAY AS READ BY COUNSEL. THE WITNESS CAN READ IT TO HIMSELF AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT --

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU READ THIS PARAGRAPH TO YOURSELF ABOUT THE EXAMINATION OF STOMACH CONTENTS, I GUESS ON PAGE -- THIS MAY BE --

THE COURT: 39.

MR. COCHRAN: -- 39, I BELIEVE, YOUR HONOR. IT GOES OVER TO PAGE 40 RIGHT BEFORE THE PARAGRAPH THAT SAYS "IMPORTANCE OF ASSOCIATED EVENTS."

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: HAVE YOU READ THAT?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU AGREE WITH WHAT IS CONTAINED IN THAT PARAGRAPH?

A: THE PARAGRAPH DOESN'T ADDRESS THE DIGESTION PROCESS CEASING AT THE TIME OF DEATH.

Q: THE QUESTION IS DO YOU AGREE WITH WHAT IS CONTAINED IN THIS PARAGRAPH, SIR?

A: GENERALLY, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU READ SOME TEN OR FIFTEEN YEARS AGO ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF FIXING THE TIME OF DEATH AND THE USE OF THE STOMACH CONTENTS IN MAKING THAT DETERMINATION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES. GENERALLY, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT, IF I MIGHT, YOUR HONOR, THAT "IF STOMACH CONTENTS ARE PRESENT IT IS POSSIBLE" --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. OBJECTION.

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE OBJECTION?

MR. COCHRAN: HE RELIED UPON THIS, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: NO, HE DID NOT RELY UPON THIS. HE TOLD US REPEATEDLY THIS IS AN EARLIER EDITION.

MR. COCHRAN: SPEAKING OBJECTION, COUNSEL.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. IT IS A SPEAKING OBJECTION. AT THE SIDE BAR.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: IF I HEAR ANOTHER SPEAKING OBJECTION FROM EITHER SIDE, THE SANCTION IS GOING TO BE $250.00.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: MISS CLARK. OBJECTION.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. NO. 1 THING IS THAT THE PROCEDURE IS TO SEE IF HE AGREES OR NOT WITH THE PASSAGE IS TO LET HIM READ IT TO HIMSELF; NOT TO DRAG IN ALL THE HEARSAY FROM THIS ARTICLE.

THE COURT: I AGREE AND I SUSTAINED THE OBJECTION.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS WHAT HE IS DOING AGAIN.

THE COURT: NO, THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION. DIFFERENT QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I BE HEARD?

MS. CLARK: WHICH ONE?

THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.

MS. CLARK: AGAIN ON THE SAME PAGE, YOUR HONOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: THE QUESTION WAS DID YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT THAT --

MS. CLARK: THEN HE WAS ABOUT TO READ AGAIN FROM THE PASSAGE.

MR. COCHRAN: I WASN'T GOING TO READ. I WAS GOING TO SUMMARIZE -- I THINK I AM PERMITTED TO SUMMARIZE. HE RELIED UPON THIS, JUDGE, AND THE PROBLEM IS --

MS. CLARK: HE DIDN'T.

MR. COCHRAN: PUT THIS TACTFULLY. IF YOU NEVER TRIED A CIVIL CASE AND DEALT WITH DOCTORS, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT. IN THESE KIND OF CASES YOU ARE PERMITTED TO GO INTO WHAT THIS MAN HAS RELIED UPON AND WHAT HE HAS LOOKED AT IN THE PAST AND WHAT -- HE IS THE ONE WHO TOLD US ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION, SO I WANT TO ASK HIM IF HE SAYS HE RELIED UPON THIS. I CAN THEN ASK HIM WHETHER OR NOT -- NOT HEARSAY -- WHETHER OR NOT HE AGREES WITH THE PRINCIPLE THAT STOMACH CONTENTS ARE PRESENT, THAT A PATHOLOGIST WITH REASONABLE ACCURACY CAN LOOK AT THAT AND DETERMINE WHEN THE LAST MEAL WAS -- WHAT IT CONSISTED OF AND WHEN IT WAS AND THE TIME OF DEATH. HE SAID HE GENERALLY AGREES WITH THIS, SO I CAN'T BE PRECLUDED BECAUSE OF THAT AND THAT IS THE POINT I'M TRYING TO GET. I DON'T KNOW IF COUNSEL FULLY UNDERSTANDS WHAT I WILL BE PERMITTED TO DO ONCE HE RELIES UPON A PUBLICATION.

MS. CLARK: THE PROBLEM IS THAT COUNSEL DOESN'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT A CIVIL CASE, THIS IS A MURDER CASE. NO. 2, THE WITNESS DID NOT RELY ON IT.

THE COURT: THE SAME --

MR. COCHRAN: SAME EVIDENCE CODE.

MS. CLARK: THE WITNESS SAID HE DID NOT RELY ON THIS. HOW MANY TIMES DID HE HAVE TO TELL --

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, THE OBJECTION IS FOUNDATION?

MS. CLARK: FOUNDATION.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS VERY EASY AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT AGAIN THAT IF -- EITHER SIDE DOESN'T NEED ANY HELP IN THIS CASE. THE PROBLEM IS IF HE SAYS WAIT A MINUTE, HE IS GOING TO MAKE ME BRING HIM BACK. HE SAID HE DIDN'T RELY UPON IT. HE SAID A READ A LATER EDITION MAYBE TEN OR FIFTEEN YEARS AND I ASKED TO HIM LOOK AT THIS BECAUSE CERTAIN PASSAGES DON'T CHANGE. ARE WE PLAYING GAMES OR ARE TRYING TO GET AT THE TRUTH?

THE COURT: WELL, MR. COCHRAN, AT THE RISK OF HELPING ONE SIDE OR ANOTHER, WE ARE MISSING ONE FOUNDATIONAL QUESTION. YOU HAVE ASKED HIM THE QUESTION DOES THIS APPEAR TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS IN THE EDITION YOU READ? AND HE SAID YES. IS THIS THE INFORMATION THAT YOU -- SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT YOU RELIED UPON IN FORMING YOUR OPINION? HE HASN'T SAID YES OR NO TO THAT QUESTION BECAUSE NOBODY HAS ASKED HIM. YOU HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT IT IS SIMILAR TO WHAT HE READ. YOU HAVEN'T ESTABLISHED --

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY.

THE COURT: -- THAT THIS IS WHAT HE RELIED UPON, SO THERE IS A GOOD FOUNDATION OBJECTION AT THIS POINT.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. IF I AM ABLE TO ESTABLISH --

THE COURT: IT IS A TECHNICALITY, BUT THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE CODE SAYS.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY.

THE COURT: YOU ARE MISSING A STEP AND A HALF.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. IF HE DOES, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK UP HERE, THREE OR FOUR ALREADY, IF HE DOES, IF HE DID RELY UPON THIS AS PART OF THE PUBLICATION, THEN I AM THEN PERMITTED TO ASK HIM ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS CONTAINED HEREIN; AM I NOT?

THE COURT: IF HE DOES SAY THAT, YEAH, YOU CAN CROSS-EXAMINE.

MR. COCHRAN: JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND THAT.

THE COURT: WAIT. NOW --

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

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, CAN I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION?

MS. CLARK: YES.

THE COURT: LET ME GET EVERYBODY'S CLEAR UNDERSTANDING NOW. IT IS OBJECTION AND THEN STATE THE GROUNDS; NOT ARGUE IT. STATE THE GROUNDS. ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. COCHRAN.

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

Q: DETECTIVE LANGE, WITH REGARD TO THE PARAGRAPH THAT I ASKED YOU TO READ ON THE EXAMINATION OF STOMACH CONTENTS, I BELIEVE YOU INDICATED TO US THAT THAT PARAGRAPH APPEARS SIMILAR TO A PARAGRAPH YOU MAY HAVE READ IN SOME LATER EDITION. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

A: I WOULD SAY IN A GENERAL SENSE, YES.

Q: RIGHT. AND IN THE COURSE OF FORMING THE OPINIONS THAT YOU SHARED WITH US YESTERDAY, YOU RELIED UPON THE CONTENTS OF THE LEMOYNE SNYDER PUBLICATION THAT YOU READ; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: RELIED UPON IT FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

Q: WELL, RELIED UPON IT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF HELPING TO FORM YOUR OPINION, OPINIONS YOU SHARED, AS THIS WAS A PUBLICATION WHICH YOU TOLD US ABOUT YESTERDAY. DO YOU RECALL?

A: YES, IT IS ONE PUBLICATION I HAVE READ. IT IS NOT THE ONLY THING I HAVE RELIED UPON.

Q: I UNDERSTAND YOU RELIED UPON OTHER THINGS, YOU HAD OTHER EXPERIENCE, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU HAD READ AND HAD RELIED UPON; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: IN A GENERAL SENSE I SUPPOSE ONE COULD SAY THAT.

Q: BASED UPON THAT, WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK JUST A FEW QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO THIS PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH.

Q: AND YOU AGREE WITH CERTAIN ASPECTS REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF STOMACH CONTENTS?

THE COURT: PROCEED.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: DO YOU AGREE THAT IF STOMACH CONTENTS ARE PRESENT IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THE PATHOLOGIST TO TELL WITH REASONABLE ACCURACY OF WHAT THE LAST MEAL CONSISTED? DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT PRINCIPLE.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THIS CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THIS IS BEYOND THIS WITNESS' FIELD OF EXPERTISE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: CAN YOU ANSWER THAT?

A: I DIDN'T SEE WHERE YOU WERE READING.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M SORRY, SIR.

THE COURT: SECOND SENTENCE.

Q: SECOND SENTENCE. "IF STOMACH CONTENTS ARE PRESENT" -- DO YOU SEE THAT?

A: YES.

Q: -- "IT POSSIBLE FOR A PATHOLOGIST OR A DOCTOR TO TELL WITH REASONABLE ACCURACY WHAT THE LAST MEAL CONSISTED OF."

A: THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS.

Q: DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

A: I SUPPOSE IT IS POSSIBLE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU AGREE ALSO THAT: "THE STOMACH WILL USUALLY BE EMPTY FROM FOUR TO SIX HOURS AFTER A MEAL HAS BEEN EATEN"? DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT PRINCIPLE?

A: IF THE DIGESTION PROCESS HAS TAKEN PLACE, YES.

Q: AND IF THE STOMACH IS FOUND TO BE WELL-FILLED WITH FOOD AND DIGESTION OF THE CONTENTS -- STRIKE I THAT. "IF THE STOMACH IS FOUND TO BE WELL-FILLED WITH FOOD, AND DIGESTION OF THE CONTENTS IS NOT EXTENSIVE, IT IS FAIR TO ASSUME THAT DEATH FOLLOWED SHORTLY AFTER THE MEAL." WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT GENERAL PRINCIPLE?

A: GENERALLY, YES.

Q: WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THIS ENTIRE PROCEDURE, WHICH IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE IN FIXING THE TIME OF DEATH, IS THE EXAMINATION OF THE STOMACH CONTENTS?

A: IT IS ONE GENERAL FACTOR THAT COULD BE USED, YES.

Q: WELL, DO YOU FEEL, AS I HAVE INDICATED AND ASKED YOU, DO YOU FEEL THAT IN ADDITION TO A GENERAL FACTOR, IT IS A FACTOR OF GREAT IMPORTANCE IN FIXING THE TIME OF DEATH, THE EXAMINATION OF THE STOMACH CONTENTS?

A: I WOULD NOT RELY ENTIRELY ON IT. AGAIN IT IS ONE GENERAL FACTOR OF MANY.

Q: BUT YOU WOULD RELY UPON IT. ALL RIGHT. CONTINUING ON --

MS. CLARK: WAS THAT A QUESTION? I DIDN'T HEAR AN ANSWER.

MR. COCHRAN: I SAID DID YOU RELY UPON IT?

Q: YOU WOULD RELY UPON IT ALONG WITH OTHER FACTORS; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: ALONG WITH OTHER THINGS. I WOULDN'T SPECIFICALLY RELY UPON IT.

Q: ALL RIGHT, SIR. "IF THE STOMACH IS ENTIRELY EMPTY, DEATH PROBABLY TOOK PLACE AT LEAST FOUR TO SIX HOURS AFTER THE LAST MEAL." DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

A: AS A GENERAL STATEMENT, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. "AND IN ADDITION, IF THE SMALL INTESTINE IS ALSO EMPTY, THE PROBABILITY IS THAT DEATH TOOK PLACE TWELVE OR MORE HOURS AFTER FOOD WAS LAST EATEN." DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

A: THESE STATEMENTS DO NOT ADDRESS THE DIGESTION PROCESS CEASING AT THE TIME OF DEATH, SO I AM HAVING A BIT OF A PROBLEM WITH THEM.

Q: LET'S GO BACK AND I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THIS STATEMENT; NOT WHAT YOU JUST INDICATED, SIR. IF THE SMALL INTESTINE IS ALSO EMPTY, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT THAT THE PROBABILITY IS THAT DEATH TOOK PLACE TWELVE OR MORE HOURS AFTER FOOD WAS LAST EATEN? DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? IS THAT A PRINCIPLE WITH WHICH YOU AGREE?

A: GENERALLY, YES.

Q: DO YOU AGREE, FINALLY: "THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE VARIATIONS BETWEEN THESE EXTREMES MUST BE LEFT TO THE DOCTOR MAKING THE EXAMINATION"; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: THIS WHOLE AREA IS AN AREA WHERE WE HAVE DOCTORS WHO ARE TRAINED TO LOOK AT THESE THINGS, THE STOMACH CONTENTS AND MAKE A JUDGMENT; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: THAT IS DEFINITELY CORRECT, YES.

Q: AND YOU RELY UPON A FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST AS A MEMBER OF THE TEAM IN YOUR CASES THROUGHOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: I DO.

MR. COCHRAN: VERY WELL. THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, DETECTIVE LANGE. NOTHING FURTHER AT THIS POINT, YOUR HONOR.

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

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. CLARK:

Q: DETECTIVE LANGE, YOU INDICATED ON PAGE 29 OF THIS PUBLICATION, IT SAYS: "IT IS USUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO ESTABLISH ACCURATELY THE HOUR AND MINUTE WHEN LIFE CEASED."

A: YES.

Q: YOU INDICATED YOU AGREED WITH THAT?

A: CERTAINLY.

Q: AND BASED UPON YOUR READING OF THESE PUBLICATIONS AND YOUR EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING, WHAT IS THE NARROWEST TIME FRAME THAT HAS EVER BEEN ASSIGNED BY A CORONER TO TIME OF DEATH?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT. JUST A MOMENT. EVER BEEN ASSIGNED BY A CORONER? OBJECTION, VAGUE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, SIR, WHAT IS THE NARROWEST YOU HAVE EVER BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE TIME OF DEATH, THE NARROWEST TIME FRAME?

A: WITHOUT AN EYEWITNESS, NEVER BELOW TWO TO THREE HOURS.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE TIME OF DEATH TO WITHIN ONE HOUR?

A: I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THAT.

Q: AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WHAT WAS YOUR ESTIMATION OF THE RANGE OF TIME OF DEATH FOR MISS NICOLE BROWN AND RON GOLDMAN.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. OBJECTION. OBJECTION AND --

THE COURT: AND ONE OF THE TWELVE?

MR. COCHRAN: ONE OF THE TWELVE WILL BE FORTHCOMING. THE OBJECTION IS THIS IS IMPROPER RE, RE, REDIRECT AND ALSO OUTSIDE THE EXAMINATION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BEYOND THE SCOPE.

MR. COCHRAN: BEYOND THE SCOPE.

THE COURT: BEYOND THE SCOPE. OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: SOMETIME BETWEEN 9:00 P.M. AND MIDNIGHT ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE 12, 1994.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: COULD YOU HAVE MADE THAT ESTIMATE ANY NARROWER HAD YOU CALLED THE CORONER IN AT 4:30 INSTEAD OF EIGHT O'CLOCK?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MS. CLARK: CAN WE APPROACH?

THE COURT: YES.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: IT WAS CLOSE. IT WAS CLOSE.

MR. DARDEN: SPEAKING OBJECTION.

MR. COCHRAN: MY CLIENT, MY CLIENT WAS VERY HELPFUL TO ME. HE WAS TALKING TO ME. HE REMINDED ME. IT WAS HER THING, BUT OKAY.

THE COURT: I SUSTAINED THE OBJECTION AS SPECULATION.

MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.

THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO BE HEARD?

MS. CLARK: YES. WE HAVE NOW GONE EXTENSIVELY INTO THIS WITNESS' EXPERIENCE IN ESTIMATING TIME OF DEATH AND THE FACTORS HE RELIES UPON IN ESTIMATING TIME OF DEATH. HE OBVIOUSLY HAS CONDUCTED A GREAT DEAL OF INVESTIGATION TO NARROW THAT TIME FRAME AND TO LOOK AT THE FACTORS THAT HE RELIED UPON IN THIS CASE TO GET TO A CERTAIN RANGE. IT OBVIOUSLY IS NOT SPECULATION FOR HIM TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENCE BASED ON HIS EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING AND ALL THE FOUNDATION THAT HAS BEEN LAID.

THE COURT: I SUSTAINED THE OBJECTION BECAUSE I THINK IT IS SPECULATION AND I THINK IT IS ALSO OVERLY BROAD, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THE CORONER DOES A WHOLE NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS, THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATIONS. YOU KNOW, AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED, THEY CHECK THE LEVEL OF LIVIDITY, THEY CHECK THE EXTENT OF THE RIGOR MORTIS, THEY CHECK THE LIVER TEMPERATURE. I THINK ABOUT THE ONLY LEGITIMATE QUESTION THAT YOU CAN ASK THAT WOULDN'T BE SPECULATION IS HAD THE CORONER'S OFFICE TAKEN A LIVER TEMPERATURE, YOU KNOW, RIGHT THERE AT TWELVE MIDNIGHT, WOULD THAT HAVE HELPED YOU ANY? THAT IS ABOUT THE CLOSEST YOU ARE GOING TO GET, BUT TO ASK A BROAD QUESTION --

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: -- AS BROAD AS IT WAS IT REALLY CALLS -- BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HE IS CONSIDERING.

MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, CAN I ASK ONE OTHER THING?

MS. CLARK: PERHAPS WHAT I SHOULD DO IS ASK A PRELIMINARILY QUESTION ABOUT WHAT FACTORS HE TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION.

THE COURT: LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR. I AM NOT TRYING TO HELP ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER HERE AS I GIVE HINTS TO BOTH SIDES. I JUST WANT TO GET THIS OVER WITH SOMETIME THIS LIFETIME.

MR. COCHRAN: I AGREE JUDGE. CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? YOU WANT US TO INDICATE "OBJECTION" AND THEN WE ARE NOT ARGUING. YOU WANT US TO INDICATE THE GROUNDS IMMEDIATELY AND THEN WAIT FOR A RULING AND IF WE WANT TO APPROACH AT THAT POINT, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO APPROACH IF I DON'T HAVE TO, SO I WANT TO SPELL IT OUT. THE OBJECTION AND THE GROUND AND THAT IS IT?

THE COURT: THAT IS IT.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MISS CLARK, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE LANGE, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WHAT DID YOU CONSIDER IN TERMS OF THE FACTORS THAT ASSISTED YOU IN DETERMINING THE RANGE BETWEEN WHICH -- THE RANGE OF TIME BETWEEN WHICH DEATH OCCURRED FOR THE VICTIMS?

A: I CONSIDERED THE LAST TIME THAT THE VICTIMS WERE SEEN ALIVE. I CONSIDERED THEIR LIVER TEMPERATURES. I CONSIDERED THE TIME THAT THEY WERE DISCOVERED. AND I CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS OF THE CORONER'S OFFICE.

Q: DID YOU CONSIDER -- EXCUSE ME.

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU CONSIDER ALSO THE STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES, SIR?

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES, THAT WOULD GO TO THE LAST TIME THAT THEY WERE SEEN AND THE TIME THAT THEY WERE FOUND.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU RECALL REVIEWING ANY STATEMENTS CONCERNING WITNESSES WHO LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHO HEARD DOGS BARKING?

A: YES.

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID THAT PLAY ANY PART IN YOUR DETERMINATION AS TO THE RANGE OF TIME WITHIN WHICH DEATH OCCURRED?

A: YES.

Q: HAD YOU CALLED FOR THE CORONER TO TAKE A LIVER TEMPERATURE AT MIDNIGHT, WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO NARROW THE TIME FRAME THAT YOU CAME UP WITH, THAT IS, BETWEEN 9:00 AND 12:00, ANY BETTER?

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WITH RESPECT TO THIS PUBLICATION ALSO, SIR, IS THERE A SECTION ON PAGE 30 AND 31 CONCERNING IMMEDIATE SIGNS OF DEATH?

A: YES.

Q: AND DOES THAT TALK ABOUT METHODS BY WHICH TO ESTABLISH THAT A PERSON HAS IN FACT DECEASED?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THE PUBLICATION SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. IT IS IMPROPER.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES, IT DOES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND UNDER NO. 3 ON PAGE 31, DOES IT TALK ABOUT A METHOD OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE HAS DIED THROUGH THEIR EYES?

A: THROUGH THE EYEBALLS AND THE CHANGES IN THE PUPIL, YES.

Q: DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT DEATH HAS OCCURRED BY TOUCHING THE EYEBALL?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT DOES IT SAY IN THAT REGARD?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION.

THE COURT: HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: THERE IS A METHOD THERE INVOLVING TOUCHING THE EYEBALL; IS THAT CORRECT?

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MISS CLARK. AREN'T WE SORT OF BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE REDIRECT?

MS. CLARK: YES.

THE COURT: THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY AS TO --

MS. CLARK: ABOUT THAT?

THE COURT: -- AS TO THAT ISSUE AND I THINK OFFICER RISKE TESTIFIED TO THAT.

MS. CLARK: I WILL MOVE ON, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. SIR, YOU WERE DIRECTED BY MR. COCHRAN TO LOOK AT THE PASSAGE CONCERNING THE EXAMINING OF STOMACH CONTENTS ON PAGE 39?

A: YES.

Q: AND HE READ TO YOU PORTIONS OF THAT PARAGRAPH. DO YOU RECALL?

A: YES.

Q: HE DID NOT READ TO YOU THE FIRST PORTION, THE FIRST SENTENCE, DID HE?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, HEARSAY. IMPROPER QUESTION THE WAY COUNSEL IS PHRASING IT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: HE DID NOT READ TO YOU THE FIRST SENTENCE, DID HE?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION. MISSTATES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: LET ME CHECK HERE. OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL WHETHER HE DID OR NOT. IS THAT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCEDURE WHICH IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE?

MS. CLARK: RIGHT.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NEVERTHELESS, IT INDICATES THAT A PROCEDURE THAT IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE IN FIXING TIME OF DEATH IS EXAMINATION OF STOMACH CONTENTS?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, TO THE FORM OF THAT WITH REGARD TO -- OBJECTION TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, IF THE COURT PLEASES, ARGUMENTATIVE AND THE QUESTION IS PHRASED "NEVERTHELESS."

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DOES IT SAY ANYTHING IN THERE ABOUT SAVING STOMACH CONTENTS?

A: NO.

Q: THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE PASSAGE IN FACT DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT SAVING STOMACH CONTENTS?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO, IT DOESN'T.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DOES IT TALK ABOUT EXAMINATION OF STOMACH CONTENTS?

A: YES, IT DOES.

Q: WAS THAT DONE IN THIS CASE?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: AS TO BOTH RON GOLDMAN AND NICOLE BROWN?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: IN YOUR PRESENCE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, YOU SPOKE ON RECROSS EXAMINATION ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF LIVIDITY?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN THIS PARTICULAR PUBLICATION ON PAGE 34 DOES IT ALSO DISCUSS LIVIDITY?

A: YES.

Q: WITH RESPECT TO TIME OF DEATH, IS THERE ANY INDICATION HERE THAT YOU CAN BE SPECIFIC AS TO THE TIME OF DEATH BASED ON LIVIDITY?

A: NONE.

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

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT KIND OF -- ACCORDING TO THIS PUBLICATION, SIR, WHAT KIND OF DETERMINATION CAN YOU MAKE WITH RESPECT TO TIME OF DEATH BASED ON LIVIDITY?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: HAVE YOU READ THIS PASSAGE, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: DOES IT COMPORT WITH YOUR VIEW OF WHAT YOU CAN DETERMINE IN TERMS OF TIME OF DEATH BASED ON LIVIDITY?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, LET ME SEE YOU AT SIDE BAR WITHOUT THE REPORTER.

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE OF STOMACH CONTENTS, THEIR EXAMINATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING TIME OF DEATH, SIR, COUNSEL POINTED OUT TO YOU THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE EXTREMES OF AN EMPTY STOMACH AND A FULL STOMACH HAD TO BE LEFT TO THE DOCTOR?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, SIR, IS THERE A FIXED RATE AT WHICH PEOPLE DIGEST THEIR FOOD?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, BEYOND THE SCOPE. SECOND OBJECTION IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS WITNESS' EXPERTISE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT ARE THE VARIATIONS, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, SIR, WITH RESPECT TO THE DETERMINATION OF TIME OF DEATH BASED ON STOMACH CONTENTS?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION. SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. HIS EXPERIENCE.

THE WITNESS: THAT IT TAKES APPROXIMATELY FROM FOUR TO SIX HOURS TO COMPLETE THE DIGESTION PROCESS.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SO THERE IS A TWO-HOUR TIME RANGE IN THERE FOR VARIATION?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SO THERE IS A VARIATION BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS AS TO HOW FAST OR SLOW THEY DIGEST?

A: YES.

Q: YOU INDICATED JUST NOW FOUR TO SIX HOURS?

A: THERE IS A TWO-HOUR VARIATION THERE, YES.

Q: AND WHAT ARE THE FACTORS THAT CAN CAUSE THAT VARIATION OF TWO HOURS BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION. NO FOUNDATION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: ONE FACTOR MAY BE THE STATE OF EXCITABILITY, OR LACK THEREOF, THAT THE INDIVIDUAL IS IN AT THE TIME THAT HE IS DIGESTING FOOD. AGAIN, IT IS -- IT IS JUST A VERY GENERAL -- GENERAL STATEMENT AS TO DIGESTION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: MR. COCHRAN REFERRED TO MR. MC NALLY ON AUGUST 27 GOING INTO NICOLE'S CONDOMINIUM WITH YOU AND HE MENTIONED MR. MC NALLY TRYING ON A KNIT CAP THAT HE HAD POINTED OUT.

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU EVER SEE HIM DO THAT?

A: NO.

Q: WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO TRACE EVIDENCE SUCH AS HAIR OR FIBER ON THAT CAP IF SOMEONE ELSE, AN INVESTIGATOR, TRIED IT ON?

A: IT COULD BE COMPROMISED.

Q: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?

A: A TRUE READING OF ANY TRACE EVIDENCE THAT WAS ON THAT CAP PRIOR TO HIM PUTTING IT ON HIS HEAD COULDN'T BE MADE.

Q: MIGHT HIS HAIRS GET ON THE CAP?

A: CERTAINLY.

Q: MIGHT OTHER HAIRS THAT ARE ON THE CAP THAT ARE OF EVIDENTIARY VALUE GET LOST?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU TRY ON THE SKI CAP THAT WAS FOUND AT THE FEET OF RON GOLDMAN?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU TRY ON THE GLOVE?

A: NO.

Q: WOULD YOU EVER DO SUCH A THING?

A: NO.

Q: IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD DO IF YOU THOUGHT AN ITEM HAD ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE AT ALL?

A: NEVER.

Q: NOW, THE BLOOD ON THE FRONT WALKWAY, SIR, BASED ON WHAT YOU COULD SEE, WHAT WAS THE SOURCE OF THAT BLOOD?

A: IN MY MIND THE SOURCE OF THE BLOOD WAS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON.

Q: OKAY. AND DID IT GO -- THAT FLOW PRETTY MUCH ALL THE WAY DOWN THE WALKWAY?

A: YES, IT DID.

Q: WAS THERE ANY BLOOD FLOWING FROM RON GOLDMAN ONTO THE WALKWAY?

A: NONE THAT I --

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NONE THAT I COULD OBSERVE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU SEE ANY SHOEPRINTS IN BLOOD ON THE FRONT WALKWAY?

A: THERE WERE PARTIAL SHOEPRINTS BETWEEN THE TWO VICTIMS ON THE WALKWAY. I SAW NOTHING TO THE EAST OF THE GATE LEADING DOWN TO THE SIDEWALK.

Q: RIGHT. OKAY. I'M TALKING ABOUT DID YOU SEE ANY SHOEPRINTS IN BLOOD LEADING AWAY FROM THE BODIES DOWN THE WALKWAY TOWARD THE SIDEWALK?

A: NO.

Q: WERE YOU EVER ABLE TO AVOID THE BLOOD ON THE WALKWAY FROM THE POINT OF THE SIDEWALK UP TO THE GATE LEADING TO THE BODIES IN THAT FRONT WALKWAY, UNLESS YOU STEPPED THROUGH THE GRASS AND THE SHRUBBERY?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, VAGUE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. LEADING.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: HOW -- DID YOU -- DID YOU WALK UP TO THE BODIES IN THE SHRUBBERY, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU OBSERVE THE WALKWAY?

A: YES.

Q: COULD YOU SEE A WAY OF WALKING ON THAT WALKWAY WITHOUT STEPPING IN BLOOD?

A: THERE WERE WAYS TO DO THAT, YES.

Q: AND HOW WERE YOU ABLE TO DO THAT?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU DO THAT?

A: GENERALLY INITIALLY I DID NOT. THERE WERE AREAS ON THE WALKWAY THAT THERE WERE NO BLOOD.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THERE WERE ENOUGH OF THOSE AREAS THAT IF SOMEONE WANTED TO, THEY COULD STEP BETWEEN THE BLOOD SPOTS AND ON THE CLEAN AREAS OF THE WALKWAY?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, SPECULATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: CERTAINLY.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. COULD YOU DO THAT IN THE DARK?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, SPECULATION, SPECULATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE THOSE CLEAN SPOTS ON THE FRONT WALKWAY WITHOUT YOUR FLASHLIGHT?

A: I WAS, YES.

Q: AND AT WHAT TIME WERE YOU THERE?

A: I ARRIVED APPROXIMATELY 4:30.

Q: OKAY.

A: A.M.

Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE HOW DIFFICULT OR EASY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TO WALK DOWN THAT WALKWAY WITHOUT STEPPING IN BLOOD?

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

THE COURT: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU WERE ABLE TO SEE WHERE THE CLEAN SPOTS WERE, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: HOW WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE THAT?

A: BY LOOKING.

Q: OKAY. WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE WHAT -- WHAT KIND OF PATH YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE TO AVOID THE BLOOD ON THE FRONT WALKWAY?

A: IT WAS VERY EVIDENT TO ME WHICH PATHS TO TAKE IN ORDER TO AVOID THE BLOOD.

Q: OKAY. COULD YOU JUST WALK ONE FOOT IN FRONT OF THE OTHER AND WALK STRAIGHT DOWN THE WALKWAY?

A: NO.

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT PATH WOULD YOU HAVE TO TAKE TO AVOID THE BLOOD ON THE FRONT WALKWAY?

A: YOU WOULD HAVE TO STEP WHERE THERE IS NO BLOOD.

Q: AND HOW DIFFICULT OR EASY WAS THAT?

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

THE COURT: AT THIS POINT OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: TO ME THERE WAS NO GREAT DIFFICULTY IN DOING THAT IF ONE WERE TO LOOK WHERE ONE WAS WALKING.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: TO STEP CAREFULLY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION TO THE LAST STATEMENT, LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND DO YOU HOW YOU TAKE PICTURES OF INVISIBLE SHOEPRINTS?

A: NO.

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU RECALL THE BLACK JEEP THAT YOU FOUND PARKED IN THE REAR DRIVEWAY OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

A: YES.

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID ANY DEFENSE INVESTIGATORS ASK YOU FOR PICTURES OF THE TIRES OF THAT BLACK JEEP?

A: NO.

Q: AND DID YOU DETERMINE WHO THAT BLACK JEEP BELONGED TO?

A: YES.

Q: NICOLE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE. OBJECTION. NOT IN CONTROVERSY, BUT --

THE COURT: WITHDRAWN?

MR. COCHRAN: WITHDRAWN.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID ANY DEFENSE INVESTIGATOR ASK TO EXAMINE THE TIRES OF THAT JEEP?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: BEYOND THE SCOPE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, THE COINS THAT YOU INDICATED, THE PENNY AND THE DIME --

A: YES.

Q: -- WHERE WERE THEY IN RELATION TO THE JEEP?

A: THEY WERE NORTH OF THE JEEP AND IN THE DRIVEWAY BETWEEN THE JEEP AND THE NORTH FENCE.

Q: AND THE TIRE TRACKS THAT WERE POINTED OUT TO YOU THAT APPEARED TO RUN UNDERNEATH THOSE COINS --

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: -- WHERE WERE THEY LOCATED?

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THEY WERE LOCATED BETWEEN THE JEEP AND THE NORTH FENCE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WAS THERE -- NOW, YOU WERE THERE THAT NIGHT, SIR, WERE YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THERE ROOM TO PARK A CAR BETWEEN THE JEEP AND THE FENCE?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN, UNLESS IT WAS A VERY, VERY TINY CAR.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT NO. 52, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT, SIR. LOOKING AT PEOPLE'S 52, TO WHAT SIDE OF THAT JEEP DID YOU FIND THE COINS?

A: AS YOU LOOK AT THE VEHICLE IT IS TO THE LEFT.

Q: AND IT WAS IN THAT AREA -- WAS IT IN THAT AREA THAT YOU SAW THE -- THAT THERE WERE TIRE TRACKS?

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: CAN YOU TELL US -- IT IS KIND OF DARK IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, BUT TO THE LEFT OF THE JEEP ARE THERE ANY OBJECTS THAT ARE ON THAT REAR DRIVEWAY IN FRONT OF THE FENCE?

A: THERE ARE TWO TRASH CANS.

Q: CAN YOU --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MS. CLARK: USE THE LASER POINTER, SIR, AND TELL ME IF YOU CAN SEE WHAT I'M POINTING TO.

Q: IS THIS THE AREA WHERE THE GARBAGE CANS ARE?

A: YES.

Q: AND IF YOU CAN TELL IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, DIRECT -- IF YOU COULD DIRECT THE RED DOT, WHERE WERE THE COINS AND THE TIRE TRACKS SEEN?

A: UP -- UP A BIT, GENERALLY IN THAT AREA, (INDICATING).

Q: RIGHT HERE?

A: GENERALLY IN THIS AREA.

Q: I CAN'T HOLD IT STILL FOR THAT LONG. RIGHT HERE, (INDICATING)?

A: GENERALLY, YES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, HOW MANY FEET COULD YOU ESTIMATE FOR US WAS THE -- WAS THERE BETWEEN THE SIDE OF THE JEEP AND THOSE GARBAGE CANS?

A: I COULD ESTIMATE APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS HAS INDICATED A LOCATION WITH THE LASER THAT IS BETWEEN THE JEEP ON THE CENTER OF THE PHOTOGRAPH AND THE FENCE, WHICH IS TO ITS LEFT.

MS. CLARK: COULD I SHOW YOU THE SAME PHOTOGRAPH ON THE ELMO, SIR? IT WILL BE A LITTLE BIT LIGHTER.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: 1, PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. THERE WE GO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, LOOKING AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH, SIR, CAN YOU TELL US -- LOCATE FOR US WHERE THE TIRE TRACKS POINTED OUT UNDERNEATH THE COINS WERE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH?

A: WELL, THEY WOULD BE JUST AGAIN TO THE LEFT OF THE VEHICLE.

Q: JUST TO THE LEFT OF THE JEEP?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU -- CAN YOU DIRECT THE DOT?

A: DOWN IN THAT -- DOWN A LITTLE BIT. IN THAT GENERAL AREA. I CAN'T TELL FROM HERE, BUT I WOULD SAY IN THAT GENERAL AREA, (INDICATING).

Q: RIGHT THERE, (INDICATING)?

A: I CAN'T SAY WHETHER IT WAS RIGHT THERE. AGAIN, IN THAT GENERAL AREA BETWEEN THE VEHICLE AND THE NORTH FENCE.

Q: OKAY. THERE?

A: APPROXIMATELY IN THAT AREA, YES.

MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: YOUR HONOR, MAY A PRINT OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH BE MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 52-A?

THE COURT: YES. (PEO'S 52-A FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

THE COURT: MADAM REPORTER, DO WE NEED TO SWITCH? REPORTER OLSON: NO, SIR.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION AS TO WHETHER -- AS TO WHERE THAT JEEP WAS WHEN OFFICER RISKE FIRST APPEARED ON THE SCENE AT APPROXIMATELY MIDNIGHT?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, HEARSAY.

MS. CLARK: THIS IS --

MR. COCHRAN: BEYOND THE SCOPE.

THE COURT: IT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE.

MS. CLARK: UMM --

THE COURT: ACTUALLY GOES TO TIRE TRACKS?

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED. PROCEED.

THE WITNESS: MY INFORMATION WAS, IS THAT IT WAS FOUND IN THE LOCATION YOU SEE IT IN.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THAT IS HEARSAY. WHAT HE WAS TOLD BY RISKE.

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE.

MS. CLARK: I'M ASKING TO EXPLAIN SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS FOUNDATIONAL.

THE COURT: WELL, OFFICER RISKE TESTIFIED THAT IS WHAT HE SAW, CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: YES, HE DID.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: YES, HE DID.

THE COURT: THAT IS WHAT HE SAW.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. DID OFFICER RISKE GIVE YOU SOME INFORMATION ABOUT WHERE THAT JEEP WAS LOCATED WHEN HE FIRST RESPONDED TO THE SCENE AT MIDNIGHT?

A: I BELIEVE IT CAME FROM DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.

Q: DID IT COME TO YOU EVENTUALLY?

A: YES.

Q: AND AFTER YOU LEARNED THAT, SIR -- BASED ON THAT INFORMATION AND YOUR OBSERVATIONS AT THE CRIME SCENE, WHAT, IF ANY, EVIDENTIARY VALUE DID THOSE TIRE TRACKS UNDERNEATH THE COINS HAVE FOR YOU?

A: NONE.

Q: AND WHY IS THAT?

A: NO. 1, IT IS A COMMONLY USED CEMENT SURFACE WHERE VEHICLES ARE PARKED. THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL THE AGE OF A TIRE, AND BESIDES, THERE IS NO WAY A VEHICLE COULD HAVE FIT BETWEEN THE GRAND CHEROKEE AND THE FENCE THAT I COULD SEE.

Q: SO IN YOUR OPINION WAS THERE ANY WAY THAT THOSE TIRE TRACKS COULD HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH THE VEHICLE DRIVEN BY THE SUSPECT?

A: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I MOVE TO STRIKE THAT LAST --

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ABOUT THAT MELTING ICE CREAM --

MR. COCHRAN: I MOVE TO STRIKE THAT LAST ANSWER. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ABOUT THAT MELTING ICE CREAM, SIR, THE EXPERIMENT THAT WAS PERFORMED, YOU SAW THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE CONDITION OF THE ICE CREAM AFTER AN HOUR AND FIFTEEN MINUTES?

A: IN MY EXPERIMENT?

Q: NOT YOURS, BUT THE EXPERIMENT THAT WAS CONDUCTED?

A: YES.

Q: AND DO YOU RECALL YOUR OBSERVATION OF THE ICE CREAM THAT YOU OBSERVED AT 4:30 IN THE MORNING -- FOUR HOURS AFTER OFFICER RISKE RESPONDED TO THE SCENE AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

A: YES.

Q: HOW DIFFERENT DID THE ICE CREAM THAT YOU SAW FOUR HOURS AFTER THE SCENE WAS DISCOVERED BY OFFICER RISKE THAN IT LOOKED IN THE EXPERIMENT TO YOU AFTER AN HOUR AND FIFTEEN MINUTES?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, WITHOUT A PROPER FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. FOUNDATION.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

Q: DID YOU OBSERVE THE ICE CREAM IN THE EXPERIMENT AFTER AN HOUR AND FIFTEEN MINUTES?

A: I OBSERVED THE PHOTOGRAPH, YES.

Q: YOU OBSERVED WHAT CONDITION IT WAS IN?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE AT 4:30, DID YOU OBSERVE THE ICE CREAM ON THE BANISTER IN THE BEN AND JERRY'S CUP?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU RECEIVE INFORMATION FROM OFFICER RISKE CONCERNING THE TIME THAT HE FIRST OBSERVED THAT CUP?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND THE ICE CREAM THAT YOU SAW AT 4:30, A.M., AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY, HOW DID IT LOOK IN COMPARISON TO THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ICE CREAM THAT YOU SAW AFTER IT HAD MELTED AN HOUR AND FIFTEEN MINUTES?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH ON THIS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WITH THE REPORTER.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: AT THE SIDE BAR.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING. FIRST OF ALL, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, HE WASN'T PRESENT AT THE EXPERIMENT, HE SAW SOME PICTURES AFTERWARDS. AND THE PROBLEM WE HAVE IS BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THEY DIDN'T TAKE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS, WE DON'T HAVE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF WHAT WAS ON THE BANISTER, SO THIS QUESTION IS VAGUE AND IT IS INDEFINITE AND UNINTELLIGIBLE AND I WANTED TO APPROACH SO I COULD AT LEAST EXPRESS THAT. WHAT WE HAVE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS A TEST DONE AFTER I RAISED THE ISSUE IN FIVE-MINUTE INTERVALS THROUGH PHOTOGRAPHS. HE WASN'T AT THAT TEST HE ONLY HAS A PICTURE AT THE END. WE DON'T KNOW IF IT IS THE SAME ICE CREAM OR WHATEVER BY VIRTUE OF SOME OF THE QUESTIONS OF SOME PEOPLE HE DID NOT TALK TO, AND SO I THINK THAT THIS HAS A VERY LITTLE PROBATIVE VALUE AND IT IS AN IMPROPER QUESTION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE OBJECTION --

MS. CLARK: THE --

THE COURT: THE OBJECTION WILL BE OVERRULED. IT DOESN'T GO TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS TESTIMONY IS ADMISSIBLE. IT GOES TO WHATEVER THE JURY WANTS TO ACCORD IT. SINCE THERE IS A DISPUTE AS TO WHAT ICE CREAM IT WAS, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TEMPERATURE IT WAS WHEN THIS EXPERIMENT WAS CONDUCTED, BUT THAT GOES TO THE WEIGHT THAT YOU WANT TO ACCORD WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD BE DETERMINED TO BE VALID. A LOT OF ARM WAVING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT REAL IMPORTANT.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MISS CLARK, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU WERE ABOUT TO ASK IF HE COMPARED THE PHOTOGRAPH WITH HIS RECOLLECTION AT 4:30.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: DETECTIVE LANGE, THE ICE CREAM THAT YOU SAW AT 4:30 A.M. AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY, HOW DID IT LOOK IN COMPARISON TO THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ICE CREAM THAT YOU SAW AFTER IT MELTED FOR AN HOUR AND FIFTEEN MINUTES IN THE EXPERIMENT?

A: VERY SIMILAR.

Q: LET ME ASK YOU SOME -- FAYE RESNICK -- DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY INFORMATION THAT FAYE RESNICK WAS BEING THREATENED BY DRUG DEALERS?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT FAYE RESNICK OWED MONEY TO DRUG DEALERS?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT DRUG DEALERS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THESE MURDERS?

A: NONE.

Q: AND WAS THERE ANYTHING IN FAYE RESNICK'S BOOK THAT CAUSED YOU TO FORM THE OPINION THAT DRUG DEALERS COMMITTED THESE MURDERS?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION BASED UPON ANYTHING IN THE BOOK. OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NOTHING.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WAS THERE ANYTHING IN THE BOOK THAT CHANGED YOUR OPINION CONCERNING --

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL. WITHOUT THE REPORTER.

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MISS CLARK.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID MISS RESNICK'S BOOK HAVE ANY IMPACT ON YOUR OPINION CONCERNING YOUR THEORY OF THIS CASE?

A: NONE WHATSOEVER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO NOW YOU LOOKED AT ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU HAVE HEARD ALL THESE RUMORS. IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, SIR --

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, SIR, WHAT ULTIMATELY LED YOU TO THIS DEFENDANT?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: WE DON'T HAVE TO APPROACH YET.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: LET ME ASK YOU THIS, SIR. HAS NICOLE'S CONDOMINIUM SINCE BEEN CLEANED OUT AND BEEN REPAIRED FOR RESALE?

A: YES.

Q: HAS THE DISCOVERY OF ANY DRUG ITEMS OR PARAPHERNALIA EVER BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION RECOVERED FROM HER PLACE?

A: NO.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THE JURORS ARE TO DISREGARD THE LAST ANSWER.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: HAS ANY EVIDENCE OF DRUGS OR DRUG PARAPHERNALIA FROM HER CONDOMINIUM BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION?

MR. COCHRAN: HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: HAS EVIDENCE BEEN BROUGHT DO YOU, DETECTIVE LANGE, RECOVERED FROM MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S CONDOMINIUM, CONSISTING OF DRUGS OR DRUG PARAPHERNALIA?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: THAT IS NOT HEARSAY. OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OTHER THAN RUMOR AND INNUENDO, HAVE YOU RECOVERED ANY EVIDENCE THAT CAUSES YOU TO BELIEVE THIS IS A DRUG-RELATED MURDER?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AFTER THE EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, SIR, WHAT EVIDENCE IS IT THAT YOU -- THAT CAUSES YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS NOT A DRUG-RELATED MURDER?

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

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MS. CLARK: CAN WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: I THOUGHT WE ASKED THAT QUESTION ONCE ALREADY.

MS. CLARK: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT?

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DETECTIVE LANGE, DID YOU -- IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, SIR, I THINK YOU INDICATED THAT YOU HAD THE AREA AROUND NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S CONDOMINIUM EXAMINED FOR UNUSUAL VEHICLES?

MR. COCHRAN: OUTSIDE THE SCOPE. OBJECTION, OUTSIDE THE SCOPE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: IT APPEARS TO BE.

MS. CLARK: CAN WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: LINK IT UP?

MS. CLARK: I WILL.

THE COURT: PROCEED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU DO THAT, SIR?

A: I CAUSED THAT TO BE DONE, YES.

Q: DID YOU LOCATE THE CAR -- DID YOU LOCATE A CAR, THAT WAS ASSOCIATED WITH EITHER OF THE VICTIMS, PARKED ON THE STREET NEAR HER CONDOMINIUM?

MR. COCHRAN: HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR. OUTSIDE THE SCOPE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. I'M GOING TO OVERRULE AT THIS POINT, BUT I ASSUME YOU ARE GOING TO LINK THIS UP.

MS. CLARK: I AM.

THE WITNESS: THERE WAS ONE LOCATED, YES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND WHAT WAS THAT?

A: A VEHICLE DRIVEN TO THE LOCATION BY MR. GOLDMAN PARKED ON DOROTHY STREET SOUTH OF THE BUNDY LOCATION.

Q: FACING WHICH WAY ON DOROTHY?

A: FACING WEST.

Q: WERE YOU AWARE OF --

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND WHERE DID RON GOLDMAN LIVE IN RELATION TO THE MEZZALUNA AND NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S CONDOMINIUM?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, BEYOND THE SCOPE.

MS. CLARK: WOULD THE COURT LIKE ME TO APPROACH?

THE COURT: LET ME SEE COUNSEL WITHOUT THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: YES. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: THE QUESTION WAS ABOUT KEYS.

MS. CLARK: YES. THAT IS WHERE I WANTED TO GO. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: DO YOU REMEMBER THE KEYS THAT WERE FOUND NEAR THE BODY OF RON GOLDMAN, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: WERE THOSE KEYS CHECKED TO FIND OUT WHAT, IF ANYTHING, THEY OPENED?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE A LITTLE MORE FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU CHECK THOSE KEYS, SIR, TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY FIT ANY CARS IN THE AREA?

A: I CHECKED THEM WITH THE OWNERS -- THE OWNER OF THE KEYS, YES.

Q: OKAY. AND WHAT DID THOSE KEYS FIT?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. DID YOU DO THAT PERSONALLY?

THE WITNESS: NO, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU HAVE THAT DONE UNDER YOUR -- AT YOUR REQUEST?

A: THE KEYS WERE NOT PHYSICALLY USED TO CHECK THE VEHICLE. THEY WERE --

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE COURT: THAT IS OVERRULED ON THAT GROUND. PROCEED.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THEY WERE NOT PHYSICALLY CHECKED?

THE WITNESS: THEY WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE AND THE KEYS TO ME.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: THAT IS HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT WILL BE STRICKEN. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WAS THAT VEHICLE MOVED FROM THE LOCATION, SIR?

A: IT WAS IMPOUNDED, YES.

Q: WAS IT TOWED AWAY?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT HAPPENED TO THE KEYS THAT WERE FOUND NEAR THE BODY OF RON GOLDMAN?

A: THEY WERE ULTIMATELY TURNED OVER TO THEIR OWNER.

Q: WHO WAS?

A: FIRST NAME IS ANDREA. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK. HER LAST NAME ESCAPES ME AT THE MOMENT.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU SPEAK TO HER, SIR?

A: I INTERVIEWED HER, YES.

Q: IS SHE A FRIEND OF RON GOLDMAN'S?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU DETERMINE -- DID YOU ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE WHAT -- WHEN YOU GAVE THOSE KEYS BACK TO HER, DID YOU ASK HER QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE -- WHETHER SHE RECOGNIZED THEM?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS ASKED IS NOT HEARSAY.

THE WITNESS: YES, I DID.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND DID SHE IDENTIFY THOSE KEYS TO YOU?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.

THE WITNESS: YES.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SHE GAVE YOU INFORMATION CONCERNING THOSE KEYS, SIR?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SHE GAVE YOU INFORMATION?

THE COURT: COUNSEL, MOVE ON.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU ULTIMATELY DETERMINE WHETHER THOSE KEYS FIT THE VEHICLE PARKED ON DOROTHY?

MR. COCHRAN: JUST A MOMENT. HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR. HE SAID HE DIDN'T DO IT.

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE. IS THE OWNER OF THE CAR AVAILABLE?

THE WITNESS: YES, YOUR HONOR. SHE TRAVELS OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: THE KEYS FOUND NEAR RON GOLDMAN'S BODY, YOU RELEASED THEM TO HER?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT BASED ON WHAT SHE TOLD YOU?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT. HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU. NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: MADAM REPORTER, DO YOU NEED TO CHANGE SOME PAPER?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY I SAVE SOME TIME? DETECTIVE LANGE, YOU WOULDN'T BE DISAPPOINTED IF I DIDN'T ASK YOU ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, WOULD YOU?

MR. COCHRAN: I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. YOU WOULDN'T BE DISAPPOINTED IF I DIDN'T ASK YOU ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, WOULD YOU?

THE WITNESS: NO SIR, I WOULD NOT.

MR. COCHRAN: HAVE A NICE DAY.

THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: DETECTIVE, WE MAY --

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, BEFORE WE APPROACH, MAY WE APPROACH WITH THE REPORTER?

THE COURT: I NEED ONE OTHER THING.

MR. COCHRAN: YES, PLEASE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, BEFORE I RELEASE DETECTIVE LANGE, I JUST WANTED TO REINSTRUCT YOU TO SOMETHING THAT OCCURRED DURING THE COURSE OF DETECTIVE LANGE'S TESTIMONY. DURING THE COURSE OF HIS TESTIMONY THE DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY DETECTIVE LANGE WAS ASKED QUESTIONS REGARDING SCIENTIFIC TESTS PERFORMED ON THE BLOOD UNDER THE FINGERNAILS OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND DETECTIVE LANGE STATED THAT CERTAIN -- GAVE CERTAIN ANSWERS AS TO HOW THAT IMPACTED HIS INVESTIGATION. YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO DISREGARD THAT QUESTION AND ANSWER. THE TOPIC OF DNA TESTING AND THE RESULTS OF THAT DNA TESTING WILL BE PRESENTED AT A LATER TIME THROUGH EXPERT WITNESSES, SO YOU SHOULD DISREGARD THAT QUESTION AND ANSWER. ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH NOW WITH THE REPORTER.

THE COURT: CAN I LET DETECTIVE LANGE GO?

MR. COCHRAN: CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: HE WOULD FEEL MUCH HAPPIER. I WOULD FEEL MUCH HAPPIER, TOO.

THE COURT: DETECTIVE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE EXCUSED, SIR, SUBJECT TO RECALL.

MR. COCHRAN: STILL ON CALL, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR.

MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, AND SINCE WE HAVE THE ONE SPEAKING RULE, I WILL DO IT. MR. SHAPIRO IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE GOING TO GO BACK AND I ASK YOU TO CONSIDER STRIKING THE TESTIMONY ABOUT HER QUESTION ABOUT RON GOLDMAN DRIVING THAT VEHICLE THERE. WE CAN THINK OF ANY NUMBER OF SCENARIOS. HE COULD HAVE SPENT THE DAY OVER THERE WITH HER AND THAT IS -- ABSOLUTELY ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. AND I MADE THE OBJECTION AT THE TIME AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO RECONSIDER THAT BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT STRICKEN, IT RELATES TO THIS WITNESS, BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT WITNESS, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT IS GOING TO BE BECOME AN ISSUE AT SOME POINT. I THINK THE COURT AGREES THAT WE ARE RIGHT ON THE OBJECTION. IF IT IS NOT, SO BE IT, MAYBE IT HELPS HER FINISH FASTER, BUT WE THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT. I DON'T THINK ANY WITNESSES ARE GOING TO SAY HE DROVE THAT CAR THERE. THAT CAR WAS AROUND THE CORNER HEADED IN A DIRECTION WHICH MAY BE TOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH WHERE GORHAM IS, NOW THAT WE HAVE HAD THE JURY VIEW, SO I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO DO THAT.

MS. CLARK: YOU KNOW SOMETHING? I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT WE ARE UP HERE LISTENING TO COUNSEL SAY THIS. THE COURT BASICALLY BEAT THE PEOPLE INTO SUBMISSION ON THIS FACT IN DISPUTE ABOUT FAYE RESNICK GOING IN REHAB. ALL HEARSAY THAT CAME IN. WHETHER FAYE RESNICK HAD A DRUG PROBLEM. ALL HEARSAY. AND THE COURT IS ASKING THE PEOPLE IS THIS REALLY IN DISPUTE? NO, I AGREE IT IS NOT. AND SO THE COURT ALLOWED COUNSEL TO DRAG ALL THIS HEARSAY INTO THE RECORD, STUFF THAT THIS WITNESS NEVER KNEW. THE COURT WAS VERY STRICT WITH US IN SAYING THIS IS HEARSAY AND THAT IS HEARSAY AND I CAN'T TO THIS OR THAT. AND NOW THEY ARE COMPLAINING THAT A LOGICAL INFERENCE -- AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ONLY INFERENCE THAT CAN BE DRAWN FROM CERTAIN EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT. I FIND IT JUST INCREDIBLE. THEY ARE SO GREEDY. THEY GET EVERYTHING THEY WANT. ALL OF THIS WITNESS, DRAGGING HEARSAY ALL INTO THIS COURTROOM FROM THE BOOK AND SOME NEWS SHOW AND NOW THEY TURN TO ME AND I GET HEARSAY OBJECTIONS SUSTAINED ON STUFF THAT THEY KNOW TO BE TRUE, A FACT NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE KEYS BELONGED TO THE OWNER OF THAT CAR WHO IS A FRIEND OF RON GOLDMAN. THAT FACT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT.

MR. SHAPIRO: THAT IS IN DISPUTE.

MS. CLARK: WE COULD HAVE HAD A STIPULATION TO THAT, BUT THE COURT SUSTAINED THEIR OBJECTIONS. I UNDERSTAND WHY. BUT NOW THEY WANT TO PLAY FAST AND LOOSE EVEN MORE. THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH ASKING A QUESTION THAT HAD ONLY ONE LOGICAL INFERENCE. LET HIM GO AND PROVE OTHERWISE. EVERYONE KNOWS HOW THAT CAR GOT THERE. EVERYONE KNOWS HOW KEYS -- THOSE ARE THE TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS JUST TO BREAK THE PEOPLE'S STRIDE AND BREAK UP THE CASE, I UNDERSTAND, BUT TO NOW COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS AFTER ALL THEY HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH IS GREEDY BEYOND BELIEF.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS AN OBJECTION, GREEDY BEYOND BELIEF? JUDGE, JUST PUTTING ASIDE, GETTING BACK TO BEING LAWYERS, THERE WAS A PROPER OBJECTION MADE AT THE TIME. I THINK IT IS AN IMPORTANT POINT. WITH REGARD TO ALL THIS OTHER STUFF ABOUT HEARSAY, THE COURT IS FAIR AND THE COURT DOESN'T WANT TO HEAR FROM US WHAT HAPPENED TEN MINUTES AGO. YOU ARE DEALING WITH THE ISSUES AS THEY ARE HAPPENING AND WE TRY TO REMEMBER THAT.

MR. SHAPIRO: IT IS A FACT IN DISPUTE.

MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS GOING TO BE A FACT IN DISPUTE.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. IF NOT FACTS IN DISPUTE, I WILL TELL YOU WHAT, LET'S GO OUT THERE AND STIPULATE IN FRONT OF THE JURY THAT THE KEYS BELONG TO ANDREA WHAT'S HER NAME AND SHE GAVE HER CAR TO RON GOLDMAN AND HE DROVE THE CAR THAT DAY.

MR. COCHRAN: WE DON'T KNOW THAT.

MS. CLARK: WHO ELSE DID? HER KEYS ARE RIGHT UNDER HIS BODY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE REQUEST IS DENIED. THANK YOU.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MISS CLARK, CALL YOUR NEXT WITNESS.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE PEOPLE CALL MISS PATTI GOLDMAN.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE WILL HAVE TO ASK KIM GOLDMAN TO STEP OUT DURING THE TESTIMONY.

(POTENTIAL WITNESS EXITS THE COURTROOM.)

PATTI GOLDMAN, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. YOU DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD.

THE WITNESS: I DO.

THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT ON THE WITNESS STAND AND STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.

THE WITNESS: PATTI GOLDMAN, P-A-T-T-I G-O-L-D-M-A-N.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. CLARK:

Q: CAN YOU PLEASE TELL THE JURY WHO YOU ARE, MA'AM.

A: I'M RON GOLDMAN'S STEPMOTHER.

Q: OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO USE THE MICROPHONE. THERE YOU GO.

A: RON GOLDMAN'S STEPMOTHER.

Q: SHOWING YOU AN ITEM THAT HAS BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S --

THE COURT: 30.

MS. CLARK: 30.

THE COURT: 30.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: FIRST OF ALL, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE SHOPPING BAG?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: HOW DO YOU RECOGNIZE IT?

A: THAT IS WHERE I DO MY GROCERY SHOPPING.

Q: AND WAS IT YOUR DAUGHTER KIM GOLDMAN WHO PLACED THE CLOTHING INSIDE THIS BAG INTO THIS BAG?

A: I DIDN'T SEE HER PUT THEM IN THERE, BUT SHE TOLD ME THAT SHE PUT THEM.

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED. THAT IS HEARSAY.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ARE THESE BAGS KEPT IN YOUR HOUSE?

A: YES, THEY ARE.

Q: AND DO YOU RECOGNIZE THIS PARTICULAR BAG?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: IS THAT ONE FROM YOUR HOUSE?

A: YES, IT IS.

MS. CLARK: ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: I HAVE REMOVED FROM THAT BAG A WHITE ENVELOPE ON WHICH IS WRITTEN "ONE PIECE OF GREEN PAPER WITH WRITING." TAKING OUT THE PIECE OF GREEN PAPER WITH WRITING ON IT, I'M GOING TO ASK IF YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT THAT IS?

A: YES. IT IS MY GROCERY LIST.

Q: IS THAT YOUR WRITING?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: AND DOES THAT -- SOMETHING -- CAN YOU TELL US HOW IT CAME TO BE INSIDE THE BROWN PAPER BAG THAT YOU RECOGNIZE?

A: WHEN I GET THROUGH GROCERY SHOPPING WHEN I LEAVE THE SUPERMARKET I ALWAYS THROW THE LIST IN MY BAG.

Q: AND SO THIS IS THE SHOPPING LIST THAT YOU MADE?

A: YES, IT IS.

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WERE YOU PRESENT IN COURT WHEN YOUR DAUGHTER KIM GOLDMAN TESTIFIED?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER IF I WAS OR NOT, IF I WAS ASKED TO LEAVE OR NOT. I DON'T REMEMBER.

Q: DO YOU REMEMBER COMING TO COURT WITH HER ON THE DAY THAT THIS BAG AND ITS CONTENTS WERE BROUGHT TO COURT?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND BY THAT I REFER TO ITEM NO. 30?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU SEE WHAT SHE PLACED INSIDE THE BAG?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THAT?

A: RON'S SHIRT AND PANTS.

Q: WAITER'S UNIFORM?

A: YES, UH-HUH.

Q: AND SO IS THIS THE BAG THAT SHE -- AND THE CONTENTS THAT SHE BROUGHT WITH HER, PEOPLE'S 30, TO COURT?

A: YES, IT IS.

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

MS. CLARK: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.

MR. COCHRAN: JUST ONE OR TWO BRIEF QUESTIONS.

THE COURT: PLEASE.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: MRS. GOLDMAN, AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY, THIS WAS BROUGHT TO COURT FROM YOUR HOME?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: SO THAT I'M CLEAR, DETECTIVES TIPPIN AND CARR DID NOT BRING THAT BAG TO COURT, YOU BROUGHT IT ALONG WITH YOUR DAUGHTER; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: KIM BROUGHT IT, KIM GOLDMAN BROUGHT IT.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHO DETECTIVES TIPPIN AND CARR ARE?

A: I HAVE NEVER MET THEM.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY. NOTHING FURTHER, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MRS. GOLDMAN. ALL RIGHT. NEXT WITNESS.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, THE NEXT WITNESS WILL BE DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN. CAN WE APPROACH?

THE COURT: YES. WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE OVER AT SIDE BAR. AND MR. DARDEN, YOU HAVE ASKED TO APPROACH.

MR. DARDEN: WE HAVE A COUPLE OF BOARDS WE NEED TO SHOW THE DEFENSE BEFORE DETECTIVE --

THE COURT: I'M SORRY, YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF --

MR. DARDEN: COUPLE OF BOARDS.

THE COURT: BOARDS.

MR. DARDEN: TO SHOW THE DEFENSE AND I THINK MISS CLARK NEEDS SOME CLARIFICATION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ARE THE BOARDS HERE?

MR. DARDEN: THEY WILL BE HERE ANY SECOND AND FUHRMAN IS ON HIS WAY DOWN AND HE IS NOT HERE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO HAVE THE JURY STEP BACK AND WE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THE BOARDS AND SEE WHAT THEY ARE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WITH REGARDS TO THE NEXT WITNESS, I NEED TO LOOK AT A COUPLE OF EXHIBITS BEFORE WE PROCEED. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO JUST STEP BACK. IT SHOULD TAKE ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, IN ADDITION TO --

THE COURT: I NOTICE WE HAVE A COUPLE OF NEW BOARDS JUST BEING BROUGHT OUT.

MR. DARDEN: YES, YOUR HONOR. THE DEFENSE HAS NOT SEEN THESE BOARDS AND I WOULD INVITE THEM TO TAKE A LOOK NOW, WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: WE ARE ALSO GOING TO NEED A COUPLE OF MOMENTS TO GET SOME REPORTS DOWN HERE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, DO WE HAVE THOSE REPORTS?

MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY?

THE COURT: YOU INDICATED THERE ARE SOME REPORTS?

MR. DARDEN: THEY ARE NOT HERE YET.

THE COURT: ARE THEY NECESSARY TO BEGIN?

MR. DARDEN: YES, ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, IS THERE SOMEBODY BRINGING THESE REPORTS DOWN?

MR. DARDEN: WE ARE READY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU ARE READY? ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, DO YOU WANT TO MOVE THE EXHIBITS.

MR. DARDEN: NO, YOUR HONOR, BUT HE DOES. ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, 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. THE PEOPLE MAY CALL THEIR NEXT WITNESS.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE PEOPLE CALL DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

MARK FUHRMAN, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. YOU DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD.

THE WITNESS: I DO.

THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT ON THE WITNESS STAND AND STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.

THE WITNESS: MARK FUHRMAN, M-A-R-K F-U-H-R-M-A-N.

THE CLERK: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. CLARK:

Q: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, CAN YOU TELL US HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT TESTIFYING TODAY?

A: NERVOUS.

Q: OKAY.

A: RELUCTANT.

Q: CAN YOU TELL US WHY?

A: THROUGHOUT -- SINCE JUNE 13, IT SEEMS THAT I HAVE SEEN A LOT OF THE EVIDENCE IGNORED AND A LOT OF PERSONAL ISSUES COME TO THE FOREFRONT. I THINK THAT IS TOO BAD.

Q: OKAY. HEARD A LOT ABOUT YOURSELF IN THE PRESS, HAVE YOU?

A: DAILY.

Q: IN LIGHT OF THAT FACT, SIR, YOU HAVE INDICATED THAT YOU FEEL NERVOUS ABOUT TESTIFYING. HAVE YOU GONE OVER YOUR TESTIMONY IN THE PRESENCE OF SEVERAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS IN ORDER TO PREPARE YOURSELF OR COURT AND THE ALLEGATIONS THAT YOU MAY HEAR FROM THE DEFENSE?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN THE COURSE OF THAT PARTICULAR EXAMINATION, SIR, WAS THE TOPIC OF YOUR TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE WORK YOU DID IN THIS CASE, THE ACTUAL VISITATION TO BUNDY AND ROCKINGHAM, WAS THAT DISCUSSED?

A: NO.

Q: IT DEALT WITH SIDE ISSUES, SIR?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THAT EXERCISE?

MR. BAILEY: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I HAVE NEVER BEEN CONFRONTED WITH A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING SUCH AS THIS, SO I WAS -- I THINK IT WAS A CONCERN THAT SOME OF THESE ISSUES HAVE NEVER BEEN BREACHED BEFORE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHEN YOU SAY YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN CONFRONTED WITH A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING SUCH AS THIS, YOU HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE, HAVEN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: IN CRIMINAL CASES?

A: YES.

Q: HOMICIDE CASES?

A: YES.

Q: SO WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY "A SITUATION LIKE THIS"?

A: WELL, IT SEEMS THAT THE ISSUES WE WERE CONCERNED WITH WEREN'T EVIDENTIARY IN NATURE OR ABOUT THE CRIME; MOSTLY OF A PERSONAL NATURE.

Q: ALL RIGHT, SIR. CAN YOU TELL US HOW YOU ARE EMPLOYED RIGHT NOW?

A: I'M A DETECTIVE FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES CURRENTLY ASSIGNED TO WEST LOS ANGELES HOMICIDE.

Q: HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN SO EMPLOYED?

A: 19 YEARS SIX MONTHS.

Q: AND IS THAT SINCE YOU HAVE JOINED LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU TELL US WHAT YOUR ASSIGNMENTS WERE ON JUNE THE 12TH AND THE 13TH?

A: I WAS A DETECTIVE ASSIGNED TO WEST LOS ANGELES HOMICIDE.

Q: OKAY. THAT WAS IN 1994?

A: YES.

Q: IN 1985 AND '88, WHERE WERE YOU ASSIGNED, SIR?

A: WEST LOS ANGELES PATROL.

Q: AND WHAT WERE YOUR DUTIES IN THAT CAPACITY?

A: MOSTLY A PATROL CAR.

Q: NOW, IN THE WEST LOS ANGELES AREA YOU WERE ASSIGNED TO, SIR, DID THAT INCLUDE THE BRENTWOOD AREA?

A: YES.

Q: THAT AREA -- DID THAT AREA COVER SOME VERY WEALTHY COMMUNITIES?

A: YES.

Q: INCLUDE CELEBRITIES?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE YEAR OF 1985, SIR, WERE YOU A PATROLMAN AT THAT TIME?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: DID YOU RESPOND TO A RADIO CALL WHICH LED YOU TO THE LOCATION OF 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM IN BRENTWOOD?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WERE ON DUTY AT THAT TIME, SIR, WERE YOU?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THE NATURE OF THAT CALL WAS?

A: IT WAS A 415 FAMILY DISPUTE.

Q: AND WHERE WERE YOU DIRECTED TO GO?

A: 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM.

Q: AND WHEN YOU GOT THERE, SIR, DID YOU SEE ANY OTHER OFFICERS PRESENT?

A: THERE WAS A WESTEC OFFICER ALREADY AT THE SCENE.

Q: AND WHAT IS WESTEC?

A: IT IS PRIVATE SECURITY THAT IS CONTRACTED BY QUITE A FEW OF THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA.

Q: AND HOW MANY WESTEC OFFICERS WERE PRESENT WHEN YOU GOT THERE?

A: I ONLY SAW ONE.

Q: DID YOU HAVE A PARTNER THAT WAS WORKING WITH YOU THAT DAY?

A: YES.

Q: SO THE TWO OF YOU AND THE WESTEC OFFICER WERE THERE?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THE WESTEC OFFICER ALREADY THERE WHEN YOU ARRIVED?

A: YES.

Q: WHERE DID YOU GO TO WHEN YOU FIRST ARRIVED AT THE LOCATION?

A: WE DROVE -- I BELIEVE WE DROVE UP ROCKINGHAM TURNING ONTO ASHFORD WHICH BROUGHT US TO THE ASHFORD GATE WHICH WAS OPENED.

Q: AND DID YOU DRIVE INTO THE DRIVEWAY OR PARK OUTSIDE?

A: PARKED OUTSIDE.

Q: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: I WALKED INTO THE DRIVEWAY AND I SAW TWO PEOPLE IN THE DRIVEWAY.

Q: WHO DID YOU SEE?

A: I SAW MR. SIMPSON AND A FEMALE THAT WAS LEANING ON THE HOOD OF A CAR.

Q: AND WHAT KIND OF CAR WAS THAT?

A: A MERCEDES BENZ.

Q: AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE FEMALE THAT YOU SAW LEANING AGAINST THE HOOD OF THE CAR?

A: SHE HAD HER HANDS TO HER FACE, SO I COULDN'T TELL MUCH OF WHAT SHE LOOKED LIKE IN THE FACE. SHE LOOKED LIKE SHE HAD LIGHT HAIR AND IT WAS HARD TO JUDGE THE HEIGHT, BUT I WOULD CHARACTERIZE AS AVERAGE HEIGHT AND AVERAGE WEIGHT.

Q: WHAT WAS SHE DOING?

A: SHE HAD HER HANDS TO HER FACE AND SHE WAS SOBBING.

Q: AND WHERE WAS THE DEFENDANT AT THAT TIME?

A: HE WAS WALKING ON THE DRIVEWAY.

Q: WHICH DRIVEWAY WAS THAT?

A: HIS DRIVEWAY AT ROCKINGHAM, THE DRIVEWAY ON ROCKINGHAM RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE MERCEDES.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE MERCEDES?

A: THE WINDSHIELD WAS SHATTERED.

Q: DID YOU LOOK TO SEE WHAT HAD BEEN THE CAUSE OF THAT WINDSHIELD GETTING SHATTERED?

A: I SAW A BASEBALL BAT THAT WAS LEANING UP AGAINST THE WALL CLOSE TO THE FRONT DOOR OF THE RESIDENCE.

Q: NOW, DID YOU GET A GOOD LOOK AT THE WOMAN'S FACE?

A: NO.

Q: COULD YOU HAVE RECOGNIZED HER AGAIN ON A LATER OCCASION?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, DID SHE SAY ANYTHING TO YOU AT THE TIME THAT YOU MADE CONTACT WITH HER?

A: I MADE SOME INQUIRIES WHEN I FIRST WALKED UP AS IF THEY WERE THE RESIDENTS. MR. SIMPSON RESPONDED SAYING THAT THIS WAS HIS HOUSE. AND I ASKED THE LADY WHO BROKE THE WINDSHIELD AND SHE RESPONDED "HE DID."

Q: DID THE DEFENDANT MAKE ANY RESPONSE?

A: I BELIEVE HE ADMITTED THAT HE HIT IT AND STATING THAT IT WAS HIS.

Q: AND WHAT WAS HIS -- WHAT WAS THE DEFENDANT'S DEMEANOR AT THAT TIME?

A: WELL, HE WAS AGITATED, BUT HE WASN'T OUT OF CONTROL. HE WAS JUST AGITATED.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THERE WAS ANY PHYSICAL INJURY TO THE BODY OF THE WOMAN?

A: I COULDN'T TELL, NO.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU SEE ANY SIGNS OF PHYSICAL INJURY TO HER?

A: NO, NO.

Q: AND DID YOU ASK HER IF SHE WANTED TO HAVE A REPORT PREPARED?

A: YES.

Q: AND HER RESPONSE?

A: SHE DID NOT. SHE SAID NO.

Q: NOW, AT THE TIME THAT THIS -- THIS CONTACT TOOK PLACE, SIR, WAS THE WESTEC OFFICER THERE?

A: I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN HE LEFT THE SCENE. I DIDN'T -- I WAS CONCERNED WITH THE TWO PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE RADIO CALL. I DIDN'T LOOK BEHIND ME TO SEE WHEN HE LEFT, BUT HE WAS NOT THERE WHEN I TURNED TO LEAVE.

Q: DID YOU KNOW WHO HE WAS AT THE TIME THAT YOU FIRST APPEARED ON THE SCENE?

A: NO.

Q: NEVER MET HIM BEFORE?

A: NO.

Q: AND YOUR PARTNER, DO YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS AT THE TIME YOU HAD CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT AND THE WOMAN?

A: MY PARTNER WAS NEXT TO ME OR WITHIN A SHORT DISTANCE OF ME. I WAS TAKING THE LEAD TO AT LEAST ASK THE QUESTIONS.

Q: OKAY. NOW, DID THE DEFENDANT RESIST YOUR BEING ON THE PROPERTY AT ALL?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU ARREST HIM?

A: NO.

Q: AFTER THE FEMALE INDICATED TO YOU THAT SHE DID NOT WANT TO FILE A REPORT, WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: WE LEFT THE LOCATION.

Q: DID YOU WRITE A CRIME REPORT OF YOUR CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT OF THAT DAY IN 1985?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: CAN YOU TELL US, SIR, WHAT IS A DFAR?

A: A DAILY FIELD ACTIVITIES REPORT.

Q: WHAT IS THAT?

A: IT IS YOUR LOG -- LOG FOR ALL THE RADIO CALLS YOU HANDLE THAT DAY, THE TIME YOU ARRIVE AND THE TIME YOU LEAVE.

Q: OKAY. AND IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS MAINTAINED BY PATROL OFFICERS?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: AND WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF IT?

A: TO RECORD THE EVENTS OF THE DAY.

Q: NOW, YOU WERE WORKING PARTNERS WITH SOMEONE ELSE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS IT TO FILL OUT FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT LOG?

A: THAT WOULD BE THE PASSENGER.

Q: WHAT WERE YOU?

A: I WAS THE DRIVER.

Q: OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER YOUR PARTNER, THE PASSENGER ON THAT DAY, FILLED OUT A DAILY FIELD ACTIVITY REPORT TO LOG IN THE EVENT OF THE CONTACT WITH MR. SIMPSON?

A: I KNOW HE MADE A DFAR. WHAT HE PUT IN THE ENTRY, I DO NOT KNOW.

Q: DID YOU MAKE AN EFFORT TO WRITE ANYTHING ELSE?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, BACK IN 1985 AND 1986, SIR, CAN YOU TELL US WHETHER YOU KNEW SOMEONE OR MET SOMEONE BY THE NAME OF KATHLEEN BELL?

A: YES, I CAN TELL YOU. I DID NOT.

Q: BUT YOU DO RECOGNIZE THE NAME, DON'T YOU, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU HEARD THAT NAME?

A: IT WAS IN '94, I BELIEVE IN THE FALL OF '94. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT MONTH.

Q: BY THE FALL YOU MEAN SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER?

A: SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER.

Q: AND DO YOU RECALL WHEN YOU TESTIFIED IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THIS MATTER?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND WHEN WAS THAT, SIR?

A: I BELIEVE JULY 5TH AND 6TH, 1994.

Q: OKAY. SO YOU FIRST HEARD HER NAME AFTER YOU TESTIFIED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?

A: YES.

Q: AND HOW WAS IT THAT YOU HEARD HER NAME IN CONNECTION WITH WHAT?

A: IN CONNECTION WITH ALLEGATIONS OF STATEMENTS I MADE TO HER AT A DATE SOME TIME IN '85 OR '86.

Q: AND WHERE DID YOU HEAR THOSE ALLEGATIONS, SIR?

A: IN THE NEWS.

Q: AND WERE YOU INFORMED ABOUT A LETTER SHE HAD WRITTEN IN JULY OF 1994 AFTER THE PRELIMINARY HEARING TO JOHNNIE COCHRAN?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THAT LETTER THIS MORNING?

A: I'M NOT SURE IF I REVIEWED THAT LETTER. I DON'T BELIEVE I REVIEWED THE LETTER. I HAVE SEEN A STATEMENT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WAS THAT INITIAL LETTER.

Q: SO ARE YOU PRESENTLY VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER THAT THIS WOMAN WROTE TO MR. COCHRAN?

A: OH, YES.

MS. CLARK: I'M GOING TO ASK THAT THIS LETTER BE MARKED AS PEOPLE'S --

THE COURT: 102.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. BAILEY: NO OBJECTION.

(PEO'S 102 FOR ID = K. BELL LETTER)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU SEE THE MONITOR?

THE WITNESS: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: OKAY.

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT, SIR. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE PRINTING HERE AND THE CONTENT OF WHAT YOU ARE SEEING?

A: I'M HAVING A HARD TIME -- SOME OF THIS IS CUT OFF ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN.

Q: OKAY. I'M GOING TO ASK JONATHAN TO MOVE IT TO THE RIGHT -- LEFT SO YOU CAN SEE THE REST OF THE LINES.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, WOULDN'T IT BE EASIER TO GIVE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN THE ACTUAL COPY, USE THE DISPLAY FOR THE JURY'S PURPOSES?

MS. CLARK: THE PROBLEM IS THAT I DON'T HAVE AN EXTRA COPY. MAYBE COUNSEL --

MR. BAILEY: SHE CAN JUST READ THE LETTER IF SHE WANTS THE COURT TO KNOW THE CONTENTS.

MS. CLARK: I WOULD RATHER SHOW IT TO THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE MY STAFF MAKE A PHOTOCOPY FOR YOU.

MS. CLARK: GREAT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. CLARK: CAN WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: WITH THE REPORTER?

MS. CLARK: NO.

THE COURT: MR. BAILEY.

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR BREAK, JUST SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THIS EXHIBIT IS CLEAR AND YOU CAN READ IT CAREFULLY. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS OR ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YOU ARE ORDERED TO COME BACK AT 1:30.

THE WITNESS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS. 1:30.

(AT 12:00 P.M. THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 1995 1:30 P.M.

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

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

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

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. DEFENDANT IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH COUNSEL, PEOPLE REPRESENTED. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. MISS CLARK, ARE YOU READY WITH YOUR EXHIBIT?

MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY. I COULDN'T HEAR THE COURT.

THE COURT: ARE YOU READY WITH YOUR EXHIBIT?

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR, I AM. LET ME INDICATE TO THE COURT THAT MR. BAILEY WAS KIND ENOUGH TO HELP US BY HAVING THE ORIGINAL LETTER RETYPED IN A FORM THAT COULD BE SHOWN MORE EFFECTIVELY ON THE ELMO. AND IT IS NOT THE ORIGINAL. HOWEVER, I AM ASSUMING THE DEFENSE DOESN'T OBJECT.

MR. BAILEY: IT WAS TYPED BY THE COURT REPORTER.

THE COURT: I'LL ACCEPT THAT.

MS. CLARK: WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES, PLEASE. IF I COULD HAVE A COPY. COULD I HAVE A COPY, MISS CLARK?

MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY, YOUR HONOR. I DON'T HAVE AN EXTRA. I ONLY HAVE THE ONE. SHOULD I ASK YOUR CLERK -- MR. BAILEY JUST GAVE IT TO US.

MR. BAILEY: WE DIDN'T EXPECT TO MAKE ANY COPIES. IT'S JUST FOR EXHIBITION PURPOSES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT'S FINE. KEEP IT.

MS. CLARK: NO. I HAVE THE ORIGINAL COPY I CAN GIVE YOU.

THE COURT: NO. I HAVE THAT. THAT'S FINE. JUST KEEP IT. LET'S ROLL. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

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

THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE BE SEATED. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WOULD YOU RETAKE THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE. LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE'VE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL 12 MEMBERS -- EXCUSE ME -- ALL REMAINING MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN IS AGAIN ON THE WITNESS STAND.

MARK FUHRMAN, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE LUNCH RECESS, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MISS CLARK, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. WHEN WE LEFT OFF, YOUR HONOR, WE WERE ATTEMPTING TO SHOW AN EXHIBIT, AND WE NOW HAVE IT IN A FORM THAT CAN BE SHOWN ON THE MONITOR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE JURY AS WELL AS THE WITNESS SIMULTANEOUSLY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THIS IS PEOPLE'S 102.

MS. CLARK: 102.

(PEO'S 102 FOR ID = LETTER)

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MS. CLARK:

Q: I'M GOING TO ASK YOU, SIR