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 18308 THROUGH 18332, VOLUME 104A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

(PAGES 18333 THROUGH 18340, VOLUME 105A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. THE DEFENDANT IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK, MR. DARDEN, MISS LEWIS AND MR. GOLDBERG. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. COUNSEL, ANYTHING WE NEED TO PUT ON THE RECORD BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO REJOIN US?

THE COURT: 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. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WOULD YOU PLEASE RESUME THE WITNESS STAND.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: WELCOME BACK. HOPE YOU ALL HAD A PLEASANT WEEKEND. ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN IS AGAIN ON THE WITNESS STAND. GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE.

THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. AND MISS CLARK, YOU MAY RESUME WITH YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MS. CLARK:

Q: LET'S SEE. I THINK WHERE WE LEFT OFF ON FRIDAY, SIR, YOU WERE SHOWING THE JURY THE SHOVEL AND THE PLASTIC AND THE WOOD, THE PIECE OF WOOD THAT YOU SAW NEAR THE BRONCO. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: NOW, FIRST OF ALL, THE PLASTIC, YOU INDICATED -- WHERE DID YOU RECOVER THAT FROM?

A: THE --

Q: WHAT PART OF THE BRONCO? YOU DIDN'T RECOVER IT. WHERE DID YOU SEE IT?

A: I SAW IT IN THE RIGHT SIDE OR THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE REAR CARGO AREA, ALONG THE SIDE OF THE VEHICLE CARGO AREA.

Q: AND THAT WAS -- WAS IT INSIDE SOMETHING?

A: IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS IN SOME SORT OF A POCKET.

Q: OKAY. YOU DID NOT RECOVER THAT ITEM?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: AND DID YOU RECOVER THE SHOVEL?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: DID YOU RECOVER THE WOOD?

A: NO.

Q: THAT WAS LEFT FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO RECOVER?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: OKAY. NOW, THAT PLASTIC, DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHETHER IT BELONGS IN A BRONCO OR ANYTHING ABOUT IT?

A: WELL, NOW I DO.

Q: AND WHAT IS THAT?

A: IT IS THE SPARE TIRE BAG.

Q: OKAY.

A: IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN A TIRE IS OFF THE VEHICLE AND IT IS DIRTY, YOU PLACE IT IN THE BAG SO YOU CAN PLACE IT IN THE CARGO AREA.

Q: AND THAT IS STANDARD EQUIPMENT FOR A FORD BRONCO, IS IT?

A: I WAS TOLD IT WAS, YES.

Q: WHAT ABOUT THAT SHOVEL? STANDARD EQUIPMENT ALSO?

A: NO. I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO.

Q: NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. KAELIN IN WHICH HE INFORMED YOU ABOUT THE THUMPS ON THE WALL. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT TIME DID HE SAY HE HEARD THOSE THUMPS?

A: 10:45 P.M.

Q: OKAY. YOU -- I THINK YOU HAD TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT YOU BROUGHT HIM INTO THE HOUSE WITH YOU AND PUT HIM IN THE BAR AREA?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND THEN WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: THEN I WALKED TOWARDS THE FRONT DOOR AREA WHICH PASSES THE KITCHEN.

Q: AND THEN WHAT?

A: I SAW DETECTIVE VANNATTER IN THE KITCHEN. I TOLD DETECTIVE VANNATTER. I SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT, "PHIL, TALK TO THIS GUY AT THE BAR."

Q: OKAY. DID YOU TELL HIM WHAT TO TALK ABOUT?

A: NO.

Q: AND THEN WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: I WALKED OUT THE FRONT DOOR OF THE RESIDENCE.

Q: OKAY. AND AT THAT MOMENT THAT YOU WALKED OUT THE FRONT DOOR, SIR, DID YOU KNOW WHERE MR. SIMPSON WAS?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHERE HE HAD GONE THE NIGHT BEFORE?

A: NO.

Q: OR IF HE HAD GONE ANYWHERE?

A: I HAD NO IDEA, MA'AM.

Q: OR WHEN HE WAS DUE TO RETURN?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN YOU LEFT -- WHEN YOU EXITED THE FRONT DOOR, WHERE DID YOU GO?

A: I WALKED OUT INTO THE DRIVEWAY AND I LOOKED TO MY LEFT TO SEE WHERE THE PROPERTY ENDED.

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. SIR, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STEP DOWN AND SHOW US THE ROUTE YOU TOOK WHEN YOU EXITED THE FRONT DOOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE DIAGRAM?

MS. CLARK: PEOPLE'S 66, I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: PEOPLE'S --

MS. CLARK: 66.

THE COURT: -- 66. THANK YOU.

THE WITNESS: I EXITED THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE WHERE ON THIS CHART IT SAYS "ENTRANCE." I EXITED GOING WEST. I WALKED ONTO THE DRIVEWAY AND THEN LOOKED SOUTH.

Q: NOW, WHY DID YOU LOOK SOUTH?

A: WELL, FROM WHERE I HAD COME FROM IN KAELIN'S ROOM, THE WALL THAT HE HEARD THE CRASH OR THE THUMP WAS ON THE SOUTH WALL.

Q: UH-HUH. AND THEN WHERE DID YOU GO?

A: I WALKED DOWN TO THE DRIVEWAY AND I STARTED WALKING DOWN TOWARDS THE GARAGE. THE GARAGE COMES SOMEWHAT OUT FROM THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE. I WALKED AROUND THE GARAGE AND WENT DOWN TO THE SOUTHERN MOST PART OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN I LOOKED TO MY LEFT, WHICH WOULD BE EAST.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU LOOKED TO YOUR LEFT EASTWARD BECAUSE WHY?

A: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE DIRECTION GOING BACK TOWARDS KAELIN'S ROOM.

Q: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: I SAW A PATHWAY. IT LOOKED VERY NARROW AND DARK AND THERE WAS A CYCLONE FENCE THAT RAN ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE WITH LOOKED LIKE PLANTS FROM THE RESIDENCE TO THE SOUTH THAT HAD OVERGROWN TOWARDS THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE.

Q: AND WERE THERE ANY GATES THERE?

A: I BELIEVE THERE WAS A GATE THAT WAS BROKEN AT SOME POINT IN HERE, (INDICATING). I BELIEVE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN HERE, (INDICATING). I BELIEVE IT WAS LAID UP AGAINST SOME -- I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT DEBRIS WAS THERE. WHAT WAS THERE, BUT IT WAS THERE, YES.

Q: SO IT WAS NOT CLOSED, THE GATE?

A: NO.

Q: AND SO WHAT DID YOU DO? WHERE DID YOU GO?

A: WELL, I TOOK OUT MY FLASHLIGHT AND I STARTED WALKING DOWN THE PATH TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE RESIDENCE ARCHITECTURE TO FIGURE OUT WHERE KAELIN'S WALL MIGHT HAVE BEEN.

Q: NOW, WHAT WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE FROM THAT FIRST GATE AREA IN TERMS OF FARTHER DOWN THE WALKWAY? WHAT WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE?

A: WELL, I COULD SEE THERE WAS A LONG WALKWAY, BUT THIS WAS A LITTLE ELEVATED, SO I WAS LOOKING SOMEWHAT DOWNWARD. I SAW A LONG PATH, A LONG DARK PATH COVERED WITH LEAVES.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU EXPECT TO FIND?

A: I DIDN'T KNOW. I THOUGHT POSSIBILITY SOMEBODY HAD COLLAPSED BACK THERE.

Q: AND WHY -- WHY DID YOU THINK THAT?

A: BY KAELIN'S STATEMENT, IT WAS RATHER ODD THE THUMP ON THE WALL, NOTHING THAT FOLLOWED UP, PLUS WHAT I OBSERVED ON THE BRONCO THAT WAS PARKED ON ROCKINGHAM AND THE INABILITY TO RAISE ANYBODY IN THE RESIDENCE. THAT WAS OUR CONCERNS AT THAT POINT.

Q: OKAY. SO WHAT WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE FROM THE VANTAGE POINT OF THAT FIRST GATE AREA GOING DOWN? ANYTHING?

A: NOTHING REALLY.

Q: WAS IT -- CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE LIGHTING IN THAT AREA?

A: WELL, THE LIGHTING OUTSIDE -- IT WAS GETTING LIGHT OUTSIDE BUT IT WAS -- IT WAS EVEN WORSE LIGHTING BACK HERE, (INDICATING), VERY SHADED. THESE TREES OR SHRUBS CAUSE IT TO BE DARK -- DARK AND THEN THESE -- ALL THESE BUILDINGS WERE MUCH HIGHER THAN -- ABOUT THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE TREES AT SOME POINT, SOMETIMES HIGHER.

Q: OKAY. SO DID YOU NEED THE AID OF YOUR FLASHLIGHT IN ORDER TO SEE WHERE YOU WERE GOING?

A: NOT SO MUCH TO SEE WHERE I WAS WALKING, BUT MOSTLY JUST TO LOOK FOR ANYTHING THAT I MIGHT HAVE WALKED ON.

Q: UH-HUH.

A: IT WASN'T THAT POWERFUL, SO --

Q: THAT WAS THAT LITTLE FLASHLIGHT?

A: TWO DOUBLE A BATTERIES AND A SMALL MAG LIGHT.

Q: AND THEN YOU -- WHERE DID YOU GO AFTER YOU REACHED THAT FIRST GATE AREA?

A: I GOT TO THIS AREA AND I WAS KIND OF CONFUSED BY THIS INDENTATION AND I LOOKED IN THIS AREA, (INDICATING), BUT I COULDN'T SEE ANYTHING THAT WOULD -- THAT WOULD REALLY INDICATE THAT THIS IS WHERE THE NOISE WAS FROM. I WALKED BACK OUT HERE, (INDICATING), IN THIS AREA. I BELIEVE THERE WAS ANOTHER GATE IN HERE SOMEWHERE, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS OPENED OR CLOSED.

MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD WHEN THE WITNESS SAID, "THIS AREA" HE WAS REFERRING TO THE -- BEHIND THE GARAGE AREA, THE ENTIRE AREA ON PEOPLE'S 66 THAT IS INDENTED THAT WOULD BE JUST TO THE RIGHT OF THE GARAGE AREA.

Q: AND THEN YOU RECALL A SECOND GATE?

A: I BELIEVE SO. IT WAS -- IT WAS ALSO OPENED.

Q: OKAY. NOT LOCKED?

A: NOT LOCKED, NO.

Q: AND DID YOU -- WERE YOU -- WHAT WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE WHEN YOU GOT TO THE SECOND GATE AREA IN TERMS OF FARTHER DOWN THE WALKWAY?

A: THEN I WAS -- AS I WAS FURTHER DOWN THE WALKWAY -- I HADN'T BEEN ABLE TO SEE ANYTHING FARTHER DOWN THE WALKWAY. I WAS LOOKING AT THIS ARCHITECTURE IN HERE, (INDICATING), WHERE IT IS BEGINNING TO COME BACK OUT ADJACENT TO THE PATH.

Q: OKAY. WHY DON'T YOU HAVE A SEAT.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE ANOTHER BOARD. IT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO THE DEFENSE. I ASK THAT IT BE MARKED PEOPLE'S 116.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE'S 116, NEXT IN ORDER, WHICH IS A CHART.

(PEO'S 116 FOR ID = CHART W/ PHOTOS)

THE COURT: CAN I ASK THE COURT T.V. PERSON TO GIVE ME A LOOK AT IT, PLEASE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. I GUESS YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO STEP DOWN AGAIN.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

Q: DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION, SIR, TO PEOPLE'S 116, THE PHOTOGRAPH LABELED A, TELL US WHAT IS DEPICTED IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH.

A: PHOTOGRAPH A IS THE FRONT OF THE GARAGE. THIS IS FACING DUE WEST. I WALKED ALONG THE PATH AND CAME OUT IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE AND WALKED TO THIS ENTRANCE RIGHT HERE AND LOOKED EAST DOWN THE PATH, (INDICATING).

MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, WHEN THE WITNESS INDICATED "THIS ENTRANCE," HE IS POINTING TO THE AREA JUST TO THE RIGHT OF THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE GARAGE AS YOU FACE THE PHOTOGRAPH.

THE COURT: IT APPEARS TO BE THE SOUTH PORTION OF THE GARAGE.

MS. CLARK: THAT'S RIGHT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: AND PHOTOGRAPH B?

A: PHOTOGRAPH B WOULD BE -- THIS IS THE AIR CONDITIONER THAT IS JUTTING OUT WITH THE BRACING. THIS WALL LINE HERE I BELIEVE IS THE BEGINNING OF THE BUILDING, THE BUNGALOWS WHERE I BELIEVE THE OUTSIDE OF KATO'S WALL, MAYBE THE OFFICE THAT IS JUST ADJACENT TO KATO'S WALL.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. BEFORE WE GET TO THOSE --

THE COURT: 1492, CAN YOU SEE EVERYTHING THERE FROM WHERE EVERYBODY IS STANDING? ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY IN THE JURY WHO CAN'T SEE, LET ME KNOW. THANK YOU.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, YOU SAID YOU PASSED THROUGH THE SECOND GATE AREA?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE WHEN YOU GOT TO THE AREA OF THE SECOND GATE?

A: WELL, I WAS LOOKING -- INITIALLY I WAS LOOKING UP TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE -- WHERE THE WALL WAS. I LOOKED UP. I SAW A SHEAR WALL THAT WENT UP QUITE A WAYS, LIKE FIFTEEN -- MAYBE AS HIGH AS TWENTY FEET, AND THE PITCH OF THE ROOF WENT DIRECTLY BACK IN TOWARDS THE POOL AREA. AND I RECALLED THAT FROM WHEN I WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE. AND I DETERMINED THAT THAT WAS PROBABLY KATO'S WALL.

Q: SO AS YOU WERE LOOKING THEN AT THE OUTSIDE OF THE RESIDENCE, YOU WERE TRYING TO FIND OUT -- YOU WERE TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT WALL MATCHED UP WITH THE OUTSIDE OF KATO'S ROOM?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT TIME WAS IT, IF YOU RECALL, WHEN YOU EXITED THE HOUSE AND WENT DOWN THAT SOUTH PATHWAY?

A: 6:00, 6:10, 6:15.

Q: WERE YOU LOOKING AT YOUR WATCH WHEN YOU WENT OUT OF THE HOUSE?

A: NO. NO, MA'AM.

Q: YOU ARE ESTIMATING FOR US?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN AFTER YOU PASSED THROUGH THAT SECOND GATE AREA, YOU SAW THE WALL THAT APPEARED TO MATCH KATO'S WALL?

A: YES.

Q: THEN WHAT HAPPENED?

A: I CONTINUED WALKING DOWN THE PATH, AND WHEN I GOT APPROXIMATELY FIFTEEN OR TWENTY FEET AWAY, I SAW A DARK OBJECT AND I CONTINUED TO WALK FORWARD TOWARDS THAT OBJECT.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHAT THAT DARK OBJECT WAS?

A: NO, NOT UNTIL I GOT VERY CLOSE.

Q: AND HOW CLOSE DID YOU GET BEFORE YOU COULD TELL WHAT IT WAS?

A: SEVERAL FEET, MAYBE THREE OR FOUR, I'M NOT SURE. AT SOME POINT I COULD TELL THAT IT WAS A GLOVE.

Q: AND WHEN YOU SAW THAT IT WAS A GLOVE -- FIRST OF ALL, WHERE DID YOU SEE IT IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE AIR CONDITIONER SHOWN IN PEOPLE'S B AND C?

A: HERE IS THE AIR CONDITIONER, (INDICATING).

Q: PEOPLE'S B.

A: AN I LOOKED DOWN AND THERE IS THE DARK OBJECT THAT I SAW, (INDICATING).

MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS IS POINTING TO WHAT LOOKS LIKE A SMALL DARK SPOT RIGHT NEXT -- ON THE GROUND NEAR THE AIR CONDITIONER IN PHOTOGRAPH B.

Q: AND IN PHOTOGRAPH C CAN YOU SEE IT?

A: I -- IT IS RATHER DARK, BUT I BELIEVE -- HERE IS THE AIR CONDITIONER BRACING AND THEN I BELIEVE THIS IS -- IT IS REALLY HARD TO SEE RIGHT IN HERE. THIS LOOKS LIKE THE OBJECT THAT I SAW, YES.

MS. CLARK: AND FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS HAS POINTED TO TWO PRICES OF WOOD STICKING OUT OF THE WALL IN THE TOP OF PHOTOGRAPH C WHEN HE REFERRED TO THE BRACING FOR THE AIR CONDITIONER AND A DARK SPOT UNDERNEATH ON THE GROUND.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK -- EXCUSE ME. MISS CLARK, DO YOU WISH TO MOVE THAT EXHIBIT DOWN MOMENTARILY SO THE JURORS ON THE OTHER END OF THE BOX CAN SEE THAT?

MS. CLARK: YES. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS A GOOD IDEA.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

Q: IN PHOTOGRAPH D, SIR, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT YOU SEE THERE?

A: PHOTOGRAPH D IS A PICTURE OF WHAT NOW I IDENTIFIED AS A POSSIBLE GLOVE. THIS WAS -- THIS WAS PROBABLY ABOUT THE DISTANCE, MAYBE A LITTLE FARTHER BACK, THAT I COULD TELL IT WAS PROBABLY A GLOVE.

Q: AND WHEN YOU WERE ABLE TO TELL THAT IT WAS PROBABLY A GLOVE, WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: WELL, I WALKED CLOSER TO LOOK AT IT.

Q: OKAY. HOW CLOSE DID YOU GET TO IT?

A: OH, I GOT PROBABLY AS CLOSE AS PHOTO F LOOKING DOWN AT IT.

Q: OKAY. AND WHAT DID -- DID YOU JUST STAND AND LOOK DOWN AT IT? DID YOU TOUCH IT? WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: I DIDN'T TOUCH IT. I LOOKED AT IT. I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF IT WAS.

Q: GO AHEAD AND TAKE YOUR SEAT.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

MS. CLARK: CAN YOU PULL UP -- CAN YOU PULL UP F, PLEASE.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT NO. 116-F.

MR. BAILEY: YOUR HONOR, IF WE ARE DONE WITH THIS EXHIBIT FOR THE MOMENT, MIGHT IT BE LOWERED? IT IS BLOCKING THE VIEW.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, ARE YOU GOING TO CONTINUE TO USE THIS?

MS. CLARK: YES. I'M GOING TO GO BACK AND FORTH.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: CAN YOU PLEASE DESCRIBE THE APPEARANCE OF THE GLOVE, SIR.

A: WELL, IT APPEARED TO BE -- IT DIDN'T MATCH THE TERRAIN. THERE IS LEAVES ALL OVER THE WALKWAY. IT WAS DIRTY IN THE AREA. IT WAS UNKEPT (SIC). THIS GLOVE DIDN'T HAVE ANY SIGNS OF DIRT OR LEAVES OR TWIGS ON IT. IT APPEARED A DARK LEATHER GLOVE. IT APPEARED TO BE SOMEWHAT MOIST OR STICKY. I DIDN'T TOUCH IT, BUT IT APPEARED THAT PARTS WERE STICKING TO OTHER PARTS OF THE GLOVE.

Q: AND YOU WERE DESCRIBING THE WALKWAY AREA. YOU INDICATED IT WAS KIND OF DIRTY WITH LEAVES. WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE ANY -- ANY FOOTPRINTS OR SHOEPRINTS OR DISTURBANCE IN THOSE LEAVES?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE, WAS IT VERY THICKLY COVERED WITH LEAVES? WHAT DID IT LOOK LIKE?

A: WELL, MUCH AS THIS PICTURE DEPICTS IN THIS PHOTO, THAT WAS MUCH OF THE WAY THE WALKWAY LOOKED.

Q: OKAY. AND WHEN YOU LOOKED BACK, COULD YOU SEE WHERE YOU HAD JUST WALKED ON THE WALKWAY?

A: NO.

Q: SO AFTER YOU GOT UP TO THE GLOVE, YOU INDICATE YOU LOOKED DOWN AT IT. WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: WELL, AT THAT POINT I WAS SOMEWHAT ALARMED AT FINDING SOMETHING SUCH AS THIS, AND NOT KNOWING IF A SUSPECT OR A VICTIM HAD LEFT SOMETHING BACK THERE, SO I CONTINUED FARTHER EAST PASSED THE AIR CONDITIONER.

Q: OKAY. LET ME BACK UP ONE SECOND. COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THAT WAS A RIGHT OR LEFT-HANDED GLOVE WHEN YOU LOOKED AT IT AT THAT TIME?

A: IT APPEARED TO BE A RIGHT-HANDED GLOVE.

Q: OKAY. AND DID IT -- WAS IT -- WERE YOU -- WHAT SIGNIFICANCE DID YOU ATTACH TO IT WHEN YOU SAW IT, IF ANY?

A: WELL, IT LOOKED SIMILAR TO THE GLOVE ON THE BUNDY SCENE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU -- DID YOU IMMEDIATELY THINK IT WAS A MATCH? WHAT WAS YOUR STATE OF MIND ABOUT THAT?

A: OH, I DIDN'T KNOW AT THAT POINT. IT WAS A DARK-COLORED LEATHER GLOVE.

Q: OKAY. AND AFTER YOU SAW THAT GLOVE, DID YOU PICK IT UP?

A: NO.

Q: WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: I CONTINUED -- I WALKED AROUND IT. I CONTINUED EASTBOUND ON THE WALKWAY.

Q: DID ANYTHING DRAW YOUR ATTENTION AS YOU PASSED THE AREA OF THE GLOVE AND CONTINUED DOWN THE WALKWAY?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THAT?

A: I STARTED HITTING SPIDERWEBS OR COBWEBS IN MY FACE.

Q: HAD YOU HIT ANY SPIDERWEBS OR COBWEBS UP UNTIL THE TIME YOU SAW THE GLOVE?

A: NO.

Q: SO WHAT DID DO YOU NEXT? YOU CONTINUED DOWN THE WALKWAY?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND WHY?

A: WELL, I DIDN'T KNOW IF I HAD SOMEONE THAT HAD GONE ALL THE WAY DOWN THE WALKWAY, WHETHER IT BE A SUSPECT OR A VICTIM. I DIDN'T KNOW THEIR CONDITION AND AT THAT POINT I DIDN'T WANT TO TURN MY BACK ON ANYONE THAT MIGHT BE WATCHING ME.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU SEE?

A: I SAW NOTHING. I CONTINUED DOWN THE WALKWAY TO THE END OF THE BUILDING WHERE THERE WAS A LARGE -- LARGE AREA OF BUDDING PLANTS AND SHRUBBERY. I CONCLUDED THAT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN WHERE GARDENERS START SMALL PLANTS.

Q: SO IS THAT THE -- WHERE IS THAT AREA LOCATED WITH RESPECT TO THE HOUSE AND THE WALKWAY?

A: IT WOULD BE IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER.

Q: AT THE BACK OF THE HOUSE?

A: YES.

Q: SO YOU WENT ALL THE WAY BACK THERE?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID YOU THINK YOU WERE GOING TO FIND BACK THERE?

A: I WAS LOOKING FOR SOMEBODY THAT HAD COLLAPSED AND GONE BACK TO THAT AREA AND QUITE POSSIBLY WAS LYING THERE.

Q: EVEN THOUGH YOU FELT COBWEBS, SPIDERWEBS ON THE WAY BACK?

A: WELL, I DIDN'T KNOW -- I WASN'T CRAWLING SO I DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TRANSPIRED THERE.

Q: WERE YOU WALKING STRAIGHT UP, STANDING UP?

A: PRETTY MUCH, YES.

Q: AS OPPOSED TO BEING BENT OVER?

A: I COULD HAVE BEEN BENT OVER AT SOME TIMES. SOME OF THE OVER HANGING LEAVES OR THE TREE -- I THINK SOME OF THE TIME THERE WAS BRANCHES IN THE WAY, SO I COULD HAVE BEEN LEANING OVER SOME OF THE TIME.

THE COURT: PERHAPS WE OUGHT TO KNOW HOW TALL THE DETECTIVE IS.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT.

Q: AND YOU FELT THE COBWEBS WHERE? ON YOUR FACE, ON YOUR SHOULDERS? CAN YOU TELL US?

A: YES, ON MY FACE AND -- INITIALLY ON MY FACE.

Q: OKAY.

A: I WENT UNDERNEATH THE AIR CONDITIONER.

Q: AND HOW TALL ARE YOU?

A: SIX FOOT THREE.

Q: OKAY. WHEN YOU GOT TO THE REAR OF THE LOCATION YOU SAW THAT AREA AND WAS THERE -- WAS IT LIKE A DIRT AREA BACK THERE?

A: SOMEWHAT. THERE WAS PLANTS AND THERE WAS WILD GRASS AND THERE WAS SOME SHRUBBERY AND THERE WAS SOME PLANTS THAT LOOKED LIKE THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE OF OR PLANTED THERE ON PURPOSE.

Q: DID YOU LOOK AROUND?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID -- OTHER THAN WHAT YOU HAVE JUST DESCRIBED, DID YOU SEE ANYTHING ELSE?

A: I FOUND NO -- NO EVIDENCE OF ANYONE BEING THERE OR ANY EVIDENCE OF ANYBODY LEAVING SOMETHING IN THAT AREA, SO I LEFT.

Q: OKAY. AND WHERE DID YOU GO?

A: I WALKED BACK UP THE PATH WESTBOUND AND I WENT TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE AND I LOCATED DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU FIRST WENT BACK ON THAT WALKWAY, DID YOU KNOW WHETHER KATO HAD ALREADY GONE BACK THERE TO INVESTIGATE THE THUMPS ON THE WALL?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: AND YOU WALKED BACK OUT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU WALKED BACK OUT, SIR, CAN YOU INDICATE WHAT AREA YOU STEPPED OUT, WHERE YOU STEPPED OUT OF THE WALKWAY? IS THERE A PHOTOGRAPH THAT SHOWS WHERE YOU CAME OUT ON PEOPLE'S 66?

A: I BELIEVE SO, YES. YES.

Q: WHICH ONE IS THAT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET DOWN IF YOU DON'T NEED TO.

A: THAT WOULD BE PHOTO A.

Q: PHOTO A, THAT SAME ENTRANCE AREA THAT YOU INDICATED EARLIER, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU DO AT THAT TIME?

A: I WALKED NORTH OR BACK TOWARD THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE AND I SAW DETECTIVE PHILLIPS IN FRONT OF THE -- THE KITCHEN T.V. ROOM AREA.

Q: AND WHAT WAS HE DOING IN FRONT OF THE KITCHEN T.V. AREA?

A: I JUST SAW HIM STANDING THERE. I DON'T KNOW HIS REASON FOR COMING OUT THERE OR WHAT HE WAS DOING. I JUST ASKED TO TALK TO HIM.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

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

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, PEOPLE'S NEXT IN ORDER, 117, HAS BEEN SHOWN TO THE DEFENSE, A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE HOUSE.

THE COURT: PEOPLE'S 117.

(PEO'S 117 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SHOWING YOU PEOPLE'S 117, SIR, YOU INDICATED JUST NOW THAT WHEN YOU CAME OUT FROM THE SOUTH PATHWAY THAT YOU WENT TOWARDS THE HOUSE WHERE YOU SAW DETECTIVE PHILLIPS?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: DO YOU SEE THE AREA IN PEOPLE'S 117 WHERE YOU SAW DETECTIVE PHILLIPS STANDING?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHERE IS THAT?

A: THERE IS A FIRST STORY WINDOW FACING THE CAMERA, ALMOST CENTER. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THAT PAVED AREA.

Q: CAN YOU DIRECT THE POINTER?

A: YES.

Q: YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT THE SCREEN AND TELL ME IF YOU CAN SEE THE RED DOT?

A: UP.

Q: OKAY.

A: NOW, A BIG CIRCLE RIGHT IN THAT AREA, (INDICATING).

Q: RIGHT HERE?

A: RIGHT A LITTLE TO THE RIGHT WHERE THE WALKWAY IS THAT GOES TO THAT AREA. YES, RIGHT IN THAT AREA, (INDICATING).

Q: ALL RIGHT. WAS HE STANDING OUTSIDE, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT -- DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM?

A: SOMEWHAT. I JUST TOLD RON I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW HIM SOMETHING.

Q: DID YOU TELL HIM WHAT YOU WANTED TO SHOW HIM?

A: NO.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: I WANTED TO SEE HIS IMPRESSION. HE MADE SIMILAR OBSERVATIONS ON THE BUNDY SCENE THAT I HAD AND I WANTED TO SEE WHAT HE THOUGHT OF WHAT I HAD DISCOVERED ON THE PATHWAY.

Q: OKAY. WHAT DID YOU DO THEN?

A: I TOOK DETECTIVE PHILLIPS DOWN THAT PATHWAY AND SHOWED HIM.

Q: OKAY. AND WAS THAT -- DID YOU TAKE THE SAME ROUTE AS YOU HAD EARLIER?

A: I DIDN'T DELAY IN CERTAIN AREAS, BUT YES.

Q: SO THIS TIME YOU JUST WALKED STRAIGHT BACK?

THE COURT: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU SAY "DELAY IN CERTAIN AREAS," WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

A: WELL, THE INDENTATION ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, THERE WAS A LARGE AMOUNT OF AREA THERE THAT I WALKED INTO THAT AREA TO ORIENT MYSELF. I DIDN'T DO THAT THIS TIME.

Q: AND WHEN YOU TOOK DETECTIVE PHILLIPS OUT, HOW CLOSE DID YOU GET TO THE GLOVE?

A: WE STOOD JUST TO THE WEST OF IT KNEELING DOWN.

Q: YOU WERE KNEELING DOWN?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. WAS DETECTIVE PHILLIPS KNEELING DOWN?

A: I DON'T RECALL. I JUST KNELT DOWN. THAT IS A NARROW PATH. I JUST KNELT DOWN SO HE COULD ALSO OBSERVE AND POINTED.

Q: AND AFTER YOU SHOWED IT -- EXCUSE ME. DID DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TOUCH THE GLOVE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU TOUCH THE GLOVE?

A: NO.

Q: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: WE RETURNED TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE, AND I'M NOT SURE IF I ENTERED THE RESIDENCE OR DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SENT DETECTIVE VANNATTER, BUT I BELIEVE I AT SOME POINT TALKED TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND LANGE AND I TOOK DETECTIVE VANNATTER BACK TO THE LOCATION.

Q: AND WHAT ROUTE DID YOU TAKE WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER?

A: THE SAME AS DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.

Q: AND HOW CLOSE DID YOU GET TO THE GLOVE WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER?

A: IT WAS SIMILAR. WE APPROACHED THE GLOVE JUST TO THE WEST OF IT, OBSERVED IT AND THEN TURNED AROUND AND WALKED BACK.

Q: AND DID YOU TOUCH THE GLOVE AT THAT TIME?

A: NO.

Q: DID DETECTIVE VANNATTER?

A: NO.

Q: AND AFTER YOU BOTH SAW THE GLOVE, WHERE DID YOU GO?

A: WE RETURNED TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE.

Q: OKAY. AND THEN WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: I BELIEVE WE ENTERED THE KITCHEN AREA AND CONTACTED DETECTIVE LANGE AND I BROUGHT HIM DOWN TO THE SAME LOCATION.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU DO WITH DETECTIVE LANGE?

A: THE SAME AS THE TWO OTHER DETECTIVES, LED HIM DOWN TO THE GLOVE, SHOWED HIM WHAT I HAD OBSERVED AND WE RETURNED.

Q: AND DID DETECTIVE LANGE TOUCH THE GLOVE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU TOUCH THE GLOVE?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN YOU CAME BACK OUT WITH DETECTIVE LANGE, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: DETECTIVE LANGE AND VANNATTER WERE INVOLVED IN CONVERSATION AND I BELIEVE I STOOD AWAY FROM -- FROM THAT, SO I'M NOT EXACTLY POSITIVE WHAT -- WHAT THE CONVERSATION ENTAILED.

Q: OKAY. WHY DID YOU NOT INVOLVE YOURSELF IN THEIR CONVERSATION?

A: WELL, THIS WAS THEIR CRIME SCENE, SO THEY WERE DISCUSSING WHAT HAD BEEN FOUND, AND IF ANYTHING, WHAT IT MEANT.

Q: OKAY. NOW, AT SOME POINT DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS ABOUT WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS?

A: I DON'T RECALL. I LEARNED OF IT, YES, BUT I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHEN. I KNOW IT WAS AFTER I RETURNED WITH ALL THE DETECTIVES, BUT I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN.

Q: WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY "AFTER YOU RETURNED WITH ALL THE DETECTIVES"?

A: AFTER I CAME BACK FROM THE PATH AND NOTIFIED DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, SOMETIME AFTER I SHOWED ALL THE DETECTIVES WHAT I HAD FOUND ON THE PATH, I LEARNED OF CONVERSATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH MR. SIMPSON.

Q: OKAY. SO AT THE TIME THAT YOU FOUND THE GLOVE, YOU STILL DID NOT KNOW WHERE HE WAS OR WHERE HE HAD GONE OR WHEN HE HAD GONE THERE?

A: NO.

Q: AND I SAY "HE," I'M REFERRING TO MR. SIMPSON.

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SO IS IT YOUR CURRENT RECOLLECTION THEN, SIR, BASED ON WHAT YOU TELL US, THAT YOU LEARNED THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS IN -- WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS AT SOME POINT AFTER ALL DETECTIVES WERE TAKEN BACK TO SEE THE GLOVE?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AFTER DETECTIVE LANGE AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER HAD THAT CONVERSATION, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: THEREABOUTS SOMETIME DETECTIVE VANNATTER TOLD DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND MYSELF TO GO BACK TO BUNDY TO LOOK AT THAT GLOVE THAT WE HAD SEEN ON BUNDY.

Q: AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE, SIR?

A: TO SEE IF THERE WAS A SIMILARITY, IF WE HAD A RIGHT AND A LEFT, SEE IF THE COLOR AND THE LEATHER AND THE LINING MATCHED.

Q: AND SO AFTER DETECTIVE VANNATTER ASKED YOU TO DO THAT, DID YOU?

A: YES. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND I LEFT THE ROCKINGHAM SCENE AND WENT BACK TO BUNDY.

Q: OKAY. IN THE SAME CAR YOU GUYS CAME IN EARLIER?

A: YES.

Q: YOU DROVE TOGETHER, DID YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO BUNDY?

A: I BELIEVE ABOUT 7:00 IN THE MORNING, MAYBE A LITTLE LATER.

Q: AGAIN, WERE YOU LOOKING AT YOUR WATCH WHEN YOU LEFT ROCKINGHAM TO GO BACK TO BUNDY?

A: NO, I WASN'T.

Q: IS THAT AN APPROXIMATION, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO BUNDY, WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: DETECTIVE PHILLIPS INSTRUCTED ME TO GET A PHOTOGRAPHER. I DID. WE WALKED DOWN DOROTHY, ENTERED THE ALLEY AND CAME IN THROUGH THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

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

MS. CLARK: CAN WE CUT THE FEED?

THE COURT: ANYTIME I HEAR "BUNDY."

MS. CLARK: YEAH.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT NO. 55. 2, PLEASE.

MR. BAILEY: ARE WE THROUGH WITH THIS EXHIBIT, YOUR HONOR? IT IS KIND OF IN THE WAY.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK?

MS. CLARK: WE WILL BE SHORTLY.

Q: ALL RIGHT, SIR. WHEN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS ASKED YOU TO GO AND GET A PHOTOGRAPHER, DID YOU DO THAT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THAT?

A: TO PHOTOGRAPH THE GLOVE IN ITS ORIGINAL POSITION, AND IF I NEEDED TO MOVE IT TO INSPECT IT ANY FURTHER, WE COULD -- IN OTHER WORDS, PHOTO IT AS WE ORIGINALLY FOUND IT.

Q: AND WHO IS IN THE PHOTOGRAPH, SIR?

A: THAT IS VICTIM BROWN AND MYSELF.

Q: AND ARE YOU POINTING TO SOMETHING UNDERNEATH THAT BUSH?

A: YES, I AM.

Q: AND WHAT IS THAT?

A: IT IS THE GLOVE ON BUNDY.

Q: AND IS THAT THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT YOU TOOK THE PHOTOGRAPHER OVER TO TAKE AT THE DIRECTION OF DETECTIVES VANNATTER AND PHILLIPS?

A: YES.

Q: AND ARE YOU DRESSED HERE -- YOU RECALL TESTIFYING EARLIER THAT YOU HAD TAKEN YOUR JACKET OFF AT SOME POINT WHEN YOU WERE AT BUNDY EARLIER?

A: YES.

Q: HAD YOU EVER PUT IT ON AGAIN BETWEEN THAT POINT AND THIS POINT HERE?

A: NO, I HAD NOT.

Q: SO AT THE TIME THAT YOU FOUND THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM, WHAT WERE YOU WEARING?

A: I WAS WEARING EXACTLY WHAT IS IN THIS PHOTO; A WHITE SHIRT, TAN SLACKS, LOAFERS.

Q: I'M SORRY?

A: LOAFERS.

Q: LOAFERS?

A: LOAFERS, SHOES.

Q: DO YOU STILL HAVE THAT CLOTHING, SIR?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: THE SHIRT AND THE PANTS?

A: YES.

Q: SO ARE YOU STILL DRESSED IN THE SAME MANNER IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH BEING SHOWN TO THE JURY NOW AS YOU WERE WHEN YOU FOUND THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

Q: AFTER THAT PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN, SIR, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: I RETURNED TO THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS.

Q: AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE DID YOU RETURN TO THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS?

A: TO INFORM THE DETECTIVES WHAT I SAW AT BUNDY.

Q: NOW, BEFORE YOU LEFT FOR ROCKINGHAM AGAIN, WHEN YOU WENT OVER TO THE GLOVE ON BUNDY, SIR, WHAT DID YOU DO -- YOU WERE ASKED -- I THINK YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER TO COMPARE IT TO THE ONE AT ROCKINGHAM TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT LOOKED THE SAME?

A: YES.

Q: AND A MATCH?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID YOU DO IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE OF THAT?

A: WELL, I HAD TO DETERMINE IF IT WAS A RIGHT OR A LEFT, AND I DID. IT WAS A LEFT-HANDED GLOVE.

Q: AT BUNDY?

A: YES. IT APPEARED TO BE THE SAME TEXTURE OF LEATHER, SAME COLOR.

Q: UH-HUH.

A: THE FABRIC, A MESH FABRIC, WAS THE LINING INSIDE, IT APPEARED TO BE THE SAME TEXTURE, DESIGN AND COLOR AS THE GLOVE ON ROCKINGHAM.

Q: DID YOU TOUCH THE GLOVE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU MOVE IT?

A: YES.

Q: HOW DID YOU DO THAT?

A: WITH A PEN.

Q: WITH A PEN LIKE THE KIND YOU WRITE WITH?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU HAVE THE INK PART OUT?

A: NO.

Q: AND HOW -- WHAT DID YOU DO THAT FOR?

A: I JUST LIFTED IT AND TURNED IT SO I COULD TELL IF IT WAS A RIGHT OR A LEFT AND TO LOOK AT THE LINING.

Q: OKAY. AND WAS THERE SOMEONE ELSE PRESENT WHEN YOU DID THAT?

A: YES.

Q: WHO?

A: THE PHOTOGRAPHER. I BELIEVE HE WAS MR. ROKAHR.

Q: OKAY. AND HOW DID THAT ASSIST YOU IN DETERMINING WHETHER IT WAS A RIGHT OR A LEFT?

A: EXCUSE ME?

Q: HOW DID THAT HELP YOU, LIFTING IT WITH THE PEN, HOW DID THAT HELP YOU DETERMINE IF IT WAS A RIGHT OR A LEFT?

A: WELL, I WANTED TO SEE WHERE THE THUMB WAS.

Q: WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE WHERE THE THUMB WAS WITHOUT DOING THAT?

A: I MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE.

Q: AND WHY DID YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE? WHY WERE YOU GETTING THIS INFORMATION?

A: WELL, I WAS BEING DIRECTED TO DO THIS AND I FELT THERE WAS PROBABLY A VERY IMPORTANT REASON WHY AND I WANTED TO BE SURE.

Q: AND SO YOU WERE GOING TO REPORT BACK TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER?

A: YES.

Q: AND AFTER THAT WAS DONE, SIR, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WENT BACK TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU GO BY YOURSELF?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU ASK ANYONE TO FOLLOW YOU OR PROCEED THERE AS WELL?

A: YES.

Q: WHO WAS THAT?

A: THE PHOTOGRAPHER.

Q: AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

A: TO PHOTOGRAPH THE OTHER GLOVE AND FOR WHATEVER OTHER REASON DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND LANGE WANTED HIM AT ROCKINGHAM.

Q: NOW, AFTER YOU -- AFTER YOU LIFTED THE -- PUT YOUR PEN INSIDE TO LIFT THE GLOVE AT BUNDY, DID YOU REPLACE IT IN THE SAME LOCATION?

A: YES.

Q: AS IT WAS FOUND?

A: YES.

Q: YOU WENT TO ROCKINGHAM THEN AND YOU TOOK THE PHOTOGRAPHER?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THAT?

A: TO DOCUMENT THE POSITION OF THE GLOVE ON THE PATHWAY THAT I HAD DISCOVERED EARLIER.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU DO IN THAT REGARD WHEN YOU GOT TO ROCKINGHAM WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER?

A: I BELIEVE I WAS INSTRUCTED TO SHOW HIM WHERE THE GLOVE WAS SO HE COULD PHOTOGRAPH IT, AND HE DID.

Q: DID YOU TAKE HIM DOWN THAT SOUTH PATHWAY?

A: YES.

Q: AND AGAIN, WHAT ROUTE DID YOU TAKE TO TAKE HIM DOWN THERE?

A: THE SAME AS THE OTHER THREE DETECTIVES; EASTBOUND ON THE PATH TO THE GLOVE, JUST WEST OF THE GLOVE, AND HE PHOTOGRAPHED IT.

Q: OKAY. AND SO DO THESE -- ARE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS -- ARE ANY OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS THE ONES THAT WERE TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER AT ROCKINGHAM? AND WHEN I SAY "THESE," I'M REFERRING TO PEOPLE'S 116?

A: I'M NOT SURE -- I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAD ANY NUMBERS AT THAT TIME.

Q: UH-HUH. AND PHOTOGRAPH E, WHERE THERE IS NO NUMBER THEN, MIGHT THAT BE ONE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION BY MR. ROKAHR?

A: YES.

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. AFTER YOU -- AT THAT TIME DID YOU TOUCH THAT GLOVE?

A: NO.

Q: DID MR. ROKAHR TOUCH THAT GLOVE?

A: NO.

Q: AFTER HE TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS, WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: WE RETURNED TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU POINTED THE GLOVE OUT TO MR. ROKAHR FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS, DID YOU POINT OUT ASPECTS OF THE GLOVE THAT YOU WANTED HIM TO TAKE NOTE OF IN PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: NO. I BELIEVE I JUST WANTED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE GLOVE. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING WE COULD DEPICT THAT WE WOULD NEED PHOTOS OF FROM ANY ANGLE.

Q: YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER THAT THE -- THAT YOU NOTICED IT TO BE -- THE GLOVE TO BE MOIST AND STICKY. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: THAT IS THE WAY IT APPEARED, YES.

Q: DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER ANY FINGERS WERE STUCK TOGETHER?

A: I DO RECALL THAT THERE WAS ONE FINGER THAT WAS STUCK TO ONE PART OF THE GLOVE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: WE -- I TOOK THE PHOTOGRAPHER BACK OUT TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE AND I RE-ENTERED THE FRONT DOOR AREA THAT LED INTO THE KITCHEN.

Q: OKAY. AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

A: TO TELL THE DETECTIVES -- WELL, I HAD ALREADY PREVIOUSLY TOLD THEM WHAT I HAD FOUND, BUT THERE WAS A DISCUSSION GOING ON AND I CAME BACK THERE TO REJOIN THEM.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU WERE -- LET ME BACK UP FOR A SECOND. WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM, WERE YOU ABLE TO TELL WHETHER IT WAS RIGHT OR LEFT-HANDED?

A: THE GLOVE ON ROCKINGHAM WAS A RIGHT-HANDED GLOVE.

Q: AND THE PHOTOGRAPH OF IT SHOWN IN PEOPLE'S 116-E -- WELL, ACTUALLY D, E AND F, IS THAT -- DO THOSE DEPICT THE POSITION IN WHICH YOU ORIGINALLY FOUND IT?

A: YES.

Q: AND SO WERE YOU ABLE TO LOOK AT THE GLOVE AND SEE WHERE THE THUMB WAS LOCATED, WITHOUT LIFTING IT?

A: YES.

Q: WHO WAS INSIDE THE KITCHEN AREA WHEN YOU WENT INSIDE THE HOUSE AFTER HAVING THE GLOVE PHOTOGRAPHED?

A: DETECTIVE VANNATTER, DETECTIVE -- DETECTIVE VANNATTER FOR SURE. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS. THAT WAS ALL I BELIEVE I SAW WHEN I WALKED IN THERE.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS THEN AT THAT POINT AS TO WHAT YOU WERE TO DO?

A: WELL, AT THAT POINT DETECTIVE VANNATTER MADE A STATEMENT THAT WE ARE GOING TO HANDLE THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS AS A CRIME SCENE AND WE NEEDED TO SEAL IT OFF, SECURE IT.

Q: AND WHAT WERE YOU ASKED TO DO AT THAT POINT, IF ANYTHING?

A: TO MAKE SURE NO ONE WAS IN THE HOUSE. THERE WAS -- THERE WAS TWO CHILDREN IN THE HOUSE, A MAN THAT I LATER FOUND OUT WAS MR. COWLINGS, MISS ARNELLE SIMPSON WAS IN THE HOUSE. I THINK THAT WAS ALL. WE ASKED THEM THAT IF THEY COULD TAKE THE CHILDREN SOMEWHERE ELSE, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO LEAVE, THAT THERE WAS SOME INVESTIGATION THAT WAS GOING TO BE DONE AT THE HOUSE.

Q: AND WHERE WERE YOU?

A: AT THIS TIME?

Q: UH-HUH.

A: I BELIEVE I WALKED OUT INTO THE LIVING ROOM AREA. I THINK I TALKED TO MR. COWLINGS THERE. I BELIEVE MISS SIMPSON WAS SOMEWHERE IN THAT GENERAL VICINITY ON THE FIRST FLOOR.

Q: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DID YOU REMAIN AT ROCKINGHAM AT THAT TIME, SIR?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WHAT WERE YOU DOING?

A: WAITING FOR A SEARCH WARRANT TO BE WRITTEN.

Q: AND WHO WAS THERE WITH YOU?

A: AT THAT POINT DETECTIVE VANNATTER WAS THERE MOMENTARILY, THEN HE LEFT. THERE WAS UNIFORMED OFFICERS WITH THE BRONCO AT THE FRONT OF THE ROCKINGHAM GATE, UNIFORMED OFFICERS TO THE FRONT OF ASHFORD. DETECTIVE ROBERTS AT SOME POINT REJOINED ME AT THAT LOCATION AND I DON'T -- THERE WAS SEVERAL DETECTIVES THAT ENDED UP THERE, AND I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY WHAT TIME.

Q: LET ME BACK UP FOR ONE MINUTE. YOU LEFT ROCKINGHAM TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE BUNDY GLOVE TO SEE IF IT MATCHED THE ONE YOU HAD FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU DID THAT, YOU WENT WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS I THINK YOU TESTIFIED?

A: YES.

Q: AT SOME POINT, WHEN YOU WERE BACK AT BUNDY TO COMPARE THAT GLOVE TO THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE, DID YOU -- DO YOU RECALL SEEING DETECTIVE LANGE?

A: I CAN'T REMEMBER IF I SAW HIM AT THAT POINT.

Q: WHEN YOU RETURNED TO THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION, DO YOU RECALL WHETHER YOU SAW DETECTIVE LANGE THERE?

A: I CAN'T REMEMBER. I REMEMBER TALKING TO VANNATTER BECAUSE HE SAID WE WERE GOING TO SECURE THIS AND HANDLE IT LIKE A CRIME SCENE, AND THEN I STARTED TALKING TO MR. COWLINGS AND MISS SIMPSON.

Q: THEN DID YOU REMAIN AT ROCKINGHAM FOR THE BALANCE OF THE DAY?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT WERE YOUR FUNCTIONS THERE?

A: TO MAKE SURE WE JUST KEPT THE LOCATION SECURE WAITING FOR A WARRANT TO BE SIGNED.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU WERE WITH THE UNIFORMED OFFICERS AND AT SOME POINT JOINED BY DETECTIVE ROBERTS?

A: YES, AND THERE WAS SEVERAL DETECTIVES AFTER THAT.

Q: AND AT SOME POINT IN THE AFTERNOON DO YOU RECALL MEETING ME?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: OKAY. AND THAT WAS AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THAT THE FIRST TIME WE MET?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: DID YOU WALK ME THROUGH THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION TO SHOW WHERE YOU HAD FOUND THE GLOVE AND WHERE YOU HAD CONTACTED MR. KAELIN?

A: YES.

Q: HOW LONG DID YOU REMAIN AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: THAT DAY?

Q: YES.

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS WELL PAST 6:00 IN THE EVENING. I'M NOT POSITIVE ON THAT, BUT I KNOW IT WAS VERY LATE IN THE AFTERNOON AT THE EARLIEST.

Q: OKAY. DO YOU RECALL SEEING MEDIA ARRIVE AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION AT SOME POINT?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU RECALL APPROXIMATELY WHEN THAT WAS?

A: IT SEEMS THAT IT WAS RIGHT AROUND THE NOON HOUR, BUT I'M NOT POSITIVE.

Q: AND AT SOME POINT DID YOU PUT ON YOUR JACKET?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN WAS THAT?

A: WHEN THE MEDIA ARRIVED.

Q: AND WHY WAS THAT?

A: BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO.

Q: OKAY. IN CASE YOUR BOSS WAS WATCHING?

A: YES.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

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

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, SIR. I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BRIEF RECESS AT THIS POINT. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU. ALSO, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. AND WE WILL RECONVENE IN ABOUT FIFTEEN MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YOU MAY STEP DOWN. YOU ARE ORDERED TO RETURN IN FIFTEEN MINUTES.

(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 THE PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT. COUNSEL, IS THERE ANYTHING WE NEED TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO REJOIN US?

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: WELL, THIS IS A MOTION PRESENTED BY MR. BAILEY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I -- WHAT I PROPOSE WE DO IS, WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A LOOK AT IT OVER THE NOON HOUR, AND WE'LL TAKE IT UP. I ACCEPT MR. BAILEY'S REPRESENTATION OFF THE RECORD THAT HE WILL NOT GO INTO THOSE AREAS TODAY.

MS. CLARK: BUT THAT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE PEOPLE'S CONCERN. IF THE COURT IS INCLINED TO RULE IN DEFENSE FAVOR, WHICH THE PEOPLE SEE NO REASON FOR THE COURT TO DO, THE PEOPLE -- WE HAVE READ THE MOTION AND THE REASONS THAT GENERATED THE MOTION AND WE SEE NO MERIT TO THE REQUEST.

NEVERTHELESS, IF THE COURT DOES IN -- DOES INTEND TO RULE IN THE DEFENDANT'S FAVOR WITH RESPECT TO THE PERIMETERS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION, THE PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW ABOUT THIS ONE BEFORE WE FINISH DIRECT BECAUSE THESE WERE ITEMS THAT THE PEOPLE RAISED IN THE PEOPLE'S MOTION. THE COURT ISSUED A RULING, AND BASED ON THAT, WE MADE A DECISION AS TO HOW WE WOULD PROCEED WITH DIRECT. IF THE COURT IS NOW GOING TO CHANGE THAT --

THE COURT: WELL, LET ME -- LET ME -- EXCUSE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU. DO YOU WANT TO LITIGATE IT NOW?

MS. CLARK: YES.

THE COURT: OKAY. I LEFT IT ON MY DESK. MISS ROBERTSON.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MR. BAILEY, DO YOU WISH TO BE HEARD?

MR. BAILEY: YES, YOUR HONOR. YOU WILL RECALL --

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, EXCUSE ME. IF WE COULD HAVE A MOMENT. I DON'T KNOW IF DEFENSE WANTED DETECTIVE FUHRMAN PRESENT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, COULD WE ASK YOU TO STEP OUTSIDE, PLEASE? THANK YOU. (DETECTIVE FUHRMAN EXITS THE COURTROOM.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE COURTROOM. MR. BAILEY.

MR. BAILEY: YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE VISITED THIS SUBJECT ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF THE MANDATE OF THE ANTHONY CASE DECIDED IN THIS DISTRICT. YOU HAD ISSUED A RULING BARRING CERTAIN EVIDENCE OF STATEMENTS MADE TO PSYCHIATRISTS, REPORTS OF PSYCHIATRISTS IN CONNECTION LITIGATION INSTITUTED BY MR. FUHRMAN IN THE EARLY 80'S CLAIMING A DISABILITY BECAUSE OF CERTAIN EXPERIENCES HE HAD HAD. AND AT THE TIME THAT YOU ISSUED THAT RULING, IT WAS REPRESENTED TO THE COURT THAT MR. FUHRMAN WOULD NOT BE A WITNESS TO THE 1985 INCIDENT INVOLVING THE MERCEDES BENZ WINDSHIELD AND THAT HE WOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN THE 1989 INCIDENT WHICH IN FACT WENT TO COURT. NOW, THE PROSECUTION OPENED RIGHT UP WITH THAT. IN ADDITION, THIS IS A FIRST IN MY EXPERIENCE, THEY OPENED UP WITHOUT SPECIFYING THAT HE HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO SOME KIND OF SPECIAL TRAINING SESSION THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MURDERS AT BUNDY OR THE EVIDENCE AT ROCKINGHAM. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE QUESTION OF MR. FUHRMAN'S GLOBAL ATTITUDES TOWARD RACE SPECIFICALLY AND IN PARTICULAR COUPLES THAT ARE RACIALLY MIXED SUCH AS MR. SIMPSON AND NICOLE IS FAIR GAME FOR QUESTIONING IN AS MUCH AS HE IS VERY DEFINITIVELY A SUSPECT FOR HAVING CARRIED THAT GLOVE FROM BUNDY WHERE HE FOUND IT TO ROCKINGHAM WHERE HE DEPOSITED IT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE INTEND TO SHOW BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FAR STRONGER THAN THE PEOPLE WILL EVER OFFER AGAINST O.J. SIMPSON ON THE MURDERS. IF MOTIVE AND OPPORTUNITY ARE THE MEANS THAT THE PEOPLE USE TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE DEFENDANT, WHICH THEY SAY THEY CAN DO, THAT IS A FAIR METHOD TO PROVE THE INNOCENCE OF THE DEFENDANT BY SHOWING THAT HE WAS FRAMED. THE OPPORTUNITY WILL BE PATENT IF IT IS NOT ALREADY ON THE RECORD BY THE TIME MR. FUHRMAN'S CROSS-EXAMINATION IS COMPLETE. THE MOTIVE, ONE THAT WOULD INCLINE A POLICE OFFICER TO DO SOMETHING THIS DRASTIC EVEN THOUGH HE HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING PRESUMABLY WHETHER OR NOT SIMPSON WAS IN TIMBUKTU AT THE TIME HE WAS AT ROCKINGHAM FIRST IS CERTAINLY VERY HIGHLY RELEVANT. IF IT IS EMBARRASSING, IT IS EMBARRASSMENT OF HIS OWN CREATION. HE IS THE ONE THAT CREATED THESE PSYCHIATRIC REPORTS AND CAUSED THEM TO BE FILED PUBLICLY HOPING TO GAIN AS A RESULT. INSOFAR AS THE ORIGINAL CONCERN THAT YOUR HONOR HAD AS TO REMOTENESS IS CONCERNED, I ASK YOUR HONOR TO LOOK AT THE RULINGS THAT WERE MADE WITH RESPECT TO SPOUSAL ABUSE AND THE TIME BRACKETS THAT THE PROSECUTION WAS PERMITTED TO COVER. OF SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE IS THE FACT THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S OWN EXPERT OPINED IN THE REPORTS THAT YOU HAVE REVIEWED THAT HIS ANTI-RACIAL FEELINGS WERE INCURABLE AND THAT THERE WAS NO WAY THAT HE COULD CONTINUE TO BE AN EFFECTIVE POLICE OFFICER BECAUSE OF THAT. AND IF THAT CONDITION IS SHOWN TO EXIST, THEN IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD MAY SHIFT TO THE WITNESS TO SHOW WHEN AND IF SUCH A CURE TOOK PLACE BECAUSE WE INTEND TO SHOW AN INCIDENT AFTER INCIDENT THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS WILLING TO VIOLATE THE LAW AND THE FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS STATUTE TO UNFAIRLY PROSECUTE BLACK MEN WHO HE FOUND IN THE COMPANY OF WHITE WOMEN AND THAT THIS PATTERN WAS CONSISTENT RIGHT UP UNTIL SHORTLY BEFORE THIS INCIDENT. BASED ON ALL OF THOSE FACTS, THE STARTING POINT -- AND WE'RE NOT SEEKING AT THIS POINT TO GO BACK TO HIS MARINE CORPS EXPERIENCES WHICH ARE OUT THERE, BUT THE STARTING POINT WHICH RELATE TO THOSE AND WHY HE WANTED TO GET OUT OF THE MARINE CORPS BECAUSE HE COULD NOT STAND THE DEFIANCE THAT MINORITY GROUPS WERE HANDING HIM WHEN HE GAVE THEM DIRECTION AND WHY HE WANTED TO GET OUT OF THE POLICE FORCE BECAUSE HE COULDN'T TAKE THE CONDUCT OF THE PEOPLE HE HAD TO DEAL WITH IS PART OF A TOTAL PERSONALITY PICTURE THAT THIS JURY IS ENTITLED TO EVALUATE BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO EVALUATE THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS OFFICER INCENSED THAT BEING KICKED OFF THE BIGGEST MURDER CASE IN THE HISTORY OF THIS STATE DECIDED TO KEEP HIMSELF IN IT BY BECOMING AN INDISPENSABLE WITNESS AS HE SURELY HAS DONE. THAT IS OUR PRESENTATION, AND IN THAT CONTEXT, I THINK WE'RE ENTITLED TO HAVE THE COURT RECONSIDER ITS EARLIER RULING THAT THE PSYCHIATRIC REPORTS ARE VERBOTEN. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. I DON'T REALLY THINK THE COURT NEEDS TO HEAR A LOT FROM THE PEOPLE. THE DEFENSE HAS REALLY NOT OFFERED YOU ANY REASON TO CHANGE THE EARLIER RULING THAT YOU'VE ISSUED. WHAT THEY'RE BASICALLY ARGUING TO THE COURT IS THAT THE FACT OF THE COURT'S PERMISSION FOR THE DEFENSE TO USE THE KATHLEEN BELL ALLEGATIONS, WHICH WE WILL DISPROVE, NEVER THE LESS, THE FACT THAT THE COURT ISSUED THAT RULING IS NOW BASICALLY BEING POSITED TO THE COURT AS AN EXCUSE TO GO BACK INTO THE VERY ITEMS THAT THE COURT RULED TO BE TOO REMOTE AND INADMISSIBLE. THE FACT THAT THE PEOPLE DECIDED TO AIR THOSE INCIDENTS THAT THE DEFENSE HAS BEEN THREATENING TO USE AGAINST DETECTIVE FUHRMAN BY WAVING THE NEWSWEEK ARTICLE BACK IN CHAMBERS ABOUT THE MOCK CROSS-EXAMINATION, BY THE DISCUSSIONS AND THE NIGHTLY PRESS CONFERENCES CONCERNING KATHLEEN BELL AND HER CREDIBILITY AND HOW THEY'RE GOING -- WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO PROVE VIA KATHLEEN BELL, THE PEOPLE DETERMINED AS A TACTICAL MATTER TO BASICALLY DO A PREEMPTIVE STRIKE AND AIR THOSE MATTERS FIRST ON DIRECT EXAMINATION. BUT THAT DOESN'T OPEN A DOOR ANY FURTHER THAN IT WAS ALREADY OPENED BY THE COURT'S RULING. THE COURT RULED THAT CERTAIN THINGS WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE. IT RULED THAT THE KATHLEEN BELL INCIDENT WAS ADMISSIBLE. IF IT WAS INCLINED TO -- IF YOU WERE INCLINED TO ALLOW THE '81 INCIDENT, YOU WOULD HAVE DONE SO. BUT THE MERE FACT THAT YOU ALLOWED THE DEFENSE TO GO INTO THE '85 INCIDENT AND THEN THE PEOPLE AIR IT ON DIRECT KNOWING THAT THE COURT IS GOING TO ALLOW THE DEFENSE TO DO SO ON CROSS-EXAMINATION DOESN'T OPEN THE DOOR ANY FURTHER THAN IT WAS TO BEGIN WITH.

YOU ISSUED A RULING. YOU SAID A CERTAIN INCIDENT WAS ADMISSIBLE AND THE DEFENSE COULD GO INTO IT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. THE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF THAT RULING, BUT THE PEOPLE WERE ALSO AWARE THAT THE COURT RULED THAT THE '81 INFORMATION COULD NOT BE AIRED. I DON'T SEE HOW THERE'S ANY DIFFERENT POSTURE NOW SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE DISCUSSED IT ON DIRECT EXAMINATION. AND THE COURT HAS NOT GIVEN NOTABLY ANY RELEVANT CASE AUTHORITY TO JUSTIFY THIS POSITION. IT'S SIMPLY COUNSEL'S BALD ASSERTION. WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE DEFENSE HAS NEVER AND WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE EITHER THE OPPORTUNITY OR THE -- OR GIVE ANY KIND OF REAL OFFER OF PROOF TO THIS COURT THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN PLANTED ANYTHING, IT'S REALLY -- AND YET THEY GOT THE 1985 INCIDENT FOR -- AS RISK FOR THEIR CROSS-EXAMINATION MILL, I REALLY THINK THEY'VE GONE -- IT'S ALREADY BEYOND THE PALE. THEY HAVE -- THEY WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO GIVE THIS COURT AN OFFER OF PROOF. THEY HAVEN'T TO THIS DATE WHEN THE PEOPLE HAVE REQUESTED THAT THEY DO SO, GIVE US AN OFFER OF PROOF, SHOW US HOW YOU'RE GOING TO PROVE THAT THIS DETECTIVE PLANTED THIS EVIDENCE.

THEY HAVE NOT ONCE, NOT ONCE BEEN ABLE TO DO SO. THEY HAVE REFUSED TO DO SO, AND THE REASON THEY REFUSED TO DO SO IS THEY CAN NOT. THERE WILL NEVER BE SUCH EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT'S AN IMPOSSIBILITY. AND EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO OPPORTUNITY AND IT'S A VIRTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY FOR THEM TO HAVE DONE WHAT THEY ALLEGE THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAS DONE, YET THEY GOT THE RULING FROM THE COURT, WHICH IS VERY GENEROUS, ALLOWING THE 1985 INCIDENT FOR IMPEACHMENT. TO NOW ARGUE THAT THAT VERY RULING WHICH THE PEOPLE ACTED UPON ALLOWS THEM TO GO FURTHER IS LUDICROUS, IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY AND WITHOUT LOGIC.

THE COURT: FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU, MISS CLARK, BUT DON'T YOU THINK THAT A PRIOR RELATIONSHIP OR PRIOR MEETING BETWEEN THE INTERESTED PARTIES, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, THE DEFENDANT AND A KEY PROSECUTION WITNESS -- YOU SAY THAT'S A GENEROUS RULING?

MS. CLARK: NO. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT. I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE KATHLEEN BELL INCIDENT.

THE COURT: WE'RE SPEAKING OF THE 1985 INCIDENT.

MS. CLARK: EXCUSE ME.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY. THE FACT THAT THE -- THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN RESPONDED TO THE '85 INCIDENT IS NOT -- WAS -- IT WAS NOT A SIGNIFICANT EVENT AT THE TIME; IN FACT, SO INSIGNIFICANT THAT IT WAS -- HE DID NOT GENERATE A REPORT. HE SIMPLY RESPONDED TO THE LOCATION, WAS CERTAINLY NOT THE ONLY OFFICER TO DO SO. AND WE WILL HEAR FROM THAT OTHER OFFICER LATER ON IN THE CASE WHO WAS ALSO PRESENT AT THE SCENE. BUT THAT IN AND OF ITSELF WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT A GREAT EVENT, YOU KNOW, AND IT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT HE EVEN REMEMBERED UNTIL REQUESTED TO REPORT ON A PRIOR INCIDENT BACK IN '89.

THE COURT: NO. I WAS JUST CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR CHARACTERIZATION OF THAT AS BEING A GENEROUS, QUOTE, UNQUOTE RULING. I THOUGHT I WAS PRETTY MUCH COMPELLED TO ALLOW THE JURY TO HEAR THAT THERE WAS SOME PRIOR CONTACT AMONGST THESE PARTIES.

MS. CLARK: THAT'S TRUE. I'M NOT ARGUING THAT. I WAS ARGUING THE KATHLEEN BELL INCIDENT, JUST THE BELL INCIDENT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: THAT WAS THE ONLY ONE. AND --

THE COURT: BUT MR. BAILEY MAKES THE ARGUMENT THAT SINCE WE HAVE GONE IN AT SOME LENGTH THE '85 INCIDENT, THAT THEN THEY'RE ALLOWED TO GO INTO THE -- THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO INTO THE '81 ISSUES.

MS. CLARK: AND I UNDERSTAND. AND I THINK THE ARGUMENT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO MERIT. THERE'S NO CASE AUTHORITY TO JUSTIFY IT, THERE'S NO LOGIC TO JUSTIFY IT. THEY ARE IN NO DIFFERENT POSITION NOW THAN WHEN THE COURT RULED EARLIER. THE SAME INFORMATION WAS DEEMED ADMISSIBLE THEN AS IS NOW. THE COURT MADE A RULING SAYING THAT THE KATHLEEN BELL INCIDENT COULD COME IN. THE DEFENSE WAS AWARE THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE PROVING THE 1985 INCIDENT AND THE DEFENSE WAS VERY CLEAR IN ITS INDICATION THEY WERE GOING TO USE THE PRIOR CONTACT WITH MR. SIMPSON TO TRY AND PAINT A CERTAIN PICTURE OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND HIS ACTIVITIES IN THIS CASE --

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

MS. CLARK: -- WHICH, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS PART OF WHAT -- MAY HAVE BEEN PART OF WHY THE COURT ALLOWED THE KATHLEEN BELL EVIDENCE IN. SO THE COURT MADE ITS RULING BASED ON THE FACT OF THE PRIOR CONTACT AND THEN THE CONTENT OF THE KATHLEEN BELL ALLEGATIONS. BUT THE FACT THAT THE PEOPLE ELICITED THIS INFORMATION ON DIRECT PUTS THE DEFENSE IN NO DIFFERENT POSTURE. IT DOESN'T MAKE THE '81 INFORMATION ANY MORE RELEVANT THAN THE COURT EARLIER DEEMED IT. WHAT IS THE CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCE? THE COURT MADE A RULING ON WHAT IS ADMISSIBLE. THE PEOPLE ACTED UPON THE RULING. AND SO WHAT IS DIFFERENT? BASED ON THEIR ARGUMENT, YOUR HONOR, IF THEY BROUGHT OUT THE '85 INCIDENT AND THEY BROUGHT OUT KATHLEEN BELL, WHICH OBVIOUSLY THEY WERE GOING TO DO, THEY WOULD THEN BE ABLE TO STAND UP AND SAY TO THE COURT, WELL, NOW THAT WE'VE BROUGHT ALL THIS OUT, WE CAN BRING OUT THE '81 INCIDENT AS WELL. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? SAME THING. I DON'T SEE THE CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCE. PERHAPS IF THE COURT DOES, IT COULD GIVE AN INDICATION. BUT OTHER THAN THEIR BALD ASSERTION THAT THEY GOT THIS MUCH AND SO THEREFORE, THEY GET THIS MUCH MORE, THERE'S NO LOGIC AND THERE IS NO CASE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT THE REQUEST.

THE COURT: WELL, JUST SO WE ALL UNDERSTAND, THE BASIS FOR THE COURT'S RULING ON THE KATHLEEN BELL INCIDENT IS STATED IN THE COURTS'S WRITTEN RULING. HOWEVER, JUST SO WE'RE ALL OPERATING FROM THE SAME SHEET OF INFORMATION, IT'S BECAUSE OF THE ALLEGATION, ONE OF RACIAL BIAS AND, TWO, THE WILLINGNESS TO FABRICATE INFORMATION REGARDING INTER-RACIAL COUPLES.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT.

THE COURT: WHICH IS VERY SPECIFIC TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND SIMILARITY TO THIS CASE. SO I FELT COMPELLED TO ALLOW THAT FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

MS. CLARK: AND THE PEOPLE ACCEPT THE COURT'S RULING AND WE UNDERSTAND.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MS. CLARK: AND ALL I'M SAYING IS, BY VIRTUE OF THAT RULING, THE DEFENSE DOES NOT NOW GET TO GO AND SAY WELL, NOW THE DOOR IS OPEN WIDE. NO, THE COURT HAS ALREADY INDICATED HOW FAR THE DOOR IS OPEN AND IT DOESN'T GET OPEN ANY FURTHER BECAUSE BY VIRTUE OF ITS OWN RULING. IT'S KIND OF A WEIRD ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT. I CAN NOT -- THE PEOPLE FAIL TO SEE ANY MERIT IN IT WHATSOEVER AND OBVIOUSLY THERE'S NO CASE AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT IT. THE PEOPLE URGE THE COURT NOT TO EXTEND THE PERIMETERS ANY FURTHER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MISS CLARK. MR. BAILEY, ANY RESPONSE?

MR. BAILEY: JUST THIS RESPONSE, YOUR HONOR. FIRST, YOU WILL RECALL THAT MISS CLARK WENT TO GREAT PAINS TO ELICIT FROM DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ALL OF THE THINGS HE COULD HAVE DONE TO MR. SIMPSON IN 1985, AS IF HE HAD THE RIGHT TO ARREST HIM, PAT HIM DOWN, INTERROGATE HIM, FOLLOW UP ON THE CASE TO SHOW A LACK OF ANIMUS.

NOW, THAT'S GRABBING THE BULL BY THE HORNS. THE WORD "PREEMPTIVE STRIKE" IN THE TRIAL OF CASES IS SPELLED W-A-I-V-E-R, AND THAT'S TRUE IN THIS CASE. FURTHERMORE, IN THE EXTRAORDINARY SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE PROSECUTION FELT COMPELLED TO ACQUAINT THE JURY WITH THE FACT THAT THIS WITNESS REQUIRED SPECIAL TRAINING SO HE COULD CONTROL HIMSELF ON THE WITNESS STAND, WE'RE ENTITLED TO SHOW WHY THAT SPECIAL TRAINING WAS AND ALWAYS WILL BE NECESSARY IN HIS CASE. AND I THINK THEY HAVE OPENED THE DOOR WIDE. YOU CAN'T JUST CHANGE THE RULES BASED ON A COURT'S RULING WHICH REFLECTS OTHER BASES AND THEN SAY, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO PAY A PENALTY FOR THAT. THEY TOOK THE BIT AND I THINK THAT THE DEFENSE IS ENTITLED TO WALK THROUGH THE CAVERNOUS DOOR THAT THEY'VE OPENED.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. LET ME JUST ASK MISS CLARK ONE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION. IT'S YOUR POSITION THAT IF THE COURT WERE TO GRANT THIS WIDER RANGE OF INQUIRY, YOU WOULD WANT TO REOPEN, CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. (BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. BAILEY: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. MIGHT I ADD ONE THING?

THE COURT: ONLY AT THE RISK OF OPENING THE DOOR FOR MISS CLARK TO RESPOND.

MR. BAILEY: I REALIZE THAT THAT'S A SUBSTANTIAL RISK, BUT I LEFT OUT SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT; AND THAT IS THE PEOPLE DISPLAYING TO THE JURY THE BELL LETTER. THEY CHOSE TO DO THAT. THEY CHOSE TO PUT THOSE WORDS IN THE JURY BOX, AND I THINK THAT THAT OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERED AT LEAST BY THE COURT IN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES. THAT'S ALL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT LAST POINT, MISS CLARK?

MS. CLARK: I CAN'T SEE HOW THAT MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE AT ALL UNLESS IF THE COURT THINKS IT DOES, I WILL ADDRESS THE ISSUE. BUT --

THE COURT: NO. THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE ME YOUR -- THE BENEFIT OF YOUR ENLIGHTENMENT.

MS. CLARK: I WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO DO SO, BUT ONLY IF REQUIRED TO DO SO. I DON'T NEED TO BURDEN THE COURT WITH MORE STATEMENTS. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING -- ANY MERIT IN THE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OF MR. BAILEY. I THINK THAT -- IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. AND IF THE COURT THINKS IT DOES, I WILL ADDRESS THAT POINT. DOES THE COURT --

MR. BAILEY: I OBJECT TO THE COURT PREVIEWING ITS RULING SO MISS CLARK CAN DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT AN ARGUMENT IS NECESSARY.

THE COURT: NO. I THINK IT'S JUST A VERY CLEVER WAY TO ADDRESS THESE MATTERS. MISS CLARK, ACTUALLY THE OPTION IS, IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS IT, FINE. IF NOT, FINE.

MS. CLARK: I WOULD THEN JUST SIMPLY TELL THE COURT IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. KATHLEEN BELL IS -- IT WAS AIRED THROUGH TESTIMONY, WHETHER IT'S WITH THE LETTER OR NOT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THE COURT'S PREVIOUS RULING WILL STAND. LET'S PROCEED. ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE. AND, DEPUTY BROWNING, CAN I HAVE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN BACK, PLEASE.

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

THE COURT: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED. LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE'VE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN IS REAPPROACHING THE WITNESS STAND. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, DETECTIVE. YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH.

THE WITNESS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MR. BAILEY, YOU MAY COMMENCE WITH YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. BAILEY:

Q: GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

A: GOOD MORNING, MR. BAILEY.

Q: COULD YOU TELL US WHEN IT WAS THAT YOU WERE ENLIGHTENED AS TO THE FACT THAT THE PLASTIC YOU SAW IN MR. SIMPSON'S BRONCO COMES WITH THE CAR, WHEN YOU LEARNED THAT?

A: YES. I BELIEVE IT WAS SATURDAY.

Q: SATURDAY.

A: YES.

Q: SO THAT AFTER NINE MONTHS OF INVESTIGATION, YOU DISCOVERED ON SATURDAY THAT THIS IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE WAS PERFECTLY INNOCUOUS; IS THAT RIGHT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU FIRST SAW THE SHOVEL IN MR. SIMPSON'S BRONCO, DID YOU THINK THAT A SIGNIFICANT FIND?

A: I DON'T THINK "SIGNIFICANT" WAS THE WORD I WOULD USE.

Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE IN DIGGING, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE KIND OF SHOVEL USED TO DIG A HOLE AND THE KIND OF SHOVEL YOU MIGHT USE AS A SCOOPER FOR INSTANCE?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: OKAY. AND WHAT KIND OF SHOVEL IS THIS?

A: WELL, THAT'S THE TYPE OF SHOVEL YOU USE TO MUCK A BARN.

Q: OR SCOOP OUT DOGGIE-DO MAYBE?

A: IT'S A LITTLE LARGE FOR THAT, BUT I THINK I SEE WHAT YOU MEAN.

Q: IT WOULD WORK, WOULDN'T IT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. NOW, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOUR COLLEAGUES, DETECTIVES VANNATTER AND LANGE, ON THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 1994 HAD A TOTAL OF SOME THREE HOURS IN THE COMPANY OF MR. SIMPSON, CORRECT? DID YOU LEARN THAT?

A: I HAD NEVER HEARD THAT TIME, NO.

Q: YOU KNOW THEY TALKED THOUGH?

A: YES, I UNDERSTAND.

Q: YOU KNOW THAT PART OF WHAT THEY EXCHANGED --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: -- WITH MR. SIMPSON WAS TAPED, DON'T YOU?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT, BEYOND THE SCOPE, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE FACT THERE WAS -- THEY HAD A TAPED CONVERSATION IS A FACT. IT'S NOT CONTACT.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: PART WAS TAPED, PART WAS NOT. WAS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THAT'S ASSUMING FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

MR. BAILEY: OKAY.

MS. CLARK: BEYOND THE SCOPE.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DO YOU KNOW IF A FORMAL STATEMENT WAS TAKEN AT SOME POINT ON THAT DAY, JUST YES OR NO?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. WOULD BE SPECULATION. THIS WITNESS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: I CAN ONLY SAY THAT THROUGH OTHER SOURCES, I ASSUMED AND I HEARD, BUT I HAD NEVER SEEN ANYTHING OR HEARD ANYTHING.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: YOU NEVER TALKED TO DETECTIVES VANNATTER AND LANGE ABOUT WHAT THE SUSPECT HAD SAID DURING THREE HOURS OF CONVERSATION?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: NEVER DID?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THAT. MR. BAILEY -- HOLD ON. BE CAREFUL, MR. BAILEY. PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU EVER LEARN IF MR. SIMPSON WAS EVER ASKED ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT A SHOVEL?

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. I AM GOING TO SUSTAIN THE COURT'S OWN OBJECTION. THAT'S HEARSAY.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU EVER ASK MR. SIMPSON ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT A SHOVEL?

A: I NEVER ASKED --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ASSUMES HE EVER ASKED ANYTHING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU?

A: I'VE NEVER ASKED MR. SIMPSON ANY QUESTIONS.

Q: OKAY. WOULD YOU SHARE WITH US, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, SOME OF YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND, HIGH SCHOOL, COLLEGE, THAT SORT OF THING?

A: I WENT TO PENINSULA HIGH SCHOOL. I DID NOT COMPLETE. I GOT A GED. I PROBABLY GOT --

Q: A GED IS?

A: GENERAL EDUCATION, EQUIVALENCY DIPLOMA.

Q: UH-HUH.

A: I ATTENDED ONE, TWO, THREE COMMUNITY COLLEGES I BELIEVE. I CURRENTLY HOLD APPROXIMATELY 47 UNITS OF COLLEGE.

Q: WHAT WOULD THAT BE IN YEARS?

A: CLOSE TO TWO YEARS.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU STUDY?

A: HISTORY, POLICE SCIENCE, ART.

Q: OKAY. AND HAVE YOU HAD ANY OTHER EDUCATION BEYOND THESE COMMUNITY COLLEGE EXPERIENCES?

A: ARE YOU SAYING FORMAL EDUCATION, SIR, THAT I SOUGHT OUT?

Q: WELL, TRAINING COURSES, ANYTHING THAT WOULD QUALIFY AS INSTRUCTION.

A: OH, YES. NUMEROUS -- NUMEROUS COURSES.

Q: DID YOU SERVE FOR A TIME IN THE MILITARY?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN?

A: 1970 TO '72, '73 TO '75.

Q: IN WHAT BRANCH?

A: MARINE CORPS.

Q: RESERVE?

A: NO. ACTIVE DUTY.

Q: WERE YOU A REGULAR OR RESERVE?

A: YES. REGULAR, SIR.

Q: OKAY. AND WHAT RANK DID YOU ATTAIN?

A: E-5, SERGEANT.

Q: AND WHAT IF ANY EDUCATIONAL COURSES DID YOU TAKE IN THE MILITARY?

A: EXCEPT FOR YOUR BASIC M.O.S. TRAINING, I DON'T BELIEVE I ATTENDED ANY COURSES.

Q: OKAY. AND M.O.S. MEANS MILITARY OCCUPATIONAL SPECIALTY?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WHAT WAS YOURS?

A: PRIMARY, MACHINE GUNNER, SECONDARY, MILITARY POLICEMAN.

Q: NOW, IN CONNECTION WITH THE MILITARY POLICE SPECIALTY, SOME TRAINING IS REQUIRED BEFORE YOU CAN HAVE THAT; IS THAT NOT TRUE?

A: WELL, NOT REALLY. IT'S MORE OF AN ON-THE-JOB-TRAINING TYPE. YOU START OFF AS A GATE SENTRY AND THEN YOU WORK FROM THERE. IF YOU HAVE AN APTITUDE, THEY'LL ELEVATE YOU.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT ROLE OF A MILITARY POLICEMAN DID YOU PLAY? WAS IT TANTAMOUNT TO BEING A PATROLMAN OR A GATE SENTRY OR WAS IT MORE LIKE A DETECTIVE?

A: WELL, IT STARTED OUT AS A GATE SENTRY AND THEN I WENT TO PATROL, AND AT SOME POINT, I WORKED WITH CID ON A COUPLE THINGS, BUT THEY WERE NOT --

Q: CID STANDS FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS; DOES IT NOT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND WHAT KINDS OF CASES DID YOU WORK ON WITH THEM?

A: ONLY ONE. I POSED AS A PRIVATE -- EXCUSE ME -- AWAITING TO GET OUT OF THE SERVICE WHERE THEY HAD A NARCOTICS PROBLEM, AND MY ROLE WAS JUST TO PLAY CARDS WITH THEM AND SEE IF I COULD ELICIT ANY INFORMATION ABOUT A HASHISH CONNECTION THAT THEY WERE SUSPECTED OF BEING INVOLVED IN.

Q: YOU WERE UNDERCOVER AT THE TIME?

A: WELL, SOMEWHAT.

Q: PLAYING A ROLE.

A: YES, I WAS PLAYING A ROLE.

Q: OKAY. AND WAS THAT YOUR ONLY NEXUS TO ANY MILITARY INVESTIGATIONS OF SUSPECTED CRIMES WHILE YOU WERE IN THE MARINE CORPS?

A: NO. I INVESTIGATED CRIMES AS A PATROLMAN.

Q: OKAY. EVER INVESTIGATE ANY HOMICIDE?

A: NO.

Q: EVER ATTEND ANY COURSES IN INVESTIGATION, HOW IT SHOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: OKAY. WHEN YOU WERE DISCHARGED FROM THE MARINE CORPS, WHAT DID YOU NEXT DO?

A: I JOINED THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. HOW DID THAT COME ABOUT? CAN YOU TELL US?

A: I APPLIED FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND I WENT TO LOS ANGELES I BELIEVE THREE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS, TOOK THE REQUIRED TESTS AND I HAD AN ACADEMY DATE APPROXIMATELY TWO WEEKS, MAYBE A LITTLE LESS, MAYBE A LITTLE MORE TO WHEN I WAS -- WHEN I EXITED THE MARINE CORPS.

Q: I TAKE IT THAT YOU PASSED THE TEST?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND HOW LONG AFTER YOUR APPLICATION WERE YOU FORMALLY INDUCTED INTO THE POLICE ACADEMY?

A: I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY WHEN I APPLIED. I BELIEVE IT WAS IN 1975, BUT SHORTLY AFTER MY E.A.S. OR MY END OF ACTIVE SERVICE.

Q: I DON'T KNOW THAT ONE. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN.

A: END OF ACTIVE SERVICE.

Q: THAT'S E.A.S. IS IT?

A: E.A.S. THEN I ENTERED THE ACADEMY ON AUGUST 4TH, 1975.

Q: THEN YOU HAD PLANNED TO BECOME A POLICE OFFICER BEFORE YOU WERE ACTUALLY DISCHARGED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT, SIR. HOW LONG DOES THAT ACADEMY LAST?

A: I BELIEVE IT LASTED FIVE MONTHS AT THAT TIME. I BELIEVE I GRADUATED JUST BEFORE CHRISTMAS 1975.

Q: AND WHAT KINDS OF COURSES DID YOU TAKE THERE?

A: IT WAS A LONG TIME AGO, BUT YOUR BASIC -- SPLIT UP INTO THREE AREAS. YOU HAVE SHOOTING, PHYSICAL FITNESS AND THEN ACADEMICS, AND ACADEMICS, IT WENT FROM EVERYTHING TO TRAFFIC CITATIONS TO TACTICAL SITUATIONS TO YOUR INVESTIGATORY RESPONSIBILITIES ON CRIME SCENES TO TAKING CRIME REPORTS, ENGLISH.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU WENT TO THE ACADEMY WITH A VIEW TOWARD GRADUATING AND BECOMING A PATROLMAN?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: IS THERE A PROBATIONARY PERIOD DURING WHICH YOU CAN BE DISCHARGED WITHOUT ANY CAUSE AFTER YOU GRADUATE?

A: YES.

Q: HOW LONG IS THAT?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS SIX MONTHS THEN.

Q: OKAY. TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT YOU LEARNED IN THE TACTICAL END OF THINGS AT THE ACADEMY.

A: WELL, THAT WAS -- THAT WAS A LONG TIME AGO. OFFICER SAFETY WAS STRESSED QUITE --

Q: WELL, LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT. WHAT ARE THE PRINCIPLES OF OFFICER SAFETY THAT STICK IN YOUR MIND FROM THAT EXPERIENCE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE, YOUR HONOR. WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE?

THE COURT: SOME LATITUDE HERE, MR. BAILEY.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: OKAY. DO YOU REMEMBER ANY OF THE --

A: THE FOREMOST?

Q: -- PARTICULAR -- THE FOREMOST.

A: THE HANDS CAN KILL YOU, THE EYES CAN'T.

Q: OKAY. AND WHAT ABOUT PROTECTING YOUR BACK?

A: OH, ABSOLUTELY.

Q: WHEN THERE IS DANGER, NORMALLY OFFICERS GO OUT IN PAIRS TO LOOK OUT AFTER ONE ANOTHER; DO THEY NOT?

A: THAT'S PREFERRED.

Q: AND WAS THAT NOT A PRINCIPLE THAT YOU HAD LEARNED IN FACT IN THE MARINE CORPS?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, DID YOU TAKE ANY OTHER COURSES COURTESY OF THE LAPD OR AT ITS REQUEST PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT YOU BECAME A DETECTIVE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: CAN YOU TELL ME JUST GENERALLY WHAT KINDS THEY WERE?

A: YES. DETECTIVE SCHOOL, HOMICIDE -- IT WAS A COMBINED DETECTIVE AND HOMICIDE SCHOOL AND THAT YEAR I BELIEVE IT WAS --

Q: THAT WAS FOR PURPOSES OF THE UPGRADE?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. WHEN DID YOU FIRST GO TO DETECTIVE AND HOMICIDE SCHOOL IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO LEARN.

A: THE FIRST TIME WAS IN 1983.

Q: AND DID YOU COMPLETE THAT COURSE?

A: YES.

Q: HOW LONG WAS IT?

A: THREE WEEKS.

Q: AND DID YOU LEARN CERTAIN ASPECTS OF DETECTION, PARTICULARLY WITH REFERENCE TO HOMICIDE CASES?

A: YES. IN A GENERAL BASIS, YES.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU HAVE COURSES IN THE FIREARMS -- FIREARMS IDENTIFICATION?

A: ARE YOU TALKING BALLISTICS OR THE FORENSICS?

Q: WELL, I'M TALKING ABOUT WHAT MOST PEOPLE INCORRECTLY CALL BALLISTICS, WHICH IS BULLETS PROJECTORY. I'M TALKING ABOUT FIREARMS IDENTIFICATION, WHICH MEANS MATCHING A WEAPON TO A PROJECTORY. DID YOU HAVE ANY COURSES IN THAT?

A: THE CLASS WOULD BE WHAT YOUR CRIMINALISTS COULD DO FOR YOU, NOT YOUR -- YOUR INVOLVEMENT.

Q: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DID YOU LEARN ANYTHING ABOUT FINGERPRINTS?

A: YES.

Q: FOOTPRINTS?

A: YES.

Q: BLOOD PATTERNS, SPATTERS?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. PROTECTION OF THE CRIME SCENE?

A: YES.

Q: PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU ALSO LEARN THAT DELAY AFTER DISCOVERY OF A CRIME IS GENERALLY THE ENEMY OF DETECTION?

A: I DON'T RECALL THAT, NO.

Q: YOU DON'T RECALL THAT LESSON?

A: NO.

Q: WELL, DID PEOPLE TELL YOU THAT -- FOR INSTANCE, WITH RESPECT TO HOMICIDE VICTIMS, THAT BODIES BEGIN TO DETERIORATE AFTER THEY'RE DEAD?

A: YES.

Q: CHANGES TAKE PLACE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THAT INSECT AND PLANT LIFE MAY INFECT PORTIONS OF THE CRIME SCENE; DID YOU LEARN THAT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AS I UNDERSTOOD YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY, YOU ESTIMATE THAT AS A PATROLMAN AND DETECTIVE COMBINED, YOU'VE BEEN AT 150 TO 250 HOMICIDE SCENES; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND THAT AS LEAD DETECTIVE, ONCE YOU BECAME A DETECTIVE, YOU HAVE HAD FIVE INVESTIGATIONS WHERE HOMICIDE WAS THE CRIME?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND 10 MORE WHERE YOU WERE WITH ANOTHER DETECTIVE. IS THAT WHAT YOU MEANT TO CONVEY?

A: I THINK TOTAL WOULD BE TO PROBABLY FIVE MORE WHERE I WAS ACCOMPANIED AS A SECONDARY OR --

Q: SO THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR YOU AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS THAT YOU MAINTAINED THE LEAD OR FOR YOU AT LEAST THE 11TH HOMICIDE CASE?

A: YES, AS ONE OF THE --

Q: AS A DETECTIVE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND WAS THIS THE FIRST DOUBLE HOMICIDE?

A: OF THIS NATURE, YES.

Q: NOW, AT WHAT GRADE DID YOU BEGIN YOUR DETECTIVE WORK?

A: RANK, SIR? D-1 OR DETECTIVE 1.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE IN FACT THREE GRADES OF DETECTIVES IN THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: YES, THERE IS.

Q: AND YOU AT THE TIME OF THIS INCIDENT HAD BECOME A DETECTIVE, SECOND RANK?

A: YES. DETECTIVE 2.

Q: AND DETECTIVES PHILLIPS, LANGE AND VANNATTER WERE ALL OF THE 3RD RANK AT THAT TIME; WERE THEY NOT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. WHEN YOU BECAME A DETECTIVE, DID YOU HAVE TO TAKE ANY ADDITIONAL COURSES IN INVESTIGATION AND PARTICULARLY HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION?

A: I DID ATTEND DETECTIVE SCHOOL ONCE MORE AND HOMICIDE SCHOOL.

Q: WHAT HAPPENED IN '83? WERE THERE NO OPENINGS OR YOU DIDN'T GET PROMOTED TO DETECTIVE AT THIS TIME?

A: I HADN'T TAKEN THE TEST, SIR.

Q: WHAT'S THAT?

A: I HADN'T TAKEN THE TEST.

Q: YOU TOOK THE COURSE IN '83 BUT DIDN'T TAKE THE TEST?

A: YES. THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: I SEE. WHY DID YOU NOT TAKE THE TEST IF YOU REMEMBER?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: NO REASON. I HAD A FRIEND THAT SAID, "YOU WANT TO GO TO DETECTIVE SCHOOL," AND I SAID, "SURE."

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: OKAY. SO YOU WERE KIND OF AUDITING RATHER THAN BEING ENROLLED. IS THAT YOUR POSTURE?

A: NO. I WAS LEARNING.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU GO TO PRECISELY THE SAME SCHOOL OR SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT ONE WHEN YOU FORMALLY TOOK THE DETECTIVE'S EXAM OR PRIOR THERETO?

A: WELL, I THINK THE SCHOOL CHANGED SOMEWHAT. THEY SPLIT HOMICIDE AND DETECTIVE SCHOOL.

Q: UH-HUH.

A: I FIRST ATTENDED DETECTIVE SCHOOL, WHICH WAS TWO WEEKS, AND THEN LATER I ATTENDED HOMICIDE SCHOOL, WHICH WAS ONE WEEK.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT YEAR WAS THAT, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: I BELIEVE DETECTIVE SCHOOL WAS 19 -- COULD HAVE BEEN '89. I'M THINKING MORE LIKE 1990, AND I BELIEVE HOMICIDE SCHOOL, 1991.

Q: DO YOU RECALL NOW THE SUBJECTS THAT WERE TAUGHT TO YOU IN THE 1991 HOMICIDE SCHOOL?

A: WELL, I DON'T REMEMBER THEM ALL, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET'S REVIEW WHAT WE CAN. DID ANYONE TELL YOU AT THIS TIME THAT YOU SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT DELAYS IN THE INVESTIGATION IN HOMICIDE CASES?

A: I'VE NEVER HEARD ANYBODY PHRASE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE BODIES OF THE SCENE IN THAT WAY.

Q: WELL, YOU'VE HEARD IT NOW. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME ANYBODY HAS EVER SUGGESTED TO YOU THAT THAT'S A PRINCIPLE?

A: WELL, THE WAY THAT THAT'S PHRASED, YES.

Q: OKAY. YOU TELL US THEN THAT IN YOUR JUDGMENT, THE LAPSE OF TIME IS IRRELEVANT TO THE SUCCESS OF A HOMICIDE CASE?

A: NO. NOT AT ALL.

Q: WELL, DID YOU LEARN ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO BODIES WHEN YOU WENT IN 1991?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: DID YOU LEARN ABOUT TEMPERATURE LOSS?

A: YES.

Q: POST-MORTEM LIVIDITY?

A: YES.

Q: RIGOR MORTIS?

A: YES.

Q: STOMACH CONTENTS AND THEIR POSSIBLE DETERIORATION?

A: YES.

Q: CONTAMINATION BY INSECT AND PLANT MATERIAL?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT PEOPLE AT THE SCENE, PARTICULARLY IF IT'S CROWDED, MAY CONTAMINATE THE AREA?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: THOSE ARE THINGS THAT YOU WERE INSTRUCTED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU LEARN THE MANNER IN WHICH TIME OF DEATH CAN IN SOME CASES BE ASCERTAINED IN HOMICIDE CASES?

A: YES. THERE'S SEVERAL WAYS.

Q: AND WHAT FACTORS DID YOU LEARN ARE RELEVANT TO ESTABLISHING THE PERIMETERS OF THE TIME OF DEATH?

A: I DON'T THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT EXACTLY ASKED, SIR.

Q: NO DOCTOR CAN EVER SAY THIS VICTIM DIED AT 32 AND A HALF MINUTES PAST THE HOUR. IT'S NOT THAT PRECISE, IS IT? NO CORONER CAN SAY THAT, CAN THEY?

A: I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.

Q: OKAY. SO NORMALLY, THE TIME IS BRACKETED BY THE CORONER, BETWEEN 9:00 AND 10:00, BETWEEN 9:00 AND 12:00, WHATEVER, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IS IT GENERALLY TRUE THAT THE LONGER IT TAKES TO GET TO AN AUTOPSY, THE BROADER THE RANGE OF THE CORONER'S OPINION?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. HOW WOULD HE KNOW? SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. BAILEY: IF HE KNOWS.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T THINK I HAVE THE EXPERIENCE IN THIS FIELD TO REALLY ANSWER. I THINK EVERY SCENE WOULD BE UNIQUE TO ITSELF. SO I DON'T KNOW IF I COULD ANSWER THAT.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: IN HOW MANY HOMICIDE CASES THAT YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN AS A DETECTIVE, WHICH I TAKE IT IS NOW 11, HAS TIME OF DEATH BEEN AN IMPORTANT QUESTION?

A: I COULDN'T SAY, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT NOT ALL OF THEM.

Q: NOT ALL OF THEM. HALF?

A: I COULDN'T SAY, SIR. I DON'T EVEN HAVE THE HOMICIDES AT THE FOREFRONT OF MY MEMORY RIGHT NOW.

Q: YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MEMORY OF THE OTHER 10 CASES?

A: WELL, I DO, BUT RIGHT NOW, I'M CONCENTRATING ON THIS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, WOULD YOU LIKE A MOMENT TO REFLECT ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAD EVER HAD OCCASION IN THE PAST PRIOR TO THIS CASE TO WANT TO ASCERTAIN THE TIME OF DEATH OF THE VICTIMS?

A: YES. I CAN SAY YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION AT ALL OF HOW MANY DIFFERENT OCCASIONS THAT WAS A NECESSARY PART OF YOUR INVESTIGATION?

A: IF I COULD HAVE A MOMENT TO THINK.

Q: SURE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE WITNESS: I CAN THINK OF ONE THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: OKAY. IT IS TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT THE TIME OF DEATH CAN DEFINE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE POTENTIAL SUSPECTS IN A CASE?

A: I THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL.

Q: AND IT CAN ALSO ELIMINATE PERSONS WHO MIGHT OTHERWISE BE SUSPECTS IN THE CASE; CAN IT NOT?

A: I'M SURE IT COULD, YES.

Q: NOW, IN THIS CASE, DO YOU REGARD THE TIME OF DEATH OF THE VICTIMS AS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR?

A: I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE CRIME SCENE ON THIS CASE.

Q: YOU DON'T. OKAY. WHEN YOU ENCOUNTERED MR. SIMPSON AND THE WOMAN YOU NOW KNOW TO BE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON IN 1985, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT BECAUSE YOU PREFER BASKETBALL OVER FOOTBALL, BUT STILL LIKE FOOTBALL, YOU KNEW WHO HE WAS AS YOU WALKED UP?

A: AS I GOT CLOSE, I SAW WHO HE WAS, YES.

Q: HAD YOU EVER SEEN HER BEFORE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU EVER SEE HER AGAIN UP TO THE TIME OF HER DEATH?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: WHEN YOU WERE AT THE SCENE, DID YOU HAVE ANY POWER TO PAT DOWN ANYBODY THERE? WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE POLICE CONDUCT?

A: WHICH SCENE IS THIS, SIR?

Q: '85, THE MERCEDES.

A: OH, I BELIEVE I COULD HAVE, YES.

Q: WELL, MR. SIMPSON DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING ON HIM OR IN HIS HANDS RESEMBLING A WEAPON, DID HE?

A: NO.

Q: NO. WHAT WOULD BE THE BASIS THAT YOU WOULD WALK ON A PERSON'S LAND AND PAT THEM DOWN? DO YOU HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO DO THAT?

A: AT SOME POINT YOU DO.

Q: AND DID YOU HAVE ANY LEGAL RIGHT TO ARREST HIM?

A: OH, NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: SO WHEN MISS CLARK ASKED YOU ON DIRECT EXAMINATION COULD YOU HAVE ARRESTED HIM, YOUR ANSWER WAS WHAT?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE I SAID I COULD HAVE ARRESTED HIM, NO.

Q: THANK YOU. IN 1989, HOW DID YOU LEARN THAT WHAT YOU HAD OBSERVED IN 1985 MIGHT BE OF INTEREST TO THE CITY SOLICITOR OR PROSECUTOR? HOW DID YOU FIRST LEARN ABOUT THAT?

A: WELL, THE ONE AND ONLY TIME I LEARNED, I WAS STANDING IN FRONT OF THE DESK OF DETECTIVE SERGEANT GLEN VARNER, WHO I WAS TALKING WITH EARLIER IN THE MORNING, HAVING A CUP OF COFFEE AND --

Q: CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT WHEN THIS HAPPENED?

A: I AM SORRY?

Q: CAN YOU RELATE THIS TO THE LETTER THAT YOU WROTE TO THE CITY SOLICITOR WHICH WE'VE ALREADY SEEN?

A: JUST PRIOR TO WRITING THE LETTER.

Q: OKAY. DETECTIVE VARNER SAID SOMETHING TO YOU AS --

A: NO. NO, HE DIDN'T, SIR.

Q: GO AHEAD.

A: DETECTIVE MIKE FARRELL CAME TO DETECTIVE SERGEANT VARNER, WHO WAS HIS DIRECT SUPERVISOR, AND DISCUSSED THE CASE, THE '89 CASE INVOLVING MR. AND MRS. SIMPSON.

Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU THEN VOLUNTEER THE FACT THAT YOU HAD ENCOUNTERED THEM FOUR YEARS PRIOR TO THAT?

A: NO, NOT AT THAT TIME.

Q: BUT AT SOME POINT, WERE YOU ASKED WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD, IF REQUESTED TO DO SO, GIVE SOME TESTIMONY ABOUT THE 1985 INCIDENT?

A: NO. I OVERHEARD DETECTIVE FARRELL INFORMING DETECTIVE VARNER THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ANYBODY THAT HAD BEEN UP THERE THAT DIDN'T TAKE A REPORT TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE COURT.

Q: FINE. ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU DID NOT MAKE A REPORT IN THAT CASE. AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY, THAT'S BECAUSE YOU WERE DRIVING THE PATROL VEHICLE AND YOUR PARTNER WAS RIDING IN THE PASSENGER SEAT AND REPORTS WERE HIS RESPONSIBILITY; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: OKAY. YOU MEAN TO SAY THAT IF YOU HAD BEEN IN THE PASSENGER SEAT, YOU WOULD HAVE REPORTED SOMETHING TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: NO. THERE WAS NO REPORT TO BE TAKEN.

Q: THERE WASN'T ANY REASON TO MAKE A REPORT, WAS THERE, DETECTIVE?

A: NO, SIR. NO, SIR.

Q: BUT IN 1989, YOU FOUND THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS INTERESTED IN THAT INCIDENT OR ANY PRIOR INCIDENT BETWEEN MR. SIMPSON AND NICOLE, CORRECT?

A: THAT'S WHAT I HEARD, YES.

Q: AS A RESULT OF WHICH, YOU WROTE HIM A LETTER SAYING THAT BECAUSE OF THE CELEBRITY STATUS OF MR. O.J. SIMPSON, THE MATTER WAS INDELIBLY PRESSED INTO YOUR MEMORY, TRUE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: THE KIND OF THING YOU WON'T FORGET FOR AS LONG AS YOU LIVE; FAIR STATEMENT?

A: SEEING MR. SIMPSON, YES.

Q: YEAH. WELL, AND THE WHOLE EXPERIENCE, TO BE ON HIS PROPERTY.

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. AND HAD THE CASE GONE TO TRIAL INSTEAD OF BEING RESOLVED AS IT WAS, YOU WERE PREPARED TO GO AND TESTIFY TO ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU PUT IN YOUR LETTER; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I WASN'T TOLD THAT AND I DIDN'T ASSUME THAT, NO.

Q: WERE YOU PREPARED TO IF SOMEBODY HAD ASKED YOU TO?

A: OH, I THINK I WOULD HAVE -- OBVIOUSLY I WOULD HAVE RESPONDED TO A SUBPOENA.

Q: NOW, IN 1994, AT 1:05 A.M., WHILE YOU WERE SOUND ASLEEP, MY UNDERSTANDING IS, YOU RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: HAD YOU SEEN MR. O.J. SIMPSON PERSONALLY BETWEEN 1985 AND JUNE OF 1994?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: MR. PHILLIPS TOLD YOU THAT THERE WAS A DOUBLE HOMICIDE IN BRENTWOOD AND THAT ONE OF THE VICTIMS MIGHT WELL BE THE FORMER WIFE OF MR. O.J. SIMPSON; DID HE NOT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: DID THAT BRING TO YOUR MIND YOUR PRIOR ASSOCIATION WITH THE SIMPSON'S IN 1985 AS AN INVESTIGATING PATROLMAN AND AS A POTENTIAL WITNESS IN 1989? DID YOU REMEMBER THOSE THINGS?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE I EVEN THOUGHT OF THAT MUCH AT THE TIME.

Q: SO I TAKE IT THAT THE INDELIBLE PRESS THAT WAS IN YOUR MIND IN 1989 HAD FADED TO A DEGREE?

A: NO, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT. I WAS GOING TO A HOMICIDE SCENE. I WAS MOSTLY THINKING ABOUT HOW WE WERE GOING TO HANDLE A DOUBLE HOMICIDE SCENE AND WHO WAS GETTING CALLED IN.

Q: HADN'T PHILLIPS EXPLAINED TO YOU THAT BASED ON THE INFORMATION HE HAD GOTTEN, THIS WAS A SPECIAL CASE BECAUSE OF ONE OF THE VICTIMS?

A: NO, HE NEVER VERBALIZED THAT.

Q: HAD YOU LEARNED FROM HIM DURING THAT CONVERSATION THAT THE COMMANDER WISHED TO HAVE MR. SIMPSON PERSONALLY NOTIFIED AS OPPOSED TO TELEPHONIC NOTIFICATION?

A: I BELIEVE I LEARNED THAT WHEN WE WERE EN ROUTE TO THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS.

Q: OKAY. NOW, FOLLOWING THE RECEIPT OF THIS PHONE CALL FROM DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, YOU AROSE, I TAKE IT SHOWERED AND CLEANED UP, ET CETERA, AND DROVE IN YOUR CAR TO THE WEST LOS ANGELES POLICE STATION, RIGHT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE YOU AT THAT HOUR OF THE MORNING, ASSUME TRAFFIC IS RATHER LIGHT, TO DRIVE IN FROM REDONDO BEACH?

A: IT'S FAIRLY QUICK. PROBABLY 20 TO 25 MINUTES.

THE COURT: LET ME SEE COUNSEL AT SIDEBAR 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. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. BAILEY, YOU MAY PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO DRIVE INTO THE WEST LOS ANGELES POLICE STATION IN YOUR AUTOMOBILE?

A: 20, 25 MINUTES.

Q: DURING THE TIME THAT YOU WERE DRIVING TO THE WEST LOS ANGELES POLICE STATION, WERE YOU THINKING ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION THAT WAS ABOUT TO UNFOLD?

A: I WAS THINKING ABOUT, YES, THINGS THAT WERE --

Q: WERE YOU THINKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT IN ALL PROBABILITY, THERE MIGHT BE GREAT MEDIA ATTENTION TO THIS PARTICULAR HOMICIDE IF THE VICTIM WAS AS DESCRIBED?

A: I DIDN'T GIVE ANY THOUGHT TO THAT AT THAT TIME.

Q: DID YOU CONTEMPLATE IN ANY WAY THAT THE CRIME SCENE WOULD BE CRAWLING WITH NEWS MEDIA THE MINUTE THE DISCOVERY WAS MADE THAT THE VICTIM WAS MR. SIMPSON'S WIFE, IF IT WERE?

A: I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT THAT ON THE WAY IN, NO.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE POLICE STATION, YOU AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS -- AND BY THE WAY, WHO GOT THERE FIRST, IF YOU REMEMBER?

A: I DON'T, SIR.

Q: WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE POLICE STATION, WHAT DID YOU FIRST DO?

A: WALKED TO THE WATCH COMMANDER'S OFFICE.

Q: WHAT TIME WAS THAT?

A: SHORTLY BEFORE 2:00.

Q: WATCH COMMANDER WASN'T PRESENT, WAS HE?

A: I DON'T RECALL, SIR.

Q: DO YOU KNOW SERGEANT DAVE ROSSI?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: DID YOU SEE HIM THERE IN THE POLICE STATION?

A: I DIDN'T SEE HIM THERE, NO.

Q: DID YOU LATER SEE HIM AT THE SCENE?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND HE WAS THERE WHEN YOU ARRIVED, WASN'T HE?

A: YES.

Q: YEAH. DID YOU AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TAKE ONE OF THE AUTOMOBILES THAT BELONGS TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND WHAT KIND OF CAR IS THAT?

A: IT'S A DUAL PURPOSE, I BELIEVE AN '88 CHEVROLET FOUR-DOOR IMPALA.

Q: WELL, I WASN'T INTERESTED IN SO MUCH THE MAKE AND MODEL AS THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE TO WHICH IT'S ALLOCATED.

A: IT'S A CAR THAT'S ASSIGNED TO HOMICIDE UNIT. WE HAVE A HOMICIDE KIT IN THE TRUNK.

Q: NOW, MAY WE LEARN WHAT A HOMICIDE KIT CONSISTS OF? I ASSUME YOU'VE BEEN THROUGH THEM MORE THAN ONCE.

A: FROM THE BEGINNING?

Q: YES.

A: IN THE BOTTOM OF THE HOMICIDE KIT, YOU HAVE USUALLY COVERALLS, PLIERS, ROPES, GLOVES, SOMETIMES --

Q: WHAT KIND OF GLOVES?

A: -- HIGH-POWERED FLASHLIGHTS.

Q: WHAT KIND OF GLOVES, DETECTIVE?

A: YOU COULD HAVE LIKE WORK GLOVES THAT YOU WOULD USE TO MAYBE CLIMB DOWN A ROPE IF YOU WERE GOING INTO A RAVINE OR SOME INACCESSIBLE AREA YOU HAVE TO GET DOWN TO A SCENE.

Q: DO YOU ALSO HAVE RUBBER GLOVES?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WE SAW -- WELL, DID YOU SEE DETECTIVE LANGE AT ANY TIME THAT DAY WITH SOME RUBBER GLOVES ON?

A: I DID NOT, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. CONTINUE.

A: YOU WOULD HAVE RULERS, TAPE MEASURES, ANY NECESSARY REPORTS, PLASTIC BAGS, ENVELOPES, WRITING UTENSILS, GREASE PENCILS, RULERS, COMPASS.

Q: PLASTIC BAGS IN VARYING SIZES PERHAPS?

A: YES.

Q: INTENDED FOR THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE SHOULD ANY BE FOUND?

A: YES.

Q: ANYTHING ELSE OF SIGNIFICANCE OF A STANDARD LAPD HOMICIDE KIT?

A: THERE'S QUITE A -- THERE'S QUITE A FEW ITEMS, BUT I'M SURE I'VE LEAVING OUT SEVERAL, BUT --

Q: BUT THESE ARE ALL TOOLS THAT MIGHT BE USED AT THE SCENE OF A GIVEN HOMICIDE?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS DISCUSS WITHOUT GOING INTO THE CONVERSATION -- JUST YES OR NO -- THE POSSIBLE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS PARTICULAR HOMICIDE AS IT MIGHT AFFECT THE PUBLIC AND THE MEDIA?

A: YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MEDIA?

Q: YEAH.

A: I DON'T RECALL DISCUSSING THAT WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.

Q: SO NO MENTION OF THAT WAS MADE AS YOU WERE MEETING AT THE WEST LOS ANGELES POLICE STATION AND WHILE YOU WERE GETTING INTO THE HOMICIDE-EQUIPPED VEHICLE.

A: NOT THAT I RECALL.

Q: AND WAS HE DRIVING?

A: YES, HE WAS.

Q: IT IS A VERY SHORT DISTANCE FROM THERE TO THE INTERSECTION OF BUNDY AND DOROTHY; IS IT NOT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND YOU AGREE THAT YOUR ARRIVAL TIME -- I ASSUME YOU DO BECAUSE OF YOUR OWN NOTES -- WAS 2:10 A.M.?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND THAT YOU AND PHILLIPS ARRIVED SIMULTANEOUSLY?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, YOU WERE THE FIRST DETECTIVE ON THE SCENE, YOU TWO?

A: YES. BOTH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND MYSELF.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DID YOU LEARN THAT SERGEANT ROSSI HAD BEEN THERE SINCE EARLY ON, SOMETIME BEFORE YOU?

A: BEFORE I ARRIVED, YES.

Q: AND DID YOU KNOW HIM PERSONALLY PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT?

A: JUST AS MUCH AS HE WAS THE WATCH COMMANDER, NOTHING PERSONAL.

Q: YOU DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HIS EXPERIENCE IN PRIOR HOMICIDE CASES?

A: NOTHING, SIR.

Q: DID YOU KNOW OFFICER RISKE PRIOR TO YOUR INTRODUCTION TO HIM IN CONNECTION WITH THIS INVESTIGATION?

A: ONLY AS MUCH AS KNOWING HIS NAME WAS RISKY AND WHO THAT NAME WAS ATTACHED TO.

Q: BUT YOU HADN'T WORKED WITH HIM BEFORE?

A: NO, I HADN'T.

Q: OKAY. NOW, I TAKE IT THAT WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE, YOU HAD QUITE A FEW QUESTIONS AS THE INITIAL DETECTIVE TAKING OVER THE CASE?

A: INITIALLY, I DIDN'T SAY HARDLY ANYTHING. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TOOK THE LEAD TALKING TO SERGEANT ROSSI.

Q: OKAY. NOW, CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME IDEA OF THE BREAK-UP IN RESPONSIBILITIES BETWEEN YOU AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS? HAD YOU WORKED A PRIOR HOMICIDE TOGETHER?

A: YES.

Q: THERE ARE CERTAIN TASKS THAT HAVE TO BE LOOKED AFTER IMMEDIATELY AFTER YOU GET ON THE SCENE, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU FELLOWS DIVIDE UP THESE RESPONSIBILITIES OR DOES HE JUST TAKE CONTROL AND DIRECT YOU TO DO CERTAIN THINGS?

A: NO. THERE'S A WAY WE USUALLY WORK TOGETHER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DID YOU AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS HAVE ANY CONVERSATION WHEREBY YOU ALLOCATED THE WORK TO BE DONE AT THIS PARTICULAR SCENE?

A: NO.

Q: WELL, WAS -- DO YOU KNOW IF IT WAS CONTEMPLATED THAT YOU WOULD WORK SIDE BY SIDE OR THAT YOU WOULD GO OFF IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS?

A: WELL, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WAS THE HOMICIDE COORDINATOR. SO HE WOULD NOT BE TAKING A LEAD ROLE. IT WOULD BE ONE OF THE OTHER DETECTIVES THAT HAD BEEN CALLED IN THAT HAD NOT YET ARRIVED.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHAT OTHER DETECTIVES HAD BEEN CALLED IN THAT YOU LEARNED ABOUT WHEN YOU GOT THERE?

A: DETECTIVE ROBERTS AND DETECTIVE NOLAN.

Q: AND WHAT RANK DO THEY HOLD?

A: BOTH DETECTIVE 1.

Q: SO THAT YOU APART FROM DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WOULD BE THE SENIOR DETECTIVE ON-SITE?

A: YES.

Q: UNTIL SOMEONE ELSE ARRIVED, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU SAY THAT SINCE HE'S THE HOMICIDE COORDINATOR, I GATHER THE THRUST OF THAT IS THAT YOU HAD TO DO THE FOOTWORK SO TO SPEAK?

A: WELL, WORKING WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, HE USUALLY CONDUCTS MOST OF YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE NOTIFICATIONS.

Q: RIGHT.

A: HE COORDINATES AND HE ALLOWS THE DETECTIVES HANDLING THE CASE TO WORK THE CASE.

Q: WHICH IN THIS CASE WAS YOU, CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: YOU WERE TO DO THE DETECTING?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHAT DID YOU FIRST ADDRESS OF THE MANY THINGS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE LOOKED AT WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE?

A: I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CRIME SCENE OR --

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED WHENEVER A HOMICIDE OCCURS, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU KNEW THIS BOTH BY VIRTUE OF YOUR TRAINING, YOUR EXPERIENCES AS PATROLMAN AT 10 OTHER HOMICIDE INVESTIGATIONS, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IF THE VICTIMS AREN'T QUITE DEAD AS SOMETIMES IS THE CASE, THAT'S PRIORITY NUMBER ONE, TREATMENT AND ATTENTION OF THE VICTIMS, RIGHT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: YOU ELIMINATED THAT POSSIBILITY IN YOUR OWN MIND RATHER QUICKLY IN THIS CASE; DID YOU NOT?

A: OFFICER RISKE INFORMED US OF THE SITUATION.

Q: OKAY. THE PROTECTION OF OTHERS WHO MAY BE IN DANGER BECAUSE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES EVIDENT AT THE CRIME SCENE WOULD BE PROBABLY THE NEXT CONSIDERATION; WOULD IT NOT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: YOU KNEW THE CHILDREN HAD BEEN IN THE HOUSE AND HAD BEEN TAKEN TO THE SAFETY OF THE POLICE STATION?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU KNOW WHETHER THEY HAD BEEN ASKED AS TO WHERE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS MIGHT BE?

A: I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY QUESTIONS.

Q: DID YOU MAKE ANY EFFORT TO CONTACT THEM AND INQUIRE?

A: NOT AT THAT TIME.

Q: OKAY. PRESERVING THE INTEGRITY OF THE CRIME SCENE IS A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TASK; IS IT NOT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: YOU SAW THAT YELLOW TAPE HAD BEEN PUT UP?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT ELSE HAD BEEN DONE TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE CRIME SCENE BEFORE YOU TOOK OVER?

A: WHAT I SAW WAS, THE OFFICERS DID A VERY GOOD JOB IN SEALING OFF A VERY, VERY LARGE AREA CONSIDERING THAT THEIR ONLY KNOWLEDGE WAS THAT THE CRIME SCENE INVOLVED ONE ADDRESS OR ONE RESIDENCE. THEY SEALED OFF A VERY LARGE AREA AND HAD UNIFORMED PERSONNEL WITH THEIR VEHICLES AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS TO KEEP THAT AREA SECURE AND ANY UNAUTHORIZED PEOPLE FROM ENTERING.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT ABOUT THE NEED TO NOTIFY EXPERTS, CRIMINALISTS AND OTHERS TO COME TO THE SCENE WHILE THE EVIDENCE IS STILL FRESH? DID THAT CROSS YOUR MIND AT ALL THAT MORNING?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU DO ABOUT THAT?

A: I DIDN'T HAVE THE CASE LONG ENOUGH TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

Q: OKAY. WELL, DID YOU DEVELOP AN INTEREST SOON AFTER YOUR ARRIVAL AS TO THE TIME OF DEATH OF EACH OF THE VICTIMS?

A: NO.

Q: DID NOT?

A: NO.

Q: WHY WAS THAT?

A: I NEVER GOT TO THE POINT TO EVEN GIVE AN OPINION AS TO MODE OF DEATH AND I WOULD LEAVE THAT TO THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR.

Q: OKAY. WELL, YOU KNEW THAT THEY WERE DEAD BY A LITTLE AFTER MIDNIGHT, DIDN'T YOU, BASED ON THE INFORMATION YOU WERE GIVEN?

A: I BELIEVE OFFICER RISKE GAVE A GENERAL TIME, YES.

Q: YOU WERE WELL SATISFIED BY WHAT RISKE TOLD YOU AND WHAT YOU SAW WITH YOUR OWN EYES THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WAS INDEED THE FEMALE VICTIM, WEREN'T YOU?

A: I HAD NO IDEA. I COULD NOT SEE HER FACE. I COULD NOT -- THERE WAS NO IDENTIFICATION. SO AT THAT TIME, I BELIEVE IT WAS ASSUMED, BUT NOT KNOWN.

Q: THERE WASN'T ANY QUESTION IN ANYBODY'S MIND AT 2:10 A.M. THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WAS DEAD, WAS THERE?

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT, SIR.

Q: WELL, WAS THERE A QUESTION IN YOUR MIND? DID YOU REALLY WONDER WHO SHE WAS AT THAT POINT?

A: I DIDN'T JUMP TO ANY CONCLUSIONS ABOUT WHAT THAT SCENE OFFERED.

Q: MY QUESTION IS, DID YOU KNOW WHO SHE WAS OR WERE YOU WONDERING WHO SHE WAS?

A: I'D SAY WONDERING.

Q: OKAY. YOU COULDN'T SEE ENOUGH OF HER TO RECOGNIZE HER FROM YOUR PRIOR CONTACT?

A: I WOULDN'T HAVE RECOGNIZED HER, BUT IDENTIFICATION --

Q: YOU WOULDN'T HAVE?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: OKAY. YOU KNEW THAT THE PICTURES OF MR. SIMPSON WERE AROUND THE HOUSE?

A: I SAW ONE, YES.

Q: UH-HUH. AND DID YOU SEE A LIST OF PHONE NUMBERS ON THE KITCHEN WALL WHICH INCLUDED THAT OF O.J. SIMPSON?

A: NO, I DID NOT SEE THAT.

Q: DID YOU SEE A TELEPHONE WITH A SPEED DIALER?

A: I BELIEVE I SAW A TELEPHONE NEXT TO THE KITCHEN AREA, BUT I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE PHONE, NO.

Q: YOU DIDN'T EXAMINE IT AT ALL?

A: NO.

Q: DIDN'T NOTICE THAT IT HAD A SPEED DIALER AND AN ENTRY THAT SAID "DADDY"?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: OKAY. NOW, HAD YOU AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS DISCUSSED AT THIS POINT THE MANNER IN WHICH MR. SIMPSON WOULD BE NOTIFIED?

A: NO, I WAS NOT PRIVILEGED TO THAT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN WHAT SPECIAL STEPS WOULD BE TAKEN IN THIS CASE?

A: I AM SORRY?

Q: WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN THAT SPECIAL RULES HAD BEEN ISSUED BY THE BRASS IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AS TO HOW MR. SIMPSON WOULD BE NOTIFIED?

A: NEVER.

Q: YOU NEVER HEARD THAT?

A: NO.

Q: YOU'RE LEARNING TODAY THAT PHILLIPS WAS TOLD TO TELL HIM PERSONALLY RATHER THAN OVER THE TELEPHONE?

A: NO. I THOUGHT YOU MEANT SPECIAL, SPECIAL WAY THAT WE WERE GOING TO NOTIFY, BEST DESIRABLE IN ANY CASE. I ONLY LEARNED FROM DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WHILE WE WERE IN THE VEHICLE THAT WE WERE GOING UP TO THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS TO MAKE A NOTIFICATION.

Q: CAN YOU TELL ME WHEN THAT WAS?

A: WHEN WE GOT INTO THE VEHICLE TO LEAVE.

Q: TO GO TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: THAT WAS 5:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING OR THEREAFTER?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WHAT'S YOUR BEST ESTIMATE?

A: ABOUT 5:00 O'CLOCK.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, I WONDER IF YOU COULD HELP US, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, AND JUST GIVE US YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION OF YOUR WHEREABOUTS AT VARIOUS TIMES THAT ARE RELEVANT TO YOUR EXPERIENCES THAT MORNING, PLEASE, IN VIEW OF THE DEFENSE. YOU RECEIVED A CALL FROM PHILLIPS AT 1:05?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: CAN YOU ESTIMATE AT WHAT POINT YOU WERE ACTUALLY ON THE ROAD AND HEADED TO THE STATION?

A: USUALLY TAKES ME MAYBE 15, 20 MINUTES TO GET READY.

Q: OKAY. SO SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 1:15 AND 1:25?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND I THINK YOU SAID AROUND 20 MINUTES TO DRIVE IN?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU ARRIVED THERE AROUND 1:50, 1:55?

A: SHORTLY BEFORE 2:00, YES.

Q: OKAY. AND HAVING ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE AT 2:10, I WOULD ASSUME THAT YOU LEFT THE STATION ABOUT 2:05.

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, IF YOU CAN, PLEASE TRY TO TELL US WHAT YOU WERE DOING AT 2:15, FIVE MINUTES AFTER YOU ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE.

A: I BELIEVE I WAS LISTENING TO EITHER SERGEANT ROSSI OR OFFICER RISKE EXPLAIN WHAT THEY HAD DISCOVERED.

Q: AND WHERE WERE YOU PHYSICALLY STANDING AS YOU LISTENED TO THIS INFORMATION?

A: INSIDE THE YELLOW TAPE BEHIND A POLICE VEHICLE PARKED IN THE ROADWAY.

Q: OKAY. HOW LONG DID YOU SPEND AT THAT LOCATION GETTING THIS INFORMATION BEFORE YOU MOVED TO SOMEWHERE ELSE?

A: A FEW MOMENTS. JUST LONG ENOUGH TO MAKE A FEW STATEMENTS ABOUT HOW THE BODIES WERE DISCOVERED.

Q: OKAY. WELL, A MOMENT DOESN'T HAVE A VERY CONCRETE DEFINITION. CAN YOU JUST GIVE US IN MINUTES?

A: COUPLE OF MINUTES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT BY 2:15, YOU WERE LEAVING THE IMMEDIATE CRIME SCENE AND WALKING SOUTH ON DOROTHY?

A: I THINK THAT WOULD BE RATHER QUICK. WE TRIED TO APPROACH TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE, BUT THEN WE TURNED AROUND AND THEN WE WENT DOWN TOWARDS DOROTHY.

Q: WOULD IT BE MORE FAIR TO SAY BETWEEN 2:15 AND 2:25, YOU LEFT THE CRIME SCENE WHERE YOU, PHILLIPS AND RISKE HAD BEEN LOOKING AT THE BODIES AND WALKED BACK OUT TO THE SIDEWALK AND SOUTH ON DOROTHY?

A: I THINK THAT'S TOO MUCH. NO.

Q: TOO MUCH. ALL RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND YOU SAID 2:15 WOULD BE TOO SOON. AND MY QUESTION NOW IS, WOULD IT BE BETWEEN 2:15 AND NO LATER THAN 2:25?

A: I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH MAYBE NO LATER THAN 20 AFTER.

Q: OKAY. SO BY 2:20, YOU WERE ON THE MOVE. NOW, YOU'VE DESCRIBED HOW YOU WALKED THROUGH THE SHRUBBERY I BELIEVE YOU SAID FROM OFF THE PICTURE AS YOU WERE LOOKING AT A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SCENE AND COULD VIEW THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, BUT DID NOT HAVE A VERY GOOD VIEW OF THE BODY OF THE OTHER VICTIM FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT. AM I CORRECTLY SUMMARIZING WHAT HAPPENED?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IN ORDER TO ATTAIN A BETTER PERSPECTIVE, YOU QUESTIONED RISKE, AS A RESULT OF WHICH YOU WALKED DOWN BUNDY TO DOROTHY AND AROUND -- UP THE ALLEY AND INTO THE SIMPSON HOME, CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND OUT THE FRONT DOOR WHICH YOU UNDERSTOOD WAS FOUND OPEN BY THE OFFICERS FIRST ON THE SCENE.

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS THAT EXISTED AT THE MOMENT THAT YOU WALKED OUT THAT FRONT DOOR?

A: I BELIEVE THERE WAS LIGHT COMING FROM THE INSIDE OF THE RESIDENCE CASCADING DOWN ONTO THE WALKWAY.

Q: CASCADING DOWN?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT SUGGESTING THAT THE NAKED EYE COULD SEE MOST OF THE DETAIL OF THE CRIME SCENE WITHOUT THE AID OF ARTIFICIAL ILLUMINATION BY VIRTUE OF THAT LIGHT?

A: NO. THERE WAS A LOT OF SHADOWING. THERE'S A LOT OF SHRUBBERY. IT WASN'T VERY GOOD LIGHT.

Q: WELL, DID YOU HAVE YOUR LITTLE FLASHLIGHT WITH YOU AT THAT TIME?

A: YES.

Q: THAT'S THE LITTLE -- IS IT A BLACK ONE?

A: YES.

Q: THAT HOLDS TWO DOUBLE A BATTERIES?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. CAN BE ADJUSTED EITHER FOR A SPOT OR A FLOOD?

A: YES.

Q: THEN PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT YOU WALKED AROUND TO THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE, THE ONLY PLACE YOU HAD BEEN IS WITH THE OTHERS IN THE SHRUBBERY AT THE GATEPOST AS YOU PUT IT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: TRUE?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AT WHAT TIME WOULD YOU SAY YOU ENTERED THE RESIDENCE ASSUMING THAT YOU LEFT AT 2:20 FROM THE IMMEDIATE CRIME SCENE?

A: WITHIN A MINUTE.

Q: YOU WALKED THAT DISTANCE IN ONE MINUTE?

A: YES. JUST AROUND THE BLOCK.

Q: WELL, YOU'RE A FAIRLY TALL FELLOW. DO YOU KNOW THE RATE AT WHICH YOU NORMALLY WALK?

A: NO.

Q: THREE AND A HALF, FOUR MILES AN HOUR LIKE MOST PEOPLE?

A: I WOULD SUSPECT, YES.

Q: OKAY. DO YOU KNOW THE DISTANCE FROM THE IMMEDIATE CRIME SCENE AROUND THE BACK WAY INTO THE HOUSE?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. WELL, THREE AND A HALF MILES AN HOUR IS 319 -- 309 FEET A MINUTE AND FOUR IS 352. DO YOU THINK THAT THE DISTANCE WAS LESS THAN THAT?

A: THAT SEEMS PRETTY ACCURATE, YOUR FIRST NUMBER.

Q: OKAY. SO YOU THINK IT WAS ABOUT 300 AND SOME ODD FEET THAT YOU TRAVERSED TO GET TO THE HOUSE?

A: THAT WOULD BE A GREAT ESTIMATION ON MY PART, BUT I THINK IT'S WORKABLE.

Q: OKAY. AND THAT'S ABOUT THE DISTANCE YOU COULD WALK IN A MINUTE, TRUE?

A: IF YOU SAY SO.

Q: WELL, YOU'RE THE WALKER. DO YOU SAY SO?

A: I WALK FAIRLY RAPIDLY, BUT --

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: -- I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

Q: WHEN YOU ENTERED THE HOME, DID YOU GO DIRECTLY OUT THE FRONT DOOR TO VIEW THE BODIES ONCE AGAIN OR DID YOU AT THAT TIME BEGIN TO WALK AROUND AND MAKE OBSERVATIONS?

A: NO. I WAS LED BY OFFICER RISKE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THE PURPOSE IN TAKING THAT ROUTE WAS TO GET BACK TO WHERE YOU HAD STARTED, BUT IN A DIFFERENT PLACE, RIGHT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND TO GET THERE WITHOUT WALKING THROUGH THE POOLING OF BLOOD THAT WAS AROUND THE AREA, THAT WAS YOUR PURPOSE, RIGHT?

A: YES. YES, SIR.

Q: HOW LONG WOULD YOU SAY YOU SPENT AT THE CRIME SCENE FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT UP ON THE STEPS I BELIEVE YOU TOLD US ON THAT OCCASION?

A: ONCE OFFICER RISKE BROUGHT US OUT INTO THE LANDING? JUST LONG ENOUGH TO POINT OUT A FEW ITEMS OF EVIDENCE, SHOW US THE FOOTPRINTS AND THEN WALK US BACK ALONG THE RIGHT SIDE OF THOSE SHOEPRINTS.

Q: OKAY. WELL, HOW LONG DO YOU THINK YOU SPENT THERE?

A: COUPLE MINUTES.

Q: MAYBE ONLY TWO?

A: TWO, THREE MINUTES.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU MADE THE OBSERVATIONS YOU DESCRIBED FOR US ON DIRECT EXAMINATION ABOUT MR. GOLDMAN, THE OTHER EVIDENCE THAT WAS LYING AROUND?

A: OFFICER RISKE WAS POINTING THEM OUT WITH HIS FLASHLIGHT.

Q: OKAY. THESE ARE THINGS HE HAD DISCOVERED AND HE WAS SHOWING THEM TO YOU. THESE WERE NOT THINGS THAT YOU WERE DISCOVERING AS A DETECTIVE, RIGHT?

A: I WAS LISTENING AND HE WAS POINTING THEM OUT, YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: BUT HE ALREADY KNEW THEY WERE THERE. YOU FELLOWS WEREN'T MAKING A DISCOVERY AT THAT POINT, WERE YOU?

A: NO. WE WERE QUIET LISTENING TO HIS -- HIS LEAD.

Q: AND HE TOLD YOU THAT HE HAD SEEN THEM THERE WHEN HE FIRST CAME ON THE SCENE A LITTLE AFTER MIDNIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, AFTER SPENDING TWO, THREE MINUTES THERE, WHERE DID YOU GO?

A: WE WALKED DOWN ALONG THE PATHWAY THAT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE, LOOKED AT THE GATE.

Q: IS THIS WHERE YOU SAW THE BLOODY FOOTPRINTS?

A: THE BLOODY FOOTPRINTS WERE FROM THE LANDING WESTBOUND.

Q: RIGHT. NOW, YOU'VE DESCRIBED A PATH THAT GOES DOWN SOME STEPS, LEVELS OUT AND GOES UP SOME STEPS AND OUT THE BACK GATE, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: DID I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY THAT THE LAST BLOODY FOOTPRINT THAT YOU SAW THAT NIGHT WAS ON THE CONCRETE BEFORE YOU GO DOWN THE FIRST SET OF STEPS?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: IS THAT CORRECT, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: WOULD YOU ASK THAT ONE MORE TIME?

Q: YEAH. HAVE IN MIND THAT STEPS GO UP, THERE'S A FLAT AREA GOING BY THE ENTRANCE TO THE HOME, STEPS GO DOWN, LEVELS OUT AGAIN, STEPS GO UP AND THEN YOU GO OUT THE BACK GATE. HAVE THAT SCENARIO IN MIND? DO YOU REMEMBER THAT NOW?

A: YEAH. YES, I DO.

Q: OKAY. IS IT CORRECT THAT THE BLOODY FOOTPRINTS THAT YOU SAW DID NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE FIRST FLAT LEVEL?

A: I DON'T RECALL THEY DID, NO.

Q: YOU HAVE REFERRED TO --

THE COURT REPORTER: I NEED TO CHANGE PAPER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: YOU HAVE REFERRED TO THE DEPRESSED AREA IN THE PAST AS A TROTH OF SOME SORT; HAVE YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, MY QUESTION IS, DID ANY FOOTPRINTS GO DOWN THE STEPS OR INTO THE TROTH THAT YOU SAW THAT NIGHT?

A: I DIDN'T SEE ANY.

Q: OKAY. HAVE YOU HAD SOME TRAINING IN FOOTPRINTS?

A: SHOEPRINTS OR FOOTPRINTS?

Q: SHOEPRINTS, FOOTPRINTS. HAVE YOU HAD SOME CLASSES, SOME ON-THE-JOB TRAINING OR ANYTHING THAT WOULD EDUCATE YOU AS TO THE KINDS OF FOOTPRINTS THAT CAN BE FOUND AT A CRIME SCENE AND HOW THEY CAN BE ISOLATED AND PRESERVED?

A: YES.

Q: YOU HAVE.

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU TELL ME WHEN AND WHERE YOU OBTAINED THAT TRAINING?

A: IN DETECTIVE SCHOOL, HOMICIDE SCHOOL.

Q: THAT WAS A FORMAL CLASS WHERE SOMEBODY LECTURED TO YOU?

A: I THINK IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE CRIMINALIST'S ABILITY AT CONDUCTING SOME INVESTIGATIONS AT A SCENE.

Q: ONE OF THE THINGS CRIMINALISTS CAN DO?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FOOTPRINT AND A FOOT IMPRINT?

A: I WOULD SAY ONE WOULD BE DIMENSIONAL, HAVE SOME CHARACTER OF WIDTH OR DEPTH AND HEIGHT.

Q: WIDTH OR DEPTH?

A: WIDTH, DEPTH AND HEIGHT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE IMPRINTED --

Q: YOU MEAN THREE-DIMENSIONAL --

A: THREE-DIMENSIONAL.

THE COURT: HOLD ON. MR. BAILEY, WOULD YOU ALLOW THE WITNESS TO FINISH THE ANSWER BEFORE YOU START THE NEXT QUESTION?

MR. BAILEY: YES. COMPLETE.

THE WITNESS: I WOULD SAY AN IMPRINT WOULD BE, YES, THREE-DIMENSIONAL.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: IMPRINT IS THE KIND OF FOOTPRINT THAT YOU MIGHT FIND IN SOIL, SAND OR SNOW, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: A FOOTPRINT ON A HARD SURFACE WOULD BE TWO-DIMENSIONAL IF IT EXISTED; WOULD IT NOT?

A: YES.

Q: IT COULD BE OUTLINED IN BLOOD OR GREASE OR ANY SUBSTANCE THAT COULD BE SEEN, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: OR IT COULD BE LATENT; COULD IT NOT?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHAT A LATENT FOOTPRINT IS?

A: IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT'S NOT VISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE.

Q: OKAY. SO THAT IF THERE WERE ANY LATENT FOOTPRINTS THAT WERE ON THAT WALKWAY THAT NIGHT, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT ONLY THE CRIMINALIST COULD LIKELY PICK UP, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: IN OTHER WORDS, IF THERE HAD BEEN TWO PEOPLE, ONE STEPPED IN BLOOD AND THE OTHER DIDN'T, THERE MIGHT BE SOME LATENT FOOTPRINTS AROUND TO BE DETECTED BY SOMEBODY PROPERLY TRAINED; FAIR STATEMENT?

A: I'M NOT SURE IF IT WOULD BE A FAIR STATEMENT.

Q: DON'T THINK SO?

A: I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AT THE QUESTION.

Q: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET ME SEE IF I CAN CLARIFY IT SOMEWHAT.

A: THANK YOU.

Q: IF A LATENT FOOTPRINT, SHOEPRINT IS ONE THAT CANNOT BE SEEN WITH THE NAKED EYE BUT MUST NONETHELESS BE PROTECTED, YOU CAN ONLY PROTECT THE AREA WHERE IT MIGHT BE, CORRECT, NOT A SPECIFIC SPOT IN THAT AREA?

A: I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND A CRIMINALIST MIGHT LATER COME ALONG AND EITHER WITH ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT OR OBLIQUE LIGHT FIND SOME SHOEPRINT IN THE DUST THAT YOU HADN'T BEEN ABLE TO SEE FOR LACK OF TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE, TRUE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND MY QUESTION IS WHETHER THE CRIME SCENE THAT YOU WERE WALKING ON AS YOU WENT BACK UP THAT WALKWAY WITH OFFICER RISKE WAS BEING PROTECTED IN THAT FASHION.

A: I BELIEVE THE WHOLE SCENE WAS BEING PROTECTED, YES.

Q: OKAY. BUT HOW DID YOU GET FROM THE FRONT TO THE BACK?

A: WELL, WE HAD TO GET THERE SOME WAY.

Q: AND SO YOU WALKED?

A: WE WALKED AT THE BEST PATH THAT WE COULD DETERMINE AT THAT TIME.

Q: BEING CAREFUL TO AVOID THE BLOODY FOOTPRINTS AND WHAT YOU THOUGHT MIGHT BE DROPS OF BLOOD?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, AFTER YOU ARRIVED AT THE BACK GATE, WHAT TIME WOULD YOU SAY IT WAS THEN AS YOU ARRIVED?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TIME LINE WOULD BE AT THAT POINT. IT WOULD PROBABLY TAKE US A COUPLE MORE MINUTES TO WALK BACK AND MAKE THE OBSERVATIONS ON THE GATE.

Q: JUST GIVE US YOUR BEST ESTIMATE WHAT TIME IT WAS WHEN YOU GOT TO THE BACK GATE.

A: I HAVE NO IDEA.

Q: WOULD IT BE BEFORE 2:30 OR AFTER?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: 20 MINUTES INTO YOUR INVESTIGATION?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: OKAY.

A: I WOULD PROBABLY SAY A LITTLE BEFORE.

Q: A LITTLE BEFORE?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID YOU NEXT DO?

A: WALKED OUT ONTO THE DRIVEWAY. OFFICER RISKE POINTED OUT BLOOD DROPS AND SOME CHANGE.

Q: YEAH.

A: THEN I REENTERED THE HOUSE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, BEFORE YOU REENTERED THE HOUSE, DID YOU OR HAD YOU BEGUN TO DEVELOP A PICTURE OF THIS CRIME SCENE AND TO HAVE SOME IDEAS AS TO WHAT MIGHT BE RELEVANT AND WHAT MIGHT NOT IN THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION YOU WERE ABOUT TO CONDUCT?

A: WELL, SOMEWHAT.

Q: DID YOU HAVE AN OVERVIEW?

A: A SLIGHT OVERVIEW.

Q: ALL RIGHT. RISKE HAD BEEN DOING HIS BEST PRIOR TO YOUR ARRIVAL TO DO THE THINGS HE HAD BEEN TRAINED TO DO, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT YOU WERE TRAINED TO DO WHEN YOU WERE A PATROLMAN AT HOMICIDE SCENES AS OPPOSED TO A DETECTIVE?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. HAD ANY CANVASSING OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TAKEN PLACE THAT YOU KNOW OF?

A: I BELIEVE THERE HAD BEEN, YES.

Q: AND AS I RECALL FROM YOUR NOTES, YOU SAID THE RESIDENTS WOULDN'T OPEN THE DOOR. SO NOBODY LEARNED MUCH.

A: WELL, I THINK THAT WAS AN IMPRESSION OF OFFICER RISKE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS ACCURATE.

Q: BUT SOMEBODY TOLD YOU?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU INQUIRE ABOUT WHETHER THE CRIME SCENE HAD BEEN SEARCHED AND ITS SURROUND FOR ANY EVIDENCE OF WEAPONS, CLOTHING OR OTHER IMPLEMENTS OF CRIME?

A: NO.

Q: RISKE DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT THE AREA HAD BEEN LOOKED AT, GARBAGE CANS, DIPSEY-DUMPSTERS AND SO FORTH?

A: I DON'T RECALL HIM MAKING ANY COMMENT, NO.

Q: DO YOU RECALL DIRECTING ANYONE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT PURPOSE?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT WHEN THERE IS DELAY IN A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION, NUMBER ONE, THE PERPETRATORS OR PERPETRATOR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, HAVE A CHANCE TO GET FURTHER AND FURTHER AWAY FROM THE SCENE, CORRECT?

A: WELL, I THINK THAT WOULD BE COMMON SENSE, YES.

Q: THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY PERHAPS TO PLANT EVIDENCE, TO MISLEAD THE DETECTIVES AS TIME GOES BY?

A: I COULDN'T ANSWER THAT, SIR.

Q: THEY HAVE TIME -- THIS IS NO PART OF YOUR TRAINING I TAKE IT?

A: PLANTING EVIDENCE? NO, IT ISN'T.

Q: AND THEY HAVE TIME TO STRUCTURE FALSE ALIBIS ALL DURING THIS PERIOD THAT THEY ARE NOT BEING APPREHENDED?

A: I WOULD PROBABLY AGREE WITH THAT.

Q: AND THEY ARE FREE TO KILL AGAIN, TRUE?

A: IF THAT'S THE CIRCUMSTANCE.

Q: WELL, IF THEY'RE NOT APPREHENDED, PRESUMABLY THEY HAVE THE SAME FREEDOM THAT PERMITTED THEM TO ACCOMPLISH THE GRISLY SCENE THAT YOU HAD JUST VIEWED, TRUE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE WITNESS: I CAN'T --

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I COULDN'T SPECULATE ON A CRIMINAL'S INTENT WHETHER HE KILLED ONCE OR A HUNDRED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: WELL, IT SEEMED TO ME THAT A LITTLE LATER THAT DAY, YOU WERE SPECULATING PRETTY HEAVILY ON PEOPLE'S SAFETY AND INTENT; WERE YOU NOT? ABOUT 5:00 THAT MORNING, WHEN YOU WENT OVER THE WALK, WASN'T THAT BECAUSE OF A CONCERN FOR SAFETY?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: I'M SORRY. I CAN'T HEAR YOU, MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SUSTAINED. PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. WHEN DID YOU GO INTO THE HOUSE AS BEST YOU CAN RECALL TO MAKE YOUR NOTES?

A: RIGHT AFTER OFFICER RISKE LED US PAST THE DRIVEWAY INTO THE ALLEYWAY.

Q: DID YOU GIVE ANY DIRECTION TO ANY OF THE OFFICERS AT THE SCENE PRIOR TO SITTING DOWN TO MAKE THE NOTES THAT WE'VE ALL VIEWED AS TO THINGS THEY OUGHT TO DO OR OUGHT NOT TO DO?

A: NO. I WAS SATISFIED WITH THE CRIME SCENE, THE SECURITY OF IT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AS YOU UNDERSTOOD IT, WHEN YOU AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WALKED UP TO THAT POST, WHAT WERE THE RULES ENFORCED ABOUT PEOPLE GOING TO THE CRIME SCENE, THE AREA WHERE YOU WERE STANDING?

A: I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE RULES.

Q: WHICH PEOPLE, IF ANY, WERE ALLOWED TO GO INSIDE THE YELLOW TAPE OF THOSE WHO WERE PRESENT WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT 2:10 A.M.?

A: I WOULD SAY AT THAT POINT, CONCERNED DETECTIVES AS FAR AS APPROACHING THE SCENE.

Q: JUST DETECTIVES?

A: AS FAR AS APPROACHING THE SCENE?

Q: RIGHT.

A: THAT WOULD BE MY ASSUMPTION AT THAT POINT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU ISSUE ANY ORDERS AS TO WHO COULD AND COULD NOT CROSS THAT TAPE?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN DID YOU FIRST REALIZE DETECTIVE ROBERTS HAD ARRIVED?

A: WHEN HE ENTERED THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE AND CAME INTO THE KITCHEN AREA.

Q: AND WHAT TIME WAS THAT?

A: SHORTLY BEFORE THIS CASE WAS RELIEVED FROM OUR RESPONSIBILITY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU HAVE MENTIONED THAT EVENT A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. CAN YOU TELL US, ACCORDING TO YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION, WHEN IT WAS THAT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SAID, "ROBBERY-HOMICIDE IS TAKING OVER THIS CASE"?

A: WITHIN A HALF HOUR OR 40 MINUTES OF OUR ARRIVAL.

Q: WELL, WOULD THE FIGURE 38 MINUTES AFTER YOU ARRIVED SEEM TO BE ABOUT CORRECT?

A: I'VE NEVER READ THAT, BUT I AGREE WITH IT.

Q: OKAY. SO THAT IF YOU GOT THERE AT 2:10, THEN ABOUT 2:50 OR THEREABOUTS, YOU LEARNED THAT THIS CASE WAS NO LONGER YOURS TO LEAD, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU WERE IN THE PROCESS OF WRITING YOUR NOTES ABOUT 10 MINUTES OF 3:00 WHEN YOU GOT THIS INFORMATION AS I UNDERSTAND IT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND DID YOU CEASE WRITING YOUR NOTES AT THAT POINT BECAUSE YOU HAD BEEN RELIEVED OR BECAUSE YOU LEARNED YOU HAD BEEN RELIEVED?

A: I COMPLETED THE NOTES. WHEN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TOLD ME THAT WE WERE RELIEVED OF THIS, I COMPLETED THE NOTES THAT I HAD STARTED.

Q: HOW MANY NOTES DID YOU WRITE AFTER YOU GOT THE INFORMATION?

A: OH, THERE WAS ONLY TWO OR THREE POINTS THAT I WANTED TO PUT ON THE NOTES THAT WERE OF CONCERN.

Q: BUT YOU DID THAT SUBSEQUENT?

A: I BELIEVE WHEN HE WAS STANDING RIGHT THERE.

Q: OKAY. NOW, ON ANOTHER SUBJECT JUST BRIEFLY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU WERE INSTRUCTED BY SOMEONE LAST FALL TO WATCH THE LARRY KING SHOW?

A: NO. THAT WAS THIS YEAR.

Q: IS THAT NOT CORRECT?

A: THAT WAS THIS YEAR, SIR.

Q: LAST FALL? OH, NO, IT WAS THIS YEAR.

A: YES.

Q: I AM SORRY. WHEN WAS IT?

A: SOMETIME THIS YEAR, I THINK WITHIN THE LAST MONTH.

Q: AND WHY WERE YOU INSTRUCTED TO WATCH THAT SHOW, IF YOU KNOW?

A: THE D.A.'S OFFICE WANTED ME TO LOOK AT A MISS KATHLEEN BELL AND SEE IF I RECOGNIZED HER.

Q: OKAY. HAD YOU SEEN HER EARLIER ON ANY OTHER SHOW?

A: NO.

Q: YOU HAD NOT SEEN A SHOW CALLED DATELINE?

A: NO.

Q: YOU DID NOT SEE YOUR LAWYER ON THAT SHOW?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. DO YOU KNOW OF A MARINE RECRUITING STATION DOWN IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: HAD YOU BEEN THERE IN 1986?

A: I BELIEVE I WAS IN THE RECRUITING OFFICE TWO OR THREE TIMES ABOUT THAT TIME, YES.

Q: DID YOU IN FACT MAKE APPLICATION TO REENTER THE MARINE CORPS?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: DID YOU FILL OUT ANY PAPERS AT ANY TIME DURING ANY OF YOUR VISITS DOWN THERE?

A: NO, I DON'T BELIEVE I DID. NO.

Q: DID YOU MEET A SERGEANT NAMED JOE FAUS?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AS A MARINE, IS THAT A SIGNIFICANT NAME TO YOU?

A: YES. I BELIEVE IT WAS EITHER HIS -- I BELIEVE IT WAS HIS GRANDFATHER WHO WAS A FAMOUS AVIATOR.

Q: THE GREATEST ACE THE MARINE CORPS HAS EVER PRODUCED; WAS HE NOT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: JOE FAUS OF NORTH DAKOTA?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: NOW, HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU MAKE THE ACQUAINTANCE OF MR. FAUS IN THAT STATION OR IN THE SAME GENERAL AREA?

A: TWO OR THREE.

Q: AND DID MR. FAUS EVER INTRODUCE YOU TO A BLOND LADY?

A: I DON'T RECALL BEING INTRODUCED, NO.

Q: WELL, WHEN YOU SAY YOU DON'T RECALL, DOES THAT MEAN IT MAY HAVE HAPPENED, BUT YOU CAN'T NOW DREDGE UP ANY RECOLLECTION OF THE EVENT OR YOU'RE PRETTY CERTAIN IT NEVER HAPPENED? WHICH DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?

A: WHAT I'M CERTAIN IS IS THAT I DIDN'T MEET KATHLEEN BELL AT THAT LOCATION.

Q: OKAY. NOW, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THAT, YOU ARE RELYING ON HER IMAGE BEING SHOWN ON A TELEVISION SHOW WHILE SHE WAS BEING INTERVIEWED, CORRECT?

A: THAT AND HER NAME.

Q: WELL, LET'S SEPARATE. YOU SAY YOU'RE SURE YOU NEVER MET A WOMAN NAMED KATHLEEN BELL?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: YOU HAVE TO ANSWER FOR THE RECORD.

A: YES, SIR.

Q: DID YOU EVER MEET A WOMAN THAT LOOKS LIKE THE LADY ON THE LARRY KING SHOW BY SOME OTHER NAME?

A: NO.

Q: IN LOOKING AT THAT FACE -- HOW LONG DID YOU WATCH THE SHOW THAT NIGHT?

A: ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.

Q: WAS THAT ENOUGH TO SATISFY YOU THAT YOU HAD NEVER SEEN THIS WOMAN BEFORE?

A: I DID NOT RECOGNIZE HER.

Q: THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION. WERE YOU SATISFIED AFTER FIVE MINUTES -- AND I TAKE IT YOU DISCONTINUED VIEWING THE SHOW -- THAT THE WOMAN BEING INTERVIEWED BY LARRY KING AND IDENTIFYING HERSELF AS KATHLEEN BELL WAS SOMEONE YOU HAD NEVER MET?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: OKAY. IS IT NOT TRUE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE RECOLLECTED SUCH A PERSON IF YOU HAD MET THEM UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHE DESCRIBED WITHOUT GOING INTO WHAT THEY WERE?

A: YES, I WOULD.

Q: THAT KIND OF THING WOULD IMPRESS YOUR MEMORY THE SAME WAY THE MEETING OF O.J. SIMPSON WOULD; WOULD IT NOT?

A: I DON'T THINK IN THE SAME WAY, BUT SIMILAR, YES.

Q: WELL, WHAT SHE WAS DISCUSSING WAS FAIRLY OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT; IS IT NOT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. AND IF YOU HAD ENGAGED IN THAT CONDUCT WITH THE WOMAN WHOSE IMAGE YOU WERE LOOKING AT, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU WOULD SOON FORGET, IS IT?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY.

MR. BAILEY: CAN I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

MR. BAILEY: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WOULD YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH OF A BLOND WOMAN AND TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS THE PERSON THAT WAS BEING INTERVIEWED BY LARRY KING WHEN YOU WATCHED THE SHOW AT THE REQUEST OF THE PROSECUTION.

A: YES.

THE COURT: HAVE WE MARKED THAT, MR. BAILEY?

MR. BAILEY: YES. DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER.

THE COURT: 1053.

(DEFT'S 1053 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

THE COURT: IS THAT A CUSTOM IN FLORIDA?

MR. BAILEY: PARDON ME, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: NEVER MIND. PROCEED. DEPUTY JEX, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO SHOOT THEM WHEN THEY DO THAT.

MR. BAILEY: I --

THE COURT: PROCEED.

MR. BAILEY: IF I MAY SAY SO, YOUR HONOR, THE CONFIGURATION IS ONE THAT I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH. SO IF I HAVE STEPPED IN THE WRONG AREA, I AM WELL ADVISED.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. PROCEED.

MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. MAY I EXHIBIT THE PHOTO?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. BAILEY: WOULD YOU PUT IT UP, PLEASE?

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, FOR THE RECORD, IS THIS THE SAME PHOTOGRAPH THAT I SHOWED YOU A MOMENT AGO AT THE WITNESS STAND?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DO YOU HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF JOE FAUS BEING IN YOUR COMPANY AND HERS IN THE RECRUITING STATION IN 1986 OR THEREABOUTS?

A: I DO NOT.

Q: OR AT ANY TIME IN YOUR LIFE?

A: I DO NOT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT IF HE WERE TO SAY THAT HE DID IN FACT INTRODUCE THE TWO OF YOU, YOU SAY THAT CAN'T BE TRUE, TRUE?

A: IF HE SAID THAT, I DO NOT RECALL EVER MEETING THIS WOMAN IN THE RECRUITING STATION OR ANYWHERE ELSE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, I'M TRYING TO GET THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A LACK OF RECOLLECTION, A FADED MEMORY AND AN ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY THAT YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS WOMAN BEFORE UNTIL YOU SAW HER ON TELEVISION. WHICH IS IT?

A: I DO NOT RECOGNIZE THIS WOMAN AS ANYBODY I HAVE EVER MET.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU TESTIFIED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT NOT ONLY DID YOU NOT KNOW THIS WOMAN AND HAD NEVER MET HER, BUT YOU HAD NEVER SAID THE THINGS THAT WERE DISPLAYED ON THE ELMO IN HER LETTER, TRUE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IS IT FAIR TO SAY THERE CAN BE NO MISTAKE IN YOUR MIND ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY IN THIS PARTICULAR?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DO YOU KNOW A WOMAN NAMED ANDREA TERRY?

A: NO, I DO NOT.

Q: DID YOU EVER MEET A WOMAN STANDING SIX FEET ONE INCH NAMED ANDREA TERRY IN A BAR DOWN THERE WHERE YOU LIVE?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: IS THERE A BAR DOWN IN THAT AREA THAT YOU FREQUENT?

A: NO LONGER, BUT YES, THERE IS.

Q: BACK IN '85?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WHAT WAS THE NAME OF IT?

A: HENNESSEY'S TAVERN.

Q: HENNESSEY'S TAVERN. NOW, ASK YOU WHETHER OR NOT ON AN OCCASION IN THE MIDDLE 80'S RELATED IN TIME TO YOUR GOING TO THE MARINE RECRUITING STATION FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE YOU MET WITH A WOMAN NAMED ANDREA TERRY AND KATHLEEN BELL, AN INDEPENDENT SECOND OCCASION.

A: NO.

Q: HAVE YOU BEEN SHOWN ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF ANDREA TERRY BY ANYONE?

A: NO, I HAVE NOT.

Q: DID YOU SPEND A LITTLE TIME DISCUSSING HER WITH THE PROSECUTION THIS WEEKEND?

A: IT WAS MENTIONED, BUT I SAID I DON'T KNOW THIS WOMAN.

Q: TELL ME ABOUT THE MENTION. WHERE WERE YOU AND WHO WERE YOU TALKING WITH?

A: IT WAS JUST ASKED -- EXCUSE ME? ON THE --

Q: WHERE WERE YOU AND WHO WERE YOU TALKING WITH WHEN THE SUBJECT CAME UP?

A: IN THIS BUILDING.

Q: TALKING TO MISS CLARK OR ONE OF HER ASSOCIATES?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THIS BEFORE OR AFTER YOU WENT AND FOUND OUT ABOUT THE STANDARD EQUIPMENT FOR THE BRONCO?

A: NO. THAT WAS AT MY RESIDENCE.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU DO THAT ON YOUR OWN OR DID SOMEONE ASK YOU TO DO IT?

A: NO. SOMEONE THAT KNEW SOMEBODY CALLED ME AND SAID THAT'S WHAT THAT BAG IS.

Q: BUT A LOT OF PHONE CALLS CAME IN ABOUT THAT, DIDN'T IT?

A: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. ONE.

Q: OH, OKAY. IN ANY EVENT, WERE YOU ASKED WHETHER OR NOT A WOMAN NAMED ANDREA TERRY HAD EVER MET YOU IN HENNESSEY'S TAVERN WITH OR WITHOUT KATHLEEN BELL?

A: I NEVER HEARD THE LAST NAME, BUT THE FIRST NAME I DID HEAR.

Q: OKAY. DOES THE FIRST NAME MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU?

A: NO.

Q: ARE YOU AS SATISFIED THAT YOU DID NOT MEET KATHLEEN BELL WITH ANOTHER WOMAN IN HENNESSEY'S AS YOU ARE THAT YOU DID NOT MEET KATHLEEN BELL IN THE RECRUITING STATION?

A: YES.

Q: SO THAT IF ANDREA