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 18574 THROUGH 18589, VOLUME 106A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

(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. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK, MISS LEWIS, MR. DARDEN. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. COUNSEL, ANYTHING WE NEED TO ADDRESS BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO REJOIN US? I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO DISCUSS PARAMETERS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OR ANY OTHER OFFERS OF PROOF? ANYBODY WISH TO BE HEARD?

MR. COCHRAN: THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR, SHOULD BE OUT, THOUGH.

THE COURT: THAT IS TRUE. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WOULD YOU STEP OUT IN THE HALLWAY, PLEASE.

THE WITNESS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

(DETECTIVE FUHRMAN EXITS THE COURTROOM.)

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.

MR. BAILEY: ARGUING WITH A HUMBLE, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE FURNISHED YOU IN CAMERA A NUMBER OF INCIDENTS WHICH WE BELIEVE FALL WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF RELEVANCE, ONE AS LATE AS 1993. POLICE REPORTS WERE TURNED OVER AS TO THAT INCIDENT. THERE ARE NO NOTES OR OTHER MATERIALS TO TURN OVER, BUT I HAVE REVIEWED WITH YOU THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD INDICATE CONTINUING STRONG ANTI-RACIAL FEELING WHERE THE MALE IS BLACK AND THE FEMALE IS WHITE. AND I THINK THAT FAIR GAME FOR QUESTION AS TO WHY ONE WOULD WALK OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INVESTIGATION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. BAILEY, IN THE 1054.7, WE HAVE TO BE NECESSARILY OBLIQUE ABOUT THIS.

MR. BAILEY: I'M SORRY, I'M NOT HEARING YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: IN THE 1054.7 HEARING, IN CAMERA HEARING THAT WE HAD, ARE YOU WITHDRAWING THE LAST ITEM?

MR. BAILEY: YES. THE ONE I TOLD YOU I HAD SOME RESERVATIONS ABOUT.

THE COURT: YES?

MR. BAILEY: UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, UNTIL SOMETHING HAPPENS TO CORROBORATE OR AUTHENTICATE, I WILL NOT RUN WITH THAT ACCUSATION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN LET'S ADDRESS THE POLICE REPORT ISSUE THEN.

MR. BAILEY: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR, I HAVE BEEN CORRECTED BY MR. DOUGLAS. THERE IS A WRITTEN REPORT WITH RESPECT TO THAT WITNESS. IT HAS NOT BEEN TURNED OVER BECAUSE THE DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE TO CALL THE WITNESS. OBVIOUSLY IF THE INCIDENT IS DENIED, RATHER THAN EXPLAINED, THE WITNESS WILL BE CALLED. IF THE INCIDENT IS EXPLAINED RATHER THAN DENIED, THERE WILL BE NO NEED TO CALL A WITNESS, UNLESS IT WINDS UP A CONTRADICTION AND RECOLLECTION AS TO WHAT WE SAID, BUT WE ARE NOT RELYING ON WHAT WAS SAID, AS YOU KNOW, FROM THE PROFFER. WELL, I'M SORRY, I TAKE THAT BACK; PART OF IT WAS VERBAL.

THE COURT: YES.

MR. BAILEY: PART OF IT WAS CONTENT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BUT AT THIS POINT YOU ARE NOT GOING TO OFFER THAT WITNESS?

MR. BAILEY: NOT UNLESS THERE IS A DENIAL BY THIS WITNESS AS TO THE INCIDENT. IF THERE IS --

THE COURT: WAIT A MINUTE. WHICH ONE ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE? THE ONE THAT YOU HAVE TOLD ME THAT YOU HAVE RESERVATION ABOUT, THE POLICE REPORT INCIDENT?

MR. BAILEY: NO, NO, NO. STRIKE THAT ONE FROM OUR DISCUSSION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. BAILEY: THE POLICE REPORT.

THE COURT: BUT THERE IS A STATEMENT?

MR. BAILEY: I'M NOW TOLD THAT THERE IS. I HAVE NOT SEEN IT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. BAILEY: DATED JANUARY 23, A WRITTEN REPORT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME SEE WHAT THE PEOPLE'S RESPONSE IS AS TO THAT INCIDENT.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, COUNSEL CAN'T CIRCUMVENT 1054.7 BASED ON THE WITNESS' ANSWER WE WILL NOT KNOW WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED TO CALL THEM. THAT PERSON IS A WITNESS THEY REASONABLY ANTICIPATE CALLING. THEY CAN EXPECT IF THERE IS MORE OF THE SAME KIND OF NONSENSICAL ALLEGATIONS THAT THEY HAVE BROUGHT OUT FROM KATHLEEN BELL, AND OTHERS OF HER ILK, THEN IT WILL BE DENIED, BECAUSE IT IS INDEED FALSE AND THEY KNOW THAT AND THEY -- THAT MEANS THEY REASONABLY ANTICIPATE CALLING THIS PERSON AND THEY MUST TURN THIS STATEMENT OVER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, LET ME ASK MR. DOUGLAS. MR. DOUGLAS, YOUR NOTES INDICATE THAT THAT JANUARY 23RD STATEMENT HAS BEEN TURNED OVER?

MR. DOUGLAS: NO, YOUR HONOR. IT WAS DISCUSSED IN CHAMBERS. THE DECISION WAS APPROVED THAT WE WOULD TURN OVER THE STATEMENT, THE POLICE REPORT STATEMENT.

THE COURT: RIGHT, BUT IT WAS NEVER REPRESENTED TO ME -- IT WAS REPRESENTED TO ME THAT THERE WAS NO STATEMENT.

MR. DOUGLAS: THERE IS A STATEMENT, YOUR HONOR, OF THAT INTERVIEW.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DOUGLAS: THERE IS A REPORT OF AN INTERVIEW OF THAT PERSON.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HOLD ON. LET ME GET THE PROFFER THEN, BECAUSE MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE PROFFER THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME DURING THE 1054.7 DOES NOT MENTION A STATEMENT.

MR. BAILEY: I HAVE THE PROFFER WITH ME, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET ME GET MY COPY, BECAUSE I HAVE MY NOTES ON IT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. BAILEY, THE PROFFER THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE COURT UNDER SEAL AND IN CAMERA MENTIONS THAT THERE IS NO STATEMENT. THAT APPEARS TO BE INCORRECT?

MR. BAILEY: WELL, ALTHOUGH I DID NOT KNOW THIS AT THE TIME, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS NO STATEMENT FROM THE WITNESS. THERE IS AN INVESTIGATOR'S REPORT TO MR. DOUGLAS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. BAILEY: THAT IS THE ONLY WRITING APPARENTLY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN LET ME ORDER THIS: I'M GOING TO DIRECT THAT MR. DOUGLAS PROVIDE THAT STATEMENT TO THE PROSECUTION FORTHWITH. DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF IT HERE?

MR. DOUGLAS: I HAVE AN ORIGINAL, YOUR HONOR. I NEED A COPY MADE, IF THE COURT PLEASE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MRS. ROBERTSON.

MR. DARDEN: MAY WE HAVE THREE COPIES, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: AND COUNSEL, WHAT I PROPOSE TO DO IS PRECLUDE DISCUSSION OF THAT PARTICULAR INCIDENT UNTIL THE PROSECUTION HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS. IF THEY WISH TO MAKE FURTHER OBJECTION, WE WILL GO INTO THAT.

MR. BAILEY: UNDERSTOOD.

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO PRECLUDE YOU FROM GOING INTO THAT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION AT THIS TIME.

MR. BAILEY: UNDERSTOOD.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE?

MS. CLARK: ARE WE -- ARE WE GOING TO HEAR THE REST OF THE PROFFERED CROSS-EXAMINATION?

THE COURT: MR. BAILEY?

MR. BAILEY: I HAVE GIVEN IT TO THE COURT. THAT WAS THE RULING.

MS. CLARK: NO, THAT WAS NOT THE RULING AT ALL, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT RULED THAT WE WOULD DISCUSS AT SIDE BAR OR OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY --

THE COURT: CORRECT.

MS. CLARK: -- IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PEOPLE.

THE COURT: ANY OTHER OFFERS AS TO OTHER AREAS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION? YOU HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED KATHLEEN BELL. THE COURT HAS RULED THAT THAT IS FAIR GAME.

YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE STATEMENT OR YOU ARE AWARE OF ANDREA TERRY.

MS. CLARK: AND WE WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ABOUT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THAT, YOUR HONOR, AND WE DO NOT HAVE A STATEMENT FROM THEM.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: FROM HER. WE ARE AWARE THROUGH NEWS ACCOUNTS, AND NOW FINALLY WE'VE HAD THE INTERVIEW WITH HER LAST NIGHT, BUT WE WANT TO BE HEARD ABOUT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THAT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, ANDREA TERRY.

MS. CLARK: TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, YOUR HONOR, THE STATEMENT OF ANDREA TERRY IS DIFFERENT THAN THAT OF KATHLEEN BELL. SHE ALLEGEDLY MET THE DEFENDANT -- MET KATHLEEN BELL AT HENNESSEY WHERE KATHLEEN BELL INTRODUCED HER TO MARK FUHRMAN AND HENNESSEY'S BAR OR TAVERN, WHATEVER, AND AT THAT TIME ALLEGEDLY MADE A COMMENT THAT SHE WAS ATTRACTED TO MARCUS ALLEN AND ALLEGEDLY MARK FUHRMAN, IN RESPONSE, IN THIS CROWDED BAR, SAID, "I THINK THAT INTERRACIAL COUPLES ARE A CRIME AGAINST NATURE" --

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

MS. CLARK: -- AND THAT IF HE SAW A BLACK AND WHITE COUPLE TOGETHER IN A CAR HE WOULD FIND A REASON TO PULL THEM OVER.

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

MS. CLARK: NOW, THIS ALLEGED MEETING TOOK PLACE, I WOULD REMIND THE COURT, AFTER KATHLEEN BELL SUPPOSEDLY HEARD THE COMMENT THAT HAS BEEN WIDELY REPORTED MADE BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AT THE MARINE RECRUITING OFFICE, AND AFTER SHE LEFT IN TEARS AND HYSTERICAL AFTER HEARING THAT COMMENT, SHE THEN INTRODUCED MARK FUHRMAN TO HER FRIEND ANDREA TERRY.

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

MS. CLARK: IN ORDER TO -- SHE INTRODUCED HER TO ANDREA TERRY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THEM GOING OUT ON A DATE. ANDREA TERRY THEN COMES UP SOME SEVEN MONTHS LATER WITH THIS STATEMENT; HOWEVER, THE STATEMENT IS NOT AS PROBATIVE AS THAT OF THE STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MARK FUHRMAN BY KATHLEEN BELL. IN KATHLEEN BELL'S STATEMENT, SHE ALLEGES THAT MARK FUHRMAN STATED THAT HE WOULD MAKE UP A REASON IN ORDER TO STOP THEM, THAT HE WOULD ACTUALLY FABRICATE EVIDENCE WAS HER STATEMENT. ANDREA TERRY DOESN'T SAY THAT. ANDREA TERRY STATES THAT HE WOULD FIND A REASON. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ONE DOES NOT EXIST. THAT MEANS THAT HE IS LOOKING FOR A REASON AND GOING WITH WHAT HE HAS. THE ALLEGATION THAT IS IMPORTANT IN THE KATHLEEN BELL STATEMENT IS FABRICATION. THAT IS MISSING FROM THE STATEMENT IN ANDREA TERRY. SO ANDREA TERRY'S STATEMENT IS IRRELEVANT AND SHOULD BE RULED INADMISSIBLE UNDER 352.

THE COURT: MR. BAILEY.

MR. BAILEY: WELL, I THINK MISS CLARK IS ENDEAVORING TO GET YOU TO DECIDE CREDIBILITY QUESTIONS. THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ANTICIPATE ANDREA TERRY WILL SAY. SHE WILL SAY HE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT HE WOULD PULL THEM OVER BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK AND SHE WAS WHITE. NOW, FOR MISS CLARK TO SUGGEST HE WOULD THEN TRY TO FIND A LEGAL REASON TO JUSTIFY WHAT HE HAD ALREADY DONE IS A LITTLE BIT LUDICROUS. CERTAINLY THAT IS PROBATIVE, IN ADDITION TO CORROBORATIVE, OF THE SAME EXPRESSION GIVEN TO KATHLEEN BELL ON A PRIOR OCCASION STANDING IN FRONT OF THE RECRUITING STATION AFTER BEING INTRODUCED TO FUHRMAN BY JOE FOSS, THE MARINE.

NOW, FOR A MAN WHO HAS NEVER SEEN KATHLEEN BELL IN HIS LIFE, AS FUHRMAN CLAIMS, HAVING A WITNESS WHO IS WITH KATHLEEN BELL IN HENNESSEY'S WOULD BE ENOUGH ALL BY ITSELF, BUT HIS OFFER THAT IT WAS A CRIME AGAINST NATURE FOR A BLACK MAN TO BE WITH A WHITE WOMAN SHOULD IN AND OF ITSELF BE ENOUGH TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION ON HIS RACIAL BIAS. WE CLAIM THAT HE HAS GONE OUT OF HIS WAY IN THIS CASE TO HURT A BLACK MAN THAT HE SAW WITH A WHITE WOMAN IN 1985 AND KNEW THEREAFTER BECAUSE OF THE 1989 INCIDENT OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP. SO I DON'T THINK ANDREA TERRY IS EVEN A PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENT FOR PROHIBITION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NEXT MATTER IS I BELIEVE MAX CORDOBA.

MR. BAILEY: YES. MAX CORDOBA IS A BLACK MARINE, AFRICAN AMERICAN. AS I INDICATED IN THE PROFFER, MAX CORDOVA WAS STANDING IN THE RECRUITING STATION WHEN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN CAME UP WITH SOME PAPERS. THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS MAKING APPLICATION TO JOIN THE RESERVE UNIT OR THAT THE MARINES OR SOME OF THEM WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE IN THE WORLD THEY COULD PUT HIM THAT HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO ASSOCIATE WITH AFRICAN AMERICANS, BECAUSE HE HAD MADE HIS FEELINGS PLAIN ABOUT THAT. NOW, AS CORDOBA WAS STANDING THERE AND FUHRMAN APPROACHES WITH THE PAPERS, CORDOBA SAYS, "I REALLY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS APPLICATION, YOU SOUGHT TO SEE RON," MEANING SERGEANT RONALD ROHR. RON, AT ABOUT THAT MOMENT, WHO LIKES TO HANG AROUND AT THE PLACE NEXT DOOR, AS ANOTHER WITNESS WILL TESTIFY, STARTS COMING ACROSS THE STREET AND CORDOBA SAYS, "HEY, ROHR, YOUR BOY IS HERE." AND FUHRMAN TURNS ON CORDOBA AND SAYS, "LET'S GET SOMETHING STRAIGHT. THE ONLY BOY HERE IS YOU, NIGGER," AND THEN CORDOBA LEAVES THE BUILDING AND FUHRMAN FOLLOWS HIM OUT INTO THE PARKING LOT AND REPEATS THE SAME EPITHET. I THINK THAT SHOWING OF RACIAL BIAS AT THE TIME WE CLAIM HE WAS EXPRESSING SIMILAR VIEWS TO A WITNESS HE DENIES MEETING, NOT ONLY STANDS ON ITS OWN AS EVIDENCE OF THE BIAS HE IS NOW DISCLAIMING, BUT ALSO CORROBORATES THE LIKELIHOOD THAT MS. BELL IN THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME WOULD HAVE HEARD THESE REMARKS.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: THESE ALLEGATIONS GET MORE OUTRAGEOUS BY THE MINUTE AND I'M STRICKEN AGAIN BY THE PREPOSTEROUSNESS OF THE CLAIMS OF THE DEFENSE. NOT ONLY DID THESE ALLEGED INCIDENTS NEVER OCCUR, BUT THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY ARE BEING ADMITTED COULD NEVER HAVE OCCURRED. AND MAX CORDOBA GAVE US A STATEMENT THAT SAYS NONE OF THAT. WE HAVE INTERVIEWED MAX CORDOBA A LONG TIME AGO. HE NEVER MADE SUCH A STATEMENT AND HE NEVER ALLEGED THAT MARK FUHRMAN EVER MADE SUCH A STATEMENT. AND IF THE DEFENSE HAS A STATEMENT THAT INDICATES THAT HE IS GOING TO SO TESTIFY, WE ARE ENTITLED TO SEE IT, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT WE HAVE INTERVIEWED MAX CORDOBA TWICE AND HE HAS NEVER INDICATED ANY SUCH THING TO ANYONE WHO HAS INTERVIEWED HIM. I THINK WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A FALSE OFFER OF PROOF BY THE DEFENSE, AN OFFER THAT THEY ARE GOING TO USE TO SLUR MARK FUHRMAN AGAIN UNFAIRLY IN THE EYES OF THIS JURY AND NEVER PRODUCE THE WITNESS TO BACK UP THIS STATEMENT, BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE STATEMENTS HE HAS GIVEN US, HE NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

MR. BAILEY: I HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: CAN I HAVE ONE MOMENT, PLEASE, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: SURE.

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

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: SO THAT WE CAN PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE, YOUR HONOR, MR. CORDOBA WAS INTERVIEWED ON TELEVISION AND INDICATED THAT HE ALWAYS GOT ALONG WITH MARK FUHRMAN. HE HAD A INTERVIEW WITH TONY PELLICANO IN WHICH HE INDICATED HE ALWAYS GOT ALONG WITH MARK FUHRMAN. MONTHS AND MONTHS LATER AN INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WHERE HE MADE REFERENCE TO A JOKING COMMENT EXCHANGED ABOUT SOMEBODY SAID "BOY" AND MARK SAID "BOY." THE "N" WORD WAS NEVER USED BY MARK FUHRMAN, ACCORDING TO MAX CORDOBA, AND THAT WAS IN ALL THREE STATEMENTS HE HAS GIVEN OVER THE PAST SEVEN MONTHS. HIS FIRST TWO STATEMENTS INDICATE THERE WAS NO PROBLEM, SO THAT IS WHERE WE START WITH MAX CORDOBA. AND THEN BELATEDLY IN FEBRUARY, I THINK, OR JANUARY OF THIS YEAR, HE VAGUELY RECALLS SOME STATEMENT WHERE THERE WAS AN EXCHANGE OF THE TERM "BOY" BY TWO PEOPLE THERE, BUT THE "N" WORD WAS NEVER USED BY MARK FUHRMAN, ACCORDING TO MAX CORDOBA. SO IF THE DEFENSE HAS A STATEMENT INDICATING THAT HE WILL SO TESTIFY, WE NEED TO SEE IT, AND IF THEY DON'T, THE COURT SHOULD REFUSE TO ALLOW IT BECAUSE THIS IS DEFINITELY A FALSE OFFER OF PROOF WITHOUT SOME STATEMENT TO BACK IT UP THAT THEY ARE GOING TO USE TO INFLAME THE JURY UNFAIRLY AND NEVER PRODUCE ON.

THE COURT: ISN'T THIS A FOOTNOTE 14 ISSUE, WHERE MAX CORDOBA IS ON THE WITNESS LIST AS A PROSECUTION WITNESS? MR. DOUGLAS, I DON'T NEED THE COACHING HERE. WHERE MR. CORDOBA OR SERGEANT CORDOBA PROBABLY IS A PEOPLE'S WITNESS AND THIS IS AN IMPEACHING STATEMENT OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS, SO ARE THEY COMPELLED TO TURN THAT OVER?

MS. CLARK: IT IS DIFFERENT, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE THAT IS TALKING ABOUT THE IMPEACHMENT OF THAT WITNESS HIMSELF. THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT IMPEACHMENT OF MAX CORDOBA. THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT IMPEACHMENT OF A DIFFERENT WITNESS. THE FOOTNOTE 11 OR 14, WHICHEVER ONE THAT IS, REFERS TO THE IMPEACHMENT OF THAT WITNESS THAT THEY HAVE THE STATEMENT ON, SO IF THEY HAD A STATEMENT THAT IMPEACHED MAX CORDOBA, THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT ISSUE. BUT THAT IS NOT THE REASON, THAT IS NOT THE PROFFER, AND THAT IS NOT WHY THEY WANT THAT STATEMENT IN. IT IS NOT TO IMPEACH MAX CORDOBA. WE HAVE IMPEACHMENT ON MAX CORDOBA. WE HAVE THE PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS OF MAX CORDOBA. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE, SO A DIFFERENT SITUATION. AND IF THEY DO HAVE THAT STATEMENT, WE NEED TO SEE IT, BUT AT THE VERY LEAST I THINK THAT THE COURT SHOULD REFUSE TO ALLOW THAT STATEMENT IN UNTIL MAX CORDOBA TESTIFIES. HE CAN BE QUESTIONED OF COURSE ON WHETHER HE KNOWS HIM, BUT THAT THAT STATEMENT THAT THEY ARE NOW ATTRIBUTING TO MARK FUHRMAN THROUGH MAX CORDOBA SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED AT THIS TIME AS UNDULY INFLAMMATORY, WITHOUT PROBATIVE VALUE AND NO BASIS IN FACT BECAUSE IT IS BEING ADMITTED SOLELY TO INFLAME THE JURY. I DON'T BELIEVE IT WILL EVER BE PRODUCED, NOT AT ALL, AND SO IF THE COURT ALLOWS THE JURY TO HEAR THAT EPITHET AS ATTRIBUTED TO MARK FUHRMAN BY THE WITNESS MAX CORDOBA, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS NEVER GOING TO BE DELIVERED ON AND THE COURT WILL HAVE ALLOWED THE JURY TO BE INFLAMED BY SOMETHING THAT WILL EVAPORATE INTO THIN AIR AS SOON AS THE WORDS ARE GOING TO BE SHOUTED THROUGH THIS COURTROOM BY MR. BAILEY. AND I THINK THAT THAT DOES NOT PRODUCE ANYTHING NEAR A FAIR TRIAL AND THAT IS ONE STATEMENT THAT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. LET THEM CALL THE WITNESS. I WANT TO HEAR HIM SAY THIS. THE COURT IS NEVER GOING TO HEAR IT, SO I THINK THE COURT SHOULD NOT PERMIT CROSS-EXAMINATION WITH RESPECT TO THAT SPECIFIC ALLEGATION ON THAT WITNESS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO ISSUES HERE: WHETHER OR NOT IT IS APPROPRIATE FODDER FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THE ISSUE OF RACIAL BIAS. AND SECONDLY, A DISCOVERY ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO SEE THIS STATEMENT AT SOME APPROPRIATE POINT IN TIME?

MS. CLARK: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. BAILEY.

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

MR. BAILEY: MISS CLARK, WHO SO LIGHTLY CASTS ASPERSIONS ON ALL THE DEFENSE TEAM FOR MAKING UP OFFERS OF PROOF AND FURNISHING THEM TO THIS COURT, HAS RATHER DIRTY HANDS IN THIS MATTER. AS YOU KNOW FROM THE PROFFER, MAX CORDOBA WANTED TO TELL MR. DARDEN AND MISS LEWIS ABOUT THIS INCIDENT AND THEY SHUT HIM OFF. THEY SAID WE ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN WHAT MISS BELL SAID AND THAT IS WHAT HE WILL TESTIFY TO. AND YOUR HONOR, I HAVE SPOKEN WITH HIM ON THE PHONE PERSONALLY, MARINE TO MARINE. I HAVEN'T THE SLIGHTEST DOUBT THAT HE WILL MARCH UP TO THAT WITNESS STAND AND TELL THE WORLD WHAT FUHRMAN CALLED HIM ON NO PROVOCATION WHATSOEVER. AS FAR AS DISCOVERY IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO WRITTEN STATEMENT, THERE ARE NO NOTES THAT I KNOW OF. WHEN I HEARD ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE HE CALLED US WANTING TO MAKE IT KNOWN THAT THESE PEOPLE HAD TRIED TO SUPPRESS THIS INFORMATION, I SPOKE TO HIM PERSONALLY. I DON'T EVER TAKE NOTES AND I DIDN'T ON THAT OCCASION.

MS. CLARK: PRETTY CONVENIENT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PHILIP COLEMAN.

MR. BAILEY: PHILIP COLEMAN. PHIL COLEMAN, THERE ARE NO SECRETS ABOUT, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE WE GOT A LETTER THAT MR. COLEMAN DRAFTED ON HIS OWN, IT WAS TURNED OVER TO THE PROSECUTION A LONG TIME AGO AND PROMPTLY HANDED TO THE PRESS BY SOMEBODY, SO IT HAS BEEN AIRED. BUT I THINK IN VIEW OF WHAT IS IN THE LETTER, AND THE ESSENCE OF IT WAS THAT MR. COLEMAN UNDERSTOOD THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS CRITICAL OF THE FACT THAT WHITE WOMEN WERE UNDRESSING IN A BUSINESS RUN BY A BLACK PARTNER AND A WHITE WOMAN PARTNER, THE BLACK PERSON BEING MR. COLEMAN. HE ALSO UNDERSTOOD THAT MR. FUHRMAN HAD SERVED IN VIETNAM AND WAS APPLYING TO GET BACK IN THE MARINE CORPS AND THAT HE WAS VERY UNHAPPY ABOUT MR. COLEMAN'S SITUATION. MR. COLEMAN HIMSELF HAD SERVED IN VIETNAM AND WANTED TO TRY TO DISPEL ANY SUGGESTION OF IMPROPRIETY THAT WOMEN WERE UNCLAD IN HIS STORE AND THAT SOMEHOW WAS OFFENSIVE. AND SO AT ONE POINT SERGEANT ROHR, I BELIEVE IT WAS, IT IS IN THE REPORT, WAS STANDING WITH FUHRMAN IN THE PARKING LOT BETWEEN THE RECRUITING STATION AND COLEMAN'S STORE AND HE SAID, "HEY, VIETNAM, COME OVER HERE," OBVIOUSLY TO MAKE AN INTRODUCTION. MR. COLEMAN WALKED UP, STUCK OUT HIS HAND LIKE A MAN AND MARK FUHRMAN FOLDED HIS ARMS AND TURNED LIKE THAT AWAY FROM HIM. CERTAINLY NO CLEARER ACT OF DISDAIN FOR A BLACK PERSON WHO ASSOCIATED WITH A WHITE WOMAN COULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN ABSENT ANY VERBALIZATION. FOR THAT REASON WE THINK THAT THAT INCIDENT IS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN IT IS CLOSE IN TIME TO THE CORDOBA AND BELL AND TERRY INCIDENTS WHEREIN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN EXHIBITED HIS RACIAL BIAS TO A VERY EXTREME NATURE AND BECAUSE THESE ARE PROXIMATE TO ONE ANOTHER, THEY TEND TO SUPPORT ONE ANOTHER. THAT IS TO SAY, IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS GOING TO SAY THAT BELL IS A LIAR, HE NEVER MET HER, TERRY IS A LIAR, HE NEVER MET HER, OR IF HE DID HE NEVER SPOKE TO HER, AND IF HE SPOKE TO HER HE NEVER SAID THOSE WORDS. JOE FOSS IS A LIAR BECAUSE FOSS NEVER INTRODUCED BELL TO FUHRMAN AND COLEMAN IS A LIAR BECAUSE THIS INCIDENT NEVER HAPPENED, AND CORDOBA IS A LIAR BECAUSE HE NEVER CALLED HIM A NIGGER, THEN I THINK THE JURY IS ENTITLED TO FIND THAT THE WORLD IS OUT OF STEP WITH JOHNNY AND EVERYBODY LIES BUT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IF THAT IS THE STORY HE WANTS TO SELL. CERTAINLY THEY ARE ENTITLED TO HEAR OF THE INCIDENTS.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: YOU KNOW, YOUR HONOR, ALL WE ARE GETTING HERE IS A LOT OF VERY DRAMATIC POSTURING, BECAUSE WHEN THESE WITNESSES TAKE THE WITNESS STAND, IF THEY EVER DO, THE COURT IS GOING TO HEAR A VERY DIFFERENT STORY THAN MR. BAILEY HAS LAID OUT FOR THE COURT TODAY. YOU CAN REST ASSURED. I WANT THIS FILM CLIP SAVED FOREVER BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO BE VERY FUNNY WHEN THE ACTUAL WITNESSES TAKE THE STAND. NEVERTHELESS, WITH RESPECT TO MR. COLEMAN, ALL HE HAS TO OFFER IS HEARSAY. HE NEVER HEARD MARK FUHRMAN SAY ANYTHING ABOUT INTERRACIAL COUPLES. HE HIMSELF NEVER HEARD MARK FUHRMAN SAY ANY RACIAL EPITHET OR SLUR. HE HIMSELF WAS NEVER PRIVY TO THE CONVERSATION THAT ALLEGEDLY TOOK PLACE BETWEEN KATHLEEN BELL AND MARK FUHRMAN. HE WITNESSED NOTHING. HE CLAIMS AT SOME POINT IN TIME THAT MARK FUHRMAN FOLDED HIS ARMS WHEN HE WAS INTRODUCED. HOWEVER, THERE IS VERY LITTLE RELIABILITY TO THAT STATEMENT AND IT IS NO COINCIDENCE, BY THE WAY, THAT IT ALL HAPPENED AROUND THE SAME TIME, BECAUSE KATHLEEN BELL, ANDREA TERRY, PHIL COLEMAN AND MAX CORDOBA ALL WORKED THIS SAME AREA AND KNEW EACH OTHER, SO IT IS NOT A REAL SURPRISE THAT THEY HAVE ALL COOKED UP THESE STORIES, NOT AT ALL. AND WHAT YOU WILL SEE WHEN THEY TESTIFY, TRUST ME, YOUR HONOR, IS GOING TO BE VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT HAS BEEN OFFERED TODAY. AT SOME POINT THIS GETS CUMULATIVE AND IT GETS RIDICULOUS. WE HAVE ANDREA TERRY'S STATEMENT THAT ISN'T EVEN PROBATIVE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT GO TO THE ISSUE THAT MADE THE COURT -- COMPELLED THE COURT TO ADMIT KATHLEEN BELL'S STATEMENT. IT IS MISSING THAT PROBATIVE VALUE. PHILIP COLEMAN HAS NOTHING BUT HEARSAY AND FOLDED ARMS TO OFFER, WHICH IS, UNDER 352, OF NO PROBATIVE VALUE WHATSOEVER AND IT IS AN AMBIGUOUS GESTURE AT BEST, IF EVER BELIEVED, BY THE WAY, WHICH IT WILL NOT BE WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE. AND WITH RESPECT TO THE STATEMENT BY -- ALLEGED STATEMENT BY MAX CORDOBA, WE HAVE ZERO RELIABILITY TO THAT. WE HAVE NO STATEMENT, WE HAVE NO NOTES, WE HAVE NO TAPES, WE HAVE NOTHING TO ESTABLISH THAT THAT -- THAT THAT CONVERSATION MR. BAILEY REFERS TO EVER OCCURRED. ALL WE HEAR ARE PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS, PRIOR STATEMENTS BY THIS WITNESS THAT ARE VASTLY DIFFERENT THAN ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN OFFERED BY COUNSEL TODAY. SO WE HAVE A TOTALLY UNRELIABLE OFFER HERE THAT IS CUMULATIVE TO THE ISSUE AND THAT ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT GO TO THE INTERRACIAL COUPLE ISSUE, THE FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE ISSUE. I MEAN, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE WAY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT IS -- WHAT SHOULD BE EVEN DREAMED ABOUT AS BEING ADMISSIBLE AS TO THIS WITNESS. WE GET TO THE POINT THAT ALL WE ARE DOING IS SLINGING AT SOMEONE IN AN AREA WHERE, YES, CREDIBILITY IS IN ISSUE, BUT WE HAVE TO ATTACK ON ISSUES THAT ARE RELEVANT TO CREDIBILITY. WHETHER OR NOT MAX CORDOBA HEARD HIM SAY THE WORDS ATTRIBUTED TO HIM, THAT DOES NOT TO GO INTERRACIAL COUPLES, THE FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE OR THE PLANTING OF EVIDENCE. THESE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THE DETECTIVE BY ANDREA TERRY DO NOT GO TO THE FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE. AND THE REFUSAL TO SHAKE THE HAND OF PHILIP COLEMAN, ANOTHER FANTASY COOKED UP BY THE DEFENSE WHICH NEVER TRANSPIRED THAT CERTAINLY DOES NOT GO TO INTERRACIAL COUPLES OR THE FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE. THE PEOPLE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT TO THE COURT THAT WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS NOT A DEFENSE, IT IS A SMEAR CAMPAIGN AND THERE IS NOT ANY OF IT RELEVANT TO THE DETECTIVE'S CREDIBILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTIONS HE TOOK ON THE DAY IN QUESTION. LET'S REMEMBER THIS IS A DOUBLE HOMICIDE CASE. THIS IS NOT A CASE CONCERNING THE CHARACTER OF MARK FUHRMAN WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES OF RACE. THIS IS A CASE INVOLVING THE HOMICIDE OF TWO MURDER VICTIMS AND A JUNIOR DETECTIVE WHO FOUND EVIDENCE BASED ON THE STATEMENT OF A WITNESS. THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE HERE. AND IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE ALL REMEMBER THAT. WHATEVER ANYONE MAY ULTIMATELY DECIDE ABOUT MARK FUHRMAN'S PERSONAL LIFE OR PERSONAL VIEWS OF THE WORLD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT HE IS CREDIBLE AS AN OFFICER AND WITH THE ISSUES THAT RELATE TO HIS HONESTY AND VERACITY AND THAT IS A MUCH MORE NARROW PARAMETER THAN COUNSEL WOULD HAVE THIS COURT BELIEVE. BUT THE COURT KNOWS BETTER. I KNOW THE COURT DOES BECAUSE THE COURT HAS INDICATED WHAT ITS RULINGS ARE BASED ON, WISELY SO.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CHARACTER FOR TRUTH AND VERACITY. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER THERE IS A PROPENSITY TO FABRICATE EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO INTERRACIAL COUPLES. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE, AND LET'S NOT FORGET THAT. NOW, THE REST OF THE IMPEACHMENT THAT HAS BEEN PROFFERED BY COUNSEL HAS ZERO RELEVANCE AND THE COURT WILL ULTIMATELY FIND, IF THEY ARE EVER CALLED AND THE COURT DOES DECIDE TO ADMIT THEIR TESTIMONY, WHICH I WOULD SUBMIT WOULD NOT BE PROPER, NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER. WE HAVE A SITUATION HERE THAT IS DESIGNED SOLELY TO INFLAME THE JURY AND DISTRACT THEM FROM THE ISSUES AT HAND AND THAT IS FAR MORE PREJUDICIAL THAN PROBATIVE. AND ALL WE ARE GOING TO DO HERE IS ENGAGE IN A SMEAR CAMPAIGN SO THAT THE JURY WILL FORGET THAT WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE MURDERED AND AN OFFICER WHO FOUND KEY EVIDENCE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS WHO WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE IMPEACHED WITH RESPECT TO WHAT HE HEARD AND SAW ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH. SO I SUBMIT TO THE COURT RESPECTFULLY THAT THIS IS THE COURT'S OPPORTUNITY TO KEEP THIS TRIAL ON TRACK AND PREVENT COUNSEL FROM ENGAGING IN A SMEAR CAMPAIGN THAT WILL MISLEAD, CONFUSE AND INFLAME THIS JURY.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, MISS CLARK.

MR. BAILEY: MAY THE COURT NOTE AND MAY THE WORLD LONG REMEMBER THAT MISS CLARK CHARACTERIZED THIS EVIDENCE AS FUNNY.

MS. CLARK: I DIDN'T SAY THIS WAS FUNNY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, MISS CLARK, LET ME JUST ASK YOU AN INFORMAL QUESTION. YOU INDICATED THE PROSECUTION HAS INTERVIEWED ANDREA TERRY, CORRECT?

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

MS. LEWIS: I SPOKE TO HER LAST NIGHT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WITH REGARDS TO ANDREA TERRY, I AM GOING TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION AS TO THAT ISSUE. IT DID INVOLVE INTERRACIAL COUPLES AND IT DID INVOLVE THE MANIPULATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE PURPOSES OF STOPPING, WHICH IS SIMILAR ENOUGH TO THE FACTS AND SITUATION OR THE ALLEGATIONS HERE. AS TO MAX CORDOBA, I'M GOING TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THAT; HOWEVER, ONLY AFTER THE PROSECUTION HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REINTERVIEW MR. CORDOBA AS TO THIS PARTICULAR ALLEGATION, SINCE THERE ARE NO STATEMENTS TO BE TURNED OVER. I DON'T THINK THIS IS A FOOTNOTE 14 ISSUE, AS MISS CLARK POINTS OUT TO THE COURT. THIS GOES TO THE IMPEACHMENT OF ANOTHER WITNESS, NOT TO MAX CORDOBA HIMSELF, SO I FIND THAT THAT IS DISCOVERABLE AND THAT THE PROSECUTION SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO INTERVIEW MR. CORDOBA REGARDING THAT SECOND STATEMENT. MR. FUHRMAN, AS A RESULT, WILL NOT BE RELEASED AS A WITNESS BUT WILL BE KEPT ON CALL AND SUBJECT TO RECALL. AS TO THE ALWYN MARTIN MATTER, THE REPORT, SINCE THE PROSECUTION HAS JUST RECEIVED THE REPORT REGARDING HER STATEMENT, THAT THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION UNTIL THE PROSECUTION HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THAT REPORT AND CONDUCT ANY ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION. AS I INDICATED, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WILL LIKELY BE RECALLED IF THAT IS AN ISSUE. AS TO MR. COLEMAN, THE COURT WILL DENY CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THAT ISSUE. THE REFUSAL TO SHAKE HANDS WITH AN INDIVIDUAL CAN BE EXPLAINED BY ANY NUMBER OF REASONS, AND THAT WILL BE HIGHLY SPECULATIVE. THE COURT FINDS THAT NOT TO BE RELEVANT UNDER EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 350 AND ALSO AN UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF THE COURT'S TIME UNDER 352. ALL RIGHT. LET'S PROCEED.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, BEFORE WE CALL THE JURY IN, CAN WE JUST HAVE ONE MOMENT?

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

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THE STATEMENT JUST GIVEN TO US GENERATED ON JANUARY 23RD IS STATED TO BE A DRAFT AND INCOMPLETE. THERE ARE MANY ASPECTS OF THIS STATEMENT THAT ARE AMBIGUOUS AND CLEARLY THIS IS NOT THEIR FINAL REPORT. THERE IS MORE -- THERE IS MORE TO THIS THAT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED AND WE ARE TALKING -- I'M TALKING NOW ABOUT THE STATEMENT -- ALLEGED STATEMENT BY ALWYN MARTIN.

MR. BAILEY: MR. MC KENNA IS HERE. LET'S PUT HIM ON THE STAND. MISS CLARK, AS USUAL, IS TALKING THROUGH HER HAT. THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE AND WON'T BE UNTIL FUHRMAN DENIES IT AND THEN WE WILL BE BACK TALKING TO HER, BUT MR. MC KENNA WILL BE GLAD TO TESTIFY THAT THERE WILL BE NOTHING FURTHER.

MS. CLARK: THEIR OWN REPORT, YOUR HONOR, SAYS "INCOMPLETE," IT SAYS "DRAFT." WAS DOES THAT MEAN? ISN'T THAT CLEAR? WE WRITE "DRAFT," WE WRITE "INCOMPLETE," "FIRST VERSION," SAME THING. IT MEANS THERE IS A SECOND VERSION. IT MEANS THERE IS MORE.

MR. BAILEY: NO, IT DOESN'T.

MS. CLARK: OR AT LEAST THERE ARE ADDITIONAL NOTES. YEAH, LET'S PUT MR. MC KENNA ON THE WITNESS STAND. I WANT HIM UNDER OATH. THAT SOUNDS GOOD.

THE COURT: NO, WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO THAT, MISS CLARK, AT LEAST NOT AT THIS POINT. THE THING IS I HAVE GIVEN YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE STATEMENT. I WILL NOT ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION AS TO MISS MARTIN'S STATEMENTS UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS. I WILL GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO MR. MC KENNA TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER NOTES, AND MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THIS IS LISTED IN THE DISCOVERY INDEX WITH REGARDS TO THE AVAILABILITY OF NOTES AND OTHER THINGS, SO WE CAN TAKE THAT UP LATER. WE HAVE KEPT THE JURY WAITING FOR A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF TIME. MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO, SINCE I'M PRECLUDING CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THAT ISSUE ANYWAY AT THIS POINT, WHY DON'T WE PROCEED WITH WHAT WE HAVE WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. YOU CAN CONSULT WITH MR. MC KENNA. IF THERE IS A NEED TO EXPLORE FURTHER, WE CAN DO THAT.

MS. CLARK: MAY I BRING UP ONE FURTHER ISSUE?

THE COURT: SURE.

MS. CLARK: IT WOULD APPEAR THAT MR. BAILEY HAS A NUMBER OF BOOKS NEXT TO HIS COMPUTER. I'M ASSUMING HE INTENDS TO USE THEM FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. IF HE DOES, I'M ASSUMING HE WON'T USE EVERY PAGE FROM THE BOOK, I WOULD APPRECIATE BEING GIVEN THOSE PASSAGES HE DOES INTEND TO USE WITH THE WITNESS WELL IN ADVANCE SO THAT I CAN READ THEM AND BE READY FOR THE CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THAT MATTER, RATHER THAN HAVING TO READ AT THE LAST MINUTE AND EXCUSE THE JURY AS OCCURRED BEFORE DURING MR. COCHRAN'S CROSS-EXAMINATION.

THE COURT: WHAT BOOKS ARE WE SPEAKING OF?

MS. CLARK: "PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION," "PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND CONNECTICUT STATE POLICE," "PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND FORENSIC SCIENCE."

THE COURT: I DON'T RECALL DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SAYING THAT HE REFERRED TO ANY OF THESE MATERIALS, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS RIPE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. MR. BAILEY, DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE?

MR. BAILEY: MRS. CLARK ALWAYS LEAPS BEFORE JUDGING THE SIZE OF THE CHASM. THESE BOOKS ARE WAY OVER FUHRMAN'S HEAD. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE USED ON HIM. THEY ARE FOR MY EDIFICATION SHOULD THE REASON ARISE. I LIKE TO ASK QUESTIONS OF WITNESSES, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY NOT BE EXPERTS, THAT ARE PROPERLY GROUNDED IN SCIENTIFIC FACT AND THESE ARE REFERENCE MATERIALS FOR THAT PURPOSE. I WILL BE GLAD TO LOAN THEM TO THE PROSECUTION IF THEY HAVE COME TO ADMIRE THE BOOKS, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY NEED TO HAVE THEM NOW. I WOULD OF COURSE LIKE TO HAVE THE SCRIPT THAT SHE HAS BEEN USING WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND HAVEN'T BEEN OFFERED THAT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: I THINK I PROBABLY READ BOOKS FAR MORE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY THAT WHAT ARE HERE. THESE ARE VERY BASIC PRIMERS. AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF MR. BAILEY INTENDS TO USE THEM WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. IS IT HIS STATEMENT THAT HE WILL NOT?

THE COURT: THE INDICATION THAT I JUST HEARD WAS I THINK NO.

MR. BAILEY: DR. HENRY LEE WILL BE GLAD TO KNOW ABOUT THE INSULT, SINCE HE WROTE ALL THREE OF THEM.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS NOT INSULTING THAT HE WROTE A BASIC PRIMER.

THE COURT: I TAKE THAT THE ANSWER TO BE NO. ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE RUSSELL, CAN WE HAVE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. DEPUTY MAGNERA, CAN WE HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE. MADAM REPORTER, CAN YOU GO UNTIL NOON? REPORTER OLSON: (NODS HEAD UP AND DOWN.)

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

(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 THAT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: MY APOLOGIES TO YOU FOR THE DELAY IN GETTING STARTED. WE HAD A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT WE HAD TO TAKE UP AT THE BEGINNING OF THE COURT DAY AND WE ARE JUST GETTING AROUND NOW TO THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE. I'M SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEMS AND DIFFICULTIES THAT WE ALWAYS HAVE. PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM IS DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN. 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. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS PRESENT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAILEY. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, DETECTIVE.

THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MR. BAILEY, YOU MAY RESUME WITH YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

MR. BAILEY: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. BAILEY:

Q: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW WITH YOU THE STEPS YOU HAVE TAKEN TO PREPARE YOURSELF FOR TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE. WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME FOLLOWING THE PRELIMINARY HEARING THAT YOU MET WITH ONE OF THE PROSECUTORS, THOSE AT THE TABLE AND THOSE NOT AT THE TABLE, THAT YOU KNOW TO BE CONNECTED WITH THIS CASE, TO DISCUSS THE CASE AND/OR YOUR TESTIMONY?

A: ARE YOU SAYING POST-PRELIM, SIR?

Q: POST-PRELIMINARY HEARING.

A: PROBABLY WITHIN THE LAST MONTH, MONTH AND A HALF.

Q: DO I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO CONTACT BETWEEN YOU AND ANY OF THE PROSECUTORS IN THIS CASE UP UNTIL 1995?

A: WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THIS TESTIMONY, NO.

Q: ABOUT THIS CASE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN? YOU ARE VERY MUCH A PART OF THIS CASE, AREN'T YOU?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: YEAH. AND YOU CAUSED THAT BY FINDING AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE, DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: YOU KNEW FULL WELL THAT ONCE YOU CAME UP WITH A PIECE OF EVIDENCE OF THAT SORT THERE WASN'T ANYBODY THAT COULD GET YOU OUT OF THIS CASE BECAUSE YOU ARE AN ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL WITNESS, RIGHT? DID YOU KNOW THAT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE OBJECTION?

MS. CLARK: WITHDRAWN.

THE COURT: WITHDRAWN. THANK YOU. THE OBJECTION WAS WITHDRAWN.

THE WITNESS: SIR, THE WAY YOU PHRASED THAT, "GET ME OUT OF THIS CASE"? I WASN'T TRYING TO GET OUT OF THIS CASE.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: SOMEBODY WAS TRYING TO GET YOU OUT. YOU TOLD US THAT IN SOME DETAIL YESTERDAY. YOU WERE OUT YOU THOUGHT?

A: OH, YOU MEAN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CASE?

Q: YEAH.

A: YES, SIR.

Q: YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE OFF THE CASE AS A DETECTIVE. WHEN YOU STOOD FOR AN HOUR AT THE INTERSECTION OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY, YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE THROUGH, DIDN'T YOU?

A: I'M STILL A DETECTIVE, SIR, BUT AS FAR AS BEING THE LEAD INVESTIGATOR, YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE OFF THE CASE? ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. BUT WHEN YOU TURNED OUT TO FIND THIS GLOVE OVER AT ROCKINGHAM, YOU KNEW THAT YOU WOULD BE ON THE CASE AS LONG AS IT LASTED, DIDN'T YOU?

A: NO.

Q: YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE GLOVE COULD NOT BE PUT IN EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL CASE WITHOUT THE PERSON WHO FOUND IT SAYING UNDER OATH WHERE HE FOUND IT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, CALLS FOR AN INCORRECT LEGAL CONCLUSION AND SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU WOULD BE AN ESSENTIAL WITNESS IF YOU WERE THE FIRST TO FIND AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE?

A: WELL, I COULDN'T MAKE THAT DETERMINATION AT THAT TIME, SIR. I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE IMPLICATION OF THE GLOVE WAS.

Q: YOU TOLD US THE MINUTE YOU SAW IT YOU THOUGHT IT LOOKED LIKE THE ONE ON BUNDY, DIDN'T YOU, SIR?

A: YES, SIR, I THOUGHT IT LOOKED LIKE.

Q: YOU ARE A TRAINED DETECTIVE?

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL, FROM YESTERDAY, BOTH OF YOU, LET HIM FINISH ANSWERING THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU BEGIN TO ASK ANOTHER ONE. MR. BAILEY, LET HIM FINISH THE ANSWER. YOU ARE DRIVING THE COURT REPORTER NUTS.

MR. BAILEY: THAT WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO DO.

Q: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, HAD YOU FINISHED THE ANSWER YOU WERE GIVING?

A: I'M NOT SURE. IF YOU WOULD REPEAT THE QUESTION, I WILL GIVE YOU ANOTHER ANSWER.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU TELL US YESTERDAY THAT WHEN YOU SPOTTED THIS GLOVE, AS YOU CLAIM, THAT YOU RECOGNIZED IT AS ONE THAT LOOKED SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON BUNDY?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT YOU KNEW THAT THE ONE ON BUNDY, I BELIEVE YOU SAID, WAS A LEFT-HANDED GLOVE OR BELIEVED IT TO BE, DID YOU NOT?

A: NO.

Q: DID NOT? YOU NOTICED THAT THIS APPEARED TO BE A RIGHT-HANDED GLOVE?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE REASON THAT YOU HAD THREE DETECTIVES IN THREE SEPARATE TRIPS TRAMPLE BACK ALONG THAT PATH WAS BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO POINT OUT TO THEM THE FACT THAT THIS GLOVE LOOKED LIKE A MATCH FOR THE ONE THEY HAD SEEN OVER AT THE CRIME SCENE ON BUNDY; ISN'T THAT TRUE?

A: NOT ENTIRELY. I JUST WANTED TO SHOW THEM THE EVIDENCE THAT I THOUGHT I FOUND.

Q: DIDN'T YOU SAY TO THEM, "IN MY VIEW THIS LOOKS SIMILAR," OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT?

A: I BELIEVE I SAID THAT TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE I WENT INTO THAT DETAIL WITH THE OTHER TWO DETECTIVES, NO.

Q: DID YOU SAY ANYTHING WHEN YOU TOOK MR. VANNATTER BACK THERE? ANYTHING AT ALL?

A: I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD HAVE SAID. I BELIEVE DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TALKED TO VANNATTER AND LANGE. THEY JOINED ME AND I TOOK THEM BACK THE PATH.

Q: I DIDN'T ASK YOU THAT, SIR. WHAT I ASKED YOU WAS WHETHER OR NOT DURING THE TRIP YOU HAVE DESCRIBED, TRIP NO. 2, ACTUALLY NO. 3, IF YOU COUNT YOUR OWN, DID DETECTIVE PHILIP VANNATTER, THE BOSS IN THIS CASE, DID YOU SHARE WITH HIM YOUR OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE GLOVE OR DID YOU JUST REMAIN SILENT?

A: I COULD HAVE SHARED THOSE OBSERVATIONS, YES. I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY.

Q: YOU RECALL PHILLIPS BUT YOU DON'T RECALL DETECTIVE VANNATTER; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: INITIALLY I JUST REMEMBER TALKING TO PHILLIPS.

Q: LET'S GO TO DETECTIVE LANGE. YOU THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO BRING THE THIRD MEMBER OF THE FOUR-MAN TEAM BACK TO LOOK, DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU TELL DETECTIVE LANGE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THE RELEVANCE OF THAT GLOVE TO YOUR INVESTIGATION?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE I TALKED ABOUT RELEVANCE.

Q: WELL, WITHOUT USING THE WORD "RELEVANCE," JUST POLICE TALK, DID YOU SAY "THIS LOOKS IMPORTANT, TOM"?

A: NO.

Q: WHAT DID YOU SAY?

A: I SAID, "IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON BUNDY."

Q: YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT?

A: YES, YES.

Q: AND DID YOU POINT THAT OUT TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, THAT NOT ONLY DID IT LOOK LIKE THE GLOVE FROM BUNDY, BUT THAT IT APPEARED TO HAVE A SUBSTANCE ON IT MAKING IT STICKY WHICH COULD WELL HAVE BEEN BLOOD?

A: I'M NOT SURE IF I DID OR IF I DIDN'T.

Q: BUT IT HAD BEEN THROUGH YOUR MIND, HADN'T IT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE STICKY PART I TAKE IT YOU OBSERVED WHEN YOU TOOK THAT LITTLE TINY FLASHLIGHT OF YOURS AND SHINED IT ON THE GLOVE AND SAW SOMETHING OF A SHINY NATURE, AS OPPOSED TO A CAKED OR DRY SURFACE?

A: IT APPEARED THAT IT HAD SOMEWHAT OF A GLEAN OR A GLISTEN TO IT.

Q: OKAY. NOW, MY QUESTION IS DID YOU BRING THAT TO THE ATTENTION OF DETECTIVE PHILLIPS?

A: I COULD HAVE.

Q: DID YOU BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF DETECTIVE LANGE?

A: I COULD HAVE.

Q: DID YOU BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER?

A: I COULD HAVE.

Q: YOU DON'T HAVE A MEMORY OF ANY OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS AS WE SIT HERE?

A: I DON'T HAVE A MEMORY OF A SPECIFIC COMMENT THAT I MADE TO ANY OF THOSE DETECTIVES WHEN WE WERE STANDING BY THE GLOVE.

Q: WERE YOU MORE INTERESTED IN SHOWING EACH DETECTIVE INDIVIDUALLY THE GLOVE OR MORE INTERESTED IN TRAMPLING UP THE PATHWAY?

A: WELL, OBVIOUSLY I WAS INTERESTED IN SHOWING EACH DETECTIVE SEPARATELY AND GET A SEPARATE POINT OF VIEW OF WHAT THEY WERE VIEWING, AS I DID.

Q: IS IT YOUR PRACTICE, WHEN SOMETHING IS DISCOVERED, TO PROHIBIT DETECTIVES, EXCEPT ONE AT A TIME, TO SEE YOUR DISCOVERY? IS THAT THE WAY YOU USUALLY OPERATE?

A: AT A CRIME SCENE YOU WOULD WANT TO BRING IN AS FEW PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE INTO AN AREA.

Q: AS FEW PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. EIGHTEEN SETS OF FEET IS A FEW PEOPLE?

A: WELL, IF WE DID IT ALL AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EVEN WORSE.

Q: IT WOULD?

A: YES.

Q: WOULDN'T YOU THINK THE FIRST FOUR TRIPS WOULD BE ENOUGH TO BLOT OUT ANY FOOTPRINTS OF THE PERPETRATOR, IF ANY THERE WERE?

A: I DIDN'T SEE EVIDENCE OF ANY FOOTPRINTS.

Q: YOU WOULDN'T SEE ANY FOOTPRINTS IN LEAVES, WOULD YOU, DETECTIVE? YOU KNOW THAT TAKES AN EXPERT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DO YOU HAVE SOME TRAINING ABOUT WHAT CRIMINALISTS DO?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: DID YOU TELL US YESTERDAY YOU HAD TAKEN A COURSE WHEREIN FOOTPRINTS OF VARIOUS KINDS WERE DISCUSSED?

A: THERE WAS NOT A SPECIFIC COURSE, BUT YES, IT WAS MENTIONED.

Q: I SAID YOU TOOK A COURSE WHEREIN FOOTPRINTS WERE DISCUSSED? IS THAT TRUE?

A: NOT JUST FOOTPRINTS, SIR. THAT WAS PART OF A --

Q: I DIDN'T SAY JUST FOOTPRINTS.

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. LET HIM FINISH.

MR. BAILEY: OH, OKAY.

THE WITNESS: IT WAS PART OF A COURSE OR A SCHOOL.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: I UNDERSTAND THAT. IT WAS A COURSE WHEREIN FOOTPRINTS WERE DISCUSSED, WAS IT NOT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU LEARN ABOUT LATENT FOOTPRINTS IN THAT COURSE?

A: IT COULD HAVE BEEN MENTIONED.

Q: AND WHAT IS A LATENT FOOTPRINT? WOULD YOU EXPLAIN TO THE COURT AND JURY YOUR UNDERSTANDING?

A: IT IS A PRINT THAT IS NOT VISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE.

Q: HOW CAN IT BE VIEWED BY AN EXPERT, IF YOU WERE TAUGHT, SO THAT IT BECOMES PERCEIVABLE?

A: I'M SURE THERE IS SOME TYPE OF A CHEMICAL PROCESS, OBLIQUE LIGHTING, QUITE POSSIBLY MAYBE SOME TYPE OF INFRARED, OR AS I SAID, CHEMICAL PROCESS, BUT I'M NOT AN EXPERT IN THAT AREA.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU FIRST SAW WHAT YOU CLAIM WAS A BROWN OBJECT LAYING ON THE GROUND, AS YOU APPROACHED IT AND YOU NOTICED THAT IT WAS A GLOVE, PERHAPS A MATCH OF THE ONE YOU HAD SEEN AT BUNDY, DID YOU STOP AND THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU SHOULD NEXT DO?

A: YES.

Q: DID IT -- DID YOU THEN EXAMINE, BY THE WAY, THE SHRUBBERY OVER THE CHAINLINK FENCE WHERE SOMEONE COULD CONCEIVABLY HAVE CLIMBED OVER?

A: I DIDN'T -- I DIDN'T FOCUS MY ATTENTION TO THE SHRUBBERY AT THAT TIME, NO.

Q: DID YOU INSPECT IT TO SEE WHETHER IT WAS DAMAGED IN ANY WAY CONSISTENT WITH INTRUSION?

A: THAT WHOLE AREA WAS OVERGROWN AND DIRTY. THAT WOULD BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO MAKE THAT CONCLUSION.

Q: DID YOU LOOK FOR BROKEN TWIGS OR LEAVES THAT WERE DAMAGED IN THE SHRUBBERY ABOVE THE CHAINLINK FENCE AT THE SITUS WHERE THE GLOVE WAS SEEN?

A: I DID NOT LOOK, BUT I DID NOT SEE ANY OF THAT.

Q: SO YOU DIDN'T HAVE AT THAT POINT ANY INTEREST IN WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE HAD DROPPED THE GLOVE COMING OVER THE FENCE?

A: MY INTEREST AT THAT POINT WAS WHO LEFT THE GLOVE AND WHAT CONDITION THEY WERE IN.

Q: ALL RIGHT. LET'S ANALYZE THAT. YOU SAID "WHAT CONDITION THEY WERE IN." WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?

A: WELL, THERE APPEARED TO BE SOMETHING ON THE GLOVE THAT COULD BE BLOOD.

Q: THAT'S RIGHT. WHICH COULD WELL HAVE GOTTEN THERE IF THE KILLER HAD WORN IT WHILE SLAUGHTERING NICOLE BROWN AND RONALD GOLDMAN, CORRECT?

A: POSSIBLY.

Q: WELL, DID YOU THINK OF THAT, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: I THOUGHT OF A LOT OF THINGS AT THAT TIME.

Q: DID YOU THINK OF THAT?

A: THAT ALONG WITH OTHERS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET'S TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME. YOU CONSIDERED THAT THIS GLOVE COULD HAVE BEEN USED IN THOSE SLAYINGS AND THAT WAS OF SIGNIFICANCE, CORRECT?

A: COULD HAVE, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU DECIDE TO INQUIRE FURTHER AS A DETECTIVE TO TRY TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE AS TO WHAT IT WAS AND HOW IT GOT THERE?

A: AT THAT POINT I WAS JUST LOOKING FOR A PERSON THAT LEFT IT.

Q: OKAY. NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE PERSON THAT LEFT IT. I'M SURE THAT AS YOU STOOD THERE LOOKING AT AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF A BRUTAL MURDER WHOSE SCENE YOU HAD JUST VISITED A SHORT TIME BEFORE YOU BEGAN TO THINK ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE PERSON THAT MIGHT HAVE HAD CONTROL AND CUSTODY OF THAT GLOVE, CORRECT?

A: NO.

Q: YOU DIDN'T?

A: NO.

Q: WELL, DID YOU THINK A VICTIM, SOME VICTIM YOU HADN'T DISCOVERED, MIGHT HAVE TAKEN A GLOVE FROM THE SCENE OF THE CRIME AND DEPOSITED IT ON O.J. SIMPSON'S PROPERTY?

A: SIR, I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANYTHING AT THAT POINT.

Q: DID YOU THINK THAT?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU THINK THAT POSSIBLY SOMEONE WHO HAD BEEN INVOLVED AS A KILLER MIGHT HAVE DEPOSITED THAT GLOVE WITTINGLY OR UNWITTINGLY ON MR. SIMPSON'S PROPERTY?

A: I DID NOT THINK OF ANY OF THESE THINGS AT THAT TIME.

Q: YOU DIDN'T THINK OF ANY OF THESE THINGS?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU THINK THAT POSSIBLY WHOEVER PUT THAT GLOVE THERE, IF IT WAS PUT THERE, WAS SOMEBODY DANGEROUS?

A: POSSIBLY.

Q: WHAT TRAINING DO YOU HAVE ABOUT WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU SENSE DANGER? WHAT IS YOUR FIRST OBLIGATION?

A: I DON'T THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT.

Q: YOU DON'T?

A: NO.

Q: THE SAFETY OF THE OFFICER, I BELIEVE YOU SAID YESTERDAY, IS A PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION IN POLICE WORK?

A: IF YOU PHRASE IT LIKE THAT, MY OWN SAFETY, CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHAT THOUGHTS WERE YOU HAVING ABOUT YOUR SAFETY WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING AT WHAT YOU THOUGHT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DROPPED BY A KILLER?

A: AT THAT TIME I WAS THINKING THAT WHO IS WATCHING ME AT THIS TIME.

Q: AHA. DID YOU HAVE ANY CONCERN AT ALL THAT YOU MIGHT BE ATTACKED?

A: POSSIBLY.

Q: YOU ARE A POLICE OFFICER STANDING THERE WITH HIS WEAPON STICKING OUT FOR ALL TO SEE, WEREN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: ON YOUR HIP?

A: YES.

Q: THAT WOULD REPRESENT IN YOUR VIEW SOME KIND OF THREAT TO SOMEBODY WITH BLOOD ON HIS HANDS, WOULDN'T IT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU HAD NO REASON TO THINK THAT WHOEVER WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT GLOVE WAS WOUNDED, DID YOU?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD LEADING TO OR FROM THE GLOVE IN ANY DIRECTION, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: NO.

Q: WELL, IF THEY WERE WOUNDED, DID YOU THINK THEY HAD BEEN TO A DOCTOR AND GOT FIXED UP?

A: I COULDN'T SPECULATE ON THAT, SIR.

Q: WELL, WHY DID YOU THINK THEY WERE WOUNDED? YOU TELL ME?

A: SOMEONE LEAVING THE SCENE AT BUNDY WAS BLEEDING FROM THE LEFT SIDE OF THEIR BODY.

Q: YOU ARE SURE OF THAT?

A: I'M NOT SURE, BUT AT THAT TIME THAT WAS A CONCLUSION THAT WE HAD MADE.

Q: A CONCLUSION THAT YOU HAD MADE. DID YOU EVER STUDY ANYTHING ABOUT BLOOD, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: BLOOD AND BLOOD SPATTER, WAS THAT PART OF YOUR COURSE BEFORE YOU BECAME A DETECTIVE?

A: BRIEFLY, YES.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT READING BLOOD SPOTS TO DETERMINE THEIR ORIGIN?

A: THEIR ORIGIN, SIR?

Q: YES.

A: IN OTHER WORDS, HOW THEY --

Q: HOW THEY GOT THERE?

A: IN A GENERAL SENSE, YES.

Q: FIRST THING YOU LEARNED IS THAT A SPOT WHICH IS ROUND HAS BEEN DROPPED FROM SOME OBJECT OR PERSON THAT IS NOT IN MOTION, DID YOU NOT?

A: THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.

Q: AND WHEN A SPOT IS DROPPED BY SOMEONE WHO IS BLEEDING AND MOVING, IT LEAVES A DIFFERENT SHAPE ON A HARD SURFACE, SUCH AS THE CONCRETE OF THAT WALKWAY, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE SPOTS THAT YOU SAW ON THE ONES THAT WERE PHOTOGRAPHED FOR THIS CASE WERE ROUND, WEREN'T THEY?

A: THEY APPEARED TO BE ROUND, YES.

Q: YES. AND SO IF THIS WAS ASSOCIATED WITH A KILLER, WHAT YOU WERE RECONSTRUCTING AND DETECTING IN YOUR OWN MIND WAS SOMEONE LEAVING THE SCENE OF A VERY BLOODY DOUBLE ASSASSINATION AND PERIODICALLY STOPPING AND DRIPPING AS HE WENT? IS THAT WHAT YOU THOUGHT?

A: NO.

Q: WELL, YOU KNEW THAT THEY WEREN'T DROPPED BY ANYONE WHO WAS RUNNING, JUST FROM THE SHAPE, DIDN'T YOU?

A: I'M NOT AN EXPERT IN THAT FIELD, SO I DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TRANSPIRED ON THAT WALKWAY.

Q: YOU JUST HAD SUCH TRAINING YOU TOLD US --.

A: I DIDN'T SAY --

Q: SORRY. I HADN'T FINISHED THE QUESTION.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: WAIT.

MR. BAILEY: MAY I FINISH THE QUESTION?

THE WITNESS: ABSOLUTELY, SIR.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: I BELIEVE YOU SAID YOU HAD ENOUGH TRAINING TO RECOGNIZE THAT A ROUND SPOT WAS NOT MADE BY SOMETHING IN MOTION? DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT?

A: NO.

Q: OH, YOU DIDN'T?

A: NO. I SAID A ROUND SPOT WAS CONSISTENT WITH SOMEONE THAT IS NOT IN MOTION, BUT I NEVER VIEWED THOSE DROPS TO ANY MORE EXTENT THAN TO SAY THAT THEY WERE ROUND. I NEVER WENT BACK AND INSPECTED THEM.

Q: I UNDERSTAND. YOU WERE A DETECTIVE IN THIS CASE AND THE FIRST ONE ON THE SCENE TO DO ANY REAL DETECTING, WEREN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: THESE WERE POINTED OUT TO YOU BY A PATROLMAN NAMED RISKE, RIGHT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WELL, DID HE TAKE HIS RATHER POWERFUL FLASHLIGHT AND STOP AT EACH DROP AND ILLUMINATE IT SO THAT YOU COULD VIEW IT?

A: WE DID NOT STOP AT EVERY DROP, NO.

Q: DID YOU JUST RUN BY AND CATCH THEM ON THE FLY? HOW DID YOU VIEW THEM?

A: HE IS EXPLAINING THE SCENE. HE IS WALKING US THROUGH THE SCENE. WE DID NOT STOP AND INSPECT EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME EVERY TIME.

Q: LET'S BACK UP THEN. DO YOU NOW WISH TO SAY THAT YOU DON'T KNOW, AS OF THAT EVENING, DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER THEY WERE ROUND OR OTHERWISE?

A: I'M NOT SAYING THAT, SIR. I'M SAYING THEY APPEARED ROUND, BUT I AM NOT AN EXPERT TO DETERMINE HOW OR AT WHAT HEIGHT OR AT WHAT SPEED THE PERSON IS MOVING. I CAN'T TESTIFY TO THAT.

Q: I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT YOU LEARNED IN SCHOOL THAT ROUND IS IN CONSISTENT WITH MOTION PERIOD. IS THAT WHAT YOU MEANT TO SAY?

A: NO, IT ISN'T WHAT I MEANT TO SAY.

Q: OKAY. DO YOU KNOW OR WERE YOU EVER SHOWN WHAT A BLOOD DROP LOOKS LIKE IF IT HAS BEEN DROPPED TO A HARD SURFACE BY SOMEONE MOVING?

A: YES.

Q: AND DO YOU KNOW THAT THE FASTER A PERSON IS MOVING THE MORE ELONGATED THE SHAPE OF THE DROP AS IT COMES TO REST?

A: YES, IT WOULD BE.

Q: OKAY. NOW, DID YOU HAVE ANY WAY TO KNOW HOW LONG THOSE DROPS HAD BEEN ON THAT WALKWAY? THAT IS, ANY AGING IN THAT WAY?

A: NO.

Q: NO. OKAY. NOW, COMING BACK, IF WE WILL, IF WE MAY, TO BUNDY, WAS IT NOT REALLY YOUR IDEA TO SCALE THE WALL AND GO INTO MR. SIMPSON'S HOUSE, PREMISES?

A: DETECTIVE VANNATTER MADE A STATEMENT THAT WE SHOULD GO IN AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO IT AND I SAID, "WELL, I WILL GO OVER THE WALL."

Q: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IN FACT, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT YOU WENT TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND URGED UPON HIM THAT THIS WAS AN EMERGENCY SITUATION, THAT ACTION HAD TO BE TAKEN IMMEDIATELY, THAT THERE MIGHT BE VICTIMS BLEEDING TO DEATH INSIDE THE PREMISES, AND YOU FELT SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE RIGHT NOW? ISN'T THAT WHAT HAPPENED?

A: NO. THAT WAS A CONVERSATION BETWEEN VANNATTER, MYSELF, AND BOTH OF US EXPERIENCED THE SAME CONCERNS.

Q: DID YOU SAY TO HIM "IN MY VIEW THIS IS AN EMERGENCY AND WE NEED TO ACT NOW"?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU NOT SAY THAT TO HIM BEFORE HE MADE ANY SUCH STATEMENT TO YOU?

A: HE WAS MAKING SIMILAR STATEMENTS TO ME AT THE SAME TIME IN THIS CONVERSATION.

Q: AND DID YOU VOLUNTEER TO BE THE ONE THAT HURDLED THE WALL?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU REALIZE, WHEN YOU HURDLED THAT WALL, THAT THERE MIGHT SOME DAY BE A LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE PROPRIETY OF YOUR ACTIONS?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU REALIZE, WHEN YOU HURDLED THE WALL, THAT YOU WERE INEXORABLY A PART OF THIS CASE FOR AS LONG AS IT MIGHT LAST?

A: I DON'T THINK I WAS THINKING ANY OF THOSE THINGS, SIR.

Q: IT DIDN'T OCCUR TO YOU?

A: NO.

Q: HAD YOU RUN ANY NUMBERS OF CARS OUT ON THE STREET, OTHER THAN THE BRONCO, OR HAD THEY BEEN RUN BY SOMEONE TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

A: I MIGHT HAVE RUN THE VEHICLE THAT WAS JUST EAST OF THE ASHFORD GATE.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A FOREIGN -- A FOREIGN CAR. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A 280 OR A CELICA. I'M NOT SURE WHICH IT WAS.

Q: OKAY. JAPANESE CAR OF SOME KIND?

A: I THINK SO.

Q: WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER ABOUT IT?

A: I THINK IT WAS DARK-COLORED AND QUITE CLUTTERED IN THE INTERIOR, AND I SOMEWHAT REMEMBER -- I THINK IT WAS REGISTERED SOMEWHERE IN WEST HOLLYWOOD OR HOLLYWOOD.

Q: AND WHEN YOU RAN IT THROUGH THE COMPUTER, DID IT DISGORGE A NAME AS THE REGISTERED OWNER?

A: I DON'T RECALL THAT.

Q: DO YOU REMEMBER HEARING THE NAME BRIAN KAELIN BEFORE YOU EVER WENT OVER THE WALL?

A: NO. I DON'T RECALL THAT, NO.

Q: OKAY. WHEN YOU WENT OVER THE WALL, AND LET THE OTHER OFFICERS IN, YOU PROCEEDED ULTIMATELY TO KATO KAELIN'S ROOM, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU HEAR ANY OF THE OTHER DETECTIVES INQUIRE OF MR. KAELIN IF HE HAD SEEN MR. SIMPSON THAT EVENING?

A: I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS CONVERSATION TO THAT EFFECT. MORE LIKE "DO YOU KNOW IF MR. SIMPSON IS IN THE HOUSE OR THE MAIN HOUSE?"

Q: OKAY. BUT YOU DID NOT HEAR ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE WHEREABOUTS OF MR. SIMPSON AS MR. KAELIN MIGHT BE ABLE TO ATTEST TO IT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN THE OTHERS WENT TO ARNELLE'S ROOM AT KATO'S SUGGESTION, I TAKE IT, YOU STAYED BEHIND?

A: YES.

Q: HAD ANYBODY DIRECTED YOU TO STAY AND QUESTION KAELIN?

A: NO.

Q: THIS IS SOMETHING YOU DECIDED TO DO ON YOUR OWN; IS IT NOT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU GO TO THE LEAD DETECTIVE, OR ANY OF THEM, SINCE THEY WERE ALL YOUR SUPERIOR, AND ASK PERMISSION TO INTERROGATE KATO KAELIN?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU ASK PERMISSION WITH ANY OF THEM TO TEST HIM FOR SOBRIETY OR DRUG USE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU ASK PERMISSION OF ANY OF THEM TO SEARCH HIS PREMISES?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU BEGAN TO TALK TO KAELIN, YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHO HE WAS?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU REPRESENT THAT YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS HIS CAR PARKED OUTSIDE THE ASHFORD GATE?

A: NO, I DID NOT KNOW THAT.

Q: DID YOU EVER QUESTION HIM ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD AN AUTOMOBILE NEARBY?

A: I DID NOT, NO.

Q: DID YOU VIEW HIM AS A SUSPECT?

A: HE DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE SO MUCH A SUSPECT, BUT THEN AGAIN, I DIDN'T REALLY KNOW WHAT HIS FUNCTION WAS AT THE HOUSE.

Q: DID YOU ASK HIM WHAT CLOTHES HE HAD WORN THAT NIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: DID HE SHOW YOU?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU INSPECT THEM LOOKING FOR SIGNS THAT MIGHT IN SOME WAY TIE HIM TO THE HOMICIDES?

A: I LOOKED AT HIS CLOTHES AND HIS SHOES, YES.

Q: OKAY. YOU TURNED HIS SHOES OVER TO LOOK AT THE SOLES TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY BLOOD ON OR IN BETWEEN THE RIDGES OF THE SOLES, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE IN DOING THAT, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY BLOOD ON THE SOLES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, IN INTERROGATING KAELIN WERE YOU WATCHING HIM CAREFULLY TO SEE IF HE DID ANYTHING UNUSUAL OR MADE ANY LITTLE SLIPS IN HIS TALKS WITH YOU THAT MIGHT CAPTURE YOUR INTEREST?

A: WELL, MR. KAELIN IS MR. KAELIN, AND I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THEN, BUT HE IS RATHER DIFFERENT WHEN HE TALKS.

Q: I'M SURE THAT IS INTERESTING. WOULD YOU TRY TO ANSWER NOW THE QUESTION I PUT TO YOU.

A: I WAS TRYING TO. THE SPECIFIC QUESTION, SIR, ONCE AGAIN?

Q: THE SPECIFIC QUESTION WAS WHILE YOU QUESTIONED MR. KAELIN, OR SPOKE TO HIM, WERE YOU OBSERVING HIM FOR THE PURPOSE OF PICKING UP ANY OF THE LITTLE SIGNALS THAT INTERROGATORS LOOK FOR; NERVOUSNESS, CONTRADICTION, SLIPS OF THE TONGUE, THAT SORT OF THING?

A: NOT CONSCIOUSLY, NO.

Q: BY THE WAY, HAD YOU FELT THE HOOD OF THE KAELIN AUTOMOBILE, WHAT TURNS OUT TO BE THE KAELIN AUTOMOBILE, AS YOU DID THE BRONCO?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Q: YOU WEREN'T CONCERNED ABOUT THE RECENT HISTORY OF THAT VEHICLE, I TAKE IT?

A: WELL, I DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING ON THAT VEHICLE OR ANYTHING AROUND THAT VEHICLE THAT WAS REALLY VERY SUSPICIOUS.

Q: AND YOU WEREN'T CONCERNED WHETHER IT HAD BEEN RECENTLY DRIVEN, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS PARKED VERY CLOSE TO MR. SIMPSON'S PREMISES; ISN'T THAT SO?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, IN QUESTIONING MR. KAELIN THERE WAS IN YOUR MIND A VERY URGENT MATTER TO WHICH YOU NEEDED AN ANSWER, WAS THERE NOT?

A: WHICH QUESTION WAS THAT?

Q: THERE WAS SOMETHING YOU REALLY WANTED TO KNOW WHEN YOU WENT INTO HIS ROOM; ISN'T THAT TRUE?

A: NO.

Q: WELL, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS A DETECTIVE CAN ASK A WITNESS OR POTENTIAL WITNESS IS DID YOU NOTICE SOMETHING UNUSUAL, CORRECT?

A: I DON'T THINK THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT. IT IS A PRETTY GENERAL STATEMENT, SIR.

Q: I SAID ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS A DETECTIVE CAN ASK OF A POTENTIAL WITNESS IS HAVING NOTICED ANYTHING EXTRAORDINARY OR UNUSUAL; ISN'T THAT SO?

A: EXTRAORDINARY I WOULD AGREE WITH.

Q: OKAY. NOW, AND YOU PUT THAT QUESTION TO MR. KAELIN, DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: BUT THERE WAS ANOTHER ISSUE SO IMPORTANT THAT YOU HAD TO CUT HIM OFF AND PUT ANOTHER QUESTION BEFORE HE COULD RESPOND, TRUE?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS THE SITUATION.

Q: WELL, DO YOU NORMALLY ASK SOMEBODY A QUESTION AND THEN BEFORE THEY HAVE A FAIR CHANCE TO ANSWER YOU CUT THEM OFF WITH ANOTHER ONE?

MS. CLARK: SOMEBODY DOES.

THE WITNESS: MR. KAELIN WASN'T EXACTLY QUICKLY RESPONDING TO CERTAIN QUESTIONS, AND THAT IS TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION WHY I PROBABLY CAME UP WITH ANOTHER QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: I NOW UNDERSTAND THAT THE REASON KATO GOT QUESTION 2 BEFORE HE ANSWERED QUESTION 1 WAS THAT HE WAS SLOW ON THE DRAW; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN DID YOU FIRST TELL SOMEBODY THAT, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: I WAS NEVER ASKED THAT.

Q: YOU NEVER WERE?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: WELL, YOU VOLUNTEERED THAT YOU CUT KATO OFF IN PRIOR TESTIMONY, DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: YOU DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HIM BEING SLOW TO RESPOND THEN, DID YOU?

A: NO.

Q: IS THAT SOMETHING YOU RECENTLY REMEMBERED?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IS IT SOMETHING YOU SIMPLY LEFT OUT?

A: NO, IT IS SOMETHING I WASN'T ASKED.

Q: WAS THERE ANY OTHER REASON TO INTERJECT QUESTION 2 ABOUT THE BRONCO?

A: IT WAS A QUESTION THAT WE WANTED ANSWERED. I THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT TO KNOW IF MR. SIMPSON WAS HOME.

Q: WELL, IT WAS IMPORTANT TO YOU, WASN'T IT?

A: IT WAS IMPORTANT TO ALL OF US.

Q: HAD YOU BEEN DIRECTED BY ANYBODY TO MAKE THAT INQUIRY OF KATO KAELIN?

A: NO.

Q: SO I TAKE IT NOW AT THIS POINT, HAVING BEEN TO THE BRONCO AND HURDLED THE WALL AND INTERROGATING KAELIN, YOU VIEWED YOURSELF AS A DETECTIVE VERY MUCH IN THE CASE?

A: WELL, I'M ALWAYS A DETECTIVE, YES.

Q: IN THE SIMPSON CASE?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: IS THAT YOUR PERCEPTION OF YOURSELF?

A: YES. I WAS ASKED TO ASSIST THOSE DETECTIVES, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, MR. KAELIN TOLD YOU THAT THAT CAR NORMALLY WAS DRIVEN BY MR. SIMPSON, CORRECT?

A: YES. I BELIEVE HE SAID IT WAS O.J.'S VEHICLE.

Q: AND YOU ASKED WHETHER HE HAD DRIVEN IT THAT NIGHT?

A: I BELIEVE I DID, YES.

Q: AND MR. KAELIN RESPONDED HE THOUGHT SO, BUT HE WASN'T SURE?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE SO, YES.

Q: THEN YOU GOT BACK TO THE QUESTION OF -- ABOUT UNUSUAL OCCURRENCES, CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND THE WORD YOU USED IN SPEAKING WITH KATO WAS "UNUSUAL," WASN'T IT?

A: YES.

Q: AND NOW THAT HE FINALLY DID GET A CHANCE TO ANSWER, WHAT DID HE SAY?

A: HE SAID AT ABOUT 10:45 HE HEARD A CRASHING ON HIS WALL AND HE THOUGHT THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN EARTHQUAKE. HIS PICTURE SHOOK. AND THEN HE CONTINUED TO SAY THAT HE WENT OUT TO INVESTIGATE IT AND HE SAW A LIMO AT THE GATE.

Q: WELL, HE NEVER SUGGESTED TO YOU THAT HE WENT BACK ALONG THE WALL BETWEEN THE WALL AND THE FENCE TO THE AREA OF THE NOISE, DID HE?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: DID HE TELL YOU HE STARTED TO DO THAT BEFORE MR. SIMPSON LEFT FOR THE AIRPORT, BUT BECAUSE THE DOG WOULDN'T GO WITH HIM HE WAS AFRAID AND CANCELLED THE INVESTIGATION? DID HE MENTION THAT TO YOU?

A: NO.

Q: YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT AT THE TIME?

A: DIDN'T KNOW AT ANY TIME.

Q: OKAY. YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAS HIS TESTIMONY IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU DISCUSS WITH KATO WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD EVER HEARD SOUNDS LIKE THAT BEFORE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU DISCUSS WITH HIM POSSIBLE CAUSES OF SUCH A SOUND?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU ASK HIM TO RELATE IT TO ANY OTHER EXPERIENCE SO THAT YOU MIGHT BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT COULD OR COULD NOT HAVE CAUSED THAT DISTURBANCE?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: DID YOU THEN AND THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, DECIDE ON YOUR OWN TO GO OUT AND INVESTIGATE THE SOURCE OF THAT SOUND?

A: I DECIDED TO GO OUT AND TRY TO ORIENT MYSELF WITH THE PROPERTY AND SEE WHERE THAT SOUND COULD HAVE COME FROM, YES.

Q: DID YOU DECIDE THAT YOU WOULD GO TO THE PROBABLE SOURCE AS DESCRIBED BY MR. KAELIN BY RELATING IT TO AN AIR CONDITIONER THAT PLAINLY STUCK THROUGH THE WALL?

A: I THINK WHEN I WENT TO THE SOUTH BORDER AND I SAW THE PATH, I WALKED DOWN THE PATH AS A CONTINUATION OF DISCOVERING WHERE THAT SOUND OF THAT WALL WAS LOCATED.

Q: WE ARE STILL BACK IN KATO'S ROOM. I'M ASKING WHETHER OR NOT BEFORE YOU EVER LEFT THAT ROOM YOU MADE A DECISION THAT YOU WOULD GO INVESTIGATE THE SOURCE OF THE SOUND?

A: I BELIEVE WHEN I WALKED -- WHEN I WALKED HIM INTO THE HOUSE AND I WALKED THROUGH THE HOUSE, WHEN I TOLD PHIL, "WHY DON'T YOU TALK TO THIS GUY AT THE BAR," I THINK I HAD DECIDED TO GO OUT AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT SOUND CAME FROM ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE WALL, YES.

Q: AM I TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WAS A DECISION MADE WHILE WALKING?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. WHEN YOU LEFT THE ROOM YOU HADN'T MADE THE DECISION?

A: I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN IT HAPPENED, BUT I WOULD -- TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION WOULD BE WHEN I WAS WALKING INTO THE HOUSE, YES.

Q: BY THE TIME THAT YOU GOT TO THE HOUSE YOU HAD MADE THE DECISION, CORRECT?

A: I DIDN'T REALLY -- I CAN'T REALLY RECOLLECT EXACTLY AT WHAT STEP I DID, BUT I WAS WALKING HIM IN, ASKED HIM TO SIT DOWN. AND AS I WALKED OUT, I WALKED OUT TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT SOUND WOULD HAVE COME FROM ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL.

SO DURING THAT PERIOD BETWEEN -- BETWEEN KAELIN'S ROOM AND THE FRONT DOOR OF THE RESIDENCE OR TELLING VANNATTER IF HE WOULD TALK TO THE MAN AT THE BAR, BETWEEN THAT PERIOD I DID.

Q: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IS IT NOT TRUE THAT AS YOU DECIDED TO WALK OUT TO THE SOURCE OF THE NOISE YOU DECIDED TO GO ALONE?

A: I WAS ALREADY ALONE, SIR.

Q: WELL, YOU WERE WITH KAELIN WHO COULD HAVE TAKEN YOU OUT THERE, I SUPPOSE, COULD HE NOT?

A: I'M SURE HE COULD HAVE.

Q: YOU WERE WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER, THE LEAD, WITH WHOM YOU NEVER DISCUSSED YOUR PLANS, CORRECT?

A: NO, I WASN'T WITH HIM. I YELLED TO HIM. HE WAS IN THE KITCHEN.

Q: YOU WERE IN THE SAME BUILDING WITH HIM, WERE YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU WERE THE GENTLEMAN THAT HAD TO STAND AT DOROTHY AND BUNDY FOR AN HOUR FOR LACK OF INSTRUCTION, ARE YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU DECIDED, WITHOUT CONFIDING IN ANYBODY, TO GO ALONE BEHIND THAT BUILDING, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: DID IT OCCUR TO YOU THAT MR. KAELIN MIGHT BE ABLE TO ASSIST YOU IN POINTING OUT THE EXACT SOURCE OF THE NOISE AS HE RECONSTRUCTED IT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: DID YOU THINK OF THAT?

A: NO.

Q: NEVER THOUGHT OF IT?

A: NO.

Q: DID IT OCCUR TO YOU THAT THERE MIGHT BE DANGER LURKING OUT THERE IN THE DARKNESS IN THE VICINITY OF THE SOUTH WALL?

A: AT THAT TIME?

Q: YES.

A: NO.

Q: THAT THOUGHT NEVER CROSSED YOUR MIND?

A: IT WASN'T PRESENT. IT WASN'T FOREMOST IN MY MIND, NO.

Q: HAD IT UP TO THAT POINT CROSSED YOUR MIND THAT THERE MIGHT BE WHAT YOU CALL A SUSPECT IN THE VICINITY, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY, BUT IT SEEMED VERY REMOTE.

Q: HOW DID YOU DISCARD THAT POSSIBILITY AT THE TIME YOU DECIDED TO MAKE THIS SOLO INVESTIGATION?

A: I DIDN'T DISCARD IT; IT JUST WASN'T FOREMOST IN MY MIND.

Q: YOU ARE TELLING ME AS A POLICE OFFICER THAT HAVING ONCE BEEN APPREHENSIVE ABOUT POSSIBLE PHYSICAL HARM TO YOURSELF, YOU WERE ABLE TO TURN THAT ASIDE?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I DON'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE PHYSICAL HARM, SIR.

Q: WHAT CAUSED YOUR CONCERN TO DISSIPATE, IF ANYTHING, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, ABOUT YOUR SAFETY?

A: I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND, SIR.

Q: YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION?

A: NO. AT WHAT POINT?

Q: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO CLIMBING THE WALL YOU EXPRESSED THE NOTION THAT THERE MIGHT BE SUSPECTS AROUND? DO YOU KNOW THAT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SUSPECTS ON THE PREMISES MEANS IN THIS CASE SOMEONE WHO MIGHT BE CONNECTED WITH A DOUBLE MURDER, DOESN'T IT?

A: YES.

Q: THAT PERSON SHOULD ALWAYS BE CONSIDERED BY ANY INTELLIGENT OFFICER TO BE POTENTIALLY ARMED AND DANGEROUS; IS THAT NOT SO?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE POSSIBLE EXISTENCE OUT THERE IN THE SIMPSON SHADOWS OF SOMEONE WHO WAS ARMED AND DANGEROUS?

A: AT THAT POINT IT WAS SOMEWHAT REMOTE, SINCE WE HAD ALREADY ENTERED THE HOUSE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, HAVING ENTERED THE HOUSE SHIELDED YOU FROM ANY DANGER BY THE SOUTH WALL? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US?

A: OF COURSE NOT.

Q: YOU UNDERSTOOD SOMETHING UNUSUAL HAD TAKEN PLACE OUT THERE, CORRECT?

A: NO. THAT WAS KATO'S DESCRIPTION, SOMETHING UNUSUAL. THAT WAS WHAT HE DESCRIBED.

Q: WELL, YOU THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO GO RIGHT OUT THERE, DIDN'T YOU?

A: I THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU NORMALLY ORDER PHIL VANNATTER AROUND?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU IN THIS CASE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU INSTRUCT KATO KAELIN TO SIT ON A BAR STOOL?

A: YES.

Q: WHY DID YOU INSTRUCT HIM TO DO THAT IN A HOUSE WHERE YOU WERE THE GUEST AND HE WAS THE RESIDENT?

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

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: HAD YOU LEARNED BY THAT TIME THAT HE LIVED IN THAT BUNGALOW?

A: I THINK, YES, I CONCLUDED THAT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, WHY WOULD YOU INSTRUCT HIM TO SIT ON A BAR STOOL?

A: BECAUSE I WANTED HIM TO SIT THERE.

Q: WHY DID YOU WANT HIM TO SIT THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: SO DETECTIVE VANNATTER OR ANOTHER DETECTIVE COULD TALK TO HIM.

Q: THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF TWO OF THEM, WOULDN'T IT?

A: TWO OF WHO?

Q: IF YOU INSTRUCT VANNATTER TO GO AND TALK TO KAELIN, THAT TIES UP TWO OF THE FOUR PEOPLE THAT WERE WITH YOU IN THE HOUSE, OR THE FIVE, DOESN'T IT, HAVING A CONVERSATION?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DO YOU UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, THAT EVERYBODY HAS GOT TO BE SOMEPLACE?

A: I AGREE.

Q: AND THAT ONE PERSON CAN'T BE IN TWO PLACES?

A: AGREED.

Q: SO THAT IF YOU CAUSED TWO PEOPLE TO JOIN TOGETHER IN A CONVERSATION AT A SPECIFIC PLACE, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THEY WILL BE AT ANY OTHER PLACE UNTIL THE CONVERSATION IS OVER?

A: I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.

Q: OKAY. NOW, I WILL ASK YOU ONE MORE TIME. DID YOU USE WORDS OF INSTRUCTION TO PHIL VANNATTER TELLING HIM, WITHOUT SUGGESTING ANY SUBJECT MATTER, GO TALK TO KAELIN?

A: NOT IN THAT MANNER, BUT YES, I DID.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU HAD ALREADY FORMULATED A PLAN THAT YOU WERE GOING TO LOOK OUT BEHIND THE BUILDING IN THE DARKNESS FOR SOMETHING, CORRECT?

A: NO.

Q: YOU HAD NOT?

A: I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IF THAT WAS ACCESSIBLE FROM THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE.

Q: DIDN'T YOU TELL US THAT AS YOU WALKED FROM THE BUNGALOW TO THE HOUSE YOU HAD MADE A DECISION THAT YOU WOULD GO LOOK AT THE SOURCE OF THE NOISE?

A: I WASN'T EVEN --

Q: I'M SORRY, DID YOU SAY THAT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. WELL, THEN AT THE TIME YOU SAID, "PHIL, GO TALK TO MR. KAELIN," YOU WERE ON YOUR WAY, WEREN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: YOU DIDN'T HESITATE AT ALL? ONCE THAT UTTERANCE WAS OUT OF YOUR MOUTH YOU KEPT RIGHT ON MOVING?

A: YES.

Q: YOU SAW PHILLIPS ON THE TELEPHONE?

A: YES, I BELIEVE SO.

Q: AND DID YOU SEE DETECTIVE LANGE?

A: I DON'T RECALL IF I SAW HIM.

Q: WAS HE IN THE PROXIMITY OF ARNELLE SIMPSON APPARENTLY ENGAGED IN CONVERSATION OF SOME SORT?

A: HE COULD HAVE BEEN.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THAT IS FIVE PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AFTER YOU LEAVE? ALL ENGAGED IN DOING SOMETHING, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, TAKE US BACK, IF YOU WILL, TO YOUR INITIAL TRAINING ABOUT THE BUDDY SYSTEM, BOTH MILITARY AND POLICE.

DID YOU NOT SAY THAT IT IS AXIOMATIC THAT YOU DON'T GO IN ALONE IF DANGER COULD POSSIBLY BE PRESENT?

A: WELL, CONSIDERING CERTAIN SITUATIONS, THAT WOULD BE DESIRABLE, YES.

Q: LET'S LOOK AT THIS SITUATION. YOU WERE INVESTIGATING, WHAT YOU HAVE CALLED FROM YOUR OWN TESTIMONY, AN EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT HOMICIDE, WEREN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. PROBABLY THE MOST SERIOUS THAT YOU HAD ENCOUNTERED AMONG THE ELEVEN ON WHICH YOU HAD WORKED? IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. YOU HAD SEEN EVIDENCE THAT SOMEBODY, EITHER PSYCHOTIC OR PSYCHOPATHIC, HAD BRUTALIZED TWO HUMAN BODIES WITH SOMETHING, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU KNEW THAT THAT SOMEONE COULD BE UNPREDICTABLE AND DEADLY IF YOU WERE TO ENCOUNTER THEM, CORRECT?

A: I DON'T THINK WE KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT THE KILLER AT THAT TIME, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THEY WOULD BE DANGEROUS, CONSIDERING THE SCENE.

Q: WOULDN'T YOU DRAW AN INFERENCE THAT SOMEBODY CAPABLE OF THAT KIND OF MURDER MIGHT NOT HESITATE TO TAKE YOU DOWN?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. SO AS YOU LEAVE THE BUILDING YOU LEFT THREE GUNS BEHIND, DIDN'T YOU?

A: THREE DETECTIVES, YES.

Q: THREE DETECTIVES, EACH OF WHOM WAS CARRYING THE SAME SIDEARM THAT YOU ARE WEARING TODAY, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS A GLOCK AUTOMATIC PISTOL, IS IT?

A: NO.

Q: WHAT IS IT?

A: I BELIEVE ALL THREE OF THOSE DETECTIVES, ONE WAS CARRYING A TWO-INCH .38 MODEL 36, ONE WAS CARRYING A SMITH AND WESSON STAINLESS STEEL, AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER, I DON'T RECALL WHAT HE WAS CARRYING. I WAS CARRYING A BERETTA.

Q: ALL AUTOMATIC?

A: YES.

Q: EACH CAPABLE OF FIRING SEVERAL SHOTS IN QUICK SUCCESSION?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, HAD YOU THOUGHT ABOUT ASKING ONE OF THOSE FELLOWS TO GO WITH YOU, MAYBE SOMEONE WHO HAD A GROWN-UP FLASHLIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: YOU NEVER CONSIDERED THAT FOR A MOMENT?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, I WILL ASK YOU ONCE AGAIN: WAS IT NOT YOUR PURPOSE TO BE IN THE AREA ALONG THE SOUTH WALL ALONE?

A: NO, IT WASN'T.

Q: IT JUST WORKED OUT THAT WAY? IS THAT IT?

A: I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THE SOUTH WALL WAS ACCESSIBLE.

Q: NO. IT JUST WORKED OUT THAT YOU LEFT THE HOUSE AND MADE YOUR INVESTIGATION FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES OR MORE ALONE?

A: THAT IS HOW IT WORKED OUT.

Q: THAT IS HOW IT WORKED OUT. YOU NOW WALK BACK THE PATHWAY TOWARD WHAT YOU THINK WILL BE THE WALL WITH THE AIR CONDITIONER, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AT THAT POINT YOU ARE SOLELY EXPECTING TO INQUIRE INTO POSSIBLE SOURCES OF SOMETHING THAT THUMPED THE WALL AND MADE A PICTURE SHAKE?

A: THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU PROCEED SLOWLY AND WITH SOME CAUTION INTO THIS AREA?

A: YES.

Q: HOW FAR AHEAD OF YOU WOULD THIS LITTLE TEENY FLASHLIGHT ILLUMINATE THE WAY?

A: FIVE, SIX FEET.

Q: OKAY. BUT IT WAS BRIGHT ENOUGH TO ALERT ANYONE IN THAT DARKNESS THAT SOMEBODY WAS COMING CARRYING A LIGHT, WASN'T IT?

A: YES, IT WOULD.

Q: YOU COULD SEE IT FROM QUITE A DISTANCE IF IT WERE POINTED AT YOU?

A: YES.

Q: SO YOU PROCEED ALONG THE WALKWAY PAUSING TO LOOK AT THE STRUCTURE, WHAT YOU CALLED INDENTATIONS?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU COME UPON A GLOVE?

A: EVENTUALLY, YES.

Q: YOU TOLD US THAT YOU LEARNED IN SCHOOL THAT FOOTPRINTS NOT VISIBLE TO YOU MIGHT BE RAISED BY A CRIMINALIST, TRUE?

A: THAT IS POSSIBLE, YES.

Q: WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE DID IT OCCUR TO YOU THAT THERE COULD BE IN THAT AREA, EITHER WHERE YOU HAD JUST GONE OR IN THE OTHER DIRECTION, SOME FOOTPRINTS THAT COULD HELP IDENTIFY THE PERSON WHO MAY HAVE DROPPED IT THERE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR. HONOR, THIS IS ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: WE HAVE.

MR. BAILEY: WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO PURSUE IT; FOUNDATIONAL.

THE COURT: BRIEFLY. BRIEFLY.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DID IT OCCUR TO YOU?

A: THAT WASN'T ON MY MIND AT THAT TIME, NO.

Q: DID IT OCCUR TO YOU THAT IF YOU WALKED BACK AND FORTH YOU MIGHT DAMAGE ANY EXISTING FOOTPRINT EVIDENCE IN THE LEAVES?

MS. CLARK: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS. THIS IS THE THIRD TIME WE HAVE BEEN ON IT.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: I ASKED YOU YESTERDAY WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD HAVE, HAD YOU CHOSEN TO DO SO, TAKEN THE DETECTIVES ALONGSIDE THE CHAINLINK FENCE ON THE OTHER SIDE AND SHOWN THEM THE GLOVE BY SHINING YOUR LIGHT THROUGH IT. COULD YOU HAVE DONE THAT?

MS. CLARK: AGAIN, ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T THINK WE COULD HAVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THE QUESTION. SORRY.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T THINK ANY -- ANY OF THE DETECTIVES, INCLUDING MYSELF, COULD SEE IT THAT WELL FROM THAT LOCATION.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU MAKE ANY EFFORT TO DO THAT BEFORE WALKING OVER THE FOOT PATH?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU EVER GO DOWN THE CHAINLINK FENCE ON ITS SOUTH SIDE?

A: ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THAT RESIDENCE, YES.

Q: NO, OF THE FENCE SO THAT YOU COULD LOOK BACK THROUGH IT TO THE SIMPSON PROPERTY?

A: YES.

Q: YOU DID?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN DID YOU DO THAT? THIS IS OFF THE SIMPSON PROPERTY I'M TALKING ABOUT NOW.

A: YES, SIR.

Q: YOU DID WALK DOWN TO THE LITTLE GARAGE THAT IS THE HOME KNOW KNOWN TO BE OCCUPIED BY MISS LOPEZ?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. HOW FAR DOWN DID YOU GO?

A: I WENT DOWN ALONG THE CHAINLINK FENCE, ALONG THE WHOLE SOUTH BORDER OF THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE AND THAT RESIDENCE TO THEIR NORTH BORDER, WHICH WOULD BE THE SAME PROPERTY LINE. I WALKED TO THE BACKYARD. I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING OR ANY EXPOSED AREAS. AND I WALKED BACK TOWARDS THE CYCLONE FENCE BY THE BUILDING.

Q: WHEN WAS THIS?

A: AFTER I RETURNED FROM BUNDY.

Q: THIS IS IN DAYLIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: BUT DID YOU EVER DO THAT PRIOR TO RUNNING THE DETECTIVES DOWN THE PATH TO LOOK AT THE GLOVE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU NOTICE THAT WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE THERE WAS AN OBJECT EQUIDISTANT FROM THE FENCE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE THAT WAS VERY PLAINLY VISIBLE THROUGH IT?

A: YES.

Q: SO THAT PRESUMABLY IF YOU HAD CHOSEN TO DO IT YOU COULD HAVE HAD THE DETECTIVE LOOK THROUGH THE FENCE AND HAD THE SAME VANTAGE POINTS WITH RESPECT TO THE GLOVE, COULDN'T YOU?

A: NO.

Q: COULD NOT?

A: NO.

Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

A: IT WAS VERY OVERGROWN, VERY DIRTY. THE LEAVES WERE VERY THICK IN THE FLOWER BED AREA ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. IT WAS VERY HARD TO EVEN GET IN THERE. I PERSONALLY TRIED TO GET INTO THAT AREA AND IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT, VERY DIRTY.

Q: COULD YOU DO THAT?

A: NOT BY CHOICE.

Q: YOU MEAN IT WAS INCONVENIENT?

A: NO, IT WAS UNNECESSARY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IN ANY EVENT, YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE GLOVE AND ASSOCIATING IT WITH THE KILLER AND NO ONE ELSE, CORRECT?

A: I DIDN'T KNOW THAT, BUT I THINK I WAS LEANING TOWARDS THAT, YES.

Q: WELL, YOU CERTAINLY DIDN'T THINK A VICTIM HAD TRAIPSED OVER THERE AND DROPPED THAT GLOVE THERE, DID YOU?

A: I DON'T KNOW, SIR.

Q: DID YOU EVER FOR ONE MINUTE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHILE LOOKING AT THAT GLOVE, THINK, GEE, SOME VICTIM MAY HAVE DROPPED THIS HERE?

A: I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING THAT THE EVIDENCE --

Q: I ASKED YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU THOUGHT FOR EVEN AN INSTANT THAT THAT MIGHT BE THE PRODUCT OF A VICTIM'S TRAVELS?

A: I CAN'T SAY A HUNDRED PERCENT THAT IT WOULD BE A SUSPECT, SO THERE IS A SMALL PERCENTAGE THAT I SAID IT IS A POSSIBILITY.

Q: WELL, WHAT IS THE RATIO? 99 TO 1?

A: I WOULD PROBABLY LEAN 75/25 WITH A SUSPECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU THEN PROCEEDED DOWN A DARKENED AREA WHICH YOU NOW SAY HAD COBWEBS AT LEAST AT THE UPPER SECTION?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU ORIGINALLY DESCRIBED THIS VENTURE, YOU DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE COBWEBS BEING ONLY AT THE UPPER PART OF THE WALL, DID YOU?

A: I THINK THAT IS THE ONLY PLACE I FELT THEM, SO I WOULDN'T HAVE GONE INTO ANYTHING LOWER.

Q: THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION. MY QUESTION WAS, WHEN YOU EARLIER DESCRIBED THIS IN JULY, YOU DIDN'T MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THE COBWEBS, OTHER THAN BEING EAST OF THE POINT WHERE THE GLOVE WAS, CORRECT?

A: I THINK THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WOULD YOU REVIEW WITH US, PLEASE, WHAT YOU DID FOR THE FIFTEEN MINUTES -- NOW SEVEN AFTER 11:00 -- FOR THE FIFTEEN MINUTES THAT YOU STAYED OUT THERE ALONE AFTER YOUR DISCOVERY AND BEFORE YOU SOUGHT TO BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF ANYONE?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. I'M SURE A LOT HAPPENED IN FIFTEEN MINUTES AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DESCRIBE EVERY DETAIL, IF YOU CAN.

A: I WALKED SLOWLY DOWN THE PATHWAY GOING EAST TO THAT POTTING OR THAT LARGE PLANT AREA THAT IS PROBABLY 25-FOOT SQUARE.

Q: HOW LONG DID THAT TAKE?

A: THAT WAS PROBABLY SEVERAL MINUTES BACK THERE BECAUSE IT IS VERY OVERGROWN. I TRIED TO SEE FROM THE EAST PROPERTY, IF THERE WAS A FENCE. IT WAS VERY OVERGROWN. I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS BUSHES OR IVY. I LOOKED IN THAT AREA, LOOKED FOR ANY EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING THAT HAD BEEN DROPPED OR ANY BLOOD EVIDENCE.

Q: WHERE DID YOU LOOK?

A: ON THE GROUND, ON THE WALLS, THE PLANTS. I RETURNED BACK WESTBOUND ON THE PATH.

Q: WAIT JUST A MINUTE. HOW MUCH OF YOUR FIFTEEN MINUTES WAS SPENT BACK IN THE SMALL YARD THAT YOU VIEWED AS A SITUS FOR POTTING PLANTS?

A: SEVERAL MINUTES, PROBABLY MORE THAN FIVE.

Q: SEVERAL MOMENTS HAS NO REAL DEFINITIVE MEANING. COULD YOU PLEASE USE MINUTES OR SECONDS AND MINUTES TO DESCRIBE EACH STEP THAT YOU TOOK. HOW MANY MINUTES WERE YOU PRESENT ON THE FAR SIDE OR EAST SIDE BETWEEN THE ALLEYWAY BETWEEN THE FENCE AND THE BUILDING?

A: TALKING ABOUT THE PATHWAY, SIR?

Q: YOU HAVE WALKED HOW MANY FEET FROM THE GLOVE TO THE END OF THE BUILDING?

A: 75.

Q: WELL, IF THE NORMAL WALKING RATE IS 350 FEET A MINUTE, WHAT WOULD YOU THINK YOUR RATE WAS AT THAT TIME THAT IT TOOK YOU SEVERAL MINUTES TO GO 75 FEET?

A: I DIDN'T TESTIFY TO THAT, SIR.

Q: I THINK YOU JUST SAID IT TOOK SEVERAL MINUTES TO GET TO THE END OF THE BUILDING A FEW MOMENTS AGO, DID YOU NOT?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: TELL ME NOW HOW LONG DID IT TAKE?

A: I JUST WALKED TO THE END OF THE BUILDING AND I SPENT SEVERAL MINUTES BACK IN THAT AREA.

Q: OKAY.

A: AT THE END OF THE BUNGALOWS.

Q: ONCE AGAIN, WOULD YOU TRY TO HELP US AVOID THE USE OF THE WORD "SEVERAL" WHICH CAN MEAN SEVERAL THINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. HOW MANY MINUTES WAS IT FROM THE DEPARTURE OF THE GLOVE FROM THE TIME YOU LEFT THE SMALL YARD AT THE BACK OF THE BUILDING?

A: FIVE MINUTES.

Q: YOU SPENT FIVE MINUTE THERE LOOKING AROUND WITH YOUR FLASHLIGHT?

A: APPROXIMATELY.

Q: YOU LOOKED ON THE WALL, THE GROUND, YOU LOOKED FOR BLOOD AND WHAT ELSE?

A: ANYTHING THAT LOOKED OUT OF PLACE OR SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T BELONG.

Q: WELL, IF THE GLOVE WAS DROPPED BY THE KILLER, WHY WERE YOU BACK AT THE WALL LOOKING FOR BLOOD?

A: FIRST I WAS LOOKING FOR SOMEBODY THAT MIGHT HAVE COLLAPSED OR LEFT THE GLOVE, BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING OBVIOUS IN THAT AREA.

Q: OKAY. FIVE MINUTES IS ABOUT WHAT IT TOOK TO INVESTIGATE THAT LITTLE YARD?

A: APPROXIMATELY.

Q: OKAY. WHAT DID YOU NEXT DO?

A: WALKED BACK WESTBOUND ON THE PATH.

Q: TO WHERE?

A: TO THE AIR CONDITIONER. I LOOKED AROUND THAT AREA.

Q: HOW LONG DID YOU SPEND LOOKING AROUND THE AREA OF THE AIR CONDITIONER?

A: I WOULD SAY A COUPLE MINUTES, BUT I HAD TO BRING IT DOWN TO MINUTES, TWO OR THREE MINUTES.

Q: TWO OR THREE MINUTES. TELL US WHAT YOU DID DURING THAT PERIOD TO INSPECT THE AIR CONDITIONER AND IT SURROUNDINGS? WHAT DID YOU LOOK AT?

A: I LOOKED AT THE AIR CONDITIONER TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANYTHING DISTURBED, ANY BLOOD, ANYTHING LEFT THERE. I SHINED MY LIGHT ON THE BLUE PAPER OBJECT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. I LOOKED IN THAT AREA. I STEPPED PAST THAT AREA AND THEN WENT AROUND WHERE THE INDENTATION WAS FARTHER WEST.

Q: UH-HUH. AND HOW LONG DID YOU SPEND THERE?

A: PROBABLY MORE TIME THAN I DID BACK IN THE AREA WITH --

Q: IN MINUTES?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: IN MINUTES, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN, SIR. PROBABLY MORE IN THAT AREA THAN IN THE POTTING AREA, SO I WOULD PROBABLY SAY IN EXCESS OF FIVE MINUTES, MAYBE AS MANY AS SEVEN OR EIGHT MINUTES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT DID YOU DO BETWEEN FIVE AND SEVEN MINUTES BY THE INDENTATION AREA, AS YOU CALL IT, TO COMPLETE YOUR INVESTIGATION?

A: WELL, I BELIEVE THERE IS AN ELECTRICAL BOX THERE AND THERE SEEMS TO BE -- I THINK THERE IS AN ENTRY TO THE UNDERNEATH OF THE HOUSE. I OPENED THAT. I TRIED TO LOOK IN THERE. IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT WITH MY FLASHLIGHT. IT WASN'T VERY POWERFUL. I DECIDED NOT TO GO ANY FURTHER. I DIDN'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING AT THE ENTRY. THE VOLTAGE BOX, I LOOKED IN THAT. I LOOKED INTO THAT AREA FOR ANY TYPE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND I SAW NONE, SO I RETURNED TO THE HOUSE.

Q: WHY WERE YOU LOOKING IN THE VOLTAGE BOX AT THAT POINT?

A: I DON'T KNOW, SIR. I WAS LOOKING FOR ANY AREA THAT COULD HAVE HOUSED SOMETHING OR SOMEBODY.

Q: THE VOLTAGE BOX, YOU THOUGHT THERE MIGHT BE SOMEBODY IN IT?

A: IT WAS A VERY LARGE VOLTAGE BOX. I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS --

Q: THAT IS WHY YOU OPENED IT?

A: YES.

Q: NOBODY THERE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU TRY TO GO INTO THE DOOR THAT IS ACCESSIBLE FROM THE FOOT PATH?

A: WHICH DOOR IS THAT?

Q: ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. DID YOU NOTICE A DOOR THERE IN YOUR 15-MINUTE INVESTIGATION?

A: I NOTICED ONE ON THE GARAGE.

Q: DID YOU NOTICE ANY DOOR THAT WOULD LEAD INTO THE HOUSE?

A: I DON'T RECALL IF THERE WAS ONE THERE, NO.

Q: DID YOU TRY THE DOOR THAT YOU DID SEE TO SEE IF IT WOULD OPEN?

A: NO.

Q: YOU WEREN'T INTERESTED IN WHETHER THE PERSON WHO DROPPED THE GLOVE MIGHT HAVE USED THAT DOOR FOR EGRESS?

A: I JUST DIDN'T TRY THE DOOR. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE DOOR ON THE GARAGE. I DON'T RECALL THE OTHER DOOR.

Q: OKAY. BUT YOU DID SPEND, BY YOUR OWN ESTIMATE, FIFTEEN MINUTES LOOKING AROUND BEFORE NOTIFYING YOUR SUPERIORS OF WHAT COULD BE A VERY IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, TRUE?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IT IS APPARENT, FROM THE WAY YOU HAVE DESCRIBED YOUR ACTIONS BACK THERE, THAT YOU HAD NOT THE SLIGHTEST CONCERN FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY; IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

A: NO.

Q: WELL, YOU DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO PROTECT IT, DID YOU?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT?

A: I'M CAPABLE OF PROTECTING MYSELF. ONCE I WAS COMMITTED I REALLY HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO GO FORWARD.

Q: YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE OPTION, HAVING DISCOVERED WHAT COULD WELL HAVE BEEN THE DEPOSIT, WITTINGLY OR OTHERWISE, OF A DANGEROUS KILLER, TO GO BACK AND GET SOME HELP? THAT OPTION WASN'T THERE?

A: THE OPTION WAS THERE.

Q: WHY DID YOU DECIDE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, THAT THERE WAS NO NEED TO GO GET ONE OF THE GUNS THAT WAS IN THE HOUSE TO ACCOMPANY YOU?

A: I DON'T THINK IT WAS A NEED. I THINK IT WAS A JUDGMENT CALL AT THAT TIME.

Q: IT WAS A JUDGMENT CALL, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOU WELL KNEW THERE WAS NO CAUSE FOR CONCERN; ISN'T THAT SO?

A: NO, THAT IS NOT SO.

Q: DO YOU ORDINARILY CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS OF WHAT COULD BE A DANGEROUS NATURE IN THIS FASHION?

A: SOMETIMES.

Q: AND YOU DO NOT PARTAKE OF THE ASSISTANCE OF YOUR MORE EXPERIENCED COLLEAGUES WHEN THEY ARE AVAILABLE, CORRECT?

A: IF THEY ARE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE, OF COURSE I WOULD.

Q: WELL, IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE. WOULD YOU SAY WITHIN THIRTY SECONDS' TIME SATISFIES YOUR DEFINITION OF IMMEDIACY?

A: AT THAT TIME, NO.

Q: COULD YOU NOT HAVE GONE FROM THAT GLOVE TO THE FRONT DOOR OR THE KITCHEN IN LESS THAN A MINUTE, VERY, VERY EASILY THAT NIGHT, IF YOU HAD CHOSEN TO DO SO?

A: YES, I COULD HAVE.

Q: OKAY. THE DECISION NOT TO DO SO WAS YOURS, WAS IT NOT?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU DO ANYTHING ELSE DURING THAT 15-MINUTE PERIOD THAT YOU HAVE NOT YET DESCRIBED TO US?

A: NO.

Q: IN THE STUDIES OF BLOOD THAT YOU HAD IN THE SCHOOL WHERE YOU LEARNED ABOUT THE ROUND DROPS, DID YOU LEARN ANY OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES OF BLOOD THAT MIGHT BE OF INTEREST TO A DETECTIVE, PARTICULARLY ONE IN HOMICIDE CASES?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE THE SPECIFICS YOU ARE ASKING. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE ASKING, SIR.

Q: WHAT HAPPENS TO BLOOD WHEN IT LEAVES THE BODY AND IS ON SOME SURFACE AND IS EXPOSED TO AIR?

A: I WOULD ASSUME THAT IT WOULD COAGULATE.

Q: AND THEN?

A: DRY.

Q: THE MOISTURE THAT IS PART OF THE BLOOD EVAPORATES IN TIME, DOES IT NOT?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID YOU LEARN, IF ANYTHING, ABOUT THE RATE AT WHICH BLOOD DRIES AT SIXTY DEGREES FAHRENHEIT, AS IT WAS THAT NIGHT, BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT?

A: I DON'T RECALL ANYTHING IN THAT AREA.

Q: DID YOU EVER LEARN ANY PARAMETERS OR FACTS ABOUT THE DRYING OF BLOOD?

A: NOT THAT I RECALL, NO.

Q: WOULD YOU NOT AGREE, FROM YOUR OWN HUMAN EXPERIENCE, QUITE APART FROM WHAT YOU LEARNED IN DETECTIVE SCHOOL, THAT THE LONGER THE BLOOD IS EXPOSED, THE MORE LIKELY IT IS THAT IT WILL BE DRIED?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHEN YOU FIRST SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU ASSOCIATE IT WITH THE NOISE THAT KATO HAD HEARD OR SAID THAT HE HEARD AT 10:45 P.M.?

A: I BELIEVE WITH THE LOCATION OF THE AIR CONDITIONER, I THOUGHT YES.

Q: DID YOU THINK THAT THAT NOISE MIGHT SOMEHOW HAVE BEEN TIED IN WITH THE EVENT THAT CAUSED THAT GLOVE TO BE THERE?

A: I THOUGHT IT COULD HAVE BEEN, YES.

Q: PERHAPS SOMEONE WAS BACK THERE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE AREA AND BUMPED INTO THE WALL AND DROPPED THE GLOVE?

A: THAT WOULD BE ONE CONCLUSION, YES.

Q: WELL, DID YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?

A: I BELIEVE THAT SOMEONE OBVIOUSLY HAD LEFT IT THERE.

Q: DID YOU THINK THAT THAT MIGHT BE A PERSON BUMPING THE WALL WHO DROPPED THE GLOVE?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT YOU THEN HAD A POSSIBLE TIME PIN OF THE EVENT ITSELF? IF THE NOISE AND THE DEPOSIT OF THE GLOVE OCCURRED TOGETHER, THEN THIS HAD BEEN THERE SINCE QUARTER OF 11:00, HADN'T IT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: YOU WERE THERE AT 6:15, WEREN'T YOU?

A: APPROXIMATELY, YES.

Q: THAT IS SEVEN AND A HALF HOURS, ISN'T IT?

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS ENOUGH FOR BLOOD TO DRY, ISN'T IT?

A: UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, YES, I'M SURE IT WOULD BE.

Q: UNLESS IT IS ENCASED IN PLASTIC OR RUBBER AND EVAPORATION IS STOPPED, WOULDN'T YOU AGREE?

A: NO.

Q: DIDN'T IT SEEM STRANGE TO YOU THAT AFTER SEVEN AND A HALF HOURS THAT GLOVE STILL SHOWED MOIST STICKY BLOOD, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: NO. I KNEW NOTHING AT THAT TIME WHEN IT WAS DEPOSITED OR LEFT THERE.

Q: YOU DIDN'T?

A: NO.

Q: IS THIS THE FIRST TIME TODAY THAT ANYONE HAS BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT APPARENT ANOMALY?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE AND CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. IS IT THE FIRST TIME TODAY THAT YOU HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THE WET BLOOD ON THE GLOVE WHEN YOU SAW IT AT 6:15?

THE COURT: THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. THAT IS NOT THE TESTIMONY.

MR. BAILEY: I'M SORRY?

THE COURT: THAT WASN'T THE TESTIMONY.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: WHEN DID YOU FIND THE GLOVE?

A: THE GLOVE ON ROCKINGHAM?

Q: YES.

A: AT APPROXIMATELY SOMETIME BETWEEN 6:05, 6:10, 6:15.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IS TODAY THE FIRST TIME THAT ANYONE HAS BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION POSSIBLE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PRESENCE OF MOIST OR STICKY BLOOD ON THE GLOVE AT THAT TIME ON THAT DAY?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. NO ONE HAS EVER DISCUSSED THIS WITH YOU BEFORE, I TAKE IT?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU KNOW, BY THE WAY, WHEN YOU WERE BACK THERE DURING YOUR 15-MINUTE INVESTIGATION, THAT YOU APPARENTLY MISSED A DOOR THAT GOES INTO THE LAUNDRY ROOM OF THE HOUSE?

A: NO.

Q: ARE YOU LEARNING FOR THE FIRST TIME TODAY THAT SUCH A DOOR EXISTED THAT MORNING?

A: I HAVE SEEN SCHEMATICS THAT I BELIEVE THERE IS A DOOR SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THE GARAGE AND THE AIR CONDITIONER, BUT I DID NOT REMEMBER SEEING IT AT THAT TIME.

Q: OKAY. IN OTHER WORDS, AS YOU MADE YOUR INQUIRY OF THE INDENTATIONS, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A DOOR THERE THAT YOU NEVER SAW?

A: POSSIBLY, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT THE FIVE TO SEVEN-MINUTE INQUIRY THAT YOU MADE IN THAT AREA, INCLUDING AN ELECTRICAL BOX, WAS SOMEWHAT CURSORY, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: ABSOLUTELY, SIR.

Q: OKAY. HAD YOU -- BY THE WAY, DID YOU SEE ANY STEPS BACK THERE LEADING SOMEWHERE?

A: ON THE PATH, SIR?

Q: ADJACENT TO IT?

A: THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN TWO STEPS BY THE GARAGE DOOR.

Q: ANYWHERE ELSE?

A: I DON'T RECALL.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE STEPS THAT LEAD UP TO THE LAUNDRY ROOM DOOR?

A: I CAN'T EVEN REMEMBER VISUALIZING THE DOOR, SO I COULDN'T TELL YOU.

Q: IF THERE WERE, IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT IN YOUR FIVE TO SEVEN-MINUTE INQUIRY IN THAT AREA, YOU NEVER NOTICED THEM?

A: THAT WOULD BE FAIR TO SAY.

Q: OKAY. NOW, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT AT NO TIME THAT NIGHT DID YOU INQUIRE AS TO THE WHEREABOUTS OF MR. SIMPSON DURING THE PRECEDING SIX OR EIGHT HOURS?

A: WELL, I HAD HEARD, BUT I DIDN'T DO MUCH INQUIRING, NO.

Q: YOU NEVER INQUIRED OF KATO?

A: I'M SORRY?

Q: YOU NEVER INQUIRED OF KATO?

A: THAT MORNING OR THAT AFTERNOON?

Q: NO, THAT MORNING?

A: I NEVER TALKED TO MR. KAELIN EVER AGAIN.

Q: NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE IN HIS BUNGALOW QUESTIONING HIM? YOU NEVER PUT THE QUESTION TO HIM ABOUT MR. SIMPSON?

A: I'M SORRY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND. MR. SIMPSON WHAT?

Q: DID YOU EVER ASK KATO IF HE KNEW WHERE MR. SIMPSON HAD BEEN THE PRIOR EVENING?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO.

Q: OKAY. AND WHEN HE TOLD YOU ABOUT SEEING A LIMO, DID YOU INFER OR INQUIRE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS TO TAKE MR. SIMPSON SOMEWHERE?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: DID YOU LEARN AT SOME POINT THAT MR. PHILLIPS, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, HAD REACHED HIM BY TELEPHONE IN CHICAGO?

A: YES, LATER IN THE MORNING I DID.

Q: WHEN WAS THAT?

A: LATER IN THE MORNING, MAYBE AN HOUR LATER, A HALF HOUR.

Q: DID YOU LEARN FROM OTHER WITNESSES IN THE COURSE OF THE DAY THAT HE HAD LEFT THE PROPERTY AT AROUND 11:00 TO GO TO THE AIRPORT?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE I HEARD A TIMELINE THAT DAY ABOUT WHEN HE LEFT. DETECTIVE VANNATTER WAS AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY AND DETECTIVE LANGE WAS ON BUNDY, SO I DIDN'T TALK TO ANYONE EXCEPT FOR PHILLIPS. HE MIGHT HAVE MENTIONED WHEN HIS FLIGHT LEFT, BUT THAT IS ABOUT IT.

MR. BAILEY: OKAY. YOUR HONOR, I HAVE PREPARED, FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF COUNSEL AND THE COURT AND THE PARTIES, NINE COPIES OF THE TESTIMONY OF THIS WITNESS AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND I WOULD LIKE PERMISSION TO HAVE THEM PASSED OUT SO THAT WE CAN ALL FOLLOW THE NEXT PHASE OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION. MAY THAT BE DONE?

THE COURT: YES.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE DEFENDANT.)

MR. BAILEY: WAS A COPY GIVEN TO THE WITNESS AND THE COURT?

THE COURT: I HAVE ONE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: BY THE WAY, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, BEFORE WE TURN TO THIS EARLIER INSTANCE OF TESTIMONY, TWO MATTERS THAT I OVERLOOKED. ONE WAS DID YOU EVER GO TO THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE SIMPSON HOME LOOKING FOR BLEEDING OR OTHERWISE TROUBLED VICTIMS?

A: NO.

Q: DID ANY OF YOUR TEAM, THE FOUR DETECTIVES, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, GO AND INSPECT THE BALANCE OF THE HOUSE?

A: I DO NOT KNOW.

Q: WAS IT NOT YOU WHO SAID TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER, "WE HAVE AN EMERGENCY HERE. THERE MAY BE PEOPLE BLEEDING TO DEATH INSIDE"?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND ONCE YOU GOT INSIDE, YOU DIDN'T GO TO SEE WHO MIGHT BE BLEEDING TO DEATH ON THE SECOND FLOOR; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: I DIDN'T MAKE ENTRY AT THAT TIME.

Q: OKAY. YESTERDAY YOU RELATED SOME BLOOD STAINS THAT YOU SAW AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR OF THE BRONCO. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IT WAS ON THE SILL?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND YOU CLAIM THAT THESE MARKS, BRUSH MARKS I THINK YOU DESCRIBED THEM AS, WERE VISIBLE WITH THE DOOR CLOSED?

A: YES.

Q: IT IS YOUR POSITION THAT IN YOUR PRESENCE AT LEAST THE BRONCO WAS NEVER OPENED OR ANY OF ITS DOORS OR WINDOWS WHILE YOU WERE THERE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU NEVER SAW ANYONE ELSE DO IT?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: DID YOU AT SOME POINT GET TO SHOW CRIMINALIST FUNG THE LOCATION OF THE BRUSH MARKS YOU HAVE DESCRIBED?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: COULD YOU TELL THE COURT AND JURY WHEN THAT OCCURRED AND WHO WAS PRESENT?

A: DENNIS FUNG I BELIEVE ARRIVED AT THE ROCKINGHAM ESTATE 7:30, EIGHT O'CLOCK, SOMEWHERE AROUND THAT AREA. IT WAS THEN THAT I SHOWED HIM THE ITEMS ON THE BRONCO.

Q: YOU HAD COME BACK FROM BUNDY?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU TAKE HIM OUT INDIVIDUALLY TO THE BRONCO, POINT THEM OUT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WAS THE DOOR OPENED ON THIS OCCASION BY EITHER OF YOU?

A: NO.

Q: AND YOU NEVER SAW THAT DOOR OPENED TO THIS DAY, HAVE YOU?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

MR. BAILEY: OKAY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, A PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THIS CASE TOOK PLACE EARLY IN JULY, DID IT NOT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND YOU TESTIFIED BOTH ON JULY 5TH AND JULY 6TH, IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS BY MS. CLARK AND DEAN UELMEN FOR THE DEFENSE?

A: YES.

Q: SEVERAL DIRECT AND SEVERAL CROSS-EXAMINATIONS. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND WERE YOU TRYING AT THAT TIME, TO THE VERY BEST YOUR ABILITY, TO BE ACCURATE IN EACH OF YOUR VARIOUS UTTERANCES?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: OKAY. NOW, COULD YOU TURN, PLEASE, TO PAGE 41 OF THE TRANSCRIPT THAT HAS BEEN PLACED IN FRONT OF YOU.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

Q: I ASK YOU TO LOOK AT LINE 14. YOU WERE ASKED BY MISS CLARK THE NATURE OF A CERTAIN CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER WHILE YOU WERE STILL WITHOUT THE PREMISES, CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND YOUR ANSWER WAS: "I TOLD DETECTIVE VANNATTER, I SAID 'WE GOT A REAL -- WE GOT AN EMERGENCY, WE GOT A PROBLEM -- WE GOT -- WE DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE PEOPLE INSIDE THAT ARE IN DANGER, DYING, BLEEDING TO DEATH. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. I DON'T CARE WHOSE HOUSE THIS IS. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. WE DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE A MURDER, SUICIDE, A KIDNAPPING, ANOTHER VICTIM,' AND PHIL AGREED AND WE TOOK OUR OPINIONS TO DETECTIVE LANGE AND PHILLIPS AND DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITIES." DO YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: DOES THAT ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THE SEQUENCE IN WHICH YOU DETECTIVES BECAME CONCERNED OR AT LEAST EXPRESSED YOUR CONCERN ABOUT POSSIBLE VICTIMS INSIDE?

A: SOMEWHAT.

Q: SO THAT THIS IDEA WAS INITIATED BY DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN, WAS IT NOT?

A: NO. THIS WAS A CONVERSATION BETWEEN VANNATTER AND MYSELF AND THAT IS A COLLECTIVE CONVERSATION.

Q: THIS IS COLLECTIVE?

A: YES. THOSE ARE MY FEELINGS ABSENT OF THE CONVERSATION -- THE RECIPROCAL OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER.

Q: I SEE. WELL, NOW DO YOU SEE ANYTHING, BEGINNING AT LINE 15, ABOUT VANNATTER SPEAKING TO YOU?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: OKAY. DO YOU SEE THAT MOST OF WHAT I HAVE JUST RECITED IS IN QUOTES AND THUS ATTRIBUTED BY THE COURT REPORTER TO YOU TALKING ABOUT YOURSELF? DO YOU NOTICE THAT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. NOW, IS IT NOT THE FACT THAT THE FIRST ONE TO SUGGEST AN EMERGENCY AND THE NEED TO DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW WAS YOU?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS ME THAT FIRST SUGGESTED IT. VANNATTER AND I WERE BOTH TALKING ABOUT IT. I DON'T KNOW HOW IT CAME DOWN EXACTLY TO THAT POINT.

Q: OKAY. AFTER AUTHORITY HAD BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE NECESSARY BRASS -- I THINK COMMANDER BUSHEY WAS IT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: -- TO GO IN WITHOUT A WARRANT --

A: COMMANDER BUSHEY HAD NO SAY IN THAT, SIR.

Q: OH, HE DIDN'T?

A: NO.

Q: VANNATTER DIDN'T CHECK WITH ANYONE?

A: NO.

Q: HE MADE THE DECISION?

A: HE MADE THE DECISION.

Q: OKAY. WHEN HE DECIDED THAT YOU WERE RIGHT AND IT WAS NECESSARY TO GO IN, HOW WERE YOU ELECTED TO GO OVER THE WALL?

MS. CLARK: WELL, OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY, "DECIDED THAT HE WAS RIGHT."

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: HOW WERE YOU ELECTED TO BE THE ONE TO GO OVER THE WALL?

A: PHIL MADE A STATEMENT THAT, "WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO IN. HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO IT?" AND I SAID, "WELL, I WILL GO OVER THE WALL."

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU VOLUNTEERED TO DO THAT IN RESPONSE TO HIS QUERY HOW CAN WE ACCOMPLISH IT, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ON PAGE 46, LINE 15, WHEN YOU WERE WITH KATO KAELIN IN HIS ROOM, YOU SAY THAT YOU STAYED BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHO MR. KAELIN WAS AND: "I WASN'T SURE IF HE WAS EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE THERE. I STAYED WITH HIM AND ENGAGED HIM IN A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHO HE WAS AND WHAT HE WAS DOING THERE AND A FEW OTHER THINGS." MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT ACCURATE?

A: I BELIEVE SO, YES.

Q: DID YOU DETERMINE THAT KATO KAELIN, FROM TALKING TO HIM, WAS A PROPER PERSON TO BE IN THAT HOUSE AT THAT TIME?

A: I DON'T -- I NEVER SAW ANY IDENTIFICATION AS FAR AS AN ADDRESS. HE MIGHT HAVE SAID HE LIVES THERE OR HE STAYS THERE.

Q: OKAY. WOULD YOU TURN TO PAGE 48, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

Q: IT IS THE LATTER PART OF A LONG ANSWER WHICH GOES ALMOST TWO FULL PAGES. I'M INTERESTED IN ONLY A FEW LINES. I WILL READ THE WHOLE QUESTION AND ANSWER IF YOU PREFER. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DO THAT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. THE ORIGINAL QUESTION WAS: "DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM," MEANING KATO KAELIN, "AT THAT TIME," 47 LINE 12. "ANSWER: YES. SIMULTANEOUS WITH -- I WAS WALKING -- I WALKED TO THE BATHROOM WHICH I COULDN'T SEE INTO FROM WHERE I WAS STANDING AT THE DOORWAY. I WALKED IN JUST TO MAKE SURE NOBODY WAS IN THERE AND I OPENED UP THE CLOSETS TO MAKE SURE NO ONE WAS STANDING IN THE CLOSETS. I ENGAGED HIM IN CONVERSATION WHILE I WAS DOING THAT. I NOTICED A PILE OF CLOTHES TO THE -- IF YOU WERE LYING IN THE BED, IT WOULD BE THE RIGHT SIDE, NEXT TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE BED AND A PAIR OF SHOES. I ASKED HIM IF THOSE WERE THE CLOTHES HE WORE AND HE SAID 'LAST NIGHT' AND HE SAID 'YES' AND I SAID, 'MIND IF I LOOK AT THEM?' HE SAID, 'NO.' I PICKED UP THE SHOES. I LOOKED AT THE SOLES. I PICKED UP THE CLOTHES AND I LOOKED AT THE CLOTHES. THERE DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THEM. I PUT THEM BACK WHERE THEY WERE AND I WAS STILL TALKING TO MR. KAELIN. I ASKED HIM IF THERE IS ANYTHING UNUSUAL THAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT BEFORE HE ANSWERED -- BEFORE I LET HIM ANSWER, I ASKED, 'WHO DRIVES THE BRONCO?' HE SAYS, 'WELL, THAT'S O.J.'S.' I SAID, 'IS THAT ALL? IS THAT THE ONLY PERSON THAT DRIVES IT?' AND HE GOES, 'YEAH.' I ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYTHING UNUSUAL THAT HAPPENED THE PREVIOUS NIGHT. HE SAID, 'WELL, ABOUT QUARTER TO 11:00 I HEARD SOME CRASHING ON MY WALL AND I THOUGHT THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN EARTHQUAKE, BUT THAT WAS ONLY NOISE, JUST ONE TIME AND MY PICTURE SHOOK,' AND HE POINTED TO A PICTURE WHICH WAS JUST TO THE WEST OF HIS BED WHICH WOULD BE THE FAR RIGHT OF HIS ROOM LOOKING INTO HIS ROOM FROM THE DOORWAY. THEN HE SAID, 'I WENT OUTSIDE TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON AND I SAW A LIMO AT THE GATE.'"

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU REREAD IT.

MR. BAILEY: I'M SORRY. "I WENT OUTSIDE TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THE NOISE AND I SAW A LIMO AT THE GATE.' AT THAT POINT I INTERRUPTED HIM AND I TOOK HIM INTO THE HOUSE WHERE NOW MR. SIMPSON'S DAUGHTER AND THE THREE DETECTIVES HAD ALREADY ENTERED THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE AND THE DOOR WAS OPENED."

Q: DID YOU GIVE THAT ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION ON YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK ON JULY 5TH?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT IN FACT WHEN YOU INTERRUPTED MR. KAELIN, AFTER ASKING HIM ABOUT UNUSUAL EVENTS, YOU PUT TWO QUESTIONS, NO. 1, WHOSE BRONCO IS IT, AND NO. 2, IS HE THE ONLY ONE THAT DRIVES IT, CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WHY WAS IT IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT THEN, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: WELL, THERE WAS BLOOD ON THE VEHICLE.

Q: OKAY. NOW, I SUGGESTED TO YOU SOME TIME AGO THAT YOU DIRECTED DETECTIVE VANNATTER TO GO IN AND INTERROGATE KAELIN AND YOU HAD SOME DOUBTS ABOUT THAT?

A: DOUBTS OF MY PRESENCE OF MIND, NO, NONE AT ALL.

Q: DOUBTS ABOUT WHETHER YOU WOULD GIVE AN ORDER TO A MAN AS SUPERIOR TO YOU AS THE LEAD DETECTIVE IN THIS CASE?

A: I DID NOT GIVE HIM ANY ORDER.

Q: WELL, WHEN YOU DESCRIBED BRINGING KAELIN INTO THE HOUSE MISS CLARK ASKED: "WHERE DID YOU PUT HIM?"

AND YOU SAID: "THERE'S A BAR INSIDE THAT LOOKS LIKE A RECREATION ROOM, A BILLIARD ROOM, AND JUST TO THE RIGHT OF THAT, AS YOU ARE ENTERING THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE, THERE IS FOUR OR FIVE BARSTOOLS. I SAID, 'WHY DON'T YOU JUST SIT HERE FOR A SECOND. ONE OF THE DETECTIVES IS GOING TO TALK FOR A FEW MINUTES. JUST SIT HERE AND RELAX.' I CONTINUED TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE AND RIGHT BY THE KITCHEN I SAW DETECTIVE VANNATTER, AND I TOLD HIM, I SAYS, 'TALK TO THE MAN THAT WAS IN THE BUNGALOW. HE IS SEATED AT THE BAR.' AND I CONTINUED OUT THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE." NOW, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YOU HAD BEEN TALKING WITH MR. KAELIN BEFORE YOU DECIDED TO GO OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, HAD YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: WHY DID YOU FIND IT NECESSARY THAT ANOTHER DETECTIVE TAKE UP THE INTERROGATION?

A: I DIDN'T THINK IT NECESSARY.

Q: WHY DID YOU DIRECT DETECTIVE VANNATTER TO DO IT?

A: I WAS GOING TO INVESTIGATE WHERE THE NOISE CAME FROM.

Q: WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL HIM THE SUBJECT MATTER ABOUT WHICH HE OUGHT TO BE CONCERNED, IF HE WAS GOING TO INTERROGATE A WITNESS?

A: NO REASON. I WANTED TO GO INVESTIGATE THE NOISE TO SEE IF WE COULD EVEN GET TO THAT SOUTH WALL.

Q: WHY DID YOU NOT TELL HIM THAT YOU WERE GOING TO GO INVESTIGATE A NOISE AND HE SHOULD FINISH THE INTERROGATION?

A: NO REASON.

Q: NO REASON? OKAY. ON THAT SAME PAGE. RIGHT AFTER YOU SAID ON LINE 18: "AND I CONTINUED OUT THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE," MISS CLARK SAID: "WHY?" AND YOUR RESPONSE WAS: "WELL, I WAS -- FROM THE STATEMENT HE MADE, THE CRASHING SOUND AND THE TIME THAT HE HEARD IT, COMBINED WITH THE BLOOD IN THE BRONCO, THE WAY I WAS FEELING IS THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THERE COULD BE ANOTHER VICTIM, A SUSPECT THAT HAD COLLAPSED OR ESCAPED VIA THAT ROUTE IN THE SOUTHERN BORDER OF THE HOUSE." DO YOU READ THE ANSWER IN FRONT OF YOU?

A: I DO, SIR.

Q: DO YOU AGREE THAT I HAVE CITED IT CORRECTLY AS IT APPEARS IN THE TRANSCRIPT?

A: YES.

Q: HOW DID YOU KNOW AT THAT JUNCTURE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, THAT THERE WAS OR WOULD BE BLOOD IN THE BRONCO?

A: I DIDN'T.

Q: WHY DID YOU USE THE WORD "IN"?

A: I'M NOT SURE I DID.

Q: IS THIS THE FIRST TIME IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT YOU USED THE WORD "IN"?

A: IT IS THE FIRST TIME YOU HAVE READ IT, BUT I NEVER USED THE WORD "IN" AS FAR AS SAYING THERE WAS BLOOD IN THE BRONCO.

Q: YOU DIDN'T USE THE WORD "IN"?

A: I'M NOT SURE, SIR, BUT I DID NOT SEE ANY BLOOD IN THE BRONCO.

Q: YOU USED THE WORD "IN" THE BRONCO AND IT WAS UNINTENTIONAL, MIGHT THAT BE, SIR, A SLIP OF THE TONGUE?

A: NO, IT MIGHT NOT.

Q: IT MIGHT NOT. UNLESS IT WAS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE AND IF YOU IN FACT SAID IT, YOU HAVE NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER FOR THAT MISTAKE? IS THAT THE WAY YOU WISH TO LEAVE IT?

A: NO. I WISH TO LEAVE IT TO SAY THAT THERE WAS NO BLOOD THAT I OBSERVED INSIDE THE BRONCO PRIOR TO GOING INTO THE RESIDENCE THAT MORNING.

Q: MY QUESTION WAS, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IF YOU DID IN FACT SAY THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAD YOU DISTURBED AT THAT POINT WAS BLOOD IN THE BRONCO AND IT WASN'T A SLIP OF THE TONGUE, WHY WOULD YOU HAVE USED THAT WORD?

A: I DIDN'T SEE ANY BLOOD IN THE BRONCO, SIR.

Q: WHY WOULD YOU HAVE USED THE WORD "IN," DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, PLEASE?

A: I TOLD YOU I'M NOT SURE I DID.

Q: WELL, THERE IS A VIDEOTAPE OF YOUR TESTIMONY. HAVE YOU REVIEWED THAT RECENTLY?

A: NO, NEVER HAVE.

Q: DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD HELP TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT REPORTER MADE THIS MISTAKE OR YOU DID?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. WE WILL GET TO THAT. ON PAGE 54, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION -- I'M SORRY -- TOWARD THE END OF YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MISS CLARK AND AFTER SAYING THAT YOU NOTICED THE GLOVE AND IDENTIFYING IT IN A PHOTO MARKED FOR THAT HEARING AS D, I WILL ASK YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU ASKED THESE QUESTIONS AND GAVE THESE ANSWERS: "BY MISS CLARK: WHEN YOU SAW THAT GLOVE, DID IT HAVE SOME SIGNIFICANCE TO YOU? "ANSWER: YES. IT LOOKED VERY SIMILAR TO THE GLOVE THAT I OBSERVED ON BUNDY HOURS BEFORE. "QUESTION: AND BASED ON THAT OBSERVATION, SIR, WHAT DID YOU DO? "ANSWER: I LOOKED AT IT A LITTLE CLOSER. I NOTED THAT IT DID NOT MATCH THE TERRAIN." WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, THERE IS -- THAT IS ONLY PART OF THE ANSWER. WE REQUEST THAT IT BE READ IN ITS ENTIRETY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. WE WILL COME BACK TO THAT, DETECTIVE. "AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS A LOT OF DIRT AND LEAVES. THIS GLOVE WAS NOT DIRTY IN THE LEAST. IT LOOKED A LITTLE STICKY AND MOIST. TWO FINGERS WERE STUCK TO THE GLOVE. IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS STUCK THERE WITH SOME TYPE OF LIQUID. I DIDN'T TOUCH IT. I WENT PAST THE AIR CONDITIONING DUCT THAT YOU CAN SEE IN PHOTO A AND AS SOON AS I WENT PAST THAT AIR CONDITIONING DUCT LOOKING FOR THE PERSON THAT MIGHT HAVE DROPPED THE GLOVE, THINKING THAT THEY WERE FARTHER DOWN THE WALKWAY, I RAN INTO SPIDERWEBS IMMEDIATELY." DO YOU RECALL GIVING THAT ANSWER?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO I TAKE IT IT IS TRUE THAT YOUR FIRST STEP AFTER SEEING THE GLOVE WAS TO GO LOOK FOR THE PERSON WHO DROPPED IT?

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING HERE?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU EXPECTED THAT THE PERSON WHO DROPPED IT WOULD BE A KILLER?

A: I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. AS WE BROUGHT UP BEFORE, IT WAS --

Q: WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. BUT LET HIM FINISH HIS ANSWER BEFORE YOU ASK HIM THE NEXT QUESTION, MR. BAILEY.

MR. BAILEY: YES, YOUR HONOR.

Q: WHAT DID YOU EXPECT TO FIND IN THE NATURE OF THE PERSON WHO HAD DROPPED THE GLOVE?

A: I HAD NO IDEA, SIR.

Q: AND THAT DIDN'T CAUSE YOU ANY APPREHENSION FOR YOUR SAFETY?

A: YES, IT DID.

Q: WELL, DID YOU TAKE ANY PRECAUTIONS?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: I MOVED FORWARD INSTEAD OF BACKWARD.

Q: YOU MOVED FORWARD IN THE DIRECTION OF DANGER, INSTEAD OF BACKWARD AWAY FROM THE DIRECTION OF DANGER WHICH WAS A PRECAUTION AS YOU VIEWED IT?

A: YES. GIVING SOMEONE MY BACK WOULD BE FAR MORE HAZARDOUS THAN FACING A THREAT STRAIGHT ON.

Q: I'M SORRY. I THINK YOU SAID THAT AS YOU PROCEEDED PAST THE AIR CONDITIONING DUCT, THAT IS EAST WHERE YOU HADN'T BEEN, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU DID THAT LOOKING FOR THE PERSON THAT MIGHT HAVE DROPPED THE GLOVE?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: YOU SAID THAT, DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: WELL, IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN THE DANGER WAS IN FRONT OF YOU AND YOUR BACK WAS PERFECTLY SAFE, WASN'T IT?

A: IF I TURNED AROUND AND WENT BACK WEST IT WOULDN'T BE SAFE, SIR.

Q: OH, IT WAS SAFER IN YOUR VIEW TO FORGE ON AND MAYBE ENCOUNTER A KILLER THAN IT WAS TO GET OUT OF THERE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: OKAY. WHEN YOU ENCOUNTERED THE SPIDERWEBS DID IT OCCUR TO YOU THAT WHOEVER DROPPED THAT GLOVE HAD COME THE WAY YOU HAD COME AND HAD GONE BACK OUT THE SAME WAY?

A: IT WAS POSSIBLE, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW THE CONDITION THAT THEY WERE IN WHEN THEY LEFT THAT GLOVE.

Q: I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY CONDITION OF THE PERSON. IF THERE ARE SPIDERWEBS ACROSS A PASSAGEWAY, THE ODDS ARE FAIRLY GOOD THAT NO ONE HAS RUN THROUGH THIS RECENTLY, TRUE?

A: RUN, YES; CRAWLED, UNKNOWN.

Q: OR WALKED. DID YOU SEE ANY MARK ON THE GROUND INDICATING A HUMAN WAS CRAWLING THERE?

A: I SAW NO MARKS ON THE PATH.

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MS. CLARK: THAT IT COULD BE SEEN.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: NOW, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IN CROSS-EXAMINATION MR. UELMEN DIRECTED SOME QUESTIONS TO YOU ABOUT YOUR ACTIVITIES AT BUNDY AND YOU DESCRIBED, AS YOU DID FOR US -- PAGE 64 AT THE TOP -- THAT: "HAVING BEEN UNABLE TO SEE THE BODIES FROM YOUR ORIGINAL POSITION TO A SATISFACTORY DEGREE, RISKE TOOK YOU AROUND DOROTHY UP THE ALLEY AND IN THROUGH THE HOUSE SO YOU COULD COME OUT THE FRONT DOOR AND HAVE A BETTER VANTAGE POINT AT THE TOP OF THE STEPS WITHOUT WALKING THROUGH THE BLOOD," CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AT THE TOP OF PAGE 64 YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT, AREN'T YOU?

A: YES, I AM.

Q: OKAY. "QUESTION: HOW FAR WOULD YOU SAY YOU WERE FROM WHERE THE BODIES WERE LOCATED? "ANSWER: I WAS DIRECTLY ABOVE THE FEMALE VICTIM WHICH WAS PROBABLY THREE FEET. THE MALE VICTIM WOULD HAVE BEEN TEN FEET, TWELVE FEET. "QUESTION: ALL RIGHT. AND FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT YOU FIRST OBSERVED THE GLOVE THAT YOU TOLD US ABOUT? "ANSWER: NOT FIRST, NO. "QUESTION: WHEN DID YOU FIRST OBSERVE IT? "ANSWER: WE HAD FLASHLIGHTS. WE WERE LOOKING AT THE FEMALE VICTIM. WE LOOKED AT THE MALE VICTIM. I NOTICED THE GLOVE WHEN I WALKED AROUND TO THE -- AFTER I EXITED THE RESIDENCE THE FIRST TIME AND WALKED AROUND TO THE SIDE OR THE NORTH SIDE, NORTH PERIMETER OF BUNDY OF 875 BUNDY, THERE IS AN IRON FENCE AND THROUGH THAT IRON FENCE YOU CAN GET VERY CLOSE TO THE MALE VICTIM, AND LOOKING THERE I COULD SEE THEM AT HIS FEET." DID YOU USE THE WORD "THEM" IN YOUR ANSWER ON JULY 5TH?

A: YES, SIR. YES, SIR.

Q: AND WAS THE LAST ITEM TO WHICH "THEM" COULD HAVE APPLIED IN YOUR NARRATIVE THE WORD "GLOVE"?

A: SINGULAR, YES.

Q: I'M SIMPLY ASKING WHETHER GLOVE, LINE 14, WAS THE ITEM YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT JUST PRIOR TO SAYING "I SAW THEM AT HIS FEET"?

A: "THEM," I WAS REFERRING TO THE KNIT CAP, THE GLOVE.

Q: SHOW ME ANYWHERE ON THAT PAGE WHERE THE KNIT CAP IS MENTIONED? CAN YOU?

A: THAT PAGE, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU SEE ANYTHING ON THE PRIOR PAGE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, ABOUT THE KNIT CAP?

A: DO YOU WANT ME TO LOOK AT THAT PRIOR PAGE?

Q: SURE. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION WITHOUT LOOKING AT IT. 63.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) I DO NOT.

Q: PAGE 65, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MR. BAILEY.

MR. BAILEY: I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: THE COURT REPORTER NEEDS TO CHANGE HER PAPER.

MR. BAILEY: OKAY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MR. BAILEY.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: PAGE 65, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, LINE 8: "DOES THAT PHOTO," REFERRING TO A PHOTO "ACCURATELY DEPICT THE GLOVE AT THE LOCATION WHERE YOU SAW IT? "TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES. "QUESTION: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY PICK UP THE GLOVE TO EXAMINE IT, DID YOU? "ANSWER: NOT AT THAT TIME, NO." DID YOU GIVE THAT ANSWER?

A: YES.

Q: AT WHAT TIME DID YOU PICK UP THE GLOVE?

A: I DIDN'T. I TURNED THE GLOVE OVER WITH A PEN WHEN I RETURNED TO THE BUNDY SCENE AFTER BEING AT ROCKINGHAM.

Q: AND THAT IS WHAT YOU MEANT WHEN YOU SAID, "DIDN'T PICK UP THE GLOVE AT THAT TIME"? YOU HAD IN MIND TURNING IT OVER WITH A PEN?

A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS MR. UELMEN'S WORDS AND THE QUESTION. I DIDN'T USE THE WORD "PICK UP."

Q: BUT THE QUESTION WAS PUT TO YOU, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. HE SAID: "AND YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY PICK THE GLOVE UP TO EXAMINE IT, DID YOU?" AND YOUR ANSWER WAS: "NOT AT THAT TIME, NO." DO YOU SEE ANYTHING IN THAT ANSWER THAT REFERS TO TURNING IT OVER WITH A PEN AT ANY TIME.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THIS IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NOT ON THAT PAGE, NO.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU SEE ANOTHER PAGE WHERE YOU INDICATED THAT THAT IS WHAT YOU MEANT BY LATER PICKING UP THE GLOVE?

A: NO, SIR.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, HE WASN'T ASKED. THIS IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. SPEAKING OBJECTION, COUNSEL.

MS. CLARK: SORRY.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: YESTERDAY, AND POSSIBLY LAST WEEK, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YOU INDICATED SOME UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHEN YOU WERE NOTIFIED THAT ONE OF THE VICTIMS WAS IN FACT THE EX-WIFE OF O.J. SIMPSON. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: YOU SAID YOU COULDN'T QUITE BE SURE WHEN YOU THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS THE FACT?

A: THAT THE FEMALE VICTIM WAS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

Q: YES.

A: YES, SIR, I REMEMBER.

Q: AS YOU SIT THERE TODAY, WHAT IS YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION AS TO WHEN YOU DECIDED OR YOUR SUPERIORS DECIDED THAT THIS WAS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON? WHAT TIME OF DAY?

A: I WOULD SAY ON JUNE 13TH SOMETIME BUT I DON'T RECOLLECT WHEN.

Q: ONE, TWO, THREE HOURS AFTER YOU GOT THERE?

A: I HAVE NO IDEA, SIR.

Q: IS IT FAIR TO INFER THAT YOU WENT TO NOTIFY MR. SIMPSON THAT HIS WIFE WAS DEAD A LITTLE AFTER 5:00, THAT YOU THOUGHT SHE WAS IN FACT DEAD, HIS EX-WIFE?

A: I DIDN'T GO THERE AT MY DIRECTION, SO I BELIEVE IT WAS ASSUMED AND I BELIEVE THEY WERE GOING THERE TO FIND OUT ANYTHING ABOUT HER OR MAKE A NOTIFICATION.

Q: PAGE 31, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

Q: QUESTION BY MISS CLARK AT LINE 4. "WERE YOU AWARE" -- LINE 5 -- "WERE YOU AWARE OF WHO ONE OF THE -- AT LEAST THE FEMALE VICTIM WAS AT THAT TIME? "ANSWER: I WAS NOTIFIED THAT -- WHEN I WAS NOTIFIED AT MY RESIDENCE AT 1:05 I WAS TOLD THAT ONE OF THE VICTIMS WAS THE EX-WIFE OF O.J. SIMPSON. "DID YOU RELAY THAT INFORMATION TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER?

"ANSWER: IT WAS RELAYED, YES." NOW, AFTER YOU WERE TOLD AT 1:05 THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WAS DEAD, DID YOU CONTINUE TO DOUBT IT?

A: WE HAD NO INDICATION ABSOLUTELY THAT THAT WAS THE FEMALE VICTIM.

Q: DID YOU CHALLENGE MR. PHILLIPS IN ANY WAY WHEN HE TOLD YOU SHE WAS DEAD?

A: THERE WAS NO CHALLENGE INVOLVED, SIR.

Q: DID YOU QUESTION HIS ASSERTION AS TO HER IDENTITY?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU EVER QUESTION HIM?

A: I DON'T THINK I WOULD HAVE JUMPED TO THE CONCLUSION EARLY INTO THE INVESTIGATION.

Q: YOU WOULDN'T HAVE JUMPED TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE IDENTITY OF THE VICTIM, EVEN THOUGH A DETECTIVE WHO WAS YOUR BOSS TOLD YOU WHAT IT WAS?

A: I DIDN'T QUESTION IT.

Q: OKAY. FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, WHAT EFFORTS, IF YOU KNOW, WERE MADE TO DETERMINE MR. GOLDMAN'S IDENTITY SO THAT HIS NEXT OF KIN COULD BE NOTIFIED?

A: I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

Q: YOU WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THAT EFFORT?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH NOTICE TO THE BROWN FAMILY --

A: NO, SIR.

Q: -- ABOUT THEIR DAUGHTER? WHEN DID YOU TELL US YESTERDAY THAT YOU LEARNED WHERE YOU WERE GOING ON THE TRIP TO ROCKINGHAM? WAS IT WHEN YOU WERE IN THE CAR WITH PHILLIPS THAT HE TOLD YOU?

A: THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATION IF I KNEW THE WAY UP THERE.

Q: WITH WHOM?

A: I'M SORRY?

Q: PHILLIPS?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. BUT WERE YOU ALREADY IN THE CAR?

A: WHEN WE KNEW THE PURPOSE? YES.

Q: OKAY. WELL, WERE YOU IN THE CAR WHEN YOU KNEW WHERE YOU WERE GOING?

A: I THINK IT WAS SOMEWHAT SIMULTANEOUS WITH GETTING BACK TO THE FRONT OF THE LOCATION AND TALKING TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, VANNATTER AND LANGE DIRECTING US TO TAKE US UP THERE, OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. I GOT IN THE CAR WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND IT WAS DISCUSSED THEN.

Q: HAD YOU DISCLOSED TO EITHER -- ANY OF THE THREE DETECTIVES, AS OF THE POINT YOU LEFT FOR ROCKINGHAM, YOUR PRIOR INVOLVEMENT WITH THE SIMPSONS?

A: YES.

Q: TO WHOM DID YOU DESCRIBE IT AND WHEN?

A: DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.

Q: WHEN?

A: DETECTIVE PHILLIPS ASKED ME IF I KNEW HOW TO GET TO THE SIMPSON HOUSE OR THE ROCKINGHAM HOUSE.

Q: THAT WAS AT 5:00 IN THE MORNING OR AFTER?

A: I THINK IT WAS A LITTLE BEFORE THAT.

Q: THAT YOU ACTUALLY LEFT FOR ROCKINGHAM, BEFORE 5:00?

A: NO. WE LEFT AT 5:00. YOU ARE ASKING ME WHAT TIME THE CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE.

Q: OH. SLIGHTLY BEFORE 5:00 YOU HAD DISCLOSED TO HIM YOU HAD PRIOR INVOLVEMENT?

A: I SAID I HAD BEEN ON A RADIO CALL THERE A LONG TIME AGO.

Q: UP TO THAT POINT YOU SAID NOTHING ABOUT THAT PRIOR INVOLVEMENT?

A: NO.

MR. BAILEY: OKAY. MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: SURE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

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

MR. BAILEY: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE THE TAPE FROM THE PRELIMINARY HEARING RELATIVE TO "IN" THE BRONCO AND I HAVE MADE A COPY FOR THE PROSECUTION. DO YOU REQUIRE THAT WE EXHIBIT IT TO THEM AND GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO OBJECT BEFORE IT IS SHOWN?

THE COURT: I BELIEVE SO, JUST AS A MATTER OF COURTESY.

MR. BAILEY: I AM HAPPY TO DO THAT.

THE COURT: WE WILL TAKE A BREAK RIGHT NOW. I'M GOING TO ASK COUNSEL TO REMAIN AND WE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS THERE AND WE WILL START UP AT 1:30.

MR. COCHRAN: ARE WE GOING TO DO ANYTHING ELSE WITH THE JURORS THIS AFTERNOON?

THE COURT: WITH THE JURORS?

MR. COCHRAN: ANY JURY STUFF THIS AFTERNOON? GIVE US THE TIME FOR THE NEXT APPOINTMENT.

THE COURT: TOMORROW MORNING. I JUST FIGURE WE WILL TAKE A COUPLE --

MR. BAILEY: SO WE ARE LOOKING AT AN HOUR AND HALF OF TRIAL TIME THIS AFTERNOON?

THE COURT: BOY, I HOPE SO.

MR. BAILEY: HUM?

THE COURT: I HOPE SO. WE WILL TAKE OUR RECESS THEN AT THIS POINT, BUT DON'T LEAVE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THERE IS SOMETHING I NEED TO LOOK AT BEFORE WE PROCEED ANY FURTHER, AND GIVEN THE HOUR, I'M GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE LUNCH HOUR JUST A LITTLE BIT EARLY. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU, DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YOU ARE ORDERED TO STEP DOWN. YOU ARE ORDERED TO COME BACK AT 1:30. AND COUNSEL, LET ME ASK YOU TO REMAIN SO THAT WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. WE NEED TO CLEAR THE COURTROOM FOR THE JURY, PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THE JURY HAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE COURTROOM. AND MR. HARRIS, DO YOU WANT TO SHOW US THE CLIP. LET ME ASK DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TO STEP OUT OF THE COURTROOM.

(DETECTIVE FUHRMAN EXITS THE COURTROOM.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE COURTROOM. MR. HARRIS, MAY WE SEE THIS VIDEOTAPE, PLEASE.

MR. HARRIS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

(AT 11:59 A.M. A VIDEOTAPE WAS PLAYED.)

MS. LEWIS: CAN WE TURN UP THE SOUND?

(THE VIDEOTAPE CONTINUED PLAYING.)

THE COURT: MR. HARRIS, IS THAT IT?

MR. HARRIS: WELL, THERE IS MORE, BUT THAT IS --

MR. BAILEY: WE PASSED THE SPOT.

MR. HARRIS: YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: THAT IS IT. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL BE IN RECESS UNTIL WILL 1:30.

(AT 12:01 P.M. THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 1995 1:35 P.M.

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

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT. COUNSEL, ANYTHING WE NEED TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO REJOIN US? ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

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

THE COURT: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WELCOME BACK. ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WOULD YOU PLEASE RESUME THE WITNESS STAND. ALL RIGHT. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT WE'VE ALL BEEN JOINED BY OUR JURY PANEL. DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN IS STILL ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAILEY. GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MR. BAILEY, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. BAILEY:

Q: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IN THE COURSE OF YOUR CAREER AS A PATROLMAN AND MORE RECENTLY AS A DETECTIVE, HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD YOU SAY YOU HAVE QUESTIONED WITH RESPECT TO CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS?

A: IN THE