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

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. THE DEFENDANT IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, WE DO HAVE SOME PRELIMINARY MATTERS.

THE COURT: YES, WE DO. ALL RIGHT. EITHER COUNSEL WISH TO BE HEARD?

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE THAT THE COURT ASKED TO ADDRESS THIS MORNING.

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

MR. COCHRAN: ONE OTHER MATTER BEFORE YOU GET TO THAT, YOUR HONOR. WOULD THE COURT ASSIST US? IN THE TESTIMONY OF SEVERAL WITNESSES HAS BEEN MENTION OF THE HOMICIDE MANUAL UPDATED AND ALSO THE LAPD MANUAL. IF THE COURT WILL RECALL, AT ONE TIME WE HAD AN LAPD MANUAL HERE THAT WAS SENT BACK. WOULD THE COURT ASSIST, I THINK PERHAPS BOTH SIDES, IN GETTING A MANUAL, BOTH MANUALS HERE TODAY, IF POSSIBLE?

THE COURT: '94?

MR. COCHRAN: '94 EDITIONS. THAT IS A YES?

THE COURT: DONE.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. THANKS, JUDGE.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY EXTENDING MY SINCERE APOLOGY, VERY SINCERE APOLOGY FOR BEING LATE THIS MORNING. I GOT ON THE FREEWAY AND DIDN'T MOVE FOR HALF AN HOUR, BUT YOU KNOW, I LEFT EARLY THINKING THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH TIME, BUT IT UNFORTUNATELY WASN'T AND I DO DEEPLY APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT FOR BEING LATE THIS MORNING.

THE COURT: PROCEED.

MS. CLARK: I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY. OKAY. WITH RESPECT TO THE MATTER THAT THE COURT WANTED ME TO ADDRESS THIS MORNING, FIRST OF ALL, AS I INDICATED EARLIER, THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT RELEVANT, FIRST OF ALL, IN DIRECT, THAT THE WITNESS DID NOT TESTIFY TO ANY MATTERS CONTAINED WITHIN THE SEARCH WARRANT NOR ANY MATTERS THAT WOULD PERTAIN TO VALID IMPEACHMENT FROM THAT SEARCH WARRANT.

MR. SHAPIRO: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. MAY I SUGGEST -- EXCUSE ME, MARCIA. MAY I SUGGEST THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER BE EXCUSED FROM THIS ARGUMENT?

THE COURT: YES. DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WOULD YOU STEP OUT AND WAIT OUTSIDE IN THE HALLWAY, PLEASE. DETECTIVE VANNATTER: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, SIR.

(DETECTIVE VANNATTER EXITS THE COURTROOM.)

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: THE ISSUE IS WHAT RELEVANCE DO THESE STATEMENTS HAVE. UNDER 352 THEY ARE -- CLEARLY IT IS GOING TO BE AN UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME TO ADMIT THEM, NO. 1 THING, AS A BROAD GENERAL ISSUE. IF THE DEFENDANT --

THE COURT: WHY IS THAT?

MS. CLARK: BECAUSE IF THE DEFENDANT IS PERMITTED TO GO INTO THIS WITH RESPECT TO IMPEACHMENT ON THE TWO MATTERS THAT WERE INDICATED YESTERDAY IN CHAMBERS, THEN THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ENTITLED PROPERLY TO GO INTO ALL OF THE MATTERS IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT WERE CORRECT. WHAT WE WILL WIND UP DOING IS ESSENTIALLY LITIGATING VALIDITY OF THE WARRANT IN FRONT OF THE JURY. THE WARRANT AND ITS AVERMENTS ARE NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE JURY, AS IS STATED IN 1538.5(M). THE SOLE PURPOSE OF LITIGATING THE VALIDITY OF A SEARCH WARRANT IS TO DETERMINE IF THE WARRANT STATES PROBABLE CAUSE. PROBABLE CAUSE DETERMINATIONS ARE NOT THE PROVINCE OF THE JURY; THEY ARE THE PROVINCE OF THE JUDGE, AND THE COURT HAS ALREADY MADE ITS RULING WITH RESPECT TO THE VALIDITY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COURT DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE STATEMENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT TO BE USED AS PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS, THERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY THAT IT CAN BE ATTACHED TO. THE TRIAL TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER IS WHAT WE HAVE TO BASE THE DETERMINATION OF PRIOR INCONSISTENCY ON. THERE HAVE BEEN NO STATEMENTS. IF THERE HAS BEEN NO FOUNDATION AT THIS TIME TO THIS POINT THAT WOULD PERMIT FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE SEARCH WARRANT STATEMENTS AS PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS, THEN IN THAT CASE THE ANALYSIS HAS TO BE A PEOPLE VERSUS WHEELER, OTHER BAD ACT ANALYSIS AND WHETHER OR NOT THESE STATEMENTS AMOUNT TO ACTS OF MORAL TURPITUDE. WE SUBMIT THAT THERE IS NO WAY THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY STATE THAT THEY AMOUNT TO THAT, AND IN FACT, BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THE COURT ITSELF FOUND, NO. 1, THAT EVEN THOUGH THESE WERE MISSTATEMENTS, THEY WERE NOT MATERIAL MISSTATEMENTS SUCH THAT THEY WOULD INVALIDATE THE WARRANT AS A WHOLE. THAT MAKES THEM -- THE COURT, IN ESSENCE, HAS MADE A DETERMINATION THAT THESE ARE COLLATERAL MATTERS BECAUSE THE STATEMENT ABOUT THE UNEXPECTED FLIGHT TO CHICAGO AND THE HUMAN BLOOD ON THE BRONCO DOOR ARE NEITHER OF THEM MATERIAL MISSTATEMENTS. THE COURT FOUND RECKLESS DISREGARD WITH RESPECT TO THOSE STATEMENTS, BUT NEVERTHELESS, FOUND THAT THE WARRANT WAS SUFFICIENT AND DID STATE PROBABLE CAUSE, BUT NEVER DID THE COURT FIND THEM TO BE MATERIAL. THAT IN ITSELF INDICATES THE COLLATERAL NATURE OF THIS KIND OF IMPEACHMENT AND THAT IS REALLY THE ESSENCE AND THE FOCUS OF THE PEOPLE'S ARGUMENT HERE, IS THAT WE HAVE COUNSEL ATTEMPTING TO OPEN HIS OWN DOOR, WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CROSS-EXAMINING ON COLLATERAL MATTERS. PEOPLE VERSUS REYES, 62 CAL.APP.3D AT 53 -- 53 AT PAGE 62, PEOPLE VERSUS TAYLOR, 8 CAL.3D 174 AND PEOPLE VERSUS LAVERGNE, L-A-V-E-R-G-N-E, 4 CAL.3D 735, ALL OF WHICH INDICATE THAT A PARTY MAY NOT CROSS-EXAMINE A WITNESS ON COLLATERAL MATTERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELICITING SOMETHING TO BE CONTRADICTED, WHICH IS WHAT COUNSEL IN THIS CASE PROPOSES TO DO. WHAT IS STATED IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT IS RELEVANT TO WHAT THE WITNESS -- IS RELEVANT TO THE VALIDITY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT.

THE COURT: BUT ISN'T WHAT IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN IS MR. SHAPIRO WILL ASK DETECTIVE VANNATTER DID YOU MAKE ANY MISTAKES IN THAT SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT AND HE WILL PROBABLY SAY, YES, I DID, I MADE TWO MISTAKES OR THREE MISTAKES, X, Y AND Z, AND THAT WILL BE THE END OF IT, WON'T IT?

MS. CLARK: WELL, NO. HE MAY ASK THAT. I WOULD OBJECT AS IRRELEVANT. WHAT HE PUTS IN -- WHAT IS PUT INTO A SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT IS NOT RELEVANT MATERIAL FOR A JURY TO HEAR.

THE COURT: BUT DETECTIVE VANNATTER YESTERDAY TESTIFIED THAT HE DID TAKE SOME NOTES AND HE INCLUDED IN THAT DEFINITION THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT THAT DAY, IF YOU RECOLLECT THE TESTIMONY YESTERDAY.

MS. CLARK: I RECOLLECT THE TESTIMONY, BUT WHAT I RECOLLECT IS THAT THAT WAS MR. SHAPIRO'S CHARACTERIZATION AND NOT DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S, AND WE CAN GO BACK TO THAT PORTION OF THE TRANSCRIPT, BUT AS I RECALL, DETECTIVE VANNATTER RESISTED THAT DEFINITION BECAUSE IT REALLY DID NOT COMPORT WITH WHAT HIS DEFINITION OF NOTES WERE. AND THE -- MR. SHAPIRO KEPT INSISTING THAT IT WAS PART OF HIS NOTES, BUT THAT WAS HIS CHARACTERIZATION, NOT DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S. I DON'T THINK IT WAS EVER ADOPTED BY HIM. IT WAS PART OF THE THINGS THAT HE WROTE IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, OF THE MANY WRITINGS THAT HE HAS DONE IN THIS CASE WITH THE CHRONOLOGICAL LOG, ET CETERA, BUT I DO NOT RECALL THE WITNESS ADOPTING THAT DEFINITION. THAT WAS ONE -- THOSE WERE WORDS PUT IN HIS MOUTH BY MR. SHAPIRO.

THE COURT: LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT THAT YOU RAISE, WHICH IS THE COLLATERAL NATURE OF THE IMPEACHMENT OR THE EVIDENCE, LET'S NOT EVEN CALL IT IMPEACHMENT AT THIS POINT. YOU INDICATE THAT THEN THAT WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO GO THROUGH THE AFFIDAVIT AND SHOW EVERYTHING THAT WAS CORRECT.

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

THE COURT: TO REBOLSTER DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S TESTIMONY. DO YOU ALSO THINK THAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE PROOF OF THE SUBSTANTIVE FACTS ARE THAT IN DISPUTE, THE FACT THAT THIS WAS AN UNANTICIPATED TRIP TO CHICAGO AND THAT AT THE TIME THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT WAS WRITTEN NO TEST HAD BEEN COMPLETED WITH REGARDS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD? MY RECOLLECTION OF OUR DISCUSSIONS AT THE 1538 IS THAT IT WAS ONLY A PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD.

MS. CLARK: CORRECT.

THE COURT: AND NOT A DETERMINATION THAT IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD.

MS. CLARK: THAT'S CORRECT. WHAT WE WILL BE REQUIRED TO DO AT THAT POINT IS TO EXPLAIN, THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND OTHER WITNESSES, PRECISELY WHAT BROUGHT HIM TO THOSE -- BROUGHT HIM TO THE POINT WHERE HE MADE THOSE STATEMENTS IN THE AFFIDAVIT. WITH RESPECT TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD ON THE DOOR OF THE BRONCO, THE PEOPLE CONCEDE IT WAS A PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD AND YET IT WAS A LOGICAL CONCLUSION THAT THE BLOOD PLACED ON THE DOOR HANDLE OF A CAR WOULD BE BY A HUMAN BEING, AS WE HAVE STATED BEFORE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ANIMALS KNOW HOW TO DRIVE CARS OR COULD REACH THE DOOR HANDLE OF A BRONCO, AND I DON'T THINK THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO ARGUE ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY WITH RESPECT TO THAT.

WITH RESPECT, HOWEVER, TO THE UNEXPECTED FLIGHT, NOW WE ARE GOING TO GET INTO ISSUES OF WHAT EXACT INFORMATION WAS IMPARTED TO THE OFFICER WHO SPOKE TO CATHY RANDA AND WHAT INFORMATION EXACTLY WAS IMPARTED FROM THAT OFFICER TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER, IF ANY, AND WHERE DETECTIVE -- WHAT WITNESSES TALKED TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER TO CAUSE HIM TO LEAD HIM TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS AN UNEXPECTED FLIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO NOW CONVENE THE MINI TRIAL OF THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT AND THAT WILL INCLUDE NOT JUST THE -- OF COURSE THE STATEMENTS THAT COUNSEL WANTS TO ELICIT AS BEING INCORRECT, BUT THEN TO BOLSTER HIS CREDIBILITY WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK TO ALL OF THE NUMEROUS STATEMENTS THAT WERE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT TO ESTABLISH NOT ONLY THE FACT THAT THIS WAS NOT A SLOPPY JOB, BUT TO ESTABLISH ALSO THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTIONAL MISSTATEMENT. BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IF HE IS WRITING A WARRANT THAT CONTAINS SUCH ABUNDANT PROBABLE CAUSE, WHY JEOPARDIZE IT BY DELIBERATELY MISSTATING SOMETHING TO MISLEAD A MAGISTRATE, WHICH IS WHAT THE DEFENSE IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE ARGUING, THAT THERE WAS A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD. OBVIOUSLY WHEN YOU HAVE AN ENTIRE SEARCH WARRANT WHERE EVERYTHING ELSE IS CORRECT, AND YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT ARE ARGUABLY INCORRECT, AND WITH RESPECT TO THE UNEXPECTED FLIGHT, ALTHOUGH FACTUALLY INCORRECT, AS WE LATER DETERMINED, THE ISSUE IS REALLY WHAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER KNEW AT THE TIME AND THAT IS ANOTHER REASON THAT THIS IS COLLATERAL IMPEACHMENT. THIS GOES TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S STATE OF MIND AT THE TIME HE WROTE IT. THIS IS WHAT HE BELIEVED BASED ON A CERTAIN SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF INFORMATION THAT HE HAD. THAT IT LATER DEVELOPED THROUGH THE INVESTIGATION THAT THAT WAS INCORRECT DOES NOT IMPEACH HIS VERACITY AT THE TIME HE MADE THE STATEMENT. IT SIMPLY GOES TO SHOW THAT LATER INVESTIGATION DISPROVED SOME ASPECT OF WHAT HE BELIEVED TO BE TRUE AT THE TIME HE WROTE IT. SO IT DOESN'T EVEN IMPEACH WITH RESPECT TO HIS CREDIBILITY. IT SIMPLY SHOWS THAT FURTHER INVESTIGATION REVEALED FACTS TO THE CONTRARY. HOW IS THAT VALID IMPEACHMENT? HOW IS THAT FAIR IMPEACHMENT? AGAIN WE GET INTO 352 ISSUES AND UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME IN WHICH HE IS GOING TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHAT INFORMATION HE HAD, WHERE HE GOT IT, WHAT LED HIM TO THAT CONCLUSION AND CALL THE WITNESS BACK TO THE WITNESS STAND AND EXPLAIN WHAT THEY TOLD HIM AND WHY THEY TOLD HIM THAT AND AT WHAT POINT AND THEN AT WHAT POINT IT WAS LATER DETERMINED OTHERWISE. WITH RESPECT TO THAT, WITH RESPECT TO THE HUMAN BLOOD AND ANY OTHER MISSTATEMENTS -- I DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHER ACTUALLY -- BUT WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THAT, SO WE NOW ARE GOING TO CONVENE A MINI TRIAL AND WHAT IS TRUE AND NOT TRUE IN THE AFFIDAVIT, BASICALLY REQUIRING THE JURY TO REVIEW AN AREA THAT IS NOT WITHIN THEIR PROVINCE, AN AREA THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN LITIGATED FULLY AND COMPLETELY AND PROPERLY UNDER THE STATUTES BEFORE THIS COURT. AND THIS COURT MADE ITS DETERMINATION, BUT WHAT COUNSEL IS NOW GOING TO DO IS REOPEN AN AREA THAT IS NOT MEANT TO BE IN THE PROVINCE OF THE JURY, AND RIGHTFULLY SO, BECAUSE AS THE COURT WILL SEE, WE WILL THEN CONVENE THE MINI TRIAL OF THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT WRITTEN BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND DERAIL THE TRIAL AND SPEND ANOTHER WEEK ON TESTIMONY THAT SHOULD BE CONCLUDED TODAY.

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

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, ONE OF THE CENTRAL THEMES OF THE DEFENSE OF THIS CASE IS THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES, AND WE ARE DEALING IN AN AREA HERE WHERE THE COURT HAS ALREADY MADE AN EXTREME FINDING REGARDING THE CREDIBILITY OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER.

THE COURT: SEVERE; NOT EXTREME.

MR. SHAPIRO: SEVERE; BETTER WORD. AN EXTREME FINDING WOULD BE THAT IT WAS WILLFULLY FALSE.

THE COURT: CORRECT.

MR. SHAPIRO: AND THE JURY IS ENTITLED TO SEE WHAT THIS MAN HAS STATED UNDER OATH TO A MAGISTRATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING A WARRANT AND FOR ME TO EXAMINE WHAT HE KNEW AT THE TIME HE GOT THAT WARRANT. THESE ARE NOT COLLATERAL ISSUES. THESE STATEMENTS ARE GOING TO COME DIRECTLY FROM BRIAN KATO KAELIN AS TO WHAT HE TOLD DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND WILL COME DIRECTLY FROM THE VERY SKIMPY TWO PARAGRAPHS OF NOTES THAT WERE THE ONLY NOTES TAKEN BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER BESIDES HIS RECORDATIONS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT. AND SO IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THIS IS IMPEACHABLE MATERIAL, HIGHLY RELEVANT, AND GOES TO THE ESSENCE OF WHAT OUR CASE IS ABOUT, AND THAT IS CREDIBILITY, AND THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE STRESSED FROM DAY ONE.

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO, WHAT CONCERNS ME MOST IS MISS CLARK'S 352 ISSUE AND HER ARGUMENT THAT THIS WILL NECESSITATE A MINI TRIAL AS TO THE CONTENT OF THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT AND ALL THE OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INVOLVED.

MR. SHAPIRO: I THINK THIS MAY BE THE QUICKEST PART OF CROSS-EXAMINATION WE HAVE SEEN IN THE TRIAL. IT WILL TAKE MUCH LESS TIME THAN WE HAVE TAKEN OVER THE LAST TWO HOURS FROM YESTERDAY AND TODAY IN ARGUING THIS ISSUE. IT SIMPLY IS DID YOU PUT IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT A CHEMIST TOLD YOU THERE WAS HUMAN BLOOD ON THE CAR? WE KNOW A PRESUMPTIVE TEST MEANS ONLY THAT IT COULD BE BLOOD, BUT IT COULD BE OTHER SUBSTANCES.

THE COURT: SO YOU ARE TELLING ME YOU COULD DO THIS CROSS-EXAMINATION AS TO THESE TWO SPECIFIC ISSUES IN FIVE OR SIX QUESTIONS?

MR. SHAPIRO: I CAN'T SAY FIVE OR SIX QUESTIONS, BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON THE ANSWER. AS YOU KNOW, DETECTIVE VANNATTER IS AN EXPERIENCED OFFICER OF 26 YEARS AND HE DOES NOT LIKE TO DIRECTLY ANSWER A QUESTION, SO IF HE DIRECTLY ANSWERED YES OR NO --

THE COURT: SO MY QUESTION WAS DO YOU THINK YOU CAN DO THIS IN FIVE OR SIX QUESTIONS?

MR. SHAPIRO: I CAN DO IT IN THE QUESTIONS, BUT AS YOU KNOW, CROSS-EXAMINATION DEPENDS ON THE ANSWERS. IF HE IS HONEST AND SAYS, YES OR NO, AND YES, I MADE -- I MADE A MISTAKE, OR YES, I MADE A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION, IT CAN BE VERY QUICK. BUT IF HE IS NOT AS FORTHCOMING, THEN WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SHOW HIM WHAT HE WROTE, HOW HE DID IT BEFORE AND THE INFORMATION HE HAD AT HAND. IN ANY EVENT, IT WILL NOT BE A LENGTHY PART OF THE EXAMINATION.

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

MS. CLARK: MAY I ASK -- MAKE ONE FURTHER POINT, YOUR HONOR? I'M GETTING THE DISTINCTIVE IMPRESSION FROM COUNSEL THAT THERE IS SOME BELIEF ON THIS SIDE OF COUNSEL TABLE THAT THEY CAN ADMIT THE COURT'S FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE SEARCH WARRANT IN THEIR QUESTIONING OF THIS WITNESS BEFORE THE JURY AND THAT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY INAPPROPRIATE. I DON'T THINK THE COURT DISAGREES.

THE COURT: NO, I AGREE WITH THAT. HOW IT IS PHRASED IS VERY CAREFUL. DID YOU SAY -- AS I UNDERSTAND MR. SHAPIRO'S ARGUMENT, I THINK THE GIST OF WHAT THE QUESTION WILL BE IS DID YOU INDICATE TO THE MAGISTRATE IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT THAT THERE HAD BEEN A TEST FOR HUMAN BLOOD? YES OR NO. DID YOU INDICATE TO THE MAGISTRATE IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT THAT MR. SIMPSON'S TRIP TO CHICAGO WAS UNANTICIPATED? YES OR NO. THINKING ABOUT THIS LAST NIGHT, I COULD DO THIS IN FOUR QUESTIONS.

MS. CLARK: IT COULD BE, BUT IT WON'T BE, AND ONCE HE GETS INTO THAT, YOUR HONOR, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO RESPOND.

THE COURT: NO, BUT IT -- IF I ALLOW IT, IT WILL BE.

MS. CLARK: WELL, YEAH. WHAT I MEAN IS -- I DON'T MEAN THAT.

THE COURT: OR I WILL DO THE QUESTIONING.

MR. SHAPIRO: I WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO YOUR HONOR ASKING THE QUESTIONING ON THE SEARCH WARRANT AND TELLING THE JURY WHAT YOUR FINDINGS WERE.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, COULD YOU DO MY NEXT THREE WITNESSES, TOO?

THE COURT: SURE.

MS. CLARK: WHAT I MEANT, YOUR HONOR --

MR. COCHRAN: WAS NOT --

THE COURT: IN THE TALMUD COURTS THERE ARE NO LAWYERS; IT IS JUDGE ASKING QUESTIONS.

MS. CLARK: I THINK IT IS A GREAT IDEA.

THE COURT: I THINK SO, TOO.

MS. CLARK: BUT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY JURIES EITHER, DO THEY?

THE COURT: NO.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT. WHAT I WAS SUGGESTING TO THE COURT IS THAT I DON'T THINK THAT IT WILL BE -- I DON'T THINK THAT IF PERMITTED TO DO THIS QUESTIONING COUNSEL WILL CONCLUDE IT QUITE THAT EXPEDITIOUSLY, AND ONE HAS TO ALSO CONSIDER THAT THE PEOPLE WOULD THEN BE ENTITLED TO COUNTER WITH ALL OF THE CORRECT STATEMENTS AND ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE DONE PROPERLY IN THAT SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT.

THE COURT: UH-HUH.

MS. CLARK: IT IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF TIME WE ARE GOING TO WIND UP SPENDING ON AN ISSUE THAT IS CLEARLY COLLATERAL. OKAY. I HAVE ALREADY MADE THAT ARGUMENT AND I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE IT AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, BUT I DO WISH THAT THE COURT WOULD INSTRUCT COUNSEL NOT TO QUESTION THE WITNESS ON YOUR HONOR'S RULINGS WITH RESPECT TO THIS WARRANT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. MR. SHAPIRO, MISS CLARK, I AM GOING TO ALLOW LIMITED QUESTIONING OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER AS TO THOSE TWO STATEMENTS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT, AND AS I HAVE INDICATED TO COUNSEL, IT IS A VERY LIMITED NUMBER OF QUESTIONS THAT I'M GOING TO ALLOW IN THAT AREA. LIKEWISE, THE REDIRECT AS TO REHABILITATION WILL BE SOMEWHAT LIMITED AS WELL ALSO. MR. SHAPIRO, I'M GOING TO DIRECT YOU NOT TO MENTION IN THIS ANY -- NOT TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS THAT CALL FOR LEGAL CONCLUSIONS OR THAT INDICATE THE COURT'S PREVIOUS RULING OR FINDINGS WITH REGARDS TO THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT, WHICH ARE IRRELEVANT AS FAR AS THE JURY IS CONCERNED. IS THAT UNDERSTOOD?

MR. SHAPIRO: YES, IT IS, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: LET'S PROCEED.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, WE ALSO HAVE TWO OTHER MATTERS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT. ONE IS A VIDEO --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SHAPIRO: -- OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER GOING OVER THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE. WE WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THAT, WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION.

THE COURT: HAVE YOU SHOWN THIS TO OPPOSING COUNSEL?

MR. SHAPIRO: THEY HAVE ALREADY SEEN IT ONCE BEFORE.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SHAPIRO: THEY HAVE SEEN IT SEVERAL TIMES.

MR. DARDEN: HAS IT BEEN ADMITTED BEFORE?

MR. SHAPIRO: THIS IS THE ORIGINAL LASER DISK THAT WE SHOWED THEM AT THE BEGINNING. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM IN SHOWING THAT TO THEM AGAIN.

THE COURT: HOW LONG IS IT?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SHAPIRO: A COUPLE OF SECONDS.

THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO PREVIEW THAT, MR. DARDEN?

MR. DARDEN: YES. WE OBJECTED TO IT BEFORE AND WE WILL PROBABLY OBJECT AGAIN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. SHAPIRO: THE OTHER THING WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT TO THE COURT IS I HAVE THIS MORNING GIVEN MR. DARDEN A MAP OF LOS ANGELES SHOWING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN PARKER CENTER, PIPER TECH WHERE THE CRIME LAB IS LOCATED, AND THE BUNDY RESIDENCE AND THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO PUT THIS UP ON THE ELMO.

MR. DARDEN: I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO MR. SHAPIRO SHOWING THE MAP TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER. I DO, HOWEVER, OBJECT TO THE DISTANCES INDICATED ON THE MAP. HE INDICATES THAT PARKER CENTER TO PIPER TECH IS ONE MILE AND PARKER CENTER TO ROCKINGHAM IS 18.7 MILES AND I WOULD OBJECT TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THAT BEFORE THE JURY WITHOUT FURTHER FOUNDATION AS FAR AS THE DISTANCES.

MR. SHAPIRO: WHATEVER YOU SAY IS CORRECT WE WILL SUBSTITUTE.

MR. DARDEN: I'M NOT TESTIFYING; THE WITNESS IS TESTIFYING.

MR. SHAPIRO: WE GOT THAT IN A COMPUTER PROGRAM THAT TELLS YOU THE SHORTEST DISTANCES TO THOSE POINTS.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO ALLOW THE USE OF THE MAP SUBJECT TO A FOUNDATIONAL OBJECTION. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

MS. CLARK: CAN WE SEE THE TAPE, PLEASE, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME SEE THE LASER.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

(AT 9:50 A.M. A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I HAVE SEEN THE VIDEO PRESENTATION. ANY COMMENT? MR. DARDEN?

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

MR. DARDEN: MAY WE SEE THAT ONE MORE TIME, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: SURE. WHY NOT.

MS. CLARK: IT WENT BY SO FAST.

MR. DARDEN: WE SORT OF MISSED THE BEGINNING.

THE COURT: MR. HARRIS.

(AT 9:51 A.M. A VIDEOTAPE, WAS REPLAYED.)

MR. DARDEN: WELL, IT APPEARS THAT THE BODIES ARE ALREADY GONE IN THAT SCENARIO, YOUR HONOR. I DON'T SEE THE RELEVANCY OF IT.

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SHAPIRO: WE BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT CRIMINALIST FUNG WAS STILL THERE AND THAT EVIDENCE WAS STILL BEING COLLECTED AFTER THE BODIES WERE REMOVED AND IT GOES TO IMPEACH THEIR PREVIOUS TESTIMONY.

MR. DARDEN: WELL, UNLESS THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE THAT MR. FUNG IS COLLECTING EVIDENCE THEN OR AT THAT TIME --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION TO MR. FUNG, WHO I DID SEE. LET ME SEE IT ONE LAST TIME.

(AT 9:52 A.M. A VIDEOTAPE, WAS REPLAYED.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENT, MR. SHAPIRO?

MR. SHAPIRO: NO, YOUR HONOR, BUT EVIDENCE COLLECTION IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS CASE AND THE TESTIMONY HAS BEEN THAT EVIDENCE COLLECTION ENDED AFTER THE BODIES WERE REMOVED AND ALL THE EVIDENCE WAS DONE BEFORE.

THE COURT: DO WE HAVE A --

MS. CLARK: THAT IS NOT TRUE AT ALL.

MR. DARDEN: THAT IS NOT TRUE.

MR. SHAPIRO: THAT'S RIGHT, IT IS NOT TRUE. EVIDENCE COLLECTION CONTINUED. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS THE PROPER PROCEDURE, THAT ALL EVIDENCE SHOULD BE COLLECTED BEFORE THE BODIES ARE REMOVED.

MS. CLARK: NO.

THE COURT: BUT WE KNOW THAT NOT TO BE TRUE IN THIS CASE.

MR. SHAPIRO: THAT'S CORRECT, AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE SHOWING THAT, FOR IMPEACHMENT.

MS. CLARK: THAT DOESN'T IMPEACH ANYONE.

MR. SHAPIRO: WE HAVE GOT BOTH PEOPLE TALKING AT ONE TIME.

MR. DARDEN: THAT HAS NOT BEEN OUR POSITION IN THIS TRIAL, YOUR HONOR, THAT IS, THAT ALL THE EVIDENCE HAS TO BE COLLECTED BEFORE THE BODIES ARE MOVED. THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN THAT IT SHOULD BE PHOTOGRAPHED BEFORE THE BODIES ARE MOVED.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, IF MR. FUNG IS THE FOCUS OF THAT PARTICULAR VIDEO, IT DOES APPEAR THAT HE IS FOLDING THOSE LITTLE INDEX CARDS AND APPEARS TO HAVE A WRITING INSTRUMENT IN HIS HAND AS WELL, SO I WILL ALLOW THE TAPE.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

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

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO, HAVE WE MARKED THAT SEGMENT OF THE LASER DISK AND CAN YOU DOWNLOAD THAT TO A VIDEOTAPE FOR THE RECORD KEEPING PURPOSES?

MR. HARRIS: YES, WE CAN, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE WILL NEED TO MARK THAT FOR THE RECORD.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED. DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE.

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

THE COURT: LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE HAVE NOW 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 AGAIN FOR THE LATE START THIS MORNING. WE HAD A DELAY IN GETTING SOME OF THE LAWYERS TO COURT TODAY BECAUSE OF THE RAIN-RELATED TRAFFIC PROBLEMS, THINGS THAT YOU HAVE PROBABLY FORGOTTEN ABOUT RECENTLY. ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE PHILIP VANNATTER IS STILL ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO. GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE VANNATTER.

THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: DETECTIVE, YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. AND MR. SHAPIRO, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. SHAPIRO:

Q: GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE.

A: GOOD MORNING, MR. SHAPIRO.

Q: YESTERDAY YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WOULD LIKE SOME TIME TO REVIEW YOUR REPORTS TO SEE IF YOU MADE ANY INDICATION IN ANY OF YOUR RECORDS AS TO WHETHER YOU WERE SHOWN ANY BLOOD SMEARS BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT, SIR?

A: YES. I DON'T RECALL HIM SHOWING ME ANY BLOOD SMEARS THAT MORNING.

Q: AND THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT YOU WERE SHOWN ANY BLOOD SMEARS BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: NO. I COULDN'T FIND ANY, NO.

Q: AND IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TESTIFIED THAT THERE WERE BLOOD SMEARS ON THE DOOR, THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR HIM TO POINT OUT TO YOU, WOULD IT NOT?

A: HE MAY HAVE POINTED THEM OUT. I DON'T RECALL HIM DOING THAT.

Q: WELL, THIS IS SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT, IS IT NOT, WHAT BLOOD YOU SAW ON THE BRONCO AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: PARDON, SIR? I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOU.

Q: IS THE OBSERVATION OF BLOOD ON THE BRONCO SOMETHING THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT IN A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION LIKE THIS?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND IF YOU WERE SHOWN BLOOD SMEARS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO, ISN'T THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD REMEMBER?

A: I -- I -- I DON'T RECALL HIM SHOWING THEM TO ME. HE COULD HAVE. I DON'T RECALL IT.

Q: MY QUESTION IS ISN'T THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD REMEMBER, IF THOSE WERE SHOWN TO YOU?

A: I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT SINCE I DON'T RECALL THEM BEING SHOWN TO ME.

Q: THAT IS THE BEST ANSWER YOU GIVE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD REMEMBER BLOOD SMEARS AT ROCKINGHAM?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID IT EVER DAWN ON YOU, SIR, THAT IF THERE WERE BLOOD SMEARS AT THE -- WELL, YOU SAW BLOOD SMEARS INSIDE THE DOOR ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO, DIDN'T YOU?

A: TOWARD THE TOP, TOWARD THE WINDOW, YES.

Q: DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD TOWARDS THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR?

A: DOWN INSIDE THE VEHICLE?

Q: YES.

A: NO.

Q: DID IT EVER DAWN ON YOU THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN MUST HAVE GONE INSIDE THAT CAR FOR HIM TO SEE THOSE BLOOD SPOTS?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THAT IS VAGUE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TESTIFIED THAT HE SAW BLOOD SMEARS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO AND YOUR RECOLLECTION IS YOU DID NOT SEE BLOOD SMEARS AND THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DIDN'T SHOW THEM TO YOU, DID IT DAWN ON YOU THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN MUST HAVE GONE INSIDE THE BRONCO TO MAKE THESE OBSERVATIONS?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. MISSTATES THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED ON THAT GROUND.

THE WITNESS: AS I RECALL DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY, THE BLOOD SMEARS HE SAW WERE ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE; NOT INSIDE.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID THAT RAISE A QUESTION IN YOUR MIND, SINCE YOU NEVER SAW BLOOD SMEARS OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, MISSTATES THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID IT CAUSE YOU CONCERN, SINCE YOU DON'T REMEMBER SEEING ANY BLOOD STAINS OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE?

A: NO. THERE WAS A LOT OF BLOOD THERE THAT I DIDN'T SEE ORIGINALLY.

Q: I'M TALKING ABOUT OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE. WAS THERE A LOT OF BLOOD ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE THAT YOU DIDN'T SEE AT ANY POINT IN TIME?

A: YES. I DON'T RECALL SEEING THE BLOOD SMEARS ALONG THE PANEL OF THE DOOR AT THE BOTTOM.

Q: DID YOU EVER SEE THOSE BLOOD SMEARS?

A: I SAW A REPORT THAT THEY WERE TESTED PRESUMPTIVE FOR BLOOD.

Q: DID YOU EVER SEE THOSE BLOOD SMEARS YOURSELF?

A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING THEM, NO, SIR.

Q: DID YOU TESTIFY YESTERDAY THAT YOU DID SEE THEM?

A: NO, SIR, I DID NOT.

Q: DID YOU TESTIFY YESTERDAY THAT YOU DID NOT RECALL SEEING THE BLOOD SMEARS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO THAT NIGHT BUT YOU DID SEE THEM AT SOME LATER TIME?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE I SAID THAT. I DON'T RECALL SEEING THOSE SMEARS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR.

MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I SHOW YOU YOUR TESTIMONY OF YESTERDAY WE HAVE TAKEN THIS OFF A COMPUTER AND PERHAPS I CAN READ IT TO HIM. THESE ARE OFF THE LIVE NOTES BUT WE CAN MAYBE LOCATE IT FROM THE TRANSCRIPT.

THE COURT: I WOULD PREFER THE TRANSCRIPT, WHICH WE HAVE GONE TO --

MR. SHAPIRO: I WILL MOVE ON TO ANOTHER MATTER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHEN CRIMINALIST FUNG CAME OUT AT YOUR ORDER, DID HE TEST ANYTHING AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO FOR BLOOD?

A: I BELIEVE THAT TESTING WAS DONE AT A LATER DATE.

Q: DID YOU PHOTOGRAPH HIM POINTING OUT ANY BLOOD AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO OR CAUSE HIM TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED DOING THAT?

A: NO. I WASN'T THERE WHEN THE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE DONE.

Q: DID YOU ORDER PHOTOGRAPHS TO BE TAKEN?

A: YES, SIR, I DID.

Q: WHAT DID YOU ORDER TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED?

A: THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT I WAS AWARE OF.

Q: AND DID YOU ORDER THE BLOOD -- THAT BLOOD STAIN THAT YOU HAVE REFERRED TO ON THE DOOR HANDLE OF THE BRONCO, THAT WAS PRETTY SMALL?

A: YES. AND IT WAS ABOVE THE DOOR HANDLE, NOT ACTUALLY ON THE HANDLE.

Q: ABOVE THE DOOR HANDLE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND YOU ORDERED CRIMINALIST FUNG TO DO A PHENOTHALINE TEST?

A: YES. A PRESUMPTIVE BLOOD TEST, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND A PRESUMPTIVE BLOOD TEST ONLY SHOWS THAT THE SUBSTANCE COULD POSSIBLY BE BLOOD; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: IT COULD ALSO BE VEGETABLE SUBSTANCES THAT WOULD GIVE A POSITIVE READING?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. CALLS FOR --

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DO YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE COULD GIVE A POSITIVE READING?

A: NO, I AM NOT AN EXPERT IN THAT.

Q: YOU DIDN'T HEAR THE TESTIMONY OF THE EXPERTS AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING WHEN YOU WERE SITTING THERE?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU HEAR THE TESTIMONY -- HAVE YOU HEARD EXPERTS TESTIFY AS TO WHAT A PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR BLOOD IS?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND DO YOU KNOW WHETHER ANY OTHER SUBSTANCES, BASED ON TESTIMONY YOU'VE HEARD FROM OTHER EXPERTS, FROM EXPERTS IN THE FIELD, COULD BE A SUBSTANCE OTHER THAN BLOOD?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I THINK IT IS A 352 PROBLEM.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: LET ME NOW GO BACK TO YOUR TRANSCRIPT OF YESTERDAY. I WANT TO DRAW THE COURT'S ATTENTION TO PAGE 19556, LINES 1 AND 10, SIR, AND ASK YOU TO READ THAT YOURSELF.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I PUT THIS UP ON THE ELMO, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. SHAPIRO: OKAY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. SHAPIRO: GO DOWN A LITTLE BIT, MR. HARRIS, PLEASE. (BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. DARDEN: COULD THE COURT --

THE COURT: I'M SORRY?

MR. DARDEN: I WANT TO ASK THAT THE COURT REQUIRE MR. SHAPIRO TO SHOW THE DETECTIVE --

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO GIVE DETECTIVE VANNATTER THE COURT'S COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT SO HE DOESN'T HAVE TO LOOK AT THE MONITOR.

MR. DARDEN: MAY HE BE ALLOWED TO READ ALL THE WAY DOWN TO LINE 22?

THE COURT: WE HAVE THE WHOLE --

MR. DARDEN: THE WHOLE EXCHANGE?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. HARRIS, YOU NEED TO BACK OUT JUST A LITTLE THERE. ALL RIGHT. PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DO YOU RECALL BEING ASKED THE QUESTION REGARDING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN THAT YOU HEARD HIM TESTIFY THAT THERE WERE BLOOD SMEARS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR, DIDN'T YOU?

A: I HEARD HIM TESTIFY TO THAT, YES.

Q: AND YOUR ANSWER WAS, "I DID, YES"; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN YOU WERE ASKED: "DID YOU SEE THOSE?" DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION: "I DID AT A LATER TIME. I DON'T RECALL HIM SHOWING THEM TO ME THAT NIGHT."

A: YES.

MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD ASK THAT MR. SHAPIRO BE REQUIRED TO PRESENT TO THE JURY ALL OF THE -- RATHER, THE ENTIRE EXCHANGE ALL THE WAY UP TO LINE 22.

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT WOULD BE PROPER FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. THIS IS WHAT I WANTED TO SHOW. I THINK IT DIRECTLY IMPEACHES THE WITNESS.

MR. DARDEN: THIS IS CROSS-EXAMINATION.

MS. CLARK: THIS IS CROSS-EXAMINATION.

THE COURT: THIS IS CROSS.

MR. SHAPIRO: I MEAN A REDIRECT EXAMINATION OF THE PEOPLE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OVERRULED. PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND YOU ORDERED DETECTIVE -- YOU ORDERED CRIMINALIST FUNG TO DO A PHENOTHALINE TEST ON THAT SMALL BLOOD DROP ON THE BRONCO; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU REALIZE AT THAT TIME THAT BY DOING THE TEST YOU WOULD PERMANENTLY DESTROY THAT EVIDENCE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT DNA ANALYSIS?

A: NO, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT.

Q: AND THAT IN FACT IS WHAT HAPPENED, ISN'T IT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO ANALYZE THAT SPOT BY DNA ANALYSIS?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: HAVE I BEEN ABLE TO?

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: HAS ANYBODY, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, BEEN ABLE TO?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. I THINK YOU CAN ASK HIM HAS THAT BEEN SUBMITTED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: HAS THAT BEEN SUBMITTED FOR DNA ANALYSIS, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

Q: NOW, YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY THAT WHEN YOU WENT INTO THE ROCKINGHAM ESTATE THAT THERE WAS NO DIRECTION AS TO WHERE THE DETECTIVES SHOULD GO; IS THAT CORRECT?

THE COURT: COUNSEL, WHAT TIME? KIND OF VAGUE.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AS YOU ENTERED ROCKINGHAM, YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY THAT YOU SEARCHED THE GROUNDS TO SEE IF ANYBODY WAS INJURED IN THE AREA; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AT THAT TIME DID YOU GIVE ANY DIRECTION TO DETECTIVE LANGE AS TO WHAT TO DO?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU GIVE ANY DIRECTION TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AS TO WHAT TO DO?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU GIVE ANY DIRECTION TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AS TO WHAT TO DO?

A: NO.

Q: IT WAS ALL BEING IMPROVISED BY EACH DETECTIVE, ACCORDING TO HIS OWN DESIRES?

A: WELL, WE WERE ALL SEASONED POLICE OFFICERS. OUR PURPOSES FOR BEING THERE WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY WAS OKAY AT THE LOCATION.

Q: DID YOU SEE WHERE DETECTIVE LANGE WENT?

A: YEAH. I WAS CLOSE TO DETECTIVE LANGE MOST OF THE TIME.

Q: SO WERE YOU WORKING AS PARTNERS DURING THAT OBSERVATION PHASE?

A: YEAH. WE WORK AS PARTNERS ALL THE TIME, YES.

Q: AND EVERYWHERE YOU WENT HE WENT?

A: NOT EVERYWHERE, NO.

Q: WHERE DID HE GO THAT YOU DIDN'T GO?

A: HE WENT TO THE BACK DOOR OF THE LOCATION. I LATER WENT THERE. HE REMAINED IN THE KITCHEN WHEN I WENT INTO THE MAID'S QUARTERS AND HE REMAINED IN THE KITCHEN WHEN I WENT BACK INTO THE BAR AREA. AND THEN I WAS OUT OF HIS VIEW FOR A PERIOD OF TIME AFTER THAT.

Q: DID YOU DIRECT ANYBODY, WHEN YOU ENTERED, TO LOOK FOR PEOPLE TO FIND WHERE IS O.J.?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THIS IS ASKED AND ANSWERED FROM YESTERDAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: WE HAD DISCUSSED OUR PURPOSE FOR BEING THERE AND OUR PURPOSE FOR GOING OVER THE WALL WAS TO CHECK THE WELFARE AND SEE IF THERE WERE ANY OCCUPANTS AT THE HOME THAT WAS KNOWN BETWEEN THE FOUR OF US.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IS IT STANDARD POLICE PROCEDURE, WHEN A WITNESS IS AWAKENED, TO GIVE THEM A TEST FOR ALCOHOL OR DRUG INTOXICATION?

A: STANDARD?

Q: YES.

A: I THINK THAT WOULD DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Q: DID YOU GIVE ANY DIRECTION TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN REGARDING A MAN KNOWN AS BRIAN KATO KAELIN?

A: NO.

Q: HE GAVE YOU DIRECTION, THOUGH, DIDN'T HE?

A: NO, HE DIDN'T GIVE ME DIRECTION.

Q: HE DIDN'T TELL YOU TO TALK TO KATO?

A: HE ASKED ME TO SPEAK WITH HIM.

Q: DID HE TELL YOU WHAT HE WANTED YOU TO SPEAK TO KATO ABOUT?

A: BRIEFLY, YES.

Q: WHAT DID HE TELL YOU HE WANTED TO SPEAK ABOUT?

A: HE SAID THAT KATO HAD HEARD SOME SOUNDS OUTSIDE OF HIS ROOM THAT HE THOUGHT WAS AN EARTHQUAKE AND HE WANTED ME TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT THAT.

Q: AT THAT TIME DID YOU KNOW WHERE O.J. SIMPSON WAS?

A: I BELIEVE I WAS AWARE THAT A PHONE CALL WAS BEING MADE TO FIND OUT WHERE HE WAS AT.

Q: AT THAT TIME WERE YOU AWARE OF WHERE O.J. SIMPSON WAS? YES OR NO?

A: I -- I MAY HAVE BEEN. I'M NOT SURE.

Q: DID YOU ASK KATO "WHERE'S O.J."?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND DID HE TELL YOU HE HAD GONE ON A TRIP TO CHICAGO FOR HERTZ?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: AND HE PUT THAT -- AND YOU WROTE THAT DOWN IN YOUR NOTES, DID YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU KNOW THAT -- DID YOU KNOW WHERE O.J. WAS AT THE TIME THAT YOU WALKED INTO THE HOUSE WITH THE MAID -- LOOKING FOR THE MAID, I'M SORRY?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: WHEN YOU CAME IN LOOKING FOR THE MAID DID YOU ASK ANYBODY WHERE'S O.J. AT THAT TIME?

A: I DID NOT, NO.

Q: DID YOU ASK ARNELLE SIMPSON "WHERE'S O.J."?

A: AT WHAT POINT?

Q: WHEN YOU CAME IN LOOKING FOR THE MAID?

A: I HAD ASKED HER PREVIOUSLY.

Q: DID YOU ASK HER IF HE WAS IN THE HOUSE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT DID SHE SAY?

A: SHE GESTURED TOWARD THE HOUSE AND SAID "ISN'T I HERE?" AND I ASKED HER, IS HE? DO YOU HAVE A KEY? CAN WE GO CHECK?" AND SHE TOOK US INTO THE HOME.

Q: DID YOU ASK HER WHERE O.J.'S BEDROOM WAS?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: IF YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT O.J., WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO GO UP TO HIS BEDROOM AND SEE IF HE WAS STILL SLEEPING?

A: IF HE HADN'T HAD BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR, YES. HE WAS ACCOUNTED FOR AT A POINT THERE THAT MORNING.

Q: BUT HE WASN'T ACCOUNTED FOR IMMEDIATELY, WAS HE?

A: NO, SIR, HE WASN'T.

Q: AND THERE WAS A PERIOD OF TIME WHEN YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT LOOKING FOR THE MAID AND SITTING AND TALKING TO KATO BEFORE YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE IS O.J.; ISN'T THAT TRUE?

A: BEFORE I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT LOOKING FOR O.J.?

Q: CORRECT.

A: I THINK THE MAIN CONCERN WAS TO LOCATE O.J. AND THAT WAS DONE QUITE QUICKLY AFTER WE ARRIVED IN THERE BY PHONE CALL. HE WAS ACCOUNTED FOR. THE MAID WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT THERE. AT THAT POINT IS WHEN I BELIEVE I STARTED WALKING BACK TOWARD THE BACK. I KNEW THEY WERE ON THE PHONE ATTEMPTING TO LOCATE O.J. AT THAT POINT.

Q: YOUR FIRST KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF O.J. SIMPSON WAS BECAUSE OF A PHONE CALL?

A: YES. I HEARD ARNELLE TELL EITHER DETECTIVE PHILLIPS OR LANGE THAT SHE COULD MAKE A PHONE CALL TO HIS SECRETARY AND SHE WOULD ALWAYS KNOW WHERE HE WAS AT.

Q: AND DID YOU GET THE RESULTS OF THAT PHONE CALL?

A: AT A LATER TIME, YES.

Q: WHAT TIME DID YOU CONFIRM THAT O.J. SIMPSON WAS IN CHICAGO?

A: OH, I WAS TOLD THAT BY KATO AND THEN I WAS LATER TOLD THAT BY MY PARTNER.

Q: WHAT TIME DID YOU CONFIRM IT?

A: SHORTLY AFTER SIX O'CLOCK THAT MORNING.

Q: WHAT TIME DO YOUR PHONE RECORDS INDICATE THAT O.J. SIMPSON WAS CONTACTED IN CHICAGO?

A: IF I COULD SEE THE RECORDS I COULD TELL YOU.

Q: OKAY. DO YOU HAVE THOSE RECORDS?

A: YEAH. THIS MAY BE IN MY BOOK THERE.

Q: WE TALKED ABOUT THAT YESTERDAY, DIDN'T WE?

A: YEAH.

MR. SHAPIRO: WE ASKED YOU TO LOOK FOR THAT. THEY ARE IN THIS BOOK. MAY I BRING THESE UP, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE WITNESS: THERE ARE VOLUMES OF RECORDS. I'M HAVING A HARD TIME RIGHT NOW LOCATING THEM.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SHAPIRO: MAYBE -- YOUR HONOR, I WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO DETECTIVE LANGE HELPING DETECTIVE PHILLIPS (SIC) TRY TO LOCATE THIS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE LANGE, WHY DON'T YOU TAKE THE INVESTIGATION NOTEBOOKS AND SEE IF YOU CAN FIND THE PHONE RECORDS FOR THAT POINT IN TIME.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO, LET ME SUGGEST THAT DETECTIVE LANGE MAKE THE RECORD SEARCH AND WE PROCEED WITH ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DETECTIVE VANNATTER.

MR. SHAPIRO: THAT IS ACCEPTABLE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IS IT YOUR POSITION, DETECTIVE VANNATTER, THAT PRIOR TO TRYING TO GO UP TO A BEDROOM OR LOOK AROUND THE HOUSE FOR O.J., YOU DECIDED TO TRY TO LOCATE HIM TELEPHONICALLY?

A: I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THAT. COULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? MY CONTENTION WHAT?

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, COULD THAT BE REREAD TO THE WITNESS?

THE COURT: "IS IT YOUR POSITION, DETECTIVE VANNATTER, THAT PRIOR TO TRYING TO GO UP TO A BEDROOM OR LOOK AROUND THE HOUSE FOR O.J. YOU DECIDED TO TRY TO LOCATE HIM TELEPHONICALLY?"

THE WITNESS: THAT IS WHAT OCCURRED WITH HIS DAUGHTER, YES.

MR. SHAPIRO: HOW ABOUT IF WE REFER TO THE DEFENDANT AS MR. SIMPSON.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: DETECTIVE VANNATTER, YOU APPLIED FOR SEVERAL SEARCH WARRANTS IN THIS CASE, DID YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND A SEARCH WARRANT REQUIRES AN AFFIDAVIT SIGNED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, DOES IT NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT REQUIREMENT IS SO THAT AN INDEPENDENT MAGISTRATE OR A JUDGE CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A SEARCH WARRANT SHOULD ISSUE AND NOT LET THE POLICE RELY ON THEIR OWN INSTINCTS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN FILLING OUT A SEARCH WARRANT YOU INDICATED TO A MAGISTRATE UNDER, PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT YOU WERE TOLD THAT O.J. SIMPSON HAD LEFT ON AN UNEXPECTED MIGHT TO CHICAGO, DID YOU NOT?

A: I DIDN'T SAY I WAS TOLD THAT.

Q: YOU REPORTED --

A: I DID WRITE THAT IN THE SEARCH WARRANT, YES.

Q: AND YOU SIGNED THAT UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY?

A: YES. THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

Q: AND THAT WASN'T TRUE, WAS IT?

A: I FIND -- I FOUND OUT LATER THAT THAT INFORMATION WAS INCORRECT. THAT WAS BASED ON ARNELLE SIMPSON'S RESPONSE THAT MORNING, AS WELL AS KATO KAELIN TELLING ME THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A PHONE CALL AFTER SIMPSON HAD LEFT THE RESIDENCE TELLING HIM TO ALARM THE HOUSE, THAT HE WAS GOING TO CHICAGO ON A BUSINESS TRIP FOR HERTZ.

Q: YOU FILLED OUT THE AFFIDAVIT FOR THE SEARCH WARRANT AT WHAT TIME, SIR?

A: I STARTED THAT APPROXIMATELY 7:45 IN THE MORNING.

Q: AND WHAT TIME DID YOU PRESENT IT TO A MAGISTRATE, SIR?

A: IT WAS SIGNED AT 10:45.

Q: AND THE MAGISTRATE ASKED YOU TO MAKE SOME HAND CORRECTIONS IN THERE, DID SHE NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT AT SIX O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING YOUR HANDWRITTEN NOTES INDICATE THAT IN YOUR INTERVIEW WITH KATO KAELIN THAT HE TOLD YOU THAT O.J. SIMPSON HAD LEFT ON A FLIGHT FOR CHICAGO FOR HERTZ?

A: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND DID YOU ALSO INDICATE, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, SIR, THAT YOU OBSERVED WHAT APPEARED TO BE HUMAN BLOOD, WHICH WAS LATER CONFIRMED BY A CRIMINALIST TO BE HUMAN BLOOD?

A: YES, I SAID THAT.

Q: AND ISN'T IT TRUE AT THE TIME THAT THAT WAS NOT A TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS HUMAN BLOOD?

A: THAT IS TRUE. I MISSTATED THAT I GUESS BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE. I BELIEVED IT WAS HUMAN BLOOD AND I THINK NOW -- I THINK STILL IT IS HUMAN BLOOD. I THINK IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE HUMAN BLOOD.

Q: YOU ALSO SAID, SIR, DID YOU NOT, YOU OBSERVED BLOOD ON THE CONSOLE OF THE BRONCO AND BLOOD INSIDE THE DOOR PANELING OF THE BRONCO, DID YOU NOT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: DID YOU INCLUDE THAT INFORMATION IN YOUR SEARCH WARRANT?

A: NO.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: I JUST -- THAT WAS A QUICK ATTEMPT TO GET A SEARCH WARRANT TO MOVE THE INVESTIGATION ALONG. I DIDN'T -- I MISSED SOME THINGS IN IT THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN IT.

Q: DID YOU MAKE ANY NOTES IN THAT IN ANY REPORTS THAT WERE FILED IN THIS CASE?

A: NO, SIR, I DIDN'T.

Q: REGARDING THE GLOVE THAT YOU SAW, WHERE IN YOUR REPORTS REGARDING ROCKINGHAM DID YOU SHOW THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: IT IS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AND IT IS ALSO IN THE FOLLOW-UP REPORT.

Q: IT IS IN THE -- I SAID WHERE IN YOUR NOTES ARE THEY SHOWN?

A: THERE ARE NO NOTES.

Q: WHERE IN DETECTIVE LANGE'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: I -- I -- I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS IN LANGE'S NOTES.

Q: WHERE IN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS' NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE HE HAS ANY NOTES.

Q: WHERE IN DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND IN ROCKINGHAM?

A: IT IS NOT, SIR.

Q: WHERE IN THE MASTER NOTE-TAKER'S NOTES IS IT SHOWN THAT A GLOVE WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: IT IS IN THE CRIMINALIST'S NOTES THAT HE RECOVERED THE PIECE OF EVIDENCE AND THOSE WERE TAKEN AT MY DIRECTION.

Q: WHEN WAS THAT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: WHEN WERE THOSE NOTES TAKEN?

A: THE MORNING OF THE 13TH.

Q: AT YOUR DIRECTION?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: DO YOU HAVE THOSE NOTES?

A: NO, SIR, I DON'T. THOSE ARE CRIMINALIST WORK PRODUCT.

Q: A CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD IS REQUIRED TO BE KEPT IN ALL CASES OF HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION, IS IT NOT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WHERE IN THE CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD DOES IT INDICATE THAT ANY OF THE FOUR OFFICERS THERE RECOVERED A GLOVE?

A: IT DOESN'T.

Q: WHILE -- MR. BAILEY, WOULD YOU HELP ME WITH THIS BOARD, PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. SHAPIRO: WOULD THE COURT -- YOUR HONOR, MAY WE TRY TO PUT IT OVER ON THIS SIDE? IT MIGHT --

THE COURT: SURE. THE TRADITIONAL LOCATION.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: THIS IS A DIAGRAM THAT YOU PREVIOUSLY AUTHENTICATED AT THE DIRECTION OF MR. DARDEN; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND IN PUTTING UP A DIAGRAM FOR A JURY YOU WANT TO BE CERTAIN THAT THAT DIAGRAM IS ACCURATE, DO YOU NOT?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE ACCURATE, YEAH.

Q: WELL, HAS ANYBODY LOOKED AT IT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS ACCURATE?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE ACCURATE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SHAPIRO, WHICH PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT IS THIS?

MR. SHAPIRO: THIS IS EXHIBIT 66, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE TOLD US ABOUT IS A PATH OF BLOOD THAT LED FROM THE CONTROL GATE AT ROCKINGHAM TO THE FRONT ENTRANCE OF THE HOUSE AT ROCKINGHAM; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: WELL, I DON'T THINK IT WAS A PATH. THERE WAS BLOOD DROPLETS THAT APPEARED TO BE A TRAIL, YES.

Q: HOW MANY BLOOD DROPLETS CONSTITUTE A TRAIL?

A: WELL, IT COULD GO FROM -- FROM ONE, TWO, TO 5000, IF IT PROCEEDED THAT FAR.

Q: AND IT WAS YOUR OPINION THAT THE PERSON WHO DROPPED THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM WAS INVOLVED IN THE MURDERS OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND RONALD GOLDMAN; IS IT NOT?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: I TAKE IT THEN THAT IF THERE WAS BLOOD COMING FROM ROCKINGHAM TO THE ENTRANCE OF THE HOUSE, THAT SAME PERSON WOULD BE BLEEDING AT THE TIME THAT THE GLOVE WAS PLACED IN THE CONDITION -- IN THE AREA OUTSIDE OF KAELIN'S ROOM; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IS IT -- IS IT -- DID -- IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT THE PERSON WHO DID THE KILLING WAS BLEEDING AT THE TIME HE CAME OR SHE CAME TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

Q: I TAKE IT THEN THERE WAS A THOROUGH SEARCH FOR BLOOD FROM THE AREA OF ROCKINGHAM -- FROM ROCKINGHAM TO THE AREA WHERE THE GLOVE WAS FOUND?

A: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: HOW MUCH BLOOD WAS FOUND THERE?

A: NONE. NONE THAT I AM AWARE OF.

Q: I TAKE IT A THOROUGH SEARCH WAS DONE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY FOR BLOOD; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THE AREA WAS SEARCHED, YES.

Q: FOR BLOOD?

A: WELL, SEARCHED FOR ANY TYPE OF EVIDENCE.

Q: WAS IT SEARCHED FOR BLOOD?

A: YES, SIR, THAT WOULD INCLUDE ANY TYPE OF EVIDENCE.

Q: HOW MUCH BLOOD WAS FOUND THERE?

A: NONE.

Q: I TAKE IT A THOROUGH SEARCH OF THE FENCE WAS UNDERTAKEN IF SOMEBODY CLIMBED THE FENCE FOR BLOOD?

A: YES.

Q: HOW MUCH BLOOD WAS FOUND THERE?

A: NONE.

Q: I TAKE IT A THOROUGH SEARCH WAS DONE OF THE WALLS?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: HOW MUCH BLOOD WAS FOUND THERE?

A: NONE.

Q: NOW, THE PERSON WHO DROPPED -- STRIKE THAT. YOU ARE AWARE THAT THERE ARE WAYS TO GET INTO THE ROCKINGHAM HOUSE FROM THE SIDE AREA WHERE THE GLOVE WAS FOUND, ARE YOU NOT?

A: I OBSERVED A DOOR THERE ON THE SIDE. I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT LEADS INTO THE HOUSE.

Q: THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT IN YOUR INVESTIGATION, WASN'T IT, AS TO WHERE DOORS WOULD LEAD?

A: I WOULDN'T SAY THAT IMPACTED ME, NO.

Q: YOU WOULDN'T BE CONCERNED IF THERE WAS A WAY FOR SOMEBODY TO AVOID DETECTION AND COME IN THROUGH THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE?

A: THERE DIDN'T APPEAR ANY -- TO BE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ANYBODY HAD GONE IN THAT WAY.

Q: DID YOU CHECK TO SEE?

A: I LOOKED AT THE DOOR, YES.

Q: WHERE DID YOU LOOK AT THE DOOR?

A: FROM THE OUTSIDE.

Q: WHICH DOOR DID YOU LOOK AT? WAS THAT THIS DOOR HERE, (INDICATING)?

A: IT WAS A DOOR THAT WAS TOWARD THE BACK OF THE GARAGE, I BELIEVE, THAT MAY HAVE LED INTO THE LAUNDRY ROOM OR SOMETHING.

Q: TOWARD THE BACK OF THE GARAGE?

A: YES.

Q: WHERE IS THAT DOOR SHOWN ON THIS DIAGRAM?

A: MAY I STAND UP?

Q: SURE. WHY DON'T YOU USE THAT.

A: I BELIEVE IT IS SHOWN RIGHT IN HERE, (INDICATING).

MR. SHAPIRO: MAY WE MARK THAT SOMEHOW FOR IDENTIFICATION? MAYBE JUST A STICKER, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE ONE AVAILABLE? I'M --

MR. SHAPIRO: YES. MAYBE WE CAN JUST USE AN EVIDENCE TAG. DO YOU WANT ME TO MARK IT WITH A MARKER, YOUR HONOR? WHAT DO YOU PREFER?

THE COURT: BY GOLLY, YOU GOT ME UNPREPARED. MRS. ROBERTSON, I HAVE SOME OF THOSE PEEL OFF ARROW THINGS.

MR. SHAPIRO: THAT IS WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO, DO YOU WANT TO APPROACH IN THE WELL, PLEASE.

MR. SHAPIRO: THIS IS A FULL SERVICE COURT.

THE COURT: IT IS.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU, JUDGE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WOULD YOU BE KIND ENOUGH TO SHOW ME -- PUT THAT ON THE DIAGRAM.

A: YEAH. I BELIEVE THIS INDICATES THE DOOR HERE, (INDICATING).

Q: THAT IS THE ONLY DOOR ON THE SIDE OF THE LOCATION THAT ALLOWS ACCESS INTO THE ROCKINGHAM CASE -- INTO THE ROCKINGHAM HOUSE, ACCORDING TO YOUR INVESTIGATION?

A: I NEVER WENT THROUGH THE DOOR, SO I -- I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS ANY OTHER DOORS THERE OR NOT. I DON'T RECALL ANY OTHER.

Q: WELL, YOU HAD TWO SEARCH WARRANTS FOR THIS HOUSE, DID YOU NOT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: AND YOU ALSO WERE LOOKING AROUND TO SEE WHETHER THERE WERE ANY BODIES LYING AROUND, WERE YOU NOT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU ALSO HAVE APPROVED OF THIS DIAGRAM, HAVE YOU NOT?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE ACCURATE TO ME, YES.

Q: SO YOU WOULD CERTAINLY WANT TO KNOW HOW ANYBODY COULD GET INTO THE HOUSE AND TO CHECK TO SEE WHETHER THERE IS ANY BLOOD TRAIL THERE, WOULD YOU NOT?

A: THERE WAS NO BLOOD TRAIL FOUND.

Q: WELL, BUT YOU WOULD NOT KNOW THAT UNLESS YOU KNEW WHERE ALL THE ENTRANCES TO THE HOUSE WERE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: WELL, THERE WAS AN APPARENT BLOOD TRAIL THAT LED FROM THE ROCKINGHAM GATE FROM THE STREET RIGHT INTO THE FRONT DOOR. I THINK THAT WOULD -- UNLESS YOU HAD A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE THERE BLEEDING, THAT WOULD PRECLUDE ANY OTHER BLOOD TRAILS AND THERE WAS NO OTHER BLOOD FOUND.

Q: WOULD IT BE SURPRISE YOU, SIR, TO LEARN THAT THERE IS A DOOR THAT GOES INTO THE GARAGE THAT LEADS INTO THE KITCHEN OF THE HOUSE?

A: NO, THAT WOULDN'T SURPRISE ME. THAT IS A POSSIBILITY. IT COULD BE THERE.

MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY, MR. SHAPIRO JUST PLACED ANOTHER PIECE OF TAPE ON THE EXHIBIT.

THE COURT: HE DID.

MR. DARDEN: I WOULD ASK HIM TO REMOVE IT.

THE COURT: I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE THOSE PLACED ON BY WITNESSES, IF POSSIBLE.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'M SORRY?

THE COURT: HOW ABOUT IF YOU REMOVED THE SECOND ARROW, PLEASE, AT THIS POINT.

MR. SHAPIRO: WELL, CAN I JUST INDICATE THAT HE SAID THAT -- ALL RIGHT. I WILL JUST REMOVE THAT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: ALSO, YOU DETERMINED WHAT OTHER WAYS THERE WAS -- EXCUSE ME. DID YOU DETERMINE OTHER WAYS THAT AN INDIVIDUAL MIGHT BE ABLE TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE ROCKINGHAM GROUNDS, OTHER THAN THE FRONT DOOR OR THROUGH THE TWO GATES?

A: I BELIEVE -- YES.

Q: IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, IT IS, AND I BELIEVE ACCESS COULD BE GAINED THROUGH THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY AND THROUGH THE TENNIS COURT.

Q: WOULD YOU INDICATE THAT WITH THE POINTER, PLEASE.

A: I NEVER WALKED THAT AREA, BUT I WAS TOLD THAT YOU COULD ENTER THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY AND COME THROUGH THE TENNIS COURTS AND THROUGH A GATE THAT WAS OVER IN THIS AREA THAT CAME ONTO THE PROPERTY.

Q: AND SO THAT -- IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO AVOID BEING SEEN, THEY COULD ENTER THAT WAY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: OH, YEAH, THERE WOULD BE MANY WAYS YOU COULD ENTER WITHOUT BEING SEEN, PROBABLY.

Q: AND IS IT POSSIBLE, SIR, TO GET TO THIS AREA OF THE HOUSE?

MR. DARDEN: I'M SORRY. I CAN'T SEE, YOUR HONOR.

MR. SHAPIRO: EXCUSE ME, MR. DARDEN.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IS IT POSSIBLE, DETECTIVE VANNATTER, TO GET TO THE BACK DOOR OF THE HOUSE FROM THIS AREA BY HEADING AROUND THE BACK TO WHERE ARNELLE'S ROOM IS?

A: YES, THAT IS POSSIBLE.

Q: THAT SIMPLY REQUIRES COMING RIGHT THROUGH THE AREA MARKED "ARNELLE'S ROOM" BETWEEN THE TENNIS COURT AND THE SIDE OF ARNELLE'S ROOM; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: AND CLIMBING TWO FENCES, CORRECT.

Q: AND THAT FENCE -- TWO FENCES?

A: TWO FENCES, YES.

Q: ARE YOU SURE?

A: I BELIEVE SO, YES.

Q: DID YOU TRY TO CLIMB THOSE FENCES?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: THEY ARE ABOUT TWO FEET HIGH?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: IS THAT CORRECT?

A: ONE OF THEM IS ON ONE SIDE BECAUSE THERE IS A WALL ON ONE SIDE OF IT. I THINK IT IS A REGULAR CYCLONE CHAINLINK FENCE.

Q: IT WOULDN'T BE AN IRON GRATED TYPE APPARATUS THAT YOU COULD SIMPLY STEP ON AND WALK OVER, WOULD IT?

A: I DON'T RECALL THAT, NO.

Q: DID YOU TAKE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF THAT?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE ANY WERE TAKEN BACK THERE, NO.

Q: DID YOU EXAMINE THAT AREA -- I GUESS YOU DIDN'T EXAMINE IT CAREFULLY YOURSELF. DID YOU ASK ANYONE TO EXAMINE THAT AREA?

A: I BELIEVE THE AREA WAS EXAMINED BY -- WITH A METAL DETECTOR, YES.

Q: DID ANYBODY ATTEMPT TO SEE HOW EASY OR DIFFICULT IT COULD BE TO WALK OVER THAT FENCE?

A: I NEVER DIRECTED THAT, NO.

Q: BUT THAT WOULD BE A WAY ALSO FOR SOMEBODY TO AVOID DETECTION IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE SEEN BY ANYBODY AT THE FRONT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: CERTAINLY, YES.

Q: NOW, WHEN -- REGARDING THE ACTIVITIES OF MR. SIMPSON, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING: THAT WHEN HE WAS CALLED IN CHICAGO HE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO ANY PLACE IN THE WORLD?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WERE THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS ON MR. SIMPSON'S TRAVEL WHEN HE WAS CALLED IN CHICAGO, BY YOU OR ANYONE FROM THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: NONE TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

Q: WOULD YOU AGREE THAT HE VOLUNTARILY RETURNED TO LOS ANGELES?

A: YES.

Q: WOULD YOU AGREE THAT HE VOLUNTARILY ACCOMPANIED YOU TO THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: YES.

Q: WOULD YOU AGREE THAT HE VOLUNTARILY ALLOWED YOU TO SEARCH A BAG THAT HE HAD?

A: YES.

Q: WOULD YOU AGREE THAT HE VOLUNTARILY GAVE YOU A -- TALKED WITH YOU IN THE CAR ON THE WAY TO THE STATION?

A: YEAH. HE VOLUNTARILY TALKED, YES.

Q: WOULD YOU AGREE THAT HE VOLUNTARILY SPOKE WITH YOU IN A TAPE-RECORDED INTERVIEW WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL?

A: YES.

Q: WOULD YOU AGREE THAT HE ASKED TO HAVE A BLOOD SAMPLE TAKEN FROM HIM?

A: I ASKED IF I COULD TAKE A BLOOD SAMPLE.

Q: DID HE VOLUNTARILY AGREE?

A: YES.

Q: YOU DON'T RECALL HIM SAYING "WHY DON'T YOU TAKE MY BLOOD" AND TEST HIM?

A: NO. I ASKED HIM FOR THE BLOOD.

Q: DID YOU MAKE ANY NOTES OF THAT?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU RECORD THAT?

A: RECORD WHAT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION AT THIS TIME, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: THE CONVERSATION.

MR. DARDEN: THE CONTENT OF ANY --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'M JUST ASKING ABOUT THE BLOOD.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND.

THE WITNESS: I THINK -- I THINK THE --

THE COURT: OVERRULED. THANK YOU. PROCEED.

THE WITNESS: I THINK WHAT YOU ARE ASKING, THERE WAS A CONVERSATION. I ASKED HIM AND HE SAID "WHY DON'T YOU TAKE IT" TYPE THING. I THINK THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: OKAY. DIDN'T HE VOLUNTARILY ALLOW YOU TO EXAMINE HIS FINGER?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: AND HE VOLUNTARILY ALLOWED YOU TO PHOTOGRAPH HIS FINGER?

A: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND HE VOLUNTARILY ALLOWED YOU TO PHOTOGRAPH HIS BODY?

A: I DIDN'T PHOTOGRAPH HIS BODY.

Q: DID YOU ASK PERMISSION TO?

A: NO.

Q: DID HE ASK YOU TO?

A: NO.

Q: ARE YOU SURE?

A: POSITIVE.

Q: IS THERE ANY REASON WHY YOU DIDN'T ASK TO PHOTOGRAPH HIS BODY TO SEE IF HE HAD ANY BRUISES?

A: HE WAS IN A SHORT-SLEEVE SHIRT. I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING ON HIS ARMS OR ANYTHING. THE ONLY THING I SAW WAS HIS LEFT HAND THAT WAS INJURED.

Q: YOU HAD CONCLUDED AT THAT POINT IN TIME THAT RONALD GOLDMAN HAD BEEN IN A VIOLENT STRUGGLE FOR HIS LIFE, HAD YOU NOT?

A: YEAH. A DEFENSIVE VIOLENT STRUGGLE AND DEFENSIVE AND OFFENSIVE ARE REALLY TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

Q: SO YOU WOULDN'T BE CONCERNED WITH LOOKING AT AN INDIVIDUAL WHO MAY BE A SUSPECT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY HAD ANY INJURIES ON THEIR BODY?

A: I SAW INJURIES ON HIM ON HIS HAND.

Q: WHAT ABOUT ON HIS CHEST? WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT THAT?

A: I DIDN'T ASK HIM TO DO THAT, NO.

Q: MY QUESTION WAS WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT THAT?

A: IF HE HAD BEEN PLACED UNDER ARREST AT THAT POINT I WOULD HAVE LOOKED AT IT. HE WAS NOT UNDER ARREST. I NEVER ASKED TO HIM LOOK AT IT.

Q: WELL, HE WAS AS COOPERATIVE AS ANYBODY COULD BE, WASN'T HE?

A: IF BEING TRUTHFUL IS BEING COOPERATIVE, THEN THAT IS VERY SUBJECTIVE. I'M NOT SURE THAT HIS DEMEANOR WAS COOPERATIVE, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THE INFORMATION WAS TRUTHFUL.

Q: DID HE DO EVERYTHING YOU ASKED OF HIM?

A: YES.

Q: WELL, IS THERE ANY REASON WHY YOU WOULDN'T ASK HIM IF YOU COULD EXAMINE HIS BODY AND PHOTOGRAPH IT?

A: I DIDN'T DO THAT.

Q: IS THERE ANY REASON WHY YOU DIDN'T?

A: I JUST DIDN'T DO IT.

Q: WELL, I KNOW YOU DIDN'T, BUT IS THERE A REASON WHY YOU DIDN'T?

A: I JUST DIDN'T DO IT, SIR. I DIDN'T ASK HIM. I JUST DIDN'T DO IT.

Q: DID YOU FORGET? DID YOU THINK IT WASN'T IMPORTANT? IT WAS SOMETHING THAT HAD NO VALUE AT ALL TO YOU AS AN INVESTIGATOR?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT WHEN HE ASKED ABOUT MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD HE GAVE YOU THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE --

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. COUNSEL, YOU NEED TO SHARE THAT WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL.

MR. DARDEN: BEFORE WE DO THAT, MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

MR. SHAPIRO: I WILL SHARE IT WITH HIM RIGHT NOW.

MR. DARDEN: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. THE FACT THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS COOPERATIVE AND GAVE CERTAIN -- CERTAIN PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ISN'T A STATEMENT FOR TESTIMONIAL PURPOSES. WHAT IS THE NEXT QUESTION AND ANSWER?

MR. DARDEN: MR. SHAPIRO IS ABOUT TO READ TO THE JURY FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'M NOT GOING TO TELL HIM THAT. THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M GOING TO DO AT ALL.

THE COURT: WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?

MR. SHAPIRO: I'M GOING TO ASK DETECTIVE VANNATTER ISN'T IT TRUE THAT O.J. SIMPSON SAID, WELL, TAKE MY BLOOD TEST AND WE WILL -- WELL, TAKE MY BLOOD --

MR. DARDEN: KEEP YOUR VOICE DOWN.

MR. SHAPIRO: -- TEST. I'M SORRY. WELL, TAKE MY BLOOD TEST AND WE WILL SEE.

MR. DARDEN: IT IS THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT. IT IS HEARSAY. I HAVE BEEN OBJECTING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE OBJECTION WILL BE SUSTAINED.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: I WANT TO MAKE SURE, IT HAS JUST BEEN POINTED OUT TO ME, SO THAT THERE IS NO MISUNDERSTANDING, WAS THERE ANY BLOOD TRAIL FOUND LEADING AWAY FROM THE GLOVE INTO THE RESIDENCE?

A: NO, I DIDN'T FIND ANY.

Q: AND REGARDING YOUR CONVERSATION WITH KATO, DID HE TELL YOU THAT A LIMOUSINE HAD COME TO PICK UP O.J.?

A: HE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD SEEN A LIMOUSINE THERE, YES.

Q: AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS AWARE OF THAT, WAS HE NOT?

MR. DARDEN: CALLS FOR SPECULATION AND HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: IF HE KNOWS.

THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE I HEARD FROM HIS TESTIMONY THAT HE KNEW THAT, YEAH. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT AT THAT TIME.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHEN YOU TOOK O.J.'S BLOOD SAMPLE, YOU WERE AT A PLACE CALLED PARKER CENTER?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: THAT IS THE MAIN LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS?

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. WOULD YOU KINDLY ASK MR. COCHRAN TO RETURN TO HIS CHAIR, PLEASE.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, IS THERE SOME REASON YOU NEED TO BE THERE?

MR. COCHRAN: I WAS SITTING OVER HERE BECAUSE OF THE DIAGRAM, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: IF WE ARE FINISHED WITH THAT --

THE COURT: I THINK WE ARE.

MR. COCHRAN: I WILL GO BACK TO MY SIDE GLADLY.

MR. SHAPIRO: I WILL WALK HIM BACK.

THE COURT: PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IS THAT THE MAIN HEADQUARTERS FOR THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IS THAT A PLACE -- YOU USED THE WORD "BUY A DR NUMBER." IS THAT A POLICE PARLANCE FOR OBTAINING THAT NUMBER?

A: YES.

Q: YOU DON'T ACTUALLY GO TO A LOCATION, DO YOU, TO BUY IT?

A: NO. THAT IS JUST A TERM OF OBTAINING A DR NUMBER.

Q: AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS VERY EASILY OBTAINED AND VERY REGULARLY OBTAINED?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: AND IT DOESN'T TAKE MUCH TO OBTAIN A DR NUMBER, DOES IT?

A: NO.

Q: YOU SIMPLY WALK DOWN TO THE CLERK AND ASK FOR ONE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: WELL, IN THIS CASE THE DR NUMBER --

Q: NOT IN THIS CASE. IN THE GENERAL CASE YOU SIMPLY WALK DOWN AND ASK FOR ONE?

A: NO, NO, THAT IS NOT TRUE.

Q: HOW DO YOU GET A DR NUMBER?

A: THE DR NUMBERS COME FROM THE DIVISION OF OCCURRENCE WHICH MEANT THAT THIS DR NUMBER HAD TO COME FROM WEST LOS ANGELES DIVISION.

Q: SO YOU HAVE TO GO OUT TO WEST LOS ANGELES TO GET IT?

A: OR TELEPHONE WEST LOS ANGELES.

Q: SO IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU COULDN'T WALK DOWNSTAIRS IN PARKER CENTER, GO TO THE CLERK AND ASK THE CLERK TO CALL WEST LOS ANGELES TO GET A DR NUMBER?

A: WELL, OF COURSE I COULD HAVE DONE THAT.

Q: THAT WOULD TAKE, WHAT, LESS THAN A MINUTE?

A: WELL, IF I DID IT THAT WAY IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN LONGER THAN A MINUTE. I COULD HAVE ACTUALLY MADE THE PHONE CALL MYSELF; I DIDN'T.

Q: HOW LONG WOULD THAT TAKE?

A: PROBABLY TEN MINUTES' TIME.

Q: AND THERE IS AN EVIDENCE LOCKER THERE TO STORE BLOOD EVIDENCE, IS THERE NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THERE IS REFRIGERATION FACILITIES THERE?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE CRIMINAL LABORATORY THAT IS RUN BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, WHERE IS THAT LOCATED?

A: IT IS ON VIGNES STREET. IT IS CALLED PIPER TECH.

Q: HOW FAR IS PIPER TECH IN MILES, IF YOU KNOW, FROM PARKER CENTER?

A: APPROXIMATELY A MILE.

Q: AND HOW LONG -- HOW FAR IS PARKER CENTER FROM THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?

A: APPROXIMATELY 20 MILES.

Q: 20 MILES?

A: YEAH, APPROXIMATELY.

Q: NOW, THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED FROM MR. SIMPSON, THE BLOOD EVIDENCE, IS VERY SENSITIVE EVIDENCE, IS IT NOT?

A: YES, VERY SENSITIVE.

Q: AND AS AN EXPERIENCED DETECTIVE YOU WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS A MEASURED AMOUNT OF BLOOD IN THERE, DID YOU NOT?

A: MEASURED AMOUNT OF BLOOD?

Q: YEAH. YOU WANTED TO KNOW HOW MUCH BLOOD YOU HAD TO START OUT WITH, DIDN'T YOU, BECAUSE YOU WERE GOING TO USE THIS AS WHAT THEY CALL A REFERENCE SAMPLE?

A: THAT WOULD NOT BE FOR ME TO DETERMINE. THE AMOUNT DRAWN IS DONE BY THE NURSE AND THEN THE AMOUNT USED IS DONE BY THE CRIMINALIST; NOT BY ME.

Q: WHAT DID THE NURSE KNOW ABOUT THIS CASE THAT DREW THE BLOOD?

A: I -- NO, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, SIR. I DIDN'T DO THE DRAWING OF THE BLOOD; THE NURSE ACTUALLY DREW THE BLOOD.

Q: WHAT DID THE NURSE KNOW ABOUT THIS CASE?

A: THE NURSE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THE CASE. I ASKED THE NURSE TO DRAW ME A BLOOD SAMPLE.

Q: DID YOU ASK THE NURSE OR REQUEST THE NURSE TO DRAW A SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF BLOOD?

A: NO, SIR, I DID NOT.

Q: YOU JUST LEFT THAT UP TO THE NURSE WHO KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THE CASE?

A: WELL, I THINK -- I THINK THERE IS STANDARDS FOR DRAWING BLOOD SAMPLES.

Q: WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS?

A: I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T DRAW BLOOD SAMPLES.

Q: WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THERE ARE STANDARDS?

A: I WOULD ASSUME THAT A SAMPLE THAT IS TAKEN IS A STANDARD SAMPLE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD BE.

Q: AND DOESN'T LAPD POLICY REQUIRE BLOOD SAMPLES TO BE BOOKED IMMEDIATELY?

A: AS SOON AS PRACTICAL, YES.

Q: DOES IT SAY "IMMEDIATELY" OR "AS SOON AS PRACTICAL"?

A: WELL, IMMEDIATE -- IMMEDIATELY TO ME MEANS AS SOON AS PRACTICAL.

Q: WELL, I KNOW WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU, BUT I'M SAYING WHAT DOES THE POLICY SAY WITHOUT YOUR INTERPRETATION?

A: AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

Q: IT SAYS "AS SOON AS POSSIBLE"? IS THAT WHAT THE MANUAL --

A: YES.

Q: ARE YOU SURE OF THAT?

A: WELL, IT SAYS "IMMEDIATELY" OR -- LET ME WITHDRAW THAT. IT SAYS "IMMEDIATELY" IS WHAT IT SAYS. TO ME "IMMEDIATELY" MEANS AS SOON AS PRACTICAL, AS SOON AS CAN BE DONE.

Q: AND AS SOON AS CAN BE DONE WAS WHEN YOU HAD IT IN YOUR HAND TO WALK DOWN, CALL UP, GET YOUR DR NUMBER, AND IN THE SAME BUILDING YOU WERE IN, TURN IT OVER TO THE EVIDENCE ROOM AND HAVE THAT MARKED AND BOOKED AND PROPERLY REFRIGERATED, RIGHT?

A: THAT COULDN'T BE DONE AT THAT POINT.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: BECAUSE OTHER EVIDENCE HAD BEEN GATHERED. EVIDENCE HAS TO BE BOOKED IN A SEQUENCE. I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT NUMBER THE BLOOD WOULD BE IN THE SEQUENCE. TO ME, ONCE I TURNED IT OVER TO THE CRIMINALIST, IT HAS BEEN BOOKED ANYWAY.

Q: SO YOU ARE TELLING US UNDER OATH THAT YOU, AS THE LEAD DETECTIVE, COULD NOT HAVE BOOKED A VIAL OF BLOOD TAKEN FROM O.J. SIMPSON AT PARKER CENTER WHERE THE BLOOD WAS TAKEN? IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR?

A: NO, NO, NO. I COULD HAVE DONE THAT.

MR. SHAPIRO: OKAY. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: I WAS JUST ABOUT TO TAKE A BREAK.

MR. SHAPIRO: OKAY.

THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I NEED TO CHANGE COURT REPORTERS AT THIS TIME. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU, DON'T PERFORM ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER IS SUBMITTED TO YOU. WE WILL BE IN RECESS UNTIL ELEVEN O'CLOCK. DETECTIVE VANNATTER, YOU MAY STEP DOWN, SIR. (RECESS.)

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. DETECTIVE PHILIP VANNATTER IS STILL ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, DETECTIVE VANNATTER. YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH, SIR.

THE WITNESS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT BOOKING ITEMS IN SEQUENCE. WHEN YOU REFER TO THAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO ALLOWING THE CRIMINALIST TO ASSIGN BOOKING NUMBERS IN THE ORDER THINGS ARE COLLECTED?

A: UMM, THAT IS GENERALLY THE WAY IT IS DONE; HOWEVER, THAT IS NOT A HARD AND FAST RULE. SOMETIMES CERTAIN ITEMS HAVE TO BE BOOKED BEFORE OTHER ITEMS.

Q: AND BLOOD CAN ALSO BE BOOKED AT PIPER TECH DIRECTLY TO THE CRIME LAB, CAN IT NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT IS A MILE AWAY?

A: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YET IT WAS YOUR PREFERENCE -- MAY WE PUT A DIAGRAM UP ON THE ELMO WHICH WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY SHOWN?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. DARDEN: NOT YET. FOUNDATIONAL OBJECTION.

MR. SHAPIRO: I THINK HE HAS PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SHAPIRO.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHERE WAS DETECTIVE LANGE AT THE TIME YOU TOOK O.J.'S BLOOD SAMPLE FROM THE NURSE?

A: HE WAS WITH ME.

Q: AND WHEN YOU GOT THE BLOOD SAMPLE, WHAT TYPE OF CONTAINER WAS IT IN?

A: IT WAS IN A PURPLE-TOPPED VIAL.

Q: DID IT HAVE ANY MARKINGS ON IT?

A: YES. THERE WAS A TAG THAT WAS PUT ON IT WITH MR. SIMPSON'S NAME AND THE DATE AND TIME IT WAS DRAWN.

Q: WHO PUT THAT ON?

A: THE NURSE.

Q: WHAT TIME WAS IT DRAWN?

A: I COULD LOOK AT THE RECORD AND TELL YOU EXACTLY. I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT TIME. IT WAS BETWEEN 3:00 AND 3:30, APPROXIMATELY.

Q: BETWEEN 3:00 AND 3:30?

A: YES, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

Q: AND AFTER YOU TOOK THAT BLOOD VIAL, WHAT TYPE OF SECURITY DID YOU USE FOR THAT BLOOD VIAL?

A: I PLACED IT IN A MANILA ENVELOPE, MAINTAINED CONTROL OF IT AND HAND-DELIVERED IT TO THE CRIMINALIST.

Q: WHERE WAS THE CRIMINALIST?

A: AT ROCKINGHAM.

Q: HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT?

A: BECAUSE I KNEW THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT -- THE EXECUTION OF THE SEARCH WARRANT HAD STARTED AT APPROXIMATELY -- AFTER -- AFTER 12:00 NOON AND I KNEW THAT THERE WERE STILL OFFICERS AT THE LOCATION, AND I BELIEVE THAT HE WAS AT THE LOCATION ALSO.

Q: YOU BELIEVED, BUT YOU DIDN'T KNOW?

A: WELL, I DIDN'T KNOW FOR CERTAIN.

Q: YOU DIDN'T CALL HIM AND SAY, "ARE YOU AT THE LOCATION? I'VE GOT SOME BLOOD TO BRING TO YOU"?

A: NO, I DIDN'T TALK TO HIM ON THE PHONE.

Q: YOU DIDN'T CALL ANYBODY THERE IN CHARGE TO SEE WHERE THE CRIMINALIST WAS?

A: NO.

Q: AND THERE WERE MANY AREAS WHERE A CRIMINALIST COULD BE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: WELL, I KNEW HE WAS EITHER -- EITHER AT BUNDY OR ROCKINGHAM, YES.

Q: SO YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHICH ONE OF THE TWO?

A: WELL, I ASSUMED ROCKINGHAM BECAUSE I KNEW THE SEARCH WARRANT HAD STARTED AFTER 12:00 NOON.

Q: ALL RIGHT. I WANT TO SHOW YOU A MAP OF THE AREAS WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT AND ASK YOU IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY --

THE COURT: MR. HARRIS, CAN WE GET A SLIGHTLY TIGHTER FOCUS ON THAT, A LITTLE --

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: CAN YOU IDENTIFY WHERE PARKER CENTER IS? DO YOU SEE THAT?

A: YES. I SEE THE NOTATION THERE, YES.

Q: AND IT IS APPROXIMATELY YOU SAY A LITTLE OVER A MILE TO PIPER TECH?

A: I BELIEVE IT IS APPROXIMATELY A MILE, YES.

Q: A MILE. AND THOSE ARE TWO AREAS WHERE YOU HAVE TOLD US THE BLOOD COULD BE BOOKED?

A: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WHERE DID YOU GO WHEN YOU LEFT PARKER CENTER?

A: STRAIGHT TO ROCKINGHAM.

Q: WHAT ROUTE DID YOU TAKE?

A: SANTA MONICA FREEWAY TO THE SAN DIEGO FREEWAY.

Q: YOU WERE DRIVING?

A: WE WERE BOTH DRIVING. WE TOOK OUR CARS, TOOK OUR OWN CARS.

Q: WHERE WAS THIS BLOOD VIAL?

A: WITH ME IN MY VEHICLE.

Q: WHERE?

A: IN A MANILA ENVELOPE ON THE FRONT SEAT OF MY CAR.

Q: DID YOU HAVE ANY ICE OR REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT WITH YOU?

A: NO. I KNEW THERE WAS PRESERVATIVE IN THE VIAL WHEN THE BLOOD WAS DRAWN.

Q: HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT? DID YOU TEST IT?

A: NO, BUT I KNOW THAT VIALS THAT ARE USED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR BLOOD SAMPLES CONTAIN PRESERVATIVE.

Q: SUPPOSED TO CONTAIN PRESERVATIVE?

A: WELL, I THINK -- OKAY, IF YOU WANT TO SAY SUPPOSED TO. IT IS MY INFORMATION THEY CONTAIN PRESERVATIVES IN THE VIALS.

Q: YOU HAVEN'T TESTED THAT AND YOU HAVE NO INDEPENDENT KNOWLEDGE OF ANY PRESERVATIVE BEING IN THERE, DO YOU?

A: NO, SIR. I HAVEN'T TESTED IT, NO.

Q: NOW, YOU JUST HAVE THIS BLOOD IN YOUR CAR. WASN'T THERE A RISK OF SOMETHING HAPPENING TO THE BLOOD IN TRANSPORTING IT THAT DISTANCE?

A: NO. THE RISK WAS ME NOT KEEPING CONTROL OF THE BLOOD, THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE BLOOD, TO GIVE IT TO THE CRIMINALIST. THAT WAS THE RISK.

Q: I TAKE THAT IT IF YOU WALKED IT FROM WHERE YOU WERE IN PARKER CENTER RIGHT UP TO THE EVIDENCE ROOM THERE WOULD BE MUCH LESS RISK?

A: WELL, AT THAT POINT THE PAPERWORK COULDN'T HAVE BEEN COMPLETED --

Q: MY QUESTION WAS RISK, SIR. I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU.

A: I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN IT. THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A GREATER RISK. THE PAPERWORK COULDN'T HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONTROL OVER THE ITEM.

Q: SO YOU ARE TELLING US THAT AT PARKER CENTER THAT YOU COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THAT ITEM AND BOOKED IT IMMEDIATELY?

A: NO, I COULD HAVE DONE THAT. I MADE THE DECISION TO HAND CARRY IT TO THE CRIMINALIST WHO WAS PROCESSING ALL THE OTHER -- ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE.

Q: DID YOU RUN A RISK OF DROPPING IT IN CASE YOU SLIPPED ON THE WAY IN AND OUT OF YOUR CAR?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION TO THIS LINE OF QUESTION AS IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I GUESS THAT WAS A POSSIBILITY, BUT THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU RUN A RISK OF, GOD FORBID, BEING IN AN ACCIDENT?

A: THANK GOD I WASN'T.

Q: THAT WAS A RISK THAT YOU CHOSE TO RUN?

A: THAT IS A RISK, SIR, EVERY TIME I GO OUT IN THE STREETS.

Q: BUT THAT WOULDN'T BE A RISK TO CARRY IT DOWN AND BOOK IT AT PARKER CENTER, WOULD IT?

A: NO.

Q: YOU LEFT, YOU SAY, AT THE LATEST, AT 3:30 FROM PARKER CENTER?

A: NO. I DIDN'T SAY THAT. I THINK IT WAS -- I THINK IT WAS AROUND FOUR O'CLOCK THAT I LEFT PARKER CENTER.

Q: WELL, YOU GOT THE BLOOD AT 3:30?

A: YEAH. I DIDN'T LEAVE IMMEDIATELY FROM THERE.

Q: WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU GOT THE BLOOD?

A: I WENT BACK UP TO MY OFFICE.

Q: FOR WHAT?

A: TO START ASSEMBLING SOME OF THE -- SOME OF THE INFORMATION I HAD AND -- AND TO ORGANIZE MYSELF AND THEN TO GO OUT TO ROCKINGHAM.

Q: AND HOW DID YOU ASSEMBLE THIS INFORMATION? DID YOU TAKE NOTES?

A: I WAS JUST -- IT HAD BEEN A LONG DAY. I MAY HAVE EVEN HAD A CUP OF COFFEE WHEN HE WENT UP THERE, I DON'T RECALL, BUT THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.

Q: AND YOU DIDN'T KEEP ANY RECORDS OF WHAT YOU DID?

A: NO, SIR, I DIDN'T.

Q: AND THE BLOOD WAS WITH YOU?

A: YES.

Q: WHERE WAS THE BLOOD? IN YOUR JACKET?

A: NO. I WENT TO MY DESK AND I HAD IT IN A MANILA ENVELOPE ON MY DESK.

Q: DID YOU LEAVE ANY RECORD -- WAS LANGE WITH YOU?

A: LANGE WAS WITH ME, YES.

Q: AND WERE YOU TALKING WITH LANGE?

A: I'M SURE I WAS, YEAH. I TALK WITH HIM ALL THE TIME.

Q: ARE YOU SURE LANGE WENT UP TO YOUR OFFICE WITH YOU?

A: YEAH, I'M SURE.

Q: NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT?

A: LANGE WAS WITH ME AFTER TWELVE O'CLOCK MOST OF THE EVENING UNTIL ABOUT SEVEN O'CLOCK.

Q: AND DID LANGE HAVE COFFEE WITH YOU IN YOUR OFFICE?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR COFFEE FROM?

A: FROM A COFFEE MACHINE IN THE OFFICE. I SAID I MAY HAVE. I'M NOT POSITIVE I DID. I MAY HAVE HAD A CUP OF COFFEE.

Q: AND YOU MAY NOT HAVE HAD THAT?

A: YEAH, THAT'S TRUE, SURE.

Q: AND YOU MAY HAVE SPENT A HALF HOUR THERE AND YOU MAY NOT HAVE?

A: I THINK I WAS THERE ABOUT A HALF AN HOUR BEFORE I LEFT.

Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY RECORD TO INDICATE THAT?

A: NO, SIR, I DON'T.

Q: DID YOU KEEP ANYTHING YOU DID AFTER YOU GOT THE BLOOD? DID YOU MAKE A NOTATION, "I'VE GOT THE BLOOD NOW, HERE IS WHAT I'M DOING WITH IT"?

A: NO.

Q: YOU LEFT AT FOUR O'CLOCK?

A: APPROXIMATELY, YES.

Q: HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO GET FROM PARKER CENTER TO ROCKINGHAM AT FOUR O'CLOCK?

A: AS I RECALL, THE TRAFFIC WAS PRETTY HEAVY. I THINK IT TOOK AN HOUR, MAYBE A LITTLE OVER AN HOUR.

Q: AND HOW DID YOU GO?

A: I BELIEVE I TOLD YOU THE SANTA MONICA FREEWAY TO THE SAN DIEGO FREEWAY TO SUNSET BOULEVARD.

Q: AND THEN SUNSET BOULEVARD TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

Q: THAT TOOK YOU ABOUT AN HOUR?

A: I THINK SO, YEAH, APPROXIMATELY.

Q: DID YOU LOG IN WHAT TIME YOU ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS LOGGED ON THE LOG WHEN I GOT THERE, YES.

Q: I'M SAYING DID YOU LOG IN?

A: I BELIEVE THE LOGGING OFFICER LOGGED ME IN, YES.

Q: WHAT TIME DID HE LOG YOU IN AT?

A: I THINK AT APPROXIMATELY 5:20, AS I RECALL.

Q: SO WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN FIVE O'CLOCK AND 5:20 WHEN YOU GOT THERE BEFORE YOU LOGGED IN?

A: WELL, IT IS TOUGH TO ACCOUNT FOR A MINUTE BY MINUTE ACCOUNTING. I DROVE STRAIGHT TO ROCKINGHAM, CHECKED IN AND IMMEDIATELY GAVE THE BLOOD TO THE CRIMINALIST WHO HAD FINISHED HIS WORK AND WAS LEAVING.

Q: YOU DIDN'T GO TO BUNDY FIRST?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THE CRIMINALIST WAS OR EVEN IF HE WAS AT ROCKINGHAM, DID YOU?

A: I ASSUMED HE WAS AT ROCKINGHAM. HE WAS AT ROCKINGHAM, AS A MATTER OF FACT.

Q: ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE ONLY ACCOUNTING FOR TIME THAT IS REPORTED IS THE TIME THE BLOOD WAS DRAWN WHICH YOU SAY IS 3:30 AND THE TIME THAT YOU LOGGED IN AT ROCKINGHAM, WHICH IS 5:20, ALMOST TWO HOURS?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: AND MAZZOLLA WAS WITH FUNG AT THE TIME YOU TURNED THE BLOOD OVER?

A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING MAZZOLLA. SHE COULD HAVE BEEN THERE. I DON'T RECALL SEEING HER.

Q: YOU HEARD MAZZOLLA TESTIFY SHE WAS ALWAYS WITH FUNG, DIDN'T YOU?

A: I'M GOING ON MY OWN PERCEPTION. I DON'T RECALL SEEING HER THERE.

Q: WHERE WAS LANGE?

A: LANGE WAS THERE WITH ME.

Q: SO IT WAS YOU, LANGE AND FUNG?

A: NO. THERE WERE OTHER OFFICERS THERE, TOO.

Q: WHAT OTHER OFFICERS WERE THERE?

A: WHAT OTHER OFFICERS?

Q: YEAH.

A: I RECALL DETECTIVE LUPER, DETECTIVE LEFALL, THERE WERE SOME UNIFORMED OFFICERS THERE.

MR. DARDEN: CAN WE TAKE THE MAP AND BOARD DOWN, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: DO WE NEED THIS ANY MORE?

MR. SHAPIRO: WE DO.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL ANY OTHER NAMES. THERE WERE OFFICERS THERE.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DOES FUNG WORK OUT OF PARKER CENTER?

A: NO.

Q: DOES FUNG WORK OUT OF PIPER TECH?

A: NO.

Q: WHERE DOES FUNG WORK OUT OF?

MR. DARDEN: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. CAN WE TAKE THE BOARD DOWN?

MR. SHAPIRO: MAY WE TAKE IT DOWN, PLEASE. THAT SHOULD BE MARKED 1058, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON?

THE CLERK: YES.

THE COURT: YES.

(DEFT'S 1058 FOR ID = MAP)

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHERE DOES FUNG WORK OUT OF?

A: NORTHEAST STATION.

Q: WHERE IS THAT?

A: IT IS ON YORK BOULEVARD, I BELIEVE.

Q: ON WHERE?

A: SAN FERNANDO, I'M SORRY. SAN FERNANDO, I BELIEVE. IT IS IN NORTHEAST SECTION.

Q: I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA. SAN FERNANDO VALLEY?

THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. GENTLEMEN, YOU ARE BOTH TALKING AT THE SAME TIME AGAIN, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. TELL US WHERE THE NEW NORTHEAST STATION IS.

THE WITNESS: IT IS OFF OF THE GLENDALE FREEWAY AT I BELIEVE YORK, YORK BOULEVARD.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: NOW, DID YOU WANT ALL THE EVIDENCE TO BE BOOKED DOWN AT PIPER TECH?

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS THE MOST SECURE PLACE, ISN'T IT?

A: WELL, THAT IS WHERE SEROLOGY IS ANALYZED. I WOULDN'T SAY IT IS THE MOST SECURE PLACE, NO.

Q: AND DID YOU DIRECT FUNG AS TO WHERE TO TAKE THIS BLOOD FOR BOOKING?

A: DETECTIVE FUNG WOULD AUTOMATICALLY TAKE TO IT PIPER TECH FOR BOOKING.

Q: HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

A: BECAUSE THAT IS PART OF HIS JOB.

Q: DO YOU KNOW THAT HE DID THAT?

A: NO. I WASN'T WITH HIM 24 HOURS A DAY, NO.

Q: DID HE GIVE YOU A RECEIPT FOR THE BLOOD YOU GAVE HIM?

A: HE WROTE IT IN HIS NOTES. HE DIDN'T GIVE ME A RECEIPT. HE WROTE IT IN HIS NOTES.

Q: DID YOU NOTICE, WHEN YOU TOOK THE BLOOD, WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY BLOOD DRIPPING IN THE AREA OF THE CORKED PORTION OF THE TUBE?

A: I DON'T RECALL ANY BLOOD DRIPPING.

Q: DID YOU LOOK?

A: I LOOKED AT THE VIAL. I DON'T RECALL ANY BLOOD DRIPPING.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU TAKEN BLOOD FROM PARKER CENTER OUT TO A CRIME SCENE?

A: I DON'T KNOW. THIS MAY HAVE BEEN THE FIRST TIME. I DON'T KNOW. I CAN'T RECALL RIGHT NOW ANY OTHER TIME THAT I HAVE DONE THAT.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED IN A MURDER CASE WHERE YOU HAVE TAKEN A STATEMENT VOLUNTARILY FROM A SUSPECT AND NOT INTRODUCED IT INTO EVIDENCE?

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE IMPLICATION OF THAT QUESTION. THANK YOU. PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU GO THROUGH ANY SPECIAL COACHING SESSIONS PRIOR TO YOU TAKING THE WITNESS STAND TODAY?

A: NO, SIR, I DID NOT.

Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIAL TRAINING IN HOW TO TESTIFY?

A: HAVE I EVER?

Q: YEAH.

A: WELL, I THINK THEY MAY HAVE GAVE US AN HOUR OR TWO IN THE POLICE ACADEMY, YEAH. THAT WAS A LONG TIME AGO, THOUGH.

Q: DID YOU MEET WITH ANY OF THE LAWYERS IN THIS CASE REGARDING YOUR TESTIMONY?

A: OH, I SEE THEM ON A DAILY BASIS, YES.

Q: DID YOU MEET WITH THEM SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVIEWING YOUR TESTIMONY?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU GO THROUGH ANY MOCK TESTIMONY OR CROSS-EXAMINATION?

A: NO, SIR, I DID NOT.

Q: WERE YOU EVER BROUGHT TO A GRAND JURY ROOM TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED BY SEVERAL LAWYERS?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THAT HAPPENING IN ANY CASE BEFORE?

A: I'VE HEARD OF MOCK EXAMINATIONS, BUT WHEN YOU SAY "GRAND JURY ROOM," I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.

Q: AND IN 26 YEARS ON THE POLICE FORCE, HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU TESTIFIED AS A WITNESS?

A: MANY, MANY TIMES.

Q: CAN YOU DO ANY BETTER THAN THAT BY NUMBER?

A: MANY, MANY, MANY. I COULDN'T TELL YOU.

Q: YOU TOLD US YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN 200 HOMICIDE CASES, 500 INVESTIGATIONS?

MR. DARDEN: IS THAT A QUESTION?

THE WITNESS: MANY, MANY TIMES. MAYBE -- I DON'T KNOW. MANY, MANY, MANY TIMES. I CAN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: HUNDRED?

A: I WOULD SAY MORE THAN THAT.

Q: AND THAT IS PART OF YOUR JOB AS A PROFESSIONAL POLICE OFFICER, TO TESTIFY, ISN'T IT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU ARE IN A WAY A PROFESSIONAL WITNESS?

A: THAT IS PART OF MY JOB, YES.

Q: HAVE YOU BEEN TOLD TO DO ANYTHING REGARDING YOUR EMOTIONS WHEN YOU TESTIFY?

A: NO.

Q: AT ANY TIME, WHEN YOU WERE AT ROCKINGHAM THAT MORNING, DID YOU HEAR ARNELLE OR KATO EVER USE THE WORD "UNPLANNED"?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU EVER HEAR THAT WORD USED BY CATHY RANDA OR ATTRIBUTED TO HER?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU EVER HEAR THAT WORD USED BY ANYONE?

A: NO.

Q: YOU LISTENED TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY, DID YOU NOT?

A: PART OF IT; NOT ALL OF IT.

Q: DID YOU LISTEN TO THE PART WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT INTERVIEWING KATO KAELIN?

A: I HEARD PART OF IT, YES.

Q: DID YOU HEAR THE PART THAT THE PROSECUTOR ASKED HIM A QUESTION WHY --

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.

MS. CLARK: PAGE, LINE, WHAT?

THE COURT: COUNSEL, FOUNDATION. FOUNDATIONAL OBJECTION AT THIS POINT.

MR. DARDEN: HE IS GOING TO READ. MAY I TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT HE INTENDS TO READ?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. SHAPIRO: THIS IS YOUR QUESTION, I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO LET ME KNOW, TOO?

MR. SHAPIRO: YES.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. SHAPIRO: PAGE --

THE COURT: WHAT VOLUME, COUNSEL?

MR. SHAPIRO: 18694, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WHAT VOLUME?

MR. SHAPIRO: VOLUME, 106, LINE 3 THROUGH 5.

THE COURT: I'M SORRY, WHAT PAGE?

MR. SHAPIRO: 18694, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MR. SHAPIRO: YOU ARE WELCOME.

MS. CLARK: THIS IS CROSS.

MR. SHAPIRO: IS IT?

MS. CLARK: YES.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. SHAPIRO: I STAND CORRECTED. THAT WAS NOT MR. DARDEN'S QUESTION OR MISS CLARK'S QUESTION. I APOLOGIZE TO BOTH OF THEM FOR SAYING THAT IT WAS.

MR. DARDEN: THERE IS AN OBJECTION. THIS IS IMPROPER.

THE COURT: LET ME HEAR THE QUESTION.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE QUESTION.

MR. SHAPIRO: YES. THE QUESTION IS DID HE HEAR THIS QUESTION BEING ASKED OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER: "WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL HIM THE SUBJECT" --

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THE TRANSCRIPT --

THE COURT: I'M SORRY, MR. DARDEN, I DIDN'T HEAR YOU.

MR. DARDEN: THE TRANSCRIPT RELATES TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY; NOT TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER'S. THIS IS IMPROPER.

MR. SHAPIRO: I WANT TO ASK HIM IF HE HEARD THIS TESTIMONY AND IF HE CAN EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIS ANSWER AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S.

THE COURT: PROCEED, PROCEED.

MR. SHAPIRO: YES.

Q: THE QUESTION WAS TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN: "WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL HIM," REFERRING TO YOU, DETECTIVE VANNATTER, "THE SUBJECT MATTER ABOUT WHICH HE OUGHT TO BE CONCERNED IF HE WAS GOING TO INTERROGATE A WITNESS?" HIS ANSWER: "NO REASON. I WANTED TO GO AND INVESTIGATE THE NOISE TO SEE IF WE COULD EVEN GET TO THAT SOUTH WALL. "WHY DID YOU NOT TELL HIM THAT YOU WERE GOING TO INVESTIGATE A NOISE AND HE SHOULD FINISH THE INVESTIGATION? "NO REASON."

MR. COCHRAN: INTERROGATION.

MR. SHAPIRO: THE INTERROGATION. "NO REASON." THANK YOU.

Q: DID YOU HEAR THAT TESTIMONY?

A: YES.

Q: WHICH IS CORRECT, YOUR TESTIMONY OR DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S, AS TO THAT INCIDENT?

A: MY TESTIMONY IS BASED ON MY RECOLLECTION OF WHAT HAPPENED; NOT ON DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S RECOLLECTION. MY RECOLLECTION IS HE TOLD ME.

Q: AND HIS RECOLLECTION IS DIFFERENT?

A: THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.

MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I JUST HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I JUST HAVE A MOMENT TO REVIEW SOME MATERIAL, YOUR HONOR, PLEASE?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE BRONCO. YOU SAID THAT YOU WANTED THE BRONCO TO BE SECURE WHEN IT WAS AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WHAT TIME WAS THAT?

A: AT WHAT POINT OF THE DAY ARE YOU ASKING ME ABOUT?

Q: WHEN DID YOU WANT IT TO BE SECURE? WHEN DID YOU DECIDE FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT THIS VEHICLE SHOULD BE SECURED?

A: APPROXIMATELY 5:30 IN THE MORNING.

Q: AND BY "SECURED," YOU WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT NO TRACE EVIDENCE COULD BE TAMPERED WITH REGARDING THAT VEHICLE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: THAT NO EVIDENCE INSIDE THAT VEHICLE COULD BE TAMPERED WITH?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: AND THAT NO EVIDENCE IN THE SURROUNDING AREA OF THAT VEHICLE COULD BE TAMPERED WITH; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: SO YOU WANTED TO CORDON OFF THAT ENTIRE AREA WITH TAPE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: NO. I PUT UNIFORMED POLICE OFFICERS ON THE VEHICLE TO PROTECT THE VEHICLE.

Q: WELL, YOU SAID THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WAS THE ONSLAUGHT OF THE PRESS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT -- THAT OCCURRED DURING THE DAY, YES.

Q: AND IN ORDER TO PROTECT FROM THAT ONSLAUGHT, WOULD IT BE A GOOD PROCEDURE TO CORDON OFF THAT AREA WITH TAPE SO NOBODY ENTERS IT, BECAUSE THAT IS NEW A CRIME SCENE?

A: WELL, YEAH, YEAH, THAT WOULD HAVE -- THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD IDEA; HOWEVER, AT THE TIME I LEFT THERE, THERE WAS -- AS I RECALL, THERE WAS NO ONE THERE AND I HAD OFFICERS PROTECTING THE VEHICLE.

Q: HOW MANY OFFICERS DID YOU ASSIGN TO PROTECT THE VEHICLE?

A: A TWO-MAN UNIFORMED CAR.

Q: WHO ARE THEY?

A: I BELIEVE THEIR NAMES WERE GONZALEZ AND ASTON.

Q: AND WHAT WAS YOUR INSTRUCTIONS TO THEM?

A: TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE, PROTECT THE VEHICLE AND IMPOUND THE VEHICLE.

Q: WHAT ABOUT THE SURROUNDING AREAS? WERE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE GRASSY AREA AND POSSIBLE TRACE EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT BE THERE?

A: I HAD THE CRIMINALIST THERE AT THAT POINT AND HE WAS AWARE OF THAT AND HE WAS TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE EVIDENCE.

Q: DID YOU CORDON THAT AREA OFF?

A: NO, SIR, I DID NOT.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: AT THAT POINT I HAD IT PROTECTED.

Q: BY THE OFFICERS?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: YOU TOLD THEM TO NOT LET ANYBODY GO IN THAT AREA, ALSO?

A: I TOLD THEM TO PROTECT THAT AREA, PROTECT THAT VEHICLE, YES.

Q: WHAT ABOUT THE STREET RIGHT OUTSIDE THE DRIVER'S DOOR? THERE IS A POSSIBILITY YOU COULD FIND SOME FOOTWEAR IMPRESSION EVIDENCE THERE, ISN'T THERE NOT?

A: I DON'T THINK ON THE ASPHALT THAT THAT IS POSSIBLE, NO.

Q: NO?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Q: DID YOU TALK TO MR. BODZIAK ABOUT THAT, YOUR EXPERT?

A: I HAVE NEVER SEEN THAT DONE, NO. NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: HAVE YOU READ ANYTHING IN HIS BOOK ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD PROTECT FOR THIS EVENTUALITY?

A: NO, SIR, I HAVEN'T.

Q: WOULD YOU DISAGREE WITH HIM IF HE SAID THAT WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT AREA TO PRESERVE?

A: NO, I WOULDN'T DISAGREE. HE IS AN EXPERT; I'M NOT.

Q: WOULDN'T THE PROPER PROCEDURE THEN TO BE TO ACTUALLY CORDON OFF THAT WHOLE STREET WHERE THE BRONCO WAS ON BOTH SIDES SO THAT THERE WOULD BE NO CHANCE OF CONTAMINATING THAT CRIME SCENE, SIR?

A: WELL, I GUESS IF WE ARE GOING TO THAT EXTENT, I GUESS THE PROPER PROCEDURE WOULD HAVE TO BE CORDON OFF BETWEEN BUNDY AND ROCKINGHAM AND SEARCH THE ENTIRE AREA. THAT WASN'T POSSIBLE. I DIDN'T DEEM THAT NECESSARY AT THAT POINT.

Q: AND YOU LATER FOUND OUT THAT THE PRESS WAS NOT ONLY IN THE VICINITY OF THE BRONCO, BUT HAD SPILLED COFFEE ON THE HOOD OF THE BRONCO WHILE IT WAS BEING SECURED BY YOUR OFFICERS, DID YOU NOT?

A: I WAS TOLD THAT BY YOU, YES.

Q: HAVE YOU BEEN TOLD THAT BY ANYONE ELSE?

A: I SAW IT IN THE -- I SAW THAT THERE WERE COFFEE STAINS TO BE DISREGARDED IN THE TOW REPORT, YES.

Q: AND YOU ALSO HAVE SEEN PHOTOGRAPHS OF A CIVILIAN RUNNING UP AND TOUCHING THE EXACT AREA WHERE YOU SAW THE BLOOD, DID YOU NOT?

A: I SAW PHOTOGRAPHS OF A -- WHAT APPEARED TO BE A WOMAN LOOKING INTO THE VEHICLE, YES.

Q: YOU ARE AWARE THAT THINGS WERE STOLEN FROM THAT BRONCO, WERE YOU NOT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU ARE AWARE THAT BRONCO WAS NEVER PROPERLY PROTECTED, ARE YOU NOT?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION. SUSTAINED.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU WERE AWARE OF EVIDENCE REGARDING A BLANKET THAT WAS TAKEN FROM BUNDY TO BE USED ON ONE OF THE VICTIMS, WERE YOU NOT?

A: NO, I WASN'T. I WASN'T AT BUNDY WHEN THAT WAS DONE.

Q: ARE YOU AWARE THAT WAS DONE?

A: I AM, YES, NOW.

Q: AND IS THAT PROPER PROCEDURE, TO TAKE A BLANKET FROM A HOME, TAKE IT OUTSIDE AND USE TO IT COVER A VICTIM?

A: WELL, I THINK THAT SHOWS PROPER RESPECT FOR A VICTIM THAT IS LAYING IN PUBLIC VIEW THAT CAN BE SEEN, THAT THE DETECTIVE OR THE POLICE OFFICER HAS ENOUGH RESPECT TO TRY AND COVER THAT PERSON, YES.

Q: I AGREE WITH YOU. BUT I'M ASKING YOU A BLANKET FROM A HOUSE, COULD THAT HAVE HAD TRACE EVIDENCE ON IT?

A: THAT IS A POSSIBILITY, SURE.

Q: IF MR. SIMPSON HAD BEEN A GUEST IN THAT HOME, MIGHT HIS HAIR BE ON THAT BLANKET?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IS IT POSSIBLE HIS HAIR COULD BE ON THAT BLANKET?

MR. DARDEN: SAME OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WERE YOU CONCERNED THAT THERE MIGHT BE SEMEN ON THAT BLANKET THAT WHEN COMING IN CONTACT WITH BLOOD FROM THE VICTIM COULD CONTAMINATE DNA?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THE WITNESS WASN'T THERE. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WOULD THAT BE A LEGITIMATE CONCERN TO HAVE AS THE LEAD DETECTIVE?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WELL, HE HAS ALREADY TESTIFIED HE WAS CONCERNED THERE MIGHT BE TRACE EVIDENCE ON IT. THAT COVERS A WHOLE PANOPLY OF THINGS.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: THAT BLANKET ITSELF MAY HAVE HAD TRACE EVIDENCE, RIGHT?

MR. DARDEN: CALLS FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE HAS ALREADY TESTIFIED TO THIS.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WOULD IT BE PROPER TO LEAVE THAT BLANKET AT THE SCENE AND NOT TAKE IT AS EVIDENCE?

A: THAT WAS A DETERMINATION THAT WAS MADE BY MY PARTNER.

Q: MY QUESTION IS WOULD IT BE PROPER?

A: THAT WOULD DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. IT COULD BE; IT COULDN'T.

Q: WHAT IS YOUR OPINION?

A: WELL, I DON'T THINK I WOULD HAVE TAKEN IT EITHER. I WOULD HAVE PROBABLY MADE THE SAME DETERMINATION MY PARTNER DID.

MR. SHAPIRO: JUST ANOTHER MINUTE, YOUR HONOR, PLEASE.

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU TESTIFIED REGARDING WESTEC, THAT WESTEC CAME ON THEIR OWN WHILE YOU WERE AT THE ROCKINGHAM SCENE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THERE WAS A UNIT, YES, THAT WAS TRAVELING SOUTHBOUND ON ROCKINGHAM THAT WAS WAVED DOWN BY DETECTIVE PHILLIPS.

Q: WHO WERE THE OCCUPANTS OF THAT VEHICLE?

A: IT WAS A ONE-MAN UNIT AND I DON'T RECALL THE PRIVATE SECURITY OFFICER'S NAME.

Q: DID YOU ALSO CAUSE WESTEC TO BE CALLED AND ASK FOR A UNIT TO BE SENT OUT?

A: I ASKED DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TO CONTACT THEM TO SEE IF WE COULD GET ANY INFORMATION REGARDING THE ESTATE THERE, YES.

Q: AND DID HE?

A: TO MY KNOWLEDGE HE DID, YES.

Q: DID HE ASK, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, FOR A UNIT TO BE SENT OUT?

A: I THINK THAT OCCURRED WHEN HE WAS TALKING TO THE FIRST UNIT THERE REGARDING A PHONE NUMBER. I THINK THAT UNIT REQUESTED A SUPERVISOR BE SENT TO THE LOCATION.

Q: WHAT TIME WAS THAT?

A: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AROUND -- I BELIEVE AROUND 5:30 IN THE MORNING, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

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

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND WHAT TIME DID THAT UNIT ARRIVE?

A: WITHIN A VERY SHORT TIME.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME SERGEANT ROSSI CALLED WESTEC?

A: NO, I DO NOT.

Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY DOCUMENTS IN YOUR MURDER BOOK TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHAT TIME SERGEANT ROSSI CALLED WESTEC?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES. I'M SURE THERE IS DOCUMENTS IN THERE, YES.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IF I SHOWED YOU THAT, WOULD THAT HELP YOU?

A: YES.

Q: LET ME SHOW YOU PAGE 0641 OF YOUR MURDER BOOK. HAVE YOU SEEN THAT DOCUMENT BEFORE?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT A DOCUMENT FROM YOUR MURDER BOOK?

A: YES.

Q: AND DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR MEMORY AS TO WHAT TIME SERGEANT ROSSI CALLED WESTEC?

A: THIS IS A -- THIS IS A HANDWRITTEN NOTE THAT SOMEONE MADE. I BELIEVE THERE IS AN ACTUAL TIMED -- TIMED TRANSCRIPT THAT WOULD SHOW THE TIMES, BUT THIS INDICATES THAT --

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. JUST USED TO REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DOES IT REFRESH YOUR MEMORY AS TO WHAT TIME WESTEC WAS CALLED?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. HE NEVER HAD ORIGINAL INFORMATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE INDICATED WOULD IT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: MY QUESTION IS DOES IT?

A: WHEN THEY WERE FIRST CALLED?

Q: WHEN THEY WERE CALLED BY LAPD?

A: WELL, I DIDN'T MAKE THE PHONE CALLS. I BELIEVE THE FIRST PHONE CALL WAS MADE APPROXIMATELY 5:15 TO 5:30.

Q: I'M ASKING YOU IF THIS DOCUMENT, SIR, REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A: NO. NO, THIS IS NOTES. THIS DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING.

Q: WHOSE NOTES ARE THOSE?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: WHY ARE THEY MURDER IN THE BOOK?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: WHO PUT THEM IN THE MURDER BOOK?

A: OBVIOUSLY WE DID. THEY CAME FROM SOMEONE. MAYBE SERGEANT ROSSI. I DON'T KNOW.

Q: WELL, SERGEANT ROSSI, IF HE MADE THOSE NOTES, WOULD BE IN THE COURSE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHOSE NOTES THOSE ARE.

Q: DON'T THOSE NOTES INDICATE THAT THE CALL WAS MADE --

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WOULD IT BE IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO CHECK ON THIS INFORMATION, SINCE IT DIFFERS FROM THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE GIVING US?

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE IMPLICATION OF THE QUESTION.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHEN YOU RETURNED TO -- DID YOU EVER RETURN TO THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE PRIOR TO THE TAPE BEING REMOVED?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHEN WAS THAT?

A: IT WAS ON TWO OCCASIONS. I STOPPED THERE ON MY WAY FROM ROCKINGHAM TO WEST LOS ANGELES STATION TO INFORM MY PARTNER OF WHAT I WAS PREPARING TO DO.

Q: AND THAT WAS TO GET A SEARCH WARRANT?

A: YES. AND THEN I STOPPED BACK BY THERE ON MY WAY BACK TO ROCKINGHAM WITH THE WARRANT TO INFORM MY PARTNER OF WHAT WAS GOING ON.

Q: I WANT TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY YOU GAVE IN THIS CASE, PAGE 336 AND PAGE 337. I HAVE GIVEN COUNSEL A COPY. DO YOU RECALL TESTIFYING BEFORE A GRAND JURY IN THIS CASE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY, THERE IS NO LAWYER REPRESENTING THE --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

MR. DARDEN: OBJECTION. THIS IS IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHEN YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY, WERE YOU ASKED SOME QUESTIONS BY A DISTRICT ATTORNEY?

A: YES.

Q: BY WHOM?

A: MISS CLARK.

Q: AND DID MISS CLARK ASK YOU THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: "I BELIEVE YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WENT TO SECURE A SEARCH WARRANT FOR THE LOCATION OF 360 ROCKINGHAM? "ANSWER: THAT'S CORRECT." AND THEN SHE ASKED: "AND WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?" DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: THAT IS POSSIBLE, YES.

Q: AND DO YOU RECALL YOUR ANSWER: "AFTER SECURING THE WARRANT I RETURNED TO THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION"?

A: THAT IS WHAT I ULTIMATELY DID.

Q: YOU DIDN'T MENTION ANYTHING THAT YOU WENT TO BUNDY NEXT?

A: NO. WHAT I ULTIMATELY DID WAS I RETURNED TO THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION.

Q: AND WHEN YOU WERE AT BUNDY DID YOU EVER WALK INTO ANY AREAS CONTAINING POTENTIAL EVIDENCE WHILE THE CRIME SCENE WAS STILL SECURE?

A: THAT IS POSSIBLE AT ONE POINT, YES. I MAY HAVE.

Q: DID YOU WALK INTO ANY BLOOD EVIDENCE WHILE THE CRIME SCENE WAS STILL SECURE?

A: NO, SIR.

MR. SHAPIRO: MAY WE SHOW THE VIDEO, PLEASE?

THE COURT: HAVE WE MARKED THIS?

MR. SHAPIRO: YES. THIS SHOULD BE 1049.

THE COURT: 1059.

MR. SHAPIRO: 1059, I'M SORRY. EXCUSE ME.

(AT 11:40 A.M., DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1059, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

MR. SHAPIRO: MAY WE STOP THAT RIGHT THERE, PLEASE.

Q: CAN YOU IDENTIFY THE PEOPLE IN THAT VIDEO?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO RUN IT BACK?

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: CAN YOU IDENTIFY THE PEOPLE THAT VIDEO, SIR?

A: YES. I SAW THREE PEOPLE FROM THE START. IT WAS MYSELF, LIEUTENANT ROGERS AND CRIMINALIST FUNG.

Q: CAN YOU IDENTIFY THE PERSON THAT APPEARS TO BE STANDING ON A SHEET COVERED WITH BLOOD?

A: YES. THAT IS MYSELF.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU.

Q: YOU EXAMINED THE INDEX FINGER OF MR. SIMPSON AND OBSERVED IT TO HAVE A CUT WHICH YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED HERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND I TAKE IT YOU EXAMINED THE LEFT-HAND GLOVE AT BUNDY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: I DIDN'T. I HAD IT EXAMINED.

Q: AND WAS A CUT FOUND ON THE LEFT HAND GLOVE AT BUNDY THAT WOULD BE IN THE AREA OF THE CUT ON O.J. SIMPSON'S LEFT HAND?

A: NO.

MR. SHAPIRO: NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: DETECTIVE VANNATTER, THERE WAS NO CUT ON THE LEFT-HAND GLOVE THAT YOU FOUND AT BUNDY?

A: NO.

Q: BUT THERE WAS A CUT ON THE DEFENDANT'S HAND WHEN YOU FIRST SAW HIM?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, LEADING.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WAS THERE A CUT ON THE DEFENDANT'S HAND WHEN YOU FIRST SAW HIM?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT SIGNIFICANCE, IF ANY, DO YOU ATTACH TO --

A: I BELIEVE THE WAY THE CUT OCCURRED DURING THE --

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I BELIEVE DURING THE STRUGGLE THE LEFT-HAND GLOVE WAS LOST AND DROPPED ON THE GROUND AND THAT IS WHEN THE CUT OCCURRED, WHEN THE HANDS WERE NOT PROTECTED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: OKAY. SO IS IT SIGNIFICANT THEN, SIGNIFICANT AT ALL THAT THERE WAS NO CUT ON THE LEFT-HANDED GLOVE, AS DESCRIBED BY MR. SHAPIRO?

A: NO. THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANCE TO THAT.

Q: MR. SHAPIRO ASKED YOU YESTERDAY IF YOU FOUND ANY BLOODY CLOTHING AT THE DEFENDANT'S HOME. DO YOU RECALL THAT QUESTION?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND WHAT WAS YOUR ANSWER AT THE TIME?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT BLOODY CLOTHING WAS FOUND BY THE LAPD AT THE DEFENDANT'S HOME?

A: A PAIR OF THE DEFENDANT'S SOCKS FROM HIS BEDROOM.

Q: WERE THOSE SOCKS SUBMITTED FOR TESTING, IF YOU KNOW?

A: YES.

Q: WERE THEY TESTED FOR BLOOD?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BLOOD WAS FOUND ON THOSE SOCKS?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION AND HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WERE THOSE SOCKS TESTED FOR THE PRESENCE OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BLOOD?

A: YES.

Q: WERE THEY TESTED FOR THE PRESENCE OF RONALD GOLDMAN'S BLOOD?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: AND WERE THEY TESTED FOR THE PRESENCE OF THE DEFENDANT'S BLOOD?

A: YES.

Q: AND ARE YOU AWARE OF WHAT THE TEST FINDINGS ARE AS THEY RELATE TO THE SOCKS?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: HE CAN ANSWER YES OR NO, BUT THE RESULTS ARE HEARSAY.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: OKAY. YOU HAVE TOLD US THAT AT SOME POINT, AT ONE POINT ON JUNE 13TH YOU CONSIDERED THE DEFENDANT A SUSPECT; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. GIVEN YOUR AWARENESS OF THE TEST FINDINGS, THAT IS, THE TESTING OF THE SOCKS IN THIS CASE --

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE COURT'S OWN OBJECTION. I ASSUME WE WILL GET TO THAT EVENTUALLY.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU ARE WELCOME.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: YOU WATCHED DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TESTIFY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: PART OF IT, YES; NOT ALL OF IT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU HAVE TESTIFIED HERE IN COURT TODAY AND YESTERDAY, RIGHT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. AND WHILE YOU WERE WATCHING DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TESTIFY, WAS THERE A POINT WHERE YOU FELT THAT HIS -- HIS RECALL WAS DIFFERENT FROM YOURS?

A: WELL, I THINK THAT HAPPENS IN EVERY CASE. I THINK THAT IS A NORMAL THING.

Q: OKAY.

A: TWO PEOPLE DON'T PERCEIVE THE SAME THING OR THE SAME OCCURRENCE THE SAME WAY.

Q: WE DON'T ALL REMEMBER THE SAME THINGS?

A: ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU ATTEMPT TO SHIFT OR CHANGE YOUR TESTIMONY OR MODIFY YOUR FUTURE TESTIMONY TO FIT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S?

A: NO, SIR. MY TESTIMONY IS BASED ON MY RECOLLECTION OF THE EVENTS.

Q: YOU DIDN'T SEND A SWAT TEAM INTO THE DEFENDANT'S HOME?

A: I DID NOT.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I HAD THERE. IF -- IF I HAD KNOWN THAT HE WAS A MURDER SUSPECT AT THAT POINT OR KNOWN THAT SOMEONE WAS A HOSTAGE AT THAT POINT, THAT WOULD BE HANDLED AS A FIELD TACTICAL SITUATION. TO CALL IN PEOPLE AT THAT POINT WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT I HAD THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A TREMENDOUS STRAIN AND WASTE OF MANPOWER, AND BEFORE YOU DO THAT YOU HAVE TO DETERMINE WHAT YOU ARE DEALING WITH IN A FIELD SITUATION.

Q: WELL, HAD YOU CONSIDERED THE DEFENDANT A SUSPECT AT FIVE O'CLOCK THAT MORNING?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: YOU DID NOT?

A: NO.

Q: WELL, HAD YOU CONSIDERED HIM A SUSPECT, WOULD YOU HAVE APPROACHED HIS HOME OR HIS RESIDENCE IN A MANNER DIFFERENT FROM THE APPROACH YOU AND THE OTHER DETECTIVES USED?

A: ABSOLUTELY.

Q: WHAT DIFFERENCES WOULD YOU HAVE CONSIDERED?

A: YOU ARE DEALING WITH A FELONY SUSPECT AT THAT POINT. I WOULD HAVE HAD THE DETECTIVES PUT ON PROTECTIVE ARMOR. I WOULD HAVE US PUT ON RAID JACKETS THAT IDENTIFIES US AS LOS ANGELES POLICE OFFICERS.

I WOULD HAVE HAD UNIFORMED OFFICERS ACCOMPANY ME. I WOULD HAVE HAD OFFICERS STATIONED AT THE FRONT AND THE REAR OF THE LOCATION TO PRECLUDE ANY POSSIBLE ESCAPE. AND IF I -- AND IF I WOULD HAVE DETERMINED THAT HE WAS IN AND HE DIDN'T ANSWER THE DOOR, WE WOULD HAVE FORCED ENTRY INTO THE LOCATION.

Q: YOU DIDN'T DO ANY OF THAT IN THIS CASE?

A: I DID NOT, NO, SIR.

Q: NOW, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU ASKED KATO KAELIN IF THERE WAS AN EXTRA SET OF KEYS TO THE BRONCO?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. WAS THAT BEFORE OR AFTER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ADVISED YOU THAT HE FOUND THE GLOVE AT THE DEFENDANT'S HOME?

A: IT WAS AFTER.

Q: NOW, YOU DESCRIBED FOR US ALREADY THE BLOOD TRAIL FROM THE BRONCO -- FROM THE BRONCO LEADING INTO THE DEFENDANT'S FRONT DOOR; IS THAT CORRECT, DETECTIVE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. NOW, YOU'VE ALSO DESCRIBED FOR US YOUR FINDING OF THE GLOVE, OR RATHER, YOUR VIEWING OF THE GLOVE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE DEFENDANT'S PROPERTY, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, YOU DIDN'T FIND ANY BLOOD DROPS IN THE AREA OF THE GLOVE FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: I DID NOT.

Q: BUT YOU DID FIND BLOOD DROPS AT BUNDY?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, WHAT IS THE SURFACE COMPOSED OF, THAT IS, THE SURFACE AT BUNDY WHERE YOU FOUND BLOOD DROPS?

A: IT IS A -- IT IS A CEMENT -- CEMENT WALKWAY THAT RUNS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE -- OF THE RESIDENCE AND RUNS EAST AND WEST FROM THE FRONT WALKWAY TO THE ALLEY.

Q: OKAY. AND THE SURFACE WHERE YOU FOUND OR RATHER WHERE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN FOUND THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM, WHAT IS THAT SURFACE COMPOSED OF?

A: THAT IS ALSO A CEMENT SURFACE THAT IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE THAT WAS HEAVILY COVERED WITH DEBRIS AND LEAVES AND --

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

MR. DARDEN: IF WE CAN JUST PULL UP 116, YOUR HONOR, THE GLOVE BOARD.

THE COURT: YES. MR. FAIRTLOUGH.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. DARDEN: WE CAN LEAVE IT BACK THERE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: SHOWING YOU PEOPLE'S 116, DETECTIVE --

A: MAY I STEP DOWN?

Q: PLEASE.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

Q: ARE THE LEAVES ON THE WALKWAY AS DEPICTED IN THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, DETECTIVE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: THEY ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE, AREN'T THEY?

A: YES, SIR, THEY ARE.

Q: DID YOU PICK UP EACH AND EVERY LEAF ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THAT PROPERTY AND EXAMINE IT?

A: I DID NOT, NO, SIR.

Q: DID YOU TURN EACH LEAF OVER AND EXAMINE IT?

A: NO. I DID NOT.

Q: YOU TOLD MR. SHAPIRO THAT YOU FOUND NO BLOOD ON THE FENCE OR ON THE GATE OR ON THE WALL?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: THAT IS IN THE SOUTH SIDE AREA, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE DEFENDANT'S PROPERTY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: OKAY. STEP BACK UP, PLEASE.

A: THANK YOU. (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

Q: BUT YOU DID FIND BLOOD IN THE DRIVEWAY?

A: AT ROCKINGHAM, YES.

Q: YES. IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT THE PERSON WHO DROPPED THE GLOVE CLIMBED OVER THE FENCE AT ROCKINGHAM?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: IT IS LEADING, "IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT." LEADING.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO HOW THE PERSON WHO DROPPED THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM ENTERED THE PROPERTY?

MR. SHAPIRO: CALLS FOR SPECULATION. OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: HOW?

A: I BELIEVE THEY -- I BELIEVE HE USED A KEY TO COME THROUGH THE ROCKINGHAM GATE AFTER PARKING THE VEHICLE IN THE STREET THERE, JUST NORTH OF THE GATE, WALKED DOWN TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

Q: WHICH GATE ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

A: THE ROCKINGHAM GATE.

Q: DID YOU HAVE A KEY TO THE ROCKINGHAM GATE?

A: NO.

Q: IN ADDITION TO NOT -- WELL, STRIKE THAT. THE PERSON THAT DROPPED THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM, DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT PERSON WAS ACTUALLY BLEEDING AS THEY WALKED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'M GOING TO OBJECT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: BASIS?

MR. SHAPIRO: SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON THAT DROPPED THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM WAS BLEEDING AT THE TIME?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON WHO DROPPED THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM HAD HIS LEFT HAND IN HIS POCKET AT SOME POINT?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT PERSON WAS CARRYING ANYTHING?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. SHAPIRO: ASK THE JURY TO DISREGARD THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING.

THE COURT: PROCEED.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: YOU TOLD US THAT YOU DID NOT FIND -- OR HAVE NOT FOUND THE MURDER WEAPON?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: IS THAT UNCOMMON IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, THAT IS, NOT TO FIND THE MURDER WEAPON?

A: NO. THAT IS NOT UNCOMMON AT ALL.

Q: ARE YOU SURPRISED AT ALL THAT YOU HAVEN'T FOUND THE MURDER WEAPON?

A: NO.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: THE KNIFE IS A VERY EASY ITEM TO DISPOSE OF. IT COULD BE DISPOSED OF ANY PLACE. I HAVE CASES THAT I HAVE NEVER FOUND THE BODIES ON, SO IT IS NOT UNUSUAL NOT TO FIND A MURDER WEAPON.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON THAT COMMITTED THESE MURDERS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISPOSE OF THE MURDER WEAPON?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT TIME DID YOU ARRIVE AT THE MURDER SCENE?

A: AT BUNDY?

Q: YES.

A: 4:05 IN THE MORNING.

Q: OKAY. WHAT TIME DID YOU FIRST MAKE CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT?

A: PERSONAL CONTACT?

Q: YES.

A: SHORTLY AFTER 12:00 NOON THE FOLLOWING DAY, OR THE SAME DAY, I'M SORRY.

Q: OKAY.

A: THE 13TH OF JUNE.

Q: DID YOU HAVE THE DEFENDANT UNDER SURVEILLANCE BETWEEN 10:00 P.M. SUNDAY NIGHT AND 12:00 NOON THE FOLLOWING MONDAY?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: YOU TOLD US THAT YOU TOOK NO NOTES UPON YOUR INITIAL ARRIVAL AT ROCKINGHAM; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: IS THAT UNUSUAL OR UNCOMMON, THAT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES YOU DID NOT TAKE NOTES UPON YOUR ARRIVAL AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: IT WAS NOT UNUSUAL. AFTER ARRIVING THERE AND TO MERELY MAKE A DEATH NOTIFICATION, THE SITUATION QUICKLY ESCALATED INTO WHAT I CONSIDERED AN EMERGENCY SITUATION AND I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO TAKE NOTES. WE NOTED THE TIME THAT WE LEFT TO GO TO ROCKINGHAM IN OUR CHRONOLOGICAL, WHICH COVERED IT.

Q: OKAY. AND THE PHONE CALLS THAT YOU AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS MADE THAT DAY, ARE THOSE CALLS LOGGED SOMEWHERE?

A: I DIDN'T MAKE ANY, BUT THERE IS PHONE BILLS ON THE PHONE CALLS THAT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS MADE, YES.

Q: OKAY. AND THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS OBSERVED AT ROCKINGHAM THAT DAY, HAS THAT EVIDENCE BEEN PRESERVED SOMEHOW?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU MEMORIALIZE SOMEHOW WHERE AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES THE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND?

A: YES.

Q: HOW DID YOU DO THAT?

A: IT IS MEMORIALIZED IN THE FOLLOW-UP REPORT. IT IS MEMORIALIZED IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AND IT IS MEMORIALIZED BY THE CRIMINALIST WHO I DIRECTED TO PROTECT AND RECOVER THE EVIDENCE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IS IT MEMORIALIZED IN PHOTOGRAPHS AS WELL?

A: DEFINITELY, YES. THAT IS PART OF THE CRIMINALIST'S FUNCTION ALSO, WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER.

Q: WHEN YOU WERE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE AT ROCKINGHAM, DID YOU CHECK THE DOORS, THAT IS, THE DOOR TO THE LAUNDRY ROOM OR ANY OTHER DOOR ON THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE?

A: I DID NOT.

Q: DID ANYONE ELSE?

A: I BELIEVE MY PARTNER DID.

Q: DETECTIVE LANGE HERE?

A: YES.

Q: HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

A: HE TOLD ME.

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, HEARSAY; MOTION TO STRIKE.

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

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: YOU DO KEEP SOMETHING KNOWN AS A CHRONO LOG OR CHRONOLOGICAL LOG; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS A LOG THAT YOU KEEP IN THE FILE THAT WE COMMONLY REFER TO AS A MURDER BOOK; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE CHRONOLOGICAL LOG?

A: THE CHRONOLOGICAL LOG IS A DAILY REFERENCE TO ACTIVITIES THAT TAKE PLACE DURING THE COURSE OF THE MURDER INVESTIGATION.

IT MERELY INDICATES THAT A CERTAIN ACTIVITY TAKES PLACE, NOT WHAT THE CONCLUSIONS OR WHAT -- WHAT THE FINDINGS ARE, MERELY THAT THAT ACTIVITY TOOK PLACE.

Q: OKAY. DO YOU MAKE A NOTE OF EVERYTHING OR EACH AND EVERY OCCURRENCE THAT MAY HAPPEN DURING THE DAY?

A: NO, SIR. THAT WOULD ALMOST BE IMPOSSIBLE. WE WOULD BE DOING NOTHING BUT MAKING NOTES IF WE DID THAT.

Q: WELL, WITH REGARD TO THE DRAWING OF THE BLOOD, THAT IS, THE SAMPLE DRAWN FROM THE DEFENDANT, IS THE DATE AND TIME OF THAT OCCURRENCE MEMORIALIZED SOMEWHERE SOMEHOW?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: WHERE?

A: IT IS MEMORIALIZED ON THE CONSENT FORM THAT WAS SIGNED BY MR. SIMPSON.

Q: AND THE DATE AND TIME ON WHICH YOU GAVE THAT BLOOD VIAL TO THE CRIMINALIST, MR. FUNG, IS THAT MEMORIALIZED SOMEWHERE?

A: YES, SIR, IT IS.

Q: WHERE?

A: IT IS MEMORIALIZED IN MR. FUNG'S NOTES.

Q: IS THERE ANYTHING IMPROPER AT ALL ABOUT YOUR TRANSPORTING THE BLOOD VIAL FROM PARKER CENTER OUT TO ROCKINGHAM TO THE CRIMINALIST, MR. FUNG?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: GROUNDS?

MR. SHAPIRO: SELF-SERVING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO. I AM ONE OF THE DETECTIVES IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION. IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE EVIDENCE IS COLLECTED AND SECURED.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: WHAT WAS THE FIRST THING YOU WROTE ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH?

A: I BELIEVE THE FIRST THING I WROTE WAS MY ARRIVAL TIME AT -- AT BUNDY, AND THEN AFTER THAT I BEGAN TO WRITE A STATEMENT ON KATO KAELIN.

Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU PRESERVE THOSE NOTES?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THE NEXT THING THAT YOU WROTE?

A: THE SEARCH WARRANT.

Q: WHAT TIME, IF YOU RECALL, WAS IT THAT YOU FIRST SAW THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 6:15 TO 6:30.

Q: AND WHAT TIME DID YOU BEGIN WRITING THE SEARCH WARRANT?

A: BETWEEN 7:45 AND EIGHT O'CLOCK.

Q: AND WAS THE SEARCH WARRANT THE SECOND THING, OR RATHER, THE THIRD THING THAT YOU WROTE THAT MORNING?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU DESCRIBE THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM IN THE SEARCH WARRANT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU DESCRIBE HAVING SEEN THE BRONCO IN THE SEARCH WARRANT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU DESCRIBE HAVING SEEN BLOOD ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE BRONCO?

A: YES.

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

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DID YOU INDICATE THAT ONE OF THE DETECTIVES RAN THE PLATE ON THE BRONCO TO SEE WHO IT WAS REGISTERED TO?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT THE GLOVE FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM RESEMBLED THE GLOVE AT BUNDY?

A: YES.

Q: DOES THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM RESEMBLE THE GLOVE AT BUNDY?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE A MATCHED PAIR.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. DARDEN: I WOULD LIKE TO MARK A BOARD NEXT IN ORDER. I HAVE ALREADY SHOWN IT TO DEFENSE COUNSEL.

THE COURT: 125.

(PEO'S 125 FOR ID = POSTERBOARD W/PHOTOS)

MR. DARDEN: WAS THAT PEOPLE'S 125, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MR. DARDEN: DETECTIVE, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO STEP DOWN.

A: YES, SIR. (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

Q: TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS.

A: YES, SIR.

Q: TELL US WHETHER OR NOT THEY DEPICT THE GLOVE FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM AND THE ONE FOUND AT BUNDY?

A: YES, THEY DO.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT EACH OF THOSE GLOVES WERE SUBMITTED FOR TESTING?

A: YES.

Q: THE GLOVE AT BUNDY WAS SUBMITTED FOR TESTING?

A: YES.

Q: ARE YOU AWARE OF THOSE RESULTS?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU INDICATE IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT THAT YOU OBSERVED BLOOD DROPLETS LEADING FROM THE BRONCO TO THE FRONT DOOR OF MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU INDICATE THAT YOU HAD SPOKEN TO ARNELLE SIMPSON?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU INDICATE THAT YOU --

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, DO WE NEED THIS BOARD UP ANY LONGER?

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, ARE YOU GOING TO USE THIS ANY MORE?

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

MR. DARDEN: I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SHOW IT TO THE JURY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T WE DO THAT AND THEN WE WILL TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE MORNING.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. SHAPIRO: MAY WE APPROACH THE BENCH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: TWO SECONDS.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.

MR. SHAPIRO: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR, PLEASE?

THE COURT: JUST A SECOND. I'M GOING TO EXCUSE THE JURY FIRST.

MR. SHAPIRO: I WAS GOING TO SAY BEFORE THE JURY IS EXCUSED.

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE MORNING SESSION. PLEASE REMEMBER ALL OF MY ADMONITIONS. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU, DO NOT PERFORM ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. WE WILL RECONVENE PROMPTLY AT 1:30. DETECTIVE VANNATTER, YOU MAY STEP DOWN. 1:30, SIR.

THE WITNESS: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS.

(AT 12:04 P.M. THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 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: MR. DARDEN, MR. SHAPIRO.

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. COUNSEL, ANYTHING WE NEED TO TAKE UP BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO REJOIN US?

MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, VERY QUICKLY. MISS CLARK HAS AGREED THE VIDEOTAPES WE SUBPOENAED FOR THE MEDIA COULD BE RELEASED AND MISS ROBERTSON SAID THAT NEEDED TO BE ON THE RECORD. SO RELEASED TO US FOR COPYING AND RETURNED TO THE COURT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES? ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: HAVE THE MANUALS ARRIVED?

THE COURT: YES, THEY DID.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE SEE THOSE OVERNIGHT?

THE COURT: SURE. ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T WE TAKE CARE OF THAT WHEN WE CONCLUDE. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

MS. CLARK: ARE WE GOING TO TAKE UP THE MATTER OF --

MR. COCHRAN: APPARENTLY THEY ALREADY DID THAT.

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

THE COURT: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE. LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE'VE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: DETECTIVE PHILIP VANNATTER IS ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN.

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

THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, DETECTIVE VANNATTER.

THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.

THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MR. DARDEN, YOU MAY CONCLUDE WITH YOUR REDIRECT EXAMINATION.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. DARDEN:

Q: DETECTIVE, DURING MR. SHAPIRO'S CROSS-EXAMINATION, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU DID NOT EXPECT TO SEE ANY INJURIES ON MR. SIMPSON'S BODY?

A: I THINK I TESTIFIED I DIDN'T SEE ANY ON HIS BODY, YES, OTHER THAN HIS LEFT HAND.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU EXPECT TO SEE INJURIES ON HIS BODY?

A: NO.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: WELL, FROM WHAT I COULD SEE OF HIS FACE AND HIS ARMS, HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY INJURIES OTHER THAN TO HIS LEFT HAND. HE HAD ON A SHOR