|
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 1995 9:07 A.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: 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. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. COUNSEL, IS THERE ANYTHING WE NEED TO CHAT ABOUT BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO REJOIN US FOR THE CONCLUSION OF THE DIRECT EXAMINATION? MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD ASK TO APPROACH THE BENCH FOR AN OFFER OF PROOF OF GOOD FAITH ON THE PART OF THE PEOPLE FOR IMPEACHMENT IN TWO AREAS THAT THEY HAVE ALLUDED TO. ONE, SOMETHING THAT TOOK PLACE AT BURGER KING, AND TWO, STATEMENTS SUPPOSEDLY MADE BY KATO KAELIN TO GRANT CRAMER. I HAVE THE DISCOVERY THAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED US WITH REGARDING GRANT CRAMER AND IT DOESN'T COME ANYWHERE NEAR THE SUGGESTIONS THAT MISS CLARK WAS GIVING TO THE WITNESS YESTERDAY. THE COURT: MISS CLARK. MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY PERHAPS MR. -- MS. CLARK: I DON'T KNOW IF MR. SHAPIRO KNOWS HOW TO READ, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GET THE REPORT AND READ TO IT HIM. MR. CRAMER SAID PRECISELY WHAT I SAID TO THE WITNESS. IT IS QUOTED IN THE POLICE REPORT. AND WHAT MORE OFFER OF GOOD FAITH DO YOU NEED THAN THE ACTUAL STATEMENT OF THE WITNESS? THE WITNESS STATED TO THE POLICE THAT KATO KAELIN TOLD HIM WHEN HE WENT TO ROCKINGHAM, AFTER -- THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. PERHAPS WE OUGHT TO ASK MR. KAELIN TO STEP OUT IF YOU ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT SPECIFICS. MS. CLARK: I DIDN'T KNOW HE WAS HERE. THE COURT: YES. (MR. KAELIN EXITS THE COURTROOM.) THE COURT: MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. FIRST OF ALL, WITH RESPECT TO THE BURGER KING, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY ATTEMPT AT IMPEACHMENT. I ASKED HIM WHETHER HE WAS SURE HE WENT TO MC DONALD'S AND WHICH ONE AND I DON'T THINK THERE WAS -- THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO IMPEACH HIM ON THAT. AND MR. SHAPIRO IS VERY WELL AWARE OF THE REPORTS. THE COURT: YOU DID ASK HIM YOU ARE SURE IT IS NOT THE BURGER KING ACROSS THE STREET? MS. CLARK: RIGHT, BUT I DID NOT ALLUDE TO ANY PRIOR WITNESS STATEMENTS OR ANYONE WHO SAID DIFFERENTLY. THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN SAYING "DID YOU TELL SOMEONE ELSE THE FOLLOWING." WITH RESPECT TO GRANT CRAMER, MR. SHAPIRO IS IN POSSESSION OF THESE REPORTS. IT STATES IN THE REPORT, I'M QUOTING RIGHT NOW AT PAGE 906 OF THE DISCOVERY, THIS IS GRANT CRAMER'S STATEMENT, THAT: "WHEN KATO WENT BACK TO -- KATO WENT TO ROCKINGHAM AFTER HAVING BEEN INTERVIEWED BY THE POLICE, HE WENT TO SEE GRANT CRAMER AND THEN HE WENT TO ROCKINGHAM AT THE DEFENSE REQUEST AND STAYED AT ROCKINGHAM UNTIL ABOUT MIDNIGHT OR 1:00 A.M. AND THEN HE CAME BACK TO GRANT CRAMER'S HOUSE, AND WHEN HE DID HE TOLD GRANT CRAMER THE FOLLOWING, THAT O.J.'S FAMILY AND FRIENDS WERE AT THE RESIDENCE ALONG WITH SOME OTHER ATTORNEYS, WHICH INCLUDED WEITZMAN, KATO SAID THAT O.J. HAD HUGGED HIM TELLING HIM 'THANK GOD YOU WERE HERE AND YOU CAN SAY I WAS AT HOME WHEN THIS THING HAPPENED.' "CRAMER SAID KATO SPENT THE NIGHT AT HIS APARTMENT AND LEFT THE NEXT DAY. KATO SPENT THE REST OF THE NEXT SEVERAL DAYS AT SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE. DURING ONE OF THOSE DAYS KATO CALLED CRAMER ON THE PHONE AND SPOKE VERY COVERTLY. KATO SOUNDED VERY EXCITED ON THE TELEPHONE AND SAID HE COULD NOT TALK. KATO TOLD CRAMER 'JUST BE CAREFUL.' CRAMER REPLIED, 'WHY? IS MY LIFE IN DANGER?' KATO ABRUPTLY SAID, 'NO, I DIDN'T SAY THAT.'" THE COURT: THAT IS IT? MS. CLARK: EXACTLY WHAT I -- WELL, THERE IS MORE TO IT, BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I CROSS-EXAMINED KATO -- MR. SHAPIRO: WHY DON'T WE FINISH. THERE IS MORE THERE, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE OUR POINT IS THAT I BELIEVE MISS CLARK TRIED TO INSINUATE -- THE COURT: WELL, LET ME JUST SEE IF THERE IS MORE. MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU. MS. CLARK: WELL, NO. THERE IS NOTHING ON THAT. IT GOES ON: "THEN KATO ARRIVED AT CRAMER'S RESIDENCE ON FRIDAY MORNING, JUNE 17, AND CRAMER RELUCTANTLY ALLOWED HIM INSIDE AND IT WAS THE SAME DAY THAT DETECTIVES CARR AND TIPPIN SERVED HIM WITH A GRAND JURY SUBPOENA." THERE IS NOTHING MORE ABOUT THE EVENTS AT ROCKINGHAM. THAT IS ALL. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MS. CLARK: IS THAT A GOOD FAITH OFFER OF PROOF OR WHAT? I MEAN, THE WITNESS SAID EXACTLY WHAT I CONFRONTED OUR WITNESS WITH AND MR. SHAPIRO HAS THIS REPORT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF GAME HE IS PLAYING NOW. LET'S CALL THE JURY, YOUR HONOR. MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, MY RECOLLECTION OF THE QUESTIONS YESTERDAY WERE THAT THEY WENT INTO THE DEMEANOR OF MR. SIMPSON AND WHAT KATO KAELIN TOLD GRANT CRAMER ABOUT MR. SIMPSON'S DEMEANOR AND HOW OUT OF SORTS IT WAS. AND I HAVE TO THIS DATE NOT RECEIVED ANY OTHER REPORTS THAN THE SIMPLE PARAGRAPH THAT MISS CLARK HAS READ TO YOUR HONOR, AND I WOULD STILL URGE THE COURT TO MAKE AN INQUIRY OF MISS CLARK AS TO WHERE THE REPORTS ARE THAT TALK ABOUT KATO KAELIN TALKING TO GRANT CRAMER ABOUT DEMEANOR. MS. CLARK: DO I HAVE TO READ EVERYTHING TO HIM? THE COURT: MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: PAGE 906, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: MISS CLARK, MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY. THE COURT: THAT KIND OF COMMENT IS NOT NECESSARY. MS. CLARK: I APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT. I'M SORRY. "KATO TOLD CRAMER THAT HE" -- THE COURT: WHAT PAGE ARE YOU ON? MS. CLARK: MAINLY 906. CRAMER IS TALKING ABOUT KATO'S RECOUNTING OF O.J.'S DEMEANOR AT THE TIME AFTER THE LIMO HAD ARRIVED. "KATO TOLD CRAMER THAT HE OBSERVED O.J. TO BE FRAZZLED AND OUT OF BREATH," QUOTE-UNQUOTE, "AND DID NOT LOOK LIKE THAT HE HAD JUST AWAKED FROM SLEEP AT THE TIME THE LIMO DRIVER ARRIVED." I THINK THAT IS WHAT I ASKED HIM. THE COURT: OKAY. WAS THERE ANOTHER QUESTION, TO MY RECOLLECTION, CONCERNING MR. SIMPSON'S DEMEANOR AFTER THE RECITAL? MS. CLARK: YES, THERE WAS, AND THAT IS PURSUANT TO ANONYMOUS -- TWO, ACTUALLY -- ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS, ANONYMOUS TIPS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED -- NO, ONE ANONYMOUS; ONE NOT. ONE FROM EITHER AN EX-GIRLFRIEND OR THE EX-WIFE OF KATO KAELIN ON TELEVISION SAYING THAT HE DESCRIBED THE DEFENDANT'S DEMEANOR AFTER THE RECITAL AS BEING FURIOUS, ANGRY, YELLING AND SHOUTING. WE RECEIVED A BACK-UP TO THAT YESTERDAY, ANOTHER TIP IN WHICH KATO HAD ALLEGEDLY TOLD THAT WITNESS AS WELL THAT AFTER THE RECITAL HE WAS FURIOUS, YELLING AND SCREAMING AND SHOUTING ABOUT NICOLE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHEN DID YOU RECEIVE THIS INFORMATION REGARDING THE EX-WIFE OR EX-GIRLFRIEND? MS. CLARK: OKAY. THAT WAS JUST -- THAT WAS ON TELEVISION. THAT WAS A NEWS REPORT, A NEWS INTERVIEW, AND THAT WAS -- I DON'T REMEMBER WHEN. I THINK IT WAS MAYBE TWO, THREE WEEKS AGO. I DON'T HAVE A REPORT ON IT. IT WAS ON TELEVISION. THE COURT: HAVE YOU SUBPOENAED THIS PERSON? MS. CLARK: NOT YET. ACTUALLY, I HAVE DETECTIVE VANNATTER TRYING TO LOCATE HER. THE COURT: HE IS SITTING RIGHT HERE. MS. CLARK: WELL, NOT PERSONALLY. HIS HELPERS. HE IS AWARE OF THIS. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANY COMMENT AS TO THAT ISSUE? MR. SHAPIRO: YES, YOUR HONOR. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW IN CALIFORNIA IS THAT GOOD FAITH REQUIRES SOMETHING MORE THAN TABLOID TELEVISION OR TABLOID NEWSPAPERS TO BE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION IN THE WAY THAT THEY WERE ASKED YESTERDAY, AND AT A VERY MINIMUM A FOLLOW-UP, KNOWING THAT THIS WITNESS WAS A KEY WITNESS AND HAD BEEN PROBABLY -- NOT PROBABLY -- WAS THE FIRST WITNESS INTERVIEWED IN THIS CASE IN JUNE OF 1994, THAT COMING TO COURT NOW TEN MONTHS LATER AND SAYING WE STILL HAVEN'T FOLLOWED UP ON OTHER REPORTS, KNOWING FROM THAT DAY HE GAVE THEM THE NAME OF GRANT CRAMER AND SAID HE HAD BEEN WITH GRANT CRAMER. CLEARLY I THINK THE COURT SHOULD FIND THERE WAS BAD FAITH AND THAT THE JURY SHOULD BE ADMONISHED THAT QUESTIONS WERE ASKED IN BAD FAITH AND THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS IN FACT FOR ASKING THEM. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MS. CLARK: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT SHOULD BE AWARE THAT MR. KAELIN DID NOT VOLUNTEER TO US THAT HE WENT TO GRANT CRAMER'S HOUSE. THAT IS FALSE. WE FOUND THAT OUT INDEPENDENTLY AND THERE HAS BEEN NO BAD FAITH HERE, I THINK THAT IS OBVIOUS. THE WITNESS INTERVIEW THAT I TALKED ABOUT, THE FACT THAT SOMEONE SAYS IT ON TELEVISION, THIS IS NOT A REPORT OR CHARACTERIZING WHAT THERE WOMAN SAID. THIS IS THE WOMAN HERSELF ON TELEVISION SAYING IT, SO THAT IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO IS SAYING IT WHO HAS BEEN VIEWED PROBABLY NATIONALLY SAYING WHAT I HAVE REPRESENTED TO MR. KAELIN. IF HE CHOOSES NOT TO ADMIT THAT HE SAID THAT, THAT IS HIS CHOICE, BUT IT CERTAINLY IS A GOOD FAITH SHOWING. IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT I HAVE STATEMENTS UNDER OATH AND MR. SHAPIRO IS VERY WELL AWARE OF THAT. HE IS SIMPLY TRYING TO PROTECT HIS WITNESS. THIS WOMAN DID STATE PERSONALLY ON TELEVISION WHAT I CONFRONTED MR. KAELIN WITH. FURTHERMORE, WITH RESPECT TO THE STATEMENT ABOUT GRANT CRAMER -- THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE A VIDEOTAPE OF THIS INTERVIEW? MS. CLARK: I HAVE -- WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO LOCATE THAT. EVER SINCE I HEARD ABOUT IT WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO LOCATE THE TAPE. PEOPLE HAVE CALLED ME WHO -- WHO HAVE SEEN IT AND TOLD ME ABOUT IT, SO I MEAN, I'M NOT -- THE COURT: WHAT NEWS PROGRAM WAS THIS ON? MS. CLARK: I BELIEVE IT WAS CHANNEL 7 AND THAT IS WHERE IT HAS BEEN DIFFICULT TO LOCATE. THREE PEOPLE CALLED ME TO SAY THAT SEEN THIS WOMAN TALKING ON TELEVISION. IT WAS 7:00 OR 7:30 SHOWING DURING THE WEEK ABOUT THE STATEMENT THAT KAELIN HAD MADE TO HER CONCERNING THE DEFENDANT'S DEMEANOR, AND WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO LOCATE THE FOOTAGE, AS WELL AS THE PERSON, AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER CAN ACTUALLY TESTIFY TO THE FACT THAT I HAVE REQUESTED HIM TO LOCATE THIS PERSON, BECAUSE I DID, IMMEDIATELY UPON HEARING THAT, BUT CERTAINLY I HAVE ENOUGH FOR A GOOD FAITH SHOWING TO ASK MR. KAELIN ABOUT THIS AND CONFRONT HIM WITH IT. IF HE ADMITS IT, THEN FINE. IF HE DOESN'T, THE WITNESS WILL BE PRODUCED. THE COURT: I THINK HE HAS ALREADY BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THOSE TWO ISSUES, THREE ISSUES. MS. CLARK: RIGHT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MS. CLARK: THE COURT IS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT WE ARE PREPARED TO BACK IT UP AND MR. KAELIN DID NOT VOLUNTEER HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH GRANT CRAMER. HE NEVER VOLUNTEERED THE NAME. WE FOUND THAT OUT ON OUR OWN. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, MAY I REFER THE COURT MOST RESPECTFULLY TO PAGE 348 OF THE MURDER BOOK, THE FIRST REPORT THAT WAS FILED, AND THAT WAS THE REPORT OF OFFICER TIPPIN AND CARR REGARDING GRANT CRAMER -- REGARDING KATO KAELIN. AND THE FIRST LINE OF THAT REPORT ON PAGE 2 IS "FRIEND AND BUSINESS PARTNER, GRANT CRAMER," AND IT GIVES HIS NUMBER. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COUNSEL, I FIND THE OFFER OF PROOF TO BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE EXAMINATION OF THIS WITNESS. I WILL OVERRULE THE OBJECTION AT THIS TIME. LET'S HAVE THE JURY. (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. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THE JURY: GOOD MORNING. THE COURT: MR. KAELIN, WOULD YOU PLEASE RESUME THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE. BRIAN KATO KAELIN, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE EVENING ADJOURNMENT, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS: THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR TRIAL JURY. MR. BRIAN KAELIN IS PRESENTLY ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MISS CLARK. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, MR. KAELIN. THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING. THE COURT: MR. KAELIN, YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. AND MISS CLARK, YOU MAY CONCLUDE YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION. MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: YOU ARE WELCOME. MS. CLARK: GOOD MORNING. THE JURY: GOOD MORNING. DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MS. CLARK: Q: GOOD MORNING, MR. KAELIN. A: GOOD MORNING. Q: NOW, YOU INDICATED YESTERDAY THAT YOU WENT TO THE MC DONALD'S WITH MR. SIMPSON LEAVING ROCKINGHAM AT ABOUT TEN AFTER 9:00? A: YES. Q: AND I BELIEVE YOU STATED THAT YOU WENT TO THE ONE ON SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD? A: YES. Q: DO YOU RECALL TELLING US YESTERDAY ALSO THAT THAT WAS NOT THE CLOSEST MC DONALD'S TO THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE? A: YES. Q: SO THE ONE YOU WENT TO WAS FARTHER THAN YOU NEEDED TO GO TO GO TO MC DONALD'S; IS THAT RIGHT? A: YES. Q: NOW, DURING THE TRIP TO MC DONALD'S THE DEFENDANT, YOU SAID, HAD TOLD YOU HE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO TAKE A NAP? A: YES, THAT CAME UP. Q: HE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO TAKE A NAP AND YOU WENT TO THE FARTHER MC DONALD'S. CAN YOU TELL US WHY YOU WENT TO THE MC DONALD'S THAT WAS FARTHER FROM THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE. MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. CALLING FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: IF YOU KNOW. THE WITNESS: I WAS IN THE CAR. I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE WE WERE GOING. Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH MR. SIMPSON ABOUT WHICH ONE TO GO TO? A: NO. Q: DID HE TELL YOU WHY YOU WERE GOING TO THE ONE THAT WAS FARTHER AWAY? A: NO. Q: NOW, I BELIEVE YOU ALSO TESTIFIED THAT THE -- THAT BACK AT ROCKINGHAM BEFORE YOU LEFT FOR MC DONALD'S THE DEFENDANT TOLD YOU THAT HE WANTED FIVE DOLLAR BILLS FOR THE SKYCAP BECAUSE HE ONLY HAD HUNDRED DOLLAR BILLS; IS THAT RIGHT? A: A FIVE DOLLAR BILL, RIGHT, FOR THE SKYCAP. Q: YOU DIDN'T GIVE HIM A $5.00 BILL, THOUGH, DID YOU? A: NO. Q: YOU GAVE HIM A TWENTY? A: YES. Q: I BELIEVE EARLIER TESTIFIED THAT WHEN YOU WENT TO MC DONALD'S YOU PAID FOR THE FOOD WITH A TWENTY DOLLAR BILL? A: A DIFFERENT TWENTY. Q: A DIFFERENT TWENTY? A: YES. Q: HE GAVE YOU BACK THE CHANGE, DID HE? A: YES. Q: DID HE KEEP A FIVE DOLLAR BILL FOR HIMSELF? A: NO. Q: DID YOU SEE HIM TRY AND BREAK THE TWENTY DOLLAR BILL YOU GAVE HIM EARLIER WHEN YOU WENT TO MC DONALD'S? A: THE FIRST TWENTY I GAVE HIM? Q: YES. A: NO. Q: SO AFTER ASKING YOU FOR THE FIVE DOLLAR BILL FOR A SKYCAP AT ROCKINGHAM, YOU GAVE HIM A TWENTY; IS THAT RIGHT? A: YES. Q: AND HE WAS AT MC DONALD'S BUT HE NEVER TRIED TO BREAK IT? A: NO. Q: AND HE NEVER TOOK THE CHANGE FROM THE TWENTY YOU PAID FOR THE FOOD WITH? A: NO. Q: NOW, WHEN YOU WERE LIVING ON ROCKINGHAM DID THE DEFENDANT TAKE TRIPS BEFORE THAT? DID HE FREQUENTLY GO ON TRIPS? A: YES. Q: THAT WAS A COMMON OCCURRENCE? A: YES. Q: HAD HE EVER ASKED YOU -- HAD HE EVER ASKED YOU FOR CHANGE FOR A SKYCAP BEFORE GOING ON ANY OTHER TRIP BESIDES THIS ONE? A: NO. Q: THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME? A: YES. Q: AT THE TIME THAT YOU HEARD THE THREE THUMPS, CAN YOU TELL US WHETHER OR NOT YOUR BATHROOM WINDOW WAS OPENED? A: I DON'T THINK IT WAS OPEN. I USUALLY DON'T HAVE IT OPENED. Q: SO YOU DON'T THINK IT WAS THAT NIGHT? A: PROBABLY NOT. Q: WHEN YOU WENT OUT TO THE SOUTH PATHWAY FOR THE FIRST TIME, WHAT POSITION WAS THE FIRST GATE IN? A: THE FIRST GATE? I'M PRETTY SURE IT WAS IN THE POSITION THAT I HAD TO LEAN IT AGAINST THE TREE. Q: WAS IT OPENED? A: IT IS BROKEN. IT IS -- Q: WAS IT OPEN? A: NO. I HAD TO PICK IT UP AND MOVE IT. Q: SO THE GATE WAS CLOSED WHEN YOU WENT TO IT? A: RIGHT. Q: YOU MOVED IT PHYSICALLY AGAINST THE TREE? A: YES, YES. Q: HAD YOU EVER GONE OVER TO THAT AREA BEFORE? A: YES. Q: AND WAS THE GATE OPENED OR CLOSED? A: USUALLY THE WAY IT ALWAYS IS IS KIND OF CLOSED, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, IT DOESN'T HAVE A LOCK. YOU HAVE TO PICK IT UP. SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO PICK IT UP, MOVE IT AND PUT IT BACK. Q: BUT IT IS NOT LOCKED? A: NO. Q: WAS IT DIFFICULT TO MOVE? A: NO. Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU MOVED OUT -- YOU HAD BEEN LIVING ON GRETNA GREEN UNTIL JANUARY OF '94; IS THAT RIGHT? A: YES. Q: AND THEN YOU MOVED OUT AT SOME POINT IN JANUARY TO LIVE AT ROCKINGHAM; IS THAT RIGHT? A: YES. Q: AT THE POINT THAT YOU MOVED OUT TO ROCKINGHAM YOU HAD ALREADY MADE PLANS TO GO AND LIVE WITH NICOLE AT BUNDY; IS THAT RIGHT? A: YES. Q: WHAT WAS HER REACTION TO THAT? A: WHEN I WAS GOING TO BUNDY? Q: WHEN YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND? A: OH, SHE WAS UPSET. Q: ABOUT MOVING IN WITH HER? AND YOU WENT TO ROCKINGHAM? A: SHE WAS UPSET. Q: SHE FELT YOU BETRAYED HER, DIDN'T SHE? MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. IT CALLS -- IT A LEADING QUESTION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID SHE FELT YOU HAD BETRAYED HER? A: NO. SHE FELT I WAS MANIPULATED WAS HER WORDS. Q: SHE FELT THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS MANIPULATING YOU? A: IS WHAT NICOLE SAID. Q: AND DID SHE TRY TO GET YOU TO MOVE OUT OF ROCKINGHAM? A: YES. Q: MANY TIMES? A: THE TIMES THAT SHE WOULD COME BY, JUST ASK IF I FOUND A PLACE, NOT -- MANY? I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS MANY. LIKE TWO OR THREE. Q: SO SHE WAS UPSET WITH YOU FOR STAYING AT ROCKINGHAM? A: YES. MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND DID YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH HER CHANGE AFTER YOU MOVED INTO ROCKINGHAM? A: YES. Q: AND HOW DID IT CHANGE? A: IT WASN'T AS -- WE WEREN'T TALKING AS MUCH AND IT WAS -- THAT WAS IT. IT WAS DIFFERENT. I ALWAYS LIKED NICOLE, BUT SHE WASN'T TALKING AS MUCH SO -- Q: NEVERTHELESS, YOU STAYED AT ROCKINGHAM, DIDN'T YOU? A: RIGHT. I WAS LOOKING FOR PLACES TO MOVE TO DURING THAT TIME. Q: OKAY. NOW, WHAT WAS YOUR ARRANGEMENT GOING TO BE WITH HER AT BUNDY? WERE YOU GOING TO PAY HER RENT? A: YES. Q: HOW MUCH WERE YOU GOING TO PAY HER? A: BETWEEN 450 AND 500. Q: AND THEN WHEN YOU MOVED TO ROCKINGHAM OBVIOUSLY YOU DIDN'T? A: NO, I DIDN'T PAY. Q: DID ANYONE ELSE TRY TO MAKE UP THAT MONEY TO HER? A: TO -- Q: TO NICOLE? A: I DON'T THINK SO. Q: DID ANYONE ELSE PAY THE MONEY YOU WOULD HAVE PAID FOR RENT AT BUNDY? A: NO, NOT THAT I KNOW OF. Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THE DEFENDANT PAID HER FOUR TO FIVE HUNDRED A MONTH TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME SHE WOULD HAVE HAD FROM YOU? A: NO, I DON'T KNOW THAT. Q: YOU DON'T KNOW? A: NO. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) Q: BY MS. CLARK: YESTERDAY, SIR, YOU TESTIFIED -- YESTERDAY, SIR, YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT WANT YOU TO MOVE INTO BUNDY WITH NICOLE. DO YOU RECALL? A: IT WAS A CHOICE, RIGHT, THAT BASICALLY NOT TO. Q: DID THE DEFENDANT TELL YOU HE DID NOT WANT YOU TO MOVE IN WITH NICOLE AT BUNDY? A: IT WASN'T THOSE WORDS, BUT IT WAS -- IT WAS BASICALLY NOT A RIGHT THING TO DO. Q: AND WHY DID HE TELL YOU IT WAS NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO? A: UMM, HE JUST SAID THAT TRYING TO WORK THINGS OUT, IT IS PROBABLY NOT RIGHT TO BE IN THE SAME HOUSE, NOT THE GUEST HOUSE, BUT IN THE HOUSE. Q: DID HE TELL YOU HE WAS AFRAID THAT YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE SEX WITH NICOLE? A: NO. Q: WHAT WORDS DID HE CONVEY -- DID YOU GET THAT FEELING? A: WELL, I KNEW THAT I WASN'T, SO I -- AND I NEVER TOLD HIM -- HE NEVER ASKED ME IF I DID, SO I NEVER -- NICOLE AND I WERE FRIENDS. THERE WAS NOTHING -- THERE WASN'T A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. WE WERE FRIENDS AND I WAS FRIENDS WITH THE CHILDREN, AND THAT WAS IT. Q: WHAT REASON DID THE DEFENDANT GIVE YOU? A: WELL, I MEAN, I CAN -- I DON'T KNOW. Q: YOU DON'T KNOW? A: I MEAN, IT COULD HAVE BEEN. I DON'T KNOW, BUT HE DIDN'T SAY BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX. Q: MR. KAELIN, DID HE TELL YOU HE WAS WORRIED YOU WAS GOING TO STEAL FROM HER? A: NO, NO, I'M NOT SAYING THAT. I'M TELLING YOU THE TRUTH. HE DIDN'T SAY THOSE WORDS TO ME. Q: WHAT WORDS DID HE SAY? A: THAT IT WASN'T RIGHT PROBABLY FOR YOU TO BE IN THE SAME HOUSE, THAT YOU ARE NOT IN THE GUEST HOUSE, YOU ARE IN THE SAME -- Q: IT WASN'T RIGHT BECAUSE YOU WERE GOING TO BEAT HER CHILDREN, YOU WERE GOING TO STEAL FROM HER, WHAT? A: NO. IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE ROMANCE -- I DON'T KNOW. I KNOW THERE WASN'T. Q: YOU KNOW THERE WASN'T? A: RIGHT. Q: WHAT WAS HIS FEELING? A: IT WAS NEVER -- I DON'T KNOW HIS FEELINGS. I KNOW MY FEELINGS. Q: WHAT DID HE CONVEY TO YOU? A: THAT I SHOULD MOVE OUT, THAT I SHOULD GO THERE, I HAD A PLACE TO STAY THERE. Q: BECAUSE? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: MR. KAELIN, DID HE CONVEY TO YOU THE FEELING THAT HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT HIS WIFE'S SECURITY IN TERMS OF BEING ASSAULTED BY YOU? A: NO. Q: THAT YOU WERE GOING TO STEAL FROM HER? A: NO. Q: THAT YOU WERE GOING TO BEAT HER CHILDREN? A: NO. Q: NO. WHAT WAS THE CONCERN THAT HE CONVEYED TO YOU ABOUT YOUR STAYING IN THE SAME PLACE WITH HER AT BUNDY? A: WELL, I MEAN IT COULD BE THAT, BUT I'M TELLING YOU THAT HE DIDN'T SAY I WAS GOING TO HAVE THAT. I'M JUST TELLING YOU THE TRUTH. AND IT WAS THE FEELING THAT MAYBE IT COULD BE THOUGHT THAT, THAT MAYBE I SHOULD GO, THAT MAYBE HE WAS THINKING MAYBE KATO COULD BE WITH NICOLE, BUT I DON'T KNOW, IT NEVER HAPPENED, SO I MOVED OUT. Q: I'M NOT ASKING YOU IF IT EVER HAPPENED, MR. KAELIN. I'M ASKING YOU WHAT THE DEFENDANT SAID TO YOU? A: I HAD A PLACE AT HIS PLACE, RIGHT. Q: BECAUSE YOU SHOULD NOT LIVE WITH HER UNDER THE SAME ROOF? A: YES. Q: AND WHAT REASON WAS IT THAT HE GAVE YOU FOR THAT? A: I'M -- I'M TELLING YOU THAT THE REASON WAS HE DIDN'T SAY BECAUSE OF HAVING, YOU KNOW, ROMANCE WITH HER. THAT DIDN'T COME UP LIKE THAT, BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS A GIVEN THAT I WASN'T, BUT HE WAS SAYING IT WASN'T RIGHT FOR YOU TO BE A MAN TO MAN THING WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO BE IN THE SAME HOUSE WITH HIS CHILDREN AND NICOLE. THEY WERE TRYING TO WORK THINGS OUT, SO I MOVED OUT. Q: AND HE NEVER SAID I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF A MAN LIVING UNDER THE SAME ROOF WITH NICOLE? HE NEVER SAID THAT? A: THAT IT WASN'T RIGHT FOR ME TO BE IN THE SAME HOUSE, A MAN IN THAT SAME HOUSE WITH NICOLE AND THE CHILDREN. Q: AND WHAT DID YOU TAKE THAT TO MEAN, MR. KAELIN? A: I MOVED OUT. I WASN'T -- Q: WHAT DID YOU TAKE THAT TO MEAN, MR. KAELIN? A: THAT IT COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN THAT HE WAS THINKING THAT I MIGHT BE WITH NICOLE. Q: SEXUALLY? A: POSSIBLY THAT HE WAS THINKING THAT, YES. Q: WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU THINK AS A RESULT OF THAT STATEMENT? A: WELL, BECAUSE I NEVER DID. Q: I UNDERSTAND. MR. KAELIN, ANSWER MY QUESTION. A: OKAY. Q: WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU HAVE THOUGHT? MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING -- THE WITNESS: THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN THAT. THE COURT: HOLD ON. HOLD ON. MR. SHAPIRO: THERE IS GOING TO BE AN OBJECTION. THE COURT: WHAT IS THE GROUNDS? MR. SHAPIRO: CROSS-EXAMINATION. IMPROPER QUESTIONING. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: THAT IT POSSIBLY COULD HAVE BEEN THAT HAVING A ROMANCE WITH HER. Q: BY MS. CLARK: RIGHT. A: I MEAN, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN IN HIS MIND, YES. Q: AND I'M ASKING YOU IF YOU GOT THE IMPRESSION IT COULD HAVE BEEN ANYTHING ELSE, WHAT ELSE? A: NO, IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN ANYTHING ELSE. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) Q: BY MS. CLARK: I SHOW YOU A PHOTOGRAPH THAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 40-B. DO YOU SEE THAT DOG, SIR? A: YES. Q: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT DOG? A: YES. Q: CAN YOU TELL US WHOSE IT IS? A: NICOLE'S, THE CHILDREN'S. Q: AND WHAT IS THE NAME OF THAT DOG? A: THAT IS KATO. Q: AND WHERE DID THAT DOG LIVE PRIMARILY? A: PRIMARILY ON BUNDY. Q: AND WAS THAT THE DOG YOU REFERRED TO YESTERDAY THAT ALSO FREQUENTLY VISITED AT ROCKINGHAM? A: YES. Q: AND THAT ALSO SPENT THE NIGHT AT ROCKINGHAM ON MANY OCCASIONS? A: YES. Q: DO YOU KNOW HOW THAT DOG HAPPENED TO BECOME CALLED KATO? A: I BELIEVE THE CHILDREN NAMED IT KATO. Q: AND WHEN WAS THAT? A: IT WAS AT THE GRETNA GREEN HOUSE WHEN IT WAS A PUPPY. Q: WHEN YOU WERE LIVING THERE? A: YES. Q: AND WERE YOU NICKNAMED KATO AT THAT TIME AS WELL? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. I BELIEVE YOU INDICATED THAT WHEN YOU LEFT THE HOUSE ON ROCKINGHAM ON JUNE THE 13TH AT 7:30 -- EXCUSE ME, STRIKE THAT. YOU INDICATED THAT A POLICE OFFICER ESCORTED YOU OUT OF ROCKINGHAM ON THE MORNING OF JUNE THE 13TH. DO YOU RECALL THAT? MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, THIS HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: YES. Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND ABOUT WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU LEFT? A: IT WAS ABOUT 7:30 A.M. Q: AND AT THE TIME THAT YOU LEFT, DO YOU RECALL TESTIFYING YESTERDAY THAT AN OFFICER STEERED YOU AROUND SOME BLOOD DROPS IN THE FOYER? A: YES. Q: AFTER YOU EXITED THE FOYER, DID YOU WALK OUT ONTO THE DRIVEWAY? A: YES. Q: AND WHAT DID YOU SEE ON THE DRIVEWAY WHEN YOU LEFT AT 7:30 IN THE MORNING FOR ROCKINGHAM? A: THERE -- MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. THIS HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I SAW THE CARDBOARD, THE NUMBERS, THERE WAS LIKE MORE -- (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) Q: BY MS. CLARK: GO AHEAD. A: OH, THERE WAS -- YOU HAVE CARD -- IT WAS LIKE NUMBERED PIECES OF CARDBOARD. Q: NUMBERED PIECES OF CARDBOARD ON THE DRIVEWAY? A: YES. MR. FAIRTLOUGH: PEOPLE'S 120-C. Q: BY MS. CLARK: I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THE MONITOR AND LOOK AT PEOPLE'S 120-C. DO YOU SEE ANYTHING THAT RESEMBLES WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED, SIR? A: THAT IS THE CARDBOARD, BUT THAT IS NOT WHERE I SAW THE CARDBOARD, NO. MS. CLARK: LET ME MOVE UP. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MR. FAIRTLOUGH: 120-F. Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT? A: YES. Q: TELL US WHAT YOU SEE. IS THAT WHAT YOU RECOGNIZE SEEING AT 7:30 IN THE MORNING ON JUNE THE 13TH WHEN YOU LEFT? A: YES, I SAW THOSE CARDBOARDS. Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU SEE WHAT WAS NEXT TO THEM? A: WHEN I WALKED BY I JUST SAW A DROP, BUT I ASSUMED IT WAS BLOOD. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MR. FAIRTLOUGH: PEOPLE'S 120-K. Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. CAN YOU SEE SOMETHING THERE THAT YOU RECALL SEEING AT 7:30 IN THE MORNING WHEN YOU LEFT ROCKINGHAM? A: YES. Q: AND -- A: THAT IS -- Q: TELL US WHAT IT IS. A: THAT IS THE PATH THAT I TOOK OUT THE ESCORTS FRONT DOOR AND I WALKED OUT THAT WAY TO ASHFORD GATE. Q: OKAY. AND CAN YOU -- A: YEAH, IT IS CARDBOARD. Q: CAN YOU LOOK AT THE SCREEN. A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) RIGHT -- Q: THE AREA I'M CIRCLING RIGHT THERE, IS THAT THE CARDBOARD YOU SAW? A: YES. Q: WITH THE BLOOD DROP NEXT TO IT? A: YES. MR. FAIRTLOUGH: PEOPLE'S 120-J. Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND I'M SHOWING YOU AGAIN. DO YOU RECALL SEEING THAT WHEN YOU LEFT THE HOUSE AT 7:30 IN THE MORNING? A: I DON'T RECALL IF THE NUMBER WAS THAT, BUT YES. Q: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT DRIVEWAY -- (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MS. CLARK: PEOPLE'S 136. Q: YOU INDICATED THAT YOU SAW THE KNAPSACK, THAT SMALL BLACK KNAPSACK, BEHIND THE BENTLEY? A: YES. Q: CAN YOU SEE ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH THE AREA WHERE YOU SAW THE KNAPSACK ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH? A: NO, NOT IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH. MS. CLARK: I'M GOING TO ASK TO -- (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) Q: BY MS. CLARK: SHOWING YOU PEOPLE'S 138. CAN YOU TELL US WHERE IN RELATION TO THE AREA OF THE DRIVEWAY SHOWN IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH YOU SAW THE BLACK KNAPSACK? A: YES, IT WOULD BE THE -- WHERE THE GRASS WOULD COME OUT AT THE FURTHEST POINT, OKAY. Q: WHY DON'T YOU DIRECT THE ARROW TO THE LOCATION. A: OKAY. DOWN. OKAY. GO TOWARDS -- RIGHT ABOUT THERE, (INDICATING). NOW, IF THE ROLLS ROYCE WAS -- WOULD BE PARKED RIGHT LIKE -- IT WOULD BE THERE, SO IT WAS STICKING OUT RIGHT ABOUT THERE, (INDICATING). Q: IS THAT ABOUT THE RIGHT SPOT WHERE IT IS NOW? A: GO JUST ABOUT A LITTLE BIT UP BUT MORE -- IT IS CEMENT. GO TO -- BACK A LITTLE. THERE. RIGHT ABOUT THERE I SAW, (INDICATING). Q: OKAY. AND THE FIRST TIME YOU SAW THAT KNAPSACK WAS WHEN? A: I THINK IT WAS MY SECOND TIME AFTER I CHECKED BACK ON THE -- FROM WHEN I WENT UP TO THE WALKWAY, THE PATHWAY, WHERE I HEARD THE THUMPING NOISE. THAT IS WHEN I FIRST -- Q: YOU CAME OUT ON THE ASHFORD SIDE. YOU SAW THE LIMOUSINE AT THE GATE, RIGHT? A: YES. Q: AS YOU TESTIFIED YESTERDAY, YOU WENT OVER TO THE GARAGE AREA TO THE FIRST GATE BUT DIDN'T GO IN? A: THE FIRST GATE? Q: YES. A: NO, I WENT TO THE FIRST GATE. Q: RIGHT. A: THE SECOND GATE I NEVER WENT BEYOND. Q: NO. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FIRST TIME YOU WENT OUT THERE. A: THE FIRST TIME. Q: DID YOU GO PAST THE FIRST GATE THE FIRST TIME YOU WENT OUT THERE? A: YES. Q: WHAT DID DO YOU? YOU OPENED IT? A: OPENED IT AND JUST WENT A FEW FEET AND THAT WAS IT. Q: OKAY. AND WHEN YOU CAME BACK OUT, THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER WAS STILL AT THE GATE? A: WAS AT THE GATE, YES. Q: AND DID YOU SEE THE KNAPSACK AT THAT TIME? A: I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING IT THAT TIME. Q: YOU DID NOT SEE IT ON THE DRIVEWAY AT THAT TIME? A: NO, I DID NOT. MR. SHAPIRO: THAT IS NOT WHAT HE SAID, YOUR HONOR. MISSTATES THE ANSWER. MS. CLARK: THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING IT. Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU DID NOT REMEMBER SEEING THE KNAPSACK? A: NO. I REMEMBER THERE WAS THE GOLF BAG AND THAT WAS AT A DIFFERENT AREA. Q: WHERE -- WHERE DID YOU INDICATE THE GOLF BAG WAS? A: DO YOU WANT ME TO ARROW? OKAY. YOU HAVE TO -- IS THERE GOING TO BE AN ARROW? Q: SURE. A: OKAY. GO STRAIGHT UP. RIGHT, OKAY, UP A LITTLE BIT, AND IT IS IN THAT WAY, RIGHT THERE, THROUGH THE PEWS, (INDICATING). Q: BETWEEN THE BENCHES? A: YES, BETWEEN THE BENCHES. Q: NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT -- SO THAT AT THAT POINT YOU WENT TO THE GATE AND YOU LET THE DRIVER IN? IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? A: YES. Q: WHEN YOU WENT BACK THE SECOND TIME, AS YOU WALKED BACK TOWARDS THE SOUTH PATHWAY, DID YOU SEE THE KNAPSACK THERE ON THE DRIVEWAY? A: I DON'T THINK I SAW IT YET. IT WAS -- WHEN I CAME BACK. Q: AFTER YOU WENT TO THE SOUTH PATHWAY FOR THE SECOND TIME, YOU SAID YOU RETURNED BACK TO THE DIRECTION OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE? A: AFTER I -- COMING BACK THE SECOND TIME? Q: YES. A: YES. Q: AND IS THAT WHEN YOU SAW THE KNAPSACK? A: YES, I BELIEVE SO. Q: AND THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU EVER HAD SEEN THAT KNAPSACK? A: YES. Q: HOW FAR WAS THAT KNAPSACK THAT YOU SAW FROM THE BLOOD DROP MARKERS THAT YOU SAW LATER IN THE MORNING WHEN YOU LEFT AT 7:30 FROM ROCKINGHAM? A: WHICH ONE? YOU MEAN NO. 8? THAT ONE? Q: THAT ONE. A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: WELL, WAIT. LET ME SHOW YOU ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPH AND HELP YOU OUT. A: OKAY. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) Q: BY MS. CLARK: THAT IS THE ROCKINGHAM DRIVEWAY, CORRECT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU SEE THAT CARDBOARD MARKER ON THE DRIVEWAY, THE LOWEST ONE DOWN? A: YES, I DO. Q: HOW FAR IS THAT MARKER, THAT BLOOD DROP MARKER, FROM WHERE YOU SAW THE KNAPSACK? A: UMM, ABOUT A FOOT AND A HALF. Q: OKAY. WHY DON'T YOU DIRECT THE ARROW ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH TO WHERE IT WAS. A: OKAY. GO TO THE CARDBOARD, THE BOTTOM ONE, THE -- Q: OKAY. GO AHEAD. A: OKAY. GO TO THE CARDBOARD WITH THE ARROW. OKAY. NOW GO FORWARD. NO, FORWARD. MORE, MORE. RIGHT ABOUT THERE, (INDICATING). THE COURT: WHICH PHOTOGRAPH IS THIS? MS. CLARK: THIS IS PEOPLE'S 120-F. COULD WE ASK THIS BE MARKED PEOPLE'S 120-F(1)? THE COURT: 120-F(1). (PEO'S 120-F(1) FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH) Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, THAT KNAPSACK, WAS THAT A DUFFEL BAG, A BIG DUFFEL BAG? A: NO. MR. SHAPIRO: BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. YOU HAVE ALREADY ASKED HIM TO DESCRIBE THE SIZE. Q: BY MS. CLARK: HOW -- I'M SORRY. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) Q: BY MS. CLARK: AFTER YOU SAW THE DUFFEL BAG -- EXCUSE ME. AFTER YOU SAW THAT KNAPSACK ON THE DRIVEWAY IN THE POSITION YOU HAVE INDICATED HERE, SIR, I THINK YOU INDICATED YESTERDAY THAT YOU OFFERED TO GET IT AND THE DEFENDANT SAID, "NO, I WILL GET IT"; IS THAT RIGHT? A: YES. Q: DID YOU SEE HIM LOAD ANY OTHER BAGS INTO THE LIMOUSINE BESIDES THAT ONE? A: I DIDN'T -- NO, I DIDN'T -- I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING ANY LOADING. IT COULD HAVE BEEN -- HE MIGHT HAVE WALKED IN WITH SOMETHING WHEN HE LEFT FOR THE TRIP, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER. Q: AFTER HE WALKED TOWARD THE BAG, SAYING HE WOULD GET THAT KNAPSACK, AFTER HE WALKED TOWARDS IT, DID YOU EVER SEE IT AGAIN? A: NO. Q: NOW, YOU STATED THAT AFTER YOU LEFT AT APPROXIMATELY 7:30, YOU WENT TO THE POLICE STATION? A: YES. Q: AT THE TIME THAT YOU WENT TO THE POLICE STATION, SIR, WERE YOU AWARE OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT HAD BEEN FOUND AT THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS? A: WAS I AWARE OF EVIDENCE? YOU MEAN THE MARKINGS? Q: NO. AT THE TIME YOU LEFT ROCKINGHAM AT 7:30 HAD ANYONE TOLD YOU ABOUT A GLOVE FOUND BACK ON THE SOUTH PATHWAY? A: NO. Q: AT THE TIME THAT YOU SPOKE TO THE POLICE AND GAVE THEM THAT INTERVIEW AT THE WEST L.A. STATION, HAD ANYONE TOLD YOU ABOUT THE GLOVE THAT WAS FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM? A: NO. Q: AT THE TIME THAT YOU GAVE THE STATEMENT TO THE POLICE AT THE WEST L.A. STATION, DID YOU ALSO BELIEVE THAT YOU WOULD EVER BE CALLED TO TESTIFY FOR THE PROSECUTION IN A CASE IN WHICH MR. SIMPSON WAS THE DEFENDANT? A: NO. Q: WHEN YOU FINISHED YOUR INTERVIEW WITH THE POLICE AT THE WEST L.A. STATION, YOU INDICATED TO US YESTERDAY THAT YOU WENT TO GRANT CRAMER'S HOUSE? A: YES. Q: BEFORE YOU WENT TO GRANT CRAMER'S HOUSE DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE POLICE ABOUT WHERE YOU SHOULD STAY? A: YES. Q: AND DID THEY INDICATE TO YOU THAT YOU SHOULD NOT GO BACK TO ROCKINGHAM? MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, LEADING. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID THEY INDICATE ANYTHING TO YOU ABOUT WHERE YOU SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT GO? A: YES. Q: WHAT WAS THAT? A: THEY TOLD ME PROBABLY BEST NOT TO GO BACK. Q: AND WHEN YOU WERE AT GRANT CRAMER'S HOUSE YOU INDICATED TO US YESTERDAY YOU RECEIVED A PHONE CALL IN WHICH YOU SPOKE TO HOWARD WEITZMAN -- A: YES. Q: -- MR. SIMPSON'S ATTORNEY. DO YOU RECALL THAT? A: YES. Q: DID HE ASK YOU ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED WHEN YOU WENT TO THE POLICE STATION? A: THAT I -- I HAD TALKED TO THE POLICE AND HAD AN INTERVIEW. Q: YES. AND HE ASKED YOU ABOUT THAT? A: YES. Q: DID HE ASK YOU WHAT YOU TOLD THE POLICE? A: YES. Q: DID HE ASK YOU WHAT HAPPENED AT THE POLICE STATION WHEN YOU GAVE YOUR INTERVIEW? A: THAT I WAS IN A ROOM AND GAVE AN INTERVIEW. Q: AND DID YOU TELL HIM WHAT YOU TOLD THE POLICE? A: YES. Q: AND AFTER YOU TOLD HIM WHAT YOU HAD TOLD THE POLICE, DID YOU ALSO TELL HIM UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT YOU WERE INTERVIEWED ALONE? A: SAY IT AGAIN. Q: DID YOU TELL HIM HOW LONG YOU SPOKE TO THE POLICE, SIR? A: YES. Q: AND DID YOU TELL HIM THAT THE POLICE SPOKE TO YOU ALONE IN AN INTERVIEW ROOM AT THE STATION? A: YES. Q: AND AFTER YOU GAVE HIM THAT INFORMATION, DID HE ASK YOU TO GO OVER AND SEE HIM AND THE DEFENDANT AT ROCKINGHAM? A: I DON'T REMEMBER THAT, TO GO THERE TO SEE THEM. I DON'T REMEMBER THAT. Q: AT THAT TIME WAS -- AT THE TIME YOU WERE SPEAKING TO MR. WEITZMAN WAS MR. SIMPSON ON THE PHONE AS WELL? A: I THOUGHT SO. Q: DID MR. SIMPSON ASK YOU TO GO TO ROCKINGHAM DURING THAT PHONE CALL? A: I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T KNOW IF THE PHONE CALL WAS AT ROCKINGHAM, WHERE THEY WERE AT. I DIDN'T KNOW. Q: MR. KAELIN -- A: YES. Q: -- AFTER YOU HAD THAT PHONE CALL, YOU WENT TO ROCKINGHAM, DIDN'T YOU? A: AT SOME POINT I WENT BACK TO ROCKINGHAM, YES. Q: AND SOMEONE ASKED YOU TO GO BACK TO ROCKINGHAM, DIDN'T THEY? A: I -- I DON'T REMEMBER WHO. I TALKED AND SAID I WAS AT GRANT CRAMER'S AND I JUST DON'T REMEMBER WHO. Q: MR. KAELIN, I ASKED YOU DID SOMEONE ASK YOU TO GO BACK TO ROCKINGHAM? A: YES, SOMEONE. Q: YOU DON'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE? A: I DON'T KNOW. Q: AND THAT WAS AFTER YOU HAD THE CONVERSATION WITH MR. WEITZMAN CONCERNING WHAT TRANSPIRED AT THE POLICE STATION WHEN YOU GAVE YOUR INTERVIEW; IS THAT RIGHT? A: IT WAS AFTER THAT, YES. Q: AND THEN ON JUNE THE 13TH -- THEN WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO ROCKINGHAM LATER THAT DAY WHO WAS THERE? A: THERE WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE THERE. UMM, SOME NAMES THAT I REMEMBER. Q: WHO? A: OKAY. THERE WAS RON SHIPP, ARNELLE AND JASON, JASON'S GIRLFRIEND, UMM, I THINK AL COWLINGS WAS THERE. UMM, MARK SLOTKIN. UMM -- AND ALL THE RELATIVES, A LOT OF RELATIVES. I DON'T KNOW ALL THE NAMES. Q: RELATIVES OF WHO? A: OF O.J.'S. Q: WAS ANYONE THERE TALKING ABOUT NICOLE? A: UMM, NOT THAT I REMEMBER. I THINK ARNELLE DID. Q: ANYBODY BESIDES ARNELLE? A: I THINK WHOEVER ARNELLE WAS TALKING TO, AND I DON'T KNOW WHO IT WAS, BUT ARNELLE WAS SAYING THINGS ABOUT NICOLE. Q: HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE THERE, MR. KAELIN? A: IT WAS DIFFERENT AT TIMES. IT WAS KIND OF LIKE PEOPLE COMING IN AND OUT, IN AND OUT. Q: GIVE US AN ESTIMATE? A: FIFTEEN TO TWENTY. Q: FIFTEEN, TWENTY PEOPLE? AND THE ONLY PERSON YOU SAW TALKING ABOUT NICOLE WAS ARNELLE TO SOMEONE ELSE? MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. LEADING. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MS. CLARK: WAS ARNELLE THE ONLY PERSON YOU HEARD SPEAKING ABOUT NICOLE? MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: AT THAT TIME, YES. Q: BY MS. CLARK: WAS THAT A CATERED AFFAIR AT THAT TIME, FOOD BROUGHT IN AND STUFF? A: AT THAT TIME I DON'T KNOW. THERE WAS FOOD. IT WAS -- PEOPLE WERE BRINGING FOOD IN. IT WAS KIND OF COMING IN. OTHER PEOPLE WERE BRINGING FOOD AND SO THERE WAS FOOD, YES. Q: OTHER THAN THE DEFENDANT'S FAMILY, WERE THERE OTHER PEOPLE THERE? A: YES. Q: DO YOU KNOW THEIR NAMES? A: SOME OF THE NAMES, BUT SOME NOT. MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED THIRD TIME. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHO BESIDES THE DEFENDANT'S FAMILY WAS THERE? MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, ASKED AND ANSWERED. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MS. CLARK: WAS MARK SLOTKIN THERE? MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, ASKED AND ANSWERED, LEADING. THE COURT: LET ME SEE COUNSEL AT THE SIDE BAR, PLEASE, WITHOUT THE REPORTER. (A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED. MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. Q: WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO ROCKINGHAM ON JUNE THE 13TH, LATER IN THE DAY, DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE WHETHER THE DEFENDANT HAD AN INJURY TO HIS LEFT HAND? A: YES. Q: WHAT DID YOU SEE? A: UMM, I SAW THAT THERE WAS I THINK A TISSUE ON A FINGER AND IT WAS -- THERE WAS BLOOD. Q: THERE WAS BLOOD? A: ON THE TISSUE AROUND. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A TISSUE, BAND-AID, WHITE GAUZE OR WHAT. Q: WHICH HAND WAS THAT, LEFT OR RIGHT? A: I CAN'T BE POSITIVE. I THOUGHT MAYBE THE LEFT. Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER MR. SIMPSON IS RIGHT OR LEFT-HANDED? A: I THINK HE IS RIGHT-HANDED. Q: RIGHT-HANDED? A: I THINK HE IS RIGHT-HANDED. Q: ALL RIGHT. MR. KAELIN, YOU INDICATED YESTERDAY THAT WHEN YOU CAME BACK FROM MC DONALD'S YOU MADE A PHONE CALL TO YOUR FRIEND TOM IN SAN DIEGO AT 9:37; IS THAT RIGHT? A: YES. Q: SO YOU LAST SAW THE DEFENDANT STANDING BY THE BENTLEY AT 9:35. WAS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY? MR. SHAPIRO: ASKED AND ANSWERED. THE COURT: THIS IS FOUNDATIONAL TO SOMETHING ELSE? MS. CLARK: YES, IT IS, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE WITNESS: YES. Q: BY MS. CLARK: AT 9:35? A: IT WOULD BE, YES, TO WALK -- ABOUT 9:35, 9:36. Q: UH-HUH. DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT AT 9:45? A: NO. Q: DID YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS AT 9:45? A: NO. Q: DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT AT 9:50? A: NO. Q: DID YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS AT 9:50? A: NO. Q: DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT AT 9:55? A: NO. Q: DID YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS AT 9:55? A: NO. Q: DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT AT 10:15? A: NO. Q: DID YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS AT 10:15? A: NO. Q: DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT AT 10:20? A: NO. Q: DID YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS AT 10:20? A: NO. Q: DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT AT 10:30? A: NO. Q: DID YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS AT 10:30? A: NO. Q: DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT AT 10:40? A: NO. Q: DID YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS AT 10:40? A: NO. Q: DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT AT 10:45? A: NO. Q: DO YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS AT 10:45? A: NO. Q: DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT AT 10:50? A: NO. Q: DID YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS AT 10:50? A: NO. MS. CLARK: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER. THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO. MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, CAN I MARK THE PHOTOGRAPH 138 -- PEOPLE'S 138-B, THE ONE THAT WAS PRINTED? THE COURT: YES. (PEO'S 138-B FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH) MR. SHAPIRO: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THE JURY: GOOD MORNING. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO: Q: GOOD MORNING, KAELIN. A: GOOD MORNING. Q: HOW ARE YOU FEELING TODAY? A: BETTER. Q: BETTER THAN WHEN? A: TWO DAYS AGO. Q: GOOD. I WANT TO START OUT BY DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE PHONE CALL AT 9:37 WHERE YOU WERE TALKING TO YOUR FRIEND TOM O'BRIEN. A: YES. Q: HOW LONG HAVE YOU KNOWN TOM O'BRIEN? A: SINCE FOURTH GRADE. Q: DO YOU CONSIDER HIM ONE OF YOUR BEST FRIENDS? A: YES. Q: AND IS HE THE PERSON WHO CAME AND HELPED YOU MOVE YOUR PROPERTY OUT OF THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE? A: YES. Q: AND IS HE A PERSON THAT YOU STILL MAINTAIN A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH? A: YES. Q: AND HAVE YOU TALKED TO HIM ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE? A: NO. Q: HAVE YOU TALKED TO HIM ABOUT BEING A WITNESS IN THIS CASE? A: ABOUT ME BEING A WITNESS? Q: YEAH. A: YEAH, HE KNEW I WAS A WITNESS, YES. Q: WHAT DOES HE DO FOR A LIVING? A: HE WAS -- RIGHT NOW WHAT DOES HE DO? Q: WHAT WAS HE DOING THEN? A: HE WAS A D.A. IN SAN DIEGO. Q: AND HOW LONG WAS HE A D.A. IN SAN DIEGO? A: HE WAS -- I THINK HE HAD JUST STARTED. MAYBE -- MAYBE A YEAR. I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT -- I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG. Q: DID HE GIVE YOU ANY ADVICE ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY, ABOUT TELLING THE TRUTH? A: NO. I MEAN TELL THE TRUTH. HE DIDN'T SAY -- I MEAN, HE KNOWS I ALWAYS TELL THE TOOTH. Q: NOW, YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON BEGAN IN EARLY 1992? A: YES. Q: AND CONTINUED ON SOME BASIS UNTIL HER DEATH IN 1994? A: YES. Q: WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THAT AS A FRIENDLY RELATIONSHIP? A: YES. Q: WAS SHE SOMEBODY YOU CARED FOR? A: YES. Q: WAS -- WERE HER CHILDREN AND O.J.'S CHILDREN CHILDREN THAT YOU CARED FOR? A: YES. Q: NOT IN A SENSE THAT YOU WERE THEIR CARETAKER, BUT THAT YOU HAD FEELINGS FOR THEM? A: YES. Q: AND WERE YOU IN A POSITION TO JUDGE HOW O.J. SIMPSON REACTED TOWARDS HIS CHILDREN? A: TO -- Q: JUSTIN AND SYDNEY? A: TO DO WHAT, THOUGH? Q: HOW O.J. SIMPSON WAS TOWARDS HIS CHILDREN? A: OH, GOOD, VERY GOOD. Q: WAS HE A LOVING FATHER? A: YES. MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, RELEVANCE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IS HE A CARING FATHER? A: YES. Q: WOULD YOU SAY THE SAME FOR NICOLE AS A MOTHER? A: YES. Q: AND THAT DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME WHEN YOU FIRST MET NICOLE, SHE WAS DIVORCED FROM O.J. SIMPSON? A: YES. Q: AND SHE WAS DATING OTHER MEN? A: YES. Q: WAS THAT A FREQUENT OCCURRENCE, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE? MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: SHE WOULD GO OUT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS DATING, YOU KNOW, MEN, LIKE I HAVE A DATE TONIGHT, THAT SORT OF THING. SHE WOULD GO OUT WITH HER FRIENDS. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND WOULD O.J. COME OVER TO THE GRETNA GREEN HOUSE AND VISIT THE CHILDREN? A: YES. Q: AND WAS HE AWARE THAT SHE WAS DATING OTHER MEN? A: YES. Q: AND DID HE EVER VOICE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THAT? A: NO. Q: DID HE EVER SHOW ANY ANGER OR UPSET -- BEING UPSET AT THE FACT THAT SHE WAS DATING OTHER MEN? A: NO. Q: AND DID HE EVER INDICATE AT ALL -- DID HE KNOW WHERE YOU WERE LIVING WHEN YOU WERE AT GRETNA GREEN? A: YES. Q: HE KNEW YOU WERE IN A GUEST HOUSE? A: YES. Q: AND SO THE JURY UNDERSTANDS US, THIS IS A PART THAT IS TOTALLY SEPARATE FROM THE MAIN HOUSE? A: THE GRETNA GREEN, YES, SEPARATE. Q: WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE FACILITY THERE? A: OF THE GUEST HOUSE? Q: YES. A: OKAY. THE GRETNA GREEN HOUSE IS THE HOUSE IN FRONT, AND THEN THERE IS TEN FEET, YOU WALK, THERE IS A GUEST HOUSE WITH BEDROOM, BATHROOM AND THAT IS IT. Q: WHAT WOULD YOU DO FOR MEALS? A: EITHER GO OUT OR NICOLE, THE KIDS, IT WAS -- EVERYBODY WAS KIND OF LIKE A FAMILY, JUST EAT THERE SOMETIMES OR GO OUT. Q: YOU WOULD ALWAYS SLEEP IN YOUR QUARTERS, THOUGH, WOULD YOU NOT? A: YES. Q: AND IT WAS CLEAR TO O.J. THAT YOU DID NOT HAVE ANY TYPE OF ROMANTIC INVOLVEMENT WITH NICOLE, WASN'T IT? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, SPECULATION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU EVER DISCUSS WITH O.J. WHAT YOUR RELATIONSHIP WAS WITH NICOLE? A: NO. Q: WAS IT EVER A CONCERN OF HIS? A: NO. MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, SPECULATION. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID HE EVER ASK YOU? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THE COURT: HOLD ON. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID HE EVER ASK YOU? MS. CLARK: MOTION TO STRIKE. THE COURT: NO. STAND, PLEASE. MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY. MOTION TO STRIKE. THE COURT: DENIED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID HE EVER ASK YOU WHAT YOUR RELATIONSHIP WAS WITH NICOLE? A: NO. Q: NEVER SEEMED TO HAVE ANY CONCERN ABOUT THAT, DID HE? A: NO. Q: DID HE EVER HAVE ANY DISCOMFORT ABOUT YOU BEING AROUND NICOLE? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. SPECULATING, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID HE EVER DEMONSTRATE ANY DISCOMFORT ABOUT YOU BEING AROUND NICOLE? A: NO. Q: DID HE EVER SHOW ANY DEMONSTRATION OF DISSATISFACTION WITH YOU BEING AROUND HIS CHILDREN? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, VAGUE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: NO. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND YOU MOVED -- YOU GOT PERMISSION, ACTUALLY, TO MOVE INTO THE GUEST HOUSE REALLY WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING NICOLE; ISN'T THAT TRUE? A: YES. Q: YOU WERE VIRTUALLY A STRANGER IN HER LIFE? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: VAGUE. CONCLUSION, YES. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU HAD MET HER JUST ON TWO OCCASIONS? A: IN ASPEN FOR THAT WEEK AND THEN UP IN -- IN L.A., YES. Q: THOSE WERE REALLY IN A PARTY TYPE ATMOSPHERE? A: YES. Q: SHE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT YOU OR YOUR BACKGROUND? A: NO. Q: AND DURING THE FIRST TWO MONTHS THAT YOU WERE THERE, DID YOU -- YOU DIDN'T PAY ANY RENT TO HER, DID YOU? A: NO. IT WAS SITTING -- SHE NEVER ASKED FOR ANYTHING. Q: SO YOU NEVER REALLY HAD ANY FORMAL ARRANGEMENTS WITH NICOLE, DID YOU? A: NOT A RENTAL AGREEMENT, NO. Q: YOU NEVER HAD ANY FORMAL ARRANGEMENTS AS TO WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO DO TO HELP OUT AROUND THE HOUSE AT GRETNA GREEN? A: WHATEVER SHE SAID, SOMETHING I WOULD DO. Q: BUT THERE WAS NO -- A: IT WASN'T LIKE, "KATO, I HAVE TO DO THIS." Q: NO FORMAL UNDERSTANDING? A: RIGHT. Q: YOU WERE A NICE GUY AND IF SOMETHING NEEDED TO BE DONE, YOU WERE MORE THAN WILLING TO DO IT? A: YES. Q: SHE WAS A NICE WOMAN AND SHE WAS ALLOWING YOU TO STAY THERE? A: YES. Q: AND YOU WERE FRIENDS? A: YES. Q: AND AT SOME POINT IN TIME DID YOU HAVE SOME DISAGREEMENTS WITH NICOLE WHILE YOU WERE AT GRETNA GREEN? A: AT -- NO. Q: AT SOME POINT IN TIME DID SHE TELL YOU SHE WAS MOVING? A: YES. Q: AND DID SHE TELL YOU YOU WOULD HAVE TO FIND ANOTHER PLACE? A: YES, AT ONE TIME. Q: AND DID YOU START TO LOOK FOR ANOTHER PLACE? A: YES. Q: AND THEN SHE FOUND THE PLACE ON BUNDY? A: NO. THERE IS -- Q: GO AHEAD. IF I'M MISTAKEN, TELL ME. A: OH, THEN ANOTHER TIME THEN SHE WANTED TO -- THERE WAS DIFFERENT TIMES AND MONTHS WHERE SHE WANTED TO -- ME TO MOVE IN AGAIN WHEN SHE WROTE ME A LITTLE LETTER AND SAID THERE WAS ANOTHER HOUSE THAT SHE LOOKED AT. Q: IT WAS KIND OF BACK AND FORTH, WASN'T IT, AS TO WHETHER YOU WERE GOING TO GO WITH HER OR NOT GO WITH HER? A: AT ONE POINT, YES. Q: SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHERE SHE WAS GOING, DID SHE? A: YES. Q: SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT SHE WAS GOING TO BE DOING WITH HER LIFE? A: YES. Q: SHE SUGGESTED THAT, KATO, YOU BETTER LOOK OUT FOR YOURSELF? A: YES. Q: AND THAT IS WHAT YOU WERE DOING? A: YES. Q: NOW, WHEN IT CAME TIME TO BE INVITED TO MOVE INTO BUNDY, THAT WAS ABOUT JANUARY OF 1994? A: YES. Q: AND AT THAT TIME DID O.J. TELL YOU THAT HE HAD HAD A DISCUSSION WITH NICOLE ABOUT YOU LIVING IN A CONDOMINIUM, AS OPPOSED TO LIVING IN A GUEST HOUSE? A: YES. Q: AND DID HE TELL YOU THAT HE WAS SOMEWHAT UNCOMFORTABLE AND EXPRESSED THAT TO NICOLE? A: YES. Q: AND DID HE TELL YOU THAT NICOLE SAID, WELL, WHY DON'T YOU DISCUSS IT WITH KATO? A: YES. Q: AND HE DID DISCUSS THAT WITH YOU, DIDN'T HE? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: WHAT IS THE OBJECTION? MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. MISS CLARK, DO YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION? MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. I'M GOING TO OBJECT AND MAKE A DISCOVERY MOTION. IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT THERE ARE INTERVIEWS AND NOTES THAT THE DEFENSE IS IN POSSESSION OF CONCERNING INTERVIEWS OF THIS WITNESS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN TURNED OVER. AND NOW THAT WE ARE AT THE MOMENT OF CROSS-EXAMINATION I DON'T THINK THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE TO ASK FOR THE DISCOVERY PRIOR TO THIS TIME, BUT NOW SINCE THEY ARE CROSS-EXAMINING HIM WITH RESPECT TO STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE BETWEEN THIS WITNESS AND THE DEFENDANT, WE ARE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT -- WHICH WE ARE NOT PRIVY TO -- WE ARE AWARE OF THE FACT, THROUGH THIS WITNESS' TESTIMONY, THAT INTERVIEWS WERE CONDUCTED WITH PAVELIC AND HOSTETLER IN WHICH NOTES WERE TAKEN, ACCORDING TO THIS WITNESS' TESTIMONY, WHICH THE PEOPLE HAVE NOT RECEIVED. AND THE PEOPLE MAKE A MOTION OR DISCOVERY OF THOSE NOTES AT THIS TIME. MR. SHAPIRO: WE WOULD OBJECT. WE DON'T THINK THAT FALLS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE DISCOVERY STATUTE. THE COURT: WELL, THIS IS NOW IMPEACHMENT OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS, AND IF THOSE NOTES HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT IS GOING ON NOW, I THINK YOU ARE REQUIRED TO TURN THOSE OVER. MR. SHAPIRO: OKAY. I WILL TURN THEM INTO YOUR HONOR FOR REVIEW. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU CLAIMING -- YOU ARE ASKING FOR A 1054.7 HEARING ON THIS? MR. SHAPIRO: YES. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MS. CLARK: I NEED TO SEE THOSE NOTES AND IT IS AT THE MOMENT OF CROSS-EXAMINATION. MR. SHAPIRO: YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE TALKING FOR ANOTHER DAY ANYWAY, SO YOU WILL HAVE PLENTY OF TIME. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHAT WE WILL DO IS WHEN WE TAKE THE BREAK, I WILL ASK MR. SHAPIRO TO GIVE THE NOTES TO THE COURT, AND HOPEFULLY I WILL HAVE A CHANCE OVER THE LUNCH HOUR TO REVIEW THEM. MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: DEPENDING ON HOW EXTENSIVE THEY ARE, HAVING NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE. MS. CLARK: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. SHAPIRO, YOU MAY CONTINUE. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YES. YOU NEED A MINUTE HERE FOR SOME WATER? A: A LITTLE WATER. Q: ARE YOU ALL RIGHT? DO YOU WANT TO JUST TAKE A DRINK HERE? A: BETTER. Q: OKAY. NOW, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT DISCUSSIONS THAT YOU WERE HAVING WITH O.J. ABOUT HIS DISCUSSIONS WITH NICOLE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS SOME SLIGHT DISCOMFORT ON THE PART OF O.J. WITH YOU MOVING INTO A CONDOMINIUM SETTING. A: YES. MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME WAS THERE ANYTHING VOICED BY O.J. THAT HE HAD ANY CONCERN FOR YOU BEING INVOLVED WITH NICOLE SEXUALLY? A: NO. Q: THIS WAS A TIME WHEN NICOLE WAS PURSUING O.J. TO GET BACK TOGETHER, WASN'T IT? A: YES. MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT ASSUMES FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND DURING THIS -- THE COURT: THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF O.J. AND NICOLE AT THIS POINT IN TIME? A: YES. Q: HAD THEY BEEN DATING? A: YES. Q: AND WAS THIS SOMETHING THAT NICOLE HAD DISCUSSED WITH YOU? A: YES. Q: AND NICOLE TOLD YOU THAT SHE WAS TRYING -- MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, OBJECTION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID NICOLE INDICATE TO YOU THAT SHE WAS TRYING TO WORK THINGS OUT AND GET BACK TOGETHER WITH O.J.? THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. HEARSAY. THE OBJECTION WILL BE SUSTAINED. THE JURY IS ADMONISHED NOT TO ASSUME ANYTHING FROM THE IMPLICATION OF THE QUESTION. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU, BASED ON YOUR OBSERVATIONS, HAVE ANY IMPRESSION AS TO WHAT WAS GOING ON BETWEEN O.J. AND NICOLE? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: CALLS FOR SPECULATION. MS. CLARK: SPECULATION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: COULD YOU TELL US WHAT -- HOW THEY APPEARED WHEN THEY WERE TOGETHER IN JANUARY, NICOLE AND O.J.? A: TO BE DATING OFF AND ON, SEEING EACH OTHER SOMETIMES, BUT NOT -- IT WASN'T A COMMITMENT. Q: AND DID YOU -- A: IN JANUARY OF -- Q: '94. A: THEY WERE DATING. Q: AND WHEN DID THEY START DATING? A: START DATING? I DON'T KNOW THE DATES. IT WAS OFF AND ON. I DON'T KNOW. Q: WAS IT PRIOR TO JANUARY OF '94? A: I BELIEVE SO. Q: AND WERE YOU EVER PRESENT WHEN NICOLE WOULD PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL O.J.? A: SOMETIMES. MS. CLARK: WELL, OBJECTION. THAT WOULD CALL FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR. HEARSAY. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WERE YOU EVER PRESENT WHEN NICOLE WOULD COME OVER AND VISIT O.J. AT HIS ROCKINGHAM HOUSE? A: WHEN I WAS THERE? Q: YES. A: YES. Q: AND HOW DID THEY SEEM TO GET ALONG? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: OKAY. GOOD. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: NOW, AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION WITH O.J., DID O.J. SAY HE WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF YOU WERE NOT LIVING UNDER THE SAME ROOF AS NICOLE AND HER KIDS? A: THERE WERE WORDS, UMM, MORE COMFORTABLE, IF IT WAS RIGHT AND IT WAS -- I WAS IN THE MIDDLE. I JUST -- YOU KNOW, I WAS SAYING, YOU KNOW, IF IT IS NOT RIGHT, I WILL GO ON, BUT IT WAS OFF AND ON. HE THOUGHT IT WASN'T PROBABLY RIGHT FOR THE MAN TO BE THERE, BUT I DON'T -- I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS SEXUAL. I DIDN'T KNOW. I MEAN, I DIDN'T -- I DIDN'T KNOW. Q: HE WASN'T ANGRY AT ALL TOWARDS YOU, WAS HE? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: HE WASN'T ANGRY AT ME, NO. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID HE APPEAR TO BE JEALOUS OF YOU AT THAT POINT IN TIME? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, SPECULATION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: NO. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID HE DO ANYTHING BUT TO DEMONSTRATE THE FACT THAT HE WAS SOMEWHAT UNCOMFORTABLE JUST IN THAT GENERAL LIVING ARRANGEMENT IN THE SAME ROOF AND THAT HE WOULD OFFER TO YOU, SINCE YOU WOULD HAVE NO PLACE TO STAY, HIS GUEST HOUSE? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, HEARSAY, SPECULATION. THE COURT: VAGUE AND COMPOUND. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID O.J. OFFER TO YOU -- WELL, WAS THERE A DISCUSSION AS TO WHERE YOU WOULD STAY AND WHERE YOU WOULD BE LIVING? A: YES. Q: AND DID O.J. TELL YOU THAT HE HAD A GUEST HOUSE THAT NOBODY WAS USING? A: YES. Q: AND DID HE TELL YOU THAT YOU WERE WELCOME TO USE THAT UNTIL YOU COULD FIND YOUR OWN PLACE? A: YES. Q: AND YOU HAD NO FORMAL ARRANGEMENT WITH O.J. WHEN YOU MOVED INTO ROCKINGHAM, DID YOU? A: NO. Q: AND YOU HAD NO FORMAL AGREEMENT AS TO HOW LONG YOU WOULD STAY THERE? A: NO. Q: BUT YOU UNDERSTOOD IT WAS TEMPORARY AND THAT WAS GOING TO BE JUST A PLACE WHERE YOU COULD STAY UNTIL YOU FOUND YOUR OWN PLACE? A: WHEN HE WAS GOING TO -- RIGHT. HE WOULD TELL ME WHEN TO GO. Q: AND YOU WOULD KNOW WHEN IT WAS TIME TO GO? A: YES. Q: NOW, DURING THIS POINT IN TIME DID THERE EVER BECOME A SITUATION THAT YOU WERE AWARE OF INVOLVING NICOLE AND A MAID NAMED MICHELLE? A: YES. MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: EXCEEDS THE SCOPE. MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I BE HEARD, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: YES. WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE. MR. SHAPIRO: MAYBE WE CAN HOLD THIS UNTIL THE RECESS AND I WILL COME BACK TO THIS, WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID NICOLE VISIT O.J. WHILE YOU WERE LIVING AT ROCKINGHAM? A: YES. Q: DID YOU EVER SEE O.J. IN ANY WAY BE PHYSICAL TOWARDS NICOLE DURING THE ENTIRE TIME YOU KNEW NICOLE SIMPSON? A: NO. Q: YOU DID, HOWEVER, SEE HIM RAISE HIS VOICE ON OCCASION, DID YOU NOT? A: YES. Q: DID YOU EVER SEE HER RAISE HER VOICE? A: YES. Q: DID YOU EVER SEE THEM RAISE THEIR VOICES TOGETHER AT EACH OTHER? A: YES. Q: WOULD YOU TELL US WHEN -- IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR INCIDENT THAT STANDS OUT IN YOUR MIND IN THAT REGARD? A: AT THE -- AT THE ROCKINGHAM OR -- Q: NOW AT ANY POINT IN TIME WHILE YOU KNEW THEM. A: YEAH, AT GRETNA GREEN. Q: TELL THE JURY ABOUT THAT. A: THERE WAS AN INCIDENT WHERE NICOLE WAS ON THE PHONE WITH THE POLICE, I GUESS IT WAS THE POLICE, AND I CAME IN AND THEY WERE -- IT WAS AN ARGUMENT GOING ON AND I -- I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS ABOUT. I KNOW HIS CAR WAS PARKED IN FRONT AND SO I JUST WAITED BY THE GUEST HOUSE ON GRETNA GREEN AND THE DOORS -- THE FRENCH DOORS AT THE BACK WERE OPEN AND HE WAS SCREAMING AT NICOLE AND -- AND SHE WAS IN THE KITCHEN AREA AND THE POLICE CAME. Q: DID YOU SEE WHAT HE WAS SCREAMING ABOUT? A: I HEARD CERTAIN THINGS THAT WERE BEING SCREAMED ABOUT, YES. Q: AND WHAT WAS HER DEMEANOR LIKE? A: SHE WAS IN THE KITCHEN AND SHE WAS TALKING ON THE PHONE TO THE POLICE. Q: DID YOU EVER SEE ANY PHYSICAL CONTACT BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM? A: I -- HE DIDN'T HIT HER. THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL CONTACT? Q: DID YOU SEE ANY PHYSICAL CONTACT AT ALL? A: NO. Q: ANY PUSHING, SHOVING? A: NO. Q: DID YOU KNOW -- NOTICE THE CONDITION OF THE DOOR THAT YOU SAY WAS DAMAGED? A: YES. Q: HAD THAT BEEN DAMAGED BEFORE, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE? A: YES. Q: SO THAT WASN'T A DAMAGE THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE THAT DAY, WAS IT? A: THE -- THE TWO DAMAGES. ONE DAMAGE BEFORE, NO. Q: WAS THERE SOME ADDITIONAL DAMAGE? A: YES. Q: AND WHAT WAS THAT? A: UMM, THERE IS -- THERE IS A LOCK THAT IS IN THE DOOR AND -- WHERE THE FRENCH DOORS LOCK, THERE IS A PIECE OF WOOD AND IF IT GETS BROKEN OPEN, THE WOOD BROKE, AND I HAD HAMMERED IT ALL SHUT AT THE END OF THE NIGHT. Q: AND IS THAT THE ONLY INCIDENT THAT YOU CAN RECALL DURING THE TWO AND ALMOST A HALF YEARS THAT YOU KNEW NICOLE THAT THERE WAS ANY VERBAL CONFRONTATION? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WAS THAT -- WAS THERE ANY OTHER INCIDENT THAT RESULTED IN THE TWO OF THEM HAVING LOUD WORDS TOGETHER? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, OBJECTION. THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. MS. CLARK: WHAT HE KNOWS. THE COURT: THAT IS ASSUMED IN THE QUESTION. THE WITNESS: SAY -- THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO REASK THE QUESTION? THE WITNESS: OH, YEAH. SAY THE QUESTION AGAIN. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: OTHER THAN THIS INCIDENT, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OTHER INCIDENT THAT YOU WERE -- WERE YOU PRESENT AT ANY OTHER TIME WHEN O.J. AND NICOLE WERE SCREAMING AT EACH OTHER? A: YES. Q: WHEN WAS THAT? A: THAT WAS A CHRISTMAS PARTY. Q: OKAY. CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT? A: IT WAS A CHRISTMAS PARTY AT BRUCE JENNER'S AND I WALKED IN WITH THE FAMILY WHILE I WALKED INTO THE PARTY, AND LIKE FIFTEEN OR TWENTY MINUTES INTO THE PARTY NICOLE JUST SAID "WE ARE LEAVING" AND THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT GOING ON, I BELIEVE ABOUT A GUY THAT WAS AT THE PARTY, AND THERE WAS TWO ARGUMENTS GOING ON AT THE SAME TIME AND I THINK IT WAS SOMEONE THAT CAME TO THE PARTY THAT WAS AN OLD BOYFRIEND OF NICOLE'S. AND I BELIEVE THE OTHER PART OF THE ARGUMENT WAS ABOUT FLOWERS THAT WERE LEFT FOR O.J. I WAS IN THE BACK AND THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT GOING ON AND IT WAS CHRISTMAS EVE. Q: DID EVERYBODY GO HOME TOGETHER? A: YES. Q: EVERYBODY CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS EVE BACK AT HOME? A: AT ROCKINGHAM, YES. Q: NICOLE, O.J. AND THE KIDS? A: YES. Q: AND YOURSELF? A: AND ARNELLE AND JASON. Q: WHOLE FAMILY? A: YES. Q: THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO INCIDENTS WHEN -- THAT YOU CAN TELL US ABOUT WHERE VOICES WERE EVEN RAISED? A: YES. Q: DID YOU EVER SEE NICOLE ON HER OWN DEMONSTRATE ANGER? A: YES. I DIDN'T SEE IT, NO. Q: DID YOU EVER SEE ANY RESULTS OF ANY ANGER SHE DISPLAYED? A: YES. Q: WHAT DID YOU SEE? A: UMM -- MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: WHAT IS THE OBJECTION. MS. CLARK: EXCEEDS THE SCOPE AND IT IS IRRELEVANT. OFFER OF PROOF AS TO RELEVANCE. THE COURT: IT IS ALSO SPECULATION AT THIS POINT, WITHOUT FURTHER FOUNDATION. MR. SHAPIRO: PERHAPS WE CAN DISCUSS THIS ALSO, YOUR HONOR, LATER ON. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHAT WAS O.J.'S LIFE LIKE IN JANUARY OF 1994? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, VAGUE. CALLS FOR SPECULATION, PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, FOUNDATION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED. CALLS FOR A NARRATIVE, BUT WE WILL GET THERE EVENTUALLY. MR. SHAPIRO. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: CAN YOU TELL US WHAT O.J.'S LIFE WAS LIKE IN JANUARY OF 1994? A: GOLFING. Q: WHAT TIME IN THE MORNING OR AFTERNOON? A: PROBABLY VERY EARLY, 6:00, I IMAGINE, I WASN'T UP, AND EARLY IN THE MORNING AND CAREFREE. Q: HE WOULD TRAVEL A LOT? A: YES. Q: HE WAS A SPOKESPERSON? A: YES. MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS BEYOND THE SCOPE. THIS IS CHARACTER WITNESS. HE CAN CALL HIM IN HIS OWN CASE THEN. THE COURT: OVERRULED AT THIS POINT. I ASSUME WE ARE GOING SOMEPLACE WITH THIS? MR. SHAPIRO: YES, YES. Q: AND HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH JUSTIN AND SYDNEY IN JANUARY? MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, SAME OBJECTION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: A GOOD FATHER TO SYDNEY AND JUSTIN. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WOULD HE GO OVER AND VISIT, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WHEN THEY MOVED INTO BUNDY? A: YES. Q: WOULD HE SPEND TIME THERE? A: YES. Q: THERE WAS A DOG YOU TOLD US ABOUT, THIS DOG NAMED KATO? A: YES. Q: AND THAT WAS A DOG THAT SPENT TIME BOTH AT ROCKINGHAM AND AT BUNDY? A: YES. Q: AND THAT WAS A DOG THAT WAS VERY FRIENDLY TOWARD O.J.? A: YES. Q: AND THAT KNEW O.J. VERY WELL? A: YES. Q: AND THAT OBVIOUSLY WAS VERY COMFORTABLE AROUND O.J.? A: YES. Q: IT WOULD NOT BE UNUSUAL FOR O.J. TO GO OVER TO BUNDY, WOULD IT? A: NO. Q: THAT IS WHERE HE WOULD PICK UP AND DROP OFF THE CHILDREN? A: YES. Q: HE WOULD ALSO GO AND PLAY WITH THE CHILDREN THERE? A: YES. Q: WHEN HE WAS OUT OF TOWN WOULD KATO, THE DOG, BE STAYING AT BUNDY? A: YES. Q: AND WHEN HE WAS IN TOWN WOULD KATO, THE DOG, SPEND TIME AT ROCKINGHAM? A: YES, OFF AND ON. Q: WAS THIS A TRAINED ANIMAL, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE? A: NO. YOU MEAN BY A TRAINER? Q: YES. A: NO. Q: WOULD IT OBEY COMMANDS? A: NO. Q: NOW, DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME IN FEBRUARY AND MARCH 1994, WERE O.J. AND NICOLE STILL DATING AND WAS SHE STILL TRYING TO GET BACK TOGETHER WITH HIM? A: I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. IT WAS OFF AND ON, SO IT COULD HAVE BEEN. Q: AT SOME POINT IN TIME DID YOU LEARN THAT O.J. HAD SAID THAT IT WASN'T WORKING OUT WITH NICOLE AND THAT THEY WERE GOING TO GO THEIR OWN SEPARATE WAYS? A: AT SOME POINT, YES. Q: DO YOU RECALL PRECISELY WHEN THAT WAS? A: GOSH, PRECISELY? NOT PRECISELY, BUT -- IT COULD HAVE BEEN MARCH, BUT I CAN'T GIVE YOU A DATE. Q: AND YOU RECALL AT THAT POINT IN TIME HE HAD DEVELOPED A ROMANTIC INTEREST WITH A WOMAN NAMED PAULA BARBIERI? A: YES, HE WAS DATING PAULA. Q: AND HE TOLD YOU HE FOUND HER VERY, VERY ATTRACTIVE? MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. HEARSAY. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID THEY SEEM TO HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, SPECULATION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. MS. CLARK: VAGUE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: YES. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU SEE THEM TOGETHER? A: YES. Q: DID THEY BECOME BOYFRIEND AND GIRLFRIEND? A: YES. Q: WAS HE CONTENT WITH BEING WITH PAULA BARBIERI? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, SPECULATION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID HE APPEAR TO BE CONTENT? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, SPECULATION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID HE EXPRESS TO YOU HIS SATISFACTION WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, HEARSAY. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. MR. SHAPIRO: THAT IS NOT WHAT HE SAID. Q: NOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN O.J. SIMPSON AND PAULA BARBIERI? A: UMM, THEY WERE A COUPLE THAT WENT TO EVENTS TOGETHER AND DATED, HAD DINNERS. SHE WOULD COME BY. Q: NOW, YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH O.J. YOU SAID WAS AS A FRIEND. WERE YOU PART OF HIS DAY-TO-DAY LIFE? A: NO. Q: WOULD YOU TALK TO HIM ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS? A: NO. Q: DID YOU KNOW HIS COMINGS AND GOINGS? A: NO. Q: DID HE TELL YOU WHEN HE WAS TRAVELING AND WHEN HE WAS NOT TRAVELING, GENERALLY? A: NO. Q: DID HE EVER CAUSE YOU TO FEEL THAT YOU WERE SOME TYPE OF A HOUSEKEEPER OR SERVANT THERE? A: NO. Q: DID HE EVER MAKE ANY DEMANDS ON YOU? A: NO. Q: WAS HE GENEROUS WITH YOU? A: YES. Q: WAS HE GENEROUS WITH EVERYONE THAT HE CAME IN CONTACT WITH? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, THAT IS VAGUE. THE COURT: OVERRULED AS TO THIS QUESTION ABOUT MR. KAELIN. MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU. THE COURT: SUSTAINED AS TO EVERYBODY ELSE. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WAS HE GENEROUS WITH MEMBERS OF NICOLE'S FAMILY? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION, HEARSAY. THE COURT: OVERRULED. MS. CLARK: ALSO VAGUE AS TO "GENEROUS." THE COURT: OVERRULED. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH ON THE SCOPE OF THIS EXAMINATION. IT GOES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DIRECT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE WILL TAKE A RECESS AT THIS TIME, IN ANY EVENT. MS. CLARK: OKAY. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR FIRST BREAK FOR THE MORNING. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE -- LET'S HAVE EVERYBODY BE SEATED, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS, FIRST RECESS FOR THE MORNING. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU. DO NOT DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU OR PERFORM ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. MR. KAELIN, YOU ARE ORDERED TO COME BACK IN FIFTEEN MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL BE IN RECESS FOR FIFTEEN. LET ME SEE THE PARTIES, COUNSEL, WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: OKAY. WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. MISS CLARK, YOUR OBJECTION IS SCOPE AT THIS POINT? MS. CLARK: YEAH, IT IS SCOPE AND THIS IS ALL -- EXCUSE ME. THIS IS ALL CHARACTER EVIDENCE, ALL -- NOW, YOU KNOW, IF THEY WANT TO CALL HIM AS THEIR WITNESS IN THEIR CASE IN CHIEF TO PRESENT CHARACTER EVIDENCE, THAT IS FINE. WHAT THEY ARE DOING RIGHT NOW, THOUGH, THEY ARE PUTTING ON GOOD CHARACTER EVIDENCE WITH THIS WITNESS AND GOOD -- GOOD BEFORE BAD WITH THE DEFENDANT, THAT IS FINE, BUT I WANT IT VERY CLEAR THAT THAT IS WHAT IS GOING ON, BECAUSE IT IS. BECAUSE IT IS. HE WAS GENEROUS TO YOU, HE WAS NICE TO YOU, HOW ABOUT HIS FAMILY, HOW ABOUT HIS KIDS, ALL CHARACTER EVIDENCE. IN THAT CASE THE DOOR IS OPENED AND WE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO PUT ON ALL OF THE BAD CHARACTER EVIDENCE, AND WE HAVE GOT A TON. AND SO I WANT IT VERY CLEAR WHAT THE PARAMETERS ARE BECAUSE THE LAST -- THERE HAS BEEN AT LEAST THIRTY QUESTIONS THAT GO ONLY TO CHARACTER AND NOTHING ELSE. THE COURT: WELL, HERE IS PART OF THE PROBLEM, THOUGH, MISS CLARK: ALL RIGHT. MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT IS PART OF YOUR CASE, THOUGH, TO -- EXCUSE ME. CAN WE HAVE IT QUIET IN THE COURTROOM, PLEASE. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AS PART OF YOUR CASE, THOUGH, TO PORTRAY THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE VICTIM, AND A LOT THE QUESTIONS THAT MR. SHAPIRO HAS ASKED WENT TO THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP, THE OTHER RELATIONSHIP WITH PAULA BARBIERI. I THINK IT IS PART OF WHAT OUR DISCUSSION IS HERE. MS. CLARK: I HAVE NO -- NO ARGUMENT, YES. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MS. CLARK: BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. I'M TALKING ABOUT GENEROUS WITH YOU, TREAT YOU LIKE A SERVANT, GENEROUS WITH THE FAMILY, GENEROUS WITH -- GENEROUS WITH THE WITNESS, GOES TO HIS MOTIVE, BIAS, INTEREST, EVERYTHING ELSE. I AGREE WITH YOU, I WILL PROBABLY LET SLIP BY THE QUESTION ABOUT GENEROUS WITH NICOLE BROWN'S FAMILY, BUT STILL, TANGENTIALLY, DOESN'T THAT GO TO THE NATURE OF HIS RELATIONSHIP OF NICOLE AND HER FAMILY? MS. CLARK: NO. THE COURT: IT IS PRETTY CLOSE. MS. CLARK: OH, I -- (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) THE COURT: PRETTY CLOSE. MS. CLARK: WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE IS PUTTING THE VICTIM'S FAMILY ON TRIAL, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT -- THE COURT: WELL, SAYING THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GENEROUS WITH THEM I DON'T HARDLY SEE. MS. CLARK: WELL, WE KNOW WHERE THIS IS GOING, WE KNOW WHERE THIS IS GOING, WHAT A GREAT GUY O.J. WAS AND WHAT HE DID FOR THE FAMILY AND WHAT NASTY PEOPLE THEY ARE TO COME OUT AGAINST HIM NOW. THE COURT: SOMEHOW I FEEL THAT THAT IS NOT WHERE IT IS GOING. IF IT GOES THERE, THEN I WILL CUT IT OFF, BUT THE BROWN FAMILY IS -- IS CAPABLE OF SPEAKING FOR THEMSELVES AS FAR AS THAT IS CONCERNED. ALL RIGHT. MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE BRING -- MS. CLARK: I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH THE COURT ON THAT POINT. THE COURT: WELL, I ASSUME THAT THIS IS JUST TESTING MR. KAELIN'S -- THE DEPTH OF HIS KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE SITUATION THAT WAS GOING ON. MR. SHAPIRO: YES, EXACTLY. THE COURT: I ALSO ASSUME WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON. MS. CLARK: WHAT ABOUT ALL THE QUESTIONS ABOUT NICOLE DATING OTHER MEN AND NICOLE SHOWING ANGER AND THEN GOING -- THIS IS WAY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ANYTHING I ASKED THIS WITNESS ON DIRECT. I DID NOT INQUIRE INTO ANY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INCIDENTS WITH THIS WITNESS. THE COURT: UH-HUH. MS. CLARK: MR. SHAPIRO HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO EXCEED THE SCOPE COMPLETELY IN GOING INTO ALL OF THIS STUFF, THE CHRISTMAS DINNER THING, THE OCTOBER 25TH 911 TAPE. THE COURT: BUT DON'T YOU -- DON'T YOU WANT HIM TO DO THAT? MR. DARDEN: WELL, NOW THAT HE -- MS. CLARK: I MEAN, HE IS GOING TO BE SORRY HE DID IT, THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. THIS IS GOING TO GIVE ME A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES, BUT IT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE AND I'M ASKING THE COURT -- THE COURT: ARE YOU MAKING A SERIOUS OBJECTION OR JUST AN OBJECTION FOR THE RECORD? MS. CLARK: WAIT. THE COURT: BECAUSE I -- I NOTED THAT WHEN THIS STARTED TO COME IN, ESPECIALLY THE JENNER RESIDENCE CHRISTMAS PARTY BUSINESS, I WAS SURPRISED TO SEE IT. I MEAN, ARE YOU MAKING A SERIOUS OBJECTION ABOUT THAT? MS. CLARK: I'M MAKING AN OBJECTION FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, A SERIOUS OBJECTION, THAT THE SCOPE SHOULD NOT BE EXCEEDED, AND IT HAS BEEN ENORMOUSLY, AND IF WE ARE GOING TO START GETTING INTO CHARACTER EVIDENCE ANY MORE, AND I THINK THAT WE ALREADY HAVE WITH THE REMARKS ABOUT THE GENEROSITY TO THE -- NICOLE'S FAMILY, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT HAS ANY BEARING ON THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THIS JURY AND THAT ARE RELEVANT TO THIS CASE. THE COURT: WELL, MR. SHAPIRO HAS INDICATED HE IS ABOUT TO MOVE ON TO SOMETHING ELSE. MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AT THIS POINT LET'S TAKE OUR RECESS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE NOTES. MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, THERE IS ONE OTHER ISSUE I WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP. THE COURT: YEAH. MR. SHAPIRO: THAT IS I DIDN'T WANT TO APPROACH THE BENCH ON AN ISSUE OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND A RELATIONSHIP SHE HAD WITH A HOUSEKEEPER NAMED MICHELLE. THE COURT: UH-HUH. MR. SHAPIRO: AND THIS GOES TO THE VERY ISSUE AS TO WHAT THE MOTIVATING FACTORS WERE AS TO WHY NICOLE DID NOT WANT KATO TO STAY AT O.J.'S RESIDENCE AND THAT IS BECAUSE NICOLE HIT THE HOUSEKEEPER AND KATO TOOK THE HOUSEKEEPER'S SIDE AND THEREFORE NICOLE TURNED ON KATO. AND MISS CLARK HAS GONE TO GREAT LENGTHS TO TRY TO PAINT A PICTURE THAT O.J. WAS JEALOUS AND OBSESSIVE AND THEREFORE DID NOT WANT TO HAVE KATO LIVING UNDER THE SAME ROOF, BUT THERE IS A LOT MORE THAT GOES INTO THE RELATIONSHIP AS TO WHY HE WAS LIVING AT ROCKINGHAM AND THE RELATIONSHIP AND WHY IT CHANGED, AND SHE BROUGHT UP THE CHANGE IN THE RELATIONSHIP AND THAT NICOLE ALWAYS WANTED HIM TO LEAVE AND THAT WAS THE REASON. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR -- THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS CASE. MR. DARDEN: CAN I JUST INDICATE THIS, THAT WE WILL PROBABLY BE CALLING BRUCE JENNER, SO CONSIDER HIM ON THE WITNESS LIST. THE COURT: OH, TERRIFIC. MS. CLARK: AS A RESULT OF THIS CROSS. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T YOU GIVE ME THE NOTES WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE. MR. SHAPIRO: I WILL GIVE THEM TO YOU RIGHT NOW, YOUR HONOR. MS. CLARK: WE WILL WAIT THE COURT'S DETERMINATION. THE COURT: HOW MUCH TIME DO WE HAVE? MR. DARDEN: WE'VE GOT ABOUT EIGHT MORE MINUTES. (RECESS.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:) THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT. THE JURORS ARE NOT PRESENT. MS. CLARK: WAIT, YOUR HONOR. THE NOTES? THE COURT: I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO READ THEM THROUGH. (BRIEF PAUSE.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:) THE COURT: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. MR. BRIAN KAELIN IS AGAIN ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, MR. KAELIN. THE WITNESS: HI. GOOD MORNING. THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH, SIR. MR. SHAPIRO, YOU MAY CONTINUE. MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THE JURY: GOOD MORNING. MR. SHAPIRO: GOOD MORNING. THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE TIME THAT O.J. SIMPSON AND NICOLE HAD BROKEN UP AND NOW THAT HE WAS STARTING AND RESTARTING HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH PAULA. YOU WERE AWARE THAT HE HAD DATED PAULA IN THE PAST, WERE YOU NOT? A: YES. Q: AND THERE WAS A REUNIFICATION OF THAT RELATIONSHIP? A: YES. Q: NOW, DO YOU KNOW PRECISELY THE DATE THAT THERE WAS A BREAK-UP BETWEEN O.J. AND NICOLE? A: NO. Q: WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT AT LEAST BY MAY THEY HAD BROKEN UP? A: YES. Q: AND DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO REESTABLISH THE RELATIONSHIP IN LATE '93 AND '94 WOULD NICOLE SPEND SOME NIGHTS AT O.J.'S HOUSE? A: YES. Q: AND WOULD O.J. SPEND SOME NIGHTS AT NICOLE'S RESIDENCE? A: YES. Q: YET THEY BOTH MAINTAINED THEIR SEPARATE QUARTERS? A: YES. Q: NOW, YOU WERE TELLING US ABOUT YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH O.J. SIMPSON. DID YOU VIEW YOURSELF AS HAVING ANY OBLIGATIONS TO O.J. SIMPSON WHATSOEVER BY LIVING THERE? A: NO. Q: AND YOU TOLD US THAT YOU WERE IN FACT LOOKING FOR A PERMANENT PLACE FOR YOURSELF? A: YES. Q: WHILE YOU WERE AT THE RESIDENCE YOU DID NOT HAVE ANY OFFICIAL DUTIES REGARDING O.J., DID YOU? A: I DID NOT HAVE, RIGHT. Q: IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD DO FOR HIM VOLUNTARILY? A: YES. Q: WHAT WOULD YOU DO? A: IF THE DOGS NEEDED TO BE FED, I WOULD BE THERE TO FEED THEM. Q: CHACHI? A: CHACHI AND KATO WAS THERE, I WOULD FEED THEM. THERE WASN'T MUCH -- ANYTHING REALLY. I DIDN'T CLEAN THE POOL OR ANYTHING. Q: AND WHAT ABOUT IF NICOLE NEEDED HELP? DIDN'T O.J. TELL YOU THAT IF SHE NEEDED ANYTHING, JUST DO WHAT YOU WOULD ORDINARILY DO FOR HER? A: YEAH. IF SHE ASKED ME FOR HELP, I WOULD HELP. Q: BUT YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF HIS COMINGS AND GOINGS AT ALL EITHER DURING THE WEEK OR ON THE WEEKENDS, WERE YOU? A: NO. Q: IT WAS ONLY ON SPECIFIC TIMES WHEN YOU WOULD BE DOING SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE DIRECTLY -- OR INVITED TO BE WITH O.J. THAT YOU WOULD KNOW HIS WHEREABOUTS? A: ONLY IF HE TOLD ME, YES. Q: SO YOU WOULDN'T BE GENERALLY AWARE AT ANY POINT IN TIME WHERE HE WAS OR WHAT HE WAS DOING? A: CORRECT. Q: AND DURING HIS FREQUENT TRAVELS WAS IT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO CALL A LIMOUSINE FOR HIM? A: NO. Q: WAS IT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO LOAD THE CAR FOR HIM? A: NO. Q: AND HE DOESN'T HAVE SERVANTS AROUND TO DO THAT, DOES HE? A: NO. Q: HE LIKES TO DO THINGS HIMSELF? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DOES HE GENERALLY LIKE TO DO THINGS OR DOES HE RELY ON OTHERS TO -- MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THE COURT: IT IS KIND OF VAGUE, "THINGS." MR. SHAPIRO: YEAH. I WILL TRY TO NARROW IT DOWN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: PLEASE. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: ARE YOU AWARE OF HIS HABITS REGARDING MAINTAINING HIS CLOTHING? A: THEY WERE NICE CLOTHES. YOU MEAN PRESSED AND -- Q: IS HE NEAT? IS HE ORGANIZED? A: YES. Q: DOES HE TAKE CARE OF HIS OWN CLOTHES, HANG THEM UP, PUT THINGS AWAY, LIKE TO KEEP HIS HOUSE IN ORDER? A: YES. Q: IS HE A METICULOUS TYPE OF PERSON? A: VERY NEAT. Q: WHAT ABOUT HIS PERSONAL GROOMING HABITS? A: ALWAYS LOOKED WELL-GROOMED. Q: NOW, YOU ARE AN ATHLETE, ARE YOU NOT? A: THANKS, YEAH. I DON'T KNOW. Q: ARE YOU AN ATHLETE? A: I MEAN, I CAN PLAY SPORTS, BUT I'M NOT A PROFESSIONAL, NO. Q: YOU DIDN'T WIN THE HEISMAN TROPHY? A: NO, I DIDN'T. Q: BUT YOU PLAY BASKETBALL YOU TOLD US? A: YES. Q: AND YOU JOG? A: YES. Q: DID YOU EVER JOG WITH O.J.? A: NO. Q: WAS THAT BECAUSE OF HIS PHYSICAL CONDITION? A: NO, I NEVER -- I JUST WOULD JOG ON MY OWN. Q: WHAT ABOUT PLAY BASKETBALL? DID YOU EVER PLAY BASKETBALL WITH HIM? A: IN A VIDEO WE DID. Q: JUST WHAT, HE HAD TO MAKE A BASKET SHOT? A: YES. Q: IT WASN'T A ONE-ON-ONE GAME? A: NO. THERE IS THREE PEOPLE -- FOUR -- IT WAS TWO ON TWO, FOUR ALTOGETHER. Q: WAS THAT A COMPETITIVE GAME OR JUST A SET-UP FOR THE COMMERCIAL? A: IT WAS SET-UP. Q: AND DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN ANY SPORTING EVENTS WITH O.J.? A: NO. Q: YOU ARE AWARE THAT HE WAS A GOLFER? A: YES. Q: HAD LOTS OF GOLF CLUBS? A: YES. Q: LOTS OF GOLF BALLS? A: YES. Q: AND PERIODICALLY HE WOULD GO TO HIS FRONT LAWN AND CHIP BALLS? A: I GUESS. I DIDN'T SEE HIM CHIPPING. MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION, NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. THE COURT: HE JUST SAID HE NEVER SAW HIM CHIPPING. THE WITNESS: YOU KNOW, HE GOLFED A LOT. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU EVER SEE HIM SWINGING CLUBS? A: YES. Q: IS THAT SOMETHING HE WOULD GENERALLY DO? A: YES, AND HE WOULD DO THE MOTION IN THE KITCHEN, THE WHOLE -- Q: DID YOU EVER SEE HIM ON THE FRONT LAWN SWINGING CLUBS AND HITTING BALLS A SHORT DISTANCE? A: YES. HE DID IT EVEN BEFORE THE VIDEO, TOO. Q: DID HE HAVE BAGS OF GOLF BALLS THAT HE WOULD PRACTICE WITH? A: YEAH, I IMAGINE. I DIDN'T SEE, BUT YEAH, HE WAS HITTING BALLS ON THAT WHEN I SAW THAT, BUT THERE WERE BALLS IN THE GARAGE, I THINK. Q: DID YOU EVER SEE BALLS IN RELATIONSHIP TO A BAG THAT WAS SIMILAR TO THE BAG YOU SAW IN THE DRIVEWAY ON JUNE THE 12TH? A: NO, I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING THAT. I THINK THERE WERE BALLS IN THE GARAGE, KIND OF JUST BALLS THAT WERE THERE. Q: WAS THE BAG YOU DESCRIBED LIKE A SMALL ATHLETIC BAG THAT COULD CONTAIN GOLF BALLS AND TEES AND ACCOUTREMENTS FOR GOLF? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, SPECULATION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WAS IT THE SIZE THAT COULD HANDLE GOLF BALLS? MS. CLARK: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR; VAGUE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: YES. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU SEE O.J. THE WEEK PRIOR TO JUNE THE 12TH? A: YES. Q: WOULD YOU TELL US -- WOULD YOU TELL THE JURY ABOUT THAT. A: THE WEEK PRIOR WAS A PEDIATRIC AIDS EVENT AND I WENT WITH O.J. TO THAT. Q: I HAD INVITED YOU? A: YES, HE INVITED ME. Q: AND DID YOU GO SOMEWHERE EARLIER THAT MORNING? A: YES. Q: WHAT DID YOU DO? A: WE HAD THE KIDS AND WITH PAULA WE WENT TO GET THEM TENNIS SHOES AND SHIRTS, I THINK, TENNIS SHOES MAYBE, BUT IT WAS SHOPPING, TRYING TO GET THEM SOME CLOTHES FOR THE EVENT. Q: AND WHAT WAS O.J.'S MOOD THAT DAY? A: FUN. FINE. GOOD MOOD. Q: WHEN YOU SAY "FINE, GOOD MOOD," WHAT IS HE LIKE TO BE AROUND? A: IT WAS LIKE GOING TO THIS HUGE EVENT AND IT WAS GOING TO BE A FUN THING TO DO, SO IT WAS KIND OF LIKE LET'S ALL GET IN THE CAR AND TAKE OFF TO THIS EVENT. AND WE WENT TO THIS -- IT WAS A HUGE ON A RANCH AND JUST A FUN EVENT, BUT YEAH, IT WAS PEOPLE COMING UP, AUTOGRAPHS AND IT WAS A BENEFIT. Q: I MEAN WHAT WAS HIS MOOD LIKE AFTER THE EVENT ON THE WAY BACK? MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE A WEEK BEFORE? THE COURT: SUSTAINED. MR. SHAPIRO: I JUST WANT TO -- MAY I BE HEARD, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: AT THE SIDE BAR WITHOUT THE REPORTER. (A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. YOU MAY CONTINUE. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND FOR THE PEDIATRIC AIDS -- MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. WE JUST TALKED ABOUT THIS. THE COURT: AT THIS POINT FINISH THE QUESTION. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: FOR THE PEDIATRIC AIDS, O.J. INVITED YOU AND YOUR DAUGHTER TO COME? A: YES. Q: DID YOU GO? A: YES. Q: HOW OLD IS YOUR DAUGHTER? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE? THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: HOW OLD IS YOUR DAUGHTER? A: SHE WAS NINE AT THE TIME. Q: DOES SHE LIVE WITH YOU? A: NO. Q: I TAKE IT THAT WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE TO BE AROUND YOUR DAUGHTER THAT YOU LIKE TO SPEND AS MUCH TIME WITH HER AS YOU CAN? A: YES. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION, RELEVANCE. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND WOULD YOU SAY -- MR. SHAPIRO: FOUNDATIONAL. Q: WOULD YOU SAY THAT IS THE SAME FOR O.J.? THE COURT: OVERRULED. MS. CLARK: ASK FOR AN OFFER OF PROOF. THE COURT: AT THE SIDE BAR WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WHERE ARE WE GOING WITH THIS? AT THE SIDE BAR. MR. SHAPIRO: JUST A FOUNDATIONAL QUESTION THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MISS CLARK WANTED TO IMPLY TO THE JURY WAS THAT O.J. WANTED TO SPEND TIME WITH HIS DAUGHTER AND THAT THIS WAS SOMEHOW UNUSUAL AND THAT HE WASN'T ALLOWED TO AND THAT HE WAS VERY, VERY MAD ABOUT IT. AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE TIME THAT HE DOES SPEND WITH HIS DAUGHTER AND THAT THOSE ARE CHERISHED TIMES AND THAT IT WOULD BE PERFECTLY NATURAL THAT IF HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO SPEND TIME WITH HIS DAUGHTER AT A RECITAL, THAT HE MIGHT BE DISAPPOINTED. THE COURT: BUT TALKING ABOUT THAT THROUGH KATO KAELIN AND TALKING ABOUT KATO'S DAUGHTER, I MEAN, THAT IS -- MR. SHAPIRO: THAT WAS JUST TO SEE IF HE COULD ESTABLISH A BASIS FOR A KNOWLEDGE OF HOW A FATHER RELATES TO A YOUNG DAUGHTER. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I WILL SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED. MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU. Q: I WANT TO DIGRESS JUST FOR A MOMENT. THERE WAS A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT PEOPLE YOU TALKED TO PRIOR TO TESTIFYING IN THIS CASE. A: YES. Q: AND I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A FEW MOMENTS TO REVIEW THAT WITH YOU. THE FIRST PERSON YOU TALKED TO IN THIS CASE WERE DETECTIVES FROM THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT? A: YES. Q: AND THE FIRST PERSON IN THAT REGARD WAS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN? A: YES. Q: AND YOU WERE NOT TOLD BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHEN HE KNOCKED ON THE DOOR, AS -- WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS: AT THAT POINT TIME, WHEN THEY KNOCKED ON THE DOOR AND THE FOUR DETECTIVES WERE THERE, DID SOMEBODY SAY "WHERE'S O.J.?"? A: NO. Q: DID ANYBODY THAT MORNING EVER SAY, "WHERE'S O.J.?"? A: NO, NOT "WHERE IS O.J." LIKE THAT. I TALKED ABOUT THE PLANE. Q: RIGHT. A: OKAY. Q: BUT I'M ASKING -- MY QUESTION IS DID THEY ASK YOU, ANY OF THESE FOUR DETECTIVES THAT WERE THERE, OUTSIDE YOUR DOOR, AT SIX O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, 5:30 IN THE MORNING, DID THEY SAY, "WHERE'S O.J.?"? A: NO, NOT AT THAT TIME. Q: THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY WANTED TO KNOW IMMEDIATELY, WAS IT? A: THEY DIDN'T ASK THAT, NO. Q: AND YOU BECAME CONCERNED WHEN THE POLICE CAME UP AND YOU SAID DID HIS PLANE CRASH? A: YES. Q: BECAUSE YOU KNEW THAT HE HAD THIS PREARRANGED FLIGHT? A: YES. Q: YOU HAD TALKED TO HIM THE WHOLE DAY ABOUT IT? A: YES. Q: CORRECT? YOU CONVEYED THAT TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND ALSO TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER, DID YOU NOT? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU CONVEY THAT TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN? A: I DON'T KNOW IF I SAID IT THEN. I ASKED ABOUT THE PLANE CRASH. I KNOW THAT I HAD SAID THE -- TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER AT THAT TIME ABOUT THE O.J., WHERE HE WENT. Q: AND THAT HE WENT FOR HERTZ TO CHICAGO? A: YES. Q: AND YOU ALSO TALKED TO THEM ABOUT O.J. LEAVING IN A LIMOUSINE? A: YES, I TOLD THAT TO VANNATTER. Q: TO GO TO THE AIRPORT? A: YES. Q: TO GO TO CHICAGO? A: YES. Q: AND THE ONLY THING THAT WAS WRITTEN DOWN THERE WAS TWO PARAGRAPHS BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER? A: I NEVER -- I DIDN'T SEE IT. Q: YOU NEVER SAW THAT? A: NO, I DIDN'T SEE WHAT HE WROTE. Q: HE DIDN'T SHOW IT TO YOU? A: NO. Q: HE DIDN'T ASK YOU TO REVIEW IT? A: I DON'T THINK SO. Q: AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS HAVE NEVER SHOWN THAT TO YOU? A: NO. Q: AND THEN YOU MET WITH DETECTIVES -- WITH OFFICERS CARR AND TIPPIN? A: YES. Q: AND THEY ASKED YOU TO COME WITH THEM TO THE POLICE STATION? A: THAT IS -- THEY WERE THERE. SOMEONE ELSE TOOK ME THERE. Q: SOMEONE TOOK YOU TO THE POLICE STATION? A: SOMEONE TOOK ME TO THE POLICE STATION AND I WAS IN A ROOM; THEY WERE THERE. Q: YOU WERE THERE FOR A LONG TIME, WEREN'T YOU? A: YES. Q: HOW MANY HOURS WERE YOU THERE? A: ABOUT 7:30, EIGHT O'CLOCK, UNTIL I THINK, 3:40, FOUR O'CLOCK. IT WAS A LONG TIME. LET'S FIGURE IT OUT. LIKE SEVEN, EIGHT HOURS. Q: DID THEY GIVE YOU ANYTHING TO EAT? A: THEY OFFERED ME FOOD, BUT I DIDN'T EAT. Q: YOU DIDN'T EAT? A: NO, I DIDN'T. I WASN'T HUNGRY. Q: AND DID THEY TALK TO YOU DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME? A: YES. Q: AND DID THEY HAVE A TAPE RECORDER ON TO RECORD A STATEMENT FROM YOU? A: NO. Q: AND DID YOU TELL THEM WHAT YOU REMEMBERED ABOUT YOUR DAY WITH O.J. SIMPSON ON THE 12TH? A: YES. Q: WERE YOU HONEST WITH THEM? A: YES. Q: WERE YOU STRAIGHTFORWARD WITH THEM? A: YEAH. I WAS PRETTY HYPER AND I WAS TELLING THEM EVERYTHING I KNEW. Q: AND THEY TOOK A REPORT? A: YES. Q: THEY TOOK NOTES? A: THEY TOOK NOTES. Q: AND THEN THEY WROTE A FORMAL REPORT AND TYPED IT UP? A: YES. Q: AND THEY PICKED YOU UP AND TOOK YOU DOWNTOWN TO TESTIFY BEFORE A GRAND JURY? A: YES. Q: AND THEY GAVE YOU THOSE -- THAT FORMAL REPORT TO READ? A: YES. Q: AND YOU FOUND MISTAKES IN THAT REPORT, DIDN'T YOU? A: YES. Q: AND THEN YOU CAME DOWN TO THE GRAND JURY? A: YES. Q: DID YOU TALK TO ANYBODY BEFORE YOU WENT BEFORE THE GRAND JURY? A: NO. Q: AND WERE YOU QUESTIONED BY LAWYERS FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN THE GRAND JURY? A: BEFORE? Q: WELL, BEFORE YOU WENT INTO THE GRAND JURY ROOM? A: YES. Q: WERE YOU QUESTIONED BY LAWYERS FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY? A: YES. Q: WHAT LAWYERS WERE YOU QUESTIONED BY? A: UMM, MARCIA CLARK AND THE -- WHO IS THE OTHER -- Q: DAVID CONN? A: DAVID CONN, I THINK THAT WAS IT FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, BUT TIPPIN AND CARR WERE IN THERE, TOO. Q: AND HOW LONG DID THEY QUESTION YOU? A: UMM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME. I GOT DOWN THERE -- I THINK I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ON AT ONE O'CLOCK AND I GOT DOWN THERE I THINK AT LIKE 10:30, AND I THINK THEN I HAD A LAWYER SHOW UP, SO I WOULD SAY ABOUT TWO HOURS. Q: DID THEY TAPE-RECORD -- A: I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT TIME, BUT I THINK AROUND THERE. Q: DID THEY TAPE-RECORD THAT CONVERSATION? A: NO. Q: THEN YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY? A: NOT THAT DAY. I MEAN I WENT IN, BUT THEN I HAD A LAWYER THAT SHOWED UP. Q: YOU CAME BACK ANOTHER DAY TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY? A: YES. Q: DID YOU TALK TO ANY LAWYERS FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE BEFORE YOU WENT TO THE GRAND JURY? A: NOT AFTER THAT. Q: AND MR. CONN ASKED YOU QUESTIONS BEFORE THE GRAND JURY? A: YES. Q: AND MISS CLARK ASKED YOU QUESTIONS BEFORE THE GRAND JURY? A: YES. Q: AND YOU ANSWERED ALL THOSE QUESTIONS TRUTHFULLY? A: WELL, I WAS -- I WAS SAYING THAT I -- MS. CLARK: WELL, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO APPROACH. MR. SHAPIRO: IS THAT AN OBJECTION? MS. CLARK: YES, IT IS AN OBJECTION. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. MISS CLARK, WHAT IS YOUR OBJECTION? MS. CLARK: MR. SHAPIRO KNOWS THIS IS INAPPROPRIATE. IT IS IMPROPER AND IT IS INADMISSIBLE. WHEN WE FIRST BROUGHT MR. KAELIN DOWN HE WOULD NOT DISCUSS THE CASE WITH US. HE HAD AN ATTORNEY PRESENT WHO WANTED TO TALK TO HIM AND GET -- AND GET HIM FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS FIRST. HE WAS CALLED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY AND REFUSED TO TESTIFY UNTIL HE COULD SPEAK TO HIS LAWYER AND HIS LAWYER ADVISED HIM TO READ THAT STATEMENT THAT THEY READ "PREPARED ON THE ADVISE OF MY ATTORNEY." AFTER HE WAS ABLE TO SPEAK WITH HIS LAWYER HE CAME BACK AND TESTIFIED, BUT MR. SHAPIRO IS NOW ATTEMPTING TO ADMIT BEFORE THE JURY THE FACT THAT HE WOULD NOT TESTIFY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY UNTIL HE MET WITH HIS ATTORNEY. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS AN IMPROPER VIOLATION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND IT IS ALSO INADMISSIBLE TO -- IT IS INADMISSIBLE. ANY KIND OF INVOCATION IS INADMISSIBLE. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS NOT OUR INTENTION WHATSOEVER. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MS. CLARK: BUT THAT IS WHERE HE IS GOING. THE COURT: SO YOU WILL DIRECT YOUR QUESTIONS AROUND THAT? MR. SHAPIRO: NO. MY QUESTION IS DID YOU TESTIFY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY HONESTLY? THAT WAS MY QUESTION. THE COURT: THAT IS WHAT I HEARD. MS. CLARK: AND THE WITNESS WAS ABOUT TO ANSWER I WOULD NOT -- I DID NOT, I WAS READING A STATEMENT. MR. SHAPIRO: I CAN'T CONTROL HIS ANSWER. MS. CLARK: YES, YOU CAN. THE COURT: WELL, ASK HIM TO VERY CAREFULLY -- I WILL LEAD HIM INTO IT. THE COURT: THESE ARE MINE. MR. SHAPIRO: I WILL LEAD HIM INTO IT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY? A: YES, I DID. Q: AND YOU WERE ASKED QUESTIONS BY BOTH MR. CONN AND MISS CLARK? A: YES. Q: AND YOU TESTIFIED HONESTLY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY TO THEIR QUESTIONS THAT THEY ASKED YOU? A: YES. Q: AND HAVE YOU REVIEWED THAT TESTIMONY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY? A: YES. Q: AND WAS IT ACCURATE? A: YES. Q: AND AT SOME TIME LATER DID YOU THEN AGAIN MEET WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THEIR OFFICE? A: YES. Q: WHEN DID YOU MEET WITH THEM? A: UMM, I DON'T KNOW THE DATES, BUT -- Q: APPROXIMATELY? A: I THINK BEFORE I -- I THINK BEFORE THE PRELIMINARY HEARINGS. Q: WHO DID YOU TALK TO? A: IT WAS MARCIA CLARK. I THOUGHT -- UMM, I THINK WILLIAM HODGMAN MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN THERE, TOO. I'M NOT POSITIVE. Q: WAS THAT INTERVIEW TAPE-RECORDED? A: NO. Q: WAS A REPORT WRITTEN OF THAT INTERVIEW? A: OH, NOTES? DID I GET? Q: YEAH. A: NO. Q: DID YOU SIGN ANY STATEMENT AS A RESULT OF THAT INTERVIEW? A: NO. Q: DID YOU MEET WITH THEM AGAIN? A: YES. Q: WHEN IS THE NEXT TIME YOU MET WITH THEM? A: AFTER THAT IT WAS I THINK A MONTH AGO. Q: WHERE WAS THAT? A: HERE AT THE -- IN MARCIA CLARK'S OFFICE. Q: WHO WAS PRESENT AT THAT TIME? A: MARCIA CLARK AND I -- MY -- WILLIAM GENEGO WHO WAS WITH ME AND HE WAS ALSO THERE THE OTHER TIME, I DIDN'T MENTION WILLIAM GENEGO, AND SOMEONE -- HANK. I DON'T KNOW HIS LAST NAME. Q: HANK GOLDBERG, A DISTRICT ATTORNEY? A: IS THAT HIS LAST NAME? IF I SAW HIM, I WOULD KNOW HIM. Q: AND -- A: AND THEN A GIRL THAT I DON'T KNOW HER NAME. Q: WAS SHE A LAWYER? A: I THINK SO. Q: IS THAT CHERI LEWIS? A: SHE COULD HAVE BEEN IN THERE. I'M NOT SURE WHICH -- IT WAS A WOMAN. I DON'T KNOW -- I DON'T REMEMBER HER NAME. Q: AND THAT MEETING LASTED OVER AN HOUR? A: YES. Q: AND WAS THAT MEETING TAPE-RECORDED? A: NO. Q: AND HAVE YOU MET WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SINCE THEN? A: YES. Q: WHEN DID YOU MEET WITH THEM AGAIN? A: ON -- JUST A -- THE DAY BEFORE I -- THE FIRST DAY I TESTIFIED, BEFORE THAT. I THINK IT WAS THE DAY -- OR WEEK, IT WAS RIGHT AROUND THERE. Q: WHO DID YOU MEET WITH THEN? A: MARCIA CLARK. Q: YOU MET WITH HER IN THIS BUILDING? A: YES. Q: WAS SHE ALONE WITH YOU? A: NO. Q: WHO ELSE WAS THERE? A: WILLIAM GENEGO. Q: HOW LONG DID YOU TALK TO HER AT THAT TIME? A: I THINK AN HOUR AND A HALF. Q: WAS THAT MEETING TAPE-RECORDED? A: NO. Q: WERE NOTES TAKEN OF THAT MEETING? A: UMM, I THINK SO. I DIDN'T GET NOTES. Q: DID YOU SEE ANY REPORT FROM THAT MEETING? A: NO. Q: WERE YOU EVER ASKED TO SIGN ANY STATEMENT OR REVIEW THAT? A: NO. Q: DID MARCIA CLARK, IN ANY OF THOSE MEETINGS, SEEM UNHAPPY WITH ANY OF THE ANSWERS YOU WERE GIVING? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WERE YOU ASKED QUESTIONS -- WAS -- WERE QUESTIONS DIRECTED AT YOU IN AN ATTEMPT TO GET ANSWERS THAT YOU DID NOT FEEL WERE CORRECT? A: I WAS TRYING TO GO THROUGH MY MEMORY AND I WOULD TAKE TIME TO GO, OH, LIKE, YOU KNOW, TO THINK, AND I WAS -- YEAH, IF I DIDN'T KNOW, I WOULD SAY I JUST DON'T KNOW AND THAT IS IT. IF I DIDN'T KNOW SOMETHING, I WOULD DO THAT, BUT SHE DIDN'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. Q: WERE YOU PRESSED BY ANYONE? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, VAGUE. THE WITNESS: TO TRY TO REMEMBER -- THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: TO TRY TO REMEMBER TO -- I DON'T KNOW. IT WAS -- I DIDN'T WANT TO BE THERE FOR A LONG TIME. I MEAN, IT WAS NOT FUN, SO IT WASN'T -- I DON'T KNOW IF PRESSED -- I DON'T KNOW. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "PRESSED"? Q: WHY DIDN'T YOU WANT TO BE THERE? A: WHY DIDN'T I WANT TO BE? Q: WAS IT TOUGH FOR YOU? A: IT WAS -- IT WAS -- I HAD A LOT ON MY MIND AND I JUST WANTED TO GET EVERYTHING OVER WITH, BUT -- Q: WERE YOU -- I'M SORRY. A: THAT WAS ABOUT IT, BUT I -- I COMPLIED. I DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT, BEING THERE, AND SO I DID IT. Q: WERE AREAS SUGGESTED TO YOU OF THINGS THAT DID NOT HAPPEN? A: UMM, NO. NO. IT WAS MY MEMORY GOING THROUGH, BUT IF I HAD A DIFFICULTY, IF I DIDN'T REMEMBER, IT WAS CERTAIN -- LIKE A PHONE CALL OR SOMETHING BECAUSE OF -- I JUST DON'T REMEMBER CERTAIN THINGS, BUT I KNOW IT HAPPENED, THE CALL, BUT I COULDN'T REMEMBER THE TIMES ON A CALL LIKE WHEN -- THE HOWARD WEITZMAN. I KNEW IT WAS THAT DAY, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY ALL THE DIALOGUE, BUT I -- I -- Q: I TAKE IT THIS HAS BEEN A VERY DIFFICULT TIME FOR YOU? A: YES. Q: A LOT OF PRESSURE HAS BEEN PUT ON YOU? A: YES. Q: AND IS IT DIFFICULT TO BE PRECISE AS TO WHAT EXACT WORDS WERE SAID WHEN YOU WERE WITH O.J. AND WHAT YOU REMEMBER HIM SAYING AND YOU SAYING? A: I DIDN'T KNOW ALL THE WORDS, BUT I KNOW THEY WERE TALKING. I KNOW HE WAS ON THE PHONE, O.J., HOWARD WEITZMAN AND MYSELF. Q: IT WAS ALSO A VERY EMOTIONAL TIME FOR YOU BECAUSE ONE OF YOUR DEAR FRIENDS HAD BEEN MURDERED? A: YES. Q: IS THAT TRUE? A: YES. Q: AND YOU HAVE DONE THE BEST YOU CAN TO TRY TO RECOLLECT WHAT TOOK PLACE, BUT YOU CAN'T BE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN OF EVERYTHING YOU TESTIFIED TO, CAN YOU? A: WELL, I -- MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I HAVE BEEN HONEST IN EVERYTHING I REMEMBER, AND I ANSWERED THAT WAY. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY? A: YES. Q: AND ARE THERE SOME AREAS THAT YOU HAVE GONE OVER WITH MISS CLARK AND WITH MYSELF THAT YOU STILL ARE NOT CLEAR ON? A: I THINK I'M PRETTY GOOD ON EVERYTHING. I THINK I'M PRETTY MUCH RIGHT THERE. Q: ARE YOU PRECISE AS TO THE EXACT WORDS THAT WERE SAID BY O.J. SIMPSON? A: THE EXACT WORDS? NO. Q: I WANT TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE DAY OF JUNE THE 12TH AND THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU SAW O.J. THAT DAY. THAT WAS IN THE AFTERNOON? A: YES. Q: WHAT TIME? A: IT WAS ABOUT 2:30. Q: AND YOU HAD A BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH HIM? A: IT WAS A CONVERSATION KIND OF GOING OFF AND ON THROUGHOUT THE AFTERNOON, BUT YEAH, WE WERE TALKING AND ABOUT HIS GOLF GAME AND THE PLAYING CARDS. Q: YOU DIDN'T GET INTO SPECIFICS ABOUT HIS GOLF GAME OR CARDS, DID HE? A: HE SAID HE DID GOOD IN GOLF. I DON'T KNOW WHO -- IN THE CARD GAME, I DON'T KNOW WHO WON AND WHAT GAME THEY WERE PLAYING. Q: HE DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY DISCUSS WITH YOU ANYTHING THAT TOOK PLACE IN GOLF, OTHER THAN HE PLAYED GOLF AND HAD A GOOD GAME? A: YES. Q: AND THE SAME THING WITH CARDS? HE DIDN'T DISCUSS ANYTHING SPECIFIC ABOUT HOW HE WAS FEELING PHYSICALLY OR NOT, DID HE? A: NO. Q: AND HE WOULD NEVER DISCUSS THAT, WOULD HE? A: ABOUT HIS -- Q: HIS PHYSICAL CONDITION? A: NO. WELL, SOMETIMES IF HE WAS LIKE SORE, HE COULD SAY IT, BUT LIKE NO, HE WASN'T DISCUSSING THAT. Q: WAS HE A COMPLAINER WHO WOULD COMPLAIN IF THINGS WERE BOTHERING HIM? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR; VAGUE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID HE PHYSICALLY COMPLAIN -- DID HE COMPLAIN TO YOU ABOUT ANY PHYSICAL INJURIES? A: WELL, I -- NOT LIKE -- YOU KNOW, AS IN PASSING MAYBE, I DON'T KNOW THE DATE, SOMETIMES HE MIGHT GO, "OH, MY KNEES" OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. Q: WHAT WOULD HE SAY ABOUT HIS KNEES? A: HE WOULD JUST -- JUST LIKE THAT. YOU KNOW, IF HE JUST -- JUST WOULD GO, "OH, MY KNEES" MEANING THAT MAYBE HE HAD -- LIKE FROM FOOTBALL, BUT HE WAS JUST SAYING, "OH, MY KNEES," BUT HE WASN'T COMPLAINING, HE WASN'T -- Q: WHAT WOULD HE BE DOING WHEN HE WAS SAYING THAT? WAS HE PLAYING A SPORT OR WAS HE JUST IN THE HOUSE? A: OH, IT WAS IN THE HOUSE. Q: AND DID HE EVER TALK ABOUT ARTHRITIS? A: YES, THAT HE HAD ARTHRITIS. HE DIDN'T TELL ME THAT HE HAD ARTHRITIS, BUT I KNOW THAT MICHELLE, THE OTHER MAID, SAID THAT ONE OF THE DOCTORS WAS A DOCTOR TO -- MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, HEARSAY. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD WHAT THE OTHER PERSON SAID. THE WITNESS: OH. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU LEARN ANYTHING ABOUT HIS ARTHRITIS? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DO YOU KNOW WHAT ARTHRITIS IS? A: YES. Q: DID YOU SEE ANY SYMPTOMS OF IT YOURSELF? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, SPECULATION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU SEE ANY SWOLLEN JOINTS ON O.J.? A: NO. NOT SWOLLEN, NO. Q: DID YOU SEE ANYTHING ABOUT HIS FINGERS BEING BENT IN A SPECIAL WAY AT ANY TIME? A: NO. JUST WHEN HE SAID HE WAS SORE, YOU KNOW, THE KNEES, BUT THAT IS IT. I DIDN'T LOOK. I DIDN'T SEE. Q: DID HE EVER TELL YOU HE WAS STIFF? A: YES. Q: WHAT WOULD THAT BE IN RELATIONSHIP TO? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, VAGUE AS TO TIME; IRRELEVANT. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHEN DID HE TELL YOU HE WAS STIFF? A: ONE TIME JUST AT BREAKFAST AT THIS TABLE HE GOT UP AND, "OH, I'M STIFF." Q: DID HE TELL YOU HE WAS STIFF ON JUNE THE 12TH? A: NO, I DON'T THINK SO. Q: ARE YOU SURE? A: I DON'T REMEMBER THAT. I SAID IT, THAT I WAS THAT DAY, I KNOW THAT, BECAUSE THAT IS WHY I TOOK A JACUZZI, SO THAT WORD CAME UP AND I THINK I SAID, "WELL, I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN WHEN YOU ARE STIFF SOMETIMES. BOY, CAN I TAKE A JACUZZI?" Q: HOW WAS HE -- WHAT WAS HIS DEMEANOR LIKE AT 2:30? A: HE WAS FINE. Q: WHEN YOU SAY "FINE" -- A: HE WAS -- Q: NORMAL O.J.? A: GOT DONE GOLFING, LIKE YOU ARE NOW, I GUESS. I GUESS NORMAL CONVERSATION. Q: HE DIDN'T SEEM ANGRY? A: NO. Q: DIDN'T SEEM AGITATED? A: NO. Q: HE DIDN'T SEEM DEPRESSED? A: NO. Q: DIDN'T SEEM DESPONDENT? A: NO. Q: DIDN'T SEEM PREOCCUPIED? A: NO. I THINK HE MENTIONED THE TRIP WAS COMING UP. Q: AND IN REGARD TO THE TRIP, WAS THAT HE JUST WASN'T LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT TRIP, RIGHT? A: YES. Q: THAT HIS WORK SCHEDULE REQUIRED HIM TO GO ON THESE OVERNIGHT TRIPS THAT WERE REALLY NOT A LOT OF FUN FOR HIM? A: I RARELY KNEW WHEN HE WENT ON TRIPS, BUT YEAH, HE WAS GOING ON A TRIP TO CHICAGO. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT IT WAS -- I DON'T THINK I KNEW IT WAS OVERNIGHT. I JUST KNEW HE WAS GOING TO CHICAGO. HE MIGHT HAVE SAID THAT. I'M NOT SURE. Q: YOU KNEW IT WAS A REDEYE? A: REDEYE FLIGHT GOING THERE. OH, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE -- I KNEW IT WAS A HERTZ CONVENTION AND HE WAS GOING TO CHICAGO. Q: AND HE WAS GOING TO PLAY GOLF? A: THERE WAS GOLF CLUBS. Q: AND THAT THE REDEYE MEANS THAT IT TAKES THE -- THE FLIGHT TAKES PLACE DURING THE EVENING HOURS? A: YES. Q: DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME THAT FLIGHT GENERALLY LEAVES? A: NEAR MIDNIGHT. Q: AND HE HAD TOLD YOU HE HAD BEEN UP SINCE 5:00 THAT MORNING PLAYING GOLF? MS. CLARK: THERE WILL BE AN OBJECTION, HEARSAY. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID HE INDICATE -- DID HE APPEAR TO BE TIRED? A: WELL, HE GOLFED THAT MORNING AND HE HAD MENTIONED BEING TIRED. Q: AND YOU TOLD HIM HE LOOKED TIRED, DIDN'T YOU? A: YES, I DID. Q: YOU TOLD HIM HE SHOULD TAKE A NAP? A: YES, I DID. Q: AND TRY TO REST? A: YES. Q: AND DID YOU -- WOULD YOU SAY HE WAS JUST, TO USE YOUR WORDS I THINK ONCE BEFORE, JUST KICKING BACK? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: IN THE HOUSE THAT AFTERNOON? A: YEAH, I SAID THAT KICKING BACK, MEANING KIND OF RELAXED. Q: DIDN'T SEEM OUT OF SORTS AT ALL, DID HE? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, VAGUE. THE WITNESS: I'M SORRY, WHAT? MS. CLARK: SPECULATION. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID HE SEEM OUT OF SORTS AT ALL? THE COURT: VAGUE. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WAS THERE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE WAY HE LOOKED THAT DAY? A: THE WAY HE LOOKED? NO. Q: ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE WAY HE ACTED? A: NO. Q: ANY -- A: HE WAS TIRED AND NOT TALKING A LOT, SO LIKE THAT. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW -- THAT IS WHY I MENTIONED IT. Q: THE NEXT TIME YOU SAW HIM WAS AFTER YOU CAME BACK FROM PLAYING BASKETBALL? A: YES, AFTER THE -- AFTER I HAD WATCHED THE PLAYOFF GAME, BUT IT WAS AFTER BASKETBALL, YES. Q: AND DID HE SEEM UNUSUAL IN ANY WAY WHEN YOU SAW HIM AT ABOUT SIX O'CLOCK THAT EVENING? A: PROBABLY JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE UPSET BECAUSE IT WAS AFTER THE RECITAL. Q: THIS WAS ABOUT -- WHAT TIME WAS THIS? AFTER 6:00 AND BEFORE 7:00? A: YES. Q: OR IN THAT AREA? A: YES. Q: NOW, HE HAD TOLD YOU HE WAS GOING TO THE RECITAL FOR HIS DAUGHTER? A: YES. Q: AND DID YOU SEE HIM WHEN HE LEFT FOR THE RECITAL? A: NO. Q: DID YOU SEE HIM WHEN HE RETURNED? A: NO. Q: WELL, YOU SAW HIM AFTER HE RETURNED FROM THE RECITAL -- A: I DIDN'T SEE HIM RETURNING. YEAH, AFTER, RIGHT. Q: AFTER THE RECITAL YOU SAW HIM? A: YES. THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU SAW HIM AFTER THE RECITAL BACK AT ROCKINGHAM? A: YES. Q: AND WAS HE NEATLY DRESSED? A: I BELIEVE IT WAS LIKE A SWEAT OUTFIT. Q: AND -- A: BUT I NEVER SAW HIM SLOPPY DRESSED. Q: AND HE TOLD YOU THAT HE HAD SEEN SYDNEY PERFORM? A: YES. Q: AND DID HE SAY SYDNEY WAS GREAT? A: YES. Q: DID HE HAVE A SMILE ON HIS FACE WHEN HE SAID THAT? A: YES. Q: AND DID HE SAY THIS IN A NORMAL VOICE? A: THAT SYDNEY WAS GREAT, YES. Q: DID HE SEEM IN ANY WAY A LITTLE BIT UNHAPPY BECAUSE HE COULDN'T SPEND AS MUCH TIME WITH SYDNEY AS HE WOULD LIKE? A: WELL, IT WAS BROUGHT UP WHAT I HAD SAID, THAT HE WANTED TIME WITH SYDNEY, AND I GUESS THAT THEY WENT OFF, NICOLE AND SYDNEY WENT OFF AND HE DIDN'T HAVE TIME WITH HER. Q: AND HE EXPRESSED THE FACT THAT HE WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SPENT MORE TIME WITH SYDNEY? A: THAT HE WANTED TO SEE HER. Q: BECAUSE SHE HAD DONE SO GREAT AND THIS WAS A SPECIAL NIGHT? A: YES. Q: AND AS A FATHER YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT, DIDN'T YOU? A: YES. Q: DID YOU SEE ANYTHING ABNORMAL ABOUT HIS REACTION TO WANTING TO SPEND A LITTLE MORE TIME WITH HIS DAUGHTER AFTER THE RECITAL? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT, CALLS FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU SEE ANYTHING UNUSUAL IN HIS FEELINGS BECAUSE HE COULDN'T SPEND AS MUCH TIME WITH HIS DAUGHTER THAT HE WOULD HAVE LIKED? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE, CALLS FOR SPECULATION, IT IS IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: NO. IT WAS -- HE JUST SAID IT. IT WASN'T UNUSUAL. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WAS HE ANGRY? A: NO -- NOT WHEN HE SAID THAT. Q: WAS HE AGITATED? A: NO. Q: HOW MUCH TIME DID YOU SPEND WITH HIM AFTER THE RECITAL DURING THIS CONVERSATION? A: DURING THAT CONVERSATION? WELL, I TOOK -- I TOOK A JACUZZI AFTER THAT AND WHEN THE PHONE RINGS OR SOMETHING, IF THE PHONE RINGS A LOT I DON'T LISTEN TO THE CONVERSATION. SO MY CONVERSATION -- IF HE IS ON THE PHONE, I DON'T TALK. SO IF THE PHONE WAS RINGING, I LET HIM TALK ON THE PHONE, SO MY CONVERSATION WAS -- I DON'T KNOW. IT WAS -- IT WASN'T A LOT. WE WERE TALKING WHEN HE GOT OFF THE PHONE AND ON THE PHONE. Q: AND THEN YOU SAW HIM A LITTLE LATER THAT EVENING? A: YES. Q: ABOUT WHAT TIME? A: UMM, ABOUT 8:30, AROUND THERE, WHEN HE CAME INTO THE ROOM. Q: AND THAT IS WHEN HE ASKED YOU FOR CHANGE FOR A HUNDRED DOLLAR BILL? A: NO. THAT WAS THE TURN THE JACUZZI OFF. I FORGOT THE JETS. Q: AND DURING -- AND AT SOME POINT IN TIME DID HE ASK YOU IF YOU HAD CHANGE FOR A HUNDRED DOLLARS? A: YES. Q: DID HE INDICATE TO YOU THAT HE HAD TO GO TO THE AIRPORT AND HE NEEDED SOME MONEY FOR A TIP FOR THE SKYCAP? A: RIGHT. HE ASKED ME IF HE HAD -- NOT CHANGE FOR A HUNDRED, BUT HE ASKED ME IF I HAD A FIVE FOR A SKYCAP, SO I GAVE HIM A TWENTY. Q: DO YOU RECALL SPECIFICALLY IF HE ASKED FOR CHANGE OR WHETHER HE ASKED FOR A FIVE OR A TWENTY OR THAT HE JUST HAD SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT GETTING SOME SMALL BILLS FOR THE SKYCAP? A: I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST A FIVE. I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST FIVE AND I GAVE HIM TWENTY. Q: DID HE SEEM AGITATED AT THAT TIME? A: NO. Q: DID HE SEEM ANGRY? A: NO. Q: DID HE SEEM DEPRESSED? A: NO. TIRED. I DON'T KNOW. THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS DEPRESSED. JUST DOWN, NOT DEPRESSED, BUT DOWN BECAUSE HE HAD THE -- HE WAS TALKING ABOUT PACKING AND HE SAID BEFORE HE WASN'T LOOKING FORWARD TO PACKING. Q: JUST WASN'T LOOKING FORWARD TO THE TRIP? A: YES. Q: DID HE TALK ABOUT ANYTHING THAT WAS BOTHERING HIM? A: NO. Q: DID HE TALK ABOUT ANY PROBLEMS IN HIS LIFE? A: NO. Q: DID HE TALK ABOUT ANY ANGER HE HAD TOWARDS ANYONE? A: NO. Q: AND THEN THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT GOING TO GET A HAMBURGER? A: YES. Q: AND YOU INVITED YOURSELF TO GO ALONG? A: YES, I DID. Q: AND HE HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THAT? A: NO. MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID HE SAY "I WOULD RATHER BE ALONE"? A: NO. Q: DID HE SAY "I DON'T FEEL LIKE HAVING ANY COMPANY, I'VE GOT SOME THINGS TO DO"? A: NO. Q: DID HE SAY, "I'M REALLY GOING TO BE RUSHED. IT WOULD BE MUCH EASIER IF WE DID THIS ANOTHER TIME, KATO"? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, TO ALL THOSE QUESTIONS. IT CALLS FOR HEARSAY. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: NO. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND IT WAS JUST THE SAME TYPE OF FRIENDLY GESTURES THAT YOU HAVE ALWAYS COME TO EXPECT FROM O.J., WASN'T IT? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. MS. CLARK: MOTION TO STRIKE THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: THE JURY HAS ALREADY BEEN TOLD TO DISREGARD THE IMPLICATION OF QUESTIONS. MS. CLARK: THANK YOU. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WHEN YOU WENT TO MC DONALD'S, WAS THERE ANY PARTICULAR RUSH TO GET THERE? A: NO. Q: DID HE SAY, "KATO, DO YOU KNOW OF THE CLOSEST MC DONALD'S?"? A: NO. Q: IN FACT, WHEN YOU INITIALLY TALKED TO TIPPIN AND CARR, YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER YOU WENT TO THE MC DONALD'S ON WILSHIRE OR SANTA MONICA, DID YOU? A: YEAH. I SAID IT WAS ACROSS FROM CARL'S JR. Q: DO YOU REMEMBER TELLING THEM IN YOUR STATEMENT THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN ON WILSHIRE, IT COULD HAVE BEEN ON SANTA MONICA? A: IF YOU HAVE IT THERE, YOU CAN SHOW ME. I DON'T REMEMBER. MR. SHAPIRO: LET ME SHOW YOU YOUR STATEMENT AND SEE IF IT REFRESHES YOUR MEMORY. THIS IS THE STATEMENT OF KATO KAELIN. IT IS IN YOUR MURDER BOOK, MISS CLARK, PAGE 348. MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS? THE COURT: YOU MAY. MS. CLARK: MAY WE HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: SURE. (BRIEF PAUSE.) MS. CLARK: EXCUSE ME. WHAT PAGE? MR. SHAPIRO: ON PAGE 00348 AND IT IS IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH. MS. CLARK: I DON'T HAVE THAT PAGE, YOUR HONOR. PERHAPS COUNSEL HAS ANOTHER ONE. MR. SHAPIRO: PERHAPS ONE OF YOUR DETECTIVES HAS A MURDER BOOK. THE COURT: CAN I HAVE ONE OF MY LAW CLERKS MAKE A COPY. (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. SHAPIRO: I THINK WE WILL PROBABLY HAVE SOME EXTRA COPIES HERE. MS. CLARK: WELL, PERHAPS THEN COUNSEL HAS A CLEAN COPY TO SHOW THE WITNESS. HIS IS UNDERLINED AND MARKED. MR. SHAPIRO: I WILL GIVE HIM A BLANK COPY AND I WILL GIVE HER MY COPY SO SHE CAN FIND IT. MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: YOU MAY. MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU. Q: I WANT TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE THIRD PARAGRAPH. IS THIS THE STATEMENT, MR. KAELIN, THAT YOU REVIEWED PRIOR TO GOING INTO THE GRAND JURY? A: THIS ONE RIGHT HERE? THAT I CALLED THE CARL'S JR.? DO YOU WANT ME TO READ IT? Q: YES. A: "KATO BELIEVES THAT MC DONALD'S WAS ON EITHER WILSHIRE BOULEVARD OR SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD AND RECALLED A CARL'S JR. ACROSS THE STREET." Q: THANK YOU. DID YOU TELL THEM THAT? A: YES. I REMEMBER THE CARL'S JR. Q: DID YOU ALSO TELL THEM THAT IT WAS EITHER ON WILSHIRE OR SANTA MONICA, THE MC DONALD'S? A: I WAS LEANING TOWARD SANTA MONICA, BUT THEY WERE TELLING ME ABOUT SANTA MONICA ACROSS FROM CARL'S JR. Q: THEY ARE BOTH RELATIVELY CLOSE TOGETHER, AREN'T THEY? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, VAGUE. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: HOW CLOSE ARE THEY, THE TWO DIFFERENT MC DONALD'S? A: LET'S SEE. WILSHIRE BOULEVARD. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY STREETS OVER. A FEW MINUTES DRIVE. MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU. ARE YOU DONE WITH THE REPORT? Q: DID O.J. SEEM TO BE IN ANY PARTICULAR HURRY TO GET TO MC DONALD'S? A: NO. Q: WAS THERE ANY RUSH TO GET THROUGH TRAFFIC OR DID HE DRIVE AT A NORMAL PACE? A: NORMAL. Q: DID HE SEEM TO BE AGITATED IN ANY WAY DURING THE DRIVE? A: NO. Q: DID HE SHOW ANY ANGER DURING THE DRIVE? A: NO. Q: DID HE APPEAR TO BE DEPRESSED DURING THE DRIVE? A: NO. Q: WHEN YOU GOT TO MC DONALD'S, DID YOU GO THROUGH THAT DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW? A: YES. Q: WERE THERE ANY CARS IN FRONT OF YOU THAT YOU RECALL? A: NO. I THINK WE WERE THE ONLY CAR, I'M PRETTY SURE. Q: YOU ORDERED AND HE ORDERED? A: YES. Q: DID HE APPEAR TO BE HUNGRY? A: YES. I MEAN I DON'T -- I KNOW HE ATE RIGHT AWAY, LIKE TEN SECONDS. Q: AND DRIVING BACK, DID YOU RUSH IN ANY WAY? A: NO. Q: WAS HE DISTRACTED? A: NO. Q: WAS HE LOOKING AROUND? A: NO. Q: DID HE EXPRESS ANY ANGER? A: NO. Q: NOW, YOU SAY YOU SAW HIS HANDS AT MC DONALD'S AND YOU SAW HIS HANDS WHEN YOU GAVE HIM $20.00 AND THAT YOU DID NOT NOTICE ANY INJURY; IS THAT CORRECT? A: CORRECT. Q: I TAKE IT YOU WEREN'T EXAMINING HIS HANDS FOR INJURIES? A: CORRECT. I WAS NOT. Q: BUT IF THERE HAD BEEN A SIGNIFICANT INJURY, IT IS YOUR OPINION YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN IT? A: YES. Q: WHAT IF THERE WAS A MINOR SCRATCH OR A SCRAPE, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN? A: NOT A MINOR ONE, NO. Q: AND IN PLAYING BALL AS AN ATHLETE DO YOU SOMETIMES GET SCRATCHES AND CUTS JUST FROM FINGERNAILS, THINGS LIKE THAT? A: YES. Q: AND SOMETIMES DO YOU BLEED A LITTLE BIT FROM THAT? A: YES. Q: DO YOU CONSIDER THAT AN INJURY? A: NO. Q: NOW, ON YOUR WAY BACK TO THE HOUSE, BACK TO ROCKINGHAM, DID HE GO IN ANY DIFFERENT DIRECTION THAN HE NORMALLY WOULD HAVE GONE IN? A: IN -- IN THE CAR? Q: YEAH. A: I'M PRETTY SURE WE DID ASHFORD AND PARKED THE CAR. Q: NORMAL WAY THAT YOU WOULD COME BACK TO THE HOUSE? A: YES. Q: DID HE SAY ANYTHING TO YOU? "LOOK AT THE TIME. TAKE NOTICE OF CERTAIN EVENTS OF WHAT I'M DOING NOW"? A: NO. Q: AND YOU BOTH GOT OUT OF THE CAR? A: YES. Q: AND EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE IN FRONT OF HIM, HE APPEARED TO BE WALKING TOWARD THE HOUSE, DID HE NOT? A: IT WAS -- IT WAS THE DOOR -- I MEAN, HIS FEET WERE POINTED THAT WAY, BUT I WAS KIND OF AT THAT DOOR AND IT WASN'T LIKE A MOVEMENT, BUT IT WAS -- TURNED TOWARDS ME AT THE DOOR. THAT IS WHEN I LOOKED AND I KNEW THAT MAYBE I SHOULDN'T GO TO THE KITCHEN AND I JUST HEADED OUT TO MINE. THAT WAS THE LAST I SAW. Q: AND YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT HE APPEARED TO BE GOING IN THE HOUSE? A: YES. YEAH, HIS FEET WERE POINTED, BUT I DIDN'T LIKE SEE THE MOVEMENT. Q: YOU CAN'T TELL US SPECIFICALLY THAT HE WENT IN, BUT YOU HAD NO INDICATION THAT HE DIDN'T? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION AND VAGUE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU TESTIFY THAT HE APPEARED TO GO INTO THE HOUSE PREVIOUSLY? HAVE YOU SAID THAT? A: I DON'T THINK SO. MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I JUST HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: CERTAINLY. (BRIEF PAUSE.) Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DURING THE RIDE BACK FROM MC DONALD'S, WAS THERE ANY MENTION OF NICOLE? A: YES, THAT THE TYPEWRITER, THAT IT WAS NICOLE'S, IF I COULD USE IT. Q: NO ANGER OR ANYTHING? A: NO. Q: I WANT TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 92, IF YOU MIGHT. MS. CLARK: OF? MR. SHAPIRO: OF THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY THAT WAS CONDUCTED I BELIEVE BY MISS CLARK AND MR. CONN. DO YOU HAVE THAT? MS. CLARK: AS LONG AS COUNSEL READS THE ENTIRE PASSAGE, I HAVE NO OBJECTION AT ALL. MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS? THE COURT: YOU MAY. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: I WANT TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TOWARDS LINE 13 AND 14 AND ASK YOU WHETHER YOU GAVE THAT TESTIMONY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION UNDER 356, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: AS TO JUST THAT -- THOSE LINES? I DON'T HAVE IT BEFORE ME, COUNSEL. MS. CLARK: I THINK THAT THE COURT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SEE THIS. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SHAPIRO: I WILL GIVE YOU A COPY, YOUR HONOR. MS. CLARK: THIS IS VERY MISLEADING. (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: THANK YOU. (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE THERE WAS CAUTIONS AGAINST SPEAKING OBJECTIONS. THE COURT: YES. THE COURT: AND MR. SHAPIRO, YOU ARE REFRESHING MR. KAELIN'S RECOLLECTION AS TO WHICH LINES? MR. SHAPIRO: 13 AND 14, YOUR HONOR. MS. CLARK: AND THE PEOPLE DIRECT THE COURT'S ATTENTION TO THE PARAGRAPH ABOVE. MR. SHAPIRO: WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO READING THE WHOLE THING. I AM JUST NOW BEGINNING TO DIRECT HIS ATTENTION TO ONE PORTION, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: VERY WELL. THANK YOU. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: MR. KAELIN, DID YOU GET A CHANCE TO READ THAT? A: YES. Q: AND DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR MEMORY AS TO WHAT YOU SAID AT THE GRAND JURY? A: YES. Q: AND WHAT DID YOU SAY THEN? MS. CLARK: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. MAY I SEE -- THIS IS A MARKED COPY -- GOT LINES AND CIRCLES. (BRIEF PAUSE.) MS. CLARK: PERHAPS THE WITNESS COULD BE GIVEN A CLEAN COPY TO READ FROM. THE COURT: I DON'T THINK IT IS MATERIAL AT THIS POINT, COUNSEL. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IT IS NOT CONFUSING THAT THERE IS A CIRCLE IN THE AREA THAT I AM DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO? A: NO, I -- MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: READ IT. THE COURT: PROCEED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR MEMORY? A: YES. Q: REGARDING THAT, WHAT DID YOU TESTIFY TO BEFORE THE GRAND JURY IN THAT REGARD? A: DO I READ IT? Q: YEAH. A: FROM THE TOP? Q: READ IT FROM 13 AND 14 AND THEN WE WILL READ IT FROM THE TOP. A: 13: "QUESTION: SO IT APPEARED HE WAS WALKING TOWARDS THE HOUSE?" MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD ASK THAT THE WHOLE THING BE READ IN CONTEXT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. GO AHEAD. THE WITNESS: "ANSWER: YES." AND THEN BEFORE THAT NOW? Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: NO. A: OH. Q: NOW, YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT AT THE GRAND JURY, THAT HE WALKED TOWARDS THE HOUSE, BUT -- THE COURT: MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. I THOUGHT THAT THE COURT -- THE COURT: HE IS NOT FINISHED ON THIS AREA, COUNSEL. MR. SHAPIRO: I'M SORRY, I HAVE LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT. MAY I JUST HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? (BRIEF PAUSE.) (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE DEFENDANT.) Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: NOW, YOU NEVER SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT YOU WERE GOING INTO THE HOUSE, DID YOU? A: THAT I WAS? Q: YEAH. O.J. WAS GOING INTO THE HOUSE? A: CORRECT. Q: AND WHAT WERE THE QUESTIONS RIGHT BEFORE THAT, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE AREA OF ROCKINGHAM AND WHAT O.J. SIMPSON WAS DOING? YOU CAN JUST READ THOSE OUT LOUD. A: THE QUESTION WAS: "WHERE WAS HE WHEN YOU LAST SAW HIM? "ANSWER: HE WAS OUT OF THE CAR AND TURNED TOWARDS THE HOUSE. THEN I WAS ON MY OWN. "QUESTION: WAS HE MOVING TOWARD THE HOUSE AT THE TIME? HE WAS" DOT SYMBOL. "I ASSUMED IN MY HEAD HE WAS GOING IN THE HOUSE BUT IT WAS TURNED THAT WAY AND I DIDN'T SEE ANY MOVEMENT BECAUSE I AM ON MY WAY AND I SAID I'M GOING TO MY ROOM." Q: AND THE NEXT QUESTION AND ANSWER? A: "AND SO IT APPEARED HE WAS WALKING TOWARD THE HOUSE? "YES." Q: THANK YOU. IS THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU GAVE REGARDING THAT INCIDENT BEFORE THE GRAND JURY? A: YES. Q: WHEN YOU WERE TALKING TO O.J. SIMPSON ABOUT COMING BACK FROM THE RECITAL, THERE WAS SOME TALK ABOUT CLOTHING, WOMEN'S CLOTHING, WAS THERE NOT? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: HOW NICOLE AND HER FRIEND WERE DRESSED AT THE RECITAL? A: YES. Q: AND WAS THIS DONE IN A LIGHT-HANDED MANNER? A: KIND OF AS A MATTER OF FACT. KIND OF MATTER OF FACTLY. Q: AND WAS THE SUGGESTION MADE "I WONDER WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE DRESSING LIKE WHEN THEY ARE GRANDMAS"? A: HE SAYS, "THEY CAN'T BE WEARING MINI SKIRTS OR DRESSES LIKE THAT WHEN THEY ARE GRANDMAS." Q: DID YOU TAKE HIM TO BE SERIOUS WITH THIS OR TO BE JOKING WITH THIS? A: IT WAS -- IT WAS A POINT WHERE, YEAH, IT WAS -- I DIDN'T TAKE IT TO BE SERIOUS. I MEAN, IT WAS A COMMENT THAT HE MADE. I MEAN, IT WAS A POINT THAT HE WAS MAKING ABOUT THEIR OUTFITS. Q: BUT YOU DIDN'T TAKE IT TO BE A SERIOUS COMMENT, DID YOU? A: WELL, I DIDN'T -- I DIDN'T TAKE IT FOR ME TO BE A SERIOUS COMMENT. I DIDN'T KNOW -- I DON'T THINK IT WAS -- IT WAS -- IT WAS A COMMENT IN PASSING -- IN THAT CONVERSATION, BUT -- Q: DO YOU RECALL TESTIFYING BEFORE THE GRAND JURY ON PAGE 60 ABOUT THIS AREA? A: I THINK SO. MR. SHAPIRO: PAGE 59 AND 60. DO WE HAVE SOME CLEAN COPIES HERE TO AVOID ANY PROBLEMS? MR. COCHRAN: WHAT PAGE? MR. SHAPIRO: 59 AND 60, GRAND JURY, PLEASE. (BRIEF PAUSE.) MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR -- THE COURT: MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: THIS IS NOT IMPEACHING. OBJECTION. HEARSAY. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME SEE COUNSEL AND THE TRANSCRIPT AT THE SIDE BAR, PLEASE. (A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, WITHDRAWN. THE COURT: MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: WITHDRAW THE OBJECTION. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION, MR. KAELIN -- A: YES. Q: -- TO LINE 27 AND ASK YOU TO READ THAT THROUGH THE FOLLOWING PAGE, LINE 15. A: READ FROM 27 TO 15 ON THE OTHER PAGE? Q: YES. A: OKAY. Q: THIS IS PAGE 59 OF THE QUESTIONS YOU ARE ANSWERING TO MISS CLARK AND MR. CONN -- MR. CONN BEFORE THE GRAND JURY. A: "QUESTION: CAN YOU RECALL WHAT HIS WORDS WERE? "ANSWER: IT WAS ABOUT WEARING TIGHT-FITTING CLOTHES IN REFERENCE," THAT SYMBOL, "GOOD NATURED WOULDN'T YOU WEAR THAT IF THE -- WHEN SHE IS GOING TO BE OLDER, JOKING, LIKE WEARING TIGHT-FITTING CLOTHES, GOOD NATUREDLY, LIKE A GRANDMA. "QUESTION: WHEN YOU SAID 'GOOD NATUREDLY,' THAT IS WHAT HE WAS ACTING LIKE? "ANSWER: YES. "QUESTION: WAS HE LAUGHING? "YEAH. JOKING, LAUGHING. "QUESTION: KIND OF WONDERING WERE YOU GOING TO WEAR THESE WHEN YOU GOT OLDER? "YES. "AND HE WAS MAKING REFERENCE TO TIGHT DRESSES OR OUTFITS? "DRESSES, YEAH. "DID HE SEEM ANGRY WHEN HE SAID THAT? "NO." Q: THANK YOU. IS THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU GAVE? A: YES. Q: DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR MEMORY AS TO THAT CONVERSATION? A: YEAH, SOMEWHAT. Q: I TAKE IT YOUR MEMORY WAS FRESHER REGARDING THAT CONVERSATION WHEN YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY THAN IT IS TODAY TEN MONTHS LATER? A: RIGHT, I GUESS IT WOULD BE. THERE IS SO MUCH TIME WHEN -- THAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE THINGS AND SOMETIMES THINGS COME BACK, AND I -- SO WITH THAT COMMENT, I -- I REMEMBER IT BEING MATTER OF FACTLY. WE WEREN'T LIKE LAUGHING, LAUGHING. Q: WITH REGARD TO THE COMMENTS ABOUT SYDNEY DURING THAT CONVERSATION, DO YOU RECALL HIM SAYING SHE WAS WONDERFUL, BEAUTIFUL AND HE WAS PROUD OF HER AND THEN AT THE GRAND JURY THEY ASKED YOU "TELL ME HOW HE WAS BEHAVING" -- MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THIS IS COMPOUND. COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING. IT IS HEARSAY. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: LET ME SHOW YOU YOUR GRAND JURY TESTIMONY. DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THIS OR DO YOU WANT A CLEAN COPY, TOO. LET ME GIVE YOU A CLEAN COPY. MS. CLARK: WHAT PAGE IS COUNSEL REFERRING TO? MR. SHAPIRO: PAGE 55 BEFORE THE GRAND JURY. MS. CLARK: STILL HEARSAY. THE COURT: WHAT IS THE OBJECTION? MS. CLARK: HEARSAY. THE COURT: LET ME SEE WHAT IT IS. MR. SHAPIRO: GOES TO REFRESH HIS MEMORY, YOUR HONOR. Q: I WOULD ASK YOU TO READ TO YOURSELF -- THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. WHAT WAS THE LAST QUESTION? MR. SHAPIRO? MR. SHAPIRO: YES. I WAS ASKING HIM ABOUT O.J.'S DESCRIPTION OF HIS DAUGHTER AND TO SET THE FOUNDATION. AND THE QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE WHAT WERE -- WHAT WAS HIS DEMEANOR AT THAT TIME, IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS BY MISS CLARK. THE COURT: YOU ARE ASKING MR. KAELIN TO DESCRIBE THE DEFENDANT'S DEMEANOR WHEN DISCUSSING -- MR. SHAPIRO: YES. THE COURT: -- HIS DAUGHTER'S PERFORMANCE? MR. SHAPIRO: YES. MS. CLARK: WHAT DO YOU NEED THE TRANSCRIPT FOR? MR. SHAPIRO: TO REFRESH HIS MEMORY BECAUSE HE WAS UNCLEAR IN HIS TESTIMONY. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ASK HIM IF IT REFRESHES HIS RECOLLECTION. MR. SHAPIRO: OKAY. Q: I WOULD ASK YOU TO READ LINES 10 THROUGH 16, PLEASE. THE COURT: TO YOURSELF. THE WITNESS: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) OKAY. OKAY. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE DEMEANOR -- TO O.J.'S -- AS TO YOUR DESCRIPTION OF O.J.'S DEMEANOR AFTER THE CONCERT WHEN TALKING ABOUT HIS DAUGHTER, SYDNEY? A: YES. Q: WOULD YOU READ THAT, PLEASE. MS. CLARK: WELL, OBJECTION. THE COURT: NO. IF IT REFRESHES HIS RECOLLECTION, NOW HE CAN TESTIFY AS TO WHAT HIS RECOLLECTION IS. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: WERE YOU ASKED -- YOU WERE ASKED THE QUESTION -- MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID O.J. -- THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. I THINK THE QUESTION IS CAN YOU NOW DESCRIBE HIS DEMEANOR. MR. SHAPIRO: YES. Q: WHAT WAS -- CAN YOU DESCRIBE HIS DEMEANOR? A: ABOUT ASKING ABOUT SYDNEY? Q: YES. A: IT WAS -- SHE WAS GREAT, THAT -- YEAH, SHE WAS GREAT AND SYDNEY WAS WONDERFUL AT THE -- MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, NON-RESPONSIVE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THE QUESTION WAS WHAT WAS HIS DEMEANOR; NOT WHAT HE SAID. WHAT WAS HIS DEMEANOR? THE WITNESS: FINE. IT WAS -- GIVE ME LIKE -- VERY HAPPY, NOT SAD, JUST -- Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DO YOU RECALL WHAT YOU SAID TO THE GRAND JURY IN RESPONSE TO MISS CLARK'S QUESTIONS? A: RELAXED, YES, SO HE WAS RELAXED AND NONCHALANT. Q: SO THE WORD YOU USED AND MISS CLARK ASKED YOU "DID HE SEEM TO BE AGITATED, UPSET OR NERVOUS" -- MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. OBJECTION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THIS IS JUST BEING USED TO REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION. MR. SHAPIRO: YES. THE COURT: OTHERWISE IT IS HEARSAY. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: SO YOUR RECOLLECTION BEFORE THE GRAND JURY WAS THAT HE WAS NONCHALANT AND RELAXED? MS. CLARK: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. IF THE WITNESS HAS REFRESHED HIS RECOLLECTION, MAY HE BE ALLOWED TO REMOVE THAT PIECE OF PAPER, GIVE IT BACK TO COUNSEL AND TESTIFY TO HIS OWN MEMORY? THE COURT: YES. (BRIEF PAUSE.) Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO READ THIS AND YOU HAVE REFRESHED YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHAT O.J. SIMPSON'S DEMEANOR WAS WHEN HE WAS TALKING ABOUT HIS DAUGHTER SYDNEY'S PERFORMANCE AND DESCRIBING HER AS BEING WONDERFUL AND BEAUTIFUL? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. COUNSEL -- THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED. MR. SHAPIRO, PLEASE. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU WERE TELLING US WHAT MR. SIMPSON'S DEMEANOR WAS LIKE AND YOU HAVE JUST REFRESHED YOUR MEMORY FROM YOUR GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPT? A: YES. Q: CAN YOU TELL WHAT HIS DEMEANOR WAS LIKE WHEN HE WAS DISCUSSING SYDNEY'S PERFORMANCE? MS. CLARK: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: IT WAS NONCHALANT, IT WAS RELAXED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: IN THE CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH RACHEL FERRARA ABOUT HEARING THE -- WHAT YOU THOUGHT TO BE AN EARTHQUAKE AND HEARING THUMPS, WHEN YOU MADE A COMMENT TO HER THAT YOU WERE GOING TO INVESTIGATE, DID YOU INDICATE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY THAT WHEN YOU TOLD HER IF I DON'T CALL BACK IN TEN MINUTES BE WARNED THAT YOU WERE JUST JOKING? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. (BRIEF PAUSE.) Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DO YOU REMEMBER THE QUESTION? A: OH, SHOULD I ANSWER? THE COURT: YES. THE WITNESS: SAY THE QUESTION AGAIN -- OH, ABOUT RACHEL? Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: ABOUT RACHEL, YES. A: I DIDN'T SAY BE WARNED. I SAID BE WORRIED. I WAS SAYING TO HER IF I DON'T CALL BACK IN TEN MINUTES, WORRY, LIKE THAT. I MEAN, IT WAS LIKE A NERVOUS JOKE BECAUSE OF THE NOISE. Q: AND DID YOU SAY THIS AS A JOKE? A: I SAID IT AS A JOKE, BUT I WAS STILL WORRIED ABOUT THAT NOISE. IT WAS KIND OF -- Q: AND DID -- I'M SORRY. A: KIND OF TO SHOW THAT I WASN'T TO HER. Q: AND DID YOU LAUGH? A: DID I LAUGH? Q: YEAH. A: YEAH, BECAUSE SHE HAD SAID SOMETHING TO ME. Q: WHEN -- YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO BE GOING INTO ANOTHER AREA NOW. DO YOU WANT ME TO CONTINUE FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF MINUTES? THE COURT: WELL, LET'S USE THEM ALL. MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU. I JUST NEED A MOMENT IF I MIGHT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. (BRIEF PAUSE.) Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: REGARDING O.J.'S BRONCO, YOU SAID HE PRIMARILY PARKED IT ON ASHFORD. HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED HE PARKED IT ON ASHFORD AND ALSO ON ROCKINGHAM? A: IT HAD BEEN ROCKINGHAM, BUT THE MOST PART IT USUALLY IS ON ASHFORD. Q: HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED IT WAS PARKED MORE ON ASHFORD, BUT IT COULD ALSO BE PARKED ON ROCKINGHAM? A: YES. Q: AND IS THAT THE TRUTH? A: RIGHT. Q: REGARDING THAT BRONCO, DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT AL COWLINGS DROVE THE BRONCO? A: I -- HE -- I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAD KEYS OR NOT, BUT HE COULD HAVE DRIVEN IT. THEY WERE FRIENDS SO -- Q: WHAT ABOUT ARNELLE SIMPSON? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, SPECULATION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID SHE DRIVE THE BRONCO? A: ARNELLE -- NO, SHE HAD A CAR. Q: DID SHE EVER DRIVE THE BRONCO? A: I NEVER SAW HER DRIVE THE BRONCO. Q: WHAT ABOUT JASON? A: DIDN'T SEE HIM DRIVE THE BRONCO. Q: WHAT ABOUT NICOLE? A: I DIDN'T SEE HER DRIVE THE BRONCO. Q: NEVER IN THE YEAR AND HALF THAT YOU KNEW HER? A: NO, I DON'T THINK SO. Q: REGARDING THE BAG THAT YOU SAW IN THE DRIVEWAY THAT EVENING, DO YOU KNOW IF THAT BAG WAS THERE EARLIER? A: EARLIER WHEN? Q: EARLIER TO THE TIME YOU FIRST SAW IT? A: I DON'T THINK IT WAS. Q: DO YOU KNOW FOR SURE? A: I'M PRETTY SURE IT WASN'T THERE. IT WAS THERE WHEN I CAME BACK ON THAT SECOND TRIP FROM THE WALKWAY. I WAS PRETTY SURE IT WAS -- BUT IT WASN'T LIKE THERE ALL DAY OR ANYTHING. IT WAS LIKE DURING THAT PERIOD. Q: DO YOU RECALL TESTIFYING BEFORE THE GRAND JURY ON THAT VERY POINT AND BEING -- MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. PAGE? THE COURT: WHAT PAGE, COUNSEL? MR. SHAPIRO: PAGE 102, YOUR HONOR, LINE 22, LINE 23, IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM MISS CLARK. DO YOU RECALL -- MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, PLEASE? THE COURT: CERTAINLY. (BRIEF PAUSE.) MS. CLARK: NO OBJECTION. MR. SHAPIRO: ARE YOU READY? THE COURT: PROCEED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFY THAT THE BAG COULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN AT THAT LOCATION WHEN YOU MADE YOUR FIRST PASS TOWARDS THE GARAGE? A: THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN, BUT I WAS PRETTY SURE THAT IT WAS THE SECOND TRIP. Q: AND THAT YOU JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN TO NOTICE IT AT THAT TIME? A: YES. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE MORNING SESSION. PLEASE REMEMBER ALL MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE. MR. KAELIN, YOU MAY STEP DOWN. YOU ARE ORDERED TO BE BACK AT 1:30. DON'T DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH ANYBODY EXCEPT THE LAWYERS. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 1:30. (RECESS.) (AT 12:00 P.M. THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.) LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 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: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT. MR. KAELIN IS ON THE STAND. COUNSEL, ANYTHING WE NEED TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO REJOIN US? MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR, ONE MATTER. THE COURT: YES, MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: I BELIEVE THIS COURT HAD INSTRUCTED COUNSEL TO REFER TO THE DEFENDANT AS MR. SIMPSON AND NOT O.J., AND THERE HAVE BEEN REPEATED REFERENCES TO THAT BY MR. SHAPIRO. THE COURT: THAT IS CORRECT. WE ALSO HAD THE ONE OTHER DISCOVERY MATTER REGARDING A STATEMENT BY MR. KAELIN TO AN INVESTIGATOR FOR THE DEFENSE. ANY COMMENTS? THE COURT HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THAT STATEMENT. ANY COMMENTS, MR. SHAPIRO? MR. SHAPIRO: YES, YOUR HONOR. WE BELIEVE UNDER THE RECIPROCAL RULES OF DISCOVERY, THAT THESE ITEMS ARE NOT DISCOVERABLE AND BELIEVE THAT THEY FALL UNDER NO EXCEPTION IN THE CODE, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE -- HAD NO OBJECTION TO YOUR HONOR REVIEWING THOSE SHORT NOTES. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. YOU DON'T FEEL THAT THIS IS A STATEMENT BY A PROSECUTION WITNESS WHICH THEY'RE ENTITLED TO KNOW ON THE CROSS-EXAMINATION AS TO THE ISSUES IN THE STATEMENT? MR. SHAPIRO: THEY'RE NOT IMPEACHING. THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT INCONSISTENT AND OFFER NO IMPEACHMENT FROM WHAT THIS WITNESS HAS STATED. SO THEY'RE OF NO VALUE AND THEY'RE OUR PERSONAL WORK PRODUCT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENT, MISS CLARK? MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE IMPEACHING. THAT'S NOT THE -- THAT'S NOT THE TEST. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. I HAVEN'T SEEN THEM. SO I CAN'T ARGUE WHETHER THEY'RE IMPEACHING OR NOT. BUT ASSUMING COUNSEL'S CHARACTERIZATION IS TRUE, THAT DOESN'T PREVENT THEM FROM BEING DISCOVERABLE. AND ARGUABLY, IF THEY ARE ALSO CORROBORATING, THEN OF COURSE THEY WOULD BE MATERIAL TO THE REDIRECT EXAMINATION. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'LL EXAMINE A LITTLE MORE CLOSELY. I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO FINISH WITH MR. KAELIN ON CROSS THIS AFTERNOON. MS. CLARK: OH. MR. SHAPIRO: MY CROSS? THE COURT: YES. MR. SHAPIRO: YES. WE'RE GOING TO FINISH WITH MR. KAELIN PROBABLY WITHIN THE NEXT 10 MINUTES. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, THEN I'LL NEED TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THIS THEN. ALL RIGHT. LET'S PROCEED. LET'S FINISH WITH THE CROSS, AND THEN I'LL EVALUATE THIS TO SEE, ONCE I KNOW WHAT THE TOTALITY OF THE CROSS IS, WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S ANYTHING IN HERE THAT'S RELEVANT. MR. SHAPIRO: WELL, MAYBE WE'RE NOT GOING TO FINISH. THE COURT: 15. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, HOW LATE WILL WE GO TODAY? THE COURT: HOPEFULLY TILL WE FINISH. MS. CLARK: GREAT. THANK YOU. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:) THE COURT: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE'VE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON. THE COURT: MR. BRIAN KAELIN IS ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO. BRIAN KATO KAELIN, 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 MR. KAELIN. YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MR. SHAPIRO, YOU MAY CONTINUE. MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. SHAPIRO: Q: MR. KAELIN, YOU MENTIONED THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS TIRED ON JUNE THE 12TH. ARE YOU AWARE OF HIS TRAVEL SCHEDULE THE WEEK PRECEDING THAT? A: NO. Q: DO YOU KNOW IF HE WAS OUT OF TOWN AT ALL? A: THE WEEK BEFORE THAT? Q: YES. A: I DON'T THINK SO. WE WENT TO THE JUNE 6TH, THAT FUNCTION, UH, THE PEDIATRIC AIDS. Q: SO YOUR ANSWER IS THAT YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF HIS TRAVEL SCHEDULE. A: NO. Q: YOU KNEW HE WAS THERE ON JUNE 6TH, BUT ON JUNE 7TH OR 8TH, YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE HE WAS? A: NO. I WASN'T AWARE. Q: AND THAT WOULD BE YOUR REGULAR PRACTICE, NOT TO KNOW WHERE HE WAS. AND IF HE WAS OUT OF TOWN, YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY KNOW THAT. A: IF HE WAS NOT IN THE HOUSE? Q: YES. A: WELL, I WOULDN'T KNOW HE WAS LEAVING. BUT IF HE WASN'T THERE, I WOULD KNOW, YOU KNOW, FROM GIGI, OH, O.J. IS GONE, HE'S AT WHERE, LIKE THAT. Q: OKAY. A: BUT HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO TELL ME HE'S FLYING OUT THAT DAY OR WHATEVER. Q: AND ALSO, WHEN YOU'RE ASKED TO GIVE A 10-MINUTE BY 10-MINUTE RECITATION OF WHERE O.J. WAS ON THE 12TH, COULD YOU DO THAT FOR ANY GIVEN DAY? FOR ANY OTHER DAY, COULD YOU TELL WHERE HE WAS EVERY 10 MINUTES? A: OH, NO. Q: COULD YOU DO THAT FOR YOURSELF? A: WHERE I WAS THE LAST 10 MINUTES? Q: NOT TODAY. IF I PICKED ANOTHER DAY. A: OH, NO. Q: ACCOUNT FOR YOUR WHEREABOUTS EVERY 10 MINUTES? A: NO. Q: ABOUT THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS AT THE ROCKINGHAM HOME OF MR. SIMPSON, THE TREES ARE ALL LIT WITH PROFESSIONAL LIGHTING; ARE THEY NOT? A: YES. THERE'S SOME LIGHTS HIT THE -- YES. THERE'S LIGHTS FROM THE BOTTOM AND I THINK THEY GO UP. Q: AND ALSO, AT THE FRONT ENTRANCE, THERE ARE COACH LIGHTS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE DOOR? A: I THINK SO. Q: AND ON ASHFORD, THERE'S A LARGE STREET LAMP; IS THERE NOT? A: YES. Q: AND THAT STREET LAMP ILLUMINATES THE AREA OF THE DRIVEWAY AND THE FRONT DOOR; DOES IT NOT? A: THE STREETLIGHT -- YEAH, YOU CAN SEE THE STREETLIGHT WOULD LIGHT UP PART OF THE DRIVEWAY JUST A BIT, YEAH. Q: AND THAT'S A VERY, VERY BRIGHT INTENSE STREETLIGHT; IS IT NOT? A: YEAH. IT LIGHTS UP THAT CORNER, YEAH. Q: YOU'VE PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED, HAVE YOU NOT, THAT YOU DON'T RECALL WHETHER OR NOT THE LIGHTS WERE ON DOWNSTAIRS? A: YEAH. I WAS IFFY. I THINK I SAID THAT I THOUGHT THEY WERE ON AND MAYBE OFF, BUT I THOUGHT THEY WERE -- I THINK I SAID THEY WERE OFF AND ON AND THEN I THOUGHT I -- THE LAST THING I SAID IN THIS TESTIMONY WAS THAT THEY WERE OFF. Q: ARE YOU -- HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT YOU'RE NOT SURE WHETHER THEY WERE ON OR OFF? A: YES, I DID THAT. Q: AND WOULD THAT BE YOUR BEST ANSWER IN THIS CASE? A: THAT I WASN'T SURE? YES. Q: WHEN -- DID YOU HAVE ANY DIFFICULTY SEEING THE GOLF CLUBS AND THE BAG IN WHICH THEY WERE BEING CARRIED? A: THE ONE THAT I PUT IN THE TRUNK? Q: YES. A: NO. Q: THEY WERE RIGHT ON THE BENCH OUTSIDE? A: THEY WERE LAYING DOWN. Q: DID YOU NOTICE IF THEY WERE THERE WHEN YOU WENT TO MC DONALD'S? A: I DIDN'T NOTICE THAT. Q: WERE THE GOLF CLUBS IN A TYPE OF BAG THAT WOULD COVER THE GOLF CLUB BAG? A: YES, I BELIEVE SO. IT WAS, UMM -- IT WAS A SWISS ARMY BAG. Q: AND IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT THE SMALL BAG THAT YOU SAW ON THE GROUND, IF EMPTY, WOULD BE ABLE TO FIT INSIDE THE GOLF BAG? A: I -- I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SAY. I COULDN'T TELL. I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO KNOW THAT -- THE OTHER BAG THAT WAS BY THE ROLLS ROYCE? I DON'T KNOW. I COULDN'T TELL. IT WAS A -- I SUPPOSE IF IT WAS STUFFED IN THERE, IT COULD HAVE BEEN, IT COULD HAVE BEEN PUT IN THERE. Q: DID YOU EVER SEE MR. SIMPSON PICK UP THAT BAG? A: I -- NO. Q: DO YOU KNOW WHAT OTHER LUGGAGE MR. SIMPSON OWNS OR HAS OR TRAVELS WITH? A: OTHER LUGGAGE THAT HE HAS? Q: YEAH. A: HE HAS OTHER LUGGAGE. I -- I KNOW HE HAS OTHER LUGGAGE, BUT I DON'T KNOW. Q: WELL, YOU SAID YOU HAD NEVER SEEN THAT BLACK BAG BEFORE. HAVE YOU SEEN ANY OF HIS OTHER LUGGAGE BEFORE? A: NO. JUST THAT HE HAS -- YES, HE HAS LUGGAGE, BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN IT. Q: SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS NORMAL PRACTICE IS IN GOING TO THE AIRPORT WITH LUGGAGE, DO YOU? A: UH, NO. Q: DO YOU KNOW WHAT TYPE OF CLOTHING HE PACKED FOR THIS TRIP, IF ANY? A: I DON'T. Q: WHEN YOU PICKED UP THE GOLF BAG WITH THE CLUBS IN IT, DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD AT THE FRONT OF THE DRIVEWAY AT 11:00 O'CLOCK? A: NO. Q: DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD WALKING TO THE LIMOUSINE? A: NO. Q: DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD ANYWHERE AT 11:00 O'CLOCK THAT NIGHT? A: NO. Q: AND IT WASN'T UNTIL THE POLICE OFFICERS THE NEXT MORNING TOLD YOU TO BE CAREFUL WHERE YOU WALKED THAT YOUR ATTENTION WAS DIRECTED TOWARDS ANY BLOOD; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? A: CORRECT. Q: AND IT WAS DIRECTED BY THEM. YOU DIDN'T SEE THIS ON YOUR OWN, DID YOU? A: NO. Q: YOU REMEMBER WHEN WE TALKED FOR THE FIRST TIME? A: YES. Q: AND THAT WAS ON THE 14TH OF JUNE? A: YES. Q: AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME, DO YOU RECALL ME ASKING YOU WHAT YOUR RECOLLECTION WAS OF YOUR CONVERSATION WITH O.J. AT 9:00 OR 10:00 O'CLOCK THAT NIGHT ON MONDAY? A: ON MONDAY THE -- MONDAY THE 13TH? Q: YES, THE NIGHT BEFORE. A: UMM, COULD YOU SHOW ME PART OF IT? Q: YES. ABSOLUTELY. MR. SHAPIRO: DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THIS, COUNSEL, THE INTERVIEW I GAVE TO YOU? MS. CLARK: I'VE NEVER SEEN IT BEFORE. MR. SHAPIRO: THIS IS THE INTERVIEW THAT I TURNED OVER TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY DURING THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. THIS IS A TRANSCRIPTION OF IT. MS. CLARK: THE PAGE COUNSEL HAS SHOWN TO ME, I'VE NEVER SEEN IT. MR. SHAPIRO: WELL, TAKE YOUR TIME TO READ IT. MS. CLARK: I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE REST OF IT. (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: HOW MANY PAGES IS THAT, MR. SHAPIRO? MR. SHAPIRO: I THINK THE INTERVIEW -- THE TRANSCRIPTION IS -- WE HAVE ADDITIONAL COPIES HERE. THE COURT: NO. I'M JUST CURIOUS HOW MANY PAGES THIS IS. MR. SHAPIRO: LET ME JUST TELL YOU WHAT IT IS RATHER THAN ESTIMATE. THE TRANSCRIPT IS 20 PAGES. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I'M GOING TO GIVE MISS CLARK THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ THROUGH THIS. I THINK YOU WILL PROBABLY BE MORE COMFORTABLE IF YOU WERE SITTING BACK IN THE JURY ROOM SO YOU CAN READ OR WHATEVER. SO WE'LL TAKE A BRIEF RECESS, PROBABLY ABOUT 10 OR 15 MINUTES. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU, AND I'LL CALL YOU BACK AS SOON AS WE'RE READY TO GO. MR. KAELIN, YOU MAY STEP DOWN. PLEASE DON'T LEAVE THE COURTROOM. MR. KAELIN, YOU CAN STEP DOWN. ALL RIGHT. LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU'RE READY. (RECESS.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, ARE YOU PREPARED TO PROCEED OR DO YOU NEED THAT COPY TO PROCEED? MS. CLARK: I NEED THAT COPY, YOUR HONOR. YESTERDAY WHEN I WAS EXAMINING THE WITNESS, WE REFERRED TO A TRANSCRIPT THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PREPARED THAT I HAD GIVEN TO MR. KAELIN TO EXAMINE. THE TRANSCRIPT THAT MR. SHAPIRO WAS USING TODAY IS ONE THAT HIS OFFICE OBVIOUSLY PREPARED. I HAVE FOUND SEVERAL DISCREPANCIES. NONE OF THEM ARE MAJOR ENOUGH FOR ME TO SAY DON'T USE THIS TRANSCRIPT. NEVERTHELESS, I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO TRACK ALL THE INCONSISTENCIES ON ANY PARTICULAR GIVEN PASSAGE. I'M GOING TO NEED AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE AND COMPARE IT TO MY TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE MR. SHAPIRO HAS NEVER SHOWED US THAT COPY. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU HAVE -- MS. CLARK: OURS IS CERTIFIED. HIS IS NOT. THE COURT: WAS THIS A TAPE-RECORDED STATEMENT? MR. SHAPIRO: YES, IT IS, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU HAVE THE TAPE RECORDING? MR. SHAPIRO: WE ALSO HAVE IT. SO THERE SHOULD BE NO DISCREPANCY. MS. CLARK: WELL, NO. THE PROBLEM IS THAT OF COURSE, WE CANNOT COMPARE A TRANSCRIPT WE DON'T HAVE TO THE TAPE ITSELF OR THE TRANSCRIPT THAT WE HAVE. MR. SHAPIRO POPS THAT OUT TODAY, YOU KNOW, AT THE LAST MINUTE WHILE HE'S EXAMINING THE WITNESS AND ACCORDING TO THE WITNESS, HE HASN'T SEEN IT. SO WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S ACCURATE AND IT'S NOT CERTIFIED. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, YOU'VE GOT A COPY OF IT. MS. CLARK: NO. I WILL. THE COURT: OR WILL HAVE SHORTLY. ALL RIGHT. AND IF THERE IS ANY DISCREPANCY, IF WE HAVE THE TAPE, THEN WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET ACTUALLY WHAT WAS SAID. MS. CLARK: YES, THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. ALL I'M ARGUING TO THE COURT IS, I WILL BE ASKING FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE AND COMPARE MINE TO HIS WHEN HE REFERS TO THAT TRANSCRIPT. THE COURT: SURE. MS. CLARK: THANK YOU. AND WITH RESPECT TO THE NOTES, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: YES. WITH RESPECT TO THE NOTES, I HAVE REVIEWED THEM AND FOUND THEM NOT TO BE DISCOVERABLE. MS. CLARK: ON THE GROUNDS THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE IMPEACHING? THE COURT: ON THE GROUNDS THAT THEY ARE NOT IMPEACHMENT AND ALSO ON THE GROUNDS THAT THEY ARE NOT COVERED IN 1054.3. IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S NOT A STATEMENT BY A WITNESS CALLED BY THE DEFENSE. MS. CLARK: NO. BUT IT'S A STATEMENT TAKEN FROM A PROSECUTION WITNESS WHO AT THIS POINT IS BEING CROSS-EXAMINED. THE COURT: CORRECT. BUT HAS NOT BEEN CROSS-EXAMINED WITH REGARDS TO THIS YET. MS. CLARK: WITH REGARD TO THOSE SPECIFIC NOTES? THE COURT: THAT'S CORRECT. MS. CLARK: THE SUBJECT MATTER CERTAINLY THE NOTES BEING -- THE COURT: THAT'S CORRECT. MS. CLARK: AND SO IT'S THE COURT'S RULING THAT BECAUSE THE NOTES SPECIFICALLY HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, THEY'RE NOT DISCOVERABLE? THE COURT: OR UNDER DIRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. MR. GALL, WOULD YOU GIVE ONE COPY TO MR. SHAPIRO AND ONE COPY TO MISS CLARK, OR DO YOU HAVE YOUR OWN COPIES? MR. SHAPIRO: YES, I DO. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN BOTH COPIES ARE FOR MR. DARDEN AND MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: PEOPLE'S OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR THE NOTES. THE COURT: NOTED. MS. CLARK: THANK YOU. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'LL MAKE THE COURT'S COPY OF THESE NOTES COURT'S NEXT EXHIBIT IN ORDER. (COURT'S 9 FOR ID = NOTES) MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE. WHAT'S YOUR TIME ESTIMATE AT THIS POINT, MR. SHAPIRO? MR. SHAPIRO: SAME AS IT WAS WHEN I STARTED. 10 MINUTES. THE COURT: OKAY. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:) THE COURT: BE SEATED, PLEASE. THANK YOU. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT WE'VE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. MR. KAELIN IS AGAIN PRESENT. MR. SHAPIRO, YOU MAY CONTINUE. MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU. MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: YOU MAY. MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: MR. KAELIN, WOULD YOU BE KIND ENOUGH TO REVIEW THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 7 REGARDING MONDAY NIGHT BETWEEN 9:00 AND 10:00, PLEASE. A: JUST THAT ONE LINE? Q: THE QUESTION AND THE ANSWER AND THEN -- WELL, TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE AND TO THE BEGINNING OF THE NEXT PAGE. A: JUST THE BEGINNING. Q: DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR MEMORY AS TO WHAT WE SPOKE ABOUT ON THE 14TH? A: YES. Q: AND DID YOU HAVE A CLEAR IMPRESSION AS TO WHAT YOUR CONVERSATIONS WERE THE NIGHT BEFORE ON THE 13TH WITH O.J. SIMPSON WHEN YOU AND I DISCUSSED IT ON THE 14TH? A: YES. Q: AND AFTER REFRESHING -- A: I'M SORRY. THE -- YOU ASKED ME TWO QUESTIONS. THE FIRST ONE WAS THE TUESDAY AND THEN THE MONDAY, CORRECT? IF YOU COULD JUST REPEAT THAT BECAUSE I WAS LOOKING AT -- Q: SO YOU'RE NOT CONFUSED, WE TALKED ON TUESDAY. A: YES. Q: AND MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, WHEN WE TALKED ON TUESDAY, AFTER REVIEWING A TRANSCRIPT OF THAT CONVERSATION, DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR MEMORY AS TO WHAT YOU REMEMBER TAKING PLACE ON MONDAY? A: YES. Q: AND WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER TAKING PLACE REGARDING ANY CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH O.J. SIMPSON ON MONDAY BETWEEN 9:00 AND 10:00 O'CLOCK? A: THAT I SAID THIS. Q: OKAY. WHAT DID YOU SAY? A: READ IT? Q: IF YOU DON'T REMEMBER IT, YOU CAN READ IT. A: WELL, IT WAS, UH, WITH THE T.V. ON AND THERE WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE AND, UH, AND I PUT AN ARM AROUND HIM AND EVERYBODY WAS TALKING KIND OF TO THE T.V. AND IT WAS -- IT WAS KIND OF LIKE EVERYBODY IN SHOCK. Q: DID HE SAY HE COULDN'T BELIEVE IT? A: I -- I -- I DON'T REMEMBER. Q: WOULD YOU REFRESH YOUR MEMORY AGAIN. TAKE YOUR TIME. TAKE YOUR TIME. A: AND HE SAID HE COULDN'T BELIEVE IT. Q: AND WHAT DID YOU SAY? A: AND I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT. Q: AND WAS EVERYBODY IN SHOCK AT THAT TIME? A: YES. THE T.V. WAS ON AND A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE. Q: WAS EVERYBODY IN SHOCK AT THAT TIME? A: I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN EXACTLY BY SHOCK. Q: I WOULD LIKE TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY BY WHAT YOU -- WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT THAT TUESDAY. A: YEAH, SHOCK IS THE WORD. SO THEY'RE ALL -- IT WAS A VERY BIG THING, YES. Q: THAT TUESDAY, WAS YOUR MEMORY OF THE NIGHT BEFORE THAT EVERYBODY AT O.J.'S HOUSE WAS IN SHOCK? A: YES. Q: AND WAS YOUR MEMORY THAT IT WAS A PRETTY QUIET TIME THERE? A: YES. Q: AND NOT MANY WORDS WERE SPOKEN? A: RIGHT. I WASN'T SAYING MUCH AT ALL. Q: NOR WAS ANYBODY ELSE? A: WELL, I -- YEAH. AT THE TIME I WAS THERE, NOT -- NOT MANY PEOPLE WERE SPEAKING. BUT I LEFT TO -- Q: WELL, YOU CAN ONLY TELL US ABOUT WHEN YOU WERE THERE. A: YES. THERE -- THERE WAS SOME -- THERE WAS SOME TALKING LIKE TO THE T.V. SET, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THERE WAS COMMENTS GOING ON, I REMEMBER THAT, BUT -- Q: WERE YOU ALONE PRIVATELY WITH O.J. WHEN YOU HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS ON THAT MONDAY NIGHT? A: NO. THERE WAS ALWAYS PEOPLE AROUND. Q: WHAT ABOUT TUESDAY? DID YOU TALK TO HIM ON TUESDAY? A: NO. Q: YOU DIDN'T SEE HIM AT ALL ON TUESDAY, DID YOU? A: NO, I DID NOT. Q: AND YOU DIDN'T TALK TO HIM? A: NO. Q: DID YOU OBSERVE -- DID YOU LEARN THAT -- ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDERS, YOU TOLD US THAT O.J. WAS TIRED AND NOT LOOKING FORWARD TO FLYING ALREADY. DID YOU ALSO EXPRESS KNOWLEDGE THAT HE HAD SAID HIS FEET WERE STIFF? A: HE MIGHT HAVE HAD HIS FEET ON THE TABLE IN THE NOOK AREA. I COULD HAVE SAID THAT. Q: WOULD IT REFRESH YOUR MEMORY TO LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT -- A: YES. Q: -- ON PAGE 8 RIGHT AT THE MIDDLE OF THE PAGE? DO YOU SEE WHERE I'M REFERRING? LET ME HELP YOU OUT. A: NEXT TO THE "KK," IT SAYS, "O.J.'S MOOD"? Q: YES. A: OKAY. "TIRED, NOT LOOK --" THE COURT: JUST READ IT TO YOURSELF, SEE IF THAT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION. THE WITNESS: UH-HUH. THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DO YOU RECALL WHAT YOU TOLD ME ON TUESDAY ABOUT O.J.'S MOOD AND WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS STIFF? A: YES. Q: WHAT DID YOU SAY? MS. CLARK: WELL, I OBJECT AND ASK THE WITNESS NOT TO READ, JUST TO REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE WITNESS: OH, I WASN'T GOING TO. YES. THAT WAS A REFERENCE FROM ME TO TAKE A JACUZZI BECAUSE I SAID, YEAH, I KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE STIFF. SO -- YES. HIS FEET WERE SORE. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND STIFF? A: AND STIFF. Q: DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH ME ON THAT TUESDAY REGARDING THE NOISE YOU HEARD OUTSIDE? A: ON THE INTERVIEW? Q: YES. A: YES. WE TALKED ABOUT IT. Q: AND DO YOU RECALL SAYING THAT YOU TOLD THE DETECTIVES IT'S PROBABLY NOTHING? A: UH, THAT IT WAS PROBABLY NOTHING, YES. Q: AND DO YOU RECALL TELLING ME IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION AFTER YOU HEARD THAT NOISE HOW MUCH TIME ELAPSED BETWEEN THE TIME THAT YOU HEARD THE NOISE AND YOU NEXT SAW O.J. SIMPSON? A: UMM, YES. Q: AND YOUR ANSWER WAS THREE TO FIVE MINUTES LATER? A: YEAH. IN -- ON THAT -- CAN I SAY SOMETHING? Q: IS THAT YOUR ANSWER; THREE TO FIVE MINUTES LATER? MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THE WITNESS WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN HIS ANSWER. MR. SHAPIRO: I'M GOING TO LET HIM EXPLAIN. I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF THAT'S HIS ANSWER FIRST. THE COURT: MR. KAELIN. THE WITNESS: YES. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO OFFER A FURTHER EXPLANATION? A: YES. Q: WHAT IS THAT? A: ON -- ON THAT WAS, THREE, FIVE MINUTES WAS MY PART OF THE -- ON THE REST THAT I FINISHED -- THAT'S WHEN I WAS TALKING TO -- TO RACHEL AND THAT'S WHAT I -- I -- I THOUGHT AT THE TIME WAS THE QUESTIONING BECAUSE ON THE -- WHERE IT SAYS THAT IT WAS ME SAYING UH, SO I HUNG UP THE PHONE WITH RACHEL. IT WAS ON THAT -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT PAGE. Q: WOULD YOU LOOK AT PAGE 18. IT'S ON PAGE 18. MY QUESTION TO YOU WAS: "HOW MUCH TIME ELAPSED BETWEEN HEARING THE NOISE AND SEEING O.J.," REFERRING TO O.J. SIMPSON. A: RIGHT. Q: DO YOU SEE WHERE THAT IS? A: UH-HUH. YES, I DO. Q: AND DO YOU SEE WHAT YOUR ANSWER IS? A: YEAH. IT'S -- Q: DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR MEMORY AS TO WHAT YOU TOLD ME ON TUESDAY? A: THE -- THE -- THAT'S PART OF IT. Q: OKAY. WHAT -- WHAT -- WHAT DID -- WHAT DID -- WHAT DID YOU SAY ON TUESDAY? THAT'S MY QUESTION. A: THAT I WAS -- MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT'S ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: IT -- IT SAYS ABOUT THREE TO FIVE MINUTES. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND WHAT ELSE DOES IT SAY? A: BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN I RAN OUT AND SAW THE LIMO, AND I TOLD HER IMMEDIATELY THAT I -- I TOLD HER I GOT TO CHECK THIS OUT, CHECK OUT THIS NOISE. I TALKED TO HER FOR MAYBE ANOTHER MINUTE OR SO CONVINCING MYSELF THAT I WAS GOING TO GO OUT THERE. Q: DID YOU NOTICE AT ANY TIME THAT EVENING WHETHER OR NOT THE BRONCO HAD BEEN MOVED? A: NO. MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, THAT HE EVER SAW THE BRONCO THAT NIGHT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: NOW, REGARDING THE BLOOD THAT WAS POINTED OUT TO YOU BY THE POLICE OFFICERS, DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT BLOOD WAS THERE ON SATURDAY? A: NO. Q: AT 11:00 O'CLOCK, WHEN YOU LAST SAW O.J. SIMPSON, DID YOU SEE ANY INJURY TO HIS INDEX FINGER ON HIS LEFT HAND? A: NO. Q: DID YOU SEE ANY BLEEDING ON HIS INDEX FINGER TO HIS LAST -- LEFT HAND? A: NO. Q: DID YOU SEE ANY BANDAGE ON HIS INDEX FINGER TO HIS LEFT HAND? A: NO. THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. COUNSEL WISH TO -- (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: I'M BEING CORRECTED. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE MIDDLE FINGER INSTEAD OF THE INDEX FINGER. A: STILL NO. Q: OKAY. SO FOR THE SAME QUESTIONS, YOU WOULD SAY -- GIVE THE SAME ANSWERS FOR THE MIDDLE FINGER ON THE LEFT HAND. THE WITNESS: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) THE COURT: IS THAT YES? THE WITNESS: YES. THE COURT: THANK YOU. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: HAVE YOU SEEN ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF, PICTURES DEPICTING MR. SIMPSON'S LEFT HAND ON THAT NIGHT OR THE NEXT DAY? A: DID I SEE -- Q: HAVE YOU SEEN ANY PHOTOGRAPHS? A: YES. Q: ANY PHOTOGRAPHS? DID YOU SEE HIS FINGER IN THAT CONDITION AT 11:00 O'CLOCK ON THE NIGHT THAT HE LEFT FOR CHICAGO? THE COURT: I THINK THAT QUESTION IS VAGUE BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT PHOTOGRAPH HE'S REFERRING TO. MR. SHAPIRO: MAY WE PUT THE PHOTOGRAPH UP ON THE ELMO, THE PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT, YOUR HONOR? MS. CLARK: WELL, IF HE HASN'T SEEN IT, YOUR HONOR, THERE'S NO FOUNDATION. MAY I TAKE THE WITNESS ON VOIR DIRE? THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MS. CLARK: THANK YOU. VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK: Q: MR. KAELIN, WHO SHOWED YOU A PICTURE OF THE DEFENDANT'S LEFT HAND? A: UH, NO ONE SHOWED ME. IT WAS -- I WAS -- AN INTERVIEW IN YOUR OFFICE. Q: AND HOW DID YOU HAPPEN TO SEE A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE DEFENDANT'S LEFT HAND IN MY OFFICE? A: IT WAS, UH, ON THE TABLE. Q: ON WHAT TABLE? A: ON YOUR DESK. Q: AND HOW DID YOU HAPPEN TO LOOK OVER ON MY DESK AND SEE IT? A: I WAS SITTING THERE AND WAITING -- WE WERE GOING TO TALK AND IT WAS RIGHT THERE. Q: WAS I THERE? A: YES. Q: AND WHAT -- WHAT WAS THE -- WERE WE DISCUSSING THE PHOTOGRAPH? A: NO. Q: WAS I TALKING TO SOMEONE ELSE ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPH? A: NO. Q: YOU JUST HAPPENED TO GLANCE AT IT? A: YES. Q: AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT YOU WERE ABLE TO SEE? A: I -- I COULD JUST SEE IT WAS A PICTURE OF A FINGER. Q: OKAY. AND HOW CLOSE WERE YOU TO THAT PHOTOGRAPH? A: PROBABLY WHERE THIS PAPER IS (INDICATING). MS. CLARK: MAY THE RECORD -- THE COURT: APPROXIMATELY 18 INCHES. Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. AND HOW MUCH DETAIL WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE OF THAT PHOTOGRAPH? CAN YOU DESCRIBE IT NOW FOR US? A: UH, NOT MUCH DETAIL. I JUST KNEW IT WAS A FINGER, PICTURE OF A FINGER. Q: AND SO IF YOU WERE TO BE SHOWN SEVERAL PICTURES OF A MAN'S FINGER, WOULD YOU KNOW WHICH ONE IT WAS? COULD YOU PICK IT OUT? A: SAY THE QUESTION AGAIN? Q: IF YOU WERE TO BE SHOWN SEVERAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF A MAN'S MIDDLE FINGER WITH A CUT ON IT, COULD YOU PICK WHICH ONE IT WAS THAT YOU SAW ON MY DESK? A: NO. Q: TO THIS DAY, DO YOU HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF EXACTLY HOW THAT FINGER LOOKED? A: NO. Q: ON THAT PHOTOGRAPH? A: NO. THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO. MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: YES. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. THERE'S NO FOUNDATION. THIS IS LEADING AND IT'S -- BEYOND LEADING ACTUALLY. THE COURT: IT'S CROSS. MS. CLARK: IT'S CROSS, BUT NO FOUNDATION, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED. CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. SHAPIRO: Q: MAY I SHOW YOU TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, SIR? MR. SHAPIRO: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR? Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: THEY'VE BEEN MARKED PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT 123 AND PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT 123-A. ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS. ON JUNE 12TH AT 11:00 O'CLOCK, DID YOU SEE O.J.'S FINGER IN THAT CONDITION? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: NO. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU OBSERVE WHETHER OR NOT -- DID YOU OBSERVE HIM AS HE ENTERED THE LIMOUSINE? A: NO. Q: DID YOU OBSERVE HIM JUST PRIOR TO ENTERING THE LIMOUSINE? A: I SAW HIM. Q: WAS HE SWEATING? A: I WOULDN'T -- COULDN'T TELL. Q: YOU PREVIOUSLY ANSWERED TO THAT QUESTION HE WAS NOT? A: WAS THAT A QUESTION? I AM SORRY. Q: YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY ON PAGE 93, LINE 6, 7 AND 8 -- RECALL MISS CLARK ASKING YOU A QUESTION, "WHEN YOU SAW HIM LATER THAT NIGHT AND HE WAS GETTING INTO THE LIMO, HE WAS GETTING READY TO GO, DID HE SEEM HOT OR SWEATY"? DO YOU RECALL HER ASKING YOU THAT QUESTION? A: UMM, YES. SORT OF. Q: AND LET ME SHOW YOU THAT QUESTION AND ANSWER ON -- FROM YOUR GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPT. DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR MEMORY -- A: YES. Q: -- AS TO WHAT YOUR ANSWER WAS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT AT THE TIME O.J. SIMPSON GOT INTO THE LIMOUSINE, WAS HE HOT OR SWEATY? WHAT WAS YOUR ANSWER? A: I SAID NO. Q: AND DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR MEMORY AS TO WHAT HIS CONDITION WAS? MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. I ASK THE WITNESS BE PERMITTED TO COMPLETE THE PASSAGE. TAKE THAT 356. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HOLD ON. FINISH YOUR QUESTION AND ANSWER, MR. SHAPIRO. Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR MEMORY AS TO WHAT HIS CONDITION WAS, WHETHER HE WAS HOT OR SWEATY ON THAT EVENING GETTING INTO THE LIMOUSINE? A: YES. Q: IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT PAGE THAT WOULD HELP YOU IN THAT AREA? A: CAN I READ IT? Q: YEAH. A: OKAY. MR. SHAPIRO: I HAVE NO OBJECTION IF MISS CLARK WANTS HIM TO READ THE WHOLE PAGE. IS THAT -- IF THAT'S HER DESIRE, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: MISS CLARK? MS. CLARK: SURE. READ EVERYTHING HE WANTS. I JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO READ EVERYTHING PERTAINING TO THAT -- MR. SHAPIRO: GO AHEAD. READ THE WHOLE PAGE TO THE JURY. THE WITNESS: OKAY. IT SAYS: "QUESTION: WHEN YOU SAW HIM LATER THAT NIGHT AND HE WAS GETTING INTO THE LIMO, HE WAS GETTING READY TO GO, DID HE SEEM SWEATY OR HOT? "ANSWER: NO. "QUESTION: YOU DON'T RECALL THAT? "ANSWER: I DON'T RECALL THAT." THE COURT: SLOW DOWN. THE WITNESS: OH. NEXT QUESTION WAS: "WERE YOU SWEATY OR HOT AT THAT TIME? "ANSWER: NO. "QUESTION: AT ANY TIME THAT NIGHT? "ANSWER: NO." MR. SHAPIRO: OKAY. I THINK THAT COMPLETES THE AREA ON THE EXAMINATION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOTHING FURTHER. THE COURT: MS. CLARK. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK: Q: WHY DON'T YOU JUST GO AHEAD AND READ A COUPLE MORE LINES THERE, MR. KAELIN. DID I ASK YOU THEN -- READ ALONG WITH ME. DID I ASK YOU THEN: "DID YOU -- AT THE POINT WHEN MR. SIMPSON WAS GETTING READY TO LEAVE FOR THE AIRPORT, DID YOU GET A CLOSE LOOK OF HIM IN THE LIGHT? "ANSWER: NO." A: NO. Q: YOUR ANSWER WAS NO; IS THAT CORRECT? A: NO. YES, THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND THEN YOU SAID: "I MEAN IT WAS DARK OUTSIDE AND THE HOUSE WASN'T -- THE LIGHTS WERE PROBABLY NOT -- IT WASN'T LIT UP, THE HOUSE." DO YOU RECALL GIVING THAT ANSWER? A: YES. Q: IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: "QUESTION: AND YOU HAD CONTACT WITH HIM -- WOULD YOU CALL IT BRIEF OR WOULD YOU CALL IT LENGTHY AT THAT POINT?" AND YOUR ANSWER: "IT WAS RUSHED, YEAH." DO YOU RECALL GIVING THAT ANSWER? A: YES. Q: THEN I ASKED YOU: "DID YOU SPEND A LOT OF TIME TRYING TO OBSERVE HIM AT THAT POINT?" AND YOUR ANSWER: "NO." YOU RECALL THAT BEING YOUR ANSWER? A: YES. Q: AND IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND DID YOU SPEND -- DID YOU MAKE ANY EFFORT TO OBSERVE THE DEFENDANT'S HANDS AS HE WAS GETTING READY TO LEAVE FOR THE AIRPORT IN THE LIMOUSINE? A: NO. Q: HOW MUCH TIME DID YOU SPEND WITH THE DEFENDANT FROM THE MOMENT YOU SAW HIM BY THE LIMOUSINE UNTIL HE LEFT FOR THE AIRPORT? A: BRIEF. FROM THE TIME THAT HE -- SAY THE QUESTION AGAIN? Q: FROM THE TIME YOU SAW HIM STANDING NEAR THE LIMOUSINE UNTIL THE TIME HE LEFT FOR THE AIRPORT, HOW MUCH TIME ELAPSED BETWEEN THOSE TWO POINTS? A: TOTAL, ABOUT FIVE MINUTES. Q: AND DURING THAT FIVE MINUTES, WHAT WAS ON YOUR MIND, FOREMOST ON YOUR MIND? A: THE NOISE THAT I HAD HEARD. Q: WERE YOU MAKING ANY EFFORT TO CAREFULLY OBSERVE THE DEFENDANT'S HANDS? A: NO. Q: OR HIS FACE? A: NO. Q: OR HIS BODY? A: NO. Q: WERE YOU LOOKING AND WATCHING HIM? A: NO. Q: DO YOU REMEMBER SEEING THE BRONCO AT ANY TIME ON JUNE THE 12TH? A: NO. Q: WAS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE SPENT -- MADE ANY EFFORT TO OBSERVE? A: NO. Q: WAS THE BRONCO PRETTY MUCH A FIXTURE AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION? A: YES. Q: SOMETHING YOU SAW EVERY DAY? A: YES. Q: IF IT HAD BEEN PARKED -- I THINK YOU INDICATED EARLIER THAT IT WAS NORMALLY PARKED ON ASHFORD? A: YES. Q: AND HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? A: BECAUSE I WOULD ALWAYS PARK MY CAR ON ASHFORD AND I WOULD ALWAYS PARK IT BY THE BRONCO. SO NORMALLY BY CAR WOULD BE ON ASHFORD BY THE BRONCO. Q: AND DID YOU GO TO YOUR -- GOING TO YOUR CAR, WAS THAT A DAILY OCCURRENCE FOR YOU WHEN YOU LIVED ON ROCKINGHAM? A: YES. Q: SO IT WOULD BE A DAILY OCCURRENCE THAT YOU COULD OBSERVE THE BRONCO PARKED ON ASHFORD AS WELL? A: IF IT WAS THERE, YES. Q: AND SO YOU -- IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR, THAT YOU NORMALLY OBSERVED THE BRONCO PARKED ON ASHFORD? A: YES. Q: CAN YOU TELL US WHEN YOU SAW IT PARKED SOMEWHERE ELSE AND WHERE? A: IT COULD BE IN THE DRIVEWAY AND, UH -- Q: WHEN WOULD IT BE IN THE DRIVEWAY? MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, HAS HE FINISHED HIS ANSWER? THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW. HAVE YOU FINISHED YOUR ANSWER? THE WITNESS: OH, UH, GIGI SOMETIMES, IF SHE WENT TO THE MARKET, IT WOULD BE IN THE DRIVEWAY, SHE WOULD BE READY TO TAKE IT. SO IT WAS IN THE DRIVEWAY ONCE AND I HAD TO HELP HER MOVE IT BECAUSE SHE WASN'T -- SHE COULDN'T DO IT AND -- BUT MOST OF THE TIME, IT WOULD BE ON ASHFORD. Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. SO YOU REMEMBER ONCE IT WAS IN THE DRIVEWAY WHEN GIGI WAS -- HAD TAKEN IT TO THE STORE? A: YEAH. I MEAN, IT WAS MORE THAN ONCE IN THE DRIVEWAY. A FEW TIMES, BUT THE PERCENTAGE WISE, MOSTLY ON ASHFORD. Q: AND WHAT PERCENTAGE IS THAT? A: 85 TO 90 PERCENT USUALLY ON ASHFORD. Q: OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION OF WHEN YOU EVER SAW IT PARKED ON ROCKINGHAM OTHER THAN JUNE THE 13TH? A: I MEAN, I DON'T REMEMBER IT NOW. IT COULD HAVE BEEN, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER ON ROCKINGHAM. Q: NOW, YOU SPENT ABOUT A WEEK I THINK IT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU INDICATED YOU SPENT A WEEK WITH NICOLE IN ASPEN? A: YES. Q: AND THEN WAS IT THE FOLLOWING MONTH THAT YOU MET HER AT THE PARTY AT HER HOUSE ON GRETNA GREEN? A: YES. Q: I THINK YOU INDICATED TO MR. SHAPIRO ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS NEVER UPSET ABOUT NICOLE DATING OTHER MEN. DO YOU RECALL SAYING THAT? A: YES. Q: IS THAT WHAT YOU BELIEVE? IS THAT THE TRUTH, MR. KAELIN? A: HE NEVER LET ON THAT HE WAS UPSET ABOUT HER DATING. Q: OCTOBER 25TH, 1993, DO YOU RECALL COMING HOME TO THE GRETNA GREEN LOCATION AND SEEING THE DEFENDANT OUTSIDE THE HOUSE? A: YES. Q: AND DID YOU SEE HIS CAR PARKED OUT FRONT? A: YES. Q: WHICH CAR WAS THAT? A: THE BRONCO. Q: THE WHITE BRONCO? A: THE WHITE BRONCO. Q: AND WHERE WAS IT PARKED? A: IT WAS IN FRONT OF THE GRETNA GREEN DRIVEWAY AND THE FLASHERS WERE ON. Q: WAS IT PARKED IN THE STREET? A: IT WAS IN THE STREET. Q: BLOCKING THE DRIVEWAY? A: YES. PART OF THE DRIVEWAY, YES. Q: WAS IT ALMOST -- WAS IT OUT IN THE STREET AS OPPOSED TO BEING NEXT TO THE CURB? A: YES. Q: SO THE BRONCO WAS PARKED OUT IN THE STREET BLOCKING THE DRIVEWAY WITH THE FLASHERS GOING WHEN YOU GOT THERE; IS THAT RIGHT? A: YES. Q: AND WHEN YOU GOT TO THE HOUSE, WHAT COULD YOU HEAR? A: UH, THERE WAS YELLING. Q: WHO WAS YELLING? A: O.J. Q: YELLING LOUD? A: YES. Q: AND WHO WAS HE YELLING AT? A: NICOLE. Q: AND WHERE WAS HE? A: UH, WELL, THERE WAS SOME MOVEMENT, BUT IT WAS AT -- THE BACK OF THE FRENCH DOORS. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE A PICTURE, BUT IT'S -- THE GUEST HOUSE AT GRETNA GREEN WAS BEHIND AND 15 FEET WOULD BE THE FRENCH DOORS TO THE DEN AREA. Q: UH-HUH. A: AND HE WAS YELLING FROM THERE. Q: SO HE WAS YELLING BEHIND THE HOUSE, BEHIND THE FRENCH DOORS? A: WELL, THE DOORS WERE OPEN. SO, YEAH. IT WAS -- YEAH. STEP IN AND THEN OUT. Q: THOSE DOORS WERE NOT JUST OPEN, WERE THEY, MR. KAELIN? THEY WERE BROKEN OPEN, WEREN'T THEY? A: YES. Q: THE LOCK WAS BROKEN, WASN'T IT? A: YES. Q: AND WHAT WAS THE DEFENDANT YELLING ABOUT? A: UH, THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT ABOUT PICTURES THAT WERE -- THAT WAS UP IN NICOLE'S HOUSE. Q: PICTURE OF A FORMER -- SOMEONE SHE USED TO DATE, ISN'T IT? A: SOMEONE SHE DATED. Q: AND THE DEFENDANT WAS VERY UPSET ABOUT SEEING THAT PICTURE IN HER PHOTO BOOK, WASN'T HE? MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION. Q: BY MS. CLARK: WAS THE DEFENDANT ANGRY AND UPSET ABOUT SEEING THE PHOTOGRAPH OF SOMEONE SHE HAD BEEN DATING IN THAT BOOK? MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. SHE'S ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION. Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT WAS THE DEFENDANT UPSET ABOUT WITH REGARD TO THAT PHOTOGRAPH, MR. KAELIN? MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION. MS. CLARK: DIDN'T THE WITNESS JUST TESTIFY -- THE COURT: HOW ABOUT WE START FROM THE BASIC, WHAT WAS HE UPSET ABOUT. Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU INDICATED, SIR, THAT THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT ABOUT PICTURES, DIDN'T YOU? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THAT WAS A PICTURE OF WHO? A: I -- I DON'T KNOW WHO THE PICTURE WAS, WHICH PERSON IT WAS EXACTLY. Q: IN GENERAL, WHO WAS IT? WHAT WAS IT? A: A GUY. MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT KIND OF GUY? MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. VAGUE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: UMM, WHAT KIND OF GUY? CAN YOU -- Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT DID THE DEFENDANT TELL YOU? A: OH, IT WAS A BOYFRIEND, FORMER BOYFRIEND. Q: OF NICOLE'S? A: YES. Q: AND HE -- WHY WAS HE UPSET? WHY DID HE TELL YOU HE WAS UPSET ABOUT SEEING THAT PHOTOGRAPH IN HER BOOK? A: BECAUSE I THOUGHT AT THAT TIME, THEY HAD A SEMI-COMMITMENT WHERE HIS PICTURES WERE DOWN OF GIRLS, THAT HER PICTURES SHOULD BE DOWN. Q: IS THAT WHAT HE TOLD YOU? A: THAT'S WHAT THE ARGUMENT WAS. Q: UH-HUH. AND HOW ANGRY WAS HE THAT DAY, MR. KAELIN? A: ANGRY. HE WAS YELLING. THEY -- THE POLICE CAME. Q: UH-HUH. WOULD YOU SAY HE WAS VERY ANGRY? A: ANGRY ENOUGH FOR THE POLICE TO COME, YES. CAME. MS. CLARK: ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: CERTAINLY. (BRIEF PAUSE.) Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND THEN IN CHRISTMAS OF 1993, YOU RECALL THAT THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT THAT NIGHT ALSO? A: YES. Q: AND I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT YOU WENT TO THE JENNER'S HOUSE FOR THAT PARTY WITH THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE AND THEIR CHILDREN; IS THAT CORRECT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND THEN YOU TESTIFIED SHORTLY AFTER ARRIVING THERE, NICOLE SAID, "IT'S TIME TO GO"? A: YES. Q: BEFORE SHE SAID THAT, SIR, DID YOU SEE A GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME OF JOSEPH PERULLI ENTER THE HOUSE? A: I THINK HE WAS ALREADY IN THE HOUSE. Q: YES. BEFORE YOU LEFT. A: OH, YES, BEFORE WE LEFT. Q: AND WAS IT SHORTLY AFTER HE ENTERED THE HOUSE THAT NICOLE SAID, "IT'S TIME TO GO"? A: YES. Q: AND WHO IS JOSEPH PERULLI? A: UH, AN EX-BOYFRIEND. Q: OF NICOLE'S? A: OF NICOLE'S. Q: AND AFTER SHE SAID, "COME ON, LET'S GO," DID YOU ALL GO BACK IN THE CAR? A: YES. Q: AND ONCE YOU WERE ALL IN THE CAR, DID THE DEFENDANT SAY SOMETHING TO NICOLE? A: UMM, THERE WAS SOMETHING GOING ON, YES. THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT AND IT WAS I GUESS ABOUT HIM BEING THERE. Q: ABOUT JOSEPH PERULLI BEING THERE? A: JOSEPH -- JOSEPH -- I DON'T KNOW HIS LAST NAME, BUT THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN IT. I DIDN'T KNOW HIS LAST NAME. Q: THE DEFENDANT, WAS HE ANGRY WITH NICOLE? A: YES. Q: WAS HE ANGRY ABOUT JOSEPH PERULLI BEING THERE? A: YES. Q: AND WHAT DID HE SAY TO HER? A: I DON'T KNOW THE DIALOGUE, BUT IT WAS LIKE -- I -- THAT HE WAS AT THE PARTY AND HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN. Q: DID NICOLE INVITE HIM TO THE PARTY? A: I DON'T KNOW WHO INVITED HIM. Q: WHO GAVE THAT PARTY? A: UH, THE JENNER'S. Q: AND YOU INDICATED THAT THEY WERE ALSO TALKING ABOUT SOME FLOWERS THAT HAD BEEN DELIVERED FOR THE DEFENDANT? A: YEAH. I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT STORY ON THE FLOWERS, BUT AN EX-GIRLFRIEND I THOUGHT DELIVERED FLOWERS TO O.J. Q: WERE THOSE FLOWERS FROM PAULA? A: I THINK SO. Q: SO WAS THE DEFENDANT YELLING AT NICOLE ON THE WAY HOME FROM THE PARTY? MR. SHAPIRO: LEADING, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION. Q: BY MS. CLARK: HOW WAS THE DEFENDANT BEHAVING WITH -- WITH NICOLE ON THE WAY HOME FROM THE PARTY? A: WELL, THERE WAS -- THERE WAS YELLING AND IT WAS -- IT WAS OFF BECAUSE THERE WERE CHILDREN BACK AND WE WERE IN BACK AND WE WERE SAYING, "IT'S CHRISTMAS EVE." SO IT KIND OF REFRAINED FROM THE YELLING IN THE CAR. Q: SO THEY TRIED TO KEEP IT DOWN IN THE CAR? A: YEAH. IT SUBSIDED. Q: AND THEN THEY WENT -- WHEN THEY GOT HOME -- AND WHEN THEY GOT HOME, THEY HAD DINNER? A: WE ALL HAD DINNER. Q: AND HOW WAS MR. SIMPSON AND NICOLE BEHAVING DURING THAT DINNER? A: WELL, THE FIGHTING WASN'T GOING ON. IT WAS QUIET. IT WAS -- IT WAS CHRISTMAS EVE, VERY QUIET. Q: DO YOU RECALL MAKING A STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT THERE WAS NO TALKING TO THOSE TWO DURING THAT DINNER? A: THERE -- THERE WAS NO TALKING, RIGHT. IT WAS -- IT STARTED OUT THAT WAY AND I THINK AT THE VERY END, IT GOT BETTER, OF THE CHRISTMAS EVE WITH THE PRESENT OPENING. Q: FOR THE CHILDREN? A: YEAH. THERE WAS -- WE WERE SHOOTING A VIDEO AND -- Q: WAS THE DEFENDANT SPEAKING TO NICOLE DURING THE DINNER? A: UH, NO. Q: WAS NICOLE SPEAKING TO THE DEFENDANT DURING THE DINNER? A: NO. I DON'T BELIEVE SO. Q: NOW, DURING THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY THAT YOU GAVE IN THIS CASE -- COUNSEL, PAGE 52 -- DO YOU RECALL MY ASKING YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAD EVER OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE HAVE A FIGHT OR AN ARGUMENT? A: YES. Q: AND DO YOU RECALL WHAT YOUR ANSWER WAS TO THAT QUESTION? A: UMM, CAN YOU SHOW ME? Q: FIRST I WANT TO ASK YOU. A: I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT -- Q: DO YOU RECALL? A: -- THE -- THE -- THAT THERE WAS A 911 CALL. Q: DID YOU TELL ME AT THAT TIME THAT THERE WAS A 911 CALL? A: I BELIEVE SO. Q: I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU THE PAGE, MR. KAELIN, AND ASK YOU TO POINT OUT TO ME WHERE YOU SAID THERE WAS A 911 CALL. MR. SHAPIRO: WELL, YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO OBJECT. THIS IS NOT IMPEACHMENT. THE QUESTION WAS A COMPOUND QUESTION, ARGUE OR FIGHT. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. YOU WANT TO REPHRASE YOUR QUESTION? Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU RECALL MY ASKING YOU BEFORE THE GRAND JURY WHETHER YOU EVER SAW THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE ARGUE OR FIGHT? MR. SHAPIRO: SAME OBJECTION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I AM SORRY? THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE WITNESS: DID I SEE THEM FIGHT. Q: BY MS. CLARK: NO. I'M ASKING YOU, DO YOU RECALL BEING ASKED THE QUESTION THAT'S SHOWN IN THAT TRANSCRIPT? A: YES. YES. Q: AND DO YOU SEE YOUR ANSWER IN THAT TRANSCRIPT? A: I SAW THAT THERE WAS ONE, RIGHT. Q: THAT THERE WAS ONE. AND WHERE IN THAT TRANSCRIPT DO YOU SEE THAT YOU TOLD ME THAT THERE WAS A 911 CALL AS A RESULT OF THAT ARGUMENT OR FIGHT? MR. SHAPIRO: I'M GOING TO OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. IT WASN'T ASKED. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. MR. SHAPIRO: MAY WE ASK THE JURY TO DISREGARD -- THE COURT: NO. NO. THAT'S A SPEAKING OBJECTION, MR. SHAPIRO. PLEASE REFRAIN THEIR THAT. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THAT COMMENT. MISS CLARK. Q: BY MS. CLARK: MR. KAELIN, DID YOU NOT JUST TELL ME THAT YOU RECALL TESTIFYING TO THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A 911 CALL BEFORE THE GRAND JURY? MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU RECALL TESTIFYING TO THAT JUST NOW, SIR? A: THAT THERE'S A 911 CALL? Q: I AM GOING TO READ YOUR ANSWER BACK TO YOU. A: OKAY. THE COURT: HIS ANSWER WAS, "I BELIEVE SO." MS. CLARK: THANK YOU. Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU RECALL -- NOW, DID YOU TELL ME IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION I'M GOING TO POSE TO YOU BEFORE THE GRAND JURY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE EVER SEEN DEFENDANT AND NICOLE ARGUE OR FIGHT? A: YES. Q: DO YOU RECALL TELLING -- DID YOU TELL ME THAT THERE WAS A 911 CALL AS A RESULT OF THAT FIGHT? A: UMM, IT DOESN'T SAY IT ON THERE. Q: DO YOU -- DID YOU TELL ME -- AND DID I ASK YOU ALSO BEFORE THE GRAND JURY, "DO YOU RECALL THE NATURE OF THE ARGUMENT OR JUST THAT IT WAS ONE"? AND DO YOU RECALL WHAT YOUR ANSWER WAS? A: THAT THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT? Q: BY MS. CLARK: REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION WITH THIS ANSWER ON LINE 19? A: OH, THAT I SAID THAT IT WAS ONE? Q: THAT IT WAS ONE? A: RIGHT. AM I -- JUST SO I KNOW, THAT'S THE ONE I WAS TALKING ABOUT, WAS THE 911 I BELIEVE. Q: UH-HUH. BUT YOU DIDN'T SAY IT THERE? A: NO. Q: AND WHEN I ASKED YOU, "DO YOU RECALL THE NATURE OF THE ARGUMENT OR JUST THAT IT WAS ONE," YOU DID NOT TELL ME THAT YOU CAME HOME TO FIND THE DEFENDANT SCREAMING BEHIND THE HOUSE AND THAT THE POLICE WERE CALLED, DID YOU? MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. ARGUMENTATIVE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU GIVE ME ANY OF THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE POLICE BEING CALLED WHEN I ASKED YOU ABOUT THE NATURE OF THAT ARGUMENT? MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. TESTIMONY BEFORE A GRAND JURY, NOT TO MISS CLARK. THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE WITNESS: PLEASE ASK IT AGAIN. Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU TELL THE GRAND JURY WHEN I ASKED YOU THE QUESTION ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE ARGUMENT, SIR, DID YOU TELL THE GRAND JURY THAT YOU HAD HEARD THE DEFENDANT SCREAMING BEHIND THE HOUSE AND THAT THE POLICE WERE CALLED? MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. HE WAS NEVER ASKED THAT QUESTION. MS. CLARK: HE WAS ASKED. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I DON'T -- I DON'T REMEMBER THAT. Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU DON'T REMEMBER SAYING THAT? A: NO, BECAUSE I WOULD HAVE -- I WOULDN'T HAVE SAID THAT. Q: AND DO YOU SEE THAT IN THE TRANSCRIPT HERE? A: YES. Q: WHERE YOU SAID THAT THE POLICE WERE CALLED? A: NO. IT DOESN'T SAY THAT IN THERE. Q: AND WHEN I ASKED YOU ABOUT THE NATURE OF THAT ARGUMENT, DID YOU RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION BEFORE THE GRAND JURY THAT O.J. CALLED NICOLE A BITCH? A: THAT I SAID THAT? Q: RIGHT? A: NO. Q: DID YOU EVER SAY THAT? A: NO. Q: DID YOU RESPOND -- MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. Q: BY MS. CLARK: -- CONCERNING THE NATURE -- THE COURT: WAIT. LET ME SEE COUNSEL AT SIDEBAR WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WE'RE OVER AT SIDEBAR. MR. SHAPIRO. MR. SHAPIRO: YES. WE WOULD ASK FOR AN OFFER OF PROOF. AND IF THERE IS NO OFFER OF PROOF, IN LIGHT OF THE PRIOR CONDUCT THIS MORNING, WE WOULD ASK FOR SUBSTANTIAL SANCTIONS. THE COURT: MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: WHAT? I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. THE COURT: OFFER OF PROOF AS TO THIS STATEMENT THAT HE CALLED HER A BITCH. MS. CLARK: I'LL PLAY THE TAPE. COUNSEL'S HEARD THE TAPE. LET'S DO IT AGAIN. THE COURT: MR. SHAPIRO, ANY RESPONSE? MR. SHAPIRO: CAN I JUST HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: SURE. MR. SHAPIRO: IS MISS CLARK REFERRING TO THE TAPE-RECORDED INTERVIEW THAT I HAD? THE COURT: NO. I THINK SHE'S REFERRING TO THE TAPE-RECORDED 911 CALL. AM I CORRECT, MISS CLARK? MS. CLARK: THAT'S RIGHT. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, THE PROBLEM WITH THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING IS THAT THE QUESTIONS BEFORE THE GRAND JURY WERE INTENTIONALLY VAGUE. HE WAS NEVER ASKED THESE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. HE WAS ASKED VERY GENERAL QUESTIONS REGARDING A FIGHT OR AN ARGUMENT. AND I THINK IF THIS IS FOR IMPEACHING HER OWN WITNESS, SHE IS CERTAINLY ENTITLED TO DO THAT. MS. CLARK: THE QUESTION BEFORE THE GRAND JURY WAS OPEN ENDED BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW ANY OF THIS. I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT AND HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE PRIOR FIGHTS WERE I BELIEVE THERE WERE. SO I ASKED OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS TO ELICIT INFORMATION. IT SHOWS THIS WITNESS IS RELUCTANT AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO HIS BIAS AND MOTIVE AND HIS DEMEANOR AND CREDIBILITY WITH REGARD TO THESE INCIDENTS. THE COURT: LET ME ASK YOU THIS, MISS CLARK. WE'VE ALREADY HEARD THE 911 TAPE. WE HEARD THE YELLING AND COMMOTION GOING ON THERE. HE'S ALREADY TESTIFIED, "YEAH, I CAME HOME, AND HE'S YELLING AND SCREAMING. I RECALL THE BRONCO OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET," OBVIOUSLY A PRETTY CRAZY SITUATION. WE'VE PRETTY MUCH ESTABLISHED THAT, HAVEN'T WE? MS. CLARK: UH-HUH. YEAH. I MEAN I'M -- I DIDN'T ASK THE COURT TO PLAY THE TAPE. COUNSEL ASKED FOR AN OFFER OF PROOF AND I'M JUST -- WHAT I'M DEMONSTRATING IS THIS WITNESS' DEMEANOR, HIS CREDIBILITY AND HIS BIAS AND HIS FAILURE TO BE FORTHCOMING WITH INFORMATION THAT HE HAD OF A VERY BIG EVENT IN TERMS OF ARGUMENT. THE COURT: I THINK WE'RE SORT OF NITPICKING AT THIS POINT BECAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT. AND I DON'T KNOW -- I'VE BEEN WATCHING THE JURY, AND THEY'RE LOOKING QUIZZICAL BECAUSE THEY'VE HEARD ALL THIS ALREADY. THEY KNOW ABOUT IT. I AGREE THE OFFER OF PROOF BASED UPON THE TAPE IS ADEQUATE. MS. CLARK: OKAY. THE COURT: BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO DO IT AGAIN. MS. CLARK: ON THE THEORY OF ENOUGH ALREADY? THE COURT: YEAH. MS. CLARK: OKAY. THE COURT: ENOUGH ALREADY. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED. MADAM COURT REPORTER, DO YOU NEED TO CHANGE PAPER? THE COURT REPORTER: NO, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. Q: BY MS. CLARK: DURING THE CHRISTMAS OF '93 ARGUMENT, DO YOU RECALL DISCUSSING THAT MATTER WITH MR. SHAPIRO? A: I PROBABLY DID. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.) Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, WHEN MR. SHAPIRO ON JUNE 14TH INTERVIEWED YOU, DO YOU RECALL HIM ASKING YOU THE FOLLOWING QUESTION? "DURING THE TIME THAT YOU WERE LIVING AT THE RESIDENCE WITH NICOLE AND O.J., DID YOU EVER SEE THEM GET INTO ANY TYPE OF FIGHT?" DO YOU RECALL THAT QUESTION? A: YES. Q: AND THEN YOU ASKED: "WHEN I WAS LIVING ON GRETNA GREEN?" DO YOU RECALL THAT? A: YES. Q: AND THAT WAS THE QUESTION YOU WERE ASKING HIM. A: OKAY. Q: DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? A: YES. Q: AND THEN HE ANSWERED, "YES." A: YES. Q: AND THEN YOU WENT INTO -- YOU IMMEDIATELY RESPONDED -- TELL ME IF YOU RECALL RESPONDING AS FOLLOWS. A: OKAY. Q: "I NEVER SAW THEM FIGHTING. THERE WAS -- THE ONLY ONE OCCASION WAS WHEN I DROVE IN. I DIDN'T SEE THE FIGHT, BUT THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT GOING ON. "AND I GOT THERE AND SAID, 'YOU GUYS DON'T -- DON'T BE FIGHTING AND SHOUTING LIKE THAT,' AND I BROUGHT O.J. TO MY GUEST HOUSE IN BACK; AND WHEN HE WAS IN THE GUEST HOUSE IN BACK, BEFORE I KNEW, THERE WAS POLICE THERE. SO OBVIOUSLY SOMEONE HAD MADE A CALL." DO YOU RECALL TELLING THEM ALL THAT? A: YES. Q: AND WHEN I ASKED YOU BEFORE THE GRAND JURY, "DID YOU EVER OBSERVE THEM TO ARGUE OR FIGHT," YOUR ANSWER WAS: "I SAW THEM CLOSE AND I SAW MAYBE AN ARGUMENT." A: UH-HUH. Q: AND I ASKED: "AND WHERE WAS THAT?" YOU SAID: "ON GRETNA GREEN." AND WHEN I ASKED YOU, "DO YOU RECALL THE NATURE OF THE ARGUMENT OR JUST THAT IT WAS ONE," DO YOU RECALL GIVING THE RESPONSE, "THAT IT WAS ONE"? AND THEN I ASKED: "WAS THAT THE ONLY TIME YOU EVER SAW AN ARGUMENT BETWEEN THEM," AND YOU ANSWERED, "YES." DO YOU RECALL THAT? A: YES. Q: SO YOU DIDN'T TELL ME ABOUT A FIGHT ON CHRISTMAS EVE, DID YOU? A: NO. I -- I'LL TELL YOU WHAT -- MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. THAT'S ARGUMENTATIVE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION. Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU TELL ME ABOUT A FIGHT ON CHRISTMAS EVE WHEN I ASKED YOU ABOUT THE ARGUMENT -- ANY ARGUE -- WHETHER YOU OBSERVED THEM TO ARGUE OR FIGHT? THE COURT: MISS CLARK, I'M SORRY. HOLD ON, MR. KAELIN. I THINK I NEED TO ASK YOU TO BE A LITTLE MORE PRECISE IN THE LANGUAGE BECAUSE WE'RE DIFFERENTIATING HERE BETWEEN ARGUMENTS AND PHYSICAL CONFRONTATIONS, AREN'T WE? MS. CLARK: I WAS ASKING THE QUESTION IN GENERIC, WHICH I THINK PROBABLY MR. SHAPIRO WAS AS WELL JUST TO SEE WHAT -- THE COURT: WELL, I MEAN, THEN IT'S A VAGUE QUESTION BECAUSE THERE ARE VERBAL FIGHTS AND THERE ARE PHYSICAL FIGHTS. MS. CLARK: BUT THE POINT IS, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE RESPONSE, TWO VAGUE QUESTIONS. THE COURT: WELL, I'M JUST ASKING YOU TO BE A LITTLE MORE PRECISE. MS. CLARK: OKAY. THE COURT: THANK YOU. MS. CLARK: I'M JUST QUOTING MY OWN QUESTION. YOU WEREN'T THERE TO RULE ON IT BEFORE THE GRAND JURY. I WISH YOU HAD BEEN. THE COURT: BY THE WAY, WHAT WAS THE DATE OF THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDING? MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. LET ME -- THE COURT: SO THE JURY CAN KNOW WHAT CAME FIRST. MS. CLARK: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN I BELIEVE -- I THINK IT WAS JUNE 20. I'M NOT SURE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, DO YOU HAVE MUCH MORE? MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: WHAT'S YOUR TIME ESTIMATE AT THIS POINT? MS. CLARK: I'VE GOT -- THE COURT: WHAT'S YOUR TIME ESTIMATE AT THIS POINT? MS. CLARK: ABOUT HALF AN HOUR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S FINISH. MS. CLARK: OKAY. THE COURT: MADAM REPORTER, ARE YOU OKAY. THE COURT REPORTER: YES. Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHEN I ASKED YOU BEFORE THE GRAND JURY IN JUNE OF 1994, THAT WOULD BE JUNE 20 OF 1994, AFTER YOUR JUNE 14TH INTERVIEW WITH MR. SHAPIRO, WHEN I ASKED YOU, "DID YOU EVER OBSERVE THEM TO ARGUE OR FIGHT," DID YOU TELL ME ABOUT THE CHRISTMAS EVE ARGUMENT? A: NO, I DID NOT. CAN I SAY SOMETHING? Q: YOU CAN. A: UMM, WHEN THIS WAS GOING ON WITH THE GRAND JURY AND EVERYTHING WAS HAPPENING, IT WAS -- IT WAS -- THERE WOULD BE NOTHING I WOULD HIDE FROM YOU. MY MIND WAS -- WITH EVERYTHING THAT -- IF I REMEMBERED SOMETHING, I WOULD HAVE TOLD YOU ABOUT A 911 CALL AND ALL THAT SORT OF THING. BUT IT WASN'T SOMETHING I WASN'T TRYING TO NOT TELL YOU BECAUSE I KNOW IF IT'S A 911 CALL, THAT THERE WOULD BE A REPORT. SO I -- THERE'S NOTHING I -- I TRIED TO HIDE FROM -- FROM YOU ABOUT ANY OF THE FIGHTS. THERE WAS SO MUCH THAT I HAD TO REMEMBER. I HAD SO MUCH TIME. I WAS IN FRONT OF ALL THESE PEOPLE. SO WHEN IT -- THEN I'D REMEMBER MORE AND THAT'S WHEN WE HAD THIS MEETING AND I'D TELL YOU STUFF THAT I REMEMBERED, SOMETHING ELSE. Q: SO ARE YOU TELLING US NOW THAT YOU FELT INTIMIDATED BY THE GRAND JURY, MR. KAELIN? MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. LEADING. THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW IF "INTIMIDATED" IS WORD, BUT I TRIED TO REMEMBER EVERYTHING THAT I COULD. Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU REMEMBER TELLING ME, MR. KAELIN, THAT YOU HAD THOUGHT THAT BEING IN FRONT OF THE GRAND JURY WOULD BE INTIMIDATING, BUT IT TURNED OUT TO BE JUST A BUNCH OF OLD GUYS IN FISHING CAPS? A: YES. I WAS -- I -- YES. Q: NOT REAL INTIMIDATING. A: NO. NO. I -- BUT I WAS LOOKING AT YOU. I WAS JUST IN A ROOM THAT -- I'VE NEVER BEEN TO COURT. Q: UH-HUH. OKAY. BUT WHEN MR. SHAPIRO ASKED YOU THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER YOU SAW NICOLE AND O.J. -- "DID YOU EVER SEE THEM GET INTO ANY TYPE OF FIGHT," YOU TOLD HIM ABOUT THE INCIDENT ON GRETNA GREEN WHERE THE 911 CALL WAS PLACED. A: UH-HUH. YES. Q: DIDN'T YOU? YOU TOLD HIM ABOUT THE POLICE ARRIVING, DIDN'T YOU? A: YES. Q: YOU TOLD HIM ABOUT THE FIGHT ON CHRISTMAS EVE, DIDN'T YOU? A: UH, YES. MR. SHAPIRO: I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THE CHARACTERIZATION OF "FIGHT" BASED ON YOUR HONOR'S RULING. MS. CLARK: ARGUMENT. THE COURT: WELL, I THINK -- MS. CLARK: ARGUMENT. I'M SORRY. THE COURT: THE JURY KNOWS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO, IF. Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, DO YOU ALSO RECALL DISCUSSING WITH MR. SHAPIRO DURING THAT JUNE 14TH INTERVIEW HOW NICOLE FELT ABOUT YOU MOVING OUT TO LIVE AT ROCKINGHAM INSTEAD OF STAYING WITH HER ON BUNDY? A: UPSET WITH ME. Q: DO YOU RECALL TELLING HIM ABOUT THAT? A: YES. THAT O. -- Q: GO AHEAD. A: O.J. WAS MANIPULATING ME. MS. CLARK: JUNE 20TH WAS THE TESTIMONY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND DO YOU RECALL THAT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT AT ONE POINT THAT MICHELLE WAS TO LEAVE THE HOUSE WHENEVER NICOLE WAS AROUND? A: YES. Q: DO YOU RECALL THAT THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT THAT AFTER THAT SLAP THAT YOU REFERRED TO, MICHELLE MADE A DEROGATORY REMARK ABOUT THE CHILDREN, JUSTIN AND SIDNEY? A: YES. Q: AND MICHELLE DID NOT LEAVE THE RESIDENCE THAT DAY, DID SHE? A: NO. Q: YOU ALSO RECALL THAT MICHELLE WAS THE ONE WHO OPENED THE DOOR TO LET THE DEFENDANT INTO THE ROOM TO BEAT NICOLE IN 1989? MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION. MAY WE APPROACH? THE COURT: YES. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT SIDEBAR. MISS CLARK, WHAT WAS THAT? MS. CLARK: WHAT WAS THAT? HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF MICHELLE AND NICOLE. THE COURT: BUT HE WASN'T THERE IN 1989. MS. CLARK: HE WASN'T THERE, BUT HE KNOWS ABOUT IT, AND IT GOES TO EXPLAIN HIS STATE OF MIND WITH RESPECT TO WHAT MR. SHAPIRO WAS GETTING INTO WITH MICHELLE. MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, MR. SHAPIRO WAS PROHIBITED AT SIDEBAR FROM ASKING ANYTHING ABOUT MICHELLE. MS. CLARK: SOME QUESTIONS DID COME IN THOUGH ABOUT IT. MR. SHAPIRO: NONE CAME IN. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR STOPPED HIM MID-STREAM I THOUGHT. THE COURT: I STOPPED IT BECAUSE I SAID I DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO ALL OF THAT AND I SUSTAINED YOUR OBJECTION TO GETTING INTO ALL OF THAT. MS. CLARK: I THOUGHT HE DID GET SOME WAYS INTO IT, YOUR HONOR. I DID. THE COURT: THAT'S WHEN I -- MS. CLARK: I KNOW WE STOPPED IT AT SOME POINT. THE COURT: MISS CLARK, I PULLED HIM OVER HERE AND STOPPED IT BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO NICOLE VERSUS MICHELLE. MR. SHAPIRO: AND NOW IT'S IN. MS. CLARK: I THOUGHT HE DID. THE COURT: NO. MR. DARDEN: I DON'T THINK HE ANSWERED. MR. SHAPIRO: HE ANSWERED. MS. CLARK: NO, HE DIDN'T, NOT THIS LAST QUESTION. MR. SHAPIRO: YOU REMEMBER, HE TESTIFIED THAT MICHELLE WAS SLAPPED BY NICOLE. MR. COCHRAN: AND HE NEVER TESTIFIED TO THAT. WE LOOKED AT EACH OTHER AND MADE NOTES OF THAT EXACTLY. MR. SHAPIRO: IT'S CLEARLY IN THE RECORD. MR. COCHRAN: AND THEN THE PART ABOUT '89, HE WASN'T THERE. MS. CLARK: AND I THOUGHT HE GOT THAT OUT YESTERDAY. MR. SHAPIRO: I WOULD LIKE A SERIOUS ADMONITION TO THE JURY. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, PUTTING THAT ASIDE, THAT DOOR IS OPEN. AS FAR AS MICHELLE IS CONCERNED, THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE. WHAT'S THIS '89 BUSINESS? HE WASN'T THERE. HE DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT MICHELLE AND OPENING DOORS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THIS IS JUST HEARSAY FROM SOMEBODY. MS. CLARK: WELL, IT WOULD BE HEARSAY, BUT IT IS RELEVANT TO HIS STATE OF MIND WITH RESPECT TO THE RELATIONSHIP OF MICHELLE AND NICOLE BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT WE HAD GOTTEN INTO. I THOUGHT WE HAD GOTTEN INTO THAT, GONE DOWN THAT ROAD A WAYS BEFORE IT STOPPED. THE COURT: NO. MR. DARDEN: CAN WE HAVE MR. COCHRAN NOT TESTIFY? HE'S SHAKING HIS FISTS, MAKING FACIAL EXPRESSIONS. MR. COCHRAN: MR. DARDEN, PLEASE STOP BEING UNREASONABLE. I'M STANDING HERE NOT SAYING ANYTHING. MR. DARDEN: I'M NOT BEING UNREASONABLE. THE COURT: WELL, WE HAVE JUST CREATED ANOTHER QUAGMIRE FOR OURSELVES HERE. MS. CLARK: I THOUGHT THE QUAGMIRE WAS ALREADY THERE. I THOUGHT SOME OF THE TESTIMONY CAME OUT ABOUT MICHELLE. THE COURT: NO. THAT'S WHY I STOPPED IT, BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO THAT. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, ARE YOU SURE NOTHING CAME IN? THE COURT: WE ARE GOING TO BREAK RIGHT NOW. I WANT TO LOOK AT THE RECORD AND SEE WHAT WE'VE GOT HERE. BUT I'M GOING TO ADMONISH THE JURY TO DISREGARD THE TESTIMONY ABOUT 1989 AND MICHELLE BECAUSE THIS WITNESS WAS NOT EVEN IN CONTACT. MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE EVEN STRONGER LANGUAGE THAN THAT. SOMETIMES ALL OF US ASK A QUESTION, BUT THIS ONE IS A QUESTION THAT GOES TO THE HEART OF THIS CASE AND IS ONE THAT CLEARLY THERE WAS NO GOOD FAITH IN ASKING AND THE JURY SHOULD BE SO ADMONISHED. THEY'RE GONE FOR THE WEEKEND NOW, FOR A THREE-DAY WEEKEND ENDING ON THIS, AND IT IS ABSOLUTELY UNFAIR TO MR. SIMPSON, ABSOLUTELY UNFAIR TO HIS LAWYERS AND IT LEAVES A TREMENDOUS MISIMPRESSION ON THE PART OF THE JURY. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT BEFORE WE EVEN DISCUSS THIS ISSUE. MR. SHAPIRO HAS GONE INTO WITH THIS WITNESS A NUMBER OF THINGS. I REALLY THINK MR. SHAPIRO ASKING FOR -- I THINK HE'S MAKING A GREAT DEAL MORE OF IT THAN IT DESERVES, BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT THIS DOOR WAS OPENED BY MR. SHAPIRO. I DO NOT THINK IT WAS COMPLETELY FORECLOSED, AND I WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT TO SEE WHAT CAME OUT IN THIS REGARD BECAUSE THIS WITNESS KNOWS CERTAIN THINGS ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MICHELLE AND NICOLE AND BETWEEN NICOLE AND THE DEFENDANT WHICH IS RELEVANT TO HIS STATE OF MIND AND HIS BIAS AND HIS CREDIBILITY. AND SO A LOT WAS DONE ON THE OTHER SIDE. THE COURT: WELL, I EXPRESSED TO YOU WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS THE FIRST TIME MY RELUCTANCE TO GET INTO THIS BECAUSE I FELT GETTING INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NICOLE AND MICHELLE IS TANGENTIAL TO THAT CASE IF NOT COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. THAT'S WHY I STOPPED IT WHEN YOU MADE THE OBJECTION. AND I THINK I DRAGGED YOU GUYS OVER HERE BEFORE YOU DID. I DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO IT. BUT, MR. SHAPIRO, I'LL TAKE UNDER SUBMISSION YOUR REQUEST FOR A STRONGER ADMONITION OTHER THAN DISREGARD. AS TO THE SANCTIONS, AS YOU KNOW, I NORMALLY LIKE TO SLEEP ON SANCTION REQUESTS. BUT THAT'S WHY WE STOPPED AND CAME OVER HERE, BECAUSE I WAS SURPRISED THAT CAME OUT. MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, MY CONCERN -- THE COURT: I KNOW WHAT YOUR CONCERN IS. AND I'M GOING TO TELL THEM THAT -- I AM GOING TO TELL THEM THAT THE REASON I HAD YOU OVER AT SIDEBAR WAS, MR. KAELIN OBVIOUSLY HAD NO CONTACT WITH THESE PEOPLE IN 1989 AND WAS NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY REGARDING AN INCIDENT IN 1989. MR. SHAPIRO: BUT THE QUESTION WAS -- OPENED THE DOOR THAT MICHELLE -- OPENED THE DOOR FOR O.J. TO BEAT NICOLE. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF THAT. IT'S BAD FAITH. IT'S -- MS. CLARK: WELL, THERE IS EVIDENCE, PLENTY OF EVIDENCE OF THAT. IT'S CERTAINLY NOT BAD FAITH. WE HAVE EVIDENCE TO THAT EFFECT. THE COURT: HOLD ON. LET ME JUST MAKE AN OBSERVATION. MY RECOLLECTION OF THE '89 TESTIMONY WAS, MICHELLE CAME OVER TO THE POLICE CAR AND TRIED TO GET NICOLE TO COME BACK IN THE HOUSE, SAYING, "YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THIS. YOU DON'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED WITH THE POLICE. DON'T DO THIS." MS. CLARK: NO. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE. I WOULD LIKE TO LET MR. DARDEN ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE THAT'S HIS PART. BUT WE DO HAVE EVIDENCE OF THAT. THAT WAS NOT DONE -- THE COURT: GETTING OUT OF THE CAR TO GET BEATEN? MS. CLARK: NO. WE HAVE EVIDENCE OF THE FACT THAT MICHELLE LET O.J. IN THE DOOR, IN THE HOUSE WHEN NICOLE WAS TRYING TO HIDE FROM HIM, THAT SHE OPENED THE DOOR TO LET HIM IN WHEN HE BEAT HER. THE COURT: IN '89? MS. CLARK: IN 1989. MR. SHAPIRO: THAT'S NOT WHAT SHE SAID. SHE DIDN'T SAY SHE OPENED THE DOOR SO HE COULD COME IN AND BEAT HER. MR. COCHRAN: AND WITH THIS WITNESS -- MR. SHAPIRO: WITH THIS WITNESS -- AND I MEAN, IT'S CONDUCT TWICE REMOVED. THE COURT: YEAH. I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH ANY OF THIS. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL TAKE A BREAK AT THIS POINT. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE LAST QUESTION AND ANSWER REGARDING -- THE LAST QUESTION AND ANSWER TO MR. KAELIN REGARDING HIS KNOWLEDGE OF EVENTS IN 1989 -- IF YOU RECOLLECT, MR. KAELIN HAS TESTIFIED, AND WHAT APPEARS TO BE UNDISPUTED IN THE RECORD, THAT MR. KAELIN WAS NOT ACQUAINTED WITH ANYBODY IN THIS CASE UNTIL JUNE OF 1992. I'VE SUSTAINED THE OBJECTION TO THE QUESTION. YOU ARE TO COMPLETELY DISREGARD THE IMPLICATION SUGGESTED BY THAT QUESTION. THERE'S SOME OTHER MATTERS I NEED TO TAKE UP. I DON'T KNOW IF THE BAILIFFS HAVE TOLD YOU, BUT WE ARE GOING TO BE DARK AS FAR AS THIS CASE IS CONCERNED TOMORROW. I HAVE TWO OTHER CASES THAT I HAVE ON MY CALENDAR THAT I ANTICIPATE ARE GOING TO TAKE A FULL DAY TO HANDLE PLUS SOME OTHER MATTERS ON THIS CASE. SO WE WILL NOT BE IN SESSION TOMORROW. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS NOW AS FAR AS THE JURY IS CONCERNED UNTIL 9:00 A.M. MONDAY MORNING. PLEASE REMEMBER ALL MY ADMONITIONS; DO NOT DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU, DO NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU IN REGARDS TO THE CASE. MR. KAELIN, YOU MAY STEP DOWN. YOU ARE ORDERED TO RETURN MONDAY MORNING, 8:45. THANK YOU, SIR. ALSO, DO NOT DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH ANYBODY EXCEPT FOR THE ATTORNEYS IN THE CASE AND YOUR OWN COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL STAND IN RECESS FOR 15 MINUTES, AND THEN I'LL SEE COUNSEL ON THE DISCOVERY MATTERS. (AT 3:20 P.M., AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL, MONDAY, MARCH 27, 1995, 9:00 A.M.) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 1995
PAGES 20013 THROUGH 20234, INCLUSIVE APPEARANCES: (SEE PAGE 2)
JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR #4588 APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PEOPLE: GIL GARCETTI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT L. SHAPIRO, ESQUIRE
JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR., ESQUIRE
GERALD F. UELMEN, ESQUIRE I N D E X INDEX FOR VOLUME 113 PAGES 20013 - 20234 ----------------------------------------------------- DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.
THURSDAY MARCH 23, 1995 A.M. 20013 113 ----------------------------------------------------- LEGEND:
MS. CLARK - MC ----------------------------------------------------- CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
PEOPLE'S
KAELIN, BRIAN 113 ----------------------------------------------------- ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
PEOPLE'S
KAELIN, BRIAN 113 EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S FOR IN EXHIBIT
120-F(1) - PHOTOGRAPH OF 20047 113
138-B - PHOTOGRAPH OF 20058 113 -----------------------------------------------------
COURT'S FOR IN EXHIBIT
9 - INTERVIEW NOTES OF 20178 113 ??
|