|
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS, VS. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jury.) THE COURT: The Court will call the matter of the motion to quash by Schiller. MS. SAGER: Good morning, Your Honor. Kelly Sager on behalf of Lawrence Schiller. I'm moving over here just because there's no room at counsel table. I'll just stand over here. THE COURT: Is Mr. Schiller here? MS. SAGER: Yes, Your Honor, Mr. Schiller is here. THE COURT: Okay. Would you come forward. Swear Mr. Schiller. THE CLERK: Sir, please raise your right hand to be sworn. LAWRENCE SCHILLER, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and testified as follows: THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? THE WITNESS: I do. THE CLERK: Sir, if you would, please state and spell your name for the record. THE WITNESS: Lawrence J. Schiller, L-A-W-R-E-N-C-E, S-C-H-I-L-L-E-R. THE COURT: Mr. Schiller, you're the object of a subpoena duces tecum with regards to a certain audio tape, and there's been a motion filed on your behalf to quash that subpoena. And in conjunction with it, your attorney filed declarations to the effect of certain factual representations with regards to that tape, which I would like to make inquiry of you. First of all, there's a representation that the tape was given to you by Mr. Kardashian; is that correct? THE WITNESS: It was given to me in a group of many tapes that I was acquiring for my research. THE COURT: I didn't ask you that. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. It was not physically given to me; it was within a stack of many tapes. THE COURT: Given to you by? THE WITNESS: Mr. Robert Kardashian. THE COURT: Okay. And your attorney also represents that you informed her that there was only one copy of the tape; is that right? THE WITNESS: One copy, that's correct. THE COURT: Not a copy, but an original? THE WITNESS: There is an original and one copy. THE COURT: Both of them are in your possession? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Okay. And could you physically describe the tape, what it looks like. THE WITNESS: The original? THE COURT: Yeah. THE WITNESS: The original is a microcassette, of the small size. THE COURT: Okay. THE WITNESS: The copy is a digitized copy that was made by myself to reduce some background noise, hiss sounds. THE COURT: So far as you know, there are no other copies? THE WITNESS: That is correct. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. You may step down. (Witness complies.) THE COURT: Mr. Gelblum. MR. GELBLUM: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: I've read the moving and opposing papers. Anything else you want to add? MR. GELBLUM: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: It seems to me that this item is within the matter of privilege. And the reason for my asking questions of Mr. Schiller was to ascertain whether there were any other copies and whether or not I should hold defense in contempt for not producing. And it would appear from testimony, that they have no other copies. I don't see how I can hold them in contempt. MR. GELBLUM: I wasn't asking to hold them in contempt. When we investigated further, we determined that Mr. Schiller, as far as we can tell, does have the only copies. We ask that you compel Mr. Schiller to produce his copies. I don't believe, as stated in our papers, that it is within the privilege. THE COURT: Well, unfortunately, the weight of the juris prudence in the United States seems to be against you. MR. GELBLUM: Well, Your Honor, I'm not sure if you're referring to the First Amendment privilege or the California shield. THE COURT: All of them. MR. GELBLUM: The California shield, there's no authority, based on the statute, does not apply to book authors at all. Plus, the magazines, newspapers and other periodicals, the express language of the statute, Ms. Sager has not cited a single case applying the California law for a book author. The only cases cited and the only ones we're aware of any shield to the California law is the First Amendment case that is a qualified privilege. The privilege is overcome, as Ms. Sager's papers concede, by showing of there being only the one copy, there being no other sources, and it being highly relevant and material to the case. And I think it's obvious, given a tape recorded by the defendant five days after the murders, discussing his situation at that moment, could not be more material and relevant to this case. That overcomes the privilege. THE COURT: Well, I don't think that overcomes the privilege. So since the defense has had an opportunity to take something up on a writ -- here is your opportunity. MR. GELBLUM: You can give Ms. Sager that opportunity; she probably has more time. MS. SAGER: I'll defer to Mr. Gelblum. MR. GELBLUM: Thank you. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I would just say that it seems to me that the accusation was made that we were withholding a tape in this courtroom. The least Mr. Gelblum could have done is file a declaration withdrawing the accusation that we had a tape and withheld it, because we didn't have a tape; we didn't withhold it. And I think that was the very least he could have done after the accusation was made in court last week. MR. GELBLUM: Mr. Baker has quite a bit of gall. After we demonstrated in our papers the discovery responses, saying there was no tape ever made. MR. BAKER: That is not true. THE COURT: Well, looking at the history of the paper wars that have been conducted in this case, I feel that the defense can be gracious and take it with a large grain of salt. MS. SAGER: Your Honor, may Mr. Schiller be excused? THE COURT: Excuse me? MS. SAGER: May Mr. Schiller be excused? THE COURT: Unless he wants to hang around. MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, just so -- we may want to recall him before the jury; he's not excused permanently in the case. THE COURT: If he's a witness -- MR. GELBLUM: He's our witness. THE COURT: He is ordered to be here under subpoena, yes. MR. GELBLUM: Thank you. (Jurors resume their respective seats.) THE COURT: Morning. JURORS: Good morning, Your Honor. THE COURT: Call your next witness. MR. PETROCELLI: We call Allan Park. ALLAN PARK, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and testified as follows: THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this Court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? THE WITNESS: I do. THE CLERK: Please be seated. And if you would, please state and spell your name for the record. THE WITNESS: Allan Park, A-L-L-A-N, P-A-R-K. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PETROCELLI: Q. Morning, Mr. Park. A. Morning. Q. In June of 1994, where were you employed? A. For Town and Country Limousine. Q. What were you doing? A. Driving limousines, chauffer. Q. Who was your boss? A. Dale St. John. Q. Let's go to June 12, 1994, okay? You were working for Town and Country? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. And did you get an assignment that day? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember what day of the week it was? A. I think it was the day before, Saturday. Q. And the assignment for -- Was for which day? A. For Sunday. Q. And who gave you the assignment? A. Dale St. John. Q. What was the assignment? A. The assignment was to pick up Mr. Simpson from 360 Rockingham. Q. Was that the extent of the instructions you got? A. No. The rest of the instructions were, pick him up at 10:45, have him at LAX for an 11:30 flight on American Arlines. Q. Anything else? A. No. Q. What time did you leave your house? A. It was about 9:45. Q. P.M., right? A. P.M. Q. What kind of car were you driving? A. A stretch limousine. Q. What color? A. White. Q. Did Mr. St. John give you any directions to Mr. Simpson's house? A. No, he didn't. Q. And how did you determine how to get to Mr. Simpson's house? A. I looked at a Thomas Guide before I left. Q. Had you ever been to Mr. Simpson's house before? A. No, sir. Q. Had you ever driven Mr. Simpson before? A. No. Q. What route -- where were you coming from? A. Torrance. Q. And what route did you take from Torrance to Mr. Simpson's house? A. I took the 405 north to Sunset, which I made a left onto Sunset, traveling west, and made a right heading north up Rockingham. Q. Okay. And as you were turning north on Rockingham, did you have in your mind the street address you were looking for? A. Yes. Q. And what number did you have in mind? A. 360. Q. And how did you go about locating 360 North Rockingham as you were driving north on Rockingham? A. By looking at the addresses on the curb. Q. Okay. And at some point did you notice the addresses getting closer to 360? A. Yes. First I determined which side the even numbers were on, and I proceeded up the street, looking at address numbers. Q. And did you have good vision? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. Not great. Q. Were you wearing glasses? A. No. Q. Are you required to wear glasses? A. Not on my driver's license, no. Q. And did you have any problems seeing that night? A. No. Q. What kind of night was it? A. What kind of -- Q. Was it raining? A. No, it was a clear night. Q. Clear. What was the temperature, if you remember? A. I don't remember that. Q. Did you have your window open, driver's-side window -- A. Not -- Q. -- as you were looking at the numbers? A. -- not that I recall. Q. Okay. Now, as you approached the addresses closer to 360, describe how it was that you came upon Mr. Simpson's house. A. I was looking at the addresses on the curb and noticed it was getting closer to 360. I determined that it was -- I don't remember the correct address, 322, 320, something like that, figured it would be a little bit farther, speeded up a little bit, and I finally caught 360 on the curb. I was going just a little bit too fast, so I slowed down immediately and noticed that he was on the corner lot, and saw the street Ashford, and made a right onto Ashford. Q. Where did you see the number 360 when you saw it for the first time? A. On the curb. Q. And where on the curb? A. On the curb, next to the driveway. Q. What driveway? A. The Rockingham driveway. Q. And when -- how fast do you think you were going when you saw the number 360 on the curb next to the Rockingham driveway? A. I don't remember. Twenty-five miles an hour, maybe. Q. Is there any doubt in your mind that you saw the number 360? A. No. Q. Is that the only way that you knew that that was Mr. Simpson house? A. Yes. MR. PETROCELLI: Let me put up 116 again. You've seen this exhibit quite a bit. Can you all see here? I think I might have been blocking your view yesterday. I'll try to stay out of your way. (Counsel displays Exhibit 116.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Mr. Park, if you want to step down, with the Court's permission, and just show us -- I know this exhibit doesn't show Rockingham coming up from Sunset but just show the ladies and gentlemen of the jury which direction you were coming and where you saw the 360. Q. I was traveling north on this, Rockingham here, and the address would have been right about here. (Indicating.) Q. On the curb. Okay. And by the way, you see that vehicle there? A. Yes, I do. Q. Was a vehicle parked there when you saw 360? A. No, I didn't see one. Q. Okay. And you then went up to the corner of Ashford and did what? A. I came up to the corner. I decided that -- I figured out that he was on the corner lot, and I came up to Ashford, made a right, because as I was coming down Ashford, I noticed there was another gate right here on Ashford, so I proceeded on down the street. Would have been maybe off the screen. There's another driveway up above here (indicating) and pulled into the driveway and made a U-turn and came back and parked just about right here (indicating). Q. Okay. Now, when you when you made that -- when you were approaching Rockingham and you saw 360, you saw the gate, too; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. Did you know that there was even another gate on Ashford? A. No, I didn't. Q. You turned the corner and you drove down Ashford? A. That's correct. Q. When did you first learn there even was an Ashford gate? A. After I made the right-hand turn and came up on the gate. Now, I was driving a little bit slower and checking out the property. Q. Now, when you said you made a U-turn and you parked -- right? A. Correct. Q. I'll get back to times in a minute. But I just want to sort of get the general layout here. When you parked that car, you parked where, on the other side of the street? A. Yes. Q. Facing what direction? A. It would be west. Q. Facing this way (indicating)? A. Correct. Q. And had you made a decision at that time to use the Ashford gate instead of the Rockingham gate? A. No, I didn't. I still, in my mind, was going to use the Rockingham gate. Q. Then why were you parked here if you're going to use the Rockingham gate? A. I just -- I parked here because there seemed to be more traffic on Rockingham, and there was a big, huge space to park. Q. And about what time do you think it was, Mr. Park, when you saw the 360? A. That would be -- MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, could we have the witness speak up. THE COURT: Yes. Would you speak up; it's kind of hard to hear you. MR. PETROCELLI: You may resume the witness stand, Mr. Park. (The witness complies.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) I think the question was, sir, about what time was it when you approached the 360? A. That would have been just around 10:23, 10:24. Q. And by the way, as a limousine driver, you pay attention to times? A. Yes, you do. Q. Why is that? A. You're just usually on a really tight schedule; you want to make sure you're on time, you're on time at the house, you're to where you're supposed to be on time. Just, you pay a lot of attention to time. Q. Were you paying close attention on this particular evening to time? A. Yes. I always do, every -- Q. And you were supposed to be at Mr. Simpson's at what time to pick him up? A. 10:45. Q. And had you been told what time the flight was going to depart LAX? A. I knew it was around 11:30. Q. And you didn't get to Mr. Simpson's house at 11:45, [sic] right? A. No, I didn't. Q. And you got there, you said, about what time? A. 10:25. Q. And why so early? A. Because I've never been to the house before and I just wanted to make sure I was on time. We were also asked to be a few minutes early. MR. PETROCELLI: Let's put on the television monitor, Steve, 191. (Exhibit 191 is displayed.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Now, do you recognize the curb and the number that you see in Exhibit 191? A. Yes, I do. Q. Okay. And what is it? A. 360. Q. Is that what you saw when you approached Rockingham? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And can you point out to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury where you first saw the address of the Rockingham location. Can you just point it out with your hand, right on the television monitor. (The witness complies.) MR. PETROCELLI: Let the record reflect you're pointing to the white space painted 360. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) And when you were driving up Rockingham, you were driving in the same direction that that vehicle is facing, right? A. That is correct. Q. And your -- So you were sitting in the driver's seat and the 360 was to your right; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Now, did you see that car parked there at 10:23, 10:24, when you drove by 360? MR. BAKER: Asked and answered. THE COURT: Overruled. A. No I didn't. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Is there any doubt in your mind? A. No. Q. To make the record a little clear -- MR. PETROCELLI: You can take this off. (Indicating to Exhibit 116.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) When you were indicating that you came up to Ashford, you turned right on Ashford, right? A. That's correct. Q. And you said you parked. And just so the record is clear, you parked on the north side of Ashford, facing west, across from the Ashford gate? A. Yes. Q. Okay. After you parked your car there, what did you do? A. After I parked the car, I noticed I had a few minutes before I had to actually drive up to the gate, so I got out -- got out of the car, walked to the back, had a cigarette, got back in and listened to the radio for a few minutes. Q. Before you continue, when you say you walked to the back, back of what? A. Back of the limousine. Q. Just stood up -- stood outside the limo? A. No. I sat on the curb. Q. Okay. Behind the car? A. Behind the car. Q. And how long did it take to smoke your cigarette? A. Five, six minutes. Q. All right. And during that five or six-minute period, smoking your cigarette, did you see O.J. Simpson? A. No. Q. Did you see O.J. Simpson walking a black dog around the block? A. No. MR. BAKER: The last answer -- there's no foundation for the question. THE COURT: Just a minute. Overruled. A. No. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) And about what time is it, now, that you're parked on Ashford, smoking your cigarette? A. What time am I smoking the cigarette, or. . . Q. Just if you could estimate for us where we are now in the time line. A. Just around 10:30, somewhere around there. Q. Okay. And after you smoked your cigarette, what did you then do? A. I got back into the car and listened to the radio. Q. And what did you do after you listened to the radio? A. Well, finally, at about 10:40, I started up the car and drove down to the Rockingham gate. Q. Okay. Between the time that you smoked your cigarette and the time that you started to take off again, during that five- or ten-minute interval, did you see O.J. Simpson? A. No, I didn't. Q. When you were listening to the radio in the car, did you happen to see what time it was in the car? A. This -- After I was through smoking the cigarette? Q. Yes. A. Yeah. I got back in the car; and it was 10:35. Q. Now, is there a clock radio in there? A. Yes, there is. Q. And you looked at the time? A. I -- yeah. I used the clock and my watch. Q. Okay. So then you -- Why don't you go to Exhibit 116 and explain to the jury what you did when you got back in the car. And could you please keep your voice up, so that everyone can hear. A. Yeah. (The witness complies.) I got back into the limousine -- and this was just about 10:39 -- pulled back onto Rockingham, made a left onto Rockingham, drove down with my window parallel to the gate, looked up the driveway, and was making a decision if I was going to use this gate or not, now that I know that there was another one over here (indicating). I decided that this curve here was too tight to make the turn with the stretch limousine, just didn't look as easy, so I proceeded to just back straight up and come into the Ashford gate, with my bumper just in front of the gate. Q. Okay. When you got in the car to go around to Rockingham, what exactly was your purpose in doing so? Why did you want to go back to the Rockingham gate? A. Because all along, I was going to use that gate to drive into. Q. Okay. And so as you approached Rockingham, and in particular the Rockingham gate, are you saying it was your state of mind then that you were going to park at the gate? A. Yeah. Well, it was -- I mean, that was my intentions. Q. Exactly. That's what I'm asking you. A. But I checked it out first. I didn't pull straight up to the gate. Q. How close did you get? A. I was about in the middle of the street, and my window was just right here (indicating). I mean, I don't know how far that is. Q. Now, did you see the number 360 again? A. Yes. Q. And did you see any vehicle parked there at that time, 10:39, 10:40, I think you said? A. No, I didn't. Q. Okay. MR. PETROCELLI: Put up the picture again, 191, on the television monitor. (Exhibit 191 displayed.) MR. PETROCELLI: Now, I know it's hard to see the full width of the street here. Is that as wide as it goes? Can we get more of the driveway? Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Can you, using the photograph, Exhibit 191, can you describe how close to the gate you got, how far you pulled up? A. Well, it's so hard with this TV. My window -- my window would have been looking into the gate, so I was past this area here (indicating). I was looking in this way (indicating). And like I said, I was halfway out into the street. It's hard to tell with this. Q. Okay. Did you stop your car to assess the situation? A. Yeah. I came to a complete -- complete stop. Q. In the street? A. Yes. Q. And you turned your head left and looked up the Rockingham driveway? A. That's correct. Q. Did you have a clear field of vision? A. Yes, I did. Q. Okay. And did your field of vision, as you were driving up to and stopping, include this area where the vehicle is parked in the photograph? A. Yes. Q. And you did not see that vehicle; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. You made a decision, I think you testified, not to use the Rockingham entrance? A. That is correct. Q. And what did you then decide to do? A. Like I said, I backed straight up Rockingham, backwards, and made a left onto Ashford and pulled up into the Ashford driveway, into the gate. Q. Now, by the way, when you drove down Rockingham to assess the situation, and when you stopped in front of the Rockingham gate, did you see O.J. Simpson? A. No, I didn't. MR. PETROCELLI: What exhibit number? We need a new one, next in -- THE CLERK: 2202. MR. PETROCELLI: Marking this as Exhibit 2202. (The instrument herein referred to as Board entitled Gates at Rockingham containing two photographs and diagram of Rockingham property was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2202.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) I wonder if you could come down once again, Mr. Park. You recognize this here as the Rockingham gate? (Indicating.) A. Yes. Q. And does that generally represent the view that you had of the driveway as you assessed the situation whether to use it? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And looking at the letter B, what is that, if you know? A. That is the Ashford gate. Q. Okay. And that's the gate where you parked across the street from -- initially? A. Correct. Q. And then that's the gate you decided to use? A. Correct. Q. Now, when you came back from your second trip to the Rockingham gate, you said you backed down Rockingham? A. Yes. Q. You backed down like this, right, using my pen, backing down Rockingham? A. Yes. Q. In a northerly direction. And you turned your car this way, easterly? A. That's correct. Q. And then you pulled into the Ashford gate? A. Yes. Q. And there's a -- you see these metal gates there, right? A. Yes. Q. How far up did you go till you didn't -- couldn't go anymore? A. Inches. Q. Inches from what? A. Inches from the gate, from my front bumper. Q. Facing inward? A. Facing inward. Q. And realizing this is taken at a different time of day, this is late at night, right? A. Yes. Q. Does that generally represent the field of view that you had as you were looking -- MR. BAKER: I'm going to object. That was taken from across the street, generally, is from -- MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me. I didn't finish my question, Mr. Baker. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Does this represent the -- generally represent the field of view that you had when you were parked in the car, looking into the property from the Ashford gate? MR. BAKER: Leading. I'm sorry. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Yeah. If anything, I had more view. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) This is? A. This is from across the street. Q. And you were up close? A. Yes. Q. When you pulled in, did you turn your car off? A. No, I didn't. Q. And what was on in your car? The engine? Anything else? A. The radio was on low. Q. Okay. And the windows closed? A. No. At this time, my window was down. MR. BAKER: This is leading, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Open or closed were the windows -- your windows? A. Open. Q. What about the other windows? A. Closed. Q. You have a cell phone in the car? A. Correct. Q. Now, does the car have to be on for the cell phone to work? A. The ignition has to be on; the car doesn't have to be running. Q. Okay. So when you pulled up to the Ashford gate here, about what time is it now? A. 10:40. Q. Was the gate open or closed? A. It was closed. Q. Okay. And by the way, when you were at the Rockingham gate, in your car, assessing the situation, could you see the Ashford gate from when you were? A. No, I couldn't. Q. And when you were at the Ashford gate, could you see the Rockingham gate? A. No. Q. Now, could you tell the jury what happened after you pulled up to the Ashford Street gate. A. After I pulled up to the gate, I got out of the vehicle, left the door open, went to the call box, and there's an intercom in there with a button. I rang the buzzer. It made a noise, made kind of a loud noise, and there was no answer. I repeated pushing the button two or three times before I got back into the limousine and -- Q. Let me stop you right there. Okay. MR. PETROCELLI: Just so we can see the sequence, can you put on the next exhibit, which will be 2203. (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of call box at gate was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2203.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Do you recognize that? A. Yes, I do. Q. What is that? A. That is the call box. MR. BAKER: That picture doesn't represent the gate as it existed on June 12. MR. PETROCELLI: Only directing the attention to the -- MR. BAKER: The gate was clear. THE COURT: Indicating a call box only. Go ahead. MR. PETROCELLI: This picture was taken recently. And could you let me show Mr. Baker the next pictures. Mr. Baker, you want to take a look at this. (Counsel hands photograph to Mr. Baker.) MR. PETROCELLI: I want to use that for the inside. MR. BAKER: Who is the guy in the picture? MR. PETROCELLI: Don't know. MR. BAKER: Trying to get in your own news show. MR. PETROCELLI: I should be so lucky. MR. BAKER: Back it off, Steve, we want to see who's there. (Laughter.) (Indicating to photograph with call box open and Mr. Petrocelli in photograph displayed.) MR. PETROCELLI: It was all business, believe me. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Is that the inside of the box? A. Yes, it is. Q. And there's no -- did it look like that on that night? In other words, was it configured that way? A. Yes. Q. Where was the button that you would buzz Mr. Simpson, buzz inside the house? A. It's -- Q. Can you point to it? A. This button right here (indicating). Q. Okay. And what, would you buzz once, or how would you buzz it? A. I really don't remember if it was a ringing or a buzzing. I don't know if it rang. I just remember hitting it two or three times. Q. And then waiting? A. And waiting. Q. Okay. By the way, let's mark it as the next exhibit in order, which would be 2204. THE CLERK: What's being marked? THE COURT: Second photograph of the telephone. (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph with close up of call box open and Mr. Petrocelli in photograph was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2204.) MR. PETROCELLI: You can take that off. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) All right. Let me back up a little bit. When you pulled up to the Rockingham gate as far as you could go, did you make any observations about the house in front of you; that is, Mr. Simpson's house? A. To the Rockingham gate. Q. When you were pulling up to the Ashford gate? A. To the Ashford. MR. BAKER: Objection. Vague and ambiguous, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, that's an invitation to lead, I guess. Go ahead. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) I guess so. Did you make any observations about lights being on or off? A. I noticed that there were no lights on downstairs. I only noticed one light on upstairs. Q. Okay. When you say you noticed there were no lights on downstairs, what you're saying is that from what you could see, you couldn't see any lights? A. From what I could see, no. Q. Okay. Sitting there in the car? A. Sitting in the car at the buzzer. Q. Not only sitting in the car, you're saying, but getting out of the car? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And when you got out of the car, you could see right through these iron bars; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And looking in, could you see the area where Mr. Simpson's -- front of the house is? A. Yes. Q. And you could see rooms that -- lights from the outside? A. What I thought were rooms. Q. And you didn't see any lights; is that right? A. No. Q. Okay. That is correct, right? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. After -- did you have any of your lights on in the -- on the car, your headlights or, parking lights, or anything like that? A. I just had the parking lights on. Q. Okay. So you were saying before, you buzzed inside the house a couple of times and you got no answer; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. And then what did you do next? A. I then got back into the limousine and used the cell phone to page Dale. Q. And Dale is who? A. The owner. Q. Now how long before you paged Dale did you ring into the house and get no answer? A. Couple minutes. Q. So in other words, what you're saying is, that you rang the house and got no answer; you went in the car and you called Dale? A. Correct. Q. Now, why did you call Dale? A. I called him because I thought nobody was home. MR. PETROCELLI: Like to refer to the next Exhibit, this is 198. (The instrument herein referred to as Copy of document entitled calls made by Allan Park, June 12, 1994, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 198.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You recognize what this exhibit is? A. Yes. Q. And what is it, sir? A. The cell phone records of the night. Q. Cell phone records from your limousine cell phone? A. Correct. Q. And the call -- it shows the calls that were coming in and going out on that evening? A. That's correct. Q. Now, I direct your attention to the first entry. Does that represent the -- the time when you called Mr. St. John's pager? A. Yes. Q. And what time does it say up there? Could you -- A. 10:43, and 44 seconds. Q. And you paged Mr. St. John? A. Correct. Q. And so what time, based on the entry of 10:43 and 44 seconds, do you think it was when you first buzzed into the Simpson residence and got no answer? A. I didn't understand that. Q. In other words, using this as a point of reference, what time was it? A. 10:40 to 10:43. Q. Is when you were buzzing? A. Yeah. Q. Okay. And what happened after you hung up your cell phone upon paging Dale? A. I got back out of the car and I proceeded to ring the buzzer a few more times. Q. Okay. Now, we see that your call with Dale ended at 10:44 and 24 seconds right, correct? A. Correct. Q. And your next call began at 10:46 and 30 seconds, right? A. Correct. Q. So you buzzed into the Simpson residence between 10:44 and 10:46; is that what you're saying? A. Correct. MR. BAKER: Objection. Leading. He just testified -- Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Why did you call your mother? A. I called my mom to get Dale's house phone number I left at the house. Instead of his pager number, I wanted to call his house direct, just to see if he was home, if he wasn't answering his business line. Q. Did you reach your mother? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you get Dale's phone number? A. Yes, I did. Q. And after you got Dale's phone number from your mother, what did you do? A. I then called Dale's home. Q. With the phone number you just got? A. Yes. Q. Now, can you explain what the -- back up. Looking at this exhibit here of the cell phone calls, can you tell the jury when you then called Dale's home with the number you got from your mother? Can you point to the entry? A. Here (indicating). Q. And what does it say? A. 10:49:07. Q. Can you explain to the jury what the two entries are in white at 10:48:13 and 10:48:38. MR. BAKER: Objection. Foundation, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I figured those would be Dale calling me while I'm on the phone with my mom. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Okay. And after you dialed Dale's home at 10:49:07, what happened? Did you get an answer? A. No. I let it ring for quite a while. Q. And can you tell from the beginning and ending point of the call, approximately how long you rung that phone call, letting it ring? A. Minute. Q. Looks like -- looks like 59 seconds, right? A. Correct. Q. Okay. What did you then do? You got off the phone at 10:50:06 p.m. from calling Dale and getting no answer, right? A. Correct. Q. What did you then do when you got off the phone at 10:50:06 p.m., not having received an answer from Dale's home? A. I got back out of the limousine and proceeded to ring the buzzer a few more times. Q. Okay. And can you tell by looking at the next three entries from your cell phone, what those mean? There's 10:49:27, 10:49:48 and 10:50:39? A. These two, Dale was obviously calling me back and I was on the phone, calling his house. Q. The first two entries, you were on the phone dialing him while he's calling you? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And what about that third one in white, 10:50:39 p.m.? A. The third one was not answered because I was outside, ringing the buzzer, and I never heard the phone ring. Q. It's referring to the line that says "incoming call rang but not answered"? A. Correct. Q. At 10:50:39 to 10:51:49? A. That's correct. Q. You didn't answer that phone call? A. No. Q. Why not? A. I didn't hear it. Q. Where were you? A. I was outside, ringing the intercom. Q. Did you get an answer this third time you were ringing the intercom? A. No. Q. What did you do next? Q. As I was was standing next to the buzzer, waiting for an answer, for somebody, I then heard the phone ringing inside the car, and grabbed the phone. And it was Dale. Q. From looking at the cell phone records, can you tell the jury when it was that you picked up that call from Dale? A. 10:52:17. Q. And when you heard the phone ring, did you get into the car to answer it? A. Yes. Q. Were you sitting in the car? A. Yes. Q. Was your was your radio still on? A. Very low. Q. And was the door open or closed, if you remember? A. Open. Q. Okay. Q. And you began a conversation with Dale St. John? A. That is correct. Q. And that conversation ended at what point in time, based on the cell phone records? A. At 10:55:12 p.m. Q. Okay. You may resume the witness stand. So you're on the phone with Dale For about three minutes, right? A. Correct. Q. What -- relate your conversation with Dale. MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to the hearsay. MR. PETROCELLI: It's subsequent conduct, Your Honor, under 1250. THE COURT: All right. Overruled. THE WITNESS: I told Dale that I didn't think anybody was home, said there was a light on upstairs. He told me that -- he said O.J. usually runs late, go ahead and wait until 11:15. If he's not there by then, go ahead and come on home. He asked me if there was a light on, and what looked to be skylights over towards the garage area, little pantry -- little pantry area. He said -- he asked me if the lights were on in there. He said he usually watches TV in there. I told him no there's no lights on in there. And somewhere in the conversation, that's when I saw the white male come out from behind the -- from the back of the house. Q. Okay. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I move to strike everything that Dale St. John said because that is not subsequent conduct. THE COURT: Stricken: Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) When the -- The person appeared -- and I'll show the layout in a second, but I want to focus on the timing right now, okay? When the person appeared, did you notice where that person came from? A. From what I -- Q. The first person who appeared? A. From what I noticed, from the back of the house. Q. And he appeared where, in terms of your field of view? You're looking straight ahead, in from the car? A. Yes. Q. And where did this person appear? A. To my -- Q. So to your right, to your left? A. To the left of me, on the edge of the driveway. Q. Okay. And can you describe to the jury this person whom you saw appear? A. It was a blond-hair male, five-ten, 170 pounds. Q. What did you then say to Dale St. John, without telling us what he said? A. I said to him that somebody's here. Q. And did you say anything else? A. Not that I remember. Q. Okay. From the moment that you saw that person appear to your left on the property inside the gates, to the end of the call with Dale St. John, about how much time elapsed? A. Thirty seconds. Q. So, looking at the cell phone records, if you got off the phone with Dale St. John at 10:55 and 12, seconds you believe you saw the person with blond hair appear to the left at around approximately 10:54 and 30 seconds p.m.? A. Correct. Q. We're going to go back to Exhibit 116. Now, this isn't to scale, but if you could describe to the -- to the jury -- if you would get off the witness stand, please -- where you saw the person with blond hair at around 10:54 p.m. and 30 seconds. (Witness indicates to Exhibit 116.) A. He would be in this area over -- THE REPORTER: Excuse me I didn't hear the rest of the answer. Q. He's pointing to the area generally where this pathway from the back of the house intersects the driveway; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Q. You're looking straight ahead, right? A. Correct. Q. Did you have any problem seeing that person? A. No. Q. In this last 30 seconds with your telephone call with Dale, when you first saw this blond-haired person, did you then see anything, or anyone else come in this area over here? A. Yes. I saw somebody come from the driveway area into the house, or go into the house. Q. And can you tell us what the person looked like that you saw go from the driveway area into the house? A. Six foot, 200 pounds, and all black clothing. Q. When you say all black clothing, what do you mean by that? A. Well, dark pants, dark top, Q. Now, if you can sort of put yourself back at that moment in time when you're seeing this person in all dark clothing, you're on the phone with Dale St. John, still? A. Yes. Q. At that moment in time, did you believe that you were seeing that person wear a robe? A. At the time, no. Q. Did you believe that you saw a swirling hem of a robe? A. No. Q. Did you believe you saw, like a belt of a robe waving and flipping around and so forth? A. No. Q. Before anything else happened, before you learned anything else or talked to any lawyers or anybody else, at that point in time, you believed when you said dark clothing, that the person was wearing what? MR. BAKER: I object, Your Honor. This is leading, suggestive, and he's asking for his state of mind. It's irrelevant at this time, in view of the subsequent conversations with many lawyers. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Yes. Explain once again what you thought you saw at that point in time in terms of the dark clothing. A. That's what I thought I saw, dark clothing. Q. By that -- you said before, dark pants and dark top. MR. BAKER: Asked an answered. The question indicates it was asked and answered. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Yes. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Okay. Now, what happened after you saw the person six feet, 200 pounds, all dark clothing, go into or near the entrance of the house? What happened next? A. What happened was, that person went into the house. I finished up my phone call with Dale when the person went into the house, some light illuminated from the front of the house -- I don't know where it was coming from -- and hung up the phone with Dale. Q. Let me stop you right there, then. First of all, can you tell whether the person that went into the house was Caucasian, African-American or another race? A. Afro-American. Q. Then you said when the person went into the house, you saw lights illuminate. A. Yes. Q. Had you seen those lights illuminated before the person went into the house? A. No, I didn't. Q. Okay. And when you saw the lights illuminate, were you still finishing up your call with Mr. St. John? A. Yes. Q. How many seconds after you saw the person go in the house were you still on the phone with Mr. St. John? A. I don't remember that. Q. Did you even mention to St. John that you saw this person? A. No. Q. Now, was the -- what was the pace of the person's movement into the house? A. He was moving quickly; he wasn't -- it wasn't a run; it wasn't a walk. It was a quick-motion walk. Q. And can you go up to Exhibit 116 and point out to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury where you first picked up the vision of this person, six foot, 200 pounds, Afro-American, all dark clothing. A. It was around this area right here (indicating). Q. Okay. Now, could you do that one more time -- and forgive me, because I didn't get a chance to get next to you -- Point it out again? A. It was around this area (indicating). Q. Okay. MR. PETROCELLI: Let the record reflect there's the word "driveway" printed on this exhibit. This is 116, Steve, right? Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) And you are pointing between the W and the A, right below the W and the A? A. South, around there. I mean around that area. Q. Around the area just below the W and the A? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Using -- using my trusty pen there, why don't you indicate to the jury what direction you saw the person traveling. A. Would have been this way, heading this way, and I said cutting the corner into the house. (Indicating.) Q. And you were observing this while you were in your car, right? A. Yes. Q. And were you -- where you first picked him up, is just south here on the map of the W and the A? A. Right. Q. Is that an estimation? A. Around that area, yeah. I can't be exact where he was. Q. Now, you were asked similar questions at the criminal trial were you not? A. Yes, I was. Q. Okay. 1446 -- 1456 -- MR. PETROCELLI: 1446 -- 1456. Will this show up on the Elmo? This is an Elmo reproduction of another Elmo reproduction at the criminal trial. (The instrument herein referred to as An Elmo reproduction of another Elmo reproduction at the criminal trial depicting a diagram of the Rockingham property was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1456.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) I just want to go over this with you. This is the spot that you marked with the cross at the criminal trial? A. That's correct. Q. Now, did you mark that spot yourself, by putting it up there? A. No, I didn't. Q. Can you explain to the jury -- Well, first of all, is that spot near where you saw the person? A. It's around that area, yeah, just a little bit south of it. Q. Could you point to the spot where you believe you first picked up the person, using this exhibit. A. It was just around this area here (indicating ). Q. It's a little below where that cross appears? A. That's correct. Q. Now, you were on the witness stand some time ago doing the same kind of thing, right, in the criminal trial? A. Correct. Q. How did that cross get put on that document, if you could explain to the jury? A. Marcia Clark was asking me to put a spot on where I saw the -- well, not me. Somebody else was controlling this machine, and the thing was going all over the place, back and forth, back and forth. And he got around the area, and I said, "Stop; that's it." Q. And that's generally the area? A. That's generally the area. Q. In other words, you weren't working the machine yourself, right? A. No. Q. And where was the machine in the other courtroom? A. Back -- just back behind this section here. Q. Okay. So I just wanted it to be clear, it's not something you physically put on with your hand, right? A. No. Q. But it generally is the same area, but a little below? A. Yes. Q. Okay. MR. PETROCELLI: Would this be a good time? THE CLERK: I'd I like to clarify what the exhibit number is. MR. PETROCELLI: This exhibit is 1456. Can we clarify it at the break? THE COURT: Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. (Recess.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jury.) MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, two things. First, on scheduling, looks like we're going to finish Mr. Park this afternoon, unless there's another long cross-examination. And then our next witness is Mr. Bodziak from the FBI. And I think we'll finish him today, also. If not, we may leak over a little bit into the morning. And we'd like to begin with Mr. Simpson on Friday, with the Court's permission. THE COURT: So what happened to all the witnesses you were going to call after him? MR. PETROCELLI: They would follow Mr. Simpson. Not before -- they would not precede him. And their testimony would make far more sense after Mr. Simpson. So we would ask -- and the defense also has no objection to this, either. MR. BAKER: Well, I -- MR. PETROCELLI: Don't sand-bag me, Mr. Baker. MR. BAKER: All right, all right. MR. LEONARD: You owe me one. THE COURT: All right. MR. PETROCELLI: Secondly, Your Honor on the testimony that you struck, I believe that it shows his conduct, in not leaving and waiting there for a longer period of time, and why he had to wait. And I wasn't clear on the basis of the Court's ruling, it not being offered for the truth; it's being offered to the conduct of this particular witness. THE COURT: I think the portion that's objected to is that portion where Dale tells this witness what Mr. Simpson does with regards to the upstairs and the TV room and the lights on. MR. PETROCELLI: Well, I would submit it goes not for the truth of that, but why he shouldn't leave and why there was indications that he wasn't home. THE COURT: Well, under 352, I will exclude it. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. We'll have to call Mr. St. John. THE COURT: Okay. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. (The jurors resumed their respective seats.) MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor. Do you want to put on 114? (Exhibit 114 displayed.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) We've got -- referring again to 114, and pulled it up to sort of an approximate view from the limousine, looking in the Ashford gate. MR. BAKER: I object. Your Honor, that is not an approximate, the limousine looking in the gate, because of where that picture is taken, the Elmo distorts and gives different angles when you pull it up. Q. In any event, Mr. Park, let me show you -- can you stand up, please. Do you see this skylight up here? A. Yes. Did you see any light coming from that skylight? A. No, I didn't. Q. There's a kitchen nook area down here? A. I assume that. Q. Did you see lights coming from that part of the house before you saw the dark figure going in the house? A. No. Q. Okay. And do you see this little pathway here -- A. Yes. Q. -- as it intersects the driveway? A. Yes. Q. This is the intercom, right? A. Correct. Q. Is that the location where you saw the blond-haired person appear about 30 seconds before you got off the phone? A. Yes. Q. Was he a little this way or that way? A. He was a little bit -- little bit farther back. Q. Farther back, towards the side? A. When I first saw him. Q. When you first saw him. Okay. And when you first saw him -- and did you then see where he went after you first saw him? A. I didn't pay any attention to him. Q. Okay. And did he, at that point in time, open the gate for you? A. No, he didn't. Q. Okay. So after you saw him, you then saw the person go in the house, and you got off the phone, as you testified to, right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, and during this period of time, do you or do you not see this blond-haired person while you're getting off the phone, while you're seeing the other person go into the house? A. I don't remember that. Q. You don't remember seeing him, then? A. I -- after I saw him the first time, I didn't pay any attention to him. Q. Okay. Did there come a time when you saw him again? A. When he opened the gate for me. Q. That was a little later on? A. Yes. Q. Okay. We'll get to that. What I'm trying to find out is whether between the time you first saw him and the time you saw him open the gate later on, whether you saw him in between. A. No. Q. Okay. When you saw that person going into the house, at any point in time did you see him coming -- MR. PETROCELLI: I'm blocking somebody, Your Honor? THE COURT: Well, yeah, you're beginning to step in front of the jurors. MR. PETROCELLI: I apologize, Madame Juror. THE COURT: You were very good for about three weeks. MR. PETROCELLI: I'll get out of your way here. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) When you saw that person going into the house, that person in all dark clothing, at that point -- during that point in time, did you ever see him coming out of the house? A. No. Q. Did you ever see him pick up a golf bag and hold it up to you? A. No. Q. Did you ever see him signal to you? A. No. Q. Did you ever see him nod or gesture to you in any way? A. No. Q. During the time that you were in the car -- withdrawn. When you were getting out of the car and going to the intercom, could you see the Rockingham gate while you were standing up, using the intercom? A. At any time? Q. Yes. A. No. Q. And while you were inside the car, did you -- could you hear noises from Rockingham, such as cars coming up and down? A. No. Q. Let's pick up the sequence of each event. Again, after you saw the person go into the house and you saw lights illuminate, you got off the phone, right? A. Correct. Q. And then what happened? A. After I got off the phone, I sat in the car for another few seconds. Q. Why? A. I was -- since somebody was home, I figured they were going to open the gate for me. Q. And did someone open the gate for you? A. Not at that time, no. Q. How long did you wait in the car for someone to open the gate for you after you got off the phone? A. Fifteen, thirty seconds, in between there. I can't be exact. Q. And after that interval of time went by and no one opened the gate for you, what did you then do? A. I then stepped out of the vehicle again, and, I pushed the intercom. This time it was answered. Q. Was it answered after a number of buzzes or right away? A. Immediately. Q. And describe what happened next. A. A voice came over the intercom saying, "Sorry, I overslept; I just got out of the shower," and, "I'll be down in a minute." Q. Did you recognize the voice? A. Yes. Q. Whose voice was it? A. Mr. Simpson's. Q. What happened after Mr. Simpson and you stopped talking through the intercom? A. After that, I got back into the vehicle and waited another 30 seconds. Q. Did the gate open during that time when you got off the intercom, went in the vehicle, and waited 30 seconds? A. No, it didn't. Q. What did you then do? A. Sat there and waited. Q. What did you then do? A. I waited until finally, the white male came and opened the gate for me. Q. And is this the same white male that you had seen previously? A. Yes. Q. And this is the very next time that you had seen him, right? A. Yes. (Indicating to Exhibit 116.) Q. You -- can you tell us by walking up to Exhibit 116 and pointing out where the white male walked up to and how the white male opened the gate for you? A. He came up the driveway from this direction, and he didn't come up to the gate and open it manually. He -- I guess where it says control box, somewhere over in that area, he hit a button or what-not, and the gate opened. Q. Okay. And was your car engine on this whole time? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And what did you -- What did you then do? You can take a seat. (Witness resumes witness stand.) A. After the gate opened up, I drove into the property, pulled up with my driver window parallel with the front door, and popped the trunk and got out. Q. You pulled up basically this direction right here, with my pen pointing in the southerly direction? (Indicating.) A. That's correct. Q. And stopped just opposite the front entrance? A. Yes. Q. Now, did you notice, when you pulled in, a black dog? A. Yes. Q. Did the dog run out of the gate when it opened? A. Not that I remember, no. Q. What happened when you pulled up to the -- to the gate? A. When I pulled up to the gate? Q. I'm sorry. Pulled up to the front door area. A. Like I say, I popped the trunk, and stepped out of the vehicle. At that time, the white male came up to me and was asking me about an earthquake. I said no, or he asked me if I felt an earthquake, and I said no. And he started describing these sounds he heard on his wall, and that a picture moved on his wall. He said he was on the phone with a friend, and that was the reason he was coming out. He made some other small talk, like was Mr. Simpson running late, things like that. Q. What did you say when he asked if Mr. Simpson was running late? A. I looked at my watch and I said, "It sure looks like it." Q. Did he have anything in his hands, this white person? A. He had a very small flashlight. Q. You've since seen Kato Kaelin, have you not? A. Yes. Q. Is that the person we're talking about? A. Yes. Q. We can now address -- As Mr. Kaelin? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Well, after you had this little conversation with Mr. Kaelin, then what happened? A. Kaelin walked towards the garage area and was calling the dog at the same time. He was petting the dog, and he proceeded on, calling the dog. He wanted the dog to come with him. He was just about at the corner of the garage area. Q. Where, this southwest corner here, where I'm pointing? A. That's correct. Q. And he was heading there, wanting the dog to come? A. That's correct. Q. The dog was not coming? A. Didn't want to leave. Q. And stayed with you? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Then what happened? A. He walked back over to me, or towards where the dog was, and kind of motivated the dog to go with him. And the dog started to follow him after that. I sat out front. Q. By yourself? A. By myself. Q. Okay. And then what happened? A. After that, he walked around the corner -- how far, I don't know; he was out of the field of my view -- and returned back out front with me shortly after that. Q. Now, when you pulled up to the entrance area of Mr. Simpson's house, did you see any baggage or luggage? A. Yes, there was some bags on the -- just off the driveway, on the porch area. Q. And did you and Mr. Kaelin begin packing those items? A. Not the ones that I saw on the porch, no. Q. Did -- and then at some point in time -- just left them there? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And at some point in time, did Mr. Simpson appear? A. Yes. He finally came down the stairs, carrying a what we all know now is the Louis Vitton bag -- he was carrying that -- and he set that next to the baggage on the ground. Q. This is the first time you seen him -- _ A. Yes. Q. -- since the person that went into the entranceway? A. Yes. Q. Okay. What was he dressed like? A. He was wearing some stone-washed blue Levis, and like, a white polo shirt and what -- I don't remember if he had an overcoat with him. I don't know if he was wearing it or not. Q. Now, the clothes that you saw him wearing at this point in time, did they appear to be the same clothing that you had seen that person wearing going into the house? A. No. Q. When Mr. Simpson appeared, besides his clothing, did you make any other observations of how he appeared to you? A. He just seemed to be in a very big hurry. Q. And can you tell the jury what happened after you first began interacting with Mr. Simpson. A. I -- from what I remember, he set the Louis Vitton bag down next to the other bag, and he proceeded down the driveway. I -- I then picked up the Louis Vitton bag, went and put it -- it was around the same time I saw Kato putting the -- the golf clubs into the trunk, and I walked over and put the Louis Vitton bag into the trunk. Q. So -- let me stop you there. While Kato Kaelin and you are putting some items of luggage into the trunk, you said Mr. Simpson began walking down the driveway? A. From what I remember, yes. Q. And by "the driveway," could you tell us what driveway and what direction? A. Towards the Rockingham gate. Q. Meaning in this direction, where I'm going with my pen, from the entranceway towards the Rockingham gate? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And did he then leave your field of view or vision for a while? A. Yes, he did. Q. Okay. Then what happened? A. Simpson, was -- he was running back -- not running, but he was -- just seemed to be getting things together for the ride to the airport. At some point in time in there, Kato asked me for a flashlight, if I had a flashlight in my vehicle, because he was complaining about his didn't work too well. I proceeded to check the limousine for a flashlight, looked in the glove compartment, looked in the trunk. I couldn't find a flashlight. Q. Did there come a time when you saw any item of luggage away from the area of the front entranceway? A. Yes. Earlier, I noticed a small, dark bag laying on the edge of the -- the driveway, towards the back. Q. Can you show the jury where you believe you saw this small, dark bag. (Witness indicates to Exhibit 116.) A. That would be somewhere in this area. Q. And you're pointing to an area where? A. Yeah, somewhere around there (indicating). Q. This one circle over -- A. Correct. Q. Was there a car next to that bag? A. Yes, there was. Q. Was the car (sic) behind the car? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And tell the jury what you can remember concerning that bag, and who was going to get the bag, and so forth. You can take the witness stand. A. Well, after I was through looking for the flashlight, at some point I asked Mr. Simpson where he'd like the two bags that were on the porch, if he'd like them inside the trunk or inside the cab. He asked me to put them inside the cab, so I did. I put them in there. We were -- at another point, we were standing back by the trunk, Kato, Simpson and I were, towards the back of the trunk, and Kato mentioned he was going to go get that bag, he said, I'll go get that bag for you. Q. By that bag, he meant the one behind the car? A. Yes, he was pointing to that bag. Q. He being Mr. Kaelin? A. Yes. Q. Then what happened? A. Simpson jumped out and said no, no, no, that's okay, that's okay, I'll get the bag, don't worry about it, I'll get it. So Simpson went and grabbed the bag. I was towards the back of the trunk area. I went and closed the passenger driver-side door, and he returned towards the vehicle with that bag. Where he put it I don't remember. I don't know if it was in the trunk or inside the cab. Q. When you say jumped out, what did you mean by that? A. Well, he didn't want Kato to get it so he -- MR. BAKER: I move to strike as to what he thinks Mr. Simpson wanted or didn't want. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Tell us what you observed, Mr. Park, when you say he jumped out, tell us a little more perhaps specifically, you know, what he did to go get the bag? A. He told Kato just what I said and -- Q. When was what? A. He said no, no, no, that's okay, I'll get the bag, don't worry about it. And he moved quickly to get the bag. Q. Okay. Did you -- during the time that that bag was out there, did you get a chance to see it? A. I saw it from a distance. I know it was a dark small bag. Q. Well, let me show you this bag. MR. PETROCELLI: Is this 899? THE CLERK: Yes. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Is this the bag that you saw there? (Referring to Exhibit 899.) A. No. MR. PETROCELLI: Let the record reflect 899 is this bluish bag. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Now, after -- let me back up for a second. Did there come a time during all this activity that you've been describing when Mr. Kaelin and Mr. Simpson began to look for the thing that Mr. Kaelin was talking about, the noise that he had heard? A. Yeah. At one point, Simpson was walking by Kato and I, and Kato was still concerned about what the noise was on the wall. He kept repeating, you know, you sure you didn't feel an earthquake, this and that. And Simpson overheard us talking about an earthquake and he asked, as in a question way, he said oh, we had an earthquake? At that time he was walking back into the house. Kato followed him into the house. At about the time that they came back out, Simpson was talking about searching the property. He pointed in one direction and said you go that way, pointing towards the garage area, he said I'll go this way, pointing going around the back way of the house. Kato started walking towards the garage area and Simpson followed right behind him. He didn't go the other way. Q. Let me understand this. Mr. Kaelin started heading in the direction that he had been before, behind the garage? A. Right. Q. And Mr. Simpson indicated that he was going to go in a different direction? A. Correct. Q. What did Mr. Simpson then do? A. He followed Kato towards the garage area where Kato was -- he was heading back behind that. Q. What did you do during this time? A. I closed the trunk and I closed the doors on the limousine and I proceeded behind Mr. Simpson. Q. So it was the three of you? A. Yes. Q. And about how far did you get, the three of you? A. Kato was just past the corner of the garage, yes. (Mr. Petrocelli indicated to Exhibit 116.) A. Simpson was a little farther behind him, not much farther, and I was right behind Mr. Simpson. Simpson then turned around and saw that I was following back there, and he said we got to go, we got to get out of here. Q. Then what happened? A. So we turned around, went back to the car. I let him in the back, I got into the driver seat, and went to the Rockingham gate that Kato opened up for us. Q. Kato opened the Rockingham gate by using this control box here (indicating)? A. That's correct. Q. And when you exited the Rockingham gate, which way did you pull -- which way did you turn, excuse me? A. I turned left going south. Q. Now, when you began to make that turn left, did Mr. Simpson tell you to wait to see if the dog was going for run out? A. I don't remember that, no. Q. Okay. And as you approached beyond the gate to begin the turn left, did you see any cars coming? A. Yes. There was a car coming from the northern direction heading my way, south. Q. Car coming south -- A. Yes. Q. -- like this (indicating)? And did you go out before that car or did you let that car pass? A. No, I let that car pass. I kind of edged my way out into the street and waited for him to go by and followed him out. Q. And were you focused on that car? A. On the -- not the whole time. I knew it was coming so I focused left to make sure there was no traffic coming from -- heading north coming -- coming, you know, heading back up the -- Rockingham, so I was sure that when the car passed I can -- I can pull out into the street and follow him out. Q. So you knew this car was coming, right? A. Yes. Q. This direction. And you looked left to see if there was cars coming that way, right? A. Correct. Q. Did you see any? A. No. Q. After that car passed, you followed it? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, during that interval of time, did you make any specific observations of whether cars were parked on the curb before or after the gates? A. No. Q. Okay. You didn't look; is that what you're saying? MR. BAKER: That's -- Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You didn't look for parked cars; is that what you're saying? A. No, it wasn't -- that wasn't my concern. Q. Okay. You then drove to the airport? A. Correct. Q. Now, any approximation of what time it was when you left the property on your way to the airport? A. It was around 11:15. Q. And about what time did you get to the airport? A. Just right around 11:30. Q. Lot of traffic? A. No. Q. Sunday night? A. Yes. Q. And Mr. Simpson sat where? A. In the back. Q. And you sat in the front, obviously? A. Yes. Q. Was there any divider between the two of you? A. There was a divider but it wasn't up. Q. So there is nothing separating you and Mr. Simpson in terms of any barriers; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. And did you have any conversation with Mr. Simpson, did he say anything? A. On the way -- I pulled back out onto Sunset. I was getting onto the 405 freeway and the one way I knew to get onto the 405 was to make a left, which was heading north, and it looped around and went back onto the 405. I was in that lane ready to make my turn off that, and Simpson replied that I could get onto the freeway from -- to the right. So instead of just following through with what I was going to do, I got over as fast as I could and made a right-hand turn, which was too soon, so I missed the freeway. And he said that's okay, there's another on-ramp down below. Got on the freeway. In between that time, he repeated that he was hot several times. I told him he can turn on the air conditioning. He had the window down. Asked me what time it was. Asked me what street I was going to take to the airport and he suggested I take Sepulveda. I said okay. And that was it. Q. And how many times did he say to you that he was hot? A. He repeated it three or four times. Q. Did he keep the window in the back open or closed? A. Open. Q. And did he -- did you have any conversation with him about the use of an air conditioner? MR. BAKER: Asked and answered. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I just told him that he can turn it on. Q. Did he? A. Yes. Q. How do you know? A. Because there's a motor behind the passenger front seat, there's a motor that runs the air conditioning in the back right there, and I can -- I can hear the motor come on from where I'm sitting. Q. Did he say anything to you about turning on a light in the back? A. He asked me where a light was, and as I was about to tell him, he found it. Q. Okay. Do you -- did you ever catch a glimpse behind you as you were driving on the freeway to see what he was doing in the back seat? A. I never paid direct attention to him. There were times when I did make some lane changes, since the border was down in the middle it's just easier to use the side windows in the back so I can get over into the other lanes instead of using the little rearview mirror, so I turned -- turned around and looked out the window, but I never paid -- you know, I never looked directly at him. Q. During the times that you were looking, did you ever see him doing anything? A. He seemed to be bending down, which I can see out of the corner of my eye, just bending down, working with the bags -- doing whatever he was doing. Q. At any point in time did he use the cell phone in the car to make a phone call? A. No. Q. When -- when -- withdrawn. At any point in time during the trip to the airport, and even before, when you saw him packing up the car and so forth, did he say anything to you about a -- about being concerned that there was a prowler and calling the police or calling Westec, anything like that? A. Never. Q. Now, when you got to the airport, what happened? A. When we got to the airport, I pulled alongside of the curb, let him out. I popped the trunk before I got out, let him out. Q. You popped the trunk from inside the car? A. Correct. Q. Then you got out? A. I got out, let him out. We both walked to the trunk. I grabbed the Louis Vitton bag, and as I grabbed that, he said why don't you go get a Sky Cap. I set the Louis Vitton bag down by the rear passenger tire; went to look for a sky cap. They were all busy. They said they couldn't help me right now. So I went and got a luggage cart and returned to the car. Q. Then what happened? A. At that time, he had a black duffel bag around his shoulder, and I grabbed the Louis Vitton bag, put it up on the top cart holder, and then he handed me the golf clubs, set those on the cart, and he took care of the rest of the bags. Q. Did you see him at any point at the trunk working with luggage while you were going off to get a Sky Cap? A. Yeah, that's what he was doing when I left. Q. And did you ever see what happened to that bag that you had seen behind the car on the driveway? A. No, I didn't. Q. When -- when the luggage was being transferred over to the Sky Cap, did you see that bag? A. No. Q. And then what's the last thing that you saw when you were interacting with Mr. Simpson, saying good-bye? A. Yeah, I put the two pieces of luggage that I had on the big luggage -- luggage bag. Q. You're talking about the Louis Vitton bag and the golf bag? A. Golf bag. Q. By the way, you don't mean -- when you say golf bag, you don't mean with the clubs showing, you mean in some kind of travel bag? A. Yes. Q. Go ahead. A. That was pretty much the end of it. I said thank you, have a good flight, and he said thanks, add 20 percent, and I shook his hand. Q. Which hand did you shake? A. Right hand. Q. Did you notice anything about his appearance? A. Just seemed in a very big hurry, little bit of sweat on his forehead, and that's it. Q. Were you sweating? A. No. Q. At any point in time during this encounter with Mr. Simpson, from beginning to end, did you ever touch his left hand? A. No, I didn't. Q. Did you ever examine his left hand or any of his fingers? A. No. Q. Did you ever look at them closely? A. No. Q. The only hand you touched was his right hand? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Simpson leave behind in your car, either in the passenger compartments or the trunk, any items of luggage? A. No, he didn't. MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you. No further questions. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER: Q. Didn't leave any blood either? THE COURT: Mr. Baker, I'm going to take 10 minutes. 10 minutes, ladies and gentlemen. (Jurors resume their respective seats.) CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER (continued): Q. Good morning. There was no blood anywhere in that limousine after Mr. Simpson exited that vehicle, true? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, lack of foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Not that I saw, no. Q. Now, you recall during the -- well, let me ask you this, Mr. Park: During the time that you were with Mr. Simpson from around 11 o'clock until before -- until you left the airport at 11:35, 11:40, he made no attempt to conceal his hands, you didn't see any attempt for him to do that, did you? A. No. Q. And if -- you recall Ms. Clark in the criminal trial asking you some questions about his hands, true? A. Yes. Q. And you didn't see any cut or any blood oozing from his left ring -- middle finger, did you? A. No, I didn't. Q. And you -- you would have remembered had you seen -- strike that. You didn't see any band-aid on his left middle finger, did you, either? A. No, I didn't. Q. You would have remembered if you had seen a band-aid on his left middle finger, wouldn't you? A. Yes. Q. And there was none present, correct? A. Correct. Q. Now, you've spent some time with Mr. Petrocelli, the plaintiffs' lawyers? A. Yes. Q. How much time have you spent? A. Five, six hours. Q. Six hours. And that is after you had already testified at the trial for over two days, correct? A. Correct. Q. And your testimony, they had there, before you ever spent another five hours going over your testimony that was going to be presented in this case, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And they had your grand jury testimony that had already been taken under penalty of perjury at this time, correct? A. I would assume, yes. Q. And they had your -- all of your testimony at not only the preliminary hearing, but the grand jury proceeding, correct? A. Correct. Q. Now -- now, Mr. Park, your recollection of -- you've testified to some level of specificity here this morning. You would agree with that, correct. A. Yes. Q. And -- in other words, you seem to have a recollection about particulars, including the exact words my client, Mr. Simpson, used to you on the evening of June 12, 1994, correct? A. Correct. Q. Now, did Mr. Petrocelli go over with you the questions that he was going to ask you and the answers that you were going to give in the five hours that you spent before you came into court and gave your testimony not quite spontaneously? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, argumentative. THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection. If you understand the question? A. Some. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did he have a -- he had a list of typewritten questions for you, didn't he? You saw his questions, they were typewritten, relative to what areas you were going to go over, correct? A. Yes. Q. All right. Now, you had spent -- before you ever spent this five hours with Mr. Petrocelli, you spent a great deal of time with Marcia Clark from the prosecution before you testified at the criminal trial, had you not? A. Correct. Q. Now, let's go over your recollection a little bit. Now, you picked up the bag that Mr. Simpson had out at his -- this Louis Vitton bag. MR. BAKER: That is Exhibit -- MR. P. BAKER: What, the criminal? MR. PETROCELLI: Use the civil number. MR. BAKER: We will, but we have to use the criminal number first. 1062. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) By the way, I have got graduated bifocals -- MR. P. BAKER: Civil, 895. (The instrument herein described as a Louis Vitton bag was marked by reference to the Criminal Case No. BA097211 for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 895 by reference.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Because I'm nearsighted. You're also nearsighted, aren't you, Mr. Park? A. Somewhat. Q. And you have glasses but choose at times not to wear them; is that right? A. Most of the time, not to wear them. Q. You picked up this Louis Vitton bag, put it in the trunk, right? A. Yes. Q. You took it out of the trunk, put it on a cart, right? A. Yes. Q. And you thought that was a Gucci bag, after you spent hours with the prosecution and you had testified at the criminal trial, true? A. Yes. Q. And so when you testified today, you said we now all know that it's a Louis Vitton bag. Did somebody tell you after your criminal trial -- after you picked this bag up, and testified for days, that this was not a Louis -- was not a Gucci bag, but a Louis Vitton bag? A. I was ragged on pretty hard for not knowing the difference between Gucci and Louis Vitton. (Laughter.) Q. Did somebody tell you this was a Louis Vitton bag? A. I think in the criminal trial they -- or in the prelim, somebody said could it have had an LV on it or whatnot. Q. And you still, regardless of that, in the preliminary hearing in July of 1994, testified in March of 1995 you thought it was a Gucci bag, right? A. The night of -- yes. Q. All right. Now, let me show you a golf bag. MR. P. BAKER: 896. THE CLERK: Marked by -- both of those are marked by reference. (The instrument herein described as a black duffel bag was marked by reference to the Criminal Case No. BA097211 for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 896 by reference.) MR. BAKER: I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen, I'm -- put it up here where you can see it now. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You -- you testified here this morning that Kato Kaelin put that bag in the car, did you not? A. That's correct. (Indicating to large black duffel bag.) Q. You testified at the criminal trial that you put that bag in the car, did you not? A. That's wrong. Q. You did not do that, you didn't testify to that? A. Not that I remember, no. Q. Okay. Let me see if I -- MR. PETROCELLI: Give me a page and line, Mr. Baker. MR. BAKER: Sorry? MR. PETROCELLI: Need a page and line. MR. BAKER: Yeah. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You -- you didn't believe after you had handled that bag on two or three occasions on the night of June 12, 1994, you didn't believe that that in fact was the bag that you had handled that night, correct? A. It didn't look like the same bag, no. Q. And you have been since told that you were incorrect, that that is, in fact, the bag that you handled on more than one occasion on the night of June 12, 1994, correct? A. No. Q. You've never been told that? A. Told... Q. Well -- come down, if you would, sir. Because it was your impression, as I recall, that you thought the "Swiss Army" lettering on that bag was different in size than the one you put in and took out of Mr. Simpson's car on the evening of June 12, 1994? A. Well, first of all, I didn't put it in the car, but I do believe that it was a different bag. Q. And you thought it had a different emblem on it? A. That's correct. Q. And if someone were to tell you that is, in fact, the bag that you handled on the night of June 12, 1994, you would disagree with that, sir, because your recollection is that that is the wrong bag, true? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. A. That I would say that it was the right -- Q. (BY MR. BAKER) My question -- A. After somebody told me? Q. If, in fact, you were being told that that was in fact the bag, the golf bag with the golf clubs in it and the golf cover on it, that you handled on June 12, 1994, you would disagree with that, correct? A. That is the bag? I remembered a different bag that was in the trunk. Q. All right. Fair enough. You may resume your seat. Now, you also -- (Indicating to Exhibit 116.) MR. P. BAKER: That's 116. MR. BAKER: Thank you. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You were in -- MR. BAKER: Can you put that shot on the Elmo in the -- in the -- looking into Rockingham from the Ashford gate, please. MR. P. BAKER: 114. (The instrument herein described as a photo of Ashford gate at Rockingham with person to the left was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 114.) MR. P. BAKER: On the screen. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, as I understand it, sir, your car was pulled into the driveway and you were sitting in the driver seat for awhile and you were also out next to the -- to the phone on the left of the gate as we look at the picture on the monitor, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And we've heard from Sergeant Edward that he could, from standing out in the street, see the Rockingham gate. It's your testimony you couldn't see the Rockingham gate at all from the position that you were in while the car was approaching that gate, correct? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, misstates the evidence. THE COURT: Rephrase it. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) When you were in the vehicle, you were five or six feet behind the gate seated in the vehicle, correct? A. Seated, yes. Q. All right. And you were looking out the windshield, true? A. True. MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Park, keep your voice up. Thanks. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you were very concerned about locating Mr. Simpson and getting Mr. Simpson to the airport in time to catch a 11:45 flight, correct? A. Correct. Q. And that was your main concern with the whole evening; is that not true? A. That's correct. Q. In other words, as I recall, isn't it a fact, sir, that you were a part-time driver, you lived next to -- in the same area as Dale St. John? A. Correct. Q. And this was kind of a big responsibility on the night of June 12, 1994 to pick up someone of Mr. Simpson's stature, a celebrity, correct? You didn't want to screw it up, did you? A. No. Q. All right. And so the concern was to get there in plenty of time and to make sure you did everything to get Mr. Simpson to the airport in time to catch that flight, true? A. True. Q. Okay. And you weren't, of course, concerned about whether or not there was cars parked on Rockingham or not, correct? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection as to time, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) When you drove up there at 10:22, you weren't concerned about whether or not cars were parked on Rockingham, were you? A. No, I wasn't. Q. And you didn't look for cars parked on Rockingham. Your concentration was focused on looking at numbers so that you could find Mr. Simpson's house and do the job that you were supposed to do that night, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you have -- you've stated with some degree, sir, of specificity here this morning that -- that you are sure, in your own state of mind, that there wasn't a Bronco in front of 360 North Rockingham when you drove up there at 10:20 or 10:22? Do you recall that? A. I didn't see one. Q. And when you testified -- you're positive you didn't see it, right? A. Didn't see one. Q. Let me read from 7 -- 20793, starting at line 13. The answer goes over to 794 and down to page 13 -- or line 13, sorry. MR. BAKER: Tell me when you're ready, please. Ready? Thank you. MR. PETROCELLI: (Nods.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Question by Ms. Clark. (Reading) When you were looking at the curb and you say you saw this address, you indicated earlier that you did not see a white Ford Bronco? Answer: I wasn't looking for it. I didn't see it. Question: Are you sure you didn't see it? Answer: I wouldn't say I'm positive. I wasn't looking for a car. I was looking for an address. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, that was your testimony at the criminal trial, correct, sir? MR. PETROCELLI: Can you read lines 1 through 7 that complete that line, Mr. Baker. 20795, following page. MR. BAKER: I haven't even looked at that. I'm -- MR. PETROCELLI: I'll read it. MR. BAKER: Fine. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, your concern is, as you indicated here, you weren't looking for a vehicle when you went past 360 North Rockingham; you were concentrating on looking for the address, correct, sir? A. That's correct. Q. And, in fact -- let's just carry that -- that whole thing through for a minute. Now, when you exited the Rockingham property with Mr. Simpson and the vehicle headed to the airport, as I understand your testimony, there was a car going from north to south, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you, in fact, saw the headlamps of that vehicle illuminate the roadway in front of you, did you not? A. Yes. Q. And that gave you an indication that there was a car obviously, a vehicle coming up and that you should pause to wait for the car, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you never saw any Bronco or any other car there because that wasn't your area of concentration when you left Rockingham at around 11:30 -- or 11:15, I'm sorry, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And that vehicle, the white Ford Bronco, is a pretty good size vehicle, isn't it? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And if you were looking right as you were in the driveway and as you're coming out of the driveway waiting for a car going from north to south, you couldn't have missed it, right? A. Never paid attention to it. Q. And you never paid attention to a white Ford Bronco or any other vehicle when you were coming in, correct? A. No, it wasn't my concern. Q. All right. Now, in terms of your -- well, let me go back a little bit, relative to the area that Mr. Simpson's property is located, that Rockingham-Ashford area. Now, that area at 10 o'clock on Sunday night is very quiet, true? A. True. Q. That is -- you mentioned something about when you came up to the property and you turned around -- excuse me -- and parked with your vehicle over on the north side of Ashford, that you were concerned about traffic on Rockingham. Remember that testimony this morning, sir? A. Yes. Q. There is very little traffic on Rockingham, isn't that true, car every five minutes maybe? MR. PETROCELLI: Vague as to time and lack of foundation. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Any time you were there, from 10:22 until you pulled the vehicle into the driveway at 11 -- 10:55? A. There was more traffic on Rockingham than there was on Ashford. Q. And the traffic is what, a car every four, five, six minutes? While you were there smoking a cigarette, you didn't see very many vehicles go past, did you? A. Very few. Q. And when you did see a vehicle go past, while you were sitting on the curb over by Ashford, you could see the lights illuminate up -- north on Rockingham, could you not, before you ever saw the vehicle, true? A. If I was looking for it, yes. Q. You could hear the vehicle before you ever saw the vehicle because it's a very quiet area, isn't that correct? A. Yes. Q. Your concentration between 10:40 and 10:55 was to see if you could locate Mr. Simpson so you could carry out your job that night to get him to the airport, right? A. That's correct. Q. And so your senses including your hearing, your sight, everything, was kind of looking to see if you could see anybody that would give you any indication that you were going to be able to carry out your duties that night, correct? A. Correct. Q. And your anxiety level, I assume, sir, relative to whether or not you were in fact going to be able to carry out your duties increased as you got closer to 11 o'clock, true? A. That's true. Q. And you were really looking and searching for any indication that if there was anybody in the house, anybody around, anybody was coming to the house, true? A. True. Q. And you did not at any time hear a car drive up or hear the sound of a car stopping anywhere around that area; isn't that true? A. That's true. Q. Never heard a door slam, never heard the sound of a car engine, anything like that, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you didn't see from your vantage point over here on Ashford, you didn't see any headlights coming down -- I guess it would be up if we're going north up Rockingham, that a car stopped before it passed Ashford, you didn't see that either, did you, sir? MR. PETROCELLI: I'll object as to time and no foundation that he was looking, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Set the time, Mr. Baker. MR. BAKER: Sure, be happy to. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You didn't see a car -- Well, let me go back and see If I can rephrase it and include the time sequence. Now, you got to the property at approximately 10:22, right? A. Correct. Q. And for you as a limo driver, is 10:22 approximate? I mean for me it's pretty exact, but for you is that approximate? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Fair enough. Came past the 360 seen down by the curb that we see on the TV monitor, drove down Ashford, turned around, correct? A. Correct. Q. Got out of your vehicle, were smoking a cigarette and doing whatever from approximately 10:22 to 10:39, right? A. Correct. Q. Got in your car at 10:39, drove your car around and looked into the gate that we -- area that we -- well, that's Ashford. MR. BAKER: Can we put up the Rockingham photo for a minute, please, Steve. MR. P. BAKER: That's 191. THE COURT: All right, MR. BAKER: Move it over to the gate. And focus. MR. P. BAKER: I'm trying, "Judge." (Exhibit 191 displayed on Elmo.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Okay. You looked -- drove your vehicle up, you were on -- obviously since you were headed in a southerly direction, this way, you look up at the gate area in this area, correct? A. Correct. Q. And when you looked up in that gate area, that was about 10:39, 10:40, and again, your concentration wasn't for any vehicle that was parked on the street, was it? A. No, that's not my concern. Q. Backed up -- backed up to Ashford. MR. BAKER: No, put the other one up. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And pulled the vehicle in with the nose of the vehicle almost touching the gate, correct? A. Correct. MR. P. BAKER: 114 is on the screen. (Exhibit 114 displayed.) Q. We know at this point in time you got out of the vehicle, right? So you were standing at that point in time at 10:40, 10:41, you were still obviously concerned about seeing Mr. Simpson, seeing if you could find Mr. Simpson, and you were looking into the area that you could see of the property from where you were at the call button, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And so your concern was then on that area, true? A. True. Q. And you could see from the call box all the way over to the Rockingham gate without any trouble, couldn't you, when you're at the call box, true? A. I didn't see it, no. Q. Is it your testimony, sir, that from standing at the call box and looking into the gate, that there was something that obstructed your view to the Rockingham gate? A. Yes. Q. What was that? A. That would be the play area and trees and -- Q. The play area is an area that has what in it, do you have any recollection from your evening on the 12 or of your subsequent review of photographs of Mr. Simpson's property? A. No, I have no idea. Q. The play area is just an area with sand in it, isn't it? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, no foundation. He said he doesn't know. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) There is nothing in the play area, Mr. Park, that would obstruct your view, is there? MR. PETROCELLI: Same objection. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Well, there looks like there's some big trees there or bushes or something. Q. Well, you're what, about 5' 11, 10? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. How's that? A. We'll say about that. Q. Okay. Fair enough. Do you know if you wear a size 12 shoe? Now, when you look under -- (Laughter.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, when you looked under the tree, it had some level of height before the branches on it; is that correct? Or if you -- and if you didn't make any note of it, just tell us. A. I didn't pay any attention. Q. Fine. Thank you very much. Now, in terms of your analysis, you were inside the gated area in Rockingham for what, 20, 25 minutes? A. Little less. Q. All right. And during that period of time, you noted the specific movements of my client, Mr. Simpson, out away from the area where you were parked in the driveway? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, vague as to specific movements. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You noted that, did you not. You noted him walk across the driveway, right? A. Yes. Q. And you noticed with some particularity, sir, that there was a bag you say that was in the driveway? MR. BAKER: Phil, will you put up the one that he -- MR. P. BAKER: I think it's 1464. (Exhibit 1464 displayed on Elmo.) MR. BAKER: We've got 1464 on the monitor. Can you back it up, please. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, in the criminal trial this is the exhibit that you drew on at the criminal trial, right? A. Correct. MR. PETROCELLI: No. Objection. Objection, misstates his testimony that he drew on it. THE COURT: That's true. MR. BAKER: Pardon? THE COURT: He didn't testify that he drew it. MR. BAKER: Let's go back. MR. P. BAKER: Number 1456. (Exhibit 1456 displayed on Elmo.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) At the criminal trial, you were able to direct people where to put various markings on this diagram, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you were able to, for example, if you felt that this blue X was in the wrong place, you were able to tell them to move it -- no, it's further south, correct, but you didn't? MR. PETROCELLI: Compound. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. BAKER: I'll withdraw it. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You were able to direct the person who was putting the marks on the Elmo where to put them, were you not, sir? A. If I wanted to, yes. Q. And you directed where the blue X on the letter A is on driveway, correct? A. That's correct. I told him to stop there. Q. And this, on the monitor, was the diagram that we have over here on the easel, was it not, and then you put some markings on it -- or markings were put on it, rather, at your direction, true? A. True. Q. All right. And what does the B stand for that's on the exhibit that's on the Elmo, sir? A. That's for the bag. Q. And you said that there was a bag right in the area where the B was, true? A. True. Q. And you also testified, after being in the area for 20 to 25 minutes and noting with specificity where the bag was; that there were two cars parked in the cut-out area, did you not? A. That's what I observed. Q. If fact, there were not two cars there on that night, were there? A. I still don't know. Q. Well, was it your understanding, sir, that of the purported two cars that were in that cut-out area on the -- well, strike that. When you left you drove right by the cars, car or cars, that were in the cut-out area before you left, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. And in other words, your vehicle was parked going south and you drove out the Rockingham gate and then proceeded up Rockingham right past these purported two vehicles that were -- that were allegedly parked there, right? A. Correct. Q. And in your recollection of the events of that evening, those recollections came after you had spent some hours with Ms. Clark and seen pictures of the vehicles that were parked in the driveway; isn't that true? A. Not that I remember, no. Q. Is it your recollection that there was a Saab convertible parked as the back most vehicle when you say that you were there on June 12, 1994? A. I never said what type. Q. I'm asking you, sir, is that the type it was, or do you have a recollection of that at all? A. No. Q. You have a recollection of exactly where this bag was purportedly placed? Was it placed behind a Bentley, was it placed behind a Saab, was it placed behind some other type of vehicle, or is it possible you don't have a clear recollection of that at all. MR. PETROCELLI: Misstates his testimony. He didn't say anything about exactly, Your Honor. It's argumentative and compound. THE COURT: Overruled. A. It was behind a vehicle. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, as you sit here now, you have no recollection of what type of vehicle, how far it was behind, and what color it was, right? A. That's correct. Didn't care. Q. And so, wasn't really your concern that night, was it? A. No, it wasn't. Q. You knew it was a dark, thought maybe it was a dark bag, right? You don't know whether it was this bag or any other bag, do you? MR. PETROCELLI: Object, misstates his testimony. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) This bag is Exhibit 899. You don't know whether it was this bag or any other bag, do you? MR. PETROCELLI: Misstates his testimony. THE COURT: You may answer. MR. BAKER: I'm asking a question. THE COURT: Do you know whether it was this bag? THE WITNESS: That's not the bag I saw. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Not the bag you saw. Let me ask you this: Was that purported -- the bag that you saw 10 feet behind the vehicle, 15 feet behind the vehicle; how far was it, sir? A. Five feet, ten feet. Q. And you remember specifically the bag with enough specificity to say that it was not Exhibit 899, right? A. That's correct. Q. Now, Mr. Petrocelli showed you an exhibit of -- a picture of Exhibit 899 in the five hours that you spent with him, didn't he? A. Yes, he did. Q. And he told you that that wasn't the bag, didn't he? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, hearsay, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Him and others. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) They all told you that wasn't the bag, huh? A. No, I told them that it wasn't the bag. Q. Oh, I see. Fair enough. Now, when you were parked at the Ashford gate, as I understand it, you got out of your vehicle, went over to the intercom, pushed the button, and didn't hear anything, got back in, and that's when you started making the multiple telephone calls, right? A. Correct. Q. And in these multiple telephone calls, as I understand it, the last telephone call that you made before you saw Mr. Simpson was a telephone call -- that was an incoming call -- strike it. Not that you made -- an incoming call from your boss Mr. St. John, correct? A. I didn't understand that. Q. Okay. The last call you got was from your boss, and you were talking to him when you saw this person that you identified at the criminal trial, first observed where the blue X is, and then walking towards the front door, you were on the phone with Dale St. John at this time, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And what you were on the phone with him about was discussing whether or not Mr. Simpson was there or was going to miss the trip that you were to provide from his home to LAX, right? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. He objected to the conversation with St. John. MR. BAKER: It was overruled. MR. PETROCELLI: No, it was stricken at your request. Now he's eliciting the same conversation. MR. BAKER: No, I'm not. THE COURT: If he's eliciting, then's he waiving it. MR. PETROCELLI: Then I would like the testimony not to be stricken that I elicited. THE COURT: You may reask it on your redirect. MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The subject matter that you were talking about to Mr. St. John was the subject matter of Mr. Simpson going -- whether he was there, and getting him to LAX, was it not? A. There's correct. Q. And you say during that conversation you saw an African American about 6 feet tall, 200 pounds at the place where the blue X is, walking towards the front entrance of the home, true? A. Around that area, yes. Q. Now, I take it that you had -- and you didn't tell Dale St. John anything about visualizing this African American, 6 feet tall, 200 pounds, walking from the area in the driveway into the entrance of the house, never said a word to him, right? A. That's correct. Q. Now, this is after you had been at the property, now, for 30 minutes looking for Mr. Simpson, right? A. Correct. Q. And this is after you, of course, have, like everybody else, seen him on television more than once, had you not? A. True. Q. And I take it, sir, that it crossed your mind that possibly Mr. Simpson -- his house, he's a pretty good size guy, he's an African American, and this walking towards the entrance of the house, and you never said one word to your boss about that? A. No. Q. No. Okay. Now, you say that when you saw this individual, that this individual is dressed in dark clothing, right? A. Yes. Q. Now, and you've now testified here in court that it was dark pants, dark shirt, right? MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me, Your Honor, I object to "now," it's argumentative, misstates his prior testimony. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You've now testified in this courtroom that he was wearing dark pants, dark shirt, right? A. Dark bottoms and dark top, yes. Q. And you testified at the criminal trial that he could have been in a robe, you didn't know, isn't that true, sir? A. No, that is not true. MR. P. BAKER: That is 20847, starting at line 3. MR. PETROCELLI: Hold on. Before you put it on -- please take it off. MR. BAKER: Take it off until we get -- MR. PETROCELLI: 20847 where? MR. P. BAKER: Starting at line 3. MR. BAKER: 3 to 21. (Indicating to transcript displayed on Elmo.) MR. PETROCELLI: Okay, Mr. Baker. MR. BAKER: Thank you. You can put it up, Phil. (Mr. P. Baker complies, displays transcript on Elmo.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You testified that you saw the figure. (Reading.) Question: And you saw that figure for only a second or so, isn't that correct? Your answer, yes. Question: You told us that that figure was attired in something dark and it could have been a robe, you don't know what it is; is that correct? Then there's some objections. It could have been a robe; is that correct? Answer: It seemed to be dark clothing. It could have been anything. Question: It could have been anything because you don't know, isn't that true? That's true. Question: You just got a fleeting glance, isn't that right? Yes, sir. Strike that. You just got a fleeting glance, isn't that right, sir? Yes. MR. BAKER: Now there's one more. MR. PETROCELLI: Read lines 22 through 25 on this point, Mr. Baker. MR. BAKER: You got to tell me before I -- MR. PETROCELLI: Same page. It's the very next question and answer, it's on the screen. MR. BAKER: (Reading.) And you never had a chance to see the hem of the robe swirling around or anything of that nature, did you? Answer: No. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you never, of course, saw what -- from your vantage point, whether or not Mr. Simpson or whoever the person was, had bare legs, did you? A. No. Q. And you never saw -- MR. BAKER: Put that back up, that's on the Elmo, please, the picture, please. MR. P. BAKER: That is 1456. (Exhibit 1456 displayed on Elmo.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You never saw, from your vantage point, anybody walking along in this area. The first time you ever saw any human being, black, African American, 6 feet tall, 200 pounds, was in the area where you had the blue X placed on the exhibit that's on the monitor, correct? A. Correct. Q. You didn't see anybody up the Rockingham portion of the driveway in front of the garage, in front of the breakfast nook, true? A. True. Q. Now, is it your testimony, Mr. Park, that when you observed -- and let's just assume that it's Mr. Simpson, okay -- lived in the place, was an African American, he's 6 feet tall, 200 pounds, okay. When you saw Mr. Simpson, was it simultaneously that you saw Mr. Kaelin? A. Almost. Q. Now, who did you see first? A. Mr. Kaelin. Q. So you saw Mr. Kaelin first, and I take it that during this period when you're talking to your boss, and you're observing out the windscreen (sic) of your automobile, you're trying to see activities in here because you're really concerned about whether or not you're going to get Mr. Simpson to the airport, right? A. Correct. Q. So your senses are pretty good, and you're scanning the whole area to see whether or not there's any movement, any activity whatsoever, correct? A. Correct. Q. All right. And so virtually simultaneously you see Mr. Kaelin at an area where the path intersects the driveway, right? A. Yes. Q. And you saw Mr. Simpson for a fleeting second going into the house, right? A. Yes. Q. And it's your testimony in this courtroom, sir, that you didn't pay attention to anything that Mr. Kaelin did after that fleeting second, you just sat in your car? A. That's correct. Q. And Mr. Kaelin was now -- by now Mr. Simpson has entered his residence, hasn't he? A. I'd assume, yes. Q. And you're still out there scanning the interior of Rockingham and you don't pay attention to what Mr. Kaelin does? A. No, not the whole time. After the person went into the house, I figured somebody was there and I was a little bit more relaxed and wasn't even looking through the gate any more, I was looking at the dashboard and just talking on the phone. Q. So you have a clear recollection as you sit here now, some two and a half years later, that it wasn't any concern of yours to see where Mr. Kaelin went, to see whether or not he was going to open the gate, and now you got relaxed and you have a recollection of looking at the dashboard. Had the dashboard moved in the interim? A. No. Q. All right. And there was no -- there certainly wouldn't have been, Mr. Park, any additional information on the dashboard that hadn't been there for the minute you'd been up there, correct? A. True. Q. All right. Now, then you -- some minutes later Mr. Kaelin opens the gate for you? A. About a minute. Q. Okay. So you saw him at the point where the green arrow is on the exhibit, and you then -- there was no other activity, you looked away, and approximately a minute later you see Mr. Kaelin at the gate control box, right? A. Yes. Q. And you don't know what happened to Mr. Kaelin during the whole other time, right? A. Don't really care. Q. Okay. And whether you care or not, you don't know? A. Don't know. Q. And in that 60 seconds you hadn't observed him walking in any direction, north, south, east, or west, or any variations thereof, true? A. True. Q. Now, after you then get the gate open, you drive from the gate directly to the area where the front entrance is, true, sir? A. True. Q. And when you -- you didn't have to wait for the dog or anything like that, did you? A. Not that I remember, no. Q. You just drove straight in; there was no dog crossing your path or anything, right? A. No. Q. Okay. After you get there, you get out of your vehicle, and is it Kato that puts the golf bag in the vehicle? A. From what I remember, yes. Q. And was it you that put the -- strike that. You thought originally, your memory was that there were two duffel bags in that little entranceway area; isn't that correct? A. That's what I thought, yes. Q. Thank you. This was one of the duffel bags, right? A. Yes. MR. BAKER: And this was 1064? MR. P. BAKER: Civil 897. MR. BAKER: 897. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Your recollection of the events on the night of June 12, 1994 was that there was two duffel bags; you put those both in the back of the car, right? A. Correct. Q. And in fact one of those purported duffel bags was a foldover suit garment bag, correct? A. Yes. Q. So your recollection in that regard was a little -- little off, huh? A. Yes. Q. And then, sir, after you put the garment bag and the -- Kato put the golf bag in the back, that's when you had this encounter with Kato relative to the flashlight and whether there was an earthquake; is that right? A. That correct. Q. And it was after that that you had -- Mr. Simpson comes out of the front door and he's dressed in stone-washed blue jeans and a white T-shirt or white shirt, correct? A. I don't understand the time line there. He just -- that was the first time he came out, no. Q. Well, after you had pulled in, opened the door, how long was it till Mr. Simpson came out of the front door of that house dressed in a white shirt and stone-washed Levi's? A. Five or six minutes. Q. And have you a specific recollection of that? A. Yes. Q. All right. And in the interim was he carrying anything when he came out? A. The Louis Vitton bag. Q. The Louis Vitton bag, then Gucci bag? A. What I thought. Q. Okay. Fair enough. And he put that down and walked over towards the Rockingham portion of the driveway, right? A. From what I remember, yes. Q. And you didn't obviously keep track of where he went, did you? A. No. Q. And then -- and you were chatting with Kato about the thumps and flashlights, et cetera? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Simpson came back, and you had already put the Louis Vitton bag in the trunk, right? A. Correct. Q. And came back, and he had another package with him, didn't he? A. Came back from where? Q. When he came back from the Rockingham driveway, he had another package with him, didn't he? A. Not that I remember. Q. You don't have a recollection one way or the other? A. No. Q. All right. And then after that, was there this discussion concerning getting a flashlight from inside the house? A. That who? Q. Did you hear a conversation between Kato and O.J. relative to getting a flashlight so that they could do a search inside -- A. No, I didn't. Q. You actually followed them into the house, didn't you? A. At one time, I was in the front section of the house, the entrance. Q. By the way, did you ever see any blood in that front section? A. No. Q. Did you ever see any blood in the front entranceway? A. No. Q. When you were bending down to pick up the -- garment bag or whatever, did you ever see any blood in that area? A. No. Q. The lights were on, there's a lamp observed, called in this case, at least, the coach lamps? A. Yes. Q. In other words, there's a lamp in his front entrance. There's a lamp above the right and left side of the door as you face it, correct? A. From what I remember, yes. Q. All right. And these were both on, correct? A. Yes. Q. And there was absolutely nothing observed by you that even closely resembled blood in the foyer, on the ground, or in the entranceway, true? A. Correct. MR. BAKER: This a good place, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, come back at 1:30. Don't talk about this case, don't form or express any opinions. THE CLERK: Exhibit 897 was marked by reference. (The instrument herein described as a leather-like bag was marked by reference to Criminal Case No. BA097211 as Defendants' Exhibit No. 897.) (At 11:55 A.M. a recess was taken until 1:35 P.M. of the same day.)
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (The jurors resumed their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) MR. BAKER: Thank you. Excuse me. ALLAN PARK, the witness on the stand at the time of the luncheon recess, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER: Q. Good afternoon, sir. A. Good afternoon. Q. Would you put that diagram back up. MR. P. BAKER: 1452. MR. PETROCELLI: It's 56. MR. P. BAKER: 56. Took a long lunch. MR. BAKER: Have to be retrained after lunch. MR. PETROCELLI: So the record is clear, it's 1456. MR. BAKER: Fair enough. (Exhibit 1456 displayed on Elmo.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, Mr. Park, the B is for the bag that you say you noticed when you were about 20 feet away from it; is that right? A. About 24, yes. Q. And you believe that bag was behind the second car that was parked over there in the cut-out area, correct? A. It was behind the car, yes. Q. It was behind the second car, was it not? A. Yes. Q. And you don't even know, after you saw Mr. Simpson go towards the bag, you don't know if that bag was put in the trunk; you don't know if that bag -- well, strike it. Let me ask you this: When you talked about the bag, you talked about Mr. Simpson being at the back of the limo with -- with duffle bags and looking into the bags, you were meaning to imply that you went over, picked up the bag where the "B" was, took it into the interior of the limousine with him; isn't that true? A. No, that's not true. I never saw where he put the bag. Q. You don't know if that bag was put in the back of the car; you don't know if that bag was put in the cab of the car, do you? A. No, I don't. Q. Do you -- you don't know if Mr. Simpson was, in this automobile going to the airport, looking in that bag or any other bag, do you? A. No. Q. And when you put the -- the -- directly where this blue cross is put on this diagram that's on the monitor, these were -- were potted plants, were they not, right there (indicating)? A. I believe so. Q. And you directed them to put the X up between those potted plants, did you not, sir? A. Not that I remember, no. Q. Now, as I understand your testimony, on -- on examination by Mr. Petrocelli, the -- you say the X should have gone down below the area where it's placed because Mr. Simpson had to kind of cut the corner. And you could view this all at night from your vantage point out on Ashford, right? A. Correct. Q. And you also said that you could view this -- and at that time, you said there were no lights on downstairs, right? A. From what I viewed, no. Q. And you also testified, of course, that Mr. Simpson was in dark clothing. And he's a black African-American, correct? A. Correct. Q. And now, when you were directing the -- the mark to be put, which was -- there was an arrow on that, whatever that Teleprompter thing was, that came up on the -- on the Elmo, was it not? A. I believe so, yes. Q. And that's how you directed them to put the mark on there, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you asked them -- when you were directed where to put the mark, you said up further, not down; isn't that true, sir? A. I don't really -- don't remember that. Q. I know I'm asking you a long time ago. Let me just read from your transcript, when you put that mark on there, at 2808 -- MR. PETROCELLI: I have 2571. MS. MOLINARO: What's the citation? MR. BAKER: 20808. 20000 -- Yeah. You want to see it? MS. MOLINARO: I got it. MR. P. BAKER: You want it on the board? MR. LEONARD: Wait. Let him read it. MR. BAKER: Now, let me -- (Reading:) "Q. Can you please indicate, if you would, sir, direct that arrow, if you can find it on this photograph." I'm sorry. Did you. MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I think that's the wrong place. I think it's referred to -- Can I discuss this at side bar? THE COURT: Okay. THE COURT REPORTER: With the reporter? MR. PETROCELLI: Yes. (The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.) MR. PETROCELLI: I don't have any objection to Mr. Baker reading what he wants to read, but I think this particular exhibit that he's got on the television was not created at the reference that Mr. Baker was citing (referring to exhibit 1456). But I believe if you read here, it was created here. And you can tell by the reference to the circle. And the circle being this circle right here, Your Honor (indicating). MR. BAKER: I can't tell what you're pointing to. What were you pointing to? MR. PETROCELLI: Right there. You see, he's trying to direct him away from that circle. I think that's where he marks that particular exhibit up in the record. And the reference that Mr. Baker would like to cite -- I'll turn the page when you're finished reading. THE COURT: Okay. (Court reads transcript.) THE COURT: I don't understand your point. MR. PETROCELLI: My point is that Mr. Baker is indicating that this mark was placed on here at this point in the testimony, and I believe it was placed on here at this point in the testimony (indicating). I'm suggesting to Mr. Baker that this may be a different exhibit that he marked up, not the one -- THE COURT: That's what, 139? MR. PETROCELLI: Can we check that out? We need a little time to see if this corresponds to 139. MR. BAKER: Well, Your Honor, there's only one person that -- he said it's clear that from this page -- just let me finish, please -- that he is talking about putting a mark as to where he first saw the person, between 10:54 and 10:55, walk into the house. THE COURT: The question is, does it refer to 139? MR. BAKER: I don't know that they are referring to that exhibit in relationship to this. I don't know that they are -- MR. PETROCELLI: Your question, though, is directed to this exhibit that's on the TV monitor. MR. BAKER: Sure it is. MR. PETROCELLI: I think there's a problem -- MR. BAKER: I don't think there's a problem. He's asking him -- there's only one person he testified to that went into the house between 10:54 and 10:55. THE COURT: Can I see the previous page? MR. BAKER: Sure. (Court reads page 20807.) MR. BAKER: I couldn't tell from there. That's all I can tell you. I can't tell if 139 refers to this report. THE REPORTER: Mr. Baker, what page is this? MR. BAKER: 20808. MR. PETROCELLI: Can he ask the question with regard -- without regard to that particular exhibit? MR. BAKER: No; it makes no sense. MR. PETROCELLI: This center mark, I can't tell what that is. It looks like it's this document and not that document. The page I was referring to was at 20571, and the page Mr. Baker is referring to is 20808. Did you find the exhibit number? MS. MOLINARO: Yes. MR. PETROCELLI: It's this one. (Counsel displays an exhibit.). MS. MOLINARO: If you read to line 23 -- and he marked it. MR. PETROCELLI. They marked it right down there. (Referring to page 20808.) MR. BAKER: That makes no sense. That's -- MR. PETROCELLI: That's what's quoted. MR. BAKER: Well, and the reason this makes no sense, sir, is, as you will see, in each one of these, Allan Park is up here. I don't know who BK is. I assume that's Brian Kaelin; that's where he came out the path, referring to an exhibit entitled 139-A. MR. BAKER: There are no potted plants. MS. MOLINARO: Potted plants? MR. BAKER: I know. But it says by the arrow. MR. PETROCELLI: It's clear to this testimony if you're referring to this circle here, (referring to Exhibit 1456 of civil transcript) he's trying to direct -- this is where it's being marked 20571 of the criminal trial transcript and -- THE COURT: Well -- MR. PETROCELLI: Why don't you read this. MR. BAKER: I like this. MR. PETROCELLI: If you don't read this, I'm going to -- THE COURT: Why don't we do this: Inasmuch as the record is ambiguous, I'm going to let him examine, and you can examine on that part of it. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. THE COURT: Let the jury decide which one you're referring to. There's no other way to decide. MR. PETROCELLI: Well, they should have done a better job at the criminal trial. THE COURT: That may be so. MR. PETROCELLI: 139-B is Allan Park. MR. BAKER: Where's the arrow? MS. MOLINARO: It's a white arrow, Mr. Baker, and I think you can't see it because of the flash. MR. PETROCELLI: They're clearly not referring to this. This is what the witness is talking about in Mr. Baker's page reference. MS. MOLINARO: Read to page 20809; you'll see the 139-B. THE COURT: Excuse me? MS. MOLINARO: If you read to page 20809, you will see at line 11 -- 10 and 11, they marked it 139-B, as in "boy." Flip the page. MR. BAKER: Sure. MS. MOLINARO: Sorry. MR. BAKER: No, it's all right. (Counsel turns page.) THE COURT: Oh yeah, there it is. MS. MOLINARO: Yes. THE COURT: That's what it looks like. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Thank you: (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) MR. BAKER: Can we put that back up. MR. P. BAKER: The transcript? MR. BAKER: No, no, the diagram. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, Mr. Park, when you were directing where the blue X is, you requested that person who is actually putting the mark on it to come straight out from that kind of faint circle. MR. BAKER: Can you zoom in there and move it over in the center. (Referring to Exhibit 1456.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You directed them to come straight out from this circular area, did you not? A. That's correct. Q. You didn't request them to come down and go down by the potted plants or up by the potted plants; you said to come straight out, and that's why the X is put there. And then you approved the placing of the X in that area, correct? A. That's correct. I said around there. Q. Let me see if that's -- (Pause in proceedings.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Okay. You went over your deposition when -- your trial testimony, rather, when you were placing that mark, you went over your trial testimony with Mr. Petrocelli, did you not? A. Not that I remember, no. Q. You said at 2571, line 21 -- can you show us on this diagram where you first saw that person. "A. Hum, just if you go where the circle is, go straight back. "No, the other way a little bit further. It was about there, around that area." That's what you testified to, right? A. That's correct. Q. And you didn't think that they should go up and down from the driveway, did you not? A. No. Q. And you didn't testify in any other proceeding other than today, that Mr. Simpson had to kind of round the corner to get into his driveway, did you? A. No. Q. In other words, all the other times you ever testified, the only time you testified that he had to kind of round the corner was today, true? A. That's correct. Q. And yet, you've been asked about this incident under penalty of perjury, now, at least four times, true? A. Yes, in different ways. Q. Now, on the -- on the way to the airport, Mr. Simpson never indicated to you he was hot, after he turned the air conditioner, did he? A. No. Q. And just one other area. And that is, you had certainly heard engines that sounded like Ford Broncos and were even familiar with Ford Broncos before -- THE REPORTER: Excuse me, "before . . ." Q. (BY MR. BAKER) June 14, 1994. It should be 12. I apologize. You were familiar with the sounds, even of Ford Broncos and the engines, before June 12 of '94, right? A. I've heard the sounds. Q. And you didn't hear any sound that was remotely similar to a Ford Bronco the evening of June 12, 1994? A. I heard no sounds. Q. And just one other. You did believe that the person that you saw for the first second when you first saw the "cross" going into the house could have been wearing a bathrobe and so testified, did you not, sir? A. Could have been wearing anything, yes. Q. Let me read from your trial testimony, 2657 at line 18 through 23. MR. PETROCELLI: One more time. Sorry. MR. BAKER: Sure. 20657, and commencing at line 18, through 23. MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you. MR. BAKER: Tell me when you've got it. MR. PETROCELLI: Got it. MR. BAKER: Thank you. (Reading:) "Q. Now, with regard to this person you indicated you saw somewhere out there in the driveway area, you've described it with some particularity, so I won't go over that in detail. Could that person have -- could that person have had a robe on? "A. Could have." Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That's what you testified to on March 2, 1995, correct? A. Yes. MR. BAKER: Thank you. I have nothing further at this time, Your Honor. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PETROCELLI: Q. Did you at any time in the course of this civil proceeding, ever get a call from Mr. Baker to come talk to him about the facts of this case? A. No, I didn't. Q. At any time did you ever get a call from Mr. Leonard to talk about the facts of this case? A. No, I didn't. Q. Have you ever received a call from any member of Mr. Simpson's legal team to discuss the facts of this case? A. No. Q. If you had gotten such a call, would you have talked to them? A. Yes. I have no reason not to. Q. And could you try to keep your voice up? A. Yes. Q. We're getting closer. MR. BAKER: Not down, up. MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Now, you've talked to lots of lawyers, in court and out of court, since June 12, 1994, haven't you? A. Yes, I have. Q. And the first lawyer that ever got in touch with you is a man named Robert Shapiro, right? A. That's correct. Q. And he was with a man named Skip Taft, right? A. Yes. Q. And they represented O.J. Simpson, right? A. As far as I knew, yes. Q. And they called you on the telephone, right? A. That's correct. Q. And they interviewed you about this case, right? A. Yes. Q. And that occurred on what date, sir? A. June 14. Q. So, two days later? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, that was a telephone call, right? A. That's correct. Q. Did you know -- did they tell you that they were taping that telephone call? A. No, they didn't. Q. And did you later find out that they, in fact, without your knowledge or permission, taped that call? MR. BAKER: Objection. This is irrelevant, Your Honor. MR. PETROCELLI: It is not. MR. BAKER: Well, those are not his present lawyers. THE COURT: Subject to motion to strike, if I find it irrelevant, you may move to strike. THE WITNESS: Repeat it. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Did you find out later on that they had taped that interview with you, without your permission or your knowledge? A. Yes, I did. Q. And did you later find out that there was a transcript of that interview? A. Yes, I did. MR. PETROCELLI: I'd like to refer to some portions of that transcript. MR. BAKER: I don't think -- MR. PETROCELLI: Next in order? THE CLERK: 2205. (The instrument herein referred to as "Shapiro/Taft" interview of Alan Park was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2205.) MR. BAKER: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. MR. PETROCELLI: I'm going to now direct some questions with regard to the questions you were asked and answers that you gave on June 14 -- MR. BAKER: Wait a minute. I'm objecting to putting up there. MR. PETROCELLI: On what ground? MR. BAKER: But there is no evidence and there's no foundation. THE COURT: Hold on a second. MR. PETROCELLI: It's prior consistent statements, Your Honor. THE COURT: Just a minute. MR. BAKER: May I see that? MR. PETROCELLI: Oh, you have this, Mr. Baker. Don't look at all my notes. (Mr. Petrocelli hands document to Mr. Baker.) THE COURT: Okay. Overruled. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I'd like to approach because I want to see what he's going to put in. THE COURT: Okay. You may. (The following proceedings were held at the bench with the reporter.) THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. PETROCELLI: The three topics you -- the three topics on which you sought, to impeach Mr. Park I will rehabilitate with prior consistent statements are where you saw Mr. Simpson, page 2. MR. BAKER: Okay, if it's where you say I saw -- MR. PETROCELLI: Let me finish. MR. BAKER: I apologize. MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Simpson, also at page 4 and 5, dark clothing -- on the subject of clothing and also the issue of the bag, all of which he said two days after the event in question. MR. BAKER: Well Your Honor, first of all, it said he saw something cross the driveway and go into the house. That isn't an inconsistent -- that's an inconsistent statement; that's not a prior consistent statement. So under 1237 or 36 whatever it is, you can't accomplish that. MR. PETROCELLI: Your client is taking the position he came out the door and only went as far as benches. You're going to argue to the jury that he was at no time out of the driveway. Mr. Park's testimony establishes otherwise. He is out. You sought to impeach his credibility and ability to perceive, and I'm rehabilitating him. THE COURT: Okay. In terms of rehabilitation, you can read it. I'm not going to allow that into evidence, the document into evidence. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. MR. BAKER: So then don't put it up, please. MR. PETROCELLI: Why can't I put it up? THE COURT: Because you don't have any foundation for it. You want to lay foundation for it, you can offer it. MR. PETROCELLI: He just said he was tape-recorded, and this is a transcript of it. I can show it to him; he can read it; and he can verify this is a transcript of his interview. THE COURT: Well, that's still not going to permit the entire interview to come in. MR. PETROCELLI: Well, I'll just read it, then okay? I won't put it up. THE COURT: All right. (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Park, we'll read from certain portions of the transcript of the interview you gave to Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Taft on June 14, asking you some questions, okay? Did you tell Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Taft the following: "And as I was talking to him on the phone, I was parked in the driveway. And at that time, I saw somebody cross the driveway and go into the house." A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Page 2 -- That was lines 25 through 27. Page 4, lines 17 through 21. (Reading:) "Q. Where was the person when you first saw that person? "A. I saw him coming at least, you know, just -- it was dark. So he came towards where the other cars were parked, up there where the Rolls Royce and stuff. They came from that area and walked into the house. "Q. When you say "they," you saw two people? "A. No, just one. Just one. "Q. One person? "A. One person. "Q. Was the person running or walking? "A. I would say walking pretty quickly, not running." You gave those answers? A. Correct. Q. You were also asked about the clothing. I'd like to read your answer with regard to clothing. Page 5, line 17: (Reading:) "And the person was dressed how? "A. Dark. They were in dark clothes." Did you give that answer? A. Yes. Q. Again at page 3, line 12: (Reading:) "And like I said, I saw somebody go in the house. They were just -- it was all dark clothes. It was -- you know, I could not see who it was or, you know, I just saw somebody go in, and they were wearing a lot of dark clothes. Did you give those answers? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And on the question of this bag, while I'm on this interview, given just two days after the events, on page 14, line 15, you were asked a question about the bag. Your answer, line 15: "There -- the bag, the one of the bags -- there was a bag laying -- like I said, there was a bag laying in front of his door, the front door, and then there was a bag laying over towards the other cars, where his Rolls Royce and stuff was parked. At one time the blond-haired person who was at the house offered to go get the bag. He said well, 'I'll go get that bag and put it in the trunk,' and O.J. kept saying, 'no, no, no, that's okay, I'll get it, I'll get it. Don't worry about it, let me get that bag.'" Did you give those answers? A. Yes. Q. That bag that Mr. Baker and I showed you previously, that blue bag, was that the bag you saw? A. No, it wasn't. Q. And by the way, Mr. Baker asked you some questions about my showing you the pictures of that bag. Do you remember that? A. Yes. Q. Did I show you pictures of all sorts of luggage? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Did I ask you whether or not you could find the bag? MR. BAKER: Leading and suggestive, Your Honor. MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Did I ask you whether or not, in all the various pictures of items of luggage I showed you, if you could find the bag among the pictures that you saw that night? A. Yes. Q. And were you able to do so? A. No. Q. Did I show you the photograph of that blue bag? A. Yes. Q. Did I ask you if that is the bag you saw? A. Yes. Q. What did you say? A. No. Q. Did I then tell you Mr. Simpson claims this is the bag; does that refresh your recollection? ? A. Yes. Q. And what did I -- did you say? A. No. Q. Did you not tell the grand jury when you testified under oath, on whether Mr. Simpson was wearing dark clothes the following -- MR. BAKER: I'm going to object. He can't just, without a question, just read from the transcript. The transcript can only be used to impeach if he gives an incorrect answer. MR. PETROCELLI: Page -- MR. BAKER: That's improper. MR. PETROCELLI: Page 257. MR. BAKER: He objected to it yesterday. THE COURT: Overruled. This is rehabilitation of cross-examination. MR. PETROCELLI: It's at -- It's at page 257; it's lines 23 through 25. MR. BAKER: Fine. MR. PETROCELLI: (Reading:) "Q. What was he wearing? "A. I should say, from what I can tell, it was dark clothes. I cannot tell what kind of clothes, suit or anything. It was just a dark shirt and dark pants." Was that your testimony? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Baker showed you the -- that mark where you put the cross, indicating where you saw the dark figure going into the house. Do you recall that? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And he read from the criminal trial testimony certain lines, and I want to read the next two lines that he did not read to you, okay? But I will start at page 20571, Mr. Baker, and -- MR. BAKER: What is it? MR. PETROCELLI: 20571. And I'll read lines 21 through 28. MR. PETROCELLI: And can you put 1456 on the Elmo. (Mr. Foster complies, displays Exhibit 1456.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) This is where you were asked on that gizmo to indicate the spot. Do you recall that, Mr. Park? A. Yes. Q. (Reading:) "Q. Can you show us on this diagram where you first saw that person. "A. Hum, just if you go where the circle is, go straight back. No, the other way, a little bit farther. It was about there, (indicating) around that area. "Q. Okay. Roughly that area? "A. Yeah. Was it roughly that area? A. That's correct. Q. Mr. Baker asked you a series of questions about your purpose in and concern in going to Rockingham on June 12. Do you remember that? A. Yes. Q. He asked you, wasn't it just your purpose and concern to pick up Mr. Simpson and get him to the airport. Do you recall that? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, when you were trying to find 360 North Rockingham, was it your purpose and concern to find the address? A. Yes. MR. PETROCELLI: Can you put up the picture of -- Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) By the way, on this issue of purpose and concern, when you went to North Rockingham that night, was it your purpose and concern to sit and smoke a cigarette? A. No. Q. Or to make numerous calls from the intercom? A. No. Q. Or to go behind the house and look for noises? A. No. Q. Or use the cell phone? A. No. Q. But all those things happened, right? A. That's correct. Q. All right. So when you were driving up 360 North Rockingham, with your purpose and concern to find that address, you saw those numbers, right? (Indicating to Elmo.) A. That's correct. Q. Now, you see a picture of that large -- as Mr. Baker said, a very large vehicle, white in color? A. Yes, I do. Q. Couple of feet away from the curb? A. Yes. Q. You drove by there the first time at 10:23 or so? A. Correct. Q. You drove by there the second time at 10:40? A. Correct. Q. At 10:40, you stopped at that precise location? MR. BAKER: This is totally leading questions. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Did you stop right in front of that vehicle at 10:40? A. Around that time, yes. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) When you stopped there, when you passed there the first time looking at 360, did you or did you not see the car there? MR. BAKER: That's -- A. I did not see it. Q. When you went by there around 10:40 and stopped to assess the driveway, did you or did you not see that car there? A. I don't -- no, I did not see that car. Q. Is where that car is now within the field of vision that you had when you were looking at the curb and looking at the driveway? A. Yes. Q. Would you have seen that car if it were there at the time? MR. BAKER: Oh, come on. Objection. THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: Move to strike. THE COURT: It is stricken. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. What number is that on the Elmo? MR. FOSTER: 191. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Were you INTERVIEWED by police officers on June 15, 1994? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Did they ask you whether you saw any vehicles, a Bronco parked out there, 360 North Rockingham? A. I don't remember if they did or not. Q. Okay. May I show you this document. MR. PETROCELLI: This is the 6-15-94 police interview. MR. BAKER: Is this Carr and Tippin again? MR. PETROCELLI: Don't -- just read it to yourself and don't say anything on the record. A. The whole thing? Q. No just -- A. Oh what you've -- Q. Just what I -- A. Okay. Q. -- highlighted. Yeah. (Witness reviews transcript.) Q. Right there. There's the date. Okay? A. Yeah. Q. Does this refresh your recollection about the interview? A. Yes. Q. I'm now going to ask you some questions. Did you tell the police officers that you arrived around 10:25 p.m. on June 12, 1994? A. Yes. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this is outside the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) And did you tell the police officers that when you drove by the front of Mr. Simpson's residence on Rockingham, you didn't recall seeing the car parked there? A. Correct. Q. Is there any reason, Mr. Park, you would have to come into this courtroom and tell anything but the truth? A. No reason at all. Q. How much did you get that night for all your trouble? MR. BAKER: I'm going to object, Your Honor; relevancy, outside the scope. He got 20 percent. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) How much did you get, Mr. Park? THE COURT: You may answer. THE WITNESS: Possibly about 40 bucks. (Laughter.) MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you. RECROSS-EXAMINATION Q. (BY MR. BAKER) As you told the police on the 15th, you didn't -- you didn't recall seeing a car there, right? A. Correct; I didn't see a car there. Q. And you didn't recall seeing a car there when you told them that, true? A. True. Q. And you didn't recall seeing a car there and had no reason to look for it when you were attempting to look at the address, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And in fact, you know, when you -- when you were coming down Rockingham and you started looking for addresses at 322, I think you testified earlier this morning, you remember that? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell us if there were any cars at 322? A. Not that I remember, no. Q. Can you tell us if there were any cars at 338? MR. PETROCELLI: There's no evidence there is a 338, Your Honor. THE WITNESS: No. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Can you tell us if there are any cars at all, as you have a recollection, sitting here now, two and a half years later, parked on either side of Rockingham? A. Its been a long time. No. Q. Now, when you first described in your interview with Mr. Shapiro this person who was going across the driveway, you told him you thought that person was a Caucasian when you were first asked, did you not? MR. PETROCELLI: That misstates it, Your Honor. MR. BAKER: Let me just read it. MR. PETROCELLI: Read through line 9. MR. BAKER: Let me just read, will you? I'll read what I want to read. This is my examination. (Reading:) And said where -- "Q. Where was the person when you first saw that person? "A. I saw him coming at least, you know, it was dark, so he came towards where the other cars were parked up there, where the Rolls Royce and stuff, and they came into (sic) that area and walked into the house. "Q. When you say 'they,' you saw two people? "No, just one. "One person? "One person. "Was the person walking or running? "I would say walking pretty quickly. Not running. "And the person was dressed darkly (sic)? "A. Yes. "Q. Was it a male or female? "A. I couldn't tell you. "Q. Could you tell whether they were Caucasian or non-Caucasian? And your answer, "Caucasian." And Mr. Shapiro says "Caucasian?" And you say, " . . . well, black." That's what you first said? MR. PETROCELLI: He said Well, I mean, black (sic). MR. BAKER: That isn't what it says on my transcript. MR. PETROCELLI: That's what it says on mine. MR. BAKER: You've got a bad one. MR. PETROCELLI: I've got the accurate one. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You also told them that Mr. -- Mr. Simpson was wearing blue jeans, a white shirt and a black overcoat, and he had taken his black overcoat in mid-June, right? A. True. Q. And by the way, you never saw that overcoat again, in the car or anyplace else, did you? A. Not that I remember, no. Q. Could be that you were mistaken about the black overcoat, right? A. No, I don't think so. Q. All right. And then you talked about a robe and you said: "Q. Could he have had a robe on instead of black clothes? And you answered: "That was one of the things I was thinking, because he said, you know, I just got out of the shower" -- strike that. "That was one of the things I was thinking because he said, you know, he just got out of the shower and I figured he, you know, grabbed -- he ran out to the car, grabbed some bags. I can't say that because I never saw him go to the car. I only saw him enter the house." Now that's what you told Mr. Shapiro, is it not? A. That is correct. Q. So you were thinking that he may have been in a robe as early as the 14th, 15th of June, two days later, right? A. Yes. Q. And Mr. Petrocelli, when he read from 257 of the grand jury, stopped at line 25. Let me start where he started and read on from line 23: From what I could tell, it was dark clothes. It's actually an answer. I take it back. It's got a question, question. Let me start again. I apologize. Line 22. (Reading:) "Q. What was he wearing? "A. From what I can tell, it was dark clothes. I cannot tell what kind of dark clothes, suit or anything, just dark shirt, dark pants. "Q. Can you tell if the shirt had long or short sleeves? "A. No, I couldn't." In fact, you couldn't tell if he even had pants on, correct? When you saw something below the waist, you didn't know if he had shorts on, pants on or if he had the robe on that we briefly talked about. Is that true, Mr. Park? A. Yeah, I don't know exactly what it was. It looked like clothes, dark clothes. MR. BAKER: Good. Nothing further. FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PETROCELLI: Q. Before Mr. Simpson told you that he was in the shower, when you initially saw him, before any conversation with him, when you initially saw the figure enter into the house and before he told you about taking the shower, did you think he was wearing a robe? A. No. MR. BAKER: Objection. His state of mind is irrelevant. MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you. No further questions. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. BAKER: I'd like to move -- if you have nothing further. MR. PETROCELLI: I have to move in a couple of exhibits, Your Honor: Exhibits 198, 2202, 2203, 2204, and 2205. Thank you. MR. BAKER: 1456, 895, 896, 897, 899. THE COURT: Those are the bags? We'll receive those by reference only, the bags. THE CLERK: Yeah. MR. BAKER: Thank you. (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 198 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2202 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2203 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2204 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2205 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1456 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 895 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 896 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 897 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 899 was received in evidence.) THE COURT: You're excused. Thank you. THE WITNESS: Thank you. THE COURT: Take ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen. Don't form any opinion. Don't express anything about the case. (Jurors resume their respective seats.) THE CLERK: Sir, if you would, please raise your right hand to be sworn. WILLIAM J. BODZIAK, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and testified as follows: THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? THE WITNESS: I do. THE CLERK: Thank you. Please be seated. Please state your name and spell both your first and last names, please. THE WITNESS: William J. Bodziak, W-I-L-L-I-A-M J. B-O-D-Z-I-A-K. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE: Q. Where do you work? A. I'm a special agent of the FBI. Q. And? A. In Washington, D.C. Q. And what's your assignment? A. I'm an examiner of questioned documents, footwear, and tire-tread evidence in the FBI laboratory. Q. How long have you been doing that? A. Since 1970. Q. Would you describe your formal schooling, please. A. I have a master's degree in forensic science from the George Washington University in Washington, D.C. and my undergraduate degree is in biology from East Carolina University. Q. Would you go through, briefly, your experience with the FBI related to footwear examination. A. My entire time in the FBI or just with footwear? Q. Your entire time. A. From 1970 to August of '73, I was a field agent assigned to the New Haven and Baltimore divisions in an investigative capacity. I was then transferred in 1973 to the laboratory, to the document section of the laboratory, where I underwent and completed three years of training under the senior examiners there, in the field of questioned documents, footwear, and tire-tread-impression evidence. Q. The nature of your work with the FBI in terms of footwear examination is what? A. As a footwear examiner, I make comparisons of footwear impressions that are obtained from the crime scene. These can be in the form of photographed impressions, impressions on actual pieces of evidence that they've taken from the scene. They can be cast to footwear impressions or adhesive lifts or gelatin lifts of the impressions, and I make physical comparisons against shoes of suspected -- suspects in the case. I also, in cases where there is either no known suspect or where the shoes of the suspect have never been obtained, try to determine the brand name or manufacturer of the footwear, and if possible, the sizes of the footwear. Q. Other than the training and work experience of the FBI, have you received any other training in terms of footwear examination? A. Yes. I've attended numerous symposiums and seminars, both domestically and internationally, in this topic area. I've also visited, for the purpose of gathering information related to that type of an examination, I have visited over 30 footwear manufacturing facilities. Q. Have you provided training for others? A. Yes, I do. Q. In what? A. I teach a course in footwear impression examination that's offered at our FBI Academy at Quantico, Virginia for examiners from other state and federal laboratories around the country. I've also been asked on numerous occasions to teach at other locations throughout the United States and also in several other countries. Q. Are you a member of any scientific associations? A. Yes. I'm a member of the International Association for Identification, of which I was the past Chairman of the Subcommittee of Footwear and Tire-Tread Evidence. I'm a member of the American Academy of Forensic Science; active -- although there's no formal membership, I'm active in the International Association of Forensic Science. I'm a member of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, and a Diplomat of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners. Q. Have you chaired any symposiums on footwear impressions and examination of footwear? A. Yes. In 1994, I hosted and organized a symposium at our FBI Academy involving over 230 individuals, representing 30 different countries, on the topic area of footwear and tire-tread-impression evidence. In addition, with regard to the International Association of Forensic Science, I was the section chairman of the section on that topic in 1987; in Vancouver, Canada in 1990, and in Adelaide, Australia in 1993, and in Duseldorf, Germany. Q. Have you published articles and books on footwear and tire-tread examination? A. Yes. In 1990, I developed a book entitled "Footwear Impression Evidence" that was published in 1990 by Elsevier, E-L-S-E-V-I-E-R Sciences Publishing Company, and I have written numerous articles on the area of footwear-impression evidence. Q. Have you qualified as an expert in many state and federal courts throughout the United States? A. Yes, I have. Q. I want to bring you to this case. Were you contacted by the LA Police Department in mid-1994 in connection with their investigation of the murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson? A. Yes, I was. Q. Approximately when was that? A. It was in the beginning of August of 1994. Q. What were you asked to do? A. I was first telephonically contacted that the evidence was being sent to the laboratory, and then received 30 photographs. These photographs were what I call examination quality photographs; that is, they are taking -- taken directly over a footwear impression with a scale in them, and so they can be enlarged to natural size. And I was requested to determine what brand or manufacturer of shoes made those impressions, and also to determine the size of those impressions, the shoe size. MR. MEDVENE: Could you put on the board what's been marked 41, please. (The instrument herein referred to as Board entitled "Shoe Prints at Bundy, June 13, 1994, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 41.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) 41 is a board entitled Shoe Prints at Bundy, June 13, 1994. That has 15 separate photographs on it. Does this board contain certain of the photographs included in the 30 you were originally sent? A. Yes, sir, it does. Q. And have you previously received all of these photographs from LA Police Department as photos that were taken at the crime scene June 13, 1994? A. Yes, I have. Q. What is depicted in the photographs? And you can approach the board, if that would be more helpful. A. I can see it from here, if it's okay. Q. Sure. A. At the top right corner, as you face the board, with the label Q367 and Q68 is a general area -- I think people refer to that as the caged-in area. It's inside the front gate. It depicts the victim, Nicole Brown Simpson; it also depicts at some distance, some footwear impressions and the first two steps or two or three steps as you enter the gate and head west toward the back of the house. MR. MEDVENE: For the record, that's Exhibit 43. (The instrument herein referred to as Shoe Prints at Bundy, June 13, 1994 containing 15 separate photographs was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 43.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Yes, sir. Go ahead. A. The two photographs below that are -- MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me one second. Q68 is exhibit 2207. Q67 is exhibit 2209. (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph entitled Q68 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2207.) (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph entitled Q67 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2209.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Please go ahead. A. Q67 and Q68 are closer photographs of the same area labeled with those same numbers in the photograph at the top right-hand side. in the chart Q67 and Q68. Q. To the left of the top of the chart marked B is also a photograph showing a portion of Nicole Brown Simpson's body, the first three steps, and two impressions on there marked A and B. And then below -- MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. The top photo, B, is Exhibit 44. The one with an A is 2206, and B under it is 2208. (The instrument herein referred to as Photo labeled with A was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2206.) (The instrument herein referred to as Photo labeled with B was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2208.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Could you go ahead, please. A. The two photographs below, labeled A and B, are enlargements of the same designated footwear impressions. In the top photograph, in the next column, moving to the left, which would be the center column of the chart, is a picture taken from the top of those first three steps and pointing backwards toward the -- I believe it's the west direction, to the back of the driveway. It might be easier to look at if you tilted your head to the side. And it depicts four more footwear impressions, which are labeled C, D, E, and F. MR. MEDVENE: That's Exhibit 45. Below that C is Exhibit 48 and D is Exhibit 49. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Would you tell us what they are? A. Yes. Those are close-up, what I had called examination quality photographs, which were taken separately, which the scale in this case is a ruler in those photographs, so they could be later enlarged to a precise natural size. On the next column to the left at the top, with the letters F, G, H, I and J, that is a continuing photograph of the next segment of the sidewalk heading toward the back of the house, and depicts five of the footwear impressions. And then two of those, you're -- or one of those, F, Is at the bottom of that column. And in the middle, E, is one which is also depicted in the center top photograph. The E and F are, again, natural size or examination quality photographs which were taken with a ruler so they could, if needed be enlarged to a natural size. MR. MEDVENE: For purposes of the record, the photograph at the top with F, G, H, I and J is Exhibit 46. Underneath E is Exhibit 50. Underneath that F is Exhibit 51. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Would you go to the next column, sir. A. Yes. The top left hand of the chart, that photograph has the initials G, H, I and J. That is, again, a little bit further back on the same walkway at Bundy. And below that are two additional photographs, G and I, which are again examination quality photographs, some of the ones which were sent to me initially with a ruler in them, and depicting individual footwear impressions at Bundy, MR. MEDVENE: For the record, the photo at the top, G, H, I, J, is Exhibit 47. The one under it, G, is Exhibit 52. The one under that I is Exhibit 53. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) When you received the photos that you told us a few moments ago that you received from the LA Police Department, what was the first step you took to attempt to determine the brand name or manufacturer of the bloody shoe prints found at Bundy? A. The FBI maintains a computerized footwear data base of thousands of designs, of shoe designs, for this purpose, because this is one of the functions or services we provide to law enforcement agencies across the country. I first searched this impression or these impressions through that data base, but was unable to find it there. Q. What did you do? A. Well, I looked at the impressions and the characteristics in those impressions, and I noticed some individual features about them which, based on my knowledge of footwear manufacturers, led me to believe that this was a high end or expensive Italian shoe. Some of those features were the fact that the design or pattern in the sole was the same in the heel, meaning sometimes there's a separate design in the heel, and that is normally an indicator when the design is identical, that it's a one unit -- a one-piece unit that has been molded and has a raised heel, and the design is made from that mold at the same time. There was also a perimeter that ran around the border of the design of the heel and the sole. There was somewhat of a pointed toe on the inner corner of the heel. And in some of the photographed impressions, you could see there was an angle, as if the point of the heel had been cut off. And, in fact, this is a characteristic which is intentionally included in the mold of the shoe -- in certain shoes. Normally, more expensive ones. And based on these characteristics and the fact that it was a nonathletic pattern, it wasn't typical of an athletic shoe, I was of the opinion that it was a high-end Italian shoe. So I looked through the data and information on importers, manufacturers, and people who deal with these types of shoes. And I identified approximately 80 of those that deal with expensive Italian shoes. And I contacted those places to determine if they were familiar with this design or if it was their design. At the same time, I contacted eight other laboratories around the world that also have a computerized data base and might have that design in their data base. MR. MEDVENE: May I approach, Your Honor? THE COURT: (Nods affirmatively.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) As a result of your contacts, did you receive anything? A. Yes. I received a pair -- or, not a pair, but two right shoes of a Bruno Magli design. One was known as Lyon, L-Y-O-N, and the other was known as a Lorenzo, L-O-R-E-N-Z-O. Q. I place before you, or I have just placed before you what's been marked 395. Can you tell us what that is? THE CLERK: That will be by reference. (The instrument herein referred to as a box containing two Bruno Magli shoes was marked by reference to Criminal Case No. BA097211 for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 395.) A. Yes. 395 is a box which contains two shoes. These are Bruno Magli shoes. They have the same sole design, but one of them has a lower profile around the heel and has, obviously, different seams and components to the shoe, and it's much smaller; it's a size nine and a half. And the name of this shoe is a Lyon, or L-Y-O-N. And the other shoe is what some people refer to as a bootie, or a higher top, higher heeled, heel counter, and this is known as the Lorenzo. And this is a size 12, U.S. size 12. These shoes have a retail price of $160. They were distributed by Bruno Magli of North America. They came in six colors in each of the styles: Black, brown, white, olive, brandy, and blue. And this is the blue pair, or these two are blue, because I think they're somewhat faded from being in a show window. Q. When were they sold and how many stores carried it? A. They were sold between the years 1991 and 1993. There was a total of 40 stores in the United States and Puerto Rico which sold this shoe. Q. They were sold in what sizes? A. They were sold in sizes from six and a half to 13. Q. Did you cause a photograph to be made of those shoes at the FBI laboratory? A. Yes, I did. MR. MEDVENE: Would you place on the board, please, what's marked 394, entitled Bruno Magli Shoe, with -- depicting three shoes, one with a sole, and then a Lorenzo and a Lyon. (The instrument herein referred to as Board entitled Bruno Magli Shoe, depicting three shoes, one with a sole, and then a Lorenzo and a Lyon, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 394.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) We've placed on the board what's marked 394, Bruno Magli Shoe. Could you tell us what that is? A. On the left is an enlargement of the shoe, of the Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoe, which is part of -- I think this is Exhibit 395, I believe. Q. Yes. A. And to the top right, marked "Lorenzo," is a -- what you call a three-quarter shot of that shoe, not from the front or the side, but in between. And on the bottom is a photograph of the Lyon shoe, all on Exhibit 395. Q. Would you mind, if it's helpful, going to the board and pointing out some of the features that you described so the jury can see exactly what you're talking about. A. Okay. MR. MEDVENE: With the Court's permission. THE COURT: (Nods affirmatively.) THE WITNESS: I was referring first to the design or pattern that was evident in the impressions at the scene. And for lack of a better term of describing each design element. I guess it could be a Z-shaped or H on the side with a connecting bar. But each of these different elements I will refer to as a design element. And these design elements are consistent in their size and they're the same on the heel as they are in the sole. Around these design elements is a very thin but raised line, and it's even with the depth of those design elements. And that's true, also, not only in the heel, but also around the perimeter of the area containing these design elements up in the sole. Those features are even so that when an impression is left on a hard surface, those both will be printing or can be printing, depending on the amount of material on them. I noticed the semipointed nature of the shoe; I noticed that the heel was raised; that on the inner corner, that would be as you're standing with your feet together, the corners of your heel to the inside of your body, were intentionally, through the design and the mold, shaved off. And this is a characteristic that I had seen in the impressions before determining what kind of shoes they were. Also, there is the fact that it is a nonathletic shoe design; it's not typically found on athletic shoes. Also, the name Silga, S-I-L-G-A, appears here in the center. There is an ovular design which says Bruno Magli. It has a capital M in the middle, and at the very bottom in the shadow, it says made in Italy. Q. Were you able to visually determine whether or not the design elements that you've described on the shoe were similar or dissimilar to the photographs you observed that you were sent by the LAPD of the bloody shoe prints? A. Yes. I received these shoes. I was able to confirm that the bloody impressions in the photographs from the Bundy crime scene were this design, this Bruno Magli design. Q. Thank you. (Witness resumes witness stand.) Did you make a determination where these shoes were made? A. Yes. I determined that they were made at the Silga factory. And that's the name I pointed out to you on the bottom of the sole. Silga is located in Civitinova Marche in Italy. C-I-V-I-T-I-N-O-V-A, M-A-R-C-H-E. Q. And Silga exclusively made the soles? A. Silga owns the casts. There's a total of ten casts, and they exclusively make the soles. Q. Did you determine who made the tops? A. The tops were made by a company in the same town in Italy called 4C. That's just the numeral 4 and the capital letter C. Q. Now, after -- after determining that the shoe design elements that you've described visually compared to the bloody imprints you were sent, did you make any attempt to determine what size shoe made that imprint? A. Yes. I obtained from Silga samples of the left and right shoe soles, from left and right mold casts, size 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47. Q. I place before you what's been marked 399, and ask what that is. A. These are the left and right pairs from the mold casts that Silga supplied to me that represent the sizes from 42 through 47. Those are European sizes. THE CLERK: That's marked by reference, as well. (The instrument herein referred to as left and right pairs from the mold casts that Silga supplied to Mr. Bodziak was marked by reference to Criminal Case No. BA097211 for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 399.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) What did you do with the soles? A. I took the soles and made a physical comparison of the soles with the crime-scene impressions in the photographs at Bundy, and I also made test impressions of the soles for assistance in comparison of those crime-scene impressions. Q. Did you prepare enlarged charts to explain the basis for any opinion you might offer on what size shoe left the bloody imprints that you've just shown us that were found at Bundy? A. Yes, I did. MR. MEDVENE: Would you place on the board, 402, please. (Mr. Foster complies.) MR. MEDVENE: We're placing on the board now Exhibit 402, which is marked "Reverse Photographs of Soles." (The instrument herein referred to as Board entitled Reverse Photographs of Soles was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 402.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And could you tell me whether or not that board was prepared under your supervision? A. Yes, it was. Q. You have the soles up -- still up there with you, I believe? A. Yes. Q. Using this board, 402, and the soles in front of you that are 399, could you explain to us how you're able to differentiate between sole sizes? A. Yes. May I step down? Q. Yes, sir, please. (Witness approaches large exhibit entitled "Reverse Photographs of Soles.") A. I will first explain the photographs of the soles. On this particular chart, it only represents the left soles. For demonstration it's only necessary to talk about the left or right. It's not necessary to talk about both. They are reverse photographs of the soles and of course they are larger than life size. By reverse photograph, I mean that the sole is photographed -- and this is a left sole, goes on the bottom of a shoe. You can see it's a left sole. And it's photographed and then the negative is turned around and printed in reverse. That's because the impression that the shoe makes is in that same alignment, it's actually a reversal when you look at the bottom of the shoe. So for demonstration purposes I have reversed these photographs. On the bottom is part of some of the test impressions that I made of the area enclosed in red as marked on the bottom of the reverse pictures of the soles. And this is enlarged to a very large size so the detail can easily be seen. So that would represent the area here on the corner, the pointed corner of the heel. I had mentioned before that the design elements were the same size in both the heel and the sole. They are also the same size in each of the different size shoes so the design element in a small 42 is the same as in the largest 47. When each sole size gets bigger, there will be more of these design elements within this perimeter area in both the heel and the sole. So the overall pattern cannot ever be the same because the design size is consistent. This is demonstrated with the portion of the test impression on the bottom where you can look at the respective areas going from 47 to 46 to 45 to 44, and looking at different areas, the positioning and the exact content of that design in those positions is not the same. And that is how, by looking at a bloody footwear impression, or any footwear impression by these shoes it's possible to determine not only which sole it came from but what size sole it was. In this case I determined that the impressions were made by the left and right size 46 soles. Q. Now, if you just have an impression of a heel as opposed to a sole, are you able to tell the shoe size? A. Yes. Q. And again, how? A. Because each of the heels are distinctly different and each of the soles are distinctly different. So you could have just a sole or just a heel or both and you can make the same determination. MR. MEDVENE: Let me ask that we put up what's marked 403 which is entitled "Shoe Comparison Board." (The instrument herein described was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 403.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And I'd like to go through that board and see if you can explain to us what that has to do, if anything, about how you actually went about comparing certain of the bloody shoe imprints that you saw with the actual size 46. In other words, I want you to show me why you say it's a 46. A. Okay, I can explain what is on this board. First, on the left side, as you face it, labeled shoe print E -- Q. Hold it right there. When we say shoe print E, a few minutes ago when we were on the other board -- it's tough to work with them all -- there was a shoe print E? A. Yes. Q. Is that related to what we were going to look at? A. This is an enlargement of that exact same photograph. Q. Sorry, I interrupted. Go ahead. A. Labeled shoe print E, FBI Q107, which is our laboratory designation of the same letter, this is an approximate two-time enlargement of this impression. It consists not only of the heel but of the sole as well, and attached to it is a transparency also in a two-time enlargement of a test impression made from the left size 46 sole. On the right-hand side, labeled shoe print FBI 268 -- Q. There is Q68. If we were to put up that other board -- and we will in a moment -- was that shown on the other board as one of the footprints by the cage area? A. Yes, it was. Q. Go ahead. A. This is a heel impression and over the top of that is the same two-time enlargement transparency of the size -- European size 46 left sole. Well, based on comparison of the soles themselves as well as the test impressions, and this was done with natural size photographs and the original test impressions, I was able to determine based on the orientation and positioning of these design elements that the only sole size which could have made these impressions, shoe print E and shoe print FBI Q68, was the European size 46 left sole. None of the other sizes that I had, 42 through 45 or 47, fit the same geometric pattern and positioning within these shoe prints. Q. Now, were you able to convert the European size 46 to a comparable American size? A. Yes, I was. Q. And I want to briefly put on the TV monitor what's been marked 2210 and ask you if you could tell us what that is, if you can run it right across? (The instrument herein referred to as Shoe conversion chart was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2210.) A. Okay. This is a size conversion chart that's used by Bruno Magli specifically for this design of shoe. I'll say also that it generally conforms with the general footwear conversion chart as well. On the right-hand side, the largest size -- European size that they made in this design was a size 47, which is at the top. On the bottom of that is the U.S. size that they manufactured on that shoe using that sole. So the size 47 sole would be a U.S. size 13. Just to the left of that, you have size 46 in the European size which is the one which I had been demonstrating with. And on the bottom is the U.S. size for that which is U.S. size 12. And then the next is 45 and 44 and so forth, with the U.S. conversions beneath it, going all the way down, so their smallest sole size, 38, which is actually a -- would have been a U.S. size 6, but which they didn't sell. According to their information, they started with the six and a half. Q. I see it says sizes of soles. We talked some about soles. Underneath it says sizes of lasts. What does that mean? What's a last? A. I went to the factory in Italy. I actually brought a last back that was used in the production of the American or U.S. size 12 shoes. MR. MEDVENE: May I approach? Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I place before you what's been marked 401. Tell us what that is, please. A. 401 is a pair of lasts. On the lasts are the markings that were on those shoes in the factory. 12, that's in a toe area and on the side and also in this area, and also handwritten is a 46 and some other notations and -- on one of those lasts in its extended form. This is the form it would be in when the upper of the shoe is placed over this last. A last is actually a foot form that the shoe is built on. And the different stitch -- the different size components that comprise the upper after they're stitched together would be placed over this. And of course at that time there could be -- there would be no sole on the bottom, but that material would be stretched down tightly over this last and turned over and special machines will form and tuck that excess material around the bottoms and the heel. And then this would be placed into the respective size -- in the case with the U.S. size 12 last. They match that specifically when they design these with the European size 46. So with a little bit of thickness of the material now on the shoe, it would be placed into this and would be glued and stitched in the stitching groove to make the completed shoe. Q. Would you describe what you've put together. For purposes of the record, you've taken a 46 sole which is part of 399 and you've put it together with the 46 or size 12 American last? A. That's correct. Now, in order -- once this is done -- MR. BAKER: There's no question. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Yes, sir. Once that's put together, the -- the -- the last and the sole, what occurs? A. Well, the last must be removed from the shoe which is now tightly around it. And there's a special device for unlinking that last and then removing it from the shoe, which is what it would look like here. Q. When you say it would look like here, the other part of 401, you're showing how that bends down and releases from the shoe? A. Well, the last actually separates into two parts. MR. MEDVENE: Would you put on the board, please, or put up another board, 408. We're going to put Exhibit 408 on the board. It's called "Shoe Print at Bundy." (The instrument herein described was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 408.) MR. MEDVENE: With the court's permission, we're not going to use the TV monitor, and put up one other chart here that will -- which I think will better explain the other chart. If I have your permission. THE COURT: All right. (Indicating to TV screen.) (Chart entitled "Shoe Print at Bundy June 13, 1994" is placed in front of TV screen.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Are the -- well, first, let's go to 408, if you would, and did you assist in preparing 408? A. Yes, I did. Q. Could you go down, if you wouldn't mind, to 408 with a pointer and describe what 408 is? A. Okay. May I do it from here? Q. Sure. A. Okay. 408 is a diagram of the walkway at Bundy beginning on the right side as you face it at the front, what is known as the front gate, and then heading westward -- I believe it's west, to the -- what is marked the driveway at the end of that. And I believe that distance is approximately 100 feet although I -- that's an estimate that I made, not an exact measurement. To the right are two yellow forms and these represent the victims and their positioning at the scene, and in between them are two numbers, Q67 and Q68, which have been discussed before and which are on this other board on the right-hand column, Q67 and Q68, up there to the left of those. Q. The other board, what we marked C41? A. Yes. Q. And are we saying that if we have Q67 and Q68, this is -- if we looked at C41, that's a close-up of Q67 and Q68? A. Yes, it is. Q. If we have -- on the second step, this is a close-up of and so forth? A. Yes. Q. So there's an interrelationship between this drawing at least in part and the actual pictures of the bloody shoe print? A. Yes. Q. Okay, keeping going. I'm sorry. A. Well, as you look from that area I just described, slightly to the left, we're still at the very far right-hand side of the Bundy walkway chart, there is then the letter A and B, C, D, E, F and so forth, and those letters continue through the alphabet as you move to the left. Each of those letters designates a separated footwear impression which was submitted to me for examination. The ones in pink represent left impressions. The ones which had sufficient detail for me to determine that they were left size 46 impressions, they may be a heel impression, they may be a sole impression or they may be both, but they can be designated as size 46 left. The purple impressions are right impressions and in the same manner they would represent either heel or sole or both and they were determined by me to be size 46 European sole impressions. Q. What part did you play, if any, in placing the letters or numbers on what's marked 408? A. Okay. After receiving the photographs and doing the examinations and being familiar with those impressions, I was asked to go to the Bundy scene and to reconstruct on which tiles each of those were. This was a very simple task to do because each specific impression was on a tile that had a lot of detail to it, a lot of imperfections and splotches in different marks. It was very easy to determine where these had come from, particularly since they were labeled A, B, C, D in order from the very beginning. Q. Now, you've told us that the pink on the board are identifiable left; the purple identifiable right. I notice there's some oval blue. What is that -- does that represent? A. The blue represents photographed footwear impressions or photograph marks in blood that could not be specifically distinguished. In other words, there was insufficient detail in those impressions to determine that they were a Bruno Magli impression or that they were a size -- specific size impression. Q. Now, you had taken us through a moment ago the comparison you did to demonstrate to the jury the basis for your opinion that Q67, I think E, were size 12 American size Bruno Magli shoes. You've now given an opinion about a number of other left and right shoe prints? A. Yes. Q. And I ask you did you make the same type of comparison with respect to the other bloody impressions on the walkway pictures as you previously described when you told us about Q68 and E? A. Yes. In the same type of comparison, examining the original soles and all of the sizes and examining the test impressions made of size 42 through 47, I was able to determine that the ones in pink and purple designated on that board were specifically European size 46 Bruno Magli design shoes. Q. I have placed before you what I'll represent to you are Exhibits 412A through O, 413, 414, 415, 411, 410 and 416, that basically each separately deal with footprints A through J, L, M, N, O, S, X, Y, Q68 and 116. In other words, a significant part of the various footprints on Exhibit 40. A. Yes. Q. Could you just take one of those and tell us if you went through the same exercise on each of those as you've described to the jury when you talked about Q68 and E in showing us how you determined that they were size 12 U.S. size? A. Yes. For instance, this one in my hand which I'm showing to the jury is marked A, and it represents the same impression marked A on the Bundy board, to the right of the board. It is an impression of a sole. In it are two rulers. It's a black-and-white photograph which was taken on June 13 and it has been enlarged so that one inch on the ruler equals one inch. It's the actual size that the tile and the footprint would have been at the scene. Attached to it is a transparent overlay of a test impression of part of the size 46 left shoe or left shoe sole. In the same type of comparison, using the variations in the pattern and the physical size, I was able to determine that this impression, like the others and like all of these others that you just read in the -- in the -- in the record, were made by either the left or right European 46 shoe. Q. U.S. 12? A. U.S. 12. Q. Bruno Magli shoe? A. Yes, sir. Q. You've told us a few moments ago about the blue ovals that as you go down the walkway start to get these blue ovals that you say you weren't able to identify sufficiently. Could you explain to us why, why that is, why particularly at the beginning of walkway are there enough design elements, and then later, as you get on the walkway, you're not able to? A. Okay. As -- as a person walks or tracks through blood, particularly a large quantity of blood such as was the case at the gate area of that scene where the two victims were, a considerable amount of that blood will be covering the surface of the shoe, whatever it comes in contact with. And the shoe has raised areas and it has grooves in it, and the raised areas are the areas that when you walk actually make contact with the surface. So as this design or pattern and -- with all the different sizes and shapes on it makes contact with the sidewalk, with the very first step it's going to leave a relatively dark impression because there is a larger quantity of blood on it at that time. As that shoe presses against the walk, it's going to press a lot of that blood into the pavement in the form of an impression, and any excess blood will be squeezed to the sides under the pressure and will either fill the grooves or around the edges of that design element. With the next step, there will be less blood on the shoe, and a similar type of physical reaction will take place but there will be a slightly lighter footwear impression and so on with each subsequent step so that you will start to get at a point where there is no longer sufficient detail left on the walkway to recognize what it was in terms of the pattern or size features, even though you may still see traces of blood on the walkway. In this case, most of the discernible footwear impressions were to the right close to the blood area and there's an area in the middle where they're kind of mixed up. Some of them you could see in enough detail and some of them you couldn't. And then as you get to the left or further down the walkway, most of them are blue, and although you can see that there are steps and blood impressions on the walkway, you cannot discern their physical features. There's one exception which is at the very end, and I believe it's marked Q116F. MR. MEDVENE: (Indicates.) A. Yes. That was an area where, after going down two steps, you could see two parallel lines up in this area and a little blood at the tip, and you could discern that it was a right shoe, and the curvature of those lines match the 46 sole. This may have been a situation where the blood was around the edges of this design, and after jumping down the step, two-step or angling the foot, there was just a little bit of that excess blood further squeezed out, but in normal walking the distance between there, all the way -- midway back in the walkway, there are no longer any bloody impressions. Q. Did you prepare a chart that demonstrates this fact that the blood gets lighter? A. Yes. MR. MEDVENE: Would you be kind enough to put up Exhibit 407. (The instrument herein described as Footwear impressions after stepping in liquid was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 407.) MR. BAKER: I object to that. That's argument and cumulative. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Could you describe what this chart depicts? A. This chart depicts on the top what occurs when a person walks through a liquid such as water, grease or blood. And you can see at first to the left, after coming out of the liquid area, the impressions are very heavy, and with each subsequent step they get lighter and lighter. Eventually, if I were to extend that chart, you would no longer see any evidence of those footwear impressions. On the bottom are three impressions I made wearing Exhibit 395, the Bruno Magli shoe, the right shoe, and those were made with latex paint where I actually stood in a tray of latex paint, took a step out of the tray onto a piece of paper. And the one in the middle is the second step and the one to the right is the third step. So it shows that there's considerably more liquid material on the first as you look at it to your left, a lot less on the second, and by the time you get to the third, most of the dark areas are actually the edges around the design elements because that's where the liquid has been squeezed to. There could also be some up in the grooves of the shoe that are not at all at that point making contact with the flat surface. Q. Did you have occasion to examine certain carpet from Mr. Simpson's Bronco? A. Yes, I did. Q. And approximately when was that? A. That was on September 1, 1994. Q. And where? A. At the LAPD laboratory. MR. MEDVENE: Would you be good enough to put up 419, please. (The instrument herein described as Chart entitled Bronco carpet LAPD No. 33 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 419.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) What did you -- could you tell us what you did to the carpet, if anything? A. Okay. I examined the carpet and -- I was requested to examine the carpet for any possible footwear impressions and to chemically enhance any blood impressions that I saw on that carpet. And I did that on September 1 at the LAPD laboratory, first with Luminol and secondly with leucocrystal violet which turns the blood sort of a dark purplish color. Q. And did you then cause certain photographs to be made? A. I made photographs of the carpeting before it was enhanced and through each stage of it and at the end of the enhancement. Q. Could you tell us what Exhibit 419 is? A. 419 contains three photographs. The top right is just a general shot of a white Ford Bronco. The two larger photographs depict the carpeting from the driver side of the Bronco which was cut out prior to my examining it. The left photograph is a smaller than natural size. In other words, the ruler is smaller than it actually would be in real life, but it depicts the entire piece of carpeting that I examined after it was enhanced. And to the right is a natural size of a portion of that carpeting showing the life size representation of the enhanced blood marks on there. Q. Would you mind coming -- going up to the chart and orienting the jury by moving the pictures, if appropriate, to depict where the carpet would be found in the vehicle and where the blood was found. MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this. May we approach, quickly? THE COURT: You may. (The following proceedings were held at the bench:) MR. P. BAKER: You ready? THE COURT: Um-hum. THE REPORTER: Um-hum. MR. P. BAKER: Mr. Bodziak testified at the criminal trial that he couldn't say whether or not there was a sole impression in that Bronco carpet. I think it's highly prejudicial for him to get up on the stand and to imply that there is a shoe print on that carpet when he can't do it. THE COURT: You can impeach him. MR. P. BAKER: I'm being denied? THE COURT: Yeah. (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury:) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Would you be good enough to walk up to the chart and orient the jury if it's appropriate by moving the picture to depict where the carpet was found in the vehicle and where the blood was found? And you're approaching it with the size 46 sole? A. Yes, I'll move that -- use that in a moment. Q. Okay. A. The carpet -- this piece of carpet is the driver's side carpet. This would be the driver's side of the vehicle, so when you open the door, the edge would be along this side. So if I can turn this chart now on the edge, okay, and this area, this would be the edge along the door, so that the door would be opening in this manner. And stepping into the vehicle, whether it be with your left foot or right foot, and this vehicle of course, being somewhat higher than a passenger vehicle, the foot would go somewhere in this area. There would be the metal strip that once covered the carpeting right here, the threshhold plate as you open the door, and the portion here which you can see here is the curve portion that contours up behind the pedals. And to the right of it, up at the top would be where it goes over the console in the middle. That's why it's cut that way, because it was over a contoured area. So this area here would be where the first foot strike normally would be for most people in the vehicle. Q. Can you describe -- when you say the area right here -- A. It's -- Q. -- what's on the picture where the first foot strike would be? A. It's -- MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, I object, there's no foundation that he can testify as an expert. THE COURT: Overruled. A. It's an area -- JUROR: Excuse me. We can't see back here. Can you move it this way. (Counsel witness adjusts exhibit.) A. It's an area that would be at the front door side corner of the rubber mat which is part of the carpet. And it's a purplish area which has resulted from the leucocrystal violet reaction of the blood. There are also numerous other areas, drops of that same reaction, but this is the area here which I examined as a potential footwear pattern. Q. You're circling the area at the bottom the way I've placed it where you say that there was -- blood was enhanced so we can now see it? A. Yes. In making a comparison -- MR. P. BAKER: There's no question. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You were talking about the comparison that you made. A. In making the comparison, I attempted to make a comparison such as I did before with the soles and the test impressions which predominantly are the raised areas of the shoe, and show the recognizable design elements, and the border, and those features which I have previously testified to. In this particular case, those were not evident in this stained area. But there were some features such as this area right here, and a couple parallel lines here, and what I call a squiggle or kind of a step up line which could represent the groove area between the design elements. That was the extent of what I was us able to observe. MR. P. BAKER: I move to strike, speculation. THE COURT: Overruled. (BY MR. MEDVENE) If there is no impression that you're able to see from the raised areas of the sole, does that mean there's no more blood from the sole of the shoe? A. No, it doesn't mean there's no more blood on the sole of the shoe. There could be blood up in the depressed areas and clinging to the edge of this perimeter, up in the cracks and so forth, but not that would normally make contact on a hard surface and leave an impression. Nevertheless, there could be some remaining areas which have blood, which is protected by those recessed areas. Q. And in your experience, over all the years you've been doing this examination, would that -- might that blood if it is in the crevices of the design element, what affect would stepping down on the carpet have on the release of the blood? MR. P. BAKER: Speculation, "might that." THE COURT: Sustained. Q. You've explained to us how blood, while not on the design elements, might be in the crevices. What affect, in your opinion, would it have if one stepped down on a plush carpet such as in Mr. Simpson's Bronco, and there was blood in the crevices of the design area? MR. P. BAKER: Leading. THE COURT: Overruled. A. If there was any remaining blood that was up in the grooves, then on this particular carpet which was very thick and spongy, in other words, the nap of the carpet was sufficiently thick that just a normal stepping on this carpet, that material of the carpet would go up in these grooves, there certainly would be the potential of it removing the blood now from those recessed areas and transferring it to the carpet and resulting in these marks here. Q. I'm going to approach and give you an overlay of a left 46 Bruno Magli and ask if you could apply that overlay to the blood area on the Bronco and tell us what, if anything, that demonstrates? MR. P. BAKER: Objection, Judge, 352. He can't identify it. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Okay. May I step on the other side? Q. Yes. A. See it a little bit better. The first area that I pointed to was this area here which is a strip of dark area which is reacted with the blood and slightly curved. The two borders that print out in the shoe impressions representing the outer perimeter of the sole and the border which surrounds the design element can be placed over that area, and the width of this mark is the same size as that border. Q. Can I hold you up? Can you make a mark on the exhibit and just back up for a minute. I apologize. And is circle where you first described it? (Witness complies.) Q. Where is that that you're circling if you can take me back for a minute. A. This is an area which has the same width as the area between the two borders of the shoe. Q. Okay. Would you put a 1 next to it. (Witness complies.) Q. Please continue. A. There are also two lines right here which are parallel lines, which is also if there is a lesser amount of blood the way that the inner and outer border of this shoe has printed, and those are two other areas that I noticed. Q. Can you circle that. (Witness complies.) Q. Put a 2 next to that if you would. (Witness complies.) Q. Did that cover both theories? A. There's one more. Q. Would you cover that for us? A. The other area was what I described as the shape of the area between rows of design elements, which is sort of a step down effect or a squiggle effect. It would represent the shape of the grooves between the design elements. And that area is right here. Q. You say right there. Would you circle it and put a 3 next to it, sir. (Witness complies.) Q. Does that cover the observations you made? A. Yes. Q. Of all the impressions that you examined in the photos of the Bundy crime scene taken June 13, that's including the walkway, the closeup of the tiles, the clothing, individual papers or other things that were photographed, did you see any shoe design other than the Bruno Magli size 12 shoe design that you have previously described to us? A. No, I did not. Q. Did you have an opportunity to compare a pair of shoes that belonged to Mr. Simpson and the Bruno Magli size 12? A. Yes, I did. Q. I place before you what's been marked 404, and represent that as a matter of record these are a pair of Reebok shoes, belonging to Mr. Simpson, that he gave to Detective Lange. (The instrument herein described as Mr. Simpson's Reebok shoes was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 404.) Q. And I ask you if you compared those shoes with the size 12 Bruno Magli that's contained in Exhibit 395? A. Yes, I did. Q. And how did you compare that? A. Do you have 395? Q. Yes, sir. A. Oh, sorry, here it is. Q. That's okay. A. Yes. I compared the Reebok shoes, left and right Reebok shoes, with the Exhibit 395 Bruno Magli. The Bruno Magli, as I have described, or will describe, these soles are compression molded, they're known as a cup sole, they're sort of like a cup, if you poured water into them, and they're attached to the bottom of the shoe by literally placing the lasted shoe, the completed upper to them, and through glue and stitching they're applied. The Reebok is a similar construction. It's also a cup sole. It's known as a half cup sole because the toe area -- the middle which is just flat, but the toe area and heel area are cupped. They have variations of this known as cup half cup, three-quarter cup, so forth. So the general construction is compression molded cup sole construction. So even though the Reebok is an athletic sole, its manner of manufacture makes it a comparable shoe to compare with the Bruno Magli. And I made a comparison of the external sole dimensions -- linear dimensions, and the internal measurement of the shoes, and found that they were virtually identical; that the Bruno Magli shoe and the Reeboks, if you place them one over another, you can line up their soles from heel to toe, left to right, and they fit as well as you could possibly expect. Q. You're saying Mr. Simpson's shoe was identical to the size 12 Bruno Magli? A. It's the same size internally. It reads a size 12, U.S. size 12, as well as the European 46, size 12 Bruno Magli, and it's physical dimensions and characteristics for comparability are the same, yes. Q. I have one last area to deal with. THE COURT: Well, if you were hoping to finish today that's possibly not going to happen. Okay. Ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen. (Jurors resume their respective seats.) THE CLERK: For the record, I'd like to note that these exhibits that are being moved in are by reference, and their numbers are 401, 412A through O, 413, 414, 415, 411, 410, 416 and 404. (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 401.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 412A.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 412B.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 412C.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 412D.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 412E.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 412F.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 412G.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 412H.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 412I.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 412J.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 412K.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 412L.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 412M.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 412N.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 412O.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 413.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 414.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 415.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 411.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 410.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 416.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 404.) THE COURT: You may resume. MR. MEDVENE: Place 2062. (The instrument herein described as Board of photos of various shoes was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2062.) Q. Going to place on the rack there what's been marked 2062. (Displays photos of shoes.) Q. Is that prepared under your direction? A. Yes, it was. Q. Could you approach the board and tell us what that is? MR. BAKER: I just got that whole board in the mail. (Laughter) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Since Mr. Baker didn't bring his mail in let's use this board here. Let's quickly go through it. A. The top left-hand corner of the chart is a picture of the Bruno Magli catalog depicting the Lorenzo style of shoe, and also provides information about the Lyon as well, and it shows a profile of the Lorenzo, which is the high bootie top, the Lyon which is the standard cut around the heel. It gives the 6 style numbers for both the Lorenzo and an additional 6 for the Lyon, with a different style number for each color that I previously mentioned, the brown, black, white, olive, brandy and blue. And so that -- the Lorenzo is represented in this particular picture. And that shoe was distributed, as I previously stated, through 40 stores in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. In particular, Lorenzo and Lyon styles in size 12, only 299 were ever sold at those 40 stores from 1991 to '93, so it was a very limited production shoe in this country. The design of the shoe -- some of the items of which I may have overlapped with prior testimony, the upper has various cut components which are stitched together. Those stitches represent seams; sometimes they have an accordian-like design under the seam, and other times they are just straight seams. And there are other various characteristics of the upper such as the laces, the color, the texture of things that can be observed, and the sole itself has a profile to it in terms of the high and low spots that cause different contours that are observable around the sole. The cut corner, not inner side of the heel. The raised heel itself, the design on the bottom and so forth. So this shoe has very distinctive features both in the upper and in the sole which make it distinct and recognizable as that design. This chart represents a whole variety of designs of shoes. Starting with this picture of the New Balance athletic shoe representing athletic shoes. Athletic shoes typically are lighter color materials, mixtures of colors and materials, they have logos on them, they have a lot of different things, features in them, such as heel counter devices and different gimmicks and things to cause support, and so forth, and typically your athletic shoe does not look anything like this Lorenzo shoe. Likewise, if you look at the boots, whether that's this type of boot, which is kind of a semi-high work boot which has a totally different shape construction and look to it, obviously the components in the stitch seams and the sole are different. Or even a cowboy boot, which is not pictured here, which is distinctly different looking. Or if you look at dress shoes, whether they have tassels or whether they have buckles or laces. Patterns across the top toe, all of these shoes represented throughout this board, they all have distinctly different seams, colors, textures, laces, buckles, tassels, different types of soles which make them easily distinguishable from this particular design of shoe, the Lorenzo Bruno Magli shoe. Q. What I want to move to now then is what's marked as 2211, the picture of Mr. Simpson. And previously there was discussion of a photograph taken by Mr. Scull, that he testified was taken of Mr. Simpson on September 26, '93, prior to a Buffalo/Miami football game. Using what you just explained to us and what you've explained to us today, I want to deal with that chart now, and whether or not you have an opinion as to whether Mr. Simpson, in that photo, is wearing a Bruno Magli shoe. Was this chart, that's 2211, prepared under your direction? A. Yes, it was. Q. And could you please go there to it and describe the photo. (The instrument herein described as photos of Mr. Simpson walking and a closeup of his shoes was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2211.) MR. MEDVENE: Can the jury -- can you see it? JUROR: Thank you. A. If I may start to answer your question, the chart has numerous photographs on it that are numbered 1 through 8. It may be easier if I start with number 2. 2 is an enlarged contact sheet. And a contact sheet is in this fashion was made by placing the negative strip which consisted of negative number 1, and number 2 -- MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to how this contact sheet was made. He has no firsthand knowledge of this. THE COURT: You may stipulate the explanation on contact, we've already heard the testimony of contact prints from another witness. Q. Can you tell us, did you cause the contact sheet that appears on the board to be made? A. Yes, I did. Q. And -- MR. BAKER: Wait. Q. How did you do that? MR. BAKER: Wait a minute. Your Honor -- MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. There's another counsel examining this witness. THE COURT: Objection -- MR. BAKER: Then I'll examine him. THE COURT: Objection, overruled. Overruled. Let's get on with this. A. This was made with my supervision in the FBI laboratory. Q. Could you take me or could you point to the particular photographs on the board that you used as a basis for your opinion whether or not Mr. Simpson in photo number 1 is wearing a pair of Bruno Magli shoes? A. Yes, photograph number 1 is an enlargement of the content of negative 1 as depicted in Item number 2. Item number 3 is a slightly larger area of the legs and shoes taken from the same negative of Mr. Simpson negative number 1. Item number 6 and Item number 4 are 8 by 10 photographs of the right and left shoes of Mr. Simpson from the same negative, but they are printed so that the darker shoes and pants show up better. In other words, they are printed with a different exposure so that these dark areas now show up light and allow for us to examine the seams, and sole design, and other features in the shoes, whereas in the print that's made for the overall exposure, they appear in dark. Number 7 is a photograph taken in the studio, under my direction, of Exhibit 395, the right Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoe, and the approximate position of the right shoe as depicted on the right leg of Mr. Simpson in negative number 1. Item number 5 on this chart is a computer print taken directly of negative number 1 of the lower area or bottom area, beneath the toe of the right shoe. Again, identical. And taken from negative number 1. And to the right, Item number 8 is a left and right profile, just for reference purposes of Exhibit 395, the Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoe. In examination, I made or caused to be made these prints for the purpose of comparing the detail on the shoes in this photograph with the known standard, the 395 Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoe. I observed numerous features during the comparison and I have numbered them specifically on Items 4, 5 and 7. We'll begin with numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 through 11, which point to features on the sole of this shoe which I observed. Looking at number 7, which is the 395 shoe, number 1, 2 and 3 refer to the raised area above the -- stitching above that runs around that shoe. Number 2 is actually the stitching area, the depressed area, and then below that is another raised area so that number 1 and number 3 are actually the raised areas and number 2 is the depressed area where the stitching is in this shoe. Number 4 is the area below that which is a broader area, which again runs around the perimeter of the shoe. Number 5 is the next area below that, which is also a broad area and which continues around beneath the shoe until it meets that border, which encompasses the design elements underneath. Number 6 is that border -- that border, that very thin line that runs around the design element. Looking at those characteristics up to 1 through 6, and looking at the photograph of Mr. Simpson at the Buffalo football game, and the picture, which is number 4 -- Item Nos. 1 through 6 are visible and correspond with the features in the Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoe. Next, looking at Item number 7, there are features of the shoe, the design elements, which are visible in that photograph. Those design elements are also visible and are pointed to by number 7 in the photograph of Mr. Simpson's right shoe at the Buffalo football game. To further enlarge and enhance that specific area, Item number 5 is a computer print. And that computer print is made utilizing the computer and printing emphasizing the red highlights of that, because the foot is over the red area of the field. And this shows in a slightly better fashion the design elements and those correspond with the design element positions and the general pattern of that on the right Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoe. Continuing on, number 8 is the curve which is in the arch area of this sole. It's this curve right here, and it can be seen at this three-quarter shot of the sole marked by number, and also in the photograph of the Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoe taken at the football game of Mr. Simpson. Number 9 refers to the cut corner. And the cut corner, because it's cut off from the side, shows up as an angle. And this is visible and is referred to as number 9 in the photograph, under number 7 here, of the actual 395 shoe, and also by number 9 in the photograph of that shoe at the Buffalo football game. Number 10 refers to the curvature, the meeting of the bottom area and the contoured area, and the angle of that area when you look at the heel area of the Bruno Magli shoe, and that same contour and combination can be seen in number 10. Number 11 refers to the manner in which this sole raises up in the heel area. In this area, as it goes up, it's a little bit thicker, and at the angle that shoe is photographed, this thickness can be detected, and this is pointed to by number 11, and it's also visible at number 11 in the photograph of the shoe at the Buffalo football game. Item number 12 through 18 refer to the seam positions and their directions in the upper of the shoe again. Item number 7 depicting the actual Exhibit 395, Bruno Magli Lorenzo shoe. Number 12, referring to a seam in the back, in front of the heel. This would be this area here. And number 12 pointing to that same seam in the photograph in the football game. (Indicating to shoe.) Number 13, referring to the seam which runs up alongside of the laces. Number 14, referring to that same seam after it turns downward toward the ground. Number 15, referring to the bottom of that seam so that would be 13 here, 14, and then 15, showing different directions of those seams and those same features evident on the photograph of the right shoe on Mr. Simpson at the Buffalo football game. (Indicating to photos.) Number 16 is the seam which runs around the toe area, between this portion of the toe and the vamp or upper area of the toe, and this is also depicted in the photograph designated as 16 of Mr. Simpson's right foot at the Buffalo football game. Number 17 is this seam here below the laces. It's pointed out to as number 17 here, and also is pointed out to as number 17 in the right shoe of Mr. Simpson at this Buffalo football game. Finally, 18 refers to one of the eyelet holes, the bottom eyelet on the left side of the right shoe, and number 18 refers to that same reference point. I might also mention that the shoe laces are evident in the photograph of this shoe at the football game in the same manner as they are on the 395, Bruno Magli shoe. Based on those combined characteristics, all of these features of a sole, a Bruno Magli sole, which has a great deal of features to it, all of the different contours, the angled heel, the raised area in the back, very sculptured, raised heel, shoe made in the unit configuration with the various seam and part configuration of the upper, in a dull finish, with laces. Based on all of these features combined, I was able to determine that the shoe depicted in this photograph on the right foot of Mr. Simpson is a Bruno Magli Lorenzo right shoe, identical to Exhibit 395. In addition, I examined the left shoe which also, in a similar examination, I was able to determine that the left shoe features which are visible in section number 6 of this chart corresponded with a left shoe of this design. Q. Incidentally, prior to your analysis of the pictures printed of Mr. Scull's negatives, were the negatives, to your knowledge, examined for authentication by a photographic examiner? MR. P. BAKER: Objection, hearsay. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Yes, I'm aware that they were examined for authentication. Q. Was that examiner, to your knowledge, formerly the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Photographic Unit that's among it's duties was the examination of negatives for authentication? MR. P. BAKER: Objection. Can we approach on this? THE COURT: Okay. (The following proceedings were held at the bench with reporter:) THE COURT: Okay. MR. P. BAKER: This is all prejudicial. It's hearsay and it's irrelevant. If they want to bring in the guy who examined the photo, then they can bring him in. They can't put it through the back door through Bodziak is what I'm trying to say. He examined and he had all these qualifications. If he examined it, if he found it authentic, they have to bring him in. MR. MEDVENE: Well, I think one expert can rely on another expert's opinion in a particular area, Your Honor, and all he's testifying to now is that the man that examined the negative for authenticity just when he formerly worked. It's my last question, incidentally. MR. BAKER: This doesn't -- THE COURT: I don't care if it's your first or last. What's the theory on which -- MR. MEDVENE: The theory is they're going to cross-examine him in this particular and he's entitled, we believe, as an expert, to say that this negative -- all we're saying is that that negative, prior to his examination, was sent to a separate expert to examine. THE COURT: So where's the expert? MR. MEDVENE: The other side -- the other side has taken the position, and if the Simpson side puts on evidence -- there's no evidence now that the picture's other than authentic. If they put on any evidence in their case, we can rebut -- well, there's nothing for him to testify at this time about. MR. P. BAKER: Judge, they know we already have an expert who says there's 16 inconsistencies with that photograph. If they want to bring in their guy, they can bring him in. Now, Mr. Bodziak, at his deposition, testified that he wouldn't tell this jury -- THE COURT: I know. I'm satisfied. MR. P. BAKER: Okay. THE COURT: They can't rely on another expert opinion. MR. MEDVENE: I'll withdraw the last question. THE COURT: Okay. MR. P. BAKER: I move to strike. THE COURT: It's stricken. MR. P. BAKER: Thanks, Judge. MR. MEDVENE: We just ask to strike what. MR. P. BAKER: The question and the answer -- the question -- THE COURT: The question and was it submitted to another expert for authentication, and yes, that may remain. Whether it's authentic or not, that's stricken. MR. P. BAKER: Okay. (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.) MR. MEDVENE: I'll withdraw the last question. We have nothing further. THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, the status of this event here is that the court has allowed the question, was the photograph -- photographs submitted to someone for authentication, answer, yes. The rest of it is stricken. Okay. Are you going to be a speed talker? MR. P. BAKER: I don't think I can do it in five minutes. THE COURT: I don't like to here that. MR. P. BAKER: I know. THE COURT: We'll adjourn then, ladies and gentlemen, till tomorrow at 8:30. Don't talk about the case, don't form or express any opinion. (At 4:25 P.M. an adjournment was taken until Thursday, November 21, 1996 at 8:30 A.M.) |