REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
OCTOBER 28, 1996

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS,
VS.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1996
8:54 A.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEE
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

THE COURT: At this time, the Court will address the motion of Copley's
Press, et cetera.

MS. SAGER: Good morning. Kelli Sager on behalf of the nonparty media
organizations.

Our argument has been set forth in the motion. I don't want to take up
more of the Court's time than is necessary.

We have not received any opposition from any of the parties. I presume
that none has been filed with the Court. The motion is pretty
straightforward.

The blank questionnaires, it was our understanding, would be released
as soon as the jury was impaneled. That has not yet been done. We ask
the Court to do that immediately; and the questionnaires that have
already been filled out by jurors that were subjected to oral voir
dire that are the controlling cases in Copley and Lesher and
Press-Enterprise, which are quoted in our papers, we believe, should
also be released under the First Amendment.

We're not asking for identifying information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers, Social Security numbers, but all other information in
those questionnaires is considered part of the voir dire process which
is subject to the First Amendment Right of Access.

And since there have been no findings of any compelling interest
justifying closure order, we think there wouldn't be any blanket order
closure of the sort that is now in effect, we ask that it be
immediately released redacted version of those questionnaires that the
jurors identifying numbers, but no other name identifying information
on these.

I'm happy too answer any questions the Court has or if any opposition
is going to be presented at hearing; otherwise, we will not take up
any more of the Court's time.

THE COURT: The blank questionnaires are ordered released. The
questionnaires of all jurors who are not seated in the jury panel,
either as jurors or alternate jurors, are ordered released.

The questionnaires with regards to the jurors sitting in the jury
panel or as alternate jurors, they are ordered not released until the
conclusion of this program.

Court's inspection of the questionnaires convinces the Court that
there are numerous references from which the identity of the jurors
can be obtained by various investigative procedures which the press
has, in the past, undertaken to find out the identity of prospective
jurors.

My information is that, on prior cases, the jurors' identities have
been sought out and have been discovered in other cases without very
much investigation, based upon the curiosity of the press. And the
Court feels that the information in the questionnaires at various
points reveals such things as place of employment, names of persons
who are -- whose names are included in response to various portions of
the questionnaires, would easily link to the identification of the
jurors.

The jurors are not sequestered. It is important that the identity of
the jurors remain anonymous and not be revealed, because the Court is
concerned that the extensive efforts made by the press to pursue
persons who are involved in this case, whether they be parties,
witnesses, jurors or anybody else, has been extensive, or has itself
experienced the intrusiveness of this.

The Court is satisfied that it's necessary to protect the identity and
anonymity of the jurors throughout this trial, so that they will not
be affected by any pressures exerted by the media upon themselves and
their names families' places of employment.

Jurors are concerned that they are being pressured by people at their
places of employment, by family members -- pressure placed upon family
members by co-workers, and I think there is a supreme interest to be
preserved until this case is completed.

MS. SAGER: Your Honor, if I could ask one question: Does the Court
find that there is no portion of any of the questionnaires that could
be released without identifying the jurors, or any identification of
jurors?

THE COURT: I think the questions and answers are so inextricably
intertwined, that for the Court to spend its time going through 20 --
actually 60 questionnaires, when I'm trying to get this case done is,
I think, a little excessive. So the motion to that extent is denied on
those grounds.

MS. SAGER: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Bring the jury in.

(Time is 9:56 a.m.)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

THE COURT: Morning.

JURORS: Good morning.

THE COURT: Mr. Kelly, call your next witness.

MR. KELLY: Good morning.

JURORS: Good morning.

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, before we do call the witness, we've stipulated
as to the admission of certain exhibits, and I'd like to just read
those numbered exhibits into the record, with a brief description, if
I might.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. KELLY: Exhibit No. 38, which is Ron Goldman's body with the glove,
hat, and envelope.

(The instrument herein described were marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 38.)

MR. KELLY: No. 127, which is the kitchen area of 875 South Bundy.

(The instrument herein described were marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 127.)

MR. KELLY: Number 133, which is a front view of 875 South Bundy.

(The instrument herein described were marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 133.)

MR. KELLY: Number 27, which is a rear view of 875 South Bundy.

(The instrument herein described were marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 27.)

MR. KELLY: Number 81, which is a view of the rear gate of the 875
South Bundy from the inside.

(The instrument herein described were marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 81.)

MR. KELLY: Number 82, which is a close-up of the same rear gate.

(The instrument herein described were marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 82.)

MR. KELLY: No. 142, which is a close-up of the rear gate top in the
inside.

(The instrument herein described were marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 142.)

MR. KELLY: Number 85, which is a view of the rear gate of 875 South
Bundy from the south side.

(The instrument herein described were marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 85.)

MR. KELLY: Number 86, which is a close-up of that same rear gate.

(The instrument herein described were marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 86.)

MR. KELLY: Then number 92, which is Detective Fuhrman pointing to a
glove.

(The instrument herein described were marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 92.)

MR. KELLY: And number 40, which is a close-up of Detective Fuhrman
pointing to a glove.

(The instrument herein described were marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 40.)

MR. KELLY: That's all, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. KELLY: Police Officer Robert Riske, please.

ROBERT RISKE, called as a witness on behalf of the 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, state and spell both your first and your last names
for the record.

THE WITNESS: Robert Riske: R-O-B-E-R-T, R-I-S-K-E.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY:

Q. Good morning, Officer.

A. Good morning.

Q. Officer Riske, are you currently employed?

A. Yes.

Q. And who are you employed by?

A. Police officer for the City of Los Angeles.

Q. And how long have you been so employed?

A. About six and a half years.

Q. And on June 13, 1994, were you also employed by the Los Angeles
Police Department at that time?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And what was your assignment with the police department at that
time?

A. I was assigned to patrol.

Q. Okay. And prior to working for the Los Angeles Police Department,
in what capacity were you employed?

A. I was in the Navy for six and a half years.

Q. Now, going back to June 13, 1994, you said you were assigned to
patrol?

A. Yes.

Q. And out of what district were you assigned to patrol?

A. West L.A.

Q. Okay. And when you say you were assigned to patrol, did you wear a
uniform?

A. Yes.

Q. And what type of vehicle did you drive at that time, as part of
your assignment?

A. Marked black and white.

Q. Is that one of those cars with the lights on top --

A. Yes.

Q. -- and police markings?

A. (Witness nods affirmatively.)

Q. Now, drawing your attention to June 13, , do you recall what your
tour of duty was that day?

A. Just I was assigned to Brentwood area.

Q. And what were the hours of your duty that day?

A. From 11:15 to -- I'm sorry. From 10:30 to 7:15.

Q. Was that 10:30 p.m. on June 12 --

A. Right.

Q. -- 1994, to 7:15 --

A. 7:15.

Q. -- on the 13th. Okay.

Now, at approximately 12:09 a.m. on June , 1994, did you receive a
radio call in your car?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what was the substance of that radio call?

A. I believe it was a prowler, a burglary suspect at 874 South Bundy.

Q. And was there anybody in the car with you at that time?

A. Just my partner.

Q. And what was his name?

A. Mike Terrazas.

Q. As a result of that radio call that you received at 1209 what if
anything did you do next?

A. We drove to 874 South Bundy and we were flagged down.

Q. When you say you were flagged down, what exactly did you observe
upon arriving at 874 South Bundy?

A. I observed a male and female with a dog, coming down the steps of
868, and they were waving us down.

Q. Now, did you approach Bundy from the north or south?

A. From Wilshire Boulevard, which would be the south.

Q. And you were heading north?

A. Right.

Q. And as you pulled up to 874 South Bundy, which side of the street
did you park on?

A. On the east.

Q. Okay. And after making these initial observations, what did you do
when you pulled up in your patrol car?

A. We exited our vehicle and made contact with a female and male.

Q. Okay. And other than the male and female, was there anybody else
there at this time?

A. No.

Q. And you also indicated there was a dog with them, also?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Was that dog running loose or in some other manner?

A. It was on a leash.

Q. Okay. And can you describe that dog for me.

A. I believe it was an Akita.

Q. And did you make any observations as to the Akita's condition as
you approached the two people with the dog?

A. Not at that time, no.

Q. Okay. After you had a conversation with these two people, what, if
anything, did you do next, Officer?

A. They directed us across the street. They said there was a dead lady
across the street.

Q. And do you recall the area in which -- vicinity -- they directed
you?

A. 875 South Bundy.

Q. Okay. And as you approached 875 South Bundy, could you describe the
lighting conditions at the front of 875 South Bundy at that time?

A. It was very poor.

Q. Dark?

A. Dark.

Q. Okay. And what about the foliage, if any, around the entrance of
875 South Bundy?

A. There is a large, overhanging tree over the walkway. Made it even
darker.

Q. And were you able to see the front entrance without utilizing your
flashlight?

A. No.

Q. As you approached 857 South Bundy, where, first, did you direct
your attention to?

A. Towards the grassy areas south of the walkway.

Q. And did you observe a walkway leading to the front of 875?

A. Not really.

Q. Okay. So as I understand, you first went to an area that went up to
that walkway?

A. Right.

Q. Did you have your flashlight on at that time?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. As you were in that grassy area to the left of the sidewalk of 875
South Bundy, did you make any observations, initially, at this time?

A. No.

Q. After your initial observations, which there were none, what, if
anything, did you do next, Officer?

A. The witnesses directed us to the walkway, which would be to the
north.

Q. Okay. That would be to the right of the area you were?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. What, if anything, did you do after you were directed to that
vicinity by the witnesses?

A. I looked down the walkway, using my flashlight, and saw a female
laying on the walkway.

Q. Okay. Can you describe that female?

A. Female, white and black dress, blond hair.

Q. And did you make any other observations as to the area immediately
surrounding that woman you observed?

A. There was blood approximately halfway down the walkway.

Q. Now, at that time, Officer, on making those observations, would it
be fair to say that you recognized that area as a crime scene?

A. Yes.

Q. And being a patrol officer, having just arrived at a crime scene,
did you have any duties and responsibilities at that time?

A. I had called for additional units. We set up for a crime scene, had
a call for an ambulance for the lady, called the supervisor.

Q. And are there any other steps that you're required to take in terms
of first arriving at a crime scene, also?

A. We have to try to clear it for any additional victims or suspects,
identify and preserve evidence.

Q. And were you taking steps to do that immediately upon these
observations?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, after you had gone out and dispatched for additional
help and an ambulance, what, if anything, did you do next?

A. I advised my partner, "Grab a hold of the witnesses, find out what
they saw or how they found the lady."

We recontacted them, and I observed a dog to have blood on his legs.

Q. The Akita you had observed earlier?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, after you made those observations, what, if anything, did you
do next, Officer?

A. We went back across the street to 875 and approached the female. I
was approximately halfway up the walkway, and before, in the foliage
next to the walkway, and I saw the male leaning against the north
fence.

MR. KELLY: See if I can have 32, please.

Could you make it a little more distant.

THE COURT: That's good. Just like that.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, Officer, are you able to see that photo that's
up there right now?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you indicate, first of all for the ladies and gentlemen of
the jury, where you had first focused your attention the first time
you approached South Bundy, through a pointer on the podium?

A. You can't see it on this photograph; it's like over here, there's a
grassy area.

Q. That's where you first went?

A. Initially? Right.

Q. Now, you indicated that you had called for backup and a supervisor
and an ambulance as you approached a second time, also?

A. Right.

Q. And could you indicate where you approached at that time?

A. I walked through these plants up to the call box there.

Q. And did you at any time step on that walkway going up to 875?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Did your partner step on that walkway going up to 875?

A. No, he didn't.

Q. Now, you also indicated that when you got approximately halfway up
there, you had made additional observations?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. What was that?

A. I saw the body of Mr. Goldman leaning against the north fence.

Q. In that photo, as it appears there, there appears to be blood
that's running all the way down to the front sidewalk there.

Was that the way it appeared when you arrived there at 12:13 on June
13 --

A. No.

Q. -- 1994? Could you indicate with your pointer approximately how far
down the blood had run when you arrived there that morning.

A. About the midpoint.

MR. KELLY: Now, this next photo might be difficult to look at, also. I
Just want you to put up , Steve.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, do you recognize that photo, Officer Riske?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And what do you recognize that to be?

A. That would be the body of Mr. Goldman, as I saw him that night.

Q. Okay. And where were you located when you first made that
observation?

A. I was standing in the foliage next to the call box.

Q. And did you attempt to get any closer at that time when you made
that observation?

A. No, I didn't.

MR. KELLY: Steve, could you make that a little more distant, please.
That's good.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, in addition to the young male you saw in that
photo there, did you make any other observations at that time?

A. There's some articles of evidence in this picture.

Q. And did you observe them at this time when you had approached the
front call box on the lot?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Can you tell me, first of all, what additional items you observed
at that point?

A. The envelope. There's a glove and a hat underneath the plant
(witness indicates).

Q. Okay. First of all, could you point out the envelope, please.

A. (Witness indicates.)

Q. And is that located exactly where it was when you observed it that
morning?

A. Yes.

Q. And secondly, could you point out the glove you observed.

A. This is a bad photo. You can't really see. It's in the same -- it's
in that area, but you can't see it clearly.

MR. KELLY: Could you bring it up closer. Steve.

A. That would be the glove right there. (Indicating.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Okay. And are you able to see a portion of that hat,
also, in that picture?

A. I believe the hat is up here a little farther.

Q. If we go down to the lower right, maybe --

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

A. Can't really see in that picture.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) If I might, if -- can you step up here for a moment,
Officer. I direct your attention down to that area there.

A. Right.

Q. Okay. Now, upon a closer look, do you recall where you observed the
hat at this time?

A. Yes.

Q. Where would that be?

A. In the lower right.

Q. Can you indicate one more time --

MR. KELLY: Steve, could you back up a little bit.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, can you indicate once again where the hat was,
Officer?

A. It's in the lower right.

Q. Now, in addition to making those observations, did you make any
others in terms of potential evidence in that immediate vicinity at
this time?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was that?

A. There appeared to be a bloody heel mark in the walkway and bloody
footprints leading up the steps toward the house.

Q. The bloody heel print, does that appear in that picture there?

A. Can't really see it.

Q. And with regard to the bloody footprints going up the stairs, was
that towards the house?

A. Towards the house.

Q. Did you observe any bloody footprints in the front sidewalk, going
away from the house?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. What, if anything, did you do, Officer, after making this second
observation near -- the second time you approached the front gate?

A. I saw the bloody footprints leading towards the front of the house
and observed the front door to be open, and I assumed that the
footprints probably went inside. So my partner and I stepped over the
body and went to the front door.

Q. When you stepped over the body, can you describe for us exactly how
you were able to do that?

A. Stay to the far left of the walkway, against the fence.

MR. KELLY: Steve, can you take that picture down, first of all. I'm
sorry.

(Steve complies)

A. And went up on a landing, toward the front door.

Q. And did anybody accompany you at that time?

A. My partner.

Q. Who was?

A. Officer Terrazas.

Q. And what, if anything, did you observe as you approached the front
door at that time?

A. I observed the footprints that continued westbound through the
walkway, past the house.

Q. And did you observe anything other than bloody footprints before
you reached the front door?

A. There was a drop of blood. It was on the left of the footprint. I
forget exactly where it was.

Q. That was before you reached the front door?

A. Right.

Q. And when you arrived at the front door, was it opened or closed?

A. It was opened.

Q. And did the bloody footprints appear to head towards the door and
continue to the back?

A. They continued westbound on the walkway.

Q. As you approached the door, also, was there any indication of a
forced entry on that door?

A. No.

Q. What, if anything, did you do next as you arrived at the door,
Officer?

A. We entered the residence on the landing, to see if there was any
evidence of ransacking or any evidence of blood in the house.

Q. Did you see any doors open?

A. No.

Q. Any cupboards open?

A. No.

Q. Any furniture overturned?

A. No.

Q. Any sign of ransacking?

A. No.

Q. Any indication that the crime scene extended inside the house?

A. No.

Q. Any bloody footprints?

A. No.

Q. Any drops of blood?

A. No.

Q. Anybody in the house at this time?

A. At that time, we didn't check the whole house, no.

Q. What, if anything, did you observe after that?

A. I observed a lithograph on the wall. It appeared to be O.J.
Simpson. And as I went to the kitchen, there was an envelope, it had
O.J. Simpson as a return address.

Q. What did you do next, after making those observations?

A. I used a phone to call my watch commander.

Q. Who was your watch commander?

A. Sergeant David Rossi.

Q. Now, you usually carry what's called a "rover," do you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And what is a rover?

A. It's a radio, like a walkie-talkie.

Q. And would that have put you in communication with your watch
commander, also?

A. Yes.

Q. And you chose not to use that at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. And why was that?

A. Because the media has scanners and they

scan our frequency. If I would have used my radio, told them exactly
what I had, the media would have got there before anybody else.

Q. After you made this phone call, what, if anything, did you do next?

A. I went back outside, told my partner to grab the witnesses, and I
went around down the walkway, around the north side in the neighbor's
yard.

Q. If I can hold up a little bit. How did you exit the house then?

A. Through the front door and down the landing.

Q. And how did you go down the landing and the walkway, once again?

A. Staying to the far left, away from the blood, stepped over the
female.

Q. To the best of your knowledge, did you ever put your foot in the
blood at any time?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever observe your partner?

A. No.

Q. And when you headed back out that sidewalk, was it in the same
bushy area to the south side of the sidewalk?

A. We just stepped over the bushes and went through the grass.

Q. What, avoiding the sidewalk at all times?

A. Yes.

Q. As you arrived back out on the street, then, after exiting the
house, what, if any further action, did you take?

A. I personally went north in the neighbor's yard, to the north of the
male body, and observed the pager laying on the ground. And I checked
to see if he was alive.

Q. First of all, how did you approach the vicinity north of the
enclosed area when you went there?

A. A dirt path that leads back to the fence.

Q. Is that a clear path?

A. Clear as a path with nothing on it.

Q. And did you have your flashlight on at that point?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Were you using it at that point?

A. Yes.

Q. In what manner were you using the flashlight as you approached that
area north of the gated area of 875 South Bundy?

A. I shined it on the ground and in the bushes, make sure I didn't
mess up any evidence.

Q. Were you looking for additional evidence, if any?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see any evidence prior to arriving at the gate, on the
outside, on the north side?

A. Just his pager, or a pager.

Q. Did you look in the vicinity elsewhere outside the gated area,
also, north of the enclosed area?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And did you look in the vicinity east of the gated area towards the
front of 875 Bundy with your flashlight, also?

A. Yes.

Q. When you say you were using a flashlight, Officer, what type of
flashlight is that, by the way?

A. It's extremely light; it's aluminum. It's about 30,000 candle
power.

Q. That's standard police issue.

A. You have to buy it yourself.

(Laughter.)

Q. Standard police issue if you pay for it?

A. Standard police issue would be plastic.

Q. Okay. So this was much stronger than a standard police-issue
flashlight?

A. Right.

Q. Powerful flashlight?

A. Right.

Q. You personally bought it for that reason?

A. Right.

Q. Now, after approaching on the north side there, in making these
observations in the immediate vicinity, what, if anything, did you do
next?

A. I checked Mr. Goldman to see if he was alive.

Q. And was he?

A. No.

Q. And in what manner did you check?

A. I touched his eyeball with my finger, checking for involuntary
blinking, or I used my light to illuminate his pupil. And there was no
dilation or anything.

Q. And you were still on the north side, outside the gated area, at
this point?

A. That's correct.

Q. And at that point, where you're with your light, were you able to
observe the glove you had seen earlier, also?

A. Yes.

Q. And the hat?

A. I believe the bush was covering the hat.

Q. Were you able to see any other items of what appeared to you to be
evidence at this time, when you shined your light around?

A. No.

Q. And then did -- did you leave that area?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what did you do next?

A. I went back out to the street. As I did so, Officer Wally and
officer McGowan arrived.

Q. And did anybody else?

A. Initially, just those. And then Sergeant Coon arrived a couple of
seconds later.

Q. When Wally and McGowan arrived, were they patrol officers, also --

A. Yes.

Q. -- in uniform?

A. Yes.

Q. Driving a black and white?

A. Yes.

Q. And where did they park their car?

A. On the west side of the street, north of, probably, 873.

Q. That's on the same side as 875 South Bundy?

A. Right.

Q. And shortly after they arrived, did someone else arrive there,
also?

A. Sergeant Coon.

Q. And by the way, Sergeant Coon, that's not the same one from the
Rodney King case?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Now, when he arrived, did you have a discussion with him?

A. Yes.

Q. And what, if anything, did you tell them?

A. I just told them we had a double homicide, and where I was,
basically. And Sergeant

Coon gave out marching orders.

Q. What were the marching orders that Sergeant Coon gave out?

A. Officer Terrazas was at the rear location, to secure the rear.
Officer McGowan started setting up crime-scene tape, and Officer Wally
and I entered the house and searched it.

Q. Taking these one step at a time, did you see how Officer Terrazas
left for the rear of the house?

A. He left southbound, Bundy and Dorothy.

Q. And Dorothy up to the alleyway?

A. I saw him go southbound on Bundy.

Q. And did you see McGowan start setting up the crime-scene tape?

A. Yes.

Q. By the way, prior to June 13, 1994, had you been the first officer
on the scene on prior occasions?

A. Yes.

Q. Approximately how many times?

A. To crime scenes?

Q. Yeah.

A. Twenty.

Q. And how many of those 20 crime scenes were actually homicides?

A. Fifteen.

Q. All right. And at those 15 homicides, was it your primary
responsibility of identifying evidence and observing a crime scene?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, going back to Officer McGowan, did you see him actually start
using the crime-scene tape to secure the front of 875 South Bundy?

A. Yes, I did.

MR. KELLY: Steve, may I see 133, please.

Bring it a little more in focus, if possible.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Officer, do you recognize that location?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that the front of 875 South Bundy?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. I was wondering if you could step down a minute; it might be easier
for you to point out a couple things. The pointer is behind you there.

Once again, can you indicate when you first arrived at the scene, you
spoke to those two people, when you first looked for the body you had
been directed to.

A. In the grassy area, over here. (Indicating.)

Q. And later on, you had indicated that when you came out of the house
the second time, you were going to the sidewalk north of 875 South
Bundy, to approach the gated area from the outside?

A. It was a dirt path, not a sidewalk.

Q. Well, do you see that area there?

A. It's like, right in here. (Indicating.)

Q. That's where you proceeded up and observed Mr. Goldman?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Thank you. You may have a seat. The way that crime-scene
tape, that's the way it was taped off that morning after McGowan was
done?

A. Yes. There's actually two separate areas were taped.

Q. And if I could see . . .

Do you recognize that photograph, Officer?

A. Yes.

Q. And what is that?

A. That's the rear alley of 875 Bundy.

Q. And the crime-scene tape -- first of all, that yellow tape is the
crime-scene tape, is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And that tape that is closest to us, do you know what is standing
across there?

A. It's the foot of the alley of Dorothy.

Q. And there's crime-scene tape down at that distance, also?

A. Right.

Q. Where is that located relative to 875 South Bundy?

A. That's the rear of one house north of 875 South Bundy.

Q. Can you just point out that tape that you see at the far end.

A. (Witness complies, indicating.)

Q. There's a black-and-white patrol car in that photo, also. Is that
inside the tape or outside?

A. It's outside the tape.

Q. And do you recognize the individual in that picture, also?

A. That's me.

Q. And where are you standing relative to the rear of 875 South Bundy?

A. To the rear of the driveway.

Q. After the front and rear had been secured of this crime scene with
the tape you indicated that you and Police Officer Wally did something
that Sergeant Coon --

A. We searched the house while the crime-scene tape was being set up.

Q. And can you describe for us the manner in which you entered and
searched the house with Officer Wally?

A. We went in the grassy area, stepped over the body of the female at
the landing of the front door.

Q. Upon entering the front of the house, what did you do then?

A. We searched the lower level, back to the garage. Then we went up to
the second level and searched that.

Q. Can you describe exactly how you went through the first level of
the house?

A. We went -- we checked the living room farthest east. Then we went
back to the garage, went down and checked in the garage.

Q. Did you -- in the living room, do you recall what living -- what
room you went into next?

A. The dining room, then the kitchen.

Q. The kitchen where you made the phone call, by the way?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

MR. KELLY: Can I see . . .

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Do you recognize that photo there, Officer?

A. That's the kitchen of 875 South Bundy.

Q. That's where you made the call to Sergeant Rossi?

A. Right. You can't see it; there's a counter on this side you can't
see.

Q. To the left of that picture?

A. Right.

Q. That's where the phone was?

A. Right. Yes.

Q. That's where you made the call.

MR. KELLY: You can take that down.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) After you went through the kitchen with Officer
Walsh, where did you proceed to next?

A. To the rear of the residence. That's a family-room area. Searched
that. Then we went down to the garage.

Q. And did you make any observations as you approached the garage?

A. There's a couple of ice creams sitting on a bannister.

Q. Did you touch that at all?

A. No.

Q. Did you touch anything on the first floor, as you went through the
house?

A. No.

Q. By the way, as you went through the house, did you observe any
signs of ransacking, disturbance, blood, bloody footprints, drops of
blood anywhere on the first floor of the house?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. And when you arrived at the garage, you went through the garage,
also?

A. Yes.

Q. What, if anything, did you observe in there?

A. Just a car. Nothing really out of ordinary.

Q. Nothing disturbed?

A. No.

Q. Where did you proceed to next?

A. It was a laundry room, and then I believe a maid's quarters are
downstairs, checked them. Then I went up to the second floor.

Q. What did you observe up there?

A. Observed two children asleep in their beds.

Q. Were these children in the same room or separate rooms?

A. Separate.

Q. And were they both asleep at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you able to make any observations as to the approximate age of
these two children?

A. Just minors.

Q. Young?

A. Young.

Q. Under 10?

A. I would assume.

Q. And were the doors open or closed to each of their rooms?

A. Open.

Q. And did you wake the children at this time?

A. No.

Q. After observing the children, what next?

A. We continued eastbound and checked out the master bedroom, master
bath. There was a workout area.

Q. What, if any, observations did you make in the master bedroom?

A. There was a TV on. I believe there was a table lamp on. The covers
on the bed were kind of piled in the middle.

Q. The bed wasn't made, was it?

A. No.

Q. You also indicated you went into the master bathroom?

A. Right.

Q. What observations did you make in there?

A. The tub was full of water, and there were some candles burning to
the west of that.

Q. Do you recall how many candles were burning at this time?

A. Three.

Q. Did you blow them out at all?

A. No.

Q. Did you touch them?

A. No.

Q. Did you touch the water in the bathtub?

A. No.

Q. Did you let the water out of that bathtub?

A. No.

Q. Was there any sign of any struggle, ransacking, dishevelment in the
house as you went through it at this time?

A. No.

Q. No indication that the crime scene extended to the second floor in
any way?

A. No.

Q. After going through the second floor, what, if any, action did you
take next with Officer Walsh?

A. Went up on the roof -- there's a patio up there -- and checked
that. And then Officer Walsh stayed by the children's bedrooms, and I
went down and told my supervisor we had two children in the house. And
we had to take them out the back.

Q. Who was your supervisor?

A. Sergeant Coon.

Q. And where did you meet him at?

A. He was down in the grassy area. I was on the landing. I just yelled
to him.

Q. And after you told him that, what, if anything, did you do next?

A. I walked westbound on the walkway, to the rear gate.

Q. Now, facing the front of 875 South Bundy, this walkway you're
referring to, where is it in relation to the front of the house?

A. It's to the north of the front of the house.

Q. Would that be to the right of it?

A. Right.

Q. And does that walkway extend all the way from the front of the
house to the rear alley?

A. Yes.

Q. And is that a level walkway, or is it different levels?

A. No, there's different levels.

Q. And as you started back that walkway, did you have your flashlight
on or off?

A. On.

Q. And at that time, did you make any observations as you started back
on the walkway?

A. I observed what appeared to be bloody footprints continue
westbound, and they faded approximately halfway, and observed what
appeared to be blood drops.

Q. And you indicated earlier that when you first approached the front
door, you had also seen bloody footprints and a blood drop to the left
of those footprints; is that right?

A. Right.

Q. Did you take a good look at that first blood drop, first of all,
that you observed next to the footprints?

A. Just to verify if it was blood or not.

Q. Can you describe that blood drop, as you saw it.

A. It was red, appeared to be moist, about maybe the size of a dime, a
little smaller than a dime.

Q. Was it fresh blood?

A. Appeared to be fresh.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. BLASIER: Excuse me. No foundation.

THE COURT: "Moist" may mean fresh. Sustained

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) You observed blood down by the two bodies on the
lower level?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you describe that blood drop in relation to the other blood you
observed on the other level?

A. They were very similar, looked to be the same.

Q. In terms of consistency?

A. Right.

Q. Moisture?

A. Yes.

Q. Color?

A. Yes.

Q. Red. In your opinion, it was --

A. It was blood.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.

THE COURT: That it was blood, overruled.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And as you headed towards the back of 875 South
Bundy, towards the alley, you indicated you observed additional drops
of blood, also?

A. Yes.

Q. You had occasion to look at them at this time?

A. Just so -- I passed them, so I wouldn't step in them.

Q. Would you be able to describe those other drops of blood that you
saw, also?

A. They were consistent in nature to the first one. It was red,
appeared to be moist.

Q. Sizewise?

A. I don't -- really don't recall the size.

Q. But they were consistent with the first ones you'd seen, also?

A. Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Did they appear to be -- did it appear to be new
blood?

A. Appeared to be fresh.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.

THE COURT: New blood. Sustained.

Q. Moist?

A. Appeared to be fresh.

Q. Now, as you approached the rear of 875 South Bundy, is there
anything in the alley there or in the walkway there? I'm sorry.

A. There's a gate at the rear of the walkway.

Q. And as you approached that gate, did you make any observations of
that rear gate at that time?

A. I observed it to be blood on the inside of the rear gate. And I was
advised there was blood on the outside of the gate by my partner.

Q. First of all, as you approached the gate --

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Move to strike as hearsay.

THE COURT: Strike what?

MR. BLASIER: Part of the answer where he talked about what his partner
told him.

THE COURT: What his partner said, that's stricken.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) You had your flashlight on as you approached the
rear gate?

A. Yes.

Q. And you indicated that you observed blood on different portions of
the gate at that time?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you shine your flashlight?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell us where on the rear gate the blood was located when
you observed it with your flashlight?

A. I observed what looked like a smear on the top and a couple drops
on the bottom, and a smear on the ledge.

Q. And can you describe the appearance of that blood you saw in those
different places?

A. Appeared to be fresh, red, consistent with the rest of the blood.

Q. Moist?

A. Yes.

Q. And you indicated that you had a discussion at that time with your
partner, Terrazas --

A. Yes.

Q. -- who was at rear gate.

As a result of that conversation, did you make any further observation
about that back gate?

A. There was blood on the grating on the outside of the gate.

Q. And can you describe that blood on the grating on the outside
appeared, also?

A. Appeared to be fresh and moist, consistent with the rest of the
blood.

Q. Red?

A. Red.

MR. KELLY: Steve, if I could see number 81, please.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, Officer, looking at that gate, do you recognize
that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And what is that gate?

A. That's the rear of the walkway; that's the rear alley there.

Q. And that would have been as you approached that gate --

A. Right.

Q. -- down the walkway.

MR. KELLY: And now, Steve, if I could see number 82.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Do you recognize what appears in that photograph?

A. It appears to be the bottom rung of the gate, with blood drops on
it.

Q. Do you recognize the bottom rung of the gate being the same blood
that you observed in the early morning hours of June 13, 1994?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you observe blood in the same location in that picture that you
observed in the early morning hours of June 13, 1994?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And can you point to the blood that you observed on the gate at
that time and that place.

A. Those two spots. (Indicating.)

Q. Now, looking at that photograph, does the blood appear there the
same as it appeared that night when you observed it in the early
morning hours?

A. It appears to be in the same spot. It's obviously dry.

MR. KELLY: 142, Steve.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, do you recognize that photograph?

A. That's the top of the gate, with a blood smear.

Q. Is that on the inside?

A. Yes.

Q. And is that -- does that blood smear appear in that photograph
there the same way it was the early morning hours of June 13, 1994?

A. Yes.

Q. In the same location?

A. Yes.

Q. Does it physically appear the same, though?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. Okay. Was it red in color?

A. It was red there. It was just a smear.

MR. KELLY: Number 85, Steve.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Do you recognize that as being the outside of the
same gate at 875 South Bundy?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And is that the gate that Officer Terrazas brought your attention
to?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And after him drawing your attention to that rear gate, did
you make an observation?

A. There's blood on the grating.

Q. Do you recall approximately what location that was in?

A. It was towards the bottom, middle.

Q. Would you indicate with your pointer approximately where it was.

A. It was in this area here. (Indicating.)

MR. KELLY: And number 86, please, Steve.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Do you recognize that photograph, Officer?

A. Yes.

Q. And what is that?

A. That's blood on the grating.

Q. Does that physically appear the same in that photograph as it was
when you saw in the early morning hours of June 13, 1994?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. Even the color and the texture?

A. No. It appears to be dry in this picture.

Q. Was it dry when you observed it that morning?

A. No; it was fresh, red, appeared to be moist.

Q. Now, after making those observations -- by the way, did you shine
your flashlight on those various portions of the blood on the gate we
just discussed?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Police Officer Terrazas also put a flashlight on those areas,
too?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And did you observe those areas at the same time?

A. As he directed my attention to it, yes.

Q. After making those observations on the rear gate, what, if
anything, did you do next?

A. I told my partner that we were going to bring the kids out the
garage, and I asked him if it would disturb any evidence if we opened
the garage. And he said no.

Q. Did you actually walk over to look at the garage door when you
could bring them out?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Did you make any other observations in the garage door vicinity
before bringing the children out?

A. He just told me there was blood on the driveway. And I told him to
stay away from it.

Q. Did you actually go and look at the blood at that time?

A. No.

Q. Did you see any vehicles in the area?

A. Not at that time.

Q. After being told about the blood in the driveway by Police Officer
Terrazas, what, if anything, did you do next?

A. I went back in the residence. I went eastbound on the walkway and
through the front door.

Q. When you say "eastbound on the walkway," was that the same walkway
with the bloody footprints and blood drops that you had observed
earlier?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you take measures to avoid those footprints and drops?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did anybody accompany you back to that walkway at that time?

A. No.

Q. And when you went to the house, did you enter the house alone at
that time, also?

A. Yes.

Q. And who, if anybody, was in the house when you entered at that
time?

A. Officer Walsh was up by the children's bedroom.

Q. Nobody else had come in through that front area of the crime scene
at this time, had they?

A. No.

Q. You went up with Officer Wally, back in the house, at this time?

A. Yes.

Q. What, if anything, did you do next, after you went up with him?

A. We woke up the female and had her get dressed. Then we woke up the
little boy and had him get dressed. Then we went out through the
garage.

Q. And how long did it take you to, first of all, wake up the little
girl and get her dressed?

A. Just a few minutes.

Q. And she was asleep --

A. Yes.

Q. -- when you first went in there.

And then you went and woke up the little boy?

A. Right.

Q. And was the little girl with you when you did that?

A. Yes.

Q. And did she assist you in any way with the little boy?

A. She helped us get him dressed. He was kind of upset.

Q. And after you had them woke up and dressed, what, if anything, did
you do next?

A. Went down, out through the garage, and we went down the alley and
met up with another officer.

Q. And who were those officers that you met up with?

A. Officers Heider and Vasquez.

Q. And you turned the children over to them?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was your understanding as to where they were taking the
children?

A. To the police station.

Q. What did you do next, Officer, after you had the children taken to
the police station?

A. I went back to the driveway area and I saw the blood my partner was
referring to, and I saw the door of the vehicle in the driveway, the
jeep, to be ajar.

Q. First of all, the blood that you observed that Terrazas pointed you
to, did you put your flashlight on it at that time?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you make any observations, or could you describe the blood as
you saw it at that time?

A. It just appeared to be a fresh, red spot of blood.

Q. Was it consistent with the drops you had seen earlier in the
walkway?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. What, if anything, did you do next, Officer?

A. Then I went to the front of 875 South Bundy and I met with Sergeant
Coon.

Q. That was after going up and down the alleyway?

A. That was before.

Q. And Sergeant Coon -- did you receive any other instructions?

A. Sergeant Rossi arrived, and we showed him the crime scene in the
front; then we went around the back.

Q. First of all, who is Sergeant Rossi?

A. He was a watch commander at West L.A.

Q. Do you know approximately what time it was that he arrived?

A. No.

Q. When you say you showed him the crime scene in front, first of all,
what did you actually show him?

A. We went up on the grassy area, and I pointed out the female, and
the male, and the envelope, and the glove, and the hat.

Q. When you say you pointed out, in what manner did you point out to
Sergeant Rossi?

A. I illuminated it with my flashlight.

Q. And in illuminating these items, did you have occasion to
illuminate the areas -- items in the vicinity of that area, also?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you observe any other items in the immediate vicinity at this
time --

A. No.

Q. -- inside the gated area?

A. No.

Q. Anywhere outside the gated area?

A. No.

Q. Did you look with your flashlight?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, after showing Sergeant Rossi the front crime-scene area, what,
if anything, did you do?

A. We walked down to Dorothy and went to the rear alley. Then we went
up to the rear driveway, showed them the blood and the door that was
ajar to the vehicle, and the rear gate.

Q. When you say the blood, first of all, you're referring to the drop
of blood you observed in the driveway?

A. Yes.

Q. And what, if anything, did you show him when you went to the rear
gate?

A. Showed him the blood on the outside and on the inside of the rear
gate.

Q. And you showed him all the drops that you pointed out earlier to
the jury?

A. Yes.

Q. And who else was there, if anybody, with you and Sergeant Rossi at
that time?

A. I believe Sergeant Coon was there, and my partner, Officer Terrazas
was there.

Q. Now, after making these observations with Sergeant Rossi, what, if
anything, did you do next?

A. Sergeant Rossi and I went down on the walkway, approximately
halfway to where the footprints ended, and I just showed them to him.
Then we went back out to the alley.

Q. I assume you were careful not to disturb the footprints of blood?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Did you take measures to avoid the footsteps and
drops of blood at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. And Officer Rossi, also?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you then exit the rear gate?

A. Yes.

Q. After exiting with Sergeant Rossi, what, if anything, did do you
next?

A. Went back up to the front and just waited for the detectives.

Q. And did there come a time that detectives arrived there?

A. Yes.

Q. And would you be able to -- first of all, when you went back out
front with Sergeant Rossi, could you tell me at this time whether any
other police officers had arrived on the scene?

A. Yes.

Q. And could you tell me which officers had arrived there at that
time, when you went back out front with Sergeant Rossi?

A. Officer Ashton and his partner, Officer Gonzalez, Officer Goriossi,
and Seigler, Officers Sanchez and Cummings.

Q. Okay. Officers Heidler and Vasquez had been there, also?

A. They had been there to pick up the children, that was it.

Q. Okay. And I believe you indicated Sergeants Rossi and Coon were
there, also, as well as you and your partner, Terrazas?

A. Right.

Q. So it would be fair to say that at that point when you returned out
front, there had been approximately 14 police officers at the scene at
that time?

A. Right.

Q. And on more than one occasion, with other officers, you had
approached the front area of 875 South Bundy and illuminated the
entire area?

A. Yes.

Q. And that you had also approached the walkway north of 875 Bundy at
the gated area, and illuminated that entire area, also, correct?

A. Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Counsel, let the witness testify.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) You indicated that you arrived at the front of 875
South Bundy with Sergeant Rossi, awaiting the arrival of the
detectives.

A. Right.

Q. Did any detectives ever arrive?

A. Yes.

Q. Approximately how long after you had first arrived on that scene
did detectives arrive to South Bundy?

A. Possibly two hours.

Q. And which detectives arrived at that time?

A. Phillips and Fuhrman.

Q. Detective Phillips and Detective Fuhrman?

A. Right.

Q. And what was Detective Phillips' position at that time?

A. He's the lead homicide detective for West L.A.

Q. And Detective Fuhrman was?

A. His partner.

Q. And what, if anything, did you do upon their arrival there at the
scene, at that time?

A. Briefly went over what we had, and took them up to the front of the
crime scene, showed them that -- took them around to the north side to
show them Mr. Goldman's body and the pager, and we went

around the rear alley.

Q. When you say you showed them the front of the crime scene, how did
you do that, once again?

A. Used my flashlight to illuminate the body of both victims and the
evidence.

Q. What evidence did you illuminate?

A. The envelope the glove and the hat. Then, on the north side, the
pager and Mr. Goldman's body.

A. Yes.

Q. And you said you illuminated the north side. Did you approach that
separately with Fuhrman and Phillips, also?

A. Right.

Q. And approaching the north side, outside the gated area, did you
illuminate the vicinity?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Now, did you on observe any items of evidence as you came up that
side?

A. Just a pager.

Q. Other than the pager, nothing else?

A. No.

Q. That was your second time up there with your flashlight?

A. Right.

Q. Now, you then proceeded to the rear of South Bundy?

A. That's correct.

Q. What, if anything, did you do at the rear of 875 South Bundy with
Fuhrman and Phillips?

A. Showed them the vehicle, the blood on the driveway, blood on the
gate.

Q. When you say you showed them the blood on the driveway, what manner
did you point it out to them?

A. With my flashlight.

Q. Was anybody else with you besides Phillips and Fuhrman?

A. Sergeant Rossi.

Q. And after pointing out the blood in the driveway, where did you go
to next?

A. To the gate, with Detective Fuhrman.

Q. And you indicated you showed them the blood on the gate at that
time?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What manner did you show him the blood on the gate at that time?

A. Using my flashlight.

Q. You showed all the blood spots that we had displayed earlier?

A. On the gate, right.

Q. And while you were at the back gate with Detective Fuhrman, what,
if anything, did Sergeant Rossi and Detective Phillips do?

A. They walked approximately halfway up the walkway, to, I assume,
where the blood drops, the footsteps ended.

Q. And then what?

A. Then they came back out.

Q. And did you show the blood on the back gate to Sergeant Rossi?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And was Sergeant Phillips there also, when the blood on the back
gate was pointed out?

A. Detective Phillips.

Q. Detective Phillips?

A. Initially when I showed it to Sergeant Rossi, he wasn't. When I was
standing there with Fuhrman, he was.

Q. After they returned back to the rear gate area, Rossi and Phillips,
what, if anything, did you do next, sir?

A. Detective Phillips, Detective Fuhrman, myself, entered the house
through the garage. And we did a walk-through on the house, and we
went out on the front landing.

Q. When you first all -- when you went to do a walk-through of the
house, did you go through the entire house, as you had on the prior
occasion with Wally?

A. Yes.

MR. KELLY: You want to take a break now?

THE COURT: Ten-minute recess.

Don't talk about the case; don't form or express any opinions.

(Recess.)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

(The following proceedings were held at. The bench:)

THE COURT: Not my problem.

MR. PETROCELLI: We'll try to work on it during the afternoon luncheon.
Okay. We have been trying with some lack of SUCCESS.

THE COURT: Okay. (Reviewing notes.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of
the jury:)

MR. KELLY: Can I proceed, Your Honor?

THE COURT: (Nods in the affirmative.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Officer, before the break you had indicated that you
had entered the rear of 875 south Bundy with Detective Phillips and
Fuhrman?

A. Right.

Q. And did anybody else accompany you at that time?

A. No.

Q. And what did you do upon entering the premise?

A. We did a quick walk through of the house and we went out on the
front landing.

Q. When you arrived the at the front landing what, if anything, did
you do at that time?

A. I illuminated the area of the bodies with my flash light, showed
him the bodies and the evidence, the foot steps leading westbound on
the walkway.

Q. Other than the foot steps, what other evidence did you illuminate
and point out to them?

A. The drop of blood before the front door and the drop of blood
westbound.

Q. Did you illuminate the front area also where the bodies were?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you illuminate any of the evidence in that area?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what evidence was that?

A. The two bodies, the envelope, the glove and the hat.

Q. Did you observe any other items at this time in the vicinity?

A. No.

Q. After that, what happened? What did you do next, if anything?

A. I -- we noted that Detective Phillips and

Detective Fuhrman both, Detective Spangler had arrived. We all three
went back in the house.

Q. Through the front door?

A. Right. Detective Fuhrman and I stayed in the house. Detective
Phillips went out and Detective Spangler through the rear.

Q. You say you and Detective Fuhrman stayed in the house. What area of
the house did you stay; and Phillips and Spangler?

A. In the kitchen.

Q. Were the lights on in the kitchen at this time?

A. Yes.

Q. By the way, what was Detective Fuhrman wearing that night when you
were in the kitchen with him? Do you recall what clothing he had on?

A. He had a light colored, like a white shirt and like khaki pants.

Q. Did he have any jacket on?

A. No.

Q. Sports coat?

A. No.

Q. What happened next when you were in the kitchen with Detective
Fuhrman then?

A. We just stayed in there until Detective Phillips and Lieutenant
Spangler came in, then I went out to the rear alley with my partner.

Q. And what did you do next after you were out there with your
partner?

A. Just maintained the perimeter security.

Q. And did anybody else arrive out back at any particular time while
you were on guard at the rear location and securing the area?

A. Later I saw a photographer and then Vannatter arrived later.

Q. Let's take them one at a time. First of all, when the photographer
arrived at the rear, there was an LAPD photographer at time?

A. Yes, he worked S.I.D.

Q. What does S.I.D. stand for?

A. Scientific investigation division.

Q. And what, if anything, did you say to him when you arrived?

A. I pointed out evidence, told him not to step in it or step on it.

Q. And what evidence did you point out to him?

A. The blood drop on the driveway. I believe there was some change and
that's about it.

Q. Okay. Other than that evidence, did you point anything else out to
him?

A. No. I told him about the ice cream in the house, just to be
careful, not to knock it over if he went in.

Q. Other than that, anything else?

A. No.

Q. Was it your duty to work with the photographer or point out
evidence for him to photograph in any way?

A. No, I just did it so he wouldn't disturb any evidence.

Q. Now, after that, you indicated that this was a time that Detectives
Lange and Vannatter arrived also?

A. Right.

Q. And first of all, what was their position in law enforcement at
this time?

A. They're in robbery homicide. I was told they were going to take
over the scene.

Q. And where were you when they first arrived?

A. In the rear alley.

Q. Did you have any conversation with them at this time?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Did you point anything out to them at this time?

A. No.

Q. Was anybody accompanying them? Was anybody with the two of them at
this time when you saw them in the rear?

A. I believe Detective Phillips.

Q. And did there ever come a time, in the rear, that you had a
conversation with either one of those Detectives?

A. I can't remember if it was Lange or Vannatter. I think it was Lange
told my partner I had to write out a brief statement.

Q. In terms of your observations that morning?

A. Right.

Q. And did you write out the narrative of your observations?

A. Yes.

Q. And in writing that out, is that something you would do in the
ordinary course of business?

A. Right.

Q. Is that part of your official police duties?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you wrote them out that morning, was it more or less
contemporaneous with the observations that you made that morning also?

A. Yes.

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, at this time, I'd like to, first of all, ask
the witness if he recognizes these.

(Witness reviews document.)

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

MR. KELLY: This is exhibit number 883.

MR. BLASIER: May I look at that?

THE WITNESS: 833.

MR. KELLY: 833, I'm sorry.

(The instrument herein described was marked

for identification as Defendant's

Exhibit No. 833.)

MR. KELLY: Any objection?

MR. BLASIER: No.

MR. KELLY: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Are those the notes you made that morning for
Detective Lange?

A. Yes.

MR. KELLY: It's my understanding that defense has stipulated as to
their admission into evidence.

MR. BLASIER: That's correct.

(The instrument herein described was.

received in evidence as Defendant's Exhibit

No. 833.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) In those notes, Officer, is it correct you put all
your observations down in there at that time?

A. Just basically what we did when we arrived and anything that was
really out of the ordinary.

Q. Okay. And you'd included the blood on the back gate; is that
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, did there come a time that you returned to the property of 875
south Bundy?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you recall approximately what time that was?

A. It was possibly 5:30, 5:20.

Q. And who, if anybody, did you meet with or confirm with at this
time?

A. Detective Phillips and Fuhrman.

Q. Okay. Anybody else?

A. No.

Q. And after you met with them, what, if anything, happened next?

A. Detective Phillips gave me a phone and asked me for directions to
Rockingham and told me to call me if he needed anything.

Q. And did they then leave 875 south Bundy?

A. I would assume.

Q. Okay. Did you even see them leave?

A. No.

Q. What did you do after you were given that cellular phone?

A. Put it in my car and stood around the front of the location?

Q. And where was your car located at this time.

A. Directly in front of the walkway. Directly in front of 875 south
Bundy.

Q. You had moved your black and white from the rear of 875 to the
front?

A. Right.

Q. Of 875. Now, after Detective Phillips and Fuhrman left at 5:30, did
you have occasion to see them again?

A. Little later. Possibly an hour later.

Q. Okay. And under what circumstances did you happen to see them?

A. I saw Detective Fuhrman and the photographer approaching the crime
scene and then Detective Fuhrman was pointing to the evidence and the
photographer took a picture.

Q. Do you recall what evidence Detective Fuhrman was pointing at?

A. The believe and the hat.

Q. Okay. If I could see number 92, Steve. Now, do you recognize that
photograph?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Is that the photograph you just referenced Detective Fuhrman
pointing at the glove and the hat that morning?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And you actually observed the photographer take that photograph at
that time?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Okay. And you can remove that now, sir.

And can you just flip number 40 up there?

(Steve displays 40.)

Is that a close up of the same photograph you observed him taking,
Detective Fuhrman?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that the glove and the hat as they appear that morning when you
first arrive at 12:13 on June 13?

A. Yes.

Q. And Steve, could you put the number 92 back up again?

(Steve complies.)

Q. Are you able to see what type of shoes Detective Fuhrman has on in
that photograph? You can get up, Officer, and look over there?

A. They appear to be dress shoes. I don't know.

Q. Don't know whether they're loafers or --

A. No.

Q. You can remove that photo.

(Steve complies.)

Did there come a time that you were relieved of your post of 875 south
Bundy?

A. Yes.

Q. Approximately what time was that?

A. 7:15.

Q. And how long prior to you being relieved of your post did you
observed those photographs being taken from what Detective Fuhrman
pointed to the evidence?

A. Possibly 40 minutes, 45 minutes.

Q. So was it starting to get light out at that time?

A. Yeah, it was dawn.

Q. And one of the one other things: Did you have any contact with
Detective Phillips around the same time that those photographs were
being taken?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what was that?

A. I saw him on the east side of the street talking to some other
people and I took him his phone back.

Q. Was that before or after you observed those photographs being
taken?

A. It was just after.

Q. And when you were relieved at 7:15 that morning, was that your last
involvement in terms of the any preservation or investigation of this
particular homicide?

A. Yes.

MR. KELLY: I have no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. Officer Riske, good morning?

A. Good morning.

Q. My name is Bob Blasier and I represent Mr. Simpson.

As I understand your testimony, one of your responsibilities was to
secure the crime scene so that the evidence could be collected
properly?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, when you were at the academy, did you receive any training in
crime scene processing?

A. Not that I know.

Q. In fact, they just glossed over that topic at academy, didn't they?

A. That's correct.

Q. And prior to the time that you were at this particular scene, had
you received any training at all in terms of how evidence is collected
for a possible DNA testing?

A. No.

Q. Did you have any level of knowledge at all as to the quantities of
biological material that might be enough to result in a DNA test?

A. No.

Q. Did you have any training at all in the area of how evidence might
be contaminated with other biological fluids?

MR. KELLY: Objection. Relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) What is the crime scene log..

A. Crime scene log is just a log of people's

names and the times they arrived.

Q. And I'm sorry?

A. And leave.

Q. And that's a very important document to record who's at the crime
scene; isn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that standard procedure at a homicide scene particularly?

A. Particularly, yes. We use them a lot.

Q. And who's responsibility is it to ensure that the log is accurate?

A. The person that does it.

Q. And when an officer arrived at the scene, whose responsibility is
it to check in?

A. The officer.

Q. The officer who arrives at the scene?

A. The keeper of the log should chase him down if he doesn't check in
himself.

Q. And who is the officer that kept the log at this crime scene?

A. I believe it was Officer Cummings.

Q. Do you recall when that log was started?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Let me show you exhibit 846. May I have a stipulation?

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) The Bundy crime scene log, why don't you take a
look at that. Does that look like the log of activity at the Bundy
crime scene?

A. Looks like a crime scene. I never saw the log until the trial.

Q. 829.

MR. PETROCELLI: 829.

MR. BLASIER: 829.

THE COURT: Excuse me.

MR. BLASIER: The exhibit is 829.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) What time did you arrive at Bundy?

A. 12:13.

Q. Now, you were in uniform on June 13, , were you not?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And what color is that uniform?

A. It's actually a dark blue. It looks like --

Q. Blue back. What type of material is the uniform made of?

A. Wool.

Q. Are all the officers, the uniform officers wearing the same color?

A. Same color, yes.

Q. Uniform. Hundred percent wool?

A. You can buy them polyester but I don't do it.

Q. Now, when the witness's stopped you and described that there was a
dead woman up the walkway, did they point out the body to you at that
time?

A. No.

Q. Where were you standing when you were told that?

A. On the east curb in front of 874 south Bundy.

Q. Now the east curb would be which side of the street?

A. The east side.

Q. Which side in relation to where the bodies were found?

A. The opposite side.

Q. And where did you go from there?

A. Over to the gas area 875.

Q. How did you -- did you cross the sidewalk at that time?

A. I crossed the street.

Q. And did you cross the sidewalk as well?

A. No.

Q. How did you get to the grassy area without crossing the sidewalk?

A. We went in the direction of the grassy area. We didn't go on the
grassy area. We were standing --

Q. Okay. So where did you stop?

A. On the strip of the grass before the sidewalk, before --

Q. Between the sidewalk and the street?

A. Right.

Q. And it was -- you were able to see Nicole Brown Simpson's body from
that point, correct?

A. Not at first, no.

Q. Well, at some point, your were able to see the body from that
location, weren't you?

A. Right.

Q. And there was actually light coming from the inside of the
condominium because the door was open, correct?

A. There was a little bit of light coming out of the door but the
lights on the interior were off.

Q. The interior lights of the condominium were off?

A. They were down.

Q. Were they down or were they off?

A. They were down.

Q. How do you know that they were down as opposed to on at full
intensity?

A. I don't.

Q. At what point did you become aware that you could see bodies from
where you were standing on the grassy area?

A. After we had been directed by the witnesses.

Q. And so you look in that direction at that time and you could see
Nicole Brown Simpson's body?

A. Using my flashlight, yes.

Q. Can you see it without your flashlight?

MR. KELLY: Objection. Hypothetical. He didn't have the opportunity to.
He indicated he saw it with his flashlight.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you look without your flashlight at all?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Let me show you exhibit 1439. I apologize for the picture.

Does this appear to be a picture of a view that you had from the
grassy area?

(The instrument herein described was marked for identification as
Defendant's Exhibit No. 1439.)

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know when that picture was taken?

A. No.

Q. Now, describe the lighting along the walkway.

MR. KELLY: Objection. At what time?

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) In the morning, when you saw the body for the
first time, what was the lighting along the walkway?

A. It was dark.

Q. Was there a Malibu light on along the walkway?

A. No.

Q. Now, the lighting coming from the front door -- You can take that
off. (Indicating to view screen.) When did you first notice that?

A. The second time I approached her.

Q. Now, the first time you approached, did you cross the sidewalk, the
sidewalk that runs parallel to the street?

A. I don't believe so, no.

Q. How did you get to the grassy area without crossing the sidewalk?

MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: It's a question. Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I don't understand the question.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) At some point you got to the grassy area between
the condo and the sidewalk?

A. Right.

Q. Correct. How did you get there without crossing over the sidewalk?

A. I crossed the sidewalk.

Q. When you crossed the sidewalk, did you see anything unusual?

A. Bloody paw prints.

Q. Now, you saw bloody paw prints in what direction were they going?

A. South.

Q. Did you follow those paw prints at any time to see how far south
they weren't?

A. Yes.

Q. How far south did they go?

A. Just to the corner of Dorothy and Bundy.

Q. Did they stop there?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you walked around from the front of the condominium and around
the back to the alley several times during the course of that evening,
right?

A. Right.

Q. And the paw prints, from your observation, never went up Dorothy.
They ended at the corner of Dorothy and Bundy?

A. As far as I recall, yes.

Q. Was there ever a canine unit called out to determine whether a path
could be found of the perpetrator or perpetrators leaving?

A. No.

MR. KELLY: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Excuse me.

MR. KELLY: Relevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) When you got there, did you make any effort when
you found the bodies to determine whether a perpetrator or perpetrator
had just left?

MR. KELLY: Objection. Relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, when you made your first trip up the area of
the bodies, you walked first on the grass and then through the dirt
area?

A. No.

Q. How did you walk?

A. Through the foliage to the left of the walkway.

Q. How far to the left of the walkway?

A. Just to the left of the walkway.

Q. Okay. So you walked in the closest area to the walkway without
actually getting on the walkway?

A. Right.

Q. Did you check at all for any footprints along that dirty area
before you walked there?

A. No.

Q. How did you check?

A. With my flashlight.

Q. What was the ground area like?

A. It was just loamy soil covered with plants.

Q. Did you notice any cars parked either along Bundy or Dorothy?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever do a check to see what cars were parked in the
vicinity?

A. Me personally, no.

Q. Now, when you first saw the blood on the walkway, where were you
standing when you first noticed that?

A. On a grass between the street and the sidewalk.

MR. BLASIER: I'd like you to look at -- what number is this?

MR. P. BAKER: 32.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) I'd like you to take a look at exhibit No. 32.

Now, when you first observed blood on the walkway, how far down the
walkway had it moved?

A. About the mid point.

Q. Okay. Can you tell me, I'm going to point to what I think is the
mid point, does this look about the area there?

A. It was about there.

Q. Okay. There -- so there was no blood at that point, from that point
out to the sidewalk?

A. Just paw prints.

Q. What time was that?

A. Possibly 12:15.

Q. It was shortly after you arrived?

A. Right.

Q. After you observed the blood halfway down the walkway, what did you
do?

A. Requested an ambulance and a back up and additional units.

Q. And how did you do that?

A. From my radio.

Q. And do you recall what you said on your radio?

A. No.

Q. What did you do from there?

A. Just approached the female through the bushes to get a better look
and I observed the male against the fence.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. Observed the male laying against the fence.

Q. What did you do then?

A. I told my partner to go grab on to the witnesses so they didn't
leave.

Q. Now, where was Officer Terrazas? He was your partner, correct?

A. Yeah.

Q. Where was he when you were walking up over the bushes and looking
at the bodies?

A. He was in the grassy area to the left of the bushes.

Q. So it was at this point that you told him to go talk to the
witnesses. Which particular witnesses were you referring to?

A. The female and the male.

Q. What did you do next?

A. The second time we approached, we stepped across her body and went
towards the house.

Q. And as you went toward the house, you went up on the landing,
correct?

A. Right.

Q. And you went inside the house at that point?

A. Right.

Q. Now, before you went inside the house, you observed that the door
was more than halfway open, correct?

A. Right.

Q. And what kind of lighting was there on the inside? Where were the
lights located?

A. I believe the lights in the kitchen were on.

Q. How about the lights in the front area, in the living room area?

A. Not that I recall, no.

Q. Now the living room area was the first area that you go into when
you --

A. Right.

Q. -- Go in the front door, correct?

Now, when you went in the house, had you conducted any kind of
inspection for possible trace evidence in the house.

MR. KELLY: Objection. Relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) When you walked into the house, you looked for
possible ransacking and possible blood, correct?

A. Looked for bloody -- for the prints or blood drops.

Q. Did you look for anything else?

A. No.

Q. And when you went into the house, you then made a phone call as
soon as you got in the house?

A. Right.

Q. And the phone was back in the kitchen, wasn't it?

A. It was right in the kitchen, dining room.

Q. Did you pick up the phone with your hand?

A. No. Yes.

Q. You have any blood on your hand?

A. No.

Q. Did you give any thoughts to the idea that there might be
fingerprints on the phone?

A. Sure.

Q. Did you make any effort to preserve fingerprints on the phone?

A. No.

Q. Now, from that telephone, the first call you made was to?

A. The only call I made.

Q. The only call you made was to the watch commander, right?

A. Right.

Q. And who was that?

A. Sergeant Rossi.

Q. Tell me exactly what you told him?

A. Told him we had a double homicide on Bundy and it was my belief
that Mr. Simpson was somehow involved because of the photos and the
return address on the envelope.

Q. So you told the watch commander in your first telephone call that
you thought Mr. Simpson was somehow involved?

A. Right.

Q. What did you do from there?

A. We exited the house. My partner went and grabbed onto the male and
the female and the dog. I went around to the north side and checked
Mr. Goldman to see if he was alive.

Q. When you went around to the north side, again, you're walking out
on the grassy area outside the gated area of the condo?

A. Right.

Q. Correct. And you're walking around to the house that's to the north
of 875 south Bundy?

A. That's correct.

Q. And were you by yourself at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. Now you walk around and from what location did you observe Mr.
Goldman?

A. From outside the fence and north residence.

Q. And you had your flashlight?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Can you tell me what you did?

A. Illuminated the area looking for any evidence and I approached Mr.
Goldman and I touched his eyeball to see if he was alive.

Q. How did you touch his eyeball?

A. With my finger.

Q. What else did you do?

A. Just after I determined he was dead, I left the area.

Q. Did you use your flashlight to look in his pupils?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Let me show you exhibit 38. It's already been introduced. Is that a
photograph of Mr. Goldman's body --

A. Yes.

Q. -- At the time you first observed him?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Now, is it your testimony then you were able to shine a light in
his eyes as well as touch his eyeball from the other side of that
metal gate?

A. That's correct. That's the metal fence

actually, it's not a gate.

Q. Okay. The metal gate in the background?

A. That's a metal fence in the background.

Q. I'm sorry, metal back -- Let me show you this photo on the Elmo, if
you get a chance.

MR. MEDVENE: Mr. Baker, can I get the number, please.

MR. BLASIER: 38. Same one.

MR. KELLY: Same pictures.

MR. BLASIER: Same picture.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is it your testimony that that picture accurately
portrays the distance between Mr. Goldman's body and the back fence?

A. Yes.

Q. Now how did you reach through the fence?

A. Just reached between the bars.

Q. After you did that, what did you do next?

A. I went back out to the street with my partner.

Q. Where did you go from there?

A. Additional units showed up and my Sergeant showed up and we
discussed what we had and what we were going to do about it.

Q. And from there you went where?

A. Officer Wally and I entered the house and served it.

Q. Now, up to this point, you had not walked along the north walkway
where the bloody shoe prints were, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And after you went into the back of the house, at what point did
you go to the front landing?

A. I don't understand the question.

MR. KELLY: Objection.

MR. BLASIER: You went into the back of the house and where did you go?

MR. KELLY: Objection. Misstates his testimony.

THE COURT: It's a question.

THE WITNESS: I didn't enter the back of the house.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You entered the front of house with Officer Wally,
correct?

A. (Nods in the affirmative.)

Q. And at that point, did you notice anybody's shoe prints?

A. Extending past the residence, not inside the house, no.

Q. Okay. But did you notice any in the area of the bodies?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you describe the positions of those shoe prints?

A. There was a -- like a heel print on a walkway in front of her body.
Then there was footprints up the steps and westbound on the landing

towards the rear.

MR. BLASIER: Stipulate to the admission of 87?

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

(The instrument herein described was marked

for identification as Defendant's

Exhibit No. 87.)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendant's Exhibit No. 87)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) I'm going to have you look at exhibit 87. That
appear to be a diagram of an overhead view of the location of the
bodies. Can we back that up a little?

Okay. Does that appear to be diagram of an overhead area of where the
bodies were up to the front door?

A. Yes.

Q. And can you show us with a pointer where the front door is in that
diagram?

A. No.

Q. You can't? Now, did you observe any blood drops in the area of the
bloody shoe prints in that diagram?

A. I see one before the front door but I'm not going to testify to
this diagram, no.

Q. But did you see any blood drops to the left of any bloody shoe
prints in the area of the bodies?

A. Leaving the bodies, between the bodies and the front door, yes.

Q. How many?

A. One.

Q. Where was that located?

A. It was just prior to the front door.

Q. And how far was the front door from the bodies?

A. 30 feet, 40 feet.

Q. So within -- from the bodies up to the front door, there were no
drops other than the one by the front door to the left of the shoe
prints, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, the one by the front door -- well, let me ask you about in the
back. The blood drops that you saw in the back, how many did you find
in the driveway?

A. I didn't find any in the driveway.

Q. How many did you see in the driveway?

A. One.

Q. And where was that in relation to the jeep?

A. I believe it was north of the jeep.

Q. Was that the left of any bloody shoe prints?

A. The bloody shoe prints didn't extend that

far back.

Q. That's a no?

A. Correct.

Q. How many drops did you see the entire time that you would describe
as being to the left of the shoe prints?

A. I don't know. I didn't count them.

Q. More than three?

A. I don't know what the total is. I didn't count them.

Q. More than two?

A. More than one. I didn't know. I didn't count them.

Q. When you observed the ice cream, did you make any effort to look at
ice cream to determine whether it had fully melted or not?

A. No.

MR. KELLY: Objection. Relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you make any effort to preserve the ice cream?

A. No.

MR. KELLY: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. What's the relevance?

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) One of your jobs on a crime scene is to preserve
it so it does not -- the crime scene does not change in such a way
that it destroys your ability to determine such things as time of
death?

MR. KELLY: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled?

THE WITNESS: It's more preservance, nothing disturbed by other people.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is one of your goals not to keep the crime scene
static in the sense of the same way as when you discover it?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you make any effort to do that with the ice cream?

A. No.

MR. KELLY: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, when you went inside the condominium, the
radio was on, correct? There was music playing?

A. Right.

Q. Did you make any determination whether that was a CD or whether it
was a radio?

A. No.

Q. Did you see any candles lit in the living room?

A. I believe there were. I don't recall.

Q. And you saw candles lit in the master bathroom?

A. Master bathroom.

Q. How many candles were there and where were they situated?

A. In the bathroom.

Q. Um-hum?

A. There was three and they were to the west of the bath tub on a --
there's a little landing.

Q. And the bath tub was filled with water?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you make any determination whether the water was hot?

A. No.

Q. When was the first time that you walked out the north alleyway or
that you walked along that back alleyway?

A. When I went to tell my partner that we were bringing the children
out.

Q. And which direction did you walk it from?

A. From the east to the west.

Q. So that would be from the front to the back?

A. Right.

Q. And who did you walk that with?

A. Me.

Q. Can you describe what's on either side of that walkway as you walk
toward the back?

A. The house was on one side and there was a fence on the other.

Q. Is there any dirt area between the walkway and the wall on the
right wall on the north?

A. I don't recall. I don't believe so. I don't recall.

Q. Now, there was a lot of foliage in the area of where the bodies
were found and also extending along the north walkway; is there not or
wasn't there?

A. In the front, yes. I don't recall where it is.

Q. Now, the back gate, when you got there, the back gate was already
open, correct?

A. It was closed.

Q. Was it latched?

A. I don't believe so.

Q. You were able to open it with your flashlight, correct?

A. Pushed it open with my flashlight,

Q. And after you pushed it open, what did the gate do?

A. Stayed open.

Q. So the gate didn't automatically swing shut and latch?

A. No.

Q. Did you make any determination whether the latch on the gate was
stuck open or was operable?

A. No.

Q. Now, when the children were taken out, you asked Sydney Simpson a
question, did you not?

A. I don't recall.

Q. You asked her if her dad was OJ Simpson, didn't you?

MR. KELLY: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KELLY: Ask the question be stricken.

THE COURT: Stricken.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you make any effort to find out who the
children's father was?

A. I think I asked her who her dad was and she told me OJ Simpson. I
didn't ask her directly, OJ Simpson, no.

MR. KELLY: Objection. Ask the answer be stricken.

THE COURT: Stricken, not relevant.

MR. BAKER: I object. Goes to state of mind of this witness.

THE COURT: That was my ruling on the objection. If you want to object
to my ruling, I don't think that's possible.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, the bedrooms, where those bedroom was
located, one of the bedrooms looked out to the back alleyway, correct?

A. I don't remember if this was a window in there or not.

Q. Now, the blood on the back gate, did you make any kind of diagram
at the time you observed that or any time that morning memorializing
exactly where the spots were on the back gate?

A. No.

Q. And I believe you testified on direct that the drops and the blood
on the back gate were moist, correct?

A. They appeared to be fresh, yes.

Q. They appeared to be moist?

A. (Nods in the affirmative.)

THE COURT: He said they appeared to be fresh.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Well, you said on direct that they were moist,
didn't you?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, did they keep the same appearance from the time you first saw
them until you showed Detective Fuhrman those drops in the back gate?

A. As far as I recall, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Can I have 81?

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show you exhibit that we've introduced.

Now, you see the tags down on the bottom of the gate?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Those tags weren't there on the 13, were they?

A. Not while I was there, no.

Q. This picture wasn't taken on the 13th, was it?

A. I don't know.

MR. BLASIER: Could we look at 82, please?

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Looking at exhibit

number 82, when you observed the blood, those cards weren't there,
were they?

A. No.

Q. When the photographer came, what time was that?

A. I don't know.

Q. You have any recollection when the photographer got there in
relation to the Detectives?

A. No. He got there before.

Q. Before the detectives?

A. (Nods in the affirmative.)

Before Detective Vannatter and Lange.

Q. Now, you showed the photographer the blood in the back driveway,
correct?

A. Right.

Q. What else did you show him?

A. The change.

Q. The change?

A. I told him about the ice cream.

Q. You see a plastic cart in the driveway in the back?

A. No.

Q. You never told the photographer about anything on the back gate,
did you?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Now, give me your best estimate of when Detective Fuhrman and
Phillips arrived?

A. Probably 2:00, 2:15.

Q. And where did you first see them?

A. You saw them parking their cars on the southeast corner of Bundy
and Dorothy.

Q. And where are you -- were you standing?

A. I was standing just to the south of 875 in the street.

Q. Where did Detective Fuhrman and Phillips go first?

A. I believe they came out and talked to my watch commander.

Q. I'm sorry, talked to?

A. My commander, watch commander Sergeant Rossi.

Q. What did they do next?

A. I showed them the front of the location.

Q. And about what time was that?

A. Just shortly five, ten minutes after they arrived.

Q. What's your best estimate?

A. 2:20 maybe.

Q. Now, Your Honor, we have a copy of a chart that's from a different
exhibit which we're going to have to give a new number to.

MR. KELLY: Could we see it, please?

MR. BLASIER: 2077 (sic).

(The instrument herein described was marked

for identification as Defendant's

Exhibit No. 2097.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) 2097. Let me write on it. And I better write
Officer Riske's name on it.

Okay. Could we put this on the Elmo, please. Can you see that diagram
very well, Officer Riske?

A. Not really, no.

Q. Let me give you a copy of it. Could you take a look at the copy in
front of you and does that appear to be an overhead view of the
condominium of Bundy?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, now your testimony is that Detective Fuhrman and Detective
Phillips were shown, by you, the front area of the condominium at
about 2:20?

A. Right.

Q. Could we write a 2:20?

(Steve complies.)

Again, you showed them the same path that you took up the grass and
along the side of the walkway?

A. Yeah.

Q. Up the grass area?

A. Went up the grass area and went up the north side by Mr. Goldman's
body.

Q. Let's put an F1. Yeah. Draw a line down. F1 at 2:20 AM. And
approximately how long did that take?

A. Five or ten minutes.

Q. And where did Detective Phillips and Fuhrman go from there?

A. We walked down Bundy, westbound on Dorothy to the rear of the -- up
the alley to the rear driveway.

Q. So this would be all the way around the block, in essence, to the
back of the condominium, correct?

A. I wouldn't say around the block, no.

Q. Well?

A. Down to Dorothy, mid block up the alley.

Q. Okay. Then when you got to the alley, what did Detective Fuhrman
do?

A. He walked with me and Detective Phillips to the rear driveway,
showed him the jeep, the blood on the driveway, the change and then we
went to the rear gate.

Q. Now, when you went to the rear gate, you went to the rear gate with
Detective Fuhrman?

A. Detective Fuhrman, Detective Phillips and Detective Ross.

Q. What time was that?

A. It was probably 2:35 or so.

Q. Okay.

A. 2:40.

Q. So you're back in the driveway area?

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, I'm going to object to any times being placed
in the diagram. It's, in affect, placing testimony on an exhibit.

THE COURT: It's his exhibit. Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let's draw an F2 there. And I'm sorry, the time
estimate was what, 2:35, 2:40?

A. 2:40, 2:35.

Q. 2:35 to 2:40.

And what happened after that?

A. Detective Fuhrman and I stopped at the rear gate and Detective
Phillips and Sergeant Rossi continued on midway down the path.

Q. So Detective Fuhrman did not walk in the back walkway, the north
walkway at that time?

A. No.

Q. And did you and Detective Fuhrman wait for Phillips and Rossi to
come back?

A. Yes.

Q. And then where did you go from there?

A. Detective Phillips, Fuhrman and I entered the house through the
garage.

Q. And is that when you -- when you showed him the bottom floor?

A. Where? Right.

Q. Did you show him upstairs -- Detective Fuhrman upstairs at that
time?

A. Yes, the whole condo.

Q. And at this point you went out on the front landing?

A. Right.

Q. About what time was that? To your -- for your best approximation?

A. Maybe five to 3:00

Q. About 2:55?

A. It's only a guess, yes.

Q. And so let's put an F3 by the front landing.

Now, in this diagram, where I'm pointing, it's actually the front
door, correct?

A. It's actually a little south of your finger.

Q. Okay. The front door is not right at the front of the condominium,
is it?

A. No.

Q. The living room area extends out more toward the seat than the
front door?

A. Right.

Q. So the landing area where you were was how far outside the front
door?

A. It's probably 30 feet to the steps.

Q. Okay. You went just to the top of the steps?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. And after you went to the top of the steps, where did you and
Detective Fuhrman go?

A. Detective Fuhrman, Detective Phillips and

I stood right there on the landing.

Q. Okay. And for how long?

A. Maybe five minutes or so. Until we were advised that Detective
Spangler arrived.

Q. Who advised you of that?

A. I believe Sergeant Coon.

Q. And what did you do then?

A. We all went back through the front door. Detective Phillips and I
stayed in the kitchen and -- Detective Fuhrman and I stayed in the
kitchen and Detective Phillips actually went through the garage.

Q. So when you and Detective Fuhrman were in the kitchen, what time we
talking about?

A. Right around 3:00, I don't know.

Q. So let's put an F4 in the -- kitchen area is back in this area of
the condominium, correct?

(Indicating to exhibit.)

A. I don't know.

Q. Well it's to the --

A. It's to the rear, but --

Q. -- To the rear?

A. On this diagram I wouldn't pick it out.

Q. But there's the living room and then I walk up toward the back of
the condominium and you get to the kitchen?

A. It's a living room, dining room and then a kitchen.

Q. Okay. So you're in the kitchen. Let's put an F4. Detective Fuhrman.
And that's about what time?

A. Right around 3:00 I would guess.

Q. And how long did you stay in the kitchen with Detective Fuhrman?

A. A couple minutes. Until the Detective Phillips and Lieutenant
Spangler came back.

Q. And when Phillips and Spangler came back, which direction did they
come from?

A. Through the garage.

Q. What happened then?

A. I leave the house.

Q. What did Detective Fuhrman do?

A. He stayed with Phillips and Spangler.

Q. Now, when you left the house, when did you next see Detective
Fuhrman?

A. I really don't know, half hour.

Q. Did you see what Detective Fuhrman was doing during that half hour?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever see Detective Fuhrman walking down the north alleyway
at Bundy.

A. No.

Q. And Detective Fuhrman, this entire time, he never wore a coat,
correct?

A. I don't know.

Q. Well, you testified on direct that he was wearing slacks and a
shirt?

A. Right.

Q. Correct. But he did not have a coat on, did he?

A. No.

Q. Now, after that half hour, where did you first see Detective
Fuhrman again?

A. In the rear driveway.

Q. And what happened at that time?

A. I believe he just told me that RHD was on their way to take over.

Q. About what time is that?

A. I really don't know.

Q. How long after you had been in the kitchen? You said that you
didn't see him for about a half an hour.

A. I really didn't know, sir.

Q. So let's put an F5 back in the driveway. And it's at least, if
you're in the kitchen about :00, you said it was about a half hour
that you didn't see him. It was at least 3:30 at that point?

MR. KELLY: Objection.

THE WITNESS: I couldn't say what time it is.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. KELLY: Misstates his testimony. Argumentative. He said he doesn't
know what he said. He didn't know what time.

THE COURT: Sustained. Save it for argument.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, it was at that point that Detective Fuhrman
and Detective Phillips said that robbery homicide was on the way?

A. I believe it was just -- Detective Fuhrman told me that.

Q. What happened then?

A. I believe he went back inside. I'm not sure.

Q. Detective Fuhrman?

A. Right.

Q. And how long did he stay in inside, do you know?

A. I don't know.

Q. Did he go in there with anybody else?

A. Phillips and Spangler were already in there.

Q. Well, you said from the back driveway you saw Detective Fuhrman go
back in. Was Phillips there in the back driveway at the same time; and
Spangler?

A. No, they were in the residence.

Q. Okay. So when you got the information from Fuhrman that robbery
homicide was on its way, he was there with you in the back driveway.
Do I have that correct?

A. He came out of the garage, approached me and my partner and went
back inside.

Q. Okay. And how long did he stay inside?

A. I don't know.

Q. When did you next see him?

A. I really don't know.

Q. Did you see him again at all?

A. No, I saw him again but I don't know what the time was.

Q. Did you see the photographer taking any pictures prior to the time
that Detective Fuhrman and Phillips arrived?

A. No.

Q. When did you first notice the photographer taking pictures?

A. When I was in the rear alley.

Q. On which visit?

A. It was after Lieutenant Spangler arrived and I left the house.

Q. Okay. Before you were told about robbery homicide or after?

A. I really don't know.

Q. And where was he taking pictures?

A. He took a shot in the alley from Dorothy and then he was just
taking a couple of pictures in the rear and I told him not to step in
the evidence.

Q. It was still dark then. Still the middle of the night?

A. Right.

Q. Now at some point, Detective Fuhrman and Detective Phillips leave
the -- left the Bundy scene?

A. Right.

Q. That before or after Vannatter and Lange arrived?

A. It was after.

Q. And, in fact, when Detective Fuhrman and Detective Phillips left,
Detective Lange and Detective Vannatter left with them, correct?

A. I don't know. I didn't see them leave.

Q. After Fuhrman and Phillips left, did you see any Detectives at the
Bundy crime scene until they came back?

A. I believe there was two detectives from west L.A. I think one of
them was Roberts and I don't remember the other one. They were just
standing around.

Q. Let me -- I'm sorry?

A. They were just standing around in the street.

Q. Let me ask you about Detective Roberts, what time did he arrive?

A. I don't know.

Q. When did you first see him?

A. When I pulled my car around to the front, around. :00, 5:30, 5:25
maybe.

Q. So this is after Fuhrman and Phillips leave, correct?

A. No they approach me and my car was already in the front when they
approached me and asked for directions to Rockingham and Phillips gave
them the phone.

Q. And that was about 5:00. I'm sorry. What would you say the time
was?

A. It was around 5:30, 5:25.

Q. Okay. And who was there? Detective Roberts was, Detective Fuhrman
was, right -- there?

A. I remember seeing Roberts. Seems like he was there after they asked
me directions.

Q. Okay. And who all asked you directions?

A. I think Phillips asked me directions.

Q. Okay. And this was yours in the front area of Bundy?

A. Right.

Q. On the sidewalk? On the street? Where?

A. On the street.

Q. So back in the front area, we have Roberts and Phillips at about
5:15; is that what you said?

A. No.

Q. I'm sorry what did you say?

A. I said I parked my car out there between :25 and 5:30.

Q. Okay. That's when you saw them and were asked for directions?

A. No.

Q. When?

A. They asked for directions about 5:30. I saw Roberts after that
time.

Q. All right. So at 5:30 and you see Roberts after that?

A. Right.

Q. And you had not seen Roberts up to that time, correct?

A. No.

Q. That's correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Do you remember how Detective Roberts got there? Did you ever see a
vehicle --

A. No.

Q. -- That he came in?

Now, when you -- when you were out front, as you described, with
Phillips, Phillips asked for directions about 5:30, 5:35?

A. 5:25.

Q. 5:25, I'm sorry. That was before the picture of Fuhrman pointing at
the glove was taken, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And what time was the picture of Fuhrman pointing at the glove
taken? Your best approximation?

A. Between 6:30 and 6:45, maybe.

Q. And where were you when you saw that?

A. Standing on the street directly in front of the residence.

Q. And where was, well -- we know where Fuhrman was standing in the
photograph. He was standing right by the body of Nicole Brown Simpson,
correct? And that was about 6:30?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. Let's write down the Roberts and Phillips in the front area?

A. I would put Roberts more towards the Bundy and Dorothy corner.

Q. But in the area of the front?

A. Pardon me?

Q. In the area of the front, when you were asked for directions,
towards Dorothy and Bundy?

A. He was down at Dorothy and Bundy.

Q. So let's put Roberts and Phillips.

MR. KELLY: Judge, I'd object. He's not even reflecting the testimony
--

THE COURT: I think --

MR. KELLY: -- The indications he's making on the diagram --

THE COURT: I don't think --

MR. BLASIER: -- I don't want to misstate anything you've said.

THE COURT: That's not very accurate.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Tell me again what time Roberts --

THE COURT: I think the complaint that you're drawing on it, on a
diagram that has nothing to do with where Roberts was --

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, at about 6:30, :35 is when the pointing
picture was taken?

A. Right.

Q. The picture of Fuhrman pointing at the glove, right?

A. Right.

Q. Who else was in that general area when that picture was taken, if
anybody?

A. A photographer.

Q. Anyone else?

A. No.

MR. BLASIER: May I have a minute, Your Honor?

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now at the time that picture was taken with Mark
Fuhrman pointing at the glove, it was daylight; wasn't it?

A. No.

Q. How dark was it?

A. It was like dawn, just becoming dawn. Just started to get light.

Q. Did you still need to use flashlights?

A. Kind of subjective. I mean, to stand on the street to look for
evidence, probably.

Q. You could see clearly, Detective Fuhrman, from your advantage point
out in front, you could see Detective Fuhrman clearly pointing at the
glove and the picture being taken, correct?

A. Um-hum.

Q. You didn't need a flashlight for that?

A. No.

Q. Now, when did officer Spangler arrive?

A. Lieutenant Spangler.

Q. Lieutenant Spangler?

A. Prior. Possibly 3 o'clock when we went back in the house.

Q. And where were you when you first saw Lieutenant Spangler?

A. In the kitchen with Detective Fuhrman.

Q. And how did -- where was he when you saw him?

A. Coming in the house with Detective Phillips.

Q. Coming in the front of the house or the back?

A. The back.

Q. The back. When the picture of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the
glove was taken, where was the blood on the sidewalk? How far down the
sidewalk had it gone?

A. Maybe to the north west or the north south sidewalk, where they
meet.

Q. Where the sidewalk in front of that more or less the street that
meets the sidewalk that goes up to the condominium?

A. Right.

Q. Thank you. That's all I have.

MR. KELLY: Just a couple questions, Your Honor reflex.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY:

Q. Officer, the diagram that was up there, before Mr. Blasier entered,
a number of times, with arrows pointing there --

A. Um-hum.

Q. -- Were you keeping a log of your own activities that night?

A. No.

Q. Constantly checking your watch? The times are written up there.
Were they just approximations of yours?

A. Yes.

Q. Even though you know whether they were accurate approximations or
not?

A. No.

Q. Are they just guesses?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KELLY: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: No further --

MR. BLASIER: No further questions.

THE COURT: Thank you. You're excused.

THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.

MR. MEDVENE: Officer Terrazas, Your Honor.

MIGUEL TERRAZAS, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiff Goldman,
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: And would you please state and spell your name for the
record?

THE WITNESS: First name Miguel, M-I-G-U-E-L; last name Terrazas spelt
T-E-R-R-A-Z-A-S.

MR. MEDVENE: In the court, please, there are three exhibits not
previously noted that have been stipulated to in terms of foundation
and admissibility.

Numbers 89, close up of the glove and hat, taken June 13 of '94.
Number 75, the rear of Bundy a photo of the rear of the -- of Bundy.
And number 76, the close up of a blood drop, the rear of Bundy.

(The instruments herein described were received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit Nos. 89, 75 and 76.)

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE:

Q. What is your occupation, sir?

A. Currently working for Los Angeles police department, assigned to
Valley Bureau Crash.

Q. What is Valley Bureau Crash?

A. I worked for valley bureau. I work any one of the valley divisions
and crash stands is an acronym for communities resources and street
against street hoodlums.

Q. How long have you been with the LAPD?

A. For approximately three and a half years.

Q. And what did you do prior to that?

A. I was in U.S. air force.

Q. To approximately how long?

A. Approximately five and a half years.

Q. What was your assignment with the Los Angeles police department
June 12, June 13 of 1994?

A. I was assigned to the west L.A. Division uniform patrol.

Q. And your duties?

A. I was to respond to any kind of radio calls and suppress any kind
of criminal activity out there.

Q. Did you have occasion in the early morning hours of June 13 to go
to 875 south Bundy?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Alone or with someone?

A. With my partner.

Q. Who was your partner?

A. Officer Riske.

Q. Approximately what time did you arrive?

A. Approximately 0015 hours, should be about :15 in the morning.

Q. Can you put up No. 32, please?

(Steve complies).

Could you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury whether the
photograph in what's been marked 32 accurately represent what you saw
when you arrived?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you place on the board, please, exhibit 38?

(Steve complies).

What is that, sir?

A. It's an envelope I saw.

Q. And what else did you see? You can stand up and look at the photo?

A. Adjacent to the envelope was the glove and the knit cap.

Q. In the photo also a body?

A. Yes, sir. There was a body of a white male early 20s to mid 20s.

Q. Could you put up on the board exhibit 89, please?

(Steve complies.)

Can you take a look at 89 and tell me what that is?

A. It's the glove and a knit cap.

Q. And when did you first see those?

A. I first saw them June 13, 1993 (sic) as I walked with my partner to
the doorway, I saw them at approximately 12:20 in the morning.

Q. Is that an accurate reproduction of how they appeared when you
first saw them?

A. Yes.

Q. You mentioned seeing the female victim, the male victim, a single
glove and a hat and envelope. On how many occasions in those early
morning hours did you see those various other people or items?

A. On two occasions.

Q. And could you describe what you used, if anything, as a source of
light?

A. I used my flashlight which would be a streamline flashlight.

Q. Can you describe how bright the light is?

A. About room light maybe bright her.

Q. And at the time you saw the items and the victims, was there just
one flashlight on them or two?

A. Be my flashlight and my partner's flashlight.

Q. Now, you said on two separate occasions you saw what you indicated.
Where were you on each of these occasions?

A. I was at the -- I believe it was the base of the stairwell, sir, on
both occasions.

Q. All right.

A. I think the top of the stairwell.

Q. Did you see more than one glove?

A. No, I only saw one.

Q. Now, after viewing the evidence that you described, on the two
occasions, where did you go?

A. I then walked out of the walkway onto the grassy area where I met
with Sergeant Coon.

Q. And did you have a conversation with Sergeant Coon?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And did he give you any direction?

A. Yes. He told me to walk to the rear of south Bundy and guard that
area.

Q. And did you do that?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And could you describe how you made your way from the front of 875
to the rear of 875?

A. I walked southbound Bundy to Dorothy, walked westbound on Dorothy
to the alleyway and northbound on the alley onto the rear of 875 south
Bundy.

Q. And on the way, did you use any source of illumination?

A. Yes. As I reached the alleyway, I turned on my flashlight.

Q. And for how long did you have on your flashlight?

A. Maybe 20 minutes.

Q. And where did you shine your flashlight?

A. On the ground.

Q. And did you observe any second glove?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you make your way to the rear of 875 south Bundy?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. When you arrived at the rear, did you make any observation?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What did you see?

A. I saw a black Jeep Cherokee parked in the rear of 875 south Bundy.
And adjacent to the black Jeep Cherokee towards the passenger side, I
observed a drop of blood. I believe there was some change and a
pendant.

Q. We're going to place on the board, Officer Terrazas, what's been
marked 75 and ask if you've ever previously seen the scene that that
photograph depicts?

(The instrument herein described was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 75.)

A. Yes, I have.

Q. At the time you saw that scene, was the man in the picture?

A. No, sir.

Q. Were the two markers in the pictures?

A. No.

Q. Could you tell us what, other than what the picture generally
accurately represents, what you saw in the early morning hours of June
13?

A. It depicts it very well.

Q. If you could point to the marker that's presently in the middle,
can you tell us what was by that marker? You've told us the marker
wasn't there, but what was there on June 13?

A. In that general area was where I saw the change and the pendant.

Q. And how about to the right of that, looking at it straight ahead?

A. In that area was where I saw a drop of blood.

Q. Can you put on the board exhibit 76, please?

(Steve complies.)

We have exhibit 76. And was the 117 marker there when you saw this
area in the morning hours of June 13?

A. No, the marker was not there.

Q. And what is the object next to it?

A. It appears to be of blood.

Q. And could you describe whether or not that was a drop of blood that
you saw in the early morning hours of June 13?

A. It appears to be the same drop of bloody observed on that night.

Q. Now, the drop of blood, as you observed it that night, can you
describe it?

A. Bright red in color, looked moist.

Q. How long were you in the rear of 875 south Bundy?

A. I'd say from approximately 12:25 to about :30 in the morning.

Q. And your assignment or job back there during that period of time
was what?

A. I was assigned by Sergeant Coon to guard that area, make sure that
no Civilian personnel no unauthorized personnel were able to get in.
Only Detectives or persons from S.I.D.

Q. Did any unauthorized personnel get in?

A. No, sir.

Q. Now, while you were back in that area, did you have occasion to
look around and shine your flashlight around?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And in what area?

A. I put my flashlight on the ground and as I walked towards the rear
gate, I observed another drop of blood on the rear gate?

Q. Would you put on the board, exhibit 85, please?

(Steve complies.)

Now, when we say the rear gate, while we put on the board what's been
marked 85. Can you describe for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury
what that purports to be?

(The instrument herein described was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 85.)

A. It appears to be the rear gate that would be leading to the rear of
the residence towards the alleyway.

Q. In other words, that would be a photo of the rear gate standing
within the residence or outside the residence looking towards the
residence?

A. It would be standing from the alleyway looking towards the
residence so you'd be looking east.

Q. Now, was that marker that appears on the gate there at the time you
saw the gate on June 13?

A. No, sir, it was not.

Q. Other than that, could you tell us whether or not what's been
marked 85 is an accurate reproduction of the gate as you remember it
that day?

A. It appears to be accurate to the best of my knowledge.

MR. MEDVENE: Would you put on the board exhibit 86?

(Steve complies.)

(The instrument herein described was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 86.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You mentioned before seeing a blood spot on the
rear gate. Can you tell us what exhibit 86 purports to be, if you
know?

A. It appears to be the same blood spot I observed on June 13, 1994.

Q. At approximately what time?

A. Oh approximately 12:30, 12:35.

Q. At the time you saw the blood spot, strike that.

Can you tell us whether or not the blood spot appears to be in the
position that you recall it that evening?

A. Yes. Yes, sir.

Q. With the exception of the ruler and the No. 117, tell us whether or
not that picture is an accurate reproduction of what you saw, possibly
putting aside the color of the blood spot?

A. Yes, it is. It's accurate.

Q. Do you have any memory of the coloring of the blood spot that you
saw that evening?

A. Bright red in color.

Q. Did there come a time, some minutes after your observation, that
you walked inside the gate?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Can you put on the board, please, exhibit .

(Steve complies.)

(The instrument herein described was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 81.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you describe, what is exhibits 81?

A. It's the rearview of the residence leading to the alleyway. And as
you're looking at it, you would be standing inside the residence
walkway looking west.

Q. So it would be the opposite direction of the rear gate photo we say
a few minutes ago?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, can you tell us whether or not that photo accurately depicts
what you saw the early morning hours of June 13 with the exception of
the markers at the bottom of the gate?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. Were those marks there when you saw the gate?

A. No, sir.

Q. Were they, to the best of your knowledge, at some later date, put
on when this actual picture was taken?

A. I believe so.

Q. You were not there when a picture was taken?

A. No, sir.

Q. Would you put 82 on the board, please?

(Steve complies.)

Did you see any blood on the inside of the back gate that those early
morning hours on June ?

A. Yes, I did sir.

Q. We've placed before you what's been marked 82. And could you tell
us whether or not, with the exception of the markers, that photograph
accurately depicts a gate as you recall it in the morning hours of
June 13, 1994?

A. Yes, sir it does.

Q. Where did you remember -- what are -- what do you remember seeing
on the bottom of the gate?

A. Towards the bottom of the gate I remember seeing some blood. On the
mesh portion right along inside here and along the bottom bar, the
gate up in this area.

Q. Now, when you say along the bottom bar of the gate, that 115
marker, was that there that evening?

A. No, sir.

Q. Could you point just to the left as you look at the photo of the
115 marker and tell us whether or not what's depicted there is what
you recall on June 13?

MR. BAKER: Objection. Leading, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: A drop of blood I observed.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You were making -- I'm sorry to interrupt, you
were making a circle. I just want, for the record, where were you
making a circle?

A. By the No. 115.

Q. And you were circling, can you explain what you were circling?

A. It's a -- well, it's a drop of blood with another drop of blood.
Adjacent to it, several spots of blood along that bar right in here.
But the one I really remember well was the big drop of blood right in
here.

Q. And do you recall seeing any other blood on the lower running of
the back gate that's depicted in that photo?

A. Yes, I remember seeing the blood right along in here.

Q. When you say right along in here; is there a marker there now?

A. Marker No. 116.

Q. And you recall seeing that when?

A. June 13, 1994.

Q. Now, will you put up on the board, please, 142.

(Steve complies.)

(The instrument herein described was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 142)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) We have on the board what's been marked 142. Can
you tell us whether or not you recognize what's depicted on that
photo?

A. Yes, I recognize it. That's the smudged blood along the top bar of
the gate.

Q. Was there ever a time when you saw that smudge that you just
described?

A. Yes, I saw it on June 13, 1994, sir.

Q. Approximately?

A. Approximately 12:35 in the morning.

Q. From your time with the LAPD, are you familiar with what blood
looks like?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How so, what, in your P.D. experiences made you familiar with the
blood?

A. I've been to numerous calls with victims of crime where there have
been bleeding and I have seen it along the ground or on different
objects and recognize it to be blood, sir.

Q. Any question in your mind that what you described to the jury here
this morning on the side of the gate, looking from east to west and
then again on the side looking from west to east, all those spots were
blood that you observed in the early morning hours of June 13?

A. It most definitely looked like blood to me, sir.

Q. And from your observation, how did they look, again, in terms of --

A. It was --

Q. -- Appearance

A. Bright red in color. Some appeared to be moist or wet looking.

Q. Did you prepare any notes in the early morning hours of June 13
just generally summarize your observations?

A. Yes, I did, sir.

Q. Make any notes of any blood you saw on the back gate?

A. Yes, I did sir.

Q. One last question, Officer Terrazas. In all your time there at
Bundy, all your time in the rear and all the shining of your
flashlight that you told us about, did you ever see a second glove?

A. No, sir.

Q. Thank you very much.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Officer Terrazas, what was the temperature out that night on the
13th?

A. I don't know what the temperature was.

Q. Around 60 degrees?

A. That would be fair to say, sir.

Q. And the let me go back. Just a minute, you suggested that when you
got there, you walked up the left side of the walkway towards the
front of the house, correct, with your partner?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you both shined your flashlight in the area and you saw the
body of Ron Goldman, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You also saw the glove, you saw the hat, it's a knit cap, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the scene was awash in blood; was it not?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the blood that it was washed in went all the way from when you
first observe the blood you were -- Strike that. When you first
observed the scene, you were down by the sidewalk, correct?

A. That's correct, sir.

Q. And you looked up there and you saw the body of the of Nicole Brown
Simpson up by the steps?

A. That's correct.

Q. Didn't have any problem observing that, did you?

A. No, sir.

Q. It was light enough for you to see it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then, the blood that was from Nicole Brown Simpson or from the
murders, if you will, went all the way down the trial walkway in the
grout of that trial walkway to the sidewalk, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And there was -- from where you were standing in front of walkway,
there was -- blood went all across the sidewalk, right?

A. That's correct, sir.

Q. And there was paw prints that went south on -- on Bundy, correct?

A. That's correct sir.

Q. And after, in fact, when you saw it, you thought that this was a
river of blood coming down from the body of Nicole Brown Simpson down
to the sidewalk, true?

A. That's correct, sir.

Q. Was it -- it was an enormous amount, true?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And then you and your partner, Officer Riske, he was standing
there observing exactly what you were observing as far as you could
tell?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for conclusion.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) He was standing there around -- you were both
looking up the walkway towards the body of Nicole Brown Simpson true?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then what you did is you then went to the left of the walkway
because you didn't want to disturb the blood that was coming down the
walkway and that's why you walked in the foliage to the left, correct?

A. That's correct, sir.

Q. And as you went up the walkway, you then shined your lights over to
the right or to the north and saw the evidence that you've described,
true?

A. No, sir. I never saw the evidence --

Q. Okay.

A. -- From the foliage area, I never saw from there.

Q. Okay. Now, as you got towards the house, did you go all the way up
to the gate, the gated area I'm talking about the first time that you
went towards the house if you done understand my questions he?

A. I don't understand sir.

Q. Let me have -- no, it's 89 I believe. . Pill.

MR. P. BAKER: 81. That's it.

MR. BAKER: Now, can everybody see that? Can you focus that any better?
It's really bad.

MR. P. BAKER: That's about as good as I can get it.

MR. BAKER: That's a little better, thank you.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, when you and Officer Riske arrived and after
you were informed about the fact there was a person across the street
at 875, that's what occurred; isn't it? Not, you went across, answered
a call at 874?

A. Yes, sir a prowler suspect now called there, sir.

Q. And you had some communication with a man and a woman on woman who
had a dog on a leash, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then you crossed. Your car was parked on the east side. Your
black and white unit was parked on the east sides of --

A. That's correct.

Q. -- Of Bundy?

A. That's correct, sir.

Q. You walked across the street on the east side of Bundy to the west
side of Bundy; is that true?

A. That's correct.

Q. Is that true, you walked up the walkway, correct?

A. That's correct, sir.

Q. You looked up the walkway before you ever set foot on the sidewalk
because there was blood on it, correct?

A. To the best of my recollection, yes, sir.

Q. And then you what you see depicted -- is this 32?

MR. P. BAKER: Yes.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) What you see depicted in , that's a representation
of the scene that you saw when you arrived?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the blood was trailing down through the grout and trial, threw?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And there were prints of blood in the front of the walkway area,
correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you and your partner, to be careful not to contaminate the
scene or to destroy evidence, walked up through the area of the plants
on the left of exhibit 32; is that correct?

A. We were very careful, sir.

Q. But regardless of your degree of being careful, sir, you walked on
the plants that we see on the left side of 32; is that right?

A. Yes, sir. I walk on this area. It would be more towards the left.

Q. Okay. And you got up to the area. Did you, after you had got up
towards the gate, did you then -- did you then gone into the house?

A. Sir, I walked up to the foliage. My partner then walked over and in
went into that gated area as I stood by on the foliage.

Q. Did you ever, on the night of June 13, , go into the condominium
ever?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever follow Officer Riske into the kitchen to use the phone
in the condominium?

A. No, sir.

MR. BAKER: Is this a good place, Your Honor?

THE COURT: It is. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, 1:30.

Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions.

See you at 1:30.

(At 12:00 P.M. a recess was taken until Monday,

October 28,1996, 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)

SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1996 1:40 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the
presence of the jury.)

MR. BLASIER: I have two exhibits I neglected to move in. I will move
them in, 1439 and the new one, 2097.

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, with regard to 2097, I have two objections: One
would be, the times that were testified to were just rough
approximations and basically guesses by the witness. And secondly,
there are indications put on there, such as Detective Roberts, where
there's not even a setting or scenario in which to situate him, and
they still placed his name and time on that.

Also, I don't believe it's an accurate reflection of the geographic
area or the layout of the premises, or an accurate reflection of the
times and positions of people, as to what was testified to.

I simply agreed to the foundation basis as to the diagram itself, and
not any entries that may have been subsequently made.

MR. BLASIER: These are times he testified to.

There is no time by Roberts and Phillips -- whether there was
testimony by Roberts and Phillips at Bundy.

MR. KELLY: The last, final --

I'm sorry. Are you done?

MR. BLASIER: This is straight from the testimony.

MR. KELLY: That Officer Riske indicated that he could not even find
the kitchen on the diagram, not unless Mr. Blasier made markings and
an arrow and diagram, and set a time and situated Officer Riske in a
kitchen that he was not even able to identify or locate.

THE COURT: What was 1439?

MR. BLASIER: 1439 was a picture outside of Bundy.

THE COURT: Picture or photograph?

MR. BLASIER: 1439 --

THE COURT: 1439 is received.

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 1439.)

THE COURT: 2097 is not received. You can use it in your closing
argument.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. BAKER: One other issue: That's the issue, as the court is well
aware from the testimony this morning, when Officer Riske was put on
the stand, Mr. Kelly asked Officer Riske, number one, to describe his
duties, which were to identify evidence, preserve evidence. Then he
went in detail what he did to preserve the evidence. And the point
being that this jury has heard from their first witness that,
basically, the LAPD collected all the evidence and preserved all the
evidence and preserved the crime scene.

Our view is, obviously, LAPD did not collect all of the evidence. LAPD
did not preserve the evidence. And this is what we went into in detail
vis a vis the opening statements. And you allowed me to do that after
Mr. Petrocelli objected. And I think the Karush case, or whatever it
is, is patently different than what you're talking about. We're not
talking about different types of techniques; we're talking about what
they have set forth in both in their opening statement and here in
their first witness, that the LAPD did their job. And basically, the
tenor is, there's only one suspect: That's my client.

We're saying the LAPD did not do their job relative to the evidence.
And every time there's an objection, the Court sustains it. And so I
wanted to get a ruling relative to that, because we're not talking
about collection techniques; we're talking about the absence of
collection after they identified and photographed evidence at the
crime scene.

And we need this. This is relevant for two theories. It's relevant,
one, the theory that they say LAPD did everything great and they
protected the crime scene; they collected all of the relevant
evidence; and there's only one suspect: That's Mr. Simpson.

We say LAPD did not do everything great. They did not collect all the
evidence. And the reason there was only one suspect is because of what
they didn't do, perhaps, but that's for our argument. That's to be
implied as circumstantial evidence.

But I certainly wanted to get the Court's ruling before we went
further, in view of what was a and wasn't a motion or anything else.
It was just a brief relative to the questioning of witnesses and then
the Court sustaining objections. So I wanted to get that cleared up
before I went further with Mr. Terrazas, and very definitely before we
go further into this case, sir.

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, with regard to the questioning of Police
Officer Riske, his testimony was, he was there to identify and
preserve the evidence only, and offered absolutely no testimony as to
the collection of evidence or any other procedures involved, and
further investigation of the evidence or processing of it. He just
basically said, I was there to preserve it and make sure it was not
disturbed. And his testimony went no further than that.

MR. BAKER: He said he identified it. I'm sorry; I apologize.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, the position we had argued when we filed
the motion originally is simply that evidence that is not collected is
not relevant because they can't tie it in any way to the case. What's
relevant is the integrity of the evidence that was collected and
whether that evidence tends to identify or not identify Mr. Simpson.

But all of the things that were not done and that might have been
done, don't tell us anything, and they consume undue time; they're
confusing to the jury, and indeed could well be prejudicial.

MR. BAKER: Respectfully, I think they tell us a lot. They tell us
about a rush to judgment; they tell us an awful lot about what was
being done by the LAPD and what was not being done. These people stand
exactly in the shadows of the LAPD.

THE COURT: I don't think so.

MR. BAKER: Well --

THE COURT: The Court, at the outset, had made a ruling; and that was
on September 17. And essentially, the ruling is this: The plaintiff
has the burden of proving that the defendant, and based on part of the
evidence that they are offering, was a person who committed the acts
resulting in the deaths.

This is not a case of the defendant defending against a criminal
accusation by showing the shortcomings in any of the police
investigations, as to raise a reasonable as to the police officers;
this is not a case against the Los Angeles Police Department for, as I
said before, committing malpractice. It's not a case where the
defendant is suing LAPD for not pursuing evidence that would have
proved his innocence.

The only issue in this case, really, is whether or not the evidence
that is being offered by the plaintiff has proper foundation, and
whether or not the evidence supports the plaintiffs' position with
regards to connecting the defendant with the offense.

Whether or not the police department did or did not act within certain
protocols of police investigation or not, other than the fact that if
they spoiled some evidence or affected it, the evidence of the case,
some of the evidence being offered, all their shortcomings, in the
Court's opinion, do not go to the issue of efficacy of plaintiffs'
evidence, and I am going to continue to sustain objections thereon.

MR. BAKER: So I'm clear, in terms, Your Honor called this a civil
murder case, all the evidence they're putting on.

THE COURT: Mr. Baker, I'm not married to any term that I may have used
at one point or another.

MR. BAKER: Well, when they identify evidence, are you telling us that
they identify evidence by photograph?

In other words, as this Court is fully aware, they have a duty to
recognize, and as Officer Riske indicated, to I.D. evidence and
preserve that evidence.

If it's I.D.'d and preserved and then lost, I assume we get to talk
about that.

THE COURT: I agree.

MR. BAKER: Okay. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. The only thing I am saying, Mr. Baker, is that
you're not going to be able to talk about the evidence that they
didn't find or failed to find.

MR. BAKER: Okay, fine.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BAKER: I wanted to be clear on that. Thank you, sir.

THE COURT: All right. Bring the jury in.

For the record, let me say the reason I would allow it is because it
goes to the weight of the evidence.

MR. BAKER: Okay. Thank you.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, just so we don't interrupt any examination
with unnecessary objections, as I understand it, the evidence that Mr.
Baker can freely question concerning the evidence that we are offering
to prove the defendant's guilt, the physical evidence that we are
offering, but not with respect to other evidence that was not
collected and not used at all.

THE COURT: That's correct.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.

MR. BAKER: Wait a minute. We're talking about two different things
here, Judge. I want to be clear on it. Let's get very specific.

They documented -- that is, the LAPD documented -- and there will be
testimony that the coroner was asked to take the blood off of Nicole's
back because that blood could not have been the victim's blood.

By the way, she was lying.

That was never done. That blood was destroyed. We will never know
where that blood went to.

There was a triangular piece of plain paper that existed in the
photographs by the envelope that is of some significance, according to
the criminalist that we have retained, and indeed the criminalist they
have retained says that's evidence that should have been -- it was
documented by the photograph -- should have been collected; it should
have been preserved.

It never was preserved; it never was collected. If it was, it was lost
subsequently.

We've got the lens, two lenses in the glasses. Those two lenses were
checked. Those two lenses went to LAPD's I.D. There is now one lens.

That's the type of evidence we're talking about that goes to the
weight, as you say.

THE COURT: No, I don't think so. That's the kind of evidence that's
not coming in because it's not being offered. It has to have probative
value. The fact that it's no longer here has no probative value as to
--

MR. BAKER: -- It does have probative value to rushing to judgment. You
can't cherry-pick the evidence you want, and that's what LAPD did.

THE COURT: I'm going to stand by my rulings.

Bring the jury in.

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

THE CLERK: You are still under oath.

Would you state your name again for the record.

THE WITNESS: First Miguel, M-I-G-U-E-L, last name Terrazas,
T-E-R-R-A-Z-A-S.

MIGUEL TERRAZAS, previously sworn, resumed the stand and testified
further as follows:

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Officer Terrazas, I think at the noon break, we were talking about
you had gone, walked towards the victim westbound, and you had viewed
the victim at that point in time, correct?

This is your initial viewing of the victim at around 12:20 in the
morning on the 13th?

A. Yes. As I crossed the shrubbery and crossed over the victim, I
observed the victim number .

Q. Okay. So now, on June 13, 1994, you made a -- gave a written
statement that you signed about :20 in the morning; is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you made that, I take it, after the events of the evening were
relatively fresh in your mind, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And let me see if I can -- and we'll substitute -- you've agreed
with Mr. Medvene, we'll substitute in a better copy; this one we've
marked all up. But for lack of one, that is, in fact, the statement
that you gave, is it not, sir?

A. Yes, sir, it's a copy of my statement.

Q. And everything in that statement is true and correct, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Now, you say, "I walked to the above address and saw victim
number 1 lying at the base of the stairwell, facing northbound. Upon
seeing victim number 1, I walked toward her, westbound on the walkway,
and observed victim number 2 lying in the bushes, just north of victim
No. 1."

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you or did you not walk on the walkway?

A. Yes, sir, I walked on the walkway as I crossed over here, sir.
That's the walkway.

Q. All right. And then you indicated that after you walked over victim
number 1, you saw the door to 875 South Bundy wide open, correct?

A. Yes, sir. As I walked over victim number and I climbed the stairs,
I saw the door open, open. Yes, sir.

Q. You climbed the stairs?

A. Well, yes, sir. As I walked on the stairs, onto the base of the
stairs to the top of the stairs, I saw --

Q. Let me see if I've got this right:

MR. BAKER: You want to put up here -- I guess I have it.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, may we have an exhibit number for
the document that the --

MR. BAKER: Did you get it, 1439?

MR. MEDVENE: Thank you.

THE COURT: Is that the best you can do?

MR. BAKER: That's awful. Try 36.

It's still off. Try 36.

(Exhibit 36 being displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, as I understand in your testimony, you walked
up westbound -- and we are looking due west -- that picture is looking
due west, is it not?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You walked up westbound to the area where the front gate is; then
you crossed over. You say you walk on the walkway by stepping over
victim number 1, Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson?

A. I believe there was some grass in the area. I walked over here,
crossed over, crossed over the shrubbery over the foliage up to here,
and came up westbound on the walkway right here.

Q. So, you went up the steps?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And how far up the steps did you go?

A. Well, sir, I walked to the front door, so I walked all the way on
top of the steps, sir.

Q. And how far was the front door from the top of that landing of the
steps that we can see in Exhibit 36?

A. Not very good with measurements. I'd say approximately 10, 15 feet,
maybe.

Q. Okay. And was the front door right at the beginning of the house or
the condo?

A. To the best of my recollection, it's close to the entrance, sir.
It's not that far.

Q. In other words, if you walk up the steps, your recollection is that
the front door would be to the left, at the beginning of the building?

A. Approximately about 10 to 15 from the base of the stairwell, sir.

Q. All right. And --

A. To the top.

Q. And the entrance, then, is kind of on -- the door is on an angle,
as I recall; is that right?

A. As I recall, no; it just sits --

Q. Flush on the front of the --

A. As I recall it, yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And did you go in the house?

A. No, sir.

Q. And was Officer Riske with you at that time?

A. Yes, he was.

Q. And did he go into the house at that time?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And why is it you didn't go in with him?

A. I was just there -- I wanted to ensure no one came up behind me via
the walkway from the west end, or anybody came in from the other side
of the house, meaning from the west side, from the inside. I just
stood by the doorway, sir.

Q. I see. So, now, the situation that you had when you approached that
condominium at about :25, now, is that you have two extremely bloody
murders and homicide victims out in the front, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you have no idea what's in the house, right?

A. I have no idea.

Q. And your partner has no idea what's in the house, right?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for conclusion.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you talk to your partner about whether or not he
had any idea about what was going on inside there?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did either of you have your service revolvers drawn?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he?

A. I don't remember.

Q. And so you -- he walked into the house and you then returned to
your vehicle?

A. He walked into the -- he walked into the house as I stood in
doorway. He walked in to use the telephone. He walked right back out.
As he walked out, I walked back down the stairwell, observed victim
number 2, the male.

I then put my light on the envelope, the glove, and the cap. I
continued to put the light back on the walkway, walked on the walkway,
and took the same route I pointed out, which would be crossed over
here onto the shrubbery, and back out through the foliage.

Q. All right. Now, you didn't actually see your partner use the phone,
did you?

A. I believe I did, sir, to the best of my recollection. Yes, I did; I
saw him use the phone.

Q. So from the entrance way, in the house, you could visualize him on
the phone, and you remember what room he was in when you used the
phone?

A. As I poked my head into the door, into the residence, I saw him at
the kitchen, sir. I believe he was -- the phone was located near a --
a bar or some kind of table.

Q. Okay. And your recollection is, of course, you never stepped in the
house and you had full view of that telephone from the entrance where
you were, right?

A. I'm not saying I had a full few, sir. I observed my partner using
the phone. I didn't have a full view of the telephone itself.

Q. Let me ask you: When you looked -- when you peeked your head in the
door, could you look through into the kitchen area?

A. To the best of my recollection, yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And could you see the instrument called a telephone, Officer
Terrazas?

A. I saw the hand portion, where you talk into. That is the portion I
saw as he was using it, to the best of my recollection, sir.

Q. So at the time you looked into the front door, your partner was on
the phone; is that right?

A. To the best of my recollection, yes, sir.

Q. Now, did you walk up the stairwell -- the stairs onto that landing
with him?

A. I don't understand, sir.

Q. Poor question. I apologize. You both walked across, towards where
the body of Nicole Brown Simpson was, and went up the stairs?

A. Yes.

Q. He was in the lead?

A. He went ahead of me, sir. Approximately, maybe ten seconds later, I
followed, sir, behind him. If that, ten seconds.

Q. And in that ten seconds, what did you do? He led in or was just --

A. I just stood by, sir.

Q. You've got to wait till I finish; and I'll be happy to wait until
you finish,

In that ten seconds, did you -- was that just the natural progression
of how you went into the -- up the steps and into the area?

A. It was for me, sir.

Q. All right. And then he had -- when you got up to the landing, why
did you look in the doorway and not go in?

A. Once again, sir, my concern is, I didn't want nobody to walk up
behind me or coming in westbound from the other gate area. I was
concerned with that area, as well as I was concerned that someone
could walk from inside the house from the other side, which would be
the west end of inside the house, sir.

Q. Now, did you look directly in the front door?

Did you look directly into the kitchen?

Was there another room was there, or just the kitchen area?

A. I can't remember, sir.

Q. Okay. And then your partner stayed on the phone. In a few minutes,
he came out and you both exited the condominium itself, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And you walked down the stairs and viewed the evidence that you
told us about?

A. Yes.

Q. And you viewed that same evidence, you told us when Mr. Medvene
questioned you, when you were going up there, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So you viewed it twice?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Then you came back and you got -- did you go to your
vehicle after that?

A. I walked up onto the shrubbery where, to the best of my
recollection, I met -- we both met with Sergeant Coon, as Sergeant
Coon arrived. He then directed me to walk to the rear of the 875 South
Bundy.

Q. Did you see your partner go around to the north side of the
property of 875 South Bundy?

A. To the north side, sir.

Q. Yes.

A. I don't understand your question as to --

Q. When you and Officer Riske exited the condominium and you walked
out towards Bundy, did you -- first of all, let me ask you this: Did
you go to your vehicle, or did you -- were you intercepted by Sergeant
Coon?

A. To the best of my recollection, sir, we were intercepted by
Sergeant Coon.

Q. Then you went directly to the back of 875 South Bundy?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you watch your partner go around to the north side of 875 South
Bundy?

A. No, sir, not that I can remember, no.

Q. Okay. Excuse me. Let me just show you what you wrote at 4:20 in the
morning on the 13th. See if I'm' reading it accurately.

"Walked over victim 2 and saw the door to South Bundy Drive wide open.

"I returned to my vehicle, where I met Sergeant" -- "met with Sergeant
Coon, and was assigned to cover the rear of the residence." Is that
correct?

A. If I walked to the vehicle, yes, sir.

Q. Well, I'm asking you, is that what you wrote in the morning hours,
4:20, on the 13th?

A. Yes, that's what I wrote, sir.

Q. Okay. And as you sit here now, you don't have any recollection of
going to your vehicle, correct?

A. I don't remember, no, sir.

Q. Okay. Fair enough. Now, you went down south on Bundy, turned right
on Dorothy, and right back up the alley?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Had it been taped by then?

A. No.

Q. And you maintained your vigil outside the rear of 875 South Bundy
in the alley, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you did that till 4:20 in the morning, when you signed and
wrote this report, true?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And during that period of time, you saw various people
go in and out of 875 South Bundy from the rear, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Now, first of all, when you got there, had anybody, to
your knowledge, go in 875 South Bundy from the alleyway?

A. Not from the alley, sir.

Q. All right. Now, you got there, I assume, what, about 12:40?

A. 12:35.

Q. Okay.

A. 12:40-ish. That's a good -- approximately.

Q. So you were there for three hours and 40 or so minutes, correct?

A. Approximately, sir.

Q. All right. Now, during that period of time, who was the first
person that came around to the back that you allowed to go into 875
South Bundy?

A. Through the rear, sir?

Q. Yes.

A. Believe it was Sergeant Rossi. It was Sergeant Rossi.

Q. And was Sergeant Rossi with anybody?

A. To the best of my recollection, he was -- would be my partner,
Officer Riske.

Q. Anybody else?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did anybody come out of the rear of 875 South Bundy before you
allowed Rossi and Riske to go in that --

A. Yes.

Q. -- area?

A. Yes.

Q. Who?

A. There was a -- there were the two children -- I believe it was
Officer Vasquez, if my memory serves me right, and some other officers
that had cleared the residence and found the children inside. They
walked up through the rear and put the children inside a car and into
a patrol car.

Q. That was the patrol car in the alley?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. And Officer Vasquez an the two children were the first people that
came out of that garage, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And there is a door that leads from the garage into the
condominium -- the living area of the condominium, correct?

A. Can you repeat that, sir?

Q. Be happy to. There is a door in the garage that leads into the
living area of the condominium, right?

A. I never went inside the garage, but there must be, sir.

Q. Well, I mean you saw --

A. I saw.

Q. -- various people in three hours and forty minutes. You saw five or
ten people going in and out of there?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You saw the entrance to the residence?

A. All I knew, there was a door there. Where it went, I didn't know.

Q. Did you think it was the residence?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, in terms of when you got there at :35 or so in the morning,
that is back by the garage and the alley area, did you inspect the
area with your flashlight?

A. When I arrived to the rear of the alley, Yes, I did, sir.

Q. And you then noted some blood that you documented in your report,
correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And all the evidence that you noted, you documented in your report
because it was important; isn't that true?

A. Not all the evidence. I didn't annotate all the evidence in my
report.

Q. What was your report for if it was not to, number 1, indicate your
whereabouts from the time you got there, 12:35 and 2:00, to enable you
to document the evidence that you had seen?

A. Sir, my report was just a brief overview of what I had done and
what I had seen, sir.

Q. Well, did you -- you told us about some blood drops on the back
gate.

MR. BAKER: You want to put up Exhibit 82? Okay. Then you can't put it
up.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you indicated when you were being examined this
morning by Mr. Medvene, that the drop there, No. 115, you circled that
drop, did you not?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that's this area, correct?

A. That would be this area here, sir.

Q. And 116?

A. 116 would be this area here, sir.

Q. This morning you also indicated those two dots right by the rung,
did you not?

A. Are you saying these right here, sir?

Q. Yeah.

A. I don't remember, sir.

Q. Okay. Now, do you have a recollection, as you sit her now, whether
that is looking westward or eastward on the gate. And I understand
it's a couple years ago.

A. I'm looking, I believe, at what would be looking -- as the gate lay
shut, it would be looking westward, sir.

Q. And how many drops of blood did you visualize when you were looking
for evidence at 12:35 on the evening of June 13, 1994?

A. At the gate itself, sir?

Q. Yeah, let's just keep it to the gate.

A. Overall, the total on the gate, meaning the top, the mesh, and the
bottom bar?

Q. Everything.

A. Well, the top bar had a smudge -- I consider that one smudge of
blood.

Q. Okay.

A. The lower portion on the mesh appeared to be another -- appeared to
be smudges or right in here, drops. I don't know what you want to call
it.

Q. Is that rust, Officer Terrazas, that you just put your pointer?

A. To the best of my recollection, no, sir.

Q. That's blood drops, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right. Go ahead.

A. Another one here.

Q. All right.

A. That would be one, two, three, four -- approximately four, sir.

Q. Okay. You want to read to the jury what you put in your report at
4:20 on the 13th relative to blood drops?

A. Yes, sir.

(Witness reviews documents.)

Q. Right at the bottom.

A. Says, "I then walked towards the" -- "towards the side gate of the
residence and observed a small blood trail leading into the residence
side walkway and a small drop of blood on the bottom portion of the
gate, facing westbound."

Q. So what you wrote on your report after you had been at the scene
for three hours and forty minutes was one small drop of blood, a small
drop of blood on the bottom portion of the gate, facing westbound
correct?

A. Sir, there was a trail of blood, meaning, i.e., the bottom, the
top, and a drop of blood on the gate itself, too sir, on the other
side, facing westbound.

Q. On the gate, Officer Terrazas, you observed and wrote on June 13,
1994, "one small drop of blood on the bottom portion of the gate
facing westbound." Yes or no?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. And what you say -- well, strike that.

Now, in terms of your being behind the garage and in charge of access,
that is, security to anyone entering or leaving the condominium, you
were in charge of ensuring that nobody who wasn't authorized got into
the structure, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And so, all police officers were authorized to get into the
structure, correct?

A. Not all police officers, sir.

Q. Now, if in fact the robbery/homicide division had taken over at
1:30 or so in the morning, then no one from West L.A. should be
allowed into the condominium from your vantage point; isn't that true
--

MR. MEDVENE: Objection.

Q. (Continuing.) -- unless they were with robbery/homicide?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for conclusion.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Officer Terrazas, the minute robbery/homicide
division takes over the crime scene, then all of West L.A. detectives
and West L.A. police are supposed to remain clear of the crime scene
and let robbery/homicide do it; isn't that true?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for conclusion; assumes facts not in
evidence; outside the scope.

THE COURT: Without foundation. Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Do you know whether or not when the robbery/homicide
division takes over a crime scene, or says that they are taking over
authority, if that precludes West L.A. or any other unit in the valley
from exercising any authority over the crime scene?

A. At the time no one -- no one advised me that robbery/homicide had
taken over the scene, sir.

Q. Regardless of what -- I'm talking now in the abstract.

You knew on June 13, 1994, that if, in fact, robbery/homicide takes
over a crime scene, that that would then limit access to people from
robbery/homicide or whoever they desire to get into the house, true?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Argumentative; assumes facts not in evidence;
lack of foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained. If he didn't know, it's irrelevant.

MR. BAKER: I think he --

THE COURT: He said he didn't know.

MR. BAKER: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: He said he did not know whether they took over; therefore,
what he thinks is irrelevant.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Officer Terrazas, are you telling us that you didn't
know in the time between :30 or 12:35, when you were put back behind
the alley, and 4:20 in the morning, when you were relieved of your
security post, you didn't know if robbery/homicide had taken over at
any time during that period of time?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Argumentative. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Sir, the only thing I was told was that robbery/homicide had
arrived, and also West L.A. homicide had arrived. I was never told who
had taken over the crime scene, sir.

Q. When robbery/homicide takes it at a crime scene --

THE COURT: Mr. Baker, I'm going to sustain my own objection.

I think that -- let's establish that this is not the witness from
which we're going to get this information. You've got other witnesses
you can ask that of.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, after you saw Officer Riske and Officer Rossi
come in to the back alleyway portion of 875 South Bundy -- well,
strike that.

What time did they get there?

THE COURT: Who?

MR. BAKER: Riske and Rossi.

THE WITNESS: Maybe 20 to 30 minutes later, after I had arrived from
the rear area.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Okay, sometime shortly after 1 o'clock, around
there?

A. Approximately, sir.

Q. Okay. And tell me what you observed Officer Rossi and Officer Riske
do.

A. I believe I walked -- to the best of my recollection, I walked with
them and Sergeant -- I mean my partner, Officer Riske, told Sergeant
Rossi what I had been in that rear area. So Sergeant Rossi then walked
with us. And to the best of my recollection, me and Riske showed him
what we had seen.

Q. And what you had seen, you walked down the walkway on the north
side of the house, correct?

A. No, sir, I didn't walk -- are you saying I walked -- if I walked
westbound on the north walkway, sir?

Q. No. I apologize. Another poor question.

Did you or Officer Riske take Officer Rossi and go eastbound on the
walkway that borders the northern portion of the condominium?

A. Yes. As the gate was open, sir, we did walk into the walkway,
eastbound, sir, onto the north walkway, eastbound, sir.

Q. And how far did you walk, approximately?

A. Two, three feet, approximately.

Q. That's beyond the gate?

A. Two, three feet, approximately.

Q. Didn't see any footprints, did you?

A. Sir, the only footprints I saw was would be at the far east end of
the walkway, near victim number 1, which would be the female, sir. I
saw the footprints there.

Q. Did you see any footprints in the entrance by the west gate when
you were going east?

A. No, sir.

Q. Okay. And you only went a couple feet in and turned around and came
back out; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And then what did Officers Riske and Rossi do, if anything?

A. They put their flashlights on the gate and the actual walkway, the
driveway, which would be where the glove was located, also, and walked
on the side and then walked out of it.

Q. Did you see Officers Rossi and Riske go into the condominium?

A. I did not see -- I did not see Sergeant Rossi walk into the
condominium.

Q. Did you see Officer Riske walk into the condominium at or about
1:00 to 1:10 in the morning?

A. No, sir.

Q. Thereafter, when did you next see an officer go into the
condominium from the door that is at the garage and goes into, we
believe, into the house?

A. I don't remember seeing any, sir.

Q. Let me see if I can get this straight.

Between the time that you arrived there, that would be 12:35, until
you were relieved of the security at 4:20, you didn't see any officer
go into the door that goes from the garage into the living structure?

A. Sir, I saw, I believe it was Detective Fuhrman, I believe it was
Detective Phillips and Vannatter walk in, sir.

Q. All together?

A. No, sir; throughout that time frame, sir.

Q. What time did you see Detective Fuhrman go into the property?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Vague and ambiguous in terms of
"go into the property."

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) What time did you see Mark Fuhrman from your vantage
point at the rear of the property in the alley, and in the driveway
towards the garage, enter through the garage area and go into the door
that leads from the garage into the house?

A. I didn't happen to see my watch at the time. I really wouldn't know
what time it was, sir.

Q. Approximately?

A. From the time I arrived, approximately maybe 1:30, 1:45, maybe.

Q. All right. And who did Fuhrman go into the structure with, that you
visualized?

A. I can't remember, sir.

Q. Do you remember if he went in with anybody?

A. I don't remember, sir.

Q. It was important for you to know who went in and exited the house,
because you were the security in the back of the house; isn't that
true?

A. That's correct, sir.

Q. Did you see him go into the property with Ron Phillips, Detective
Phillips?

A. I remember seeing Detective Phillips at the scene, sir. I believe
he walked in, sir, because I -- but I don't remember if he walked in
with Detective Fuhrman, sir.

Q. All right. Did you ever see Officer Riske walk in from your vantage
point, from the alleyway into the door and into the living structure?

A. From the front door or from the garage, sir.

Q. It's true you never saw Riske enter from the back door and go into
the living structure; is that true?

A. Not that I can remember, sir.

Q. You have no recollection of Riske entering from the back?

A. I don't remember, sir.

Q. Now, Phillips, when -- do you remember who he entered with, if
anybody?

A. I don't remember, sir.

Q. You don't remember what time?

A. I don't, sir.

Q. Do you remember if Frank Spangler ever went in the rear entrance?

A. Who?

Q. Lieutenant Spangler.

Do you know who he is?

A. I don't remember him, sir.

Q. Now, do you remember anybody -- well, strike that.

When did you see Detective Vannatter enter the house from your vantage
point?

A. I don't remember the time. I would have to speculate, sir.

Q. And did you illuminate the surrounding area, also?

A. It would be a really rough estimate. I don't remember looking at my
watch.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, if the witness has a memory, he can
so state, but he's not to guess.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. MEDVENE: We'd like some foundation, Your Honor, whether the
witness has a memory or he's just guessing on the time --

THE COURT: -- own statement.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) How many hours did you spend with Mr. Medvene before
you got on the stand here, after Mr. Simpson was acquitted?

A. After Mr. Simpson was acquitted?

Q. Yeah. How many hours did you spend with Mr. Medvene?

A. Maybe an hour, total.

Q. Who else did you spend time with to prepare yourself to testify
today, if anybody?

A. Who I spoke with? Just Mr. Medvene and the gentleman in the red
hair, standing directly behind Mr. Medvene.

Q. Okay. Okay. You never talked to anyone from the defense side, did
you?

A. No, sir.

Q. Now, what's your best estimate, sir, as to when Mr. Phillip
Vannatter entered the house from the rear?

A. I would be -- strictly guessing, it would be sometime between maybe
2:00 and 3:00, sir.

Q. Well, do you have a sense, as you sit here now, since it was your
job to ensure the security of that area, whether Detective Vannatter
entered the property with anybody else?

A. Yes, sir. If I saw identification on the individual, sir. And with
Detective Vannatter, I assume he was to go inside, sir.

Q. Had you ever met Detective Vannatter before this time?

A. No, sir.

Q. So Detective Vannatter showed you I.D.; then you let anybody he
wanted, or anybody who had I.D., in with him?

A. Yes, if he was a detective; yes, sir.

Q. Do you know who went in with Detective Vannatter?

A. I have no idea, sir.

Q. Do you have a recollection, as you sit here now, of anybody else
other than Detectives Vannatter, Fuhrman, and Phillips going in the
back of the house and entering the structure from your vantage point?

A. From what I can remember, sir, no, sir.

Q. All right. Now, did you -- when you viewed the gloves, did you note
their location?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Misstates the testimony. The
witness said -- the witness said he saw one glove.

MR. BAKER: I apologize. He saw it twice. I didn't mean -- I apologize.
I didn't mean --

Can you put up Exhibit 89.

(Steve complies.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Let me show you Exhibit , and ask you to take a look
at that.

(The instrument herein described was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 101.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Can you see that, Officer?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And is that approximately where you saw the glove when you first
visualized it?

A. It was under some foliage, like that, sir; yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And to your knowledge, was that glove moved?

A. When I arrived, sir?

Q. Yeah.

A. No, sir; it was never moved when I was there.

Q. Now, this is Exhibit 1327. That glove has now been moved, has it
not?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Lack of foundation. Mr. Baker was
showing him two different photos, taken at two different times: One
before the coroner moved the bodies, and one after.

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object, too. There has been no evidence that
the coroner moved the bodies.

MR. MEDVENE: Mr. Baker knows those two pictures were taken at
different times.

THE COURT: Excuse me, Counsel. If you have an objection, I want you to
approach the bench; I don't want speaking objections.

MR. BAKER: May we approach the bench?

THE COURT: You may.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.)

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, Mr. Baker showed this witness two
photos: One photo that was taken, and which Mr. Baker knows the
evidence will show, was taken at sometime after 9 o'clock in the
morning, and another photo that Mr. Baker knows was taken before the
bodies were moved. We believe that's the one.

And there is no foundation established as to when these photographs
were taken. And if the witness knows when they were taken -- the
witness has testified that one picture was how he saw it at the time.

And what my objection is, is that Mr. Baker, knowingly, I think, has
shown this witness a picture after this witness left the scene. The
witness testified he left the scene, was off duty at :10.

I'll represent to Your Honor that the coroner didn't get there until
after 9:10. The photo that was taken, the photo we showed was taken
before :00 a.m. We think it was taken about 6:30.

Mr. Baker's theory is, it was taken a little before. But the other
photo that Mr. Baker put up and asked him about was taken after the
bodies were moved; that's what the testimony is going to show. And
there's no other evidence that's going to be introduced that wasn't
taken after the bodies were moved.

I guess all I'm saying, Your Honor, is --

THE COURT: What's the foundation for that second photo?

MR. MEDVENE: The photo that we asked about on direct.

THE COURT: What's the foundation for the second photo?

MR. MEDVENE: When you say the second photo, you mean the one --

THE COURT: What is the foundation for the second photo?

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, the one they already put up, the other photo
was taken before.

THE COURT: What is that one right there?

MR. MEDVENE: Detective --

THE COURT: Mr. Baker, you walked away. What is the foundation for that
photo right there?

MR. BAKER: That photo right there? Well, the photograph was taken
before dawn, and the coroner didn't get there until 9 o'clock.

THE COURT: When was the other photograph taken?

MR. BAKER: Before dawn, as well.

MR. MEDVENE: Detective Lange will say the first photo that Mr. Baker
showed was taken after the coroner moved the bodies; that the first
photo which we've talked about isn't the first.

THE COURT: Excuse me. I'm going sustain the objection of that
photograph. That photograph is without foundation. You can lay a
foundation with the photographer.

MR. BAKER: All right.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of
the jury.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, after -- strike that.

Did you leave after 4:20 in the morning?

A. (No verbal response.)

Q. The crime scene?

A. No, sir.

Q. What did you do after you signed off your witness statement at 0420
hours on the 13th?

A. I walked to Dorothy and Bundy and was assigned to continue the
crime-scene log, sir.

Q. And did you then continue the crime-scene log until when?

A. I continued it approximately, maybe an hour, I believe.

Q. To about 5:20?

A. Approximately, sir.

Q. As the keeper of crime-scene log, you were to log in and out every
LAPD or law enforcement officer who comes to the scene or leaves the
scene, correct?

A. Any LAPD, yes, sir, or any other officers. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you do that, Officer Terrazas?

A. To the best of my ability, yes, sir.

Q. Did you log out officers when they left the scene?

A. To the best of my ability, yes.

Q. And did you log out Detective Vannatter when he left the scene?

A. If he left when I was there, yes, sir.

Q. All right. See where it says Detective Vannatter, his badge -- I
guess his badge number, is it?

A. I believe that to be a serial number.

Q. 14877?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. You see what time he checked in over there, 0405, on the
left?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You see what time he checked out?

A. There is none, sir.

Q. Do you know what time he left?

A. No, sir, I don't.

Q. And you were in charge of the crime log from at least 4:20 to 5:20,
correct?

A. Yes, sir. Approximately 5:20, sir.

Q. 5:20. That's not --

A. Till approximately 5:20 sir, in the morning.

Q. That's not the time you have Vannatter check out of there?

A. No, sir.

Q. Move it up, see what time you have. We have -- you have Detective
Lange -- it's two more down.

Well, see, so you've got Detective Lange checking in 0425 in the
morning, and out at 12:15. Is that p.m.? Is that the next day, or was
that your entry at all?

A. That's not my entry, sir.

Q. Okay. Now, if Detective Vannatter left the crime scene at 5 o'clock
to go to Rockingham, you had an obligation to ensure that you logged
him out?

A. It was at approximately 0520 hours. Yes, sir, I had an obligation.

Q. It was at 5 o'clock you had an obligation, as well?

A. That's correct, sir.

Q. And to look at that log, he's still there, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Now, one of the things that you need a crime-scene log to be
accurate for is so that if you have to go back and reconstruct, you
can reconstruct who's been in and out of the crime scene, correct?

A. Can you repeat it once more, sir?

Q. One of the reasons you need an accurate crime-scene log is, if in
fact you have to reconstruct who was at the accident, the crime scene,
you have a log to determine who came, when they came, who exited and
when they exited, true?

A. That's correct.

Q. And can you tell me what time in that log entry, what time Rokahr
got there? Is that 0240?

A. (No verbal response.)

Q. See 3 above Vannatter? I know it's difficult to see there.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, the exhibit speaks for itself. The
witness said he didn't take over the log until 4:00. I think it shows
3:25, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I guess that was -- I can't tell what it says.

MR. BAKER: That's why I was asking.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In any event, do you know who photographer Rokahr
is?

A. I remember seeing a photographer there. I don't know who he is.

Q. Did you see, while you were on your post between 12:35 and 420,
anybody take any pictures?

MR. BAKER: You can turn it off.

A. To the best of my recollection, no, sir. I don't remember.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you log out Detectives Phillips and Fuhrman,
assuming that they left the scene at 0500 hours, when it was your duty
to do so?

A. Did I log them out, sir?

Q. Yeah.

A. If they left between that time, I was supposed to, sir.

Q. I didn't ask you if you were supposed to. I think we established
that. Did you?

A. I don't believe I logged him out because I had already gone home,
sir.

Q. You had gone home at 0500 hours?

A. No, no, sir. I left at 5 o'clock.

Q. You didn't go home until 7:15, did you?

A. Approximately.

Q. Now, did you see Rokahr or any police photographer, regardless of
their name, taking any pictures from where you were in back of the
garage on Bundy?

A. From the rear? I don't remember.

Q. You don't recall a photographer?

A. I don't recall seeing a photographer back there.

Q. You certainly didn't tell any police photographer what evidence he
or he should photograph, right?

A. No, sir.

Q. Okay. Did you at any time see a police photographer when you were
out front?

A. I don't remember seeing one, sir.

Q. So you don't recall seeing a police photographer at any time,
correct?

A. No, sir. I don't remember seeing him.

Q. And as best you recall, as you sit here now, in the three hours and
forty minutes or so that you were in the back and in charge of
security, the only people that went through the garage into the house
was Fuhrman, Phillips, and Vannatter, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Asked an answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: Nothing further, Your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE:

Q. Did anyone from the -- any representative of Mr. Simpson, call you
and ask to speak with you?

A. No, sir.

Q. If they had, would you have spoken with them?

MR. BAKER: Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) If you assumed that Detectives Fuhrman and
Phillips arrived at Bundy at about 2:10 a.m., how much prior to that
did you see the blood that you've described on the back gate?

MR. BAKER: I object to the hypothetical in terms of time. He already
testified as to the time he believed they arrived.

THE COURT: Why don't you rephrase the question and ask him what time
he saw the blood.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) The blood that you've described finding on the
gate, approximately what time was that?

A. Approximately 12:30, 12:35, approximately.

Q. Had Detective Fuhrman and Detective Phillips arrived at Bundy prior
to the time that you observed the blood that you've described for the
jury?

A. I don't remember seeing them back there, sir. They could have
arrived at the front. I don't remember seeing them in the back with
me, no, sir. To the best of my recollection, no, they had not arrived.

Q. You were the first officer on the scene with Officer Riske?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. When you made the observation you've testified about, about seeing
just one glove, and your testimony about looking over the scene with a
flashlight, had Detectives Phillips and Fuhrman yet arrived?

A. No, sir.

MR. MEDVENE: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. MEDVENE: Your Honor, I'm going to place in front of the witness
what's been marked 82, and ask you'd put 82 on the board. And I'm
going ask the witness to make certain markings on 82, and request
permission to, at the clerk's pleasure, to call this Exhibit 82-A or
2098.

THE CLERK: 2098.

(The instrument herein described was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2098.)

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, may I observe?

MR. MEDVENE: I'm sorry.

MR. BAKER: I understand that. I want to watch him mark what he's going
to mark.

MR. MEDVENE: I'm going to place before Officer Terrazas, the
photograph that's on the board that we've numbered 2098.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And I'd ask you to circle, if you would --

MR. BAKER: Do you want this?

THE WITNESS: That's okay.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I ask you to circle. If you would, the blood spot
that you described as .

A. (Witness complies.)

Q. And if you would, circle the blood spot that you observed as 116.

A. (Witness complies.)

Q. Would you put your initial next to each, sir.

A. (Witness complies.)

Q. Would you please place on the board what's been marked 2098.

A. Mark it?

Q. Would you point out to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury the
vertical blood drop.

A. (Witness complies.)

Q. Thank you, sir.

THE COURT: And would you point out to the ladies and gentlemen of the
jury the blood spot you saw in the early morning hours of June 13,
that next to the 115 N.

A. (Witness complies.)

Q. And you made both those circles and put down your initials?

A. That's correct.

Q. Thank you.

One last question: When you wrote your report, did you mean to include
everything in your report, or was it just supposed to be a summary
that capsulized --

MR. BAKER: Objection. Leading, suggestive, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you tell us whether your report was to record
everything in detail that you saw?

MR. BAKER: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. No, sir. Just a brief overview of what I did and what I observed.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, I'd move into evidence.

THE COURT: Received.

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2098.)

MR. MEDVENE: Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Officer
Terrazas.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Let me show you Exhibit 2098 again, Officer.

Now, right before the 116, you indicated this was blood drops on the
mesh, did you not?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you did it on Exhibit 82, correct?

A. If this is Exhibit 82.

Q. Yeah.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You want to circle that?

A. Circle what, sir?

Q. The blood drops that you showed on the mesh.

A. Oh, yes, sir.

Q. Thank you.

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object.

MR. MEDVENE: I'm waiting.

MR. BAKER: I wasn't.

You want to put this up?

Can you focus that in?

Maybe, maybe not.

That's better.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you circled an area right above the No. 116,
did you not?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you thought that was a blood spot, and that's what you
indicated when you were asked about this blood spot on the back gate?

A. To the best of my recollection, yes, sir.

Q. Thank you. Nothing further.

MR. MEDVENE: If you would, put on the board, please, 85.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. MEDVENE:

Q. What is 85, Officer Terrazas?

A. It appears to be the rear gate leading into the residence from the
alley.

MR. MEDVENE: Would you put on the board 86, please.

(Steve complies.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Would you take a look at 86. And what is that?

A. Appears to be the blood drop I observed June 13, 1994, sir.

Q. From looking --

A. It would be, looking at it, eastbound. And the gate itself would be
facing westbound.

Q. That be the area you were outside, guarding?

A. Outside, looking into the walkway.

MR. MEDVENE: May I approach, Your Honor?

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I'm going to place in front of you what we're
marking as 2099.

(The instrument herein described was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2099.)

Q. I'm going to ask if you would be good enough to circle the area of
the mesh where you observed the blood in early morning hours of June
13.

A. (Witness complies.)

MR. MEDVENE: Would you please place on the board what's been marked as
2099.

(Steve complies.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you just point out for the jury where you've
circled.

A. (Witness complies.)

Q. What is that?

A. Its a blood drop I observed June 13, , on the rear gate of 875
South Bundy.

Q. Facing?

A. Facing westbound, sir.

Q. You say facing westbound --

MR. BAKER: I'll object, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) As you stand outside the gate, which direction is
it facing?

MR. BAKER: Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. As I stand outside the gate, the gate would face westbound; the
blood would face westbound. In order to look at it, I'd have to look
at it eastbound.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) So, in other words, if the victims are found in
the position, roughly, of where the court reporter is, and you're
walking back westbound, and if the gate is approximately where the
podium is --

A. You lost me, sir.

Q. If the victims are found roughly where the court reporter is --

A. Correct.

Q. -- and you walk westbound to the gate,

and the gate is approximately where the podium is --

A. Correct.

Q. -- you were standing guard between approximately 12:30 and 4
o'clock, where?

A. To the rear, sir. It would be outside the gate area, sir.

Q. And Exhibit 2099 that you just drawn a circle around would be
where, as you observed it from where you were standing?

A. It would be outside, sir, towards the alleyway.

Q. On the outside of the alley?

A. On the outside portion, yes, sir.

MR. MEDVENE: Thank you very much. I have nothing further. We move in
2099, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Received.

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2099.)

FURTHER RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Now, did you find the blood drops that you, circled at 115 and 116
initially, when you got back there, and you opened the gate and you
went into the walkway to the north of the house?

A. I didn't open the gate, sir.

Q. Well, who opened the gate?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Outside the scope of redirect.

THE COURT: You may reopen.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Who opened the gate?

A. My partner, Officer Riske.

Q. Then you went inside the gate, into the walkway with him, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And was it at that time that you saw the blood drops?

A. Yes, sir. Yes, as I walked in there, sir.

Q. As you walked in, you saw the blood drops, correct?

A. As I walked in, in the inside portion, yes, sir. I examined the
gate and I examined where I was walking, yes, sir.

Q. All right. So that I'm clear, we'll use Mr. Medvene's example. And
you're walking west. The gate, if you're walking west, opens towards
you, does it not?

A. To the best of my recollection, it would open in a westerly motion,
sir.

Q. When you went through gate, did you push it open, or did it come
towards you?

A. I never pushed it open, sir.

Q. Regardless of who moved it, did it go towards you, or what?

A. It would come towards me, going westbound, sir.

Q. Did you -- as you got inside the gate, did you then turn around and
take a couple of feet and look at the gate?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that when you examined and found all three blood spots?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And so when you examined and found all three blood spots,
you're looking from east to west, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Vague and ambiguous. What all three blood
spots?

MR. BAKER: 115, 116, 117.

MR. MEDVENE: He also mentioned one on top, Your Honor.

THE COURT: This is Mr. Baker's question. Overruled.

MR. BAKER: I need help, but not yours.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you understand the question?

A. Can you repeat it? It's the one with the three circles, 115, 116.
117 is 2.

Q. Okay. Now, 115, 116, and the bloody spot on the mesh --

A. Correct.

Q. -- those you observed, sir, by being inside, if you will, between
the west gate and the east gate, correct?

A. To the best of my recollection, yes, sir.

Q. All right. And after you had observed all three of those blood
spots, sir, you didn't relate those to anybody, correct --

A. I --

Q. -- at the time, I mean.

A. Officer Riske knew about them, sir.

Q. He knew about them or didn't know about them?

A. I told him about them.

Q. You told him about all three of the blood spots: The one you
circled 115, 116, and then the one which doesn't have a label on it,
which would be 117, up here?

A. To the best of my recollection, yes, sir.

Q. All right.

MR. BAKER: Do I don't have anything further.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, I believe that's 208.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. MEDVENE: One second, Your Honor.

(Referring to photos that were marked by

counsel.)

MR. MEDVENE: If you'll indulge me one moment, Your Honor. I apologize.

(Pause in proceedings.)

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE:

Q. Just so I'm clear, Officer Terrazas, did you, if you looked at the
gate from the outside where you were standing guard, looking towards
the front of the house -- okay?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Looking at the gate that way, can you tell us whether or not you
observed any blood on the gate?

A. Looking from the outside, looking eastbound towards the house, I
observed one drop of blood on the gate.

Q. Is that the blood you described and circled a few minutes ago?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. After you walked in within the gate and you looked outward -- in
other words, looking westbound, did you observe any blood?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that the blood that's up on the board now, where you circled 115
and 116?

MR. BAKER: Objection. Leading and suggestive of those two being
circled. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

You may answer.

A. Yes, it is the blood I circled, sir.

MR. MEDVENE: Nothing further.

FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Officer Terrazas, the one you circled above 116, is that the one
you observed outside and just dripped inside the mesh? Is that what
you believe?

A. No, sir; that's not what I believe at all, sir.

Q. All right. So the one you've circled here, too, that's a blood
drop?

A. From the best of my recollection yes, sir.

Q. That's a blood drop you viewed east, looking west, right?

A. To its best of my recollection, yes, sir.

Q. You say there's another one you viewed west, looking east?

A. Yes, sir. That would be the first one I observed, the one that was
on the outside portion of the gate, sir.

Q. So you looked at four separate blood drops plus the top of the
rail?

A. There would be one on the outside, sir -- one on the outside, one
up on top, one in the middle, this one and this one, sir.

Q. And the middle one is the one that's right above 116?

A. From what I can remember sir, yes, sir.

Q. Now, were you ever shown those photos in the meeting you had with
Mr. Medvene?

A. Yes, I was, sir.

Q. Did he take you through these photos and show you the blood drops
to refresh your recollection?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. That's what you did for an hour with Mr. Medvene, go over the
blood-drop photos on the back gate or --

A. Mostly just the blood-drop photos.

Q. Most of the hour, you went through the photos the blood-drop photos
so you'd have it clear when you came into court and testified, right?

A. Approximately, yes, sir.

MR. BAKER: Thank you. Nothing further.

MR. MEDVENE: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Thank you. You're excused.

Ten-minutes' recess, ladies and gentlemen.

Don't talk about the case; don't form or express any opinions.

(Recess.)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I'd like to move into evidence label 1327,
which is exhibit 40. It was 132 from the criminal trial. It's exhibit
40 here and .

THE COURT: Wait a minute.

THE CLERK: We had referred to this exhibit as . That's the wrong
designation. It should be exhibit 40. It's already been received in
evidence for verification. I believe you wanted to move into evidence,
Plaintiffs' exhibit 101.

MR. PETROCELLI: Is 101 our number?

THE CLERK: Yes.

MR. PETROCELLI: So what's being moved in, 101?

MR. BAKER: 101, really? 40's already in?

THE COURT: Received.

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 101.)

THE COURT: I got a request from the jurors that the lawyers introduce
themselves for their notes. Shows you what an impression you all have
been making. (Laughter.)

The problem, ladies and gentlemen, is that, you know, there seems to
be kind of a moveable feast in the sense that everybody's sitting in
different places at different times. Do you want them to introduce
themselves again right now. Is take that what you want?

JUROR: Not everybody. Just, for example, that gentleman who was
speaking today. I don't know who know his who or who he's representing
with the beard. Just, I don't know several of them.

THE COURT: That's Mr. Medvene. There's two beards.

MR. PETROCELLI: This is Mr. Medvene, Mr. Gelblum. And we have Mr.
Lambert who's not here today. And the four of us represent plaintiff
Fredrick Goldman.

MR. KELLY: Anybody else? John Kelly, representing the estate of Nicole
Brown Simpson with Callan sitting next to me.

MR. BREWER: Mike Brewer representing Sharon Rufo. And at times, I'll
have William Driscoll with me.

MR. BAKER: Bob Baker. This is Dan Leonard, Bob Blaiser. That's my son
Phil Baker and we all represent Mr. Simpson.

THE COURT: And Mr. Baker, you have a couple other attorneys that come
from time to time.

MR. BAKER: Melissa Bluestein comes every now and again.

THE COURT: Is there another?

MR. BAKER: I think that's about it; isn't it? Yeah.

THE COURT: Okay. I thought there was somebody else but that's okay.

MR. BAKER: Possibly thinking of Richard Gabriel the consultant.

THE COURT: Oh, the consultant.

MR. MEDVENE: Can we be heard later on 101 in terms of foundation?

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. MEDVENE: Thank you.

Sergeant David Rossi.

DAVID ROSSI, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiff Goldman, 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.

MR. MEDVENE: The Court please, the parties have stipulated to
foundation admissible of exhibit , a view of Nicole Brown's back from
the landing or up above.

(The instrument herein described was admitted into evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 43)

THE CLERK: Sir, would you please state and spell your name for the
record?

THE WITNESS: My name is David Rossi, R-O-S-S-I.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE:

Q. What is your occupation, sir?

A. I'm a Sergeant for the Los Angeles police department presently
assigned to West Los Angeles division.

Q. And how long have you been with the Los Angeles police department?

A. I've been with Los Angeles police department 27 years; 27 and a
half years.

Q. How long have you been a Sergeant?

A. 17 years.

Q. What's your present assignment?

A. I am the night watch or the p.m. watch assistant, watch commander.

Q. And what was your assignment as of June , 13, 1994?

A. I was the morning watch, watch commander.

Q. And what did you do or what was your principle job as watch
commander?

A. Watch commanders are responsible for, and held accountable for all
of the police activities on their watch. I deploy my police officers
in the areas they need to be deployed pursuant to radio call, leads,
crime appearance, et cetera.

I discuss crime problems with them. I approve, I review and approve
their arrests and advise booking sections. I approve and review most
of the crime and arrest reports. I do a number of administrative type
function within the station.

And I respond to the field when called, or in some cases, I respond to
the field when I am supposed to. When I'm supposed to respond
according to department manual.

Q. Under what circumstances do you go to the scene?

A. If I'm called by a field supervisor to respond, or if a police
officer calls me, I'll respond on anything. I respond to the field on
most shootings, all officer involved shooting and all homicides.

Q. And what are your duties when you respond to the scene on a
homicide?

A. Prior to responding, my duty is to make several notifications to
the detectives that will be investigating the homicide and to my
command staff to notify them of what I was told happened in the field.
I then respond to the field to make sure that the scene is secured
properly and to make any necessary changes or augmentations to the
scene if I deem it necessary for proper securing of a location and any
obvious evidence.

Q. Did you receive any call in the early morning hours of June 13?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Approximately when and from whom?

A. It was sometime between midnight and :30 in the morning and I
received the call from Officer Riske.

Q. And did you receive certain information from him?

A. Officer Riske told me he had responded to a radio call in the
vicinity of 875 south Bundy. And that he and his partner had
discovered that there was a double homicide the two victims dead in
front of 875 south Bundy.

Q. Did you give him any instructions?

A. I asked him if he had -- well, he told me prior to that that the
house was open and there were lights on. I asked him if he had checked
the house for any other victims or suspects and he said not yet. I
told him to clear the house, make sure there were no other victims or
suspects. To call a field supervisor to respond to the location and to
secure the location and call as many officers as he can get there.

Q. Shortly thereafter, did you receive another call?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. From whom?

A. I received a call from Sergeant Martin Coon who was the field
supervisor on duty that night.

Q. Did you make a determination whether or not Sergeant Coon was at
the scene?

A. Yes, I did. He told me he was at the scene.

Q. And did you give Sergeant Coon any instructions?

A. Sergeant Coon reiterated what Officer Riske had told me. And by the
time Sergeant Coon had arrived, the house, the interior of the house
had been secured. And I told Sergeant Coon the exact same thing I told
Officer Riske concerning securing the location. He said that it had
been and I told --

MR. BAKER: Objection. Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: And relevancy.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you make any notifications?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. To any detectives?

A. Yes, sir. I called the homicide detective, Detective Phillips.

Q. And the purpose of that call?

A. Because he handles all the homicides and responds when he's off
duty to -- will respond from home.

Q. Is -- did there come a time that you responded to the scene?

A. That I responded to the scene, yes, sir. After I finished my
telephonic notification.

Q. Approximately what time did you get to south Bundy?

A. I believe it was approximately 1:20, 1:25 in the morning.

Q. And what's the first thing you did on arrival?

A. First thing I did after exiting the police car is I walked to the
front of the location on Bundy. In the street I observed banner tape
around the location. I made a point to make sure that officers were
strategically placed for security as far as stopping any unauthorized
vehicular or pedestrian traffic.

MR. BAKER: Move to strike in view of the court's prior ruling.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: That the banner tape and officer place taping out of the
record.

THE COURT: It's already in.

MR. BAKER: I request it be stricken from the record.

THE COURT: It will not be stricken. Objection came too late.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you then make any request of Sergeant Coon and
Officer Riske?

A. Yes, I did. They spoke with me in front of the location in the
street and --

MR. BAKER: Object to anything more than yes.

THE COURT: Sustained.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) As a result of this, did you then do something?

A. Yes. I asked Sergeant Coon and Officer Riske to escort me through
the crime scene.

Q. And why did you want to be escorted through the crime scene?

A. Because I'm the watch commander and the responding detectives will
approach me first and ask me what they had. And I needed to know as
much as I could possibly find out to give them the information.

Q. And were you then escorted through the crime scene?

A. Yes, sir, I was.

MR. MEDVENE: May I approach, Your Honor, put up an exhibit?

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. MEDVENE: Is that visible?

JURORS: (Nod in the affirmative.)

MR. MEDVENE: Your Honor, may the witness leave the chair and walk over
to the exhibit?

THE COURT: You may.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) We have before you what's marked as 2058 and I ask
you if you can identify the lower picture. Purports to be a female
which is exhibit 43. And tell us if you've ever seen that before.

(The instrument herein described was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2058.)

A. Yes, I have.

Q. And when did you see that person?

A. That's the body of the female that I observed at the front of the
location.

Q. And I direct you to exhibit 38. Appears to be a body of a male. Did
you ever see that before?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

THE COURT: Counsel, why don't you put that on a higher rung so that
everybody can see that?

MR. MEDVENE: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. BAKER: Those other two fold out halfway down. They'll fold out.

MR. MEDVENE: Everybody see?

JURORS: Um-hum.

MR. MEDVENE: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Use the pointer if you're going to have him do anything
with that.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, would you be good enough Sergeant to -- those
two exhibits are magnetic and you can move them around. Could you
place the position of the nail in the approximate position that you
saw this scene at on June 13, in the early morning hours.

A. The way I saw it when I --

Q. Yes.

(Witness complies. Adjusts photos.)

A. I would say approximately like that.

Q. Would you when you observed the scene, did you have any artificial
light source?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. And what was that light source?

A. I was using a flashlight.

Q. And could you point out to us -- do you have the pointer?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Can you point out to us what you observed?

A. I observed the female body lying in the position that appears here.
And the male lying in the position as it appears here?

Q. Did you see any other items?

A. I observed an envelope, one glove and hat, appeared to be watch
cap, a knit cap.

Q. Let me put up on the TV, if I might, exhibit 38.

I ask if that's clear for the jurors. If the light's off, it's clear.

Q. If you'd put up 89, please. 89 has been placed in front of you.
What is 89, if you can tell us?

A. That appears to be a knit watch cap.

Q. And next to it?

A. And a glove.

Q. And could you please point on 2058 where you saw those items?

A. Very close to the area of this plant right here.

Q. Can you tell us whether or not you illuminated the area thoroughly?

A. Yes, I did. With my flashlight.

Q. And did you observe more than one glove?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. And where did you make your observation of the area? From what
vantage point?

A. I was standing in the grassy area, possibly about six feet south of
the female body.

Q. All right. Thank you. You may resume the witness stand.

After observing what you've told us about, where did you go?

A. I then walked with the Sergeant and the officer back down to the
sidewalk. We proceeded southbound on the Bundy sidewalk to the next
street which is Dorothy. Walked westbound on Dorothy to the alley and
behind the location and walked to the rear of 875 south Bundy.

Q. Can you tell us whether or not, on your way from the front to the
rear, you illuminated your pathway?

A. Yes, sir, I did all the way.

Q. With what?

A. With the same high power flashlight I was using.

Q. On the way from the scene, as you described it, to the rear, did
you observe another glove?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did there come a time that you got to the rear gate?

A. Yes.

Q. Put up -- and did you walk through the gate?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Can you put up 82, please?

Can you tell us what is 82, if you recall? Exhibit 82 is on the board?

A. That appears to be the gate -- that gate that I saw in the rear.

Q. Did anyone point anything else out to you on the gate?

A. Officer Riske, shined his flashlight on the rear, on the bottom
running of the gate and pointed out blood drops.

Q. Could you take a look at exhibit 82 and ask what, or can you tell
us what that is?

A. That appears to be the blood that I observed that night on the
bottom rail of the gate.

Q. Can you -- could you -- were those markers, 115 and 116, on the
gate that evening when you observed it?

A. No, sir.

Q. Could you point out the drops that you remember seeing?

A. Here and here.

MR. BAKER: Let the record reflect that he pointed to the dark spots
directly under the running where 116 is, correct, Officer Rossi?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. BAKER: Right. Directly lower.

THE COURT: Actually that's the not a rung that's a vertical bar.

MR. BAKER: Vertical bar. I guess a rung goes the other way.

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. BAKER: I apologize.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Officer Rossi, your memory is that you saw certain
blood on the rear gate?

A. Yes.

Q. And then what did you do?

A. Then I walked out of the walkway and to the back, to the rear of
the house.

Q. And sometime later, strike that, were

Detectives Phillips and Fuhrman at the Bundy scene at the time you had
your walk through of the crime scene and went around to the rear?

A. No, they weren't.

Q. And approximately how much later did they arrive, if you know?

A. Approximately half an hour later.

Q. Did there come a time later that morning when you went back to west
L.A. office?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. MEDVENE: I have nothing further, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Cross.

MR. MEDVENE: Court please, we'd move in 2058.

THE COURT: Received.

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2058).

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Now, how long did you meet with Mr. Medvene, Officer Rossi?

A. Approximately two hours.

Q. And did you go through this little exercise that you'd done here
today?

A. Yes.

Q. And you kind of worked it out so that you could get this one on
this?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Correct. All right. And then I went through the -- when was that,
by the way, Officer Rossi?

A. Last night.

Q. And then you went through the photos so you could get the blood
spots right on the gate?

A. He showed me the photos, yes.

Q. Did you want to put that one back up?

While they're getting that -- Okay. Have we got a lazer of that?

Now this photograph, did he tell you this photograph was taken on July
3, 1994, some two and a half, three weeks after the incident?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did he show you any photograph at all of the back gate that was
taken on June 13, 1994, the date that you were there?

A. I don't know when the photographs were taken.

Q. Did he represent to you that that photograph right there was taken
on, or implied that that photograph -- and I'm talking about Mr.
Medvene, did he imply that photograph was taken the night of the
murders?

A. No.

Q. Did you understand that to be the case?

A. No.

Q. Now, you believe that the blood spot is here and here, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And -- well, never mind.

Now, I want to go back and have you just draw on a laser photograph
where you believe those where. You've just told us that they were. You
just circle the area that you just indicated to the jury that were
blood spots on the back gate and put your initials.

A. Put my initials?

Q. Yes, if you'd be kind enough, sure I'd appreciate it. Thank you.

Did you see any other blood drops on the back gate that night?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. All right. Now, nothing on the mesh?

A. I didn't notice anything.

Q. Okay. I want to, if we may, sir, I want to go back to when you were
watch commander. What can we label this next one? This one where he's
initialed?

THE CLERK: 2100.

MR. BAKER: 2100. Thank you.

(The instrument herein described was marked for identification as
Defendant's Exhibit No. 2100.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, were you in uniform the night of June 13, 1994?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And when you were at you're -- at west Los Angeles police
department that night, correct, sir?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that's on the corner of Santa Monica and Purdue, right?

A. Santa Monica and Butler.

Q. I'm sorry. And that is west and south of the crime location,
correct?

A. I think east and south, I would think.

Q. East it is? Thank you. You're absolutely right. Now, when you got
notification of the double homicide by Officer Riske, you talked to
him on the telephone, did you not?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And did you understand that he was in the house in the condominium
on the phone of the residence of that condominium?

A. I don't remember where he called from. I don't know where he called
from.

Q. Did you believe that he was on his police radio?

A. Well, I know he wasn't on his police radio. It was a phone.

Q. 'Cause you were on a telephone?

A. Yes.

Q. And he told you, did he not, that OJ Simpson was somehow involved
in these double homicides?

A. No, sir. He did not.

Q. Officer Riske never mentioned to you that O.J. Simpson was
involved?

A. No, sir.

Q. You never heard that from him?

A. No, sir, I didn't.

Q. And so if he testified to that, he'd be incorrect, true?

A. Far as I remember.

Q. And then you say you made some notifications, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, you were aware that it was believed that one of the victims
was Nicole Brown Simpson before you notified anybody, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And you got that from your conversation with Officer Riske?

A. That's correct.

Q. And if, in fact, you had known that it was Nicole Brown Simpson
that was the victim, you would --you would of course, notify robbery
homicide right away, true?

A. No, sir.

Q. What you did was you notified Lieutenant Spangler, correct?

A. Not first, but I did.

Q. Who did you notify first?

A. Detective Ron Phillips.

Q. You recall testifying in the criminal trial?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Go to page 14448. At page 14448, line 12 let me start at line 11. I
apologize, sir. (Reading:)

"Q. Who did you notify?

"A. I made six telephonic notifications to detectives in my command
staff. The first telephone call I made was to Detective Spangler who's
the commanding officer of West Los Angeles police detective."

Detective, does that refresh your recollection?

A. Yes, sir and I got an answering machine.

Q. So the first call you made wasn't to Ron Phillips it was to
Lieutenant Spangler, right?

A. The first notification I made was to Ron Phillips.

Q. Okay. That wasn't a notification?

A. Not in person. It was a tape machine.

Q. Well, none of yours -- strike that. Then you notified, after you
got the tape machine, then you called Ron Phillips?

A. I believe that's correct, yes.

Q. The first person that you tried to get a hold of was Lieutenant
Spangler, yes or no?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, then after you got a hold of Ron Phillips, you told him about
the situation, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you indicated to Detective Ron Phillips that you had what you
believe was a very high profile case, correct?

A. I believe I did, yes.

Q. And you told him that because you believed that Nicole Brown
Simpson was one of the victims, true?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you knew that then? That is when you talked to Ron Phillips.
Correct?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Now, then you phoned Captain Kurth, did you not?

A. I believe that's correct, yes.

Q. How long were you -- who's Captain Kurth?

A. At the time he was the area commanding officer, the captain of the
west L.A. area.

Q. All right. And he was one of the higher-ups that you had to notify
because this was, in fact, a high profile case, correct?

A. He would be notified on any homicide, sir.

Q. And you indicated to him, did you not, that one of the victims was
Nicole Brown Simpson, true?

A. I believe I did, yes.

Q. All right. And then you next phoned assistant commanding officer of
operations, west Bureau commander Bushey, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And after you talked to -- how long were you on the phone to him? A
minute? Minute and a half. Somewhere in there?

A. Possibly, so, yes.

Q. And so Kurth and Bushey approximately three, four minutes, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you found Ron Phillips which when you talked to, he was in bed,
true?

A. I don't remember. More than likely.

Q. I mean, you're talking -- we're talking after. o'clock in the
morning, aren't we?

A. It was around 1 o'clock, yes.

Q. And the phone calls and notifications you made to Spangler,
Phillips, Kurth, Bushey, Frankel and Lieutenants, I believe Coon.
Ideal those were all made one call after the other?

A. That is correct.

Q. All right. And when you made those toes calls, you then, after you
talked to commander Bushey, you talked to chief deputy Frankel, did
you not?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, deputy chief Frankel at this time indicated to you that he
wanted robbery homicide Division to be involved, true.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Hearsay. Outside the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: On what grounds?

THE COURT: Hearsay.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) From that telephone conversation, you were aware
yourself that robbery homicide division was to be called, true?

A. No, sir.

Q. You talked to commander -- I'm sorry you talked to deputy chief
Frankel about 1:15, did you not?

A. Yes, possibly, sir.

Q. And Detective Frankel gave you an order at 1:15 in the morning to
transfer the case downtown to robbery homicide division, true or
untrue?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Hearsay. Relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) At 1:15 in the morning, you were aware that the case
was to be transferred to robbery homicide, division, yes or no?

A. No.

Q. You did not relay any transfer of the case from 1:15 in the morning
until 2:10 in the morning to robbery homicide division; isn't that
true, sir?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Hearsay. Relevance.

THE COURT: Excuse me.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer yes or no.

THE WITNESS: Would you please repeat the question?

MR. BAKER: You were in receipt of an order to transfer the case?

THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. That wasn't the question you
asked. But if that's the question you're going to ask, it would be
hearsay.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) were aware you were required to transfer the case,
that is the double homicide at 875 south Bundy from West L.A. to
robbery homicide division at 1:15 in the morning, true?

A. No, sir. But if you would like me to tell you what Frankel told me,
it might clear this up.

Q. I've been getting objections.

THE COURT: Don't look at me. I'm not the one objecting.

MR. BAKER: I'm looking at you. You're the one sustaining them.

THE COURT: Can't help it. (Laughter.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, let's talk a little bit about robbery homicide
division, that's division downtown at Parker center, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And if robbery homicide division takes over a case, whether it be
in West L.A. or Van Nuys or wherever, then, the detectives from that
area and any other police officers are to stay clear of the crime
scene, true?

A. No, sir.

Q. They're not to go into the area of the crime scene. They're not to
destroy or to in any way, touch or interfere with any evidence,
correct.

MR. MEDVENE: Improper hypothetical. It's been asked and answered
previous -- it's a previous question and answer.

THE COURT: The answer was no. Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, is it your testimony, then, that if in fact
robbery homicide division was taken over, it would be perfectly all
right for Detective Fuhrman and Phillips to go into the condominium,
to go into the crime scene where the victims' bodies were?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Argumentative. Assumes facts not in evidence.
Lack of foundation.

THE COURT: You may lay a foundation.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That's okay. Now, I want to go back to robbery
homicide for a moment and is it -- strike that.

When robbery homicide takes over a case, they then have authority over
the crime scene?

A. Yes, sir, that's correct.

Q. And in this case, you received -- Strike that.

Let me just read what you testified to at the criminal trial.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. It's argument.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: On what grounds?

THE COURT: Well, you can ask him a question but you can't just read
from his transcript without some basis.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You were aware of an order at 1:15 in the morning
that you didn't effectuate until 2:10 in the morning by transferring
the jurisdiction over the Nicole Brown Simpson murder to robbery
homicide division, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection.

THE WITNESS: That wasn't the order that I received.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: You may answer yes or no.

MR. BAKER: You want to answer the question?

THE WITNESS: Would you ask it again, please, because --

MR. BAKER: May the reporter read it, Your Honor?

(The question was read as follows:)

"Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You were aware of an order at 1:15 in the morning
that you didn't effectuate until 2:10 in the morning by transferring
the jurisdiction over the Nicole Brown Simpson murder to robbery
homicide division, correct?"

THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection as compound. You may ask
that in two pieces.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you tell Detective Ron Phillips that the case
was going to be transferred to robbery homicide division at any time
before walkway 2:10 in the morning of the 13th?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And as I understand it, Detective Rossi, at that time, what time
did you tell Detective Ron Phillips that RHD was going to take over
the case?

A. After he had responded to the scene. So it was probably around
2:30.

Q. Okay. Now, you said after robbery homicide responded to the scene
or after he had responded?

A. After he had responded to the scene.

Q. Okay. Now, at 1:15 in the morning is when you had the conversation
with Deputy Chief Frankel, right?

A. At approximately 1:15, yes.

Q. And you then left west Los Angeles police station at 1:20?

A. Possibly around 1:15, 1:20, yes.

Q. So after you talked to Lieutenant Constance Dial, you left the
police station?

A. Captain Dial.

Q. I'm sorry, Captain, I apologize.

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And you drove directly to 875 south Bundy?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you got to 875 south Bundy, you took the tour of the crime
scene that you told us about, true?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then you went out front. You went back from the back of the --
Strike that. Did you ever see -- did you ever see officer Terrazas?

A. Yes, sir, at the rear location.

Q. Did you talk to him?

A. I don't remember if I did or not.

Q. But you saw him there?

A. Yes.

Q. And did he see you?

A. I'm sure he did.

Q. And there was Officer Coon, Sergeant Coon and Officer Riske,
correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. The three of you and Terrazas were all there in the back and opened
the gate, right?

A. No. The gate was open by Officer Riske and he and I walked down the
pathway a few feet.

Q. Which way did he open the gate?

A. As I recall, he opened it out.

Q. Towards himself?

A. That's what I remember, yeah.

Q. When I -- when you walk up there to the gate, was the gate in a
closed position that required him to open it and pull it towards him?

A. I don't remember.

Q. You have no recollection?

A. I don't remember what position the gate was in.

Q. You don't know if it was open, closed? You do remember that he
pulled it towards him?

A. That's possible. I'm not sure.

Q. Do you have a recollection? I don't want to put words in your
mouth. You said that if you have a recollection, state it. If not,
state that.

A. I don't have a recollection.

Q. All right. Then you walked down the walkway on the north side of
the condominium, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Came back the same way you entered, true?

A. True.

Q. To the alley portion of the property, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And then did you stay there and talk to anybody?

A. Not that remember.

Q. Exited from there and went directly back down to Dorothy and around
to Bundy in front of 875?

A. Yes. Yes, sir.

Q. And how long were you there before you talked to anybody else?

A. I waited for detectives.

Q. You waited for detectives. That would be Phillips and Fuhrman?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, Phillips and Fuhrman arrived approximately when?

A. I don't remember exactly. Possibly somewhere between 2 o'clock and
2:30.

Q. And then you did the same thing with them. Took them up to the area
where the victim's bodies were and then walked around to the back
portion?

A. Yes, sir. Same thing.

Q. Now, to your knowledge, had anybody come out of the housing through
the house and come out the back way?

A. I'm not sure what you mean, sir.

Q. Fair enough. To your knowledge, had anybody come out the back of
the condominium into the alleyway from inside the property?

A. No.

Q. Garage door was down?

A. Open.

Q. Was it your understanding the garage door was open when the crime
scene was discovered?

A. I didn't know.

Q. Now, after you did that with detective Fuhrman, you hadn't received
-- and Phillips -- strike that.

You hadn't received, all the time you were at the crime scene, you
hadn't received any communications from anybody, did you? From the
outside? From robbery, homicide, from deputy chief Frankel, from
commander Bushey; you hadn't received any communications, had you?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. When did you receive communication?

A. After I went from the rear to the front and while I was waiting for
the detectives.

Q. When you were waiting for the detectives, you received a call from
whom?

A. Captain Dial arrived and she had a cellular phone and we received a
call from Commander Bushey.

Q. Now, did you receive any communications from deputy chief Frankel
while you were on the location?

A. No, sir.

Q. All right. Now, you made this tour with Detectives Fuhrman and
Phillips after they arrived did you not?

A. That's correct.

Q. And after they had arrived, you had taken them and seen the
victim's bodies then he walked around the back and gone all through
the house, true?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Beyond the scope the whole area.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Would you say -- I don't understand what your saying, all
through the house. Are you saying both of the men are at the house?

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Both of them enter the house.

Q. I'm saying both of them entered the house and they were gone from
your view for 10 minutes, 15 minutes?

A. Ron Phillips didn't even enter the house but Mark Fuhrman did.

Q. Anybody go with Mark Fuhrman?

A. I don't remember, possibly Lieutenant Spangler. I don't remember.

Q. As you sit here now, you have no recollection of anybody going in
the property; that is in the back door, through the garage, in the
back door in the living portion of the house with mark Fuhrman? He
weren't by himself as far as you recall?

A. Seems like he went with somebody else but I don't remember who.

Q. You don't have a recollection of who this somebody else is, right?

A. Not exactly, no.

Q. And when Mark Fuhrman was in the house for ten or -- ten or 15
minutes, he came out. Is that when you told him that both Phillips and
Fuhrman were off the case and RHD was taking over?

A. I never told anyone that, sir.

Q. Let me read from your testimony, 14479, starting at line 19.

MR. PETROCELLI: Ron, one second. Okay.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) (Reading:)

"Q. Now, after Detective Phillips and Fuhrman and Officer Riske all
came out of the condominium through the garage, what happened next?

"A. At that point, that is when I had a conversation with Detective
Phillips. I told him I had spoken to chief -- to Deputy Chief Frankel.
Chief Frankel informed me that if it was -- it was determined that the
victim was, in fact, Nicole Brown. Simpson, he wanted Detective
Phillips to notify Robbery-Homicide."

Correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you knew that the victim was Nicole Brown Simpson from 12:30 in
the morning, correct?

A. No, I did not.

Q. And you didn't testify to that here this afternoon that you knew
from 12:30 in the morning after you had been notified that it was
Nicole Brown Simpson who us what the victim, you didn't testify to
that this afternoon; is that right, sir?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. There. Okay. Now, then, at that point, Phillips and Fuhrman were
off the case, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Vague, ambiguous, "off the case."

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) After the phone call by Phillips to RHD they had no
more authority over the case, true?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Assumes a fact not in evidence; lack of
foundation; vague and ambiguous.

THE COURT: Lay a foundation.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Was it your understanding that after the phone call
was made, that they had -- that is, Fuhrman and Phillips, had no more
authority over the crime scene?

A. That is not my understanding.

Q. They still had authority over the crime scene, as far as you were
concerned?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Now, you had knowledge of the chief's order to have them
call robbery/homicide long before you told them to call
robbery/homicide, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And the chief gave you an order at 1:15 in the morning, and you
forgot the chief's order until after Mark Fuhrman and Ron Phillips had
toured the entire crime scene and come out of the interior of the
condominium, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: Page 14567, line 19 --

MR. PETROCELLI: Can you give us that again?

MR. BAKER: Sure. 14567, lines 19 through 22.

MR. PETROCELLI: One second.

MR. BAKER: (Reading from transcript.)

"Q. Did she give" --

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, Mr. Baker.

I don't think it's proper to read this testimony, Your Honor. The
witness has answered the question and you have sustained our
objection.

THE COURT: I don't think there's a question pending.

MR. MEDVENE: I think Mr. Baker is going to purport to read testimony
that the witness has given.

MR. BAKER: All right. Let's start back and see if we can get it.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The order to have Phillips call robbery/homicide
division was an order that you were given at 1:15 in the morning,
correct?

A. What Chief Frankel told me, sir.

Q. Can you answer my question yes or no?

A. That is not correct, no.

Q. And the chief didn't give you an order to have Phillips call
robbery/homicide, right?

A. Gave me some instructions.

Q. And those instructions indicated to you that this case was to be
transferred to RHD; true or untrue?

A. True, if it was confirmed that the victim was Nicole Simpson.

Q. And that had been confirmed to your satisfaction before you ever
left West L.A. Police Station at 1:15 in the morning, correct?

A. No, sir, that's not correct.

Q. All right. So when was it purportedly confirmed to you, Sergeant
Rossi, that it was Nicole Brown Simpson?

A. It was never confirmed to me, sir.

Q. It was never confirmed. Okay.

So regardless of whether it was confirmed to you or not, you then had
Detective Phillips phone RHD at approximately 2:10 to 2:30 in the
morning, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that was not until after they had gone through the area where
the victims' bodies were located, they had then gone around and gone
into and out of the living quarters of Nicole Brown Simpson, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance, materiality, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And that's when you decided to relay the information
that Chief Deputy Frankel had given you at 1:15 in the morning, after
they'd toured the entire crime scene, true?

A. After about ten minutes they got there, right.

Q. And in that ten minutes -- strike that.

Could you have left a message for them at West L.A. that you were
going to see whether or not it was Nicole Brown Simpson's body, and if
so, RHD was going to take over the case?

You could have done that before you left couldn't you?

A. No.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection --

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In fact, you could have called back to West L.A.
because you were at the crime scene at 1:25, which was 45 minutes
before either Fuhrman or Phillips arrived, and tell them that RHD
would take over the case. You could have done that, too, couldn't you?

A. No, sir.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Argumentative on what the witness could or
couldn't have said.

THE COURT: Sustained. Answer stricken.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you stayed at the crime scene until 4:10 to
4:15?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And until you told Phillips to call RHD, Phillips and Fuhrman were
in charge of the crime scene?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And after you told them to call RHD, they were no longer in charge
of the crime scene, correct?

A. No, sir.

Q. That's when -- well, did Fuhrman continue to "detect," if that's a
word, between two -- after you told him, and the time of 4 o'clock in
the morning, to your knowledge.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Foundation, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, I'm going to sustain this line of questioning. We
already went through this, and I sustained the objection about 12
minutes ago.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, at 5 o'clock -- strike that.

At 4:15, you went -- 4:10 to 4:15, you went back to West L.A.?

A. Yes.

Q. And you got a hamburger or something on the way back?

A. Yes.

Q. You were there about 5 o'clock?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that's when you got a call from Phillips?

A. Yes.

Q. And Phillips wanted the phone number of Mr. Simpson's --

A. Yes.

Q. -- residence?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You had -- before you ever left West L.A., you had seen both of the
Simpson children in the West L.A. police station?

A. Are you saying before I left the station?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. You had never seen either of the Simpson children before you left?

A. As I recall, I didn't see them until I got back. I may be mistaken.

Q. Page 14450, line 17.

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. Objection. Relevance, materiality, when he saw
the children. And its also beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I want to be heard on that.

THE COURT: Okay.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.)

MR. BAKER: Obviously, credibility is always an issue. But he will
testify that he spent 50 minutes going to Westec, trying to get O.J.
Simpson's phone number, when the kids were right down in the same
police station at 5 o'clock.

Further, he was already told by Riske that O.J. Simpson was Sydney's
father. And that's testimony from Riske this morning.

MR. PETROCELLI: It was stricken.

MR. MEDVENE: It's way beyond the scope on direct examination, and I
don't think it has any relevance.

THE COURT: Well, what is the relevance?

MR. BAKER: The relevance is, as I say, credibility is always an issue.
That he was supposed to have transferred this case at 1:15 in the
morning, and if he transferred it, Phillips and Fuhrman could never
have gotten to the scene.

THE COURT: Well, what is the relevance of this witness? I don't know
why he was called in the first place.

MR. MEDVENE: The relevance of the witness, Your Honor, we're just
saying before Fuhrman got there, seeing just the one glove and seeing
certain blood on the back gate, before Fuhrman got there -- but
mainly, the one glove.

THE COURT: Sustained. The objection on relevance, I don't see what the
relevance of this cross-examination has to that aspect of the case.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of
the Jury.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Is it your testimony, Sergeant Rossi that Officer
Riske never told you that he had asked Sydney Simpson if O.J. Simpson
was her father?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance, materiality.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you ever see Mark Fuhrman pick up a glove at the
crime scene?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever see anybody move the glove at the crime scene?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever see anybody move the envelope at the crime scene?

A. No.

Q. After the notification to RHD, did you ever see Fuhrman or Phillips
go back into the residence?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Did Fuhrman, when you saw him go into the residence, stay in the
residence or not?

A. Did he stay in the residence?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Vague; ambiguous in terms of time.

MR. BAKER: I'll be happy to rephrase it.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You made your own tour of the crime scene with
Sergeant Coon and Officer Riske, you testified, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then you waited until Mark Fuhrman and Ron Phillips to get the
crime scene, and then you made a similar tour with them, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you watched Mark Fuhrman go into the house?

A. Through the garage, yes, sir.

Q. Did you ever see him come out?

A. I believe I did.

Q. How long was he in there?

A. I don't remember. Short period of time.

Q. Ten to fifteen minutes?

A. I don't think it was that long.

Q. But you saw him come out?

A. I believe I did.

Q. Did you see Lieutenant Spangler go into the house while you were
there?

A. No.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance, materiality, and the outside the
scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: On which ground?

THE COURT: Both.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, did you ever see Spangler come out of the
house?

MR. MEDVENE: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I want to be heard again? I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Okay.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.)

MR. BAKER: One of the assertions is that Fuhrman was within the
custody of police officers that whole time, didn't have the
opportunity to plant the glove. And I think we've got to be given
latitude to examine these people about where Fuhrman was and where he
wasn't.

THE COURT: There is no testimony or evidence that any glove was
planted inside the condominium. There is no testimony or anything to
indicate he was in the condominium. Nothing was in the condominium.

MR. BAKER: Judge, your ruling precludes me from showing that they went
into the condominium.

THE COURT: Was there any evidence that there was blood in there?

MR. BAKER: I don't have any evidence that there was blood or wasn't
blood. All I know is, they went into that condominium and they set it
up as a command center. And we have testimony that Fuhrman was in
there and doing his notes. And we have that Fuhrman didn't come out,
and we have that Spangler went in there.

Now, I think the fact that the glove could have been in there -- I
don't know where the glove was when it was purportedly found at my
client's house and there was the drop of blood around it -- there was
a drop of blood. And the area, there wasn't a drop of blood any place,
that no -- that glove could have been in that house and picked up and
taken from there. And I should be given some latitude to find out
where he was and where he wasn't.

THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of
the jury.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, when you saw Detective Fuhrman, when you met
him at the corner of Dorothy and Bundy, did he have a coat on?

A. I don't believe he did, sir.

Q. When you were in the back, is it your testimony that the whole time
you were with Detective Fuhrman, he did not have a coat on at all?

A. I don't remember if he put one on.

Q. Do you have any recollection of him going to get a duty coat and
put one on?

A. No, sir, I don't.

Q. And your recollection is, when he got out of the car, he didn't
have a coat on, right?

A. As far as I remember, yes.

Q. Now, did you see Detective Roberts at any time when you were at the
back of the house?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you see Detective Roberts at any time at the crime scene?

A. Front of the house, yes, sir.

Q. When did you first see Detective Roberts?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Beyond the scope of direct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You may answer. Go ahead.

A. I saw Detective Roberts after I had come -- or returned to the
front of the house.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) From your initial trip?

A. No, sir, from the the second trip, the trip with the two
detectives.

Q. About 2:30, 2:40?

A. That would possibly be very close.

Q. You ever see them again?

A. Well, he was there.

Q. Did you ever see him at the scene again? Was he there the whole
time, till you left at 4:15?

A. Yes, he was.

Q. And you saw him just before you left the scene at 4:15, correct?
That is, Detective Roberts?

A. I don't remember if I saw him then, sir.

Q. You have a recollection of the last time you saw him?

A. No, I don't.

Q. How many officers were at the scene when you left between 4:10 and
4:15, approximately?

A. Several. I don't remember how many, sir.

Q. In excess of 20?

A. Not that many.

Q. Fifteen, twenty?

A. Excuse me. You mean uniformed officers?

Q. No.

A. Anybody?

Q. Anybody employed by LAPD.

A. I would say less than 20.

Q. And were the two most senior people at the time you left, Vanatter
and Lange?

A. I did not see Vannatter, but Lange was there.

Q. So Lange got there before Vannatter?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you have known Lange from before?

A. No, sir.

Q. You met him that night?

A. Didn't meet him, saw him.

Q. And somebody told you that was Lange?

A. I knew it was.

Q. All right. And then the next, before RHD became involved in the
crime, that would be senior and in charge of the crime scene, would
have been Fuhrman and Phillips, right?

A. Detective Spangler. Actually, he's a lieutenant.

Q. In charge of the actual detective work at the crime scene, you'd
have Vannatter, Lange, and then Fuhrman and Phillips?

A. Yes.

MR. BAKER: I don't have anything further at this time.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, there's one exhibit we want to get
from the jury room. It's a board.

(Counsel displays large poster board.)

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE:

Q. I put on the board, Detective Rossi, what's been marked as
Plaintiffs' 80. And I ask you to come down to the board.

MR. BAKER: Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. MEDVENE: May we be heard?

THE COURT: All right.

MR. MEDVENE: Mr. Baker, in his questioning, implied that there was
some deception in the photographs shown to this witness and in terms
of the blood on the rear gate. And we want to direct his attention to
the board, which shows certain photographs that were taken on June 13.

Mr. Baker asked him if there were any photographs taken on June 13, as
I remember it, that reflect the blood on the back gate, and weren't
these photographs that he was shown taken at a different day, which
they were.

We want to show him the board, which has both photographs taken June
13 and July 3, and we want to ask him whether or not the blood drop
can be identified in which 115 appears -- does it actually appear on
the blowup of a blowup taken on June 13. That's the basis of the
question.

THE COURT: I don't even understand what you said.

MR. MEDVENE: What we said was, Your Honor, that when Mr. Baker
questioned the witness about the blood drop 115, he asked him whether
or not that picture was taken on June 13, and wasn't it really taken
several weeks later.

And we want to show the witness a picture that was taken June 13 and
ask him if the blood drop identified where 115 appears is the same
blood drop as appears in a blowup of the pictures taken on June 13.

THE COURT: Have you a picture of the same scene taken on the 13th?

MR. MEDVENE: Yes, sir. And we have a blowup.

THE COURT: Let me see it.

MR. MEDVENE: You want to see it?

THE COURT: Yeah.

(Pause in the proceedings.)

MR. MEDVENE: These pictures that were on the board are Exhibit 719.
This is a distance shot, the one in my left hand. The other two are
close-ups that were blown up.

One of the close-ups that we have on the board purports to show a spot
in the position of 115. When the pictures were originally taken June
13, they weren't taken for purposes of showing the blood. What we did
was take one of the original pictures that was shown to be blown up.
The blow-up, along with the other pictures, is what's on the board.
And the blowup, the June 13 picture shows the spot that, on July 3, is
marked with the property marker 113 -- excuse me -- 115. And that's
all we wanted to show him.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, if we do this --

MR. MEDVENE: I'm not saying it clearly enough.

The pictures that I have as 719 were taken June 13. The one in the
middle is a blowup. That blowup purports to show the blood spot. The
July is marked 115. That's it in a nutshel.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I'll be -- if we do this --

THE COURT: Here excuse me.

MR. BAKER: If this is allowed I get it under . So we can do it
tomorrow or whatever you want to do.

THE COURT: I don't understand the point that you're trying to get
across.

MR. MEDVENE: The point that we're trying to get across is, this blood
--

THE COURT: Your hand is covering the transmitter.

MR. MEDVENE: Sorry, Your Honor.

The point we're trying to get across is, a blood spot appears on the
photograph that was taken June 13.

THE COURT: Is this exhibit stipulated to?

MR. MEDVENE: I believe it is. I have to look, but I believe it is.

THE COURT: Okay. We're adjourned to 8:30 tomorrow.

Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions.

Let me remind you: Do not allow yourself to be influenced by any
outside influences like newspapers television, broadcast media, or
family members or anybody else. Don't let them talk to you about this
case; don't talk to them about the case.

All right. See you tomorrow, 8:30.

MR. MEDVENE: Judge, if the Court please, if you want to hold the jury
for just --

THE COURT: Just a minute, for Mr. Baker.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, what we can do is, do it with
another witness, and we can release the witness.

THE COURT: Okay.

I just excused the jury.

MR. BAKER: Excuse them for the evening. I

don't want to excuse him yet.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of
the jury.)

THE COURT: You're ordered to return tomorrow at 8:30.

(At 4:31 p.m., an adjournment was taken until Tuesday, October 29,
1996, at 8:30 A.M.)