REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
OCTOBER 31, 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
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1996
8:30 A.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the
presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: Morning.

THE CLERK: Morning.

MR. BAKER: I'd like to place on the record that my client, Mr.
Simpson, is going to be unavailable to this court from November 12,
possibly through the end of the month, to attend the contested custody
hearings that are going on relative to his children.

I've made that representation to the plaintiffs' counsel that, if they
want to put him on, they have all next week or today and tomorrow and
whatever, but's he's available. They've known about this for a week
and a half.

I want to make it clear that he is not going to be available
subsequent to the 12th, until that proceeding is over, to be called as
a witness in this matter; and he won't be able to be present because
of the custody hearing relative to his children.

THE COURT: Did the Court in that matter indicate how long that matter
was going to go?

MR. BAKER: No, Your Honor, but it's anticipated to go at least two to
three weeks.

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, if I might --

THE COURT: You may.

MR. KELLY: No one is questioning Mr. Simpson's right to be down there
for the guardianship proceedings.

What I point out is, we shouldn't be forced to realign or alter our
order of proof in this case. And the Browns, I'm sure, would have no
objection to addressing the Court down there and making any necessary
arrangements that need to be made to allow for Mr. Simpson to be up
here at the time we might choose to call him, rather than be down
there. And I'm sure we can balance the interest of the two courts and
accommodate both proceedings at the same time, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You want to make an appearance down there for that purpose,
you certainly may.

MR. BAKER: Well, Your Honor that's not --

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. BAKER: That's not the issue. The issue is, Mr. Simpson does not
want a continuance of that matter.

He's been available, and they know it. And Mr. Kelly is representing
the Browns down there, and he knows it. And they're not going to be
able to, in my view, play one case off against the other.

He's here. He's available. They can put him on next week. And they
know that, and they have known for some period of time that he will be
in that situation from November 12.

MR. KELLY: First of all, Mr. Baker clearly knows I'm not representing
the Browns down in that matter. They have other counsel in that
proceeding.

As I indicated, we would not be asking about any continuance down
there by the counsel representing them on that or the family, just
simply a couple days off for Mr. Simpson to come up here, if need be,
and appear when we decide to call him, not put the whole case off ad
infinitum, if necessary.

THE COURT: You make your appearance down there; you make your needs
known. We'll see what happens.

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Any other matters?

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor --

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. LEONARD: If I may, we originally were asked to provide a brief on
the Fuhrman transcript issue by tomorrow.

And I talked to Mr. Gelblum, and he has agreed, if it's acceptable to
the Court, that we put that off for ten days, till the 13th of
November, if that's acceptable to you. This is an issue that wouldn't
be putting the evidence in until we begin our case, and I would ask
the Court's indulgence in that matter.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LEONARD: Thank you.

MR. PETROCELLI: One other final thing, Your Honor.

We had filed a little, short statement this morning on the Kelly Frye
issue, asking for the hearing on Tuesday, if necessary, that's
apparently the witness's only available slot to come in and testify.

THE COURT: All right. We'll set it for November 5, 8:30.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.

THE COURT: Anything else?

(No verbal response.)

THE COURT: Okay. Bring the jury.

THE BAILIFF: They're walking.

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

THE COURT: Morning, ladies and gentlemen.

JURORS: Good morning, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I understand there's been a request from the jury that we
adjourn and hour early tomorrow because some of you have religious
obligations; is that correct.

JURORS: Yes.

THE COURT: So we'll adjourn tomorrow at 3:30.

MR. BAKER: Thank you.

THE COURT: You may proceed.

MR. MEDVENE: Thomas Lange.

THOMAS LANGE, 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: Tom Lange, L-A-N-G-E.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE:

Q. Good morning, sir.

A. Morning.

Q. What is your current business or occupation?

A. I'm a private investigator, licensed by the State of California.

Q. And how long have you been so employed?

A. I've been a licensed private investigator since 1980.

However, I've been employed as one -- actually working as one for
about the last three months.

Q. And what do you do in the course of your work as a private
investigator?

A. I do criminal defense. I do some civil work. I am involved in a
death-penalty appeal case, things of that nature.

Q. What was your last previous occupation?

A. I was a police detective for the City of Los Angeles, assigned to
robbery/homicide division.

Q. And how long were you a police officer?

A. Just shy of 29 years.

Q. How long were you with the robbery/homicide division?

A. I was with robbery/homicide for approximately 18 years.

Q. You've been a police detective, or were a police detective for how
long?

A. Police detective for approximately 21 years.

Q. Were you in different units before joining the robbery/homicide
division as a detective in 1978?

A. Yes.

Q. And what units?

A. I worked central detectives homicide, central detectives robbery
section. I worked central detectives juvenile section. I've also
worked our detective headquarters division.

Q. Is there a difference in the function or type of matter that you
worked on as a homicide detective, for example, and your assignment as
a detective in the robbery/homicide division, homicide special section
for the last 15 years?

A. Is there a difference --

Q. Yes, sir,

A. -- in the nature of the cases handled, as opposed to other
assignments?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes. Robbery/homicide division is a so-called specialized division
that handles high-profile cases, time-consuming cases: Things such as
serial killings, multiple killings, things that tend to take more time
to investigate because the -- the fact of the matter is that, among
the 18 geographical divisions, those units are inundated; and in the
specialized division, you're afforded more time to actually work those
types of cases.

Q. Did there come a time that you became involved in the investigation
of a double murder that occurred at 875 South Bundy on June 12, 1994?

A. Yes.

Q. And when was that?

A. That was -- I was notified by telephone approximately 3:00 a.m. on
June 13, 1994.

Q. As a result of your being notified by telephone, what did you do?

A. I responded to the location at 875 South Bundy. Arrived there, I
believe, at approximately 4:20 or 4:25 a.m.

Q. And what did you do when you arrived?

A. I -- after parking my vehicle, I approached my supervisor,
Lieutenant John Rodgers, who was standing on Dorothy, in front of the
location, along with my partner at the time, Phil Vannatter. They were
standing with two other detectives.

I approached them, and my partner I believe -- Lieutenant Rodgers
introduced me to Detective Phillips, and after that, Detective
Fuhrman.

Q. Did you receive any instructions in terms of what your role was to
be in the investigation?

A. Yes; I was to understand we were going to take over the
investigation from these two detectives who worked the geographical
unit.

And my partner, Vannatter, suggested that Phillips take me on a
walk-through of the location, to familiarize myself with what they
had.

Q. From the time robbery/homicide became responsible for the
investigation, what was the role of the West Los Angeles police
officers and detectives to be?

A. They were to stand by to assist us in any way that we deemed
necessary.

Q. And from time to time, did you call upon them to assist you in the
course of your Investigation?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you meet at the scene, any officers from West Los Angeles?

A. Yes.

Well the detectives, Phillips and Fuhrman, and there were several
other West Los Angeles officers there to secure the perimeter.

Q. Now, had you ever met Detective Phillips before?

A. No.

Q. Had you ever spoken to him before?

A. No.

Q. Had you ever met Detective Fuhrman before?

A. No.

Q. Had you ever spoken to him before?

A. No.

Q. Did you meet officers Riske and Terrazas?

A. Not at that time.

Q. Had you ever met either of them before?

A. No.

Q. Did you receive a walk-through of the crime scene?

A. Yes, with Detective Phillips.

Q. And after the initial walk-through, did you have occasion to go
through a number of other walk-throughs and conduct a survey of the
property?

A. Subsequently, yes

MR. MEDVENE: Approach, Your Honor, to put up a board?

(Counsel approaches board, displays blow-up labeled 875 South Bundy
walkway.)

MR. MEDVENE: Can we have the pointer.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) With the Court's permission, Officer Lange, would
you please approach the board.

I have in front of you what's been marked Exhibit 2057. You see it has
a series of pictures on it and has a schematic to the left.

Could you first address the schematic and describe that for me.

A. This is a schematic.

On the left -- this is to scale -- is the basic floor plan at Bundy,
completed by an LAPD surveyor by the name of Howard Huckland.

The scale you see off to the left here, the front here, Bundy Drive at
the bottom of the alley, at the top -- west is at the top; east is at
the bottom; south is to your left; and north is to your right.

Q. And are the distances marked out on the left-hand side of the
schematic?

A. Yes that's to scale.

Q. Just give the ladies and gentlemen of the jury a brief feel --
could you give some idea of the distance from the alleyway to the
front of the residence, and some idea of where the walkway area comes
in, just so they can have a feel for it?

A. Well, the scale gives us 170 feet from the zero, of course, all the
way down to Bundy Drive. So this would be 170 feet.

Again, the front gate is here, and this is the walkway leading into
the residence.

And this is the walkway that goes along the north side of the
residence, all the way -- all the way down, all the way through to the
alley.

Q. Now, let's start at the bottom picture, which is Exhibit 36.

(The instrument herein referred to as a Photograph of walkway at crime
scene and close-up view of the body of victim Nicole Brown Simpson,
was marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 36 for identification.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And that's a picture looking from where?

A. That's a picture looking from, I believe, possibly the parkway here
on Bundy in a westerly direction, to the front gate area.

It also depicts the victim lying at the foot of the steps.

Q. How was the lighting that early morning when you arrived?

A. The lighting there was -- I believe there's, like, four Malibu
lights down here. And I believe two of them were operating, but they
were extremely dull.

That, combined with the vegetation, they were very difficult to see in
the light there.

There was another lamp in this area that was projected straight up, as
if to cast light on the wall, and perhaps the numbers 875, here.

Out here in the street, there was and overhead illumination; however,
the foliage here was so thick that it blocked any illumination down in
this area.

So while there was some light, I would say it wasn't -- there wasn't a
great view.

Q. Difficult to see, walking on the street?

MR. BAKER: Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you describe whether it was easy or difficult
to see, if you were on the sidewalk, looking in?

A. If one were to look directly west, specifically looking down here,
you'd certainly see this.

MR. BAKER: Move to strike as nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled. Finish your description.

A. However, one just walking down the street, I would think that
because of the thick foliage here, to begin with, you wouldn't see
anything here until you walked right up on this. Then you would have
to turn to it, like a 90-degree turn to your right, to see anything
here because of this thick foliage, if one were walking down the
sidewalk.

If one were walking the other way, you'd possibly be more apt to see
something going north in this direction, than you would going south,
because again, this heavy foliage is right in this area here; and so
this is almost blind until you walk up on the walkway.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, if we can go up to the second picture from
the bottom -- that's Exhibit 46 -- And tell us what that is.

(The instrument herein referred to as a Photograph, close-up view of
bloody shoe print, was marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 46 for
identification.)

A. That's the walkway just above the steps here that you see, just
above these steps. It's this area back in here.

This is the corner of the building, corner of the condominium, should
be the northeast corner.

This is the walkway going straight up to the front, to the front door,
looking west.

Here we had what appeared to be bloody shoe prints, moving to the
west.

There's also depicted here what turned out to be a blood drop. That's
at the corner of this condominium right here, was the first of four
that we located on this walkway.

Q. Now, if we go to the picture above that one, or the second picture
from the top -- that's Exhibit 47.

Does that continue your walk-through?

A. It's kind of a glare in here.

Yes; these are the three steps leading up to the front door that you
see here in the schematic. The front door is just off to the left
here, as depicted on the schematic.

Again, you can see what appear to be bloody shoe prints leading toward
that direction.

You see a little more of the steps in that one.

Q. And let me take you to the top picture of 719. What is that?

A. This is, again, in the walkway toward the rear, looking westerly.
It's looking out towards the alley that is right -- this stairwell
going up in the west is depicted right here, alongside the laundry
room of the schematic.

Here's the rear gate. Again, this is looking westerly. And that's
right in this these steps depicted right here.

Q. All right. What we're going to do now, Mr. Lange, is place a number
of exhibits on the television screen of the walkway area from the
front of the property to the back. In other words, approaching through
another direction.

I have another series of pictures. I'm going to ask to you describe
each one, if you would.

A. Okay.

Q. Would you put on the board Exhibit 32, please.

MR. PETROCELLI: TV.

MR. MEDVENE: Would you put on the TV, Exhibit 32.

(The instrument herein referred to as Front view of Bundy - photo of
walkway with body of victim Nicole Brown Simpson, was marked
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 32 for identification.)

THE WITNESS: Can we go ahead?

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Yes. If you would, walk over.

A. This is a photograph looking west up the walkway, and this is the
front of the location.

One of the victims is shown here at the foot of the stairs. And this
is how I recall the scene the morning that I arrived.

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, Your Honor. Would it be possible to dim the
lights a little bit, if that makes it easier for the jury. I don't
know if it will or not.

THE COURT: Can you see?

JURORS: (Nod affirmatively)

THE COURT: Do you have any problems seeing? (Indicating to jurors)

JUROR: I can't see very well.

THE COURT: All right; dim the lights.

JUROR: Oh that's better.

THE COURT: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And when we go through, maybe you can generally
relate the picture on the TV screen to the diagram on the schematic in
terms of approximately where we are in comparing.

A. Okay.

Q. So we talked a bit about Exhibit 32 and what you saw.

And could you just point out where on the schematic that would be.

A. Okay. Again, this photo appears to be taken from the parkway area,
which would be right here. It's taken in a westerly direction.

And what you're looking at here is the front gate, that's here, and
these steps going up right here.

Q. Okay. Go to Exhibit 91, please.

A. 91 is a close-up, much closer than the previous photograph. And
again, you're looking at the same area. It's the steps right in front.
And that's one of the victims lying there.

The gate here is open; it's -- the gate is wide open. That's basically
it.

(The instrument herein referred to as Close-up photo of the crime
scene and body of victim Nicole Brown Simpson, was marked Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 91 for identification.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Go to Exhibit -- excuse me. The other victim was
found where, if you could point at it?

A. The other victim was found off to the right, here. It's behind a
metal rung fence, behind that fence and off to the right.

Q. Exhibit 38, please.

Is that the area you were just pointing to?

A. Yes, that's the second victim.

This photo is looking down in a north by northwesterly direction. And
it is right in this area here, adjacent and just to the north of the
walkway and these steps going up, right in this area.

(Indicating to schematic.)

Q. Exhibit 43, please.

(Exhibit 43 displayed.)

A. That's a photograph looking directly down on the front steps. That
photograph depicts these three steps here.

And to the right of the photograph, at the foot of the steps, you see
one of the victims.

Looking directly down at this photo, directionally north would be to
the top of the photograph.

Q. Put on Exhibit 45, please.

A. Exhibit 45 depicts what turned out to be bloody shoe prints.

This is the walkway above the steps, back up in this area. And this is
to -- the top of this photograph would be west. The walkway is going
this way towards the alley, up towards the top.

(The instrument herein referred to as Photo of steps and walkway with
bloody shoe prints, was marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 45 for
identification.)

Q. In other words, that's right at the top of the steps that we saw in
the previous photo?

A. Yeah. The steps are down in this area here.

And again, this is up in here.

(Indicating to schematic.)

Q. And the steps on the 875 south Bundy board, if you could, point to
those that we're talking about.

A. Here are the steps right here.

(Indicating to schematic.)

A. We're looking in this photograph. We're looking up in this area
here.

Q. If you went over to the picture on the 875 Bundy board, it's --

A. Below here. Below these two. Back down in this area. It's up over
here above the steps.

(Indicating to photos.)

Q. We can go to Exhibit 47, please.

(Exhibit 47 is displayed.)

(The instrument herein described as perspective photo of walkway with
bloody shoe print, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 47.)

A. This is more of an overall of the walkway. It's looking west
towards the alley.

Again, we see what appears to be bloody shoe prints leading west in
the alley. West is towards the top of the photograph. These three
steps depicted in this photograph, you see, right here. The front door
is just off to the left, we see here.

Of course, here's the corner of the condominium.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) If we can -- if we can go to 1781, please.

(The instrument herein described as a photo of walkway, marked for
identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1781.)

A. (Continuing) This is another.

Q. Is this a continuation of the walkway, walking back?

A. Yeah. This is going back. This is just off to the left. Here is the
front door -- front entrance of the condominium, which is here, barely
visible here in the lower left corner of this photograph.

But you're looking back in this direction. This is a metal gate here,
that is right before the stairs going down. That little gate would be
right here. And you're looking, again, in a westerly direction towards
the alley.

And just this portion is just beyond the front door looking west.

Q. Exhibit 54, please.

(54 is displayed.)

(The instrument herein described as a photo of a descending stairway
with a bloody shoe print, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 54.)

Q. So you're walking along flat, and then you come to some steps?

A. Yeah, there's a stairwell going down. What you see here. And that
would be right here on the schematic, down towards the flat area, off
to the left with what would appear to be a guest room here.
(Indicating.)

A. And this is the stairwell on the schematic going down that -- you
see it here. And this is in a westerly direction towards the rear
alley.

Q. If we can back up for a moment to 1781, that -- the one we have. Do
you still see footprints?

A. Yes. They're beginning to fade. But there are remnants of what
appear to be bloody shoe prints going in a westerly direction.

Q. Exhibit 54, please.

(Exhibit 54 is displayed.)

A. Here you can see, also, remnants of these bloody shoe prints going
down the stairwell.

Q. Exhibit 55.

(Exhibit 55 is displayed.)

A. Appears to be another shot of that stairwell with the -- again, the
bloody shoe prints; partial bloody shoe prints. They're beginning to
fade at this point.

Q. Exhibit 1782.

(Exhibit 1782 is displayed.)

(The instrument herein described as a photo of the Bundy walkway was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1782.)

A. This is looking directly down into this flat area here at the
bottom of the stairwell.

(Indicating to schematic)

Q. And each photo was continuing back in a westerly direction?

A. That's correct.

Q. Exhibit that's within a 2051?

(The instrument herein described as ascending stairwell, towards the
rear gate was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.
2051.)

A. This is also looking west. This is the stairwell going up towards
the rear gate, west and then the schematic that would be right here.
And again this is looking out through the rear gate to the alley
westerly.

Q. And Exhibit 2044, please?

(The instrument herein described as parking area in rear of Bundy
scene was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2044.)

A. This is a rear of the location, say parking area adjacent to the
alley which is depicted at the top here.

This parking area is shown as the driveway in the schematic at the top
here.

This photo was taken from the rear of the walkway, roughly in this
area. From in front of the rear gate, which is here, but roughly from
this area, looking west.

Q. And Exhibit 125?

(The instrument herein described as a photo of rear of Bundy with jeep
and Ferrari was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.
125.)

A. This is the rear of Nicole Brown's vehicle. The way it was found
that night.

This photograph is looking from the alley up here, back the other way,
east. Off to the left of the photograph, you see the rear gate that's
open here. And here's the walkway we've been describing to the left of
the vehicle.

Q. Have you now walked us through photos that start at the front and
go all the way through and behind the rear gate of the residence?

A. Yes.

Q. I've now placed on the board, Exhibit 87, title: "The front portion
of 875 south Bundy."

Could you first describe for us, if you could, the schematic and tell
us what that is then I'll take you through the various photographs.

A. Okay. Here's the schematic in the center of this display. It
depicts the two victims; Mr. Goldman, Ms. Brown.

Here's the front gate area. Here's the steps leading up.

We have bloody shoe prints depicted on the steps leading up. This is
the walkway in this direction, leading west.

We have various dimensions here.

In regard to the victims, this is a dirt area that meets with the
walkway right here.

We have, from the top of Ms. Brown's head, to the dirt areas, is 15
inches, as an example.

Mr. Goldman's left boot is eight inches from this walkway. We have a
tree stump that's depicted in here, which is one foot, 11 inches; some
23 inches from this retain wall.

It's a 14 inch distance from the inside of the lower rung on this
northerly fence to the lower back area of Mr. Goldman.

And then, of course, we have the photographs that have been marked
with the various items on the schematic, if you want me to get into
that.

Q. Let's take, if we could, the photo the furthest to the right as I'm
looking at it, which is Exhibit 88. Yes, sir.

(The instrument herein described as a photo of victim, Ron Goldman,
was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 88.)

A. Yes.

Q. I'll wait for that.

(Indicating to view screen)

A. That's Mr. Goldman. That photograph is taken, looking in a north by
north-westerly direction. And it shows Mr. Goldman in the position
that I first observed him here in this dirt area.

Q. We're also, as a convenience, putting the Exhibit up on the TV
screen at the same time.

If we can, move to the photo to the left of it, which is Exhibit 84,
and describe what that is and tie it into the schematic above, if you
will.

A. That's a close-up photo of a brown -- dark brown leather glove and
a dark blue knit ski cap. And if you follow into the schematic, that
was located in this area right here; the foot of Mr. Goldman's right,
where the dirt area meets with the walkway.

You also see a partial bloody shoe print in that general area. But
that's right here.

Q. That's Exhibit 89, incidentally.

Did you ever find more than, or see more than one glove at the 875
south Bundy?

A. No.

MR. BAKER: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. BAKER: Vague. Ambiguous as to when. It's vague, ambiguous as to
the foundation, if he ever searched.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) We'll go one picture to the left.

(Indicating to Exhibit 91.)

A. Again, that's the front of the location looking west on the walkway
with the victim, Brown. And you see that depicted right here in this
particular area of the schematic.

Q. The exhibit you were just looking at and pointing at was Exhibit
91.

Let me move up one to Exhibit 49?

(The instrument herein described as a photo of the bloody shoe print
was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 49.)

A. 49 is a close-up of what appears to be a bloody shoe print. Looking
at this, I believe the west -- the top would be to the west. And if
you go all the way over to the schematic, you'll see where that's
located here on the walkway.

Q. Does that schematic purport to show all of the shoe prints that you
observed on the walkway?

A. No.

Q. If we go up one photo, the top photo on the left, that's Exhibit
69. What is that?

(The instrument herein described as a photo of a red spot with card
No. 112 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 69.)

A. 69 is a blood droplet located -- that was located at the northeast
corner of the condominium with a slight trailing to the west. Right
here. And you see that depicted here in this schematic.

(Counsel displays Exhibit 69.)

Q. I've put up on the board, 2058, victims' bodies in relationship to
each other.

And the two pictures are magnetized. You can move them around if you
want. And I ask you to do that so that the picture approximates what
you saw when you were at 875 south Bundy, early morning hours of June
13?

A. Actually, it's pretty close now if you line these up. I would say
that's pretty close the way it is.

Q. Okay. Would you describe for us -- we'll go to the picture at the
top, which is Exhibit 38. And could you describe for us, the body
where it's lying in relationship to any stumps that are there or other
terrain?

A. What you have is a photograph looking down on Mr. Goldman. It's
shot in generally northerly, northwest direction. Mr. Goldman is
lying, more or less, on his right side and he's lying over a stump of
a tree approximately eight inches in diameter on his right side. His
head is, more or less, in a westerly direction at the foot of a large
tree in this area.

His feet extend out in a south by southeasterly direction.

The clothing was disheveled, as you see it here.

Q. Anything else about the body that you observed?

A. Well, there was a great deal of blood on the left leg. There was a
great deal of blood every where. There was other vegetation in this
area. The parking here is very course.

And I believe there's a little plant, a little vegetation here in the
center of the photo. There's a metal pole to the rear. I believe this
is it here. No, I believe it was over here and I think this is a
support for a young sapling tree or something.

Q. If we can go to Exhibit 43, which is the bottom photo.

(Exhibit 43 is displayed.)

A. This is a photograph looking straight down at Nicole Brown at the
foot of the steps. And, again these, of course, these two photos
together show the relationship, the overall relationship between the
two bodies.

I earlier gave you some distances. One was -- like -- as an example,
from the top of her head to the line here was 15 inches.

Actually -- could possibly bring this down a little bit here. Now,
that I look at it, yeah. Yeah. I'm more comfortable with this.

Q. Now, about how far, then, would the top of Ms. Brown's head be from
Mr. Goldman's left toe?

A. Well, I measured 15 inches. I believe it's 15. Yes.

You see here the schematic from the top of her head. This isn't to the
tenth of an inch. It's just about 15 inches in from the top of her
head to the dirt area. And again, it's another eight inches from that
area to the bottom of the left boot of Mr. Goldman.

So if you were going to go in a straight line here, you'd have just
shy of two feet; 23 inches.

Q. And from Mr. Goldman's -- trying to get a sense of how close it was
from his forehead to Ms. Brown's head?

A. Well, if you have that here, it was -- I believe you're talking
from her head here.

Q. Yeah.

A. And going this direction to his --

Q. Yes, sir.

A. I have notes somewhere. I'm guessing it was maybe about 48 inches,
46 inches; something like that.

Q. Now --

A. Actually four feet.

Q. In terms of the area where Mr. Goldman was found, you mentioned
some stumps. What's to the left of the stump? This appears to be tree
or --

A. Well, it's a tree, a large tree. And actually, when you take a
closer look, it's all one tree through but there are like three trunks
that are interwoven that have grown together.

This is vegetation coming out of the bottom of it.

Earlier, when I spoke of a stump -- You can't see it. It was beneath
Mr. Goldman, beneath his right side. But this is all kinds of like one
tree. But it's like three, three stumps in one.

Q. Going what direction over to the towards the steps?

A. Over toward the steps.

(Mr. Medvene indicates.)

Q. Going --

A. Yes. You have it on here. It's just shy of two feet. One feet, 11
inches from this trunk to the retain wall adjacent to the steps.
That's less than two feet.

But again, this is -- there's three stumps. You can see two of them
here.

Q. Now using the tree as a cutoff, what are the approximate dimensions
of the cage area that Mr. Goldman was found in?

A. Approximate dimensions, I have -- it would be approximately six
feet here. Actually, I believe it's a little smaller when you get down
here because the rungs I believe were two inches in diameter.

So this is approximately five feet, eight inches from this walkway to
this metal rung fence. And going the other way, I've got four feet,
two inches approximately from that tree, from the forward stump of the
tree to the east metal rung fence so you've got roughly six by --
little over four feet.

Q. Could you just, if you wouldn't mind, mark off for us, maybe in
this area, what six by four is?

In other words, the area where you found Mr. Goldman, just give us an
idea of exactly how small that area is?

A. Well, I'd say perhaps between the wall here and the witness stand
something like this.

(Indicating to witness stand.)

A. Maybe if you went -- this is just an approximation?

Q. Yes.

A. Maybe if you went from the corner back to maybe midway here. I
don't know. Back about here. Just about like this, roughly four by
six. It's not a big area.

(Indicating to witness stand and back wall, behind witness stand.)

Q. Was there just what appear to be -- do I understand you correctly,
one set of bloody shoe prints between the two bodies?

A. There was what appeared to be the same bloody shoe print, partial
bloody shoe prints. Again, you can see some depicted here between the
two bodies.

This heel print appears to face this way or the toe would be facing
that way. And this one this way. But there did appear to be just that
one type of design.

Q. I'm going to put another series of photos on having to do with this
area and ask if you could describe what these photos depict, and if
they depict what you saw early morning hours of June 13.

Exhibit 138, please.

(Exhibit 138 is displayed.)

(The instrument herein described as a photo of bottom of Goldman's
shoe with officer in background, was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 138.)

Q. I'm going to put this on the TV monitor. What's on the TV monitor
is Exhibit 138?

A. 13 is the bottom sole, heel portion of the left foot of Mr.
Goldman's boot.

This was taken to accentuate a blood droplet that we were interested
in on the boot. And this was taken at the scene.

Q. Exhibit 24.

(Exhibit 24 is displayed.)

Q. Let me go back to 138 for a minute.

That blood droplet you subsequently determined was who's blood?

A. That blood droplet contained a mixture of both victims.

MR. BAKER: Objection. Foundation, Your Honor; That he determined
anything about that blood droplet.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (By Mr. Medvene) Let's go to Exhibit 24. What is Exhibit 24?

A. Looks like a pager there was a pager -- I haven't seen this in a
while, recovered from the scene. That pager was located -- in fact,
you can see it right here in this photograph, below the north rung
gate.

Q. In back of Mr. Goldman's body?

A. Yes. We subsequently determined that he had been caring that pager.

Q. Going to place before you what's been marked 124 and ask you what
that is?

A. 124 exhibits -- you only you want me to go to 78 first or --

Q. Let's go with Exhibit 131 first, which is this one?

(The instrument herein described as the Bundy knit cap was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 131.)

A. Okay. Appears to be a dark blue knit cap and a brown paper bag.
Appears to be the same one that I saw at the crime scene, but I can't
say because of its condition. So, appears to be the same type.

(Indicating to bag.)

A. 77 is a left handed dark brown leather glove also with a paper bag.
The sticker on it says that it is an Exhibit.

THE COURT: That's a wrong exhibit number.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) The one you're looking at is Exhibit 12.

A. I'm referring to the number on here when I said 77. I don't know
which Exhibit you have.

Q. I understand. That's 129.

A. Okay.

(The instrument herein described as the Bundy glove was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 129.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) What is it again?

A. It's a left-handed, dark brown -- appears to be a leather glove,
with a green sticker.

Appears to be the same type of glove I observed at the scene. I can't
-- again, I have not seen it in awhile.

Q. You observed it where?

Can you point out on the schematic?

(Witness indicates to photos.)

A. Glove is right in this area here. You can see part of it.

The knit cap is right here in this area. Here. Close to the -- close
to one another.

Q. Did anyone ever report seeing more than one glove at the scene?

A. No.

MR. BAKER: Objection. Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. MEDVENE: Exhibit 717.

(Exhibit 717 is displayed.)

(The instrument herein described as photographs of Bundy Crime Scene,
Nos. 41, 93, 112 and 213 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 717.)

A. This photograph is looking down on one of the victims, Nicole
Brown, in the same position that we found her. As you can see over
here in this photograph, over to the right here would be to the north.

Q. Next picture, please. Also 717.

A. This is Mr. Goldman's photograph taken to the north. The north is
up to the top of the photograph.

Q. All right. I'm going to move away from the crime scene pictures
now. We're going to put on a number of shoe print pictures and ask if
these accurately represent what you saw June 13.

Exhibit 43 please?

(Exhibit 43 is displayed.)

A. Yes. That's the front steps again with Nicole Brown to the right.
It does in fact appear to be what I saw that morning.

Q. Could you point out -- I'm going to go through a series just to
show the various shoe print photos, and could you just point out
generally -- I'm just interested in the shoe prints?

A. I believe you have a partial right here.

Q. By right here. We're looking at what steps?

A. The lower left quadrant of the photograph, on the second step going
up.

Q. Okay. See any other shoe prints in that photo?

A. No. I'd have to take a good look here. There may be some partials
down in here. Appears to be in the lower left-hand corner. A possible
one here.

Q. Okay. Let's go to 44, please.

Exhibit 44 is displayed)

(The instrument herein described as a photo close-up of step and shoe
print was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 44.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Again, do you see any shoe prints?

A. Yes, on this step. This is the -- would it be one, two -- the third
step up. There appears to be three. One here. One here. And I don't
know if this is or not. I don't believe it is, but these two here.

Q. Okay. 45. And what I'll ask you, just on each is, do you see any
shoe prints, just to give the jurors an idea of the walkway as we walk
back?

(Exhibit 45 is displayed.)

A. Yes. Shoe prints appears to be bloody shoe prints here, here and
here.

Q. 46.

(Exhibit 46 is displayed.)

A. This is an overall -- again, appears to be down in here. Here in
this area, here, here, here going back.

Q. 47.

Exhibit 47 is displayed)

A. Again, going west in this area here, here.

Q. 48.

(Exhibit 48 is displayed.) (The instrument herein described as a photo
of bloody shoe print was marked for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 49.)

A. That's a close-up.

Q. 49.

(Exhibit 49 is displayed.)

A. That's another close-up of the overall peripheral of one of the
bloody shoe prints.

Q. 50.

(The instrument herein described as a photo of bloody shoe print was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 50.)

A. It's a pretty good heel print there, that you see here.

Q. 51.

(The instrument herein described as photo of bloody shoe print was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 51.)

A. That close-up gives you a pretty good idea of the dimension of the
size of the shoe.

Q. 52.

(The instrument herein described as a photo of bloody shoe print was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 52.)

A. Another close-up, where you can see the heel here and the front
area to the left.

Q. 53.

(The instrument herein described as a photo of a bloody shoe print was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 53.)

A. Another close-up on the walkway. The heel is to the right, lower
right.

Q. 54.

(Exhibit 54 is displayed.)

A. The rear stairwell, you can see here there's partial bloody shoe
prints going down the steps and beginning to fade.

Q. 55. Exhibit 55 is displayed.)

A. Little earlier shot, you can see here these partials going down the
stairs.

Q. 56.

(The instrument herein described as a photo of shoe print on step was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 56.)

A. Is a bit of a close-up, also of another one on the walkway.

THE COURT: You're going to hit the juror.

MR. MEDVENE: I'm sorry.

(Indicating to blow-up.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Place before you what's been marked Exhibit 67
entitled blood drops at Bundy June 13, 1994.

And like you to orient us, orient the ladies and gentlemen of the
jury, if you would, with this schematic.

And then take us through what blood drops were found from the front to
the back.

And we'll go first to Exhibit --

(The instrument herein described as a photo of Bundy blood trail was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 67.)

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object, Your Honor, as to what he found.

THE COURT: No foundation whether or not he saw --

Q. We'll go through each one and you can tell us whether or not you
saw them.

MR. BAKER: Well --

MR. MEDVENE: We'll start.

MR. BAKER: The other way.

THE COURT: Excuse me. Overruled. You may proceed.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Exhibit 69 is the drawing at the bottom right that
has the 112. Exhibit 68 is next to us.

Could you please tell us whether those two photos accurately depict
what you saw June 13, 1994?

A. They do. (The instrument herein described as a photo of the walkway
at the crime scene was marked for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 68.)

Q. Could you explain to us, first, what Exhibit 68 is?

What is the inside picture?

A. 112.

Q. Right next to 112.

(Indicating to sticker 112.)

A. This photograph, an overall -- the walkway looking west. What you
see are 112, which is a blood drop at the -- At the northeast corner
of the condominium with that little identification card and you see --
I believe it's 113.

Q. We'll deal with 113 in a minute. But staying with 112, where is 112
on the walkway?

A. 112 on the walkway is right here at the corner of the building if
you look at the schematic.

This is the overall schematic. This is east. This is west, the alley
way. North is up, south is down.

112 is the first blood drop I observed. That again was at the corner
of the condominium on the walkway.

Q. It's picture 69 which is in the corner -- a close-up of a blood
drop on 68 which is right next to it?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. If we can go up to what's been marked 70, which has the 113
tag on it and ask -- and tell us what that is.

(The instrument herein described as a photo of a red spot with #113
was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 70.)

A. 113 is more or less a close-up of another blood drop.

The second blood drop that appears on the schematic here, in the
walkway, it's a location right here.

Q. And can you tell us whether or not that picture accurately depicts
what you saw June 13, 1994?

A. It does.

Q. Let's go to the bottom row of pictures. The center picture which is
yes, sir which is Exhibit 71.

Can you describe what that is and what was found on that set of
stairs.

(The instrument herein described as a photo of stairwell at the scene
with open wrought iron gate was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 71.)

A. Yeah. There's a stairwell. There was another blood droplet that
occurred in this series. Located in this area as you look at the
overall photograph.

And of course, you see a close-up of that here in 114.

Q. And where is that blood drop on the path, if you can relate it to
the schematic?

A. The schematic is right here, as you can see, on the stairwell about
midway going down.

Q. And is 114, the drawing that has 114 on it, which is -- which is
Exhibit 72.

(The instrument herein described as a photo of a red spot with tag No.
114 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 72.)

Q. That a close-up of what you just pointed out on the stairs?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, if we can go to the top of the board to the picture that has
115 on it. That's Exhibit 74.

And could you tell us, I'd like you to look at that picture and the
picture next to it, which is 73.

(The instrument herein described as a photo of stairwell with open
wrought iron gate was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 73.)

(The instrument herein described as a photo of red spot with tag No.
115 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 74.)

Q. The staircase, yes. And tell us if you saw that scene on June 13,
1994?

A. Yes, I did. That's the fourth in this series of blood drops
depicted on the schematic in this location.

Q. When you say this location, can you just spell out for the record?

A. On the walkway at Bundy, it's inside and east of the rear gate.
Approximately the center of the walkway.

The overall of that -- you see it on the left here. And that blood
drop would be located right where that little black card is, right
where this little card is right here.

Q. In relationship to the gate, where is it?

A. Well, it's right east of and in front of the gate, middle of the
walkway. Here's your gate. Here's your rear gate right here.

Q. Um-hum?

A. Here's the blood drop right in front of it. Again, if you go down
to the schematic, here's the rear gate right here. That's where that
blood drop is, right here.

Q. We've covered four blood drops. Where was there another blood drop?

A. That was a fifth blood drop.

Q. If you would go to the two pictures on the left-hand side of the
photo as you look at it. The middle picture that has a 246 on it is
Exhibit 75. And the picture that has a 117 is 76.

And could you tell us what those pictures depict?

A. Sure. The top, one, 75, is an overall of that fifth drop of blood,
which was located on the driveway adjacent to the alley, behind the
location.

And then the bottom photo here is a close-up of that same blood
droplet. And again, that's back here on the driveway that's adjacent
to this alley.

Q. Can you tell us whether or not these pictures accurately depict
what you saw on June 13, 1994?

A. They do.

Q. So all total, there were how many blood drops down the pathway and
into the alley?

A. Four on the walkway and one in the alley, for a total of five.

Q. All right, sir. You can resume your seat for a minute.

THE COURT: Let's take a ten-minute recess.

Ladies and gentlemen, don't talk about the case. Don't form or express
any opinions.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the
presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: We are experiencing a possible medical problem with one of
our jurors, so we'll adjourn until 1:30.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you.

SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1996 1:35 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the
presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: We're proceeding at this time. The jury panel is not in the
courtroom. Counsel have had the every opportunity to speak with the
hospital and with Juror No. 367, one of the alternates.

He, at the time I spoke with him, was still at the hospital, under the
doctor's care. The Court is satisfied that he is suffering from
considerable stress, and he has asked the Court to be relieved from
further service on this case.

Counsel want to add anything?

MR. BAKER: No.

THE COURT: At this time, then, the Court is going to relive Juror No.
367.

Bring the jury in, please.

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

THE COURT: The jury has returned to the courtroom.

Ladies and gentlemen, one of your number, as you know has had to be
taken to the hospital. I spoke with him on the phone and he's resting
comfortably.

He asked to be excused, and the Court did excuse him from further
service on this case.

I'm also advised that some of you have experienced yesterday, those of
you who had to return to work, considerable pressure exerted upon you
from your co-workers and people at your workplace. Is that generally
what has been occurring?

JURORS: (Nod affirmatively)

JUROR 295: Yes.

THE COURT: For the duration of this trial, ladies and gentlemen, you
are to be considering yourself to be serving as a juror every day,
even on the days that we are dark. You are ordered not to return to
court on these days, and the jury clerk is ordered to continue paying
you your large salary of $5 a day as jurors, even on those days that
we don't actually have you sitting in the courtroom.

Okay. I think one of you jurors have indicated on your hardship
questionnaire that you were concerned about the pressures that may
arise from this case.

I am equally concerned with your well-being; so if you -- any of you
are feeling any particular stress or anxiety that you think is
affecting your health, please don't hesitate to let me know, all
right? Everyone understand.

JURORS: Yes.

THE COURT: Everybody okay so far?

JURORS: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

JUROR 265: Thank you.

THE CLERK: You are still under oath.

And would you please state your name again for the record.

THE WITNESS: Tom Lange.

THOMAS LANGE, the witness on the stand at the time of adjournment,
having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand and testified
further as follows:

THE CLERK: Okay.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. MEDVENE:

Q. Did you have occasion during your initial tour with Detective
Phillips to walk to the rear of the 875 South Bundy property?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you be good enough to show us, Detective Lange, or excuse me,
Mr. Lange, how you walked to the property.

Haven't I put up Exhibit 18?

A. This is when I initially got there the first time?

(Exhibit 18 displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Yeah.

A. This being Bundy here, I went from the front on Bundy, down to
Dorothy. We walked to the west on Dorothy, to the alley behind the
location. We went up the alley and entered the -- entered the
residence through the garage, off the alley.

Q. Okay. Sir.

Now, when you -- did there come a time when you arrived at the rear of
the residence?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Detective Phillips point out to you the rear gate of the
residence?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he make any reference to anything on the rear gate?

A. Yes.

Q. What do you recall seeing on the rear gate on June 13?

A. A reference to, and what I observed, to what I believed to be blood
on the rear gate. On the top portion, there appeared to be what might
be considered a transfer of some type of a smear, and then I believe I
saw two, what appeared to be blood droplets, on the lower inner rung
of that gate.

Q. Is there any question in your mind that what you saw on June 13
appeared to be blood?

MR. BAKER: Objection. Leading, suggestive, argumentative.

THE COURT: I'll sustain that. The witness testified he saw what
appeared to be blood.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you have occasion to visit the Bundy location
on July 3, 1994?

A. Yes.

Q. And what were the circumstances of that visit?

A. On July 3, 94, I was requested to do a walk-through with the
District Attorney's office, with the prosecutors on the case.

As a consequence, I met them at that location, and we entered through
the rear gate to do a walk-through.

Q. As a result of that walk-through, did you give certain
instructions?

A. Yes.

Q. And what were those instructions?

A. I requested a criminalist, Mr. Fung, to meet us back at the Bundy
location.

I also requested that a photographer respond to the location.

Q. Why did you give those instructions?

A. I arrived at the rear gate; I observed what appeared to be, perhaps
initially, the same blood transfer that I saw back on the 13th of
June.

I also saw --

MR. BAKER: Move to strike as speculative, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I also observed, once inside the gate, the two drops that I believe
I saw on the 13th of June, giving rise to the speculation of the
possibility that that blood had not been collected.

As a consequence, we contacted the criminalist and a photographer and
had them respond back to Bundy to check that out.

MR. BAKER: Can I have that answer reread?

THE COURT: You may.

(Record read by the reporter.)

THE COURT: Is it giving rise to speculation?

MR. BAKER: Yes, Your Honor. Move to strike.

THE COURT: Correct the record.

(Motion to strike denied.)

MR. MEDVENE: I've put up on the board what's been marked as Exhibit
80, which purports to show certain pictures taken June 13, and under
that, certain pictures taken July 3.

(Exhibit 80 displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Were you present, Mr. Lange, when the July 3
pictures were taken?

A. Yes.

Q. And what do the July 3 pictures purport to do?

A. They purport to show the blood that I observed on the rear gate on
July 3, the same blood I observed on the 13th.

Q. Are you talking about the bottom-rung pictures?

A. Yes, the lower, where it says July 3, the lower six.

Would you like me to approach?

Q. Yes.

A. These six photos, the lower six, pertain to July 3, what I
observed, and was these two blood drops.

In my mind, these were the same two blood drops that I observed on the
13th.

MR. BAKER: I object. This is nonresponsive to the question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MEDVENE: And you can resume your chair.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You're talking about blood drops 115 and 116?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, let me ask you: With respect to the picture on the board, June
13, does the picture or pictures taken on June 13 -- Strike that.
Could you tell me what are the three pictures at the top of the board
under June 13?

A. The upper left, you have an overall shot of the rear gate, shot in
a westerly direction toward the alley.

The second photo over, you have more of a close-up of the rear gate,
taken in that same general direction.

The third shot is a blowup of the second shot.

So these are essentially the same photographs. This is a blowup of
this. (Indicating)

Q. The one on the far right is a blowup of the one in the middle?

A. That's correct.

Q. Do the pictures taken on June 13 show all the blood that you recall
seeing on June 13?

A. No.

Q. And how do you explain that?

MR. BAKER: Object, Your Honor. There's no foundation for that. Calls
for speculation on the part of this witness.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: These photographs were not taken to highlight blood on
the rear gate. When we do that, they're overall photos to orient the
blood or whatever the item is. And that is a close-up to identify what
that item is being collected.

These June 13 photographs were not taken to highlight any blood on the
rear gate.

Q. Can you compare them to the ones taken on July 3 and tell me the
difference, in light of what you just said, between the ones taken
June 13 and the ones taken July 3?

A. The difference from what?

Q. In the photographs being taken specifically to highlight the blood
or not to highlight the blood.

A. Sure.

As I pointed out, whether it's blood or whatever, the item that's
being collected, generally there's first an overall orientation shot
taken of the overall area. In this case, the gate.

There's a close-up shot taken for the specific item; in this case, the
two blood drops. There can be closer shots, such as this.

Generally, you'll have a ruler there.

And this will be taken during the process of actually collecting a
piece of evidence.

Again, this is orientation farther away; the close-up is your
identification.

Q. And the photos you were pointing to as giving an example of the
close-up shots, were those the middle photo on the second row and the
third photo on the second row, or . . .

A. Yes, these two. These are the close-ups, or the identification-type
photos.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, the witness is pointing to what's
been marked as Exhibit 82. The middle photo is 83, which is the photo
on the right.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) When you finished the initial walk-through with
Detective Phillips, approximately what time was it?

A. It had to be approximately 4:45 a.m., perhaps a little later, right
in that area.

Q. What then occurred?

A. I went back out through the rear of the location, back down the
alley, back over to Dorothy, into the front of the location, where I
met with my partner, Detective Vannatter.

Lieutenant Rodgers was also there, and I believe Phillips and Fuhrman.

At that point, we discussed what to do with what we had. I made a
decision, along with my partner, to take Phillips and Fuhrman and
proceed to Mr. Simpson's residence, for a number of reasons.

Q. What were those reasons?

A. We wanted to meet Mr. Simpson.

MR. BAKER: I object, Your Honor. The reasons that this witness had,
not that we want to --

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: We felt that -- and I felt or we --

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object again. Anything that uses the word "we"
calls for hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: We felt that Mr. Simpson, down the road, would be an
integral part of this investigation, because he was either, at this
point, in our minds, divorced or separated from one of the victims.

It wasn't clear at this point which it was.

We had two minor children who had been transported to the police
station under very traumatic circumstances. We wanted to meet this
individual.

We felt that there's certainly a possibility that he could be of
assistance down the road in perhaps identifying the killers, giving us
background information on the victim.

Certainly caring for his children.

I requested that Phillips and Fuhrman accompany us.

Phillips told me that Fuhrman --

MR. BAKER: Objection to what Phillips said as hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

THE WITNESS: -- requested that they go with us.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And what was your purpose in having Detectives
Phillips and Fuhrman go with you and Detective Vannatter?

A. Number 1, they knew the area. They knew how to get there. It was
still dark; I was unfamiliar with that area; Vannatter was not
familiar with that area.

More importantly, we wanted someone to stay with Mr. Simpson after we
met him, to see to his needs, to assist him in getting his children
back, to perhaps conduct some type of preliminary interview.

I figured that perhaps there would be a another very traumatic
situation with him. We wanted someone to stay with him.

Vannatter and I were to return to the crime scene and conduct the
investigation.

I had been told that Mr. Simpson only lived a couple of miles away, so
I had intended to be back in 10, perhaps 15, 20 minutes, at the
outset.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, let me move you in time several days ahead,
and ask if there came a time when a decision was made to charge Mr.
Simpson with murder and to arrest him?

A. Okay.

Q. Was such a decision made?

A. Yes.

Q. And had arrangements been made for Mr. Simpson to surrender himself
at Parker Center at a particular time in the morning hours of June the
17th?

MR. BAKER: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Do you know whether Mr. Simpson was to surrender
himself at the Parker Center in the morning hours of June 17?

MR. BAKER: Foundation.

THE COURT: You can answer yes or no.

MR. BAKER: It's vague as to time when he knew.

THE COURT: Assume it was before it occurred.

THE WITNESS: That was my understanding.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did Mr. Simpson surrender at Parker Center on June
17?

A. No.

Q. Did you receive information that Mr. Simpson was out at Mr.
Kardashian's house?

MR. BAKER: Objection. That's hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did the police, to your knowledge, attempt --
strike that.

After Mr. Simpson did not surrender at Parker Center, did the police,
to your knowledge attempt to arrest him at Mr. Kardashian's house?

MR. BAKER: Foundation again, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained as to form.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Were you the commander in charge of the
investigation of the double murders, Detective Lange?

A. I was one of the two lead investigators, yes.

Q. Were orders given by you or Detective Vannatter, to your knowledge,
that officers should go to Mr. Kardashian's house to arrest Mr.
Simpson?

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, the objection as to what orders he gave --

THE COURT: You may ask whether he gave an order.

MR. BAKER: He asked more than that, but I have no objection to that
question.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you participate in the giving of any orders
for officers to go to Mr. Kardashian's house and arrest Mr. Simpson?

A. I did not give those orders, no.

Q. Were those orders given, to your knowledge?

MR. BAKER: Objection. That calls for hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Do you have any information whether officers went
to Mr. Kardashian's house?

MR. BAKER: Hearsay.

THE COURT: You can answer yes or no.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did they go to Mr. Kardashian's house?

MR. BAKER: Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained to that.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) What information do you have as to whether or not
officers went to Mr. Kardashian's house?

A. I received information that they had responded to his home that
afternoon.

Q. Was Mr. Simpson there?

A. No.

MR. BAKER: That's all hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Later in the day, was Mr. Simpson located?

A. Yes.

MR. MEDVENE: Where --

MR. BAKER: Just a minute, Mr. Medvene.

There's no foundation.

THE COURT: I've sustained all these objections, Mr. Baker. But if it
means we're going to have to go for the extent of calling four, five
officers to show someone went to the Simpson house, that someone
detained Mr. Simpson at some point or other. I thought this was an
effort to save time. But if it's that important to you, I'll sustain
the objections, and we'll just jump through the hoops.

MR. BAKER: I object to the Court's comments. I'm entitled to make
objections that I feel are appropriate for my client.

THE COURT: That's exactly what I said.

MR. BAKER: I don't appreciate the Court's comment. I would appreciate
that -- that I'm entitled to make objections, and I ought to be able
to do it without the Court making comments relative to my objections.

THE COURT: I made the comments. I'll stick by them.

Go ahead.

MR. MEDVENE: Yes, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Was Mr. Simpson, to your knowledge, located later
in the day?

A. Yes.

MR. BAKER: Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: He may answer yes or no.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Where was Mr. Simpson located, to your knowledge?

A. Initially, he was located -- I believe it was northbound on the 405
Freeway in Orange County.

Q. Did there come a time later on June 17, after the time he was
located, when Mr. Simpson was apprehended and arrested?

A. Yes.

Q. At the time he was arrested, were any possessions taken from him?

A. Yes.

MR. BAKER: Object. There's no foundation for this, Your Honor, unless
he was there.

THE COURT: Sustained. Answer stricken.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) To your knowledge -- Strike that.

Was Mr. Simpson's car -- Strike that.

Was the vehicle Mr. Simpson was traveling in impounded at the time of
his arrest?

A. Yes.

Q. As part of the impounding of the car, were certain items taken?

A. Yes.

Q. What items?

A. There was a .357 revolver; there was a black leather traveling bag,
containing several items; there was a cellular phone; I believe there
was a green towel involved.

Basically, I think that's it.

Q. Was the traveling bag impounded?

A. Yes. I testified to a black leather, what I call a travel bag.

Q. What -- did you examine the items that were in the traveling bag?

A. Yes.

Q. What items were in the traveling bag?

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object, Your Honor. That's asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

If he looked at the travel bag, you may inquire.

If you're just asking him to state what somebody else found,
sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I'm asking him: Did you look in the travel bag?

A. Subsequently, yes.

Q. What did you find?

A. I found what appeared to be changes of underwear; there were
numerous credit cards, and what I would term private club
membership-type cards.

There was an NFL Pro Football Hall of Fame ring; there was what I
would term a goatee and mustache disguise kit, with a receipt.

There was a passport in the name of Mr. Simpson.

I believe that was it. There might have been some other smaller items,
socks.

Q. Any --

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object and move to strike if -- it's leading
and suggestive, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: There were keys. I believe there was some kind of address
book or identifier or something, but there were keys; there were two
or three sets of keys, couple of pen knives -- at least one pen knife
on one of the key rings. And again, there were many other items. I
just -- I don't recall specifically at this time what they were.

MR. MEDVENE: Can you put up 690, please.

(Exhibit 690 is displayed)

(The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of items contained in
Mr.~Simpson's travel bag at the time he was arrested, was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 690.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) We have on the board, Exhibit 690.

Have you seen what that picture portrays when you examined Mr.
Simpson's bag?

A. Yes, that appears to be the what I would term a disguise kit or
disguise mustache and goatee that I observed.

MR. MEDVENE: Would you put up 689, please.

(Exhibit 689 displayed.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Mr. Simpson's Passport was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 689.)

Q. MR. MEDVENE: Can you tell us whether or not that passport was the
one you were referring to?

A. Appears to be the one, yes.

MR. MEDVENE: Would you put up 676, please.

(The instrument herein referred to as A .357 magnum revolver was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 676.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Do you recognize that?

A. That appears to be the .357 revolver that I alluded to earlier.

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. Put that back.

Thank you.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Do you recognize what has "item 64" next to it,
which is, I believe, Exhibit -- which is Exhibit 677?

A. Yes. Six .357 rounds of ammunition taken from the cylinder of the
revolver.

(The instrument herein referred to as Six .357 rounds of ammunition
taken from the cylinder of the revolver marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit
676, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 677.)

MR. MEDVENE: Would you put up 699, please.

(Exhibit 699 displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Recognize that?

A. Yes. That's the two keys with the -- appeared to be some type of --
perhaps a child's ring, what I term a Smokey the Bear ring; it had
Smokey the Bear insignia on it. These two keys were attached.

(The instrument herein referred to as Smokey the Bear key ring with
two keys attached was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 699.)

MR. MEDVENE: Put up 698, please.

(Exhibit 698 displayed.)

THE WITNESS: Also appears to be one of the key rings with pen knife.
And I believe that's a Bentley insignia there on the key ring.

(The instrument herein referred to as key ring with Bentley insignia,
containing pen knife was marked for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 698.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Were those items found in the bag?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you determine whether the keys on Exhibit 699 found in Mr.
Simpson's bag fit the lock to Nicole Brown's condominium?

MR. BAKER: I want to approach on this.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.)

MR. BAKER: These keys, when they say they fit the condominium, there's
no foundation for this question, and they know it, because the keys
had been changed by the time they got through all the -- the locks had
been changed, keys.

THE COURT: Just a minute. What is your foundation?

MR. MEDVENE: The foundation is this, sir: Detective Lange determined
that Nicole Brown had given a key to her friend, Cora Fischman; that
with that key, he had a lock made; that the keys found in Mr.
Simpson's bag opened the lock that was made from -- from that key, and
that there was --

THE COURT: Say that again.

MR. MEDVENE: Okay.

THE COURT: From the beginning.

MR. MEDVENE: Okay.

Detective Lange made a determination --

THE COURT: Wait a minute. I don't like that word.

MR. MEDVENE: All right. Nicole Brown had given the key to her
condominium to Cora Fischman.

THE COURT: He's going to testify to that.

MR. MEDVENE: We can put that in through Detective Lange, that he
received a key from Cora Fischman, that he took that key and had a
lock made; that that key worked; that he then took the keys found --
that Mr. Simpson had, and those keys worked that lock.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, the problem is --

THE COURT: Wait. I'm trying to digest this. Who's going to testify
that Nicole Simpson gave the key to Cora Fischman?

MR. MEDVENE: Cora Fischman can testify to that.

THE COURT: Is she available?

MR. BAKER: Sure.

MR. MEDVENE: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. MEDVENE: I'm saying she will. It's in her deposition.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. PETROCELLI: I believe it's in her deposition. I can have that
checked out.

MR. MEDVENE: That she supplied the key; Detective Lange took the key,
because before the 17th, the lock was changed, so Detective Lange took
the key that Cora Fischman says Nicole Brown gave to her and had a
lock made; that the key worked that lock.

They then took two of the keys they found in Mr. Simpson's bag, and
they both worked the lock. And that lock was the lock for the front
gate and the front door.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, also Barry Scheck's house key fit that lock. If
they're going to put it on, I want the lock here and I want the full
foundation, because this is a sham, and that's why it wasn't used in
the first trial. And for them to say that it only would fit that key
is a quantum leap and isn't what happened.

MR. PETROCELLI: We're not saying only but it fit the lock.

MR. BAKER: Everybody -- when they made that demonstration, everybody
who had a key that looks like this Schlage key, it fit. So I object to
this, and require them to -- request the Court to require them to go
point by point through this.

It is a quantum leap to get the jury to believe that only the key that
was in Mr. Simpson's bag would fit that lock.

MR. MEDVENE: We don't think we have the obligation to say only -- what
we're showing is Mr. Simpson had two keys in his bag that fit the lock
to Nicole Brown's house; that's all we're saying.

MR. BAKER: If that were the case, this is not the lock of Nicole
Brown's house; it's a lock they had made. Now they have to put on the
foundation for that.

THE COURT: Do we have a locksmith?

MR. BAKER: Yeah, put him on.

MR. PETROCELLI: The locksmith Lange used to make the lock from Cora's
key.

MR. LEONARD: I think he's on the --

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. LEONARD: I think there was.

MR. KELLY: Think there was a locksmith.

MR. KELLY: There was a locksmith, like a locksmith that changed the
locks at Detective Lange's department with respect to creating the
original, that lock.

THE COURT: You may examine, subject --

MR. BAKER: Judge -- Judge, this is foundation.

THE COURT: If they're going to bring the locksmith --

MR. BAKER: No, no, no.

THE COURT: It doesn't make any difference --

MR. BAKER: It makes a lot of difference, because it gives an
implication to this jury that Mr. Simpson had a key that fit the lock.

I want them to put it on in the proper order. You keep telling me to
put things on in the proper order.

THE COURT: You want what?

MR. BAKER: That this --

THE COURT: You're --

MR. BAKER: All right.

They say it fit; this key goes into this lock, and this is Nicole
Brown's lock.

It isn't Nicole Brown's lock; it is a lock they made. Have them put it
in here, the locksmith. They can take the key that's in evidence and
demonstrate that. This is such a great deal; put it right in the lock
and say, this key fits this lock.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BAKER: And do that. They don't need it if this is just trying to
get out of him what he's not -- doesn't have any personal knowledge
and everything he -- if everything he did is viewed and all his
testimony is hearsay, and let him do it the right way.

MR. MEDVENE: He did it all himself and watched it.

THE COURT: Did what?

MR. MEDVENE: He got the key from Cora Fischman. He caused the lock to
be made from that key, and he then tried the keys found in Mr.
Simpson's bag in that lock, ascertaining that those keys opened that
lock.

If Mr. Baker wants to put on testimony --

THE COURT: Where is the locksmith?

MR. MEDVENE: We can try to find a locksmith, Your Honor. We can.

THE COURT: I don't think I'm going to let this evidence come in
without a locksmith.

MR. PETROCELLI: Can we have the witness who the locksmith is? I think
it's a locksmith that worked under his direction.

MR. BAKER: They can ask anything they want. They take this with all
the --

THE COURT: Well ask him.

MR. MEDVENE: We'll ask him what he knows of the locksmith, if the
locksmith worked under his supervision or not.

MR. BAKER: Judge, you can build a lock every key will fit.

MR. PETROCELLI: I think it was done directly under his supervision.

MR. BAKER: I don't care. The work that was done --

THE COURT: What does this witness know about locks?

MR. PETROCELLI: He was in the investigation.

MR. MEDVENE: To determine whether or not Mr. Simpson had a key to get
into the house.

THE COURT: Mr. Baker is articulating an objection that I see. The
objection is this: The objection is that how can this witness testify
that this locksmith made a lock that fit the particular key that works
Nicole's gate?

MS. BLUESTEIN: Can I add one fact that I just verified the deposition
of Cora Fischman. Cora Fischman describes a key that belonged to,
quote, "anyone." She had specific knowledge that Nicole Brown Simpson
--

THE COURT: Then, fine. Then she will testify.

MR. BAKER: That's what she would testify.

THE COURT: Same objection to this witness?

MR. MEDVENE: We can do it that way.

May we first ask this witness if he observed the locksmith? If he
didn't, we understand where we have to go.

If he did -- if he did observe the locksmith make the lock from the
key and he then took that lock and tried the key, it seems to me, he
has as much personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Who was the lock -- where was it changed?

MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Brown changed the locks around June 15, 16, 17.
Right after Nicole's death, he changed the locks.

THE COURT: Nobody checked the key at this time?

MR. MEDVENE: Not before he changed the locks.

MR. PETROCELLI: The police didn't know he was doing it. He did it on
his own. Mr. Brown did it on his own.

All he had were these keys to her house; they didn't have the locks.
So they had the locksmith --

THE COURT: My suggestion is, you bring the locksmith in.

MR. MEDVENE: May I ask Your Honor if the --

THE COURT: If the locksmith testifies it's same key that Cora Fischman
had, fine. You can argue the logical conclusion from that.

MR. MEDVENE: I don't want to violate the order.

May I ask him one question, which is: Was he present when the
locksmith did whatever he did. If he wasn't, that will be the last
question.

THE COURT: What difference did it make?

MR. MEDVENE: If he observed the locksmith make the lock and he
physically took the lock, then the foundation is, he has personal
knowledge if he's physically there when the locksmith is making the
lock.

THE COURT: I want him to testify that --

MR. MEDVENE: I don't know if he was.

THE COURT: Excuse me.

MR. MEDVENE: I don't know if he was there when the locksmith made the
lock.

THE COURT: Why don't you know?

MR. MEDVENE: Well, because we thought we could put this in, but we'll
ask him if he was there. We think -- we think we can proceed.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, you know how you have those little locks on the
bathroom door that you can stick any stick into, any pen or anything
else, and you can pop them open? Or you can put the key that comes --
that we put on the nail above and lock our kids out of there. You can
make a lock so that you can open it with any key in the world.

That's what they did. That's what the point is, you don't have to --
you don't have to know that. The point is that if that -- that's the
foundation that they need to put on before they ask him any questions
about the lock, that this lock only fits that.

THE COURT: I think he can lay some foundation.

MR. PETROCELLI: Lay a little more foundation.

THE COURT: Not with this witness.

MR. PETROCELLI: What the locksmith is going to say is that he got a
key from Detective Lange.

THE COURT: We have to hear the locksmith say that.

MR. PETROCELLI: The locksmith didn't go to Cora Fischman and get a
key; he got a key from Detective Lange and made a lock to fit that
key. That was the extent of his participation.

THE COURT: Fine; he can testify whether it's one of those locks that
--

MR. MEDVENE: That anybody can open?

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.

MR. MEDVENE: I guess we should just ask Detective Lange if he gave a
key to a locksmith, so we have that part of foundation.

THE COURT: You can do that.

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Detective Lange, do you know, based on your
investigation, whether the locks to Nicole Brown's house were changed
sometime after the murder?

A. That's correct.

Q. The key that you obtained from Cora Fischman, who did you give that
key to?

A. A locksmith for the City of Los Angeles.

Q. And what did the locksmith do?

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object, Your Honor. This is obviously in
violation of what we just talked about.

THE COURT: Sustained

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you give the locksmith any direction?

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object to this. The Court's made its rulings
and he's well outside the Court's rulings.

THE COURT: Sustained

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did the locksmith for the City of Los Angeles do
any work with the key in your presence?

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object, and I object to Mr. Petrocelli
whispering to him in front of the alternate jurors, right within a
foot of them.

THE COURT: You have to go all the way to your side of the desk.

MR. BAKER: He can write him a note, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You can answer yes or no.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. May I have the question again?

MR. MEDVENE: Yes.

THE COURT: Ms. Reporter.

(The reporter read the record as follows:) "Q. Did the locksmith for
the City of Los Angeles dm any work with the key in your presence?"

THE WITNESS: No.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did the locksmith subsequently give something to
you?

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, outside the Court or the -- I object.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer yes or no.

THE WITNESS: Not to me personally, no.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did he give something to anyone, to your
knowledge?

MR. BAKER: Well --

THE COURT: Sustained

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Do you have any personal information of what the
locksmith gave to someone?

MR. BAKER: In view of the last answer, that question is totally out of
order. I object.

THE COURT: If that's an objection, that's sustained.

MR. MEDVENE: We'll recall the witness, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You certainly may.

MR. MEDVENE: Thank you very much, Detective Lange.

THE COURT: Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the
presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, we believe we have, as the
plaintiffs have the right to play Mr. Simpson's statement when we
choose to in the plaintiffs' case.

That playing of Mr. Simpson's statement, which I understand is the
contention of the defense at this stage, is clearly outside the direct
examination.

The witness didn't testify at all about even being at Parker Center.
It's an attempt to put the statement on before plaintiff attempts to
put it on. It's clearly outside the scope of the direct examination
and in a significant part, it's also hearsay.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, under -- as I'm sure the Court is aware, he has
been designated as an expert under evidence code section 721 as well
as under the case of Smith v. Brown Forman Distillers, 196 Cal.App.3d,
503, and the case of Noll v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 274
Cal.App.2d, 281.

We have the right to cross-examine this witness on the entire
transaction, and the entire transaction.

They have taken this gentleman from -- with some significant gaps that
we intend to close. But they have taken this gentleman from the date
of June 13, to and including the 17th.

And we intend to fill in the gaps and to cross-examine him about his
involvement. They've got him as one of the two lead co-detectives and
I think we have the right to pursue a full and complete
cross-examination under the aforementioned cases, as well as Evidence
Code Section 721, and I believe 651.

THE COURT: With regards to the tapes, the defense precluded to finish
cross examination as to the tapes. That part was not covered in direct
examination of this witness.

MR. BAKER: I would suggest as an expert as number one; number two, as
the co-investigator, which was brought out by Mr. Medvene.

He interrogated Mr. Simpson and we'd certainly like to interrogate him
about those tapes and his involvement in that.

THE COURT: That's my -- that's my ruling.

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

(The following proceedings were resumed in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Juror No. 186, as to your request, it's not a problem with
the Court. The Court's direction to the jury not to go to work was
only for protection of the jurors. And for this particular instance of
training, you may.

JUROR NO. 186: Thanks.

THE COURT: Defense may cross-examine.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Lange.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. Now, Mr. Lange, when we took your deposition in June of 1996, you
had met with the plaintiffs' attorneys nine times after the acquittal,
going over the facts of this case, right?

A. I don't recall the number of times.

Q. How many times have you met with the plaintiffs' attorneys
subsequent to your deposition to prepare for your testimony and your
presentation that took place today?

A. I believe possibly approximately three times.

Q. Three times after your June 1995 -- 1996 deposition?

A. Yes.

Q. You had about five hours you'd spent with them before June of '96.
How much -- many hours you have spent with them since?

A. I would say probably a dozen. Perhaps in excess of a dozen hours,
maybe closer to 14.

Q. So total of about 20 hours that you've put in, since the acquittal
of Mr. Simpson, in preparing for your presentation that went on this
morning and this afternoon, right?

A. I suppose that's possible, yes.

Q. Now, as any of that time, sir, were you paid by the city of Los
Angeles for the assistance you were giving the plaintiffs' attorneys
in this case?

MR. MEDVENE: Relevance, materiality, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: Goes to bias, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Were you paid by the plaintiffs' attorneys for the
15 to 20 hours that you assisted them in the -- in helping them to be
able to present their case today?

A. No.

Q. And do you consider yourself to be friends of the Goldmans?

A. Certainly good acquaintance and I would like to think friends.

Q. And do you think that your -- Strike that. Did you go to your
partner, Phil Vannatter's retirement party?

A. I did, yes.

Q. Were the Goldman's there?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. Did they go to your retirement party?

A. Yes, they did.

Q. And so you were all at -- both the Goldman -- both the Phil
Vannatter, the Tom Lange retirement party, the Goldmans were invited
guests of each of you?

A. That is correct.

Q. All right. And did you go to any other event with the Goldmans?

A. I don't recall going to any other event with the Goldmans.

Q. How about the Otis Marlow, Paul Tippin retirement party; were they
there?

A. I don't believe.

Q. So Otis Marlow and Paul Tippin were LAPD officers that worked on
the case, the Simpson case, right?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Unless you're going to connect it up.

MR. BAKER: I'll connect it up.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: They were part of it early on. I believe they were
involved in a couple of --

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, I think Your Honor sustained the objection.
I'm not sure.

THE COURT: He says he's going to connect it up. I'll strike it if he
doesn't connect it up.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you know that after the acquittal of Mr.
Simpson, Otis Marlow and Paul Tippin went to work for the firm
representing the plaintiffs, your friends, the Goldmans, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance, materiality. Outside the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I don't know if that was -- I don't believe they were
involved in it at that -- the time that they retired. I think it was
sometime after that.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Mr. Lange, you know that Ottis Marlow and Paul
Tippin came to LAPD while you were still an LAPD officer and got
information to assist the plaintiffs after the acquitting of a O.J.
Simpson, do you not?

A. Yes. They came to the department, certainly.

Q. You also know that you were responsible for giving 10,197 pages of
documents to the plaintiffs' attorneys, the employers of your friends
on the police force, Paul Tippin and Ottis Marlow, and not one page to
the defense, true?

A. No. I couldn't answer that in that vein. If you allow me to
explain, I will do that.

MR. BAKER: Deposition page 80, please.

THE COURT: Mr. `Baker.

MR. PETROCELLI: One second, Mr. Baker.

THE COURT: They want to load up, too.

MR. BAKER: I'll give you some additional time. I'm going to come back
to it in two seconds.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Thank you.

MR. BAKER: You gave all of the audio tapes, all of the videotapes from
the criminal trial to the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, did you
not?

THE WITNESS: With the proviso that they were going to all four
entities in this case.

I couldn't honestly say it just went to one group. There was an
arrangement made by then city attorney, Mary House, to use these
attorneys to disseminate all of this information to the various
entities involved.

There's a letter of agreement; that was my understanding. So they did,
in fact, send a copy of it to Parker Center. Those items were copied
off, and it was my information that they were going to disseminate to
all four entities.

Q. And in all of these 20 hours, Mr. Lange, and all these nine
meetings you had before your deposition, you never asked them if they
followed through with the agreement and gave one page of one document
to the lawyers for Mr. Simpson, did you?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Argumentative, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, you may ask that question in a nonargumentative way.

THE WITNESS: I didn't see that as my -- as my duty or my job to see
that this was done for the other attorneys.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You gave the document -- Strike that. Otis Marlow
and Paul Tippin were friends of yours on the LAPD, right?

A. I considered them friends, yes.

Q. And you went to their retirement parties, right?

A. I did.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance, materiality.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you knew that both of these investigating
officers were working for the plaintiffs, and you gave them documents,
taped -- audio and videotapes, didn't you?

A. They were representing the attorneys who were supposed to get all
of that information, as advised to me by the city attorney's office.

Q. And?

A. I had no choice but to turn it over to them.

Q. I see. It just so happened that they were -- you were -- they were
-- you were pals. You gave it to them as a coincidence?

A. No.

MR. MEDVENE: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Jury's to disregard that.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you have appeared, as I understand it, on Larry
King Live, Rivera Live, Charles Grodin, Dateline, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Anything I missed?

A. I believe there were probably a couple more, yes.

Q. And it was to tell your story about the criminal case, right?

A. To some extent, yes.

Q. And by the way, are you -- are you now -- did you get the book deal
you were looking for?

A. I hope to. I certainly hope to.

Q. And do you hope to put a chapter in the book deal on your testimony
in the civil case?

A. I don't believe so.

Q. You --

A. We'll see what happens.

Q. You have negotiated a book deal?

(Laughter.)

A. I have not signed a contract, but I am in the process of putting a
book together.

Q. All right.

And you testified at the preliminary hearing, right?

A. I did.

Q. Testified at the grand jury hearing?

A. That's correct.

Q. Testified in the criminal trial?

A. Yes.

Q. And let's start with your arrival at the crime scene at 4:25, okay?

That's about when you got there on the 13th?

A. That's correct.

Q. And after you got there on the 13th, you took a cursory tour of the
crime scene; would that be accurate?

A. That's your terminology. Perhaps a cursory tour. We took a
walk-through, a preliminary walk-through.

Q. And after you take your preliminary walk-through --

By the way, did you find anything of significance inside the house
that you thought was significant?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance. Outside the scope, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Significant in regards to the killings?

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In regards to a double homicide. You were there to
investigate.

A. Not necessarily. There were some items of interest in the home that
were noted. I did not find anything that I directly connected to the
homicide.

There was a knife that I observed that I was initially interested in,
that I had examined.

Outside of that, no.

Q. Okay. Would you agree, Mr. Lange, that the time of death is of
critical importance in investigating a homicide?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Outside the scope, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, he's been designated as an expert and he has
testified as an expert here today.

THE COURT: Didn't testify as to time of death in his expertise.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, you noted on your walk-through, a cup of ice
cream on the bannister, did you not?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Outside the scope and not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WTINESS: There was a cup on the bannister in the lower level by
the garage that was pointed out to me, that appeared to have melting
ice cream in it, yes.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you told Ron Phillips to have the officer who
first observed the ice cream, document that in his report?

A. I may have mentioned that, yes.

Q. And was that important to you because that could be a clock that
could determine time of death?

MR. MEDVENE: Relevance and outside the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, did you -- did you see any Levis jacket in the
kitchen?

A. A Levis --

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance, materiality, outside the scope.

THE COURT: He may testify whether he saw it or not.

THE WITNESS: I don't recall seeing a Levis jacket.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you went through about 4:35, 4:40?

A. I walked through. I wasn't looking at anything in particular. We
were just walking through, en route to the front walkway.

Q. Well, you certainly saw a knife and requested the knife to be
photographed, did you not?

A. The knife was pointed out to me.

Q. You didn't see it without -- I'm sorry -- I apologize. Go ahead.

A. I did request that, but not at 4:25.

Q. You wouldn't have seen the knife but for it being pointed out to
you; is that your testimony, sir?

A. I would assume that I would, in fact, see the knife, but that's not
how I understood your question.

As we did the initial walking through, Detective Phillips pointed the
knife out to me as we walked by it on our way to the front door.

Q. Now, you say you went out through the kitchen, through the dining
room, and out the front door of the condominium, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, by the way, can you -- to your recollection, you have gone
through there many times, have you not?

I mean, you went through there two times on the night of the 13th; you
were there on July 3; and you were over there between the 13th and the
3rd; true?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Vague, ambiguous. Going through what, Your
Honor, the inside of the house or the outside of the scene?

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You went through the condominium at least twice on
the 13th. You went through the condominium again on July 3. You went
through the condominium again on August 26. And I believe you went
through the condominium at least twice between the 13th of June and
the 3rd of July. Would that be accurate, sir?

MR. MEDVENE: Same objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: No, I can't say that. I don't recall entering the
condominium on July 3. I haven't seen any documentation in some time
on that.

And I don't know that we entered between the 13th of June and the 3rd
of July, either.

I qualify that, and I may be mistaken. If I could see some
documentation.

Q. You testified earlier, did you not, that you went over on July 3 to
take the district attorney through a walk-through?

A. That's correct.

Q. Is it now your testimony that you didn't walk through the
condominium?

A. I --

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. That's argumentative. "Is it now your
testimony," implies his testimony is different. All he said was he
went outside.

MR. BAKER: I think that we would object to the speaking objection of
Mr. Medvene.

THE COURT: Okay. Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I don't recall testifying to walking through the
condominium. I recall testifying to a walk-through on the outside.

Again, I would like to qualify that. We may have gone in; I just don't
we recall it. There would be documentation, hopefully.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Do you know if you can see the kitchen from the
front door of that condominium?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance, materiality, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: From the outside?

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) No, standing outside, with the front door open.

A. That's what I meant, from the outside.

Q. Fair enough.

A. See the kitchen?

Q. Yeah.

A. I don't believe so.

Q. So you couldn't see the telephone or anyone on the telephone from
the outside of the front door into the kitchen, correct?

A. I couldn't.

Q. Yeah.

A. Well, I don't believe -- if the door was closed, I don't believe
anyone could.

Q. Well, with it open?

A. I believe if you look, you can see, perhaps, the entryway, the east
side of the kitchen, by looking from an open door, perhaps, but not
directly into the kitchen.

Q. Okay. Now, after you walked through the condominium the first time
on July 13, as I understand it, you walked in through the entrance in
the garage to the condominium and out the front door and out to the
ledge to where you could see the victims, correct?

A. No; it was June 13.

Q. I apologize.

A. And we went up the stairs and walked directly through to the front
door, not to the front walkway.

Q. And then after you were out the front walkway, you then walked back
on the walkway on the north side of the house, correct?

A. Initially, we went to the right, down towards where the bodies
were, and stood on the ledge that overlooked the bodies.

At that point, Detective Phillips attempted to point out various
things to me. We turned around, went back down the walk, and went west
after that.

Q. And is that the time that you noted the bloody foot prints or was
it after you returned from Rockingham that you noted and documented
the bloody footprint?

A. The shoe prints I noted immediately there. They were pointed out to
me as soon as I walked through the front door by Detective Phillips.

Q. Now, this morning you talked about footprints going in a westward
direction. Do you recall that?

A. Shoe prints, yes.

Q. Shoe prints, pardon me.

How many -- well, was there a reason you couldn't indicate that they
were shoe prints going east?

You can answer that yes or no.

A. Yes.

Q. In the -- you described earlier, did you not, shoe prints going
east?

That is in your criminal testimony?

A. I think I described a heel mark that appeared to be pointing
towards the east that was down near the bodies, yes.

Q. And that's the shoe print on the step? If you can come over here.

(Indicating to board labeled front portion of 875 South Bundy.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Correct?

A. Yeah. These are shoe prints going west.

Q. This shoe print is going west?

A. No. Generally the trail is going west.

Q. Okay. This shoe print is going east?

(Indicating to schematic.)

A. Whoever put this on here does, in fact, have it pointing east.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) There was another shoe print up the walkway that
wasn't going west, as well, true?

A. No. I believe there was an area back up in here where it appears
the person was turned around, such as I'm doing here. And then they
went back the other way and headed west.

Q. You can resume the stand.

It was your testimony that whoever perpetrated these crimes, turned
around and walked east, true?

A. I don't believe that was the testimony. I believe it was turned
around, made a -- some type of a turning movement back towards the
east.

Q. And got as far down as the step, correct?

A. No. I believe some turning movements -- those shoe prints are all
in the same area. I don't believe they walked east.

Q. So the one shoe print on the step is not a shoe print going east at
all, correct?

A. Well, it's depicted on there. It's going east.

I don't recall.

What I'm referring to is up closer to the entrance. This is what
you're looking at, is down on the step.

I'm referring to an area that's up closer to the entrance where there
are two or three shoe-print impressions that appear where the person
has turned, and it appears to be looking back towards the east is what
I'm referring to.

Q. So you can tell from a shoe print that a person is turning and
looking back towards the east?

A. All I can do is go by the heel marks and the toe marks. I suppose
it's possible a person could have his shoes on backwards. But I don't
think that happened in this case.

Q. Well, are you telling us, Mr. Lange, that the shoe prints went east
or that they faced south?

A. The ones up farther.

Q. Yes.

A. I'm not telling you in either direction. I'm telling you that they
appeared to turn as if someone were looking back towards the east.

Q. All right. Now, when -- strike that.

Your testimony is that whoever perpetrated these crimes, turned around
and did not walk east at all. Is that true or untrue?

A. Again, my recollection is that the person --

Q. I'm not asking --

MR. MEDVENE: If court please --

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) -- I'm asking what you're testimony is.

MR. MEDVENE: If court please, he should have a turn to answer Mr.
Baker's question.

THE COURT: This witness is not responding to the question. The witness
is ordered to respond to the question.

THE WITNESS: I would request the question again. Perhaps I
misunderstood you.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) My question, sir, is: Is it your testimony that the
perpetrator of these crimes walked west, turned around and did not
walk back into the back east?

A. That's what the interpretation -- I saw that the shoe prints lead
-- yes, that's correct.

Q. Shoe prints. As far as you were concerned, the perpetrator walked
up towards the west, turned, faced the east and then turned and went
back west. Is that your testimony?

A. That's what the shoe prints would indicate.

Q. That's -- so that is your testimony?

A. That's what I saw, yes.

Q. That's what -- and that's what you determined on the night of June
13, 193 -- 1994, correct?

A. That's what I observed.

Q. All right. Fair enough. Now, you, on the night of the 13th, after
you had made the walk-through of the area, you then, as you testified,
went back out to the front of Bundy and had a discussion, correct?

A. Actually, it was in the morning of the 13th, yes.

Q. All right. You talked to Phillips, Fuhrman and Vannatter, right?

A. I believe it was Phillips, Vannatter and Rodgers.

Q. Fuhrman wasn't there?

A. He was there, but I don't recall having a discussion with him.

Q. And at that point in time, how many officers were at the scene;
officers, detectives, plain clothes, anybody who was a law enforcement
official, how many?

A. I have to consult the log. There were possibly -- I'll give you an
estimate, I suppose.

Q. 20?

A. That's probably a pretty close estimate.

Q. Now, the bodies had been discovered and it was told to you that the
bodies were discovered shortly after midnight, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And so it is now at the time that you are having this discussion
outside of 875 south Bundy, close to 5:00 A.M. in the morning,
correct?

A. That's going on 5:00 A.M., perhaps quarter of.

Q. And you were aware at 5:00 A.M. in the morning that nobody had
commenced processing the crime scene, true?

A. Not entirely. I was aware that certain photographs had been taken,
certain orientation photographs.

Q. No criminalist picked up or collected any evidence at this time,
correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you hadn't called for any criminalist to come to the crime
scene at 875 south Bundy, had you?

A. I had not.

Q. You hadn't called for a coroner, for the L.A. County coroner to
come to the crime scene?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance. Materiality.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: No.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So, at the time when there was no criminalist doing
the investigation and you and the other lead detective, Vannatter and
the relieved lead detectives were having this discussion, there was
basically no processing of the crime scene going on some five hours
after the LAPD had been notified of the double homicide, true?

A. Well, again, not entirely because there was some photography that
had been done. There were people locating evidence. There were
discussions ongoing, these types of things. There was always going to
be some delay when we have this transaction when one division is going
to take the case from another.

So this happens.

Q. So, knowing that you'd had a photographer out there that had been
called and knowing that you were co-lead detective, you and Mr.
Vannatter decided to go to 360 north Rockingham to try to establish
some rapport with Mr. Simpson, correct?

A. Certainly seems like the reasonable thing to do, yes.

Q. Yeah. While you have a wealth of evidence at 875 south Bundy, two
bodies, glove, hat, blood drops; it seemed like a good idea to leave
that crime scene and go attempt to establish some rapport with Mr.
Simpson, right?

A. Yes.

MR. MEDVENE: Question argumentative. Move to strike.

THE COURT: It's stricken. Jurors to disregard that.

MR. BAKER: And --

THE COURT: Excuse me.

MR. MEDVENE: We would ask Mr. Baker not continue to do that.

THE COURT: Not only does Mr. Baker interrupt me, you interrupt me.

MR. MEDVENE: Sorry.

THE COURT: I was making a ruling.

MR. BAKER: Now --

THE COURT: Excuse me. I didn't finish.

Objection sustained. Jury's to disregard the question and the answer.
That is being argumentative.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, at the time that you decided to go to 360 north
Rockingham to establish rapport with Mr. Simpson at 5:00 in the
morning, there was no detecting going on at 875 south Bundy, true?

A. Detecting?

Q. Yeah.

A. Would you clarify that for me, please?

Q. Do you know what detecting is?

A. Well, I can think of the perhaps three or four different
interpretations of that.

If you're referring to an on-going criminal investigation, well that
is part of that investigation.

And certainly the trip that you keep referring to as "to build a
rapport," was in fact, much more than that, and an integral part of
this investigation in its early stages.

MR. BAKER: Move to strike as nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Denied.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, it's true that the two relieved and the two new
lead detectives at the crime scene left 875 south Bundy at around 5
o'clock in the morning?

A. That's correct.

Q. And at that time, again, you had called for no criminalist. You had
not called for the coroner, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You then got in your automobiles and drove to
Rockingham, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you think that it would be a good time to try to engender
some rapport with Mr. Simpson after he was going to be told that his
ex-wife had just been murdered?

A. Again --

Q. You can answer my question.

A. Well, I'm trying to, sir.

Q. Well, you can answer it yes or no.

MR. MEDVENE: If court please, Mr. Baker should not interrupt the
witness. Your Honor, we ask that he be asked not to do that.

THE COURT: You may answer yes or no.

THE WITNESS: May I have the question again, please?

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you think it would be a good time to establish
rapport with Mr. Simpson immediately after he was going to be told
that his former wife had been murdered?

A. Not necessarily just for that purpose, no.

Q. And you knew that Detective Phillips was going to go to Rockingham
to tell Mr. Simpson that his former wife had been murdered; isn't that
true?

A. No.

Q. That wasn't part of the discussion that you all four had there?

A. No.

Q. And if Detective Phillips had said that, that would be incorrect?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

A. He didn't say it in my presence. He may have said it in the
presence of someone else, but I don't recall ever hearing that.

Q. Well, wasn't -- with all of you, the idea that Mr. Simpson was
going to be personally notified of the death of his former wife?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, Mr. Simpson was not, and you knew Mr. Simpson was not on July
-- June 13, 1994, the next of kin to Nicole Brown Simpson, did you
not?

A. I did not know whether or not he was divorced, as I testified to
earlier, or separated. I did tie the children, however, to Mr. Simpson
and that was the main concern. That was a main concern.

Q. So the main concern in the personal notification to Mr. Simpson was
not personal notification to Mr. Simpson, but to be worried about the
children, correct?

A. Well, as I've testified, there were two or three reasons.

Q. Correct.

MR. MEDVENE: Court --

THE COURT: You may answer yes or no.

THE WITNESS: Sure.

In all due respect, there are some questions that cannot be answered
yes or no and this is one of them.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) How many times in the 30 years that you've been in
the Los Angeles police department, have you sat on the witness stand?

MR. MEDVENE: Court please, relevance. Materiality.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) How many hours have you been a witness on the
witness stand?

MR. MEDVENE: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Do you know how to answer questions from the witness
stand, Mr. Lange?

MR. MEDVENE: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Mr. Lange, I'll ask it again. I'll have the Court
reporter read it back with the court's permission.

THE COURT: You may.

(The reporter read back the question as follows:)

"Q. So the main concern in the personal notification to Mr. Simpson
was not personal notification to Mr. Simpson, but to be worried about
the children, correct?"

A. Certainly one of the reasons, yes.

Q. Did you have any discussion about personal notification to Mr.
Simpson when the four of you detectives were standing in front of 875
south Bundy?

A. Obviously the subject came up.

Q. It wasn't a big issue, correct. The issue was the kids?

A. The kids were a main issue. They were a main issue but there were
other things that we did consider.

Q. And the children of Mr. Simpson at the time you had this
discussion, you were well aware, were at west L.A. Police station,
correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, so the four of you leave 20 officers or so at 875 south Bundy
and get in your cars, two cars and drive to Rockingham, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Asked and answered several times.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Takes you about five, six minutes to get to
Rockingham.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Outside the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Approximately.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) When you get to 875 south Bundy, or -- strike that.

You get to the Rockingham address of Mr. Simpson, both of the cars
stop and the four officers get out, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you thought it would take four of you to take care of the kids;
is that right?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Argumentative, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you think you needed four officers, sir, to
inform Mr. Simpson that his children were at West Los Angeles police
department?

A. For that express purpose alone, no. But that wasn't the only reason
we went over there.

Q. The other reason was to get this rapport with Mr. Simpson just
after he would be told that his former wife had been killed, right?

A. When I stated rapport, this was also to meet him, to know who he's
going to be dealing with in the future. He's going to be in shock.
He's going to have a lot of trauma in his life. We wanted to meet him,
yes.

Q. And it was important to meet him and leave the crime scene with the
wealth of evidence that was there unprocessed, true?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Argumentative. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

THE WITNESS: Now, how long was it, Mr. Lange, before -- After you were
at 360 north Rockingham in -- And before you decided that someone was
going to go over the wall.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Outside the scope. We didn't get into this
area at all.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: I'd like to be heard on that.

THE COURT: You may present when you call him as a witness.

MR. BAKER: Well, Your Honor, I would love the Court to please look at
the --

MR. MEDVENE: If court, please --

MR. BAKER: -- The cases I cited.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You were one of the people who made the decision to
go over the wall, were you not?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Outside the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Before you made the decision to go establish this
rapport with Mr. Simpson, you knew that there had been at least one
incident of domestic violence between Mr. Simpson and his former wife,
true?

A. No.

Q. So am I to understand that it's your testimony, Mr. Lange, that
when you, Detective Fuhrman, Detective Phillips, Detective Vannatter
were standing out in the street at 875 south Bundy and you had a
discussion concerning going to Rockingham, you had no discussion with
Mark Fuhrman about any prior domestic incident between Mr. and Mrs.
Simpson; correct or incorrect?

A. That's correct.

Q. Didn't say a word, right?

A. I had no discussions with Fuhrman at all. If you'd like me to
explain this, I certainly can.

Q. You didn't hear from Mark Fuhrman at all, one word about any
domestic incident at 360 north Rockingham, true?

A. I don't recall hearing anything about it, a domestic dispute, from
Fuhrman that morning.

Q. Don't recall Mark Fuhrman indicating that he knew the way to
Rockingham because he'd been there before?

A. I did hear that through Phillips.

He said that Fuhrman had indeed been there on a radio call in the
past, could possibly get us there.

Q. And is it your testimony that O.J. Simpson, on the morning of June
13, 1994, was not a suspect for the murder of his former wife?

A. He was not, what I would term, a probable cause suspect.

Q. I didn't ask you whether he was a probable cause suspect. I asked
you if he was a suspect by any definition?

A. We really didn't have enough information.

Q. You can answer it yes or no.

A. Well, I'm trying to qualify the answers, sir, and I'm trying to
give you an honest straight forward answer and that's to the best of
my ability.

Q. Can you answer my question and not give us what you want?

Well -- can you just answer my question?

Did you believe when the four of you got in the car, that O.J. Simpson
was a suspect for the murder of his former wife?

A. There were two cars. I did not consider him a suspect in the murder
of his wife.

Q. And did you have that as a possible, a probable or potential, none
of the above?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Argumentative, and it's also not relevant to
this case, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

THE WITNESS: You can't start eliminating people before you receive
evidence. So --

MR. BAKER: Move to strike as nonresponsive. Request the Court reporter
to reread the question and have the Court order Mr. Lange to answer
it.

THE COURT: Answer it yes or no, or I don't know or whatever. But
answer the question.

THE WITNESS: May I have the question read again, please?

(The reporter read the question as follows:)

"Q. And did you have that as a possible, a probable, a potential, none
of the above?"

THE COURT: I don't know how you can answer that question.

MR. MEDVENE: Compound, vague, ambiguous.

THE COURT: Want to take another shot at that?

MR. BAKER: Be happy to.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You didn't believe, then, when you got in the car at
5 o'clock in the morning to go over to Mr. Simpson's house, that he
was a potential, or probable suspect at all, correct?

A. Once again, I can't eliminate people before I had evidence. He was
not a suspect in any mind at that time.

Q. Wasn't a potential, wasn't a probable, just wasn't a suspect even
though he was -- he was the former husband of the decedent, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Argumentative. It's vague. It's compound, Your
Honor.

THE COURT: I don't think so. Overruled. Anybody is a potential suspect
and you don't know until you get evidence, sir. You don't -- Or you
don't get evidence.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) He was a potential suspect when you went over there?

A. Everyone was a potential suspect. We had no evidence at that time
connecting anybody to this crime.

Q. Now, you heard Phil Vannatter testify in the preliminary hearing
relative to the fact that Mr. Simpson was not a suspect at all,
correct?

A. Well, actually I didn't because I was excused from the courtroom,
but I had heard the incident you're referring to.

Q. And he said that?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Excuse me. The question is
improper to read this. Someone else purported testimony and ask this
witness to comment on it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did Phil Vannatter tell you that Mr. Simpson wasn't
even a potential suspect when you got in the car and headed for 360
north Rockingham on the 13th?

MR. MEDVENE: That calls for hearsay. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Received, ladies and gentlemen, only for the state of mind
of this witness and not Detective Vannatter's state of mind. You may
answer.

THE WITNESS: There was no discussion at all between Vannatter, myself
or anyone else regarding Mr. Simpson as a suspect that morning.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you ever tell anyone that the ex-husband is
always a suspect in a murder crime?

A. No.

Q. Never uttered those words ever?

A. I don't recall ever saying that, that's correct.

Q. In terms of -- in terms of Mr. Simpson not being a suspect in the
morning, in your mind, of the murder of his former wife, you wanted to
go over and first see about the children, and second, speak to him and
gain some rapport with him, right?

A. Basically, yes.

Q. And that was the sole purpose that the two lead detectives left the
scene at 875 south Bundy and traveled to 360 north Rockingham, true?

A. Well, that and leave Phillips and Fuhrman at the Simpson residence
if someone were there, yes.

Q. You wanted to leave the other two detectives there?

A. That's correct.

Q. Oh.

So, that was important for you to take them over there so you could
leave them there, right?

A. To stay with Mr. Simpson, or whoever else happened to be at that
location that might need their assistance and getting the children
back or anything else that might come up certainly.

Q. Now then, you came back at around 7'o'clock in the morning, right?

A. Yes. A little before 7:00.

Q. And again, there had been no criminalist called for Bundy by 7
o'clock when you returned, true?

A. No, I believe there was one in route and they were contacted and
rerouted to the Rockingham location.

Q. Why don't you tell us the first time the criminalist got to the 875
south Bundy crime scene after the LAPD was notified at 0010 in the
morning?

A. I think it was sometime after 10:00 A.M.

Q. So 10 hours after the bodies were discovered and reported the LAPD,
the criminalist got to the crime scene?

A. Approximately.

Q. Why don't you tell us, Mr. Lange, however how long it was after the
LAPD was notified of the death of two people before the coroner got to
the crime scene at 875 south Bundy?

A. Would have been coroner's investigator arrived about there
approximately 9:00 A.M.

Q. So nine hours?

A. Approximately.

Q. Now, after you got back from Rockingham and you spent about two
hours there, correct or an hour and a half?

A. I think I was there about an hour and 20 minutes, something like
that.

Q. After you got back, you then did an additional walk-through of the
Bundy condominium, correct?

A. No. I did several things.

Q. Okay. The no is responsive. One of the things that you did was go
to various areas of the crime scene and document your observations,
correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you did that, sir, in your own handwriting and you took
measurements and noted blood drops, et cetera, did you not?

A. To some degree. Not everything, but to some degree, I did that.

Q. Well, you documented the blood drops on the walkway, did you not?

A. To the extent that I noted them in the notes, yes.

THE COURT: Mr. Baker, I was going take a break in about five minutes.
If you're going to get into a specific area, I'd like to break now.

MR. BAKER: Okay.

THE COURT: Take ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about
the case. Don't form or express any opinions.

(Recess.)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

THE COURT: Okay. You may resume.

THOMAS LANGE, the witness on the stand at the time of the recess,
having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further
as follows:

CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Now, Detective Lange, you wrote -- co-authored a murder follow-up
report, did you not?

A. I believe it was part of one. I'd have to see it to see what you
were referring to. There were several.

Q. You remember this was Exhibit 1061 to your deposition, and you were
questioned about it. That was in June of 1996.

We've got to mark it because I don't think it's been marked in this
case?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's a report that you co-authored, correct?

A. Actually, I'm the one who wrote it.

Q. You did write it?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, you indicated that you hadn't known of any domestic
violence before you went to Mr. Simpson's estate, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. And you wrote on page 3, I thought -- 2. Sorry.

Tell me if I'm reading this right:

Upon arrival at the crime scene, detectives were met by Detective 3
Ron Phillips, a West Los Angeles Division homicide coordinator.

Phillips stated the victim Brown was the ex-wife of O.J. Simpson, the
well-known athlete/actor.

Additionally, Phillips stated that Mr. Simpson and victim 1 had been
embroiled in previous domestic violence litigation, one of them
resulting in the arrest of Mr. Simpson.

Mr. Simpson resided at 360 North Rockingham Place in Brentwood,
approximately two miles from the crime scene.

You then continue on: Detectives followed up to the Simpson residence
for the purpose of death notification and to check on Simpson's
welfare.

That's what you wrote in your murder follow-up report, is it not, sir?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And so you had knowledge before you went up to Simpson's residence
that, in fact, there had been a previous domestic abuse because you'd
been told that by Detective Phillips, correct?

A. No, no, that's not correct.

Q. Thank you very much, sir you've answered the question.

MR. MEDVENE: Court please?

THE WITNESS: I did. I said no. And I'll gave you an explanation, if
you'd like it.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Let me ask you a couple more questions.

You then state in here that, I went up to the Simpson residence for
the purpose of death notification and to check on Simpson.

There's no mention whatsoever of any welfare of the children, is
there, sir?

A. I don't believe in that paragraph that there is, no.

Q. Now, in terms of your being at the crime scene at 875 South Bundy,
it was you, was it not, who requested somebody to get a blanket to
place over the body of Nicole Brown Simpson?

A. Actually, I requested a sheet.

Q. And you, being a veteran detective, knew that if you put something
over the body, that contamination can and does occur, correct?

A. Not necessarily, no.

Q. Well, you wanted to make every effort, did you not, Mr. Lange, to
ensure that there would be no contamination that would inhibit in any
way the finding of trace evidence, such as hair and fiber, true?

A. Contamination --

Q. True or untrue --

A. -- compromise?

Q. -- true or untrue.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, the witness should be able to answer
the question, Your Honor. It's only fair he be able to answer it.

THE COURT: You may answer that question.

Read that question back to the witness.

(The reporter read the record as follows:)

"Q. Well, you wanted to make every effort, did you not, Mr. Lange, to
ensure that there would be no contamination that would inhibit in any
way the finding of trace evidence, such as hair and fiber, true?"

THE WITNESS: Certainly.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So you directed some officer to get a sheet, not a
blanket?

A I originally said a sheet. I asked him for a sheet; that's correct.

Q. They said a blanket. That was Officer Thompson -- strike that.
Yeah. It was Officer Thompson?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Yeah. If he said a blanket, he'd be mistaken?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. That's not what the testimony is.

THE COURT: Sustained. That was not what the testimony was.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) When Officer Thompson came to you with the blanket,
did you allow it to be placed over the body of Nicole Brown Simpson?

A. Yes. I sent him for a sheet; he returned with a blanket. He
couldn't find a clean sheet, so he returned with a clean blanket. That
was his explanation to me.

MR. BAKER: Move to strike as nonresponsive, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It may remain.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you allow the blanket to be placed over the body
of Nicole Brown Simpson?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you understand at the time that you'd be contaminating that
body with trace evidence from the blanket -- from the dryer -- where
it was washed and dried? Did you understand that when you had it
placed over the body?

A. Not necessarily.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. It's one, compound, and assumes
facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Assumes facts not in evidence. Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you have any understanding that you could take
hair and fiber from a dryer that the blanket would be dried in and
move that trace evidence onto the body?

A. Certainly that's always possible; however, I had another reason for
doing it.

Q. And that reason, in your view, overrode the possibility of
contaminating the crime scene?

A. Without any question.

Q. All right. Now, did you, in your conversations and meetings with
the plaintiffs' attorneys in this case, did you come to understand
that there were any topics that you were not to discuss on the witness
stand here today?

Did they tell you what they didn't want you to answer?

A. No.

Q. They didn't tell you there was any subject off limits?

A. I wasn't aware that I could discuss anything. I thought I was here
to answer questions; and no, there wasn't.

Q. Okay. So you had no such discussion, correct?

A. I don't recall anything like that.

Q. Fair enough. Now, Mr. Lange, you were at the crime scene after you
got back at about 6:45, and remained at the Bundy crime scene until
when?

A. I believe I was called away sometime after 12 o'clock. Sometime
after noon, I believe I was called away.

Q. And during that period of time, from 6:45 until sometime after
noon, is when you did your processing of the crime scene and
documentation of evidence, correct?

A. Most of it was done during that time, yes.

Q. And that would have been commencing seven hours after the bodies
were found and LAPD was notified, until approximately 12 hours after
the bodies were found and LAPD notified, right?

A. Commencing -- I'm sorry. Seven hours after they were found?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. Approximately.

Q. Now, when you -- strike that.

It is important, is it not, to first recognize evidence at a crime
scene and then document it? You would agree with that?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor; relevance, materiality.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: What do you mean by "recognize?"

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Determine that something is, in fact, evidence, as
contrasted to something that may have no evidentiary value whatsoever.

A. Generally, that's true.

Q. And would you agree, sir, that one of the critical steps in
processing a crime scene is to document the evidence?

A. That's one of the steps.

Q. And you made crime-scene notes from the crime scene on June 13,
1994, true?

A. I did.

Q. And you were trying to put in these notes everything of
significance you observed?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. All right. Let me read your deposition.

Page 207, starting at line 13, through 22.

"Q. These notes were taken by you at the crime scene, correct?

"A. That's correct.

"Q. And they were taken more or less as you observed various things at
the crime scene; is that correct?

"A. Yes.

"Q. Were you trying to put in these notes everything of significance
that you observed?

"A. Yes."

Now, you made pretty detailed notes encompassing nine pages of
attempting to put in everything you observed, correct?

Well, actually, I think there were more than nine.

A. Well, nine --

Q. I apologize. June 13, 1994, that's when you made, I believe, nine
pages of notes.

A. There were nine or ten, yes.

Q. And in the nine or ten pages of notes, you documented all of the
blood drops that you have testified to this morning and early
afternoon, true?

A. Well, when you say "documented," I wrote them down, and they
weren't measured to any great degree. I noted them in the notes.

Q. And you talked about the blood drops out on the driveway, north of
the driver's door.

MR. BAKER: Why don't you flip that on, Phil.

MR. P. BAKER: The notes or --

MR. BAKER: Yeah, page 9 of his notes.

THE COURT: Is that an Exhibit?

MR. P. BAKER: No, not yet.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, it shouldn't be displayed at this
time. There's no question pending.

MR. BAKER: I'll be happy -- you can put it off -- I'll be happy to lay
a foundation.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Mr. Lange, these are your notes, are they not?

A. Yes, a copy.

Q. Those are a copy and those are the notes we just talked about that
you wrote what you observed on June 13, first nine pages, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's in your handwriting?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And that's your documentation of the crime scene when you were
there on June 13?

A. Correct.

Q. And you tried to put in everything of significance that you
observed, correct?

A. Well, for the most part, yes, there are areas that I wouldn't
necessarily become overly concerned with because other people are, but
that's a general observation that I had, yes.

Q. So that when you stated in your deposition you wanted to put down
everything of significance you observed, you now believe only those
areas that you thought you were concerned with, as contrasted to areas
that other people might be concerned with, right?

A. Not necessarily. I think you're asking for a black-or-white answer
here.

Q. I'm asking for a truthful one.

A. That's exactly what I'm trying to give you.

Q. Now, let's put it --

MR. BAKER: What's the next number in order?

THE CLERK: 2107.

MR. BAKER: What Is it? I'm sorry.

THE CLERK: 2107.

MR. BAKER: Let's put up page 9, please.

(The instrument herein referred to as Notes of Mr. Lange was marked
for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2107.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, on page 9, you document two dimes, 2 pennies of
the driveway north of the jeep. Do you see that?

A. I do.

Q. You document a blood drop straight down on the driveway, north of
the driver's door of the jeep?

A. Yes.

Q. You documented additional blood drops on the walkway inside the
rear gate --

A. That is correct.

Q. -- and the north side of the residence?

And then you document blood droplets observed on the north walkway
between the shoe prints, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And those were -- blood was very important, wasn't it?

The blood drops were significant evidence, were they not?

A. To me, they were significant because they appeared to me to be the
blood of a suspect, yes.

Q. And then you diagramed and measured the gate, true?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you did not indicate a single blood drop on the gate in your
notes that document the crime scene of June 13, 1994; you would agree
with that?

A. Yes. I saw no reason to do that at that time.

Q. I see. So that's the only blood drop that you omitted in your
observations of blood drops on June 13, 1994, right?

A. No. There were many blood drops that weren't documented. There were
many other -- there were fingerprints that weren't documented. This is
not 100 percent of everything I observed, by any means.

Q. Okay. Now, on June 13, 1994, you observed some blood droplets on
the back of the body of Nicole Brown Simpson, correct.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection; relevance, materiality.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I did.

MR. BAKER: That exhibit number?

MR. P. BAKER: 2040.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, sir, those blood drops were significant, were
they not?

A. To me, they were.

Q. And you noted those in your notes, did you not?

A. I did.

Q. And they were significant because those blood drops were more
likely than not to be the blood drops of the perpetrator of the crime,
correct?

A. No, I didn't believe so. In fact --

Q. Well, you knew they weren't the blood drops of the victim?

A. I believe there's a very good chance that they are, indeed, the
blood drops of the victims, or a mixture. However, I wanted to know --
to clarify that, obviously.

Q. And you asked or directed the coroner's office to -- to sample
those blood drops, correct?

A. I did.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Outside the court's order.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. MEDVENE: We object. Relevance. Outside the court's order.

THE COURT: Well, to some extent, I'm going to allow cross-examination,
since you made an extensive examination of this witness with regard to
the blood and blood drops in the area.

MR. MEDVENE: Okay. Just may we be heard, Your Honor?

MR. PETROCELLI: Can we be heard on that, Your Honor?

THE COURT: No.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, Mr. Lange, those blood drops certainly could
have been -- regardless, we'll never know that they are -- but they
could have been the blood drops of the perpetrator of the crime,
correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Those blood drops, you told Ratcliffe to collect and
analyze, true?

A. I requested that of her, yes.

Q. That never occurred?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) To your knowledge, did it ever occur that those
blood drops were analyzed?

MR. MEDVENE: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you analyzed the closed-in area in some detail
when you were at the crime scene on the 13th of June, did you not?

A. I believe so.

(Counsel displays blow-up.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, for the record, there was an exhibit to
Exhibit 2040, that last exhibit, that is not what 2040 is, according
--

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. PETROCELLI: That is not what Exhibit 2040 is, according to --

MR. P. BAKER: 2040. I was in error. It's actually 835.

THE COURT: 835?

MR. P. BAKER: Yes.

(The instrument herein referred to as Photo of victim's back was
marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 835.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, Mr. Lange, you went into the area that you
described as 4 feet by 6 feet, the caged-in area, did you not?

A. I went in it.

Q. Yeah, after the body of Mr. Goldman had been discovered?

A. I had been in there, yes.

Q. And you carefully observed the evidence that was contained in that
area, sir?

A. I did observe evidence in that area, yes.

Q. And did you observe the boot that you talked about, the left boot
of Mr. Goldman?

I'm sorry. I can't make it any easier for you to see here.

A. Yeah, I can see it.

Q. Well, that doesn't comport with me going in there. That boot you
see, I believe, was when Mr. Goldman was in there.

I did observe that after he had been -- before I went in there, yes.

THE COURT: Excuse me. What is that chart, Exhibit number?

MR. BAKER: What is it?

MR. P. BAKER: 1342.

THE COURT: That's the big board?

MR. P. BAKER: Yes.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(The instrument herein referred to as Photograph of blood stains from
closed-in area at Bundy was marked for identification as Defendants'
Exhibit No. 1342.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Looking at the lower right-hand photograph, there
was blood that you observed in the boot of Mr. Goldman, correct? The
size of the drop --

A. Can I take a look at this?

Q. Sure. Help yourself.

A. Yes. I believe that photo was taken after Mr. Goldman was removed
from that caged-in area; and I did observe that, yes.

Q. Didn't that indicate to you, as a detective of some 20 years'
duration, that Mr. Goldman or someone else had bled, and then Mr.
Goldman had stepped into blood in the dirt, dirt or caged or closed-in
area, correct?

A. By looking at that, I have two interpretations of that.

Q. Well, can you answer my question, sir?

A. I'll try.

Q. My question was: The fact that you see blood and caked dirt,
indicates to you that there was bleeding, and then Mr. Goldman stepped
in the dirt with blood on it during the time that he was in the
closed-in area; true or untrue?

A. That's certainly possible, yes.

Q. And is it probable?

A. Yes, it is. I would say it is.

Q. If that would that be a reasonable interpretation of the dirt on
the bottom of the boot; that is, that he had been bleeding in the
closed-in area and then stepped in an area where he had been bleeding
and blood and dirt got on the sole of his left boot, true?

A. That's reasonable.

Q. And indeed, did you observe sir, the blood-pattern evidence on the
bars around the closed-in area, sir?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection; relevance, materiality, outside the scope.

THE COURT: You may answer whether you observed it or not.

This witness testified to observation of blood in the location you
asked on direct.

THE WITNESS: I observed what might be termed pattern evidence, but
also transfer evidence, things of that nature.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, the blood evidence that's on the bar that goes
up at 10, that is -- in other words, this again is the, if you will,
the center photograph. And the red lines go to, you know, where --
right from here. So this would be the -- that would be the east side
of the closed-in area, would it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And the -- there is -- that over there in the middle picture on the
right, what would you describe that as?

Is that a blood smear or blood stain?

A. This picture here?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. Suppose one could describe that as perhaps a swipe or some type of
transfer.

Q. Very well.

Don't you detectives have -- and criminalists have certain vernacular
that you use to describe various types of blood evidence?

In other words, a swipe or something else, or a transfer?

Is it a swipe, in your opinion, as contrasted to a smear?

A. Well, I don't necessarily differentiate between a swipe and a
smear.

Q. Okay.

A. I suppose that could be a said subjective thing.

Q. But in any event, sir, even though you don't differentiate, did
that pattern, that blood evidence on the east rung of the gate or --
strike that -- fence indicate to you that it was an area where Mr.
Goldman had been during the struggle?

A. To me, just looking at these photos, it would indicate the
probability of that, yes.

Q. And then if you look at the upper right-hand photo -- and that's
actually a blow-up of the middle upper photo, sir, middle upper?

A. Yeah. I was just looking at the relationship here. Yeah.

Q. There is a -- there's blood evidence on the lower rung of the
fence, is there not, that would indicate to you that Mr. Goldman had
been standing in that area for a period of time because there's blood
evidence on that rung, correct?

A. I don't know that. I couldn't necessarily say that he had been
standing --

Q. He was at least above the area where the blood is seen on that
lower bar of the fence?

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, opinions are requested that are way
beyond the scope of our direct examination, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You would agree with that, sir?

A. Possibility.

Q. Probability, would you not agree?

A. Well, not necessarily.

Q. There's some blood that came from above that bar, did it not, sir?

A. Again, it's a possibility; unless someone were lying there, reached
up and grabbed the bar for some reason.

Q. Is that not a drop, as contrasted to a smear? I'm talking --

A. You're looking down here. You told me the bottom rung. Are you
referring to something up higher?

Q. No, sir; that's what I was referring to.

A. Perhaps you could specifically show me and --

Q. I apologize.

Is this not blood-drop evidence that came down and dropped?

And you can see from the tentacle is this not blood-drop evidence? And
is this not blood-drop evidence?

A. Yes, these appear to be drops, certainly.

Q. Over on the right-hand photograph, that would appear to be blood
that is pooled in the area, indicating that Mr. Goldman had been above
that area and had been in that area for some time, correct?

A. Again, it's certainly a possibility. But as soon as I say that, I
imagine there's experts somewhere that could dispute that and come up
with a different theory.

I'm telling you it's a possibility.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) We're here for your opinions.

A. I believe I just gave it to you.

Q. Is it a probability that Mr. Goldman, sir, was upright and above
that area for some period of time, in order for that blood to have
pooled in the area where it's indicated on the upper right-hand
photograph of the exhibit in front of you?

A. Yes.

MR. MEDVENE: Vague and ambiguous on time. It's outside the scope and
it's compound, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I'm going to allow some latitude on the blood testimony.
You asked on direct. I'm going to allow it. It's a reasonable
cross-examination. Overruled.

THE WITNESS: It's certainly possible, but I can't say that that's what
happened.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, you would agree with me, would you not, Mr.
Lange, that the blood evidence that indicated between the fence and
the concrete block -- well, strike that. Let me see if I can say it so
that we both understand.

This block is outside Ms.` Nicole Brown Simpson's property. The fence
ends here and the block is on the other side, correct?

A. Outside is north of that.

Q. Correct. Correct. North. I'm sorry.

So the blood evidence that is shown in the upper right-hand photograph
here, is blood evidence that would, of necessity, have pooled on the
side of the fence, and then seeped north, over to that concrete
walkway, correct?

A. Not necessarily. Looking at this, it could have dripped down, I
suppose. I mean, it's all conjecture.

Q. If it dripped down, in any event, both of those cakes of blood
indicate that Mr. Goldman was above that area, and was there for a
period of time, to account for the amount of blood that is shown in
the photograph. True or untrue?

A. I couldn't say one way or the other. Again, I'll qualify that it's
certainly a possibility of that occurring.

Q. Now, look at the photograph on the left side, the middle left
photograph.

A. This photograph here?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. 101?

Q. Yes, sir.

Now, you know the difference between a shoe print and a shoe
impression, do you not?

A. I believe so.

Q. And a shoe print is a two-dimensional impression of a shoe, true?

A. That's correct.

Q. And an impression would be three-dimensional; that is, the shoe
would sit down into some soft material, such as loam soil that we had
in the dirted area at 875 South Bundy, right?

A. That's what it is, yes.

Q. And you believe that that area that the hole -- there was a hole
that very probably was made during the time of the murders and may
contain impression evidence, true?

A. No. I believe it's very possible it was made during the struggle.
As far as impression evidence, I didn't see any, so I can't make that
assumption.

Q. But you did see the hole, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. How deep was it, six inches?

A. I believe it was around six, eight inches, somewhere in that area.

Q. How wide was it?

A. I don't recall. I could speculate. Fourteen inches.

Q. Let's not speculate. If you have an estimate -- you were there when
the hole was presumably in the same position it's in now, because --
or in the photograph, rather, because that was taken on the 13th,
right?

A. Yes. This is different dimensions. It's dug out in different areas;
it's down at an angle. So it varies. It could go all the way at the
bottom, which I suppose is 18 inches, all the way out to two feet.

Q. That obviously took some period of time to dig that impression
during the struggle for `Mr. Goldman's life, true?

A. No. That soil back there is fairly loose, and I would assume this
could possibly happen in a matter of a few seconds.

Q. I see. A few seconds, two, three. Okay.

THE COURT: If this is not a convenient --

Ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow is Friday. 9 o'clock. Don't talk about
the case; don't form or express any opinions.

THE COURT: Witness is ordered back tomorrow.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, could we address you for a minute?

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. MEDVENE: May we address you for a moment?

THE COURT: About what?

(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the
presence of the jury.)

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, we questioned the witness limitedly
on that evidence that was being relied upon to show Mr. Simpson was
liable, mainly specific bloody footprints, specific blood drops.

We didn't question him about generally a scene and what else he
observed; we questioned him about only the items of evidence that we
intend to rely on.

THE COURT: Mr. Medvene, I understand your position. However, the Court
is of the opinion that plaintiffs cannot artificially limit the scope
of cross-examination when the plaintiff brings into -- brings before
the jury testimony with regards to blood. I think a reasonable degree
of cross-examination is allowed.

I've gone out of my way to sustain plaintiffs' position in limiting
cross-examination as to other aspects of this witness's testimony,
requiring the defense to call that witness as its own witness, if they
wish to explore that area.

I'm trying to be reasonable. And I think reason dictates that I allow
reasonable latitude in cross-examination about blood.

You offered this witness to testify to blood, what the blood looked
like, what the reasonable interpretation of the blood was with regards
to the tracking of the blood in a certain direction, blood drops going
in a certain direction; so I have to allow some reasonable latitude,
Mr. Medvene.

MR. MEDVENE: We understand the purpose of the examination, Your Honor.
For the last ten minutes was -- was length of struggle. We didn't put
the witness on for length of struggle.

THE COURT: Mr. Medvene, if the reasonable cross-examination has some
ancillary effect in affecting that aspect of that case, that's the
nature of the evidence.

MR. MEDVENE: We just want to make sure if it was open or not, Your
Honor. If it is, we'll go into it.

THE COURT: I think I made my position clear. I think the defense
understands what my position is. If they don't, make your objection,
and I will rule.

MR. MEDVENE: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you very much.

(At 4:35 p.m., proceedings were adjourned until 9:00 a.m., Friday,
November 1, 1996.)