PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT COPY CERTIFIABILITY
WARNING: This electronic transmission of the official transcript of proceedings is deemed certifiable only to the extent that the reader of this message is viewing a first-generation authorized transmission. All subsequent transmissions of this first-generation electronic copy and all copies printed therefrom are unauthorized and non-certifiable, and the Official Reporter assumes no responsibility for consequences stemming from the use of such unauthorized non-certifiable copy. Responsibility for such consequences is that of the person or organization whose use of a non-certifiable unauthorized transmission or printed copy creates those consequences, including civil liability arising therefrom. No portion of this file may be redistributed or resold without permission, pursuant to California Government Code Section 69954(d). Authorized certifiable transcript copies are protected by digital signature. If you would like to purchase an official transcript of the proceedings, contact NetCourt, 1316 Harding Place, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28204 or click here.

REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
DECEMBER 4, 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
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1996
8:50 A.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

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

THE COURT: Juror number 206 requests December 19 and January 7 off as
religious holidays. The Court will grant it.

THE CLERK: Is the order -- request sealed?

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I -- you said, Judge, January 6? No?

THE CLERK: 7th.

THE COURT: January 7, December 19.

MR. BAKER: We'll be dark?

THE COURT: Yes. We can't proceed.

MR. PETROCELLI: Are we in session on the 6th of January?

THE COURT: I hope to be. Okay.

The Court at this time will address the objection and motion to
preclude the testimony of witness Nancy Ney.

First of all, what is the nature of the evidence that is being
offered?

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, it's set forth in the --

THE COURT: I know what that -- is this a tape or. . .

MR. GELBLUM: No, it's a live witness. It's a live witness supported by
corroborated -- corroborated by documents, notes that she made at the
time. It's primarily live testimony; the documents are just
corroboration.

THE COURT: What is the specific purpose for which plaintiffs seek to
offer this testimony?

MR. GELBLUM: To demonstrate the victim, Nicole Brown Simpson's, state
of mind. This is five days --

THE COURT: State of mind as to what?

MR. GELBLUM: As to her fear of the defendant and the state of her
relationship with the defendant, which is really the heart of the
case. It goes to the motive of defendant to commit these crimes.

Our theory of the case, Your Honor, as you probably know, is that the
crimes -- the primary motivation for the crime was retaliation, not
rejection, from Ms. Brown's rejection of Mr. Simpson, the termination
of the relationship and the rejection, specifically on June 12, as
well, after the recital. And her state of mind about the relationship,
the state of the relationship, her extreme fear of the defendant, as
demonstrated by the phone call with Ms. Ney.

It is probative of the fact that she thought he was the one who
terminated the relationship and that she would not want to be with him
and would want to stay as far away from him as possible.

Very much goes to her rejection of him. Mr. Simpson's position is
directedly [sic] to the contrary, that he broke up with her, he
terminated the relationship, he was happily on another relationship
and didn't care about her anymore, had nothing to do with her.

I'm sorry. He said that he still loved her, that he was on to another
relationship, and that he had put that behind him and was on with his
life. And this impeaches that clearly, and really goes to the heart of
the motive of the case, as to what's going on in the relationship in
these few days before the murders.

As the Court in Zack said, antagonism, hostility, enmity in the
relationship is highly probative and always relevant. That's exactly
what this goes to show.

THE COURT: Okay.

Defense have anything further they wish to add to your written
opposition?

MR. BAKER: Well, just a couple things, Your Honor.

I don't believe that the state of mind of Nicole Brown Simpson is an
issue, nor has it ever been put in issue. It's relevant to the issues
in this case, and to the case the Supreme Court said in People versus
Ireland.

But this is the ultimate, to me, bootstrap argument. They want to
attempt, on these hearsay documents, to prove the state of mind of
O.J. Simpson by asserting the state of mind of Nicole Brown Simpson on
documents that I believe, that if the Court just looks at them on
their face, may have some problem relative to their trustworthiness.

First of all, the date has been crossed out.

Second of all, the -- the second page of the sheet is not filled out,
and the third page is a blank page that this woman says she wrote
upon.

There are contradictions in the first page and the third page of the
sheet, but nonetheless, Nicole Brown Simpson is never identified as
the caller.

They want this Court to extrapolate that there's enough indication in
these documents that it was her, and therefore, that this evidence is
admissible to prove her state of mind, so we can prove the state of
mind of O.J. Simpson.

I don't think the law allows that, and that's why we have Evidence
Code Section 1200 et seq, and they've been writing -- attempted to
ride the Zack case, which doesn't stand for the proposition they used
it for. They've attempted to assert that the state of mind was put in
evidence by us, when, of course, it was put in evidence by them.

And they attempt to use, in my view, Your Honor, a bootstrap's
approach, saying -- for example, Mr. Kelly, during questioning,
testified that Nicole was not afraid of him in June of 1994, so they
asked a question, get an answer, and then attempt to say now it's an
issue so we can bootstrap in with the -- This hearsay documents and
testimony of Nancy Ney. If you have any questions relative to this,
I'd be happy to -- to go into detail on -- on where the documents are,
in my view -- in my view, are untrustworthy.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, may I respond briefly?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. GELBLUM: Putting aside Mr. Simpson's testimony in response to Mr.
Kelly's question, which was directly relevant here, he said she was
not afraid of him in 1994.

Mr. Baker, in his opening -- he was not forced to say anything -- said
these words:

That on May 22, 1994, which is a crucial date in our -- our scenario,
that's the day that she terminated the relationship, he said, quote,
'she was hardly afraid of O.J. Simpson.' He said that on May 22.
That's less than two weeks before this conversation where she
expresses extreme fear of this man.

If this testimony is not allowed in, Mr. Simpson is going to be free
to get up there, as Mr. Baker has promised he will, and talk about
what a rosey relationship this was; it was a mutual ending of the
relationship; there were no problems; there was no fear; there was no
hostility; there was no enmity, none of that.

It's not true. And this evidence is highly probative of that.

Ms. Brown Simpson has been silenced. She cannot come here and rebut
that on the stand. This is crucial evidence to dispute and rebut the
testimony Mr. Simpson is going to give.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, only briefly.

I have to respond, in opening statement to what Mr. Kelly said, and
the argument that he made, and that's what we were doing, discussing
May 22. The fact that Mr. Gelblum wants to assert how relevant it is,
does not get around the hearsay rule and does not get around the fact
that she is never identified and does not get around the fact that her
state of mind is not an issue in this case.

And you can't prove Simpson's state of mind through the state of mind
of the decedent.

THE COURT: Well, the Court has reread People versus Ortiz, 38 Cal.Ap.
4th 377, and I'm reminded by Mr. Gelblum about the Zack case.

I think on that basis, on the basis on which the plaintiff has
represented that he is offering the testimony, the Court finds that --
that there is an exception, in view of the Evidence Code, for those
purposes, and the objection is overruled.

Let's bring the jury in.

(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

THE COURT: Good morning.

JURORS: Morning.

THE COURT: Juror number 206, I received your note and we will adjourn
on those days that you requested. That will be December the 19th and
January the 7th.

JUROR: Thank you.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, can we approach very briefly?

THE COURT: Yes.

THE COURT REPORTER: With the reporter?

MR. LEONARD: Yes.

MR. PETROCELLI: The last clip I have is 69 to the top of 73 to which
he objects and it starts here and ends here. Maybe the best thing to
do is take a quick look at it.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, before you start reading, obviously, I
object.

THE COURT: You don't even want me to read it?

MR. LEONARD: Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. You're the Judge. Go ahead.

THE COURT: I'm just wondering why you don't want me to read it.

MR. LEONARD: Dont want you to read it?

(Pause for the Court to read document.)

THE COURT: To where?

MR. PETROCELLI: To these next two pages.

MR. PETROCELLI: And it ends with this last line right there.

(Referring to page 73.)

MR. PETROCELLI: The relevance of all of this is to show that Mr.
Simpson, who denies striking Nicole, lied to Frank Olson to protect
his image and his financial interests, all of which we are proffering
to impeach his testimony here on the witness stand, that he didn't hit
her in 1989, and then he had motivation to lie.

MR. LEONARD: First of all, this is -- this is all going to Mr. Olson's
state of mind, number one.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. LEONARD: Go ahead.

THE COURT: For the record, we are discussing pages 69 through line 1
of page 73 of the transcript of Mr. Olson's deposition.

MR. LEONARD: Number one. It's going to Olson's state of mind. It has
-- it's replete with references to Olson's feelings.

I was stunned. I was -- I didn't believe it.

I don't think he asked him anything about '89 in here; he asked him
about whether he had heard of the '83 -- excuse me -- '93 incidents.
There's no foundation that he had ever talked to Simpson about that.

There's also a section in here about the photographs. Now, they've
shown -- how many times have they shown the photographs? They didn't
even show Olson these photographs. They asked him, are you aware of
some photographs, and then they're asking him his opinion about
whether they were consistent with what Simpson had told him.

I think it's -- it's cumulative. What they've already proven, they've
already gotten in through Olson, Simpson's version of the event. To
the extent that contradicts what other people have said, it's there.
They've already played that portion where Simpson said he shoved her.
This is -- this is cumulative; it's prejudicial; it's -- it's
basically Olson's reaction to this other event he has asked him about.

Were you aware that Simpson was excessive by following or stalking
Nicole? Okay. There's no foundation that, first of all, that in this
case, that that's occurred. Number two, that he ever discussed this
with Olson, if there was ever an opportunity for Olson to discuss it.
There's no foundation.

Finally, again, it's cumulative. It's prejudicial.

THE COURT: You're repeating yourself.

MR. LEONARD: A little cumulative.

MR. KELLY: You're cumulative.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, the other part I neglected to mention --
Mr. Leonard reminded me -- this also goes to show that Simpson is
capable of acting in a certain way, and at the same time, withhold and
hide information from people.

And this goes to the demeanor case. And maybe some of this is probably
the more appropriate response of their demeanor evidence.

They're going to put on the fact that he signed autographs and he's
acting normal before and after the murders, indicating that he
couldn't have possibly committed the murders; he's a guy who worked
for him 20 years, who cultivated his image, to say I never saw this
side of O.J. Simpson, to prove that there is another side to Simpson
that he doesn't show others; that he's perfectly capable of acting in
this normal, outgoing, gregarious personality, even when he's under
the utmost stress.

THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. I don't think Mr. Olson's state
of mind is relevant.

MR. PETROCELLI: Can I have that without prejudice, if they get into
this area in their case?

MR. LEONARD: No.

MR. PETROCELLI: I'm able to ask, Your Honor, to place some of this
testimony on our rebuttal case depending on what they do with
demeanor.

THE COURT: The reason I am sustaining the objection is because I don't
think Mr. Olson's reaction -- and that's all it is, is Mr. Olson's
reaction -- that you've evoked in your examination to Mr. Simpson's
conduct, I don't think they're relevant. That's like putting Mr. Olson
in the jury box. That's --

MR. PETROCELLI: What about the part, like, where he said, like, in 17
years, never ever seen the guy lose his temper?

MR. LEONARD: I'll agree to that part only.

MR. PETROCELLI: Can I reserve some of this for rebuttal? That's all
I'm asking, to revisit it with Your Honor. I won't get into his
state-of-mind issues, though, okay.

MR. LEONARD: We're going to --

THE COURT: The defense case -- you may make an offer and I'll make a
ruling.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.

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

MR. LEONARD: Can you remind me what page we left off?

MR. PETROCELLI: At the end of the -- yeah, at end of the -- the -- at
the end of the day, we left off with the last video clip, and that
will conclude our presentation.

I think Mr. Leonard has some portions he wants to read in response.
We're now obviously referring to the video deposition of Frank Olson.

MR. BAKER: I thought you had five or ten minutes.

MR. PETROCELLI: No, I've cut it out.

MR. LEONARD: Okay.

(Portions of the deposition of Frank Olson were read into the record
as follows, Mr. Leonard reading the questions and Mr. P. Baker reading
the answers.)

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, we will be reading from the same deposition.
And obviously, Mr. Baker will be playing the part of Mr. Olson.

If you could turn, please, Mr. Baker, to page 38, beginning at line
12.

MR. P. BAKER: Okay.

MR. LEONARD: (Reading:) Is that the only -- Is that the one and only
time you spoke to Nicole about the incident?

A. Yes.

Q. And you never spoke to Mr. Simpson again about it; is that true?

A. No, did not have another conversation.

MR. LEONARD: Okay. Over to page 43, line 19.

MR. P. BAKER: Okay.

Q. And did he describe to you or say anything to you that Nicole had
hit him?

A. I don't recall the incident -- what he was saying to me was that
Nicole was out of control and was damaging his Tiffany lamps and so
forth, and she was just out of control.

That's -- That's -- and I don't recall him saying whether she hit him
or not.

MR. LEONARD: Okay. Over to page 53, line 8.

MR. P. BAKER: Okay.

MR. LEONARD: (Reading:) When he returned to the subject of Nicole, did
you let him talk?

A. Yes.

Q. And he said -- go ahead. I'm sorry.

A. And he said essentially the same thing; he was very disappointed
that it hadn't worked out; it was obvious that their reconciliation
hasn't worked out.

Q. Was this a telephone call?

A. No, I was with him.

Q. Where were you with him?

A. I was with him at our golf club here in New Jersey.

Q. You remember the date?

A. It was sometime in May, end of May. He had come to New York to do a
travel agency talk.

Q. Would that be the ASTA regional dinner?

A. That could be it.

Q. Fairly significant event?

A. Yes. Even asked to give a speech there. And that was on a Saturday
evening, as I recall.

Q. In New York City?

A. In New York City.

And he called me on Monday morning. I did not attend the ASTA meeting.
He called me on Monday morning and wanted to get together and asked if
my afternoon was free. And I met him and we played golf in the
afternoon at our golf club. And then I had a --

Q. Which golf club was that -- was that?

A. Arcola, A-R-C-O-L-A.

Q. Did you remember the date of that?

A. It was the Monday following that Saturday evening ASTA thing that
he did. That was in May, I think.

Q. So Saturday, 'cause May 14, then, Monday, would have been May 16?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. Okay. And the two of you played golf together?

A. Played with two friends.

Q. Who were the two friends?

A. A fellow by the name of James Patton, P-A-T-T-O-N, and a Norman
Williams.

And then following that, we stopped to have -- Patton, myself and O.J.
stopped to have -- I had a Diet Coke and O.J. had a beer, and the club
was closed that day, except the golf course was open, so we went down
the road to a place to have a Coke and we talked for about a half an
hour, then he left, went back to New York.

Q. The conversation that you had recounted moments before about
Nicole, occurred on this day?

A. Yes.

Q. On what we believe is May 16, on Monday?

A. It was the Monday after that Saturday evening, yes.

Q. And did this conversation occur with you and Mr. Simpson alone with
regard -- was anyone else present?

A. Mr. Patton was there in the beginning, but he didn't stay long.

Q. And was this at the restaurant?

A. It -- this was at the bar at the -- at this restaurant.

Q. What was the name of the restaurant?

A. I don't recall. It's not on -- I just don't recall.

Q. Did Mr. Simpson talk about Nicole at any point in time when Mr.
Patton was still there?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Did Mr. Simpson know Mr. Patton?

A. Yes.

Q. They were known -- knowing -- known each other for a long time?

A. He knew him from playing golf with him at the club.

Q. Arcola?

A. Arcola.

Q. Was this conversation at the bar at the restaurant, the first time
that day Mr. Simpson spoke to you about Nicole?

A. I don't recall.

Q. May he have spoken to you about her while you were playing golf?

A. He may have. O.J. always talked to me about Nicole -- Nicole, over
all the years.

Q. He had spoken to you the night before, on June -- to make
arrangements to play on Monday?

A. No. He called me Monday morning.

Q. Monday morning?

A. At the office.

Q. And prior to getting the call from Mr. Simpson Monday morning, May
16, had you heard that this reconciliation attempt of his and Nicole's
had failed, or did you first come to learn about it that day?

A. I didn't know that they had reconciled again the last time, so it
was all news to me. I mean, I thought they were still away, apart from
each other at the time.

Q. Did Mr. Simpson tell you the reasons why the attempted
reconciliation had failed --

A. No.

Q. -- in his conversation with you on May 16?

A. He did not; just said it was over, that their relationship was
over.

Q. And what was his demeanor, his facial expression, his words, led
you to conclude that he was very upset about this?

A. I didn't have the impression that he was upset. I had the
impression that there was a finality to his relationship. For the
first -- first time I had this -- he communicated a finality of the
relationship with Nicole, and he was thinking about moving to New York
and starting all over again, as opposed to staying in Los Angeles.

Q. Now, earlier, you testified that he seemed upset by this
development.

A. If -- I didn't realize I said that.

Q. Yes. Let me follow up on that.

When he was relating this to you and conveying the impression that
this was final, he did not appear to be happy about it, did he?

A. No, no, he wasn't happy about it. I can't say that he was terribly
distressed; I can just say that he was -- It was a different kind of
emotion that I had seen from O.J. I mean, he was -- O.J. was not his
usual outgoing, effusive self.

I mean, he was signing autographs for kids and talking, and a mother
came up to him about her son had graduated from law school, and he
wrote a note out for her, and he did all those things like he normally
did, but he was -- he was more melancholy than anything. I mean, it
was like a change in his life, you know, that was occurring.

Q. Did he indicate to you, Mr. Olson why he was contemplating moving
to New York from Los Angeles?

A. He just said he wanted to get away from it all. I've forgotten
exactly. I told him I thought it was a good idea.

MR. LEONARD: Okay. Over to page 61, line 8.

Do you remember the last time, prior to the morning of May 16, when
you last spoke to Mr. Simpson?

A. I recall a conversation on the telephone, where he was obligated to
do something for us that he had agreed to do. And it may have been
this event. And there was something to do with the family. And he had
already obligated himself to do this event, and he was -- he was
calling me to -- not to get out of it, but to ask me how to handle --
was there any way he could possibly handle it with the people that he
had -- that he had committed to. It may have been this event. But it
was about a Hertz event. But there was a family obligation that he
wanted to -- that he had fouled up by not recognizing the obligation
of one of his children or both of his children, and he was committed
to do this, and if there was any way he could -- any way he could --
and was there any way he could get out of it -- get out.

Q. Get out of it?

A. Get out of our event.

And I referred him to the person that had organized the event.

Q. Did you tell him that he couldn't get out of it?

A. I told him I didn't realize or know what the commitments were, and
that he had to talk to the person that organized the event.

Q. Who did you refer him to?

A. I just don't remember which event it was.

Q. Assuming it was the ASTA regional dinner on May 14, does that cause
you to remember?

A. That -- then it would have been Bill Maloney, who is our
Vice-President of Travel Industries Sales.

Q. What does ASTA stand for?

A. American Society of Travel Agents.

Q. Is that the last you heard of the question of whether he could get
out of the event?

A. Yes.

Q. Did anybody in the company come and talk to you about it after
that?

A. I talked to -- if this was the event, I talked to whoever it was,
to find out what occurred.

Q. And what did you find out?

A. I found out that, whatever event it was, that he was trying to
avoid, that it was impossible to get out of. I mean, there were
already brochures printed or something, something. There was a lot of
-- There was -- it was not easy to unwind it.

I think, as I recall, the conversation was between the person and --
if it was Maloney and O.J. -- that if O.J. insisted on getting out of
it, they would have released him, but it was very difficult for us as
a company.

Q. And to your knowledge, O.J. did not insist that he --

A. No, he did not. Whatever explanation was given to him, he accepted
his responsibility.

Q. And he did not insist that he get out of it?

A. Right.

MR. LEONARD: That's it, Your Honor.

MR. PETROCELLI: Nothing further.

MR. GELBLUM: Nancy Ney, Your Honor.

MR. BAKER: For the record, I have -- I object under hearsay 352 and
the cases cited in the brief.

THE COURT: The Court's already ruled.

NANCY NEY, called as a witness on behalf of Plantiff, 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: Certainly. My name is Nancy, N-A-N-C-Y, middle initial N,
Ney, N-E-Y.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM:

Q. Morning, Ms. Ney.

A. Morning.

Q. Do you have any relationship with an organization called Sojourn
House?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. What is Sojourn House?

A. Sojourn House is a -- there's a few different things that Sojourn
does. We have a shelter, crisis shelter, that women can come and stay
for four weeks when they're in crisis.

Q. What kind of crisis?

A. Battering. They're battered women and their children. They come,
and they get counseling and help, and any kind of help they really
need. And it's a safe place, and it's secret.

Q. Secret?

A. Secret.

Q. The location is secret?

A. It's a private place, yes.

Q. Why is the location secret?

A. So that their batterer can't find them.

Q. What do you do at Sojourn House?

A. One of the things I do is, I work on the hot line.

Q. What's the hot line?

A. It's 24 hours. There's someone there every hour of the day and
night. And women call with -- battered women can call when they're in
crisis or with legal problems, medical problems, any problem that
might have to do with their battering situation.

Q. Are you also on the Board of Directors at Sojourn?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Did you work at Sojourn in June of 1994?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you do there at that time?

A. I was working on the hot line.

Q. Same thing you described?

A. Yes.

Q. How often did you work?

A. I worked one day a week, a four-hour shift.

Q. The time that you worked remain constant, or was it different each
week?

A. It was constant.

Q. What was it?

A. It was the 8:00 to 12:00, 8:00 a.m. to 12 p.m. shift, Tuesday
mornings.

Q. By the way, did you receive any training before you started working
as a person -- working on the hot line?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the training?

A. The State of California mandates a 40-hour training for anyone in
-- working in domestic violence.

Q. What does the training consist of?

A. It consists of learning about the psychology of domestic abuse,
what goes on in a relationship, the dynamics between the woman and her
partner.

We learn about children's issues, how children react to domestic
violence. We learn about legal issues.

Just everything that has to do with domestic violence.

Q. Okay.

A. And we also have support groups.

Q. And you get certified by the state?

A. Yes, we get a certificate, and they -- we are then able to work
with battered women.

Q. You had completed that training before June 7, 1994?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you answering the phones on the hot line on June 7, 1994?

A. I was.

Q. That was a Tuesday?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you receive a call that morning, at about 11 o'clock, from a
woman who identified herself as Nicole?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did she give her last name?

A. No.

Q. Did you ask for it?

A. I did not ask.

Q. Is that unusual?

A. No, it's not unusual. I never ask and they usually never tell.

Q. Why is that?

A. For confidentiality.

MR. BAKER: Objection. Relevance and speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. For confidentiality, they don't want their last names known.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Does this person, this woman who identified
herself as Nicole, give you any other information about herself that
would help you identify her?

A. She did, yes.

Q. What did she tell you?

A. She told me her age.

Q. What did she say?

A. When -- I believe at the time was 34. I don't know exactly. But it
was in her mid-thirties.

Q. Okay.

A. She told me that she had -- she was divorced. She told me that she
had been married for eight years. She told me that she had two
children, a boy and a girl, and I don't remember now the exact ages,
but when I heard about the ages of the children, they were the same
ages, as I recalled, not right now. I don't remember the ages. But at
that point, they were the correct ages; they were under 10.

Q. She told you both children were under ten?

A. Under ten.

Q. Did she say the gender of the children?

A. She said she had a boy and a girl.

Q. Did she say what part of the city she lived in?

A. She said she lived in West L.A.

Q. Did she tell you her ethnicity?

A. She was Caucasian.

Q. Okay.

Did she tell you at some point during the call whether she had family
in the area?

A. She did say she had family in the area, yes.

Q. Did she tell you at some point in the conversation whether her
ex-husband knew where her family lived?

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to leading, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Did she say anything to you about prior -- I'm
sorry. Let me -- I'm getting ahead of myself here.

Have you -- have you heard since that date, tape recording of an
October 25, 1994, 911 call made by Nicole Brown Simpson?

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. I want to approach on
this.

THE COURT: Overruled. Denied.

A. Yes, I have heard the tape.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this. There is no
foundation for any voice analysis.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And was the voice that you heard on that 911 call
consistent with the voice that you heard on June 7, 1994 from this
woman named Nicole?

A. Yes.

MR. BAKER: Leading, suggestive. Move to strike. Leading, subjective,
no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Did she say anything about her husband's
occupation?

A. She didn't mention his occupation specifically. But she does say
that he was very high profile and she said that if she told me who he
was, I would know.

Q. Did she tell you who he was?

A. No.

Q. I'm sorry, I think I misspoke. You said she was divorced?

A. She said she was divorced.

Q. It was her ex-husband?

A. It was her ex-husband, yes.

Q. Now, did she tell you anything about what was prompting her to make
this phone call?

A. Yes, she did.

Q. What did she say?

A. She said that she was frightened.

MR. BAKER: Again, hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. She said that she was very frightened.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Did she say -- did she sound frightened to you?

A. She sounded frightened to me, yes.

Q. Did she say why she was frightened?

A. Yes.

Q. What did she tell you?

A. She said that her ex-husband had been calling her on the phone. He
had been -- during these calls, he would beg her to please come back
to him, he needed her, needed her back with him.

She said that he had been stalking her. She said that when she went to
a restaurant, she would be sitting there and he'd be sitting -- she'd
turn around, and he'd be there staring at her.

She would go to the market; he'd be there in the next aisle, looking
at her. She'd be driving down the street; she'd look in the rearview
mirror, he'd be there.

And she said this unnerved her and she was very frightened by it.

Q. As a result of her telling you that her ex-husband was stalking
her, did you ask her any questions about any other activities that her
ex-husband had possibly engaged in?

A. I had asked her whether he had ever beaten her.

Q. And what did she say?

A. She said yes.

Q. Did she give you any indication about how long the beatings had
been going on?

A. Well, she didn't say specifically how many years the beatings had
been going on, but they'd been going on throughout her marriage.

Q. Okay.

Did you ask her anything about any threats?

A. I did ask, yes.

Q. What did you ask?

A. I said has he ever threatened you.

Q. What -- why did you ask that?

A. Because -- well, that's not -- I ask every battered woman that
calls; it's a question you ask; it's an important question. Plus, this
stalking worried me a lot.

Q. Why is that?

A. When a man stalks a woman, it's just very serious behavior. It's a
red light that you need to pay attention to.

Q. Is that something you learned in your training?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Nicole respond to your question about whether her ex-husband
had threatened her?

A. She did.

Q. What did she say?

A. She said that he had told her a few different times that if he ever
caught her with another man, he would kill her.

Q. Did she express any confusion during this phone call?

A. She did, yes.

Q. On what subject?

A. She was confused because he -- that this -- his behavior so
frightened her, that --

MR. BAKER: I'm going to move to strike as nonresponsive and request
that the witness be ordered to answer the question, not give her
interpretation.

MR. GELBLUM: I think she's trying to, Your Honor.

MR. BAKER: Well, I request --

THE COURT: Overruled.

You may answer.

A. She told me that she was -- his behavior frightened her to such an
extent that she was considering -- she was asking my opinion, whether
I thought it might be safer for her and her children to move back in
with him.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) And did you and she discuss that subject?

A. We did.

Q. Did she express coming to a conclusion before the end of the call?

A. By the end of the call, she had come to a conclusion.

Q. What did she say?

A. Well, after discussing the pros and cons, she came to the
conclusion that in the long run, it would not be best for her to move
back in.

Q. Okay.

And the reason, again, she said that, she was wondering about whether
she should move back in was what?

A. She --

MR. BAKER: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) How long did the call last, altogether, Ms. Ney?

A. I would say about 20 minutes.

Q. How did the call end?

A. She thanked me for helping her and letting her get out some of her
feelings. And she asked me -- told me that she wanted to just think
about what we talked about, and could she please call back the
following week when I would be there.

And I said, sure, call back anytime.

Q. Did she ever call back?

A. No.

Q. Now, did you make some notes during the phone call?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

MR. GELBLUM: I'd like to mark as next in order, 2223, a two-page
document here.

MR. BAKER: I'd like the original to be marked as 2223.

MR. GELBLUM: The only problem I have with that, the shelter wants the
original back at the conclusion of the case. I don't care.

THE COURT: Is there any difference between the original and copies?

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, there's going to be -- to be some testimony
relative to these documents.

THE COURT: Okay. Original marked.

(The instrument herein referred to as Two-page document described as a
call sheet filled out by Nancy Ney as a result of her telephone call
with a woman named Nicole was marked for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2223.)

THE WITNESS: These --

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Can you tell us what Exhibit 2223 is?

A. Yes. This is a call sheet that, when every -- each call that comes
in must be filled out, each woman that calls.

Q. Mr. Baker, I think --

MR. BAKER: I certainly did, sure.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Is Exhibit 2223 the call sheet that you filled out
during your call with Nicole?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. The copy you have there is two pages, is the original -- this is
the original the two-sided --

A. Right -- yes.

Q. The top left entry is the date. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. And the date you wrote down originally was May 7; is that correct?

A. I did.

Q. And was that the correct date?

A. It was not the correct date.

Q. How did you determine what the correct date was?

A. Because I was not there May 7, number one.

Number two, after I heard about the murders, I thought that this --
the details sounded rather familiar to me, and I went back the next
Tuesday I was in and I found my sheet in with the June sheets. And I
just, you know, 'cause it was the first Tuesday I was there in June, I
just was automatically writing the month before, the five, and, you
know, like you do in your checkbook, the first of the month.

Q. After you -- You, as you just said, you learned about the murders,
you thought this sounded familiar.

Did you also make some additional notes shortly after that about the
phone call?

A. Yes.

Q. I'll show you the original of these notes which we'll mark as 2224.

(The instrument herein referred to as Handwritten notes of Nancy Ney
was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2224.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Those are notes you made?

A. Yes.

Q. Why did you make those notes?

A. Actually, I think at this point -- that was about two weeks after
the murder, and I had already contacted the police department and they
were going to be calling me back. And I thought that just for -- just
so that I could preserve my own memory, since memories do tend to fade
over time, details, that I would just write down a few little details
just to jog my memory so I'd remember.

MR. GELBLUM: I have no further questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Cross.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Ms. Ney, you -- you testified yesterday in Orange
County?

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, objection.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) -- in the custody hearing --

MR. GELBLUM: Objection.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) -- of Mr. O.J. Simpson --

MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me.

MR. GELBLUM: Objection.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) -- did you not?

MR. GELBLUM: He knows this is out of line.

THE COURT: The fact that she testified, you may answer yes or no.
Contents of the objection sustained.

A. I did testify.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And Mr. Simpson was present at those hearings?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) At those hearings?

MR. PETROCELLI: This is for the benefit of the jury --

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. PETROCELLI: -- to the question.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You talked to Natasha Roit.

MR. GELBLUM: This is the same subject matter. Counsel has been
cautioned to stay away from this area.

THE COURT: Excuse me. Is this -- you're asking about her testimony?

MR. BAKER: I'm talking about her preparation in talking to the lawyer
who's representing the Simpson -- estate of Nicole Brown Simpson and
the custody hearing.

THE COURT: This is -- not in the trial process. Objection overruled.

MR. BAKER: Relative to her preparation?

THE COURT: If this was not part of her testimony or examination at the
other trial, then the objection is overruled.

MR. BAKER: Okay. I'm sorry. I apologize.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You talked to Natasha Roit before you testified in
the custody hearings relative to Mr. Simpson's children, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. How long did you talk to her?

A. Do you mean on the phone or --

Q. At any --

A. The whole time, I would say no more than 20 minutes.

Q. And did you go over the -- the forms that you have before you now?

A. No.

Q. And then you talked to Mr. Gelblum how long?

A. Maybe half an hour.

Q. Now, as I understand it, you're on the Board of Directors of the
Sojourn House, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. As I understand it, the -- the form that we have here -- is this
2223? This was the form that was filled out by you, you say, on June
7, 1994, right?

A. Correct.

MR. BAKER: And, Phil, you want to put this on the Elmo.

(Exhibit 2223 displayed on the Elmo.)

MR. BAKER: Can you focus that up for me, please, if you can.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now -- now, on this form, this -- you say asked --
to ask -- has to be filled out every time there is a call that comes
in, right?

A. Right.

Q. Okay.

And on this form, that -- that form -- you have the original in front
of you, do you not?

A. Um-hum. Yes, I do.

Q. That was filled out in ball-point pen, was it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And the 5-17 -- 5-7 was part of the original form, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you crossed that out sometime subsequently and wrote in, in a
different pen, the "6," did you not?

A. I didn't cross it out.

I mean, I was not the one who did that.

Q. So someone else did that?

A. Yes.

Q. And what's the -- what's the notation next to the 6?

A. I think -- oh, it's CD. That's the woman -- one woman who does
these statistics in the shelter, Cynthia Davis.

Q. You, in the ethnicity, you testified here this morning, that was
Caucasian, right?

A. Right.

Q. You didn't circle anything relative to the ethnicity, did you?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Now, you said that the victim's age was mid-thirties, did you not?

A. I did.

Q. You didn't put anything in there relative to mid-thirties, did you?

A. No.

Q. And nothing in the subsequent, two-week later notes have anything
about age in them either, do they?

A. No.

Q. And by the way, by the time you filled out the -- the notes that
were two weeks later, you had read about the murders; you had seen the
media barrage about the murders, correct?

A. I suppose so, sure.

Q. And when you say you had heard about the ages of the children, you
remember testifying --

A. Yes um-hum.

Q. -- earlier this morning?

A. Yes.

Q. You heard about the ages in the newspaper, didn't you?

A. Yes.

But can I answer?

Q. You've answered the question. Let's go on up. I want to show you
some more of the forms that you filled out.

Now, down here, on -- pull it up, please, where it says (indicating to
Elmo) abuser and length of relationship.

A. Um-hum.

Q. Now, length of relationship is right next to length of marriage,
isn't it?

A. Right.

Q. The length of the relationship of Nicole Brown Simpson and O.J.
Simpson, in 1994, was what, 17 years?

A. I have no idea.

Q. Now, move the form over. And you put -- put nothing relative to
married number of years, did you?

A. No.

Q. And yet you testified that, in fact, they were married eight years,
did you not?

A. I did testify that --

Q. In fact, in 1994, they hadn't been married eight years, because
they were divorced in 1992, they'd been married seven years; isn't
that right?

A. I guess so.

MR. PETROCELLI: That's eight, Your Honor.

MR. PETROCELLI: February 1985 to October of 1992.

MR. BAKER: Maybe that's new math.

In any event, I'll swear Mr. Petrocelli in; we'll put him on the
stand.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In any event, Your Honor, the -- you didn't put down
one thing about there how long they were married in the form, where it
calls for that information, true?

A. Wrong place. I put it -- I mean, I was not -- I put it in a spot
that I shouldn't have put it in.

Q. You were talking to her about the length of the relationship, were
you not, in this 20-minute phone call, Ms. Ney?

A. We were talking. I had asked --

Q. Can you answer my question?

I asked you if you were talking about, at any point in the 20-minute
conversation you had with her, the length of the relationship?

A. Yes.

Q. Yes or no?

A. Yes.

Q. That's important if you're talking to a person, is it not?

A. Absolutely.

Q. And the length of the relationship -- whether a person is married
or not married, the length of the relationship is far more significant
than -- than the length of the actual marriage, is it not?

A. She -- Probably.

Q. And if, in fact, they've been living together some six, seven,
eight years, whatever it was before they were married, and they were
together, that's a more significant statistic for the purpose that you
were receiving this call than the length of the actual, legal, marital
relationship, is it not?

A. I had -- well, I had --

Q. Is it not?

A. For the purpose of what I was talking to her about?

Q. Sure. Talking about with this person whether or not there are acts
of violence and -- and whether or not she's in jeopardy, and that
relates not only to whether she's physically near the person who may
be the batterer, but how long this has been going on, true?

A. True.

Q. And whether or not there's been an escalating nature of violence,
correct?

A. Yeah. She told me that.

Q. Well, we'll get into that.

Now, so the length of the relationship, you never put down anyplace,
and as far as you're concerned, the length of the relationship being
eight years is really the length of the marriage, right?

A. In my mind, that was the length of the marriage.

Q. Can you -- well -- and you never put down anyplace, the length of
the relationship; you just made an error and put down the length of
the relationship, eight years, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. All right.

Now, you then go back. Names and ages of children, and you put "2-",
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, that could be the -- the age of one child, could it not?

A. It could be, but it wasn't what I --

Q. All right.

A. That wasn't it.

Q. Now, you never put down the ages of the children, did you?

A. No. But I know what the ages are.

Q. You knew that the ages of the children had been put in the
newspaper from the date of June 13 until whenever you got together
with Marcia Clark in August of 1994; isn't that true?

A. But that's not -- I --

Q. Can you answer --

A. I remember --

Q. -- my question for a change?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) My question, ma'am, is: You knew the ages of the
children from your conversation -- from your looking at the news media
before you ever talked to Marcia Clark in August of 1994?

A. That's not true.

Well, I did know. Where I get the ages of the children are from my
recollection of the phone call.

Q. And the -- you didn't -- Even in your subsequent notes that you say
were done two weeks later, you didn't put the ages of the children in,
did you?

They're right in front of you. Take a look.

A. No. I agree that I didn't.

Q. Now, in your form, right on the back of the form is a --

MR. BAKER: Phil, you want to turn it over.

MR. P. BAKER: I need the original. You have --

MR. BAKER: I've got the original. Let me take this. You keep the
original.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, on the back of the form, right where you flip
over on the same sheet of paper you were writing on --

A. Um-hum.

Q. -- it says "presenting problem," right?

A. Right.

Q. And you left that blank, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And did you normally fill out only the front page of the form when
you were manning the hot lines?

A. Very frequently, that would be all that would be filled out.

Q. And then you went back two weeks later, you say, and put in what
was the presenting problem, correct?

A. There's no presenting problem.

Q. Well, on your notes, your hand --

A. Oh, yeah, 'cause I remember what she said.

Q. So you -- you remembered two weeks later that the presenting
problem was this purported stalking and spying on her, right?

A. I remembered since the phone call, yes.

Q. The purported problem was this stalking and following her around,
right?

A. Yes.

Q. And there's nothing mentioned in here about anything in
restaurants, nothing in here, even in your -- in your two-week-later
notes about --

A. Well --

Q. -- market, and there's nothing in here about being in the car and
seeing you in the -- seeing you in the rearview mirror when driving;
you would agree with that?

A. I would.

Q. And there was, in terms of your particular -- Well, let me ask you
this:

Right after the -- you publicized this, and said this was Nicole
Brown, you got a lot more donations to Sojourn House --

MR. GELBLUM: Assumes facts not in evidence, publicizing this.

THE COURT: Sustained.

You may ask a question in that regard.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) After you --

By the way, you didn't go meet Marcia Clark until August of 1994; is
that correct?

A. No, I didn't meet with her until January.

Q. 1995?

A. Yeah.

Q. And you didn't talk to anybody in the D.A.'s office or the LAPD
until August of '94, correct?

A. Exactly, yes.

Q. And you had talked to various people in the media before August of
1994?

A. I spoke with nobody in the media.

Q. And it wasn't in the media at all, right?

A. Not that I know of, no.

Q. Now, in terms of your two-week notes, the two-week-old notes, where
you say "threatened and confused " -- you see that under number 4?

A. Um-hum. Yes, I do.

Q. Okay.

Now, you -- You, in writing on the front page --

MR. BAKER: Phil, would you go to the first page, right down at the
bottom.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) She said under her current needs, she didn't -- you
never wrote that she was threatened when you wrote the notes on 5-7 or
6-7, correct?

A. Not in this sheet, no, I did not write that.

Q. Well, this sheet that we have now on the monitor is the only sheet
you wrote contemporaneous with the phone call, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You didn't write that she was threatened, did you?

A. No. No, I didn't.

Q. And the fact if someone is threatened when they're calling in,
that's significant to you, is it not?

A. Certainly it was.

Q. That would be the most significant thing about the caller who was
calling in, if in fact they are threatened, would it not be?

A. Probably, yes.

Q. And if, in fact, somebody related to you that they were threatened,
that's something you would want to include in the form, to make it
complete, true?

A. I suppose -- Well, this form --

Q. Can you answer my question, please.

A. Technically, yes.

Q. Well, technically. Technically that's something that you want to
perpetuate, that this person is, in fact, threatened, and you want to
perpetuate it in your notes; isn't that correct?

A. This form --

Q. Isn't that correct? If somebody tells you, ma'am, they are
threatened, you want to perpetuate it in your notes?

A. In hindsight, it should have been written down.

Q. Ma'am, I'm talking about when you're doing your job, not talking
about hindsight or anything else. I'm talking about you trying to help
or --

The purpose of this document is to memorialize what went on and with
that call, so if there's a subsequent call or subsequent action, you
have a source to go back to; isn't that true?

A. That is not the purpose of the form.

Q. Now, is it your testimony that she indicated to you that she
wondered whether she would be safer to get herself and the kids back
together with him?

A. She did say that.

Q. And -- That appears nowhere on the form, does it, on the form that
you wrote contemporaneous with the phone call?

A. It doesn't.

Q. And is it your testimony that this person who you say identified
herself as Nicole, was talking that her children were in danger?

A. Yes, she -- yes, she would consider, since she was battered, that
her children would be in danger.

Q. Now I didn't ask you what you thought she considered; I asked you
what she said to you.

Did she say to you, ma'am, that it was her belief when she
communicated with you, that her children were in danger?

A. She didn't say that, not in so many words, no.

Q. And you concluded, two weeks after the call, that she was wondering
whether it would be safer for herself and the kids to move back in
together, right?

A. Her -- her -- her concern was her --

Q. No, I asked --

A. -- her safety.

Q. Well, you concluded two weeks subsequent to your phone call, that,
in fact, this woman had told you that her children were in some sort
of danger, correct?

A. Exactly.

Q. All right. Now --

By the way, did you bring anybody here to watch you testify today?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You said that the caller had said to you that -- in
questions that you were asked this morning by Mr. Gelblum, that if she
was with another man, her ex-husband would kill her, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, that is something that is very, very significant in the line
of work that you're in, is it not?

A. It is.

Q. I mean that is a threat of death to another human being, true?

A. True.

Q. And that is the most significant thing, according to what you've
testified here today, that was told to you in this purported telephone
call of June 7, 1994, correct?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. When she told me about --

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) No, no, no. I asked you about, if in fact, that was
the most important thing that was told to you in this 20-minute phone
conversation, a threat of death to the caller?

A. It was very important, yes.

Q. And it does not appear anywhere on either your contemporaneous form
or your two week later form, does it?

A. Can I explain?

Q. Can you answer the question?

A. No, it doesn't.

Q. And I would take it that, if in fact, she had told you that she had
been threatened to be killed, that you might want to report that to
some authorities, correct?

A. No, I don't do that, we don't do that on the hot line.

Q. All right.

And did you ever ask her, for example, if she was with another man,
since the threat was linked to her being with another man?

A. Oh, sure.

Q. That doesn't appear anywhere on either your contemporaneous form or
your two week later additional form, does it?

A. No.

MR. BAKER: Thank you.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM:

Q. What's the purpose for filling out the form, Ms. Ney?

A. The purpose for filling out the form are basically for statistical
purposes.

Q. Meaning what?

A. Well, we don't get our funding unless we write down certain things
on the sheet, such as the woman's name and where she lives.

Q. Is the purpose of the form to make a record for future calls?

A. No, it's not.

MR. BAKER: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Your handwritten notes that you made two weeks
later --

A. Um-hum.

Q. -- did they say anything about how long Mr. Simpson -- I'm sorry --
how long -- how long Nicole had been married to her ex-husband, her
high-profile husband?

A. No. Wait a minute. Let me -- I'm sorry.

Yes it does.

Q. What does it say?

A. Just says married 8 years.

Q. Okay.

Now, why didn't you write down Nicole's report to you that she had
been threatened?

A. Basically, the reason this form is filled out for statistical
purposes only, really.

If she had said to me that -- she had told me during the conversation
she did not want to come to the shelter. I asked her whether she
wanted to come. She said no.

As soon as she said no to me -- if a woman says she wants to come to
the shelter, this form has to be filled out very -- in great detail.

Q. You then ask for the last name?

A. I don't -- yeah, if she -- yes, then at that point I would -- she
would -- would need to tell me her last name, she would need to tell
me a lot more things, but I would need to write down a lot more
things.

Q. Okay.

A. So when a woman calls and has no interest in coming to the shelter,
basically this does not need to be filled out in such great detail.

I was much more interested, at this point, in speaking to her and
seeing what her issues were, and what her problems were, and trying to
work with her than to get down the details of the -- just her little
details she was telling me.

Q. Once she told you she was not interested in coming to the shelter,
what was your goal for the rest of the conversation?

A. The goal for the rest of the conversation --

MR. BAKER: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. The goal for the rest of the conversation was to work on her
problem and to get her to a place where she could feel comfortable
about her decision.

I wasn't really concerned at that point on writing down the details.

Q. Why not?

A. Because it wouldn't have mattered. No one looks at these sheets
again.

Q. What's done with these sheets for people who are not going to come
into the shelter, what is done with these sheets after the call?

A. Someone takes them, writes down how many women called or what hours
they call, and basically puts them away. They're never seen again.

Q. Are they used for grant purposes?

A. Yeah, grant, and to get our money every month. We get a certain
amount of money from the city and the state.

Q. Is the level of detail, the amount of information you put on this
form, atypical, not typical of what you usually fill out for a call
when a woman is not coming into the shelter?

A. Sometimes a lot less is written down, quite frankly.

Q. Okay.

On the subject of the date --

MR. GELBLUM: Like to mark as next in order --

THE CLERK: 2225.

MR. GELBLUM: 2225.

MR. FOSTER: 4?

THE CLERK: 25 next in order.

MR. GELBLUM: Is it 5? 2225. Some calendars.

(The instruments herein described

as calendars for May 1994 and June 1994 were marked for identification
as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2225.)

MR. GELBLUM: May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Do you recognize these calendars?

A. Yes.

Q. What are they?

A. Well, they're the schedule of who's going to be on the hot line
sessions.

Q. Okay.

And --

A. The shifts.

Q. Is your name -- does your name appear on May 7?

A. No.

Q. Does your name appear on June 7?

A. Yes.

Q. What time?

A. The 8 to 12 shift.

Q. Is that the day that you had this call with Nicole?

A. Yes.

MR. GELBLUM: I have nothing further.

MR. BAKER: Let me see that last calendar, please.

(Mr. Gelblum hands exhibit to Mr. Baker.)

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Q. As I understand, Mrs. Ney, the hot line sheet, this says first
assessment is not terribly relevant to get funded, right?

A. No, it's not.

Q. And yet it has filled out --

MR. BAKER: Phil, put up the first sheet.

(Exhibit 2223 is displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) It has sources to make your job easier, so that you
can identify a person and just put in basically a checklist; isn't
that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And, for example, if someone is calling you and saying that they
are -- have been a victim of domestic violence, their age is pretty
important, is it not?

A. Not necessarily, no.

Q. Their ethnicity has no importance either?

A. Not particularly.

Q. And the details concerning the length of the relationship, that
we've already been through?

A. Um-hum.

Q. And are alcohol or drugs a part of the problem, that's not
important either? All you have to do is circle a yes or no, don't you?

A. Sometimes I don't ask these questions because there are other
things that I find, at the moment, more important, and maybe -- and it
could be I even asked her, but I don't remember, I mean I -- just in
hindsight, I didn't know that I'd be up here on the stand talking
about this, so I guess I --

Q. Okay.

But you did know you were going to be up on the stand talking about it
when you did your two week memorandum --

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Let me finish my question.

-- you did the two week memorandum to memorialize the details you
testified to in the first examination by Mr. Gelblum, to memorialize
the details of the conversation, because you said the memory fades
with time, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you didn't include in your memorializing the details, the
crucial elements that you're now testifying to either, did you?

A. Those were my notes; not for anybody else to look at. I remember
the details that I felt were important. I didn't think anybody was
going to be looking at these.

Q. My question to you, when you wrote out the card in a totally
different pen and on a -- not going back and looking at the form or --
strike that.

Did you go back and look at the form when you wrote this --

A. No, I didn't.

Q. -- memorandum?

A. No.

Q. And so you were trying, then, to memorialize all the details,
because memory fades, and you left out the major details about the
phone call, right?

A. I was not trying to memorialize all the details.

Q. Now, Mr. Gelblum showed you some calendars, and can you tell me how
these calendars are filled out and who fills them out?

A. There's a woman who's in charge of just that, just calls the
volunteers and seeing what shifts they would like to take on which
days.

Q. And obviously, these have to do with scheduling, right?

A. Right.

Q. And these don't have anything to do with Mr. O.J. Simpson, do they?

A. Not at all.

Q. And Mr. O.J. Simpson's name doesn't appear on any of these, does
it?

A. No.

Q. Would you kindly read the top of the July 1994 calendar to the
jury. Whose name appears there?

MR. GELBLUM: June?

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) June 1994, tell them what -- just tell them what
name appears on the upper right-hand corner of that calendar. Left.

A. Can I read the note or --

Q. Can you just tell us . . .

A. O.J. Simpson. O.J. Simpson.

Q. Now, is there in that calendar any other name of any other human
being that is not connected with Sojourn House?

A. No.

Q. And that just happened to get on there?

A. I have no idea what that's doing there. The only thing I can guess
--

Q. I don't want you to guess.

A. Okay.

Q. Nor does anyone else in this courtroom.

You have no idea how my client's name is on the scheduling calendar of
June 1994 -- well --

A. I -- well, I do have an idea, yes.

Q. You can speculate?

A. 'Cause I can read what the note here --

REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. GELBLUM:

Q. Would you do that, please.

A. It says, "Calls to the hot line R-E O.J. Simpson, no comment."

Q. What do you understand that to mean?

A. That means if anyone calls the hot line about O.J. Simpson, not to
-- to say no comment. This is for everybody.

MR. GELBLUM: Thank you. Nothing further.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. BAKER:

Q. So as early as sometime in June of 1994, there wouldn't be any
calls to the Sojourn House unless you or somebody else had put out
this purported call of Nicole Brown Simpson?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection, calls for speculation, no foundation.

THE COURT: I don't understand the question.

MR. GELBLUM: He asked her if -- if somebody else would have any reason
to call. How would she know?

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I did not say a word to anybody in June.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Didn't ask you whether you said a word to anybody.
Maybe my question --

MR. GELBLUM: That's the problem with the question.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I said that was put on that calendar because someone
at Sojourn House had publicized what they wanted to publicize as a
call from Nicole Brown Simpson, true?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection, calls for speculation, assumes facts not in
evidence.

THE COURT: True. Sustained. No testimony that it was publicized.

MR. BAKER: Well, that's circumstantial evidence that it is because --

MR. GELBLUM: Pardon me.

MR. BAKER: -- The fact it's on there to deflect calls about O.J.
Simpson.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Jurors to disregard that last comment by Mr. Baker.

MR. BAKER: Nothing further, Your Honor.

MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further.

THE COURT: You may step down.

Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen.

(Recess.)

(The notes of the proceedings held in chambers at this point were
ordered sealed by the Court, not to be opened, transcribed, or
destroyed except upon order of a Judge of the Superior Court.)

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

MR. BREWER: I want to be on the record. The next witness is a Ronald
Fischman being called by the plaintiff.

We'd like to question him under 776. This is a witness who is a
recalcitrant witness. He's here on subpoena today. In order for him to
appear at the deposition he was subpoenaed. He didn't appear. There
was an O.S.C. re contempt. He didn't appear for that.

There was a body attachment that was issued and, ultimately, we were
able to secure his attendance at the deposition.

He is a friend of Mr. Simpson, has been for six years. He still is
friendly with him today. We feel under those circumstances he's an
adverse witness to our side of the case. We should be able to question
him using legal questions under 776.

MR. PETROCELLI: I would join in that, add 767 permitting him to be
questioned as a hostile witness.

THE COURT: Okay. You may.

MR. BREWER: Thank you.

(All parties exit chambers and resume their respective seats at
counsel table.)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

MR. GELBLUM: Before the next witness, like to move in Exhibits 2223,
2224 and 2225.

THE COURT: All right.

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2223.)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2224.)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2225.)

THE CLERK: 2225.

THE COURT REPORTER: Okay.

MR. BREWER: Ron Fischman.

THE CLERK: The witness is Ron Fischman.

(Indicating to bailiff.)

RONALD FISCHMAN, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiffs, pursuant
Evidence code section 776 and 767, was duly sworn and examined as
follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in
the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Please state and spell both your first and your last name
for the record.

THE WITNESS: Dr. Ronald A., R-o-n-a-l-d A., Fischman, F-i-s-c-h-m-a-n.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BREWER:

Q. Good morning, Dr. Fischman.

Dr. Fischman, you are a neurologist and an internist; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you know Mr. Simpson, and have known him since 1990, is that
true?

A. That's correct.

Q. And in 1990, you became familiar with the Simpson family, Nicole,
O.J. Simpson and their children; is that true?

A. Yes.

Q. And a relationship developed between the children first, Nicole and
your ex-wife Cora Fischman, then you and Mr. Simpson became quite
friendly, is that true?

A. Yes.

Q. And you have remained friendly with him through today, is that
true?

A. I've -- I see him occasionally when I pick up and drop off the
children.

Q. When you see him, you talk to him, you have friendly conversation
with him, true?

A. Brief conversation.

Q. And during the time period that you've known Mr. Simpson --

MR. PETROCELLI: Can you speak into the microphone?

MR. BREWER: Yes, speak into the microphone.

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) During the time period that you've known Mr.
Simpson, you've had occasion to go to dinner with he and Nicole, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And you've had occasion to go over their house and visit; is that
true?

A. Yes.

Q. And you've also had occasion to take vacations with one another; is
that true?

A. Yes.

Q. And in fact, in 1994, you went to the Super Bowl together, true?

A. Yes.

Q. That was just you and your ex-wife Cora Fischman, Mr. Simpson and
Nicole, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And you also had a vacation together in Hawaii, true?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And over the course of six years, you spent quite a bit of time with
Mr. Simpson, vacationing, going to dinner, visiting at their house and
so forth, true?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, leading, Your Honor.

MR. BREWER: You made a ruling in chambers.

MR. LEONARD: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Could you repeat --

MR. LEONARD: Withdrawn, Your Honor.

THE WITNESS: Would you -- could you repeat the question.

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Over the course of the six years that you've known
Mr. Simpson, you've had ample occasion to interact with him on
vacation, going to dinner, going over to his home, going to events,
things of that nature, correct?

A. The events that you noted are the ones that existed, yes.

Q. Okay.

And while Mr. Simpson was incarcerated, you visited him on two
occasions, is that true?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, Dr. Fischman, focusing for the moment on the two-and-a-half,
three-month period before Nicole's murder, April, May and June of
1994, you had occasion to speak with Mr. Simpson concerning his
feelings about Nicole during that time frame, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And you spoke with him both by telephone and in person, regarding
his feelings about Nicole during that time frame, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And the statements -- strike that.

Mr. Simpson told you in or about April of 1994 that the relationship
with Nicole had become a little bit rocky, true?

A. What month was that again?

Q. April of 1994.

A. Yes, I believe that's true.

Q. And Mr. Simpson had telephoned you in that same month when he was
in Puerto Rico shooting a film, the film "Frogman," true, or the pilot
"Frogman," true?

A. Yes.

Q. And he had phoned you from Puerto Rico looking for Nicole, is that
true?

A. I don't recall if he was specifically looking for Nicole.

Q. And when Mr. Simpson telephoned you and spoke with you during the
month of April, he indicated to you that he was having difficulty
communicating to Nicole, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And he also told you that Nicole wasn't available to him and would
not return his calls; he told you that, didn't he, sir?

A. He was having difficulty communicating with Nicole, yes.

Q. He also told you that Nicole was abrupt and short with him on those
occasions when they did have telephone conversations, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And he also told you that Nicole was being cold -- cold, difficult,
short and avoiding him, true?

A. She was being difficult to reach, to communicate with, yes.

Q. She was being short with him, true?

A. On occasions she would be short with him.

Q. She was cold and difficult for him to deal with, true?

A. It became increasingly more difficult during that time frame, yes.

Q. And, Dr. Fischman, Mr. Simpson told you that as a result of this,
he felt as though he was being ignored, true?

A. I don't recall that statement.

MR. LEONARD: Can I just have an objection, vague as to time with this
particular conversation.

THE COURT: Overruled. I think we're talking about April through June.

MR. BREWER: That's correct.

A. Yes. I don't recall that specific comment.

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Okay.

Sir, you remember having a deposition taken in this case?

A. Yes.

Q. And you understood at the time of the deposition that you were
placed under oath?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were questioned by Mr. Petrocelli and myself during the
course of that deposition?

A. Yes.

Q. And you understood at the time of that deposition, that the
testimony that you provided therein had the same force and effect as
the testimony that you're giving today in court in front of this jury,
true?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Like to read from your deposition testimony --

MR. LEONARD: Object. There's no foundation. He says he doesn't recall.
If what he's trying to do is refresh his recollection, I don't have an
objection. He said he doesn't recall.

THE COURT: You may refresh his recollection.

MR. BREWER: Let me put this on the Elmo.

(referring to transcript).

MR. LEONARD: Can we have the page.

MR. BREWER: Page 69, line 10 through 11.

MR. LEONARD: Before you put it -- just -- before you put it up, can I
have --

MR. BREWER: Yeah.

Hold one second.

MR. FOSTER: 67?

MR. BREWER: 69.

MR. LEONARD: Which line? I'm sorry.

MR. GELBLUM: 10 to 11.

MR.LEONARD: That's part of an answer. You going to read the question?

MR. BREWER: Yeah. Put the whole thing on the Elmo.

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Read it, Dr. Fischman, see if it refreshes his
recollection.

MR. BREWER: You have any objection?

MR. LEONARD: (Nods.)

MR. BREWER: Okay.

(Transcript page is displayed.)

MR. LEONARD: I think it would make more sense to put the whole thing
in context, but go ahead.

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) I'm going to ask, Dr. Fischman, if you could look
at the answer, where it says "The Witness." And just for the moment,
read that to yourself and see if that refreshes your recollection. And
I'll reask the question.

(Pause for witness to read transcript.)

A. I said that I believe -- it says, "maybe he felt like he was being
ignored."

I think that accurately reflects my memory of that, yes.

Q. And so that refreshes your recollection, that in discussions with
Mr. Simpson, that it was your sense based upon those discussions, that
he felt as though he was being ignored by Nicole, true?

A. To the best of my recollection.

Q. Okay.

And in your discussions with Mr. Simpson during that same time frame,
you felt that -- strike that -- he indicated to you that he was
frustrated, true?

A. Yes.

Q. He indicated to you he was confused, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And he also indicated to you that he felt Nicole was rejecting him,
true?

A. I don't recall him using that word, but I'm -- I'm certain he felt
that, yeah.

Q. Okay.

And you -- when you say you're certain he felt that, that's based upon
your recollection as you sit here today of conversations you had with
O.J. Simpson in the three-month period before Nicole's death, true?

A. It's reflective of the combination of statements and conversations
we had during that time period, yes.

Q. Okay.

Now, Mr. Fischman, in June of 1994, you had occasion to have a
conversation with Nicole Brown in your kitchen, is that true?

A. Yes.

Q. And during the course of that conversation, an IRS letter came up?

MR. LEONARD: I'm going to object to this as hearsay.

MR. BREWER: Spontaneous declaration, state of mind.

MR. LEONARD: I ask he not make speaking objections. If we could
approach.

THE COURT: Approach the bench.

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

MR. LEONARD: I assume what Mr. Brewer's trying to elicit is a
statement from Nicole Brown Simpson regarding her state of mind about
IRS -- the IRS letter from Mr. Simpson.

I -- I understand Your Honor's ruling. Don't necessarily agree with
it, but I understand it.

I don't know how this fits into this state of mind exception as you
have articulated in this trial.

MR. PETROCELLI: This is a summary I'm showing you, Your Honor, of the
testimony on this point. He testified that Nicole was extremely upset
and was devastated by this letter, and it provoked an immense amount
of anger, and it's critical to the understanding of what was going on
in the last week, particularly since Mr. Simpson threatened Nicole and
followed through by sending this letter, and this letter was a key
event in what led to the final event on the 12th of June, and Nicole's
reaction to it, and what happened to the -- between the parties in the
ensuing days.

MR. LEONARD: How can he say it was a key event? The letter -- I mean
the letter is -- at best is a threat -- a financial threat at best.
What does that have to do with any potential motive to murder in this
case? I don't understand that; I've never understood that.

MR. PETROCELLI: Because Nicole disagreed with you, she said how could
he do this to the mother of his children, she was forced to leave her
home with her children. That's why.

MR. LEONARD: Yeah, and that's why -- exactly why you want it in. It
has nothing to do with motive of murder.

He just wants to smear my guy up with that statement. That's all this
is for, that's all it's for. It has no probative value. If it does,
the prejudicial value is outweighed. What the hell does that have to
--

THE COURT: What are you offering it for?

MR. PETROCELLI: Offering it to show the conduct of the parties in the
last week leading up to Nicole's death, her state of mind.

THE COURT: Conduct of which party?

MR. PETROCELLI: The conduct of Nicole Brown Simpson. Her reaction to
the letter from Mr. Simpson, what anger and hostility it provoked in
her and what she did in rejecting him the remainder of that week,
including on June 12, and why she did so. It explains her conduct,
which is highly relevant to his motive to kill her.

MR. BREWER: And let me add one thing. Because it will also help to
explain her subsequent conduct, that I will get into in a moment, at
the recital, where there is going to be testimony relative to Mr.
Simpson's interaction with Nicole Brown Simpson at the recital. This
letter is an integral part of the observations that this witness --
and the attitudes that these people expressed to one another.

MR. PETROCELLI: He specifically will testify that, unlike Simpson,
that there was a coldness, a chilliness, and no communication at all
between Simpson and Nicole, and that Nicole took the kids and whisked
them away at the end of the recital.

Excuse me, you're sitting on my tie.

(Referring to Mr. Leonard's elbow on Mr. Petrocelli's tie on side
bar.)

MR. LEONARD: I wasn't sitting on anything.

Your Honor, this is -- I mean enough is enough. This is an absolute,
pure, unadulterated attempt to smear my client. Especially this part
about the kids. I mean that's ridiculous.

This notion of a motive based upon some speculative concept that she
was mad at him and then he got mad at her, I mean, Your Honor, how far
are we going to go with this.

MR. PETROCELLI: That's for the jury to decide, not you.

MR. LEONARD: I agree. But it's also for me to point out to the Court
that at some point the probative value becomes so lessened and the
prejudicial value is too great, particularly the statement about the
kids, that it becomes inappropriate. I really feel very strongly --

MR. BREWER: Not this close to the murders.

THE COURT: It appears to the Court that the essential position of the
plaintiff is that it's being offered to show Nicole Simpson's state of
mind in terms of her relationship with the defendant, which appears to
be contrary to the version of the relationship as testified to by Mr.
Simpson, and I think, for that reason the Court will allow it.

Overruled.

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

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Dr. Fischman, I want to direct your attention to a
discussion you had with Nicole a week or so before the murders,
concerning an IRS letter, in the kitchen, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You had such a discussion, didn't you?

A. Yes.

Q. And she told you about a letter she had received from Mr. Simpson
regarding a request on his part that she not list the Rockingham
residence as her primary residence, true?

A. Yes.

MR. LEONARD: May I have a running objection.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. LEONARD: Thank you.

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) And during the course of this conversation that you
had with Nicole, she was angry about the fact that she had received
this letter, true?

A. Yes, she stated that she was -- it wasn't a conversation, I was
listening to her. She was very upset about having received the letter.

Q. In fact, she was angrier about receiving this letter -- more angry
than she had ever been -- than you had ever seen her since you had
known her, true?

A. She was extraordinarily angry.

Q. And she told you that the reason why she was angry is she couldn't
believe Mr. Simpson would do this, to put a wife -- his ex-wife, the
mother of his children, and his children out on the street, true?

A. That part I don't recall right now.

Q. Do you recall testifying at your deposition that Nicole Simpson
said to you --

MR. LEONARD: Page and line, please.

MR. BREWER: Page 107, lines 4 through 7.

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Do you recall saying that, sir, that she couldn't
believe O.J. would do something like that to the mother of his
children?

A. I believe that's what I said, yes.

Q. You said that -- at your deposition, under oath, that's what she
said to you in the kitchen during that conversation, true?

A. I believe that's what she said, yes.

Q. And she also indicated to you that Mr. Simpson was doing this
because he was retaliating against her because she ended the
relationship, true?

A. No, that's not true.

Q. She indicated to you that he was doing this to retaliate against
her, didn't she, sir?

A. No, that's not true.

Q. Now, Mr. Fischman, I want to move ahead to the recital.

There was a recital held on June 12, 1994, and your daughter was one
of the participants in the recital, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And the recital was to be held between 5 and 6 o'clock that
evening; is that correct?

A. Approximately, yes.

Q. And your wife -- your ex-wife was going to be there; is that
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you understood that Mr. Simpson and Nicole were going to be
there, true?

A. I didn't spend my time thinking about it, but yes, when I got
there, it was apparent they were going -- both going to be there.

Q. Because their daughter was also participating in the same recital,
true?

A. Yes.

Q. When you got there -- you arrived a little bit late, is that true?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. And you went into the auditorium and you sat down with your family;
is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And after you sat down, you turned around and made observations --
or an observation with respect to Mr. Simpson and Nicole, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And they were seated at the rear of the theater, is that true?

A. Yes.

Q. And with respect to the observations that you made of them at that
time, you sensed that there was a chill between them, correct?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, calls for speculation and lack of foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Well, during the time period that you made
observations of them in the theater, did you ever see them speak with
one another?

A. As I said in my deposition, it was a very chaotic situation with
parents and children running all over the place. I turned around and I
believe I saw Nicole and O.J. sitting next to each other. I don't
recall them having any dialogue or conversation, but it would have
been difficult to determine that based on where I was sitting.

Q. So, sir, you never saw them embrace in the auditorium, did you?

A. Correct.

Q. You never saw them kiss, did you?

A. No.

Q. You never saw either one of them smile, did you?

A. I don't recall.

Q. In fact, you never even saw them look at one another in that
auditorium, true?

A. I don't recall. I wasn't in a position to see that as I -- as I've
explained.

Q. Um-hum.

Now, at an intermission, Dr. Fischman, you went out into the lobby and
you had a discussion with Mr. Simpson in the lobby; is that correct?

A. No. There was no break.

I think at one point I got up to stretch and O.J. was out in the lobby
also, yes.

Q. And you spoke with him for about 5 to 10 minutes; is that correct?

A. Something like that.

Q. And during that time frame, Mr. Simpson indicated to you that he
was tired, true?

A. Seemed that he was tired, yes.

Q. And in the course of four years, during that time you had seen him
tired on other occasions, hadn't you?

A. Once or twice I'd seen him.

Q. I mean you'd seen him come back from trips where he traveled out of
town and come back into town, true?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I may have.

Q. And during the course of having a conversation with Mr. Simpson in
the lobby, what you observed about him is that he appeared to you to
be slightly withdrawn, true?

A. Yes, he was tired, fatigued, slightly withdrawn.

Q. Subdued?

A. Yes, somewhat.

Q. And in the conversation, the brief conversation that you had with
him out in the lobby, you sensed that he was frustrated in that
conversation, true?

A. No, I don't recall him being frustrated, demonstrating any
frustration in that conversation.

Q. Okay.

A. There was, you know -- again, this was a lobby filled with children
running around, it wasn't a one-on-one communication where we were
having a heart-to-heart about the specific event or people.

MR. BREWER: Move to strike as nonresponsive, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BREWER: Can I have the deposition.

Want to put up for the defense page 296, lines 17 through 25. Would
you put that on the Elmo, please.

MR. LEONARD: I'm sorry, pages again.

MR. BREWER: Page 295 -- 296, I'm sorry. Lines 17 through 25.

MR. LEONARD: Can I -- can you hold off for a second, Steve.

MR. FOSTER: Sure.

MR. LEONARD: Okay.

MR. BREWER: Steve, go ahead.

(Page 296 from transcript displayed on Elmo.)

MR. BREWER: I'm going to start reading here.

Go to the next page. Could you go to the next page, please, I'll give
you the lines.

Okay. Right there. Go back up.

Mr. Leonard, lines 5 through 7.

Okay. Go back up so I can start at line 17.

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) All right. (Reading.) "Q. And he appeared at that
point to be slightly withdrawn, is that a fair statement?"

MR. BREWER: Your answer.

(Reading.)

"Yeah.

"Q. Did he appear to be upset?

"A. No.

"Q. Slightly upset?

"A. No.

"Q. Confused?

"A. No."

MR. BREWER: There's an objection.

(Reading.) "Q. Frustrated?"

MR. BREWER: Your answer.

(Reading.)

"I think he may have shown some frustration in the brief conversation
we had in the lobby but not afterwards."

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Were you asked those questions, sir, and did you
give that answer?

A. Apparently, yes, I did.

Q. And that was your answer under oath in the deposition, true?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you want to change your sworn testimony today, Dr. Fischman?

MR. LEONARD: I object. That's argumentative.

THE WITNESS: Would you like to clarify it?

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) No. Just answer my question.

Did you want to change the sworn testimony that you provided during
the course of your deposition today in front of the jury?

A. I would just say that --

Q. That's yes or no, sir?

A. I stated that throughout that time O.J. had a degree of frustration
with Nicole, yes.

Q. And that includes frustration that you sensed during your course of
interacting with him at the recital, true?

A. You're trying to make it --

Q. True, sir?

A. It wasn't. No, it wasn't true. It appeared to me that he may have
been frustrated throughout the period.

You're trying to highlight that frustration during that evening, and
honestly, that's not what I sensed.

MR. BREWER: Move to strike as nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Stricken.

Jury to disregard that answer.

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) See if you can answer my question, Dr. Fischman.

Do you want to change your sworn testimony that we just read from the
deposition transcript that he appeared to be frustrated when you spoke
with him at the recital?

Do you want to change that in front of this jury here today?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, argumentative.

A. I believe --

THE COURT: Excuse me.

A. I've answered the question.

THE COURT: Excuse me. You can answer that yes or no.

A. No.

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Now, Dr. Fischman, after you had occasion to speak
with Mr. Simpson out in the lobby, you went back in and remained
inside the auditorium until about the end of the performance; is that
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you all went outside and you gathered outside and you took
a photograph of Mr. Simpson at that time, correct?

A. Yes, I did.

MR. BREWER: Steve, could we have that -- that's 846?

MR. FOSTER: 826.

MR. BREWER: 826.

(Exhibit 826 displayed on Elmo.)

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) On the monitor we've had what's been marked and
received into evidence as Exhibit 826.

Is that a photograph that you took that day after the recital?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And can you -- can you tell us how you came to take that
photograph?

A. At the end of the recital we all withdrew to the courtyard. Sydney
had been -- I believe she had the last routine or one of the last
routines. When they all broke, we, as I said, went to the courtyard
and Sydney came to the courtyard. Shortly thereafter, my wife had
requested that I take some pictures, and I did.

Q. So this photograph, 826, was taken because your wife had requested
that you photograph Mr. Simpson and his daughter Sydney, correct?

A. I don't recall whether she specifically asked me to take that
picture, or just take pictures as best I could.

Q. Well, Mr. Simpson didn't ask you to take a photograph?

A. That's right. Correct.

Q. It was someone else?

A. Yes.

Q. Your wife or someone else?

A. Yes.

Q. True?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And when you took that photograph, that was a posed photograph, that
wasn't just a candid shot, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And by the way, during the course of taking that photograph, or at
any time that day, sir, did you ever notice any cuts to any portion of
Mr. Simpson's left hand?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever notice any abrasions to any portion of Mr. Simpson's
left hand, either that day or during the course of taking this
photograph?

A. No.

Q. Mr. Simpson is smiling in this photograph, true?

A. Yes.

Q. That was the first time that you observed him smile that entire
day, true?

A. I was asked this at the deposition.

I was trying to recall whether he smiled in the lobby, and I don't
recall. He may have smiled in the lobby when we met earlier. But
certainly that was the biggest smile he had during the day, yes.

Q. Sir, you were asked to recall a single time that day prior to this
photograph, in your deposition, when Mr. Simpson smiled and you
couldn't, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And the only time that you could recall Mr. Simpson smiling that
entire day was when this photograph, this posed photograph was taken
following the recital, true?

A. That this was --

Q. True?

A. He might have smiled. I don't recall.

Q. Sir, he might have smiled and he might not.

You can't recall one time -- Tell this jury one time that day he even
smiled during this joyous occasion until after -- until that
photograph was -- photograph was taken, that posed photograph?

MR. LEONARD: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. True?

A. As I've stated --

Q. Sir, true or false? True?

A. Can you repeat the question, please.

Q. You can't recall one time during the entire -- the entire recital,
this joyous occasion where your children were performing, where Mr.
Simpson smiled, except this posed photograph that was taken after the
recital?

A. At the present time that's true, yes.

Q. Now, after everyone is out and you observed Nicole pull up in her
vehicle and all of the kids piled into her car, true?

A. I honestly don't recall seeing that happen. I believe it did occur
though, yes.

Q. And the Browns were also getting themselves together and they were
all going to leave, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mr. Simpson came out at that time, while everyone was getting
themselves together in order to leave the performance, and go their
various ways, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And, in fact, you were going to have dinner that evening with your
wife and your family, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And at that time -- in fact, why don't we just show the videotape.
At this time we're going to show you what's Exhibit 825.

(The instrument herein described as a video of the parking area
outside of the Paul Revere Middle School was marked for identification
as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 825.)

(Exhibit 825 displayed on Elmo.)

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Is that you, Dr. Fischman?

A. Yes, it is.

(Indicating to video.)

Q. And is that Lou Brown?

A. Yes.

Q. And O.J. Simpson?

A. Yes.

Q. That's his son he just picked up?

A. Yes, that was Justin.

Q. That's Judy Brown?

A. Yes.

MR. BREWER: Okay. Stop. Stop.

(Indicating to video.)

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Dr. Fischman, you see there where Mr. Simpson was
smiling and laughing?

A. Yes.

Q. You shared a joke with him at that time, didn't you, you shared a
laugh together, you and Mr. Simpson, true?

A. I don't think it was a joke.

Q. In fact, you told Mr. Simpson --

MR. LEONARD: Objection, hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. You told Mr. Simpson that you were going to dinner that evening
with your wife and your family, your ex-wife, true?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you had had discussions on previous occasions with Mr. Simpson
about your own marital difficulties that you were having with your
ex-wife; is that true?

A. Yes.

Q. And when Mr. Simpson walked out of the recital, he asked you about
going to dinner with him; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And when he asked you that, that's when you told him what your
plans were for the evening, that you were going to go to dinner with
your ex-wife, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And he said something like good luck; is that correct?

A. I don't recall exactly what he said.

Q. It was in the context of that conversation that Mr. Simpson is
laughing and smiling on that video, true?

A. May have been.

Q. True?

A. It may have been, yes.

Q. That's what you testified to in your deposition, Dr. Fischman,
didn't you?

A. If it's --

MR. LEONARD: I object, it's argument.

A. I don't remember the exact words.

I'll be happy to review it if you like.

MR. PETROCELLI: No speaking objections, please.

MR. LEONARD: Yes, Judge.

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Dr. Fischman, Nicole left the recital with her
family, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And when she left the recital, that was the last time that you ever
saw her alive before her murder -- her murder only hours after the
recital; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And Mr. Simpson left the recital, correct?

A. I believe so.

Q. And the last time that you saw Mr. Simpson before Nicole was
murdered, hours after that recital, was at that recital, true?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. You didn't see him or speak with him after the recital?

A. No, I did not.

Q. And from everything that you were able to observe about Mr.
Simpson, based upon your observations and your interactions with him,
concerning his demeanor and appearance, in all the years that you've
known him he never appeared the way he did on June 12, 1994, at that
recital, did he, sir?

A. It's a difficult question to answer.

Q. Did he, sir?

A. He was very subdued and quiet.

Q. Sir.

A. That was not his normal state -- normal state.

Q. In all the years that you knew O.J. Simpson, he never appeared the
way he appeared at that recital to you, true?

A. That's true.

MR. BREWER: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Cross.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD:

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Morning, Dr. Fischman.

A. Morning.

Q. Did you have any knowledge as of the time that you saw Mr. Simpson,
as to what his schedule had been the week before. I'm talking about on
June 12, what his schedule had been, what he had been doing that
weekend, how much activity had been involved, if -- how much sleep he
had gotten; were you aware of any of that?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

And your testimony here, in front of this jury, is that you -- when
you saw him your impression was that he was tired, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And quiet and withdrawn, correct?

A. Right.

MR. BREWER: Leading, objection.

THE COURT: I'll permit it.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you think there was anything inappropriate
about his demeanor or behavior?

A. No.

Q. You also -- Mr. Petrocelli asked you a number of questions about --

MR. BREWER: Misstates the evidence.

MR. LEONARD: Excuse me, Mr. Brewer. Sorry.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Mr. Brewer asked you a number of questions about
your impressions of whether or not Mr. Simpson was expressing some
type of frustration in his discussion with you on that Sunday evening.

Do you recall those questions?

A. The questions I was asked previously?

Q. Yeah.

A. Yes.

Q. You had a number of discussions during the spring, or at least
April through June, with Mr. Simpson about his relationship with
Nicole and he had expressed some frustration, right?

A. Yes.

Q. It's true that -- that the primary reason he was expressing
frustration is because she was acting erratically; is that right?
That's what Mr. Simpson told you, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And he told you that, for instance, he would have trouble dealing
with her about the children, especially if he called her in the
morning, things like that? Do you remember him telling you that kind
of thing?

A. He said that he had difficulty communicating with her, and the
children were part of that, yes.

Q. That some days she'd be up and some days she'd be down; that's what
he meant by erratic behavior when he was discussing it with you?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. When you were talking about frustration that was exhibited to you
by Mr. Simpson, that's the thing he was mentioning to you, that's what
you were talking about when Mr. Brewer was asking you questions; is
that correct?

MR. BREWER: Objection, misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: You may rephrase it.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) When you were talking about Mr. Simpson expressing
frustration about his relationship with Nicole, his primary concern
that led to the frustration, at least to the extent that he expressed
it to you, was her erratic behavior; isn't that right?

A. Erratic behavior was certainly the central issue, yes.

Q. Okay.

It sounds to me like, at least in the discussion you had about a week
before Nicole's death, that she was -- she wasn't shy about talking
about her problems with (sic) Mr. Simpson, she was venting?

A. About Mr. Simpson or with him?

Q. With him or about him. In this regard she was talking about the IRS
letter, right?

A. When I saw her, she would talk about the problem she might be
having.

Q. Okay.

On that particular occasion, she was talking to you about something
that made her really mad at Mr. Simpson, this IRS letter?

A. Absolutely.

Q. And by the way, that would have been approximately the 6th or 7th
of June, something like that?

A. I don't recall.

I think you all have the timeline put together, and I acknowledged the
date that you had ascertained as that conversation took place.

Q. In that conversation, did she say anything to you about any
stalking by Mr. Simpson, that he was stalking her, anything like that?

A. No.

Q. Did she say that he had threatened to kill her?

A. No.

Q. Did she say that -- that she was afraid for herself, physically,
and for the children? Did she say anything like that, sir?

A. No.

Q. Now, you were asked questions about Mr. Simpson's demeanor, whether
he smiled, whether he talked to Nicole. And you tried to explain a
couple of times about your -- the difficulty you had in seeing or
observing.

Would you explain that to the jury, why it was that you couldn't
observe Nicole and O.J. for periods of time.

Can you explain that to the jury.

A. Yes.

My -- My family had obtained seats about two-thirds of the way up in
the theater. O.J. and Nicole, as noted before, were sitting in the
back. When I went in to sit with my family it was a darkened
auditorium, I got there during the performance. I only glanced back
briefly so I really wasn't in a position to observe them throughout
the performance.

Q. And Mr. Brewer asked you very vigorously about whether, and how
often Mr. Simpson was smiling.

Now, we saw on the videotape that Mr. Simpson smiled and laughed.

Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And he was smiling and laughing about -- I know you don't think it was
a joke, but he thought -- I guess he thought it was funny, he was
smiling and laughing about your predicament at this time, correct?

A. I think he was trying to make light of my predicament, yes.

Q. And he never expressed anger at Nicole that night, did he, Dr.
Fischman?

A. Not in my presence, no.

Q. He was laughing about your relationship with your wife, and that's
how you left him that night; isn't that right, sir?

A. That's correct.

MR. LEONARD: Thank you.

No further questions.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BREWER:

Q. Dr. Fischman, the erratic behavior that we talked about, by erratic
behavior we're talking about Nicole avoiding O.J. Simpson, true?

A. Yes, at times.

Q. We're talking about her not returning phone calls, true?

A. Yes.

Q. We're talking about her being short on the telephone with Mr.
Simpson, true?

A. True.

Q. We're talking about her being difficult to him, true?

A. Yes, true.

Q. That may be what he meant when he said she was acting erratically,
correct?

A. I believe so.

Q. Now, the conversation about Nicole's anger relative to the IRS
letter, you just happened to walk in the kitchen when Nicole was
talking to Cora about that issue; is that correct?

A. I believe that's the case, yes.

Q. And so the only thing that you heard was what you happened to
overhear as a result of -- by happenstance, being in the kitchen when
they were talking about it, true?

A. It was my kitchen. I was getting ready to go to work so, yes,
that's what I heard.

Q. Now, you didn't stay for the entire conversation, did you?

A. I don't recall, to be quite honest.

Q. If Nicole mentioned fears that she had --

MR. LEONARD: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. LEONARD: You know what, Your Honor, if we could approach --

THE COURT: No.

MR. LEONARD: Because he knows how speculating --

THE COURT: Excuse me.

Just finish your examination.

MR. BREWER: Thank you, Your Honor, I appreciate that.

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Dr. Fischman, with respect to the recital, you did
have conversation with Mr. Simpson where you had an opportunity to
observe how he appeared, and how he was feeling that day, true?

A. There were two periods, one was the conversation that we had for 5
or 10 minutes in the lobby, as I mentioned earlier, and the second one
was what you saw on the videotape.

Q. So you had 15, 20 minutes, maybe longer, maybe shorter, of time and
interaction with Mr. Simpson that day, where you could assess the
things that you described about his appearance and demeanor, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And inside the auditorium, you anticipated from what you knew about
Nicole's state of mind and Mr. Simpson's state of mind that there
would be some tension between them that day, didn't you?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. LEONARD: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Not irrelevant. Speculation. Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Well, when you got to the auditorium and you looked
back, you were looking back, albeit briefly, to see if there was any
tension between Mr. Simpson and Nicole, true?

A. No. I didn't specifically look to see if there was any tension, no.

Q. But you made that -- you made an observation that there was a
chilling between them, that's what you testified to at your deposition
at that time, true?

A. No.

MR. LEONARD: Objection. That calls for speculation.

That question was specifically ruled on before and the objection was
sustained, Your Honor. It was an improper question.

Ask that it be stricken.

THE COURT: Stricken.

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Inside the auditorium did you look back and make
observations about Nicole?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, asked and answered three times.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Did Nicole ever talk to you about Mr. Simpson
beating her in 1989?

A. No.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, beyond the scope.

MR. BREWER: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Recross.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD:

Q. Dr. Fischman, when Mr. Simpson was talking to you about his
frustration at Nicole's erratic behavior, he was -- he was telling you
that sometimes she wouldn't return his phone calls, sometimes she was
cold, and other -- sometimes she was fine; isn't that what he was
telling you, sir, and that's why it was erratic, correct?

MR. BREWER: Objection, misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: I'm going to sustain it. It sounds like you're testifying.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Tell us what you understood, what he told you when
he was talking about erratic behavior, sir.

MR. BREWER: Asked and answered.

MR. LEONARD: Based on -- he opened it up again.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Answer if you can.

A. You know, we're talking about two people who are having a difficult
relationship.

THE COURT: That's not an answer.

MR. BREWER: Move to strike.

THE COURT: Stricken.

A. Repeat the question, please.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) The question is describe for the jury what Mr.
Simpson was describing for you when he told you that Nicole's behavior
was erratic.

A. He was describing her attitude towards him.

Q. Okay.

And if you could -- if you could tell us in a little bit more detail
what he was telling you that -- that when he was describing her
erratic behavior?

A. The erratic behavior revolved around those issues that have been
discussed; the phone calls, the interactions, the communication,
whether they would be together or not be together. The relationship
was coming apart.

Q. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

MR. BREWER: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Your're excused. Thank you.

MR. BREWER: Your Honor, I want to move in 825, the video.

MR. LEONARD: No objection.

THE COURT: Okay.

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 825.)

MR. BAKER: What's the number?

THE COURT REPORTER: 825.

MR. BREWER: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: We have a motion that comes before the next witness. It's
going to take a few minutes.

THE COURT: Okay.

Ladies and gentlemen, 1:30. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or
express any opinion.

(Jurors exit courtroom.)

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

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, the next witness is Dr. Bruce Weir, who's
been called to testify to frequency numbers for DNA mixtures. I am
making a motion that he be excluded from testifying for the following
reasons:

We had a stipulation with the plaintiffs in this case, that with
respect to experts that testified in the criminal trial, if their
civil trial testimony was going to be the same, then we would save
money and time by not taking their depositions, since they weren't
going to say anything different. We relied on that in not taking Dr.
Weir's deposition.

This morning, I had a paper passed to me just across the table, giving
a whole new set of numbers, frequency numbers, that are different from
what he testified to at the criminal trial.

Further, there is one statistic on here regarding the frequency of the
combined 303, 304, 305 of the Bronco that was a completely new figure.
There was never frequency testified to about that at the criminal
trial.

Mr. Lambert indicated he used the same method but he came up with
different numbers. I asked if there were any work papers. He said, no,
he doesn't have any work papers.

Some of these numbers are substantially different. One of them with
respect to stains G1 and G2 on the Rockingham glove, the number that
he testified at the criminal trial as the most frequent occurrence was
1 in 3,000. It's now 1 in 6 billion.

These are substantial differences. We have not had any discovery on
this. We object to him -- them calling this witness at this time based
on violation of the stipulation that they signed.

MR. LAMBERT: Yes, Your Honor, Dr. Weir did testify at the criminal
trial about this very same subject matter, frequency calculation, just
to mixtures.

He's not talking about the single stains, but the mixtures only, and
the only number that wasn't presented at criminal trial was one for
the 303, 304 and 305 combination because that -- at the time that he
testified that test hadn't been done.

It was done later in the case so that's the only new mixture number
that he's testifying to.

Other than that, he's recalculated some of the mixture numbers and, in
fact, he published these results. They know them. Everyone's seen
them. They've been published in journals. That is accessible to
everyone.

It's basically the same testimony as before. The numbers are slightly
different, but it's the same methodology that he's got on the report.

In fact, you might remember, Your Honor, it was at their insistence
that mixture calculations be put into evidence. They insisted that we
put those into evidence at the beginning of the case. That's why we
are about to do it.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, the law requires statistics under People
versus Barney. These statistic mixtures aren't available. The
difference in 1 and 3,000 and 1 in 6 billion is a substantially new
calculation, something new.

I would move to exclude the new stain, 303, 304 and 305. I would also
move to exclude any testimony about these new numbers. We've had no
discovery about them at all.

MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, these aren't new numbers. They've been
recalculated.

THE COURT: You just finished telling me that the test wasn't made
until later. How could they not be new numbers?

MR. LAMBERT: I agree 303, 304 and 305 is a new number. At the time of
his testimony that item had not been tested by the underlying
laboratory. Very late in the criminal case they did an RFLP test on
303, 304 and 305.

All he's done is add that one new calculation using the same
methodology that he already testified three days in the criminal trial
about -- all this methodology.

He's now calculated, used the same methodology to calculate it for
that one stain that he did for all the other mixtures. That's the only
thing that's new. And it's not even new. It's only just the same apply
to the same formula in the computer to a new set of data. So there's
nothing new about that.

THE COURT: I'm inclined not to permit him to testify unless he's
subject to a deposition.

MR. LAMBERT: If you want, Your Honor, we can present him for a
deposition, they can ask him about these numbers and we can call him
later.

THE COURT: Why can't you do that?

MR. LAMBERT: I'll willing to do that, Your Honor. We can have him this
afternoon.

MR. PETROCELLI: He can have his deposition taken this afternoon.

MR. BLASIER: I'm not prepared to do a deposition this afternoon based
on new numbers I'm given this morning with no new discovery, no work
papers.

THE COURT: Where are his work papers?

MR. LAMBERT: He doesn't have work papers.

This a computer program. He simply takes the data from the Department
of Justice that's already been presented, it's already in evidence,
and he applies the computer program to it and he gets statistics out
of it. And that's what he's prepared to testify about.

THE COURT: Okay.

When do you want to depose him?

MR. BLASIER: I can do it tomorrow.

THE COURT: Okay.

Do it tomorrow.

MR. LAMBERT: Very well, Your Honor.

MR. PETROCELLI: We have a witness. I guess he will start right after
lunch, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. 1:30.

(At 11:50 A.M. a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)


SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1996
1:40 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.

By videotape, Plaintiffs call Paula Barbieri.

(An edited version of the videotaped deposition of Paula Barbieri was
played in open court.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Stop it for a second.

Your Honor, just for clarification, the witness, throughout most of
the deposition, kept referring to Sunday as June 11 --

MR. BAKER: I object --

MR. PETROCELLI: -- later on corrected it to June 12, because of the
video editing, wasn't able to reflect that, just so there's no
confusion.

THE COURT: Okay.

(An edited version of the videotaped deposition of Paula Barbieri
resumed playing in open court.)

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor --

MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, we'd object. It's speculation.

MR. BAKER: I did in the depo.

MR. LEONARD: The question is, did you understand Mr. Simpson already
picked up your messages that you left on the Bentley phone.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, she indicates that from the --

MR. BAKER: Let's not have speaking objections, to coin your phrase.

MR. PETROCELLI: We need to be heard. They've had these designations --

MR. BAKER: Let to go to side bar.

MR. PETROCELLI: They didn't indicate to me in advance on this, and I
will -- C.C.P. requires him to counter-designate and give me the
objections. They did not do so.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BAKER: Does not --

THE COURT: Overruled.

(An edited version of the videotaped deposition of Paula Barbieri
resumed playing in open court.)

MR. BAKER: It's overruled.

MR. BAKER: Is it -- turn that -- wait a minute. Is it --

Turn that off.

MR. PETROCELLI: You don't run the courtroom.

THE COURT: Give me the code section.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. 2025. You have the code?

You have the code?

Your Honor, try 2025(l)(2)(I).

Is that an L?

And in addition, we would like to be -- to be heard on the substance
of the objection.

THE COURT: Okay.

Based on 2025(l)(2)(I), the objection is overruled.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, we objected in the deposition. We don't have to
tell him we object again.

THE COURT: It must be in writing.

MR. BAKER: It is in writing. It's in the deposition.

MR. PETROCELLI: That's not what the Code requires.

THE COURT: It's not what the Code says.

MR. PETROCELLI: Can you rewind it a little bit

(The videotape was rewound.)

(An edited version of the videotaped deposition of Paula Barbieri
resumed playing in open court.)

(Videotape concluded playing.)

MR. P. BAKER: Can we read our portion, Judge?

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I wanted to hand the clerk, to give to
Your Honor, a copy of the deposition.

We're going to have some significant objections.

MR. BAKER: They better be in writing.

MR. PETROCELLI: These don't have to be in writing, Your Honor, because
he did not designate anything by way of videotape.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, we are required to -- and in this proceeding,
there have been objections to interrogatories as they've come up, and
so -- or in depositions, rather, and so since it seems that the rules
are now changing, we object to any objections because they're not in
writing from Mr. Petrocelli.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, five minutes before we turned that tape
on, I got for the first time, the defense designations of what they
wanted read. I just got them about 1:30, 1:40 this afternoon.

MR. BAKER: That's what we've been doing the whole trial, is giving
designations back and forth.

MR. PETROCELLI: The rule about the video designations applies when,
obviously, you're preparing an edited tape in advance. We have some
significant objections, both substantively and to the form of the
questions, many of the topics, including beyond the scope of the -- of
the direct.

MR. BAKER: There is no beyond the scope, Your Honor, in a discovery
deposition such as this.

MR. PETROCELLI: This is trial testimony. You can read certain parts in
your case.

(Pause in proceedings for the Court to read the Code Book.)

THE COURT: The Court finds that the previous order that the court made
is restricted to the videotape portion that was viewed. That's with
respect to 2025(l)(2)(I). With respect to deposition testimony that is
not presented by videotape, the Court will utilize 2025, subdivision M
and subdivision U.

You may make your objection.

You may proceed.

(Portions of the deposition of Paula Barbieri were read by Mr. P.
Baker reading the questions and Ms. Bluestein reading the answers.)

MR. P. BAKER: Page 308, line 8. (Reading:)

"Q. Did Mr. Simpson generally carry a lot of cash?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And when I say 'a lot of cash,' Mr. Simpson usually had in excess
of $5,000 in cash on him at any given time, did he not?

"A. I never counted the money, but it was always a big sort of rubber
band around a lot of bills.

"Q. When you saw those bills, those bills were basically $100 bills,
were they not?

"A. I don't recall right now. Big bills.

"Q. All right. When you would -- strike that.

Both of you traveled a fair amount, did you not?

"A. Yes."

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. I have a stipulation from Mr. Baker on the
fact that all these questions were leading and the -- it appears at
page 308 in the deposition transcript.

I solicited a stipulation from Mr. Baker on leading grounds. He told
me I had a standing objection. That's at page 310 of the transcript
which you have in front of you, at line 10. And just so I don't say
anything out loud, I would direct the Court's attention to page 367,
lines 13 through 19, indicating this witness's status.

(Pause for the Court to review transcript.)

THE COURT: I'll permit it.

MR. P. BAKER: Page 310, line 5. (Reading:)

"And Mr. Simpson had a grip bag that he took with him on most
occasions when he traveled, did he not?

"A. Yes."

MR. P. BAKER: Now, page 311 line -- 311, line 3. (Reading:)

In the black bag that Mr. Simpson had, he almost always had his
passport in there, did he not?

"A. Yes.

"Q. It was customary for him to have his passport wherever he went?

"A. Yes.

"Q. Now, did you usually carry a passport?

"A. I usually always do, except today.

"Q. All right. And we talked about Mr. Simpson's golf a little bit. He
was an avid golfer, was he not?

"A. Yeah.

"Q. That look is exactly the same look I get from my wife, by the way.

"In any event, he would usually get up, if you were there, if you
knew, early in the morning to go play golf, would he not?

"A. Before the sun came up.

"Q. And that was usually Saturday and Sunday at the very minimum, was
it not?

"A. Every day.

"Q. Okay. All right. And were you ever aware of Mr. Simpson planning
to use a disguise when he would take his children different places?

"A. I believe I testified already in the Grand Jury to the Knotts
Berry Farm, if I remember correctly, that at the video shoot, the
video makeup girl there was helping him with something that he was
doing with his children. I can't be specific.

"Q. Did O.J. ever indicate to you that he would wear those disguises
so he wouldn't have to give autographs and he could spend some time
with his children?"

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

(Reading continued:)

"A. Something about getting a tired hand.

"Q. Tired hand?

"A. A cast or something."

MR. P. BAKER: Page 314, line 17. (Reading:)

"Q. Okay. In terms of your relationship with Mr. Simpson resuming in
May of 1994, that was after Mother's Day, was it not?

"A. Yes, I was looking on my calendar. Is that what I pointed out to
be the 10th?

"Q. The 10th was -- Mother's Day, it appears to be on your calendar
the 8th.

"A. All right."

MR. P. BAKER: Page 315, line 8. (Reading:)

"Q. You saw Mr. Simpson for a total during that month-long period,
just over a month long, for a total period of about a week and a half;
is that right?

"A. You mean 12 days. When I said 12 days, I was saying over the
period of time that many days, yes.

"Q. Right. And that period of time, both you and Mr. Simpson were
traveling a fair amount, were you not?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And when you ultimately decided to break off the relationship, as
you say on June 12th, that wasn't the first time in that period of one
month that you had decided that the relationship may not go on; isn't
that correct?

"A. I don't remember.

"Q. In May of 1994?

"A. Yes.

"Q. In May of 1994, you went to Palm Springs with Mr. Simpson, did you
not?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And at that time, had you or he indicated that maybe the
relationship would not continue?

"A. Yes, actually.

"Q. And who was it that indicated the relationship may not continue at
that time?

"A. Me.

"Q. All right. And yet the relationship did continue, did it not?

"A. Yes."

MR. P. BAKER: Page 317, line 15. (Reading:)

"Q. Now, in looking at May of 1994, you circled May 10th?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Is that the day, to your best recollection, that you and Mr.
Simpson resumed your relationship?

"A. Speaking, yes.

"Q. All right. The next day you went to Las Vegas. Is that true?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And stayed in Las Vegas until May 14th?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And at that period of time, do you have a recollection of whether
Mr. Simpson was in New York?

"A. Yes, playing golf, I think.

"Q. Well, was that New York?

"A. Yes.

"Q. All right. And then you picked him up on the 16th, correct?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And then the week of the 16th, were you both out of town?

"A. The week of the 16th I was in town.

"Q. You have a recollection if Mr. Simpson was in town?

"A. I don't recall.

"Q. All right. And in terms of the weekend of the 20th, do you have a
recollection if Mr. Simpson was in town or out of town the weekend of
the 20th, 21st?

"A. Yes. I saw him somewhere in there from the 19th to the 21st. I
can't remember where."

MR. P. BAKER: Page 322, line 2. (Reading:)

"Q. I want to talk to you a little bit about, again, Mr. Simpson's
conduct relative to a cell phone, and you discussed earlier that he
had a portable phone. Do you remember that?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And he had a cradle in the Bronco for the phone, did he not?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And he had a cradle in the Bentley for the cell phone, did he not?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And around the house he used the cell phone kind of as some people
would use a --

"A. Portable phone.

"Q. Yeah, a portable phone that's hooked to a -- or a cordless phone.
Right?

"A. Yeah.

"Q. And it was common for him to have that phone with him and just
dial rather than to go to a phone in the house. Isn't that true?

"A. Sometimes he'd sit in his driveway and talk on that phone for a
long period of time, or in front of my house if we drove in front of
the apartment. So I don't know.

"Q. And it was common for him to use that and to move that from
vehicle to vehicle and keep it on his person, as well, was it not?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. In other words, when he traveled, he took the cell phone with him,
did he not?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And to your knowledge, he had one cell phone, did he not?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Okay. Now, I want to go to that call that you made on June 12,
1994, and you suggested that you indicated to the message of the cell
phone that it wasn't working and it was over, words to that effect?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And you don't have, even as you sit here today, any knowledge
whether he picked that message up, do you?

"A. No, sir."

MR. P. BAKER: Page 325, line 11. (Reading:)

"Q. Now, in terms of your conversation with Mr. Simpson, I want to
again go back to the night of the 11th.

Mr. Simpson picked you up at your house, did he not?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And at that time, you went to the party for the then First Lady of
Israel. Correct?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And you had a fine time.

There were no problems. Isn't that true?

"A. Just fine.

"Q. And you had no arguments with Mr. Simpson the night of the 11th at
all, did you?

"A. No, sir.

"Q. And Mr. Simpson's mood was jovial. There was nothing wrong with
his mood. Correct?

"A. True.

"Q. And there was nothing that you discerned in the messages that you
received on the day of the 12th that was anything at all unusual.
Isn't that true?

"A. True. That I remember, I don't remember what was in the messages.

"Q. I understand. But there was nothing --

"A. Specifically.

"Q. -- that would trigger your memory that he was angry or upset or
anything else.

"A. No, sir.

"Q. Isn't that correct?

"A. Correct."

MR. P. BAKER: Page 328, line 10. (Reading:)

"Q. Well, you and Mr. Simpson had a relationship, even when you were
going together, that that was a relationship that you didn't check on
where everybody -- each other was every minute of the day. Isn't that
true?

"A. True.

"Q. As a matter of fact, your relationship was one that, for example,
on June 11th, you were aware that Mr. Simpson -- that's 1994 -- that
Mr. Simpson was going to Chicago.

Correct?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And you were further aware that he was going to come back and you
and he had made plans to go to San Francisco on Wednesday, which would
have been the 15th. Isn't that right?

"A. We discussed going to San Francisco -- his going to San Francisco,
yes.

"Q. Do you have any recollection of any discussion with Mr. Simpson on
the 11th, or even before that, where you were going to be on the week
of the June 12th or June 13th, whether it was going to be Vegas,
Arizona, or either place?

"A. Yes. I testified to that.

"Q. Do you have a recollection of telling him on the 11th that Arizona
had been canceled and you're absolutely going to Las Vegas?

"A. I don't remember.

"Q. So you as you sit here today, do you have any knowledge that you
informed Mr. Simpson that you were going, on June 12, 1994, to Las
Vegas on that day?

"A. No.

"Q. And that was -- you had kind of a relationship that both of you
would go different places and then call or check in with each other,
would you not?

"A. Pardon me. You're asking me if I had ever told him that I was
going to Arizona or Las Vegas? "Yes, I did.

"Q. No, I understand that --

"A. Okay.

"Q. -- but my question was -- perhaps it was a poor one -- my question
was: Had you told him positively you weren't going to Arizona and you
were in fact going to Las Vegas and you were going there on June 12th?

"A. No."

MR. P. BAKER: Page 332, line 6.

"Q. And then you had not seen him from the 6th to the 10th until you
picked him up at the airport. Correct?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And you had some telephonic communication between that period of
time. True?

"A. Yes.

"Q. It was during that week that he indicated to you that he wanted to
get back because did want to go to the dinner for the First Lady of
Israel and he wanted to go to the recital for Sydney, did he not?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And as I think you suggested, he never indicated to you that you
should be present. It was one of those things where that was more or
less a family affair, was it not?

"A. Yes.

"Q. All right. And Mr. Simpson -- you had indicated to Mr. Simpson
that you would probably be in Arizona --

"A. Yes.

"Q. -- that evening, had you not?

"A. Yes.

"Q. Now, in terms of your understanding of Mr. Simpson's schedule on
the 12th, he was going to play golf in the morning. Correct?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And that's what you discussed at least on the night of June 11th.
Correct?

"A. Yes.

"Q. That was kind of customary, certainly on Sunday morning, for him
to play golf and get up before dawn. Right?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And then you knew that after golf, he would be at some point in
time going to the recital. Correct?

"A. Yes.

"Q. Now, did you know what time the recital was?

"A. No.

"Q. And then you were aware that he had a plane to catch sometime
thereafter. True?

"A. Yes.

"Q. Do you know what time the plane was that he was supposed to catch?

"A. No.

"Q. I am looking at your face, and you're kind of grimacing in pain.

"A. My back's hurting."

MR. P. BAKER: Go to page 342.

MR. PETROCELLI: Which I may have some objections here.

Which line?

MR. P. BAKER: 342, line 8.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, if you want to read this question, I
object to it. It's beyond the scope, and they can read it in their
case, if they want.

I don't think it's relevant, either.

It's 342, line 8.

MR. P. BAKER: To -- 342, line 8, to 343, line 22.

MR. PETROCELLI: In addition, they're self-serving hearsay in answer to
the ensuing questions, plus relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. P. BAKER: 342, line 8. (Reading:)

"Q. All right. Now. In the entire time that you had been with Mr.
Simpson as a friend or a girlfriend or whatever, had you ever seen Mr.
Simpson exhibit any signs of violence?

"A. No.

"Q. Did you ever believe he was a violent man?

"A. No.

"Q. Did he ever indicate in the entire time that you and he had a
relationship, albeit '93 or '94 that -- was he critical of Nicole in
any way, shape or form?

"A. We didn't talk about Nicole.

"Q. And so he had never said anything to your knowledge that was
critical of her. Correct?

"A. No.

"Q. Had he ever indicated to you that he thought she was -- she was a
good mother to his children?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And on how many occasions had he mentioned to you that he thought
she was a good mother to his children?

"A. I don't recall, but I have heard him say that sometime.

"Q. I want to go to this issue of whether or not he had ever indicated
a denial of killing Nicole or Ron Goldman.

"You and he at times, after he was in jail, studied the bible
together, did you not?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And you had a conversation with him while you were studying the
bible, when he said, 'Why is God doing this to me? I didn't do it. I
never killed anyone.'

"A. Yes."

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection.

MR. BAKER: That was not an infrequent subject.

MR. PETROCELLI: That's objectionable hearsay. That's absolutely
self-serving hearsay.

THE COURT: That's self-serving. Sustained.

MR. P. BAKER: Page 362, line 1.

MR. PETROCELLI: May that be stricken?

THE COURT: Stricken.

MR. PETROCELLI: Where, Mr. Baker?

MR. P. BAKER: 362, line 1.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.

MR. P. BAKER: I'm sorry. That was already read. We're done.

MR. PETROCELLI: I think a little redirect at 362, line 1.

MR. PETROCELLI: (Reading:)

"Q. Now, in response to some questions by Mr. Baker about the messages
you -- that Mr. -- that you left Mr. Simpson on the morning of June 12
at 7:00 o'clock a.m. message.

"Do you remember that message?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. I think Mr. Baker asked you if you knew if Mr. Simpson had ever
picked that message up.

"Do you remember that question?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And you responded that you didn't know.

"Do you remember your answer?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. But you testified earlier today, did you not, that by Mr.
Simpson's three messages to you, you could tell he had picked up your
earlier message. Correct?

"A. I believe I said I assumed.

"Q. You assumed it because Mr. Simpson said in words or in substance,
'What happened now? Last night we were talking about a house full of
kids.' Is that correct?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. So it's your belief that he had picked up your earlier message of
7 o'clock. Correct?

"A. I assume.

"Q. That's your belief?

"A. Yes, sir."

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.

No further redirect.

MR. P. BAKER: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen.

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

(Recess.)

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

MR. BLASIER: With respect to the deposition tomorrow of Dr. Weir, I
would ask that the plaintiffs, since we obviously haven't had a chance
to generate any -- I'd ask the Court to order the plaintiff to produce
the publication that Mr. Lambert referred to from which these new
numbers come from, as well as the computer program that he referred to
as being used to generate these numbers, the underlying data that went
into the numbers, and the new calculations in a form that my experts
can look at.

MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Lambert went back to check with the witness on
producing this computer program. I do not know whether the witness has
access to this publication, nor do I know anything else about this
witness.

MR. BAKER: Could you be more vague?

(Laughter.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor -- in other words, Your Honor, we're
checking on it right now. Maybe we could defer this until Mr. Lambert
comes back at the break. I'll give him a call. We'll try to --
whatever he has, we'll produce.

MR. BLASIER: But the problem is --

MR. PETROCELLI: I may not have the publication.

MR. BLASIER: If we had known about this in advance, we could good
given him notice to produce it what we ordinarily do. If he can't
produce it tomorrow, we're going to object to him testifying at all.

MR. PETROCELLI: Whatever he has, we'll produce.

We're not going to stand on any notice requirement.

MR. BLASIER: We are.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. PETROCELLI: Can't produce what he doesn't have, Mr. Blasier, is
all I'm saying.

THE COURT: Mr. Petrocelli, you obviously had it at one time.

MR. PETROCELLI: Whatever he has, Your Honor, we'll get it.

THE COURT: And I presume he must still have access to it. So I will
order him to produce it for the deposition. If he doesn't have it at
the deposition, the Court will have to take remedial steps to correct
that problem.

And if it's still your desire to use his testimony, it