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 5, 1996

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

SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS,

VS.

ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.


SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1996
9:11 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: Okay.

I believe we have Defendant's motion for reconsideration of the
Court's ruling regarding former testimony of Mark Fuhrman.

Go ahead.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, what prompted the filing of the motion was a
comment Your Honor made in the order, which suggests -- actually,
didn't suggest -- it actually stated that the only reason that we were
proposing to read the prior testimony of Detective Fuhrman was to try
to impeach him. And I thought we had made it fairly clear in our
earlier filing that that was not the only reason.

And the purpose for filing this motion -- and I understand that it's
an unusual procedure, but the purpose was simply to make it crystal
clear to Your Honor that that was not the only reason; and, in fact,
there were several other areas that we outlined in the motion that we
felt that his prior testimony was pertinent and -- and crucial to our
-- to our case. And I think we've outlined those fairly clearly.

We did attempt to articulate that in our earlier filings. Going back
through them, I thought we could have done a better job of that. I
wanted to make sure that Your Honor was aware of our position;
because, frankly, given what you stated in your order, I feel -- felt
like we didn't communicate that as clearly as we could to you.

So that's the main reason we wanted to do this official filing. So,
it's -- to the extent that your order and ruling was relying upon the
fact -- or ruling that that was the only reason that we were proposing
to call his testimony, we felt that that was incorrect. And then
again, that it was possibly primarily our fault, that we hadn't
articulated clearly enough the reasons, other than impeachment, that
we wanted to elicit the testimony of Detective Fuhrman.

THE COURT: Well, do I understand the Defendant's position to be that
the Defendant's counsel wish to offer Fuhrman's criminal-trial
testimony, and at the same time, impeach him?

MR. LEONARD: Yes, we do.

THE COURT: That's what I thought.

And do you wish to respond?

MR. GELBLUM: That was one of the points I wanted to make clear.

And the second is that Sections 1291 and 1292 make no distinction
whatsoever as to the purpose for what -- for which the evidence is
being used. It just says it can't be used if the party against them
being offered doesn't have an opportunity to cross-examine at the
prior trial.

MR. LEONARD: One final point.

If Your Honor was inclined to allow us to read in portions at this
juncture, or in our case to read in portions that were not
impeachment, but portions that we set forth, we'd be -- obviously,
we'll take half a loaf. We're not -- we don't want to do that, but we
will. And we'll argue at a later time, if it is appropriate, that we
were permitted to impeach. In response to your question.

MR. GELBLUM: Again, just -- the statute makes no distinction
whatsoever for the purpose for which the evidence is being offered.
None.

Because you can't offer it if the party against them is offered -- was
not a party to the prior action, and the party in the similar position
in the prior action did not have an opportunity to cross-examine,
which is clearly the case here, since the prosecution offered the
testimony, did not cross-examine the testimony.

Your prior ruling was absolutely correct in that regard and this --
the issue has no bearing on that whatsoever.

THE COURT: Well --

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor --

THE COURT: Yes?

MR. LEONARD: Would you like to hear any more? I mean, I think we've --

THE COURT: You want to make your record.

MR. LEONARD: I mean, we're now going -- we're now going back into the
arguments that were made before. And to the extent you want anymore
clarification, I'm willing to do that.

Obviously, I think we made our position very clear on this motion of
substance over form with regard to cross-examination, and you
apparently did not accept that.

I can revisit that at this point, if you'd like, I think.

THE COURT: I just want to give you the opportunity of clarifying the
record. I think the Court's ruling was a very technical one. It's a
position that, I think, by your current position -- position with
regards to taking half a loaf and foregoing the impeachment, would
stand you in good stead on the appeal.

I'm allowing you to perfect your record to that extent.

If I were sitting on a Court of Appeal, I would possibly be more
receptive to that argument, than just being a lowly trial judge.

MR. LEONARD: I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Let me --

THE COURT: I'm letting you make your record with regards to the fact
that, by taking that position, perhaps the Court would say the
plaintiffs' position is more akin to that of the prosecutor than it
would be if it's your intention to impeach him, and offer the evidence
solely for the purposes of impeachment.

MR. LEONARD: Obviously, just so the record is clear, I --

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. LEONARD: -- feel we're treading on delicate ground.

Just so the record is clear, I don't want my suggestion that we would
take half a loaf to, in any way, constitute a waiver of our initial
position. I want to you understand that.

That's not what I'm saying . . . I'm just saying that if Your Honor
were to -- were to modify his -- the ruling -- I mean, there's nothing
we can do about that.

But we wanted to make it perfectly clear that there are other reasons
beyond impeachment that we're offering the testimony. Again, that was
our desire to do that, was triggered by the -- what you stated in the
order, which I felt.

So that's our position. I don't want it construed as any type of a
waiver of our initial position.

Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I think I'm constrained to stay with the interpretation of
the Evidence Code Section 1292, as previously stated. Motion is
denied.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor for scheduling purposes, today, after Randy
Petee concludes his testimony, we have three or four deposition
passages to be read into the record, and then that's all we have for
today. And some requests for admissions to be read to the jury.

Mr. Taft has been promised to me by the defense tomorrow morning. He
hasn't been available all week. So we will resume tomorrow morning,
with the Court's permission, with Bruce Weir, whose deposition is
being taken this afternoon, Skip Taft, and then members of the
victims' families.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PETROCELLI: Then we will be anticipating resting our case
tomorrow.

THE COURT: All right.

The Court's going to instruct the jury with regards to Nancy Ney's
testimony. I think as an oversight, yesterday, the Court should have
informed the jury that her testimony was being received for the
limited purpose that you offered it; that is, to show her state of
mind, with regards to her state of mind as to Mr. Simpson, and also to
explain her conduct with regards to what occurred at the recital prior
to the death.

MR. BAKER: We would object to that, Your Honor. I think that gives the
Court imprimatur that it was, in fact, Nicole Brown Simpson, and that
-- that the Court ought not do it.

I objected to that testimony before it ever came in, and we still do
object. We object to any of the preinstructions as attempting to cure
error.

THE COURT: Overruled. The jury is entitled to be advised that the
evidence is received for a limited purpose.

Bring the jury in.

(Pause in proceedings.)

(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

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

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, as I indicated before, I object to any special
instruction. I object to paragraph 2 in its entirety, because I
believe that that paragraph (indicating to document handed to them
from the Court) is essentially putting the Court imprimatur on the
plaintiffs' argument.

I object to paragraph 3 in its entirety for the same reason.

And I object to the first sentence of paragraph 4.

I object to the entire instruction, but those, I think, argue the case
for the plaintiffs. And I think they're inappropriate to come from the
bench.

MR. PETROCELLI: I would object to the deletions suggested by Mr.
Baker.

I think this balances it out and explains to the jury the purpose for
which the evidence was offered. Otherwise, it looks like it's a
rejection of the entire testimony.

THE COURT: Well, the Court heard argument yesterday for the admission
of that evidence. That admission was received solely on the basis of
state of mind of the decedent.

The Court reviewed the Ortiz case and was satisfied that if they
allowed that in a criminal case, I think it's allowable in a civil
case.

I'm satisfied that this instruction informs the jury of the limited
purpose for which this evidence is being received, and that the Court
has no belief as to the efficacy of the testimony.

That's a matter strictly for the jury, so I'll give it.

MR. BAKER: Judge, one other point.

What conduct -- what possible conduct of Nicole Brown Simpson could be
relevant in this case?

THE COURT: The conduct with regards to her treatment, allegedly, of
Mr. Simpson and at the recital and after the recital, and not inviting
him to dinner, et cetera, to show her state of mind was not one of
seeking reconciliation; that the defendant -- I believe defense
evidence, defense examination of Mr. Simpson, tended to imply that
there was -- that it was otherwise. And I believe that this evidence
may be received when proffered by the plaintiff to counter that.

(Pause in proceedings.)

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

THE COURT: Morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Ladies and gentlemen, at this time, you will recall the testimony of
Nancy Ney, the woman from the Sojourn House, who testified about a
telephone call.

The testimony of Nancy Ney of a telephone call from Nicole was
received into evidence for the limited purpose -- for a limited
purpose, and cannot be considered by the jury for any other purpose.

It has been contended variously that Nicole Brown Simpson was trying
to get back together with Mr. Simpson; that she was fearful of him, or
that did not want to reconcile with him; or that she had a state of
mind that was one way or another at different times.

The testimony of Nancy Ney, of the Sojourn House, about the telephone
call was offered by the plaintiff to show Nicole's state of mind
regarding the relationship at the time the call was made, and to
explain her conduct as it may relate to Mr. Simpson at the recital the
night of her death.

This testimony is received only to show her state of mind, and to
explain her conduct.

The jury must not consider the substance of her statement to Nancy as
evidence of any event or whether such event occurred.

The testimony is not evidence of any state of mind, intent, or acts
attributable to Mr. Simpson, and cannot be considered by the jury for
such purpose.

By giving you this instruction, the Court is not implying that Nancy
Ney's testimony proves that the caller, Nicole, was, in fact, Nicole
Brown Simpson. That is a determination that is solely and exclusively
for you to make, after weighing and considering all of the evidence.

Jurors, you understand what I just said to you?

JURORS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: That the substance of the telephone conversation -- you
cannot consider whether they were real, truthful, or anything. You may
only consider the telephone conversation as it may show what the
caller's state of mind was at that time or about that time.

Everybody understand that?

JURORS: (Nod affirmatively.)

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

RANDALL R. PETEE, the witness on the stand at the time of the
adjournment on Wedensday, December 4, 1996, having been previously
duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:

THE CLERK: You are still under oath.

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

THE WITNESS: Randall R. Petee.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Mr. Petee, you brought with you the instructions that you received,
I guess, on November 27, 1996 from the Law Offices of Mitchell,
Silberberberg & Knupp.

A. Yes.

Q. And you received also, I take, it besides these written
instructions. Do you have those in front of you?

A. Yes.

Q. Next in order is 2229?

THE CLERK: 2228.

MR. GELBLUM: No, 9.

MR. BAKER: I think 2228.

THE CLERK: You're right.

(The instrument herein referred to as Copy of a fax dated November 27,
1996 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2229.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You also received oral instructions besides the
written instructions, 2229, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the oral instructions you received indicated -- strike that.

Who gave you these oral instructions for this event that you entered
into Sunday night?

A. I spoke with Mr. Gelblum and I spoke with Mr. Foster.

Q. Your written instructions didn't include --

MR. BAKER: Well, pull it up to the top, will you, Phil.

(Indicating to Exhibit 2229 on the Elmo screen.)

Q. It says November 27, 1996. 10:43. It says the fifth and Petrocelli.

Did you ever speak to Mr. Petrocelli about this?

A. No.

Q. It was last Wednesday that you received this fax?

A. That's correct.

Q. And before you received the fax, did you have a phone conversation
with Mr. Gelblum and Mr. Foster?

A. I believe I had spoke with Mr. Gelblum.

Q. All right.

And did he tell you that you were to make two trips on each one of the
routes set forth in the document?

MR. BAKER: You can back it up a little bit, Phil, 2229.

A. With Mr. Gelblum?

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Yes, sir.

A. No.

Q. So when you got this document, you didn't know you were to make one
trip at the speed limit and then another trip where you'd go as fast
as 60 miles an hour on San Vicente?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Who told you that?

A. Mr. Foster.

Q. Oh, you spoke with Mr. Foster first?

A. No.

Q. Well, tell me what Mr. Foster told you to do.

Did he tell you time was of the essence in this case?

A. No, he did not say that.

Q. Did he tell you he needed you to get -- as fast as you could, get
from 875 South Bundy to 360 North Rockingham, and not go down Ashford,
or words to that effect?

A. We discussed that I was to do these routes in an accelerated but
reasonable speed.

Q. Now, maybe you didn't understand my question.

My question was, did Mr. Foster tell you that you were to try to get
from 875 South Bundy to 360 North Rockingham as quickly as you could
because time was extremely important in this case, or words to that
effect?

A. He did not say that time was of the essence.

Q. Well, certainly you knew, from being at Grailey and Associates with
the other former LAPD officers who investigated this case as a
criminal case, as well as investigated this case as a civil case, that
time line was crucial, correct?

A. I just completed the assignment.

Q. I didn't ask you what you completed. I asked you whether or not you
knew, because your co-workers, as well as yourself, have been employed
by the Mitchell, Silberberg firm, and you knew that time and time line
was of the essence, before you ever got this assignment. Isn't that
true, sir?

A. That I knew that?

Q. Yes, sir; that you knew that before you got in your car on Sunday
night, December 2, first -- and started this exercise that you have
described here.

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Vague, time of the essence, time is of the
essence. I'm not sure what that means. He was told to drive it in
time.

MR. BAKER: Well, I object.

THE COURT: Excuse me. Objection's overruled.

Defense may inquire as to the state of mind of this witness as he
carried out his assignment.

MR. BAKER: May the court reporter read the question and the witness be
directed to answer?

THE COURT: Yes.

You can't remember it?

MR. BAKER: I can remember it.

THE COURT: Be faster if you just restated it, Mr. Baker.

MR. BAKER: It's tough to remember even the last question at my age.

(Laughter.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, by the way, I wore this tie for you, Mr. Petee:
Got a lot of clocks on it.

(Laughter.)

A. Thank you.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you were well aware, before you started your
car to complete this assignment on December 1, 1996, that time was
crucial in the success of this case if the plaintiffs are to prevail,
and that is the time that anybody can get from 875 South Bundy to 360
North Rockingham, correct?

A. I was aware of that part of the investigation.

Q. And unaware that it was crucial, correct, sir? That is, the elapsed
time from 875 South Bundy to 360 Rockingham, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were told, for example, that in the Avondale run, that you
were supposed to make a left turn before you slowed down, enough so
you'd safely be able to make a turn without having made the tires of a
Bronco squeal, or without drawing attention of others possibly around.

That's what you were told; you were supposed to go as fast as you
could, without making the tires squeal, right?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Misstates what the document says.

MR. BAKER: I'm asking a question, Your Honor.

MR. GELBLUM: It doesn't say "as fast as you can."

MR. BAKER: You know, I can read. I can also ask a question.

I would appreciate it if he has an objection, that he state the legal
objection, instead of arguing.

THE COURT: Same objection. The document doesn't ask what you state.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You were told to go as fast as you could, without
squealing the tires, right?

A. No.

Q. Mr. -- you have no instructions on there about making two trips,
right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And those instructions were, of course, given to you before you got
the written instructions that you were going to make the two trips,
correct?

A. I'm not sure.

Q. Let me see if I've got the time frame straight. And that is, you
talked to Foster before -- Mr. Steve Foster before you got this
memorandum, 2229?

MR. PETROCELLI: 1129.

MR. GELBLUM: That's the exhibit number.

MR. PETROCELLI: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm referring to the date. Excuse me.

A. I don't recall if I talked to him before I received the document or
after.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, in terms of your conversation with Mr. Foster,
did you then tell him this is not the quickest way to get to -- from
875 South Bundy to 360 North Rockingham?

A. No.

Q. Well, you knew time was crucial; and you knew that you were told to
go a certain route; that is, have your car parked headed east on
Dorothy, then go south to the first street that you could turn on, and
then go up Gretna Green, correct, so you're going south, and then
turning around and heading straight north. You did that, did you not?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. This was all covered yesterday. Asked and
answered.

MR. BAKER: No, it was objected to.

THE COURT: See if you can complete this.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In any event, you talked to Mr. Gelblum, you talked
to Mr. Foster. You looked at 228 or 229 [sic], the instructions, and
you went out there and you made two runs. And you tried to do it on
the second run as fast as you could do it, because you knew time was
crucial, correct?

A. I could have done it faster than what I've done.

Q. And you also knew that if you were going to get -- you were in a
hurry to get from 875 South Bundy to 360 North Rockingham, you would
not go south on Bundy, didn't you, sir?

A. Did I know that?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. You thought that would probably be the most direct route, to go
north? You first start south; is that what you thought?

A. I followed the assignment.

MR. BAKER: Thank you. Nothing further.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION. BY MR. GELBLUM:

Q. Mr. Petee, you -- did you have anything to do with connecting the
routes?

A. No.

Q. You were given the assignment and you completed the assignment?

A. That's correct.

Q. Thank you. Thank you.

THE COURT: Step down.

(The witness complies.)

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, I'd like to move in 2227, 2228 and 2229.

(The instrument herein described was Received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2227.)

(The instrument herein described was Received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2228.)

(The instrument herein described was Received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2229.)

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. GELBLUM: Next, Your Honor, we're going to read the deposition of
Lenore Walker, selected portions of that.

MR. GELBLUM: Ms. Molinaro is going to read the answers.

MR. GELBLUM: She may have been accidentally omitted from the list. I
apologize.

MR. LEONARD: Oh.

MR. BAKER: I think we have to wait three days, according to rules.

MR. PETROCELLI: That only applies to video depositions.

MR. BAKER: That only applies to us.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LEONARD: They always want --

(Selected portions of the deposition of Dr. Lenore E. A. Walker were
read by Plaintiffs' Counsel, Mr. Gelblum reading the questions, and
Ms. Molinaro reading the answers.)

MR. GELBLUM: Page 7, lines 10 to 12.

(Reading:)

Q. Could you state your full name for the record, please.

A. Doctor Lenore A. Walker.

MR. GELBLUM: Page 8, lines 1 to 4.

(Reading:)

Q. Okay. Have you been retained by Defendant, Orenthal James Simpson
or his attorneys, in this case to render one or more opinions?

A. Yes, I have.

MR. GELBLUM: Page 8 lines 15 to 22.

Q. And you, of course, worked on the criminal case, correct?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Again, for the defense?

A. Yes.

Q. When were you first contacted do work in the criminal case?

A. In August of 1994.

MR. GELBLUM: Page 8, lines -- I'm sorry. Page 9, line 23, to page 10,
line 10.

(Reading:)

Q. About how many hours have you worked on this case?

A. Maybe somewhere between 30 and 40. I am not sure.

Q. And how many hours did you work in the criminal case?

A. Many, many more. I don't even have an estimate right now.

I know I spent about 60 hours with Mr. Simpson, himself, and then, I
just don't even have an estimate of how many hours of reading
materials.

Q. More than a hundred?

A. Oh, yeah.

MR. GELBLUM: Page 11, lines 6 to 10.

(Reading:)

Q. And you personally spent about 60 hours with Mr. Simpson?

A. About that.

Q. That was all in jail?

A. Yes.

MR. GELBLUM: Page 172, line 6 --

MR. LEONARD: Hold on.

MR. GELBLUM: -- to page 174, line 20.

(Reading:)

Q. Dr. Walker, I'm going to show you what we'll mark as exhibit 4.

MR. GELBLUM: And, Your Honor, if I may -- these are -- I'm not going
to actually hand these to Ms. Molinaro. These exhibits -- these are
exhibits that are Dr. Walker's notes that have been turned into trial
exhibits, we've been marking. We've shown them to Mr. Leonard already,
portions -- the portions that Mr. Petrocelli referred to in his
examination of Mr. Simpson, and they are portions of trial exhibits
1994, 8 and 1950.

Just to authenticate them, I'm going to read through this whole
passage here.

(Reading:)

Q. Is this a copy of your handwritten notes from interviews -- from
interviewing Mr. Simpson?

A. And then type edited.

Q. And then typed up and edited, the handwritten notes.

Is the date on the first page, January 7, 1995, the date of the
interview?

A. Yes.

MR. GELBLUM: And that's Trial Exhibit 1948, a portion of 1948. That is
Exhibit 4.

(Reading:)

Q. Did you write down everything Mr. Simpson said during the
interview?

A. No. As much as I could.

Q. As much as you could?

A. Yes.

Q. You didn't select out as you were going through?

A. No. Sometimes, if something got very emotional, I just couldn't
write it down. Or if he got very loud or very fast, I couldn't write
it down.

Q. But you tried to write down as much as you could?

A. Yes.

Q. And in your -- and then your transcription in the typed version is
that trying to fill in some of the gaps?

A. I tried to fill in some of the gaps that I could remember.

Q. Were the typewritten notes prepared in relation to when the
handwritten notes were made?

A. I don't know. It was during the -- still during the pendency of the
criminal trial, before it was decided whether I would or would not
testify, so I don't know exactly when.

Q. Exhibit 5. Is Exhibit 5 a copy of your handwritten and then
transcribed notes of your interview of Mr. Simpson on January 8, 1995?

A. Yes.

Q. Is Exhibit 6 a copy of your handwritten and typed notes of your
interview with Mr. Simpson on February 26, 1995?

A. Yes.

Q. Is Exhibit 7 a copy of your handwritten notes and typed-up notes of
your interview with Mr. Simpson on February 25, 1995?

A. Yes.

Q. Is Exhibit A a copy of your handwritten, and then still --

A. Unedited.

Q. -- unedited but typed-up version of your notes with your interview
with Mr. Simpson on May 7, 1995?

A. Yes.

Q. And is Exhibit 9 a copy of your handwritten and still unedited
typed-up notes of your interview with Mr. Simpson on May 6, 1995?

A. Yes.

MR. GELBLUM: Page 175, line 18, page 176, line 24.

(Reading:)

Q. Did you tape-record any of these interviews?

A. Some of them were tape-recorded when she wasn't present, but they
were destroyed when -- once we listened to the tapes together and
decided that we were going to -- just talk about what we were -- she
did a couple that I didn't do, and I did a couple that she didn't do.

Q. That's Dr. Stahly?

A. Yes.

Q. And why did you destroy the tapes?

A. Because we didn't need them anymore. We just did it so that the
other person could listen to it.

Q. Is that your normal practice when you're working as an expert
witness, to destroy tape-recordings of interviews you've done?

A. I rarely tape-record. And when I do tape-record, I usually don't
keep them.

Q. Why is that?

A. Because they are usually unnecessary. My notes are usually all I
need.

Q. Do you check your notes against the tape recordings when you're
preparing the typewritten version?

A. Sometimes I do. In this case, I didn't.

Q. Why not?

A. Because I didn't think I needed to.

Q. Why not?

A. Because my notes seemed, to me, to be pretty complete when we went
over and listened to the ones we did.

MR. GELBLUM: Page 315, line 13, to 316, line 14.

(Reading:)

A. The closest to what Mr. Simpson said would be in the handwritten
notes. So if there's a discrepancy, the handwritten notes are the
accurate ones. But even in the handwritten notes, I'm trying to take
notes as Mr. Simpson is talking, and sometimes I transcribe a word
that would be closest to his.

Q. I'm going to see if I can find it really quickly. While I do, let
me make sure I understand the notes. All the notes you gave me, that's
Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 --

A. Your numbers don't mean anything to me. I know they do for the
record, but I don't have them.

Q. Look at Mr. --

MR. LEONARD: Leonard.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) -- Leonard's 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 --

A. Yes.

Q. -- my question is, the handwritten portions of those are all in
your handwriting?

A. That's correct.

Q. Those are all your handwritten notes that you made
contemporaneously as Mr. Simpson was speaking with you?

A. That's correct.

Q. You were trying to write down as much as possible what he said?

A. That's correct.

MR. GELBLUM: Page 317, lines 9 to 19.

(Reading:)

Q. You were doing this as part your job as a consultant for the
defense --

A. Yes.

Q. -- in the criminal case?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, the typed versions, the typed portions of Exhibits 4 through
9, the intent was to accurately transcribe the handwritten notes; is
that correct?

A. I suppose accurately was part of the intent, but it was very -- the
intent was to transcribe the handwritten notes as accurately as
possible.

MR. GELBLUM: And finally, page 378, line 20, to page 379, line 12.
(Reading:)

Q. On page 19, the third entry starts, Kato comes in. Do you see that
on page 19?

A. Yes.

Q. Then the last sentence says, Maybe out of town or a little --

I'm sorry. The last two sentences,

Paula out and about; maybe out of town or a little upset about
inviting her.

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you look at the notes -- meaning the handwritten notes?

It's page 42. I believe it says, Maybe out of town or a little upset
about not inviting her.

A. That's correct.

Q. Meaning Paula was a little upset about not being invited to the
recital?

A. He didn't know that for sure, but he made -- he thought maybe that
was why he hadn't talked with her, or that maybe she would have been.
But he didn't know that for sure.

MR. GELBLUM: That's all from Dr. Walker's deposition. Would you like
--

MR. LEONARD: I just now noticed -- I think there's something I'd like
to read. We can discuss it very quickly, if I can have a minute.

MR. PETROCELLI: Is it within the scope?

MR. GELBLUM: Yes.

MR. LEONARD: I have one reading.

MR. LEONARD: (Reading:)

Q. Good morning, Dr. Walker.

A. Good morning.

MS. MOLINARO: Something Mr. Gelblum didn't read?

Excuse me, sir; I need a page and line reference.

MR. LEONARD: Page 316, line 15.

MS. MOLINARO: Okay.

MR. LEONARD: (Reading:)

Q. Were you just writing down what you considered to be significant?

A. Yes. Or what I could get.

I mean, sometimes it wasn't significant, but I would just be writing.
I wouldn't even have a chance to think about whether it was
significant or not. But sometimes something significant would happen,
but I couldn't write a lot because I was attending to the
psychological piece of the significance.

Q. But you were trying to write down just what you considered to be
significant, correct? You didn't always succeed in that, as you just
said, but that was your attempt?

A. Well, that's not fair, because there are lots of things I wrote
down that have no significance whatsoever. So I tried to write down
enough so that I would -- so it would jar my memory of what we talked
about.

I had no idea when we started out that it was going to be as copious
as it was.

MR. LEONARD: Thank you.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, I'd just like to offer the portions of the
notes, as I referred to before.

And what we've done, we've put together the redacted versions of
typewritten portions and the corresponding handwritten portions with
respect to the notes.

We've given these to defense previously, and I think the marking is
next in order, as opposed to 1994 and 1950.

THE CLERK: That's fine. Next in order is 2230.

MR. GELBLUM: I would offer those.

MR. LEONARD: The only -- we have no objection, but we reserve the
right in our case to put in portions that we find significant and
pertinent.

MR. GELBLUM: Sir --

THE COURT: Yes?

MR. LEONARD: Subject to the Court's ruling.

THE COURT: Received.

(The instrument herein referred to as Portions of deposition of Lenore
A. Walker which were read into the record by Plaintiffs' counsel were
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2230, and
received in evidence.)

MR. PETROCELLI: We have three other witnesses to do by deposition.
Would this be a good time for the morning recess?

THE COURT: So soon?

MR. PETROCELLI: The next one is the longest one; then we have two
short ones.

THE COURT: How long is the long one?

MR. PETROCELLI: Probably half an hour.

THE COURT: Why don't you do it.

MR. PETROCELLI: Jim Merrill.

MR. LEONARD: Can we approach just briefly?

THE COURT REPORTER: With the reporter?

MR. LEONARD: No, I don't think we need the reporter. (A bench
conference was held which was not reported.)

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

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, at this part of the trial, the
plaintiff is going to offer into evidence, parts of the testimony of a
witness whose deposition was videotaped. Because in a trial, the
plaintiff has they're parts of the case they want to put on, there are
certain parts of the deposition they feel is germane to their case, so
they want to put that part on at this time.

The defense has their part that they think is germane to their
defense, and they want to put that on.

Because in this instance, and perhaps in some of the other
depositions, we will find that the deposition was videotaped, but for
reasons of presentation of the evidence in terms of the way -- the
segmented way that they want to present it, at this point, they are
going to offer -- Plaintiff is going to offer reading of the
deposition as it had been written. They're going to read it, and the
defense is going to offer a portion of the deposition testimony that
was also going to be read.

And then when the plaintiff finishes their case, the defense may put
on the videotape of the rest of the deposition or those parts that
they want to put on as part of their defense, which the plaintiff is
not interested in putting on in their part.

So you may hear part of the deposition testimony through the medium of
attorneys reading the transcript at this stage. Later on, you may hear
and see parts of that same witness's deposition in real form.

I want to explain what is happening, so you won't be confused.

Have I confused you?

(Laughter.)

MR. LEONARD: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you very much, Your Honor.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page five.

THE COURT: This is?

MR. PETROCELLI: This is the -- this witness is Jim Merrill of the
Hertz Corporation. His deposition was taken in Chicago on May 28,
1996.

Starting at page 5, Mr. Leonard.

(Selected portions of the deposition of Jim Merrill were read by
Plaintiffs' Counsel, Mr. Petrocelli reading the questions, and Mr.
Gelblum reading the answers.)

MR. PETROCELLI: (Reading:)

Q. Would you please state your name, spelling your last name for the
record, please?

A. Jim Merrill, M-e-r-r-i-l-l.

Q. How old are you, Mr. Merrill?

A. Twenty-eight.

Q. Are you presently employed?

A. Yes.

Q. What do you do for a living?

A. A mortgage broker.

Q. How long have you been at your present employment?

A. Since January of this year.

Q. Prior to that, where were you employed, sir?

A. Hertz Corporation.

Q. What was your position at Hertz Corporation?

A. I was a commercial sales representative.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Going down to line 15. (Reading:)

Q. Now, drawing your attention to June 13, 1994, did you have an
occasion to meet O.J. Simpson that day?

A. Yes.

Q. And where did you meet him?

A. At O'Hare Airport.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 7, line 10.

(Reading:)

Q. Where did you -- And where did you go to pick up Mr. Simpson?

A. At the gate where he arrived.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 9, line 2. (Reading:)

Q. After you met him at the gate, you walked to where, the baggage
claim?

A. Right.

Q. How much time did you spend in the baggage claim area with Mr.
Simpson, approximately?

A. Good estimate, maybe 15 minutes.

Q. And where did you -- where were you and Mr. Simpson during that 15
minutes?

A. When we were in the baggage claim area?

Q. Yes.

A. We proceeded down the corridor, got in the baggage claim area and
sat down on a bench, bench seat just in front of the baggage claim
area to the right of where the bags were coming.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 52, line 2. (Reading:)

Q. You and he were sitting on the bench, right? Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And it became apparent when the luggage from the airplane started
to come out onto the carousel, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Because you saw the carousel starting to turn around, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And luggage started coming down, right?

A. Yep.

Q. At that moment, Mr. Simpson got up, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And he walked over without asking you for permission, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And he didn't say to you, you know, Jim, come with me and we'll get
my luggage, right?

A. Yes.

Q. He just got up and he went to that carousel leaving you behind
without saying a word to you, true?

A. Well, he said, "I'm going to get my golf bags -- my golf bag."

MR. BAKER: Can we get page and lines, since we don't have this?

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 52.

MR. BAKER: You're skipping a bunch.

MR. LEONARD: We've got no designation.

MR. PETROCELLI: I'm not skipping anything.

MR. LEONARD: Slow down a little bit.

MR. BAKER: Give us a page when you're skipping.

MR. LEONARD: I don't mind not having the designation; I'd like to him
slow down.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 53. I started at 52, line 8.

We'll pick up again at page 53, line 1. (Reading:)

Q. He just got up and went to that carousel leaving you behind without
saying a word to you, true?

A. Well, he said I'm going to get my golf bags -- my golf bag.

Q. Okay. He said, "I'm going to get my golf bag," correct?

A. Right.

Q. And you waited there, right?

A. Yes.

Q. He didn't ask you to come along with him, right?

A. No.

Q. And he went to the carousel and he -- How long was he at the
carousel?

A. Maybe two minutes.

Q. And during the two minutes that Mr. Simpson was at the carousel,
that entire time you were sitting down at the bench, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you were watching the suit bag with the OJS initials on it,
correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And the black duffel bag?

A. That's correct.

Q. Two minutes or so later Mr. Simpson returned?

A. Right.

Q. And when he returned he was duffle, carrying a golf bag, right?

A. Right.

Q. Now, when we talk about a golf bag, he was carrying in actuality a
golf bag covered in a travel bag, right?

A. Correct.

Q. You couldn't see the actual clubs, right?

A. No.

Q. Could you see Mr. Simpson during the entire time he was waiting for
the golf clubs?

A. He was in sight, yes.

Q. Were you looking at him the entire time?

A. I'm sure I -- I wasn't staring at him.

Q. You can't say here then that that entire time that he was standing
there waiting to get his golf clubs that you were -- you had your eyes
peered on him, right?

A. Right.

Q. So you weren't staring at him the whole time, correct?

A. Correct.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 60, Mr. Leonard, line 11. (Reading:)

Q. When you got in the car, you said that the golf clubs went in the
trunk, right?

A. That's correct.

MR. PETROCELLI: Next page, Mr. Leonard, page 62, starting at line 19.

MR. LEONARD: Please give me a second. You haven't -- you haven't given
designations. Give me a second.

What line? What line?

MR. PETROCELLI: Line 19.

MR. LEONARD: Thanks.

MR. PETROCELLI: (Reading:)

Q. Was there any discussion in the car ride to the airport about
additional arrangements concerning Mr. Simpson?

A. In regards to the golf outing?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. And you and he discussed that you would be available to take him to
the golf tournament?

A. Yes.

Q. Had that been prearranged, by the way?

A. Yes.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 64, line 4, Mr. Leonard. (Reading:)

Q. So when you and Mr. Simpson were discussing arrangements to get him
to the golf course while you were driving him to the hotel, you then
told him that you would be responsible for taking him to the course?

A. Yes.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 65, line 12. (Reading:)

Q. Didn't he tell you that he wanted to be able to reach you after you
dropped him off at airport -- at the hotel?

A. I'm sure he made mention of it, yes, sure.

Q. And you explained to him how he could reach you, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you did so by giving him two phone numbers, right?

A. That's correct. Actually, three.

Q. You gave him three phone numbers?

A. That's correct.

Q. You gave him your home number, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. You gave him your cell phone number?

A. That's correct.

Q. And what's the third number?

A. It was on my business card. It's my office number as well.

Q. And which number did you tell him to use?

A. I believe I told him that the easiest way to get in touch with me
would be through the cellular phone.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 67, line 2. (Reading:)

Q. Did you and he discuss approximately what time you would come back
to pick him up?

A. Within a range, yes.

Q. What was that?

A. I was looking, if I recall correctly. For departure of around 11:30
at the hotel.

Q. To arrive at the golf course by when?

A. By noon.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 69, line 2 -- line 22. (Reading:)

Q. When you went into the hotel with Mr. Simpson, you parked right in
front of the hotel?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And did you go out to get the golf clubs, to open the trunk to get
the golf clubs?

A. I don't recall doing that. I recall getting out of the car and
walking straight to the lobby. And we had a discussion on the -- about
the golf clubs.

Q. What was that discussion?

A. Just basically that we were going to be getting back together later
that morning and that it would be simpler to leave the clubs in my
possession.

Q. So when Mr. Simpson left your car that morning, he left the clubs
with you in the car, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And based on your conversation with him, you and he had discussed
that those clubs would remain in your care, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that you would be coming back to get him, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. With the clubs, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Did Mr. Simpson ask you where you lived or where you were going?

A. No.

Q. Did you tell him that you were going home, though?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's why you gave him the home number, right?

A. That's right.

Q. So based on the understanding that you made with him when you left
him at the hotel, you were going to go back home, wait for his phone
call, then come back, right?

A. Or call him. One way or another, we were going to get in touch and
coordinate later that morning.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 72, Mr. Leonard, line 3. (Reading:)

Q. During the time you conversed with Mr. Simpson that entire morning,
did he talk at all about Nicole, his ex-wife?

A. Yes.

Q. What did he say?

A. We add brief discussion about what he was doing the day before.
Actually I couldn't understand why he took a late flight out.

Q. You asked him why he took a late flight out?

A. Right.

Q. And what did he say?

A. He said that he wanted to go to his daughter's recital, dance
recital, that he had been working on a lot of projects lately that
have been taking up a lot of his time and that Nicole was on him about
not spending time with the children, was basically giving him a hard
time about that.

Q. Now, this is the first time you ever spoke to Mr. Simpson, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And he told you all of that?

A. In a couple brief sentences, yes.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 74, line 1. (Reading:)

Q. Now, when you picked him up at the airport, he was -- you recall
what he was wearing?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And what was that?

A. I recall blue jeans with a blue jean shirt, loafers, some sort of
loafer shoe, black loafers I recall.

Q. And no socks, correct?

A. Did not remember seeing any socks.

Q. When you went inside the hotel, Mr. Simpson went right to the front
desk?

A. We both did, yes.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 76, Mr. Leonard, line 2. (Reading:)

Q. Do you know whether someone took his bags up to the room for him?

A. I do not recall. I recall him walking towards the elevator, and
that was the end of that.

Q. Now, the next morning -- First of all, you drove right back to your
house, right?

A. Yes, straight to my house.

Q. Did you stop anyplace?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever take the clubs out of the trunk?

A. No, surprisingly.

Q. Why surprisingly?

A. Well, just afterwards speculating what kind of clubs, he played
with, things of that nature.

No, I never looked at the clubs.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 77, Mr. Leonard, line 6. (Reading:)

Q. And at some point you got a phone call, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And the first phone call you got that morning was from Mr. Simpson?

A. That's correct.

Q. And it was on your cell phone?

A. On my cellular phone.

Q. And you're sure of that?

A. I'm positive.

MR. PETROCELLI: And, Mr. Leonard, page 79, line 5. (Reading:)

Q. Now, in this first telephone call, it came in from Mr. Simpson's
hotel room, as you understand it?

A. Yes.

Q. And I'm looking at his telephone bill from his hotel room which has
been previously marked as Exhibit 72 to these depositions, and it
shows a call to (708)337-4150. That was your cell phone number, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And it shows three calls to that number, and all three were to your
cell phone, correct?

A. Take that's correct.

Q. In any of those three phone calls to your -- to you made by Mr.
Simpson from his hotel room, did he mention to you anything about
cutting his finger?

A. Not -- No.

Q. Later on he did?

A. No, no. I believe it was the third conversation when I heard a
crash. He didn't say anything about cutting his finger. That was when
he proceeded to start crying.

Q. And the crash that you heard is kind of like glass breaking?

A. I heard a disturbance in the background. I can't tell you whether
it was glass breaking or not.

Q. Did you ask him if everything was okay?

A. I didn't even address that noise.

Q. But this was the conversation in which Mr. Simpson apparently put
the phone down, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And it was at that point in time that you heard this crash,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And then some time elapsed and then he picked up the phone again,
correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And how long of a time do you think went by when the phone was laid
down by Mr. Simpson and you were out of contact with him on the cell
phone call?

A. Oh, boy. It was very brief.

Q. Ten seconds?

A. Not even that.

Q. Five seconds?

A. Two to five seconds.

Q. Two to five seconds?

A. Right. And the crash that I heard could have been the phone hitting
something. I can't tell what you what it was.

Q. Well, you said crash?

A. Well, the noise that I heard.

Q. Could it also have been glass breaking?

A. It could have been anything.

Q. Any conversation in that call about his finger?

A. No.

Q. Or a cut on his finger?

A. No.

Q. Or in any of those calls?

A. No.

Q. Now, in these three phone calls that Mr. Simpson made from his
phone -- room to you and your cell phone, did he at any time discuss
wanting to get you to pick him up and get his golf clubs and go back
to Los Angeles?

A. None of the conversations addressed the golf clubs. They all --

Q. But he wanted you to come, right?

A. As quickly as I could, yes.

Q. And in the very first conversation, did you point out that you were
roughly 30, 40 minutes from his hotel?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you tell him when you would be there? Did you say I'll be there
in two minutes or I'll be there in a half-hour?

A. No.

Q. You're saying that you did not at all make clear to Mr. Simpson how
long it would take for you to get there?

A. Not on the first conversation.

Q. But you did in one of the other two conversations?

A. Yes.

Q. In the second one?

A. Yes.

Q. And what did you tell him in the second one?

A. I just let him know that I was a good dance away from where he was
that it would take me some time, that there may be better alternatives
out there for him to get back to the airport.

Q. And he said to you try to make it, right?

A. Yes. I told him that I would try to get there.

Q. And he did not tell you not to come, right?

A. No.

Q. In fact, the way he left it with you after that second call is that
even though you were quite a ways away, you were still going to try to
pick him up at the airport, right?

A. At the hotel.

Q. Excuse me. That you were still going to try to pick him up at the
hotel and get him to the airport, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then in the third call he made to you he again indicated to you
that he wanted you to get there as quickly as possible?

A. Yes. He was wondering where I was and just wondering when I was
going to be there.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 85, Mr. Leonard, line 10. (Reading:)

Q. According to the time listed on your phone records, the first call
was received on your cell phone on it's morning of June 13 at what
time?

A. 8:25 a.m.

Q. 8:25?

A. That's correct.

MR. PETROCELLI: Going down to line 22. (Reading:)

Q. Okay. The next call that you received from Mr.1Simpson by looking
at your cell phone records took place when?

A. 8:32 a.m.

Q. So that was seven minutes later?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that's the call when you told him about maybe he should take
alternative transportation because you were quite a distance away,
correct?

A. That's right.

Q. But he still had said -- excuse me -- but he still said he wanted
you to come get him, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Then the next call that came in was at what time?

A. 8:34 a.m.

Q. Two minutes later?

A. Two minutes later.

Q. And same thing discussed in that call?

A. Right. And that's when I addressed the issue of his behavior at
that time.

Q. What do you mean?

A. Well, he seemed very -- even more desperate at that point.

Q. And that's when the phone dropped?

A. Yes.

Q. And you again brought up the subject in that third call that
perhaps he should take a cab or some other alternative transportation,
right?

A. Yes.

Q. And he did not tell you to stop coming to the airport in that third
call, right?

A. No, he did not.

Q. In fact, the way it was left is that you were still going to try to
get him, right?

A. That's right.

Q. Now, you then called him shortly thereafter, right?

A. Correct.

Q. You called the hotel?

A. That's correct.

Q. And somehow by getting in touch with the front desk were
transferred to Mr. Simpson, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And first you called directory assistance to get the phone number,
right?

A. That's correct.

Q. That's indicated on your cell phone records, right?

A. Right.

Q. And you did that at 8:47 a.m., which is 13 minutes after your phone
call -- your third phone call with Mr. Simpson, true?

A. That's right.

Q. And then you got the number and then you called the hotel, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you called the hotel at what time?

A. According to the records, 8:48 a.m.

Q. And it took a little while for Mr. Simpson to get on the phone,
right?

A. Yes.

Q. First you were transferred to his room, right?

A. No. They said that Mr. Simpson had checked out of the hotel.

Q. And then you said can you find him?

A. Yes. I let them know who I was and that it was very important, that
it was a matter of urgency.

Q. You were put on hold, right?

A. I can't remember -- I was -- whether I was put on hold or the phone
was placed down, yes.

Q. So some time elapsed and then you were connected to Mr. Simpson,
right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And in that conversation you told Mr. Simpson that you would be
there in a matter of how many minutes, ten minutes or so?

A. Yes, ten, fifteen minutes. I was actually making very good time.

Q. And Mr. Simpson said get here as quickly as you can, right?

A. He just said, "Well, maybe I'll go with you then." That's what I
recall.

Q. So by the time you hung up that fourth phone call with Mr. Simpson
which you placed -- which call was placed at 8:48 a.m., you still left
it with him that you were going to try to get there to get him to the
airport, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And he said, maybe I'll go with you then, right?

A. Right.

Q. And according to your phone records, how long did that call with
Mr. Simpson that you placed at 8:48 a.m. on June 13 take place?

A. Two minutes.

Q. So you got off the phone with him roughly at 8:50?

A. That would be good, accurate.

Q. At 8:50 a.m., Mr. Simpson told you that he would wait for you,
right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, when you got to the hotel --

MR. LEONARD: Where are we?

Oh, okay. I got it.

MR. PETROCELLI: (Reading:)

Q. When you got to the hotel, do you know what time it was?

A. No, I don't have an accurate -- I have no idea. I was in such a
hurry, I didn't look at my watch to be specific.

MR. PETROCELLI: Can you -- could you slow down a little bit?

MR. GELBLUM: Sure.

MR. LEONARD: You're in a hurry; I can see that.

MR. PETROCELLI: (Reading:)

Q. Was it 9 o'clock?

MR. GELBLUM: Did you get that Gina.

THE COURT REPORTER: Um-hum.

A. It could have been.

Q. When you pulled up, you -- did you get out of the car to look for
Mr. Simpson?

A. I got out of car to go into the lobby to look for Mr. Simpson.

Q. And who did you encounter? Did you encounter John Johnson?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Do you know who John Johnson was?

A. Absolutely.

Q. And when you saw John Johnson, he told you that Mr. Simpson had
just left?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you had just missed him, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And Mr. Johnson told you that you were to take Mr. Simpson's clubs
to the airport to try to get them to him, correct?

A. He didn't tell me to. He didn't tell me to get them --

Q. He didn't mention anything to you about the golf clubs?

A. No.

Q. Nothing at all?

A. Nothing. That I recall, no. He just said that he had just left with
Kilduff. It was Dave, Dave Kilduff, obviously, and that I had just
missed him. At this point I went out to the car myself and went to the
airport.

Q. Did you tell Mr. Johnson that you were going to then go off to the
airport to try to deliver his clubs to him?

MR. LEONARD: I have an objection, Your Honor. Can we -- okay.

MR. LEONARD: Keeping in mind we got no designation --

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I object to these repeated comments about
designations. I've given them what we intended to read.

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

MR. PETROCELLI: This is what I have left, Your Honor, three more
pages.

We're at line 23.

MR. LEONARD: We're on page 23 -- I mean line 23 at page 91. This is
just the question he asked.

MR. PETROCELLI: "Did you tell Mr. Johnson?"

Answer: "I may have." I'm skipping to line 10.

MR. LEONARD: I'd move to strike. Speculative. I may have, you may
have, I don't remember, I mean it's --

THE COURT: It's stricken.

MR. LEONARD: Okay.

Then where are you going?

MR. PETROCELLI: Line 10.

THE COURT: You have anymore objections?

MR. LEONARD: I don't know. I don't know what he's doing.

MR. PETROCELLI: Read along. You're supposed to object as we read
along.

MR. LEONARD: All right; that's what we'll do. I thought we were
designating.

THE COURT: Let's save us a trip, if you've got some more objections.

MR. PETROCELLI: Read it fastly. It's all -- it's what you --

MR. LEONARD: "Fastly" is not a word, but go ahead.

THE COURT: You have an eavesdropper behind you.

MR. P. BAKER: I want to have them all get along.

MR. PETROCELLI: Read mine. It's quick. Read where I've highlighted.

MR. LEONARD: In yellow?

MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah, yellow and blue.

We're almost to the end. We're doing the phone call the next day. No.
Now go right here.

We did that already.

MR. LEONARD: We did.

MR. PETROCELLI: It goes --

MR. LEONARD: Right. I knew that. (Indicating to page of transcript.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Then we go to the phone call, and that's it.

MR. LEONARD: Let me see. Let me look at it now.

MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah, read it.

MR. LEONARD: Not this.

MR. PETROCELLI: Wherever it's highlighted.

MR. P. BAKER: Why do you -- did you change colors? I'm joking.

MR. PETROCELLI: You know me; I'm super-organized.

MR. LEONARD: Okay. That's it?

MR. PETROCELLI: No. That's the conversation.

MR. LEONARD: All of this with Simpson, starting here?

MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Leonard ....

MR. LEONARD: Okay. (Counsel reads transcript.)

MR. LEONARD: Okay. I do have an objection.

This is where you're starting?

MR. PETROCELLI: Let me tell you what this Exhibit --

THE COURT REPORTER: Page and line?

MR. PETROCELLI: This is page 103.

The next day on the 14th --

THE COURT: Line 8?

MR. PETROCELLI: -- after Simpson returned from Chicago on the 13th, on
the next day, he called Kilduff and he called Merrill up, purportedly
to apologize for having been brusque the day before. And then the
subject turned to golf clubs, getting them back. And I'm eliciting
that conversation.

MR. LEONARD: Okay. But why don't you let me object first, so we don't
waste time. I obviously don't have an objection to the general -- what
the general subject is. But his reaction and his state of mind, I have
an objection to Kilduff -- I mean Merrill -- where he says he was
surprised. I have an objection to that.

MR. PETROCELLI: It goes to the credibility of Mr. Simpson's
explanation that he was calling to apologize. This was a surprise that
he received this phone call.

THE COURT: Sustain the objection.

MR. LEONARD: Thank you.

THE COURT: His state of mind.

MR. PETROCELLI: It's not offered for a state of mind; it's offered to
show that it was -- what his perception of the conversation was.

THE COURT: His perception of the conversation is irrelevant.

MR. PETROCELLI: Pretty unusual thing, Your Honor. The guy didn't --

MR. LEONARD: Argue it.

MR. PETROCELLI: I'm entitled to elicit that, that the person on the
phone was really surprised to get such a call from someone he didn't
know, never met before, other than the day before. It's not like it's
a long-time relationship. They didn't know each other, and the guy's
calling to apologize.

That's the whole point of it, of the conversation. It's pretextual
[sic] with what my argument will be, that it was designed to find out
about the golf clubs which he was fervently concerned about. That's
the whole point of what I have been reading to get to this point. Now
that I'm getting to the punch line, he wants to sustain the objection.

MR. LEONARD: That's a great argument for the jury, but it's not --

MR. PETROCELLI: I'm entitled to get the reaction. It's a -- it's the
reaction of the person who's having the direct phone call.

MR. LEONARD: So what? It's not relevant and it's argumentative. It's
an argument for the jury.

MR. PETROCELLI: No, it's not.

MR. LEONARD: Sure it is.

MR. PETROCELLI: I can argue the fact. I have to elicit his reaction.
It's only a couple questions.

MR. LEONARD: No. I find that to be, like I said before, and as I said
here, it's argumentative and it's irrelevant. That's the fact that he
makes the phone call.

MR. PETROCELLI: SHHH. Keep your voice down.

MR. LEONARD: The fact he makes the phone call, the substance of the
phone call -- I don't like it, but it's relevant.

THE COURT: Sustain the objection.

MR. LEONARD: Thank you.

THE COURT: You may put in that portion where he called and apologized,
but the witness's reaction of surprise, I think, is irrelevant.

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

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 92. Starting at line 10, Mr. Leonard.

MR. LEONARD: Okay.

MR. PETROCELLI: (Reading:)

Q. On your way to the airport, did you make any telephone calls?

A. Not that I recall, no.

Q. Did you know the departure time of Mr. Simpson's Los Angeles
flight?

A. No, I did not.

Q. You had no idea?

A. I had no idea.

Q. And did you call to try to find out?

A. I don't recall doing that, no.

Q. And when you got there, did you park your car in the parking lot or
did you pull up curbside to the place where you would get out of the
car to deplane -- to take your luggage out?

A. I actually pulled up curbside.

Q. You left your car there?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. You took the clubs and took the clubs out of the car and raced
inside?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you went to the baggage claim area to see how you could get the
clubs on the plane?

A. Actually, I went -- yes. I went to the American Airlines' counter,
said that these were O.J. Simpson's golf clubs, he was on a return
flight to LA.

Q. You didn't know which one?

A. I had no idea.

Q. Did they check that out for you?

A. Yes.

Q. And they told you what?

A. They said that I just missed the flight and that we examined what
options we had to get the clubs back to Los Angeles.

Q. And what options were discussed?

A. I don't recall. She had me go downstairs to -- I don't remember
what desk or what the reason was to go downstairs. Whatever desk it
was it was closed. So I went back upstairs to the same agent, and she
said she would take care of it for me.

Q. She would take care of what?

A. Getting the clubs to LA.

Q. Did you also discuss with the agent how the clubs would get to Mr.
Simpson?

A. No.

Q. You just understood that they would take care of it?

A. I just understood they would get the clubs to LA and that was that.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Moving over to page 99 line 9.

MR. LEONARD: Excuse me just a second.

MR. PETROCELLI: Sure. 99 line 9.

MR. LEONARD: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Where were you when you got the phone call from
Mr. Simpson on the morning of the 14, on Tuesday?

A. I was in a meeting at that point in the division sales office.

Q. How were you summoned to the phone?

A. One of our account service reps came in and said that I had a call,
seemed like it was pretty important and they thought that it might
have been Mr. Simpson.

Q. And you took the call?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Who answered the phone?

A. I believe it may have been Denise Castorina.

Q. She is whom?

A. She was an account service rep at the time.

Q. And you took the call?

A. Yes, I did.

Moving over to page 104 line 20. Okay, Mr. Leonard?

MR. LEONARD: Okay.

MR. PETROCELLI: (Reading:)

Q. In this conversation, you and he, he referring to Mr. Simpson,
specifically discussed his golf clubs, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And you told -- You gave Mr. Simpson the claim number, right?

A. That's correct.

MR. PETROCELLI: Line 19.

MR. LEONARD: Okay.

MR. PETROCELLI: (Reading:)

Q. In this conversation that you had with O.J. Simpson, he also opened
up to you, didn't he?

A. Which conversation?

Q. This conversation on the 14th of June when he called you from Los
Angeles?

A. Yes.

Q. He opened up to you, right?

MR. LEONARD: Can I get the page number again? I'm sorry, I must be
slow or something.

MR. PETROCELLI: 105.

MR. LEONARD: Line again?

MR. PETROCELLI: The end of the page going up to page 106 and
continuing.

MR. LEONARD: Okay.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. (Reading:)

Q. He opened up to you, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And he started talking to you about personal things, right?

A. Yes.

Q. He told you he loved Nicole, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you had never even heard of Nicole, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. You didn't know who Nicole was, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And the next day Mr. Simpson is telling you how much he loved
Nicole, true?

A. That's correct.

Q. He also told you that she was the father -- excuse me -- that she
was the mother of two children that they had together, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And that they had been divorced?

A. He mentioned that, yes.

Q. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. But that he still loved her, right?

A. That's correct.

MR. PETROCELLI: Moving over to page 108 Mr. Leonard line 14.

Q. My question to you was, he told you on the telephone conversation
on June 14 that the media was really on him, true?

A. That's correct. Going over, Mr. Leonard, to page 110 starting at
line 22.

Q. Now, you asked Mr. Simpson in the call whether he had received his
golf clubs?

A. Yes.

Q. And he said he had not yet received them?

A. That's correct.

Q. And he said he was going to get them?

A. Well, he had asked whether or not I was going to have them
delivered.

Q. He wanted to know whether you had made arrangements to deliver the
golf clubs to his residence, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you told him you hadn't made those arrangements, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And he said he would then go take care of getting the golf clubs,
correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. He didn't ask you to do anything further, right?

A. That's correct.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay that's it, Your Honor.

MR. LEONARD: Can we that a break? Do you mind if we take a break now?

THE COURT: Okay. Ten minutes ladies and gentlemen.

(Recess.)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

MR. PETROCELLI: I had a few more questions.

MR. LEONARD: Certainly. I don't have any objection to Mr. Petrocelli
reading these portions. Thank you.

MR. PETROCELLI: On page 28, Mr. Leonard, line 19.

Q. Mr. Merrill?

A. Yes.

Q. Directing your attention to the 14th of June, did you receive a
phone call from Mr. Simpson?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell me what Mr. Simpson said in that phone call?

A. I don't -- I don't recall word for word. He gave me an explanation
of what happened the day before. Obviously, by then I knew what had
transpired. That was basically the whole conversation.

Q. Was there any discussion about the golf bag?

A. Yes.

Q. Who initiated that discussion?

A. I initiated that conversation.

Q. Why did you ask him about the golf bag?

A. I didn't ask him about the golf bag. Just in the course of the
conversation I mentioned that I tried to get the golf bag to him in
time knowing that he was going back to LA or wherever he was going and
that I put it on a plane that just left -- I'm sorry that left just
after his.

Q. Do you recall any further discussion about the golf bag in that
conversation?

A. Well, he asked whether or not I had made any arrangements to have
it delivered to him. I said "no, I didn't. I just got it there." I
gave him the baggage ticket number and he just said, "well, I guess
I'll have somebody go pick it up." And that was the whole basis of
that conversation.

Mr. Leonard, page 37 line 14. "Q. Now, after Mr. Simpson called you
and apologized on the morning of June 15 -- that should be June 14 --
did he ever call you again later that week to apologize for anything
else?

A. No.

Q. Did he call you to talk to you about what was happening in your
life, how things were with you?

A. No.

Q. Did he talk to you about anything that week?

A. No. Just that one call.

Q. So after the call in which he apologized to you, you never spoke to
him again, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. So the last time he ever talked to you was on the morning of June
14 when he called you to apologize, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And it's that very same phone call that you and he talked about his
golf clubs, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. The last time you ever spoke to O.J. Simpson was on June 14, 1994,
correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And in that conversation there was discussion about his golf clubs,
true?

A. Correct.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay thank you.

MR. LEONARD: Very briefly.

Page 94 line 11.

Q. Now, when you left the agent with the golf clubs, did you make any
arrangements to notify Mr. Simpson what you had done with his clubs?

A. No.

Q. Did you have any intention or plan to do that?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was your plan?

A. The next day -- see I didn't have his number. He has a personal
assistant; I don't recall her name. But if a phone call would have
been made to her to let her know where Mr. Simpson's clubs were.

Q. But the remainder of that day you made no attempt to notify Mr.
Simpson in Los Angeles about his clubs, right?

A. No.

MR. PETROCELLI: That's it. I don't have anything else.

We will now read from the deposition of Raymond David Kilduff taken in
Chicago on Tuesday May 28, 1996.

(Selected portions of the deposition of Raymond David Kilduff taken in
Chicago on Tuesday May 28, 1996 were read by Plaintiffs' Counsel, Mr.
Petrocelli reading the questions, and Mr. Gelblum reading the
answers.)

THE COURT: Who is this?

MR. PETROCELLI: Raymond David Kilduff K-I-L-D-U-F-F.

Starting at page 6, Mr. Leonard, line 8.

Q. Can you state your name for the record, spelling your last name,
please?

A. Raymond David Kilduff, K-I-L-D-U-F-F.

Q. And are you employed?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Where are you employed?

A. The Hertz Corporation.

Q. What is your position there?

A. Division vice president, central division sales.

Q. Can you explain in general terms what your job entails?

A. Yes. It's running the central mid-Atlantic United States corporate
accounts, taking care of doing a lot of negotiating with the corporate
accounts, setting up functions. We bring in, in this particular case,
customers from those areas, the big corporate customers to a golf
outing.

Q. So one of functions you have presently is setting up affairs for
customers, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Was that the case as of June of 1994? Did you have the same general
responsibilities in your job?

A. The same.

Q. Directing your attention to June 13, 1994, was there a function
that was to take place that day regarding the Hertz Corporation?

A. Yes. We had a golf outing at Mission Hills Country Club.

Q. Is Mission Hills in the Chicago area?

A. Yes. It's about 30 minutes from O'Hare.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. About 30 minutes from O'Hare north.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 8, Mr. Leonard, line 1. (Reading:)

Q. Now, at some point in the morning of June 13, did you have occasion
to see O.J. Simpson?

A. Yes? I had gone to O'Hare to pick up -- yes, I did.

Q. And approximately when was it that you saw O.J. Simpson?

A. Approximately about 8:30, I think, in the morning, somewhere around
there, 8:30, 8:40.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 9, line 2, Mr. Leonard. (Reading:)

Q. Again, where was it that you first saw O.J. Simpson that morning?

A. Sitting outside the O'Hare Plaza on a bench.

MR. PETROCELLI: Skipping to page 11, line 16. (Reading:)

Q. How did you happen to see O.J. Simpson? What were you doing when
you first saw him? Where were you? What were you doing?

A. I was bringing two customers and my boss, John Johnson, back from
O'Hare. I picked them up and were dropping them off, taking them to
get ready to go play golf.

MR. PETROCELLI: Skipping to page 21, Mr. Leonard, line 19, referring
to the same point in time. (Reading:)

Q. And what happened after that?

A. There was some exchange between O.J. and John, and then I got into
the car and O.J. got into the car.

Q. All right. Can you tell us what the exchange was between Mr.
Simpson and -- when you say, "John," that's your boss?

A. John Johnson, right, my boss.

Q. Tell us what the exchange was.

A. It was in reference to -- O.J. wanted to make sure his golf clubs
got back. Jim had them, our sales rep, Jim Merrill, had those. That
something terrible had happened in Los Angeles and that we would hear
about it in -- on the news or something like that.

MR. PETROCELLI: Skipping over to page 46, beginning at line 6.

MR. LEONARD: Hold on.

MR. PETROCELLI: (Reading:)

Q. Now, Mr. Simpson, when you saw him on June 13, sitting outside the
O'Hare Plaza on the bench, was wearing blue jeans, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And a long-sleeved, blue-jean-type shirt, correct?

A. That's right.

Q. With sleeves rolled partway up his arms, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you saw him on the bench, he had that duffel bag next to
him, right?

A. Yes.

Q. It was a black duffel bag?

A. That's how I remember it.

Q. And he was sitting and you were standing, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And when he opened that duffel bag, you were standing, in effect,
over him, right?

A. Yes.

Q. So therefore, you were in a position to see into the duffel bag,
correct?

A. Perfectly.

Q. Excuse me?

A. Perfectly.

Q. And you testified previously that the bag was virtually empty,
correct?

A. Virtually. There was just a few items on the bottom.

Q. It was virtually empty, correct?

A. Correct.

MR. PETROCELLI: And skipping over to page 56, Mr. Leonard, starting at
line 15. (Reading:)

Q. Now, you testified earlier that John Johnson got out of the car and
chatted with Mr. Simpson, right?

A. Right.

Q. And you said that Mr. Simpson told Mr. Johnson that he wanted to
make sure he got his golf clubs back, correct?

A. Right.

Q. And Mr. Simpson said that in your presence, correct?

A. Correct. He also said it to me.

Q. When did he also say it to you?

A. He said it again when I was in the car, taking him back.

Q. Did he tell you when he said this, first in your presence, in front
of Mr. Johnson, or to Mr. Johnson, and then directly to you, in the
car, where his golf clubs were?

A. Yes.

Q. And what did he say?

A. They were in Jim's car.

Q. And what did he ask you to do to make sure that the golf clubs got
back to him?

A. Put them on -- you know, get them to the airport and get them on
the flight, make sure they get sent back.

MR. PETROCELLI: Finally, Mr. Leonard, page 75.

MR. LEONARD: Which line?

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 74, line 23, beginning there.

MR. LEONARD: 23?

MR. PETROCELLI: 24.

MR. LEONARD: Okay.

MR. PETROCELLI: (Reading:)

Q. After the morning of June 23, 1994, when you gave Mr. Simpson a
ride to the airport, did you ever speak to him again?

A. No.

Q. Was he upset during the time he spent with you when you were giving
him a ride to the airport?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he seem somewhat frantic?

A. Yes. I can almost swear I could hear the wheels turning.

Q. Emotional?

A. Yes.

Q. And was he moaning in some manner, also?

A. Yes.

Q. In what manner was he moaning?

A. "Oh, my God, this is bad."

Q. Do you recall anything else he said other than "this is bad"?

A. He said, "this is bad." He said, you know, "You'll hear about it in
the -- you'll hear about the in the news." I mean, what I felt -- in
the end, I felt that --

Q. Had you heard anything on the news yet?

A. No. I had no idea. But out of there, I figured something horrible
had happened. It seemed like it was a family -- and I just figured
that out myself.

Q. Did he tell you what had happened?

A. No. He didn't say? He just said, "This is really bad, and you'll
read about it in -- you'll read or hear about it in the news."

Q. Did he appear to be in a hurry to you, also?

A. A big hurry.

Q. Was he rushing you?

A. Rushing.

Q. Was he abrupt with you?

A. In a way.

Q. And in terms of the words I just used to describe in terms of
frantic, emotional, abrupt, were these out of character for him as you
had known him?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever see him act in any way similar to this before?

A. No.

Q. And did there ever come a time that Mr. Simpson called to you
apologize for his behavior during that time on the way to the airport?

A. No, not me but ...

Q. I'm asking you, did he call you?

A. Personally, no, he did not personally call me.

MR. PETROCELLI: That's it.

MR. LEONARD: I don't have anything at this time, Your Honor.

MR. PETROCELLI: Finally, Your Honor, we'll now read from the
deposition of Mark Partridge, also taken in Chicago on May 26 --
excuse me -- May 29, 1996.

(Selected portions of the deposition of Mark Partridge were read by
Plaintiffs' Counsel, Mr. Petrocelli reading the questions and Mr.
Gelblum reading the answers.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 5, line 17.

MR. LEONARD: Roll 'em.

MR. PETROCELLI: (Reading:)

Q. Would you state your name, spelling your last name for the record.

A. Mark Partridge, P-a-r-t-r-i-d-g-e.

Q. And how are you employed?

A. I'm an attorney.

Q. With what law firm do you work?

A. With the firm of Pattishal, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard &
Geraldson, in Chicago.

Q. How long have you been so employed?

A. Fifteen years.

Q. And what type of legal work do you do?

A. I do trademark and copyright law.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 8, line 3. (Reading:)

Q. Directing your attention to the morning of June 13, 1994, did you
have to go somewhere that day?

A. Yes, I was traveling to Los Angeles.

Q. And how did you travel to Los Angeles?

A. Airplane, American Airlines.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 9, line 19. (Reading:)

Q. Now, at some point after you entered the plane an sat down, did
someone come into the plane and sit next to you?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was that?

A. Yes. Mr. Simpson sat next to me.

Q. When you say "Mr. Simpson," who are you referring to?

A. O.J. Simpson.

Q. Did you recognize him?

A. Yes, I recognized him when he came down the aisle toward the seat
where I was.

Q. When you first saw him come down the aisle towards you, can you
describe his demeanor, how he appeared to you.

A. Well, he came on toward the end of the flight. He seemed upset,
rushed. There was confusion about which seat was his. He seemed upset.
I thought he might be upset about that confusion.

MR. PETROCELLI: Turning to page 85, line 19. (Reading:)

Q. And you saw him take something from another passenger and sign an
autograph?

A. I saw him take a cocktail napkin, yes.

Q. Indicating with his left hand?

A. I think he held it in his left hand and wrote with his right hand.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Page 147, line 13. (Reading:)

Q. What was Mr. Simpson wearing on the airplane during the entire trip
from Chicago to Los Angeles?

A. A blue-jean outfit, a stone-washed blue-jean shirt, stone-washed
blue-jeans, and black leather loafers.

Q. And no socks?

A. No socks.

Q. And did he have any other kind of shirt or jacket over the blue
denim shirt?

A. No.

Q. The stone-washed shirt was a blue denim shirt, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And the blue-jeans were of what make? Do you know?

A. Not the make, but they were also stone-washed, matching his shirt.

Q. Did he have a belt on?

A. I don't remember seeing a belt. He may have had his shirt untucked.

Q. A button shirt?

A. It was a button shirt with a collar.

Q. Did it have a pocket?

A. I don't remember for sure.

Q. And were his sleeves rolled up?

A. I don't remember that.

Q. And both shirt and pants were the color blue, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the shoes were?

A. Black.

Q. And they were loafers?

A. Yes.

Q. Italian-style loafers?

A. I guess some would call them that. They were low loafers of woven
leather.

Q. And as he sat in the chair, you could see that his bottom part of
his leg and his ankles were exposed without me socks, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you sat next to him for some four hours, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And made very careful observations of him, right?

A. I made -- reasonably so, yes.

Q. And you're sure that he was wearing these items of clothing that
you have described, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. When he got up to get off the plane, did you see him put any jacket
on or anything over his shirt?

A. I don't remember.

Q. And when you last saw him deplane, was he wearing the very same
clothing that you saw him on -- saw him wearing the rest of the
flight?

A. I believe so, but I can't be certain

Q. You're not aware that he changed his clothes on the plane, right?

A. I didn't see him do that.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 152, Mr. Leonard, line 14. (Reading:)

Q. Mr. Simpson told you throughout the flight certain information
about the death of Nicole, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And as he learned more information, he communicated that to you,
correct?

A. As the flight went on, he communicated more information to me, yes.

Q. As the flight went on, Mr. Simpson communicated more and more
information to you about the death of Nicole, correct?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. And he told that you Nicole had been murdered, correct?

A. I don't think he ever used that word, no.

Q. He communicated --

A. First he said -- I'm sorry.

Q. You communicated to you that Nicole had been killed in a criminal
manner, correct?

A. He said -- in response to one of my questions, he said she had been
killed. And I asked if it had been a crime, and he said yes.

Q. So he indicated to you that a criminal killing had occurred?

A. Yes.

Q. And he indicated to you that there was not just one killing. But
two killings, correct?

A. Yes? At a point in the flight, he said that someone else had been
killed, too.

Q. So by the end of your conversation with him on this flight, Mr.
Simpson had told that you Nicole had been killed criminally, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And another person had been killed in a criminal manner, correct?

A. Told me that somebody else had been killed.

MR. PETROCELLI: Moving down to page 156, Mr. Leonard, line 9.
(Reading:)

Q. He said that Nicole had been killed, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that a man had been killed, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that they, meaning the man and Nicole, had been found in the
garden, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And he told you that they were found in the garden by the street
where Nicole lived, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you are 100 percent confident that Mr. Simpson told you this
information, correct?

A. I am confident that he said that, yes. That was, you know, why I
wrote the notes at the time, so I could be confident about that, yes.

MR. PETROCELLI: That's all I have.

MR. LEONARD: Can I have just one minute, Your Honor?

(Pause in proceedings.)

MR. LEONARD: I don't have anything at this time.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Your Honor, that concludes the witnesses.

We have some requests for admissions to read to the jury. I would ask
that, as we did before, in the interest of time, that we read the
defense qualification at the beginning and at the end of the set.

THE COURT: You may.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.

MR. GELBLUM: This is request 484.

The crime scene at 875 South Bundy, as found by the Los Angeles Police
Department officers on the night of June 12 through 13, 1994, was
consistent with murders committed by a person who was enraged at the
time of the murders.

Response: Admit.

For purposes of this request, defendant is defining the term
"consistent with" to mean one possible explanation without any
limitation or other possibilities and without any implication as to
the likelihood of this possibility vis-a-vis any other possibility.

Request for admission number 493.

Head hairs exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics as head
hairs of Nicole Brown Simpson were found on the items that were
identified in connection with the criminal trial in the matter of
People V. Simpson, case number BA097-211, hereafter the criminal
trial, as LAPD evidence item 9.

Response: Admit. In admitting this request for admission, the defense
will assume that the point in time referred to is the time in item
with the number specified by plaintiffs was examined by an outside
laboratory, as opposed to the time of collection or any other point in
time, and the term "same microscopic characteristics" to mean "similar
characteristics," when examined microscopically.

Request for admission number 494:

Head hairs exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics as head
hairs of Ronald Goldman were found on the item that was identified in
connection with the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 9.

Response: Admit. And then the same qualifications.

Request for admission number 495:

Head hairs exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics as head
hairs of Orenthal James Simpson were found on the item that was
identified in connection with the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item
38.

Response: Admit. Again, with the same qualification.

Request for admission number 496:

Head hairs exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics as head
hairs of Orenthal James Simpson were found on item identified in
connection with the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 81.

Response: Admit.

Each of these that I'm going to read have the same qualification
attached to them.

Request for admission number 497:

Fibers consistent with the fibers of the item identified in connection
with the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 1 were found on the item
that was identified in connection with the criminal trial as LAPD
evidence item 9.

Response: Admit.

Request for admission number 498:

Fibers consistent with the fibers of the item identified in connection
with the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 81 were found on the
item that was identified in connection with the criminal trial as LAPD
evidence item 37.

Response: Admit.

Request for admission number 499:

Fibers consistent with the fibers of the item identified in connection
with the criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 81 were found on the
item that was identified in connection with the criminal trial as LAPD
evidence item 38.

Response: Admit.

Request for admission number 500:

Fibers consistent with the fibers from the interior of the 1994 white
Ford Bronco with California license plate No. 3CWZ788 were found on
the item identified in connection with the criminal trial as LAPD
evidence item 9.

Response: Admit.

Request for admission number 501:

Fibers consistent with the fibers from the interior of the 1994 white
Ford Bronco with California license plate No. 3CWZ788 were found in
the item identified in connection with the criminal trial as LAPD
evidence item 38.

Response: Admit.

MR. PETROCELLI: That's it.

MR. BAKER: That's read --

MR. PETROCELLI: Read the qualification.

MR. GELBLUM: Qualification again is: In admitting this request for
admission, the defense will assume that the point in time referred to
is the time in item with the number specified with plaintiffs, was
examined by an outside laboratory, as opposed to the time of the
collection or any other point in time in the -- and the term quote
"consistent" quote to mean not excluded from coming from a common
source close quote.

THE COURT: We're through for the day?

MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, you're excused until 9 o'clock
tomorrow.

Don't talk about this case or form or express any opinions about this
case. I have to remind you, don't talk about this case to one another.
If you have any questions about what you heard or what you need
repeated, write me a note; I'll have the reporter read it back to you.
Don't ask one another these questions. All right?

JURORS: (Nod affirmatively.)

THE COURT: See you tomorrow. 9 o'clock.

(At 11:39 A.M., an adjournment was taken until Friday, December 6,
1996, at 9:00 A.M.)