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 6, 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 FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1996 9:15 A.M. DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) THE COURT: Morning. JURORS: Good morning, Your Honor. MR. PETROCELLI: Good morning, Your Honor. MR. LAMBERT: Plaintiff calls Dr. Bruce Weir, Your Honor. BRUCE WEIR, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and testified as follows: THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? THE WITNESS: I do. THE CLERK: Sir, if you would, please state and spell your name. THE WITNESS: It's Bruce Weir, W-e-i-r. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: Q. Good morning, Dr. Weir. A. Good morning. Q. Would you please tell the jury what your occupation is, sir. A. I'm a -- a professor of statistics at North Carolina State University. Q. Could you briefly state for the jury, your formal educational background, starting with your graduation from college. A. I have an undergraduate degree taken in New Zealand in the subject of mathematics. I did a Ph.D. in this country at -- at North Carolina State University in statistics and genetics. Q. What year did you receive your Ph.D.? A. 1968. Q. And after obtaining your Ph.D. in statistics and genetics, did you do any postdoctoral study? A. I had a one-year postdoctoral year out of U. C. Davis in the field of genetics. Q. And since that time, have you been affiliated with a university in a teaching or study capacity? A. Yes. I think I -- since 1970, I've been on the faculty of two different universities, teaching and conducting research in the area of statistics, as applied to genetics. Q. What was what the first university, doctor? A. It was a university that was back up in New Zealand. Q. At some point, you joined the faculty at North Carolina State? A. Yes. That was in 1976. Q. What was your position there at North Carolina State, initially? A. At this time, I was an associate professor of statistics. Q. And what is your position now? A. I -- I'm now a full professor of both statistics and genetics. Q. Is that a tenured position at North Carolina State? A. Yes, it is. Q. Do you also hold any chairs at North Carolina State University? A. I -- I have a title; it's called the William Neil Reynolds Professorship. Q. What is the duration of that professorship? A. It's a lifetime appointment. Q. Let me show you, Dr. Weir, a copy of your curriculum vitae, which is Exhibit 435, Your Honor. (The instrument herein referred to as Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Bruce Weir was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 435.) A. Thank you. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Dr. Weir, is this a current copy of your curriculum vitae? A. Yes, it is. Q. Does this list, at least, the preponderance of the articles that you have -- you have had published, Dr. Weir? A. Yes, I believe so. It goes through earlier to 1996. Q. It lists at least 106 articles that you've either authored or coauthored? A. That's correct. Q. And a number of commentaries and several books, as well? A. That's right, yes. Q. And what is the field in which all of those articles and books have been written? A. They are all in the same field, and they talk about applying statistical methods to analyze genetic data. Q. Are some of those books and articles also dealing with the subject of the forensic uses of DNA and statistical data? A. Yes. For about the past four years, a lot my publications have been in the area specifically to deal with the interpretation of a DNA profile. Q. And have you ever testified on that subject in court? A. Yes, I have. About 20 times, I think. Q. Have you been qualified as an expert on those occasions? A. I have. Q. And have any of those occasions been in courts in California? A. Yes. I think three or four times. Q. Let me now show you now, Dr. Weir -- MR. LAMBERT: We'll put on the Elmo, as well, and this will be the next exhibit in order, Your Honor which is? THE CLERK: 2231. MR. LAMBERT: 2231. (The instrument herein referred to as Document entitled Summary of Mixture Frequencies was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2231.) A. Thank you. (Witness is handed document by counsel.) (Exhibit 2231 is displayed on Elmo Screen.) Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Would you please, Dr. Weir, describe what this document is? A. Well, overall, it's a series of numbers that helps us to assess the evidentiary strengths of some of the stains in this case, particularly those stains where there are DNA from more than one person. So we call these -- it's so called mixed stains. Q. So the stains that are listed on the document which are listed on the left-hand side, item 31, items 303, 304, and 305, and the various nine items, those are all mixed stains, Dr. Weir? A. That's right. All those stains contain DNA for more than one person. Q. And you've done a -- have you done a frequency calculation in regard to those stains? A. Yes, I have. These -- these are numbers I displayed that tell us the probability of finding those particular types of mixed stains if they came from two unknown people. Q. So let's take, for example, item number 31, the top item, where the Department of Justice obtained PCR results, indicating as a possible source of that item, Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman. What does your calculation in the right-hand column tell us about that particular item? A. That 6800 number tells us if we went into the population and took from the population two people and typed them, we would find that they had the same PCR profile as those in item 31. You've got the 6800 plus the 19,000, and that's a fairly wide range that reflects the fact that I used different data bases corresponding, broadly speaking, to a different racial group of these two unknown people. Q. Taking the next item, 303, 304 and 305, where the Department of Justice obtained RFLP results indicating possible sources of that stain, that being Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman, could you explain your frequency numbers there, please. A. Yes. Both the numbers are a great deal bigger in this case because the RFLP profile, I believe, was based on four different probes. So it's quite an extensive profile. And in order to get that particular set of alleles, that set of bands, and no other bands from two people taken at random is a fairly rare event. And I've estimated that to be somewhere between 1 and 800 million and 1 and 4 billion. Q. And the other calculations on this exhibit are all of the same sort that you've described for 31 and 303? A. That's correct. They all talk about the probability of seeing the stain from two unknown people. Q. Now, in doing this calculation, the frequency calculation that you've done, you've calculated for two possible unknown persons being the contributor to the stain. Is it possible that three or four persons could have been the contributors to those stains? A. Well, it's certainly possible. We can't tell simply by looking at the profile how many people are represented in the DNA. We can tell by looking at the profile, because there were never more than four alleles or four bands for each probe. That suggests that there were any two contributors. But certainly there could be three or four or even a bigger number, I suppose. Q. And why did you choose to just calculate on this list for two persons, as opposed to more? A. For simplicity, mainly. That is, I think, the easiest and the most -- the most obvious explanation of these profiles if they did not come from the people named as the possible sources. Q. And if you were to calculate the number of unknown contributors and frequency of unknown contributors, three or four were considered, in what way would the numbers change? A. Generally speaking, these numbers become more extreme as the number of contributors go up. It becomes increasingly difficult to have a large number of people with only this particular set of alleles. Now, there are exceptions, of course, to all general rules. And the in the cases where there are fewer than four alleles, some of the RFLP only had three bands. And then we have to do some very conservative calculations to allow for there being an unseen band. So in those cases, the numbers could go the other direction. Q. In this presentation you've made, you believe this is the most presentation of the frequencies for these particular stains? A. I think it's the one consistent with the fact that there were never more than four alleles at each probe. Q. Now, these numbers that you've given us, these frequency numbers, are they intended to be precise numbers, Dr. Weir? A. Certainly not. These are estimates. I'm a statistician. I cannot simply give you a single number. You've always got to accompany this by some indication of how much reliance we can put on these numbers. Q. And what -- how would you accompany these particular numbers to show the degree of reliance we can put upon them? A. Well, the bottom line is that I would, particularly for the more extreme numbers, both provide, and divide, and multiply by a factor of 10 to the 800 million. That's the best estimate from the data we have available. But I must say we should accompany that 800 million by a range anywhere from 80 million to 8 billion, just in the same way when we read public-opinion surveys in the newspaper, we see 47 percent support the president, plus or minus 3 percentage points. The plus or minus in these calculations is a lot bigger than 3 percent; it's about a factor of 10. Q. For example, on the RFLP results for 303, 304 and 305, if you applied the factor of 10 to both the highest and lowest frequency, another lowest would -- could become 89 -- lowest would be 89 million and the highest would be 40 billion? A. Yes. If the low end of the smallest number is 89 million and biggest end of the largest number is 40 billion. Q. The frequencies you put up here, your best estimate of those frequencies based upon the available data? A. Yes. I believe they are the appropriate numbers to report. MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, I'd move into evidence Exhibit 435 and this new exhibit, number 2231. THE COURT: Okay. (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 435 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2231 was received in evidence.) MR. LAMBERT: I have no further questions, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Cross. THE WITNESS: Thank you. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Morning, Dr. Weir? A. Good morning, sir. Q. Yesterday, you were kind enough to submit to a deposition at Mr. Baker's law office, with being present -- me being present, Mr. Lambert being present; is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. And at that deposition, you explained that the assumptions that you used to come up with the figures that you've presented were assumptions chosen by yourself correct? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. Nobody told you to assume one thing versus another thing? A. That's right. Q. And in doing these calculations, you did a whole different -- all sets of possible combinations of racial groups, to come up with a range from one number to another number in terms of how common these patterns might be. Is that a fair way to describe that? A. That's absolutely right, yes. Q. And what you tried to do was to use that combination that would produce the number that is the most frequent number. In other words, the number that would be most helpful to Mr. Simpson, for instance, on one end of the range, and on the other end of the range, would be the more extreme number that would be more incriminating; is that correct? A. I think I understand. I did a series of California calculations according to different racial backgrounds of the unknown contributors and chose the ranges, the smallest and the largest, yes. Q. What you were trying to do is come up with the figures that would be most favorable to the defense and least favorable, correct? A. No. I'm just simply giving the range of numbers. I could have presented the whole 16 numbers. Q. Okay. A. And this was just some. Q. I'm sorry? A. This was some to present the two ends of the ranges. Q. The bottom end of the range is the number that is the most common appearance of that particular pattern, correct? A. That's true, yes. Q. Now, in doing these calculations, did you try to be fair and impartial to both sides? A. Yes, as far as I know. Q. Did you try to do that in all your calculations in the cases that you worked on? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, you have particular expertise in calculating statistics for mixtures of different DNA patterns, correct? A. Well, I've been thinking about it recently, yes. Q. Well, you've done quite a bit of work in that area have not? A. Over the last year. Q. Is it accurate that you consider yourself to be perhaps the world's foremost expert on that topic? A. No. I wouldn't say that, no. Q. Is there anybody you would put above you, in terms of level of knowledge and ability, to calculate these kinds of numbers? A. I don't think I want to play that kind of a game. But there are several people who do these calculations just as well as I do. Q. Anybody that does it better? A. Oh, I'm sure there are. Q. Who? A. A Dr. Evett in the United Kingdom, Dr. Buckleton in New Zealand, I would say, are at least as good as I am. Q. Better than you? A. Certainly. Q. Anybody other than those two gentlemen in the world that are better than you? A. I don't think I should answer that because the -- the situation is conceivable. Anybody who thought about this issue, who's a competent statistician, would be at least as good as I am. So to put me on a pedestal merely because I've thought about it is a little unfair. Q. Would you say you thought about it more than anybody else, other than those two gentlemen? A. I couldn't answer that. Q. Okay. Is it fair to say that with DNA testing, it's broken down into three basic steps: The first one being the generation of an Autorad or a testing strip; the second one being the interpretation of that to determine whether it matches the evidence -- matches the suspect; and then the third step being what you do is calculate the frequencies of the possibility that it might be someone else, as opposed to the defendant, that resulted in that match; is that correct? A. No. I have to restate -- state the last statement. These numbers don't talk about the probability of coming from someone else; these frequencies talk about the frequency or the probability of seeing this probability, if it comes from someone else. Q. It's very easy to get confused in the terminology that's used in this, with respect to mixtures, is it not? A. I don't think so. I think, if we think carefully and slowly, we'll be fine. Q. Would you agree with me, the three steps that I described, it's a logical way to break down the analysis of DNA testing results? A. Yes, I think that's fair. Q. And you have nothing to do with the first part; that is, nothing to do with what goes into generating an Autorad, collecting evidence, or generating a DQ alpha testing, for instance? A. That's right. Q. And in your analysis, you don't have anything to do, really, with the second step of determining whether or not there is a match to a defendant in a case; is that correct? A. No, I'm not competent to do that. Q. Okay. So your area of expertise is the third step; that is, calculating these frequencies that you've talked about? A. That's right. Q. Now, where you're talking about an evidentiary stain that only has two alleles, that's an indication that the source of that is one person, correct? A. If we see two alleles at every one of the probes used, yes. Q. And calculating a frequency for that situation is a lot easier than calculating frequency for mixture; would you agree with that? A. I -- to a -- only to a degree. I think the concepts are the same. We ask the question; here's the profile. What's the chance of that it has this type, if it came from an unknown person? That's the single stain. For mixed stain, we say here's the profile. What's the chance it has this stain? It came from two unknown people or three. So it's really the same question. Q. But with the single stain you're talking about, what's the chance that if I go out into the population of Caucasians, for instance, and pick somebody at random, that they would have that same pattern -- correct? A. That's true. Q. Now, where you're talking about mixed stains where there may be two, three or four contributors, it gets more complex in terms of the number of possible alternatives that you could have, that could account for those results, other than the defendant contributing the sample, correct? A. Well, it's still the same question. We just have more -- more people that could have contributed, so I don't see a logical distinction. But you're certainly right; there are more combinations in the sense of different combinations of the different racial groups. And I say "racial group" as the shorthand for the different data bases I've been using. Q. And if we take an example of a DQ alpha result that has four alleles, this -- let's say the 1.1, the 1.2, the 1.3 and the 4 -- tell me how you would analyze the number of -- the possible numbers of people that could have created that stain. A. Sir, we're talking about a stain where we know that there were four alleles present? Q. Correct. A. And so let's start out with that. We know that couldn't have come from one person -- one person. So the next step would be to say, what's the chance of seeing these four alleles if they came from two people. And then we need to say what alleles do these two people have? And that's alleles 1, 2, 3, and 4 for the moment. What's the chance that two people have these four alleles? Well, the first person could have 1 and 2, and the second person could have 3 and 4; that would work. Or the first person could have 1 and 3 and the second person could have 2 and 4; that would work. And we just go through a list. And I think there's about six different combinations of the way that two people between them would have this particular set of those four alleles. Q. Now, if you wanted to take into account the number of -- possible combinations of three people that could create that would be consistent with those four alleles, how would you go about doing that? A. Same question, same procedure. We say here's four alleles, 1, 2, 3, 4. And I want to ask the question, how likely is it that I see those four when I take three people. So I take three people and I say, what does the first one have. Well, the first one could have 1 and 2; the second person might have a 3 and a 4; and then the third person doesn't have to do anything else for the mixture because I've already got the four alleles accounted for; so this third person could have any combination of those four alleles. The important thing is that person could not have any additional allele. DQ alpha has six alleles, so that third person couldn't have a 5 and a 6. So, once again, it's not difficult to say in words; it's a little time-consuming to write down all the combinations. And that's what I do. That's what I used to do a year ago. And that is error prone when you write down a lot of combinations, it's easy to leave some out. So with a little careful thinking, we came up with a formula which said if these are the alleles, we need to account for -- if these are the number of people that we think account for them, here's an equation, a formula which will tell you the probability. Q. Now, you can do the same kind of analysis if there were four people that contributed to that stain that has four alleles? A. Certainly four, five, six, whatever. Q. And then what you do, in order to come up with the range of numbers that you've presented here, is to take each one of those possible alternatives, and take all possible combinations of racial groups that might fit into that combination of two people, three people or four people, and calculate how common or what's the frequency of that particular pattern in the population, and in the particular population you choose, right? A. That sounds right, yes. Q. And you come up with a whole series of numbers; if you've got 16 possible combinations, you could have 16 different numbers, couldn't you? A. Well, as I say, that -- yes, but that's not the way we now do it, we don't have a long list of numbers, we have an equation which spits them out for us. Q. You take the ends of it, you take the one that's most favorable to the defense; in other words, the one that's the most common possibility and then the one that's the least common possibility, or the most rare? A. We give the range, yes. Q. Now, I want to take a look at 2231 for a minute. (Exhibit 2231 displayed on Elmo.) Q. That's not the first table that you generated in preparation for your testimony today, is it? A. The one -- the one we're talking about, no. Q. In fact, you generated this table yesterday morning, correct? A. Yes, that's right. MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to mark as the next -- THE CLERK: 2232. MR. BLASIER: 2232. (The instrument herein described as a table generated by Dr. Weir was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2232.) Q. Let me show this to you first, and tell me if this is the one, the table that you generated before you generated this one? (Witness reviews exhibit.) A. Yes, that's right. Q. And when did you generate this one? A. Earlier this week. Q. I want to put them side by side, if we can fit them both. Let's just get into these numbers. (Indicating to documents.) With respect to the stains G1 and G2, which were found on the Rockingham glove, correct? A. Yes. Q. The table that you presented here today has the upper range number as 1 in 300 billion, correct? A. Yes. Q. And the one that you generated earlier this week has a number 1 in 200 billion, correct? A. Yes. Q. The 300 billion being 50 percent more than the 200 billion? A. That's extremely large numbers, yes. Q. The 300 billion being 50 percent more than the 200 billion, correct? A. Yes. The one extremely large number is 50 percent bigger than the other extremely large number. Q. The difference between the 300 billion is simply due to the difference that you rounded or truncated numbers, right? A. That's right, yes. Q. It's the same underlying data, but it gives you different results to the extreme of 100 billion possibilities, correct? A. No, that's a misstatement. Q. Well, what accounts for the difference between 200 billion and 300 billion? A. When I generated the first number, I truncated the numbers then I did when I generated the second number, it's the same underlying data. Q. Same? A. I chose to represent it differently. Q. Same underlying data, same formula, correct? A. Yes, sure. Q. I'm sorry? A. Yes. Q. The numbers were different because you dropped some digits off on the first one that you didn't on the second, correct? A. No, no. The numbers that I put into my program to calculate the formula were the same, and the numbers that came out were the same numbers. I copied down off the screen, on my yellow piece of paper to do the multiplication when I truncated and when I didn't, and that was probably a foolish thing to do, trying to be overly conservative. You wouldn't have seen this difference had I rounded -- I took numbers like a 1.9 and called it a 1 on Tuesday and yesterday I called it a 1.9. Before I did the multiplication, if I had rounded I would have called it a 2, and we wouldn't have seen this difference. I was being -- I guess I was being lazy on Tuesday. Q. Did Mr. Lambert or anybody tell you that you shouldn't be quite so conservative and ask you to generate another table that was a little bit more -- A. No, I've had no instruction from Mr. Lambert. Q. No instruction at all. So you did that on your own? A. Yes. Q. Now, you testified in the criminal trial in 1995, did you not? A. Yes, I did. Q. How much time did you put into preparing -- doing your calculations and preparations for your testimony in the criminal trial? A. About three days in my hotel in Los Angeles. Q. You did all of the work in three days? A. I did. Q. And about how much time have you put into the calculations that you've done for the plaintiffs in this case? A. Well, the immediate calculations have been just over the last week, but I've had a year to write out the theory, to think about things, so that these numbers reflect much greater theory than gestation. MR. BLASIER: Next in order. THE CLERK: 2233. MR. BLASIER: 2233. (The instrument herein described as a document entitled Frequencies Most Favorable to Defense - Dr. Weir was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2233.) (Exhibit 2233 placed on Elmo.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let me give you a copy of this. I'd like you to take a look at that document and compare it to your table. And would you agree that in the left-hand column under "Item," we have the same sets of stains that you have in your table, and just in slightly different order? A. They seem to be the same, yes. Q. And what we're talking about here, so it's a little clearer, G10 is a stain from the Rockingham glove, correct? A. All the G'S are stains from the gloves, yes. Q. Okay. And there were PCR results from that particular stain, correct? A. Right. Q. And it's those PCR results from which you did your calculations, correct? A. Yes. Q. And now you have testified in this case -- in the column that you've labeled "Civil," this is the lower range numbers for these various stains that you've testified to; is that correct? A. They seem to be. Q. So in other words, these are the numbers that -- A. No, no, no. Well, you throw me with the different order. Q. Yeah, go ahead, take your time. A. It would have been easier to do it in the same order that I had done. Q. Well, there's a reason -- A. These look to be the same. Q. Okay. A. No, I think there's one difference. Q. Which one? A. 303, those are just PCR. We left out the larger numbers from the RFLP. Q. That's correct. So the numbers that are on there -- A. Some -- there are some RFLP numbers. Q. Correct. A. We've left out some. What have we left out? You have to help me. Q. I think 303, 304, 305 RFLP. A. Okay. Thank you. Q. The numbers up there, this is what you -- the hypothesis that you adopted, the assumptions that you made to come up with numbers that you felt were most favorable to the defense, correct? A. Now, you have to restate that for me. Q. The numbers that I have here in the "Civil" column are the frequencies that you've presented here that are the lower ends of the range that you felt, in doing your calculations, were the ones that were most favorable to the defense? A. In the case where the stains came from two contributors. Q. Dr. Weir, do you remember testifying in your deposition when I asked you -- (Reading:) Q. Why did you only do calculations for pairs of people rather than for also three contributors and four contributors? Your answer was: Because this is the more conservative number. Remember saying that yesterday? A. Yes, I said that, and as I said in my direct examination, that's generally true. There are exceptions to that, particularly for the RFLP where there are some unseen bands. Q. Well, you didn't qualify yesterday, did you? A. No, I didn't, but as a result of you asking me that, I thought about it again and I actually did those calculations, and we can go through them if you wish. Q. Well, I think we will. And you said also in the deposition that, when questioned -- (Reading:) Q. So when you say more conservative? Your answer was -- (Reading:) More favorable to the defense. Correct? A. That's true. Q. Now, what you're telling us now is that these numbers aren't necessarily the ones that are the most favorable to the defense, correct? A. No. What I said on my direct examination, and again on cross, is that these numbers are the most conservative assuming two contributors. That's my testimony. Q. But they aren't the most conservative numbers, are they? A. We can have -- Q. Dr. Weir -- A. We could have other explanations, which might get more conservative. Q. More favorable to the defense, right? A. In some stains, that might be the case. Q. And you didn't do those calculations until I questioned you -- until after I questioned you yesterday, correct? A. No, I didn't, because I thought that generally that wouldn't be appropriate. Q. You were trying to come up with the number, the lower range that were most favorable to the defense? A. That's right. And as a general rule, that's what happens. I would be happy to make other calculations. Q. You're the one who chooses which assumptions to make which calculations to present to this jury? A. Yes, I did the simplest ones consistent with the evidence, which has 4 alleles to the probe, which suggests two contributors. Q. You didn't do the ones that were most favorable to the defense, did you? A. Most cases I did. Q. Some cases you didn't, did you? A. That's right. Q. Now, in the criminal trial, you testified, did you not, that the frequency most favorable to the defense for G10 for the PCR results was 1 in 3900; isn't that correct? A. I have no idea. Q. You want to -- I asked you that yesterday, if you reviewed your trial testimony, correct? A. I've read the transcript. I don't remember the numbers. Q. Let me refer you to 33775 of the criminal trial transcript, starting at line 27, would you look at that to yourself, you can look above it too, as well, and tell me if you did not, in your direct testimony in the criminal case, state the frequency of G10, the most favorable to the defense, as 1 in 3900? A. Well, it's not laid out here. Looks like the 3900 goes -- yes, it does say there are two contributors, that's right. Q. Let's write 3900 under G10 criminal trial number one. Now, during the course of your cross-examination in the criminal trial, the defense made you aware of the fact that you had made a mistake, hadn't you? A. Yes, and I left out one of the DQ Alpha bands, yes. Q. And what you did was, you didn't count all the possible combinations that might result from the presence or absence of the 1.2 allele in the DQ Alpha system; isn't that correct? A. That's right. That's the danger of trying to enumerate instead of using a formula, yes. Q. That was as a result of a fundamental misunderstanding that you had about the DQ Alpha system and the 1.2 allele, isn't it? A. No, I think the record is clear that that's exactly wrong. I have a complete understanding of that at this time. When I read the program in the hotel room, I left out a line. Q. So you understood at the time that where there was a 1.2 allele in the DQ Alpha system, that sometimes you could tell it was there and sometimes you can't; isn't that correct? A. That's right. Q. You knew that? A. Oh, I knew it, yes. Q. So you went back and recalculated the numbers after the defense brought to your attention your mistake and presented a second number, 1 in 1600, isn't that correct, for G10? A. You have to tell me the page. Q. Same page. A. You have to tell me the page number. MR. P. BAKER: 33775. MR. BLASIER: 33775 to 33776. (Mr. Blasier assists witness with transcript.) A. Thank you. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is that -- isn't that correct? A. Yes. Q. Let's cross out the 3900 because that's an error and let's put 1 in 1600 which is the second number you gave in the criminal trial, okay. And the reason for that error was you didn't count the 1.2 allele combinations that could have been there. Correct? A. That's fine. Q. Let's put 1.2000 (sic) there, shorter band. That's the reason for that error. Now, Dr. Weir, your testimony today in the civil case is that that frequency that's most favorable to the defense is 1 in 2600, correct? A. Yes. Q. And that's because this number that you testified to under oath in your cross-examination in the criminal trial was wrong, correct? A. No. Q. Is it the right number? A. It's not the most appropriate number. It's not wrong, however. Q. Remember yesterday, in your deposition, we asked questions about that? A. Yes. And I was -- I think we talked some time to explain the difference between appropriate numbers and wrong numbers. The number is correct. And I'm sure you recall that I said it was not a mistake. Q. So you don't call it a mistake? A. The number is correct. What it is, I had doubled it, I think, unnecessarily. Q. I asked you a question, is it a proper way to do it, to count that combination twice, which is the reason why -- for the difference of 1 in 1600 and 1 in 2600, and you said no. Correct? A. That's not the proper way to present it. The calculations were correct. I think it's better to present it the way I have now. Q. You counted one set of alternatives twice, that's why this number is almost half of this number, isn't that true? A. That's right. Q. And that's not the proper way to do it, is it? A. The calculations are correct. I don't think it was the proper way to present it. I notice, however, that these numbers are consistent, they both fall in the ranges of the others I've already presented. Q. Dr. Weir -- A. I don't think -- I can't get excited about it, using 1600 and 2600. I have already -- Q. My question is -- A. I haven't finished. Q. My question is, the criminal trial number is not the proper number, is it? A. It's not the number I would give now, no. Q. And that's because of the double situation that you described, correct? A. That's right. Q. So let's put down, up here, reason, in red, for that improper number. Now, in the criminal trial, on your direct testimony, for stains 303, 304 and 305 PCR, you testified that the frequency most favorable to the defense in that case was 1 in 1400, didn't you? A. You have to tell me the page number. I don't have any of these numbers in my mind. Q. 33774. A. I see the 1400 here. Q. Why don't you write 1400 -- 1 in 1400 in that column. Then, after you were cross-examined in the criminal trial, you recognized that you had made the same mistake with respect to the 1.2 allele on that number, isn't that true? A. All the calculations I did involving DQ Alpha in my hotel room were wrong. Q. Dr. Weir, you recognized that you made the same mistake with that number that you had made with G10, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Asked and answered. He just said that, he just answered that. MR. BLASIER: No, he didn't answer the question. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I changed my computer program once, one line, one program, which changed all the DQ Alpha results. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) This number was wrong, wasn't it? A. All the numbers involved in DQ Alpha were wrong. Q. Including this one? A. All the numbers involved in DQ Alpha were wrong for the same one line in one computer program. Q. Now, when you calculated again for your cross-examination in the criminal trial, you presented a number of 1 in 570 as the now correct number, isn't that accurate? A. As to then correct number. Q. The right number? A. As the number -- that was the number I presented then, yes. Q. Let's put 1 in 570. Then this was the 1.2 error. Let's write 1.2 over here. Let's cross out this number and let's cross out this number too. Now, you've testified that the proper number for 303, 304, 305 for the PCR results is 1 in 960, correct? A. Yes. Q. That's because of the double issue, counting something twice that shouldn't have been counted twice, correct? A. That's right. Q. So let's cross out 1 in 570 and put double over here. MR. BLASIER: Could I have a number next in order. THE CLERK: 2234. MR. BLASIER: 2234? THE CLERK: Yeah. (The instrument herein described as document entitled "Results of DNA Analysis - Bronco automobile" was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2234.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Doctor, let me show you Exhibit 2234. Remember looking at this yesterday? A. Yes. Q. And that being the results that you testified to in the criminal case for various stains? A. I think that's right as -- I can't remember all the numbers. That looks like it. Q. Isn't it accurate, that for stain 303, 304 and 305, the number most favorable to the defense was not any of these numbers, but was the number that you derived if there were three possible -- I'm sorry -- four possible contributors; isn't that correct? A. At that time, yes. Q. And that number is 1 in 41, isn't it? A. That number was, yes, um-hum. Q. That's the number that's most favorable to the defense, is it not? A. No, because that number is not the appropriate one at that time -- at that time it was, yes. Q. Okay. Let's write 1 in 41 here. And let's just write MC, for multiple contributors. MR. P. BAKER: Under the reason? MR. BLASIER: Yeah. (Mr. Philip Baker complies.) A. Would you tell me what you've done, please. Q. I'm sorry? A. This -- excuse me. You have to tell me what you've done there. Q. I wrote MC for multiple contributors. We get a more favorable number from you where more than -- A. No, no, I must protest. That 41 is not a number I'm testifying to here. Q. You testified to it in the criminal trial, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. Thank you. A. It's not a number I'm testifying to here. It's not the appropriate number for mixed contributors. Q. It was appropriate when you testified in the criminal trial? A. That's not -- that was the correct number that had the double issue. I would no longer talk about it now. Q. Oh, so now this one is wrong as well? A. Well, all -- Q. For more than one contributor? A. All these numbers which had multi contributors will be wrong, in that sense, um hum. Q. Let's cross this one out then. A. But that's not a number -- you're misstating my -- my testimony here this morning. I haven't testified to a four contributor number here. Q. I understand you didn't. You did in the criminal trial? A. I haven't made a mistake here on the four numbers. Q. The number that's most favorable to the defense is the situation where you have four contributors, as you testified at the criminal trial, and that number, at that time, was 1 in 41, which is now wrong, correct? A. You have to tell me what the question is. Q. At the criminal trial, you testified that the most frequent number -- the most frequent situation where you would get that pattern from picking people from the population at random was with four contributors and you would get that pattern 1 in 41 times, wouldn't you? A. You wouldn't get it. That's what I said then. That's not the answer I'd give today. Q. Okay. The number's wrong because of the double issue, correct? A. That's right. It's substantially wrong. Q. It's certainly -- it's going to be -- it's not going to be any more than 1 in 82, is it? A. Oh, yes, it is. Q. All right. Do you have any idea what the correct number is for four contributors? A. I've offered to go through them with you. I have them with me. Q. What is the correct number now for four contributors? A. May I refer to my notes? Q. Sure. A. We're talking about 303, 4 and 5? Q. Correct. A. For four contributors, about 6400 to 140,000. Q. So it's now 1 in 6400 for four contributors. What's the difference, the double issue, the error you made in the criminal trial? A. That's right. Q. For G11 and G13, two glove stains, the PCR number you testified to in the criminal trial, I'll represent to you, was 1 in 14. Sound right? A. I'll -- just say that again. For G11, 13 -- Q. On your direct testimony in the criminal trial, you testified -- A. I'm just looking for the -- Q. Now, the charts you're looking at -- A. I don't -- Q. The second set of numbers, I'll represent to you -- A. Oh. Q. -- to save time, that it was 1 in 14. A. For how many contributors? Q. Two, I believe. 1 in 14 here, please. And again you made the same error on that one that you made on the one above, it is double -- I'm sorry, the 1.2 error, I'm sorry, you did not make that error on that one. That doesn't have 1.2 allele. You're not testifying that the number most favorable to the defense is the 1 in 27 rather than the 1 in 14, correct? A. The 1 in 27 is the number for two contributors. Q. Is the more appropriate number? A. Yes. Q. So let's cross this one off. And again that's the doubling issue that we talked about, correct? A. That's right. Q. And in the criminal trial -- you can look at that, refer to that chart -- you testified that actually the most favorable number for the defense for three contributors was 1 in 7, did you not? A. I don't have the glove chart. We're talking about the glove still, aren't we? Q. Oh, I'm sorry. MR. BLASIER: Next in order, please. THE CLERK: 2235. (The instrument herein described as a document entitled "results of DNA analysis - Rockingham glove" was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2235.) (Counsel hands Exhibit 2235 to the witness.) A. So for the G11, the three contributor number at this time I reported as 1 in 7 to 1 in 1300. Q. All right. Let's write 1 in 7 here. Are you saying now that's the wrong number, too? A. I don't follow you. We're talking about the civil -- the criminal trial number? Q. No. This is the number you gave in the criminal trial. A. Well, I thought -- Q. For three contributors? A. I thought we agreed we were not using those numbers. Q. I'm asking you about prior testimony under oath, Dr. Weir, the number you gave under oath in the criminal trial, in your cross-examination. A. Was 1 in 7. Q. Was 1 in 7? A. Yes, uh-huh. Q. Which is about four times more frequent than the 1 in 27, correct? A. Yes. But it's not the number I would give today. Q. Well, I understand that. A. So that's -- Q. Is this more accurate? A. No. Q. Cross it off. Why isn't it accurate, doubling issue? A. Yes. Q. Double -- oh, we got that already. We got two double errors -- I'm sorry, we got one. Now, for G1, G2 and G4, the PCR results, I'll represent to you that your criminal trial direct testimony was that that number, the most frequent pattern favorable to the defense is 1 in 240. And that was wrong, correct? A. Yes. It's not the number I would give today. It's not the number I did give today. Q. And you give a number of 1 in 430, twice as rare as what you gave in the criminal trial? A. That's right. Q. That's again because of double? A. Yes. MR. LAMBERT: Objection, cumulative, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. It's the same issue of course. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, 31 -- PCR results in No. 31 -- 31 is again a stain from the Bronco, correct? A. Right. Q. I'll represent to you that your criminal trial testimony was 1 in 4700. Your testimony here today is 1 in 6800, correct? A. Yes. Q. And so the 1 in 4700 is not the appropriate number, is it? A. That's not what I testified here today. Q. Okay. Cross it off. And what's another difference between these two numbers? A. It's this double issue. Q. Okay. Let's put double. A. It's the same issue. Q. And for 31, you testified that for four contributors, in the criminal trial, the frequency most favorable to the defense would be 1 in 1300, correct? That's on your chart? A. Do I have 31 on this chart? Q. It may be on the other one, on the Bronco? A. Oh. Q. Yes? A. Yes. The four number that time was 1 in 1300. It's not now. Q. That would be wrong? A. Yes. I would give 150,000. Q. What is the difference between what you gave under oath? A. It's the same double issue. Q. We got two double situations here, right? A. No, it's only one. There's only one issue in all these things. Q. But it's -- the reason this number is wrong and the reason this number is wrong are both because of the doubling issue, right? A. Well, I think that's right. Q. G12 and G14, the PCR results, I'll represent you testified at the criminal trial the most frequent occurrence was 1 in 6. And your testimony here today is that that actual number is 1 in 11, correct? A. My estimate is 1 in 11. It's not the actual number. Q. So your estimate. All right. And this one's wrong. All right. And that's another double issue; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Now, the G4, the RFLP results, your testimony here is that the number most favorable to the defense is 1 in 1 billion, correct? A. That's right. Q. At the criminal trial? A. That's the number from the two contributors, yes. Q. For the two contributors. The criminal trial you testified that that number was 1 in 1 million, correct? A. Do I have that written down here? Q. We talked about it yesterday, remember that? A. Yes. I'd like to see it. Q. What? It's on your chart. A. Yes, that's right. Q. That's a thousand-fold difference, isn't it? A. That's right. No -- Yes, excuse me. Yes. Q. 1 billion is a thousand times more than 1 million? A. Yes. Thank you, yes. Q. Which is the right one? A. The 1 billion is the more accurate estimate. Q. So let's cross out the 1 million. Tell me why you made that mistake? A. I have no idea. Q. You have no idea, whatsoever, how you made that mistake, do you? A. No. Q. Let's put a question mark there. Now, the number for multiple contributors most favorable to the defense for G4 is 1 in 20,000, is it not what you testified to at the criminal trial? A. Are we still talking RFLP or PCR? Q. RFLP. A. The RFL -- This is G4, RFLP -- and tell me again the question. Q. The -- A. The three contributor number. Q. Is the number that's most favorable to the defense 1 in 20,000? A. The three contributor was 1 in 20,000. Q. Which is substantially different than 1 in a billion, is it not? A. You could say that, yes. Q. And that was -- A. That's not the today number, of course. Q. So this one is wrong, too. Let's cross it out. That's another double issue? A. Yes. Q. Do you know -- all right. Double. And MC for multiple contributors. A. So the three number I think is a hundred million. Q. So G1 and G2, the RFLP results, again we're talking about glove stains at the criminal trial. You testified that the number most favorable to the defense was 1 in 6 million, correct? A. I think that's right, yes. Q. You testified here today that the more accurate number is 1 in 6 billion, correct? A. That's right. Q. Again, thousand-fold difference, correct? A. That's right. It's the same -- it's the same difference because it's the same probes, that's really the same stain. They have almost an identical profile so that is a little misleading to separate them like that. Q. Let's cross it off. It's wrong, right? Correct? And you have no idea where this number came from? A. It's the same -- it's the same discrepancy. Q. Okay. Let's put a question mark over there. And the most favorable number that you testified to in the criminal trial was for three contributors for this stain and it was 1 in 3,000, correct? A. This is G2. Yes, the 3,000 was the number then. The number now is vastly different. Q. So let's cross that out. And is that again the double issue? A. Yes, it's the same issue. Q. Double. Now, number 9, the PCR results from the glove, I'll represent to you that you testified that the number most favorable to the defense in the criminal case was 1 in 14. And you've testified here today that the number, the more accurate number is 1 in 29, correct? A. That's right. Q. Twice as rare as what you said in the criminal trial? A. That's right. Q. And this one's wrong, correct? A. The number is --- the number is calculated correctly, but it's not the number to present the 29. Q. It's not the proper number? A. It's not the number I would present. Q. Not the number? A. It's not the number to present. Q. It's not the proper number? THE COURT: Come on, Mr. Blasier, let's get on with this. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let's cross it off. And the number that you presented in the criminal trial for three contributors for stain No. 9 as the one most favorable to the defense is 1 in 4; isn't that correct? A. That's right, yes. Q. Now, is that one right or wrong? A. That's -- I wouldn't present it today. Q. Okay. Cross it off. And that's again the double issue for this one and the doubling issue for that one, correct? A. That's right. Q. So we had double over here. Now, at your deposition you turned over some articles that you had written, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you were ordered to turn over a paper called or from the -- called the Promaga (sic) Conference, correct? A. Yes. I didn't know that I was ordered. I did turn it over. Q. That was a conference that you made a presentation at approximately when? A. I think it was October of '95. Q. And in that paper you discuss the appropriate way to calculate some of these frequencies, correct? A. That's right. Q. And you also presented me with an article from "Advanced Forensic Haemogenetics," correct? A. "Advances in Forensic Haemogenetics." Q. Why don't you spell that one so we don't ruin the court reporter's weekend. A. Haemogenetics. It's h-a-e-m-o-genetics. THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That also discusses the procedure that you advocate for calculating percentages and mixtures, correct? A. That's right. Q. And you also presented a chapter from one of your books called "Genetic Data Analysis," correct? A. A section of a chapter, yes. Q. Now, you actually wrote an article about the Simpson case, after the criminal case, that you didn't present yesterday; isn't that correct? A. That's right. Q. And that's an article which detailed DNA statistics in the Simpson matter from "Nature, Genetics, Volume 11, December 1995," correct? A. That's right. Q. Now, let me ask some questions about what those numbers don't take into account. You would agree that these numbers assume that the evidence was properly collected, properly processed, there was no planting, no cross-contamination, that the actual results that the lab got were all correct, don't they? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence, beyond the scope, and in addition, the results have been admitted. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Isn't that correct? A. I'm not -- I think I need to answer carefully. The calculations I do, start with the profile determination given to me by the forensic scientists. What -- Anything that goes on before then is beyond my knowledge or expertise. Q. Okay. But you're making the assumption that these results are the correct results? THE COURT: I'm going to sustain my own objection. I think the witness answered the question. MR. BLASIER: Okay. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Tell me if you agree with the following statement: It is essential that the integrity of DNA evidence with regard to collection, potential contamination or tampering be beyond doubt? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, beyond the scope. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. LAMBERT: Assumes facts not in evidence. THE COURT: Just testify to numbers. MR. BAKER: Can we be heard on this? THE COURT: No. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this is his writing. THE COURT: He's testified to numbers. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) The integrity of your numbers depends on the integrity of the underlying evidence, does it not? A. I don't see the connection. I'm saying that the calculations follow from the profile. Anything else is not -- is not here. I've taken the profile, done some calculations. I don't know what else to say. Q. You're assuming that the evidence was properly collected and properly tested, aren't you? MR. LAMBERT: Um -- THE COURT: Sustained. Excuse me, Mr. Blasier, you can develop, if you can, through competent examination and competent evidence any issues in this regard. That does not permit this witness -- I will permit examination of this witness on that. You may examine him as to his computations. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, Dr. Weir, you've testified here, I think you said it a couple of times, that the methods that you used here and the statistics that you have presented, are the most appropriate, correct? A. Yes, I think I said that. Q. Isn't it true, that it is actually your belief that the more appropriate statistics to present are not these, but likelihood ratios? A. I -- we're talking words, Mr. Blasier. These are -- these are -- can be interpreted as likelihood ratios. The numbers are the same. Q. The numbers aren't the same, are they, Dr. Weir? A. Mr. Blasier, I'm the statistician. The numbers are the same. Q. You said several times in the writings that you gave me, and in this article that I've talked to you about, that the more appropriate statistics, rather than these numbers, is a likelihood ratio, correct? A. You are misquoting me. The numbers are the same. They've been presented in court today as either frequencies or probabilities, which they are. They could equally have -- well have been described as likelihood ratios. The numbers, however, are identical. Q. Don't you point out in your paper that the requirements of likelihood ratios not being presented in the criminal trial emit that only certain numbers were given which ironically could have hurt the defense's case. MR. LAMBERT: Objection, beyond the scope, irrelevant what happened in the criminal trial. THE COURT: Overruled. A. You are quoting from my paper? I said that. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) I am. And you still agree with that? A. Yes. Q. Let's go to the bottom of this chart. And in that paper, you used as an example from the criminal trial, stain No. 31, which you've testified to about here that for four unknown contributors, the probability of the RFLP profile in Item 31 varies between 1 and 240 million and 1 in 2.7 billion, correct? A. I'm not sure what the question is. Q. In your paper, you state that for four unknown contributors with respect to stain No. 31, the probability for the RFLP profile varies between 1 in 240 million and 1 in 2.7 billion, correct? A. I don't have the paper. If you're reading it, I must have said that. Q. I'll show you. (Witness reviews document.) A. Yes. You read that accurately. Q. Okay. Can we write 240 million to 2.7 billion, please. Just do an M. A. Excuse me, I don't think I'm testifying about RFLP for 31. Q. Well, I'm going to ask you about that. Then you say further on your paper, that if you consider that -- rather than four unknown contributors, only have two unknown contributors, that the number gets reduced to 1 in 200,000, which would be much more favorable to the defense, correct? A. That's right. That's consistent with what we've -- we were talking about earlier. The more contributors you have the less likely it is that those higher number of people have a particular profile. Q. Well, the number -- A. So it -- that's the general statements that I made to you earlier. Q. The number of unknown contributors also makes a difference in terms of what a likelihood ratio number would be and a frequency number; isn't that correct? A. No. Q. Then you say in your paper that if the defense had been willing to concede that the blood in the Bronco was consistent or was from Mr. Simpson, then there would be a difference in the numbers that would reduce the frequency to 1 in 1,000, correct? A. Well, you're asking me quite from memory. If that's the quote, then it's correct. Q. Let me show you. MR. LAMBERT: Before they put these numbers up, Your Honor, I would like to ask whether they are conceding in fact the blood in the Bronco belongs to Mr. Simpson. It appears to be the thrust of the question. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Yes, that's right. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And the tone of that, would you agree, is that again if the defense had done it the right way, with your assumptions that you make in that article, they would have come up with a much more favorable number than the way they wanted to do it, correct. MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I'm not sure what the question is. What the quotes you wrote out or are accurate. I think they speak for themselves. Q. The point you're making there is, is it not, that had the defense done it the way you thought was the appropriate way, with more reasonable assumptions, they would have come up with numbers much more favorable to the defense than they actually did? A. That's not what I said, and it's certainly not what I meant. Q. What did you mean? A. The words "more appropriate" are not in this article or in my mind. Q. What did you mean by this example, then? A. Simply, as I said, if the defense had stipulated to one of the contributors, then the numbers change. Q. Become much more favorable, correct? A. In this case, yes. Q. Now, Dr. Weir, by the way, was that article peer reviewed? A. No. Well, excuse me. Yes, it was. It was invited and then it was reviewed before it was accepted. Q. And how many people reviewed it? A. Well, the editor told me of two. Q. And the peer review process involves someone else with qualifications similar to yourself, I presume, reviewing your work, checking your data, making sure that what you've stated in here is accurate; is that fair to say? A. That's the peer review process. Q. I'm sorry? A. Yes, that's the peer review process. Q. Now, tell me, Dr. Weir -- oh incidentally, by the way, none of these frequency calculations takes into account the possibility that an Asian person might have contributed to some of these stains, correct? A. The numbers presented here haven't used an Asian data base. Q. And so we're -- and Asians make up about what percentage of the world's population? A. Well -- MR. LAMBERT: Objection, irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained as to the world population, yes. Q. Well, United States population? A. I don't know. Q. A lot, right? A. What can I say. Q. And your numbers don't even count the possibilities that an Asian might have contributed? A. No, that's not what I said. The numbers presented are not based on Asian data. I can talk about Asian frequencies if you wish. Q. You didn't present any? A. I didn't present any. Q. Now, this article that was peer reviewed, where you talk about Item 31, and a four probe RFLP match, where did you get your information that there was a four probe RFLP match for Item 31? A. I don't remember at this time if it -- I imagine it came from the proceedings of the criminal trial if I -- if that's what I said. Q. Can you find -- A. I don't recall. I'm having trouble with this. I don't recall 31 having an RFLP or am I wrong? Q. You're correct here that 31 did not have any RFLP results, but your article that was peer reviewed said it did, correct? A. Whatever the article says doesn't make it a fact. Q. And that's wrong in your article, isn't it? A. If is says that and if it wasn't that, it's not true. That's true. MR. BLASIER: Thank you. I have no further questions. THE COURT: 10-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions. (Recess.) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) THE COURT: Okay. Your redirect. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: Q. Dr. Weir, you testified on cross-examination that you made some calculation mistakes when you did the calculations of the frequencies at the criminal trial? A. That's right, yes. Q. What were the circumstances under which you did those calculations? MR. BLASIER: Objection, irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Well, the prosecution called me to Los Angeles two weeks earlier than they said they would. At that time when I went out, I'd done no calculation for more than two contributors. The prosecution asked me to do three-contributor calculations, which I did in my hotel room. After testifying about them for a full day, the judge ordered me to do four-person calculation before 9 o'clock the following morning. I think my only mistake was in agreeing to work under those conditions. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) The calculations that you presented to the jury today, were those calculations done under those kind of conditions? A. No, sir. Q. What conditions were they done under? A. Well, after the trial, I -- as I said earlier, I sat down and thought about the issue a little more carefully, and developed some formulas to avoid having to do these tedious enumerations. So it's almost 18 months since I first met this problem, and I've had the opportunity to think about it a great deal. Q. And have you been able to put that formula into your computer so you can avoid having to do hand calculations in these matters? A. I have. Q. And these calculations that you presented here today, they're the result of that -- of the use of that formula? A. They are. Q. Have you presented some of these same results in some of these seminars you've attended with other statisticians to review them? A. I was present for some of the conversation and several forums and I've also had the methodology peer review that will appear in the press early next year. Q. And, Dr. Weir, are you comfortable that these numbers are the appropriate numbers to be presented to this jury for the frequencies that are set forth on them? A. I am. MR. LAMBERT: Thank you. No further questions. THE COURT: Recross. RECROSS-EXAMINATON BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Dr. Weir, how long have you been a statistician? A. Oh, probably since 1965. Q. And you teach statistics, don't you? A. Yes, I do. Q. You have students and you have them do calculations, don't you? A. I do. Q. And you've done these kind of calculations all your life, haven't you? A. Which ones exactly? Q. Probable -- conditional probabilities? A. I've done some of them a long time, yes. Q. In the field of conditional probabilities, it's a topic that's been part of statistics for years; isn't that true? A. Oh, I understand the methodology very well, but I'm not going to be responsible for particular implementation done on the trying conditions. Q. When were you hired by the prosecution in the criminal case? A. We're not -- you mean when they first discussed it? Q. Yes. A. At the beginning of '95 I think. Q. When did you testify? A. Well, I'm going to answer that slowly. The issue of mixtures arose in the middle of May. I testified in June. Q. The chapter in your book that talks about mixtures is from 1990, isn't it? A. No, no. '96. Q. I asked you to write down the citation for this book, the chapter which you gave me yesterday, didn't I? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you wrote down genetic data analysis to 1990, didn't you? A. No, sir. Q. What's the number? A. 1996, sir. Q. Let's take a look under the Elmo. A. It's also referred to on my curriculum vitae. Q. Now, Dr. Weir -- MR. BLASIER: Take it off. A. That is a 1996. Q. Thank you, sir. Now, Dr. Weir -- MR. PETROCELLI: Can you put it up there so the jury can see. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You knew you were going to be asked to testify under oath, in a murder case where someone was on trial for their life in May? A. That was in mid May. At this time I was told I would be called sometime late in July. I then went on vacation and thought in the middle of June -- I was called on the 17th of June to be in Los Angeles on the 19. I testified on the 23. Q. Did you ever tell the prosecutors, gee, I really need more time to do my addition and subtraction and multiplication better? A. As I said, that was my mistake, to be bullied by lawyers on both sides. Q. You let yourself be bullied by lawyers on both sides; is that your testimony? A. That's what I said. Q. Now, how long have you been working with the DQ Alpha system? A. I'm not sure. I'm not sure what you mean. I don't work with the DQ Alpha system. Q. How long have you been working with statistics that relate to DQ Alpha results? A. Well, my systems are not specific to a particular probe, so -- I've been working in this area since 1990. Q. 1990? A. Um-hum. Q. And the mistake that you made with respect to not counting the number of combinations for the 1.2 allele, are you saying that you weren't aware of that situation prior to your testimony in the criminal trial? A. No. MR. LAMBERT: Objection, asked and answered. THE COURT: Overruled. A. As we both know, I did know how to calculate it when I did my two calculation -- the two-person calculations before going to Los Angeles. I had been correct. When I wrote the program in my hotel room in Los Angeles I left out that extra step. Q. Now, Dr. Weir, you're familiar with the National Research Counsel report of 1992, are you not, on Forensic Applications of DNA Technology. MR. LAMBERT: Beyond the scope. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You have participated in discussions, written articles about how to analyze mixed stains for some time now, haven't you? A. Not before the criminal trial of course. About a year. Q. You never dealt with that issue before the criminal trial? A. Didn't come up until May of '95. Q. How much are you asking to be paid for your preparation time in this case? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, beyond the scope. MR. BLASIER: Last question. THE COURT: I'll permit it. A. Nothing. MR. BLASIER: Thank you. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Dr. Weir, that number that you wrote on the piece of paper that you gave Mr. Blasier, what was the number? A. It was 1996. I do know the date on which my own book was published. Q. Did you provide him a copy of your curriculum vitae that specifically listed that date and the date it was published? A. Yes. Q. He has that? A. Yes, sir. MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: You're excused. MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would like to move in 2232, 2233, 2234, and 2235. THE COURT: They're received. (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2232) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2233) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2234) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2235) MR. PETROCELLI: We call Leroy Taft. LEROY TAFT, called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and testified as follows: THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? THE WITNESS: I do. THE WITNESS: Morning, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good morning. THE CLERK: And, sir, would you please state and spell your name. THE WITNESS: Yes. Leroy, L-e-r-o-y, Taft, T-a-f-t. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PETROCELLI: Q. You are a very close personal friend of O.J. Simpson? A. I think that's true. Q. And have been so for 27 years, right? A. Over the 27 years, the friendship has grown closer. Q. Also, you are business manager, business advisor to him during this time? A. And his personal attorney, that's correct. Q. And his personal attorney, right. You picked up Mr. Simpson at the airport on June 13, 1994, right? A. Correct. Q. And you drove over to Rockingham, right? A. Correct. Q. And a little bit later you went down to Parker Center, right? A. Correct. Q. And you were in a room with Mr. Simpson and another lawyer named Howard Weitzman, right? A. Correct. Q. And at that time, you had occasion to observe Mr. Simpson's left hand, right? A. Correct. Q. We're talking, now, about 1 o'clock in the afternoon on June 13, correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And you saw some cuts on Mr. Simpson's left hand, correct? A. As I sit here today, I recall one cut, Mr. Petrocelli. Q. In fact, you saw more than one cut, correct? A. No. I say, as I sit here today, I recall seeing one cut and -- and early in my deposition that's what I said. Q. You said something else in your deposition, which we will get to in a minute. MR. BAKER: I move to strike the gratuitous preamble from Mr. Petrocelli's -- THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Let me show you this photograph, Mr. Taft, of a picture of Mr. Simpson's fourth finger on his left hand. (Indicating to photo.) Q. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And do you see the cut on that finger, sir? A. Yes. Q. And you saw that cut at 1 o'clock p.m. on June 13, 1994, true? A. No, not true. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Put it up on the Elmo. THE COURT REPORTER: The number again, please. MR. FOSTER: 548. (Exhibit 548 displayed on Elmo.) Q. When I took your deposition, that was August, 1996, right? A. That's correct. Q. And you understood you were under oath and had to tell the truth, right? A. Absolutely. Q. You're a lawyer and you understand the obligation to tell the truth? A. Absolutely. Q. And have you had a chance to speak to Mr. Simpson, or any of his lawyers, before coming here today? MR. BAKER: That would be -- he's one of Mr. Simpson's lawyers. That's privileged. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) About your testimony, about what you might be asked on the witness stand? MR. BAKER: Anything? THE COURT: Sustained. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Now, let me -- let me put this on the -- well, no leave this on the Elmo. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Let me read to you from your deposition. MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Baker, page 132. MR. BAKER: Got it. MR. PETROCELLI: Starting at line 9. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) (Reading:) Q. You were present when Mr. Simpson had his wound dressed? A. I wasn't present when his wound was dressed but I was present when we talked with him alone, Howard Weitzman and myself. Q. Is that when -- A. I believe I observed it at that time. Q. His cuts? A. Yes. Q. How many did you observe? A. Well, that cut -- (Indicating) Q. Referring to depo Exhibit 38. A. -- Which I believe is on his -- It's his fourth finger. Q. Yes. Fourth finger? You recall giving all that? A. I recall that, reading that, yes MR. PETROCELLI: Page 133 line 1. A. I saw that cut. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Do you recall giving that testimony? A. Yes. MR. BAKER: You better read the whole -- Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Do you recall giving that testimony? A. Yes, I do. Q. Okay. Now, in issue to the cut on the fourth finger which you testified under oath just a couple months ago that you saw, you also said you saw a cut on his middle finger, true? A. That's true. Q. So at your deposition, you said to me under oath, that you saw two cuts -- at least two cuts, correct? A. I said in one part of my deposition, that's correct, but -- Q. Okay. A. Earlier in my deposition when you -- Q. Sir. A. You asked me that question. May I finish my answer. Q. No. MR. BAKER: Your Honor. MR. PETROCELLI: It's not responsive. MR. BAKER: He's entitled to finish his answer. THE COURT: He said yes. Ask another question. MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Did you not tell me at page 133, I'll let you look at it, sir, pages 130, 1, 2 and 3, you can look at it yourself. Excuse me, Gina. THE COURT REPORTER: (Nod.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Did you not tell me, sir, that you saw at least two cuts on Mr. Simpson's left hand, one on his fourth and one on his third, and perhaps a third cut on his third? A. I didn't say perhaps a third cut. I said I thought I saw two cuts. But I was referring to the pictures that you were showing me. Q. And I showed you a picture of that finger with the fourth cut, the fourth finger, right? A. That's correct. Q. And you looked at it, at the deposition, right? A. Yes. Q. And you said that you saw that cut, correct? A. Yeah, but I saw -- Q. Yes or no? A. I saw it on the picture, Mr. Petrocelli. I saw it on the picture. Earlier I said I saw one cut. Q. Excuse me. Excuse me, sir. A. I think on page 118 and 119. Q. You've really read this, haven't you? A. Of course. Q. Of course. A. Of course. Take a look at 118 and 119. Q. Excuse me, sir, at no time did you ever tell me at 20 pages later 133, wait a second Mr. Petrocelli, I only saw one cut. You never said that, correct? MR. BAKER: Argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. A. No, I never said those words. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) How about this, Mr. Taft. (Reading:) Q. So you saw a total of three cuts at Parker Center on June 13, on Mr. Simpson, on the fingers of his left hand, right? A. I saw for sure two. I'm not sure of that third cut that you pointed out in that picture. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) How about that, Mr. Taft? MR. BAKER: Wait a minute. MR. PETROCELLI: Put that on the Elmo. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, what is this "how about that." That's not a question. If he wants to argue the case, he ought to wait until the end of the case to argue. MR. PETROCELLI: Put that on the Elmo. THE COURT: Just a minute, counsel. You will not argue with the witness. Witness, if you persist in arguing with your questioner, then I will permit that question. Do you understand me? THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Let's take a look at this. (Reading:) I saw that cut and I saw that on the left hand. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Do you see that? MR. PETROCELLI: Now, go up to where I just read. Keep going. (Indicating to Elmo.) MR. PETROCELLI: Keep going. Keep going. Keep going. Can you not find it, Steve? (Indicating to Elmo.) MR. PETROCELLI: Right here, right there. (Indicating to transcript. Assisting Mr. Foster at Elmo.) Q. Did you give that testimony under oath? A. Yes, I did. Q. Now, I'd like to you tell the jury -- are you now telling the jury that that was wrong, now? You saw one cut; is that your testimony today? A. No. My testimony today is that I'm sure I saw one cut in -- my best recollection, any other cut -- I lost my time reference with respect to Mr. Petrocelli showing me pictures and asking me if I saw them. I saw those pictures, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, many times afterwards, in meetings with attorneys. And you have to realize that on the 13th, we were all in a major state of shock. Q. Have you finished? A. That's my answer. Q. Okay. You didn't tell me any of that, did you, sir, when you gave me that answer: "I saw for sure, two," correct; you didn't tell me? A. Correct. Q. You had every word in the universe to choose when you answered my question, sir, and you said, "I saw for sure two," correct? A. Correct. Q. And then you, on your own, said, "I'm not sure of that third cut that you pointed out in that picture," correct? A. Correct. Q. Those are all your words, correct? I didn't lead you into those answers, did I? A. Well, you did. Q. Oh? A. You did. And I'll tell you where you did. Because if you look earlier in my deposition -- Q. Okay. A. -- I said I think I saw one cut, but when you pulled out a set of pictures, and started showing me other cuts in the picture, the time reference all came together. Q. Let me ask you this: Were you in a state of shock at your deposition? A. No. Q. Clear-headed when you gave that testimony? A. I believe so. Q. Now, when you -- before coming to this court today, telling this jury now, that you saw one cut and not two -- A. That's my best recollection. Q. Excuse me. I'm not finished with my answer [sic]. Before coming here and taking that witness stand and telling this jury that you saw one cut and not two, you understood the importance of saying that Mr. Simpson only had one cut on his finger at that time; true or untrue? A. I understood the importance. Q. Just answer -- A. The importance of telling the truth here today. Q. Excuse me, Mr. Taft. MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, could you direct him to answer my questions? THE COURT: Answer the question, counsel. A. I understood it was correct to tell the truth today. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Now, you want to answer my question? Let's try it a third time. A. Please repeat the question. Q. Okay. You understood the importance to Mr. Simpson's side of the case, in saying that there was only one cut, not two, on his finger, correct? You understood that? A. I understood that I was here to tell my best recollection of the situation. THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Taft. I'm going to direct you just one more time to answer the question. THE WITNESS: I can't answer the question the way you've put the question. You're -- Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You also understood, by the way, how important it was to tell the truth at your deposition, right? Yes or no? A. Yes. Q. You -- you understood before you took the witness stand, and turned to the jury, and told them that you only saw one cut instead of the two, that you said at the deposition, that Mr. Simpson had testified before this same jury that there was only the one cut on his finger. You knew that, didn't you? A. Yes, I did. Q. Of course you did. And you knew that Mr. Simpson, on that same witness stand where you are sitting, denied having that cut on his fourth finger, that you said he had in August, true? A. True. MR. PETROCELLI: I've got nothing further. THE COURT: Cross-examine. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER: Q. You knew before either your deposition or your testimony, that the LAPD, on June 13, had looked at both of his hands, because he was a murder suspect, and inspected them completely, and found one cut on the middle knuckle of his hand. MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Lacks foundation. Calls for hearsay, no testimony. A. That's correct. MR. BAKER: That door has been opened. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You knew that the police, after 1:30, when they had taken his statement, go down to dress his hands, had inspected both of his hands, forwards, backwards, upwards, downwards, and taken a picture of the only cut he had, the cut on the middle knuckle of his left hand, did you not, sir? MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me. There's no foundation. Secondly, it's all leading. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Tell us what you knew about what the police inspected on June 13, 1994, after they had taken blood from Mr. Simpson. MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me. That calls for speculation upon speculation, about what the police knew. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. PETROCELLI: And so forth. MR. BAKER: That is the same question asked again. Did he know. THE COURT: I don't think so. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you know what the police inspected relative to looking for cuts on Mr. Simpson's hands, before you testified in your deposition in August of '96, and before you took the witness stand? A. Yes. Q. What did you know? A. I knew that the police inspected his hand and found one cut on the left hand, middle finger knuckle. Q. And you've testified in your deposition at page 118, before Mr. Simpson -- Mr. Simpson -- I'm sorry -- Mr. Petrocelli had given you any pictures, about your recollections relative to cuts on his hand, did you not? A. Yes. MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me, Mr. Baker. Can you give me a page? MR. BAKER: I apologize. MR. PETROCELLI: That's all right. Give me a line. MR. P. BAKER: 118, line 16. MR. PETROCELLI: 118 what? MR. BAKER: 16. MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You're talking about the cuts Mr. Simpson had that you observed when you were asked this in your deposition, before he had given you any pictures, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you said after the question was, when Mr. Simpson entered your car, did he have a cut in -- anywhere on his body. Your answer was, I think he had. I don't know which hand it was, but he had -- it's one of his -- it was either his middle -- his middle finger, (indicating) I think on one hand, he had a cut. That's what you testified, to correct? A. Correct. Q. Now, Mr. Taft, when you picked up Mr. Simpson at the airport on June 13, 1994, were you in a period of emotional shock and grief? A. Completely. Q. Was Mr. Simpson's demeanor one of emotional shock and grief? MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me, Your Honor. This is leading and it's beyond the scope. THE COURT: Sustained as leading. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) What was Mr. Simpson's demeanor when you picked him up at -- at -- in the -- I guess it would be the morning, local time -- what was his demeanor in the car and -- when you got him into the vehicle and headed back to Rockingham? A. He was in a complete state of shock. MR. PETROCELLI: That calls for speculation, Your Honor. I move to strike it as self-serving. THE COURT: Denied. Mr. Baker, if you're going to proceed in this line, he's not coming back as a defense witness, okay? Make up your mind. I don't want a double shot at him. This is the end of plaintiffs' case, and I'm giving you some latitude, as you've noticed in the last few days, so we can avoid having witnesses come back. If you want to examine him further on that area, which is clearly beyond the scope, then you have to call him back. Unless you're not going to call him back. MR. BAKER: You made your point. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BAKER: I have no further questions at this time. THE COURT: Thank you. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PETROCELLI: Q. Let's go back to the testimony at 118, that you apparently had memorized before coming to the courtroom. By the way, how much time did you spend with the lawyers talking about the cut issue? MR. BAKER: I object, Your Honor. Attorney-client privilege. MR. PETROCELLI: He opened the door by getting back into this, Your Honor, showed him the deposition and everything. MR. BAKER: That doesn't waive the privilege. MR. PETROCELLI: Asked him how much time -- MR. BAKER: Doesn't waive the privilege. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. PETROCELLI: He is not his lawyer. THE COURT: Claimed he is. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Is Mr. Baker your attorney? THE COURT: No. He claimed he is Mr. Simpson's attorney. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) I'm asking you about conversations with the defense team here. MR. PETROCELLI: I want to know about those conversations, Your Honor. I'm not asking about conversations between -- THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) How long of a time did you spend, without telling me what was said? MR. BAKER: I want to approach if we're going to continue this. MR. PETROCELLI: That doesn't call for any communication -- MR. BAKER: I want to approach. THE COURT: Excuse me. I'm sustaining the objections. MR. PETROCELLI: 118, page 118. MR. FOSTER: Line -- MR. PETROCELLI: What was it, line 6? MR. P. BAKER: 16. MR. BAKER: Starts at 16. (Transcript displayed on Elmo Screen.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Now, was this the testimony that you were relying on to support your statement that you talked about a single cut. MR. BAKER: Argumentative and form. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Is that the testimony that you were relying on when you told the jury how you had testified that there was only one cut on Mr. Simpson's finger that you observed on June 13? Is that it? A. That and a little further down, Mr. Petrocelli. Q. Okay. You want to show us? A. Yes. I'd like you to see at the bottom of page 18, and the first of 19 -- 119. Q. That's 119. I want you to point to all the words, sir, that you're relying on. A. I don't -- I don't see it there. In one place, around page 118, 119, I say I'm not even sure that I saw the first cut. And -- and it's only on my recollection that I believe I saw one cut. MR. PETROCELLI: You want to help me, Mr. Baker? You know where that is in the deposition. MR. BAKER: You want to cross-examine me? MR. PETROCELLI: No. You have a depo cite we can show him? MR. BAKER: Look, Mr. Petrocelli, so interested, at page 119. THE COURT: Excuse me. I don't think that's appropriate now. If you want to show -- MR. BAKER: If -- THE COURT: Excuse me. Can I run the trial? MR. PETROCELLI: Trying to find the spot. THE COURT: If you want to show him the transcript, show him the transcript, Mr. Petrocelli. Don't look to Mr. Baker to do that. MR. PETROCELLI: Here. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) I'll show you the transcript. I want to make sure we have everything that you've relied on, sir. (Witness reviews transcript.) A. It's at the bottom of 119, and I guess the top of page 20, line 25 at the bottom of 19 -- 119 and line 1 of -- top of 20. Q. So -- well, let me read this. Q. Starting at page 118, line 16: When Mr. Simpson entered your car, did he have a cut anywhere on his body? A. I think he had. I don't know which hand it was, but he had -- it's one of his -- it was either his middle -- it was his middle finger, (indicating). I think on one hand he had a cut. Was he bleeding in the car? No. Did he have a bandage on? I believe so. Did you see any blood in the car? In my car? Yes. No. Did you see any blood oozing through the bandage on his finger? I don't know. How did you know he had a cut on his finger? I learned later, because O.J. and I went down with Howard Weitzman to Parker Center, and I know that he -- they wanted to take blood from him at that time, and they may have asked questions about that finger, because he may have had it redressed there by the nurse. Prior to that time, though, when you were picking him up at the airport -- MR. BAKER: Wait a minute. If you're going to read it, read it correctly. Read where the word "indicating" is and where I indicate that he was indicating the middle finger of his -- MR. PETROCELLI: Reading question -- and I'll be happy to read your comment prior to that time, Mr. Baker. (Reading:) MR. BAKER: Indicating the middle finger of the left hand. MR. BAKER: He indicated in his answer you know it -- it's right here on line 16. MR. PETROCELLI: I'm reading what he said. MR. BAKER: Read the -- THE COURT: Let him read the transcript. MR. BAKER: He has to read it accurately. THE COURT: Mr. Baker, the transcript is the transcript. Now read it. MR. PETROCELLI: (Reading:) Q. Now, when you were picking him up at the airport and going to Rockingham, did you know that he had a cut on his finger? A. I consciously, at this point, don't know that I knew. Q. Did he change his bandage in the car? No. What kind of bandage was it on his finger? Just a band-aid. Just a regular band-aid? As far as I know, it was just a regular band-aid. What was he wearing? You meaning his clothes? Yeah. It was a white golf shirt. MR. BAKER: I object, Your Honor. This is beyond the scope. MR. PETROCELLI: I'm going to page 120, where he asked -- THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead. MR. BAKER: He isn't going to 120. MR. PETROCELLI: Where would you like me to stop, sir? THE WITNESS: I think -- (Witness reviews transcript.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) I was -- A. I was -- I was mentioning this sentence here, that I consciously didn't remember. Q. Have we gone past the point? A. Yes. Q. Can I stop reading now? A. Yes, you may. Q. Okay. Now, when you were questioned by me about that subject matter, we were referring to the time when Mr. Simpson got in your car from the airport, and you drove him to Rockingham, correct? A. Correct. Q. And at that time, as you testified, he had a band-aid on, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you -- A. My best recollection. Q. Excuse me? A. Well -- Q. He had a band-aid on, correct? A. To my best recollection. Q. And you testified under oath at your deposition, that you did not consciously know at that time, whether he had any cuts, correct? A. Other than the one I said I thought I saw under the band-aid, or that I was aware -- he didn't wear a band-aid unless he had a cut. Q. Sir, you never said in your deposition that you saw a cut under his band-aid, did you? A. No. Q. And, in fact, you were testifying under oath, that when you did learn about the cut, was later on, when you were at Parker Center with Howard Weitzman and Mr. Simpson and you, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And isn't it -- isn't it the truth, sir, that the first time that you really learned about a cut or cuts on Mr. Simpson's finger, and could see cuts or a cut, was at the room in Parker Center with Mr. Weitzman, yourself, and Mr. Simpson, correct? A. Correct. Q. And what you were saying under oath in your deposition was that, in the car ride, because Mr. Simpson had a band-aid, you did not consciously see any cuts at that time, correct? A. Correct. Q. So the only place where you actually observed a cut or cuts on Mr. Simpson's hand is at Parker Center, 1 clock p.m., on June 13, correct? A. Correct. Q. And that is where we started this examination some time ago, correct? A. Correct. Q. And furthermore, you knew, Mr. Taft, when you completed this deposition, that you had the right to review it, correct? A. Correct. Q. You also knew, Mr. Taft, when you received this deposition, that you had the right, the absolute right, to make any changes at the time that you reviewed it, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you did not do so, correct? A. Correct. Q. And the truth of the matter is, Mr. Taft, that you saw a cut on Mr. Simpson's middle finger in that room, correct? MR. BAKER: What room? Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) In the room at Parker Center with Mr. Weitzman and yourself and Mr. Simpson. Correct? A. I saw a cut on his middle finger. Q. Correct? A. Is that -- is that the question? Q. That is a question. A. Yes. Q. And you also saw the cut on his fourth finger, did you not? A. No, that's not correct. Q. You deny that under oath? A. Yes, I do. Q. Let's take one more like look. MR. BAKER: Object. This is asked and answered. MR. PETROCELLI: Look, let me read it. It's a little easier. MR. BAKER: It's asked and answered. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) I'm going to read you the whole line. It's about a page, page and a half. Where's Exhibit 38? MR. BAKER: Your Honor, we've been through this on direct. MR. PETROCELLI: We haven't been through this before. Depo 38. Put Depo Exhibit 38, which is the same one we put on the deposition. Keep it up on the monitor. It's at page 131, line 23, Mr. Baker. (Reading:) I have a better picture of Exhibit 30, the cut on the side of the finger. That's Exhibit 38. Are you with me now, sir? That's Exhibit 38 at the deposition. (Reading:) MR. BAKER: Don't guess or speculate if you've seen that before, Mr. Petrocelli. Q. You said at Parker Center. A. Yeah, I believe I saw that cut at Parker Center. Q. You recall giving that answer while you were looking at that picture, at the deposition? A. Correct. Q. On what day, A. The 13th. Q. You were present when Mr. Simpson had his wound dressed? A. I wasn't present when his wound was dressed, but I was present when we talked about it with him alone. He, Howard Weitzman, and myself. Q. Is that when -- A. I believe I observed it at that time. Q. His cuts? A. Yes. Q. How many did you observe? A. Well that cut (indicating). Q. Referring to depo Exhibit 38. A. Which I believe is on his -- it's his fourth finger. Q. Yes. A. Fourth finger. Q. Correct. A. I saw that cut and I saw the -- on the left hand, correct. And then this is your answer: (Reading:) And then I saw the cut on his knuckle, on his left knuckle. Do you recall giving that testimony? A. Yeah. Q. So, sir, after telling me you saw the cut on the fourth finger, you pointed out to me that you saw the cut on the knuckle of his third finger, correct? A. Whatever the deposition says. Q. Is that correct? A. Whatever the deposition says. Q. Is that what you did? You told me, and then you saw the cut on the knuckle of the third finger, true? A. But I was referring to the picture. Q. True, sir? A. I was not referring to the June 13 physical inspection where I saw one cut. Q. Excuse me, sir. Is that a knuckle right there? A. I don't believe so. Q. Okay. So when you told me in your deposition about -- when you said, and then I saw the cut on his knuckle, on his left knuckle, you then were directing me to his middle finger, to a different cut, correct? A. Correct. Q. And, in fact, I then showed you a picture of it, right? MR. PETROCELLI: Let's put on depo Exhibit 31. (Deposition Exhibit 547 displayed on the Elmo Screen.), MR. PETROCELLI: (Reading:) Q. Let me show you that cut. That's depo Exhibit 31; is that right. A. Yes. Q. And you see a cut above the knuckle? A. Yes. Q. And then one a little bit lower than that, right? A. Right. Q. How did Mr. Simpson tell you -- MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me. Question: Now, did Mr. Simpson tell you how he got those cuts? MR. BAKER: At the time or later? Then there's some objections which I won't repeat for the record. Is that okay, Mr. Baker? (Continued reading as follows:) MR. PETROCELLI: Picking up at line 5 at 134. Q. So you saw a total of three cuts at Parker Center on June 13 on Mr. Simpson, on the fingers of his left hand. Right? A. I saw for sure two. I'm not sure of that third cut that you pointed out in that picture. Q. The third cut you are referring to is the one at the top of the ring finger? A. Yeah. I don't have any clear consciousness of that cut as I do of the one on the fourth finger, and the one on his middle finger knuckle. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Do you recall giving that testimony under oath, sir? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall it is true, as you testified under oath, that you had a clear consciousness on June 13 of the cut on the fourth finger and the cut on the middle finger, true? A. I didn't have a clear consciousness of it on the 13th. Q. So you lied to me in your deposition? A. No, I didn't lie to you. MR. BAKER: That's argumentative. MR. PETROCELLI: I have no deposition records. THE CLERK: For the record, what's the number MR. FOSTER: 549. MR. BAKER: Leave that up there. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER: Q. Now, that 549 was taken on the 15th. Do you know if it was taken on June 15? A. I don't know. Q. Do you know when the photos were taken that you subsequently reviewed in meetings with attorneys relative to the defense of Mr. Simpson in the criminal case? A. I believe it was the week of the 13th through the 17th. Q. And by the way, when you were there on the 13th with Mr. Simpson, and you and Howard Weitzman had gone down -- MR. PETROCELLI: He's opening the door that was forbidden into inquiring, Your Honor, last two questions. THE COURT: Well -- MR. BAKER: I'm not asking -- THE COURT: I'll just caution counsel -- MR. BAKER: That's nonsense. THE COURT: -- that nobody has been turned -- it hasn't been opened. If it opens, it opens. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did Mr. Simpson have a band-aid on the fourth finger of his left hand when you were in Parker Center on June 13, 1994 Mr. Taft? A. No. Q. And he had a band-aid on the middle finger of his left hand or over the knuckle; is that correct? A. That's my best recollection. Q. And your recollection relative to the cuts that he had that day -- strike that. Were you attempting to find out what cuts he had on his hands? A. Absolutely not. Q. Nothing further. MR. PETROCELLI: I have nothing further for this witness. THE CLERK: I don't think that's the right exhibit number. MR. PETROCELLI: By the way, we're moving in Exhibits 548 and 549. THE COURT: Hold on. THE CLERK: What number? MR. FOSTER: 547. THE CLERK: Last exhibit is 547. MR. PETROCELLI: We were moving in exhibits 547 and 548. THE COURT: Received. (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 547 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 548 was received in evidence.) MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, at this time we'd like to read in deposition testimony of Robert Kardashian. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, we're going to have to have a hearing on that. THE COURT: All right. Let's have a hearing. How long is it? MR. PETROCELLI: The readings -- I'd say my readings are ten minutes. THE COURT: Okay. Jurors, I'm going to excuse you for lunch until 1:30. Don't talk about the case; don't form or express any opinions. (Jurors exit courtroom.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jury.) MR. BAKER: I was reading Mr. Kelly's declaration, Your Honor, and they have not proved unavailability; they've never attempted to serve him with subpoena, and he's not unavailable under the code; and therefore, I would object to them reading his deposition. Serve him with a subpoena, and they can bring him into court and have him testify. MR. PETROCELLI: He's in New York, Your Honor. He's -- you know, I mean, Mr. Kelly had a dialogue with the lawyer. He fully expected them to cooperate. At the last minute, when he's out of town, they pull the plug. And this is deposition testimony that all lawyers have been there; he's been fully examined. They gave me counter-designations already that they want to read back. It's like a 15-minute, 20-minute witness, Your Honor and the guy is in New York. He's on TV. MR. BAKER: Your Honor -- MR. PETROCELLI: He's on TV, talking. MR. BAKER: I'll trade one Kardashian for one Fuhrman. (Laughter.) MR. BAKER: It's just a technicality. You know, everybody was there. They know all about his trial testimony. MR. PETROCELLI: He is unavailable. He's in the State of New York, and he is unavailable. MR. BAKER: He could have been subpoenaed anytime from September 17 to yesterday. THE COURT: Nice try, Mr. Baker. You may read it. MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you. THE COURT: I find him to be unavailable. He's in New York. Okay. 1:30. THE BAILIFF: We are in recess. 1:30. Doors open at 1:15. (At 11:40 A.M., a luncheon recess was taken, until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.) SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1996 1:35 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. Got some exhibits to -- MR. GELBLUM: Some housekeeping, Your Honor. The request for admission that I read to the jury yesterday, we'd like to mark, as we did before, and move into evidence next in order. THE CLERK: 2236. MR. GELBLUM: 36 -- 2236 would be request for admission, and the response to number 484. And then we have consecutive ones: 493 through 501, which would be the next nine in order. MR. BAKER: Object to them in evidence as cumulative and pleadings. MR. GELBLUM: They were received in evidence before; we did them on the blood ones. THE COURT: They're received. (The instrument herein described as Request for Admission No. 484 was marked for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2236.) (The instrument herein described as Request for Admission No. 493 was marked for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2237.) (The instrument herein described as Request for Admission No. 494 was marked for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2238.) (The instrument herein described as Request for Admission No. 495 was marked for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2239.) (The instrument herein described as Request for Admission No. 496 was marked for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2240.) (The instrument herein described as Request for Admission No. 497 was marked for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2241.) (The instrument herein described as Request for Admission No. 498 was marked for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2242.) (The instrument herein described as Request for Admission No. 499 was marked for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2243.) (The instrument herein described as Request for Admission No. 500 was marked for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2244.) (The instrument herein described as Request for Admission No. 501 was marked for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2245.) MR. GELBLUM: And finally on that, some exhibits that had not been moved in previously during Plaintiffs' case. We have exhibits 293, 296, 320, 1302, and 2057. We would move those into evidence. MR. BAKER: We reserve, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. You may proceed. (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 293.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 296.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 320.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1302.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2057.) MR. PETROCELLI: By deposition, we call Robert Kardashian. Mr. Kardashian's deposition was taken in May 1996. We'll be reading from certain portions of it. (Selected portions of the deposition of Robert Kardashian, taken in May 1996, were read into the record, Mr. Petrocelli reading the questions, and Mr. Gelblum reading the answers.) MR. PETROCELLI: Starting at page 85, lines 14, 15, and then picking up again at line 23. Okay. (Reading:) Q. When did you first meet Mr. Simpson? A. 1970. MR. PETROCELLI: Down to line 23. (Reading:) Q. After that first meeting of Mr. Simpson, did you develop a relationship with him? A. Yes, sir. Q. You became close friends to him? A. Yes. Q. And did you see him and socialize with him, in addition to providing or having business interests with him, from the early 70s onward? A. Yes. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Page 90, line 21. (Reading:) Q. Did you share -- did Mr. Simpson live with you at some point prior to his getting married to Nicole? A. Yes, he did. MR. PETROCELLI: Now, moving over to page 245, beginning at line 6. Wait a second. For context, we're at Mr. Simpson's office in Brentwood on June 14. (Reading:) Q. Can you tell me what the substance of the conversation you had with Mr. Taft at this time at the office was? A. Sure. Q. Okay. A. Let's call Robert Shapiro. Q. Short conversation? A. Pretty much. I mean, that was the essence of it. All I know is, we picked up the phone and called Shapiro. MR. PETROCELLI: Now, going over to page 249 at line 8. (Reading:) Q. And what happened next, after you had this conversation with Shapiro about reactivating your license? A. Mr. Shapiro left and we had telephoned A.C. I believe O.J. did; I don't think I did; I think he did. Q. Can you speak up a little, Mr. Kardashian; it's hard to hear you. A. I'm sorry. Mr. Simpson telephoned Mr. Cowlings and -- 'cause Mr. Cowlings was to bring his children to my house, and he asked Mr. Cowlings, you know, when would he be up to my house. And Mr. Cowlings had indicated he hadn't left yet, but he would be there in about an hour, hour and a half, something to that effect. Q. And after that phone call was made, what happened after that? A. Mr. Simpson, either he or Mr. Taft called Hertz to find out about his golf clubs -- I believe Mr. Simpson did -- and got the individual, whose name I don't know, on the phone and asked him about where his golf clubs were. Q. Did you see Mr. Simpson writing things down as he made that phone call? A. I don't recall. Q. Do you recall anything else Mr. Simpson said while he was on the phone? A. No, no. Q. Okay. Did he make any other phone calls after that? A. I don't think so. Q. What happened next? A. O.J. asked me if I would drive him to the airport to get his golf clubs and -- Q. And what did you say? A. And I said, sure. He said -- you know, so we drove to -- Q. Okay. Okay. Anything else before you left the office? A. I don't think so. Q. Did you say anything to Skip Taft when you were leaving? A. I'm sure -- I don't recall, but I would imagine we told Skip where we were going, and then we would be at my house after that. Q. Where did you tell Skip Taft you were going? A. To the airport, to get O.J.'s golf clubs. Q. Did you hear Simpson say anything to Taft? A. I -- again, I'm sure Simpson is the one who said it to him and not me, I would imagine, but I don't know for sure. Q. Did Skip Taft display any reaction to the statement that you were going to the airport to get the golf clubs? A. Not that I recall, no. Q. Okay. What happened next? A. We went to American Airlines -- I think it was American. Q. You drove the Rolls Royce? A. Yes, drove the Rolls Royce. Q. You and Mr. Simpson? A. Yes. MR. PETROCELLI: Skipping down to line 23 on page 252. (Reading:) Q. Did you have any conversation on the way to the airport? A. Yes. Q. Can you relate to me any of the substance of that conversation you had on the way to the airport? A. I really don't remember much of the conversation. Q. Do you recall any part of the conversation being about Mr. Simpson playing golf? A. No. Q. Do you remember any part of the conversation being about why Mr. Simpson needed his golf clubs? A. No. Q. Do you recall any part of the conversation being that Mr. Simpson had golf plans the next few days? A. No. Q. Any -- well, do you recall any part of the conversation being about Nicole? A. I just don't remember. I couldn't answer it. I don't recall. Q. No recollection as to the substance of the conversation? A. I don't know what we talked about. Q. How long of a drive is it from Rockingham to the airport? A. Well, we were at Skip's office -- Q. Yeah. A. -- so -- Q. How long a drive was it that morning when you went to the airport? A. About 20 minutes. Q. And you have no recollection of any of the conversation? A. No, I do not. Q. Could you describe Mr. Simpson's general demeanor during that drive to the airport? A. He was very -- I just took it that he was pretty much in shock the whole week. He wasn't the way he was previously. Q. I'm asking specifically on the drive to the airport, could you describe his demeanor to me? A. He was pensive. He was quiet, which is unlike him. Q. Do you recall him even speaking at all on the way? A. I -- Q. Let me finish the question. A. I'm sorry. Q. Do you recall Mr. Simpson even speaking at all from the time you left the office till the time you arrived at the airport? A. I don't know. Q. And did you go to the arrivals or departures of American Airlines? A. Down below. I can't recall if it -- it would be -- arrivals, I believe, is down below. Q. What, if anything, happened next? A. We got out of the car. Q. Both of you? A. Yes. Q. Did you park curbside? A. Yes. Q. In the no-parking zone? A. Yes. And we went to the baggage -- there's a baggage claim window for luggage that's been left there -- I don't know what it's called -- and we went to that window and asked. Q. You say "we." Did you or did Mr. Simpson? A. I believe -- I believe he did. I believe he did. MR. PETROCELLI: Down to page 18 -- excuse me, line 18 -- actually, 19. (Reading:) Q. What happened next, after you went to the window? A. He asked where his golf clubs were or where the luggage would be from a certain flight number. And I remember the lady told us where it was, which was -- I don't recall, but it was the next carousel over, the next section over, something like that. Then we turned and we walked over there. Q. And did you observe Mr. Simpson's golf clubs somewhere? A. Yes. Q. And where were they? A. They were -- actually an attendant was there, and if I'm not mistaken, he picked them up, and Mr. Simpson then took them and we put them in the trunk of my Rolls Royce. Q. Did the attendant just pick them up and hand them to Mr. Simpson? A. Yes. Q. Did the attendant carry them any distance at all, or did he just turn around and hand them directly to Mr. Simpson? A. My recollection is, he just handed them to him. Q. Did Mr. Simpson submit any claim check or any sort of ticket to the attendant before taking the clubs? A. No. MR. PETROCELLI: Down to line 24 and the next page. (Reading:) Q. Where did he place it in your car? A. In my trunk. Q. And what happened next? A. We drove to my house. Q. Directly? A. Directly, yes. Q. Had you done any other driving with Mr. Simpson that morning, other than from Rockingham to the San Vicente office, and then San Vicente to the airport? A. I don't believe so. No, I don't think so. Q. Any discussion of going anywhere other than to the office and then to the airport? A. I don't think so. I think he just said, let's go get my golf clubs. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Now going to page 263, line 2. (Reading:) Q. When was it -- did you ever see Mr. Simpson's golf bag again after you pulled into your residence on June 14? A. Yeah. Q. When was that? A. I saw it every day. Q. Well, did you remove it? A. I saw it the next day. Q. Did you take it out of your trunk that day when you arrived there? A. Either I -- I think I did. Either I did or my housekeeper did, one of the two. Q. Do you know where that golf bag was placed? A. Yes. It was placed in my garage. Q. Do you recall placing it in there yourself? A. I don't recall. But my pattern is, I would have probably placed it there myself. Q. Did you leave it in that travel bag it was in? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever open that travel bag? A. That day? Q. First of all, that day. A. No. Q. Did you open it any of the days following that? A. Yes. Q. What day? A. Oh, I don't know. It would have been maybe a week after he was arrested. I don't know when, but after his arrest. Q. Did you ever see Mr. Simpson touch that golf bag after you arrived at your residence that day? A. Yes. Q. When was that? A. I don't know, it was either -- I think it was Wednesday evening. Q. What, if anything, did you observe him do with the golf bag? A. I saw him take a golf club out. Q. Was the travel bag still on the bag? A. Yes. Q. You saw him open the travel bag -- A. Yes. Q. -- correct? Did you see him lift the golf bag out of the travel bag? A. No. Q. Just peel the travel bag down? A. Yes. Q. And removed one club? A. Yes. Q. You know which club he removed? A. No, I do not. Q. What did he do with the club? A. It was an iron. Q. Okay. A. He went for a walk and he was swinging the golf club. Q. Did you walk out to the garage with him when he went to get the golf club? A. Yes. Q. Did he tell you he was going to the garage to get a golf club? A. No, he -- no. Q. No? A. No. Q. Were you having a conversation with him as he walked to the golf bag -- as he walked to the golf bag in the garage? A. He said, I'm going to go for a walk. Q. And did he ask you to go with him? A. No. Q. Did he ask you to follow him to the garage? A. No. MR. PETROCELLI: The last page, 595, at line 24. (Reading:) Q. Now, when you left the office and went to get the golf clubs, your plan was to get the golf clubs and then head to your home in Encino, true? A. Correct. Q. And he, referring to Mr. Simpson, requested that you go to the airport to get the golf clubs, is that true? A. Yes. Q. And if you left the office and went to your home, you would have gone north, is that true? A. South. Q. Your home is south of the office? A. Oh, I'm sorry, no, I didn't go home, I went to the airport. Q. I understand that. If you didn't go to the airport, you went directly from your office to your home -- A. I'm sorry? Q. -- would you go north? Is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. From his office. And in order for you to go to the airport, you had to go south first, correct? A. That's right. Q. Completely the opposite direction of your house, right? A. Yes. MR. PETROCELLI: 597, line 17. (Reading:) Q. But you thought that was somewhat of an odd request, didn't you, that someone who's wife had been killed 36 hours earlier wanted to go to an airport to pick up golf clubs; isn't that true? MR. BAKER: Objection, irrelevant, vague. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. PETROCELLI: (Reading:) A. Yes. Q. And did you question at all, Mr. Simpson, at this point, with respect to whether there was something in that golf bag that he wanted to get? MR. PETROCELLI: Let me -- there are some objections. Let me skip down to line 11, Mr. Baker, okay? MR. BAKER: Okay. MR. PETROCELLI: And my question is: (Reading:) Q. Given the oddity of that request, is there anything that you asked him about -- relative to whether he needed something from the golf bag? MR. PETROCELLI: Another objection. Another question. MR. BAKER: I move to strike that. MR. PETROCELLI: I thought there was an answer. There's another objection. So I'll go to the next question. (Reading:) Q. Did you ask him why he wanted to go to the airport to get the golf clubs? A. No. Q. Was there any discussion about his motivation behind going to the airport to get the golf clubs? A. No. Q. Did you suggest to him that he could have them delivered? A. No. MR. PETROCELLI: No further questions. MR. P. BAKER: Page 201, line 13. (Reading:) Q. You indicated earlier that you -- there was a very noticeable swollen knuckle and cut on Mr. Simpson's left middle finger? A. Yes. MR. P. BAKER: Page 208, line 21. (Reading:) Q. Did you observe any other cuts on any other fingers of that left hand? A. No, I did not. Q. Any abrasions? A. No. MR. B. BAKER: Page 435, line 3. (Reading:) Q. Did you see -- how many cuts did you see? A. I just saw that -- the cut on the top of his middle finger on his left hand. Q. And how long was that cut? A. I'm not good at this. Maybe -- maybe a half inch, maybe a quarter. I -- it covered -- it went past his knuckle, so I guess maybe half an inch. MR. P. BAKER: Page 436, line 14. (Reading:) Q. Is the only mark or cut or injury, bruise, abrasion that you saw on Mr. Simpson before noon on the 14th, that single cut on his middle finger? A. Yes, sir. MR. P. BAKER: Then we're going to go to your section. Do you have the -- we're going to need the bigger deposition. 452, line 4. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. MR. P. BAKER: We're going to need your copy. MR. PETROCELLI: Oh, okay, give it to him. MR. P. BAKER: 452, line 4. (Reading:) Q. Okay. And during the week that Mr. Simpson was at your house before his arrest, you only saw him go to that golf bag on one occasion; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. When he took out that iron, right? A. Yes. Q. And you saw him return the iron, right? A. Yes. Q. And did he close up the golf travel bag? A. Yes. Q. Or did he have it peeled open? A. No, he zipped it up. Q. Okay. And from that point on, you never saw him touch that bag again, right? A. That's correct. Q. Did the bag remain in the garage where Mr. Simpson left it when he closed the bag, for the rest of the week? A. Oh, yes. MR. P. BAKER: Nothing further. MR. PETROCELLI: Page 208, again turning back to -- MR. GELBLUM: I need Volume 1, a copy of Volume 1. MR. PETROCELLI: -- the subject of the cuts. (Reading:) Q. And did you actually make any effort to look at it, referring to his hand? A. No closer than that. Q. Make a casual observation of it? A. No. MR. PETROCELLI: Page 431 -- I'll pass on that. No further questions, Your Honor. MR. P. BAKER: Nothing. MR. BREWER: Your Honor, at this point, Ms. Sharon Rufo, who is a resident of Missouri, is in Missouri. We've elected to proceed, through her deposition, with the videotape, the relevant time period between 1988 to 1994. And the questions that are asked in the transcript are by Mr. Leonard from the defense counsel. Thank you. (The videotaped deposition of Sharon Rufo, taken on May 30, 1996, was played in open court. And transcribed as follows:) Q. (MR. LEONARD) Did you have any communication of any kind with -- with Ron from the time he left for California until his death? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell me how many times you communicated with him? MR. BREWER: When you say communication, you're talking written or oral? MR. LEONARD: Yeah, anything. MR. BREWER: Okay. A. Four times. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) When was the first time that you recall, and again, it's not -- A. No, this -- Q. I would be shocked if you had a date. A. The -- this I remember, it was -- Q. Okay. A. It was Mother's Day of 1990. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Oh, okay. (Excerpt ends.) (Excerpt begins.) Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Oh, okay. So you -- so Ronnie called -- A. Yes. Q. -- two days later? A. Yes. Q. And I mean, two days after Mother's Day? A. Yes. Q. And just relate the discussion you had. A. Actually, it was -- it was quite nice. We talked for approximately two -- two to two and a half hours, and he was telling me about his -- how anxious he was to finally get in touch with me. And he was -- indicated to me that he was struggling financially. Q. Um-hum. A. And that he was taking a -- or had completed taking a written exam for the LA Police Department. And he told me he had cut his hair and it was -- 'cause he always had a cowlick and now he didn't have it, he cut it, you know, sort of like -- he said like from "GQ" magazine. And he put on some weight. And we talked about his social life. And we really didn't get into the past, we were just trying to -- I was just trying to get as much information out of him as I could 'cause it was a few years that I -- since I had talked to him. (Excerpt ends.) (Excerpt begins.) Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Are you prepared to go forward? A. Yes. Q. My question was, did you have a discussion with -- with Fred about his taking the children to California? A. Yes. Q. And in general terms, can you relate that discussion? A. Just that he was -- he had a job promotion and he was taking the children to California. Q. And what did you say to him, if anything, about that? A. Just the fact that it would be a long distance for me to see the children. That's about it. Q. Okay. When you say one of the things you discussed with -- with Ron in this phone call two days after Mother's Day, was that you were struggling financially -- A. Yes. Q. -- do you recall in any detail what you described about that? A. His exact words were, his life was in a shambles, and he had no job, and he was trying out for the police department. And, like I said, about his general appearance. Q. Is there anything else you recall about that two-and-a-half-hour discussion? A. Not really. Q. Okay. When was the next time that you had any communication with Ron after that? A. Approximately six weeks after, I talked to Ronnie on the phone, I wrote him a letter. I had -- I hadn't heard from him, so I wrote him a letter. Q. Okay. When you -- during the course of -- let me back up a little bit. During the course of the conversation with Ron, did you -- did you get his phone number? A. I believe I did, yes. Q. Okay. And you got his address? A. Yes. Q. And did you -- did you give him your phone number -- well, obviously you had. A. Yeah. Q. Stupid question. So you hadn't heard from -- from Ron for about a six-week period? A. Right. Q. Is that -- you were expecting to hear from him? A. Yes. Q. Had you made some arrangement with him -- A. Yes. Q. -- that you would speak to each other? A. Yes. Q. Now -- and then you wrote a letter to him? A. Yes. Q. Did you attempt to call him during this six-week period? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And did -- were you able to get through to him? A. No. Q. Why not? MR. BREWER: What do you mean "why not"? I mean obsioulsy he wasn't there or -- MR. LEONARD: I'm asking. I don't know. A. He wasn't there. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Okay. Did he have an answering machine at the time? A. No. If he did, I didn't know about it. It wasn't working. Q. Okay. Was he living -- where was he living? I don't mean the address, but do you know where -- whether he was living with other people or... A. He had a roommate. Q. Okay. And how many times did you try to call him during that period, do you remember? A. Approximately one or two times. Q. Did you ever -- did you ever reach anyone and leave a message? A. No. Q. Okay. Did you -- other than the LA -- taking the LAPD exam, did Ron mention anything else to you about employment; in other words, that he was working or where he was working? And I'm talking about the telephone conversation. A. I believe it was for United Cerebral Palsy. Q. And did he tell you what he was doing? A. He said that he was -- he would go there and he would dress -- help dress the -- the patients and bathe them, and take care of them, and feed them, and that's basically what he said his job was. Q. Okay. And you wrote a letter approximately six weeks after Mother's Day of 1990? A. Yes. Q. Okay. You don't -- did you -- you didn't keep a copy of the letter? A. No. Q. Okay. A. I sent pictures, though. Q. Excuse me? A. I sent pictures. Q. You sent photographs? A. Yes. Q. Of yourself? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And what -- what did you say in the letter, do you recall? I mean obviously not every word, but as much as you recall. A. Just the fact that -- what was taking him so long in -- in responding. He was supposed to send me some pictures of his new hair cut. Q. Okay. A. And I hadn't heard from him so I wrote him a letter, and sent him pictures of myself, and he wanted pictures of my cat, so I sent him pictures. Q. As of two days after Mother's Day of 1990, what photographs, if any, did you have of Ronnie? A. I had every photograph that was -- that was sent to my mother. If there were any photographs, my mother sent them to me. Q. Well, let me put it to you this way: As of two days after Mother's Day -- A. Um-hum. Q. -- Of 1990 -- A. Yes. Q. Did you have any photographs of Ronnie in your residence? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Did you have a lot of photographs of him? A. I had photographs -- yes. Q. Okay. And -- well, what was the latest age, if you will, of the photograph? In other words, was he 14, 15, 16, 20, 25? MR. BREWER: Time period? MR. LEONARD: Yeah. A. In the mid 80's. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Okay. Anything else you can recall about the content of the letter you sent? A. Not -- no, not really. Q. Okay. Did you -- when was the next communication you had with Ron? A. I wrote another letter, and that was about a month after this -- after that other one. Q. Um-hum. And during that one-month period from when you wrote the first letter until you wrote the second letter, you didn't hear back from Ronnie? A. No, I did not. Q. Okay. Did you attempt to call him during that period? A. No. Q. Okay. Tell me what -- what you recollect was in the second letter you sent to Ron? A. The second letter was a wedding announcement and a picture of my automobile. Q. Um-hum. A. And -- Q. Is that the Monte Carlo? A. No. I had a Thunderbird. Q. Okay. Okay. A. And some pictures of the house. MR. BREWER: (Inaudible.) Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Excuse me? A. And some pictures of the house. Q. Okay. So contained in the envelope with the letter were some photographs? A. Yes. Q. And how about the content of the letter, as much as you can recollect? A. I wanted to -- wanted to know why I still hadn't heard from him, and I was getting concerned, and told him that we tried calling, both my mother and myself, and the phone number was no longer in service. Q. Okay. You testified earlier that you -- that you hadn't tried to call, at least that's what I understood, in the one-month period between the two letters. Do you remember that testimony? A. I did, I called once and my mother called once. Q. And what was the result of your call? A. I testified that I got no -- no one answered when I called. Q. Okay. MR. BREWER: You're -- MR. LEONARD: Right, no, I think I -- Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You wrote one letter six weeks after Mother's Day, then you wrote another letter about a month after that? A. Correct. Q. In between the two letters, did you make any attempt -- A. No. Q. -- to call Ronnie? A. No. Q. Okay. Do you know whether -- do you know if your mother did? A. Yes. Q. She did? A. Yes. Q. During that one-month period? A. Yes. Q. Did she tell you that she tried to call Ronnie? A. Yes. Q. And what did she tell you happened when she tried to call Ron? A. She said she got no answer and she also sent a letter, and we assumed since the letters were not coming back that he had received the letter. (Excerpt ends.) (Excerpt begins.). Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) All right. Okay. Okay. Okay. When was the next communication? I think you mentioned the fourth is -- are we on the fourth one? A. 1992. Q. Okay. So -- just so I got this right. And when in 1992, approximately, was the communication? A. The end of '92. Q. In December? A. I believe it was -- I believe it was November. Q. Okay. And describe that communication? A. He had called to say that he was -- (inaudible.) MR. LEONARD: Sure. A. When he called the house he got my ex. MR. BREWER: He wants to know the conversation you had with Ron, when you spoke with him. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Well, let's start over again. Ron -- Ron called the house, right, you weren't there; is that correct? A. I was there. Q. Oh, you were there in 1992? A. Yes. Q. Okay. You mentioned your ex-husband. A. Steven answered the phone, and did the same thing that he did the first time to Ron. Q. Okay. A. And -- Q. Which -- A. I got the phone call. Q. What you mean by that is he -- he said he was abusive to Ronnie? A. Yes. Q. And told Ronnie that he didn't what? That he didn't want -- A. He didn't want him calling the house. Q. Did you overhear that? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And tell me exactly what you heard Mr. Rufo say? A. He told him that he didn't feel that because -- Q. Just when you say he, that's Mr. Rufo? A. Mr. Rufo. Q. Okay. A. He wanted no -- he told me that he did not want me to have any association with my children. Q. I don't mean to be impolite, but my question was you overheard a portion -- you overheard Mr. Rufo on the phone, right? A. Right. Q. I just -- and you -- and you know that was with Ronnie -- Ronnie was -- you then picked up the phone afterwards, right? A. I didn't hear what he said at the time. Q. Okay. That was my question. A. Okay. I came in on the tail end of it. I heard it was my son and I grabbed the phone from him so Ronnie wouldn't hang up. Q. Okay. Tell me what you heard at the tail end. A. That he didn't want him calling the house anymore. Q. Okay. A. That was all that I heard. Q. Where were you coming from? A. I was coming out of the wash room and he was in the kitchen. Q. And -- Mr. Rufo? A. Yes. Q. You picked up the phone? A. Yes. Q. And describe the conversation you had with Ronnie? A. I took the phone into the bedroom and talked to Ronnie about the fact that -- he was calling to let me know that he was going to be on this program, "Studs," and wanted to make sure that we had it in our area. Q. Okay. A. He was telling me about him being an EMT. Q. Okay. A. Went to school for that. We talked about Ronnie -- Q. Okay. I'm sorry, how long did the telephone conversation last? A. Little over an hour. Q. Okay. So you -- he told you about the -- did he say he was going to be on or the possibility that he was going to be? A. No, he was -- he was on. Q. Okay. A. It was a matter of what time. Q. Okay. Could it have been taped? A. Right. Q. And he said that he was going -- that he was an EMT or was going to school? A. Right. Q. Okay. What else did you discuss? A. He said that he was -- he was doing some construction work on a ranch, he said he was -- had no money. That's all he talked about, was the fact that he had no money. Q. Did he ask you for money? A. No. (Excerpt ends.) (Excerpt begins.) Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) And you don't recall bringing a photograph of Ronnie? A. I always have those with me. Q. Oh, okay. A. They're in my -- they're in my wallet. Q. Okay. Do you have them with you? A. Um-hum. Q. May I see them? A. Sure. (Excerpt ends.) (Excerpt begins.) Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) That's a photograph of Ronnie? A. Right. Q. And approximately how old was he at the time? A. Ronnie was about 6 months old, 6 to 9 months old. Q. Okay. And this is a photograph -- what we've identified as 2 appears to be a Polaroid type photograph? A. Right. Q. How old was Ronnie there? A. This was taken I believe at -- I don't know if it was a house gathering, a friend's house or something, but it was '90 -- '92, maybe. (Excerpt ends.) (Excerpt