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 9, 1996

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

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

VS.

ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.


SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1996
8:50 A.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

THE COURT: Morning.

JURORS: Morning, Your Honor.

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, before the next witness, I need to move in 2246
and 2247, two photos from Friday, please.

THE COURT: Received.

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2246 was
received in evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2247 was
received in evidence.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Morning, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Morning.

MR. PETROCELLI: Morning, ladies and gentlemen.

JURORS: Morning.

MR. PETROCELLI: As our final witness, plaintiffs call Fred Goldman.

FRED GOLDMAN, Plaintiff, called as a witness by and on his own behalf,
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: So help me God, I do.

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

THE WITNESS: Fred Goldman, F-r-e-d, G-o-l-d-m-a-n.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q. Morning, Mr. Goldman.

A. Morning.

Q. I'd like to talk with you this morning about your relationship with
your son, Ron.

When was Ron born, Mr. Goldman?

A. July 2, 1968.

Q. And you are how old?

A. Pardon me?

Q. You were how old at the time.

A. I was 28.

Q. And you are how old now?

A. Fifty-six.

Q. And you turned 56 on?

A. Friday.

Q. This past Friday, right?

A. Correct.

Q. At the time Ron was born, you were married to Ron's mother, Sharon
Rufo?

A. Correct.

Q. And did Sharon and you have another child after Ron?

A. Yes, Kim.

Q. And when was Kim born?

A. December 26, 1971.

Q. Three years between Ron and Kim?

A. Yes.

Q. And Kim and Ron are our your only two children?

A. Yes.

Q. After Ron and Kim were born, they lived with Sharon and you?

A. Correct.

Q. And then was there a time when Sharon and you split up?

A. Yes.

Q. And how old was Ron at the time?

A. Ron was 6.

Q. And for the first year following the end of your marriage with
Sharon, who did Ron and Kim live with?

A. Ron and Kim lived, for the first year, with Sharon.

Q. That's when Ron was six years old?

A. Yes.

Q. Kim was three?

A. Correct.

Q. And during that time, that first year when they were with their
mom, did you see your son?

A. All the time.

Q. And did you talk to him?

A. All the time.

Q. And after that first year, did Ron and Kim come to live with you?

A. Yes.

Q. And how old was Ron then?

A. Ron was seven then, and Kim would have been four.

Q. And from that time on, did Ron continue to live with you?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

MR. PETROCELLI: Can we put on Exhibit 1 [sic].

These are all photographs taken from Exhibit 771.

(The instrument herein referred to as Series of photographs of Fred
Goldman, Ron Goldman, and Kim Goldman was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 771.)

(Photograph of Ron Goldman and Kim Goldman walking with their backs to
the camera, was displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Who is that a picture of, Mr. Goldman?

A. Ron and Kim.

Q. And is that about the time when Ron and Kim came to live with you?

A. It's actually before that. It was when Ron was a little past six
and Kim three. It was shortly after we were divorced.

Q. And then you raised Ron and Kim on your own for a number of years,
right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then, at some point, did you get married again?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And when was that?

A. 1977, I believe.

Q. And --

MR. PETROCELLI: Would you put on the next picture, the second photo.

THE COURT REPORTER: Exhibit number, please?

MR. PETROCELLI: They're all from Exhibit 771.

(Photograph of Fred Goldman wearing a tuxedo, Ron Goldman, and Kim
Goldman was displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) That is a picture of Ron and Kim and you?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the occasion?

A. The day that I got married.

Q. To your second wife?

A. Second wife.

Q. And her name was?

A. Joan.

Q. And did Joan, you, Ron, and Kim all live together?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. For how many years?

A. Four.

Q. Up until the time when Ron was about what?

A. '77, -- '81 -- 13 -- 13 or 14, if my math is correct.

Q. And at some point in time, did your relationship with Joan come to
an end?

A. Yes, it did.

Q. You and she were divorced?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Ron and Kim continue to live with you the whole time?

A. The whole time.

Q. Can you tell us a about your relationship with your son when he was
a boy?

What kind of boy was he? And we just want to share some of your
thoughts about that.

A. Ron was -- Ron had a smile on his face from the day he was born,
and he was a happy-go-lucky kid that never seemed to have a care in
the world.

He was truly Kim's big brother. She always referred to him as her
second father.

He was always there for Kim.

Q. Did you do the normal things a father and son do together?

A. Yeah. We were in Indian Guides together; that's a program through
the YMCA for fathers and sons.

Ron was in little league, and we did all of that stuff together. Ron
and I, neither one of us were major fans of -- of sports, so we did a
little of that, but not a lot. But all the normal father and stuff --
father-and-son stuff.

Q. Did you take vacations together?

A. All the time.

Q. Can you put up the next picture, Steve

(Photograph depicting Fred Goldman, Ron Goldman, and Kim Goldman, who
was wearing a sombrero, displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. Can you tell us about this photograph?

A. That was a trip to -- the three of us went on alone. I surprised
Ron and Kim. They didn't know where we were going until we got to the
airport. We went to Alcapulco.

Q. So the three of you were all very close growing up?

A. Very much so.

Q. Okay.

And when Ron got into high school, did you -- did your relationship
with him stay close?

A. It was always close. There was something special about our
relationship. No matter what, nothing ever seemed to get in the way.
It was always this bond that never dissipated.

When Ron went into high school, it was the same.

Q. And what about discipline?

A. Well, I think we had probably the normal father/son/daughter
problems.

The one that I can probably think of was that Ron and I had a deal
about him getting to school when he first started high school.

We lived about six or -- yeah, maybe five or six miles away. And there
was -- there was a bus service from the school, but if you missed the
bus, you were out of luck. And there were numerous times that Ron
missed the bus, and I was -- became the designated driver. And we had
kind of a deal at some point, that, if Ron missed the bus again, he'd
have to walk to school. And he did -- and he did. And that was the
last time he walked to school.

Q. Did you --

MR. PETROCELLI: Could you put on the third photo.

(Photograph of Ron Goldman, lying down, wearing a yellow shirt, was
displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) This about high school for Ron?

A. Yes. That was in 1985, December of 1985, December or January of
'85.

Q. And put on the next photo.

(Photograph of Ron Goldman, wearing cap and gown was displayed on the
Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Is this Ron's high-school graduation --

A. Yes.

Q. -- in Illinois?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, after Ron graduated from this, Mr. Goldman, what did he do?

A. After he graduated from high school?

Q. Yeah.

A. Ron went to Pierce -- Not Pierce College -- went to Illinois State
University in -- in Illinois.

Q. For how long did he go there?

A. Ron went for only one semester.

Q. And why did he stop going to college for one semester at Illinois
State?

A. Like with a lot of things, we had a deal, if you would, about
goals. And Ron's goal was certain grades in college. And the deal was
that if he didn't make his goals at the end of first semester, he'd
have to come home at the end of first semester.

And he spent a little too much time playing and not enough time
studying, and he ended up coming home.

Q. Okay.

And after he came home from college, did -- was it about that time
when you married Patty?

A. Yes. Patty and I got married in February of 1986.

Q. And Patty brought to your family children of her own?

A. Three.

Q. And they are --

A. I think I just said '86. We got married in '87.

She wouldn't let me forget that we missed that one.

Q. And Patty's children are?

A. Patty's children are Bryan, who is now 21; Michael, who is 18; and
Lauren, who is 16.

Q. And with Patty's three children and your two children, what did the
new family do after your marriage?

A. Well, three days after we got married, we put two families together
and moved to California, and -- what some people, I guess, call the
Brady Bunch. But I can assure you, that's not real life, but it was
still a lot of fun.

Q. And you moved to California?

A. Moved to California three days after we got married.

Q. And you moved into Agoura?

A. Agoura, yes.

Q. And that's where you still live?

A. Still live.

Q. Now, Ron was about 19 years old then?

A. Ron was -- in '87, he would have been 17. He was just 18.

Q. And Ron moved in with you?

A. Correct. Correct. We all lived together.

Q. What kind of relationship did Ron have with Patty's three children?

A. Ron instantly became everybody's big brother, besides Kim. He was
Brian's, Michael's, and Loren's instant big brother.

Ron loved kids, and it was real easy for him to take on the additional
role.

Q. And what did Ron --

Well, let me ask you this: How did Ron take to living in Southern
California?

A. He loved it. He was like a duck to water. He absolutely loved
California, loved the mountains, loved the ocean.

He was in -- he was in ecstasy when he came here.

Q. And what did he begin to do with himself?

Did he go to school?

A. Shortly after we moved here, Ron -- that's September -- started at
Pierce College.

Q. And how long did he stay there?

A. Ron was there, again, one semester.

Q. And how did Ron do in school?

A. Okay.

But Ron, I guess, at that point, and me later, discovered that Ron
just wasn't cut out to be a student. He had other aspirations. And it
was -- it was tough for me to accept that for a while, but it made
sense, ultimately.

Q. It was tough for you in what way?

A. Well, I guess like a lot of parents, perhaps, it was my feeling
that the way to -- to success was going to be college. And -- but to
-- the way around success wasn't going to -- going to be -- wasn't
going to be college; it was -- it was going to be other things. It was
hard for me to accept that.

Q. When Ron left Pierce College, did he do something with his time?

A. When he left?

Q. Yeah.

A. Oh, yeah. Ron was always working. He had jobs during Pierce --
during Pierce. Ron actually had several jobs.

He applied for a job that was -- there was one at -- Pierce, had a
little -- as it was ultimately explained to me, they -- they had a
little table out, looking for students to apply. And it was for a
camp, to be a counselor. And Ron applied and was hired.

Q. It was a camp for?

A. Inner-city kids, a sleep-over camp, and Ron was hired as a
counselor.

Actually -- excuse me -- a nighttime counselor. Ron would go there
late in the afternoon and stay overnight.

Q. And Ron enjoyed helping the children?

A. He loved it.

I met the -- the woman that hired Ron, and she told me once that Ron
was the only student from Pierce that applied that was enthusiastic,
and that was the reason she hired him. And she said that Ron would
stay up late with the kids, helping them with -- with their future.
And she said the one thing that she remembered that Ron would always
tell them, is go to school; I didn't, but you need to get your life
organized. And I made enough mistakes for all of us, so don't any of
you make them.

Q. Did Ron, at some time, get a job working with patients at the
United Cerebral Palsy Hospital?

A. Yeah. Ron first got a job at a resident's home in Westlake with
cerebral palsy patients.

First, it was a volunteer position that ultimately turned into a paid
position. He was responsible for the care of the patients, helping
them get dressed, helping feed them, outings, and the like.

Q. And during this time, Ron is still living with you in your home in
Agoura?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. Now, there came a time in about 1990, when Ron decided to move out
on his own?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And he's about 20, 21 years old then?

A. 1990, Ron was almost -- going on 22.

Q. And where did Ron go?

A. Ron lived first in Calabasas, and then ultimately -- he moved -- he
moved a couple of times -- Woodland Hills.

Q. And Ron was living in apartments, would you say, for the next
several years?

A. Yes.

Q. And during that period of time, did you maintain a relationship
with Ron?

A. Always. It never stopped.

Q. And what sort of things did you do together?

A. I guess the normal things. You know, we spent as much time as
humanly possible. I'd meet Ron for lunch, or dinner, or he'd meet us.

Ron, since he lived close, it was easy to always stop by the house.

Ron was always involved with everybody and if -- if some of the kids
had things going on, Ron was always there for those, as well.

Q. And what was Ron doing with -- with his time when he was living out
-- what kind of work was he doing?

A. Primarily waitering. He had a job for a short while, working for a
job recruiter, but ultimately, Ron was doing a lot of work -- working
as a waiter.

Q. In various --

A. Various restaurants, right.

Q. And did Ron have his share of screw-ups as a young man?

A. He did. Without question.

Probably the two biggest, or maybe the single biggest for Ron was a
combination of things.

Ron would say, as would Kim, that they learned to drive with a little
lead foot from me. Ron got himself a pack of traffic tickets and
ultimately lost his license. And then, even worse, he was picked up
for driving with a suspended license, and he was, in fact, arrested.

Q. And he called you from the jail?

A. He called -- it was late one night. He called the house. Kim woke
me up. And I went down to get him out.

That happened, actually, one more time. But that time, it seems to me,
almost a year later, his license had still been suspended and he had
risked it again and was driving. And at that point, I was not aware of
it, because he called Kim who was up at Santa Barbara, going to
school.

He told her that he didn't want me to know about it. He wanted to
handle it on his own. And as I found out later, he went before the
judge, and the judge offered him a choice of, pay a fine or go to jail
for four days.

And he made the choice to go to jail for four days.

Q. And you didn't know about it at the time?

A. I didn't know about it until after the fact, no.

He said -- told us later that he wanted to handle it on his own.

Q. And in regard to handling his finances, working as a waiter, how
good did Ron do?

A. Oh, Ron got himself into a bit of a financial pickle.

He literally got himself into debt over his head. And we had numerous
conversations about that. And there was some discussion at one point
about filing bankruptcy. But at first, Ron wanted to try to work it
out. But it -- it became way too -- way too burdensome. He wasn't
making enough money through his -- his waitering job to cover that and
-- And rent, et cetera. And he ultimately, after he and I went to a
financial counselor to see if he could work it out, he ultimately,
about six months after that, filed bankruptcy --

Q. And --

A. -- reluctantly.

Q. -- how much did he owe?

A. He really got himself in deep. He owed somewhere close to $12,000,
real deep.

Q. Did you offer to just give him the money?

A. No. It was a tough decision. I didn't.

I had always, I guess you can say, practiced tough-love parenting, and
I -- it was something -- that was something I would have had a problem
doing, bailing him out.

Ron understood. Ron didn't have a problem with that. He wanted to
handle it on his own.

Q. As part of this, did Ron make the decision to move back into your
home?

A. It was in good part because of that. The ultimate move back home,
finances were just getting too tough.

Q. This is around 1992 --

A. 19 --

Q. -- that he moved back?

A. It was either somewhere between '90 and '92. I can't remember
exactly.

Q. He lived at home for a period of time?

A. About a year, again.

Q. And while he was living at home, again, he was working in various
jobs as a -- as a waiter?

A. Right, correct.

Q. What was your relationship like?

A. Always -- it was always good. Ron -- Ron never let his
relationships in any way suffer because of anything. Our relationship
was always good. His relationship with everybody in the family was
good.

Q. And did he attend family outings and family functions?

A. Always, always.

The last -- The last big function that Ron attended was -- was
Lauren's Bat Mitzvah in 1993, November.

MR. PETROCELLI: Can you put the photo up.

(Photograph of Fred Goldman, Ron Goldman, and Kim Goldman, wearing a
black dress, displayed on Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) That's what you're referring to?

A. Yeah. That was taken just before --

Q. It's November 13, 1993?

A. Yes.

Q. It's about seven, eight months before Ron's death?

A. Right.

Q. During this period of time, did Ron begin to mature and set some
goals for himself?

A. Yeah. Actually, it began -- it began not that long before we got
here, Ron went through a transformation. He came here as a skinny kid,
and Ron started to eat healthy, more healthy than ever before; started
to work out; never -- stopped completely any drinking of beer or
anything; never smoked -- stopped completely. His big push was to get
as healthy as possible, and he did.

It was amazing to see pictures of him over a couple of years.

He made just enormous changes. And likewise, along with the issue of
in and out of the various jobs.

Ron made a decision among all of these various waiter jobs, that that
was going to be his career. And we found out lots later how much.

Q. Sometime in 1993, did Ron approach you about being a partner of his
in business?

A. Yeah. Ron came to me about oh, six or nine months before he was
murdered, and said he had an idea about a restaurant that he wanted to
-- to do, and wanted to know if -- if I would invest in it.

I told him that the answer was yes. But did he have anything more --
more information. And he said, I'll let you know when I have more. I
just want -- I just want to know if you will.

Q. What did you say?

A. I said yes.

Q. And did you hear anything more from Ron about his plan of opening
up this restaurant?

A. No, I didn't. Not -- No, not from Ron, directly.

Q. And after his death, did you find out something about this?

A. Yeah.

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object on relevancy grounds and hearsay.

THE COURT: Approach the bench.

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

MR. PETROCELLI: I have a few more questions in this line. After Ron's
death, when they went to his apartment, his father found Ron's plans
to open up his restaurant, and there's a little diagram of what it was
going to look like. And I'm just going to ask him a few questions
about that.

It's not offered for the truth of the matter, so it's not hearsay. It
goes to the nature of the relationship between the two of them, which
is the heart of the issue here.

MR. BAKER: It doesn't go to the nature of the relationship at all.
He's testified as to he would -- whether he would invest. Whether Ron
had made some plans to do it or not is totally irrelevant. There's no
issue of Ron ever supporting his father in this case at all. There's
no economic relationship at all. And hence, it has no relevancy in
this case.

MR. PETROCELLI: It's not a monetary issue; it goes to the loss of
society. That's the only issue that we are proffering in this case.

MR. BAKER: A business enterprise doesn't go to loss of society, in my
opinion, sir, and it's irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Sorry, Mr. Goldman.

You were saying after Ron's death, you found out some information
about his plans to open up a business, a restaurant?

A. Yeah.

After Ron was murdered, we were cleaning out Ron's apartment, and we
found a -- a file with all kinds of information in it.

There were proposed menus, ideas for the kinds of things that Ron
wanted to have on the menu. He had names of various chefs that he had
met, had names of people that were apparently interested in -- in --
in being involved. And he had a drawing of what he wanted his
restaurant to look like.

(The instrument herein referred to as a Hand-drawn Diagram of Ron
Goldman's planned restaurant was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 772.)

(Diagram displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. Is that the drawing on the TV?

A. Yeah.

I never realized how far Ron had gotten with his plans and his dreams.

Q. Mr. Goldman, what is the shape of that diagram? Does it have any
significance?

(Pause in proceedings. Mr. Goldman sobbing.)

A. I'm sorry.

It's the Egyptian symbol that Ron wore around his neck. It was an
Egyptian symbol, the round shape with the line across it, and then the
vertical line below it, was the Egyptian symbol of an ankh.

Q. What does the ankh stand for?

(Pause in proceedings. Mr. Goldman sobbing.)

A. It meant eternal life.

Q. And Ron were the ankh around his neck?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you able to finish this up, Mr. Goldman?

A. Yeah.

Q. Okay.

A. Doesn't wear it anymore; Kim wears it now.

Q. And Ron talked to you about wanting to have a family?

A. Yeah.

Besides wanting a restaurant, Ron wanted only two other things: Wanted
to be married and have children.

Ron -- Ron absolutely adored kids. It was probably part of the reason
why he was so good at his job at the camp; was also the reason why he
took a job as -- as a tennis coach for the high-school tennis team.

When we were ever with any of our friends who had little kids, as with
Michael and Lauren, especially, when they were little, Ron was always
like the Pied Piper. And he'd have little kids following him all over
the place. And Ron wanted to have kids of his own.

Q. Did he have a name picked out for his first child?

A. Yeah.

Q. What was that?

A. Ron picked a name out of -- I'm not sure where it came from, but he
had decided that he was going to name his first child Dakota, whether
it was a boy or a girl.

Never had that chance.

Q. Mr. -- I'm sorry.

Focusing on the last several months -- several months of Ron's life,
did you see him during that period of time -- let's say from Lauren's
Bat Mitzvah, in November of '93, till Ron's death in June of 1994?

A. Yeah. We spent Thanksgiving together, my birthday in December,
Kim's birthday, the end of December. Patty's birthday in February.
Michael's birthday in March. Mother's Day --

Amazing I can remember these.

Mother's Day in May.

Something tells me I'm missing something.

Q. And in between those various family events --

A. Oh, had Passover in there someplace.

Q. -- did you see Ron in between those times?

A. Yeah. Ron and I always found a way to see each other. He had -- he
had his schedule for work, was always varying from day shifts to night
shifts. But I'd either meet him at work or we'd meet somewhere. Yeah.
Yeah, we always found a way to meet, or he was always coming out to
the house.

Q. Now, this period of time, end of '93 into '94, by then, had Ron
moved out of your home again?

A. Yeah. Ron moved out again. He moved --that's when he moved into
Brentwood.

Q. And did you ever have a chance to go to his apartment in Brentwood?

A. Yes. I -- we went there numerous times.

Q. Did Ron talk to you about whether he liked Brentwood, living there?

A. He liked Brentwood.

I wish he hadn't moved there.

MR. PETROCELLI: Can you put up that last picture.

(Photograph of Ron Goldman, wearing blue shorts, with his arm around a
person wearing red shorts, displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) What is this photo, Mr. Goldman?

A. As best as I know, that's one of the last -- last pictures taken of
Ron.

Q. You found that after his death?

A. Yes. He was -- he played softball in Brentwood with a bunch of
kids.

My favorite picture of him.

MR. PETROCELLI: Take it down.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) The last video you have of Ron is at the Bat
Mitzvah?

A. Yeah.

MR. PETROCELLI: Can you play it.

(Videotape originated on November 13, 1993, was played.)

(Videotape concluded playing.)

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Mr. Goldman, did you love your son?

A. Oh, God, yes.

Q. Do you miss him?

A. More than you can imagine.

Q. Do you think about him every day?

A. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't think of Ron.

Q. Will your life ever be the same again?

A. Never, ever be the same. A hole missing.

Q. Thank you, sir.

THE COURT: Take a brief, ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen.

(Recess.)

(Jurors resumed their respective seats.)

MR. BAKER: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Q. I've got a few questions.

Now, as I understand it, Sharon Rufo was the mother of Ron; is that
correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And Sharon Rufo, to the best of your knowledge, had not seen your
son 13 or 14 years before -- for a period of 13 or 14 years before
Ron's death; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you have seen her in this courtroom, have you not?

A. Yes.

Q. She did not, however, make it out to Ron's funeral, did she?

A. I didn't hear you.

Q. I apologize.

She did not attend Ron's funeral. Was she --

A. She was here for Ron's funeral.

Q. Now, in terms -- in your deposition you indicated I thought that
she had not.

MR. PETROCELLI: I don't think so, Mr. Baker.

MR. BAKER: Okay. I apologize.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In terms of your notification, the LAPD did not
notify you of your son's demise?

A. We were notified by the coroner's office I believe.

Q. And you were notified by the coroner's office at about 5 p.m. on
June 13, 1994; is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, in terms of Nicole Brown Simpson, you -- you didn't know that
your son even knew her at the time he was murdered, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. You did find that her phone number was in his apartment when it was
cleaned up?

A. As I recall, there was a phone directory that had the name Nicole
in it. I don't recall the number or anything like that.

Q. And just on another area, you -- since the murders of Nicole Brown
Simpson and your son, you have become friends with Detectives
Vannatter and Lange, correct?

A. You said friends?

Q. Friends.

A. No, I don't --

MR. PETROCELLI: Outside the scope, Your Honor.

THE WITNESS: Should I answer?

THE COURT: Yes.

A. No, I don't know that friends is accurate.

I mean I -- I consider friends someone you constantly spend a lot of
time with. That's not the case.

Q. Did Detective Vannatter spend -- was he at any of the fund raisers
that you gave?

THE COURT: Mr. Baker, if you're going to proceed on this, you're not
going to call this witness on your direct.

MR. BAKER: I understand.

MR. PETROCELLI: I have an objection to scope.

THE COURT: Overruled. Treat this as defense witness called out of
order.

MR. BAKER: Under 767?

THE COURT: 776.

MR. BAKER: That's right.

A. I'm sorry, you asked --

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You invited Detective Vannatter -- Mr. Vannatter to
funds raisers that you put on, did you not?

A. No, that's not true.

Q. You went to Detective Vannatter's retirement party, did you not?

A. We -- our family, my wife, my daughter and I went to Detective
Vannatter's retirement party, correct.

Q. Went to Detective Lange's retirement party?

A. Correct.

Q. You became friends with FBI agents Deedrick and Bodziak, correct?

A. No.

Q. How is it Detective Bodziak -- you have his picture with Detective
Bodziak and Kim, do you know?

MR. PETROCELLI: That's Deedrick.

MR. BAKER: I apologize. It was Deedrick.

A. If you're talking about the picture that was testified to --

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Yes.

A. -- I assume -- I don't recall, but I assume that was taken at -- at
one of the retirement dinners.

Q. Now, when Detective Vannatter was -- did Detective -- Deedrick come
out for one of the retirement dinners?

A. It was either there or it was at the police -- at the D.A.'s
office. There's only a handful of places that it could have been. More
likely it was at the D.A.'s office.

Q. And in fact, after the criminal trial, you participated in a news
conference with the detectives, as well as the district attorney,
indicating your displeasure with the jury verdict?

MR. PETROCELLI: Irrelevant, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Does your daughter call Mr. Vannatter Uncle Phil,
ever refer to him as that?

A. No.

Q. Now, you've talked to Detective -- Mr. Tippin and Mr. Marlow, have
you not, relative -- when they were on the LAPD investigating this
case?

A. As I recall, the only time I talked to Detective Tippin was when we
went to Ron's apartment.

Q. You've talked to Detective Marlow certainly after this case as a
civil (sic) case has been prosecuted, have you not?

A. I don't recall ever talking to Detective Marlow.

Q. Mr. Goldman, since the trial started, how many press conferences
have you held, since this trial started in September? We started jury
selection on September 18, 1996.

A. Press conferences?

Q. Press conferences.

A. As I recall, there was one when I announced my new job.

Q. And you also had one out here on the front lawn of the -- of the
court house after you appeared on "Larry King Live"; is that true?

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, this is really irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you -- you have now signed a book deal that --
that was discussed in your deposition; is that correct?

A. My family in total is writing a book, that's correct.

Q. And the guaranteed advance on that book, Mr. Goldman, is how much?

MR. PETROCELLI: It's irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. The total advance is 450,000. Out of that, my family gets
approximately half.

MR. BAKER: That's all I have.

MR. PETROCELLI: Nothing, Your Honor.

I've got to move in Exhibit 771 and 772, and I want to reserve the
right to put on any additional evidence with regard to the reservation
by the defense to our exhibits 'cause they have reserved in regard to
a number of exhibits.

THE COURT: All right.

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 771.)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 772.)

MR. PETROCELLI: And finally, Your Honor, I would like to reserve the
right to call Alfred Acosta pursuant to the Court's previous order. He
had to go out of town on a family emergency.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. PETROCELLI: And subject to those reservations, Your Honor, the
plaintiffs rest.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Defense.

MR. BAKER: Defense calls Phil Vannatter.

THE COURT: You can have a seat on the witness stand.

THE CLERK: You can have a seat on the witness stand.

Sir, you've already been sworn. You are still under oath.

Would you state your name again for the record.

THE WITNESS: Philip Vannatter.

PHILIP VANNATTER, called as a witness on behalf of Defendants, was
previously sworn and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Good morning.

A. Good morning.

Q. Mr. Vannatter, when did you arrive in southern California?

A. Saturday afternoon.

Q. And did you spend yesterday in any type of preparation for your
testimony here today, sir?

A. Yes, I had a meeting with Mr. Kelly, yesterday.

Q. And how long did that meeting take?

A. Approximately two hours.

Q. And did you review any of the testimony that you gave, for example,
at the grand jury hearing?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you review any testimony you gave at the preliminary hearing?

A. I was asked questions about the trial testimony.

Q. All right.

And did you review the trial testimony that you had given?

A. I didn't read it. I was asked questions by Mr. Kelly.

Q. And did you review any of the transcripts of any of the TV shows
that you've been on since the verdict of October, 1995?

A. No, sir, I didn't.

Q. Now, as -- as I understand it, at the time in June of 1994 when you
were called on this case, you had been a detective for 26 and a half
years in LAPD, correct?

A. No. That's -- I had been a police officer for 26 and a half years.

Q. All right.

How long you been a detective?

A. I transferred to detectives, I believe, in 1971, September of '71.

Q. So 23 years, roughly?

A. Approximately, yes.

Q. Okay.

And you had risen through the ranks to a Detective 3 by the time that
you investigated the double murders at 875 South Bundy, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And Detective 3 was -- you were the highest ranking detective among
the four detectives who were at the scene on June 13, 1994, correct?

A. The highest ranking detective -- there were two other Detective
3's.

Q. You were the most senior Detective 3, so you were in charge by
virtue of your seniority and the fact that you were a Detective 3,
correct?

A. It was a dual in charge with Mr. Lange.

Q. So is there a Detective 4 at the LAPD or is Detective 3 as high as
you get?

A. Detective 3 is an advance pay grade, as high as you go, yes.

Q. So you were a Detective 3 and Tom Lange was a Detective 3, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And because you had been a Detective 3 longer, if in fact push came
to shove, you were in charge, correct?

A. Not necessarily. We were partners. I believe there was a month
difference in our pay grade promotion.

Q. And as the detective from robbery/homicide -- we're going to get
into that in a minute -- you were in charge in directing the criminal
fingerprint people as well as the coroner, true?

A. At that crime scene?

Q. Yes.

A. No, sir, I wasn't. Detective Lange was.

Q. All right.

Now, you would agree as a detective of 23 years that there are certain
fundamentals in investigating the crime scene that must be adhered to
to ensure not only the integrity of the crime scene, but the chain of
custody of the evidence, true?

A. I'm not sure I understand what you mean, fundamentals, there are
certain things that have to be done, yes.

Q. Well, one of the fundamentals of a crime scene is obviously to
recognize what is evidence, correct?

A. Yes.

MR. KELLY: Objection, Your Honor, speculative. If we're talking about
this particular crime scene, that's something different.

THE COURT: I'll allow a certain amount of preliminary, but after that,
stay with this case.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, you didn't reinvent fundamentals of the double
murders at 875 South Bundy. These are fundamentals you had to
investigate crime scenes when you started investigating crime scenes
23 years ago, correct?

MR. KELLY: Objection, vague.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The investigation, sir, of a crime scene has certain
fundamental procedures that you go through to ensure that the crime
scene integrity is maintained and that the change of custody of the
evidence is preserved; you would agree with that?

MR. KELLY: Same objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Each crime scene is unique in itself. So ones you're talking about
could be different from crime scene to crime scene.

Q. The first thing you have to do, Detective Vannatter, is to
recognize what's evidence and what isn't, true?

MR. KELLY: Same objection. If we could focus in on June 12.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I would -- I would hope that you would recognize what is evidence
and what isn't, yes.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The second procedure that you must use in that crime
scene is to collect the evidence that you recognize as to be relevant
to any portion of the crime, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the third and very important step in crime scene procedure, is
the documentation of what you do, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that is, that you have to document where you've been, what
you've done, what evidence you've collected and where you personally
have been throughout the crime scene, and your processing of a crime
scene, correct?

A. I -- I'm not sure. You can't do it on a minute-to-minute basis. You
attempt to keep a chronological record of what had occurred, yes.

Q. And then you didn't do that at all, did you, by the way, you didn't
document where you were at 4 o'clock in the morning, did you?

A. It was -- it was documented, yes.

Q. I said you didn't document it at all, did you, sir?

A. Well, I checked in at the crime scene with the log personnel, yes.

Q. Did you document your movements at 875 South Bundy at all from 4 to
5 o'clock in the morning on June 13, 1994?

A. Are you asking me did I write notes?

Q. That's what I'm asking you.

A. No, sir, I didn't.

Q. And you also had investigated, by -- at least you indicated in your
sworn affidavit in furtherance of a search warrant on June 28, 1994,
that you investigated over 200 homicides by the time you investigated
the crimes at 875 South Bundy, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And so you certainly knew that documentation of your movements and
what went on at a crime scene was important, true?

A. Again, each crime scene is unique. If it's being done by someone
else, then there's no need to duplicate that effort.

Q. Okay.

So you didn't feel that there was any need to document anything at 875
South Bundy when you were there from 4 to 5 o'clock in the morning,
true?

A. I didn't do anything other than look there one time briefly, no, I
didn't.

Q. So the answer to my question is no, you didn't feel any need to
document anything at that crime scene, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, another fundamental is the preservation of evidence at a crime
scene, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And as I understand it, sir, when you were notified of the double
homicide at -- it was approximately what, 2:30 in the morning, of June
13, 1994?

A. No, sir. It was 3 o'clock in the morning.

Q. In any event, you got to 875 South Bundy at approximately 4 o'clock
in the morning, did you not?

A. Approximately, yes.

Q. And you had been a detective at West LA division of the LAPD for at
least what, three years, at the time that you investigated this crime
scene on behalf of robbery/homicide division, true?

A. No. I was not at West LA then. I had worked there previously, yes.

Q. You had worked there for three years at as a detective -- homicide
detective, had you not?

A. Yes, back in the mid 70's, that's correct.

Q. You knew the area around 875 South Bundy, did you not?

A. No, I don't think I've ever been there, except on this case.

Q. You have never been down Bundy?

A. No, I've been down Bundy. I've never been to that location.

Q. Okay.

I said -- maybe my question was unclear.

I said you knew the area around the Bundy double homicide location,
did you not, sir?

A. I had worked at West LA and I know a lot of the city. I don't know
that I knew specifically where 875 South Bundy was.

Q. All right.

In any event, the procedure, as I understand it, of the L.A.P.D. is
that once robbery/homicide division takes over a case, that the local
detectives from -- in this case, West Los Angeles, simply discontinue
investigating the crime scene, right?

A. They lose responsibility for the crime scene. In many, many
instances they are asked to assist in the crime scene investigation.

MR. BAKER: Well, pull up 19137, please.

MR. KELLY: What are you referring to?

MR. BAKER: Pardon?

MR. KELLY: Transcript?

MR. BAKER: 19137, trial.

MR. KELLY: Trial.

Could we have a line.

MR. BAKER: Lines 27 to 4 on the other -- 19138.

Are you ready?

MR. KELLY: Okay. I'm sorry.

(Transcript displayed on Elmo.)

MR. BAKER: Bottom of the page.

(Reading:)

Q. Once local detectives

R/H/D . . . that's robbery/homicide

division . . . take over, should they

continue to investigate the crime? A. No, they shouldn't. They

should only maintain the security and

integrity of the crime scene.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That was your testimony at the trial, was it not,
sir?

A. That's correct, sir.

Q. And so is it true that, once robbery/homicide takes over, the
entire investigation simply stops, that's LAPD procedure, right?

A. I don't understand that.

Q. I don't, either, but let me -- let me see if we can get it
straight.

At 2:45 on the morning of June 13, 1994, robbery/homicide division
took over the investigation of the double homicide at 875 South Bundy,
correct?

A. I was not aware of that. I was aware when I got there at 4 o'clock
in the morning.

Q. In any event, assume that at 2:45, the robbery/homicide division
takes over. That means that the local detectives from West LA are to
do absolutely nothing; that is, they are not to continue their
investigation, but they are only to maintain the integrity of the
crime scene, correct?

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay, speculative. This witness
indicates he has no knowledge of that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In the procedure that the police department uses,
once robbery/homicide division takes over, the local detectives, in
this case Detectives Phillips and Fuhrman, are not supposed to do any
further investigation, correct?

A. Well, I think that could depend on the situation. What --

Q. No, no.

A. What --

Q. Maybe you didn't understand my -- You have testified, have you not,
that the local detectives are not to investigate the crime scene -- to
continue the investigation of the crime scene.

THE COURT: Mr. Baker, I'm going to interject myself. I don't want to.
I'm going to interject myself. You've already established through his
agreement as to the trial testimony. We're just going around in
circles. I'm sustaining my own objection.

Move on, please.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, now, you knew that the call had come in at
approximately 10 minutes after midnight, relative to the notification
that there were two bodies found at 875 South Bundy, correct?

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, what time did you think that the crime scene
was -- When you got to the crime scene it was approximately 4 o'clock
in the morning?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You talked to Detective Phillips, did you not?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And he told you that -- informed you approximately what time the
crime scene had been set up at 875 South Bundy?

MR. KELLY: Objection, same thing, calls for hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I'll permit that.

A. Yes.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And so you were aware that the crime scene was
already approximately four hours post discovery by the time that you
arrived there, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you did not at that time, that is 4 o'clock in the morning, you
did not call any criminalist, did you?

A. No, sir, I didn't.

Q. You did not call any coroner, did you?

A. No, sir, I didn't.

Q. And you were aware that you were to notify the coroner's office
under the directives and procedures of LAPD immediately, true?

A. I -- I don't think that means immediately when you arrive on the
crime scene, that means immediately when you need their assistance at
a crime scene.

Q. So the word immediately is a judgment call, in your opinion, that
you can decide on your own when to call a coroner, that the LAPD
requirements to call the coroner immediately is a judgment call, true?

A. I think what you're talking about when you say --

Q. Can you answer that yes or no, sir?

A. I'm trying to, sir.

Q. Well, answer it yes or no?

A. I can't answer it yes or no.

Q. The regulations of LAPD require you, once you get to a homicide
scene, to notify the coroner, and the words in the regulations are
immediately, correct?

A. That's a first call notification, yes.

Q. And you didn't do it, did you?

A. No, sir, I didn't.

Q. Now, one of the things that is important in the investigation of
any homicide is the time of death, you would agree with that?

MR. KELLY: Objection, Your Honor, with regard -- it's vague with
regard --

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELLY: With regard to any homicide?

A. The time of death?

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The time of death of the victims?

A. That helps you with the investigation, yes.

Q. And that's important in any investigation, is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And to your knowledge, although the crime scene had been discovered
at 12:10 on the morning of June 13, there had been absolutely no
notification of the coroner when you arrived at 4 o'clock, correct?

THE COURT: Sustained. That question's been asked and answered.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) When you left at 5 o'clock and -- left the crime
scene, to your knowledge, there had been no notification of the
coroner, true?

A. True.

Q. And there had been no notification of any criminalist, correct?

A. True, to my knowledge.

Q. Now, one of the things that can be used to determine the time of
death is the temperature of the liver of the decedent?

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

MR. KELLY: Objection.

MR. PETROCELLI: This is not an issue.

Secondly, we have a motion in limine, No. 11, on these points here.

THE COURT: Approach the bench.

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

MR. BAKER: Wait a minute. I object to him saying anything. This is not
his witness.

(Indicating to Mr. Petrocelli.)

MR. BAKER: This is his witness.

(Indicating to Mr. Kelly.)

MR. BAKER: As I understand it, one person gets one witness.

THE COURT: You haven't been observing it, Mr. Baker.

MR. PETROCELLI: My objection -- in the first place, time of death was
not established in any way, shape, or form by LAPD evidence or coroner
evidence. It was simply the lay testimony of when they first showed up
and found the bodies. We did not proffer the coroner whatsoever, for
any issue about the time of death. That's number 1.

Number 2, he's arguing about other superior and better techniques for
investigating the homicide and for detecting evidence and so forth.
That was specifically precluded by No. 11.

This is not a malpractice case. Your Honor has ruled that he has to
tie in the alleged omissions or acts to the evidence that we submitted
in this case to show that it somehow affected the quality or integrity
of it. And he is not doing so in this line of questioning at all.
Particularly when he ventures into an issue that we did not even
raise.

MR. BAKER: First of all, they put in the issue of time of death and
they opened up all of these issues through Werner Spitz. Every issue
that we're going to talk about, they went through through Werner
Spitz, this is fundamental in a crime scene, as to the time of death,
and he's already indicated that that's fundamental.

THE COURT: Excuse me. I'll permit the defense to raise and establish
whether or not the time of death was established, but that's it.
Proper technique, I'm sustaining the objection.

MR. PETROCELLI: For the record, I want to establish that or note that
Werner Spitz had never testified at all about time of death. It's
simply not an issue in regard to experts. The body was discovered at
around -- you know -- Sukru Boztepe discovered it a little after
midnight.

THE COURT: I think time of death is inherently at issue.

MR. PETROCELLI: We didn't proffer it through the expert.

MR. BAKER: You're talking through the time --

THE COURT: Excuse me. I think my ruling was made and it's clear.

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

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, we were talking about liver temperature and
time of death before the objection.

And I want to go back and ask you again: You were certainly aware that
liver temperature of a victim can be used to establish time of death,
or an estimate of time of death, true?

A. Depends on the circumstances of the crime scene. That's not always
true.

Q. In your 23 years of being a detective, Mr. Vannatter, have you ever
seen the coroner attempt and take the temperature of the victim's
liver for the purpose of attempting to establish an estimate as to the
time of death?

A. Many, many times. And I've seen times that they haven't taken liver
temperatures.

Q. And in this case, they took the liver temperature in both of the
victims, did they not, sir?

A. Well, I was --

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay unless he has personal
knowledge, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You saw the reports in this case, and went through
the reports in this case before you testified at the grand jury
hearing, did you not?

MR. PETROCELLI: Different case, object.

MR. KELLY: Objection, different case. Still calls for testimony of
hearsay from -- they're not his reports.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may testify what you saw in the autopsy or
coroner's report?

A. I was aware that he had -- they had taken liver temperatures, yes.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you were further aware, sir, based upon your 23
years as a detective that when liver temperatures are taken, the
closer they are taken to the time of death, the more accurate they are
in estimating the time of death, true?

MR. KELLY: Objection, vague. It's still not talking about this
particular case and these victims.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. That would generally be true. But again it would -- It would depend
on the environment that the crime scene was in.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You had a 60 degree environment at the crime scene
on Bundy, did you not?

A. I believe that's correct, yes.

Q. And basically, no humidity, correct?

A. Basically. I believe there was a little fog or mist in the air.

Q. Under the circumstances that when you arrived at the crime scene at
4 o'clock on June 13, 1994, had you called the coroner, you could have
had a liver temperature taken and an estimate as to the time of death
if you called the coroner, correct?

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: That's -- that's sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, you knew in June of `1994, that the liver
temperature decreases approximately -- what, a degree and a half for
the first four hours after death?

MR. KELLY: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, did you have any knowledge as to whether or
not liver temperature readings are more accurate say 10 hours after
death than they would be 4 hours after death?

MR. KELLY: Same objection again, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained:

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did it occur to you whatsoever, Mr. Vannatter, to
call the coroner to obtain a liver temperature of the decedents at 4
o'clock in the morning on June 13, 1994?

MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and answered, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. No.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) It obviously didn't occur to you at 5 o'clock when
you left the crime scene, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, at the crime scene, between 4 and 5 when you were there, did
you make any efforts whatsoever to identify the second victim?

A. Personally?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. No, sir, I didn't.

Q. You didn't know -- you never tried to pull the wallet out of the
second victim to see the name of the second victim?

A. By California law I couldn't do that.

Q. You didn't check the neighborhood to see what cars were registered
to whom in that area, did you?

A. Not personally. It was being done.

Q. You didn't know that the second victim wasn't the target of the
murders, did you?

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: Well, it goes to his state of mind.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you have any knowledge as to who was the target
and who -- or the perpetrator of these crimes, when you were at the
crime scene between 4 and 5 o'clock in the morning on June 13, 1994?

MR. KELLY: Objection, still calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled. He either knew or he didn't.

A. No, I had no idea.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you then were at the crime scene for a period of
one hour when, as I understand it, sir, there was a decision made to
go to Rockingham, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, at the crime scene at approximately 5 o'clock in the morning
on June 13, 1994, there are at least 25 other members of LAPD, true?

A. I -- I don't know the exact number but that's probably pretty close
to correct, yes.

Q. And your story, as I understand it, is that you personally made the
decision to notify O.J. Simpson of the demise of his ex-wife, correct?

A. That was discussed with myself and Mr. Lange when we made the
decision, yes.

Q. And your decision was made independently of any purported decision
by Commander Bushey to Ron Phillips, correct?

A. I would have gone whether the order was there or not, but I was
also aware that there was an order by Commander Bushey for that to be
done.

Q. So, you -- as I understand it, you made your own determination that
there should be personal notification of O.J. Simpson, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And at the time you made this -- your own personal decision at 5
o'clock in the morning, you were aware that there were two victims at
875 South Bundy, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You were aware that the crime scene included a hat, gloves, true?

A. One glove. Not gloves, one glove.

Q. Fair enough.

Hat, glove, keys, pager. All of that was at the crime seen at 875
South Bundy, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. You were aware that there were blood drops at 875 South Bundy?

A. Yes.

Q. You were aware that there were blood smears at 875 South Bundy?

A. Yes.

Q. You were aware that there was blood drops on the back of victim
Nicole Brown Simpson at 875 South Bundy?

A. I -- No, I can't say that I was aware of that. I didn't do that
crime scene. I -- I -- that was done by Mr. Lange.

Q. You were aware that there was copious amounts of blood at 875 South
Bundy?

A. Yes.

Q. You were aware that there were shoe prints at 875 South Bundy?

A. What appeared to be shoe prints, yes.

Q. You were aware that there were paw prints that went 50 feet south
on the walkway on the south side toward Bundy?

A. Yes.

Q. All of those were at 875 South Bundy when you left the crime scene
and went to Rockingham, true?

A. True.

Q. And at the point that that was a crime scene at 875 South Bundy,
Mr. Vannatter, that was rich in evidence, correct?

A. It appeared to be, yes.

Q. You were also aware when you left that crime scene there would be
no detective work going on because you and Detective Lange were in
charge of the investigation from robbery/homicide investigation,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were aware that basically there had been no detective work
done on that crime scene for the first five hours after that crime
scene had been discovered, at the time you made the decision to
personally notify Mr. Simpson of the death of his ex-wife, true?

A. That's correct.

Q. And so there were at least 25 other people who could have gone to
Rockingham to personally notify Mr. Simpson of the deaths of his
ex-wife, isn't that true?

A. Yes.

Q. And you made the decision to personally do it at 5 a.m. in the
morning, and leave the crime scene where no detective work had gone on
for five hours, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And at the time that you left 875 South Bundy you were aware that
one of the victims was the ex-wife of Mr. Simpson, true?

A. Yes.

Q. You were also aware that there had been an issue of domestic
violence between Mr. Simpson and the victim, true?

A. I was aware that there had been an incident in which a uniformed
officer had gone up there, yes.

Q. And in your mind, Mr. Simpson was a suspect, that's why you left
875 South Bundy and went to Rockingham; isn't that true?

A. That would have been a real rush to judgment if I had went up there
thinking he was a suspect. No, he was not a suspect.

Q. I totally agree with you.

A. He was not a suspect.

Q. And, in fact, he was a suspect from the time that you arrived at
875 South Bundy; isn't that correct?

A. In my mind?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. No, that's not correct.

Q. And let's -- Was it your -- Was it your sworn testimony, sir, in
the trial that Mr. Simpson was no more a suspect than Mr. Shapiro, one
of his criminal attorneys?

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay.

MR. PETROCELLI: No foundation for prior inconsistent statement at all,
got to be just the opposite.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Do you believe that Mr. Simpson was no more a
suspect than Mr. Robert Shapiro, one of O.J. Simpson's criminal
lawyers, at the time that you went from 875 South Bundy to Rockingham
knowing that O.J. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson were divorced, and
knowing that there was an issue of domestic violence between O.J.
Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson?

MR. KELLY: Objection. Argumentative, irrelevant, compound.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: On what grounds, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Grounds Mr. Kelly stated.

Q. Now, you felt that the -- the evidence that there could be an
emergency inside the house was based upon how the vehicle was parked,
the Bronco, that was part of it, right?

MR. KELLY: Objection, relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Your belief that there was an emergency -- your
state of mind that there was an emergency, was based upon a finding by
Detective Fuhrman of a blood spot over the left door handle, a spot
that you indicated was human blood over the left door handle of the
Bronco, true?

MR. KELLY: Objection. Once again I'd refer to your prior ruling.

THE COURT: Probable cause is not an issue.

You may inquire of this witness what he saw, what he did. I have
allowed you this much to explain why he's there.

Now, let's get on with it. I've already ruled.

MR. BAKER: As I indicated, Your Honor, his state of mind is relevant
relative to a rush to judgment. That's what we're getting to here.

THE COURT: You can argue that. You've had all the preliminaries up to
here.

Now you may inquire as to what he saw and did.

MR. P. BAKER: 108.

(Exhibit 108 displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You see on the monitor Exhibit 108?

A. Yes, sir, I can see that.

Q. And when you -- you went -- you were called to the Ford Bronco by
Mark Fuhrman sometime before 5:45 when he went over the wall, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mark Fuhrman was the one that discovered or purportedly
discovered this mark above the left door handle on the Bronco, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you can -- can you see that at all, can you see any mark on
that door handle in that photograph, 108, that's on the monitor, sir?

A. No, I can't see it, no.

Q. At 5:45 in the morning it was dark, was it not?

A. Yes, it was dark.

MR. BAKER: Show him the other one.

MR. P. BAKER: 109.

(Exhibit 2249 displayed.)

MR. BAKER: Can you focus that a little better.

MR. P. BAKER: There we go.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, is what is on 109, that is on a ruler that has
Mr. Rokahr's name on it, is that the mark that Detective Fuhrman
pointed out to you in the dark on the morning of June 13, 1994?

A. Yes.

Q. And it is something, what, 3/8th of an inch long?

A. I'll accept that representation. I can't tell from here.

Q. A 16th of an inch high, an elliptical shape?

A. Elliptical.

MR. KELLY: Objection.

THE COURT: Excuse me.

MR. KELLY: Objection, no foundation unless this witness can testify as
to the exact dimensions.

Actually, I'll withdraw it, if you can answer it.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That's the mark that you say Detective Fuhrman
pointed out to you before the request was made for him to go over the
wall, right?

MR. PETROCELLI: I'm going to object, Your Honor. It's one thing to
testify what he saw and did. He keeps tying it into the same issue.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. PETROCELLI: He ought to be admonished. This is now the 30th time.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, that was -- that spot was of significance to
you, Mr. Vannatter?

MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative in terms of significance. We're
going back to the same thing again, Your Honor, in terms of what the
significance was.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you thought that that spot that we have on the
TV monitor on photo 109 was human blood, right?

A. I -- yes, I did.

Q. And before Detective Fuhrman and the rest of the three of you
detectives entered Mr. Simpson's property, you saw absolutely nothing
else that you believed was or could have been human blood, true?

A. Before we entered the property?

Q. That's right.

A. No, sir, I didn't.

Q. And did that spot on Exhibit 109 give rise in your mind to the fact
that there was a possible hostage situation, that somebody was
injured, bleeding or dying inside the Simpson property?

MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and answered, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You thought that the Bronco was parked askew; is
that right?

MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and answered, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: Put up the photo, please.

MR. LEONARD: Mr. Baker, I think the plaintiffs have a readily
available copy of that photograph.

MR. BAKER: I thought we had that.

MR. LEONARD: Young Baker can't find it.

THE COURT: Take a 10-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen.

(Recess.)

(Jurors resumed their respective seats.)

THE CLERK: Your Honor, for the record, the exhibit that was referred
to as Exhibit 109 is not Exhibit 109. We already have a 109. This is a
new exhibit, it's marked as 2249, defense exhibit.

THE COURT REPORTER: 2249?

THE CLERK: Correct.

(The instrument herein described as a photo with a ruler with the name
Rokahr on it, and a blood spot on the door handle of the Bronco was
marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2249.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) All right.

Now, your concern prior to 5:45 was -- we talked about the spot, and
you also had a concern about the way that the Bronco was parked,
correct?

MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and answered, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Let's get over the hump.

MR. P. BAKER: 2038.

(Exhibit 2038 displayed.)

(The instrument herein described as a photograph of the back view of
the Bronco was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No.
2038.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, on the monitor is 2038. That is a picture of
how the Bronco was parked on -- in the early morning hours of June 13,
1994, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Was the back of the vehicle, in your opinion, jutting out in the
street?

A. The back of the vehicle was parked farther from the curb than the
front of the vehicle.

Q. Was the back of the vehicle in your opinion jutting out into the
middle of Rockingham?

A. In the middle of Rockingham, absolutely not. The vehicle appeared
to be hastily parked.

Q. And you determined that it was hastily parked from the location
that it's in?

A. It appeared to me to be hastily parked, yes, sir.

Q. And the -- the white area that we see down by the tires, that's a
concrete apron before the asphalt starts, is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And would you agree with me that the front right tire is halfway
onto that concrete apron?

A. Yes.

Q. And that the back tire is adjacent or an inch away from that apron?

A. I didn't measure it. It's not sitting on the apron. It is away from
the apron.

Q. Tires on that vehicle, what, about 7, 8 inches wide?

A. Probably, yes.

Q. So that the difference would be what, 3, 4 inches, between where
the front tire is on the apron and the back tire is not on the apron?

A. I guess that's possible. I didn't know what the measure of it was.

Q. And that, of course, in your professional opinion of being a
detective for 23 years, indicated to you that the vehicle was hastily
parked as contrasted to anything else, right?

A. It appeared to be hastily parked to me, yes.

Q. That's the only thing that would give you any impression of a
hastily parked vehicle, is the difference of 3 or 4 inches between the
front and the back tires on the concrete apron at 360 North
Rockingham, right?

MR. KELLY: Objection, misstates his testimony. He said he didn't even
have any occasion as to measurements; he'd just be guessing.

MR. PETROCELLI: Also barred by ruling number 15. It's irrelevant.

THE COURT: You may testify whether it was hastily parked, period.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That was the basis of your professional opinion as
an LAPD officer -- detective of 23 years, that the 4 or so inches in
difference between where the front right tire was parked on the apron,
and the back tire was not on the apron, that's the only thing you saw
that led you to that conclusion, right?

A. It appeared that the vehicle had been pulled into the curb and not
leveled up, hastily parked, someone pulled in and got out.

Q. And that, of course, couldn't have been done in a -- in a fashion
that was over a period of time, that difference is, in your
professional opinion, hastily parked?

MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative, speculative, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, based upon the location of the Bronco as seen
in this exhibit, and based upon the spot that we talked about earlier,
you then entered into a discussion with Detective Tom Lange concerning
entering the premises of Mr. Simpson, right?

MR. KELLY: Objection, misstates his testimony, Your Honor, once again.
Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, it goes to, obviously, this witness's
credibility, sir.

THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. You may inquire as to what he
did.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The next thing that you did after the determination
that there was a spot that could have been human blood -- you
certainly didn't know that at the time, right?

A. No, I didn't know that.

Q. And that -- that blood, by the way, was never determined to be
human blood by SID or any -- any scientific investigation done by SID,
isn't that true?

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay if he knows, plus relevance,
Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, you then have a discussion -- after you viewed
the location of the vehicle and you viewed the spot, you have a
discussion with Lange and you decide what we discussed earlier, that
there was an emergency situation in that house, right?

MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and answered, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You then ordered Fuhrman to go over the wall, did
you not?

MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and answered, misstates his repeated
testimony as to he didn't order.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Is it your -- is it your testimony you didn't order
him over the wall?

THE COURT: I sustained the objection. He explained what he did
already. And we're repeating it.

MR. BAKER: Respectfully, Your Honor, this is --

MR. PETROCELLI: I'd --

MR. BAKER: This is cross-examination.

THE COURT: You examined him on this very point.

Q. Now, in view of the fact that there was a -- was a possible
emergency in the Simpson property, I take it that after Detective
Fuhrman gets over the wall and gets over the gate, that you all have
your guns drawn, right?

A. No.

Q. Not a gun drawn, is there?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. A dog sitting on the front lawn hadn't moved, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. The dog moved later, didn't it?

A. We actually walked up and petted the dog.

Q. So it looked like an emergency situation, when you looked through
and saw that dog in there, right?

MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative, irrelevant again.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. You did go to the front door, and no one has their guns drawn
whatsoever, true?

A. That's true.

Q. You rang the door bell, and there was no answer, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you kind of had a hunch there would be no answer because you
rung the buzzer and you heard the phone ring from outside; isn't that
correct?

MR. KELLY: Objection as to what his hunch was.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) It was your state of mind that you didn't anticipate
when you went to the front door that anyone would answer, correct?

MR. KELLY: Objection as to the relevance of his state of mind.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) After you got to the front door, you walked around
the north side of the house, did you not, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. And you went to the guest area, in the back of the house, along the
south side, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And you and other detectives knocked on the door of what turned out
to be Mr. Kaelin's room, true?

A. Other detective -- detective did, yes.

Q. Had you first knocked on any of the glass sliding doors that are in
the back of Mr. Simpson's house or to the -- around the pool area?

A. I believe that was done by one of the other detectives. I didn't.

Q. You don't have any recollection of watching that occur?

A. I was -- I was looking around. I believe it was done by someone,
but I didn't do it.

Q. All right.

And so were you in the little area --

MR. BAKER: Phil, can we get that blow-up of the diagrammatic of
Rockingham --

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Were you in the area right in front of the guest
room of Mr. Kaelin, when the door was knocked upon?

A. I was in the area of -- of the front door.

Q. Of the door of Mr. Kaelin's room?

A. As I recall, I was standing -- there were steps that went down to
the walkway in front, and I was standing up on the top of the steps.

Q. And Mr. Kaelin ultimately opened the door, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And I assume that the four of you identified yourself as police
department officers, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you heard Mr. Kaelin indicate what happened, did O.J.'s flight
-- did O.J.'s plane go down? You heard that, did you not?

A. No, I never heard that.

Q. Well, did you hear Mr. Kaelin say anything, at anytime before 6:15
in the morning, about the flight of Mr. Simpson, you personally?

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay, except for yes or no answer,
Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. The first he told me about -- or the first I heard about a flight
was when I was directed to him by Mr. Fuhrman and I talked to him.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So it's your testimony then that when Mr. Kaelin
opened the door, the first words out of his mouth were simply not
anything to the effect that what happened, did O.J.'s plane go down,
nothing like that occurred, because you would have heard that,
standing on the step right in front of the door, true?

MR. KELLY: Objection as to the form, calls for speculation, and
misstates his testimony; said he heard no statement by Mr. Kaelin when
he opened the door.

THE COURT: Sustained. That wasn't his testimony.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You heard nothing from Mr. Kaelin that -- after the
police officers identified themselves, that indicated a statement,
question; what happened, did O.J.'s plane go down? Never heard
anything about that out at the guest house, just after Mr. Kaelin had
opened the door and the officers identified themselves, true?

MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and answered, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. No, I never heard that.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you -- they were directed to -- strike that.

No officer had any weapons drawn when you were back there by Mr.
Kaelin's room, correct?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Then, you went to Arnelle Simpson's room, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And in the back of your mind, I take it, there was still this
possibility that this could be a second murder scene, there could be a
homicide, somebody dead, or some kidnapping or hostage on the premise,
correct?

MR. KELLY: Objection, relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you ask anybody else to draw their weapons
before you went to Mr. Kaelin's room?

A. No.

Q. Did you -- after you went to Arnelle Simpson's room, did you
believe that there was still an emergency situation on the property of
O.J. Simpson?

MR. KELLY: Objection. Same objection in terms of the circumstances and
the witness's state of mind.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Once you got to the guest house where Arnelle
Simpson was -- that was the second guest room in the back of the
house, correct?

A. I believe that's correct, yes, it was the second one.

Q. And once you got there, did you -- was there -- How many detectives
were there?

A. I believe three.

Q. And Fuhrman was left with Kato Kaelin, right?

A. Fuhrman stayed with Kaelin, yes.

Q. And when Fuhrman was with Kato Kaelin, initially, were you still
there?

A. No, I went to Arnelle Simpson's door.

Q. And now, when you went to Arnelle Simpson's room, it was still your
belief that Mr. Simpson was not a suspect, right?

MR. KELLY: Objection. Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) After you aroused Arnelle Simpson -- there were
three of you; that is Phillips, Lange, and yourself, went to Arnelle's
door and knocked on her door; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And Fuhrman was left alone with Kato Kaelin, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then, after that occurred, you went back down the alleyway --
the walkway rather, and picked up Detective Fuhrman and Kato Kaelin
and went in the house, true?

A. No, that's not true. I don't recall Kato Kaelin and Fuhrman being
with us when we entered the house.

Q. All right.

So it was you and the other three detectives; is that your
recollection?

A. Me and the other two.

Q. I'm sorry. The other two detectives and Arnelle, right?

A. That's correct, yes.

Q. And you went down -- you went down the walkway, correct, from
Arnelle's room, up the stairs?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you, in fact, go in the back entrance of the house?

A. That's correct, we did.

Q. And is it your testimony that Arnelle Simpson had a key to get into
that back door?

A. I asked her if she had a key. She opened it with a key.

Q. And is it your testimony, Detective Vannatter, that she turned off
the alarm before she went in with a keypad on the east side of that
house and that back entrance?

A. I don't recall her turning off the alarm.

Q. Never occurred, right?

A. I don't know. I don't recall seeing her turning off an alarm.

Q. It's your testimony that Arnelle Simpson and you, and the other
three detectives, opened the door that is indicated on whatever
exhibit --

MR. P. BAKER: 145.

(Exhibit 145 displayed.)

(The instrument herein described as a photograph of the glove found at
360 North Rockingham Avenue on June 13, 1994, was marked for
identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 145.)

Q. At the southeast opening to the -- to the property, correct?

A. That's what occurred. Arnelle Simpson opened the door.

Q. And no alarm went off?

MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I never heard an alarm.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you didn't walk around the north side of the
property back onto the driveway and enter the front entrance after
Arnelle Simpson pushed off the alarm, correct?

A. No.

Q. You're sure of that?

A. I'm positive of that.

Q. Now, in terms of your being positive of that -- Well strike that.
When you went in the house, I take it by this time, because of the
situation you previously described to us, the officers had their
weapons drawn, correct?

A. I didn't have my weapon drawn.

Q. In fact, none of you did, did you?

A. Not to my knowledge, no.

Q. In fact, you let Arnelle Simpson go into the house first, didn't
you?

A. I can -- I can hear you very well.

Yes, I did, she opened the door.

Q. You'll hear a lot.

And you let her go in first, into this emergency situation, right?

MR. KELLY: Same objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Nobody proceeded into the house to do any
investigation about any emergency as Los Angeles Police Officers,
before Arnelle Simpson was allowed to go into the house, true?

MR. KELLY: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, I'd ask Mr. Baker to keep -- not keep
predicating his questions about this emergency situation. He's been
cautioned on it before.

THE COURT: Sustained the objection.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So you don't recall when Mark Fuhrman came into the
house, after you had allowed Arnelle Simpson to go into the house,
before any LAPD detective, true?

A. The first time I saw him in the house was after I had asked Arnelle
to show me the -- the maid's quarters. I checked the maid's quarters
to make sure everything was okay there.

Q. So you asked Arnelle to show you the maid's quarters, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you were concerned perhaps something was wrong in the maid's
quarters, right.

A. I didn't know.

Q. You were concerned perhaps something was wrong in the maid's
quarters?

A. That was a possibility. I didn't know.

Q. And, in fact, you let Arnelle walk into the maid's quarters room in
front of you at that time, didn't you, Detective Vannatter?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. I take it your concern wasn't very great?

MR. KELLY: Objection. Ask that that comment be stricken.

THE COURT: Stricken.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Then did you take -- did you then, I take it, go
upstairs and investigate the upstairs portion of Mr. Simpson's house?

A. Did I? No, I did not.

Q. And what you did was, you sat Arnelle down and chatted with her,
correct?

A. I did not.

Q. You waited until Kato Kaelin got there, then you sat him down and
chatted with him, right?

A. After he was brought to me, yes.

Q. And he was brought to you by whom?

A. Mark Fuhrman.

Q. Where were you?

A. I was leaving the kitchen area to walk back into the bar area to
shine my light around the bottom floor and make sure everything was
okay when he approached me.

Q. The bar area is the area, according to your testimony, you just
walked through, is it not?

A. That's correct.

Q. Are you telling us that when you walked through the bar area with
Arnelle Simpson and the other three detectives, you didn't turn the
lights on?

A. I don't recall the lights being turned on until we got into the
kitchen area.

Q. So you walked through the bar area with no lights on, with Arnelle
Simpson leading three detectives of the LAPD into the kitchen area,
and then turning lights on in the kitchen area?

A. I believe that's correct, yes.

Q. So you walked through the bar area, not knowing what was in there
'cause you'd never been there before, correct?

A. Never been there.

Q. And you walked through the dining room area and you never been
there before, correct?

A. I'd never been to the location in my life.

Q. And so, there was no lights on until you walked into the kitchen of
the residence, and turned the lights on in the kitchen, right?

A. There was a light on in the front portion of the house that
illuminated part of the area there.

Q. When you say light on in the front portion of the house, you are
talking about the west portion of the house?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you spent some time there on June 13, 1994, did you not, sir?

A. At what point, sir?

Q. Well, from the point of 5 to 7:30 you were at 360 North Rockingham,
were you not?

A. I was outside, yes, until about 5:45, and then I was inside from
about 5:45, and on the grounds until approximately 7:30, yes.

Q. All right.

And you were in the area that includes the family room of Mr. Simpson,
correct?

A. In the area -- I -- I never went totally into the area. I shined my
flashlight around, and it appeared okay, and I didn't go in there.

Q. Well, the area where the bar is, isn't that the area where you
interviewed Kato Kaelin?

A. Yes.

Q. The family area is right behind it, and adjacent to it, is it not?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Are you telling us you never went into that area?

A. I don't think I did. After -- after the maid was accounted for, and
Mr. Simpson was accounted for, there was no need for me to go into the
house anymore.

Q. Now, let's go back -- the maid was accounted for, it was your
testimony?

A. Yes, I believe -- or Arnelle told me that the maid was not working,
and it appeared to be the -- the room appeared to be made up, and in
good order, and everything seemed fine.

Q. Now, it's your testimony Arnelle told you that the maid was not
working; that's your testimony, sir?

A. That's a possibility. I don't recall every word that was said at
the scene. But everything appeared to be in order -- in order. Mr.
Simpson was accounted for, and everything seemed fine.

Q. In fact, Arnelle never told you where the maid was, and that's why
you went in the maid's room, isn't that true?

A. I asked Arnelle where the maid's room was, so I could check the
maid's room.

Q. Let me see if I can make my question so you can understand it.

Arnelle Simpson never told you that the maid was there or not there,
and that's the reason you proceeded to the maid's room, true or
untrue?

A. Your -- no, that's not a true statement. I asked her where the
maid's room was because I wanted to physically check it, because I had
been told by Westec that there was a full-time, live-in maid at the
house.

Q. You don't have a recollection as you sit here now, although you've
told the jury that Arnelle told you the maid was taken care of, you
have no recollection of her ever saying that, do you, sir?

A. I don't have a total recollection of that, no.

Q. Now, in terms of your interrogation of Kato Kaelin, he was a
suspect, wasn't he?

MR. KELLY: Objection as to relevance, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. He was a potential suspect.

Q. Well, let me ask you this: Is Mr. Simpson a potential suspect when
you left 875 South Bundy at 5:00 a.m. in the morning?

A. Of course he was. Anybody who had personal contact with any of the
victims could have been a potential suspect.

Q. He was under suspicion for the murders when you left at 5 o'clock
in the morning on June 13, 1994, that is, O.J. Simpson, true?

A. Not true.

MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and answered repeatedly.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, when -- as I understand it, then, Detective
Fuhrman was the person who had questioned Kato Kaelin out in his room,
correct?

A. Yes. To my knowledge, he had done that, yes.

Q. Yeah. He had gotten some information from him, had he not?

A. I assumed he did, yes. I wasn't there when he was talking with him.

Q. And so you don't know what transpired between Mr. Kaelin and Mark
Fuhrman out in his guest room at all, do you?

A. I do not, no.

Q. And so I take it that it would be good LAPD procedure to have Mr.
Fuhrman continue the interrogation of Kato Kaelin because he already
has information that he wouldn't have to go over again, true?

MR. KELLY: Objection, relevance, argumentative, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) How long after Mr. -- Detective Fuhrman lateralled
(sic) Kato Kaelin to you to interrogate, was he out of sight, that is,
Mark Fuhrman?

A. I would have to guess at that and -- and I think maybe 10 minutes
or something like that. I'm not positive on that.

Q. Now, during -- actually, he was gone from 6 o'clock, and you had
previously testified that he came back to tell you about his discovery
of this purported glove on the south side of Mr. Simpson's residence
between 6:15 and 6:30, right?

A. That's possible, yes.

Q. And so he was out of sight anywhere between 15 and 30 minutes at
the Simpson property, true?

A. That's possible.

MR. KELLY: Objection to the form in terms of this "out of sight."

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, you and Detective Phillips and Detective Lange
have gotten together more than once to talk about exactly the time
period we are talking about, isn't that true, in front of the D.A.'s,
correct, sir?

MR. KELLY: Objection as to the form. Which time period, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) From 6 o'clock in the morning till 6:30, correct?

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: You may answer yes or no.

A. I have talked with the D.A. regarding the time frame, yes.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you've done it -- you've also talked to
Detective Phillips and Detective Lange about this particular time
frame and the whereabouts of Mark Fuhrman during that period, isn't
that true, sir?

A. Well, Detective Lange was my partner. I talked to him every day.

Q. Maybe you didn't understand the question. You want me to reask it?

A. Regarding Mark Fuhrman?

Q. Regarding Mark Fuhrman and his whereabouts from 6 o'clock to 6:30
on June 13, 1994, you all got together and talked about where Mark
Fuhrman was during that period, did you not?

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay except for yes or no.

THE COURT: Yes or no.

A. I don't think I ever had a conversation like that.

Q. Never talked to Marcia Clark, Bill Hodgman, Chris Darden or any of
them about this time period, in the presence of the other detectives,
correct?

A. That's possible. I may have -- I know I personally had
conversations with them about the events that occurred, and what I
knew, and what I did.

Q. All right.

Now, let's -- as I understand it, then, you are in the bar area
talking to Kato Kaelin, and in the kitchen area is Detectives Phillips
and Lange with Arnelle Simpson, right?

A. To my knowledge, that's the way it was, yes.

Q. And up until this point in time, is it your testimony, and this
point in time being at approximately 6 a.m. on June 13, 1994, that
there had been no revelation to Arnelle Simpson that her stepmother
had been murdered?

A. I -- I don't know when she was informed. I was not aware of when
she was informed.

Q. So as I understand it, she was in your presence from the time that
you knocked on her door, then -- you allowed her obviously to put some
clothes on, I assume?

A. Yes.

Q. And after that, she walked out with you down the walkway and into,
as you say, the back or east entrance, southeast entrance to the
house, and then you stayed in the bar area, or did you go to the
kitchen area with her?

A. She led me directly to the maid's room, and after I looked at the
maid's room, I walked back through, walked through the kitchen and
went into the bar area.

Q. Where's the maid's room?

A. It would be off to the -- let me acclimate -- off to the south of
the kitchen, there's a laundry room there, and the maid's room
connects with the laundry room.

Q. Essentially, where that depiction of a door is in the south side of
the premises of Rockingham, right here (indicating to diagram)?

A. Essentially, yes.

Q. Then, sir, you went back into -- left Arnelle, and went back into
the bar area, and was Kato being brought in at that point in time?

A. Shortly after I entered there, I was approached by Fuhrman, yes.

Q. Why did you go back into that area if Kato wasn't there?

MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I think I answered that before. It was my intention to look into
the rooms, and make sure everything was okay.

Q. Now, at this point in time, had you heard anything about any noises
that had been reported by Kato Kaelin? And we're talking now about 6
o'clock in the morning on June 13, 1994.

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. No, I had not heard anything about that.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So you didn't know anything about noises when Kato
Kaelin was given to you to question, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And did Mark Fuhrman tell you that Kato Kaelin had described to him
some noises?

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You may answer yes or no.

MR. KELLY: It also has to be put in a time frame, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I don't honestly know that. I know he told me that I should talk to
this guy and hear what he had to say.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Mr. Vannatter, you were informed in the process of
turning over Kaelin for you to question, that Kaelin had informed
Fuhrman of some noises and Fuhrman was going to go out to investigate,
isn't that true, sir?

A. I -- again -- I think I just answered that. I don't honestly know
that. I do recall him telling me that I should talk to the man and
hear what he had to say.

Q. Isn't it true that you were told by Fuhrman that he was going to go
investigate some noises, true or untrue?

A. I -- that's a possibility. I don't recall that exact conversation,
but that could have happened.

Q. And now you had -- from the time Mr. Fuhrman went over the gate and
opened the gate for the other three detectives, approximately 10 to 15
minutes had elapsed, correct?

A. An approximation, yes.

Q. And during that 10 to 15 minutes, you certainly had not gone
upstairs at any point in time, during that 10 to 15 minutes, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. You hadn't gone into the living room, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Hadn't gone into the downstairs office, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you had then been asked to talk to Kato Kaelin, and you were
informed that Mark Fuhrman was going to go investigate, correct?

A. I don't know whether that's correct or not. As I said, again, I
don't recall that conversation. It could have occurred.

Q. Well, let me ask you this: Did Mark Fuhrman ask you for any backup
because he was going to go try to determine the source of any noises
that had been reported to him by Kato Kaelin?

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did anybody leave with Detective Fuhrman when he
left the premises, or the interior portion of the house?

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for speculation, except for this officer's
observations, I'd object to the form of the question, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Rephrase it.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) To your knowledge, did any other detective leave the
interior of Mr. Simpson's house when Fuhrman exited the house?

MR. KELLY: Same objection. Calls for speculation unless directed to
his own observations, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Did you see? You may answer that.

THE WITNESS: Did I see anyone leave with him?

THE COURT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor, I didn't.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And did you see Mark Fuhrman draw his weapon as he
left the interior premises of the house?

A. I didn't see him leave the house. I don't know whether he did or
not.

Q. Well, you didn't see him walk out the back southeast exit?

A. I -- I don't know how he exited the house. I didn't see him leave
the house.

Q. Don't know if he went out the front, that is, the kitchen nook
area?

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for speculation. He indicated he didn't
see him leave the house.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you had some discussions with the other
officers who were interrogating Arnelle, did you not, after you had
interrogated Kato Kaelin?

MR. KELLY: Objection, misstates his testimony. He never indicated
anybody was being interrogated at all.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I had discussions with Detective Lange all the time. He was my
partner.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And at the time that this -- inside Mr. Simpson's
house is, and the questioning of Arnelle Simpson, and the questioning
of Kato Kaelin taking place, you subsequently learned that nobody knew
exactly where Mark Fuhrman was, correct?

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, up until 6:30 on the morning of June 13, 1994,
there were four detectives and only one detective had discovered any
evidence, that being Mark Fuhrman, right?

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for an opinion on this witness's part, and
it is argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. That's my understanding of it, yes.

Q. And that was the purported blood spot on the door, right?

A. And I believe the glove had been discovered by 6:30 in the morning.

Q. We'll get into the glove.

And so then, Detective Fuhrman comes back to you and tells you that he
has made yet another discovery on the Simpson property, that being
this glove, right?

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And so you then go out, walk around the front of the
garage, down the south side of the house, and view this purported
discovery of Mark Fuhrman's, right?

A. I was led there by Mr. Fuhrman, yes.

Q. Was anybody else with you, any other detective?

A. At that point, no.

Q. Did he tell you that he led each detective out there individually?

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) To your knowledge, did Mark Fuhrman take each of the
three of you out there individually?

MR. KELLY: Same objection unless it's observations, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I was informed of that later, yes.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And obviously if you detectives are walking down the
south side of Mr. Simpson's property in this concrete area --

(Indicating to diagram.)

Q. -- if there were any latent prints, they would be destroyed by your
walking there, by Ron Phillips walking there, and by Tom Lange walking
there, true?

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for speculation, argumentative, no
foundation, et cetera.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You don't know of any reason why all three of you
couldn't have gone out there, or do you?

MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, when you went out there at 6:30 in the morning
or thereabouts, it was light, wasn't it?

A. It was getting light, yeah. Dawn was breaking, yes.

Q. In fact, the sunrise was at 5:42 that morning. Take my word for it,
okay.

MR. KELLY: Objection to taking his word.

MR. BAKER: We had a stipulation.

MR. KELLY: That's fine. I'll withdraw the objection, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So by an hour later -- 45 minutes later, it was
light, was it not, sir?

A. It was, yeah. I could see, yes.

Q. You didn't have your flashlight with you, did you?

A. This was dark along the side because of the foliage alongside.

(Indicating to diagram)

Q. Was the foliage thick along the side?

A. Appeared to be thick to me, yes.

Q. And there was a Cyclone fence there, right?

A. Yes. I believe it was approximately 5 foot high or so.

Q. 5 foot high on the Simpson side of the fence, correct?

A. Yeah, on the south side of his property.

Q. Okay.

But in other words, that fence borders the neighbor's property to the
south of Mr. Simpson's property, correct?

A. I would -- I would make that assumption, yes, sir, because that
would be the property line.

Q. And did you ever go into the property to the south -- I believe
it's the Salingers, and look to see whether or not it was 7 feet from
their driveway to the top of that fence or more?

A. No, sir, I didn't.

Q. Wasn't anything you investigated, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, in terms of your going out to where Mark Fuhrman said he had
discovered the glove; you walked out, how close did you get to the
glove?

A. Four to five feet.

Q. That would be four to five feet to the west of the glove?

A. That's correct.

Q. And how long did you view the glove?

A. Short period of time. I don't know exactly how long.

Q. Did you see any blood drops around the glove?

A. No.

Q. Did you see any trail of blood from the glove heading either south
towards either of the entrances that border the south side of the
house or north towards the air conditioner?

A. No.

Q. Did you see anything that remotely appeared to be insect activity
on the glove, any bugs crawling on it, anything of that nature?

A. I don't recall seeing any insect activity on it.

Q. Did you see any dirt at all on the glove?

A. It appeared to be a bloody glove. There appeared to be blood on it.
There could have been dirt mixed into the glove. I don't know. It
appeared to be a bloody glove.

Q. Now, from five feet or six feet to the west of the glove, you
viewed that and saw that there was blood on it, right?

A. Appeared to be blood on it, yes.

Q. And -- And you were five feet south, and you're about what, six
feet tall?

A. Yeah, approximately.

Q. All right.

And in this -- on this particular morning, would you say that you
viewed blood that you thought was on that glove from that distance?

A. I'm saying it appeared to be blood on the glove, yes.

Q. It's your testimony here in this courtroom, that you thought from
your vantage point you could tell it was human blood on that glove,
correct?

A. It appeared to be blood on the glove. It appeared to be a bloody
glove.

Q. So, being a detective of 23 years, I take it that you looked around
the surrounding area to see if there was any other element that looked
like blood in the area, true?

A. That's true.

Q. And you found absolutely none, correct?

A. That's true.

Q. And you obviously, because you had looked at a glove at 875 South
Bundy between 4 and 5 o'clock in the morning, looked to see whether or
not the shrubbery had been broken over on the south side of the fence,
whether there were any branches that were down indicating somebody had
recently come through this heavily wooded or hedged area, did you not?

A. At the Rockingham location?

Q. Yes.

A. There didn't appear to be any evidence, that I saw, of anyone that
had come through the heavy foliage there.

Q. All right.

I take it, sir, that this was because you are aware of the glove at
875 South Bundy when it was brought to you, a major discovery by Mark
Fuhrman, was it not?

A. It was a piece of evidence.

Q. Well, now, Mr. Vannatter, you were aware that this was a high
visibility, high publicity case long before you ever got to
Rockingham, correct?

A. I was aware that it had the potential, but the only difference
between this case and any other murder case I worked as a Los Angeles
Police Officer is the media coverage of this case. Every case, every
murder case has the same importance to me regardless of who's involved
in it.

Q. You were aware that there was going to be immense pressure put on
the LAPD to find a suspect in this case, certainly before you ever got
to Rockingham, correct?

MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative, calls for speculation, no
foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. There's immense pressure on every case to come to a successful
conclusion.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And there is much more pressure put on the LAPD to
get a suspect, and to arrest a suspect, in a high profile case than
there is in a case where the victims are unknown by anybody; you would
agree with that?

A. That may be on the higher echelon of the LAPD. That never affected
me in my work.

Q. Never filtered down. It never affected you at all, right?

A. Never.

Q. Not even in the Christian -- did you investigate the Christian
Brando case?

A. I did not.

Q. The linkage in your mind, at 6:30 in the morning, was immediate
when Mark Fuhrman says I have found a glove in the south area of Mr.
Simpson's estate, was it not, sir?

A. What do you mean by the linkage, you mean did he become a suspect?

Q. Did you, in your own mind, think one glove Bundy, one glove
Rockingham, wow, anything like that?

A. Sure, I did.

MR. KELLY: Objection. His state of mind with regard to that is
irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled at this point.

A. Sure, I did. He became a suspect at that point.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Instantly, he is a very serious suspect, that is
O.J. Simpson, right?

A. He became a suspect, a viable suspect, yeah.

Q. He became instantly the suspect, did he not, sir?

A. He became a viable suspect at that point.

Q. Now, I want to go back to your observations on the morning of June
13, 1994.

Now, the chain link fence comes -- goes up as you suggest, about five
feet above ground level on the Simpson side of the fence, correct?

A. Yeah, I believe that's correct.

Q. And then there are bushes that have become -- it's become heavily
wooded in that area, hasn't it?

A. Yeah. It has heavy foliage, yes.

Q. And the trunks -- what type of plant is that, do you know?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Eugenia. The Eugenia bushes have trunks on them, some of them, four
and five inches thick in that area, correct?

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor --

MR. KELLY: Objection as to this area. If he wants to ask a specific
question about a location -- we're just talking about an area right
now.

MR. PETROCELLI: He said he wasn't closer than four to five feet from
the glove.

THE COURT: Overruled.

You may inquire.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The area I'm talking about is the area of the
Eugenia bushes that go down the south side of Mr. Simpson's property.

And let's just take it from where the -- well, just the garage area,
down to where the glove was viewed by you.

A. I'll accept that they're Eugenia. It's possible that they had big
trunks. I don't -- I don't know how big they were.

Q. But certainly, when you were there, you looked very closely, based
upon your 23 years of being an LAPD detective, to make the
determination as to if someone had used that area to enter the
property, that is coming over the Cyclone fence and through the
Eugenia bushes onto the concrete walkway, true?

A. I didn't see any evidence of that west of the glove, and I never
went east of the glove to protect the possible other evidence that may
be there for the criminalist.

Q. And you certainly shined your flashlight in the area east of the
glove to see if there was any branches or any elements of a
disturbance, correct?

A. I didn't see anything, any disturbance.

Q. In fact, you shined your lights and saw cobwebs in the area east of
where the glove was located, indicating that no one had come through
there; isn't that true, sir?

A. No, that's not true.

Q. Did you have a discussion with Mark Fuhrman that he had gone into
that area, and had been met by cobwebs in the area to the east of
where the glove was located?

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In terms of your investigation of this particular
area, sir, I take it that you gathered information from all sources,
to come to your own opinions and conclusions, did you not, sir?

A. I tried to, yes.

Q. And one of those sources of information is Mark Fuhrman, because he
had been back there and purportedly had been there first and found the
glove, true?

A. True.

Q. And so all of this information flow is part of what you used to
come to some conclusions and opinions relative to your detective work,
true?

A. True.

Q. And you did discuss with Mark Fuhrman that there were cobwebs on
the east side of where the glove was located, indicating that
absolutely no one had come from east to west, correct?

MR. KELLY: Objection. Same objection. Still calls for hearsay, Your
Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you went back to that area again on June 13,
1994, after Mark Fuhrman had been into the area and you had been into
the area, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you had discussions with the other two detectives, who were
also taken back into that area by Mark Fuhrman, that is Tom Lange and
Ron Phillips, true?

A. I did what I did. Whether Tom Lange --

Q. And in those discussions no one ever indicated to you that they saw
any evidence whatsoever that anybody had gone into or through those
Eugenia hedges; isn't that true.

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You concluded as a detective of 23 years'
experience, based upon your own observations, your discussions with
Ron Phillips, all the information that you had, that absolutely no one
had come over the Cyclone fencing through the Eugenia hedge because
there was absolutely no evidence of that, correct, sir?

MR. KELLY: Objection, misstates his testimony, Your Honor, also calls
for speculation and hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may inquire as to what he saw and what he
concluded.

A. I didn't see any evidence of that. However, I don't know how it was
put there. I don't know whether someone came over the fence or walked
back there. That's -- I don't know that.

But I didn't see any evidence of anybody coming over the fence.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You say, you don't know how it was put there. Let's
go back just a moment, for a second.

Those hedges are so thick on the south side of the property, your
observations were at the time -- in the multiple times that you were
on the south side of Mr. Simpson's property on June 13 and thereafter,
that if somebody had come through those hedges, there would have to be
evidence of it, correct?

MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for speculation. He's repeatedly testified
he never got closer than 4 to 5 feet west of the glove in that south
walkway.

A. Other -- I answered this a number of times. I don't believe anybody
came over the fence. I didn't see any evidence of anybody coming over
the fence.

MR. BAKER: Is this a good place, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. Okay.

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

(At 12:12 P.M. a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)


SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1996
1:45 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

PHILLIP VANNATTER, the witness on the stand at the time of the
luncheon recess, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and
testified further as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed.) BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Now, when you -- Mr. Vannatter, you went to view that glove, it
appeared to be, to your visualization wet, rather moist, and tacky.
True?

A. It could have been categorized as that, yes. It looked shiny.

Q. It didn't appear to be dry, did it? That is, the blood you were
able to visualize, did not appear to be dry, caked, or cracked, did
it?

A. I didn't know. I didn't get closer than four, five feet to it.

Q. Maybe you visualized the glove -- you saw what you believed was
human blood, or at least blood, on the glove, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were close enough to look at it, and see that the
appearance of what you thought was blood, was shiny, and it appeared
to you to have the appearance of being moist and tacky, correct?

A. It could have been moist; it could have been dry. I don't know.

Q. You don't know?

A. It appeared to have shiny areas.

Q. Mr. Vannatter, if you don't know the answer to my question, please
tell me, if you can, answer my question, did it appear to be shiny and
moist and tacky? Yes, no, or I don't know?

A. I don't really know whether it was moist and tacky.

Q. All right.

You never testified before, in any of the forums that you've been in,
that it appeared moist and tacky. True or untrue?

A. I could have.

It had a shine to it that could have indicated that maybe it was
moist.

I don't know. I never touched it. I never got closer than four or five
feet to it.

Q. Did you see Mark Fuhrman pick the glove up?

A. No.

Q. Did you see Mark Fuhrman ever move the glove at Bundy?

A. No.

Q. Did you see Mark Fuhrman ever move the envelope at Bundy?

A. No.

Q. Now, in terms of your analysis, you were kind of lead detective at
the Rockingham scene, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you have absolutely not one note indicating any -- any evidence
that you found at the Rockingham crime scene. Would you agree with
that, true?

A. I didn't write any, but I caused a lot to be written.

Q. You never wrote one note, sir, did you?

A. Personally, I didn't. But I caused a lot to be written.

Q. You caused a lot to be written by Mark Fuhrman, maybe?

A. No, by the criminalist, Dennis Fung.

Q. Let's talk about your observations, sir, before the criminalist
ever got there.

Those were never documented anyplace, were they?

A. No, sir.

Q. And you -- you didn't call the criminalist upon your arrival to
Rockingham, did you?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Any more than you called the criminalist upon your arrival to
Bundy, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Nor did you call -- well, strike that.

Then, you -- after this glove was viewed, did you find out whether
there were any cuts in that glove?

MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay, unless it's his own
observations.

THE COURT: Sustained.

(The instrument herein referred to as board entitled Glove Found at
360 North Rockingham was marked for identification as Defendants'
Exhibit No. 145.)

(Counsel displays board entitled Glove Found at 360 North Rockingham
Avenue, Exhibit 145. June 13, '94.)

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm not offering it for the truth of the matter
asserted.

MR. P. BAKER: That board is 145.

MR. BAKER: I'm not offering that information for the truth of the
matter asserted; I'm offering it for his subsequent conduct.

THE COURT: Okay. Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, did -- From your visualization, can you tell if
there were any cuts in the Rockingham glove?

A. I never saw any.

Q. Subsequently, did you find out that there were cuts in the
Rockingham glove?

MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay, unless it's his own
observations.

THE COURT: I previously overruled it because Mr. Baker said he is
offering it for some other purpose.

I'll entertain a motion to strike if that's not established.

A. To this day, I don't know whether there were any cuts in the glove.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You never compared any cuts in the Rockingham glove
to Mr. Simpson's hands, at any time, sir. Is that your testimony?

A. Me?

Q. Yes, you.

A. No, sir, I never did.

Q. All right.

MR. KELLY: Objection. Ask that the previous answers now be stricken
based on that response, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. I think it explains the second answer.

Denied.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, after the glove had been shown to you by Mark
Fuhrman, you then directed Fuhrman to go back to Bundy to compare the
Rockingham glove to the Bundy glove, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And did Fuhrman tell you that he had had his picture taken in close
proximity to the Bundy glove before he had ever been to Rockingham?

MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay.

MR. BAKER: It's not being offered --

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: It's not being offered for the truth.

THE COURT: I would sustain the objection.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You had no idea, when you sent Fuhrman back to Bundy
to compare the gloves, that Fuhrman had already had his picture taken,
pointing at the glove in close proximity. True or untrue?

MR. KELLY: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. That has never occurred.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And so he never indicated to you, said, well, gee
whiz, that glove looks exactly like the glove that I visualized at
Bundy.

He never said that to you, did he?

MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: Again, it's not being offered for the truth of the matter,
sir.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So now, what time is it that you sent Fuhrman back
to -- to Bundy?

A. I believe approximately 6:30 in the morning.

Q. And by now, it was six and a half hours, and there had been no
criminalist, or no investigating at 875 South Bundy. Correct?

A. There had been no -- I don't remember crime-scene investigation.

A canvas of the neighborhood was going on by uniform officers, and a
check of the vehicles in the area was going on.

Q. The actual crime scene where the victims were found, there had been
no investigation into that crime scene, for, now, six and a half
hours. You agree with that?

A. Other than walking through and viewing the evidence that could be
seen, yes, I would agree with that.

Q. And by 6:30 in the morning, did you think it was appropriate to
call a criminalist, Mr. Vannatter?

A. Well, I had one called before that.

Q. You didn't call the criminalist to the Bundy crime scene, did you?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. You called the criminalist to Rockingham, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, in your years of experience, do you believe that it is
appropriate for the criminalist to go from one crime scene to another
crime scene and risk the possibility of contamination?

MR. KELLY: Objection. Relevance, argumentative, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, I take it that you wouldn't have called Dennis
Fung or Andrea Mazzola to go to the Rockingham crime scene, and then
go on to the Bundy crime scene because of the risk of contamination,
correct?

MR. KELLY: Objection. Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, what time did the criminalists finally arrive
at Rockingham?

A. Shortly after 7:00 that morning.

Q. What time did you call them?

A. I think approximately 5:30 to 5:40 that morning.

Q. And so, it took approximately an hour and a half to get there?

A. Yeah. I would say that was close, yes.

Q. And would that be the normal time that criminalists take to respond
to a homicide crime scene?

A. Well, I --

MR. KELLY: Objection to relevance in terms of a normal time to respond
to a crime scene.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I don't think there would be a normal time. I think it would depend
on the time of day and whether criminalists were working or not
working. And it could vary. It could be from ten minutes to three
hours sometimes.

Q. Well, in terms of your 23 years of experience investigating 200
homicides, I take it there are certain parameters within which
criminalists respond. Is that not true, sir?

Is it ten minutes to three hours? Is that the parameter?

A. It could be -- it could be that, yes. They don't come to every
crime scene; they only come to crime scenes that they're requested to
come to.

Q. And they are generally requested to come to double homicides, are
they not, sir?

A. Maybe, maybe not. I mean --

Q. Those are the only two alternatives, right?

A. Well, that's a decision made by the detective handling that crime
scene, whether he feels he needs a criminalist or doesn't need a
criminalist.

Q. And you felt, approximately 5:30 in the morning, that you needed a
criminalist, not at Bundy, but you needed a criminalist at Rockingham,
right?

A. Yes.

Q. And so the criminalists were called. They got there about 7 o'clock
in the morning.

And you left Rockingham at what time, sir?

A. Approximately 7:30.

Q. And at 7:30, you went back to Bundy?

A. I went back to -- yes, I did.

Q. Now, before you went back to Bundy, were you concerned that the
evidence should be secured at the Rockingham scene?

A. The evidence was secured at the Rockingham scene.

Q. Were you concerned that the glove on the south side of the property
could be possibly lost or have -- have at the -- elimination of hair
and fiber evidence on them?

A. No, I was not concerned about that. It was secured.

Q. All right.

Let me read from your deposition in this case, taken on July 6, 199 --
I'm sorry. It is not your deposition; it is the trial transcript --
July -- preliminary hearing, July 6, 1994. Page 64, line 26 through
line 7 on page 65.

Okay.

Now, you had, by the time you testified on July 6, 1994 -- that was
about three weeks after the murders?

A. That's approximately three weeks, yes.

Q. And you'd already testified at the grand jury proceedings, did you
not, before you ever took the stand in the preliminary hearing?

A. Yes.

Q. And so let me read what you testified to some three weeks after the
murders. "Q. And that --"

MR. KELLY: Line? Line, Mr. Baker? I'm sorry.

MR. BAKER: Pardon me; I gave you the line and page.

MR. KELLY: I'm sorry. Okay.

MR. BAKER: Is that okay?

MR. KELLY: Yes.

MR. BAKER: All right.

Why don't we put it on the Elmo, Phil.

(Portion of transcript referred to was displayed on the Elmo screen.)

"Q. And that glove that you

saw on the south side of the property

that you've already identified in

photographs, you're concerned about the

loss of evidence that you've earlier

identified on that glove?" Your answer: "Oh, definitely.

The glove was in the elements, was

outside. There could possibly be trace

evidence on it, fiber, hair, and what

have you. Also, there was an animal, a

dog, running loose in the residence

lawn; I wanted to make sure it was

protected before I left that scene."

Now, that's what you testified to on July 6, 1994, is it not, sir?

A. Yes. And that's what happened.

Q. And so you were concerned about the glove evidence being protected,
and trace evidence being on the glove, and possibly lost at that time,
were you not?

A. Before I left the scene? Of course.

Q. And you were concerned about the fact that it was a dog that had
been running loose in the front yard that you had seen while you were
there at the Rockingham property, true?

A. Before I left the scene, yes.

Q. And there was a dog at Bundy, was there not?

That's how the crime scene was discovered, isn't that true? Or did you
know that?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection to compound. I don't know what time frame.

THE COURT: Compound. Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You knew there was a dog at the Bundy crime scene,
as well, did you not?

MR. PETROCELLI: Time frame?

MR. KELLY: Object --

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) On June 13, 1994 did you know there was a dog at the
Bundy crime scene?

MR. PETROCELLI: Time.

MR. KELLY: At what time?

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Anytime you were there, Detective Vannatter.

MR. PETROCELLI: Still vague, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Let's get on with this.

A. There was not a dog there, when I was there at the crime scene.

I knew there had been a dog there previously, yes.

Q. Now, you then went to -- after you had gone to Bundy, you went to
the West LA police station to -- to prepare a search warrant, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you have been on -- on various television shows, protesting
the fact that -- and suggesting that you have never lied, true?

A. I have never lied.

Q. And you said that on -- in front of Tom Brokaw on -- what was it --
March 29, in your interview on Dateline?

A. If that was the date, yes.

Q. Then you said it on subsequent occasions, did you not, sir?

A. And I'll say it right now: I've never lied.

Q. And when you produce a search warrant, as a police officer of 26
years and a detective of 13 years, you know that an affiant, that is,
the person who is swearing under penalty of perjury, that everything
they put in their affidavit is true and correct, is important, do you
not, sir?

A. To the best of my knowledge, yes.

Q. And you know that it is a declaration or affidavit by you, under
penalty of perjury, that carries with it the same force and effect as
your testimony here in this courtroom, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you knew when you produced the declaration for the search
warrant, that Mr. Simpson, had gone on an expected flight to Chicago
on the early morning hours of June 13, 1994, did you not?

A. No, I did not.

Q. So it's your testimony in this courtroom that, although you
interviewed Kato Kaelin in the bar area of Mr. Simpson's house on June
13, 1994, he never told you about any expected flight of Mr. Simpson;
is that your testimony, sir?

A. That's absolutely correct.

Q. And I take it, as a detective of 23 years, that you would
certainly, after you had known of Mr. Simpson's being a probable
suspect, have interrogated Mr. Kaelin relative to the whereabouts of
Mr. Simpson, correct?

A. I had him interrogated. I had him transferred -- transported to
West LA and interviewed, yes.

Q. Well, you're sitting there with him in the bar area of Mr.
Simpson's family room, as you've testified in this courtroom, Mr.
Fuhrman told you to question Kato Kaelin, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you questioned Kato Kaelin about the events of the previous
evening, did you not, sir?

A. Partially of the previous evening. He was telling me about what he
had heard, and about the telephone conversation he was having, and
that the limo driver had picked up Mr. Simpson.

Q. So he told you the limo driver had picked up Mr. Simpson?

A. Yes.

Q. So you knew that much, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And put that on the --

MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 1797.

(The instrument herein referred to as Copy of Search Warrant was
marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1797.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You said in your declaration to obtain a search
warrant for Mr. Simpson's property at 7:30 in the morning, it was
determined that -- it was determined by interviews with Simpson's
daughter and a friend, Brian Kaelin, that Simpson had left on an
unexpected flight to Chicago during the early-morning hours of June
13, 1994, and was last seen at the residence at approximately 2300
hours June 12, 1994.

That's what you said, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you even included in your own handwriting, based on interviews
of Simpson's daughter and a friend, Brian Kaelin.

That's your handwriting, isn't it?

A. It is.

Q. And that's your initial at the -- up there, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you knew, as a matter of fact, that, if there's a limo coming
to pick him up, it sure as heck was an expected flight; isn't that
true?

A. No, that's not true.

Q. Well, let me ask you this:

Detective, do you think it was important to ask if the flight was
expected or unexpected?

MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for speculation, argumentative, Your
Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I asked where his whereabouts was, and -- and from Kaelin, who
deferred to his daughter. And his daughter gave me the impression, or
indicated that he -- she thought he should be home.

Q. Is it your testimony --

MR. BAKER: Well, Phil, pull up Detective Vannatter's testimony on
March 21, 1995, 19,616.

By the way, the word --

The word that's gone.

(Indicating to Elmo screen no longer displaying document.)

MR. P. BAKER: There we go.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The words that "he left on unexpected flight," those
are your choice of words, correct?

A. That was my understanding, that it was not an expected flight.

Q. I didn't ask you if it was your understanding.

I said, the choice of the words, unexpected flight to Chicago, those
were your words, correct?

A. From my understanding, yes.

Q. And you, of course, would have never put in any affidavit, under
penalty of perjury, an unexpected flight, unless you truthfully
believed it, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And so you had learned from Kato Kaelin and/or Arnelle Simpson,
that Mr. Simpson had taken a flight to Chicago. And one or both of
them told you it was unexpected, true?

A. What you're asking me is, Arnelle Simpson told me that she, or
indicated that she thought her father was at the residence, when I
asked her where he was at.

Q. Maybe you didn't understand the question.

A. I understood it perfectly, sir.

Q. Then answer it.

A. I'm trying to, as best I can.

Q. Did you -- were you told then by Kato Kaelin, that the flight to
Chicago was unexpected? Yes or no?

A. No, I was not.

Q. In fact, you were told by Kato that he had gone to Chicago because
he was doing a trip for Hertz; isn't that true?

A. That's a possibility, yes.

Q. Okay.

MR. P. BAKER: 19616, line 18.

MR. KELLY: Judge, I'd object to this. It's not inconsistent at all
with his testimony just now.

MR. BAKER: I think it is.

THE COURT: It's not inconsistent, but since the jury's seen it, we'll
leave it as such.

MR. KELLY: Okay.

MR. BAKER: (Reading:)

"Q. At that time, were you

aware of where O.J. Simpson was? Yes or

no. "A. I may have been. I'm not

sure. "Q. Did you ask Kato, where's

O.J.? "A. Yes, I did. "Q. And did he tell you he

had gone on a trip to Chicago for Hertz? "A. Yes, he did."

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, that's what you knew when you wrote it was an
unexpected flight, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you knew that Mr. Simpson had gone on an expected flight for
Hertz, correct?

A. No, I did not.

Q. So it was your choice to put the word "unexpected," when neither
Kato Kaelin, or Arnelle, or anybody else told you it was unexpected;
is that true?

A. That was -- that was a choice of words I made from the
understanding I had, that he had left and not notified anybody that he
was leaving.

Q. I see.

So it was your view that it was unexpected because, in your -- You,
first, had never heard Kato ask if O.J.'s flight had gone down, true?

A. That's true.

Q. And you had never asked him, Kato Kaelin, in your interview with
him, whether or not the flight was expected or unexpected, because he
was going on a trip for Hertz?

A. I never asked him that, no.

Q. And of course, if he's going on a trip and he's doing it at the
request of somebody, it would be your view that that's probably
unplanned and unexpected, right?

A. I don't know what the trip consisted of.

It was my understanding he left and didn't tell anyone where he was
going, because of the responses I got from his daughter, who thought
he was at the residence.

Q. Well, you talked to Kato about it and you interviewed Kato about
it; isn't that correct?

A. I -- I asked him where -- where Mr. Simpson was.

Q. You wanted to put "unexpected flight" in your search warrant so
you'd be sure and get a search warrant issued; isn't that true?

MR. KELLY: Objection. Irrelevant, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You put nothing --

THE COURT: Excuse me. The Court is only allowing this testimony
because counsel wanted to examine with regards to whether he made an
untruthful statement.

With regards to the intent or purpose of the search warrant, I've
already ruled on that. That's not before the jury.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In -- In terms, sir, of the declaration that you
prepared at about 7:30, after you'd been at the Rockingham home, did
you include in there that O.J. Simpson had been communicated with in
Chicago, and voluntarily agreed to return?

A. No.

MR. KELLY: Objection the document, if it were at issue, it would speak
for itself. It's not at issue and is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled. The answer remains.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, before you ever went to the West Los Angeles
Police Department to prepare the search warrant, you had Mr. Simpson's
daughter call Kathy Randa, didn't you?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Arnelle Simpson had called Mr. Simpson's personal assistant to find
the exact hotel Mr. Simpson was staying at; and you were aware of
that, correct?

A. I found that out later, yes.

Q. You were all -- those three detectives -- you were all in the house
within 10, 15 feet of each other when Mr. Simpson was reached on the
telephone at the particular hotel he was staying in in Chicago, were
you not, sir?

A. I was not with Arnelle Simpson when they were making the phone
calls.

Q. Is it your testimony, sir, as lead detective, that you have no
idea, and didn't have any idea when you left the Simpson residence at
7:30 on June 13, 1994, that there had been a communication to Mr.
Simpson's assistant?

They had determined where he was in Chicago on a preplanned trip, and
gotten the exact hotel and room he was in? You have -- you no
knowledge of any of that?

MR. KELLY: Objection. Calls for hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I was informed by Detective Lange that he had been located, and
that he had talked to him. And that was what I was told.

Q. And were you informed by any of the detectives that this was a
planned, expected trip?

A. No, sir.

Q. Cause you would put that in there; you wouldn't lie to any
magistrate, trying to get any search warrant, would you?

A. I would not lie, period.

Q. And when you put in your search warrant that the blood on the door
-- strike that.

The mark on the door of the Bronco appeared to be human blood, later
confirmed by the Scientific Investigation Division that it was human
blood, that was just an error, correct?

A. That was -- that was an error. But it was based on my experience
and the location of the blood. And I believed it to be human blood.

Q. Well --

A. I wrote it wrong. I should have said it appeared to be human blood.

Q. Well, let's examine this statement that you -- that you put in your
search warrant, sir.

"Detectives observed what appeared to be human blood." You can put a
period.

MR. KELLY: I'm going to object to this. This is not inconsistent with
the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You could put a period right there, couldn't you?

A. I certainly could have.

Q. But you put later confirmed by Scientific Investigation personnel
to be human blood on the driver's door handle of the vehicle.

And that was a lie; isn't that true, sir?

A. That was not a lie; it was a misstatement

I was told that it had been tested, and tested positive for blood. And
I just -- that was a mistake on my part.

Q. By 7:30 in the morning, the SID people had been there for a total
of 20 minutes, and you, a detective of 23 years, knew that they could
not do a positive identification for human blood in 20 minutes at the
scene. True?

A. I wish I was a perfect human being. I made a mistake.

Q. Can you answer my question, Detective Vannatter?

You knew at 7:30, when you left the scene to go help prepare the
search warrant, that SID had been there, and in the form of Mr. Fung
and Ms. Mazzola, for a total of about 20 minutes; and that they could
not do any examination at the scene to determine that it was, in fact,
human blood, correct?

A. The same answer. I made a mistake. I wish I was a perfect human
being. I'm not. I made a mistake.

Q. You lied to the magistrate to get the search warrant issued, true?

A. No, that's not true. That's nonsense.

Q. Yeah.

Now, let's go -- it is, in fact, is it not, sir, true that