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 11, 1996

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

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

VS.

ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.


SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1996
8:40 A.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

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

THE COURT: This proceeding is without the presence of the jury.

The Court is addressing some motions. First motion the Court will
address is Plaintiff Goldman's motion in limine to exclude the
testimony of doctor John Gerdes concerning an alleged contamination at
the SID.

You -- the moving party, go ahead.

MR. LAMBERT: Thank you Your Honor.

As we point out in our papers, Your Honor, there's really three
reasons why Dr. Gerdes' testimony should be excluded in this case.

Number one, Dr. Gerdes' testimony is premised upon a study that he
performed so-called validation tests and proficiency tests. These were
tests done by LAPD, not on actual cases, but when they were preparing
to start doing case work, or when they were testing themselves on
their ability to adequately run the DQ Alpha system.

From that study, Dr. Gerdes attempts to extrapolate into giving an
opinion that the actual testing done in this case could have been
affected by contamination.

He doesn't say that he studied the actual test strips in this case,
and discovered they were contaminated. Instead, he's saying, I looked
at these validation studies; I saw evidence of contamination. And in
the validation studies, therefore, there must be some -- or could be
some contamination in the actual case done here.

THE COURT: What was the nature of the contamination that he allegedly
found?

MR. LAMBERT: What he did, Your Honor, he looked at the DQ Alpha
strips, and if they were -- let's say they were -- there's a strip for
a single person. If he saw three alleles or, you know, one of the dots
lit up to indicate that there was a third allele where there should
only be two, he said that could be contamination, even though, as Gary
Sims and Robin Cotton testified many times, that's simply called
cross-hybridization.

It often produces an effect of cross-hybridization, which an
experienced reader, like Sims or Cotton, or for that matter, I suppose
Dr. Gerdes, understand to be that elicited every time he saw an extra
allele on his chart, and he added them all up, and he said that shows
evidence of contamination during these validation studies at SID.

He then goes on to say that, well, I didn't see that same evidence of
contamination in the test results in this case.

But that doesn't mean it's not there; it could be the result of
contamination.

Now, the problem -- and the second problem with this testimony is
that, the defendants' theory of the case as explained to the jury by
Mr. Baker and frankly, as is necessary, for the contamination theory
to do them any good is, the contamination didn't take place during the
DQ Alpha testing process by SID, which is what Dr. Gerdes studied.

Because if the contamination took place there, the only problem would
be in the test results of the LAPD testing, not the test results by
Cellmark or DOJ, which are testing different swatches that were sent
out to them to be tested.

So in order for the defense to use contamination as a defense to the
Cellmark and DOJ test results, they've got to push the contamination
test results back to an earlier stage in -- of the process to the
evidence processing room.

So the theory of the defense, as explained to the jury by Mr. Baker,
as they attempted to develop in the cross-examination of Collin
Yamauchi, is that the contamination took place in the evidence
processing room when Mr. Yamauchi was sampling the evidence samples,
and Mr. Simpson's reference sample.

The theory explained to the jury by Mr. Baker is that Mr. Yamauchi
spilled the blood during that process, spilled the reference sample
that somehow affected all of the evidence samples that he was testing,
and that were ultimately sent off to Cellmark and DOJ to be tested.

Dr. Gerdes' testimony can't obviously have anything to do with what
went on in the evidence processing room. What he was talking about is
actual DQ Alpha test results on validation tests, not real tests, but
he was looking at what he said showed these extra alleles.

That -- none of those cases -- they weren't cases. None of those
validation studies that he was looking at even went through the
evidence processing room, because they weren't real evidence, they
were just mock samples created in the lab to see if they knew how to
run the program correctly.

So what he's talking about can't have anything to do with whether Mr.
Collin Yamauchi did or did not spill any blood, or whether that did or
did not contaminate the evidence samples. He would be trying to
confuse the jury, and extrapolate from his work on validation studies
to say what Collin did somehow cause contamination. Two completely
different events.

Finally, Your Honor, as I point out, they have, in responsfor
admissions, admitted that the laboratories got these various DQ Alpha
tests that we have now put into evidence. The DOJ got them; Cellmark
got them; as you saw, LAPD got the very same results.

So it can't be that Dr. Gerdes is saying that there was something
wrong in the testing process itself, and that's where contamination
took place, because they've admitted these results were correct
results.

They have to be saying, as indeed they are, that the contamination
didn't take place during testing, but instead, during evidence
handling itself. That way, Gerdes's handling in validation is
irrelevant and does not support that theory at all. It is simply a
method to confuse the jury about the whole contamination issue.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, Your Honor.

First of all, you've already ruled on this motion. You've ruled that
the contamination study is relevant to the weight of the evidence in
this case.

But beyond that, Mr. Lambert has made a number of misstatements. Dr.
Gerdes will be testifying about contamination in the samples in this
case.

We've already talked about stains 29 from the steering wheel, 30, 31,
and the victim's reference blood samples. He's going to testify about
all of those stains, and about the extraneous alleles that have shown
up on all of those stains, and that they are the possible product of
contamination or cross-hybridization.

Now, with respect to cross-hybridization and contamination, Dr. Gerdes
will testify, which is consistent with their expert's deposition, that
when you get cross-hybridization, it means you're doing the test
wrong. This isn't something that happens all the time. If the tests
are done properly, you shouldn't get contamination or
cross-hybridization. Many times you can't tell the difference from the
test; it could be one or the other.

The study that he did was on every testing strip that we could get
from LAPD. They refused to give us any of their case work. All they
would give us was there validation study, which presumably are the
cleanest samples that they have.

And he analyzed every strip that we could get from, not a different
period of time, from a span of time before the tests in this case, as
well as after the tests in this case.

And he found out that there are the same alleles that are common to
this case showing up unexpectedly in virtually all of the work that
they have done in their lab, that we were given access to.

And all of that is relevant to the weight of the results in this case.

We have never admitted that the results in this case are the accurate
results, and we went through this thoroughly at the beginning. Our
admission was qualified to say that we are not admitting anything
about the period of time from collection up until the time the actual
test was done.

The only thing we admitted when they ran the tests, those were the
results they were going to testify about, not that they were the
correct results, not that the evidence was not contaminated, not that
it was not collected properly. We didn't admit any of that stuff.
There's nothing new here justifying the Court changing its ruling.

MR. LAMBERT: Let me just read, if I could, one other request for
admissions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LAMBERT: This the first Bundy blood drop. Admit that the blood --
this is request number 14.

"Admit that the blood contained in the item identified at the criminal
trial as LAPD evidence item 47 had an HLA DQ Alpha blood type 1.1,
1.2."

The response: "Admit."

And then they have the qualification about the point in time.

MR. BAKER: Read the qualification.

MR. LAMBERT: "In admitting this request for admission, the defendants
will adopt the plaintiffs' definition, as communicated to the
defendant, as that point in time when an item was tested by an outside
laboratory, as opposed to the time of collection or any other point in
time."

So they're admitting that when the lab tested item 47, it got a 1.1,
1.2.

Any testimony about them not following the correct procedures, or
cross-hybridization being evidence of improper testing technique, is
irrelevant in light of all those requests for admissions they've
admitted. Those were the test results they do have, could have denied
them, and said no, that's cross-hybridization; that there was
something wrong with the way the testing was done.

But they didn't. They admitted them. All the labs got consistent
results in this regard.

MR. BLASIER: That is not what we were admitting. Dr. Gerdes will
testify that because of the unacceptable high risk of contamination in
LAPD, which is where every one of these samples started out, you
cannot rely on the results in this case.

That goes to the weight of the results, and it is certainly viable.

THE COURT: Is the defense's contention that -- that the DOJ Lab and
Cellmark produced different DQ Alpha results from SID?

MR. BLASIER: No. It's our position that Cellmark and DOJ also had
evidence of contamination because of 30, 31.

THE COURT: Excuse me. I'm -- I'm asking you these questions for a
specific reason.

Are you contending that Cellmark and DOJ got different DQ Alpha
results from SID?

MR. BLASIER: On some of the samples, yeah. On 30 and 31, 29.

MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, the difference is that on some of the
samples, LAPD got no results --

MR. BLASIER: No.

MR. LAMBERT: -- They didn't get a different result.

THE COURT: 30 and 31. What is your response to that?

MR. LAMBERT: I'm doing this from memory.

My recollection is on 31, LAPD got no result, just inconclusive. They
didn't get a result when they tested it.

On 30, I don't, off the top of my head, remember. But essentially,
Your Honor, the test -- the DQ Alpha test results are, across the
board, the same between all the laboratories.

MR. BLASIER: We went all through this with Gary Sims and Doctor --

THE COURT: I'm trying to be very specific, okay? I don't need to be
deflected from what I'm asking.

Would you explain to me why those two results were --

MR. BLASIER: Sure.

THE COURT: -- Dissimilar.

MR. BLASIER: We showed the strips where they are calling a 4 allele,
when -- I think it was a 4 -- when there's no dot that appears; that
one of them called it at one point, didn't call it another point, that
there's a 1.3 allele that shows up. That could be the result of
contamination, cross-hybridization, one or the other. They can't tell
the difference.

But more importantly --

THE COURT: Don't deflect me.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

THE COURT: I'm just asking you a specific question.

MR. LAMBERT: Here's the results board, Your Honor. We have the big one
down there, but if I could hand this up to you, you'll see that the
results from -- on number 31 for LAPD and Cellmark are the same.

MR. LAMBERT: That's 294, Your Honor.

(Pause in proceedings for the Court to review document.)

THE COURT: 31. What was the other?

MR. LAMBERT: 30. We got no result from LAPD on that one.

MR. BLASIER: Tell you what Dr. Gerdes is going to say, if you like.

(Pause in proceedings for the Court to review document.)

THE COURT: Okay, go ahead.

MR. BLASIER: He is also going to testify that those results in 30 and
31 are not valid because of the -- the extraneous alleles, which
showed up in the positive controls; that because of those alleles
showing up where they're not supposed to be, that those whole -- that
whole series of tests is invalidated.

THE COURT: By whom?

Tests by whom?

MR. BLASIER: All of them by DOJ. I'm sorry. I think it's DOJ on 30 and
31; that they had extraneous alleles on the positive controls.

He's also going to testify that Bundy drop 52 shows evidence of
contamination, as well, with an extra 1.3 allele as a result of
possible cross-contamination at the crime scene.

MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, if he's going to talk about specific evidence
samples, as opposed to this study that he did of validation samples
and trying to extrapolate from that, I would say that at the very
least, let's limit him to talking about the evidence in this case, not
to the validation study and what conclusions he draws from the
validation study, if he wants to come in, even though they've admitted
these results, and try to undercut their admissions.

I suppose that, you know, maybe that's relevant, but certainly not the
validation studies, although I think in light of the admissions, none
of it is relevant.

THE COURT: You want to argue any more about number 30?

MR. BLASIER: No.

THE COURT: Okay. That's my conclusion; that Dr. Gerdes' testimony will
be allowed, but will not be allowed in the area of the -- the -- what
do you call that?

MR. LAMBERT: Validation study, study of the validation tests.

THE COURT: He can testify to anything else.

MR. BLASIER: It's the Court's ruling that presence of extraneous
alleles in the LAPD lab is irrelevant?

THE COURT: Yes, based upon the reasons stated by the plaintiff.

So that will be the ruling.

There is a declaration by Gary Randa, submitted by the defense, with
respect to service or lack of service on William Blasini. There's a
counter-declaration filed by the plaintiff by Yvette Molinaro, and
that Mr. Blasini, B-l-a-s-i-n-i was reached by telephone on December
10, and in Chula Vista, he resides in southern California, Chula
Vista.

I'll hear from the defense.

MR. P. BAKER: Judge, we tried, as the declaration of Gary Randa
attached -- we tried to serve Mr. Blasini. The two locations have had
him stationed there for about 40 -- I don't know, 30 hours or
something like that.

We've tried to serve Mr. Blasini; we've been unable to do so. I guess
they spoke with him, didn't say that he'd appear, or that they knew
exactly where he was.

We tried to reach him. I tried to move this case along by reading in
his testimony -- be about 15 minutes. It's similar to the issues
raised in Kardashian. They were unable to serve him. We've been unable
to serve Mr. Blasini.

THE COURT: Where Ms. Molinaro?

MR. GELBLUM: She's at the office.

THE COURT: Where is Mr. Blasini residing?

MR. GELBLUM: In Chula Vista. I don't know his address, Your Honor. I
have a business phone number for him, where we spoke with him.

THE COURT: Give that to the defense.

MR. GELBLUM: Be happy to.

THE COURT: Give you an opportunity to serve him.

MR. P. BAKER: Okay.

THE COURT: Order the plaintiffs to supply you with all of the
information they have as to his whereabouts.

MR. P. BAKER: We attempted to serve him, Judge but . . .

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. BAKER: They didn't attempt to serve Kardashian. You let that
deposition in. Why can't you let this one in?

MR. GELBLUM: We have -- it was with the glove photographer in San
Francisco, so same point. They had unavailability. You ruled in their
favor.

MR. P. BAKER: We served the glove photographer. We haven't been able
to serve --

MR. GELBLUM: They went to the wrong place. They went to Sun Valley.
That's a hundred files miles from Chula Vista.

THE COURT: Try to serve him.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, they've also filed a declaration on Mr.
Meraz. I don't have a declaration. Our investigator told us he
verified he worked for the gas company in Santa Monica, Mr. Meraz.

MR. P. BAKER: There's no declaration we tried to serve him. We've been
unable to serve him. I'm trying to get this case moving.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, there's also -- Mr. Randa says in his
declaration, he kept going back to this house. We have no information
why he picked this particular house. There's no information this is
this guy's address, where he lives. He says he kept going to his
address, kept going back; there -- no one was there.

MR. P. BAKER: Let the record reflect we have the county records that
we he lives there.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. P. BAKER: That's what we have from the county records, that he
lives there. We were unable to serve him.

THE COURT: What information do you have about his whereabouts?

MR. GELBLUM: All I have is that he works for the gas company in Santa
Monica.

THE COURT: What's the basis of that information?

MR. GELBLUM: An investigator's phone call to the gas company, asking
for Mr. Meraz, says that he works there, but he wasn't in.

THE COURT: Where was he called at?

MR. GELBLUM: Excuse me?

THE COURT: Which gas company?

MR. GELBLUM: I don't have -- I believe it's Southern California Gas
Company, an office in Santa Monica; that's where it is. I don't know.

I can find out at a break, Your Honor. I can make a phone call to the
office --

THE COURT: All right I'll reserve rulings.

MR. PETROCELLI: -- And we'll provide it to the defense.

MR. GELBLUM: Of course.

THE COURT: Okay. The Willie Ford video.

I'll hear from the moving party on this.

MR. GELBLUM: On the Willie Ford video, Your Honor, as we said in the
papers, there's two reasons why it's really -- it's irrelevant, under
--

THE COURT: I read your moving papers.

Do you have anything else you want to add to that?

MR. GELBLUM: Just that I don't think I mentioned the legal basis
relevance under 352, because it doesn't show -- it's meaningless; it
doesn't show the area where the socks would be. He has --

THE COURT: It shows the bedroom, doesn't it?

MR. GELBLUM: But not the area where the socks were collected.

THE COURT: That's your contention.

MR. GELBLUM: There's another undisputed evidence. If they have
evidence to the contrary, fine. The only evidence from Mr. Ford
himself is that he -- his testimony -- if they have other evidence,
fine.

MR. P. BAKER: There's two issues.

The video shows the room; it bolsters Mr. Ford's testimony that he did
not see socks there, or we -- he would have videotaped the socks there
on the rug, number one.

Number two, the issue on the counter is completely disingenuous that
Rockingham sock log shows him being there from 3:10 to 4:30.

Mr. Fung sat there and said he collected blood.

THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. You're going to have to repeat that.

MR. P. BAKER: He collected item 12 in the foyer at 4:30. He collected
item 14 in the master bathroom at 4:40. I believe he collected item
13, the socks, between 4:30 and 4:40.

Mr. Ford will testify he was in the bedroom at approximately 4:15. He
was there before Mr. Fung collected the socks, and didn't see the
socks.

This video goes to his credibility. That's what cross-examination is
for. This is directly contradictory to what they argued at side bar.

MR. GELBLUM: I have no problem with Mr. Ford coming and testifying
about the crime scene log, but the video, it's a 352 problem. It does
not show he did; it doesn't contradict; it doesn't show the place
where the socks were. And the counter on the video is admittedly off.
And he admits he has no idea how far off it is.

That's the evidence, Your Honor. I have no problem with him coming in
and saying he didn't see the socks; that's fine. But the video is the
problem. I'm not trying to preclude the evidence, just the video.

MR. P. BAKER: Submit, Judge.

THE COURT: Motion denied.

Okay. Anything else?

MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, Your Honor.

I just found out yesterday from the defense that they intend to recall
Kato Kaelin, who, as Your Honor will recall, was examined by me on
direct, over my objection, specifically permitted them to go way, way
beyond the scope of my direct, on the representation that he would not
be called again.

And they went into areas unrelated to my examination. And I would ask
that he not be permitted to be called again.

MR. P. BAKER: Two issues.

MR. BAKER: Wait.

MR. P. BAKER: Wait.

(Counsel Robert Baker and Phil Baker confer sotto voce.)

THE COURT: First team, second team.

MR. BAKER: You're going to have the second team.

THE COURT: Or the third team.

(Indicating.)

MR. LEONARD: Oh, thanks.

(Laughter.)

MR. BAKER: Where are you in this picture?

(Indicating to Mr. Blasier.)

MR. BAKER: Kato Kaelin has made a lot of statements since he left the
witness stand that contradict his testimony. And I want to examine him
on those statements. I could -- he's never seen a camera -- he's never
met a camera he didn't like.

And further, there's an area I want to get into relative to what he
has testified Mr. Simpson was wearing when he got into the limousine
at approximately 11 o'clock on June 12, 1994. That area has not been
gone into at all.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, you released him. They went on and they
did what they did.

I don't know what Mr. Kaelin did, but he went over everything he
wanted to, plus more. And I don't think he should be recalled again.

MR. BAKER: I don't know there's any legal precedent for your motion.
Give us some authority that I can't call a witness to the stand.

MR. PETROCELLI: Judge Fujisaki is my authority.

THE COURT: That's not much authority.

(Laughter.)

MR. BAKER: Don't tempt me, Your Honor.

MR. PETROCELLI: I'm just relying on the prior court order, permitting
Mr. Baker to take my witness out of order.

THE COURT: Okay. I'll give reasonable examination to Mr. Kaelin.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.

THE COURT: Anything else?

MR. PETROCELLI: One last thing Mr. Medvene will address.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, the defendants want to play the
video of Dr. Lee. We got their designation the other day.

We're asking until Friday morning, if possible, from -- not till
tomorrow morning, to counter-designate, and then a couple days for
both sides, after Your Honor rules on the objections, so that the
videotape can be prepared and edited properly.

We think if we had an extra day, we could limit our objections to just
the key portions, so you don't have to rule on too, too many items.
But there are a number of items we think in Dr. Lee's testimony that
violate the previous court order on relevance of certain collection
techniques and that sort of thing.

So what we're asking for is until Friday morning, if possible, to file
with the Court our counter-designation. If for whatever reason that's
not possible, until tomorrow, tomorrow morning, to file our
counter-designation. And that's a couple days, so both sides can get
the video edited properly to play.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. P. BAKER: On Henry Lee, I gave them the designation on Monday, and
that was to comply with the rules and the procedures of Mr. Petrocelli
-- I screwed that up -- I believe Mr. Petrocelli used in the Paula
Barbieri deposition. I'm trying to comply.

We want to start it tomorrow. I've had it edited. They haven't
objected to it so far. It's edited. I figured we'd have Mr. Rokahr's
deposition read, Mr. Gerdes I'd start Henry Lee's deposition, we'd be
able to finish sometime early Friday afternoon. And I'm just trying to
comply with the promise I made you in chambers about how fast I can
put this case on.

They've had enough time. They've had the deposition since September.
They knew what our questions were. I've had this thing edited and they
worked on it over the weekend. They knew what the issues were. And the
stalling and -- it's the same exact thing that happened during Ms.
Barbieri.

I want to start it tomorrow afternoon, according to our designation on
Monday.

MR. MEDVENE: Your Honor, them playing the deposition next week isn't
going to interfere with their case.

THE COURT: Why didn't you get on it earlier?

MR. MEDVENE: Well --

THE COURT: Why didn't you get -- you demand things of them; they have
a right to demand things of you in terms of complying.

MR. MEDVENE: We haven't demanded without flexibility, Your Honor. And
what we're asking is, we can -- we can give them now, unedited
objections to portions of Dr. Lee's testimony. We can give that to
them now.

THE COURT: Why don't you do it?

MR. MEDVENE: I'd like to be able to edit it, and go over it a little
bit more thoroughly before we give it to them, because we think we can
cut down some things. And all we're asking is the deposition, if
they're going to play it, be played next week instead of Friday, so
both sides can have a proper opportunity to edit.

We're going to have to address you on some of the objections, and
we're just trying to limit it, as best we can.

MR. PETROCELLI: I think it's 2025(i).

THE COURT: The motion --

THE COURT REPORTER: Your Honor, I didn't hear you.

THE COURT: I didn't intend you to hear me.

THE COURT REPORTER: Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. P. BAKER: You've got a copy of Dr. Lee's --

THE COURT: C.C.P. 2025 subdivision (i) -- sorry -- that's subdivision
(l), subdivision (I) states that:

A party intending to offer an audiotaped or videotaped recording of a
deposition in evidence under subdivision (u) shall notify the Court
and all parties in writing of that intent and of the parts of the
deposition to be offered within sufficient time for objections to be
made and ruled on by the judge to whom the case is assigned for trial
or hearing, and for any editing of the tape. Objections to all part of
the deposition shall be made in writing.

The notice was filed on December 9. This is December 11. Why is the
request unreasonable? That's a short period of time.

MR. P. BAKER: Judge, I complied with their request on Paula Barbieri.
They stated on the record that reasonable time was three days; I gave
them three days. We couldn't even do -- show the video of Paula
because they objected to it because we didn't give them reasonable
notice.

And in this case, there's reasonable notice; they've had enough time.
They had all day yesterday to do it, all day today. They've got enough
time.

THE COURT: You said what in your notice?

MR. P. BAKER: For --

THE COURT: You didn't say it's required that they respond by a certain
time.

MR. P. BAKER: I'm -- I'm saying that in terms of the Paula Barbieri
deposition.

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. P. BAKER: They objected to us objecting to that videotape because
we didn't provide them with reasonable notice.

They stated that reasonable notice was three days. I used that three
days and let's put Henry Lee on December 9 -- started on December 12.
They haven't objected to it yet.

They have to play by the same rules. They try to interrupt our case.
We want it to flow so that I can get it done when I promised you,
Judge. And we couldn't even show the Paula Barbieri videotape; we had
to read it.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, the situation is different with Ms.
Barbieri. They never -- we gave them our designations; they never
responded with any counter-designations or objections. And then they
just wanted to play things on the videotape at the time that we
offered the videotape.

On Monday afternoon, they served this very lengthy designation of Dr.
Lee's deposition.

Now, just to drive this point home, prior to opening statement, I
wrote Mr. Baker a letter and I said, could you let us know what you
intend -- or Mr. Medvene did -- what do you intend to offer by way of
Dr. Lee's videotaped deposition, so we can have a lot of time to work
this out.

He said, "I don't have to tell you now and I'm not going to tell you
now."

I wrote him another letter last week, which I'll produce to the Court,
saying, please give me Dr. Lee's videotaped designation so we can work
this out.

No response.

Then I get the designations on Monday afternoon.

I had alerted him that this is going to be a serious issue because of
the Court's in limine motions and all the objections that were made at
the deposition, that we would need time. A very lengthy designation.
Got it Monday afternoon. I've had someone working on it last night and
yesterday. Probably get it in to the Court by the end of today.

I would like tomorrow morning -- be a little more reasonable -- then
I'd like to have a hearing on the objections.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BAKER: I told them I was going to use all of the direct and all of
the cross. To say that I didn't say what I was going to designate is
nonsense. They know.

MR. PETROCELLI: That's not accurate, Mr. Baker.

MR. BAKER: We spent two and a half days back there with Henry Lee, and
all I got out of Medvene was objections, objections. That is all I'm
going to take out, is the objections I from got from Medvene on every
question that I asked Henry Lee.

MR. BAKER: That's what the designation is. He objected to every
question, regardless of the content. Regardless of giving him a
standing objection to everything, he had to interject an objection; he
was compelled to do it to every question from us. There was a hiccup
in the room, he objected to it.

That is what was edited out of Henry Lee's depo; that is all.

To allow them now to say well, we want to have more time and we want
to object more and to stop our case, and we'll have to go dark
tomorrow afternoon and Friday because of them, is ridiculous. And all
they want to do is interrupt the flow of our case. I don't think it's
appropriate.

THE COURT: Okay. The Court will set hearing for tomorrow morning. And
you have your papers in -- if you're going to have any papers in.

You have a copy of the tape?

MR. PETROCELLI: Yes.

MR. MEDVENE: Yes.

MR. BAKER: They've had it since mid-September.

THE COURT: Excuse me.

Be prepared to show the video Friday.

Okay. Bring in the jury.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Your Honor.

(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

THE COURT: Morning.

JURORS: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may proceed.

TOM LANGE, the witness on the stand at the time of the adjournment on
December 10, 1996, called by the Defendants pursuant to Evidence Code
Section 767, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and
testified further as follows:

THE CLERK: You are still under oath.

Would you please state your name again for the record.

THE WITNESS: Tom Lange, L-a-n-g-e.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Mr. Lange, at the time Fuhrman went over the wall, you did not have
any suspicion whatsoever that O.J. Simpson may have committed the
murders, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Not relevant, Your Honor. State of mind.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Your only concern was whether Mr. Simpson was dead
or dying in his residence?

MR. MEDVENE: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, in terms of your -- after you said you got into
the house, Mr. Simpson's house that is, through the back southeast
door -- excuse me.

MR. P. BAKER: That's 116 on the board.

(Defendant's Exhibit No. 116 displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You went through the den, through the bar area, into
the kitchen area, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And did Vannatter follow you?

A. I don't recall whether he was beside me or right behind me. He was
in the same vicinity. I don't exactly recall where everyone was
standing or walking.

Q. Where was Fuhrman?

A. I believe Fuhrman was still outside with Kaelin.

Q. Is it your testimony, then, that Fuhrman did not come in with
Arnelle and the other three detectives?

A. He might have come in after -- after I did. I don't recall.

My attention wasn't on Fuhrman coming in.

Q. Well, Detective Phillips was engaged in a conversation with Arnelle
in the kitchen, correct?

A. Subsequently, yes.

Q. And at that period of time, Kato was still in his residence with
Fuhrman; that's your testimony, is it not?

A. At the time that Phillips was talking to Arnelle in the kitchen, I
am not quite clear on, because I do recall Fuhrman entering and Kato
entering, and I believe Kato sat down at the bar.

But again, my attention wasn't focused on them.

Q. Were you in the kitchen nook when you don't know whether Fuhrman
and Kato were in his guest house or the bar area?

A. I believe that they were in Kato's house when we entered.

Now, again, my attention wasn't on them once we'd entered, so I don't
know.

Q. And you then went directly through the bar/den area, dining room,
and into the kitchen nook area, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You remained in the kitchen nook area until sometime later, when
Fuhrman came and got you, true?

A. That's correct.

Q. And so you don't know what happened, whether Fuhrman even entered
the house; isn't that correct?

A. What happened?

Q. No. My question was: You don't even know, after you entered the
house from the southeast entrance, whether Fuhrman came into the
house, 'cause you didn't see it; isn't that correct?

A. No. Subsequently I saw him in the house with Kato, and Kato was at
the bar.

Q. I thought you just testified that you didn't see him from the time
you were in the kitchen nook until he came back and got you, and you
wandered around the garage to the area where Fuhrman says he found the
glove?

A. No, I didn't say that.

Q. So you didn't stay in the kitchen nook the entire time after you
entered the house. True or untrue?

A. I was in that area. I walked down the hall by the washer and dryer
to look at the housemaid's room.

Q. Well, you can't see the bar or the den area from the area where the
washer and dryer is, can you?

A. No.

Q. And you can't see from the kitchen nook area where the bar is,
where you say Kato and Vannatter was, can you?

A. If you stepped out far enough, yes, you could.

Q. If you stepped into the dining room, you could, but you can't see
it from the kitchen area, can you, sir?

A. I haven't been in that house for a couple of years.

It's my recollection that I became aware that they, in fact, were back
in the bar area. Now, I don't -- in fact, I can't give you exactly
where I was standing. And this has to do with not just what I see, but
what I hear.

Q. Well, since you were in the home of Mr. Simpson on June 13, 1994,
you testified about it about four, five times, have you not?

A. Sure.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Materiality.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You have also gone on multiple -- multiple TV shows
talking about your experiences, and trying to hype a book deal over
your experiences with Mr. Simpson, have you not?

A. No.

Q. How many TV shows have you been on trying to hype a book deal?

A. Trying to hype a book?

Q. Hype a book deal, get one signed?

A. I don't think we've ever tried to hype a book on a TV show. We have
a deal already signed.

Q. Well, you didn't until relatively recently, but you've been hyping
it for about two years, trying to get a book deal?

A. No.

Q. No?

A. In fact I was against a book initially.

Q. I see.

But it was the money that changed your mind?

A. Not at all.

Q. Okay.

In any event, Mr. Lange, you went into the kitchen nook area. Did you
or did you not stay in that area the entire time until Fuhrman came
and got you to point out where he purportedly found the glove?

A. Other than walking to the maid's quarters, as I told you earlier.

Q. And the maid's quarters is off to the south of the kitchen, is it
not?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. So you never went back into the dining room area, never went back
into the bar/den area, correct?

A. I -- I might have walked toward that area. Again, I can't
specifically recall every place I went, and everything I did that day.

Q. Well, you have had to recall this in conversations you had with
Bill Hodgman and Marcia Clark when they asked you to recall and set
forth in detail what you did at Mr. Simpson's house on June 13, 1994,
isn't that true?

A. No, I don't recall them at all asking me specifically where I was
at every moment that I was in that house.

Q. Well, you were certainly questioned about it for days in the
criminal trial, were you not?

A. No, not about whether I walked in the kitchen and out of the
kitchen, no, I don't recall any of that.

Q. Don't recall that at all?

A. No.

Q. Now, when you were in the house, did you look for any blood in the
house?

A. That was the first thing that I was concerned with, would be a
struggle -- sign of struggle.

Q. Maybe you didn't understand the question I just asked you. Maybe
you can answer it yes or no.

Did you or did you not look for blood in the area of the house that
you were in before Mark Fuhrman ever came and got you to look for this
purported glove he found?

A. I looked for signs of a struggle. If that included blood, then,
fine, so be it.

Q. So you went through the house, stayed in the kitchen nook area,
went to the maid's area, were there for, what, a half-hour?

A. I don't think so. Probably less than that.

Q. During that period of time, it's your testimony that Phillips was
in a conversation with Arnelle Simpson, correct?

A. For part of that time.

Q. And he was contacting Mr. Simpson's secretary, Kathy Randa, to find
out where Mr. Simpson was, and you stayed in the kitchen area during
that period of time, right?

A. Actually I believe Arnelle made the call and spoke with her
initially, and I was in the area.

Q. You stayed in the kitchen area during that period of time, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you didn't know -- well, strike that.

Had you heard before you went in the kitchen nook area about any
representation by Kato Kaelin of thumps or noises that he said he had
heard the evening before?

A. No.

Q. Never heard that?

A. Not at that time, no.

Q. Now, during the period of time that you were with Fuhrman in the
morning of the 13th at Rockingham, did he have his coat on or off?

A. I don't believe --

MR. MEDVENE: Objection in terms of vague as to time, what time, Your
Honor.

THE COURT: In the morning. Overruled.

A. I don't recall him having a coat on.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) It's your recollection you had the coat -- he had a
coat off the entire time?

A. I don't recall him having it on for -- whether he went to put it
on, I don't know, I just don't recall him having a coat on.

Q. Now, did Fuhrman tell you that he was going to leave the house and
go investigate outdoors before he left the interior of the residence?

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, I take it that when there's four of you there,
there's two lead detectives, you and Vannatter, that you are in charge
of that scene as well, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that these -- Phillips you had right in front of you and he was
talking to Arnelle, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you didn't know where Fuhrman was, correct?

A. No, I did know where Fuhrman was.

Q. You knew Fuhrman was out in the bar, you said you saw him out in
the bar from your vantage point in the kitchen area, right?

A. During that time Fuhrman was somewhere between Kato's room and the
bar area, yes.

Q. How do you know that?

A. Because I left him with Kato, as we walked in, for awhile. Kato --
my recollection is that Kato entered sometime after that. It's just
what I recall.

Q. Well, Kato entered sometime after that. Do you have a recollection
of Fuhrman entering -- do you have a recollection, sir, of seeing
Fuhrman enter the residence?

A. Physically walking in?

Q. That's what I mean.

A. I can't say that I specifically had that recollection.

Q. Do you have a recollection as you sit her now, of Fuhrman ever
being in the Simpson residence after you knocked -- after he rapped on
Kato's door and before he came and got you and others to look at the
glove that he says he found on the south side of Mr. Simpson's
property?

A. I don't recall if he was in there or not.

Again, my attention was not focused on Mr. Fuhrman's whereabouts.

Q. Now, at any time, were you asked by Fuhrman or anybody else to
provide a backup to investigate the grounds of Mr. Simpson's house?

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

THE COURT: You can answer yes or no.

A. A backup, I don't think I understand what you mean by a backup.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, if there is a concern, sir, of dangerous or
unlawful activity on the grounds, I take it that one police officer
wouldn't examine the grounds when there are four there without the
assistance of others being in his or her company; would you agree with
that?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Well, the concern was for victims, not suspects.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Maybe you didn't understand the question.

If there is a suspicion of dangerous activity, thumps are being heard,
nobody knows what they are, and there is possible danger around the
grounds of Mr. Simpson's estate or any other place, you certainly
wouldn't have a police officer go into that area without being
accompanied by another police officer, would you?

A. Well, it depends on what the situation is, what the officer's state
of mind is.

Again, we weren't concerned with suspects at this time.

Q. Well, you don't know what Mr. Fuhrman was concerned with because
you don't know what information he heard from Kato Kaelin about
noises; isn't that true?

A. Not at that time. I wasn't concerned with him.

Q. If in fact there's concern that there have been thumps on the wall
and there are unexplained noises and this is a place where there is a
concern about it may be an extension of a crime scene at 875 South
Bundy over here at 360 North Rockingham, police regulations would
require at least two officers to investigate the grounds and have
their weapons drawn; isn't that true, sir?

A. No, that's not true. The thumps --

Q. There were no weapons drawn at all?

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, Your Honor, the witness was in the middle of
answering the question.

MR. BAKER: "No" is the only thing that's responsive to the question.

THE COURT: Finish your answer.

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

THE COURT: Finish it.

A. The thumps were many hours earlier. And we had no fear of suspects
being at the location.

We entered because we feared that there may be victims at that
location, and for no other reason.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You have no idea on June 13 when the thumps were
'cause you never even heard about them; isn't that true?

A. I didn't hear about it until later, but if you're asking me to --

Q. I'm asking you about --

A. -- comment on what Detective Fuhrman felt at the time, that was it,
because I didn't see it, I didn't hear what went on.

Q. You don't know what Detective Fuhrman felt at the time, you don't
know if he was leaving the vicinity of every police officer, and every
person at that house to plant a glove, do you?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, the question is argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Do you know if Detective Fuhrman was leaving the
interior of the residence, and leaving Kato Kaelin that he
interrogated out in Kato's room so he would be alone by himself and
have the opportunity to plant a glove?

A. Fuhrman would have had to come through the kitchen area.

Q. Do you know? You can answer that yes or no.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, question's argumentative, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Calling for Mr. Fuhrman's intent.

Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So as far as you were aware, Fuhrman was out of any
sight that you had from approximately 5:40 to about 6:15, correct?

A. No, I can't say that.

Again, I didn't specifically keep a record of every movement of Mr.
Fuhrman. I recall seeing him from time to time. I can't give you an
accounting of what he did every minute he was there.

Q. I didn't ask you for an accounting, sir.

You've been on the stand, what, 3, 400 times?

A. It's probably a conservative estimate.

Q. And you've been interrogated by a lot of attorneys, have you not,
sir?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. And you understand that it's your job while you sit on the witness
stand, to answer questions, not to argue the case, do you not, sir?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. That question's argumentative and
inappropriate.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So can you listen, be kind enough to listen to my
questions, and attempt to answer my questions, sir.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, argumentative. Move to strike Mr. Baker's
comments.

THE COURT: Ask a question.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The question is Fuhrman was out of your vision from
5:40 to 6:15, yes or no?

A. Again, I can't -- I don't know. He was in and out of my vision. I
can't tell you where he was every moment. That's my answer.

Q. So your answer is I don't know, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Objection, question has been asked and
answered. Mr. Baker is misstating the answer.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I do not know where Mr. Fuhrman was all the time he was there. I
was focused on other things.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Let's go through in a minute here.

You arrived at about 5:06 after leaving Bundy around 5, correct?

A. Approximately.

Q. And you were outside the Rockingham property for approximately 30
minutes before you allowed Fuhrman to go over the wall, right?

A. Approximately.

Q. Fuhrman goes over the wall, you go to the front of the house, you
ring the doorbell, you go around up to the north side of the house,
and you go to the area, and you rapped on the glass doors that are at
the back of Mr. Simpson's house, which would be the east, really,
correct?

A. I don't know if -- recall rapping on them. I may have. I do recall
looking in the rear doors.

Q. Then you go down, Fuhrman is rapping on Kaelin's door, says
somebody's in there. Kaelin comes to the door, there's words of
identification exchanged, you and Phillips at least walk down to
Arnelle's room, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Arnelle gets dressed and -- and I guess she looked for a key, did
she not? Went back -- I think that she had to go back and get a key,
right?

A. She went back -- I believe she may have went back to get a key. I
--

Q. And then it's your testimony that after she may have gone back,
gotten a key, you all, that is, at least you, Phillips and Arnelle,
went up the stairs and in the southeast door with the key that Arnelle
Simpson got, right?

A. That's right.

Q. And all that took about what, 10 minutes?

A. I don't know how long it took.

We did enter that rear door, yes.

Q. Took about 10 minutes?

A. I don't know how long it took.

Q. Do you think it took more than that?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. From the time we actually walked from Arnelle's to the rear door,
probably took less than a minute.

Q. Well, I was talking about, sir, and I thought that you understood,
was over the wall to going in the house about 10 minutes?

A. Apparently, I did not understand. I did not understand.

I think it was probably a little more than that.

Q. Okay. 15?

A. Possibly.

Q. Okay. It would be at the latest 5:45 when you go into Mr. Simpson's
residence, true?

A. You're trying to pin me down on minutes, and I'm kind of
uncomfortable with that because we didn't log in everything we did
every minute that we did it. I mean we had other things on our mind. I
just can't give you an accurate accounting of that time.

Q. You didn't log anything. You didn't log one thing, did you, at
Rockingham?

A. I didn't, no.

Q. You say we didn't log every minute.

You didn't log a minute, did you?

A. There was no reason for me to log anything at Rockingham.

Q. You didn't document your presence there at all, did you?

A. No, that's not true. It's documented in the chronological record.

Q. It's documented -- In fact, the record shows that you never left
875 South Bundy; isn't that true?

A. I don't know.

Q. The log at Bundy indicates you never left.

Didn't you ever look at that before you wrote the follow-up report?

A. That certainly wouldn't come into play when I'm writing my
follow-up report.

Q. So you never looked at it?

A. There was no reason to look at it.

Q. Now, by 5:45 you're in the house, you walk through the back, and
the next thing you see of Fuhrman is when he walks into the kitchen
nook at about 6:15, right?

A. I don't recall. I may have seen him earlier. Again, I wasn't
focused on Fuhrman.

I do recall seeing him in the nook area, yes.

Q. And -- And at that point in time, Fuhrman comes to you with a
revelation and he says, I want you to follow me, correct?

A. No. I think Phillips came up to me and mentioned that Fuhrman had
something he wanted to show me.

Q. Had Phillips already been out there when you were confronted with
Fuhrman saying he wanted to see the -- wanted you to go to the south
side of the house?

A. Phillips --

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Phillips had been out there earlier, yes.

Q. And was it Fuhrman that asked you, or Phillips that asked you to go
out there?

A. My recollection is that Phillips approached me and said that
Fuhrman had found something on a back walkway and that he was going to
take me out and show it to me.

MR. P. BAKER: Number on the "Post-It" on the front.

MR. BAKER: Okay, thank you. 1174.

(The instrument herein described as an aerial view of 875 South Bundy
was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1174.)

(Exhibit 1174 displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, 1174 is an aerial view of 875 South Bundy or
the block of 875 South Bundy.

It's also an aerial view of Mr. Simpson's property, is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. This would be the Ashford gate, right?

A. Right.

Q. This would be the area of the guest residences, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And this is the area of the kitchen nook, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. This is taken out in front?

A. Yes.

Q. And this is the area going into the front entrance of the house,
true?

A. Yes.

Q. And all of this is the shrubbery that is adjacent to the south side
of Mr. Simpson's property and along that Cyclone fence, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And the vehicle in front of the house appears to be a white Ford
Bronco, does it not?

A. Are you talking in the driveway there?

Q. Talking about right in front of the entrance.

A. In the driveway, yes.

Q. Yes.

Now, as I understand it, you had -- before you were informed of this
amazing find of evidence, you'd already been to Bundy and you'd seen a
glove, right?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, move to strike the argumentative language,
amazing find.

THE COURT: It's been asked. Overruled.

A. Yes.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now -- and so Fuhrman brought you out of the kitchen
nook area, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Around the house, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you walked down the side of the house, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And you walked past two doors that led into the garage and
residence, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you then stopped about 6 feet or so away from the glove,
correct?

A. 6, 8 feet, approximately.

Q. And that's as close as you ever got to the glove, was 6 to 8 feet,
right?

A. Approximately, yes.

Q. And I take it as a detective, you have 20 plus years, you looked
for a blood trail, did you not?

A. No, not at that time.

Q. Well, you never went back to the glove while it was still there,
did you?

A. No.

Q. You didn't look to see if there was any blood on the ground, you
didn't look to see if there was any blood or any biological matter on
any leaves, you didn't look to see any of that, did you?

A. I wasn't concerned with that at that time at all.

Q. Maybe you didn't understand the question. I didn't ask your
concerns.

I asked if you looked, as a detective of 20 years, on a piece of
evidence that is found that may match a piece of evidence in a crime
scene where a double homicide occurred, you didn't even look to see if
there was blood around it, did you?

A. There was no reason for me to look. I'm not investigating that
crime scene. Certainly not.

Q. You didn't look at anything else, the shrubbery, the concrete,
whether there was insect activity there, whether there was dirt on the
glove, you looked at none of that?

A. The crime scene was none of my concern at all at that time.

Q. I didn't ask you what your concerns were. I asked you if you
looked.

A. Obviously, I didn't look because it was not a concern.

Q. And so this glove that was told to you had blood on it that may
match a glove a couple of miles away at a house where a double murder
had occurred of the estranged ex-wife of the owner of this house, it
didn't occur to you to look at the shrubbery, the glove, to see if
there was insect activity, to see if there was dirt, wasn't a concern
of yours, you just looked, turned, and went back and talked to your
partner, Vannatter, right?

A. No one told me it had blood on it. That's the first misstatement.

Q. Okay.

Could you see blood on it?

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, Your Honor, the witness was still answering, I
believe.

THE COURT: Finish your answer.

You may finish your answer if you want.

A. I saw nothing but what to me appeared to be a glove.

As far as the rest of your question goes, that crime scene was not my
concern at that time.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Were you told before you went out to the south side
of Mr. Simpson's property that there was a glove with blood on it?

A. No.

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

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you see any blood on the glove?

A. No.

Q. Did -- As I understand it then, Phillips had already told you that
there was a glove out there?

He was the one that told you that?

A. No. I believe what Phillips stated was that Fuhrman wants to show
you something. I don't even recall him saying the glove.

Q. After you saw the glove, you walked back to the front of the
location where you met your partner, Detective Vannatter, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And by the time you talked to Vannatter, he'd already sent Fuhrman
and Phillips back to 875 South Bundy, right?

A. I think they had just left, yes.

Q. And you then left 875 South -- or strike that.

You were -- heard Mark Fuhrman testify in the criminal trial that the
glove was moist, sticky and wet, did you not?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You didn't -- you didn't see anything on the glove
that looked moist, sticky or wet when you were out there viewing the
glove? You turned your flashlight on it, didn't you?

A. No. It was still fairly dark. It was beginning to get light. I
could see the outline of what appeared to me to be a glove. I did not
want to approach it. I didn't approach it. I was only there a matter
of seconds, and I returned to the front.

Q. You shined your light on the glove even though it was daylight,
didn't you?

A. I don't recall that -- whether I shined the light on it or not. It
seems to me it was beginning to get light.

Q. Were you the only detective that didn't see evidence of blood that
was moist, wet and sticky in your conversations subsequent to the time
--

MR. MEDVENE: Objection.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) -- you viewed the glove at 360 North Rockingham?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, question's argumentative and calls for
conclusion.

MR. PETROCELLI: Speculation.

MR. MEDVENE: Also speculation.

THE COURT: I'm sustaining the question as somewhat unintelligible, and
it's --

MR. BAKER: I guess it wasn't one of my better ones.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) All right.

You had conversations with the other detectives about this glove later
on the 13th, did you not?

A. That was a pretty busy day. The glove may have been alluded to. I
don't recall any specific mention about the glove.

Q. The glove was picked up by Fung and taken back to 875 South Bundy,
to the crime scene, when you were there, isn't that true?

A. Yes, he had it in the criminalist truck.

Q. He had it and brought it into the crime scene, didn't he?

A. No, not that I know of.

Q. Is it your testimony that you, who were in charge of 875 South
Bundy, that Dennis Fung didn't bring the glove that was found at
Rockingham back to 875 South Bundy and take it up to the area where
the glove had been moved at 875 South Bundy?

A. I don't recall him doing that. I did observe that glove in the
truck though, because I asked to see it.

Q. You asked to see it in the truck?

A. Yes.

Q. What time was that?

A. I don't know what time. I didn't log what time it was. It was
sometime probably within 10 or 15 minutes after Fung arrived at the
crime scene.

Q. Now, if Dennis Fung testified that it was at your request that he
brought the glove from Rockingham to 875 South Bundy, he would be
misrepresenting the truth, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. The question is argumentative and calls for
hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You told Dennis Fung to bring the Rockingham glove
to 875 South Bundy, didn't you?

A. No.

He brought it there as part of his investigation. He completed his
work at Rockingham and brought the glove, as well as other evidence,
to 875 South Bundy. When he arrived I asked if I could see the glove.
I told him I wanted to see the glove, to get a look at it --

Q. Now --

A. -- We then went to the criminalist truck and I looked at the glove.

Q. There is a difference, you would agree, between looking at the
glove in the criminalist truck, taking the glove out of the
criminalist's truck, taking it into the area where the glove was
located at 875 South Bundy, correct?

A. Certainly.

Q. And it's your testimony, so we have it perfectly clear, that you
never requested Fung to take the glove found -- located by Fuhrman at
Rockingham, out of the criminalist truck while it was at 875 South
Bundy, and walk it to the area and -- and put it near or next to the
glove that was still on the ground at 875 South Bundy?

A. I would never do that.

And I told Fung that I wanted to see the glove. It may -- he may have
misinterpreted.

Q. And your testimony is that you, being the lead detective in charge
of 875 South Bundy, never saw Fung with that glove in the crime scene
area? And I'm talking about close to the closed-in area and by the
gate of 875 South Bundy, correct?

A. I don't recall him at all having that glove there.

Again, my testimony is the same. I recall seeing the glove in the
criminalist truck only.

Q. And did you see a moist, wet, tacky glove on the -- at the time --
well, strike that.

You didn't see it until after, what, at noon or thereafter?

A. It was sometime after Fung showed up. It may have been 15, 30
minutes. I don't recall exactly when it was. Sometime, obviously,
after Fung had been there for a bit.

Q. Now, the glove was discovered purportedly by Fuhrman at around
6:15, right?

A. I think so.

Q. And the earliest Fung and Mazzola ever got to 875 South Bundy was
10:10 in the morning, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And I take it that the first thing they did is have you into the
criminalist truck and show you the glove, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. So you -- And you left 875 South Bundy to go down and interrogate
my client sometime around noon, true?

A. I believe it was about 12:30, somewhere in there.

Q. So sometime between 10:10 and 12:30, it's your testimony you went
into the criminalist truck and looked at the glove in the truck,
right?

A. I didn't go into the truck. The rear was opened, I peered in at the
glove in the rear of the truck. I didn't enter the truck.

Q. Was the truck parked on Bundy?

A. Yes.

Q. And the rear door of the truck was open, and you walked up to the
rear door of the truck, right?

A. No. We walked up there together, he unlocked the door, opened the
door and showed me the glove.

Q. And when he showed you the glove, could you see blood on it, what
you perceived to be blood?

A. I don't recall. I don't recall. I just recall viewing the glove. I
was more interested in the inside. I was more interested in the
ribbing of the glove, to see if in fact it matched the one that we had
at the crime scene. I wasn't looking for blood.

Q. Now, there is, as I understand it from the pictures that we've
seen, blood all over the crime scene area at 875 South Bundy; you
would agree with that?

A. Certainly.

Q. And this glove was purportedly found at Rockingham, and you weren't
interested in whether or not there was blood on it?

A. Not at that time. I was interested in doing my job at the Bundy
crime scene. That piece of evidence had already been collected and was
going to be examined.

Q. Now, if -- if Fung had taken the glove and taken it into the crime
scene, you would have been upset with that and have reprimanded Fung
for moving the glove from the criminalist truck into the crime scene
'cause you didn't want it in the crime scene, did you?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, argumentative, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You did not want the Rockingham glove in the crime
scene for fear of contamination, isn't that true?

A. I would certainly have a fear of contamination if one was to bring
evidence from another crime scene, yes.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, we're going to have a video. Is this a good
time to take a break?

THE COURT: 10 minutes, ladies and gentlemen.

(Recess.)

(Jurors resumed their respective seats.)

MR. BAKER: Due to my screw-up, not Phil's, I'm going to have to wait
for a new point on that video.

THE COURT: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, when you were at the criminalist's van with
Fung inspecting the glove, did you inspect anything else that was in
the criminalist's van, from Rockingham, at that time?

A. No, I just recall looking at the glove.

Q. And the glove was in a bag, was it not?

A. He removed it from a bag, yes.

Q. So the glove was out of -- well, strike that.

Brown paper bag, plastic bag, which, or both?

A. Seems to me it was in a brown paper bag and it was -- he pulled it
out -- it was like half out of the bag when I looked at it.

Q. Okay.

So it wasn't contained, then, in any -- you know, one of those plastic
zip-lock type bags, that's your recollection, sir?

A. No, I recollect it was just a brown paper bag. I believe it may
have been in something earlier. I don't --

Q. It was pulled half out of the paper bag, you viewed it, Fung viewed
it, it was put back in the paper bag, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And it never, to your knowledge, went from the criminalist's truck
into the area where the crimes had been committed, correct?

A. I never saw it in there, no.

Q. And you didn't see blood on the gloves and you didn't see any tears
in the -- or blood on that glove nor blood -- strike it. Again, I
apologize.

You didn't see any blood on that glove at that time, true?

A. I wasn't looking for any blood. I just looked at the inside of the
glove.

Q. The answer to the question is no, you didn't see any blood?

A. I don't recall seeing any blood.

Q. Second question, you see any tears in the glove at that time?

A. I don't believe so.

Q. Did you look for any tears in the glove?

A. No.

Q. Now, then, this was during the time between 7 -- approximately 7
o'clock in the morning when you were at 875 South Bundy on the 13th
and 12:30 when you left to go to Parker Center, right?

A. It was after Fung arrived, so possibly after 10 o'clock, sometime
between 10 and 12.

Q. And during the time after you had gone back to 875 South Bundy and
you did the documentation that we talked about when you were here
before, did you request a stride analysis to be done on the blood
drops in the walkway at 875 South Bundy?

A. No, they were requested of the shoe prints.

Q. There was a stride analysis that you became aware of, true?

A. As to the shoe prints, not the blood drops.

Q. There was no stride analysis done to the blood drops in the back of
-- the walkway, that's your testimony?

A. I don't know what a stride analysis is as it relates to a blood
drop. I do as it relates to a shoe print.

Q. Well, the blood drops -- have you ever heard of measuring the
distance between the blood drops and seeing, for example, how long a
normal 32 inch gait would take to go between the blood drops to see
what the time duration is between the drops?

A. No, a stride analysis would go to a shoe print, not the distances
between blood drops.

Q. Have you ever attempted in the 20 years that you've been a
detective, to determine, based upon the distance between blood drops
that you detectives call a blood trail?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, relevance to this case, asking about some
other experience, not this case.

THE COURT: I believe he's inquiring whether he's familiar with a
particular analysis.

Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Particular analysis I'm talking about is did you
request or make any attempt to determine the distance between blood
drops on the north walkway at 875 South Bundy?

A. I don't recall specifically. That may have been discussed with the
criminalist.

Q. Do you recall ever making a determination as to a normal stride or
gait, how many seconds would elapse between blood drops?

A. Yes, there are basic -- there are several basic studies on that
from blood hitting from different angles at different heights and
different surfaces I'm aware of, yes.

Q. Did you try to analyze -- use those investigative techniques and
methodology in your analysis of this crime scene?

A. To some degree.

Q. And how long did you determine there was in seconds between the
blood drops on the north walkway at Bundy?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. Witness
testified he didn't do that.

THE COURT: He said "to some degree."

Overruled.

A. No, that wasn't something I ever did.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, you determined that the assailant had shoe
prints that went up the walkway and then turned left towards the
house, correct?

A. Up the walkway as in Bundy?

Q. Yeah, was going west on the walkway.

MR. BAKER: Let me get an exhibit.

(Pause for counsel to retrieve exhibit.)

(Exhibit 2057, entitled "875 South Bundy Walkway," is displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now --

THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, Mr. Baker, does that have a number,
please.

MR. BAKER: I'm sure it does.

Sorry.

MR. LEONARD: I'll look.

I don't see any number.

MR. MEDVENE: It's 2057, I believe, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, your examination of the scene at 875 South
Bundy had the shoe prints going -- this is west, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And then they turn and go towards the property, do they not?

A. They -- yeah, there was one point where they did, yeah.

Q. And then they -- there was another shoe print that was angled
towards the property, right?

A. I believe so.

Q. And did you ever try to do any type of gait analysis relative to
those shoe prints, sir?

A. Personally, no. I requested that of a criminalist.

Q. And you have never seen one document relative to a gait analysis,
correct?

A. Part of a gait analysis is the measurement -- toe to heel
measurement. I believe I've seen that somewhere, but it's been some
time.

Q. You would have seen nothing that would determine the elapsed time
based upon a normal gait from the front of the property on Bundy west
to the back of the property, correct?

A. I've never heard of such a study.

Q. Never heard of it in this case, right.

Now, in terms of the shoe prints on this particular exhibit, you will
agree based upon our analysis yesterday that there are shoe prints
missing from the area directly east of Nicole Brown Simpson's -- where
her body was found, true?

A. Missing shoe.

Q. They're not on that document -- that exhibit, rather?

(Witness approaches exhibit.)

A. As far as these little prints here you're talking about?

Q. There were at least four shoe prints in that area, were there not,
sir?

A. Seems to me there were a couple of partials. I do recall a partial
heel right in this area here that I don't see on there.

Q. And obviously, if the imprint that we were looking at yesterday is
a shoe print, that isn't on that exhibit that's been proposed by the
plaintiffs, 2038, (sic) either, is it?

A. No.

MR. P. BAKER: Yeah.

Q. I would like to direct your attention to this video. When it
concludes, I'm going to ask you whether or not this is Dennis Fung and
the glove, okay.

MR. P. BAKER: Next in order, Erin.

THE CLERK: 2258.

MR. P. BAKER: 2258.

(The instrument herein described as a videotape was marked for
identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2258.)

(Videotape is played beginning at counter 1:18:10 to 1:18:39.)

MR. BAKER: If you can stop it, Phil.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Was the brown bag that you saw Dennis Fung with --
Right there.

Go back.

Go forward.

(Videotape was rewound to 1:18:17.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Was that the same type of brown bag that you say you
looked at the glove in, in the criminalist's truck in front of 875
South Bundy?

A. It was brown and paper. It seems to me it was smaller.

Q. If Dennis Fung indicated he was carrying that bag into the crime
scene pursuant to your request, you would disagree with that?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I'd disagree he's walking away from the crime scene with that bag
of evidence. I don't recall, even, at all coming into the crime scene,
nor the bag of evidence, the glove or anything else.

Q. And it would be not -- certainly it would not be your request or
order that he bring the glove into the crime scene, correct?

A. I would not do that.

Q. All right. Thank you.

Now, I want to get back to this particular -- the stride analysis.

(Indicating to Exhibit 2057.)

Q. So that we're clear, there was no time estimation based upon shoe
prints from the front walkway to the back, as to any amount of time
that would have elapsed by the assailant or assailants walking from
the front to the back of the alley, true?

A. Yes.

I wouldn't know how one would go about doing that.

Q. Now, you indicated that you looked at the blood drops, did you not?

A. I did.

Q. And certainly you would agree, sir, that if blood drops form a
trail on them, that you can indicate not only the direction of travel
of the person who is dropping the blood, but if they fall in a round
or circular pattern, that would indicate that there's possibly a
normal gait, true?

A. To some degree. There are other factors depending on the height of
the source that the blood comes from, and depending on the substrate,
the ground, the cement or whatever it hits, so there are other
considerations.

Q. In this case we've seen closeup pictures of circular blood spots,
would you agree with that, on the north walkway, correct?

A. Generally circular, yes.

Q. This would indicate whoever is discharging this blood is not
running, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. So we can assume, and in fact you -- the most you could assume in
terms of speed would be a fast gait, correct, based upon the blood
spot pattern, true?

A. I would -- probably wouldn't even say that.

Q. Normal walk?

A. Very possibly.

Q. And so in normal walking, and we can see some shoe prints, we could
do a stride analysis to determine, for example, a gait set forth by
the shoe print, what the stride of whoever is leaving those shoe
prints is?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, limited, previous ruling, stride analysis
wasn't done, similar to ruling on collection techniques.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. MEDVENE: Similar to your previous ruling on collection techniques.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And we could even do a simulation of the assailant
turning because we have a shoe print that shows him turning into the
building. We can assume that the assailant was also in front of the
gate, and we can duplicate to some extent and reconstruct the amount
of time it would take for someone to leave the shoe prints or some,
more than one, can leave the shoe prints set forth on Exhibit 2038
(sic), true?

(Referring to Exhibit 2057.)

A. Could can be a very subjective thing. I mean we have the prints
facing inward. Someone could be standing there for a period of time
before they moved on. I would think that would be a very difficult
thing to do. You can, however, do a heel to toe measurement,
obviously, and -- to see if it's a normal stride.

Q. Yeah, and obviously it is somewhat subjective, because we see shoe
prints that go back into the -- into an area where bushes are in this
darkened area on 2038 (sic), correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the assailant could have backed into the bushes to avoid any
visual observations from Bundy, correct?

A. That may have been the reason, yes.

Q. But we can make some parameter ranges of time if care had been
taken, but none was done in this case; you will agree with that, sir?

A. I don't know how you would do that.

Q. Okay. Fair enough.

Now, in terms of after your being at 875 South Bundy until
approximately 12:30 and going through your investigation, you were
called by Phil Vannatter and requested to go to downtown LAPD,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. How were you communicated with at that time, telephone, radio,
what?

A. Believe it was telephone.

Q. Phil Vannatter actually phoned the house and requested you to go
down to Parker Center, correct?

A. No, it seems to me that I got a call from the office, I think I got
a call from the office telling me to meet him there.

Q. And it was on the phone that was in the 875 South Bundy residence,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you hadn't had any communications via the office, or Phil
Vannatter, on that phone before that time, had you?

A. I don't believe so.

Q. I mean he hadn't come over -- he'd come over to 875 South Bundy to
communicate with you, had he not?

A. Yes.

Q. And hadn't used the phone before then, huh?

A. I don't believe I did, no.

Q. He came over to tell you that he was going to try to get a search
warrant at about 7:30, right?

A. I believe so.

Q. When he came over about 7:30 to tell you that he was going to try
to get a search warrant, that was of course after you had both been at
Rockingham and Kathy Randa had communicated with Arnelle on the
telephone, and everyone at that scene knew exactly where O.J. Simpson
was, correct?

A. Well, I don't know if everyone knew exactly where he was.

Q. Well, I take it as lead detective, once the communication was made
with Kathy Randa, that you communicated that certainly to Phil
Vannatter and said there's no need to go upstairs, for example, and
see if O.J. Simpson is dying or bleeding to death, we know he's in
Chicago, and we know exactly what hotel he's at, and we know he's on a
Hertz outing? I assume you did that?

A. Well, no, Phillips told us that, certainly.

Q. Phillips told you and Vannatter that, right?

A. I believe Vannatter was there, yes.

Q. So Vannatter certainly knew that Mr. Simpson had gone on a
scheduled expected trip to Chicago before 7:30 when he came over to
see you and tell you that he was going to attempt to get a search
warrant to search Mr. Simpson's house, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, calls for conclusion, Your Honor, what's in
Mr. Vannatter's mind.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, from the knowledge that you have of being at
Rockingham, you have no doubt in your mind, sir, that Vannatter knew
full well that O.J. Simpson was on an expected trip to Chicago at a
Hertz outing by the time he got to 875 South Bundy and told you he was
going to go to the West LA station to prepare a search warrant,
correct?

MR. MEDVENE: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MEDVENE: Calls for speculation.

A. I don't know whether or not he knows it was expected.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And unexpected, of course, is exactly the word that
is and does appear in the search warrant that you have looked at, that
is Mr. Phil Vannatter telling a magistrate, under penalty of perjury,
that O.J. Simpson was on an unexpected flight to Chicago. You
discussed that many times with him, haven't you?

A. No, you used the word "expected" and I'm repeating your word. And
no, I have not discussed it with him many times or hardly at all.

Q. Well, you've been on "Dateline" and talking about whether or not
Phil Vannatter lied in the search warrant, have you not?

A. I certainly may have, yes.

Q. You've been on the "Today" show discussing whether or not Phil
Vannatter lied in the search warrant, have you not?

A. I believe I have.

Q. You've been on "Larry King Live" discussing whether or not Phil
Vannatter lied in the search warrant, have you not?

A. I hope so, yes.

Q. Many times, right?

A. Many. The more that I could get, the happier I would be.

Q. And now -- so you went to -- from 875 South Bundy to Parker Center
to interrogate O.J. Simpson, right?

A. I did.

Q. And that interrogation started around 1:35 in the afternoon,
correct? That's what the transcript says. You wouldn't argue with
that?

A. I wouldn't call that an interrogation. I would call that an
interview. There's a difference between an interrogation and an
interview.

Q. Okay.

Let's talk about that for just a second.

As I understand your testimony, sir, you didn't even have a suspicion
that the ex-husband of one of the victims was in any way responsible
for the murder, when you allowed Fuhrman to go over the wall into his
property, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And then he became, in your story, your version of the story, he
became the prime probable suspect when the glove was found at 360
North Rockingham, right?

A. He became, what I would term, a probable cause suspect.

Q. And so you, being an experienced detective, have got O.J. Simpson
down in the interrogation room at Parker Center and you have him
without any lawyers present, true?

A. No.

Q. It certainly isn't your testimony that the recorded statement from
13:35 hours to 14:07 hours on June 13, 1994 was made with lawyers for
Mr. Simpson present, is it, sir?

A. No. Mr. Simpson had counsel prior to that, and he was advised of
his rights and they went to lunch.

Q. So you -- so you had an opportunity to have your probable cause
suspect interrogated by you and your partner, Phil Vannatter, for as
long as you wanted to interrogate him, without anybody objecting to
any questions or instructing Mr. Simpson to answer or not to answer
any questions, true?

A. That's a little misleading once again.

Q. Can you answer that. Just answer it, no.

A. It was not an interrogation. It was an interview. And there's a
difference between the two.

Q. Well, the room you had him in, was it called an interview room?

A. Yes.

Q. And you certainly didn't want to inquire about anything that could
be used against him in the future, you just kind of wanted to
chit-chat with O.J. Simpson because you had two dead people at 875
South Bundy, right?

A. I don't --

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, argument, to form.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You wanted to interrogate O.J. Simpson, record the
statement, and get as much incriminating evidence as you could from
Mr. Simpson between the time that you had to question him, which was
virtually unlimited, true?

A. No, this was not an interrogation. This was an interview. I mean
you have to make that distinction.

With an interrogation, it's an accusatory form of an interview where
you have solid evidence that puts that suspect directly to the crime,
and you confront that suspect with that.

In an interview, it's more of an investigative process where you
attempt to glean inconsistencies.

That's what this was. Because we had no evidence, we had no blood back
or anything else that we could solidly connect to this suspect and
confront him with it.

Q. You wanted to get every bit of evidence you could out of O.J.
Simpson so you could find any inconsistencies?

A. We were certainly looking for inconsistencies, that's correct.

Q. So you didn't have any evidence that you thought was incriminating,
is that your testimony?

A. No, not at all.

Q. All right.

A. We had circumstantial evidence that we discussed with him. This
certainly -- it wasn't made to him at that time. We had blood evidence
we were interested in.

Q. Now, you were not told by his lawyers there was any time
limitations on your right to question Mr. Simpson, true?

A. No, I don't recall that.

Q. You felt when you walked into the interview room with Mr. Simpson,
that you could interview him as long as you felt was necessary,
correct?

A. Certainly.

Q. You were aware that Mr. Simpson volunteered to give you his answers
to any questions you asked, true?

A. I don't know if he'd give me the answers to any questions that I
asked.

Q. And all the questions in the minutes that you were in there, did
Mr. Simpson ever indicate to you he wouldn't answer a question?

A. He skirted around quite a few.

Q. Oh, so it's your version that he skirted around quite a few, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you -- like you're doing?

A. Is that a question?

Q. I guess it's a statement.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection to Mr. Baker's statement. Move to strike.

THE COURT: Let's get on with the witness.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you had the right, just as I have the right
here, to ask another question if you didn't feel that your question
was answered, true?

A. No, because Mr. Simpson could have invoked at any time, said I
refuse to speak to you anymore, and walk out of here. I don't think I
can do that.

Q. I hope not.

Now, you and your partner, Vannatter, questioned O.J. Simpson for
what, 35 minutes?

A. Something like that.

Q. And your primary concern was to get information out of him you
could use later against him, and that's why you read him the Miranda
rights, true?

A. We were required to read Miranda under those circumstances. My
primary concern was getting evidence back.

Q. And so you asked him about his whereabouts, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you asked him about the cut on his finger, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you told him that -- you and your partner, Vannatter, told him
he had blood all over the place, and it was a real problem, didn't
you?

A. I believe Vannatter mentioned that there was blood on the Bronco,
blood at his house, and they had a problem with it.

Q. He immediately said, give me a blood test, didn't he?

A. No.

Q. Let me read to you. Maybe this will refresh your recollection.

MR. PETROCELLI: Where are you reading from?

MR. BAKER: Page 22, line 19.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) (Reading:) Q. We've got some blood on

and in your car. We've got some blood

at your house. And it's sort of a

problem. Mr. Simpson: Well, take my blood

test and we'll see.

He immediately, on you telling him that there was blood on and in his
car, and some blood in his house, said, give me a blood test, didn't
he?

A. No. That I never seen or -- you just read it and it does not say,
give me a blood test.

I'd like to see that for myself.

Q. You think I misrepresented to you, Mr. Lange?

A. Stranger things have happened.

Q. Well, they have here.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, could the witness's attention be
directed also to page 16 with reference --

MR. BAKER: Mr. Medvene, why don't you let me do the examination.
You'll have your chance. Fair enough?

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court --

THE COURT: Excuse me. This is his examination. You want to examine
him, you can examine him after he examines him, okay.

A. Does not say, give me a blood test. It does say, well, we'll take
my blood test and we will see.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, didn't you think, Mr. Lange, that O.J. Simpson
was telling you that, I will submit to a blood test?

A. Yes.

Q. Didn't you think when you talked about -- well, strike that.

You have gone on various shows and you have demeaned Mr. Simpson by
saying that he never asked about what happened, have you not, sir?

A. I don't know about demeaning Mr. Simpson, but I probably did make
reference to that, because it's absolutely true.

Q. Would you -- you can go ahead and read what the transcript says
about Mr. Simpson requesting to know from you guys what happened, and
why don't you read down to "you wouldn't tell."

(Pause for witness to read portion of transcript.)

A. He didn't tell me to -- ask us to tell him anything. He says we
haven't told him anything. He doesn't make any requests.

Q. Okay.

"Every time I ask you guys, you say you're going to tell me in a bit."

That's what he says, correct?

A. I don't recall him ever asking me anything about any of this case.

Q. That's what he says, isn't it: "Every time I ask you guys, you say
you're going to tell me in a bit." Correct?

A. That's what is says.

Q. And that's what he said, because this is your transcript from the
D.A.'s office, isn't that true?

A. That's what he said at that time. But he did not request any
specifics about what happened.

Q. Well, your response then, "We don't know a lot of answers to those
questions yet ourself, O.J.," he'd certainly asked some questions, or
the response would be -- wouldn't be, "We don't know a lot of answers
to those questions yet ourself, O.J"; you would agree with that?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. Okay.

So as I understand it, first time you ever met O.J. Simpson was on the
afternoon of June 13, before this interview, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were with him about how long before you started this
interview?

A. I wasn't with him the entire time. I spoke with his attorney there,
Weitzman, for a short period of time.

Q. Maybe you don't understand my question, sir.

I didn't ask you about speaking with Mr. Weitzman, and I didn't ask
you where you were.

I said how long were you with him before you started the interview.
Can you answer that, sir?

A. Perhaps a few minutes.

Q. So you were with him a few minutes before the interview started,
and you never talked to this man, ever, before that time, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Then you were with him for the 35 minutes or so of your interview,
and he says, "You guys haven't told me anything, every time I ask you
guys, you tell me you're going to tell me in a bit."

And you say across this country, on every nationwide television show
you can get your mug on, that he has never asked about his kids or
anything about how the murders happened, isn't that true, sir?

A. That's exactly true and that is the truth.

Q. And of course he was with Vannatter and had to have asked Vannatter
or you guys would have jumped all over him, wouldn't you? You would
have said you never asked us a question about how the murders
happened, you would have corrected him, wouldn't you?

A. No, not in that particular case.

Q. No, you wouldn't, you'd just go on TV and talk about how Mr.
Simpson is such a bad guy because he never asked about the murders,
when you saw him a few minutes before a 35-minute interview, right?

A. No.

Q. And the reason you did that is because now you got a book deal for
$110,000; isn't that true?

A. Yes.

Q. Making money off of it, right, making money off of demeaning O.J.
Simpson, right?

A. Not at all. We've been vilified to unbelievable extremes in this
case. And it's about time we stood up and replied. We've been lied
about.

Q. You've been standing up at every television show you can, haven't
you?

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. The witness was giving an answer. Mr. Baker
interrupted him.

MR. BAKER: It's nonresponsive.

A. And I will continue to do that.

THE COURT: Just a minute.

I'm going to let it stand because the witness's response is in
response to a question and there was no objection to the question.

MR. MEDVENE: We're not objecting. We're just saying he hadn't finished
his answer, Your Honor.

MR. BAKER: I don't have anything further of this witness.

THE CLERK: For the record, that exhibit is 2057, not 2038.

MR. BAKER: I do have one thing, a whole area that I got -- oh, pardon
me.

THE COURT: Mr. Baker, just a minute.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) After you finished your 35 minutes, you went and had
Mr. Simpson photographed, right?

A. I don't know if we got his blood first or the photos -- I believe
it was the photograph, yes.

Q. At the time you took him to be photographed there at Parker Center,
you were aware of the following: One, that you had two people dead at
875 South Bundy, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were aware that those two people who had perished at 875
South Bundy were murdered with a sharp object, correct?

A. Apparently, yes.

Q. And you were aware that O.J. Simpson had a cut on his left middle
finger, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you wanted to have that cut photographed, did you not?

A. I did.

Q. And of course you wanted to have any other cut or cuts
photographed, too, didn't you?

A. If I would have observed other cuts, certainly.

Q. You told Mr. Simpson how you wanted the photograph posed for that
so that you'd get the cut fully photographed, correct?

A. Actually, I believe the photographer did that.

Q. Well, it's after you directed him as to where the cut was and what
you wanted photographed, correct?

A. Well, I explained to the photographer that we in fact wanted --
actually, there's two cuts, by the way, on that finger. We wanted him
to take a photograph of the finger, and he as a consequence of that,
directed it.

Q. And I assume, sir, that you as a detective with many years
experience, wanted to and did inspect O.J. Simpson's hands, correct?

A. I looked at his hands. I certainly didn't look at them under any
kind of high intensity lighting. I didn't look -- lift them up or
anything else, but I looked at them.

Q. And I take it you asked him to spread his fingers to look at the
palmar, dorsal aspects of his hands, right?

A. I don't recall doing that.

Q. Well, I take it that you wanted to see whether there was more cuts
than this one cut on the outside of the middle knuckle, wouldn't you,
Detective Lange?

A. Well, I saw two cuts, and that was my focus. I did look at his
hands. Again, I didn't examine them under any high intensity lighting.
I didn't peel his finger back, I didn't check the creases of his
hands. I did look at the two cuts.

Q. I take it you looked at his adjoining fingers, did you not.

A. His adjoining fingers?

Q. Well, the ring finger is directly adjacent to the middle finger, is
it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And you looked at the entire hand, did you not? I mean you couldn't
avoid it, it's kind of in your field of vision?

A. Not necessarily. When you have creases and hair on his hand and
all, I think one would have to really take a close look before you
could see, perhaps, some cuts. And again, I did a cursory -- what I
would call a cursory examination. I did not peel back his fingers and
check the creases of his hands.

Q. Well, let's see if I got this right.

You looked at the glove, didn't look close enough to see if there was
any blood or blood trail, right? This is Rockingham. True?

A. Yeah. It was not my concern at the time.

Q. You looked at the -- and you didn't look around the area to see
shrubbery or anything else?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: I take it you're going to ask a question.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) As a detective, I take it that you have, like most
of us, a field of vision, that is there's certain things that you can
see. If I put my hand in front of you, I take it that you could tell
whether or not I had a cut on the -- well, let's just say the interior
aspect of my fourth finger. Can you see that right where my hand was?

A. If I was looking for it, I might, sure.

Q. Even if you weren't looking for it, with my hand sitting like this,
you'd have to see it if it was right there, by the lower knuckle,
wouldn't you?

(Mr. Baker places his own hand on witness stand, palm down.)

A. It would depend on lighting, it would depend on how you had your
hand, it would depend on whether you had your fingers together or
spread.

MR. BAKER: Phil, we got that picture of the cut. Yeah. Let's show
that.

MR. P. BAKER: This is photograph 715.

(Photograph 715 is displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That's a cut on Mr. Simpson's fourth finger, sir.

That picture was taken on the 15th of June, 1994.

Now, that cut would be, if his hands were spread, what, a quarter of
an inch away, maybe a half an inch away, from the cut on the middle
finger of his left hand?

A. Is there a question?

Q. Yeah.

A. What was the question?

Q. That cut that is depicted on the fourth finger of Mr. Simpson's
hand on a photograph taken June 15, and looking at Mr. Simpson's hand,
did he just hold his hand as I'm holding mine, just in the area I'm
holding mine, that cut would have been, what, a quarter, a half an
inch away from the cut on the middle finger knuckle of his left hand?

A. I suppose, depending on the positioning of the fingers, sure.

Q. And I'm sure that you, being a good detective of 20 years, you had
him at least spread his hands so you could see if he had any
additional cuts, right?

A. I recall me looking at his hands. I don't recall him specifically
spreading them out for me. I don't recall pulling his fingers back and
looking in there. I gave them a cursory examination.

Q. So you did look at them?

A. Yes.

Q. All right.

And you didn't see the cut that's depicted in --

MR. BAKER: What's the photo?

MR. P. BAKER: 715.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) -- in 715, correct?

A. I don't recall seeing that cut.

Q. And of course, if you'd seen that cut, sir, you'd have taken a
picture of it, wouldn't you?

A. I would say yes.

Q. If you saw this, whatever this gouge mark is, or this
discoloration, or cut, or abrasion, or whatever that is, if you saw
that, you obviously would have taken a picture, had the photographer
take a picture of that, true?

A. Have to get a better look at that. There -- was the hands . . .

MR. BAKER: Zoom in on that.

(Indicating to Elmo.)

A. Yeah. There appear to be other discolorations across the hands and
the knuckles, appear to be.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) If you saw any discoloration that looked like a cut,
you'd have directed the photographer to take a picture of it so you
would have had evidence preserved, true or untrue, Mr. Lange?

A. Certainly.

Q. All right.

And the only picture that you directed the photographer to take is
this picture, correct?

MR. P. BAKER: 172.

(Exhibit 172 displayed.)

A. I did.

Q. And the cut that you were interested in was this cut on his
knuckle, at the middle knuckle of his middle finger, right?

A. I believe there are two cuts on there, and yes, I was interested.

Q. Are you saying that there is a cut in the area where my finger is
which would be above the -- about five -- between five and five and a
quarter on the ruler?

A. I think there was an additional cut in that area.

Q. Show it to us. There's a pointer there, if you'd like.

(Witness approaches Elmo screen.)

A. This is pretty grainy. If I could see a photograph or something.
Seems to me there was a photograph that depicts the cuts.

(Mr. Baker approaches the witness with an actual copy of a photo.)

A. I think there was another cut down in there, in the first knuckle
area. Seems to me there's another cut down in this area.

Q. Now, when you say down in this area -- let's do it by the ruler.

THE COURT: No, it's not that. It's the jury is just looking at your
backs.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, you want to --

MR. PETROCELLI: Want to try this picture, Mr. Baker?

MR. P. BAKER: Here is a better photo.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You want to circle the area you say is a cut.

MR. PETROCELLI: Want to try this picture?

MR. BAKER: No.

MR. PETROCELLI: Little more clear, same day.

This one also.

(Mr. Petrocelli hands Exhibits 171 and 172 to Mr. Baker.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You want to circle on that where you say the cut is.

Do you want to look at these before you make your decision where the
cut is.

MR. PETROCELLI: What's the exhibit numbers?

MR. FOSTER: 171, 172.

A. These two areas I'm circling here.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Okay.

A. This doesn't catch too well.

Q. Now, you've circled one area down by the distal joint of the middle
finger, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And is the cut going parallel or approximately parallel to the
ruler; is that where you believe the cut is?

A. It's kind of difficult to see because of the creases in the skin,
but it appears to be partially parallel.

THE COURT: Mr. Baker, why don't you blow up that one on the screen.

MR. BAKER: All right. I'll be happy to.

THE REPORTER: What number is that, that he marked?

MR. BAKER: This is --

MR. P. BAKER: We have --

THE COURT: This is the one we marked.

MR. P. BAKER: We are to mark it with a new number now that it's
marked.

THE COURT: That's fine.

THE CLERK: 2259.

(The instrument herein described as a photograph of Mr. Simpson's hand
with circle drawn by Mr. Lange was marked for identification as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 2259.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Is this line here, is that what you say is a cut?

A. I think it's down in this area, it's a little tough to tell with
the creases of the skin.

Q. Is it this area right here?

A. I think it is.

Q. That would be about -- above 4 and 7/8 and going from -- in an
upward direction above the ruler, correct?

A. That's where that area is, yes. Yes.

MR. BAKER: You want to zero in.

Let's just show this photo. Zero in on that. See if we can see if
there's any cut there whatsoever.

THE COURT REPORTER: What are we displaying, please?

MR. P. BAKER: This is back to 172.

MR. BAKER: Now, blow that up.

(Indicating to Elmo.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In your opinion it's a cut or dried blood?

A. Seems to me there was a cut in that area.

Q. Is it your opinion that's a cut or just dried blood?

A. Seems to me there was a cut in that area.

Q. You're telling this jury, by looking at that photo, you think
that's a cut, sir?

A. There was one in that area. This has been two and a half years.
That's my recollection, yes.

Q. Sir, that was the photo taken, sir, pursuant to your directions on
the 13th, is it not, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. And I take it that you probably agree with me to the extent that
the photo -- what's depicted in the photo is more accurate than your
memory of what occurred, true?

A. In this regard, certainly.

Q. Yes. In this regard, do you agree with that?

A. Certainly.

Q. And is it your testimony, are you telling the ladies and gentlemen
of this jury, that what you visualize in the area that we've now blown
up at about 4 and 7/8 on the ruler is a cut or isn't a cut?

A. I believe that's some type of nick. I believe it is a nick. I
believe it's some type of an injury, yes.

Q. And that nick --

MR. BAKER: Back it off, Phil. Please put the other with the circles on
it.

MR. P. BAKER: 2259.

(Exhibit 2259 displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That purported nick and this cut are all of the
cuts, abrasions, nicks, scratches, or anything else you saw on Mr.
Simpson's hand, hands on June 13, 1994, true?

A. Yes.

MR. BAKER: Nothing further.

THE CLERK: I believe we had two photographs that were marked with
Detective Lange, correct?

THE COURT: No, just one.

THE CLERK: Just one.

MR. P. BAKER: 2259.

THE COURT: What did he mark?

MR. P. BAKER: We marked 172 as 2259.

THE COURT: After it was marked?

MR. P. BAKER: Right.

MR. BAKER: We can substitute another 172.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. MEDVENE: I'll put on the monitor, 715.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE:

Q. Mr. Lange, can you tell us, if you can, identify the cut that you
were just referring to when you talked to Mr. Baker?

A. Right here.

Q. Okay. And your --

MR. BAKER: That photo was taken June 15?

THE COURT: What?

MR. PETROCELLI: June 15, right.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And can you identify where it is just for the
record?

A. Well, it's on the left hand middle finger, what I call the first
joint towards the tip of the middle finger. Excuse me.

Q. Thank you. You can take it down now.

That day, on the 13th, did you ever hold Mr. Simpson's hands in yours
and inspect his left hand?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever ask him to spread his fingers so that you'd be able to
observe whether or not there were any scrapes, or nicks, or cuts
between his third and fourth finger on his left hand?

A. I don't recall doing that.

Q. Was your primary emphasis on the middle finger, and the left hand
where there was a band-aid on the finger?

MR. BAKER: Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Where was your primary focus?

A. Middle finger of the left hand.

Q. Why was that?

A. Because I observed what appeared to be fresh injuries to it.

Q. Now, you were asked earlier about a portion of the interview with
Mr. Simpson where he said in part, you guys have not told me anything,
and you told Mr. Baker in substance that --

MR. BAKER: Well, I would object to him summarizing what the testimony
is. That's argumentative, Your Honor. He can just ask him the
question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. And you said in substance that there were specifics that Mr.
Simpson had not asked you. That's the area I wanted to talk to you
about.

Had you spoken to --

MR. BAKER: Well, I object that that question assumes facts not in
evidence. He didn't say there were specifics Mr. Simpson hadn't asked
him.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Had you spoken to Mr. Simpson, among other times,
on the telephone from the Rockingham house in the early morning hours
of June 13?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mr. Simpson, to the best of your knowledge, at the time was
where?

A. In Chicago.

Q. And that was the first time you spoke with him?

A. Yes.

Q. What did he not ask you about, among other things, with respect to
--

(Mr. Baker raised his hand.)

THE COURT: Sustained.

(Laughter.)

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did Mr. Simpson ask you at that time how his wife
was killed?

MR. BAKER: I object to him leading.

THE COURT: You may ask leading questions. It's objectionable to ask,
"what did he ask you?"

MR. BAKER: All right. Understood.

A. No.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did Mr. Simpson ask you any details of how his
wife was killed?

A. No.

Q. Did Mr. Simpson ask you where the murders took place?

A. No.

Q. Did Mr. Simpson ask you how she was killed?

A. No.

Q. Did Mr. Simpson ask you what weapon was used?

A. No.

Q. Did Mr. Simpson ask you any of the questions, that in your
experience, are ordinarily asked of a homicide investigator, when
there's a report of the death of a close one that's related?

A. No.

Q. Did Mr. Simpson ask you, for example, how do you know that it was
his wife?

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object. This is argumentative in the sense
that --

THE COURT: I think you went through it once. All right. I'll sustain
the objection unless . . .

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, there was also some questions by Mr. Baker
about during the interview, about blood, and whether Mr. Simpson
immediately had volunteered to have a blood test.

Earlier in your discussion with Mr. Simpson, prior to the portion Mr.
Baker had read you, had you discussed the fact with him that various
blood was found at Rockingham?

A. I believe so.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did Mr. Simpson volunteer to take a blood test?

MR. BAKER: Mr. Medvene, I object to this. He's asking him to recall
what is in this. Let's go to the actual document, not his leading
question about what he believes was asked at the interview.

(Pause.)

THE COURT: I'm confused by the questions.

MR. MEDVENE: Let me do what Mr. Baker had suggested. With Your Honor's
permission, let's go to the specific interview.

THE COURT: And which interview are you talking about?

MR. MEDVENE: On June the 13th, when Mr. Simpson was speaking with
Detectives Lange and Vannatter.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did Mr. Simpson say -- and I direct you to page
15, line 24. (Reading:)

I recall bleeding at my house,

and then I went to the Bronco. The last

thing before I did before I left, when I

was rushing was went and got my phone

out of the Bronco.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Do you recall Mr. Simpson telling you that?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he volunteer for any blood test at that time?

A. No.

Q. Do you recall --

MR. BAKER: You want to read the question from now on, so it appears
that Mr. Simpson is in fact answering their question.

MR. MEDVENE: Let me read from page 15 to accommodate Mr. Baker,
starting at line 22, I'll read through 26.

(Reading:) Q. That's okay. Do you

recall bleeding at all in the -- in your

truck, in the Bronco. Mr. Simpson: I recall bleeding

at my house, and then I went to the

Bronco. The last thing I did before I

left, I was rushing, was went and got my

phone out of the Bronco.

MR. MEDVENE: I direct you now, Mr. Baker, to page 16, line 11.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you or Mr. Vannatter say to Mr. Simpson:
(Reading:)

So do you recall bleeding at all?

Q. And Mr. Simpson said: (Reading:)

Yeah, I mean I -- I knew I was

bleeding, but it was no big deal, I

bleed all the time. I mean it's -- I'm

always -- I play golf and stuff so

there's always something, nicks and

stuff.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Do you remember that being asked of Mr. Simpson,
and Mr. Simpson giving you that answer?

A. Yes.

Q. And did he volunteer to give any blood at that time?

A. No.

Q. During the interview, before Mr. Simpson said whatever he said, did
you make reference to your recollection to any blood of Mr. Simpson's
being found at the Bundy location?

A. No.

MR. BAKER: I object to the question as vague, before he said whatever
he said.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Before -- later in the interview, when Mr. Simpson
said what Mr. Baker made reference to, about volunteering to give
blood, did you tell Mr. Simpson that his blood had been found at
Bundy?

A. No.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object to that question. Move to strike.
There's no foundation they knew his blood had ever been found at Bundy
when they interviewed him.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, you were also asked some questions, this
morning I believe, about the crime scene at Rockingham, and you
mentioned the crime scene at Rockingham, in effect, was not your
responsibility.

What did you mean by that?

A. I was to investigate the Bundy crime scene, and Vannatter would be
in charge of the Rockingham crime scene.

Q. Yesterday, Mr. Baker showed you something that he said might be a
shoe print and you were unable to identify it as a shoe print.

Why is that?

A. Well, I just -- I looked at it. I can't say that it's any kind of a
shoe print. I mean to me, if that were a shoe print, there would be
others around there.

I mean there's just the one pattern there referring to if in fact that
was a shoe print, you'd expect to find other shoe prints around it
because of the large amount of blood.

Q. Well, were there any other bloody shapes of any kind that were
going east on Bundy?

A. No.

Q. Is it true while there were no other bloody shapes that appeared to
be shoe prints going east on Bundy, you did observe certain paw prints
and blood?

A. There appeared to be animal paw prints, yes.

Q. Now, there was also a question yesterday regarding your ability to
reconstruct the murder in terms of who was attacked first, and who
died first; that series of questions.

Are you able, not having been present, to give any definite opinion as
to who was attacked first, or who died first, or who necessarily was
standing where?

A. I don't think there was anyway I can do that.

Q. And why is that?

A. Well, as you mentioned, part of it is I wasn't there. It was --- as
the investigator all I can do is go by the physical evidence at the
crime scene, and looking at that crime scene there are probably three
or four possible scenarios.

Q. Now, as a result of the fact that it's not possible to reconstruct
exactly what happened with respect to the two murders, is there any
evidence, to your knowledge, to indicate a second suspect?

A. No.

Q. And why do you say that?

A. I have one set of bloody shoe prints at the crime scene. The
victims were killed in a similar fashion, the wounds are similar.
There appears, in my mind, to be a common murder weapon because of the
mixture of blood found at the scene at the bottom of Mr. Goldman's
boot. There's just absolutely no evidence of a second suspect.

Q. What does that tell you -- by the way, when you say a common
weapon, why do you say that? By common weapon you mean used by one
person?

A. One weapon used by one person on both victims. Because of a mixture
of blood found on the boot, the form of a blood droplet, perhaps a
cast off, what I would term a common murder weapon that had the blood
of both victims on it.

MR. MEDVENE: I have nothing further. Thank you.

REDIRECT EXAMINATON BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Let me ask you this. You say you talked to O.J. Simpson from
Rockingham?

A. Yes.

Q. I thought you just testified the first time you talked to him was
five minutes before you started the interview at Parker Center?

A. In person.

Q. Oh, you just meant in person when you answered that question?

A. Well, that was the impression I got from you when you asked that
question.

Q. I asked the question, sir, have you ever talked to O.J. Simpson
before you were at Parker Center, and you answered that question, did
you not, in the negative?

A. I was under the impression that you meant face to face, in person.

Q. Did you ever talk to --

A. If I gave you the wrong impression, I did, I'm sorry.

Q. Did you ever talk to -- you mean in person?

A. It did when you mentioned that, yes.

Q. So it was -- you just failed to admit, you just omitted this
purported conversation you say you had with O.J. Simpson from the
Rockingham house?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you omit it or did you not?

A. I was just reminded of that conversation I had with Mr. Simpson
when Mr. Medvene brought it up. At that time I didn't recall it. I
thought you were alluding to an in-person type interview.

Q. You went out and talked to Mr. Medvene, and were reminded of a
conversation you now say you had with Mr. Simpson on June 13, 1994,
over the telephone, rights?

A. When he just asked that question, yes.

Q. And just -- there had been no, of course, communication with you
before he would have had to -- Strike that.

Just his questions just kind of brought it to your mind, right?

A. Refreshed my memory of the fact that I did indeed have a telephonic
conversation.

Q. And his other questions just refreshed your memory as to what Mr.
Simpson didn't ask, right?

A. I'm aware of what he didn't ask.

Q. Let me ask you this question:

Mr. Simpson called Rockingham and called Bundy from the airplane
multiple times; you're aware of that?

A. I'm aware.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, outside the scope of our examination.

THE COURT: Overruled?

A. I'm aware of the one call to Rockingham because I took it.

Q. Well, you were aware he talked to Phillips from Rockingham before
you ever talked to him, if you ever did?

A. Oh, I did. Phillips --

Q. You were aware of a phone call from Phillips, were you not?

A. Phillips called Simpson. Simpson didn't call Phillips.

Q. You were aware that Simpson called Rockingham at least three or
four more times that morning while he was on an airplane trying to get
back to his house, and to the murder scene of his ex-wife, correct?

A. He may have.

Q. And he called Bundy three or four more times trying to get
information relative to what had happened, and what had occurred, and
talked to police officers who picked up the phone at Bundy?

You're aware of that, are you not?

A. I don't recall that.

Q. Well, before you go on national television and excoriated Mr.
Simpson for not having inquired about what you thought was
appropriate, you'd sure want to find out who he talked to besides you,
wouldn't you, or do you just want to be one-sided?

A. No. I was probably more concerned with what Mr. Simpson asked me as
his interviewer, and my partner and this -- now that you brought it
up, none of those questions were asked.

Q. Now, you -- You say that you can't reconstruct the murder scene at
875 South Bundy, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. But you can reconstruct it enough, when Mr. Medvene asks you
questions, to determine that there is, in your view, a single murder
weapon, right?

A. I can interpret the evidence that I see at the scene. That doesn't
extend itself to knowing exactly what happened, how it happened, and
when it happened.

MR. BAKER: Get the board.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And we'll start talking about the -- the evidence at
the scene, Mr. Lange.

Now, at the scene there was, you say, a drop, or was it multiple
drops, or was it multiple smears and stains on -- of combined blood of
Nicole and Ron Goldman?

A. I was alluding to one drop which was a mixture of blood of Mr.
Goldman and Ms. Brown on the boot -- sole of the boot of Mr. Goldman.

Q. Now, was there, in your opinion, in your reconstruction slant
unreconstruction, did the bodies of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown
Simpson ever touch?

A. I'm sorry. You had your hand in front.

Did they touch?

Q. Sure. Did she ever -- they ever come in contact?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, previously asked and answered, outside the
copy of examination.

MR. BAKER: I think he opened this whole area up on reconstruction.

MR. MEDVENE: We just followed up.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I don't know if they touched or not.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, you certainly didn't know, except from hearsay
information, whether or not a blood drop on the boot of Mr. Goldman
contains Nicole Brown Simpson's blood and Ron Goldman's blood, true?

A. I was made aware of that, obviously, subsequent to that
investigation, yes.

Q. And I take it that in terms of your reconstruction, you'd want to
get all of the serology results, not just one single drop of blood,
wouldn't you?

A. Well, it would depend on what you're looking for, certainly.

Q. We're looking for a reconstruction so that you can come into court,
under penalty of perjury, and tell this jury that you believe there's
one assailant because of a single drop of blood.

And that is the single drop of blood that is where? Why don't you come
over on the sole of Mr. Goldman's boot and point it out to us.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. That misstates his testimony, Your Honor, one
set of bloody footprints and a number of other things --

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Show us the blood that had blood drops --

THE COURT: Just a minute. Objection sustained.

With regard to the rest of it, you may go to the board and show where
the blood you referred to in your last answer is.

MR. P. BAKER: That's board 1342.

(Exhibit 1342 displayed.)

A. Referring to this blood drop here on the sole of the left boot.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury the
position of that boot when the blood drop was dropped on it?

A. I would have no idea, not being there.

Q. Well, don't you do any accident or murder reconstruction?

A. To that extent, no.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. Not to that extent, no.

Q. Well, you described it as a blood drop, correct?

A. Blood drop, perhaps in the form of a cast off of a common murder
weapon.

Q. A blood drop and a cast off are not the same, are they?

A. In the form of a cast off, Counselor.

Q. You said there was a blood drop, and that gave you the impression
that there was a single weapon used, true?

A. I believe I mentioned in the form of a cast off. That -- I would
term that a blood drop, fine.

Q. You think this is a blood drop, correct?

A. To me a blood drop in the form of a cast off, correct.

Q. A cast off is a description that criminalists use to determine --
depict blood that has been flung from something, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you know whether his boot was up, down, sideways, how it was
when this blood drop dropped?

A. No, I couldn't.

Q. Now, did you in the sense of -- did you know that there were blood
transfers between the clothing of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron
Goldman?

Apparently you didn't know from the look on your face?

A. Transfers?

Q. Blood transfers from clothing of Nicole Brown Simpson to Ron
Goldman.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, assumes facts, Your Honor.

THE COURT: What's the question. Overruled.

A. I don't know of any transfers of clothing, no.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, do you know that Ron Goldman's blood was found
on the clothing of Nicole --

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You want to come here.

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

MR. PETROCELLI: The --

THE COURT: In as much as this portion of the testimony was a long time
ago, there's an objection raised as to whether or not that is an item
that was not in evidence.

MR. BLASIER: It was -- it was Renee Montgomery's testimony where it
had the charts about the number of stains, transfers.

THE COURT: Who is Renee?

MR. BLASIER: She was from the Department of Justice. Renee Montgomery.
And she testified about 23 stains, 13 from Goldman to Brown, and I
think 6 the other way. Something -- I had the exact -- I don't have
the exact numbers. That was her testimony. There was blood from each
victim on the other person's clothing.

MR. PETROCELLI: She never testified there was transfer between the
victims. I have questions about the accuracy of that representation.
I'd have to go back and check the testimony, but if he just rephrases
his testimony (sic) instead of assumes it is a fact, just ask whether
or not he knows something, we can avoid the debate here.

THE COURT: I'm not -- if in fact that is true, he has a right to ask
the question.

MR. PETROCELLI: I don't believe there's any evidence to that effect.
I'll have to check the record at lunch time. I can't probably do it in
the short time we have now.

MR. MEDVENE: In addition to that, Your Honor, it's not relevant to
what the question was on.

THE COURT: You could have stopped when -- but you opened it up, and so
we're going through a whole afternoon of examination apparently.

MR. PETROCELLI: I don't think that's --

MR. BAKER: That's true.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I don't think that's a fair comment at
all. We've been through Bundy extensively in the first examination. We
have a right to do some recross.

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

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, Mr. Lange were you aware that there was -- I
think it was 14 separate stains of Ron Goldman's blood on Nicole Brown
Simpson's, and I believe 6 or 8 stains of Nicole's blood on Ron
Goldman's clothes?

A. It's been sometime since I've reviewed serological reports. It may
well be. I don't recall that.

Q. That was of no significance to you?

A. It would have been of some significance back then certainly, but
again, I haven't seen those possibly in over two years.

Q. It's never mentioned in your follow-up report, is it?

A. I don't think we had those reports -- results when I did my
follow-up report.

Q. Now, if you have a cast off of the blood from a murder weapon, and
the boot is in an upright position as it is depicted here, you would
anticipate that the blood would run down the sole for half an inch,
three-quarter of an inch, right?

(Referring to board entitled "Blood stains from closed in area of
Bundy.")

A. I couldn't say. Not necessarily.

Q. To get a pattern as indicated in the photograph, in the lower
right-hand picture on the board, the boot has to be virtually in an
upright position, that is the sole facing upward, true?

A. The sole facing skyward.

Q. Skyward.

And that's impossible, isn't it?

A. Well, I would think so.

This here does appear to be somewhat elongated. Perhaps it struck as
the boot is there.

Q. So as the boot is there?

A. Only speculation.

Q. In your reconstruction of the murder scene, that boot in a cast off
pattern of a blood drop would only elongate, what, an eighth of an
inch, sixteenth of an inch?

A. I can't say for sure.

Q. Now, in your version of reconstruction, we had blood on the fence
-- that's the north fence, right?

A. Yes.

Q. We had blood pooling by the concrete walk, stone walk, correct?

A. Pooling?

Q. Pooling.

A. Blood drops. I don't know that it's pooling.

Q. Look over here.

Tell the jury, because you were at the scene and inspected the scene,
and you knew where the blood was, that was blood pooling behind --
north of the fence, was it not, sir?

A. Looks like several drops to me. I suppose, once again, we can make
a subjective call, where you would call it pooling and I might call it
drops of blood. I don't --

Q. This is a drop in this area here, and down here is just a couple of
drops?

A. No. I said it appears to be several drops of blood.

Q. This is in fact blood pooling, is it not, sir?

A. I think that's a subjective term.

Q. Well, let's see if we can define it for you.

MR. P. BAKER: This is 2166.

(Exhibit 2166 displayed.)

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I take it you believe that's just a couple of drops,
right?

A. Once again, counselor, I never said it was a couple of drops. I
said it looks to me to be several drops of blood.

Q. Well, how much is several? Is that five or is it 500?

A. I would -- I would have no way of knowing.

Q. Well, you were there and you looked at it.

And this is blood, this is blood, this is blood, this is blood, and
this is blood, all the way over to the stone area, correct?

(Indicating.)

A. Yes.

Q. And obviously, sir, that took some time to be deposited there, did
it not?

A. I don't think I can say that.

If that would be arterial bleeding it could be a couple of seconds.

Q. Now, the area where that blood is in your reconstruction, is behind
where the body of Ron Goldman was found, correct?

A. Behind and north of, yes.

MR. BAKER: I'm sorry to do this, but let's put this photo up.

MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 88.

(Exhibit 88 displayed.)

Q. The area we're looking at is -- see that blood smear behind Mr.
Goldman?

A. Um-hum.

Q. See that blood smear?

(Indicating.)

A. Same blood smear, right.

Q. Appears to be.

(Indicating to board entitled "Blood stains from closed-in area at
Bundy."

MR. BAKER: Take it off, please.

(Indicating to Elmo.)

Q. You were at the autopsy and looked at the autopsy report?

A. I did review it sometime later, yes.

Q. There was no external arterial bleeding at all, was there, from Mr.
Goldman?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Well --

A. There was a lot of blood, I know that.

Q. We've just shown you the picture, sir, showing his back to the area
where that blood pooled, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you know from being at the autopsy, and doing your own
reconstruction, that there was no wound on the back of his neck, and
no wound on the back.

There was a wound in his lower side which was the side that was
pointed upwards at the time that he was found, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And there is no wound on his body that would explain the blood
poolings that I have shown you, isn't that true, unless he was
standing upright and the blood was exiting his -- bleeding from his
neck, down his left side, down his left shoe?

A. Not necessarily. He had quite a bit of bleeding from his leg. There
was obviously a struggle that went on here. The blood could have been
deposited during the time of the struggle. It's -- again, it's
approximately, speculation.

Q. Well, obviously, the blood was deposited during the time of the
struggle, don't you think?

A. That's what I said.

Q. Well, you said could have been.

It's obvious that it, in fact, was deposited at that time, true?

A. I think we can assume that it probably was, in fact, deposited at
the time this occurred, yes.

Q. So at least in your scenario of events, Mr. Goldman was inside the
gate, then he was around on the east fence, and at some point therein
the keys were lost, correct?

A. I don't know if they were lost. There were keys found there, yes.

Q. These keys that are shown in the lower -- center lower picture are
the keys that were left at the crime scene, correct?

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, this whole area was gone into
extensively earlier.

THE COURT: Mr. Medvene, we can do it again.

Mr. Medvene, you asked this witness to reconstruct and state the basis
for his theory and --

MR. MEDVENE: No, we didn't.

THE COURT: Mr. Baker's entitled to cross-examine on that basis.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And these keys had no blood on them at the crime
scene, and had blood on them when they were returned to the owner;
isn't that true?

A. No. I think they were splattered at the crime scene.

Q. You see any blood on those keys whatsoever?

A. I don't think you can see both sides of the keys. I don't think you
can see everything there.

Q. Did you note anywhere in any LAPD document relative to the
investigation of this crime scene that there was blood on those keys,
sir?

A. No. I wouldn't have touched the keys. The criminalist collected
them.

Q. From your review of the documents in this case, have you ever seen
a document that indicates the keys had blood on them?

A. I don't recall seeing that.

Q. The keys were lost and they were underneath some foliage in the
caged or closed-in area, correct?

A. Partially.

Q. And then the struggle continued back to the area where the hole was
dug during the crime scene, during the struggle, correct?

A. I don't know that there's anyway that we can put that into a
sequence.

Q. Well, you said in your opinion, it was probable that it was done
during the -- during the struggle, did you not, sir?

A. Well, during the struggle, certainly. But I'm not going to tell you
that the keys were dropped, and the hole was dug, then the blood was
dropped. I can't tell you that.

Q. Well, so you don't know how the struggle took place, whether the --
the pager that was flung to the north of where the blood pooled, you
don't know what sequence that occurred in?

A. I don't think the evidence gives us that.

I think, as I testified, there are probably three or four scenarios
for the way this could have happened. I can't tell you exactly what
happened and when it happened.

Q. You don't know whether the envelope was dropped with the glasses in
it?

A. I can't tell you when, no.

Q. You don't know if that envelope was handed to Nicole Brown Simpson,
because the LAPD took absolutely no fingerprints off of it?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection.

THE COURT: That's argumentative. Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Was -- Was there any fingerprints taken off the
envelope that was found between the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson --

THE COURT: Sustained.

You know, I'm allowing you some latitude. I'm not going to go back and
redo the whole examination. You have -- you have latitude to examine
with respect to the basis for his theory that he testified to, and Mr.
Medvene's examination.

But beyond that I'm not going to revisit the original examination.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Let's go back to the boot for a minute.

On the boot, did you notice the cut in the same boot where you say the
blood drop was a cast away -- you now say was a cast away drop?

A. Yes, I believe there was a slice in both boots.

Q. Slice in both boots?

A. I believe that's my recollection, yes.

Q. In fact, the LA Police Department -- you never noticed a slice in
both boots until that boot was examined by Henry Lee?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, materiality.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: Is this a good point?

THE COURT: 1:30, ladies and gentlemen.

Don't talk about the case, don't form or express any opinion.

(At 12:00 P.M. a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)


SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11,1996
1:39 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

MR. MEDVENE: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

At the break, Mr. Baker informed me he had no further questions of Mr.
Lange.

We have no questions.

I think, subject to Mr. Baker moving in some exhibits, Mr. Lange's
been released, pursuant to the agreement with Mr. Baker.

MR. BAKER: I got the Court's message.

THE COURT: I didn't send one.

MR. BAKER: Relative to Exhibits 2257, 2258 and 2259.

Thank you.

(The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2257 for
identification, was received in evidence.)

(The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2258 for
identification, was received in evidence.)

(The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2259 for
identification, was received in evidence.)

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, under 767, we recall Susan Brockbank.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I have a standing objection on these city
employees.

THE COURT: You have a standing ruling.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.

And we can treat them, under cross, both ways, then, right?

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.

MR. BAKER: I would object to them treating under cross.

I just place it on the record.

THE COURT: Okay.

SUSAN BROCKBANK was called as a witness on behalf of the defendants
pursuant Evidence Code 767, was previously duly sworn, and testified
further as follows:

THE CLERK: And you are still under oath. And would you please state
your name again, for the record.

THE WITNESS: Susan Brockbank.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Brockbank.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. You are a criminalist with the Polic