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 NOVEMBER 1, 1996 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS, VS. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1996 8:46 A.M. DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (The Court ordered sealed the notes and transcript of proceedings heard in Chambers, pages 2 through 4.) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) THE COURT: Morning. JURORS: Good morning, Your Honor. THE CLERK: You are still under oath. And would you please state your name again for the record. THE WITNESS: Tom Lange, L-A-N-G-E. THOMAS LANGE, the witness on the stand at the time of the adjournment on October 31, 1996, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) BY` MR. BAKER: Q. Good morning, sir. A. Good morning. Q. Now, last night -- last night, after the jury was released and we stayed around to have a hearing with the judge, you stayed and waited for the Goldmans did you not? A. I was more or less waiting for the attorneys. Q. And you walked across the street to the hotel with the Goldmans, did you not? A. I believe they were with us, yes. Q. And then you went up to the suite with the attorneys over at the Doubletree Hotel and spent some time getting prepared for today's testimony, right? A. Yes, we did. Q. How long did you spend last night? A. Fifteen or twenty minutes, I believe. Q. And so, how long did you spend this morning? A. Spend this morning? Q. Yeah, getting ready. You were over there this morning at the hotel, weren't you? A. Yes. We had breakfast together. Obviously, the case was discussed. I would have a problem with "getting ready." I really don't know what you mean by "getting ready." If you mean getting prepared, no. Q. Oh? A. We discussed exhibits that I'd been talking about, certainly. Q. What exhibits did you discuss? A. Mostly exhibits that you've seen yesterday. Q. Now, you definitely would agree that if you have the opportunity, because of your friendship with the Goldmans, you tend to favor the Goldmans in this case, correct? A. Mr. Baker, I do not tend to favor anyone in this case. Q. So your answer to my question is simply no, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, you would never tend to flavor your testimony towards their side because -- well, strike that. How many other victims, next of kin of victims of crimes, did you invite to your retirement party, other than the Goldmans? A. I didn't invite the Goldmans. Q. Oh, they just happened to be there? A. That's their choice, certainly. And they decided to show up, along with 350 other people. Q. I see. Wasn't an intimate affair? A. I'm sorry? Q. Wasn't an intimate affair? A. An intimate affair? I don't think so. Q. All right. Yesterday -- MR. BAKER: Would you put up that -- light up the Elmo, please. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Yesterday, we were talking about the closed-in area, and it was your opinion, sir, that the soil is exceedingly soft, so that the hole that was dug in the middle photograph on the left was possibly done in a very short period of time, correct? A. Well, the soil is loose, and it's certainly possible that it was dug out in a very short period of time. If someone was in there routing around or fighting each other, certainly. Q. And that depression in the dirt there is what, six, eight inches, twelve inches deep? A. Something like that. Q. So there was a lot of dirt being kicked around in that area, true? A. The closed-in area? Well, it depends on what you mean by "a lot of dirt." I think what you see is what you get here in this photograph. Certainly, the only dirt that's disturbed to any extent is that hole. Q. Well, the entire area from the sidewalk, all the way to six feet over to the -- to the fence, that's all dirt, isn't it? A. It's all dirt, but there are trees and stumps around the hole. Q. There's no ground cover? A. No; it's minimal ground cover. You can see what it is in the photograph. Q. So that certainly the boots that Mr. Goldman was wearing got covered with some degree of dirt, true? A. Well, there's dirt on the boots. Q. And that indicated to you that there was a struggle going on in the closed-in area, true? A. Well, that wasn't the only factor. It was pretty evident, though, from everything I had, that that indeed is where the struggle occurred. Q. Okay. And -- (Counsel displays blow-up entitled "Evidence from closed-in area of Bundy.") Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you examined the boots in some detail, did you not, when you were in the closed-in area? A. I looked at them, but I have a hard time with "in some detail." Q. Well, does the picture on the upper left-hand corner, does that indicate to you that that was dirt that was in the exhibit -- MR. BAKER: What's the number? MR. P. BAKER: 1349. (The instrument herein referred to as Board containing photographs of evidence at closed-in area of Bundy crime scene was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1349.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Exhibit 1349, is that dirt you believe to be from the struggle in the closed-in area? A. It appears to be dirt, yes. (Indicating.) Q. There's trace evidence in the middle photograph of the exhibit that's up there, correct? A. That's -- Appears that way, yes. Q. And then there is a cut on the toe, which would appear to be on the right boot, I believe, of Mr. Goldman? A. That's correct. Q. And that wasn't discovered by you until Dr. Lee discovered that, correct? A. No. I observed the cut on the boot, I believe, that morning. Q. Oh, did you? Did you put it in your notes? Maybe I missed it. A. No. Again, as I stated yesterday, there are probably several things that you won't find in the notes. These types of items are later examined in the lab by a criminalist, and that's where I'd rather have these types of things done, rather than have any -- myself speculate at the crime scene as to what it might be. Q. Now, the cut on the boot was a fresh cut, was it not? There was no dirt in that cut, was there? A. Well, again, I didn't at the time. I didn't inspect it that closely. And I'd be uncomfortable with saying whether or not it was fresh or not. Q. Well, did you subsequently learn that it was determined to be without dirt in it? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for hearsay, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In rendering your opinions that you gave relative to -- as co-lead detective on the case, did you become aware that that cut was a fresh cut? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Calls for hearsay; gave no opinions on the direct on that point. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, when you observed that cut, was it in the morning of the 13th of June 1994, did it cross your mind that that was consistent with Mr. Goldman attempting to ward off an attacker with a knife? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: It was consistent. And I believe he was on the ground, perhaps kicking out at his assailant when this occurred. Q. You thought he was possibly on the ground and kicking out at his assailant? A. I certainly believe there's a possibility of that, yes. Q. So that after he had -- well, strike that. It was certainly your view that the encounter started at the area where the cap and glove was, and went around the north -- strike that -- the east fenced area to the north fenced area, and then Mr. Goldman was down and kicking at his assailant? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Compound, outside the scope, and it's also speculative. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I don't think with the evidence we can say exactly where he pointed down to a small area where this began. I think that everything occurred -- occurred within that area. As far as him being down, I think that's very possibly consistent with the dirt, the hole that you alluded to earlier. I think it's just speculation to say exactly where it started. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So you don't have an opinion as to where it commenced, true? A. I don't think anyone can say exactly where it started, no. Q. Mr. Lange, I didn't ask you whether you believe anyone can say. All I'm asking you, sir, respectfully, is: Do you have an opinion? A. It would be the same response. It would go along with me not having an opinion, no. Q. Thank you. A. I don't know who does. MR. BAKER: Well, move to strike the gratuitous remark added to the last part of the answer. THE COURT: Stricken. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Mr. Lange, in your analysis of the evidence that you made on June 13, 1994, that you documented in your notes, you tested to see whether or not the gate could be opened from inside the house, did you not? A. I believe so. Q. That was of significance to you, was it not? A. Well, yes and no. It could be. Down the line, it could be a significant factor. Q. Well, let's go to page 6 of your notes. You indicate: The door release is inoperable, clicks only. And that would be the button that was in the kitchen that was connected to the intercom at the gate area, correct? A. I believe so. Q. The area -- if you look at the monitor -- can we have the diagram? And we have the diagram in the closed-in area in front of 875 South Bundy. The box, the white box to the left of that, has the box within a box, if you will? A. Yes. Q. That's the aerial depiction, is it not, of the area where the intercom comes to the gate area, correct? A. You know I'd have to look at the photograph. I haven't looked at that in a couple of years. Q. Well -- A. The reason I'm uncomfortable is because there's also a mailbox there somewhere. Q. Right. A. That may be the mailbox. Q. Okay. Fair enough. One, there is a mailbox, as well as an area where you have the intercom. That's on a pole, as I recall, is it not? A. Yes. But I don't think it's what you pointed out. I think perhaps you pointed out the mailbox. Q. Okay. In any event, sir -- A. Well, I'm trying to be as accurate as I can. I don't want to point out an intercom if it's a mailbox. Q. In any event, sir as you recall, there is an intercom box at the front of the gated area entering the property, that someone comes up and they can push a button and communicate inside the house, correct? A. Yes, there's an intercom. Q. And that intercom is then inside the condominium; that intercom is connected to the various intercom boxes and the various rooms, true? A. That's correct. Q. And as I recall -- you can correct me if I'm wrong -- there's only one button that will allow somebody to get into the gate. And that was in the kitchen, was it not? A. Yes. Q. You checked and determined that that button was inoperable; it would click, but it would now allow someone to get in the gate, true? A. We couldn't get it to work; that's correct. Q. That indicated to you that, in your being a detective of some 20 years, that Nicole Brown had to come down and open the gate to let Mr. Goldman in, correct? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Speculation, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, did you ever formulate an opinion that, because the gate release was inoperable, that Ms. Brown had to come down and open the gate? MR. MEDVENE: Same objection. Also outside the scope. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Okay. You didn't make -- in terms of your notes, you didn't make any conclusions relative to the door release being inoperable, correct, on June 13, 1994, when you were doing your inspection? A. I don't -- I haven't reviewed that in some time. If you'd like to show it to me... Q. Sure, I'd be happy to. A. I'm a little uncomfortable, again, with things I haven't looked at in months and sometimes years. Q. Right down at the the bottom of page 6, sir. (Witness reviews document.) A. Door release inoperable. Clicks only. Q. Okay. A. If that's what you're referring to, that's what I have. Q. You made no conclusions as to the significance of that when you were doing your crime-scene processing on June 13, 1994, true? MR. MEDVENE: Same objection as previously made, Your Honor: Outside the scope, calls for speculation. THE COURT: Answer yes or no. THE WITNESS: May I have the question again, please. (The reporter read the record as follows:) "Q. You made no conclusions as to the significance of that when you were doing your crime-scene processing on June 13, 1994, true?" Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You came to no conclusion as to the significance of that front gate being inoperable from inside the house after you did your crime-scene processing on June 13, 1994, correct? A. Not necessarily; I had thoughts on it. Q. And were those thoughts that Ms. Brown had to come outside of the condominium, down the steps, and open the gate to allow entry for Mr. Goldman in? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Speculation, outside the scope, Your Honor; asked and answered previously. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I thought that was a possibility, certainly. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, you certainly had evidence that the gate didn't open, and you had two victims' bodies inside the gated area, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. Didn't that then become a logical conclusion, that she was down there and opened the gate, before either of the two people were attacked? A. Well, again, it's a possibility, Mr. Baker, but we can't say for sure because there are other factors. Electronic releases, some gates can stay open and just be leaning against the lock, allowing someone to open them. This particular gate also had an inside dog latch that one would have to reach over the top and release from the inside to enter. So there are other factors. What you -- the scenario that you gave is a possibility. But I don't think we can say with -- for sure. Q. Well, in terms of having both of the people just inside the gated area, and an area that is approximately -- from the gate to where the body of Nicole Brown was found was three feet? A. Something like that, yes. Q. And from the head of Nicole Brown to the feet of Mr. Goldman was only two feet, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And so they were both in a very closed-in area, correct? A. That's correct. That's correct. Q. In that closed-in area, Mr. Lange, there was evidence of -- there was evidence of a violent struggle, correct? A. I would certainly call it a violent struggle, yes. Q. Now, in that closed-in area -- and evidence of the violent struggle included the pager of Mr. Goldman, which was to the north and actually outside of the fenced area depicted by this little area here, right? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. I don't know if you can see this, sir. A. I'll get up, if you like. (Indicating.) Q. This is the pager, is it not, on the outside of the fence that is on the north portion of the fence? A. That's correct. Q. All right. And you can see them a little clearer down here? A. Yeah. (Indicating to photo on board marked "Blood stains from closed-in area at Bundy.") Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And Mr. Goldman's pants had pockets in them, correct? A. Yes. Q. And his pager was possibly, or maybe attached to a belt or something? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for speculation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The keys were found basically at the feet of Mr. Goldman, correct? A. In the general vicinity, yes. Q. And the keys are indicated in, I believe -- and I apologize because it's under these leaves in this photo, the middle photo of -- MR. BAKER: What's this board, Phil? MR. P. BAKER: That is 1342. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Lower middle photo of 1342, those are the keys, and they were found approximately at his feet, correct? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. All right. And the hat and the glove were found in basically the same location, right at the entranceway where the gate is, correct? A. Well, just inside the gate, yes. Q. And the then the keys and the pager were scattered throughout the area. In other words, they -- the pager went all the way to the north, six feet away from where the hat and the glove were found? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Speculative, vague, scattered all over the area. THE COURT: Speculative. Overruled. THE WITNESS: I would have a problem with the phraseology, scattered all over the area. You were referring to two items. The keys were in close proximity to the glove. And the cap, the pager was, indeed, I believe, about two feet beyond Mr. Goldman. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, the glove and hat were under the vegetation, correct? A. Partially. There were a couple of leaves over the top of them. Q. And the cap was actually partially under the fence, correct? A. I'd have to take a look. I mean, it's a possibility that a little bit might have been under the rung, sure. Q. Under the horizontal bar? A. Yeah, the lower rung. MR. P. BAKER: That's number 40. (indicating to screen.) THE WITNESS: That -- there is a small portion that appears to be below the lower rung. Q. In that photo, is somebody lifting up the foliage, or can you tell? MR. MEDVENE: Lack of foundation, Your Honor. MR. BAKER: Put that photo with 102 up there, Phil, please, the one marked 102. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That's the way the leaves were when you looked at them, correct? A. Yes. Q. And the hat was underneath the leaves, as well as partially underneath the horizontal member of the fence, right? A. Partially, yes. Q. As you indicated, that area is really very, very loose dirt, right? A. It's much looser to the rear is what I alluded to. This is possibly a little more packed in this area, but there is loose dirt. (Indicating.) Q. And did you ever pick that cap up and drop it six or nine feet on the plants to see if it would go underneath the leaves on the plants, or would have to be kicked underneath? A. I never touched the cap. Q. Did you ever watch Mr. Fuhrman pick up the glove at any time during the time that you were there? A. No. Q. Now, the cap didn't have any dirt on it, did it? Had little pieces of debris, but no dirt on it? A. I did not examine the cap that morning. It was checked by the criminalist and subsequently taken to the lab. Q. As it turned out, it had absolutely certainly no blood of Mr. Simpson's on it, did it? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for conclusions. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, the Bundy glove, you examined that? A. No. Q. You looked at it? A. Yes. Q. And that didn't have any dirt on it, either, did it? A. I didn't look at the underside. And again, I looked at it from a distance; I didn't handle it. Again, that's done by the criminalist. Q. You examined the cap and glove earlier, and identified these as the cap and glove that you saw at Bundy, correct? This is -- the exhibit -- I've got 77 and 78 on here. A. I said they appeared to be the same Q. And did you -- did you see any dirt on either of those items? A. Once again, I wasn't really looking for dirt in -- and I didn't look at the underside. It was a very cursory observation. Q. So the answer to my question is no, you didn't see any dirt, correct? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. The question's been answered. He explained what he did. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, did it occur to you in view of where -- THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Baker. Can I -- the clerk has a question. THE CLERK: I think you're using the criminal exhibit numbers 77, 78. MR. BAKER: Oh. THE CLERK: For clarity sake, you want to make sure I you have the right number. I'm not sure what they are. MR. BAKER: You're absolutely right. Sorry. THE CLERK: I don't know what numbers. I don't have it in front of me. THE COURT: Is there a number? MR. BAKER: There's no number on them whatsoever except the number that I read. It's clear that the evidence tags indicate that's the criminal trial number. THE CLERK: If you like to mark those exhibits next in order. MR. BLASIER: Its exhibit -- knit cap is 121 and the -- 131 is the knit cap, 129 is the glove. THE CLERK: Thank you. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, in you inspections that morning of June 13, 1994, did it occur to you that without -- with the absence of any dirt on either of those items, they could have been placed there? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Lack of foundation, assumes facts not in evidence. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) From your entire crime scene investigation, did it occur to you that the cap or glove may have been placed in the area that you saw them on June 13, 1994? A. Certainly not. Q. Never occurred to you? A. Not in any way. Q. All right. Now, in terms of the blood in that -- in the closed-in area, there was blood on the fence; there was blood on the soil; there was blood on Mr. Goldman's clothes. And if we go over to the walkway, there was blood on the walkway and there was blood on Ms. Brown's clothing, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, none of the blood in the closed-in area was consistent with Mr. Simpson's blood, true? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for conclusion and lack of foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: Well, did you, in terms of you being the co-lead detective in the case, you certainly became aware of the blood and you testified about blood drops yesterday morning, did you not? MR. MEDVENE: If the court please, we attempted to get in blood testimony yesterday and Mr. Baker objected. Same objection: Calls for conclusion; lack of foundation. THE COURT: I didn't hear the question. MR. BAKER: I said in terms of his being the co-lead detective, he certainly became aware of the results of the blood collected in the closed in area. THE COURT: I don't know if that was the question. I thought that was a declarative statement. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you become aware of the results of the blood that was collected from in the closed-in area as a result of you being the co-lead detective in this case? MR. MEDVENE: Calls for hearsay. THE COURT: You may answer yes or no. THE WITNESS: Yes. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you became aware that none of the blood collected in the closed-in area was consistent with Mr. Simpson's blood, true? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for hearsay. THE COURT: That's sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you, in your role as co-lead detective, find out if there was any blood on the cap or the glove that was consistent with Mr. Simpson's? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Lack of foundation. Calls for hearsay, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you, at any time, determine whether or not there were any fingerprints of Mr. Simpson in the crime scene area, that we've entitled the closed-in area or the walkway? A. I did. Q. And there were none, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And, in fact -- in fact, Detective Lange, there were eight identifiable fingerprints that were never identified as to anyone, true? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Outside the Court's order. It's also not relevant, Your Honor. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, it's not outside the Court's order. I'd like to be heard. THE COURT: I don't think it is either. Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Not one of the identifiable fingerprints found at the crime scene area in the closed-in area or on the walkway was consistent with Mr. Simpson's; isn't that true? A. Yes. I don't believe his prints were found at the scene. That's correct. Q. And, in fact, Mr. Lange, there were eight identifiable fingerprints found that you couldn't identify with any human being, true; that was known to be either the victim, Mr. Goldman or the police? A. That's not necessarily true. In an unidentifiable print, sometimes the points are so low that it couldn't belong to one of the people who you attempted to eliminate, and couldn't, because there are not enough points. I'd have to look at those prints individually and see how many points, in fact, were there and then I could give you an opinion. But just because the print has been not identified doesn't necessarily mean that it was eliminated from those who were at the scene. Q. Let me see if I can make my questions very clear to you. There is, in your business, that is, being a detective, identifiable and non identifiable prints, true? A. That's a general term, yes. Q. If a print is identifiable, that means there's enough points on the prints so that if you can find a match, there is enough points to make it a definitive identification, correct? A. Depending on the amount of points. It's generally ten. Q. And -- A. However, if you have seven or eight that are consistent, you cannot totally eliminate that individual. Q. Mr. Lange, I want you to assume -- well, strike that. Did you look at, in terms of you're being the co-lead detective on this case, that there were 17 prints that were identifiable using the language that we have just discussed? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence; outside the scope, Your Honor. Lack of foundation. THE COURT: Assumes facts not in evidence thus far. Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, in terms of the prints, Mr. Lange, were there, or were there not, eight identifiable fingerprints that were not able to be matched with any known person who is at the crime scene at any time? A. There were. I don't know if it was eight. There were some with an insufficient amount of swirls, points; whatever you want to call them, to match, that's correct, because the insufficiency of information. Q. Is it your testimony, as you sit here today, that the prints that were unidentifiable were unidentifiable not because they couldn't match them to a person, but because the prints themselves were not adequate to match? Is that your testimony? I want to be sure on this. A. Well, I don't know. Again, I believe I'd like to see the print reports. It's been some time since I looked at them. But when you say unidentifiable, it could possibly mean that there's just not enough information to make an identification. Q. I want to understand your testimony here in this courtroom. Are you saying to this jury, that the prints that were taken from the crime scene were not identifiable because there wasn't enough information on the prints; or you don't know; or the third alternative, that they were identifiable but matched no one? A. Mr. Baker, you gave me a very general term in the word unidentifiable. And as I tried to explain to you, I would have to look at each and every one of those prints in order to render an opinion as to what you're asking. Q. So, Mr. Lange, I take it, then, you don't know whether or not the prints that were not matched to anyone had enough points to match or not, correct? A. Of course not. I haven't looked at that. Q. And the only thing you are aware of is that they weren't Mr. Simpson's. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls to conclusion, Your Honor. Lack of foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You are aware -- well, strike that. Now, in your analysis, there was blood from Nicole Brown on Ron Goldman, right? A. That's correct. Q. And there was blood from Ron Goldman on Nicole Brown's clothing? A. Objection to this area. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Lack of foundation. Calls for conclusion. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, in your role as co-lead detective, you certainly learned whether there was blood transfer before you wrote the back-up report that we were discussing yesterday; isn't that true? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Argumentative, relevance, materiality, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: On which grounds? THE COURT: On the grounds that if this witness has no first-hand knowledge, it is calling for hearsay. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, if he was designated an as an expert. MR. MEDVENE: The court please, Mr. Baker knows we're not supposed to argue in front of the jury. THE COURT: Well, his testimony thus far doesn't seem to be based upon any expertise, but rather than as a percipient witness. So I'll sustain the objection. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, you in your inspection in processing of the crime scene on June 13, 1994, you walked through the living room and you found candles burning, correct? A. I observed some candles burning, yes. Q. And this was 7:00, 7:15 in the morning of the 13th? A. No, I first observed them about 4:30, 4:40 in the morning. Q. Well, you went back through at 6:45, did you not? A. It was probably after 7:00. Q. Okay. You think you got back about 6:45, then you did a rewalk through? A. Yes. Q. And then you made the notes that you say you made basically contemporaneous with your investigation and processing of the crime scene? A. With the observations that I'd took; the observations that you read there. Q. If it says candles were burning in bedroom and living room, these notes were made at the 7 o'clock, 7:15 timeframe when you walked through, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And in these notes being -- I think it's exhibit 10 -- 2107. MR. P. BAKER: 2107. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Okay. 2107, which I noted, candles burning in the room and bathroom. Candles burning in bedroom. That was at your 7:15 walk-through, right? A. Approximately. Q. So those candles had been burning for some at least seven hours? A. Very large thick candles. The type that do burn for many, many hours and can be used possibly several times over. Q. How big were those candles? A. Approximately three to four inches in diameter. Q. How many were there when you saw them? A. Probably in the vicinity of six, seven inches, maybe eight inches. Some were longer than others; some were shorter. Q. Did you blow them out? A. No. Q. You found that the bed was rumpled but made, correct? A. That's correct. Q. TV was on, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And then you did an exterior view of the house, did you not; after you had gone through the house and you talked about the lighting, did you not? A. I did talk about lighting, yes. Q. And you actually went back to the crime scene on June 23 and made additional notes, did you not? A. Yes. That's not uncommon. I've never worked a crime scene that I haven't returned to. Q. And then you went back on July 3, 1994 and made additional notes, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Now, there was a -- there was a Malibu light that was right about at the feet of the body of Nicole Brown, was there not? Let me have you look at your diagram. I'm sorry, I've got you at a disadvantage. (Witness reviews.) MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 1439 is on the screen. (Exhibit 1439 is displayed.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Have you reviewed that document lately, Mr. Lange? A. No. In fact, if I may have a moment to orient myself? Q. Sure, take your time. A. I have a corresponding sheet that lists what I have on the schematic. Your question was: There was a Malibu light at the foot -- Q. Approximately. A. -- Of Nicole Brown. Q. Approximately by the foot of Nicole Brown Simpson that illuminated onto the walkway and illuminated the body of Nicole Brown Simpson. THE COURT: Is that the clearest it gets? MR. P. BAKER: Yeah. THE WITNESS: There was a directional light that went straight up over in this area. That went up, more or less, the numbers up the front. Now there were four Malibu lights, but there were some that weren't serviceable and there were none that illuminated the body. MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. If the Court please, for the record, Mr. Baker, could you have the witness please show where he was pointing? Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Show us where you were pointing. A. The directional light was off to the left. This would be other photos that -- these are a little blurred -- I have depicted in my schematic. It's kind of off to the left here in the dirt and it was a directional light and it went straight up to illuminate the numbers on the wall. The four Malibu lights, I believe, begin here. There should be one here. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) On your diagram that Malibu light is labeled C; is it not? A. No, sir. The C is the directional and D is the Malibu and it states it's not working. So that was not working at the time. Q. And this is the illumination from the lighting in the area of the Malibu lights? A. No. Q. No. That's something totally separate and apart, correct? A. Yeah. My notes indicate that the Malibu light is not serviceable. It doesn't work. Q. And that picture was taken at night, was it not? A. I believe so. Q. And you don't know what that circular light that's illuminating -- would appear to be circular -- on the walkway, that's illuminating that area is, correct? A. Could you be a little more specific. Q. Well, it seems maybe -- A. 'Cause I never saw any light illuminating the sidewalk is why I ask. Q. This circular area here, that light, is it not, would it -- would appear to me, it doesn't -- you don't think it is, fine. A. Again, I'm not an expert in photography or processing of negatives, but there's a flash effect, and that's a white wall. And I saw no lights at all illuminating that area, and there were none. So -- Q. Fair enough. A. So I'm uncomfortable with that. Q. Fair enough. Now, you talked about a duffle bag yesterday that you got from Mr. Simpson on the 17th. Recall that testimony? A. I believe. Q. Or a grip? A. I'd call it a travel bag. Q. You had -- you had access to that very same travel bag four days before, hadn't you? A. Four days before what, sir? Q. Four days before you took it from Mr. Simpson on the 17th, you had access to it. And in fact, had it in your police black and white on the 13th, true? A. No, sir, false. Q. Really. Let me ask you this: Did your partner -- were you in the room when Mr. Simpson was interrogated by you and Mr. Vannatter? A. I was. Q. And that grip was discussed, was it not? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Hearsay, beyond the scope of direct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled? THE WITNESS: I believe it was brought up, yes. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And your partner, Phil Vannatter, told you he had that grip in the trunk of his car, didn't he? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for hearsay, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Mr. Baker, you just said it was in the grip of my car (sic) and I say it was in the grip -- The grip was in Mr. Vannatter's car. The fact of the matter is, we don't drive black-and-whites. It was not in my car. It was brought up by Mr. Vannatter and it was in Mr. Vannatter's car. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And I apologize, sir. I'm -- Did you drive down with Mr. Simpson from his place on the 13th with Mr. Vannatter and the grip? A. No, sir. Q. You didn't come down with them and the grip? A. I did not. Q. You came down in a separate vehicle. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Outside the scope, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. That's correct. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And did you have conversation with your partner relative to the grip that he had taken from Mr. Simpson and inspected? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence hearsay outside the scope. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: On what grounds, sir, so I can -- MR. MEDVENE: Compound question. MR. BAKER: Okay. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you talk to Phil Vannatter about the content of the grip on June 13, 1994? A. No. It was just a comment, I believe, by Vannatter that he had the grip is all. There was no conversation or anything else. Q. Well, now, Mr. Simpson was most definitely a suspect on June 13, 1994 when you had him at Parker Center; wasn't he? A. I'd call him, at that time, certainly a possible suspect, yes. Q. And you had the grip that he came back from the airplane with, that was the grip that you talked about; evidence from on the 17th. It was the very same piece of luggage, wasn't it? A. I never saw it. All I knew at that time, there was a grip in Mr. Vannatter's car and I never saw it. Q. So you and Mr. Vannatter had no conversations about the content of that bag? A. I don't believe so. Q. After the 17th, when you got the grip, did you have conversation with Mr. Vannatter about the fact that the disguise, the so-called disguise, was in the grip on the 13th when he looked through the bag? A. Wouldn't have known that, no. Q. Well, didn't you have any conversation with him about what was in the bag that he looked through on the 13th and you testified to yesterday about the content thereof when you confiscated it on the 17th? A. Certainly subsequently we went through the bag. We did discuss those items, that's correct. Q. And the passport was in the bag on the 13th, was it not? A. I have no idea. Q. Well, did you discuss it with Mr. Vannatter, about what the contents were of this travel bag? A. The same response. No. Q. Never discussed it? A. Not until we went through it and inventoried it. Q. Now, after you went through it and inventoried it, did you discuss with Mr. Vannatter the content of that bag when he looked through it on the 13th? MR. MEDVENE: Assumes facts not in evidence Your Honor. Also, hearsay. THE COURT: You may answer yes or no whether you discussed it. THE WITNESS: I don't believe we did. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So you have no idea what items were in the bag on the 13th as contrasted to the 17th, correct? A. The same response, sir. I didn't look in the bag, had no idea what was in the bag. I didn't even know what type of a bag. Q. Now, did you find, in the bag, any shaving kit, any -- for example, if you're going to travel, you take your shaving kit and you have your shaver and you have shaving cream and you have a toothbrush and you have toothpaste. And we usually put those in a kit, in the dock kit and throw them in the travel bag. Anything like that in there? A. I don't recall specifically a shaving kit. And again, I probably haven't reviewed this, the specific content in close to a year and a half or so. If you could show me a property report, I'd be glad to tell you what was on there. Q. Did you find any prescription medication in the travel bag? Do you have any recollection of that? A. There was prescription medication in the name of someone else other than Mr. Simpson in there. Q. You were looking for a weapon when you took that bag, were you not? A. No. Q. You were looking for bloody clothing when you took that bag, were you not? A. Not specifically. Q. You were looking for bloody shoes when you took that bag, were you not? A. No, not specifically. Q. The reason you wanted to confiscate that grip is because you believe Mr. Simpson was the murderer and you believe that evidence of the murder would be in that grip, true or untrue? A. Which day are you speaking of? Q. The 17th, sir? A. Certainly he was under arrest for murder and he definitely was a suspect. In our minds, if he did in fact commit those murders, we believed there was a possibility that there -- that was evidence, we certainly do want to look into it, yes. Q. And you were looking for the bloody clothes, bloody shoes and the murder weapon in that grip, correct? A. Not specifically. We'd been looking for anything that might tend to connect him to that crime. Q. Did you send, at your direction, Ottis Marlow into the sewers between the Rockingham estate of Mr. Simpson and Bundy to try to find bloody clothes, bloody shoes and murder weapon? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Beyond the scope. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You never found any bloody clothes, any murder weapon or bloody shoes, ever, did you? A. No, I didn't. Q. And it wasn't because you didn't look and have other people look in Los Angeles as far away as Chicago, true? A. Well, there were other reasons but there were places that we looked. Q. Can you answer my question, Mr. Lange? A. I'm trying to do that, sir. I'm trying to do it honestly. Q. You can answer yes or no. A. And I'm trying to do it accurately. Q. You can answer yes or no. THE COURT: Just a minute. Let's not have a -- Ask your question again, Mr. Baker. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You looked for bloody clothes, bloody shoes and a murder weapon as far as Chicago and never found any; isn't that true? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Outside the scope, Your Honor. THE COURT: You may answer yes or no. THE WITNESS: That's true. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now as I understood your testimony, relative to the -- relative to the back gate, well -- THE COURT: Are we going to get to a different area right now? MR. BAKER: Yes. THE COURT: Let's take ten. (Recess.) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) THE COURT: Counsel? (The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.) MR. PETROCELLI: More notes? THE COURT: No, this one is not bad. This one, the juror is concerned with terminology you're using. Counsel, somebody, has been using the term "transfer evidence," and they're confused. MR. MEDVENE: Maybe transferred? MR. PETROCELLI: "Transfer evidence" is the word they're confused about. MR. BAKER: I don't know. THE COURT: You might clear it up. MR. BAKER: "Trace evidence." MR. PETROCELLI: The witness said "transfer." THE COURT: Okay. (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) THE COURT: Oh, I think I know what it was; it's transfer of blood onto the top of the rail, that type of a transfer evidence was the reference. MR. BAKER: Okay. I'll go back to that in a minute, if I may. THOMAS LANGE, the witness on the stand at the time of the recess, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. BAKER: Q. Now, Mr. Lange, relative to the -- to what you suggested yesterday, that you got out of the duffel bag or grip bag of Mr. Simpson, that was all inventoried pursuant to police procedure, was it not? A. Yeah, that's a fair statement. Q. In other words, as a long-time police officer, you certainly recognize the duty and obligation to inventory every piece of evidence that you collect, especially if it's the property of someone like Mr. Simpson, or any citizen, correct? A. Yeah. But, you know, initially you don't know what you have. There's evidence gets booked at evidence and there's sometimes property that is, as you say, booked as personal property. But I would expect you to be thorough, yes. Q. And you would expect yourself to be thorough in booking the evidence and making an accurate property report, especially if you're going to get on the witness stand and testify, as you did yesterday, about certain sets of keys coming from Mr. Simpson's duffel bag, right? A. I would hope so. But sometimes mistakes are made, omissions, because you don't recall. Q. And whether it be evidence inventory or personal property inventory, you believe it should be done accurately and correctly, true? A. That would be preferable. It doesn't always happen, but that would be preferable, certainly. Q. If, in fact, there's no inventory to an item, you can't testify as to where it came from, correct? For example, you testified yesterday about some keys that have some pendant on them, Smokey, or something like that? A. I did. Q. And you say they came from the duffel bag the grip, travel bag; that is, you say you got them on the 17th, after Mr. Simpson was arrested? A. No, I didn't say I got them on the 17th. I said it was subsequent to that. I believe it was sometime later that we went through that duffel bag; it wasn't on the 17th. Q. In any event, the property that was removed from the 1993 Bronco, in the two-door white Ford Bronco, license number DDHY 503, the duffel bag we're talking about, that's what came out of Mr. Cowlings' Bronco, correct? A. Yes. Q. And the personal property report, did you inventory that, or did Mr. Vannatter inventory that? A. I'd have to take a look at it. Q. Well, do you have any personal knowledge of any of the items that you testified to yesterday coming out of that travel bag? That is, did you take them out? Did you inventory them? And as you testified yesterday, they came out of the duffel bag, right? A. There were several persons present from the D.A.'s office. Q. Maybe you didn't understand my question. Maybe you didn't understand my question. My question is: You -- did you have personal knowledge of the -- what came out of the duffel bag? A. My recollection is that these items did come out of the duffel bag. Q. I didn't ask you is it your recollection. Did you see them come out of the duffel bag, and did you take them out of the duffel bag, one or the other? A. That's my recollection. Q. Okay. Okay. You are aware, certainly, that the keys that you testified to yesterday were in the duffel bag, and you saw them come out of the duffel bag, and they would be listed on the personal property report, right? A. I don't know if they would be. It seems to me that they did -- if you can show me where I'm mistaken, fine; but my recollection is that they came out of the duffel bag. Q. And if they weren't listed on the personal property report, the personal property report for that duffel bag, you would agree that they could come from anyplace? A. No. Q. Because you didn't have a recollection just a minute -- you don't have a recollection, as you sit here now, in seeing any keys come out of the duffel bag; isn't that true, sir? A. No. You've misstated what I've said. Q. You can answer yes or no. MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please -- MR. BAKER: I'm not stating anything. MR. MEDVENE: The witness is trying to answer the question. THE COURT: Answer the question, please. THE WITNESS: Well, you have misstated my statement. MR. BAKER: I move to strike this witness's commentary and request the Court to direct Mr. Lange to listen to the question and answer my question. THE COURT: Well, answer the question. THE WITNESS: Would you repeat the question. (The reporter read the pending question as follows:) "Q. Because you didn't have a recollection just a minute -- you don't have a recollection, as you sit here now, in seeing any keys come out of the duffel bag; isn't that true, sir?" THE WITNESS: Again, my recollection is that they came out of the duffel bag. I may be mistaken. And perhaps you can show me where I'm mistaken -- and if I'm mistaken. That is my recollection, as I sit here today. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you review the personal property report in this case? A. No. Again, I asked you a few minutes ago if I could. I don't believe I've seen that a second time. Q. You have spent 20 hours reviewing this case, Mr. Lange. Did you review your own notes relative to your investigation of the crime scene and the 20 hours you spent with the plaintiffs' attorneys here? A. My notes, yes, but not someone else's report on another investigation. That's what you have here. Q. But you did review 2107 in detail, because these are your notes, correct? A. What's 2107? Q. Your notes. A. I have gone over the notes, yes. Q. And did you see on the personal property report, anything indicating the keys that you talked about yesterday? MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, 2107 is not the personal property report. Can we have the number of the personal property report, which is what's being asked about now? MR. BAKER: Is it on the back? I don't know if it's on the back. MR. MEDVENE: Also object on the basis of lack of foundation. Your Honor, it's not the witness's report, as I understand what he said. MR. BAKER: Can we get a number for the personal property report? THE CLERK: A new exhibit? THE COURT: Yes. THE CLERK: 2108. MR. BAKER: New -- (The instrument herein referred to as Personal property report of property of O. J. Simpson was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2108.) THE COURT: What is the question? MR. BAKER: The question is: Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That's the personal property report for the items in the duffel bag, is it not, sir? A. I didn't write this report and didn't have to review -- Q. I didn't ask you if you wrote the report; I asked you if it is the report. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Foundation. THE WITNESS: Can I look at it and read it? MR. MEDVENE: Of course you can. THE COURT: Overruled. (Pause in proceedings.) THE WITNESS: I don't see any keys on here. There's no way of telling whether this is the entire report. I'll stick with, my recollection is that the keys -- THE COURT: No, no. The question is, is that the personal property report. That's a yes or no. THE WITNESS: This is a report -- Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And -- A. -- property report listing items from the duffel bag; that's correct. Q. And the keys are not on there? A. I don't see them on there. Q. Thank you. MR. BAKER: Now, put up -- put up that photo of, please, Phil -- what's the name of that? MR. P. BAKER: 2046. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I want to go back. I found a little better photo. I want to ask you a couple questions about the hat and see if you can see how much -- and it may not be any better because of the monitor -- but can you tell us from -- this is the pole that anchors the gate, is it not, where I'm pointing with my finger? And we have a blood smear down on the side? A. I believe it is. I -- well, I think it is. If I could see it from another angle -- but it appears to be. Q. Okay. Let me show you the photo, because it's more clear in the actual photo. MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, can we have an exhibit number? Didn't appear in the joint trial statement. MR. BAKER: 2146. MR. PETROCELLI: No, there's a different item on that joint trial statement for that number. MR. P. BAKER: 89. MR. BAKER: Would you believe 89? MR. PETROCELLI: It's what the statement says. MR. BAKER: Okay. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Let me put Exhibit 89 before you. And it's a little easier to see than on the monitor. A. Yes, that appears to be that support pole for the rung, yes. Q. And the knit cap in that photo would appear to be beyond the horizontal rung, which is at least what, two, two and a half inches in diameter? A. See the perpendicular rung with the horizontal from this angle; it's a little hard to tell by looking at this. I suppose it's possible that part of it is. Q. And certainly, the part of the cap that's under the horizontal rung, the cap couldn't have dropped into that position; you would at least agree to that? A. Could have been kicked during the scuffle. Q. Maybe you didn't understand the question, Mr. Lange. I said, you would agree that the cap could not have been dropped into that position? True? A. No, not necessarily. Q. So if it were just dropped, normally, it would come down, would it not? A. Unless someone kicked it while it was being dropped. You know, I -- Q. Okay. A. -- I have no idea how it got in that position. Q. All right. And so the absence of any debris, any dirt on the cap, would indicate to you, then, that the cap was kicked in mid-air and projected under the fence a couple of inches, right. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Assumes a fact not in evidence. THE COURT: Speculative. Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) If it were kicked because you had been in the area -- You may resume your seat. If it had been kicked -- because you've been in the area and you've certainly seen the dirt on the shoes of Mr. Goldman, you would anticipate that there would be dirt on the cap from being kicked into that position, would you not? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for speculation -- THE COURT: Sustained. MR. MEDVENE: -- conclusion, lack of foundation. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You would agree with your -- from your review of that photograph, that there doesn't appear to be any dirt that was transferred from a shoe to the knit cap, correct? MR. MEDVENE: Same objection, Your Honor. Also, lack of foundation. THE COURT: Foundation, sustained. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, may I be heard on that? THE COURT: All right. MR. BAKER: Thank you. (The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.) MR. BAKER: They have elicited testimony from this witness that he is an expert. They've talked about trailing of blood, which is an expert concept. They said the blood trailed at -- one of the blood drops in the walkway, they said that blood -- he said the blood on the back trailed Nicole Brown Simpson. He's talked about -- he's become an expert on candle burning, and has talked about that. He goes in and out of his expert mode as he chooses, in my view. But in any event, he certainly has testified as an expert in his detecting work in this case, pursuant to the questions asked by Mr. Medvene. THE COURT: Well, I think the question calls for expertise on drop-kicking a hat. I don't think that that covers that area of expertise. Sustain the objection. (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you didn't, in looking at the photograph that's on the monitor presently -- that's 89 -- you didn't see any evidence of any dirt transfer from a shoe or anything else on the cap, correct? A. I can't tell, because I just saw certain portions of the cap. I didn't specifically look for those types of things. Q. In any event, you saw no evidence of it, regardless of your -- and you see no evidence of it in that picture, do you? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Asked and answered, lack of foundation. THE COURT: You may answer whether you see any evidence of it in that picture. THE WITNESS: Any evidence of? MR. BAKER: Transfer of his shoe to a cap. THE COURT: I think the question was from any source. THE WITNESS: Well, I do see evidence of something transferred, but that's -- Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You see particulate matter at about the 1 o'clock position? A. One -- if I could see that other photo, I could possibly see particulate -- that's a little bit better. Seems to me I did see some particles on that cap, if that's the question. Yes, I observed particles all over the cap. Q. There's particles all over the cap in that picture in your view, right? A. Particles? Q. Particles all over the blood in your view in that picture, right? A. Well, I can't see from this picture any particles on the glove. There's possibly one here. But there appears to be little, tiny particles on the cap. Q. Nothing -- A. If that's -- Q. Nothing consistent with the amount of dirt that you saw on the boots of Mr. Goldman, correct? A. Consistent with? Q. Consistent with -- MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Vague and ambiguous, calls for a conclusion, speculative, lack of foundation. THE COURT: Overruled on all those grounds. THE WITNESS: I don't -- MR. MEDVENE: I didn't pick the right ground. MR. KELLY: Argumentative. MR. MEDVENE: It is also. MR. BAKER: It's not that good a question; don't worry about it. (Laughter.) THE WITNESS: I'm sure I don't understand the question. MR. BAKER: See? Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You don't see any copious amounts of dirt on either of those articles, do you? MR. MEDVENE: The question is argumentative, Your Honor. Object on that ground. MR. BAKER: Did you answer the question? THE COURT: I'm trying to read the question. MR. BAKER: Sorry. (The reporter read the pending question as follows: "Q. You don't see any copious amounts of dirt on either of those articles, do you?" THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Not from this angle, no. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You never saw it from any angle, large amounts of debris, dirt, or anything on either of those items; isn't that true? A. I didn't look. Q. So, in your investigation, these two pieces of physical evidence that are basically right together, one projecting underneath the horizontal bar of the fence, you did not look at; is that your testimony? A. No. I looked at the items, obviously, but I did not pick them up to examine them. That's the job of the criminalist. And I wouldn't do that because I could contaminate it. Q. All right. Now, on that photograph, there is blood transfer on the pole, is there not? A. Appears to be, yes. Q. And could you just point to where the blood transfer on the pole is. (Witness complies.) A. Appears to be a transfer in that area right here. (Indicating.) Q. Now, blood transfer, sir, occurs when someone is bleeding, for example from a cut, and comes in contact with a particular item, in this case a pole, correct? A. That's my understanding. Q. And that particular transfer is right on the pole, the vertical pole that supports the gate, correct? Or I guess -- yeah, the -- A. Perpendicular corner pole, this one right here? Q. Yes. Now, that particular blood smear is about and an inch or so off of the tile walkway there. We've got it blown up a pretty good size. A. I really -- to me, it's grainy, and it's very blurred. I would do a lot better with that photograph; I'm sorry. MR. BAKER: Do we have another one of those so we can have one of these? Let me let you look at this again. (Witness reviews photo.) THE WITNESS: May I have the question again, please. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You certainly may. The smear is about one inch up from the tile, is it not? A. Appears to be, yes. Q. And that is not a blood drop; that has -- in your opinion, that has become more vertical; that is, in fact, a smear, is it not? A. Well, the problem with that is, it could have at one time have been a drop and then gotten smeared, so I really can't tell. But it appears to be something that's smeared. Now, I don't know how it smeared down -- I don't know how the blood got on the pole. Q. In the terms of blood-stain analysis, if a drop is a vertical drop, it usually comes out and is fairly circular in nature? A. If it's a from a 90-degree source that's not moving, yes. Q. And in terms of a blood smear, that is a transfer of blood -- if I had a cut on the back of my hand and I pushed upon this piece of paper, you would consider that a smear, would you not, if it was an open cut and bleeding? A. I don't know if you had a cut I would call it a smear, perhaps a transfer, because I wouldn't know exactly how that happened, a smear versus a swipe. I'd possibly call it a transfer. Q. Well, let's -- can we then use the term "blood transfer" to include both smear and swipe? A. Sure, sure. Q. And you would agree that what's on that pole is a blood transfer; that is, it's either a smear or a swipe, correct? A. Well, it could have been a drop at one time and then gotten smeared. I need to qualify that. Q. What you see in that photograph which was taken on June 13, 1994 at the crime scene, is a blood transfer, that being a smear or a swipe, true? A. Possibly. Q. Well, in your opinion, is it or isn't it? A. I can't tell you my opinion because I didn't see it deposited. I've given you two possible scenarios and my opinion of this, how this blood might have gotten there. Q. Let's just back up for a minute. You may assume your seat if you like, sir. The crime scene is allegedly secured at 12:30, when the LAPD gets their officers there and they yellow-tape it, right? A. It's secured, yes. Q. And what's supposed to happen is that no one is supposed to go in and contaminate the crime scene, correct? A. Certainly, no intentional contamination, obviously. Q. And no one would go -- be walking up the walkway where blood has come down the walkway, true? A. I would hope not. Q. And no one would be over at the vertical support for the gate on the right-hand side of the walkway? A. Not necessarily. I don't understand your question -- Q. Well -- A. -- or is that a statement? MR. BAKER: The actual picture with the foliage, if I may. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You would agree as a general proposition, that certainly, the Los Angeles Police Department would not be attempting to turn a blood drop into a blood smear. I mean, they would -- you would be trying to ensure that the integrity of the physical evidence is kept intact at a crime scene; isn't that true? A. That's correct. Q. And you would -- those pictures were taken at sometime, I want you to assume, between 3:00 and 6:00 in the morning, okay? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Lack of foundation. MR. BAKER: Asking him to assume. THE COURT: Hypothetical. Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) We've heard testimony that police officers and detectives went up the south foliage when they were going up to the crime scene, and stayed away from the north side. That would be consistent with what you saw at the time that you were there, true? A. Well, initially, before they entered the crime scene to do their work, yes. Q. And the pictures that document evidence are to document the evidence so that there can be, as much as possible, a reconstruction of the event that occurred causing the criminal act, true? A. We want to do that, yes. Q. And what you don't want to do, of course, is, you don't want to turn a droplet into a smear, because that may have some significance in terms of reconstruction of the scene, true? A. Certainly. Q. And in fact, where that pole is located, which would be on the right side of the walkway as we look at the monitor -- MR. BAKER: And that's exhibit what, Phil? MR. P. BAKER: 1439. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) 1439. That is an area that, the whole time you were there, nobody was walking over by that area, true? A. No, there were people. There were coroners, investigators, criminalists, myself. Q. The coroner didn't get there until after 9:00. The criminalist didn't get there until after 10:00, true? A. If I -- is there a specific time here that you're referring to? Q. Yeah. I said that picture, I want you to assume, was taken between 3:00 and 6:00 in the morning. There would be nobody there turning a blood droplet into a swipe or a smear, true? A. I would hope not. Q. And that blood smear is within one inch or so from the tile, correct? A. Appears that way. Q. There wasn't anything that matched that on Mr. Goldman's boots, was there? A. That matched what? Q. That matched a blood transfer an inch above ground level. A. I'm sorry, I don't understand that question. A blood transfer here that matched something on Mr. Goldman's boot? Q. Well, that blood transfer had to come from someplace, didn't it? A. Well, certainly, yes. Q. It had to come from a bleeding wound, didn't it? A. Yes. Q. And it had to come from a bleeding wound that was an inch or so off the ground, didn't it? A. No. Q. It was not in an area where Nicole Brown Simpson was, was it? A. It certainly is. Q. Nicole Brown Simpson, in your opinion, was not knocked out before she was killed; isn't that true? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Beyond the scope, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. BY MR. BAKER: Let me look at your notes. You indicated on your notes that Ms. Brown had no shoes on, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And she had no dirt on her feet, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Indicating she wasn't in the dirt area, true? A. More than likely. Q. Correct? I'm sorry. A. I would say more than likely that's pretty evident. Q. And your opinion was that she was knocked out basically in the position that she ended up when she was found at 0010 in the morning, true? A. That's what the evidence shows us, yes. Q. So her blood didn't transfer across the walkway into the vertical pole, did it? A. Yes, it did. Q. Oh, you think it did? A. I know it did. In that vicinity, I don't know what that blood is on that pole without an analysis. Q. If it transfered, it wouldn't be a smear. It would be drops as contrasted to a swipe or a smear, true? A. That's what I said earlier, yes, true. Q. And there is no indication of how that blood smeared on that vertical pole, is there, in the evidence that you viewed? A. No. We can't tell how that happened. Of course, not. Q. And that could have been the perpetrators of the crime, correct, bleeding at that area; true? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for speculation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. BY MR. BAKER: Now, did you, in the back alleyway of 875, did you see a pendant back there, Mr. Lange? A. Yes. MR. BAKER: Want to put that up. What number is that, please? MR. P. BAKER: 859. (Exhibit 859 is displayed.) (The instrument herein described as photo of blue plastic heart was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 859.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Where was that? A. The pendant was in the -- approximately the driveway area, I believe, adjacent to the garage door. Q. Now, when was that item -- strike that. That was an item of evidence? A. It was ultimately booked evidence. It wasn't initially, but ultimately I did book it. Q. Well, it was -- that's the ruler of Mr. Rokahr, the photographer, that he put down beside that, done on June 13, 1994? A. That's correct. Q. That item was booked as evidence August 26, 1994, ten weeks later? A. Yes. Q. What happened to it between the 13th and the 26th, Mr. Lange? A. I collected it, Mr. Baker. It was in my -- Q. What did you do with it? A. -- It was in my desk drawer for that amount of time. Q. It was in your desk drawer? A. Yes. Q. For ten weeks. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. MEDVENE: Argumentative, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Would you like me to explain, Mr. Baker? Q. BY MR. BAKER: Now, did you, personally, take any other evidence and have it in your custody and control without booking it? A. I'm not aware of any evidence that wasn't booked. Q. Well, you're suppose to book things as soon as practical, true? A. That's the key word, "practical." It was not practical to book this item at that particular time. Q. It wasn't practical to book that piece of evidence for ten weeks while it sat in your drawer? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. So your drawer, and in the area where you can book evidence, what is it; two floors away? A. More like two miles. Q. So couldn't book it for the ten weeks? A. No. It's not that I couldn't. Q. Okay. A. I didn't want to. I specifically withheld that particular item for a purpose. Q. Oh, okay. Did you with hold any other evidence, Mr. Lange? A. No. Q. And how about the tennis shoes, did you take those home for my particular reason instead of booking those in the night of the 13th? A. They couldn't have been booked on the night of the 13th because the ECU is closed and the criminalist left. I did, in fact, take them home with me instead of taking them all the way downtown just to find a closed evidence control unit. Q. So that was okay as far as you were concerned? A. It was on order by my commanding officer. It was the common sense thing to do and the ECU is closed. I wouldn't -- couldn't have booked it if I wanted to book it. Q. It was okay, as far as you were concerned, to put the tennis shoes -- where did you put them, in the inside of your car or the trunk? A. Initially when I left I put them inside the vehicle. When I returned home, I locked them in the back of the vehicle in the trunk and they were in a cardboard box. MR. BAKER: Now, did Phil put up the triangular paper? MR. P. BAKER: Excuse me? MR. BAKER: No. The triangular paper? (Mr. P. Baker complies, displays item.) MR. P. BAKER: 1532. (The instrument herein described as a triangular piece of paper found at Bundy scene was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1532.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That piece of paper was observed by you at the crime scene on June 13, 1994, true? A. That's correct. Q. And that piece of paper has blood pattern evidence on it, correct? A. That's possibly open to interpretation. Q. Well -- well, Mr. Lange, why don't you give us yours, does it or doesn't it? A. Surely, there's a flow of blood on there if you were to interpret that as something. Again, this is why we take these types of photographs. I don't see anything in particular. Later on, subsequently to this, there were three small lines, I believe, observed on this piece of paper. It was looked at by our experts, by our footprint expert, our shoe print expert and our fiber expert. And it was the belief of those individuals that it was not a shoe impression but perhaps a fiber impression of some type. MR. BAKER: Move to strike as nonresponsive, Your Honor. The question was, to this witness, whether he had an opinion as to whether that was blood pattern evidence. THE COURT: Sustained. Stricken. MR. BAKER: Can he answer the question? MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. The witness said he had an opinion. It's based on what experts advised him. Mr. Baker's question was broad. It's not where did he get the opinion, but did he have one. THE COURT: Okay. If you have one, yes or no? THE WITNESS: I formed an opinion, yes. Q. BY MR. BAKER: Did you have an opinion on the night of June 13, 1994, that that piece of paper contained blood pattern evidence? A. No. I never examined it on that night nor that morning. Q. And did you direct anyone to pick up that piece of paper? A. No, I directed it to be photographed at a crime scene. You don't necessarily always pick up every scrap of paper that's there. Especially something like this, that had been there obviously for some time. Generally at a crime scene, you're going to look for something that was introduced by the suspect or as a consequence of the crime. In this particular instance, there were other scraps of paper. There were bits and pieces of rawhide, dog bone. There were leaves, berries, and just not going to pick everything up. You're going to examine it. You're going to document it, certainly, out of an abundance of caution. And you're going to photograph it. You're going to orient it and photograph it, as in this case, up close to identify it. But you're not always going to pick up everything. This piece of paper was weathered. And in my mind, it had been there for some time. Q. I take it, from your testimony just now, sir, that you personally have made the decision that this was probably not a piece of evidence that was significant and therefore need not be collected, true? A. No. If I didn't think it was significance, we wouldn't have gone to the lengths that we did to identify this piece of paper. This piece of paper was not as a consequence of the crime or induced during the crime in my opinion. Q. Oh? A. I did not direct the criminalist to pick it up. If he had, it wouldn't have mattered but there were many other items that weren't picked up too for the same reason. Q. So let me see if I understand it. You made the decision there June 13, 1994, that this piece of paper was not introduced at the time the crime took place, correct? A. That's my opinion, it was then and it is now. Q. I see. And you don't know whether there are any fingerprints on it 'cause you didn't collect it, right. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Collection. And we're way beyond the scope. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. BY MR. BAKER: Blood pattern evidence can show shoe prints, can it not? MR. MEDVENE: Same objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Excuse me? MR. MEDVENE: Same Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Blood pattern evidence could show shoe prints. Overruled. I don't know that. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You don't know that. A. Regardless, that's why we take these identifying photographs so that someone, if need be, can look at it at a later date. Q. And you think that the photograph is probably as good as the actual physical evidence; that you can look at and put under, for example, a binocular microscope? A. No, I didn't say that. Q. You should have picked it up, shouldn't you? A. Not necessarily, no. Q. I didn't say -- A. It's become a contention point, Mr. Baker. I wish I had. I wish I directed that that be picked up, but only for one reason; because it's become a contention point, not because it's a piece of crucial evidence or a piece of evidence at all, which it is not. MR. BAKER: Move to strike as nonresponsive. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. BY MR. BAKER: Now, do we have a picture of that? That piece of totally uncrucial evidence was between the bodies of the victims of a double homicide; was it not? A. On the way, that's correct. Q. And it was within ten inches of the body of Nicole Brown Simpson? A. I don't know, possibly. Q. What picture is that? MR. P. BAKER: 92. THE COURT: It's a triangular piece of paper that we have on the monitor, exhibit 92, is right where I'm pointing; is it not? THE WITNESS: Yes, it is. (The instrument herein referred to as a Picture of a triangular piece of paper was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 92.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Right where there is a copious amount of blood, true? A. There's blood all over, yes. Q. Right where there are shoe prints, correct? A. There are shoe prints that are above that location, yes. Q. And below that location? A. Yes. Q. Correct? A. Appears to be. Q. You never picked up the piece of paper to determine what was on the other side of it either, did you? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, collection, this line, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. BY MR. BAKER: By the way, did you wear booties at any time when you were at Bundy; when you went to Rockingham or when you came back to Bundy? A. I've never worn booties on any crime scene and never heard of a detective doing that. Q. Why? Is it too unmacho? A. No. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you're saying that you made the decision at the crime scene, June 13, 1994, that that piece of paper between the envelope and the body of Nicole Brown Simpson was just irrelevant? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Misstates the testimony. Asked and answered several times. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you say, based upon your -- Did you go up and look at it so you could tell if it was weathered, Mr. Lange? A. I certainly did age, also documented it and I made sure it was photographed both at a distance for orientation purposes, and up close for identification purposes. Q. In your view that it was appropriate, now, the picture that is on the board presently on the monitor -- MR. P. BAKER: 92. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Were you present when that picture was taken? A. I don't believe so. Q. Were you present when the picture, the close-up I just put up on the board -- MR. BAKER: Which is what? MR. P. BAKER: 1532. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Were you present when that picture was taken, or were you over at Rockingham? A. No. I believe I was in the area. Q. It's your testimony that you directed Mr. Rokahr, the LAPD photographer, to take that picture? A. I don't see that. I did order close-up photos of various items at the scene and I believe that to be one of them. Q. And that was one of the items that you ordered a close-up photo? A. Well -- Q. You're sure about that as you testified? A. Specifically I can't say yes. I can say in a general sense that we do take orientation shots and we do take identification shots of all evidence when we're at a crime scene. We don't specifically point out A,B,C. We ask the photographer, especially an experienced photographer, to start shooting the evidence while we do other things. Many things are happening at the same time. Q. My question was unclear. Let me see if I can rephrase it. Did you, personally, order any photograph of the piece of paper that is now on the TV monitor in Exhibit 1542 (sic)? A. Same answer: In a general sense, yes. Q. So specifically, the answer is no, correct? A. Specifically, I can't say because there were specific instructions on specific items. This was not foremost in my mind then. It's not foremost in my mind now. This, as evidence -- there were many other things that preceded that. THE CLERK: For the record, it's exhibit 1532. MR. BAKER: That's as close as I get, 1532. I apologize. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, did you direct Rokahr, the LAPD photographer, to take any pictures of -- for example, was there a menu about the crime scene that you observed on June 13, 1994? A. There was a mailer, a common mailer that had been through the neighborhood, through all the residences in the area, yes. There was a follow-up done on that mailer that had been delivered to all of the homes in the neighborhood. Q. Well, on June 13, 1994, you didn't know whether that mailer had gone anywhere, true? A. That's true. Q. Did you have, did you direct Rolf Rokahr to take a pictures of that, sir? A. Again, there was a general request to photograph various things. I haven't reviewed those photos in some time. That photograph may have been taken as an orientation photograph early on. I don't know, I'd have to look at it. Q. But certainly that would be a piece of evidence that you would at least want documented by a photo, true. That is -- A. Certainly. Q. That this is this? A. And possibly writing also. Q. And there should be a photograph of that? A. I would hope that there would be, yes. Q. And it would be improper procedure if there wasn't, correct? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance, materiality, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, every blood drop that you located on June 13, 1994 was photographed in a close-up mode, correct? A. No. Q. Well, on the -- A. If you're speaking just specifically of the five drops on the walkway, that's correct. There were dozens that were not photographed that closely. Q. Well, there were the blood drops that you say you saw on June 13, 1994 in the various locations on the walkway that was outside of the actual closed-in area in the walkway where the victims bodies were found, true? A. That's what I said. Q. And, so, as we go east to west, we have item 112, then we have item 11 -- or item 112. And that would be, if one was walking east to west, that would be to their left side, correct? A. Correct. Q. And the item No. 113, that's basically in the center; is it not? That's not left or right if someone is walking from east to west, correct? A. No. I believe it is on the left side of the shoe print if you were to observe an overall photograph. Q. And item No. 114, that's not on the left; is it? A. It is to the left of the shoe prints, yes. Q. There are shoe prints where 114 is? You sure of that? A. Well, on that schematic I believe there are prints not directly adjacent to, but to the right of, and in the vicinity of that blood drop. Q. And 115, that, you believe, that's also -- that's also on the left? A. No, 115, there weren't any shoe prints observed back at 115. Q. And 117, that's about what foot from the wall? If someone was still walking east to west, that wouldn't be on their left, would it? A. I can't -- I couldn't say. Q. Well, so that all of the blood print, blood spots or stains that were out of the crime area were photographed, both to show perspective and close-up, that's what you testified to yesterday, right? A. That's correct. Q. And then as you go up to the back gate, and you get to the back gate, there is no photograph of any blood spots and no cards, right? A. That's certainly correct. Q. But these blood spots, you have no doubt, as you sit here today that they were, in fact, there on June 13, 1994; and it just was serendipity that they weren't collected until you were out at the crime scene on July 3, 1994, right. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Question's argumentative as to the form that it was stated; the word "serendipity." THE COURT: I'll sustain serendipity as inappropriate. The rest of the question may remain. MR. BAKER: Answer the question without the word serendipity? THE WITNESS: Would you repeat the question? MR. BAKER: You please read it without the word serendipity in it? MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, it's not just that word, Mr. Baker, the question's also vague and ambiguous in terms of what blood drops we're about on the gate or other blood drops. THE COURT: I think it was clear. Overruled. MR. BAKER: Let me just ask you the question. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) It was just happenstance that the blood on the back gate was not photographed in close-up; that the blood on the back gate was not collected on June 13. And you have no doubt, of course, that it was there on June 13, although you requested a criminalist to collect it on July 3, 1994, right? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Compound, about four questions. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I wouldn't call that happenstance. I wouldn't call it carelessness. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) But these weren't additional blood drops. They were there on June 13, 1994, right? A. They were. Q. And you wouldn't put in your written or the additional blood drops because they weren't additional blood drops. They were there on June 13, 1994, right? A. I observed blood on that gate on June 13, that's correct. Q. You wouldn't put additional blood drops as you, in fact put in there on June 13, 1994. Why don't you read to the jury what you said on that? MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, your honor, there's no need for Mr. Baker to behave like that, throw the exhibit at the witness. MR. BAKER: I don't need -- THE COURT: Excuse me. MR. BAKER: -- An etiquette lesson from Mr. Medvene. THE COURT: Mr. Medvene, would you sit down. Mr. Baker. MR. BAKER: I apologize. THE COURT: Thank you. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Read to the jury what you wrote on June 13, 19 -- Strike that July 3, some three weeks later about the blood drops on the back gate, Mr. Lange? A. I've got a log here and I've got everyone who was there and I'd put down. Q. Just read what the additional blood drops -- MR. MEDVENE: I'd ask that he not interrupt him. THE COURT: Mr. Medvene, we might get this thing done if you wouldn't keep interrupting each other and the witness. Please answer the question. THE WITNESS: Certainly. Additional blood droplets, located rear gate, north west. Collected by criminalist on July 3. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And that was, sir, the blood drops, these were additional blood drops from the 13th, right? A. That was done additionally on July 3. Q. No, you said additional blood drops. You didn't say it was done additionally; isn't that true, sir? A. That's what it says. Q. Now, the --. MR. P. BAKER: 719. (Exhibit 719 is displayed.) MR. BAKER: I should have taken that down. I'll probably hurt somebody if I put it back up. (Referring to large exhibit.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) This picture is the far away view that was taken on June 13, 1994, correct? A. It is. Q. And all of the blood drops that you saw and documented and had collected on July 3, 1994, they're all there, right? A. All of the blood drops -- Q. Sure. A. -- I observed on July 3? Q. Yeah. Just let's just take the lower -- A. Well -- Q. -- Horizontal bar of the gate. You saw where we have items No. 115 and 116 again, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Yeah and both of those drops were definitely in your view, no question about it, they were there on June 13, 1994, right? A. That's correct. Q. Zoom in on that. A. You have a terrible photo here. Q. Terrible photo, huh. Tell us where they are. A. This is 115 in this area here. Because of the angle, the graininess of the photo, because of the distance and because I believe the 116 is recessed up and it's a lot smaller, it's pretty difficult to see. But you can clearly see this blood drop. Q. And 115 isn't there; is it? A. It might be 116. Q. Okay. A. This is 115. 116 is not visible for the reasons stated. Q. So it was there and the photograph, just kind of omitted it, right? A. Photograph? Didn't omitt it. There were, as you can see, it's smaller. This is an extremely grainy photo. It's recessed up farther than 115. Q. And that photo shows all the way to the mesh in the gate. And if 116 had been there, it would be on that photo, agree or disagree? A. It is on that photo because of the reasons stated. You can't see it because of the reasons stated. These photographs were not taken to highlight that blood. That blood was not checked on this day. Q. We are well aware of that. A. Well, I don't know, sir. I'm trying to tell you here what happened with this photograph and you clearly see this blood droplet. The other is smaller and it's recessed -- and it's a grainy photo -- and there's distance. Q. I see. So you believe that 116 is there and it's just impossible to see because you're an expert in grainy photos and recessing, right? A. No, no. MR. BAKER: I don't have anything further. THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, 1:30. 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 of the same day.) SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1996 1:32 P.M. DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) MR. BAKER: Your Honor I apologize. Mr. Lange, I did find the photograph to the menu. THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you. THE CLERK: And you are still under oath. Would you state your name again for the record. THE WITNESS: Tom Lange. THE CLERK: Thank you. THOMAS LANGE the witness on the stand at the time of the luncheon recess, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE: Q. You made reference to the pendant when you were questioned today and the fact that it was kept in your desk drawer for a period of time because you said it wasn't practical to book it. And you held it for a purpose. What purpose did you hold it for? A. From time to time, there are items from a crime scene in a case that an investigator may want to hold onto for personal identification purposes. It's a lot more practical to do that than to book an item and not be able to have access to it when you want it. So that's why I held onto that particular pendant. Q. Did you use it from time to time in the course of your investigation? A. Yes. Q. There was reference to the Reebok shoes. Approximately what time did you receive those shoes? A. I took them into custody sometime after 6:00 p.m., I believe, on the 13th. Q. Did you then have the conversation with Captain Gartland that you made reference to earlier? A. Yes. MR. BAKER: I'm going to object. That's leading and suggestive. THE COURT: Sustained. (BY MR. MEDVENE) What did you do with the shoes? Excuse me. When did you book the shoes? A. The following morning, at the lab, turned them over to Mr. Matheson for analyzing. That would have been the 14th of June. Q. Approximately what time? A. 7:00 a.m. Q. Now, you made reference to a key being taken out of a duffel bag. Who was present when that key was taken out of the duffel bag; that is, the Smokey the Bear key -- A. There were other keys taken out. I believe I testified to two rings. It was myself and my partner, Detective Vannatter, Detective Dennis Payne. I believe Captain Gartland was present, District Attorney Marcia Clark, District Attorney Bill Hodgman, and I believe Detective Pietrantoni, P-I-E-T-A-R-N-T-O-N-I, I believe. Q. What did you do with the Smokey the Bear key? A. I gave them to Detective Payne. Q. What was the purpose of giving them to Detective Payne? A. To have -- MR. BAKER: I object, Your Honor. It's irrelevant what the purpose was. It's outside the scope, as well. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: To get a lock made that would fit. MR. BAKER: I move to strike, Your Honor, in view of the previous ruling of the Court. THE COURT: This portion may come in. THE WITNESS: To get a lock constructed from those keys. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I will -- I'm going to place on the TV monitor what's been marked Exhibit 2109. (The instrument herein referred to as Copy of property report was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2109.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you tell me what -- could you first go to the broad shot. Can you tell me what that is? A. That is a property report with this case DR number on it, and a number of items booked. Q. Can you then go to date and time property taken into police custody -- Can you zoom in on that, please. A. That's June 17, 1994 at 2030 hours, which is 8:30 p.m., at 360 North Rockingham. Q. Would you now zoom in, please, to the first paragraph. Does that make any reference to the Smokey the Bear key ring? A. Yes. Q. And what does it say? A. Well, if you want it verbatim, you have to hold it still. (Indicating to monitor.) There's an item number 290, states, one key ring with two keys and one small ring with likeness of Smokey the Bear. The narrative to this appears -- THE COURT: Can you go back up to the narrative for a moment, please. A. Property recovered pursuant to a 187 investigation, which is murder. Item 286 recovered from the owner of the Mezzaluna, which is the top time card, states by who, by Detective Payne. Q. Could we get down to the key. What number is the key item? A. The keys, I believe there's three items of keys: 289, 290, and 291. Q. Could we go up to the paragraph to see when they were recovered? A. Items 289, 290, and 291, which are the keys in question, retrieved at 360 North Rockingham, where the bag was picked up on -- MR. MEDVENE: Move it over a little bit. No, the other way. A. -- on June 17, 1994. MR. MEDVENE: That's fine. THE WITNESS: That's it. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Next area, some question about a menu. Would you put up -- and whether or not a menu was photographed at the crime scene. MR. MEDVENE: Would you put up, please, Exhibit 875. Would you zoom in, if you could. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Could you tell us what that picture depicts? A. That's the right foot of victim Brown, and additionally, that's a fast-food Oriental menu below the angle area. Q. What date was that picture taken? A. That was taken on the morning of June 13. MR. MEDVENE: Would you put on the board, please, Exhibit 2110. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And I ask you what that is. A. It's a close-up shot of the same menu. Q. Thank you. Did you do any investigation to make a determination whether that menu was generally distributed to the Bundy neighborhood? A. I did. Q. And what did you determine? A. That it was a common item deposited in all of the mailboxes in the neighborhood. Q. Now, with reference to July 3 and the walk-through you've told us about, in which there was some discussion of the rear gate, you used the word "additional" in your report. What did you mean by the word "additional?" A. I meant additionally collected evidence, additionally collected blood drops. Q. Yesterday, you were asked some questions regarding shoe prints. Did you see more than one pattern of bloody shoe prints on the Bundy walkway? A. No. Q. Did you see more than one pattern of bloody shoe prints between the two murder victims? A. No. Q. Yesterday, you made reference to a supplemental arrest report that you prepared. I believe it was marked 1061. Can you tell us when that report was written? A. Supplemental report or a follow-up? Q. Follow-up investigation. A. Follow-up report. When it was written? Q. Yes, sir. A. It was written over a period of three or four days. The last paragraph was written on June 17. The bulk of the information in this was written about June 15. Q. Did you know on June 13, at about 5:00 a.m. in the morning, that Detective Phillips had stated that Mr. Simpson and Ms. Brown had been embroiled in a previous domestic-violence situation or situations, one of them resulting in the arrest of Mr. Simpson? A. No. MR. BAKER: Leading. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) What was the purpose of the follow-up investigation report? A. That particular follow-up report is a compilation of events and incidents that occurred from the outset of this investigation, to the point where we filed the case with the district attorney's office. The district attorney's office requires this form before they file any case, which is a chronological statement of the information. You have to date it. As a consequence, this report was made prior to filing. THE COURT: Mr. Medvene, would you take a look at that exhibit, make sure the number you -- MR. MEDVENE: Yes, sir. THE COURT: -- Gave is correct. MR. MEDVENE: Yes, sir. (Counsel confer.) MR. MEDVENE: I will clear up the record if I have the wrong number, Your Honor. If I could proceed, then I'll clear it up, unless you want me to do it now. MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, it was originally offered by the defense, but they did not give it an exhibit number at the time. So maybe we can just give it the next in order. THE CLERK: 2111. MR. PETROCELLI: 2111? THE CLERK: Correct. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. (The instrument herein referred to as Copy of supplemental report of 6/17/94 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2111.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) When did you first receive the information that Mr. Simpson and Ms. Brown had been involved in previous domestic-violence situations, one of them resulting in Mr. Simpson's arrest? A. I believe it was later on in the day, perhaps late afternoon or the evening of June 13. Q. Yesterday, when counsel questioned you, there was some reference to the word "rapport" in connection with your seeing Mr. Simpson. What was your purpose in going to see Mr. Simpson? A. Certainly that was part of it, to attempt to build a rapport, to get to know him, because he certainly could have information that could help us in this investigation. As a matter of fact, he may have immediate information that could help us point in the direction that morning. We certainly don't know until we ask him. She may have been getting threats. There may have been a suspect that he was familiar with he could have told us about. Being so close and having -- sharing the children, and this type of a situation. So, in my mind, it was very important to do that. Q. With reference to fingerprints, any unidentified prints, as you sit here, do you recall any that were found in the area where the murders occurred? A. Unidentified prints? Q. Yeah. A. No. I don't believe there were. Q. If a murderer was wearing gloves when he committed the murders, would fingerprints be left? A. No. Q. Now, you made reference to an object that was utilized to cover Ms. Brown. Can you describe that object? A. I believe you're referring to the blanket. It was a hospital blanket, white in color. It was -- had tightly woven fabric. It appeared cleaned -- freshly laundered. And basically, that's it. It was a hospital blanket. Q. What time of the morning, approximately, if you recall, did you make a request for something to cover Ms. Brown? A. I think it was shortly after I returned, which would make it sometime after 7:00 a.m. Q. What were the lighting conditions? A. Excellent. It was daylight. Q. Was the media there? A. They were beginning to arrive, to set up cameras across the street. Q. What were the reasons that you wanted something to cover Ms. Brown? A. At a crime scene, an investigator has to be concerned with contamination with the crime scene, but he also has to be concerned with the compromising of a crime scene. With the amount of cameras, the multitude of media across the street, sitting up on a hill, shooting directly down within 120 feet of the body -- the body being evidence; the position that body is in is evidence; any wounds on that body are evidence; any blood appearance on that body is evidence; the clothing on that body is evidence; the way that clothing is torn left to right or how that clothing appears on the body is evidence. Jewelry or lack thereof on the body is evidence. The number of wounds are evidence. Everything having to do with that body is evidence. To leave that body exposed, number one, is to leave it open to all of the media of the world to zoom in on with cameras that can basically highlight a human hair at 200 feet, and we would have our evidence that I want to keep to myself broadcast all over the world. This is what an investigator calls keys. Keys are things that I could use to eliminate a potential suspect or a witness in this case, especially in a high profile case. As a consequence, I had to protect them. I had to make a decision to protect them this way. That's why the blanket. There's also a secondary consideration. Certainly, regarding that body in public, if this woman's family were to turn on their television set and see their daughter, it certainly wouldn't go over too well, either. However, I have to say that is a secondary consideration, and the main reason is really the previous reason that I stated. MR. MEDVENE: I have nothing further, Your Honor. Thank you very much. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER: Q. Let me see if I -- you testified a little earlier that basically, you couldn't see the body because of the foliage and the poor lighting; isn't that right? A. No. I believe you have -- you're taking that out of contest. Q. Just, if you can, answer the question. Just answer my question, would you, please. If you didn't testify to that, you have no recollection, just say I didn't; it's that simple. MR. MEDVENE: The question is ambiguous as to time or vague as to time. THE COURT: Vague as to time, sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You say that you were concerned because all of this evidence was on the body of Nicole Brown Simpson, and that was the reason for covering it, right? A. Potential evidence. Obviously, we don't know what we have at the time, but we need to protect that evidence from compromise, that's correct. Q. Was all of that potential evidence on the body at 5:00 a.m. when you decided to leave the crime scene, 875 South Bundy, for two hours? Was it all there then? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence, that he intended to leave for two hours. That misstates the record, Your Honor. THE COURT: Most of the questions. Okay. Overruled. THE WITNESS: We intended to leave for about 10 or 15 minutes. There were no media there, so I was not concerned at this time. I was concerned when I returned; it was light, and the media started to show up. Q. Now, that blanket then becomes evidence because you have transfer of blood. You have transfer of trace evidence onto the blanket, and that blanket then becomes evidence, right? A. I suppose that's a possibility. It could, yes. Q. Put it on. You left the blanket at the crime scene for souvenir seekers, didn't you? A. No. I wasn't even there at the time the crime scene was closed down, Mr. Baker. Q. You made no effort whatsoever, sir, to have the blanket preserved. And that's it right there in that photograph, isn't it? A. Unfortunately, I was not afforded the walk-through. I was not there when this occurred. I wish I had. I take full responsibility for the criminalist not picking up that blanket. I wish he had. My mind didn't have anything to do with the evidence in this case, no. MR. BAKER: Could I have that read back, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, I think he's answered it. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) If you wanted to keep the photographs from being taken, all you had to do was park an evidence van -- get the criminalist out there, park an evidence van in front of the parkway; isn't that true? A. No. It was extremely simplistic. That certainly wouldn't have done for the helicopters. Bundy is a major thoroughfare for commuter traffic, people going to work. High-tech cameras could have set up in a 360 in the air. It's just -- Q. So it just wouldn't have worked? A. I don't believe it would have, no. Q. Fair enough. Now, let's talk about the keys again. I think we discussed that the plastic heart which you kept in your desk for identification purposes, you kept it there for ten weeks, right? A. I don't recall how long it was. Could -- would have been something like that, yeah. Q. Let me show you the property report that you just read from, and ask you to tell the jury the day that the evidence was booked for those two sets of keys and that heart that you kept in your desk for ten weeks. A. There were several items booked that day. Q. I'm just asking you to tell -- A. Would you like me to answer your question? Q. Yeah. Just give me a date, Mr. Lange? Give me a date. A. I was about to do that, and you cut me off. Q. Thank you. A. All right. August 25, 1994. Q. So these -- these keys that you say you removed from the duffel bag on June 17, 1994, you booked ten weeks later; so, on August 25, 1994, right? A. No. And I never said that I took them out June 17. Q. Is it your testimony now, that you're saying that the keys, the two keys, sets of keys, one with Smokey the Bear and the other with a U.S.C. key ring, were not taken out on the 17th, sir? A. Now, before and whenever you asked me, that's correct. They were taken out sometime in August. Q. Let me show you another document and ask you if this is a document indicating what was removed from the O.J. Simpson travel bag from A.C. Cowlings' Bronco on June 17, 1994. A. These are other items that were in that bag; that's correct. Q. So those are other items? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. That I already testified to. Q. Now, these indicate -- well, let me ask you this question, Mr. Lange: I take it that the documentation of crime-scene evidence is more important, and without proper documentation, the integrity of the evidence is at risk, true? A. It's a possibility of that occurring, certainly. Q. And in the property report, that shows that from the duffel bag, there is no indication that there was any -- or Mr. Simpson's travel bag taken from A.C. Cowlings' Bronco, there's no indication of keys, correct? You'll agree with that? A. In this particular report, no, there isn't. There shouldn't be. Q. And in the report -- that is, the other report, it doesn't mention anything about any travel bag, does it? A. No. It wouldn't necessarily mention a travel bag. Different items are booked at different times for different purposes. There's nothing says we have to book everything in at once for one purpose. Q. When you inventory property of a person, are you telling us that you take part of the stuff out of a travel bag and then you document part of it, and then you book part of it, and then you take more of it out at a subsequent time, and then you book it at another time? A. That's also a bit of a convoluted explanation in this particular case. I'll tell you specifically and exactly what happened. Q. No; just answer my question for a change. A. No; it doesn't get that convoluted, no. THE COURT: I don't think you've indicated what the second document was -- exhibit was, Mr. Baker. MR. BAKER: Thank you. Property report. MR. P. BAKER: 1412. MR. BAKER: 1412. (The instrument herein referred to as Copy of a property report dated July 25, 1994 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1412.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And what's the date of the report that indicates evidence was removed from O.J. Simpson's travel bag? What is the date of that report? A. The evidence that was recovered this particular -- Q. The day of the report, sir, upper left-hand corner. A. I don't know if i have the right one or you've either misstated or I have the wrong report. Evidence recovered from O.J. Simpson's vehicle. This is -- Q. The document indicates -- A. This document, okay. Q. It indicates that evidence was recovered from O.J. Simpson's travel bag, which was removed from Al Cowlings' vehicle on 6/17. And the date of the report is what, sir? A. The date of the report is -- Q. July 25? A. -- July. Q. Right? A. July 25, yes. THE COURT: That's 1412? MR. BAKER: Yes, sir. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So you had items removed from the -- strike that. All those people that you said were there when all this stuff was removed from Mr. Simpson's travel bag, the D.A.s, Hodgman and Clark, and other officers, that was all on the 17th, right? A. No, no. Q. It wasn't on the 17th when you removed all of the items from -- A. As to the meeting, no. The meeting occurred sometime after the 17th. This wasn't on the 17th. Q. Oh, I thought -- I misunderstood you. A. Maybe I misled you. The meeting occurred sometime after the 17th. That's when everyone was there and we went through the bag. In the meantime, the bag had been locked away and secured. Q. So there was nothing removed from the bag until the meeting, to the best of your knowledge, right? A. I don't believe there was. I'm pretty certain that the bag was looked into. People looked into it for one reason or another. But the District Attorney wanted to get a firsthand look at everything that was in the bag, and that's why we had the meeting. That's when I discovered that those keys had similarities, and we had a key situation that arose from that. Q. Now, this indicates -- that is 1412 -- that this property was recovered and reported on July 25, 1994, right? A. Yeah. That's the date and time of this report, correct. Q. That's not when the items were recovered, though? A. That's the date and time of that report. Q. Okay. And the date and time that the custody -- the property was taken into custody was June 17, 1994, at 2200 hours? A. Yes. That's the bag with everything in it. Q. And then the date and time of this property, when it was recovered -- and it certainly doesn't say where you have -- MR. BAKER: What's the number of the other property report, Phil, this one? MR. MEDVENE: 2109. MR. P. BAKER: 2109. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, 2109 doesn't mention anything about any keys in a duffel bag, does it, or a travel bag, or a bag, or anything else? A. It mentions the keys, yes. Q. It doesn't mention -- maybe my question is unclear. We'll try it again. It doesn't mention anything about a duffel bag, a travel bag, or anything else, does it? A. No, it wouldn't. Various different pieces of -- items -- some of it didn't come out of the duffel bag. Q. So the property report that's booked on 8/25/96, that includes the pendant that you say you left in your desk for ten weeks, without making a report on it at all; and then you have the keys that have not had a report on them at all until 8/25/94. Is that correct, sir? A. You said '96 earlier. Q. I apologize. A. Yes, as stated. Q. All right. So we've got ten weeks before there is any documentation by the LAPD on any of the keys or the pendant; would you agree? A. No. I -- no. Q. Where is the documentation of any of those items before August 25, 1994? A. Written down documentation? I don't know what -- that I'd find -- Q. That's what I mean. A. The item was taken into custody, the travel bag with everything in it, and it was secured until we can get back to it. These reports reflect when that happened. Q. So there is no documentation until you or others documented it on 8/25, right? A. The bag is, I believe, documented from June 6 to 17 -- I believe it is -- as to all of the specific items inside. Once again, same answer: No, not until we get back to it. Q. Let's get to the murder follow-up report, 2011. The murder follow-up report was done in toto by you, correct? A. No. Q. You authored this; that's what you suggested to us. A. I wrote it, but it's a compilation of information received from people like Vannatter, Phillips, Fuhrman, criminal record checks, DMV record checks, coroner's information, that type of thing. The lab. We have information from the lab on this, various people from the lab. So there might be as many as 10 or 15 people that had something to do with that report. Q. And you are kind of the melting pot. In other words, the information comes to you; you get the information and you assimilate the information; and then you put it in your murder follow-up report. Exhibit 2011 is in a chronological sequence, correct? A. That's basically -- MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, it's 2111, not 2011. MR. BAKER: Okay. Sorry. (The instrument herein referred to as a supplemental report dated 6/17/94 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2011.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you put it in a chronological sequence, correct? A. Generally, yes. Q. And you put it -- was your writing that was dated June 13, 1994. At approximately 0010 hours, victim 1, Nicole Brown Simpson, age 35, and victim 2, Ron Goldman, age 25, were found stabbed to death in the front walkway of victim 1 at 875 South Bundy Drive in West Los Angeles. That was your first paragraph, right? A. Yes. Q. Then you said: Upon arrival at the crime scene, detectives were met by -- and then the detectives you're referring to are yourself and Mr. Vannatter, correct? A. Could I see a copy of that? Q. Sure. Sure. Page 2, top of the paragraph where you say detectives were met? A. Top paragraph? Q. Paragraph 2, top of the page. A. Oh, I see. Crime scene taken by Detective 3, Ron Phillips, West Los Angeles homicide coordinator. Q. When you say, "Upon arrival at the crime scene, detectives were met," you meant the detectives who were listed on the first page of the report, that being Lange and Vannatter? A. Yeah. Q. So you two were met by Ron Phillips, West L.A. Division Homicide Coordinator, true? A. Yes. Q. Phillips stated that victim Brown was the ex-wife of O.J. Simpson. He told you that when you met him? A. I think that was something I learned later. At the time, I didn't know. Q. You can answer it yes or no? A. Well, then, I'd have to say no. Q. Okay. Fine. And you then state that, "Additionally, Phillips stated Mr. Simpson and victim 1 had been embroiled in previous domestic-violence situations, with one of these resulting in the arrest of Mr. Simpson. Then you state, "Mr. Simpson resided at 306 North Rockingham Place in Brentwood, approximately two miles from the crime scene. Detectives followed up to the Simpson residence for the purposes of death notification and to check on Mr. Simpson's welfare." That's what you said, right? A. I believe that's what it says. I don't have a copy in front of me. Q. And you were putting all that in chronological sequence, were you not? A. Generally, yes. Q. And so you were going up to check on `Mr. Simpson's welfare? A. That's a very general term, which would include the welfare of his children -- Q. You never met -- A. -- his emotional -- Sir, I possibly didn't mention a lot of things, but I did mention most things that were relevant to the writing of that report to give to the District Attorney to file this case. Q. Now, you talked about shoes. And Mr. Medvene just questioned you a little bit, sir, about some shoes. Now, those shoes were shoes that you had obtained from Mr. Simpson, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you obtained those shoes from Mr. Simpson upstairs in his house, in his closet, correct? A. Yes. Q. And so you had been upstairs on the 13th in Mr. Simpson's house, in his closet, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you hadn't found any Bruno Magli or any bloody shoes, had you, and you looked? A. No. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Outside the scope, Your Honor. THE WITNESS: We had no idea these were Bruno Magli shoes until two months later, at least. Q. MR. BAKER: You looked for bloody shoes and didn't find them, true? THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection as going beyond the scope of the redirect examination. MR. BAKER: Let me get to it as quick as I can. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You took the Reebok tennis shoes because Mr. Simpson told you he had been wearing those the night previously, right? A. There were other reasons; there were others. Q. And you took those shoes and you took them to your police unit, and you took them home to Simi Valley, right? A. Yes. Q. And then you took them back the next morning and you booked them as evidence, correct? A. No. Q. You had them --you hadn't given -- you had a DR number for the case, and they were listed in the property report as item 17? A. No. I gave them to Mr. Matheson at the lab for analysis. He was then going to give it to Mr. Fung, who did the booking of items in this case. Mr. Fung would have booked them. But I wanted some work done on those shoes first. That's why I gave them to Mr. Matheson the following morning at the first possible opportunity to give them to him, which was 7:00 a.m. Tuesday. Q. And those Reebok shoes were booked as evidence before the blood vial was taken from Mr. Simpson the previous afternoon. At 2:30, it was booked. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Outside the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I don't believe so. They weren't booked. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The reference blood from Mr. Simpson's arm that was taken at 2:30 on the 13th, was item 18, and was not booked until after the shoes that you took from Mr. Simpson's house on the afternoon of the 13th; isn't that true, sir? A. I have no idea as to when it was booked. MR. BAKER: I don't have anything further. MR. MEDVENE: Just a question or two. FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE: Q. Was the inventory report that counsel asked you about, I believe it's 1412, was that prepared after the keys were taken from the duffel bag and given to Detective Lange -- or Detective Payne? A. I don't have -- I don't recall specifically what that date was. I do recall, though, that they were given to Detective Payne at the time the inventory was done with the district attorney. And if I had my chronological record, perhaps I could look into that. I don't know. I don't recall what that date was. Q. And 2109 that you have, that property report, that shows the keys retrieved at 6/17/1994? A. Taken into custody on June 17, yes, 1994. Q. At what time? A. 2030 hours, which is 8:30 p.m. Q. Is that when Mr. Simpson was arrested and in Mr. Cowlings' car? A. Yes. MR. MEDVENE: I have nothing further. MR. BAKER: No questions. MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I have a series of exhibits that were referred to. If there are no objections from the defense, there's quite a number of them. I can identify them into the record now, move them into the evidence right now. THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. PETROCELLI: I'll just refer to the numbers. They're in the joint trial statement. Exhibits 20, 57, 36, 46, 47, 719, 32, 91, 38, 43, 45, 47, 1781, 54, 55, 1782, 2051, 2044, 125, 87, 88, 89, 91, 49, 69, 2058, 38, 43, 138, 131, 24, 875, 129, 717, 44, 48, 50, 501, 52, 53, 56, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 81, 84, 85, 86, 82, 83, 2109, 689, 690, 698, 699, 676, 2010, -- excuse me -- 2110 and 2111. 2111. Thank you. THE COURT: There being no objection, they are received. (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 20 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 57 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 36 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 46 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 47 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 719 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 91 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 38 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 43 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 45 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1781 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 54 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 55 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1782 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2051 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2044 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 125 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 87 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 88 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 89 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 91 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 49 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 69 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2058 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 38 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 43 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 138 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 131 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 24 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 875 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 129 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 717 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 44 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 48 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 50 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 501 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 52 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 53 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 56 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 67 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 68 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 70 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 71 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 72 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 73 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 74 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 75 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 76 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 81 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 84 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 85 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 86 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 82 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 83 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2109 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 689 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 690 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 698 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 699 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 676 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2110 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2111 was received in evidence.) THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take ten minutes. I understand that you may, on occasion, have some immediate personal needs that need to be attended to. If it's something that's immediate, don't hesitate to raise your hand and interrupt me. If it's something that's not immediate, let the bailiff know, and the bailiff will convey your needs to me. All right. We'll see you in about ten minutes or so. (Recess taken.) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I would object to 2111 going into evidence. We can argue it at another time. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BAKER: Thank you, sir. THE COURT: Call your next witness. MR. KELLY: Mr. Vannatter, please. PHILIP VANNATTER, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiff Brown, was duly sworn and testified as follows: THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? THE WITNESS: I do. THE CLERK: And if you'd please state and spell your name for the record. THE WITNESS: Philip Vannatter, P-H-I-L-I-P, V-A-N-N-A-T-T-E-R. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY: Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Vannatter. A. Good afternoon. Q. Mr. Vannatter, are you permanently employed? A. No, sir, I'm retired. Q. And going back to June 13, 1994, were you employed at that time? A. Yes. Q. And by whom? A. The Los Angeles police department. Q. And as of June 13, 1994, how long have you been employed by the Los Angeles police department at that time? A. 26 and a half years. Q. And as of June 13, 1994, were you assigned to any particular division within the Los Angeles police department? A. Yes. Q. And what division was that? A. Robbery/homicide division. Q. And did you have a partner, a steady partner within that time? A. Yes. Q. Who was that? A. Tom Lange. Q. Now, did you have occasion, Mr. Vannatter, to be at Parker Center at approximately 2:30 p.m. on June 13, 1994? A. Yes, I did. Q. And first of all, what is Parker Center? A. Parker Center is the main police building to the Los Angeles police department. Q. Okay. And you recall where, specifically, you were within Parker Center at approximately 2:30 P.M. on the 13th of June, 1994? A. I do. Q. And where were you? A. In the jail dispensary located on the first floor of jail division. Q. And was there anybody else there with you at that time? A. Yes. Q. And who was there with you at that time? A. Tom Lange, O.J. Simpson and Thano Peratis. Q. And were you there for a particular purpose? A. Yes. Q. And what was that purpose that you were there for? A. To obtain a blood sample from Mr. Simpson. Q. And on -- at this time and at that place, did you obtain a blood sample from Mr. Simpson? A. Yes. Q. And could you briefly describe -- first of all, did you have occasion to observe that blood sample being taken from Mr. Simpson? A. Yes. Q. And could you tell me what you observed in terms of that sample being taken? A. It was taken under medically approved conditions with a syringe placed into a purple top container. Q. Okay. And who actually removed that blood from Simpson using a syringe? A. The registered nurse, Peratis. Q. That was Thano Peratis, as you mentioned before? A. Yes. Q. Was it your request he withdrew the blood from Simpson? A. Yes. Q. And can you tell me once again, what he did with the syringe after he withdrew the blood from Mr. Simpson to get it into a vial? A. He injected the needle through the purple top cap of the vial and injected the blood into the vial. Q. There was no top to remove from the vial to place the blood in there; is that correct? A. That's correct. There was no top removed. Q. The needle was placed through the top? A. That is correct. Q. Okay. And what, if anything, did Mr. Peratis do, Nurse Peratis do with the vial after the blood had been placed in there? MR. BAKER: Objection. Foundation. THE COURT: Witness may testify to what he observed. THE WITNESS: He placed it into a small manila envelope and gave it to me. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Okay. And do you know whether there were any markings on the vial before it was given to you? A. Yes. Q. And what markings were those? A. Mr. Simpson's name was placed on it and my name was placed on it. Q. Okay. And what, if anything, did you do with the vial when you received it from Nurse Peratis at that time? A. I hand carried it up to the third floor, robbery/homicide division. Q. Okay. And what, if anything, did you do once you arrived on the third floor at robbery/homicide division? A. I obtained an analyzed evidence envelope, a specific envelope for blood; for whole blood, filled out the front paperwork on the front of it as best I could; because I didn't have all the information, and placed the vial within the envelope. Q. I'm sorry. What color, again, was that envelope? A. A gray envelope. Q. And would you be able to describe the proximate size of that envelope for me? A. Yeah. It's approximately 8 by 10. Q. And after you placed -- after you completed that paperwork on the envelope, do you -- did you do anything with the vial at that time? A. No. I laid it down on my desk. Q. Did you place the vial in the envelope? A. Oh, yeah. After I placed the vial in the -- In the envelope, I laid it on my desk. Q. Okay. Did there come a time that you departed Parker Center that day subsequent to placing that vial in that envelope? A. Yes. Q. And approximately what time did you depart from Parker Center? A. Approximately 4:00 p.m. Q. Okay. And in what manner did you depart from Parker Center? How did you leave there? A. I drove the city issued vehicle that was issued to me. Q. Did anybody leave with you in that car at that time? A. No. I was by myself in the car. Q. Okay. And did you take that evidence envelope with the vial with you at that time also? A. I did. Q. Okay. And could you tell me where, if anywhere, you were heading at approximately 4 o'clock when you left Parker Center? A. Yes, to 360 north Rockingham in Brentwood. Q. And can you tell me the route you took in going from Parker Center to get to Rockingham at that time? A. I took the Santa Monica freeway, west to the San Diego freeway, as I recall; and I believe I got off at Sunset Boulevard. Q. Would you be able to describe the traffic conditions to me that existed at that time you made the drive from the Parker Center to Rockingham? A. They were extremely heavy. Q. Do you recall at approximately what time you arrived at Rockingham? A. Shortly after 5:00 P.M. Q. And did you get out of your car at that time? A. Yes. Q. Did you take that evidence envelope with the vial in it at that time also? A. Yes. Q. And what, if anything, did you do with that evidence envelope with the vial in it when you got to Rockingham at approximately 5:00, 5:15? A. I walked directly to the front foyer area of the residence and handed it to Dennis Fung, the criminalist. Q. At any time prior to turning over that vial in the evidence in to Dennis Fung, the criminalist, did you ever put that vial in your pocket? A. Never. Q. Okay. Did you ever even take that vial out of the evidence envelope after you had filled the sample and in -- MR. BAKER: Leading and suggestive. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: No. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Mr. Vannatter, I now want to draw your attention to June 15, 1994, two days later. Okay? Do you recall where you were at approximately 8:30 A.M. on that morning? A. I do. Q. And where were you at that time? A. The Los Angeles county coroner's office. Q. And at that time and at that place, did you obtain anything from the coroner's office? A. I did about 15 minutes after 8:30; about 8:45. Yes, I did. Q. And what did you obtain at that time? A. The Nicole Brown Simpson's blood sample and Ronald Goldman's blood sample. Q. And when you say you obtained their samples, what were these blood samples in? A. They were in vials that had been prepared by the autopsy surgeon. Q. And were the vials contained within anything else? A. They were removed from refrigeration, placed in manila envelopes, sealed and given to me, yes. Q. Okay. And those envelopes were sealed when you received them? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And were those envelopes labeled on the outside when you received them? A. They were just plain envelopes. The actual vial itself was labeled. Q. Okay. Now when you were at the coroner's office receiving these two vials in the separate sealed envelopes, was there any procedure you had to follow before receiving them? A. Yes. I had to sign an evidence control log, Los Angeles county coroner's control log. Q. Did you do that on that day? A. I did. Q. Let me see if I can see 387, please. And Mr. Vannatter, I'd like to direct your attention to what's on the