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 22, 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 22, 1996
9:10 A.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

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

THE COURT: Somebody has a motion?

MR. BLASIER: I have two brief motions I'd like to make.

As the Court is aware, Lawrence Schiller has written a book that
purports to contain a great deal of information provided to him by
Robert Kardashian, who is one of Mr. Simpson's attorneys.

Much of that material concerns privileged communications between
various members of the defense team and Mr. Simpson. In November --
November 28 of 1995, Mr. Simpson wrote a letter to all members of the
defense team, and the letter itself is privileged, but I've been
authorized to read a short portion, which states:

"I require that all information you have gained in the course of our
professional relationship be held inviolate. Unless and until you
receive express and written permission from me, any written
authorization shall be limited to specific communications described in
the authorization, shall not be construed as a broad or blanket
authorization or waiver; therefore, it is essential that any draft
manuscript be reviewed by me before it is shared with others, by
others or . . ." perhaps "others."

This was not complied with with respect to that particular book.

My motion that the plaintiffs be precluded from asking questions about
excluded material in this book, as Mr. Simpson does not waive, has not
waived his attorney-client privilege.

To do so -- To ask such questions in front of a jury would be
improper, require him to assert privilege in front of the jury.

My second motion is that they also be precluded from asking any
questions about his not testifying at the criminal trial, as that is
also privileged -- I think it's 913 of the Evidence Code -- would be
improper to ask any questions or comment about that in front of a
jury.

MR. PETROCELLI: This motion is totally improper. We've heard nothing
about it until just now, five minutes before Mr. Simpson is going to
take the stand. I don't have a clue what information they're talking
about, what they contend is privileged, what is not privileged, what
has been previously disclosed, what has been disclosed, and public
sources and depositions and statements by the defendant.

I don't know how to deal with this, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, you do know how to deal with that motion with regards
to his exercise of his right from self-incrimination from the criminal
trial.

MR. PETROCELLI: No problem with that.

THE COURT: That motion is granted.

The rest of it is denied without prejudice.

I don't see any basis on which I should grant a motion at this late
stage. There was ample opportunity to exercise that privilege at the
time the book was published. You should have had a motion at that
time.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Simpson wasn't planning to testify at that time.

He's now testifying. He's making the motion. We are not waiving the
privilege. He should not be asked questions to assert it in front of a
jury.

THE COURT: He has testified at the time of deposition --

MR. BLASIER: No problem with anything he testified at deposition.
We're talking about this material in the book he has not already
testified to.

THE COURT: As far as I'm concerned, he's already published it; I think
he's waived it.

MR. BLASIER: He didn't publish anything, Your Honor.

THE COURT: He didn't bring any action to suppress it at that time.

MR. BLASIER: That's being considered at this time.

THE COURT: It's a little bit late.

MR. BLASIER: No, it's not late.

THE COURT: For the record, motion denied.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, for clarification, the first motion that
you did grant precluded me from asking Mr. Simpson -- or eliciting
that he did not testify at the criminal trial?

THE COURT: That's correct.

MR. PETROCELLI: No problem.

THE COURT: Okay. Bring in the jury.

(The jurors resumed 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 COURT: Plaintiff may proceed.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.

Pursuant to California Evidence Code Section 776, we call to the
stand, the defendant, Orenthal James Simpson.

ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, called as a witness pursuant to California
Evidence Code Section 776 by the Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and
examined 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: Please be seated.

And would you please state your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: Orenthal James Simpson.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q. Mr. Simpson, you first met Nicole when she was 18 years old; is
that true?

A. That's correct.

Q. She was a waitress, just having graduated from high school?

A. A waitress, but I think she graduated when she was 16.

Q. And you were a football player in the NFL at the time?

A. That's correct.

Q. Almost 30 years old, right?

A. Twenty-nine.

Q. And a month away from 30, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were married at the time to your then wife?

A. Yes.

Q. And two children?

A. Yes.

Q. And living together, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you met Nicole, you struck up, immediately, a romantic
relationship with her, right?

A. Immediately, yes.

Q. And then in a short time, you got her a place to live, and the two
of you began your relationship together, right?

A. Yes. I helped her get a place to live, yes.

Q. And then about 1980 or so, she moved into your Rockingham
residence?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. And by that time, you had left and divorced your first wife, right?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, you and Nicole lived together for about five years, until you
married in February 1985, true?

A. That's correct.

Q. And in January 1992, Nicole told you she wanted to leave you,
right?

A. She wanted to separate, yes.

Q. Okay.

And the two of you then separated, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And Nicole filed for divorce shortly thereafter, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And the divorce was final in October, October 15 of that year,
correct?

A. Yeah, about that time.

Q. Okay.

And the following year, 1993, the two of you attempted a period of
reconciliation, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And that lasted about one year?

A. I believe exactly one year.

Q. And it ended in May 1994, true?

A. Correct.

Q. Weeks before her death on June 12, 1994, correct?

A. Almost exactly a month.

Q. And you were together, then, with Nicole about 17 years; is that
right?

A. Most of 17 years, yes.

Q. And during that period of time, Mr. Simpson, there were some good
time and bad times, right?

A. Mostly good, yes.

Q. And there were bad times, right?

A. A few, yes.

Q. More than a few, right?

A. Well, like any long relationship, there was a few bad times, yes.

Q. We're only talking about your relationship, sir, not other
relationships. Okay?

A. Yes.

Q. And this was a passionate relationship at times, correct?

MR. BAKER: Objection; relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) And it was a problem relationship for you
throughout much of the time, true?

A. Not true.

Q. Did you not tell the Los Angeles police detectives who interviewed
you on June 13, 1994, hours after Nicole's death, that you had always
had problems with your relationship with Nicole; it was a problem
relationship?

A. Yes. We had problems in our relationship, but I don't think it was
mostly a problem.

Q. Did you not say that to the police detectives on June 13, 1994?

Yes or no?

A. Yes.

Q. You said that, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you said "I have always had problems with her, you know,
I, I, um, that -- that's our relationship, has been a problem
relationship," that was true, correct?

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object. I'm going to object to reading that
transcript because that transcript is inaccurate. If he wants to play
the tape, he can play the tape for the jury.

MR. PETROCELLI: Object to the speaking objections.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. PETROCELLI: May I have the question read back?

I'm going to repeat it.

THE COURT: Leave out -- you know, I don't think it's necessary to put
in all the "ums" and things.

MR. PETROCELLI: I just wanted to be accurate, Your Honor, that's all.

Mr. Baker, it's page 19.

MR. BAKER: The transcript is inaccurate.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Did you not say to Detectives Lange and
Vannatter, on June 13, 1994, concerning your relationship with Nicole,
I always have problems with her; you know, that's -- our relationship
has been a problem relationship.

Did you say that?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you said that, that was true, correct?

A. When I said it, yes.

Q. Okay. And did you not also -- withdrawn.

Was it also true that you had frequent hassles with Nicole.

MR. BAKER: Vague as to time.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) In the course of your relationship with her, up
to -- up to the time that the two of you split up?

A. In the last few years, yes.

Q. Did you not tell Lenore Walker that you always had had hassles with
Nicole?

A. I may have.

Q. And did you not tell Lenore Walker, as if -- she can't stand when
things are quiet and had to be -- and had to shake them up?

A. Yes.

Q. And Lenore Walker, by the way, is whom?

A. I guess a psychologist.

Q. And --

A. Who specializes in domestic discord.

Q. And a person that you, your legal team retained in the course of
the criminal trial, right?

A. That's correct.

MR. BAKER: I want to approach on this.

THE COURT: You may.

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

MR. BAKER: I object to using anything from Lenore Walker. And the
reason I object is, they designated Deitz and Dutton as these
profilers, and the Court has ruled that Deitz and Dutton were not to
be -- will not testify in this case.

Lenore Walker was retained as an expert -- as a rebuttal expert for
Deitz and Dutton, who are not going to now testify, and I object.

When we had to disclose -- we had to disclose because of the expert
designation, and that is the only reason that they got those notes.
And I object to those notes because that's a conditional waiver. The
conditional waiver has -- we're not going to call her 'cause Deitz and
Dutton are going to be called. I object to them using any of the notes
of Lenore Walker.

MR. PETROCELLI: On the 2034, Your Honor, her deposition was taken in
this action. The Code specifically provides whether or not she is
called as a witness, that her deposition testimony can be used. I'm
using it to directly impeach him.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.

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

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Dr. Lenore Walker is a woman that worked with
you in the course of the criminal case, and you spent many days
talking with her about the nature of your relationship with Nicole,
right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Is it also true, sir, that in the course of your relationship with
Nicole, that the two of you knew how to push each other's buttons?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And it's also true that, from time to time, the two of you got into
very heated arguments that resulted in Nicole moving out for a day or
two or a week at a time?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And there were incidents when pictures would be thrown and lamps would
be broken, things like that, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And there were also physical altercations, true, Mr. Simpson?

MR. BAKER: Vague as to time. All these questions are vague as to time,
Your Honor.

THE COURT: Time.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) I'm referring to the time when the two of you
began a relationship in 1977, up until the time you stopped that
relationship.

MR. BAKER: It's over broad, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes, we had a physical altercation.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Well, there was more than one physical
altercation, true?

A. I think you'd have to define that. There was one very physical
altercation, and there were other times when they were not so
physical.

Q. What do you mean by "not so physical," Mr. Simpson?

A. Well, Nicole hit me a few times, and I didn't consider that too
physical.

Q. So the ones that were not so physical are the times when you say
Nicole hit you, true?

A. Yes.

And one time I grabbed her at a door and pushed her outside the door.
That -- if you call that physical, that's physical, yes.

Q. And how many times did Nicole hit you, as you say?

A. Numerous times.

Q. Okay.

And how many times, Mr. Simpson, in the course of these physical
alterations, did you hit Nicole?

A. Never.

Q. How many times did you strike Nicole?

A. Never.

Q. How many times did you slap Nicole?

A. Never.

Q. How many times did you kick her?

A. Never.

Q. How many times did you beat her, sir?

A. Never.

Q. And if Nicole said you hit her, she would be lying; is that true?

MR. BAKER: I object. Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) If Nicole told people and wrote down in her
diary that you hit her --

MR. BAKER: I object to this.

MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me, Your Honor; I'm not finished with the
question.

MR. BAKER: That doesn't matter.

THE COURT: I'll sustain it as to form.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You are aware that Nicole has told others that
you hit her?

MR. BAKER: I object to this, Your Honor.

THE COURT: That's overruled.

A. Yes.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) And you are aware that Nicole has written down
in writings that you hit her, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And you are aware that her writings describe numerous incidents
when you hit her, true?

MR. BAKER: I object to this again.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BAKER: I think we need to approach.

THE COURT: No.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor --

Please answer the question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) And your view is all that is false, true?

A. True, yes.

Q. Let's talk about 1989, okay?

That was an angry, intense, physical confrontation, true?

A. Correct.

Q. You're what, at the time, six-two, 215 pounds?

A. Yes.

Q. Nicole, five-eight, 135 pounds?

A. Yes.

Q. And you hit her that day, didn't you, sir?

A. No.

Q. Did your hand make contact with her face at all to cause injuries
on her face?

Yes or no?

A. I don't know.

Q. Didn't you testify -- you remember testifying in this deposition,
sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Remember I took your deposition over a number of days and Mr.
Kelly, Mr. Brewer also asked you questions?

A. Yes.

Q. Let me read from that deposition.

By the way, you understand and you understood then, you were under
oath and subject to the same penalty of perjury, just as you are
today?

A. Yes.

MR. PETROCELLI: Line -- page 1032, Mr. Baker, line 21.

MR. BAKER: Line again?

MR. PETROCELLI: Starting at 20, sir.

MR. BAKER: To where?

MR. PETROCELLI: 22.

MR. BAKER: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) By me. (Reading:) "Q. You were in such a rage
that you don't remember what you did; is that right? "A. I remember
exactly what I did."

Now, tell this jury exactly how you caused all those injuries on
Nicole's face.

A. Well, as I told you throughout the deposition, I don't know how
exactly it happened, but I felt totally responsible for everything
that happened at one point.

Q. Mr. Simpson --

MR. BAKER: Let him answer the question.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) I'm not asking about your responsibility; I'm
asking about your physical movements and actions.

MR. BAKER: I move to let this witness answer the question.

THE COURT: The answer was not responsive.

Go ahead.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Please tell the jury exactly what you did to
cause the injuries on Nicole's face.

A. Well, as I explained to you, I don't know exactly how the injuries
took place, so I can't really answer that question.

If you want me to say what happened, I can tell you what happened.

Q. You said in the deposition, you remember exactly what you did,
true?

A. And I also told you I don't know how the injuries got there.

Q. You said you remembered exactly what you did, true?

A. Correct.

Not to cause the injuries; I didn't say that.

Q. You caused all those injuries, did you not?

A. I feel totally responsible for every injury she had then, yes.

Q. Sir, I'm not asking you about your feelings of responsibility. Do
you understand?

A. Yes.

Q. I'm asking you about what you did.

You caused the injuries to her face, did you not?

A. I feel responsible for every injury she had.

MR. PETROCELLI: Move to strike as nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Stricken. Jury is to disregard that answer.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Please answer the question.

A. I don't know.

Q. You don't know what?

A. That I caused every injury.

MR. PETROCELLI: Let's put some photos up.

And I apologize to the jury for having to show those photos.

Exhibit 3.

(Plaintiffs' Exhibit 3 displayed on TV screen.)

Q. You've seen those photos before, Mr. Simpson?

A. Yes.

Q. By the way, you say that some of the marks on -- on this photograph
are caused by Nicole picking her face that night, true?

A. No. I told you when she cleans her face.

Q. That night?

A. A lot of this redness would normally be there most nights, once she
picked and cleaned her face.

Q. You said in your deposition, sir, did you not, that that night she
was picking at her blemishes, and that caused marks on her chin and on
her cheek, true?

A. No. I said normally what -- when she does pick her face, that those
were marks that I'd normally see, yes.

Q. Did you not say in your deposition that she did so that night, and
that's why those marks appear on her face?

Yes or no?

A. I don't know --

MR. BAKER: That's been asked.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. -- Exactly.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Excuse me?

A. I'm not sure if that's what I said exactly.

Q. Tell the jury right now, did Nicole cause any of those marks to
herself that night by picking at her face?

A. I don't know, but --

Q. You don't know? Yes, no, or you don't know; that's all?

A. I don't know.

Q. Okay.

Let's talk about the injury to the lip, the split lip. How did she get
that injury, sir?

A. That looks more than what would normally be there. So at some point
during the night, I assume that that happened, once our -- our -- our
altercation began.

Q. Well, what did you do to cause that injury?

A. I wrestled her out of the room. And what happened when she was
outside, I didn't see when she fell, but I feel responsible for all of
that.

Q. But you've said you "feel responsible for," a number of times. It's
not necessary to keep saying it 'cause it's not responsive to my
questions.

MR. BAKER: I object to this. He can't give my client a speech.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Let's talk about what you did physically with
your hand, your foot, whatever.

Tell us how she got the cut on her lip, the split on her lip, that
caused it to bleed that night?

A. I don't know.

Q. You don't know?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

Tell us how she got the welt over the right eye.

A. I don't know specifically how.

Q. You did hit her there?

A. No.

Q. And it's your testimony, before this jury, that you never touched
her face with your hand, true?

A. I don't know, as I told you in the deposition, in wrestling her,
maybe my hand hit -- hit or was on her face. I certainly didn't punch
her or slap her.

Q. You say your hand was on her face.

Did you strike her at any time?

A. As I told you, I had her in a head lock at one point, in trying to
get her out of the door, so I would assume that my hand was somewhere
around her -- her face.

Q. When you say "head lock," you said in the deposition that you had
her head in kind of a head lock to get her out of the room, true?

A. At one point, yes.

Q. Are you saying that that's when that injury to her eye occurred?

A. I don't know when it occurred. But I'm assuming it occurred during
the altercation or when she fell outside and --

Q. I would ask --

A. -- I was a cause of all of that.

Q. I would ask that you not assume anything. Either tell us what
happened or --

MR. BAKER: I would ask Mr. Petrocelli not to give my client legal
advice.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) I just want to know what your recollection,
sir, is; that's all.

Just tell us what you remember.

A. I don't -- I don't remember specifically when any single mark or
injury came on her face, any of them. But I'm assuming they all
happened during this altercation.

Q. I Would ask that you not assume anything. Just tell us what you --

MR. BAKER: Again I as that Mr. Petrocelli --

THE COURT: Overruled. He may frame the question as he wishes.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Are you saying now that it's possible that you
might have struck her with your hand, delivered a below to her right
eye to cause that mark?

Yes or no?

A. No.

Q. It's not possible?

A. I did not punch her or slap her. That didn't happen.

Q. Did you strike her with your hand?

A. No.

Q. Now, this thing about wrestling, your view is that Nicole started
an argument that night about something that she was absolutely wrong
about, true?

A. Exactly, yes.

Q. And she came into the bedroom and started hitting you, right?

A. (No verbal response.)

Q. Correct?

A. Essentially, yes.

Q. And you tried to remove her from the bedroom and initially
succeeded in doing so and locked your door, true?

A. Again, yes.

Q. That's what you testified to?

A. I testified I locked her out once.

She got a key and got in.

Q. The first time -- the first time, you got her out of the room?

A. No, that's not correct. First time she went out, and I locked the
door.

Q. Okay.

Did you -- was there any wrestling the first time?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

And to your knowledge, no bruising or marks or injuries to her
occurred during the time that you got her out of the room?

A. I didn't get her out the first time.

Q. The time she left the room?

A. Yes.

Q. You locked the door, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then what happened is, Nicole got a key and opened the door,
and you were sitting or lying on the bed, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you say Nicole started hitting you at that point, right?

A. She jumped on me.

Q. And then what you did was, to kind of try to just get her out of
the room, right?

A. That was my purpose, yes.

Q. Okay.

And you said Nicole is one of the most physically conditioned women
you've ever known, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You said, at least that night, she was quite a match for you,
right?

A. It's tough -- it was tough to get her out of the room, yes.

Q. So what you did is, you started to sort of try to, from behind her,
put your arms around her and get her out of the room, right?

A. I don't know if that's necessarily true.

Q. At some point, you think, in the process of trying to get her out
the 15 feet or so to the door so you could close your door, you got
her in a head lock; is that right?

A. I don't think that's necessarily true.

Q. Is that a fair description?

A. No.

Q. Well, tell us, then.

A. She jumped on me, on the bed, and with her knees and arms -- and
then I kind of grabbed her and we kind of fell over on the floor.

And then I was trying to get her -- to get her out of the door, and
she was grabbing things and hitting. And eventually, I got her out of
the door.

Q. Okay.

And when you said you grabbed her, you put your right hand into a fist
--

A. Yes.

Q. -- just now.

Is that what you did that night when you grabbed her?

A. Quite possibly when I grabbed her arm, quite possibly I did.

Q. When you did -- now, you just put both hands in a fist.

When you did it that night, did you punch her in the face with your
hands?

A. No. No.

Q. Did you put your fingers and hands on her throat and leave marks on
her throat, sir?

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

Q. You are aware she had marks on her throat, are you not?

A. I'm aware that someone said she did, yes.

Q. You believe that's false?

A. I never saw them. And the next day, she showed me all her bruises.

Q. She showed you everything the next day?

A. She showed me something here, and this -- this was obvious to me.
(Indicating to arm and head.)

Q. You didn't see any marks on her throat?

A. No.

Q. No hand print or anything like that?

A. No.

Q. It's your testimony that you never touched her throat, right?

A. I don't know.

When you say "touched her throat," I was wrestling her; I could have
touched her throat, yes.

Q. And how could you have touched her throat?

A. I don't know. Maybe -- I don't know. If you want to wrestle, you
know -- I don't know. You know, it happens in a wrestling match.

Q. Would you like to demonstrate to me, sir, how you had her head in a
head lock with the Court's permission?

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

THE COURT: I don't think it's necessary.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) So you don't remember how these injuries
occurred, true?

A. I assume they occurred during this event, but I didn't see -- you
know, when you're doing things, you don't see exactly, you know, when
they happen. I just saw the next day or later on, to an extent that
she had them, and I -- I felt I was responsible for them.

Q. Well, one thing you are clear about, though, is that however these
injuries occurred, it didn't result from your fist striking her or
your hand striking her --

A. Yes.

Q. -- and your hitting her in any way, true?

A. True.

Q. Now, once you got Nicole out of the room, you testified in your
deposition, that was the end of the altercation. True?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, you told a very different account of this incident, sir, to
Dr. Lenore Walker, did you not?

A. I don't believe so.

Q. Did you not tell Dr. Walker that Nicole, after you had an argument
in your room --

And by the way, this argument was over Nicole's belief that you were
buying expensive earrings for another woman and were being unfaithful
to her, true?

A. I think it was over her misinterpreting what a girl named Kathryn,
Marcus Allen's wife, said to her.

Of course, she called Nicole the next day and explained it to Nicole.

Q. Did you hear my question, Mr. Simpson?

MR. PETROCELLI: Could you repeat it?

You can answer it yes or no.

(Reporter reads the record as follows:) "Q. Did you not tell Dr.
Walker that --

MR. PETROCELLI: Next question.

THE COURT REPORTER: I don't have that as the next question.

MR. PETROCELLI: Let me reask it.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) This argument that you and Nicole had began
when you -- and Nicole accused you of buying expensive earrings for
another woman, true?

A. That's not necessarily true.

Q. Not necessarily true?

A. No. She made -- she alluded to something and she never talked about
what it was.

Q. But the gist of it was that you had bought expensive earrings for a
woman other than her, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And you told Dr. Walker that Nicole, in the course of this argument,
broke an expensive lamp shade and ran out of the room, right?

A. (No verbal response.)

Q. Correct?

A. Yeah, partially, yes.

Q. And you told Dr. Walker that Nicole then went to the bathroom in
the -- in the hallway, and that you locked her out of the bedroom,
right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Then Nicole went downstairs and buzzed you up, but you ignored the
buzz, true?

A. That's not correct.

Q. And then you went downstairs to the kitchen, sir, where Nicole was
at that time, true?

A. That's not correct.

Q. And you got mad, you grabbed her from behind, and you dragged her
out the front door, correct?

A. That's not correct.

Q. You told all of that to Dr. Walker, true?

A. That's not correct.

Q. And you saw Dr. Walker taking notes in the course of your
conversations, true?

A. That's -- I saw her doing that, yes.

Q. Okay.

And you weren't trying to mislead Dr. Walker, were you?

A. No, I wasn't.

Q. Now, it's also true that Nicole then ran to one of the guest rooms
on your property, where your then housekeeper, Michelle, lived,
correct?

A. She ended up there. I don't know if she ran there. I didn't see
them when she -- when she ran there.

Q. You followed her to Michelle's room to continue the argument, true?

A. I went out to Michelle's room, yes.

Q. You had no reason to go out to Michelle's room if you were trying
to simply quiet things down, did you, sir?

A. I don't agree with that.

Q. You could have stayed in your room, upstairs, after you succeeded
in wrestling her out of the room, locked the door, and gone to sleep,
true?

A. Well, I could have stayed up there, yes.

Q. And you did not do so, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And you went to Michelle's room, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And you pounded on the door and Michelle let you in, true?

A. No.

Q. And Nicole was dressed in sweat pants and a brassiere and nothing
else at the time you entered Michelle's room, true?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. And you told all of that to Dr. Walker, true?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. And you told none of that to me in your deposition, true?

A. I don't know.

Q. You don't know?

A. I don't know. I don't -- nine or eleven days, I don't know what we
talked about. We talked about just about everything.

Q. Well, we'll get into that.

Now, when you entered Michelle's room, you began to scream and yell at
Nicole, who was on the phone, calling the police. True?

A. No.

Q. And you told all of that to Dr. Walker correct?

A. No.

Q. And you got on the bed, with Nicole underneath you, and you grabbed
her arms, punched her, and scratched her, correct?

A. No.

Q. She punched you and scratched you, correct?

A. No, she --

Q. Yes or no?

A. No.

Q. You got on top of her on the bed, true?

A. She jumped across the bed.

Q. You pushed her onto the bed, sir, true?

MR. BAKER: Let him finish his answer.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. She got on the bed and was getting across the bed, and she was
yelling at me, and she ended up leaving the room.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You remember exactly what you did that evening,
as you said in your deposition, right?

A. Upstairs, yes.

Q. Oh, you don't remember exactly what you did downstairs that
followed what, minutes later?

A. I remember exactly what I did, but not exactly what she was doing.

Q. So now you're saying that you do remember exactly what you did, not
only upstairs, but downstairs, true?

A. Mostly, yes.

Q. Okay.

So you didn't mean what you just said a second ago when you said, I
remember exactly what I did upstairs?

MR. BAKER: Argumentative.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Now, you're saying you remember exactly what
you did upstairs and downstairs, true?

A. For the most part yes.

MR. BAKER: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Okay.

Now, you would agree, sir, that you had a physical confrontation with
Nicole on the bed, in Michelle's room, however it came about, and
whoever was hitting whom, you would agree that that was a physical
confrontation, was it not?

A. I mean, in that we may have touched, yes, but it wasn't what
happened upstairs.

Q. What do you mean, "touched?"

MR. BAKER: Judge, can we take that off the monitor? We're not asking
questions about that.

(Mr. Foster removed Exhibit 3 from the TV screen.)

A. That when I walked toward -- to her, she yelled at me and kind of
pushed the phone at me. And I was trying to tell her to stop and talk.

And she jumped over onto the bed, got to the other side of the bed,
said some things, started to the foot of the bed, and went out the
door, where I think Michelle was.

Q. Okay.

So at no time, then, did you tell Dr. Lenore Walker that you were on
top of Nicole on the bed, holding her down till she calmed down; she
was punching and scratching you; you put her in a head lock; you let
her go, and then she ran out?

A. That was upstairs.

Q. At no time did you tell that -- that that occurred downstairs,
true?

A. It did.

Q. You would agree that you had some type of physical confrontation
with Nicole in that bedroom downstairs?

A. I wouldn't describe it as that, but we probably touched. But I
wouldn't describe it as physical.

Q. And your touching was what, trying to grab her?

A. Yeah. She had kind of pushed the phone at me, and I was trying to
make her be still. And she got on the bed, and got to the other side
of the bed, said some things to me. And I think walked -- came to the
end of the bedroom, where I guess Michelle was at the door, and they
went out the door.

Q. So Michelle observed all of this, didn't she?

A. I don't know. Michelle was behind me and the door was open, so I'm
assuming she was there.

Q. She was right there in the room while you were engaged in a
physical altercation with Nicole, true?

A. I think she was standing right at the door and the door was open,
so I can't say if she was actually in the room or standing outside of
the room.

Q. She was looking at what was happening, true?

A. You'd have to ask Michelle.

MR. BAKER: Objection.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) True?

A. You'd have to ask Michelle.

Q. You don't know?

A. I don't know.

Q. The police came out, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And you've heard the testimony that Nicole told the officers that
you had punched her, and pulled her hair and so forth, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And those were true statements by Nicole, were they not?

A. No.

Q. And you saw --

By the way, the next day, Nicole had to go to the hospital, St.
John's, right?

A. Had to go?

Q. Went.

A. Yeah.

I asked her to go to CNI.

Q. I asked you if she went to the hospital.

A. Yes. We asked her to go.

Q. I didn't ask who asked her; I just asked you if she went.

A. Okay. Okay.

Q. Okay?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you go to the hospital, by the way, for any treatment?

A. No.

Nicole and I were trying to keep our distance.

Q. Did you fall down in the mud and get all muddy and dirty that
night?

A. No.

Q. Were you shaking with fear that night?

A. No.

Q. Were you injured that night?

A. I mean, not really, not what I would call an injury.

Q. Did you have marks all over your face?

A. No.

Q. Did you have bruises under your shoulders?

A. No.

Q. Now, you're aware Nicole told the doctor at the emergency treatment
facility that you hit her face with your fist?

A. No.

Q. You're aware that that's in the medical record in evidence?

MR. BAKER: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

A. No.

MR. BAKER: Move to strike the question and the answer.

THE COURT: Stricken.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Let's go to the one of -- the other --
underneath the shoulders.

MR. FOSTER: 9.

MR. PETROCELLI: Exhibit 9.

(Mr. Foster displayed Plaintiffs' Exhibit 9 on the TV screen.)

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Was this taken a couple days later, Mr.
Simpson?

A. I don't know.

Q. Now, can you tell us how this severe bruising to the right shoulder
occurred?

A. Not exactly, no.

Q. You don't know?

A. I would assume during the course of us being upstairs, or I would
assume more, then, maybe when she fell.

Q. You did -- but you don't know?

A. I don't know exactly. But I would assume when I was being physical
with her, it took place.

Q. Basically, you're -- when you described this incident, sir, you
were at all times trying to restrain Nicole and bring peace to the
situation?

A. No.

Q. You were trying to restrain her, right?

A. I was trying to get her out of my room.

Q. To stop the fight, right?

A. I don't know if that was my thought at the time.

My thought at the time was, I didn't want her in the room, and I
physically attempted to get her out of the room.

And I was wrong in doing that.

Q. You physically attempted to get her out of the room because she
wouldn't leave, right?

A. Yes.

Q. So, in your mind, you weren't battering her that night, were you?

A. At the time, I would have said no but what I know now, I would have
said yes.

Q. But at that time, 1989, you weren't hitting her or striking her or
battering her, true?

A. At the time, I was.

MR. BAKER: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. (Continuing) At the time, I was being wrongly physical with her,
and I physically tried to get her out of the room.

And I've also said then and now I was wrong.

Q. Mr. Simpson, based on what you testified to, saying you're wrong
and you accept all this responsibility, what did you do wrong, sir?

A. I physically tried to impose my will on Nicole, and I shouldn't
have done it.

Q. By trying to get her out of your room?

A. Exactly.

Q. As she was beating on you?

A. No. She jumped on me. At that point, I reacted a way I shouldn't
have reacted.

Q. She's hitting you and striking you and throwing things, and you
tried to get her out of the room, and for that you were wrong?

Is that what you're saying? Yes or no?

A. I was wrong for everything that led to this.

I told the investigating officer and everybody I was totally wrong.

Q. Would you answer the question?

I just want you to answer my question. Your lawyer can ask you all the
questions he wishes when it's his turn.

Can you repeat my question?

MR. BAKER: Move to strike the preamble.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Answer the question, please.

THE WITNESS: What's the question?

Q. We'll have it repeated, sir.

(The reporter read the record as follows: "She's hitting you and
striking you and throwing things, and you tried to get her out of the
room, and for that you were wrong?")

THE WITNESS: How I acted? Yes.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) The answer to the question is yes?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

Now, after this incident, sir, you wrote this letter to Nicole, did
you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And you apologized profusely and repeatedly to her, true?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

MR. PETROCELLI: Could you put on Exhibit 13.

(Mr. Foster displayed Plaintiffs' Exhibit 13 on the TV screen.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Could we have the board? Why don't you get the board.

(The instrument herein referred to as Copy of a letter from O.J.
Simpson to Nicole Brown Simpson was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 13.)

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Now, you wrote some letters because you
regretted what you had done, true?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And this is one of the letters where you expressed how wrong you were
for hurting Nicole, true?

A. Correct.

Q. You also said in this letter that you had gone crazy, you got
crazy, true?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And when you said to Nicole in that letter that you got crazy, sir,
you were not merely talking about defending yourself, were you?

A. No.

Q. You were not merely talking about trying to get her out of the room
because she was hitting on you, true?

That's not what you meant when you said you got crazy, true?

A. I believe that's what it went to, yes.

Q. What exhibit is this board?

A. 13.

Q. Excuse me?

A. The letter, 13.

Q. The letter is Exhibit 13?

MR. BAKER: I object to the board. It's argumentative to highlight
certain portions of it.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) When you said, sir, "thinking and trying to
realize how I got so crazy, I had such emotional feeling towards you
that were as high and as any I'd ever felt. Must be because of those
feelings that I acted -- reacted so emotionally.

When you said those things, you were apologizing to Nicole for hitting
her, were you not?

A. No, as I said, realizing.

Q. Yes or no?

A. No.

Q. After this incident, you and Nicole had quite a difficult time for
a while, true?

Yes or no?

A. I think you'd have to define "difficult" for me, please.

Q. There was a serious problem in your marriage; and, in fact, you
moved out for a while, true?

A. Moved out? I'd -- I stayed at a friend's house for two nights. I
didn't move any clothes out or anything, but I felt that it was, for
us, to what reached a point where we got this physical with one
another, that we should do something about it.

Q. And you were very concerned, sir, about losing Nicole at that time,
were you not?

A. I was concerned about losing Nicole at any time, even though there
was no indication that -- from either one of us that we would split,
but --

Q. I'm just asking you about that time.

Were you or were you not concerned about losing Nicole for what you
did to her on January 1, 1989?

Yes or no?

A. Yeah.

Yes, but --

Q. Okay.

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

MR. PETROCELLI: Can we have Exhibit 15 on the board, Steve, for a
second. The second page, just put it on the TV monitor.

(The instrument herein referred to as Copy of letter from O.J. Simpson
to Nicole Brown Simpson was marked for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 15.)

(Mr. Foster displayed Plaintiffs' Exhibit 15 on the TV screen.)

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You wrote to her, "I love you and losing you is
the only thing that matters to me," right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were very worried that you would lose Nicole at that point
in your life, true?

Yes or no?

A. I was worried about losing Nicole at any time, even though --

Q. Mr. Simpson, we're not talking about any time; we're talking about
when you wrote the letters, sir.

A. I didn't want to lose Nicole at any time, including when I wrote
this letter.

MR. PETROCELLI: Move to strike as nonresponsive, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Stricken.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Please answer the question.

When you wrote that letter after this physical confrontation between
Nicole and you, you were very concerned about losing her; yes or no?

A. Yes.

MR. PETROCELLI: And go to Exhibit 14.

(The instrument herein referred to as a three-page letter to Nicole
Brown Simpson was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.
14.)

(Mr. Foster displayed Plaintiffs' Exhibit 14 on the TV screen.)

Q. And you tried to make some kind of amends to her, true?

A. Yes.

Q. Including financial, correct?

A. I don't -- I couldn't characterize it as that, and I wouldn't
totally characterize it as that, no.

MR. PETROCELLI: Get ready on Exhibit 14.

Take it off the screen, then.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Let -- let me give a little background here.

You and Nicole got married in February 1985, and before you got
married, you asked for and received a prenuptial agreement, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And that prenuptial agreement prevented your previously accumulated
wealth from becoming community property of Nicole's and yours, true?

A. Partially.

Q. And you were worth a lot of money when you got married, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Under that agreement that you entered into prior to marriage, all
the money you had acquired up to that time and all your properties and
all your holdings would remain your own and not Nicole's?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, when I say "worth a lot of money," by that we're talking
millions and millions of dollars?

A. I would imagine so.

Q. Okay.

So now, after this incident on January 1, 1989, you were so concerned
about losing Nicole, and you were so concerned about what you had
done, and you agreed to tear that prenuptial agreement up if you ever
hit her again, true?

A. Not when I made that offer, no.

Q. You had your lawyer write up a document that said if I hit you
again, I will tear up the prenuptial agreement, true?

A. That's right.

Q. And you did that in order to make sure that Nicole did not leave
you at that time, true?

A. Incorrect.

Q. And you were also concerned, were you not, sir, about the damage
that this incident might have to your public name, reputation, and
image, true?

A. I think I always would have had those concerns, yes.

Q. And you were concerned about it at that time, right?

A. I don't think that was a concern at that time.

Q. Okay.

Your image has always been important to you, sir, has it not?

A. Who I am, yes.

Q. And you also have been aware of your image, right?

A. Yeah. I always know people like me, yes.

Q. You wrote when you first began your football career back in the
first book that you authored, "I have been praised, kidded and
criticized about being image conscious, and I plead guilty to the
charge," true?

A. At that time, yes.

Q. And you wrote that, quote: "I tried all the images." End of quote.
True?

A. I don't recall that, no.

Q. It's in your book.

A. I didn't write the book.

Q. You approved the book, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You wouldn't allow anything in there about you to remain if it were
false, would you?

A. I think that's a certain license people take when they write books
and --

Q. You tried --

A. -- that was the license that was taken.

Q. You tried all the images, did you not?

A. No.

Q. And did you also write that the ghetto makes you want to hide from
your real identity, from cops, from teachers, and even from yourself,
and it forces you to build up false images humble, swaggering, casual,
or tough in order to handle your enemies and impress your friends.
That's what you wrote?

A. No, I didn't write that.

Q. And that's in your book, true?

A. It's in my book, but I didn't write it.

Q. Now you disavow that, right?

A. I happen to believe a lot of that sentiment, but I didn't write
that, no.

Q. You agree with it?

A. A lot of it, yes.

Q. You agreed with it at the time and you agree with it now, true?

A. In the ghetto, I agree that you have to at times hide behind a
tough exterior. Yes, I do agree with that.

Q. Mr. Simpson, you're not saying that you don't agree with what was
put in the book under your name or about your -- all about you, first
book ever written -- you're not saying that to this jury?

A. In general, I okay'd the book.

Q. Okay.

A. A agree with a lot of the sentiment in the book, but I didn't write
those exact words.

Q. You didn't take any legal action to prevent this book from being
publicly issued?

A. No.

Q. Or to take it off the market, did you?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

And by the way, in that book, you also wrote, quote: "I think I lie
pretty effectively," did you not?

A. No.

Q. You are aware that that quotation is attributed to you in your
book, are you not?

A. Now I am, yes.

Q. "Now" means when? Right now, the first time?

A. Yeah.

Q. You never saw that before?

A. Well, I think I read the galley of the book before it went to press
in 1969, and I haven't read it since.

Q. Page 57, quote:

How can you tell me -- asked -- I'm referring to you -- quote:

"I think I lie pretty effectively." End of quote.

You don't accept that when you lie, you look so serious and intent on
what you're saying, it gives you away. When you're saying something
and you're laughing, that's the only time I can tell you're telling
the truth, and you said I figured that it was something to keep in
mind for my acting career, right?

A. I don't know, I don't recall saying that, but --

Q. You are a pretty effective liar, are you not?

MR. BAKER: Object, Your Honor, that's argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You lied to cover up the 1989 incident with
Nicole, true?

A. No.

Q. You told Roy Firestone on a national television interview on ESPN
the following:

Quote: We were both guilty. No one was hurt, it was no big deal, and
we both got on with our lives. End of quotes.

You said that on television, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was absolutely false, true?

A. I disagree with you on that.

Q. Did Nicole get hurt?

A. She had some bruises.

Q. Are you minimizing her injuries now, sir?

A. I'm not minimizing my action. But we got on with our lives.

Q. I'm talking about your statement no one was hurt, that was --

A. Nicole --

Q. -- a false statement, true?

A. Technically.

Q. It was a lie?

A. I disagree with you.

Q. It was false?

A. I disagree with you.

Q. It was true?

A. I disagree with what you're saying.

Q. Was it true or false that no one was hurt? Answer my question.

A. Nicole, yes, she was.

Q. So Nicole was hurt, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you did not tell the truth about it and you attempted to
minimize the incident to cover up, true?

A. It was a sport show, and yes, I most definitely on this sport show
minimized what -- minimized what happened in my personal life, yes.

But not to the police officers, I didn't minimize it.

MR. PETROCELLI: Move to strike.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) We're talking about Roy Firestone, okay?

A. Okay.

Q. And in trying to minimize, you did so in order to try to protect
your interest, correct?

A. Protect my family first and foremost.

Q. And protect you, true?

A. I don't know if that's what I was thinking. I just thought it was
an inappropriate question on a sport show and I didn't think it was
the country's business what took place in my home.

Q. So you were not trying to protect and hold up your good name and
image, is that what you're telling the jury?

A. I've also attempted to protect my family, my name and my image, of
course, yes.

Q. And you were trying to protect your family, your name and your
image in answering those questions, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And in doing so you were also protecting yourself, correct?

A. I'm a part of my family. My name and my family.

Q. So you were also -- you don't have any problem with admitting you
were trying to protect yourself, right?

A. No.

Q. You have no problem saying that, do you?

A. You're correct.

Q. Okay. And when you were trying to protect yourself, and it was
necessary to lie, you lied, right?

A. I think I may have minimized the situation, as you said, because I
didn't think it was a proper forum to be asked that question on
national TV.

Q. You told another lie, too, you said it was no big deal, true?

A. As far as the country was concerned, I thought it was no big deal.

Q. Well, it was a big deal to you, wasn't it?

A. Certainly was.

Q. We'll go to that document. You offered Nicole, tearing up your
prenup, that was worth millions of dollars, wasn't it?

A. That's absolutely right.

Q. It was a big deal to Nicole, right?

A. I would think so.

Q. And you said she just got some bruises; is that right?

A. That's what she got.

Q. Not a big deal, some bruises, right?

A. To me and to Nicole it was a big deal. To America -- I didn't think
it was any of their business. And to me it was no big deal for America
to know what happened in my home.

Q. Okay. So when you said it was no big deal and we both got on with
our lives, what you were saying is it was no big deal to America,
that's what you were saying, right?

A. That's what I was implying to America, yes.

Q. And Nicole was hurt, wasn't she, sir?

A. Yes, emotionally she was hurt.

Q. And physically?

A. And physically she was bruised and hurt, yes.

Q. You saw those injuries to her face, right?

A. I saw those bruises, yes.

Q. More than bruises --

MR. PETROCELLI: Good time?

(Referring to break.)

THE COURT: No, I would like you to move on.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) By the way, you offered Nicole that document in
February, right?

A. Yes.

BY MR. PETROCELLI: Can we see that document.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) She didn't sign it until August, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So it took her some 8 months after the incident to agree to
sign that document, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

MR. PETROCELLI: Put it on the Elmo.

MR. GELBLUM: 813.

(Exhibit 813 displayed on Elmo.)

(The instrument herein described as a Document dated 2-3-89 was marked
for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 813.)

MR. PETROCELLI: And can you move this up a little bit, right here.

MR. GELBLUM: Done.

MR. PETROCELLI: I'm sorry.

(Counsel moves over.)

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You wrote her, if I ever willfully inflicted --
if I ever willfully inflict physical injury on you hereafter, I hereby
agree that the prenuptial agreement between you and me shall be null
and void, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And by the way, that's not your handwriting or your signature, you
had your lawyer write that out for you, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And Nicole signed it 8 months later, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

By the way, you know who Frank Olson is, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Frank Olson was one of your mentors in the commercial world, right?

A. Yes.

Q. He's the chairman of Hertz Corporation?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were Hertz's leading spokesman for many, many years going
back to the 70's, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And when the '89 incident occurred, you had a conversation with Mr.
Olson a day or two later and put Nicole on the phone, correct?

A. I don't know if was a day or two later. I certainly had --

Q. Couple days?

A. -- certainly had a conversation with him after.

Q. And you told Nicole -- you told Mr. Olson, sir, that Nicole broke a
lamp, you saw what happened and you shoved or pushed her out of the
door, the maid saw it, heard the noise, overreacted and called the
police, and that was the extent of the incident?

A. No, I think both Nicole and I talked to Mr. Olson and I think we
possibly told him a little more than that, even though I don't think
we went into any long detail about it.

Q. You also told Mr. Olson that the only reason charges were being
filed is because an assistant district attorney who was involved was
president of some association dealing with domestic violence and they
were using you as a scapegoat to highlight the problem, true?

A. I still believe that, yes.

Q. And that's what you told Mr. Olson, right?

A. I think that was true.

Q. That's what you told him, right?

A. Yes.

I know that's true, as a matter of fact.

Q. By the way, you also told your good friend and business colleague
back east in New York, Louis Mark, the same thing, right?

A. I'm sure I -- after it became public, both Nicole and I spoke to
both of those individuals.

Q. And you told them basically there was -- it was a little shoving
incident?

A. I don't know what Nicole told them because she talked to them
outside of my presence.

Q. You told them just a little shoving incident, right?

A. Yeah, I told them we had an altercation.

Q. No, you didn't say altercation. You told him that you just shoved
her out of the room when she broke a lamp, and this's all you said,
right?

A. I don't know -- I just told them that we had an altercation and
there was a problem with LAPD from it, and I just felt that they were
people that I was in business with and they should know once Nicole
and I realized the media was going to write about it.

Q. Bottom line, you didn't tell them the truth, right?

A. Bottom line, I don't --

Q. Yes or no?

A. I think I told them the truth. I didn't tell them in detail but I
thought I was very honest with them.

Q. Now, this wasn't the only time that there was a physical
altercation in your relationship as you indicated, correct?

A. Like this, yes, it was.

Q. There was a time when you hit Nicole on the side, and she ran to
the home of your very close friend in Los Angeles, a man named Wayne
Hughes, right?

A. No.

Q. And she showed Mr. Hughes the bruises and Mr. Hughes came running
to your house in his car looking for you and you were gone, true?

A. I don't recall this at all.

Q. You deny that?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

A. I don't deny what Nicole and Wayne may have done. I don't recall it
at all.

Q. But you deny striking her and causing a bruise on her side?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. There was another incident in the 80's when you and Nicole
used to take your Chows to a veterinarian, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And --

MR. BAKER: I'll object on remoteness.

THE COURT: When was this, Mr. Petrocelli?

MR. PETROCELLI: It was in the early 80's, Your Honor.

I don't think any of these are remote under People versus Zack.

THE COURT: Okay. Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) And you had an altercation with Nicole in the
parking lot when you slapped her in the face and knocked her glasses
off to the ground, true?

A. No.

Q. And there was another incident in about 1986 or 1987 out near your
place in Laguna out on Victoria?

A. No. I don't have a place in Laguna.

Q. You and Nicole frequented Laguna Beach from time to time?

A. Yes, we lived there from time to time.

Q. There was a time on the sand when you and she got into an argument
and you slapped her and she fell down to her knees?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. Then there was an incident in the late 80's when you were up there,
you were having an argument with Nicole in the back of the limousine
and you struck her in the back of the limousine?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. Speaking of Wayne Hughes, didn't you tell Wayne Hughes after the
1989 incident you caught too much of a backhand in hitting Nicole?

A. I don't believe so, no.

Q. Now --

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, this be a good time?

THE COURT: Okay.

Ladies and gentlemen, don't talk about the case, don't form or express
any opinions.

10 minutes.

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) In the fall of 1984, there was an incident in
which you broke Nicole's windshield with a baseball bat. Do you recall
that, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. And you and Nicole had had an argument, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And Nicole was extremely upset and crying after you broke the base
-- broke her windshield with the bat, right?

A. Upset. Not crying, no.

Q. And she then called the Westec folks and they came out to the
incident, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you were in a state of rage and you took a baseball bat
and you smashed her windshield, right?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. You testified at your deposition that all you did is you were
bouncing the baseball bat against the tire, having an ordinary kind of
conversation with Nicole, right?

MR. BAKER: I object to this, Your Honor. If he's going to use the
deposition he can use page and line numbers.

MR. PETROCELLI: Not necessary.

MR. BAKER: Not request my client to remember 11 days of deposition.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You testified at your deposition that all you
were doing was sitting there talking to Nicole and you're taking the
nub of the baseball bat, and just bouncing it against the rubber tire
when a couple times it hit the hub cap.

Do you remember that testimony?

A. I remember that portion of it. Not quite how you characterize it.

Q. And Nicole said to you, don't hit the car with the bat?

A. No, she --

Q. Remember that?

A. She moved my leg and looked at the hub cap and said, you're hitting
the hub cap, you're going to pay for that.

Q. Yeah, and then your response was, bam, I'll pay for that too,
right?

A. Yes.

Q. Then, you remember testifying that she went in, she pressed a
button for Westec, came back out and the two of you just finished
talking, you both went in the house?

A. Yes.

Q. And nothing was the matter, and you were surprised to see Westec
even show up, let alone the LA Police Department, correct?

A. I think I was surprised to see LA Police Department. When Westec
came, I don't know if that was a surprise, but I didn't expect it, I
didn't know she had done that.

Q. So you -- in your description of this incident, Nicole was not in
fear of you at that point in time, correct?

A. Definitely not.

Q. It was no big deal, right?

A. Well, I broke her windshield, but no big deal, no.

Q. After the incident, your marriage came to an end a couple of years
later, right?

A. Three and a half years later, yes.

Q. January 6, 1992, you and Nicole split up, right?

A. Yes. She asked for a separation at that point.

Q. And you were extremely unhappy about losing your wife then?

A. Very much so, yes.

Q. And you were hurt very badly, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you, for several months in fact, tried to convince her to stay
in the relationship, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And then at some point, I guess May or so, you met a woman named
Paula Barbieri and you began dating her and getting on with the rest
of your life, right?

A. I -- yeah, but I began getting along with the rest of my life after
Nicole told me she had found a guy she was interested in.

Q. Between January and May of 1992, which is the -- this was the
period when you were attempting to resist a divorce, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And during that period of time, sir, you were going over to
Nicole's -- withdrawn.

By this time Nicole had moved out of Rockingham into a rented
condominium on Gretna Green, right?

A. In February, she found another place to move to.

Q. 325 South Gretna Green?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. She took your two children, Sydney and Justin, with her to live
there, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you would go over there from time to time uninvited, right?

A. Yes. Yes, both ways, she'd come to my house, I'd go to her house.

Q. We're only talking about you right now. You would go to her house
uninvited?

A. Yes.

Q. And you would call Nicole's mother, Juditha, incessantly to talk
about Nicole, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Virtually every day, numerous times a day, trying to talk
about Nicole and getting your wife back, true?

A. Often we didn't talk about Nicole but most of the time it was about
Nicole, and Judy was -- she was like a shrink for me. I called her all
the time. Okay.

Q. And you also would call Nicole's house sitter, a woman named
Giaconda Redfern, and talk to her about Nicole, right?

A. I don't know who she is.

Q. You would call Nicole's house sitter to find out where Nicole was,
right?

A. If I was out of town and I was calling like, for Nicole and the
kids and they weren't around, I'd ask where they were.

I don't know Giaconda Redfern.

Q. You were checking up on her pretty frequently?

A. No, I think --

Q. Yes or no?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Now, there came a time when in April of 1992, you went out to
a restaurant called Trieste, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you saw Nicole there with a man named Keith, right?

A. I believe Keith was there. She was with about ten people.

Q. This is the first time you had ever seen Nicole, in a restaurant,
in the company of another man, not you, right?

A. No.

Q. And it was obvious to you that Nicole was with this person and not
there with you, right?

A. No, I had met Keith. And she went out with a bunch of her friends,
and I assumed he was just a friend of hers like all the other people
that were there.

Q. You were not Nicole's date that night?

A. No.

Q. And you were not invited to be there with Nicole and the party,
right?

A. Or them with me and my party, no.

Q. Now, after you left the restaurant that night, about 11 o'clock or
so you went over to Nicole's condominium, uninvited and unannounced,
true?

A. Yes.

Q. And as you walked up the path to the house, you looked through the
window, and you saw Nicole engaged in a sexual act with this man,
Keith, right?

A. As I approached her front door, the window was there, and I saw her
head, and I looked and saw that she was engaged with somebody.

Q. And you watched long enough to see what was going on, right?

A. I'd say ten seconds. I was a little stunned when I saw it, yes.

Q. And that left an indelible impression in your mind, true, sir?

A. I don't know what an indelible impression is.

I was pretty stunned.

Q. Lasting impression, right?

A. I was pretty stunned. I mean it's not a picture that I carry around
with me.

Q. Something that was hard for you to forget, right, is that a fair
statement?

A. I sometimes still remember, yes.

Q. Now, after that incident, you met this Paula, and the two of you,
you and Paula that is, began a monogamous relationship of your own
with her, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And by this time, you're pretty much over trying to talk Nicole
into the relationship, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And your divorce was final in October of 1992, true?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. Now, there came a time I guess several months later, into
early 1993, when Nicole started pursuing you again, true?

A. Yes.

Q. Or were you pursuing her?

A. No, she was incessively (sic) pursuing me.

Q. Excuse me?

A. Incessively.

Q. Incessantly?

A. Yes.

She'd show up where I -- wherever I was. She showed up at the golf
course where I was, she followed me to Mexico, she made me cookies and
occasionally -- she called my home and my office incessantly.

Q. Kind of what you were doing to her between January and May of 1992,
true?

A. I think that's false. I don't think I showed up anyplace other than
her home where she was.

Q. Okay.

A. Yeah.

Q. Now, are you sure you were not pursuing her this time?

A. No. I think everyone, including our family, knows it was her
pursuing me.

Q. You sure about that?

A. I think everybody knows that.

Q. I'm just asking if you're sure?

A. I'm a thousand percent sure.

Q. How many percent?

A. A thousand percent sure.

Q. Thank you. That answers my question.

Now, Nicole was sending you letters and tapes and cookies and trying
to get you back, right?

A. Yes.

MR. PETROCELLI: Can I see the letter, Steve.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) She wrote you a letter --

MR. PETROCELLI: 1161. Let me see it first. Just hand it to me, if you
would please.

(Mr. Foster complies.)

(The instrument herein referred to as a five-page letter from Nicole
Brown Simpson to O.J. Simpson was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1161.)

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Now, by this time, we're into what, Mr.
Simpson, March, April, 1993, thereabouts?

A. Yes.

Q. Divorce is final. You're in your life with Paula, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And there isn't any romantic involvement at all with Nicole, right?

A. I hadn't even spoken to Nicole since two days after Christmas. I
think I saw her for a minute on the 1st of February, and until she
showed up at my house, I don't think I even had spoken a word to her
other than maybe if I called and asked to speak to the kids.

Q. And the basic interaction, if any, you had, had to do only with the
children, right?

A. Yes. I -- as a matter of fact, I know other than that one day I
didn't even see Nicole for about two and a half, three months, and
then I wasn't returning her calls when she would call to my office and
stuff.

Q. And then the pursuing started, right?

A. I think it's a little confusing here.

She was sending things over and calls and I wasn't responding.

Q. Why were you not responding?

A. Because I didn't want to deal with any of her problems. I told her
if it was about the kids, just let me know. My housekeeper and my
secretary told her. And I think I sent her a note or something that
Nicole, I don't want to get into any of your problems. Because I had
to deal with a lot of her problems and -- after we had -- after May of
'92, and I tried to help her as best I can, but I was in my own
relationship and I didn't want to deal with any of hers and I -- I
just, you know, I just didn't want to deal with anything outside of
the children.

Q. Okay. And at some point you got a letter from her, right?

A. Well, she showed up at my house one day, yes.

MR. PETROCELLI: Was it 1161?

MR. GELBLUM: Yes.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) The dear O.J. letter. You see that?

A. Yes.

Q. And at the end -- well, let me ask you this: First of all, this is
a letter from Nicole to you, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And this is the letter that you received sometime in the spring of
1993?

A. It appears to be, yes.

Q. And this is Nicole's handwriting, right?

A. It appears to be.

Q. You don't have any doubt about that, right?

A. It appears to be, yes.

Q. You have any doubt?

A. No.

Q. Okay. At the end it says, I love you forever and always, Me, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And basically what she was saying to you is O.J., I want to come
home, right?

A. Well, she told -- the day she gave me the letter -- well, basically
that's what the letter says, yes.

Q. I want to come home, right?

A. I don't know -- yes.

Q. And as a result of these beseechings by Nicole, you decided to get
back with her, right?

A. No.

Q. At some point you told Paula Barbieri that you were going to end
your relationship with her and you were going to get back with Nicole,
right?

A. Roughly -- probably two months, possibly a little more after she
showed up with this letter, yes.

Q. Around Mothers Day, 1993, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Then you left Paula for Nicole, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you broke Paula's heart?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you and Nicole began what we -- what you called the
reconciliation period, right?

A. I gave her a year. I gave it a year.

Q. You gave her a year?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that what you are saying?

A. Yes, that's part of.

Q. You gave her a year to do what, sir?

A. I gave her -- I said I would give it a year. She had a concern at
one point that if we argued, that I would just stop, and I said okay,
I'll give it a year.

I told her a few other things about one particular friend of hers I
wouldn't socialize with and I don't -- and one or two other little
things.

Q. Before you said you'd give her a year. Was that a slip?

A. No, that -- that's how I felt, I'll give it a year, I'll work as
hard as I can for a year, and if it works in a year we'll remarry, if
it didn't work in a year, it wouldn't work.

Q. So from about March -- excuse me, May of 1993, for the next year --

A. Virtually to the day.

Q. We'll talk about to the day.

A. Yeah.

Q. Let's just say to the year.

A. Yes.

Q. Roughly, okay?

A. Yes.

Q. You and Nicole had a monogamous relationship, right?

A. I don't know how monogamous it was, no.

Q. Was it monogamous on your part?

A. When we were dating it was monogamous. You have to understand, I
lived in New York, she lived here. I -- she never asked me what I was
doing, I never asked her what she was doing.

Q. The ground rules were you would date each other exclusively, not
move in, and try to see if you could put your marriage back together,
and if it worked within a year, then she would move back to Rockingham
and the two of you would get remarried and be a family again, is that
a fair description of the arrangement?

MR. BAKER: Objection, compound.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I think the ground rules were we'd work together on the
relationship.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Sir, could you answer my question, please?

A. You asked a question -- you asked a lot of things that were in that
question, sir.

Q. Was that a fair --

A. Basically, basically, but I -- she went out when she wasn't with me
and I went out when I wasn't with her, so...

Q. Excuse me?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that a fair description of the arrangements you had?

A. I think it was close.

Q. Okay. Are you saying now that you did not have an arrangement with
her where you would be exclusive to her. You would be monogamous to
her during the period that you and she were attempting to reconcile?

A. I think we wanted to be. But she wasn't and I wasn't, so --

Q. But you had an agreement with her that you would be, true?

A. I don't think we talked about it. I don't think it was a specific
conversation we had. I think when we said we'd work together, it may
have been an implied thing there that we would be monogamous with one
another, but I think it was pretty -- I think it was certainly implied
when we -- when we sat and talked about it.

Q. So the answer to my question is you did not have a verbal agreement
with Nicole that the two of you would be exclusive -- exclusive; is
that correct?

A. I think it was implied, yes.

Q. Did you tell her -- did she tell you we will not date other people
in the time that we are attempting to reconcile?

A. I don't recall --

Q. Yes or no?

A. -- recall having that specific conversation, having -- saying that.
I think it was certainly implied when we got back together.

Q. You had no verbal conversation that you and she would do such a
thing, correct?

A. I believe it was implied when we said we're going to work to get
back together again.

Q. Are you saying it was said or not said? Can you just answer the
question?

A. I'm saying that I believe it was implied when we said we were going
to work with one another to get back together.

Q. Okay.

A. I know neither one of us was monogamous during this period of time.

Q. I'm not asking you that. I'm asking you what the deal was, okay.

Now, you said the closest that you came and she came to expressing
that deal is that you would work together, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And nothing more was said on the subject of dating other
people, right?

A. I think it was implied that we wouldn't date other people.

Q. Nothing else was said, right?

A. I believe it was implied. I don't remember the specific
conversation but I believe it was certainly implied by both of us that
we wouldn't date other people.

Q. Now, that reconciliation period didn't go too well, did it?

A. I would say it went -- with the exception of two or three months,
mainly because I kind of felt I wanted out, I would say it went pretty
good. It didn't work in the end. I thought it went pretty good.

Q. The last six months of the year were not very good, were they?

A. I would say January, February, March were great, and from March on,
they weren't.

Q. Okay. And you continued to have arguments with Nicole as you had
throughout the course of your relationship, right?

A. Yes, we had a few arguments, yes.

Q. And a couple of things happened that year that upset you, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And one thing that happened in particular was that there was an
article that came out in the National Enquirer in the fall of 1993 in
which it was reported that you -- that you had begged Nicole to get
back into the relationship, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And that really upset you?

A. Yes, it certainly did.

Q. And it upset you because it was false, right?

A. Exactly. That's why it upset me.

Q. She begged, you did not beg her?

A. Exactly right.

Q. You got upset with her because you thought Nicole was responsible
for telling the reporters or her circle of friends told the reporters
this falsehood, right?

A. That one or two of her friends had, yes, because there were some
things in there that I thought were a little on the money and I felt
that the only reason the National Enquirer would have known it was if
one of her friends had gone to it with it, and it really, really upset
me.

Q. It upset you because you didn't want to want America to think that
you were begging another woman, correct?

A. I didn't want an inaccurate thing to be written in the paper, and I
didn't think it was right that one of her friends would go to a
tabloid and make any characterizations about anything that was going
on between Nicole and I.

Q. You were a public figure at that time, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were very concerned about what the public thinks of you,
true?

A. In this instance I would say no. In this instance I was upset that
someone who purported to be a friend of hers would take --

Q. Could you please answer my question yes or no.

MR. BAKER: He's trying to answer the question.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) No, you're not answering.

THE COURT: Overruled. He's answered.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Please answer the question.

A. Would you reask it, please.

Q. You were upset that the country was reading that you had begged a
woman to -- to get back into the relationship?

A. In this instance, no.

Q. Okay. Now, in October of 1993, there was another very severe
episode with Nicole, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You hesitated. Not sure that it was severe?

A. Yes. It was severe. Severe -- I mean you -- it certainly wasn't
severe in terms of '89, which I truly thought was severe. I didn't
think the '93 incident was nearly -- in the realm of the '89 incident.

Q. Now, the entire time that you were -- this is October 25, 1993?

A. Yes.

Q. The entire time that you were arguing with Nicole that night, there
was another person there on the premises, right?

A. I would say most of my argument when the other person was on the
premises was me venting to him because Nicole was upstairs.

Q. And that person is Kato Kaelin?

A. Kato Kaelin.

Q. Okay. Now, what happened that evening, sir? You were at Nicole's
house, and you got into an argument with her because you saw a picture
of this guy, Keith?

A. That's absolutely wrong. I mean that became a part of the argument
once it began. But that's absolutely wrong.

Q. Excuse me. You can just answer yes or no.

A. No.

Q. You got into an argument with Nicole because you saw some photos
that upset you, right?

A. That became a part of the argument after the argument began.

Q. Okay.

A. Yes.

Q. And you then left the condominium because you were upset, right?

A. Not -- no, that's not correct. I think I left -- when I left there
hadn't been an argument. I left because I didn't want to argue.

Q. You were upset and you left, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were upset and you didn't want to get into an argument,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And this is at night, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you drove the short distance to Rockingham, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And then you called Nicole, right?

A. No, I called her back. She called me. I was on the phone, and I
returned her call.

Q. And the two of you argued on the phone now, right?

A. Yes, on the -- I don't know if we argued. She made a point to me
that I said I wouldn't -- I wouldn't leave if there was something to
talk about, we would argue it out. So essentially it was her saying to
me I wasn't doing what I said I would do.

Q. And she hung up on you?

A. She may have hung up, yes.

Q. And you called her back and she hung up on you again?

A. I don't think so. I may have called as I was coming over and her
phone was -- either it was busy or off the hook.

Q. And then at some point you called back, and the phone was busy, and
you could not get through as though it had been put off the line,
true?

MR. BAKER: Objection.

THE WITNESS: I don't think so.

MR. BAKER: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. PETROCELLI: And --

THE COURT: Just a minute.

Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Okay. At some point while you were dealing with
Nicole you tried to call her and could not get through, you got a busy
signal, true?

A. Yes, I was -- yes.

Q. And when you were unable to get through, you jumped in your car,
your Bronco, your white Bronco, and you high-tailed it over to
Nicole's; is that right?

A. My knees were such that I couldn't jump anywhere.

Q. Okay.

A. I drove over because I thought she made a valid point, I shouldn't
have left, I should have stayed and talked it out.

Q. You got in your car and you went over to Nicole's, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you parked the car not against the curb but sort of just in
front of the house, right?

A. In front of her car, yes.

Q. And you left your lights on, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you went inside and you kicked the door, true?

A. Well, there was a lot that happened in between that and the portion
that you're talking about, but essentially, eventually I kicked the
door, yes.

Q. You kicked the door to get inside right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you broke the door, right?

A. Not the glass. It was a glass door. But I -- part of the door was
-- had been previously cracked and when I -- as she closed it, I
kicked it and I think a piece came off it, yes.

Q. And fair to say that you were enraged when you kicked that door
down, right?

A. I was pretty upset, yes.

Q. And fair to say that Nicole was extremely upset, right?

A. She was pretty upset, yes.

Q. And fair to say that Nicole expressed to you great fear, fear of
you, correct?

A. Not at all, not at any time that night did she express any fear to
me.

Q. You heard that 911 tape, sir, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. You heard Nicole say he's going to beat the shit out of me --

A. Yes.

Q. -- did you not?

You understood that she was afraid of you when she said that?

A. No, because she was not talking to me the way she was talking on
the phone. And before she got off the phone, she came back down into
the room that I was at, which indicated to me, even today, that she
obviously wasn't afraid. If she thought I was doing something, she
would have stayed in the room.

Q. So you think she just lied to the 911 operator?

A. Yes, I think -- I think she was trying to control --

Q. You just answered my question.

A. Yes.

Q. And you've heard this other tape that you called the surreptitious
tape?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you heard Nicole being asked, are you afraid of him harming
you? She said I got scared. Scared of him physically harming you? And
she answered yes.

You heard that, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you think that was a lie also, right?

A. Well, I knew it was because she came into the room that I was in --

Q. Excuse me. Yes or no?

A. I think that was a lie, yes.

Q. And you heard on that tape Nicole say I got frightened tonight.
When he gets this crazed, I get scared . . . hit me. He does not look
like himself, he gets a very animal look in him, his veins pop out and
his eyes get black. It was more precaution thank anything. I just
always believed if it happened once more it would be the last time.

You remember hearing Nicole say those things?

A. No. I read that in your transcript.

Q. You've read that before today, haven't you?

A. Yes.

Q. And it is true, sir, that Nicole expressed to you in the course of
your relationship, her fear of you when you got mad and angry and
enraged, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And it's true, sir, that when you did get mad and angry, that you
would acquire a very animal like look, correct?

A. Yeah -- I never -- I can never recall being mad and looking in a
mirror.

Q. Well, Nicole told you I'm afraid when you look like that, right?

A. No, she told me when you get mad -- you really scare me when you
get mad. She told me that actually the next day from this incident.

Q. Oh, that was the first time she ever told you that, is that your
testimony, sir?

A. She may have said before that she hates it when I get mad, yes.

Q. And you knew she was frightened that night?

A. Not that night. I will debate forever that she was not frightened
of me that night.

Q. Debate with whom?

A. With whoever wants to debate it. I don't think her actions, besides
the phone call, said she was afraid, she came down into a room that I
was in, after she told the police she was afraid. I was standing
there. I can't imagine a person who would be afraid would come down
into the room that the person's afraid of is in.

Q. You think this is a debate, sir?

A. Pardon me?

Q. You think this is a debate?

A. No.

Q. Now, the police officers who showed up there that evening, the Los
Angeles police officers, they told you that because of your celebrity
status they wanted to keep this as small as possible, right?

A. I believe one of the guys said that, yes.

Q. They treated you fairly, didn't they?

A. Other than surreptitiously taping me and using it for their
personal use, outside of that, I thought it was, you know, how they
handled it, then I thought they defused the situation, yes.

Q. You weren't arrested, were you?

A. No.

Q. And by the way, in 1989 when the police came and confronted you
ran, didn't you?

A. No.

Q. You took off, right?

A. I left at a certain point and went to another friend's house, yes.

Q. And you knew the police were waiting for you, right?

A. No.

Q. You thought they had gone?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So you didn't have any idea that the Police Department had
told you that they wanted to take you in?

A. They never told me that.

Q. So you just felt you were free to go, right?

A. No. I felt it was wise that I leave. I was advised by my daughter
and the housekeeper, you know, you're -- you're -- O.J., you can't be
getting into a fight with this phrase that they used to describe this
detective -- Officer Edward, and I just left.

Q. Now, when you left, sir, the police were still on your property,
right?

A. No, they were never as far as I know -- I think Mr. Edwards may
have walked on originally. After that they were never on my property.

Q. But what I mean by that they were still there waiting outside the
gates, right?

A. I don't know, I couldn't see on the Ashford side.

Q. You couldn't see because they were on Ashford and you went out
Rockingham, right?

A. Yes, that's my exit from my property.

Q. You can't see Ashford from Rockingham, correct?

A. I couldn't see where they were.

Q. All right. And they were right outside the Ashford gate, weren't
they?

A. They weren't where the gate was. But I have a wall on that side so
if they were there, they would have been out of my vision, behind the
wall.

Q. And it was dark out, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. But you knew they were there when you left.

A. I suspected they were there, yes.

Q. And you knew Nicole was in the car, right?

A. I assumed she was this -- the car, yes.

Q. And by the way, you asked your loyal servant, Michelle, to go get
Nicole out of the car?

MR. BAKER: I object to that characterization.

Q. Did you tell Michelle to go get Nicole out of the car and bring her
in?

A. I think Michelle did that on her own initiative.

Q. You didn't have anything to do with that?

A. I don't know. We were all there.

Q. Did you tell Michelle to go get Nicole, get her out of police car,
and get her inside, yes or no?

A. I don't recall.

Q. You don't recall?

A. No.

Q. You said you remember everything you did that night?

A. Most things I do remember.

Q. But you don't remember that?

A. I don't remember specifically --

Q. Okay.

A. -- what --

Q. Okay.

A. -- were being said then, no.

Q. Okay. Now, after this 1993 incident, you continued to see Nicole,
correct, the October 1993 incident?

A. Yes.

Q. By the way, there was an incident the Christmas you went to the
home of the -- the Jenners, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You went with?

A. Christmas Eve.

Q. Christmas Eve. You went with Nicole, your two children, and Kato
Kaelin, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You drove over there and you went inside the Jenner home, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then, at some point in time you saw this guy there named
Joseph, who you believed Nicole had dated when you and she were
separated, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And that upset you so much that you just got up and took off and
the whole family left, correct?

A. Absolutely wrong.

Q. And there was a big argument in the car on the way home, true?

A. No. There were some words between me and her that went for about a
minute, and we went home and we had our Thanksgiving -- I mean
Christmas meal, opened gifts, Nicole stayed with me that night, and
everything was fine.

Q. Seeing Joseph there upset you and causes you -- caused you to
leave, correct?

A. Not at all.

Q. Now, let's turn to the 1994 time frame, sir.

In March of -- end of March, Nicole and you went off to Cabo San
Lucas, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And your children were there also?

A. Yes.

Q. And Nicole had some friend there and their children as well, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And your reconciliation now, is like 10 months in progress or so?

A. Yes, approximately.

Q. And as you said earlier, things were going pretty good in your
mind, at this point in time, right?

A. At this point in time, I think for the first time I felt that there
was a chance this was going to work.

Q. And you had a great time in Cabo with Nicole on April 1, 2 and 3 of
1994, true?

A. A super time, yes.

Q. And after that -- that short vacation, you came back to Los Angeles
to get ready to go to Puerto Rico?

A. No. I came back to work. I had to leave on Easter Sunday because I
had to start the day -- the next day on the job, and Nicole and the
rest of the people stayed in the house that I rented down there.

Q. Well, you got to Puerto Rico sometime in early April, right?

A. Yeah, eventually I went to Puerto Rico, yes.

Q. This was to film your movie "Frogman," right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you said you started to work in Los Angeles initially on the
movie?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, after the Cabo trip and while you were working on
Frogman in LA, then in Puerto Rico, after this wonderful trip you had
with Nicole, you're thinking things may work out for the first time,
all of the sudden you got kind of a cold shoulder from Nicole, true?

A. I don't -- I don't understand what you're saying.

Q. You don't understand what I mean?

A. No.

Q. Didn't you start calling Nicole from Puerto Rico and you weren't
getting your phone calls returned, sir?

A. No. I called one day and she was great and I called the next day
and she was weird, and I called the next day or she would call me and
she was great and the next day she was strange.

Q. So you thought Nicole was acting very erratically?

A. Possibly more so than I'd ever known her to be in my life.

Q. And you started calling up Nicole's friends, Cora Fischman, Ron
Fischman, Faye Resnick, and saying what's wrong with Nicole, right?

A. Yeah. I think -- I don't know if I talked to Cora because Nicole
had -- had said that actually -- essentially that Cora was the cause
of her erratic behavior.

Q. Can you just stay with the answer --

A. No.

Q. -- to my question?

A. The answer would be no, not as you said it.

Q. You started talking to Nicole's friends, and even Nicole's mom
about why is Nicole not responding to you as she had been in Cabo; is
that a fair statement, sir?

A. No. I think you mischaracterized.

Q. Please answer.

A. No, you mischaracterized.

Q. Please answer yes or no?

A. No.

Q. Thank you. And you were pretty upset that having thought things
were going to work out now, things didn't look so good, right?

A. I -- I wanted out, yes.

Q. And you came back into Los Angeles filming Frogman in Puerto Rico
around what May 1, thereabouts?

A. Roughly.

Q. Roughly?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you and Nicole were having sort of a difficult time the
first week or so of May, right?

A. I was, she wasn't. She had -- she had said she loved me, and she
was sorry about the way she acted and she picked me up at the airport,
but I, at that point, wanted out.

Q. And you decided to go and visit the family on Mother's Day at the
Brown house, correct?

A. Well, I mean it was -- it was Mother's Day. That's where we were
spending Mother's Day.

Q. You worked very late and into the evening Friday, and you drove all
the way down there?

A. Yes.

Q. And got in sort of the middle of the morning, right?

A. I got in about 5:30, 6 in the morning.

Q. And you and Nicole had a planned date to go out on Saturday night
and Judy and Lou would take care of the children and so forth?

A. That's correct.

Q. And when you got to the house on Saturday you and Nicole had a
place down there, right?

A. Yeah, I had a place down there, yes.

Q. And Nicole didn't want to go out, right?

A. Well, she wanted to go out, she got dressed, but when she got to
the door she went into something I've never seen, she started shaking
and she -- her words was, look at me, I'm having a nervous breakdown.

Q. And you got kind of angry at her, didn't you?

A. I got --

Q. True?

A. I think more concerned than angry.

Q. Did you get angry, sir?

A. I got more concerned than angry.

Q. I didn't ask you about concerned.

A. There was an element, yeah, I was.

Q. There was?

A. Yeah.

Q. Some anger there?

A. There was some anger there.

Q. Okay. And the two of you argued, right?

A. No, we did not argue.

Q. And Nicole didn't want to go out, right?

A. She said, look at me, how can I go out like this.

Q. Isn't it true that you had a little altercation with her that
night?

A. No.

Q. Got on the bed and sort of held her shoulders down?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. You deny that, don't you?

A. No, when she was shaking, I was hugging her and said, Nicole,
what's the matter? She couldn't explain what was wrong and why she was
feeling the way she was feeling, she just couldn't explain it.

Q. Ultimately you got out to dinner that night?

A. Yes, yes, we did.

Q. Then the next day, you had Mother's Day, correct, at the Browns?

A. Yeah, it was pretty surprising because the next day everything was
fine.

Q. And after Mother's Day, you and Nicole continued to sort of try to
make this thing work, right?

A. Absolutely wrong.

Q. You had nothing to do with her after Mother's Day, is that your
testimony?

A. That's not correct, but it's absolutely wrong that we continued to
work on the relationship. It ended either that night -- I'm not sure,
or the next night it ended, and I immediately -- immediately started
publicly dating Paula again.

Q. Now, it's your testimony, sir, that you broke off this relationship
on May 10, correct?

A. Yeah, I instigated it but when we sat and talked about it, we both
agreed.

Q. Okay. And it's not -- it's -- withdrawn.

Isn't it true, sir, that Nicole ended this relationship with you on
May 22, 1994, not May 10, not at your instigation but at her
instigation; isn't that true?

A. Absolutely wrong.

Q. Isn't it true that on May 22 you went to Nicole's condominium that
night on Bundy, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the two of you talked about your relationship, correct?

A. Yeah, we talked about a lot of things, yes.

Q. And you, on the 19th of May, you had just given Nicole an expensive
birthday present three days earlier, correct?

A. Expensive is a relative term, but, yeah, I gave her a couple
presents.

Q. Five or six grand, whatever, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Some kind of emerald bracelet?

A. Yes.

Q. And she took it, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And three days later on the 22 of May, three days after you gave
her this expensive gift, Nicole returned it to you that night, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you then asked for the earrings you had just gotten for her,
right?

A. I think the earrings -- I can't recall if I had talked about the
earrings, but I hadn't just gotten them for her. I think that came up
first.

Q. You asked for the earrings back?

A. I asked for the check back.

Q. Okay. And just so the jury understands, you had bought Nicole and
helped design some earrings a while ago and they were stolen and she
got insurance money, right?

A. She said they were stolen.

Q. Okay. You think --

A. You want me to explain this?

Q. Why don't you explain it. Go ahead, explain this.

A. She -- when we got back together there were some earrings I had
made for her previously, and she said she had lost them, they got
stolen, it really hurt her that she lost them. So at a previous -- I
don't recall if it was Valentine's Day or something like that, I went
to a jeweler and had the earrings remade, and it took him a while to
make them because a few times when they came back they weren't exactly
the way we wanted them. Eventually he got them made.

Unbeknownst to me, my office sent him (sic) a check. So when the
insurance check came for the earrings, $10,000, my office gave the
check to Nicole.

So at this point -- I mean I paid an additional 9 or 10,000 for the
earrings, I should have the insurance check. I should have one or the
other. The insurance check -- and she said she had spent the money
from the insurance check.

Q. Okay. So you --

A. Okay.

Q. So you said, hey, you can't have both of them, right?

A. No, I said where's the check. She said I don't have the check, so
here's the earrings.

Q. So bottom line though, Mr. Simpson, May 22, 1994, you're at 875
South Bundy with Nicole and she returns the earrings, or you ask for
them back, she returns the bracelet, and that was the official end of
your reconciliation with her, true?

A. That's absolutely wrong.

Q. And if Nicole wrote in her diary -- in her notes that "we
officially split up on that evening," you would say that that was
false, correct?

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

There was supposed to have been a hearing relative to that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You may answer.

A. I think everyone who knew us then knew that that was false.

Q. Well, I'm not asking about everyone?

A. Well, it was false. It was absolutely false. I had started dating
Paula the day after Mother's Day -- or two days after Mother's Day,
with my kids, publicly.

Q. What do you mean publicly?

A. Publicly. We went to public places together, we were, you know,
seen together, some of her friends saw us together holding hands. I
mean it couldn't be any clearer than that.

Q. Now, you were still publicly or otherwise dating Paula, let's say
between Mother's Day and May 22, okay. Let's focus on that --

A. Yes.

Q. -- time period.

A. Yes.

Q. You were still extremely confused and frustrated and upset that
your relationship with Nicole was coming to an end --

MR. BAKER: Argumentative, compound.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. Correct, sir?

A. I wasn't confused.

Q. Were you --

A. Upset, but I was -- it was a disappointment that we couldn't make
it work, but we were getting along so well. I thought it was for the
best.

Q. Now, were you upset that the relationship had ended yes or no?

A. Yes, I think after a year and 17 years, I wish --

Q. You can answer just yes or no, sir?

A. There was an element of being upset.

Q. Just an element?

A. Just an element, yes.

Q. And were you frustrated that it had come to an end, yes or no?

A. Absolutely not, no. I don't think it was a frustration. Yeah. I
think there was an element that the relationship had ended after
trying for a year, but I think among -- I was relieved and I think
among everyone who knew me, no one heard me complain and I -- I just
went on. I mean I was --

Q. So there was an element of being upset but no frustration; is that
what you're saying, yes or no?

A. Yes. I mean --

Q. Please answer the question yes or no.

A. Sorta. I can't answer the question yes or no.

Q. And you, in fact, were trying to win Nicole back during this
two-week period?

A. No.

Q. Correct?

A. Not at all.

Q. Are you trying to say to this jury that after all this time
together, you were able to, boom, cut the cord on May 10?

MR. BAKER: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BAKER: Argumentative.

A. Possibly as cleanly as anything could possibly --

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) So is this a yes?

A. Emotionally it was cut, yes.

Q. You did cut it, boom?

A. Yes.

Q. Just like that?

A. Yes.

Q. Over?

A. Yeah.

Q. Is that --

A. I mean I still cared about her, but yes, it was -- it was -- I had
no problem with seeing Paula and it had been public and, yes.

Q. And so as of May 10, you were able to emotionally, and otherwise,
immediately cut the cord with Nicole; is that what you were saying?

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this is asked and answered.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Yes or no?

MR. BAKER: Wait a minute. It's argumentative. I object to him saying
yes or no after every question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BAKER: The witness can answer the question the way he sees fit.

MR. PETROCELLI: No speaking objections.

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

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Okay.

A. I can't.

Q. You can't.

A. I immediately cut any effort to reconcile with Nicole. I was happy
to move on, but I was still very, very much concerned about Nicole.

Q. Were you able to cut it off right then and there, yes or no?

A. Our relationship, yes. Cut off our relationship, yes.

Q. And your emotional attachment?

A. Emotionally I was still very -- you know, this is a woman I loved,
okay, I have always loved her, when we were apart we always said we
loved each other even when we weren't married.

Q. The answer was you were not able to emotionally cut the cord on May
10; is that true?

MR. BAKER: Objection, that's vague, ambiguous, to emotionally cut the
cord?

A. I still haven't --

THE COURT: Excuse me. Overruled.

You may answer.

A. I still haven't cut the cord with Marguerite emotionally and I've
not been married to her for 20 years.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) I didn't ask about Marguerite. Can you answer
that question?

A. I would say I can't answer that question. Any answer I'd give would
be misleading.

Q. So there was -- you're not able to answer a straightforward
question?

A. I don't think it's a straightforward question.

MR. BAKER: I object.

Q. You cannot tell this jury one way or the other whether you cut or
didn't cut off your emotional attachment to Nicole as of May 10.

A. I could never cut off my emotional attachment to Nicole.

Q. Okay. So then from May 10, until the end of Nicole's life, you
still had an emotional attachment to Nicole, true?

A. Until this day I have an emotional attachment to Nicole.

Q. Thank you.

Now, four days after Nicole's -- after Mother's Day on May 10, you
with me?

A. I'm sorry?

Q. Four days after Mother's Day, May 14, you went off to New York,
right?

A. Yes, I -- that week I went to New York, yes.

Q. And May 14 was Sydney's Holy Communion, right?

A. Yes.

Q. A big family event?

A. Yes.

Q. And you missed it, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you had a big thing to attend that you couldn't get out of?

A. That's right, everything humanly possible to get out of --

Q. In fact --

A. They couldn't let me out.

Q. You tried?

A. I did everything a person could possibly do in business to get out
of it and couldn't.

Q. And Nicole was extremely upset with you that you had missed that
even though you had made every human effort to get out of it, right?

A. She didn't show me that, you know, so I never saw her being upset
with me for it.

Q. She never told you she was upset about that?

A. No. She asked me could I get out. When she told me about it, I was
-- it was sort of late, I was committed to what I was doing. And then
I called the people who were doing it, I called the chairman of the
board of Hertz, I did everything I could do to get out of this, you
know, important date that they had, and they -- they couldn't let me
out of it.

Q. Sir, it's your testimony to the jury that Nicole never expressed to
you her feelings that she was upset you couldn't be there; is that
correct?

A. She had told me previously that she wished I could be there. And I
told her the problems I was having getting out of the affairs. I said
I wish you had told me earlier so that I could have made some
preparations for this.

Q. And she told you she was upset and wanted you to stay?

A. She didn't say she was upset. She didn't use the word upset.

Q. You've answered the question.

A. Okay.

Q. Now, when you went back east to New York, you played golf on May 16
with a man named Frank Olson who was the President of Hertz, right?

A. Yeah, Chairman of Hertz.

Q. And played in New Jersey, right?

A. Yes.

Q. With Frank and a couple of other people, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And at that time, you told Frank Olson that you were very upset
about breaking up with Nicole, true?

A. I don't believe so.

Q. Okay. You told Frank Olson that you were thinking about moving to
New York to get away from it all, true?

A. I already had a place in New York. I think I said I was going to
move to Florida to get away from it all, which had been my plan
previously, and my plan at this point in time.

Q. So at this point in time, with the relationship with Nicole having
come to an end, you were ready to move back east to get away from it
all, true?

A. Yes. For a certain time I was going to move previously but I didn't
move because Nicole, you know, wanted --

Q. Excuse me, sir, you don't have to --

A. Okay.

Q. -- keep answering.

A. I'm sorry.

Q. It'll move along a lot quicker.

Now, in fact, with Mr. Olson, you tried -- he kept trying to change
the subject and you kept coming back to talking about Nicole, true?

A. No. He kept talking about his problems with his wife. That's what
we were talking. We were sharing problems with -- with our
relationships.

Q. So it's untrue?

A. Yes, that's untrue.

Q. Okay. After you came back from that Hertz trip, Nicole, around her
birthday time, had taken ill, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Around middle of May, her birthday, May 19?

A. I got back from the trip.

Q. Is that true?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And Nicole was kind of bedridden, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you helped out a couple days by bringing over scones and coffee
and going to Rosti's and bringing Italian food over and those sorts of
things, right?

A. Yeah, I helped out.

Q. Okay.

A. I kind of tried to nurse her somewhat, yes.

Q. And during this period of time, May 19, is when she had her
birthday and you bought her an emerald bracelet and gave it to her,
together with a cigarette lighter, correct?

A. I gave it to her. I didn't buy it for her, but I gave it to her,
yes.

Q. Well, you bought this bracelet for her?

A. No.

Q. Did you not?

A. No.

Q. You told the LA Police detectives who interviewed you on June 13,
that you bought it for her, didn't you?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay. And certainly on June 13, only three weeks after May 19, that
is a lot closer time than today, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And in fact, you told the detectives who interviewed you,
Detectives Thomas Lange and Phil Vannatter, on June 13, that you kind
of were in a bad spot because you had bought the bracelet for Nicole,
given it to her, she returned it to you, and you gave it to Paula and
told Paula you had bought it for her, true?

A. That's true.

Q. Okay. And now you're telling us that all that's false, right; yes
or no?

A. It is false.

Q. Okay.

A. It's partially true. But if you what me to explain it's a very
simple explanation and I think you will understand if you give me the
opportunity to explain.

Q. I think I understand, sir.

A. Okay. All right.

Q. Now -- and by the way, your lawyers said something earlier in
talking about the accuracy of this tape recorded interview.

I just want to read from your deposition. Page 186, Mr. Baker.
(Reading.) Question: Line 7, this is referring to the tape recorded
interview that we had been discussing with the police? Answer: Yes.
Question: During the time they talked to you in the room they recorded
it, yes? Answer: During the time the recording was on, it appears to
me that from what I can recall recorded everything that we talked
about while the recording was on? Answer: Well, while the recording
was on.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) So what you said in this statement you don't
quarrel with?

MR. BAKER: I object, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Correct?

MR. BAKER: I object. Just a minute.

MR. PETROCELLI: No speaking objections.

MR. BAKER: I'm not listening to you as my lawyer. I can tell you that.

MR. PETROCELLI: There isn't an objection.

MR. BAKER: He's talking about a recorded statement not --

MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me.

MR. BAKER: -- Not the transcript of that recorded statement.

THE COURT: Excuse me. Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You've read the transcript of the interview
that was recorded, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And what I just asked you about the bracelet was on the tape, and
was on the transcript, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

MR. PETROCELLI: Now, if can I have the May 22 entry.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I want to approach at this time.

THE COURT: You may.

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

MR. BAKER: Before we were supposed to have any comments about the
diaries we were supposed to have a 402 hearing. We've never had any
402 hearings about the diaries. He's already mentioned her writings
without any 402 hearing whatsoever. I objected, you overruled it, I
asked to approach, you declined my request. I again object to any of
her writings until there's a 402 hearing which has never occurred nor
been requested.

MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me, Your Honor, this was ruled on. I'm looking
for the transcript from the hearing. I marked pages this morning. In
limine they -- they tried to keep out, all of these. The Court's
statement, Your Honor, specifically ruled that Nicole's state of mind
was relevant to the issue of motive, and said that if there's any
particular pieces of evidence that needed to be reviewed on an
individual basis for purposes of 352 you would take a look at it,
okay. So you said in the hearing that --

MR. BAKER: Keep your voice down.

MR. PETROCELLI: Sorry. State of mind issue is relevant. Mr. Baker
opened that door wide open in his opening statement, talking about
Nicole's state of mind, going on and on about Simpson's relationship,
about how he was the confidante, about how it was Simpson who was
breaking up with Nicole and not the other way around, and the -- The
Nicole diaries are specifically relevant to prove the point of our
case here.

And she began making entries on May 22, and she made them through June
4 and she was dead days later, Your Honor. As you will see, we have
officially split up on May 22, 1994. This is her handwriting. And he's
been shown this, he authenticates this. He doesn't dispute certain
facts, he only wants to put his characterization on it. If she's not
available then her writings now speak for itself and the state of mind
exception applies.

MR. BAKER: It doesn't apply. This is pure hearsay. And we have to
have, it seems to me, a total 402. He cherry-picks. Half of these
things of her diaries don't even have the right dates on them. They
talk about Mr. Simpson being in her house when he's in New York. And
so the authenticity of these diary entries are definitely in issue.
And for him to do this without the 402 hearing that you requested
seems to me to be improper.

Now, I object to it under hearsay grounds as well as the 402 grounds.

MR. PETROCELLI: There was a motion in limine.

(Referring to transcript.)

MR. PETROCELLI: This is number 9 and it's number 10, okay. 19 back
here. Okay.

This is in reference to her out-of-court statements in police reports.
(READING:) The state of mind of the victim is relevant to show the
relationship with the defendant which would in turn support the
plaintiffs' contention that defendant had a motive to commit the
murder. Other statements may be admissible as spontaneous statements
and others under the new statute.

So you went state of mind spontaneous, and then statute. Then in
another position not related to police statements, number 10, to
preclude exactly this material reference to out-of-court statements
concerning defendants' conduct in relationship with Nicole Brown
Simpson, you ruled the statements have to be relevant to some issue in
the case if the relationship between the defendant and Nicole Brown
Simpson becomes an issue, and I assume it will. These statements may
well become relevant, the Court will, depending on the statements,
rule at the time that they are offered.

So it's right --

MR. BAKER: It's the specific motion relative to hearsay, avoiding the
specific motion relative --

MR. PETROCELLI: Here find it. I'm not trying to avoid anything.

In any event this is a two-page -- two-page document that she began on
May 22 and it directly bears on the relationship and her state of
mind. And he's sitting there putting his spin on everything, and we're
entitled to put this into evidence, Your Honor.

(Court motions to the clerk)

THE COURT: Court hails to clerk.

THE COURT: Can you bring me the two black binders.

THE CLERK: Yeah.

MR. PETROCELLI: There's -- they don't dispute the authenticity of this
handwriting. It's her handwriting.

(Pause)

MR. PETROCELLI: The critical issue here, Your Honor, is that there's a
buildup of intense anger and hostility between the parties which we
say proves the motive Mr. Simpson has denied, that --

THE COURT: Excuse me.

(Pause)

THE CLERK: There were three. You want the thick ones, right?

THE COURT: Yeah.

(The Clerk hands black binder notebooks to the Court.)

(Pause for the Court to read document.)

MR. PETROCELLI: You're talking about number 10, the motion I just
referred to.

MR. LEONARD: The diaries.

MR. PETROCELLI: You didn't limit it to diaries.

MR. GELBLUM: What are you looking for?

MR. PETROCELLI: There they are.

MR. GELBLUM: This one.

(Indicating to minute orders.)

THE COURT: What are you offering?

MR. PETROCELLI: First bring this up here.

(Indicating to document with Nicole Brown Simpson's writing.)

THE COURT: And what else are you offering?

MR. PETROCELLI: Basically the whole document. It's two pages.

You want to take it out, Your Honor?

(Counsel removes document from plastic covering.)

(Court reviews documents.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Under new hearsay statute applies to the 6 paragraph
to 6, 3 --

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, they went up to Sacramento and Fred Goldman
testified to get a statute passed, to get a statute passed for this.
This doesn't meet the criteria for that statute and this is hearsay
and it's inadmissible hearsay. Her state of mind isn't relative to
this issue.

THE COURT: I think it is. Overruled.

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

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) When we last broke we were talking about the --
being with Nicole on May 22, and getting the bracelet, and asking for
the earrings back, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

A. Not asking for the earrings, she just gave the earrings back, yes.

Q. For a little background, sir -- sir, on May 22 you hosted an event
-- excuse me, I'm sorry.

You hosted an event at your house for Justin's Sunshine School, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And the families of the children all came over to the house and
Nicole was there, right?

A. Yeah, Nicole showed up at some point.

Q. And she still wasn't feeling all that well, right?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Now -- and she left to go back to Bundy, the child -- the children
were still at the house with you, and the party was still going on,
right, or the picnic, I should say?

A. Yes. I think I asked her maybe she should go home and -- and, yes.

Q. And then, after the picnic ended, you then took Sydney and Justin
over to Bundy and had your conversation with Nicole, that we've
discussed, in which the earrings and the emerald bracelet were given
to you, correct?

A. I believe so. I believe so. I -- I'm not sure if Sydney and Justin
didn't spend the night with me, and I just went over to Nicole's,
whether she called me that evening.

Q. And when you left the house that night, there was absolutely no
question that you and Nicole had discussed that this would be the
official split and end to your relationship, correct?

A. No, that's not correct.

Q. Okay.

MR. PETROCELLI: What's the exhibit number?

MR. FOSTER: 735.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Let me show you notes Nicole made shortly
before her death.

(Refers to Exhibit 735.)

(The instrument herein described as notes written by Nicole Brown
Simpson were marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 735.)

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You recognize Nicole's handwriting, do you not,
sir?

A. Yes.

Q. There's no doubt in your mind, right?

A. You know, I honestly couldn't tell you I would recognize her
handwriting, but --

Q. I showed --

A. I'm not doubting that this is her note.

Q. I showed you the letter she wrote to you just a year earlier, you
had no -- no trouble recognizing that letter, right? Same --

A. I think my attitude was pretty much the same. I assume it's
Nicole's handwriting.

Q. Okay. Sunday, May 22, I'm sorry. Can you folks see.

JURORS: (Nod) Um-hum.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) (Reading.)

Sunday, May 22, 1994, we've officially split.

Q. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. And it said -- it goes on to talk about an arrangement that you and
she then discussed for dealing with the children, right?

A. I think we may have discussed that, yes.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) (Reading.)

I told O.J. we're going back to every other weekend. I need the rest
and O.J.'s gone so much he needs the alone time with them till he
leaves again. He's been gone the last four weekends so I've asked if
we can start with him this weekend of May 28.

Q. Correct?

A. I believe we did talk about something like that, yes.

Q. Okay.

A. I'm sorry, you're asking me is this what this says or if it
comports with my memory?

Q. It comports with your memory, right?

A. Yes, except the first sentence, yes.

Q. The first sentence does not, sir?

A. No. I think Nicole may have accepted it then because of her actions
that day, which, I guess you don't want to talk about. Maybe she just
finally accepted it.

Q. And you -- and you -- it's your testimony today before the jury,
that there was no discussion that evening of you and Nicole officially
splitting up?

A. No, not at all.

Q. Okay.

MR. PETROCELLI: You can take that off.

(Exhibit 735 removed from Elmo.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Right after -- I'm going to get into another area.
This may be a good place to break, if I have your permission.

THE COURT: 1:30, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case,
don't form or express any opinion.

(At 11:53 A.M. a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)


SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1996
1:40 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

THE COURT: Can I see counsel at the bench.

THE COURT REPORTER: With the reporter?:

THE COURT: Yes.

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

THE COURT: The Court has a memorandum that's been filed. I don't see
any motion filed, however.

MR. BAKER: Well, the motion is to exclude the diaries and exclude the
diaries that he's just gone into, any further excludes the diary of
May 2, 1994 and June 3, 1994 under the points and authorities set
forth therein.

The fact that this is double hearsay that under the new Evidence Code
Section 1370, there isn't a threat of physical violence, and under 352
the language contained herein is quite volatile, it has virtually no
probative value.

He can ask him anything he wants relative to the IRS, but the
probative value of this relative to the prejudicial effect, in my
opinion, far outweighs the prejudicial -- far outweighs the probative
value, in addition to the hearsay upon hearsay, and they have not
demonstrated that these statements were made to indicate
trustworthiness under Evidence Code Section 1252.

We don't know when they were made. I mean, I suppose you can say by
innuendo they were made on the date that she says they were made. But
Mr. Simpson will deny that any of this was ever said on June 3 and
will deny that he has ever called her these kinds of names. So ...

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, we've been through this several times. The
statements or admissions and they're -- the statements are admissions
and they're also relevant to -- directly relevant to her state of
mind. It's her handwriting. If he wants to deny them, fine.

In addition, Mr. Baker directly argued in his opening statement on
numerous occasions about Nicole's state of mind, indicating it was
Simpson who broke up the relationship, indicating there's no anger, no
hostility between the parties.

Now, if he wanted to keep something like this out, he had to stay away
from all those points, and he specifically referenced it over and over
in his opening statement.

MR. BAKER: I didn't reference --

MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me.

MR. BAKER: I'm sorry.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page references. And he said that Nicole Simpson was
her confidante and is basically trying to convince the jury that there
was no reason for a motive at all, nothing was happening between these
parties that would suggest a motive. He affirmatively put that on in
his opening statement. He directly made the state of mind of both
parties relevant. And this goes exactly to showing what was happening
in the relationship days before she was killed.

THE COURT: The Court rules as follows:

First, the Court rules that there is a constitutional issue raised as
to 1370 of the Evidence Code in the memorandum.

The Court finds that the statute is constitutional.

Number 2, the Court will allow the use of those documents for the
purposes of showing the decedent's state of mind.

3, with regards to any specific threats, unless counsel shows me a
threat, insofar as a threat exception is concerned, I don't see how
that would apply.

MR. PETROCELLI: Well, she does say --

THE COURT: Threat of physical injury.

MR. PETROCELLI: It's ambiguous.

MR. BAKER: It is not ambiguous. What is coming in?

THE COURT: Her state of mind is coming in. Her state of mind with
regards to the relationship is coming in.

Okay.

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

THE COURT: You may resume.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.

ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, the witness on the stand at the time of the
luncheon recess, having been previously duly sworn, was examined
further as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q. After the evening at Nicole's apartment on May 22, 1994, three
weeks before her murder, when the bracelet and the earrings were given
to you, you sat down and composed a letter to Nicole in regard to an
IRS issue, correct?

A. At some point after, yes.

Q. Now --

A. I didn't sit down and compose it; that's incorrect.

Q. Dictated it?

A. I told Cathy, after I met with my lawyer, to write something to the
effect of --

Q. You -- but you did dictate the basic letter and gave it to Cathy,
correct?

A. Rather than just give Cathy instructions to write the letter
herself, I gave the instruction to write -- I gave her some facts and
asked her to write a letter, yes.

Q. Let me read from your deposition, page 1242, line 3. "Q. That you
dictated the initial draft? "A. I believe so, yes."

Now, just to explain this IRS issue a bit, when you and Nicole got
married, as part of the prenuptial agreement, you gave Nicole owned
title to a rental unit in San Francisco, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. As part of the divorce in 1992, Nicole got to keep that rental
unit; it was in her name. She got to keep it?

A. You know, seven years previous, it was hers when I gave it to her.

Q. And she kept it at the time, as well?

A. Yes.

Q. She didn't give it back, in other words?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay.

And when Nicole moved out of Rockingham, she rented a condo on Gretna
Green, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then at the end of 1993, coming into January of 1994, Nicole
purchased her own condominium at at 875 South Bundy?

A. Correct.

Q. And she sold the unit in San Francisco, the rental unit in San
Francisco, to help pay for the condo at Bundy, right?

A. Essentially, yes.

Q. And she would have had to pay capital gains tax on the unit in San
Francisco, unless it was rolled over into another rental unit on
Bundy, correct?

A. Yeah. I think she had a problem with that, yes.

Q. It would have been a substantial capital gains liability, in the
order of about $100,000 in taxes she would have had to pay if she
could not roll -- roll it over into another rental unit on Bundy,
right?

A. No. I think when I -- I told her to find out.

Q. But the order of magnitude was about 100 grand, right?

A. When I asked her to find out, she was asking me to do something for
her. I think she said it was 70.

I said, well, find out and put it in a separate account.

Q. If it was $100,000, that wouldn't surprise you?

A. I didn't get into her business at that point.

Q. All right.

A. Yes.

Q. And the problem is, though, Bundy would have had to have been a
rental unit for her to not pay these capital gains, as opposed to her
primary residence?

A. I believe that was her problem, yes.

Q. At the time, you and Nicole were going through your reconciliation
period, right?

A. Yes.

Q. That there was talk of your -- excuse me -- of Nicole moving back
into the home with you at Rockingham, if it turned out that things
would turn out between you, right?

A. Yes. She was attempting to move back on numerous occasions in that
year.

Q. So the idea was that, well, she would list Bundy as a rental unit
and move into your place, and in a few months later, when everything
was just right in your relationship, in the meantime, she would list
Bundy as a rental unit, even though she was technically living there,
right?

A. The way you're saying it is, I believe, incorrect.

Q. Well, she moved into Bundy in January of 1994 and didn't rent it
out, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. She didn't pay capital gains taxes at that time?

A. I didn't really know her business.

Q. You knew she didn't pay the capital gains taxes?

A. I knew that she asked me to -- to -- could she list -- actually, my
housekeeper asked me -- well, if you want to know, I could explain.

Q. She asked you if she could list Rockingham as her residence instead
of Bundy, correct?

A. After a few things that happened, that is correct.

Q. And you agreed, right?

A. Not necessarily, no.

Q. Well, you knew, then, after this conversation with you, that she
then listed on her checkbook and on all her mail, Bundy -- excuse me
-- your house, 360 North Rockingham, as her official residence, right?

A. After she had done some things that I directed her to do, yes.

Q. Mr. Baker, I'm sure will get into all that --

A. Okay.

Q. -- when it's his time.

And you and Nicole, from the time she moved in, in January of 1994,
until the time you split up in May of 1994, were having discussions
about if she would move in and when she would move in, right?

A. No. She tried to move in on two or three occasions. I -- I kind of
nixed it and I --

Q. I'm asking you if you had conversations about it, that's all.

A. I can't -- I can't characterize it, sir, as conversations, as I
know on two specific occasions, she was attempting to move in and I
said no, not until, you know, the time limit.

Q. There was no definitive decision made that she would not be moving
in?

A. I think we both hoped she would, and if things worked out --

Q. I'm sorry.

When you broke up in May of 1994, now, for the first time since she
bought Bundy, it was official that she would not be moving back into
Rockingham?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, she had this tax problem because Bundy -- your house was
listed as her residence and Bundy was listed as a rental unit, right?

A. I don't know know if that was a problem.

MR. BAKER: Calls for speculation that she had a tax problem.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You knew she had a tax problem because Bundy
was her residence, and yet, according to IRS records, your house was
her residence?

A. I didn't know what the IRS records were. I just knew that I would
have a problem if she got caught doing what she was doing.

Q. You knew she was listing your house as her residence?

A. Yes.

Q. Right

And she had your permission to do that, right?

A. Well, she did it before she got my permission; then she talked me
into saying it's okay for a while.

Q. Okay.

And you went along with it?

A. Yes.

Q. After the two of you split up, you decided to write her a letter,
telling her that she's going to have to change her address from
Rockingham to Bundy, right?

A. After -- after an incident with my housekeeper, yes.

Q. And you knew that that could generate a substantial tax liability
to Nicole, true?

A. I didn't think so. I thought she'd just use somebody else's
address.

Q. You knew that she would have a problem on her hands, that she'd
have to pay the money or find somebody else to use as her address,
right?

A. I don't think so. I think my understanding --

Q. Okay.

A. -- was -- was that she would have had a year to do it. I just
didn't think.

If she got in trouble, I didn't want to be involved in it.

Q. In any event, you wrote a letter that was somewhat harsh, this
initial letter that you dictated, true?

A. I didn't initially dictate it. I told Cathy, in substance, what I
wanted her to write. Then I went to my lawyer, and I think -- and he
helped me make it official -- more official, I guess.

Q. Let me read from your deposition again at 1237.

"Q. You dictated a letter" --

MR. BAKER: May we have a line, please?

MR. PETROCELLI: 1.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) (READING:) "You dictated a letter for Cathy to
type, correct?" "ANSWER: Yes."

A. Yes.

Q. That wasn't true, you dictated a letter for Cathy to type, true?

A. Dictation -- I have a little problem with. I told Cathy in
substance what to write. If you want to say I dictated, I didn't sit
down and say write this in word for word. I gave her in substance what
to write.

Q. And you reviewed it and --

A. Took it to my lawyer.

Q. You sent it to your lawyer?

A. No; I walked into my lawyer's office and I had him read it. And I
think he may have made some subtle changes.

Q. And the initial draft you wrote was somewhat harsh, wasn't it, sir?

A. I think he may have felt it was somewhat harsh.

Q. Let me read from page 1239.

MR. PETROCELLI: Line 1, Mr. Baker.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) "Q. What did that letter contain or say, in
substance, that this final May 31 draft does not say? "A. I don't
know. I thought it sounded somewhat harsh."

A. Yes.

Q. You thought it was a little strong?

A. Yes.

Q. So now, on the stand, under oath, you will admit that the letter
you wrote initially was somewhat harsh, as you said in your
deposition, true?

MR. BAKER: Argumentative.

A. I don't think that's a correct characterization.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) True, Mr. Simpson?

A. No, it's not true. I think that the letter that Cathy wrote was
harsh.

Q. You answered the question. Thank you.

A. Oh, I'm sorry.

Q. Let me put up --

MR. PETROCELLI: What's this?

811.

(The instrument herein referred to as Fax cover page dated 5/26/94 and
attached letter was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 811.)

Q. Your lawyer reviewed the letter and revi