SHARON RUFO, Plaintiff
vs
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, et al ,
Defendants
(SEE NEXT PAGE FOR COMPLETE CAPTION)
VOLUME IV
DEPOSITION OF ALLEN COWLINGS
Los Angeles, California
MAY 15, 1996
PAMELA A. STITT
CSR #6027
JOB NO. 96-1447
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SHARON RUFO,
Plaintiff, No SC031947
vs.
Consolidated with
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, et al, No SC 038340 and
Defendants No SC038878
FREDRIC GOLDMAN, etc, et al,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, et al,
Defendant
LOUIS H BROWN, etc,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Orenthal JAMES SIMPSON,
Defendant
VOLUME IV Deposition of ALLEN COWLINGS, taken on behalf of Plaintiffs at 11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California, commencing at 8:49 a m, on Wednesday, May 15, 1996, taken before PAMELA A. STITT, CSR #6027, pursuant to Notice.
APPEARANCES
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS FREDRIC GOLDMAN, ET AL
MITCHELL, SILBERBERG L KNUPP
BY DANIEL M PETROCELLI, ESQ
11377 West Olympic Boulevard
Sixth Floor
Los Angeles, California 900&4 1883
FOR THE PLAINTIFF ESTATE OF BROWN
JOHN OUINLAN KELLY, ESQ
330 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10017 5090
(Of record but not present)
-and -
NATASHA ROIT, ESQ
116 North Robertson Boulevard
Suite 705
Los Angeles, California 90048
(Of record but not present)
APPEARANCES
FOR THE PLAINTIFF SHARON RUFO
HORNBERGER & CRISWELL
BY MICHAELA BREWER, ESQ
444 South Flower Street
21st Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071
FOR THE DEFENDANT ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON
BAKER, SILBERBERG & KEENER
2850 Park Boulevard
Suite 300
Santa Monica California 90405-2938
(Of record but not present)
- and -
BAILEY, FISHMAN & LEONARD
BY DANIEL LEONARD, ESQ
66 Long Wharf
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
FOR THE WITNESS ALLEN COWLINGS
LAW OFFICES OF DONALD M. RE
BY DONALD M RE, ESQ
660 South Figueroa Street
21st Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
WITNESS
ALLEN COWLINGS VOLUME IV
Examination by Mr. Petrocelli 849
Examination by Mr. Brewer 1040
207 One-page document with a name written on it 863
208 One-page document with a phones number written on it 934
ALLEN COWLINGS, having been previously sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. Here begins videotape number one in the deposition of Allen Cowlings, Volume IV, in the consolidated cases of Fredric Goldman, Sharon Rufo, and Louis Brown versus Orenthal James Simpson in the Superior Court, State of California, County of Los Angeles, the lead case number which is SC 031947.
Today's date is Wednesday, May 15, 1996. The time is approximately 8:49. This deposition is being taken at 11377 West Olympic Boulevard in Los Angeles, California, and was made at the request of plaintiff of the law offices of Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp.
The videographer is Rod Rigole, employed by Coleman, Hass, Martin & Schwab of Los Angeles, California.
Would counsel please identify yourselves and state whom you represent.
MR. PETROCELLI: Daniel Petrocelli for plaintiff Fredric Goldman.
MR. BREWER: Michael Brewer for plaintiff Sharon Rufo.
MR.LEONARD: Daniel Leonard for O.J. Simpson.
MR. RE: Donald Re for Mr. Cowlings.
EXAMINATION BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Mr. Cowlings, good morning.
A: Good morning.
Q: You are still under oath. You understand that?
A: Yes.
Q: Have you reviewed the prior deposition transcripts?
A: No.
Q: Have you done anything to prepare for today's deposition?
A: No.
Q: Have you spoken to anyone about your deposition since the last session on April 26?
A: My attorney.
Q: Other than Mr. Re?
A: No.
Q: Have you spoken to anyone about this case other than Mr. Re?
A: No.
Q: Have you spoken to O.J. Simpson?
A: I spoke to him, yes.
Q: When did you speak to O.J.?
A: About two weeks ago. It was on a Sunday afternoon. I went by his house.
Q: Did you talk about this lawsuit?
A: No.
Q: Purely social?
A: Truly social.
Q: I want to go back over something you testified to previously and clarify it a bit. You said that you had gone behind Kato's room with an investigator to check it out for yourself. Do you recall that?
A: No. I said I — he wanted me to meet him there to take him — to show him the area. I had been there — back there by myself beforehand.
Q: Okay. And you did not recall the name of the investigator?
A: No.
Q: You said it wasn't – You did not think it was Bill Pavelick; right?
A: No, it wasn't Bill. He worked for Bill Pavelick.
Q: Was it McNally?
A: I wouldn't know.
Q: Dresden?
A: I wouldn't know.
Q: Hosteller?
A: (Witness shakes head.)
Q: None of those names mean anything to you?
A: It doesn't mean anything.
Q: Did you check for blood spots or traces of blood when you went back there with the investigator?
A: I looked at the area and nothing stood out.
Q: And it is fair to say that you were looking at the area to see if it was possible whether Mr. Simpson could have climbed over the fence, bumped into the wall, dropped a glove, to see if that scenario were possible; is that a fair statement?
A: Yes, I would say.
Q: And you noticed that the fence back there has some sharp edges on the top?
A: The investigator pointed it out.
Q: And pointed out that it is possible that someone could cut their finger on the top of the fence going over; right?
A: No, he didn't say that.
Q: But you observed the fence, and you observed for yourself that if one were trying to jump that fence, particularly at night when you could not see, you could cut your finger, could you not?
MR. RE: Are you asking him to speculate as to whether —
MR.PETROCELLI: Well, based on what he observed, whether that is something that could reasonably occur.
MR. LEONARD: I am going to object. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: You can answer.
A: The thought didn't enter my mind.
Q: That a person could cut himself or herself?
A: The thought did not enter my mind.
Q: That thought did not enter your mind?
A: That thought did not enter my mind. I was back there just looking.
Q: Did you look at the top of the fence to see what kind of edges —
A: I looked at the whole area.
Q: Including the top of the fence; right?
A: I looked at the fence.
Q: And what did you see when you looked at the fence?
A: A fence about six feet in height.
Q: And what kind of material was the fence constructed out of?
A: It looked like a wire fence with a rail that ran across the top.
Q: Now, Mr. Cowlings, was the fence six feet from the ground to the top of the fence, would you approximate?
A: I didn't look at the ground as far as how tall — exactly how tall the fence was. It seemed like — it was just as high as me.
Q: Standing on Mr. Simpson's property; right?
A: It seems, yes.
Q: And you think the fence went about as high as you, and you are about six-five; right?
A: Taller — I am probably taller than the fence, but it was pretty tall.
Q: Approximately six feet?
A: It could have been.
Q: At any time did you try to climb that fence on that occasion —
A: No.
Q: — with the investigator? Did you try to go over to the Salinger property?
A: No.
Q: And did he try to climb the fence?
A: Not while I was there.
Q: Do you know whether he has ever tried to do so, this investigator?
MR. RE: Objection.
MR. LEONARD: Lack of foundation.
MR. RE: The investigator?
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes.
MR. LEONARD: Lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: I have no idea.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you at any time on your prior visit back there try to climb that fence?
A: No.
Q: Or go onto the Salinger property on either visit, did you do that?
A: No.
Q: At any time since June 12, 1994 have you gone onto the Salinger property?
A: No.
Q:Did you and the investigator discuss what might have caused the sounds Kato Kaelin heard?
A: No.
Q: Did you fall against the wall to see what kind of impact was made?
A: I think he hit the wall.
Q: He hit the wall?
A: Uh-huh.
Q: Is it a concrete wall?
A: It is like that stucco stuff.
Q: Stucco?
A: Uh-huh.
Q: Did you go inside while he stayed outside to see if noises could be heard?
A: No.
Q: Or vice-versa, did he go inside while you stayed outside?
A: No.
Q: So you did not do any experiments, in other words?
A: No.
Q: And you have never done that; right?
A: No.
Q: And you are not aware of anybody who has; right?
A: Not to my knowledge.
Q: Refresh me again. What was the timing of this inspector visit —
A: I have no —
Q: — to the back alley?
A: I don't remember.
Q : It was after Mr. Simpson's arrest; right?
A: Yes.
Q: Within weeks, would you say?
A: I really don't remember.
Q: And the time you went there alone was when again? Late night?
A: It could have been a week after. A few days.
Q: After Mr. Simpson's arrest —
A: A few days after.
Q: — or after Nicole's murder?
A: A few days after—Excuse me?
Q: A few days after what?
A: You said what?
Q: You said it could have been a few days, and I said after Mr. Simpson's arrest or after Nicole's murder.
A: After O.J.'s arrest.
Q: That you went back the first time; right?
A: Uh-huh.
Q: Alone; right?
A: Uh-huh.
Q: You have to answer with a yes or –
A: Yes.
Q: Did you report back to anyone about your investigation of that area when you did it the first time?
A: I think I spoke to Donald about it.
Q: Back in June of '94?
A: When I went back there the first time.
Q: So Mr. Re was your lawyer back then; right?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know whether Mr. Re in turn talked to anybody about your looking at that back alley?
MR. RE: Well, I am going to have a problem with that. If you exclude any knowledge which he may have derived from conversations which he had, I suppose the question is okay, but I don't know how else he could have come by any such knowledge if there was any such knowledge; but I am asking him not to answer any question based upon anything that we talked about as being within the attorney-client privilege.
MR. LEONARD: I also have an objection. It calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: You can answer.
MR. RE: What was the question?
THE WITNESS: What was the question?
MR. PETROCELLI: Do you want to read it back.
(The record was read as follows:
"Q: Do you know whether Mr. Re in turn talked to anybody about your looking at that back alley?")
THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Is Mr. Re the only person that you spoke to about looking over the back alley?
MR. RE: Other than you folks.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Other than at this deposition, yes.
A: I don't remember.
Q: Did you tell Mr. Shapiro?
A: I don't remember.
MR. RE: By the way, you said the back alley, are you still referring to –
MR.PETROCELLI: I am talking about that —
MR. RE: — the area —
MR. PETROCELLI: — path behind Kaelin's room.
Q: You understand that; right?
A: Yes.
Q: You say you do not recall. Can you positively rule out that you told Mr. Shapiro or others besides Mr. Re about this?
A: I don't remember.
Q: So you cannot rule it out, in other words; right?
A: I don't remember.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative, calls for speculation.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: I mean, you might not remember but you may be able to say, "I know I didn't talk to the man in the moon."
A: I don't remember.
Q: You don't remember one way or the other; is that what you are saying?
A: I don't remember.
Q: And you had a lot of conversations with Robert Shapiro following Mr. Simpson's arrest; right?
A: I don't remember. I doubt it.
Q: Well, you went to his house one time?
A: That was one meeting, yes.
Q: And then you went to this big meeting at Shapiro's office where all of Mr. Simpson's close friends had been assembled; right?
A: Right.
Q: And it was at Mr. Shapiro's behest that you went out to talk to a number of Nicole's friends; right?
A: No. He called me one evening and wanted to speak to Nicole's friends.
Q: And he asked you to go see them?
A: No. I went to go see them before all of this, before I even — before he even called me. I took it upon myself to go and talk to them.
Q: When you went to see Nicole's friends, and I think you mentioned people like Robin Greer and Cici Shahian and Kris Jenner among others?
A: Who?
Q: Kris Jenner.
A: No, I never spoke to Kris Jenner.
Q: Excuse me. I may have misspoken. You spoke to Cici Shahian; right?
A: Cici, yes.
Q: And Robin Greer; right?
A: Right.
Q: Christian Reichardt?
A: I spoke to him on the phone when I called Faye. It was for a few minutes, and it was nothing in detail talked about because he said —
Q: Cora Fischman; right?
A: Cora Fischman I spoke with.
Q: And you did not speak to Kris Jenner; is that right?
A: No.
Q: So Robin, Cora, Cici, anyone else?
A: Robin, Cora, Cici.
Q: What about Pam Schwartz? A: No.
Q: Those three people?
A: Those three people. I attempted to speak with Faye but her boyfriend said that she was not able to talk. The doctor told her — or whatever, she was under some type of care. Her lawyer advised her not to speak to anybody.
Q: Do you know who that lawyer was?
A: I have no knowledge.
Q: Mr. Cowlings, when you went to Cici, Robin, and Cora, are you saying that you did this on your own?
A: Yes.
Q: Nobody asked you to do that?
A: No.
Q: And your purpose was to find out information about what Nicole was doing in the last weeks and days of her life?
A: Somewhat and see what type of people that was around.
Q: Did you report that information to anyone after you spoke to those persons?
A: There was no information to obtain.
Q: So the answer is you did not?
A: No.
Q: And you did not write up any memos or anything like that; is that right? A: No.
Q: Did you tape-record any of these conversations?
A: No.
Q: As a result of talking to Cora Fischman, Cici Shahhn, and Robin Greer, did you find out any information that identified in your mind a suspect for the murder of Nicole?
A: No.
Q: Did you as a result of talking to Cora, Robin, and Cici, obtain any information that provided any leads to identifying Nicole's killer?
A: No.
Q: Now, what was the visit to Shapiro's house about?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: I need to talk to you for a minute.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the record now, and the time is approximately 9:02.
(Discussion held off the record.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the record now, and the time is approximately 9:21.
(Plaintiffs' Exhibit 207 was marked for identification by the reporter and was retained by counsel.)
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Mr. Cowlings, off the record you have requested that I keep this person's name out of the transcript, and I have agreed to do so; so I will refer to the person whose name is listed on Exhibit 207 as "the person." Is that acceptable to you?
A: Yes.
Q: Thank you. And this exhibit will be omitted from the —
MR. RE: Public record.
MR. PETROCELLI:—from the transcript, and we will just keep it in our possession as we have done with a number of other exhibits.
MR. RE: All right.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Now, I was asking you about your conversation with Shapiro, I guess, within a short time after Mr. Simpson's arrest.
A: I don't know exactly what time it was. I know I met with him.
Q: You do not know how many days or weeks —
A: No, I don't.
Q: — after it was?
A: No, I don't.
Q: And what was that conversation about?
A: Concerned about my well-being, discussed in general the — where the possibility of some help for O.J. was going to come from, and then he showed me a fight video of himself boxing some contender.
Q: And that had nothing to do with O.J. Simpson's case; right?
A: He wanted me to see it.
Q: What I am trying to understand is that did it have anything to do with your discussion about Mr. Simpson's case?
A: That was part of the meeting, I guess. He wanted me to see it.
Q: A boxing video?
A: Yes.
MR. BREWER: Inspirational.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: And the financial help that Mr. Shapiro was talking about was from the person whose name you listed on the exhibit?
A: Yes.
Q: Was it 207? 207. Did you agree to go talk to this person?
A: He wanted to meet with him.
Q: And did you set that meeting up?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you there?
A: At the beginning.
Q: And who else was present besides Mr. Shapiro and the person and you?
A: I have no knowledge.
Q: Do you have any recollection of what was discussed?
A: No.
Q: And then you left after the beginning of the meeting?
A: I left at the beginning of the meeting, and I came back later on when the meeting was over.
Q: And do you know whether that person listed on Exhibit 207 ever did contribute any money to the defense of Mr. Simpson?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Have you had any contacts with that person regarding this case, the criminal or the civil case for the murder of Nicole other than at that meeting?
A: We have seen each other since then.
Q: And I am only concerned, understand me, about any discussions you have had with this person regarding the murder of Nicole.
A: We discussed the murder of Nicole.
Q: On a number of occasions?
A: Yes.
Q: And can you recount those discussions to me?
A: Just how sorry and how bad a situation it is.
Q: And beyond that did you and that person discuss anything else?
A: No.
Q: Such as Mr. Simpson's responsibility for the murders?
A: No.
Q: Or any of the evidence that was being amassed in the case?
A: No.
Q: And did that person share with you any observations that he made of Nicole and specifically whether he ever saw any bruising or marks on Nicole during her lifetime?
A: No.
Q: Did you and that person ever have any conversations about whether or not Nicole had a relationship with Marcus Allen?
A: No.
Q: In your discussions with this person did they take place one on one just the two of you as opposed to in groups or with other persons present?
A: Most of the time we see each other, sometimes we are alone, sometimes we are not.
Q: And again, focusing only on the conversations that you have had about O.J. Simpson's case, have you had other discussions with this person in the presence of others?
A: I don't remember.
Q: You attended a meeting at Mr. Shapiro's office with a number of Mr. Simpson's friends in attendance; correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Including this person that we have been discussing; right?
A: Yes.
Q: And did you participate in contacting friends and colleagues of Mr. Simpson to arrange their participation or attendance at this meeting?
A: No.
Q: Who asked you to attend?
A: I was called by Shapiro's office.
Q: By Shapiro himself?
A: It could have been his assistant, it could have been him.
Q: Were you explained the purpose of this meeting?
A: He wanted me there. Why he wanted the other people there I have no knowledge of.
Q: And he did not tell you why he wanted you there?
A: No.
Q: How long were you there?
A: I don't know. I don't remember.
Q: What was discussed at that meeting?
A: Basically — I guess he wanted to control what was being said to the media, and he didn't want none of the parties to talk about — talk to the media.
Q: Was there also conversation about not talking to others besides the media?
A: I don't remember.
Q: You do not remember one way or the other; is that right?
A: I don't remember.
Q: You do not remember that they talked about it?
A: I don't remember. All I remember is he wanted to tell everybody just to, you know, not to talk to the press.
Q: That's the only thing you recall being discussed at this time?
A: Yes.
Q: And how long were you there?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Following that meeting did you maintain contact with a number of the people who attended that meeting in regard to Mr. Simpson's case?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: I don't remember.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Is it fair to say that a number of the people who attended that meeting were also friends of yours?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you remember all the people who were there?
A: No.
Q: Do you remember — Who do you remember that was at that meeting?
A: It has been a while. I don't remember exactly who was there.
Q: Is there anybody that you can identify based on your current recollection who attended that meeting?
A: The man's name that is on that list we came together.
Q: Besides the two of you. Mr. Shapiro was there; right?
A: He was there. I can't remember.
Q: You cannot remember anybody else?
A: No.
Q: Now, you also previously testified that Shapiro and you had another conversation about your — excuse me — about his talking to Nicole's friends. Do you recall that?
A: Can I hear the question again.
Q: Yes. I believe you previously testified earlier this morning that Shapiro and you had a conversation about his desire to talk to Nicole's friends?
MR. LEONARD: I am going to object. That is the third time that that question has been asked. Is this a foundational question? It was asked in one of the other sessions. You just asked it this morning, and now you are asking it again.
MR. PETROCELLI: Is that an objection?
MR. LEONARD: Yes, it is.
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.
MR. LEONARD: I think —
MR. PETROCELLI: You have made it.
MR. LEONARD: Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: Can you repeat the question.
(The record was read as follows:
"Q. I believe you previously testified earlier this morning that Shapiro and you had a conversation about his desire to talk to Nicole's friends?'")
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you recall that?
A: Yes.
Q: And you had already on your own, as you previously testified, spoken to Nicole's friends, the three that you mentioned; right?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, after Shapiro talked to you about this, did you do anything to get Nicole's friends in touch with Mr. Shapiro?
A: We went on three way, and I dialed the three individuals from my phone, and he left a message on their either answering service or voice-mail to call him.
Q: This was a telephone call that you had with Shapiro?
A: He called me.
Q: He called you. And then you tried to contact each of these three people and were unable to make human contact with any of them; is that right?
A: Right.
Q: And did they ever call you back?
A: No.
Q: And do you know whether they ever spoke to Shapiro?
A: Don't know.
Q: Did you ever have any further conversations with those three friends of Nicole after your initial discussions with them concerning Nicole's murder?
A: No.
Q: Have you ever seen Mr. Simpson bleed at Bundy, at Nicole's Bundy condominium?
A: No.
Q: Did he ever tell you that he cut himself or had deposited blood or dropped blood at any time at Nicole's condominium?
A: No.
Q: And I'm not limiting myself to the evening of June 12. I mean at any time did he ever tell you that that occurred?
MR. RE: That he bled at any time?
MR. PETROCELLI: That he cut himself at Nicole's condominium.
THE WITNESS: Not that I know of.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: And do you know from any source whether or not Mr. Simpson ever cut himself at Nicole's condominium?
MR.LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you have any information as to whether Mr. Simpson had cut himself at any time from, let's say, June 1 to June 12?
MR. RE: Well, I would interpose an objection if we are going to — there is a certain area that we are objecting to conversations between Mr. Simpson and Mr. Cowlings, and if you want to ask the question in the general way, he will assert the privilege. If you want to ask it in a more limited way —
MR. PETROCELLI: Well, foundationally, what is the first conversation that you are asserting this privilege with respect to?
MR. RE: I am asserting a privilege with regard to any inquiry which would involve his even answering as to whether there was a conversation on that subject matter during the period of time that we have been talking about.
MR.PETROCELLI: I would like to ask when is the first time that you ever spoke to O.J. Simpson after June 12 without regard to subject matter, just so that I can know that that is the beginning of this privilege. Right?
MR. RE: Well, he is going to assert the privilege as to when is the first time he spoke to him after June 12th.
MR. BREWER: The privilege begins when he returns to L.A. as I recall; isn't that right?
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, when he returns to Los Angeles, when Mr. Simpson does.
MR. RE: I think — It has already been established, I believe, that there were no conversations between the time of the murder and the time of his return.
MR. PETROCELLI: Between —
MR. RE: Between Mr. Cowlings and Mr. Simpson. So now the question is when after that presumably was the first time that he spoke to Mr. Simpson.
MR. PETROCELLI: After Simpson's return.
MR. RE: After Simpson's return. I think you can clearly see that there would potentially be conversations between that time and the time that they were both arrested, so any question along those lines I would advise him to assert the privilege to.
MR. PETROCELLI: And is the privilege asserted, then, with respect to that question as phrased?
MR. RE: Just say "privileged" and that asserts the privilege.
THE WITNESS: Privileged.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: At any time prior to Mr. Simpson's return from Chicago to Los Angeles did you acquire any information that he had cut himself between, let's say, June 1 or June 12, 1994?
A: I hadn't seen him. I wouldn't know.
Q: You had spoken to him on the phone on, I think you said, June 7th — right? — when you were in Benders?
A: I was in New York —
Q: You were in New York?
A: — and he was on the West Coast.
Q: And that is the only telephone conversation you had with Mr. Simpson in the month of June prior to June 12; correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And you had not seen him at all from June 4 through June 12; correct?
A: I don't remember.
Q: So the only thing that you can remember now, then, between June 1 and June 12 is one conversation with him on the phone when you were in New York and he was in Los Angeles around June 7? A: Yes.
Q: Now, you testified previously that you may have taken, I think, the children to or from Palm Springs in May of 1994. Do you recall that?
A: If that was in '94, yes, I took them to Palm Springs.
Q: Now, there has been testimony in this case that Mr. Simpson went to Palm Springs with Paula Barbieri on Memorial Day weekend 1994, which I think was May 29 and May 30. Is that the — And to give you further information, Paula left the Palm Springs — left Palm Springs on her own after having an argument with Mr. Simpson. Does that in any way refresh your recollection as to whether this was the Palm Springs trip that you took the kids to or from?
A: I took the kids, got them out of school, took them to Palm Springs to meet O.J., and then I drove back to Los Angeles after I dropped them off and had lunch with them.
Q: You mean Sydney and Justin; right?
A: Right.
Q: You picked them up from what school?
A: From Sydney's school.
Q: Carlthorp?
A: Yes. On San Vicente. And Justin's Sunshine School up on Sunset.
Q: And did you see Nicole when you picked up the children?
A: I think I did.
Q: Was Nicole — Where was she when you saw her?
A: To be honest, I don't remember. I don't remember if I saw her or not.
Q: So that I understand if we are talking about the same thing, is it your recollection that this was Mr. Simpson's visit to Palm Springs on Memorial Day 1994 that you did this for?
A: It could have been.
Q: Do you know for what purpose he had gone to Palm Springs?
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you know whether it had anything to do with a birthday party for Allen Austin's wife Gail?
A: No.
Q: You don't know; right?
A: No.
Q: Do you know whether Paula Barbieri was with him or planned to be with him at this Memorial Day trip?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Compound, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge of it.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you know anybody who Mr. Simpson was with in Palm Springs when you took them there?
A: No.
Q: Was it La Quinta?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Do you remember the place where you took the children where Mr. Simpson was staying?
A: When I took them, we took them to the Marriott.
Q: In Palm Springs?
A: Uh-huh.
Q: That's a yes. And that was on a Friday?
A: It could have been.
Q: And do you know how the children got back?
A: No.
Q: On Monday, I guess it is May 31, 1994, Arnelle and Justin had a barbecue at Rockingham —
MR. LEONARD: Jason.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: — Jason and Arnelle had a barbecue at Rockingham according to prior testimony in this case. Did you attend that barbecue?
A: No.
Q: Do you know why Mr. Simpson did not take the kids himself to Palm Springs?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: I am looking at a calendar for May of 1994 and Memorial Day weekend was May 28, May 29 and Monday was May 30. Is it your best recollection that you picked up the children on Friday, May 27?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Do you know when Mr. Simpson went to Palm Springs?
A: No.
Q: Do you know whether there was some event for the children that was going on that day that Mr. Simpson was unable to attend?
A: No.
Q: Did up make arrangements with Nicole to pick up the children?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague as to time.
MR. PETROCELLI: When he picked up the children.
MR.LEONARD: Well, same objection.
THE WITNESS: I don't remember.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: And do you remember talking to Nicole either on the phone or in person about your picking up the children and taking them to Palm Springs?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Do you remember the last time you ever spoke to Nicole before her death?
A: I don't remember.
Q: That does not stand out in your mind?
A: I don't remember.
Q: And do you remember the last time you saw her?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Do you remember not so much the date but approximately when it was and where you were and what the circumstances were?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Did you visit Nicole while she was ill with pneumonia in the middle of May of 1994?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Did you know whether she was ill?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Did you have any conversations with Nicole in May or June of 1994 prior to her death about a dispute with Mr. Simpson concerning an IRS issue?
A: No.
Q: Did you have any conversations with Nicole in May or June of 1994 prior to her death about any kind of argument or dispute or conflict she was having with Mr. Simpson?
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague, compound.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you have any conversations with Nicole in May or June of 1994 prior to her death about Mr. Simpson or her relationship with him?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Did you have any conversations with Mr. Simpson in May or June of 1994 prior to Nicole's death—
A: I don't remember.
Q: —about his relationship with Nicole?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Mr. Simpson—Withdrawn. You previously testified that you had been down to the Brown's for about 45 minutes or so on Mother's Day in 1994, which would have been May 8. Do you recall that?
A: Yes.
Q: And you testified that it was around that time that you learned that Mr. Simpson and Nicole's relationship was over. Do you recall that?
A: He spoke about it.
Q: Did he speak about this while the two of you were talking at the Brown residence?
A: No.
Q: Was this at the Laguna residence?
A: Yes.
Q: And was Nicole there when Mr. Simpson and you were talking? In other words, was she in the conversation?
A: No.
Q: And as best you can recall tell me what Mr. Simpson said about the end of his relationship with Nicole.
A: No different than any other time. He just said that he felt it was over.
Q: You previously testified in substance that O.J. Simpson told you that it was over between him and Nicole, that you said "you gave it your best" and that O.J. responded it was over. Is that the gist of the conversation?
A: Yes.
Q: Did he explain to you what had led to this final breakup?
A: No.
Q: Did you ask?
A: No.
Q: Did you—Withdrawn. Did he say anything to you about Nicole's behavior, Nicole's conduct, or anything that Nicole was doing that was causing a problem with him?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague, compound.
THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: In other words, did he express to you any dissatisfaction with Nicole in the way she was treating him or the way she was acting in this conversation?
A: I have no knowledge of it.
Q: Is this the last time that you spoke to Mr. Simpson about his relationship with Nicole?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Is this the last one that you do recall as you sit here today?
A: I don't remember.
151 Q: Can you recall any other conversation with O.J. Simpson about his relationship with Nicolein May or June of 1994 other than this one that you just testified to in May—on May 8, 1994?
MR. LEONARD: You are asking for all of May and all of June; is that what you are asking?
MR. PETROCELLI: No. Can you please repeat the question.
(The record was read as follows:
"Q: Can you recall any other conversation with O.J. Simpson about his relationship with Nicole in May or June of 1994 other than this one that you just testified to in May — on May 8, 1994?")
THE WITNESS: I don't remember.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: It was after you had this conversation in the Laguna condo that you then went over to the Browns, as I understand it; right?
A: Yes.
And while you were at the Laguna condo and while you were at the Browns, did you observe any—did you observe Mr. Simpson and Nicole interacting?
A: They were sitting next to each other.
Q: And did you observe any tension between them?
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: And did you have any conversation at all with Nicole about the breakup of her relationship with Mr. Simpson?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: I don't remember.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did Nicole appear upset to you at any time that you saw her during that Mother's Day trip to Laguna?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, vague.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: You previously testified that you saw O.J. Simpson in Palm Springs with Paula, and Marcus Allen and Katherine were there for a golf tournament, and you brought the kids there, and you did not recall whether this occurred on Memorial Day of 1994?
A: No, I don't remember.
When you did bring the kids to Mr. Simpson, is it your recollection that Paula was there?
A: Yes. She was in front of the Marriott.
Q: And that Marcus and Katherine Allen were there also?
A: Yes.
MR. LEONARD: Can we take a very short break?
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the record now, and the time is approximately 9:48.
(Recess taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the record now, and the time is approximately 9:52.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: At any time during Mr. Simpson's divorce proceedings with Nicole did he tell you that Nicole had been investigating stories of abuse against him in order to obtain an advantage in the divorce case?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Compound, lack of foundation.
HEWITNESS: I don't know anything about that.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you ever have any conversations with Mr. Simpson prior to Nicole's death about whether Nicole was making up stories of abuse by Mr. Simpson?
MR. LEONARD: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge of it.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Were you contacted by any lawyers or investigators or other representatives of Nicole or Mr. Simpson during their divorce case?
A: No.
Q: And you did not provide any information to anyone during their case?
A: No.
Q: Are you—Withdrawn. Did you know that Mr. Simpson gave Nicole an agreement following the 1989 incident that if there were any other incidents of abuse she could void the prenuptial agreement?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge of that.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you have any conversations with Nicole about her wanting such an agreement or arrangement with Mr. Simpson?
A: I have no knowledge of it.
Q: You testified in the prior sessions of your deposition that following the 1981 incident when you encountered
Nicole—
MR. LEONARD: '89.
MR. PETROCELLI: Withdrawn.
MR. LEONARD: You said '81..
MR. PETROCELLI: Withdraw.
Q: You testified when you encountered Nicole on January 1, 1989 for following her altercation with Mr. Simpson that she told you how upset she was, how hurt she was, and how she wanted to get even with Mr. Simpson. Do you recall that?
A: Yes.
Q: Did she have any conversations with you at all about how she might get even with him?
A: Not that I can remember. She was just pissed off. She was mad.
Q: Did she say anything about wanting to get a new arrangement with Mr. Simpson on the division of property or on his prenuptial agreement with her?
A: I have no knowledge of that.
Q: Did she say anything to you about wanting to tell the media or the tabloids about what had gone on in their relationship as kind of a revenge against him?
A: I have no knowledge of it.
Q: Did you and she have any conversations about what impact on Mr. Simpson's career this incident might have if publicly disclosed?
A: I have no knowledge of that.
Q: Did you have any conversations with Mr. Simpson about that subject?
A: No.
Q: Are you aware of any of the discussions and negotiations between Mr. Simpson and Mr. Taft on the one hand and Nicole on the other hand concerning the amendment to their prenuptial agreement?
A: No.
Q: Prior to Nicole's death, do you think it is fair to say that Mr. Simpson had generally favorable relationships with the Los Angeles Police Department?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague and calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: You would have to ask O.J. that.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Based on your knowledge, what was your opinion of his relationship with the LAPD, again, prior to Nicole 's death?
MR. LEONARD: Same objections.
HEWITNESS: I never gave it any thought.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you know whether or not he had friends on the force?
A: O.J. has a lot of friends.
Q: Including who worked for IAPD?
A: I don't know who they work for.
Q: Were you aware of any friends of Mr. Simpson who were police officers?
A: I don't know— I don't know what half of O.J.'s friends do or the majority of them. I wouldn't now.
Q: You knew Ron Ship was a friend of his; right?
A: Yes.
Q: And Mr. Ship is also a friend of yours?
A: Yes.
Q: And is he the only police officer who you know and can identify right now who was a friend of Mr. Simpson's?
MR. LEONARD: I am going to object. It is vague as to time.
MR. PETROCELLI: Prior to Nicole's death.
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Have you had any conversations with Ron Ship about Nicole's murder, Mr. Cowlings?
A: No.
Q: Not at any time?
A: No.
Q: You were at the Browns on the evening of the 13th—correct?— not at Simpson's house; right?
A: Privilege.
Q: You testified previously that you had a conversation at the home of the person whose name you identified on Exhibit 207 with Marcus Allen after Nicole's murder about the fact that his affair with Nicole might come out in the press. Do you recall that?
A: Yes.
Q: How did you know about his affair with Nicole at the time that you spoke to him?
A: Privilege.
Q: Well, let me ask you this: Prior to Nicole's death did you know about the affair?
A: No.
Q: Prior to Mr. Simpson's return from Chicago did you know about the affair?
A: Privilege.
MR. PETROCELLI: I thought that was an area that was not carved out, Mr. Re?
MR. RE: He is asserting the privilege.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you understand that I am asking you about a period of time before Mr. Simpson returned to Los Angeles?
A: Is that what you are asking me?
Q: Yes. So let me just repeat it one more time. Prior to Mr. Simpson's return to Los Angeles from Chicago on June 13, did you know about an affair between Marcus Allen and Nicole?
A: No.
Q: And after Mr. Simpson's arrest on June 17 did you have any conversations with anyone about an affair between Marcus and Nicole prior to the time you met with Marcus?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Can you tell me who the persons are that you spoke to about an affair between Marcus and Nicole?
A: I don't remember.
MR. LEONARD: Privilege.
MR.RE: Privilege. Are you talking about during—
MR.PETROCELLI: Yes. During the period you are going to take the privilege; right?
MR. RE: Right.
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. So excluding the period. Any other persons.
MR. RE: We have used the period as sort of a general guideline. We have allowed you to go into certain things that happened within the period, but if he has—if you are including within that any conversations that he may have had, for example, with Mr. Simpson during that period of time, he would assert the privilege anyway—
MR. PETROCELLI: Exactly.
MR. RE:—so if you want to exclude
MR. PETROCELLI: So I am excluding the period, going outside the period.
MR.RE: And you are excluding Simpson also?
MR. PETROCELLI: Any conversations that he might have had with Mr. Simpson on some day after that period.
MR. RE: He will assert a privilege to that.
MR.PETROCELLI: About an affair between Marcus Allen and Nicole?
MR. RE: Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: Have you been asserting that position consistently?
MR. RE: Yes.
MR.PETROCELLl: In other words, all conversations with O.J. Simpson—
MR. RE: Following the murders, yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: Following his return from Chicago?
MR. RE: No. All conversations with O.J. Simpson following the murders. It turns out that, you know, we have allowed you to explore the fact that there are no conversations until he returns from Chicago.
MR. PETROCELLI: Right. To the present?
MR. RE: Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: Including after his release from jail?
MR. RE: Yes.
MR.PETROCELLI: All of that is being excluded on the ground of the privilege?
MR. RE: Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: Do we have a record of that?
I don't think so.
MR. RE: I don't think you ever asked.
MR. BREWER: I thought we got into that.
MR. PETROCELLI: I don't think so.
MR. RE: I don't think you ever asked anything specifically about a conversation that he had with Simpson.
MR. PETROCELLI: Then let me ask him now then.
MR. RE: Okay.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Following Mr. Simpson's arrest did you ever have any conversations with him about an affair between Marcus Allen and Nicole?
A: Privilege.
Q: Excluding O.J. Simpson?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Have you ever spoken to Katherine Allen about this?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Have you spoken to Marcus Allen about this other than on that one occasion shortly after Mr. Simpson's arrest?
A: I don't remember.
Q: When is the last time you spoke to Marcus Allen?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Have you spoken to him in the last 30 days?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Have you spoken to him in the last week?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Have you spoken to him about the fact that he was subpoenaed to testify in this case?
A: I don't remember.
Q: When was the last time that you saw Marcus Allen in person?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Have you seen him in the last 30 days?
A: I don't remember.
Q: In the last two weeks?
A: I don't remember.
Q: In the last week?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Did you see him yesterday?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Did you speak to him yesterday?
A: I don't remember.
Q: When was the last time you were in Kansas City?
A: I've never been to Kansas City. I take that back. When I used to play ball I used to go to Kansas City. We played the Chiefs.
Q: Have you been to Mr. Allen's home in Los Angeles in the last year?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Have you been to Mr. Allen's home within the last year in Missouri?
A: I've never been.
Q: Does Mr. Allen have a home outside of Los Angeles?
A: I don't know.
Q: You don't know?
A: No.
Q: Have you ever been to his home outside of Los Angeles?
A: If he has, I don't know it.
Q: What people do you know about this affair —
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: — excluding O.J. Simpson?
MR. LEONARD: Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
MR. PETROCELLI: I asked him what people—
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
MR. PETROCELLI:— he knows know about this affair.
Q: That is, have told you about it, have mentioned it.
A: I don't know.
Q: Do you know whether Marcus Allen was with Nicole in the last 30 days of her life.
MR.LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you know whether Mr. Allen saw Nicole at any time in the Last 30 days of her life?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you know whether Marcus Allen spoke to Nicole in the last 30 days of her life?
MR. LEONARD: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: You testified that you saw Marcus Allen for the last time prior to Nicole's death on Sunday June 12 when you and he went to Thousand Oaks to inquireabout his purchase of a Hummer. Do you recall that?
A: Yeah. Yes.
Q: And prior—Withdrawn. He called you at your home in the Palisades to see if you could go with him?
A: Yes.
Q: And prior to that day, which was a Sunday, when was the last time you had seen or spoken to Mr. Allen?
A: I don't remember.
Q: What did you do that Sunday on the 12th of June?
MR. RE: Are you talking about with Marcus Allen?
MR.PETROCELLI: No. From the time you got up.
Q: Can you tell us what you did that day.
A: I don't remember.
Q: You previously testified that you went over to Mr. Simpson's house in the morning around 8:30. Do you recall that?
A: Yes.
Q: And what did you do when you went there?
A: I was on my way to see a friend, and I forgot the address, so I pulled up to O.J.'s house to use the phone to call to get the correct address where I was going to meet my friend.
Q: And you used the phone in the tennis court; right?
A: Yes.
Q: And what was the name of your friend?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Did you then go to see the friend?
A: Yes.
Q: Was it a man or a woman?
A: I think it was a guy.
Q: When you went to Mr. Simpson's tennis court, you got into the property by using your key?
A: I could have.
Q: The key you had was the master key that worked the outside gates; right?
A: The gate and the front door.
Q: The gate for which there was a key was the Rockingham gate; right?
A: Yes.
Q: And do you remember whether you used the key to get the Rockingham gate open, or do you remember whether you just pushed it open?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Do you remember whether the gate was operative in its automatic mode when you went in and out of the property on June 12?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: I don't remember.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: You did not go inside the house; right?
A: No.
Q: Did you know whether the alarm was on?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No, I don't. I didn't know.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Is the reason you did not go inside the house but went to the tennis court was because the alarm was on and you did not have the security code?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No. I was just there to use the phone.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: And that was the quickest way to get to a phone?
A: Uh-huh.
Q: You have to answer yes.
A: Yes.
Q: And that phone is located where on the tennis court?
A: Right in the middle of the tennis court in a little cabana.
Q: After you left—Withdrawn. What time—Withdrawn.
Where did you go after you left wherever you went with your friend?
A: I think we went and had breakfast.
Q: And then you went home?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Where were you when you received the call from Mr. Allen about getting together with him?
A: I don't know if we had prearranged it the night before or he had called me that morning. I couldn't tell you.
Q: Where did you meet him?
A: I went by his house.
Q And you picked him up?
A: Yes.
Q: And drove in your white Bronco?
A: In the Bronco, yes.
Q: And then you went to Thousand Oaks together and then dropped him off at his house?
A: Yes.
Q: And do you know what time you left his house?
A: No.
Q: And do you know what time you got back?
A: No.
Q: And in that time—Withdrawn. How long were you together that day?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Did he buy a car?
A: Did he buy who?
Q: Did he buy a car that day?
A: No, I don't think so.
Q: Do you know what kind of car he had at that time?
A: He had his Mercedes and his Testarossa.
Q: Do you know what color his Mercedes was?
A: Black.
Q: Do you know what model it was?
A: No.
Q: Was it a big Mercedes?
A: Two-door.
Q: Two-door. Did it have a personalized license plate?
A: I don't think so.
Q: Do you know what the license plate was?
A: No.
Q: And in that time you spent with Marcus Allen on June 12 did you have any conversation about Nicole?
A: No.
Q: Did you have any conversation about Mr. Simpson's relationship with Nicole?
A: No.
Q: And did you have any conversation about Mr. Simpson?
A: Not that I remember.
Q: As of June 12, 1994 was Joe Stellini a friend of Mr. Simpson's to your knowledge?
A: As far as I know, yes.
Q: Was Joe Kolkowitz?
A: You said Joe Kolkowitz?
Q: Second name.
A: As far as I know, yes.
Q: Was Tom McCullum?
A: Yes.
Q: Was Alan Schwartz?
A: Yes.
Q: Was Louis Marx?
A: Yes.
Q: Mark Slotkin?
A: Yes.
Q: Marcus Allen?
A: Yes.
Q: Ron Ship?
A: Yes.
Q: Bobby Bender?
A: Yes.
Q: Allen Austin?
A: Yes.
Q: Mike Millitello?
A: I haven't seen Mike. Mike lives on the East Coast.
Q: Bob Kardashian?
A: Yes.
Q: Tom Kardashian?
A: Yes.
Q: The person's whose name you wrote on Exhibit 207?
A: Yes.
Q: Ricky Schulman?
A: I don't know.
Q: Craig Baumgarten?
A: They played golf together.
Q: Bob Hoskins?
A: I think that is one of his golfing buddies.
A: Donnie Sofer?
A: I don't know Donnie.
Q: Mark Packer?
A: Yes.
Q: Reggie McKenzie?
A: Yes.
Q: Ahmad Rashad?
A: I don't know.
Q: Bobby Chandler, was he alive as of June 12, 1994? He was; right?
A: Yes.
Q: And he was a close friend of Mr. Simpson's?
A: Yes.
Q: Is there anybody else that you believe was a close friend of Mr. Simpson's who I have just not named?
MR. LEONARD: I am going to object. You are now changing the question. You used the word "friend" with reference to every one of those people except for Bobby Chandler, so now I am going to object to that question as it is framed.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: You can answer.
A: I am.
Q : You're right. Anyone else—
A: I don't know.
MR. LEONARD: Same objection.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q:—that comes to mind? Excuse me? You answered.
A: Not that come to mind, no.
Q: Mr. Simpson was not in your opinion crippled in May or June of 1994; is that true?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, lack of foundation, calls for a conclusion.
MR. RE: When you say "crippled," are you talking about crippled to the point of not walking? Are you talking about any sort of—
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Would you use the word "cripple" in any way to describe him,
A: He had very difficulties moving.
Q: Have you ever used that word to describe him, crippled.?
A: I don't know what I have used.
Q: Difficulty moving in what way, Mr. Cowlings, as of May or June of 1994?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague as to time, compound.
THE WITNESS: He'd complain.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you mean about sore knees?
A: Knees, his joints.
Q: Arthritis?
A: Yes.
Q: Is that what he would complain about?
A: Yeah.
Q: Did he complain about any other physical ailments or disabilities besides arthritis in, let's say, the last six months of Nicole's life?
A: He complained. I mean he had difficulties in his joints, in his hands, his knees.
Q: Anything else?
A: There could have been other things. I don't remember.
Q: Have you ever been with O.J. Simpson when he was following Nicole someplace?
A: No.
Q: Or going to see if Nicole was at a restaurant or a bar or anyplace like that?
A: No.
Q: Have you ever gone with Mr. Simpson to see if Nicole was at her home, for example?
A: No
Q: Do you know whether Mr. Simpson ever followed Nicole in the last three years of her life?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague, calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
HE WITNESS: I have no idea, no knowledge of it.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you have any knowledge of whether Mr. Simpson would ever go see if Nicole was at home while she was living in the Gretna Green or Bundy condominium?
MR. RE: You are talking about his personal knowledge? I mean, there have been reports on the news about various—
MR. PETROCELLI: No. Things he knows, not what he has read in the newspaper. Whether he saw it or somebody told him, such as Mr. Simpson or Nicole, that kind of knowledge.
MR. RE: Okay.
THE WITNESS: Not that I know of.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: And do you have any knowledge of Mr. Simpson trying to keep track of Nicole's whereabouts after they got divorced through the end of her life?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: Not that I know of.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you have any knowledge of Mr. Simpson wanting to know who Nicole was going out with?
A: No.
Q: Where she was going?
A: No.
Q: Who she had over to her house?
A: Not that I know of.
Q: Do you have any knowledge of whether Mr. Simpson ever stalked Nicole?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: No.
MR.LEONARD: Calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you have any knowledge of whether Nicole ever stalked Mr. Simpson?
MR. LEONARD: Same objections.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Prior to Mr. Simpson's return from Chicago on June 13 did you have any knowledge that he had cut himself in any way?
MR. RE: Ever?
MR. PETROCELLI: No. Within the prior week.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you observe any cuts on Mr. Simpson's finger or any other place on his body when you saw him?'
MR. RE: He has taken a privilege to that period of time. You are talking about when he returned from Chicago?
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes. So you will take a privilege as to all observations that he made of Mr. Simpson?
MR. RE: Right.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Yesterday Robert Kardashian testified that some weeks after Mr. Simpson's arrest he called you to come over to his house and in the garage the two of you inspected Mr. Simpson's golfbag. Do you recall that incident?
MR. LEONARD: I am going to object as lack of foundation.
MR. RE: To be consistent, I think because this has to do with an inspection of the golf bag, which apparently has something to do with the investigation that was conducted with regard to the murders, I am going to advise the witness to assert the privilege.
THE WITNESS: Privilege. MR. PETROCELLI: This occurred after this excluded period. It has nothing to do with the proceedings involving Mr. Cowlings at all.
MR. RE: I don't know what the proceedings involving Mr. Cowlings has to do with except that when they talk about potential accessory after the fact, which was what the nature of the offense is, it could theoretically extend to looking for evidence or being with someone who is looking for evidence, so that I think to preserve
MR. PETROCELLI: Or talking to witnesses?
MR. RE: No.
MR. PETROCELLI: There has been ample testimony about that.
MR. RE: No. But I don't think anybody has ever claimed that there has been any sort of accessoryship that has evolved because he talked to somebody. They are talking about some other avenues. I think that this one is close to the line, but I think to preserve the privilege I have to have him assert it.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you have any conversations with Mr. Kardashian about—Withdrawn. Following Mr. Simpson's arrest did you have any conversations with Mr. Kardashian about Mr. Simpson's luggage?
MR. RE: Again, if it has to do with potential evidence in the criminal case, I think to be consistent, I have to ask him to assert the privilege so we do not get into—
MR. PETROCELLI: About inspecting—about his luggage?
MR. RE: Well, but the luggage — people have made a big deal about the luggage as somehow having to do with the criminal case so I—
MR. PETROCELLI: I am now only talking about conversations, talking to people. I did not ask about his physical conduct.
MR. RE: But theoretically those conversations, if they have to do with potential evidence, could fall within the ambit of that kind of investigation, so I have to advise him to assert the privilege.
THE WITNESS: Privilege.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you have any conversations with Robert Kardashian at all after Mr. Simpson's arrest concerning Nicole's murder?
MR. RE: Well, you are excluding now conversations regarding evidence, things of that nature?
MR. PETROCELLI: I am not excluding any conversations.
MR. RE: Then he will assert the privilege.
THE WITNESS: Privilege.
MR.PETROCELLI: I don't really know what that means "regarding evidence." I really don't understand that at all. I mean, if you can clarify that for me. Are you basically not going to let him talk about conversations with Kardashian about the case, about Nicole's murder after Mr. Simpson's arrest?
MR. RE: Well, I think that, for example, if you have a conversation that deals with evidence, there is a privilege. If you have a conversation that deals with how wonderful—how terrible it is that things have happened, that is probably not subject to the privilege, but you are not limiting the question, so since you are asking an open-ended question—
MR. PETROCELLI: I don't know what you mean about the "evidence," because anything could be evidence, even the conversation that you just mentioned.
MR. RE: All right. Good point. Privilege. He will assert the privilege. He is going to assert the privilege to anything that could relate to notions of cover-up, which is I think part of the area that was discussed in the media and I think part of the area that you are driving at. Any of those areas he is going to have to assert the privilege to to be consistent, so based upon the question that you asked, I think he is asserting the privilege. I think he has asserted the privilege.
THE WITNESS: Privilege.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Following— I am not going to bother even to ask any questions whatsoever about what he did during the week of the 13th up to Simpson's arrest because that is all privileged; right?
MR. RE: So you are going to exclude all of that from your questioning?
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, I am.
MR. RE: Okay.
MR.PETROCELLI: But you understand that a record has been made on that?
MR. RE: Yes. That's fine.
MR. PETROCELLI: And if we ever have this process again, that we will be able to ask any and all questions in that period of time.
MR. RE: I will agree that you have asked sufficient numbers of questions regarding that period of time—
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.
MR. RE:—and that he has invoked the privilege, and you can be assured that if you ask any further questions along those lines, he would assert the privilege too.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: And you adopt that, Mr. Cowlings?
MR. RE: Say "privilege."
THE WITNESS: Privilege.
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. So I am just now going to focus after Simpson's arrest, then.
MR. RE: And we will assume that the questions that you are asking now, even though they do not explicitly say it, exclude the area of time that we have been talking about.
MR. PETROCELLI: Correct.
Q: Did you conduct any kind of search for evidence having to do with Nicole's murder?
MR. RE: He has to assert a privilege to that.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you inspect any evidence concerning Nicole's murder?
MR. RE: He has to assert a privilege to that.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you talk to anyone about any evidence concerning Nicole's murder?
MR. RE: He has to assert a privilege to that.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you visit the Bundy crime scene?
MR. RE: Well, when you say—
MR. PETROCELLI: We have already talked about the visit during the week.
MR. RE: Right. Excluding that visit?
MR.PETROCELLI: Yes. When he came there to help pack with Lou Brown and all of that. I am after that period of time now.
Q: Did you ever go back to the Bundy crime scene?
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: You said previously that you had a garage door opener that Lou Brown had given you and that you had it for a couple of weeks. Do you recall that?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you have it in your car during that period of time or was it in your home?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. "Period of time"—
THE WITNESS: It was—
MR. LEONARD:—vague.
THE WITNESS:—at my home.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: It was at your house?
A: Yes.
Q: And then at some point in time you returned it to Lou Brown?
A: Yes.
Q: How did you return it to him?
A: I gave it to him in Laguna.
Q: You drove down there and gave it to him?
A: Uh-huh. Yes.
Q: And do you remember when that was?
A: No.
Q: Did you ever come into contact with Mr. Simpson's Louis Vuitton garment bag?
MR. RE: Same assertion of the privilege.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Or his golf bag?
MR. RE: Same.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Or his black grip bag?
MR. RE: Same.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Or his O.J. Simpson silk suit bag?
MR. RE: Same.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Or any other item of luggage?
MR. RE: Same.
THE WITNESS: Privilege.
MR. BREWER: May I ask one question just so that I am clear on something. What is the difference between these questions and the examination concerning the southern walkway where he is out there inspecting the walkway—
MR. PETROCELLI: There isn't any.
MR. BREWER:—with the investigator—
MR. PETROCELLI: I didn't want to argue.
MR. BREWER: I don't want to argue. I just want to know—
MR. RE: There is a substantial difference. The questions having to do with the walkway have nothing to do with any potential investigation being conducted by the police. The police are investigating issues concerning the luggage, concerning the clothes, concerning the Bronco ride, concerning things of that nature, so he asserted the privilege to all of those. We are - trying to let you go as far as we can and still maintain the privilege.
MR. PETROCELLI: I am not going to even try to debate these issues. You are twisting the microphone.
MR. RE: I'm not even touching it.
MR.PETROCELLI: Oh, Mr. Cowlings. Who is?
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Mr. Cowlings.
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.
There is no point arguing about it. We will just figure it out later.
MR. RE: Fine.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you have any contact with Mr. Simpson's Bronco at any time after his arrest?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
MR. RE: Same.
MR. LEONARD: Vague.
MR. RE: Privilege.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you have any contact with his Bronco at any time prior to his arrest?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague as to time.
MR. RE: When you say "prior to his arrest?
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes.
MR. RE:—you mean at any time prior to his arrest?
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes.
MR. RE: Privilege.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Prior to Nicole's death when was the last time that you were in that Bronco, prior to Nicole's death on June 12, 1989?
A: I used it to—
MR. BREWER: You misspoke. It was 1994.
MR. PETROCELLI: I am sorry. Withdrawn.
Q: Prior to Nicole's death on June 12, 1994 when was the last time that you were in the Bronco?
A: I used it to—I put my car in the shop for service, and I used the Bronco.
Q: For how long?
A: I don't know.
Q:Do you remember when this occurred?
A: No.
Q: Was it days or weeks or months within Nicole's murder?
A: It could have been weeks; it could have been months.
Q: Do you have any explanation for why fingerprints matching yours were found on the Bronco door?
MR. RE: Well, first of all, there is no indication that I have seen that those fingerprints have been on the door, and there is no way for him to know that, so I am going to instruct him not to answer the question.
MR. PETROCELLI: On what ground? Privilege?
MR. RE: I don't think—No, it is not —When you say—I don't know what fingerprints you are talking
about. There is no way to even answer that question. There is no factual basis to allow the witness—
MR. PETROCELLI: I am just asking what the objection is so that maybe I can cure it in my next question.
MR. RE: That's the problem.
MR. LEONARD: My objection is that it lacks foundation.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you have any knowledge at all, Mr. Cowlings, of anyone claiming that fingerprints matching yours were found on the Bronco?
A: I have no knowledge of it.
Q: And do you have any explanation as to why fingerprints matching yours might be found on the Bronco?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
MR. RE: You mean any fingerprints anywhere—
MR. PETROCELLI: Anywhere on the—
MR. RE:—anyplace on the Bronco?
MR. PETROCELLI:—outside of the Bronco.
MR. RE: Other than the fact that he drove the car a couple of weeks before?
MR. PETROCELLI: I don't know when he drove the car. That's what I tried to find out.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: You can answer.
A: Just when I used it.
Q: Did you wash the car?
A: No.
Q: And do you know how many days you used it?
A: It could have been a day.
Q: Your Bronco—
A: A day-and-a-half.
Q:—was brought in for what, a routine service?
A: Yes.
Q: Where did you bring it?
A: Ford dealership on Santa Monica in West LA., Buerge, I think.
Q: Right near Santa Monica Boulevard?
A: It is on Santa Monica Boulevard.
Q: Is that Walker Buerge?
A: Walker Buerge, yes, just west of Barrington.
Q: Were you informed about Sydney's recital and asked to attend it?
A: No.
Q: Were you ever told in advance that there would be a family dinner after the recital?
A: No.
Q: Did you know of any plans to go to Jackson's for dinner where Jason was working at the time as a cook?
A: When?
Q: Dinner after the recital on June 12.
A: No.
Q: You don't know—
A: No.
Q: —about any plans to do any of that?
A: No.
Q: I wanted to show you some photographs. The first one is a photograph of a document that has been previously marked as Exhibit 10. My question is: Is that your jacket?
MR. RE: Wait a second before you answer this. For the record, are these items that were taken out of the Bronco? Is that what this is? I don't know what this is.
MR.PETROCELLI: They are items that were taken from all over the piece—Rockingham, Mr. Simpson's room.
MR. RE: Mr. Simpson's bedroom; is that what you are talking about?
MR. PETROCELLI: Bedroom.
MR. RE: At the house you are talking about?
MR. PETROCELLI: Also Robert Kardashian's house.
MR. RE: These are items that were seized by the police, though, is that what these photographs represent?
MR. PETROCELLI: I don't know who they were seized by, to tell you the truth, and I don't know that they all were seized, but I think some of them certainly include items that the police had.
MR. RE: For example, this GJ, does that refer to Grand Jury?
MR. PETROCELLI: It may well. My question is simply whether these are his items or not.
MR. RE: As far as any items that were seized for evidentiary value by the police or were produced l as evidence for the Grand Jury he will assert the privilege, and it would appear that these items are such items.
MR.PETROCELLI: Then I would like to ask him for each of these items whether they are his, they belong to him.
MR. RE: And he will assert the privilege to each one. If you want to do it individually, go ahead.
MR. PETROCELLI: And I also want to ask whether prior to Nicole's death he had ever seen any of these items.
MR. RE: He will assert a privilege to any questions having to do with any of the materials that were seized as evidence in the case.
MR. PETROCELLI: Including when he first saw them?
MR. RE: Yes. Any questions.
MR. PETROCELLI: Or whether he even owned them?
MR. RE: Any questions.
MR.PETROCELLI: Why — Well, it seems inconsistent with prior things that we have done, but we are not going to solve that here. For the record, then, I would like to ask a series of questions about what has been previously marked as deposition Exhibits 10, 11, 13, 14, 12, 16, 15, 18, 17, 19, 20, 21, 58, 57, 60, 59, 63, 62, 65, 64, 68, 67, 70, 69, 24, 25, 23, 26, 22, 173, and you can see that there are additional photographs of items of luggage, including golf shoes, and I would like to ask questions about all of these items.
Is it your position that none of—that Mr. Cowlings will assert the privilege with respect to any conceivable question about any of these items?
MR. RE: I would note, for example, on the first page, which has depo Exhibits 10 and 11—
THE WITNESS: I need to run to the rest room.
MR. RE: Okay.
(continuing) there is a notation that it is Cowlings Grand Jury photos, so yes, clearly we will assert—
MR.PETROCELLI: Not all of them are in that category.
MR. RE: I am telling you what it says here, Cowlings Grand Jury photos.
MR. PETROCELLI: I know. You are pointing to some of them, and that is true, that is what the little tags that I put on them say.
MR. RE: And then the next page says —Grand Jury is on a pink tab regarding Exhibits 13 and 15. The yellow— whatever this color is—
MR.PETROCELLI: I have already sufficiently identified them. We do not have to go through that. We have a record of them. We have xeroxes and they are attached as exhibits to these depositions.
MR. RE: I am not clear that the actual stickers are part of the exhibits.
MR. PETROCELLI: The exhibit numbers are.
MR. RE: The stickers that say GJ on them and Grand Jury? That is what I am making a record of.
MR. PETROCELLI: But it can be determined whether or not a particular exhibit attached to the depositions was a Grand Jury exhibit.
MR. RE: All I am saying is that all of those stickers say GJ on them. Some of them say Grand Jury Exhibits Cowlings Exhibit Number—
MR. PETROCELLI: I simply want to know—
MR. BREWER: Your position is that you are going to assert a privilege on Grand Jury — evidence that was seized in connection with the Grand Jury?
MR. RE: Wait. Backing up. Then there are some others that say SID photos, these are Exhibits 58 and 57.
R.PETROCELLI: And they were not Grand Jury exhibits.
MR. RE: What we have, then, is a booklet that consists of two categories of photos.
MR. PETROCELLI: Or more.
MR. RE. That is what I am trying to establish.
MR.PETROCELLI: Or more than two categories.
MR. RE: Well, it appears that of all these photos they either say Grand Jury or SID, and those are both— those both relate, then, to materials that were seized and some of which were introduced on the Grand Jury, the Cowlings Grand Jury; so yes, he is asserting a privilege to any questions regarding any of those items or all of those items.
MR. BREWER: Even if they were not seized in connection with the Grand Jury investigation but in connection with the Simpson matter, then he would assert the privilege?
MR. RE: Absolutely.
MR. BREWER: Okay.
MR. RE: But there is no way to tell from those documents for what purpose they were seized. It just says SID, which is the Scientific Investigation Division of the Los Angeles Police Department, so that means that they were seized and examined in the course of a criminal investigation.
MR. PETROCELLI: I think your position has not been consistent because we have had a lot of other deposition testimony about other items of evidence in the criminal case. So I don't really understand the difference. Just because we have a photograph, doesn't make a difference in my view.
MR. RE: If he is gone, I am going to go to the rest room, too.
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes.
MR. BREWER: Five minutes.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the record now, and the time is approximately 10:36.
(Recess taken.)
HEVlDE0GRAPHER:We are back on the record now, and the time is approximately 10:42.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you own a windbreaker prior to Nicole's death?
MR. RE: Any windbreaker?
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes.
MR. RE: Ever?
MR. PETROCELLI: No.
Q: Did you own at the time of Nicole's death a windbreaker?
MR. RE: We will assert the privilege to that.
MR. PETROCELLI: So you would assert a privilege, then, as to whether he owned as of the time of Nicole's death—
MR. RE: In as much as you have already shown him photographs of windbreakers and asked him questions regarding that, yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: All items of clothing?
MR. RE: All items of clothing.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: When you spoke to Mr. Simpson on the telephone on either June 7 or June 8—
And by the way, would looking at a calendar refresh your recollection as to the date of
that call? This is one of Mr. Simpson's calendars, Exhibit 8-A.
A: That doesn't mean anything to me.
Q: I'm trying to figure out the day that you were in New York and he was in Los Angeles and you poke on the phone.
A: It was the week of—the second week of June.
Q: That is as far as you can recall?
A: Yeah. It could have been Tuesday; it could have been Wednesday.
Q: And when Mr. Simpson went to New York, did you have any telephone conversations with him while he was there?
A: No.
t161Q: Did you call the Bender house and speak to him there?
A: I don't think so. I don't remember.
Q: Your phone records show a call on June 8 to which I understand to be Mr. Bender's number?
A: Can we go off the record?
Q: Yes.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the record now, and the time is approximately 10:45.
(Discussion held off the record.)
(Regarding page 933, line 20, it was agreed among counsel to remove the phone number from the record.)
THE VlDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the record now, and the time is approximately 10:48.
(plaintiffs' exhibit 208 was marked for identification by the reporter and was retained by counsel.)
MR. PETROCELLI: At your request I have agreed to not disclose in the transcript the phone number that I want to ask you about which we have put down on Exhibit 208.
Q: Do you see that number?
A: Yes.
Q: And the number on 208 is the phone number of your friend and Mr. Simpson's friend Bobby Bender?
rla1 A: Yes.
Q: And he has a home in Long Island, New York; right?
`
0: His wife is Robin Bender? A: Yes.
Q: And you spoke to Mr. Bender on June 8, which would have been a—
A: Wednesday.
Q:—Wednesday. Do you recall that? A: That is from my—You say that is on my phone record?
Q: I won't mention the phone number, but is this your phone number (indicating)?
A: Yes.
Q: Pointing to the phone number on this phone bill. That was your number at that time; right?
A: Yes.
Q: Is that still your number? A: No.
MR. RE: Is the record on there, the phone call that you are talking about? MR. PETROCELLI: (Indicating.)
There is one to Bender's number on June 8 and there is one on June 12. Q: Do you see those? Do you want to look at them closely (proffers document).
MR. RE: Okay.
THE WITNESS: I can't find it. MR. RE: (Indicating.)
THE WITNESS: Okay. This is June 12. This is June 8.
(Discussion was held between the witness and his counsel out of the hearing of the reporter.)
MR. PETROCELLI: You don't have to type that.
Q: I just showed you a copy of your phone record from June of 1994 and it shows a call to Mr. Bender on June 8, which was—What did we say?— Wednesday.
k Uh-huh.
Q: Do you recall speaking to Mr. Bender at that time?
A: I don't know if I spoke to him or I spoke with Robin.
Q: Did you speak to—Withdrawn. Do you know why you called them on June 8?
A: I don't know. Maybe to thanked them for their hospitality.
Q: You had stayed there for a bit on your prior trip?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you speak to Mr. Simpson on June 8?
A: No.
Q: And do you know whether Mr. Simpson was et the Bender residence on June 8?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: That I don't know.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q : And on June 12 you show another call to the Bender residence. Do you remember that call?
A: No.
Q: Do you have any recollection as to when you called them on—it looks like the morning of June 12 at 8:49?
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: Well—Never mind. Does that indicate whether that is Pacific standard or Eastern standard time? Just for the record, when you say the morning—
MR. PETROCELLI: It just says 0849.
MR. LEONARD: Okay.
MR. PETROCELLI: Which is probably Pacific time, but I don't know.
Q: And you have no recollection of that call?
A: No.
Q: It also shows a call to the Cayman Islands, a 14 minute call on June 14. Who did you call there?
MR. RE: June 14th?
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes. We are in that period, so you are going to have to assert a privilege to it.
THE WITNESS: Privilege.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Was Marcus Allen staying in the Cayman Islands?
A: I don't know. He could have been.
Q: Did you know anybody — Prior to Mr. Simpson's return from Chicago, did you know where Marcus Allen was headed to on his trip with his wife Katherine?
A: They were going to some resort to—I don't know—play golf or some NFL thing.
Q: In the Bahamas or the Caymans?
A: It could have been.
Q: And did you know anybody else in that area?
A: Huh-uh.
Q: He said no. You show some calls to the same number in the Caymans on June 16. Do you remember what that was about?
MR. RE: Same privilege.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: On June 18 you show three calls to the Cayman Islands, same number. Do you remember who you spoke to on June 18?
MR. RE: Same privilege.
THE WITNESS: Privilege.
MR. PETROCELLI: This is outside the period. The arrest was on June 17.
MR. RE: This is a call on June 18?
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes.
MR. RE: Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: I can answer that?
MR. RE: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Keeping—I guess —I don't know. They didn't come back right away, so a lot of times they would call me and I would return their calls.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Keeping Marcus and Katherine apprised of what was going on?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I don't know about keeping— You know, just making contact with them. They were very concerned about what was going on.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: And they did not come back for the funeral or the viewing; right?
A: No.
Q : Is that correct?
A: Right.
Q: Focusing on the calls on the 18th, because you will not permit me to ask on the earlier calls, did you have any conversation with Marcus on these phone calls on June 18 about whether or not he had had a relationship with Nicole?
A: No.
Q : And since this bill only goes up to June 18, I don't know if there are any other calls, but do you remember if you made any other calls to the Allens or they to you subsequent to June 18?
A: Not that I remember.
Q: You used your home phone for business purposes in June and July of 1994?
A: Yes, at times I guess I did, if it shows it.
Q: Well, I am not saying that it does or doesn't. It shows a lot of phone numbers, and I am curious whether in particular for long distance calls did you ever use your home phone in June and July of 1994 for business purposes?
A: I could have. I don't remember, but I could have.
Q: Did you contact any persons in Washington the State of Washington, let's say, after Mr. Simpson's arrest regarding the murder of Nicole?
A: I could have returned some phone calls. The State of Washington, my friend Reggie McKenzie lives up there.
Q : In ?
A: If that is the area where he lives.
Q: And do you have a friend in Montana that you spoke to about Nicole's death?
A: I don't know.
Q: And you told us about the friend of yours in Brooklyn named Lisa Fisher at the last session of your deposition?
A: Uh-huh.
Q : Did you speak to her about Nicole's death?
A: No. A lot of—These calls—Calls like hers were people who had called me voicing their concern. I was returning their call.
Q: Did you have an answering machine at your house?
A: At the time, yes, I did.
Q: Did you save that tape?
A: No.
Q : Do you know whether—Withdrawn. You had testified previously about an incident when Nicole and O.J. got into a fight of some sort and she got her stuff and went off to Laguna and you helped her pack. Do you recall that?
A: Yes. I remember saying that.
Q: Do you know whether Nicole went off to Laguna after the 1989 incident?
MR. RE: Do you mean if this incident you are talking about was after the '89 incident?
MR. PETROCELLI: No. Different question now. I am simply asking whether he knows that she went off to stay in Laguna for a while following the January 1, 1989 incident.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
MR. RE: Can I just ask for a clarification. You are asking for immediately after the '89 incident, you mean?
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes.
THE WITNESS: I don't remember.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Or shortly thereafter.
A: I don't remember.
Q: Do you remember if Nicole and O.J. were living apart for a while as a result of their altercation?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: I don't remember.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: You were questioned before about this incident in Hawaii where Mr. Simpson got upset concerning Justin's contact with a man who might be gay. Do you recall that?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you remember that Mr. Simpson changed everyone's tickets and reservations and required everyone to leave earlier than planned?
MR. LEONARD: Lack of foundation, objection.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you remember whether you left Hawaii earlier than originally planned?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Have you ever seen O.J. Simpson in your presence strike another person other than on the football field or participating in sports?
A: No.
Q: Did you ever see him behave irrationally to the point where you thought he was out of control?
A: No.
Q: Did you think he was out of control when he threw the clothes out of the window in the 1979 incident in San Francisco?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: I don't know what control he was in.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: But in your opinion have you ever seen him act in such a way where you thought he was out of control?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Not whether he thought so but whether you thought so.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative, vague.
THE WITNESS: I really didn't give it too much thought.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Have you ever been in a situation with Mr. Simpson where you were concerned for his safety because he was so upset at another person?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Compound, vague, calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q : Or you were concerned for the other person's safety?
MR. LEONARD: Same objections.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Or you were concerned that he might do harm to somebody?
MR. LEONARD: Same objections.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you know a man named Keith Zlomsowitzh?
A: No.
Q: Did Mr. Simpson prior to Nicole's death ever inform you about an incident where he had observed Mr. Zlomsowitzh and Nicole having sex together?
A: No.
Q: Did Mr. Simpson prior to Nicole's death ever inform you of any incident where he encountered Nicole with another man either in her home, in a restaurant, or any other place?
A: No.
Q : You gave previous testimony about Nicole's 911 call in October of 1993 where you heard the voice of Nicole and O.J. Simpson. Do you recall that incident?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you—Withdrawn. Were you informed about this incident at or about the time that it occurred?
A: I can't remember. I don't think so, but I can't be sure.
Q: Is the first time that you learned about it was when it came out in the court case?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you remember a National Enquirer article that came out about O.J. Simpson in 1993?
A: I don't read the National Enquirer.
Q: Did it ever come to your attention that such an article appeared about Mr. Simpson?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague as to time.
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did Mr. Simpson in 1993 express any displeasure to you about a National Enquirer article about him?
A: I don't remember.
Q: You have no knowledge of that?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Do you know who a Burton Kittay is?
A: Burton Kittay?
Q: Yes.
A: No.
Q: Do you know whether Mr. Simpson saw a therapist following the 1989 incident?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge of that.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: He never discussed that with you?
A: No.
Q: Do you know whether he saw a therapist in 1994?
A: I have no knowledge of it.
Q: Does the name Barry Michaels mean anything to you?
A: No.
Q: You gave some testimony about an incident when Mr. Simpson told you that Nicole threw a picture either at him or out of the car, and you also said Nicole told you about that. My question to you is: When did that—When were you told about that incident?
A: The day it happened.
Q: And do you recall the year?
A: No.
Q: Can you give me an approximation?
A: No.
Q: Both Mr. Simpson and Nicole told you about it the day it happened?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you there when it happened?
A: No.
Q: You saw them later on that day?
A: I was on the phone with him. He had called his house. I was on the tennis court playing tennis, and as I was speaking to him Nicole pulled up in her car.
Q: Based on all of the time that you have known Mr. Simpson and known Nicole, would you say that he was a jealous man when it came to Nicole?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: What do you mean by "jealous"?
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Was he jealous towards her or of her?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague, calls for speculation, compound.
THE WITNESS: He was not jealous of her.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Jealous towards her in the sense that if other men gave her attention or she gave other men attention it would upset him in your presence?
MR.LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: I never saw that.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you have an opinion as to whether or not he was jealous when it came to Nicole?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation, calls for a conclusion.
THE WITNESS: When you say jealous
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Beyond what someone might ordinarily be, is what I am getting at.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: What is "ordinary"?
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you in your own thinking and mind form the view that Mr. Simpson was jealous—
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q:—when it came to Nicole?
MR. LEONARD: Vague, lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you have that opinion?
A: He loved her.
Q: But did you have the opinion that he was jealous?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Same objections.
THE WITNESS: When you say "jealous," jealous of what?
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Let's say that a man would say "hello" to her in a bar and he would fly off the handle and get upset.
A: I never saw that.
MR. LEONARD: Same objections.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you think he was overly jealous, let's put it that way?
MR. LEONARD: Same objections.
THE WITNESS: I never saw it.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you think he was overly possessive when it came to Nicole?
MR. LEONARD: Same objections.
THE WITNESS: I never saw it.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: And did you believe and have the view that he was overly controlling when it came to Nicole?
MR. LEONARD: Same objections.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: You testified previously that in your conversation with Cora Fischman following Mr. Simpson's arrest she told you that Marcus Allen and Nicole had been friends?
A: Yes.
Q: Did she tell you when Marcus Allen and Nicole had been friends?
A: No.
Q: Based on your conversations with Cora, Robin, or Cici, did you find out if Marcus Allen and Nicole had been seeing one another in the last few months of Nicole's life?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, compound, vague, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: I have a couple of questions for clarification about this incident in 1989 when you went over to the house and found the keys at Mr. Simpson's request. Did you understand that Mr. Simpson had driven one of Allan Schwartz's cars over to Rockingham and when he got to Rockingham had dropped the keys someplace?
A: Yes.
Q: And how did Mr. Simpson then get back from Rockingham to Schwartz's house without the keys?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: That I don't know.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Were these keys to the car that he had driven or other keys?
A: Keys to the car.
Q: And was there a car of Schwartz's there when you went back to find the keys?
A: Yes. His black Buick was parked down the street.
Q: And you already had a car that you used to drive there; right?
A: Yes.
Q: And so when you drove back to Schwartz's, you drove back in your car and not Schwartz's b3ack car; right?
A: No. I think I took Schwartz's car back.
Q: And then you came back to pick up your car after on?
A: Yes.
Q: And do you know— You do not know how Simpson got back?
A: No, I don't.
Q: Was Schwartz's house within walking distance of—
A: You can walk.
Q: How far was the distance at that time between Mr. Simpson and Schwartz's house?
A: About a mile-and-a-half, I guess.
Q: Did Mr. Simpson say he had walked back?
A: I didn't ask.
Q: Now, on that day I have been told by Dan Leonard that the Rose Bowl was on January 2, not January 1.Your testimony seemed to indicate that on that day Mr. Simpson went to the Rose Bowl but you declined to go.
Do you have any recollection whether the Rose Bowl was on January 1,the same day that of this occurred or was the next day?
A: I was under the impression that the Rose Bowl was always played on January 1st. I played in it and it was on January 1st.
MR.PETROCELLI: What was the basis of the comment to me, Mr. Leonard?
MR. LEONARD: That was my understanding, but—
MR. BREWER: I think it is always on the 1st.
MR. LEONARD:—What difference does it make what I understand? Seriously.
MR. PETROCELLI: Because—
MR. LEONARD: I mean, it was a conversation with you off the record. What difference does that make?
MR. PETROCELLI: Because if it occurred on January 2nd—
MR. LEONARD: Then ask him that.
MR. PETROCELLI: I just did.
MR. LEONARD: I mean, you know, come on.
THE WITNESS: As far as I know it was the 1st.
MR.LEONARD: Geez, maybe I'm wrong. I can't imagine I could ever be wrong, but maybe I'm wrong.
MR.PETROCELLI: By the way, I don't think you are wrong.
MR. LEONARD: Why don't we find out.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm trying to. I'm trying to find out. I just want to ask—
MR. LEONARD: Well, you are asking —I am surprised that you did not find out before you asked the question. You told me that you know the truth, you told me that you know everything.
MR. PETROCELLI: We'll have to go back to one of the USC Rose Bowl guides and find out.
MR. LEONARD: Whatever.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: I asked you the question to see if it refreshes your memory as to what you and Mr. Simpson did that day on January 1.
A: He went to the Rose Bowl. That was his plans.
Q: At no time did you look inside the bag of—the velvet bag that you picked up for him.'
MR. RE: Are you talking about on this occasion?
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes.
MR. RE: He is talking about when you went to look for the keys and found the bag in the trash.
THE WITNESS: Oh, the jewelry bag.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Yes.
A: No, no, I never looked in it.
Q: And was this— Where in the trash was this bag? Was it one of those big trash containers that was out in the front of the Von Watts' property?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. That misstates his testimony.
THE WITNESS: It was in—
MR. PETROCELLI: His testimony was that it was in a neighbor's garbage can.
MR.LEONARD: Yes. But please, have you reviewed the deposition?
MR. PETROCELLI: I am just reading my notes, "neighbor's garbage can."
MR. LEONARD: But he testified that it was not the Von Watts, clearly.
MR. RE: I don't think you were there.
MR. LEONARD: Am I wrong about that?
MR. RE: You had stepped out and he described two houses down the street on the side street.
MR.PETROCELLI: I am not rea311y concerned about whose garbage can it was. I am concerned about where in the can it was.
MR. LEONARD: But I am concerned about an accurate reflection in the record.
MR. PETROCELLI: Good. I'm glad.
Q: Can you tell us where in the can — First of all, what kind of a garbage can was it?
A: It was a garbage can.
Q: A metal can?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Where in the garbage can did you find the jewelry bag—excuse me —the velvet bag?
A: It was sitting in the garbage can.
Q: Right in clear view?
A: I picked it up, yes.
Q: Did the can have a lid on it?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Was there more than one can?
A: Yes, there was more than one.
Q: Do you recall having to look through various cans to find out— to find this bag?
A: I don't remember.
Q: When Mr. Simpson asked you to go back and get the keys and the bag did you resist at all doing so?
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: Dan.
MR.PETROCELLI: Why don't you change the tape now.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the end of tape number one of Volume IV. The time is approximately 11:14, and we are off the record. (Recess taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the record. The time is approximately 11:17. This is the beginning of tape number two of Volume IV.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: On the morning of—Withdrawn. On the evening of June 12 after you returned to—Withdrawn.
Do you remember what you did, Mr. Cowlings, after you drove Marcus Allen back to his house—
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague as to—
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: —on June 12 after going to Thousand Oaks to see automobiles?
MR. LEONARD: Vague as to time.
THE WITNESS: I don't remember exactly what I did.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you remember where you went?
A: Eventually I went to a friend's house for a celebration.
Q: For a party?
A: Uh-huh.
Q: That was the party that you previously discussed?
A: Yes.
Q: Between dropping Marcus Allen off and going to the friend's house, do you know what you did in that interval of time?
A: No, I don't remember.
Q: Did you go back home?
A: I could have. I don't remember.
Q: Did you try to get in touch with Mr. Simpson that day?
A: I don't think so.
Q: Did you make any phone calls to his answering machine or his voicemail?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Did you drive by the house at all?
A: No.
Q: The only time you drove by that house was when you went there in the morning; right?
A: Yes.
Q: And when you came back from the party— I think you said it was around 10:30 or 11:00—did you—you came back to your house in Palisades; right?
A: I came back. I don't know exactly what time I got back, but I came straight home from the party.
Q: About 10:30 or 11:00?
A: I don't remember exactly what time it was.
Q: And when you got home— This was the place in the Palisades; right?
A: Yes.
Q:—(continuing) did you go back out that evening?
A: No.
Q: So you were in the house the rest of the time until you got a phone call from Arnelle in the morning?
A: Yes.
Q: And did you speak to anybody else on the telephone that evening until the Arnelle call?
A: I could have.
Q: Do you remember?
A: No.
Q: When you picked up the children at West L A. Police Station you drove them back to Rockingham; right?
A: Yes.
Q: And then you drove them to the Browns; right?
A: Yes.
Q: At any time that you were with them did you try talking to them at all about what had happened?
A: No.
Q: Did they say anything, either Sydney or Justin—
A: No.
Q: —about what had happened?
A: No.
Q: Did they say anything about their mom being on a telephone call crying on the phone?
A: No.
Q: So they didn't— You had no conversation at all with the children regarding their mother; is that right?
A: Justy had fell asleep and Sydney was laying—Sydney went to sleep.
Q: Including when you picked them up from the police station?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
THE WITNESS: While we were driving to Laguna.
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.
Q: But the entire time that you were with them prior to getting to Laguna, there was no conversation at all with either of them about what had happened or about their mother; is that right?
A: No.
Q: That's correct?
A: Pardon?
Q: Is that correct?
A: You said—There was no conversation about their mother.
Q: That's true; right?
A: Right.
Q: Or not true?
A: No. That's true.
Q: Okay. Based on the time that you were with them that morning, did you have any sense whether Sydney even understood what had happened to her mother, that she had been killed?
A: I really didn't know what Sydney's thoughts were.
Q: And same question as to Justin?
A: Right.
Q: Same answer?
A: Yes. I had no knowledge as to what his thought was either.
Q: And so far as you know, neither child understood that their mother had been killed; right?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: I don't know what they knew.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: You said that you were present at the Rockingham home when the police called Mr. Simpson. Do you recall that?
A: I was there.
Q: Do you remember the conversation from the Rockingham side?
A: No
Q: Did you get on the phone to speak to Mr. Simpson?
A: No.
Q: Prior to Mr. Simpson's return to Los Angeles did you speak to Cathy Randa that morning?
A: I don't remember if I did.
Q: Or Skip Taft?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Are you aware of any person as of June 12 1994 with whom Nicole had any conflict in her life?
A: I have no knowledge of it.
Q: You are not aware of anyone who would have had a motive to kill her; is that right?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: You are not aware of anyone who would have or might have had a motive to kill her; is that true?
MR. LEONARD: Calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge of that.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: When you saw Paula in front of the hotel in Palm Springs when you dropped the children off, did you speak to her at all?
A: Yes.
Q: And can you recount that conversation?
A: "Hi."
Q: Uh, goodbye"?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you spend some time in Palm Springs when you dropped the children off?
A: Yeah. I ended up going out on the golf course with Katherine and Marcus.
Q: The three of you—
A: Uh-huh.
Q:—played a round of golf?
A: No. Marcus was playing and Katherine and I were in the golf cart.
Q: Did you do anything else on that trip before you left to go back to Los Angeles other than go out on the golf course with Marcus and Katherine?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Did you spend any time with Paula Barbieri?
A: Unless we were all in a group.
Q: Or Mr. Simpson?
A: If we were all together, but I never-
Q: Do you remember that?
A:—spent any time with just her and I.
Q: Do you remember that?
A: No.
Q: And you do not remember any conversation with Mr. Simpson on that trip?
A: We spoke. We embraced. We had conversations. What we talked about, I don't remember.
Q: Let me follow up on some questions with regard to Nicole's notes which have been previously marked as Exhibit 88.
First of all, have you seen any of those notes before?
A: No.
Q: Do you recognize the handwriting as Nicole's?
A: It could be. It could be Nicole's. It looks similar.
Q: She says—I am going to read the entry—some of these entries and ask you if you have any knowledge about any of the statements Nicole makes.
Early in first year 1977 in San Francisco after his baby died I found an earring in my apartment bed on Bedford. I accused O.J. of sleeping with someone named Teri. He threw fit. Chased me. Grabbed me. Threw me into walls. Threw all my clothes out of window into street three floors down. Bruised me. Al Cowlings calmed him. Do you know if—First of all, do you know who Teri is?
A: No.
Q: Do you know of any apartment that Nicole had on Bedford?
A: Yes, she had an apartment on Bedford.
Q: And that is here in Beverly Hills?
A: Yes.
Q: And you had been to that apartment?
A: Yes.
Q: And do you know of any incident in which Nicole found an earring in that apartment that she accused Mr. Simpson of giving or having for another person?
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, compound.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: And do you know of any incident in which Mr. Simpson chased Nicole, grabbed her, and threw her into the walls?
A: No.
Q: Your recollection is that the incident in which Mr. Simpson threw the clothes out of the window into the street three floors down occurred in what apartment?
A: In San Francisco.
Q: And do you know the street?
A: Greenwich, I think. Off of Greenwich. I don't know exactly. It is up by Union Square — I mean Union— Lombard Street.
Q: Do you know a person named Teri?
A: I know Teri's, but I don't know what person you are speaking of.
Q: Do you know a woman named Teri,T-e-r-i, who also knew O.J. Simpson?
A: He has a niece named Teri.
Q: Is that the only person — a woman named Teri who you know who also knows Mr. Simpson?
A: I have a friend's wife whose name is Teri.
Q: Did that person know Mr. Simpson in the late '70s—
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation—
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: —to your knowledge?
MR. LEONARD:— lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: Yes. He was at the wedding. Her and her husband got married.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: When was that?
A: It was when we were still playing ball.
Q: And what is that person's name?
A: Teri Scott.
Q: Is Teri a woman?
A: Yes.
Q: And what is her husband's name?
A: Bubba.
Q: Bubba Scott?
A: Uh-huh.
MR. BREWER: Maiden name.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: What is Teri's maiden name?
A: I don't know.
Q: Do you know whether Teri knew Mr. Simpson before she married Mr. Scott?
A: No.
Q: In the first page of these notes Nicole writes, 1978 - first time he beat me up after Louis and Nunie Marx' anniversary party. Started on street corner of New York City Fifth Avenue at about 9:00. Threw me on floor. Hit me. Kicked me. Went to Sherry Netherland Hotel where he continued to beat me for hours as I kept crawling for the door. Called my mother a whore. I can't read the next word.
To call her and tell her that. Hit me while he fucked me. Do you know—Have you ever heard of that incident?
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you know who Louis and Nunie Marx are?
A: Yes.
Q: And do you know whether they had an anniversary party in 1978—
A: They had a party.
Q: —or thereabouts?
A: They had a party.
Q: Did you attend?
A: Yes.
Q: And did that party take place in New York City?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you stay at the Sherry Netherland Hotel?
A: No
Q: Do you know where you stayed when you were there for that party?
A: The Park Lane.
Q: And do you know where Mr. Simpson stayed?
A: At the Sherry Netherland.
Q: Who were you there with, if anyone?
A: Where?
Q: When you went to the party. Did you go with anyone?
A: The three of us went.
Q: You traveled to New York together?
A: I met them in New York. They were in New York.
Q: And did you return together to Los Angeles?
A: Yes.
Q: On the same plane?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you remember if you returned to Los Angeles the day after the party that the Marxes threw?
A: I think we left the following afternoon.
Q: Did you leave the anniversary party— Well, you don't know—
Q: You do not remember if it was an anniversary party?
A: It was a dinner party.
Q: Dinner party.
A: I don't know what the occasion was for.
Q: Where was the party held?
A: At their residence.
Q: Is that right in New York City?
A: Yes.
Q: Without giving me the address, what street is it on?
A: It is across the street from the park.
Q: From Central Park?
A: Yeah. Overlooking Central Park.
Q: Do you remember the street name?
A: No.
Q: East side or west side?
A: I don't know.
Q: How many people were at the dinner party?
A: There was quite a few.
Q: Would you say, like, in excess of 50?
A: Could have been.
Q: Do you remember any other persons who attended that party besides yourself, Nicole, and O.J. Simpson and, of course, the Marxes?
A: The chairman or the president of CBS was there.
Q: Do you remember his name?
A: Paley.
Q: Bill Paley, William Paley?
A: William Paley.
Q: And can you remember anyone else?
A: There was a lot of people. I can't —He stood out.
Q: Names?
A: He stood out. He was a very interesting man.
Q: Any friends of Mr. Simpson or Nicole or you who attended that party?
A: O.J. could have known some of the people there. I don't know. I don't know for sure.
Q: Did you have a friendship with Louis Marx?
A: Yes. I met Louis through O.J.
Q: And is he still good friends with you?
A: Uh-huh. Yes.
Q: Have you spoken to him since O.J.'s release from prison?
A: No.
Q: After Mr. Simpson's arrest did you at any time speak to Mr. Marx about Nicole's murder?
A: We had lunch in New York.
Q: Was it just the two of you?
A: Yeah, I think so.
Q: Do you recall when that lunch occurred?
A: One afternoon I called him. I told him I was in town, and we arranged to have lunch. It was good- we hadn't seen each other in a long time.
Q: Can you tell us what was said about Nicole's murder and Mr. Simpson that day?
A: How a sad situation that all the thing was, and he was very taken by it, you know, just mostly just what a shame.
Q: Did you have any conversation with Mr. Marx about the issue of abuse by Mr. Simpson against Nicole?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague-
THE WITNESS: No.
MR LEONARD: - lack of foundation.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you have any conversation with M. Marx about whether he would be a witness in the case?
A: No.
Q: Are there any other friends of Mr. Simpson's who you spoke to in New York about Nicole's murder?
A: I don't remember.
Q. You have spoken to Mark Packer?
A. Yeah, I probably - Yeah, I have spoken with Mark.
Q. is he still a friend of yours?
A: Yes.
Q. As are Bobby and Robin Bender.
A. Yes.
Q: And you have spoken to them about Nicole's murder from time to time, right?
A: Yes.
Q: Have you spoken to them at all about Mr. Simpson's stay with them days before Nicole's murder?
A: No.
Q. Did you ever hear of an argument or an altercation between the Simpsons following Louis and nunie Marx anniversary party that they threw in New York?
MR LEONARD: Objection. Compound.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: You knew nothing about this?
A: Nothing about what?
Q: About an incident of the sort that I described to you from Nicole's notes?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague
THE WITNESS: I went by the hotel. He had called me to come by the hotel that night.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: And what happened when you got to the Sherry Netherland Hotel?
A: We got - I got there and him and Nicole, I guess they had had an argument and he said she had embarrassed him at the party.
Q. How had she embarrassed him?
A: I don't know. I really don't remember. I don't know if it was something she said.
Q: Did you see the incident at the party where Mr. Simpson thought Nicole had embarrassed him?
A: No.
Q: Did you leave the party with Mr. Simpson and Nicole at the same time?
A: No. I left earlier.
Q: You left earlier?
A: Uh_huh.
Q: And you went back to the Park Lane?
A: Yes.
Q: And do you recall generally what time it was when you got back to the hotel?
A: I don't know.
Q: Before midnight?
A: I don't know.
Q: And was it in the early hours of the morning that you got a call from Mr. Simpson from his hotel at the Sherry Netherland?
A: I don't know what time it was.
Q: What did he say over the phone? That he and Nicole had gotten into an artgument and he wanted you to come over?
A: No. He wanted me to come over.
Q: Did he explain to you over the phone that there had been an argument, or did you learn that when you got there?
A: Once I got there?
Q: So he said nothing to you as to why he wanted you to come over?
A: No.
Q: Did you go over right away?
A: Yes.
Q: That's right across the street, isn't it? A: It is up the street.
Q: So you can just walk there, in other words; right?
A: Yes.
Q: So you were there in a matter of minutes?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you recall what time of the morning it was?
A: No.
Q: And when you got there, did you —how long did you stay there?
A: I really don't remember.
Q: Did you spend the rest of the night there?
A: No.
Q: You returned and went back to the hotel?
A: Right.
Q: And did you see Nicole?
A: Yes.
Q: And was she still dressed as she had been at the party, or was she dressed differently or dressed at all?
A: She was in bed.
Q: She was in bed?
A: Uh-huh.
Q: And was Mr. Simpson dressed?
A: No. He looked like he was in bed.
Q: And did you go into the bedroom? Was it a suite or was it a single bedroom?
A: I think it was a suite.
Q: And you went into the bedroom?
A: That's where all three of us were.
Q: As far as you understood, what was the reason why you were being asked to come into the room and be there with them?
A: He had—something—Whatever she had said he wanted me to hear and either she said, "I wasn't trying to embarrass you" or "I'm sorry," whatever.
Q: Mr. Simpson was upset?
A: Yeah.
Q: Was Nicole upset?
A: Yeah.
Q: And what did Nicole say—In effect, Mr. Simpson had her repeat what she had said or done at the party to you; is that basically what happened?
A: I don't know if she repeated it or —he had her repeat it or she repeated it, but she apologized and that was it.
Q: And did you —Withdrawn. What is it that she said?
A: That I don't remember.
Q: You do not have any recollection at all—
A: No.
Q: —as to what it was that caused the fight?
A: No, I don't.
Q: Did you—Was there any mention that she had been hit?
A: No.
Q: Was there any mention at all at that time of a physical altercation?
A: No.
Q: After you saw them the next day did you learn about any physical altercation?
A: No.
Q: Did you discuss the incident again with either of them the next day or thereafter?
A: No.
Q: You have no knowledge one way or the other as to whether there was a physical altercation; is that true?
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: No, I have no knowledge of it.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: And do you know of any reason why Nicole would make such a thing up?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative, calls for speculation, vague.
THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge of it.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: The next day were the Simpsons still arguing about this?
A: No.
Q: After Nicole and O.J .spoke to you in the bedroom did you then leave?
A: Yes.
Q: Was this the first time that you had been summoned over to their home or their room in the course of their having an argument?
A: Yes.
Q: And after this incident in New York in 1978 had that ever happened again?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: Happened again to?
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: In the sense where you were not with them in the same home but someplace else and you got a call saying "come on over here."
A: No.
Q:You already talked about the '89 incident?
A: No.
Q: So other than the '89 incident and the '78 incident no other incidents like that come to mind?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: No not that I remember. '
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Now, Nicole writes in the next entry as follows:
Pips on Rodeo had mushrooms (drugs) with Neil Sloane. He hit me off the sofa at Pips. I said we were leaving. Beat me so bad in our house and in the wine closet. Do you have any recollection of that incident?
A: No.
MR.LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: No?
A: No.
Q: Were you aware of a place on Rodeo called Pips?
A: Oh, yes.
Q : And had you been to Pips?
A: Probably once.
Q: And what was Pips?
A: A night spot. If it was the old Pips, it moved from Robertson up on Rodeo. It was in the Beverly Hills— Rodeo Collection.
Q: Did you ever go to Pips with Mr. Simpson or Nicole?
A: No. Not that I remember.
Q: Do you know who Neil Sloane is?
A: Yes.
Q: Who is Neil Sloane? A: A friend.
Q: A friend of yours?
A: O.J.'s and mine.
Q: How long have you known Neil Sloane?
A: Since —About '78, '79. Maybe early '80s.
Q: Is Neil Sloane a hairdresser?
A: Yes.
Q: He works in Beverly Hills?
A: Yes.
Q: Have you ever spoken to him since Mr. Simpson's arrest?
A: Yes, I have spoken to him.
Q: And have you spoken to him about Nicole's murder?
A: Just how sorry the situation is.
Q: Did you ever have any conversation with Mr.Sloane about any incidents of physical abuse by Mr. Simpson against Nicole?
A: No.
Q: Or any incidents that occurred in his presence?
A: No.
Q: Did either Mr. Simpson or Nicole ever tell you about an incident such as the one that I just read?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Compound.
THE WITNESS: Not that I remember.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you ever see Mr. Simpson take a drug known as mushroom or mushrooms?
A: Yes.
Q: What is that, an organic psychedelic drug?
A: Yes. I guess.
Q: Did you ever see Nicole take such a drug?
A: Yes.
Q: What years were Mr. Simpson and Nicole taking mushrooms?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague and calls for speculation, "taking.
BY MR. PETROCELLI: Q: You can answer.
A: It could have been early '80s.
Q: Mr. Cowlings, did you ever hear of any altercation between the Simpsons involving Nicole going to the wine closet?
A: No.
Q: Mr. Simpson does have a wine closet; right?
A: Yes. In the Rockingham house, yes.
Q: In the Rockingham house. It is behind the bar?
A: Yes.
Q: The next entry reads, Ed McCabe and Denise Brown at La Candna Mexican restaurant. Threw us out of the house on top of each other. Claimed it to be a bicycle accident. O.J. talked to doctor. First doctor said possible skull fracture and then after O.J. talked to him he said its head just badly bruised. Just one second. I am not sure those are—It is hard for me to decipher some of these notes. I am not sure those are the same incident.
Let me ask you this: You have already testified that you were not present when Mr. Simpson, Nicole, Ed McCabe, and Denise Brown went to dinner at La Cantina restaurant; right?
A: No, I was not there.
Q: And did you ever learn that there had been any kind of physical altercation whatsoever regarding that evening?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Mr. Simpson told you about that evening?
A: He told me about it.
Q: And he said that McCabe, Denise Brown, and Nicole had left the house?
A: He asked them to leave.
Q: He had asked them to leave?
A: Uh-huh.
Q: Something to do with their smoking; right?
A: It started when Nicole—As stated before, that O.J. didn't allow smoking in the house, and that was part of hoping to get Nicole to stop smoking. But when she smoked, she would have to step either out the front door or out one of the other doors to have a smoke.
Denise—That evening, supposedly Nicole stepped out to have a smoke. Denise had some comments about —to O.J. about it, as far as disrespecting her or not respecting Nicole or something like that. And I think O.J. made a reference to Denise, I mean, Nicole knows and she has accepted it, if she is going to smoke, she has to smoke outside, and I guess one thing led to another. He eventually—I think they sided—all three of them sided together against him, so he told them all to leave.
Q: Did you ever talk to Nicole about her version of the events?
A: No.
Q: Or Denise?
A: No
Q: Or Ed McCabe?
A: No.
Q: Nicole writes in regard to another incident, Smashed my car white Mercedes with baseball bat after visiting Tammy Hughes. He greeted me at the gate. I was too afraid to get out of the car. He did it because I was late. About 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. Westec Security was notified and came. Also the West LAPD came. Do you have any knowledge of such an incident?
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Prior to Nicole's death had you heard from either Mr. Simpson or Nicole or anyone else about an incident where Mr. Simpson damaged her white Mercedes with a baseball bat?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Compound.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Prior to Nicole's death were you aware of any incident in which the police came out to the Rockingham property because of any kind of argument or incident involving the Simpsons other than the 1989 incident?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Compound.
THE WITNESS: Not that I know of.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: And are you aware—Withdrawn. Prior to Nicole's death did you learn of any incident—Withdrawn. Prior to Nicole's death were you aware of any occasions in which Westec Security went out to the property on account of an argument or altercation involving the Simpsons?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: And by "the Simpsons," of course I mean Nicole and Mr. Simpson.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, compound, vague.
THE WITNESS: Not that I know of.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: And prior to Nicole's death are you aware of any incident other than the 1989 one when the police or security personnel came out to any home or place where the Simpsons were staying on account of any argument, disagreement, or incident between them?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, vague, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: Not that I know of.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Prior to Nicole's death did you learn of any incident involving an argument between Nicole and O.J. over Nicole coming late—coming back home late after visiting Tammy Hughes?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Nicole writes in the next entry, Michael Millitello's wedding at Ritz Carlton. O.J. lost his temper at the beach house. Hit me. Threw me up against the walls. Threw my camera, it broke the paneling. Moldings off the doors to master bedroom and garage door. Do you know who Michael Millitello is?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you attend his wedding?
A: No.
Q: Do you know that he got married and had a reception at the Ritz Carlton?
A: No.
Q: Do you know when he got married?
A: No.
Q: Is he a friend of yours?
A: I know him.
Q: Do you know of any reason why you did not attend his wedding?
A: I wasn't on the guest list.
Q: Does he have a brother?
A: I don't know.
Q: Did Mr. Simpson ever inform you that he had attended Mike Millitello's wedding?
A: No.
Q: Prior to Nicole's death you had no knowledge of any wedding involving Mr. Millitello?
A: No.
Q: Are you aware of any—Withdrawn. Mr. Simpson owned a beach house; correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And that was in Laguna Beach?
A: Yes.
Q: And that was different from the condominium at Monarch Bay; correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And he sold that beach house a year or so before Nicole's death; correct?
A: If that is when he sold it, yes.
Q: But he sold it prior to Nicole's death?
A: Yes.
Q: And did that beach house have a master bedroom?
A: Yes.
Q: And did it have a garage door?
A: Yes.
Q: And did that beach house have any paneling?
A: Paneling? What do you mean "paneling"?
Q: Nicole uses the word "paneling." I assume she means paneling on walls or on doors. Are you aware of any of the paneling on the—
A: No
Q: Was that a large home?
A: It was three stories.
Q: Had you stayed there?
A: Yes.
Q: Many times?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you have a key to the house?
A: No.
Q: Were you ever there when the Simpson had any kind of altercation?
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Or loud argument?
A: No.
Q: And the incident that Nicole wrote about, do you have any knowledge whatsoever about that?
A: I have no knowledge of it.
Q: Okay. The next entry Nicole writes, 1986 with Eric and Val Von Watts. Listened to music at "At My Place" on Wilshire. "At My Place" is in caps. After we finished have drinks we left. Beat me up so bad at home. Tore my blue sweater and blue slacks completely off me. Went to hospital on Wilshire. And then I believe it continues, Claimed it to be a bicycle accident. O.J. talked to doctor. First doctor said possible skull fracture and then after O.J. talked to him he said its (head) just badly bruised.
Do you know Eric and Val Von Watts?
A: Yes.
Q: Val stands for Valerie?
A: Yes.
Q: And the Von Watts were the Simpsons' neighbors whose property adjoined Mr. Simpson's property where the tennis courts are; correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And have you ever heard of a place on Wilshire called At My Place?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Did you ever go out with Eric and Valerie Von Watts and Nicole and O.J.?
A: I probably have.
Q: Do you remember going with them on an occasion in or about 1986 to a place called At My Place?
A: No.
Q: Or to anyplace on Wilshire Boulevard?
A: No.
Q: Are you aware of any—Withdrawn. Prior to Nicole's death, did you ever become aware of an incident where the Simpsons had an altercation after going out with the Von Watts?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation—
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. LEONARD:—vague.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Where Mr. Simpson tore Nicole's clothing—
A: No.
Q:—and he hurt her head?
A: No.
Q: You have no knowledge of that?
A: No knowledge of it.
Q: Prior to Nicole's death, had you ever heard that Nicole was taken to a hospital and informed the doctor that she had fallen off of a bicycle?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Are you aware of any incident where Mr. Simpson had told Nicole to lie to the doctor about what had happened to her?
A: No.
Q: Do you know who Harvey Paley is?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you aware of any treatment that Harvey Paley has given to Nicole or had given to Nicole?
A: No.
Q: Are you aware—Withdrawn. Do you know whether Harvey Paley ever saw Nicole?
A: No.
Q: The next entry in Nicole's notes say as follows: 1988 - Hawaii - gay man kissed Justin. O.J. threw me against walls in our hotel and on the floor. Put bruises on my arms and back. The window scarred me—something— had thrown me out.
I can't read that.
Thought had thrown me out. If you want to take a look at that. Now, you were in Hawaii with the Simpsons and the Browns in 1988; correct?
A: Right.
Q: And you have testified to some extent about this incident where Mr. Simpson became upset because Justin had kissed a gay man; right?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Something like that.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Now, what hotel were you or condominium were you staying in?
A: We were at a hotel.
Q: Do you remember the name of the hotel?
A: The Weston.
Q: What island was it? Did you say Weston?
A: Weston.
Q: Was it on Maui?
A: No, it wasn't Maui. Wherever the Weston Hotel is. It is a huge, huge hotel right next to the airport of that particular island.
Q: Were you staying in the same hotel as Mr. Simpson?
A: Yes.
Q: And were you staying on the same floor as Mr. Simpson?
A: Yes.
Q: And was your room next to his?
A: No.
Q: Did you hear of any altercation between Nicole and Mr. Simpson during that trip to Hawaii?
A: No.
Q: Did you ever talk to him about an argument that they had had back in the room.'
A: No.
Q: Or her?
A: No.
Q: And you were not asked to come talk to either of them to be a peacemaker or to calm them down?
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Compound.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: And do you have any knowledge why Nicole would say anything— would describe an incident that did not occur?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative, lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q The next entry on Exhibit 88 says San Jose track meet. Hit me—and then it says the word—head backhanded. Told me to get out of car. One half hour later came to get me at side of the road. Nighttime. Lots of incidents like the two above. Do you have any knowledge of an incident in San Jose where the Simpsons had an altercation?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation, vague.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELL
Q: Do you know of a track meet in San Jose that the Simpsons attended?
A: No.
Q: Nicole writes, Found this letter I wrote to myself. These kinds of things happened every other week. Verbal abuse stuff.
Had you ever heard Mr. Simpson use verbal—Withdrawn.
Had you ever heard Mr. Simpson be verbally abusive to Nicole?
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: On June 3,1994, nine days before her death, Nicole wrote in notes which have been marked as Exhibit 86 as follows:
O.J. came to pick up kids at 8:30 p.m. This is June 3,1994.
They wanted to stay home because I let them organize slipovers at last minute. Thought daddy wasn't coming. Told O.J. I'd drop them off first thing in the morning. He said okay. Then you hung up on me last night. You're gonna pay for this bitch. You're holding money from the IRS. You're going to jail you fucking cunt. You think you can do any fricking thing you want. You've got it coming. I've already talked to my lawyers about this bitch. They'll get you for tax evasion bitch. I'll see to it. You're not gonna have a fucking dime," et cetera. This was all being said as Sydney's girlfriend Allegra was being dropped off. They may have already walked into the house. I'm not sure if they had heard all or any of it. I just turned around and walked away. Prior to Nicole's death did you learn of any argument between Nicole and Mr. Simpson along the description that Nicole wrote in her notes —
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, vague.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: — like the one that I just described?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, vague, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Did you ever hear Mr. Simpson use profanity and speak to Nicole in the manner that Nicole wrote inkier notes that I just read to you?
MR.LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation, vague, compound.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you ever hear Mr. Simpson refer to her as a bitch?
A: No.
Q:Or tell her she was a bitch?
A: I don't remember that.
Q: Prior to Nicole's death did you have any knowledge of an argument between the Simpsons regarding the IRS?
A: No.
Q: Or about Nicole using Rockingham as her address?
A: No.
Q: Or about Nicole having to sell the Bundy condominium?
A: No.
Q: Do you know who Allegra is?
A: No.
Q: Did you know any of Sydney's girlfriends prior to Nicole's death?
A: Cora's two daughters.
Q: What are their names?
A: One is named Nicole, and I can't think of the other one's name.
Q: And you do not know who this Allegra is; right?
A: No.
Q: Do you know of any reason why Nicole would make up such a thing?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative, calls for speculation, lack of foundation, vague.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Were you in town on June 3, 1994? You had said previously that you had gone back to New York and spent some time with the Benders. Do you remember—
A: I could have been. I don't know if I left prior to the weekend or I left that Monday. I really don't remember.
Q: Were you in town on June 4, 1994?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Did Nicole call you at any time in June to talk about O.J. Simpson's treatment of her?
A: No.
Q: Or problems that they were having?
A: No.
Q: Problems with the children?
A: No.
Q: Did she call you at any time in May or June of 1994 to ask for a favor regarding the children?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: Could have. I don't remember.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you go to Sydney's communion?
A: No.
Q: Did you go to Justin's graduation from the Sunshine School?
A: No.
Q: Did you go to the picnic at the Simpsons' house on May 22 for Justin's Sunshine School?
A: I passed by there that day.
Q: Did you stop by?
A: Yeah.
Q: And when you stopped by, was Nicole still there?
A: I don't know who was there. I saw a lot of people and I noticed there was—it had the sign Sunshine, so I just turned around and walked away.
Q: So you never did go in?
A: No.
Q: Did you speak to Mr. Simpson that evening or the next day?
A: I don't know.
Q: Did he tell you that Nicole had returned jewelry that he bought for her?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did he tell you that he had purchased an expensive bracelet for her? MR. LEONARD: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you have any knowledge whether or not he had bought her a gold Cartier cigarette lighter?
MR. LEONARD: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Mr. Simpson was against smoking; right?
A: He was against smoking in his house.
Q: Did he encourage, to your knowledge, Nicole not to smoke?
A: Yeah, he tried. He tried to encourage her.
Q: Did you ever know him to give Nicole a cigarette lighter?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: Not that I know of.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: On Sunday—Referring again to Exhibit 86, Nicole's entry for Sunday, May 22,1994, this is the same day as you walked by the house when they were having that Sunshine picnic. Okay. This is later that evening. She writes, We've officially split. 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 until he leaves again. Has been gone the last four weekends. So I've asked if we can start with him this weekend of May 28th. May 28 is Memorial Day weekend. Did you have any conversation with Nicole about what I just read to you?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. LEONARD: Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: I need to use the bathroom.
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the record now, and the time is approximately 12:07.
(Recess taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the record now, and the time is approximately 12:13.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you have any conversation with Mr. Simpson about the fact that he and Nicole had officially split up around May 22 or thereafter—
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q:—1994?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: Mother's Day he expressed that they had split up or he was considering splitting up.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: And on Mother's Day, which was May 8, he didn't tell you whose idea it was to split up and what the circumstances and reasons were; correct?
MR. LEONARD: I am going to object to that. I think that misstates his testimony.
THE WITNESS: I really don't remember.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: You do not remember what he said; correct?
A: No, huh-uh.
Q: Correct?
A: Yes.
Q: What is that? Your pager?
MR. RE: Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Re's pager for the record. If Judge Ito were here you would be excluded from this deposition.
MR. LEONARD: No. He would have given him a couple shots.
MR. PETROCELLI: No, I don't think so.
Q: The next item in Nicole's notes marked as Exhibit 86 says, "Blow up with Cora in car." Do you know anything about that?
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you know anything about an argument between Mr. Simpson and Cora Fischman?
A: No.
Q: On May 28,1994 there is an entry that says, O.J. said he couldn't take the kids this weekend but he had them spend the night Friday night. Which would be May 27.
And then again Monday night, May 31 and took them to school. Saturday and Sunday they were with me. Flintstones, arcade, miniature golf. Does any of that ring a bell to you?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. LEONARD: Did you say Monday the 31st, is that what you just read?
MR. PETROCELLI: That's what I just read, Monday night, May 31.
MR. LEONARD: Okay.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you have a recollection, Mr. Cowlings, whether this trip where you took the kids to Palm Springs occurred before or after Mother's Day in 1994?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: Huh-uh. I can't.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: The last item on Exhibit 86 says as follows, June 4, 9:00 a.m. I drove the kids over to Rockingham. No one answered. No one was home to take the kids, so I took them over again at 1:00 p.m. They spent the night. Do you have any knowledge about that? MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: On Exhibit 86 there is an entry on the page bearing control No. 01879D. It says, Friday, March 5. A.C. picked up the kids bags for P.S. I took to school. A.C's picking them up at— I can't read the next letter.
- R to take to P.S. O.J.'s pathetic. Can't even take his own kids down for the weekend. He'll never get it. kids came back 10:00 March 7. Had a great weekend. I'm so glad. Assuming that P.S. stands for Palm Springs-
A: Uh-huh.
Q:—does March 1994 sound like the time when you took the kids to Palm Springs?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague, calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: It could have been. BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you take the kids home?
A: No.
Q: Do you know whether there was a golf tournament in Palm Springs that weekend?
MR.RE: Can I just break for two minutes?
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the record now, and the time is approximately 12:19. (Recess taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the record now, and the time is approximately 12:23.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: This incident in Palm Springs, could that have taken place in the year 1993 rather than 1994?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague as to "this incident," calls for speculation.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: The one where you took the children.
A: It could have been.
Q: I want to ask you some questions about an incident in January of 1988 which Nicole has described in Exhibit 87. First of all, have you ever seen this Exhibit 87?
A: No.
Q: Do you recall an incident in which Nicole wanted Mr. Simpson to go with her and Sydney to an ice skating event called Disney On Ice?
MR. LEONARD: I am going to object. Lack of foundation to the extent that the preamble prior to the question is incorporated into the question.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: You may answer.
A: No.
Q: Nicole after describing this ice skating event and the fact that Mr. Simpson didn't want to go then says, It started there. We went to the show and when we got back he was still gone. When he and A.C. got back A.C. seemed strange, like he was waiting for something to happen, that they might have discussed. He kissed Mama, Mini, but not me, which is weird for A.C. O.J. was drunk. Mama and Mini felt something too. They started to leave and O.J. started saying things about not being invited. No room for him. I said that he made excuses all week. Well, he followed Mini and Mama out the door rattling 100 miles per hour about what a liar I am. He never stopped. He followed Sydney and I around the house "Please, don't yell and scream in front of Sydney." So A.C. grabbed her. And I tried to get away from her so she wouldn't have to hear it. He never let up. You're a fat pig. You're disgusting. (I'm two months pregnant.) You're a slob. I want you out of my fucking house. Then I took Sydney to bed, tried to anyway. And he proceeded to cut me down with A.C. in the entry downstairs. I tried to tape the conversation but the recorder didn't work. He was saying all those things again so that I could hear every word as he was telling A.C. My wife's a fat ass, a liar. I stopped fucking other girls and now I jack off the fat ass.
He locked me out of our room and I buzzed him. Get out of my fucking house you fat ass liar. He opened the door and started off on me again. I want you to have an abortion with the baby. So I packed a few things together. He locked the door again. I buzzed. Do I really have to go tonight. Sydney is sleeping. It's late.
Let me tell you how serious I am. I have a gun in my hand right now. Get the fuck out of here. I got real scared and grabbed Sydney and the cats and a bag for her and a bottle and a pair of sweats from the laundry room for me and got the heck out of the house. Do you recall such an incident?
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation, vague, compound, argumentative.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you recall any incident to your memory that is remotely similar to the one that Nicole described in Exhibit 87?
MR. LEONARD: Same objections.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you recall any incident where you were with Nicole and Mama, who would be, I assume, Judy and Mini, who would be Dominique, with yourself and Mr. Simpson and Nicole when Nicole was pregnant with Justin?
A: Could have. I don't remember. We could have.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you remember a time when you were with Mr. Simpson while Nicole was out with the family at an ice skating event?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: No. It doesn't — I don't remember anything like that.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you remember an incident where these people were present and you took Sydney from Nicole or Mr. Simpson so she didn't have to hear an argument?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No. The only incident I ever took Sydney away was when O.J. and her got into an argument out by the pool and that was when they were moving back into the house after they had the remodeling.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you—I'm sorry.
A: Go ahead.
Q: You testified about that already; right?
A: I have testified about that. A lot of this stuff—Number one, let me go on the record saying that if all of this stuff would have been taking place, I never would have stood for it.
Q: This stuff that I just read you?
A: Right.
Q: Meaning what? You would have done what? You would have told O.J. you are—
A: Stop it.
Q: Stop it?
A: And it never would have happened.
Q: You wouldn't have let him scream—
A: No.
Q:—and rant and rave like this?
A: No. By no means.
Q: You would have removed him from the house?
A: I would have taken a walk and I would just say, "O.J., this is senseless" or Nicole would have asked me to take her away or whatever.
Q: And you expressed your feelings of— similar feelings to Mr. Simpson following the '89 incident; right?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: Pardon?
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Following the '89 incident you expressed similar feelings to Mr. Simpson as well; right?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: Those things didn't happen in front of me. What you just read—
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: I see. You mean if it had happened in front of you—
A: If it had happened in front of me, I wouldn't have allowed it to happen.
Q: Do you recall Mr. Simpson being upset with Nicole while she was pregnant with Justin because of weight gain?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did he ever mention that to you?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: Nicole was concerned about her weight after she had the baby. The Browns were concerned about Nicole's weight after she had the baby. O.J. did things on her behalf for her to get back in shape. There was a treadmill there. There was a Stairmaster, a membership to a health club, where he gave her a gift to go to one of these resorts for a week or two. I would go by at times and while she was on the Stairmaster— Her and I, I would go by and I would do the treadmill and she would do the Stairmaster.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: To your knowledge you do not recall Mr. Simpson being unhappy with the weight gain?
A: Not that I remember.
Q: Do you recall Mr. Simpson ever talking to you about Nicole having an abortion?
A: No. I never heard that.
Q: Do you know whether Nicole had any abortions?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I have no knowledge of that.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Would you be surprised to learn that she had at least four abortions during her relationship with Mr. Simpson?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: That would be a surprise to me.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Is that something that you would expect based on your relationship with Mr. Simpson for him to share with you?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative.
THE WITNESS: To share what?
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: To talk to you about.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: We talked about a lot of things.
MR. LEONARD: You have to let me finish my objection, please. Lack of foundation, argumentative, calls for speculation.
MR.PETROCELLI: Can you repeat the question.
(The record was read as follows:
Q. Is that something that you would expect based on your relationship with Mr. Simpson for him to share with you?")
MR. LEONARD: Same objections.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: What I mean by "share," Mr. Cowlings, is to confide with you about it. Would you have expected him to tell you about something like that?
MR. LEONARD: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: There is a lot of things that goes on between two people that stays between two people. Doesn't necessarily he has to tell his best friend.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: And you believe that that was true of O.J. Simpson and Nicole; right?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: That they did not tell you everything that happened between them?
A: No, they did not tell me everything that happened.
Q: Do you know of any reason why Nicole would have written up an incident like this if it did not occur?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, argumentative.
THE WITNESS: I have no idea.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Now, following Mr. Simpson's arrest were you ever told by anyone about these notes of this incident?
A: No.
Q: This is the first time you have heard about them,
MR. RE: You mean in the course of this deposition, because I think Mr. Kelly actually referred to them.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Prior to the beginning of your deposition.
A: There were reports in the news media that notes of Nicole's—
Q: Forgetting the news media, have you had any conversations with Mr. Simpson, with his lawyers, with anyone regarding incidents of abuse that are set forth in Nicole's notes?
MR. LEONARD: I just want to object. Vague as to time, particularly with regard to the privilege that has been asserted.
MR. RE: Well, again, see, if you are phrasing the question with Mr. Simpson at any time, you are also including the period of time where they could be in the car or whatever? Because if you exclude that period of time—
MR.PETROCELLI: Well, include it. And you are going to take the privilege?
MR. RE: Included we take the privilege.
MR. PETROCELLI: So exclude it.
MR. LEONARD: It is also—
MR. RE: You previously indicated that you were excluding that period of time from yours questions.
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.
MR. RE:—and I assume that we are still in that exclusive period.
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes.
MR. LEONARD: And it is also compound.
MR. PETROCELLI: You can answer the question now.
MR. RE: He is talking about any time excluding the period we are excepting.
MR. PETROCELLI: After Simpson's arrest.
THE WITNESS: Did I have any knowledge of these notes?
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you talk to anyone about them, such as with Mr. Simpson or his lawyers?
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Or about the events described in these notes?
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: Same objection.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: For example, did Mr. Shapiro or any of the lawyers come up to you and say, "Mr. Cowlings, we found these notes. They mention your name. Did this happen?
A: No. My first knowledge of any of Nicole's notes were in the New York Post or whatever paper back there. I was back there at work at the office and it was sitting on the front page or whatever.
Q: You said that was your first knowledge. But after that came out and you heard about those notes you skill didn't have any conversations with anybody; right?
A: No, no conversation.
Q: And have you ever spoken to Dominique or Judy about an argument involving the Simpsons following this ice event?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: The last note I have is Exhibit 89. It is a letter from Nicole to O.J. Did Nicole— Withdrawn.
Let me just read the first paragraph.
O.J., I think I have to put this all in a letter. A lot of years ago I used to do much better in a letter. I am gonna try it again now. I'd like you to keep this letter if we split so that you'll always know why we split. I'd also like you to keep it if we stay together as a reminder.
Right now I am so angry. If I didn't know that the courts would take Sydney and Justin away from me if I did this, I would fuck every guy including some that you know just to let you know how it feels. This is a lengthy letter, all about the relationship between Nicole and O.J. Simpson. Let me ask you this: Have you ever seen this letter?
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: Let me object to the extent that the preamble is part of the question, compound, lack of foundation, vague, calls for speculation.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Have you ever seen that, Mr. Cowlings?
A: No.
Q: Did Mr. Simpson ever tell you that he had received such a letter?
A: No.
Q: Did Nicole ever tell you that she had written such a letter?
A: No.
Q Did Nicole ever tell you in words or in substance that she was as anW as she wrote in what I just read to you?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did she ever confide in you that she was heart broken about Mr. Simpson's infidelity?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did Nicole ever talk to you about Mr. Simpson's infidelity?
A: No.
Q: Nicole goes on to talk about cheating by O.J. Simpson many times. Do you know of people that O.J. was seeing while he was married to Nicole?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: I don't remember their names.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Without knowing their names, are you aware generally that he was seeing other women in the course of his marriage to Nicole?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague, lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: That was one of the major problems of their relationship.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: And your knowledge of those problems was based principally upon conversations with Mr. Simpson?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation, vague.
THE WITNESS: And Nicole.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Both of them?
A: Yes.
Q: In the course of those conversations did you come to learn the names of the women that Mr. Simpson had been seeing?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Compound.
THE WITNESS: I don't remember their names.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Was Tawny Kitaen one of them?
A: I don't know.
Q: Do you know her? A: Yes.
Q: Is she a friend of yours?
A: No, but I know her.
Q: Did you ever have a heart-to-heart talk with Mr. Simpson about the fact that his cheating on Nicole was hurting her?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: At times.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: And what was his response?
A: He felt bad about it.
Q: Did he indicate why he would do it?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: I don't remember what was his motivation.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did he say that he did it because he was unhappy with Nicole?
MR.LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did he tell you that she did not satisfy him sexually?
A: Not that I remember
Q: Did he tell you that he would do it because of her pregnancies?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: I don't remember.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did he give you any reason as to why he would cheat on Nicole?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No, not really.
THE REPORTER: I'm sorry. "No, not really"?
THE WITNESS: No, not really.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did Nicole ever tell you that she wanted to get even with him because of his cheating?
A: Not that I can remember.
Q: Did you ever see Mr. Simpson demean Nicole's appearance?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: No, not that I can remember.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Was Mr. Simpson one who liked to keep a very organized home based on your knowledge of him?
A: Yes.
Q: And was Nicole on the sloppy side or messy side?
A: No.
Q: Did you ever see Mr. Simpson and Nicole argue about the fact that she wasn't neat or did not keep a neat house?
A: No. They had a maid there.
Q: One of the things that Nicole writes in here is as follows:
There was also that time before Justin and a few months after Sydney I felt really good about how I got back into shape. You beat the hell out of me and we lied at the X-ray lab and said I fell off a bike. Do you know of any such incident?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Neither of them ever told you about such an incident?
MR. LEONARD: Same objections.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELL
Q: In the next paragraph Nicole writes, There are a number of other instances that I could talk about that made my marriage so wonderful, like the televised Clipper game and going to Stellini's before the game and your 40th birthday party and the week leading up to it. But 1 don't like talking about the past. It depressed me. Did you go to Mr. Simpson's 40th birthday party?
MR. LEONARD: Objection to the extent that the preamble is considered part of the question. Object as lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: Yes. There was a celebration. Him and my birthday—My birthday was included, I think something for Arnelle was included. It could have been four or five things that revolved around that party.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Where was this party?
A: At the Rockingham house.
When was it? In July of 19—
A: It could have been.
Q: July; right?
A: Yeah, July.
Q: When was Mr. Simpson born?
A: July 9.
MR. LEONARD: I was trying to do the math myself.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: What year was he born?
A: '47.
Q: So this would have been July 1987?
A: I don't know if the party was exactly on that date, but it was sometime around that period.
Q: Now, do you recall any incident at that party that made Nicole upset?
A: Later on I found out.
Q: What did you find out?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation. Calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: There was some girls there that she suspected that O.J. was having an affair with.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
And who were those girls?
A: I don't remember.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: And who told you that she got upset because of this?
A: She told me.
Q: Did Mr. Simpson also tell you?
A: No.
Q: Do you know about a televised Clipper game and going to Stellini's before the game?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Compound, vague, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: I mean, it doesn't— It is something—I really don't know.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: It does not ring a bell at all?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: He goes to Stellini's and he goes to basketball games. For what reason you asked me that question, I have no idea.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: I am trying to figure out what Nicole was referring to when she wrote it in her notes.
A: That I don't know.
Q: You do not recall any kind of incident regarding a televised Clipper game; is that right?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: In the next paragraph Nicole writes, Then came the pregnancy with Justin and oh, how wonderfully you treated me again. I remember swearing to God and myself that under no circumstances would I let you be in that delivery room. I hated you so much. Did Mr. Simpson tell you about Nicole's desire that he not be in the delivery room.'
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Were you there during Justin's birth?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Excuse me.
MR. RE: He has to object.
MR. LEONARD: I need an opportunity to object.
MR. PETROCELLI: Please.
MR. LEONARD: I am objecting to the previous question. I was not given an opportunity to do so. I am objecting that it is vague, lack of foundation, especially the preamble and including the preamble.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you attend—Did you go to the hospital when Justin was born?
A: Yes.
Q: And do you know whether Mr. Simpson was in the delivery room for the birth of Justin?
A: I guess so. I don't really remember. Excuse me.
Q: What hospital was it?
A: St. John's, I think.
Q: When you went there, was Mr. Simpson already there, or was he there at all?
A: He was there. I don't know if he was already there or we got there together.
Q: With regard to the 1989 incident Nicole writes in part, I called the cops to save my life whether you believe it or not, but I did not pursue anything after that. I didn't prosecute. I didn't call the press and didn't make a big charade out of it. I waited for it to die down and asked for it too, but I've never loved you since or been the same. Did you have any conversations with Nicole about her refusal to prosecute or call the press?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, compound, calls for speculation, argumentative, and vague.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did you have any conversations with Mr. Simpson about that?
MR. LEONARD: Same objections.
THE WITNESS: It could have been —I don't know how long—how far along it was, I read about it in the paper when it finally hit the newspaper. I called him, and he said that people downtown insisted on her filing charges. She didn't want to.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Was that the extent of the conversation?
A: It was in the early morning. I was on my way to work.
Q: Was he upset about it?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
THE WITNESS: He was bothered.
MR. LEONARD: Calls for speculation.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: you may answer now.
A: He was bothered by it.
Q: Did he indicate, Mr. Cowlings, what he intended to do about it?
A: Whatever the authorities was going to ask.
Q: Did Nicole ever tell you that she never loved Mr. Simpson since the '89 incident?
A: No. She has always expressed her love for O.J.
Q: Even after the 1989 incident?
A: Yes.
Q: Did Mr. Simpson ever tell you that Nicole was not the same after the 1989 incident?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: Not that I know of.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did Mr. Simpson ever tell you that at any time following the 1989 incident that Nicole would not have sex with him?
MR.LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: I don't remember him saying that.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Or that their sex life had suffered or was suffering?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: I don't remember.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q Did he ever tell you that Nicole wanted him to take an AIDS test because of his infidelity?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: I heard that. I don't know for sure.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: And did you talk to Mr. Simpson about the fact that he—that Nicole wanted him to take an AIDS test?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: Like I say, I heard of that. I don't know too much more about it.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: You heard about that from Mr. Simpson?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: I don't know who I— if I heard it from him or heard it from Nicole.
BY MR. PETROCELLI: Q: Or both?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative—
THE WITNESS: I don't remember.
MR. LEONARD:—calls for speculation.
MR. RE: Let him—
THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you know whether Mr. Simpson took an AIDS test?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Do you know whether Mr. Simpson knew anybody who could get him an AIDS test?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: That I don't know.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did Mr. Simpson ever tell you that Nicole had changed after the children were born in the sense that she was not willing to go out so much?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: I don't know. I never heard that.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Or she was not willing to host as many parties and have people over as she had been before the babies were born?
MR. LEONARD: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Did Mr. Simpson ever tell you that Nicole would cancel on functions at the last minute?
A: Not that I know of.
MR. PETROCELLI: That's all I have for now.
EXAMINATION BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Mr. Cowlings, let's see if we can set a world record and get out of here.
MR. LEONARD: But in doing that, allow me to interject an objection.
MR. BREWER: Wait a minute. That is not part of the deal.
Q: In reference to the meeting that you had at Mr. Shapiro's office where there were a number of Mr. Simpson's close friends present, you indicated that Mr. Shapiro instructed those that were present not to talk to the media.
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Do you recall that conversation?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Compound, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Was there also a discussion about people staying together, supporting O.J. Simpson during this difficult ordeal that he was about to embark upon?
MR. RE: No objection. Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
MR. LEONARD: I fooled you.
THE WITNESS: No. I don't remember if that was stated.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Supporting O.J., anything of that nature?
A: I was going to support him.
Q: Was there any discussion or instruction in that regard from Mr. Shapiro?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Compound.
THE WITNESS: Not that I—I don't remember if there was.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: How about from anyone else there, did anyone say, "Hey need to support O.J., let's stick together," something of that nature that was said by anyone during the course that meeting?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Compound.
THE WITNESS: Not that I can remember.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: And after that meeting you embarked upon a series of discussions with some of Nicole's friends —Cici, Robin, and Cora—true?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. That misstates his prior testimony.
THE WITNESS: It could have—My conversations with them could have happened before that meeting.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: And the reason why you spoke with them was you just wanted to find out what was going on in Nicole's life; is that correct?
A: What type of people that they were hanging out with.
Q: And it was also your intention that to the extent that you found any information that you thought was pertinent in so far as it could assist Mr. Simpson, you were going to turn that information over; is that a fair statement?
A: Yes, if I found something out, yes.
Q: And you spoke at length with Cora, Cici, and Robin in an effort to find out this information; right?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague, compound.
THE WITNESS: No, I didn't speak to them at length. Most of them—You know, it was just Cora I probably spoke with the longest. The other two I didn't speak to them that much. They didn't know too much. Robin Greer claimed that she wasn't around. Cici said she wasn't around. And then when I spoke to Cora, Cora said that Faye Resnick had called them all and told them that they all had to stick together and not to talk to anybody.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Did you find Cora to be forthcoming with you—
A: Yes.
Q: — concerning information? And did you find Cici to be forthcoming—
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q:—to the extent that she knew or did not know anything about Nicole's lifestyle at the time that she was killed?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, vague.
THE WITNESS: She was somewhat vague. I mean, she wouldn't go into any, you know, nothing—just the fact that she was not around that much.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Was it your impression that she was vague because she did not know a lot or that she was not being forthcoming in your conversation?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, vague.
THE WITNESS: That I don't know. She expressed that her father had passed in that area or maybe a little bit before and that she was still somewhat bothered by that.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: And similarly, with respect to Robin, was it your impression that she was forthcoming with respect to whatever information she did or did not have—
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
BY MR. BREWER:
— relative to knowledge about Nicole's lifestyle at the time of her death?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, vague, compound.
THE WITNESS: No. Robin seemed like she was somewhat vague.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Go ahead.
A: That was it.
Q: Was it your impression that she was vague because she was holding back or that she just didn't know a lot about Nicole's lifestyle that would be helpful to you?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: She could have been holding back.
BY MR.BREWER:
Q: Did you form that impression at the time that you spoke with her?
MR.LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: She chose not to say, you know, certain things, so I didn't push the issue.
BY MR.BREWER:
Q: And were you under any specific instruction from anyone to talk to Nicole's friends?
A: No.
Q: And as a result of all of these conversations, you never communicated the substance of these conversations to anyone; is that true?
A: There was nothing to talk about. I mean, there was nothing there.
Q: For example, Cora Fischman never indicated to you that Nicole was living a dangerous lifestyle, did she?
MR.LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: Not that I can remember.
BY MR.BREWER:
Q: And if she had mentioned that to you, that would be significant information to you, wouldn't it?
R.LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR.BREWER:
Q: That would be something that you would want to pass along because that may provide information that would explain who may be responsible for Nicole's death; is that true?
MR.LEONARD: Objection. Vague -
THE WITNESS: That's true.
MR. LEONARD:—compound.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Did Cora Fischman ever tell you that Nicole was hanging around people that she thought was dangerous people?
A: Cora said that they had a falling out her and Nicole because of the relationship between Faye and Nicole had somewhat came in between Cora and Nicole's relationship, and she was bothered by it and that her and Nicole talked about it, and Nicole expressed to her that she is her best friend, always was her best friend, and you know, so they were able to put that aside.
Q: Did Cora tell you that as a result of this falling out that she really wasn't in a position to provide you with any information regarding Nicole's lifestyle at or near the time that she was killed?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Compound, vague—
THE WITNESS: She couldn't because —I'm sorry.
MR. LEONARD:—calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: No, she couldn't because she said she didn't go out that much with them, if she went out with them at all.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: And therefore Cora really, at least as far as you could tell, was not in a position to provide any information that was useful to you in understanding what was going on in Nicole's life at or near the time of her death; is that true?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague, compound, calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: I don't know what Cora knew or what she was willing to tell me or if she held back. I really couldn't answer that.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: But she specifically told you that she was not going out or really wasn't socializing a lot with Nicole at or near the time of her death; true?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
THE WITNESS: That I don't know if they were seeing each other during the day or during the early evening. I couldn't tell you.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Did she tell you anything with respect to the frequency with which she was seeing Nicole at or near her time of death?
A: No.
Q: Did you ever tell Cora during this walk that you took with her that you thought initially that O.J. Simpson killed Nicole?
A: No.
Q: If Cora Fischman were to testify under oath that you told her during this walk that you first—at first thought that O.J. was responsible for Nicole's death, would that be an untrue statement?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: I don't know. I know she asked me, and I told her that he was innocent.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: My question to you is: If Cora Fischman testified under oath that during this walk you told her that you initially thought that O.J. Simpson was responsible for Nicole's death but had since changed your mind, would that be a false or untrue statement on her part?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: I could have said it. I don't remember—
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Okay.
A:—but I could have said it.
Q: When you say that you could have said it, let's see if we can differentiate that answer. Do you have a specific memory as you sit here today of making that statement or a similar statement to Cora Fischman during the course of this walk?
A: I don't remember.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague, compound.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: So when you say that you could have said it, are you saying that based upon your recollection of how you felt at or near the time that you took this walk with Cora?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: I don't understand the question.
MR. BREWER: Bad question.
Q: When you say it is something that you could have said, meaning it is possible that you could have told Cora this, is that because you had those feelings?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: I probably had the feelings early on.
BY MR. BREWER: Q: Okay. That Mr. Simpson was responsible or could tee responsible for Nicole's death; true?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague, calls for speculation—
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. LEONARD:—compound.
THEWITNESS: Sorry.
MR. LEONARD: Go ahead.
THE WITNESS: The thought could have entered my mind.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: And when you say the thought could have entered your mind, is that because you had some knowledge with respect to the violent nature of their relationship in so far as you were a direct observer of some of the events in 1989?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague, compound.
THE WITNESS: There was only one event in '89.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Where he had struck her; correct?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I never saw it.
MR. LEONARD: Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: Something happened.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Well, based upon what you saw and what you were told, you came to the conclusion that she was hit; true?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative, compound, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: That was her statement that she said she was hit.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Well, did you think that she was lying?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative—
THE WITNESS: I didn't question it.
MR. LEONARD:— lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: Sorry.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: And when she told you that she was hit, what she was describing was the history with respect to what has been characterized as a concussion or swelling on her forehead; true?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague, compound, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: Like I have stated, I don't know how it got there. She could have been hit, she could have fell, she could have bumped her head.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: You know, Mr. Cowlings, sometimes when people explain, give a history with respect to a condition, you may not believe them for whatever reason, and the question I am asking you is: You are looking at a big bruise or swelling on her forehead. She told you that she was hit causing that bruise. Is there anything about what she told you or what you observed that caused you to disbelieve what she was telling you concerning the source of that injury?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, carts for speculation.
MR. RE: And I think that the problem is that it is misstating his prior testimony, and the one phrase in there that misstates it is—and I think it is what we have gotten hung up on —that the hit caused the bruise. In other words, what I think he testified to was she said she was hit. She did have a bruise. And I think he testified that the bruise could have been caused by a hit, it could have been caused by a fall, it could have been caused by another thing, so I would just simply object to that.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Well, given that, let me just make sure that I understand this. You were told in the course of that day by Nicole that she was hit; true?
A: Right.
Q: You observed that she had injuries on her person; true?
A: I observed early on redness in her face. Later on that evening there was some swelling.
Q: Did you have any reason to disbelieve her when she told you that she was hit by Mr. Simpson?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative, lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: She didn't tell me where she was hit. She just said she was hit.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: When she said, "I was hit," did you disbelieve her?
MR. LEONARD: Same objections.
THE WITNESS: I didn't question her.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Okay. And you did not question her because you believed that she was telling you the truth; correct?
MR. LEONARD: Argumentative and same objections.
HE WITNESS: I was concerned about her well-being.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q And by the way, did that incident in your involvement, at least what you observed in connection with that incident, did that change your relationship at ad with O.J. Simpson?
A: I was not happy with the situation. He was wrong.
Q: And he was wrong because as you testified earlier you felt it was wrong for a men to hit a woman; true.
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
THEWITNESS: Any man to put his hand—
MR. LEONARD: Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: Any man to put his hand on a woman.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: So what Mr. Simpson did in connection with this '89 incident ran counter to what you believed was right v vis how a man should treat a woman; true?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
THE WITNESS: That's not how—I wouldn't treat a woman that way.
BY MR. BREWER:
A: And as a result of this incident you said that you thought that Mr. Simpson was wrong, but did that change the nature of your relationship, that you were not as friendly with him, you didn't see him as often, anything of that nature?
A: No. We cared about each other. I still had my great love. I just stopped going around because they were getting back together, it seemed like, and they had things, you know, to work out.
Q: The less frequent visits to Rockingham with Nicole and Mr. Simpson, was that because of a change in your - feeling about Mr. Simpson or that you wanted to give them an opportunity to kind of sort out own problems?
A: I felt bad for both of them, and I felt that they needed time to sort it out, whatever differences that they were having.
Q: And when you state — Strike that.
When you made the sacrifice not to go to the Rose Bowl that evening in order to be available for Nicole, Mr. Simpson went to the Rose Bowl?
A: It was not a sacrifice. I didn't feel like going.
Q: Had you not planned to go to the Rose owl that day?
A: I was planning on going. I have been to Rose Bowls before. I mean, one Rose Bowls like any other. It was no major thing that I had to go.
Q: Would it be a fair statement to say that had this incident not occurred you probably would have gone to the Rose Bowl that evening?
A: I probably would have—would have gone, yes.
Q: And the principal reason why you did not go was because you wanted to be available for Nicole; true?
A: I feel bad about the whole situation.
Q: You felt bad enough that you didn't go to the Rose Bowl that evening; true?
A: I didn't feel like going.
Q: And Mr. Simpson did go; right?
A: Yes, he did.
Q: And how did you feel about that?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: I didn't give it any thought. O.J. did what he thought that he had to do.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Did you think that it wasn't right given what had happened earlier that day that Mr. Simpson was at the Rose Bowl when his wife was at home with hat you have described as a—
A: She didn't want to be bothered with him. And I guess the best thing for him to do was to be out of her sight, so instead of sitting there where he was all day, he chose to go to the Rose Bowl.
Q: And so would it been a fair statement, then, other than this short period where you were staying away so that they could sort through the problems relative to the '89 incident, that your overall relationship with Mr. Simpson had not changed at all as a result of the '89 incident?
A: It hadn't changed. I thought that the two them—He didn't hit me. Nicole forgave him. They went on with their lives.
Q: Okay. And is there anything that you observed about their relationship that was different that you attributed to the '89 incident?
MR. LEONARD: Wait a minute. Vague, calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: It seemed like it was just as good times as any.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: So you didn't know—When you were around then and you made observations with respect to how they interacted together, you did not notice any major differences after the '89 incident that you attributed to that incident?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: They seemed very happy to me.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q Were you ever around, then, after the '89 incident where it was brought up in the course of an argument or discussion?
MR. LEONARD: Objection as to that.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: So after the incident occurred as far as you could tell when you were around then, you were never present where it was referred to or talked about in your presence; is that true?
A: No.
Q: That's true?
A: No, it wasn't talked about in my presence.
Q: When I say "that's true," that is true what I am saying?
A: That's true.
Q: Going back to your earlier statement that, you know, you may have had these feelings that Mr. Simpson was responsible early on, what was the basis for that statement?
A: Probably what was coming out from the TV, the media.
Q: And do you remember specifically what you heard that triggered a thought process that led you to conclude that Mr. Simpson may be responsible for Nicole's death?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague, calls for speculation.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: And excluding the time period that we have been talking about.
A: The thought was on my mind. I never came to the conclusion that he had done it.
Q: Okay. That's a good point. When you say the thought was on your mind, it was something that you thought was in the realm of possible explanations relative to her death?
A: The things that were coming out over the media rose concern—put a thought in my mind.
Q: Okay. And for example, you learned that blood was found at Rockingham; is that correct?
A: I don't know whet I learned. There was a lot of stuff coming out.
Was there anything that stuck in your mind as being a significant piece of information that started the thought process going relative to your belief that Mr. Simpson may be responsible for the death of Nicole and Ron Goldman?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: So there is nothing in particular, it is just the combination of all of the information, nothing that you remember specifically thinking about?
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Did you also tell Cici that you thought that Mr. Simpson may have been responsible for Nicole's death?
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. That mis —Go ahead.
MR. PETROCELLI: That's a question not a statement.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Did you also make the statement to Robin hat you thought that Mr. Simpson may be responsible for Nicole's death but had since changed your mind?
A: No.
Q: Other than Cora Fischman is there anyone else that you have told about a belief that you thought Mr. Simpson at some point may have been responsible for Nicole's death?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. I think that that mischaracterizes his testimony when you use the word "belief."
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: In discussions with Nicole's friends have any of them asked you whether you thought Mr. Simpson killed Nicole?
A: The only one I can remember is Coral
Q: Okay. And that is what prompted the discussion that we have been talking about for the past couple of minutes, her asking you about your belief with respect to whether he killed Nicole?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. "Prompted the discussion," vague.
THE WITNESS: I didn't understand the question.
BY MR.BREWER:
Q: Well, we are talking about a belief that you had or at least you thought it was a possibility that Mr. Simpson may have killed Nicole at some point; is that true?
A: I told Cora that he didn't do it.
Q: Okay. And that was in response to her asking you if you thought he did it?
A: Right.
Q: Now, in your discussions with Mr. Simpson's close friends, have any of those friends ever asked you whether you thought he did it?
A: You are speaking of who? Q: Anyone. Joe Stellini?
A: No.
Q: Allen Austin? Any of people that you and Mr. Simpson had as common friends, have any of them at any point ever asked you, excluding this time period that is privileged, whether or not you thought Mr. Simpson killed Nicole?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Compound.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR.BREWER:
Q: Have you had any discussions with any of the friends that were at the meeting with Mr. Shapiro regarding a knife that may have been used in connection with the murders?
A: No.
Have you had any discussion with that same group of people with respect to clothing that Mr. Simpson may have been wearing at the time that the murders—
MR.LEONARD: I am going to object. Can I get my objection in first.
MR.RE: Sure. Go ahead.
MR.LEONARD: Object as vague, lack of foundation.
MR.RE: Is the question: Did you have discussions at this group meeting? Is that what the question is?
MR. BREWER: No. At any time, excluding the relevant time period where there is a privileged being asserted.
MR.RE: And the question is: Did he have a discussion with somebody who attended the meeting?
MR.BREWER: Yes.
Q: The people that were identified that he remembers being at this meeting with Mr. Shapiro, excluding the time period that you are asserting privilege, have you ever had a discussion with any of those individuals relative to the location of any clothes that Mr. Simpson may have been wearing at the time of the murders?
R.LEONARD: Objection. Vague, lack of foundation, compound, and calls for speculation.
MR.RE: The other thing is if you are asking if he had any conversation with anybody at any time regarding clothes that Simpson may or may not have been wearing, he would have asserted a privilege to that independent of the time period.
In other words, if you are talking about potential evidence in the case, did he ever talk to any of these people about Simpson's clothes, he would assert a privilege to that regardless of the time period.
R.BREWER: You know, I am not going to belabor this. I just want to make sure I understand the point so I do not waste our time here.
Q: For example, Jennifer Peace—
A: You got to be joking.
Q:—there was just a discussion with Mr. Cowlings concerning conversations he had with her with respect to the location of a knife, clothes that he may have been wearing, et cetera.
MR.RE: That is what Jennifer Peace said?
R.BREWER: Right.
MR.RE: That is not what he said.
R.BREWER: But he was asked about discussions with her wherein he said this to her at the deposition.
R.RE: But he said that never happened. So what I am saying to you is, you are asking him now was there an event where he spoke to somebody about that evidence, and I am telling you that he will assert the privilege to this. The other question was did you say this to Jennifer Peace, and he said no, I never said that to Jennifer Peace. There is no privilege to that.
MR.BREWER: How about a question, did you tell Allen Austin—Did you have any discussions with Allen Austin with respect to the location of evidence, a question like that?
MR.LEONARD:I am going to object to that question.
MR.BREWER: You can object to it. I want to figure out what his position is.
MR.RE: At this point - Jennifer Peace is a very different animal.
THE WITNESS: It's a joke.
MR.BREWER:I am not saying it is a joke. I am talking about the privilege. It is only the question I am concerned about.
MR.RE: The reason we let him go ahead with regard to Jennifer Peace is because that is one of the areas that he said at the very beginning of the deposition he wanted to clear up and testify about. When we are talking about anybody else, asking anybody in general or in specific did you talk about the evidence in the case, he is going to assert a privilege to that.
MR. BREWER: Okay.
MR. RE: Okay.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: On the morning of the 12th you were called to Rockingham by Arnelle, and when you got to Rockingham did you notice whether anyone who was there—sorry—the 13th, the police officers, Arnelle, Kato, anyone had any cuts or was bleeding at any time?
A: I don't know. I didn't notice.
Q: And you weren't, as far as you knew; correct.'
A: Not that I remember.
Q: Do you have any information about a book that is being written by Larry Schiller concerning the events of June 13 end June 12, 1994?
A: No.
R.LEONARD:I am going to object. That is lack of foundation, vague, "any information."
THEWITNESS:I have no knowledge of that.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Have you ever heard that Larry Schiller is in the process of writing a book?
A: No.
Q: Have you heard that Robert Kardashian is in the process of providing information or collaborating with Mr. Schiller in connection with a proposed book?
A: No.
MR.LEONARD: Objection. Vague, compound, lack of foundation.
THEWITNESS: Yes.
BYMR.BREWER:
Q: Where did you hear that?
A: From Bob.
Q: From Bob Kardashian?
A: Yes.
Q: Did he tell you that he was involved with Larry Schiller in connection with the book?
A: Yes.
MR.LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Did he tell you that the book was being written as we speak?
A: I don't know when it was written.
Q: When did you have this conversation with Mr. Kardashian about this book?
A: It has been a while. I guess he is still doing it.
Q: When did you first have a conversation with Mr. Kardashian?
A: I don't know.
Q: Just so that I am clear, the conversation that I am referring to is the one that refers to him doing a book with Larry Schiller.
MR.LEONARD: Objection. Vague, and I think that mischaracterizes his testimony.
THEWITNESS: It could have came up after the trial.
BYMR.BREWER:
Q: Okay. And do you remember where you were located?
A: It could have been on the phone.
Q: Do you remember how the discussions came up?
: I don't remember. Everybody was doing books.
Q: And did Mr. Kardashian tell you that he was interested in doing a book since everyone was doing books?
MR.LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: I don't know if somebody was showing interest in him or he was showing interest in doing a book. I really don't know.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: And did he indicate that he was collaborating with Larry Schiller in connection with a book?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: He could be. BY MR. BREWER:
Q: And did he tell you what the approach or angle of the book was?
A: No.
MR.LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Did he tell you what information, if any, he had provided to Mr. Schiller? MR. LEONARD: Same objections.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Did he tell you what information he was going to provide to Mr. Schiller?
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: Same objection. BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Did he ask you for any information that could be used in connection with the book?
A: No.
Q: Did he say anything about the subject matter of the book?
MR. LEONARD: Same objections. THEWITNESS: No.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Did he say anything about any of the information that would be contained within the book?
MR. LEONARD: Same objections. THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: SO the only thing that he said to you concerning this book was the fact that he was doing a book collaboration with Mr. Schiller?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR.LEONARD: I think that mischaracterizes his testimony.
THE WITNESS: Sorry. Yes.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: And did he tell you anything about the timing of the book's release?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Did he tell you anything about, you know, what information was going to be accumulated that would go into the book?
MR.LEONARD: Objection. I think you already asked that at least once. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. BREWER: Q: Did he tell you about anyone that had been interviewed with a view towards providing information for the book?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Did he indicate to you that there were going to be any disclosures of privileged or private information in the book?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. calls for speculation, lack of foundation, calls for a legal conclusion.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Did Mr. Kardashian indicate at that time that they had a manuscript that had been completed?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Did he indicate to you that they were at least in the process of putting a manuscript together?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. LEONARD:—speculation. You have to let me finish my—Please.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
MR. LEONARD: Calls for speculation, lack of foundation, vague.
THE WITNESS: Isn't there one word you could use.
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes. Shut up.
MR.BREWER: That's a code word for his objection.
MR. PETROCELLI: Let the record reflect laughter.
MR. LEONARD: Well, that's not nice. MR. RE: Also, it is two words.
MR. BREWER: Laugher is spontaneous. It is not preplanned.
MR.LEONARD: With you, I don't know Mike. You are pretty slick.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: With respect to this Kardashian manuscript, have you ever seen a manuscript in connection with this book?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No. BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Have you ever listened to any tape-recordings that relate to a manuscript?
A: No.
Q: And when I say "a manuscript," I am talking about either a completed one or portions thereof.
A: No.
Q: Did he tell you whether he was — Strike that. Did he tell you whether he had entered into any contractual relationship with a publisher in connection with this book?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Was there any discussion about how much he had been paid or expected to be paid in connection with the book?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. LEONARD: Compound, plus the same objection.
THE WITNESS: Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Mr. Simpson, based upon your knowledge of him, is a very verbal person; is that a fair statement?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: And, for example, if you have a conversation with him, the tendency is for him to typically spend most of the time in that conversation doing the talking; is that true?
A: Yes.
Q: And when he is angry or upset, he tends to become quiet?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Is that true?
MR. LEONARD: Vague, lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: I guess. I really don't know.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Have you ever been around Mr. Simpson where you have known that he is angry or upset about something and he has become very quiet and introverted—
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
BY MR. BREWER: Q: —reflective?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Compound, vague, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: I have seen him sometimes when he was quiet, when he is being bothered by something.
BY MR. BREWER:
A: And he tends to be a more reflective or introverted based upon what you are able to see of him when he is en' or upset?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, argumentative, lack of foundation, misstates his prior testimony.
THE WITNESS: He would be quiet.
Q: Are there any particular occasions that stand out in your memory where you have been around Mr. Simpson and you have known that he is angry about something where he has been quiet or reflective?
MR. LEONARD: Lack of foundation, calls for speculation, objection.
THE WITNESS: Unless he tells me. Sometimes I am around and he is tired. Maybe he is just coming off the road or he has been working too hard.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: And as a good friend sometimes you are around him and he will be quiet and you will say "what is going on" to find out why he has been quiet?
A: Sometimes if, you know, some people don't want to be bothered, and you just don't bother them.
Q: Has that ever happened where he has been unusually quiet, and you have asked him "What is going on? What is the matter?"
A: Sometimes.
Q: And has he ever said, "Well, I am upset" or UI am bothered about something"?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Compound.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: And would you say that most of the time when you are around Mr. Simpson if he is not being bothered or he is not upset about something, he tends to be a very verbal person, talking and gregarious type of person?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Compound, vague, lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: Not necessarily. BY MR. BREWER:
Q: If you were asked to describe a personality trait, would you describe that as one of Mr. Simpson's personality traits, that he tends to be a very talkative and verbal person?
A: No. He's a very nice guy.
Q: And when he is out socially, he tends to be very talkative, doesn't he?
A: He talks to people who come up to him.
Q: Now, going back to this New York incident after the Louis Marx party, which may or may not be r63 related to their anniversary when you received a call from Mr. Simpson, were you in bed at the time that you received the call?
A: I don't remember if I was or not.
Q: And when he called you, the word that you said was that he seemed upset. Did he seem angry when 1121 he contacted you?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: I don't remember the tone.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: When you said that he was upset what did you mean?
A: He sounded like he was upset. He could have been talking in a low voice.
Q: Okay. Well ,upset could mean crying, could mean quiet, could mean yelling, boisterous. Can you help us figure out how he was upset when he contacted you that evening?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: For him to call me at that time I figured, you know, something was wrong.
141 BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Okay. So it was based upon the timing of the call that led you to believe that he was upset about something?
A: Or bothered by something, yes.
Q: And was it a—It was a very short call, wasn't it?
A: Yes.
Q: And he essentially told you that he needed you to come over to the suite where they were 1141 staying; is that correct?
A: Right.
Q: And you knew that there was a problem as a result of that call and being summoned over to their suite; true?
A: I didn't know—
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: I didn't know what to expect.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Well, did you expect that you were going over there to socialize, to have a drink and just talk?
A: I didn't know what to expect when I got there.
Q: Prior to receiving that call, in your experience with Nicole and Mr. Simpson, had you ever been called upon to mediate disputes between them;
A: No.
Q: Had you ever been called upon to provide an objective or third—
Let's change the tape.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the end of tape number two of Volume IV. The time is approximately 1:23, and we are off the record.
(Recess taken.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: we are on the record. The time is approximately 1:26. This is the beginning of tape number three of Volume IV.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Mr. Cowlings, I think before we had to go off the record I asked you whether you had ever been called upon by Mr. Simpson and Nicole to provide like, a third-party view of things or to be an objective observer of something that was going on in their relationship or a mediator or something of that sort. Has that ever happened
A: No.
Q: prior to this? So this was the first time that you had ever been called upon by the Simpsons to sort out a dispute that they were in?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague, misstates his testimony.
THE WITNESS: His reason for calling me, I couldn't tell you exactly what his reasons were. I went there. He said she had embarrassed him, and she 1 said I was sorry, that I didn't mean to embarrass you, and that was it.
BY MR. BREWER:
0: Well, what I am trying to figure out was what was your understanding of your role, being summoned out of bed or summoned from your hotel room over to Mr. Simpson's hotel room, what was your 1181 purpose there?
A: It was a friend of mine calling me. Q: Okay.
A: It sounded like he needed me, so I went.
Q: And were you going to mediate a dispute that they were having?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I didn't know what was going on there.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Were you asked to provide an opinion, like whether or not this was something that would be embarrassing to you?
A: I was all ears.
Q: So you were there just to listen?
MR. LEONARD: I am going to object to the extent that you are asking him to speculate, when you say he was there to listen.
MR. BREWER: I am asking what his understanding was. That is not speculation.
MR. LEONARD: His understanding MR. BREWER: Yes, absolutely.
MR. LEONARD: Okay.
MR. BREWER: I am not asking about what is in Mr. Simpson's mind or Nicole's mind.
MR. LEONARD: Yes, but that wasn't clear from the question.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: I am just asking what your understanding was with respect to why you were there, what you were to do.
A: A friend called me. I went.
Q: Okay. And when you got over there they were still in the bedroom or in bed; correct?
A: In bed. I mean, in the bedroom. She was in the bed, and he was standing up.
Q: Were they calm? A: Yes.
Q: Was their speech to one another conversational?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
MR. BREWER: As opposed to yelling.
THE WITNESS: They were talking. They weren't yelling.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Were they arguing?
A: There was no yelling.
Q: So the first thing Mr. Simpson said to you was, "This is what she said that embarrassed me this evening"?
A: He said, "She embarrassed me." She said, I didn't mean to." And she said, "I'm sorry."
Q: And did Mr. Simpson ask you something like, "Do you think that is embarrassing?" Or "Is that something that would embarrass you?" Or something of that nature?
A: I don't remember any — too much more because I didn't—You know, after she apologized or whatever, the conversation was over.
Q: And did you—
A: So I went.
Q: And you turned around and went back to your hotel?
A: Yeah. I went back to my hotel.
Q: Would it be a fair statement that that was—Would it be a fair description of that whole episode, that that was a relatively bizarre episode?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I didn't look at it as bizarre.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: How would you describe it?
A: A friend called. He needed me. I went. All right. I got there. She said something, something. She said, "I apologize." There was no more said after that. I turned around and went back to my hotel.
Q: And that was the last that it was ever talked about or referred to after?
A: We flew out the next day back to L.A. together, the three of us.
Q: And you never said to them, "Man, that was strange last night. What happened?"
A: No. No, I didn't.
MR. RE: Hey.
THE WITNESS: Hey.
MR. RE: Too bad that wasn't on the tape.
MR. LEONARD: It is on tape.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: By the way, just so the record is clear, you never observed any markings on her either that evening or the following day on her face or any part of her body?
A: No.
Q: The thing that Mr. Re has just pointed out to us on his electronic calendar is that January — New Year's day would have been Sunday. Correct?
MR. LEONARD: Of what year?
MR. BREWER: Of 1989.
MR. PETROCELLI: January 1.
MR. BREWER: was Sunday, so January 2 would have been a Monday.
Q: Does that refresh your recollection with respect to the date of the Rose Bowl?
A: Are we back to that. I don't know, man. All I know is that the Rose Bowl is played on the 1st. Now, if that year it was played on the 2nd, your guess is as good as mine. I don't know. All I know, playing in the Rose Bowl myself, it is always played on the 1st. It may have changed. I really don't know.
Q: Let's do it this way. The one thing that you are positive of is that the Rose Bowl was the same evening—played the same evening as the episode that we have described involving Mr. Simpson and Nicole?
MR. LEONARD: I am going to object.
MR. RE: No.
MR. LEONARD: I think that is vague.
THE WITNESS: New Year's we're at a party. New Year's morning I was called. There was a problem at the house. I went. The Rose Bowl, I assume, was played that afternoon.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: I want to just focus on what you said. You said I assume" it was played. Do you have a specific memory that it was on the same date as the altercation?
A: The only reason I am saying this is because you guys are bringing up the 2nd and 1st. That is the only reason. Normally, up until this point, as far as I was concerned or knew, the game was played on the 1st.
Q: Me too. And I just want to make sure we are clear on this. Irrespective of the date, whether it is the 1st or the 2nd, the Rose Bowl
A: Why don't we get a press guide from USC or something that says that the game was played then or call over there.
Q: Okay. Let me ask it this way, because this will help figure it out. You don't understand. I don't care about the date. I just want to make sure—
MR. PETROCELLI: We are going to call right now.
MR. BREWER: I just want to make sure—
MR. LEONARD: But I can't. You do it. MR. PETROCELLI: I will do it.
MR. BREWER: Let him do it.
MR.LEONARD: Not that it really matters but—
MR.BREWER: Let's ask the questions because I want to get out of here.
THE WITNESS: Woe. Woe. Woe.
MR. LEONARD: Do you know the sports information number?
THE WITNESS: Ask either—Let me se. It could be—If it was on the 1st, it would be 1980— 1990. Do you understand what I am saying?
MR. RE: The 1st and the 2nd are both part of the same year.
MR. PETROCELLI: Who do I call, by the way?
THE WITNESS: See, like I played— My last year—
MR. LEONARD: A.C.
THE WITNESS: Hold on. Let me explain something. Let me explain My last year at SC we played in the Rose Bowl. That was in '69, but it was the 1970 Rose Bowl.
MR.PETROCELLI: I see what you are saying.
MR. RE: It is the '69 season.
MR.PETROCELLI: They may call this the 1989/ 1990 Rose Bowl?
THE WITNESS: Right.
MR. LEONARD: Who should he call? Sports information?
THE WITNESS: Sports information on the campus of USC.
MR. PETROCELLI: Do you know the number?
THE WITNESS: Huh-uh.
MR.LEONARD: What is the main number?
THE WITNESS: Just general information. They will probably give you— You could ask for the athletic department.
MR. RE: She is taking all of this down.
THE WITNESS: Believe me, it is not
my fault. I am just a dumb football player.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Let me just ask a question so that we can clear this up—clean it up, and then close out the deposition.
Forget about the date, whether it is
the 1st or 2nd.
A: Okay.
Q: The only thing I am concerned about is you were summoned over to Rockingham that morning by Michelle; true?
A: Yes.
Q: And the Rose Bowl that we are talking about would have been the same evening, you would have one to the Rose Bowl that evening?
A: Right.
Q: You didn't know Ron Goldman, did you?
A: No, I didn't.
0: Did you ever have any conversations with 1221 Mr. Simpson excluding the time period regarding Ron Goldman?
A: No.
Q: Prior to Nicole's death had you ever been
Page 1090
with Mr. Simpson where he pointed out someone that you later learned to be Ron Goldman?
A: No.
Q: Did Mr. Simpson ever say anything to you about Nicole dada" a waiter who worked at the Mezzaluna restaurant? And again, this is prior to
Nicole's death.
A: No.
MR. BREWER: And, Mr. Re, just so that I am clear, I think you have already stated this, but in terms of discussions between Mr. Cowlings and Mr. Simpson, any conversations are going to be privileged?
MR. RE: Any post—
MR. BREWER: Obviously post, post 13th through today?
R. RE: Right. Correct.
MR. BREWER: All right. Then that is all I have, Mr. Cowlings. Thank you.
MR. LEONARD: I guess what we don't know right now is—and I am certainly not suggesting it but we don't know whether Dan has any more.
MR. BREWER: Let's go off the record for a minute.
THE WITNESS: Let's go off the record.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the record now, and the time is approximately 1:35.
(Discussion held off the record.)
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the record now, and the time is approximately 1:38.
BY MR. BREWER:
Mr. Cowlings, we have gone back —we are back on the record because the mystery has been answered, and we now know from a source of a higher authority, Dan Petrocelli, who has done some investigation, that actually the Rose Bowl was on the 2nd.
MR. PETROCELLI: Michigan beat USC 22 to 14.
MR. LEONARD: Just state where did you get the information.
MR.PETROCELLI: I called, at Mr. Cowlings' suggestion, the sports information director of USC.
MR.LEONARD: And how long was that discussion?
MR.PETROCELLI: About 45 seconds.
BYMR.BREWER:
Q: Given that information, the fact that the Rose Bowl was on the 2nd and not, in fact, on the 1st, does that in and of itself refresh your recollection with respect to what you did or didn't do on the evening of the 1st?
A: No.
Q: You remember previous testimony that Mr. Simpson attended the Rose Bowl that year?
A: Yes.
Q: And if we are correct end the Rose Bowl was on the 2nd, that means that on the 1st where we thought he was at the Rose Bowl he was somewhere else; true?
: Probably, yes.
Q: Okay. Now, when is the last time you saw Mr. Simpson on the 1st that you have a memory of?
MR.LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
THEWITNESS:I saw him in and out that day because I eventually brought him back up to the house that evening.
BYMR.BREWER:
Q: Do you remember what time you brought him back to the house?
A: No.
Q: Do you remember whether it was in the early evening versus later in the evening?
A: It could have been early evening.
Q: Okay. Do you know from any source whether he had left and gone anywhere else after you left to take Nicole to the hospital?
A: I really don't remember.
Q: Do you remember how long you stayed with Nicole after your return from the hospital at Rockingham?
A: No.
Q: Do you remember it being more than a matter of minutes? I mean, did you stay there for an
Q: Do you remember where you brought him to the house from.
A: Probably from Alan Schwartz.
Q And when you dropped him off, was that the last time that you saw him that evening, was after you dropped him off at Rockingham?
A: No. We walked into the house together.
Q: Was Nicole there at that time? A: Yes.
Q: And then how long did you stay at Rockingham?
A: We talked. I suggested to take her in— and he said yes—to the hospital.
Q Was Howard Weitzman there at the time?
A: I don't know.
Q: Do you recall seeing Howard Weitzman at the house that day?
A: What day?
MR.LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
THEW1TNESS: What day? BYMR.BREWER: Q: On the 1st.
A: Not that I can remember.
Q: At any time, by the way. My question is open to at any time on the 1st do you recall seeing Howard Weitzman at Rockingham?
A: Any time on the 1st?
Yes. A: Not that I remember.
Do you recall or do you have any knowledge with respect to whether Mr. Simpson spoke with Howard Weitzman on the 1st?
MR.LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation, compound.
HEWITNESS:I have no knowledge of that.
YMR.BREWER:
Q: Same question with respect to Skip Taft. do you have any knowledge with respect to whether Mr. Simpson spoke by telephone with Skip Taft?
MR.LEONARD: Same objections. THE WITNESS: He would have.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Do you have a memory of that?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Do you have a recollection of Mr. Taft being at Rockingham at any time on the 1st?
A: I don't remember.
Q: How about at Alan Schwartz's?
A: He could have been at Alan's.
Q: You have a memory of him being there?
A: Not really.
Q: What is the basis for your statement that he could have been there?
A: He could have been there. He is O.J.'s attorney.
Q: Alright. Do you know whether he was summoned to Alan Schwartz's house?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation —
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
MR. LEONARD: - calls for speculation.
BY MR. BREWER:
Q: So you do not have a memory of Skip Taft being at Alan Schwartz's at any time that day?
A: Skip could have been there. I don't remember.
Q: Same question with Howard Weitzman at Alan Schwartz's?
MR.LEONARD: Same objections.
THE WITNESS: I don't remember seeing Howard. BY MR. BREWER:
And after you left Rockingham you took Nicole to the hospital that evening; correct?
A: Right.
Q: And as far as you knew Mr. Simpson was still at Rockingham when you left?
A: I don't know. He was there when I left.
Q: With Nicole?
A: No. Nicole was with me.
Q: Let's focus on those two time periods. When you left Rockingham with Nicole to take her to the hospital, do you know where O.J. Simpson was?
A: I think he was still there at the house.
Q: And then when you came back from the hospital, did you come back to Rockingham'
A: Yes.
Q: And was Mr. Simpson still there?
A: I don't know.
MR.LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation.
BY MR. BREWER:
Did you see him there?
A: I don't remember.
hour, half hour, two hours?
A: I couldn't tell you how long I stayed.
: Do you remember leaving Rockingham that evening and going back home?
A: Yeah, I went home.
And when you left Rockingham that evening, do you recall specifically with respect to whether Mr. Simpson was at Rockingham' :I don't remember. Q: So you have no memory of Mr. Simpson's whereabouts after you left Rockingham to go to the hospital; is that true?
MR.LEONARD: I'm sorry. Can you repeat that question.
BY MR.BREWER:
Q: After you left Rockingham to take Nicole to the hospital you have no recollection with respect to seeing Mr. Simpson or knowing his whereabouts?
MR.LEONARD: Objection. Compound, calls for speculation.
BYMR.BREWER: Q: Is that true?
A:I don't know if he stayed there. I don't know if he was still there when I got back. I don't remember.
And when you say you don't remember, you do not remember seeing him; true?
:I just don't remember if he was still there when I got back.
Q: You do not remember reporting to him with respect to what happened at the hospital, what the m doctor said? A: I don't remember.
MR.LEONARD: That night you mean?
MR.BREWER: Yes. I am just focusing on that evening.
THEWITNESS:I don't remember. 1131 BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Do you remember talking to him the following day?
A: I could have.
Q: W hen you say you could have, do you have a memory of that?
A: No.
Q:When you say you could have, does that sound like something that you would have done, to call 1221 him end check on her
A: Probably.
Q: Do you have a recollection of any discussions that you had with Mr. Simpson the day after the incident occurred?
A: The day after?
Q: Yes. Which would have been the 2nd—
A: The 2nd.
Q: —we now know.
: I don't know. I could have.
Q: Do you have any memory of seeing him the day after the incident occurred?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Assuming that is the date of the Rose Bowl, and we think it is, do you remember whether you saw Mr. Simpson before he went to the Rose Bowl that year?
MR.LEONARD: Objection. Vague as to time. At any time before he went to the Rose Bowl?
MR.BREWER: Yes. That day any time.
MR.LEONARD: Okay.
MR.BREWER: Absolutely.
THE WITNESS: Since you mention this, there is a thought in my mind right now that I probably went to the Rose Bowl if it was on the 2nd.
BYMR.BREWER:
Q: Do you have a memory now of going to the Rose Bowl that year?
A: No. It is just a thought in my mind. It
Page1100
could have been—
Q: Does it help if we tell you that it is Jason's first—
A: When you brought up Jason, some
thing in my mind clicked that Jason came up to me while I was on the side lines.
A: So is now your best recollection that you were probably at the Rose Bowl that year?
: Yes. Something is telling me—in my mind is telling me that I was there.
And were you there with O.J. Simpson that year?
A: Yes, I would have been there with him.
Q: Do you remember sitting with O.J. Simpson that year?
A: I think we were on the side lines, I think.
Q: Do you remember what he was wearing?
A: No.
Q: Other than you and Mr. Simpson, do you recall anyone else that was with you that year?
A: Huh-uh. I don't remember.
Q: So to the best of your knowledge as you e41 sit here today you just remember you and Mr. Simpson?
A: It could have been others, but I don't
Page110
remember.
Q: Do you remember the individual on Exhibit 07?
r41 A: He could have been.
Do you remember there being kind of a pregame party or event that you went to and then went m from there to the Rose Bowl?
A: I don't remember. There is always a pregame thing. I don't know if we were in time to go into the hospitality tent, as they called them, or did we get there just before the game started. I really don't remember.
Q:Because you are scalums, is there special—there is obviously special treatment anyway, but is there a particular event that is held for former SC football players that attend the Rose Bowl?
A: I don't know. It is just in general there is various support groups that have their own tents. The network could have had their tents up. O.J. could have been invited by the networks to come down. I don't know who covered the game that year.
Q: When you say he could have been invited by the networks, you are talking about going up and maybe doing some commentary or just giving an interview?
A: Into the hospitality suite, the hospitality tent.
Q: I see. Do you recall giving any interviews that year?
Me? Q:Yes. : Not How about Mr. Simpson, do you recall seeing him being interviewed
by anyone while you were at the game?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Do you recall his demeanor during the course of the football game?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. BREWER: Let me make it more specific.
Q: During the course of the Rose Bowl do you I recall observing that Mr. Simpson was upset?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
THE WITNESS: I don't know. I was watching the game.
Q: Do you recall observing that he was emotional at all?
MR.LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
BY MR. BREWER:
Apart from maybe the outcome of the game?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Do you recall any discussion that you had at the Rose Bowl relative to the events the preceding day?
: No, I don't remember.
: Do you remember where you went after the game?
A: I couldn't tell you.
: Do you remember going back to Rockingham after the Rose Bowl?
A: I remember coming back to Rockingham or I could have went back to Wayne's or I could have went home. I really don't know.
Q:You have no memory of what you did—
A: No.
Q: Do you have any memory of seeing Nicole after the Rose Bowl?
MR. LEONARD: You mean that day? MR. BREWER: Yes. That day after the Rose Bowl.
THE WITNESS: The 2nd? BY MR. BREWER:
Q: Yes, on the 2nd.
A: No, I don't remember.
Do you have a memory after the Rose Bowl on the 2nd of talking to Nicole by telephone?
A: I don't remember. I may have.
Q:Checking on her health or her medical condition?
A: Maybe. I don't know. I really don't rs1 remember.
Q: But again you have no memory one way or the other as to whether you did that?
A: No.
Q: Other than the hospital is it on the 1st, did you ever take Nicole for any follow-up medical visits—
A: No.
Q:—relative to the '89 incident? A: No.
Q: And that is the only occasion that you have ever had to take her to the hospital for any reason?
A: Yes. Yes.
Q: You are kind of pausing like you are not certain.
A: I'm trying to get the cobwebs out. I remember going to the hospital with her when she was giving birth.
Q: Apart from giving birth, this is the only time because of an injury that you ever had to take her to the hospital?
A: I have taken her to doctor appointments, dental appointments.
Q: Doctor appointments because of an injury?
A: No.
Q: Dental appointments because of some injury to her mouth?
A: No.
Q: Apart from this hospital visit during the '89 incident, do you recall any other incidents that you had to take her to the hospital for?
A: No.
Q: How about where you accompanied Mr. Simpson when he took her to the hospital as a result of some injury, do you recall that?
A: No, I don't.
Q: How about accompanying anyone else and Nicole—
A: No.
Q —to the hospital because of an injury—
A: No.
Q: —do you recall that?
A: No.
: Other than the arguments and the physical altercation that we have talked about, do you recall any other fight or argument that we have not discussed during the course of the deposition?
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Compound. Please let me get my objection in. Objection. Compound—
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
MR. LEONARD:— lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: Could you raise your hand next time.
MR. BREWER: Okay. Thanks, Mr. Cowlings, I have nothing further.
MR.LEONARD: I don't have any questions.
MR. PETROCELLI: Can we have the stipulation that the original will be sent to you, Mr. Re, on behalf of Mr. Cowlings; you will have 30 days from your receipt in which to inform us of any changes and whether it has been signed; and if not so informed, that a certified copy can be used in lieu of an original for all purposes; the court reporter is otherwise relieved of his and her statutory dudes.
MR. RE: Yes.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This concludes the deposition of Allen Cowlings, Volume IV. The number of videotapes used was three. We are going off the record, and the time is approximately 1:51.
(ENDING TIME: 1:51 P.M.)
I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT
THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
SUBSCRIBED AT , CALlFORNIA,THIS _ DAY OF _ ,19_. WITNESS