|
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS, VS. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (Jurors resumed their respective seats.) THE COURT: Morning. JURORS: Good morning, Your Honor. MR. PETROCELLI: Good morning, Your Honor. MR. KELLY: Morning. THE COURT: You may proceed. MR. BAKER: I have a couple more questions just because I had a whole night to think of it. THE COURT: I knew I shouldn't have let you go home. MR. KELLY: Based on -- on that, I object to any more questions by Mr. Baker. THE CLERK: You're still under oath. Would you state your name again for the record. THE WITNESS: Phillip Vannatter. DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. BAKER: Q. Mr. Vannatter, good morning. A. Good morning. Q. Now, did you meet with Mr. Kelly last night? A. For about five minutes, yes. Q. In terms of the June 28, 1994 search warrant that you signed the affidavit for, that was to obtain permission to search Mr. Simpson's house to get a knife, clothes, shoes, and any murder weapon that you could find, right? A. Yes. MR. KELLY: Objection, relevance, Your Honor. THE COURT: Go ahead. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And the people that carried out that search warrant, one of them was David Martin, correct? A. Detective Dave Martin, yes. Q. And it's your understanding that he searched in the area behind the vanity mirrors, where there's a medicine chest in Mr. Simpson's -- in Mr. Simpson's house, because it was a very thorough search, correct? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for speculation, hearsay also, unless he was there and made the observations, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained unless it's a percipient observation. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You testified yesterday that this was a very thorough search of Mr. Simpson's house; do you recall that? A. I believe it was. Q. And I take it that you came to that conclusion, because you talked to the individuals that did that, and came to your own independent assessment before you tell this jury, under penalty of perjury, that that was a very thorough search, true? A. I believe it was a very thorough search. Q. To include a very thorough search in looking for the item, namely a knife that had been reported that Mr. Simpson bought downtown while doing a film? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay. Already injecting it in his question, Your Honor. MR. BAKER: I'll lay the foundation. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You had heard subsequent to the arrest of Mr. Simpson that he had purchased, sometime previously downtown while filming, a single-edged knife, correct? MR. KELLY: Same objection, calls for hearsay. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Yes. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And part of the -- part of the search warrant of June 28 was to in fact see if that knife was in his house, correct? A. It was to search for it, yes. Q. And when you had Detective Dave Martin -- and by the way, Detective Fuhrman was in on that search, too, wasn't he? A. He was there, yes. Q. Were you there? A. Yes. Q. And is it your testimony, sir, that in the vanity upstairs where the medicine chest is or behind the vanity, that David Martin searched there and found no knife? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay unless he's a percipient witness. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. PETROCELLI: Also irrelevant, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Were you present at the hearing on 9/22/94 for the criminal case when David Martin testified? MR. PETROCELLI: We're going to get into what's in that hearing. MR. KELLY: I would object, scope, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) It's your testimony that certainly, to do a thorough search, you'd have to look in medicine chests, isn't that true? MR. PETROCELLI: Same objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. I think we went over this yesterday. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, one other thing, Otis Marlow is a pal of yours? MR. KELLY: Objection, asked and answered, relevance. THE COURT: Overruled. A. A pal of mine? Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Yeah, he's a friend of yours? A. Yeah, he's a friend, and a man that I worked with for a number of years. Q. And Otis Marlow was the fellow that you sent out into the streets between Bundy and Rockingham and into the sewers to see if there could be found any bloody clothes, any murder weapon, any shoes, true? A. There were a number of detectives that did that. Q. How many? A. I can't tell you exactly. It was -- it was an organized search between the two locations. Q. And how long did it take to search between the two locations? A. I believe it took an entire day. Q. And there were -- in addition to a number of detectives, there were a number of other people, including Boy Scouts, were there not? THE COURT: Number -- not Boy Scouts, Explorer Scouts. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And they searched the shrubs, trash, into the sewers, all of that, to find any bloody clothes, shoes, murder weapon, correct? MR. KELLY: Objection, relevance, based on hearsay unless these were his own observations. THE COURT: Overruled. A. That's what I was told, yes. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And absolutely nothing was found, isn't that true? A. Nothing to my knowledge. Q. And you also directed people to take apart plumbing in Mr. Simpson's home to see if blood could be found, isn't that true? A. I didn't direct that, no. Q. You were aware that it had occurred, and not one thing was found, isn't that true? MR. KELLY: Objection, calls for hearsay. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I was aware that it occurred. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you were aware that, for example, they took apart the plumbing relative to the washing machine to see if there was any blood in the -- whatever those pipes are called, the drain pipes, right? A. I don't know that I was aware of that. I was aware that they checked the plumbing in the bathroom. MR. BAKER: Nothing further. THE COURT: Cross. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY: Q. Mr. Vannatter, when you left Bundy the first time at approximately 5 a.m. that morning on June 13 to go to Rockingham, how long did you expect to be gone for? A. Probably 10 or 15 minutes. Q. Okay. And upon your return to Bundy in 10 or 15 minutes, would that be when you called a criminalist? MR. BAKER: Calls for speculation on the part of this witness, Your Honor, and leading. THE COURT: Leading. Sustained. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) What did you intend to do, upon your arrival back at Bundy in 10 or 15 minutes? A. I would have notified all the support people to respond to the location. Q. Would that have included the criminalist? A. That would have included the criminalist. Q. Now, you indicated upon your observation of what appeared to you to be a blood drop on the Bronco at Rockingham, you called the criminalist at that time; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. What is the purpose of calling the criminalist? A. Yes. Q. What is the purpose of calling the criminalist to Rockingham at that time? A. I wanted to personally be there when he tested that. I believed it was blood, and I wanted to be there when -- personally when he tested it. Q. And was there anything you intended for him to do after he tested that blood also? MR. BAKER: Objection, calls to speculation. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Absolutely. I would have had him -- if it would have turned out not to be blood, or there were no other evidence, I would have then accompanied him to Bundy. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Okay. And you indicated in that search warrant affidavit that day, that that appeared to be human blood on the Ford Bronco door handle, correct, and that in fact it was tested and turned out to be human blood? A. It turned out. Q. Do you recall that? A. It was tested positive for blood, yes. Q. Okay. So you actually were there at Rockingham when Criminalist Fung conducted the phenolphthalein test on the Bronco door spot? A. Yes. MR. BAKER: Assumes facts not in evidence. A. Yes. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And were the results of that phenolphthalein test conveyed to you at Rockingham, before you left for the search warrant? A. Yes. Q. And was the result of that test that it was presumptively blood on the door handle? A. Yes. MR. BAKER: Hearsay. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And would it be fair to say, that based on that presumptive test, the location of the blood, you concluded it was human blood? A. I believed it was, yes. Q. Okay. Now, another thing -- A. I believed it was, yes. Q. When you were in Rockingham that first morning, you indicated that Detective Fuhrman was out of your sight of vision for a period of time? A. Yeah, I didn't watch him the whole time, yes. Q. Were there times you weren't able to see Detective Lange also? A. Certainly. Q. And Detective Phillips? A. Certainly. Q. Were there times that you were out of their sight also? A. I'm sure I was, yes. Q. Now, going to the south side of the Rockingham residence, back when you first observed the glove with Detective Fuhrman, you indicated that there was no evidence of anyone coming over the fence, correct? A. I didn't see any evidence of it. Q. Okay. You didn't see any torn clothing on the fence? A. No. Q. Didn't see any blood drops near you, immediately around the glove, did you? A. No. No. Q. I believe you also indicated you never went closer than four feet west of where the glove was; is that correct also? A. That's correct, yes. Q. That means you stopped four feet short of that glove? A. Yes. Q. And I believe you indicated the foliage along the fence appeared to be heavy? A. Yes. Q. Now, do you know, back along that fence, here in the vicinity where the glove was found, whether or not there was an area large enough for someone to have come through the foliage and over the fence? MR. BAKER: I object, Your Honor, there's no foundation for that. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Did you observe any area in the foliage, around the glove, large enough where someone could have come through the foliage and over the fence? A. I wasn't looking for anything like that. I -- I don't know. Q. Okay. So you didn't observe anything one way or the other? A. No. Q. Okay. As you recall, was the glove found just short of that air conditioner in the wall back there? A. Yeah, I believe it was west -- slightly west of the air conditioner. MR. KELLY: Steve, can we see the video. MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to any video. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. BAKER: Can I be heard on that, Your Honor. THE COURT: No. MR. BAKER: We don't know what video this is. THE COURT: Which video is this? MR. KELLY: It's June of -- THE COURT: Excuse me? MR. KELLY: It's a -- THE COURT: Turn it off for a minute. What -- MR. KELLY: It's a video taken of the south walkway, by the son of Mr. Simpson's personal secretary on June 18, 1994. MR. BAKER: Can we approach. MR. PETROCELLI: They produced it. THE COURT: Okay, approach the bench. (The following proceedings were held at the bench with the reporter.) THE COURT: Whose video is it? MR. KELLY: It was made by Gary Randa, who is the son of Kathy Randa, Mr. Simpson's personal secretary/administrative assistant for 20-odd years, Your Honor. It was made in June, 1994, shortly after Mr. Simpson's arrest, depicting the south walkway, the fence, the bushes and conditions. THE COURT: How did you get it? MR. KELLY: Pursuant to -- MR. PETROCELLI: Court order. Your court order. THE COURT: Okay. MR. PETROCELLI: And here's -- THE COURT: Is that who he is -- MR. PETROCELLI: Gary Randa's under his control. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. BAKER: Wait. Wait a minute. I want to make a record. This witness has never seen this tape, unless they played it to him. This witness has testified as to his percipient knowledge. They can not now put on a tape as affirmative evidence, without any foundation that it was played on June 28. I'd like the rules of evidence in this courtroom to be equal to both sides. I'd like it to start now. And I think this is ridiculous, that you can allow them to play a videotape without any -- without one bit of foundation, and put it on to a witness who says I didn't -- I didn't see this. This videotape was done on June 28, and for you to put this on -- on this witness without the witness's -- after they've rested their case is absolutely ridiculous. You wouldn't even let me have a jury view. Now you're saying they can put on a tape when their case has rested, and a guy that says I didn't see it, I didn't even look. I think it's ridiculous. I think there ought to be some -- some -- MR. PETROCELLI: Keep your voice down. Let me explain. THE COURT: How are you going to connect up the videotape with this witness? MR. PETROCELLI: If you go back and look in the record, through his leading questions yesterday, he got this witness to say that he didn't see anything on a heavy wooded area down the south side, that he observed no evidence that anybody could -- could come over the fence, and that he looked all the way down as far as he can look. He went through this in some detail yesterday on his examination. This is the area right where the glove was found. Okay, Your Honor. And we're going to ask him whether he saw or didn't see that opening in the fence. Mr. Baker elicited testimony suggesting that he saw the area and did not see any evidence, any opening, any holes in the foliage, and he opened this matter wide open. We're allowed to cross-examine this witness on this point. MR. BAKER: The witness just testified -- MR. PETROCELLI: He can't have it both ways. And for the record, I want to object to these outrageous comments about the rules of evidence not applying evenhandedly. This is out of line. MR. BAKER: I don't care what you like, I'll tell you that, number one. Number two, this witness has just testified that he didn't look. Now they're going to say look at this after I've got change of circumstances. It is change of circumstances -- MR. PETROCELLI: A week or two -- MR. BAKER: Let me finish. MR. PETROCELLI: Keep your voice down, Mr. Baker. MR. BAKER: On June 12 -- these murders occurred on June 13. The morning of June 13 is when -- the evening of June 12, morning of June 13 is when somebody would have to have gone over that fence. This video was taken on 6/28/94. They opposed, and you upheld the fact that we can't have a jury view because of change of circumstances. They had detectives traipsing all through there between the 12th and the 28th. And I object to it. I think there's no foundation for it. You can stop a hummingbird's wings in flight -- MR. PETROCELLI: This is right where the glove was found, Your Honor. MR. BAKER: It's a photo taken to accentuate exactly what he wants to show, and with a Nikkon, I can stop a hummingbird's wings flapping, I can't see them. MR. PETROCELLI: You can see the top -- top of the fence posts are bent down. I asked Mr. Simpson at his -- his examination. He denied all this. He specifically went in with this witness, he asked four, five, six questions, you can go back and ask, yesterday he led him to say there's no evidence that anybody could come over that fence. He said it was heavy, thick, wooden, he used all these words to suggest that -- that Mr. Vannatter was able to definitively demonstrate that there was no break. THE COURT: When was this photograph made? MR. PETROCELLI: This photograph was taken -- and it's even better on the video. This was taken when we viewed the property about, when was it, in September or August of this year. But the video is like two weeks after the murders. It's even better than this. THE COURT: Okay. Overruled. (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.) MR. BAKER: Judge, I take it we're not going to have any audio on this tape. MR. PETROCELLI: There's no audio. MR. FOSTER: There is audio. MR. PETROCELLI: Turn the audio down. MR. KELLY: This is Exhibit 821, by the way, Your Honor. THE COURT: 8 what? MR. KELLY: 821. (The instrument herein described as a videotape of side of fence was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 821.) Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Detective, do you recognize this as this south walkway? A. Yes, I do. THE COURT: Is that the best quality the tape is? MR. PETROCELLI: Steve? MR. FOSTER: Yes. MR. KELLY: That's the way it was produced, Your Honor. MR. BAKER: Phil's focusing it, Your Honor. (Tape is played.) Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Detective Vannatter, did you observe, first of all, the air conditioner on the left-hand side of the screen there? A. Yes. Q. And is it your testimony that the glove was a couple of feet, or just short west of that air conditioner when you observed it? A. It was slightly west. I don't know exactly how far because I never went all the way up there. Q. Okay. Now, that night when you stopped four, five feet short of the glove, did you observe this opening in the foliage right next to the air conditioner that night? MR. BAKER: I object, that's an opening, I object to him leading this witness. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Did you observe that area above the fence depicted in the video that night when you were there, Detective? MR. BAKER: And the point is to lead. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I did not. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And with regard to these -- MR. BAKER: Then I move -- in view of that answer, I move that the testimony of this witness, any further testimony relative to this be stricken and that the tape -- the jury be admonished not to take into account anything they just saw on the tape. THE COURT: The jury is admonished that pending any further foundational evidence that must be produced, you will hold your judgment of this photograph in abeyance. I'll give you instructions if and when we get, or don't get foundation. MR. BAKER: Can we take that off the monitor? THE COURT: Yes, we may. MR. PETROCELLI: We will have foundation, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Just a couple other things. Mr. Vannatter, when you arrived at Parker Center early afternoon on the 13th with Mr. Simpson, you had testified that he road down with you in your car; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Did anybody else arrive there for Mr. Simpson, shortly after you arrived down there at Parker Center? A. Yes. Q. Who did that happen to be? A. His two attorneys, Howard Weitzman and Skip Taft. Q. And what, if anything, did Mr. Simpson do with his two attorneys, Howard Weitzman and Skip Taft, after their arrival down there at Parker Center? A. They had a closed-door meeting, out of our presence, for 20 to 30 minutes. Q. Okay. Just the three of them? A. Yes. Q. Did you provide them a room? A. Yes. Q. The door was closed? A. Yes. Q. You weren't privy to that discussion, were you? A. No. Q. That was prior to your interview of Mr. Simpson that day? A. That's correct. Q. Last thing. Your arrival at Rockingham at about 5:15 the night of June 13, you were asked a number of questions by Mr. Baker regarding that? A. Yes. Q. And what, if anything, did you have Mr. Simpson's specimen of blood in at that time, upon your arrival at Rockingham? A. In an analyzed evidence envelope. Q. Was that a gray evidence envelope? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Okay. Where in the car was it upon your arrival there? A. The front seat beside me. Q. And what did you do with that envelope when you exited the car? A. I hand carried it to Dennis Fung. Q. Was there -- what -- would it be fair to say there was a large number of media there when you arrived at Rockingham? A. There was a large number, yes. Q. People with still cameras? A. Yes. Q. Video equipment? A. Yes. Q. Number of other uniform police officers there? A. Yes. MR. KELLY: Can I play one other video. MR. FOSTER: 228. MR. KELLY: 228 would be the same time frame of Mr. Vannatter's arrival at Rockingham. (Tape played from 17:16:29 to 17:18:52.) Q. (BY MR. KELLY) That's the envelope in your right hand, Detective? A. Yes. Q. Okay. That's you exiting -- entering the Rockingham foyer at that time? A. I really can't see from here. Q. Okay. Can you step up and -- by the way, was that Mr. Simpson's black grip you were returning? A. Yes, it was. MR. KELLY: And if you could stop that for a second. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) You able to see Dennis Fung in there at that time? MR. KELLY: If you back up a second, Steve. A. Yes, I see Mr. Fung. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Is that where you handed him the evidence envelope? A. Yes, sir. (Video tape reference is 17:18:59.) Q. You can have a seat. One other thing, Mr. Vannatter, going back to Rockingham early that morning, you indicated after you viewed the glove that -- that after -- Detective Fuhrman had gone back to Bundy to make an observation of the first glove there; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And did you make any observations in the driveway area of Rockingham, after he had left the scene? A. I did. Q. What was that? A. I discovered a number of blood drops leading from the rear of the Bronco to the front door of the residence. Q. Okay. And upon Mr. Fung's arrival there, the criminalist, did you point those blood drops out? MR. BAKER: I'm going to object. This is all beyond the scope. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. KELLY: I have no further questions. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER: Q. Let me show you -- I'll show you next in order. THE CLERK: 2251. (The instrument herein described as an analyzed evidence envelope was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2251.) MR. BAKER: 2251. Q. Mr. Vannatter, that is an analyzed evidence envelope like the one that you say you got from your desk and put into -- put the vial that you got from Thano Peratis in, correct? MR. KELLY: Objection, beyond the scope. MR. BAKER: He went into the blood vial on the tape. MR. KELLY: Just asked an observation on the video that Mr. Baker had played portions of yesterday, Your Honor. I didn't go into the content or the writings. THE COURT: You did point out the envelope. Overruled. MR. KELLY: Okay. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That's like the one that you say that you had gotten from your desk in -- or from -- or handed to Thano Peratis and had him sign it, right? A. Yes. Q. And -- A. Yes. Q. And the instructions on that analyzed evidence envelope are of -- that that is supposed to be sealed, right, as soon as the blood vial is placed in it? MR. BAKER: Can I have my picture back. (Mr. Petrocelli hands photo to Mr. Baker.) MR. BAKER: Thank you. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) See where it says under the officer requesting withdrawal? A. Yes. Q. Okay. It's supposed to be sealed, is it not? A. It says when the affidavit is completed, sign below as a witnessing officer and seal the envelope, yes. Q. And was, in fact, the envelope with the -- strike that. I take it that you followed these instructions, and once there was an affidavit of the person withdrawing blood, you sealed that envelope, right? Very important, isn't it? A. No, I didn't seal the envelope and the reason I didn't was Mr. Fung was going to book the evidence, and he needed to see what he was going to book. I couldn't seal it and ask him to book it without seeing what was in it. Q. You testified in this courtroom last month that you in fact sealed the envelope, did you, sir? A. No, sir. No, sir. I never sealed this envelope. The other envelopes I got were sealed. Q. So let me see if I've got this straight. Play the video. (Videotape played at 171659.) MR. P. BAKER: 228. Tape played at 171659. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Do you agree that that envelope in your left hand is not sealed, correct? (Referring to videotape.) A. I don't recall sealing the envelope, and the reason I don't was it was not -- it could not have been booked at that point. (Videotape stops playing at 17:19.) Q. Detective Vannatter, you agree that that envelope you had in your left hand just shown in the videotape was not sealed, true? A. I believe it was not sealed, yes. Q. And so -- MR. BAKER: Put this on the Elmo. MR. P. BAKER: This is 225 (sic). MR. BAKER: I think it's 17. Okay. Sorry. (The instrument herein described as a photograph of the actual analyzed evidence envelope was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2252) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) This is a photograph of the envelope that was actually used, is it not, can you see it? A. I would guess it is. Q. Okay. MR. BAKER: Now, Phil, take it down to the bottom, please. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, Thano Peratis signed, under penalty of perjury, that he drew the blood on 6/13 at 2:30, and apparently executed the declaration that says 5/19/94. That has to be an error, correct? A. Yeah. Q. He obviously didn't withdraw the blood a month before? A. The murder hadn't occurred yet. That's obviously an error. Q. Now -- Now, Mr. Vannatter, there is a set procedure after blood is drawn from an individual relative to sealing the envelope, relative to initialing the envelope, every time the seal is broken, and dating and time go on the back of the envelope to ensure that there is a chain of custody, correct? MR. KELLY: Objection, beyond the scope, Your Honor, irrelevant what the procedure is. THE COURT: Overruled. A. The policy on it is you book it as soon as practical. Once it's booked, then every time it's reopened, it's initialed, yes. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Detective Vannatter, if this is such an important piece of evidence that you drove an hour and 20 minutes, because chain of custody was important, you sure wanted to have that envelope sealed with the blood in it, so that the chain of custody was protected if you weren't going to take any blood out of that vial, true? MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The rules require you to seal the envelope and you didn't do it; isn't that correct, sir? MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative, beyond the scope, irrelevant. THE COURT: Just a minute. MR. P. BAKER: Next in order. THE COURT: This is 225 -- MR. P. BAKER: I think -- THE CLERK: What's up on the screen? MR. P. BAKER: The blood vial envelope, next in order. Didn't I say that, Judge? THE COURT REPORTER: What is the number then? THE COURT: I don't know. We'll find out in a minute. THE CLERK: The evidence envelope 2251. THE COURT: That makes that 52. THE CLERK: 2252. THE COURT: Okay. Read me the question. THE REPORTER: (Reading:) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The rules require you to seal the envelope and you didn't do it; isn't that correct, sir? THE COURT: Overruled. A. I testified I didn't seal the envelope. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And under the instructions, number 4, it was after the affidavit was completed around 4:30 (sic), long before 5:15, before you took the vial and it'd been in your automobile, correct? A. Yes. Q. Sign below as witnessing officer and seal the vial in this envelope using completed sealed evidence labels. None of that complied with it, true? A. That's true. Q. So the envelope with Mr. Simpson's blood in it was in your possession from 2:30 to 5:16, or 5:19, or whenever it was unsealed with only you in possession of that vial of Mr. Simpson's reference blood, correct? A. That's correct. It was part of my job, Mr. Baker. Q. Yeah. And part of your job was to follow the instructions; to A, book evidence immediately, B, seal the envelope, none of which you did. That was part of your job too, wasn't it? MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative, compound. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, one other thing, when you as a detective on this particular case went back to the southside of Mr. Simpson's house, looked at the glove, you were four feet away, what -- from about me to you, four feet away, you looked at the glove, you looked down at the shrubbery, and you found absolutely not one bit of evidence that anyone came over the fence and disturbed any shrubbery whatsoever, correct? MR. PETROCELLI: Lack of foundation given that he was unable to see down the entire length of the fence, as Mr. Baker pointed out. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I was not really looking to see if anybody came over the fence. I didn't see any evidence of anybody coming over the fence. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Mr. Vannatter, you're a detective of 23 years. You find a piece of evidence, you've just been to Bundy where there's a glove underneath a fence within 3 feet of two bodies, and you are informed by Detective Fuhrman that there is a glove there, and there is a hedge going over on the right side as you view the glove, there is no blood trail, there is not one drop of blood around any leaf on the ground, and you're telling this jury -- MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, this is closing argument. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You had an obligation to look, didn't you? MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) As a detective, are you telling this jury you didn't look to see whether or not there was an area or destruction of broken branches or anything; is that what you're telling me? A. I'm telling you I didn't observe any evidence of anything coming over the fence. MR. BAKER: Thank you, sir. Nothing further. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY: Q. Mr. Vannatter, when you left Parker Center with that evidence envelope with the blood vial in it, did you drive directly to the Rockingham residence and hand that to Mr. Fung? A. Yes. MR. KELLY: I have no further questions, Your Honor. MR. BAKER: Nothing. THE COURT: Your're excused. THE WITNESS: Thank you. THE COURT: Call your next witness. MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, under 776 we call Andrea Mazzola. MR. PETROCELLI: Object to 776. MR. BAKER: 767. MR. PETROCELLI: Object to that also. THE COURT: Overruled. Wait a minute. Approach the bench a minute. (The following proceedings were held at the bench with the reporter:) THE COURT: He did what? MR. PETROCELLI: We object. These witnesses are not hostile witnesses. They're city employees. They're not aligning with the plaintiffs. There's no showing that they are hostile. Mr. Vannatter indicated he came back on his own volition. These people are not hostile. MR. BLASIER: Well, Your Honor -- MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor -- THE COURT: I'm going to permit the defense to examine by way of cross-examination. MR. PETROCELLI: Then let us lead as well then, Your Honor. THE COURT: I don't think so. I think this situation is such that these witnesses have testified previously adversely to Mr. Simpson. A certain amount of latitude should be allowed to the defense in examining these witnesses. MR. BLASIER: Thank you. ANDREA MAZZOLA, called as a witness by Defendants, was sworn and testified as follows: THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? THE WITNESS: I do. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, while Mr. Blasier is getting the material, I'd like to move into evidence 1797, 2250, 2251 and 2252. (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1797.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2250.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2251.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2252.) THE COURT: Hearing no objection, they're received. THE CLERK: Please state and spell both your first and your last names for the record. THE WITNESS: Andrea Mazzola, A-n-d-r-e-a M-a-z-z-o-l-a. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Ms. Mazzola, can you please tell the jury your occupation. A. I'm a criminalist employed with the City of Los Angeles. Q. And you're with the Scientific Investigation Division of the police department? A. Correct. Q. Now, could you tell us since the verdict in the criminal case acquitting Mr. Simpson in October of 1995, have you spent any time working with the plaintiffs' attorneys or other representatives in this case? A. I've only had one meeting with the plaintiffs' attorneys. Q. When was that? A. This past Saturday. Q. How much time did you spend with them? A. An hour and a half. Q. Who did you spend that time with? A. Mr. Lambert. Q. Now, in preparation for your testimony, did you review the work that you had done on the Simpson criminal case? A. I looked at some of the paperwork, yes. Q. Now, as of June 13 of 1994, the time that you went to the various crime scenes in this case, had you received any training whatsoever in the collection of evidence for possible DNA testing? A. I received the training that we get for the collection of biological fluids at a scene. Q. Had you received any specific training with respect to DNA testing? A. With respect? Q. And particular problems that might relate to biological evidence with DNA testing? A. No. Q. Now, as of that date, June 13 of 1994, how long had you been a criminalist? A. Approximately six months. Q. And prior to the time that you were a criminalist at LAPD, you didn't have any experience of processing crime scenes; is that accurate? A. That's correct. Q. And at the time that you processed the scenes in this case, how long had you been -- how long had you been in training, shall I say, to process crime scenes? A. In training as -- Q. In learning how to process a crime scene. A. We were given in-house instruction on how to process crime scenes, plus as criminalists, once we went out with the more experienced criminalists during the day calls, and also we volunteered to go out with them at night and on the weekends. Q. As of June 13 you were -- you were still a trainee, were you not? A. I was a Criminalist 1. Q. You considered yourself a trainee, didn't you? A. I was a Criminalist 1. There is no designation as trainee. Q. Do you remember testifying in August of 1994 at a hearing concerning what procedures were used to collect evidence in this case? A. I remember testifying in '94, yes. Q. And you testified at that time that you considered yourself a trainee; isn't that correct? A. That, I do not remember. Q. Referring to testimony of August 23, 1994, page 689, line 20. Do you recall being asked this question and giving this answer? (Reading:) Q. And I take it currently, as of right now, today, this being August of '94, you are still a trainee in crime scene collection; is that correct? A. I would go out with the Criminalist 3 to a crime scene, so yes, I guess you would classify me as a crime scene trainee. Q. Do you recall giving that testimony? A. No, I do not. Q. Would it refresh your memory to look at it? A. I doubt it. I might have. I don't remember exactly what happened in '94. Q. Now, at the time that you went to the crime scenes in this case, that was only the third crime scene that you had worked on; is that correct? A. I think it was about the third, yes. Q. And at the two crime scenes that you worked on prior to this one, you weren't the primary person in charge of collecting evidence, were you? A. I was not the primary criminalist. That is correct. Q. So, would it be fair to say that the Simpson crime scene, and Simpson case in June of '94 was the first scene where you were given the principal responsibility for actually collecting the evidence from the ground and various other places? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, irrelevant, in limine order No. 11. THE COURT: Read that question again. THE COURT REPORTER: (Reading:) Q. So, would it be fair to say that the Simpson crime scene and Simpson case in June of '94, was the first scene where you were given the principal responsibility for actually collecting the evidence from the ground and various other places? THE COURT: Overruled. A. At the other two scenes, I worked as part of a team with the other criminalists. I collected biological samples from those scenes as well as the Simpson scene. Q. (BY MR BLASIER) You collected most of the biological samples in the Simpson case, did you not? A. That's correct. Q. Now, in fact, when you got the call -- By the way, what time did you get called out to a location in the Simpson case? A. I received a call at home at approximately 5:26 to 5:30, somewhere in there. Q. In the morning? A. In the morning. Q. And where were you told to go? A. Rockingham. Q. Now, at that time, you were -- it was specified that you were going to be the officer in charge; isn't that correct? A. That's what was written on the form. Q. And that's what you were to be, correct? A. Officer in charge. The fact that I was the primary criminalist on call, I was the one that received the call. Q. But what -- Is that all that being the officer in charge means? A. As being the primary, yes. Q. It doesn't have anything to do with what your responsibility is at the crime scene? A. Well, in this case, after we got to Rockingham and learned more of what had happened, then the Criminalist 3, Mr. Fung, became in charge. He -- He became more of the person who made the decisions on what would happen. Q. So then being the officer in charge, that does have a certain meaning beyond just the fact that you're on call, correct? A. Correct. Q. And now let me show you what's been marked as Civil Exhibit 943. Do these appear to be your crime-scene notes from the Rockingham location from June 13,1994? (The instrument herein described as copy Mazzola crime-scene investigation checklist was marked for identification as Defendants Exhibit No. 943.) A. Yes. Q. You would agree that document lists you as the officer in charge, correct? A. Correct. Q. And is it accurate that most of that document is in your handwriting, that you prepared that? A. Most of it appears to be in my handwriting, yes. Q. Incidentally, at that time, were you the least experienced criminalist at SID in processing crime scenes? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. A. The least experienced as in? Q. Processing crime scenes? A. I was hired with other people, we were all Crim 1's. Q. Was there anybody with less experience than you? A. I don't know how many calls the other people had gone out on. Q. Is it accurate that you collected -- at the Bundy crime scene you collected every biological stain, with the exception of two stains from -- from bloody shoe prints? A. That is not correct. Q. What stains -- Now, the two stains that I'm referring to is stain Nos.' 55 and 56. Does that sound familiar to you? A. From the two bloody shoe prints? Q. Those were collected by Dennis Fung, correct? A. Correct. Q. Is it your testimony that he collected other biological samples from the Bundy crime scene other than those two? A. Only one stain -- he collected a little more blood and he collected maybe one or two stains from the caged area that were on the -- actual fence. Q. Do you remember testifying at the criminal trial in this case, with respect to who collected blood stains at what location? A. I remember testifying, yes. MR. PETROCELLI: What page? Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Referring to -- I'm sorry, this would be the August -- August 23 of 1994, the hearing that we talked about a little while ago, page 735, line 16. You remember being asked this question and giving this answer -- this series of answers. (Reading:) Q. Would you please look at your notes and tell me which numbers those are, and when you say that you say he collected the actual shoe prints or he collected alleged drops that were near the shoe prints. A. He, meaning Dennis Fung, if I remember correctly, took swatches of the red stains that were constituting the footprint itself. Q. Can you tell us which ones those were, please. A. Property Items 55 and 56. Q. And is that it? A. Yes. Q. All other blood stains at the Bundy crime scene were collected by you? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember that testimony? A. Not really, no. Q. You do recall testifying in August? A. Yes, I do recall testifying in August. Q. You have any reason to think that your testimony was anything other than that? A. No, not if it's there. Q. Now, with respect to the Rockingham scene, is it accurate to say that Dennis Fung collected a stain or two on the street, but you collected every other biological stain at that scene? A. For the most part, yes. Q. And for some of those stains you collected, Dennis Fung wasn't even supervising you, correct? A. Correct. Q. Was there at any time any discussion that perhaps someone with more experience should be processing these crime scenes? A. Not that I remember, no. Q. Now, when you were at the Bundy scene -- what time did you get to the Bundy scene? A. May I look at the note? Q. Sure. A. We arrived at Bundy approximately quarter after 10. Q. And what time had you arrived at Rockingham? A. Approximately 10 minutes after 7. Q. So you had been at Rockingham for approximately 3 hours before you went to Bundy, correct? A. Correct. Q. When you got to the Bundy scene, did you observe a blanket covering the body of Nicole Brown Simpson? A. I do not recall seeing Nicole Simpson when we arrived. Q. Do you recall seeing a blanket on the ground? A. Yes, I recall seeing a blanket. Q. Did you ever examine that blanket for any possible trace evidence? A. No. Q. Did you ever examine it for anything? A. No. MR. LAMBERT: Objection, irrelevant under in limine order No. 11. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And that blanket was left on the ground, after that crime scene was released, correct? A. I do not know what the detectives did with the blanket. Q. You and Dennis Fung never collected it, did you? A. We never collected it. Q. Now, at the Bundy scene, is it accurate that you are the one who collected both the knit cap and the Bundy glove? A. Correct. Q. And which one did you collect first? A. Offhand, I can't remember which was collected first. MR. BLASIER: Do we have the video? MR. P. BAKER: This is Civil 918. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Ms. Mazzola, can you turn and look at the video here. See if this refreshes your recollection. (Exhibit 918, videotape, played at CTC 135143.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you recognize that as you collecting the knit cap? A. Yes. Q. And you are wearing gloves, correct? A. Correct. Q. Now you're collecting the glove, correct? A. Correct. MR. BLASIER: You can turn it off. (Videotape stopped at 17:52:30.) Q. Now, you would agree that you did not change your gloves between collecting the knit cap and the glove; is that correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Correct. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You did not examine your hands between collecting the knit cap and the glove for any biological material that may have gotten on your hands from the knit cap, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you didn't examine your gloves for any possible trace evidence that might have come off the knit cap onto your gloves before you picked up the glove, correct? A. Correct. Q. Now, do you know -- do you have any independent recollection at all as to when you had changed your gloves prior to the time that you picked up the knit cap? MR. LAMBERT: From when? Vague question, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) From the time you got there? A. That day? I can't begin to tell you how many times I changed my gloves. I don't remember when I changed them. I know I changed them many times that day. Q. Can you tell me prior to the time that you picked up the knit cap, when you changed your gloves? A. No, I cannot. Q. And your reason for not changing your gloves between the knit cap and the glove was what? A. They're both in extreme close proximity to each other. When they are picked up, as you pick up any piece of evidence, if you're going to use your hands, you pick them up securely within the smallest area possible, you would not pick up a hat just by grabbing it, you pick it up in the smallest area possible, touch it as least as possible. Q. You're saying that you did that because the hat and the glove were in close proximity to each other? A. That I did what? Q. That's why you didn't change your gloves? A. That was one of the reasons. Q. Do you remember testifying at the criminal trial, page 23746, line 1, when you were asked with respect to why you didn't change your gloves. (Reading:) A. The hat and the glove at Bundy were touching each other. Q. Do you remember that testimony? (Reading:) They were not in two completely separate areas. They were in physical contact with each other. Q. Remember that testimony? A. I think so, yes. Q. And that's not accurate, is it? MR. LAMBERT: That wasn't impeachment, Your Honor. MR. BLASIER: I'll withdraw that. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Was there a time when they were touching each other, prior to the time that you collected them? A. At the time that I testified to that, I believed, to the best of my recollection, that the two items were touching each other. Q. Had you seen them touching each other prior to the time you collected them? A. I don't remember. Q. Prior to the time that you collected the Bundy glove, had you seen anyone pick it up and replace it on the ground? A. No, I did not. Q. Prior to the time -- Now, you collected the envelope with the glasses as well, did you not? A. Yes. Q. Prior to the time that you collected the envelope with the glasses, did you see anyone pick it up and replace it on the ground in a different location? A. No. MR. BLASIER: Now, could we have. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show you Exhibit 1532. Ms. Mazzola, when you arrived at the Bundy scene at approximately 10, 10:15 on the morning of the 13th, was there a piece of paper, as depicted in this photograph, on the ground between the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman? A. Right now, I don't remember seeing a piece of paper. Q. Did -- in your presence, did Detective Lange of -- did you ever see him examine a piece of paper like that at the scene -- at the Bundy scene? A. In my presence, no. Q. And you never collected that piece of paper, did you? A. Does not look familiar. Q. It doesn't show up anywhere in your checklist, either, as anything that you collected on that day, correct? A. If it's not on the checklist, we did not pick it up. Q. You want to verify that it's not there. (Witness reviews documents in a blue notebook binder.) Q. That's correct, you did not collect that? A. (Nods affirmatively.) Q. Let me show you People 92 -- I apologize for the picture -- to help situate the location of that piece of paper. And your testimony is that you never saw that there, correct? A. That? (Indicating to photograph of paper.) A. I honestly don't remember seeing it. Q. Okay. THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, let's take a break. MR. BLASIER: Sure. THE COURT: 10 minutes, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case. (Recess.) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) THE COURT: You may proceed. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Ms. Mazzola, one of your responsibilities with Dennis Fung, at the Bundy scene, was to examine the entire scene for possible evidence to collect, correct? A. Usually you have a walk-through at the beginning, yes. Q. And it's your responsibility, yours and Mr. Fung's, to identify all evidence that might be -- have some probative value and collect that evidence, correct? A. Correct. Q. And that involves the careful examination of the scene itself, doesn't it? A. Yes. Q. And you were at the Bundy scene from about 10:00 or 10:15 in the morning until when? A. Can I check? Q. Sure. (Witness reviews documents in blue notebook binder.) A. Approximately quarter after 3:00. Q. All right. So about six -- five hours, a little more than five hours? A. Somewhere around there, yes. Q. You had plenty of time to examine that scene, did you not? A. We had the walk-through, yes, and we started work. Q. And when you left that area, you felt you were done and you had completely processed the scene, correct? A. Correct. Q. Now, the so-called Bundy drops, these were drops that where are on the walkway, going out on the side of Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium, correct? A. There were drops on the walkway, yes. Q. Okay. (Referring to exhibit No. 67 entitled Blood Drops at Bundy, June 13, 1994.) MR. BLASIER: You want to take a look at this and orient yourself, if you could. Can you see it from there? MR. P. BAKER: The board is exhibit 67. MR. BLASIER: 67. (Exhibit 67 displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, one of the things that you do when you collect evidence is to document the evidence as you collect it, correct? A. Correct. Q. And the notes that you have in front of you -- I forget what number that is. 923? MR. P. BAKER: 943. MR. BLASIER: 943. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do those particular documents have a list of items that you collected from Bundy, or is that on a different checklist? A. That was on a different checklist. Q. Did you bring that other checklist with you? A. Did I? My copy, yes. Q. And why don't you pull that out, because I'm going to ask you some questions about it. The numbers on the drops in this chart 112, 13, 14, 15, and 17, those are photo I.D. numbers, are they not? A. Correct. Q. And they were later given different item numbers after they -- at the time they were brought in to be booked, I suppose, correct? A. They were assigned property numbers before final booking. Q. Okay. Now, could you look at your records and tell me now -- Incidentally, were these numbers assigned in sequence as to -- as you identified things? A. That is what you normally try to do, is to keep things sequential, if at all possible. Q. Okay. So 112 would be the first thing that you documented of this series? (Witness reviews documents in blue notebook binder.) A. It appears that 112 was the beginning -- the beginning of the drops. Q. That represents a drop found up here on the chart, indicating near -- the closest one to the front gate area? A. Correct. Q. Then the next one you did was 113, which was a little further, I guess, west down the walkway, correct? A. Correct. Q. Then 114, yet further down. Actually, this was on the way, on the steps, going down into this depressed area, or maybe this is going up, I guess, correct? 114? A. It was back further, yes. Q. Okay. And 115 is back by the back gate, correct? A. That would be further back, yes. Q. Tell me what you did after you did 115. Check your notes. (The witness complies.) A. It's number photo I.D. 116, indicates the stain that was taken off the front gate. Q. So you went from 115, near the back gate, back up to the front gate and did 116, correct? A. No. When the numbers were laid out, if another stain was identified up near the front, the next photo I.D. number could have been taken up and given to that stain. Once you start processing, you're ready to collect; you've done your measurements; you've done your numbers. The photographer takes his pictures; you do the sketches. Then you start collecting it, the last thing do you. Q. When were those cards put down there? Were they put down there in sequence? A. Mr. Fung started laying out the numbers on the walkway, as I started working at the front end. Q. Okay. Now, there was a stain out in the driveway area that got the number 117, correct? A. Correct. Q. Now, when did 116 on the front gate -- when was this number assigned? A. Probably before Mr. Fung laid out 117 at the back. Q. All right. And did you collect these in the same order? A. Once we started working on the trail blood drops in the back, they were picked up going back. Q. So you didn't process -- you didn't collect them in order of the photo I.D. numbers? A. You wouldn't go down to 115, stop what you're doing back there, walk up to the front, collect 116, and then walk all the way to the back to get 117. Q. Do you have any recollection at all as to what you did after 115? A. After I collected 115, I would collect 117. Q. You have a specific recollection that that's what you did? A. I would work my way back. That's what I've always done. Q. My question was, do you have a specific recollection that after 115, you went to 117? (Brief pause.) A. At this point, I mean, knowing what I do -- but as you say, an independent recollection, I can't say that. Q. And your notes, when you do those, your -- your notes, you do those sequentially as you process items, as you're supposed to, correct? A. Yes. Q. And in your notes, it shows that after 115, you did 116 on the front gate, correct? A. That's when it was measured. Just -- Q. Now, you did not notice anything of evidentiary value whatsoever on the back gate; isn't that correct? A. To the best of my recollection, I do not recall seeing a back gate. Q. My question is, you observed nothing of evidentiary value on the back gate, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. She just said she didn't see. THE COURT: She said she didn't see a back gate. Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) How many times did you walk along this pathway during the five hours that you were there? A. I can't tell you how many times. Q. Did you examine any areas that were above the ground for stains, for blood splatter? A. Mr. Fung had gone back there and had done the walk-through with the detectives, and he had identified what needed to be picked up. I personally did not. Q. So you didn't do any examination of the scene at all to determine what should be picked up? A. Along that back area, no. Q. And you don't even know if there was a gate there? MR. LAMBERT: Argumentative, Your Honor. THE COURT: You may answer. A. At that time, I did not recall seeing a back gate. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Okay. Now, incidentally, the proper way -- the correct way, under your procedures to document evidence such as these drops, is to take pictures with this -- these cards, correct? A. Correct. Q. And this is before collection, correct? A. Correct. Q. And isn't it also one of the requirements that you have a ruler in here so that you can tell what the size of the stain is? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. Evidence-collection techniques in limine ruling. THE COURT: Sustained. You can ask her if she had one or not. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) None of these pictures has a ruler in it to establish the size of any of the Bundy drops; isn't that correct? MR. LAMBERT: Same objection. THE COURT: Overruled. A. That's correct; there was no ruler. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Tell me how big 112 was. A. Other than the relationship of the size of the cards, of the drop, that's the only way to tell. Q. You never measured the size of any of these drops, did you? A. No. Q. You can't tell whether 117 is bigger than 114 or smaller than 112, can you? A. No. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, I want to ask you some questions about item number one 1 at the Rockingham scene. Why don't you pull those notes there, so you can refresh your recollection. (Witness reviews documents.) Q. Tell me what item 11 is from the Rockingham scene. A. It is a red stain. Q. Let me put 2137 on the Elmo. (Defendants' Exhibit 2137 is displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. And tell us, is that the redish stain that you just testified about? A. From that angle and distance, you can't. Q. Can you see the card? A. Yes. I can't see the stains from that picture. Q. Okay. But you recognize the area from where take stain was collected? A. I recognize the back area, yes. Q. And that was on a wire on the back walkway of Mr. Simpson's, correct? A. Correct. Q. Describe that stain for me. A. It was more of a very light smear than like a blood drop, more of a very light -- Q. Redish in color? A. Reddish-brown, yes. MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, next in order, please. THE CLERK: 2253. (The instrument herein referred to as document regarding stains and item numbers was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2253.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And you did a presumptive blood test on that stain, correct? A. Correct. Q. It came back positive, correct? A. Correct. MR. BLASIER: 2253 please. (Defendants' Exhibit 2253 displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. We're talking about item 11, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you collected that stain on June the 13th, 1994, correct? A. Correct. Q. You did a presumptive test and it came back positive, correct? A. Preliminary positive, yes. MR. BLASIER: Why don't you put a plus there for positive. MR. P. BAKER: (Mr. P. Baker complies.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, your testimony here is that it -- that was a redish stain, correct? A. A very light redish-brown, very hard to see. Q. Incidentally, when you collected that, you were all by yourself, weren't you? A. Yes. Q. Dennis Fung was not there supervising you at all, correct? A. Correct. Q. Did you use the same level of care in collecting that stain as you did all the other ones? A. Yes. Q. Who told you about there being a stain in that area? A. I believe it was Mr. Fung. Q. Remember testifying on April 26, 1995, that you couldn't remember whether it was Mr. Fung or a detective? A. As I said, I believe it was Mr. Fung. MR. BLASIER: Do we have -- 24501, line 10. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you remember being asked the question starting at line 10: "And who was it that brought that to your attention?", meaning item 11. "Answer: I can't remember if it was Mr. Fung or a detective." Remember giving that answer? A. I -- maybe. I don't quite remember. Q. Okay. Now, Detective Fuhrman was one of the detectives at the scene at Rockingham, was he not? A. At that time, on that day, I was not introduced to any of the detectives. I didn't know which one was which. Q. Okay. Now, do you remember testifying at page 24502, right below that -- MR. P. BAKER: What line? MR. BLASIER: Line 2. MR. PETROCELLI: 20 what? MR. P. BAKER: 24502. MR. LAMBERT: Line what? MR. BLASIER: Line 2. This is testimony from the criminal trial on April 26, 1995. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you remember testifying in April? A. Yes. MR. LAMBERT: Objection. This isn't inconsistent with anything. MR. PETROCELLI: He has no right just to read it this. MR. BLASIER: It is -- THE COURT: Excuse me. MR. BLASIER: It is inconsistent. THE COURT: What's the inconsistency? MR. BLASIER: They -- she testified she didn't see a redish stain. THE COURT: Go ahead. No harm; no foul. MR. BLASIER: She testified it was a redish stain. THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. BLASIER: 24502, please. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You remember being asked these questions and giving these answers? (Reading:) "Q. And just like the other stains that you collected that day, you swatched the redish area, did you not? "A. I swatched the area that came up, you know, positive. I had trouble seeing exactly the red mark it itself. "Q. Ms. Mazzola you saw a redish discoloration on the wire? "A. It was pointed out to me, but I still couldn't quite make it out." Do you recall that now? A. Possibly, yes. Q. So as of your testimony in April, you didn't see a redish stain, correct? A. I said there -- MR. KELLY: Wait. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You couldn't see a redish area; that's what you testified to? A. I had -- I said I had trouble making it out. Q. So you saw a redish area? A. As I said, there was very slight discoloration. That's why you do a presumptive test. Q. Now, you're aware, are you not, that that stain that you collected was later tested and found -- did not have blood on it, aren't you? A. I do not know any of the serology results on that. Q. And that didn't look like a drop, did it? A. No. Q. It didn't look like any of the drops on the driveway, did it? A. No. Q. Didn't look like any of the drops at Bundy, did it? A. No. MR. BLASIER: Take that off. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, I want to ask you some questions about the Bundy and the Rockingham drops, in terms of your collection of those items. As of June 13 of '94, had you received any training whatsoever, with respect to the effect of moisture on the degradation of DNA? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, you collected the Rockingham drops first, before you went to Bundy, correct? A. Correct. Q. And the way you do that is, you take the small cotton swatches and you put distilled water on them. Then you swipe as much of the blood as you can get off of the ground, right? A. You don't swipe the blood; you let it sort of blot up, and you keep turning the swatch. Q. And you do as many swatches as you can. You get as much of the blood off as possible, correct? A. As much of the concentrated blood, yes. Q. And sometimes you can get four swatches, sometimes five, sometimes maybe only a couple, correct? A. It depends on the drop itself. Q. Now, each of those swatches that you did for the Rockingham drops, as well as the Bundy drops later that morning, were put into -- while they were wet, into plastic bags, correct? A. Correct. Q. And the plastic bags that had the red swatches, where were they put after you put them in the plastic bags? A. The individual bags were placed in small -- we call them coin envelopes, small manila envelopes that have the photo I.D. number of each item on it. Q. And where were they taken from there? A. They were put in a paper bag to keep everything together, and put in the trunk. Q. They were put in the back of the crime-scene truck? A. Correct. Q. I think it's a black truck. I think we may have seen that truck. A. Actually, it's navy blue, yes. Q. Dark in color? A. Dark. Q. They're dark. There's a refrigerator in the back of the truck? A. There's a small refrigerator, yes. Q. They're for preserving biological samples that are collected. That's one of the purposes, correct? A. Well, it's also to hold chemicals that are used out in the field. Q. One of the reasons it's there is to preserve biological stains, correct? A. I was never told that. I -- I don't know. Q. The swatches from Rockingham and Bundy in the plastic bags, were put in the back of the crime-scene truck, but not in the refrigerator, correct? A. Correct. Q. And what temperature was it, let's say, at about noon on the 13th, approximately? A. I have no way of knowing. I don't know. Q. There was -- you had concern, did you not, about how hot the crime-scene truck was getting that day, with those swatches in the back of it, didn't you? A. I, at that time, never really thought about it. Q. Did Dennis -- did you or Dennis Fung, at any time, go back to check to see how hot they were getting in the back of the crime-scene truck? A. No. Q. How long were those stains from Rockingham kept in the back of that crime-scene truck, unrefrigerated, until you took them out? A. Until we got back to the lab that evening. Q. And that would be about what time? A. Oh, let's see. I think maybe after 6:00. Q. And -- I'm sorry; were you done? A. (Nods affirmatively.) Q. And the Rockingham drops were collected at approximately what time? A. Oh, probably 9:00 or so. Q. So they were kept in the back of the truck about ten hours before they were taken out, correct? A. I assume so. Q. And the Bundy drops were collected at approximately what time, what regular time? A. Oh, probably 12:00, probably started collecting them maybe 45 minutes to an hour after the -- after we arrived at Bundy. Q. So that would be before 11:00? A. Before 11:00. Q. And so those items, those swatches in the plastic bags, were kept in the back of the truck for approximately six hours before they were taken out, correct? A. Well, the ones at Bundy were not placed in the truck until we got ready to move everything back out. Q. Okay. What was done with them prior to the time they were put in the truck? A. They were kept up front in the bags, where we were working outside. Q. In the sun? A. I -- I don't know if they were in the sun or the shade. Q. And then they were put in the truck, and kept there until about 6:00 or after, when you got back to the lab? A. Right. Q. Now, I want to ask you questions about the Bronco. On June 14, you and Dennis Fung processed the Bronco for blood stains, correct? A. Correct. Q. And where did that occur, and about what time? A. That occurred at the LAPD print shed, which is near Parker Center, and if I can check my notes, I believe -- Q. Sure. A. -- we arrived at the print shed a little after 7:00 that morning. Q. And is it accurate that -- And how long were you there, approximately? A. Oh, a little over three hours. Q. You had plenty of time to examine the Bronco and collect all the stains, correct? A. Well, first of all, you do not collect every stain that you see; you take a representative sample. And we collected what we saw. Q. So you didn't collect every stain that you saw? A. If you have several stains right together, you're not going to pick up every single stain; you're going to take a representative sample of that group. Q. My question was, so you did not collect every stain that you saw on the 14th? A. We did not collect every stain. Q. Did you collect as much of a stain -- of the stains that you saw as possible? A. Yes. Q. Let me -- do you recall testifying at page 24208, line 7 -- MR. PETROCELLI: Hold on. That's the wrong citation. It has nothing to do with this point. MR. P. BAKER: Check 24207. MR. BLASIER: Yeah, 24207. I'm sorry. Starting at line 7. You guys have that? Can we show that, please. (Page 24207 of the criminal trial transcript displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you remember testifying on April 25, 1995 in the criminal trial, the following questions and answers: (Reading:) "Q. Now, on June 14, it was yours and Dennis Fung's job to collect every single blood stain on the outside and inside of the Bronco that was visible to you; isn't that right? "A. Yes, I believe so. "Q. And each time that you set out to collect blood stains in this case, for each stain that you collected, Ms. Mazzola, weren't you instructed to collect as much of the stain as you possibly could collect? "A. Yes." And going down a little bit: "Q. In fact, you were supposed to collect the entire visible stain; isn't that right? "A. I believe so, yes. "Q. And it would be, and you were taught, ma'am, to keep swatching that blood stain until the blood was completely collected; isn't that correct? "A. To get as much as possible, yes." Do you remember that testimony? A. I believe so. Q. Did you make any notation, on any document whatsoever that you had left blood in the Bronco? A. No. Q. Incidentally, did you observe any blood stains on the bottom seal area, on the outside of the Bronco door? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, "which was observed." THE COURT: Excuse me? MR. LAMBERT: It's irrelevant; it's observed and not collected. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I do not remember seeing a stain or not. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Well, let's look at 24211, line 1. MR. P. BAKER: 24211? MR. BLASIER: Yeah. MR. LAMBERT: Object, Your Honor. It's not inconsistent with what she just said. MR. BLASIER: She testified now that she didn't remember one way or the other. THE COURT: That's what she says in that transcript. MR. BLASIER: Okay. THE COURT: It is sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) No stains were pointed out to you on the seal outside of the Bronco, correct? A. I can't remember. Q. Now, the only blood that you observed on the outside of the Bronco was a speck by the door handle, that was pointed out by Detective Fuhrman; isn't that correct? A. As I said, I don't remember which detective pointed it out, but at that point, I did not know their names. Q. But a detective -- A. A detective. Q. -- pointed it out. That's all you observed on the outside of the Bronco, all the blood? A. I believe so. I'm not positive. I believe so. Q. Okay. Now, I want to ask you some questions about Mr. Simpson's reference blood vial. You know what a reference blood sample is, do you not? A. Oh, yes. Q. That's blood from the suspect that is then compared to any biological stains that you might collect, correct? A. Correct. Q. That's an extremely important piece of evidence, is it not? A. Yes, it is. Q. Now, as of 5 o'clock on the 13th, you were still at Rockingham, correct? A. I believe so, yes. Q. And that was during the execution of the search warrant that day, correct? A. Correct. Q. And -- and you can refer to your notes, if you like. Do you have your notes of what you collected on the afternoon? A. Yes. Q. You collected -- as of 5 o'clock, you had collected 16 items at Rockingham that afternoon, correct? A. Yes. Q. Now, after 5 o'clock -- By the way, what time did you leave Rockingham after 5:00 A. Let's see. It doesn't have the time that we left. It wasn't too much later. Q. Now, I'm not sure. Did you answer my question, you collected 16 items up to that point? A. Okay. Q. And the last item, item 16, was just what, in general? A. Two airline luggage tickets. Q. Now, you were with Dennis Fung from 5 o'clock until the two of you left in the crime-scene truck to go back to the lab; isn't that correct? A. We were inside Mr. Simpson's house. Q. And you were with Dennis Fung during that time period, were you not? A. Not by his side the whole time, no. Q. I'm sorry? A. Not by his side the whole time, no. Q. Do you remember testifying on August 23 of 1994, at page 762, line 24 -- MR. BLASIER: You got that? MR. P. BAKER: Yeah. (Transcript is displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. Do you remember being asked this question and giving this answer: "Q. Were you with Mr. Fung the entire time after you picked up that last item at 1700 hours until you departed for your next designation? "A. I believe I was, yes." Isn't that what you testified to in August of '94? A. Apparently, so. Q. Now, at some time after this testimony in August, and prior to your testimony in the criminal trial, you became aware that there was an issue with respect to Mr. Simpson's reference blood being given to Dennis Fung around that time, correct? A. I do not recall, no. Q. At the time of your testimony at the criminal trial in this case, were you aware that there was an issue with respect to Mr. Simpson's reference blood and whether it was turned over? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Calls for hearsay; argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I believe hearing something about that. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And is it accurate that at the time you testified at the criminal trial in April of '95, your testimony was that that you were not with Mr. Fung; that you had your eyes closed when that happened when the blood vial was transferred from Vannatter to Fung? A. I was sitting in the living room with the photographer, with the detectives, and Mr. Fung. When I left them, they were in the kitchen. Q. Do you remember testifying at page 23970, line 5, when you were sitting on the couch at the Rockingham location before you left -- I guess this would have been after 5:11. You answer uh-huh. "Q. Were your eyes opened or closed? "A. I believe they were closed. "Q. At what point did you close your eyes? "A. Probably the second I sat down. "Q. Did you fall asleep? "A. No, I wasn't asleep." Do you remember giving that testimony? A. Yes. Q. You have a specific recollection of having your eyes closed in Mr. Simpson's house, and not seeing Detective Vannatter hand him -- hand him Mr. Simpson's reference blood. MR. LAMBERT: Objection irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I do not remember seeing Detective Vannatter give a gray envelope containing the reference vial to Mr. Fung. Q. Now, when you left -- MR. BLASIER: Do we have the video? Q. Now, you said that you were back with a photographer in the living room on the couch? A. I might have been in a chair. I don't remember where I was sitting. Q. Okay. And the photographer you mean is Mr. Rokahr? A. I believe so, yes. Q. Okay. MR. BLASIER: Can we play the video. MR. P. BAKER: This is Exhibit 939. MR. BLASIER: 939. Can you please watch this video. (The instrument herein referred to as a videotape was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 939.) (Defendants' Exhibit 939 was played in open court.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That is you and Dennis Fung leaving Rockingham, correct? A. Correct. Q. And in your right hand, you are carrying a trash bag, correct? A. Correct. (Tape concludes playing.) Q. Did you have any knowledge, at that time, about the content of that trash bag? A. It contained the two airline tickets that I believe were in there, and that was it. I didn't know if anything else was in there. Q. No one told that you Mr. Simpson's reference blood was in that trash bag, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you carried it from there to the crime lab? A. It was unloaded at the crime lab, yes. Q. What happened to the trash bag after you got to the crime lab? A. It was placed in the evidence processing room with the rest of the evidence. Q. Where in the evidence processing room? A. On one of the examination tables. Q. Was the bag still essentially closed? A. Yes. Q. Was there anything taken out of the bag that evening? A. I don't believe so. Q. So, to your knowledge, whatever was in that bag stayed there that entire evening while you and Dennis Fung were working on the evidence samples, correct? A. Correct. Q. Did you record anything whatsoever on your crime-scene notes on the 13th, indicating that Mr. Simpson's reference blood had been collected that afternoon? A. Not -- I don't believe I did on the 13th. Q. Now, is it accurate that -- that one of the things that you and Dennis Fung did when you got back to the crime lab, was to process the various swatches that you had collected here to dry it? A. Correct. Q. And where did you do that? A. In the evidence processing room. Q. The same room where the plastic bag was? A. Correct. Q. And the process that you go through -- why don't you describe the steps that you go through to convert a swatch or to dry it. A. Well, -- several criminalists have their own particular technique. Mr. Fung uses individual glass test tubes, small test tubes, which are labeled with the item number and the -- for the control, is given its item number and the letter C, the control swatches. One item at a time is opened. The individual swatches are put into the test tubes with their item number on them. They are placed in racks. They are put in a cabinet to dry overnight. Q. Is it accurate to say in the test tubes -- there's no top on the test tube, correct? A. Correct. Q. Is it accurate to say that all of the stains that you had collected, both from Rockingham and Bundy, were put into glass vials in that drying cabinet together, and left there overnight? A. They were placed in separate areas of the cabinet because -- but they were placed in the same cabinet. Q. Now, that night -- By the way, did you process some of those, as well? A. I believe I started helping, but I ended up labeling the test tubes. Q. Okay. Neither you nor Mr. Fung counted the number of swatches for each stain that night, did you? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. A. No we did not. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You did not sketch the swatches showing their size, so that you could later look at them to determine whether the swatches were the same as you had put in the drying tubes, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative and -- argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. A. No, we did not measure each swatch. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And you didn't take any photographs of any of the swatches, did you? A. No, we did not. Q. It's accurate, is it not, there's no way to tell one swatch from the other, just by looking at the swatch? A. That is accurate, yes. Q. So when you left the crime lab -- What time did you leave that night, the night of the 13th? A. Oh it's probably close to 8 o'clock. Q. Okay. All of the swatches were in open test tubes in the cabinet, in the same room as the trash bag, presumably with Mr. Simpson's reference blood, correct? A. Correct. Q. Now, the next -- By the way, what's the reason why you dry them? A. They're dried for final packaging. And after the packaging, they are processed. Q. They're dried -- isn't one of the reasons they're dried is, that preserves them? A. That, along with the freezing, yes. Q. All right. And preserves whatever DNA might be in there, correct? A. DNA and just the stain itself. Q. Now, the next morning, you and Dennis Fung came into the lab, correct? A. Correct. Q. And at some point that morning, you became aware of Mr. Simpson's reference blood being there at the lab, correct? A. Correct. Q. By about what time was that? A. I wouldn't know. Q. And it was then that you created the first record showing -- from your crime-scene checklist showing Mr. Simpson's reference blood, correct? A. Correct. Q. And in your crime-scene checklist, you attempt to enter items sequentially in the order in which they're collected, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you indicated on the back of your checklist that item 17 was a pair of tennis shoes, correct? A. Correct. MR. BLASIER: And let me put this on the Elmo. (Defendant's Exhibit No. 943 displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And item 17, the tennis shoes, those were a pair of shoes that Detective Lange brought in the morning of the 14th, correct? A. Correct. Q. They hadn't been turned in to you? They weren't turned in to you by Detective Lange the night before, when you were all at Rockingham, were they? A. No, they were not. Q. And you agree that by the time you left, from that period of 5 o'clock, until you guys left, Detectives Lange and Vannatter were both there, weren't they? A. There were detectives there. I -- I don't know who was there or not. MR. BLASIER: Okay. Can you back up a little. (Mr. P. Baker complies.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And then you entered in your notes item 18 as the reference vial, coming after 17, the tennis shoes that weren't turned in until the 14th, correct? A. Correct. THE COURT REPORTER: Does that have a number? Did you mention it? MR. BLASIER: That's part of -- MR. P. BAKER: 943. MR. BLASIER: 943. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, the next morning, you had further processing to do of the various swatches that had come from Rockingham and Bundy, correct? A. Correct. Q. The idea of leaving them in there overnight was so they could completely dry out, so they could be packaged for testing or whatever, whatever was supposed to be done with them afterwards, correct? A. Correct. Q. Incidentally, did -- can you look at the screen again. MR. BLASIER: Do you have the video? MR. P. BAKER: 228. MR. BLASIER: 228. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Can you take a look at this, at that video, tell us if that's Detective Vannatter walking into Rockingham at about 5:18. (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 228 displayed on the Elmo screen starting at 17:17:59, ending at 17:19:23.) Q. Do you see the people in the background there? A. Yes. Q. Do you see Mr. Rokahr there? A. I -- if I could see his face. I've only seen this today -- first today, I mean. MR. BLASIER: Can we see it better? (Videotape, Plaintiff's Exhibit 228, was rewound, began playing at 17:17:09, and stopped at 17:18:55.) Q. Do you recognize the bald-headed gentleman there? A. Actually, there were two there that day. Q. Mr. Rokahr had a camera with him with a strap over his shoulder? A. And he usually wore his hat. Q. Okay. (Videotape, Defendants' Exhibit 943, was rewound, began playing at 17:18:58, and stopped at 17:19:02.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) There you see the strap over his shoulder? A. It's a strap, yes, sir. Q. Mr. Rokahr, if that's Mr. Rokahr, at the time of video, wasn't with you when your eyes closed in the living room, correct? A. Correct. Q. Now, getting back to the morning of the 14th, you and Dennis Fung retrieved all of the open vials that had the swatches in them from the drying cabinet, correct? A. Correct. Q. Incidentally, that cabinet isn't locked, is it? A. No, it is not. Q. It's just a cabinet on the wall, isn't it? A. Correct. Q. And describe the procedure by which you removed the swatches from the tubes? A. Mr. Fung employed just a tapping on the test tube and the swatches would come out. I used individual disposable glass pipettes to take -- loosen and remove the swatches. Q. And that was because some of them had dried against the glass of the tube, correct? A. Correct. Q. There was blood on the tube as well as on the swatches? A. Where they had stuck together, yes. Q. So when you amudate (sic) the swatches from the vials, you scraped it with a pipe -- disposable pipette? A. Not scrape. Just -- you had to touch them and they would. Q. To get them off of the side of the vial? A. Correct. Q. That morning, you still did not count any of the swatches, did you? A. Correct. Q. You did not sketch any of the swatches, did you? A. Correct. Q. You did not photograph any of the swatches, did you? A. Correct. Q. Now, after you -- they were taken out of tubes and you certified they were dried, they are put in what are called bindles, correct? A. Correct. Q. And a bindle is like a piece of scratch pad that is folded over, to contain the swatches from a particular stain, correct? A. Correct. Q. And the bindles that you prepared that morning from the Bundy drops and the Rockingham drops had your initials on them, according to -- as required by your procedure, correct? A. I do not believe there is any procedure about what is put on the bindles. Q. The bindles that morning, you put your initials on them, didn't you? A. I believed that I had, yes. Q. And you testified that you had in August of '94 at the hearing that was held before the trial, correct? A. I believed that I had my initials on them, yes. Q. And you found out at some time after that hearing, but before the criminal trial, that the bindles that were later examined didn't have your initials on it, didn't you? A. Correct. Q. And you then changed your testimony at the criminal trial and said, maybe you didn't put your initials on it, correct? A. At the point of the first hearing, I could not remember if I had put my initials on them or what. I believed that I had at that time. Q. And that was your best recollection at the time you testified in August, correct? A. Correct. Q. Which was less -- we're about months after you had actually done this, correct? A. Correct. THE COURT: Okay. Let's take a ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. I want the jury brought back in ten. Thank you. (Recess.) (Jurors resumed their respective seats.) MR. BLASIER: Thank you, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Ms. Mazzola, if you initialed the bindles that you processed on the morning of the 14th, and later on those bindles did not have your initials on them, that would indicate that they weren't the same bindles, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence, argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. You can argue that. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, you are sure you made sure that those swatches were all dry at the time that you put them in bindles, on the morning of the 14th, correct? A. The ones that I had control over, yes. Q. And you learned later, that at least one of the bindles, when it was opened later on showed evidence of a wet transfer on the paper itself? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, calls for hearsay, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Are you aware of that? THE COURT: Excuse me. Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you ever look at these bindles after they were prepared on the morning of the 15th? A. No, I did not. Q. So you don't have any independent knowledge that the bindles that were later examined were the same ones that you guys fixed on the morning of the 14th? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Prepared? MR. LAMBERT: Assumes facts not in evidence. THE COURT: You can rephrase that, maybe. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You have no personal knowledge that the bindles that you and Dennis Fung prepared on the morning of the 14th were the same ones that were later examined by Collin Yamauchi? MR. LAMBERT: Same objection, still argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. A. No, I do not. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, going back to Mr. Simpson's reference blood, you were ordered at some point to change your paperwork to show that Mr. Simpson's reference blood should be item 17 rather than 18; isn't that correct? A. Mr. Fung told me the tennis shoes had been brought in by Detective Lange on the 14th, and that they should be given the number later down the blood vial, what he received the day before. Q. Is the answer to my question yes, at some point you were directed to change the number for Mr. Simpson's reference blood from 18 to 17? A. Correct. Q. And that was to eliminate the appearance that the blood had been kept overnight by Detective Vannatter; isn't that correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. The tennis shoes were brought in after the blood; therefore, they should have gotten a later number. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Of all of the items that you collected on the 13th and 14th, was there any other item that you were directed to change the number on, other than Mr. Simpson's reference blood? A. No. MR. BLASIER: Thank you. That's all I have. THE COURT: Cross-examine. MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: Q. Ms. Mazzola, you were asked a number of questions by Mr. Blasier about your testimony in August, 1994. Do you remember that? A. Yes. Q. That testimony wasn't during the actual criminal trial, was it? A. No, it was not. Q. Was that during some preliminary hearing of some sort? A. Yes. Q. And on that occasion, had you had an opportunity to prepare at all for that testimony? A. No. Q. Had you had an opportunity to review your notes? A. No. Q. Did you even have your notes with you? A. No. Q. So you testified on that occasion without any preparation, and without any notes; is that right? A. I did not have any personal notes. I borrowed Mr. Matheson's. Q. He didn't have all the same things that you have in your notes, did he? MR. BAKER: Leading. MR. BLASIER: Objection, leading. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Did he have all the same things in his notes that you had in your notes? A. No. MR. BLASIER: Objection. THE COURT: Excuse me. There's an objection. Foundation. Sustained. Lay a foundation. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Did you look at Mr. Matheson's notes a little bit on the stand that day? A. On the stand, yes. Q. Were his notes identical to your notes? A. He was lacking one sketch. Q. And were you able, during your testimony to completely review his set of notes to refresh your recollection about the events during the evidence collection? A. Not while I was testifying, no. Q. Did you later discover that you had made some mistakes during your testimony, because of your lack of preparation? MR. BLASIER: Objection, leading. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Yes. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, in regard to the collection of the evidence at Rockingham, Mr. Blasier asked some questions about whether Mr. Fung was supervising you during every swatching of every piece of evidence that you swatched. He was present on the premises throughout the time you were working, wasn't he? A. Yes, he was present. Q. And was there also another supervisor from SID present? A. Towards the end, yes. Q. That was who? A. Mr. Steve Johnson. Q. And what's his position at SID? A. Assistant laboratory director. Q. And did he also supervise you, some of the work that you were doing, or observed? A. He watched me do one or two towards the end, yes. Q. And the actual swatching method that you used, using the little cotton swatches and distilled water and -- and clean tweezers and so on, is that the same method that you're still using today? A. Yes. Q. Have you changed it at all, in any way, since the time you collected the evidence at Bundy and Rockingham? A. No. Q. You're now what level criminalist? A. Criminalist 2. Q. And how many crime scenes have you processed since Bundy and Rockingham? MR. BLASIER: Objection, irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) The technique -- the swatching technique that you used in that case, were you careful throughout the time that you did it? A. Yes. Q. Same level of care that you've used on crime scenes since then? A. Yes. Q. The -- the -- questions were asked of you about whether you could specifically remember precisely when you changed your gloves when you were processing the Bundy crime scene. Is it your recollection that you changed your gloves more than one time during that crime scene processing? A. I know it was more than one time but I can't give you a specific number. Q. Do you have a custom or habit of changing gloves often during crime scene processing? MR. BLASIER: Objection, leading, irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. You asked on direct exam. A. You change your gloves so often in the lab, especially where I work in, we are in gloves almost the entire day. To us, changing gloves is the same as blinking. We do it, we don't think about doing it, we don't remember how many times we do it. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And it was your -- was that your custom when you were doing -- at the time you were doing the blood collection in this case? A. Yes. Q. Now, in regard to the blood in the Bronco, there was some questions about the -- the blood collection on June 14. Who actually did the swatching on that occasion? A. Mr. Fung. Q. So you were just assisting Mr. Fung? A. Yes. Q. And was Mr. Fung able to literally swatch up all of the blood that was visible? A. No, not all of the blood. Q. So there was some blood left over after the swatching was done? A. Yes. Q. You were also asked some questions about this cabinet in the evidence processing room that is not locked. That room itself, is it locked or unlocked? A. It is locked. Q. And who has access to it? A. After hours, the criminalist 2's and above, only, have access. Q. And other than criminalists within the scientific investigation division, can any other person get inside that evidence processing room? A. No. Q. Can police officers go in there? A. No. Q. So the blood was left overnight in this locked room that only -- only SID personnel, criminalists 2 or above would have access to? A. Correct. MR. BLASIER: Objection, leading. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Finally, you were asked some questions about whether you took any photographs of the swatches during the time that you were processing them. Have you ever, on any of your cases, taken photographs of any of the swatches? A. No. MR. BLASIER: Objection, irrelevant. Q. Would -- THE COURT: Just a minute. Sustained. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Have you ever taken a photograph of a swatch during the evidence collection process? MR. BLASIER: Objection, irrelevant. THE COURT: That's overruled. A. No, I have never. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Would the failure to take a photograph turn the swatch from one person's blood into another? MR. BLASIER: Objection, argumentative. I'll withdraw it. THE COURT: Okay. A. No, it would not. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Have you ever sketched one of the swatches when you're in the process of doing this evidence collection? A. No. Q. Would the failure to sketch one of the swatches turn the blood from one person's blood into another? A. No. Q. And finally, this question about the bindles, whether the swatches were dry or not, did you do any test to determine if swatches were dry before you put them into the bindles? A. No. Q. Did you see Mr. Fung doing any tests? A. No. Q. You just looked at them, if they looked dry, you put them in the bindles? MR. BLASIER: Objection, leading. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Correct. MR. LAMBERT: No further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Redirect. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Ms. Mazzola, apparently you didn't blink between the knit cap and the glove, did you? A. No, I did not. Q. Now, is it your testimony that since your work in the criminal case, you still don't sketch swatches? A. That is correct. Q. You still don't take pictures of swatches? A. That is correct. Q. You haven't changed your technique at all? A. Not in the collection, no. Q. And isn't one of the reasons you take pictures, and draw sketches, so you can demonstrate later that the swatches haven't been tampered with? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. LAMBERT: Says she didn't do it. THE COURT: Jury to disregard that question. It's argumentative. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, let me see if I understand your testimony in August, two months after you did the work in this case. You're saying that you've made mistakes because you weren't prepared? A. I did not refresh my memory at the time, yes. Q. All right. Now, you said that you had Greg Matheson's notes, right? A. Correct. Q. And you looked at them carefully enough to know that they were the same as yours except one sketch was missing, correct? A. There were photocopies of the original except the sketch was on the back of one of the pages and he did not have that. Q. So you had everything in front of you except one sketch, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you knew that from looking at the notes, that you had everything there except one sketch, didn't you? A. As I was being asked the questions and I was trying to answer them, yes. Q. What mistakes did you make in August? A. I didn't have a chance to look at the crime scene photos. Sit down, go through the notes beforehand to refresh my memory. I was trying to do that as I was being asked questions by the defense. MR. BLASIER: Move to strike, nonresponsive. THE COURT: Denied. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) What mistakes did you make in August? A. Just whether or not -- where Mr. Fung was at certain times, or if he picked up one thing and I picked up another. Q. Any other mistakes? A. I do not know. Q. So your testimony that you signed -- that you initialed the bindles, that was correct, wasn't it? A. No, it is not. Q. Oh, it's not correct. When did you learn that you didn't initial the bindles? A. After I saw photos and I was told by serology that the bindles did not have my initials or Mr. Fung's. Q. So they weren't the same bindles, were they, that you initialed when you made them? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, misstates the evidence. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) So your reason for thinking that your under-oath testimony from August was a mistake is because the bindles that were later examined didn't have your initials on them; is that what you're saying? A. That was one of the things. Q. And now you know for sure that was a mistake, because you saw the pictures that don't have your initials on them; is that what you're saying? A. The bindles that we prepared with the blood swatches did not have my initials. Initially, I thought that they did. They do not. Q. And that's all the information you have to conclude that you made a mistake when you testified under oath in August, correct? A. Correct. Q. Now, when you testified in April that Mr. Fung and you collected all of the blood from the Bronco, had you had plenty of time to prepare your testimony that time? A. Yes. Q. You spent a lot of time with the prosecutors in preparing for your testimony in April of '95, did you not? A. Actually not a lot of time, no. Q. When you testified under oath that you collected the entire visible stain of every stain that you saw in the Bronco in April, that was the truth, wasn't it? A. After you pick up a stain, there's going to be a little bit left from the water from the swatch. You will not pick up -- it's -- you will not pick up a stain so it is so clean. You cannot tell if there was something there before. Q. Your testimony in April of '95 was the truth, wasn't it? A. In some parts I was not mistaken; in others I was. Q. Now -- okay. So you're saying now that your testimony in April of '95 was a mistake, the part about you collected everything from the Bronco, right? A. We collected representative stains, samples from what we saw. Q. How did you find out that was a mistake? A. Perhaps the mistake was saying the word "all." Q. You thought that was a mistake, because in August of '94 they found a lot more blood in the Bronco, didn't they? A. Apparently after they tore the seats out, yes. Q. That blood wasn't there when you processed that car on the 14th, was it? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. We did not tear the seats out of the Bronco. We collected the stains from what we saw. Q. The blood -- you did not see any blood consistent with what was later found in August when you processed that car on the 14th of June -- MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Q. -- 1994, did you? MR. LAMBERT: Lack of foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BLASIER No further questions. MR. BAKER: Wait a minute. MR. BLASIER: Oops, wait a minute. Let me show you 1420. (The instrument herein described as a photograph was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1420.) (Exhibit 1420 displayed on the Elmo.) MR. BLASIER: Can you zoom in on that better. (Indicating to Elmo.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Ms. Mazzola, when you were done processing the Bronco on the 14th, and as you testified in April of '95, that blood was no longer there, was it? MR. LAMBERT: Objection as to foundation of this photograph, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Well, let's look at what you see here and here was not there at -- after you finished with the Bronco on the 14th of June, was it? A. I do not know. Q. Did you take any pictures on the 14th? A. Photos were taken, yes. Q. Are there any pictures after you were done on the 14th, to your knowledge, that show the presence of those two stains? A. Photos were taken before collection, not after. Q. Oh, so we don't have any pictures after you were done, right? A. That is correct. MR. BLASIER: No further questions. RECROSS-EXAMINATON BY MR. LAMBERT: Q. Ms. Mazzola, do you ever take photographs after you finish doing the evidence collection? A. No, never. Q. You take the photographs before the collection? A. Before, yes. Q. And one more time, in regard to this Bronco, when you tried to swatch up the blood, is it -- is it physically possible to clean it all up just using the swatch technique or does some always remain left? A. Some will remain just from the fact that the swatch is damp with water. You will collect as much as you can on the swatches because serology needs a lot of sample. There's going to be a little water mixed with the blood that is left on the surface. Q. And this collection that you did on the Bronco, this took place inside the print shed? A. Yes. Q. Was it easy to see inside the print shed? A. No, it was not. MR. LAMBERT: Thank you. No further questions. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Let me see if I understand it. You spent 3 hours on the Bronco, in the print shed, where you couldn't see it very well; is that your testimony? A. Flashlights were used by Mr. Fung to go over and identify the stains that he wanted to collect. Those were the stains that were numbered, photographed and collected. Q. No. My question was, is it your testimony, that you just told Mr. Lambert, that when you processed the Bronco on the 14th for 3 hours, you couldn't see it very well? A. We saw it well enough. Q. Okay. And you haven't changed a single procedure that you testified to, that you used in this case, since the Simpson criminal case, have you? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, beyond the scope. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BLASIER: He asked a question about photographs. THE COURT: You already asked the first time and she said no. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You haven't learned anything from the criminal case, have you? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BLASIER: Nothing further. THE COURT: You may step down. THE WITNESS: Thank you. MR. PETROCELLI: Who's next? MR. BLASIER: Under 776 we would call Thano Peratis. MR. PETROCELLI: 776 is inapplicable. THE COURT: Sustained. You may call him as a witness. You may examine him as if he's not in cross, as if in cross examination. It's not a 776. MR. BLASIER: 767. MR. PETROCELLI: We also object to 767. THE COURT: You may examine as if in cross-examination. You may do the same. MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. BLASIER: Somebody call Mr. Peratis. (Indicating to bailiff.) THANO PERATIS, called as a witness on behalf of the Defendants, was duly sworn and testified as follows: THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? THE WITNESS: I do. THE CLERK: Please be -- THE BAILIFF: Please be seated, sir. THE CLERK: And, sir, would you please state and spell your name for the record. THE WITNESS: Thano Peratis, T-h-a-n-o P-e-r-a-t-i-s. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Mr. Peratis, you have some heart problems, do you not? A. Yes. Q. Okay. If you need to take a break just say the word, okay? A. (Nodded affirmatively.) Q. Can you please tell the folks on the jury what your occupation is? A. Registered nurse. Q. And by whom are you employed? A. City of Los Angeles. Q. Now, where did you work for the city? A. Parker Center Jail. Q. Now, you are a nurse in the county jail, correct? A. In the city jail. Q. In the city jail. How long have you been a nurse overall? A. Overall, since I was in the navy, I would say approximately 40 years. Q. All right. You've been a nurse for 40 years approximately? A. Approximately. Q. And you went through the required nurses school that allowed you to become a registered nurse? A. Yes. Q. And you did very well at your courses to become a registered nurse, did you not? A. Yes. Q. You were a good student? A. I should hope so. Q. Okay. And of your 40 years as a nurse, how much of that has been with the city jail? A. I just completed 33 years. Q. Okay. So you have 33 years with the city. Seven years presumably prior to that you had nursing experience at some other location? A. Yes. Q. Now, your job in the jail is a very important one, is it not? A. Yes. Q. You have a fair amount of responsibility with respect to the inmates that might be ill or other responsibilities that you have; isn't that correct? A. Yes. Q. Now, during the course of your training, as well as your experiences as a nurse for 40 years, one of your main responsibilities as a nurse is measuring things, correct, like medications? A. Yes. Q. And it's very important that when you measure a medication for an inmate or whoever, that you do it precisely, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you pride yourself on being very good at that, don't you? A. In many occasions, yes. Q. Now, on June 13 of 1994, you were working in the infirmary, were you not? A. Yes. Q. And in the afternoon, at approximately 1:30, Mr. Simpson was brought into the jail infirmary, correct? A. Yes. Q. And do I have the time right, about 1:30? You can refer to anything you need to. A. Brought in 2:25. Q. I'm sorry? A. 2:25. Q. 2:25. Is it accurate that he was brought into the infirmary for you to do basically two things: One, draw his blood, and two, examine his finger, examine the cut on his finger? A. My first understanding was he was brought in for me to draw some blood. After I drew the blood, I was asked to treat his finger. Q. You were asked to examine his finger after you did the blood? A. To treat it. Q. Now, prior to the time that you drew Mr. Simpson's blood, you checked his vital signs, did you not? A. Yes, I did. Q. What did that consist of? A. Blood pressure, pulse, temperature. Q. Was his blood pressure a little high? A. 130 over 90. Q. That a little bit high? A. Slightly. Q. Now, I want to ask you about -- before I ask you about the blood, I want to ask you about examining his finger. Detective Vannatter asked you to examine Mr. Simpson's finger, correct, or his hand? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, hearsay, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I was asked to check a cut on his finger. Q. Well, were you asked to check his hand? A. No. Q. Do you remember testifying in a deposition in this case? MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. Page and line? MR. BLASIER: 86, line 25. MR. P. BAKER: Which is the depo. MR. BLASIER: Yes. MR. P. BAKER: Here it is. MR. BLASIER: Page 86, at the bottom. MR. PETROCELLI: Through where? MR. MEDVENE: From where to where, Mr. Blasier? MR. BLASIER: I'm checking. Starting at page -- I'm sorry. Line 24 on 86. And I'll read as far as you want me to. Where do you want me to stop? MR. MEDVENE: I want you to go -- pick up 87, line 16, and over on page 89, question 1 through -- MR. BLASIER: I'll to go 16 and then you can do the rest if you want. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you recall in the deposition that we took, I was present? Do you remember that? A. Yes. MR. BLASIER: Can we have that bigger so we can see it. I can't see it. Okay. Let's try. (Transcript displayed on Elmo.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Starting at 86. Do you remember they -- by the way, you were under oath at that time, correct? A. Yes. Q. And prior to your testimony in that deposition, you had spent some time with the plaintiffs' attorneys, had you not? Mr. Medvene? A. Are you talking about the day of the deposition? Q. Any time before that. A. I don't -- Q. I'm sorry? A. I don't believe so. I can't remember. Q. Okay. A. Did I spend any time with them though -- Q. Incidentally, one of the side effects of the heart problems that you've had is memory loss; isn't that correct? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall being asked by myself, (Reading:) Q. At some point you examined Mr. Simpson's hand, left hand, do you recall that? A. Yes. Q. Why did you do that? A. Because I was asked to. Q. Who asked you to? A. I believe it was Vannatter. Q. Then there was an objection. And at line 14 I ask: (Reading:) At some point were you asked to do something with respect to Mr. Simpson's hand or hands? Q. And then you answered: (Reading:) Not hand. I may have heard from Mr. Vannatter -- I put the dressing -- I went to put a dressing on Mr. Simpson's arm and he said I don't need that. Q. Remember that testimony? A. Yes. Q. Okay. MR. PETROCELLI: Read the next question and answer. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you say that during that deposition? MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me. MR. PETROCELLI: Next question and answer shown on the screen. MR. BLASIER: You said to 16. (Reading:) Q. Who said that? A. Mr. Simpson. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Were you aware at the time of the deposition being taken, that it was a significant issue with respect to whether you examined Mr. Simpson hands? A. I didn't hear you. MR. MEDVENE: You didn't read the next line. THE COURT: Mr. Medvene, you told him line 16 and he read to line 16. Now you want to do something on your own examination, save it for there. MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, Your Honor. He stopped in the middle. It says, at some point were you asked to do something with respect to Mr. Simpson's hand or hands, and he said not hand. THE COURT: Mr. Medvene, do it on your examination. MR. MEDVENE: All right. MR. BLASIER: I thought I read that. THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, commence your examination. MR. BLASIER: Thank you, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, is it your testimony here today -- well, tell us what it is you recall today, about what you were asked to do with respect to Mr. Simpson's hand or finger? A. I -- After I drew the blood, I heard -- I think it was Mr. Vannatter, I don't know which one it was, request you take a look at Mr. Simpson's finger, or words to that effect. Q. Okay. A. Would you take a look at his finger. Q. Okay. All right. A. Which I did. Q. And you did that by -- how did you do it? A. Picking up his hand, looking at his finger, cleaning it off with some Aqueous Zephrin -- I'm sorry, some Betadine, then I put a dressing on it, a band-aid. Q. And you're trained to identify injuries as a nurse, correct? A. Yeah. Yes. Q. And the only injury on his hand was the cut on the middle finger, correct? A. That's the only place I looked 'cause it was -- that was specifically mentioned to me. Q. Okay. Were you told don't look at his other fingers? I mean his fingers were attached to the rest of his hand, weren't they? A. No, I was asked could you please look at that finger, and that's all. I didn't do any full examination. Mr. Simpson was not under arrest. I had no doctor there. All I did was just clean off that one finger, and that was it. I didn't look to see if there was anything else. Q. You didn't see anything -- any other -- A. That's all I looked at was that one finger. Q. Detective Lange was there as well, was he not? A. Yes. Q. Neither Detective Vannatter nor Detective Lange directed your attention to any other injury; is that correct? A. No, not that I remember. Q. That's correct? A. That's correct. I do not remember that happening. Q. Okay. Now, I want to ask you some questions about the blood that you drew. Certainly, would you agree that the security of a reference blood sample is very important? A. Yes. Q. And you know what a reference blood sample is, do you not? A. A reference blood sample? Q. That's taken from a suspect. A. You mean the blood I drew? Q. Yeah. And you brought to me yesterday an envelope -- MR. BAKER: It's 2251 I believe. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) A gray envelope that's called an analyzed evidence envelope, correct? A. Yes. Q. And that envelope sets forth the procedure that's to be used in drawing somebody's blood, correct? A. Yes. Q. And let me show you this first, and we'll put it on the Elmo. This is one of those envelopes, is it not? A. Yes. Q. And this is 2251 -- let's start at the top. Now, at the top of this envelope it says analyzed evidence to be refrigerated. That is the correct procedure with respect to blood, that it should be refrigerated, correct? A. I have nothing to do with that. Q. Well, I'm asking you if that's the correct procedure, or do you know? A. Blood should be refrigerated, yes. MR. MEDVENE: Objection, foundation. THE COURT: Excuse me. There's been an objection, lack of foundation. Sustained. MR. KELLY: Stricken. MR. MEDVENE: We'd move to strike the answer. THE COURT: Stricken. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is blood supposed to be refrigerated? THE COURT: What was his foundation? MR. BLASIER: He's a nurse. THE COURT: So, he's a nurse. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Peratis -- THE COURT: Lay some foundation with regard to, if you're going do something, about what he's supposed to do or evidence preservation. There's been no foundation other than he drew blood. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Part of your training as a nurse is to know how to preserve blood? A. Nurses don't preserve the blood. We take it to the lab in a general hospital. We would take it to the laboratory. They would do what they do with it. We don't keep it. Q. Okay. My question is was part of your training as a nurse about refrigerating blood, that blood should be refrigerated? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. THE WITNESS: Blood to be refrigerated? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, lack of foundation. THE COURT: It's a general question, blood should be refrigerated? MR. BLASIER: Yeah. And he said as he's trained, yes. THE COURT: What kind of blood? Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Blood such as blood drawn that you drew from Mr. Simpson? A. Any blood drawn that has to be examined is to be refrigerated. Q. Okay. Thank you. That wasn't too hard. Now, it's also required procedure that the person drawing the blood, meaning you, is to completely fill up the vial, correct? MR. BLASIER: We're looking at B. Excuse me. (Exhibit 2251 displayed.) MR. MEDVENE: That doesn't say that, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) It says the officer requesting withdrawing of the blood is to tell you to fill up the vial, correct? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, that document speaks for itself, Your Honor. MR. BLASIER: It's foundational. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) The vial is supposed to be filled up, correct? A. The vial is supposed to be. Good luck if you can fill the vial up all the time. Q. According to procedure on the envelope? A. According to that, it's supposed to be filled up. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. Does that have a number? MR. P. BAKER: 2251. (Exhibit 2251 displayed.) MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, this might be a good time. THE COURT: Okay. 1:30, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case, don't form or express any opinion. (At 12:00 P.M. a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.) SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (The jurors resumed their respective seats.) MR. BLASIER: Thank you, Your Honor. THANO PERATIS the witness on the stand at the time of the luncheon recess, having been previously sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) BY MR. BLASIER: Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Peratis, at the break, we were talking about the analyzed evidence envelope. And this appears -- THE WITNESS: I can't hear you. MR. BLASIER: You can't hear me? MR. P. BAKER: 2251. (Exhibit 2251 displayed.) MR. BLASIER: Can you hear me now, Mr. Peratis? Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) At the bottom of this analyzed evidence envelope is an affidavit, correct? A. Yes. Q. And that's to be filled out by the officer, and signed under penalty of perjury by you, correct? A. Yes. Q. At the time the blood is drawn, correct? A. Yes. Q. And the required procedure is that, you fill this out at the time the blood is drawn, sign it, and put the blood in the envelope and seal it, correct? A. I don't put the blood in the envelope; the officer does. Q. It's required, though, to be sealed when this envelope is filled out, correct? A. I fill it out and hand it to the officer. Q. Okay. But you see number 4 down here? "When the affidavit is completed, sign below it as a witnessing officer and seal the vial in this envelope . . ." so the officer taking the blood is supposed to do what? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Lack of foundation. The witness said what he did. THE COURT: You may inquire as to what he does. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You just -- in this case, did you fill out affidavit below? A. What? Q. Did you fill out the affidavit on the front of the envelope? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you fill it out at the time that the blood was drawn? A. Just after I drew the blood. Q. Let's look at 2252. See if you -- can you look back at the TV, Mr. Peratis, see if you recognize this as -- MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, I don't know if the witness can see from there. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let me show it to you. A. I can see it. MR. MEDVENE: Okay. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) So we're sure, let me help you -- show you 2252 that is a photograph of the front of the envelope with Mr. Simpson's reference -- Mr. Simpson's reference vial was put into, correct? A. Yes. (Witness reviews Defendants' Exhibit 2252.) Q. Mr. Peratis, is it your testimony that -- Withdrawn. Where did that envelope come from? A. We have some in the dispensary. And I think that one came from the dispensary. I'm not sure if it was brought in, or if I had it in the office. We have them, and some of them were brought in. Q. Did you ever sign the affidavits in blank? A. Pardon? Q. Did you ever -- do you ever sign the affidavits in blank before you collect the blood? A. Never. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance. THE COURT: You may ask him whether he signed this one in blank. THE WITNESS: You mean before blood is drawn? Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Yeah. A. No. Q. Let me show you this one on the Elmo. You see at the bottom where it's dated, by your signature? And it's dated. A. I believe they had the wrong date, the wrong month. Okay. Q. Did you fill out the top part where it says Thano Peratis? A. This is all my writing. That's my printing. This is my printing. That's my signature. (Indicating.) Q. You got the correct date in the body of the affidavit, correct 6-13-94? A. Yes. That's -- I believe that this is the wrong date, put the wrong one down. Q. Okay. Did you fill this all out at one time? A. Yes. THE REPORTER: What number is this one? MR. P. BAKER: 2252. (Defendant's Exhibit No. 2252 displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Detective Vannatter did not bring an envelope with him, did he? A. That, I can't remember. Q. Now, the procedure that you used with Mr. Simpson, to draw blood, was to use a syringe, correct? A. Yes. Q. And a 10-cc syringe? A. Yes. Q. Can we have this as an exhibit by reference? THE CLERK: By reference? MR. BLASIER: A number, actually, we can use. THE CLERK: That would be fine. 2254. MR. BLASIER: 2254. (The instrument herein referred to as a syringe was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2254.) Q. Mr. Elmo [sic], I'm going to put it on the Elmo. Does this appear to be the type of syringe that you used to draw Mr. Simpson's blood? A. Yes. MR. BLASIER: Why don't you zoom in a little. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) It's calibrated, is it not? A. Yes. Q. It's quite easy to read the quantity of blood in that syringe, is it not? A. Yes. Q. It's calibrated down to -- looks like about two-tenths of a milliliter, correct? A. Calibrated down to ten cc's. Q. But I mean, between one cc and the next cc, it's broken down into two-tenths of a cc? A. Two-tenths. Q. Okay. And after you drew Mr. Simpson's blood on the 13th, and it was in this syringe, you transferred it to -- MR. BLASIER: And I need another number, Erin. THE CLERK: 2255. (The instrument herein referred to as An EDTA tube with a purple top on it was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2255.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) 2255, which is called a purple-top EDTA tube? A. Correct. Q. That's what we have here on the Elmo, correct? A. Yes. Q. And that's a vial that has a preservative in it known as EDTA, correct? A. Yes. Q. The purpose of putting it in that kind of tube is to keep the blood from coagulating, right? A. It preserves it. Q. Okay. Incidentally, you provided me with the syringe and the vacutainer yesterday? A. Yes. Q. It's called a -- A. I'm sorry. I provided you with about three syringes there. Q. Okay. But the one we have up here is the size that you used, correct? A. Yes. Q. And it's called a vacutainer because there's actually a vacuum in that purple-top vial, is there not? A. Yes. MR. BLASIER: You can take it down. (Referring to Elmo screen.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, when you drew Mr. Simpson's blood on the 13th, isn't it accurate that you drew between 7.9 and 8.1 cc's of blood? A. At the time I drew the blood, that's what I thought I had drawn. Q. Okay. A. At that time. Q. Now, you were asked to testify at the grand jury hearing in this case, correct? A. Yes. Q. And that took place sometime within a couple weeks of your drawing Mr. Simpson's blood, correct? A. Yes. Q. And when you testified in front of the grand jury, Marcia Clark was asking you questions, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you were answering those questions to the best of your ability? A. Yes. Q. And you testified, did you not? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance, materiality. It's not inconsistent, to the best of my knowledge, what they're going to read. It's hearsay. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is it your testimony today that you withdrew 7.9 to 8.1 cc's of blood? A. No. Q. Okay. That the grand jury -- do you recall being asked the following questions and giving the following answers: I'm referring to page 370, line 23. Start at line 26. Do you recall being asked this question at the grand jury: "Q. Can you describe for us what is the method by which you removed blood from Mr. Simpson. "A. I put a tourniquet on his forearm, cleaned the site with aqueous zephrin and put a 10-cc syringe with about a number 20 needle in the vein in his arm. And I withdrew about 8 cc's of blood." Is that what you testified to? A. I don't remember it, but if it's on there, I must have. Q. And do you also recall testifying, starting at line 10, you were asked again by Marcia Clark: "Approximately how much blood did you remove?" And you answered, "approximately 8 cc's," correct? A. Again, I don't remember that. It had to be there. I had to have done it, but I don't remember that. Q. And there was only about a two- or three-week period of time from the time you drew the blood, until you testified about the size of the needle, the size of the syringe, and how much you withdrew at the grand jury, correct? A. Yes. Q. Then shortly after that -- shortly after that, you testified at the preliminary hearing in the Simpson case, did you not? You remember testifying at the preliminary hearing? A. Yes. Q. And Mr. Shapiro was asking you questions at that time, correct? A. Yes. Q. And that, too, was in early July of 1994, correct? A. Yes. Q. Within just a couple of weeks of your drawing Mr. Simpson's blood, correct? A. Yes. Q. And incidentally, you didn't have any heart problems between the 13th, when you drew his blood, and when you testified at the grand jury and at the preliminary hearing, did you? A. Oh, I have been having heart problems for 20 years. Q. Now, I'm saying between those two periods of time, you didn't have a heart attack, did you? A. No. Q. And how long had it been prior to June 13th that you had a heart attack? A. June 13. Q. 1994? A. 1994. I had the heart attack in 1995, June. Q. But I'm talking about prior to June of '94. A. No. Q. You hadn't had one for a while, had you? A. No. Q. Now, do you remember being asked the following question: Question by Mr. Shapiro and giving the following answer that I'm referring to page 25 line 8. By Mr. Shapiro, "Q. How much blood did you withdraw from Mr. Simpson. "A. Approximately 8 cc's. MR. BLASIER: Can you put this on the Elmo, please. "Q. When you say approximately, you did not measure the amount. "A. Where well it could have been 7.9 or it could have been 8.1. I just looked at the syringe and it looked at about 8 cc's I withdraw the needle from his arm. Do you remember testifying that way in the preliminary hearing? A. Yes. Q. And that was the state of your recollection, when you testified under oath, about three weeks after drawing Mr. Simpson's blood, correct? A. At that time. Q. That you had looked at the syringe. The calibrated syringe, correct. MR. MEDVENE: Objection? A. I never looked at the calibrations of the syringe. Q. You remember testifying that I just looked at the syringe? A. I -- Well, I looked at the syringe I didn't look at the calibrations. Q. Okay. And your best recollection at that time, your experience as a nurse when you drew between 7.9 and 8.1 cc's correct? A. That's correct. Q. All right. Now at some point after your sworn testimony at the grand jury and the preliminary hearing, you became aware of an issue with respect to whether blood was missing from that vial, did you not? A. Yes. Q. And that was about the time of the opening argument in the criminal case, was it not? A. Yes. Q. And you found out that Mr. Cochran had stated in his opening statement that there was about 1.5 to 2 cc's of blood missing from Mr. Simpson's reference vial, correct? A. Yes. Q. And by the way, how did you find that out? A. A friend of mine called me, told me. Q. Did you watch that opening statement on television? A. I didn't watch any of the trial. Q. You didn't watch any of the trial at all? A. None of it except -- Q. Did you have a TV set up in your infirmary to watch the trial? A. There was a TV set up. I never watched it. Q. Now, after you found out that there was an issue about missing blood, you became very concerned, did you not -- A. Yes. Q. -- about whether that had been a screw-up on your part? A. Yes. Q. Correct. So you set about to determine whether or not you had made a mistake about how much blood you drew, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you tried to recreate what you did when? A. About two or three days later. Q. After the opening statements? A. Yes. Q. And you changed your testimony, did you not, or you changed your position and gave a different amount that you drew, correct? A. Yes. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Gave where? THE COURT: Overruled. Q. After you found out that that was an important issue, you changed your story, didn't you? A. When I found out I was wrong, I changed my story. Q. And you told someone at the D.A.'s office, correct? A. Yes. Q. And to your knowledge, they told us, right? A. I -- What? Q. They told us? A. I told you. Q. You remember myself and Mr. Neufeld and Joe Ellen Dimitri, us coming over to your infirmary to talk to you about that? A. Yes. Q. We made an appointment in advance, correct? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Peratis, don't you remember, as we walked in, you had a big television set there, with the trial on, and you made a comment, "Gee, I just saw you guys on television." MR. MEDVENE: Relevancy, immaterial. THE WITNESS: The television was on. THE COURT: Excuse me. Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you remember that? A. The -- Q. You can answer. A. The television was on. I may have seen you there. I was never -- I wasn't watching the trial. Maybe I would glance up once in a while. When I'm at work, I'm too busy to watch television. Q. I'm sorry. Are you done? A. I said when I'm at work, I'm too busy to watch television. Q. When you were testifying at the preliminary hearing, that was on television, was it not? A. Yes. Q. And you made it a point to videotape your own testimony, did you not? A. Yes. Q. And you showed it to a bunch of your friends, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. At any time you viewed that videotape prior to the time that you found out there was an issue about missing blood, did you ever tell any of your friends or anybody, "Gee, I made a mistake; I really didn't draw 7.9 to 8.1 cc's of blood."? A. The minute I heard about it. And I -- Q. I'm talking -- A. Maybe I misunderstood your question. Q. Before you found out that that was an important issue in the criminal case, did you tell anyone, after reviewing your videotape with your friends, or at any other time, "Gee, I made a mistake; I really didn't draw approximately 8 cc's."? A. I think the only people I told were you, and Mr. Neufeld and the D.A. Q. Okay. So prior to learning from Mr. Cochran's opening statement, you didn't tell anybody that you'd made a mistake, did you? A. No. I didn't know I had made a mistake. Q. Now, at some time in 1995, you did have a heart attack, right? A. Yes. Q. And that was when? A. About June 1 -- 1st of June. Q. And you were not actually called as a witness to testify at the criminal case, correct? A. Yes; I had a subpoena. Q. You were -- you weren't called to testify as a witness, though, were you? A. No. Q. Now, after your heart attack in June of 1995, you experienced problems with memory loss, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. And it was after that time that you had an interview with Mr. Goldberg, where you tried to recreate how much blood of Mr. Simpson you'd actually drawn, correct? A. Yes. Q. And your recollection of those events, when you made that -- did that interview with Mr. Goldberg, was not nearly as fresh as they had been two and three weeks after you actually drew the blood; isn't that correct? A. I would say so. Q. So certainly, your best recollection of how much blood you drew was from two and three weeks after you drew the blood, as opposed to after you had your heart attack; isn't that correct? A. I didn't quite understand the question. Q. Your best recollection of how much blood you drew, would have been two or three weeks after you drew it, when you testified twice under oath that it was about 8 cc's, correct? A. Well, I -- I remember drawing the blood. That's -- the 8 cc's, I know I was wrong. I can't say that -- I mean, you've got me all confused now. Q. Okay. After your heart attack, and after you had an interview with Mr. Goldberg, what was your statement as to how much blood you had actually drawn? A. Approximately six and a half cc's, after I found out, and I told Mr. Goldberg. Q. It was six to six and a half, wasn't it? A. Six to six and a half. Q. And it accounted exactly for the amounts that Mr. Cochran had described as being missing from Mr. Simpson's reference vial during his opening statement in the criminal trial; isn't that correct? A. I guess so. Q. Incidentally, Mr. Goldberg was a prosecutor in the criminal case, was he not? A. Pardon? Q. Mr. Goldberg was a deputy D.A. in the criminal case, was he not? A. Yes. MR. BLASIER: That's all I have. THE COURT: Cross. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE: Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Peratis. Were you told how much blood to draw on June 13, by Detective Vannatter? A. No. Q. By Detective Lange? A. No. Q. By anyone? A. No. Q. Were you told to take any particular amount for dosage purposes? A. No. Q. Were you trying, at the time, to draw a specific amount, a specific number of cc's? A. Not really. Q. Now, on June 13, immediately after drawing Mr. Simpson's blood, did you measure the amount that you drew? A. No. Q. Did you write down any amounts that you drew? A. No. Q. Do you have any general practice, in drawing blood, to write down the amount that you draw? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. Now, when you drew the blood from Mr. Simpson, can you explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury how you inserted the needle and where the calibration was when you inserted the needle and drew the blood. A. Insert -- inserting the needle, you have a bevel. You want the bevel up, so you can see where you're going. Okay. Now, as I inserted, when I had the bevel up, the calibration is on the bottom. So when I inserted the needle, I couldn't see what I was drawing. And then when I was -- I was drawing the blood back, at a certain point, it -- it -- the blood stopped, which means that the wall of the vein hit the bevel of the needle. You can turn the syringe and draw more, which, in my opinion, could cause damage to the vein, so I didn't do that. I just looked -- it looked like it was enough blood to test. I said, "Officers, is this enough?" I heard a yes. I withdrew the needle, and immediately put a sponge on Mr. Simpson. Immediately, I took the syringe and put it in a vacutainer, and it sucked in the blood. I threw out the syringe in a place -- in a decontaminated spot, where we throw all our syringes. Q. So are you saying, as you were drawing the blood, before you filled the vial, the blood stopped going into the vial because it hit the vein? A. The blood -- MR. BLASIER: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. A. (Continuing.) The blood was coming into the syringe, but at a certain point, apparently the wall of the vein hit the needle. MR. BLASIER: Objection. Move to strike. A. (Continuing.) The blood stopped -- MR. BLAZIER: He's speculating. THE COURT: Overruled. That seems to be one of the things he does for a living. A. (Continuing.) The blood stopped -- Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) The blood stopped while you were drawing? A. -- coming into the syringe. I could have possibly pulled more by turning the syringe. That can cause trauma to the vein. We don't want to do that. We had enough blood, so I withdrew the needle, put a sponge on Mr. -- put a sponge on Mr. Simpson's arm, and taped it, took the syringe, and immediately stuck the needle into the tube. The tube sucked the blood. Q. Let me -- A. I -- can I demonstrate that? It would be a lot easier than saying it. I'm not going to do any sticking; I'll just show you what I did. Q. I understand. He's only going to put before you what's been marked 2254 -- MR. PETROCELLI: And 55. Q. -- Which is the syringe. MR. PETROCELLI: 55. Q. And 2255, which has the purple top. And ask, with the Court's permission, if you might stand. If you feel up to that, and show the jury exactly what you did, and explain to them, let's say, with my arm, if you want, where the calibration was. A. May I take this off? Q. Yes, sir. (Witness removes purple top.) Q. Can you show this to the jury? A. Yes, sir. Here, when I talk about the bevel of the needle -- (indicating to the jury) -- being up so I can see it -- Q. You have to speak up. A. So I could see the bevel. See how the bevel is there? You always want to watch that. (Indicating.) THE COURT: Show the jurors at the other end, too. THE WITNESS: You see the calibrations were at the end, too. THE COURT: I don't think all the jurors can see a bevel that size. MR. MEDVENE: You want to stand that close. THE COURT: Unless you want to put it on the Elmo. THE WITNESS: We draw the blood. THE COURT: Just show them the bevel first. THE WITNESS: Yeah, okay. Here's the bevel. MR. MEDVENE: Show the other jurors the bevel. Everybody see? (Witness approaches the jury.) THE COURT: Okay. Don't talk to the jury; just show them the bevel. Can all the jurors at the far end, can you see the bevel that the witness referred to as the bevel? JURORS: Yes, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, would you now describe what you did. You describe the bevel. A. I inject it into the arm. Q. You injected it into the arm, and then what did you do? A. I put the needle in the arm. When I knew I was in the vein, I started pulling the blood out. Q. And then what happened? A. At about this point (indicating) somewhere around this point, it stopped. I could have done this. (Indicating.) Q. You could have turned to the right? A. Yes, which might have hurt, harmed a vein. We had enough blood, so. . . Q. You had enough blood. How did you know you had enough? A. You have enough blood when you have that much? (Indicating.) Q. Did you ask the officers if you had enough blood? A. I asked the officer, does it look like we've got enough blood that you guys want? Yes. You can do DNA in that small amount. (Indicating) Q. So the officer said yes. Then what did you do? A. So I withdraw the syringe, put a band-aid on Mr. Simpson's arm, and then took -- put this back on (indicating to purple cap.) Took this. Q. By "taking this," you mean? A. Took the vacutainer and stuck the needle -- I'm not going to stick it in there, but I jabbed it right in there. There's a vacuum in there, and it sucks the blood right in. As soon as I did that, without looking at this anymore, I took the syringe and deposited it into a receptacle we have for contaminated syringes, handed this to the officer -- that's the vacutainer I handed to the officer. Q. Mr. Peratis, or Nurse Peratis, I want to ask you one other question. Could you show the jury the position of the calibration as you were putting the needle into Mr. Simpson's arm. A. The calibrations are here. (Indicating to syringe.) Q. You're pointing to the top, or where the calibrations are? A. Okay. I was putting the needle in Mr. Simpson arm in this way. (Indicating.) Q. By the way, were the calibrations down? A. The calibrations were down, because the bevel was up, you have to watch the bevel when -- when you go into a vein. Q. And then when you removed the needle, did you turn the syringe over to look at the calibrations? A. No. Q. Did anybody ask you to? A. No. Q. Now, incidentally, do you ordinarily use a syringe? A. No. Q. What did you ordinarily use to take blood at the dispensary? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled? A. I use a vacutainer, which they have over there. Q. Excuse me? MR. BLASIER: Irrelevant. He didn't do it this time. THE COURT: Just show him what a vacutainer is. A. No, this is the vacutainer, too. The vacutainer is that -- that thing that it goes into. MR. MEDVENE: Okay. A. (Continuing.) I believe I gave you one. It's in that little pile. MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant. He didn't use it. THE COURT: Mr. Medvene, if you're going to go into this, I'm going to let them go into collection techniques. MR. MEDVENE: If we ask about the vacutainer? MR. BLASIER: Withdrawn. THE COURT: Yes. MR. MEDVENE: You're the judge. (Laughter.) MR. BAKER: Go ahead, Ed, go ahead. (Laughter.) MR. PETROCELLI: No thanks. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Why did you use the syringe in this case? A. On certain people, I make an evaluation on an arm, and when certain people are pretty muscular, the veins are a little hard to get, and it's a little hard to control with the vacutainer, and it's easier to control with the syringe. Q. Is it -- is it correct, sir, that you use the syringe very infrequently to draw blood? A. That's correct. MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And is it accurate that you don't and haven't measured how much blood you draw when you do -- presently use the syringe? A. We never measure blood. Q. Now, let's go to the experiment that you discussed with Mr. Blasier. Did anyone from the District Attorney's office ask you to do any experiment of any kind to see how much blood you drew to get an exact amount? A. At my home, yes. Q. Prior to that? A. No. Q. Did you do the experiment, yourself, prior to seeing anyone from the D.A.'s office? A. Yes; I did one, did it myself first. Q. Okay. A. Then -- Q. Let's start there. Did anyone ask you to do that experiment that you say you did first? A. No. I just took it on my own to do it. Q. Why? A. Well, after I heard -- after I heard what I heard about the blood missing, I put 8 cc's in one of these things to see what it looked like, and it was more than what it looked like I had -- I handed to them. So I withdraw some blood until it looked like what I had I handed to them, and it came out within -- between that six and six and a half cc's, which I just measured. I was just drawing one cc at a time out, until it looked like what it was. But it was still an estimation. Q. And how did you do the measurements? What did you physically do? Did you take a cc and drop it in a certain amount at a time? A. Okay. I pulled up 8 cc's of water. I squirted it into that. Like, it was too much. I pulled out one cc, dumped it out. Pulled out another cc, dumped it out. And it looked like between there. After I took it out, the 2 cc's, it looked like a little bit more than 6 cc's. I estimated about six and a half cc's, and that was it. Q. Now, when you gave the testimony that was read to you at the preliminary hearing about the 8 cc's, you also said at that time that nobody asked you to take a precise amount of blood; isn't that correct. MR. BLASIER: Objection. Improper impeachment. THE COURT: Excuse me? MR. BLASIER: It's not impeaching; it's improper. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Yes. Q. You also said at that time when you talked about how much blood you thought you withdraw, that nobody had asked you to take out a precise amount of blood; isn't that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And that you didn't record the amount of blood you withdrew; isn't that true? A. That's correct. Q. Now, why -- why did you give that estimate, then, that you gave about the 8 cc's, and tell us now you think it was six, six and a half, did you ever measure before, for example, to see if it was 8 cc's? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Compound. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Have you ever, prior to the time you testified at the preliminary hearing and the grand jury, had you ever measured the amount of blood that you would withdraw from someone's arm? A. No. Q. Never? A. Never. Q. Why did you say the amount that you said? A. Up to this time, I think that anyone that would draw blood, if they were asked that question, think of 8 cc's as about the amount that we draw. And that is about the first thing they think. And that was the first thing that came out of my mouth. The correct answer at that time should have been, "I don't know how much I drew." Q. Why would that have been the correct answer? Because you didn't know? A. No, I didn't, really; didn't really know; it was a guess. It was an educated guess, you might say. I happened to be wrong in that case. Many times I would have been right. Q. Because sometimes it's one amount and sometimes it's another? A. Yes. Q. And after -- And so that the record's clear, you went through and performed the test, and for the first time, actually measured, or attempted to measure how much blood you withdrew, and you did that on your own? A. Yes. Q. And it was after that, that you shared this information with Mr. Blasier and another defense counsel, Mr. Neufeld, and Ms. Joanne Dimitri; they're jury consultants. You did that? A. Yes. Q. You told them exactly? A. Yes. Q. And you also then had occasion, for the first time, to tell Mr. Goldberg, the District Attorney? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Misstates his testimony. THE COURT: That's a question. Overruled. I take it that's a question. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You then told Mr. Goldberg? A. I had told Mr. Goldberg, but I hadn't shown him before I showed it to Mr. -- Mr. Goldberg at my home. [sic] Q. Okay. Let me move then, if I can, to the cut on the middle finger, the left hand. Mr. Blasier had read you certain portions of the transcript. And if I might, Your Honor, I'd just like to read three brief portions to put that portion in context, if I might, from the deposition transcript, the questioning by Mr. Blasier. THE COURT: Okay, go ahead. MR. BLASIER: What page? MR. MEDVENE: At page 87, I'm going to read from line 14, through page 88, line 1. I believe Mr. Blasier read up to line 19, but to put it in context, I'll read that whole section. At some point -- A question by Mr. Blasier: "Q. At some point, were you asked to do something with respect to Mr. Simpson's hand or hands? "A. Not hand. I -- I may have heard from Mr. Vannatter. I put the dressing -- I went to put a dressing on Mr. Simpson's arm and he said, I don't need that. So . . . "Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Who said that? "A. Mr. Simpson. I wanted to put a pressure dressing. He said he didn't need it. So I heard a voice -- I thought it was Phil, but it may not have been -- 'do you mind checking his finger,' or words to that effect." At page 89 lines -- line 1, through page 90, I believe, line 4. "Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Somebody said do you mind checking his finger? What's your best recollection of the exact words that were used? "A. 'Could you take a look at the finger,' something like that. "I can't -- You know, it was just in passing. And I said 'sure.' All I did was take a look at it and kind of, like a courtesy I'd give to any officer that's cut or something, just gave it a -- cleaned it off and dressed it. "Q. When you heard someone say, 'will you take a look at his finger,' did you say anything? "A. I think I said yes. "Q. Did anyone tell you which finger to look at? "A. Not that I know. I think -- Which finger are -- are -- are we talking about? I don't know how it got that -- Maybe Mr. Simpson had me look at his finger or whatever. I just looked at it. I mean, it was there. I looked at it. "Q. Did you look at his hand? "A. No. "Q. How did you know which finger to look at, if you know. "A. It was obvious. You could see it was obvious. "Q. How was it obvious? "A. It was a -- it was a -- looked like a kind of older -- an old scratch or old cut, looked like a little skin had been kind of scraped off." And then "(Indicating.)" And then counsel makes reference or says, "The witness is pointing to the middle finger of the left hand when he was describing the finger Mr. Simpson showed him. " "Q. Now, when you said it looked like an old cut, what did you mean? "A. It could have been something about 12, 24 hours old. It's a little hard to judge those things. And then two other quick portions at page 94, lines 15 through 18. "Q. Were you looking -- MR. BLASIER: Mr. Medvene, can I have a chance to look? MR. MEDVENE: Oh, yes. I'm sorry. MR. BLASIER: 15 to when? MR. MEDVENE: 15 to 18. MR. BLASIER: I would object. It's not impeaching. MR. MEDVENE: The question is, were you looking at his hand? MR. BAKER: Wait. We object. THE COURT: Just a minute. MR. MEDVENE: I'm sorry. MR. BLASIER: I'd object. It's not impeaching. MR. PETROCELLI: It's rehab. MR. MEDVENE: It's rehabilitation for what Mr. Blasier said. It's putting in context what Mr. Blasier read. THE COURT: Go ahead and read it. MR. MEDVENE: (Reading:) "Q. Were you looking at his hand when you cleaned the finger? "A. Only the finger that I was cleaning." And the last portion, at page 94, line -- looks like 25 through page 96, line 1. "Q. Because you didn't observe anything else that required any kind of medical attention; is that right? "A. I -- I didn't look." MR. MEDVENE: I have nothing further. Thank you very much, Mr. Peratis. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Mr. Peratis, when you were looking at Mr. Simpson's middle finger, where were his other fingers? A. Pardon? MR. MEDVENE: Asked and answered. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Where were the other fingers? A. On his hand. THE COURT: Excuse me. MR. MEDVENE: What we did, Your Honor, was just read in other sections of the deposition. We didn't ask him specific questions to put what Mr. Blasier read in context. Mr. Blasier, I believe, asked his question in substance on his direct examination. We didn't ask any questions; what we did was just read in portions of the deposition. MR. LEONARD: Move to strike. THE COURT: What are you doing? MR. LEONARD: Move to strike. THE COURT: Motion is denied. What do you want? MR. MEDVENE: We're objecting on the basis that it's improper redirect, Your Honor. THE COURT: Go ahead and examine him, Mr. Blasier. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you make a conscious effort not to look the at fingers right next to the one you were examining? A. No. Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, is it your testimony that 10 cc syringes always comes with a bevel facing away from the calibration? A. No. Q. They come all different ways, don't they? A. Correct. Q. Now, by the way, the little demonstration you did with the jurors, had you practiced that with Mr. Medvene? A. With who? Q. Mr. Medvene. A. No. Q. Or anyone else? A. No. Q. Have you tried to be completely fair and impartial to both sides here? A. I am very much trying to be impartial. Q. Okay. Now, are you telling us that now, two and a half years later, you have a specific recollection of which side the bevel on the needle was when you withdrew Mr. Simpson's blood? A. All -- the only reason I have the -- that recollection is that the bevel -- had the calibrations been facing up to the bevel, I would have seen it. I was seeing how much blood I had drawn, I would have noticed it. But it's like this (indicating to syringe.) Q. My question is, two and a half years after you drew this blood, are you saying you have a specific recollection as to which side the bevel on the needle was? A. No, I'm not. I'm just saying that I had the bevel up. All right? Q. Okay. A. Now that's -- Q. That's because you always do it that way? A. All right. Now, if the bevel were up and the calibrations were up where the bevel was, I would have seen it. Q. You would have seen how much blood you drew, correct? A. Yes. But it wasn't that way; otherwise, I would have seen it. Q. And when you testified just a couple weeks later that it was 7.9 to 8.1, that was based on your looking at the calibrations, wasn't it? A. No. That was based on a guess, just a guess that was it. Q. Do you recall in your deposition, page 67, line 13, being asked the following questions: And this was under oath, was it not? A. Yes. Q. Just a few months ago, correct? A. Correct. Q. (Reading.) "Q. Did you look at where the bevel was when you took Mr. Simpson's blood? "A. Yes. "Q. Where was it in relation to the calibrations? "A. I don't know. Were you telling the truth when you said that? A. I don't know. Q. Okay. But that's the truth? A. I'm surmising that it was the other way, because otherwise, I would have seen the blood. Q. And the reason you said it was 7.9 to 8.1 cc's under oath, was because that's what you all think you draw; was that your testimony? A. That's about what everyone thinks they have drawn, and it's wrong. And I believe I told you at the deposition I was wrong; I should not have made that statement, that's on the deposition. Q. Now, I think you just said to Mr. Medvene that sometimes you draw one amount and sometimes you draw a different amount? A. We do. The ideal amount that we think we draw is about 8 cc's. Now, that is wrong. And I don't think any nurse in their right mind will ever say that again, when they say see what I'm going through; (Laughter.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) This was the most memorable blood you had ever drawn in your career; isn't that correct? A. Yes. Q. And when you testified at the preliminary hearing, you told the truth, didn't you? A. Well, I told what I thought was the truth at that time. Q. And that was your best recollection of the truth at that time, correct? A. That's right. MR. BLASIER: That's all I have. MR. MEDVENE: Just one question, Mr. Peratis. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE: Q. When you say the ideal amount is whatever it is in this case, prior to drawing out the ideal amount, isn't it correct that the blood stopped coming in because the needle hit the vein? A. I'm surmising that's the reason. It could have been a clot, too. Q. Right. But the blood stopped coming? A. Yes. Q. And then you stopped taking any more blood from Mr. Simpson? A. Yes. MR. MEDVENE: Thank you. Nothing further. MR. BLASIER: Wait a second. FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Are you saying now that you remember the bevel causing the vein to collapse to the point where you couldn't get any more blood? Do you remember that now? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Misstates -- he didn't say the vein collapsed. THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead and inquire. A. The bevel, when you're pulling blood, the bevel can suck a portion of the vein into it, and it stops the blood. Q. Are you saying that now you have a specific recollection of that happening? A. I don't know if that's what caused it. I know the blood stopped. I'm surmising it was either that or a clot. Q. Incidentally, you weren't the one that told -- you didn't call the defense when you realized that your testimony under oath was incorrect, did you? A. I called the -- I called the -- Q. The D.A.? A. The prosecution. Q. And they called us because they had to, right? A. I don't know if they called you. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Lack of foundation. A. I talked to you. You're the ones that called me. Q. To set up an appointment, after you told the D.A., right? A. Yes, I told the D.A. first. Q. That's all I ask. THE COURT: Last volley. MR. MEDVENE: Last question, Your Honor. FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE: Q. And your explanation that the blood stopped coming at Mr. Simpson's arm and your explanation of why you gave, under oath, to Mr. Blasier, prior to this date; isn't that true? A. I didn't understand the question. Q. You told Mr. Blasier exactly what you told this jury about the blood stopping when you were drawing it from Mr. Simpson, in the middle of your drawing it; isn't that true? A. Yes. MR. MEDVENE: Thank you. Nothing further. FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. When you were testifying in your deposition, you were surmising? A. Pardon? Q. When you were testifying in your deposition you were just surmising? MR. MEDVENE: Surmising what? Vague, ambiguous. MR. BLASIER: That the blood stopped. A. Surmising. MR. BLASIER: Nothing further. THE COURT: Okay, you're excused. MR. PETROCELLI: You're excused, MR. PETROCELLI: You're excused. Thank you. MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would move in 2251, 2252, 2254 and 2255. (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2251 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2252 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2254 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2255 for identification, was received in evidence.) THE COURT: Just a minute. MR. KELLY: I wanted to move in 821. THE CLERK: Wait. Wait. Hold on. Sorry. Go ahead. MR. KELLY: 821, the video from Mr. Vannatter's testimony. MR. BAKER: Which one is that? I object to that, Your Honor. There's no foundation for that video. THE COURT: I said I'll wait until you lay a foundation. Okay. 1:30 -- ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case. (Recess.) MR. BLASIER: Thank you. Under 767, we would recall Gregory Matheson. MR. PETROCELLI: Same objection. THE COURT: Overruled. THE CLERK: You are still under oath. Can you please state your name again for the record. THE WITNESS: Gregory Matheson. GREGORY MATHESON, called as a witness on behalf of the Defendants, having been previously sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Mr. Matheson, you have, during the course of your work in this case examined business records of the police department SID division with respect to withdrawals of blood from Mr. Simpson's reference vial, have you not? A. Yes, I have. Q. And you testified, I think already, that on June 14th or 13th, approximately 1 milliliter was withdrawn by Colin Yamauchi to prepare a Fitzco card, correct? Do you remember that? A. Either the 13th or the 14th. Q. And by the way, 1 milliliter is the same as 1 cc, is it not? A. Basically, yes. There's some slight difference, depending on what the liquid is. They're basically the same. Q. And you have also reviewed records of the SID division indicating that as of June 20, when Mr. Simpson's reference vial went to toxicology, there was 5.5 milliliters left in it? A. According to their record, yes. Q. And there are no records of any other withdrawals between when the blood was taken by Thano Peratis and when it went to toxicology on the 20th other than Mr. Yamauchi taking 1 milliliter, correct? A. I believe that's correct, yes. Q. Let me show you what's previously been marked as 259. (The instrument herein described as a stack of photocopies of a report and worksheets prepared by Gregory Matheson was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 259.) Q. And what -- why don't you tell us what that is. A. This is a stack of photocopies with the top three pages being photocopies of an analyzed evidence report that I prepared associated with this case, and the remaining pages being a variety of serology case summary sheets, worksheets electrophoresis worksheets, that type of thing. Q. And the sheets following the third one are basically the worksheets that led to the conclusions that you stated in the top three pages; is that fair to say? A. That's correct. Q. And looking at the board over here, this is simply a blow-up of the first page of that document, correct? A. It's a blow-up of the page, but there's some additional writing that appears on my copy that does not appear on the blow-up. That's been crossed off. Q. Okay. As to this, what appears to be a post-it on it, it says "problem, no match to anyone," that is on the paperwork that's already been introduced, correct? A. That, yes, it's on the photocopy that I have in front of me. Q. And what this note relates -- what this note relates to is finding blood type, or an EAP type under Nicole Brown Simpson's fingernails that did not match Mr. Simpson, Ms. Brown Simpson or Mr. Goldman, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, calls for speculation, lack of foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Well, this particular note, I don't recognize the handwriting and I didn't place it on there. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Okay. Did you -- it's on your lab's records. Do you have any idea who put that there? A. There's been many copies of the records that have gone to a lot of other places. I don't know when this was photocopied. Q. Okay. Would you agree that the results that you found for the EAP marker reveal an EAP type under Nicole Brown Simpson's fingernails that is not consistent with either her, Ron Goldman or O.J. Simpson? A. That's correct. Q. And if we look at the second page of that -- this document, that's represented by items 84A and B, correct? A. It's -- 84A and B are the right and left fingernail scrapings. The page that's on the video monitor up here shows the results columns of the analysis. Q. Okay. And in 4A and B, those are the fingernail scrapings from Nicole Brown Simpson. I'll represent that to you. The type of that you've indicated here by a B that is the EAP genetic marker, is it not? A. Yes, it is. Q. And Nicole Brown Simpson is what type? A. Either -- if you can either go to -- or if I can refer to my notes or the -- Q. Sure. A. -- the one that you gave me. Q. Go ahead and refer to your notes. A. Okay. According to my notes, the EAP type for Nicole Brown is EAP type BA. Q. And for Mr. Simpson? A. He is also a type BA. Q. And Mr. Goldman? A. An EAP type A. Q. Now, you also found an EAP type B for an item 118A, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And that was a knife found sometime after the murders, that had blood on it with that EAP type, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Now, you testified fairly extensively about these typing results at the criminal trial, did you not? A. Yes, I did. Q. And you indicated on the third page of your results with respect to the fingernails, 84A and B, and 118A, the knife, that -- back out a little bit more -- that they could not have come from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson, correct? A. That's the first part of that paragraph, that's correct. Q. We'll get to the rest of it. Then you also say, however, Nicole Brown Simpson cannot be excluded as a source of the stain in the EAP type B observed on the item, as it could be degraded from a type BA, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Now, you testified extensively at the criminal trial about the differences between a BA and a B, correct? A. Yes, I did. Q. And I'd like you to grab a marker there. I think there's a blue marker on the table. Come down here, if you will. (Witness complies approaches board.) Q. Now, we don't really have to understand the whole process of EAP typing to understand the difference between a BA and a B, do we? A. No. Q. Okay. What I'd like you to do on the left side of that -- first of all, write at the top, BA. (Witness complies, writes on large board.) Q. On the right side, B. (Witness complies, writes on large board.) Q. Now, could you draw to enhance with other conventional serological testing and DNA testing the ultimate results are an X-ray type item with bands on it, right? A. In this case it's not what you're describing as an X-ray type item. It's a gel that the bands that show up to give you an indication of what type. It kind of glows. In this case -- particular case, it's not a darker -- you do it in the dark under ultraviolet light and the bands show up as a glow. Q. The BA consists of 4 bands? A. That's correct. Q. Why don't you draw those 4 bands in the general position of where they would be on your gel if you had a sample that had BA? A. Okay, just to give a reference point, when you're running an electrophoresis gel you have an origin. That's just where -- where the sample starts from. You put a thread with your gel at a point called the origin. And in the case of the EAP system, each of the types breaks down to a couple of different bands for EAP. We have 4 bands, one a heavy band, a lighter band and a lighter band and a lighter band. Q. Those are given names. Why don't you write the names next to them. A. They're given letter designations. Trying to remember which direction they go. It's like a -- well -- Q. B2? A. This is an indication of the B band. This 29, this is one of the A bands. And this could also be a B band. Q. I think the bottom one is A1, the bottom B is B1, and then it's A2 and B2, correct? A. That's one of the ways of doing these. Q. Okay. And the B2 bands and the A2 bands are referred to as the faster bands because they move farther on the gel, correct? A. That's correct. Q. But once the test is done, if you were testing a BA that had 4 bands, that's what it would look like, correct? A. Basically, yes. Q. Now, over on the column for the B, why don't you draw what a two banded B pattern looks like? A. Again, you have the origin point and then you just have the two bands in the B regions. Q. And why don't you label those B, B1 and B2, correct? Now, would you agree that the results that you found for the fingernails and the knife, number 118, looked like the B with the two bands, B1 and B2? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And your statement, or your testimony that -- that what you saw might be a degraded BA was based on the fact that there is scientific literature that indicates that under some circumstances you can have a BA that degrades down to a B, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you can go ahead and have a seat. (Witness complies, resumes witness stand.) Q. Now, sometimes you can have a B that just has the B1 band, correct? That's sometimes called a B as well, is it not? A. Well, I wouldn't call it a B without having both bands being present. Q. Okay. Now, during your preparation for the criminal trial, and during your testimony, we reviewed carefully all the scientific literature that there is that talks about a BA degrading to a B, did we not? MR. LAMBERT: Only hearsay, Your Honor. THE COURT: You can answer yes or no. A. Yes, we did. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And you're familiar with that literature, are you not? A. With some of it, yes. Q. Okay. And would you agree that the literature that talks about a BA degrading to a B that describes how that process takes place, describes it as bands as it degrades disappearing from the top down? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, calls for hearsay, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. It does indicate, the literature does, that the direction of degradation does tend to be from either top or bottom. At this point, I don't specifically remember which one it is, but yes, it is -- it tends to be in one direction. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Okay. From the top, which is what the literature says, what this means is as the stain degrades, first you lose B2, right? A. Yes. Q. And you wind up with three bands, which still would be called a BA because you have two A bands and 1 B band? A. According to the literature, they do talk about that as being one of the main degradation groups. I wouldn't call a BA or a B without having both B bands present. Q. Would you agree that the literature -- according to the literature, the degradation path, after you lose the B2, the next thing you lose is A2? A. It does talk about that as one of the routes of degradation. Q. Then the next one you lose is B1, and finally, when it's all gone, you can't get a type, you lose A1, correct? A. No, I believe the A bands are going to be gone first. It does not specifically mention an A band being the last one left. Q. Okay. But you would agree that the literature that talks about this, has the B2 bands disappearing first and then the A2 band disappearing? A. The literature does reference one of the B bands disappearing first, that's correct. Q. Would you agree that, according to the literature that talks about this, you would never have a pattern -- a two banded B pattern from a degraded BA given the pattern that is described in the literature? A. The literature that I've seen does not specifically say that that can occur. It describes the other situation we've been talking about. Q. Well, it didn't say that it can't occur either, did it? A. There are references there that do leave it open to that possibility, and mention that the A bands disappear first. However, the majority of the pictures and the experimentation shown does show the route that you're talking about in the degradation of the -- one of the B bands prior to both A bands. Q. Well, there -- some of the literature says that you can have a B degraded from a BA but it doesn't tell you how it gets from a BA to a B, does it? A. That's correct. Q. All the articles that tell you how to get from a BA to a B describe it as you lose B2, then you lose A2, correct, you lose it from the top down? A. You do lose a B band along with one of the A's, that's correct. Q. So there is no specific scientific support in the literature for a two banded B pattern actually being degraded from a BA, correct? A. Showing you the photographs and stuff, you're correct. Q. And if you have typed Nicole Brown Simpson's fingernails -- scrapings under her fingernails correctly, that is consistent with blood from an unknown person being under her fingernails, correct? A. If the sample is strong enough and not degraded, that is correct. MR. BLASIER: That's all I have. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: Q. First, Mr. Matheson, on this question of the amount of blood taken from the reference sample, were the figures that you were discussing with Mr. Blasier just estimates of the amount of blood that was taken out? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. When criminalists would draw the blood at SID to use it, did they actually measure it or did they estimate how much they were taking? A. I'm sorry, when you say when we withdraw it. Q. Yeah, when you take blood out of the blood vial for testing, do you measure it or do you estimate the amount you're taking? A. No, it's all just estimations. Q. In your experience, can those estimations be pretty far off? A. Yes, they can. Q. In fact, in connection with this case, didn't you once make an estimate and then go back and do a precise measurement to see how close your measurement was? A. Even the second one wasn't a precise measurement. Yes, I did first an eyeball guess of how much blood was in the blood vial. Later on I did what I thought was a more precise way of measuring it and was significantly off. Q. What was your guess of how much was in it? A. On the day we did the inventory of the evidence, I eyeballed it and concluded in the chart there was approximately 2 milliliters of blood in that vial. Q. And then when you later went back and did the more precise measurement efforts, what did you come up with? A. 3.8, or almost twice as much. Q. In regard to this issue of the blood under Nicole's fingernails, is part of your opinion that -- well, first let me start off with your opinion to what's the most likely, and as to the correct EAP type for that blood? A. Well, given that particular sample, looking at all of the other information associated with the -- where the sample was taken from, I -- and not just looking totally at the analytical information, the most likely conclusion is that it's a degraded BA, and that it came from Nicole Brown. Q. Can you tell the jury some of the -- of the circumstances that you took into account in reaching that conclusion? A. Well, having done a number of fingernail scrapings type of analysis, particularly when there is a lot of blood involved, the most common source of blood under the nails is the victim's own blood. As a matter of fact, it's very rare to finds somebody else's blood under a victim's fingernails. It does happen occasionally, but it's fairly rare. In this particular case, having seen some of the crime scene photographs and her hands, there was blood present on it, and along with the known fact that EAP can degrade to a B, that I've seen in other tests that I've performed, I feel the most likely explanation, though I can't rule out the other possibility, most likely is that the blood that's there is from Ms. Brown. Q. And that's just based on your own conventional serology expertise? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. Now, in addition to that, Mr. Matheson, you -- we have heard in the courtroom the testimony of Gary Sims and Dr. Robin Cotton, both of whom independently performed PCR tests, different PCR tests on the blood under Nicole's fingernails, both of which concluded that that blood had DNA type that was consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson and did not show a mixture containing any other person's blood. Would those test results confirm your conventional serology opinion that this is Nicole's blood under the fingernails? A. I think it confirms that the most likely answer is that it's her own blood. Q. And as to all of the other blood that was at the crime scene that you did conventional serology tests on, was all of that typing consistent with coming from either one of the victims or Mr. Simpson? A. Of the stuff from the crime scene, that's correct. Q. Yes. This knife that Mr. Blasier was asking about, do you know where that knife came from? A. Right now, no. I'd -- I'd have to look at a property report. I don't believe it came from the crime scene. MR. LAMBERT: Thank you. I have no further questions. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. When you found -- when a knife was found with the same type of EAP type, that wasn't really pursued by LAPD, was it? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, lack of foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, you're aware of how much blood it takes to prepare a Fitzco card, aren't you, it takes 1 cc, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And the card is designed so you -- it takes -- it makes four different sections, each one 250 microliters, I guess? A. That's correct. Q. So you're pretty certain about the fact that when Mr. Yamauchi made his Fitzco card, he took out 1 cc? A. I'd say pretty close to that. I don't know if he specifically used a measuring pipette to do it, but he prepares a lot of those. Q. There's only that one withdrawal between when Thano Peratis collected the blood, and it went to toxicology where they said it had 5.5 cc's? A. That's my understanding. Q. If those numbers are correct, and Thano Peratis withdrew 8 cc's, that would indicate that between the time the blood was drawn and it went to toxicology on June 20, there was approximately one and a half cc's missing, if those numbers are correct? A. If what he drew is correct, that's true. Q. Now, did I understand your testimony about the fingernails is that you said if you don't look closely at the analytical information, that means disregard the test results? A. No, not at all. That's why I don't totally eliminate the possibility of a different type being present. I also understand the limitations of the EAP system and I can take other information into account. Q. Okay. Now, you would expect to find a person's own DNA under their fingernails, wouldn't you? A. I would. Q. From skin cells or whatever? A. Yes, I would. Q. It's not unusual if you did a DNA test under Nicole Brown Simpson's fingernails, you're going to find cellular material consistent with her, correct? A. I would think so, if they scraped some of it out. Q. Okay. Now, the EAP test doesn't look at the same part of the blood as the DNA test, correct? A. That's correct. The EAP is on the red blood cells. There's no DNA in the red blood cells. Q. You're talking about comparing PCR with EAP, you're comparing apples and oranges, you're looking at different things, aren't you? A. You're looking at different things. You're not going to necessarily discount that information. Q. You would agree it would be unusual if you didn't find Nicole Brown Simpson's DNA under her fingernails? A. I would expect to see hers along with the mixture, if there was another sample under there. Q. Now, you said you have seen in tests you've performed, a BA degrade to a B, like you found in this case? A. That's correct. Q. How many times? A. Well, I believe I saw it in one other instance in this case, and I can specifically remember a couple other instances. I don't -- beyond that, I'm not sure. Q. You remember testifying at the criminal trial that you had one other situation where you thought you had seen that? A. There was one that I very specifically remember because I testified to it down in Compton Court. I believe I've seen it other times. Q. Are you aware since you testified in the criminal trial, of there being any additional scientific literature that supports at all your position that the B that you saw under the fingernails could have been a degraded BA? A. No, I haven't. MR. BLASIER: That's all I have. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: Q. Mr. Matheson, I don't want to show the jury the picture again, but where were Nicole's hands in relationship to the pool of blood that she was found in? A. Oh, I don't specifically remember this. They were either in it or very close. Q. And is that one of the reasons why you think it's more likely that that blood under the fingernails is her own blood? A. That, along with my experience in running fingernail scrapings and the subsequent DNA work that was done. MR. LAMBERT: Thank you. MR. BLASIER: Nothing further. THE COURT: You may step down. (Pause) MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would ask to have the board that Mr. Matheson marked, marked as an exhibit and introduced. THE CLERK: That would be 2256. MR. BAKER: 50? THE CLERK: 56. MR. BAKER: Fine. THE CLERK: Thank you. (The instrument herein described as a poster board marked by Mr. Matheson was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2256.) MR. BAKER: We will recall to the stand under 676 -- MR. KELLY: 767. MR. BAKER: 767. THE COURT: One of those. MR. BAKER: I want to see Tom Lange again. MR. PETROCELLI: I'm going to object to 767. THE COURT: Objection overruled. THE CLERK: Have a seat. You've already been sworn. TOM LANGE called as a witness on behalf of the Defendants, having been previously sworn, testified as follows: THE CLERK: You are still under oath. Would you please state your name again for the record. THE WITNESS: Tom Lange, L-a-n-g-e. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER: Q. Mr. Lange, how much time did you spend before the time you left the stand and today with the plaintiffs' attorneys? A. Spoke with Mr. Medvene this afternoon for about 10 minutes. Saw him briefly last night. That's about it. Q. How much time did you spend talking to Mr. Vannatter before you got on the witness stand here this afternoon? A. None. Q. Now, let me ask you, sir, when you were at 675 (sic) South Bundy, did you -- did you see any shoe prints -- MR. KELLY: 875. MR. BAKER: Strike that. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) 875 South Bundy, did you see any shoe prints between the body of Nicole Brown Simpson and Bundy? A. Bundy Drive? Q. Yes, sir. MR. MEDVENE: Objection, the Bundy crime scene, there was thorough cross-examination on it. THE COURT: I'll allow some. MR. MEDVENE: Yes, sir. Vague, then, as to time, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You may answer. THE COURT: No. Sustained as to time. MR. BAKER: I'm sorry. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) How many times were you at 875 South Bundy before the crime scene was released? A. I was there for the one time on the 13th before it was released. Q. You were actually there from 4:20 to 5, and then you went back about quarter to 7 in the morning and were there until approximately noon, right? A. Yes, approximately. Q. So you were there at least two times on the 13th, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay? A. That's correct. Q. And it was the last time that you were there that you did a thorough investigation of the evidence that was at the crime scene, true? MR. MEDVENE: Same objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. I'm permitting this witness to be examined as a defense witness and I assume we're not going to go over the same thing. MR. BAKER: We're not. THE COURT: Okay. Please don't. A. May I have the question again, please. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) It was the second time when you went back to 875 South Bundy that you did a thorough examination of the evidence of the crime scene, right? A. No, I did not examine the evidence at that time. Q. You were looking for evidence, attempting to recognize evidence, document evidence, and preserve evidence, correct? A. That would go more to the criminalist, that would be a concern that -- the criminalist is the one who documents and collects the evidence. Q. I see. In all of the 12 pages of your notes that you documented at the crime scene, 875 South Bundy, that was also to document the crime scene after you recognized what you thought may have been evidence, true? A. Yes, various aspects of the crime scene. Q. And then I want to go back to my original question then, Detective Lange, and that was did you see any shoe prints between the body of Nicole Brown Simpson and Bundy Drive that were consistent with the shoe prints that were on the stairs and going to the west? A. I observed some partial shoe prints near the body on the walkway, yes. Q. Did you observe the shoe prints as far as four feet away from Nicole Brown Simpson on the walkway towards Bundy? A. I don't recall that. MR. P. BAKER: Next in order. THE CLERK: 2257. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, the shoe prints on Bundy were -- were relatively unique, weren't they? I mean the pattern? (The instrument herein described as Photograph of crime scene was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2257.) MR. MEDVENE: Objection, vague, which shoe prints, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you -- THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you see this shoe print that's over four feet down the walkway towards Bundy at the crime scene at 875 South Bundy, Mr. Lange? A. It's hard for me to orient where exactly. Q. Pull it back so we can orient it? A. Yeah. (Indicating to Elmo.) Q. Now, at the top of this Exhibit No. -- MR. BAKER: Again, please. I'm sorry. MR. P. BAKER: 2257. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) -- 2257, is the body of Nicole Brown Simpson, correct? A. Yes. Q. And the tiles with the grouting are basically one foot, true? A. Approximately, yes. Q. And did you see shoe prints in the area where my finger is pointing a foot or so away, that is towards the east and Bundy Drive? A. Yes. Q. And did you see shoe prints as far down as four feet away from the body of Nicole Brown Simpson towards Bundy Drive? A. I don't recall seeing shoe prints down in this area, if that's what you're referring to. Q. Now, that shoe print is four tiles away from the body of Nicole Brown Simpson, is it not, sir? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence that that is a shoe print, Your Honor. There's been no evidence of that. THE COURT: Excuse me. MR. MEDVENE: Assumes a fact not in evidence that Mr. Baker is saying something in particular is a shoe print, there's been no evidence to that. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, that shoe print is over four feet away from Nicole Brown Simpson, right? A. Which shoe print? Q. That shoe print. MR. PETROCELLI: For the record, can you indicate where you were pointing, Mr. Baker? A. I don't know that it is a shoe print. It doesn't appear to be a shoe print to me. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That's not a shoe print to you? A. I don't know. It doesn't appear to be one to me. MR. BAKER: Put on the other ones that are south of or west of the body. MR. P. BAKER: This is 2214. (Exhibit 2214 displayed.) Q. Now, I take it that you couldn't recognize that as a shoe print either, right? A. Where are you looking? Q. Right there. A. Yeah, that appears to be a partial shoe print. Q. But you can't make out the other one that has -- MR. BAKER: Let's put it back up now, Phil, the first one. (Exhibit 2257 displayed.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Does that look like a shoe print to you, from the very same type of sole that made the shoe print in the last photograph? A. No. Q. Doesn't look like it to you? A. No. Q. All right. Now, that would be significant, wouldn't it, if there was a shoe print four feet to the west of Nicole Brown Simpson, correct? A. Well, there was shoe prints to the west of Nicole Brown Simpson. Q. Maybe you didn't understand the question. That would be significant if there was a shoe print four feet to the west of Nicole Brown Simpson, correct? A. Certainly. Q. And the reason it would be significant is because it would indicate that the assailant, after he killed Nicole Brown Simpson, had walked in the blood and then walked west, true? A. Yes. Q. And it would also indicate to you -- strike that. There are other shoe prints indicating that the assailant walked in the area after Nicole Brown Simpson had been killed, true? A. I don't know if we can say after. The shoe prints appeared between both victims. MR. BAKER: Put back that shoe print, the last one. MR. P. BAKER: Coming up is Exhibit 92. (Exhibit 92 displayed on Elmo.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Do you see any shoe prints in that photograph? And it's hard. If you want to come back here. A. Yeah, that might help a little bit. I believe there was some up in the left -- upper left quarter of the quadrant, up here on this area, right in here, you see a partial heel print. (Indicating to Exhibit No. 92.) MR. BAKER: Now put -- Q. While you're back away from the TV monitor -- MR. BAKER: Put back the one that's four feet west on the path toward Bundy. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) See if you, from the vantage point that you presently have, if you agree that's a shoe print? MR. P. BAKER: 2257. (Exhibit 2257 displayed.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, still doesn't look like it to you? Not to you, anyway? A. I can see what you're referring to, this area in here, this section, little area, but -- Q. Well -- A. I can't say that that's a shoe print. Q. Well, you may resume the stand, sir. Mr. Lange, that indentation has a similar sole pattern to the indentations that you saw up next to the body, does it not, sir? A. No, I think the ones at the body are sectioned much smaller than that. Q. Oh, do you? Okay. That had to be a shoe print made by somebody? A. This had to be? Q. Yes. A. I'm not saying it's a shoe print. Q. Let me ask you this. (Indicating to the exhibit displayed.) Q. The LAPD certainly wouldn't have walked in that area before the crime scene was released, would they? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, calls for conclusion, lack of foundation. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) No one from the LAPD would have infringed and tampered with the crime scene and walked in pools of blood before the crime scene was released? MR. MEDVENE: Same objection. It's also argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Was care taken, Mr. Lange, to keep the feet of LAPD officers out of blood pools on the walkway between the time that the bodies were discovered at 12:10 and the crime scene was released at 3 o'clock the following -- the same afternoon? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, lack of foundation, Your Honor. And certainly, in part, on the time the witness is not present. THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection as to that form. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) At -- all the time you were there, did you see anybody walk in the area where blood was pooling? A. At the time the bodies were removed, yes. Q. Well, the pictures were taken before the bodies were removed. We can see that because Nicole Brown Simpson's body is in the picture, right? A. Correct. Q. Before the bodies were removed -- what time were they removed? A. I believe it was approximately 10 AM, right in that area. Q. Before 10 AM, did you see anybody walk in the blood area on the walkway, sir? A. I saw no one walk in the blood. Q. That would certainly be improper procedure if anybody walked in the blood, you would agree with that? A. Yes, I wouldn't want to see that. Q. And you would agree, sir, that this pool of blood over to the right of the photograph, and the pool of blood in the middle lower portion of the photograph, right above what I have referred to as a shoe print, is simply pooled blood, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you would agree that the area that I've been pointing to that you do not agree is a shoe print, was an imprint made by something after the blood had pooled, correct, sir? A. There was a dog that ran through that area and there are paw prints throughout. I suppose it could have been a dog slipping through there. I don't know. Q. Now, in your multiple years as a detective, are you trying to intimate to this jury that that print is caused by a dog? A. I don't know what it was caused by. I don't even know if it's a print. Q. Well, it certainly isn't blood pooling, is it? A. It doesn't look like it's pooling in that one specific area that you mentioned. I don't know what kind of a print it is. Q. Now, Detective Lange, isn't it true that that impression indicates to you as a detective of 20 plus years that something other than a dog stepped in it? A. I think it would be irresponsible for me to make that kind of a decision. Q. I see. It wasn't -- never mind. Now, you don't think that that is the same shoe print that's up in the -- by the bodies that you've identified, correct? A. From looking at that photo, it doesn't appear to be the same to me. Q. All right. Now, you would agree that there were no shoe prints in the -- in front of Nicole Brown Simpson's body that was consistent with the shoes worn by Ronald Goldman the night of the murders, correct? A. I don't believe there were. Q. And that indicates to you that Ronald Goldman was already in the caged or closed-in area before Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered, correct? A. I think that's a probability, yes. Q. And that indicates to you, then, that, in your view, somebody was in front of Nicole Brown Simpson and then behind Nicole Brown Simpson before Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered, correct? A. Certainly that's a possibility, yes. Q. And all of that would be at the same time Ronald Goldman would be in a closed-in area, because once the throat was cut of Nicole Brown Simpson, blood gushed onto the walkway, isn't that true, sir? A. Can you repeat the first part of that again. I don't think I quite understood. Q. That indicates to you that during the process of Nicole Brown Simpson being murdered, Ronald Goldman had to be in the closed-in area while somebody was first in front of her, then behind her, and slashed her throat, and blood spurted all over the walkway, right? A. Not necessarily. Q. Well, not necessarily? And if in fact Ronald Goldman was in the closed-in area at the same time an assailant was in front of Nicole Brown Simpson and then behind Nicole Brown Simpson, there had to have been a second assailant occupying Ronald Goldman, isn't that true, sir? A. No. Q. You would have in your reconstruction just stood there -- A. Stood there? Q. -- stood there while the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson was taking place? That didn't happen in your reconstruction, did it? A. I don't think -- could you repeat that, please. Q. When you left 875 South Bundy at approximately 5 o'clock, it was after you had a conversation with Phil Vannatter, Ron Phillips and Mark Fuhrman, true? A. No, I didn't speak to Fuhrman. It was a brief conversation with Vannatter and Phillips. Q. And in the -- In the brief conversation with Vannatter and Phillips, Phillips indicated to Vannatter that O.J. Simpson had a previous incident of domestic violence with his ex-wife, right? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, hearsay, and this was specifically gone into. This question was specifically asked. The topic was gone into. THE COURT: Hearsay, sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, you -- well, you participated in the decision-making process to leave 875 South Bundy and go to 360 North Rockingham, correct? A. Yes. Q. And at the time that you participated in the decision to leave 875 South Bundy, you were aware that, obviously, there were two victims at 875 South Bundy? A. Yes. Q. You were aware that there was evidence that included a hat at 875 South Bundy, correct? A. Yes. Q. You were aware that there was at least a glove at 875 South Bundy correct? A. Yes. Q. You were aware that there was a pager at 875 South Bundy, right? A. Yes. Q. Keys, apparently, correct? A. Correct. Q. There were blood spatterings at 875 South Bundy, correct? A. Yes. Q. There were shoe prints at 875 South Bundy? A. Yes. Q. There were blood drops on the back of Nicole Brown Simpson at 875 South Bundy, correct? A. Correct. Q. There were blood drops going on the north walkway, leading west to east or east to west, at 875 South Bundy, correct? A. Yes. Q. And there was a well of evidence at that crime scene at 875 South Bundy that you were aware, at 5 o'clock, had been processed by no one, true? A. That's correct. Q. You were -- you were always aware at 5 o'clock, when you made this decision to notify Mr. Simpson of the death of his ex-wife, that no coroner had been called and no criminalist had been called, right? A. That's correct. Q. And, in fact, you could have called a criminalist, if you were just going to go to be over there for a few minutes to meet a few of them, so the criminalists would be back at 875 South Bundy when you got back; isn't that true? A. I suppose so. Q. Well, in other words, is it your testimony, Mr. Lange, that you were just going to go over there a few minutes, notify O.J. Simpson, get a little rapport with him, and then come right back to 875 South Bundy, and then start and investigate that crime scene and process it? A. It's my impression, at the time we left Bundy, that a criminalist had, in fact, been notified. Q. I see. A. We found out later, at Rockingham, that they had not. Q. Who gave you the impression that a criminalist had been notified? A. The original officers that arrived shortly after midnight. Q. Maybe you didn't understand the question. It asked for the identification of the human being who told you that the criminalist had been notified? A. I never said anyone told me. I said I was under the impression that they had been -- the photographer was there; detective headquarters had been notified. West Los Angeles was there. And I was under the impression that they, possibly, had been notified. I didn't need them at that time, so there was no specific request at that time. Q. You were co-lead detective, once you arrived at that scene, were you not? A. Yes. Q. And in the police department's view of things, once your division, robbery/homicide is notified, basically everything stops until robbery/homicide gets there and takes over, right? A. Generally, yes. Q. And so there is, at least in this case, had you not gone to Bundy, there would have been at least a two-hour and 15-minute delay for -- of absolutely no investigation on the scene because of LAPD rules that, once robbery/homicide is notified, everything stops, correct? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Materiality, relevance, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I don't know how long it had been. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, let's assume that robbery/homicide was notified at 2:45 to take over the crime, and you arrived and there sometime -- at 4:20; so you got an hour and what, 35 minutes -- A. Um-hum. Q. -- additional delay, correct? A. Yes. Q. And so you'd have four hours' delay because of robbery/homicide being -- from the time that the crime scene was, in fact, discovered, and there is still absolutely no processing of the crime scene going on because it's robbery/homicide, right? A. Well, that's a decision that's made by administration of the police department. Yeah, that's basically true. Q. Did you ever tell anybody he -- well, strike that. Isn't the time of death in every homicide important? A. It certainly is a factor that could be important, yes. Q. Isn't it also true, sir, that the time of death can be determined, if you call the coroner, by taking a liver temperature? A. It is one of the aids that can be used in determining an approximate time of death, but generally not much under two and a half, three hours. Q. Well, as a matter of fact, Detective Lange, in your 20 plus years, you're aware that if the temperature of the liver is taken in a close proximity after death, the estimate of time can be within an hour; isn't that true? A. Absolutely not. I have never heard that. And I've heard just the contrary in all my years. Q. Well, in fact, in the John Belushi case, the liver temperature was taken quickly. And that solved the crime, did it not, sir? A. I don't -- MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Hearsay, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) One and a half degrees an hour, the liver -- in the first four hours, the liver temperature drops, correct? A. That's a general rule. 1.5 degrees per hour is a very general rule, yes. Q. In this case, the variance becomes greater because the liver temperature wasn't taken until after 10 o'clock in the morning; isn't that correct? A. Yes. Q. And so the liver temperature becomes basically meaningless after the bodies are discovered. And you and your other co-lead Detective don't call the coroner and don't get any liver temperature taken for ten hours, correct? A. No, not at all. The same formula exists. It's 1.5 degrees per hour. Q. Exactly. After four hours, the liver temperature decreases one degree an hour; isn't that true? A. There are many factors, and I've always been told and advised by various pathologists that it's generally 1.5 degrees per hour. I don't -- never been instructed, or told, or taught that it was anything less. And that's a general -- very general, 1.5. Q. You've never heard that after four hours, the liver temperature goes down to a degree an hour, then it becomes, after six or seven hours, exceedingly variable? That's never been -- A. I've always -- Q. Okay. A. -- been told 1.5 degrees, generally, per hour. Q. So the liver temperature, in this case at -- was taken at different times from both victims, correct? A. I believe it was within a few minutes. Q. Well, one was -- Well, strike that. The liver temperature was 82 degrees, was it not? A. I haven't looked at that in perhaps a couple years. Q. Let me show you your notes. (Counsel approaches witness stand.) MR. MEDVENE: Objection. MR. BAKER: Right at bottom of the page. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Materiality. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I wrote, a liver temperature of 82 degrees at 10:50 a.m.. Q. 10:50 a.m. Liver temperature 82 degrees, right? A. That's what it says. Q. And what -- while we're on that page, what's the other ambient temperature? A. 70 degrees, same time. Q. So the outside temperature at just the ambient temperature was 70 degrees on June 13 at 10:50? A. That's right. Q. Now, the coroner certainly, in this case, that you were aware -- and you did attend the autopsy on the 14th -- could not place the time of death anywhere between 9:00 and 12:00, correct? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Lack of foundation and calls for hearsay. THE COURT: Overruled, if it's in the coroner's report. A. Well, go -- MR. MEDVENE: It's not in the coroner's report, Your Honor. THE COURT: You may inquire whether it's in the coroner's report. Q. Well, let me ask you this: You went to the autopsy, right? A. Yes. Q. Both you and Vannatter went to the autopsy, true? A. That's correct. Q. And you wrote the follow-up report, right? A. Yes. Q. And you put in your follow-up report, did you not, that the coroner couldn't determine with any more accuracy, that it was between 9:00 and 12:00, the time of death? A. I believe I wrote the coroner said it was between 9:00 and 12:00, closer to 9:00. Q. And, in fact, the coroner never said one thing about it being closer to 9:00; isn't that true? A. My recollection is that the coroner said probably closer to 9:00. Q. The coroner never has testified in any court that it was closer to 9:00. Is that true or untrue, to your knowledge, sir? A. I have no idea what he testified to. Q. Now, in terms, sir, of you making the decision to go over to Mr. Simpson's property, you had knowledge of all of the evidence at 875 South Bundy, as we just discussed, and you had knowledge that not one of the other people; that is, the coroner or criminalist, had been called. And you decided, along with Vannatter, that you were going to go and notify O.J. Simpson and develop a little rapport with him, right. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Argumentative; asked and answered several times today. Also prior testimony. THE COURT: I think this is the asked area. Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You, at the time you made this decision to leave this crime scene rich in evidence, were of the opinion that O.J. Simpson was a probable suspect for the murders of his wife and the unidentified victim at 875 South Bundy, correct? A. No, not at all. Q. You had knowledge of a previous domestic violence and you had knowledge that they were estranged, true? A. No, I did not. Q. You are -- it's your testimony you didn't have knowledge that they were divorced at the time you went over to Rockingham? A. It wasn't clear to me whether it was a separation or a divorce. Q. Is that crucial in terms of determining whether or not Mr. Simpson, in your mind, was a possible suspect for the murders? A. No. Q. In fact, what you wanted to do, Detective Lange, is: You knew that the LAPD had been under great pressure in high-profile cases for not getting any arrests and not getting any convictions, and you wanted to get Mr. Simpson arrested. Isn't that true, sir? A. Sir, that's nonsense. Q. You went over there, leaving everything behind at 875 South Bundy, not calling a criminalist, not calling a coroner, because you wanted to get to Mr. Simpson and see if you could develop a crime scene at 360 North Rockingham. True? A. That's not true. Q. Now, after you got to 360 North Rockingham, you and your colleague, Mr. Vannatter, were outside the Ashford gate, and you rang the intercom buzzer, right? A. I didn't ring the buzzer; I believe Fuhrman was over there, and perhaps Phillips. Q. So it was Phillips and Fuhrman who rang the buzzer, right? A. And Vannatter may have. I never rang the buzzer; it was one of them. Q. You think it was Phillips and Fuhrman that rang the buzzer, right? A. Again, I'm not sure, but I believe so, yes. Q. And you -- Your car was parked now -- MR. BAKER: Phil, can we get that? MR. P. BAKER: Yeah. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You were where when the buzzer was being rung? A. Well, it was rung several times over a period of time, when I was, for a while, in the street, in front of the Ashford gate. Subsequent to that, I was up closer in the intersection of Rockingham and Ashford. At one point, I walked down to the white Bronco and looked at the white Bronco, then back up towards the gate. Q. Now, how long was Fuhrman out of your sight at Rockingham? MR. MEDVENE: Vague as to time, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) At any time before you and Vannatter decided to go over the wall. A. I don't know that he was ever out of my sight during that time. Q. Well, did you keep him in your sight? A. Well, not on purpose. But for the most part, he was. When he walked away from the Ashford gate, initially, I kind of trailed behind him and walked, as I said to the intersection area. I observed him walking down towards the Bronco and I saw him looking at the Bronco. Q. Your police vehicle was parked on Ashford, just to the west of the Ashford gate, was it not? A. Yes. MR. BAKER: Phil, that's civil 116. (Defendants' Exhibit 116 was displayed on the Elmo screen.) MR. BAKER: Thank you. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And the Bronco was south on Rockingham right? A. Yes. Q. And it was 5 o'clock in the morning, right? A. Yes. Q. And it was dark? A. Yes. Q. And the only streetlight in the area is across the street on Ashford, right? A. I believe there is a light up there, yes. Q. No street lamps down here at all? A. I don't recall. Q. And so it's your testimony, of course, that you had walked out onto Rockingham and watched Mark Fuhrman go down to the Bronco, right? A. Well, I had walked out to the area of Rockingham and Ashford to see if I could get a better look inside -- inside the property. Q. When you came out to go to Mr. Simpson's house, did you come up Sunset and go down Rockingham? A. Yes. Q. At that time, there were no barriers on Rockingham, and you could go up Sunset, take a right on Rockingham, and come down Rockingham towards Ashford, which would be -- or I'm guessing -- up, 'cause it's north, correct? A. Yeah. Q. And you had -- were you driving at the time, or Vannatter? A. Vannatter. Q. And I take it that you were looking to see where Mr. Simpson's house was, were you not? A. No. Q. Did you notice that this is a solid wall all the way around his property? A. We didn't know they were at Mr. Simpson's house until the vehicle stopped and we pulled in behind Phillips. They were leading us to that location. Q. So as I understand your testimony now, you came out to the Ashford-Rockingham intersection to look to see if you could get a better view in his property? A. I was trying to get a better view into the property, yes. Q. And you never walked to the Rockingham gate, did you? A. Yes, I did. I walked down towards the Bronco, which was at the gate. Q. After, Fuhrman came back and told you there was a mark that he had found over the left door handle, right? A. It was about that time, yes. MR. BAKER: And you want to put that up again, Phil? (Defendants' Exhibit 109 was displayed on the Elmo screen.) MR. P. BAKER: 109. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That's the mark that you saw on the morning of June 13 at approximately 5:15, 5:30, in that area? A. Yes. Q. And you could see it real good, right? MR. PETROCELLI: Not on this. THE COURT: I can't see it very well. A. I see the mark. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And we already determined it's about three-eighths of an inch long? A. I don't know. Q. Well, there's a ruler. A. I can look real close, if you want, I suppose. Q. Well let me represent to you it's three-eights of an inch long. THE COURT: We have another photograph? MR. FOSTER: It's the same one. THE COURT: That's clear. Now I can see it. A. That's possibly half an inch. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Half an inch? A. Actually -- Q. Your measurements -- A. It's approximate, okay, according to this. Q. Okay. That's the way you read that ruler. This is three inches (indicating); this is three and a quarter; (indicating); this is three and a half (indicating); this is three and three-quarters? A. No. I'm looking from this line to this line. Q. That's a quarter of an inch. A. Oh, I'm sorry; I thought that was half an inch. Q. Okay. So that's? A. Say about a quarter of an inch. Q. That was a -- was -- was of great significance to you, wasn't it? A. There was some significance at that time. Later on, it became greater. Q. Before you made the decision to go over the wall, your group decision with Vannatter, that was of great significance to you, wasn't it, that quarter-of-an-inch mark that's on the monitor? A. I can't say "great significance." It was of some significance. Q. And you believed that the vehicle was parked -- that is, the Bronco -- the vehicle was parked at an angle to the curb, with the rear end jutting out into the roadway. That was of significance to you, too, wasn't it? A. Somewhat, yes. MR. BAKER: Put that photo on, Phil, please. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In your words, sir, in your follow-up murder -- follow-up report, why don't you read exactly what you said about the Bronco and jutting out into the roadway. (Pause for the witness to read document handed to him by Mr. Baker.) THE WITNESS: Would you like me to read it aloud? Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Yeah, that would be fine. A. Detectives -- you want me to read the whole paragraph? Q. Just read the sentence that relates to the angle of the Bronco on Rockingham. A. Having parked at an angle to the curb with the rear end jutting out into the roadway. Q. Now, as a matter of fact, the vehicle wasn't jutting out into the roadway at all, was it? A. The rear end appeared to me to be jutted out slightly in the roadway, yes. Q. Well -- MR. P. BAKER: 2036 [sic] on the screen. (Defendant's Exhibit No. 2038 displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. There is about four inches' difference between, or the front tire being close to the curb and the rear tire, it being close to the curb; you would agree with that? A. I never measured it. I couldn't say. Q. Let's take a look at the photo and see if we can make some determinations. This area, the white area, again, is an apron, is it not, a concrete apron that leads to the asphalt on Rockingham, right? A. Yes. Q. And the tires on the vehicle, you would agree, probably aren't any wider than eight inches? A. They're probably a little wider than that. Again, I didn't measure it. Q. You want to go ten? Would you believe eleven? A. I don't know. Q. You think ten is a good estimate? A. I have no idea. Q. Well, do you have tires on your car, Mr. Lange? A. Yes, but I've never measured them. Q. You estimate the width of them; they're not like to here, a foot wide? A. I never had any reason to measure the width of my tires or any other tires. Q. In any event, you would agree that the rear tire is almost adjacent to the concrete apron, would you not? A. It's certainly adjacent, but it is apart from, and sticking out as compared to the front. The car's at an angle. Q. And the roadway there is about what, 24 feet across? A. I don't know. Q. Difference in the two, in the front tire and the back tire be more than four, five inches? You would agree with that? A. It's a little hard to tell from that angle. That front tire is up on that apron and -- Q. Sure it is? A. And the rear tire of course, is out on the street, so that's how I had formed my impression. Q. So based upon you being there for the south side of the gate and walking down and looking at the Bronco, and from -- was it the front view that gave you the idea that the vehicle was jutting out into the street? A. No. When we initially approached, I observed the vehicle. It was the only one on the street, for one. And if one hadn't been paying attention to where they were going, they might have even run into it, because it is a fairly narrow street. Q. Rockingham is a fairly narrow street? A. Comparatively, yes. Q. Compared to Santa Monica Freeway? A. When there are vehicles parked on it, I think one would have to probably exercise more care. THE COURT: Can you get to a -- when you get to a point, we're going to take ten, okay? Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The location of the Bronco was one of the factors that led you to the decision that there may be a heinous crime going on inside Mr. Simpson's estate, right? A. No, I don't think so. Q. Had no significance whatsoever? A. I can say no significance. It wasn't one of the things that I looked at -- it wasn't one of the things that I looked at to compel us to go in. THE COURT: Ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen. THE CLERK: For the record, that's not Exhibit 2036, it's 2038. (Recess.) (The jurors resumed their respective seats.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) At break, I got in better pictures that I want to see if we can compare relative to that shoe print on the walkway and go on to something else, because want to get back here. If you can see -- MR. P. BAKER: 2214. MR. BAKER: Please feel free. (Defendant's Exhibit No. 2214 displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) On the area on the tile -- let me get a pointer here. Excuse me, sir. That, you would agree, is a shoe print, correct? A. That appears to be a partial, yes. Q. Okay. MR. BAKER: Phil, next one. Take it back up. Well, good. Come back to it. MR. P. BAKER: 887. (Defendant's Exhibit No. 887 displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) These are all paw prints in blood, right? A. They appear to be, yes. Q. Next one. By the way, those paw prints went 60 feet south to Dorothy, didn't they? A. Something like that. MR. BAKER: This is 2257. (Defendant's Exhibit No. 2257 displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And with that other picture that we had, the first one, in your view, shoe print? No shoe print? Can't tell? A. Well, I don't think I can tell from that. Q. It's got these spaces in it, lines across, right? MR. BAKER: Okay. Put the other one back up. MR. P. BAKER: 2214. (Defendant's Exhibit No. 2214 displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Spaces in it, lines across. You don't have any problem telling me that's a shoe print? A. That appears to be a partial shoe print. MR. BAKER: Phil, back it off over to that last one. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I want you to tell me if Nicole Brown Simpson's hand is in blood. MR. BAKER: Back it off, Phil. A. If her hand is in blood, from the hand that you see depicted there. MR. PETROCELLI: Which hand? MR. KELLY: Which hand? Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Looks like the left. Is the right hand in blood and left not in blood? A. Looks to be in blood, yes. Q. And the left is not, correct? A. You -- if you could pull that out a little bit so I could get a better look. I haven't seen these in some time. Well, they both appear to be -- this is in blood if you call this pool blood. But this is in blood, also. It's got blood on it. (Indicating.) Q. The question was, the left one is not in blood; the right one is, in your opinion; is that not correct, sir? A. Well, it's -- Q. Well, is it or isn't it? Just say yes or no. A. It's kind of a subjective call because this is partially in blood, and I guess this is in more blood. Q. Fair enough. Fine. You may resume your seat. (Witness complies and resumes witness stand.) MR. BAKER: Now, you want to take those off. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) At Rockingham, after it was -- It was Fuhrman, by the way, was it not, that pointed out that quarter-inch spot over the left door handle in the dark of night on the morning of June 13,1994? A. Yes. Q. And it was Fuhrman who brought it to your attention, right? A. Yes. Q. And it was Fuhrman who told you that the -- the vehicle was parked jutting out into the street, right? A. No. Q. And by the way, before you had observed -- well, strike that. Is it your opinion that the -- the vehicle and the blood on the -- purported blood on the vehicle had nothing to do with your decision to go over the wall and enter Mr. Simpson's house? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. State of mind is not relevant. What he saw and heard? THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: I'm sorry, sir. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: On state of mind? THE COURT: State of mind is not relevant in that regard. MR. BAKER: It goes to his bias; it goes to his credibility. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. If Mr. Baker wants to argue. We can go to side bar. MR. BAKER: I do want to argue; it goes to this witness's credibility. THE COURT: I've sustained the objection. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you feel, based on your viewing of the purported mark on the door, and based upon the angle the vehicle was parked, that someone inside the house may be a victim of a crime, may be bleeding, or worse? MR. MEDVENE: Same objection, Your Honor. And also number 15 of your prior ruling. THE COURT: Sustained. Probable cause is not an issue. I've already ruled on that. MR. BAKER: I'm not talking about probable cause. THE COURT: I'm not going to visit that issue again. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You would agree you had no reason to order Fuhrman over the wall, true? MR. MEDVENE: Same objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did Furman tell you, I can go over the wall, or words to that effect, and you said, okay, go? MR. MEDVENE: Hearsay, Your Honor. Object on that basis. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Something like that, yes. MR. BAKER: Page 15490, February 21, 1995, questions by Marcia Clark. MR. PETROCELLI: Hold on, Mr. Baker one second. His trial testimony? MR. BAKER: Yes. It is -- it's 22195. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. MR. BAKER: (Reading:) "Q. What happened next? "A. I looked at the gate, appeared to be a hydraulic gate. Fuhrman was standing closest to the left side of the gate. He said, I can go over the wall. And I said okay, go. He at this time went over the wall, stepped to his right, and manually pulled the hydraulic gate open. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That's what you said to Fuhrman; isn't that true? A. Yes, that's my testimony. Q. And so then you, Vannatter, Phillips, and Fuhrman go to the front door of the house, right? A. Yes. Q. And you ring the doorbell, right? A. We banged on the door. Q. You knew nobody was going to answer that door because you'd already heard the telephone ring inside the house and nobody answered; isn't that true? A. I didn't know that for sure. Q. Didn't you hear the phone? You testified that you heard the phone ring outside the Ashford gate when they called the residence phone of Mr. Simpson; isn't that correct? A. Yes. Q. So you knew nobody's going to answer that, didn't you? A. No. I think we were trying to make every effort to arouse anyone that might be in the house. And I think that included knocking on the door. Q. So then you and your three colleagues go down the driveway to the north path, and go around to the back of Mr. Simpson's house, right? A. Yes. Q. And it is Fuhrman that knocks on the door relative to Kato Kaelin, with you standing behind him, right? A. Something like that. Q. And it's Fuhrman that is the first one, and he turns and he says, I think somebody's inside, after he knocks on that door; isn't that true? A. I believe he may have, yes. Q. And then it's Fuhrman that interrogates Kato Kaelin after the door is open, isn't it? A. For the most part, yes. Q. And you leave Fuhrman and you go to Arnelle Simpson's room after you hear that she is still on the premises, correct? A. Yes. Q. And every one of you leave Kato Kaelin with Fuhrman, and go to Arnelle Simpson's room, right? A. No. I believe I went to Arnelle's room with Phillips. I don't recall exactly where Vannatter was. Q. Is it your testimony, as you sit here today, that Vannatter stayed with Fuhrman in the area of the front door of the guest room of Kato Kaelin? A. No. It's my testimony that I don't recall where he was. Q. Do you have a recollection of him walking down the pathway with him? A. He may have. Q. Do you have a recollection, after Arnelle got clothes on, that Vannatter walked back towards Kato Kaelin's room with you? A. I recall, if I'm not mistaken, there's a couple of steps that go up towards the rear patio. And at the time, Vannatter was near Arnelle and myself, and the rest as we walked towards the rear door. I don't specifically recall Vannatter being on the walkway, but I don't know. He may have. My attention wasn't on Vannatter. Q. So what was your attention on? A. The other occupants of the bungalows. Q. So your attention was on Arnelle and Kato Kaelin? A. Yes. Q. Where were they relative to you? A. Kaelin had answered his door, so he was on one side of the threshold, and I was on the outside. Once he told us that Arnelle was there, I walked to Arnelle's door, which was adjacent to Kato's bungalow, with Phillips. And Phillips knocked on the door and Arnelle answered. And she came out a short time later. Q. Now, so we can get this in chronological sequence, when -- when Kato Kaelin came to the door, Mark Fuhrman identified the four of you as LAPD officers, did he not? A. He may have. I don't know if he did that initially. Q. Well, you obviously have to identify yourselves as Los Angeles Police Officers, wouldn't you -- MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Q. -- when you knock on the door of somebody's room? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. It's an argumentative question. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, did you or did you not identify yourselves? A. Again, I don't specifically recall whether that happened initially or later. I just have no recollection of that. Q. You do recall, do you not, sir, the first words out of Kato Kaelin's mouth were, "Did O.J.'s plane go down," don't you? A. I never heard that. Q. You've never heard Kato Kaelin say, did O.J.'s plane go down, while you were standing virtually in front of the door of Mr. Kaelin's room? A. I don't recall ever hearing that. Q. So if he said -- MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Argumentative. Q. -- that -- MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, Mr. Baker. MR. BAKER: Let me finish the question. MR. MEDVENE: It's hearsay. No need to. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: Can I get an objection -- Never mind. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So, during the entire time that you're at the Simpson house -- MR. PETROCELLI: There was on objection on the record, Your Honor. THE COURT: I sustained it -- MR. PETROCELLI: I understand. THE COURT: -- Mr. Petrocelli, on the grounds that he said he didn't hear anything. MR. PETROCELLI: I understand. Mr. Baker indicated there was no -- THE COURT: Let's go on. MR. PETROCELLI: -- objection. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So, Mr. Lange, so that I'm clear, is it your testimony that at no time while you were at O.J. Simpson's house, between 5 o'clock and 6:45 in the morning of June 13, 1994, did you know that Mr. Simpson had gone on a scheduled trip to Chicago the evening before? A. No. We found out later, once we were inside, once Kathy Randa was contacted. Q. And -- okay. So that once -- well, let me go in sequence, and we'll come back to that. So it's your testimony that you have no recollection of the four of you hearing anything about whether Mr. Simpson's plane went down, and you left as soon as Kato Kaelin indicated to you that Arnelle Simpson was on the property, and went to her bungalow, correct? MR. MEDVENE: Objection calls for conclusion, lack of foundation. The question is the four of you hearing. He can just testify to himself, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. Let's get some questions asked and answered. A. I'm not saying he didn't say it; I'm saying I don't recall hearing it. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Maybe you didn't understand my question. But in any event, you, the other three go down; you get Arnelle, and come back and pick up Kato Kaelin and Mark Fuhrman on the way back after Ms. Simpson had gotten some clothes on, correct? A. No, I don't think Vannatter went to Arnelle's room. I think it was Phillips and myself. We came back. At that time, I believe Fuhrman was inside Kato's bungalow, speaking with him, and that Arnelle, Vannatter, Phillips, and myself walked toward the rear door. Q. Okay. You just don't have any recollection where Vannatter was in this? A. Not specifically. Q. All right. Now, after you got -- you walked back from Arnelle's room, and Mark Fuhrman was in Kato Kaelin's room, correct? A. Yes. Q. Did you see him in that room? A. Yes. It seems to me I did glance as we walked by it; he was inside the room. Q. Did you see him in the bathroom of Mr. Kaelin's guest area? A. I don't recall that. Q. Did you walk, then, up the stairs to the patio area? A. Yes. Q. And did you then go back in -- strike that. Did you ask Ms. Arnelle Simpson, when you were out to her bungalow, to get a key to get into the house? A. I don't recall asking her. Vannatter may have asked her. I don't recollect. Q. Vannatter wasn't even there. You don't have any recollection of him being there? A. No. And I -- I testified that -- that Vannatter, Phillips, myself, and Arnelle walked to the rear door. Q. No, no, no. I take it that once the three of you -- well, the two of you; that is, the two LAPD types and Arnelle, walked down the walkway, which is what, two and a half, three feet below this patio area here, is it not? A. Somewhat. Q. And at some point in time, Vannatter joins you, right, and then you walk up the steps. And you had -- you or Phillips had asked Arnelle to get a key to the house, hadn't you? A. I don't recall asking her. Phillips may have, Vannatter may have. I don't recall. Q. Well if Vannatter wasn't there, he obviously didn't. A. Well, I -- I don't know where Vannatter was. Q. Now, you then had a clear recollection of Arnelle Simpson opening, with the key, the southeast door that is indicated on whatever exhibit this is. MR. P. BAKER: 116. MR. BAKER: Thank you. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That's the door you went in? A. I believe so. Q. And Arnelle Simpson hit the pad and de-alarmed the house? A. I believe so. Q. As a matter of fact, Mr. Lange, there's absolutely no alarm pad back there, is there? A. I don't know. Q. As a matter of fact, Detective Lange, there's absolutely no key that can go in that door; it locks only from the inside; isn't that true? A. My recollection is that she keyed our way in from -- Q. Isn't it true, sir, that what really occurred is, you walked all the way around the north and went up the driveway, and went into the entrance? (Indicating to exhibit 116.) A. That's absolutely false. Q. Now, by the way, sir, was there a black and white at the -- in the area of Ashford and Rockingham when you requested Fuhrman, or gave him permission to go over the wall? A. There was a black and white that showed up around that time. I don't recall specifically when. Q. There were two other officers that were present when you directed Fuhrman to go over the wall, and they were still in their black and white; isn't that true? A. I don't recall that. Q. Well, you recall a black and white being there between the time of your arrival just after 5:00 and before you left at 6:45, right? A. Yes. Q. Now, so, is it your testimony, then, that you walked in the door, the southeast door, and walked into the kitchen area? A. Well, towards the kitchen area, yes. Q. Nobody turned on any lights in the den area, did they? A. I don't recall anyone doing that, no. Q. In other words, now, the first person that goes in this house is Arnelle, right? A. I don't recall who stepped through the doorway first. Q. Now, you had believed prior to this entering this house, that this house -- someone inside the house may be a victim of crime, correct? A. That was my concern; that's correct. Q. And of course, all four of you LAPD officers carried side arms that night, June 13, 1994, did you not? A. Yes. Q. Not one of you drew a side arm before entering that house, correct? A. I don't think we need it for a victim. Q. Not one of you drew a side arm before you entered that house, right? A. No, there was no reason to draw a side arm. Q. Not one. In fact, you thought that somebody may be in the house bleeding, or worse, that a crime was taking place, before you sent Fuhrman over the wall; isn't that true, sir? A. I thought there may be one or two victims inside, yes. Q. You thought a crime may be taking place inside the house, didn't you, sir? A. No, not at all. Q. Not at all? You thought that that probably had already taken place, correct? A. It wouldn't have been five hours since the bodies had been found. It was starting to get light. That was not a major concern of mine, no. Q. Then why didn't you go get a search warrant? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance, Your Honor. THE COURT: Probable cause not an issue. Objection sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So as I understand it, then, you thought somebody could be inside the house bleeding or dying, and the first person that goes through the door is Arnelle Simpson, right? A. I don't recall her going through the door first. That's not to say she didn't. I don't recall who went through the door first. Q. Well, you certainly would want, if there was somebody bleeding or dying inside that residence, you would want to be the first person in that house, as a detective of 20-plus years, and make sure that you discovered and assisted a victim if there, in fact, there was a victim, correct? MR. MEDVENE: Question is argumentative compound. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, did you ever, after you got in the house, go upstairs, Mr. Lange? A. No. Q. You never went upstairs to look to see if a victim was dying or bleeding upstairs? A. No. Once we contacted Kathy Randa, we got an explanation. There was no evidence of any kind of a struggle in the house. Everything was in place. The maid's quarters was immaculate. We later found out that the maid wasn't even there over the weekend, so there was no reason to go upstairs. Q. Well, so, it was after you contacted Kathy Randa that you knew everything was in order, right? A. No. The first thing I did upon entering is -- Q. Maybe you didn't understand the question. MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, your honor. The witness is answering a question. MR. BAKER: The witness is being nonresponsive, Your Honor. THE COURT: The witness is not responding. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You just testified that after you contacted Kathy Randa, you knew everything was okay in the house, and so there was no need to go upstairs, correct? A. That was my impression, yes. Q. An so from the time you got inside the house until you contacted Kathy Randa, woke her up and found out where O.J. Simpson was, was what, five, seven, ten minutes? A. Oh, I don't know how long it was. Q. But during that whole period of time, you never went upstairs and viewed anything upstairs to see if there was any victim that you thought may be dying or bleeding, as before you authorized Fuhrman to go over the wall, correct. MR. MEDVENE: The question is argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. MEDVENE: Move to strike the answer. THE COURT: Stricken. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) During the time periods that you were in the house -- you say you walked back in and there was no -- you walked through the bar/den area towards the dining room and the kitchen? A. Yes. Q. And the area from, I guess it would be the south, there's a pool table right where my finger is, in this area here. Is there not? (Indicating.) A. Yes. Q. And that's below the area that is where the bar and the den are, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And this whole area from where my finger is, where this room indicates, where this room is on the southeast side of the main house, that is all open, is it not? A. Yes. Q. And the bar area is right adjacent to where the pool area -- pool table is, correct? A. It's up and over to the left, yes. Q. And then there's sofas around here, and TV sets embedded into this wall in here, correct? A. Correct. Q. And this is a pretty good size area, isn't it? A. Yes. Q. Beyond that is a dining room, a formal dining room? A. Yes. Q. Beyond that, you enter the kitchen and then go -- which is a good-sized kitchen, isn't it? A. Yes. Q. Then you go into a kitchen nook area, true? A. If you were to continue walking in that direction, yes. Q. And if you continue to walk in that direction, you can walk right out onto the driveway of Mr. Simpson's place, true? A. Yes. Q. Now, is it your testimony that you walked in the southeast entrance and didn't turn on any lights, and you walked through the bar/den area, through the dining room area, and into the kitchen, without anybody turning any lights on? A. There was a light on inside the house. And I -- my testimony was, I didn't recall anyone turning the lights on. There appeared to be enough light inside for me to move around. Q. So we were worried about a possible victim in the house. There is an entire panel of light switches by the door that you say you came in, and no one turned them on. MR. MEDVENE: The question is argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, did you tell Arnelle, don't turn any lights on; we wouldn't want to go through the den and kitchen -- of the kitchen with just our flashlights? A. No, I don't recall asking her where -- I recall asking her where the housekeeper's quarters were. Q. In fact, was it you or Vannatter that went with Arnelle to the housekeeper's room? A. I think we both did. Q. And you are LAPD detectives of over 40 years' experience, let her go in first, right? MR. MEDVENE: Question is argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: You did have her go in first, didn't you? A. I don't recall who went in first. Q. Now -- A. Certainly when we got in, he walked by there. I don't recall her leading the way into the house at all. Q. Do you recall -- THE COURT: 8:30 tomorrow, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinion. (At 4:35 P.M., an adjournment was taken until Wednesday, December 11, 1996, at 8:30 A.M.) |