|
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) (The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jury.) THE COURT: There are three declarations regarding service. First one is as to Brasini. MR. P. BAKER: In terms of Brasini, Judge, we called the number provided to us; we sent a process server out to his occupation or his workplace in Chula Vista for approximately six hours, informed Mr. Brasini -- that he was there. He wouldn't come out and accept service. I called him, asked to leave a message for Mr. Brasini, that I was an attorney trying to serve him with a subpoena. He wouldn't accept service. And we've tried, now, for over 20 hours to serve this gentleman; he's avoiding service. We would request to read his trial testimony in. THE COURT: Okay. That's not a deposition, but trial testimony? MR. P. BAKER: Trial testimony from the criminal trial. THE COURT: Okay. MR. PETROCELLI: Submit. THE COURT: You're conceding? MR. PETROCELLI: We don't concede anything, Your Honor; we submit to your good judgment. THE COURT: Normally, there are some issues, but if you're just submitting, then we'll go along. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. THE COURT: Declaration with regards to -- MR. P. BAKER: There's -- THE COURT: -- Ramirez and Ball. MR. P. BAKER: Ramirez and Ball are both in Indonesia. We're only going to call Edward Ramirez because Ramirez and Ball are duplicative. THE COURT: These are police officers? MR. P. BAKER: Yes. MR. PETROCELLI: Same. THE COURT: Okay. MR. P. BAKER: Michael Norris, who currently resides in Kansas, we would request to read in his criminal trial testimony. MR. PETROCELLI: Same thing. THE COURT: Okay. MR. P. BAKER: We have some exhibits to move in, for the record for -- MR. BAKER: 1239, 1240, 1241, 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, and 1411. THE COURT: There being no objection, they're received. MR. BAKER: Thank you. (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1239 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1240 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1241 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1403 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1404 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1405 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1406 was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1407 for identification, was received in evidence by reference by reference to Criminal Case No. BA097211.) (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 1411 for identification, was received in evidence by reference to Criminal Case No. BA097211.) THE CLERK: 1407 and 1411 were received by reference. THE COURT: Okay. Bring in the jury, please. MR. PETROCELLI: Before you do so, may I briefly be heard on the side-bar conference we had concerning Henry Lee's opinion testimony on the subject of the shoe prints? THE COURT: All right. MR. PETROCELLI: I reviewed the trial testimony taken by video deposition, and at page 167, Dr. Lee testifies that he saw one other imprint besides the Bruno Magli shoe prints, which he was able to identify as a shoe print that is set forth in Criminal Exhibit Number 1337-A. However, on cross-examination, at page 320, Dr. Lee testifies that he is unable to say whether that particular imprint was identified -- excuse me -- was put on the scene after the murders or not. In other words, Dr. Lee was unable to testify that this one particular imprint that he said was a shoe print was actually placed on the scene the night of the murders, as opposed to some subsequent time. So the only shoe prints that Dr. Lee was able to identify as having originated at the time of the murders were the Bruno Magli shoe prints. MR. BLASIER: Obviously, Dr. Lee wasn't allowed on the scene until the 25th of June. He saw this imprint evidence, which he testified was consistent with the shoe print. A phenol test was done on it; it was tested positive for blood. That's the best we can do. THE COURT: You may frame the question appropriately within the parameters of Dr. Lee's qualifications of that evidence. And you may not state it categorically as a determination. All right. Bring the jury in. (The jurors resumed their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury.) THE COURT: Morning. JURORS: Morning, Your Honor. THE CLERK: You are still under are oath. Would you please state your name again for the record. THE WITNESS: Michael Baden. Thank you. MICHAEL BADEN, the witness on the stand at the time of adjournment on Monday, December 16, 1996, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: MR. MEDVENE: Morning, Your Honor. Morning, ladies and gentlemen. JURORS: Morning. MR. MEDVENE: Morning, Dr. Baden. THE WITNESS: Good morning, Mr. Medvene. CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed) BY MR. MEDVENE: Q. With reference to the sock or socks, Dr. Baden, that you referred to yesterday as having looked at, is it correct, sir, that you did not examine the socks? A. That's correct. Q. And you did not touch them? A. That's correct. Q. You did not pick them up? A. That's correct. Q. You did not hold them up to the light? A. That's correct. Q. You didn't perform any sort of microscopic examination on them? A. That's correct. Q. You did not turn them inside out? A. That's correct. Q. The lighting in the room was not very bright; isn't that true? A. Little brighter than the lighting here. Q. But not very bright for purposes of examination? A. That's correct. Q. And you wrote on that day, you were doing an analysis, or you were reviewing, or an inventory of certain items of evidence? A. That's correct. Q. And you wrote, "Two dark socks. No analysis yet." Is that correct? A. Yes, I believe so. Q. And would you agree, sir, that it's certainly possible when you saw the socks, because of the conditions, that you just overlooked or missed any blood that might have been on them? A. Yes, in general, that would be fair. Q. Thank you, sir. Would it be correct, sir -- I notice you have some -- and it's fine that you do -- I notice you have some things in front of you. What are they? A. I just have the report of the -- my visit to the laboratory that you're referring to, and two autopsy reports, in case some questions come up, I can answer them more quickly. Q. That's fine. Is it fair to say, Dr. Baden, that from your review of the autopsy reports, the tissue, the material that you examined at the coroner's office, that's all consistent with one assailant having committed both of the murders? A. Could you just repeat that question. Q. Sure. Yes, sir. Is it fair that, based on your review as a doctor, your profession -- A. Yes. Q. -- of the autopsy photos, the tissues, the other material you examined at the coroner's office, that those things that I've just referred to, were all consistent with one assailant having committed both murders? MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. The question is -- is vague and improper to ask him to consider just some things and not consider -- THE COURT: I can't hear you. MR. BLASIER: He's asking him to consider just some things and not everything that went into his opinion. And it's irrelevant unless he's allowed to consider everything that went into his opinion. THE COURT: Overruled. You may ask the witness to consider each item, piece by piece. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Is my statement a fair one? A. Yeah, I understand what you're asking. On the basis that you listed, yes. Q. And are you aware, sir, of the testimony that it is anticipated Dr. Lee will offer at this trial, that other than the bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints that were at the scene of the murder, there was only one other shoe print he could identify on the walkway; and he was not able to say whether or not that shoe print was placed there some date after the murders. Are you aware of that? A. No. Q. Now -- A. I'm not aware of that. Q. Now, assuming that Dr. Lee's testimony would be that, other than the bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints, the one pair of size 12 bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints, he observed one shoe print on the walkway, but did not know when that print was placed there; and he observed that on June 25, is it correct, sir, that the facts available to you are consistent with one assailant having committed the murders? Yes or no, sir? A. I can't answer that yes or no. Q. All right, sir. A. May I ask you something? Q. Yes, sir. A. Just to clarify. Two things. Do I take into consideration Dr. Lee's prior testimony? Q. Just his testimony at this trial. A. Just what you're representing -- Q. Yes, sir. A. -- in testimony. And do I take into consideration what Dr. Lee and I discussed -- Q. No, sir. A. -- at the walkway when I was there at the time we identified that shoe print? Q. No, sir. Because if Dr. Lee has anything to say, he'll tell this jury in testimony that's going to be read or shown to this jury. So putting aside your discussions with Dr. Lee, which I'm sure if relevant, he'll tell this jury, and making the one assumption that I just told you about Dr. Lee's testimony, he only observed one pair of bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints on his examination; and he saw one other shoe print; and didn't know when it got there. Is it your testimony, sir, that, based on the facts that you know of as a medical doctor, as someone testifying here, that the facts are consistent with one assailant having committed the murders? Yes or no, sir? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Improper hypothetical. Does not conform to the facts. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. MEDVENE: Yes or no, sir? A. If I accept just precisely what you say, that further would be consistent with one person. Q. Thank you, sir. Now, is it also true, sir, that it would be your testimony that all of the knife wounds inflicted in this double murder are consistent with having been delivered by one knife? Yes or no, sir? A. Yes, could be. Q. Isn't it true, sir, from your experience, in face-to-face struggles between a motivated killer with a knife and a defenseless victim, that the victim could have the kind of injuries Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman sustained, and there would be no wounds on the assailant? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Two victims here. Hypothetical based on a single witness. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Isn't that true, sir? THE COURT: Sustained. There's two victims mentioned Mr. Blasier. MR. BLASIER: He said victim, but no two names. THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer the question. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Is that true, sir? Yes or no, sir? A. If I remember the question properly, yes; that is, the perpetrator need not have injuries, need not suffer injuries. Q. And while the perpetrator, as you said, in a struggle such as was sustained by Ms. Brown and Mr. Goldman need not suffer injuries, isn't it, true, sir, that if the assailant had his left arm around one of the victims in the course of attempting to slash that victim's throat, in your experience, it is certainly possible that the victim could have attempted to scratch and pull away the assailant's arm from her throat? You would agree that that's certainly a possibility, would you not, sir? A. Yes. Q. And certainly, the answer would be the same if the assailant, instead of having his left arm around Ms. Brown's throat, had his arm around Mr. Goldman's throat, your answer would be the same; that it would certainly be possible for the victim to attempt to remove the assailant's hand and scratch the hand in the process; isn't that correct? A. Yes. Q. Now, you saw Mr. Simpson and examined his left hand on June 17 of 1994; is that correct, sir? A. Yes. Q. And you were -- and Dr. Huizenga was with you? A. Yes. Q. Dr. Lee? A. Yes, and Dr. Faerstein, a psychiatrist. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. May I have a spelling for Dr. Faerstein, please. MR. PETROCELLI: F-a-e-r-s-t-e-i-n. THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And, Dr. Baden, you were aware at the time of the examination, that Dr. Huizenga, on the 15th, had observed three cuts, one of which had an A and B portion, and seven abrasions on Mr. Simpson's left hand, are you not? Dr. Huizenga told you that? A. At some point, I knew that, but I'm not sure that I knew that at the time that I came there. At some point later, we discussed the findings. But I don't -- I didn't discuss it before I made my examination. Q. But you were with Dr. Huizenga that day? A. That morning, yes. Q. Now, is it accurate, sir, that after examining Mr. Simpson, he told you he received certain of those marks on his hands while he was still in Los Angeles on June the 12th, preparing for his trip to Chicago? A. Yes. Q. And he told you, did he not, sir, that he wasn't quite sure how he cut himself? A. Yes. Q. That he noticed he had been bleeding? A. Yes. Or had some blood on his hand, yes. Q. That he doesn't know how it came about in his house? A. Yes. Q. And it happened, he thought, somewhere in his home on Rockingham before he left for Chicago; is that correct, sir? A. Yes. Q. Thank you, sir. A. Yes. Q. Is it correct, sir -- Is it correct, sir, that it was your opinion that the injuries on Mr. Simpson's hand could have been the result of a struggle between Mr. Simpson and another human being? Yes or no, sir? MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. "Could have been" is vague. (Court reviews real-time computer screen.) THE COURT: Overruled. A. It's not my opinion, but it could have happened that way, yes. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, in discussing fingernail marks yesterday, doctor, you said, did you not, that one of the reasons you did not believe certain -- a certain mark or marks you were shown were not fingernail gouge marks, was because none of the fingernails had the skin of the assailant under them; is that correct? A. No. I -- that wasn't the reason I don't think it's gouge marks. Q. You were asked sir, can you tell us why, in your opinion, that couldn't be a fingernail gouge mark. And in part, didn't you say, sir, none of them had skin on them? Didn't you say that, sir? MR. BLASIER: I'm going to object. If he's reading part of an answer, he should read the whole answer. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Didn't you say that, Sir; none of them had skin on them? A. I'd have to see that in context, if I might, because that's not the reason. Q. Excuse me, sir? A. That's not the reason that I don't think they're fingernail marks. However, if there were skin under them, of course, that would be a different situation. Q. Sir, my question was: Do you now recall, in answer to a question, whether, in your opinion, certain marks could be fingernail marks? You said in part, none of them had skin on them. Do you remember using those words? A. I don't see what you mean, "in part." I said in part or -- Q. As part of your answer, you said none of them had skin on them? A. That might be an aspect to it, but that's not the reason that I don't think they're fingernail marks. Because to get -- Q. Excuse me sir? A. -- them -- Q. I've asked you if you said those words. And you remember saying them or you don't. A. -- I -- Q. Just yes or no, sir. A. -- I remember saying those words, but not in quite the context that you're indicating. Q. Is it true, sir, that if a victim, during the course of being attacked, scratches their assailant, you would not expect to find the skin of the assailant under the victim's fingernails? That is an accurate statement? A. I think that's true. It happens occasionally, but that's very unusual to happen that way, in my experience. Q. Now, I'm going to put on the screen, Dr. Baden, certain of the marks on Mr. Simpson's hands. And this one is, I believe, 715, what we call number 2. (Exhibit 715-2 displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And that's the -- now I'm going to -- Now, those marks that you see on top of Mr. -- those marks are on the top of Mr. Simpson's hand; is that correct? A. On the back of the hand, these marks here? (Indicating.) Q. Yes, sir. A. On the back of the hand, yes. Q. And you see several? A. Yes. Q. And those could be fingernail marks, could they not? They're curved; they're gouged; and they're certainly consistent, you would say, with fingernail marks. Is that true, sir? Yes or no? A. They're very nonspecific. Could be anything, including fingernail marks. Q. They could be fingernail marks? A. It's within the possibility. I wouldn't call them fingernail marks. Could be. Q. Okay. Now, did Mr. Simpson tell you how he received those marks? A. Not specifically. I didn't ask him about those marks. Q. Thank you. Your answer is, he did not; is that correct? A. We did not specifically discuss those marks (indicating to Elmo screen). Q. And you did not specifically ask him, did you? A. That's correct. Q. Thank you. A. I asked him about other things. Q. I didn't ask you if you asked him about other things. You didn't ask him about these marks that could be fingernail marks; you didn't ask him about those? A. I don't think they're fingernail marks. Q. Sir? A. I didn't specifically. Q. You've done this a lot of times, and I want you to answer my question, if you would. Your counsel will ask you his questions. Dr. Baden, let's go in steps again. You said they could be fingernail marks? A. No. You asked me if it's possible it's fingernail marks. Yes, it's a tenth of one percent possibility that they're fingernail marks. I didn't ask him about them. Q. You didn't ask him how he got them? A. Not specifically. MR. BLASIER: Can you put on 2165. (Indicating to Mr. Foster.) (Exhibit 2165 displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. Dr. Baden, you said yesterday, by the way, did you not, in your testimony, nothing about one-half of one percent; but you said yesterday in reference to these very marks, that they could be fingernail marks, did you not, sir? Isn't that what you told the jury, yesterday? A. These marks here? Q. Yes, sir. A. They could be anything. They could be anything. I did not think then or now that they were fingernail marks, but they could be anything. Q. Okay, sir. Now, you say they were curved? A. You said they were curved. I don't really see them being curved. Q. You see some skin gouged out? A. They're abrasions. Like, I have one on my finger here, just a little crust. I can't tell what caused it. Q. Okay, sir. MR. BLASIER: We'll put up 715, number 13. (Exhibit 715, number 13 displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, those, you would say, those were curved, wouldn't you, Dr. Baden? A. No, not curved. They're lacerations of the skin. Q. They're consistent with somebody having their fingernail and causing that mark, aren't they, sir? A. I don't think so, no, no. No. Q. You see some white tissue in the center of the photo, white tissue, white skin? A. This skin here? Q. Yeah. A. And this is a little -- this is tissue, and here's tissue (indicating to photo). I think this looks more like a paper cut kind of thing. Q. It wouldn't be a knife wound, would it, because that would cut it clean and be a different pattern? A. No, I think that sharp -- this is a sharp wound. (Indicating to Elmo screen.) One of the possibilities is a knife wound or some kind of a more jagged knife, not a sharp, very sharp knife. I think it's something -- it's something that cuts the skin. Q. Now, did you -- strike that. You didn't ask Mr. Simpson where he got those wounds, did you? A. I did. I did ask him. Q. Is that the one he told you he got in Chicago, or he didn't know where he got it? A. No, no. When I asked him about the cut wounds that -- the wounds that broke the skin, this, this, and the others, the other two I think, he indicated to me he didn't know where he had gotten them, but he had gotten blood on his hand after rummaging through his car, looking for the cell phone and while at his house. He noticed blood, but he didn't quite know how that happened. Q. Ah -- A. Because he often cut himself. And he does have a lot of scars on him. Q. You're not an advocate -- A. I'm sorry? Q. Now, Mr. Simpson got these wounds, he told you, at his house the night of the murders, and -- somehow, rummaging in his car, with his car phone. Now, Dr. Baden, did you ask him to look at his car phone to see if there were any rough edges, points sticking out, sharp objects that could have cut his hand in those two places? Yes or no, sir? MR. BLASIER: Objection. That misstates his testimony. THE COURT: Over -- THE WITNESS: I didn't quite -- THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Yes or no, sir? A. I didn't say he cut it on the car phone. Q. Sir -- A. I did not say he that he told me he -- didn't tell me he cut it on the car phone. Q. Sir -- A. Pardon. He cut himself, and I'm stating -- please. MR. BLASIER: May he -- THE COURT: Let him answer, Mr. Medvene. A. (Continuing.) -- that he told me he had -- he saw blood on his hands, and he had somehow cut himself while in the house and rummaging around. He didn't tell me that these were those cuts. I misstated that. He said somehow he cut himself; he didn't know where. He saw blood. He had rummaged for his car phone, and that there was -- it was dark. The light was out. And he thought he might have cut himself there or someplace else. I don't know which -- there were four different cuts, these two and two others (indicating). He didn't specify to me which -- what occurred at the time. I'm saying something happened, according to what he told me. Q. So that I have it correctly -- and I apologize -- A. I'm sorry. Q. That's okay. So -- So that I have it correctly, he was -- I don't want to misstate this. Are you saying he was rummaging around in his house in the dark in -- with the car phone? A. No. What I recollect in my discussion with him on that day, he said he was rummaging around in the car in the dark. He went out to the car to get -- he was looking for his car phone, and he was rummaging around. He then was in the house. And at some point, he noticed blood on his left hand -- Q. Oh, came -- A. -- and he doesn't know what happened when. Q. All right, sir. Just somehow started bleeding; that's the best -- A. He noted -- He noted blood on his hand. MR. BLASIER: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I'm going to move to another area, if I might. Would you agree, Dr. Baden, that there's no question that a motivated killer could have inflicted the injuries that Ms. Brown sustained very, very quickly? Those knife wounds could have been very rapid; would you agree with that? MR. BLASIER: Vague as to "very, very quickly." THE COURT: Well, in conjunction with the motions that Mr. Medvene made, I don't think it's ambiguous. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Would you agree with that, sir? Yes or no? A. I can't answer. You have too many things in the question. Q. My question is, you're aware of the stab wounds Ms. Brown received, are you not? A. Yes. Q. And my question is, could somebody, intent on killing Ms. Brown, have inflicted those wounds very quickly, sir? Yes or no? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Misstates the evidence. There's more than stab wounds on Nicole Brown Simpson. THE COURT: I think he indicated more than stab wounds. Overruled. THE COURT: Yes or no, sir? A. The problem I have is "motivated and intent on." Those are different issues. I can't read motivation and intent on. Any killer -- any killer could have rapidly inflicted the cut wounds, stab wounds and the bump on the head, quickly. Yes, it could happen very quickly. But I can't tell if they're motivated or not. Q. Let's talk about that a little bit. As a man with your 30 years or so experience, would you say that the killer was motivated to kill? In looking at the wounds that show he virtually slaughtered Ms. Brown by severing the major vessels of her neck, would that appear to you that he was motivated to kill her, sir? MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, objection. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Or that it was an accident? MR. BLASIER: Argumentative. No foundation. This person can't tell what's inside his mind. THE COURT: Overruled. I think this witness can answer the question. You're trying to ascertain what is motivation and accidental. Overruled. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you? A. Mr. Medvene, I don't think this was accidental. A killer killed Mrs. Simpson and -- Q. He was motivated to kill her, wasn't he, sir? A. I don't know what you mean by that, as all killers are motivated to kill their victims; and they're all terrible. And dying -- being murdered is terrible, whether it's ten wounds or one wound. It's terrible. Q. Dr. Baden, this killer -- this killer -- A. Yes. Q. -- virtually slaughtered Ms. Brown by severing the major vessels in her neck, did he not? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Yes or no? A. I don't know what you mean by "slaughtered." Q. When you slaughter an animal, sir -- are you familiar with slaughtering an animal? MR. BLASIER: Objection; argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Are you a familiar with how an animal is slaughtered? Yes or no? A. You're using how cows are slaughtered by cutting the neck? I guess that -- that -- Q. That's what -- A. -- Mrs. Simpson died of a cut wound to the neck that cut through the major arteries of the neck. Q. Like somebody slaughters an animal; isn't that true? A. I've never seen anybody slaughter an animal. Q. You know how it's done? A. I've heard. Q. That's how it was done here; isn't that true, sir? Yes or no? A. Slaughtering an animal is intentionally cutting through the arteries of the neck. I don't know if this was an -- if the murderer intentionally cut the arteries in the neck. This seems like a lot of stab wounds, a lot of cuts on the person, which happened to cut the carotid arteries, yes. Q. Did -- was there, sir, a large neck wound that Ms. Brown suffered that went around to the spine? Was that -- A. That went down to the spine, yes. About an inch or so. An inch or two. Q. And at the same time, she suffered the slashing of her carotid arteries; isn't that true? A. Yes. Q. No question the person meant to kill her by slashing her throat, is there, Dr. Baden? Are you saying maybe just giving her a warning? A. No, I'm not saying. "Slaughter" is not a medical or pathological term; may be a legal term, may be a public term. Whoever killed Ms. Brown, killed her by cutting through her neck and cutting her carotid arteries. I don't -- "slaughter" is not a term that I've ever used. Q. And she would have lost consciousness from the carotid artery cut within ten seconds or so; is that not true? A. Yes, I believe so. Once the carotid arteries are cut, she still could be conscious for five, ten seconds, and then lose consciousness. Q. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Let's talk about Mr. Goldman. Is it true, sir, that the assailant, with a large knife, could inflict a number of stab wounds on Mr. Goldman's body very rapidly, with very rapid thrusts of his knife, into Mr. Goldman? You would agree with that, would you not? A. Yes. Q. The issue you raise, as I understand it in your testimony, is not that the wounds could be inflicted very quickly, in a matter of seconds; but the issue you raise is how long does it take for the blood to pour out, so that Mr. Goldman became incapacitated, unconscious, and die. Is that a fair statement? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Mischaracterizes his testimony. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Is that a fair statement, sir? Yes or no? A. It's partially fair. It's partially fair. There's another aspect to it: The fact that there was no bleeding from the chest, the two chest wounds, and the aortic wound. Q. All right. We're going to talk about that. You told this jury yesterday about the wounds to the left jugular vein. Do you remember that? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you told us about where you thought that blood went. Remember? A. Yes. Q. And it was your testimony, as I understand it, that the blood from the left jugular vein flowed all the way to Mr. Goldman's shoes, and that's what -- took whatever time you say it took him to be unconscious and then die; is that correct, sir? A. The time it took him till he collapsed to the ground; that is, he was upright for a few minutes, then he collapsed to the ground. And then I can't tell the time from the clothing. Q. Okay. Is it true, sir, the left jugular vein is -- could you point it out to the jury, point it out? A. It's right next to the carotid artery that we feel a pulse out in the neck (Witness indicates to his own neck). That is, on both sides of the neck, there's an artery that we take a pulse. On the outside of that artery, closer to the skin is the jugular vein. We can't feel the jugular vein because it doesn't have a pulse, but it's right there. It's about half an inch under the skin. Q. On the left side? A. Both sides. The one I related to was on the left side. Q. 'Cause that's where she [sic] was cut? A. He was cut, yes, sir. Q. Now, is it accurate, sir, that in your words, there was surprisingly little blood found on Mr. Goldman's shirt? Is that and accurate statement, sir? A. There was blood on Mr. -- Q. Surprisingly little amount; is that correct, sir? A. My opinion is, there was blood on the shirt. I don't -- perhaps you can refresh my memory. Q. Wasn't there a surprisingly little amount of blood, in your opinion, on the shirt, sir? A. As I sit here, my best recollection, there was blood on the shirt. I wouldn't characterize it now as surprisingly little. It was blood. Q. Wasn't there, in your opinion, about three ounces of blood? A. Oh, oh, um, it might be. I mean, the amount of blood -- a small amount of blood can cause stains, yes. A few ounces of blood could all -- could be all that's on the shirt, yes. I don't think that's surprisingly little, because it all doesn't get absorbed. Q. Well -- MR. MEDVENE: Mr. Blasier, 41359. MR. BLASIER: 59? MR. MEDVENE: I'm sorry. 41360. I'd like -- I'm going to read from the middle of the answer which talks about the shirt -- MR. BLASIER: No, I'm going to ask -- MR. MEDVENE: -- At lines 14 through 20. MR. BLASIER: I'm going to ask that the question and the answer be read. MR. MEDVENE: Well, I just purport to read everything that has to do with the shirt, Your Honor. THE COURT: Read it. Mr. Blasier, you can read the whole thing when it becomes your turn. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I'll read you the portion about the shirt, Dr. Baden. A. Yes, sir. Q. And the amount of -- I'm reading at line 14. "And the amount of blood on the shirt, seen on the shirt, doesn't account -- it's a very, you know, three ounces of blood, at most, and on the shirt fabric. And that's all accountable on the left side of the neck. "God bless you, Ms. Clark. "From the left side of the neck, that -- and surprisingly little blood on the shirt. " Did you give that answer on a previous issue? A. It sounds right MR. MEDVENE: We're putting 440 on the screen. (The instrument herein referred to as photograph depicting Ron Goldman's shirt was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 440.) (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 440 displayed on the Elmo screen.) A. I can't tell if -- if this shirt -- if the shirt is toward the normal position, and not inside out, then this would be the left side. (Indicating.) Q. That is the side with hardly any blood? A. Oh, no. That's blood here. (Indicating.) Q. That's blood? A. Yeah. Q. But it's not as much blood as on the other side? A. That's correct. This is -- Q. And -- A. -- this is after the body's moved and it's taken off. Q. Sir, just asking you -- A. Yeah. But at this point, when this photograph is taken, there's more blood on the right side than the left side. Q. And there appears to be, you said, surprisingly little blood on the shirt. If the blood is coming from the left side, the left jugular vein, there certainly is no soaking of the shirt on the left side; isn't that correct, Dr. Baden? Yes or no, sir? A. You asked too many things in the question. Q. My question, sir, is -- A. I mean, you have about three things in there. MR. BLASIER: Objection. Compound. THE COURT: It's not just -- excuse me. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. THE COURT: That wasn't compound. He just said if the blood came from the jugular vein on the left side, is that a lot of blood or not a lot of blood. A. It's not a lot of blood on the left side. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Thank you. A. But consistent with the blood, bleeding down from the left jugular vein. Q. And there's no soaking of blood on the left side, is there? A. Well, this is -- there's soaking of some blood in there, but it's not soaking as on the right side. But this soaking occurs after he's collapsed and he's on the ground. Q. All right, sir. So we're talking -- you've talked to us about gravity and what happens with gravity. And you talked to us about the oozing from the vein. A. Yes, sir. Q. And if the blood was coming from the left jugular cut and traveling down the shirt on its way to the shoes, for whatever reason, you don't see it on that photo; isn't that correct, sir? Yes or no? A. They're not inconsistent. Q. All right, sir. A. Blood can come down and not get -- for two or three minutes and not get onto the shirt very much. And then when I lay down on the ground, it sits there for ten hours on the ground. Q. So the blood -- Is it your theory -- A. It's not immediate absorption of blood. Q. Is it your theory that you're going to tell this jury, with reasonable medical certainty, that this blood you're talking about that oozed out slowly from the left jugular vein, somehow made its way across the shirt, basically, without being absorbed, and then made its way wherever it went? A. To the jeans. Q. Yeah. A. Certainly, because the shirt isn't the skin, it -- it goes down. And when I say "slowly," we're talking about a few minutes. It goes down from the jugular vein, on the skin, down to the pants, and -- or where the belt is. And it doesn't necessarily soak into the shirt, except in portions where the shirt is against the skin. And it's only a couple minutes' exposure, few minutes' exposure. Q. So we have it on the right side but not the left side. It wouldn't necessarily soak into the shirt on the left side, but it would soak into the -- somehow, some blood from in here came on the right side? (Indicating to photo) A. The right side soaking is while he's laying on his right side for ten hours, before the body is removed. And then while he's transported down to the -- to the L.A. mortuary, until the -- the clothing is removed. So most of this soaking, 95 percent of the soaking, occurs after he collapses. Q. But we have no soaking on the left side that we can -- A. Well, there is -- there's a lot of blood. If you or I had this much blood on our shirt right now, we'd be concerned about it. Q. Well, let's talk about that. You made some reference to the abdomen. That shirt, you're aware, was pulled up on Mr. Goldman's body, and his abdomen was exposed between where the shirt was pulled up and his belt line; is that correct, sir? A. At the time the first photograph was taken, yes. Q. Well, as he lay dead? A. As he was found. Q. Yeah. Now, is it true, sir, that you have previously testified that you did not see on the skin, a trail of blood along the upper edge of the left side of the body going down to the belt line; isn't that true, sir? A. I never testified, but that's my best recollection in the photographs. Q. Okay. So, we have whatever blood we have or don't have on the left side. Then we don't have any trail from where the shirt stops and the pants begin. And then we have a certain amount of blood in the pants. Is that correct, sir? A. Yes. And as I recall, there was some blood from the left flank wound that went horizontally down. Q. We're going to talk about the flank. THE WITNESS: There was a little bit of blood there. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) So, some? A. If I may, I'm talking from the first photographs. I don't know if anybody looked before they took the first photograph, because there were a lot of things going on before the photographs were taken. Q. Dr. Baden, if you don't know now that -- I'm trying to get the basis for your opinion -- A. Yes, sir. Q. So whatever happened or didn't happen, we're working with what you know, to give your opinion. And where we are so far is, we have whatever blood we saw or didn't see on the left side of the shirt. We then do not have a continuous trail -- A. Yes. Q. -- of blood to the belt line, and then we have the pants? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now -- and incidentally, there was no notation made anywhere of blood or any particular amount of blood on the abdomen; isn't that correct? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Notation by who? MR. MEDVENE: I'm sorry. Q. From your review of the photos, you and Dr. Wolfe, there was no notation made in those notes of any blood found caked on Mr. Goldman's abdomen, as contrasted with his buttocks, for example; isn't that true? A. I don't know what you mean by "buttocks." It's whatever the report is. But we have the photographs as the best evidence. Q. When you say you don't know what I mean by -- by buttocks, isn't it true, sir, that in an examination that you made of the evidence -- A. Which day is that? Q. -- on 2/19, February 19, '95, at the Albany Medical Center -- A. Oh, I'm sorry. That's -- Q. -- that there is a notation, dried blood staining, both buttocks? A. I'd have to review that. But that was at Albany Medical Center, yes, when they sent us the material. (Witness reviews document) A. (Continuing.) Oh, this is referring to the -- to the blue jeans, not to the skin. Okay. I'm sorry; I misunderstood. Yes, that there was -- there was dried blood on the buttock areas of Mr. Goldman's blue jeans, yes. Q. But no reference to any dried blood on the skin area, abdomen area, between where the shirt is pulled up and the belt line; is that correct? A. What I'm referring to there is when we examined the clothing -- Q. I understand, sir. A. -- not the skin. We didn't have the skin to examine. Q. Just trying to make the point, if you saw blood from pictures or clothing. A. Okay. Q. You made notes, correct? A. No, I didn't see the skin. When we examined evidence, we made notes. So. . . Q. You saw -- A. What those notes are, descriptions of the clothing, as we're including the -- the clothing, not of the photographs. The photographs are permanent documentation by themselves. But that's just the jeans that we're talking about. We handled it and looked at it. Q. Is it also true, in terms of blood, we know we have about three ounces on the shirt. You told us, is it true, that in the neck area, there's no swelling or discoloration internally that would demonstrate any massive bleeding in the neck or chest? A. Yeah. There was a little bit of hemorrhage in -- from the soft tissues around the jugular vein, but no accumulation of blood in that area; yes, sir. Q. Okay. Now, we then go down to the pants, if we can. MR. MEDVENE: And could you put the picture up, please. What number is that? THE CLERK: It's going to be next in -- MR. FOSTER: Next in order, 2268. MR. MEDVENE: Next in order, 2268, I believe. THE CLERK: (Nods affirmatively.) (The instrument herein referred to as photographdepictingn Ron Goldman's pants and a ruler was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2268.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, would it be -- first, in terms of the thigh wound, Mr. Goldman suffered a wound to the thigh; is that correct? A. Left thigh, yes, sir. Q. And the thigh wound was in a vascular area; isn't that true, sir? A. Not an exceptionally vascular area. There are blood vessels in every part of the body. It would have been around where I'm pointing, a few inches below the pocket of the jeans. Q. I didn't ask you if it was exceptionally vascular. Like, when we cut our finger, it bleeds? A. Yes. It's vascular. Q. It's vascular. What does "vascular" mean? A. There are blood vessels there. Q. And if it's cut, it's going to bleed? A. Yes. Q. And it's going to bleed even without striking a major blood vessel; isn't that true? A. Yes, yes. Q. Is it true, in terms of figuring out where the blood came from, that the blood on the left pant leg appears soaked, in contrast to whatever blood we saw on the left side of the shirt? Isn't that a correct statement, sir? A. It is heavier in the pant, in the jeans than in the shirt, yes, sir. Q. Now, sir, you're suggesting to us that blood from the jugular vein -- MR. MEDVENE: Would you throw that shirt picture up again. (Exhibit No. 440 displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) That blood from the jugular vein is going to go down -- is going to go the left side of the shirt and leave that amount of blood. MR. MEDVENE: Now throw up the pants. And -- I'm sorry. (Exhibit 440 and 2268 are displayed on the Elmo.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And leave off that amount of blood, (indicating to photo) and then somehow when it makes its way to the pants; it's going to soak in that fashion. This same blood. Is that what you're telling us? Yes or no. A. Yes. Q. So -- excuse me? A. Because the bleeding -- the fabric and tightness of the garment against the skin. Q. Well, did you do -- you didn't do any analysis of the -- you have anything in your records that you did an analysis of a garment and the absorption ability of that shirt, did you? A. I didn't do any analysis -- Q. All right, sir. A. -- of that shirt's absorption. Q. Now, what you're telling us is, there was this trail of blood from the left jugular vein, not soaking the shirt, somehow making its way over the skin, where we also don't have any blood -- MR. BLASIER: Objection. Misstates -- Q. (Continuing.) -- And then getting to the pants, the same jugular vein blood, and soaking the pants. Is that your testimony? Yes or no, sir? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Compound, misstates the evidence. THE COURT: Restate it. There's been no testimony about blood being on the stomach or not being on the stomach. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You've told us previously, sir -- remember when we asked that there was no trail of blood -- strike that. When Mr. Goldman was found, you observed the pictures with the shirt pulled up, showing a portion of his abdomen prior to his -- his pants, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you told us a few minutes ago that there was no trail of blood observed on the portion of his abdomen that was exposed between his shirt and his belt buckle, right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, let's go back to the question. Are you telling us, then, that this blood came from the left jugular vein, did not soak the shirt, did not leave any blood caked on the portion of the abdomen that was exposed, and then soaked the left side of his thigh? Is that your testimony? A. Yes. THE COURT: Let's take a ten-minute recess. Ladies and gentlemen, don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions. (Recess.) (The jurors resumed their respective seats.) THE COURT: You may resume. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Dr. Baden, we talked a little bit about your testimony at another time under oath. We talked about surprisingly little blood on the shirt. Do you remember that earlier today? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is it true, sir, that you told this jury, under oath, yesterday, in contrast to that testimony, there was a great deal of blood present on the shirt? Did you tell this jury that yesterday, sir? Yes or no? A. I don't recall. I may have. MR. GELBLUM: Page 152 of yesterday's transcript. MR. BLASIER: What line? MR. GELBLUM: 16. MR. FOSTER: 16 and 17. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you give that testimony yesterday, sir? A. I said there's a great deal of blood present on the shirt and on the jeans. And I think that, as you point out, it was much more in the jeans than on the shirt. Q. Sir, you don't recall yesterday, you said there was a great deal of blood present on the shirt; is that correct. A. And on the jeans. Not fair to take the sentence in half. Take them both together. There was a great deal of blood; I agree with you. I hadn't reviewed the shirt; that there's more on the jeans than on the shirt. Q. Well, as a matter of fact, sir, with respect to the jeans, you had previously said under oath, there was only a few ounces on the jeans; isn't that correct, sir? Isn't that what you said before? A. I would -- Q. Yes or no, sir? A. I don't recall. Q. Didn't you say, sir, there was a few ounces of blood that are adherent -- MR. BLASIER: Could we have a page and line, please. MR. MEDVENE: Yes. 41364. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Didn't you say, with reference to the left leg, sir, that there were a few ounces of blood adherent to the leg? Maybe a half a quart, half a liter could be accounted for on the clothing and on the shoes, at a maximum? A. That sounds right. Q. So, a few ounces on the shirt and a few ounces on the jeans; is that correct, sir? MR. BLASIER: Objection. That's not what it says. THE COURT: It's a question. Overruled. Q. Isn't that correct? A. Half a quart would be about 16 ounces. So that I would be referring to in the clothing and all that, perhaps that much could be on the clothing. Q. Okay. A. And a few ounces on the shirt and a few ounces on the -- on the pants. Q. Of that amount, a few ounces on the shirt and a few ounces on the pants; is that correct, sir? You don't mean "and" you mean "of that amount." A. "Of that amount," yes, sir. Q. So it's true also, sir, is it not, that there was little blood on the ground when the body was removed? Wasn't much blood in the area; isn't that true, sir? A. I didn't see much blood as far as the photographs were concerned. But the ground soaks up blood, so I can't -- Q. Sir, I didn't ask you if it did or didn't soak up blood. I'm asking you, from what you knew -- because we're going to track the amount of blood there is, sir -- from what you knew, there was not much blood on the ground when the body was removed, and not much blood in the area. Haven't you previously said that under oath, sir? MR. BLASIER: Objection compound. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Yes or no? MR. BLASIER: Compound. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Can I see the testimony, please. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I read you, sir, from page 41359 -- MR. BLASIER: Line? MR. MEDVENE: I read you from -- this is in the middle of the answer, but it's the part that has to do the blood on the ground. THE WITNESS: Might I see it, or -- MR. MEDVENE: Sure. MR. BLASIER: What line, Mr. Medvene? MR. MEDVENE: I'm sorry. Lines 1 through 6. And lines 3 through 6 deal with the blood on the ground. THE WITNESS: Thank you. MR. BLASIER: Again, I would object just reading part of an answer. THE COURT: You can read the rest of it on your redirect. (Witness reviews transcript.) THE WITNESS: I can't get to where the question is. Thank you. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Dr. Baden, did you say at a previous time, under oath, with respect to blood on the ground: "So if he were alive and the heart were pumping, maybe over a quart of blood would have to seep out in the position that he's in, which we don't see any blood in the soil, and there's no -- when the body is removed, there's not much blood in that area to start with." Did you make that statement under oath on a previous occasion? A. Yes, sir. MR. BLASIER: Objection. That's not inconsistent with anything. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Sir, I'm going to -- going to -- strike that. In terms of this trail of blood, is it true, sir, that if one were standing, and the blood -- instead of -- the blood on the pant leg, instead of going from the thigh, was coming from the jugular vein, you would expect that blood to soak into the top of the pants, isn't that true, and leave blood in the pants? A. It would stain and get into the pants, yes, sir. Q. All right. And certainly, if it was flowing down and the material were absorbent, there would be as much soaking at the belt area of the pants as there was lower down; isn't that true? A. That varies. It varies on many factors. The soaking of blood into the clothing in this fashion involves a lot of different factors. Q. All right. I'm sorry to do this, but would you put on 1986, please. (Exhibit 1986 displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, in this trail that you've told us about that's going from the left jugular vein, we discussed already what blood there was or wasn't on the shirt; we discussed the lack of blood on the abdomen, getting down to the pants. And isn't it true, sir, that before the staining starts in the areas shown on the picture, there's little, if any, blood on the upper portion of the pant leg, where you would expect blood naturally to flow, if it was flowing, and Mr. Goldman was standing up for five, ten, whatever amount of minutes? Isn't that true, sir? There's little or no blood shown at the top of the pants around the belt; yes or no? A. There's little blood. There's a little blood, but not much blood. Q. And you have no explanation, sir, why there would be all this soaking above in the area of the thigh wound, and little or no blood up at the top of the belt line, if the blood was flowing down from the left jugular vein, somehow not on the abdomen and somehow not on the upper portion of the blue jeans, do you? A. I do have an explanation. May I give it to you? Q. Do you contend, sir -- MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may he finish his answer? THE COURT: That was an answer. THE WITNESS: May I continue? I -- My explanation is that when blood -- Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I'm going to ask you a question, sir. Your counsel will be able to ask you whatever, and maybe you'll get this explanation this way, sir. A. Okay. I wasn't sure if you were waiting for my explanation or not. Q. Is it your contention, sir, that Mr. Goldman was standing five, ten, fifteen, twenty minutes, while this assailant was attacking him with a knife, and the blood was dripping down from the left jugular vein, somehow didn't stain very much, or soak into his shirt on the right, skipped over his abdomen, skipped over the first portion of his jeans? THE COURT: Which side are you interposing the wound to, Mr. Medvene? MR. MEDVENE: The left side. A. No, I'm not saying that at all. I didn't say he stood up at any point for two, three, five, ten, fifteen minutes. Q. Stood up? A. I said he stayed up for two or three minutes, yes, while the blood came down and stained some areas and didn't stain other areas, yes Q. I understand. So he's up now two or three minutes and he collapses from loss of blood and-- A. He collapses from loss of blood and whatever else goes on when the jugular vein is cut. There are other things that happen. Q. I understand. We'll talk about the two or three minutes we now have him on the ground in a few minutes. But, what I want to ask is, your explanation is this blood somehow by gravity kind of jumped over these areas that you talked about, jumped over -- kind of jumped over the shirt sort of, jumped over the abdomen, jumped over this first part, and kind of landed here, this slow oozing blood from the vein that's oozing out, is that it, sir? MR. BLASIER: Objection, argumentative. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Just yes or no, sir, is that what you're saying? A. That's not what I said, Mr. Medvene. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Sorry. Q. All right. Now, you've now told us under oath he's standing maybe two or three minutes before he's on the ground. Did you tell, in this TV program you went on a month ago, Mr. Rivera and the national TV audience, at that time we had him up at least five or ten minutes, did you tell whoever you were telling on TV that? Yes or no, just yes or no, sir, did you say that on TV? A. I didn't say what you said I said. Q. Did you say, sir, what I'm saying is that in order for the blood to flow from the neck down to the shoe, bleeding from the jugular vein, would have taken at least five or ten minutes, he was standing for that period of time? I could play it for you, sir. Did you say that? A. You can play it. Q. Did you say it, yes or no, sir, just tell me yes or no? A. I'd have to get it in the context. Q. Whatever context it is? A. My opinion -- you're asking my opinion? Q. No, no, no, sir. You're a pro. I'm asking you, did you say it on national television on November 11 on the Rivera show? That's what I'm asking you. Did you or didn't you? A. I don't answer it that way. What I should have said, would have been -- could have been, could have been standing five or ten minutes. Q. Sir, I didn't ask you what you should have said, what you could have said. I know we're now two or three minutes? A. No, no, he's alive when he collapses. Q. Did you say that, or do you want us to play it? A. You do what you want. I don't -- Q. Okay. A. I don't recall specifically what -- MR. MEDVENE: With the Court's -- do I have permission to play that segment? THE COURT: Only that segment. MR. MEDVENE: Only that segment. MR. PETROCELLI: Do you have it? MR. FOSTER: Yes. THE COURT: Would you watch this, Mr. Baden. (Tape playing at 35:24.) MR. BLASIER: Objection. THE COURT: Only that segment. MR. MEDVENE: Hold it. We're only going to play that segment. THE COURT: What are you doing? Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Just that one, Dr. Baden -- MR. MEDVENE: No, no, no. THE COURT: Excuse me. You're not going to play anything if you don't have this thing cued up. MR. MEDVENE: Here it is, sir. I'm sorry, Your Honor. (Tape playing at 21:36:06.) MR. MEDVENE: Can you back it up so we can -- (Tape playing at 34:65:27.) MR. MEDVENE: Okay. MR. BLASIER: Objection. A. Could you go back? I didn't understand the part before it -- (Tape continues playing.) MR. MEDVENE: What I'm saying is -- sorry, Your Honor. (Tape played again.) MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would object to the previous without -- I'd like to see the transcript so I can make an objection if there's one there. THE COURT: Show him the transcript. (Mr. Medvene hands transcript to Mr. Blasier.) THE COURT: Henceforth you're not playing anything unless you have it cued up. MR. MEDVENE: Yes, sir. I'm sorry, Your Honor. MR. BLASIER: I'd object to anything other than what they already played. THE COURT: Play that portion so that it's comprehendible. THE WITNESS: Might I see it, Your Honor? THE COURT: No. MR. GELBLUM: They talk over each other so much, very fine tuning. A. I'll agree I said what I said. (Pause for tape to be cued up.) MR. BLASIER: I would ask to approach if they're going to play any more of this tape. After reading the transcript -- (Pause for tape to be cued up.) MR. BLASIER: May I have a ruling on my objection. THE COURT: Overruled. (Tape played at 35:11.) (Tape concludes playing.) MR. MEDVENE: Thank you. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, does that refresh you that he was -- that you said he was standing for that period, contrary to what you told this jury under oath a couple minutes ago, that we have him down in two minutes or three minutes on the ground? Does that refresh you, sir; yes or no? A. Yes. Q. Thank you. In discussing -- would you agree, sir, that all of the bleeding that we've gone through and described, does not account for the amount of bleeding necessary for Mr. Goldman to -- to collapse? A. No, I don't agree with that. Q. We have from the -- oh, and by the way, sir, you've told us that the amount of blood in the clothing and in the shoe is approximately half a quart or half a liter, maximum; is that correct, sir? So that's -- the shirt, the pants, the shoe, we're talking about half a quart. That's how many ounces? A. That's about 16 ounces. Q. Okay. And would you agree with Dr. Spitz that we need, in terms of sudden blood loss, about roughly a quart or liter and a half to two liters, two quarts; isn't that true? A. Blood -- some blood loss to what? Q. Some blood loss to cause incapacitation, unconsciousness. A. And death. Q. And death, yes, sir. A. That's reasonable, yes. Q. So we have half a quart, and we need another -- another quart and a half. We don't have it on the clothing, we don't have it on the abdomen, we don't have it on the ground, so -- A. That's not true. Nobody measured the ground. A lot of it would have been in the ground. Q. Excuse me, sir. You told us there wasn't much on the ground -- strike that. A. I didn't see any on the ground. Obviously, it has to be on the ground. Q. Excuse me, sir. If the bleeding was internal, Dr. Baden, if it was internal and inside Mr. Goldman's body, it wouldn't have to be in the ground, would it; yes or no? A. If there was no external bleeding it wouldn't have to be in the ground, but not everything you bleed from gets soaked up in clothing. Q. Sir, you told us before that as far as you knew, there was not much, if any, blood on the ground? A. I couldn't see any, that's correct. Q. All right. A. There had to be blood there. He was laying in blood. Q. Sir, you looked at the pictures, and there was not much blood on the ground; isn't that true? A. In the photographs, that's correct. Q. But that's all you saw, the photographs? You saw the photographs of the scene? A. That's correct. Q. And that's what you were working with in your diagnosis, photographs of the autopsy and what you saw at the scene around his body; isn't that true? A. And lots of other things. I mean I work with many things. But we can never reconstruct, in any murder how much blood is lost to the outside. Q. I want to find the other quart and a half. Now, Dr. Baden, yesterday, you talked about the aorta, and isn't it true that if the aorta is almost transected, that you would have massive internal bleeding from an artery? Is that true, sir? A. If the heart is beating, yes. Q. And the aorta we're here dealing with was almost transected; isn't that true? A. It's not described though as a half an inch in the front and a half inch in the back. Q. It wasn't almost transected, is that -- was it or wasn't it? A. That is not what is described -- Q. Sir -- A. -- in the autopsy. Q. Sir -- A. It's not described that way in the autopsy. Q. We're trying, all of us, to get the facts here. Now you're telling me it's not in the autopsy. I'm asking you -- A. It was not transected, no, it was not almost transected, but it had a big stab wound front and back. Q. Thank you, sir. It's not almost transected. Thank you, sir. When you examined this body -- you examined the body, didn't you, Dr. Baden? A. No, I did not. Q. Did you examine the aorta? THE COURT: Mr. Medvene -- MR. MEDVENE: Yes? THE COURT: Please don't crowd the jury. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You examined the aorta? A. I examined the tissues that were removed and put into the formalin jar, yes. Q. You did. You say in your report, in your hand, that the aorta was almost transected. A. Can I see that, please. Q. You just told us you never said it. I want to know if you said it? A. I don't recall saying that. MR. BLASIER: Can I see it, please. (Mr. Blasier reviews document.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Dr. Baden, I'm showing you some papers that are marked at the top "Defense 001004," and it continues. Are these your notes, sir? A. Can I see? (Witness reviews document.) A. Yes, this page is my handwriting. Q. Is the second page your handwriting? A. No, it's not. Q. Who handwriting is that? A. I don't know. Possibly Dr. Wolfe. Q. And Dr. Wolfe was -- are those your initials up at the top of the page? A. That's -- I didn't write it, but it's my initials, yes. Dr. Lakshmanan, Dr. Wolfe, myself, and Dr. Ziegler of the coroner's office. Q. And these notes were written at the time you examined, among other things, the aorta? A. Yes, when I examined the tissues. Q. And do I read accurately, "Aorta with laceration and hemorrhage in surrounding soft" -- what's that word, sir? A. Tissue. Q. -- "soft tissue (almost transection)"? A. That's correct. Q. Be a fair statement, sir, that that's what you observed when you observed the aorta; yes or no, sir? A. That's fair, yes. Q. So when you told us a minute ago that there was no transection, it wasn't almost transected, that was incorrect, yes or no? A. No, that's -- Q. All right, sir. A. That's not incorrect. It was not transected. It was not almost transected. Q. No, no, sir. I used the word almost transected. A. I'd have to describe what almost transected means. Can I say what almost transected is? That's from that little piece of tissue we saw up there -- Q. At any rate -- A. -- doesn't make any difference to what we're talking about. Q. At any rate, when you observed the aorta, it had lacerations, which means what? A. There was stab wounds, cuts, through the aorta. Q. Did you measure them? A. I believe there were -- no, I adopted Dr. Golden's measurements of half an inch each because there's a shrinkage factor. Q. Excuse me, sir. My question was did you measure. Dr. Spitz measured them as 5/8ths of an inch. A. He didn't measure them. He measured the picture, he measured the photograph. I didn't measure the photograph. That's a distortion. A half an inch, it doesn't make any difference, the aorta will bleed very heavily from a half an inch laceration or whether it's transected. They all bleed very rapidly if a person is alive and the heart is beating effectively. Q. So you would agree that that -- if there was the kind of stab wound to the aorta that was described, let's put aside when in the struggle it occurred, it's a very serious wound that would bleed very, very profusely? A. Absolutely, absolutely, no matter what it -- you know, yes. Q. And you would agree, sir, that that wound would incapacitate one in a matter of seconds? A. No. Q. If the blood was pouring out, the blood pressure would immediately drop if -- if the heart was pumping at the time? A. No, no. Bleed profusely, but it self-seals as it's bleeding partially. Q. Did you -- didn't you say, sir -- strike that. Did you tell us when we were talking about transected and almost transected, it really doesn't matter because the blood is gushing out? A. No -- yes -- no -- that -- whether it's partially transected or transected or a stab wound front and back, it's going to be a great deal of bleeding in any of those three circumstances in a healthy -- in an otherwise healthy person. Q. In an otherwise healthy person, if it's almost transected or transected, we're going to have relatively the same amount of blood pouring out, if we have an otherwise healthy person? A. The two, half inch stab wounds were almost transected, whatever that means, would pour out a great deal of blood, yes. Q. And didn't you say, sir, again, on the Rivera show, on November 11, that if it were cut through, if it was transected, it would be very quick, very quick, you wouldn't be able to stand within seconds? Didn't you say that, sir; yes or no? Just yes or no? A. I think that sounds right. Q. All right. Thank you, sir. A. Depending on where the stab wound goes is the problem. Q. Now, in terms of -- in terms of the blood, you saw, did you not, from looking at the section of the aorta, that the tissue was saturated with blood? A. Infiltrated with blood, yes. Q. Is that a different word than saturated? A. Yes. Q. Infiltrated with blood. And the infiltration with blood, didn't that mean that there was still blood pressure in the victim, the homogeneity of the blood surrounding the fatty tissue, isn't that what that means; yes or no, sir? A. Not necessarily. Could be a reflection of that, it could be seepage of blood through the -- Q. But it could be a reflection, the homogeneity could be a reflection of the blood pressure? A. -- that there was still blood flowing out of those -- Q. Yes, sir. A. -- the stab wounds, yes. Q. Okay. Now, in the autopsy report itself, sir, that report describes a wound starting at the skin on the left flank and passing through that skin into the subcutaneous tissue, went through the retroperitoneal tissue which was bleeding or bloody; isn't that true? A. Which had blood in it, yes, in the tissue. Q. And the pathway was through a muscle that's in the back, not the abdomen, but in the -- A. Back, yes. Q. In the back, in the left flank. So there's no question that the stab wound didn't come through the abdomen or the belly button, but it went through the left flank, through the muscle, and cut the aorta, correct, sir? A. That's correct. Q. Now, there's no indication in the autopsy report of a stab wound to the abdomen, isn't that correct, sir? A. That's correct. Q. The abdomen is encased in what you told us about yesterday, this sack, remember, you brought up from lunch, that plastic -- A. It's lined by -- the abdominal cavity is lined by the thin peritoneal membrane. Q. Yes. A. Like a piece of cellophane. Q. And the aorta is in -- when it bled out, it was described as bleeding out into the retroperitoneal, that there was what, a retroperitoneal hemorrhage; is that correct, sir? A. It didn't say he bled out. It said there was hemorrhage in the retroperitoneal soft tissues. Q. All right, sir. And when you looked at -- A. Which is what we saw on the -- on the photograph of the aorta. Q. Yes. It showed a bloody -- A. Hemorrhage into the blood -- into the retroperitoneal fat of the soft tissue. Q. And I think you pointed out yesterday, there was some hemorrhaging or some blood that found its way even to the kidneys? A. No, to the adrenal gland, not to the kidney. Q. To the adrenal glands? A. Yes. Q. And in the autopsy report, there was no injury that was noted to the adrenal glands; isn't that correct? A. That's correct. Q. So that the adrenal glands are in the retroperitoneal space, correct? A. Yes. Q. And the adrenal glands are approximately 6, 7 inches from where the aorta was almost transected; isn't that correct? A. About 3 inches. Q. Not more than 3 inches? A. Three and a half inches. Q. And that meant, reasonably, that blood that poured out and was observed in that picture made its way to the area of the -- the adrenal glands? A. The blood didn't pour out. There was some blood that made its way to the adrenal gland, infiltrated the fatty tissue to the adrenal gland, not to the kidney, though, there's nothing described in the kidney. Q. Now, sir, isn't it true that -- an aneurysm means what, a bursting? A. An aneurysm is a dilatation or -- of a blood vessel. Q. Well, let's get a word -- A. Dilatation. Q. Let's get a word that I understand. Does it mean it broke? A. You and I would understand, in the old days, when we had tubes in the tires, an aneurysm is like a little ballooning out of that tube. Q. But if someone dies from an aneurysm -- A. It ruptures. Q. -- of the aorta, it means, in my language, it ruptured and blood comes out? A. If that aneurysm, that sac, the saccular dilatation ruptures, as does happen as we get older, in the aorta, then it means the person could bleed from pouring out of blood from that ruptured aneurysm, yes, of the aorta. Q. And that blood remains in the retroperitoneal space; isn't that correct, sir? A. Yes, yes. Q. All right. And the reason it remains in the retroperitoneal space is because it's -- it's confined there in this soft tissue in the -- in the retroperitoneal area, correct, sir? A. Because the peritoneum blocks it off and there's no communication normally through the peritoneum, so the blood stays behind it and it doesn't get into the peritoneal cavity. Q. And it stays in a retroperitoneal space? A. Yes. Q. Now, if -- so we know now from a ruptured aneurysm of the aorta, the blood rushes from the aorta and remains in a retroperitoneal space because the peritoneum is protected by that thin membrane, right? MR. BLASIER: I'm going to object. There's no testimony there was an aneurysm. THE COURT: Sustained. And let's move it on. MR. MEDVENE: Yes, sir. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Now, in -- in this case, sir, there being no wound to the abdomen, isn't it true that the only -- and the abdomen being in the peritoneum, that one explanation for the fact that there's a hundred or 200 cc's of blood in the abdominal cavity is that the tip of the knife that sliced the aorta went through the retroperitoneal area and nicked the membrane of the peritoneum? A. It went through the membrane communicating with the abdominal cavity, that is my opinion, that it caused the bleeding. Q. It caused some leakage of blood from the retroperitoneum? A. No, no, not from the retroperitoneum. From the aorta. See, as in your diagram, it made a -- the stab wound that comes out the front goes right into the peritoneal cavity, and there's a direct communication between the aorta and the peritoneum, and that caused the 100 cc, 3 ounces, of bleeding into that cavity. Q. There's only -- when we say direct communication, to be more precise, you've told us that on a ruptured aneurysm of the aorta, the blood will stay inside the retroperitoneal cavity and not go into the peritoneum? A. Usually because the peritoneum isn't ruptured, but sometimes it can go. Q. It's only if the peritoneum is ruptured by possibly a tip of a knife. In this situation, where some blood could ooze from the retroperitoneum from the aorta into the peritoneum; isn't that correct? A. Directly from the -- yes, directly from the aorta into the peritoneal cavity. Q. All right, sir. A. As I diagram on that diagram you have. Q. Now, did you speak -- strike that. You told us, several times on your direct, that you spoke to Dr. Golden; is that correct? A. It's true. I did speak to Dr. Golden, yes. Q. And did you ask Dr. Golden whether or not it was true that there was massive bleeding in the retroperitoneal area that resulted from the almost transection of the aorta? Did you ask him that question? A. I asked him two questions. Q. No, no, no, no, sir. I asked -- A. I asked two, after discussing matters with Dr. Golden -- Q. Excuse me -- THE COURT: Excuse me. Would you listen to the question and answer the question instead of arguing with the lawyer. MR. BAKER: I object to the Court's statement. THE COURT: Well, objection is overruled. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you ask him that question, sir? A. Can you repeat the question, please, so I understand the question. Did I ask him what? MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, may the recorder read back the question. THE COURT: Read it. (Reporter reads the record as follows:) Q. And did you ask Dr. Golden whether or not it was true that there was massive bleeding in the retroperitoneal area that resulted from the almost transection of the aorta? Did you ask him that question? THE WITNESS: You have three things. THE COURT: Could you just answer yes or no. THE WITNESS: No, to the whole question. THE COURT: Ask another question. THE WITNES: Yes, sir. MR. MEDVENE: Yes, sir. I'm about done. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You told us earlier today that whatever the first wound or second wound, that Mr. Goldman slumped to the ground, I think you said after -- is it two or three minutes? A. Yeah, I think two or three minutes, or could have been five or ten minutes but -- Q. Well, could have? A. I mean I don't think there -- I think it was pretty quick. Q. Pretty quick? A. That is within minutes. Q. And it's your theory, then, that it could have been two minutes, that after the two minutes, that the assailant then, seeing him still breathing after maybe two minutes, goes over and inflicts wounds to the lungs, the aorta, the abdomen and the neck? Is that your theory, sir; yes or no? A. My -- Q. No, no. Is that your theory? A. I don't know he saw him breathing. You're asking me questions that have six different things in them. If you can ask me one at a time, I can answer them. I don't know if he saw him breathing. Q. All right, sir. Let's check it. Did you say, sir, at a previous occasion under oath, 41384: (Reading:) I think it was dark and the perpetrator wasn't sure that Mr. Goldman was dead. That's why five minutes later or ten minutes later, additional stab wounds were made, because Mr. Goldman, while he was bleeding from the neck, would have collapsed to the ground after a few minutes, would have been breathing, and then additional wounds were made on the body while I believe he was lying on the ground, which included the lungs, the aorta, the abdomen and also the neck could have been cut. Did -- A. I'll agree with that, yes. Q. All right. So now we've moved our time to two minutes we have him breathing? A. No, could you -- okay, I agree with just what you read, just what you read, I agree with a few minutes, whatever that is. Q. Okay. So you've told us two, three, five, ten, but whatever it is, I think the latest you told us earlier today was two or three? MR. BLASIER: Objection, argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) All right. So he's on the ground, and then the assailant sees him breathing and finishes him off? A. The assailant -- he's on the ground, and additional stab wounds are inflicted upon him when he's on the ground, yes. Q. Okay. And those wounds, as far as you know, could well have been inflicted the moment, even on your theory, the moment after he fell to the ground; yes or no? Yes or no, sir? A. Yes, if I could explain it, but I -- okay. MR. MEDVENE: Thank you very much. BY MR. BLASIER: Go ahead and explain it. THE COURT: Five minutes recess, ladies and gentlemen, or make it ten. Bring them back in 10 minutes. (Recess.) (Jurors resumed their respective seats.) THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, you may proceed. MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, we move in as 603 the one page of the notes that we questioned Mr. Baden about, 2268, and 440. (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 603.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 2268.) (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 440.) THE COURT: Okay. Proceed. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Dr. Baden, you recall yesterday when at the beginning of the cross-examination, Mr. Medvene asked you questions about whether you were trying to mislead the jury about your opinion with respect to one or more perpetrators? A. I think so, yes. Q. And he was suggesting that you had testified to the jury that you thought, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there was more than one perpetrator? A. Yes, I remember. Q. Reading from page 145 of yesterday's transcript, do you recall this question and giving the following answer with respect to that opinion. (Reading:) A. My opinion is that it's -- based on all the evidence and all the circumstances that it's more likely that there were more than one perpetrator. A. Yes, that was -- I recall, and that is my opinion. More likely being -- more likely than not. Q. Now, Mr. Medvene asked you a bunch of questions about whether certain things were possible. How do you interpret that term, possible, in terms of whether it's something likely or not? A. Possible means any circumstance which something could happen. It could be less than one-hundredth of one percent. Is it possible there's a dog out the door there. It's possible, I don't think so, but it's within the realm of possibility. Q. In terms of an expert testifying to various opinions, does that standard really have much meaning at all? A. I think it doesn't have any meaning as far as giving opinion to agree with the possibility except that the jury or the judge understands that that kind of an opinion has a lot less weight in my -- in my -- in my opinion, has much less weight, in my opinion, than opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, 95 percent, or more likely than not being 51 percent. Q. And how about when you're asked the question whether something is consistent with something else, what does that mean? A. It depends on the circumstances. But consistent with something, consistent with could be consistent one percent or could be consistent 50 or 60 percent. Q. So would you agree that we're asked questions about whether something is possible or whether something is consistent with something else that you're not being asked any kind of question about your quantitative assessment of whether that happened or not? A. That's correct. It's not an opinion of whether it happened that way, but whether there's any chance that it might have happened that way. Q. Now, Mr. Medvene asked you some questions yesterday about your background. Did we talk about your entire background when I asked you questions? A. No, you didn't go much into my background. Q. We left a lot of that out, didn't we? A. Yes. Q. Now, you went from the New York City Medical Examiner's Office to the New York State Police in 1985, '86? A. '85, '86, yes. Q. And Mr. Medvene asked you some questions about whether you were fired. You weren't fired, were you? A. No, I was never fired. Q. In the late 70's did you have a dispute with Mayor Ed Koch of the City of New York? A. Yes. Q. And describe that dispute. A. I was -- when I was chief medical examiner in the City of New York which is that I had been working in the office since 1960, deputy chief medical examiner since 1966, and in 1978 I was appointed chief medical examiner. And I had a dispute with one of the five district attorneys we work with and with the Mayor as to the independence of the medical examiner's office. Q. What was the -- I'm sorry. Go ahead. A. And that led to my being demoted to being back to deputy chief medical examiner. Q. What was the dispute about? A. The dispute was about the independence of the medical examiner's office, specifically listed a complaint from one district attorney in New York City which has five counties; Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island -- each county has a district attorney and there's one medical examiner for five counties, and one of the five district attorneys felt I wasn't a team player and I wasn't cooperative in giving evidence to help in the prosecution of cases. Q. They wanted you to testify in a couple of cases to something you didn't agree with; isn't that correct? A. That is correct. Q. And you refused, didn't you? A. That's correct. Q. Now, you were also asked about your billing in this case. Your understanding is that Mr. Simpson has no funds at this point? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, relevance, materiality. THE COURT: Sustained. You can ask him about his billing. MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry? THE COURT: You can ask him about his billing. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Okay. Mr. Medvene asked you a question about changing your billing in a high-profile case. You work on high-profile cases all the time, don't you? A. Not uncommonly, yes. Q. And it's -- incidentally, when was the last time that the Los Angeles District Attorney's office asked you to consult with them on a case? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, relevance, materiality, outside the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Past month. Q. They contacted you yesterday? A. Sent some stuff yesterday, yes, some autopsy report. Q. Now, why don't you tell the folks on the jury, we didn't cover it yesterday, some of your teaching positions. MR. MEDVENE: Objection, outside the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I have -- I have various appointments to teach in medical schools, law schools and criminal justice schools on a part-time basis, aspects of forensic medicine, forensic pathology, and forensic science, which include, presently, visiting professor of pathology at Albert Einstein School of Medicine, adjunct professor of laboratory medicine in pathology at Albany Medical Center, and I teach some terms as visiting professor at John Jay School of Criminal Justice and New York Law School in New York. And I hold various other teaching positions, all of which are part-time, for medical students, law students and the police in training. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Have you won many awards that we never even talked about yesterday? A. I've received many awards, yes. Q. Now, you were asked some questions about the Geraldo show on November 11. At what point was your appearance scheduled for the Geraldo show; how long before that? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, relevance, materiality. THE COURT: Overruled. A. About a week or two before I appeared. Q. And who scheduled it for you? A. It was scheduled through HBO, Home Box Office television program. Q. And what was supposedly the reason for the appearance? A. The reason for the appearance was to talk about and publicize a special program on autopsy that HBO had just completed. Q. And that program features you, primarily? A. I was the consultant. This is a third in the series, every year there's a new one, and it has to do with how you use forensic science and investigation of injuries and death, and yes, I'm featured in it. Q. Incidentally, in any of those three specialties, will any of Dr. Spitz's cases be featured? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, relevance, materiality. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Dr. Baden, you were asked questions yesterday about -- with respect to your opinion about more than one perpetrator, and you were asked questions about shoe prints at the crime scene, correct? A. Yes. Q. Let's talk about your basis for saying that it's more likely than not that there was more than one perpetrator. What information do you have about shoe prints that goes into that opinion? A. The information I have is there's evidence of more than one type of shoe print at the Bundy crime scene, and on the envelope in which the eyeglasses were found at the crime scene, and also on the jeans that Mr. Goldman was wearing, and other shoe prints in the walkway leading up to the gate, outside the gate. Q. The shoe print that Mr. Medvene was asking you about Dr. Lee's testimony, tell us about that shoe print; when did you observe -- did you observe that personally? A. Yes. Q. And when was that? A. About the first week of the -- after the -- in the week following our examination of Mr. Simpson on June 17, just before he was arrested, just before he was taken into custody or arrested, Dr. Lee and I and the other doctors examined Mr. Simpson, and the following week we went to the various scenes, the Bundy scene in particular, and examined the walk and the area for evidence. And in one of those first reviews, when we went to the scene, there was evidence of -- remnants of bloody shoe prints, and Dr. Lee and I looked at them together, and he did blood tests. He has a little kit to do tests, presumptive blood tests. And there was one print there that didn't match the other prints. Q. And it tested positive for blood? A. And that tested positive for blood, yes, tested positive in a presumptive test for blood. Q. Let me show you Exhibit 717. And you mentioned shoe prints in the walkway area in front of Bundy. (Exhibit 717 displayed.) Q. Now, can you see -- actually, let me show you 2214 first. And I apologize for this picture. (Exhibit 2214 displayed.) Q. Dr. Baden, do you see the -- A. Yes. Q. Okay. Is that consistent with the Bruno Magli shoe print? A. It's a shoe print. MR. MEDVENE: Objection, lack of foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Consistent with a shoe print? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, lack of foundation Your Honor. THE COURT: As to shoe print, overruled. A. Yes. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is that one of the shoe prints you were talking about when you just answered my prior questions? A. Yeah. This isn't one that I looked at with Dr. Lee, this is one I took into account in answering your previous question. Q. And let's look at 717. MR. PETROCELLI: What was that exhibit? MR. BLASIER: 2214. Back on out. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Then this one -- MR. MEDVENE: What exhibit is this? MR. BLASIER: 714 I believe. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Dr. Baden, is this another indication of a shoe print. THE COURT: What did you call this? What did you call this. MR. P. BAKER: It's 717. It's also marked as 2257 I believe. THE COURT: I'm sorry. Go ahead. A. Yes, sir. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is this one of the ones you observed as well on the pictures? A. In the picture, yes. MR. BLASIER: Let's back that out so we can see where that is. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And that appears to be a number of feet out toward the Bundy walkway, correct? A. Yes. Q. And describe what you observed about those shoe prints that go into your opinion about the number of perpetrators? A. The two shoe prints are in clotted blood. That is, the shoe print was made after the blood had congealed, so that after bleeding had occurred from Mrs. Simpson, and it indicated that there was movement in and walking around within a few minutes of Mrs. Simpson's collapse. Q. Well, you say within a few minutes, what -- can we estimate that to any degree of particularity? A. Yeah. It would -- the blood remains pretty liquid, like water, for a few minutes and if you stepped into blood one or two or three minutes after it was shed, the blood would just -- it's like stepping into water, it would not leave a permanent impression. So in order for this permanent impression to remain there, the blood would have had to have clotted sufficiently to maintain its shape without liquefying, you know, disappearing, and that would take at least three to four to five minutes of clotting. Q. That would be after the blood had a chance to get down this far in the walkway, correct? A. As it was traveling down and after, yes. Q. And that would take some time as well? A. Yes. THE COURT REPORTER: One more time, that current exhibit? MR. P. BAKER: 2257. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Incidentally, when you examined or looked at the socks; you were prevented from actually examining them, weren't you? A. I was not permitted to pick them up or to examine them in any way other than to view and inventory the evidence that was there; I'd say about 59 pieces of evidence. Q. And it was Detective Vannatter that refused to let you even touch anything, correct? A. He was the one who told me that I couldn't -- we couldn't examine, touch anything or photograph anything. Q. Now, do you recall this morning, during cross-examination, Mr. Medvene asked you a couple of questions where he used a hypothetical where he had his arm around his neck; do you remember that? A. Yes. Q. If either of the victims in this case had a perpetrator's arm around their neck as Mr. Medvene demonstrated, what would happen if the perpetrator tried to cut the neck with the right hand? A. Well, so long as an arm, or any object, was present on the neck, that would interfere with the ability to cut the neck. Q. Cut the arm first, wouldn't you? A. Yes. Q. Now, with respect to the fingernail -- the absence of skin under a person's fingernails that may have scraped the perpetrator, is it your opinion that you usually don't find skin? A. That's correct. Q. You can find blood, can't you? A. That's more frequent than skin. Q. And what's another mechanism by -- when somebody is scraped with a fingernail, what do you expect to see on the skin? A. A scratch, a scratch mark. Q. And what happens to the person's skin, is it transferred to the fingernail or does it stay on the person that's being scratched? A. It can stay -- usually stays on the victim being scratched. It's like being scratched by a cat or some other animal. The skin is pushed aside. Q. Is that -- is that what's called an evulsion? A. It would be called an evulsion. It's a very minor evulsion. An evulsion would be a tearing of the skin. This would be a very minor tearing of the skin, yes. Q. Now, you were asked about blood on Mr. Goldman's clothing. Let's talk about his shirt first. Well, let's talk about the ground first. Is it your understanding that Mr. Goldman's body was allowed to lie on the ground for 10 hours before anybody collected it? A. Yes, at least that. Q. What happens to blood in dirt? A. It would be absorbed and it would not be possible to distinguish blood from dirt after a period of time. Certainly, the majority of whatever blood gets into dirt would be absorbed or made unrecognizable -- Q. Now -- A. -- over a 10-hour period of time. Q. Now, is it true that if there was internal bleeding, however, especially with no wound to the abdomen, had there been massive internal bleeding, that would be apparent to the autopsy surgeon? A. Absolutely. Q. And incidentally, is one of the reasons why a medical examiner should go to the scene as early as possible, is to evaluate some of these other evidentiary issues about rates of bleeding and that sort of thing? A. Yes. Q. Now, with respect to Mr. Goldman's shirt and his jeans, tell me, in your opinion, what's the difference between his shirt and his jeans with respect to when you would expect to find blood soaked into one versus the other? A. The amount of blood that soaks into clothing varies on how tight the clothing is on the body, varies on the fabrics, some fabrics are more absorbent than others, and also varies on the position of the individual, invariably, during the struggle or -- when somebody's being injured, it's unusual for the person to stand in the anatomic position at attention. The person is making all kinds of motions to get out of harm's way or to defend oneself. So that bleeding is not a direct linear line from the top to the bottom. It may vary depending on looseness of clothing, fabric, and on the position, whether the person's leaning forward, leaning backwards. And there's no predictable pattern for any kind of bleeding in that regard except that blood has to follow the law of gravity, that it goes downward. Q. Now, is the fact that there is no straight line from Mr. Goldman's neck wounds straight down his shirt, indicative of him struggling after that neck wound, moving around a lot? A. It would be supportive of that, yes. Q. Now, you were asked some questions about the jeans. Do you recall being shown one picture of Mr. Goldman lying on a table? A. Yes, sir. Q. You actually have examined the jeans themselves, have you not? A. Yes. Q. And let me show you next in order. THE CLERK: 2269. (The instrument herein described as a photograph of Ronald Goldman's jeans was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2269.) (Exhibit 2269 displayed.) Q. Does this appear to be a pair of Mr. Goldman's jeans? A. Yes, that -- I think it's too close. MR. BLASIER: Can you back out a little. THE WITNESS: Back up a little. A. Yes. Q. Let's move to this area up here. Does this appear to be blood at the very top of Mr. Goldman's jeans? A. Yeah. That is the top side of the jeans. There is blood in the fabric going above the belt line. Q. And? A. In the front. Q. And? A. On the side. Q. Where is the thigh wound with respect to Mr. Goldman's jeans? A. I think it's about four or five inches below the pocket, as described in the jeans, to my best recollection. MR. BLASIER: Can you back out a little, Phil. MR. P. BAKER: Sure. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) So we're talking about well below the area where the blood starts on Mr. Goldman's jeans? A. Yes, it would be below the screen. Q. Now, would you expect the person wearing jeans, if they were struggling, would you expect the jeans to move around a lot like a shirt might? A. Surely, it could, especially if there's no belt tightening. As I recall, there was no belt, so the pants would move in unpredictable ways during a struggle. Q. Would you expect them, however, to absorb more blood because they're tighter on the skin and closer to the skin? A. Yes. Q. Now, let me show you next in order. THE CLERK: 2270. MR. BLASIER: 2270. (The instrument herein described as a photograph of Ronald Goldman's shoes was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2270.) Q. Is this a picture of Mr. Goldman's shoes? A. Yes. Q. And this is blood that is saturating his left shoe, correct? A. Could that be focused a little bit better. I can't -- Yes. There's blood soaking the left shoe. Q. Now, how far, approximately, would it be from the thigh wound down to the shoe? A. Possibly around two feet. Or -- Q. And is it your opinion that Mr. Goldman would have to be upright for his shoe to get saturated in that way, whether it's from the neck wounds or the thigh wound? A. Yes. Whether it's the thigh wound or the neck wound, the flow of blood is going to be downward by gravity, so it would indicate an upright position. Q. Now, you were asked about whether there was evidence of an accumulation of blood around the jugular vein cut. Would you expect to find an accumulation of blood around that area? A. No. The -- There was a little bit of blood on the cut but there's no space for the jugular vein to accumulate. It's like cutting one wrist, if the blood flows right out onto the skin and doesn't pool anyplace in the body. Q. Now, your testimony with respect to -- let me show you another picture. MR. BLASIER: Could we mark next in order. MR. P. BAKER: 22 -- THE CLERK: 71. MR. BLASIER: 2271. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Does this appear to be another picture of Mr. Goldman's jeans, the back side of them. (The instrument herein described as a photograph of the back side of Ronald Goldman's jeans was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2271.) A. May I? (Witness approaches TV screen.) A. Yeah, this is the label on the right buttock area, so this is the back side of the jeans. Q. So the left side would be at the bottom of the picture? A. Yeah, this is the left side facing 6 o'clock. Q. And this picture seems to indicate a continuous stain from the top to the bottom. Is that consistent with your observation of the actual jeans? A. Yes, going from the very belt line. Q. Now, again, would you expect that to be an absolute straight line or could there be some breaks in that because of bunching of the jeans? A. Yes, there could very well be breaks. I don't see a break here but there could be breaks. Q. Now, the wound to the -- the jugular vein, are there things that happen once that wound is inflicted, other than just bleeding? A. Yes. Q. Describe what would go on with the body, what could go on in addition to that wound bleeding? A. When the wound is transected, as happened here, that is complete separation of the top part and bottom part of the jugular vein, the top part continues to bleed as the blood is continued to be pumped up into the head through the aorta and the carotid arteries, which are intact, the bottom part doesn't have blood in it so it sucks air into the heart, and that's another reason that that occurs when the internal jugular vein is cut. So that also happens. It's hard to interpret it from this autopsy because the autopsy was done some 36 hours later and there's no mention as to air in the heart. Q. Now, when you testified to your opinion about an approximate span of time between the infliction of the neck wound and the wound to the aorta, were you talking about specifically the time that Mr. Goldman would be upright as opposed to being lying down, or are you talking about the combined period of time? A. I'm talking about the amount of time it took for the heart to stop pumping effectively, the heart to stop, failing as a pump. So that would include the time he's standing up and the time he collapses until the heart beats so feebly that when the aorta is cut and when the lungs are cut, not much blood is pumped out. And these are both areas that if any of us in this room were stabbed in those areas, we would pump out one or two quarts of blood very quickly. Q. Now, Mr. Medvene asked you questions about the wound to the aorta and bleeding into the retroperitoneal space, and he also described a tip of a knife going into the peritoneum. What was the size of the wound that went into the peritoneum in this case? A. A half an inch. Q. And is that considerably larger than a tip of a knife? A. It would have been the front portion of the knife that went through the aorta, and it would be more than just a tip, yes. Q. Now, you were asked some questions about an aneurysm. There was no aneurysm in this case, was there? A. No, there was no aneurysm. Q. Now, can people that are -- that are wounded in the back, with the aorta being severed or cut without the peritoneal space -- peritoneal sack being cut, what would happen there? A. If a person, and this happens on our streets, is stabbed in the back, and the aorta is cut in the back and not in the front, then the bleeding -- and there's no other injury to cause impairment, then the bleeding would be into the retroperitoneal space, as occurs when somebody has a ruptured aneurysm that Mr. Medvene referred to, and in those circumstances, as the blood infiltrates the retroperitoneal space, the space behind the aorta, it builds up pressure, and what's called a pseudoaneurysm, false aneurysm, because the blood clots around the aorta, it's got tissue pressure. These tissues are harder to infiltrate than a space like the peritoneum or the thoracic cavity, and these people usually live long enough to get to a hospital, be operated upon and oftentimes survive. So a stab wound in the -- that does produce hemorrhage in the retroperitoneal space, is not nearly as harmful as one that goes into the peritoneal cavity because once a stab wound goes into the peritoneal cavity, as I tried to illustrate with the plastic bag yesterday, there's a big space there with no counter pressure that just fills up with a great deal of blood, and those people who have bleeding from the front of the aorta into the peritoneal cavity have a much poorer prognosis, they don't do as well. They often don't live to get to a hospital. If it's only in the retroperitoneal space, many of these people are operated upon and are salvaged. Q. Now, the 100 to 200 cc's of blood that Dr. Golden found in the abdominal cavity, this is a relatively small amount, is it not? A. Yes, as is the blood in the right chest cavity is also a small amount. Q. And incidentally, it's routine in an autopsy to record those kinds of things? A. Absolutely, yes. Q. And just so the record is clear, describe again what your opinion is with respect to the state of Mr. Goldman at the time the aorta wound was inflicted? A. My opinion when the aorta wound was inflicted is the same as my opinion when the two lung wounds were inflicted, the heart was not beating effectively, the heart was failing as a pump, so it wasn't pumping blood effectively through the body or through any of the blood vessels, and that's why very little bleeding occurred. Q. And that would take a certain period of time that you've estimated after the neck wounds would have been inflicted for his body to have bled out enough to lower his blood pressure and produce that small volume of blood? A. Yes. In order for the stab wounds to the aorta and to the lungs to bleed very little would have required, that's where I get into these numbers, a good -- a good 10 minutes from that point, he's on the ground a good 10 minutes before, so that the heart can no longer pump. Now, that's modified -- that's also modified by the amount of air that's being sucked into the air (sic), because as the air gets sucked into the heart from the lower portion, it causes an airlock so blood can pump. And people with transected internal jugular veins have the additional problem of the blood not being able to pass through the heart because of the air, and this causes the heart to beat ineffectively as a pump, and within five or ten minutes the -- the stabbing into the aorta or the lungs will not produce much bleeding. Q. Now, Mr. Medvene asked you a number of hypothetical questions. Do you have anyway of knowing whether the perpetrator or perpetrators saw Mr. Goldman breathing or not? A. I have no way of knowing that. Q. Now, what is your opinion with respect to whether he was stabbed in the aorta and in the chest after he had already collapsed on the ground some period of time after the neck wound? A. Yeah. My opinion is that when he's stabbed in the right chest area and the left thigh, the heart is not able to pump blood effectively. That would take at least five or ten minutes, you know, from the time of the cut -- wound, and that's where I get confused on numbers, and the stab wounds to the right -- right chest stab wound to -- the right chest would have been first, from the position of the body. The stab wound on the left chest would be the last one, from the position of the body as seen at the scene, but prior to that there would be stab wounds on the right side. During all this time -- During all this time Mr. Goldman is not conscious, he doesn't feel this, he's not conscious during all this time. Q. Now, is part of your opinion that you've talked about, deal with -- with the Bruno Magli set of shoe prints that make it appear that somebody went out and came back a second time. A. Well, during that time, there -- there are shoe prints in different areas, and part of that is the ones you showed me where there was motion, whoever was there, whether it's one person or two persons, there was motion going on and the -- the congealed or partially clotted blood was stepped into. Q. But as to the Bruno Magli shoe prints in the back walkway, you take into account Mr. Bodziak's testimony with respect to possibly the perpetrator going out and coming back and going out a second time? A. I also considered that, yes. Q. Now, you were asked questions about the adrenal glands having some hemorrhage. What does the autopsy report say about that in terms of how much hemorrhage? A. Is says in the description in the adrenal gland that -- that there is -- there is a small amount of hemorrhage around the adrenal -- of the left adrenal gland, due to the retroperitoneal hemorrhage caused by the stab wound. So in the course of that stab wound track which was illustrated in that diagram, there is hemorrhage around that stab wound's track, partially passive hemorrhage, and there might have been a small amount of blood pressure at that time, and that hemorrhage got into the -- to the adrenal gland area. Q. Now, had the wound to the aorta been inflicted early on as Dr. Spitz testified, would you expect to see a small amount of hemorrhage or a large amount? A. Well, I expect a large amount. And also, I expect the kidney in that area to be encased in blood because the kidney is right there in the retroperitoneal space, and there's no mention in the autopsy report of any hemorrhage around the kidney. Q. Now, you were asked questions about your conversation with Dr. Goldman -- Dr. Golden, excuse me. Did you have a conversation with Dr. Golden after you heard Dr. Spitz's testimony or read his testimony? A. Yes. Q. And did you discuss with Dr. Golden the issue of whether there was massive bleeding in the retroperitoneal space? A. Yes. Q. What did he tell you? MR. MEDVENE: Objection, hearsay, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. My understanding in talking to Dr. Golden, and I specifically asked him whether there was any additional information he had that was not included in the autopsy report -- his autopsy report about the hemorrhage in the retroperitoneal space, and he reassured me that he sticks by what he says in the autopsy report and what he testified to at prior -- prior testimony that he gave. Q. And is it accurate that he told you that he did not observe massive amounts of blood in the retroperitoneal space? A. He told me that he did not see massive bleeding in the retroperitoneal space or if he did, he would have put it in his autopsy report. Q. Now, Dr. Baden, is it accurate to say, or fair to say, that you're somewhat reluctant to criticize Dr. Spitz; he's a friend of yours? A. I don't have -- MR. MEDVENE: Objection, relevance, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) There is absolutely no basis in the evidence from the autopsy and from any of the observations here that support Dr. Spitz's conclusion with -- there is absolutely no support whatsoever for Dr. Spitz's opinion that the wound to the aorta was one of the earlier wounds and that there was massive bleeding in the retroperitoneal space? MR. MEDVENE: Calls for conclusion, argumentative, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's his job. He makes conclusions. A. In my opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, I don't find any evidence for massive bleeding in the retroperitoneal space and I disagree with Dr. Spitz's opinion to that point. Q. And if I asked you the same question with respect to all of the marks on Mr. Simpson's hand being caused by fingernail gouges, would you agree that that simply is not supported by the evidence? A. My opinion is that they're not finger scratch gouges but there's a little more evidence that I would agree with Dr. Spitz is that I can't tell. The little scratches on the back of the hand that were crusted could be from anything. So it's not my opinion they're finger scratch marks, but there's some basis that another person could think they are. I don't think there's a good basis that there's massive retroperitoneal hemorrhage. MR. BLASIER: That's all I have, Your Honor. THE COURT: Anything else? MR. MEDVENE: Yes, Your Honor. MR. MEDVENE: Recross. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE: Q. You're not a shoe print expert, are you, Dr. Baden? A. I am not, sir. Q. And you performed, yourself, no analysis of what imprints of any kind were at the Bundy scene to determine the origin of those imprints; is that correct, sir? A. That's correct. Q. And if -- And if Dr. Lee said that as far as the Bundy walkway was concerned, other than the Bruno Magli footprints that had been previously identified by Agent Bodziak, the only other imprint on the walkway that he could say with scientific certainty was a shoe print, was one particular shoe print, you wouldn't disagree with that, would you? A. No, not -- Q. And if Dr. Lee said as far as that one particular shoe print, the only other one that he saw on the Bundy walkway, other than the bloody Bruno Magli size 12, if he said he did not know if that imprint was put on the scene after the murder, you would have no basis to disagree with that, would you, sir? A. I would not disagree with that. There's no -- we can't tell the time any shoe print is put down. Q. Thank you. And if Dr. Lee were to testify that he is not able to identify with any degree of scientific certainty, as a shoe print, any imprints that are on an envelope that you referred to, or on jeans you referred to, you would not quarrel with that, would you, sir? A. I would not quarrel with Dr. Lee's opinion. Q. All right. So, basically, then, if we assumed that the testimony is there's one set of bloody Bruno Magli size 12 shoe prints at the crime scene, and one other shoe print that nobody knows when it got there, are you telling us that with some degree of reasonable medical certainty -- you're claiming that based on that there were two assailants? A. No. I would not make an opinion based on that. Q. Now, when counsel -- and with respect to that one particular shoe print, the only one Dr. Lee said even though he didn't know when it was there, that he identified as a shoe print, other than the bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints, with respect to that one shoe print that was some distance in the walkway, do -- did you perform any examination to figure how that one shoe print could appear somewhere halfway in the walkway and nowhere else? A. No, I didn't. Q. So -- THE COURT: Okay. We're going to resume at 1:30. Ladies and gentlemen, don't talk about the case, don't form or express any opinions. You're excused. THE BAILIFF: Could I have it quiet in the courtroom, please. (Jurors exit courtroom.) (The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury.) THE BAILIFF: Please take a seat in the audience. THE COURT: Okay. I'll remind you, counsel, you've had ample cross-examination. The Court is not going to go through the same testimony the second time. MR. MEDVENE: Yes, Your Honor. (At 12:04 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.) THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, you will note that one of your number is no longer with you. You're not to speculate as to the reason why. I wish to remind you that it is very important for you to follow the instructions that I have given to you, and I give to you periodically about not talking about this case with anyone, not communicating anything about -- anything about this case, not even the fact that you're on this case. People may know you're on this case, but your duty is not to initiate any communications about anything like that. You're also not to form or express any opinions about this case until this case is completed. You're not to do any investigating on your own. You're not to permit yourself to be addressed about this case by anyone other than myself or the lawyers in the course of the trial, or by the witnesses as they testify. Everybody understand those instructions? JURORS: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. You may proceed. MICHAEL BADEN, the witness on the stand at the time of the luncheon recess, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE: Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Baden. A. Good afternoon, Mr. Medvene. Q. Just a few more questions for you. You were asked on redirect about the question of blood under fingernails. I want to ask you, sir, isn't it true that it is uncommon to find an assailant's blood under the victim's fingernails? A. Yes. Q. There was some discussion on redirect about the shirt and the fact there wasn't much blood on the left side of the shirt. And you had talked about the absorbency of a shirt, and that might account for the possible lack of soaking on the left side. You know what kind of shirt it was, sir? A. That's not what I said. Q. All right. Do you know what kind of shirt it was Mr. Goldman was wearing? A. I did at one time. I don't recall. It was -- Q. Yes, sir. Was it a cotton shirt? A. I forget what it was. I'd have to review my notes on that. MR. MEDVENE: Put on the board next in order. THE CLERK: 2272. (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph depicting shirt label was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2272.) Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) I ask you to look at 2272, and ask if that's Mr. Goldman's shirt and if that is a cotton? A. Cotton; yes, sir. Q. And cotton, to your knowledge, would be an absorbent material? A. It would be absorbent, yes. Q. You also said with respect to the shirt, and discussing relative lack of blood on the left side, something about the assailant twisting the shirt. Is it your testimony that the -- A. I didn't say that. Q. Is it your testimony that the assailant was holding Mr. Goldman's shirt so that the left side was moved away from his left jugular vein for five or ten minutes? A. No, I didn't say that. And I would have no knowledge of that. And I would doubt that. Q. All right. Is it true, sir, that you have previously testified, under oath, that you did not see any blood in the soil, and there was no blood when the body was removed, and not much blood in that area, to start with? Did you previously say that under oath, sir? MR. BLASIER: Objection. Outside of the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Did you say that? A. That would be my observation; I did not see any blood -- Q. Thank you, sir. A. -- in the soil or on the photographs. Q. Thank you, sir. And last question, sir: You have stated that, from whatever wounds he received, Mr. Goldman would be on the ground in two to three minutes, but might have stayed alive, before receiving the other wounds, for seven or eight minutes. Are you contending, sir, as you stated on the Rivera show, that the assailant could have inflicted a wound and stopped and talked, or maybe there was another perpetrator with a gun? Are you suggesting that that's what happened during this seven or eight minutes that Mr. Goldman was on the ground, before he was, you say, stabbed in the abdomen and the aorta? A. What I was trying to convey was that -- Q. Is that what you're saying, sir? A. What I'm trying to say, that many things could have happened in between the two. I'm not saying it happened that way at all. Q. So that's one of the things? A. But if I may answer your question -- In the context of the show, which I regret I have to have been involved in, from trying to explain my thoughts without having to review the record, I was trying to explain that we can only tell, as medical examiners, the minimum time, just like in a boxing match, that injuries are inflicted; and we don't know what happens in between. Q. Right. A. So the reason I'm was very confusing -- have been very confusing, is, between the cut and neck and the -- and the final stab wound, there's at least five or ten minutes. How long he stood during that time, I can't say. Q. Well, you had -- A. I -- I can say only as I've said it before. Q. Dr. Baden, so we stay focused, and I'm done -- A. I'm sorry. Q. -- you had him down on the ground in two to three -- A. Two to three minutes. I've given various numbers. I don't know how long he stood up. Two to five minutes, he'd be down on the ground. Q. So many numbers you've given us. A. I'm sorry. It's all in the same grouping. Q. I'm asking you, Dr. Baden, are you suggesting to this jury -- A. Yeah. Q. -- as you did on the Rivera show, that maybe the assailant didn't immediately, after two minutes, inflict the remaining blows, but he stopped and talked? Yes or no, sir? A. That he stopped, did something else. Q. Sir, you said stopped and talked. Are you suggesting -- A. That was an example. Q. All right. A. I don't mean that literally; I mean that figuratively stopped, walked to the car, came back, stopped, did something in between. Q. Sir, you're very verbal. You didn't say stopped and did something. A. I'm not very verbal. Q. You said stopped and talked. A. I may have said that as an example. Q. All right. A. Not -- not to mean that that's what happened. Q. All right. Sir, are you suggesting to the jury, as you did on the show, maybe there was another perpetrator with a gun? Are you telling the jury that that's what you believe happened? Yes or no, sir? A. No, I'm not saying what I believe. Q. Sir, did you say that? A. I said that as an example of what could have happened. MR. BLASIER: Thank you, sir. I have nothing else. FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Dr. Baden, the Geraldo show, the purpose of that was to promote the HBO special? A. Yes. Q. And when you got on there, you found that Chris Darden was also on the show? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Outside the scope. THE COURT: I don't have any inclination to allow any examination about anybody else on the show, Mr. Blasier. MR. BLASIER: I think I'm entitled to let him explain. THE COURT: I'm not going to let you. You can ask about what he said; that's it. MR. BLASIER: All right. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Dr. Baden, had you reviewed all your materials before you appeared on Geraldo? A. No, I hadn't. Q. And were you -- was it your understanding that you were even going to be asked about the Simpson case? A. I was hoping I wouldn't be asked about it. I was just going to talk about the -- I was hoping only to talk about the HBO program, which was kind of a foolish thought in my mind. Q. And the ten-minute period that you referred to on Geraldo, did you intend that to mean that's how long Mr. Goldman was standing up, or the period -- time period be a neck -- wound in the aorta? A. That's what I said, but I didn't intend it that way. And I don't agree with that. That -- that's the time period, the five- to ten-minute is the time period between the cut wound to the neck and the stab wound to the belly. How -- and I misspoke. Because how long he was standing, I can't quite tell. I think it was a few minutes. It had to be enough time for the blood to go down to the shoe and during that time -- for some time, he was standing. And I can't be more specific than that. Q. Would you agree that no medical examiner could be so precise to say all this happened, for example, in a minute and 15 seconds precisely? MR. MEDVENE: Outside the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. BLASIER: No further questions. A. I would agree with that. MR. BLASIER: No further questions. MR. MEDVENE: No questions. THE COURT: Your're excused. THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, can we move in 2267, 2270 -- THE CLERK: Wait. MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry. 2269, 70 and 71. THE CLERK: 2269, 70 and 71? MR. BLASIER: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2269 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2270 for identification, was received in evidence.) (The document previously marked Defendants' Exhibit 2271 for identification, was received in evidence.) MR. MEDVENE: We move in -- I believe it's 22 -- 2272, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2272 was received in evidence.) THE COURT: I'm just trying to get my courtroom policed a little bit. I want to get rid of all those cups and things, if you don't mind. (Referring to cups on witness stand.) MR. LEONARD: I'll get it. THE COURT: No, you won't. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, we're going to read in the criminal trial testimony of William Blasini, William Blasini, Jr. (The testimony of William Blasini, given in Criminal Case No. BA097211, was read into the record, with Mr. Philip Baker reading the testimony of Mr. Blasini, and Mr. Leonard reading the questions, as follows:) MR. LEONARD: Beginning at page 43972, line 9: Q. Mr. Blasini, what is your occupation? THE COURT: Excuse me. I think you better identify the witness so the jurors will know who it is. MR. LEONARD: This is Mr. William Blasini, who was called as a defense witness at the criminal trial. THE COURT: Spell that. MR. LEONARD: B. MR. P. BAKER: B-l-a-s-i-n-i. MR. LEONARD: Sorry. (Reading:) Q. Mr. Blasini, what is your occupation, sir? A. I work for Pick Your Part, the world's largest self-service automobile recycling center. THE COURT: Mr. Baker, either use the microphone or speak louder. MR. LEONARD: (Reading:) Thank you, Mr. Blasini. And it's called Pick Your Part? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. And how long have you been so employed? A. About three and a half years. Q. And what is your present job title with Pick Your Part. A. I'm general manager of vehicle purchasing. Q. And as such, tell us briefly what you do as a general manager of Pick Your Part. A. Basically, I go to auctions, police auctions, impounds, and we buy cars. Q. And you've been doing this for how long? A. At Pick Your Part, for three and a half years. Q. Have you been in this industry for -- before that time? A. I was a wholesaler. I was wholesaling vehicles before this. Q. All right. So you've been around automobiles for some time; is that correct? A. Fifteen years, to be correct. Q. All right, sir. I'd like, sir, to direct your attention back to the date -- I believe June 21 of 1994. Did you have an occasion on or about that date, in the afternoon, to be at Viertel's garage, here in downtown Los Angeles? A. Yes, I was. Q. And would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury under what circumstances you were at Viertel's on that date, that Tuesday, June 21. A. Well, every Tuesday, we go there and we bid on cars -- they have four locations -- and the last location is at Temple, the main garage; that's where we wind up. And when I walked -- when we finished bidding on the cars, I was walking in to do the paperwork, when I just happened to see the Bronco inside the garage. Q. All right. So would you say you were accompanied by someone else at that point? A. I was accompanied by Bob Jones, Andrew Adlen, myself, and Sam Adlen, I think. I'm not sure about Sam, if he was there that day. Q. Let's take them one at a time. We've heard the name Bob Jones before. By whom is Bob Jones employed? A. Viertel's. Q. You knew him prior to the date of June 21? A. Yes. Q. And you mentioned a Mr. Aden -- excuse me -- Adlen. What is Mr. Adlen's first name? A. Andrew. Q. And who is Mr. Andrew Adlen? A. He's a competitor. He also bids on the cars, as well. THE COURT: How do you spell Adlen? Do you know? BY MR. COCHRAN: A-d-l-e-n, I believe, Your Honor, Andrew Adlen. And you mentioned another Adlen, I believe. A. It's his uncle. I assume it's his uncle. Q. So you were there in the company of the two Adlens and yourself and Bob Jones; is that correct? A. I'm not correct on the second Adlen, but the first one was there, yes. Q. You're sure about the first one? A. Yes. Q. You were describing that you were at Viertel's, and this jury heard something about Viertel's and the layout there. Can you describe for us where you were once you got there on that particular afternoon? A. Well, there's two entrances, two main entrances, one from the street and one from the back of the yard. And that's where we come from, from the back of the yard. Once we're done bidding on the vehicles, we come through the back of the garage, and right there, as you walk in the area where they keep the restricted vehicles. And as you continue past that area, you go down to the offices. Q. All right. And did you -- you were in this -- walking in this area; is that right? A. Yes, I was. Q. And while in this area -- first, before we get to that, tell us what time -- what time of day was it on June 21? A. It was about 2:30, 3 o'clock in the afternoon. Q. And at some point after 2:30 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon on June 21, did you see a white Bronco? A. Yes, I did. Q. And who were you with when you first saw the Bronco? A. I was with Andrew Adlen and Bob Jones. Q. Did you have some conversation at all with Mr. Jones about that Bronco? A. The minute I saw the Bronco, I was amazed at -- yes, I did. MR. LEONARD: Okay. Over to page 43979, line 10. (Reading:) I think I had just asked you a question about whether or not you had a conversation with Bob Jones about this particular Bronco, and you indicated yes; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. And what was the -- MR. P. BAKER: Oops. Sorry. Q. And what was the -- when you talked to Mr. Jones, can you tell us the general subject matter of what you talked to him about the Bronco, without telling us what you said and what he said? A. Basically, why was the vehicle there. Q. All right. And did you get some response from him? A. Yes, I did. Q. Now, based upon that brief conversation you had with Bob Jones, did you have occasion to, at any point that afternoon, go over to or get inside of this particular -- particular vehicle, the Bronco? A. Yes, I did. Q. And describe for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you did in that regard, if anything. A. As far as walking up to the Bronco and exactly what I did? Q. Yes. Tell us what you did. A. I opened the door to the Bronco. Q. Let me stop you there. Was the Bronco locked at that point? A. No, it wasn't, sir. Q. So you just walked over and opened the door? A. Yes, sir. Q. Which door did you open of the Bronco? A. The passenger's door. Q. On the passenger side of the vehicle? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, you've seen pictures of that Bronco, and you've seen the Bronco itself; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, when you open the door to the Bronco, the passenger door, what happened next? A. I looked in the vehicle. Q. All right. Now, was there any particular reason why you wanted to go and look inside this Bronco? A. Well, I guess there was a couple of reasons. It was -- it was a big story. Just the facts of looking at the Bronco, O.J. Simpson being involved in it, it was a big story. I was curious. Q. All right. You were curious at that point? A. Yes, sir. Q. Had you read or seen any stories on television regarding the Bronco being there? A. Some stories. Q. Were you expecting to see it at Viertel's? A. Not at all. Q. All right. So you saw it, and then you had heard things about it, and you went over to it; is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, when you went over to the Bronco and opened the door, tell the ladies and gentlemen what you next did after that. A. I looked inside the Bronco. I looked at the seats, the floor. I looked at the dashboard. I basically looked all over the vehicle. Q. All right. And why did you look all over the vehicle? A. Well, Andrew and I were talking that it was said that there was a lot of -- lot of blood in the vehicle. Q. Who -- who said there was a lot of blood in the vehicle? A. Well, it was said in the papers. Q. All right. You had read or heard that? A. I heard that, yes. Q. And were you looking to see if there was a lot of blood in that vehicle? A. Well, that was the first thing I looked for, yes. Q. And will you describe for us how you -- Did you get inside the vehicle at some point? A. Yes, I did, sir. Q. Describe for the jury again how you got inside the vehicle and where you were when you were inside the vehicle. A. Well, once I looked in the vehicle, I sat in the passenger seat; I continued to look around the vehicle. I looked between the seats and I looked to the back of the vehicle. Q. So when you got inside the vehicle and sat in the passenger seat and looked all around the vehicle, did you see any blood? A. No, sir I didn't. Q. Were you looking specifically for blood? A. At first, yes, we were. Q. Now, you said "we." When you got into the passenger side of the vehicle and sat in the passenger seat, what did Mr. Adlen do, if anything, that you saw? A. He opened up the driver's door. Q. Did you see him at any point put any part of his body into the Bronco vehicle? A. Yes. Half of his body came into the vehicle. Q. Can you describe for the jury again how he did that, that movement. A. The vehicle sits up high because it's a truck. And he basically opened the door and leaned over the seat and looked in the vehicle. Q. At the time he made that movement of looking inside the vehicle and looking inside, were you already inside the vehicle? A. I was already inside the vehicle, yes. Q. And you were seated in the passenger compartment, just as though you're seated in the witness seat there? A. Correct, sir. Q. All right. Take your time and describe for the jury what you did from that particular vantage point inside the driver's compartment of that Bronco on June 21, 1994. A. Well, I basically, at first, looked for blood. And I looked all over the vehicle. I looked for fingerprint dust. Q. Do you recall seeing any fingerprint dust? A. Not inside the vehicle, no. Q. All right. Tell us what else -- what happened after that. A. I saw some dust on the window sill, so I put my fingers on the window sill to see if there was any dust on them. Q. So you're holding your fingers up. And I want you to describe for this jury how you did this. What did you do with regard to your fingers on the window sill, and which window sill was it? A. It was the same side I was sitting in, the passenger side. I put my fingers up on the window sill like this. (Indicating.) Q. So did you leave fingerprints there, as far as you could tell? A. Smudges. But I looked at my hands. Q. And you did that while you were inside the vehicle; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. After you did this, what happened next, if you recall? MR. LEONARD: There's colloquy at this point. Mr. Cochran made a motion, Your Honor, as though with all ten of his fingers extended out in front of him, as though he touched the windshield. THE COURT: Palms forward. Q. Palms forward; is that correct? A. Fingers, not palms on the window, but fingers. Q. Okay. Fingers forward? A. Correct. Q. All right. Thank you. Now, what happened after you did this, you made this movement with your fingers forward? A. I looked at Andrew, and can't remember word for word, but basically what we said, we didn't find any blood. At that point, I happened to look down on the ground, and I noticed that the floorboard on the driver's side, the carpet itself, was cut out. Q. You didn't see any carpets on the driver compartment; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Now, tell the jury, how long did you stay, approximately, in this -- inside the vehicle, looking for blood and putting your fingers first in the windows -- window of the driver's compartment. How long did you stay in this position? A. I felt like it was for five minutes, but I really couldn't tell you. It was probably a couple of minutes. Q. All right. Did you look -- now, let's look and see. Let's try and determine where you looked. Did you look on the dash? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you look in the dash at that point? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Did you have occasion to look at the console? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you have occasion to look on the driver's side door? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you have occasion to look at the steering wheel? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you look -- could you describe for -- Could you describe for us -- earlier, you got in and you looked to your rear. Did you look toward the rear of the vehicle, also? A. Yes, I did. MR. LEONARD: I think this is Plaintiffs' exhibit 172, Your Honor, is it? MR. P. BAKER: This is criminal 172 which is Civil 211. MR. LEONARD: (Reading:) You saw this during the lunch break today, did you, this 172? A. Yes. Q. Indicating the chart. With the Court's permission, can you step down for a minute. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, he's going to point where the witness did, with your permission. (Mr. P. Baker approaches the board.) MR. LEONARD: (Reading:) Q. This is a mock-up of this particular vehicle and photographs around it. I want to ask you -- specifically, let's start with this, this -- this area over here, which purports to be the middle photograph. On the left-hand side of this particular exhibit it has photo card 22 and 23 thereon. Do you recall looking at that area of the driver's-side door of the Bronco? A. Yes, I do. Q. Do you recall at the locations of 22 or 23, seeing any blood at all at these -- those labels when you looked at the Bronco on that date of June 21, 1994? A. No, I didn't. Q. I want you to look down at No. 34. Do you recall looking in that general area, also? A. I remember looking in the area, but I don't remember seeing that mark. I mean, I don't remember looking at -- that's past the door, so I really don't think I looked that far into it. Q. All right. 22, 23, you're sure you looked at that? A. I looked at this, because I walked around the vehicle, when I came to the driver's side, and the door was open. Q. Now, you described for the jury, I believe, that part of the carpet was out at the time you saw it; is that correct? MR. GELBLUM: Cut out. MR. LEONARD: Was cut out. Excuse me. At the time you saw it? (Reading:) A. Yes. Q. Where was that? Would that be in the area of the driver's area? A. It was in the section right here. (Indicating.) Q. He's indicating in the center, Your Honor, the area of the carpet in the -- near where there would be No. 33 there. Q. Area 33 there? A. Correct. Right there. Q. Now, at some point, you described for us that you looked at item -- you looked at the steering column; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. You see the photograph on the top there, left. Did you at any point look at the area of the steering column? A. Yes, I did. Q. And at any time on that date of June 21, did you see any -- what appeared to be blood on the steering column? A. No, I didn't. Q. Now, did you in any way touch the steering column that day? A. Yes, I did. Q. And describe that for the jury. At what point did you touch the steering column? A. If I remember correctly -- it's been a year and three months when I walked into the vehicle -- I grabbed the steering wheel to pull myself inside. And I sat down in the vehicle, and I held the steering wheel for a short period of time. Q. And so we have this sequentially correct, let me back up for a moment, if I might. You had been in the driver's compartment; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And you told us you stayed in there for what appeared to be five minutes, it may have been less; is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you told us about your observations from that location, right? A. Yes. Q. At that point, did you have occasion to get out of the driver's compartment of the vehicle? A. Out of the driver's -- Q. Strike that. Out of the passenger compartment of the vehicle? A. Yes, I did. Q. All right. When you did that, where did you go, if anyplace? A. I walked around the vehicle, but I stopped at the window on the side which you don't have on here. And again, I looked for fingerprint dust, and I put my fingers again on the glass. Q. Now, so that we're clear and the jury has a picture of where you put your fingers, this was on the right side of the vehicle or the rear of the vehicle? A. The right side of the vehicle, the glass in the back, which is the biggest glass that shows. MR. LEONARD: Over to 43993. (Reading:) After you made this movement, referring to the placing the fingers on the glass, where did you next go, if anyplace, sir? A. I went around the vehicle and I went to the driver's side. The door was open. And I looked on the ground. I looked at the rug, and at that point, Andrew and I decided that -- that probably where all the blood was, was on the rug, because it was cut out and it wasn't there. Q. You didn't see any rug at that point, right? A. Excuse me? Q. You didn't see any carpet or rug there at that point; is that right? A. No, sir. Q. So didn't you then have occasion to get inside the vehicle? What did you do? A. I got inside the vehicle. Again, I looked over at the console to my right, and I looked back. And then at that point, I got out of the vehicle, and we left. Q. How long did you -- Did you actually get in and sit down inside the driver compartment on the left side? A. Yes, I did. Q. Is that a yes? A. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. Q. Okay. How long did you remain in the driver's compartment on the left side, sir? A. About half the time that I was in the front and on the driver's side on the passenger side, so about two minutes. Q. Okay. A. Minute and a half. Q. While in there, did you do something and touch the steering wheel? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you have occasion to examine the steering wheel to see if you saw any red spots on it? A. Well, I looked at the steering wheel. But as you can see, the steering wheel is black, so I couldn't tell you if there was anything on there. But I didn't look at it and -- but I didn't see any blood. Q. You didn't see any blood? A. No, sir. Q. Okay. All right. Now, I want to specifically address your attention to the console. On the upper photographs on the far right, there is a photographic card number 30 and 31, and to the left of those are 30, and appear to be some kind of red smudges. As you sat in the vehicle on the right side, the passenger side, did you have occasion to look down at that console depicted there in that photograph? A. I looked at the console twice; once I was in the vehicle and before I entered the vehicle. Q. At any time, were -- any point where you sat in that vehicle or before you got in that vehicle, did you ever see any red or blood spots at the items 30 and 31 inside the Bronco at that date? A. No, sir. Q. You looked specifically for it; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. MR. LEONARD: Down to line 24, 43996. MR. P. BAKER: Okay. Q. Did you see any red spots when you looked at the console in that particular area of the photograph there, 303 and 306, sir? A. I would have to look at -- 303 is there, and 306 is this one? Q. Yes, the one right next to it. A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you see a blood spot there? A. No, sir. Q. You did not? A. No, sir. Q. You looked there? A. Yes, sir. Q. And this is as you were actually looking for blood; is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, with regard to the dash, there's a photograph here in the upper left-hand corner, number 24. Do you remember whether or not you saw any spots at all on the dash area of that vehicle, any red spots? A. No, sir; no, I don't. MR. LEONARD: Over to 43998, line 13. Q. Now, Mr. Blasini, during the time that you were inside that vehicle, either on the right side or the left side, the passenger side or the driver side, did you ever see any red spots resembling blood inside that vehicle at all? A. No, sir, I didn't. Q. And when you left that vehicle and you had left, at least you had on two occasions placed your fingerprints in the window of that vehicle; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. MR. LEONARD: 43999, line 1. You can retain your seat there. MR. P. BAKER: (Resumes seat on the witness stand.) (Reading:) Q. Now, Mr. Blasini, you've come here pursuant to subpoena; is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you've come here to testify because you've been subpoenaed; is that correct? A. Correct sir. Q. You did not volunteer to come forward, did you? A. Not at all, sir. Q. Is Mr. Adlen still employed in this same work -- line of work? A. Yes, he is, sir, as far as I know. MR. LEONARD: Over to 44 -- 44000, line 21. (Reading:) Q. Now, with regard to that vehicle, you have described for the jury where that vehicle was located, I guess, in T2 on 1254 you described the vehicle was not locked; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Before you got inside that vehicle on June 21, did you have to sign any kind of log or anything of that nature? A. No, sir. Q. Was anybody guarding that vehicle at that time? A. No, sir. Q. You just walked up and got inside the vehicle? A. Yes, sir. Q. Both you and Adlen? A. Yes, sir. Q. And while you were inside this vehicle for however long it was, five minutes, seven minutes, or whatever, was Bob Jones over there watching you while you were in the vehicle? A. Bob Jones walked over with us and then -- and then walked away to his office while we were looking at the vehicle. Q. So you were in there by yourself, right? A. Yes, sir. Q. And after you finished looking in the vehicle and making your observations, where did you go then, if you recall? A. Once we were done, I proceeded to pick up the paperwork from the vehicles that we had purchased, and I left. Q. And you were there in the normal course of your business to buy some actual vehicles from Viertel's; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. Now, in your work -- MR. LEONARD: We're going over to 44002, line 10. (Reading:) Now, in your work in purchasing vehicles over the last 15 years, have you had occasion to see blood in a vehicle before? A. Yes, I have. Q. How often? A. Well, Pick Your Part purchases like 8,000 vehicles a month, so I do come across a lot of vehicles, and a lot of these vehicles are wrecked vehicles that were in accidents, so on, and you get to see a lot of blood. Q. You have done that in the past and seen that yourself? A. Oh, yes. Q. Now, with regard to the security, if any, around this particular vehicle, can you describe for us, to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, whether or not there were any barriers or anything around this particular Bronco, as you went in and got inside of it on that date. Can you describe that for us? A. Yes, they do have. It's, like, the chain links that you see at the Banks that form the lines; that's what they use to block it off. Q. And where was that in relation to the Bronco? A. It was on the outside of the Bronco, all the way around the restricted area. Q. All right. And when you went inside, how did you get past there? A. I think from -- I can't remember exactly, but I think there's an opening on either side that you can walk right through or you can just step right over it. Q. And that's how you just walked right in; is that right? A. Yes. Q. And there's nobody to stop you, right? A. No, sir. Q. In fact, Bob Jones was with you and walked away, right? A. Correct, sir. MR. LEONARD: Thank you very much for coming today, sir. MR. LEONARD: I have one other area. Over on page 44022, line 12: (Reading:) BY MS. CLARK: I have a third photograph I would ask be marked C, Your Honor, with the numbers 31 and 30, showing it to the witness now. Does this appear to be the console area of the Bronco, sir? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. And do you see areas where there are red smudges on that side on the passenger side of that console? A. I sure do. Q. You see it by the numbers there? A. Yes. Q. And at the time you were in the Bronco on June 21, where -- there were no numbers marking any spot; is that correct? A. No -- correct. MR. LEONARD: Over to page 44024, line 16, referring to the passenger console. (Reading:) Q. You specifically looked at that part of the console; is that right? MR. GELBLUM: What page are you on? MR. LEONARD: 44024. (Reading:) A. When I first entered the vehicle, before I sat in the vehicle, I put my elbows on the seat to look inside, and I directly looked at the console, straight at the console. That's what I looked at. Q. You specifically looked at the console? A. Well, the Bronco sits a little higher than a regular car does. So when you enter the car, the seat's higher. So when you -- when you look in, you automatically see the console; you see the top of the seat almost parallel with the console. Q. And then did you put your elbows down on the passenger seat and stare at the console? Is that what you -- A. I can't remember if I put my elbows or put my hands, but I know that I looked in first, before I entered the vehicle. Q. Okay. And you looked specifically at the area shown in 30? A. I looked straight ahead, right. Q. Did you look at the area shown in 31? A. No, I didn't, not at that point. Q. Now, you're telling this jury that you did not see the red stain depicted in 31; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. You're not telling the jury it wasn't there? A. Correct. Q. You did not see the red stain mark in 30; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. You're not telling the jury it wasn't there? A. I didn't see it. Q. You're not telling the jury it wasn't there? Can you answer the question I asked you, sir? A. Anything is possible, but I didn't see the marking. Q. You didn't see it; that's what you're telling us, correct? A. Correct. Q. You cannot tell us it wasn't there? A. It wasn't there when I looked. Q. You are telling us, then, is, it wasn't there? A. I looked. I didn't see the mark. Q. Now, if I told you that the photograph -- that the photograph was taken on June the 14th, a week prior to your getting into the Bronco, sir, would that change your opinion any? A. No, it wouldn't. MR. LEONARD: I don't have anything else. (Mr. Gelblum now reads the questions, with Mr. P. Baker continuing to read the answers.) MR. GELBLUM starting at 43978, line 11. MR. P. BAKER: Okay. MR. GELBLUM: Just lines 1 to 3. (Reading:) The vehicle was housed in where in T2? A. It was in the rear of the building. MR. GELBLUM: 44006, line 19. MR. LEONARD: I'm sorry? MR. GELBLUM: 44006, line 19. MR. P. BAKER: Okay. Q. Now, you said you were looking for print dust? A. Yes. Q. Why were you looking for print dust? A. Because it was known that there was print -- that the vehicle was printed. There was blood in the vehicle. And that's basically what we heard, and we just took it for granted. Vehicles that are in restricted areas usually have print dust on them. Q. And you saw print dust on the exterior of the car, did you not? A. I didn't. Q. You didn't? You didn't see any print dust on the outside of the vehicle; is that right? Is that right? A. Right, correct. Q. Now, the vehicle was inside the building of T2, correct? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. It was not out in the sun? A. No, it wasn't. Q. When you got into that car, were you carrying a flashlight? A. No. MR. GELBLUM: Over to 44008, line 19. (Reading:) Q. Now, you did not get down and inspect the driver's door panel with a flashlight, did you? A. No. MR. GELBLUM: Down to the next page, line 1. (Reading:) Q. And you did not, when you got into the passenger side of the vehicle, bend down to inspect the console closely, did you? A. Not underneath, no. Q. When you were sitting in the passenger side of the car, your leg was parallel with the console; isn't that right? A. Yes. Q. Now, when you were looking at the steering wheel, sir, what effort did you make to inspect it carefully for blood? A. I didn't. MR. GELBLUM: 44010, line 8. (Reading:) Q. Now, you told us you were looking for print dust in the Bronco; is that right? A. Yes. Q. I take it that means you have seen print dust before? A. Correct. Q. You indicated, in fact, you had seen it before in the restricted area of Viertel's, correct? A. Correct. Q. And the area that the Bronco was parked in was a restricted area, was it not? A. Correct. MR. GELBLUM: It's Civil Exhibit 1749. This is Criminal Exhibit 528 A. Now, this photograph -- I'm sorry. 44011, line 20. MR. P. BAKER: Okay. (Reading:) Q. This photograph taken on June the 14, was shown to Mr. Meraz during his testimony. Do you see the exterior of the driver's door? A. I sure do. Q. Do you see anything around the door jam? A. I sure do. Q. What does that look like to you? A. Looks like print dust to me. Q. Are you telling us, sir, you did not see that on June the 21st? A. I did not see it. Q. Doesn't mean it wasn't there, did it, sir? A. Correct. MR. GELBLUM: 44020, line 5. Exhibit 637, please, Steve. (Exhibit No. 637 displayed on the Elmo screen.) MR. GELBLUM: You ready? MR. P. BAKER: Yes. Q. The exterior portion where the driver's door handle is, did you look specifically into this area where the number 23 is? A. No. Q. So that we're clear, you are not telling this jury that there was no blood in that area which is marked with a number 23, correct? A. No, I'm not. I'm not saying that. MR. GELBLUM: Page 44023, line 1. (Reading:) Q. Now, are you telling us when you sat on the passenger seat, sir, your leg would have been right up against the area marked by 30; isn't that correct? A. Correct. Q. And the area marked by 31, which appears to be to the rear of the console area, would have been blocked by your side; isn't that correct? A. If I was sitting on the seat, yes, correct. Q. Okay. MR. GELBLUM: 44025, line 16. Exhibit 639. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor -- MR. GELBLUM: 44025, line 16. MR. LEONARD: It's already been read, Your Honor. MR. GELBLUM: Oh I'm sorry. You're right; you read that. 44027, line 1. Exhibit 640. (Exhibit No. 640 displayed on the Elmo screen.) Q. Showing you another photograph now that's been, I think, previously shown, now it's got numbers in it, 303, 306. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Appears to be the console? A. Yes. Q. Bottom right-hand corner has the date September 1, 1994, correct? A. Correct. Q. Do you see red stains in the area of 303, 306, 304, 305 in this? A. I sure do. Q. And you're telling this jury you did not see any of those red stains when you were in the Bronco on June the 21st; is that correct? A. I didn't see 303 and I didn't see 306. Q. And you cannot tell the jury that 303, 304, and 305 were not there? A. Correct. Q. You didn't see them? A. I didn't see them, correct. Q. But they could have been there? A. Yes, they could have been. MR. GELBLUM: 44029, line 6. You can take that off. (Referring to Elmo screen.) (Reading:) Q. Now, Mr. Blasini, when you opened the car door, no interior light came on in that Bronco, did it? A. Not that I can remember. Q. I'm looking at glasses that you're wearing today. Are those prescription? A. No, they're not. Q. Did you wear those glasses back on June 21, 1994? A. No. I had regular sunglasses, dark sunglasses. Q. You wore those while you were inside the Bronco? A. No, I didn't. Q. Where did you take them off? A. When I entered the building. Q. And you're wearing tinted glasses today in court, aren't you? A. Yes, I am. Q. Why is that? A. I had radial keratotomy about seven years ago, and I get a glare from light, certain lights, fluorescent lights, sunlight, so I wear the tinted glasses. Q. And that happened seven years ago, sir? A. About seven years ago, yes. Q. Isn't it true, sir, that the area of the T2 where the Bronco was parked, has fluorescent lights? A. I think so, yes, but they're never on. Q. You're testifying to this jury they were not on -- on June the 21, 1994? A. A lot of times during the daytime, they don't have the lights on. Q. Are you telling the jury they were not on, on June the 21st, 1994? A. I couldn't tell you. I couldn't remember. MR. GELBLUM: Thank you. That's all. MR. LEONARD: Over to -- MR. GELBLUM: I'd like to move in -- oh, you want to finish? Go ahead. MR. LEONARD: Yeah. 44028, line 2. (Reading:) Q. And would it change your testimony any as to 303 and 306, the red stains on that area of the console, if I told you that photograph was taken on September 1, 1994, after you were in the Bronco? A. It wouldn't change my testimony. MR. LEONARD: Over to 44032, down at line 25. (Reading:) Q. You didn't see any blood inside that Bronco, did you? A. No, sir. Q. In fact Mrs. Clark didn't ask you about number 299 there on B, by the window sill. Can you see that where you are? A. No, I can't. Q. On June 21, 1994, this area, number 299 on that photograph here, did you see any red substance on that date in that area? A. No, I didn't. Q. Anything Ms. Clark asked in any way change your mind about you had not seen any blood on that date? A. No, nothing changes my mind. Q. You've come here and told us the truth here today? A. I did, sir. Q. Pursuant to subpoena? A. Yes, sir. MR. LEONARD: Thank you, sir. MR. GELBLUM: Nothing. I'd like to move in Exhibits 637, 639, 640, and 1749. MR. LEONARD: Is this a good time for a break? Is it time for a break? THE COURT: You have any objection to that? MR. LEONARD: No. I'm sorry. THE COURT: Okay; it's received. (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 637 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 639 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 640 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1749 was received in evidence.) THE COURT: You want a break? MR. LEONARD: Yeah. THE COURT: Ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen. (Recess.) BEGIN SECTION 4***** (Jurors resume their respective seats.) MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, we'd like -- at this point we have a stipulation from the plaintiffs as to the authenticity of photograph number 1420 which is of the passenger side of the Bronco. We'd like to publish that to the jury. This is a photograph that was displayed during Detective Mulldorfer's testimony, of the passenger side of the Bronco, console, taken on August 10, 1994, with the Court's permission. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LEONARD: 1420, August 10, 1994. We would like to move it in. THE COURT: Received. (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1420.) (Exhibit 1420 displayed on the Elmo.) MR. BLASIER: Defense calls Gilbert Aguilar. GILBERT AGUILAR, called as a witness on behalf of the Defendant, 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 BAILIFF: Please be seated. THE CLERK: Sir, would you please state and spell your name for the record. THE WITNESS: Gilbert Aguilar, G-i-l-b-e-r-t A-g-u-i-l-a-r. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Mr. Aguilar, by whom are you employed? A. I am employed by the Los Angeles Police Department. Q. In what capacity? A. I'm a forensic print specialist assigned to the Scientific Investigations Division in the latent print section. Q. Can you describe briefly for the jury what a latent fingerprint is? A. Well, a latent fingerprint is the reproduction of the friction skin left on an object, which when you touch it, it's usually invisible and must be made visible using fingerprint powders, using chemicals, or you could use a laser. When I talk about friction skin, I'm talking about the skin found on your fingers, the palms of your hands. You also have friction skin on your toes and the soles of your feet. It's different than the other skin on your body, where it has these ridges that flow across them. The unique thing about these ridges is they don't just flow from one end to the other, what they do is they'll flow and they will stop. At the point where they stop we call those ending ridges. Another thing these ridges will do is they will flow and they will divide into two ridges. At the point where they divide we call those bifurcations, because -- everybody has these ridge endings and bifurcations throughout their entire friction skin, but what makes a print unique, a fingerprint unique, is where they are in relationship to each other. Q. When you use the term "unique," are you talking about the ability of latent fingerprints to, under some circumstances, uniquely identify a single person? A. Correct. That no two people in the world will have the same fingerprints or palm prints. Q. And how long have you been an expert in forensic fingerprints? A. Been with the police department working fingerprints for over 19 years now. Q. And approximately how many latent print comparisons have you done during your career? A. Oh, in the hundreds of thousands. Q. And have you testified as an expert many times? A. Yes, over 600 times. Q. Now, you were -- at some point you were assigned to examine fingerprints that were collected at 875 South Bundy after the Simpson homicide, correct? A. Yes. MR. BLASIER: Could we show a board here. THE COURT REPORTER: Do we have a number on that? MR. P. BAKER: That exhibit number is 4 -- MR. FOSTER: 409 (sic). MR. P. BAKER: 409 (sic). (Exhibit 408 displayed.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Aguilar, can you see this large board from where you're sitting? A. Most of it. Q. To orient yourself, this appears to be an overhead view of the crime scene at 875 South Bundy? A. Yes. Q. You recognize this as being the front door area? A. Yes. Q. Now, is it correct that there were 17 latent fingerprints found in the area of 875 South Bundy by the specialist who took those latent prints? A. Yes. Q. And at this time I would put 1303 -- actually, let me show you 1303 first. THE CLERK: For the record, this last Exhibit was 408. (Exhibit 1303 displayed.) Q. Why don't you tell me what 1303 is, or tell the jury. A. 1303 is a two-page document. It's a homicide investigation report. Wherever a homicide has occurred, and we respond to that homicide and recover latent prints, we'll document where the prints were recovered on this, and hand it over to the investigator. Q. Now -- and this includes all 17 latent prints from the Bundy scene? A. Yes. Q. Now, when you receive the latent fingerprints that have been obtained, you compare them to known individuals to see whether or not they match up? A. Yes. Q. Are there other ways that you can compare to determine whether you can identify the person who left the fingerprint? A. Yes. Q. Describe what those other methods are? A. Well, the other method would be through the fingerprint computer which is called AFIS, the Automatic Fingerprint Identification System, and we're able to run somebody's fingerprints through the system to find out whose prints they are if the person has a record or has applied and had their prints on file, it should match it up. And one thing about the AFIS system, it only -- you can only run fingers; in fact, just the first joint of the finger. The computer cannot read the second or third joint of the finger or palm or footprints. Q. Now, in this case were you asked to compare the 17 latent fingerprints that were found at the Bundy scene with various known individuals? A. Yes. Q. And did that include any of the police officers that might have been at the scene at 875 South Bundy? A. Yes. Q. Did it include any members of or acquaintances of Nicole Brown Simpson? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell me about how many people you used for comparison purposes? A. All together, must be around 60, or over 60 individuals. Q. And included among those individuals, Mr. Simpson? A. Yes. Q. And is it accurate that Mr. Simpson's -- that none of these 17 latent fingerprints were identified as coming from Mr. Simpson? A. That's correct. Q. Now, I'd like to go through just 1 through 17, and could you tell us -- you may want to use the pointer, if you could, where each one of these 17 prints was located and what you were able to determine about each one? A. Okay. We are able to use the original lifts. Q. Sure, if you like, use the original lifts. Before you do that, let me ask you a question. What's another difference between an identifiable latent fingerprint and an unidentifiable latent fingerprint? A. An identifiable latent fingerprint means there's enough in the print to positively identify, if you had somebody's prints, if you had their inked fingers or inked palms. A non-identified print or unidentifiable print means the latent print itself lacks sufficient characteristics to positively identify that print to an individual. Q. Is it accurate that among the 17 prints that you're going to tell us about there are some of both kinds? A. Yes. Q. And there are some that you have been able to identify as being associated with a particular individual, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Could we start with No. 1, and perhaps if you like, you can step down and indicate on the board where each one came from and what you were able to tell about it. (Witness approaches Exhibit 408.) A. Okay. No. 1, the latent print was recovered from the inside front door frame. That would be the same -- the door frame as in where I'm indicating up here. (Indicating to Exhibit 408.) Q. That's correct. And what were you able to tell about that latent fingerprint? A. That latent print was the left thumb print of Nicole Simpson or Nicole Brown. Q. How about print No. 2? A. Print No. 2 was recovered from the door itself, the side of the door near the handle. Q. And what were you able to conclude about that one? A. That the print is identifiable, but it has not been identified to anybody. Q. So it's been compared to everybody that you mentioned, as well as the search of the AFIS system? A. No, it's -- this is a palm print, so it was not run through the AFIS system. Q. It was compared to all the 60 or so people you indicated? A. That's correct. Q. Including Mr. Simpson? A. That's correct. Q. It does not match any of those people? A. Right. Q. There's enough information there to identify -- uniquely identify the source of that? A. Yes. Q. Okay. How about No. 3? A. No. 3 was located at the same location where print No. 2 was, from inside the front door near the doorknob. There was also a palm print and that print was -- also has not been identified. Q. Is it identifiable? A. Yes. Q. How about number -- up to 4? A. No. 4. No. 4 came from the same location of where print No. 1 was from, the door frame, and it's a palm print so it wasn't able to be run through the system. And also, that print was not -- it has not been identified and it is an identifiable print. Q. No. 5? A. No. 5. No. 5 came from a hand rail outside of the residence, was near the front door location, so it's about right in this area where there's a hand rail. Q. Okay. A. That print is a palm print and that print is non-identifiable, which means we'll never know whose it is. Q. That's because there's not enough detail? A. That's correct. Q. What's the next one? A. No. 6 came from -- from a hand rail from the outside of the location near the front entrance. (Indicating to Exhibit 407.) A. There's a hand rail near the front entrance of the location. This print is a finger, and this print was identified to one of the photographers that is employed by the police department out there, Mr. Goodwin. Q. Okay. And the next one? A. No. 7 came from a post, a top of a gate post that is between -- I believe the gate post is about right in this location or it was near a gate, the small gate. I believe it's right over here. (Indicating.) Q. That's a gate in the area of the walkway going toward the back? A. Right. It's a small gate. It was on top of the post. This print was also non-identifiable which means we'll never find out who this print belongs to. (Indicating to Exhibit 408.) Q. Next one? A. No. 8 was from a hand rail. Right at the stairs, stairs coming down, there was a hand rail. (Indicating.) A. That print is a palm print and it's identifiable, but the print has not been identified. Q. Now, when you say some of those will never be identified, can you say whether or not Mr. Simpson could be eliminated? A. No. Q. Okay. You can't. Basically, there's just not enough information to tell anything about them? A. That's correct. Q. How about the next one? A. The next one was also from the hand rail, from a rail near the front of the house. This print is also a print that is non-identifiable. Q. Next one? A. The next one was from the -- outside the gated entrance to the front of the house, the gate right here. That print was recovered from there. And this print was -- in fact, there's two fingers on it, the left index and left middle finger of Detective Ron Phillips with the Los Angeles Police Department. Q. Now, exactly where was that one, on the gate, did you say? A. Yes, it was. It was a gate. There's a latch on the gate. It was just above the latch. (Indicating to Exhibit 408.) Q. Okay. And then after -- A. The next one was recovered from inside the house; it was the outside of the bathroom door between the living room and the kitchen. There's a -- I believe it was a small bathroom. Q. There's not a lot of detail. A. There was a small bathroom right around this location, between the living room and the kitchen, and it was on the south side of the door. And this print is identifiable. In fact, it was identified to a Faye Resnick. Q. And the next one? A. The next one was off of a package of Marlboro Lights that was found in the master bedroom on the back of the toilet. This print was identified to Nicole Brown. Q. And the next one? A. The next one was -- or the next five were off of vehicles. Q. So you described all of the latent prints that were obtained from the Bundy scene, correct? A. Right. Q. And what's the total number of those? A. 12. Q. Okay. And of those 12, to summarize, how many of those were identifiable but you couldn't identify the source? A. Four. Q. Now, when you say the other -- the other, I guess, five prints were from vehicles, you're talking about vehicles that were at 875 South Bundy? A. Yes. Q. Why don't you tell us about each of those five, what you were able to determine, what vehicle they came from? A. Yes. Three of them came off of a white Ferrari; got a print off of the hood, a print off the driver side -- the outside of the window, another one off of the Ferrari, off the driver side on the front door. They were -- all three prints were all identifiable and all three have not been identified. Q. Now, that Ferrari, is it accurate that that was inside the garage at 875 South Bundy? A. Yes. Q. And how about the remaining two? A. Yes. The other two were recovered from a Jeep Cherokee, black in color, both prints recovered from the outside passenger side, rear fender. Both are palm prints, both are identifiable, and both of them have not been identified. Q. So what would be, of the 17 prints, the total number that were identifiable, but Mr. Simpson has been eliminated from, and you've not been able to identify the source? A. Nine. MR. BLASIER: That's all I have. MR. BAKER: Bob. MR. BLASIER: Oops, sorry. (Mr. Baker and Mr. Blasier converse sotto voce.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Aguilar, was there ever any attempt to check the -- either the back gate or the front knob on the front gate for prints? A. The back gate, yes. The knob, I don't remember. I'm sure it was, but knobs are very hard to get prints off of. Q. And were there any identifiable prints on the back gate? A. No. MR. BLASIER: That's all I have. Thank you. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY: Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Aguilar? A. Good afternoon. Q. You have some familiarity with this crime scene layout that you were just testifying to? A. Yes. Q. And you're familiar with the fact that these two yellow forms here represent the bodies as they were found on the early morning of June 13? A. Yes. Q. And that these little markings here, the red and pink and blue, are footprints, they were bloody footprints found early that morning? (Indicating to Exhibit 408.) A. I didn't know that. Q. Let me represent to you that they are. MR. BLASIER: Objection, outside the scope. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) As I understand it, Mr. Aguilar, as you went through -- as you went through the fingerprint chart, the 17 prints we just spoke of, numbers 1 through 4 were either lifted from the front door or the front door frame; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. That's this area back in here that I'm circling right now; is that correct? A. Yes. (Indicating to Exhibit 408.) Q. Okay. Then there were another five that you spoke of which would have been prints 13 through 17, that were lifted off two vehicles; is that correct also? A. Yes. Q. And in fact, 13, 14 and 15, you indicated were off a Ferrari which was inside a garage here; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And 16 and 17 were from the Jeep Cherokee parked in the driveway over here? A. Yes. Q. And, in fact, the two prints lifted off the Jeep Cherokee, did you make any sort of notation where they were lifted from off the Jeep Cherokee? A. Yes. Q. Where was that from? A. They were recovered from the outside passenger side of the vehicle on the rear fender. Q. On the rear fender? A. Yes. Q. Not on the door or inside the car? A. No prints were recovered from inside the car. Q. Okay. And with regard to prints No. 11 and 12, I believe you indicated, first of all, that print No. 11 was found somewhere well inside the house. In fact, I think it was on a bathroom door, was it not? A. Yes. Q. And that was well into the interior of the house, between the living room and dining room, or somewhere like that? A. Yes. Q. And that was actually identified to one of Nicole's friends whose prints you've been provided with, had you not? A. Yes. Q. And with regard to No. 12 that was off of a pack of cigarettes, it was actually in the upstairs bathroom; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So if I understand it, after we talk about 1 through 4, 11 and 12, and 13 through 17, those are all prints that were found basically in the interior of the house or that rear bumper of that Jeep Cherokee; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And that leaves just six prints that were identifiable that were lifted on the outside; is that correct? Strike that. Three that were identifiable? A. That were lifted from the outside? Q. Yeah, there were only six lifted from the outside? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And of the three of those prints, one was attributed to a Detective Phillips, was it not? A. Yes. Q. And one of those was attributed to a photographer, a Mr. Goodwin? A. Yes. Q. And by the way, it was print No. 10 that was attributed to Detective Phillips, correct? A. Yes. Q. And it was print No. 6 that was attributed to Mr. Goodwin, the photographer? A. Yes. Q. And that left only one identifiable print that was lifted from the outside of that premise; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And that was print No. 8? A. That's correct. Q. And that was actually lifted off, I believe you indicated, a right hand rail somewhere back there; is that correct? (Indicating.) A. It was the rail away from the house. Q. Was that in this area here? A. Right. Q. Correct me if I am wrong, if you wear a glove, it's pretty difficult to leave a fingerprint, is it not? A. It's impossible. Q. Okay. A. Unless the glove had a hole in it. Q. Okay. So that's the only identifiable fingerprint that was found outside the house that was not matched to someone is No. 8 that was on the right hand of the -- or the outside of the house; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And that left three other unidentifiable prints, or numbers 5, 7 and 9? A. Yes. Q. And I believe you indicated that you had Mr. Simpson's fingerprints for an exemplar to match against these various prints? A. Yes. Q. Are you able to tell us with any certainty that prints 5, 7 and 9 were not Mr. Simpson's? A. No. MR. KELLY: I have no further questions. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. 5, 7 and 9, you can't tell they were anybody else's either, can you? A. We'll never be able to know whose they are. Q. And there wasn't a single fingerprint observed at the Bundy scene that had any blood on it; is that correct? A. That's correct. MR. BLASIER: That's all I have. MR. KELLY: I have no further questions. MR. LEONARD: Call. Oops. MR. BLASIER: Excused. MR. LEONARD: Call Michael Gladden. MR. BLASIER: I would move in 1303, please. (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1303.) MICHAEL GLADDEN, was 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 BAILIFF: Please be seated, sir. THE CLERK: And, sir, would you please state and spell your name for the record. THE WITNESS: Michael Gladden, G-l-a-d-d-e-n. THE CLERK: Thank you. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD: Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Gladden? A. Good afternoon. Q. How are you employed, sir? A. I'm a grocery store and a courier -- Q. Courier? A. -- service. Q. You have to speak up. A. Grocery store and courier service. Q. And were you employed as a courier on June 12, 1994? A. Yes. Q. Directing your attention to the night of June 12, 1994, at approximately 11 o'clock, were you at the American Airlines section at LAX airport? A. Yes. Q. What -- Why were you there, sir? A. Dropping off some packages for the courier service. Q. And were you there with -- Was anyone else there that you work with? A. Yeah, Mike Norris. Q. Michael Norris? A. Yes. Q. Where were you -- where -- were you parked out at the American facility there? A. Right by the -- the main entrance. Q. On the upper or lower -- A. Upper level. Q. Now, directing your attention to about 10 or 15 minutes after you were parked there, did you have occasion to see someone that you recognized? A. Yes. Q. And who was that? A. O.J. Simpson. Q. How did you have -- Explain how you saw him, where you were, and what you observed, sir. A. Well, we had just dropped our stuff off, and I was talking to somebody I knew inside the place, and when I came out -- out of the building, I went to talk to Mike Norris, and he was sitting in his van, so we were standing -- I was standing on the driver side of his van when the limousine pulled up right almost where I was standing, and then we were just standing there looking at the limo. Q. Did you see someone get out of the limousine? A. Yes. Q. And who was that? A. O.J. Simpson. Q. Did you recognize him at that point? A. Yes. Q. Okay. What did you observe about Mr. Simpson at that point, in particular, directing your attention to his demeanor, the way he acted? A. He just got out of the limo, and -- the limo driver opened the door for him and he got out, just kind of walked slowly to the back of the van -- I mean the back of the limo. Q. Did Mr. Norris say something to him? A. Yeah, he said something like, hey, Juice, or something. MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. MR. LEONARD: Just to explain his observations. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) I'm sorry. What did he say? A. He said, hey, Juice. Something to that effect. Q. And did Mr. Simpson respond? A. He said, hi, how you doing, or something like that. Q. Did you -- were you able to observe Mr. Simpson during this exchange with Mr. Norris? A. Yes. Q. And describe for the jury how he acted, what his demeanor was when he responded to Mr. Norris? A. Just really nothing out of the ordinary, just said hi. Q. Okay. A. Then he walked to the back of the limo. Q. Now, at some point, did you approach Mr. Simpson? A. Well, after I was talking to Mike for a while, I walked over to my van which was parked behind the limo, and I got in the van, called in, told them we were done, and then he told us we could come in, and so we were like kind of blocked in, so I was sitting there for a few minutes, and I asked -- kind of like asked him, hey, Juice, could I get an autograph, and he said, yeah, just let me get my luggage situated. Q. Where -- During the period that you went back and sat in your van, were you able to observe Mr. Simpson? A. Yes. Q. Were you watching him? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Were you able to see his hands? A. Not from where I was in the van. Q. Okay. At some point, did you -- did you observe Mr. Simpson's hands? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Did you see any cuts or band-aids or any bleeding on Mr. Simpson's hands? A. No. Q. When you approached Mr. Simpson and asked him for an autograph, did he give it to you right away? A. Well, he said, let me get my luggage situated, like I said. And then the limo driver came over with the car and they were carting -- and they were putting the stuff on the cart. It looked like they were about done, so then I kind of walked over to the side of them. Then he like -- kind of turned to his left and looked at me like, oh, I'm sorry, and he reached for the thing and I handed it to him. Q. Now, when you say the thing -- A. The little -- Q. -- what are you talking about? A. A little post-it pad, like about 3 by 5. Q. That was a pad full of post-it notes? A. Yes. Q. And you handed it to Mr. Simpson? A. Yes. Q. And he signed it? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Did you see Mr. Simpson hold the post-it pad and sign it? A. Yes. Q. And did he -- Which hand did he hold it with? A. With the left, but he held it like down, and then he like signed it like this, like kind of bending over. Q. Okay. And let me show you what's been marked as 1178. (The instrument herein described as a copy of an autograph was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1178.) (Mr. Petrocelli reviews exhibit.) Q. I show you what is marked for this trial as 1178 and was originally marked as 1243 in the criminal trial. And can you tell me what that is, sir? A. That's a copy of the autograph. Q. Okay. Can you read that please, sir? A. "O.J. Simpson, peace to ya." Q. Now, can you tell us what Mr. Simpson was wearing when you saw him? A. Kind of like a jean outfit. Kind of like a jean -- long sleeve jean shirt, jeans, and kind of like some leather looking boots. Q. Did you, at any time during the time that you observed Mr. Simpson and the time that you interacted with him, did you notice him, -- observe -- did you observe him acting unusual in any way, sir. MR. PETROCELLI: That's leading, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. No. MR. LEONARD: I don't have any further questions. THE COURT: Cross. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETROCELLI: Q. You're a sports fan? A. Yes. Q. And you were a fan of Mr. Simpson at the time, right? A. Not necessarily. Q. You refer to him as Juice, right? A. When I asked for the autograph, yes. Q. Yeah, and you knew that that was a nickname for him, right? A. Yes. Q. And you only saw -- you were only close to him for a few seconds, long enough to get this autograph, right? A. Yes. Q. And you didn't really get a close look at his hands as he was signing the autograph? A. No. Q. Is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And it's also correct, sir, that you don't know whether or not the back of his hand was cut, correct? A. Right. Q. And you don't know whether or not his left finger was cut, right? A. Right. MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you. MR. LEONARD: Nothing further. THE COURT: You may step down. MR. P. BAKER: Defense calls Thomas Tallarino. THOMAS TALLARINO, 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, yes. THE CLERK: Sir, would you please state and spell your name for the record. THE WITNESS: Thomas Tallarino, T-h-o-m-a-s T-a-l-l-a-r-i-n-o. DIRECT EXAMINATON BY MR. P. BAKER: Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Tallarino. A. Hi. Q. How are you? A. Good. Q. Taking you back to June 12, 1994, what were you doing for a living at about that time? A. I was working for Jersey Films as a production assistant. Q. Do you recall on the night of June 12, 1994, doing anything athletic? A. Yeah, I was rollerblading. Q. Who were you rollerblading with? A. A friend of mine. Q. And what did -- What time did you start rollerblading? A. I don't remember. Q. Where did you live on the night of June 12, 1994? A. On Mayfield between Westgate and Bundy. Q. Okay. How close is that to Dorothy and Bundy? A. It's a couple blocks. Q. Okay. Where did you first start when you went rollerblading? A. From my house. Q. Okay. In which direction did you go? A. I don't remember. I think I went down Mayfield. Q. And what was your destination that day. A. There's a school. Q. Is that the school located on San Vicente and Bundy? A. Yes, and Gretna Green Way, San Vicente. Q. And what were you going to do at the school that day? A. We had hockey sticks and we were going to hit the ball back and forth a little. Roller hockey. Q. Roller hockey. Is that the school that has the short basketball hoops? A. I think so. Q. So that people like my size can dunk the ball? A. Yeah. (Laughter.) Q. How long did you play roller hockey? A. I don't remember how long. Q. What time of the evening did you leave the school, if you recall? A. I don't remember. I just know that when I got home, it was a few minutes before 9:00 Q. So you left in the 8:30, 8:45 range; is that right? MR. PETROCELLI: It's leading, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Yeah. Probably took me 10, 15 minutes to get home. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) What route did you take from the school to get back to your apartment? A. I went down Gretna Green Way, took a left on Montana. Q. Okay. A. Took a right on Bundy. Q. All right A. And went down the sidewalk on Bundy, on the west side of the street. Q. Okay. And where was your friend in relation to you when you were rollerblading? A. Well, we started together but he was going a lot faster than me. Q. He was in front of you? A. Yeah. Q. Was he a better rollerblader than you were? A. No. Q. When he came around the corner at Bundy and Dorothy, did you notice anything suspicious? MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I need to approach at this point. THE COURT: Okay. (The following proceedings were held at the bench with the reporter:) MR. PETROCELLI: Under Section 352, in People versus Kaurish, I'm going to object because the defense is offering this guy purportedly to testify that he saw some people near Nicole's condominium around -- shortly before 9 o'clock p.m., and they have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to link these persons who were viewed, supposedly, by this witness to the perpetrator of this crime, they have no evidence linking these persons to anything that's relevant to this case. So I don't -- I don't understand how his observations are at all relevant. And the defense concedes that Nicole Brown Simpson was alive until sometime -- until after 10 o'clock p.m., in any event. And this guy's observations were way before 9 o'clock p.m. because he was home by 9 o'clock. MR. P. BAKER: We already addressed this point when we came over to sidebar during opening statements, when we discussed this situation about Tallarino in front of the jury. He will testify that he sees a person with slicked back hair crouching in the bushes in front of her house at approximately 9 o'clock in the evening. Detective Ball and Detective Ramirez interviewed him on July 7, 1994, about his recollections -- didn't ask him any more questions. In April, Thomas Lange took him out to identify that location, 875 South Bundy. He said it was 875 South Bundy. They never heard from him again -- never heard from Detective Lange again. This goes directly to what he observed in front of 875 South Bundy on the night in question. It's the exact same issue we discussed at sidebar during his opening statement. MR. PETROCELLI: Forgive me, but he hasn't explained the relevance of this testimony. He said that this guy made some observations, that he was interviewed twice by the police, and he still hasn't answered the question how these observations in any way, shape, or form, relate to this case. MR. P. BAKER: He's the only eyewitness of suspicious activity outside 875 Bundy on the night they were killed. It's directly relevant. There was a rush to judgment. It shows there was a judgment -- rush to identify O.J. Simpson, but they never followed up any leads. THE COURT: That's the basis for your offering it, it's irrelevant. MR. P. BAKER: It's relevant to show there was suspicious activity out in front of 875 South Bundy at 9 o'clock, within an hour to two hours of when she's killed. MR. PETROCELLI: Under People versus Kaurish, they have to link any other alleged perpetrator to the facts of this case. They have no such evidence. MR. P. BAKER: People versus Kaurish does not say that. MR. PETROCELLI: It does. MR. P. BAKER: It does not say that and you know it. THE COURT: I'll permit you to offer this evidence of a suspicious character. If you're going to argue rush to judgment based on that, I will not allow it. MR. P. BAKER: I'm going to take it for five minutes, what he observed and how he was interviewed twice. MR. PETROCELLI: They're really trying to use this witness on the rush to judgment point, Your Honor. That's really what he's said. MR. P. BAKER: No, I have not. THE COURT: Excuse me. MR. P. BAKER: Okay. THE COURT: I'm talking to Mr. Baker, Sr. now. MR. P. BAKER: Okay. THE COURT: I'm only offering this only for the purpose of showing that there is a suspicious character at around that time. I will not permit it for a rush to judgment argument. MR. BAKER: Okay. THE COURT: Okay. (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.) Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Mr. Tallarino, you were roller blading on the west side of Bundy, is that true? A. Yes. Q. Did you notice any suspicious activity out in front of 875 South Bundy? MR. PETROCELLI: I'm going to object on leading grounds, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) What did you observe in front of 875 South Bundy? MR. PETROCELLI: I'm going to object on leading on that question. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) What did you observe in front of 875 South Bundy as you roller bladed down Bundy towards Dorothy? A. Well, as I approached the corner of Dorothy and Bundy, as I was coming around that bend, I was looking up front for my friend because he was ahead of me and looking down at the ground because I was on the sidewalk, and it was dark, and as I looked, you know, down the horizon a little bit, I thought I saw him like off the sidewalk on the grass and I thought that he fell and I'm like, you know, did my friend fall. And as I got down to that, you know, to that spot, I looked, and it wasn't him. Q. Can you describe the person you saw that you just mentioned? A. No, not really. Q. Was he white, was he black, was he Hispanic, do you know? A. No. Q. Can you describe the hair that that person had? A. He had straight hair. Q. Slicked-back hair? MR. PETROCELLI: Object on leading grounds. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Can you describe the hair in a little more detail? A. It was straight, it looked like dark straight hair, which was the signal that it wasn't my friend because he has dark curly hair. Q. The person was not African-American, was he? MR. PETROCELLI: I'm going to object on leading grounds again. THE COURT: Sustained. A. I don't know. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) The person certainly wasn't O.J. Simpson, was it? MR. PETROCELLI: Again, same objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You -- then you continued on home? A. My friend was waiting for me on the corner. As I looked away from that person, I realized it wasn't him, I kept going, and he was standing there and when I got there, the first thing I asked him was I thought you fell, and then we just went home. Q. You were interviewed by the police on July 7, 1994, is that true? A. Yes. Q. And that was an interview conducted in front of Detective Ball and Detective Ramirez? A. I don't remember their names. Q. How long was that interview? A. Approximately 45 minutes. Q. And in that interview were you truthful and accurate? A. Yes. Q. I'm going to show you what's marked as 1420. MR. PETROCELLI: Can I see that? MR. P. BAKER: Yes. 1422. (The instrument herein referred to as notes dated 7/7/94 was marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 1422.) MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, there's no foundation, it's not this witness's statement, no evidence that he's ever seen it. It's an officer's document. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You've seen this -- MR. PETROCELLI: I would object to him showing the witness. THE COURT: You may show the witness but you may not receive it into evidence. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You've seen this document before, have you not? A. Yes. Q. And do you agree with everything that's contained in that document? MR. PETROCELLI: Object to that question, calls for hearsay. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. PETROCELLI: Document speaks for itself. A. I can't read this. It's not very legible. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Let me help you. Do you agree with the first paragraph that reads, "Sunday night, approximately" -- MR. PETROCELLI: I object to this, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. PETROCELLI: He can't do this. THE COURT: You may refresh his recollection but you're not going to read that to the jury under the guise -- Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Do you recall telling Detective Ball and Detective Ramirez that the person you observed was white or a lightly-complected Hispanic? MR. PETROCELLI: Same objection. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I don't remember the conversation that I had with those officers. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Well, you'd agree as of July 7, 1994 your recollection is better of your observations of June 12, 1994 than it is now, true? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Can you repeat the question. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You will agree that your recollection on July 7, 1994 is better relating to the night of June 12, 1994 than it is now, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you have no reason to disagree with the description of the individual as white or a lightly-complected Hispanic, do you? MR. PETROCELLI: I'm going to object. First of all, it's leading. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) As of July 7, 1994, you had no reason to mislead Detective Ball and Detective Ramirez, did you? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, leading. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. PETROCELLI: Irrelevant. A. No. I had no reason to mislead anyone. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Did you ever hear from Detective Ball or Detective Ramirez again? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, relevance. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) When you observed the individual in front of 875 South Bundy, what was his position? MR. PETROCELLI: Misstates his testimony. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. PETROCELLI: He didn't say -- THE COURT: You can establish exactly where he was. MR. PETROCELLI: He said he was at Dorothy, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) When you first saw the individual, Mr. Tallarino, you were coming around this bend towards 875 South Bundy, were you not? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, leading and misstates his testimony. THE COURT: You may inquire of the witness where he was coming from. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You were coming down -- THE COURT: Excuse me. You may ask him where he was coming. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You were coming -- THE COURT: Or coming from. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Where were you going? THE COURT: Or coming from, as the case may be. THE WITNESS: I was coming from the school and I was heading to Mayfield. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) And you observed the individual in front of this residence, did you not? MR. PETROCELLI: Object to him putting the picture up. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. PETROCELLI: It's improper. THE COURT: It's your witness. MR. PETROCELLI: He's leading the witness. MR. P. BAKER: I call this witness under 676. MR. PETROCELLI: There's no such code. THE COURT: Denied. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Did you notice the individual in front of 875? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. He can go up there and trace where he was going, and you can have him point where the person was. The objection is leading, and I'll sustain the objection. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Where did you see the individual? If you can go to the board, Mr. Tallarino. A. And point it out? Q. Yeah, sit down and point it out. (referring to board entitled map of Bundy area Nicole Brown.) MR. P. BAKER: The board is number -- A. It's right here. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Okay. Coming down Bundy in front of the -- A. I was coming down the sidewalk and I saw the person here. Q. In front of the red house? A. And I continued on, yeah, like approximately here, before the corner, and I continued on, and my friend was waiting for me on the corner. Then we continued down, and then we just went home down Mayfield. Q. Indicating down Bundy and left on Mayfield? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And the person you observed in front of 875 South Bundy -- A. Yes. MR. PETROCELLI: Leading again. THE COURT: That's what he pointed out on the diagram. Overruled. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) I'd like to show you an exhibit marked 1720 -- 1730, I'm sorry. Have you seen that area before? (The instrument herein referred to as Photograph depicting crime scene was marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 1730.) A. Yes. Q. Have you seen that photograph before? A. I don't remember now. Maybe. Q. Can you point to the area in which you observed this individual? (Witness points to area on Exhibit 1730.) MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Baker, can you please move a little bit. MR. P. BAKER: Sure. MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you. A. Right in this area here. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) In what position was that individual? A. I believe he was crouching. Q. Down on his knees? A. I don't know if he was on his knees. I think that he was crouching. Q. In a catcher's position? A. Maybe. Q. Did you ever hear from Detective Ball or Detective Ramirez after your July 7 -- MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me. Asked and answered. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Were you subsequently contacted by a representative of the Los Angeles Police Department? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Were you ever asked by any representative of the Los Angeles Police Department to show them where you observed this individual? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. You can answer. A. Can you repeat the question. Q. Sure. Did any member of the Los Angeles Police Department ever ask you where you observed this individual? A. Yes. Q. Who was that? A. Detective Tom Lange, I think. Q. And when did you meet Detective Tom Lange? A. Several months after I witnessed this incident. Q. Did you meet him at the location at 875 South Bundy? A. Yes. Q. Did you show him the area which you just showed this jury? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever hear from Detective Lange again? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, irrelevant. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Did you ever hear from any other officer again after you went out to that location with Tom Lange? MR. PETROCELLI: Same objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You have been offered money, have you not, Mr. Tallarino, from tabloid news shows to discuss your observations on June 12, 1994, have you not? A. No. Q. You've never been offered any money by that -- A. No. Q. Do you recall telling me that yesterday? A. No. Q. Have you ever sold your story to anyone? A. No. MR. P. BAKER: I have nothing further. MR. PETROCELLI: Can you put that picture back up. MR. P. BAKER: 1730? MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah, put it back up. (Exhibit 1730 displayed.) CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETROCELLI: Q. Is it your testimony, Mr. Tallarino, that that's 875 South Bundy? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And point to -- point to the gates. (Witness complies.) A. There's one here. Q. Excuse me? A. This one. Q. Okay. A. And I believe there's one here. Q. Okay. And you're pointing to each end of the photograph, right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, didn't you tell the officers that you saw two -- this person crouched in front of two gates? A. Which officer? Q. The first time you spoke to an officer. That would be -- A. I don't recall that. Q. -- Officer Ramirez and Ball. Didn't you say that you first saw this person crouching between the two main gates? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Show me the two main gates. A. I just pointed them out. Q. Well, point them out again. You mean the gates on either side? A. Yes. Q. And is it your understanding that both those gates belong to 875 South Bundy? A. No. Q. And where was the person crouching between the two main gates? A. Right here. (Indicating) Q. You're pointing to the center of the photograph. Okay. Your testimony is that in the middle of the photograph, between those gates, that that is 875 South Bundy? Is that your testimony, sir? A. No, that's where the person was crouching. Q. So you don't know if the person was in front of 875 South Bundy or not, correct? A. No, it's not correct. Q. You do know that. Is that what you're saying? A. Yes. Q. You know for a fact that the person was crouching in front of 875 South Bundy, is that your testimony; yes or no? A. Well, he was crouched in front of the wall. Q. What wall? A. The wall that's behind those trees. Q. Okay. At the time when you observed that person crouched in front of the wall -- behind the wall, where -- A. In front of the wall. Q. Okay. Where in front of the wall, on the grass, on the lawn? A. On the grass. Q. You want to point to where on the grass. A. I just did. Q. You want to do it again. MR. P. BAKER: This is asked and answered, Judge. THE COURT: Overruled. Can you back it up a little bit? (Witness indicated.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Okay. How many feet from the sidewalk was the person located? A. I don't know, two feet. Q. Two feet into the lawn from the sidewalk? A. Several feet. Q. Several feet? A. Um-hum. Q. In front of that tree? A. Um-hum. Q. In front of the tree, between the tree and the sidewalk? A. Yes. Q. And the person was just standing there, is that what you're saying? MR. P. BAKER: Misstates -- A. No, he was crouching. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Crouching there, doing nothing, right? A. I don't know what he was doing. Q. Okay. Now, when Mr. Baker first asked you about your observations of this person, you said that you saw this person as you were approaching the corner of Bundy and Dorothy, correct; you recall that testimony? MR. P. BAKER: Objection, misstates his testimony. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Can you repeat the question. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Yeah. You testified previously that you were at Bundy and Dorothy when you saw this person, didn't you? A. No. Q. And Dorothy is past 875 South Bundy, isn't it? A. Yes. Q. And you could not have seen this person if you looked at the corner of Dorothy and Bundy, correct? Is that correct? A. Well, my friend was at the corner of Dorothy. Q. No, answer my question, sir, we'll go a lot quicker, if you're stopped at the corner of Dorothy and Bundy and looking, you would not have seen that person, correct? A. If I was standing at the corner? Q. Yeah, Dorothy and Bundy. A. Correct. Q. And when you were first interviewed by the LA Police officers, you told them actually that you saw this person near Darlington and Bundy, didn't you? A. I don't recall. Q. You deny that? A. I don't remember having that conversation. Q. Okay. You don't recall at all, is that what you're saying, having that conversation with Officer Ramirez and Ball on July 7, 1994 at 11:15? Is that what you're saying? A. I remember talking to those guys. Q. Did you tell them anything about seeing this person as you were approaching Darlington, yes or no? A. I don't remember saying anything about Darlington. Q. Now, let's just get the sequence here. You first contacted an organization called We Tip on July 17, 1994 about this so-called observation, correct? A. No. Q. And you did not -- who's the first person you ever contacted? A. I never contacted anyone. They contacted me. Q. The police officers contacted you -- A. Yes. Q. -- correct? And do you know how they knew how to get in touch with you? A. Well, no, I don't. Q. At some point you -- did you not, on June 17, report your observation to somebody? A. No. An employee, a company worker called me and said that the police received a tip that Danny DeVito's driver witnessed something on that night and she said that I needed to go in and talk to them. Q. Were you Danny DeVito's driver? A. I work for Jersey Films, and yes, I drove him at times. Q. And how -- that person knew what you had observed? A. No. Q. But in any event, you were informed that you should contact the police? A. Yes. Q. And at some point before you contacted them, they contacted you, right? A. No, that's the first -- that's the first moment that I realized that I -- someone knew that I saw something. Q. And who did you contact in law enforcement? A. I don't remember. I think I called those detectives. Q. Okay. And at some point they met with you, right? A. Yes. Q. Around July 7, 1994, correct? A. Yes. Q. And then two weeks later, you met with a defense investigator hired by Mr. Simpson by the name of Bill Pavelic, right, on July 20, 1994? A. I never met with him. Q. He interviewed you? A. Yeah, he called me. I don't remember -- I don't know if it was that quickly after I talked to the police. Q. You spoke to him over the telephone? A. Yes. Q. And then -- you testified you spoke to Detective Tom Lange sometime thereafter, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, you were a pretty good roller blader, correct? A. At the time I was still fairly new. Q. And roller blading is like roller skating except there's blades, right? A. Yes. Q. And you had previously gone north on Bundy and you were on your way back to your apartment on Mayfield where your girlfriend was waiting to go out to dinner, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you were coming south on Bundy on your way home, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you were traveling kind of fast on your roller blades, correct? Answer that yes or no, please. A. No. MR. P. BAKER: Vague. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) And at no time in your roller blading down Bundy did you stop for any second in front of 875 South Bundy, correct? A. I didn't stop until I reached Dorothy. Q. You did not stop until you reached Dorothy, correct? A. Yes. Q. And at Dorothy was the first time you stopped, right? A. Yes. Q. And you already testified that at Dorothy you can't see -- you could not have made these observations you just testified about? A. Yes. Q. You were traveling quite quickly, you were you not? A. Actually I was going pretty slow. Q. In fact, isn't it true that just two weeks later while you were roller blading right up the street, on Bundy and San Vicente, you rammed into a car, did you not? MR. P. BAKER: Objection, irrelevant. A. No, a car hit me. Q. Excuse me? A. The car hit me. Q. You were roller blading, right? A. Yes. Q. And you're roller blading west on San Vicente, correct? MR. P. BAKER: Objection, irrelevant. THE COURT: What's the relevance on this? Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You rammed into a car two weeks after this purported observation, did you not? MR. P. BAKER: Objection, irrelevant, asked and answered. THE COURT: Does this go to his competency as a roller blader? MR. PETROCELLI: This goes to how fast this guy was zooming down Bundy. THE COURT: Sustain the objection. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You were going pretty fast down Bundy, weren't you? MR. P. BAKER: Asked and answered. A. No, I was going pretty slow. Q. And you had no ability to observe anything in front of 875 South Bundy, correct? A. No. Q. And in fact, you told Officers Ball and Ramirez that you didn't have -- you didn't know what time it was when you made these observations, correct? MR. P. BAKER: Objection, misstates the testimony. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You did not know what time it was when they asked you when these observations were made, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you weren't looking at a watch as you were roller blading by, were you? A. No, I wasn't. Q. And you got home before 9 o'clock, correct? A. Yes. Q. So you don't have any idea what was going on at 875 South Bundy at any time after ten to 9:00, correct? A. That is correct. Q. Okay. And you did not get even a good enough look at this person, who was purportedly crouching, to be able to identify him, correct? A. Correct. Q. So if he were in this courtroom right now, you couldn't pick him out, correct? A. Correct. MR. PETROCELLI: Nothing further. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. P. BAKER: Q. Was the person crouching in the bushes O.J. Simpson? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, asked and answered. THE COURT: You know, I think your objection, I sustained it. MR. PETROCELLI: You did. A. I don't know. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) The person had slicked-back hair, correct? MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, asked and answered. THE COURT: That's been asked and answered. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) The report that Mr. Petrocelli showed you, or discussed with you earlier, with Ball and Ramirez, has no mention of Darlington, does it? A. This report? Q. Yes. A. Well, whoever wrote this, it's -- I can't tell their handwriting, I don't -- I don't know if there's a mention of Darlington, I never read this. Q. And when you told Officer Ball and Officer Ramirez your observations of June 12, 1994, you were telling the truth, were you not? A. Yes. Q. And when you told me last night you were sure that person wasn't O.J. Simpson you observed in the bushes, you were telling the truth, were you not? MR. PETROCELLI: I'm going to object, Your Honor, it's leading, it's his witness, it misstates the evidence. He said he couldn't identify the person, he doesn't know if it was O.J. Simpson or not. THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection as to form. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Mr. Tallarino, I spoke with you last night, did I not? A. Yes. Q. And I asked you are you sure that the person in the bushes was not O.J. Simpson. Do you recall me asking you that? A. No, I don't recall that. MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, leading. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Do you recall telling me the person you observed in the bushes had slicked-back hair, when we discussed it last night, Mr. Tallarino? MR. PETROCELLI: I'm going to object. He's leading his own witness. He put this witness on; not me. THE COURT: I'll permit it. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) Do you recall telling me that last night, Mr. Tallarino? A. Yes. MR. P. BAKER: I have nothing further. MR. PETROCELLI: What exhibit is this? THE CLERK: Next in order. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETROCELLI: Q. Let me show you this photograph. THE COURT REPORTER: What's the number? MR. FOSTER: Next in order. THE CLERK: 2273. (The instrument herein described as a photograph of front of 875 South Bundy was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2273.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Do you recognize the area depicted in that area? MR. P. BAKER: Outside the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. A. No. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) That's -- isn't that the front of 875 South Bundy, where those officers or those two men are standing? A. I said I don't recognize it. Q. And if you -- would you agree that if you were going down that sidewalk, you couldn't see anybody in any area in front of any wall, true? MR. P. BAKER: Objection, argumentative. That photograph doesn't depict the residence. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Is that true? THE COURT: Excuse me. I sustainED the objection. The witness says he can't recognize the scene. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Now, take a look at this document. MR. PETROCELLI: Which is the typewritten version of the handwritten notes that you showed him. MR. P. BAKER: Can I see it? (Mr. P. Baker reviews document.) MR. P. BAKER: I object to this. No foundation. He cannot authenticate the handwriting. It doesn't accurately depict the handwritten -- THE COURT: I'm going to sustain it. You can't authenticate it. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Let me ask you this question: Without describing to the jury what these are, are these your notes at all? A. This is my diagram, yes. THE COURT: Excuse me? MR. PETROCELLI: He said this is his diagram, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MR. PETROCELLI: So I'd like to put this on the Elmo. Mark it as next exhibit in order. THE CLERK: 2274. (The instrument herein described as a diagram drawn by Mr. Tallarino was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2274.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) That's a diagram you made with the officers, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah, put it on the Elmo, Steve. (Exhibit 2274 displayed on Elmo.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) And you were diagramming where you saw the person crouching, correct? A. Correct. Q. And this is Bundy, correct? A. Yes. Q. And what street is that? A. Darlington. Q. And you put this place at the corner of Bundy and Darlington, correct, on that diagram there? A. Yes. Q. Is that correct, sir? A. Yes. Q. Is that correct, Bundy and Darlington, correct? A. Yes, it's correct. Q. Okay. Now, Darlington is -- is south even of Dorothy, isn't it? A. Yes. Q. Okay. We're nowhere near Nicole's condominium, correct? A. Yes. MR. PETROCELLI: No further questions. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. P. BAKER: Q. Mr. Tallarino -- MR. P. BAKER: Put that back up. Sorry, Steve. I'm getting bossy now that I'm standing up. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You have Darlington running all the way through Bundy, don't you, on this diagram, do you not? A. Yes. Q. And Darlington doesn't run through Bundy, does it? A. No. Q. And the residence you showed Detective Lange in April of 1995 is 875 South Bundy, correct? MR. PETROCELLI: Object, Your Honor, leading. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. PETROCELLI: Particularly in view of this diagram. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Yes, that street was Dorothy. I just mistook it at the time. Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) And the curve you depict at the top of this document is the curve marked right here? A. Yes. MR. P. BAKER: I've got nothing further. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PETROCELLI Q. And in the typewritten version, sir, does Darlington not appear? MR. P. BAKER: There's no foundation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You told the officers about Darlington; that's why you wrote it on the diagram, correct? MR. P. BAKER: No foundation, asked and answered. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Correct, sir? A. I thought it was Dorothy at the time. Q. But regardless of what you thought, you told the officers about Darlington, correct? A. Darlington, Dorothy, you know, they sound alike. (Laughter.) Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Is that supposed to be funny? A. No. They sound alike. Q. Just answer my question. You told the officers about Darlington? A. I made a mistake at the time. I meant Dorothy. Q. Did you tell them about Darlington, yes or no? A. I don't recall. Q. You wrote Darlington, right? A. Yes. Q. And Darlington appears in this document? THE COURT: Wait a minute. You can't use that document. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) And furthermore, sir, you know -- you just live around the corner from these streets, don't you? MR. P. BAKER: Outside the scope. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You live on Mayfield? THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Correct, sir, you live on Mayfield? A. Yes. Q. Right around the corner from Darlington, correct? A. Yes. Q. You're familiar with these streets, aren't you? A. I just moved into the neighborhood at the time. Q. By the way, when you spoke to Tom Lange, didn't you tell Mr. -- your lawyer was present, a man named Levine, right. MR. P. BAKER: Outside the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I don't believe he was there. I don't recall, I don't think he was there. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Didn't you talk to Tom Lange about the possibility of your -- you and he writing a screen play together? MR. P. BAKER: Outside the scope. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Did you? THE COURT: Overruled. A. No, I did not. I don't write screen plays. Q. Didn't you talk to him about whether they might want to write a book or a screen play or something? A. No. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. I don't have anything further from him, Your Honor. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. P. BAKER: Q. Mr. Tallarino, you saw the press reports where the murders occurred, did you not? THE COURT: Saw the what? Q. (BY MR. P. BAKER) You saw the press reports of where the murders occurred? A. Yes, I read about it in the newspaper. Q. In that exact location where you saw the individual crouching? A. Yes. MR. P. BAKER: I have nothing further. THE COURT: Okay. You may step down. MR. BAKER: Dan Gonzalez. DANIEL GONZALEZ, called as a witness on behalf of 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 BAILIFF: Please be seated, sir. THE CLERK: And sir if you would, please state and spell your name for the record. THE WITNESS: I'm Officer Daniel Gonzalez, last name G-o-n-z-a-l-e-z. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER: Q. Officer Gonzalez, you are employed by the Los Angeles Police Department, correct? A. Yes, I am, sir. Q. June 12, 1994, you were called to 875 South Bundy, were you not? A. Yes, I was. Q. And you knocked on doors at 875 South Bundy, did you not? A. Yes, I did. Q. And you talked to various people that lived in the neighborhood, correct? A. Yes, I did, sir. Q. And you were asking them when they heard dogs barking, correct? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for hearsay, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: I was asking what he did, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) When you knocked on doors, you asked people when they heard dogs barking. That's what you did, is it not, sir? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. He's asking for hearsay. MR. BAKER: I'm asking what he -- THE COURT: You can answer yes or no. THE WITNESS: Answer the question? THE COURT: Yes or no. A. No. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You filed a report indicating that people heard dogs barking at -- MR. MEDVENE: Object, Your Honor. Calling for hearsay. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You filed this report as a business record of the L.A. Police Department, did you not, sir? THE COURT: Overruled. A. Can you restate that again, about this report. This isn't technically a report. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) It's what it is, is the addresses you went to and what you found out; isn't that correct? A. Correct. These are notes listing all the addresses that I door-knocked, yes. Q. Tell the jury what sounds people in the neighborhood heard, and at what times. A. Okay. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for hearsay. The fact that it's a business record doesn't get into hearsay. MR. BAKER: It is an exception to the hearsay rule. THE COURT: The document is an exception. You want to offer a document, you may offer a document. You want to offer the document? MR. BAKER: We'll offer the document next in order. THE COURT: Document received. THE CLERK: 2275. (The instrument herein referred to as A report generated by Officer Daniel Gonzalez was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2275.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, tell the jury what time people heard noises. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Calls for hearsay. THE COURT: Sustained. You may explain the document. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The document is the document that you took and went and put various addresses upon, indicating what houses you went to, correct? A. That is correct. Q. And you also put what observations you, as a police officer, had heard from the people who actually answered the door, correct? A. That is correct, also. Q. And what was the responses that you got on June 12, 199 -- June 13, actually, 1994? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Hearsay, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. You may ask him what he put on the report. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) What did you put on the report in terms of what was heard? A. Okay. Would you like me to list them? Q. No. Just tell me the only ones that -- that have times on them. There's only two on there, as I recall that have times that there was anything unusual heard; isn't that correct? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. It's hearsay. THE COURT: It's a business record. I've received it as a business record. The witness may be examined as to what those entries say. A. I'm sorry; I'm having a hard time trying to figure out when I'm supposed to answer a question and not answer. MR. BAKER: I can understand that. Believe me; I'm having a hard time myself. (Laughter.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) What time did you put on the report that barking dogs were heard? A. Okay. On the report, I do list that there were dogs heard barking. And on some of the addresses that I listed, there are times, and on some of them, there are not times. Q. All right. And when there are times listed, what times did you put on the report? A. Okay. 859 South Bundy -- Q. Just the times would be fine. A. Okay. Well, I have one person who said they heard a dog barking at approximately 12:15 in the morning, at 00:15 hours -- or 00:15. I have one listing at -- I have to list the address just to point of reference. I can't read the time that I put on here. It looks like 0000 hours, which would make it midnight. Q. Okay. A. But I'm not sure. And then at another address, I have they heard barking since 2300 hours, which would be 11 p.m. Q. Okay. Now, after you knocked on doors, did you also play with the Akita dog at the corner of Dorothy and Bundy? A. I think you have to define "play." I'm not quite sure what you mean by "play." Q. Did you pet the dog? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you make observations that the dog had blood on it? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you make observations as to the dog had blood on its paws? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you make observations that the blood was moist? A. I would be speculating if I said that was true. Q. Did you touch the blood and find out whether it was moist? A. Oh, absolutely not. That's not true. Q. And after you left Bundy, you went out on another call, and then were called to Rockingham, were you not? A. Yes, sir. Q. And when you were at Rockingham, you got there at about 5:20 in the morning, didn't you? A. You must be referring to some report I turned in. I don't have a recollection exactly what time. I could -- can tell you it was before daylight. Q. And you were in a black and white, were you not? A. Yes, I was, sir. Q. You and your partner, Officer Astin? A. Yes, Officer Rich Astin. Q. Where did you park your black and white? A. When we first arrived? Q. Yeah. A. When we first arrived, we were parked on Rockingham, which is the north-south street at the bottom of that picture that you're showing. And we were basically parked next to a white Bronco. Q. You were there while there were four detectives also there, correct? A. That is correct, sir. Q. You were called to the scene as a black-and-white to back up four detectives that were there; and you were called to that scene at about 05:20 in the morning; isn't that correct? MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Using the word "backup" assumes facts not in evidence. It's also leading. MR. BAKER: I intend to be leading this witness. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Okay. I also have a problem with the term "backup." That can mean a number of different things. To me, it means something much more serious than I think you're trying to imply. Q. You were told on your car radio to go to 360 North Rockingham before 5:20 in the morning, were you not, sir? A. No, sir; that is not true. Q. You just happened to wander by and there were four detectives there? A. No. I can explain if you'd like to hear how I got up there. I can explain it to you. It's very simple. Q. Were you told to go to that location? (Exhibit board No. 1174 is displayed.) A. Yes, I was told to go to that location. Q. And in terms of being told to go to that location, you remained outside, originally, outside the perimeter of 360 North Rockingham, did you not? A. Originally, upon our arrival, yes, we did. Q. And you filed a report, in your own handwriting, within a couple of weeks after this event occurred, did you not? A. That is correct. Q. And you were standing at the Rockingham gate at approximately 5:30, 6 o'clock, somewhere in there, when you saw Arnelle Simpson, a black female, come around the north end of the pool with detectives; isn't that true, sir? A. Okay. Once again, you have a big question in front of me. I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to say. Q. I'm trying to ask you whether or not you observed a black female in the company of Fuhrman and Phillips, walk on the north side -- around the north side of the pool in they're company. Did you see that? A. Yes, I saw that. What I have problem with is, you keep referring to locations that I was at, that I was not at. And like I said, I can -- I can explain it if you wanted me to explain. Q. All right. I first want to get into the issue of the fact that you saw and you were later -- were you later able to identify the black female on the morning of June 13, 1994 as Arnelle Simpson? A. Well yes, I was. I spoke to her that morning. Q. And when she came around in the company of the detectives, you were also able to hear what was being said between the detectives and Arnelle Simpson, were you not? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. And you were able to hear the detectives discuss whether she knew where her father was; isn't that true? A. That is correct. Q. And you were also able to hear her respond that, in fact, she didn't know where her father was, and must be gone, because the Bronco's gone, correct? A. Correct. I believe she might have even made a statement to me regarding such. Q. Then the officers walked her out and showed her the one Bronco over by where your car was parked over on Rockingham, didn't they? The detectives, rather? A. Once again, I have a problem with location. At that point, my black-and-white was not at that location where the Bronco was. Q. All right. You moved it by then? A. We had moved it by then. We moved it several times when we were there. Q. In any event -- A. Okay. Q. -- you heard her being asked about the whereabouts of her father, O.J. Simpson, did you not? A. Yes, sir; that is correct. Q. You also heard her, or watched her being led over to the area where Rockingham and the Bronco was, correct? A. Yes. I'm trying -- I want to apologize for the brief moment of silence. I'm trying to remember if she was being led. And, yes, you are correct; she was being led to that location. Q. And after she was, the detectives -- and this included Fuhrman and Phillips, didn't it? A. If you read through my report again, which I haven't done too much in great detail, I don't believe I exactly recall which detectives were there. I might be mistaken, but right now, I don't have a recollection which detectives were actually interviewing her. Q. The detectives came with her around the north side of the house, though, did they not? A. Correct. Whichever detectives had previously stated they were the ones talking to her, those are the ones I saw. Q. They came around the pool area and around the north area of the house, and were asking her the whereabouts of her father, and then came around the driveway? A. That is correct, yes. Q. And you were able to visualize this, and not only visualize it, you were able to hear what was being said among those people, were you not? A. "Visualize" as -- you mean see? Q. See them. A. Okay. Q. And hear them? A. I saw them; I heard them. Very simple. Q. All right. all right. And after they pointed out the vehicle on Rockingham, they were walking back towards the front of Mr. Simpson's residence, and you heard Ron Phillips tell Arnelle Simpson that her stepmother had been killed, isn't that true? And you watched her break into tears? A. I watched her break into tears. I don't remember which detective told her. So if you say it's Ron Phillips, and you're saying that's been stipulated and that's true, then that must be true. I can only tell you I saw a detective talking to her. It appeared to me he explained that there -- that her stepmother had been killed, and she burst into tears. Q. And this was not anywhere inside the house; this was out on the driveway, wasn't it? A. Correct. Q. And then they went into the front door of the house, didn't they, the detectives and Arnelle Simpson? A. I'd have to look at my report to remember that. I don't know right now. I don't remember which door they went into. They did go back in the house; I know that's a fact, at some time. Q. You say back in the house? A. Or back -- excuse me -- into the house the first time, I believe. Q. They had -- you had never seen them in the house when you first observed them come around the north side and come out the pathway; isn't that correct? A. That's correct. I saw her emerge from her -- I guess you call it a bungalow in the back. Q. So you never saw -- MR. BAKER: Can we get the other -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. What number is this one? MR. BAKER: It is -- hold on one second, Gina. MR. LEONARD: Want the other diagram. MR. BAKER: Yeah, the diagramatic -- MR. P. BAKER: It's 1174. (Exhibit 116 is displayed.) Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, did -- when you arrived there at approximately 5:20, there were already two unmarked police cars there, correct? A. Possibly. I don't know. That's not what I saw when I arrived. I just saw Westec there when I arrived. Q. All right. Well, you obviously observed the detectives subsequently, correct? A. Right. There were four detectives there. I only remember seeing one police car or one unmarked car. Q. Okay. And -- and you observed the detectives walk Arnelle out of her room, around the north side of the property, and onto the driveway? A. That is correct. Q. And they did not go from Arnelle's room, up the stairs and into the back of Mr. Simpson's house, did they? A. That's what I believe I saw. I don't believe I saw them walk through the house. They had emerged from the pool area and walked around. Q. And you were clear -- clear in your report -- and you gave -- by the way, you gave two reports, did you not? A. Kind of, I guess. I don't know what you're referring to. Q. You have a statement form that's in your handwriting? A. Correct. Q. And then you subsequently gave another report to Detective Phillips, did you not? A. Is that the impound report you're talking about? Q. No, sir, it is not. A. Okay. Q. Let me show it to you. A. Please. Q. And see if this refreshes your recollection. A. Okay. Q. Now, this two-page handwritten report is all in your handwriting, is it not? A. Correct. That is my handwriting. Q. And that was your recollection a couple of weeks post-incident; that is, you wrote that within a couple of weeks of June 13, 1994, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you then -- well, strike that. Why didn't you date it? A. I should have dated this. Q. I agree. Why didn't you? A. I don't know. I would -- I would imagine there would have been a date someplace on this. You're correct. Q. There's -- there is a space for the date, is there not? A. Well, this was -- this statement form is usually used for suspects, when we're interviewing them, and we want to take statements. Q. Maybe you didn't understand the question. A. Okay. Q. There is a space for the date and the time of the interview, is there not? A. Correct. Although this wasn't an interview, but that is correct. Q. And there was nothing that precluded you from dating the form, true? A. No. Q. Now, in that particular statement, you document your observations relative to the detectives relating to Arnelle Simpson. Number one, the inquiry concerning the whereabouts of her father; and number 2, the issue of telling her that her stepmother had been in a homicide, correct? Those are your words? A. That's what I believe I saw, yes. Q. And -- and you certainly visualized Arnelle break down in front of you, didn't you? A. Yes, she was definitely crying. Q. And with that, the police officers detectives, whatever, took her into the front of the house? A. If you can hold on just a moment. Q. Sure. MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Asked and answered, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Baker, you've got around six minutes. You did this twice. I don't want to hear this again. THE WITNESS: Okay. You're asking me if I saw him enter the front of house. On this report, all I had stated is that they entered the house, like I said before, what, five, ten minutes ago, I don't remember which door they entered in. So they could have entered at any door. I just know they went inside the house. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You did not see them go back around the house, did you, sir? A. They may have gone back around. Q. Maybe you didn't understand that question correctly. MR. MEDVENE: If the Court -- Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You didn't see them go back around the house? MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me, Mr. Baker. The witness was answering the question. THE COURT: Not very well. THE WITNESS: Okay. I'll try harder. Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You didn't visualize with your own eyes and go anywhere into the house; isn't that correct, sir? You didn't see him walk around the driveway in front of the house over to the north side and walk around after Nicole's -- after -- strike that -- after Arnelle broke down in tears, did you? A. I see. I would be speculating saying "notice." If I put down they entered the house, then -- I wouldn't say they entered the house; I would say they walked back to the pool area and never saw them. As you saw, it's pretty detailed. I'm not going to say they walked through the front of the house. They may have walked through the front of house. You ask them. Maybe she said they did. I personally don't know. I just said they entered the house. If they got in through the back, that's -- they could have entered either door. For me to say they only entered through the front door, only through the back door, now I'd only be -- I'd be speculating. They obviously went inside the house. I may have seen them go back -- to the back. I don't have a visualization. Those are your words. Q. Got ya. A. Thank you very much. Q. So your total recollection is, after she broke down, you don't have a recollection, except them entering the house, correct? A. In how -- if I put in that report they entered that house, I watched them enter the house. Q. And you -- A. And they -- location. They entered either through the front door or the back door. I don't know which one now. If they entered someplace weird like a window, I would obviously remember that. I'm not trying to be sarcastic. Q. They didn't fly up through the garage? A. Correct. I don't know which door they entered into. Q. Where were you when you visualized this? A. Okay. Q. Where were you standing when you saw it? A. Can you define "visualize"? I'm really -- I'm not trying to make a joke of this, but I saw this, and I'm really having a hard time with that. Q. Fine; let's use your word. A. Thank you. Q. Mine's not working. A. I'm having a hard time with that one. Q. In -- A. You want to know where I was when I saw this? Q. Just -- A. I'm sorry. Q. We're going to start all over. A. All right. Q. I know. Now, Arnelle had come down the driveway and they had pointed out the Bronco? A. Okay. Not really like that. Q. She was in it, the driveway. You testified a few moments ago she was in the driveway; they pointed the Bronco out and she said, yes, that's my father's Bronco, or words to that effect, right? A. But the way you're pointing through the gate, it's as if they exited the gate onto that driveway on Rockingham. They never exited the gate. They simply walked to the gate, which at the time you could see through, and they pointed, there's the Bronco, and said something to the effect, well, yeah, she didn't know what the heck it was doing there, but it was there. I'm sorry. (A bench conference was held, which was not reported.) THE COURT: Okay, ladies and gentlemen. We're going to adjourn till tomorrow, 8:30. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions. Do not make any communications about this case, even like you're on this case, to anybody, even if they know. All right. Everybody understand that? No communications about this case to anybody. Don't let them talk to you. Okay. See you tomorrow, 8:30. THE COURT: Stay seated. (Jurors exit the courtroom.) THE COURT: Okay. Officer, you are ordered back tomorrow, 8:30. THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: You are ordered not to discuss anything connected with this case, with anyone, until you come back tomorrow. Thanks a lot. THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. The reports. MR. BAKER: I'll get them. THE WITNESS: Thank you. (At 4:30 P.M., an adjournment was taken until Wednesday, December 18, 1996, at 8:30 A.M.) |