THE FOLLOWING IS THE JOURNAL GRAPHICS TRANSCRIPT OF THE COURT TV BROADCAST FROM SEPTEMBER 5, 1995. COURT TV WILL POST THE OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT AS SOON AS IT BECOMES AVAILABLE Court TV (LTV)September 5, 1995 Transcript #142 Segment 1 Live Trial Coverage - CA v. Simpson - Day 142 - Part 1 RIKKI KLIEMAN, Anchor: We're waiting for court to begin in the O.J. Simpson case, and today it's really a question of how it is going to begin. Is Judge Ito going to force the lawyers to bring testimony to this jury which hasn't heard any testimony in eight days. Or, is Judge Ito going to let the lawyers control the courtroom and go forward with some motions that have been brought by the defense, motions which are surely made in earnest, though the question is what result does the defense expect at this stage of the trial. I'm hear with well-known and frequent Court TV commentator, criminal defense lawyer, Gigi Gordon, who's been practicing some 14 years. You've tried death penalty cases over and over again, and you're certainly known in Los Angeles, greater Los Angeles circles as being a person who is a person on the law and a person on strategy. You were someone who may have been prescient in this case, you were someone who said a long time ago that if evidence came up about the fact that Mark Fuhrman might be lying, that the defense should be going forward with a renewed motion to suppress. Now, I know they didn't literally hear you, but it seems that somebody got that idea. Now, they can't possibly expect to win that here. GIGI GORDON, Criminal Defense Attorney: No, I don't think they expect to win it, even if they did, what would they have? They'd have complete and total suppression of the evidence which, if they want this jury, the better thing to do even if they won would be to go forward with this jury and instruction that the jury's told to disregard any evidence they've already heard. So, it's a little late in the game to be doing this motion, but now they do have new evidence which goes to the credibility of one of the officers, and in fact, his testimony was part of the finding that there was probable cause, that there were exigent circumstances, that the searches were valid in this case. RIKKI KLIEMAN: Mark Fuhrman is the person who saw that little, itty-bitty, speck, I always think of it as about as big as my little fingernail, of blood on the Bronco. And it was from seeing that speck that probably cause developed and the officers minds to go over the wall. And, although Mark Fuhrman has stated in these tape recordings that he would be willing to manufacture probable cause, you've still got the issue of the credibility of these other three detectives, who all said that they agreed with Fuhrman's assessment and that they did decide to go over the wall. So even if Judge Ito found that Mark Fuhrman was willing to fabricate probable cause, what about these other three detectives, there's nothing really there that's new, to impeach their credibility. GIGI GORDON: Well, I think part of the answer the defense would give, is it's once again all part of the conspiracy and the code of silence that the officers might, in fact, not have seen anything. Detective Fuhrman at one of his many tapes says that he was the officer, even though there were four or five other officers on a particular scene, that they didn't do or say anything, and that he came into court and covered for them and was the lead testifier. So, the defense might argue that you have a similar situation here. Whether or not the judge would buy it, that's a different story. RIKKI KLIEMAN: Gigi, is it making a record, is that what it is, in the event that O.J. Simpson might hypothetically be convicted, that they're making a record about this suppression hearing, is that why they have to do it? GIGI GORDON: Well, for the suppression motion to be an important issue on appeal, you have to raise all possible theories below for the Court of Appeal, in the event of a conviction to consider it. So, if this is now a new theory to impute the credibility, or impeach the credibility of this particular officer, they must present it and the judge must make a ruling on it, in order for the Court of Appeal to hear it. RIKKI KLIEMAN: Do they have to put in new evidence, or can they just have Judge Ito say, look, you've listened to these tapes. Tapes A, B, C, and D show that Mark Fuhrman would be willing to fabricate probable cause, and so we submit on that and we're just going to argue. GIGI GORDON: They could do it that way and then the question becomes, does the prosecution want to present any testimonial evidence in rebuttal and whether or not they do it in open court, how they do it, and I'm sure the prosecution is going to object to this procedure in the first place. What they should do is exactly what you suggested, let Judge Ito look at the new evidence, which is in fact the tapes, and make a ruling based on that. RIKKI KLIEMAN: Let's talk about Mark Fuhrman testifying. If you were working on this dream-team defense team, would you put him up on the witness stand? GIGI GORDON: I would probably call him first, instead of the other witnesses, simply because I'm not clear what he's going to do. We've heard sort of issuances from his lawyer's office about what he may do. I don't know what he'll do and I don't know what the scope of this examination is going to be. I'm not so sure that it's going to be the kind of examination where he automatically is questioned about this particular issue, the tapes, or the use of the ``N'' word. Perhaps, there may be examination on some other areas that were not picked up from the previous testimony. If so, he can't take the Fifth right away and that may open the door for other issues to be developed. RIKKI KLIEMAN: There's an argument to be made that he's still under cross-examination from his original testimony, and that he might have waived his Fifth Amendment privilege. Is that possible? GIGI GORDON: Well, there's a little bit of confusion in the law about this, normally when a witness is going to take a Fifth Amendment, he does it on direct examination, knowing that in the future there's something that will implicate him. RIKKI KLIEMAN: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but Judge Ito is on the bench, we're going to go into the courtroom. Judge LANCE ITO, Los Angeles Superior Court: Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Bailey and Mr. Blasier. People represented by Mr. Hodgman, Mr. Yokelson, Mr. Darden, and Ms. Lewis. Jury is not present. Counsel, the record should reflect that this morning is a continuation of a hearing that began last week. Court conducted a 1054.7 hearing with the prosecution and I'll advise defense counsel of the following orders by the Court. As to Dr. Deforrest [sp], the Court will order the disclosure of the package of photographs and notes by Dr. Deforrest as they relate to the sock examinations conducted by Dr. Deforrest. My understanding Mr. Hodgman, is the photographs that you intend to turn over, the photographs that you turned over to the Court for examination, is that correct? WILLIAM HODGMAN, Prosecutor: Yes, Your Honor, that is correct. Judge LANCE ITO: Then I will give this to Mrs. Robertson for turning over to the defense. I'm going to direct you to turn over any written materials from Dr. Deforrest by the close of business today. My recollection is that you indicated that those had to be numbered for discovery purposes. WILLIAM HODGMAN: Yes, Your Honor, and for purposes of the record, I have turned over to Mr. Neufeld this morning, an un-numbered set of notes, we will number them for our normal discovery procedures and provide a second copy later in the day. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, Counsel the where's Mr. Douglas? Mr. Douglas, Mr. Hodgman advised the Court that Dr. Deforrest would be testifying only to the sock, very limited avenues of inquiry. I had a concern, given the number of notes that Dr. Deforrest had that there might be some Brady [?] materials. So, Mr. Hodgman has given to me a complete set of Dr. Deforrest notes plus the notes that he has turned over to you so that I can compare both. And I will have to examine those over the noon hour, or perhaps this evening to see if there's any Brady material, or anything else that I think should be disclosed. All right, so you might want to remind me of that, later this week. WILLIAM HODGMAN: I'll be sure to, Your Honor, and Your Honor, a point of correction, if I may. Mr. Deforrest will be testifying with regard to the socks, but it is also possible he'll be covering some other limited areas as well, so for the edification of the Court and Counsel, there may be some other areas involved. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. Second item was a photograph of Mr. Simpson wearing a glove and the Court noted that it would allow the prosecution to withhold discovery of this item until the investigation had been completed. I understand that that has been accomplished, is that correct? WILLIAM HODGMAN: Yes, Your Honor, in essence yes. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, and the photograph and notes you turned over to the Court, this is the copy you intend on turning over to the defense, correct? WILLIAM HODGMAN: Yes, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, then I'll likewise direct Mrs. Robertson to give this to the defense. All right, as to Mr. Bodziak, Mr. Hodgman WILLIAM HODGMAN: Yes, Your Honor, we've indicated to the Court as well as Counsel that we do intend to call Mr. Bodziak in our rebuttal case. We have no report from Mr. Bodziak, nor do we have any notes as of yet. If and when we receive those, we will turn those over to the defense in prompt fashion. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, given this is a rebuttal case, what is your offer of proof as to Mr. Bodziak? WILLIAM HODGMAN: Mr. Bodziak will be testifying with regard to his impression of some impressions at the Bundy crime scene, on the walkway, and in addition to a limited fashion to some general testimony about what one can perceive or can't perceive with regard or from crime scene photographs and then based upon some information contained in his book, which I believe the defense has, various limitations of what one should testify to, based upon what can be derived from photographs. So, as this still being refined, Your Honor, as it becomes more refined and to the extent that we get notes, we'll provide that to the defense. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, as to Mr. Popovich [sp], do you intend on have you made your decision as to whether or not you're going to call on Mr. Popovich. WILLIAM HODGMAN: We intend to call Mr. Popovich, we have turned over notes that we have received from Mr. Popovich. At the moment the defense has what we have and no more. To the extent that we get anything in addition from Mr. Popovich, we will turn that over as well. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, what's your offer of proof since this is likewise going to be a rebuttal witness, what is your offer of proof as to Mr. Popovich. WILLIAM HODGMAN: As contained in the notes that we have turned over to the defense, Mr. Popovich's tours, if you will, of the Department of Justice crime lab, as well as the LAPD crime lab and observations of both those locations and some related testimony regarding contamination. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, and lastly in response to Mr. Neufeld's question, you were going to advise defense counsel and the Court whether or not at this time you intend an EDTA witness. WILLIAM HODGMAN: At this time, Your Honor, we do not intend to call any EDTA witnesses. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. Mr. Douglas, where'd Mr. Douglas go? All right, any other comment as to these discovery matters? CARL DOUGLAS: No, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, anything else we need to take up before we invite the jurors to rejoin us. TAYLOR DAIGNEAULT, Kathleen Bell's Attorney: Your Honor, I wonder if I might be heard, speaking on behalf of Ms. Bell. Judge LANCE ITO: Yes, good morning Counsel. Could you identify yourself for the record please. TAYLOR DAIGNEAULT: Yes, Your Honor, my name is Taylor Daigneault, I'm the attorney for Ms. Bell. As Your Honor knows, probably from the declaration that Ms. Bell provided at an earlier time, there's been an intensive investigation of Ms. Bell. I would like to attend this morning and before the jury came in I would like to ask the Court if I could be heard on objections concerning right of privacy and possibly attorney-client privilege. My concern, Your Honor, is that the investigation of Ms. Bell has been very intense, but as I've seen the things that have unfolded in this courtroom the past few weeks, I think that here testimony is almost beyond question, the truthful testimony, and I would like the Court to give some quarter to protecting her privacy rights if the need arises, in terms of a cross-examination or her direct examination. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, Counsel, I will allow you to sit inside the bar at the time that Ms. Bell is being questioned and you may, of course, raise any, on her behalf, any attorney-client privilege objections that you might have. Issues of privacy though, are a different question. And, if you wish time to consult with your client and consult with other counsel, I'll allow you to leave to do so. TAYLOR DAIGNEAULT: I haven't had an opportunity to talk with any member of the prosecution team, so I don't know what they're going to inquire into, in terms of here personal past. I do know that her telephone records were subpoenaed, the numbers were called, her social friends have been contacted, several investigators from the district attorneys' office called on her hairdresser, or so I've been advised. And I don't know what they've discovered along the way, but I would, if they're going to inquire into her personal life, she has a family law file that's some 20 years old, I believe, or something close to that. I'd just like some limitation into this field, especially in light of developments recently. Her testimony I think if Your Honor would weigh these factors, I think here testimony is not all that remarkable, in light of what other evidence has been submitted to the Court recently. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, the Court is apprised of the issue. TAYLOR DAIGNEAULT: Thank you, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: Thank you, Counsel. And if you want you can take a seat over next to Mr. Regwan [sp], over there. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, Ms. Lewis, good morning. CHERI LEWIS, Dep. D.A.: Good morning, Your Honor. A couple of brief matters. First, I believe that Natalie Singer [sp] is here or is available, certainly to the defense, since she's been moved to second on their witness list for this morning. The first request is that we have an opportunity to interview her, which we have not had previously. The short break that was taken Friday, Mr. Darden was not able to accomplish that during the short break taken Friday, so we'd request that we be permitted to interview here somewhere up in our offices, or wherever is convenient. Judge LANCE ITO: If she's willing to be interviewed, yes. What we'll do is we'll probably take a recess between witness's I suspect, given our late start this morning. CHERI LEWIS: That's Natalie Singer, Mr. Bailey was just inquiring. The other thing I want to bring to the Court's attention, is that the defense has, their current witness list lists Kathleen Bell, then Natalie Singer, then Andrea Terry. It's my expectation, and these are Mr. Darden's witnesses so I don't mean to but it's our expectation that we will be bringing a motion after Kathleen Bell testifies renewing in essence a motion I argued a few weeks ago with regard to the additional witnesses being cumulative. Detective Fuhrman was cross-examined with regard to Andrea Terry and if they choose for tactical reasons to try and wedge in Ms. Singer Judge LANCE ITO: Well, that's, that's an issue we need to address once we see Ms. Bell. CHERI LEWIS: All right, and I just want to remind the Court, the Court had ruled that no one else, there would be a possible, they'd be cumulative once Bell and Terry testified. Judge LANCE ITO: I wouldn't call it a ruling that there's a possible issue, but yes, I the issue is there, and I think we discussed this ad nauseum, Friday. CHERI LEWIS: I heard the discussion, I wasn't present but I did hear of it. The only other thing I wanted to mention, Your Honor, is this morning I filed a responsive brief to the defense motion, renewed motion to suppress based on newly discovered evidence. And I've noted in the defense line-up they anticipate reaching argument on that at some point today and of course the Court must have an opportunity to read our response before I'm assured it will be able to assess the issues and to rule on the matter, and I just wanted to alert you that it had been filed and it's available. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, I think that's an optimistic scenario timewise. All right, Mr. Bailey, are you ready to proceed? F. LEE BAILEY, Simpson Attorney: I am, Your Honor, but first let me point out, you're not being given the facts. On Friday, I put on the record that Ms. Singer had been inquired of as to whether she wished to be interviewed and her response was, they've known about me for six months, I have a lawyer in Nashville, I have one here who went out of town for the weekend, and they're too late. I'm not going to talk to them. Furthermore, why should I be trashed the way Kathleen Bell was. I got a call from Mr. Hodgman last night, wanting to interview her, and I said, you know what's on the record, I can't speak for her lawyer. She hasn't changed her mind. That was true again this morning. So, taking a recess to permit a non-interview to occur, which they know full well will not occur, is an imposition on the Court's time and more importantly, our much beleaguered jury. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, let's take that up after we've finished with Ms. Bell. F. LEE BAILEY: We are ready. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Your Honor, there will be a renewed 402 as it relates to Ms. Singer. We know specific details at all as to what she plans to testify to Judge LANCE ITO: All right, like I said, we'll take this up after we finish Ms. Bell. Ready? All right, Deputy Magnaro [sp] let's have the jurors please. RIKKI KLIEMAN: While we're waiting for the jury to get assembled in the jury box, I'm here with Gigi Gordon and this is an impatient Judge Ito this morning. He wants that jury to hear some testimony, yes? GIGI GORDON: It's been a very long time since the jury's heard any testimony but I'm amazed that he let as much yammering go on as he did this morning. All of this should have been handled outside the presence of the jury, there's no reason he couldn't require the parties to come in at 8:00 in the morning, this is purely housekeeping matters, and it's really, after this long of a period of time, it's really a disgrace. RIKKI KLIEMAN: Well, it's difficult because the lawyers of course, are pushing him and he wants testimony and he tends to be courteous, perhaps almost to a fault, to the lawyers, to let them say their piece. What about this factor that F. Lee Bailey says Natalie Singer says that she's been available for six months and she's tire of waiting and she doesn't want to be interviewed. Witness's have the right to say they don't want to be interviewed. GIGI GORDON: That's her absolute right, a witness belongs to no sides, to no party, and in fact they don't have to be interviewed either by the prosecution or the defense if they choose not to. RIKKI KLIEMAN: And we saw an extraordinary moment of Kathleen Bell's attorney coming into the rail, into the enclosure, and saying that he's concerned about her right of privacy. That she's been investigated from pillar to post and even her phone records have been subpoenaed, that was pretty extraordinary. GIGI GORDON: I was really astonished to hear that. Those records have to be sought by a subpoena duces tecum. Judge Ito should be the one who's authorizing or not authorizing the opening and the receipt of the those records, and I think it's wrong for witnesses privacy to be invaded in that way. RIKKI KLIEMAN: We'll see how that's handled. Judge Ito speaking to the jury. Judge LANCE ITO: and uh, I believe that we are back on track and we will proceed accordingly. Mr. Bailey you may call the defense's next witness. F. LEE BAILEY: The defense calls Kathleen Bell, if it pleases the Court. [The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.] Live Trial Coverage - CA v. Simpson - Day 142 - Part 2 Judge LANCE ITO, Los Angeles Superior Court: [in progress] and I believe that we are back on track and we are going to proceed accordingly. Mr. Bailey, you may call the defense next witness. F. LEE BAILEY, Simpson Attorney: The defense calls Kathleen Bell, if it please the Court. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, Ms. Bell. Mrs. Robertson? Mrs. ROBERTSON, Clerk of Court: Raise your right hand, please. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the [unintelligible] now pending before this Court will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? KATHLEEN BELL, Simpson Witness: I do. Mrs. ROBERTSON: Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record. KATHLEEN BELL: My name is Kathleen Bell. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, Ms. Bell, if you'd just sit back and then pull the microphone towards you, please. All right, thank you, ma'am. KATHLEEN BELL: Kathleen Bell K-A-T-H-L-E-E-N Thank you B-E-L-L. F. LEE BAILEY: Just try and keep your voice up, Ms. Bell, so that the KATHLEEN BELL: Yes, I will. F. LEE BAILEY: last people in the jury box can hear you. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, excuse me, Mr. Bailey. Deputy Long [sp], would you pull the easel back there? It's I think it's in blocking juror seven. Thank you. Mr. Bailey. F. LEE BAILEY: Ms. Bell, without giving a street address, can you tell us where you live. KATHLEEN BELL: In Long Beach. F. LEE BAILEY: And how long have you lived in that area? KATHLEEN BELL: Since, let's see, about a year-and-a-half. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. In 1985 and '6, where were you living? KATHLEEN BELL: In Palos Verdes. F. LEE BAILEY: And, did you have an occupation or profession at that time? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes, real estate agent. F. LEE BAILEY: And who did you work for as a real estate agent? KATHLEEN BELL: Century 21, Bob Maher Realty in Redondo Beach. F. LEE BAILEY: Can you pull that mike in just a little bit? KATHLEEN BELL: All right. Judge LANCE ITO: Can you spell Maher for the court reporter, please? KATHLEEN BELL: M-A-H-E-R. Judge LANCE ITO: Thank you. Mr. Bailey. F. LEE BAILEY: When did you begin working for Bob Maher at Century 21? KATHLEEN BELL: I received my real estate license in September of 1985 and I started working for Bob Maher, I believe, in October. F. LEE BAILEY: Can you tell me whether or not in the immediate vicinity of your real estate office, there was located a marine recruiting station? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you know any of the personnel who worked in that station? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: Can you name any of them? KATHLEEN BELL: Joe Foss [sp] and Ron Rohr [sp]. F. LEE BAILEY: And, how would you encounter them in your daily business? KATHLEEN BELL: As part of my real estate practice we were supposed to make cold calls and knock on doors and all of that, and so during the cold calling sessions I would try to avoid that as best as possible, and so I would go walking around the building, and at one time I encountered the marines at the marine recruiting center and I just stopped in to say hello and kind of to take up some time. F. LEE BAILEY: Where was this station located the recruiting station? KATHLEEN BELL: I was on the second floor and they were on the first floor of this marine recruit of the shopping center. F. LEE BAILEY: Was your office immediately above theirs? KATHLEEN BELL: It was above the marine recruiting center. F. LEE BAILEY: How did you get to and from your office? KATHLEEN BELL: Driving? F. LEE BAILEY: Once you got to the area? KATHLEEN BELL: [laughter] Oh. I went and I just walked to the marine recruiting center, down the stairs and then back up. Is that what you're asking? F. LEE BAILEY: All right. Do you know a person named Mark Fuhrman? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes, I do. F. LEE BAILEY: When did you first see Mr. Fuhrman, according to your best recollection? KATHLEEN BELL: Between the time that I was working for Ma Bob Maher Realty, Century 21 it was between 1985 and '86. F. LEE BAILEY: And what were the circumstances of the first time that you saw him, as opposed to encountered him? KATHLEEN BELL: The first time that I saw him, I walked down to the marine recruiting center and just to say hello to the marines, and they had a man sitting there and I thought that they were in a meeting, so I just kind of tapped on the window and waved and went back upstairs. F. LEE BAILEY: Were you introduced to Mr. Fuhrman at that time? KATHLEEN BELL: No. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you have any conversation with him or anyone else inside the station? KATHLEEN BELL: No, I did not. F. LEE BAILEY: And could you see what they were doing as you walked by? KATHLEEN BELL: They were just speaking to each other. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you notice anything unusual about Mr. Fuhrman at that time? KATHLEEN BELL: I thought that he was handsome. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. KATHLEEN BELL: And that's I did notice that. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you notice anything about his height? KATHLEEN BELL: He was sitting in a chair, but I could tell that he was tall, yes. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. What was the next time that you encountered Mr. Fuhrman? KATHLEEN BELL: The next time was at that same marine recruiting center and I came down and, prior to this time, the marines told me that it was OK for me to that it would have been OK for me to come in that the previous time. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. You you can't tell us what the marines told you KATHLEEN BELL: Oh, I'm sorry. F. LEE BAILEY: but you can tell us that you had a conversation with them after you first saw Mr. Fuhrman? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Without saying what was said, as a result of that conversation, when you next saw Mr. Fuhrman in their office, what did you do? KATHLEEN BELL: I went inside the marine recruiting center and I introduced myself and I just began speaking to all of the men. F. LEE BAILEY: Who was present at the time? KATHLEEN BELL: Joe Foss, Ron Rohr and Mark Fuhrman. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. Had you, at that time, any special reason for wanting to meet Mr. Fuhrman? KATHLEEN BELL: I thought that he would be interested in meeting my girlfriend, Andrea Terry. F. LEE BAILEY: What is there about Andrea Terry that you thought might match up well with Mr. Fuhrman? KATHLEEN BELL: She is six feet tall and really beautiful, and I thought that She liked tall men, and so I thought that she might want to meet him, as well. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. Now, how did you introduce yourself to Mr. Fuhrman? KATHLEEN BELL: I just said, ``Hello,'' and the marines actually introduced me and I don't remember the first kind of shooting the breeze kind of first part of the conversation. It was just very mild and I was talking about Andrea. I began talking about Andrea. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. And, what did you tell him about Andrea Terry? KATHLEEN BELL: I said that I have a girlfriend CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, Prosecutor: Objection, hearsay. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Did you tell Mr. Fuhrman something about a girl named Andrea Terry, without saying precisely what it was? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes, I did. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. And in the course of giving him that information, did you mention the name of anyone who was a public figure? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: What was that name? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Hearsay, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. KATHLEEN BELL: Marcus Allen. F. LEE BAILEY: What happened when you mentioned the name Marcus Allen to Mark Fuhrman? KATHLEEN BELL: His demeanor changed and his his attitude toward me changed. F. LEE BAILEY: And, what, if anything did he say? KATHLEEN BELL: He said that if when he sees a black man with a white woman driving in a car, he pulls them over. F. LEE BAILEY: And what did you say? KATHLEEN BELL: I was taken aback a little bit, and so I kind of paused and I looked at the marines and and I just said, ``Well, what if they didn't do anything wrong?'' F. LEE BAILEY: And what did he say? KATHLEEN BELL: He said he'd find something. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. And did you talk any further about that hypothetical of a black man riding with a white woman being pulled over? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: What else was said? KATHLEEN BELL: I asked, ``What if they're in love?'' F. LEE BAILEY: And what did he say to that? KATHLEEN BELL: He said, ``That's disgusting.'' F. LEE BAILEY: The fact that a black man might be in love with a white woman, was disgusting, is that CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection, that's leading, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. Rephrase the question. F. LEE BAILEY: What was he referring to, in your understanding, when he used the word ``disgusting''? KATHLEEN BELL: That I said I asked him, ``What if they were in love?'' And I think the idea of them being in love was disgusting to him. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Motion to strike [inaudible]. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. F. LEE BAILEY: After the word ``disgusting'' was uttered, what was next said by either of you? KATHLEEN BELL: Well, again, I looked at the marines because I had spoken to them before and they didn't seem to be mean people, and so I was waiting for some kind of reaction from them, and then I just was kind of I just kind of paused, and then he said, ``If I had my way, I'd gather all the niggers would be gathered together and burned.'' F. LEE BAILEY: All right. And what was your reaction when he told you that he would gather the niggers altogether and burn them? KATHLEEN BELL: [starting to cry] I'm sorry. I didn't I thought that that was Nobody ever said that to me before. I heard the ``N'' word before, but nobody ever said something like that to me before. F. LEE BAILEY: Had you ever used, in your conversation, the ``N'' word to Mark Fuhrman? KATHLEEN BELL: Oh, with Mark Fuhrman? F. LEE BAILEY: Right. KATHLEEN BELL: Never, no. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. Did you respond, in any way, other than becoming upset, when Mr. Fuhrman told you what he would like to do with reference to burning an entire race? KATHLEEN BELL: I just I looked at the marines and I kind of They weren't saying anything. They kind of just shrugged their shoulders and so I kind of got teary eyed and I left. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Now, can you help us with the date of this encounter? The first encounter, the second time you saw Mark Fuhrman best best recollection. KATHLEEN BELL: The I know it's between that year that I worked at Century 21, Bob Maher, and I know that Andrea only came She was at BYU going to school, so she only returned from school during holidays, so I would say that it's within that the holiday times, and I and I really can't be extremely accurate. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. Ms. Bell, without going into anything that was said between you and Andrea, can you tell us a little about her educational schedule during this period of time? KATHLEEN BELL: She would come back for holidays, like, I think, Thanksgiving, mainly Easter and Christmas and then the summer. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. KATHLEEN BELL: And I think it was a long period of time that she was back. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. Are you able to relate this experience where Mr. Fuhrman surprised you with that language, to any period of the year that would help us determine which of her vacations it might have been? KATHLEEN BELL: I I tried to tried to, by the weather, but the weather is all the same in California, and I really think it's more toward the summer time or maybe maybe Easter vacation and then summer vacation because I seem to have been speaking to Andrea quite a bit throughout this period of time and she really wasn't home for any long period of time except for the summer. F. LEE BAILEY: How long had you known Andrea Terry? KATHLEEN BELL: I've known her for many years. She went to my high school and we weren't close friends until a couple of years after high school. F. LEE BAILEY: And Brigham Young University when she was there attending, where is that located? KATHLEEN BELL: In Utah. F. LEE BAILEY: Is she a resident or native of Utah or of California, if you know? KATHLEEN BELL: I believe she was born in California. F. LEE BAILEY: And, as I understand it, you had talked to her several times in this general time frame. KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: And would you talk to her when she was at college, on a regular basis, or only when she was home? KATHLEEN BELL: Not very often at college only when she was home. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Can you tell us how much time transpired between the moment that you first noticed Mark Fuhrman talking to the marines, but did not intervene, until you introduced yourself to him? KATHLEEN BELL: At least a week, probably no more than three weeks. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Did you see Mark Fuhrman again? KATHLEEN BELL: After the second F. LEE BAILEY: After this first encounter. KATHLEEN BELL: After the first encounter, yes. F. LEE BAILEY: I I'm trying to distinguish seeing him KATHLEEN BELL: OK. F. LEE BAILEY: from encountering him where you interact or have a conversation. KATHLEEN BELL: Right. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Now, time number three KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: is the second encounter, is that correct? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: Where you have some talk together? KATHLEEN BELL: I didn't really speak to him. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. KATHLEEN BELL: We kind of exchanged glances. F. LEE BAILEY: Where did you see him on this third occasion? KATHLEEN BELL: At Hennessey's Tavern on Catalina Avenue in Redondo Beach. F. LEE BAILEY: Was this an establishment with which you were familiar? KATHLEEN BELL: Somewhat, yes. F. LEE BAILEY: Had you been there before? KATHLEEN BELL: Oh, yes. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Had you any pre-arrangement, to your knowledge, either you or Andrea Terry, to meet Mark Fuhrman at Hennessey's that day? KATHLEEN BELL: Oh, no. No prior arrangement. F. LEE BAILEY: Are you able to differentiate these meetings as between '85 and '86, you have said that occurred in one year or the other? What would be your best recollection? KATHLEEN BELL: Probably '86. F. LEE BAILEY: In either the spring or summer? KATHLEEN BELL: Probably the summer. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. But, in any event, you saw him in the Marine Corps recruiting station on more than one occasion during this period. KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. Now, tell me the circumstances of your meeting in Hennessey's Tavern. Who were you with? KATHLEEN BELL: I was with Andrea. F. LEE BAILEY: And what was the purpose or occasion for you being with her? Anything special? KATHLEEN BELL: Nope. We just stopped. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. KATHLEEN BELL: No special reason. F. LEE BAILEY: And why did you go to Hennessey's that day? KATHLEEN BELL: Just to It's kind of like a local pub and almost like a ``Cheers'' or something like that and we just wanted to visit with people. F. LEE BAILEY: Can you tell us the time of day? KATHLEEN BELL: I cannot. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. When you arrived at Hennessey's, what did you do? KATHLEEN BELL: We just sat down and we just started talking, and usually there are a lot of people that we grew up with that visit there, and, so, we say hello to those people, and that's it. I remember where we were sitting and all of that. F. LEE BAILEY: Are you familiar with the floor layout at Hennessey's Tavern? KATHLEEN BELL: Mmm-hmm, yes. F. LEE BAILEY: And can you give the Court and jury some brief description of what it looks like as you walk in the door? KATHLEEN BELL: You walk in Hennessey's and there are some there's some tables on the left-hand side and the bar is on the left, and then on the right there are tables, as well. And, then, kind of just one bar going through the middle. And Andrea and I were sitting facing the door. F. LEE BAILEY: Were you in a booth or at a table? KATHLEEN BELL: It's it's it's considered a booth, yeah. F. LEE BAILEY: How many booths are in the bar? KATHLEEN BELL: Oh, I don't know. Probably a good guess would be about 10. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. And, what did you do after you sat down? KATHLEEN BELL: We just were talking. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you order something? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes, we ordered I probably ordered cranberry juice with lime and Andrea probably I don't even I don't even know. We're not real drinkers, but [unintelligible] [crosstalk] F. LEE BAILEY: Did either of you have any alcoholic beverages that day? KATHLEEN BELL: Pardon me? F. LEE BAILEY: Did either of you order or consume any alcohol when you were in the bar? KATHLEEN BELL: I did not. I'm I don't think Andrea did, either. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. And after you had been there for some period of time, did you notice someone you had seen before? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: Who was that? KATHLEEN BELL: Mark Fuhrman. F. LEE BAILEY: Was he with anyone? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes, he was. F. LEE BAILEY: Can you describe the person that he was with? KATHLEEN BELL: Slightly. She It was a woman, and with sandy, blond hair. F. LEE BAILEY: And can you give any further description as to her height and weight and so forth? KATHLEEN BELL: No, I really can't. Probably about five seven. F. LEE BAILEY: How was Mark Fuhrman dressed on that occasion? KATHLEEN BELL: I don't remember. F. LEE BAILEY: How had he been dressed when you talked to him in the marine recruiting station, if you recall? KATHLEEN BELL: I think, at one time, he was wearing sweats and that's all I can remember. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you ever see him wearing a police uniform? KATHLEEN BELL: No. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. How long had you been in Hennessey's when he sat down? KATHLEEN BELL: I don't recall. F. LEE BAILEY: And, when he sat down, what, if anything, did you do or say? KATHLEEN BELL: He and this woman sat down facing us, and so I saw him immediately and it was very uncomfortable, so I told Andrea that that is that man that I told her about, that I, at first, wanted to set her up with, and then I found out what he believed, and then I asked her if we could leave. F. LEE BAILEY: Did he show any signs of recognition while looking in your direction? KATHLEEN BELL: I don't know if he did, at first, but as I left, he did. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. And, in what way did he indicate that he might have seen you before? KATHLEEN BELL: He just gave me kind of a nasty look. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Now, what happened after you said to Andrea that you felt uncomfortable and would like to leave the establishment? KATHLEEN BELL: She said, ``OK,'' and I thought that she was going with me, and she we started walking toward the door They Mark Fuhrman and this woman were sitting, as you walk into Hennessey's and you take your first right, he was sitting at a table to the right, and he was sitting facing us. So, Andrea and I started walking toward the door and when we were walking toward the door, we were walking toward Mark Fuhrman and this woman. And, she started kind of V-ing off toward his table, and I was kind of trying to catch her and telling her, you know, ``Don't. What are you doing?'' you know, and and she kind of had a kind of a grin on her face like she was going to go get his goat or something like that. F. LEE BAILEY: Uh-huh. [affirmative] And did you stay within ear-shot of the two? KATHLEEN BELL: No, I did not. F. LEE BAILEY: What did you do? KATHLEEN BELL: I went to the door. I'm not sure if I waited in my car or waited outside, but I know I left. F. LEE BAILEY: Can you recall hearing any conversation from either Andrea Terry, Mark Fuhrman or the lady that was with him that day? KATHLEEN BELL: I did not hear anything. F. LEE BAILEY: Can you tell us whether or not you saw her sit down as you walked out the door? KATHLEEN BELL: I thought she was standing, facing them, but I I think she was just standing, facing them. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. And, how long was it before she rejoined you, wherever you were? KATHLEEN BELL: I don't think it was any more than 10 minutes probably five to 10 minutes. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. And you stood, either outside the bar or went in got in your automobile? KATHLEEN BELL: Right. F. LEE BAILEY: Is that correct? What kind of automobile were you driving at that time. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection, irrelevant. Judge LANCE ITO: It's irrelevant. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Did you, at any time, have conversation with Mark Fuhrman concerning astrology? KATHLEEN BELL: As embarrassing as it is, yes. When I met him CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: I object that it's nonspecific, irrelevant and non-responsive. Judge LANCE ITO: Did you have a conversation with him? KATHLEEN BELL: Just briefly, yes. Judge LANCE ITO: When was this? KATHLEEN BELL: The second time I met him I found out he was Aquarius. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. When astrology is relevant, what is important to know about a person before looking at their astrological signs? KATHLEEN BELL: I really I don't know. There is this book that I was given by someone to read, and it was talking about how people relate to each other, so I briefly read it and I asked when his birthday was and I remember thinking in my head that he was Aquarius. F. LEE BAILEY: What was his sign? KATHLEEN BELL: Aquarius? F. LEE BAILEY: Aquarius? What birth dates does that cover? What range? KATHLEEN BELL: Oh, boy. Let's see. I'm going to think about this. F. LEE BAILEY: Let me put it a different way. KATHLEEN BELL: It's January F. LEE BAILEY: Is February 5th within the range of Aquarius? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes, it is, yes. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Did you have any talk with Mr. Fuhrman about the significance of his astrological sign, that you can remember? KATHLEEN BELL: Very briefly. I just CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Object, hearsay. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. F. LEE BAILEY: Did that occur before the remarks were made in the marine recruiting station? KATHLEEN BELL: About the black man with the white woman? F. LEE BAILEY: About his birthday? KATHLEEN BELL: I'm sorry. I didn't understand the question. F. LEE BAILEY: I'm trying to place the time that you learned his birth date. KATHLEEN BELL: OK. F. LEE BAILEY: When did that happen? KATHLEEN BELL: It happened when I started talking about my girlfriend, Andrea. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Judge LANCE ITO: This is for the purpose to see if they were compatible? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. Judge LANCE ITO: Next question. [The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.] Live Trial Coverage - CA v. Simpson - Day 142 - Part 3 F. LEE BAILEY, Simpson Attorney: is what she said. Did you have any conversation with her about what had transpired while you stepped out of Hennessey's and she was still inside, at Fuhrman's table? KATHLEEN BELL, Simpson Witness: Yes. I just asked what actually, I didn't really even ask what was said. She just said, ``Oh, God.'' F. LEE BAILEY: Don't tell us what she said. KATHLEEN BELL: All right. F. LEE BAILEY: My only question is, did she tell you something KATHLEEN BELL: Yes she did. F. LEE BAILEY: about the conversation? And what did you two do after that? KATHLEEN BELL: I don't recall; we probably just went home. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you ever see Mark Fuhrman again? KATHLEEN BELL: I saw him driving in his car once, and I saw him on television. F. LEE BAILEY: Now, apart from the television, when you saw him driving in his car, do you have any recollection of what kind of vehicle he was driving? KATHLEEN BELL: I believe it was an International Scout like a utility vehicle, and it was kind of pea green and white. F. LEE BAILEY: All right, do you have any personal knowledge as to whether he owned that vehicle or was simply driving it? KATHLEEN BELL: I don't know, but I saw it in front of the Marine recruiting center, and I saw him driving it later, and I saw it parked in front of Hennessey's, and that prevented Andrea and I from going in, Andrea and me. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you ever personally see Mark Fuhrman again? KATHLEEN BELL: No, I did not. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. Now you have told us that your second seeing of Mark Fuhrman and your first encounter was probably within three weeks of your first noticing him in the station, and you didn't stop? KATHLEEN BELL: Probably. F. LEE BAILEY: Can you relate the Hennessey's bar encounter to the one in the Marine Corps recruiting station, in terms of time? KATHLEEN BELL: Probably, again, in about three weeks or a month. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. And the occasion in which you simply saw him drive by and had no conversation with him, how much after Hennessey's bar might that have occurred? KATHLEEN BELL: I don't know, but again, Andrea was still in town. F. LEE BAILEY: What is the longest you would expect Andrea to be in town if she were on other than a summer vacation from Brigham Young? KATHLEEN BELL: She may have skipped a quarter, and I'm not even sure they're on a quarter system there, but she may have skipped a quarter, and I'm not sure when that was, when that fell. F. LEE BAILEY: How did you learn Mark Fuhrman's name? Did someone tell you the name, or did he tell you? KATHLEEN BELL: When I was introduced to him at the Marine recruiting center, I was introduced to him as Mark. F. LEE BAILEY: And who did the introduction? KATHLEEN BELL: I believe it was Ron Rohr [sp]. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. As a result of the remarks that Mark Fuhrman said to you, on your first encounter, where he talked to you, did you do anything with respect to the LAPD that you can recall? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: What did you do? KATHLEEN BELL: I did what did I do? I called the LAPD, I tried, anyway, and it wasn't 911, but it was I seem to recall Culver or Olympic, and I don't know if that means a street or a district or I don't F. LEE BAILEY: Do you remember how you got the number that you called to place this complaint? KATHLEEN BELL: I called, I think, the operator, or 411. F. LEE BAILEY: And asked for whom, if you can remember? KATHLEEN BELL: I asked for the Los Angeles Police Department in Westwood, because that's where he said that he worked at that time, and I don't think there was a such a thing, and she was saying, ``Well, I can give you Olympic or Culver,'' or something like that. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you get a number and eventually call it? KATHLEEN BELL: I did. F. LEE BAILEY: Do you have any recollection of who you may have spoken with? KATHLEEN BELL: I believe it was a woman, and I hate to be so vague, but I really don't recall. But I truly believe it was a woman. F. LEE BAILEY: And can you recall whether or not Mark Fuhrman's name was used during your conversation with whatever woman you spoke to? KATHLEEN BELL: Well, I said that there's a police officer CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, Deputy District Attorney: Objection. Judge LANCE ITO, Los Angeles Superior Court: Overruled. KATHLEEN BELL: I said that they had a police officer named Mark and I told her that he had a racial problem and that I thought they should know, but I didn't have any other information about him and I was afraid to ask the Marines his last name. F. LEE BAILEY: Why didn't you want to ask the Marines? KATHLEEN BELL: I didn't want to seem like I was trying to get information about him to get him into trouble because I was afraid of them. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you ever follow up on that call or go see anyone? KATHLEEN BELL: No, I did not. F. LEE BAILEY: Were you asked to do anything further by the woman at the other end of the police line? KATHLEEN BELL: No, not at all. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. When was the next time you saw either personally or on television Mark Fuhrman? KATHLEEN BELL: I did see him on television last year. F. LEE BAILEY: All right, was that, perhaps, during the preliminary hearing? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes, it was. F. LEE BAILEY: Might it have been in July of '94? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes, it was. F. LEE BAILEY: And where were you when you noticed Mark Fuhrman on the screen? KATHLEEN BELL: I was at home. F. LEE BAILEY: And what was he doing when you first noticed him? KATHLEEN BELL: He was sitting, as a witness. F. LEE BAILEY: And was he testifying? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes, he was testifying. F. LEE BAILEY: Now, my understanding is that from the time you last saw him driving the pea green International Scout until you saw him on television, you had no direct encouters or indirect encounters with Mark Fuhrman? KATHLEEN BELL: No. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection. Misstates her testimony. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. F. LEE BAILEY: You indicated that you were afraid of him, in a way can you explain why that is so? KATHLEEN BELL: I think that what he said was CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Your Honor Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. F. LEE BAILEY: Can you describe his demeanor when he spoke the words, using the n-word, about the black race? How did his face appear? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: [voices objection] Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. KATHLEEN BELL: He seemed disgusted. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you see any signs whatsoever of jocularity in his face, as if he were pulling your leg with these outrageous remarks? KATHLEEN BELL: No. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Speculation. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. F. LEE BAILEY: All right, when you saw Mark Fuhrman on television, did you recognize him immediately? KATHLEEN BELL: Immediately. F. LEE BAILEY: And how did you recognize him? KATHLEEN BELL: I just I saw him, and it all came back, every bit of it. F. LEE BAILEY: All right, well, you remembering now what about the Mark Fuhrman you had encountered back in '85 or '86? KATHLEEN BELL: I remember what he said. F. LEE BAILEY: All right, but you remember his facial appearance? KATHLEEN BELL: Oh, yes. F. LEE BAILEY: He was a handsome man, you said? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: And his height? KATHLEEN BELL: He was sitting again, when I saw him, but I remember his face. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, excuse me, Counsel and Ms. Bell, if you would, would you allow Mr. Bailey to complete asking you the question before you start to answer, and Mr. Bailey, would you allow her to finish answering before you start the next question? F. LEE BAILEY: Yes. KATHLEEN BELL: I'm sorry. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, thank you. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. What, if anything, did you do after seeing Mr. Fuhrman testifying in the preliminary hearing in the Simpson case? KATHLEEN BELL: I called the news show that I first saw him on, that was the first thing that I did. I wasn't sure what to do, and I just know that I felt afraid, again. I felt that same feeling that I felt in that Marine recruiting center when I saw him on television, and I thought that someone should know, and I didn't know what to do, so I called the news company, and I told some young person on the phone that what they just showed was true there's something about this man that CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: [voices objection] Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. F. LEE BAILEY: Don't tell us what you said, but can you identify the news program and why you called that program? KATHLEEN BELL: It was channel nine, and I called because I saw him. F. LEE BAILEY: Now Ms. Bell, when you say you saw him on the channel, do you mean on the witness stand in court, or being interviewed outside of court? KATHLEEN BELL: On the witness stand, but I'm not certain if there if he was saying anything. I think that the news broadcaster was speaking over the film of him. F. LEE BAILEY: And what did you understand his role was, if any, in the case at that point? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection. Irrelevant. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained F. LEE BAILEY: What caused you to call the news media? Why did you think that was important channel nine? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection asked and answered. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: [voices objection] Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. KATHLEEN BELL: I I just I really didn't know what to do, and I thought that someone should know that it was something something is wrong with this person and something was said and I was vacumming, kind of, and cleaning at the time and I didn't hear exactly what was said, but something about a racial issue and so I thought that people should know that this person has a problem. F. LEE BAILEY: Without going into what was said, did you contact anyone at channel nine? KATHLEEN BELL: Only this young man who answered the phone. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you have a conversation with him? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you ever have any further contact with anyone at channel nine? KATHLEEN BELL: A reporter later on. F. LEE BAILEY: Um-hmm. And where did that occur? KATHLEEN BELL: Much later on I was walking out from my office where I work and he kind of tracked me down in his news van. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Now at some point, did you write a letter to Mr. Cochran? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes, I did. F. LEE BAILEY: And do you know whether or not that letter has been displayed to this jury earlier in the case? KATHLEEN BELL: It has been displayed? F. LEE BAILEY: No, I simply asking you if you know that's true or don't? KATHLEEN BELL: Yeah, I'm not really sure. I don't think so. F. LEE BAILEY: Have you seen the letter recently? KATHLEEN BELL: I just saw it this morning. F. LEE BAILEY: And why did write Mr. Cochran a letter? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection. Irrelevant. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. KATHLEEN BELL: Well, I thought that I didn't want someone to be tried without all the information, and I thought that there might be some reason that they need to know that Mark Fuhrman said these things to me. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. Without saying what was said, were you acting on the advice of anyone, or on your own initiative when you wrote the letter? KATHLEEN BELL: No on my own initiative. F. LEE BAILEY: Now this letter was written at about what date, as you best recall? KATHLEEN BELL: July 18th, I believe, or July 19th. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. Was this after the preliminary hearing was over, to your knowledge? KATHLEEN BELL: I don't know. I hadn't been watching the case; I'd listen to it on the radio on my way home, but I really really wasn't watching it very much. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. As a result of that letter, did someone contact you? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: Can you give us the name of the person that contacted you? KATHLEEN BELL: Mr. Douglas. F. LEE BAILEY: Mr. Carl Douglas? KATHLEEN BELL: Carl Douglas. F. LEE BAILEY: And without going into what was said, did you have some conversation with him? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes, I did. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you thereafter talk with anyone else affliated with the defense of this case? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: OK, and can you name that person? KATHLEEN BELL: OK, I spoke with a Pat McKenna, but before that, I spoke with a Nan excuse me, I don't remember his name. F. LEE BAILEY: Would it have been Pavelic? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes, Mr. Pavelic. F. LEE BAILEY: William Pavelic? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Did you speak at length with either of these two defense investigators? KATHLEEN BELL: Not Mr. Pavelic I spoke to quite a bit. F. LEE BAILEY: OK, and did you tell him, essentially, what was in the contents of your letter? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes, I did. F. LEE BAILEY: All right, now, can you tell us who this gentleman is, right here? KATHLEEN BELL: That is my family's attorney and my attorney. F. LEE BAILEY: He's represented your family for some years now? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Irrelevant. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. Judge LANCE ITO: And just for the record, do you want to identify? Counsel? F. LEE BAILEY: I'm sorry. He was indentified out of the presence of the jury. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Mr. Taylor Daigneault, who practices in Redondo Beach. Judge LANCE ITO: Thank you, Counsel. F. LEE BAILEY: At some point, did you contact Mr. Daigneault, without going into anything that was said? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: Can you relate us in time to when that first occurred with respect to Mark Fuhrman? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection this is irrelevant. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. KATHLEEN BELL: With respect to seeing him on television? F. LEE BAILEY: With respect to your whole involvement in letting the defense know what he had done years before when did you seek the advice of Mr. Daigneault on this point? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes probably gosh, let's see. I don't know when the reporters started finding me, but there is after the channel nine reporter found me, that's when I contacted him, and I don't know what that time frame was. Probably a month later or three weeks later? F. LEE BAILEY: Um-hmm, all right. Now at any time, did you contact anyone affliated with law enforcement with this information, or attempt to contact? KATHLEEN BELL: After the you mean, since I saw him? F. LEE BAILEY: Yes. KATHLEEN BELL: I sent my same letter, I faxed my same letter, to the district to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you get a response from anyone in the LA District Attorney's office after you faxed a copy of the letter to Mr. Cochran? KATHLEEN BELL: No, I did not. F. LEE BAILEY: Have you ever talked to anyone from that office? KATHLEEN BELL: No, I haven't. F. LEE BAILEY: Have you ever talked to myself, prior to this morning? KATHLEEN BELL: No, I have not. F. LEE BAILEY: Or any other lawyer at the defense table or affliated with the defense, to your knowledge, other than the one call from Mr. Douglas? KATHLEEN BELL: No. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Have you been interviewed by either side that is to say, lawyers for either side? KATHLEEN BELL: No. F. LEE BAILEY: Have you ever heard from anyone connected with law enforcement since you sent that letter out? KATHLEEN BELL: No. F. LEE BAILEY: Now, did you follow the proceedings in this case at all, this trial? KATHLEEN BELL: Since I saw Mark Fuhrman, I did. I was a little bit more interested, so I started following it. F. LEE BAILEY: And do you recall a time when he testified, when your name was brought into the trial? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: Do you recall things that were said about you by prosecution at that time? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection. Irrelevant. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. For the record, Your Honor, Exhibit 102 have been previously shown to the jury in enlarged form during Mr. Fuhrman's testimony. Your Honor, I'd like to bring it up again now, and Ms. Bell, it will appear on a little television set down to your right, and also up on that big screen, but I think you'll be able to read it better. Now I'd like to go through it with you and ask you whether or not you recollect this as being a letter that you orginated. First, did you have any help in drafting this letter? KATHLEEN BELL: No, I did not. F. LEE BAILEY: All right now, how did you know that Mr. Cochran would be a good person to write to in connection with the information that you had? KATHLEEN BELL: I called the information operator and I tried to get Mr. Shapiro's phone number, and he just kind of laughed and said, ``Well, you can't get that phone number.'' F. LEE BAILEY: The operator said you can't get Shapiro's phone number? KATHLEEN BELL: Right. F. LEE BAILEY: I see, OK. So what did you do next? KATHLEEN BELL: On that same news broadcast, they had mentioned an attorney named Johnnie Cochran, and I didn't know even if he was in California or not, so I just thought I'd try, and I did get that phone number, and he had an answering service, and I asked for the fax number. F. LEE BAILEY: OK, and did you get it? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes, I did. F. LEE BAILEY: And when you composed this letter, can you tell us mechanically how you did it? Was it hand-written, typed, or computer or what? KATHLEEN BELL: No, I just went on a computer. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you type it yourself? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: And print it out? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: All right, now would you look at the first paragraph down to your right? You mention that you were writing in regards to a story you saw on the news last night and you've previously told us that you think this letter was sent out on July 18th, when you got Mr. Cochran's fax number, is that right? KATHLEEN BELL: I think I actually wrote the letter on July 18th or 19th and then I ended up staying up so late that it ended up being the 20th that I actually faxed it. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Well, can you help us with what date that is meant by ``last night'' in the first paragraph, first sentence of that letter? [The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.] Live Trial Coverage - CA v. Simpson - Day 142 - Part 4 F. LEE BAILEY, Simpson Attorney: [in progress] Well, can you help us with what date is meant by ``last night'' in the first paragraph, first sentence of that letter. KATHLEEN BELL, Defense Witness: I have this at home, I'm sorry. I I believe it was the 19th that I started writing it, and that where I saw the news broadcast the 19th, and the 20th is when I actually sent it. F. LEE BAILEY: Do you have any recollection, Ms. Bell, as to what news program you were watching that you're referring to in that first sentence. KATHLEEN BELL: Channel nine news. F. LEE BAILEY: Is that a station that you generally watch? KATHLEEN BELL: I was yes, I guess. Sure. F. LEE BAILEY: Next, then, it says ``I thought it ridiculous that the Simpson defense team would even suggest that there might be a racial motivation involved in the trial against Mr. Simpson. Now, without going into the text of what you had heard before, had you heard such a claim advanced by somebody? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, Deputy District Attorney: Irrelevant and hearsay. Judge LANCE ITO, Los Angeles Superior Court: Overruled. F. LEE BAILEY: In the next sentence you say ``I then glanced up at the television and was quite shocked to see that Officer Fuhrman was a man that I had the misfortune of meeting.'' When you glanced up at the television, as you've describe in that sentence, did you recognize Mr. Fuhrman immediately? KATHLEEN BELL: Immediately. F. LEE BAILEY: Had anyone in your entire life, on a first greeting, ever treated you the way that you were treated by him in that Marine recruiting station? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection, irrelevant. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. KATHLEEN BELL: Never. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. You say you may have received a message from your answering service ``last night that I called to say that Mr. Fuhrman may be more of a racist than you can even imagine.'' Had you left a message on an answering service the night before that you believe to be that of Mr. Cochran? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: And did the answering message contain generally the information that's in that sentence? Did it use the word ``racist?'' KATHLEEN BELL: I don't know if I said anything. Actually, I do know that I said something. I don't know exactly what it was. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. In other words, you're not sure that you told the answering machine what's in that letter about Mr. Fuhrman, simply that you called to make contact, is that right? KATHLEEN BELL: It was an answering service. F. LEE BAILEY: Service? KATHLEEN BELL: Right, and I F. LEE BAILEY: And the one that gave you KATHLEEN BELL: spoke to the woman right, I spoke to the woman and I F. LEE BAILEY: You don't recall if you told the woman the text of your KATHLEEN BELL: Right. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Now, you said ``Between 1985 and 1986 I worked as a real estate agent.'' Do you mean by that during '85 and '86? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: And was the company out of business at the time you wrote this letter as you have said? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. And you have told us, I believe, that your office, Century 21, was in fact located above the Marine recruiting center off of the Pacific Coast Highway, that's correct? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: And you would stop on occasion to say hello to the two Marines working there you've identified as Mr. Foss [sp] and Mr. Rora [sp], right? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: By the way, were they generally in uniform when you saw them? KATHLEEN BELL: They were always in uniform. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. KATHLEEN BELL: Oh, excuse me, except for once, or twice. I saw Jeff Foss. We went jogging. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. ``I saw Mr. Fuhrman there a couple of times because I remember him distinctly because of his height and build.'' Now, is that the height and build you told us you noted because you were concerned with fixing up your friend Andrea Terry with someone of equal or greater stature? KATHLEEN BELL: [laughs] Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Next page, please. When you saw Mr. Fuhrman at the recruiting station on the first two occasions, was he wearing any of the accoutrements of a policeman, like a a weapon or that sort of thing that you saw? KATHLEEN BELL: I didn't notice anything. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. You say that ``while speaking to the men, I learned that Mr. Fuhrman was a police officer in Westwood, and I don't know if he was telling the truth but he said that he had been in a special division of Marines.'' KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: Now, I'd like to stop there for a moment, and see if we can sort this out. KATHLEEN BELL: Umm-hmm. F. LEE BAILEY: You saw Mr. Fuhrman through the window, tapped on the window and walked on on the first occasion. KATHLEEN BELL: Umm-hmm. F. LEE BAILEY: You noted that he was tall and a good-looking man. You then spoke with the Marines when Mr. Fuhrman was not present about the propriety of introducing yourself? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: And subsequently you did introduce yourself to be greeted by his views that you've described, is that correct? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. What I want to know is whether or not the information about his having been in a special division of the Marines came from the two Marines or one of them or came from Fuhrman himself. KATHLEEN BELL: I believe it came from one of the Marines. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. In other words, they related this to you before you ever talked to him? KATHLEEN BELL: I believe so. F. LEE BAILEY: To your best recollection. KATHLEEN BELL: Right. After the first time that I met him that I saw him, I spoke to them, and at that time we talked about it a little bit. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Did you inquire of them as to any other information relating to Mr. Fuhrman, his marital status, what he did, etc. KATHLEEN BELL: Not his marital status. I I just said that I was uncomfortable walking in while he was there, and they said that he was a former Marine. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: It's all hearsay. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. KATHLEEN BELL: That he was a former Marine that just liked to come and shoot the breeze, so it was fine that I could walk in. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. All right, at that point, you say ``I don't know how the subject was raised, but Officer Fuhrman said that when he sees an `n-,'' as he called it, ``driving with a white woman he would pull them over.'' Now, there's no mention of Marcus Allen there. Do you now remember that his name was mentioned before this KATHLEEN BELL: Yes, I do. F. LEE BAILEY: response? OK. KATHLEEN BELL: And I also, excuse me, remember that he didn't say CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection. [inaudible] KATHLEEN BELL: the ``n-word'' F. LEE BAILEY: OK. KATHLEEN BELL: at first. Judge LANCE ITO: Hold on. Next question. F. LEE BAILEY: You say ``I asked if he didn't have a reason, and he said that he would find one.'' KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you did you mean by that a reason to pull them over? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Yeah. A moment ago, you wanted to explain something to us that you had just recalled. Would you tell us what that was? KATHLEEN BELL: The when in this mess in this letter, I wrote this in a very big hurry, and I didn't think that there would be such such a need to recall exactly what had happened in detail. So there was a mistake there. And the first he did not say the ``n-word'' when he said ``If I saw a black man with a white woman driving in a car I would pull them over.'' He definitely said ``a black man.'' F. LEE BAILEY: OK. And did he use that word later when he talked about burning everybody? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes, he did. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Was that that he is black or the word beginning with ``n''? KATHLEEN BELL: The ``n-word.'' F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Now, there is no mention in this paragraph about the query ``supposing they're in love.'' KATHLEEN BELL: Right. F. LEE BAILEY: You left that out of your letter. KATHLEEN BELL: Right. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. Have you gone over this encounter in your mind since the time you wrote this letter? KATHLEEN BELL: Many, many times. F. LEE BAILEY: Have you discussed it without saying what was said with a number of people? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: Do you have, as you sit there today, a clear recollection of the words uttered by Mark Fuhrman as you have described them in your testimony? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes, I do. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. All right, if we can pull up the next paragraph, Mr. Douglas? If you would just read that first sentence and ask you whether or not you distinctly recall him using those words. KATHLEEN BELL: ``Officer Fuhrman went on to say that he `would like nothing more than to see all niggers gathered together and killed.' He said something about the burning, excuse me, about burning them or bombing them. I was too shaken to remember the exact words he used. However, I do not remember that what he'' wait. I'm sorry. [laughs] ``I do remember that what he said was probably the most horrible thing I had ever heard someone say. What frightened me even more was that he was a police officer.'' F. LEE BAILEY: Now, Ms. Bell, is all that true? Everything that you wrote there? KATHLEEN BELL: I know now that he said ``gathered together and burned.'' F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Next paragraph, please. All right, you have said in your letter that you're almost sure you called the LAPD. What is your present recollection as to whether you did? KATHLEEN BELL: I am positive I did. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. And in the last full paragraph of information, you say that ``Now that you know that Mr. Fuhrman was the investigating officer,'' are you relating that to the Simpson investigation? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes, I am. F. LEE BAILEY: And that information came to you because you saw him on television? KATHLEEN BELL: Right. F. LEE BAILEY: You said ``I'm certainly not a fan of Mr. Simpson, but I would hate to see anyone harmed by Officer Fuhrman's extreme hatred.'' Now, were you writing this letter or bringing this information forward in an effort to help O.J. Simpson in any way? KATHLEEN BELL: No, I was not. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. And did you invite the recipient, Mr. Cochran, to contact you for further information as it says there? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. [pause] In one more effort to try and pin down the timeframe, is it true that you began to work for Mr. Moran [sp] in the fall of '85, early fall September-ish? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. And how long did this job last? KATHLEEN BELL: I think it was October, I'm sorry. I think it was October. F. LEE BAILEY: October of '85? KATHLEEN BELL: Right. F. LEE BAILEY: And when did you last work for him? KATHLEEN BELL: Probably October of '86. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. So that if there were a spring or summer series of encounters it would have to be in 1986? Is that correct? KATHLEEN BELL: I I think it would be '86, yes. F. LEE BAILEY: Did didn't work there in the spring or summer KATHLEEN BELL: Right. F. LEE BAILEY: of '85 or '87 KATHLEEN BELL: Right. F. LEE BAILEY: did you? KATHLEEN BELL: Right. F. LEE BAILEY: OK, now, with respect to time, when you faxed the letter we have just reviewed, to Mr. Cochran's office, how soon thereafter did you fax that same letter to the district attorney? KATHLEEN BELL: The next day. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. Thank you very much. Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Darden? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Ms. Bell, did you fax the same letter to Chief Willie Williams? F. LEE BAILEY: I'm sorry? KATHLEEN BELL: No, I did not. Judge LANCE ITO: Did he fax the letter to Chief Williams? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: I take it that you understand that this word, this epithet is the most vile word in the English language. KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: You'd agree with that, wouldn't you? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And when you heard Detective Fuhrman use this word, you were offended. KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: You were hurt by it? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And you were frightened of him because of his use of this word? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: You were horrified, I think you testified earlier. KATHLEEN BELL: Excuse me, not just because of the use of the word but because of what he said. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And you felt KATHLEEN BELL: Along with it. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: I'm sorry, did you finish? KATHLEEN BELL: Along with it. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: OK. And you felt that the fact that this encounter ought to be made known to the defense attorneys and and also to the D.A.'s office, is that right? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: When you heard Detective Fuhrman use these words, you cried, or did you cry? KATHLEEN BELL: Somewhat. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Somewhat? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes, I was teary-eyed. He could see that I was upset. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And you immediately left the recruiting office. KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And despite the horror and the trauma Detective Fuhrman's use of this word caused, isn't it true that you still introduced Andrea Terry to to Mark Fuhrman? KATHLEEN BELL: I did not. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Is she in the building today? KATHLEEN BELL: I heard that she was. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Do you expect that she's going to be testifying later? F. LEE BAILEY: I object. It's not today's witness. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Detective Fuhrman did use this word, didn't he? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes, he did. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Now, when you and Andrea Terry saw Detective Fuhrman in Hennessey's [sp] Bar, did you say to Andrea Terry that Detective Fuhrman would be a good person for her to date? KATHLEEN BELL: No. I believe I spoke with Andrea about that after the first time I saw him at the Marine recruiting center, before Hennessey's and before the second time I saw him at the Marine recruiting center. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And did you introduce Andrea Terry to Detective Fuhrman? KATHLEEN BELL: No, I did not. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And did you sit at a table with Andrea Terry and Detective Fuhrman and the other woman you described? KATHLEEN BELL: I would never do that. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: I'm sorry? KATHLEEN BELL: No. No, I did not. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: OK. Now, you didn't want to come here and testify, is that right? KATHLEEN BELL: No. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: OK, you did want to testify? KATHLEEN BELL: I did not want to testify. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: You didn't want to help the defendant in this case? KATHLEEN BELL: No, I did not. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: OK. And that's because you think he JOHNNIE COCHRAN, Simpson Attorney: Your Honor, may we approach? Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. No. Counsel, I understand Mr. Bailey's handling this witness. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Yes, he is. Judge LANCE ITO: And he's able to do that admirably. Sustained. Move on. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: I want to make certain that you that you have given us a full account, as best you can, as to what what happened between you and Detective Fuhrman, ma'am. Have you? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: OK. And everything you've said this morning before this jury is true. KATHLEEN BELL: Yes, it is. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: OK. Now, I believe you told Mr. Bailey that you haven't strike that. Did you tell Mr. Bailey that you haven't used the ``n-word'' yourself before? F. LEE BAILEY: I object. KATHLEEN BELL: I Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. KATHLEEN BELL: I've never used that to describe another person. I've used it several times many, many times lately in referring to Mark Fuhrman's conservation. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: OK. Well, other than your references to Mark Fuhrman's conversations, have you ever used that word yourself? KATHLEEN BELL: I've never used that word to describe someone, no. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Not once in your whole life. KATHLEEN BELL: Not once in my whole life. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Not one time in the last 10 years, that is other than in reference to Detective Fuhrman's conversations. F. LEE BAILEY: Object [unintelligible] for an offer of proof. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. It's irrelevant. It's a collateral issue. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: [laughter] You testified also that no one from the D.A.'s office interviewed you, is that right? KATHLEEN BELL: This is true. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: But there were attempts by members of the D.A.'s office to interview you, is that right? KATHLEEN BELL: I there was my attorney was arranging something, but he wanted a court reporter to be there. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: OK. At any event KATHLEEN BELL: That's all I remember. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Any event, the D.A.'s office did attempt to interview you, is that right? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: OK. Thank you very much. Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Bailey? F. LEE BAILEY: Ms. Bell, what was the information you were trying to give us about the condition that your attorney imposed on an interview relating to a court reporter? What did he ask, if you know? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: It's hearsay, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. Rephrase the question. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Was there a request that a court reporter be present if you were interviewed by the prosecution? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Same objection. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. Answer will stand. KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: The answer is yes, there was? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes, sir. F. LEE BAILEY: And you learned of that through Mr. Daniel [sp]? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. And what was the response, as you understand it, from the district attorney's office that a court reporter be present to take down what was said? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Did the interview ever take place? KATHLEEN BELL: No, it did not. F. LEE BAILEY: Have you always been willing to submit to an interview provided a court reporter could be present to take down what was said? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: Thank you. Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Darden? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: You did give interviews to Larry King and Dateline NBC, is that correct? KATHLEEN BELL: Yes, I did. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: There was no court reporter there, right? KATHLEEN BELL: But the proof was there. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Are you aware that we we in the D.A.'s office tape-record almost every interview we do? F. LEE BAILEY: Objection, irrelevant. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. KATHLEEN BELL: I wasn't aware of that, no. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Are you aware that the D.A.'s office offered to provide a stenographer during any interview that you might have had with us. COUNSEL: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I can't hear the question. Judge LANCE ITO: Would you keep your voice up, Mr. Darden? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Are you aware F. LEE BAILEY: [inaudible] Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Are you aware that the D.A.'s office offered to provide a stenographer to be present during any conversation that you might have had with us? KATHLEEN BELL: I'm not aware of that, no. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: OK. You never had a conversation with Ms. Lewis? KATHLEEN BELL: No, I did not. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: OK, but your lawyer did. KATHLEEN BELL: Oh, yes, he did. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Thank you very much. F. LEE BAILEY: Thank you very much. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, Ms. Bell, thank you very much. KATHLEEN BELL: All right. Judge LANCE ITO: You're excused. KATHLEEN BELL: Thank you. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, next witness. F. LEE BAILEY: The last one, 402. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, ladies and gentlemen, as far as the jury's concerned we're going to take our recess just a little bit early. Please remember all my admonitions to you. And we'll probably call you back in about 20 minutes. All right? RIKKI KLIEMAN, Anchor: A moment that many people have been waiting for, all the way back to the time of opening statements and for those of you who have followed the case even long before that. Kathleen Bell has been a name that has surfaced quite early. She's been a person that the defense wanted to call to impeach Mark Fuhrman directly. And we're going to take a commercial break, and we won't when we come back, we're going to talk about her testimony versus the testimony of the detective in the prosecution's case in chief. Stay with us. [The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.] Live Trial Coverage - CA v. Simpson - Day 142 - Part 5 F. LEE BAILEY, Simpson Attorney: [in progress] was Fuhrman's partner. RIKKI KLIEMAN, Anchor: The Court had declared a recess, but the lawyers have continued to argue. We're going back in F. Lee Bailey talking about Ms. Singer. F. LEE BAILEY: [in progress] a few weeks later was present in the living room of the two-bedroom apartment where she was, at that time, sleeping because there were four girls in the two-bedroom apartment and Mr. Fuhrman entered with Mr. Vitrano [sp] who was courting Ms. Hennick [sp]. Judge LANCE ITO, Los Angeles Superior Court: Do we have a time frame for this? Refresh my recollection. F. LEE BAILEY: Yes, Your Honor, she was in the hospital September 24th, 1987, and within about three weeks thereafter, she has no means of ascertaining the exact date these two men came into the apartment Vitrano, to visit Ms. Hennick, Fuhrman tagging along. During that conversation, Officer Fuhrman gratuitously offered the fact, upon being asked what he did, that he and Vitrano were assigned to gangs, and that, as part of his business, he would take ``N'' word people into an alley and he would hit them with a stick or baton she's not sure which word he used. And then he would kick them until he could see them twitch, and that relieved his tensions, and he smiled as he said it. The evidence will be that he came when she was at home. She knows he came a number of times when she wasn't at home, but when she was at home, three or four more times, and when Officer Fuhrman came in, she would leave the room so as not to be present when language of the kind she'd heard on her very first encounter, was uttered. After about the fourth occasion, and probably late in 1987, she was in the bathroom looking out the window of this second-floor apartment when she saw a car pull up and Officer Vitrano pull up get out of the car with Officer Fuhrman, and they started up the walkway. And she said, out the window, ``Hello, Tom,'' and she saw Fuhrman with an angry face say something to Vitrano. The part that she could hear was, ``that fucking bitch,'' at which point she said, ``That man is not coming in this house anymore. Tom, you can come in if you like.'' Mr. Vitrano then came in and left, she believes, with Ms. Hennick. She never saw Mr. Fuhrman in her apartment again. That's what she will testify to. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. Mr. Darden? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, Deputy District Attorney: Well, the Court has already ruled that these comments, as they relate to excessive force, are highly inflammatory and prejudicial. Now, I am not interested in hiding the ball. If the Court feels that use that Detective Fuhrman's use of the ``N'' word is somehow relevant, but in the context the context provided to us today, finally, by Mr. what's his last name? [audio interruption in the courtroom] CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: By Mr. Bailey, Your Honor. [laughter] [inaudible comments in courtroom] CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Well, you know, when they throw those epithets around, Judge, I just go blank, but, given the context in which the word was used in this case, I think it's highly inflammatory and prejudicial. If they want to call Ms. Singer in to say that he used the uttered the epithet in a derogatory manner, in a disparaging manner [audio interruption in courtroom] CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: 1987, or three weeks after September 17, 1987, I will not object at this point. However, these are horrible, horrible things that Ms. Singer will will testify were said by Detective Fuhrman, and I think we It takes us to another level, a higher level of emotionalism, and I think the Court should exercise its discretion under 352 and limit Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Bailey? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: In in addition, I would say this. If Ms. if Ms. if Ms. McKinny is also going to testify to 42 or 41 uses of the word, I mean, I I think we are at the point where this is cumulative. Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Bailey? F. LEE BAILEY: If it please the Court, when the prosecution thought it could get away with trashing Ms. Bell and calling her a liar as they did in this court, they thought it a smart tactic to introduce into evidence 102, in which genocide is mentioned, a somewhat more inflammatory event than merely beating someone up until he twitched, but presumably leaving him alive. Suddenly, they have a queasy stomach because the tables have turned and they're in no position to start calling these people liars because the consequences are fairly obvious. The tapes are corroborative, and could, then, be admitted. I do not believe the fact that their strategy has backfired, the fact that an officer they have long known, according to Commander Ball [sp] of the police department, since 1978, was a big problem because of his attitude, was put on this witness stand and vouched for, is any basis for them to come whining in here with an estoppel. Mr. Fuhrman chose those words. He chose, on this occasion, as he did before, to visit them on a total stranger in a first encounter. It says a great deal about who he is and how much he is to be trusted, and to withhold this information from the jury because they can't live with it, I think, is pushing the envelope a long way out. They thought the jury could hear about ``burn or bomb them all.'' Now, they think kicking is too bad because they realize that Fuhrman is lying in his teeth and these people are telling the truth, and they're stuck with it. That wasn't a legal argument he gave. That's tucking your tail between your legs in trying to get out of here, and in court, you are not to permit it. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: You you know, I'm going to I'm going to save the heated remarks that I have for Mr. Bailey for another day and another time when it's just Mr. Bailey and I, when we can talk this over. You know, we have a right, under the law, to ask the Court to exercise its discretion under 352, and, by the way, Mr. Bailey, we didn't call Kathleen Bell a liar, and the letter was introduced because His Honor Judge LANCE ITO: Excuse me, why don't you why don't you address your remarks to me, please? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: OK. The letter was introduced because His Honor ruled the letter relevant. OK. We take the evidence as it comes, we deal with it, OK? We're not running with our tails tucked between our legs, Mr. Bailey, and I would ask the Court or, I would say to the Court so that Mr. Bailey can hear and understand, that I live with this every day, Mr. Bailey. I understand what the word means. I can't run away from it, and I certainly can't run away from it in this courtroom when it is thrown about in the careless manner that it is by Mr. Bailey. At any event, 352 is in the evidence code for a reason and it has been there many years. This is not the trial of People versus Fuhrman not yet. And when it is the time for Mr. Fuhrman's prosecution, if there is one, then they can deal with that issue. But, this is the case of People versus Simpson, and I ask the Court to limit Ms. Singer's testimony. F. LEE BAILEY: Your Honor, it's a case of a leading witness for the prosecution a badge-carrying detective who provided probable cause for a search and found evidence which purports to point to this defendant, very severely lying to the Court and lying to the jury. And I think, within limits, and certainly there is a point at which you might find it cumulative, unless they're willing to step up to the bar and say, ``Ladies and gentlemen, we made a mistake. This guy's a perjurer, and we're stuck with it and we admit it'' until that happens I think we're entitled to provide from at least two or three different sources, from people who don't know each other, from people who made their statements before these tapes ever emerged and they knew they'd be corroborated, from people who have been publicly called liars by this prosecution team in this Court in argument, I think the jury's entitled to have a sampling of the consistency of this man's conduct. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: You know what they say, Judge. You know, ``he without sin, cast the first stone,'' and I don't think anybody here is going to be throwing the first stone. It's it's highly inflammatory and prejudicial, Judge. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, thank you, Counsel. I will allow the testimony of Ms. Singer as it relates to 1987, the acquaintanceship with Detective or Officer Vitrano. You can lay the foundation that that officer was Mr. Fuhrman's partner at the time, the fact that he was working gangs with Mr. Vitrano and that he used the ``N'' word in a vile and disparaging manner as to African-Americans. I am going to limit and not receive the testimony regarding beating of suspects. There is no allegation that that occurred in this case, it's not relevant to this case. I find it highly inflammatory and I'll exercise my discretion to keep that out. F. LEE BAILEY: May we introduce the fact that his derogatory reference to people of the ilk of the ``N'' word, relieved his tensions? Judge LANCE ITO: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. May I have a moment to acquaint the witness with the limitations of Your Honor's ruling? Judge LANCE ITO: Absolutely. F. LEE BAILEY: And, with respect to the encounter where he's entering the house and calls her an epithet may she testify to that? Judge LANCE ITO: I think it's her her and his reaction to each other, based upon these discussions, so I would say, yes. F. LEE BAILEY: You would say? Judge LANCE ITO: I would say yes. F. LEE BAILEY: Thank you. May I have just a moment? Judge LANCE ITO: It places their relationship in context. F. LEE BAILEY: Yes. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. All right, we'll take 15. RIKKI KLIEMAN: We've just heard Judge Ito issue a ruling on the next defense witness, Natalie Singer. He is going to permit her to testify about Mark Fuhrman's use of the ``N'' word and about the context of their relationship. She will not be able to testify about Detective Fuhrman talking about use of beating or excessive force. So, this could be considered a victory, though a little bit not a hundred percent, but still a victory for the defense, of getting this language before the jury. We're going to talk about that and other things in a moment. We're going to take a commercial break. Stay with us. [commercial break] [The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.] Live Trial Coverage - CA v. Simpson - Day 142 - Part 6 COURT OFFICIAL: Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you give [unintelligible] before this court will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so you help you God? NATALIE SINGER, Defense Witness: I do. COURT OFFICIAL: Please have a seat in the witness stand, and state and spell your first and last names for the record. NATALIE SINGER: Natalie, N-a-t-a-l-i-e. Singer, S-i-n-g-e-r. Judge LANCE ITO, Los Angeles Superior Court: All right, Ms. Singer, why don't you just sit back, pull the microphone close to you, please. Mr. Bailey? F. LEE BAILEY, Simpson Attorney: And if you will, Ms. Singer, keep your voice up so that we can all hear. Where do you presently reside, without giving us a street address? NATALIE SINGER: [whispering aside] Water. F. LEE BAILEY: Yes, may we have a glass of water. Judge LANCE ITO: It's coming. F. LEE BAILEY: Here it comes. NATALIE SINGER: [in whispering voice] I'm nervous. Judge LANCE ITO: We're way ahead of you. Proceed. F. LEE BAILEY: Yes, Your Honor. I think she'd like a sip. NATALIE SINGER: [in a stronger voice] I'm nervous. Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Bailey? NATALIE SINGER: Sorry. Judge LANCE ITO: It's all right. F. LEE BAILEY: In what area do you presently reside? NATALIE SINGER: Nashville, Tennessee. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. On September 24, 1987, where did you reside? NATALIE SINGER: In Beverly Hills adjacent area, in Los Angeles. F. LEE BAILEY: In an apartment? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. Did you have roommates? NATALIE SINGER: Yes, I had three. F. LEE BAILEY: Now, how long had you been in Los Angeles, as of September 24, 1987? NATALIE SINGER: Nine days. F. LEE BAILEY: And how long had you known the roommates with whom you were residing on that date? NATALIE SINGER: Well, two of them I'd known for years, six or seven years. There was because it was a two-bedroom apartment, there was a spare bedroom. And they rented that out to another girl whom I didn't know until I arrived and met her. F. LEE BAILEY: What was her name? NATALIE SINGER: Karel Hannak. F. LEE BAILEY: Can you spell that? NATALIE SINGER: K-a-r-e-l H-a-n-n-a-k. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. What kind of business were you in at the time you moved to Los Angeles? NATALIE SINGER: Well, I had been previously working in and around the film industry. I'd been personal assistant to Christopher Reeve for a few years, and F. LEE BAILEY: Is that the same Christopher Reeve that was just injured in a horse riding accident? NATALIE SINGER: Yes, yes. F. LEE BAILEY: All right, continue. NATALIE SINGER: And I had done script analysis, and I was doing research on a book. It's project-to-project work I don't have. F. LEE BAILEY: Had you worked for any producers of television. NATALIE SINGER: I well, this was in New York. When I came out here, I was supposed to work at Tri-Star Pictures, hopefully as in script analysis, and then the writers' strike happened, like, five seconds after I stepped off the plane. So, that job went out the window. And, so, eventually, it was a bit of time, because I found a good agency and I worked in different places in the film industry and settled on Aaron Spelling, the Aaron Spelling company, with Doug Kramer [sp], who was a producer there, for about two-and-a-half years, even though that was a temp job. But I stayed on for that long. F. LEE BAILEY: Are you still in the same line of work entertainment, so to speak? NATALIE SINGER: Um, well, I'm currently in pre-production as the creative director and producer of a series of women's titles for CD-ROM a series of CD-ROM titles. My partner's presently finishing another title, so, I'm just doing the story boarding. F. LEE BAILEY: Let me draw your attention to September 24, 1987, nine days after you had moved to Los Angeles, and ask you if something extraordinary happened to you personally that day that you remember. NATALIE SINGER: The kidney stone extraordinary? Yeah. Well, I woke up the night before I was having pains in my lower back, and that morning, which is very unusual usually, there's at least one or two roommates home no one was home. And, I don't if you've ever had a kidney stone, but it's like having birth, giving birth, and so I was rushed to the hospital. And they kept me in the emergency room in the hospital on intravenous Demerol for a while, and they were hoping it would pass. And that's what happened, I was in the hospital for hours. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. Did the kidney stone pass sometime during the day of your admission? NATALIE SINGER: During the evening it finally did. F. LEE BAILEY: Was it necessary that you be kept overnight? NATALIE SINGER: No. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. NATALIE SINGER: No. F. LEE BAILEY: Was one of your roommates present in the hospital while you were admitted there for treatment? NATALIE SINGER: Actually, more than one. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. NATALIE SINGER: Karel, who I'd only known several days, but she's it was very sweet of her; she came to the hospital and sat in the emergency room with another one of my roommates that found out I was over there. She stayed the whole time. And then, the third roommate well, she popped in just to see if I was OK, and then left. So, they Karel and the other roommate stayed almost the entire time when Karel got off work. F. LEE BAILEY: During the day, was Karel at any time in the emergency room, to your knowledge? Karel Hannak? NATALIE SINGER: Well, I was being kept in the emergency room, and the waiting room where people sat to wait about news about people in the emergency room was very close, because as high as I was from the Demerol, I could hear their bracelets. You know, you get kind of I could hear their bracelets the whole time clanking together. So, yes, Karel was there. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. Did you see any police officers that day? NATALIE SINGER: I didn't. I wasn't seeing anything except F. LEE BAILEY: Without going into anything that she said, did you learn anything from Ms. Hannak later with reference to police officers? NATALIE SINGER: Well, I actually learned when I started to come out from under the Demerol, my other roommate came in and, well F. LEE BAILEY: Don't tell us what anybody said. NATALIE SINGER: Yeah, well, no, it's just very per I don't have to go into that. But anyway, she mentioned oh, I can't say what she said. F. LEE BAILEY: No, you can't. NATALIE SINGER: OK. Well, I, I, I became aware that Karel had met two police officers that had come in for other business in the hospital at that point. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you go home that night? NATALIE SINGER: Yes, I did, at approximately 8:00, between 8:00 and 8:30. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you subsequently meet two policemen in your home that were referred to as people that were in the hospital the day you were there? NATALIE SINGER: That's right, yes. F. LEE BAILEY: Can you tell us about how long it was after your encounter in the hospital before these policemen came to your home? NATALIE SINGER: This is an approximate, but I would say about three to four weeks. F. LEE BAILEY: And can you tell me NATALIE SINGER: I'd been hearing about them, but I hadn't yet met them. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. Now, did you know the names of these people by that time? NATALIE SINGER: I knew especially Tom, who was Mark it was Mark Fuhrman and Tom, whose name I still keep forgetting. But it's Tom Katrano or Katrello or F. LEE BAILEY: Gatraino. NATALIE SINGER: That's right. F. LEE BAILEY: Or Vitriano, or something of that NATALIE SINGER: Yeah. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. NATALIE SINGER: And because Karel and he were getting into this, you know, oh, he's cute and, you know, were getting to know one another. And so, I was hearing a lot about that. And then I met them when they came up. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. Now, without getting too personal, can you tell us, basically, within this two-bedroom apartment, who slept where? How were the rooms allocated? NATALIE SINGER: Well, the two roommates whose names I haven't mentioned that I knew from New York shared a room, and Karel and I shared a room. F. LEE BAILEY: OK, but prior to the time you moved into Karel's room NATALIE SINGER: Oh, well, I was actually in the living room to start with, but because everybody was you know, in the morning, they'd have to pass me to come out the bedrooms to go into the kitchen, and it became a little annoying, so, everyone kind of got together and said, ``Do you think we could stick her in the other bedroom?'' And so, I shared the other bedroom with Karel. F. LEE BAILEY: Did that sharing begin before or after the first visit by the police officers? NATALIE SINGER: Well, when I got out of the hospital, I was still in the living room, because I was kind I they gave me so much Demerol I was withdrawing kind of; I'm not used to drugs. And so, I know I was still in there. And I think a couple of days it was definitely before I met them F. LEE BAILEY: that you moved out of the living room? NATALIE SINGER: Absolutely. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Tell me the circumstances, as best you can remember them, of your first physical or personal encounter with Mark Fuhrman. NATALIE SINGER: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the very first two words of your question. F. LEE BAILEY: Tell me the circumstances, within your apartment, surrounding your first encounter with Mark Fuhrman and his partner, Tom. NATALIE SINGER: OK, OK. You walk in the front door, and there's there's two couches in the living room. There's a living room area. There's one couch facing that wall, and there's one couch facing that wall. Karel was excited; this was going to be the first time you know, ``They're coming over, and I want you meet him,'' and, you know, all that stuff. And they stopped by while they were on duty, because there's no other reason for a man to pick up a date with another guy, you know? They would just drop by. F. LEE BAILEY: But did they say they were on duty, or is that a conclusion? NATALIE SINGER: No, they were on duty well, I mean, being that they had all that paraphernalia dangling off of them, you know MARCIA CLARK, Prosecutor: Move to strike that remark. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Judge LANCE ITO: Next question. F. LEE BAILEY: Without reference to whether they were on duty or off duty, what time of day, if you can remember, did they arrive? NATALIE SINGER: The first time, it was dark, it was definitely dark. F. LEE BAILEY: In the evening? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. And I want to say Judge LANCE ITO: No, no, no. NATALIE SINGER: I don't want to say anything? Judge LANCE ITO: No, you don't want to say anything except in response to a question. Mr. Bailey? F. LEE BAILEY: Just try to answer the questions as tightly as you can. At some point during that evening, were you sitting in proximity to Karel Hannak, Tom Vitriano or Vitrano, and Mark Fuhrman? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. Yes. Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: How close was the group? NATALIE SINGER: OK, Tom and Karel were sitting on this couch, Mark Fuhrman sat here, I sat here. I is that OK, that's all I want to say. F. LEE BAILEY: At some point, was inquiry made by someone as to what these two officers did? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: There were? And what was the response as to the type of work that they did? NATALIE SINGER: Fuhrman said, we work with gangs, gang unit. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. Now, being very careful with your answer, did he, in describing the gangs that he worked with, describe any particular race? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: Did he use an epithet well known to the world that denotes black people and begins with ``N''? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: What was your reaction to his use of that word on your first encounter? How did you feel? NATALIE SINGER: Well, in the context that it was in, that that word was used in, I was shock stunned. I never met anyone that talks that way. F. LEE BAILEY: All right, without going into the exact language, is it fair to say that the description of the way ``N-people'' were treated was abusive? MARCIA CLARK: Objection, objection, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. F. LEE BAILEY: Is it fair to say that the description of the way the N-people were treated, according to Fuhrman, was abusive? NATALIE SINGER: Absolutely. F. LEE BAILEY: Do you recall his saying anything at the end of that description about his reaction to that kind of treatment? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: What did he say? NATALIE SINGER: He said after he did what he said he did he said, ``Oh, well, it really relieves your tension,'' and then this just this nauseating, hits-you-here, kind of laugh looking at Tom. They were do I stop now? F. LEE BAILEY: You can stop there. Later in the conversation, did he make another reference to ``N'' people? NATALIE SINGER: Yes, he did. F. LEE BAILEY: Can you tell us what he said? You may use the ``N'' word if you want. NATALIE SINGER: [pauses, sighs heavily as counsel consult off-mike] Judge LANCE ITO: Do you remember the question? F. LEE BAILEY: Let me rephrase it, if I may, Your Honor. Did he make a reference to the African-American race, using the word we have discussed, that begins with ``N''? NATALIE SINGER: And you're not referring to first reference F. LEE BAILEY: No, no NATALIE SINGER: you're referring to that second kind of saying? F. LEE BAILEY: Later in the conversation. NATALIE SINGER: Yes. [The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.] Live Trial Coverage - CA v. Simpson - Day 142 - Part 7 F. LEE BAILEY, Simpson Attorney: [in progress] Let me rephrase it, if I may, Your Honor. Did he make a reference to the African American race using the word we have discussed that begins with ``N''? NATALIE SINGER, Defense Witness: And you're not referring to the first reference F. LEE BAILEY: No. No. NATALIE SINGER: You're referring to that second kind of saying. F. LEE BAILEY: Later in the conversation. NATALIE SINGER: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: What did he say? NATALIE SINGER: It's OK to say that? F. LEE BAILEY: Yeah. NATALIE SINGER: He said, ``The only good nigger is a dead nigger.'' F. LEE BAILEY: Now, did he visit thereafter, when you were in the apartment with, I assume, Officer? NATALIE SINGER: Yes, they stopped by whenever. And I and they were on duty at times. I know that. I can't be specific which time was it the first time, was it the second but I do know that they were on duty. MARCIA CLARK, Prosecutor: Speculation. There's no foundation. Judge LANCE ITO, Los Angeles Superior Court: Sustained. Next question. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you remain in the room on the subsequent visits where Mark Fuhrman was present? NATALIE SINGER: No. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you engage in any further conversation with him? NATALIE SINGER: No. Well, in F. LEE BAILEY: In the room. NATALIE SINGER: No. F. LEE BAILEY: When he visited? NATALIE SINGER: No. F. LEE BAILEY: Did there come a time when you were and by the way is this apartment is on what floor of the building? NATALIE SINGER: Two. Second. F. LEE BAILEY: Did there come a time, some time later that year, when you were in the bathroom of that apartment and heard something out the window? NATALIE SINGER: Well, yes. F. LEE BAILEY: How may times to your knowledge, your personal knowledge, had Mr. Fuhrman been in the apartment between the first encounter, about three weeks after your trip to the hospital, and this final encounter? Best estimate. NATALIE SINGER: The one where I have seen him or knew for a fact he was there? F. LEE BAILEY: Yes. NATALIE SINGER: Approximately four three to four times. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. And in each of those occasions did you stay out of the room where he went? NATALIE SINGER: I made myself as scarce as possible, yes. F. LEE BAILEY: And why did you not go in the room when Mark Fuhrman was there? NATALIE SINGER: Because I was caught between a rock and a hard place. The first time he opened his mouth and said these things, I wanted him out. I in hind sight I realize I was a coward not to do it then, and that I had the situation with, here's a woman that's dating his partner, that's going to mess that up. You've got four girls together. It's just it's like is it OK just to throw this guy out? I was the new girl at the place and but it was a topic of conversation around the house. Everyone knew that I was displeased with his presence. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Now, on the occasion that we just mentioned where you heard something through the bathroom window. NATALIE SINGER: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you thereafter look out the window? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: What did you see? NATALIE SINGER: Well, I saw the two of them just coming out. I heard them come out their cars, and they were chatting. And I heard them and I F. LEE BAILEY: Did they have a vehicle? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: How far from the window, looking down, would say the vehicle was stopped when you saw them getting out? NATALIE SINGER: God. Here's the window. They were I'm not very good at footage and measurements, so F. LEE BAILEY: Can you pick out something in the court room of the same approximate distance? NATALIE SINGER: Right. Say, I'm on the second floor. I'm looking out my window. They would be, their car, say around where this where you are. F. LEE BAILEY: Within 20-30 feet? NATALIE SINGER: Yeah, close. Yeah, not three blocks away. F. LEE BAILEY: As they emerged from the car, did you say anything to either of them? NATALIE SINGER: Well, I heard them chatting, so, I went to the bathroom window and I said, ``Hey.'' I said, ``Hi, Tom.'' F. LEE BAILEY: And after you said, ``Hi, Tom,'' did you hear Mark Fuhrman utter anything that caught your ear? NATALIE SINGER: Well, immediately he started talking he's got a pretty strong tone to his voice. He started saying something and it sounded angry and nasty, and that his normal tone of voice, actually. And then MARCIA CLARK: Objection. No foundation. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. F. LEE BAILEY: Just tell us what he said. MARCIA CLARK: [unintelligible] NATALIE SINGER: And then Judge LANCE ITO: Excuse me. Excuse me. That answer is stricken. Jury is to disregard. Next question. NATALIE SINGER: Just tell us what he said. Judge LANCE ITO: Just tell us what he said. NATALIE SINGER: And then he called me a Am I allowed to curse? Judge LANCE ITO: Yes, you are. NATALIE SINGER: OK. He called me a ``fucking bitch.'' F. LEE BAILEY: All right. And what did you do after he called you a ``fucking bitch''? NATALIE SINGER: I The thought went through my head, this is it. He's out. F. LEE BAILEY: What did you say? NATALIE SINGER: I went to the window. I said, ``I do not'' I called him a called him an asshole. F. LEE BAILEY: An asshole NATALIE SINGER: And I said, ``I do not want you in this house any more. Nobody does. Don't come up here. You're unwelcome.'' F. LEE BAILEY: All right. And what did you NATALIE SINGER: And it was great because it was a great opportunity to do that. F. LEE BAILEY: What, if anything, did you say with respect to Mr. Vitrino's [sp] right to come in the house? NATALIE SINGER: I said, ``You're still welcome to come up here.'' F. LEE BAILEY: Did he come in? NATALIE SINGER: Yes, he came in. F. LEE BAILEY: Did Officer Fuhrman come in? NATALIE SINGER: Oh, no. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. NATALIE SINGER: No. F. LEE BAILEY: And did you ever see Officer Fuhrman again where you had conversation with him? NATALIE SINGER: Oh, no. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you ever see him again, period, personally? NATALIE SINGER: No. Not until this past year F. LEE BAILEY: Did you see him indirectly? NATALIE SINGER: on TV. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you see him indirectly on television? NATALIE SINGER: Yes, on television. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you at some point become aware that he was involved, in some fashion, with the case against Mr. O.J. Simpson? NATALIE SINGER: Could you repeat the start of that? F. LEE BAILEY: Yes. Did you become aware through the news or any other means, that Officer Fuhrman NATALIE SINGER: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: was a figure in the Simpson case? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: And how did you learn that? NATALIE SINGER: The minute I saw him I knew that that was the same man. F. LEE BAILEY: You recognized NATALIE SINGER: I saw him on television. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Did you make an effort to contact anyone to give them the information that you have just given this jury? NATALIE SINGER: Yes, I did. F. LEE BAILEY: How did you go about doing that? Who did you call first? NATALIE SINGER: The very first call was to Mr. Shapiro's office. And I'm not, to this day, sure that it was actually it was the right office or not. F. LEE BAILEY: Uh-huh. NATALIE SINGER: I left a message. And then I called Mr. Cochran's office. And apparently they were flooded with calls about similar stuff. And they said, ``We will get back to you.'' I wanted to just let them know that there is a problem with this person. F. LEE BAILEY: Uh-huh. NATALIE SINGER: And then I just let it go. I thought, ``Look. You know, I don't want to spend all my time pursing this. I just want to let them know what I know.'' And then Judge LANCE ITO: All right. Next question. NATALIE SINGER: Next question. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. Did you call anyone thereafter at any time? NATALIE SINGER: Yes, I did. F. LEE BAILEY: Who? NATALIE SINGER: When I saw that he was Judge LANCE ITO: Excuse me, the question was, ``Who?'' NATALIE SINGER: Oh. F. LEE BAILEY: Who did you call? NATALIE SINGER: Dan Leonard [sp] at your office. F. LEE BAILEY: That's the office in Boston? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: And did you get the number through a listing? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Without going into what was said, did you have some conversation with Mr. Leonard about your recollections relating to Mark Fuhrman? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: And did you leave your name and number? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: Were you thereafter contacted by someone who is directly affiliated with the defense? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: And what was his name? NATALIE SINGER: The next person that contacted me after Dan Leonard would be Pat McKenna. F. LEE BAILEY: Pat McKenna? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. As a result of conversations that you had with Pat McKenna, was an arrangement made for you and I to meet in May of 1995? NATALIE SINGER: That's right. F. LEE BAILEY: And did we have a meeting near your residence outside of Nashville NATALIE SINGER: That's right. F. LEE BAILEY: May 2nd of this year? NATALIE SINGER: May 2nd. F. LEE BAILEY: Did we have some conversation about the case, without going into what was said? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: And did you relate to me, at that time, essentially what you have told the jury? NATALIE SINGER: Essentially. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Have you talked with anyone directly connected with the prosecution? NATALIE SINGER: You know I don't know if he's directly F. LEE BAILEY: Strike the question. Have you talked directly with anyone connected with Mark Fuhrman? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: What was his name? NATALIE SINGER: Anthony Pellicano. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. And as a result of that, did you issue any invitation to him to have the prosecution call you? NATALIE SINGER: I guess you could call it an invitation. F. LEE BAILEY: Well, did you inquire as to whether he was a member of the prosecution or acting for them? NATALIE SINGER: Well, he- F. LEE BAILEY: Don't tell us what he said. NATALIE SINGER: OK. F. LEE BAILEY: Just NATALIE SINGER: What was your question again, then? F. LEE BAILEY: Did you say anything to him that you expected might lead to a call from a member NATALIE SINGER: Yes. MARCIA CLARK: Objection. It's irrelevant. Calls for speculation. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. F. LEE BAILEY: Were you ever, prior to last Friday, requested to give an interview to anyone connection [sic] to the prosecution to your knowledge? NATALIE SINGER: No. F. LEE BAILEY: Have you been represented by counsel in Nashville in connection with this matter? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: Is the lawyer who has represented you a well known figure in the legal community? NATALIE SINGER: I think so. I gather that from MARCIA CLARK: Objection F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. It's irrelevant. F. LEE BAILEY: Did you give his name to Mr. Pellicano? NATALIE SINGER: At that point, no. I didn't have him at that point. F. LEE BAILEY: At some point did you give his name to Mr. Pellicano? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. Oh, yes, yes, yes, yes. Uh-huh. F. LEE BAILEY: And what name did you give Mr. Pellicano? NATALIE SINGER: Jim Neal [sp]. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. And through Mr. Neal was it arranged that an attorney out in this area would advise you if that became necessary? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. And do you know did you speak to that attorney after you arrived here last week? NATALIE SINGER: I spoke to him once just to let him know that I was here. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. All right. NATALIE SINGER: Actually I've spoken to him twice. Judge, I actually spoke to him twice. I forgot. Judge LANCE ITO: Hold on. Mr. Bailey. Ms. Singer indicates that she needs to clarify her last answer. F. LEE BAILEY: I'm sorry. Yes, go ahead. NATALIE SINGER: I actually spoke to him twice since I've been here. Not once. F. LEE BAILEY: Mr. Pellicano? NATALIE SINGER: No. The lawyer out here. I said once, but I meant twice it was twice. F. LEE BAILEY: Thanks, Ms. Singer. No further questions. Your witness. Judge LANCE ITO: Ms. Clark. MARCIA CLARK: Good morning, Ms. Singer. NATALIE SINGER: Good morning. MARCIA CLARK: Did Mr. Bailey fly out to Nashville, Tennessee to interview you? NATALIE SINGER: Yes, he did? Judge LANCE ITO: All right. Ms. Clark, could you keep your voice up, please? MARCIA CLARK: I'm sorry. Is that where you spoke to him? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. MARCIA CLARK: OK. Now, you have never spoken to myself or Mr. Darden or Ms. Lewis? NATALIE SINGER: No, I haven't. MARCIA CLARK: You've never spoken to any of the prosecutors in this case. Is that correct? NATALIE SINGER: No, I haven't. Yes, that's correct. MARCIA CLARK: Yeah. And you spoke to did you ever call any member of the prosecution team to advise them personally of who your lawyer was? NATALIE SINGER: No. MARCIA CLARK: You spoke to you spoke to Mr. Bailey. Is that correct? Back in May of this year? NATALIE SINGER: Are you referring to the meeting in Nashville? MARCIA CLARK: Yes. NATALIE SINGER: Yes. MARCIA CLARK: And how many times have you spoken to Mr. Bailey? NATALIE SINGER: You'll have to give me a minute on that. It has to be an approximate, and it would be approximately five. MARCIA CLARK: Five times? NATALIE SINGER: And those are not in person, all of them. MARCIA CLARK: OK. Some were on the phone? Some were on the phone? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. MARCIA CLARK: And of those five times, how many times did you meet with him in Nashville. NATALIE SINGER: One. MARCIA CLARK: That's once? NATALIE SINGER: Uh-huh. MARCIA CLARK: That was yes? You have to say, yes. NATALIE SINGER: Yes. I'm sorry. MARCIA CLARK: It's all right. And the other times you met with him, was that in Los Angeles, if the times that they were in person? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. Can I keep going. MARCIA CLARK: No, that's fine NATALIE SINGER: Two more times. Once last week, once today. MARCIA CLARK: OK. And that was both in person here in Los Angeles? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. MARCIA CLARK: And they flew you out here from Nashville? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. MARCIA CLARK: And you're staying in a hotel? NATALIE SINGER: No. MARCIA CLARK: You're staying with someone? NATALIE SINGER: I'm staying with a friend. MARCIA CLARK: OK. Now, after the occasion in which you heard Mark Fuhrman use that epithet NATALIE SINGER: I can't hear you. MARCIA CLARK: I'm sorry. I'm exhausted. It's not a great day for me NATALIE SINGER: Yeah. MARCIA CLARK: speaking wise. Excuse me. After you heard Mark Fuhrman use the racial epithet on that occasion in your apartment, you indicated that you were very shocked and you were very offended, correct? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. MARCIA CLARK: And it even made you feel nauseous, correct? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. MARCIA CLARK: And after that occasion he came to the apartment when you were there on three or four occasions you estimate, correct? NATALIE SINGER: That I saw him, yes. MARCIA CLARK: But you were aware that he came on other occasions to the apartment, when you were not there, correct? NATALIE SINGER: Correct. MARCIA CLARK: And then on the last occasion that you saw him there, it was on that occasion that he said, ``fucking bitch,'' correct? Did he do Was that yes? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. MARCIA CLARK: Did he direct that to you or to his partner? NATALIE SINGER: Oh, he was speaking to his partner, referring to me. MARCIA CLARK: OK. OK. And you felt he was referring to you when he said that? NATALIE SINGER: Oh, he was. MARCIA CLARK: OK. NATALIE SINGER: Yeah. MARCIA CLARK: And that was based on what? Was he looking at you when he said it? Or had he looked at you and then turned to his partner and said that? NATALIE SINGER: It was based on the fact that I had just looked out the window; I had said, ``Tom.'' ``Hi, Tom. Hi, you guys.'' Got a look, then he started immediately talking. And the reason I'm not going into specifically what he was saying because I don't remember specifically what he said previous to the curse. And then he called, ``She's just a'' MARCIA CLARK: Uh-huh. NATALIE SINGER: Blah, blah, blah. MARCIA CLARK: And you were the only woman in sight? NATALIE SINGER: Yeah, I was. MARCIA CLARK: All right. And then and that made you angry? NATALIE SINGER: No, it actually didn't. MARCIA CLARK: You called him an asshole. NATALIE SINGER: Yeah, I think can I go on. MARCIA CLARK: Just Did you call him an asshole? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. MARCIA CLARK: You did not mean it as a term of endearment, I take it? NATALIE SINGER: No. I don't normally use that word as a term of endearment. MARCIA CLARK: All right. Most of us don't. NATALIE SINGER: No. MARCIA CLARK: OK. And that point you told, ``You're not welcome here.'' Is that right? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. MARCIA CLARK: And this was your opportunity, at that point, when he called you NATALIE SINGER: Uh-huh. MARCIA CLARK: When he called you that, this was your opportunity to make sure he couldn't come back. Is that right as you testified on direct examination? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. Make sure that he Yes, we didn't want him there. And I didn't certainly didn't want him there. And that, yes, this was an opportunity to have him out. MARCIA CLARK: OK. And this was the opportunity you chose to make sure that he wouldn't come back? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. Unfortunately, it was the opportunity and I finally chose. Instead of telling him the truth. MARCIA CLARK: But that was the one you did chose, correct? NATALIE SINGER: Uh-huh. MARCIA CLARK: Yes? NATALIE SINGER: Yes. MARCIA CLARK: Thank you Ms. Singer. Nothing further. Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Bailey. F. LEE BAILEY: Ms. Singer, you have said you did not make any direct effort to contact the prosecution as you did to Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran and my office? NATALIE SINGER: Correct. F. LEE BAILEY: Is there a reason you chose not to volunteer your information to the prosecution? MARCIA CLARK: Objection, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. NATALIE SINGER: Well, when Anthony Pellicano told me that he was going to tell them, I said I would be willing to MARCIA CLARK: Objection, Your Honor. That's hearsay Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. NATALIE SINGER: What was that? Judge LANCE ITO: Go ahead and answer. F. LEE BAILEY: You may answer. NATALIE SINGER: I told him, ``I when they call, I'll speak to them.'' But I never got a call. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. Was there a reason that prior to talking Mr. Pellicano and myself, you had not given this information to the prosecution? NATALIE SINGER: Well, yeah. F. LEE BAILEY: What was it? NATALIE SINGER: Well, possibly incorrectly, I had not in a million years would I have thought they wanted to hear what I had to say, the things that I knew. I just thought it would fall on deaf ears. And that may be incorrect of, but that is the way I felt. F. LEE BAILEY: OK. Now, when you heard Mr. Fuhrman using racial epithets, was it the mere use of that word that upset you or the manner in which it was used? MARCIA CLARK: Objection Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. MARCIA CLARK: Objection, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. F. LEE BAILEY: You may answer. NATALIE SINGER: I go? Judge LANCE ITO: The manner? NATALIE SINGER: Pardon? Judge LANCE ITO: Was it the use or the manner that offended you so much? NATALIE SINGER: The manner more than the use. The use is bad; the manner is what got me. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. And what, if any, expression can you recall being on his face as he described his treatment of black people? Judge LANCE ITO: I'm going to sustain the question. MARCIA CLARK: Objection, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: We're going beyond here. F. LEE BAILEY: All right. Can you tell us, Ms. Singer, what you mean when you say the manner in which it was used, without going into any text? MARCIA CLARK: Your Honor, same objection. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. NATALIE SINGER: There are words that we can speak that don't that are not followed by They're meaningless words. I can say a specific word; it doesn't hurt anybody because I don't mean it. When he says the things he says, it's bolstered by an MARCIA CLARK: Objection Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. NATALIE SINGER: It's bolstered and held up and pushed out of his mouth with hatred and arrogance and despicability. And that's what hurts. That's what hurts. Combined with the words. F. LEE BAILEY: Thank you, Ms. Singer. That's all. Judge LANCE ITO: Ms. Clark. All right. Ms. Singer, thank you very much. NATALIE SINGER: You're welcome. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. Next witness. JOHNNIE COCHRAN, Simpson Attorney: Next we call Mr. Robert Hodge, Your Honor. [The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.] Live Trial Coverage - CA v. Simpson - Day 142 - Part 8 RIKKI KLIEMAN, Anchor: [in progress] two for the defense today to talk about the racial epithets [break in audio] in the past, in 1985 and six for Kathleen Bell, in 1987 for Natalie Singer. And what's happened here I'm with Gigi Gordon is that what the witness last said Save it? We're going right back in for a moment. Judge LANCE ITO, Los Angeles Superior Court: [in progress] Mr. Cochran? JOHNNIE COCHRAN, Simpson Attorney: Yes, sir, we have just [unintelligible] calling Mr. Robert Hodge, Your Honor. I just spoke with my colleagues. To give the Court some indication, we're, at this point, anticipating calling Mr. Hodge, followed by Mr. Blazini [sp]. We've told you about him, I think, before not directly [inaudible] Bronco. We're going to be calling the photographer Rokahr, who's supposed to have [inaudible], and then Ms. McKinny. As to the other witnesses, that's as far as we, perhaps, will get today, because there are some motions prior to McKinny's testimony, if the Court pleases. Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Darden? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, Deputy District Attorney: Well, Your Honor, as the Court may have already noticed, we have sat here. We have taken it on the chin with regard to these witnesses and their testimony as it relates to Mark Fuhrman's racial animus. The message is certainly clear to me. I think it's clear to the rest of the nation and everyone else who was watching these proceedings this morning. I think the defense has clearly established that Fuhrman is a racist, amongst many, many other things. But at some point, it gets to be too much, and at some point, I think this Court, and I think the jury, certainly, as well, may well lose focus as to what the real issue is here in this case. The real issue is O.J. Simpson and what he did the night of June 12th, not Mark Fuhrman and what he did. We have heard that Mark Fuhrman espouses genocide genocide of African Americans. We heard about his racial hatred, his sexism, his hatred for interracial couples. He will find something to stop interracial couples. He wants to burn all African Americans, or bomb all African Americans. We have heard it. We have not disputed it. It's done, OK? Everything that they wanted to accomplish today, I think, is done. OK? The Goldman's shouldn't have to sit here and hear any more of this. We shouldn't have to hear any more of it, OK? When it comes time to argue this issue to the jury, we offer to stipulate last week or the week before he used these words, judge. We know it. You know it. Now the jury knows it. Its cumulative. The Court ought to cut it off now under 352, and let's get back to the matter of trying O.J. Simpson for killing these two people. It's time to get back to that. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: May I have just a moment, Your Honor? Judge LANCE ITO: Yes, Mr. Cochran. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Just briefly, Your Honor, we are, in fact, trying the case of People vs. O.J. Simpson. Mark Fuhrman hasn't been arrested. He hasn't been in jail for 14 months, or 15 months. This is the man who's on trial. What Mark Fuhrman did on June 12th is what's important, and we're going to link it up. What I would offer to do and we have been mindful of Your Honor's concerns under 352, and that's why you didn't hear me call Andrea Terry. I think she'd be cumulative cumulative is the word, Your Honor of, perhaps, Kathleen Bell. You didn't hear me call her. Roderick Hodge stands in a different position, Your Honor. We've heard from these ladies who have dealt with this man and been appalled and aghast at his behavior, clearly. Other than other than Laura McKinny, we don't intend to call any other ladies, and she because of the tapes, as the Court's aware. Roderick Hodge stands differently, Your Honor, as I you recall from the offer of proof last week. He's a man who was arrested by Mark Fuhrman, and you'll recall what he that Mark Fuhrman turns around, addresses him and says, ``I told you we'd get you, blank.'' And I think it becomes very relevant. Here's a man who encountered this man on the street, had to deal with him. He was stopped 20 to 25 times by Mark Fuhrman. So he's in a different position. It's very relevant. It goes from what this man talked about to actually having done it. The cross the direct exam will be very brief and right to the point, and I have told you the other witnesses we expect to call after that. I don't think it's cumulative at all. I think it gets the picture before the jury. Your Honor, again, we've taken one morning less than one morning. OK, it's six months. We've had less than six weeks, and now, everything becomes cumulative. All right. We are trying to bear down, be mindful of Your Honor's order. It seems to me this witness is very relevant for the limited issues I've indicated to you. He's the only witness we're going to call that of people who've been arrested by this man. We have a number of others. Judge, we could call witnesses for the next week, but, again, we've tried to pare this down. And the fact that they now know he's a bad man It took us a long time to convince them, also. We can't We're fighting for our client's life, and we say this man is a key witness in this case. We're not going to take any chances, and we want to do enough so that it's reasonable, so that Your Honor feels it's reasonable. Then we can move on, and that's what we're seeking to do. Judge LANCE ITO: Aren't we really in danger, now, of having four witnesses to testify to the same thing that Detective Fuhrman was not telling us the truth about his use of the particular racial epithet, and you've painted his bias, his willingness to use this word in an abusive manner? I mean, after after a certain point in time, it gets pretty apparent, wouldn't you say? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Well, I think it becomes apparent, except I think you can distinguish this man, as I've tried to do. I mean, clearly, if I was calling Andrea Terry, said, ``I was a Hennessey's [sp] bar,'' and said the same thing, then I think your argument might be you know, that argument might make more sense. This is man was arrested out on the street, harassed by this man. This man, Mr. Hodge, made repeated complaints to Internal Affairs. He told the LAPD about this man, Fuhrman. Everybody knew about how Fuhrman was treating this man, yet he continued doing it. So I think he's in a different situation. We're not going to belabor it. We told you what the issues were. It's also relevant, I think, Your Honor, that Hodge was asked by Fuhrman, ``What are you? What is your mother? What race are you?'' And I think that goes, again, because Hodge has a, I believe, a white mother and a black father. So it's, again, this same M.O. of this particular officer involved where they put such credence in early on. And so, I mean, all I'm seeking to do. Then we move on, as I told you, to Blazini, to Rokahr, and then, of course, once we've argued on motions, to McKinny. Judge LANCE ITO: Don't you run the risk, though, of making McKinny cumulative? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Well that's [laughs] there you go again, Your Honor. I certainly don't think so. I think that, in view of everything we've been through in this case where we've spent you've taken two days to render a decision. We've been away from this jury for five or six days. I don't see how she becomes cumulative. When this officer engages in this conduct with 41 times, and another 18 times, I think that's the that's the centerpiece. But, you know, Your Honor, you said, ``Get some testimony before this jury.'' Judge LANCE ITO: All right. So why don't you go with the centerpiece? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Because we have let me tell you why. You always want to get testimony before this jury. You don't want to waste any time. We're trying to do that, today. When we get to McKinny, as you know, we got motions for reconsideration. We've got a we've got to revisit the motion for suppression. We've got further [unintelligible] motions, and I don't want this jury sitting back there writing us notes. So I'm trying to get to everything. There is some method to this, Your Honor. I'm trying to get all the other witnesses off the plate so they'll get something done so there won't be this level of frustration that we all have felt over the last week or so, and get to it. So, I'll be glad to get to the centerpiece. Ms. McKinny's lawyers are here. She's going to be here this afternoon. But we're trying to have witnesses so we don't run out that are relevant, not cumulative and right to the point. And that's all we're trying to do, judge. And it seems to me Judge LANCE ITO: Why can't you present the centerpiece in the within the parameters of the Court's order? If I change my mind, you can come back and add more to it. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Well Judge LANCE ITO: I'm just telling you I'm just telling you if you put Hodge on I'm giving you fair warning If you put Hodge on, you may make McKinny cumulative. There's three witnesses testifying about a collateral issue of impeachment. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Your Honor, we we disagree over whether this collateral, as you're going to see when we link it up. What I'd like to the problem is this. Why don't I go with Blazini, and I'd like to be able to argue Hodge before McKinny, when Gerry argues the motion, when Professor Uelmen argues the motion for reconsideration. I hear you, and Judge LANCE ITO: Well, you heard Ms. Lewis saying that they want to file a response to that motion, so I wouldn't anticipate hearing that motion today. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: I thought it was already filed. CHERI LEWIS, Deputy District Attorney: It was filed Your Honor, they just filed the brief this morning with regard to the reconsideration motion, if that's what you're referring to. We just received it this morning. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: I thought you said you filed something CHERI LEWIS: I filed an opposition to their motion to reopen the suppression issue. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Well, let me say this, judge. What we're trying to do is, obviously, keep this going, 'cause you're the one We don't want to have this jury frustrated. We want to move ahead. I'm Judge LANCE ITO: I like plan ``B.'' Let's go with Blazini now. You can think about what you want to do between Hodge and McKinny. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: OK. May I have a second to find Blazini? There we go. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: [inaudible] before Mr. Cochran leaves the podium. I don't believe I've heard before that Fuhrman allegedly stopped Mr. Hodge 20 to 25 times or There seems to be some discovery, I think, that is owed to us as more seems to be heaped on the pile as it relates to Mr. Hodge, and I would ask for that discovery. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: [inaudible] You know, one of the things that I'm reminding one of my colleagues is that in this in this whole scenario, we've heard from will hear from four or five white women with regard to the their level of frustration in dealing with this man. That's all nice. But you've not heard from one African American, and that's what I think was the difference that I've tried to [unintelligible] with Hodge, who was the focus of this man's genocidal talk. And he he lived it. He's the man on the streets who did who was doing it. So I won't argue it now. Perhaps you'll allow me to come back to that just prior to McKinny, and I think you'll see the relevance of this, judge. We're talking 15 minutes of testimony. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: We are talking very, very lengthy cross-examination of Hodge, and there's still the additional 402 issues that relate to him. In particular, for instance, he was apparently arrested and [break in audio] dismissed, one he was acquitted on. And it's going to require additional rebuttal, 'cause there were other offices that had contact with Mr. Hodge. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: We can't we're not threatened by them doing that. I mean, if they want to do that, that's their business. If they want to defend this. This man was acquitted of this charge when this officer was arrested. So they wanted to bring that up, that's their problem. If they want to engage in those tactics, fine. What I'm telling you is what we would like to do. But I'll accept your offer. I don't want to waste time Judge LANCE ITO: Bring me. Bring me Blazini. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: I'll bring you Blazini, and then we'll revisit this issue, right? Judge LANCE ITO: Well, you'll have the lunch hour to think about it. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Will you think about it, also, Your Honor? Judge LANCE ITO: I think about it all the time, Mr. Cochran. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: May I have just a second? MARCIA CLARK, Prosecutor: With respect to Mr. Blazini, I would like to I have the [inaudible]. He has a couple of prior convictions that I'd like need the Court to [inaudible] cross-examination. [inaudible.] JOHNNIE COCHRAN: May I approach, Your Honor? Rather than trashing every witness that comes, may we approach the bench? He doesn't have any felony convictions. This is typical of the prosecution's behavior. May we approach the bench? I want them I want them to show any felonies they have in this matter. Judge LANCE ITO: Wait. Wait. Wait. Do you have Wait, wait. Do you have MARCIA CLARK: [inaudible] Judge LANCE ITO: Wait. Both sides, do you have any proofs of priors with you? MARCIA CLARK: Yes, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, it's a package coming down MARCIA CLARK: That's what I wanted to I thought I had it with me this morning and I guess I don't. It's somewhere on my desk. I wanted to show that to the Court. As I understand it, since prop. 115 and prop. 8, we are not confined to telling [inaudible] misdemeanor convictions, and Judge LANCE ITO: that are evidence of moral perpitude. MARCIA CLARK: Yeah. Judge LANCE ITO: So you'll need a ruling on that, before hand. MARCIA CLARK: Yes, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, well MARCIA CLARK: I will call [inaudible] I will call with the the Court's I will, of course, need the Court's permission to impeach the witness with prior convictions and trashing the witness. I have them, and it's physical proof that I have them, Your Honor. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Let me see that, Your Honor, and what's the date on it, may I ask? Judge LANCE ITO: Well, let's see where they are? MARCIA CLARK: I'm not sure I have it Judge LANCE ITO: All right. Are you aware of these convictions, Mr. Cochran? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: I'm not aware of any felony convictions. I know he had some problems of 20 I though 20 years ago. I'd like to see the date. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. Would it have an impact his criminal record would that have an impact on your decision to call him? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: I don't think so, but I certainly want an opportunity to see what ever they claim. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. I take it, Ms. Clark, it's on its way? MARCIA CLARK: It's on its way right now. Your Honor, if we begin the examination, if Mr. Cochran's going to call in regards to the Court's ruling, why don't we start? Judge LANCE ITO: No, that's not what I heard. MARCIA CLARK: Oh. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: I take it some courier is bringing that down forthwith? MARCIA CLARK: Yes. [The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.] Live Trial Coverage - CA v. Simpson - Day 142 - Part 9 RIKKI KLIEMAN, Anchor: While we're waiting for these records of criminal convictions, or whatever they may be, to come down by courier from Marcia Clark, we're going to take a brief commercial break. [commercial break] RIKKI KLIEMAN: We're back in the courtroom. The jury is not present. The lawyers and the judge continue to flounder around about housekeeping details about when they're going to do whatever it is they're going to do. Judge LANCE ITO, Los Angeles Superior Court: [in progress] originally presented at the preliminary hearing, renewed in the Superior Court, is, I think, the issue that you're framing, correct? MARCIA CLARK, Prosecutor: That's correct, Your Honor, and, under the law Judge LANCE ITO: I understand. I've read it. MARCIA CLARK: All right. Judge LANCE ITO: There are certain limitations as to what [inaudible] present. JOHNNIE COCHRAN, Simpson Attorney: I understand that, Your Honor, but we still want him here for that. MARCIA CLARK: They're not entitled to have him for that. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: If they want to panic, let 'em do it, Your Honor. We're going to have him here. They can't stop Judge LANCE ITO: Well, let's do this. Let's set that for tomorrow at five. [inaudible conversation in courtroom] JOHNNIE COCHRAN: today, Your Honor, before. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, we'll do it today instead of the motion to reconsider. [inaudible conversation in courtroom] JOHNNIE COCHRAN: We can't do both, Your Honor? [inaudible] Judge LANCE ITO: Well, we've got a finite amount of time today. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Well, we don't have that many witnesses from the [inaudible]. Let's see if we call all the witnesses we have, at least for today. For instance, Vitrano can't be here today. He's got problems, according to his lawyer. [inaudible] so let's go as far as we can. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, Mr. Darden, do you have the priors package for Mr. Gordon? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, Deputy District Attorney: No. He's not the minion who was assigned the that that task. They're on the they're on the way. 1st MAN: Let me go up and check. MARCIA CLARK: Your Honor, why don't you let me go and get it? Judge LANCE ITO: No, I want you to stay here, Ms. Clark. [inaudible comment by Marcia Clark] CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Why don't you let me go get it? Judge LANCE ITO: No. You stay here, too, Mr. Darden. [audio interruption in courtroom] Judge LANCE ITO: No, no, I want you guys to stay here. MARCIA CLARK: May I use the phone, Your Honor? Judge LANCE ITO: Yes. RIKKI KLIEMAN: Well, they certainly do seem to be floundering around in that courtroom, about what to do, who to call, where the evidence is. Gigi Gordon, it's your phrase, off camera. I'll give it back to you. ``Haven't they heard about momentum?'' is what you said. This is a problem, right? GIGI GORDON, Deputy District Attorney: I I really can't understand what's going on here. Watching this, it looks like the Mad Hatter's tea party or something. The defense was on a huge roll, here, and somehow or another they lost their momentum, Judge Ito sort of played poker with Johnnie Cochran and, in my opinion, Judge Ito won. I would have challenged Judge Ito. I would have put Hodge on, and if Judge Ito wanted to take the position that, after all of this, he was going to exclude Laura Hart McKinny's testimony, then I would have taken him up on his request. That's when I would have gone across the street to the Court of Appeal if he dared. RIKKI KLIEMAN: So, your feeling is that sometimes a defense lawyer has got to take the judge on, on the issue the judge gives, and if Judge Ito says, ``Well, if you put on Mr. Hodge, I'm not saying I'm going to exclude Laura Hart McKinny, I just might because it might be cumulative. You ought to consider that.'' And, so, you either go for the gusto or you don't. And, they decided to back off. GIGI GORDON: Well, I think Judge Ito was bluffing, and I I think they didn't take him up on his bluff. I would find it sort of outrageous if, after all of this, he would have excluded that testimony when there's been so much about it. I don't think it would have been a righteous ruling and I think that Hodge is certainly different than the other witnesses. Hodge is a person who met Mark Fuhrman in his capacity as a police officer, not socially. The other witnesses met him socially. Some people might think, ``Well, this is the way Mark Fuhrman is off-duty.'' Some people may even think he's entitled to say whatever he wants when he's off-duty. But this is a witness who knew him, met him and was abused by him in his capacity as a police officer, and I think that's a critical issue and I think there's no way that Judge Ito could exclude that as cumulative, because it's not cumulative. RIKKI KLIEMAN: He's also an African-American male. He's not some white female who met Mark Fuhrman under, as you say, social conditions. And, so, why is he, in any way, the same as Bell and Singer? GIGI GORDON: He's not. I think the answer is, he's not, and I think Judge Ito perhaps doesn't want to hear this testimony. This testimony may, in fact, be more inflammatory because this person is similarly situated to the defendant in this case. He was a person, an African-American male who was arrested, or who was the target of Mark Fuhrman and an arrest by Mark Fuhrman, or an investigation by Mark Fuhrman, and I think that this is not cumulative, at all. RIKKI KLIEMAN: Well, let's see exactly what he was. F. Lee Bailey had to give an offer of proof to the Court on Friday, about what Roderick Hodge [sp] would testify to. Let's hear what Mr. Bailey said. [excerpt from court proceedings] F. LEE BAILEY, Simpson Attorney: On January 10th, 1987, Hodge came out of a passageway in the building that he supervised and knocked down someone that he didn't recognize. The following day, officers came to arrest him and Officer Fuhrman and Vitrano took him downtown in the cruiser. Vitrano was driving; Fuhrman was in the front seat. Officer Fuhrman turned around and said to Hodge, ``I told you I'd get you, nigger.'' He then learned and commented unfavorably on the fact that Mr. Hodge's mother is white and that the couple is racially mixed. At the police station, he told Mr. Hodge to undress and bend over, and while looking at his backside, said ``You do all look alike, don't you?'' [end of court proceeding excerpt] RIKKI KLIEMAN: That's what was said on Friday. Let's take a look at what's happening in the courtroom today. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: [in progress] shorter version that's going to be used, as opposed to the one we saw last week. RIKKI KLIEMAN: Well, there continues to be confusion, at best, in the courtroom, but I want to go back to what we just heard from F. Lee Bailey's offer of proof on Friday. Sounds like pretty powerful stuff to me. GIGI GORDON: It does and I can't see any possible way that Judge Ito could say that this is the same thing as the other type of testimony. It just isn't the same thing, at all, and I think it's more relevant, in fact, than some of the other testimony that we've heard, precisely because it is in his capacity as a police officer. And, in fact, it's interesting that it appears to be the same partner as these women referred at least, as the last witness testified to was in her home. RIKKI KLIEMAN: Ms. Singer's testimony, her direct testimony, ended with the phrase that Mark Fuhrman's epithet's were uttered with hatred, arrogance and dispicability. This was a pretty mild-mannered, very sociable kind of witness, telling about her life, and yet, when she got to the Fuhrman evidence, itself, she became remarkably serious. So, if you, as a defense lawyer, were dealing with her credibility, does this kind of a witness help you show someone that that really is credible because of the differences in their affect? GIGI GORDON: I I think so. I think this is sort of another example of a normal person, like Ms. Bell, who traveled in circles, every day circles where, to hear something like this was shocking, to hear it from someone who she knew to be a police officer, was astonishing. This is not what she expected and it's something that stayed with her for a very long time, throughout her whole life, and I think, again, here's someone who felt the responsibility to come forward, not because she had any feeling that she wanted to help O.J. Simpson, or to hurt the prosecution. In fact, again, maybe the opposite, but because this was said in her presence and is something that's always stayed with her. RIKKI KLIEMAN: OK. Judge Ito is speaking, so we're going to go back in. [inaudible comments in courtroom] MARCIA CLARK: You can help [inaudible] the prior in prior, in the sense of the packet we [inaudible] certified document to see him rap sheet, which indicates that Mr. Vocini [sp] was arrested in 1974. Again, [inaudible] for [inaudible]. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, may I see the rap sheet, please? MARCIA CLARK: Yes. Judge LANCE ITO: Thank you. [audio interruption in courtroom] RIKKI KLIEMAN: While Judge Ito is reviewing what's called a rap sheet on the potential next witness, we'll take a commercial break. [commercial break] JOHNNIE COCHRAN: [in progress] It's 415, Your Honor, and in 1974, 21 years ago I think we should just invite them to do this, but that's preposterous, Your Honor. Where's this package? Where is it certified? There's no relevance to this. RIKKI KLIEMAN: The rap sheet that Judge Ito had of the potential next witness has been given to Johnnie Cochran. Johnnie Cochran and Marcia Clark are arguing about whether any of this should be admitted. Judge LANCE ITO: Well, Counsel, any party who wishes to impeach somebody with a prior conviction or prior criminal record needs to have a good faith basis upon which to ask questions on cross-examination which, traditionally, a rap sheet is sufficient for the bases as the bases of a good faith offer. The next issue, being A, is a 415 a crile crime of moral turpitude and, B, whether or not something that occurred in 1974 is untimely, or stale. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: [laughter] I would say, at the very minimum, it's untimely, stale and Can I see that one second? Apparently Let me just indicate what happened on this. Talk about stale, Your Honor, this is from 1974, so it's more It's 21 and one-half years ago. This man is a responsible businessman in this community now, and has been for some time. This was a an alleged misdemeanor where he got three months, I guess, [unintelligible] probation. It doesn't even show a fine for a 415. The other charge, there's no disposition, and, Your Honor, in this case in 1995, where we where we're so concerned about prejudice and that sort of thing, how could they even be allowed to do this? Certainly, it's stale, certainly this is a misdemeanor, it doesn't involve truth-telling, so can we dispense with this and move proceed with the witness? We want to call the witness. [audio interruption in courtroom] Judge LANCE ITO: [in progress] Clark? [inaudible comment by Marcia Clark] Judge LANCE ITO: All right [audio interruption in courtroom] JOHNNIE COCHRAN: May I proceed with my witness, now, Your Honor? Judge LANCE ITO: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Thank you. Judge LANCE ITO: Actually, what we'll do is call the jury in and tell them we're going to start with the next witness, I had to deal with something. All right, Deputy Magnero [sp], let's have the jurors out, please. RIKKI KLIEMAN: Well, what looked like it might be a problem, as often happens in the Simpson case, was not a problem at all. I'm here with Gigi Gordon. Judge Ito just looked at a rap sheet, as it is called, of the next witness, which contained a 1974 arrest, and it looked like some kind of, perhaps, probationary disposition for a burglary. What's the rule in California about when this would be admissible? GIGI GORDON: The rule is that felony convictions the fact of the conviction, itself, is admissible to impeach a witness, and that misdemeanor acts of moral turpitude may, in some instances, be admissible to impeach a witness, but a judge can rule under 352 that they're too remote in time, that they don't tend to prove the witness' turpitude or dishonesty, and I think that the final disposition on this was disturbing the peace, which is not a moral turpitude misdemeanor. RIKKI KLIEMAN: What does moral turpitude actually mean? Are you talking about, really, the truth-seeking process, truth-telling process? GIGI GORDON: When you The way you determine moral turpitude is on a case-by-case or offense-by-offense basis. You look at a particular crime and decide whether there was some element of perjury, dishonesty, something bad other than a violent crime, itself, about that that tells you something about the person's character for honesty or dishonesty that you can see, just on the basis of the commission of the offense. RIKKI KLIEMAN: OK. We're going to go back in, live. Judge Ito is going to tell the jury about whether or not they're going to hear testimony now or later. Judge LANCE ITO: [in progress] delivery of certain documents to the Court. I've had the opportunity to review those documents, I've made a ruling as to a certain evidentiary issue, and we're ready to start with the next witness, although we've come up on the lunch hour. So, we will be ready to proceed, when we come back at one o'clock, with the next witness. Remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter's been submitted to you. This is very important do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. All right, we'll see you back here after lunch, one o'clock. All right, we're in recess. RIKKI KLIEMAN: We're back to the old lunch hour the one hour lunch hour and Judge Ito telling the jury that they will get to hear testimony again. The reason he brought them in is probably fairly clear. They'd been on ice for some eight days. They finally got to hear testimony this morning two witnesses and then, yet again, there was a break, so he wants to assure his jurors that, in fact, the trial is proceeding apace. We're going to take a brief commercial break. We'll be right back. [The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.] Live Trial Coverage - CA v. Simpson - Day 142 - Part 10 FRED GRAHAM, Anchor: Court TV now resumes its live coverage of the O.J. Simpson case, in a day in which Judge Lance Ito is pressing hard to try and get as much testimony as possible before this jury, that has spent so much time without hearing testimony. As I speak, he has taken his place. It gives an opportunity here to introduce you very quickly to our guest Danny Davis, Beverly Hills. You've been with us before; welcome back. DANNY DAVIS, Criminal Defense Attorney: It's good to be her Fuhrman day. FRED GRAHAM: Yeah. All right, we want to go back into the courtroom here live and we'll listen and we'll have a chance to talk to you I think in just a few minutes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN, Simpson Attorney: two things. The Court is aware we plan to call Mr. Blasini next, and I'm ready to proceed with him. He'll be followed by Mr. Rokahr, if the Court pleases. And then, although Ms. McKinny is here. I'd like to read to the Court something, for the Court to think about, because I'd like to reiterate what I said about Roderick Hodge. This is very brief; I'd like to ask the Court to allow me to read this. You can find it on page 18899 of the transcript, Your Honor. Question by Mr. Bailey ``And you say under oath that you've not addressed any black person as a nigger or spoken about black people as niggers in the past ten years, Detective Fuhrman?'' Answer ``That's what I'm saying, sir.'' What I didn't articulate well enough this morning when I was talking to you was this Hodge is the only witness on our defense list who can testify that Fuhrman used the ``n-word'' in addressing him as an African-American. Everyone else talks about conversation; this is the only witness, and I think you read that read the question, and that impeaches him directly on that point of addressing an African-American as the only one we would call. I think it makes it a lot easier decision for Your Honor, 'cause I'm going to ask Your Honor when we get to that point to allow us to call Hodge for this limited area, and then we would like to argue the motions with regard to McKinny, obviously, because what you rule on those motions will bear upon what we do and what we play for this jury, if anything, and so that's the order we'd like to proceed in, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO, Los Angeles Superior Court: All right, well then I suggest we proceed with Blasini and with JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Sure. Judge LANCE ITO: Rokahr. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And we're ready to do that. Judge LANCE ITO: And then we'll take up that issue. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Just wanted to alert the Court, because you were talking about five o'clock, and I thought 5:30, and wanted to bring this to your attention. We're ready to proceed. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. Deputy Maghern [sp], let's have the jury please. FRED GRAHAM: And Johnnie Cochran is attempting to force make some sort of decision between whether to call Roderick Hodge, a young man, a black man, who says he was abused a number of times by Mark Fuhrman, and whether or not he'll get the Fuhrman tapes, and you think, Danny, that he should go ahead and go with Hodge. Why? DANNY DAVIS: Yeah he's a warm body, he's a real person. The two women preceding him really raised an independent corroboration and don't have the limitations of the tape. Hodge comes in and says, ``This happened to me,'' and then you can look at McKinny in a different fashion, play a different card on her, and perhaps say, ``You know, you had all this information. We have these high numbers,'' and that's sort of it. By the way, you know, did the prosecution learn of this? Does the Court know this, do we all know this? Because a tape recording of Mark Fuhrman in the trace that's left can't have any impact as compared to these two. I'd go for Hodge and use him as much as I could, and then work a residue of McKinny as someone really that didn't come forward with very important evidence. I wouldn't use her as my witness. FRED GRAHAM: All right, we're going to very quickly go over to Kristin Jeannette-Meyers, who has some information about papers that have been filed during the lunch hour and up 'till now. Kristin? KRISTIN JEANNETTE-MEYERS, Reporter: Fred, the most important thing is the prosecution's response to the defense attempting to reopen the whole search that took place of O.J. Simpson's home based on the tapes and what they say they've learned about O.J. Simpson. The prosecution is basically saying you can't go into it again, and that's what they'll argue this afternoon that it's already been argued, the defense lost, and it's not time to do it again. FRED GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Kristin. We'll now go live into the courtroom. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Blasini, who is present in the courtroom. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, Mr. Blasini, would you come over here, stand next to the court reporter, and face the clerk, Mrs. Robertson? [oath administered] WILLIAM BLASINI, Defense Witness: My name is William Blasini, Jr. Blasini, b as in boy, l-a-s-i-n-i. Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Cochran? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Good afternoon, Mr. Blasini, sir. Would you move that microphone a little closer to you so we can all hear you this afternoon? WILLIAM BLASINI: OK. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Mr. Blasini, what is your occupation, sir? WILLIAM BLASINI: I work for Pick Your Part, the world's largest self-service automobile recycling center. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And it's called Pick Your Part? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, and how long have you been so employed? WILLIAM BLASINI: About three and a half years. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And what is your present job title with Pick Your Part? WILLIAM BLASINI: I'm general manager of vehicle purchasing. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And as such, tell us briefly what you do as a general manager of Pick Your Part. WILLIAM BLASINI: Basically, I go to auctions, police auctions, impounds, and we buy cars. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, and you've been doing this for how long? WILLIAM BLASINI: At Pick Your Part, for three and a half years. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Have you been in this industry before that time? WILLIAM BLASINI: I was a wholesaler I was wholesaling vehicles before this. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: So you've been around automobiles for some time, is that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Fifteen years, to be correct, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, sir. I'd like, sir, to direct your attention back to the date of, I believe, June 21st of 1994. Did you have occasion, on or about that date, in the afternoon, to be at Viertel's garage here in downtown Los Angeles? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, I was. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury under what circumstances where you at Viertel's on that date, that Tuesday, June 21st? WILLIAM BLASINI: Well every Tuesday, we go there and bid on cars. They have four locations, and the last location is at Temple, the main garage, and that's where we wind up. And when I walk when we finished bidding on the cars, I was walking into to do the paperwork when I just happened to see the Bronco inside the garage. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, so you say that you were accompanied by someone else at that point? WILLIAM BLASINI: I was accompanied by Bob Jones, Andrew Adlan, myself, and Sam Adlan, I think. I'm not sure about Sam, if he was there that day. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Let's take them one at a time. We've heard the name Bob Jones before. By whom is Bob Jones employed? WILLIAM BLASINI: Viertel's. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, you knew him prior to this date of June the 21st? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And you mention a Mr. Adlan. What is Mr. Adlan's first name? WILLIAM BLASINI: Andrew. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And who is Mr. Andrew Adlan? WILLIAM BLASINI: He's a competitor. He also bids on the cars as well. Judge LANCE ITO: How do you spell Adlan do you know? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: A-d-l-a-n, I believe, Your Honor - Andrew Adlin. And you mention another Adlan, also, I believe? WILLIAM BLASINI: It's his uncle. I assume it's his uncle. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: So you were there in the company of the two Adlans and yourself and Bob Jones, is that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: I'm not correct on the second Adlan, but the first one was there, yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You're sure about the first one? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. You were describing that you were at Viertel's, and this jury has 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? WILLIAM BLASINI: 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, is the area where they keep their restricted vehicles, and as you continue past that area, you go down to the offices. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. And did you you were in this, walking in this area, is that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, I was. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And while in this area, first, before we get to that, tell us what time of day was it on June 12th on June 21st? WILLIAM BLASINI: It was about 2:30, three o'clock in the afternoon. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, and at some point, after 2:30 or three o'clock in the afternoon on June 21st, did you see a white Bronco? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, I did. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And who were you with when you first saw the Bronco? WILLIAM BLASINI: I was with Andrew Adlan and Bob Jones. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Did you have some conversation at all with Mr. Jones about that Bronco? WILLIAM BLASINI: The minute I saw the Bronco, I was amazed Judge LANCE ITO: Excuse me, excuse me. The question was, did you have any conversation with Mr. Jones, yes or no? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, I did. Judge LANCE ITO: Next question. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. And with regard, just before I get to that, Your Honor, may I approach the witness? I have, Your Honor, what has been previously been marked for evidence, I guess, now as defense's 1254. I'd like to show this just for so we can get acclimated to the witness. Judge LANCE ITO: Proceed. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: This, sir, is defense exhibit number 1254, and have you ever seen this before? WILLIAM BLASINI: Not this picture, no, I haven't. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. This purports to be the Viertel's garage here, downtown Los Angeles, on Temple Street. Do you recognize that? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. And there are various buildings, from T-1 through T-5. You see those? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Just generally I know you've never seen this before can you look at defense's 1254 and show us, generally, where this Bronco was housed on June 21st, about 2:30, three o'clock in the afternoon? WILLIAM BLASINI: It was housed at the T-2 area, the T-2 building, which is a main building right here. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, he's holding it up for the jury to see, Your Honor. Can you all see that? He's talking about T-2 and the vehicle was housed somewhere in T-2? WILLIAM BLASINI: It was in the rear of the building. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, the rear of T-2, as depicted on 1254. Is that correct, sir? WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct, sir. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, 1386, can you see that? All right, 165? All right, thank you. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly. So Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Cochran, can we move that back just six inches, the easel? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Sure. boards all here. Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Douglas, could you help us on that, because it blocks the line, direct line of sight of juror number 7. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Can we have a moment, Your Honor? Judge LANCE ITO: Certainly. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: There are some boards [inaudible]. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, Mr. Cochran, why don't you go ahead and proceed. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Surely, Your Honor. I'd like to I think I just asked you asked some questions about whether or not you had a conversation with Mr. Bob Jones about this particular Bronco, and you indicated yes is that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: 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? WILLIAM BLASINI: Basically, why was the vehicle there. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, and did you get some response from him? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, I did. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. 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 vehicle, the Bronco? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, I did. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And describe for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you did in that regard, if anything? WILLIAM BLASINI: As far as walking up to the Bronco and exactly what I did? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Yes, tell us what you did. WILLIAM BLASINI: I opened the door to the Bronco. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Let me stop you there. Was the Bronco locked at that point? WILLIAM BLASINI: No it wasn't, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And so you just walked over and opened the door? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And which door did you open of the Bronco? WILLIAM BLASINI: The passenger's door. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: OK, on the passenger side of the vehicle? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Now you've seen pictures of that Bronco and you've see the Bronco itself, is that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: OK, now when you opened the door to the Bronco, the passenger door, what happened next? WILLIAM BLASINI: I looked in the vehicle. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Now was there any particular reason why you wanted to go and look inside this Bronco? WILLIAM BLASINI: Well, I guess there's a couple of reasons. It was a big story. Just the fact of looking at the Bronco, O.J. Simpson being involved in it. It was a big story; I was curious. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You were curious at that point? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, had you read or seen stories on television regarding the Bronco being there? WILLIAM BLASINI: Some stories. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Were you expecting to see it at Viertel's? WILLIAM BLASINI: Not at all. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, so you saw it and then you'd heard things about it, and you went over to it, is that right? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, now when you went over to the Bronco and opened the door, tell the ladies and gentlemen what you next did after that? WILLIAM BLASINI: I looked inside the Bronco I looked at the seats, the floor, I looked at the dashboard. I basically looked all over the vehicle. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, why did you look all over the vehicle? WILLIAM BLASINI: Well, Andrew and I were talking that it was said that there was a lot of blood in the vehicle. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Who said there was a lot of blood in vehicle? WILLIAM BLASINI: It was said in the papers. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, you'd read or heard that? WILLIAM BLASINI: I heard that, yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, and were you looking to see if there was a lot of blood in that vehicle? WILLIAM BLASINI: Well, that was the first thing I looked for, yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, and can you describe for us how you did you get inside the vehicle at some point? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes I did, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Describe for the jury again how you got inside the vehicle and where you were when you were inside the vehicle. WILLIAM BLASINI: 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. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. So, when you got inside the vehicle and sat in the passenger seat, and looked all around the vehicle, did you see any blood? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, sir, I didn't. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Were you looking specifically for blood? WILLIAM BLASINI: At first, yes, we were. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Now you said ``we.'' When you got into the passenger side of the vehicle and sat in the passenger seat, what did Mr. Adlan, Mr. Andrew Adlan, do, if anything, that you saw? WILLIAM BLASINI: He opened up the driver's side. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And did you see him, at any point, put any part of his body inside the Bronco vehicle? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, half his body came into the vehicle. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Can you describe for the jury, again, how he did that that movement? WILLIAM BLASINI: The vehicle sits up high, 'cause it's a truck, and he basically opened the door and leaned over the seat and looked in the vehicle. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: At the time he made that movement of leaning inside the vehicle and looking inside, were you already inside the vehicle? WILLIAM BLASINI: I was already inside the vehicle, yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And you were seated in the passenger compartment, just as though you're seated in the witness stand there? WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: 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 21st, 1994? WILLIAM BLASINI: Well, I basically, at first, looked for blood, and I looked all over the vehicle. I looked for fingerprint dust. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Do you recall seeing any fingerprint dust? WILLIAM BLASINI: Not inside the vehicle, no. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, all right. Tell us what happened after that. WILLIAM BLASINI: 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 there. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, 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? WILLIAM BLASINI: It was the same side I was sitting in, the passenger side, and I put my fingers up on the window sill like this. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: So, did you leave fingerprints there, as far as you could tell? WILLIAM BLASINI: Smudges, but I looked at my hands. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, and you did that while you were inside the vehicle, is that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, after you did this, what happened next, if you recall? Judge LANCE ITO: Yeah, I'm sorry. Mr. Cochran, do you want to describe the motion JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Yes, I'm sorry, Your Honor. I should. Thank you, Your Honor. He 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. Judge LANCE ITO: Palms forward. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Palms forward. Is that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Fingers, not palms on the window, but fingers. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Fingers fingers forward. WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. Now, what happened after you did this you made this movement with your fingers forward? WILLIAM BLASINI: 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. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, you didn't see any carpet on the driver's compartment, is that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: OK. 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 window in the window of the driver's compartment? How long did you stay in that position? WILLIAM BLASINI: It felt like it was five minutes, but I really couldn't tell you. It was probably a couple of minutes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Would you look now let's look and see let's try and determine where you looked. Did you look on the dash? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. MARCIA CLARK, Prosecutor: Your Honor, it's been answered. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Well, I trying to Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Thank you. Did you look in the dash at that point? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir, I did. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Did you have occasion to look at the console? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, I did. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Did you have occasion to look on the driver's side door? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, I did. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Did you have occasion to look at this MARCIA CLARK: Leading. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: did you have occasion to look at the steering wheel? MARCIA CLARK: Objection. Leading. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, I did. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Did you look you described for us earlier you got in and you looked to your rear did you look toward the rear of the vehicle? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, I did. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Now if I were to at the last break, I showed you some photographs here, and I'd like to have these [inaudible]. Your Honor, I think this is plaintiff's exhibit 172, Your Honor. You saw this during the lunch break today, did you? This is 172. WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. With the court's permission, can you step down for a moment? Judge LANCE ITO: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: I'm going to ask you some questions. Let me give you one of these pointers. Why don't you stand over there, so you won't block any of the jurors. I'm going to give you a pointer. Your Honor, I'd like to ask a few questions from this vantage point. Judge LANCE ITO: Actually, I think he ought to be on this side here, Mr. Cochran. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: On this side. The judge has suggested that you be on this side. Judge LANCE ITO: Thank you. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Thank you, Your Honor. You're welcome. Judge LANCE ITO: Proceed. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Now, this is a mock-up of this particular vehicle with some photographs around it. I'm going to ask you specifically let's start with [The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.] Live Trial Coverage - CA v. Simpson - Day 142 - Part 27 Judge LANCE ITO, Los Angeles Superior Court (LIVE): [in progress] Thank you. JOHNNIE COCHRAN, Simpson Attorney (LIVE): Thank you, Your Honor. You're welcome. Judge LANCE ITO (LIVE): Proceed. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Thank you. Now, this is a mock-up of the the certificate of the vehicle with some photographs around it. I'm going to ask you specific let's start with this area over here, which purports to be the it's the middle photograph, Your Honor, on the left-hand side of this particular exhibit. It has photo card 22 and 23 therein. Judge LANCE ITO: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Do you recall looking at that area of the driver's side door of the Bronco? WILLIAM BLASINI, Defense Witness: Yes, I do. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Do you recall at the locations of 22 or 23 seeing any blood at all at those locations when you looked on that date of June 21st, 1994? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, I didn't. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: I want you to look down at number 34, Your Honor, which is the third photograph on the left-hand side of the of this exhibit. It appears to be a smear mark there. Do you recall looking in that general area also? WILLIAM BLASINI: I remember looking in the area, but I don't remember seeing that mark. I mean, I don't remember looking at that's half the door, so I really don't think I looked that far into it. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Twenty-two and 23 you're sure you looked at? WILLIAM BLASINI: I looked at that because I walked around the vehicle when I came to the driver's side and the door was opened. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Now you described for the jury, I believe, that the part of the carpet was cut out the time that you saw it. WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Is that correct? And where was that? Would that be in the area of the driver's [unintelligible] WILLIAM BLASINI: It was in this section right here. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. He's indicating in the center, Your Honor, the area of the carpeting, near what would be number 33 there, area 33 there. WILLIAM BLASINI: [unintelligible] JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Now, at some point you described for us that you looked at item you looked at the steering column, is that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Do you see the photograph on the up on the top there, at the left? Did you at some point look at that area and the steering column? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, I did. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: At any time on that day, the June 21st, did you see any what appeared to be blood on the steering column? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, I didn't. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Now, did you in any way touch the steering column that day? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, I did. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And describe that for the jury. What point did you touch the steering column? WILLIAM BLASINI: If I remember correctly it's been a year and three months [laughs] when I walked in to the vehicle, I grabbed the steering wheel to pull myself inside, and I sat down on the vehicle and I held the steering wheel for for a period of time. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, so that 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? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And you told us you stayed in there for what appeared to be five minutes, may have been less, is that right? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And you told us about your observations from that location, right? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: At some point, did you have occasion to get out of the driver's compartment of the vehicle? WILLIAM BLASINI: Out of the driver's JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Strike that. Of of the passenger's compartment of the vehicle. WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, I did. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. When you did that, where did you go, if any place? WILLIAM BLASINI: I walked around the vehicle, but I stopped at the window on the side, which you don't have on here. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. WILLIAM BLASINI: And, again, I looked for fingerprint dust, and I put my fingers again on the glass. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Now, so that we're clear, the jury has a picture of where you put your finger your fingers. This was on the right side of the vehicle or the rear of the vehicle? WILLIAM BLASINI: The right side of the vehicle, the glass in the back, which is the biggest glass that shows. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: OK, and then at Judge LANCE ITO: Why don't we JOHNNIE COCHRAN: that point did Judge LANCE ITO: Excuse me, Mr. Cochran, why don't we refer to it either as the passenger side or the driver side? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: OK. The passenger Judge LANCE ITO: depends on which side you're looking at the JOHNNIE COCHRAN: OK. We were talking about the passenger side still, right? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You put your fingers in the passenger side rear portion of the of the window, is that correct? Outside? WILLIAM BLASINI: On the side, yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, again, will you demonstrate for the jury what you did at that point? WILLIAM BLASINI: I put my fingers up on glass, pulled them off and I looked on my finger. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And what did you see, if anything, at that point? WILLIAM BLASINI: Just dirt. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. So did you leave your fingerprints there, as far as you know? WILLIAM BLASINI: I would assume so. MARCIA CLARK, Prosecutor (LIVE): Speculation. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. WILLIAM BLASINI: I would assume so. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. So and after you MARCIA CLARK: Objection, speculation. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: After you made this movement, where did you next go, if any place, approximately? WILLIAM BLASINI: 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's probably where all the blood was, was one the rug, because it was cut out and it wasn't there. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You didn't see any rug at that point, right? WILLIAM BLASINI: Excuse me? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You didn't see any carpet or rug there at that point, right, is that right? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. So did you then have occasion to get inside the vehicle or what did you do? WILLIAM BLASINI: I got inside the vehicle again, I looked over the console to my right, and I looked back, and then at that point I got out of the vehicle and we left. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. How long did you did you actually get in and sit down inside the the driver's compartment on the left side? WILLIAM BLASINI: Umm-hmm. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right? That a yeah that a yes? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. I'm sorry. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: OK. How long did you remain in the driver's compartment on the left side, sir? WILLIAM BLASINI: About half the time that I was in the front and on the driver's side the passenger's side. So about two minutes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: OK. WILLIAM BLASINI: Minute and a half. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: While in there, did you do something and touch the steering wheel? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, I did. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Did you have occasion to examine the steering wheel to see if you saw any red spots on it? WILLIAM BLASINI: 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 did look at it, and I didn't see any blood. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You didn't see any blood? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Now, I want to specifically direct your attention to the console on the Your Honor, on the upper photographs in the far right, there is a photographic card number 30 and 31. And to the left of those, of 30, there appear to be some kind of a red smudge smudges. As you sat in the vehicle on the right side, the passenger side, did you have occasion to look down at that console, particularly there in this photograph? WILLIAM BLASINI: I looked at the console twice once I was in the vehicle and before I entered the vehicle. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And at any time or any point when 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 on that day? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You looked specifically for it, is that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And if I were to ask you with regard to these photographs down in the bottom right, Your Honor, or what appears to be the console now out of the vehicle, on the right-side side of it, where it says 303, 306, in that same area, you never saw any blood at those locations either, did you? MARCIA CLARK: Objection, leading. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. Rephrase the question. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Did you see did you see any red spots when you looked at the console in that particular area [unintelligible] there in 303 or 306, sir? WILLIAM BLASINI: I would have to look at 303 is there. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Three-oh-six. WILLIAM BLASINI: This one? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Yes, the one right next to it. WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, I do. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Did you see a blood spot there? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You did not? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You looked there? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: OK. And this is you were actually looking for blood, is that right? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the dash, there's a photograph here up on the upper left-hand corner, number 24. Do you do you remember whether or not you saw any stops at all in the dash area of that vehicle, any red spots? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, sir, no I didn't. [pause] JOHNNIE COCHRAN: So then, Mr. Blasini, as I understand it, during the time that on June 12th, June strike that. Judge LANCE ITO: Excuse me, Mr. Cochran, are you going to use this exhibit anymore? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: I think I'm finished, Your Honor. And we can Judge LANCE ITO: All right, because it does block JOHNNIE COCHRAN: OK, let let let allow me to take it down. All right. [pause while display is taken down] 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? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, sir, I didn't. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And when you left that vehicle, you had left at least you had on two occasions placed your fingerprints in the windows of that vehicle, is that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. MARCIA CLARK: Objection, that calls for speculation. He can't say he put his Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. MARCIA CLARK: fingerprints on it [unintelligible] Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. MARCIA CLARK: [unintelligible] Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled! JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Now, Mr. Blasini, you've come here today pursuant to subpoena, is that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And you've come here to testify because you've been subpoenaed, is that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And you did not volunteer to come forward, did you? WILLIAM BLASINI: Not at all, sir? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And is Mr. Adlen [sp] still employed in his same work, line of work? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, he is, sir. As far as I know. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Did who is a Mr. McElroy [sp]? Who is Mr. Chris McElroy? WILLIAM BLASINI: He's vice president and chief of operations of Pick Your Part [sp]. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: That's your company? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Do you know whether or not at some point after you were inside this vehicle on June 21st, 1994, whether or not Mr. McElroy was inside that vehicle? MARCIA CLARK: Objection, recognize JOHNNIE COCHRAN: I'm asking if he knows. MARCIA CLARK: [unintelligible] Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. MARCIA CLARK: [unintelligible] JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Do you know? WILLIAM BLASINI: I was told that he was in the vehicle. MARCIA CLARK: Objection. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, that answer is stricken. jury is to disregard that. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You have no personal knowledge about Mr. McElroy? WILLIAM BLASINI: As far as seeing him in the vehicle? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Yes. WILLIAM BLASINI: No, I didn't see him JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. WILLIAM BLASINI: in the vehicle. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: OK. He's still employed at your company, now, is he? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Is Mr. Adlen still employed at a at a rival company now? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to that vehicle, you have described for the jury where that vehicle was located, I guess, in T-2, on 1254, you described the vehicle was not locked, is that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Before you got inside that vehicle on June 21st, did you have to sign any kind of log or anything of that nature? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Was anybody guarding that vehicle at that time? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You just walked up and got inside the vehicle? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Both you and Adlen? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: 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? WILLIAM BLASINI: Bob Jones walked over with us. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Yes? WILLIAM BLASINI: And then walked away to his office while we were looking at the vehicle. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: So you were in there by yourself, right? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And after you finished looking in the vehicle and making your observations, where did you go then, if you recall? WILLIAM BLASINI: Once we were done, I I proceeded to pick up the paperwork from the vehicle that we had purchased and I left. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. And you were there in the normal course of your business to buy some actual vehicles from Viertel's, is that right? WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. May I have just one second, Your Honor? [pause] Now, in your work in purchasing vehicles over the last 15-plus years, have you ever had occasion to see blood in the vehicle before? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, I have. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: How often? WILLIAM BLASINI: Well, Pick Your Part purchases like 8,000 vehicles a month, so I 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. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You've done that yourself in the past and seen that yourself? WILLIAM BLASINI: Oh, yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the security, if any, around this particular vehicle, can you describe for us, for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, whether or not there are 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? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, they they do have it's like the chain links that you see at the banks that form the lines that that's what they use to to block it off. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And where was that in relation to the Bronco? WILLIAM BLASINI: It was on the outside of the Bronco all the way around the restricted area. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. And when you went inside, how did you get past that? WILLIAM BLASINI: I think there's a I can't remember correctly but I think there's an opening on either side that you can walk right through, or you can just step right over. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. And that's how you just walked right in, is that right? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And there was nobody there to stop you, right? MARCIA CLARK: [inaudible objection] Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Was anybody there to stop was there anybody there to stop you when you were there on June 21st? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: In fact, Bob Jones was with you and walked away, right? WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Thank you very much for coming today, sir. [crosstalk] Judge LANCE ITO: Ms. Clark? MARCIA CLARK: Mr. Blasini, how many years did you have you known Bob Jones? WILLIAM BLASINI: About three years, maybe a little less. MARCIA CLARK: And you saw him what, once a week? WILLIAM BLASINI: Every Tuesday. MARCIA CLARK: So, you'd seen him for somewhere between two-and-a-half to three years every week? WILLIAM BLASINI: Well, off and on because sometimes other people would come and do the auction. MARCIA CLARK: He knew you? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, ma'am. MARCIA CLARK: You knew him? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, ma'am. MARCIA CLARK: You spoke to him on the average every week for almost three years? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, ma'am. MARCIA CLARK: Did you find it unusual that he would let you look at a car without standing over you? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Objection, [inaudible] Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. Overruled. WILLIAM BLASINI: Can you repeat the question, ma'am? MARCIA CLARK: Was there some reason you felt that Bob Jones should not trust you to look at the car without him supervising you? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, no reason at all. MARCIA CLARK: So, when he left you alone you did not find that to be improper or unusual? WILLIAM BLASINI: Not JOHNNIE COCHRAN: objection form of [unintelligible] Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. Rephrase the question. MARCIA CLARK: Bob Jones had every reason to believe that you would be you would not do anything improper inside that vehicle, correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct. MARCIA CLARK: So when he walked away from you and let you be, you did not find that to be unusual? WILLIAM BLASINI: Not at that time. MARCIA CLARK: Now, were you you said you were looking for print dust? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes. MARCIA CLARK: Why were you looking for print dust? WILLIAM BLASINI: 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. MARCIA CLARK: All right. And you saw print dust on the exterior of the car, did you not? WILLIAM BLASINI: I didn't. MARCIA CLARK: You didn't? [sound turned off by the Court] MARCIA CLARK: You didn't see any print dust on the outside of the vehicle? Right? Is that right? WILLIAM BLASINI: Right. Correct. MARCIA CLARK: Now, the vehicle was inside the building of T-2, correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, ma'am. MARCIA CLARK: It was not out in the sun? WILLIAM BLASINI: No it wasn't. MARCIA CLARK: And when you got into that car, were you carrying a flashlight? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, ma'am. MARCIA CLARK: Were you you're not a criminalist, correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, ma'am. MARCIA CLARK: Now, in the cases where you said you saw blood in cars on previous occasions, those were cases where the car had been in an accident? Is that right? WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct. MARCIA CLARK: And so someone had either died or been severely injured inside that car, correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct. MARCIA CLARK: And you saw big globs of blood, is that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Well, sometimes. Sometimes you see big globs. And sometimes you see very little. MARCIA CLARK: OK. And in this particular case you were expecting to see big globs of blood, weren't you? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, I wasn't. MARCIA CLARK: You weren't? But you said that you read in the newspaper that there had been lots of blood? WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct. MARCIA CLARK: That's what you read. Isn't that right? WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct. Correct. MARCIA CLARK: So you expected to see lots of blood. Isn't that right? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Question and answer, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. WILLIAM BLASINI: I expected to see blood that I could see. Yes. MARCIA CLARK: Now you did not get down and inspect the driver's door panel with a flashlight, did you? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, ma'am. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: [inaudible objection] flashlight in this instance Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. Overruled. MARCIA CLARK: And you did not, when you got into the passenger's side of the vehicle bend down to inspect the console closely, did you? WILLIAM BLASINI: Not underneath, no. MARCIA CLARK: And when you were sitting in the passenger's side of the car, you leg was parallel with the console, isn't that right? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes. MARCIA CLARK: Now, when you were looking at the steering wheel, sir, what effort did you make to inspect it carefully for blood? WILLIAM BLASINI: I didn't. MARCIA CLARK: And you cannot tell this jury that there was not blood on that steering wheel when you looked in it on June 21st, can you? WILLIAM BLASINI: I didn't see any. MARCIA CLARK: You cannot tell them it wasn't there? WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct. Not on the steering wheel. MARCIA CLARK: Now, on the driver's door you indicated that you looked at a certain portion but not the other. Do you recall that? WILLIAM BLASINI: The driver's? MARCIA CLARK: You looked at a certain portion of the driver's door panel WILLIAM BLASINI: I didn't see the outside of the door. I saw the inside because it was open as I was coming towards it. [sound turned off by the Court] Judge LANCE ITO: I need a water brigade. Deputy? Water. Thank you. [sound turned off by the Court] MARCIA CLARK: Now, you you told us you were looking for print dust on the Bronco, is that right? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, ma'am. MARCIA CLARK: I take it that means you've seen print dust before? WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct. MARCIA CLARK: You indicated, in fact, you had seen it before in a restricted area of Viertel's, correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct. MARCIA CLARK: And the area that the Bronco was parked in was a restricted area, was it not? WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct. MARCIA CLARK: I have a photograph, Your Honor, that's been previously marked and shown as People's 528. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, Ms. Clark, do you want to show that to [unintelligible] [sound turned off by the Court] [The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.] Live Trial Coverage - CA v. Simpson - Day 142 - Part 12 MARCIA CLARK, Prosecutor: Can you see this on the monitor? WILLIAM BLASINI, Defense Witness: Yes, I can. MARCIA CLARK: All right. Did you observed the trial testimony of Mr. John Meraz, an employee of Viertel's? WILLIAM BLASINI: Parts of it I did. MARCIA CLARK: Did you see him testify to the location in which this Bronco is in this photograph, the print shed? WILLIAM BLASINI: I don't remember. MARCIA CLARK: Are you familiar with that location, sir? WILLIAM BLASINI: The print shed? No, ma'am. MARCIA CLARK: This photograph taken on June the 14th was shown to Meraz during his testimony. Do you see the exterior of the driver's door? WILLIAM BLASINI: I sure do. MARCIA CLARK: Do you see something around the door jamb? WILLIAM BLASINI: I sure do. MARCIA CLARK: What does that look like to you? WILLIAM BLASINI: It looks like print dust to me. MARCIA CLARK: And you're telling us, sir, that you did not see that on June the 21st. WILLIAM BLASINI: I did not see it. MARCIA CLARK: Doesn't mean it wasn't there, does it, sir? WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct. MARCIA CLARK: I need Mr. Wooden's help with this, it's pretty heavy. Oops. These are magnetized, Your Honor, so I'm going to ask that the board be marked JOHNNIE COCHRAN, Simpson Attorney: May I see these, Your Honor? MARCIA CLARK: These are photographs that have been previously Judge LANCE ITO, Los Angeles Superior Court: Which exhibit is this? Why don't you show them to Mr. Cochran real quickly, please. Mr. Cochran. Which exhibit is this, counsel? Five forty? FRED GRAHAM, Anchor: And as the attorneys look at the photographs here, we might want to try and clarify what's going on. Although they haven't announced it, what had happened is that there had been blood had been collected from the Bronco in the days immediately following the murders, and then the Bronco sat for a good period of time. In the interim, Mr. William Blasini, who's on the stand, looked in there. Said he saw no blood, but the defense theory apparently is that more blood was picked up from the Bronco by police officials after this. And, Danny Davis, what's the implication of all this as far as the defense is concerned? DANNY DAVIS, Criminal Defense Attorney: Well, either they've made a mistake or they're hoping to mislead the jury or, worse, that this truck wasn't supervised, blood was added, and this evidence is fabricated. FRED GRAHAM: Yeah, the implication is that and so the implication that the defense is trying to well, there's several levels here. One is that this was certainly sloppy police work to leave this car unattended where people could come up. And pretty clearly they're saying, look, if some conspirator out to frame O.J. Simpson wanted to go and plant blood inside that Bronco it was sure easy to do it. And this witness at least hadn't seen some of the blood so it could have come to be there in that way. DANNY DAVIS: Yeah, the weight will turn on whether or not there were people that came and collected and gathered and photographed before this man came around. If that's the case, it's probably an hour's time. It looks like a little stretching on the part of the defense. FRED GRAHAM: Well, the defense is I think it's attempting to say, look, this was blood was collected both before and after. We heard Mr. Blasini say that part of the carpet had already been cut out, so we know, and we know from earlier testimony, that there was some evidence taken from that Bronco right from the days right after the murder. But then they came back later and got more. DANNY DAVIS: Yeah. Well, in the time it's taken he's testified, ``I saw no blood when I was there,'' and that's basically what they've established. It's to the prosecution now to set up at least a brief rebuttal or in cross that people came and went before then and got all we needed. If they came later and you didn't see it, that's that's the problem. That's the weight of this evidence. FRED GRAHAM: And he has already they've gotten one concession out of him; that is, on cross-examination. Marcia Clark showed the jury a picture in which you can see fingerprint dust near the handle of on the outside of the Bronco. You would assume that that would have still been there when Mr. Blasini went there. He said that he didn't see that, so there were some things that he did not observe. We'll take a break, and we'll return after this. [commercial break] FRED GRAHAM: And they are ready to resume the questioning. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. Ms. Clark, do you want to mark this? MARCIA CLARK: Yes, Your Honor. Collectively, People's 598 and then I will Judge LANCE ITO: Hold on just a second. Mrs. Robertson? MARCIA CLARK: I'm sorry. Mrs. ROBERTSON: 601. Judge LANCE ITO: 601. MARCIA CLARK: 601? OK, 601. And then I'll describe the photographs and label them A, B, C, D. Judge LANCE ITO: Thank you. All right, do you want Mr. Blasini to step down? MARCIA CLARK: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. Mr. Blasini, why don't you grab the pointer and step down. MARCIA CLARK: Those photographs we labeled as A shows the driver's panel with the numbers 21, 22, and 23. First I'm going to show it to you, sir, and ask you if you were looking for little smears of blood like those marked in markers of 21, 22, and 23? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. Rephrase the question. MARCIA CLARK: The red substance near 22, next to 22. OK, and do you see this red substance near 21? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, I do. MARCIA CLARK: Do you see the red substance near 23? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, I do. MARCIA CLARK: Now, if you were told, sir, that this photograph was taken on June the 14th, a week prior to your getting into the Bronco, would it change your opinion or your testimony, I mean, that you did not see any blood on the driver's door. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Assumes a fact not in evidence. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. WILLIAM BLASINI: Well, the day I seen the Bronco MARCIA CLARK: Yes. WILLIAM BLASINI: There was no blood. MARCIA CLARK: You saw no blood in any of these areas, is that your testimony, sir? WILLIAM BLASINI: [speaks off mike] MARCIA CLARK: Sure. WILLIAM BLASINI: I can tell you that I didn't see any blood here. I didn't see any blood here. This might be possible. MARCIA CLARK: All right. WILLIAM BLASINI: But I didn't see anything [crosstalk] Judge LANCE ITO: Wait. Wait. MARCIA CLARK: Your Honor, I'm going to describe what the witness has just said. Judge LANCE ITO: Excuse me, counsel. MARCIA CLARK: I'm sorry. Judge LANCE ITO: When I say wait that means everybody waits. MARCIA CLARK: I didn't hear you. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. Proceed. MARCIA CLARK: For the record, the witness indicated here on the area shown by 21, and here, the area shown by 22. In the area of 23 where there is the driver's door handle on the inside, he said that might have been blood there. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: No, I mean, that misstates it, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: It does. MARCIA CLARK: OK. What did you say about the area around 23, sir? WILLIAM BLASINI: Possibly, but I didn't see that section that day. I know that I looked at I looked at the whole door but I didn't see that. MARCIA CLARK: You looked at the whole door but you did not look in the Judge LANCE ITO: Excuse me. Mr. Cochran, you're going to have to you're blocking the jurors there. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Sorry, Your Honor. MARCIA CLARK: You did not look at the interior portion of the door handle of 23? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Your Honor, may I say something? When you say, ``I didn't see that,'' you're trying to describe it for the record, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: Ms. Clark is conducting this examination. It's her record to make. All right? Ms. Clark. I will remind her if she doesn't do something, believe me. MARCIA CLARK: You can step back, sir. The interior portion where the driver's door handle is, did you look specifically into this area where the number 23 is? WILLIAM BLASINI: No. MARCIA CLARK: So that we're clear, you are not telling this jury that there was no blood in that area which is marked with the number 23, correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, I'm not. I'm not saying that. MARCIA CLARK: And are you telling this jury that you specially got as close as you could to look carefully at the interior door panel at areas 21 and 22? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, I am. MARCIA CLARK: How close did you get, sir? WILLIAM BLASINI: As about as close as I am to you. MARCIA CLARK: You looked that closely while you were in the car? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, ma'am. Judge LANCE ITO: Indicating about 18 inches to two feet. MARCIA CLARK: All right, sir. Now I'm going to show you another photograph of that area which has a date of September 1st, 1994, on it. I'm going to ask you to look at this photograph. Do you see the number 298? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, I do. MARCIA CLARK: Do you see what appears to be a red area there? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, I do. MARCIA CLARK: Do you see the number 296? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, I do. MARCIA CLARK: Do you see a red area down below that? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, ma'am. MARCIA CLARK: Do you see the number 297? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, I do. MARCIA CLARK: Can you see a red area around 297? WILLIAM BLASINI: I see a smudge. I don't see a red area. MARCIA CLARK: And what color smudge does that appear to be? WILLIAM BLASINI: It could be brown, it could be black. It's a dark color. MARCIA CLARK: Your Honor, I'm going to put Post-its on for the lettering labels of these photographs. The first one was A, this one that we have been describing with the numbers 298, 299, 296, 297, and 300. Judge LANCE ITO: Thank you. MARCIA CLARK: And if you were told, sir, that this photograph was taken on September 1st, 1994, which is after you were in the Bronco, would that change your opinion any as to whether or not there was other areas of blood in that on that door that you just couldn't see at the time you were in the car? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. WILLIAM BLASINI: No MARCIA CLARK: I'm sorry? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, it wouldn't change my opinion. MARCIA CLARK: I have a third photograph I'd asked be marked C, Your Honor, with the numbers 31 and 30. I'm showing it to the witness now. Does this appear to be the console area of the Bronco, sir? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, ma'am. MARCIA CLARK: And do you see areas where there is there are red smudges on that side, on the passenger side of that console? WILLIAM BLASINI: I sure do. MARCIA CLARK: You see it by the numbers there? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, ma'am. MARCIA CLARK: At the time you were in the Bronco on June the 21st, there were no numbers marking any spots, is that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, correct. MARCIA CLARK: Now, are you telling us when you sat on the passenger seat, your leg would have been right up against the area marked by 30, is that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct. MARCIA CLARK: 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? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: I object to the form of that question, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. WILLIAM BLASINI: When I was sitting on the seat, yes, correct. MARCIA CLARK: So during the time that you were sitting in the passenger side of the Bronco you would not have been able to see these red areas, isn't that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: I would have been able to see this right here. MARCIA CLARK: Excuse me? WILLIAM BLASINI: I would have been able to see right on the top of the console and on the side. MARCIA CLARK: OK, for the record the witness is pointing to the top of the console where there is no marking for any red stain, and you're indicating, where else could you have seen while you were sitting in the seat? WILLIAM BLASINI: Right where the number is. MARCIA CLARK: You would have been able to see that number. WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, ma'am. MARCIA CLARK: Do you is it your testimony that you would also have been able to see the red stain to the left of that number. WILLIAM BLASINI: When I was sitting down in the car, no, but that's not when I saw the marking. MARCIA CLARK: OK, and your testimony is, sir I'm going to put it on the But you saw that you specifically looked at that part of the console, is that right? WILLIAM BLASINI: 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. I looked straight at the console. That's what I looked at. MARCIA CLARK: And you specifically looked at the console. WILLIAM BLASINI: Well, a Bronco sits a little higher than a regular car does, so when you enter the car the seat's higher. So when you look in you automatically see the console, you see the top of the seat almost parallel with the console. MARCIA CLARK: And then did you put your elbows down on the passenger seat and stare at the console? Is that what you did? WILLIAM BLASINI: 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. MARCIA CLARK: OK. And you looked specifically at the area shown in 30? WILLIAM BLASINI: I looked straight ahead, right. MARCIA CLARK: Did you look at the area shown in 31? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, I didn't, not at that point. MARCIA CLARK: All right. I'll ask that this be labeled at C, Your Honor. Now, you're telling us, sir, that you did not see the red stain depicted in 31, is that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct. MARCIA CLARK: You're not telling the jury it wasn't there. WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct. MARCIA CLARK: You did not see the red stain marked in 30, is that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct. MARCIA CLARK: You're not telling the jury it wasn't there. WILLIAM BLASINI: I didn't see it. MARCIA CLARK: You're not telling the jury it wasn't there. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Object. I object to the form of that question. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. MARCIA CLARK: He's non-responsive. Can you answer the question I asked you, sir? WILLIAM BLASINI: Anything is possible, but I didn't see the marking. MARCIA CLARK: You didn't see it. That's what you're telling us, correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct. MARCIA CLARK: You cannot tell us that it wasn't there. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. WILLIAM BLASINI: It wasn't there when I looked. MARCIA CLARK: You are telling us that it wasn't there. WILLIAM BLASINI: When I looked, I didn't see the marking. MARCIA CLARK: Now, if I told you that that photographs was taken on June the 14th, a week prior to your getting into the Bronco, sir, would that change your opinion any. WILLIAM BLASINI: No, ma'am. MARCIA CLARK: So you know another now that's been I think previously shown, now it's got numbers in it 303, do you see that? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, ma'am. MARCIA CLARK: Appeared to be the console. WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, ma'am. MARCIA CLARK: Bottom right hand corner has the date September 1, '94, correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct. MARCIA CLARK: Do you see red stains in the area of 303, 306, 304, 305 in this? WILLIAM BLASINI: I sure do. MARCIA CLARK: And you're telling this jury that you did not see any of those red stains when you were in the Bronco on June the 21st, is that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: I didn't see 303 and I didn't see 306. MARCIA CLARK: And you cannot tell the jury that 303, 304, and 305 were not there. WILLIAM BLASINI: Correct. MARCIA CLARK: You didn't see them. WILLIAM BLASINI: I didn't see them, correct. MARCIA CLARK: But they could have been there. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: I object to the form of the question. Calls for speculation, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, they could have been. MARCIA CLARK: I ask that this photograph be labeled D, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: Yes. MARCIA CLARK: 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 that photograph was taken on September 1st, 1994, after you were in the Bronco? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question again, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. WILLIAM BLASINI: It wouldn't change my testimony. MARCIA CLARK: But so we're clear, sir, you're telling this jury what you saw or did not see, not what was or was not there? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Objection. That's argumentative. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. MARCIA CLARK: May I ask that the jury be allowed to look at this board before I conclude cross-examination? Or should I conclude first and then Judge LANCE ITO: I think the photographs are large enough and I think we've seen these photographs several times before. If there's anybody on the jury panel who feels they want to get up and look at the photographs, raise your hand. Anybody? I think they've already seen these photographs. Thank you. All right. Can Mr. Blasini take his seat? MARCIA CLARK: Now, Mr. Blasini, when you opened the car door, no interior light came on in that Bronco, did it? WILLIAM BLASINI: Not that I can remember. MARCIA CLARK: And the glasses that you're wearing today, are those prescription? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, they're not. MARCIA CLARK: Did you wear those glasses back on June 21st, 1994? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, I had regular sunglasses, dark sunglasses. MARCIA CLARK: OK. And you wore those while you were looking while you were inside the Bronco? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, I didn't. MARCIA CLARK: When did you take them off? WILLIAM BLASINI: When I entered the building. MARCIA CLARK: And you're wearing tinted glasses today in court, aren't you? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, I am. MARCIA CLARK: And why is that? WILLIAM BLASINI: I had radial keratotomy about seven years ago and I get a glare from lights, certain lights, fluorescent lights, sunlight, so I wear the tinted glasses. MARCIA CLARK: And that happened and that's since seven years ago, sir? WILLIAM BLASINI: About seven years ago, yes. MARCIA CLARK: Is it true, sir, that the interior of the Viertel's building, T-2, where the Bronco was parked, has fluorescent lights? WILLIAM BLASINI: I think so, yes, but they're never on. MARCIA CLARK: Are you testifying to this jury that they were not on on June the 21st, 1994? WILLIAM BLASINI: A lot of times during the daytime they don't have the lights on. MARCIA CLARK: Are you telling this jury they were not on on June the 21st, 1994? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. WILLIAM BLASINI: I couldn't tell you. I couldn't remember. MARCIA CLARK: I have nothing further. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Few other questions, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Cochran. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You had this radial keratotomy about seven years ago, is that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And it corrected your vision so that you're able to see quite well, is that right? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: The only reason you wear the tinted shades is to avoid glare, is that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Did you eye condition did not affect you when you looked at the console before you got inside that car, did you? MARCIA CLARK: Objection, leading. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. [The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.] Live Trial Coverage - CA v. Simpson - Day 142 - Part 13 JOHNNIE COCHRAN, Simpson Team Attorney: [in progress] about seven years ago, is that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI, Defense Witness: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And it corrected your vision so that you're able to see quite well. Is that right? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: The only reason you wear the tinted shades is to avoid glare, is that correct? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Did Your eye condition did not affect you when you looked at the console before you got inside that car, did it? MARCIA CLARK, Deputy District Attorney: Objection, leading. Judge LANCE ITO, Los Angeles Superior Court: Sustained. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Did your eye condition affect you before you before you got inside that car on June 21st, 1994? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, it didn't. MARCIA CLARK: Objection, that calls for speculation. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You didn't see any blood inside that Bronco did you? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, sir. MARCIA CLARK: Objection, leading. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: In fact, Ms. Clark didn't ask you about number 299, here on the ``B'' by the windowsill. Can you see that from where you are? WILLIAM BLASINI: No, I can't. MARCIA CLARK: Objection. That's an improper question. I did ask him. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. Restate restate the question. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: May he step down, Your Honor? Judge LANCE ITO: Yes, he may. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: I have just one question. You may step down, sir. On June 21st, 1994, this area, number 299 on the ``B'' photograph here, did you see any red substance on that date in that area? MARCIA CLARK: Asked and answered. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. WILLIAM BLASINI: No, I didn't. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Did anything Ms. Clark ask you in any way change your mind that you did not see any blood on that date? WILLIAM BLASINI: No. Nothing changed my mind. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You come here, told us the truth today? WILLIAM BLASINI: I did, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: To show up to subpoena? WILLIAM BLASINI: Yes, sir. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Thank you, sir. Judge LANCE ITO: Ms. Clark, anything else? MARCIA CLARK: Nothing further. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, Mr. Blasini, thank you very much, sir. You're excused. All right, Mr. Douglas, can we Where did Mr. Douglas disappear to? All right, Mr. Fertlow I'm sorry, prosecution exhibit. Mr. Fertlow, would you remove the exhibit and the easel, please? FRED GRAMM, Anchor: As they remove the items, here, and decide who to call next, we'll listen first to Apparently, they're calling the next witness. I want to quickly ask Danny Davis Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Rolf Rokahr FRED GRAMM: you are a defense attorney. Did that amount to anything, a little bit, nothing much or a lot? DANNY DAVIS, Criminal Defense Atty.: Well, I was surprised that it wasn't necessarily a mistake. He's saying notwithstanding pictures before and after, I looked and they weren't there. He held ground. So it's probably useful to argue for those that would cling for an acquittal when you're deliberating this case on the blood contamination and planning. FRED GRAMM: All right. We have another witness, and we'll listen. COURT CLERK: [in progress] so help you God? ROLF ROKAHR, LAPD Photographer: I do. COURT CLERK: Please have a seat at the witness stand. State and spell your first and last names for the record. ROLF ROKAHR: My last name is Rokahr, R-O-K-A-H-R. Firs name is Rolf, R-O-L-F, middle initial D. Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Neufeld? PETER NEUFELD, Simpson Team DNA Expert: Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and good afternoon, Mr. Rokahr. ROLF ROKAHR: Good afternoon, Mr. Neufeld. PETER NEUFELD: Mr. Rokahr, would you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what you do for a living? ROLF ROKAHR: I'm a photographer for the city of Los Angeles assigned to the police department. PETER NEUFELD: And how long have you been working as a photographer for the Los Angeles Police Department? ROLF ROKAHR: As a civilian employee, almost 10 years nine years in two months, and I worked as a reserve officer since 1980 or '81, up until '86. I'm still working as a reserve officer. PETER NEUFELD: Mr. Rokahr. Judge LANCE ITO: If you could, try to keep your voice up, please. All right, Mrs. Robertson, give me a little more volume on that, please? PETER NEUFELD: Do you want some more juice? Mr. Rokahr, would you please tell the jury what it is you do for the Los Angeles Police Department, what your job title is and what that entails. ROLF ROKAHR: The job title is ``photographer two,'' and I photograph, primarily, homicide scenes. At this point, I work from 10:00 at night 'til 5:30 in the morning, and that's my my main job. PETER NEUFELD: Well, you didn't work 10:00 to five a.m. last night, did you, sir? ROLF ROKAHR: No, sir, I didn't. PETER NEUFELD: OK. And when you say you go out to photograph homicide scenes for the Los Angeles Police Department do you go out there with equipment? ROLF ROKAHR: I carry equipment in the police car. It's an unmarked car, and I have cameras, film, tripod everything a photographer would need. PETER NEUFELD: And what happens to the film after you shoot the photographs, sir? ROLF ROKAHR: When I return to the office after working, usually, all night, up until the morning, I turn the film in to be processed. If there is nobody there to do it, I do it myself. I do the developing myself. PETER NEUFELD: Does that developing occur at the Los Angeles Police Department? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, sir. PETER NEUFELD: Is that at Parker Center? ROLF ROKAHR: It's at Parker Center, on the fourth floor. PETER NEUFELD: By by the way, sir, did you meet me for the first time yesterday at Parker Center? ROLF ROKAHR: I believe it was first time, yeah. PETER NEUFELD: OK. Well, you have no recollection of ever talking to me before, do you, sir? ROLF ROKAHR: No, I don't. PETER NEUFELD: And when we met yesterday at Parker Center, it was to interview you in connection with this case. Is that correct, sir? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. PETER NEUFELD: And who else was present for this interview that I had with you at Parker Center? ROLF ROKAHR: I don't know who the other gentleman is that you brought, but it was Dave Atkins [sp] that was present with us, I think. PETER NEUFELD: And who is David Atkins? ROLF ROKAHR: David Atkins is my OIC, which stands for ``officer in charge'' of the photo lab. PETER NEUFELD: Who also works for Los Angeles Police Department? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, sir. PETER NEUFELD: And was there also a deputy district attorney present for this interview? ROLF ROKAHR: I'm trying to think of his name. PETER NEUFELD: Oh, well, even if you don't remember his name, was somebody from the district attorney's office present? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes. Mr. Yokelson. PETER NEUFELD: OK. I'd like to call your attention to the early morning hours of June 13th, 1994. Were you, the Los Angeles Police Department photographer, assigned to go to 875 Bundy in connection with a double homicide? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. PETER NEUFELD: And approximately what time did you arrive at that location? ROLF ROKAHR: We received a call at 02:48, and I probably arrived around 03:20. PETER NEUFELD: Sir, did you have an opportunity to review the logs of Bundy to I'm sorry, withdrawn. When you first arrived at 875 Bundy, did you immediately go see the log-in police officer? ROLF ROKAHR: I could not find him where I had parked. PETER NEUFELD: And where was that that you had parked? ROLF ROKAHR: I parked right on the very corner of, is it I believe it's Dorothy and Bundy, and I had to walk in back of the the actual location to find someone who had the log. PETER NEUFELD: And when you found someone who had the log, they logged you in, so to speak? ROLF ROKAHR: They logged me in, yes, sir. PETER NEUFELD: OK, and have you, at any time, reviewed that log, prior to your testifying today? ROLF ROKAHR: I have never seen that log. PETER NEUFELD: When you spoke with me yesterday, did you tell me that the time that you had arrived at 875 Bundy was approximately 3:10 in the morning? ROLF ROKAHR: Could be 3:10, could be 3:20. I'm not sure. PETER NEUFELD: OK. And when you arrived, sir, how many cameras did you use to photograph the scene at 875 Bundy? ROLF ROKAHR: Just one camera. PETER NEUFELD: And what kind of film did you use? ROLF ROKAHR: We use 200ASA Kodak. PETER NEUFELD: Is that color film? ROLF ROKAHR: Kodak yeah, gold, color film. PETER NEUFELD: It's color print film? ROLF ROKAHR: Color print film. PETER NEUFELD: And as soon as you signed in or logged in at the rear of the house, were you then given a walk through through the scene? ROLF ROKAHR: I was given a walk through by the police officer. PETER NEUFELD: And would that be a uniformed police officer who gave you that walk through? ROLF ROKAHR: Uniformed police officer. PETER NEUFELD: And approximately how long did that walk through take, sir? ROLF ROKAHR: Probably no more than five minutes. PETER NEUFELD: So if you had arrived at approximately 3:10, would that mean that the walk through ended at about 3:15? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection. Misstates his testimony. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. Restate the question. PETER NEUFELD: If you arrived at 3:20 in the morning I'm sorry, if you logged in at 3:20 in the morning, and the walk through took approximately five minutes, would that mean that the walk through was over by 3:25? ROLF ROKAHR: I would say so. PETER NEUFELD: OK. And as soon as the walk through was over, did you encounter Detective Phillips? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection, this is leading. PETER NEUFELD: As soon as the walk through was over, did encounter a detective? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: [objects off mike] Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. PETER NEUFELD: Excuse me? ROLF ROKAHR: No, I did not. PETER NEUFELD: After you completed the walk through which took approximately five minutes, what is the next thing that happened? ROLF ROKAHR: I shot the overalls of the streets involved. So what we do is we shoot up and down the street, the intersection and I believe I shot pictures can I refer to some of my notes here? PETER NEUFELD: Yes. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, Mr. Rokahr, it appears you've brought a notebook with are these all the photographs that you took on that day? ROLF ROKAHR: These are all the photographs I took. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. Proceed. PETER NEUFELD: OK. Mr. Rokahr, you said that beginning, then, at about 3:25 after you had a walk through of the scene, you began to shoot overalls, OK? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. PETER NEUFELD: When you say ``overalls,'' is another word for that ``establishment shots?'' ROLF ROKAHR: Location shots. PETER NEUFELD: OK. And are those shots the purpose of those shots to give one an overall impression of the street scene? ROLF ROKAHR: The street scene and possible escape routes that the detectives might want to see if a witness should become available. PETER NEUFELD: And so would those be a series of photographs taken both in front of 875 Bundy and also behind 875 Bundy in the alleyway? ROLF ROKAHR: And up and down the streets. PETER NEUFELD: OK. And, sir, approximately how long did it take you to shoot those overall or establishment or location shots that you just described? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection, no foundation. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. You can answer the question. ROLF ROKAHR: I would say approximately 25, 35 minutes. PETER NEUFELD: OK. So if you began taking these overall or location shots at approximately 3:25 in the morning and they took approximately 25 minutes to shoot, that would mean that you were finished shooting these location shots at approximately 3:50 or 3:55 in the morning. Would that be a fair estimate? ROLF ROKAHR: Something like that. PETER NEUFELD: And, sir, immediately after you completed shooting the overalls, did you then speak to a detective? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection, this is leading. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. Rephrase the question. PETER NEUFELD: Well, what was the next thing that happened after you completed shooting these location shots, sir? ROLF ROKAHR: I believe, at that point, I met up with Mark Fuhrman, Detective Mark Fuhrman. PETER NEUFELD: All right. And about how many minutes after you finished shooting these overalls, location shots, was it that you met up with Detective Mark Fuhrman. ROLF ROKAHR: It's difficult to say. At that time, it meant nothing to me, the difference in time, so I would say it could be an hour. I'm just guessing at this point. PETER NEUFELD: Sir. Sir, when you were interviewed by me yesterday, do you recall that I asked you, at the beginning of the interview, whether it was all right for me to tape record the interview? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes. PETER NEUFELD: And do you recall saying that it was fine with you? ROLF ROKAHR: No problem. PETER NEUFELD: And during that interview, do you recall saying that it was approximately five Judge LANCE ITO: Proceed. PETER NEUFELD: When you were interviewed by me yesterday on tape at the Los Angeles Police Department Parker Center, didn't you say to me that it was approximately five to ten minutes after you completed the overall shots of the scene that you encountered Detective Fuhrman? ROLF ROKAHR: I may have said that to you. I didn't realize I stayed by my car for a while. PETER NEUFELD: Sir, did you have a conversation with any member of the district attorney's office or the police department after we finished our interview yesterday about the facts concerning this case? ROLF ROKAHR: No, sir. PETER NEUFELD: Did you have any discussion with any member of the district attorney's office or the police department today about this case and your involvement before you took the witness stand? ROLF ROKAHR: No, sir. I looked at my paperwork, at my logs. PETER NEUFELD: Sir, during the lunch break, did you speak to Assistant District Attorney Christopher Darden about your involvement in this case? Judge LANCE ITO: Deputy district attorney PETER NEUFELD: Oh, excuse me, Deputy District Attorney Christopher Darden about your involvement in this case? ROLF ROKAHR: I don't know whether that was. We spoke, but I don't know whether it was during the lunch period. Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Neufeld, 2:30. PETER NEUFELD: OK. Sir, are you admitting that yesterday morning when I interviewed you at the police department headquarters at Parker Center that you said to me that you met up with Mark Fuhrman approximately five or 10 minutes after completing the overall photographs, or at about 4:10 in the morning, or so? Do you recall saying that to me yesterday on tape? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, I do. PETER NEUFELD: OK. And when you met up with Mark Fuhrman at approximately 4:10 in the morning, sir, did Mark Fuhrman take you on another walk through through the scene? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection. Judge LANCE ITO: It is. It's leading, counsel. PETER NEUFELD: All right. When you met up with Mark Fuhrman at about 4:10 in the morning, what did Mark Fuhrman do with you, sir. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection. This misstates the witness' testimony. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. Judge LANCE ITO: What happened. Mr. Rokahr, what happened when you met up with Detective Fuhrman? ROLF ROKAHR: Detective Fuhrman asked me to come around to, I believe, it's Dorothy Street to the back of the house to show me what we have as far as the crime scene is concerned and as far as evidence is concerned. PETER NEUFELD: And at that time, when he took you through, did he ask you to take a few pictures of something in particular? ROLF ROKAHR: By the time we arrived to the actual crime scene, he, first of all pointed out the bodies were obvious some evidence, and he asked me to photograph it. PETER NEUFELD: Now I'm sorry. ROLF ROKAHR: And I asked him to actually point out where the evidence is, because it was rather dark in the green foliage there. PETER NEUFELD: Now, sir, if, as you indicated yesterday during the interview that you first encountered Mark Fuhrman at 4:10 a.m., how long did it take you to walk with Mark Fuhrman to the location where these items of evidence were in the green foliage, approximately? ROLF ROKAHR: I really don't want to narrow myself down on that, because I'm not sure. PETER NEUFELD: Well, I'm not asking you for a specific whether it's four minutes or seven minutes. I'm just asking you would it fair to say, for instance, that it's less than 15 minutes from the time that Mr. Fuhrman encountered you and the time you got to those items of evidence which were in the green foliage. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection, Your Honor, this is leading. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. PETER NEUFELD: Would that be a fair estimate of time? ROLF ROKAHR: Could be 15 minutes, could be 20 minutes, 30. I'm not sure. PETER NEUFELD: OK. Would it be a fair estimate that it was something between 15 minutes and 30 minutes? ROLF ROKAHR: I think it's a fair estimate. PETER NEUFELD: All right. So, sir, if, as you told me yesterday that it was approximately 4:10 in the morning when you encountered Mr. Fuhrman at 875 Bundy, at the time that he was having you take pictures of items of evidence that were in and about the green foliage, would that be some time between 4:25 in the morning and 4:40 in the morning, based on your estimate, sir? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: [objects off mike] Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. ROLF ROKAHR: I would say it's fair. PETER NEUFELD: OK. And the couple of pictures that Detective Fuhrman instructed you to take, at that point, sir, were they pictures of Mr. Fuhrman pointing at the glove? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection, misstates the testimony, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. PETER NEUFELD: Did Mr. Fuhrman I'm sorry. Did Detective Fuhrman instruct you to take any pictures of him pointing at objects of evidence. ROLF ROKAHR: No, he didn't. I requested him to point to the evidence. PETER NEUFELD: OK. And was the evidence that you requested him to point to the glove and the hat? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. PETER NEUFELD: And that would be the glove and the hat at Bundy. Is that correct? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. PETER NEUFELD: And did you, at that moment, take pictures of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove and that hat? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, I did. PETER NEUFELD: And, sir, was one of the reasons that you asked Detective Fuhrman to point to the item is because it was nighttime, and, thus, the glove was difficult to see? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: [objects off mike] Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. PETER NEUFELD: I'm sorry, what is your answer, sir? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. [The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.] Live Trial Coverage - CA v. Simpson - Day 142 - Part 14 PETER NEUFELD, Simpson Attorney: Now, sir, after taking those couple of pictures of the glove and the hat Judge LANCE ITO, Los Angeles Superior Court: I think we're assuming the number of photographs at this point. PETER NEUFELD: OK. Do you know approximately how many photographs you took of Detective Fuhrman pointing at items of evidence near the green foliage that night? ROLF ROKAHR, Defense Witness: I believe only those two. PETER NEUFELD: Now after taking those two photographs that you just described, sir, did you then begin to take did you at some point after that take other pictures of the scene? ROLF ROKAHR: May I? Judge LANCE ITO: And the record should reflect that Mister Rokahr is referring again to his notebook of photographs. [pause] ROLF ROKAHR: Yeah, I only show two photographs in the entire sequence of Detective Fuhrman pointing to the items in the foliage. PETER NEUFELD: OK. And after you took those two photos at some time after you took those two photos, did you begin to take other photographs of the scene at 875 Bundy? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. PETER NEUFELD: And in the next several photographs that you took after you took photographs of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, for those next several photographs, were you being instructed by a police officer to take photographs, or were you simply using your own professional judgment in taking them alone? ROLF ROKAHR: Some were my own choices, and some were there were no police officers instructing me. It would have been Mark Fuhrman. PETER NEUFELD: Well, sir, in the pictures that you took immediately after the glove, the first let's say five photographs I'm sorry. Withdrawn as to a media. The next may I come approach the list one second? Judge LANCE ITO: You may. FRED GRAHAM, Anchor: Apparently the point that the defense is attempting to show here is that Mark Fuhrman testified falsely or erroneously when he said it was much later when he came back from Rockingham to the scene at Bundy and the picture was taken. PETER NEUFELD: Sir, for instance, sequentially, the next five photographs that you took, after you took the pictures of Mark Fuhrman pointing at the glove, for those five pictures, were you relying on your own professional judgment, or were you being instructed by a detective or police officer to take those pictures? ROLF ROKAHR: At that point, I believe Mark Fuhrman said, ``Let's go around the front of the the building and shoot from there.'' PETER NEUFELD: Sir, when you were interviewed by me yesterday, didn't you tell me that as to the next group of five photographs that you took after Mark Fuhrman pointed out the glove, that as to the next five photographs, they were not taken at the direction of any detective or police officer, but they were pictures that you simply took using your own professional judgment didn't you say that to me yesterday? ROLF ROKAHR: I probably did, meaning meaning that I do shoot a lot of photographs in my own judgment. The reason I'm saying now that Mark Fuhrman instructed me to go around the front is because I switched from the actual crime scene, then we had to walk all the way around front to do these photographs, and I think I was instructed. PETER NEUFELD: Sir, what happened yesterday, when I interviewed you, you said that for these next photographs, you were not instructed, isn't that correct? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, Deputy District Attorney: Objection. Asked and answered. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And it's argumentative. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. You can answer the question. ROLF ROKAHR: I really don't remember what I told you last night, or yesterday afternoon. PETER NEUFELD: All right. One one moment. [pause] I'm going to ask you to listen to this portion of the tape, sir, of the conversation of the interview of yesterday, and tell me whether or not you did say during the interview yesterday that as to the next five photographs, after the photographs of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, that for those you were not instructed by any police officer or detective, but instead were using your own professional judgment. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: I would object. I'd like an opportunity to hear this, if it's going to be Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: heard by the jury, or anything else that's said on it. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. PETER NEUFELD: May we approach, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: No. PETER NEUFELD: It was it was provided in discovery, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. You said it was a tape recording from yesterday that you made. PETER NEUFELD: They have a copy. Judge LANCE ITO: You gave them a copy? PETER NEUFELD: I gave them a copy. They received a copy this morning. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. PETER NEUFELD: As soon as I received it. Judge LANCE ITO: I have a request from the jury for a break. All right, let's take our recess at this point. PETER NEUFELD: OK. Judge LANCE ITO: All right? All right, we'll stand at recess for 15. All right, you can step down. FRED GRAHAM: And there seems to be either a misunderstanding or a dispute over whether or not copies of this tape have been supplied to Christopher Darden, who will be conducting the cross-examination in a timely fashion. As we all heard, Judge Ito thought, well, while they untangle this, it's a good time to let the jury go out. So we'll take a break, and we'll return after this. [Court TV break] [The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.] Live Trial Coverage - CA v. Simpson - Day 142 - Part 15 FRED GRAHAM, Anchor: The jury in the O. J. Simpson case is scheduled to be back in the courtroom in just a few minutes after taking its early afternoon break. In a day of testimony that appears to be rather choppy and in some respects not related very closely, although actually there is a consistent theme that runs through what the what proof the defense is attempting to elicit from its witnesses. Now, one reason, perhaps, that the theme is not quite as clear and as obvious as it might be is that perhaps there are too many lawyers involved. At least that's what Danny Davis, our guest commentator thinks. Why is that? DANNY DAVIS, Criminal Defense Attorney: Well, you know, the theme is is that police can perjure. They can have deep obnoxious feelings towards people of other cultures and that they'll plant evidence. The theme is a pernicious theme. And, I think, when you go from F. Lee Bailey to Johnnie Cochran to Mr. Neufeld all fine attorneys in their own way they want to make points within a witness. He didn't see the blood. When did Mark Fuhrman point it out? And these two women were shocked by what they heard from Fuhrman. But you lose a personal carry over, a bridge-to-bridge feeling of that rich commitment that a single attorney might bring to it. So, they're sacrificing for fine skills a solid, simple message. And it's been broken up by the withdrawal of Hodge for the time being and reconsideration with Kenny. So, these things will happen with more than one attorney. FRED GRAHAM: All right, now the participants have returned to the courtroom. The jury is apparently not placed and so we'll listen. Judge LANCE ITO, Los Angeles Superior Court (LIVE): All right, we're back on the record. All parties are again present. Mr. Darden, Mr. Neufeld, you've resolved your concerns regarding the tape? PETER NEUFELD, Simpson Attorney (LIVE): I don't think Mr. Darden has any objection now of me playing that portion of the tape. I think it should be made clear on the record that the tape was made yesterday and that first thing this morning, before we commenced court proceedings, a copy of the tape was given to Allen Yokelson [sp] and it's that tape which I'll be playing. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, the problem is, for the record, it's the standing rule of this Court and by this Court I mean the Superior Court that court reporters are not required to attempt to transcribe what is on tape recordings. So, Mr. Neufeld, what I'm going to direct you to do is tomorrow morning file with the Court a transcript of the portion of the tape that you're going to play for the record. PETER NEUFELD: Very well, sir. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, so that the record is complete. PETER NEUFELD: All right. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. Anything else? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, Prosecutor (LIVE): And so the record is clear. I have no objection to this small excerpt but as for others and it is true that Counsel gave us a copy of the tape this morning. But as the Court is aware, I've been here before the Court throughout Judge LANCE ITO: I understand that. All right. And you've cued up the snippet and showed it and um PETER NEUFELD: No, I haven't haven't played the snippet right now for Mr. Darden which I can certainly do. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, Mr. Harris, you have that cued up? All right. Let's just make sure we're all talking about the same snippet here. How long is the tape in its entirety? PETER NEUFELD: Well, this snippet is eight lines? Judge LANCE ITO: How long is the tape in its entirety? PETER NEUFELD: Probably an hour. Maybe a little more than an hour. Maybe an hour and 20 minutes. Judge LANCE ITO: OK. Let's hear the snippet, Mr. Harris. [excerpt from tape of yesterday's interview of Rolf Rokahr by Peter Neufeld] ROLF ROKAHR, LAPD Photographer: Reporter or the detective during their investigation photograph this, look at this. I want to show you this. Look at the watch. Whatever it is and get the photograph of the [unintelligible] One one way and one a different way. PETER NEUFELD: Well, let me give you this as an example. These two sheets. Which photographs [unintelligible] number 36 all the way up to 43, OK? [unintelligible] shots of the walkway leading up to the victim Nicole Brown Simpson and then getting right up to Nicole Brown Simpson. On the scene, in other words, are these shots that you is there a detective telling you to take these shots or are you just using your professional judgment in this? ROLF ROKAHR: No, my own judgment on this. I just [unintelligible] paw prints. PETER NEUFELD: Right. [end of excerpt from tape] PETER NEUFELD: OK, that's the end. Here we end at that point. Where he says ``I'm using my own judgment.'' Judge LANCE ITO: All right. Cue it back up. Let's have the jury, please. FRED GRAHAM: And so we appear to be in position here from Mr. Neufeld's point of view for what attorneys call impeachment. He video audiotaped his conversation just yesterday, as I recall, with Mr. Rolf Rokahr. And Mr. Rokahr Danny, it seems to me that Rolf Rokahr is imprecise about a lot of his times and the suggestion here is he's fudging to help the prosecution. But he said he hadn't talked to the prosecutors. DANNY DAVIS: Well, the difference seems to be about an hour's time. In the taped interview the day before he gives one time and then today it's an hour more. And the only thing that's been brought out is he might have talked to Chris Darden some time during day. So, we don't know what that hour's difference means but I think it has something to do with Mark Fuhrman was up to in between the first glove picture and the second glove picture. FRED GRAHAM: And as Dan Abrams said, it's rather imprecise, but Mark Fuhrman in his testimony sort of pushed his encounter with the glove further and further toward the daylight. DANNY DAVIS: Right. FRED GRAHAM: He was talking in terms of maybe seven o'clock or so in the morning. Light. And now we're seeing it be an effort by the defense to push it back to 4:30 4:20, if they can. DANNY DAVIS: In the cloak of dark. FRED GRAHAM: Yes. Cloak of darkness as they say. DANNY DAVIS: Right. FRED GRAHAM: And apparently it's possible to see and Mr. Rokahr has said himself if it hadn't been dark, he wouldn't have asked Fuhrman to point it out with his arm anyway. Well, now, here as apparently they are going to play that snippet for the jury. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, the record should reflect we've been rejoined all by by all the members of our jury panel and, Mr. Neufeld, you may continue. PETER NEUFELD: Thank you. Mr. Rokahr, when Detective Fuhrman initially approached you, was he alone at that point? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, he was. PETER NEUFELD: And were you alone at that point? ROLF ROKAHR: I was, too. PETER NEUFELD: And, by the way, did you know Detective Mark Fuhrman prior to June 13th, 1994? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, I did. PETER NEUFELD: For approximately how many years did you know Detective Mark Fuhrman? ROLF ROKAHR: I would have to guess. I'd say maybe five years. PETER NEUFELD: OK. And in what capacity did you know Detective Mark Fuhrman? ROLF ROKAHR: From working homicide scenes with him. PETER NEUFELD: In other words, it was scenes where he was the detective and you were simply the I don't mean simply, sir. ROLF ROKAHR: It's OK. PETER NEUFELD: And you were the Los Angeles Police Department official photographer for the crime scene? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. PETER NEUFELD: OK. And approximately how many crime scenes did you work Detective Fuhrman over those five years? ROLF ROKAHR: I would have to estimate, but I would say 12, 15. PETER NEUFELD: Now, going back to the questions I was asking you just before the break, sir, when you take these pictures, is there a way that you can determine what the sequence of each picture is? ROLF ROKAHR: Each of photographers have a set way of taking photographs. When you mentioned to me whether he instructed me on taking certain photographs on the evidence, yes he did. PETER NEUFELD: Sir, I'm asking you Your Honor, I would ask that you ask the witness to be responsive. I'm simply asking is there a method, a technical method that you can determine the sequence in which photographs are taken? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, there is. PETER NEUFELD: OK. And does each camera come with a counter on it? ROLF ROKAHR: There is a counter on each on most of the cameras we use. PETER NEUFELD: Well, does you camera have a counter, sir? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, it does. PETER NEUFELD: And the camera you used that night at Bundy, did it have a counter? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, sir. PETER NEUFELD: And could you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury how that works? ROLF ROKAHR: When we arrive at a crime scene, there is a data back on the back of my camera. And I can set, as far as the counter is concerned, six numbers zero-zero, zero-zero, zero-zero. From then on, it'll count up every shot that is taken. It adds a number, a digit to it. PETER NEUFELD: So, in other words, the first one will be zero-zero, zero-zero, zero-one? ROLF ROKAHR: That would be my slate that I photograph. PETER NEUFELD: OK. Now, in this particular instance, can you by looking in your book, tell us what the numbers were, in sequence, of the two photographs you took of Detective Mark Fuhrman pointing at the glove? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, I could. PETER NEUFELD: Could you please do so? ROLF ROKAHR: That would be 34 and 35. PETER NEUFELD: That means that those are the 34th and 35th pictures that you took at Bundy that night? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. PETER NEUFELD: Now, before the break, sir, I asked you about the very next several pictures. Do you recall that? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes. PETER NEUFELD: OK. Now, what I want you to do is look at photographs 36 in other words, the one immediately after 35 where Fuhrman is pointing at the glove all the way through 43. Do you see those? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, sir. PETER NEUFELD: OK. Now, isn't it a fact, sir, that when you took those photographs the first eight photographs after Fuhrman is pointing at the glove that as to those eight photographs, you were not having any detective instruct you as to what to shoot but you were simply relying on your own professional judgment, isn't that a fact? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, I would say it's a fact because of the sequence in these photographs which is the way I shoot. PETER NEUFELD: OK. Thank you. Now, you said earlier to the jury that you were using Kodacolor print film, ASA 200. Is that correct? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. PETER NEUFELD: And how many exposures are there in each roll that you use, sir? ROLF ROKAHR: Thirty-six exposures. PETER NEUFELD: Is that your standard practice? ROLF ROKAHR: That is what I prefer. PETER NEUFELD: OK. And on this night when you were at Bundy shooting, you were using rolls of 36? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. PETER NEUFELD: OK. Could you please tell the jury what is a contact print? ROLF ROKAHR: Contact print would be a print of a negative, same size as the negative is. PETER NEUFELD: OK. Now, if one wanted to, one could take the first 36 negatives or the first 35 negatives, however many negatives are on the first roll of film and print them, could they not? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, you could. PETER NEUFELD: And if you printed the first roll of film, then anyone who wanted to know what the sequence of photographs were, would be able to ascertain that, would they not? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. PETER NEUFELD: OK. What is next in order, Your Honor? Judge LANCE ITO: Eight-sixty-six. PETER NEUFELD: OK. Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Neufeld? PETER NEUFELD: I'm just to wait to these Judge LANCE ITO: Proceed. PETER NEUFELD: I'm going to show it to the witness when Judge LANCE ITO: Proceed. PETER NEUFELD: Oh. Sir, I ask you to take a look at defendant's 1366 in evidence. And, if you like, you can compare to the photographs you have in your blue book. And the question I have for you, sir, first of all is can you see the number by the way, you mentioned that the that there's a counter which numbers each photograph? ROLF ROKAHR: That's correct. PETER NEUFELD: When the roll of film is printed, do those numbers appear on each and every print? ROLF ROKAHR: It depends what the background is on the negative. PETER NEUFELD: OK. ROLF ROKAHR: If the background is very light, they're quite often difficult to see. PETER NEUFELD: But other than the fact that it may be difficult to see, is it the procedure that that number that you use on the counter will appear on the print? ROLF ROKAHR: It should be, yeah. PETER NEUFELD: OK. And, in fact, in that exhibit which I've shown you, do the numbers appear in the lower right-hand corner? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, they do. And there are some that do not show. PETER NEUFELD: The ones that do not show, is that because the background is extremely light? ROLF ROKAHR: Because the background is so light. PETER NEUFELD: OK. But can you tell the number because of the print that is directly in front of it or directly before it? ROLF ROKAHR: That's correct. PETER NEUFELD: I'm sorry. Directly before it and directly after it? ROLF ROKAHR: That's correct. PETER NEUFELD: OK. And, sir, if you'd like to compare it to your album, please go right ahead. But the question I have for you is, does this sheet, except for the fact that the images are slightly larger than they would be if it was a direct contact, does this page reflect the sequence of photographs on the very first roll of film that you shot that night at Bundy? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, it does. PETER NEUFELD: And, sir, do the first by the way, how many exposes exposures did you get out of that first roll? ROLF ROKAHR: There would be 36 35, 36. PETER NEUFELD: OK. And so sometimes when you're shooting a roll of 36, you only get 35? ROLF ROKAHR: It depends on how the camera on its first on its first advance, advances or depending on how far I have pushed the film into its position. PETER NEUFELD: OK. ROLF ROKAHR: So, I may run out at 36 and sometimes you might even get 37. PETER NEUFELD: In this particular roll, do you notice that the last shot on the roll is item number 35? Not item number but photograph number 35? ROLF ROKAHR: Yeah. I think its let me just check with this one and PETER NEUFELD: Certainly. [inaudible question] Judge LANCE ITO: You may. PETER NEUFELD: One second. OK. ROLF ROKAHR: Thirty-five. Number 36. PETER NEUFELD: That's the next [inaudible] ROLF ROKAHR: Yeah. I think. Either the next roll or on the last the last negative. PETER NEUFELD: You may have reloaded. ROLF ROKAHR: Walking around to the front of the building. PETER NEUFELD: OK. So, sir, to the best to the best of your recollection. I'm sorry. To the best of your recollection with this contact sheet, except for the fact that the actual negative was slightly larger than when they're printed there than they would be in a routine contact sheet, do they represent the first roll of film that you shot at Bundy? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, sir. PETER NEUFELD: And the first 33 frames on that roll, those would be those overall shots you talked about that you took between approximately or 3:25 and say 3:55 in the morning? ROLF ROKAHR: Whatever the time was, yes. PETER NEUFELD: OK. And the last two shots that appear on there, those would be the two shots that you took sometime between 4:20 and 4:35 in the morning, is that correct? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection, restates the testimony. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. Phrase question. PETER NEUFELD: Sir, didn't you didn't you say just before the break that the time that the photographs were taken of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, given the times that you gave for the other events that evening, would be somewhere between 4:20 and 4:35 in the morning? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Restates the testimony. PETER NEUFELD: Didn't you say that, sir? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection. Restates the testimony. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. ROLF ROKAHR: I probably did. I'm I have practically no recollection as to the actual times involved. PETER NEUFELD: Sir, yesterday when you were interviewed by me, were you interviewed by me for approximately an hour and a half? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. PETER NEUFELD: And would it be fair to say that the majority of that time you were giving a narrative of what happened, the order it happened and the times it happened on June 13th of 1994? [The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.] Live Trial Coverage - CA v. Simpson - Day 142 - Part 16 PETER NEUFELD, Simpson Attorney: [in progress] and would it be fair to say that the majority of that time, you were giving a narrative of what happened, the order it happened and the times it happened on June 13th of 1994? Isn't that correct? ROLF ROKAHR, LAPD Photographer: That is correct. PETER NEUFELD: May I publish it to the jury, Your Honor? Judge LANCE ITO, Los Angeles Superior Court: Yes. Actually, why don't you ask him one more do you want to ask him a question the frame numbers? PETER NEUFELD: That appears on each picture? OK. Aside from the number in the lower right-hand corner of the actual print, is there also a number beneath the print which indicates which frame it was or which shot it was in the roll? ROLF ROKAHR: There's only one imprint on the negative. There are no other numbers. PETER NEUFELD: Well, no. Are there numbers beneath each print there which tells you that this was, say, the third frame or the fourth frame or the sixth frame? ROLF ROKAHR: Oh, you mean the ones that are put on by Kodak? PETER NEUFELD: Yes, the ones that are put on by Kodak. ROLF ROKAHR: OK. PETER NEUFELD: OK. And do those also appear on that sheet? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. Mr. PETER NEUFELD: All right before Judge LANCE ITO: I'm sorry. PETER NEUFELD: Before I photograph it, I would like to use the ELMO, and I think we have to cut the feed. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. PETER NEUFELD: Just a couple of questions first. Sir, in the those establishment, location, overrule shots, whatever you want to call it those first 33 shots in those 33 shots you used a flash? ROLF ROKAHR: I use a flash on every photograph I take. PETER NEUFELD: OK. And the in addition to the flash, there were street lights that to some extent, or other artificial lights that were there, that illuminated the scene as well. Is that correct? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. PETER NEUFELD: And you can see the illumination given off by those other lights in these various prints, can you not? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. PETER NEUFELD: All right. And when you shot the two photographs of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove, as to those two shots, you shot those with a flash, did you not? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. PETER NEUFELD: And now I'm going to show you what is frame 34 and 35 on your first roll of film Sir, first of all, let me show you one at a time. You see those two? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, sir. PETER NEUFELD: And by the way, all the other photographs on that first roll one through 33 those were all shot a night time. Isn't that correct? ROLF ROKAHR: They were shot what? PETER NEUFELD: At night time? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, sir. PETER NEUFELD: And as to 34, the 34th picture, do you see that on the screen? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, sir. PETER NEUFELD: Is that Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove? ROLF ROKAHR: That is Detective Fuhrman. PETER NEUFELD: And in 35, is that also Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove? ROLF ROKAHR: That is also Detective Fuhrman. PETER NEUFELD: And those were the last two pictures you took on that first roll of film during the night at Bundy on June 13th in the early morning hours of the June 13, 1994? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, Deputy D.A.: the testimony. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: At night? That's Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. PETER NEUFELD: Your Honor, this time, I'm not going to [unintelligible] publish so I can pass to the jury? Judge LANCE ITO: You may. PETER NEUFELD: They may just look at it. Judge LANCE ITO: Hand it to juror number one, please. Hand it to juror number one. PETER NEUFELD: OK. FRED GRAHAM, Anchor: And it's a photo, actually it's a contact sheet, being passed around to the members of the juror [sic]. Apparently, the reason we were not shown what was being shown to the jury just before that were pictures I would assume included some rather bloody, gory scenes from the murder scene. We saw O.J. Simpson look away as he does when pictures of that type are shown. Now, Danny Davis, you're not sure that the total impact of that is all that great for the defense. DANNY DAVIS, Criminal Defense Attorney: Well, no. We're still struggling, all of us watching this, to wonder what the point is to be made. Is it Mark Fuhrman set up one photograph and then another second photograph of the second glove? And if it is, they should get to it. But I'm strongly surprised that they show those photographs to the jury and have the defendant look away again. During the defense it has to be an extremely important point, and it should be made clearly to justify that kind of procedure. FRED GRAHAM: Sure. It's been some time now in this trial, may have even been weeks, perhaps even months, since a number of gory photographs reminding these jurors of the terrible murders that occurred. DANNY DAVIS: And it's FRED GRAHAM: And now, they're being reminded again. DANNY DAVIS: It's the nature of attorneys being involve in a very long case. You start to live with it, and if you're a blood expert or a forensic type expert attorney, you may not be as bothered by those pictures after awhile. But this is late in the trial. And I'd be loathe to remind the jury what happened to the victims myself as a defense attorney unless I've got one bazooka point to make. FRED GRAHAM: Uh-huh. Now, of course we can't see what is being passed from hand to hand among the jurors, but I would certainly assume that it that doesn't include the gory scenes from the murder scenes. DANNY DAVIS: I couldn't believe that it would be. I just couldn't believe that it would be. This has bogged down a bit in the afternoon for the jury, I'm sure, by now. And it's probably time to focus on the point and get on to the next witness. McKinny might be due. The issue of Hodge is still forthcoming. Those are hot items for the defense. And I'm wondering now what both the defendant as well as the jurors are enduring when these slow, intense and detailed breaks occur during the course of the trial. FRED GRAHAM: Yeah. Well, it's hard for us to tell how much longer this will be. We will take a commercial break. And we'll return when it's time for the testimony to continue. [Court TV breaks] FRED GRAHAM: Welcome back. And in Judge Lance Ito's court room, photographs are being passed from hand to hand among the jurors. As you know, the camera always pans over at the audience or at the attorneys during this sort of operation so that there will be no chance of getting a picture of the jurors. And that's what's happening in the court room now. It's hard to tell sometimes how long that process is going to take. But I want to ask Danny Davis Danny, you were comparing this stage of this trial as about round nine of a heavyweight fight. Do you mean a 10-round fight? And what do you mean by that? DANNY DAVIS: No, I'd mean certainly a 12-round fight, and that means that there were any haymakers that either side had, those would be delivered. Their jawbones would be mending, and now's the time to start making clear winning points with the judges as they go into the final rounds. Always remembering that you've got to beat rebuttal in advance if you're a defense attorney, and you've got to come back with a knockout if you're the prosecutor in rebuttal. This is pretty slow action; they're playing on the ropes quite a bit. FRED GRAHAM: And I guess what you mean by that figure of speech is in this round you ought to be scoring, and right now the defense doesn't seem to be scoring any haymakers. DANNY DAVIS: That's right. They let a new trainer come in the corner who took away Hodge and McKinny and the force that they would represent in the strategy of the fight, and they're doing some lightweight punch and jab and clinging and bouncing off the ropes both sides are. FRED GRAHAM: All right. You have tried a number of murder cases, some of them capital cases, and, you know, I want to get your judgment as to if you can read anything at into what I experienced this morning. I was sitting there in the court room when Natalie Singer was testifying, and she was telling this jury and nine of the 12 jurors, primary jurors, are African Americans and she was telling them about these really vile things that Mark Fuhrman said about African Americans. And actually, he's got a mean way about him, the way it's described. It's just hateful. It's not just bias, but it's hateful bias. And nobody batted an eyelash. I mean they could have been testifying about DNA and Is this self-protective by jurors, or do we have something unusual going on here? DANNY DAVIS: Well, this is Los Angeles. And cutting either way frankly fabricated evidence or claims of racial bias isn't generally a surprise as prospect or a theory. And when you get to the test of it, frankly, the prosecutor would have been well served to just come back and say, ``Well, are you here to help O.J.? Are you here help us? Did you see anything in this case, at all?'' And make it clear that they just have a strong opinion about one witness. So, I think the jury has a good sense of what we've been hearing at large, if you will, the conventional wisdom that it doesn't prove or disprove guilt or innocence. It's goes to a piece of evidence or two, and may tend to support a theory of contamination, but it's not going to win the day. There has to be more. So, I'm not surprised. FRED GRAHAM: You know, I think sometimes, perhaps, people almost exaggerate the extent to which a jury of ordinary people will be shocked at this. DANNY DAVIS: Particularly in Los Angeles. These are big city folks, on the street, and on the TV and off and on and in other people's books and minds all the time. So, downtown L.A. is a unique bunch of people to put a case to. FRED GRAHAM: Well, you know, we've found out that apparently they weren't fazed at all but the testimony of alleged spousal brutality by O.J. Simpson. Apparently, the jurors, more or less, kind of shrugged that off, sort of, as you say, this is a tough place. DANNY DAVIS: Right. Right. And we know about this. This is an informed society out here. And I'm not surprised that the reaction visibly for any juror in a high publicity case isn't to remain calm and objective in any event. They're being looked at. FRED GRAHAM: Well, they were being watched very closely by including by me. But I didn't see anyone you know, particularly start to take notes or perk up. This is a very, I would say, laid back jury, inscrutable jury. DANNY DAVIS: Well, I remember some news reporters talking about the photographs and how they responded to them personally and hadn't seen such terrible things in their lives. So, I think there are bits and pieces of evidence that would shock any juror, even the most seasoned here in Los Angeles. And perhaps the defense is missing that shock with Fuhrman right now. FRED GRAHAM: All right. We now go back into the court room. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. The record to reflect that each of the jurors has taken the opportunity to view Defense exhibit 1366. Mr. Darden, you may cross-examine. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon. Mr. Rokahr, under LAPD policy, you're not required to record the exact time of each and every photograph you take, are you? ROLF ROKAHR: No. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: You did not keep a detailed photo log in this case, that is a log indicating the exact time in which you took each photograph? ROLF ROKAHR: No, I did not. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Any time that you might give us today as to when you took a particular photograph is an estimate on your part. Is that correct? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: It's your best estimate. ROLF ROKAHR: It's good as I can do after a year. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: After 15 months, actually. ROLF ROKAHR: Fifteen months. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Now, you have always had some problem in trying to remember the exact time at which you took each of these photographs. Is that correct? PETER NEUFELD: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. Rephrase the question. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Isn't it true that you've always had some problem remembering the exact time in which you took each of the photographs in this case? PETER NEUFELD: Objection. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. ROLF ROKAHR: Considering I photograph an average of two to three homicides every night, I cannot remember the times. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: In fact, you were interviewed by a LAPD Detective LaFaugh [sp] on November 22, 1994, weren't you? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, I was. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And when you were interviewed by Detective LaFaugh, you told him that you arrived at Bundy shortly after midnight. Is that correct? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, I did. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: But later on you looked at your own log and realized that you didn't get the call to go out to Bundy until 2:48 in the morning. Is that right? ROLF ROKAHR: He interviewed me by phone at my home, and I had, of course, very little recollection what time. And I was obviously wrong in the statement I made. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: OK. As you begin to take photograph at a crime scene, you take a photograph of a ROLF ROKAHR: Our slate. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Pardon? ROLF ROKAHR: We call it a slate. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: OK. And is there a slate depicted here in Judge LANCE ITO: Thirteen-sixty-six. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Thirteen-sixty-six? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes. Number on the very first photograph. It's got my name up here, my serial numbers and the what we call a C-form for this particular job and the location of the job. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: OK. And so this C-form or slate is exposure number zero? ROLF ROKAHR: Number zero, yeah. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: OK. And that slate indicates that you got the call at 2:48, correct? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And not only did you not arrive at the scene at shortly after midnight, but in fact you arrived at the scene at about 3:25 in the morning. Is that correct? ROLF ROKAHR: Somewhere after three o'clock. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And you did sign in on the log. Is that right? ROLF ROKAHR: I did sign in on the log. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: But you've also had problems recalling the exact time at which you took these photographs because of your health. Is that right? PETER NEUFELD: Objection. No testimony Judge LANCE ITO: Facts not in evidence. PETER NEUFELD: Facts not in evidence. Judge LANCE ITO: Thank you. Sustained. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: It's cross. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Are you having health problems? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, I do. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Were you having health problems last year? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, I did. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Congestive heart failure? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And you also have a painful nerve disease? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: You take Strike that. You have been prescribed approximately 13 medications that you take on a daily basis. Is that right? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Do they include Vicodin? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: What is that? ROLF ROKAHR: Vicodin is a pain killer. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: You take one tablet or capsule very four hours? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Did you take Vicodin yesterday when you spoke to Mr. Neufeld? ROLF ROKAHR: I carry about eight pills on me when I go to work. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Were you feeling well yesterday when you spoke to Mr. Neufeld? ROLF ROKAHR: I haven't really felt well for a long time. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: When you spoke to Detective LaFaugh in November Well, strike that. After you took the overall photographs, did you wait in your car for detectives? ROLF ROKAHR: I waited. I'm not sure whether I was sitting in my car or just leaning up against it. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: OK. Do you recall telling Detective LaFaugh on November 22, 1994 page two of that statement, Mr. Neufeld that you had completed all of the overall photographs PETER NEUFELD: Correct. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: and was waiting in the vehicle, in your vehicle for the detectives' arrival? ROLF ROKAHR: I remember getting a phone call from Detective LaFaugh, but I, at this point, really don't remember what all was said. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: OK. The bottom line is that you can't tell this jury at what time you took photos 34 and 35. Is that correct? ROLF ROKAHR: It's extremely PETER NEUFELD: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. You can answer the question. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: You didn't look at your watch each and every time Judge LANCE ITO: Excuse me, counsel. I don't think he finished answering. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Oh, I'm sorry. OK. The bottom line, sir, is that you can't tell this jury at what time you took photos 34 and 35. Is that correct? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: You don't know. ROLF ROKAHR: The only time recorded on my paperwork is when we leave the scene. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Now, the contact sheet in front of you, by looking at that contact sheet, you can tell the sequence in which the photographs were taken. Is that correct? ROLF ROKAHR: That is assuming the negatives were placed in the correct order. The negatives are cut into strips, five negatives each. And I'm not sure who made this contact sheet. If we go by the Kodak numbers, I would say they were in proper order. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: OK. And you can also tell by looking at that contact sheet that you received the call at 2:48, correct? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: OK. But you can't tell by looking at the contact sheet how much time elapsed between each photograph. Is that right? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. I could not tell. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: You can't tell by looking at that contact sheet the exact time it was when you took the last photograph on that particular roll, correct? ROLF ROKAHR: No, I could not. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And even though you have a counter, a photo counter, built into your camera, right? ROLF ROKAHR: Right. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: That counter doesn't indicate the time in which you take a particular photograph either? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. It does not. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: What you have done here today, is you've testified to the best of your ability. Is that correct? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, I'm trying to. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: OK. You weren't trying to avoid answering questions by Mr. Neufeld? ROLF ROKAHR: No, sir. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: OK. Thank you, sir. ROLF ROKAHR: Thank you. Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Neufeld. PETER NEUFELD: One moment. Mr. Rokahr, you said that you sometimes photograph as many as two or three homicides a night? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. PETER NEUFELD: But on this particular night, this was the only homicide you handled, correct? ROLF ROKAHR: That was the only homicide I handled. PETER NEUFELD: And in fact this was an unusual homicide. There was a lot of brass there. Is that correct? ROLF ROKAHR: That is correct. PETER NEUFELD: And that doesn't happen at most of the cases which you photograph, does it? ROLF ROKAHR: No, sir. PETER NEUFELD: OK. Now, when I interviewed you yesterday at the Los Angeles Police Department, sir, did we have a calm conversation? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, we did. PETER NEUFELD: I didn't raise my voice, did I? ROLF ROKAHR: No, you were very nice. PETER NEUFELD: OK. And during that hour-and-a-half that were talking, sir, did you at any time complain about your health? ROLF ROKAHR: I felt there was no reason PETER NEUFELD: OK. ROLF ROKAHR: to do so. PETER NEUFELD: And, sir, you mentioned on cross-examination that you may not be, you know, absolutely certain as to what time a particular photograph, or precisely what time a particular photograph was taken. But would you agree, sir, that there's a difference between a photograph taken a half or hour before sunrise and a photograph an hour-and-a-half after the sun comes up? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection. PETER NEUFELD: In terms of the light in the air. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection. Calls for speculation. Judge LANCE ITO: Light in the air? PETER NEUFELD: In terms of I'm sorry. In terms of how light it is, that there is an obvious difference between a photograph taken an hour to an hour-and-a-half before the sun rises and a photograph taken an hour to an hour-and-a-half after the sun rises? ROLF ROKAHR: Yes. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. [The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.] Live Trial Coverage - CA v. Simpson - Day 142 - Part 17 PETER NEUFELD, Simpson Attorney: [in progress] if there was a difference between a photograph taken a half hour, an hour before sunrise and a photograph taken an hour and a half after the sun comes up. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, Deputy District Attorney: Objection. PETER NEUFELD: In terms of the light in the air. Judge LANCE ITO: Light in the air? PETER NEUFELD: In terms of I'm sorry. In terms of how light it is, if there is an obvious difference between a photograph taken an hour to an hour and a half before the sun rises and a photograph taken an hour to an hour and a half after the sun rises? ROLF ROKAHR, LAPD Photographer: Yes. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. ROLF ROKAHR: Yes, there's a difference. PETER NEUFELD: And sir, if the sun rises at morning at 5:41 a.m., you would be able to tell the difference, without being precise, whether that photograph was a nighttime shot, shot perhaps an hour, an hour and a half before sunrise, and one shot an hour and a half after sunrise, wouldn't you? ROLF ROKAHR: I would like to think so. PETER NEUFELD: Thank you. Nothing further. Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Darden? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Thank you. Mr. Rokahr, how many homicide scenes have you photographed since June 13, 1994? ROLF ROKAHR: I, conservatively, do about 10 a month, so it's a couple of hundred at least. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Thank you. PETER NEUFELD: One last question besides the fact that all the brass was there that night when you shooting at Bundy, given the notoriety of this case CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection. This is [unintelligible] Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. PETER NEUFELD: During the intervening 14 months that Mr. Darden referred to, was this the most important case that you photographed? ROLF ROKAHR: I would say so. PETER NEUFELD: Thank you. Judge LANCE ITO: Anything else, Mr. Darden? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: No, Your Honor. Thank you. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. Mr. Rokahr, thank you very much, sir. You may step down. Mr. Neufeld, would you retrieve 1366, please? All right. Next witness. JOHNNIE COCHRAN, Simpson Attorney: What was that? Judge LANCE ITO: Next witness. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: [unintelligible] Judge LANCE ITO: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, let me ask you to step back into the jury room for just a few moments. FRED GRAHAM, Anchor: And the defense may be coming close to high noon in a decision that Judge Ito is really attempting to force on the defense. That is, apparently, he's attempting to force the defense to either call Roderick Hodge to the stand, and perhaps Judge Ito will then not permit them to I understand that they are about to have an argument, and we'll let the argument speak for itself. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, Mr. Cochran. Who's your next witness? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Well, we Mr. Scheck has one thing BARRY SCHECK, Simpson Team DNA Expert: Your Honor, I'd just like to serve on prosecution and to the Court a letter memorandum with respect to a request for sanctions for failing to disclose or permit the creation of contact prints, and we have a proposed instruction that we would like the Court to give to the jury on this matter. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. BARRY SCHECK: Now that the testimony of Mr. Rokahr has been completed and the factual record is complete, we think it's very plain that, as indicated, on our motion what the problems are here, and I'm sure the Court's familiar with the discovery problems we had. Judge LANCE ITO; All right. Mr. Cochran, next witness. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Yes, Your Honor, the next witness I think I indicated to the Court again that and I would reiterate this again that what I would like to do if the Court would allow us to is to allow us to argue a motion, reconsideration on Ms. McKinny, or a motion, reconsideration to Your Honor prior to calling McKinny, plus a couple other motions because it bears upon what we're able to do. If you change your mind on any particular, we'd like to play the tape for you of what you're allowing us to play to the jury as far as Fuhrman's words, and we think it's very relevant before McKinny's called, and then I want to reiterate again and ask Your Honor to read the transcript at page 18,899 because, as I said before, given Bailey's question, Mr. Bailey's question, which is very specific, we have an absolute right, it seems to me, to impeach Fuhrman based upon this. This is the only witness on our defense list that can testify that Fuhrman used this word in addressing him as an African American. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: So it's not cumulative at all, and what I'd like in the best of all worlds for you to listen to the argument regarding McKinny. Let us call McKinny. Let us play what we're going to play on that, and then call Hodge. If Your Honor rules that we can this is permissible on Hodge, then I would go ahead and call Hodge now and then take the rest of the day to deal with McKinny. But I would like If I could, as you can say, we can put our case on the way we want to, I would like to deal with McKi I would like to get a ruling from you on Hodge, deal with McKinny, call McKinny and Hodge. But if you want to get more testimony before this jury, I would then move Hodge up for this limited area we're talking about. And I'd ask you to read this page 18,899. I think it's very controlling and very compelling, and he is the only witness we have, the only African American we have, who can refute Fuhrman's insistence that he never addressed any African American with this word the only one. Everybody else is white. Judge LANCE ITO: Is that it? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Yes, that's it for right now. Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Darden? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Well, I think we've spread enough venom around for one day and for one trial, Judge. As I said before, we have not challenged We did not challenge the earlier witness's assertion that Fuhrman used these epithets. I mean, just reflect on the things you have allowed this jury to hear as they relate to Fuhrman's racial animus, and I'm sure the Court noted that, throughout that testimony, each of these jurors, well, they were writing like crazy. It seems as if they wrote down each and every word, as if they hung on each and every word, and at some point, you know, I think the Court has to remember and I'm sure the Court does we have a right to a fair trial, just like this defendant. OK. We have gone way too far, way off the mark in this, I believe. The epithet was uttered, considered a context in which it was uttered and which was heard by this jury, Your Honor. What more can they want? I think McKinny is cumulative at this point, especially on an issue like this, which is collateral. And if the Court disagrees it is collateral, then it's only marginally beyond being collateral. In any event, you know, we can't be allowed to turn this trial into the trial of People v. Fuhrman, or rather Cochran v. Fuhrman or Simpson v. Fuhrman or whomever. Bailey v. Fuhrman! I mean, we've heard this word thrown around throughout the courtroom today. I've heard this that term more by Mr. Bailey than any other white individual I've ever heard it from in my entire life. And I'm sure a whole there are a lot of people that agree with that. Judge LANCE ITO: Well, Mr. Darden, why don't you address the legal issue that Mr. Cochran raises that the only African American that has been proffered at this point is Mr. Hodge, who's to say, ``I am an African American who was referred to by Mark Fuhrman in this manner.'' CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Well Judge LANCE ITO: Although the record The record, thankfully, at this to this point, is colorblind as to who's who and what's what. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Well, now we know. I mean, I think now the record indicates that everyone else before Mr. Hodge was Caucasian, and The defense chose the order of their witnesses. They knew, apparently Well, I noticed I think, I'm sure they noticed the racial makeup of each of the witnesses they called today. Do we have to have a certain number of witnesses from certain ethnic or racial groups? Having chosen the order of witnesses that they selected, to come to the Court now and say, ``Hey, we need to have We need to have an African American testify to this'' I think is unfair. I think it's unnecessary. I think it's cumulative. As I said before, the words came in, we let 'em come in, Judge. We didn't fight it. You know. We fought our battle in the 352 and in the 402s and before the Court, and when it came time to present this testimony before the jury, we let it come. This is enough. There is still the issue of the mini-trial of Mr. Hodge. And it's going to take, I believe, well beyond this afternoon. If Mr. Cochran has 20 minutes with Mr. Hodge, we'll be here until 5:30 on cross. Judge LANCE ITO: Well, why would you do that? Why would the prosecution do that? Why wouldn't the prosecution just say, ``Gee, Mr. Hodge, you found it insulting. Gee, that's horrible. Thank you very much. Goodbye''? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Well, we gave the Court some information in the 10,547. That's why. Judge LANCE ITO: I understand that. But given what you're dealing with at this point What I'm I'm more interested in Mr. Cochran's proffer that this is the only African American who's going to offered who is going to say that, ``Mr. Fuhrman referred to me in this way under these circumstances.'' CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Well, as my colleagues have pointed out to me, if he was so important to the defense, why, then, didn't they call him earlier? I mean, you mentioned to the defense and have over the past several days the issue, 352 issue, as to whether or not some of his testimony is cumulative. Judge LANCE ITO: I've given given them pretty good warning that at some point in time it will be redundant. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: You know, you're putting me in an awful position when you ask me to argue to you why an African American shouldn't be allowed to testify in front of this jury, Judge, on this issue. Judge LANCE ITO: Well, Mr. Darden, I I Sincerely, I apologize to you for putting you in that position, but you're a professional. I have You know you and I have known each other for years and years and years. I know you're up to it. I know that This is a tremendous burden that's place upon you, and I don't envy you your position, nor do I envy my own. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: I know how it feels. [laughs] Somewhat. But I would say this, that I have some doubt that what he says occurred, and so I feel ethically and morally bound to cross-examine him on those issues, but their issues of whether or not he was arrested and acquitted and all kinds of other things on whether Fuhrman is the arresting officer or the transporting officer There are all kinds of issues that have to be dealt with here. Then we have to call other people to follow up on this stuff. I mean You know, Marcia Clark and Cheri Lewis and I, you know, we don't like these words, you know, that Fuhrman uses Judge LANCE ITO: Let me ask Let me ask another interesting question. Mr. Cochran, do you have an arrest report to support this incident? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: No, I don't, Your Honor, have arrest report. I've talked to this witness. I've talked He has a lawyer who's present, and Judge LANCE ITO: Do you have a court file that You said that there was a that the subsequent arrest and prosecution resulted in an acquittal JOHNNIE COCHRAN: No, I don't have it. I have the defendant himself who said he was the former defendant, said he was arrested for Judge LANCE ITO: No, I'm just asking do you have it here? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: No, I don't. I have the lawyer I have the defendant, the former defendant, and the lawyer himself, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: The lawyer who defended him in that case? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: No, but his present lawyer. He now lives in another state. He's been out here for over a week. Can I just respond just briefly, Your Honor? Judge LANCE ITO: No, I'm just Why don't you answer my I'm not done I'm not done discussing the matter with Mr. Darden. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: OK. No, I don't have the court file. Maybe the lawyer does. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: I think that Well, let's see what they have for us. Yesterday's race study. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All I have is a couple of pages of an arrest report that indicates Fuhrman as one of the arresting officers. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. May I see that, please? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Can I explain to the Court my understanding of that issue? Judge LANCE ITO: Let me see what the arrest report says. F. LEE BAILEY, Simpson Attorney: Excuse me, Your Honor. [unintelligible] Judge LANCE ITO: Which? F. LEE BAILEY: May [unintelligible] Judge LANCE ITO: No, I am quite familiar with it. [sighs] [phone rings somewhere in courtroom] Judge LANCE ITO: Ah! A phone! JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Take it, take it. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: It's Eddie Goldman's phone. Take it, Judge. Judge LANCE ITO: It was. [pause as judge reviews document] FRED GRAHAM: And while Judge Ito studies the, apparently, records having to do with an arrest of Roderick Hodge, I want to ask Danny Davis, our guest commentator, why Well, apparently he's satisfied there. I'm going to save that question till later, and now we'll just listen as they ago back into the courtroom. Judge LANCE ITO: We'll have Mr. Darden JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Sure. Judge LANCE ITO: peruse the report. FRED GRAHAM: Now, while the prosecutors look at that, why could Christopher Darden not have argued then, ``Look, Judge, if he wants to put Roderick Hodge on, if he thinks it's that important to have an African American sit in here saying these allegations to this jury, he has to give up on Laura Hart McKinny, can't have 'em both''? DANNY DAVIS, Criminal Defense Attorney: Trades like that are fair, but you don't do 'em as a public record. You go to the sidebar and you talk about tit for tat. The judge would be obliged to rule on each one independently. Both could come in, or both could stay out. FRED GRAHAM: OK. We'll listen. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: [in progress] suspect in this report. He's not listed as having been arrested. Judge LANCE ITO: The DR number, though, indicates that's an '87 incident. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: It is an '87 incident? Judge LANCE ITO: Yes. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Can I explain to the Court my understanding of what happened here? As I understand it, officers other than Officer Fuhrman observed Mr. Hodge sell cocaine to a gentleman named Thompson [sp] JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to that because this man is acquitted of that, and that's unfair to him to say that in court. This man has been acquitted, and I think that's unfair. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And he has been acquitted, if I could just continue. That was the allegation. The officers moved in to arrest Mr. Hodge and Mr. Thompson. Mr. Hodge fled. As he fled, he apparently encountered Officer Fuhrman, knocking Fuhrman to the ground. Hodge got away and was listed as an outstanding suspect on this 11,352 arrest report. Mr. Thompson and Mr. Hodge were later prosecuted, and Mr. Hodge was acquitted of the narcotics sales. Officer Fuhrman did not testify in the narcotics case because he was not a witness to the alleged transaction. OK. So That Mr. Hodge was acquitted at trial on the narcotics violation is irrelevant. In fact, Mr. Fuhrman was not listed as a witness by the prosecution in that Judge LANCE ITO: All right. Does the district attorney have a file on this case? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: I have a file on Hodge and Thompson, yes. [audio feed glitch] Judge LANCE ITO: Hold on. Then this was an arrest warrant situation with Mr. Hodge? [audio feed glitch] CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: situation. This transaction, the narcotics transaction occurred on January 10, as I recall. He was arrested on the 13th. Judge LANCE ITO: And that's as the result of an arrest warrant? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: I believe so. Judge LANCE ITO: And Mr. Cochran, it's then at that point in time that it's alleged that Detective Fuhrman said to Mr. Hodge, ``Aha. I told you we'd get you.'' JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Yes. Yes, Your Honor. May I put it in perspective for you? What happened was that Mr. Hodge knew Mr. Fuhrman very, very well. I tell you he stopped him over 20 times, harassing him, messing with him, and he had called and made complaints about it. They would stop him all the time. Stopped him once on a bicycle, stopped him on this occasion. He never knew it was Fuhrman that he ran into. In fact, he was charged with battering a police officer. Now, don't you think if they can make that case, if he'd run into this officer intentionally, he would have been charged in a crime. That charge was dismissed. That's what happened. But when he arrested him on this occasion, they had him spread-eagled in an alleyway, and Fuhrman and his partner walked up and lifted him up by his handcuffs and took him and put him in their car, took him to jail and turned back and said, ``I told you I would get you, so-an-so,'' with a racial slur. And then when he So, I mean, it's absolutely clear. They can try to hide all this. They can ask him whatever they want to ask, but this is the one witness that we have who has been confronted by this man, who had contact with him, who can testify, Your Honor, to how this man acted in the streets vis-a-vis him. And I agree it's irrelevant material, what happened at the trial. I don't plan to bring out he's acquitted unless they want to go into that. I don't want to go into that. I told you what I wanted to go into, Your Honor. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Wasn't that offer of proof different from the ones we've heard so far? I mean, we've heard so far about something at the jail and something in the car, and now we have something at the scene where he's lifted up, and Judge LANCE ITO: No, my understanding of the material aspect of the offer was that at the time of the arrest, while in the car, while in the police car, while Mr. Hodge was back in the custody section of the patrol car, Detective Fuhrman turned to him and said, ``I told you we'd get you,'' etc. That's the offer of proof that I've heard thus far. Also heard the bending-over incident JOHNNIE COCHRAN: at the jail. And his trips to the jail are later. Do you recall that? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: I think we sank far enough Judge LANCE ITO: I recall that. I don't know that it's necessary material to anything. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Well, I just wanted to make sure we did talk about that offer. Judge LANCE ITO: Yes, we did talk about that. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Then there's the matter of his numerous contacts with law enforcement, and it doesn't appear that all those contacts involve Detective Fuhrman. Those are issues to cross-examine him on. The 20 to 25 contacts that Mr. Cochran has alluded to today, there appears to be no record of all of those contacts between he and Detective Fuhrman, and then there's Judge LANCE ITO: How do you know CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: the 1054.7 package we gave the Court. Judge LANCE ITO: Well, that may become germane in impeachment. And then we turn it into the trial of Mr. Hodge. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Trial number three. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Your Honor, may I respond to that? Judge LANCE ITO: Well, I'm just musing at this point. All right. Mr. Cochran. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Yes, and so we get right through this. We're trying to get this testimony up, Your Honor. Since we began our case six weeks ago, they've objected to every witness we've ever called. This is nothing new. We made you the offer of proof. We spell it out as much as we can. They have what we have. I can't control what they do in cross-examination. We welcome their cross-examination. We welcome them to spend the next couple hours with jury, if they want to do it. The relevant portion is this witness they're trying to protect referred to this man by the ``N-word.'' It's inappropriate. He's an African American. We should have a right to do that. He's the one witness, and it goes directly to impeach what he said to Bailey. The other things I'm not that worried about. The other trial I'm not that worried about. We're trying to cut through this and get to McKinny and get to the end of this case, Judge. That's all we're trying to do. And I would indicate to you in the best world, you give me a ruling I could do this, and I'd have Hodge coming after her because we want to make certain points to you on McKinny. But as I said, I would be willing to be governed by what you what you would order in this regard. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Your Honor, they could have put Mr. Hodge on last week. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Let me address that. Yes, I could have called Hodge. They said, ``Why don't we call Hodge?'' I was gonna call Hodge on Friday, and then you recall, Your Honor, you started talking about cumulative, and that's why I specifically got this particular transcript to point out to Your Honor exactly why this is relevant. [The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.] Live Trial Coverage - CA v. Simpson - Day 142 - Part 18 CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, Deputy District Attorney: Your Honor, they could have put Mr. Hodge on last week. JOHNNIE COCHRAN, Simpson Attorney: Let me address that. Yes, I could have called Hodge, wanted me to call Hodge. I was gonna call Hodge on Friday and then you recall, your Honor, you started talking about cumulative and that's why I specifically got this particular excerpt from the transcript to point to you, You Honor, exactly why this is relevant. Yes, we had Hodge here. Hodge came here from Chicago, Judge. He's been here like over a week, because we didn't want to run out of witnesses. Yes, we could have called him. We could have called Singer, could have called Terry. But the Court did indicate to us at some point this would become cumulative and as you recall, we listened and so we're trying to fashion this in a fashion now so no longer do you think it's cumulative or redundant so we can resolve this point. These are the last two witnesses in this area. Hodge stands by himself and you know the situation with Mckinny and with the hearings before we get to Mckinny, CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Judge, you gonna let Miss I'm sorry, you gonna let Miss Mckinny testify that he used the word 41 times. Now JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Judge, can I can I say something? This is this is this is their witness. We didn't make this up. This is their witness. So now they're stuck with it. Can't we just get this on and stop all this whining. Let's get it over with. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: The Goldmans and Browns have rights too. I think that JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Judge, Judge that is preposterous. We have to hear this every few minutes, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO, Los Angeles Superior Court: Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. All right, you propose to present Mr. Hodge and then you want to argue the motion on the scope of Mckinny? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Ahh, yes and and the motion of reconsideration, that I think the Court's aware of which all ties in and then we'll be ready to proceed on that. I mean, I think that you got our papers. They filed something and that's it. I think that'll take us to the end of the day. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Judge, if they insist on going with it with this racial business, I think it would only be fair that the require them to call Mckinny now so that we can then take up the 352 issue again as to Hodge. I mean at some point, it is cumulative. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: We've already brought her in here CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: All that the jury well, we have argued already and now they want you to reconsider the past arguments, the P's and A's and problems and submissions and the tapes Judge LANCE ITO: OK, they're gambling too, that I'm not gonna find Mckinny cumulative at that point, since I haven't heard Hodge. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Judge, did you just hear me say though, however, did you hear me say Your Honor, the best of situation, I want you to rule on Hodge and want you to call Mckinny first. I said that very clearly, Your Honor. So there's not much of a gamble if I get the ruling and we move ahead and I've paired it down, because I'm trying to try this case and get it over, Your Honor. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: I'm sorry. Why we even arguing Hodge now then, if Mckinny's coming through? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Because, the Court will recall why I said that at the beginning, because I said that once you gave us the ruling we'd know how we'd finish out the day and be ready to come back tomorrow with whatever we have left and that this would make it a lot easier because I would I said that if you felt this jury needed to hear something else, I would move Hodge up if you felt that. But, in the beat of all worlds I wanted Hodge after Mckinny. That's why I made it very clear. I said that a number of times, Your Honor. I'd like to be able to proceed, Your Honor. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: This is all collateral. I mean, isn't genocide enough. Isn't haven't witnesses testify that Mark Fuhrman Judge LANCE ITO: Counsel, would you do me one favor though. The argument, the only argument, that Mr. Cochran has made that has any merit to it is the fact that Mr. Hodge is an African American. This is an ind this is the only individual that they have proffered to whom this was said by Detective Fuhrman. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: The probative value, the fact that Mr. Hodge is African American is what, given what we have heard already? OK, I think it's it would be apparent to the jury that a Mr. Hodge would is included in all of the in the genocide and all the other things Detective Fuhrman allegedly said and was testified to here in court. What is the probative value of that? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: The probative value is that's directly impeaching of Detective Fuhrman. I want to deal with this on a legal basis. All this emotion has got to go by the wayside. This is impeaching of their witness and that's all we're asking to do, Your Honor. It's impeaching and that you cut right to the chase and to the argument and the issues here and that's the issue. We have a right to that and that's all we're asking to do. I just ask you to allow us to do it after Mckinny, Your Honor. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: We have all but conceded the issue, Judge. Judge LANCE ITO: All but. All right. My inclination at this point, because it is a statement that is directly contradictory of what was testified to is to allow that statement in the police car. Period. The fact of the arrests, the fact of prior acquaintanceship, prior contacts upon the arrest in January of '87 in the police car the statement was made period. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Judge LANCE ITO: That's the ruling. Who's your next witness. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Ahh, given that, [off mike][inaudible] what we like to do is proceed with Dean Uelmen regarding this tape. Judge LANCE ITO: All right, do you have your package on Hodge? Mr. Darden, I'm addressing Mr. Darden. Do you have your package on Mr. Hodge? [audio turned off in courtroom] Judge LANCE ITO: [in progress] you may call Mckinny, so let's go with Mckinny. I'm not gonna wait for them to drag boxes down. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, well, before we call Mckinny, Your Honor, the Court listen to Dean Uelmen? Judge LANCE ITO: All right Mr. Uelmen. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Than you Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: Miss Lewis, are you gonna argue this? CHERI LEWIS, Deputy District Attorney: I'm sorry Your Honor? Judge LANCE ITO: Are you arguing the motion, the reconsideration? CHERI LEWIS: Do you want to argue this? Miss Clark is gonna be arguing that, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Uelmen? GERALD UELMEN, Simpson Attorney: Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate the opportunity to CHERI LEWIS: I I'm sorry, just one more question, has the court had an opportunity to read the brief that I filed in response? Judge LANCE ITO: Yes. GERALD UELMEN: Your Honor Judge LANCE ITO: Which is essentially the Christian Reichardt response with some modifications? CHERI LEWIS: That's right. It's the same model. Judge LANCE ITO: I read it. GERALD UELMEN: I'd like to start with we don't have a message from God, but a lot has happened since somebody tried to deliver that message this morning and I think we need to look at this issue in the context in which the Court must now address the testimony of Miss Mckinny and that posture is very different than it was even yesterday. As the court initially approached this problem, it viewed the defense's attack on the credibility of Detective Fuhrman Judge LANCE ITO: Well, let's focus in on what's changed between last week and today. GERALD UELMEN: All right. We now, Your Honor, have five counts of perjury. Detective Fuhrman not only testified that he had not used the word the `N' word in ten years, but he also testified, Your Honor will recall, that as soon as he got the word that robbery homicide was taking over the case, he went and waited on the street. We now have testimony from Mr. Rokar [sp] that after that call would have come in about robbery homicide taking over the case, Detective Fuhrman is guiding the photographer through the crime scene. Your Honor will also recall, and this count three, that Detective Fuhrman testified that before he went to the Rockingham scene, the closest he got to the physical evidence surrounding the bodies was standing on a landing looking down at them and he testified that another detective pointed out to him where the the glove and the hat were. That, Your Honor, appears at pages 18134 through 18136 of the transcript. Count four is that Detective Fuhrman testified under oath that the photograph depicting him kneeling in the midst of the crime scene, pointing to the hat and the glove with his finger inches from the glove, was taken at Seven a.m. after he had been to Rockingham and returned to the Bundy scene to compare the gloves and see if the Bundy glove was similar to the glove he allegedly had just discovered at Rockingham and that testimony appears at 18369 through 18371 of the transcript. And count five, we would contend, is the inconsistency between Detective Fuhrman's description of the door of the Bronco, when he said he saw a second stain with four brush marks and the testimony of criminalist Fung, who testified that the only way you could observe those brush marks was if the door of the Bronco was open, contradicting Detective Fuhrman's testimony that he had never opened a door of the Bronco or been in to the Bronco. Now, the significance of all of that is that when we talk about the credibility of Detective Fuhrman, what motive would he have to lie about how close he got to the evidence in this case. What motive would there be to try to cover up the fact that this photograph was actually taken early in the morning hours shortly after the photographer arrived and took the setting shots that here we have indisputable evidence of Detective Fuhrman kneeling in the midst of of the evidence with his finger inches away from the glove. Why would there be any reason to lie about that except to try to disguise and conceal the access and the opportunity that Detective Fuhrman actually had. Now, I think that's important because Your Honor was deciding this motion with respect to the Laura Mckinny tapes based on a false premise and the false premise was the argument by the People that there's no way this could have happened because someone was with Fuhrman every minute. He didn't have access to the evidence, so there's no way he could have physically picked up a glove and taken that glove to the Rockingham premises. I think the other false premise of the Court's ruling was that the defense theory is simply to prove that Detective Fuhrman moved a glove from one place to another in order to frame an innocent man. And that, of course, has never been our contention. We don't, of course, have the burden of explaining how that glove got to Rockingham, but we are certainly contending it didn't get there by O.J. Simpson transporting it there. But, the motive for a detective to bring evidence from one scene to another may have been other than simply a conscious to frame an innocent person. It may have been simply to take probable cause with you when you go to a scene so that you will be sure to be able to get a search warrant. You will be sure to be able to search for all of the evidence that you think you might find if you have already come to the conclusion that you've got the right suspect. And that is why we believe that the words of Detective Fuhrman on those tapes are so critical and so relevant and so essential to the defense theory of the case, because on those tapes, you have Detective Fuhrman claiming the ability by instinct to determine who is worthy of being arrested and convicted of a crime. You have him admitting that on occasion he himself has made up the probable cause necessary to carry out an arrest. You have him describing how he believes a police officer should act immediately on his instinct and then make up the reasons later. And we believe there is ample reason in this record right now to believe that is precisely what happened in this case and we have a right to confront Detective Fuhrman with these statements by him in terms of the way in which he went about getting probable cause Judge LANCE ITO: That's a completely that's a completely different argument, counsel, whether or not you have the right to recall Detective Fuhrman and confront him with these things? That's a different issue. GERALD UELMEN: Well, I take it then Your Honor's ruling and this is one point of clarification that will be very helpful to us. Your Honor's ruling does not preclude us from questioning Detective Fuhrman about the information on that tape when we get him on the witness stand? Judge LANCE ITO: That issue's not presented. GERALD UELMEN: All right. Thank you. That's a very helpful clarification. With respect to the portions of the tape that Your Honor indicated we can play at this point when we call Miss Mckinny to the stand. Your Honor indicated that we could illicit that the epithet was used 41 times in the period 1985 and 1986. I believe Your Honor may misspoke in the order because the evidence is that in 1985 and 1986, the epithet was used 35 times. Six of the uses of the epithet occurred in 1987 and 1988. Judge LANCE ITO: The problem I have with that factual assertion is the labelling on the tapes themselves. GERALD UELMEN: I believe the testimony of Miss Mckinny at the 402 supported that. That the tapes from which we have five of the uses of the term were made in was made in 1987 and the transcript in which we have the 41st use of the term was in 1988. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. GERALD UELMEN: So what we would like to do is elicit that the term was used 41 times between 1985 and 1988. The single tape that Your Honor selected that the jury could hear of Detective Fuhrman actually uttering the epithet and I don't whether this was accidental or Your Honor consciously tried to find a tape where Detective Fuhrman's voice would be least recognizable or least legible Judge LANCE ITO: Why would I do that? GERALD UELMEN: Well, that's we were trying to figure out. But but that is the fact, Your Honor. The one incident that you indicated we could use the tape the voice of Detective Fuhrman is lost in a clatter of background noise and it it truly is of the 40 well, of the 18 or 19 that we have on tape, really the least legible of all of them and we have some alternatives that we believe are are no more inflammatory, no more prejudicial than the one that Your Honor selected in which the voice can be heard much more legibly and we would ask Your Honor to to seriously consider allowing us to use an alternative to the the particular item that you selected just for purpose Judge LANCE ITO: And which two are those? GERALD UELMEN: We have a tape, Your Honor, with the alternatives available that I think we can play in like five minutes, so Your Honor would have an opportunity of seeing Judge LANCE ITO: Well, tell me which one they are since I've been over these several times, I'll recollect which ones they are? GERALD UELMEN: They are 17, 18, 26 and 27. Judge LANCE ITO: Sounds like four to me. GERALD UELMEN: Well, these are these are four alternatives in which the voice can be much more clearly heard than in the alternative that Your Honor selected. Judge LANCE ITO: And what is the text in your transcript? GERALD UELMEN: 17. Judge LANCE ITO: Number 17. Seventeen and eighteen in my recollection are a duel usage in a single passage, correct? GERALD UELMEN: I believe so. Seventeen would be the practicing his martial movements. The term is ``Niggers, they're easy. I used to practice my kicks.'' Eighteen, ``Don't they think they are physical capable. They can arm wrestle six foot seven inch Ns.'' Twenty-six, would just be the first two lines, ``Westwood is gone, the Ns have discovered it. When they start moving in to Redondo and Torrance'' and that would be all we would use. And 27 is discussing female police officers, `` They don't do anything. They don't go there and initiate a contact with some six foot-five N that's been in prison for seven years pumping weights.'' On all of these, the voice of Detective Fuhrman is recognizable. The use of the term is is recognizable and we don't believe that either of those facts are true with respect to the the single taped incident that Your Honor previously indicated we would be allowed to use. The final point I want to make and I know Your Honor has read our papers and seriously thought about the scope of Your Honor's ruling, is the extent of eliminating all but use of the word when the context in which the word is used itself reflects the racial animus, and we believe that even if Detective Fuhrman had never been asked have you used the `N' word in the last ten word last ten years. Even if that question had never been asked. Even if he hadn't lied about it [The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.] Live Trial Coverage - CA v. Simpson - Day 142 - Part 19 GERALD UELMEN, Simpson Attorney:[in progress] the `N' word in the last ten words ten years. Even if that question had never been asked. Even if he hadn't lied about it, the fact of his racial animus would still be admissible to challenge his credibility and by sanitizing these tapes to remove the racial animus, we are depriving the jury of evidence that it needs to assess the weight that should be given to his testimony and I think it would be quite reasonable for a jury to look, in terms of what weight they're going to give to a person's testimony and here we're talking about all of his testimony. His testimony about entering the Bronco. His testimony about what he did at the Bundy crime scene before he went to Rockingham. All of his testimony. They are going to look at someone who is a virulent, spiteful, angry racist differently than they're going to look at someone who is a casual racist who is not animated and motivated. Judge LANCE ITO, Los Angeles Superior Court: But given the testimony of Miss Bell, who said that it caused her to almost to break in to tears, that he was angry and that he said it in a very aggressive and hostile and arrogant way and then Miss Singer's testimony which was even more graphic in describing the tone and demeanor of how it was said. Haven't we established that already? GERALD UELMEN: I don't believe we have, Your Honor. I don't believe we have even plumbed yet the depths of the hatefulness and spite of Detective Mark Fuhrman and until we do Judge LANCE ITO: But the issue the issue here is whether or not the jury has sufficient information to put this man's credibility in con in appropriate context. That's the issue. GERALD UELMEN: Well, it's more than just a question of credibility. It's a question of what weight they will give to his testimony. We believe that that is a quantitative as well as a qualitative judgment and what we are doing really is depriving the jury of the the quantitative portion of it. We are depriving them of really getting a flavor that we got from listening to those tapes of of how trustworthy or how credible this man is. Judge LANCE ITO: I wouldn't call it a flavor. GERALD UELMEN: Well, it's certainly a distasteful flavor but, but a flavor it is. Judge LANCE ITO: Now, Dean Uelmen why don't you anticipate the argument is going to be that no facts have changed, that the for example, the photograph of Detective Fuhrman. It's apparent that it appears to be night time. I mean that's something that that was know to you or should have been known or should have been easily discernible based upon what the photograph was and how it depic how it is depicted. GERALD UELMEN: Ahh, quite to the contrary, Your Honor.[pause] What we were given at the outset of this trial was a stack of photographs, without any order, without any indication in what order they were taken. Many of them were flash photographs and you can't necessarily tell just by looking at a flash photograph whether it was taken at at day or night. I think on close examination of the photograph, there are indications that someone who's clued in or tuned in to that to that problem can tell. But, the when you look at the sequence of the of the contact print, it's it's overwhelming the significance of depriving us of the opportunity of seeing these photographs in sequence. And that's why we're asking for sanctions and we think very serious sanctions are warranted. Your Honor was actually deprived of the information you should have had before you even considered the admissibility of the Mckinny tapes because this evidence had not yet even been produced at that time. It was only when it was to the convenience and to the benefit of the prosecution to put contact prints together because their witness from the FBI asked for them, that we ever had the opportunity to see the sequence of these photographs. That is a cover up. It is a cover up of perjured testimony in this case. That's the only way to look at it and we were deprived of that information until one week ago when we saw those contact prints for the first time, even though we had asked for those contact prints months ago at the outset of this trial and were told it was impossible. They could not produce contact prints. We believe that evidence is highly significant not only to Your Honor's ruling, but, of course, to the credibility of Detective Fuhrman. Judge LANCE ITO: Thank you counsel. Ms. Clark? MARCIA CLARK, Prosecutor: We're about neck deep in rhetoric and hyperbole and I'm not going to add to it. But if you can call a contact sheet evidence of a cover up I guess you can where the defense arguments go. Smoke and mirrors and a lot of hot air and a lot of big talk and a lot of nasty accusations that aren't backed up with evidence. What we have here, in these contact sheets is nothing more than they've already had throughout this trial. Those photographs Your Honor all have numbers stamped on them. The sequence is shown on the photographs themselves. You can't miss it. I mean, that's how I was able to sequence them. I got a stack of photographs in the beginning of this case that I had to sit down and put in sequence and I did it by looking to the number that's stamped on the lower right corner of each and every photograph that they have and that we have and it's nothing being covered up, there's nothing hidden. They've always known the sequence of these photographs. If they couldn't figure it out, they could ask us. I could them. There's the number on the photograph. It's very simple stuff. You know, it's nothing to get all excited about. A conspiracy. We didn't go an black out the numbers on their copy, Your Honor. We wouldn't have had time and who would want to. They have them. They have all that information. Look at what you've got. I mean, I can give it to them, I can't make them read it. That's really the bottom line. They've had for now over a year and now they're complaining that they didn't know how to put them in sequence. I hop that's not what they're arguing. But I mean that's the value of the argument that you're getting here. Now, they wanted a contact sheet, they get it, it adds no new information and that's a cover up. It's ridiculous. It is absurd. Mr. Uelmen stands up and argues out of both sides of his mouth simultaneously. What a feat! He says that you cannot really tell when pictures are taken with a flash whether it's during the daytime or at night. But, except in these two last ones with Detective Fuhrman, you can really tell. Oh, come on. If you can't tell, you can't tell. That's the bottom line and to me, I mean I look at the photographs, the last two in the roll and it's very apparent what happened here. Rokar [sp] was at the scene for quite a long time. In between his overalls, he took the first 33. They are all overalls of the general scene and none of them are specifically of any item of evidence. It is not until much later when Detective Fuhrman gets back and does as instructed by Detective Vannatter to go look at the glove and see if they look like a match pair that he goes over and he points it out. Now, he's not the only one who testified to that. Officer Riske said that just before he got off duty at 7:30 he saw Officer Fuhrman come back from Rockingham, take the photographer over to the scene and move the bush back so that he could point out the evidence. And that area happens to be dark with foliage as Rokar [sp] testified. There's no big mystery here and not the rudeness of counsel and not their unfounded allegations will change the truth. Judge LANCE ITO: Why don't you address the legal issue on motions to reconsider, counsel? MARCIA CLARK: Yes, and that's I meant to start with that, Your Honor. I got sidetracked Judge LANCE ITO: That would help MARCIA CLARK: There is no I'm sorry, there is no there is no legal provision for a motion for reconsideration in criminal law. That is only in civil law. It is recognized in the Civil Code of Procedure, Section 1008 and what they require in Civil Law is that the party seeking reconsideration show newly discovered facts. In this case, we have no newly discovered facts with respect to the motion for reconsideration of Laura Mckinny Judge LANCE ITO: But does the but don't the doesn't the case law dealing with that particular code section include criminal cases if you shepherdize that you come up some criminal cases? MARCIA CLARK: We did. I believe that none were found, Your Honor. I didn't we don't have any in our motion, which leaves me to believe that no, there aren't any criminal cases under that section and you asked me that question because you knew Miss Lewis wrote the motion, huh? Judge LANCE ITO: Yeah. MARCIA CLARK: But, no, as far as I know, there are no criminal law cases that involve that section because it's not recognized in criminal law, so, I mean, at least in theory we didn't have to have all the argument. But Judge LANCE ITO: So, if my Pepperdine law clerks found some MARCIA CLARK: Did they? Criminal cases? And what do they say? Judge LANCE ITO: They say it's applicable to criminal law cases. MARCIA CLARK: OK, nevertheless we don't have any newly discovered Judge LANCE ITO: And it deals with sanctions MARCIA CLARK: I'm sorry, Your Honor? Judge LANCE ITO: Never mind. MARCIA CLARK: OK. Judge LANCE ITO: There's a rule in this there's a rule in the Civil Procedure that a unfounded motion for reconsideration is a subject of sanctions. Just an aside. Not relevant to this situation. MARCIA CLARK: Oh, you saw my motion coming. Judge LANCE ITO: No. MARCIA CLARK: But, with respect to this particular case, they don't have newly discovered evidence to point to, Your Honor. The contact sheet doesn't qualify. That contact sheet has nothing is nothing but a collection of the photographs they've had for a year and three months. So, we we have nothing new that's been offered to this court. We do have, however, as I've indicated to the court earlier, Officer Riske testified that he saw the photograph being taken at 7 a.m. shortly before he got off duty. Mr. Uelmen poses the question why lie about the time? Well, that's to cover up. If that's a cover up, the ability or opportunity to conceal or move evidence, then why is he standing there in the photograph pointing to the evidence. I mean, is that the stupidest you've ever heard. Hi, Mom. You know, I'm gonna move some evidence now. What is this? If he's trying to hide himself and conceal himself, then you certainly do not get close to the evidence. You don't step in to the scene. You don't stand there and point to it. You stay way back in the shadows. That's not what he did. It's clearly not what he did. He was working. He was doing as he was told, Detective Vannatter told him what to do and he did it. It's very, very clear what happened and all of these nefarious implications that they're seeking to draw from very minor things, you know, that in no case would you ever see anyone try to make as big a deal as they have about a contact sheet. It doesn't mean it's so just because they keep saying it, Your Honor. It's nothing more than the barest of allegations. That's all it is. They have nothing to back up any of this stuff, just like they have nothing to back up the motion for reconsideration. And in this case, you want to reconsider something, let me ask you this. You've allowed Ms. Bell to testify to the utterance in 1985. You've allowed Miss Singer to testify to two very ugly utterances in 1987 and now you propose to allow for Mr. Hodge to testify, although I concur with Mr. Darden, I do not think that he ads any probative value to the nature of the impeachment, which is, concededly, collateral, at best. He adds nothing to them. If that's the state of the record, why are we allowing Mckinny at all? She will do nothing more than reassert that at the relevant time frame that the defense has established, 85 to 87, he used the racial epithet. Now, isn't her testimony, Mckinny's testimony, wholly cumulative at this point? We have gotten from two women and a man, who happens to be African-American, that the racial epithet was used, so now they've established the he uses it to talk about African-American people and he uses it to address African-American people directly. What more can you do to impeach? I mean, what can you do? They'd like to be doing it for the next two years if they could. But, what is appropriate in this trial? You know, the court has ruled that at a certain point, it gets collateral? Well, what we submit that if the court does allow Mr. Hodge to testify, it will then be completely collateral, because Ms. Mckinny will truly be cumulative on every issue, whether he uses the word in speaking of or when he addresses in speaking to. In fact, in some sense, Ms. Mckinny is impeaching because she has him speaking to an African-American man and never using the word. Nevertheless , Your Honor, that is now truly cumulative. What is the point of Ms. Mckinny? The People would urge this court, yes, to reconsider. Please do. Reconsider that Ms. Mckinny is now not needed based on newly discovered fact that Mr. Hodge will be allowed to testify. Mr. Hodge will be allowed to complete the picture for them, a very ugly picture that really has no bearing on this case and it's unfortunate that we have to paint that ugly picture for this jury again. But I cannot see how this would possibly add any any information that is relevant to the picture that this jury has of this case. Mr. Uelmen is right, in a sense, you know, that they will view Mr. Fuhrman as as a racist. I cannot imagine arguing differently to this jury and they will put his credibility in it's proper perspective. If they have their way, however, Mr. Fuhrman's attitudes, social attitudes, will become the focal issue of this trial and the fact that he no opportunity to do any of the actions attributed that they attempt to attribute to him in this case will become irrelevant because the jury will be so inflamed it will not matter to them any longer whether Mark Fuhrman could or could not have moved the glove. And Mr. Uelmen wants to paint the distinction between a hostile racist and a casual racist. I don't know how anyone can be a casual racist. I mean, that's that's to me an oxymoron. You can't be that kind of an evil person and be casual about such a thing. It just doesn't happen. They painted Mr. Fuhrman as being a racist. There's no doubt about it. With the additional testimony of Mr. Hodge, they will have completed that picture, spread enough venom in this courtroom to sink a battleship. We've done it enough and Ms. Mckinny is simply no longer necessary after Mr. Hodge's testimony and we submit to this court that although it was unfortunate that we had to spend as much time as we did outside the presence of the jury litigating the Mckinny tapes, based on the actions of the defense the defense has put us in this posture now. I think that your admission of the Hodge testimony should properly preclude them from calling Ms. Mckinny and that's enough Your Honor. That's enough. Yes, the credibility of all witnesses is in issue. But his credibility is a very limited issue in this case because in point of fact, he could not have done what they're trying to prove he did. So, it's for what. It is only collateral impeachment and to that end, those three witnesses are more much more than they're entitled to. We would urge the court to reconsider as the defense has. But to reconsider appropriately, not to allow Ms. Mckinny to testify at all. GERALD UELMEN: Three very brief points, Your Honor Judge LANCE ITO: It reminds me of the Chinese proverb, Be careful what you ask for. GERALD UELMEN: The suggestion that the prosecution was well aware of the sequence of these photographs raises lots of questions in my mind in terms of whether it explains the refusal of the prosecution to make contact prints available or to make the negatives available form which we could make contact prints. It suggests to me that from the outset of the case, they were aware of the problems that might cre create, that have been created Judge LANCE ITO: But Mr. Uelmen, let's let's let's take for granted that, you know, data backs on the back of cameras are in common usage. You can pay forty bucks at Thetco [sp] and get a camera that's got one of these things and it numbers or dates the pictures. It gives you a sequence. I've seen the photographs. They do have the sequences, so it's not the strongest argument. The argument that concerns me the most is Ms. Clark's argument that I should reconsider the entire ruling and preclude Ms. Mckinny in her entirety, because now that you have Singer and Hodge and Bell, you've got more than you asked for in the first place. GERALD UELMEN: Your Honor Judge LANCE ITO: That's the argument you need to deal with. GERALD UELMEN: All right. Let me address that, because obviously the point at which we want the jury to end up is to reject Detective Fuhrman's testimony in its entirety. And as Your Honor is aware, the instruction that informs the jury they may do that is they find that a witness was willfully false in a material part of his testimony. Willfully false means we not only have to show that Detective Fuhrman was wrong when he said he had not used the `N' word, but that he knew he was wrong. He knew he was lying. And if the argument can made, I'm sure it will be made and we will hear it from the prosecution at the end of this case, that why would Detective Fuhrman remember casual encounters with with two women in 1985 and 1986. Every iota of evidence that we have that shows the frequency with which he used this term goes to that question of whether he was willfully lying when he said he had not used the word. We believe the fact that he used it 41 times in the course of transcribed, tape recorded conversations and the fact that he was well aware that transcripts and tapes of these conversations were in existence, would have gone through his mind at the very moment he uttered the perjured testimony that he presented in this court. So, we believe it's not cumulative at all. It goes right to the heart of the question the jury's going to have to resolve of whether he was willfully lying when he presented that falsehood to them. And finally. Your Honor, we would like the opportunity to have the court review the alternative tapes that we have available. We believe it's very important for the jury to hear Detective Fuhrman's own words and we believe that since Your Honor has determined that one of these taped excerpts is appropriate, that it should be a taped excerpt that is audible in which his voice can be identified. Can we play the tape for Your Honor? Judge LANCE ITO: I recollect the tape, Counsel. GERALD UELMEN: Thank you. [The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.] Live Trial Coverage - CA v. Simpson - Day 142 - Part 20 MARCIA CLARK, Deputy District Attorney: The People [inaudible] request a change in the excerpts. Judge LANCE ITO, Los Angeles Superior Court: Well, I think the argument is over at this point, counsel. Since this is a motion to reconsider, I don't believe that that particular issue is, well, simple enough. In making my original ruling regarding Ms. McKinny and determining what should come in, the Court's thought process was, I think, pretty obvious, that the issue was Detective Fuhrman's use of the racial epithet in a disparaging manner, and in reviewing the 41 offered incidents of that usage, the Court wanted to find examples that would not then go on to include other offensive material as well, including physical abuse of other people, some other violent act, that sort of thing. So these were the most sanitized usage of the racial epithet the Court could find. In reviewing this, the Court listened to the tapes and then primarily worked from the transcripts in making the ruling, and Mr. Uelman, I will concede that in selecting the excerpt to be played, I did not then go back and listen to the quality of the tape, so I will agree that that particular excerpt, the one where Detective Fuhrman discusses why black Muslims live in a particular part of town, that that one is not audible in a real sense, and what the Court had sought was an example of where Detective Fuhrman, in his own voice, makes a statement that is of such color and I'll use your term, Mr. Uelman, ``flavor,'' that the person listening to that could understand and appreciate and evaluate whether or not that was a true statement of that person's true feelings, where or not that statement, or whether or not that statement was role-playing in the context of the screenplay, and to allow the juror to give to that statement the appropriate weight. I will grant the motion to reconsider for this one particular item. I will substitute excerpt 27 for the excerpt regarding the black Muslims, which number I do not recollect. This is the police officer, female police officer, so we'll get to insult them as well. Dealing with six-foot five suspects, so you can cue that up. All right, we'll take ten minutes. Have Ms. McKinny here. FRED GRAHAM, Anchor: And so the defense gets a very narrow sliver of what they had hoped to obtain in their motion for reconsideration. Judge Lance Ito really had not fully realized that the one excerpt from a tape that will be played for the jury was so inaudible that it could hardly the voice of Mark Fuhrman saying the odious n-word could almost not be heard, and so as we heard, he picked another one. We don't know yet exactly what the context is. We'll find out and we'll pass it along. We're going to take a break at this point and we'll return to our coverage after this. [commercial break] FRED GRAHAM: And so after a considerable argument between the opposing sides, Judge Lance Ito made a rather narrow decision. At one point, it did appear that he might veer all the way over and rule out totally the testimony of Laura Hart McKinny. He didn't do that. In fact, he there was a sweetener there for the defense in which will let them play an excerpt from the Fuhrman tapes which are easier to hear, and perhaps, a little more forceful, than the one that he had allowed in before. Actually, there were other nuggets in the arguments that were not amplified on the court's ruling. Dan Abrams is standing by, and one of them has to do with a use that the glove might have been put to, at least in the view of the defendants, by Mark Fuhrman that I don't think we've heard before in this trial. Dan? DAN ABRAMS, Reporter: Well that's right, Fred. What the defense was saying is, ``We're not necessarily arguing that Mark Fuhrman took that glove from the Bundy crime scene to Rockingham to frame O.J. Simpson, to plant the evidence at his home. Rather, it could have been that he was taking that glove merely to establish probable cause in order to hop the fence, for example. But you saw the prosecutors get extremely irritated when that argument was made, because I'm sure they were saying to themselves, ``Well, if Fuhrman was taking this glove to use it as probably cause, well then why didn't he use it before they jumped the fence? Why didn't he put it down somewhere near the Bronco, for example? That would have established probable cause, that would have enabled them to jump the fence, and it also would have enabled them to use that glove against Mark Fuhrman. FRED GRAHAM: Now Dan, there was another exchange between Gerald Uelman and Judge Ito, rather early on in the argument, in which Judge Ito seemed to have, it seemed to me, that he was going to give the defense a little more leeway than perhaps they thought they were going to get in using the tapes in a possible cross-examination of Mark Fuhrman himself. Is that the impression you got? DAN ABRAMS: That is absolutely the impression I got, Fred. Let me just correct something I just said. I said to use the glove against Mark Fuhrman. Of course, I meant to use the glove against O.J. Simpson. Gerald Uelman did ask for a clarification of whether or not Judge Ito's ruling extended to the cross-examination of Mark Fuhrman, whether or not Judge Ito's ruling means that the only excerpts from the tapes that can be used are these two excerpts, regardless of whether or not it's Laura Hart McKinny on the stand or Mark Fuhrman on the stand. Judge Ito said that issue has not been put before me, which could open the door to cross-examination of Mark Fuhrman with these tapes. Now of course, the defense would have to establish exactly how they were impeaching Mark Fuhrman's testimony on the stand with these tapes, but you can expect there will be another argument, it sounds like, with regard to whether or not these tapes can be used to cross-examine Mark Fuhrman. FRED GRAHAM: All right, and finally, Dan, when I was in court this morning, it was the testimony of Natalie Singer. She's a young woman who was rather flip at times in her testimony. Perhaps that took a little bit of the edge off of the words that she was quoting Mark Fuhrman as saying, but while she was testifying, the jurors were rather impassive and inscrutable. Some were taking notes, but not all perhaps half. And I just wondered Kathleen Bell's testimony earlier on, you were there then what was the mood and the response from the jury at that point? DAN ABRAMS: Fred, I should say that these jurors are generally stoic. That is generally what they look like. It is very hard to read them. They don't make faces, generally, when there is evidence being presented, even when it is extremely powerful evidence, as we heard today. But when Kathleen Bell was testifying, you saw a number of jurors I noticed five in particular who seemed to be trying to write down almost every word that she says Mark Fuhrman used. Now whether or not the jurors were actually writing that down, I don't know, but it did seem that there were about five in particular scribbling down more furiously than they usually do. I should also point out that this afternoon, when Rolf Rokahr was on the stand, you saw, again, a little bit of a loss of interest. These jurors must have no idea why this is relevant. I'm sure they don't specifically recall that Mark Fuhrman testified that at 7 p.m., that picture was taken and now the defense is saying 4:30, around that time. They were never able to bring it back. So I'm sure these jurors are, to some degree, confused. FRED GRAHAM: Dan Abrams, we're going to let you go now and get back into the courtroom, because there will be more proceedings here in just a moment. Danny Davis, the defense did gain, you know it never hurts to ask. DANNY DAVIS, Criminal Defense Attorney: And they pressed from a lot of directions. They got effectively, they didn't lose Hodge completely. They get half of what he can offer. That is, that he was the victim of racial epithets and abusive language from Fuhrman, but not this scenario of this inflammatory observations by Fuhrman during this strip search. So they get half of Hodge. They didn't lose McKinny, although the judge toyed with that in warning them how they argued their motion to reconsider, and they got a clearer version. I dare say that this will not play out for the defense completely until Fuhrman is called to the stand, and if he invokes the fifth, it may be much ado about nothing, whether more tapes come in. If he sits up and gives more testimony, we'll probably going to hear a lot more about those tapes from McKinny. For the time being, they're going to be limited in numbers. Now one of the excerpts they got was about what women, policewomen, fail to do with African-Americans who've been pumping weight in state prison. That's a lot more lively piece to present to the jury, and that should happen today, if not early tomorrow. FRED GRAHAM: Well, I want to read here, because this is item 27, and for some of the viewers who might have heard this earlier on, but this is one that will now be played. It's the only one that will actually be played when Laura Hart McKinny testifies, and in this, you can hear the voice of Mark Fuhrman saying, ``They don't do anything. They don't go out there and initiate a contact.'' Now the ``they'' is the female police officers. DANNY DAVIS: Yeah, and the witness will probably clarify that. FRED GRAHAM: Yeah, and ``initiate a contact with some six-five,'' and then he uses the n-word, ``that's been in prison for seven years, pumping weights.'' You know, it's interesting. Judge Ito pretty much sent a signal to the defense earlier, that he was not going to permit them to put on all these witnesses that he said at some point became cumulative, and they backed him down from that, didn't they? DANNY DAVIS: Well, I'm surprised that they were as gracious as they were. I would have frankly pushed him to fish of cut bait on Hodge. He's a live witness. This is no more talk or this is no more statements to other people. It's a direct confrontation of a man whose parents are inter-racial. I would have said this is the nuts of it here. This is so close to the case it can't be ignored. And then try to get what I could of Fuhrman. They were very gracious in how they got around to getting pretty much all they could get. FRED GRAHAM: Now, Judge Ito was attempting I've seen him do this before with lawyers; it never seems to work. He was attempting to hint to Christopher Darden to take it easy on his cross-examination. He said, ``You know, you're kind of conceding that Mark Fuhrman used this word anyway. Why go in there and slice up this witness, but Darden says, `Well, he's got a bad record, or at least a spotty record, and I want to have a go at him.' '' What do you think a lawyer should do in a case like that? DANNY DAVIS: Well, I think the scenario of Fuhrman strip-searching Hodge and then making statements about how people of a certain race all look alike is extremely inflammatory. FRED GRAHAM: That won't go before the jury. DANNY DAVIS: It won't, but when the argument was being made, I'd say that's the worst of the bunch. This is a bombshell and will blind us all, black and white alike, for what the real issues are, and that shouldn't come in under any What he did was he argued this is going to take a lot of time, and we're going to be the ones taking up the time on cross-examination. He had a stronger argument that I think he didn't look at under the statute. FRED GRAHAM: Well, now that the judge, though, has decided that only this narrower slice of Roderick Hodge's testimony will go, and that is well, apparently they're in the courtroom there. Peter Neufeld is addressing the court, and we'll listen. PETER NEUFELD, Simpson Attorney: refreshen their minds from Mr. Rokahr's testimony, Your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: I'm sorry. Let's have the jurors, please. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Your Honor, I want to introduce Mr. Kent Spaulding, Your Honor, to the jury. Judge LANCE ITO: I met Mr. Spaulding. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: No, to the jury, because he's here from North Carolina, and so it relates. Judge LANCE ITO: The problem is, he has admitted pro hoc. He's not on the record, Counsel. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: May I so move? Judge LANCE ITO: Need an application. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Well, I'm calling an application now I can make an oral application. He's been here for two weeks, Your Honor. He's paid his own way. Judge LANCE ITO: I've been thrilled to have him here [The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.] Live Trial Coverage - CA v. Simpson - Day 142 - Part 21 Judge LANCE ITO, Los Angeles Superior Court:[in progress] I've been thrilled to have him here and if you want him on the record, you need to file the application, that's the court rule. JOHNNIE COCHRAN, Simpson Attorney: Again, he is actually leaving tomorrow and he's here because of this particular witness Judge LANCE ITO: Oh, OK. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: I just want to introduce him as because he's been here, your Honor, for two weeks. Judge LANCE ITO: Yeah, OK. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: It's not a personal problem, your Honor, is there? Judge LANCE ITO: OK. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Thank your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: How many times do I need to say it? OK. [inaudible] to say this is one of the attorneys representing Mr. Simpson. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Thank your Honor. FRED GRAHAM, Anchor: And sometimes some of the niceties in court escape mere mortals. What was that all about? DANNY DAVIS, Criminal Defense Attorney, Beverly Hills, CA: Well, the man's from out of state. This is a high-publicity case. Give him a moment in the spotlight and let him go back. That's what he was asking. The judge thought to come in as a local attorney from out of state in California it's very, very involved, and that, certainly, hadn't been done. FRED GRAHAM: Going back to Christopher Darden. Now that he knows that Broderick Hodge [sp] can only testify to this narrow bit of testimony Apparently, the jury came in faster than I expected, so we'll go in the courtroom and listen. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor. The defense will next call Ms. Laura Hart Mckinny to the stand. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. Before we do that excuse me, just a minute, Ms. Mckinny. Ladies and gentlemen, present here at counsel's table is Mr. Kent Spaulding [sp]. Mr. Spaulding, would you please stand? Mr. Spaulding is an attorney from, I believe, North Carolina, who's been assisting the defense and that explains his presence here in the court today. Thank you, Mr. Spaulding. Mr. Cochran? Judge LANCE ITO: All right. Ms. Mckinny, would you face the clerk, please? COURT CLERK: Raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the [inaudible] shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? LAURA HART McKINNY, Screenwriter: I do. COURT CLERK: Please have a seat. State and spell your first and last names for the record. LAURA HART McKINNY: My first name is Laura, L-A-U-R-A. Judge LANCE ITO: Why don't you pull the microphone closer, please. LAURA HART McKINNY: First name, Laura, L-A-U-R-A. Last name, Mckinny, M-C-K-I-N-N-Y. Judge LANCE ITO: Is that a fresh glass [unintelligble]? Mr. Cochran? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Thank your Honor. Good afternoon, Ms. Mckinny. LAURA HART McKINNY: Good afternoon, Mr. Cochran. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Ms. Mckinny, what is your occupation? LAURA HART McKINNY: I'm a filmmaker in residence at the North Carolina School of the Arts School of Filmmaking, a Professor of Screenwriting. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And that is your present occupation? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And you presently reside in North Carolina? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes, I do. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And you're here today pursuant to a subpoena that was issued by this court? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And how long have you been out here in California, waiting to testify? LAURA HART McKINNY: Two weeks and CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, Deputy District Attorney: Objection, irrelevant. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. You're here to testify today from North Carolina? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes, I am. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Now, in that connection, prior to moving to North Carolina, did you live in California? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes, I did. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And how long had you lived in California, prior to going to North Carolina? LAURA HART McKINNY: Since I was 12. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: So a good part of your life was spent here, is that correct? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: When did you move to North Carolina? LAURA HART McKINNY: In 1993. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. I When you were last here in California, what was your occupation then? LAURA HART McKINNY: I was a freelance writer and I worked at UCLA as a senior learning skills counselor and also at Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District as a home instructor. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And how long did you have those two occupations, both at UCLA and at the Malibu School District? LAURA HART McKINNY: I started working for Malibu School District in 1974 or in 1973 and for UCLA in 1983. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Now I would like to direct your attention back to the month of April of 1985. Did you have occasion during that month and during that year to meet an individual by the name of Mark Fuhrman? LAURA HART McKINNY: I'm sorry, what was the month, again? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: I think April of 1985, or thereabouts. LAURA HART McKINNY: It was February. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. LAURA HART McKINNY: Of 1985, yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Let's specifically direct you back to February of 1985. And did you have occasion to meet Mark Fuhrman during that time frame? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes, I did. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And would you tell the jury where you were at the time that you first met Mark Fuhrman? You might pull the microphone up a little bit closer to you. LAURA HART McKINNY: All right. I was at a cafe in Westwood. I don't remember the name of the cafe, but I believe it was on Westwood Boulevard. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And what happened? How did you happen to meet Mr. Fuhrman at that time? LAURA HART McKINNY: I was sitting on the outside of the cafe. There were tables on the outside and I was sitting there. I was working on my laptop computer and a man dressed in street clothes came up and asked me about my computer. That was a fairly common thing for people to do then because this was a time when laptops weren't that familiar to people and often people would come and ask me what it was and how you used it. So this man asked me what I was I doing and what that was, and I explained to him that it was a laptop and explained to him how it worked. JOHN€NIE COCHRAN: All right. And this was in February of 1985? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Thereafter, during that conversation, did you have occasion to strike that. Were you working on some particular project at that time? LAURA HART McKINNY: At the time JOHNNIE COCHRAN: At the time when you first met detective Fuhrman. LAURA HART McKINNY: I was transcribing some notes and at the time I was thinking about developing a story about women in the police department and to what extent they were successful in different different kinds of areas. I was thinking of, particularly, areas of high crime. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Now, after you first met Mark Fuhrman in February of 1985, did you thereafter have further meetings with him? After your initial meeting in February of 1985? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes, I did. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, and tell us about those meetings. And did you at some point engage him as a consultant or an adviser for a screenplay you were working on? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes, I did. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Tell us about that. LAURA HART McKINNY: During our first meeting, officer Fuhrman, at that time told me he was an officer and he was interested in my idea of working on a story about women in on the police department and the extent to which they could succeed in areas of high crime. Officer Fuhrman had very strong views about the extent to which women, some women CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection [inaudible]. Judge LANCE ITO: [inaudible] All right, next question. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Well, did officer Fuhrman have views about the ability of women to succeed in high crime areas? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes, he did. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: What were his views in that regard? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Irrelevant. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. You may answer. LAURA HART McKINNY: He had strong views about women's ability to be able to succeed in areas of high crime, feeling that some of them were not capable of that and during this particular first meeting he told me that he CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection, hearsay. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Judge LANCE ITO: Next question. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Certainly, your Honor. So you had a conversation during this first meeting. You were able to garner some of his views about women in law enforcement during the first meeting. Is that correct? LAURA HART McKINNY: That's correct. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Did you at or during that first meeting make some arrangements to meet further with Mr. Fuhrman regarding his views and whether or not he could help you with interviews that you might want to conduct? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOH€NNIE COCHRAN: All right. Well, tell us about what you did in that connection. Did you retain him at some point? LAURA HART McKINNY: I didn't retain him. I asked him if he would be interested in helping me give some ideas, some personal views, that might help generate some thoughts about characters and police procedures and other areas that might be useful to me in helping understand the kinds of frustrations that men had on that police department and women and, possibly, some of the coverups that might occur in conjunction with that, and he agreed to help in that to that extent and give me some of his personal views, some ideas that he might have. So we agreed to meet again and tape the interviews. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. And you told him that you wanted to tape the interviews that you conduct with him, did you? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And did you tell him why you wanted to tape the interviews? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And why was that? LAURA HART McKINNY: He was giving me a great deal of material that would be hard for me to process, to understand, unless I listened to it, because I had to understand it sequentially to be able to write it cinematically. So sometimes it was police procedure, sometimes it was different kinds of things people were saying, and it would have been difficult to take copious notes and actually listen to him attentively. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Now, these interviews that you had with detective Fuhrman, were all of those interviews taped, as best you can recall? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury over what period of time did you conduct these taped interviews with Mark Fuhrman after your initial meeting with him in February of 1985. LAURA HART McKINNY: Approximately from the beginning of April April 2nd, I believe through July, 1994. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: So over almost a ten year period of time, you had taped interviews with this man. Is that correct? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Now, with regard to these interviews, what did you call these interviews with Mr. Fuhrman? LAURA HART McKINNY: Interviews with Mark Fuhrman. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And in talking with this man, what were you trying to get from him? Were you trying to get information from him? LAURA HART McKINNY: I was trying to get some idea of the frustrations that some men who belonged to a particular group called Men Against Women on the police department some kind of frustrations that they might have that would cause them to want to join a group like that. And then try to understand JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Please [unintelligible] answer the question [unintelligible]. Judge LANCE ITO: Yes, she answered. LAURA HART McKINNY: then try to understand as well some of the areas in which women might feel frustrated by being stonewalled and embarrassed and humiliated by men. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Now, in that connection, before you started taping these interviews, did detective Fuhrman know that you were taping these interviews? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And did you give him any did you tell him strike that. What did you tell him with regard to how you wanted him to talk. Did you want him to talk freely and openly to you and use words like police officers use or what? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: This is a leading Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Now what did you tell him about the kind of conversation or about the kinds of things you wanted him to share with you regarding police work. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection. Calls for hearsay. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. You can answer the question. LAURA HART McKINNY: I told him that I wanted to write a fictional piece based on fact, and so it was very important to me that I have a really clear idea of what some police officers would say in a given situation. So that the instances that he would give me would be as factual and realistic as possible. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You asked him to be factual and realistic, did you? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Now, in that connection, after you would before you'd have a meeting with detective Fuhrman, would you ever provide him with any questions the kinds of questions you would ask during the actual meeting? LAURA HART McKINNY: Not for every meeting. But for our second meeting, the meeting after April 2nd, I compiled a list of questions based on some of his responses to that particular interview and sent them to him along with the interview so that he could refer back to some excerpts in the interview and then be prepared for some of the questions that I might that we might want to talk about. Anything that he might feel comfortable discussing in our next meeting. So I didn't always JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. LAURA HART McKINNY: include questions. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: But on occasion, you did? Is that correct:? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Let's talk about your procedure with regard to the taping of the interviews. After you taped the interview, and the interview had been had concluded, would you then do something with regard to transcribing those tapes? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes, I would take the tape back home and transcribe put it in my transcribing machine. I have a cassette transcriber, a professional cassette transcribing machine, and a micro cassette transcribing machine which allows you to modulate the speed of speech and also the volume, and it has a foot pedal so that you can rewind at your leisure and review things that you're not sure about. So then I would put whatever cassette I was using in there and transcribe it within a day or two of the interview, for my records. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Now, with regard to your transcribing habits, had you had a job, prior to this time, prior to 1985, where you'd done transcribing before that? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes, I did. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: What job did you have in that connection? LAURA HART McKINNY: During college I worked through not through college, but through a large part of it, for a few years at Retail Credit Company. It's a place, was, in Van Nuys, and I was a professional transcriber. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: So as a professional transcriber, you knew how to transcribe at the time you set about to transcribe these tapes, is that correct? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And with regard to that, did you try to get to transcribe it accurately, as best you could? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes, I did. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And why did you want to transcribe it accurately? How would that be helpful to you? LAURA HART McKINNY: Well, again, initially I knew very little about the police department and I was doing other extensive interviews and research right along lots of research at the Los Angeles Police Academy but when someone was going to be telling me specific events or issues that I needed to understand clearly, I would need to take that down as accurately as possible so that I when I refreshed my memory, the details that I would give would be accurate. So that when someone would read it or, hopefully, see it as a feature, they would know that it was an accurate, well-researched project. So it was very important for me to transcribe the interviews accurately. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Did you at the at the outset, in 1985, was there a difference in the way you transcribed in '85 than later on, let's say in 1988 or in 1994. Was there any difference? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. There's there's a difference. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Can you tell us about that, briefly? LAURA HART McKINNY: Again, in the beginning, I wanted to be as precise as possible. Also, I was developing the story. But as the outline of the story became clear, and the treatment, which is a narrative, short version of the story as I understood what that was about my questions to officer Fuhrman at that time were sometimes more topical, so that when I would transcribe it, I might leave out my question and I might just put in the topic. It also had something to do with the fact that I had just had two children, during that period of time from 1986 to the early '90s and was married and was very busy. So I didn't take as much time to transcribe my questions and all of the finite kinds of details. If people interrupted us in the restaurant, I would keep that out. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Did you ever, at any time, in transcribing these transcripts, ever substitute a word or put a word in that Mr. Fuhrman didn't say? LAURA HART McKINNY: Not intentionally, no. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You tried to be accurate, is that correct? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Your Honor, I'm going to ask [unintelligible] witness, and this has previously been marked in another hearing 1364. I'm going to just ask her a couple of questions regarding it. I want to place before you defendant's 1364, which I believe indicates ``FuhrmanQuestions, Round Two.'' Would you tell the jury, just briefly, what that is, Ms. Mckinny? LAURA HART McKINNY: This is the an example of the questions that I gave officer Fuhrman after our first interview on April 2nd, 1985. This is what I sent to him in conjunction with the tape transcript of that first interview. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to this, you told us about the interviews with Mark Fuhrman and you also told us that were working, as a result of those interviews, on a screenplay called ``Men Against Women.'' Is that correct? LAURA HART McKINNY: That's correct. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And the was a subplot of your screenplay, ``Men Against Women,'' dealing with racism at all? LAURA HART McKINNY: No, it was sexism. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You were dealing with sexism, is that correct? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to the taped interviews over the ten-year period that we've been talking about, do you remember how many tapes you actually transcribed over that period of time? LAURA HART McKINNY: Again, please. How many times were transcribed? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: How many tapes were actually transcribed over the ten year period? How many hours? LAURA HART McKINNY: Oh, 11 to 12 hours of tape. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, and I presume during this 11 to 12 hours you tried to be as accurate as possible, right? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the 11 to 12 hours, did you ever, at any point, inadvertently tape over any of the the tapes? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes, I did. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Would you tell us how many, if you recall? LAURA HART McKINNY: I taped inadvertently over two tapes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And would one of those be the first tape? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. One was the first. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: When was that? When was that first interview? LAURA HART McKINNY: The first interview that was taped was April 2nd, 1985. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Now, in April 2, 1985, would I be correct that after you the interview was conducted with detective Fuhrman, you then transcribed it within a day or so? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes, that's correct. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And in seeking to transcribe it, was your memory fresh at the time you transcribed it? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. [The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.] Live Trial Coverage - CA v. Simpson - Day 142 - Part 22 JOHNNIE COCHRAN, Simpson Attorney: Did you personally transcribe it and seek to record everything he had said? LAURA HART McKINNY, Screenwriter: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And were the resulting transcripts or transcript a true account of what Mr. Fuhrman had said during that interview? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, Deputy District Attorney: Objection, call for conclusion. Judge LANCE ITO Los Angeles Superior Court: Overruled. LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And, finally, was this transcript an accurate record of what was on the tape? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Now, was there another time that there was another tape that was inadvertently taped over later on? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And do you remember the number of that one? Do you recall? LAURA HART McKINNY: I believe that was tape number nine. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Was that a later time? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. But, with regard to tape number nine. If I were to ask you the same questions, did you seek to transcribe that tape within a day or so after the interview? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And did you, at that time, personally do that? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You strived to be as accurate as you could? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: It was a true account of what Mr. Fuhrman had said? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And it was an accurate record, as far as you knew. That right? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Now, [rustles papers] the last interview you had with this man was July 28th, 1994. Is that right? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Where'd that interview take place? LAURA HART McKINNY: That interview took place in Alice's Restaurant in Westwood. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Now, during the time that you talked with Mr. Fuhrman, during this 10-year period of time, did he ever use the racial epithet which I'll call ``the n-word'' in the course of your conversations with him? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes, he did. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And, in the course of your preparation of your testimony here today, can you tell the jury how many times you counted that he used that word? LAURA HART McKINNY: Approximately 42. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Forty-two times? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And, when he would use this word in the course Strike that. In what circumstances would he use this word in in being interviewed and talking to you? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection, [unintelligible]. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. LAURA HART McKINNY: Well, the the tapes were the interviews were confidential I mean, Officer Fuhrman certainly think that CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection LAURA HART McKINNY: I would Judge LANCE ITO: All right. This answer is nonresponsive. You can rephrase the question. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Let me rephrase the questions. Can you describe for the jury under what circumstances would he use this so-called n-word? What was he talking about? Police procedure? What was he talking about? LAURA HART McKINNY: Oh, I see. That the word would come up in conversation when he might be talking about how an officer might deal with a suspect or a police procedural issue or how an officer might be talking about someone in administration. Just general, normal language. Judge LANCE ITO: Next question. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And, when you would hear this word these words or this particular epithet, would that have an effect upon you? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection, irrelevant. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. LAURA HART McKINNY: Certainly. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And what effect did it have upon you? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: [inaudible]. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. You may answer. LAURA HART McKINNY: It's a base epithet. There's no way of doctoring it up and making it sound better. It's offensive and I didn't feel good about it hearing it. However, I was in very much of a journalistic mode and knew to be able to get the information that I needed to be able to acquire from officer Fuhrman I would need to not react, not to be judgmental about hearing some of the very base, offensive, kinds of things that I would be hearing. Judge LANCE ITO: Next question. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: So you didn't agree with his use of these words, is that what you're saying to us? LAURA HART McKINNY: No, I didn't agree with the use of them. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. But you were in a journalistic mode, so you sat there and listened to him CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: as he went on, is that right? Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Did you say anything to him about using these words at that time? LAURA HART McKINNY: No, I did not. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And, in the use of these words and other things during when he was talking to you would he describe his experiences in police work? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection calls for conclusion. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You may answer. LAURA HART McKINNY: Could you ask the question again, please JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Certainly. LAURA HART McKINNY: I'm sorry. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: When the use of these words and during the course of the interview, did Detective Fuhrman describe the experiences of being a police officer? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the 41 or 42 times that he used the so-called n-word, can you describe for the jury how he appeared as he used this word? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection, irrelevant. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: [inaudible]. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You may answer. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You may answer. LAURA HART McKINNY: Could you ask it again? I understand, but I think JOHNNIE COCHRAN: During the 41 or 42 times that Mr. Fuhrman used the word ``nigger,'' did you could you tell us how he appeared as he did that? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection [inaudible]. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You may answer. LAURA HART McKINNY: When officer Fuhrman used the word ``nigger'' it was in a very casual, ordinary, pattern of speech. It was nothing extraordinary, it was just conversation. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And did as he did that did you have a sense of how he was using it? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection. Judge LANCE ITO: [unintelligible]. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Let me see. Did he appear to be joking when he used that word? Judge LANCE ITO: Rephrase the question. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: What when he used the word Judge LANCE ITO: Ask her to describe the demeanor JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Yes. Thank you, your Honor. Thank you very kindly. Will you describe the demeanor of Detective Fuhrman, or Mr. Fuhrman, while he was using this word 41 or 42 times? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection [unintelligible]. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You may answer. LAURA HART McKINNY: He was using it in a serious fashion. It was some a word that apparently CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection [unintelligible]. LAURA HART McKINNY: he felt Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. You may answer the question, but let me ask you, anyhow. Can you describe, and I want you to paint a word picture for me and ladies and gentlemen of the jury, how he appeared when he was using this word these 41 or 42 times that you recall? Your best description? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: [inaudible]. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Are you going to answer? LAURA HART McKINNY: When officer Fuhrman used this word it was in conjunction to many of the things we'd be discussing and it was in a serious manner, it was not light-hearted. It was something that he would use in normal conversation. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. When he used this word did he appear to you to be using it in a way that was insulting? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection [inaudible]. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You may answer that question. Was it insulting? LAURA HART McKINNY: It was it wasn't Judge LANCE ITO: Go ahead. LAURA HART McKINNY: It was insulting to me. The word is insulting and when he was using it, he was using it in a demeaning, derogatory fashion. I don't know that he would think it was insulting CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection, your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. You've answered the question. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You've answered the question. Was he using it in a disparaging manner? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Leading. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You may answer that. LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. It's a disparaging word. He was using it in disparaging fashion. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: In the course of time that you came to interview this man over ten years, did you ever form an opinion of whether or not he was a racist? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Well, did he use this word in a racist manner? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Did he use this word in a vicious manner? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection. Judge LANCE ITO: I think ``negative,'' ``disparaging,'' ``insulting,'' I think that pretty much covers it. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Thank your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: With regard to how this man referred to Africa-Americans, did he ever use any other words in referring to African-Americans? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: What were those words? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: 1054. Judge LANCE ITO: You may proceed, overruled. LAURA HART McKINNY: ``Bubba,'' ``anthracite'' JOHNNIE COCHRAN: ``Anthracite?'' CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: May I approach, your Honor? Judge LANCE ITO: Yes. I'm going to strike the last question and answer. Disregard that. That's an area that's beyond JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Judge LANCE ITO: I thought we were going into something quite different than that. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Oh, we are. Now, with regard to the 42 or so instances in which this man used this offensive word, some of those words are on tape, is that correct? LAURA HART McKINNY: That's correct. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And you've heard those tapes, have you not? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And you can, if I were to play, at least one of those tapes for you, you can identify the Mr. Fuhrman's voice, could you not? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Now, with regard to There are two two excerpts, your Honor, we would like to play at this point, if we could. I think that we have transcripts for the two excerpts, one of which is on tape, and one of which is not. I'd like to pass those out to the jury, if we can, your Honor. Judge LANCE ITO: They can be the transcript can be passed out. Although it is Mr. Cochran, given the time it will take to pass it out and collect it, it is something we can put on the [unintelligible]. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: It'll be up on the screen, also, but at some point I'd like to mark it as the next as our next CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: I'd like to see it, if I may. Judge LANCE ITO: Does he have a copy? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Yes, he has a copy. Mr. Douglas gave him a copy so he can look at it, read his own copy. May I mark it as our next, your Honor? Judge LANCE ITO: 1367. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: 1367? All right. Now, let me just inquire, again, if I might. I would like to mark as the defendant's next, 1368, as the tape that Mr. Harris will be playing? Judge LANCE ITO: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Mr. Harris has some speakers, your Honor, he's going to move at this point, if the court pleases. Let me ask a question while he's doing that, your honor. Now, with regard to May I give her an excerpt, your Honor? Judge LANCE ITO: Yes. I've got mine. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: And you're keeping it [unintelligible] That's good. [unintelligible] LAURA HART McKINNY: Thank you. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: With regard to these two excerpts you've shared with us there are some 42 or more instances where he uses this offensive word This first one In regard to this first instance that we're going to be seeing shortly, can you give us some background I'll use I'll use I'll read, your Honor, and ask her to give us some background regarding this. In this particular one, I believe, this is one where it was taped over and we have just a transcript. Is that correct? LAURA HART McKINNY: That's correct. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And with the question, the quote by Fuhrman is, ``We have no niggers where I grew up.'' You recall him saying that? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Is that a fair and accurate portrayal of what he said? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And what tape was that, where he made that statement? LAURA HART McKINNY: That was during our first interview. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And that was the one that you described for the jury that you taped over? LAURA HART McKINNY: The first taped interview, April 2nd, 1985. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And with regard to that particular one, about having no African-Americans where he grew up, can you compare that with the other 42 others from the standpoint of how how he used that word in that compared to the others? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection, it's irrelevant. Judge LANCE ITO: It's a vague question, I don't know that anybody could really answer that question. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Well, let me I let me try again. Judge LANCE ITO: Rephrase the question. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: OK. With regard to this instance where ``we have no blank where I grew up.'' Do you have that in mind? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Can you compare that with the other 42 times or so that he used this in the course of your interviews? Is there any difference between how he used the term there and the other 42 times or so? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection. [unintelligible] testimony. Judge LANCE ITO: Overruled. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You may answer. LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. There's a significant difference here. This particular example is the least offensive and inflammatory in comparison to the others. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. I'm going to strike that answer. Ladies and gentlemen, that's a judgment that it is not at this point in time, you're to disregard that last question and answer. Next question. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right, your Honor. With regard to Let's move down to the second incident we've been allowed to use that that of Fuhrman speaking. ``They don't do anything. They don't go out there and initiate a contact with some six foot five inch nigger that's been in prison for seven years pumping weights.'' Do you recall Mr. Fuhrman saying that to you at some point? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes, however CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection Judge LANCE ITO: All right. Next question. LAURA HART McKINNY: I believe JOHNNIE COCHRAN: You do recall that and that is on tape, is it not? LAURA HART McKINNY: Excuse me. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: I understand. Let me just look at my question, Ms. Mckinny? Do you recall that being said, Ms. Mckinny? LAURA HART McKINNY: I recall that being said, yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And was that said, were you present during that interview? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. And was that an interview where you had another person present with you, a Ms. Lori Diaz [sp]? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. And you were present there, is that correct? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And you heard Detective Fuhrman, in interacting with Lori Diaz make the statement I just read, is that right? LAURA HART McKINNY: That's correct. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: All right. Is that what you wanted to tell us? LAURA HART McKINNY: Yes, it is. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And if you were to see these hear this on tape, would you be able to identify Mr. Fuhrman's voice? LAURA HART McKINNY: Certainly. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: And would you I don't know if we're going to Ms. Diaz's voice or not, but you could identify his voice, is that correct? LAURA HART McKINNY: And Ms. Diaz's as well. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: OK. Very well, your Honor, if the court pleases, may we have Mr. Harris put up the I want to go back and ask a question regarding the first, that's not on tape, then we'll have Mr. Harris play that CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: May I have an I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. JOHNNIE COCHRAN: That's all right. Go ahead. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: May I have an opportunity to hear what they're going to play, given the possibility of other voices on the tape? Judge LANCE ITO: No, I think we've all had sufficient opportunity at this point, Mr. Darden. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: [unintelligible] opportunity [unintelligible]. Judge LANCE ITO: All right. Mr. Harris, do you have your headphones available there? Mr. HARRIS, court employee: Yes, your Honor, there is Judge LANCE ITO: All right. Would you play that quickly for Mr. Darden, please? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: [unintelligible] then I could pass out the excerpts then, while he's doing that? Judge LANCE ITO: All right. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: May I approach? Judge LANCE ITO: You may. You have a copy for [off microphone] All right, Deputy Bakshmacken [sp], would you hand those out to the jury, please? [off microphone] All right. Mr. Darden, do you have the excerpt? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: [unintelligible]. Judge LANCE ITO: Mr. Cochran, juror number 98 is indicating that she has two of the same pages. Do you have any other copies? All right, Mr. Darden, would you change that with juror number give it to Deputy Bakshmacken, please. Thank you. [off microphone] JOHNNIE COCHRAN: Apparently, he had it cued up, but he's having trouble finding it now, but he'll get it. Judge LANCE ITO: Did you have anything else you can ask Ms. Mckinny at this point? JOHNNIE COCHRAN: I can, your Honor, but I want to just make sure if I can take of this. I have a couple other questions I can ask, you know, while he's doing that. Ms. Mckinny, did Mr. Fuhrman, ever, at any time, apologize to you for the way in which he used this word, this n-word? CHRISTOPHER DARDEN: Objection, irrelevant. Judge LANCE ITO: Sustained. [The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it may not have been proofread against tape.] Copyright (c) 1995 Cable News Network, Inc. The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid distribution and transmission deadlines, it has not yet been proofread against videotape.