Cross-examination of Philip Vannatter (part 1)

📄 Cross-examination of Philip Vannatter (part 1) — Tuesday, December 10, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\DEC\10\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-PHILIP-VA.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 29 of 57

◀ Direct examination of Philip Vannatter Sidebar: video evidence ▶

Witness: Det. Philip Vannatter
Examiner: Robert Baker
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Tuesday, December 10, 1996 • Lines: 82

John Kelly cross-examines Detective Vannatter about the Rockingham timeline, a phenolphthalein test on the Bronco and the glove's discovery. Vannatter describes periods when detectives were out of each other's sight and what he observed near the fence. A sidebar addresses use of a June 18 video of the walkway; plaintiffs' counsel says the defense's earlier fence-crossing questions opened the subject.

# 1 THE COURT:

Cross. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY:

# 2 Q:

Mr. Vannatter, when you left Bundy the first time at approximately 5 a.m. that morning on June 13 to go to Rockingham, how long did you expect to be gone for?

# 3 A:

Probably 10 or 15 minutes.

# 4 Q:

Okay.

And upon your return to Bundy in 10 or 15 minutes, would that be when you called a criminalist?

# 5 MR. BAKER:

Calls for speculation on the part of this witness, Your Honor, and leading.

# 6 THE COURT:

Leading. Sustained.

# 7 Q:

(BY MR. KELLY) What did you intend to do, upon your arrival back at Bundy in 10 or 15 minutes?

# 8 A:

I would have notified all the support people to respond to the location.

# 9 Q:

Would that have included the criminalist?

# 10 A:

That would have included the criminalist.

# 11 Q:

Now, you indicated upon your observation of what appeared to you to be a blood drop on the Bronco at Rockingham, you called the criminalist at that time; is that correct?

# 12 A:

Yes.

# 13 Q:

What is the purpose of calling the criminalist?

# 14 A:

Yes.

# 15 Q:

What is the purpose of calling the criminalist to Rockingham at that time?

# 16 A:

I wanted to personally be there when he tested that. I believed it was blood, and I wanted to be there when -- personally when he tested it.

KEY QUOTE

# 17 Q:

And was there anything you intended for him to do after he tested that blood also?

# 18 MR. BAKER:

Objection, calls to speculation.

# 19 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 20 A:

Absolutely. I would have had him -- if it would have turned out not to be blood, or there were no other evidence, I would have then accompanied him to Bundy.

# 21 Q:

(BY MR. KELLY) Okay.

And you indicated in that search warrant affidavit that day, that that appeared to be human blood on the Ford Bronco door handle, correct, and that in fact it was tested and turned out to be human blood?

# 22 A:

It turned out.

# 23 Q:

Do you recall that?

# 24 A:

It was tested positive for blood, yes.

# 25 Q:

Okay.

So you actually were there at Rockingham when Criminalist Fung conducted the phenolphthalein test on the Bronco door spot?

# 26 A:

Yes.

# 27 MR. BAKER:

Assumes facts not in evidence.

# 28 A:

Yes.

# 29 Q:

(BY MR. KELLY) And were the results of that phenolphthalein test conveyed to you at Rockingham, before you left for the search warrant?

# 30 A:

Yes.

# 31 Q:

And was the result of that test that it was presumptively blood on the door handle?

# 32 A:

Yes.

# 33 MR. BAKER:

Hearsay.

# 34 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 35 Q:

(BY MR. KELLY) And would it be fair to say, that based on that presumptive test, the location of the blood, you concluded it was human blood?

# 36 A:

I believed it was, yes.

# 37 Q:

Okay.

Now, another thing --

# 38 A:

I believed it was, yes.

# 39 Q:

When you were in Rockingham that first morning, you indicated that Detective Fuhrman was out of your sight of vision for a period of time?

# 40 A:

Yeah, I didn't watch him the whole time, yes.

KEY QUOTE

# 41 Q:

Were there times you weren't able to see Detective Lange also?

# 42 A:

Certainly.

# 43 Q:

And Detective Phillips?

# 44 A:

Certainly.

# 45 Q:

Were there times that you were out of their sight also?

# 46 A:

I'm sure I was, yes.

# 47 Q:

Now, going to the south side of the Rockingham residence, back when you first observed the glove with Detective Fuhrman, you indicated that there was no evidence of anyone coming over the fence, correct?

# 48 A:

I didn't see any evidence of it.

# 49 Q:

Okay.

You didn't see any torn clothing on the fence?

# 50 A:

No.

# 51 Q:

Didn't see any blood drops near you, immediately around the glove, did you?

# 52 A:

No. No.

# 53 Q:

I believe you also indicated you never went closer than four feet west of where the glove was; is that correct also?

# 54 A:

That's correct, yes.

KEY QUOTE

# 55 Q:

That means you stopped four feet short of that glove?

# 56 A:

Yes.

# 57 Q:

And I believe you indicated the foliage along the fence appeared to be heavy?

# 58 A:

Yes.

# 59 Q:

Now, do you know, back along that fence, here in the vicinity where the glove was found, whether or not there was an area large enough for someone to have come through the foliage and over the fence?

# 60 MR. BAKER:

I object, Your Honor, there's no foundation for that.

# 61 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 62 Q:

(BY MR. KELLY) Did you observe any area in the foliage, around the glove, large enough where someone could have come through the foliage and over the fence?

# 63 A:

I wasn't looking for anything like that. I -- I don't know.

KEY QUOTE

# 64 Q:

Okay.

So you didn't observe anything one way or the other?

# 65 A:

No.

# 66 Q:

Okay.

As you recall, was the glove found just short of that air conditioner in the wall back there?

# 67 A:

Yeah, I believe it was west -- slightly west of the air conditioner.

# 68 MR. KELLY:

Steve, can we see the video.

# 69 MR. BAKER:

I'm going to object to any video.

# 70 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 71 MR. BAKER:

Can I be heard on that, Your Honor.

# 72 THE COURT:

No.

# 73 MR. BAKER:

We don't know what video this is.

# 74 THE COURT:

Which video is this?

# 75 MR. KELLY:

It's June of --

# 76 THE COURT:

Excuse me?

# 77 MR. KELLY:

It's a --

# 78 THE COURT:

Turn it off for a minute. What --

# 79 MR. KELLY:

It's a video taken of the south walkway, by the son of Mr. Simpson's personal secretary on June 18, 1994.

# 80 MR. BAKER:

Can we approach.

# 81 MR. PETROCELLI:

They produced it.

# 82 THE COURT:

Okay, approach the bench.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Vannatter

Yeah, I didn't watch him the whole time, yes.

Concession that Fuhrman was unobserved during the visit to Rockingham — key to the defense/plaintiff theory that the glove could have been planted.

Vannatter

That's correct, yes. [stopped four feet short of the glove]

Establishes Vannatter never closely examined the glove's exact location or surrounding foliage, undermining the thoroughness of the initial scene assessment.

Vannatter

I wasn't looking for anything like that. I -- I don't know.

Admits he did not assess whether the foliage was passable, weakening his ability to rule out an intruder scenario — or rule in the planted evidence theory.

Vannatter

I wanted to personally be there when he tested that. I believed it was blood, and I wanted to be there when -- personally when he tested it.

Explains his decision to call the criminalist to Rockingham rather than Bundy first, a decision that has been challenged as irregular.

Evidence (4)

Informal

Blood spot on the Ford Bronco door handle, tested presumptively positive by criminalist Fung using phenolphthalein test

discussed

Informal

Glove found on south side of Rockingham property, west of air conditioner

discussed

Informal

Search warrant affidavit referencing the Bronco blood as human blood

discussed

Informal

Video of south walkway at Rockingham taken June 18, 1994, by son of Simpson's personal secretary

introduced (disputed, sidebar called)

Notable Exchanges (2)

John Kelly•Vannatter

Kelly methodically establishes that Fuhrman, Lange, and Phillips were all out of Vannatter's sight at various points — and that Vannatter was out of theirs — building a circumstantial window for evidence planting without ever saying so directly.

strategic

John Kelly•Robert Baker•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Baker objects to an unidentified video; Fujisaki overrules before Baker can explain his objection, then relents and calls a sidebar after Kelly identifies it as a June 18, 1994 walkway video produced by the defense.

procedural friction

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Vannatter

admission of incomplete surveillance of colleagues

Kelly elicits that all four detectives were periodically out of each other's sight during the Rockingham visit, implying no one could rule out Fuhrman planting the glove — without Vannatter ever conceding the planted-evidence inference directly.

⚔ Vannatter

omission / lack of thoroughness

Vannatter admits he stopped four feet from the glove, never examined the surrounding foliage, and was not looking for signs of an intruder — undermining the completeness of the initial scene assessment.

Objections

6 objections (2 sustained, 3 overruled)

Proceeding 8569 • 82 lines • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103