We will recall to the stand under 676 --

767.

767.

One of those.

I want to see Tom Lange again.

I'm going to object to 767.

Objection overruled.

Have a seat.

You've already been sworn.

TOM LANGE called as a witness on behalf of the Defendants, having been previously sworn, testified as follows:

You are still under oath.

Would you please state your name again for the record.

Tom Lange, L-a-n-g-e.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Mr. Lange, how much time did you spend before the time you left the stand and today with the plaintiffs' attorneys?

Spoke with Mr. Medvene this afternoon for about 10 minutes. Saw him briefly last night. That's about it.

How much time did you spend talking to Mr. Vannatter before you got on the witness stand here this afternoon?

None.

Now, let me ask you, sir, when you were at 675 (sic) South Bundy, did you -- did you see any shoe prints --

875.

Strike that.

(BY MR. BAKER) 875 South Bundy, did you see any shoe prints between the body of Nicole Brown Simpson and Bundy?

Bundy Drive?

Yes, sir.

Objection, the Bundy crime scene, there was thorough cross-examination on it.

I'll allow some.

Yes, sir.

Vague, then, as to time, Your Honor.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) You may answer.

No. Sustained as to time.

I'm sorry.

(BY MR. BAKER) How many times were you at 875 South Bundy before the crime scene was released?

I was there for the one time on the 13th before it was released.

You were actually there from 4:20 to 5, and then you went back about quarter to 7 in the morning and were there until approximately noon, right?

Yes, approximately.

So you were there at least two times on the 13th, correct?

Yes.

Okay?

That's correct.

And it was the last time that you were there that you did a thorough investigation of the evidence that was at the crime scene, true?

Same objection, Your Honor.

Overruled. I'm permitting this witness to be examined as a defense witness and I assume we're not going to go over the same thing.

We're not.

Okay. Please don't.

May I have the question again, please.

(BY MR. BAKER) It was the second time when you went back to 875 South Bundy that you did a thorough examination of the evidence of the crime scene, right?

No, I did not examine the evidence at that time.

You were looking for evidence, attempting to recognize evidence, document evidence, and preserve evidence, correct?

That would go more to the criminalist, that would be a concern that -- the criminalist is the one who documents and collects the evidence.

I see.

In all of the 12 pages of your notes that you documented at the crime scene, 875 South Bundy, that was also to document the crime scene after you recognized what you thought may have been evidence, true?

Yes, various aspects of the crime scene.

And then I want to go back to my original question then, Detective Lange, and that was did you see any shoe prints between the body of Nicole Brown Simpson and Bundy Drive that were consistent with the shoe prints that were on the stairs and going to the west?

I observed some partial shoe prints near the body on the walkway, yes.

Did you observe the shoe prints as far as four feet away from Nicole Brown Simpson on the walkway towards Bundy?

I don't recall that.

MR. P. BAKER: Next in order.

2257.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, the shoe prints on Bundy were -- were relatively unique, weren't they? I mean the pattern?

Objection, vague, which shoe prints, Your Honor.

(BY MR. BAKER) Did you --

Overruled.

(BY MR. BAKER) Did you see this shoe print that's over four feet down the walkway towards Bundy at the crime scene at 875 South Bundy, Mr. Lange?

It's hard for me to orient where exactly.

Pull it back so we can orient it?

Yeah.

Now, at the top of this Exhibit No. --

Again, please. I'm sorry.

MR. P. BAKER: 2257.

(BY MR. BAKER) -- 2257, is the body of Nicole Brown Simpson, correct?

Yes.

And the tiles with the grouting are basically one foot, true?

Approximately, yes.

And did you see shoe prints in the area where my finger is pointing a foot or so away, that is towards the east and Bundy Drive?

Yes.

And did you see shoe prints as far down as four feet away from the body of Nicole Brown Simpson towards Bundy Drive?

I don't recall seeing shoe prints down in this area, if that's what you're referring to.

Now, that shoe print is four tiles away from the body of Nicole Brown Simpson, is it not, sir?

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence that that is a shoe print, Your Honor. There's been no evidence of that.

Excuse me.

Assumes a fact not in evidence that Mr. Baker is saying something in particular is a shoe print, there's been no evidence to that.

Overruled.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, that shoe print is over four feet away from Nicole Brown Simpson, right?

Which shoe print?

That shoe print.

For the record, can you indicate where you were pointing, Mr. Baker?

I don't know that it is a shoe print. It doesn't appear to be a shoe print to me.

(BY MR. BAKER) That's not a shoe print to you?

I don't know. It doesn't appear to be one to me.

Put on the other ones that are south of or west of the body.

MR. P. BAKER: This is 2214.

Now, I take it that you couldn't recognize that as a shoe print either, right?

Where are you looking?

Right there.

Yeah, that appears to be a partial shoe print.

But you can't make out the other one that has --

Let's put it back up now, Phil, the first one.

(BY MR. BAKER) Does that look like a shoe print to you, from the very same type of sole that made the shoe print in the last photograph?

No.

Doesn't look like it to you?

No.

All right.

Now, that would be significant, wouldn't it, if there was a shoe print four feet to the west of Nicole Brown Simpson, correct?

Well, there was shoe prints to the west of Nicole Brown Simpson.

Maybe you didn't understand the question.

That would be significant if there was a shoe print four feet to the west of Nicole Brown Simpson, correct?

Certainly.

And the reason it would be significant is because it would indicate that the assailant, after he killed Nicole Brown Simpson, had walked in the blood and then walked west, true?

Yes.

And it would also indicate to you -- strike that.

There are other shoe prints indicating that the assailant walked in the area after Nicole Brown Simpson had been killed, true?

I don't know if we can say after. The shoe prints appeared between both victims.

Put back that shoe print, the last one.

MR. P. BAKER: Coming up is Exhibit 92.

(BY MR. BAKER) Do you see any shoe prints in that photograph? And it's hard. If you want to come back here.

Yeah, that might help a little bit.

I believe there was some up in the left -- upper left quarter of the quadrant, up here on this area, right in here, you see a partial heel print.

Now put --

While you're back away from the TV monitor --

Put back the one that's four feet west on the path toward Bundy.

(BY MR. BAKER) See if you, from the vantage point that you presently have, if you agree that's a shoe print?

MR. P. BAKER: 2257.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, still doesn't look like it to you? Not to you, anyway?

I can see what you're referring to, this area in here, this section, little area, but --

Well --

I can't say that that's a shoe print.

Well, you may resume the stand, sir.

Mr. Lange, that indentation has a similar sole pattern to the indentations that you saw up next to the body, does it not, sir?

No, I think the ones at the body are sectioned much smaller than that.

Oh, do you?

Okay.

That had to be a shoe print made by somebody?

This had to be?

Yes.

I'm not saying it's a shoe print.

Let me ask you this.

The LAPD certainly wouldn't have walked in that area before the crime scene was released, would they?

Objection, calls for conclusion, lack of foundation.

(BY MR. BAKER) No one from the LAPD would have infringed and tampered with the crime scene and walked in pools of blood before the crime scene was released?

Same objection. It's also argumentative.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Was care taken, Mr. Lange, to keep the feet of LAPD officers out of blood pools on the walkway between the time that the bodies were discovered at 12:10 and the crime scene was released at 3 o'clock the following -- the same afternoon?

Objection, lack of foundation, Your Honor. And certainly, in part, on the time the witness is not present.

I'll sustain the objection as to that form.

(BY MR. BAKER) At -- all the time you were there, did you see anybody walk in the area where blood was pooling?

At the time the bodies were removed, yes.

Well, the pictures were taken before the bodies were removed. We can see that because Nicole Brown Simpson's body is in the picture, right?

Correct.

Before the bodies were removed -- what time were they removed?

I believe it was approximately 10 AM, right in that area.

Before 10 AM, did you see anybody walk in the blood area on the walkway, sir?

I saw no one walk in the blood.

That would certainly be improper procedure if anybody walked in the blood, you would agree with that?

Yes, I wouldn't want to see that.

And you would agree, sir, that this pool of blood over to the right of the photograph, and the pool of blood in the middle lower portion of the photograph, right above what I have referred to as a shoe print, is simply pooled blood, correct?

Yes.

And you would agree that the area that I've been pointing to that you do not agree is a shoe print, was an imprint made by something after the blood had pooled, correct, sir?

I don't know what it was caused by. I don't even know if it's a print.

Well, it certainly isn't blood pooling, is it?

It doesn't look like it's pooling in that one specific area that you mentioned. I don't know what kind of a print it is.

Now, Detective Lange, isn't it true that that impression indicates to you as a detective of 20 plus years that something other than a dog stepped in it?

I think it would be irresponsible for me to make that kind of a decision.

I see.

It wasn't -- never mind.

Now, you don't think that that is the same shoe print that's up in the -- by the bodies that you've identified, correct?

From looking at that photo, it doesn't appear to be the same to me.

All right.

Now, you would agree that there were no shoe prints in the -- in front of Nicole Brown Simpson's body that was consistent with the shoes worn by Ronald Goldman the night of the murders, correct?

I don't believe there were.

And that indicates to you that Ronald Goldman was already in the caged or closed-in area before Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered, correct?

I think that's a probability, yes.

And that indicates to you, then, that, in your view, somebody was in front of Nicole Brown Simpson and then behind Nicole Brown Simpson before Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered, correct?

Certainly that's a possibility, yes.

And all of that would be at the same time Ronald Goldman would be in a closed-in area, because once the throat was cut of Nicole Brown Simpson, blood gushed onto the walkway, isn't that true, sir?

Can you repeat the first part of that again. I don't think I quite understood.

That indicates to you that during the process of Nicole Brown Simpson being murdered, Ronald Goldman had to be in the closed-in area while somebody was first in front of her, then behind her, and slashed her throat, and blood spurted all over the walkway, right?

Not necessarily.

Well, not necessarily?

And if in fact Ronald Goldman was in the closed-in area at the same time an assailant was in front of Nicole Brown Simpson and then behind Nicole Brown Simpson, there had to have been a second assailant occupying Ronald Goldman, isn't that true, sir?

No.

You would have in your reconstruction just stood there --

Stood there?

-- stood there while the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson was taking place? That didn't happen in your reconstruction, did it?

I don't think -- could you repeat that, please.

When you left 875 South Bundy at approximately 5 o'clock, it was after you had a conversation with Phil Vannatter, Ron Phillips and Mark Fuhrman, true?

No, I didn't speak to Fuhrman. It was a brief conversation with Vannatter and Phillips.

And in the -- In the brief conversation with Vannatter and Phillips, Phillips indicated to Vannatter that O.J. Simpson had a previous incident of domestic violence with his ex-wife, right?

Objection, hearsay, and this was specifically gone into. This question was specifically asked. The topic was gone into.

Hearsay, sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Well, you -- well, you participated in the decision-making process to leave 875 South Bundy and go to 360 North Rockingham, correct?

Yes.

And at the time that you participated in the decision to leave 875 South Bundy, you were aware that, obviously, there were two victims at 875 South Bundy?

Yes.

You were aware that there was evidence that included a hat at 875 South Bundy, correct?

Yes.

You were aware that there was at least a glove at 875 South Bundy correct?

Yes.

You were aware that there was a pager at 875 South Bundy, right?

Yes.

Keys, apparently, correct?

Correct.

There were blood spatterings at 875 South Bundy, correct?

Yes.

There were shoe prints at 875 South Bundy?

Yes.

There were blood drops on the back of Nicole Brown Simpson at 875 South Bundy, correct?

Correct.

There were blood drops going on the north walkway, leading west to east or east to west, at 875 South Bundy, correct?

Yes.

And there was a well of evidence at that crime scene at 875 South Bundy that you were aware, at 5 o'clock, had been processed by no one, true?

That's correct.

You were -- you were always aware at 5 o'clock, when you made this decision to notify Mr. Simpson of the death of his ex-wife, that no coroner had been called and no criminalist had been called, right?

That's correct.

And, in fact, you could have called a criminalist, if you were just going to go to be over there for a few minutes to meet a few of them, so the criminalists would be back at 875 South Bundy when you got back; isn't that true?

I suppose so.

Well, in other words, is it your testimony, Mr. Lange, that you were just going to go over there a few minutes, notify O.J. Simpson, get a little rapport with him, and then come right back to 875 South Bundy, and then start and investigate that crime scene and process it?

I see.

We found out later, at Rockingham, that they had not.

Who gave you the impression that a criminalist had been notified?

The original officers that arrived shortly after midnight.

Maybe you didn't understand the question.

It asked for the identification of the human being who told you that the criminalist had been notified?

I never said anyone told me. I said I was under the impression that they had been -- the photographer was there; detective headquarters had been notified. West Los Angeles was there. And I was under the impression that they, possibly, had been notified.

I didn't need them at that time, so there was no specific request at that time.

You were co-lead detective, once you arrived at that scene, were you not?

Yes.

And in the police department's view of things, once your division, robbery/homicide is notified, basically everything stops until robbery/homicide gets there and takes over, right?

Generally, yes.

And so there is, at least in this case, had you not gone to Bundy, there would have been at least a two-hour and 15-minute delay for -- of absolutely no investigation on the scene because of LAPD rules that, once robbery/homicide is notified, everything stops, correct?

Objection. Materiality, relevance, Your Honor.

Overruled.

I don't know how long it had been.

(BY MR. BAKER) Well, let's assume that robbery/homicide was notified at 2:45 to take over the crime, and you arrived and there sometime -- at 4:20; so you got an hour and what, 35 minutes --

Um-hum.

-- additional delay, correct?

Yes.

And so you'd have four hours' delay because of robbery/homicide being -- from the time that the crime scene was, in fact, discovered, and there is still absolutely no processing of the crime scene going on because it's robbery/homicide, right?

Well, that's a decision that's made by administration of the police department.

Yeah, that's basically true.

Did you ever tell anybody he -- well, strike that.

Isn't the time of death in every homicide important?

It certainly is a factor that could be important, yes.

Isn't it also true, sir, that the time of death can be determined, if you call the coroner, by taking a liver temperature?

It is one of the aids that can be used in determining an approximate time of death, but generally not much under two and a half, three hours.

Well, as a matter of fact, Detective Lange, in your 20 plus years, you're aware that if the temperature of the liver is taken in a close proximity after death, the estimate of time can be within an hour; isn't that true?

Absolutely not. I have never heard that. And I've heard just the contrary in all my years.

Well, in fact, in the John Belushi case, the liver temperature was taken quickly. And that solved the crime, did it not, sir?

I don't --

Objection. Hearsay, Your Honor.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) One and a half degrees an hour, the liver -- in the first four hours, the liver temperature drops, correct?

That's a general rule. 1.5 degrees per hour is a very general rule, yes.

In this case, the variance becomes greater because the liver temperature wasn't taken until after 10 o'clock in the morning; isn't that correct?

Yes.

And so the liver temperature becomes basically meaningless after the bodies are discovered. And you and your other co-lead Detective don't call the coroner and don't get any liver temperature taken for ten hours, correct?

No, not at all. The same formula exists. It's 1.5 degrees per hour.

Exactly. After four hours, the liver temperature decreases one degree an hour; isn't that true?

There are many factors, and I've always been told and advised by various pathologists that it's generally 1.5 degrees per hour.

I don't -- never been instructed, or told, or taught that it was anything less. And that's a general -- very general, 1.5.

You've never heard that after four hours, the liver temperature goes down to a degree an hour, then it becomes, after six or seven hours, exceedingly variable? That's never been --

I've always --

Okay.

-- been told 1.5 degrees, generally, per hour.

So the liver temperature, in this case at -- was taken at different times from both victims, correct?

I believe it was within a few minutes.

Well, one was -- Well, strike that.

The liver temperature was 82 degrees, was it not?

I haven't looked at that in perhaps a couple years.

Let me show you your notes.

Objection.

Right at bottom of the page.

Objection. Materiality.

Overruled.

I wrote, a liver temperature of 82 degrees at 10:50 a.m..

10:50 a.m. Liver temperature 82 degrees, right?

That's what it says.

And what -- while we're on that page, what's the other ambient temperature?

70 degrees, same time.

So the outside temperature at just the ambient temperature was 70 degrees on June 13 at 10:50?

That's right.

Now, the coroner certainly, in this case, that you were aware -- and you did attend the autopsy on the 14th -- could not place the time of death anywhere between 9:00 and 12:00, correct?

Objection. Lack of foundation and calls for hearsay.

Overruled, if it's in the coroner's report.

Well, go --

It's not in the coroner's report, Your Honor.

You may inquire whether it's in the coroner's report.

Well, let me ask you this:

You went to the autopsy, right?

Yes.

Both you and Vannatter went to the autopsy, true?

That's correct.

And you wrote the follow-up report, right?

Yes.

And you put in your follow-up report, did you not, that the coroner couldn't determine with any more accuracy, that it was between 9:00 and 12:00, the time of death?

I believe I wrote the coroner said it was between 9:00 and 12:00, closer to 9:00.

And, in fact, the coroner never said one thing about it being closer to 9:00; isn't that true?

My recollection is that the coroner said probably closer to 9:00.

The coroner never has testified in any court that it was closer to 9:00. Is that true or untrue, to your knowledge, sir?

I have no idea what he testified to.

Now, in terms, sir, of you making the decision to go over to Mr. Simpson's property, you had knowledge of all of the evidence at 875 South Bundy, as we just discussed, and you had knowledge that not one of the other people; that is, the coroner or criminalist, had been called.

And you decided, along with Vannatter, that you were going to go and notify O.J. Simpson and develop a little rapport with him, right.

Objection. Argumentative; asked and answered several times today.

Also prior testimony.

I think this is the asked area. Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) You, at the time you made this decision to leave this crime scene rich in evidence, were of the opinion that O.J. Simpson was a probable suspect for the murders of his wife and the unidentified victim at 875 South Bundy, correct?

No, not at all.

You had knowledge of a previous domestic violence and you had knowledge that they were estranged, true?

No, I did not.

You are -- it's your testimony you didn't have knowledge that they were divorced at the time you went over to Rockingham?

It wasn't clear to me whether it was a separation or a divorce.

Is that crucial in terms of determining whether or not Mr. Simpson, in your mind, was a possible suspect for the murders?

No.

In fact, what you wanted to do, Detective Lange, is: You knew that the LAPD had been under great pressure in high-profile cases for not getting any arrests and not getting any convictions, and you wanted to get Mr. Simpson arrested. Isn't that true, sir?

That's not true.

Now, after you got to 360 North Rockingham, you and your colleague, Mr. Vannatter, were outside the Ashford gate, and you rang the intercom buzzer, right?

I didn't ring the buzzer; I believe Fuhrman was over there, and perhaps Phillips.

So it was Phillips and Fuhrman who rang the buzzer, right?

And Vannatter may have. I never rang the buzzer; it was one of them.

You think it was Phillips and Fuhrman that rang the buzzer, right?

Again, I'm not sure, but I believe so, yes.

And you -- Your car was parked now --

Phil, can we get that?

MR. P. BAKER: Yeah.

(BY MR. BAKER) You were where when the buzzer was being rung?

Well, it was rung several times over a period of time, when I was, for a while, in the street, in front of the Ashford gate.

Subsequent to that, I was up closer in the intersection of Rockingham and Ashford. At one point, I walked down to the white Bronco and looked at the white Bronco, then back up towards the gate.

Now, how long was Fuhrman out of your sight at Rockingham?

Vague as to time, Your Honor.

(BY MR. BAKER) At any time before you and Vannatter decided to go over the wall.

I don't know that he was ever out of my sight during that time.

Well, did you keep him in your sight?

Well, not on purpose. But for the most part, he was.

When he walked away from the Ashford gate, initially, I kind of trailed behind him and walked, as I said to the intersection area. I observed him walking down towards the Bronco and I saw him looking at the Bronco.

Your police vehicle was parked on Ashford, just to the west of the Ashford gate, was it not?

Yes.

Phil, that's civil 116.

Thank you.

(BY MR. BAKER) And the Bronco was south on Rockingham right?

Yes.

And it was 5 o'clock in the morning, right?

Yes.

And it was dark?

Yes.

And the only streetlight in the area is across the street on Ashford, right?

I believe there is a light up there, yes.

No street lamps down here at all?

I don't recall.

And so it's your testimony, of course, that you had walked out onto Rockingham and watched Mark Fuhrman go down to the Bronco, right?

Well, I had walked out to the area of Rockingham and Ashford to see if I could get a better look inside -- inside the property.

When you came out to go to Mr. Simpson's house, did you come up Sunset and go down Rockingham?

Yes.

At that time, there were no barriers on Rockingham, and you could go up Sunset, take a right on Rockingham, and come down Rockingham towards Ashford, which would be -- or I'm guessing -- up, 'cause it's north, correct?

Yeah.

And you had -- were you driving at the time, or Vannatter?

Vannatter.

And I take it that you were looking to see where Mr. Simpson's house was, were you not?

No.

Did you notice that this is a solid wall all the way around his property?

We didn't know they were at Mr. Simpson's house until the vehicle stopped and we pulled in behind Phillips. They were leading us to that location.

So as I understand your testimony now, you came out to the Ashford-Rockingham intersection to look to see if you could get a better view in his property?

I was trying to get a better view into the property, yes.

And you never walked to the Rockingham gate, did you?

Yes, I did. I walked down towards the Bronco, which was at the gate.

After, Fuhrman came back and told you there was a mark that he had found over the left door handle, right?

It was about that time, yes.

And you want to put that up again, Phil?

(BY MR. BAKER) That's the mark that you saw on the morning of June 13 at approximately 5:15, 5:30, in that area?

Yes.

And you could see it real good, right?

Not on this.

I can't see it very well.

I see the mark.

(BY MR. BAKER) And we already determined it's about three-eighths of an inch long?

I don't know.

Well, there's a ruler.

I can look real close, if you want, I suppose.

Well let me represent to you it's three-eights of an inch long.

We have another photograph?

It's the same one.

That's clear. Now I can see it.

That's possibly half an inch.

(BY MR. BAKER) Half an inch?

Actually --

Your measurements --

It's approximate, okay, according to this.

Okay. That's the way you read that ruler.

This is three inches (indicating); this is three and a quarter; (indicating); this is three and a half (indicating); this is three and three-quarters?

No. I'm looking from this line to this line.

That's a quarter of an inch.

Oh, I'm sorry; I thought that was half an inch.

Okay. So that's?

Say about a quarter of an inch.

That was a -- was -- was of great significance to you, wasn't it?

There was some significance at that time.

Later on, it became greater.

Before you made the decision to go over the wall, your group decision with Vannatter, that was of great significance to you, wasn't it, that quarter-of-an-inch mark that's on the monitor?

I can't say "great significance." It was of some significance.

And you believed that the vehicle was parked -- that is, the Bronco -- the vehicle was parked at an angle to the curb, with the rear end jutting out into the roadway. That was of significance to you, too, wasn't it?

Somewhat, yes.

Put that photo on, Phil, please.

(BY MR. BAKER) In your words, sir, in your follow-up murder -- follow-up report, why don't you read exactly what you said about the Bronco and jutting out into the roadway.

Would you like me to read it aloud?

(BY MR. BAKER) Yeah, that would be fine.

Detectives -- you want me to read the whole paragraph?

Just read the sentence that relates to the angle of the Bronco on Rockingham.

Having parked at an angle to the curb with the rear end jutting out into the roadway.

Now, as a matter of fact, the vehicle wasn't jutting out into the roadway at all, was it?

The rear end appeared to me to be jutted out slightly in the roadway, yes.

Well --

MR. P. BAKER: 2036 [sic] on the screen.

There is about four inches' difference between, or the front tire being close to the curb and the rear tire, it being close to the curb; you would agree with that?

I never measured it. I couldn't say.

Let's take a look at the photo and see if we can make some determinations. This area, the white area, again, is an apron, is it not, a concrete apron that leads to the asphalt on Rockingham, right?

Yes.

And the tires on the vehicle, you would agree, probably aren't any wider than eight inches?

They're probably a little wider than that. Again, I didn't measure it.

You want to go ten? Would you believe eleven?

I don't know.

You think ten is a good estimate?

I have no idea.

Well, do you have tires on your car, Mr. Lange?

Yes, but I've never measured them.

You estimate the width of them; they're not like to here, a foot wide?

I never had any reason to measure the width of my tires or any other tires.

In any event, you would agree that the rear tire is almost adjacent to the concrete apron, would you not?

It's certainly adjacent, but it is apart from, and sticking out as compared to the front. The car's at an angle.

And the roadway there is about what, 24 feet across?

I don't know.

Difference in the two, in the front tire and the back tire be more than four, five inches? You would agree with that?

It's a little hard to tell from that angle. That front tire is up on that apron and --

Sure it is?

And the rear tire of course, is out on the street, so that's how I had formed my impression.

So based upon you being there for the south side of the gate and walking down and looking at the Bronco, and from -- was it the front view that gave you the idea that the vehicle was jutting out into the street?

No. When we initially approached, I observed the vehicle. It was the only one on the street, for one. And if one hadn't been paying attention to where they were going, they might have even run into it, because it is a fairly narrow street.

Rockingham is a fairly narrow street?

Comparatively, yes.

Compared to Santa Monica Freeway?

When there are vehicles parked on it, I think one would have to probably exercise more care.

Can you get to a -- when you get to a point, we're going to take ten, okay?

(BY MR. BAKER) The location of the Bronco was one of the factors that led you to the decision that there may be a heinous crime going on inside Mr. Simpson's estate, right?

No, I don't think so.

Had no significance whatsoever?

I can say no significance. It wasn't one of the things that I looked at -- it wasn't one of the things that I looked at to compel us to go in.