Due to my screw-up, not Phil's, I'm going to have to wait for a new point on that video.

Okay.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, when you were at the criminalist's van with Fung inspecting the glove, did you inspect anything else that was in the criminalist's van, from Rockingham, at that time?

No, I just recall looking at the glove.

And the glove was in a bag, was it not?

He removed it from a bag, yes.

So the glove was out of -- well, strike that.

Brown paper bag, plastic bag, which, or both?

Seems to me it was in a brown paper bag and it was -- he pulled it out -- it was like half out of the bag when I looked at it.

Okay.

So it wasn't contained, then, in any -- you know, one of those plastic zip-lock type bags, that's your recollection, sir?

No, I recollect it was just a brown paper bag. I believe it may have been in something earlier. I don't --

It was pulled half out of the paper bag, you viewed it, Fung viewed it, it was put back in the paper bag, right?

Yes.

And it never, to your knowledge, went from the criminalist's truck into the area where the crimes had been committed, correct?

I never saw it in there, no.

And you didn't see blood on the gloves and you didn't see any tears in the -- or blood on that glove nor blood -- strike it. Again, I apologize.

You didn't see any blood on that glove at that time, true?

I wasn't looking for any blood. I just looked at the inside of the glove.

The answer to the question is no, you didn't see any blood?

I don't recall seeing any blood.

Second question, you see any tears in the glove at that time?

I don't believe so.

Did you look for any tears in the glove?

No.

Now, then, this was during the time between 7 -- approximately 7 o'clock in the morning when you were at 875 South Bundy on the 13th and 12:30 when you left to go to Parker Center, right?

It was after Fung arrived, so possibly after 10 o'clock, sometime between 10 and 12.

And during the time after you had gone back to 875 South Bundy and you did the documentation that we talked about when you were here before, did you request a stride analysis to be done on the blood drops in the walkway at 875 South Bundy?

No, they were requested of the shoe prints.

There was a stride analysis that you became aware of, true?

As to the shoe prints, not the blood drops.

There was no stride analysis done to the blood drops in the back of -- the walkway, that's your testimony?

I don't know what a stride analysis is as it relates to a blood drop. I do as it relates to a shoe print.

Well, the blood drops -- have you ever heard of measuring the distance between the blood drops and seeing, for example, how long a normal 32 inch gait would take to go between the blood drops to see what the time duration is between the drops?

No, a stride analysis would go to a shoe print, not the distances between blood drops.

Have you ever attempted in the 20 years that you've been a detective, to determine, based upon the distance between blood drops that you detectives call a blood trail?

Objection, relevance to this case, asking about some other experience, not this case.

I believe he's inquiring whether he's familiar with a particular analysis.

Overruled.

(BY MR. BAKER) Particular analysis I'm talking about is did you request or make any attempt to determine the distance between blood drops on the north walkway at 875 South Bundy?

I don't recall specifically. That may have been discussed with the criminalist.

Do you recall ever making a determination as to a normal stride or gait, how many seconds would elapse between blood drops?

Yes, there are basic -- there are several basic studies on that from blood hitting from different angles at different heights and different surfaces I'm aware of, yes.

Did you try to analyze -- use those investigative techniques and methodology in your analysis of this crime scene?

To some degree.

And how long did you determine there was in seconds between the blood drops on the north walkway at Bundy?

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. Witness testified he didn't do that.

He said "to some degree."

Overruled.

No, that wasn't something I ever did.

(BY MR. BAKER) Well, you determined that the assailant had shoe prints that went up the walkway and then turned left towards the house, correct?

Up the walkway as in Bundy?

Yeah, was going west on the walkway.

Let me get an exhibit.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now --

THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, Mr. Baker, does that have a number, please.

I'm sure it does.

Sorry.

I'll look.

I don't see any number.

It's 2057, I believe, Your Honor.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, your examination of the scene at 875 South Bundy had the shoe prints going -- this is west, correct?

Yes.

And then they turn and go towards the property, do they not?

They -- yeah, there was one point where they did, yeah.

And then they -- there was another shoe print that was angled towards the property, right?

I believe so.

And did you ever try to do any type of gait analysis relative to those shoe prints, sir?

Personally, no. I requested that of a criminalist.

And you have never seen one document relative to a gait analysis, correct?

Part of a gait analysis is the measurement -- toe to heel measurement. I believe I've seen that somewhere, but it's been some time.

You would have seen nothing that would determine the elapsed time based upon a normal gait from the front of the property on Bundy west to the back of the property, correct?

I've never heard of such a study.

Never heard of it in this case, right.

Now, in terms of the shoe prints on this particular exhibit, you will agree based upon our analysis yesterday that there are shoe prints missing from the area directly east of Nicole Brown Simpson's -- where her body was found, true?

Missing shoe.

They're not on that document -- that exhibit, rather?

As far as these little prints here you're talking about?

There were at least four shoe prints in that area, were there not, sir?

Seems to me there were a couple of partials. I do recall a partial heel right in this area here that I don't see on there.

And obviously, if the imprint that we were looking at yesterday is a shoe print, that isn't on that exhibit that's been proposed by the plaintiffs, 2038, (sic) either, is it?

No.

MR. P. BAKER: Yeah.

I would like to direct your attention to this video. When it concludes, I'm going to ask you whether or not this is Dennis Fung and the glove, okay.

MR. P. BAKER: Next in order, Erin.

2258.

MR. P. BAKER: 2258.

If you can stop it, Phil.

(BY MR. BAKER) Was the brown bag that you saw Dennis Fung with -- Right there.

Go back.

Go forward.

(BY MR. BAKER) Was that the same type of brown bag that you say you looked at the glove in, in the criminalist's truck in front of 875 South Bundy?

It was brown and paper. It seems to me it was smaller.

If Dennis Fung indicated he was carrying that bag into the crime scene pursuant to your request, you would disagree with that?

Objection, calls for hearsay.

Overruled.

I'd disagree he's walking away from the crime scene with that bag of evidence. I don't recall, even, at all coming into the crime scene, nor the bag of evidence, the glove or anything else.

And it would be not -- certainly it would not be your request or order that he bring the glove into the crime scene, correct?

I would not do that.

All right. Thank you.

Now, I want to get back to this particular -- the stride analysis.

So that we're clear, there was no time estimation based upon shoe prints from the front walkway to the back, as to any amount of time that would have elapsed by the assailant or assailants walking from the front to the back of the alley, true?

Yes.

I wouldn't know how one would go about doing that.

Now, you indicated that you looked at the blood drops, did you not?

I did.

And certainly you would agree, sir, that if blood drops form a trail on them, that you can indicate not only the direction of travel of the person who is dropping the blood, but if they fall in a round or circular pattern, that would indicate that there's possibly a normal gait, true?

To some degree. There are other factors depending on the height of the source that the blood comes from, and depending on the substrate, the ground, the cement or whatever it hits, so there are other considerations.

In this case we've seen closeup pictures of circular blood spots, would you agree with that, on the north walkway, correct?

Generally circular, yes.

This would indicate whoever is discharging this blood is not running, correct?

That's correct.

So we can assume, and in fact you -- the most you could assume in terms of speed would be a fast gait, correct, based upon the blood spot pattern, true?

I would -- probably wouldn't even say that.

Normal walk?

Very possibly.

And so in normal walking, and we can see some shoe prints, we could do a stride analysis to determine, for example, a gait set forth by the shoe print, what the stride of whoever is leaving those shoe prints is?

Objection, limited, previous ruling, stride analysis wasn't done, similar to ruling on collection techniques.

Excuse me?

Similar to your previous ruling on collection techniques.

Overruled.

(BY MR. BAKER) And we could even do a simulation of the assailant turning because we have a shoe print that shows him turning into the building. We can assume that the assailant was also in front of the gate, and we can duplicate to some extent and reconstruct the amount of time it would take for someone to leave the shoe prints or some, more than one, can leave the shoe prints set forth on Exhibit 2038 (sic), true?

Could can be a very subjective thing. I mean we have the prints facing inward. Someone could be standing there for a period of time before they moved on. I would think that would be a very difficult thing to do. You can, however, do a heel to toe measurement, obviously, and -- to see if it's a normal stride.

Yeah, and obviously it is somewhat subjective, because we see shoe prints that go back into the -- into an area where bushes are in this darkened area on 2038 (sic), correct?

Yes.

And the assailant could have backed into the bushes to avoid any visual observations from Bundy, correct?

That may have been the reason, yes.

But we can make some parameter ranges of time if care had been taken, but none was done in this case; you will agree with that, sir?

I don't know how you would do that.

Okay. Fair enough.

Now, in terms of after your being at 875 South Bundy until approximately 12:30 and going through your investigation, you were called by Phil Vannatter and requested to go to downtown LAPD, correct?

Yes.

How were you communicated with at that time, telephone, radio, what?

Believe it was telephone.

Phil Vannatter actually phoned the house and requested you to go down to Parker Center, correct?

No, it seems to me that I got a call from the office, I think I got a call from the office telling me to meet him there.

And it was on the phone that was in the 875 South Bundy residence, correct?

Yes.

And you hadn't had any communications via the office, or Phil Vannatter, on that phone before that time, had you?

I don't believe so.

I mean he hadn't come over -- he'd come over to 875 South Bundy to communicate with you, had he not?

Yes.

And hadn't used the phone before then, huh?

I don't believe I did, no.

He came over to tell you that he was going to try to get a search warrant at about 7:30, right?

I believe so.

When he came over about 7:30 to tell you that he was going to try to get a search warrant, that was of course after you had both been at Rockingham and Kathy Randa had communicated with Arnelle on the telephone, and everyone at that scene knew exactly where O.J. Simpson was, correct?

Well, I don't know if everyone knew exactly where he was.

Well, I take it as lead detective, once the communication was made with Kathy Randa, that you communicated that certainly to Phil Vannatter and said there's no need to go upstairs, for example, and see if O.J. Simpson is dying or bleeding to death, we know he's in Chicago, and we know exactly what hotel he's at, and we know he's on a Hertz outing? I assume you did that?

Well, no, Phillips told us that, certainly.

Phillips told you and Vannatter that, right?

I believe Vannatter was there, yes.

So Vannatter certainly knew that Mr. Simpson had gone on a scheduled expected trip to Chicago before 7:30 when he came over to see you and tell you that he was going to attempt to get a search warrant to search Mr. Simpson's house, correct?

Objection, calls for conclusion, Your Honor, what's in Mr. Vannatter's mind.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Well, from the knowledge that you have of being at Rockingham, you have no doubt in your mind, sir, that Vannatter knew full well that O.J. Simpson was on an expected trip to Chicago at a Hertz outing by the time he got to 875 South Bundy and told you he was going to go to the West LA station to prepare a search warrant, correct?

Same objection.

Overruled.

Calls for speculation.

I don't know whether or not he knows it was expected.

(BY MR. BAKER) And unexpected, of course, is exactly the word that is and does appear in the search warrant that you have looked at, that is Mr. Phil Vannatter telling a magistrate, under penalty of perjury, that O.J. Simpson was on an unexpected flight to Chicago. You discussed that many times with him, haven't you?

No, you used the word "expected" and I'm repeating your word. And no, I have not discussed it with him many times or hardly at all.

Well, you've been on "Dateline" and talking about whether or not Phil Vannatter lied in the search warrant, have you not?

I certainly may have, yes.

You've been on the "Today" show discussing whether or not Phil Vannatter lied in the search warrant, have you not?

I believe I have.

You've been on "Larry King Live" discussing whether or not Phil Vannatter lied in the search warrant, have you not?

I hope so, yes.

Many times, right?

And now -- so you went to -- from 875 South Bundy to Parker Center to interrogate O.J. Simpson, right?

I did.

And that interrogation started around 1:35 in the afternoon, correct? That's what the transcript says. You wouldn't argue with that?

I wouldn't call that an interrogation. I would call that an interview. There's a difference between an interrogation and an interview.

Okay.

Let's talk about that for just a second.

As I understand your testimony, sir, you didn't even have a suspicion that the ex-husband of one of the victims was in any way responsible for the murder, when you allowed Fuhrman to go over the wall into his property, right?

That's correct.

And then he became, in your story, your version of the story, he became the prime probable suspect when the glove was found at 360 North Rockingham, right?

He became, what I would term, a probable cause suspect.

And so you, being an experienced detective, have got O.J. Simpson down in the interrogation room at Parker Center and you have him without any lawyers present, true?

No.

It certainly isn't your testimony that the recorded statement from 13:35 hours to 14:07 hours on June 13, 1994 was made with lawyers for Mr. Simpson present, is it, sir?

No. Mr. Simpson had counsel prior to that, and he was advised of his rights and they went to lunch.

So you -- so you had an opportunity to have your probable cause suspect interrogated by you and your partner, Phil Vannatter, for as long as you wanted to interrogate him, without anybody objecting to any questions or instructing Mr. Simpson to answer or not to answer any questions, true?

That's a little misleading once again.

Can you answer that. Just answer it, no.

It was not an interrogation. It was an interview. And there's a difference between the two.

Well, the room you had him in, was it called an interview room?

Yes.

And you certainly didn't want to inquire about anything that could be used against him in the future, you just kind of wanted to chit-chat with O.J. Simpson because you had two dead people at 875 South Bundy, right?

I don't --

Objection, argument, to form.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) You wanted to interrogate O.J. Simpson, record the statement, and get as much incriminating evidence as you could from Mr. Simpson between the time that you had to question him, which was virtually unlimited, true?

No, this was not an interrogation. This was an interview. I mean you have to make that distinction.

With an interrogation, it's an accusatory form of an interview where you have solid evidence that puts that suspect directly to the crime, and you confront that suspect with that.

In an interview, it's more of an investigative process where you attempt to glean inconsistencies.

That's what this was. Because we had no evidence, we had no blood back or anything else that we could solidly connect to this suspect and confront him with it.

You wanted to get every bit of evidence you could out of O.J. Simpson so you could find any inconsistencies?

We were certainly looking for inconsistencies, that's correct.

So you didn't have any evidence that you thought was incriminating, is that your testimony?

No, not at all.

All right.

We had circumstantial evidence that we discussed with him. This certainly -- it wasn't made to him at that time. We had blood evidence we were interested in.

Now, you were not told by his lawyers there was any time limitations on your right to question Mr. Simpson, true?

No, I don't recall that.

You felt when you walked into the interview room with Mr. Simpson, that you could interview him as long as you felt was necessary, correct?

Certainly.

You were aware that Mr. Simpson volunteered to give you his answers to any questions you asked, true?

I don't know if he'd give me the answers to any questions that I asked.

And all the questions in the minutes that you were in there, did Mr. Simpson ever indicate to you he wouldn't answer a question?

He skirted around quite a few.

Oh, so it's your version that he skirted around quite a few, right?

Yes.

And you -- like you're doing?

Is that a question?

I guess it's a statement.

Objection to Mr. Baker's statement. Move to strike.

Let's get on with the witness.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, you had the right, just as I have the right here, to ask another question if you didn't feel that your question was answered, true?

No, because Mr. Simpson could have invoked at any time, said I refuse to speak to you anymore, and walk out of here. I don't think I can do that.

I hope not.

Now, you and your partner, Vannatter, questioned O.J. Simpson for what, 35 minutes?

Something like that.

And your primary concern was to get information out of him you could use later against him, and that's why you read him the Miranda rights, true?

We were required to read Miranda under those circumstances. My primary concern was getting evidence back.

And so you asked him about his whereabouts, correct?

Yes.

And you asked him about the cut on his finger, correct?

Yes.

And you told him that -- you and your partner, Vannatter, told him he had blood all over the place, and it was a real problem, didn't you?

I believe Vannatter mentioned that there was blood on the Bronco, blood at his house, and they had a problem with it.

He immediately said, give me a blood test, didn't he?

No.

Let me read to you. Maybe this will refresh your recollection.

Where are you reading from?

Page 22, line 19.

(BY MR. BAKER) (Reading:) Q. We've got some blood on

and in your car. We've got some blood

at your house. And it's sort of a

problem. Mr. Simpson: Well, take my blood

test and we'll see.

He immediately, on you telling him that there was blood on and in his car, and some blood in his house, said, give me a blood test, didn't he?

No. That I never seen or -- you just read it and it does not say, give me a blood test.

I'd like to see that for myself.

You think I misrepresented to you, Mr. Lange?

Well, they have here.

If the Court please, could the witness's attention be directed also to page 16 with reference --

Mr. Medvene, why don't you let me do the examination. You'll have your chance. Fair enough?

Sustained.

If the Court --

Excuse me. This is his examination. You want to examine him, you can examine him after he examines him, okay.

Does not say, give me a blood test. It does say, well, we'll take my blood test and we will see.

(BY MR. BAKER) Well, didn't you think, Mr. Lange, that O.J. Simpson was telling you that, I will submit to a blood test?

Yes.

Didn't you think when you talked about -- well, strike that.

You have gone on various shows and you have demeaned Mr. Simpson by saying that he never asked about what happened, have you not, sir?

I don't know about demeaning Mr. Simpson, but I probably did make reference to that, because it's absolutely true.

Would you -- you can go ahead and read what the transcript says about Mr. Simpson requesting to know from you guys what happened, and why don't you read down to "you wouldn't tell."

He didn't tell me to -- ask us to tell him anything. He says we haven't told him anything. He doesn't make any requests.

Okay.

"Every time I ask you guys, you say you're going to tell me in a bit."

That's what he says, correct?

I don't recall him ever asking me anything about any of this case.

That's what he says, isn't it: "Every time I ask you guys, you say you're going to tell me in a bit." Correct?

That's what is says.

And that's what he said, because this is your transcript from the D.A.'s office, isn't that true?

That's what he said at that time. But he did not request any specifics about what happened.

Well, your response then, "We don't know a lot of answers to those questions yet ourself, O.J.," he'd certainly asked some questions, or the response would be -- wouldn't be, "We don't know a lot of answers to those questions yet ourself, O.J"; you would agree with that?

Not necessarily.

Okay.

So as I understand it, first time you ever met O.J. Simpson was on the afternoon of June 13, before this interview, correct?

Yes.

And you were with him about how long before you started this interview?

I wasn't with him the entire time. I spoke with his attorney there, Weitzman, for a short period of time.

Maybe you don't understand my question, sir.

I didn't ask you about speaking with Mr. Weitzman, and I didn't ask you where you were.

I said how long were you with him before you started the interview. Can you answer that, sir?

Perhaps a few minutes.

So you were with him a few minutes before the interview started, and you never talked to this man, ever, before that time, right?

That's correct.

Then you were with him for the 35 minutes or so of your interview, and he says, "You guys haven't told me anything, every time I ask you guys, you tell me you're going to tell me in a bit."

And you say across this country, on every nationwide television show you can get your mug on, that he has never asked about his kids or anything about how the murders happened, isn't that true, sir?

That's exactly true and that is the truth.

And of course he was with Vannatter and had to have asked Vannatter or you guys would have jumped all over him, wouldn't you? You would have said you never asked us a question about how the murders happened, you would have corrected him, wouldn't you?

No, not in that particular case.

No, you wouldn't, you'd just go on TV and talk about how Mr. Simpson is such a bad guy because he never asked about the murders, when you saw him a few minutes before a 35-minute interview, right?

No.

Yes.

Making money off of it, right, making money off of demeaning O.J. Simpson, right?

You've been standing up at every television show you can, haven't you?

Excuse me. The witness was giving an answer. Mr. Baker interrupted him.

It's nonresponsive.

And I will continue to do that.

Just a minute.

I'm going to let it stand because the witness's response is in response to a question and there was no objection to the question.

We're not objecting. We're just saying he hadn't finished his answer, Your Honor.

I don't have anything further of this witness.

For the record, that exhibit is 2057, not 2038.

I do have one thing, a whole area that I got -- oh, pardon me.

Mr. Baker, just a minute.

(BY MR. BAKER) After you finished your 35 minutes, you went and had Mr. Simpson photographed, right?

I don't know if we got his blood first or the photos -- I believe it was the photograph, yes.

At the time you took him to be photographed there at Parker Center, you were aware of the following: One, that you had two people dead at 875 South Bundy, correct?

Yes.

And you were aware that those two people who had perished at 875 South Bundy were murdered with a sharp object, correct?

Apparently, yes.

And you were aware that O.J. Simpson had a cut on his left middle finger, correct?

Yes.

And you wanted to have that cut photographed, did you not?

I did.

And of course you wanted to have any other cut or cuts photographed, too, didn't you?

If I would have observed other cuts, certainly.

You told Mr. Simpson how you wanted the photograph posed for that so that you'd get the cut fully photographed, correct?

Actually, I believe the photographer did that.

Well, it's after you directed him as to where the cut was and what you wanted photographed, correct?

Well, I explained to the photographer that we in fact wanted -- actually, there's two cuts, by the way, on that finger. We wanted him to take a photograph of the finger, and he as a consequence of that, directed it.

And I assume, sir, that you as a detective with many years experience, wanted to and did inspect O.J. Simpson's hands, correct?

I looked at his hands. I certainly didn't look at them under any kind of high intensity lighting. I didn't look -- lift them up or anything else, but I looked at them.

And I take it you asked him to spread his fingers to look at the palmar, dorsal aspects of his hands, right?

I don't recall doing that.

Well, I take it that you wanted to see whether there was more cuts than this one cut on the outside of the middle knuckle, wouldn't you, Detective Lange?

Well, I saw two cuts, and that was my focus. I did look at his hands. Again, I didn't examine them under any high intensity lighting. I didn't peel his finger back, I didn't check the creases of his hands. I did look at the two cuts.

I take it you looked at his adjoining fingers, did you not.

His adjoining fingers?

Well, the ring finger is directly adjacent to the middle finger, is it not?

Yes.

And you looked at the entire hand, did you not? I mean you couldn't avoid it, it's kind of in your field of vision?

Not necessarily. When you have creases and hair on his hand and all, I think one would have to really take a close look before you could see, perhaps, some cuts. And again, I did a cursory -- what I would call a cursory examination. I did not peel back his fingers and check the creases of his hands.

Well, let's see if I got this right.

You looked at the glove, didn't look close enough to see if there was any blood or blood trail, right? This is Rockingham. True?

Yeah. It was not my concern at the time.

You looked at the -- and you didn't look around the area to see shrubbery or anything else?

Objection, asked and answered.

I take it you're going to ask a question.

(BY MR. BAKER) As a detective, I take it that you have, like most of us, a field of vision, that is there's certain things that you can see. If I put my hand in front of you, I take it that you could tell whether or not I had a cut on the -- well, let's just say the interior aspect of my fourth finger. Can you see that right where my hand was?

If I was looking for it, I might, sure.

Even if you weren't looking for it, with my hand sitting like this, you'd have to see it if it was right there, by the lower knuckle, wouldn't you?

It would depend on lighting, it would depend on how you had your hand, it would depend on whether you had your fingers together or spread.

Phil, we got that picture of the cut. Yeah. Let's show that.

MR. P. BAKER: This is photograph 715.

(BY MR. BAKER) That's a cut on Mr. Simpson's fourth finger, sir.

That picture was taken on the 15th of June, 1994.

Now, that cut would be, if his hands were spread, what, a quarter of an inch away, maybe a half an inch away, from the cut on the middle finger of his left hand?

Is there a question?

Yeah.

What was the question?

That cut that is depicted on the fourth finger of Mr. Simpson's hand on a photograph taken June 15, and looking at Mr. Simpson's hand, did he just hold his hand as I'm holding mine, just in the area I'm holding mine, that cut would have been, what, a quarter, a half an inch away from the cut on the middle finger knuckle of his left hand?

I suppose, depending on the positioning of the fingers, sure.

And I'm sure that you, being a good detective of 20 years, you had him at least spread his hands so you could see if he had any additional cuts, right?

I recall me looking at his hands. I don't recall him specifically spreading them out for me. I don't recall pulling his fingers back and looking in there. I gave them a cursory examination.

So you did look at them?

Yes.

All right.

And you didn't see the cut that's depicted in --

What's the photo?

MR. P. BAKER: 715.

(BY MR. BAKER) -- in 715, correct?

I don't recall seeing that cut.

And of course, if you'd seen that cut, sir, you'd have taken a picture of it, wouldn't you?

I would say yes.

If you saw this, whatever this gouge mark is, or this discoloration, or cut, or abrasion, or whatever that is, if you saw that, you obviously would have taken a picture, had the photographer take a picture of that, true?

Have to get a better look at that. There -- was the hands . . .

Zoom in on that.

Yeah. There appear to be other discolorations across the hands and the knuckles, appear to be.

(BY MR. BAKER) If you saw any discoloration that looked like a cut, you'd have directed the photographer to take a picture of it so you would have had evidence preserved, true or untrue, Mr. Lange?

Certainly.

All right.

And the only picture that you directed the photographer to take is this picture, correct?

MR. P. BAKER: 172.

I did.

And the cut that you were interested in was this cut on his knuckle, at the middle knuckle of his middle finger, right?

I believe there are two cuts on there, and yes, I was interested.

Are you saying that there is a cut in the area where my finger is which would be above the -- about five -- between five and five and a quarter on the ruler?

I think there was an additional cut in that area.

Show it to us. There's a pointer there, if you'd like.

This is pretty grainy. If I could see a photograph or something. Seems to me there was a photograph that depicts the cuts.

I think there was another cut down in there, in the first knuckle area. Seems to me there's another cut down in this area.

Now, when you say down in this area -- let's do it by the ruler.

No, it's not that. It's the jury is just looking at your backs.

(BY MR. BAKER) Well, you want to --

Want to try this picture, Mr. Baker?

MR. P. BAKER: Here is a better photo.

(BY MR. BAKER) You want to circle the area you say is a cut.

Want to try this picture?

No.

Little more clear, same day.

This one also.

(BY MR. BAKER) You want to circle on that where you say the cut is.

Do you want to look at these before you make your decision where the cut is.

What's the exhibit numbers?

171, 172.

These two areas I'm circling here.

(BY MR. BAKER) Okay.

This doesn't catch too well.

Now, you've circled one area down by the distal joint of the middle finger, correct?

Yes.

And is the cut going parallel or approximately parallel to the ruler; is that where you believe the cut is?

It's kind of difficult to see because of the creases in the skin, but it appears to be partially parallel.

Mr. Baker, why don't you blow up that one on the screen.

All right. I'll be happy to.

What number is that, that he marked?

This is --

MR. P. BAKER: We have --

This is the one we marked.

MR. P. BAKER: We are to mark it with a new number now that it's marked.

That's fine.

2259.

(BY MR. BAKER) Is this line here, is that what you say is a cut?

I think it's down in this area, it's a little tough to tell with the creases of the skin.

Is it this area right here?

I think it is.

That would be about -- above 4 and 7/8 and going from -- in an upward direction above the ruler, correct?

That's where that area is, yes. Yes.

You want to zero in.

Let's just show this photo. Zero in on that. See if we can see if there's any cut there whatsoever.

THE COURT REPORTER: What are we displaying, please?

MR. P. BAKER: This is back to 172.

Now, blow that up.

(BY MR. BAKER) In your opinion it's a cut or dried blood?

Seems to me there was a cut in that area.

Is it your opinion that's a cut or just dried blood?

Seems to me there was a cut in that area.

You're telling this jury, by looking at that photo, you think that's a cut, sir?

There was one in that area. This has been two and a half years. That's my recollection, yes.

Sir, that was the photo taken, sir, pursuant to your directions on the 13th, is it not, sir?

Yes.

And I take it that you probably agree with me to the extent that the photo -- what's depicted in the photo is more accurate than your memory of what occurred, true?

In this regard, certainly.

Yes. In this regard, do you agree with that?

Certainly.

And is it your testimony, are you telling the ladies and gentlemen of this jury, that what you visualize in the area that we've now blown up at about 4 and 7/8 on the ruler is a cut or isn't a cut?

I believe that's some type of nick. I believe it is a nick. I believe it's some type of an injury, yes.

And that nick --

Back it off, Phil. Please put the other with the circles on it.

MR. P. BAKER: 2259.

(BY MR. BAKER) That purported nick and this cut are all of the cuts, abrasions, nicks, scratches, or anything else you saw on Mr. Simpson's hand, hands on June 13, 1994, true?

Yes.

Nothing further.