I have nothing further. Thank you.

REDIRECT EXAMINATON BY MR. BAKER:

Let me ask you this. You say you talked to O.J. Simpson from Rockingham?

Yes.

I thought you just testified the first time you talked to him was five minutes before you started the interview at Parker Center?

In person.

Oh, you just meant in person when you answered that question?

Well, that was the impression I got from you when you asked that question.

I asked the question, sir, have you ever talked to O.J. Simpson before you were at Parker Center, and you answered that question, did you not, in the negative?

I was under the impression that you meant face to face, in person.

Did you ever talk to --

If I gave you the wrong impression, I did, I'm sorry.

Did you ever talk to -- you mean in person?

It did when you mentioned that, yes.

So it was -- you just failed to admit, you just omitted this purported conversation you say you had with O.J. Simpson from the Rockingham house?

Objection, argumentative.

Overruled.

(BY MR. BAKER) Did you omit it or did you not?

You went out and talked to Mr. Medvene, and were reminded of a conversation you now say you had with Mr. Simpson on June 13, 1994, over the telephone, rights?

When he just asked that question, yes.

And just -- there had been no, of course, communication with you before he would have had to -- Strike that.

Just his questions just kind of brought it to your mind, right?

Refreshed my memory of the fact that I did indeed have a telephonic conversation.

And his other questions just refreshed your memory as to what Mr. Simpson didn't ask, right?

I'm aware of what he didn't ask.

Let me ask you this question:

Mr. Simpson called Rockingham and called Bundy from the airplane multiple times; you're aware of that?

I'm aware.

Objection, outside the scope of our examination.

Overruled?

I'm aware of the one call to Rockingham because I took it.

Well, you were aware he talked to Phillips from Rockingham before you ever talked to him, if you ever did?

Oh, I did. Phillips --

You were aware of a phone call from Phillips, were you not?

Phillips called Simpson. Simpson didn't call Phillips.

You were aware that Simpson called Rockingham at least three or four more times that morning while he was on an airplane trying to get back to his house, and to the murder scene of his ex-wife, correct?

He may have.

And he called Bundy three or four more times trying to get information relative to what had happened, and what had occurred, and talked to police officers who picked up the phone at Bundy?

You're aware of that, are you not?

I don't recall that.

No. I was probably more concerned with what Mr. Simpson asked me as his interviewer, and my partner and this -- now that you brought it up, none of those questions were asked.

Now, you -- You say that you can't reconstruct the murder scene at 875 South Bundy, right?

That's correct.

But you can reconstruct it enough, when Mr. Medvene asks you questions, to determine that there is, in your view, a single murder weapon, right?

I can interpret the evidence that I see at the scene. That doesn't extend itself to knowing exactly what happened, how it happened, and when it happened.

Get the board.

(BY MR. BAKER) And we'll start talking about the -- the evidence at the scene, Mr. Lange.

Now, at the scene there was, you say, a drop, or was it multiple drops, or was it multiple smears and stains on -- of combined blood of Nicole and Ron Goldman?

I was alluding to one drop which was a mixture of blood of Mr. Goldman and Ms. Brown on the boot -- sole of the boot of Mr. Goldman.

Now, was there, in your opinion, in your reconstruction slant unreconstruction, did the bodies of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson ever touch?

I'm sorry. You had your hand in front.

Did they touch?

Sure. Did she ever -- they ever come in contact?

Objection, previously asked and answered, outside the copy of examination.

I think he opened this whole area up on reconstruction.

We just followed up.

Overruled.

I don't know if they touched or not.

(BY MR. BAKER) Well, you certainly didn't know, except from hearsay information, whether or not a blood drop on the boot of Mr. Goldman contains Nicole Brown Simpson's blood and Ron Goldman's blood, true?

I was made aware of that, obviously, subsequent to that investigation, yes.

And I take it that in terms of your reconstruction, you'd want to get all of the serology results, not just one single drop of blood, wouldn't you?

Well, it would depend on what you're looking for, certainly.

We're looking for a reconstruction so that you can come into court, under penalty of perjury, and tell this jury that you believe there's one assailant because of a single drop of blood.

And that is the single drop of blood that is where? Why don't you come over on the sole of Mr. Goldman's boot and point it out to us.

Objection. That misstates his testimony, Your Honor, one set of bloody footprints and a number of other things --

(BY MR. BAKER) Show us the blood that had blood drops --

Just a minute. Objection sustained.

With regard to the rest of it, you may go to the board and show where the blood you referred to in your last answer is.

MR. P. BAKER: That's board 1342.

Referring to this blood drop here on the sole of the left boot.

(BY MR. BAKER) And tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury the position of that boot when the blood drop was dropped on it?

I would have no idea, not being there.

Well, don't you do any accident or murder reconstruction?

To that extent, no.

I'm sorry?

Not to that extent, no.

Well, you described it as a blood drop, correct?

Blood drop, perhaps in the form of a cast off of a common murder weapon.

A blood drop and a cast off are not the same, are they?

In the form of a cast off, Counselor.

You said there was a blood drop, and that gave you the impression that there was a single weapon used, true?

I believe I mentioned in the form of a cast off. That -- I would term that a blood drop, fine.

You think this is a blood drop, correct?

To me a blood drop in the form of a cast off, correct.

A cast off is a description that criminalists use to determine -- depict blood that has been flung from something, correct?

Yes.

Did you know whether his boot was up, down, sideways, how it was when this blood drop dropped?

No, I couldn't.

Now, did you in the sense of -- did you know that there were blood transfers between the clothing of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?

Apparently you didn't know from the look on your face?

Transfers?

Blood transfers from clothing of Nicole Brown Simpson to Ron Goldman.

Objection, assumes facts, Your Honor.

What's the question. Overruled.

I don't know of any transfers of clothing, no.

(BY MR. BAKER) Well, do you know that Ron Goldman's blood was found on the clothing of Nicole --

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence, Your Honor.

You want to come here.

The --

In as much as this portion of the testimony was a long time ago, there's an objection raised as to whether or not that is an item that was not in evidence.

It was -- it was Renee Montgomery's testimony where it had the charts about the number of stains, transfers.

Who is Renee?

She was from the Department of Justice. Renee Montgomery. And she testified about 23 stains, 13 from Goldman to Brown, and I think 6 the other way. Something -- I had the exact -- I don't have the exact numbers. That was her testimony. There was blood from each victim on the other person's clothing.

She never testified there was transfer between the victims. I have questions about the accuracy of that representation. I'd have to go back and check the testimony, but if he just rephrases his testimony (sic) instead of assumes it is a fact, just ask whether or not he knows something, we can avoid the debate here.

I'm not -- if in fact that is true, he has a right to ask the question.

I don't believe there's any evidence to that effect. I'll have to check the record at lunch time. I can't probably do it in the short time we have now.

In addition to that, Your Honor, it's not relevant to what the question was on.

You could have stopped when -- but you opened it up, and so we're going through a whole afternoon of examination apparently.

I don't think that's --

That's true.

Your Honor, I don't think that's a fair comment at all. We've been through Bundy extensively in the first examination. We have a right to do some recross.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, Mr. Lange were you aware that there was -- I think it was 14 separate stains of Ron Goldman's blood on Nicole Brown Simpson's, and I believe 6 or 8 stains of Nicole's blood on Ron Goldman's clothes?

It's been sometime since I've reviewed serological reports. It may well be. I don't recall that.

That was of no significance to you?

It would have been of some significance back then certainly, but again, I haven't seen those possibly in over two years.

It's never mentioned in your follow-up report, is it?

I don't think we had those reports -- results when I did my follow-up report.

Now, if you have a cast off of the blood from a murder weapon, and the boot is in an upright position as it is depicted here, you would anticipate that the blood would run down the sole for half an inch, three-quarter of an inch, right?

I couldn't say. Not necessarily.

To get a pattern as indicated in the photograph, in the lower right-hand picture on the board, the boot has to be virtually in an upright position, that is the sole facing upward, true?

The sole facing skyward.

Skyward.

And that's impossible, isn't it?

Well, I would think so.

This here does appear to be somewhat elongated. Perhaps it struck as the boot is there.

So as the boot is there?

Only speculation.

In your reconstruction of the murder scene, that boot in a cast off pattern of a blood drop would only elongate, what, an eighth of an inch, sixteenth of an inch?

I can't say for sure.

Now, in your version of reconstruction, we had blood on the fence -- that's the north fence, right?

Yes.

We had blood pooling by the concrete walk, stone walk, correct?

Pooling?

Pooling.

Blood drops. I don't know that it's pooling.

Look over here.

Tell the jury, because you were at the scene and inspected the scene, and you knew where the blood was, that was blood pooling behind -- north of the fence, was it not, sir?

Looks like several drops to me. I suppose, once again, we can make a subjective call, where you would call it pooling and I might call it drops of blood. I don't --

This is a drop in this area here, and down here is just a couple of drops?

No. I said it appears to be several drops of blood.

This is in fact blood pooling, is it not, sir?

I think that's a subjective term.

Well, let's see if we can define it for you.

MR. P. BAKER: This is 2166.

(BY MR. BAKER) I take it you believe that's just a couple of drops, right?

Once again, counselor, I never said it was a couple of drops. I said it looks to me to be several drops of blood.

Well, how much is several? Is that five or is it 500?

I would -- I would have no way of knowing.

Well, you were there and you looked at it.

And this is blood, this is blood, this is blood, this is blood, and this is blood, all the way over to the stone area, correct?

Yes.

And obviously, sir, that took some time to be deposited there, did it not?

I don't think I can say that.

If that would be arterial bleeding it could be a couple of seconds.

Now, the area where that blood is in your reconstruction, is behind where the body of Ron Goldman was found, correct?

Behind and north of, yes.

I'm sorry to do this, but let's put this photo up.

MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 88.

The area we're looking at is -- see that blood smear behind Mr. Goldman?

Um-hum.

See that blood smear?

Same blood smear, right.

Appears to be.

(Indicating to board entitled "Blood stains from closed-in area at Bundy."

Take it off, please.

You were at the autopsy and looked at the autopsy report?

I did review it sometime later, yes.

There was no external arterial bleeding at all, was there, from Mr. Goldman?

I don't recall.

Well --

There was a lot of blood, I know that.

We've just shown you the picture, sir, showing his back to the area where that blood pooled, correct?

Yes.

And you know from being at the autopsy, and doing your own reconstruction, that there was no wound on the back of his neck, and no wound on the back.

There was a wound in his lower side which was the side that was pointed upwards at the time that he was found, correct?

Yes.

And there is no wound on his body that would explain the blood poolings that I have shown you, isn't that true, unless he was standing upright and the blood was exiting his -- bleeding from his neck, down his left side, down his left shoe?

Not necessarily. He had quite a bit of bleeding from his leg. There was obviously a struggle that went on here. The blood could have been deposited during the time of the struggle. It's -- again, it's approximately, speculation.

Well, obviously, the blood was deposited during the time of the struggle, don't you think?

That's what I said.

Well, you said could have been.

It's obvious that it, in fact, was deposited at that time, true?

I think we can assume that it probably was, in fact, deposited at the time this occurred, yes.

So at least in your scenario of events, Mr. Goldman was inside the gate, then he was around on the east fence, and at some point therein the keys were lost, correct?

I don't know if they were lost. There were keys found there, yes.

These keys that are shown in the lower -- center lower picture are the keys that were left at the crime scene, correct?

If the Court please, this whole area was gone into extensively earlier.

Mr. Medvene, we can do it again.

Mr. Medvene, you asked this witness to reconstruct and state the basis for his theory and --

No, we didn't.

Mr. Baker's entitled to cross-examine on that basis.

(BY MR. BAKER) And these keys had no blood on them at the crime scene, and had blood on them when they were returned to the owner; isn't that true?

No. I think they were splattered at the crime scene.

You see any blood on those keys whatsoever?

I don't think you can see both sides of the keys. I don't think you can see everything there.

Did you note anywhere in any LAPD document relative to the investigation of this crime scene that there was blood on those keys, sir?

No. I wouldn't have touched the keys. The criminalist collected them.

From your review of the documents in this case, have you ever seen a document that indicates the keys had blood on them?

I don't recall seeing that.

The keys were lost and they were underneath some foliage in the caged or closed-in area, correct?

Partially.

And then the struggle continued back to the area where the hole was dug during the crime scene, during the struggle, correct?

I don't know that there's anyway that we can put that into a sequence.

Well, you said in your opinion, it was probable that it was done during the -- during the struggle, did you not, sir?

Well, during the struggle, certainly. But I'm not going to tell you that the keys were dropped, and the hole was dug, then the blood was dropped. I can't tell you that.

Well, so you don't know how the struggle took place, whether the -- the pager that was flung to the north of where the blood pooled, you don't know what sequence that occurred in?

I don't think the evidence gives us that.

I think, as I testified, there are probably three or four scenarios for the way this could have happened. I can't tell you exactly what happened and when it happened.

You don't know whether the envelope was dropped with the glasses in it?

I can't tell you when, no.

You don't know if that envelope was handed to Nicole Brown Simpson, because the LAPD took absolutely no fingerprints off of it?

Objection.

That's argumentative. Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Was -- Was there any fingerprints taken off the envelope that was found between the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson --

Sustained.

You know, I'm allowing you some latitude. I'm not going to go back and redo the whole examination. You have -- you have latitude to examine with respect to the basis for his theory that he testified to, and Mr. Medvene's examination.

But beyond that I'm not going to revisit the original examination.

(BY MR. BAKER) Let's go back to the boot for a minute.

On the boot, did you notice the cut in the same boot where you say the blood drop was a cast away -- you now say was a cast away drop?

Yes, I believe there was a slice in both boots.

Slice in both boots?

I believe that's my recollection, yes.

In fact, the LA Police Department -- you never noticed a slice in both boots until that boot was examined by Henry Lee?

Objection, materiality.

Sustained.