(BY MR. BAKER) Now, we were -- when we ended the day yesterday, we had discussed your being at the Rockingham location.
MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 116.
And by the way, when you, in fact, filled out the statement form that is in your handwriting, that was pursuant to a request of whom?
And those detectives you were familiar with before you ever went to both the Bundy and Rockingham addresses on the night of June 13, 1994, correct?
Now, you, in arriving there at 0520 in the morning, you say -- you said yesterday that you saw a Westec vehicle, correct?
And you say you only saw -- well, strike that.
When you saw the Westec vehicle, did you see any unmarked police car in the area?
You know, I'm trying to get the specifics. When I arrived, I did not initially see an unmarked vehicle. There was one eventually parked on -- well, that diagram doesn't show it.
Oh, no. Excuse me. It does -- it looks a bit different on the -- that would be the southeast corner on Rockingham and Ashford, there was a -- one unmarked vehicle there.
And all four of the detectives at Rockingham, before you got there, none had gone over the wall?
And you heard the conversations, this concern about, perhaps Mr. Simpson was inside his house, bleeding or dying. You heard that conversation?
And you heard the conversation that somebody else might be in there, the subject of a murder, a kidnapping or some other crime, correct?
(BY MR. BAKER) You heard all that conversation, and then you heard who tell Fuhrman to go over the wall?
That's an interesting point. I don't remember who -- I don't remember who exactly determined who was going over the wall at that point.
Did you see him go inside --
How many times did he go over the wall, come in and outside that gate, before the gate was ultimately opened?
Correct.
He jumped over that north gate, and then he unlatched -- I believe it was the -- I want to say the left, but the west-east gate, I guess. There's only one gate. I can't remember if it's one or two, actually. But he went to the left side where there was a motor, and he was able to unlatch it and open it.
He was at the scene, but whether he was by my side or not, I don't remember how much he was by my side.
Were there any other --
When you arrived at Rockingham and parked your vehicle over by the Bronco, you didn't see Fuhrman over there then, did you?
You then went around by the Ashford side, and that's when you came in contact with Fuhrman, right?
Well, actually, they were in front of the Westec car, and that was parked almost to a 90-degree angle, actually, almost perpendicular to the corner there.
And on that -- that southeast corner, this -- we're showing there, he was parked basically perpendicular in the middle of the street.
That's where the detectives were when I arrived; that's when I first came in contact with the detectives.
And Fuhrman was the detective who had told you that there was some evidence on the Bronco, right?
And you were of the view, by the way -- strike that.
You then were interviewed by Detective Ron Phillips sometime after September of 1994, and gave another statement in addition to the one in your handwriting, did you not, sir?
Geez, I've been interviewed a whole bunch much of times. I'd have to see if there's a written statement with an interview, with his name. I'd have to see that.
I mean, he might have interviewed me. I don't know how many formal interviews I've been to. I recall quite a few.
Well, I want to you look at this typewritten interview again, undated, and ask you if you recall being interviewed by Ron Phillips.
(Continuing.) Okay.
This seems to be some notes from an interview that I -- I had with Detective Phillips, but I don't recall the interview.
I believe it's 1810.
THE COURT REPORTER: 1810?
MR. P. BAKER: 1800, but I better check.
(BY MR. BAKER) You told us before you wrote the typewritten interview, you had other interviews; you had a lot of them?
Those are in the District Attorney's office. I don't know. They called me in there a couple -- few times, even once on the phone.
Did you have any interviews with the plaintiffs' lawyers before you were called to the witness stand a week -- or you were called to this courthouse a week and a half ago?
On interviews and testimony, no. I think more or less I've had, with the attorneys themselves, is my appearing here and times, and everything else, I've been in contact with them.
You've been in contact with them relative to the statements that you gave, have you not, Officer Gonzalez?
You're not telling this jury that you didn't discuss with Mr. Medvene the issues that we're talking about right now in this courtroom, are you?
No. I'm just trying to make it clear that I hadn't had any complete, formal interviews with any attorney that would -- would result in detailed notes such as this.
But you don't --
What do you mean, a complete, formal interview? You talked about the very item that we're talking about here; that is, your presence when Fuhrman goes over the wall. Isn't that true?
I don't recall discussing Fuhrman going over the wall with the attorneys, but I've talked to the attorneys. I talked with your office, so. . .
No.
And in terms of this interview that you gave Ron Phillips, that was an interview that you gave Ron Phillips after it came out that additional blood was discovered in the Bronco on August 26, 1994; isn't that true, sir?
Look, I'm not asking you about your problem; I'm asking you one specific question; can you answer it?
That interview was given after you knew that the LAPD was being accused of planting blood in the Bronco, and additional blood was found on August 26, 1994. True or untrue?
Gosh, I can't -- I can't answer that true or untrue. You're misstating, kind of, what happened.
Let me back up.
You want me to answer?
Let me answer the question.
This copy right here, I don't remember when that was taken. I've never -- never seen that document before in my life. That's the first time I have seen it.
I don't know when the interview occurred with Ron Phillips. I don't remember having an interview with -- with me and him taking notes, or he didn't tape-record or anything, as far as I know. I can't tell you when that interview occurred. I couldn't tell you if it was before or after any accusations were ever made.
Well, I'd have to take some time to completely -- you want to give me about three or four minutes here? I'll completely read the whole thing.
If the Court please, the question is compound.
It's a two-and-a-half-page document. We'd suggest any specific question he can ask the witness, but it's unfair to give him a three-page document to go through and comment on.
It's a compound question.
(BY MR. BAKER) All right. And have you noted where you believe there are perhaps errors in this document?
All right. Now, if Detective Phillips testified that that interview was done in January of 1995, after the criminal trial started, you would not dispute that?
(BY MR. BAKER) And certainly, you were aware by January of 1995, the Los Angeles Police Department had, in fact, been accused of planting evidence in the Bronco; isn't that true?
All right.
And you were aware of that when you gave that interview to Detective Ron Phillips, correct?
(BY MR. BAKER) While he's doing that, let me ask you a preliminary question.
When you did your handwritten interview, Officer Gonzalez, you wanted to include everything that you could recall about your experiences the night of June 13, 1994, correct?
And -- pardon me. That's --
You then put in the document that you hand-wrote, because by the time you hand-wrote that document, some two or three weeks after the incident, you were aware that the Simpson case was exceedingly high profile, true?
Okay.
Can you rephrase that, or -- not rephrase it, but just say it one more time. I want to make sure I answer that correctly.
-- that is, your statement of what you did on June 3, 1994, you were aware that the Simpson case was exceedingly high profile, correct?
You were aware that there was -- the district attorney had issued press conferences relative to his beliefs concerning Mr. Simpson's guilt or innocence, correct?
You were aware that it was a daily report in the newspapers, virtually every day and on every television channel, correct?
And you knew the importance of putting everything in your statement that you saw or heard on the night of June 13, 1994 that had any significance whatsoever to the case, true?
And in your statement, you indicate -- that is the first statement -- let's call them number 1 and number 2 -- you indicate nothing about playing with the Akita dog. You would agree with that?
The typed, please.
THE COURT REPORTER: Which exhibit is that?
MR. P. BAKER: It's 1800.
Well, like I said, I don't have an independent recollection of -- of that interview. But it's possible I told him something to that effect.
I just want to clarify. This looks more like notes than it does my personal statement.
Excuse me. If the Court please, objection to the document. The document is a hearsay document that the witness said -- that the witness said that he did not review and never saw. We don't think it should be shown.
He can certainly ask him questions about it.
Your Honor, this document was identified by Detective Phillips during his examination, it's my recollection, here in this courtroom.
And I can certainly bring Detective Phillips back and go over it again. But I don't think that that's necessary.
We'll have to show it to you on the computer. We don't bring every volume; we just put the disc in and load it up to the computer.
Okay. It's a report that was authenticated by that witness. It's filed as part of the report. The witness is here for examination.
Thank you.
Now, Phil, would you please put the top of that document so we can see it.
(BY MR. BAKER) This says statement of Daniel H. Gonzalez, number 27592.
That is you, is it not?
Interview conducted by Detective 3 Ron Phillips, 12914.
Now, it was an interview conducted by Ron Phillips, and your statement, correct?
You then, in your typewritten document, notice that the dog's paws were soaked in possible blood, correct?
Okay.
I want to make it real clear, 'cause I'm listening very carefully to the words that you use. And we went through this yesterday.
And I'm not trying to be nit-picking, but this is -- obviously, we're nit-picking about certain facts. And when you use words like "my document," it kind of goes back to "visualization" yesterday, and I have a problem with that.
This isn't my document. I didn't write this document. He says the interview happened. The interview must have happened. I've talked to him. I've talked to him before; I talked to him at the scene. I've talked to a lot of people.
This is a document about an interview with me. These are his notes. These are what he said I said.
Now, I have some dispute with this, that is true; so you want to go over this, we can go over this. That's not a big deal.
Did you tell Ron Phillips, in January of 1995, that the dog's paws were soaked in possible blood? Yes or no?
Okay.
And did you also tell him that they appeared -- the dog did not appear to be bleeding?
And did you play with the dog while it was tied at the northeast corner of Dorothy and Bundy?
I did not use the word "play." If he thinks that I said play, then he is mistaken. That's true; that is wrong.
Did you tell him that you played, or words to that effect, with the Akita dog while it was tied up at the northeast corner of Dorothy and Bundy?
(BY MR. BAKER) You just omitted any reference to the dog whatsoever in your statement form that you gave a couple weeks after the crimes. You have not one word about a dog, about blood, about anything relative to that dog in your statement form, do you?
Just forgot that when you were trying to put in everything that was important, two weeks after the crimes had occurred, and you knew about the importance of the case, correct, just forgot it?
Well, I didn't -- I might have forgotten to write it. I didn't forget it didn't happen (sic). There were plenty of people who saw the dog. I'm not the only one who saw the dog tied with the rope with blood on his paws.
I didn't ask you if there were plenty of people. I asked, you forgot to put it in because you didn't think it was important.
Well, what I -- whether I thought it was important or not, that definitely is an argument. But I did not put it in because I -- I simply forgot. Yes, sir.
Now, let's go to the typewritten report of January '95 at page 2, paragraph 2, or first full paragraph on page 2.
It says: After Gonzalez arrived at the Rockingham location, he was met by Detective Fuhrman, who took Gonzalez to a Bronco parked on Rockingham.
Is that true?
So the minute you get there, Fuhrman takes -- you meet him, he takes you to the Bronco that is parked on Rockingham, right?
Well if you look at your typed -- your handwritten report, you arrived there at 5:20. So that's just after you arrived, correct?
Right here, second full paragraph. (Indicating.)
And he takes you right down to the Bronco, and he pointed out red stains on the Bronco, right?
See, I would never use that term, "red stains." So that's when -- what Detective Phillips -- that's how he interpreted that. But I never would have used those terms, "red stains."
After you just had the opportunity in court to correct this document, that is not a paragraph you corrected at all, is it, sir?
Did or did not Fuhrman take you to the Bronco and point out what you believe was blood, or did he tell you was blood on the Bronco?
And you thought that that was pretty ominous, huh? Something must be going on in the house. You agreed with Fuhrman that this was a dangerous situation, correct, based on that piece -- based on that piece of evidence?
(BY MR. BAKER) Well, then you say you saw a stain near the running board, and you used a flashlight because it was between the door and the frame of the car, right?
You want to put up the picture of the interior of the Bronco?
MR. P. BAKER: Next in order.
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, you want to -- you want to show us, sir -- just point to the area on the running board of this vehicle, or of the door and the frame of the car -- show us the area between the door and the frame of the car that -- that Fuhrman pointed blood stains out to you.
The area should have been in -- the picture's not showing it -- right along this area right here, right along the door jam. (Indicating.)
Now, you want to show a picture, Phil, of the Bronco?
MR. P. BAKER: Next in order.
CLERK: 2277.
(BY MR. BAKER) You couldn't see anything between -- in the area that you say was the running board of the vehicle, unless the door was opened; isn't that true Officer Gonzalez?
(BY MR. BAKER) The area you're talking about is an area where I am pointing to a spot; isn't that true, sir?
I -- the area I'm pointing to, I don't recall exactly -- how do I phrase this?
That's not true. That's that spot that I was looking at, I thought, was just on the picture.
To tell you the truth, I don't see anything on that running board, absolutely nothing on that running board. I can only tell you what I saw that night. And it was between that door jam. But that, to me, that's a clean running board. I don't see anything. (Indicating to photograph.)
The bottom side of the door of the Bronco has a rubber molding around it, doesn't it, kind of a waterproof rubber molding, so when you wash the vehicle, if you go through a car wash or a puddle or something, water doesn't come into it? You've seen that?
And you would disagree if Dennis Fung said there's no way you could see any blood on that door sill unless the door was open? You disagree with that?
Is there -- there's no way you could visualize what you put in your report without opening the door to the vehicle; isn't that true, sir?
There's no way to get inside a locked vehicle. And what you're saying is, I went inside a locked vehicle that we determined to be evidence and I'm getting offended.
Are -- you already determined that to be evidence at 5:20, when Fuhrman marches you down there and points out that spot, you determined that to be evidence already; is that right, sir?
Sir, we determined that to be evidence after we discovered that nobody was home and they were supposed to be home.
You didn't answer my question.
My question, sir, is: At 5:20, when you went down there with Fuhrman and he gratuitously pointed out to you, Officer Gonzalez, this little bitty piece of blood, and you say you can see blood on the door sill that nobody else can see with -- with the door closed, that you're offended that you already determined it was evidence; is that what you're telling this jury?
(BY MR. BAKER) You also determined, Officer Gonzalez, that the car was parked with the rear tire one to two feet from the curb, and the front tire approximately one to two inches from the curb; is that true?
Back it off, Phil, please.
MR. P. BAKER: Next --
THE COURT REPORTER: Next in order?
MR. P. BAKER: 2278.
That's a Bronco on the street, and you're going to have to prove to me that's a picture of the Bronco taken at the scene before I say it is.
You wouldn't believe it because you wouldn't put in your report one to two inches in front and one to two feet in the back. You wouldn't lie in your report, would you, Officer Gonzalez?
That looks about an inch or two from the curb, does it?
Do you see the evidence van over there?
Does that prove to you that the vehicle wasn't parked one to two inches in the front and one to two feet in the back?
No, it doesn't.
I'm telling you, that thing was parked crooked. It was parked crooked on that street.
Okay? That's what I saw.
From the curb. You're talking from the rain gutter or from the curb itself?
We measured from the curb.
No. That's how -- when I look at something, and you determine -- when you estimate how far something is, we determine by north, south, east, west curbs. But that corner -- and if I approach, right near --
(Continuing.) This corner right here is where we start from. I would say something -- so many feet from the curb. This is where we start.
So I don't see a problem saying that's a foot from the curb.
I see a problem saying this is a couple inches. Obviously, I'm mistaken. I did not log any pictures. I have to go off my independent recollection.
(BY MR. BAKER) That was one of the big issues, wasn't it, about -- that Fuhrman was showing you that the car was parked at this crooked angle from the curb?
That was a big issue. You put that in your in both your reports, your handwritten report and your type -- and Phillips' typed report, right?
That was one of many issues.
And if you want to take all the issues as big, then they're all big.
Instead of a one- to two-feet difference, there's really about four- to five-inches difference, isn't there, Officer Gonzalez?
Well, the tires on that vehicle are about eight inches wide. One of them's over the concrete apron about three inches, and one is basically adjacent or an inch away from the concrete apron. You'd agree with that, wouldn't you?
And there's absolutely nothing illegal about the way that vehicle is parked, is there, sir?
Just answer the question.
There's nothing illegal about the way that vehicle is parked, is there, sir?
Now, you said in your written report that you were able to see in that door sill, blood drops, correct?
And so you were able to see in the slip that you say that you could visualize blood behind this rubber insulation area of the door blood drops, true?
True.
You're making it sound like the -- the insulation meets the door jam at the very edge, and that is not the case on this door.
So let me see if I got this right.
You're in a slit that is what, a thirty-second of an inch opening at the bottom of the door jam?
I would say one-quarter to one thirty-second.
I'd have to look at the door to give you an exact measurement.
It's at night, and Fuhrman has already taken you down there. And he shows you these blood drops, right?
And by the way, is there any code to cover up for other police officers?
Is there any code of ethics like that, that you guys have?
Yeah, I really do want to know. Is there or is there not a code to cover up for each other?
You have to work Internal Affairs, because -- before you can even become a captain. That should explain something to you.
Now. You then indicated, sir, in your written statement, that you were able to visualize blood in the Bronco, correct?
Right now, from my independent recollection, I specifically remember the bloody thumb print or fingerprint above the door handle. And I remember two large drops on the center console.
Right now, from my independent recollection, we're talking about something that happened a couple years ago, so there's some things I'm going to remember pretty well and some things I'm not going to remember so well. Things I --
Now, the door in the Bronco, two drops on the center console. And have you ever indicated that there was any more blood than that, that you believe you observed on June 13, 1994?
And when there was the big issue of whether or not the L.A. Police department planted blood in that Bronco subsequent to June 13, 1994, you told Officer Phillips that there was a smear on the inside of the driver's door, right?
It's not only possible; it's what you said. It's on page 4 put of his written statement. Page 4.
You've had an opportunity to review this, you had an opportunity to make any changes that you wanted in it, right?
So, you told Phillips that there was a smear on the upside of the driver's door panel, right?
You didn't have anything like that in your written statement that was made a couple of weeks after the incident, did you?
Then you said to Phillips that you saw blood on the driver's seat as well, and you subsequently found out there is no blood on the driver's seat, right, so now that's a mistake, isn't it?
Okay.
Nobody has ever discussed the conclusion of any of the evidence to me since this case has began, ever.
KEY QUOTE(BY MR. BAKER) You told Phillips that there was -- you told Phillips there's a smear on the steering wheel?
Well, I didn't ask you if it was possible.
Did you tell him?
It's possible it's raining in here, but it isn't.
You're right. And it's possible I had an interview with him and it's possible I didn't. I don't know. I don't remember this interview. I can only tell you -- I can only testify what's on here. I can testify to things that I know I did not tell him. How he read what I was telling him is a whole different thing. That's up to him.
I see.
So you don't know if you even discussed blood with him and you don't know if pages 1, 2 and 3 of Exhibit 1800 were totally fabricated by Ron Phillips?
No, I don't know if he had concluded this after maybe several times I've talked to him or if he had taken my notes and added to them, but I don't -- this is very detailed. And I would have remembered if he sat down and wrote all this out.
And if he said you had a detailed conversation -- I thought we discussed this earlier -- in January of 1995, after the trial started, and this document, Exhibit 1800, is a result of that interview, you would not disagree with that?
Now, in terms of the smear on the steering wheel, did you tell him that or not, or do you have any recollection of there ever being a smear on the steering wheel?
Right now I have no independent recollection of that whatsoever, but it's possible I might have told him there was a smear on the steering wheel.
Let me show you a photo that was taken on August 10, 1994 by the Los Angeles Police Department.
MR. P. BAKER: 1420.
(BY MR. BAKER) And tell us where the two big drops were?
You don't see them in that photo, do you?
Point out on that, if you can -- take the pointer and point out, show us where these two big drops were?
Well, here's the center console and this -- the top, this -- that's where they're going to have to be, somewhere around this area.
Well, I thought you just told us, sir, maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought you just told us that you had a specific recollection of these two big drops?
Well, I take it if you have a specific recollection of these two big drops, you have a specific recollection in your mind's eye, as you sit here now on the witness stand, of the location of those drops, not from one end to the other end of the console?
Well, you're only talking about what, 7 inches there, 8 inches, I mean I can't -- I couldn't diagram for you and tell you exactly where they are at.
You understand -- do you understand what I'm trying to tell you?
They're on the same console, the two drops are on the center console there on the top of the center console.
Let the witness -- let the record reflect that the witness is pointing to the center console where the door opens.
The middle of the center console, right around here. It's not going to be on the side, not on the back, it's going to be someplace on the top.
And the center console in a Ford Bronco is bigger, for example, than the center console in almost every other car, isn't it?
And those drops you described as large in your statement that you gave to Ron Phillips, correct?
So six months later, you described two big drops on the center console in your discussions with Phillips, right?
Mr. Baker, I don't want to keep interrupting you, but you've made your point. Move on to the next part, okay.
(BY MR. BAKER) You can't tell whether those drops were in the indented area or not, true or untrue?
I think he's misinterpreting what this -- he must have been playing answer question with me, 'cause there's no way I said there's blood on the driver -- you couldn't tell if there's blood on the driver floor area.
(BY MR. BAKER) I want to go back for a moment to where you were located when Arnelle Simpson had come north around the house, then been taken out towards the Rockingham gate and shown the Bronco on Rockingham, okay?
Do you have a recollection where you were located when you heard the officers inquire about the whereabouts of Mr. Simpson?
Which would have been an area just south of Ashford and just south of the Ashford fence and just west of the house on the -- probably in the center portion of the grounds.
Thank you.
You saw the detectives, don't recall which ones, you recall seeing the detectives lead Arnelle out of her room and around the north path down to an area where they could visualize the Bronco, correct?
(BY MR. BAKER) You heard what was said from the time that the detectives and Arnelle got into your view around the pool area, all the way to the driveway, correct?
(BY MR. BAKER) You never heard any detective have any concern as to whether Mr. Simpson was in the house bleeding to death or not, did you?
You were outside on Ashford when these discussions were taking place about the concern over a possible crime, that Mr. Simpson could be in the house dying, bleeding to death, and that was the reason they went over the wall; you heard that, right?
(BY MR. BAKER) You heard the discussions on Ashford that led to Fuhrman going over the wall, right?
(BY MR. BAKER) You never heard one concern about anybody being in the house when Arnelle Simpson was led from her room, around the north pathway on the driveway, out to Rockingham, and led back into the house, did you, sir?
(BY MR. BAKER) And in both your written statement and your typewritten statement from the interview you gave to Phillips, you said after Arnelle Simpson broke down, they went to the house, correct?
He told me it was blood; it looked like blood; and I believed it was blood.
You get promoted for burning each other.
I did not visualize nothing. I saw.
I don't remember who exactly determined who was going over the wall at that point.
Nobody has ever discussed the conclusion of any of the evidence to me since this case has began, ever.