A few moments ago you had mentioned blood that you saw with what appeared to be blood to you on the center console of the Bronco on June the 13th.

Do you recall that?

Yes, sir.

And did you make, to the best of your recollection, if you've now refreshed your recollection, reference to seeing blood on the center console in the handwritten report you prepared shortly after the incident?

Yes.

And did you prepare that report -- can you tell us when you prepared that report with respect to the incident, a week or two --

Yeah. Probably a couple weeks, a couple of weeks after the incident. And I don't remember the date.

And is it true, sir, that that was before anyone had made any allegation, to your knowledge, of anyone somehow opening this locked Bronco and somehow planting blood inside it?

True.

Now, would you put on the TV monitor, please 170.

Can you see the picture from there?

Yes, I can.

Do you see anything that appears to be blood on the center console that you were having reference to in your report that you wrote shortly after June 13?

You can walk up to it.

Okay.

What number is this, Steve?

170.

Thank you.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Let me place a photo in front of you.

That would be better, much better.

Well, I definitely see blood on the center console. Item No. 30 is obvious.

Item 31, I believe I see what it's referring to, but it's very faint.

To the best of your recollection, is that what you had referenced when you made reference to looking for from outside the vehicle -- did you have -- use a flashlight?

Yes, I did, sir.

And was it already dawn?

Well, let me back up.

Actually, it wasn't until the sun had come up that it was obvious that there was -- there was some blood inside the Bronco.

But before then, I don't recall -- I recall looking in the Bronco with a flashlight but I don't recall finding blood at that time with just the flashlight.

Let's step back a minute.

When you get there and Detective Fuhrman brings you over to the Bronco and you observe what you observed above the door handle, that was somewhere around 5:20 a.m., correct?

Yes, sir.

Now, your assignment at Rockingham, or one of them, was to help guard the Bronco; is that correct?

Well, when I -- after our arrival at -- after some time there, yes, sir, that's true.

And is it true that after the sun came up, you again looked in the Bronco on your own, sometime later?

Yes, sir.

And approximately what time was that?

I have an impound sheet that I was working on at that time. I believe it was at that time. If I had that impound report that would -- that would specify a time. But it would have to be when, obviously, whatever time the sun came up that morning, sometime after that.

And it was light?

And it was light.

And it was at that time that you observed what appeared to be blood on the center console?

Yes, sir.

Could you put it back up, please.

What number is that, Steve?

170.

170.

Can you see what you observed on that photo?

No.

Okay.

Not on -- it's easier to see on the picture than it is on this television screen. It looks kind of blurry.

You can take it down.

Now, you made reference also, when you first got there, to the running board and Mr. Baker asked you certain questions.

I don't have a picture I can show you close up of the driver side of the running board, but let me put up next in order which I'll represent to you is the passenger side of the running board, and I'd ask you to approach it and tell the jury whether -- yeah, whether or not you can observe a runner there.

That will be 2281.

I'm calling it a runner, but --

A what?

I'm calling it a runner. But it's a piece of metal with the door closed, not hidden or covered up by any stripping or covering of any kind.

I think I could better describe it this reflects pretty much a mirror image of the other side, and there is a gap in there and between one thirty-second and I think we decided one quarter of an inch, that if you shine a flashlight you can see in there, you can see just a little bit in there.

And did you get down that morning and shine a flashlight in there?

Yes, we were on our knees looking.

Again, in the report that you prepared prior to hearing that anybody was claiming that blood was planted or the door was open, did you indicate that there was blood on the driver's side door panel?

I can simplify this. I just recently heard that we are being accused of planting blood inside the Bronco, just a few weeks ago. All of that is going to be before I heard about any evidence planting inside the Bronco.

Did you put in this report you prepared of your observations, the report you prepared within several weeks of your observations, that after the sun came up, in effect, you observed blood smeared on the driver's side door panel, the inside panel?

Correct.

Okay.

Putting 169 on the board.

I wonder if you could approach that.

Can you zoom in.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) And if you can, where were you standing to observe the blood?

From that side I would have been standing on the passenger side looking in, or westward, but --

Does that -- I'm sorry, sir.

I was going to say I can tell you that -- everything on the top is the only thing I remember. I didn't even know there was something on No. 23.

Okay.

So when you say at the top, you waved your arm towards the 21 and 22?

Correct. 21 and 22.

Okay.

And the best of your recollection is that's what you observed on June 13, early morning hours, after the sun was up?

Yes, sir.

Now, reference was made by counsel to certain language in Detective Phillips's report. You had told us, as I remember, that -- about the dog, and you said you don't remember using the word "play."

Do you have any memory of telling him, Detective Phillips, anything you might have done with the dog?

I never moved the dog.

Do you remember telling him you touched the dog or petted the dog, that he could have interpreted as played with the dog?

When you say possibly, the way I told him, I was looking. The dog -- something was wrong with the dog. I don't know what the heck -- at the time I didn't know what the heck was wrong with the dog. Obviously I own a dog, I know when a dog looks distressed. I'm not a dog psychologist, don't get me wrong. Something was wrong with this dog.

Move to strike, no foundation.

Lay person's opinion. Received for that purpose.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) So in discussing your concern about the dog, might you have told him that you touched or petted the dog?

That's the only thing I can think of. I know the word "play" never -- I think of play as throwing a ball, having a dog chase it. That's nowhere near what I was doing with the dog.

Okay. And the words "red stain" in the notes, counsel made reference to something about Detective Fuhrman pointing out red stains on the Bronco, both near the driver's door handle and near the running board.

Detective Fuhrman did point those things initially out to you, correct?

Correct.

But you said you didn't use the words "red stains."

To the best of your recollection, what did you use?

Okay.

Now, incidentally, Detective Fuhrman never pointed out to you the other blood that you described in your report as seeing inside the vehicle; isn't that correct?

Correct. All the blood he pointed out was visible, was only on the -- excuse me, the driver's door area.

And it was on your own, some period of time later when it became light, that you looked inside the car and observed what you've told us about?

Correct.

Yesterday, there was some talk of your arrival at Rockingham.

And is it correct, sir, that after you went inside, you returned to the driveway and were in the driveway area for a while, doing whatever you were doing; watching the Bronco, whatever you were doing?

Okay. I'm confused as to where you're placing me at the time.

Well, confused because my question wasn't very good.

You told us yesterday about entering into the Rockingham property?

Yes, sir.

And you said after -- after a period of time you returned to the driveway?

Correct.

And you don't know -- Strike that.

Prior to sometime later seeing an officer or officers with Ms. Simpson, you don't know what the detectives were doing and whether they had entered the rear of the house or not, do you?

That's leading, Your Honor.

We're entitled to lead.

Overruled.

It's possible they may have entered the house. I don't believe so, at the time, but it's possible.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) You don't know one way or another what they were doing in the rear of the house 'cause you were in the driveway; is that correct?

That's correct.

Asked and answered, Your Honor.

Overruled.

Thank you.

I have nothing further.

You want to put up 170 please, Phil.

Now, can you zoom in or make it a little more visible.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

That's a blood smear, that isn't blood drops, correct?

Correct. Actually, I -- like I said in the first statement when the other counsel was talking to me, I can't say I had an independent recollection of that.

And if some blood drops were smeared, that certainly could be done with a bloody glove couldn't it?

Objection, calls for conclusion, lack of foundation.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) You said in your testimony earlier this morning, that the blood drops were on the top of the console, correct?

That's correct.

They weren't on the side of the console, they weren't on the back of the console, correct?

I said I don't recall seeing them on the side or the back.

You said they weren't on the side and they weren't on the back; isn't that what you said, Officer Gonzalez?

I said that the blood drops I saw were on the top of the counsel -- of the console.

And you -- to inspect this vehicle, after -- after you were requested to guard the vehicle, that's when you took your flashlight, shined the flashlight in, shined it all the way across, and you say you saw blood spots on the driver's door from the passenger side up by the window sill, correct?

That's not -- That's not correct.

You want to put the other photo up that they just had up.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, you just told Mr. Medvene that -- that you --

THE COURT REPORTER: -- I apologize --

You got the number?

MR. P. BAKER: Not yet. I'll find it.

(BY MR. BAKER) You just told Mr. Medvene since we've been back from the break that you saw blood in the area where No. 21 is, correct, sir?

That is where I previously stated, obviously. I want to get back to my other statement here. Yes, that is true.

Just asking you what you told Mr. Medvene within the last 15 minutes. You said that you saw blood in the area of No. 21 up by the door sill; is that not correct, sir?

That is true.

And you said that you visualized that from your position on the passenger side of the vehicle, which would be on the grass there at Rockingham, correct?

That is not true. I didn't visualize anything.

Well, you saw it?

Thank you.

I use words that -- never mind.

All right.

Now, so you were across the vehicle and looking in from the -- from the driver's door, from the passenger door, right?

Correct.

And you obviously have testified here you never got in the vehicle, so you had to be shining your flashlight and looking in from the passenger side, all the way across to the driver's side, right?

Okay.

This is where we get into specifics again. I never said I used my flashlight to illuminate the blood.

So you didn't use your flashlight to illuminate any blood; is that true?

True.

Okay. So you --

Oh, well, gosh. See, you're leading me on again and you're confusing me. I did illuminate -- I used my flashlight to see blood from the outside of the Bronco. The blood inside the Bronco did not become obvious until the sun came up.

I know we have to play this question and answer game thing.

This is not a game. And quit playing. We're not playing.

You're playing with me.

Oh, no.

You can argue all you want, sir.

But I want you to answer this question and tell this jury, you were on the passenger side, you saw the blood; is that what you're telling this jury, on the driver's door?

Absolutely. No. 21 and No. 22 is what I saw. Absolutely.

And you have no doubt about that whatsoever, and you wouldn't lie in this courtroom, right?

I would never lie.

Never?

Never.

And you, obviously, to see that, had scanned with your eyes, and in your field of vision, the entire front seat on the passenger side, the console, as well as the driver's door, it was all in your field of vision when you made this all important discovery, right?

Objection, argumentative, compound.

Overruled.

Well, I don't know if I discovered it first, but I did see the blood there.

(BY MR. BAKER) And you didn't see any blood on the side of the console at all, did you?

On the side of the console, no, I don't remember seeing blood there.

Put that photo up.

Right, No. 30, that's the one I was talking about. I don't remember seeing that there.

You were sure looking for blood after you made this discovery on the passenger door that you say you made. You were looking for blood.

You didn't see one bit of blood on the console, did you, sir?

I don't remember seeing that blood.

You certainly would have seen it if it had been there because you were certainly looking for blood; isn't that true?

So you only remember seeing the blood on the door.

You don't remember seeing blood on the console, correct?

I think it's realistic to explain to --

Can you answer my question?

I'm answering your question.

Then answer it.

You don't remember seeing blood on the console.

You do remember seeing two separate areas of blood on the door, right?

There are some things I remember and some things I don't.

And the reason you don't remember the blood on the console is because it was subsequently planted in that Bronco after June 14, 1994; isn't that true?

No.

Objection, argumentative.

Mr. Baker knows --

Sustained.

Mr. Baker knows it, Your Honor.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now --

We'd ask that Mr. Baker's question be stricken from the record.

Stricken.

(BY MR. BAKER) You were told to guard the Bronco, were you not?

Yes, sir.

And you didn't guard the Bronco, you let people get on the Bronco, put coffee cups on the Bronco while you were there at the scene, did you not, sir?

That is completely false.

And so if we've got a picture with a coffee cup on the Bronco, that picture is an erroneous image, correct?

No. But I think you should show it 'cause it can easily be explained.

Okay. Now, one other thing.

You didn't put in your handwritten statement one word about Fuhrman finding a glove and showing it to you, did you?

Objection, outside the scope.

I'd like to reopen this subject.

You may.

(BY MR. BAKER) You didn't put one single sentence in your handwritten report about Fuhrman showing you the glove, did you?

Correct. I did not put anything in my statement whatsoever about that glove.

You were there from 5:20 in the morning until 7:30; isn't that true?

That's true.

And then January of 1995, after the criminal trial has started, you then, in your interview with Phillips, suggest that Fuhrman came up to you and seemed a little excited, he found a bloody glove, and that this was now a crime scene.

And you added that in January of 1995, did you not, sir?

I don't like your word added 'cause it sounds like I just decided to put it in there. But that is a fact, that he explained to me that he had found something.

Well, we discussed a little bit earlier this morning --

Sure.

-- that you wanted to put in everything that was important in your handwritten statement 'cause you knew how important the case was, correct?

True.

And you knew when you did your handwritten statement that if Fuhrman had ever come up to you at all and talked to you about discovering a glove, how important it was because you say in January of '95, that's what turned Rockingham into a crime scene; isn't that true, sir?

At the time I discovered -- I made that statement, the glove wasn't an issue, the fact it had been found was not even an issue. It had been found, and it was found there in Rockingham.

The most -- single most important thing, not blood on the door sill, not blood on the center console --

Excuse me. I apologize, Mr. Baker. This is obviously an argumentative question, Your Honor. We move to strike it.

Strike it and ask counsel to rephrase the question.

(BY MR. BAKER) The single most important discovery that occurred between 0520, if it in fact ever occurred, and 7:30 in the morning was the discovery of a glove on the south side of Mr. Simpson's home on Rockingham.

You would agree with that, would you not, sir?

Objection, question is argumentative, calls for conclusion.

Overruled.

I would agree with that.

(BY MR. BAKER) And in your statement you didn't put one word about it, correct?

I never saw the glove.

You have to read it again. You'll be surprised.

You know --

I'm not making a joke.

We move to strike Mr. Baker's comments.

Well, then, strike his little comments about he'd be surprised.

That's also stricken.

(BY MR. BAKER) Are you telling this jury, sir, that it was of no importance, if in fact Fuhrman came up to you and seemed a little excited and Fuhrman stated he had found a bloody glove and this was now a crime scene?

The fact he told me it was a crime scene is important. He was the senior over there, why he determined it a crime scene is mildly interesting to me. If he tells me it's a crime scene, it's a crime scene.

I don't care what he found. I don't care what he saw. He's the boss, I take his word for it.

So it's your testimony in this courtroom that Fuhrman was in charge of the Rockingham crime scene between the time that you got there at 0520 and you left at 0730, correct?

Objection, misstates the record, lack of foundation.

That's what the witness said.

Overruled?

No, that's not my statement. My statement is I have -- I was a subordinate, I was probably the most junior officer there. I think most of those guys had more time as police officers than I have on this earth.

Let me just ask you the question:

Is it your testimony that Fuhrman was in charge of the crime scene or not?

It is not my testimony he was in charge of the crime scene.

Who was it charge of the crime scene?

It would have to be either Lange or Phillips. I don't know which one is a more senior officer.

Nothing further.

For the record, that exhibit number is 169, the one that they didn't have a number for.

THE COURT REPORTER: Which exhibit number?

The one they didn't have a number for.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE:

Did Detective Fuhrman, on June 13, mention the glove to you, or did you make that up?

No, I didn't make that up.

Did he tell you on the 13th that he had found the glove?

Yes, he did.

Was there anything that you were trying to hide or mislead anyone about by not putting in your report that Detective Fuhrman said he found the glove?

No.

I don't have anything to gain by even -- I don't know. No.

I mean --

Detective Fuhrman, to your knowledge, was at the crime scene with Detectives Lange, Vannatter and Phillips, was he not?

That's true.

To the best of your knowledge, Detective Fuhrman would have told Detectives Lange, Vannatter and Phillips about the glove; isn't that true?

I'm going to object. This is leading, without foundation, calls for speculation.

Sustained.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) As far as you know, others had knowledge that Detective -- Strike that.

Were you trying to hide from anybody, the fact that Detective Fuhrman first saw a glove at Rockingham?

No, no.

Is there any reason why, other than it might have been of no moment at the time to put it in your report, why you didn't put it in your report but you later told Detective Phillips?

It's irrelevant, actually. There's even more little stupid things that happened that's not in the report.

Okay.

But you weren't trying to hide it from anybody?

Absolutely not.

And any reason to hide it from anybody?

Absolutely not.

Thank you.

Nothing further.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Stupid things -- never mind.

Withdrawn.

Your're excused.

Thank you.