Redirect examination of Charles Cale

📄 Redirect examination of Charles Cale — Tuesday, December 3, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\DEC\3\REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-CHARLE.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 24 of 57

◀ Direct examination of Charles Cale Cross-examination of Charles Cale ▶

Witness: Charles Cale
Examiner: Peter Gelblum
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Tuesday, December 3, 1996 • Utterances: 75

Baker cross-examines Charles Cale, a neighbor who walked his dog on Rockingham between 9:30–9:45 PM the night of the murders and saw no vehicles. Baker establishes that Cale is a lawyer, waited until January 1995 to contact police, and harbors bias against Simpson due to neighborhood disruption from the case. Baker also presses the visibility and audibility conditions on Rockingham to underscore that Cale's negative observations (seeing nothing) are meaningful.

# 1 THE COURT:

Cross.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

# 2 Q:

Mr. Cale, as I understand it, from 9:30 to 9:45 you started -- can you put that back on the Elmo, please, on the monitor -- you started north of Mr. Simpson's home and then you proceeded down south, correct?

# 3 A:

That's my recollection, yes.

# 4 Q:

And you didn't see any cars on Rockingham, parked on either side of the street, right?

# 5 A:

That is correct.

# 6 Q:

You didn't see a limo driver come down the street, up Rockingham towards Ashford, either, did you?

# 7 A:

Not when I was out there, no, sir, I did not.

# 8 Q:

You didn't see a limousine driver pull down Ashford, did you?

# 9 A:

No, sir, I did not.

# 10 Q:

You didn't see a limousine driver, at the time you were walking, come out of -- out of Ashford and go back down and pull in by the gate area on Rockingham, did you?

# 11 A:

I think that was covered by my prior answer. It was no.

# 12 Q:

So you didn't.

And you saw -- and you didn't hear any vehicles during that time come north or south or east or west on -- on Rockingham or Ashford, correct?

# 13 A:

That is correct.

# 14 Q:

So as I understand your testimony then, it was 9:30 to 9:45, and you were walking south on Rockingham, and it was obviously dark out, right?

# 15 A:

It was evening, yes, sir.

# 16 Q:

All right.

And there was a street light over across on the north side of --

# 17 A:

On the corner.

# 18 Q:

Yeah.

And there's no street lights down here in the -- south of Mr. Simpson's property, correct?

# 19 A:

The predominant light is that one on the corner.

# 20 Q:

All right.

And as you sit here today, as you testified in the criminal trial, you had no recollection of seeing any vehicles whatsoever that night, correct?

# 21 A:

That is correct.

# 22 Q:

And you are an attorney, are you not, sir?

# 23 A:

I'm not practicing, but I'm a law school graduate and I did practice law.

# 24 Q:

You practiced law in the State of California for a while, did you not, sir?

# 25 A:

I did.

# 26 Q:

And as I recall, you didn't file a report relative to any of this until January of 1995 because you said you didn't know how to contact the police; is that right?

# 27 A:

I don't believe that's completely accurate. I think I said that I did not know that what I had not seen had any relevance to the -- to the matter.

KEY QUOTE

# 28 Q:

You made no contact, no attempts to contact the police until January of 1995; is that correct?

# 29 A:

That is correct.

# 30 Q:

Now, you and other neighbors in the area certainly are not, let's say, pleased about all of the activities that have gone on in the neighborhood since June of 1994, correct?

# 31 A:

I think that would be a safe statement.

# 32 Q:

In fact, you -- would you possibly agree with me, that there have been meetings as to how to get Mr. Simpson to leave the area; isn't that true?

# 33 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection, relevance.

# 34 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 35 A:

I believe that there have been.

# 36 Q:

And would it be also fair to say that you've talked to your neighborhood, and Mr. Simpson is, as the Latin phrase, persona non gratia, he's not terribly welcome in the neighborhood because of the June 1994 murders, and the activities that have gone on, and the looky-loos and all that around your neighborhood; is that correct?

# 37 A:

I think there have been discussions. I don't believe that I really discussed it with people.

# 38 Q:

Well, I'm sorry, sir, maybe my question wasn't very clear.

I asked you if you had -- I said you would agree with me that in the neighborhood, because of the murders of June of 1994, Mr. Simpson is persona non gratia in your neighborhood.

# 39 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection, irrelevant.

He didn't participate.

# 40 THE COURT:

It's irrelevant except as to this witness's state of mind.

You may inquire as to his state of mind, not to the neighbors.

KEY QUOTE

# 41 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Your state of mind is you want him out of there, too?

# 42 A:

I would prefer that there weren't looky-loos, and people that came through the streets all the time.

# 43 Q:

You would prefer that he be out of there, correct?

# 44 A:

I think probably.

# 45 Q:

Now, you had -- that night you didn't see, for example, did you -- you didn't see Kato Kaelin's 300ZQ that night either, did you?

# 46 A:

I did not see any cars on Rockingham.

# 47 Q:

Okay.

And did -- strike that.

The closest you got to Mr. Simpson's property was approximately 200 feet north of his property, as it intersects Ashford, up in this area, correct?

# 48 A:

I believe it was in the neighborhood of 200 feet. I think it was somewhere down around the -- the driveway that I pointed out.

# 49 Q:

Okay.

And you were on the east side of the street or the west side of the street?

# 50 A:

I was probably walking in the middle of the street or from side to side as the dog dictated.

KEY QUOTE

# 51 Q:

And, Mr. Cale, that area where you've resided for the last 14 years is exceedingly quiet, especially on a Sunday night, is it not?

# 52 A:

It is, yes.

# 53 Q:

And from where you were, 200 feet north of Mr. Simpson's property, if a car came north on Rockingham, after it turned from Sunset onto Rockingham and came north, you could see that car and its headlamps half a mile --

# 54 A:

I don't think --

# 55 Q:

-- south?

# 56 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection, calls for speculation.

# 57 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 58 A:

I don't know that you could as far as a half mile because of the bend, but you could certainly see several hundreds of yards, I believe.

# 59 Q:

And so, if any vehicle had been on Rockingham and going north, you would have seen at least the headlamps, correct, while you were walking your dog that evening?

# 60 A:

I believe, certainly, after it had passed Parkyns which is the next street to the south.

# 61 Q:

And this obviously wasn't the first time you walked your dog, I assume, sir?

# 62 A:

No, sir.

# 63 Q:

And you had obviously been in tune, I take it, to some extent, to the noise levels in the area, correct?

# 64 A:

I think -- I think so, yes.

# 65 Q:

All right.

And --

# 66 A:

It's a fairly quiet neighborhood, if that's what you're asking.

# 67 Q:

Yes.

And Parkyns is a street that goes off to the east as well below the picture that we have on the monitor now, correct?

# 68 A:

That is correct.

# 69 Q:

Even before you see any headlamps, because Rockingham turns a little bit to the east as it gets to Parkyns, doesn't it?

# 70 A:

Yes, sir, it does.

# 71 Q:

You could hear a vehicle if a vehicle was coming in that direction, could you not?

# 72 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection, relevance.

# 73 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 74 A:

I don't know that you could -- I know you could -- probably could see the headlights a lot sooner than you could ever hear it.

# 75 Q:

Okay. Thank you.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM:

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Charles Cale

I think probably.

Cale admits he wants Simpson out of the neighborhood, establishing potential bias against Simpson despite being called as a defense-favorable witness.

Charles Cale

I don't believe that's completely accurate. I think I said that I did not know that what I had not seen had any relevance to the -- to the matter.

Cale corrects Baker's characterization of why he delayed contacting police — he framed it as not understanding the relevance of negative observations, not ignorance of how to reach police.

Hiroshi Fujisaki

It's irrelevant except as to this witness's state of mind. You may inquire as to his state of mind, not to the neighbors.

Fujisaki allows the neighborhood bias line of questioning but narrows its scope to Cale's personal state of mind.

Charles Cale

I was probably walking in the middle of the street or from side to side as the dog dictated.

Illustrates the casual, meandering nature of the walk — relevant to how attentive Cale could have been to surroundings.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Map or diagram of Rockingham displayed on Elmo/monitor showing Simpson's property, Ashford intersection, and Parkyns street

discussed, used to orient witness testimony about walking route and sightlines

Notable Exchanges (3)

Baker•Charles Cale

Baker establishes Cale is a trained lawyer who nevertheless waited seven months to contact police, framing it as either incompetence or indifference — Cale pushes back by saying he didn't think his negative observations were relevant.

strategic

Baker•Charles Cale•Gelblum•Fujisaki

Baker attempts to show the neighborhood wants Simpson gone, suggesting bias. Gelblum objects twice; Fujisaki overrules but limits questioning to Cale's personal state of mind. Cale ultimately admits he'd 'probably' prefer Simpson leave.

revealing

Baker•Charles Cale

Baker walks Cale through the sightlines and sound conditions on Rockingham, getting Cale to agree that any vehicle would have been visible or audible — reinforcing the significance of Cale seeing and hearing nothing.

strategic

Light Moments (1)

Charles Cale

Cale explains his walking path as 'from side to side as the dog dictated,' offering a wry acknowledgment that the dog was in charge.

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Charles Cale

bias

Baker establishes Cale wants Simpson out of the neighborhood due to disruption from the case, suggesting his testimony (or selective memory) may be colored by animus toward Simpson.

⚔ Charles Cale

prior inconsistent statement / delay

Baker highlights that Cale, a trained lawyer, did not contact police until January 1995 — seven months after the murders — attacking the credibility of his claimed observations by implication of indifference or selective concern.

Objections

4 objections (0 sustained, 4 overruled)

Proceeding 8433 • 75 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Civil Trial

Department 103