Defense calls Phil Vannatter.

You can have a seat on the witness stand.

You can have a seat on the witness stand.

Sir, you've already been sworn. You are still under oath.

Would you state your name again for the record.

Philip Vannatter.

PHILIP VANNATTER, called as a witness on behalf of Defendants, was previously sworn and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Good morning.

Good morning.

Mr. Vannatter, when did you arrive in southern California?

Saturday afternoon.

And did you spend yesterday in any type of preparation for your testimony here today, sir?

Yes, I had a meeting with Mr. Kelly, yesterday.

And how long did that meeting take?

Approximately two hours.

And did you review any of the testimony that you gave, for example, at the grand jury hearing?

No, I did not.

Did you review any testimony you gave at the preliminary hearing?

I was asked questions about the trial testimony.

All right.

And did you review the trial testimony that you had given?

I didn't read it. I was asked questions by Mr. Kelly.

And did you review any of the transcripts of any of the TV shows that you've been on since the verdict of October, 1995?

No, sir, I didn't.

Now, as -- as I understand it, at the time in June of 1994 when you were called on this case, you had been a detective for 26 and a half years in LAPD, correct?

No. That's -- I had been a police officer for 26 and a half years.

All right.

How long you been a detective?

I transferred to detectives, I believe, in 1971, September of '71.

So 23 years, roughly?

Approximately, yes.

Okay.

And you had risen through the ranks to a Detective 3 by the time that you investigated the double murders at 875 South Bundy, correct?

Yes, sir.

And Detective 3 was -- you were the highest ranking detective among the four detectives who were at the scene on June 13, 1994, correct?

The highest ranking detective -- there were two other Detective 3's.

You were the most senior Detective 3, so you were in charge by virtue of your seniority and the fact that you were a Detective 3, correct?

It was a dual in charge with Mr. Lange.

So is there a Detective 4 at the LAPD or is Detective 3 as high as you get?

Detective 3 is an advance pay grade, as high as you go, yes.

So you were a Detective 3 and Tom Lange was a Detective 3, correct?

Yes, sir.

And because you had been a Detective 3 longer, if in fact push came to shove, you were in charge, correct?

Not necessarily. We were partners. I believe there was a month difference in our pay grade promotion.

And as the detective from robbery/homicide -- we're going to get into that in a minute -- you were in charge in directing the criminal fingerprint people as well as the coroner, true?

At that crime scene?

Yes.

No, sir, I wasn't. Detective Lange was.

All right.

Now, you would agree as a detective of 23 years that there are certain fundamentals in investigating the crime scene that must be adhered to to ensure not only the integrity of the crime scene, but the chain of custody of the evidence, true?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, fundamentals, there are certain things that have to be done, yes.

Well, one of the fundamentals of a crime scene is obviously to recognize what is evidence, correct?

Yes.

Objection, Your Honor, speculative. If we're talking about this particular crime scene, that's something different.

I'll allow a certain amount of preliminary, but after that, stay with this case.

(BY MR. BAKER) Well, you didn't reinvent fundamentals of the double murders at 875 South Bundy. These are fundamentals you had to investigate crime scenes when you started investigating crime scenes 23 years ago, correct?

Objection, vague.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) The investigation, sir, of a crime scene has certain fundamental procedures that you go through to ensure that the crime scene integrity is maintained and that the change of custody of the evidence is preserved; you would agree with that?

Same objection, Your Honor.

Overruled.

Each crime scene is unique in itself. So ones you're talking about could be different from crime scene to crime scene.

The first thing you have to do, Detective Vannatter, is to recognize what's evidence and what isn't, true?

Same objection. If we could focus in on June 12.

Overruled.

I would -- I would hope that you would recognize what is evidence and what isn't, yes.

(BY MR. BAKER) The second procedure that you must use in that crime scene is to collect the evidence that you recognize as to be relevant to any portion of the crime, correct?

Yes.

And the third and very important step in crime scene procedure, is the documentation of what you do, correct?

Yes.

And that is, that you have to document where you've been, what you've done, what evidence you've collected and where you personally have been throughout the crime scene, and your processing of a crime scene, correct?

I -- I'm not sure. You can't do it on a minute-to-minute basis. You attempt to keep a chronological record of what had occurred, yes.

And then you didn't do that at all, did you, by the way, you didn't document where you were at 4 o'clock in the morning, did you?

It was -- it was documented, yes.

I said you didn't document it at all, did you, sir?

Well, I checked in at the crime scene with the log personnel, yes.

Did you document your movements at 875 South Bundy at all from 4 to 5 o'clock in the morning on June 13, 1994?

Are you asking me did I write notes?

That's what I'm asking you.

No, sir, I didn't.

And you also had investigated, by -- at least you indicated in your sworn affidavit in furtherance of a search warrant on June 28, 1994, that you investigated over 200 homicides by the time you investigated the crimes at 875 South Bundy, correct?

Yes.

And so you certainly knew that documentation of your movements and what went on at a crime scene was important, true?

Again, each crime scene is unique. If it's being done by someone else, then there's no need to duplicate that effort.

Okay.

So you didn't feel that there was any need to document anything at 875 South Bundy when you were there from 4 to 5 o'clock in the morning, true?

I didn't do anything other than look there one time briefly, no, I didn't.

So the answer to my question is no, you didn't feel any need to document anything at that crime scene, correct?

That's correct.

Now, another fundamental is the preservation of evidence at a crime scene, correct?

Yes.

And as I understand it, sir, when you were notified of the double homicide at -- it was approximately what, 2:30 in the morning, of June 13, 1994?

No, sir. It was 3 o'clock in the morning.

In any event, you got to 875 South Bundy at approximately 4 o'clock in the morning, did you not?

Approximately, yes.

And you had been a detective at West LA division of the LAPD for at least what, three years, at the time that you investigated this crime scene on behalf of robbery/homicide division, true?

No. I was not at West LA then. I had worked there previously, yes.

You had worked there for three years at as a detective -- homicide detective, had you not?

Yes, back in the mid 70's, that's correct.

You knew the area around 875 South Bundy, did you not?

No, I don't think I've ever been there, except on this case.

You have never been down Bundy?

No, I've been down Bundy. I've never been to that location.

Okay.

I said -- maybe my question was unclear.

I said you knew the area around the Bundy double homicide location, did you not, sir?

I had worked at West LA and I know a lot of the city. I don't know that I knew specifically where 875 South Bundy was.

All right.

In any event, the procedure, as I understand it, of the L.A.P.D. is that once robbery/homicide division takes over a case, that the local detectives from -- in this case, West Los Angeles, simply discontinue investigating the crime scene, right?

They lose responsibility for the crime scene. In many, many instances they are asked to assist in the crime scene investigation.

Well, pull up 19137, please.

What are you referring to?

Pardon?

Transcript?

19137, trial.

Trial.

Could we have a line.

Lines 27 to 4 on the other -- 19138.

Are you ready?

Okay. I'm sorry.

Bottom of the page.

Once local detectives

R/H/D . . . that's robbery/homicide

division . . . take over, should they

continue to investigate the crime? A. No, they shouldn't. They

should only maintain the security and

integrity of the crime scene.

(BY MR. BAKER) That was your testimony at the trial, was it not, sir?

That's correct, sir.

And so is it true that, once robbery/homicide takes over, the entire investigation simply stops, that's LAPD procedure, right?

I don't understand that.

I don't, either, but let me -- let me see if we can get it straight.

At 2:45 on the morning of June 13, 1994, robbery/homicide division took over the investigation of the double homicide at 875 South Bundy, correct?

I was not aware of that. I was aware when I got there at 4 o'clock in the morning.

In any event, assume that at 2:45, the robbery/homicide division takes over. That means that the local detectives from West LA are to do absolutely nothing; that is, they are not to continue their investigation, but they are only to maintain the integrity of the crime scene, correct?

Objection, calls for hearsay, speculative. This witness indicates he has no knowledge of that, Your Honor.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) In the procedure that the police department uses, once robbery/homicide division takes over, the local detectives, in this case Detectives Phillips and Fuhrman, are not supposed to do any further investigation, correct?

Well, I think that could depend on the situation. What --

No, no.

What --

Maybe you didn't understand my -- You have testified, have you not, that the local detectives are not to investigate the crime scene -- to continue the investigation of the crime scene.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, now, you knew that the call had come in at approximately 10 minutes after midnight, relative to the notification that there were two bodies found at 875 South Bundy, correct?

Objection, calls for hearsay, Your Honor.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Well, what time did you think that the crime scene was -- When you got to the crime scene it was approximately 4 o'clock in the morning?

Yes, sir.

You talked to Detective Phillips, did you not?

Yes, sir.

And he told you that -- informed you approximately what time the crime scene had been set up at 875 South Bundy?

Objection, same thing, calls for hearsay, Your Honor.

I'll permit that.

Yes.

(BY MR. BAKER) And so you were aware that the crime scene was already approximately four hours post discovery by the time that you arrived there, correct?

Yes.

And you did not at that time, that is 4 o'clock in the morning, you did not call any criminalist, did you?

No, sir, I didn't.

You did not call any coroner, did you?

No, sir, I didn't.

And you were aware that you were to notify the coroner's office under the directives and procedures of LAPD immediately, true?

I -- I don't think that means immediately when you arrive on the crime scene, that means immediately when you need their assistance at a crime scene.

So the word immediately is a judgment call, in your opinion, that you can decide on your own when to call a coroner, that the LAPD requirements to call the coroner immediately is a judgment call, true?

I think what you're talking about when you say --

Can you answer that yes or no, sir?

I'm trying to, sir.

Well, answer it yes or no?

I can't answer it yes or no.

The regulations of LAPD require you, once you get to a homicide scene, to notify the coroner, and the words in the regulations are immediately, correct?

That's a first call notification, yes.

And you didn't do it, did you?

No, sir, I didn't.

Now, one of the things that is important in the investigation of any homicide is the time of death, you would agree with that?

Objection, Your Honor, with regard -- it's vague with regard --

Overruled.

With regard to any homicide?

The time of death?

(BY MR. BAKER) The time of death of the victims?

That helps you with the investigation, yes.

And that's important in any investigation, is it not?

Yes.

And to your knowledge, although the crime scene had been discovered at 12:10 on the morning of June 13, there had been absolutely no notification of the coroner when you arrived at 4 o'clock, correct?

Sustained. That question's been asked and answered.

(BY MR. BAKER) When you left at 5 o'clock and -- left the crime scene, to your knowledge, there had been no notification of the coroner, true?

True.

And there had been no notification of any criminalist, correct?

True, to my knowledge.

Now, one of the things that can be used to determine the time of death is the temperature of the liver of the decedent?

I'm going to object, Your Honor.

Objection.

This is not an issue.

Secondly, we have a motion in limine, No. 11, on these points here.

Approach the bench.

Wait a minute. I object to him saying anything. This is not his witness.

This is his witness.

As I understand it, one person gets one witness.

You haven't been observing it, Mr. Baker.

My objection -- in the first place, time of death was not established in any way, shape, or form by LAPD evidence or coroner evidence. It was simply the lay testimony of when they first showed up and found the bodies. We did not proffer the coroner whatsoever, for any issue about the time of death. That's number 1.

Number 2, he's arguing about other superior and better techniques for investigating the homicide and for detecting evidence and so forth. That was specifically precluded by No. 11.

This is not a malpractice case. Your Honor has ruled that he has to tie in the alleged omissions or acts to the evidence that we submitted in this case to show that it somehow affected the quality or integrity of it. And he is not doing so in this line of questioning at all. Particularly when he ventures into an issue that we did not even raise.

First of all, they put in the issue of time of death and they opened up all of these issues through Werner Spitz. Every issue that we're going to talk about, they went through through Werner Spitz, this is fundamental in a crime scene, as to the time of death, and he's already indicated that that's fundamental.

Excuse me. I'll permit the defense to raise and establish whether or not the time of death was established, but that's it. Proper technique, I'm sustaining the objection.

For the record, I want to establish that or note that Werner Spitz had never testified at all about time of death. It's simply not an issue in regard to experts. The body was discovered at around -- you know -- Sukru Boztepe discovered it a little after midnight.

I think time of death is inherently at issue.

We didn't proffer it through the expert.

You're talking through the time --

Excuse me. I think my ruling was made and it's clear.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, we were talking about liver temperature and time of death before the objection.

And I want to go back and ask you again: You were certainly aware that liver temperature of a victim can be used to establish time of death, or an estimate of time of death, true?

Depends on the circumstances of the crime scene. That's not always true.

In your 23 years of being a detective, Mr. Vannatter, have you ever seen the coroner attempt and take the temperature of the victim's liver for the purpose of attempting to establish an estimate as to the time of death?

Many, many times. And I've seen times that they haven't taken liver temperatures.

And in this case, they took the liver temperature in both of the victims, did they not, sir?

Well, I was --

Objection, calls for hearsay unless he has personal knowledge, Your Honor.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) You saw the reports in this case, and went through the reports in this case before you testified at the grand jury hearing, did you not?

Different case, object.

Objection, different case. Still calls for testimony of hearsay from -- they're not his reports.

Overruled. You may testify what you saw in the autopsy or coroner's report?

I was aware that he had -- they had taken liver temperatures, yes.

(BY MR. BAKER) And you were further aware, sir, based upon your 23 years as a detective that when liver temperatures are taken, the closer they are taken to the time of death, the more accurate they are in estimating the time of death, true?

Objection, vague. It's still not talking about this particular case and these victims.

Overruled.

That would generally be true. But again it would -- It would depend on the environment that the crime scene was in.

(BY MR. BAKER) You had a 60 degree environment at the crime scene on Bundy, did you not?

I believe that's correct, yes.

And basically, no humidity, correct?

Basically. I believe there was a little fog or mist in the air.

Under the circumstances that when you arrived at the crime scene at 4 o'clock on June 13, 1994, had you called the coroner, you could have had a liver temperature taken and an estimate as to the time of death if you called the coroner, correct?

Objection, calls for speculation.

That's -- that's sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Well, you knew in June of `1994, that the liver temperature decreases approximately -- what, a degree and a half for the first four hours after death?

Same objection.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Well, did you have any knowledge as to whether or not liver temperature readings are more accurate say 10 hours after death than they would be 4 hours after death?

Same objection again, Your Honor.

Sustained:

(BY MR. BAKER) Did it occur to you whatsoever, Mr. Vannatter, to call the coroner to obtain a liver temperature of the decedents at 4 o'clock in the morning on June 13, 1994?

Objection, asked and answered, argumentative.

Overruled.

No.

(BY MR. BAKER) It obviously didn't occur to you at 5 o'clock when you left the crime scene, correct?

That's correct.

Now, at the crime scene, between 4 and 5 when you were there, did you make any efforts whatsoever to identify the second victim?

Personally?

Yes, sir.

No, sir, I didn't.

You didn't know -- you never tried to pull the wallet out of the second victim to see the name of the second victim?

By California law I couldn't do that.

You didn't check the neighborhood to see what cars were registered to whom in that area, did you?

Not personally. It was being done.

You didn't know that the second victim wasn't the target of the murders, did you?

Objection, calls for speculation.

Sustained.

Well, it goes to his state of mind.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Did you have any knowledge as to who was the target and who -- or the perpetrator of these crimes, when you were at the crime scene between 4 and 5 o'clock in the morning on June 13, 1994?

Objection, still calls for speculation.

Overruled. He either knew or he didn't.

No, I had no idea.

(BY MR. BAKER) And you then were at the crime scene for a period of one hour when, as I understand it, sir, there was a decision made to go to Rockingham, correct?

Yes.

Now, at the crime scene at approximately 5 o'clock in the morning on June 13, 1994, there are at least 25 other members of LAPD, true?

I -- I don't know the exact number but that's probably pretty close to correct, yes.

And your story, as I understand it, is that you personally made the decision to notify O.J. Simpson of the demise of his ex-wife, correct?

That was discussed with myself and Mr. Lange when we made the decision, yes.

And your decision was made independently of any purported decision by Commander Bushey to Ron Phillips, correct?

So, you -- as I understand it, you made your own determination that there should be personal notification of O.J. Simpson, correct?

Yes.

And at the time you made this -- your own personal decision at 5 o'clock in the morning, you were aware that there were two victims at 875 South Bundy, correct?

Yes.

You were aware that the crime scene included a hat, gloves, true?

One glove. Not gloves, one glove.

Fair enough.

Hat, glove, keys, pager. All of that was at the crime seen at 875 South Bundy, right?

That's correct.

You were aware that there were blood drops at 875 South Bundy?

Yes.

You were aware that there were blood smears at 875 South Bundy?

Yes.

You were aware that there was blood drops on the back of victim Nicole Brown Simpson at 875 South Bundy?

I -- No, I can't say that I was aware of that. I didn't do that crime scene. I -- I -- that was done by Mr. Lange.

You were aware that there was copious amounts of blood at 875 South Bundy?

Yes.

You were aware that there were shoe prints at 875 South Bundy?

What appeared to be shoe prints, yes.

You were aware that there were paw prints that went 50 feet south on the walkway on the south side toward Bundy?

Yes.

All of those were at 875 South Bundy when you left the crime scene and went to Rockingham, true?

True.

It appeared to be, yes.

You were also aware when you left that crime scene there would be no detective work going on because you and Detective Lange were in charge of the investigation from robbery/homicide investigation, correct?

Yes.

And you were aware that basically there had been no detective work done on that crime scene for the first five hours after that crime scene had been discovered, at the time you made the decision to personally notify Mr. Simpson of the death of his ex-wife, true?

That's correct.

And so there were at least 25 other people who could have gone to Rockingham to personally notify Mr. Simpson of the deaths of his ex-wife, isn't that true?

Yes.

And you made the decision to personally do it at 5 a.m. in the morning, and leave the crime scene where no detective work had gone on for five hours, right?

Yes.

And at the time that you left 875 South Bundy you were aware that one of the victims was the ex-wife of Mr. Simpson, true?

Yes.

You were also aware that there had been an issue of domestic violence between Mr. Simpson and the victim, true?

I was aware that there had been an incident in which a uniformed officer had gone up there, yes.

And in your mind, Mr. Simpson was a suspect, that's why you left 875 South Bundy and went to Rockingham; isn't that true?

I totally agree with you.

He was not a suspect.

And, in fact, he was a suspect from the time that you arrived at 875 South Bundy; isn't that correct?

In my mind?

Yes, sir.

No, that's not correct.

And let's -- Was it your -- Was it your sworn testimony, sir, in the trial that Mr. Simpson was no more a suspect than Mr. Shapiro, one of his criminal attorneys?

Objection, calls for hearsay.

No foundation for prior inconsistent statement at all, got to be just the opposite.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Do you believe that Mr. Simpson was no more a suspect than Mr. Robert Shapiro, one of O.J. Simpson's criminal lawyers, at the time that you went from 875 South Bundy to Rockingham knowing that O.J. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson were divorced, and knowing that there was an issue of domestic violence between O.J. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson?

Objection. Argumentative, irrelevant, compound.

Sustained.

On what grounds, Your Honor?

Grounds Mr. Kelly stated.

Now, you felt that the -- the evidence that there could be an emergency inside the house was based upon how the vehicle was parked, the Bronco, that was part of it, right?

Objection, relevance.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Your belief that there was an emergency -- your state of mind that there was an emergency, was based upon a finding by Detective Fuhrman of a blood spot over the left door handle, a spot that you indicated was human blood over the left door handle of the Bronco, true?

Objection. Once again I'd refer to your prior ruling.

Probable cause is not an issue.

You may inquire of this witness what he saw, what he did. I have allowed you this much to explain why he's there.

Now, let's get on with it. I've already ruled.

As I indicated, Your Honor, his state of mind is relevant relative to a rush to judgment. That's what we're getting to here.

You can argue that. You've had all the preliminaries up to here.

Now you may inquire as to what he saw and did.

MR. P. BAKER: 108.

(BY MR. BAKER) You see on the monitor Exhibit 108?

Yes, sir, I can see that.

And when you -- you went -- you were called to the Ford Bronco by Mark Fuhrman sometime before 5:45 when he went over the wall, correct?

Yes.

And Mark Fuhrman was the one that discovered or purportedly discovered this mark above the left door handle on the Bronco, right?

Yes.

And you can -- can you see that at all, can you see any mark on that door handle in that photograph, 108, that's on the monitor, sir?

No, I can't see it, no.

At 5:45 in the morning it was dark, was it not?

Yes, it was dark.

Show him the other one.

MR. P. BAKER: 109.

Can you focus that a little better.

MR. P. BAKER: There we go.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, is what is on 109, that is on a ruler that has Mr. Rokahr's name on it, is that the mark that Detective Fuhrman pointed out to you in the dark on the morning of June 13, 1994?

Yes.

And it is something, what, 3/8th of an inch long?

I'll accept that representation. I can't tell from here.

A 16th of an inch high, an elliptical shape?

Elliptical.

Objection.

Excuse me.

Objection, no foundation unless this witness can testify as to the exact dimensions.

Actually, I'll withdraw it, if you can answer it.

(BY MR. BAKER) That's the mark that you say Detective Fuhrman pointed out to you before the request was made for him to go over the wall, right?

I'm going to object, Your Honor. It's one thing to testify what he saw and did. He keeps tying it into the same issue.

Sustained.

He ought to be admonished. This is now the 30th time.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, that was -- that spot was of significance to you, Mr. Vannatter?

Objection, argumentative in terms of significance. We're going back to the same thing again, Your Honor, in terms of what the significance was.

Overruled.

Yes.

(BY MR. BAKER) And you thought that that spot that we have on the TV monitor on photo 109 was human blood, right?

I -- yes, I did.

And before Detective Fuhrman and the rest of the three of you detectives entered Mr. Simpson's property, you saw absolutely nothing else that you believed was or could have been human blood, true?

Before we entered the property?

That's right.

No, sir, I didn't.

And did that spot on Exhibit 109 give rise in your mind to the fact that there was a possible hostage situation, that somebody was injured, bleeding or dying inside the Simpson property?

Objection, asked and answered, Your Honor.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) You thought that the Bronco was parked askew; is that right?

Objection, asked and answered, Your Honor.

Sustained.

Put up the photo, please.

Mr. Baker, I think the plaintiffs have a readily available copy of that photograph.

I thought we had that.

Young Baker can't find it.

Take a 10-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen.