(BY MR. BAKER) All right.
Now, your concern prior to 5:45 was -- we talked about the spot, and you also had a concern about the way that the Bronco was parked, correct?
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, on the monitor is 2038. That is a picture of how the Bronco was parked on -- in the early morning hours of June 13, 1994, right?
And the -- the white area that we see down by the tires, that's a concrete apron before the asphalt starts, is it not?
So that the difference would be what, 3, 4 inches, between where the front tire is on the apron and the back tire is not on the apron?
And that, of course, in your professional opinion of being a detective for 23 years, indicated to you that the vehicle was hastily parked as contrasted to anything else, right?
That's the only thing that would give you any impression of a hastily parked vehicle, is the difference of 3 or 4 inches between the front and the back tires on the concrete apron at 360 North Rockingham, right?
Objection, misstates his testimony. He said he didn't even have any occasion as to measurements; he'd just be guessing.
(BY MR. BAKER) That was the basis of your professional opinion as an LAPD officer -- detective of 23 years, that the 4 or so inches in difference between where the front right tire was parked on the apron, and the back tire was not on the apron, that's the only thing you saw that led you to that conclusion, right?
It appeared that the vehicle had been pulled into the curb and not leveled up, hastily parked, someone pulled in and got out.
And that, of course, couldn't have been done in a -- in a fashion that was over a period of time, that difference is, in your professional opinion, hastily parked?
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, based upon the location of the Bronco as seen in this exhibit, and based upon the spot that we talked about earlier, you then entered into a discussion with Detective Tom Lange concerning entering the premises of Mr. Simpson, right?
(BY MR. BAKER) The next thing that you did after the determination that there was a spot that could have been human blood -- you certainly didn't know that at the time, right?
And that -- that blood, by the way, was never determined to be human blood by SID or any -- any scientific investigation done by SID, isn't that true?
(BY MR. BAKER) Well, you then have a discussion -- after you viewed the location of the vehicle and you viewed the spot, you have a discussion with Lange and you decide what we discussed earlier, that there was an emergency situation in that house, right?
Objection, asked and answered, misstates his repeated testimony as to he didn't order.
I sustained the objection. He explained what he did already. And we're repeating it.
Now, in view of the fact that there was a -- was a possible emergency in the Simpson property, I take it that after Detective Fuhrman gets over the wall and gets over the gate, that you all have your guns drawn, right?
So it looked like an emergency situation, when you looked through and saw that dog in there, right?
And you kind of had a hunch there would be no answer because you rung the buzzer and you heard the phone ring from outside; isn't that correct?
(BY MR. BAKER) It was your state of mind that you didn't anticipate when you went to the front door that anyone would answer, correct?
(BY MR. BAKER) After you got to the front door, you walked around the north side of the house, did you not, sir?
And you and other detectives knocked on the door of what turned out to be Mr. Kaelin's room, true?
Had you first knocked on any of the glass sliding doors that are in the back of Mr. Simpson's house or to the -- around the pool area?
(BY MR. BAKER) Were you in the area right in front of the guest room of Mr. Kaelin, when the door was knocked upon?
As I recall, I was standing -- there were steps that went down to the walkway in front, and I was standing up on the top of the steps.
And I assume that the four of you identified yourself as police department officers, correct?
And you heard Mr. Kaelin indicate what happened, did O.J.'s flight -- did O.J.'s plane go down? You heard that, did you not?
Well, did you hear Mr. Kaelin say anything, at anytime before 6:15 in the morning, about the flight of Mr. Simpson, you personally?
The first he told me about -- or the first I heard about a flight was when I was directed to him by Mr. Fuhrman and I talked to him.
(BY MR. BAKER) So it's your testimony then that when Mr. Kaelin opened the door, the first words out of his mouth were simply not anything to the effect that what happened, did O.J.'s plane go down, nothing like that occurred, because you would have heard that, standing on the step right in front of the door, true?
Objection as to the form, calls for speculation, and misstates his testimony; said he heard no statement by Mr. Kaelin when he opened the door.
(BY MR. BAKER) You heard nothing from Mr. Kaelin that -- after the police officers identified themselves, that indicated a statement, question; what happened, did O.J.'s plane go down? Never heard anything about that out at the guest house, just after Mr. Kaelin had opened the door and the officers identified themselves, true?
(BY MR. BAKER) And you -- they were directed to -- strike that.
No officer had any weapons drawn when you were back there by Mr. Kaelin's room, correct?
And in the back of your mind, I take it, there was still this possibility that this could be a second murder scene, there could be a homicide, somebody dead, or some kidnapping or hostage on the premise, correct?
(BY MR. BAKER) Did you ask anybody else to draw their weapons before you went to Mr. Kaelin's room?
Did you -- after you went to Arnelle Simpson's room, did you believe that there was still an emergency situation on the property of O.J. Simpson?
Objection. Same objection in terms of the circumstances and the witness's state of mind.
(BY MR. BAKER) Once you got to the guest house where Arnelle Simpson was -- that was the second guest room in the back of the house, correct?
And now, when you went to Arnelle Simpson's room, it was still your belief that Mr. Simpson was not a suspect, right?
(BY MR. BAKER) After you aroused Arnelle Simpson -- there were three of you; that is Phillips, Lange, and yourself, went to Arnelle's door and knocked on her door; is that right?
And then, after that occurred, you went back down the alleyway -- the walkway rather, and picked up Detective Fuhrman and Kato Kaelin and went in the house, true?
No, that's not true. I don't recall Kato Kaelin and Fuhrman being with us when we entered the house.
And you went down -- you went down the walkway, correct, from Arnelle's room, up the stairs?
And is it your testimony, Detective Vannatter, that she turned off the alarm before she went in with a keypad on the east side of that house and that back entrance?
It's your testimony that Arnelle Simpson and you, and the other three detectives, opened the door that is indicated on whatever exhibit --
MR. P. BAKER: 145.
(BY MR. BAKER) And you didn't walk around the north side of the property back onto the driveway and enter the front entrance after Arnelle Simpson pushed off the alarm, correct?
Now, in terms of your being positive of that -- Well strike that. When you went in the house, I take it by this time, because of the situation you previously described to us, the officers had their weapons drawn, correct?
(BY MR. BAKER) Nobody proceeded into the house to do any investigation about any emergency as Los Angeles Police Officers, before Arnelle Simpson was allowed to go into the house, true?
Your Honor, I'd ask Mr. Baker to keep -- not keep predicating his questions about this emergency situation. He's been cautioned on it before.
(BY MR. BAKER) So you don't recall when Mark Fuhrman came into the house, after you had allowed Arnelle Simpson to go into the house, before any LAPD detective, true?
The first time I saw him in the house was after I had asked Arnelle to show me the -- the maid's quarters. I checked the maid's quarters to make sure everything was okay there.
And, in fact, you let Arnelle walk into the maid's quarters room in front of you at that time, didn't you, Detective Vannatter?
(BY MR. BAKER) Then did you take -- did you then, I take it, go upstairs and investigate the upstairs portion of Mr. Simpson's house?
I was leaving the kitchen area to walk back into the bar area to shine my light around the bottom floor and make sure everything was okay when he approached me.
Are you telling us that when you walked through the bar area with Arnelle Simpson and the other three detectives, you didn't turn the lights on?
So you walked through the bar area with no lights on, with Arnelle Simpson leading three detectives of the LAPD into the kitchen area, and then turning lights on in the kitchen area?
So you walked through the bar area, not knowing what was in there 'cause you'd never been there before, correct?
And so, there was no lights on until you walked into the kitchen of the residence, and turned the lights on in the kitchen, right?
There was a light on in the front portion of the house that illuminated part of the area there.
When you say light on in the front portion of the house, you are talking about the west portion of the house?
I was outside, yes, until about 5:45, and then I was inside from about 5:45, and on the grounds until approximately 7:30, yes.
In the area -- I -- I never went totally into the area. I shined my flashlight around, and it appeared okay, and I didn't go in there.
I don't think I did. After -- after the maid was accounted for, and Mr. Simpson was accounted for, there was no need for me to go into the house anymore.
Yes, I believe -- or Arnelle told me that the maid was not working, and it appeared to be the -- the room appeared to be made up, and in good order, and everything seemed fine.
Now, it's your testimony Arnelle told you that the maid was not working; that's your testimony, sir?
That's a possibility. I don't recall every word that was said at the scene. But everything appeared to be in order -- in order. Mr. Simpson was accounted for, and everything seemed fine.
In fact, Arnelle never told you where the maid was, and that's why you went in the maid's room, isn't that true?
Let me see if I can make my question so you can understand it.
Arnelle Simpson never told you that the maid was there or not there, and that's the reason you proceeded to the maid's room, true or untrue?
Your -- no, that's not a true statement. I asked her where the maid's room was because I wanted to physically check it, because I had been told by Westec that there was a full-time, live-in maid at the house.
You don't have a recollection as you sit here now, although you've told the jury that Arnelle told you the maid was taken care of, you have no recollection of her ever saying that, do you, sir?
Well, let me ask you this: Is Mr. Simpson a potential suspect when you left 875 South Bundy at 5:00 a.m. in the morning?
Of course he was. Anybody who had personal contact with any of the victims could have been a potential suspect.
He was under suspicion for the murders when you left at 5 o'clock in the morning on June 13, 1994, that is, O.J. Simpson, true?
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, when -- as I understand it, then, Detective Fuhrman was the person who had questioned Kato Kaelin out in his room, correct?
And so you don't know what transpired between Mr. Kaelin and Mark Fuhrman out in his guest room at all, do you?
And so I take it that it would be good LAPD procedure to have Mr. Fuhrman continue the interrogation of Kato Kaelin because he already has information that he wouldn't have to go over again, true?
(BY MR. BAKER) How long after Mr. -- Detective Fuhrman lateralled (sic) Kato Kaelin to you to interrogate, was he out of sight, that is, Mark Fuhrman?
I would have to guess at that and -- and I think maybe 10 minutes or something like that. I'm not positive on that.
Now, during -- actually, he was gone from 6 o'clock, and you had previously testified that he came back to tell you about his discovery of this purported glove on the south side of Mr. Simpson's residence between 6:15 and 6:30, right?
And so he was out of sight anywhere between 15 and 30 minutes at the Simpson property, true?
(BY MR. BAKER) Well, you and Detective Phillips and Detective Lange have gotten together more than once to talk about exactly the time period we are talking about, isn't that true, in front of the D.A.'s, correct, sir?
(BY MR. BAKER) And you've done it -- you've also talked to Detective Phillips and Detective Lange about this particular time frame and the whereabouts of Mark Fuhrman during that period, isn't that true, sir?
Regarding Mark Fuhrman and his whereabouts from 6 o'clock to 6:30 on June 13, 1994, you all got together and talked about where Mark Fuhrman was during that period, did you not?
Never talked to Marcia Clark, Bill Hodgman, Chris Darden or any of them about this time period, in the presence of the other detectives, correct?
That's possible. I may have -- I know I personally had conversations with them about the events that occurred, and what I knew, and what I did.
All right.
Now, let's -- as I understand it, then, you are in the bar area talking to Kato Kaelin, and in the kitchen area is Detectives Phillips and Lange with Arnelle Simpson, right?
And up until this point in time, is it your testimony, and this point in time being at approximately 6 a.m. on June 13, 1994, that there had been no revelation to Arnelle Simpson that her stepmother had been murdered?
So as I understand it, she was in your presence from the time that you knocked on her door, then -- you allowed her obviously to put some clothes on, I assume?
And after that, she walked out with you down the walkway and into, as you say, the back or east entrance, southeast entrance to the house, and then you stayed in the bar area, or did you go to the kitchen area with her?
She led me directly to the maid's room, and after I looked at the maid's room, I walked back through, walked through the kitchen and went into the bar area.
It would be off to the -- let me acclimate -- off to the south of the kitchen, there's a laundry room there, and the maid's room connects with the laundry room.
Essentially, where that depiction of a door is in the south side of the premises of Rockingham, right here (indicating to diagram)?
Then, sir, you went back into -- left Arnelle, and went back into the bar area, and was Kato being brought in at that point in time?
I think I answered that before. It was my intention to look into the rooms, and make sure everything was okay.
Now, at this point in time, had you heard anything about any noises that had been reported by Kato Kaelin? And we're talking now about 6 o'clock in the morning on June 13, 1994.
(BY MR. BAKER) So you didn't know anything about noises when Kato Kaelin was given to you to question, correct?
I don't honestly know that. I know he told me that I should talk to this guy and hear what he had to say.
(BY MR. BAKER) Mr. Vannatter, you were informed in the process of turning over Kaelin for you to question, that Kaelin had informed Fuhrman of some noises and Fuhrman was going to go out to investigate, isn't that true, sir?
I -- again -- I think I just answered that. I don't honestly know that. I do recall him telling me that I should talk to the man and hear what he had to say.
Isn't it true that you were told by Fuhrman that he was going to go investigate some noises, true or untrue?
I -- that's a possibility. I don't recall that exact conversation, but that could have happened.
And now you had -- from the time Mr. Fuhrman went over the gate and opened the gate for the other three detectives, approximately 10 to 15 minutes had elapsed, correct?
And during that 10 to 15 minutes, you certainly had not gone upstairs at any point in time, during that 10 to 15 minutes, correct?
And you had then been asked to talk to Kato Kaelin, and you were informed that Mark Fuhrman was going to go investigate, correct?
I don't know whether that's correct or not. As I said, again, I don't recall that conversation. It could have occurred.
Well, let me ask you this: Did Mark Fuhrman ask you for any backup because he was going to go try to determine the source of any noises that had been reported to him by Kato Kaelin?
(BY MR. BAKER) Did anybody leave with Detective Fuhrman when he left the premises, or the interior portion of the house?
Objection, calls for speculation, except for this officer's observations, I'd object to the form of the question, Your Honor.
(BY MR. BAKER) To your knowledge, did any other detective leave the interior of Mr. Simpson's house when Fuhrman exited the house?
Same objection. Calls for speculation unless directed to his own observations, Your Honor.
(BY MR. BAKER) And did you see Mark Fuhrman draw his weapon as he left the interior premises of the house?
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, you had some discussions with the other officers who were interrogating Arnelle, did you not, after you had interrogated Kato Kaelin?
Objection, misstates his testimony. He never indicated anybody was being interrogated at all.
(BY MR. BAKER) And at the time that this -- inside Mr. Simpson's house is, and the questioning of Arnelle Simpson, and the questioning of Kato Kaelin taking place, you subsequently learned that nobody knew exactly where Mark Fuhrman was, correct?
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, up until 6:30 on the morning of June 13, 1994, there were four detectives and only one detective had discovered any evidence, that being Mark Fuhrman, right?
We'll get into the glove.
And so then, Detective Fuhrman comes back to you and tells you that he has made yet another discovery on the Simpson property, that being this glove, right?
(BY MR. BAKER) And so you then go out, walk around the front of the garage, down the south side of the house, and view this purported discovery of Mark Fuhrman's, right?
(BY MR. BAKER) To your knowledge, did Mark Fuhrman take each of the three of you out there individually?
(BY MR. BAKER) And obviously if you detectives are walking down the south side of Mr. Simpson's property in this concrete area --
-- if there were any latent prints, they would be destroyed by your walking there, by Ron Phillips walking there, and by Tom Lange walking there, true?
(BY MR. BAKER) You don't know of any reason why all three of you couldn't have gone out there, or do you?
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, when you went out there at 6:30 in the morning or thereabouts, it was light, wasn't it?
Okay.
But in other words, that fence borders the neighbor's property to the south of Mr. Simpson's property, correct?
I would -- I would make that assumption, yes, sir, because that would be the property line.
And did you ever go into the property to the south -- I believe it's the Salingers, and look to see whether or not it was 7 feet from their driveway to the top of that fence or more?
Now, in terms of your going out to where Mark Fuhrman said he had discovered the glove; you walked out, how close did you get to the glove?
Did you see any trail of blood from the glove heading either south towards either of the entrances that border the south side of the house or north towards the air conditioner?
Did you see anything that remotely appeared to be insect activity on the glove, any bugs crawling on it, anything of that nature?
It appeared to be a bloody glove. There appeared to be blood on it. There could have been dirt mixed into the glove. I don't know. It appeared to be a bloody glove.
Now, from five feet or six feet to the west of the glove, you viewed that and saw that there was blood on it, right?
All right.
And in this -- on this particular morning, would you say that you viewed blood that you thought was on that glove from that distance?
It's your testimony here in this courtroom, that you thought from your vantage point you could tell it was human blood on that glove, correct?
So, being a detective of 23 years, I take it that you looked around the surrounding area to see if there was any other element that looked like blood in the area, true?
And you obviously, because you had looked at a glove at 875 South Bundy between 4 and 5 o'clock in the morning, looked to see whether or not the shrubbery had been broken over on the south side of the fence, whether there were any branches that were down indicating somebody had recently come through this heavily wooded or hedged area, did you not?
There didn't appear to be any evidence, that I saw, of anyone that had come through the heavy foliage there.
All right.
I take it, sir, that this was because you are aware of the glove at 875 South Bundy when it was brought to you, a major discovery by Mark Fuhrman, was it not?
Well, now, Mr. Vannatter, you were aware that this was a high visibility, high publicity case long before you ever got to Rockingham, correct?
I was aware that it had the potential, but the only difference between this case and any other murder case I worked as a Los Angeles Police Officer is the media coverage of this case. Every case, every murder case has the same importance to me regardless of who's involved in it.
You were aware that there was going to be immense pressure put on the LAPD to find a suspect in this case, certainly before you ever got to Rockingham, correct?
(BY MR. BAKER) And there is much more pressure put on the LAPD to get a suspect, and to arrest a suspect, in a high profile case than there is in a case where the victims are unknown by anybody; you would agree with that?
The linkage in your mind, at 6:30 in the morning, was immediate when Mark Fuhrman says I have found a glove in the south area of Mr. Simpson's estate, was it not, sir?
Did you, in your own mind, think one glove Bundy, one glove Rockingham, wow, anything like that?
Now, I want to go back to your observations on the morning of June 13, 1994.
Now, the chain link fence comes -- goes up as you suggest, about five feet above ground level on the Simpson side of the fence, correct?
And then there are bushes that have become -- it's become heavily wooded in that area, hasn't it?
Eugenia. The Eugenia bushes have trunks on them, some of them, four and five inches thick in that area, correct?
Objection as to this area. If he wants to ask a specific question about a location -- we're just talking about an area right now.
(BY MR. BAKER) The area I'm talking about is the area of the Eugenia bushes that go down the south side of Mr. Simpson's property.
And let's just take it from where the -- well, just the garage area, down to where the glove was viewed by you.
I'll accept that they're Eugenia. It's possible that they had big trunks. I don't -- I don't know how big they were.
But certainly, when you were there, you looked very closely, based upon your 23 years of being an LAPD detective, to make the determination as to if someone had used that area to enter the property, that is coming over the Cyclone fence and through the Eugenia bushes onto the concrete walkway, true?
I didn't see any evidence of that west of the glove, and I never went east of the glove to protect the possible other evidence that may be there for the criminalist.
And you certainly shined your flashlight in the area east of the glove to see if there was any branches or any elements of a disturbance, correct?
In fact, you shined your lights and saw cobwebs in the area east of where the glove was located, indicating that no one had come through there; isn't that true, sir?
Did you have a discussion with Mark Fuhrman that he had gone into that area, and had been met by cobwebs in the area to the east of where the glove was located?
(BY MR. BAKER) In terms of your investigation of this particular area, sir, I take it that you gathered information from all sources, to come to your own opinions and conclusions, did you not, sir?
And one of those sources of information is Mark Fuhrman, because he had been back there and purportedly had been there first and found the glove, true?
And so all of this information flow is part of what you used to come to some conclusions and opinions relative to your detective work, true?
And you did discuss with Mark Fuhrman that there were cobwebs on the east side of where the glove was located, indicating that absolutely no one had come from east to west, correct?
(BY MR. BAKER) And you went back to that area again on June 13, 1994, after Mark Fuhrman had been into the area and you had been into the area, correct?
And you had discussions with the other two detectives, who were also taken back into that area by Mark Fuhrman, that is Tom Lange and Ron Phillips, true?
And in those discussions no one ever indicated to you that they saw any evidence whatsoever that anybody had gone into or through those Eugenia hedges; isn't that true.
(BY MR. BAKER) You concluded as a detective of 23 years' experience, based upon your own observations, your discussions with Ron Phillips, all the information that you had, that absolutely no one had come over the Cyclone fencing through the Eugenia hedge because there was absolutely no evidence of that, correct, sir?
Objection, misstates his testimony, Your Honor, also calls for speculation and hearsay.
I didn't see any evidence of that. However, I don't know how it was put there. I don't know whether someone came over the fence or walked back there. That's -- I don't know that.
But I didn't see any evidence of anybody coming over the fence.
(BY MR. BAKER) You say, you don't know how it was put there. Let's go back just a moment, for a second.
Those hedges are so thick on the south side of the property, your observations were at the time -- in the multiple times that you were on the south side of Mr. Simpson's property on June 13 and thereafter, that if somebody had come through those hedges, there would have to be evidence of it, correct?
Objection, calls for speculation. He's repeatedly testified he never got closer than 4 to 5 feet west of the glove in that south walkway.
Other -- I answered this a number of times. I don't believe anybody came over the fence. I didn't see any evidence of anybody coming over the fence.
Yes. Okay.
1:30, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinion.
Now, when you -- Mr. Vannatter, you went to view that glove, it appeared to be, to your visualization wet, rather moist, and tacky. True?
It didn't appear to be dry, did it? That is, the blood you were able to visualize, did not appear to be dry, caked, or cracked, did it?
Maybe you visualized the glove -- you saw what you believed was human blood, or at least blood, on the glove, correct?
And you were close enough to look at it, and see that the appearance of what you thought was blood, was shiny, and it appeared to you to have the appearance of being moist and tacky, correct?
Mr. Vannatter, if you don't know the answer to my question, please tell me, if you can, answer my question, did it appear to be shiny and moist and tacky? Yes, no, or I don't know?
All right.
You never testified before, in any of the forums that you've been in, that it appeared moist and tacky. True or untrue?
I could have.
It had a shine to it that could have indicated that maybe it was moist.
I don't know. I never touched it. I never got closer than four or five feet to it.
Now, in terms of your analysis, you were kind of lead detective at the Rockingham scene, right?
And you have absolutely not one note indicating any -- any evidence that you found at the Rockingham crime scene. Would you agree with that, true?
Let's talk about your observations, sir, before the criminalist ever got there.
Those were never documented anyplace, were they?
Nor did you call -- well, strike that.
Then, you -- after this glove was viewed, did you find out whether there were any cuts in that glove?
Your Honor, I'm not offering it for the truth of the matter asserted.
MR. P. BAKER: That board is 145.
I'm not offering that information for the truth of the matter asserted; I'm offering it for his subsequent conduct.
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, did -- From your visualization, can you tell if there were any cuts in the Rockingham glove?
I previously overruled it because Mr. Baker said he is offering it for some other purpose.
I'll entertain a motion to strike if that's not established.
(BY MR. BAKER) You never compared any cuts in the Rockingham glove to Mr. Simpson's hands, at any time, sir. Is that your testimony?
Objection. Ask that the previous answers now be stricken based on that response, Your Honor.
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, after the glove had been shown to you by Mark Fuhrman, you then directed Fuhrman to go back to Bundy to compare the Rockingham glove to the Bundy glove, right?
And did Fuhrman tell you that he had had his picture taken in close proximity to the Bundy glove before he had ever been to Rockingham?
(BY MR. BAKER) You had no idea, when you sent Fuhrman back to Bundy to compare the gloves, that Fuhrman had already had his picture taken, pointing at the glove in close proximity. True or untrue?
(BY MR. BAKER) And so he never indicated to you, said, well, gee whiz, that glove looks exactly like the glove that I visualized at Bundy.
He never said that to you, did he?
And by now, it was six and a half hours, and there had been no criminalist, or no investigating at 875 South Bundy. Correct?
There had been no -- I don't remember crime-scene investigation.
A canvas of the neighborhood was going on by uniform officers, and a check of the vehicles in the area was going on.
The actual crime scene where the victims were found, there had been no investigation into that crime scene, for, now, six and a half hours. You agree with that?
Other than walking through and viewing the evidence that could be seen, yes, I would agree with that.
And by 6:30 in the morning, did you think it was appropriate to call a criminalist, Mr. Vannatter?
Now, in your years of experience, do you believe that it is appropriate for the criminalist to go from one crime scene to another crime scene and risk the possibility of contamination?
(BY MR. BAKER) Well, I take it that you wouldn't have called Dennis Fung or Andrea Mazzola to go to the Rockingham crime scene, and then go on to the Bundy crime scene because of the risk of contamination, correct?
And would that be the normal time that criminalists take to respond to a homicide crime scene?
I don't think there would be a normal time. I think it would depend on the time of day and whether criminalists were working or not working. And it could vary. It could be from ten minutes to three hours sometimes.
Well, in terms of your 23 years of experience investigating 200 homicides, I take it there are certain parameters within which criminalists respond. Is that not true, sir?
Is it ten minutes to three hours? Is that the parameter?
It could be -- it could be that, yes. They don't come to every crime scene; they only come to crime scenes that they're requested to come to.
Well, that's a decision made by the detective handling that crime scene, whether he feels he needs a criminalist or doesn't need a criminalist.
And you felt, approximately 5:30 in the morning, that you needed a criminalist, not at Bundy, but you needed a criminalist at Rockingham, right?
And so the criminalists were called. They got there about 7 o'clock in the morning.
And you left Rockingham at what time, sir?
Now, before you went back to Bundy, were you concerned that the evidence should be secured at the Rockingham scene?
Were you concerned that the glove on the south side of the property could be possibly lost or have -- have at the -- elimination of hair and fiber evidence on them?
All right.
Let me read from your deposition in this case, taken on July 6, 199 -- I'm sorry. It is not your deposition; it is the trial transcript -- July -- preliminary hearing, July 6, 1994. Page 64, line 26 through line 7 on page 65.
Okay.
Now, you had, by the time you testified on July 6, 1994 -- that was about three weeks after the murders?
And you'd already testified at the grand jury proceedings, did you not, before you ever took the stand in the preliminary hearing?
And so let me read what you testified to some three weeks after the murders. "Q. And that --"
And so you were concerned about the glove evidence being protected, and trace evidence being on the glove, and possibly lost at that time, were you not?
And you were concerned about the fact that it was a dog that had been running loose in the front yard that you had seen while you were there at the Rockingham property, true?
And there was a dog at Bundy, was there not?
That's how the crime scene was discovered, isn't that true? Or did you know that?
There was not a dog there, when I was there at the crime scene.
I knew there had been a dog there previously, yes.
Now, you then went to -- after you had gone to Bundy, you went to the West LA police station to -- to prepare a search warrant, right?
Now, you have been on -- on various television shows, protesting the fact that -- and suggesting that you have never lied, true?
And you said that on -- in front of Tom Brokaw on -- what was it -- March 29, in your interview on Dateline?
And when you produce a search warrant, as a police officer of 26 years and a detective of 13 years, you know that an affiant, that is, the person who is swearing under penalty of perjury, that everything they put in their affidavit is true and correct, is important, do you not, sir?
And you know that it is a declaration or affidavit by you, under penalty of perjury, that carries with it the same force and effect as your testimony here in this courtroom, correct?
And you knew when you produced the declaration for the search warrant, that Mr. Simpson, had gone on an expected flight to Chicago on the early morning hours of June 13, 1994, did you not?
So it's your testimony in this courtroom that, although you interviewed Kato Kaelin in the bar area of Mr. Simpson's house on June 13, 1994, he never told you about any expected flight of Mr. Simpson; is that your testimony, sir?
And I take it, as a detective of 23 years, that you would certainly, after you had known of Mr. Simpson's being a probable suspect, have interrogated Mr. Kaelin relative to the whereabouts of Mr. Simpson, correct?
I had him interrogated. I had him transferred -- transported to West LA and interviewed, yes.
Well, you're sitting there with him in the bar area of Mr. Simpson's family room, as you've testified in this courtroom, Mr. Fuhrman told you to question Kato Kaelin, right?
Partially of the previous evening. He was telling me about what he had heard, and about the telephone conversation he was having, and that the limo driver had picked up Mr. Simpson.
(BY MR. BAKER) You said in your declaration to obtain a search warrant for Mr. Simpson's property at 7:30 in the morning, it was determined that -- it was determined by interviews with Simpson's daughter and a friend, Brian Kaelin, that Simpson had left on an unexpected flight to Chicago during the early-morning hours of June 13, 1994, and was last seen at the residence at approximately 2300 hours June 12, 1994.
That's what you said, right?
And you even included in your own handwriting, based on interviews of Simpson's daughter and a friend, Brian Kaelin.
That's your handwriting, isn't it?
And you knew, as a matter of fact, that, if there's a limo coming to pick him up, it sure as heck was an expected flight; isn't that true?
Well, let me ask you this:
Detective, do you think it was important to ask if the flight was expected or unexpected?
I asked where his whereabouts was, and -- and from Kaelin, who deferred to his daughter. And his daughter gave me the impression, or indicated that he -- she thought he should be home.
Well, Phil, pull up Detective Vannatter's testimony on March 21, 1995, 19,616.
By the way, the word --
The word that's gone.
(BY MR. BAKER) The words that "he left on unexpected flight," those are your choice of words, correct?
I didn't ask you if it was your understanding.
I said, the choice of the words, unexpected flight to Chicago, those were your words, correct?
And you, of course, would have never put in any affidavit, under penalty of perjury, an unexpected flight, unless you truthfully believed it, correct?
And so you had learned from Kato Kaelin and/or Arnelle Simpson, that Mr. Simpson had taken a flight to Chicago. And one or both of them told you it was unexpected, true?
What you're asking me is, Arnelle Simpson told me that she, or indicated that she thought her father was at the residence, when I asked her where he was at.
Did you -- were you told then by Kato Kaelin, that the flight to Chicago was unexpected? Yes or no?
In fact, you were told by Kato that he had gone to Chicago because he was doing a trip for Hertz; isn't that true?
Judge, I'd object to this. It's not inconsistent at all with his testimony just now.
(Reading:)
"Q. At that time, were you
aware of where O.J. Simpson was? Yes or
no. "A. I may have been. I'm not
sure. "Q. Did you ask Kato, where's
O.J.? "A. Yes, I did. "Q. And did he tell you he
had gone on a trip to Chicago for Hertz? "A. Yes, he did."
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, that's what you knew when you wrote it was an unexpected flight, correct?
So it was your choice to put the word "unexpected," when neither Kato Kaelin, or Arnelle, or anybody else told you it was unexpected; is that true?
That was -- that was a choice of words I made from the understanding I had, that he had left and not notified anybody that he was leaving.
I see.
So it was your view that it was unexpected because, in your -- You, first, had never heard Kato ask if O.J.'s flight had gone down, true?
And you had never asked him, Kato Kaelin, in your interview with him, whether or not the flight was expected or unexpected, because he was going on a trip for Hertz?
And of course, if he's going on a trip and he's doing it at the request of somebody, it would be your view that that's probably unplanned and unexpected, right?
I don't know what the trip consisted of.
It was my understanding he left and didn't tell anyone where he was going, because of the responses I got from his daughter, who thought he was at the residence.
You wanted to put "unexpected flight" in your search warrant so you'd be sure and get a search warrant issued; isn't that true?
Excuse me. The Court is only allowing this testimony because counsel wanted to examine with regards to whether he made an untruthful statement.
With regards to the intent or purpose of the search warrant, I've already ruled on that. That's not before the jury.
(BY MR. BAKER) In -- In terms, sir, of the declaration that you prepared at about 7:30, after you'd been at the Rockingham home, did you include in there that O.J. Simpson had been communicated with in Chicago, and voluntarily agreed to return?
Objection the document, if it were at issue, it would speak for itself. It's not at issue and is irrelevant.
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, before you ever went to the West Los Angeles Police Department to prepare the search warrant, you had Mr. Simpson's daughter call Kathy Randa, didn't you?
Arnelle Simpson had called Mr. Simpson's personal assistant to find the exact hotel Mr. Simpson was staying at; and you were aware of that, correct?
You were all -- those three detectives -- you were all in the house within 10, 15 feet of each other when Mr. Simpson was reached on the telephone at the particular hotel he was staying in in Chicago, were you not, sir?
Is it your testimony, sir, as lead detective, that you have no idea, and didn't have any idea when you left the Simpson residence at 7:30 on June 13, 1994, that there had been a communication to Mr. Simpson's assistant?
They had determined where he was in Chicago on a preplanned trip, and gotten the exact hotel and room he was in? You have -- you no knowledge of any of that?
I was informed by Detective Lange that he had been located, and that he had talked to him. And that was what I was told.
Cause you would put that in there; you wouldn't lie to any magistrate, trying to get any search warrant, would you?
And when you put in your search warrant that the blood on the door -- strike that.
The mark on the door of the Bronco appeared to be human blood, later confirmed by the Scientific Investigation Division that it was human blood, that was just an error, correct?
That was -- that was an error. But it was based on my experience and the location of the blood. And I believed it to be human blood.
Well, let's examine this statement that you -- that you put in your search warrant, sir.
"Detectives observed what appeared to be human blood." You can put a period.
But you put later confirmed by Scientific Investigation personnel to be human blood on the driver's door handle of the vehicle.
And that was a lie; isn't that true, sir?
That was not a lie; it was a misstatement
I was told that it had been tested, and tested positive for blood. And I just -- that was a mistake on my part.
By 7:30 in the morning, the SID people had been there for a total of 20 minutes, and you, a detective of 23 years, knew that they could not do a positive identification for human blood in 20 minutes at the scene. True?
Can you answer my question, Detective Vannatter?
You knew at 7:30, when you left the scene to go help prepare the search warrant, that SID had been there, and in the form of Mr. Fung and Ms. Mazzola, for a total of about 20 minutes; and that they could not do any examination at the scene to determine that it was, in fact, human blood, correct?
The same answer. I made a mistake. I wish I was a perfect human being. I'm not. I made a mistake.
Yeah.
Now, let's go -- it is, in fact, is it not, sir, true that, in virtually every homicide, LAPD issues a press release?
(BY MR. BAKER) Did you give information to anyone at the police department concerning the investigation of the double homicide of Nicole Brown Simpson and an unidentified victim, at any time on June 13, 1994?
And the reason, of course, that you went to Rockingham, had nothing to do with a follow-up investigation of the murder scene at 875 South Bundy, right?
It had to do with notification, taking care of the kids, and that sort of thing, true?
Your Honor I'm going to object to what they proposed putting on the Elmo right now. There's certainly no foundation and there's no reason to put it up there, based on his testimony.
Judge, it's apparently some sort of press release from the LAPD.
First of all, Detective Vannatter has indicated he hasn't spoken to anybody or, as far as he knows, released any information regarding the events of June 13 that were used for any sort of press release.
He's never been shown this before. It's obviously not attributed to him. There is no basis to indicate that it was attributed to him.
Furthermore, it's not inconsistent with any of his testimony. He said he learned that Simpson had flown to Chicago, but it's also hearsay, too. Had flown to Chicago.
Your Honor, this is a document that was created by the police department, the Los Angeles Police Department. I will represent to the Court that we will have a witness who will testify that the LAPD squelched this particular press release; that this information came from him -- that is, from Vannatter, that the big issue was why no press release. There was another press release that was issued. The reason this press release wasn't issued is because they had a follow-up investigation of detectives that went to Mr. Simpson's residence.
He has testified it wasn't a follow-up investigation. And I think it's very relevant to his testimony, and that it can always be stricken later.
I'll sustain the objection.
You can impeach him by your other witness. If the witness is going to come forward and testify as to what you said, that's admissible. But this isn't admissible. (Indicating to document.)
(BY MR. BAKER) Well, sometime, Detective Vannatter, you went back to Rockingham, did you not?
And you had been at -- after you -- well, strike that.
Let's just go through it.
You were at Bundy from 4:00 -- a little after 4, around 5 o'clock, correct?
So you didn't direct what they picked up, what they didn't pick up, what was evidence, what was not evidence, correct?
Well, had you been upstairs by 7:30 and viewed any portion of the upstairs of Mr. Simpson's property by 7:30 in the morning?
It's your testimony that, although you'd been there for approximately two and a half hours, and you'd been inside the residence for at least an hour and 45 minutes, you never looked upstairs at all, correct?
And it's your testimony that no other police officer ever went upstairs, correct, that you know of?
Okay.
And this is in the face of what could have been an extreme emergency situation. It's your testimony, you have no knowledge of any police officer going to the second level of Mr. Simpson's home, true?
Once it was determined everything appeared to be okay, there was no reason for anybody to go up there.
And you determined -- well, strike that.
So after you left at 7:30, you went back to Bundy to tell your partner that you were going to get a search warrant, correct?
No, I didn't. The only radios we had were in vehicles, and that would have been the only way we could talk, is if we were both in our vehicle.
Those telephones had been repeatedly used by the LAPD that is, the telephones inside Bundy, before the Bundy scene was ever released as a crime scene; you'd agree with that?
Well, you walked right up the sidewalk, and walked right in the area where the bodies had been removed before the crime scene had -- had been released, didn't you?
There was no other way to get there. I couldn't levitate over the crime scene. I needed to speak to my partner.
Let's talk about whether you could levitate, Detective Phillips (sic).
Do you think you had to walk on the tile?
(BY MR. BAKER) Did you think you had to walk on the tiles to get to where your partner was?
You walked on the tiles and walked right in the area where the bodies and the blood was, did you not, sir?
And you walked right on the blanket that had been placed on one of the victims that could have evidence on it, did you not?
Sure, I did. He became a suspect at that point.
I didn't write any, but I caused a lot to be written.
I don't believe anybody came over the fence. I didn't see any evidence of anybody coming over the fence.
Did one glove Bundy, one glove Rockingham, wow, anything like that?
There's immense pressure on every case to come to a successful conclusion.