(BY MR. BAKER) By the time you took this interview, you knew that Mr. Simpson had taken a redeye on Sunday night back to Chicago, correct?

Yes.

And you knew that Mr. Simpson then had been awoken after a couple hours sleep and had caught another flight directly back to Los Angeles, correct?

Yes.

And you knew he was tired when you took that interview, did you not?

Yeah.

I knew I was, too.

So you were both tired, right?

Yes.

Okay.

MR. P. BAKER: Exhibit 782.

We don't need this reported because there's a transcript of it.

Thank you.

With plaintiffs' permission.

Yes.

(BY MR. BAKER) Mr. Vannatter, you were the person that questioned Mr. Simpson when he indicated, you guys haven't told me anything, every time I ask you guys, you're going to tell me in a bit, that was you doing the questioning, correct?

It was me that answered it, yes.

It was you that not only answered it, it was you doing the questioning, was it not?

Yeah, I asked him what he thought had happened.

And then you say, we don't know a lot of answers to those questions ourselves yet, O.J., correct?

That's right.

And when you said you've never asked us one thing about what happened in those murders, you've never said anything to that effect?

Objection, argumentative.

Argumentative. We heard the tape. I think I'll sustain the objection.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, Mr. Simpson, during the interview, indicated to you that you -- that he had some guns and that you could go take all of them, did he not?

Yes.

He volunteered to take a blood test when you said there was blood all over the place, did he not?

Yes.

And he didn't ask to see an attorney or anything, did he?

Objection. At what time? He got --

(BY MR. BAKER) When you're talking about blood all over the place, he said, I'll take a blood test, take my blood, words to that effect?

Objection.

We were talking about blood only at the Rockingham location. We never told him about blood at the Bundy location.

(BY MR. BAKER) All he indicated to you when you were talking about blood, was take my blood test, correct?

Yes. In fact, he said the blood at his location -- at the Rockingham location was probably his.

Now, you had apparently brought up a polygraph test to Mr. Simpson previous, did you not, that is, previous to starting the tape recorder at 13:35 on the afternoon of June 13, 1994, true?

Me?

Yes.

No.

When you said, quote, "Did Mr. Weitzman, your lawyer, your attorney, talk to you, anything about this polygraph we brought up before," were you talking about you brought up a polygraph to Mr. Weitzman, not Mr. Simpson?

I didn't say that. That was Detective Lange's words.

You were still there; you hadn't left the room yet?

I was still there, yes.

And Detective Lange was not at Rockingham, was he?

No.

Detective Lange was not in the vehicle when you came from Rockingham to Parker Center, was he?

No.

And my question, then, again to you is, did in fact you bring up a polygraph to Mr. Weitzman in front of Mr. Simpson?

No.

And did you want Mr. Simpson to take a polygraph test?

I would have liked for him to, sure.

In fact, Mr. Simpson made an offer in writing to you to take a polygraph test, did he not?

Your Honor, I'm going to at this point lodge an objection for the record in view of his prior position, and your instruction, and serve notice that I intend to follow up on this if this question is answered.

Well, I'll serve notice on you that you may follow up within the parameters of my ruling, and the limitations of the rules of evidence will apply.

Can I see what that is before you throw it up there?

Sure.

Okay. I'd object to this going up there, Mr. Baker.

You want to give us a ground?

It's hearsay, it's self-serving, not relevant, no foundation.

Self-serving. Sustained.

You haven't even seen the document, Your Honor.

Would you like --

You told me what it was.

I would object to it.

Approach the bench.

It's been overruled before, you've seen it.

You indicated it's a written request for polygraph. It's self-serving. That was the objection and it's sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Did you receive a written offer to have Michael Baden and Henry Lee assist you in the investigation, Detective Vannatter?

Yes.

Same objection, self-serving document.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, you -- after you took the statement from Mr. Simpson, he didn't restrict in any way, shape or form the numbers of questions you could ask, correct?

No.

And you asked all the questions you and your partner thought were necessary, true?

No. I don't think that's true.

You had no parameters put on you in terms -- by the attorneys representing Mr. Simpson, did you?

No, no, but I realized that if I --

I move to strike everything after "No," Your Honor, as nonresponsive.

Stricken.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, so -- and there was nothing that was forbidden to you during that interview or Detective Lange to investigate Mr. Simpson?

Objection, asked and answered several times, Your Honor.

Overruled.

No.

And you were in a room in Parker Center, at the LA Police Department, downtown Los Angeles, correct?

Yes.

And it was a room where no one else is present, true?

Yes.

Just you, Lange and O.J. Simpson, correct?

Yes.

Now, after that, you took Mr. Simpson and you had a police nurse, Thano Peratis, take blood, did you not?

After the interview?

Yes.

No, after the interview we took him to the photography lab and had his hand photographed.

Okay.

Now, this was your prime suspect in this high-publicity case, that is, O.J. Simpson, and you had him in Parker Center, and you had him without any attorneys or anyone else around, and you took him to get his hand photographed, right?

Yes.

And I take it, sir, that between you and Detective Lange, there was close to 50 years detective -- certainly at least 40 years of detective service at LAPD on that day, true?

Yes.

And you were looking for anything that you felt would tie Mr. Simpson to the murders, correct?

We were looking for evidence, yes.

'Cause he was the primary and only suspect you had, right?

At that point, there could have been other suspects. I didn't know exactly what had happened at that point.

Well, you didn't look for -- for any suspects, did you?

There was an extensive investigation done.

So you had Mr. Simpson, this primary suspect, and you had him in Parker Center and you took him to get photographed, did you not?

Yes, his hand.

And you looked at both his left hand and his right hand, did you not?

I did not personally examine him. I saw him from a distance.

Are you telling these ladies and gentlemen of this jury that you, as a detective of 23 years, thinking you had a prime suspect that had a cut on his hand, didn't pick up his hand, turn it over and look for every cut on his hand? You didn't do that?

I didn't do that. I saw the cuts on his knuckle and I had him photographed.

And are you telling these ladies and gentlemen of the jury that you never looked at his right hand to see if there were any cuts on his right hand?

I didn't see any cuts on his right hand.

It's true -- you picked up his hands, you inspected the up -- the palmar surface, the dorsal surface on both hands to see if there were any cuts other than the cut over his knuckle on his left middle finger, true?

No, not true.

How close did you get to Mr. Simpson's hand to observe the cut or to inspect it to see if there was more than a cut?

Assumes facts not in evidence, Your Honor. He didn't say anything about inspecting.

I'll be happy to try and lay a foundation.

(BY MR. BAKER) In terms of Mr. Simpson being the prime suspect and having a cut on his hand, and you knowing that the murders had taken place with a knife, the cut's pretty important, isn't it, sir?

It appeared to be a piece of evidence, yes.

Well, I mean if this was a shooting, that piece of evidence would have different significance than a killing of two individuals with a knife or knives, true?

According to the circumstances of the murder. I don't know. It would be according to what happened with the murder.

Well, let's talk about what happened, that you knew, at 2:30 on the afternoon of June 13, 1994.

You knew two people were deceased, correct?

Yes.

And you knew that they were murdered with knives or sharp objects, correct?

Sharp instruments, yes.

And you knew that there was a cut on Mr. Simpson's hand, correct?

That's why I photographed it, yes.

And you knew that he was your suspect, the primary suspect and the only suspect you had, true?

You keep -- no, I didn't know he was the only suspect. I knew he was a suspect in that case, but there could have been more people involved.

You knew at the time that you -- after you took him in and photographed the hand, that he was the only suspect that you, as lead detective for this double homicide, was aware of, correct?

Aware of at that point, yes.

And you also knew that there was going to be some pressure brought to bear on the LAPD by the media, to get a suspect, and to get someone arrested for this heinous crime of June 12, 1994, true?

That wouldn't have bothered me.

Didn't care whether you say it bothered you or not, you knew it, didn't you?

No, I didn't know that.

Oh.

Pressure from the media really had nothing to do with investigating a case. I mean that has nothing to do with a murder case.

Absolutely nothing to do with anything that you did, right?

No.

Oh.

It's -- that has nothing to do with the circumstances of the murder.

You certainly wouldn't rush to judgments in a high publicity case?

I wouldn't rush to judgment in any case.

You'd want to do a thorough and complete investigation, right?

As best I could.

Part of that thorough and complete investigation is when you have the prime suspect, to inspect that prime suspect's hands once you see that there is a cut on his hand and the murder has occurred as a result of a sharp object penetrating two human beings, true?

I photographed the cuts I saw on his hands.

Now, you saw when you say cuts, you saw exactly one cut, isn't that true?

No, I saw two.

You saw two cuts.

Did you make any notes of the two cuts, Detective Vannatter?

No. I had them photographed and then I had them examined by the registered nurse in the jail dispensary.

And you saw absolutely not a single cut on Mr. Simpson's fourth finger of his left hand, did you?

No foundation that he looked, Your Honor.

Overruled.

I don't recall seeing it, no.

(BY MR. BAKER) Well, it's certainly something you look for with any cut that you could find on Mr. Simpson's hands, isn't that true?

I didn't -- I don't recall seeing a cut on his fourth finger.

I understand that, sir.

In terms of the murder of two human beings with a sharp object, and you have a cut and the prime subject, you certainly looked on every finger, every digit of both hands to determine whether or not there were any other cuts, because you wanted to be a good, thorough police detective having 23 years experience and examined over a hundred homicides, right?

Objection, asked and answered, compound, argumentative.

Overruled.

(BY MR. BAKER) You can answer my question, Detective Vannatter.

And that is, you certainly would look at every digit on both the right and left hand, on the palmar aspect, the dorsal aspect, and make sure that there was not any other cuts because that could be crucial evidence, true?

I didn't do that. I photographed the cuts I saw on his hand.

Are you telling the jury you never looked to see if there was anymore cuts than the obvious cut on the left knuckle of Mr. Simpson's hand; is that what your telling us?

I'm telling you that I photographed the cuts that I observed on his hand.

I understand that, sir.

Maybe my questions are unclear.

Are you telling us you never looked except for the obvious?

I guess if you want to put it that way, yes.

So you didn't want to do a thorough investigation, true?

Objection, argumentative, Your Honor.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, you then took O.J. Simpson and had blood removed from O.J. Simpson, correct?

Yes.

And for the first time in your entire career as a detective, you took reference blood from Parker Center, to the crime scene that is some 15 miles away, correct?

Objection. This area was covered once before on the direct case.

No, it wasn't.

Yes, it was.

I think it was covered on cross-examination.

It was indeed.

That was gone into only minutely due to the Court's rulings. I request the Court's indulgence. And it will be very brief.

Misstates what happened.

It was covered very clearly, this particular area.

I'll allow you to examine on the issue provided you stay within your promise of being very brief.

(BY MR. BAKER) It was the first time you've taken blood from Parker Center out to a crime scene, true.

Objection to the relevance of that particular question.

Overruled.

This was a unique situation.

I believe this is the first time in my career I ever got a voluntary sample from a person that wasn't in custody.

(BY MR. BAKER) Did you rehearse that answer with Mr. Kelly?

Absolutely not.

Is the -- Now, can you answer my question.

That's the first time you ever took a reference sample of blood to a crime scene, true?

That could be, yes.

And you could have got a DR number and booked the evidence in Parker Center, true?

Objection. This was covered thoroughly the first time, about the DR number.

Overruled.

Yes, I could have done that.

In fact, you told this jury the last time you were here you couldn't have booked the evidence at Parker Center; isn't that true, sir?

I couldn't have booked the evidence without obtain a DR number, without knowing the item number, but it could have been done. It could have taken me a long time.

I couldn't have left it without booking it. And I realized that Mr. Fung was itemizing items of evidence, and to ensure the chain of custody and control, I took it to him.

Ensure the chain of custody and control.

Put up the map.

MR. P. BAKER: This is 891.

Can you focus that.

(BY MR. BAKER) Parker Center, 150 North Los Angeles Street?

Yes.

You can get a DR number at Parker Center, correct?

I would have had to obtain one in West Los Angeles.

Just answer the question, Mr. Vannatter.

You can get a DR number at Parker Center, can you not?

May I properly answer the question?

Why don't you answer mine?

I would have had to obtain a DR number from West Los Angeles Division.

And you could have gotten a DR number and they had facilities at Parker Center to book that evidence, true?

Yes, that's true.

And they had -- They had facilities to book that evidence approximately a mile away at Piper Tech, right?

That's correct.

And you didn't know when you retained the reference sample of Mr. Simpson, whether or not Fung was at Rockingham, or Bundy, or someplace else, true?

I knew that the search warrant hadn't been shut down at Rockingham, and I made the assumption that he was there because they were still doing the search.

The answer to my question is true? You didn't know whether he was at Rockingham, at Bundy, or if he had left both of the scenes, true?

I didn't know for sure, that's true.

All right.

And back it off.

And you got back in your car and went 18.7 miles to Rockingham, correct?

That's correct.

You, sir, told us the last time, that you believe you got a manila envelope out of your desk and put the vial in the manila envelope, right?

Well, you corrected me last time and refreshed my memory. Apparently, I had taken an envelope down to Mr. Peratis because he signed it and the affidavit portion of it.

You never took an envelope down to Mr. Peratis.

He gave you a signed evidence envelope at the time when the blood was taken, true or untrue?

That's a possibility. I -- I know that I had a signed envelope from him.

Did you have one note about the chain of custody of this reference vial from the time you took it at 3:30 until you were at Rockingham at 5:26?

No.

So there is no document that records this all important chain of custody from the time you took custody of the blood vial until the time you arrived at Rockingham, and the only reason we know at 5:26 is because the media taped it; isn't that true?

Objection, argumentative, compound.

It's compound. Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Let me put it this way then, sir, you certainly never made a note of when you arrived at Rockingham, did you?

No.

Objection, asked and answered.

(BY MR. BAKER) You never even got one slip of paper, a receipt or anything else from Dennis Fung for this all important 8 cc's of O.J. Simpson's reference blood, true?

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence with regard to the 8 cc's.

8 cc's. Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Didn't have him sign a piece of paper, nothing, right?

No.

And that's your idea of preserving the chain of custody, Mr. Vannatter?

And did you watch this all important piece of evidence taken to the crime scene being placed in a trash bag?

No, sir, I didn't.

Did you -- Was Ms. Mazzola watching this transfer of this blood vial that contained Mr. Simpson's reference blood when you --

Objection.

-- when you handed it to Mr. Fung?

Objection, calls for speculation as to what Ms. Mazzola was doing, Your Honor.

As to whether she was watching, as phrased I'll sustain it.

You can rephrase it.

Thank you.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, where were you physically when the transfer of this blood vial was made to you to -- from you to whoever it was made to?

In the foyer of the house, right inside the front door area of the residence.

Who was present when this transfer was made?

I don't know. Other than Fung and myself, I don't know.

Oh, was Ms. Mazzola present when you were handing this --

I just answered that I don't know.

Well, you sat through a lot of the criminal trial and sat right in the spectator section and watched it, didn't you?

Objection, argumentative and obviously asking for hearsay.

Sustained.

This witness's answer --

(BY MR. BAKER) So you can't assist us at all, whether anybody else was present at the time that you say you transferred this vial to Mr. Fung, right?

Objection, asked and answered, Your Honor.

You may answer.

I don't know.

(BY MR. BAKER) So you took this gray envelope containing Mr. Simpson's vial, and you handed it to Mr. Fung, right?

Yes.

And did you tell him this is O.J. Simpson's reference vial, we just took this blood at Parker Center, or words to that effect?

I told him it was a sample of blood from Mr. Simpson, yes.

And what did you observe him do with it?

I don't -- I don't know what he did with it. The criminalist controls the evidence. Once it goes to him I -- I have absolutely no control of it anymore.

Well, maybe I misunderstood. I thought when we started the examination of you this morning, you agreed, as you previously testified, that you were co-lead detective, you were in charge of the fingerprint people, you were in charge of the criminalists, and you were in charge of the coroner, did you not?

Once a piece of evidence is collected, it then becomes the property of the Property Division or Scientific Investigation Division. We do not have any more control over it.

Didn't understand my question, sir?

I understand it very well.

Then answer it.

That's the best answer I can give you.

You were in charge of the criminalist when you handed the vial -- the envelope that you say contained the vial, to Mr. Fung, right?

Objection, argumentative and vague in terms of in charge of.

Overruled.

We're in charge of instructing them what portions of evidence we want collected. Once that evidence is collected, we no longer have control over those pieces of evidence.

(BY MR. BAKER) All right.

Now -- well, you weren't -- what time did Mr. Fung arrive at Rockingham, since you were in charge of telling what evidence to collect on June 13, 1994?

Shortly after 7 o'clock.

What time did he leave?

I don't know. I wasn't there.

Well, what time did he come back to Rockingham, do you know that?

I don't know that. I wasn't there.

So the only thing -- when you left Rockingham to go to Parker Center with O.J. Simpson, Fung wasn't there?

I don't -- I don't recall seeing him there. I don't know where he was at that point.

The only thing that you recall was he was there early in the morning, at a little after 7, and wasn't there when you returned around noon, correct?

I -- before I left there, I walked him through the evidence that had been found, and instructed him to collect that.

I didn't ask you when you walked him. I gave you certain time parameters.

How else can I answer the question?

He was there when I left. I don't believe he was there -- I didn't see him when I came back at 12 o'clock. I was there for approximately 5 minutes, and I left again, and I didn't get back there until after 5 o'clock that evening.

So when you left Parker Center with this all important piece of evidence that you were so concerned about the chain of custody, you didn't know whether the crime scene had even been released at Bundy; isn't that true?

Yes, I knew it had been released.

Oh, I see.

How did you know that?

Because Mr. Lange had been notified of that by someone.

What exhibit is this?

MR. P. BAKER: This is next in order.

2250.

What is it?

What is it?

(BY MR. BAKER) Well, how long after you arrived was this transfer made of this blood vial?

It was made immediately. When I walked inside to see Mr. Fung, I gave it to him.

So you immediately walked into the premises, found Mr. Fung in the foyer, handed him the envelope, correct?

I believe he was in the kitchen area when I first walked in. And I -- and I asked him to come over, or someone asked him to come over, and I immediately gave him the envelope.

And what did you see him do with the envelope?

I don't know what he did with the envelope.

I didn't ask you if you knew.

I said, did you visualize him do anything with the it.

Did he turn around and walk away?

Did he walk down the foyer, past the dining room, or into the living room?

Sir, I don't know what he did with the envelope.

You don't have any recollection of what occurred, correct?

I don't know.

Objection. Asked and answered previously.

Sustained.

I'd like to play the videotape of you arriving at Rockingham, and the time that Mr. Fung leaves Rockingham.

I assume this is not edited in any way, Mr. Baker; is that right? This tape isn't edited? You'll show the complete footage?

Is that an objection?

Yes.

Thank you.

It's just like the depositions of various people, that has -- starts, it has a time on it, and it stops and it has a time on it. And it starts and it has the time on it when Mr. Fung leaves Rockingham with the trash bag.

I would object if it's not a continuous depiction of him.

Overruled. If it's a segment and it's got time, that's fine.

(BY MR. BAKER) That's you at 5:16 and 53 seconds arriving at Rockingham, correct, sir?

Yes.

Go ahead, Phil.

That's another problem, Your Honor.

This is --

Your Honor, we just went back 11 minutes.

Went back 11 minutes?

Forward.

That was the problem I was afraid of.

Back it up.

MR. P. BAKER: Back it up?

Yeah.

It's before and after, but not the during.

Maybe you can get a videotape from the street into the foyer. No one else can.

Then don't show it.

What's the objection?

It's edited. It skips 26, 36, 26 minutes or something like that.

It's irrelevant.

It's irrelevant, is the objection. No foundation and --

As I understand, the defense is offering this to show when this witness arrived at the scene, at that time and when Mr. Fung left.

Is that all you're offering it for?

That's all we're offering it for.

Okay.

In that case, no objection to those.

Now, cut it, Phil.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, in the 24 minutes between the time you arrived and the time that the trash bag is carried out, did you have any conversations with Mr. Fung or Andrea Mazzola about the blood vial?

Calls for hearsay, Your Honor.

Answer yes or no.

No.

(BY MR. BAKER) You never saw Mr. Fung or Mr. Mazzola -- or Ms. Mazzola leave Rockingham after you arrived at 5:16, until they left at 5:42, correct?

What was the question again? I never saw them leave before --

You never saw them leave the premises and go outside the gate and put any evidence into the van between 5:16 and 5:42, correct?

Not to my knowledge.

You don't think, you know, if that blood went directly into the trash bag or anywhere else you've never seen him and had not one conversation with him after you handed it to him?

That's correct.

Now, let's talk a little bit, then -- strike that.

After that, you attended, the following day, the autopsy of the two victims, right?

Yes.

And after that, you went and picked up the blood of the two victims at the coroner's, did you not?

Objection. Same objection as the prior sequence, Your Honor. This was all thoroughly covered on cross the last time Mr. Vannatter testified.

No, it wasn't.

I'm trying to get done.

You said an hour. You're already 15 minutes after your hour. I'm just wondering whether I'm going to do a rerun -- allow to you do a rerun, consume a little more time.

How much longer is this going to be?

My examination of him?

Yeah.

We'll finish it by 4:30.

Okay.

(BY MR. BAKER) You picked up the blood at the coroner's office. You hadn't done that before, either, had you?

No, I've picked up blood from the coroner's office before.

If the coroner said he'd never given it to a detective in his entire life, you wouldn't have any way of disagreeing with that, correct?

Objection. Calls for hearsay.

Stricken.

(BY MR. BAKER) To your knowledge, was anyone other than yourself -- Detective Vannatter had custody of all of the victims' -- and the suspect, at any time from June 13, 1994 to June 17, 1994, other than yourself?

Objection.

That question --

Vague.

Pardon?

Objection.

I think you left out some important items in that question.

I apologize.

If he adds them, it's compound, Your Honor.

(BY MR. BAKER) The only -- they were persons that you're aware of that had custody of both victims' and Mr. Simpson's blood, with nobody else being around them, being with them, is you. True?

I don't know whether that's true or not. I don't know how it was handled after I turned it over.

You do know, sir, that when you take evidence, and you maintain evidence, that you are required to book it immediately, correct?

Objection. Not relevant to this particular situation, Your Honor.

Overruled.

You book it as soon as practical, yes.

(BY MR. BAKER) The manual says the word "immediately." It didn't say that Phil Vannatter gets to use his judgment as to when "as soon as practical" is; isn't that correct, sir?

Sometimes it's impossible to do it immediately; you do it as soon as practical.

And the booking of evidence on June 13, 1994, of the blood, could have been done within ten minutes at the Parker Center, true?

Objection. Asked and answered.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) In any event, sir, I want to go into one other area.

When you took Mr. Simpson from Rockingham to Parker Center, you took his grip, or duffel bag, or travel bag, whatever it was, with you, did you not?

I placed it into the vehicle with us, yes.

You had it in the front seat of your vehicle, did you not?

Front passenger's floorboard.

And you testified in the criminal trial, that you got Mr. Simpson's permission to look into that grip, didn't you?

Objection as to the form of the question as to what he testified to at criminal trial, Your Honor.

Overruled.

Ask your question.

(BY MR. BAKER) Well, you looked into his grip and you inspected the contents thereof, did you not?

Yes, I did.

And in the grip, when you inspected it --

and by the way, you have testified both that you had permission from Mr. Simpson, and that you haven't had Mr. Simpson's permission to get into that grip; isn't that true?

Objection. Argumentative.

Overruled.

Well, I don't think I ever personally asked him, but I think there was implied permission when he cooperated with us.

So you think that if he says, I'll give you a statement, and I'll give you blood, that that gives you permission to do anything in any of his property without asking, right?

That's you your view of what the --

I did it, sir.

-- of what the Fourth Amendment --

I looked in the bag.

Objection.

Sustain as to Fourth Amendment, counsel.

(BY MR. BAKER) Anyway, you looked in there, right?

Yes, sir.

And you went through the contents of that grip, did you not?

I looked at the contents to see if there was any visible blood in it, yes.

And you saw a passport in there, didn't you?

I don't recall seeing a passport.

You saw a disguise in there, didn't you?

No.

You saw items in that duffel bag or grip that Mr. Simpson kept -- there was cash in there, wasn't there?

I don't recall seeing any cash.

Well, do you have a recollection of seeing anything in there?

There was clothing in it.

What clothing?

I don't know. I wasn't looking to identify each item. I was looking to see if there was any evidence of what appeared to be blood on anything.

It's your testimony --

Well, Your Honor I'd object and ask that the witness complete the answer to the last question before --

Sounds like he completed it.

Ask another question.

(BY MR. BAKER) So you don't remember the items of clothing. That's all that was in there was clothing, right?

No, there were some other items.

What else was there.

I can't tell you exactly, sir.

Do you have a recollection of a phone being in there, a cell phone?

Could have been, yeah.

No, I didn't ask you if there could have been. There could have been an elephant in there.

The question was, was there a cell phone in there, to your recollection?

No recollection, right?

I don't recall seeing one.

Do you recall that there was a cell phone kit, battery and charger, so that if you're away on a trip, that you've got the apparatus to recharge your cell phone?

Do you recall that being in there?

I don't recall seeing that.

Only things that you can recall are clothes, and you have no recollection what they are, right?

That's absolutely correct.

Now, let me ask you this: You had custody of that overnight, right?

No.

Well, you certainly didn't -- didn't give it back to Mr. Simpson when he left the LAPD, did you?

I returned it to Rockingham when I went to Rockingham.

Maybe you didn't understand my question

You certainly didn't return it to Mr. Simpson, while he was at LAPD and before he left; isn't that correct?

That's correct.

And -- and you had full -- you could go in there once you decided that you had implied permission -- I take it you thought you had implied permission to do anything you wanted with that grip, do -- that is, test any item, do anything you want, correct?

I could have booked it as evidence, yes.

Well, no. You'd have had to have taken it to Rockingham to do that.

Objection. Argumentative.

Overruled.

(BY MR. BAKER) You want to answer that or not?

What I would have had to do is taken to Rockingham.

You could have?

I took it to Rockingham, and returned it to him, Mr. Baker.

You took it to Rockingham and gave to Mr. Simpson?

I returned it to the location, yes.

And while you were there, on the afternoon of the 13th, I take it that -- at least at that point, you went in and inspected Mr. Simpson's closet, right?

Yes, I went into his closet.

And looked thoroughly for bloody items, did you not?

That had already been done during the service of the search warrant.

Well, didn't you tell a second magistrate on June 28, 1993, that the search was ineffective; that you hadn't done a thorough search of Mr. Simpson's house?

Let me see any can refresh your recollection with the search warrants, June 28.

Page, Bob?

I'm trying to get it. I'm trying to get it.

MR. P. BAKER: 1798.

1798.

(BY MR. BAKER) And there is the search warrant that you caused to be issued on June 28, 1994, correct?

Yes.

And you told the magistrate that -- by words or effect, that you people just hadn't picked up enough stuff at Mr. Simpson's house pursuant to the search warrant of June 13, 1994, right?

I would categorize it as saying it was a search for additional evidence that had not been recovered to that point.

Well, look at the last page, and tell us if the words about the gloves inadvertently not being taken or something to that effect -- tell us if those are your words.

Yes.

Now, you didn't ask to search the golf bag or the Louis Vuitton bag on June 28, 1994, did you?

No.

You never asked for that, did you?

No.

Now, in terms of the search warrant of June of 19 -- June 28 of 1994, you asked to look for a knife, didn't you?

Yes.

Didn't find a knife, did you?

No.

Did you -- do you know -- did you go upstairs in Mr. Simpson's bedroom?

When?

Pursuant to the search warrant of 6-28. I'm sorry.

There were people assigned to search the bedroom, yes.

(BY MR. BAKER) And did you go to the area where there's, right outside of his bathroom, the dressing area?

There was a thorough search made of the location.

Anyone ever pull open the medicine cabinets to see a stiletto with a six-inch blade in there --

Objection.

-- on subsequent searches to June 28, 1994?

No foundation. Argumentative, irrelevant.

Overruled.

There was no knife there. There was a thorough search done of the location.

You sure of that?

I'm positive.

There wouldn't have been a knife there, and no judge (sic) ever went up there and got it after your thorough search had been accomplished?

Objection.

Lack of foundation.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, sir, relative to your participation in the case, you have been on how many television shows subsequent to the murder?

Seven or eight, probably.

Denouncing my client, right?

Denouncing your client?

Yes.

Move to strike as nonresponsive.

That's about as much denouncement as you can get.

It was responsive.

Overruled, I think.

(BY MR. BAKER) That's about as much denouncement as you can get?

The evidence indicates that to me, yes.

Move to strike. Nonresponsive.

Overruled.

You were just absolutely -- Strike that. How much money are you getting for writing your book?

How much money am --

Money, dollars.

So you, sir -- so you're cashing in on your belief, right?

Well, like a lot of people are, I'm attempting to better my lifestyle and make some money, certainly.

Yeah.

So you're attempting to better your lifestyle and make some money, and you want to cooperate with the plaintiffs in this case as much as you can; isn't that true, sir?

I'm attempting to tell you the truth, as best I can recall --

I see.

-- how things occurred.

Now, let's try it again. Same question, second time.

You are attempting to cooperate as much as you can, because you hope that your appearance on this witness stand, in this courtroom, gets you more money for your book deal; isn't that true?

Really?

Yeah.

You'll give it up?

I'm not happy to be here, believe me.

You're cooperating as much as you can with the plaintiffs; isn't that true, sir.

Objection as to the form, "as much as you can."

(BY MR. BAKER) You have -- you wouldn't shade your testimony in favor of the plaintiffs in this case, and against Mr. Simpson, regardless of your feelings; you call it right up to the middle; isn't that true?

Again, I've attempted to tell you --

And can you answer my question for a change, Detective Vannatter?

I would not shade my testimony. I've attempted to tell you the truth, as best as I can recall, how things occurred.

And what you wanted to do is, you want Mr. Simpson to be held responsible, so your book deal is better, and so that you're vindicated for your inactions in investigating O.J. Simpson subsequent to June 12, 1994; isn't that true?

Whatever happens here is out of my control. I'm here because I have been asked to be here, and I'm here because I promised the Judge that I would be here the last time I was here.

I have traveled from out of state to come here. I have left my wife by herself. And I would rather not be here; I would rather be home.

Detective Vannatter, let's just ask a couple more questions, and I'll conclude.

I hope so, because it's almost 430.

I understand.

(BY MR. BAKER) You were aware when you were in Indiana, before you appeared in this courtroom, before, that you couldn't have been subpoenaed from Indiana to this courtroom, correct?

Well, I could have been subpoenaed with an out-of-state service; sure, I could.

No. You were aware that you could not, any more than Detective Fuhrman could be; isn't that true?

Objection. Argumentative, irrelevant.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) And you voluntarily appeared to assist the plaintiffs and to lean your testimony as far as you could for the plaintiffs. True or untrue?

Untrue.

Nothing further of this witness.