Cross-examination of Tom Lange (part 1) (2 of 2)

📄 Cross-examination of Tom Lange (part 1) (2 of 2) — Friday, November 1, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\NOV\1\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-TOM-LANGE.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 7 of 57

◀ Witness oath and name verification Re-redirect examination of Tom Lange ▶

Witness: Det. Tom Lange
Examiner: Edward Medvene
Called by: Defense • Date: Friday, November 1, 1996 • Utterances: 110

Medvene rehabilitates Lange on several topics raised in cross-examination: the pendant kept in his desk drawer, the timeline for booking the Reebok shoes, the purpose of the Smokey the Bear key (to reconstruct a lock), and the investigation's awareness of Simpson's domestic violence history. The proceeding's most significant moment is Lange's detailed explanation of why he ordered a blanket to cover Nicole Brown's body — framing it as protecting investigative 'keys' from media cameras, not a cover-up.

# 1 THE CLERK:

Thank you. THOMAS LANGE the witness on the stand at the time of the luncheon recess, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MEDVENE:

# 2 Q:

You made reference to the pendant when you were questioned today and the fact that it was kept in your desk drawer for a period of time because you said it wasn't practical to book it. And you held it for a purpose.

What purpose did you hold it for?

# 3 A:

From time to time, there are items from a crime scene in a case that an investigator may want to hold onto for personal identification purposes. It's a lot more practical to do that than to book an item and not be able to have access to it when you want it.

So that's why I held onto that particular pendant.

# 4 Q:

Did you use it from time to time in the course of your investigation?

# 5 A:

Yes.

# 6 Q:

There was reference to the Reebok shoes. Approximately what time did you receive those shoes?

# 7 A:

I took them into custody sometime after 6:00 p.m., I believe, on the 13th.

# 8 Q:

Did you then have the conversation with Captain Gartland that you made reference to earlier?

# 9 A:

Yes.

# 10 MR. BAKER:

I'm going to object. That's leading and suggestive.

# 11 THE COURT:

Sustained.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) What did you do with the shoes?

Excuse me. When did you book the shoes?

# 12 A:

The following morning, at the lab, turned them over to Mr. Matheson for analyzing. That would have been the 14th of June.

# 13 Q:

Approximately what time?

# 14 A:

7:00 a.m.

# 15 Q:

Now, you made reference to a key being taken out of a duffel bag.

Who was present when that key was taken out of the duffel bag; that is, the Smokey the Bear key --

# 16 A:

There were other keys taken out. I believe I testified to two rings. It was myself and my partner, Detective Vannatter, Detective Dennis Payne. I believe Captain Gartland was present, District Attorney Marcia Clark, District Attorney Bill Hodgman, and I believe Detective Pietrantoni, P-I-E-T-A-R-N-T-O-N-I, I believe.

# 17 Q:

What did you do with the Smokey the Bear key?

# 18 A:

I gave them to Detective Payne.

# 19 Q:

What was the purpose of giving them to Detective Payne?

# 20 A:

To have --

# 21 MR. BAKER:

I object, Your Honor. It's irrelevant what the purpose was. It's outside the scope, as well.

# 22 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 23 DET. TOM LANGE:

To get a lock made that would fit.

# 24 MR. BAKER:

I move to strike, Your Honor, in view of the previous ruling of the Court.

# 25 THE COURT:

This portion may come in.

# 26 DET. TOM LANGE:

To get a lock constructed from those keys.

(BY MR. MEDVENE) I will -- I'm going to place on the TV monitor what's been marked Exhibit 2109.

# 27 (The instrument herein referred to as Copy of property report was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2109.)

# 28 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you tell me what -- could you first go to the broad shot.

Can you tell me what that is?

# 29 A:

That is a property report with this case DR number on it, and a number of items booked.

# 30 Q:

Can you then go to date and time property taken into police custody --

Can you zoom in on that, please.

# 31 A:

That's June 17, 1994 at 2030 hours, which is 8:30 p.m., at 360 North Rockingham.

# 32 Q:

Would you now zoom in, please, to the first paragraph.

Does that make any reference to the Smokey the Bear key ring?

# 33 A:

Yes.

# 34 Q:

And what does it say?

# 35 A:

Well, if you want it verbatim, you have to hold it still.

# 36 (Indicating to monitor.)

# 37 THE COURT:

Can you go back up to the narrative for a moment, please.

# 38 A:

Property recovered pursuant to a 187 investigation, which is murder. Item 286 recovered from the owner of the Mezzaluna, which is the top time card, states by who, by Detective Payne.

# 39 Q:

Could we get down to the key.

What number is the key item?

# 40 A:

The keys, I believe there's three items of keys: 289, 290, and 291.

# 41 Q:

Could we go up to the paragraph to see when they were recovered?

# 42 A:

Items 289, 290, and 291, which are the keys in question, retrieved at 360 North Rockingham, where the bag was picked up on --

# 43 MR. MEDVENE:

Move it over a little bit.

No, the other way.

# 44 A:

-- on June 17, 1994.

# 45 MR. MEDVENE:

That's fine.

# 46 DET. TOM LANGE:

That's it.

# 47 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Next area, some question about a menu. Would you put up -- and whether or not a menu was photographed at the crime scene.

# 48 MR. MEDVENE:

Would you put up, please, Exhibit 875.

Would you zoom in, if you could.

# 49 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) Could you tell us what that picture depicts?

# 50 A:

That's the right foot of victim Brown, and additionally, that's a fast-food Oriental menu below the angle area.

# 51 Q:

What date was that picture taken?

# 52 A:

That was taken on the morning of June 13.

# 53 MR. MEDVENE:

Would you put on the board, please, Exhibit 2110.

# 54 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) And I ask you what that is.

# 55 A:

It's a close-up shot of the same menu.

# 56 Q:

Thank you.

Did you do any investigation to make a determination whether that menu was generally distributed to the Bundy neighborhood?

# 57 A:

I did.

# 58 Q:

And what did you determine?

# 59 A:

That it was a common item deposited in all of the mailboxes in the neighborhood.

# 60 Q:

Now, with reference to July 3 and the walk-through you've told us about, in which there was some discussion of the rear gate, you used the word "additional" in your report.

What did you mean by the word "additional?"

# 61 A:

I meant additionally collected evidence, additionally collected blood drops.

# 62 Q:

Yesterday, you were asked some questions regarding shoe prints.

Did you see more than one pattern of bloody shoe prints on the Bundy walkway?

# 63 A:

No.

# 64 Q:

Did you see more than one pattern of bloody shoe prints between the two murder victims?

# 65 A:

No.

# 66 Q:

Yesterday, you made reference to a supplemental arrest report that you prepared. I believe it was marked 1061.

Can you tell us when that report was written?

# 67 A:

Supplemental report or a follow-up?

# 68 Q:

Follow-up investigation.

# 69 A:

Follow-up report. When it was written?

# 70 Q:

Yes, sir.

# 71 A:

It was written over a period of three or four days. The last paragraph was written on June 17. The bulk of the information in this was written about June 15.

# 72 Q:

Did you know on June 13, at about 5:00 a.m. in the morning, that Detective Phillips had stated that Mr. Simpson and Ms. Brown had been embroiled in a previous domestic-violence situation or situations, one of them resulting in the arrest of Mr. Simpson?

# 73 A:

No.

# 74 MR. BAKER:

Leading.

# 75 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 76 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) What was the purpose of the follow-up investigation report?

# 77 A:

That particular follow-up report is a compilation of events and incidents that occurred from the outset of this investigation, to the point where we filed the case with the district attorney's office.

The district attorney's office requires this form before they file any case, which is a chronological statement of the information. You have to date it. As a consequence, this report was made prior to filing.

# 78 THE COURT:

Mr. Medvene, would you take a look at that exhibit, make sure the number you --

# 79 MR. MEDVENE:

Yes, sir.

# 80 THE COURT:

-- Gave is correct.

# 81 MR. MEDVENE:

Yes, sir.

# 82 (Counsel confer.)

# 83 MR. MEDVENE:

I will clear up the record if I have the wrong number, Your Honor.

If I could proceed, then I'll clear it up, unless you want me to do it now.

# 84 MR. PETROCELLI:

Your Honor, it was originally offered by the defense, but they did not give it an exhibit number at the time. So maybe we can just give it the next in order.

# 85 THE CLERK:

2111.

# 86 MR. PETROCELLI:

2111?

# 87 THE CLERK:

Correct.

# 88 MR. PETROCELLI:

Okay.

# 89 (The instrument herein referred to as Copy of supplemental report of 6/17/94 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2111.)

# 90 Q:

(BY MR. MEDVENE) When did you first receive the information that Mr. Simpson and Ms. Brown had been involved in previous domestic-violence situations, one of them resulting in Mr. Simpson's arrest?

# 91 A:

I believe it was later on in the day, perhaps late afternoon or the evening of June 13.

# 92 Q:

Yesterday, when counsel questioned you, there was some reference to the word "rapport" in connection with your seeing Mr. Simpson.

What was your purpose in going to see Mr. Simpson?

# 93 A:

Certainly that was part of it, to attempt to build a rapport, to get to know him, because he certainly could have information that could help us in this investigation. As a matter of fact, he may have immediate information that could help us point in the direction that morning. We certainly don't know until we ask him. She may have been getting threats. There may have been a suspect that he was familiar with he could have told us about. Being so close and having -- sharing the children, and this type of a situation. So, in my mind, it was very important to do that.

# 94 Q:

With reference to fingerprints, any unidentified prints, as you sit here, do you recall any that were found in the area where the murders occurred?

# 95 A:

Unidentified prints?

# 96 Q:

Yeah.

# 97 A:

No. I don't believe there were.

# 98 Q:

If a murderer was wearing gloves when he committed the murders, would fingerprints be left?

# 99 A:

No.

# 100 Q:

Now, you made reference to an object that was utilized to cover Ms. Brown. Can you describe that object?

# 101 A:

I believe you're referring to the blanket.

It was a hospital blanket, white in color. It was -- had tightly woven fabric. It appeared cleaned -- freshly laundered. And basically, that's it.

It was a hospital blanket.

# 102 Q:

What time of the morning, approximately, if you recall, did you make a request for something to cover Ms. Brown?

# 103 A:

I think it was shortly after I returned, which would make it sometime after 7:00 a.m.

# 104 Q:

What were the lighting conditions?

# 105 A:

Excellent. It was daylight.

# 106 Q:

Was the media there?

# 107 A:

They were beginning to arrive, to set up cameras across the street.

# 108 Q:

What were the reasons that you wanted something to cover Ms. Brown?

# 109 A:

At a crime scene, an investigator has to be concerned with contamination with the crime scene, but he also has to be concerned with the compromising of a crime scene.

With the amount of cameras, the multitude of media across the street, sitting up on a hill, shooting directly down within 120 feet of the body -- the body being evidence; the position that body is in is evidence; any wounds on that body are evidence; any blood appearance on that body is evidence; the clothing on that body is evidence; the way that clothing is torn left to right or how that clothing appears on the body is evidence.

Jewelry or lack thereof on the body is evidence. The number of wounds are evidence. Everything having to do with that body is evidence.

To leave that body exposed, number one, is to leave it open to all of the media of the world to zoom in on with cameras that can basically highlight a human hair at 200 feet, and we would have our evidence that I want to keep to myself broadcast all over the world.

This is what an investigator calls keys. Keys are things that I could use to eliminate a potential suspect or a witness in this case, especially in a high profile case.

As a consequence, I had to protect them. I had to make a decision to protect them this way. That's why the blanket.

There's also a secondary consideration. Certainly, regarding that body in public, if this woman's family were to turn on their television set and see their daughter, it certainly wouldn't go over too well, either. However, I have to say that is a secondary consideration, and the main reason is really the previous reason that I stated.

# 110 MR. MEDVENE:

I have nothing further, Your Honor.

Thank you very much. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Thomas Lange

To leave that body exposed, number one, is to leave it open to all of the media of the world to zoom in on with cameras that can basically highlight a human hair at 200 feet, and we would have our evidence that I want to keep to myself broadcast all over the world. This is what an investigator calls keys.

Lange reframes the blanket controversy — a defense target suggesting evidence tampering — as a deliberate investigative tactic to preserve 'keys' that could later be used to eliminate or implicate suspects.

Thomas Lange

She may have been getting threats. There may have been a suspect that he was familiar with he could have told us about. Being so close and having -- sharing the children, and this type of a situation. So, in my mind, it was very important to do that.

Lange rehabilitates the decision to visit Simpson early on June 13, reframing 'rapport building' as standard investigative practice rather than preferential treatment of a suspect.

Thomas Lange

There's also a secondary consideration. Certainly, regarding that body in public, if this woman's family were to turn on their television set and see their daughter, it certainly wouldn't go over too well, either. However, I have to say that is a secondary consideration.

Lange's candid ranking of considerations — investigation first, family dignity second — is both humanizing and strategically honest.

Thomas Lange

I believed it was later on in the day, perhaps late afternoon or the evening of June 13.

Lange confirms he did not know about Simpson's prior domestic violence arrest at 5:00 a.m. on June 13, addressing the defense implication that police targeted Simpson from the outset due to his known history.

Evidence (6)

Plaintiffs' 2109

Property report for 360 North Rockingham, June 17, 1994, listing keys items 289, 290, 291 including the Smokey the Bear key ring

introduced and discussed

Plaintiffs' 875

Crime scene photograph of Nicole Brown's right foot with a fast-food Oriental menu visible near her ankle, taken morning of June 13

discussed

Plaintiffs' 2110

Close-up photograph of the same Oriental menu from the crime scene

introduced and discussed

Plaintiffs' 2111

Copy of supplemental/follow-up investigation report dated June 17, 1994, originally referenced by defense without an exhibit number

marked and introduced

Informal

Pendant kept in Lange's desk drawer for personal identification purposes during the investigation

discussed

Informal

Reebok shoes taken into custody after 6:00 p.m. on June 13 and booked at the lab at 7:00 a.m. on June 14

discussed

Notable Exchanges (3)

Edward Medvene•Thomas Lange

Lange delivers an extended, detailed explanation of why he ordered the blanket to cover Nicole Brown's body — introducing the concept of investigative 'keys' and preemptively dismissing the defense implication that the blanket contaminated or concealed evidence.

strategic

Robert Baker•Hiroshi Fujisaki•Thomas Lange

Baker objects to Lange explaining why he gave the Smokey the Bear keys to Detective Payne, then moves to strike after being overruled. Judge Fujisaki denies the motion, allowing Lange's answer — that the keys were used to construct a matching lock — to stand.

contested

Edward Medvene•Thomas Lange

Lange testifies he did not know about Simpson's domestic violence history at 5:00 a.m. on June 13, directly countering the defense suggestion that detectives targeted Simpson from the outset based on prior knowledge.

strategic

Objections

4 objections (1 sustained, 2 overruled)

Proceeding 8107 • 110 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103