Tom Lange, L-A-N-G-E. THOMAS LANGE, the witness on the stand at the time of the adjournment on October 31, 1996, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) BY` MR. BAKER:
Now, last night -- last night, after the jury was released and we stayed around to have a hearing with the judge, you stayed and waited for the Goldmans did you not?
And then you went up to the suite with the attorneys over at the Doubletree Hotel and spent some time getting prepared for today's testimony, right?
Yes. We had breakfast together.
Obviously, the case was discussed. I would have a problem with "getting ready." I really don't know what you mean by "getting ready."
If you mean getting prepared, no.
Now, you definitely would agree that if you have the opportunity, because of your friendship with the Goldmans, you tend to favor the Goldmans in this case, correct?
Okay. Now, you would never tend to flavor your testimony towards their side because -- well, strike that. How many other victims, next of kin of victims of crimes, did you invite to your retirement party, other than the Goldmans?
(BY MR. BAKER) Yesterday, we were talking about the closed-in area, and it was your opinion, sir, that the soil is exceedingly soft, so that the hole that was dug in the middle photograph on the left was possibly done in a very short period of time, correct?
Well, the soil is loose, and it's certainly possible that it was dug out in a very short period of time. If someone was in there routing around or fighting each other, certainly.
The closed-in area?
Well, it depends on what you mean by "a lot of dirt." I think what you see is what you get here in this photograph.
Certainly, the only dirt that's disturbed to any extent is that hole.
Well, the entire area from the sidewalk, all the way to six feet over to the -- to the fence, that's all dirt, isn't it?
So that certainly the boots that Mr. Goldman was wearing got covered with some degree of dirt, true?
Well, that wasn't the only factor. It was pretty evident, though, from everything I had, that that indeed is where the struggle occurred.
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, you examined the boots in some detail, did you not, when you were in the closed-in area?
Well, does the picture on the upper left-hand corner, does that indicate to you that that was dirt that was in the exhibit --
(BY MR. BAKER) Exhibit 1349, is that dirt you believe to be from the struggle in the closed-in area?
And then there is a cut on the toe, which would appear to be on the right boot, I believe, of Mr. Goldman?
No.
Again, as I stated yesterday, there are probably several things that you won't find in the notes.
These types of items are later examined in the lab by a criminalist, and that's where I'd rather have these types of things done, rather than have any -- myself speculate at the crime scene as to what it might be.
Now, the cut on the boot was a fresh cut, was it not?
There was no dirt in that cut, was there?
Well, again, I didn't at the time. I didn't inspect it that closely. And I'd be uncomfortable with saying whether or not it was fresh or not.
(BY MR. BAKER) In rendering your opinions that you gave relative to -- as co-lead detective on the case, did you become aware that that cut was a fresh cut?
Objection, Your Honor. Calls for hearsay; gave no opinions on the direct on that point.
(BY MR. BAKER) Well, when you observed that cut, was it in the morning of the 13th of June 1994, did it cross your mind that that was consistent with Mr. Goldman attempting to ward off an attacker with a knife?
It was consistent. And I believe he was on the ground, perhaps kicking out at his assailant when this occurred.
KEY QUOTESo that after he had -- well, strike that.
It was certainly your view that the encounter started at the area where the cap and glove was, and went around the north -- strike that -- the east fenced area to the north fenced area, and then Mr. Goldman was down and kicking at his assailant?
I don't think with the evidence we can say exactly where he pointed down to a small area where this began. I think that everything occurred -- occurred within that area.
As far as him being down, I think that's very possibly consistent with the dirt, the hole that you alluded to earlier.
I think it's just speculation to say exactly where it started.
Mr. Lange, I didn't ask you whether you believe anyone can say. All I'm asking you, sir, respectfully, is: Do you have an opinion?
(BY MR. BAKER) Mr. Lange, in your analysis of the evidence that you made on June 13, 1994, that you documented in your notes, you tested to see whether or not the gate could be opened from inside the house, did you not?
Well, let's go to page 6 of your notes.
You indicate: The door release is inoperable, clicks only.
And that would be the button that was in the kitchen that was connected to the intercom at the gate area, correct?
The area -- if you look at the monitor -- can we have the diagram?
And we have the diagram in the closed-in area in front of 875 South Bundy. The box, the white box to the left of that, has the box within a box, if you will?
That's the aerial depiction, is it not, of the area where the intercom comes to the gate area, correct?
You know I'd have to look at the photograph. I haven't looked at that in a couple of years.
Okay. Fair enough.
One, there is a mailbox, as well as an area where you have the intercom. That's on a pole, as I recall, is it not?
Yes. But I don't think it's what you pointed out. I think perhaps you pointed out the mailbox.
Well, I'm trying to be as accurate as I can. I don't want to point out an intercom if it's a mailbox.
In any event, sir as you recall, there is an intercom box at the front of the gated area entering the property, that someone comes up and they can push a button and communicate inside the house, correct?
And that intercom is then inside the condominium; that intercom is connected to the various intercom boxes and the various rooms, true?
And as I recall -- you can correct me if I'm wrong -- there's only one button that will allow somebody to get into the gate. And that was in the kitchen, was it not?
You checked and determined that that button was inoperable; it would click, but it would now allow someone to get in the gate, true?
That indicated to you that, in your being a detective of some 20 years, that Nicole Brown had to come down and open the gate to let Mr. Goldman in, correct?
(BY MR. BAKER) Well, did you ever formulate an opinion that, because the gate release was inoperable, that Ms. Brown had to come down and open the gate?
(BY MR. BAKER) Okay. You didn't make -- in terms of your notes, you didn't make any conclusions relative to the door release being inoperable, correct, on June 13, 1994, when you were doing your inspection?
I'm a little uncomfortable, again, with things I haven't looked at in months and sometimes years.
You made no conclusions as to the significance of that when you were doing your crime-scene processing on June 13, 1994, true?
Same objection as previously made, Your Honor: Outside the scope, calls for speculation.
(BY MR. BAKER) You came to no conclusion as to the significance of that front gate being inoperable from inside the house after you did your crime-scene processing on June 13, 1994, correct?
And were those thoughts that Ms. Brown had to come outside of the condominium, down the steps, and open the gate to allow entry for Mr. Goldman in?
Objection. Speculation, outside the scope, Your Honor; asked and answered previously.
(BY MR. BAKER) Well, you certainly had evidence that the gate didn't open, and you had two victims' bodies inside the gated area, didn't you?
Didn't that then become a logical conclusion, that she was down there and opened the gate, before either of the two people were attacked?
Well, again, it's a possibility, Mr. Baker, but we can't say for sure because there are other factors. Electronic releases, some gates can stay open and just be leaning against the lock, allowing someone to open them.
This particular gate also had an inside dog latch that one would have to reach over the top and release from the inside to enter.
So there are other factors. What you -- the scenario that you gave is a possibility. But I don't think we can say with -- for sure.
Well, in terms of having both of the people just inside the gated area, and an area that is approximately -- from the gate to where the body of Nicole Brown was found was three feet?
In that closed-in area, Mr. Lange, there was evidence of -- there was evidence of a violent struggle, correct?
Now, in that closed-in area -- and evidence of the violent struggle included the pager of Mr. Goldman, which was to the north and actually outside of the fenced area depicted by this little area here, right?
This is the pager, is it not, on the outside of the fence that is on the north portion of the fence?
And the keys are indicated in, I believe -- and I apologize because it's under these leaves in this photo, the middle photo of --
(BY MR. BAKER) Lower middle photo of 1342, those are the keys, and they were found approximately at his feet, correct?
All right. And the hat and the glove were found in basically the same location, right at the entranceway where the gate is, correct?
And the then the keys and the pager were scattered throughout the area. In other words, they -- the pager went all the way to the north, six feet away from where the hat and the glove were found?
I would have a problem with the phraseology, scattered all over the area. You were referring to two items. The keys were in close proximity to the glove. And the cap, the pager was, indeed, I believe, about two feet beyond Mr. Goldman.
I'd have to take a look. I mean, it's a possibility that a little bit might have been under the rung, sure.
And the hat was underneath the leaves, as well as partially underneath the horizontal member of the fence, right?
It's much looser to the rear is what I alluded to.
This is possibly a little more packed in this area, but there is loose dirt. (Indicating.)
And did you ever pick that cap up and drop it six or nine feet on the plants to see if it would go underneath the leaves on the plants, or would have to be kicked underneath?
Did you ever watch Mr. Fuhrman pick up the glove at any time during the time that you were there?
Now, the cap didn't have any dirt on it, did it?
Had little pieces of debris, but no dirt on it?
I did not examine the cap that morning. It was checked by the criminalist and subsequently taken to the lab.
I didn't look at the underside. And again, I looked at it from a distance; I didn't handle it. Again, that's done by the criminalist.
You examined the cap and glove earlier, and identified these as the cap and glove that you saw at Bundy, correct?
This is -- the exhibit -- I've got 77 and 78 on here.
Once again, I wasn't really looking for dirt in -- and I didn't look at the underside. It was a very cursory observation.
For clarity sake, you want to make sure I you have the right number. I'm not sure what they are.
There's no number on them whatsoever except the number that I read. It's clear that the evidence tags indicate that's the criminal trial number.
(BY MR. BAKER) Now, in you inspections that morning of June 13, 1994, did it occur to you that without -- with the absence of any dirt on either of those items, they could have been placed there?
(BY MR. BAKER) From your entire crime scene investigation, did it occur to you that the cap or glove may have been placed in the area that you saw them on June 13, 1994?
All right. Now, in terms of the blood in that -- in the closed-in area, there was blood on the fence; there was blood on the soil; there was blood on Mr. Goldman's clothes.
And if we go over to the walkway, there was blood on the walkway and there was blood on Ms. Brown's clothing, correct?
Okay.
Now, none of the blood in the closed-in area was consistent with Mr. Simpson's blood, true?
Well, did you, in terms of you being the co-lead detective in the case, you certainly became aware of the blood and you testified about blood drops yesterday morning, did you not?
If the court please, we attempted to get in blood testimony yesterday and Mr. Baker objected.
Same objection: Calls for conclusion; lack of foundation.
I said in terms of his being the co-lead detective, he certainly became aware of the results of the blood collected in the closed in area.
(BY MR. BAKER) Did you become aware of the results of the blood that was collected from in the closed-in area as a result of you being the co-lead detective in this case?
(BY MR. BAKER) And you became aware that none of the blood collected in the closed-in area was consistent with Mr. Simpson's blood, true?
(BY MR. BAKER) Did you, in your role as co-lead detective, find out if there was any blood on the cap or the glove that was consistent with Mr. Simpson's?
(BY MR. BAKER) Did you, at any time, determine whether or not there were any fingerprints of Mr. Simpson in the crime scene area, that we've entitled the closed-in area or the walkway?
And, in fact -- in fact, Detective Lange, there were eight identifiable fingerprints that were never identified as to anyone, true?
Objection, Your Honor. Outside the Court's order. It's also not relevant, Your Honor.
(BY MR. BAKER) Not one of the identifiable fingerprints found at the crime scene area in the closed-in area or on the walkway was consistent with Mr. Simpson's; isn't that true?
And, in fact, Mr. Lange, there were eight identifiable fingerprints found that you couldn't identify with any human being, true; that was known to be either the victim, Mr. Goldman or the police?
That's not necessarily true. In an unidentifiable print, sometimes the points are so low that it couldn't belong to one of the people who you attempted to eliminate, and couldn't, because there are not enough points. I'd have to look at those prints individually and see how many points, in fact, were there and then I could give you an opinion. But just because the print has been not identified doesn't necessarily mean that it was eliminated from those who were at the scene.
Let me see if I can make my questions very clear to you. There is, in your business, that is, being a detective, identifiable and non identifiable prints, true?
If a print is identifiable, that means there's enough points on the prints so that if you can find a match, there is enough points to make it a definitive identification, correct?
However, if you have seven or eight that are consistent, you cannot totally eliminate that individual.
Mr. Lange, I want you to assume -- well, strike that.
Did you look at, in terms of you're being the co-lead detective on this case, that there were 17 prints that were identifiable using the language that we have just discussed?
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence; outside the scope, Your Honor. Lack of foundation.
(BY MR. BAKER) Well, in terms of the prints, Mr. Lange, were there, or were there not, eight identifiable fingerprints that were not able to be matched with any known person who is at the crime scene at any time?
There were. I don't know if it was eight. There were some with an insufficient amount of swirls, points; whatever you want to call them, to match, that's correct, because the insufficiency of information.
Is it your testimony, as you sit here today, that the prints that were unidentifiable were unidentifiable not because they couldn't match them to a person, but because the prints themselves were not adequate to match? Is that your testimony? I want to be sure on this.
Well, I don't know. Again, I believe I'd like to see the print reports. It's been some time since I looked at them. But when you say unidentifiable, it could possibly mean that there's just not enough information to make an identification.
I want to understand your testimony here in this courtroom. Are you saying to this jury, that the prints that were taken from the crime scene were not identifiable because there wasn't enough information on the prints; or you don't know; or the third alternative, that they were identifiable but matched no one?
Mr. Baker, you gave me a very general term in the word unidentifiable. And as I tried to explain to you, I would have to look at each and every one of those prints in order to render an opinion as to what you're asking.
So, Mr. Lange, I take it, then, you don't know whether or not the prints that were not matched to anyone had enough points to match or not, correct?
(BY MR. BAKER) You are aware -- well, strike that.
Now, in your analysis, there was blood from Nicole Brown on Ron Goldman, right?
(BY MR. BAKER) Well, in your role as co-lead detective, you certainly learned whether there was blood transfer before you wrote the back-up report that we were discussing yesterday; isn't that true?
On the grounds that if this witness has no first-hand knowledge, it is calling for hearsay.
The court please, Mr. Baker knows we're not supposed to argue in front of the jury.
Well, his testimony thus far doesn't seem to be based upon any expertise, but rather than as a percipient witness. So I'll sustain the objection.
(BY MR. BAKER) Well, you in your inspection in processing of the crime scene on June 13, 1994, you walked through the living room and you found candles burning, correct?
And then you made the notes that you say you made basically contemporaneous with your investigation and processing of the crime scene?
If it says candles were burning in bedroom and living room, these notes were made at the 7 o'clock, 7:15 timeframe when you walked through, correct?
(BY MR. BAKER) Okay. 2107, which I noted, candles burning in the room and bathroom. Candles burning in bedroom.
That was at your 7:15 walk-through, right?
Very large thick candles. The type that do burn for many, many hours and can be used possibly several times over.
Probably in the vicinity of six, seven inches, maybe eight inches. Some were longer than others; some were shorter.
And then you did an exterior view of the house, did you not; after you had gone through the house and you talked about the lighting, did you not?
And you actually went back to the crime scene on June 23 and made additional notes, did you not?
Now, there was a -- there was a Malibu light that was right about at the feet of the body of Nicole Brown, was there not?
Let me have you look at your diagram. I'm sorry, I've got you at a disadvantage.
I have a corresponding sheet that lists what I have on the schematic. Your question was: There was a Malibu light at the foot --
Approximately by the foot of Nicole Brown Simpson that illuminated onto the walkway and illuminated the body of Nicole Brown Simpson.
There was a directional light that went straight up over in this area. That went up, more or less, the numbers up the front.
Now there were four Malibu lights, but there were some that weren't serviceable and there were none that illuminated the body.
Excuse me. If the Court please, for the record, Mr. Baker, could you have the witness please show where he was pointing?
The directional light was off to the left. This would be other photos that -- these are a little blurred -- I have depicted in my schematic. It's kind of off to the left here in the dirt and it was a directional light and it went straight up to illuminate the numbers on the wall. The four Malibu lights, I believe, begin here. There should be one here.
No, sir. The C is the directional and D is the Malibu and it states it's not working. So that was not working at the time.
And you don't know what that circular light that's illuminating -- would appear to be circular -- on the walkway, that's illuminating that area is, correct?
This circular area here, that light, is it not, would it -- would appear to me, it doesn't -- you don't think it is, fine.
Again, I'm not an expert in photography or processing of negatives, but there's a flash effect, and that's a white wall. And I saw no lights at all illuminating that area, and there were none. So --
Fair enough.
Now, you talked about a duffle bag yesterday that you got from Mr. Simpson on the 17th. Recall that testimony?
Four days before you took it from Mr. Simpson on the 17th, you had access to it. And in fact, had it in your police black and white on the 13th, true?
Really.
Let me ask you this: Did your partner -- were you in the room when Mr. Simpson was interrogated by you and Mr. Vannatter?
(BY MR. BAKER) And your partner, Phil Vannatter, told you he had that grip in the trunk of his car, didn't he?
Mr. Baker, you just said it was in the grip of my car (sic) and I say it was in the grip -- The grip was in Mr. Vannatter's car. The fact of the matter is, we don't drive black-and-whites. It was not in my car. It was brought up by Mr. Vannatter and it was in Mr. Vannatter's car.
(BY MR. BAKER) And I apologize, sir. I'm -- Did you drive down with Mr. Simpson from his place on the 13th with Mr. Vannatter and the grip?
(BY MR. BAKER) And did you have conversation with your partner relative to the grip that he had taken from Mr. Simpson and inspected?
(BY MR. BAKER) Did you talk to Phil Vannatter about the content of the grip on June 13, 1994?
No. It was just a comment, I believe, by Vannatter that he had the grip is all. There was no conversation or anything else.
Well, now, Mr. Simpson was most definitely a suspect on June 13, 1994 when you had him at Parker Center; wasn't he?
And you had the grip that he came back from the airplane with, that was the grip that you talked about; evidence from on the 17th. It was the very same piece of luggage, wasn't it?
I never saw it. All I knew at that time, there was a grip in Mr. Vannatter's car and I never saw it.
KEY QUOTEAfter the 17th, when you got the grip, did you have conversation with Mr. Vannatter about the fact that the disguise, the so-called disguise, was in the grip on the 13th when he looked through the bag?
Well, didn't you have any conversation with him about what was in the bag that he looked through on the 13th and you testified to yesterday about the content thereof when you confiscated it on the 17th?
Certainly subsequently we went through the bag. We did discuss those items, that's correct.
Well, did you discuss it with Mr. Vannatter, about what the contents were of this travel bag?
Now, after you went through it and inventoried it, did you discuss with Mr. Vannatter the content of that bag when he looked through it on the 13th?
(BY MR. BAKER) So you have no idea what items were in the bag on the 13th as contrasted to the 17th, correct?
The same response, sir. I didn't look in the bag, had no idea what was in the bag. I didn't even know what type of a bag.
Now, did you find, in the bag, any shaving kit, any -- for example, if you're going to travel, you take your shaving kit and you have your shaver and you have shaving cream and you have a toothbrush and you have toothpaste. And we usually put those in a kit, in the dock kit and throw them in the travel bag.
Anything like that in there?
I don't recall specifically a shaving kit. And again, I probably haven't reviewed this, the specific content in close to a year and a half or so. If you could show me a property report, I'd be glad to tell you what was on there.
Did you find any prescription medication in the travel bag? Do you have any recollection of that?
There was prescription medication in the name of someone else other than Mr. Simpson in there.
The reason you wanted to confiscate that grip is because you believe Mr. Simpson was the murderer and you believe that evidence of the murder would be in that grip, true or untrue?
Certainly he was under arrest for murder and he definitely was a suspect. In our minds, if he did in fact commit those murders, we believed there was a possibility that there -- that was evidence, we certainly do want to look into it, yes.
And you were looking for the bloody clothes, bloody shoes and the murder weapon in that grip, correct?
Not specifically. We'd been looking for anything that might tend to connect him to that crime.
Did you send, at your direction, Ottis Marlow into the sewers between the Rockingham estate of Mr. Simpson and Bundy to try to find bloody clothes, bloody shoes and murder weapon?
(BY MR. BAKER) You never found any bloody clothes, any murder weapon or bloody shoes, ever, did you?
And it wasn't because you didn't look and have other people look in Los Angeles as far away as Chicago, true?
(BY MR. BAKER) You looked for bloody clothes, bloody shoes and a murder weapon as far as Chicago and never found any; isn't that true?
(BY MR. BAKER) Now as I understood your testimony, relative to the -- relative to the back gate, well --
Certainly not... Not in any way.
It was consistent. And I believe he was on the ground, perhaps kicking out at his assailant when this occurred.
I never saw it. All I knew at that time, there was a grip in Mr. Vannatter's car and I never saw it.
That's true.