Let me see if I -- you testified a little earlier that basically, you couldn't see the body because of the foliage and the poor lighting; isn't that right?

Just, if you can, answer the question. Just answer my question, would you, please.

If you didn't testify to that, you have no recollection, just say I didn't; it's that simple.

The question is ambiguous as to time or vague as to time.

Vague as to time, sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) You say that you were concerned because all of this evidence was on the body of Nicole Brown Simpson, and that was the reason for covering it, right?

Potential evidence. Obviously, we don't know what we have at the time, but we need to protect that evidence from compromise, that's correct.

Was all of that potential evidence on the body at 5:00 a.m. when you decided to leave the crime scene, 875 South Bundy, for two hours? Was it all there then?

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence, that he intended to leave for two hours. That misstates the record, Your Honor.

Most of the questions. Okay. Overruled.

We intended to leave for about 10 or 15 minutes. There were no media there, so I was not concerned at this time. I was concerned when I returned; it was light, and the media started to show up.

Now, that blanket then becomes evidence because you have transfer of blood. You have transfer of trace evidence onto the blanket, and that blanket then becomes evidence, right?

I suppose that's a possibility. It could, yes.

Put it on.

You left the blanket at the crime scene for souvenir seekers, didn't you?

No. I wasn't even there at the time the crime scene was closed down, Mr. Baker.

You made no effort whatsoever, sir, to have the blanket preserved. And that's it right there in that photograph, isn't it?

Unfortunately, I was not afforded the walk-through. I was not there when this occurred. I wish I had.

I take full responsibility for the criminalist not picking up that blanket. I wish he had.

My mind didn't have anything to do with the evidence in this case, no.

Could I have that read back, Your Honor.

Well, I think he's answered it.

(BY MR. BAKER) If you wanted to keep the photographs from being taken, all you had to do was park an evidence van -- get the criminalist out there, park an evidence van in front of the parkway; isn't that true?

No. It was extremely simplistic. That certainly wouldn't have done for the helicopters. Bundy is a major thoroughfare for commuter traffic, people going to work.

High-tech cameras could have set up in a 360 in the air. It's just --

So it just wouldn't have worked?

I don't believe it would have, no.

Fair enough.

Now, let's talk about the keys again.

I think we discussed that the plastic heart which you kept in your desk for identification purposes, you kept it there for ten weeks, right?

I don't recall how long it was. Could -- would have been something like that, yeah.

Let me show you the property report that you just read from, and ask you to tell the jury the day that the evidence was booked for those two sets of keys and that heart that you kept in your desk for ten weeks.

There were several items booked that day.

I'm just asking you to tell --

Would you like me to answer your question?

Yeah. Just give me a date, Mr. Lange? Give me a date.

I was about to do that, and you cut me off.

Thank you.

All right.

August 25, 1994.

So these -- these keys that you say you removed from the duffel bag on June 17, 1994, you booked ten weeks later; so, on August 25, 1994, right?

No. And I never said that I took them out June 17.

Is it your testimony now, that you're saying that the keys, the two keys, sets of keys, one with Smokey the Bear and the other with a U.S.C. key ring, were not taken out on the 17th, sir?

Now, before and whenever you asked me, that's correct. They were taken out sometime in August.

Let me show you another document and ask you if this is a document indicating what was removed from the O.J. Simpson travel bag from A.C. Cowlings' Bronco on June 17, 1994.

These are other items that were in that bag; that's correct.

So those are other items?

Yes.

Okay.

That I already testified to.

Now, these indicate -- well, let me ask you this question, Mr. Lange:

I take it that the documentation of crime-scene evidence is more important, and without proper documentation, the integrity of the evidence is at risk, true?

It's a possibility of that occurring, certainly.

And in the property report, that shows that from the duffel bag, there is no indication that there was any -- or Mr. Simpson's travel bag taken from A.C. Cowlings' Bronco, there's no indication of keys, correct?

You'll agree with that?

In this particular report, no, there isn't. There shouldn't be.

And in the report -- that is, the other report, it doesn't mention anything about any travel bag, does it?

No. It wouldn't necessarily mention a travel bag. Different items are booked at different times for different purposes. There's nothing says we have to book everything in at once for one purpose.

When you inventory property of a person, are you telling us that you take part of the stuff out of a travel bag and then you document part of it, and then you book part of it, and then you take more of it out at a subsequent time, and then you book it at another time?

That's also a bit of a convoluted explanation in this particular case. I'll tell you specifically and exactly what happened.

No; just answer my question for a change.

No; it doesn't get that convoluted, no.

I don't think you've indicated what the second document was -- exhibit was, Mr. Baker.

Thank you. Property report.

MR. P. BAKER: 1412.

1412.

(BY MR. BAKER) And what's the date of the report that indicates evidence was removed from O.J. Simpson's travel bag? What is the date of that report?

The evidence that was recovered this particular --

The day of the report, sir, upper left-hand corner.

I don't know if i have the right one or you've either misstated or I have the wrong report. Evidence recovered from O.J. Simpson's vehicle. This is --

The document indicates --

This document, okay.

It indicates that evidence was recovered from O.J. Simpson's travel bag, which was removed from Al Cowlings' vehicle on 6/17. And the date of the report is what, sir?

The date of the report is --

July 25?

-- July.

Right?

July 25, yes.

That's 1412?

Yes, sir.

(BY MR. BAKER) So you had items removed from the -- strike that.

All those people that you said were there when all this stuff was removed from Mr. Simpson's travel bag, the D.A.s, Hodgman and Clark, and other officers, that was all on the 17th, right?

No, no.

It wasn't on the 17th when you removed all of the items from --

As to the meeting, no. The meeting occurred sometime after the 17th. This wasn't on the 17th.

Oh, I thought -- I misunderstood you.

Maybe I misled you. The meeting occurred sometime after the 17th. That's when everyone was there and we went through the bag. In the meantime, the bag had been locked away and secured.

So there was nothing removed from the bag until the meeting, to the best of your knowledge, right?

I don't believe there was. I'm pretty certain that the bag was looked into. People looked into it for one reason or another.

But the District Attorney wanted to get a firsthand look at everything that was in the bag, and that's why we had the meeting. That's when I discovered that those keys had similarities, and we had a key situation that arose from that.

Now, this indicates -- that is 1412 -- that this property was recovered and reported on July 25, 1994, right?

Yeah. That's the date and time of this report, correct.

That's not when the items were recovered, though?

That's the date and time of that report.

Okay. And the date and time that the custody -- the property was taken into custody was June 17, 1994, at 2200 hours?

Yes. That's the bag with everything in it.

And then the date and time of this property, when it was recovered -- and it certainly doesn't say where you have --

What's the number of the other property report, Phil, this one?

2109.

MR. P. BAKER: 2109.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, 2109 doesn't mention anything about any keys in a duffel bag, does it, or a travel bag, or a bag, or anything else?

It mentions the keys, yes.

It doesn't mention -- maybe my question is unclear. We'll try it again.

It doesn't mention anything about a duffel bag, a travel bag, or anything else, does it?

No, it wouldn't. Various different pieces of -- items -- some of it didn't come out of the duffel bag.

So the property report that's booked on 8/25/96, that includes the pendant that you say you left in your desk for ten weeks, without making a report on it at all; and then you have the keys that have not had a report on them at all until 8/25/94. Is that correct, sir?

You said '96 earlier.

I apologize.

Yes, as stated.

All right. So we've got ten weeks before there is any documentation by the LAPD on any of the keys or the pendant; would you agree?

No. I -- no.

Where is the documentation of any of those items before August 25, 1994?

Written down documentation? I don't know what -- that I'd find --

That's what I mean.

The item was taken into custody, the travel bag with everything in it, and it was secured until we can get back to it. These reports reflect when that happened.

So there is no documentation until you or others documented it on 8/25, right?

The bag is, I believe, documented from June 6 to 17 -- I believe it is -- as to all of the specific items inside.

Once again, same answer: No, not until we get back to it.

Let's get to the murder follow-up report, 2011.

The murder follow-up report was done in toto by you, correct?

No.

You authored this; that's what you suggested to us.

I wrote it, but it's a compilation of information received from people like Vannatter, Phillips, Fuhrman, criminal record checks, DMV record checks, coroner's information, that type of thing. The lab. We have information from the lab on this, various people from the lab. So there might be as many as 10 or 15 people that had something to do with that report.

And you are kind of the melting pot. In other words, the information comes to you; you get the information and you assimilate the information; and then you put it in your murder follow-up report.

Exhibit 2011 is in a chronological sequence, correct?

That's basically --

Your Honor, it's 2111, not 2011.

Okay. Sorry.

(BY MR. BAKER) And you put it in a chronological sequence, correct?

Generally, yes.

And you put it -- was your writing that was dated June 13, 1994.

At approximately 0010 hours, victim 1, Nicole Brown Simpson, age 35, and victim 2, Ron Goldman, age 25, were found stabbed to death in the front walkway of victim 1 at 875 South Bundy Drive in West Los Angeles.

That was your first paragraph, right?

Yes.

Then you said: Upon arrival at the crime scene, detectives were met by -- and then the detectives you're referring to are yourself and Mr. Vannatter, correct?

Could I see a copy of that?

Sure. Sure. Page 2, top of the paragraph where you say detectives were met?

Top paragraph?

Paragraph 2, top of the page.

Oh, I see.

Crime scene taken by Detective 3, Ron Phillips, West Los Angeles homicide coordinator.

When you say, "Upon arrival at the crime scene, detectives were met," you meant the detectives who were listed on the first page of the report, that being Lange and Vannatter?

Yeah.

So you two were met by Ron Phillips, West L.A. Division Homicide Coordinator, true?

Yes.

Phillips stated that victim Brown was the ex-wife of O.J. Simpson.

He told you that when you met him?

I think that was something I learned later. At the time, I didn't know.

You can answer it yes or no?

Well, then, I'd have to say no.

Okay. Fine.

And you then state that, "Additionally, Phillips stated Mr. Simpson and victim 1 had been embroiled in previous domestic-violence situations, with one of these resulting in the arrest of Mr. Simpson.

Then you state, "Mr. Simpson resided at 306 North Rockingham Place in Brentwood, approximately two miles from the crime scene. Detectives followed up to the Simpson residence for the purposes of death notification and to check on Mr. Simpson's welfare."

That's what you said, right?

I believe that's what it says. I don't have a copy in front of me.

And you were putting all that in chronological sequence, were you not?

Generally, yes.

And so you were going up to check on `Mr. Simpson's welfare?

That's a very general term, which would include the welfare of his children --

You never met --

-- his emotional --

Sir, I possibly didn't mention a lot of things, but I did mention most things that were relevant to the writing of that report to give to the District Attorney to file this case.

Now, you talked about shoes. And Mr. Medvene just questioned you a little bit, sir, about some shoes.

Now, those shoes were shoes that you had obtained from Mr. Simpson, correct?

Yes.

And you obtained those shoes from Mr. Simpson upstairs in his house, in his closet, correct?

Yes.

And so you had been upstairs on the 13th in Mr. Simpson's house, in his closet, correct?

Yes.

And you hadn't found any Bruno Magli or any bloody shoes, had you, and you looked?

No.

Objection. Outside the scope, Your Honor.

We had no idea these were Bruno Magli shoes until two months later, at least.

MR. BAKER: You looked for bloody shoes and didn't find them, true?

I'm going to sustain the objection as going beyond the scope of the redirect examination.

Let me get to it as quick as I can.

(BY MR. BAKER) You took the Reebok tennis shoes because Mr. Simpson told you he had been wearing those the night previously, right?

There were other reasons; there were others.

And you took those shoes and you took them to your police unit, and you took them home to Simi Valley, right?

Yes.

And then you took them back the next morning and you booked them as evidence, correct?

No.

You had them --you hadn't given -- you had a DR number for the case, and they were listed in the property report as item 17?

And those Reebok shoes were booked as evidence before the blood vial was taken from Mr. Simpson the previous afternoon. At 2:30, it was booked.

Objection. Outside the scope.

Overruled.

I don't believe so. They weren't booked.

(BY MR. BAKER) The reference blood from Mr. Simpson's arm that was taken at 2:30 on the 13th, was item 18, and was not booked until after the shoes that you took from Mr. Simpson's house on the afternoon of the 13th; isn't that true, sir?

I have no idea as to when it was booked.

I don't have anything further.