Redirect examination of Tom Lange (part 2)

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

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\NOV\1\REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-TOM-LA.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 7 of 57

◀ Transfer evidence clarification Sidebar: expert testimony scope ▶

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

Baker continues cross-examining Detective Lange, methodically undermining his testimony from the prior day about keys with a 'Smokey' pendant allegedly retrieved from OJ Simpson's duffel bag — the personal property report introduced as a new exhibit fails to list the keys, effectively impeaching Lange's recollection. Baker then shifts to challenging the position of the knit cap found at the crime scene, arguing its location under the gate rung and lack of dirt transfer is inconsistent with Lange's suggestion it was kicked there, though most of those questions were sustained as speculative.

# 1 MR. BAKER:

Okay. I'll go back to that in a minute, if I may. THOMAS LANGE, the witness on the stand at the time of the recess, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. BAKER:

# 2 Q:

Now, Mr. Lange, relative to the -- to what you suggested yesterday, that you got out of the duffel bag or grip bag of Mr. Simpson, that was all inventoried pursuant to police procedure, was it not?

# 3 A:

Yeah, that's a fair statement.

# 4 Q:

In other words, as a long-time police officer, you certainly recognize the duty and obligation to inventory every piece of evidence that you collect, especially if it's the property of someone like Mr. Simpson, or any citizen, correct?

# 5 A:

Yeah. But, you know, initially you don't know what you have. There's evidence gets booked at evidence and there's sometimes property that is, as you say, booked as personal property. But I would expect you to be thorough, yes.

# 6 Q:

And you would expect yourself to be thorough in booking the evidence and making an accurate property report, especially if you're going to get on the witness stand and testify, as you did yesterday, about certain sets of keys coming from Mr. Simpson's duffel bag, right?

# 7 A:

I would hope so. But sometimes mistakes are made, omissions, because you don't recall.

# 8 Q:

And whether it be evidence inventory or personal property inventory, you believe it should be done accurately and correctly, true?

# 9 A:

That would be preferable. It doesn't always happen, but that would be preferable, certainly.

# 10 Q:

If, in fact, there's no inventory to an item, you can't testify as to where it came from, correct? For example, you testified yesterday about some keys that have some pendant on them, Smokey, or something like that?

# 11 A:

I did.

# 12 Q:

And you say they came from the duffel bag the grip, travel bag; that is, you say you got them on the 17th, after Mr. Simpson was arrested?

# 13 A:

No, I didn't say I got them on the 17th. I said it was subsequent to that. I believe it was sometime later that we went through that duffel bag; it wasn't on the 17th.

# 14 Q:

In any event, the property that was removed from the 1993 Bronco, in the two-door white Ford Bronco, license number DDHY 503, the duffel bag we're talking about, that's what came out of Mr. Cowlings' Bronco, correct?

# 15 A:

Yes.

# 16 Q:

And the personal property report, did you inventory that, or did Mr. Vannatter inventory that?

# 17 A:

I'd have to take a look at it.

# 18 Q:

Well, do you have any personal knowledge of any of the items that you testified to yesterday coming out of that travel bag?

That is, did you take them out?

Did you inventory them?

And as you testified yesterday, they came out of the duffel bag, right?

# 19 A:

There were several persons present from the D.A.'s office.

# 20 Q:

Maybe you didn't understand my question. Maybe you didn't understand my question.

My question is: You -- did you have personal knowledge of the -- what came out of the duffel bag?

# 21 A:

My recollection is that these items did come out of the duffel bag.

# 22 Q:

I didn't ask you is it your recollection.

Did you see them come out of the duffel bag, and did you take them out of the duffel bag, one or the other?

# 23 A:

That's my recollection.

# 24 Q:

Okay.

Okay. You are aware, certainly, that the keys that you testified to yesterday were in the duffel bag, and you saw them come out of the duffel bag, and they would be listed on the personal property report, right?

# 25 A:

I don't know if they would be. It seems to me that they did -- if you can show me where I'm mistaken, fine; but my recollection is that they came out of the duffel bag.

# 26 Q:

And if they weren't listed on the personal property report, the personal property report for that duffel bag, you would agree that they could come from anyplace?

# 27 A:

No.

# 28 Q:

Because you didn't have a recollection just a minute -- you don't have a recollection, as you sit here now, in seeing any keys come out of the duffel bag; isn't that true, sir?

# 29 A:

No. You've misstated what I've said.

# 30 Q:

You can answer yes or no.

# 31 MR. MEDVENE:

If the Court please --

# 32 MR. BAKER:

I'm not stating anything.

# 33 MR. MEDVENE:

The witness is trying to answer the question.

# 34 THE COURT:

Answer the question, please.

# 35 DET. TOM LANGE:

Well, you have misstated my statement.

# 36 MR. BAKER:

I move to strike this witness's commentary and request the Court to direct Mr. Lange to listen to the question and answer my question.

# 37 THE COURT:

Well, answer the question.

# 38 DET. TOM LANGE:

Would you repeat the question.

(The reporter read the pending question as follows:) "Q. Because you didn't have a recollection just a minute -- you don't have a recollection, as you sit here now, in seeing any keys come out of the duffel bag; isn't that true, sir?"

# 39 DET. TOM LANGE:

Again, my recollection is that they came out of the duffel bag. I may be mistaken. And perhaps you can show me where I'm mistaken -- and if I'm mistaken. That is my recollection, as I sit here today.

KEY QUOTE

# 40 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Did you review the personal property report in this case?

# 41 A:

No.

Again, I asked you a few minutes ago if I could. I don't believe I've seen that a second time.

# 42 Q:

You have spent 20 hours reviewing this case, Mr. Lange.

Did you review your own notes relative to your investigation of the crime scene and the 20 hours you spent with the plaintiffs' attorneys here?

# 43 A:

My notes, yes, but not someone else's report on another investigation. That's what you have here.

# 44 Q:

But you did review 2107 in detail, because these are your notes, correct?

# 45 A:

What's 2107?

# 46 Q:

Your notes.

# 47 A:

I have gone over the notes, yes.

# 48 Q:

And did you see on the personal property report, anything indicating the keys that you talked about yesterday?

# 49 MR. MEDVENE:

If the Court please, 2107 is not the personal property report. Can we have the number of the personal property report, which is what's being asked about now?

# 50 MR. BAKER:

Is it on the back?

I don't know if it's on the back.

# 51 MR. MEDVENE:

Also object on the basis of lack of foundation. Your Honor, it's not the witness's report, as I understand what he said.

# 52 MR. BAKER:

Can we get a number for the personal property report?

# 53 THE CLERK:

A new exhibit?

# 54 THE COURT:

Yes.

# 55 THE CLERK:

2108.

# 56 MR. BAKER:

New --

# 57 (The instrument herein referred to as Personal property report of property of O. J. Simpson was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2108.)

# 58 THE COURT:

What is the question?

# 59 MR. BAKER:

The question is:

# 60 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) That's the personal property report for the items in the duffel bag, is it not, sir?

# 61 A:

I didn't write this report and didn't have to review --

# 62 Q:

I didn't ask you if you wrote the report; I asked you if it is the report.

# 63 MR. MEDVENE:

Objection. Foundation.

# 64 DET. TOM LANGE:

Can I look at it and read it?

# 65 MR. MEDVENE:

Of course you can.

# 66 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 67 (Pause in proceedings.)

# 68 DET. TOM LANGE:

I don't see any keys on here. There's no way of telling whether this is the entire report.

I'll stick with, my recollection is that the keys --

KEY QUOTE

# 69 THE COURT:

No, no. The question is, is that the personal property report. That's a yes or no.

KEY QUOTE

# 70 DET. TOM LANGE:

This is a report --

# 71 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) And --

# 72 A:

-- property report listing items from the duffel bag; that's correct.

# 73 Q:

And the keys are not on there?

# 74 A:

I don't see them on there.

# 75 Q:

Thank you.

# 76 MR. BAKER:

Now, put up -- put up that photo of, please, Phil -- what's the name of that?

MR. P. BAKER: 2046.

# 77 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) I want to go back.

I found a little better photo. I want to ask you a couple questions about the hat and see if you can see how much -- and it may not be any better because of the monitor -- but can you tell us from -- this is the pole that anchors the gate, is it not, where I'm pointing with my finger?

And we have a blood smear down on the side?

# 78 A:

I believe it is. I -- well, I think it is. If I could see it from another angle -- but it appears to be.

# 79 Q:

Okay. Let me show you the photo, because it's more clear in the actual photo.

# 80 MR. PETROCELLI:

Your Honor, can we have an exhibit number? Didn't appear in the joint trial statement.

# 81 MR. BAKER:

2146.

# 82 MR. PETROCELLI:

No, there's a different item on that joint trial statement for that number.

MR. P. BAKER: 89.

# 83 MR. BAKER:

Would you believe 89?

# 84 MR. PETROCELLI:

It's what the statement says.

# 85 MR. BAKER:

Okay.

# 86 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Let me put Exhibit 89 before you. And it's a little easier to see than on the monitor.

# 87 A:

Yes, that appears to be that support pole for the rung, yes.

# 88 Q:

And the knit cap in that photo would appear to be beyond the horizontal rung, which is at least what, two, two and a half inches in diameter?

# 89 A:

See the perpendicular rung with the horizontal from this angle; it's a little hard to tell by looking at this. I suppose it's possible that part of it is.

# 90 Q:

And certainly, the part of the cap that's under the horizontal rung, the cap couldn't have dropped into that position; you would at least agree to that?

# 91 A:

Could have been kicked during the scuffle.

KEY QUOTE

# 92 Q:

Maybe you didn't understand the question, Mr. Lange.

I said, you would agree that the cap could not have been dropped into that position? True?

# 93 A:

No, not necessarily.

# 94 Q:

So if it were just dropped, normally, it would come down, would it not?

# 95 A:

Unless someone kicked it while it was being dropped. You know, I --

# 96 Q:

Okay.

# 97 A:

-- I have no idea how it got in that position.

# 98 Q:

All right. And so the absence of any debris, any dirt on the cap, would indicate to you, then, that the cap was kicked in mid-air and projected under the fence a couple of inches, right.

# 99 MR. MEDVENE:

Objection. Assumes a fact not in evidence.

# 100 THE COURT:

Speculative. Sustained.

# 101 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) If it were kicked because you had been in the area --

You may resume your seat.

If it had been kicked -- because you've been in the area and you've certainly seen the dirt on the shoes of Mr. Goldman, you would anticipate that there would be dirt on the cap from being kicked into that position, would you not?

# 102 MR. MEDVENE:

Objection. Calls for speculation --

# 103 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 104 MR. MEDVENE:

-- conclusion, lack of foundation.

# 105 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) You would agree with your -- from your review of that photograph, that there doesn't appear to be any dirt that was transferred from a shoe to the knit cap, correct?

# 106 MR. MEDVENE:

Same objection, Your Honor. Also, lack of foundation.

# 107 THE COURT:

Foundation, sustained.

# 108 MR. BAKER:

Your Honor, may I be heard on that?

# 109 THE COURT:

All right.

# 110 MR. BAKER:

Thank you.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Thomas Lange

Again, my recollection is that they came out of the duffel bag. I may be mistaken.

Lange's repeated hedging — 'my recollection' rather than direct observation — signals Baker's strategy is working; Lange cannot confirm he personally saw the keys removed.

Thomas Lange

I don't see any keys on here. There's no way of telling whether this is the entire report.

The core impeachment moment: the property report introduced as Exhibit 2108 does not list the keys Lange testified about the previous day.

Hiroshi Fujisaki

No, no. The question is, is that the personal property report. That's a yes or no.

The judge intervenes to cut through Lange's evasiveness, forcing him to confirm the document — which then reveals the missing keys.

Thomas Lange

Could have been kicked during the scuffle.

Lange's speculative explanation for the knit cap's position under the gate rung — Baker then presses that a kicked cap should show dirt transfer, which it doesn't.

Evidence (5)

Defendants' 2107

Lange's own investigative notes

Referenced to establish Lange reviewed his notes but not the property report

Defendants' 2108

Personal property report for items in OJ Simpson's duffel bag from Al Cowlings' Bronco

Introduced and used to impeach Lange — keys with 'Smokey' pendant not listed

Exhibit 89

Crime scene photograph showing gate support pole with blood smear and knit cap position

Shown to Lange to challenge the physical plausibility of how the cap got under the horizontal rung

Informal

Keys with 'Smokey' pendant, allegedly from Simpson's duffel bag

Discussed — Lange's prior testimony challenged by absence from property report

Informal

Knit cap found at crime scene

Discussed — position relative to gate rung challenged as inconsistent with being dropped or kicked

Notable Exchanges (3)

Robert Baker•Thomas Lange•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Baker presses Lange to confirm he personally saw the keys removed from the duffel bag; Lange repeatedly responds 'that's my recollection' rather than a direct yes; the judge intervenes twice to direct Lange to answer the question directly.

strategic

Robert Baker•Thomas Lange

Baker introduces the personal property report (2108), Lange reviews it, and is forced to admit the keys he testified about the previous day are not listed on it.

devastating

Robert Baker•Thomas Lange•Edward Medvene

Baker questions whether the clean knit cap (no dirt) is inconsistent with being kicked to its position under the gate rung; Medvene successfully objects to the speculation, blocking the full line.

contested

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Thomas Lange

prior inconsistent statement / lack of personal knowledge

Baker established that Lange cannot confirm he personally saw the keys removed from the duffel bag, only that it is his 'recollection,' and then showed that the official personal property report (Exhibit 2108) does not list the keys at all — directly contradicting Lange's prior day testimony.

⚔ Thomas Lange

failure to review relevant documents

Baker highlighted that despite spending 20 hours preparing with plaintiffs' attorneys, Lange reviewed his own notes but never checked the personal property report that would have revealed the keys were not inventoried.

Witness Demeanor

(Pause in proceedings.) — Lange reviewing Exhibit 2108 before admitting keys are not listed

Objections

4 objections (3 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 8102 • 110 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103