(BY MR. BAKER) Now, you didn't, in looking at the photograph that's on the monitor presently -- that's 89 -- you didn't see any evidence of any dirt transfer from a shoe or anything else on the cap, correct?

I can't tell, because I just saw certain portions of the cap. I didn't specifically look for those types of things.

In any event, you saw no evidence of it, regardless of your -- and you see no evidence of it in that picture, do you?

Objection, Your Honor. Asked and answered, lack of foundation.

You may answer whether you see any evidence of it in that picture.

Any evidence of?

Transfer of his shoe to a cap.

I think the question was from any source.

Well, I do see evidence of something transferred, but that's --

(BY MR. BAKER) You see particulate matter at about the 1 o'clock position?

One -- if I could see that other photo, I could possibly see particulate -- that's a little bit better.

Seems to me I did see some particles on that cap, if that's the question. Yes, I observed particles all over the cap.

There's particles all over the cap in that picture in your view, right?

Particles?

Particles all over the blood in your view in that picture, right?

Well, I can't see from this picture any particles on the glove.

There's possibly one here. But there appears to be little, tiny particles on the cap.

Nothing --

If that's --

Nothing consistent with the amount of dirt that you saw on the boots of Mr. Goldman, correct?

Consistent with?

Consistent with --

Objection, Your Honor. Vague and ambiguous, calls for a conclusion, speculative, lack of foundation.

Overruled on all those grounds.

I don't --

I didn't pick the right ground.

Argumentative.

It is also.

I'm sure I don't understand the question.

See?

(BY MR. BAKER) You don't see any copious amounts of dirt on either of those articles, do you?

The question is argumentative, Your Honor. Object on that ground.

Did you answer the question?

I'm trying to read the question.

Sorry.

(The reporter read the pending question as follows: "Q. You don't see any copious amounts of dirt on either of those articles, do you?"

Overruled.

Not from this angle, no.

(BY MR. BAKER) You never saw it from any angle, large amounts of debris, dirt, or anything on either of those items; isn't that true?

I didn't look.

So, in your investigation, these two pieces of physical evidence that are basically right together, one projecting underneath the horizontal bar of the fence, you did not look at; is that your testimony?

No. I looked at the items, obviously, but I did not pick them up to examine them. That's the job of the criminalist. And I wouldn't do that because I could contaminate it.

All right. Now, on that photograph, there is blood transfer on the pole, is there not?

Appears to be, yes.

And could you just point to where the blood transfer on the pole is.

Appears to be a transfer in that area right here. (Indicating.)

Now, blood transfer, sir, occurs when someone is bleeding, for example from a cut, and comes in contact with a particular item, in this case a pole, correct?

That's my understanding.

And that particular transfer is right on the pole, the vertical pole that supports the gate, correct? Or I guess -- yeah, the --

Perpendicular corner pole, this one right here?

Yes.

Now, that particular blood smear is about and an inch or so off of the tile walkway there.

We've got it blown up a pretty good size.

I really -- to me, it's grainy, and it's very blurred. I would do a lot better with that photograph; I'm sorry.

Do we have another one of those so we can have one of these?

Let me let you look at this again.

May I have the question again, please.

(BY MR. BAKER) You certainly may.

The smear is about one inch up from the tile, is it not?

Appears to be, yes.

And that is not a blood drop; that has -- in your opinion, that has become more vertical; that is, in fact, a smear, is it not?

Well, the problem with that is, it could have at one time have been a drop and then gotten smeared, so I really can't tell. But it appears to be something that's smeared.

Now, I don't know how it smeared down -- I don't know how the blood got on the pole.

In the terms of blood-stain analysis, if a drop is a vertical drop, it usually comes out and is fairly circular in nature?

If it's a from a 90-degree source that's not moving, yes.

And in terms of a blood smear, that is a transfer of blood -- if I had a cut on the back of my hand and I pushed upon this piece of paper, you would consider that a smear, would you not, if it was an open cut and bleeding?

I don't know if you had a cut I would call it a smear, perhaps a transfer, because I wouldn't know exactly how that happened, a smear versus a swipe. I'd possibly call it a transfer.

Well, let's -- can we then use the term "blood transfer" to include both smear and swipe?

Sure, sure.

And you would agree that what's on that pole is a blood transfer; that is, it's either a smear or a swipe, correct?

Well, it could have been a drop at one time and then gotten smeared.

I need to qualify that.

What you see in that photograph which was taken on June 13, 1994 at the crime scene, is a blood transfer, that being a smear or a swipe, true?

Possibly.

Well, in your opinion, is it or isn't it?

I can't tell you my opinion because I didn't see it deposited. I've given you two possible scenarios and my opinion of this, how this blood might have gotten there.

Let's just back up for a minute. You may assume your seat if you like, sir.

The crime scene is allegedly secured at 12:30, when the LAPD gets their officers there and they yellow-tape it, right?

It's secured, yes.

And what's supposed to happen is that no one is supposed to go in and contaminate the crime scene, correct?

Certainly, no intentional contamination, obviously.

And no one would go -- be walking up the walkway where blood has come down the walkway, true?

I would hope not.

And no one would be over at the vertical support for the gate on the right-hand side of the walkway?

Not necessarily.

I don't understand your question --

Well --

-- or is that a statement?

The actual picture with the foliage, if I may.

(BY MR. BAKER) You would agree as a general proposition, that certainly, the Los Angeles Police Department would not be attempting to turn a blood drop into a blood smear. I mean, they would -- you would be trying to ensure that the integrity of the physical evidence is kept intact at a crime scene; isn't that true?

That's correct.

And you would -- those pictures were taken at sometime, I want you to assume, between 3:00 and 6:00 in the morning, okay?

Objection, Your Honor. Lack of foundation.

Asking him to assume.

Hypothetical. Overruled.

(BY MR. BAKER) We've heard testimony that police officers and detectives went up the south foliage when they were going up to the crime scene, and stayed away from the north side.

That would be consistent with what you saw at the time that you were there, true?

Well, initially, before they entered the crime scene to do their work, yes.

And the pictures that document evidence are to document the evidence so that there can be, as much as possible, a reconstruction of the event that occurred causing the criminal act, true?

We want to do that, yes.

And what you don't want to do, of course, is, you don't want to turn a droplet into a smear, because that may have some significance in terms of reconstruction of the scene, true?

Certainly.

And in fact, where that pole is located, which would be on the right side of the walkway as we look at the monitor --

And that's exhibit what, Phil?

MR. P. BAKER: 1439.

(BY MR. BAKER) 1439. That is an area that, the whole time you were there, nobody was walking over by that area, true?

No, there were people. There were coroners, investigators, criminalists, myself.

The coroner didn't get there until after 9:00. The criminalist didn't get there until after 10:00, true?

If I -- is there a specific time here that you're referring to?

Yeah. I said that picture, I want you to assume, was taken between 3:00 and 6:00 in the morning. There would be nobody there turning a blood droplet into a swipe or a smear, true?

I would hope not.

And that blood smear is within one inch or so from the tile, correct?

Appears that way.

There wasn't anything that matched that on Mr. Goldman's boots, was there?

That matched what?

That matched a blood transfer an inch above ground level.

I'm sorry, I don't understand that question. A blood transfer here that matched something on Mr. Goldman's boot?

Well, that blood transfer had to come from someplace, didn't it?

Well, certainly, yes.

It had to come from a bleeding wound, didn't it?

Yes.

And it had to come from a bleeding wound that was an inch or so off the ground, didn't it?

No.

It was not in an area where Nicole Brown Simpson was, was it?

It certainly is.

Nicole Brown Simpson, in your opinion, was not knocked out before she was killed; isn't that true?

Objection. Beyond the scope, Your Honor.

Sustained.

BY MR. BAKER: Let me look at your notes. You indicated on your notes that Ms. Brown had no shoes on, correct?

That's correct.

And she had no dirt on her feet, correct?

That's correct.

Indicating she wasn't in the dirt area, true?

More than likely.

Correct? I'm sorry.

I would say more than likely that's pretty evident.

And your opinion was that she was knocked out basically in the position that she ended up when she was found at 0010 in the morning, true?

That's what the evidence shows us, yes.

So her blood didn't transfer across the walkway into the vertical pole, did it?

Yes, it did.

Oh, you think it did?

I know it did. In that vicinity, I don't know what that blood is on that pole without an analysis.

If it transfered, it wouldn't be a smear. It would be drops as contrasted to a swipe or a smear, true?

That's what I said earlier, yes, true.

And there is no indication of how that blood smeared on that vertical pole, is there, in the evidence that you viewed?

No. We can't tell how that happened. Of course, not.

And that could have been the perpetrators of the crime, correct, bleeding at that area; true?

Objection. Calls for speculation.

Sustained.

BY MR. BAKER: Now, did you, in the back alleyway of 875, did you see a pendant back there, Mr. Lange?

Yes.

Want to put that up. What number is that, please?

MR. P. BAKER: 859.

(BY MR. BAKER) Where was that?

The pendant was in the -- approximately the driveway area, I believe, adjacent to the garage door.

Now, when was that item -- strike that.

That was an item of evidence?

It was ultimately booked evidence. It wasn't initially, but ultimately I did book it.

Well, it was -- that's the ruler of Mr. Rokahr, the photographer, that he put down beside that, done on June 13, 1994?

That's correct.

That item was booked as evidence August 26, 1994, ten weeks later?

Yes.

What happened to it between the 13th and the 26th, Mr. Lange?

I collected it, Mr. Baker. It was in my --

What did you do with it?

-- It was in my desk drawer for that amount of time.

It was in your desk drawer?

Yes.

For ten weeks.

Objection.

Yes.

Argumentative, Your Honor.

Overruled.

Would you like me to explain, Mr. Baker?

BY MR. BAKER: Now, did you, personally, take any other evidence and have it in your custody and control without booking it?

I'm not aware of any evidence that wasn't booked.

Well, you're suppose to book things as soon as practical, true?

That's the key word, "practical." It was not practical to book this item at that particular time.

It wasn't practical to book that piece of evidence for ten weeks while it sat in your drawer?

That's correct.

Okay. So your drawer, and in the area where you can book evidence, what is it; two floors away?

More like two miles.

So couldn't book it for the ten weeks?

No. It's not that I couldn't.

Okay.

Oh, okay. Did you with hold any other evidence, Mr. Lange?

No.

And how about the tennis shoes, did you take those home for my particular reason instead of booking those in the night of the 13th?

They couldn't have been booked on the night of the 13th because the ECU is closed and the criminalist left.

I did, in fact, take them home with me instead of taking them all the way downtown just to find a closed evidence control unit.

So that was okay as far as you were concerned?

It was on order by my commanding officer. It was the common sense thing to do and the ECU is closed. I wouldn't -- couldn't have booked it if I wanted to book it.

It was okay, as far as you were concerned, to put the tennis shoes -- where did you put them, in the inside of your car or the trunk?

Initially when I left I put them inside the vehicle. When I returned home, I locked them in the back of the vehicle in the trunk and they were in a cardboard box.

Now, did Phil put up the triangular paper?

MR. P. BAKER: Excuse me?

No. The triangular paper?

(BY MR. BAKER) That piece of paper was observed by you at the crime scene on June 13, 1994, true?

That's correct.

And that piece of paper has blood pattern evidence on it, correct?

That's possibly open to interpretation.

Well -- well, Mr. Lange, why don't you give us yours, does it or doesn't it?

Surely, there's a flow of blood on there if you were to interpret that as something.

Again, this is why we take these types of photographs. I don't see anything in particular.

Later on, subsequently to this, there were three small lines, I believe, observed on this piece of paper. It was looked at by our experts, by our footprint expert, our shoe print expert and our fiber expert. And it was the belief of those individuals that it was not a shoe impression but perhaps a fiber impression of some type.

Move to strike as nonresponsive, Your Honor. The question was, to this witness, whether he had an opinion as to whether that was blood pattern evidence.

Sustained. Stricken.

Can he answer the question?

Excuse me. The witness said he had an opinion. It's based on what experts advised him. Mr. Baker's question was broad. It's not where did he get the opinion, but did he have one.

Okay. If you have one, yes or no?

I formed an opinion, yes.

BY MR. BAKER: Did you have an opinion on the night of June 13, 1994, that that piece of paper contained blood pattern evidence?

No. I never examined it on that night nor that morning.

And did you direct anyone to pick up that piece of paper?

No, I directed it to be photographed at a crime scene. You don't necessarily always pick up every scrap of paper that's there. Especially something like this, that had been there obviously for some time. Generally at a crime scene, you're going to look for something that was introduced by the suspect or as a consequence of the crime.

In this particular instance, there were other scraps of paper. There were bits and pieces of rawhide, dog bone. There were leaves, berries, and just not going to pick everything up.

You're going to examine it. You're going to document it, certainly, out of an abundance of caution. And you're going to photograph it. You're going to orient it and photograph it, as in this case, up close to identify it. But you're not always going to pick up everything. This piece of paper was weathered. And in my mind, it had been there for some time.

I take it, from your testimony just now, sir, that you personally have made the decision that this was probably not a piece of evidence that was significant and therefore need not be collected, true?

No. If I didn't think it was significance, we wouldn't have gone to the lengths that we did to identify this piece of paper. This piece of paper was not as a consequence of the crime or induced during the crime in my opinion.

Oh?

I did not direct the criminalist to pick it up. If he had, it wouldn't have mattered but there were many other items that weren't picked up too for the same reason.

So let me see if I understand it.

You made the decision there June 13, 1994, that this piece of paper was not introduced at the time the crime took place, correct?

That's my opinion, it was then and it is now.

I see. And you don't know whether there are any fingerprints on it 'cause you didn't collect it, right.

Objection. Collection. And we're way beyond the scope.

Sustained.

BY MR. BAKER: Blood pattern evidence can show shoe prints, can it not?

Same objection, Your Honor.

Excuse me?

Same Objection, Your Honor.

Blood pattern evidence could show shoe prints. Overruled. I don't know that.

(BY MR. BAKER) You don't know that.

Regardless, that's why we take these identifying photographs so that someone, if need be, can look at it at a later date.

And you think that the photograph is probably as good as the actual physical evidence; that you can look at and put under, for example, a binocular microscope?

No, I didn't say that.

You should have picked it up, shouldn't you?

Not necessarily, no.

I didn't say --

Move to strike as nonresponsive.

Overruled.

BY MR. BAKER: Now, do we have a picture of that?

That piece of totally uncrucial evidence was between the bodies of the victims of a double homicide; was it not?

On the way, that's correct.

And it was within ten inches of the body of Nicole Brown Simpson?

I don't know, possibly.

What picture is that?

MR. P. BAKER: 92.

It's a triangular piece of paper that we have on the monitor, exhibit 92, is right where I'm pointing; is it not?

Yes, it is.

(BY MR. BAKER) Right where there is a copious amount of blood, true?

There's blood all over, yes.

Right where there are shoe prints, correct?

There are shoe prints that are above that location, yes.

And below that location?

Yes.

Correct?

Appears to be.

You never picked up the piece of paper to determine what was on the other side of it either, did you?

Objection, collection, this line, Your Honor.

Sustained.

BY MR. BAKER: By the way, did you wear booties at any time when you were at Bundy; when you went to Rockingham or when you came back to Bundy?

I've never worn booties on any crime scene and never heard of a detective doing that.

Why? Is it too unmacho?

No.

Objection. Argumentative.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, you're saying that you made the decision at the crime scene, June 13, 1994, that that piece of paper between the envelope and the body of Nicole Brown Simpson was just irrelevant?

Objection, Your Honor. Misstates the testimony. Asked and answered several times.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) And you say, based upon your -- Did you go up and look at it so you could tell if it was weathered, Mr. Lange?

I certainly did age, also documented it and I made sure it was photographed both at a distance for orientation purposes, and up close for identification purposes.

In your view that it was appropriate, now, the picture that is on the board presently on the monitor --

MR. P. BAKER: 92.

(BY MR. BAKER) Were you present when that picture was taken?

I don't believe so.

Were you present when the picture, the close-up I just put up on the board --

Which is what?

MR. P. BAKER: 1532.

(BY MR. BAKER) Were you present when that picture was taken, or were you over at Rockingham?

No. I believe I was in the area.

It's your testimony that you directed Mr. Rokahr, the LAPD photographer, to take that picture?

I don't see that. I did order close-up photos of various items at the scene and I believe that to be one of them.

And that was one of the items that you ordered a close-up photo?

Well --

You're sure about that as you testified?

Specifically I can't say yes.

I can say in a general sense that we do take orientation shots and we do take identification shots of all evidence when we're at a crime scene. We don't specifically point out A,B,C.

We ask the photographer, especially an experienced photographer, to start shooting the evidence while we do other things. Many things are happening at the same time.

My question was unclear. Let me see if I can rephrase it.

Did you, personally, order any photograph of the piece of paper that is now on the TV monitor in Exhibit 1542 (sic)?

Same answer: In a general sense, yes.

So specifically, the answer is no, correct?

Specifically, I can't say because there were specific instructions on specific items. This was not foremost in my mind then. It's not foremost in my mind now. This, as evidence -- there were many other things that preceded that.

For the record, it's exhibit 1532.

That's as close as I get, 1532. I apologize.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, did you direct Rokahr, the LAPD photographer, to take any pictures of -- for example, was there a menu about the crime scene that you observed on June 13, 1994?

There was a mailer, a common mailer that had been through the neighborhood, through all the residences in the area, yes.

There was a follow-up done on that mailer that had been delivered to all of the homes in the neighborhood.

Well, on June 13, 1994, you didn't know whether that mailer had gone anywhere, true?

That's true.

Did you have, did you direct Rolf Rokahr to take a pictures of that, sir?

Again, there was a general request to photograph various things. I haven't reviewed those photos in some time. That photograph may have been taken as an orientation photograph early on. I don't know, I'd have to look at it.

But certainly that would be a piece of evidence that you would at least want documented by a photo, true. That is --

Certainly.

That this is this?

And possibly writing also.

And there should be a photograph of that?

I would hope that there would be, yes.

And it would be improper procedure if there wasn't, correct?

Objection. Relevance, materiality, Your Honor.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, every blood drop that you located on June 13, 1994 was photographed in a close-up mode, correct?

No.

Well, on the --

If you're speaking just specifically of the five drops on the walkway, that's correct. There were dozens that were not photographed that closely.

Well, there were the blood drops that you say you saw on June 13, 1994 in the various locations on the walkway that was outside of the actual closed-in area in the walkway where the victims bodies were found, true?

That's what I said.

And, so, as we go east to west, we have item 112, then we have item 11 -- or item 112. And that would be, if one was walking east to west, that would be to their left side, correct?

Correct.

And the item No. 113, that's basically in the center; is it not?

That's not left or right if someone is walking from east to west, correct?

No. I believe it is on the left side of the shoe print if you were to observe an overall photograph.

And item No. 114, that's not on the left; is it?

It is to the left of the shoe prints, yes.

There are shoe prints where 114 is? You sure of that?

Well, on that schematic I believe there are prints not directly adjacent to, but to the right of, and in the vicinity of that blood drop.

And 115, that, you believe, that's also -- that's also on the left?

No, 115, there weren't any shoe prints observed back at 115.

And 117, that's about what foot from the wall?

If someone was still walking east to west, that wouldn't be on their left, would it?

I can't -- I couldn't say.

Well, so that all of the blood print, blood spots or stains that were out of the crime area were photographed, both to show perspective and close-up, that's what you testified to yesterday, right?

That's correct.

And then as you go up to the back gate, and you get to the back gate, there is no photograph of any blood spots and no cards, right?

That's certainly correct.

But these blood spots, you have no doubt, as you sit here today that they were, in fact, there on June 13, 1994; and it just was serendipity that they weren't collected until you were out at the crime scene on July 3, 1994, right.

Objection. Question's argumentative as to the form that it was stated; the word "serendipity."

I'll sustain serendipity as inappropriate. The rest of the question may remain.

Answer the question without the word serendipity?

Would you repeat the question?

You please read it without the word serendipity in it?

Excuse me, it's not just that word, Mr. Baker, the question's also vague and ambiguous in terms of what blood drops we're about on the gate or other blood drops.

I think it was clear. Overruled.

Let me just ask you the question.

(BY MR. BAKER) It was just happenstance that the blood on the back gate was not photographed in close-up; that the blood on the back gate was not collected on June 13. And you have no doubt, of course, that it was there on June 13, although you requested a criminalist to collect it on July 3, 1994, right?

Objection, Your Honor. Compound, about four questions.

Overruled.

I wouldn't call that happenstance. I wouldn't call it carelessness.

(BY MR. BAKER) But these weren't additional blood drops. They were there on June 13, 1994, right?

They were.

And you wouldn't put in your written or the additional blood drops because they weren't additional blood drops. They were there on June 13, 1994, right?

I observed blood on that gate on June 13, that's correct.

You wouldn't put additional blood drops as you, in fact put in there on June 13, 1994. Why don't you read to the jury what you said on that?

Excuse me, your honor, there's no need for Mr. Baker to behave like that, throw the exhibit at the witness.

I don't need --

Excuse me.

-- An etiquette lesson from Mr. Medvene.

Mr. Medvene, would you sit down. Mr. Baker.

I apologize.

Thank you.

(BY MR. BAKER) Read to the jury what you wrote on June 13, 19 -- Strike that July 3, some three weeks later about the blood drops on the back gate, Mr. Lange?

I've got a log here and I've got everyone who was there and I'd put down.

Just read what the additional blood drops --

I'd ask that he not interrupt him.

Mr. Medvene, we might get this thing done if you wouldn't keep interrupting each other and the witness. Please answer the question.

(BY MR. BAKER) And that was, sir, the blood drops, these were additional blood drops from the 13th, right?

That was done additionally on July 3.

No, you said additional blood drops. You didn't say it was done additionally; isn't that true, sir?

That's what it says.

Now, the --.

MR. P. BAKER: 719.

I should have taken that down. I'll probably hurt somebody if I put it back up.

(BY MR. BAKER) This picture is the far away view that was taken on June 13, 1994, correct?

It is.

And all of the blood drops that you saw and documented and had collected on July 3, 1994, they're all there, right?

All of the blood drops --

Sure.

-- I observed on July 3?

Yeah. Just let's just take the lower --

Well --

-- Horizontal bar of the gate. You saw where we have items No. 115 and 116 again, correct?

That's correct.

Yeah and both of those drops were definitely in your view, no question about it, they were there on June 13, 1994, right?

That's correct.

Zoom in on that.

You have a terrible photo here.

Terrible photo, huh. Tell us where they are.

This is 115 in this area here. Because of the angle, the graininess of the photo, because of the distance and because I believe the 116 is recessed up and it's a lot smaller, it's pretty difficult to see. But you can clearly see this blood drop.

And 115 isn't there; is it?

It might be 116.

Okay.

This is 115. 116 is not visible for the reasons stated.

So it was there and the photograph, just kind of omitted it, right?

Photograph? Didn't omitt it. There were, as you can see, it's smaller. This is an extremely grainy photo. It's recessed up farther than 115.

And that photo shows all the way to the mesh in the gate. And if 116 had been there, it would be on that photo, agree or disagree?

It is on that photo because of the reasons stated. You can't see it because of the reasons stated. These photographs were not taken to highlight that blood. That blood was not checked on this day.

We are well aware of that.

Well, I don't know, sir. I'm trying to tell you here what happened with this photograph and you clearly see this blood droplet. The other is smaller and it's recessed -- and it's a grainy photo -- and there's distance.

I see. So you believe that 116 is there and it's just impossible to see because you're an expert in grainy photos and recessing, right?

No, no.

I don't have anything further.