Juror No. 186, as to your request, it's not a problem with the Court. The Court's direction to the jury not to go to work was only for protection of the jurors. And for this particular instance of training, you may.

JUROR NO. 186: Thanks.

Defense may cross-examine.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Good afternoon, Mr. Lange.

Good afternoon.

Now, Mr. Lange, when we took your deposition in June of 1996, you had met with the plaintiffs' attorneys nine times after the acquittal, going over the facts of this case, right?

I don't recall the number of times.

How many times have you met with the plaintiffs' attorneys subsequent to your deposition to prepare for your testimony and your presentation that took place today?

I believe possibly approximately three times.

Three times after your June 1995 -- 1996 deposition?

Yes.

You had about five hours you'd spent with them before June of '96. How much -- many hours you have spent with them since?

I would say probably a dozen. Perhaps in excess of a dozen hours, maybe closer to 14.

So total of about 20 hours that you've put in, since the acquittal of Mr. Simpson, in preparing for your presentation that went on this morning and this afternoon, right?

I suppose that's possible, yes.

Now, as any of that time, sir, were you paid by the city of Los Angeles for the assistance you were giving the plaintiffs' attorneys in this case?

Relevance, materiality, Your Honor.

Sustained.

Goes to bias, Your Honor.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Were you paid by the plaintiffs' attorneys for the 15 to 20 hours that you assisted them in the -- in helping them to be able to present their case today?

No.

And do you consider yourself to be friends of the Goldmans?

And do you think that your -- Strike that. Did you go to your partner, Phil Vannatter's retirement party?

I did, yes.

Were the Goldman's there?

Yes, they were.

Did they go to your retirement party?

Yes, they did.

And so you were all at -- both the Goldman -- both the Phil Vannatter, the Tom Lange retirement party, the Goldmans were invited guests of each of you?

That is correct.

All right. And did you go to any other event with the Goldmans?

I don't recall going to any other event with the Goldmans.

How about the Otis Marlow, Paul Tippin retirement party; were they there?

I don't believe.

So Otis Marlow and Paul Tippin were LAPD officers that worked on the case, the Simpson case, right?

Objection. Relevance, Your Honor.

Sustained. Unless you're going to connect it up.

I'll connect it up.

Okay.

They were part of it early on. I believe they were involved in a couple of --

Excuse me, I think Your Honor sustained the objection. I'm not sure.

He says he's going to connect it up. I'll strike it if he doesn't connect it up.

(BY MR. BAKER) And you know that after the acquittal of Mr. Simpson, Otis Marlow and Paul Tippin went to work for the firm representing the plaintiffs, your friends, the Goldmans, correct?

Objection. Relevance, materiality. Outside the scope.

Overruled.

I don't know if that was -- I don't believe they were involved in it at that -- the time that they retired. I think it was sometime after that.

(BY MR. BAKER) Mr. Lange, you know that Ottis Marlow and Paul Tippin came to LAPD while you were still an LAPD officer and got information to assist the plaintiffs after the acquitting of a O.J. Simpson, do you not?

Yes. They came to the department, certainly.

You also know that you were responsible for giving 10,197 pages of documents to the plaintiffs' attorneys, the employers of your friends on the police force, Paul Tippin and Ottis Marlow, and not one page to the defense, true?

No. I couldn't answer that in that vein. If you allow me to explain, I will do that.

Deposition page 80, please.

Mr. `Baker.

One second, Mr. Baker.

They want to load up, too.

I'll give you some additional time. I'm going to come back to it in two seconds.

Okay. Thank you.

You gave all of the audio tapes, all of the videotapes from the criminal trial to the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, did you not?

With the proviso that they were going to all four entities in this case.

I couldn't honestly say it just went to one group. There was an arrangement made by then city attorney, Mary House, to use these attorneys to disseminate all of this information to the various entities involved.

There's a letter of agreement; that was my understanding. So they did, in fact, send a copy of it to Parker Center. Those items were copied off, and it was my information that they were going to disseminate to all four entities.

And in all of these 20 hours, Mr. Lange, and all these nine meetings you had before your deposition, you never asked them if they followed through with the agreement and gave one page of one document to the lawyers for Mr. Simpson, did you?

Objection. Argumentative, Your Honor.

Well, you may ask that question in a nonargumentative way.

I didn't see that as my -- as my duty or my job to see that this was done for the other attorneys.

(BY MR. BAKER) You gave the document -- Strike that. Otis Marlow and Paul Tippin were friends of yours on the LAPD, right?

I considered them friends, yes.

And you went to their retirement parties, right?

I did.

Objection. Relevance, materiality.

Overruled.

(BY MR. BAKER) And you knew that both of these investigating officers were working for the plaintiffs, and you gave them documents, taped -- audio and videotapes, didn't you?

They were representing the attorneys who were supposed to get all of that information, as advised to me by the city attorney's office.

And?

I had no choice but to turn it over to them.

I see. It just so happened that they were -- you were -- they were -- you were pals. You gave it to them as a coincidence?

No.

Argumentative.

Sustained. Jury's to disregard that.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, you have appeared, as I understand it, on Larry King Live, Rivera Live, Charles Grodin, Dateline, right?

Yes.

Anything I missed?

I believe there were probably a couple more, yes.

And it was to tell your story about the criminal case, right?

To some extent, yes.

And by the way, are you -- are you now -- did you get the book deal you were looking for?

I hope to. I certainly hope to.

And do you hope to put a chapter in the book deal on your testimony in the civil case?

I don't believe so.

You --

We'll see what happens.

You have negotiated a book deal?

All right.

And you testified at the preliminary hearing, right?

I did.

Testified at the grand jury hearing?

That's correct.

Testified in the criminal trial?

Yes.

And let's start with your arrival at the crime scene at 4:25, okay?

That's about when you got there on the 13th?

That's correct.

And after you got there on the 13th, you took a cursory tour of the crime scene; would that be accurate?

That's your terminology. Perhaps a cursory tour. We took a walk-through, a preliminary walk-through.

And after you take your preliminary walk-through --

By the way, did you find anything of significance inside the house that you thought was significant?

Objection. Relevance. Outside the scope, Your Honor.

Overruled.

Significant in regards to the killings?

(BY MR. BAKER) In regards to a double homicide. You were there to investigate.

Not necessarily. There were some items of interest in the home that were noted. I did not find anything that I directly connected to the homicide.

There was a knife that I observed that I was initially interested in, that I had examined.

Outside of that, no.

Okay. Would you agree, Mr. Lange, that the time of death is of critical importance in investigating a homicide?

Objection. Outside the scope, Your Honor.

Sustained.

Your Honor, he's been designated as an expert and he has testified as an expert here today.

Didn't testify as to time of death in his expertise.

(BY MR. BAKER) Well, you noted on your walk-through, a cup of ice cream on the bannister, did you not?

Objection. Outside the scope and not relevant.

Overruled.

THE WTINESS: There was a cup on the bannister in the lower level by the garage that was pointed out to me, that appeared to have melting ice cream in it, yes.

(BY MR. BAKER) And you told Ron Phillips to have the officer who first observed the ice cream, document that in his report?

I may have mentioned that, yes.

And was that important to you because that could be a clock that could determine time of death?

Relevance and outside the scope.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, did you -- did you see any Levis jacket in the kitchen?

A Levis --

Objection. Relevance, materiality, outside the scope.

He may testify whether he saw it or not.

I don't recall seeing a Levis jacket.

(BY MR. BAKER) And you went through about 4:35, 4:40?

I walked through. I wasn't looking at anything in particular. We were just walking through, en route to the front walkway.

Well, you certainly saw a knife and requested the knife to be photographed, did you not?

The knife was pointed out to me.

You didn't see it without -- I'm sorry -- I apologize. Go ahead.

I did request that, but not at 4:25.

You wouldn't have seen the knife but for it being pointed out to you; is that your testimony, sir?

I would assume that I would, in fact, see the knife, but that's not how I understood your question.

As we did the initial walking through, Detective Phillips pointed the knife out to me as we walked by it on our way to the front door.

Now, you say you went out through the kitchen, through the dining room, and out the front door of the condominium, correct?

That's correct.

Now, by the way, can you -- to your recollection, you have gone through there many times, have you not?

I mean, you went through there two times on the night of the 13th; you were there on July 3; and you were over there between the 13th and the 3rd; true?

Objection. Vague, ambiguous. Going through what, Your Honor, the inside of the house or the outside of the scene?

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) You went through the condominium at least twice on the 13th. You went through the condominium again on July 3. You went through the condominium again on August 26. And I believe you went through the condominium at least twice between the 13th of June and the 3rd of July. Would that be accurate, sir?

Same objection, Your Honor.

Overruled.

No, I can't say that. I don't recall entering the condominium on July 3. I haven't seen any documentation in some time on that.

And I don't know that we entered between the 13th of June and the 3rd of July, either.

I qualify that, and I may be mistaken. If I could see some documentation.

You testified earlier, did you not, that you went over on July 3 to take the district attorney through a walk-through?

That's correct.

Is it now your testimony that you didn't walk through the condominium?

I --

Objection. That's argumentative. "Is it now your testimony," implies his testimony is different. All he said was he went outside.

I think that we would object to the speaking objection of Mr. Medvene.

Okay. Overruled.

I don't recall testifying to walking through the condominium. I recall testifying to a walk-through on the outside.

Again, I would like to qualify that. We may have gone in; I just don't we recall it. There would be documentation, hopefully.

(BY MR. BAKER) Do you know if you can see the kitchen from the front door of that condominium?

Objection. Relevance, materiality, Your Honor.

Overruled.

From the outside?

(BY MR. BAKER) No, standing outside, with the front door open.

That's what I meant, from the outside.

Fair enough.

See the kitchen?

Yeah.

I don't believe so.

So you couldn't see the telephone or anyone on the telephone from the outside of the front door into the kitchen, correct?

I couldn't.

Yeah.

Well, I don't believe -- if the door was closed, I don't believe anyone could.

Well, with it open?

I believe if you look, you can see, perhaps, the entryway, the east side of the kitchen, by looking from an open door, perhaps, but not directly into the kitchen.

Okay. Now, after you walked through the condominium the first time on July 13, as I understand it, you walked in through the entrance in the garage to the condominium and out the front door and out to the ledge to where you could see the victims, correct?

No; it was June 13.

I apologize.

And we went up the stairs and walked directly through to the front door, not to the front walkway.

And then after you were out the front walkway, you then walked back on the walkway on the north side of the house, correct?

Initially, we went to the right, down towards where the bodies were, and stood on the ledge that overlooked the bodies.

At that point, Detective Phillips attempted to point out various things to me. We turned around, went back down the walk, and went west after that.

And is that the time that you noted the bloody foot prints or was it after you returned from Rockingham that you noted and documented the bloody footprint?

The shoe prints I noted immediately there. They were pointed out to me as soon as I walked through the front door by Detective Phillips.

Now, this morning you talked about footprints going in a westward direction. Do you recall that?

Shoe prints, yes.

Shoe prints, pardon me.

How many -- well, was there a reason you couldn't indicate that they were shoe prints going east?

You can answer that yes or no.

Yes.

In the -- you described earlier, did you not, shoe prints going east?

That is in your criminal testimony?

I think I described a heel mark that appeared to be pointing towards the east that was down near the bodies, yes.

And that's the shoe print on the step? If you can come over here.

(BY MR. BAKER) Correct?

Yeah. These are shoe prints going west.

This shoe print is going west?

No. Generally the trail is going west.

Okay. This shoe print is going east?

Whoever put this on here does, in fact, have it pointing east.

(BY MR. BAKER) There was another shoe print up the walkway that wasn't going west, as well, true?

No. I believe there was an area back up in here where it appears the person was turned around, such as I'm doing here. And then they went back the other way and headed west.

You can resume the stand.

It was your testimony that whoever perpetrated these crimes, turned around and walked east, true?

I don't believe that was the testimony. I believe it was turned around, made a -- some type of a turning movement back towards the east.

And got as far down as the step, correct?

No. I believe some turning movements -- those shoe prints are all in the same area. I don't believe they walked east.

So the one shoe print on the step is not a shoe print going east at all, correct?

Well, it's depicted on there. It's going east.

I don't recall.

What I'm referring to is up closer to the entrance. This is what you're looking at, is down on the step.

I'm referring to an area that's up closer to the entrance where there are two or three shoe-print impressions that appear where the person has turned, and it appears to be looking back towards the east is what I'm referring to.

So you can tell from a shoe print that a person is turning and looking back towards the east?

All I can do is go by the heel marks and the toe marks. I suppose it's possible a person could have his shoes on backwards. But I don't think that happened in this case.

Well, are you telling us, Mr. Lange, that the shoe prints went east or that they faced south?

The ones up farther.

Yes.

I'm not telling you in either direction. I'm telling you that they appeared to turn as if someone were looking back towards the east.

All right. Now, when -- strike that.

Your testimony is that whoever perpetrated these crimes, turned around and did not walk east at all. Is that true or untrue?

Again, my recollection is that the person --

I'm not asking --

If court please --

(BY MR. BAKER) -- I'm asking what you're testimony is.

If court please, he should have a turn to answer Mr. Baker's question.

This witness is not responding to the question. The witness is ordered to respond to the question.

I would request the question again. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

(BY MR. BAKER) My question, sir, is: Is it your testimony that the perpetrator of these crimes walked west, turned around and did not walk back into the back east?

That's what the interpretation -- I saw that the shoe prints lead -- yes, that's correct.

Shoe prints. As far as you were concerned, the perpetrator walked up towards the west, turned, faced the east and then turned and went back west. Is that your testimony?

That's what the shoe prints would indicate.

That's -- so that is your testimony?

That's what I saw, yes.

That's what -- and that's what you determined on the night of June 13, 193 -- 1994, correct?

That's what I observed.

All right. Fair enough. Now, you, on the night of the 13th, after you had made the walk-through of the area, you then, as you testified, went back out to the front of Bundy and had a discussion, correct?

Actually, it was in the morning of the 13th, yes.

All right. You talked to Phillips, Fuhrman and Vannatter, right?

I believe it was Phillips, Vannatter and Rodgers.

Fuhrman wasn't there?

He was there, but I don't recall having a discussion with him.

And at that point in time, how many officers were at the scene; officers, detectives, plain clothes, anybody who was a law enforcement official, how many?

I have to consult the log. There were possibly -- I'll give you an estimate, I suppose.

20?

That's probably a pretty close estimate.

Now, the bodies had been discovered and it was told to you that the bodies were discovered shortly after midnight, correct?

That's correct.

And so it is now at the time that you are having this discussion outside of 875 south Bundy, close to 5:00 A.M. in the morning, correct?

That's going on 5:00 A.M., perhaps quarter of.

And you were aware at 5:00 A.M. in the morning that nobody had commenced processing the crime scene, true?

Not entirely. I was aware that certain photographs had been taken, certain orientation photographs.

No criminalist picked up or collected any evidence at this time, correct?

That's correct.

And you hadn't called for any criminalist to come to the crime scene at 875 south Bundy, had you?

I had not.

You hadn't called for a coroner, for the L.A. County coroner to come to the crime scene?

Objection. Relevance. Materiality.

Overruled.

No.

(BY MR. BAKER) So, at the time when there was no criminalist doing the investigation and you and the other lead detective, Vannatter and the relieved lead detectives were having this discussion, there was basically no processing of the crime scene going on some five hours after the LAPD had been notified of the double homicide, true?

Well, again, not entirely because there was some photography that had been done. There were people locating evidence. There were discussions ongoing, these types of things. There was always going to be some delay when we have this transaction when one division is going to take the case from another.

So this happens.

So, knowing that you'd had a photographer out there that had been called and knowing that you were co-lead detective, you and Mr. Vannatter decided to go to 360 north Rockingham to try to establish some rapport with Mr. Simpson, correct?

Certainly seems like the reasonable thing to do, yes.

Yeah. While you have a wealth of evidence at 875 south Bundy, two bodies, glove, hat, blood drops; it seemed like a good idea to leave that crime scene and go attempt to establish some rapport with Mr. Simpson, right?

Yes.

Question argumentative. Move to strike.

It's stricken. Jurors to disregard that.

And --

Excuse me.

We would ask Mr. Baker not continue to do that.

Not only does Mr. Baker interrupt me, you interrupt me.

Sorry.

I was making a ruling.

Now --

Excuse me. I didn't finish.

Objection sustained. Jury's to disregard the question and the answer. That is being argumentative.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, at the time that you decided to go to 360 north Rockingham to establish rapport with Mr. Simpson at 5:00 in the morning, there was no detecting going on at 875 south Bundy, true?

Detecting?

Yeah.

Would you clarify that for me, please?

Do you know what detecting is?

Well, I can think of the perhaps three or four different interpretations of that.

If you're referring to an on-going criminal investigation, well that is part of that investigation.

And certainly the trip that you keep referring to as "to build a rapport," was in fact, much more than that, and an integral part of this investigation in its early stages.

Move to strike as nonresponsive.

Denied.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, it's true that the two relieved and the two new lead detectives at the crime scene left 875 south Bundy at around 5 o'clock in the morning?

That's correct.

And at that time, again, you had called for no criminalist. You had not called for the coroner, correct?

Objection. Asked and answered.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) You then got in your automobiles and drove to Rockingham, correct?

Yes.

And did you think that it would be a good time to try to engender some rapport with Mr. Simpson after he was going to be told that his ex-wife had just been murdered?

Again --

You can answer my question.

Well, I'm trying to, sir.

Well, you can answer it yes or no.

If court please, Mr. Baker should not interrupt the witness. Your Honor, we ask that he be asked not to do that.

You may answer yes or no.

May I have the question again, please?

(BY MR. BAKER) Did you think it would be a good time to establish rapport with Mr. Simpson immediately after he was going to be told that his former wife had been murdered?

Not necessarily just for that purpose, no.

And you knew that Detective Phillips was going to go to Rockingham to tell Mr. Simpson that his former wife had been murdered; isn't that true?

No.

That wasn't part of the discussion that you all four had there?

No.

And if Detective Phillips had said that, that would be incorrect?

No.

Okay.

He didn't say it in my presence. He may have said it in the presence of someone else, but I don't recall ever hearing that.

Well, wasn't -- with all of you, the idea that Mr. Simpson was going to be personally notified of the death of his former wife?

Yes.

Now, Mr. Simpson was not, and you knew Mr. Simpson was not on July -- June 13, 1994, the next of kin to Nicole Brown Simpson, did you not?

I did not know whether or not he was divorced, as I testified to earlier, or separated. I did tie the children, however, to Mr. Simpson and that was the main concern. That was a main concern.

So the main concern in the personal notification to Mr. Simpson was not personal notification to Mr. Simpson, but to be worried about the children, correct?

Well, as I've testified, there were two or three reasons.

Correct.

Court --

You may answer yes or no.

Sure.

In all due respect, there are some questions that cannot be answered yes or no and this is one of them.

(BY MR. BAKER) How many times in the 30 years that you've been in the Los Angeles police department, have you sat on the witness stand?

Court please, relevance. Materiality.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) How many hours have you been a witness on the witness stand?

Same objection.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Do you know how to answer questions from the witness stand, Mr. Lange?

Same objection.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Mr. Lange, I'll ask it again. I'll have the Court reporter read it back with the court's permission.

You may.

Certainly one of the reasons, yes.

Did you have any discussion about personal notification to Mr. Simpson when the four of you detectives were standing in front of 875 south Bundy?

Obviously the subject came up.

It wasn't a big issue, correct. The issue was the kids?

The kids were a main issue. They were a main issue but there were other things that we did consider.

And the children of Mr. Simpson at the time you had this discussion, you were well aware, were at west L.A. Police station, correct?

That's correct.

Now, so the four of you leave 20 officers or so at 875 south Bundy and get in your cars, two cars and drive to Rockingham, correct?

Objection. Asked and answered several times.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Takes you about five, six minutes to get to Rockingham.

Objection. Outside the scope.

Overruled.

Approximately.

(BY MR. BAKER) When you get to 875 south Bundy, or -- strike that.

You get to the Rockingham address of Mr. Simpson, both of the cars stop and the four officers get out, right?

Yes.

And you thought it would take four of you to take care of the kids; is that right?

Objection. Argumentative, Your Honor.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Did you think you needed four officers, sir, to inform Mr. Simpson that his children were at West Los Angeles police department?

For that express purpose alone, no. But that wasn't the only reason we went over there.

The other reason was to get this rapport with Mr. Simpson just after he would be told that his former wife had been killed, right?

When I stated rapport, this was also to meet him, to know who he's going to be dealing with in the future. He's going to be in shock. He's going to have a lot of trauma in his life. We wanted to meet him, yes.

And it was important to meet him and leave the crime scene with the wealth of evidence that was there unprocessed, true?

Objection. Argumentative. Asked and answered.

Sustained.

Now, how long was it, Mr. Lange, before -- After you were at 360 north Rockingham in -- And before you decided that someone was going to go over the wall.

Objection. Outside the scope. We didn't get into this area at all.

Sustained.

I'd like to be heard on that.

You may present when you call him as a witness.

Well, Your Honor, I would love the Court to please look at the --

If court, please --

-- The cases I cited.

I will sustain the objection.

(BY MR. BAKER) You were one of the people who made the decision to go over the wall, were you not?

Objection. Outside the scope.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Before you made the decision to go establish this rapport with Mr. Simpson, you knew that there had been at least one incident of domestic violence between Mr. Simpson and his former wife, true?

No.

So am I to understand that it's your testimony, Mr. Lange, that when you, Detective Fuhrman, Detective Phillips, Detective Vannatter were standing out in the street at 875 south Bundy and you had a discussion concerning going to Rockingham, you had no discussion with Mark Fuhrman about any prior domestic incident between Mr. and Mrs. Simpson; correct or incorrect?

That's correct.

Didn't say a word, right?

I had no discussions with Fuhrman at all. If you'd like me to explain this, I certainly can.

You didn't hear from Mark Fuhrman at all, one word about any domestic incident at 360 north Rockingham, true?

I don't recall hearing anything about it, a domestic dispute, from Fuhrman that morning.

Don't recall Mark Fuhrman indicating that he knew the way to Rockingham because he'd been there before?

I did hear that through Phillips.

He said that Fuhrman had indeed been there on a radio call in the past, could possibly get us there.

And is it your testimony that O.J. Simpson, on the morning of June 13, 1994, was not a suspect for the murder of his former wife?

I didn't ask you whether he was a probable cause suspect. I asked you if he was a suspect by any definition?

We really didn't have enough information.

You can answer it yes or no.

Well, I'm trying to qualify the answers, sir, and I'm trying to give you an honest straight forward answer and that's to the best of my ability.

Can you answer my question and not give us what you want?

Well -- can you just answer my question?

Did you believe when the four of you got in the car, that O.J. Simpson was a suspect for the murder of his former wife?

There were two cars. I did not consider him a suspect in the murder of his wife.

And did you have that as a possible, a probable or potential, none of the above?

Objection. Argumentative, and it's also not relevant to this case, Your Honor.

Overruled. You may answer.

You can't start eliminating people before you receive evidence. So --

Move to strike as nonresponsive. Request the Court reporter to reread the question and have the Court order Mr. Lange to answer it.

Answer it yes or no, or I don't know or whatever. But answer the question.

May I have the question read again, please?

I don't know how you can answer that question.

Compound, vague, ambiguous.

Want to take another shot at that?

Be happy to.

(BY MR. BAKER) You didn't believe, then, when you got in the car at 5 o'clock in the morning to go over to Mr. Simpson's house, that he was a potential, or probable suspect at all, correct?

Once again, I can't eliminate people before I had evidence. He was not a suspect in any mind at that time.

Wasn't a potential, wasn't a probable, just wasn't a suspect even though he was -- he was the former husband of the decedent, correct?

Objection. Argumentative. It's vague. It's compound, Your Honor.

I don't think so. Overruled. Anybody is a potential suspect and you don't know until you get evidence, sir. You don't -- Or you don't get evidence.

(BY MR. BAKER) He was a potential suspect when you went over there?

Everyone was a potential suspect. We had no evidence at that time connecting anybody to this crime.

Now, you heard Phil Vannatter testify in the preliminary hearing relative to the fact that Mr. Simpson was not a suspect at all, correct?

Well, actually I didn't because I was excused from the courtroom, but I had heard the incident you're referring to.

And he said that?

Objection, Your Honor. Excuse me. The question is improper to read this. Someone else purported testimony and ask this witness to comment on it, Your Honor.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Did Phil Vannatter tell you that Mr. Simpson wasn't even a potential suspect when you got in the car and headed for 360 north Rockingham on the 13th?

That calls for hearsay. Irrelevant.

Received, ladies and gentlemen, only for the state of mind of this witness and not Detective Vannatter's state of mind. You may answer.

There was no discussion at all between Vannatter, myself or anyone else regarding Mr. Simpson as a suspect that morning.

(BY MR. BAKER) Did you ever tell anyone that the ex-husband is always a suspect in a murder crime?

No.

Never uttered those words ever?

I don't recall ever saying that, that's correct.

In terms of -- in terms of Mr. Simpson not being a suspect in the morning, in your mind, of the murder of his former wife, you wanted to go over and first see about the children, and second, speak to him and gain some rapport with him, right?

Basically, yes.

And that was the sole purpose that the two lead detectives left the scene at 875 south Bundy and traveled to 360 north Rockingham, true?

Well, that and leave Phillips and Fuhrman at the Simpson residence if someone were there, yes.

You wanted to leave the other two detectives there?

That's correct.

Oh.

So, that was important for you to take them over there so you could leave them there, right?

To stay with Mr. Simpson, or whoever else happened to be at that location that might need their assistance and getting the children back or anything else that might come up certainly.

Now then, you came back at around 7'o'clock in the morning, right?

Yes. A little before 7:00.

And again, there had been no criminalist called for Bundy by 7 o'clock when you returned, true?

No, I believe there was one in route and they were contacted and rerouted to the Rockingham location.

Why don't you tell us the first time the criminalist got to the 875 south Bundy crime scene after the LAPD was notified at 0010 in the morning?

So 10 hours after the bodies were discovered and reported the LAPD, the criminalist got to the crime scene?

Approximately.

Why don't you tell us, Mr. Lange, however how long it was after the LAPD was notified of the death of two people before the coroner got to the crime scene at 875 south Bundy?

Would have been coroner's investigator arrived about there approximately 9:00 A.M.

So nine hours?

Approximately.

Now, after you got back from Rockingham and you spent about two hours there, correct or an hour and a half?

I think I was there about an hour and 20 minutes, something like that.

After you got back, you then did an additional walk-through of the Bundy condominium, correct?

No. I did several things.

Okay. The no is responsive. One of the things that you did was go to various areas of the crime scene and document your observations, correct?

That's correct.

And you did that, sir, in your own handwriting and you took measurements and noted blood drops, et cetera, did you not?

To some degree. Not everything, but to some degree, I did that.

Well, you documented the blood drops on the walkway, did you not?

To the extent that I noted them in the notes, yes.

Mr. Baker, I was going take a break in about five minutes. If you're going to get into a specific area, I'd like to break now.

Okay.

Take ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions.