Correct.

Okay.

You can take that off, Steve. I have nothing further. FUR THER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY

Yes, I did.

Thank you. No further questions.

Nothing.

Thank you. You may step down.

MR. P. BAKER: Your Honor, we have a number of exhibits to move into evidence at this time. There's one remaining witness. We're close to a stipulation with Mr. Lambert's request that he be put over until, potentially, surrebuttal.

I don't see Mr. Lambert.

MR. P. BAKER: I know.

He sent you a revised stipulation, asking to hear back from you. Do you have it?

MR. P. BAKER: I do not have the stipulation. Correct.

Other than the stipulation and these exhibits, the defense rests, Your Honor.

Reserve on the exhibits, as they've reserved on ours.

Okay. Ten-minute recess.

Do you want us to read these in?

Whenever you want to do it.

I don't know.

We need to read them in if there are any objections or anything.

I'm not sure what they are. Why don't you read them, and we'll let you know.

MR. P. BAKER: Ready Gina?

Yes.

MR. P. BAKER: 835, 847, 859, 860, 862, 878, 887, 891, 892, 901, 905, 911, 915, 918, 924, 925, 926, 939, 943, 955, 987, 992, 1025, 1174, 1178, 1180, 1187, 1248, 1279, 1281, 1303, 1321, 1324, 1342, 1349, 1350, 1352, 1353, 1359, 1360, 1362, 1366, 1367, 1368, 1375, 1376, 1422, 1436, 1532, 1730, 1798, 1869, 1870, 1877, 1885, 2024, 2038, 2040, 2046. 2049 is not identified on the record, but it was referenced during Dr. Lee's testimony by a videotape. 2100, 21 -- 2104, 2105, 2106, 2107, 2108, 2130, 2131, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2136, 2146, 2147, 2166, 2249, 2253, 2263, 2266, 2267, 2276, 2277, 2278, 2279, 2280, 2283, 2307, 2308, 2314, 2315, 2316, 2318, 2319.

Okay. Subject to objection, they're all received. (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 835 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 847 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 859 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 860 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 862 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 878 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 887 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 891 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 892 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 901 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 905 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 911 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 915 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 918 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 924 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 925 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 926 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 939 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 943 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 955 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 987 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 992 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1025 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1174 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1178 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1180 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1187 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1248 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1279 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1281 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1303 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1321 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1324 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1342 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1349 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1350 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1352 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1353 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1359 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1360 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1362 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1366 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1367 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1368 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1375 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1376 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1422 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1436 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1532 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1730 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1798 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1869 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1870 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1877 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 1885 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2024 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2038 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2040 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2046 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2049 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2100 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2104 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2105 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2106 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2107 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2108 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2130 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2131 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2132 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2133 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2134 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2135 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2136 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2146 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2147 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2166 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2249 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2253 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2263 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2266 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2267 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2276 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2277 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2278 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2279 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2280 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2283 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2307 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2308 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2314 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2315 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2316 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2318 was received in evidence.) (The instrument previously marked as Defendants' Exhibit 2319 was received in evidence.)

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, ten minutes' recess. Don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any opinions. (Recess.) (The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury.)

Your Honor, we have been informed that a couple of witnesses are proposed by the plaintiffs in their rebuttal case. One is Dennis Fung. We would object to Mr. Fung being recalled by the plaintiffs in rebuttal. Anything that we put into evidence through Mr. Fung while he was on the stand last week, they had the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Fung in the courtroom. And in our view -- I mean they then, you know, in my opinion woodshed him, they get him in here, in the jury room, and then now they want to recall him, I guess, to change some of his testimony. Well, regardless of what they want to recall him for, every item that we opened up when he was here last week, they had an opportunity to cross-examine him and fully cross-examine him, and that's their opportunity. They can't now come back, and in my view of rebuttal evidence, in the case and try to additionally put on new evidence. And well, it's not new evidence. It's to alter evidence that he's already put on. And I think that is inappropriate rebuttal and ought not be allowed. No. 2 is the same situation. They told us they want to put on Leslie Gardner. Leslie Gardner was their witness. We haven't put on one bit of evidence about Leslie Gardner, who you may recall was the equipment person for the exercise video, and we haven't put on any evidence relative to the clothing or anything else concerning the clothing, what was at the exercise video and et cetera. And hence, we would object to anything about Leslie Gardner especially since we heard that they wanted to put her on today, and we are required to get three days notice like throughout the trial, and we just heard about this one, I believe it was this morning.

MR. P. BAKER: Last night.

Last night. We would object to her going on, in any event, today. I think she ought to be precluded in her intent. This has to stop sometime. You can't put on witnesses and then say we're going to change this testimony and change that testimony. The idea -- they had full opportunity to examine Leslie Gardner. They had full opportunity to examine Dennis Fung. We would object to those two witnesses.

Your Honor, yesterday Mr. Simpson testified that Leslie Gardner did not give him any cotton-type sweat suit outfits at any time in connection with the exercise video. And she will be called to impeach him on that point. It's a very critical point. They are taking the position, contrary to Ms. Gardner's testimony in our case, that she provided him cashmere. She did not provide him cashmere. She acquired a cashmere suit, returned it, and gave Mr. Simpson some other items including cotton. And she will so testify. And it's directly responsive to his testimony yesterday, and I didn't even hear the testimony until about 4:15. Immediately when Mr. Simpson stepped off the stand, I told Mr. Baker that we were calling Leslie Gardner. We've contacted Ms. Gardner. The only time she's available to testify this week is this afternoon. We're going to have her on for literally three minutes, five minutes tops. And I've just given you the offer of proof as to -- And by the way, this is important because they're going to argue that the jury -- that Leslie Gardner testified that she provided cashmere clothing and she did not so testify. Secondly, as to Dennis Fung, they're making this argument, frankly a new argument now, that the Bundy glove is planted, and they tried to elicit some testimony from Mr. Fung that there was a hole in this -- in the glove that was in the photograph, and the glove here in court does not have a hole, and create this real sinister mystery. We are going to call several witnesses that have been identified several days ago to rebut that assertion. It's as simple as that. They have the burden of proof on this planting issue.

What are you calling Mr. Fung for?

To rebut that assertion. He will provide testimony in regard to his observations of the glove; the photograph. He's had more time to study the photograph. And we have photographers coming in and we have Mr. Matheson coming in. This was a photograph put in front of Mr. Fung for the first time. He had never seen it before, never. Mr. Baker asked some very strident, leading questions, and there was some confusion from Mr. -- testimony from Mr. Fung in regard to that photograph, and we want to set the record straight. We don't want the jury to be misled in any way, shape or form. They're trying to take the position, Your Honor, that that glove that was here in court and that glove that was there in the criminal court is not the same glove found at the murder scene; a preposterous assertion. We need to make sure we set the record straight on that. Again, Mr. Fung's testimony would be very, very brief. There's no prejudice at all and this is rebuttal to their argument of planting. I don't even understand why they think that Dennis Fung, just because he previously testified in our case, can't come back. They called him. We're entitled to call other witnesses back in regard to the topics that they raised.

Well, Mr. --

We're talking about very short witnesses. In fact, our rebuttal case should be concluded by Thursday.

I'm underwhelmed, No. 1, by their assertion that because it's short that means it should come in. The point is that whatever Mr. Fung said on the witness stand they had a right to cross-examine him right then. They had the opportunity to cross-examine him right then and they did cross-examine him right then. I asked him no leading questions. Page 59, I said: (Mr. Baker read a portion of the transcript of Dennis Fung.)

How did you, in your view, in looking at the gloves, did you determine where the cuts were on those gloves, if any? We were -- we're talking about the gloves now?

Yes, the gloves. Yes, sir. I switched to the gloves, sorry.

I did note when I got back to the laboratory some cuts on them.

That's what he testified to. That was not leading or suggestive. That's what he testified to. Then we went into what he said was the cuts on the left glove or the Bundy glove. Now, they had opportunities to fully examine him at the time. They get these police witnesses in here, they get them in the back room, they woodshed them, and they come in here and say we want the jury to know the truth. Nonsense, they don't want the jury to know the truth. They want to win the lawsuit. And I would suggest the Leslie Gardner issue -- he made a representation to this court that Mr. Simpson said he was never given any cotton sweats at the exercise video in May of 1994. That's untrue. What he testified was that he never took any cotton sweats from there. There is no reason to call her now except that they believe they left something out of their case. It's not rebuttal to anything. I would suggest that neither of these witnesses can be called.

All right. You may.

Thank you.

Bring in the jury.

What a shock.

And the three-day rule is out the window, too, Your Honor, along with 2034 and Kennemer. (Jurors resume their respective seats.)

Plaintiffs call Sandra Claiborne. SANDRA CLAIBORNE, called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and testified as follows:

You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

I do.

Please be seated.

And would you please state and spell your name for the record.

Sandra Claiborne, S-a-n-d-r-a C-l-a-i-b-o-r-n-e. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY

Morning, Ms. Claiborne?

Morning.

What is your occupation?

I am a forensic print specialist.

Who do you work for?

For the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Police Department.

How long have you had that job?

I've been with the police department for 12 and a half years. I've been a forensic print specialist for seven and a half years.

And were you working in that position then, on June 13, 1994?

Yes, I was.

Were you on duty that night?

Yes.

The night of June 12, the morning of June 13?

Yes, I was.

At some point did you get a call to go to a crime scene at 875 South Bundy Drive in Brentwood?

Yes, I did.

Do you recall what time you arrived?

Around 3:00 a.m.

And do you recall what time you left?

Little after 8:00 a.m.

Okay. And what work did you do at the crime scene?

The only thing that I did was I printed the front door, printed the front side and the back side.

Of the condominium?

Yes.

And was that the last thing you did before you left?

Yes, it was.

You left right after you finished that?

Shortly thereafter, yes.

And how long did that take you to do?

Less than an hour.

So you left a little after 8, and it took you a little less than an hour, you were printing during that front work around 7 o'clock; is that right?

MR. P. BAKER: Leading.

Sustained.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) What time would you estimate you started printing the door?

Around 7:00 a.m.

Now, what did you do between the time you arrived around 3:00

A.m. and around 7 a.m. when you started printing the door?

I was sitting inside one of the police vehicles.

Were you sitting with anyone else?

Yes, I was.

Who was that?

The photographer Dieter Rokahr.

Rokahr?

Yes.

Is he also known as Rolf?

I don't know.

You know him as Dieter?

Yes, I do.

Okay. Were you and he sitting in the car for a long time?

Yes. Yes, we were.

Several hours?

Yes.

MR. P. BAKER: Leading.

Sustained.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) About how long were you in the car, do you have any idea?

Several hours.

What were you waiting for?

Waiting for one of the investigating officers to tell us to start working.

At some point did a detective come to the car?

Yes, he did.

And did the detective ask Mr. Rokahr to come into the scene, into the crime scene?

Yes. He went in before I did.

Is that the normal -- is that normal for the photographer to go in first?

Yes, it is.

About how long before -- am I right that you went into the crime scene around 7?

Yes.

And about how long before you went in to the crime scene did Mr. Rokahr go into the crime scene to take pictures?

No more than 20 to 30 minutes.

So if you went in around 7, he would have gone in around what time?

MR. P. BAKER: Leading.

Overruled.

Between 6:20, 6:40, somewhere around there.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) And did you see him come back to the car after that?

No, I don't recall.

Okay. Do you recall whether it was light outside when Mr. Rokahr went into the crime scene for the first time?

Yes, it was light.

Okay. I want to show you Exhibit 1388.

Is this 1388?

Yes. (Exhibit 1388 displayed.)

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Can you see that from there?

Bring it a little closer.

Put it up against the TV.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) I'll put it here. Can you see it?

Yes.

Okay. It's been testified to that these are the first photographs that Mr. Rokahr took at the crime scene, around the crime scene, and then the last -- inside the crime -- the last two inside the crime scene. Do you recall, as you can see in some of these pictures, the sky getting light as you were sitting with Mr. Rokahr before he went in?

MR. P. BAKER: Leading.

Sustained.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Do you recall it getting light before Mr. Rokahr went in?

MR. P. BAKER: Same objection.

Overruled. That's what she testified to.

Yes, I recall it getting light.

I have no further questions.

Cross-examine.

MR. P. BAKER: Ms. Claiborne, are you a fingerprint specialist, correct?

Yes.

You testified that you arrived at about 3 o'clock?

Yes.

The Bundy crime-scene log says 3:55. You would agree with that, would you not?

That's incorrect. It should say 2:55.

Would you like to look at Exhibit 829. That's your name.

MR. P. BAKER: Do you want to see it, Mr. Gelblum?

I'm sorry?

MR. P. BAKER: Do you want to see it?

No.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) 8 -- I'm losing my mind. 829, what time does it say you signed in there?

It's 0255.

That's a 2?

That's a 2. Yes, it is.

That's not a 3?

No.

Okay. Mr. Rokahr, was he there when you arrived?

Pardon?

Was Mr. Rokahr already there when you arrived?

I don't recall.

Did you see Mr. Rokahr -- Strike that. How much time did you spend with Mr. Gelblum before you came on the stand today?

Only about 10 minutes.

Did Mr. Gelblum tell you that they kind of had a problem, they had Mark Fuhrman pointing at a Bundy glove before he went to Rockingham?

Objection.

MR. P. BAKER: If he asked her.

Objection, calls for hearsay.

Sustained.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Did he tell you that Mr. Rokahr had testified that that picture was taken at night? Did he ever tell you that?

Objection, hearsay.

I'll overrule that.

Yes, he mentioned that.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) He told that you Rolf Rokahr testified that this picture was taken at night, correct?

Asked and answered.

Overruled.

Yes.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Okay. You didn't see Mr. Rokahr take the overalls at Bundy, did you?

No, I didn't.

Did you see Mr. Fuhrman wearing a jacket at 875 South Bundy?

Objection, beyond the scope.

Sustained.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Did you see Mr. Fuhrman lift up the Bundy glove?

Objection, asked and answered, ask that these questions be stricken.

Sustained.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Did you ever see Mark Fuhrman at 875 South Bundy?

Not that I recall.

Did you tell Mr. Gelblum that?

I'm not sure if I mentioned that or not.

Did he ever ask you, Ms. Claiborne, did you see Mark Fuhrman there?

Objection, relevance.

Sustained.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) It's relevant whether or not she saw this photo taken.

You can ask her whether that was photo was taken.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Did you see Mark Fuhrman pointing to a glove when that photograph was taken?

I don't recall that.

You never saw that photograph, Ms. Claiborne, right?

That particular photograph, no.

Okay. And you never saw the overalls taken prior to that picture, correct?

Correct.

And you never saw Mr. Rokahr take any photos of the sidewalk going south on Bundy, did you?

Objection, relevance.

Overruled.

No.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) And if Mr. Rokahr testified that he took these pictures before that, you wouldn't have any reason to disagree with him, would you?

I'm sorry. Can I have the question read back.

You may.

MR. P. BAKER: I'll reask it.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) If Mr. Rokahr testified he took the overalls before he took this picture of Mark Fuhrman, you wouldn't have any reason to disagree with him, would you?

Objection, hearsay.

Sustained.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) You --

That's not hearsay.

He's asking her to comment about the hearsay.

Excuse me.

It's also argumentative, Your Honor.

I'll sustain that.

MR. P. BAKER: They can just keep throwing up whatever they want.

Objection, ask that be stricken.

It's stricken.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) You never saw Rolf Rokahr take the pictures of the Ferrari, did you?

No.

You never saw him stand out in front of the Bundy condominium and take the pictures, did you?

No.

You never saw him take the pictures directly after that, of the walkway, did you?

No, I didn't.

And did Mr. Gelblum ever ask you if you saw Rolf Rokahr do that?

I don't believe he did.

He never asked you?

No.

You don't know when this picture was taken, Exhibit 13 -- it's Criminal 1328?

Objection, beyond the scope.

Sustained.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) You never looked through the lens when Rolf Rokahr took photos, did you?

Objection, relevance.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) You have no idea when that photograph was taken, do you?

No, I don't.

And you would agree, Ms. Claiborne, that the photographer who took the photo may have a better idea of when this photo was taken as opposed to you, correct?

Objection, argumentative.

Sustained.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Ms. Claiborne, are you a latent fingerprint specialist, correct?

Yes, I am.

You assisted in the collection of 17 latent prints at 875 South Bundy?

Objection, outside the scope.

Sustained.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) Not one matched O.J?

Outside the scope.

Sustained. Excuse me. Jury to disregard that.

MR. P. BAKER: I'll take her and call her back.

I don't care what you do. But you know better than that.

MR. P. BAKER: I'll reopen on that one issue.

You can reopen.

MR. P. BAKER: Okay.

(BY MR. P. BAKER) You know that 17 fingerprints were taken at the Bundy scene, correct?

Yes.

Not one matched O.J. Simpson, correct?

To my knowledge, no.

MR. P. BAKER: Nothing further.

Can I ask some questions regarding the aspects of fingerprints, Judge? They just --

Why don't you agree among yourselves who's going to go next.

Give us a minute, Your Honor.

For the record, the criminal exhibits referred to as 1328 is actually Defense Exhibit 1310.

Your Honor, may I, to clarify, ask questions about the photograph --

Excused.

May I ask questions about the photograph and Mr. Kelly ask questions about the fingerprints since they were allowed to reopen and that was his area.

MR. P. BAKER: I object to them telling me --

Go ahead.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Ms. Claiborne, is there any doubt whatsoever in your mind that it was light out when the Detective asked Mr. Rokahr to come and take pictures?

MR. P. BAKER: Objection, she doesn't know if it was the first time. She has no independent knowledge of that.

It's a question.

I'll sustain the objection as to form. There's no evidence to show that she was there when any question was asked of Mr. Rokahr for the first time.

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Ms. Claiborne, were you with Mr. Rokahr from the time you got there until when he was called into the crime scene?

The majority of the time, yes.

Okay. Did you see any detective other than -- about 6:30, I think you said, 6:20 to 6:40, approach and ask him to come to the crime scene to take pictures?

No, I didn't see anyone.

Other than around 6:20 to 6:40?

That's correct.

That's the time you saw anybody come and ask him to take pictures?

Yes.

And you did not see him return after that?

No, I didn't see him return.

And it was light out when -- the time you saw somebody come and ask him to take pictures?

Yes, it was.

Okay. I have nothing further. FUR THER DIRECT EXAMINATION BY

Morning, Ms. Claiborne.

Good morning.

You were there the morning of the 13th regarding lifting potential fingerprints from the crime scene; is that correct?

Yes, it is.

Did you, in fact, lift 17 fingerprints from 875 South Bundy that morning?

No, I did not.

Were you present there while someone else did?

No, I wasn't present the entire time. I left after 8 o'clock that morning.

Okay. Did there come a time, though, that you gained access to a number of fingerprints that were lifted from that location?

Yes. I saw the prints, yes.

Okay. There were 17 of them; is that correct?

Somewhere around that number. I don't have the paperwork in front of me so I'm not sure.

You remember there were some steps taken to determine whether those prints could be matched up to certain individuals; is that correct?

Yes. But I'm not responsible for any of that. I didn't do anything with those prints.

Okay. But you knew enough to know that none of those prints had been definitively matched to Mr. Simpson?

That is correct.

Were you also familiar with the fact that three of those prints that had been lifted had not been eliminated as potential left hand prints of Mr. Simpson?

MR. P. BAKER: Outside the scope, misstates the evidence, lack of foundation.

Overruled.

I don't know anything about those prints.

(BY MR. KELLY) Well, you indicated you knew that they were not definitively matched up to Mr. Simpson?

I knew -- I don't know the exact number that were not matched.

Isn't it also a fact there were some prints that were potential prints of Mr. Simpson's left hand also?

MR. P. BAKER: No foundation in light of her answer.

Sustained.

(BY MR. KELLY) By the way, would you agree with me that it would be impossible for that individual wearing gloves to leave prints?

MR. P. BAKER: Argumentative.

Sustained.

(BY MR. KELLY) Do you know who any of those prints were definitely matched up to that were recovered from the residence?

I know there was some prints that were not identified to anyone.

Okay. And do you know there were some prints that were, what we call, partial prints that could not be definitively matched to certain individuals?

MR. P. BAKER: No foundation.

If you know.

(BY MR. KELLY) Partial prints?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay. And isn't it a fact that some of these partial prints could not be eliminated as potential prints of Mr. Simpson's?

That's correct.

Okay. And that three -- that some of these prints could not be eliminated as potential left-handed prints of Mr. Simpson's; is that correct?

MR. P. BAKER: Argumentative, no foundation.

Overruled.

(BY MR. KELLY) Is that correct?

It's correct.

Okay.

I have no further questions. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY

MR. P. BAKER:

You couldn't identify anybody as to those prints that you couldn't identify, true?

No. I know there was some prints that could not be identified to anyone.

And they could match anyone on the planet, right?

Yes, they could.

And not one matched O.J. Simpson, right, not one at 875 South Bundy matched O.J. Simpson?

That's correct.

And you never saw Mr. Rokahr take this picture, right?

No, I didn't see him take it.

And you don't know what time of day this picture was taken, right?