Cross-examination of investigator Tippin

📄 Cross-examination of investigator Tippin — Monday, January 6, 1997

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1997\JAN\6\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-INVESTIGA.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 36 of 57

◀ Redirect examination of investigator Tippin Deposition reading of Rachel Ferrara ▶

Witness: Investigator Tippin
Examiner: Peter Gelblum
Called by: Defense • Date: Monday, January 6, 1997 • Utterances: 44

Defense attorney Leonard conducted a brief redirect of investigator Tippin, challenging Tippin's prior testimony that Kato Kaelin provided no details about his relationship with Nicole Brown Simpson — pointing to detailed notes about their living arrangement and her alleged drug use. Leonard also pressed Tippin on why he failed to follow up on a suspicious call to Sergeant Merrin on the night of June 12, 1994, in which someone claiming to be from Channel 4 News contacted police, and which was never resolved.

# 1 A:

No.

# 2 MR. GELBLUM:

Okay. No further questions.

# 3 THE COURT:

Redirect. REDIRECT EXAMINATION

# 4 Q:

Did you just testify that Mr. Kaelin gave you no details about his relationship with Nicole Brown Simpson; is that what you said?

# 5 A:

I don't know how far you want to go with relationship. There are occasions in the statement about where he met her and those types of things, and also that he had never had sex with her.

# 6 Q:

Well, that's pretty detailed, isn't it?

# 7 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection, argumentative.

# 8 MR. LEONARD:

Your Honor, withdrawn.

# 9 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) Isn't there a whole page of notes or page and a quarter of -- the first page and a quarter of these notes have to do with where he met Nicole and the fact he had been living in a room in her house; isn't that right, sir?

KEY QUOTE

# 10 A:

Yes.

# 11 Q:

Take a look at it.

# 12 A:

Yes, it does.

# 13 Q:

And from that, that's what -- and when Mr. Kaelin told you about the drug use, didn't you assume that he knew that from the fact that he had been living with her?

# 14 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection, relevance.

# 15 MR. LEONARD:

I'm asking -- he opened this, Your Honor.

# 16 THE COURT:

Sustained as to what he assumed.

# 17 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) You were asked the question, did you follow up or did you ask any questions of Kaelin about how he knew about the drug use. Do you remember Mr. Gelblum just asking you that?

# 18 A:

Yes.

# 19 Q:

Well, you assumed he knew from the fact that he lived with her, didn't you, sir?

# 20 MR. GELBLUM:

Same objection.

# 21 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 22 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) Isn't it true, sir, that you didn't follow up because you assumed that he knew that from living with her, sir, isn't that right?

# 23 MR. GELBLUM:

Same objection.

# 24 THE COURT:

That you may answer.

# 25 MR. LEONARD:

Thank you.

# 26 A:

I didn't assume anything as to what he was saying, no.

# 27 Q:

(BY MR. LEONARD) Okay. Why didn't you follow up, why didn't you ask him more questions about that?

# 28 MR. GELBLUM:

Objection, relevance, Your Honor.

# 29 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 30 A:

I really can't give you an answer. I was taking as much information from him as I could, and the background of the people that were involved in this, and I didn't ask him any further questions as far as the narcotics.

KEY QUOTE

# 31 Q:

Now, the representation that was made by the caller to Sergeant Merrin at approximately 10 to 10:30 on June 12, 1994, was that the -- that the caller was with Channel 4 News; isn't that right?

# 32 A:

Yes.

# 33 Q:

And a call was made subsequent to Channel 4 News it was discovered that from whoever Mr. Noise is, that he couldn't determine that anyone had made such a call, correct?

# 34 A:

Yes.

# 35 Q:

What was the follow-up after that? Did you go back and talk to Sergeant Merrin about this situation?

# 36 A:

No.

# 37 Q:

Just left it?

# 38 A:

Yes.

# 39 MR. LEONARD:

No further questions.

# 40 MR. GELBLUM:

Nothing further.

# 41 THE COURT:

You're excused.

# 42 INVESTIGATOR TIPPIN:

Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. P. BAKER: Judge, I can read one deposition, might take 20 minutes.

# 43 THE COURT:

You got 25.

MR. P. BAKER: I was going to read Rachel Ferrara. Do you guys have that? Defense calls Rachel Ferrara. RACHEL FERRARA, called as a witness on behalf of the Defendants, previous testimony transcript was read as follows:

MR. P. BAKER: Page 20,458, line 5. (Testimony of Rachel Ferrara was read into the record; Ms. Bluestein reading the answers and Mr. P. Baker reading the questions.)

MR. P. BAKER: (Reading:)

# 44 Q:

Ms. Ferrara, are you a friend of someone by the name of Brian Kaelin, also known as Kato Kaelin?

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Witness (Tippin)

I really can't give you an answer. I was taking as much information from him as I could, and the background of the people that were involved in this, and I didn't ask him any further questions as far as the narcotics.

Tippin admits he had no real reason for not following up on Kaelin's drug use claim, undermining the thoroughness of the investigation.

Witness (Tippin)

Yes. Q. Just left it? A. Yes.

Tippin concedes the Channel 4 News caller tip was never resolved — a loose investigative thread left dangling.

Leonard

Isn't there a whole page of notes or page and a quarter of -- the first page and a quarter of these notes have to do with where he met Nicole and the fact he had been living in a room in her house; isn't that right, sir?

Leonard catches Tippin in an overstatement from cross-examination — the notes actually contain substantial detail about Kaelin's relationship with Nicole.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Tippin's handwritten interview notes of Kato Kaelin, containing approximately a page and a quarter about Kaelin's relationship with Nicole Brown Simpson

discussed, used to impeach Tippin's characterization of the interview

Notable Exchanges (2)

Leonard•Tippin

Leonard presses Tippin on why he never followed up with Sergeant Merrin after the suspicious Channel 4 News caller tip from June 12, 1994 was found to be unverifiable. Tippin admits it was simply dropped.

revealing

Leonard•Tippin

Leonard challenges Tippin's claim that Kaelin gave 'no details' about Nicole, pointing to detailed notes about their living arrangement — Tippin concedes the point.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Tippin

prior inconsistent statement / document contradiction

Leonard used Tippin's own interview notes to contradict his cross-examination testimony that Kaelin gave no details about his relationship with Nicole.

⚔ Tippin

investigative omission

Leonard established that Tippin never followed up on an unverified tip involving a caller claiming to be from Channel 4 News who contacted Sergeant Merrin on the night of the murders.

Objections

5 objections (3 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 8744 • 44 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103