Yes, that is a damageed area.

And your earlier testimony here was there was a rock in there and you couldn't see any of the light colored area underneath it, correct?

That's correct.

And your present testimony is -- where was the rock?

I'm not sure now whether it was the right glove or the left glove, but there was an area of damage which would be analogous to the knuckle area instead of the finger.

So there was an area of damage found -- how big was this -- was this rock, sir, eighth of an inch, quarter of an inch?

Small. It was like a piece of debris that would come off a stucco wall or something.

And did -- did you make any effort to ensure that that wasn't lost?

I booked it with my -- with the evidence.

I mean you didn't put any piece of tape or book it separately or put it on scotch tape or anything like that?

No, I didn't.

Okay. Now, I put before you the earlier two photos that I had asked you to review, sir.

Yes.

Now, does that appear to you to be the left glove or the glove that was located at Bundy?

Yes, it does.

Okay.

And let me have --

MR. P. BAKER: On the screen is 2309.

It was misidentified as 2308.

The left glove is which number?

MR. P. BAKER: That, I believe, is Civil Exhibit 129.

If you want to mark that glove by reference and have a new case right now, we have a photograph of that glove -- I mean exhibit number. Would you like to mark that as a new exhibit number by reference or --

Yeah, that's fine.

New exhibit number by reference is 2312. (The instrument herein referred to as a left-hand glove was marked for identification by reference to Criminal Case Number BA097211 as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2312.)

(BY MR. BAKER) I'm putting before you 2312 which was Evidence No. 77 in the criminal trial that, at least I was told, was the Bundy glove. Where is the damage area on the fourth finger of that glove; do you see any damaged area at all on that?

I do not.

Now, there's some markings down here with some lines on the glove pointing to some stains in the glove, correct?

I'm not sure this is the same glove.

Well, I'm pretty sure it isn't, aren't you? I mean there's no damaged area on the ring finger of that glove, is there?

No, there is no damage on this.

All right. Now, you didn't do any criminalist work on the gloves after you collected them, did you, sir?

No.

So let me ask you this, because I'm obviously confused, is the area, pointing to the stains, is that commonly done when a criminalist is -- is examining something like a glove?

I didn't put those marks on there, so I can't comment as to why they marked them in the fashion that they did.

Okay. There is a letter -- it would appear to me at least that there's a letter A, correct, on the palm of the left glove, true?

Yes.

And it would appear to me that there is a stain above that where the arrow is, correct? Right there. You got better eyes than I do. Come on.

There's some type of mark on there, yes.

And over on the surface there is a letter O, it would appear, and two stains, correct?

Yes.

All right. Now, this picture of Mr. Fuhrman pointing at the glove --

MR. P. BAKER: That's a blowup of Exhibit 40.

(BY MR. BAKER) -- taken somewhere around 4 o'clock in the morning.

Object to that, Your Honor.

What are you objecting to?

Object, assumes facts not in evidence.

Sustained.

On what fact is allegedly not in evidence.

Time of the photo.

Mr. Rokahr's testimony from the deposition is that, sir.

There's evidence going in different directions on that, Your Honor, so --

Let me say something. This photograph was taken at nighttime, okay.

Object even to that, Your Honor, assumes facts not in evidence. Why didn't he ask the question?

Are we going to go through and search the record to see when that photograph was taken, if that's your objection. You have some objection to that photograph?

No. Why doesn't he ask a question about the photograph instead of making an argument about when it was taken.

Go ahead and ask the question.

Yes, it does.

If, in fact, the glove had a mark and was noted as a damage cut on the ring finger of the left hand noted by Mr. Fuhrman in his notes, would he have had to have picked the glove up to have seen that cut because it's not visible as it lies on the ground there, true, sir?

Objection, hearsay, argumentative.

Argumentative, sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) There's no way to see where the damaged area is on that glove in the position that it is in, you would agree with that, sir?

Objection, calls for speculation, conclusion on the part of witness. He wasn't even there when that photograph was taken.

You may argue that. Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) You collected the glove, didn't you?

Yes, I did.

You couldn't see the damaged area before you picked the glove up, could you?

When I picked up the glove I didn't look at it for damage.

This is this high state of vigilance and you didn't look at it for damage?

Objection, argumentative.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) You were trying to collect evidence from a crime scene, that evidence was within feet of both of the bodies of the victims, was it not, sir?

Objection, argumentative.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Did you look at the glove before you put it in a bag?

I did look at the glove before I put it in the bag, yes.

Was it in this position when you collected it?

Objection, this has all been gone into in length the first time around. I do have a page reference.

Give me a page reference.

Page 10, November 5, you want me to bring it up.

Bring it up. (Counsel hands transcript to Court.)

Sustained.

Your Honor, may I be heard on that? (The following proceedings were held at the bench with the reporter:)

We have never heard of this pebble before.

That's fine. You can ask about the pebble.

My point --

Blasier went through four pages of examining this witness as to how he observed it at the time.

My point is that he now can't tell us which glove this pebble was allegedly embedded in and whether it's indigenous to the area is where I'm going. I want to know if it was in that position when he believes that that glove was found.

So ask that. You can ask about the pebble.

MR. BAKER: All right. (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.)

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, when you collected the right hand glove at Rockingham, was there any cut on it?

I don't recall if there was or not.

Have no recollection of that?

Not at this point in time, no.

Did you -- was the -- was the pebble embedded in that glove when you picked it up, whichever glove it was?

Yes, it was.

As if somebody had stepped on the glove perhaps and embedded it into the leather?

Objection, calls for speculation.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Well, it was pushed into the leather and you saw this little pebble that you say would be consistent with something being knocked off a stucco wall, correct?

Yes.

And did see whether there was any cuts or tears in the glove, right?

I don't recall. I know that there was damage to the gloves. I don't know where they were though and or which one it was.

Where's the damage if this is the Bundy glove, you would agree with me there isn't one bit of damage to that glove, correct?

If that is the Bundy glove.

It's a left-handed Aris Isotoner glove.

Put it on the Elmo and show us the whole thing. (Glove displayed on Elmo.)

MR. P. BAKER: I need to take down this.

I'm sorry. I apologize. (Counsel removes blowup.)

No evidence there.

(BY MR. BAKER) No evidence of a tear, correct?

I -- there is none, no.

Turn it over. (Glove is turned over.)

Pull it the other way, please, Phil.

This is the A -- there's a spot that's discernible but barely.

If you can pull it over there's an O here spot here, correct?

Yes.

Now, the gloves were taken, after you as a criminalist picked them up, and maintained by Los Angeles Police Department until they were introduced into evidence, right?

Can you repeat that again?

The gloves, after you picked them up at Bundy and Rockingham, were maintained by LAPD, true?

If they were -- they were booked into evidence in the evidence control unit.

Now, on the right-hand glove, cuts on that, sir, did you notice those?

There may have been cuts. I don't --

Have no recollection of that either?

No.

And you don't know if the pebble was in the right or the left, correct?

I don't recall at this time.

And what color was the pebble?

It was a light color.

So it kind of like -- it showed -- that is, it was visible because of the contrast of the color of the pebble in the glove?

Yes.

Now, would you have made any notations on your records anywhere if you saw cuts on those gloves?

No.

Could we just pass this glove to the jury, please.

You may. (Jurors review glove.)

You will certainly agree, Mr. Fung, that the glove that was booked into evidence and the glove that is pictured as Items 301 and 302 are not the same, correct?

Objection, calls for speculation, conclusion.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Well, the glove didn't miraculously get the hole repaired, did it?

Argumentative, same thing.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Can you tell from visualizing this glove if that was the glove that you picked up at Rockingham?

Excuse me. For the record, do we have a --

What's the number on that, please.

Do you want to mark it by reference 2313.

That is the Criminal Trial Exhibit No. 164

A.

Correct.

Which is the right glove? (The instrument herein referred to as the right-hand glove was marked for identification by reference as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2313.)

This appears to be.

(BY MR. BAKER) And did the other appear to be the glove that you picked up at Bundy?

It was very similar to it, yes.

This one you say appears to be, and that one you say is similar, and the reason that you can't say that that was the glove that you picked up at Bundy is that there are pictures taken by the LAPD that show a hole in the ring finger of the glove that was picked up at Bundy and the glove booked into evidence has no hole in it, correct?

Objection, argumentative, Your Honor.

Overruled.

The photo appears to have a defect in it and that glove does not.

(BY MR. BAKER) There's no doubt in your mind there's a defect from the photograph; isn't that true, sir?

Yes.

All right. Now, relative to the glove that you have no doubt that you picked up at Rockingham, is there cuts on the top of that glove?

Yes, there are.

Are there cuts on the bottom or wear marks on the bottom of that glove?

There's damage to the palm side, yes.

Now, on any of these either -- of these gloves, did you compare whether those cuts would match any cuts on Mr. Simpson's hand?

That was not my duty, no.

So you didn't?

I did not.

And the glove that we've seen in evidence that has cuts on it is the right glove, correct?

Yes, it is.

Okay. And Mr. Simpson had no cuts on his right hand.

Objection, argumentative.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, this glove certainly looks like it has a fair amount of wear; you would agree with that?

Objection, Your Honor, calling for speculation on the part of the witness.

Overruled.

It appears to have been worn, yes.

(BY MR. BAKER) And the left glove doesn't appear to have virtually any wear on it; isn't that true?

Well --

You need to look at it again?

May I borrow that for a minute. (Indicating to juror.) (Counse l retrieves glove from juror.)

They're about the same.

(BY MR. BAKER) So in your estimation the wear on both of these gloves is the same?

Approximately, yes.

Okay. I'd just pass those gloves to the jury, Your Honor.

Do you want to start from seat No. 1 again since you're going to pass two instead of one?

That looks -- those look like approximately the same amount of wear, you say?

From -- I'm not a glove expert.

I understand.

But --

There may not be such a -- never mind.

I don't think I have anything further at this time. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY

Just a couple of questions, Mr. Fung. First, in regard to this trash bag that was used to transport the blood vial, is it uncommon for criminalists to use something like a trash bag to transport some evidence?

No, it is not.

In this instance, in addition to transporting the blood vial, were there any other items of evidence that were also put inside the trash bag to be transported?

I believe there may have been.

So you transported several items of evidence plus these cards that you picked up off the ground in the trash bag; is that your best --

Argumentative, speculation and leading as well. That whole area was gone into, Your Honor.

Sustained.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Is it your best recollection, sir, that when you took out the blood vial in the trash bag, you also took out some other items of evidence in that trash bag?

To the best of my recollection, yes.

Thank you. You were also asked some questions by Mr. Baker relating to your prior testimony in this case as to when you picked up the socks and Mr. Baker read you a part of that testimony. I'd like to read the rest of it to see if that accurately reflects your recollection. These are questions that -- by Mr. Blasier.

Well, Your Honor, I would object that he's not impeaching him. Ask him questions and that's what he can use the transcript for, nothing else, other than argument. I don't think.

I don't think -- the plaintiff is entitled to have the entire statement read in rather than just part.

This is from page 50, line 28, Your Honor.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) (Reading:) Now, what do your records show in terms of the time that you processed number 12?

Number 12 has the time of -- I'm referring to my notes -- 4:30 in the afternoon.

You have that in your notes?

Well, on the evidence collection, item number 12 --

Oh, I'm sorry. Item number 12. 4:30, correct?

Correct.

Item number 14, what was -- was at what time?

Item 14 was at 4:40.

And you collected the -- or at least labeled the socks between 12 and 14, correct?

Yes.

What time did you physically collect the socks?

The socks were collected within -- somewhere within that time frame there. So you did not intend to imply that those times were precise times, did you?

Objection, leading, suggestive.

Sustained.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Did you intend those times to be precise times, Mr. Fung?

Same objection.

Go ahead and answer it.

They are ballpark figures; they're not exact.

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Well, in regard to these gloves that are somewhere with our jury now, after you collected those gloves, were you involved in much further work with them at LAPD?

Once I had booked them into evidence, I did not see them again until the trial.

So you weren't really that familiar with what happened to those gloves afterwards?

No, I'm not.

Okay. And when you collect items of evidence like the gloves or the socks, is it your purpose at the time of collection to inspect them for whatever evidence they may contain?

I collect them so that they can be analyzed at a later date, and if there's some evidence that -- that I see that needs to be further collected, I will make that another item number and collect it separately.

But other than that, you don't purport to be closely examining those items of evidence for additional evidence at the time of their initial collection; is that what you're saying?

That's correct.

Okay.

I have no further questions. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY

Now, why don't you explain to this jury how the stone and the hole that was in the -- that was in the glove when you collected it just disappeared. Tell us how that happened.

Beyond the scope, Your Honor.

Overruled.

I can't explain.

Argumentative, as well.

(BY MR. BAKER) You have no explanation whatsoever why that hole is not there now, right?

Objection, argumentative.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) What other items -- Mr. Fung, tell this jury every item you removed from the trash bag other than the reference vial of O.J. Simpson's blood. Tell them.

Excuse me?

What other items -- you said to Mr. Lambert you removed other items from the trash bag besides Mr. Simpson's reference blood. Tell this jury what it was.

I can speculate.

You have been.

Move to strike the comment as argumentative.

It's stricken.

(BY MR. BAKER) Mr. Fung, let's -- have you got it there, you got anything there that tells you if there was one other item in that trash bag?

Objection, argumentative. Let him answer the question.

Overruled.

There may have been items 15 and 16 in that trash bag.

(BY MR. BAKER) And there may not have been, right?

I don't specifically remember.

So you don't know of any other -- as you sit here now, you know of no other items in the trash bag except the trash, the little numbers on the driveway and the reference vial of Mr. Simpson, right?

Objection, argumentative, use of the word trash.

Trash is stricken.

(BY MR. BAKER) Correct?

To the best of my recollection, 15 and 16 were in the plastic bag along --

That would be speculation?

Objection, argumentative. He said to the best of his recollection.

Overruled.

That's the best of my recollection.

(BY MR. BAKER) You don't know if -- what was in the trash bag. The only reason you know Mr. Simpson's blood vial was in there was there was a videotape showing you put it in there, correct?

Objection, argumentative.

Overruled.

That helps refresh my recollection.

(BY MR. BAKER) You didn't have any recollection to be refreshed, you just couldn't refute what was on the videotape; isn't that correct, sir?

Objection. Went into the last time as well.

Sustained.

(BY MR. BAKER) In your -- in your prior testimony, you were asked what time did you physically collect the socks, and your answer was the socks were collected within -- somewhere within that time frame there, referring to the time frame between 4:30 and 4:40, correct, sir?

Within the ten-minute period either way.

Well, you didn't say in your testimony when you visited with us on November 5 anything about ten minutes either way. You said, after you reviewed your notes -- (Reading:)

What time did you physically collect the -- Let me read it all. (Reading:) Now, what do your records show in terms of the time you processed number 12?

Number 12 has the time of -- I'm referring to my notes -- 4:30 in the afternoon.

Have you that in your notes?

Well, on the evidence collection sheet, item number 12 --

Oh, I'm sorry. Item 12. 4:30, correct?

Correct. And item 14 was at what time? Item 14 was at 4:40.

You collected the or at least labeled the socks between 12 and 14, correct?

Yes. What time did you physically collect the socks? The socks were collected within -- somewhere within that time frame. And that time frame that you referred to, sir, was the time frame between 4:30 and 4:40, was it not?

The times on the -- written on this sheet are approximate.

Maybe you didn't understand my question. I'll give you another opportunity. In your answer that I just read, "The socks were collected somewhere within that time frame there," you were referring to the time frame between 4:30 and 4:40, were you not, sir?

Well, that's not the test, Mr. Fung.

May I finish?

No, you may not. Answer my question.

Your Honor, I ask that the witness be able to answer.

The witness is not answering. The witness is arguing with counsel.

Counsel is being argumentative.

I don't need your comments about my comments.

Mr. Baker, we don't need that either. Go ahead and answer.

(BY MR. BAKER) You were referring to the time between 4:30 and 4:40 when Mr. Blasier asked you when you collected the socks, were you not?

No, I was not.

You weren't referring to that?

I was referring to what I just explained to you.

You were referring to -- in your answer to that question, you weren't incorporating the time frame between 4:30 and 4:40, right?

The time frame I'm referring to is a ballpark figure.

You were referring to the time frame that you had just mentioned in the previous questions of between 4:30 and 4:40; yes or no?

And those, between 4:30 and 4:40, they could go either way --

And you never --

-- in time.

You never mentioned in any of your testimony about the time of the socks, either in this courtroom on November 5 or in the criminal trial in your testimony for days, that you were talking ballpark figures. Today is the first time you have mentioned your terminology of ballpark figures, ten minutes either way, true?

Objection, argumentative.

Sustained.

I don't have anything further. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY

Mr. Fung, let me read to you from one other page of your testimony. This is a question --

I'm going to object to this.

Sustained.

Let me show you the quote.

I think we've done this enough.

He just said --

Sustained.

-- in front of the jury --

You're arguing.

Sustained. You're excused.

THE COURT: Okay. We'll adjourn till 1:30. (The following proceedings were held at the bench with the reporter:) (The notes of the proceedings at this point were ordered sealed by the Court, not to be opened, Transcribed, or destroyed except upon order of a Judge of the Superior Court.) (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.)

Is the jury excused, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Jury is excused to 1:30. (At 12 P.M. a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.) SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1997 1:40 P.M. DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE. APPEARANCES: (Per Cover Page) (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury.)

Your Honor, before lunch during Mr. Fung's examination by Mr. Baker, he asked a series of three questions which I just had the reporter find and read back, which indicates that Mark Fuhrman's notes indicated in the notes that there was a dog bite mark on the glove. And I went and checked Mark Fuhrman's notes which were briefly identified by Mr. Baker as Exhibit 847 in the examination of Detective Ronald Phillips, and there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of any dog bite mark on any glove, and Mr. Baker's question directly represented that there was such a marking. The only reference to dog bites in the notes is at page 3 of the notes where it says at rear gate of Nicole Simpson's residence two blood spots at bottom inside of cage area might have been where the dog was kept, suspect ran through this area suspect upon being bitten by dog. There is nothing in these notes about any marking on a glove caused by a dog bite as reflected in Mark Fuhrman's notes. And we ask that the jury be admonished that there is no such evidence in the notes of Mark Fuhrman, there is no such mention, just like this Court admonished the jury with regard to, for example, Mr. Gelblum was asking Mr. Groden about photos which allegedly were taken, and the Court specifically told the jury that that was innuendo and to be disregarded. And we believe that was highly prejudicial because Mr. Baker knew that the notes didn't say that and yet he so represented they did. I can show you the notes, Your Honor. (The instrument herein described as a notes of Mark Fuhrman was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 847.)

I believe you objected, Court sustained it and struck it, so there's no point in doing anything.

There was no good faith basis for asking the question, Your Honor, and that's the test. When we have a document and the document is being absolutely misrepresented to the jury, and it's highly prejudicial.

Bring the jury.

Your Honor, I have one other thing. That is that we had called the LAPD to get Officer Donald Thompson back, who is the -- the officer you may recall who was about a foot taller than my son, and he's the -- we asked him to come back. The LAPD says we're not going to have him come back unless you resubpoena him and pay us more money. What I would like from this Court is just an order he was not excused, he was placed on call. I would just like an order from this Court requiring LAPD to produce him here at 8:30 Monday morning.

So ordered.

MR. BAKER: Thank you. (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.)

Your Honor, at this time we'd like to read the deposition of Jim Merrill taken on May 28, 1996, in Chicago. JIM MERRILL, called as a witness by the Defendant via deposition testimony, testified as follows: (Reading of selected portions of the deposition transcript.) Mr. Leonard reads the questions and Mr. P. Baker reads the answers.)

Would you state your name, spelling your last name for the record.