All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present. All parties are present. Miss Laura Hart McKinny is again on the witness stand, still under oath undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Darden. Mr. Darden, you may continue with your cross-examination.

Thank you, your Honor.

Miss McKinny, when we spoke, you and I, Miss Clark and your lawyers, on August 17th, do you recall being asked this question and giving this answer: "Question: And you transcribed the first tape just as--just the same as you transcribed any other tape, right?" And your answer was: "Yes." Do you recall being asked that question and giving that answer?

Yes, I do.

Could you pull the microphone in closer, please.

That was true; is that correct?

And that was true; is that correct?

That I transcribed them, yes. I was the only one to transcribe the tapes.

Okay. And you transcribed them just as you had the other tapes?

I transcribed all of the tapes, yes; no one else.

The same way?

Yes.

Okay. Now, let me just ask you some questions about your North Carolina testimony starting on page 7, line 17 through 19. So that the record is clear, do you recall being asked this question and giving this answer: "Question: That transcript that you prepared a fair and accurate copy?"

Why don't you start with line 15.

Line what?

15.

Thank you, your Honor. Line 15. "Question: Did you prepare a transcript of that tape, however? "Answer: Yes. "Question: That transcript that you prepared a fair and accurate copy of what was stated on the tape? "Answer: Of most of the things that were said on the tape, yes."

Do you recall being asked those questions and giving those answers?

Was this about all of the tapes or about one this particular tape? I don't--the initial part of that question I would need to hear again.

This is regarding the first tape.

Actually you should start--

Line 13?

Probably line 11.

Thank you.

May the record reflect I'm showing the witness page 7 of the transcript.

Thank you.

Yes.

Yes, thank you.

Have you read lines 11 through 19?

Yes, I have.

Okay. Is that accurate?

Yes.

That is what you testified to; is that correct?

Yes, that is what I testified to.

The first tape, the first transcript of the first tape contains most of the things that were said on the tape; is that right?

I would say yes.

On page 13 at line 4 do you recall being asked this question and giving this answer, line 4 through 9: "Question: Do you recall an instance where Detective Fuhrman indicated to you that when he didn't have a reason to arrest someone, an African American, that he would--strike that--that we would perhaps tear up their license and charge them with not having a driver's license?" Your answer: "I don't recall." Do you recall being asked that question and giving that answer?

I don't recall being asked that question, but if it is there, I remember the issue of tearing up the license was something that came up.

Would you like to see the transcript?

That would be useful if you want me to say something about it.

Okay.

Right.

Do you recall being asked that question and giving that answer?

I recall needing to see the transcript when I was asked anything that was on the transcript. I needed to see it before I could comment on it.

Okay.

Do you recall being asked that question and giving that answer?

Now, I do, yes.

Okay. And you could not recall what was said unless you looked at the transcript; is that correct?

I could not testify to accurately recalling unless I looked at what I had transcribed.

Okay. And that stands true today; is that correct?

I need to look at the transcript so that I can testify to what I have transcribed, yes.

Okay. And going to page 16--can I just confer with counsel for a moment?

On line 17 page 16 beginning in the middle of the line, do you recall being asked this question and giving this answer: "Question: Did he on other times tell you about implicating or fabricating evidence, things of that nature, any implication charges?" Your answer: "Only in the context of developing a story that I can remember." Do you recall being asked that question and giving that answer?

No, I don't, but if it is there, I know that I was asked that.

Would you like to look at the transcript.

Thank you. Yes, now I remember, and the following example that I give is applicable to the story.

Now, you are having some trouble recalling what you testified to just a month ago; is that correct?

It is very useful to see the transcript so that I can see in what context the questions were asked and how that was--how they were answered.

Is that because by looking at the context or reading about the context in which questions were asked that that will help stimulate your memory?

Could you say that again, please?

Does that help stimulate your memory, that is, to see and hear in what context questions were asked and answers were given?

Yes, it does.

May I have one moment?

Directing court and counsel to page 18 line 16 through 21.

Do you recall being asked this question and giving this answer: Question by Mr. Cochran--strike that. To put this in context, do you recall Mr. Cochran asking you what if anything Fuhrman told you he would do if someone called him a mother fucker? Do you recall being asked about that in North Carolina?

I would appreciate seeing the transcript.

Will this help refresh your recollection?

Yes, it would.

Right. Thank you very much.

Do you recall Mr. Cochran asking you whether or not you recall Fuhrman telling you that if someone called him a mother fucker he got a traffic warning?

Yes, I recall Mr. Cochran asking me that.

Okay. And when Mr. Cochran asked you that you responded--you responded at line 19. "Answer: I don't remember it, but if it is on the transcript, it was said. I transcribed it. No, I don't remember it." Do you recall being asked that question and giving that answer?

Reading it I would say that the transcriber transcribed my words, and although I don't remember all of them, I'm sure that is accurate.

You surrendered the original tapes to the court; is that correct?

Yes.

Now, just a few more questions if I may. Now, if I were to show you the transcripts, the transcript you prepared, transcripts of the tapes, you couldn't tell me what was missing from those transcripts; is that correct?

The transcripts of my--if you were to show me the transcripts of my tapes?

Yes.

My transcripts of the tapes?

Yes.

I couldn't tell you what was missing.

Okay. And those transcripts weren't prepared for court and they weren't prepared for purposes of accuracy; they were prepared to help stimulate your recall of what was said between yourself and Detective Fuhrman; is that correct?

Partially correct.

Okay.

I tried to prepare them as accurately as possible to maintain dialogue, situations and procedural information in a sequential fashion so that I would be able to write it cinematically. That would have been critical to me.

But they weren't prepared for purposes of court, correct?

They were not.

And you weren't under any duty to anyone to prepare an accurate transcript of the April 2nd, 1985, tape, correct?

No.

Okay. There is a second tape that was taped over or is missing now; is that right?

That's correct.

And which tape was that?

Do you recall?

I believe that is tape no. 9.

Okay. And you were under no duty to anyone to create an accurate transcript of that tape; is that correct?

That's correct.

I didn't hear that last--

The only things that you put into the transcript were those things that were of interest to you as a screenplay writer; is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. Now, with regard to the tapes in this case, does Detective Fuhrman have a financial interest in the tapes?

Objection, irrelevant.

Overruled.

So the question is again, please?

Does Detective Fuhrman have a financial interest in the tapes?

Objection, calls for a legal conclusion.

Overruled.

To my knowledge, no, he has no interest in the tapes.

Have you attempted to sell those tapes?

No, I have not.

Has anyone on your behalf attempted to sell those tapes?

Again, please, I'm not understanding.

Has anyone acting on your behalf attempted to sell those tapes?

The tapes are not for sale, they have not been for sale.

And how about the transcripts that you prepared of the tapes, have you attempted to sell those?

The transcripts have not been for sale.

I'm sorry?

The transcripts have not--the transcripts that I prepared of the tapes have not been for sale.

Okay. And has anyone on your behalf, acting on your behalf, attempted to sell those transcripts?

No one to my knowledge on my behalf has attempted to sell those tapes.

And that would include these two gentlemen here, Mr. Regwan and Mr. Schwartz?

That would include Mr. Regwan and Mr. Schwartz.

And so if I showed you a confidentiality agreement that related to the transcript and the tape signed one by Mr. Schwartz and the other signed by Mr. Regwan, you would be surprised to see that?

My understanding is that the tapes and the transcripts have not been for sale, so in terms of any confidentiality agreement, I don't--you will have to show it to me.

Thank you.

Mr. Uelmen, any redirect?

Very briefly, your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. UELMEN

Miss McKinny, the hearing that took place in North Carolina was with respect to the enforcement of the out-of-state subpoena; is that correct?

Yes, it was.

And before you attended that hearing did you have an opportunity to review the transcripts?

I didn't review the transcripts.

Did you listen to the tapes?

No.

So the questions that were asked in that hearing were presenting you with transcripts and information in the transcripts cold or without any preparation on your part; is that correct?

Objection, leading, your Honor.

Overruled.

That's correct.

Now, the questioning in that hearing with respect to Officer Fuhrman tearing up driver's licenses, actually in the transcripts and tapes there are two references to the tearing up of driver's licenses, are there not?

I remember one now. Umm--

All right. Well, let me refresh your memory. One occurs in transcript no. 1 and it is contained in our offer of proof as item C-2.

Counsel, what is the purpose of this?

Well, I believe the questioning in the North Carolina proceeding related to a different driver's license tear-up--

Counsel, I have read all this stuff.

--than the one that she testified to.

I have read it all. I have listened to it all. I am aware that there are two different incidents.

I won't burden the court then.

With respect to the testimony in North Carolina about implicating or fabricating evidence, the testimony that Mr. Darden showed you indicated that you testified he told you about implicating or fabricating evidence only in the context of developing a story that you could remember; is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

And did you in that proceeding describe one example where in the context of developing a story Detective Fuhrman did tell you about how evidence could be fabricated or manufactured?

Could we go over that again? I'm thinking--I think I was thinking ahead. I was thinking of the example that I gave and that might not be what you want.

You gave this testimony on page 17 at line 13: "I needed to know from mark how two officers who transported the suspect would cover up that information so that they would say that they were someplace else. How could you do that in their log, how that procedurally occurred, so that was one portion, and he explained to me how an officer could fabricate information and stated they were at one place when they were actually in another place." Did you give that testimony?

Objection. 356 objection.

Overruled. You will have the opportunity on recross.

Yes, I did give that example.

And did that happen? Did Officer Fuhrman explain to you procedurally how officers could fabricate a log to appear one place when they were actually at another?

Objection, misleading.

Overruled.

Yes.

Now, Mr. Darden asked you whether there was anything in these transcripts about planting evidence and you indicated that you did not believe there was; is that correct?

I don't recall if there is.

That misstates the question.

Overruled.

I want to make certain that we understand your understanding of that term of planting evidence. Let me ask you this: Would you regard it as planting evidence if a police officer scratched a scab on a drug addict to make it bleed so that there would be evidence of fresh blood?

Objection, argumentative.

Overruled.

No. When I think of planting evidence, I think of taking a physical object and putting it somewhere where it wasn't previous to that placement.

All right. So you would not regard the creation of blood as evidence from the arm of a suspect himself as planting evidence?

Objection, asked and answered.

Overruled.

In that response, no, I wouldn't. If you edified me to regard those kind of activities as planting evidence, then I would rethink.

Now, Mr. Darden asked you whether you made any independent checks of records to corroborate the information that Officer Fuhrman was giving you. Did he ever offer to give you access to any police records?

Officer Fuhrman?

Yes.

No.

At one point he boasted of having two to 3000 pages of investigations in internal affairs. Was it your understanding that you could just go down to internal affairs and ask to see those records?

No, it wasn't.

In fact, you knew enough about internal affairs to know that those records would not be available to you, didn't you?

It is leading.

Yes.

Overruled. The answer will stand. It was leading.

Now, with respect to the realism of the language that was used by Detective Fuhrman, you were not asking him to assume a role, other than himself, in his conversations with you, were you?

Objection, vague.

Overruled.

On occasion I may have asked him what would this person say in a given instance and he would tell me what someone might say in that situation.

All right. And those occasions would be indicated in the context of your conversations?

That is leading.

Sustained.

Would those be situations where you were talking about a particular character and how you wanted to portray that character?

I was generally very specific about the situations and the character, whether it was something that the male officers would be saying in the locker room or something that would be happening at a particular situation where there would be only men, or something procedural, something in a car. It was specific.

And those occasions occurred as you actually developed a finished screenplay; is that correct?

It would be easier for me to ask those specific questions the more I knew about the story and the characters, yes.

Now, on at least one occasion, in the taped conversations where we still have tapes, there was a conversation with Detective Fuhrman about the nature of the language that was being used, was there not?

Yes, there was.

All right. That was in the context of tape no. 4? Would that have been the fourth conversation you had with Detective Fuhrman?

It might have been the fourth taped interview.

All right. And let me ask if--if these words were spoken in the context of that interview. I'm referring to page 1 of tape no. 4. You stated: "I just transcribed." And Detective Fuhrman responded: "Verbatim." And you replied: "I have to." And he said: "All the cocksuckers, everything, that is important. That is policemen's talk." And you said: "It is life talk. It is not just policemen's talk." And he said: "But we have mastered it. No, the Marine corps mastered it." Did that conversation take place?

Yes.

So he was aware of your need to have real life language just as police officers normally talked?

Yes.

And that is what you thought you were getting?

Yes.

Later in that same interview let me ask you if this was said, and I'm quoting you, and this is on page 12: "Exactly. Look, mark, all we are really trying to do--first of all, the premise is real clear and none of the research that I do, no matter what I'm doing, riding along, spending the night in watts, it doesn't change the premise. It is just that that kind of story is so controversial that it has to be so well-documented that you get enough other people's point of view so that if somebody calls you on it you say yeah, I did that. I heard what they had to say. I was there." And Officer Fuhrman replied: "Yeah. The only thing is are they telling the truth?" And you replied: "It is their truth." And he asked: "How do you prove it?" And you replied: "You perceive things the way you perceive them due to your frame of reference, background and learned experience. Same with me. Same with Joe." Did that conversation take place?

Which transcript are you referring to, counsel?

Transcript no. 4.

You are reading--

Page 12.

What you just read is not on the transcript that I have.

Me either.

It is in our offer of proof, your Honor.

Let me retrieve the transcript.

Well, I have here--you provided me with tape four and that is not the passage that is there.

I'm sure we can clear it up.

All right. Well, let's not waste time on this issue. Let's move along.

Do you recall that conversation taking place?

Yes.

That concludes our redirect.

Any recross?

No, your Honor.

Miss McKinny, my understanding of the story line then is that this was a woman officer who was going to be transferred into 77th division and then partnered with somebody who is a member of maw, correct?

That's correct.

Was there a subplot regarding racial conflict amongst police officers?

No.

You indicated that in discussing these matters with Mr. Fuhrman that you didn't confront him on any of the items that he might have mentioned to you that you personally found offensive, that you wanted to establish a level of comfort and I take it a level of candor in your discussions; is that correct?

That's correct.

All right. Did you make any representations or agreements with Mr. Fuhrman regarding any confidentiality concerning these tape-recordings or any of these interviews?

My feeling was that the extent of confidentiality was implicit in our agreement, as were the agreements that I had with others who interviewed with Officer Fuhrman.

And what is the current status of the screenplay?

It is with my agent in Santa Monica.

All right. Is it still being--has anybody picked up the option?

It is not optioned as of now, no.

All right. Thank you.

All right. Counsel, any questions in light of the court's questions?

Your Honor, the reference that I was quoting is on page 12 of the tape transcription from lines 8 to 18 and it appears in the McKinny transcript, that is her transcript, at page 15.

All right. But what you were reading on the page 12 that I have was something different. It is about eighty percent the same is my concern. So maybe you have a different transcript than what I have been working with here, which causes me some concern.

Okay. I can tell you that what is in the offer of proof was prepared from the McKinny transcript and we now have a separate transcription of the tape which you have.

Not on purpose.

All right. Anything else from Miss McKinny?

Nothing.

All right. Miss McKinny, thank you very much. You are excused.

Thank you.