And he was to receive $10,000 as a result of being the technical advisor in the screenplay?
Okay. Would this be at the April 2nd meeting or would it be before the April 2nd meeting?
It was sometime during that April to June period. I don't remember exactly when the agreement was, but it would have been sometime in June.
Could it have been at your very first meeting, the first time you met him at Alice's restaurant?
Okay. But when you met Mr. Fuhrman, you told him that you were doing a screenplay, right?
I told him that I was--wanted to do a screenplay about a particular situation, yes.
Did you tell him that it would be about female police officers and their--and their circumstances, the circumstances they confront as police officers in the LAPD?
I told him that I wanted it to be--to reflect how certain officers in--who were members of men against women responded to certain women in LAPD and what those frustrations the men were facing were like and what the frustrations and obstacles the women were facing as a result of that were like.
Did you make it clear to Mr. Fuhrman that the screenplay would be a fictional piece of work?
I made it clear to Mr. Fuhrman, that was Officer Fuhrman, that it would be a dramatic fictional piece based on reality.
Okay. Well, is everything contained in the screenplay--well, strike that. You have written a screenplay; is that correct?
And that is because you have never done any fact checking, that is, with the exception of reading L.A. Times articles as they relate to men against women; is that correct?
The only fact checking you have done or did in preparation of your screenplay was in reading L.A. Times articles as they relate to men against women?
I would try to talk with other officers about men against women and see if they would tell me anything, so that I knew that it existed. I was unable to obtain any details about the group men against women from anyone else other than Officer Fuhrman.
Okay. And so is it fair to say then that other than the information given to you by Officer Fuhrman and the L.A. Times articles, you had no other facts or sources to corroborate the things Detective Fuhrman told you?
Aside--as well as the other information that people had given me to let me know that it existed.
Now, during the conversations you had with Mr. Fuhrman he would recount to you certain events; is that correct?
Okay. And you never did a fact check to determine whether or not the things he told you were true or not; is that correct?
There were certain things that Officer Fuhrman discussed regarding women and the LAPD and the academy and some of the changes that had been made at the academy due to the consent decree that had been signed in the early eighties that really mandated that more women be in the police departments. And so we had discussed some of the changes that were made at the academy.
Miss McKinny, is it your impression that we are on opposing sides of an issue here?
Okay. Because we are not. Okay. But my question to you is simply this: Did you--well, strike that. Do you recall the incidents involving the four men in Hollenbeck area that according to Fuhrman were beaten by him and three other officers?
Okay. Did you look at any official police record to see whether or not that event actually occurred?
Did you ever review any civil suits or the civil index to see whether or not any plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging facts resembling the facts or the information Detective Fuhrman gave you?
Now, you have heard a number of incidents recounted by Detective Fuhrman on tape here today; is that correct?
Okay. Can you recall any specific incident, that is, among those you heard hear today, wherein you searched a civil index for information for plaintiffs alleging facts or allegations similar to the ones we heard today?
And one of the reasons you never did that is because you were writing a fictional screenplay based on what? On reality?
Some of the more realistic aspects of your screenplay was the procedures used by the LAPD, correct?
Some of the aspects of your screenplay that are factual, as opposed to fictional, include things like the procedures utilized by the LAPD?
Now, when you--when you spoke to Detective Fuhrman about the screenplay initially, did you tell him that you were hoping to write a screenplay suitable for movie theaters, as opposed to a television movie?
That wouldn't have been discussed initially, but yes, I did tell him that I wanted to write a feature.
And the reason you wanted to do a feature film, as opposed to a TV movie, was because you wanted to make certain that the movie or screenplay was extremely dramatic, correct?
I wanted to make certain that if we were dealing about issues of whether or not women could succeed in areas of high crime, that I was accurately representing to the best of my ability what might in fact take place there and I didn't know if that could be accurately depicted on television.
All right. Miss McKinny, would you just sort of pull the microphone a little bit closer to you.
Okay. And you didn't want to do a TV movie because you were concerned that some of the violence that you thought was relevant might be cut out of a television movie; is that right?
It wasn't just the violence. That can be adapted for television. That was a concern, but that wasn't exclusive. It was the language as well.
You wanted to make sure that any profanity that you felt was appropriate in the context of this screenplay or this movie was included in the movie; is that correct?
You assumed or hoped, rather, that the movie would be extremely violent; is that right?
No, I didn't want it to be extremely violent. I wanted it to reflect what kind of issues and situations men and women who worked in an area of high crime late at night, what kinds of situations they might encounter.
All right. And were you concerned at all that if the movie was made into a TV movie that the issues and the language and the violence might be watered down?
Okay. Now--and did you tell all of this to Mark Fuhrman about your concerns about the issues and the language and the violence being watered down if it was made into a TV movie? Did you tell this to Mark Fuhrman?
I don't think initially. That is something that we might have discussed more at a much later date.
No, not necessarily. I could have told him later when a gentleman who optioned it would be taking it to television. It wasn't something that I might have told him initially.
Okay. And we are speaking in terms of whether you might have told him or when you might have told him at this point. Is it fair to say that you don't recall when exactly you told him?
When we spoke to you on August 17--and we did speak to you, Miss Clark and myself and other members of my staff; is that correct?
Okay. When you spoke to us on August 17th didn't you tell us that you had always told Fuhrman that it was a feature because it was very controversial and quite violent?
When you spoke to us on August 17th didn't you tell us that you had always told Fuhrman that it was a feature, that you were writing a feature because it was very controversial and quite violent?
I think that was an understanding, that it was a feature, that I wanted to write a feature, and that given the nature of the location of violent division, 77th, the question is can a woman officer succeed in a violent area of crime, so he knew that.
I'm not sure if I answered exactly your question. If you want to rephrase it I will try to answer it.
Well, this is an understanding both you and Fuhrman had from the beginning of his involvement in the project; is that right?
Could we go over the part so I'm clear for you? One, that it would be a feature and--
It would be--that the story would take place in an area of violent crime which, as it might develop, I would certainly want to know what kind of situations would occur with men and women.
At some point you learned of Detective Fuhrman's testimony when he was asked if he had used a certain slur in the past ten years? You learned of that testimony sometime after Fuhrman gave that testimony?
Did you learn of Fuhrman's testimony in this case regarding the "N" word sometime after he gave the testimony?
I wasn't watching during the day, but I believe that night or shortly after I saw a snippet of it on CNN.
Okay. And when you saw his testimony and heard him testify that he had not used the "N" word in the past ten years, did you realize at that point that that was not true?
--at that time. I was--I don't remember what I thought when I heard his testimony.
Or soon after, yes. I don't know if the snippet I saw was that night or the next night.
Okay. And after learning of Mark Fuhrman's testimony you did not contact the Defense, nor did you contact the D.A.'s office; is that right?
And you didn't come forward immediately or within a few days of your learning of his testimony? Well, why didn't you come forward immediately?
The information on the tapes and the testimony on the tapes I felt does not directly exonerate Mr. Simpson and therefore I didn't have a responsibility to come forth with the information, and there are other people on the tapes and I wanted to protect their confidentiality and interviews they had given to me.
KEY QUOTEWell, you could have provided the Defense or the D.A.'s office with a single tape, that is, a single tape recording of conversations occurring within the last ten years that included these epithets, had you wanted to; is that correct?
You could have given us a single tape, a tape containing only conversation between yourself and Mr. Fuhrman had you wanted to; is that right?
Given that I wish to protect the confidentiality of the people with whom I had interviewed on those tapes, as well as the confidentiality and the nature in which I gather information as a writer, I doubt seriously, given the enormous leaks that have occurred in the last two months, that I could have offered a tape to the Defense or the Prosecution that specifically delineated some portions of Officer Fuhrman's testimony.
Another reason that you didn't come forward immediately is because it was your view that there was nothing in those tapes that suggested to you that Mark Fuhrman planted evidence in this case; is that correct?
There was nothing to me that made me feel that Officer Fuhrman could have planted evidence in this particular case, no.
KEY QUOTEAt one point today you testified regarding proffer no. 41, I believe it is, the one that relates to Farrell and this term anthracite. Do you recall that?
Now, during that conversation with Mr. Fuhrman, to put that in context, is it true that Mr. Fuhrman was telling you about a word that some other individual had created?
Yes, it would. Thank you. (Witness complies.) Okay. Now, can you reask the question?
So having looked at page 16, would you agree that to put that portion of the conversation in context, it was Detective Fuhrman telling you about a word that some other person had created?
I don't know. I don't know if he came up with that or somebody else did. I don't know.
Obviously when you began to write this screenplay you wrote it with the purpose of perhaps selling it some day; is that correct?
Okay. And was it your view at the time that to sell your screenplay that you had to make it provocative or shocking, controversial?
No, absolutely not. I think the issue itself is enormously controversial. What I was really trying to do was gather as much information as I could from different points of view to be able to dramatize the material in a cinematic fashion.
Now, when you spoke to Fuhrman on April 2nd, 1985, did you already have in mind who the characters would be or might be in the screenplay?
When you met Detective Fuhrman on April 2, 1985, had the characters been cast or formed at that point?
No. I only knew that I wanted the epitome of a woman officer to be transferred into an area of high crime and have to be partnered with an officer who was a member of men against women.
You asked Detective Fuhrman to help you develop those characters or some of those characters; is that correct?
You asked him to help you develop some of the characters in his fictional screenplay based on what? On fact?
I made it clear that I wanted him to give me ideas and some of his points of views so that I could develop the characters, and in that sense he was very helpful in helping to develop the characters, yes.
Okay. So you would give Detective Fuhrman certain scenarios or situations and you would ask him how a police officer might respond to those situations; is that correct?
Okay. And you would ask him these questions in the context of a police officer whom you envisioned as being an officer who did not like having a female partner?
And you asked him these in context of a police officer who was very difficult to get along with; is that correct?
Okay. And you would ask him these questions in the context of a police officer who might not always play by the rules?
Well, that was an element that seemed to present itself as the interviews progressed. I didn't know that initially.
Okay. You asked him these questions in the context of a police officer who lied on occasion, who would lie on occasion?
Again, it is within the context of the story. The men who are involved--some of the men who were involved in men against women routinely stonewalled women, embarrassed them and humiliated them by keeping them out of their group, and within that context there was a certain amount of lying that went on. I was interested in that.
Okay. Could you have written a screenplay that you eventually produced without the help of Detective Fuhrman?
Could I have written the screenplay? Yes. I did an enormous amount of research on the screenplay, interviewed many officers from LAPD and Los Angeles academy; however, I would not have had the same--there is a good chance that I would not have had some of the point of view of Officer Fuhrman and some of the scenarios that have been recently revealed in the news were given to me by him, and I included a couple of them in the script, I abridged them significantly, but it is unlikely that I would have gotten that information regarding men against women.
I would say it is very fair to say that he was giving me information that helped me develop characters for the story, yes. There is a huge bulk of story of which Officer Fuhrman didn't comment on or offer information for.
But when you testified in North Carolina at line 20 of the transcript you told the Judge that Mark Fuhrman was helping you make up a story; is that correct?
I thought I answered that he was helping make up certain--giving me certain points of view that then helped me make up characters and in that light he certainly was helping.
Detective Fuhrman didn't tell you that he planted evidence on innocent people, did he?
I would have to find that in my transcripts. I don't recall a particular incident right now where Detective Fuhrman said he planted evidence on innocent people.
And the views that Detective Fuhrman expressed on the tape, you don't know that what is reflected on the tape are his real views or his true views about African Americans; is that correct?
The views expressed by Detective Fuhrman on the tapes, you don't know that those views reflect his true views about African Americans, do you?
I--what is on the tape is what Officer Fuhrman said to me. I don't know if he was lying to me or saying anything else. It is what he said.
Okay. And so that the record is clear and there is no dispute between you and I certainly, he used this epithet, correct, in the last ten years? I mean, he uttered this word, didn't he?
The screenplay that you wrote was not a biography of Detective Fuhrman's life, was it?
To go back to the 1985 tape, the one that was lost--and this would be the first tape?
Now, you didn't begin the tape initially or immediately upon seeing Detective Fuhrman on April 2nd; is that correct?
Okay. You met him, you spoke to him for a while, and then you turned the tape on; is that right?
There is conversation--there was conversation that you had with Detective Fuhrman that is not on the tape; is that correct?
Okay. And there were times and occasions during the conversation that you had with him when you turned off the tape; is that right?
Okay. So you might discuss a particular topic or have a certain discussion and turn the tape on and then turn it off at the end of that discussion?
It is possible, especially if I was trying to protect--I only had a couple tapes with me and I was concerned about time, yes.
Okay. So when you say it is possible, what you are intending to convey to us is that you are not sure when and if and at what time you may have turned the tape on or off during that April 2nd, 1985, conversation; is that correct?
Okay. And when you transcribed the tape, the April 2nd tape, you didn't transcribe each and every word contained on that tape; is that correct?
Well, for the initial tapes I was very judicious about transcribing my questions and Officer Fuhrman's responses, because it was a new topic and I wanted to try to understand and catch his cadences, specific situations, procedure, elements that would give me fodder and information upon which to develop this screenplay.
Okay. So if there was other information on the tape, information that you didn't feel helped to develop the screenplay, you would transcribe that information?
When you say--I'm sorry. When you say that initially you would have transcribed those portions of those interviews, you are assuming, correct, that you did that or would have done that?
Okay. How long did the April 2nd, 1985, interview--strike that. How long did you and Detective Fuhrman talk and speak to each other on April 2nd, 1985?
Was it during that April 2nd, 1985, conversation that you first heard Fuhrman use the "N" word?
And when you heard him use that word you did not react to his use of the word; is that correct?
Oh, I was, as I mentioned before, in a journalistic mode, not a judgmental one, and I wanted to hear what he had to say and encourage him to feel that he could speak comfortably and--and use whatever words he felt appropriate.
KEY QUOTEThat is what you did? Did you encourage him to continue to speak in the tone and manner in which he had during the April 2nd, 1985, interview?
I didn't discourage him by asking him not to use certain words or asking him not to tell me about certain things or that I didn't want to hear about certain situations that might have occurred, would have closed the door to really helping me understand what his point of view was regarding this issue, which he did understand I wanted to convey in the context of the screenplay. It would have been counterproductive to my research.
Now, some of the interviews you had with Detective Fuhrman, and that are on tape, were telephonic interviews; is that right?
And you also told us this morning that at some point you sent Fuhrman's transcripts of your interviews to him; is that right?
I recall sending him one transcript which would have been the first one. It would--and the questions, because I had written questions for him to consider answering during our next meeting. So I felt that he might--the transcript might be useful to him in refreshing his memory to help him ponder those questions. I don't recall sending him all of the other transcripts during those `85 taped interviews independent--I don't recall sending him the transcripts independently. I think I gave them to him again all at once in a bound three-ring binder similar to this one which is how I file my transcripts.
I know I gave them to him, but I don't remember exactly when, whether it was in June or early June, late June. I just don't remember if I sent him by mailing any more than the first transcript. I gave the others to him bound in a three-ring binder.
Is it fair to say that the only time that Fuhrman used these epithets was in the context of his discussions with you regarding the screenplay?
Is it fair to say that the only time that Fuhrman used these epithets was during the conversations he had with you and in the context of your discussion of the screenplay?
I can say that he used the epithets in the context--in the tapes. Umm--I don't--and the--in the taped interviews and the transcripts? I don't--I don't--that is accurate. I don't know what else to say about that. Sorry.
Okay. And you and Mr. Flynn had a conversation with Fuhrman regarding the glove issue, correct?
And you had known Fuhrman at that point for a period of ten years; is that correct?
And would you agree that you and he had the kind of relationship where he could be candid with you?
To place into context the portion of the July 28th conversation that we've heard here today, that is that portion of the conversation where Detective Fuhrman spoke of Mr. Shapiro, Detective Fuhrman was talking about suing Shapiro for libel at that time; is that correct?
Detective Fuhrman claimed he had been libeled and slandered when Mr. Shapiro alleged that he, Detective Fuhrman, had planted the glove in this case; is that right?
I actually don't know why Detective Fuhrman was libeled. I know that we discussed that, but I don't know what that issue was between Mr. Shapiro and Officer Fuhrman.
During that conversation Mr. Fuhrman told you that on the night of June--during the early morning hours of June 13th that he was just doing his job; is that correct?
He said that he was doing his job like he did in every other investigation that he handled; is that correct?
There was nothing to me that made me feel that Officer Fuhrman could have planted evidence in this particular case, no.
I was, as I mentioned before, in a journalistic mode, not a judgmental one, and I wanted to hear what he had to say and encourage him to feel that he could speak comfortably and use whatever words he felt appropriate.
The information on the tapes and the testimony on the tapes I felt does not directly exonerate Mr. Simpson and therefore I didn't have a responsibility to come forth with the information.
He told you that he did not plant the glove, didn't he? Yes.
I would have realized at that point that it would probably be false.