Cross-examination of Detective Tom Lange (afternoon, part 3)

📄 Cross-examination of Detective Tom Lange (afternoon, part 3) — Wednesday, February 22, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\FEB\22\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-DETECTIVE.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 23 of 167

◀ Sidebar: lividity evidence Cross-examination of Detective Tom Lange (afternoon, part 4) ▶

Witness: Det. Tom Lange
Examiner: Johnnie Cochran
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Wednesday, February 22, 1995 • Utterances: 197

Cochran cross-examines Detective Lange about the early morning hours of June 13, 1994 — what he knew about OJ Simpson's domestic violence history before the detectives drove to Rockingham, and whether Simpson was already a suspect at that point. Cochran uses Lange's own written homicide report to pin him down on what Phillips told him about prior DV incidents, then probes inconsistencies about Fuhrman's conduct with Kato Kaelin at the Rockingham residence.

# 1 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

# 2 MR. COCHRAN:

MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

# 3 THE COURT:

YOU MAY.

# 4 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU A DOCUMENT THAT'S BEEN MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S 1031. IT'S A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT. AND I WANT TO ASK YOU, THE QUESTION OF LAVIDITY WHETHER OR NOT -- YOU READ TWO PARAGRAPHS. BY THE WAY, THE TWO DECEDENTS WERE GIVEN DIFFERENT CORONER'S NUMBERS; WERE THEY NOT?

# 5 A:

YES.

# 6 Q:

OKAY. I WANT YOU TO READ TWO SEPARATE PARAGRAPHS IF YOU WOULD.

# 7 A:

THIS AND THIS (INDICATING)?

# 8 Q:

THIS ONE AND THIS ONE (INDICATING).

# 9 A:

OKAY.

# 10 Q:

AND THEN I'LL ASK YOU A QUESTION.

# 11 A:

OKAY.

# 12 Q:

HAVE YOU READ BOTH PARAGRAPHS NOW?

# 13 A:

YES. YES.

# 14 Q:

AND DOES THE REVIEW OF THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT, INVESTIGATOR'S REPORT, REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS LAVIDITY PRESENT AND FIXED IN EITHER ONE OF THESE BODIES?

# 15 A:

NO.

# 16 Q:

IT DOESN'T REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AT ALL?

# 17 A:

NO.

# 18 Q:

ALL RIGHT. YOU WERE PRESENT WHEN THE AUTOPSIES WERE DONE ON BOTH INDIVIDUALS?

# 19 A:

YES.

# 20 Q:

AND AS YOU THINK BACK ABOUT YOUR BEING PRESENT AT THAT TIME, DOES IT IN ANY WAY -- DOES THAT IN ANY WAY REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION OF WHETHER YOU SAW LAVIDITY ON EITHER OF THESE BODIES?

# 21 A:

THOSE OBSERVATIONS WOULD BE MADE PRIOR TO THE AUTOPSY AND PROBABLY MY ARRIVAL. I DON'T RECALL MAKING THOSE OBSERVATIONS.

# 22 Q:

ALL RIGHT. IT DOESN'T REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?

# 23 A:

NOT AT ALL.

# 24 Q:

ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU RECEIVED A CALL TO RESPOND TO THIS HOMICIDE AS I UNDERSTAND IT SOMETIME IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13TH, 1994; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 25 A:

YES.

# 26 Q:

AND WHO CALLED YOU AT THAT TIME, IF YOU RECALL?

# 27 A:

I BELIEVE IT WAS A DETECTIVE FROM DETECTIVE HEADQUARTERS, ON-DUTY DETECTIVE.

# 28 Q:

AND DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT TIME IT WAS THAT YOU RECEIVED THIS CALL?

# 29 A:

APPROXIMATELY 3:00 A.M.

# 30 Q:

AND I PRESUME YOU WERE AT HOME IN BED AT THAT POINT?

# 31 A:

YES.

# 32 Q:

AND THEN YOU DROVE FROM YOUR HOME IN SIMI VALLEY DOWN TO THE LOCATION; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 33 A:

YES.

# 34 Q:

AND HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO GET FROM SIMI VALLEY TO THE LOCATION IN BRENTWOOD?

# 35 A:

PERHAPS 50 MINUTES, AN HOUR. I HAVE NO -- I DON'T KNOW.

# 36 Q:

YOU ARRIVED AT THE LOCATION AT ABOUT 4:25 IN THE MORNING?

# 37 A:

YES.

# 38 Q:

AND WHEN YOU GOT THERE, VANNATTER WAS ALREADY THERE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 39 A:

YES.

# 40 Q:

AND THE TWO OF YOU HAD WORKED TOGETHER FOR ABOUT FOUR YEARS PRIOR TO THIS PARTICULAR TIME?

# 41 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 42 Q:

YOU BECAME AWARE THAT YOU WERE TAKING THIS CASE OVER FROM TWO OTHER DETECTIVES; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 43 A:

YES.

# 44 Q:

YOU HAVE NEVER WORKED BEFORE WITH MARK PHILLIPS OR FUHRMAN; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 45 A:

MARK FUHRMAN OR RON PHILLIPS.

# 46 Q:

OR RON PHILLIPS. YOU HAD NOT WORKED BEFORE WITH HIM?

# 47 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 48 Q:

AND ONCE YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE, YOU DESCRIBED FOR US HOW YOU WERE BRIEFED AND TAKEN AROUND THE SCENE PRIMARILY BY PHILLIPS; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 49 A:

YES.

# 50 Q:

AND IN THE COURSE OF THAT -- YOU ALL HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS. WHEN I SAY "YOU ALL," I MEAN THAT YOU AND VANNATTER AND PHILLIPS AND FUHRMAN HAD SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT YOU HAD HERE, WHAT KIND OF HOMICIDES THESE WERE AND THAT SORT OF THING; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

# 51 A:

YES.

# 52 Q:

IT'S TRUE, IS IT NOT, SIR, THAT UPON ARRIVAL AT THE CRIME SCENE, YOU WERE MET BY DETECTIVE III, RON PHILLIPS, WEST LOS ANGELES DIVISION HOMICIDE COORDINATOR? THAT'S CORRECT; IS IT NOT?

# 53 A:

HE'S ONE OF THE PEOPLE, YES.

# 54 Q:

AND PHILLIPS STATED TO YOU THAT VICTIM BROWN WAS THE EX-WIFE OF O.J. SIMPSON, THE WELL-KNOWN ATHLETE/ACTOR, RIGHT?

# 55 A:

I DON'T BELIEVE HE STATED THAT VERBATIM. I BELIEVE IT WAS INFORMATION THAT ONE OF THE VICTIMS APPEARED TO BE MR. SIMPSON'S EX-WIFE.

# 56 Q:

WELL, LET ME -- MAYBE I CAN APPROACH AND I'LL SHOW YOU 1021.

# 57 MR. COCHRAN:

COUNSEL, YOU HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE.

# 58 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS DEFENDANT'S 1021. I'M GOING TO PLACE THIS BEFORE YOU. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO ASK YOU -- AND I CAN SHOW YOU IF YOU'D LIKE. THIS IS A REPORT PREPARED BY YOU AND VANNATTER. IT'S A CONTINUOUS REPORT IN THE HOMICIDE BOOK PREPARED UNDER YOUR DIRECTION AND THAT OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 59 A:

YES.

# 60 Q:

OKAY. SO LET'S LOOK AT IT TOGETHER. DOES THAT REPORT INDICATE THAT: "PHILLIPS STATED THAT VICTIM BROWN WAS THE EX-WIFE OF O.J. SIMPSON, THE WELL-KNOWN ATHLETE/ACTOR"?

# 61 A:

YES, IT DOES.

# 62 Q:

AND DOES IT SAY ADDITIONALLY: "PHILLIPS STATED THAT MR. SIMPSON AND VICTIM ONE HAD BEEN EMBROILED IN PREVIOUS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATIONS, ONE OF THESE RESULTING IN THE ARREST OF MR. SIMPSON"? DOES THAT REPORT SAY THAT?

# 63 A:

YES, IT DOES.

# 64 Q:

PHILLIPS TOLD YOU THAT, DIDN'T HE?

# 65 A:

NOT AT THE PARTICULAR TIME OF MY ARRIVAL, BUT HE DID PRIOR TO -- PRIOR TO GOING TO THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION.

# 66 Q:

ALL RIGHT. WELL, HE TOLD YOU -- AND THE REPORT SAYS UPON ARRIVAL AT THE CRIME SCENE. YOU WERE MET BY DETECTIVE III PHILLIPS, RIGHT?

# 67 A:

THAT WAS MEANT TO BE THE END OF THAT THOUGHT, MET BY DETECTIVE PHILLIPS. IT WAS LATER ON THAT HE MADE THAT STATEMENT.

# 68 Q:

OKAY. BUT HE TOLD YOU THIS BEFORE YOU WENT OVER TO ROCKINGHAM; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 69 A:

YES.

# 70 Q:

AND THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY: "MR. SIMPSON RESIDED AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM PLACE IN BRENTWOOD APPROXIMATELY TWO MILES FROM THE CRIME SCENE." IS THAT WHAT IT SAYS?

# 71 A:

THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS.

# 72 Q:

NOW, YOU WROTE THIS, DIDN'T YOU?

# 73 A:

YES, I DID.

# 74 Q:

AND AS AN EXPERIENCED POLICE OFFICER, IN WRITING THIS, YOU STRIVE TO BE AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 75 A:

YES.

# 76 Q:

AND THAT'S WHAT YOU DID IN THIS CASE, RIGHT?

# 77 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 78 Q:

AND SO WHEN YOU -- BEFORE YOU WENT OVER TO ROCKINGHAM, PHILLIPS HAD TOLD YOU ALREADY THAT SIMPSON HAD BEEN EMBROILED IN THIS PREVIOUS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATION RESULTING IN O.J. SIMPSON'S ARREST, RIGHT?

# 79 A:

THAT WAS A GENERAL STATEMENT.

# 80 Q:

I'M ASKING, DID HE TELL YOU THAT?

# 81 A:

NOT -- NOT IN FORM, NO.

# 82 Q:

WELL, I'VE READ EXACTLY WHAT YOU WROTE DOWN. YOU WROTE DOWN WHAT HE TOLD YOU, DIDN'T YOU?

# 83 A:

THAT'S NOT A QUOTE. THAT'S WHAT I WROTE AND WHAT I INTERPRETED FROM PHILLIPS.

KEY QUOTE

# 84 Q:

RIGHT. THAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING WHAT PHILLIPS WAS SAYING TO YOU, RIGHT?

# 85 A:

THAT'S A GENERAL STATEMENT OF WHAT PHILLIPS TOLD ME, YES.

# 86 Q:

I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WE JUST READ IT AND IT TALKED ABOUT PREVIOUS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATIONS REGARDING O.J. SIMPSON AND HIS WIFE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

# 87 A:

THAT'S MY WORDS, MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT PHILLIPS TOLD ME.

# 88 Q:

RIGHT.

# 89 A:

YES.

# 90 Q:

THAT'S WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, YOUR WORDS.

# 91 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 92 Q:

PHILLIPS. I MEAN LANGE'S WORDS, RIGHT?

# 93 A:

CORRECT.

# 94 Q:

OKAY. AND YOU KNEW THIS BEFORE YOU EVER DECIDED TO GO OVER TO ROCKINGHAM, RIGHT?

# 95 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 96 Q:

AND FURTHER, YOU ALSO TALKED TO FUHRMAN, DID YOU NOT, WHO TOLD YOU ABOUT AN INCIDENT THAT HE HAD DEALT WITH OR HAD RESPONDED TO AT THE ROCKINGHAM INCIDENT BACK IN 1985? DID YOU NOT?

# 97 A:

NO. FUHRMAN TOLD PHILLIPS ABOUT AN INCIDENT THAT HE HAD RESPONDED TO AND PHILLIPS TOLD ME.

KEY QUOTE

# 98 Q:

ALL RIGHT. SO YOU DIDN'T TALK TO FUHRMAN, BUT YOU TALKED TO PHILLIPS WHO TALKED TO FUHRMAN, RIGHT?

# 99 A:

THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. THAT'S WHAT WAS RELATED TO ME BY PHILLIPS.

# 100 Q:

AND THEN PHILLIPS TOLD YOU, RIGHT?

# 101 A:

CORRECT.

# 102 Q:

ALL RIGHT. SO YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE AT 4:25 AND YOU HAVE TWO DEAD BODIES, RIGHT?

# 103 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 104 Q:

AND YOU'RE GIVEN THIS WALK-THROUGH BY PHILLIPS, IS THAT CORRECT, THAT YOU DESCRIBED?

# 105 A:

CORRECT.

# 106 Q:

AND WAS IT AFTER THE WALK-THROUGH THAT PHILLIPS TOLD YOU ABOUT THIS SITUATION OF MR. SIMPSON HAVING BEEN EMBROILED IN A PREVIOUS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATION WITH HIS WIFE OR EX-WIFE OR DURING THE WALK-THROUGH?

# 107 A:

NO. IT WAS JUST AFTER THAT HE TOLD ME THAT FUHRMAN HAD RESPONDED YEARS BEFORE TO A RADIO CALL AT THAT LOCATION.

# 108 Q:

ALL RIGHT. MY QUESTION IS, WHEN WAS THAT? WAS IT JUST AFTER OR WHAT?

# 109 A:

THAT WAS JUST AFTER THE WALK-THROUGH.

# 110 Q:

JUST AFTER THE WALK-THROUGH?

# 111 A:

AROUND THAT TIME, YES.

# 112 Q:

AND WAS VANNATTER PRESENT ALSO AT THAT POINT?

# 113 A:

HE WAS NEAR BY.

# 114 Q:

ALL RIGHT.

# 115 A:

I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY WHERE.

# 116 Q:

DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT HE HEARD AT THAT POINT?

# 117 A:

WHETHER HE HEARD THAT CONVERSATION?

# 118 Q:

THE CONVERSATION WITH PHILLIPS, SIR.

# 119 A:

HE MAY HAVE. I --

# 120 Q:

NOW, YOU SAID SOMETHING EARLIER WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT INITIALLY WAS VANNATTER TAKING A MORE ACTIVE ROLE IN THIS INVESTIGATION THAN HE IS NOW?

# 121 A:

I DON'T THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT.

# 122 Q:

ALL RIGHT. LET ME STATE IT THIS WAY. YOU SAID I THINK EARLIER IN RESPONSE TO ONE OF MY QUESTIONS THAT YOU'RE CO-LEAD INVESTIGATORS; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 123 A:

YES.

# 124 Q:

I THOUGHT YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT SOMETHING HAD TURNED AROUND OR SOMETHING HAD CHANGED. DID YOU INDICATE THAT EARLIER TODAY?

# 125 A:

I BELIEVE I WAS ALLUDING TO THE FACT THAT AFTER FIVE DAYS, THIS CASE WAS FILED WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND --

# 126 Q:

WELL, LET ME STOP YOU THERE. THIS CASE WAS FILED WITHIN THE FIRST FIVE DAYS?

# 127 A:

WELL, I BELIEVE I STATED AFTER THE FIRST FIVE DAYS.

# 128 Q:

WAS IT FILED ON JUNE 17TH, 1994?

# 129 A:

I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE DATE, YES.

# 130 Q:

AND THESE KILLINGS HAD OCCURRED ON JUNE 12TH IN THE LATE EVENING HOURS; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 131 A:

YES.

# 132 Q:

SO WITHIN FIVE DAYS, BY THAT FRIDAY -- WAS 17TH FRIDAY?

# 133 A:

CORRECT.

# 134 Q:

ALL RIGHT. BETWEEN THE 12TH AND THE 17TH, WERE YOU CO-LEAD INVESTIGATORS DURING THAT TIME?

# 135 A:

YES.

# 136 Q:

BETWEEN THE 17TH AND TODAY, 2-22-95, YOU STILL CO-LEAD INVESTIGATORS?

# 137 A:

CERTAINLY.

# 138 Q:

SAME BASIC ROLES?

# 139 A:

YES.

# 140 Q:

ALL RIGHT. NOW, SO YOU HAD THIS CONVERSATION WHEREIN PHILLIPS TELLS YOU ABOUT THIS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATION AND YOU BECOME AWARE ALSO THAT COMMANDER BUSHEY HAS TOLD PHILLIPS TO GIVE PERSONAL NOTIFICATION TO O.J. SIMPSON; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 141 A:

YES.

# 142 Q:

NOW, THERE WAS NOTHING THAT WOULD PROHIBIT YOU AS THE INVESTIGATOR NOW, YOU AND YOUR PARTNER AS THE CO-LEAD INVESTIGATORS, FROM GIVING THAT NOTIFICATION TO MR. SIMPSON; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? YOU COULD HAVE DONE IT ALSO, COULDN'T YOU?

# 143 A:

I COULD HAVE.

# 144 Q:

JUST LIKE YOU GAVE THE NOTIFICATION TO THE REAL NEXT OF KIN, MR. LEWIS BROWN; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 145 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 146 Q:

BUT IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY THAT AFTER HEARING THIS FROM PHILLIPS, ALL FOUR OF YOU --

# 147 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION. I AM SORRY. OBJECTION TO REAL NEXT OF KIN.

# 148 THE COURT:

I'M SORRY. I COULDN'T HEAR.

# 149 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION TO THE QUESTION AS PHRASED, REAL NEXT OF KIN.

# 150 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 151 MR. COCHRAN:

MAY I TRY TO RESTATE MY -- SHE WOULDN'T OBJECT TO THIS QUESTION, SO LET ME RESTATE IT.

# 152 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: SO IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY -- WELL, STRIKE THAT. YOU WERE AWARE, WERE YOU NOT, THAT VANNATTER HAD WORKED WEST LOS ANGELES? YOU WERE AWARE OF THAT AT SOME TIME IN THE PAST?

# 153 A:

SOME 20 YEARS PRIOR, YES.

# 154 Q:

AND WERE YOU AWARE THAT HE'S TESTIFIED HE KNEW THE AREA IN WEST LOS ANGELES AND KNEW HOW TO GET TO O.J. SIMPSON'S HOUSE ON ROCKINGHAM?

# 155 A:

HE STATED TO ME THAT NIGHT THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW THE WAY.

# 156 Q:

ALL RIGHT. NO. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, WERE YOU AWARE THAT HE TESTIFIED BEFORE THAT HE KNEW THE AREA OF WEST LOS ANGELES, HAVING WORKED --

# 157 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION. HEARSAY.

# 158 MR. COCHRAN:

MAY I FINISH THE QUESTION?

# 159 MS. CLARK:

IT'S ALREADY HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

# 160 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 161 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU WATCH YOUR PARTNER TESTIFY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THIS CASE?

# 162 A:

I DID NOT. I WAS BANNED FROM THE COURTROOM.

# 163 Q:

WELL, DID YOU HAVE TELEVISION?

# 164 A:

I WAS SENT INTO THE HALL AND NOT ALLOWED TO WATCH.

# 165 Q:

WELL, YOU WEREN'T HERE ALL THE TIME, BUT YOU WATCHED, RIGHT?

# 166 A:

AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, I WAS EXCLUDED WHILE MY PARTNER TESTIFIED AND HE WAS EXCLUDED WHILE I TESTIFIED.

# 167 Q:

SO YOU DIDN'T HEAR WHAT HE SAID?

# 168 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 169 Q:

DID YOU READ HIS TESTIMONY IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING TRANSCRIPT?

# 170 A:

NO.

# 171 Q:

ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU TALKED TO HIM ABOUT IT, HIS TESTIMONY?

# 172 MS. CLARK:

YOUR HONOR, SAME OBJECTION.

# 173 MR. COCHRAN:

I CAN ASK THAT, YES OR NO.

# 174 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 175 DET. TOM LANGE:

I DON'T RECALL DISCUSSING SPECIFICS LIKE THAT. THE ONLY CONVERSATION I HAD REGARDING YOUR QUESTION WITH VANNATTER WAS THAT EVENING.

# 176 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AT ANY RATE, YOU WERE AWARE HE HAD WORKED WEST LOS ANGELES AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 177 A:

YES.

# 178 Q:

OKAY. AND YOU AND VANNATTER WERE IN ONE CAR; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 179 A:

YES.

# 180 Q:

AND WHO WAS DRIVING THAT CAR?

# 181 A:

VANNATTER.

# 182 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOUR PURPOSE AFTER HEARING THIS FROM PHILLIPS WAS TO GO OVER AND JUST TO ESTABLISH SOME RAPPORT WITH MR. SIMPSON SO YOU COULD GET TO KNOW HIM SO HE COULD COOPERATE AS THIS INVESTIGATION PROCEEDED. IS THAT WHAT YOUR TESTIMONY IS?

# 183 A:

THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS, YES.

# 184 Q:

WAS ONE OF YOUR REASONS THAT YOU WENT OVER THERE BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT HE WAS A SUSPECT IN THIS CASE?

# 185 A:

NO, NOT AT THAT TIME.

KEY QUOTE

# 186 Q:

WELL, LET'S SEE NOW. IF -- WHEN YOU GOT INSIDE THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE, IF KATO KAELIN WAS A POTENTIAL SUSPECT AND YOU LOOKED AT HIS SHOES, O.J. SIMPSON WASN'T A SUSPECT?

# 187 A:

I'M NOT SAYING THAT KATO KAELIN WAS A POTENTIAL SUSPECT. I BELIEVE FUHRMAN REQUESTED TO LOOK AT HIS SHOES.

# 188 Q:

WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY THAT FUHRMAN LOOKED AT HIS SHOES. DIDN'T YOU SEE FUHRMAN GIVE KATO KAELIN A NYSTAGMUS TEST? DID YOU SEE HIM LOOKING IN HIS EYES TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ANYTHING AT SOME POINT? WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT?

# 189 A:

HE MAY HAVE DONE THAT. I WASN'T IN THE ROOM. I WAS OUT IN THE WALKWAY. HE MAY HAVE.

# 190 Q:

BUT YOU READ REPORTS, HAVE YOU NOT, ABOUT THAT?

# 191 A:

I DON'T RECALL --

# 192 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION. CALLS FOR HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

# 193 MR. COCHRAN:

HE'S THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER, YOUR HONOR.

# 194 MS. CLARK:

IT DOESN'T MATTER. THE HEARSAY RULE --

# 195 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED.

# 196 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DID YOU -- WERE YOU AWARE THAT FUHRMAN LOOKED THROUGH THIS PILE OF CLOTHES THAT WERE IN KATO KAELIN'S ROOM?

# 197 A:

HE MAY HAVE. I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION. I DIDN'T SEE HIM LOOK THROUGH ANY CLOTHES.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Tom Lange

THAT'S NOT A QUOTE. THAT'S WHAT I WROTE AND WHAT I INTERPRETED FROM PHILLIPS.

Lange tries to walk back the plain meaning of his own official report, distinguishing between Phillips's exact words and his own written summary — a subtle but important hedge under Cochran's questioning.

Tom Lange

NO, NOT AT THAT TIME.

Lange denies Simpson was a suspect when the detectives went to Rockingham, a central point of contention given what they already knew about his DV history.

Tom Lange

I WAS BANNED FROM THE COURTROOM... I WAS SENT INTO THE HALL AND NOT ALLOWED TO WATCH.

Lange explains why he did not see Vannatter's preliminary hearing testimony, revealing the standard witness exclusion practice — and deflecting Cochran's implication that he coordinated his story with his partner.

Tom Lange

FUHRMAN TOLD PHILLIPS ABOUT AN INCIDENT THAT HE HAD RESPONDED TO AND PHILLIPS TOLD ME.

Lange clarifies the chain of communication: he never spoke directly to Fuhrman about the 1985 Rockingham incident — it passed through Phillips. Relevant to the defense narrative about Fuhrman's knowledge and influence on the investigation.

Evidence (2)

Defendant's 1031

Two-page investigator's report addressing lividity findings on the two victims

Used to attempt to refresh Lange's recollection about lividity — Lange said it did not refresh his recollection

Defendant's 1021

Homicide investigation continuous report prepared by Lange and Vannatter, including the notation that Phillips described Simpson's prior domestic violence arrest

Used by Cochran to confront Lange with his own written account of what Phillips told him before the Rockingham visit

Notable Exchanges (3)

Johnnie Cochran•Tom Lange

Cochran reads from Lange's own report — 'Phillips stated that Mr. Simpson and Victim One had been embroiled in previous domestic violence situations, one of these resulting in the arrest of Mr. Simpson' — then forces Lange to confirm this was known before the Rockingham visit. Lange attempts to soften it as his 'interpretation' of Phillips, not a direct quote.

strategic

Johnnie Cochran•Tom Lange

Cochran asks whether Simpson was a suspect when they drove to Rockingham, then immediately follows with the observation that Fuhrman examined Kato Kaelin's shoes and may have administered a nystagmus test — implying the detectives were already treating the household as a crime scene with suspects, not just making a welfare notification.

revealing

Johnnie Cochran•Tom Lange

Exchange about whether Lange watched or read Vannatter's preliminary hearing testimony. Lange explains he was excluded from the courtroom and sent to the hall while his partner testified, and vice versa. Cochran probes whether they discussed each other's testimony afterward.

procedural

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Tom Lange

prior inconsistent statement / own written report

Cochran uses Lange's homicide report (Defendant's 1021) to establish that Lange knew about Simpson's DV history and arrest before going to Rockingham, then challenges Lange's attempt to minimize the significance by calling it his 'interpretation' of Phillips's words rather than a direct account.

⚔ Tom Lange

bias / investigative tunnel vision

Cochran juxtaposes Lange's claim that Simpson was not a suspect with the fact that Fuhrman examined Kato Kaelin's shoes and may have administered a field sobriety test — suggesting the detectives were treating the Rockingham visit as a suspect investigation, not a routine notification.

Objections

4 objections (2 sustained, 2 overruled)

Proceeding 4936 • 197 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103