Cross-examination of Catherine Boe (part 1)

📄 Cross-examination of Catherine Boe (part 1) — Friday, February 3, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\FEB\3\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-CATHERINE.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 12 of 167

◀ Bench conference Bench conference: exhibit marking ▶

Witness: Catherine Boe
Examiner: Robert Shapiro
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Friday, February 3, 1995 • Utterances: 74

Shapiro cross-examines Miss Boe, Nicole's former next-door neighbor, working to normalize OJ Simpson's presence at Nicole's home during their 1992 divorce proceedings and to establish that Miss Boe never observed any physical abuse. Shapiro also revisits a prior incident involving a man named Keith staying at Nicole's house, attempting to reframe OJ's reaction as concern about his wife rather than controlling jealousy.

# 1 Q:

GOOD MORNING. I'M ROBERT SHAPIRO. I REPRESENT MR. SIMPSON.

# 2 A:

GOOD MORNING, MR. SHAPIRO.

# 3 Q:

HOW ARE YOU TODAY? HOW WOULD YOU PREFER THAT I ADDRESS YOU?

# 4 A:

MISS BOE IS FINE.

# 5 Q:

MISS BOE. BECAUSE EVERYBODY HAS DIFFERENT CONNOTATIONS THESE DAYS AND I DON'T WANT TO INSULT YOU AT ALL.

# 6 A:

THANK YOU, MR. SHAPIRO.

# 7 Q:

HOW LONG HAD YOU KNOWN NICOLE SIMPSON IN 1992?

# 8 A:

I REALLY BECAME FRIENDS WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WHEN SHE MOVED IN NEXT DOOR.

# 9 Q:

WHICH WAS WHEN?

# 10 A:

SO IT WAS -- I DON'T REMEMBER WHEN SHE MOVED IN.

# 11 Q:

CAN YOU GIVE US AN APPROXIMATE YEAR OR MONTH?

# 12 A:

DOES SOMEBODY KNOW WHAT YEAR -- WHEN SHE MOVED IN NEXT DOOR TO ME?

# 13 Q:

LET ME GO ON TO ANOTHER QUESTION. DID YOU KNOW O.J. SIMPSON PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT NICOLE SIMPSON MOVED IN NEXT DOOR TO YOU?

# 14 A:

NO, I DID NOT.

# 15 Q:

AND WHEN NICOLE SIMPSON MOVED IN, SHE MOVED IN AT THE TIME THAT SHE WAS GOING THROUGH A SEPARATION AND LATER A DIVORCE?

# 16 A:

THAT'S RIGHT.

# 17 Q:

AND THE INCIDENTS THAT YOU ARE RELATING TO NOW IN APRIL OF 1992 TOOK PLACE DURING THE TIME THAT THE DIVORCE WAS PENDING, WHICH WAS FILED IN ABOUT FEBRUARY; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 18 A:

I BELIEVE THE DIVORCE WAS FINAL AT THAT TIME.

# 19 Q:

IN '92?

# 20 A:

AM I MISTAKEN?

# 21 MR. SHAPIRO:

YES.

# 22 MR. DARDEN:

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. IS MR. SHAPIRO GOING TO TAKE THE STAND?

# 23 MR. SHAPIRO:

YES. I MEAN, IT IS A COURT RECORD, IF WE ARE GOING TO ARGUE ABOUT THE DATE OF THE DIVORCE.

# 24 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, COUNSEL, HOLD ON. THE DATE -- THE DATE OF THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS AND THE DATE OF THE DIVORCE ARE NOT DISPUTED, SO MR. SHAPIRO, WHY DON'T YOU PROCEED.

# 25 Q:

BY MR. SHAPIRO: YES. THE DATE OF THE DIVORCE -- SHE FILED FOR DIVORCE IN FEBRUARY OF '92 AND THE DIVORCE WAS FINAL SIX MONTHS LATER IN OCTOBER OR THEREABOUTS, TO PUT THAT IN PERSPECTIVE.

NOW, WHEN YOU SAW O.J. SIMPSON DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME, DID YOU EVER SEE HIM IN THE COMPANY OF HIS SON AND YOUR SON?

# 26 A:

YES, I DID.

# 27 Q:

ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS?

# 28 A:

A HALF DOZEN.

# 29 Q:

AND DID HE EVER ACCOMPANY YOUR SON AND HIS SON TO ATHLETIC PRACTICES?

# 30 A:

YES, HE DID.

# 31 Q:

SO YOU WOULD FIND NOTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT MR. SIMPSON COMING TO YOUR HOUSE AT ALL, WOULD YOU?

# 32 A:

NO, NOT AT ALL.

# 33 Q:

AND IF HE CAME TO YOUR HOUSE WOULD YOU FIND IT UNUSUAL IF HE WANTED TO GO NEXT DOOR AND VISIT OR TALK TO SOMEBODY WHO HE WAS GOING THROUGH A DIVORCE WITH?

# 34 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION. CONFUSING, VAGUE.

# 35 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 36 CATHERINE BOE:

CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN?

# 37 Q:

BY MR. SHAPIRO: WOULD YOU FIND IT UNUSUAL THAT WHILE HE WAS COMING TO BRING HIS SON TO PLAY WITH YOUR SON THAT HE MIGHT WANT TO STOP BY NEXT DOOR AND TALK TO A WOMAN WHO HE WAS GOING THROUGH A DIVORCE WITH?

# 38 A:

YOU MEAN HE WOULD COME BY AND STOP BY AND TALK WITH NICOLE?

# 39 Q:

I'M SAYING WOULD YOU FIND IT UNUSUAL IF HE CAME BY WITH HIS SON TO VISIT YOUR SON THAT HE MIGHT DURING THAT SAME VISIT GO NEXT DOOR AND CHECK AND SEE NICOLE?

# 40 A:

IT WOULD BE UNLIKELY THAT HE WOULD COME TO MY HOUSE WITHOUT GOING TO NICOLE'S HOUSE, YES.

KEY QUOTE

# 41 Q:

AND DURING THE TIME THAT NICOLE LIVED NEXT DOOR TO YOU, DID YOU EVER SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY PHYSICAL ABUSE ON NICOLE?

# 42 A:

NO, I DID NOT.

# 43 Q:

THE INDIVIDUAL THAT YOUR SON SAID WAS SPENDING THE NIGHT WITH NICOLE THE DAY THAT YOUR SON -- THE NIGHT YOUR SON SLEPT OVER --

# 44 MR. DARDEN:

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THAT MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE, THAT HE WAS SPENDING THE NIGHT WITH NICOLE.

# 45 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

# 46 Q:

BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU REFERRED TO AN INCIDENT WHERE THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT A GENTLEMAN BEING OVER AT NICOLE'S HOUSE AND O.J. HAD SOME DEGREE OF BEING CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AND DISCUSSED IT WITH YOU; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 47 A:

YES.

# 48 Q:

WAS THAT GENTLEMAN'S NAME KEITH?

# 49 A:

YES.

# 50 Q:

AND NICOLE HAD TOLD YOU THAT NOTHING HAPPENED BETWEEN HERSELF AND KEITH?

# 51 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION, THAT --

# 52 Q:

BY MR. SHAPIRO: -- OF ANY SEXUAL CASES NATURE?

# 53 MS. CLARK:

THAT MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

# 54 THE COURT:

OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

# 55 CATHERINE BOE:

I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION?

# 56 THE COURT:

YES.

# 57 CATHERINE BOE:

NICOLE TOLD ME THAT HE SLEPT IN THE SPARE BEDROOM. WE DID NOT DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE OR HAD BEEN OR WERE BECOMING LOVERS.

# 58 Q:

BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND O.J. SAID THAT HE WAS UPSET BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS SOME SEXUAL ACTIVITY IN THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF CHILDREN, INCLUDING YOUR SON?

# 59 A:

NO. I DON'T THINK HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS IN THE PROXIMITY OF THE CHILDREN. I THINK HE WAS CONCERNED OF WHETHER IT WAS HIS WIFE.

# 60 Q:

ON OCCASION WOULD YOU KNOW O.J. TO BRING FLOWERS BY TO NICOLE?

# 61 A:

I HAVE -- I DID SEE THE FLOWERS THAT HE LEFT FOR HER AND THAT HE HAD DELIVERED TO HER.

# 62 Q:

AND ON THE PARTICULAR OCCASION THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IN APRIL, BEFORE YOU REALIZED IT WAS O.J. SIMPSON AND YOUR SUSPICIONS WERE AROUSED, WAS THERE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE WAY HE WAS WALKING UP TO HER HOUSE?

# 63 A:

UNUSUAL?

# 64 Q:

YEAH.

# 65 A:

PROBABLY THE ONLY THING UNUSUAL ABOUT IT WAS THAT IT WAS 11:30 AT NIGHT.

KEY QUOTE

# 66 Q:

AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER NICOLE WAS HOME OR NOT, DO YOU?

# 67 A:

I ASSUMED NICOLE WAS HOME.

# 68 Q:

AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE HAD BEEN INVITED TO COME OVER OR NOT, DO YOU?

# 69 A:

NO, I DON'T.

# 70 Q:

HE WASN'T DRESSED IN ANY UNUSUAL WAY, WAS HE?

# 71 A:

NO, NO.

# 72 Q:

HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY HATS ON OR ANY DISGUISES ON?

# 73 A:

NO.

# 74 Q:

AND AS FAR AS PARKING THE CAR -- LET ME MARK TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, IF I MIGHT, FOR IDENTIFICATION, PLEASE, YOUR HONOR.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Miss Boe

IT WOULD BE UNLIKELY THAT HE WOULD COME TO MY HOUSE WITHOUT GOING TO NICOLE'S HOUSE, YES.

Shapiro elicits this to normalize OJ's presence next door — establishing habitual access rather than stalking or surveillance.

Miss Boe

NO, I DID NOT.

Direct denial of ever seeing evidence of physical abuse on Nicole during the period she lived next door — a key defense point undermining the domestic violence narrative.

Miss Boe

I THINK HE WAS CONCERNED OF WHETHER IT WAS HIS WIFE.

Miss Boe corrects Shapiro's framing — OJ's jealousy over Keith was about Nicole, not about children being nearby, which actually undermines the defense spin.

Miss Boe

PROBABLY THE ONLY THING UNUSUAL ABOUT IT WAS THAT IT WAS 11:30 AT NIGHT.

The witness volunteers the late hour as notable even while otherwise minimizing the incident, preserving the prosecution's timeline concern.

Evidence (2)

Informal

Two photographs Shapiro requests to mark for identification at the close of the examination — likely of the neighborhood, house, or parking area

introduced (pending, transcript ends mid-motion)

Informal

Flowers OJ brought or had delivered to Nicole

discussed informally to establish affectionate behavior

Notable Exchanges (2)

Robert Shapiro•Christopher Darden

Darden objects that Shapiro is 'taking the stand' after Shapiro verbally corrects the witness on the divorce date. Shapiro defends himself by calling it a matter of public court record. Ito sidesteps by noting the dates aren't disputed.

testy

Robert Shapiro•Miss Boe

Shapiro tries to frame OJ's concern about Keith as being about children's proximity to sexual activity. Miss Boe flatly corrects him — OJ was concerned about his wife, not the children — resisting the defense spin.

revealing

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ prosecution narrative

reframing prior testimony

Shapiro systematically reframes the April 1992 incident — OJ's late-night appearance at Nicole's — as unremarkable: he wasn't disguised, wasn't dressed oddly, may have been invited, and Nicole may have been home. The goal is to neutralize the incident as evidence of stalking or obsession.

Objections

4 objections (1 sustained, 2 overruled)

Proceeding 4624 • 74 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103