GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MR. BAILEY, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. BAILEY:

DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IN THE COURSE OF YOUR CAREER AS A PATROLMAN AND MORE RECENTLY AS A DETECTIVE, HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD YOU SAY YOU HAVE QUESTIONED WITH RESPECT TO CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS?

IN THE HUNDREDS, SIR.

HUNDREDS.

IF NOT MORE.

ALL RIGHT. AND HAS IT BEEN YOUR EXPERIENCE THAT WHEN YOU ARE QUESTIONING SOMEBODY THAT IS NOT BEING TOTALLY CANDID WITH YOU, THEIR VERSION OF EVENTS MAY CHANGE FROM TELLING TO TELLING? IS THAT YOUR EXPERIENCE?

ARE YOU SAYING IF THEY'RE NOT CANDID AND I KNOW THAT, THEN I CAN EXPECT --

NO. DO YOU LEARN THAT BECAUSE THEY TELL YOU ONE THING ONE TIME AND DESCRIBE IT QUITE DIFFERENTLY ANOTHER TIME?

OBJECTION. THAT'S VAGUE.

OVERRULED.

I BELIEVE IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE TIME AND WHEN YOU QUESTION THEM, THE SPACE -- THE SPACE BETWEEN THOSE EVENTS.

BY MR. BAILEY: COULD BE A SIGN OF FABRICATING, COULDN'T IT?

POSSIBLY.

A PERSON WHO DOESN'T HAVE A REAL IMAGE IN THEIR MIND, BUT IS DESCRIBING SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN, RIGHT?

I COULDN'T SPECULATE ON THAT, NO.

THAT WOULD BE SPECULATION?

YES.

NOW, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IF YOU WOULD RETURN TO THE TRANSCRIPT AND IF YOU WOULD LOOK AT PAGE 21 OF JULY 6, WHICH IS TOWARD THE END, THE THIRD DIRECT EXAMINATION.

WHAT PAGE, SIR?

21, THE SECOND DAY.

SECOND DAY.

IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION THAT BEGAN ON 20TH LINE, 24: "ALL RIGHT. WITH RESPECT TO FINDING THE GLOVE, AFTER YOU FOUND THE GLOVE, WHAT DID YOU DO? YOU SAW THE GLOVE ON THE WALK. THEN WHAT DID YOU DO?" YOU ANSWERED: "I CONTINUED EASTBOUND ON THE PATH THAT WENT TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY AND I SPENT I'M NOT GOING TO SAY A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME, I'M GOING TO SAY ABOUT 15 MINUTES LOOKING FOR A PERSON THAT COULD HAVE LEFT THAT GLOVE THERE WHICH INDICATED SOMEBODY WAS INJURED. I LOOKED IN ALL THE PLACES I BELIEVED A HUMAN COULD SECRET HIMSELF OR COLLAPSE IN THAT AREA AND THEN I RETURNED TO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE." AND I ASSUME THE WORD "SECRET" WAS MEANT TO MEAN "SECRETE".

YES.

NOW, HERE YOU SAID THAT THE APPEARANCE OF THE GLOVE CONVINCED YOU THAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR AN INJURED PERSON AND NOT A KILLER. WOULD YOU TELL US WHY THAT'S SO?

WELL, IT COULD BE ONE AND THE SAME.

COULD BE ONE AND THE SAME?

YES.

WELL, IS THAT WHAT YOU MEANT WHEN YOU SAID "SOMEONE WHO WAS INJURED, EITHER A KILLER OR A VICTIM"?

COULD BE EITHER ONE.

OKAY. AND WHY WERE YOU LOOKING FOR SOMEONE THAT WAS INJURED BASED ON A GLOVE WITH A STICKY SUBSTANCE ON IT? WHAT WAS THE CLUE TO THE INJURY?

WELL, THERE WAS BLOOD EVIDENCE ON THE BRONCO.

OKAY. SO YOU THOUGHT THAT MIGHT HAVE COME FROM A PERSON WHO WAS DRIVING THE BRONCO WITH AN INJURY?

POSSIBLY.

YOU HAD BEEN TOLD THAT THE ONLY ONE THAT USED THE BRONCO, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN TESTIMONY, WAS MR. SIMPSON.

YES.

YOU KNEW, DID YOU NOT, THAT MR. SIMPSON LEFT TOWN AT 11:00 O'CLOCK OR VERY CLOSE THERETO?

NO, I DIDN'T.

YOU KNEW THAT IF THE GLOVE WAS CONNECTED WITH THE THUMP, IT HAD BEEN OUT THERE FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.

YES.

OKAY. AND YOU WERE LOOKING FOR PLACES WHERE A HUMAN BEING COULD SECRETE HIMSELF?

YES.

ALL RIGHT. SO I TAKE IT FROM YOUR READING OF THIS ANSWER, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A KILLER WHO WAS INJURED WHO IS HIDING AND MAY HAVE COLLAPSED.

OR A VICTIM.

OR A VICTIM.

YES.

OKAY. AND THIS IS THE SEARCH THAT TOOK YOU THE 15 MINUTES?

YES, SIR.

OKAY. NOW, THERE WAS SOME QUESTION IN YOUR MIND EARLIER TODAY AS TO WHETHER YOU HAD TOLD DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND LANGE ABOUT YOUR THOUGHTS WHEN YOU TOOK THEM DOWN TO SEE THE GLOVE. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

I RECALL THE QUESTION, YES.

AND YOU WERE UNSURE AS TO WHETHER YOU HAD SAID ANYTHING TO THEM WHEN YOU WERE DOWN AT THE SCENE OF THE GLOVE?

YEAH. I DON'T RECALL IF I DID, NO.

WOULD YOU LOOK AT PAGE 22, NEXT ONE OVER, LINE 20? "SO THEN AFTER TAKING DETECTIVE PHILLIPS DOWN TO THAT AREA AND DESCRIBING EVERYTHING THAT YOU SAW, WHO DID YOU TAKE NEXT? "DETECTIVE VANNATTER. "AND DID YOU DO THE SAME THING WITH HIM? "YES. EXACTLY THE SAME THING." DOES THAT TELL YOU THAT YOU IN FACT GAVE VANNATTER ALL OF THE DETAIL YOU HAD JUST GIVEN PHILLIPS?

NO. I DON'T THINK VERBAL, I'M -- I WOULD --

OBJECTION. THAT'S INCOMPLETE. 356. NEXT QUESTION AND ANSWER.

WE'LL, I'M JUST ASKING A QUESTION ABOUT THIS ONE.

SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED.

PARDON ME?

SUSTAINED. YOU NEED TO ASK HIM THE FULL QUESTION AND ANSWER OF THAT FULL COLLOQUY THERE. RELATES TO THE SAME THING.

BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. "SO EACH TIME YOU WENT, YOU TOOK THE DETECTIVE ALL THE WAY DOWN TO WHERE THE GLOVE WAS AND BROUGHT THEM ALL THE WAY BACK? "YES. "AND THEN DID THE SAME WITH DETECTIVE LANGE? "YES. "DID YOU TAKE ANY OF THE DETECTIVES ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE AREA BEHIND ARNELLE'S ROOM THAT YOU DESCRIBED GOING TO YOURSELF EARLIER?

"I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I DESCRIBED TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, I'M ALMOST POSITIVE I DID, THE BOTH OTHER DETECTIVES I SCOOTED UNDER THE AIR CONDITIONER." NOW BACK TO MY QUESTION. WHEN YOU SAID EXACTLY THE SAME TO VANNATTER AS TO PHILLIPS, DID YOU MEAN THAT YOU SAID THE SAME THINGS TO HIM?

OBJECTION. OBJECTION. COUNSEL IS STILL UNDER 356 CUTTING IT OFF.

WAIT. 356, CORRECT?

356.

ALL RIGHT. OVERRULED.

WOULD YOU ASK THAT QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE?

BY MR. BAILEY: YES. WHEN YOU USE THE WORD "EXACTLY" TO EXPLAIN YOUR TOUR WITH VANNATTER, DID THAT MEAN IT WAS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS THE TOUR WITH PHILLIPS?

COMPLETE CONVERSATION.

I'M NOT SURE I WOULD HAVE MEANT THE VERBIAGE, BUT DESCRIBING WHERE I WALKED, WHAT I SAW, WHAT I SENSED, YES.

BY MR. BAILEY: OKAY. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU MAY HAVE SAID ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING WITHOUT USING EXACTLY THE SAME WORDS?

NO. I DIDN'T SAY THAT.

IS THAT WHAT YOU MEANT?

NO.

ALL RIGHT. WHAT DOES "EXACTLY" MEAN TO YOU, DETECTIVE?

THAT I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT THE CONVERSATION WAS. IT SEEMED TO BE MORE LENGTHY WITH RON PHILLIPS. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE OTHER TWO DETECTIVES.

OKAY. SO THAT WHEN YOU SAID, "DID YOU DO THE SAME THING WITH VANNATTER EXACTLY," THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU MEANT?

YES. I LED THEM DOWN TO THE GLOVE AND SHOWED THEM THE GLOVE.

AFTER TAKING THE DETECTIVES TO VIEW THIS GLOVE, YOU WENT OUT TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND YOU JUST STOOD THERE, CORRECT?

FOR A FEW MOMENTS, YES.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, WAS IT AT THAT POINT THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER ANNOUNCED THAT THIS WAS NOW A CRIME SCENE OR WAS IT LATER IN THE DAY AS YOU'VE TOLD US EARLIER?

I THINK THERE WAS DISCUSSION AT THAT POINT, BUT AT ABOUT THAT TIME, WE WERE SENT BACK TO BUNDY, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND MYSELF.

WELL, DID VANNATTER SAY, "WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO HANDLE THIS LIKE A CRIME SCENE," WITHIN MINUTES OF SEEING THE GLOVE THAT YOU HAD POINTED OUT?

YES. BUT I THINK THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN "THIS IS NOW A CRIME SCENE."

OH, I SEE. HE WAS SPECULATING ABOUT A FUTURE DECISION HE THOUGHT HE MIGHT MAKE. WAS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING?

YES.

OKAY. WHAT WAS YOUR CONDITION AFTER YOU HAD TAKEN THE DETECTIVES BACK TO VIEW THE GLOVE AND WHEN YOU WERE STANDING IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING? WAS ANYTHING UNUSUAL GOING ON WITH RESPECT TO YOU?

I THINK THERE WAS SOMEWHAT OF AN ADRENALIN RUSH THAT I EXPERIENCED WHEN I WAS IN THE REAR AND I BELIEVE WHEN I WAS IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE, I STARTED REALIZING THAT THIS COULD HAVE BEEN A MATCH TO THE GLOVE ON BUNDY.

WHEN YOU CAME OUT AFTER TAKING ALL THREE DETECTIVES DOWN THERE AND TELLING THEM IT WAS A MATCH, YOU SUDDENLY REALIZED THAT IT COULD BE A MATCH?

I DIDN'T TELL THEM IT WAS A MATCH. I GOT THEIR OPINION AND WHEN THEY HAD THE SAME OPINION --

DIDN'T YOU DISCUSS WITH EACH DETECTIVE IN TURN THE FACT THAT THIS GLOVE LOOKED LIKE A MATCH ON BUNDY?

I'M SURE DETECTIVE PHILLIPS. I'M NOT SURE ON VANNATTER AND LANGE.

OKAY. AND WHY DO YOU TELL US THAT YOU ARE NOW AFTER THESE TOURS ARE OVER SUDDENLY REALIZING THAT THERE MAY BE A CONNECTION AND THUS EXPERIENCING A RUSH OF ADRENALIN?

NO. I WAS COMING DOWN FROM THE ADRENALIN.

WHEN DID THIS RUSH START?

WHEN I WAS GOING EAST ON THE PATH.

OKAY. ON LINE 7 OF 24, SEE IF YOU RECALL THIS QUESTION AND THIS ANSWER, IF YOU'D FOLLOW ME, PLEASE. "DO YOU KNOW APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME THAT WAS WHEN YOU HEARD THAT DISCUSSION," REFERRING TO THE CRIME SCENE. "ANSWER: NO. AFTER THAT, I CAME OUT FRONT. TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I WAS A LITTLE TAKEN BACK BY WHAT HAD TRANSPIRED. WE DIDN'T ENTER WITH ANY INTENTION OF FINDING ANYTHING THERE AND I JUST KIND OF STOOD OUT THERE AND I WAS REALLY KIND OF COLLECTING MY THOUGHTS. "WHEN I FOUND THE GLOVE BACK THERE IN THIS PATHWAY, I WILL HAVE TO -- I HAVE TO ADMIT TO YOU THAT THE ADRENALIN STARTED PUMPING BECAUSE I REALLY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON. AND NO MATTER IF I FOUND A VICTIM OR A SUSPECT, I STILL HAD SOME TIME OF VERY SERIOUS SITUATION AT THAT TIME AND I THINK I WAS COMING DOWN FROM THAT A LITTLE BIT. "QUESTION: WHEN YOU SAY, QUOTE, THE ADRENALIN --" ANSWER -- I MEAN, "UNQUOTE, YOU MEAN FROM SEEING THE CRIME SCENE? "ANSWER: NO. "QUESTION: FROM SEEING THE GLOVE? "ANSWER: WHEN I FOUND THE GLOVE AND ACTUALLY REALIZED THIS GLOVE WAS VERY CLOSE IN DESCRIPTION AND COLOR TO THE GLOVE AT THE CRIME SCENE, MY HEART STARTED POUNDING AND I REALIZED WHAT I HAD PROBABLY FOUND. WHEN THAT GETS GOING AND YOU NEVER GET A CHANCE TO RUN IT OFF OR GET RID OF IT, YOU GET KIND OF A DOWNTIME. AND I THINK I WAS COLLECTING MY NOT COMPOSURE, BUT MY THOUGHTS A LITTLE BIT UP FRONT. "QUESTION: SO WHILE YOU WERE COLLECTING YOUR THOUGHTS AND RELAXING AFTER YOUR DISCOVERY, YOU HEARD A DISCUSSION GOING ON INSIDE THE HOUSE? "ANSWER: YES. I WALKED INTO THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE, AND IN THE KITCHEN, DETECTIVE LANGE AND VANNATTER WERE DISCUSSING WHAT HAD BEEN FOUND. I BELIEVE DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WAS IN THERE ALSO, AND THEY WERE DISCUSSING, QUOTE, WE REALLY HAVE GOT ANOTHER CRIME SCENE HERE, UNQUOTE, AND A SEARCH WARRANT WAS BROUGHT UP. QUOTE, WE HAVE TO GET A SEARCH WARRANT, UNQUOTE. DETECTIVE VANNATTER SAID THAT AND I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TIME THAT WAS." HAVE I READ YOUR RATHER LENGTHY ANSWER CORRECTLY?

YES, SIR.

OKAY. NOW, YOU SAID, "WHEN I FOUND THE GLOVE AND ACTUALLY REALIZED THIS GLOVE WAS VERY CLOSE IN DESCRIPTION AND COLOR TO THE GLOVE AT THE CRIME SCENE." CAN YOU TELL US WHEN THAT POINT WAS WITHIN THIS PERIOD?

I TESTIFIED BEFORE SEVERAL TIMES THAT WHEN I SAW THE GLOVE, IT LOOKED VERY SIMILAR TO THE GLOVE ON BUNDY.

THE CONNECTION WAS IMMEDIATE IN YOUR MIND?

YES.

IS THAT CORRECT?

THAT CONNECTION THAT IT LOOKED VERY SIMILAR, YES.

OKAY. NOW, ON PAGE 26, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, LINE 16: "QUESTION: RIGHT. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE EXCITEMENT THAT YOU FELT IN ENCOUNTERING THE GLOVE, YOU REALIZED IMMEDIATELY THIS MAY HAVE BROKEN THE CASE? "ANSWER: I DON'T THINK IT WAS EXCITEMENT. I WAS CAUGHT ON A TWO-FOOT PATH IN A -- POORLY LIT WITH A LITTLE TINY FLASHLIGHT BY MYSELF WITH NO VEST, AND I MUST ADMIT THAT I THINK THE ONLY REASON THAT I PROCEEDED IS, I FELT MORE THAT I MIGHT HAVE A VICTIM THAN A SUSPECT. I DON'T KNOW WHY I THOUGHT THAT. "LIKE I SAID, I DID NOT BELIEVE THE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD UNFOLD AS THEY DID WHEN I LED THESE DETECTIVES UP TO ROCKINGHAM. I CONTINUED PROBABLY HOPING THAT I COULD FIND SOME ANSWER FOR THIS GLOVE OR SOMEBODY THAT HAD BEEN INJURED OR SOMETHING, BUT IT WAS MORE ALERT THAN EXCITEMENT." DID YOU GIVE THAT ANSWER?

YES, I DID.

ALL RIGHT. SO YOU DESCRIBED THAT YOU WERE CAUGHT ON A TINY TWO-FOOT PATH ALL ALONE WITH A LITTLE TINY FLASHLIGHT AND NO VEST BY WHICH YOU MEANT A BULLETPROOF VEST, CORRECT?

YES, SIR.

WOULD YOU EXPLAIN TO THIS COURT HOW IT WAS THAT YOU WERE CAUGHT THERE?

I'M SURE I -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE --

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION?

NO, SIR.

I'M USING YOUR WORDS. "I WAS CAUGHT ON A TWO-FOOT PATH IN A POORLY LIT WITH A LITTLE TINY FLASHLIGHT BY MYSELF WITH NO VEST, AND I MUST ADMIT THE ONLY REASON I PROCEEDED IS, I FELT MORE THAT I MIGHT HAVE HAD A VICTIM THAN A SUSPECT." NOW, WERE YOU CAUGHT OR COULD YOU HAVE LEFT IMMEDIATELY THE WAY YOU CAME IN?

WELL, I WAS COMMITTED TO THAT POINT.

COMMITTED HOW?

BECAUSE I WAS THERE.

YOU HAD NOBODY WITH YOU.

I WAS COMMITTED BY MY PRESENCE.

YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANYONE WITH YOU, DID YOU?

NO.

YOU WEREN'T WEARING A VEST YOU'VE SAID.

YES.

YOUR FLASHLIGHT WAS RATHER INADEQUATE FOR THE TASK, RIGHT?

IT WAS NOT THE BEST IT COULD BE, NO.

BUT YOU COMFORTED YOURSELF THAT YOU COULD PROCEED DESPITE THESE DEFICIENCIES BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT YOU WOULD FIND A VICTIM RATHER THAN A SUSPECT?

I WAS CONCERNED WITH THAT, YES.

TELL THE COURT IF YOU CAN WHY THE PRESENCE OF THE OTHER MURDER GLOVE FROM BUNDY MADE YOU THINK THAT YOU WERE ABOUT TO ENCOUNTER A VICTIM, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS A SUSPECT THERE OTHER THAN THE BLOODY GLOVE.

YOU REALIZE THAT YOU HAVE TOLD US EARLIER --

YES.

-- TESTIFIED UNDER OATH EARLIER --

YES.

-- THAT THE BLOODY GLOVE MADE YOU THINK YOU WOULD FIND A SUSPECT?

OR A VICTIM.

BUT BY FAR, THE MORE LIKELY A SUSPECT YOU SAID; DID YOU NOT?

YES.

BUT HERE, YOU'VE SAID ON YOUR OATH THAT THE ONLY REASON YOU PROCEEDED UNARMED AND ALONE OR AT LEAST WITHOUT A VEST AND ALONE WAS BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T EXPECT TO FIND A SUSPECT. YOU SAID THAT, DIDN'T YOU?

YES, I DID.

OBJECTION. NOW, THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

OVERRULED.

BY MR. BAILEY: DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU DID NOT THINK THAT YOU WOULD BE IN DANGER IF YOU PROCEEDED EASTBOUND THROUGH THE COBWEBBY PATH BECAUSE WHOEVER YOU WOULD FIND WOULD BE HURT AND NOT DANGEROUS?

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS NO FEELING OF DANGER, NO.

BUT YOU DID SAY, "I MUST ADMIT, I THINK THE ONLY REASON I PROCEEDED IS, I FELT MORE THAT I MIGHT HAVE HAD A VICTIM THAN A SUSPECT"?

MAYBE THAT WAS A HOPE.

YOU NOW SAY THAT WAS A HOPE AND NOT A THOUGHT?

NO. I'M SAYING MAYBE THAT WAS A HOPE, A PRESENCE OF MIND THEN AND AT THE PRELIM.

YOU RECALL THAT YESTERDAY WE TALKED ABOUT YOUR VISIT TO THE -- WHAT WE HAVE CALLED THE FENCE THAT IS ON THE BORDER OF THE TWO PROPERTIES 873 AND 875?

YES.

ALL RIGHT. YOU CALLED IT I BELIEVE THE NORTH BORDER?

THE NORTH BORDER OF THE RESIDENCE TO THE SOUTH, YES.

OKAY. WHEN YOU DESCRIBED THIS EXPERIENCE YESTERDAY, YOU TOLD US THAT YOU WERE STANDING, HAVING BEEN RELIEVED, WAITING FOR YOUR REPLACEMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY, CORRECT?

WE'RE TALKING AT THE BUNDY LOCATION NOW?

YES.

OH YES, SIR. THE NORTH RESIDENCE FROM BUNDY.

LIEUTENANT SPANGLER, YOUR ULTIMATE BOSS IN THE BUREAU OF DETECTIVES, CAME AND BROUGHT YOU UP TO THE FENCE WHERE GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS CRUMPLED?

YES.

WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE TAPE OR UNDER IT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

THERE WAS NO TAPE BEYOND THAT END OF THE FENCE, WAS THERE?

NO. THAT RESIDENCE WAS NOT TAPED OFF IN THE FRONT.

YOU WERE ABLE TO WALK IN A LITTLE WALKWAY NEXT TO THE DIVIDING LINE?

YES.

BUT OUTSIDE THE FENCE?

YES.

AND THERE, LIEUTENANT SPANGLER, HAVING INVITED YOU TO TAKE A LOOK, YOU EXAMINED GOLDMAN'S BODY AND FOUND A LACERATION.

THAT WAS OBSERVED BY LIEUTENANT SPANGLER.

BUT YOU SAW IT TOO?

OH, YES, SIR.

AND YOU THOUGHT IT WAS A TEAR?

I USED THE WORD "LACERATION."

AND WHEN I ASKED YOU TO DESCRIBE IT FURTHER, DID YOU NOT SAY IT WAS TORN?

NO. I SAID LACERATION IS TEARING, IT'S NOT AN INCISION.

OKAY. IN ANY EVENT, WHEN I ASKED YOU IF THERE WAS ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU SAW AT THAT POINT, YOU SAID NO, DIDN'T YOU?

YES.

OKAY. NOW, ON JULY 5TH AT PAGE 64, WHICH WE HAVE REVIEWED, WHEN YOU DESCRIBE THE SAME INCIDENT, THERE IS NO MENTION WHATSOEVER OF YOUR HAVING BEEN RELIEVED, IS THERE? PAGE 64, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE ME A LINE, SIR.

OKAY. STARTING AT THE TOP, JUST READING TO YOURSELF SO THAT YOU CAN LOCATE YOURSELF AS YOU DID THIS MORNING, ON THE STEPS LOOKING DOWN AT THE FEMALE VICTIM AND NOT BEING ABLE TO CLEARLY SEE THE MALE VICTIM.

THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY. YOU SAID THEN, LINE 14 -- 12: "WE HAD FLASHLIGHTS. WE WERE LOOKING AT THE FEMALE VICTIM. WE LOOKED AT THE MALE VICTIM." YOU'RE STILL ON THE STEPS, RIGHT?

YES.

YOU SAID: "I NOTICED THE GLOVE WHEN I WALKED AROUND TO THE -- AFTER I EXITED THE RESIDENCE THE FIRST TIME AND WALKED AROUND TO THE SIDE ON THE NORTH SIDE, NORTH PERIMETER OF 875 BUNDY. THERE'S AN IRON FENCE, AND THROUGH THAT IRON FENCE, YOU CAN GET A VERY CLOSE LOOK AT THE MALE VICTIM."

NO. READ IT AGAIN.

BY MR. BAILEY: "CAN GET VERY CLOSE TO THE MALE VICTIM." I'M SORRY.

READ THE WHOLE SENTENCE AGAIN.

BY MR. BAILEY: "AND LOOKING THERE, I COULD SEE THEM DOWN THERE AT HIS FEET." YOU READ THAT EARLIER?

WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. READ IT AGAIN.

BY MR. BAILEY: OKAY. "THERE'S AN IRON FENCE, AND THROUGH THAT IRON FENCE, YOU CAN GET VERY CLOSE TO THE MALE VICTIM. AND LOOKING THERE, I COULD SEE THEM DOWN AT HIS FEET." WE READ THAT EARLIER; DO YOU RECALL?

YES, SIR.

NOW, THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE ABOUT YOUR HAVING BEEN RELIEVED, IS THERE?

ABOUT BEING RELIEVED?

YEAH.

OBJECTION.

OBJECTION WHAT? VAGUE? SUSTAINED.

THANK YOU.

BY MR. BAILEY: HAD YOU BEEN RELIEVED WHEN THIS HAPPENED?

THE QUESTION IS NOT HERE, COUNSEL.

PARDON ME, YOUR PARDON?

THE QUESTION IS NOT HERE. IT'S WHAT DID YOU OBSERVE THERE. IT'S NOT WHO --

I'M PUTTING ANOTHER QUESTION TO HIM; HAD HE BEEN RELIEVED BEFORE HE MADE THIS EXCURSION. THAT'S NOT IN THE TRANSCRIPT. I'M ASKING HIS MEMORY.

YES.

BY MR. BAILEY: OKAY. DID YOU TELL US YESTERDAY YOU WENT HERE AT THE REQUEST OF AND WITH LIEUTENANT SPANGLER?

YES.

IS THERE ANYTHING IN THIS DESCRIPTION ABOUT LIEUTENANT SPANGLER?

IT WASN'T ASKED, SIR.

DID YOU TELL US YESTERDAY ABOUT A LACERATION?

YES.

IS THERE ANYTHING IN THIS DESCRIPTION ABOUT A LACERATION?

THAT ALSO WASN'T ASKED.

WELL, THIS IS A PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT YOU VOLUNTEERED. IT WASN'T IN RESPONSE TO ANY QUESTION, WAS IT, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.

SUSTAINED.

BY MR. BAILEY: WAS THE QUESTION WHICH WAS PUT TO YOU THAT TRIGGERED THIS WHOLE ANSWER, "WHEN DID YOU FIRST OBSERVE IT," MEANING THE GLOVE?

YES.

AND THAT GAVE RISE TO YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT WHAT YOU SAW FROM THE STEPS AND YOUR TOUR UP TO THE NORTHERN PART OF THE RESIDENCE AND LOOKING THROUGH THE FENCE, CORRECT?

YES.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHEN YOU GAVE THIS TESTIMONY, HAD YOU FORGOTTEN ABOUT THE LACERATION?

NO.

HAD YOU FORGOTTEN ABOUT LIEUTENANT SPANGLER?

NO.

OKAY. ONCE MORE THEN, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WE ASKED YOU TO LOOK AT PAGE 49 THIS MORNING BECAUSE OF A WORD THAT APPEARS ON LINE 23 OF THAT PAGE RELATING TO "BLOOD IN THE BRONCO."

YES.

AND YOU AGREE THAT THAT'S WHAT THE PAGE SAYS?

I AGREE, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. BUT YOUR FEELING WAS THAT THE REPORTER MADE A MISTAKE?

I DIDN'T SAY THAT. I JUST DID NOT MEAN "IN THE BRONCO."

PARDON ME? WHAT WAS YOUR ANSWER?

COULD YOU ASK -- ASK THE QUESTION AGAIN, SIR?

YOU SAID THE REPORTER DIDN'T MAKE A MISTAKE, BUT THE WORD IS THERE SOMEHOW?

I DON'T KNOW. I JUST KNOW WHAT I MEANT WHEN I TESTIFIED.

ALL RIGHT. SO THAT IF YOU IN FACT USED THE WORD "IN," YOU MISSPOKE YOURSELF?

YES.

ALL RIGHT. CAN WE PLAY THAT PORTION OF THE TAPE, YOUR HONOR?

YES. MR. HARRIS.

BY MR. BAILEY: DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR MEMORY IN ANY WAY AS TO WHAT YOU SAID ON JULY 3RD?

CAN WE HAVE THE REST OF THE ANSWER?

GO AHEAD AND PLACE THE REST OF IT, MR. HARRIS.

BY MR. BAILEY: DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?

ABSOLUTELY, SIR.

OKAY. AND WHAT DO YOU NOW SAY YOU SAID?

"IN."

"IN."

YES.

OKAY. THANK YOU. NOW, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, DO YOU HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE?

I DO?

DO YOU?

NO, I DON'T.

HAVE YOU NOT BROUGHT CLAIMS THAT YOU INTEND TO PROSECUTE WHEN THIS CASE IS CONCLUDED FOR MONEY?

CIVIL SUITS?

UH-HUH.

ABSOLUTELY, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. DO YOU KNOW A LAWYER WHOSE NAME IS TOURTELOT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, TOURTELOT?

YES, SIR. YES.

YOUR HONOR, I WOULD ASK TO APPROACH ON THIS.

ALL RIGHT. WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.

WE'RE OVER HERE AT THE SIDEBAR. MISS CLARK, YOU ASKED TO APPROACH.

YES. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE THIS IS GOING. A WITNESS OR ANY CITIZEN HAS A RIGHT TO FILE CIVIL LAWSUITS WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN DAMAGED IN SOME WAY. MR. BAILEY IS OPENING THE DOOR NOW TO AN EXPLANATION FROM DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AS TO ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT HE HAS SUED AND EXACTLY WHY -- OR HIS LAWYER HAS SUED AND WHY THEY ARE BEING SUED, AND THAT HAS NO CONNECTION WITH THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE WHATSOEVER. SO MY OBJECTION WOULD BE, IRRELEVANT AND POTENTIALLY PRIVILEGED MATTERS MAY BE GONE INTO, AT WHICH POINT THIS WITNESS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TESTIFY TO PRIVILEGED MATTERS AND -- MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT?

SURE.

AND I THINK IT'S IRRELEVANT UNDER 352. AS I STATED EARLIER, THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE WOULD NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF ANY CIVIL SUIT HE MAY HAVE. FOR EXAMPLE, THE JURY MAY HANG, AND YET, KATHLEEN BELL'S CREDIBILITY MAY BE FOUND TO BE ABSOLUTELY NIL AND HER ALLEGATIONS MALICIOUS AND VINDICTIVE. THERE IS NO CONNECTION TO THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE. NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BRING IT ON REDIRECT, HAVE HIM EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHO AND WHY HE IS SUING. BUT THAT HAS NO CONNECTION TO THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE.

YOU DON'T THINK THAT SOMEBODY FILING LAWSUITS OVER THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE HAS ANY BEARING ON BIAS OR INTEREST?

NO, BECAUSE THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAWSUITS THAT ARE BEING REFERRED TO.

MR. BAILEY, WHAT KIND OF LAWSUITS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE?

HE BROUGHT CLAIMS FOR DEFAMATION AGAINST SHAPIRO I BELIEVE AND NOW JOHNNIE COCHRAN SAYING HE WOULD BRING THE SUITS IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS CASE IS OVER BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANT TO INTERFERE WITH THE HANDLING OF THIS CASE; I.E., DOESN'T WANT HIS CLIENT DEPOSED. BUT FUHRMAN HAS ALREADY SAID HE BROUGHT CLAIMS, HE INTENDS TO PURSUE THEM. CERTAINLY IF THIS JURY COMES BACK AND FINDS HIM TO BE A LIAR, THAT COULD AFFECT HIS DEFAMATION DAMAGES PRETTY SEVERELY.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT. THE JURY IS NOT GOING TO MAKE A FINDING THAT HE'S A LIAR, MR. BAILEY. THEY MAKE A FINDING OF GUILT OR INNOCENCE AS TO YOUR CLIENT, NOT AS TO THIS DETECTIVE.

UH-HUH.

SO THAT OUTCOME HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS LAWSUIT, NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, NO CLAIMS HAVE BEEN FILED, AND THE VERY STATEMENT MADE BY MR. BAILEY WOULD INDICATE THAT'S THE CASE, NO CLAIMS HAVE BEEN FILED.

I THOUGHT HE JUST INDICATED THAT THEY HAD BEEN.

NO. HE DOESN'T KNOW. IT'S HIS LAWYER WHO'S DOING IT. THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH ASKING THE CLIENT. I'M SURE THEY DISCUSSED THE MATTER. BUT AS TO WHETHER THE CLAIMS HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN FILED, DOES COUNSEL KNOW? DOES COUNSEL HAVE AN OFFER OF PROOF FOR THIS COURT?

I JUST TOLD THE COURT WHAT THE LAWYER DID, HAVING FUHRMAN DEPOSED AS SOON AS THE CASE IS OVER. HE'S SUING FOR DEFAMATION. HE'S TALKED ABOUT IT IN JEFFREY TOOBIN'S ARTICLE. HE'S VERY SPECIFIC.

OKAY.

YOUR HONOR, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT WASN'T MR. COCHRAN THAT WAS REFERRED TO. IT WAS MR. SHAPIRO.

THERE'S OTHER LAWYERS ALSO. HE PUT US ALL ON NOTICE. IT'S NOT ONLY SHAPIRO. I WASN'T INVOLVED IN THE CASE THEN. HE PUT US ALL, THE WHOLE DEFENSE TEAM. HE'S BEEN ON EVERY T.V. PROGRAM SAYING HE'S GOING TO SUE.

BUT NOTHING'S BEEN FILED. EVEN THE LETTER COUNSEL HAS INDICATES, "WE WILL WAIT UNTIL THE CASE IS CONCLUDED."

DOESN'T MATTER.

AT WHICH POINT MAY NEVER BE FILED EITHER. THIS IS NOT FAIR, YOU KNOW.

IT'S FAIR. IT GOES TO BIAS AND INTEREST. HE'S INDICATED HE'S GOING TO SUE ON EVERY TELEVISION PROGRAM.

THANK YOU.

YOUR HONOR, THE PEOPLE OBJECT UNDER 352. THERE HAS BEEN NO CLAIM FILED.

I ASK THAT THE QUESTION AND ANSWER THAT HAS BEEN ELICITED THUS FAR BE STRICKEN. THIS WITNESS DOES NOT KNOW WHAT HIS ATTORNEY HAS OR HAS NOT DONE. HE'S ALREADY INDICATED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS CASE, THEY INTEND TO FILE LAWSUITS. THAT MAY OR MAY NOT EVER OCCUR AND THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE CERTAINLY HAS NO BEARING ON WHETHER OR NOT DEFAMATION SUITS WILL BE FOUND MERITORIOUS OR NOT.

IT CERTAINLY DOES.

UNDER 352.

I'M GOING TO OVERRULE THE OBJECTION. BUT, MR. BAILEY, YOU CAN ONLY GO INTO THE TYPES OF ACTIONS THAT ARE CONTEMPLATED WITHOUT FURTHER EXPLANATION AS TO WHAT THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY'RE ABOUT.

YES.

ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

WHO'S BEING SUED?

YES.

HE CAN GO INTO WHO'S BEING SUED. THEN HE SHOULDN'T --

WAIT, COUNSEL.

IF HE CAN GO INTO WHO'S BEING SUED, THEN THIS IS PUTTING --

MISS CLARK, DO YOU HONESTLY -- EXCUSE ME.

DO THE PEOPLE HONESTLY TAKE THE POSITION THAT SOMEBODY WHO IS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL WHO HAS WRITTEN LETTERS TO TARGET SEVERAL LAWYERS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE SUING DOESN'T HAVE ANY BEARING ON SOMEBODY'S CREDIBILITY AS THEY TESTIFY IN A LAWSUIT THAT'S RELATED TO IT? I MEAN, IS THAT YOUR POSITION? I MEAN I'M RESTRICTING MR. BAILEY. WE'RE NOT GOING TO TRY THAT LAWSUIT HERE.

NO.

BUT THE FACT HE IS GOING TO MAKE CLAIMS AGAINST CERTAIN PEOPLE CONNECTED WITH THIS CASE, THAT'S RELEVANT TO CREDIBILITY, BIAS, INTEREST, MOTIVE.

CAN I INTERJECT SOMETHING?

I AM SORRY. SOMETHING ELSE?

ACTUALLY SINCE MR. COCHRAN GOT TO SPEAK ON THE MATTER? MY CONCERN IS, IF THE JURY LEARNS HE'S SUING MR. COCHRAN, THE LEAD ATTORNEY ON THE CASE, THAT ADDS A WHOLE NEW DIMENSION TO THIS CASE AND THE JURY COULD -- THAT COULD VERY WELL AFFECT THEIR ASSESSMENT OF THIS WITNESS' CREDIBILITY.

IT CERTAINLY DOES. IT CERTAINLY DOES ADD NEW DIMENSION TO THE CASE. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT AT ALL.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED.

BY MR. BAILEY: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, FOR WHAT PURPOSE DID YOU RETAIN YOUR LAWYER, ROBERT TOURTELOT?

SOME MAGAZINE OR OTHER?

MAGAZINE, RADIO, T.V., PERSONAL ATTACKS.

NOW, DID YOU AUTHORIZE YOUR ATTORNEY TO SEND A LETTER TO CERTAIN OF MR. SIMPSON'S COUNSEL THREATENING A LAWSUIT FOR DEFAMATION WHEN THIS CASE ENDS?

YES, SIR.

OKAY. DID YOU REVIEW ANY SUCH LETTERS BEFORE THEY WENT?

I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I RECEIVED COPIES, BUT I DID NOT REVIEW THEM AND APPROVE THEM, NO.

AND YOU WERE COMPLAINING THAT YOU HAD BEEN ACCUSED AS A RESULT OF CONDUCT FOR WHICH YOU THOUGHT THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE OF PLANTING EVIDENCE IN A CAPITAL CASE; IS THAT RIGHT?

THE FIRST PART OF THAT QUESTION I DON'T THINK I UNDERSTAND IT.

YOU WERE COMPLAINING, AS YOU JUST TOLD US, THAT YOU WERE BEING ACCUSED IN THE MEDIA PARTLY DUE TO THEIR RESPONSIBILITY, THESE LAWYERS --

YES, SIR.

-- OF PLANTING EVIDENCE IN A CAPITAL CASE?

YES, SIR.

OKAY. AND THAT IS A VERY SERIOUS CRIME, ISN'T IT?

YES.

BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL?

YES.

YEAH. OKAY. NOW, WHEN THIS LAWSUIT IS OVER, YOU HAVE AN INTENT TO BEGIN A DEFAMATION LAWSUIT OF A CIVIL NATURE AGAINST MR. SHAPIRO AND MR. COCHRAN, CORRECT?

I BELIEVE SO, YES.

AND TO ASK A JURY FOR MONEY DAMAGES FOR THE DAMAGE TO YOUR REPUTATION FOR BEING ACCUSED OF PLANTING THE GLOVE?

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

WHAT'S THE OBJECTION?

EXCEEDS THE COURT'S RULING.

NO. IT'S THE NATURE OF THE LAWSUIT, COUNSEL. OVERRULED.

BY MR. BAILEY: IS THAT NOT YOUR INTENT?

YES, SIR.

OKAY. NOW, IN ADDITION TO THAT, HAVE YOU SOUGHT TO OBTAIN MONEY IN ANY OTHER FASHION DUE TO YOUR CONNECTION IN THIS CASE?

NO.

DID YOU AUTHORIZE MR. TOURTELOT TO SEND A LETTER TO VARIOUS POLICE DEPARTMENTS ASKING FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO MARK FUHRMAN?

I BELIEVE HE STARTED A DEFENSE FUND, YES.

WELL, THE LETTER WHICH WENT TO POLICE SAID, "MARK FUHRMAN NEEDS HELP," DIDN'T IT?

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. OBJECTION. THIS IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE.

OVERRULED.

BY MR. BAILEY: THAT'S WHAT IT SAID, ISN'T IT?

I BELIEVE SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT, YES.

ONE OF THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE LETTER SAID YOU NEEDED HELP WAS TO PAY BOB TOURTELOT $100,000 FOR ADVISING YOU, WASN'T IT?

I DON'T RECALL ANY PART OF THAT A LETTER.

HAVE YOU EVER SEEN IT?

I DON'T BELIEVE I'VE SEEN ANYTHING THAT SAYS THAT.

HAS IT EVER BEEN READ TO YOU?

I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I DON'T RECALL $100,000 TO ADVISE ME.

WELL, $100,000 FOR FEES. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT PART?

NO, I DON'T, SIR.

DO YOU REMEMBER ANY AMOUNT THAT WAS SUGGESTED IN THE LETTER OF SOLICITATION TO HELP MARK FUHRMAN?

NO, BUT IF I COULD SEE THE LETTER. I WOULD LIKE TO.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL DIG IT OUT FOR YOU. LET'S TURN IF WE MAY, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, TO THE PREPARATION THAT WENT INTO YOUR APPEARANCE HERE LAST THURSDAY.

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. CAN WE SEE THE LETTER?

WELL, I'M ASKING COUNSEL TO DIG IT OUT. IF WE DON'T HAVE IT TODAY, WE'LL HAVE IT IN THE MORNING.

ALL RIGHT. PROCEED.

MOTION TO STRIKE.

DENIED.

BY MR. BAILEY: I WOULD LIKE TO TURN, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, TO PREPARATION. I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT YOU HAD NOT SEEN ANY OF THE PROSECUTORS OR THEIR ASSISTANTS HELPING THEM WITH THIS CASE UNTIL 1995.

I DID NOT COME DOWN TO THIS BUILDING FOR THAT PURPOSE UNTIL THIS YEAR, THAT'S CORRECT.

THAT WAS NOT MY QUESTION. MY QUESTION WAS, HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU SPENT TIME WITH ANY OF THE PROSECUTORS IN THIS CASE RELATING TO YOUR TESTIMONY?

JUST IN 1995.

ALL RIGHT. AT NO TIME IN ALL OF 1994 DID YOU SIT DOWN WITH ANY OF THE PROSECUTORS AND TALK ABOUT WHAT TESTIMONY YOU WOULD GIVE?

BEFORE THE PRELIM I BELIEVE, MARCIA CLARK AND BILL HODGMAN SAT DOWN WITH ME. THEY ASKED WHAT HAPPENED. I TOLD THEM.

AFTER THE PRELIM.

NO. NOT AFTER THE PRELIM.

OKAY. DID YOU GET A TRANSCRIPT OF YOUR TESTIMONY AT THE PRELIM, THE ONE THAT YOU ARE SEEING IN FRONT OF YOU AT THIS MOMENT?

YES, SIR.

WHEN DID YOU FIRST GET THAT?

I BELIEVE THAT WAS IN 1994.

OKAY. AND CAN YOU TELL ME WHEN?

NO.

WELL, WAS IT CLOSE TO THE END OF THE PRELIM OR CLOSE TO THE END OF THE YEAR OR SOMEWHERE IN-BETWEEN?

I'D PROBABLY SAY SOMEWHERE IN-BETWEEN.

SEPTEMBER?

I DON'T KNOW, SIR. SOMEWHERE IN-BETWEEN. COULD POSSIBLY, YES.

DID YOU READ IN THE PAPER THIS SUMMER THAT THIS TRIAL WAS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN ON SEPTEMBER 19TH?

I DON'T RECALL, NO.

YOU DIDN'T PAY ATTENTION TO THE SIMPSON CASE IN THE NEWSPAPER?

I DON'T -- I DON'T READ THE NEWSPAPER.

DON'T READ THE NEWSPAPER. WATCH T.V.?

ABOUT THIS CASE?

UH-HUH.

NOT MUCH, SIR.

LISTEN TO THE RADIO?

YES.

ABOUT THIS CASE.

ABOUT THIS CASE? IT'S KIND OF HARD TO AVOID IT.

OKAY. NOW, THAT BEING THE CASE, MAY WE ASSUME THAT YOU KNEW THAT THE TRIAL DATE HAD BEEN FIXED BY LAW 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ARRAIGNMENT WHICH WAS SEPTEMBER 19TH?

I DON'T HAVE ANY PERSONAL RECOLLECTION OF THAT, BUT I'LL AGREE WITH IT.

DID YOU FEEL ANY NEED TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO THE STORY YOU HAD TOLD AT THE PRELIM DURING THE SUMMER OF 1994 AND AFTER THE PRELIM?

OBJECTION.

SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU -- DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF READING YOUR TESTIMONY PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 19TH?

NO, I DON'T RECALL, SIR.

HAVE YOU VIEWED THE VIDEOTAPE OF THE MARK FUHRMAN TESTIMONY OF JULY 5TH AND 6TH OF 1994 AT ANY TIME?

AT NO TIME.

AND OTHER THAN THE SNIPPET THAT WE JUST LOOKED AT A FEW MOMENTS AGO, YOU HAVE SEEN NO VIDEOTAPES?

NO.

OKAY. HOW ABOUT THE OTHER WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED AT THE PRELIM? HAVE YOU READ ANY OF THEIR TESTIMONY?

NONE.

HAVE YOU WATCHED ANY VIDEOTAPES AS TO WHAT THEY SAID?

NO.

WERE YOU WATCHING AT THE TIME THAT THEY WERE TESTIFYING?

NO.

NONE OF THEM?

NO, SIR.

AT ANY TIME?

NO.

OKAY. HOW MANY TIMES WOULD YOU SAY YOU HAVE READ THAT TRANSCRIPT THAT'S BEFORE YOU?

MY TRANSCRIPT, I PROBABLY READ THROUGH ONCE WHEN I RECEIVED IT AND THEN CERTAIN AREAS BACK AND FORTH A FEW TIMES. I'D SAY TWO, THREE TIMES.

HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU BEEN THROUGH IT PAGE BY PAGE WITH ONE OR MORE OF THE PROSECUTORS?

THROUGH MY TRANSCRIPT?

UH-HUH.

NEVER.

NEVER. HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THE CONTENTS OF YOUR TESTIMONY AT THE PRELIM WITH ANY OF THE PROSECUTORS?

YES, SIR.

HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU DO THAT?

WITH THE CONTENTS OF WHAT WAS TESTIFIED TO AT THE PRELIM WITHOUT THE TRANSCRIPT, PROBABLY TWICE.

WITH WHOM?

MARCIA CLARK AND CHRIS DARDEN.

WERE THEY BOTH PRESENT ON EACH OF THESE OCCASIONS?

NO. IT WAS SEPARATE.

ONCE WITH ONE, ONCE WITH THE OTHER?

YES, SIR.

WAS THERE SOME QUESTION AT THAT TIME AS TO WHO WAS GOING TO HANDLE YOU AS A WITNESS?

OBJECTION.

IRRELEVANT.

IRRELEVANT.

SUSTAINED, ALTHOUGH I DON'T NEED IT FROM THREE LAWYERS AT THE SAME TIME.

BY MR. BAILEY: HOW MANY TOTAL TIMES HAVE YOU MET WITH EITHER MR. DARDEN, MISS CLARK OR ANYONE ELSE IN THE PROSECUTION TEAM IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR TESTIMONY?

SEVEN OR EIGHT TIMES.

SEVEN OR EIGHT. BEGINNING WHEN AND ENDING WHEN?

IT WOULD BE VARIOUS TIMES THIS YEAR, PROBABLY MOSTLY WITHIN THE LAST MONTH AND A HALF.

OKAY. AND WHEN WOULD YOU DO THAT? IN THE EVENING OR ON THE WEEKEND?

OH, IT WAS -- SOMETIMES IT WAS IN THE LATE AFTERNOON OR EVENING AND IT MIGHT BE IN THE WEEKEND.

WERE ALL OF THOSE MEETINGS IN THIS BUILDING?

YES.

OKAY. AND WERE THEY ALL IN THE OFFICES OF THE PROSECUTORS?

NOT ALWAYS IN THE OFFICE, NO.

WHERE ELSE DID YOU MEET?

WE MET ONCE IN THE GRAND JURY ROOM.

WAS THAT TO SIMULATE THE ENVIRONMENT OF A COURTROOM?

I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS THAT OR JUST THE AVAILABILITY OF A FORUM TYPE SETTING.

HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU TESTIFIED IN COURT SINCE YOU BECAME A POLICE OFFICER?

COUPLE HUNDRED TIMES I'M SURE.

HUNDREDS?

YES.

OKAY. DID YOU EVER TESTIFY AS A MILITARY POLICEMAN BEFORE A COURT-MARTIAL?

YES.

HOW MANY TIMES?

TWICE I BELIEVE.

WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOU ARE A FAIRLY EXPERIENCED WITNESS?

I THINK I'VE TESTIFIED NUMEROUS TIMES. YES, SIR.

HOW MANY OF THE CASES IN WHICH YOU'VE TESTIFIED HAVE DEALT WITH HOMICIDE? WHETHER YOU WERE A PATROLMAN OR DETECTIVE IS IRRELEVANT. JUST THE SUBJECT MATTER.

DOZENS.

DOZENS?

YES.

OKAY. IN HOW MANY OF THOSE CASES WERE YOU GIVEN PREPARATORY ASSISTANCE PRIOR TO YOUR TESTIMONY IN A GRAND JURY ROOM, IF YOU CAN REMEMBER?

NEVER IN A GRAND JURY ROOM.

THIS WAS A FIRST?

YES.

WAS IT EXPLAINED TO YOU WHY THE OFFICES WHICH HAD BEEN AVAILABLE ON THE OTHER OCCASIONS WERE NOT AVAILABLE THAT COMPELLED YOU TO GO INTO THE GRAND JURY ROOM?

IT WAS NOT EXPLAINED, NO.

WHERE DID YOU SIT WHILE YOU WERE DISCUSSING YOUR TESTIMONY?

I BELIEVE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE WITNESS CHAIR TO THE RIGHT OF THE FOREMAN.

YOU WERE SITTING IN THE WITNESS CHAIR?

YES.

MIGHT WE SAY THAT THAT WAS PRACTICING?

YES.

YOU'VE NEVER BEFORE PREPARED TO TESTIFY FOR A CASE BY GOING IN A COURTROOM AND SITTING IN THE WITNESS CHAIR, HAVE YOU?

I DON'T RECALL DOING THAT, NO.

BUT AS YOU TOLD US AT THE VERY OUTSET OF YOUR TESTIMONY, THIS, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IS A SPECIAL CASE; IS IT NOT?

I THINK IT WAS AN IMPORTANT CASE. THE WORD "SPECIAL CASE," I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT.

DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT PEOPLE WERE MORE CONCERNED WITH THINGS OTHER THAN THE EVIDENCE, THAN THEY WERE WITH THE EVIDENCE AND THAT SET IT APART FROM THE OTHER CASES OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT?

YES.

OKAY. AS A RESULT OF THAT, WE LEARNED YOU HAD SOME SPECIAL SESSIONS WITH SOME PROSECUTORS I TAKE IT OTHER THAN MISS CLARK AND MR. DARDEN?

OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

BY MR. BAILEY: HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE PRESENT IN THE GRAND JURY?

OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.

OVERRULED.

SEVEN, EIGHT.

BY MR. BAILEY: SEVEN?

SEVEN OR EIGHT.

HOW MANY WERE LAWYERS, IF YOU KNOW?

FOUR -- FOUR OR FIVE.

HOW MANY QUESTIONED YOU?

THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION GOING ON BETWEEN THEM.

HOW MANY QUESTIONED YOU, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

WELL, I'M TRYING TO GET TO THAT, SIR.

OKAY.

TWO, MAYBE THREE.

DO YOU REMEMBER WHO THEY WERE?

YES.

WHO WERE THEY?

MR. DARDEN, MR. WHITE.

MR. WHITE. COULD YOU HELP US WITH THAT ONE?

TERRY WHITE.

TERRY WHITE.

AND I BELIEVE MR. YOCHELSON.

NOW, THESE QUESTIONS -- HOW LONG DID EACH ONE SPEND WITH YOU? CAN YOU HELP US WITH THAT?

WELL, IT WAS VERY BRIEF. THERE WOULD BE A QUESTION OR A COMMENT AND THAT WOULD BE IT.

WAS THERE ANY RECORD MADE OF THIS EXPERIENCE SUCH AS TAPE, AUDIOTAPE, COURT REPORTER, NOTES, IF YOU KNOW?

I KNOW, AND THERE WASN'T.

OKAY. WAS A SCRIPT PREPARED TO ASSIST YOU IN DELIVERING YOUR TESTIMONY?

NO.

HAVE YOU SEEN ANY SCRIPT IN THIS CASE?

A SCRIPT?

YES. Q AND A.

I'VE SEEN QUESTIONS THAT WE -- THAT MIGHT BE ASKED, BUT I DON'T HAVE THOSE, NO.

WITH WHOM DID YOU REVIEW LISTS OF QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT BE ASKED?

I DIDN'T REVIEW THOSE WITH ANYONE. THERE'S QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED AND THEY WERE WRITTEN DOWN, BUT I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THOSE.

ALL RIGHT. BUT AT SOME TIME PRIOR TO COMING TO THIS COURTROOM, DID YOU SEE A WRITTEN LIST OF QUESTIONS THAT YOU ANTICIPATED WOULD BE ASKED?

NO.

HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A WRITTEN LIST OF QUESTIONS THAT PERTAINS TO YOUR TESTIMONY?

I'VE SEEN QUESTIONS THAT PEOPLE WERE TAKING NOTES OF, BUT AS FAR AS A LIST THAT, "THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU," NO.

WHAT DID YOU MEAN A MOMENT AGO WHEN YOU SAID YOU'VE SEEN A LIST OF QUESTIONS?

WELL, PEOPLE ARE READING QUESTIONS OR TALKING OR DISCUSSING IN FRONT OF ME OR WITH ME.

ARE YOU LOOKING AT QUESTIONS WRITTEN ON A PIECE OF PAPER AT THIS TIME?

NO.

OR ASSUMING THAT THEY'RE WRITTEN ON PAPER BECAUSE SOMEBODY IS READING?

WELL, I CAN SEE THAT THERE'S WRITING AND THEY'RE MAKING NOTATIONS IN WRITING.

OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU WERE EXAMINED BY THE THREE LAWYERS YOU HAVE NAMED, WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THEIR QUESTIONS?

CROSS-EXAMINATION.

THESE WERE LEADING QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTIVE QUESTIONS?

I DON'T THINK I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT, SIR.

A LEADING QUESTION IS A QUESTION THAT SUGGESTS THE ANSWER; FOR INSTANCE, YOU ARE MARK FUHRMAN, NOT WHAT IS YOUR NAME. UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE?

NO. I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE, BUT NO, THERE WEREN'T.

WERE ANY OF THE QUESTIONS ABUSIVE?

I DON'T KNOW -- I --

INSULTING?

NO.

NASTY?

NO.

WHAT WERE YOU TOLD WAS THE PURPOSE OF THIS EXERCISE?

TO PREPARE ME FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

OKAY. AND WHAT WERE YOU TO GUARD AGAINST IN CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT THIS PREPARATION WOULD FACILITATE?

I DON'T THINK I WAS TOLD --

OBJECTION. THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR.

SUSTAINED.

BY MR. BAILEY: WERE THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE BEING PUT TO YOU AS SIMULATED CROSS-EXAMINATION IN YOUR MIND AN ATTEMPT TO ASSIST IN PREPARING YOU TO WITHSTAND A REAL CROSS-EXAMINATION?

NO. I THINK THERE ARE AREAS AND QUESTIONS THAT HAVE PROBABLY NEVER BEEN ASKED MOST DETECTIVES OR POLICEMEN.

CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE?

NO, I CAN'T.

CAN YOU THINK OF ANY LANGUAGE THAT WAS USED IN THOSE QUESTIONS THAT SOME MIGHT FIND OFFENSIVE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

NO.

NONE?

NO.

CAN YOU REMEMBER EVEN ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THESE THREE LAWYERS PUT TO YOU?

NO, I DO NOT, SIR.

NOT A SINGLE ONE?

NO.

MAY WE THEN ASSUME THAT YOU DID NOT PROFIT BY THE EXPERIENCE OF PREPARATION FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION?

I DON'T THINK IT WAS VERY PRODUCTIVE, NO.

WAS THERE ANY EFFORT ON YOUR PART TO REACH CERTAIN GOALS AS A RESULT OF THIS TRAINING SESSION?

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION, SIR.

DID YOU START UP BEFORE THE LAWYERS STARTED IN ON YOU WITH THEIR QUESTIONS WITH AN OBJECTIVE IN MIND, SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO ACHIEVE THAT WOULD MAKE YOU A BETTER WITNESS?

NO.

DID NOT?

NO.

DID THEY DESCRIBE FOR YOU ANY OBJECTIVE THAT THEY HAD IN MIND THAT YOU SHOULD REACH IN ORDER TO BE A BETTER WITNESS?

I DON'T RECALL THEY DID, NO.

WHEN DID THIS TAKE PLACE?

A FEW WEEKS AGO.

WHAT DAY OF THE WEEK?

I WANT TO SAY IT WAS A SATURDAY OR A SUNDAY.

THE WEEKEND WAS IT?

YES. I'D PROBABLY GO ON SUNDAY.

AND WHO WERE THE PEOPLE THERE THAT YOU HAVE NOT NAMED, IF YOU KNOW?

I DON'T KNOW A LOT OF THE PEOPLE BY NAME.

CAN YOU CLASSIFY THEM?

WELL, I KNOW -- THE ONES I DO KNOW BY NAME WAS MR. YOCHELSON, MR. DARDEN, MISS LEWIS, MR. WHITE, MR. YOCHELSON.

YOU NAMED HIM.

YES. I'M JUST GOING THROUGH ALL -- I'M GOING THROUGH ALL OF THEM.

OKAY.

MR. RUNYON. AND I DON'T KNOW THE NAMES OF A LOT OF THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE OR THE REST OF THE PEOPLE.

SO WERE THEY DETECTIVES OR LAWYERS, IF YOU KNOW?

I -- I'M NOT SURE. I DIDN'T KNOW THE STATUS OF SOME OF THE PEOPLE.

WERE THEY PARTICIPATING IN DISCUSSION?

I DON'T BELIEVE THEY WERE, NO.

WERE THEY SUGGESTING QUESTIONS, IF YOU REMEMBER?

NO. THEY APPEARED TO BE OBSERVERS.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, THIS IS A ONE AND ONLY IN YOUR EXPERIENCE AS A WITNESS, ISN'T IT?

EXCUSE ME, SIR?

THIS GRAND JURY ADVENTURE WHERE YOU WERE GIVEN TRIAL CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THREE DIFFERENT LAWYERS, THAT'S THE ONLY TIME IN YOUR CAREER THAT'S EVER HAPPENED, ISN'T IT?

YES.

DID THEY TELL YOU THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO PREVENT FROM HAPPENING IN YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION?

NO.

HAS THAT EVER BEEN DISCUSSED?

PREVENT? NO.

WELL, WE WERE TOLD RIGHT AT THE OUTSET OF YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU HAD HAD THIS SPECIAL TRAINING. IS THERE ANYTHING MORE THAT YOU CAN TELL US ABOUT WHAT YOU DID OR WHAT THEY DID?

THEY WERE DISCUSSING A LOT OF THINGS BETWEEN THEMSELVES AND IT LASTED 20 OR 30 MINUTES AND IT WASN'T VERY PRODUCTIVE. I DIDN'T GET MUCH OUT OF IT.

ALL RIGHT. WAS ANY OF IT DESIGNED TO HELP YOU KEEP YOUR TEMPER, IF YOU KNOW? IT WAS NOT?

NO.

ANY OF IT DESIGNED TO HELP YOU TO AVOID THE USE OF CERTAIN LANGUAGE, IF YOU KNOW?

NO.

WAS NOT?

NO.

IT SOUNDS AS IF YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE PURPOSE WAS. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

NO. IT WAS FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION, BUT IT WAS VERY CASUAL. I WAS EATING A SUBMARINE SANDWICH AT THE SAME TIME THE DISCUSSIONS WERE GOING ON.

I TAKE IT THIS WAS LESS THAN BLISTERING, THIS CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT PERMITTED YOU TO MUNCH AWAY ON A SUBMARINE?

YES. AS I SAID, IT WAS DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE ATTORNEYS AND --

SOUNDED MORE LIKE A LUNCHEON.

MR. BAILEY, YOU REALLY DO NEED TO LET HIM FINISH THE QUESTION.

YES, YOUR HONOR.

AND THE ANSWER.

BY MR. BAILEY: CAN YOU TELL ME, JUST YES OR NO, WERE ANY RACIAL SLURS USED IN THAT EXPERIENCE THAT DAY?

NO, THERE WEREN'T.

NOT A SINGLE ONE?

NO.

DIDN'T HEAR ONE SPOKEN ALL DAY IN THE ROOM?

NO.

OKAY. CAN YOU THEN RELATE THIS GRAND JURY ROOM SESSION TO WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO US AT THE OUTSET OF YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION?

BUT YOU SAID, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, THAT YOUR CONCERNS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CRIME SCENE OR THE MURDER; THEY WERE SOMETHING ELSE.

YES.

ALL RIGHT. WHAT WERE THE CONCERNS, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

WELL, THERE'S BEEN NUMEROUS MOTIONS TO BRING IN IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE INTO THIS TRIAL.

IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE.

YES, SIR.

SUCH AS?

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. OBJECTION.

SORRY. I WAS TRYING TO COMMUNICATE WITH MY CLERK THERE. HOLD ON.

OVERRULED.

BY MR. BAILEY: WHAT IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE WAS GOING TO BE BROUGHT INTO THE TRIAL THAT YOU WERE PREPARING FOR?

YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. COUNSEL --

APPROACH THE SIDEBAR, PLEASE.