THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. BAILEY:

DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW WITH YOU THE STEPS YOU HAVE TAKEN TO PREPARE YOURSELF FOR TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE. WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME FOLLOWING THE PRELIMINARY HEARING THAT YOU MET WITH ONE OF THE PROSECUTORS, THOSE AT THE TABLE AND THOSE NOT AT THE TABLE, THAT YOU KNOW TO BE CONNECTED WITH THIS CASE, TO DISCUSS THE CASE AND/OR YOUR TESTIMONY?

ARE YOU SAYING POST-PRELIM, SIR?

POST-PRELIMINARY HEARING.

PROBABLY WITHIN THE LAST MONTH, MONTH AND A HALF.

DO I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO CONTACT BETWEEN YOU AND ANY OF THE PROSECUTORS IN THIS CASE UP UNTIL 1995?

WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THIS TESTIMONY, NO.

ABOUT THIS CASE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN? YOU ARE VERY MUCH A PART OF THIS CASE, AREN'T YOU?

YES, SIR.

YEAH. AND YOU CAUSED THAT BY FINDING AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE, DIDN'T YOU?

YES, SIR.

YOU KNEW FULL WELL THAT ONCE YOU CAME UP WITH A PIECE OF EVIDENCE OF THAT SORT THERE WASN'T ANYBODY THAT COULD GET YOU OUT OF THIS CASE BECAUSE YOU ARE AN ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL WITNESS, RIGHT? DID YOU KNOW THAT?

OBJECTION.

WHAT IS THE OBJECTION?

WITHDRAWN.

WITHDRAWN. THANK YOU. THE OBJECTION WAS WITHDRAWN.

SIR, THE WAY YOU PHRASED THAT, "GET ME OUT OF THIS CASE"? I WASN'T TRYING TO GET OUT OF THIS CASE.

BY MR. BAILEY: SOMEBODY WAS TRYING TO GET YOU OUT. YOU TOLD US THAT IN SOME DETAIL YESTERDAY. YOU WERE OUT YOU THOUGHT?

OH, YOU MEAN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CASE?

YEAH.

YES, SIR.

YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE OFF THE CASE AS A DETECTIVE. WHEN YOU STOOD FOR AN HOUR AT THE INTERSECTION OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY, YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE THROUGH, DIDN'T YOU?

I'M STILL A DETECTIVE, SIR, BUT AS FAR AS BEING THE LEAD INVESTIGATOR, YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE OFF THE CASE? ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY?

YES.

OKAY. BUT WHEN YOU TURNED OUT TO FIND THIS GLOVE OVER AT ROCKINGHAM, YOU KNEW THAT YOU WOULD BE ON THE CASE AS LONG AS IT LASTED, DIDN'T YOU?

NO.

YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE GLOVE COULD NOT BE PUT IN EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL CASE WITHOUT THE PERSON WHO FOUND IT SAYING UNDER OATH WHERE HE FOUND IT?

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, CALLS FOR AN INCORRECT LEGAL CONCLUSION AND SPECULATION.

SUSTAINED.

BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU WOULD BE AN ESSENTIAL WITNESS IF YOU WERE THE FIRST TO FIND AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE?

WELL, I COULDN'T MAKE THAT DETERMINATION AT THAT TIME, SIR. I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE IMPLICATION OF THE GLOVE WAS.

YOU TOLD US THE MINUTE YOU SAW IT YOU THOUGHT IT LOOKED LIKE THE ONE ON BUNDY, DIDN'T YOU, SIR?

YES, SIR, I THOUGHT IT LOOKED LIKE.

YOU ARE A TRAINED DETECTIVE?

EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL, FROM YESTERDAY, BOTH OF YOU, LET HIM FINISH ANSWERING THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU BEGIN TO ASK ANOTHER ONE. MR. BAILEY, LET HIM FINISH THE ANSWER. YOU ARE DRIVING THE COURT REPORTER NUTS.

THAT WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO DO.

DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, HAD YOU FINISHED THE ANSWER YOU WERE GIVING?

I'M NOT SURE. IF YOU WOULD REPEAT THE QUESTION, I WILL GIVE YOU ANOTHER ANSWER.

OKAY. DID YOU TELL US YESTERDAY THAT WHEN YOU SPOTTED THIS GLOVE, AS YOU CLAIM, THAT YOU RECOGNIZED IT AS ONE THAT LOOKED SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON BUNDY?

YES.

AND THAT YOU KNEW THAT THE ONE ON BUNDY, I BELIEVE YOU SAID, WAS A LEFT-HANDED GLOVE OR BELIEVED IT TO BE, DID YOU NOT?

NO.

DID NOT? YOU NOTICED THAT THIS APPEARED TO BE A RIGHT-HANDED GLOVE?

YES.

AND THE REASON THAT YOU HAD THREE DETECTIVES IN THREE SEPARATE TRIPS TRAMPLE BACK ALONG THAT PATH WAS BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO POINT OUT TO THEM THE FACT THAT THIS GLOVE LOOKED LIKE A MATCH FOR THE ONE THEY HAD SEEN OVER AT THE CRIME SCENE ON BUNDY; ISN'T THAT TRUE?

NOT ENTIRELY. I JUST WANTED TO SHOW THEM THE EVIDENCE THAT I THOUGHT I FOUND.

DIDN'T YOU SAY TO THEM, "IN MY VIEW THIS LOOKS SIMILAR," OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT?

I BELIEVE I SAID THAT TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE I WENT INTO THAT DETAIL WITH THE OTHER TWO DETECTIVES, NO.

DID YOU SAY ANYTHING WHEN YOU TOOK MR. VANNATTER BACK THERE? ANYTHING AT ALL?

I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD HAVE SAID. I BELIEVE DETECTIVE PHILLIPS TALKED TO VANNATTER AND LANGE. THEY JOINED ME AND I TOOK THEM BACK THE PATH.

I DIDN'T ASK YOU THAT, SIR. WHAT I ASKED YOU WAS WHETHER OR NOT DURING THE TRIP YOU HAVE DESCRIBED, TRIP NO. 2, ACTUALLY NO. 3, IF YOU COUNT YOUR OWN, DID DETECTIVE PHILIP VANNATTER, THE BOSS IN THIS CASE, DID YOU SHARE WITH HIM YOUR OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE GLOVE OR DID YOU JUST REMAIN SILENT?

I COULD HAVE SHARED THOSE OBSERVATIONS, YES. I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY.

YOU RECALL PHILLIPS BUT YOU DON'T RECALL DETECTIVE VANNATTER; IS THAT RIGHT?

INITIALLY I JUST REMEMBER TALKING TO PHILLIPS.

LET'S GO TO DETECTIVE LANGE. YOU THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO BRING THE THIRD MEMBER OF THE FOUR-MAN TEAM BACK TO LOOK, DIDN'T YOU?

YES.

OKAY. AND DID YOU TELL DETECTIVE LANGE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THE RELEVANCE OF THAT GLOVE TO YOUR INVESTIGATION?

I DON'T BELIEVE I TALKED ABOUT RELEVANCE.

WELL, WITHOUT USING THE WORD "RELEVANCE," JUST POLICE TALK, DID YOU SAY "THIS LOOKS IMPORTANT, TOM"?

NO.

WHAT DID YOU SAY?

I SAID, "IT LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON BUNDY."

YOU HAVE TOLD US A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NOTICED ABOUT THE GLOVE WAS THAT IT WAS MOIST AND STICKY, CORRECT?

YES, YES.

AND DID YOU POINT THAT OUT TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, THAT NOT ONLY DID IT LOOK LIKE THE GLOVE FROM BUNDY, BUT THAT IT APPEARED TO HAVE A SUBSTANCE ON IT MAKING IT STICKY WHICH COULD WELL HAVE BEEN BLOOD?

I'M NOT SURE IF I DID OR IF I DIDN'T.

BUT IT HAD BEEN THROUGH YOUR MIND, HADN'T IT?

YES.

AND THE STICKY PART I TAKE IT YOU OBSERVED WHEN YOU TOOK THAT LITTLE TINY FLASHLIGHT OF YOURS AND SHINED IT ON THE GLOVE AND SAW SOMETHING OF A SHINY NATURE, AS OPPOSED TO A CAKED OR DRY SURFACE?

IT APPEARED THAT IT HAD SOMEWHAT OF A GLEAN OR A GLISTEN TO IT.

OKAY. NOW, MY QUESTION IS DID YOU BRING THAT TO THE ATTENTION OF DETECTIVE PHILLIPS?

I COULD HAVE.

DID YOU BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF DETECTIVE LANGE?

I COULD HAVE.

DID YOU BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER?

I COULD HAVE.

YOU DON'T HAVE A MEMORY OF ANY OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS AS WE SIT HERE?

I DON'T HAVE A MEMORY OF A SPECIFIC COMMENT THAT I MADE TO ANY OF THOSE DETECTIVES WHEN WE WERE STANDING BY THE GLOVE.

WERE YOU MORE INTERESTED IN SHOWING EACH DETECTIVE INDIVIDUALLY THE GLOVE OR MORE INTERESTED IN TRAMPLING UP THE PATHWAY?

WELL, OBVIOUSLY I WAS INTERESTED IN SHOWING EACH DETECTIVE SEPARATELY AND GET A SEPARATE POINT OF VIEW OF WHAT THEY WERE VIEWING, AS I DID.

IS IT YOUR PRACTICE, WHEN SOMETHING IS DISCOVERED, TO PROHIBIT DETECTIVES, EXCEPT ONE AT A TIME, TO SEE YOUR DISCOVERY? IS THAT THE WAY YOU USUALLY OPERATE?

AT A CRIME SCENE YOU WOULD WANT TO BRING IN AS FEW PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE INTO AN AREA.

AS FEW PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. EIGHTEEN SETS OF FEET IS A FEW PEOPLE?

WELL, IF WE DID IT ALL AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EVEN WORSE.

IT WOULD?

YES.

WOULDN'T YOU THINK THE FIRST FOUR TRIPS WOULD BE ENOUGH TO BLOT OUT ANY FOOTPRINTS OF THE PERPETRATOR, IF ANY THERE WERE?

I DIDN'T SEE EVIDENCE OF ANY FOOTPRINTS.

YOU WOULDN'T SEE ANY FOOTPRINTS IN LEAVES, WOULD YOU, DETECTIVE? YOU KNOW THAT TAKES AN EXPERT?

OBJECTION.

SUSTAINED.

BY MR. BAILEY: DO YOU HAVE SOME TRAINING ABOUT WHAT CRIMINALISTS DO?

YES, SIR.

DID YOU TELL US YESTERDAY YOU HAD TAKEN A COURSE WHEREIN FOOTPRINTS OF VARIOUS KINDS WERE DISCUSSED?

THERE WAS NOT A SPECIFIC COURSE, BUT YES, IT WAS MENTIONED.

I SAID YOU TOOK A COURSE WHEREIN FOOTPRINTS WERE DISCUSSED? IS THAT TRUE?

NOT JUST FOOTPRINTS, SIR. THAT WAS PART OF A --

I DIDN'T SAY JUST FOOTPRINTS.

EXCUSE ME. LET HIM FINISH.

OH, OKAY.

IT WAS PART OF A COURSE OR A SCHOOL.

BY MR. BAILEY: I UNDERSTAND THAT. IT WAS A COURSE WHEREIN FOOTPRINTS WERE DISCUSSED, WAS IT NOT?

YES.

ALL RIGHT. DID YOU LEARN ABOUT LATENT FOOTPRINTS IN THAT COURSE?

IT COULD HAVE BEEN MENTIONED.

AND WHAT IS A LATENT FOOTPRINT? WOULD YOU EXPLAIN TO THE COURT AND JURY YOUR UNDERSTANDING?

IT IS A PRINT THAT IS NOT VISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE.

HOW CAN IT BE VIEWED BY AN EXPERT, IF YOU WERE TAUGHT, SO THAT IT BECOMES PERCEIVABLE?

I'M SURE THERE IS SOME TYPE OF A CHEMICAL PROCESS, OBLIQUE LIGHTING, QUITE POSSIBLY MAYBE SOME TYPE OF INFRARED, OR AS I SAID, CHEMICAL PROCESS, BUT I'M NOT AN EXPERT IN THAT AREA.

NOW, WHEN YOU FIRST SAW WHAT YOU CLAIM WAS A BROWN OBJECT LAYING ON THE GROUND, AS YOU APPROACHED IT AND YOU NOTICED THAT IT WAS A GLOVE, PERHAPS A MATCH OF THE ONE YOU HAD SEEN AT BUNDY, DID YOU STOP AND THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU SHOULD NEXT DO?

YES.

DID IT -- DID YOU THEN EXAMINE, BY THE WAY, THE SHRUBBERY OVER THE CHAINLINK FENCE WHERE SOMEONE COULD CONCEIVABLY HAVE CLIMBED OVER?

I DIDN'T -- I DIDN'T FOCUS MY ATTENTION TO THE SHRUBBERY AT THAT TIME, NO.

DID YOU INSPECT IT TO SEE WHETHER IT WAS DAMAGED IN ANY WAY CONSISTENT WITH INTRUSION?

THAT WHOLE AREA WAS OVERGROWN AND DIRTY. THAT WOULD BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO MAKE THAT CONCLUSION.

DID YOU LOOK FOR BROKEN TWIGS OR LEAVES THAT WERE DAMAGED IN THE SHRUBBERY ABOVE THE CHAINLINK FENCE AT THE SITUS WHERE THE GLOVE WAS SEEN?

I DID NOT LOOK, BUT I DID NOT SEE ANY OF THAT.

SO YOU DIDN'T HAVE AT THAT POINT ANY INTEREST IN WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE HAD DROPPED THE GLOVE COMING OVER THE FENCE?

MY INTEREST AT THAT POINT WAS WHO LEFT THE GLOVE AND WHAT CONDITION THEY WERE IN.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S ANALYZE THAT. YOU SAID "WHAT CONDITION THEY WERE IN." WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?

WELL, THERE APPEARED TO BE SOMETHING ON THE GLOVE THAT COULD BE BLOOD.

THAT'S RIGHT. WHICH COULD WELL HAVE GOTTEN THERE IF THE KILLER HAD WORN IT WHILE SLAUGHTERING NICOLE BROWN AND RONALD GOLDMAN, CORRECT?

POSSIBLY.

WELL, DID YOU THINK OF THAT, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

I THOUGHT OF A LOT OF THINGS AT THAT TIME.

DID YOU THINK OF THAT?

THAT ALONG WITH OTHERS.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET'S TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME. YOU CONSIDERED THAT THIS GLOVE COULD HAVE BEEN USED IN THOSE SLAYINGS AND THAT WAS OF SIGNIFICANCE, CORRECT?

COULD HAVE, YES.

ALL RIGHT. DID YOU DECIDE TO INQUIRE FURTHER AS A DETECTIVE TO TRY TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE AS TO WHAT IT WAS AND HOW IT GOT THERE?

AT THAT POINT I WAS JUST LOOKING FOR A PERSON THAT LEFT IT.

OKAY. NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE PERSON THAT LEFT IT. I'M SURE THAT AS YOU STOOD THERE LOOKING AT AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF A BRUTAL MURDER WHOSE SCENE YOU HAD JUST VISITED A SHORT TIME BEFORE YOU BEGAN TO THINK ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE PERSON THAT MIGHT HAVE HAD CONTROL AND CUSTODY OF THAT GLOVE, CORRECT?

NO.

YOU DIDN'T?

NO.

WELL, DID YOU THINK A VICTIM, SOME VICTIM YOU HADN'T DISCOVERED, MIGHT HAVE TAKEN A GLOVE FROM THE SCENE OF THE CRIME AND DEPOSITED IT ON O.J. SIMPSON'S PROPERTY?

SIR, I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANYTHING AT THAT POINT.

DID YOU THINK THAT?

NO.

OKAY. DID YOU THINK THAT POSSIBLY SOMEONE WHO HAD BEEN INVOLVED AS A KILLER MIGHT HAVE DEPOSITED THAT GLOVE WITTINGLY OR UNWITTINGLY ON MR. SIMPSON'S PROPERTY?

I DID NOT THINK OF ANY OF THESE THINGS AT THAT TIME.

YOU DIDN'T THINK OF ANY OF THESE THINGS?

NO.

DID YOU THINK THAT POSSIBLY WHOEVER PUT THAT GLOVE THERE, IF IT WAS PUT THERE, WAS SOMEBODY DANGEROUS?

POSSIBLY.

WHAT TRAINING DO YOU HAVE ABOUT WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU SENSE DANGER? WHAT IS YOUR FIRST OBLIGATION?

I DON'T THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT.

YOU DON'T?

NO.

THE SAFETY OF THE OFFICER, I BELIEVE YOU SAID YESTERDAY, IS A PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION IN POLICE WORK?

IF YOU PHRASE IT LIKE THAT, MY OWN SAFETY, CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHAT THOUGHTS WERE YOU HAVING ABOUT YOUR SAFETY WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING AT WHAT YOU THOUGHT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DROPPED BY A KILLER?

AT THAT TIME I WAS THINKING THAT WHO IS WATCHING ME AT THIS TIME.

AHA. DID YOU HAVE ANY CONCERN AT ALL THAT YOU MIGHT BE ATTACKED?

POSSIBLY.

YOU ARE A POLICE OFFICER STANDING THERE WITH HIS WEAPON STICKING OUT FOR ALL TO SEE, WEREN'T YOU?

YES.

ON YOUR HIP?

YES.

THAT WOULD REPRESENT IN YOUR VIEW SOME KIND OF THREAT TO SOMEBODY WITH BLOOD ON HIS HANDS, WOULDN'T IT?

YES.

YOU HAD NO REASON TO THINK THAT WHOEVER WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT GLOVE WAS WOUNDED, DID YOU?

YES, I DID.

DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD LEADING TO OR FROM THE GLOVE IN ANY DIRECTION, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

NO.

WELL, IF THEY WERE WOUNDED, DID YOU THINK THEY HAD BEEN TO A DOCTOR AND GOT FIXED UP?

I COULDN'T SPECULATE ON THAT, SIR.

WELL, WHY DID YOU THINK THEY WERE WOUNDED? YOU TELL ME?

SOMEONE LEAVING THE SCENE AT BUNDY WAS BLEEDING FROM THE LEFT SIDE OF THEIR BODY.

YOU ARE SURE OF THAT?

I'M NOT SURE, BUT AT THAT TIME THAT WAS A CONCLUSION THAT WE HAD MADE.

A CONCLUSION THAT YOU HAD MADE. DID YOU EVER STUDY ANYTHING ABOUT BLOOD, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

BLOOD AND BLOOD SPATTER, WAS THAT PART OF YOUR COURSE BEFORE YOU BECAME A DETECTIVE?

BRIEFLY, YES.

OKAY. DID YOU LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT READING BLOOD SPOTS TO DETERMINE THEIR ORIGIN?

THEIR ORIGIN, SIR?

YES.

IN OTHER WORDS, HOW THEY --

HOW THEY GOT THERE?

IN A GENERAL SENSE, YES.

FIRST THING YOU LEARNED IS THAT A SPOT WHICH IS ROUND HAS BEEN DROPPED FROM SOME OBJECT OR PERSON THAT IS NOT IN MOTION, DID YOU NOT?

THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.

AND WHEN A SPOT IS DROPPED BY SOMEONE WHO IS BLEEDING AND MOVING, IT LEAVES A DIFFERENT SHAPE ON A HARD SURFACE, SUCH AS THE CONCRETE OF THAT WALKWAY, CORRECT?

YES.

AND THE SPOTS THAT YOU SAW ON THE ONES THAT WERE PHOTOGRAPHED FOR THIS CASE WERE ROUND, WEREN'T THEY?

THEY APPEARED TO BE ROUND, YES.

YES. AND SO IF THIS WAS ASSOCIATED WITH A KILLER, WHAT YOU WERE RECONSTRUCTING AND DETECTING IN YOUR OWN MIND WAS SOMEONE LEAVING THE SCENE OF A VERY BLOODY DOUBLE ASSASSINATION AND PERIODICALLY STOPPING AND DRIPPING AS HE WENT? IS THAT WHAT YOU THOUGHT?

NO.

WELL, YOU KNEW THAT THEY WEREN'T DROPPED BY ANYONE WHO WAS RUNNING, JUST FROM THE SHAPE, DIDN'T YOU?

I'M NOT AN EXPERT IN THAT FIELD, SO I DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TRANSPIRED ON THAT WALKWAY.

YOU JUST HAD SUCH TRAINING YOU TOLD US --.

I DIDN'T SAY --

SORRY. I HADN'T FINISHED THE QUESTION.

YOUR HONOR --

WAIT.

MAY I FINISH THE QUESTION?

ABSOLUTELY, SIR.

BY MR. BAILEY: I BELIEVE YOU SAID YOU HAD ENOUGH TRAINING TO RECOGNIZE THAT A ROUND SPOT WAS NOT MADE BY SOMETHING IN MOTION? DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT?

NO.

OH, YOU DIDN'T?

NO. I SAID A ROUND SPOT WAS CONSISTENT WITH SOMEONE THAT IS NOT IN MOTION, BUT I NEVER VIEWED THOSE DROPS TO ANY MORE EXTENT THAN TO SAY THAT THEY WERE ROUND. I NEVER WENT BACK AND INSPECTED THEM.

I UNDERSTAND. YOU WERE A DETECTIVE IN THIS CASE AND THE FIRST ONE ON THE SCENE TO DO ANY REAL DETECTING, WEREN'T YOU?

YES.

THESE WERE POINTED OUT TO YOU BY A PATROLMAN NAMED RISKE, RIGHT?

YES, SIR.

WELL, DID HE TAKE HIS RATHER POWERFUL FLASHLIGHT AND STOP AT EACH DROP AND ILLUMINATE IT SO THAT YOU COULD VIEW IT?

WE DID NOT STOP AT EVERY DROP, NO.

DID YOU JUST RUN BY AND CATCH THEM ON THE FLY? HOW DID YOU VIEW THEM?

HE IS EXPLAINING THE SCENE. HE IS WALKING US THROUGH THE SCENE. WE DID NOT STOP AND INSPECT EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME EVERY TIME.

LET'S BACK UP THEN. DO YOU NOW WISH TO SAY THAT YOU DON'T KNOW, AS OF THAT EVENING, DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER THEY WERE ROUND OR OTHERWISE?

I'M NOT SAYING THAT, SIR. I'M SAYING THEY APPEARED ROUND, BUT I AM NOT AN EXPERT TO DETERMINE HOW OR AT WHAT HEIGHT OR AT WHAT SPEED THE PERSON IS MOVING. I CAN'T TESTIFY TO THAT.

I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT YOU LEARNED IN SCHOOL THAT ROUND IS IN CONSISTENT WITH MOTION PERIOD. IS THAT WHAT YOU MEANT TO SAY?

NO, IT ISN'T WHAT I MEANT TO SAY.

OKAY. DO YOU KNOW OR WERE YOU EVER SHOWN WHAT A BLOOD DROP LOOKS LIKE IF IT HAS BEEN DROPPED TO A HARD SURFACE BY SOMEONE MOVING?

YES.

AND DO YOU KNOW THAT THE FASTER A PERSON IS MOVING THE MORE ELONGATED THE SHAPE OF THE DROP AS IT COMES TO REST?

YES, IT WOULD BE.

OKAY. NOW, DID YOU HAVE ANY WAY TO KNOW HOW LONG THOSE DROPS HAD BEEN ON THAT WALKWAY? THAT IS, ANY AGING IN THAT WAY?

NO.

NO. OKAY. NOW, COMING BACK, IF WE WILL, IF WE MAY, TO BUNDY, WAS IT NOT REALLY YOUR IDEA TO SCALE THE WALL AND GO INTO MR. SIMPSON'S HOUSE, PREMISES?

DETECTIVE VANNATTER MADE A STATEMENT THAT WE SHOULD GO IN AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO IT AND I SAID, "WELL, I WILL GO OVER THE WALL."

DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IN FACT, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT YOU WENT TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND URGED UPON HIM THAT THIS WAS AN EMERGENCY SITUATION, THAT ACTION HAD TO BE TAKEN IMMEDIATELY, THAT THERE MIGHT BE VICTIMS BLEEDING TO DEATH INSIDE THE PREMISES, AND YOU FELT SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE RIGHT NOW? ISN'T THAT WHAT HAPPENED?

NO. THAT WAS A CONVERSATION BETWEEN VANNATTER, MYSELF, AND BOTH OF US EXPERIENCED THE SAME CONCERNS.

DID YOU SAY TO HIM "IN MY VIEW THIS IS AN EMERGENCY AND WE NEED TO ACT NOW"?

YES.

DID YOU NOT SAY THAT TO HIM BEFORE HE MADE ANY SUCH STATEMENT TO YOU?

HE WAS MAKING SIMILAR STATEMENTS TO ME AT THE SAME TIME IN THIS CONVERSATION.

AND DID YOU VOLUNTEER TO BE THE ONE THAT HURDLED THE WALL?

YES.

ALL RIGHT. DID YOU REALIZE, WHEN YOU HURDLED THAT WALL, THAT THERE MIGHT SOME DAY BE A LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE PROPRIETY OF YOUR ACTIONS?

NO.

DID YOU REALIZE, WHEN YOU HURDLED THE WALL, THAT YOU WERE INEXORABLY A PART OF THIS CASE FOR AS LONG AS IT MIGHT LAST?

I DON'T THINK I WAS THINKING ANY OF THOSE THINGS, SIR.

IT DIDN'T OCCUR TO YOU?

NO.

HAD YOU RUN ANY NUMBERS OF CARS OUT ON THE STREET, OTHER THAN THE BRONCO, OR HAD THEY BEEN RUN BY SOMEONE TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

I MIGHT HAVE RUN THE VEHICLE THAT WAS JUST EAST OF THE ASHFORD GATE.

ALL RIGHT.

IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A FOREIGN -- A FOREIGN CAR. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A 280 OR A CELICA. I'M NOT SURE WHICH IT WAS.

OKAY. JAPANESE CAR OF SOME KIND?

I THINK SO.

WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER ABOUT IT?

I THINK IT WAS DARK-COLORED AND QUITE CLUTTERED IN THE INTERIOR, AND I SOMEWHAT REMEMBER -- I THINK IT WAS REGISTERED SOMEWHERE IN WEST HOLLYWOOD OR HOLLYWOOD.

AND WHEN YOU RAN IT THROUGH THE COMPUTER, DID IT DISGORGE A NAME AS THE REGISTERED OWNER?

I DON'T RECALL THAT.

DO YOU REMEMBER HEARING THE NAME BRIAN KAELIN BEFORE YOU EVER WENT OVER THE WALL?

NO. I DON'T RECALL THAT, NO.

OKAY. WHEN YOU WENT OVER THE WALL, AND LET THE OTHER OFFICERS IN, YOU PROCEEDED ULTIMATELY TO KATO KAELIN'S ROOM, CORRECT?

YES.

DID YOU HEAR ANY OF THE OTHER DETECTIVES INQUIRE OF MR. KAELIN IF HE HAD SEEN MR. SIMPSON THAT EVENING?

I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS CONVERSATION TO THAT EFFECT. MORE LIKE "DO YOU KNOW IF MR. SIMPSON IS IN THE HOUSE OR THE MAIN HOUSE?"

OKAY. BUT YOU DID NOT HEAR ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE WHEREABOUTS OF MR. SIMPSON AS MR. KAELIN MIGHT BE ABLE TO ATTEST TO IT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD?

NO.

ALL RIGHT. WHEN THE OTHERS WENT TO ARNELLE'S ROOM AT KATO'S SUGGESTION, I TAKE IT, YOU STAYED BEHIND?

YES.

HAD ANYBODY DIRECTED YOU TO STAY AND QUESTION KAELIN?

NO.

THIS IS SOMETHING YOU DECIDED TO DO ON YOUR OWN; IS IT NOT?

YES.

DID YOU GO TO THE LEAD DETECTIVE, OR ANY OF THEM, SINCE THEY WERE ALL YOUR SUPERIOR, AND ASK PERMISSION TO INTERROGATE KATO KAELIN?

NO.

DID YOU ASK PERMISSION WITH ANY OF THEM TO TEST HIM FOR SOBRIETY OR DRUG USE?

NO.

DID YOU ASK PERMISSION OF ANY OF THEM TO SEARCH HIS PREMISES?

NO, SIR.

NOW, WHEN YOU BEGAN TO TALK TO KAELIN, YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHO HE WAS?

NO.

DO YOU REPRESENT THAT YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS HIS CAR PARKED OUTSIDE THE ASHFORD GATE?

NO, I DID NOT KNOW THAT.

DID YOU EVER QUESTION HIM ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD AN AUTOMOBILE NEARBY?

I DID NOT, NO.

DID YOU VIEW HIM AS A SUSPECT?

HE DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE SO MUCH A SUSPECT, BUT THEN AGAIN, I DIDN'T REALLY KNOW WHAT HIS FUNCTION WAS AT THE HOUSE.

DID YOU ASK HIM WHAT CLOTHES HE HAD WORN THAT NIGHT?

YES.

DID HE SHOW YOU?

YES.

DID YOU INSPECT THEM LOOKING FOR SIGNS THAT MIGHT IN SOME WAY TIE HIM TO THE HOMICIDES?

I LOOKED AT HIS CLOTHES AND HIS SHOES, YES.

OKAY. YOU TURNED HIS SHOES OVER TO LOOK AT THE SOLES TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY BLOOD ON OR IN BETWEEN THE RIDGES OF THE SOLES, CORRECT?

YES.

WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE IN DOING THAT, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY BLOOD ON THE SOLES.

OKAY. NOW, IN INTERROGATING KAELIN WERE YOU WATCHING HIM CAREFULLY TO SEE IF HE DID ANYTHING UNUSUAL OR MADE ANY LITTLE SLIPS IN HIS TALKS WITH YOU THAT MIGHT CAPTURE YOUR INTEREST?

I'M SURE THAT IS INTERESTING. WOULD YOU TRY TO ANSWER NOW THE QUESTION I PUT TO YOU.

I WAS TRYING TO. THE SPECIFIC QUESTION, SIR, ONCE AGAIN?

THE SPECIFIC QUESTION WAS WHILE YOU QUESTIONED MR. KAELIN, OR SPOKE TO HIM, WERE YOU OBSERVING HIM FOR THE PURPOSE OF PICKING UP ANY OF THE LITTLE SIGNALS THAT INTERROGATORS LOOK FOR; NERVOUSNESS, CONTRADICTION, SLIPS OF THE TONGUE, THAT SORT OF THING?

NOT CONSCIOUSLY, NO.

BY THE WAY, HAD YOU FELT THE HOOD OF THE KAELIN AUTOMOBILE, WHAT TURNS OUT TO BE THE KAELIN AUTOMOBILE, AS YOU DID THE BRONCO?

I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

YOU WEREN'T CONCERNED ABOUT THE RECENT HISTORY OF THAT VEHICLE, I TAKE IT?

WELL, I DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING ON THAT VEHICLE OR ANYTHING AROUND THAT VEHICLE THAT WAS REALLY VERY SUSPICIOUS.

AND YOU WEREN'T CONCERNED WHETHER IT HAD BEEN RECENTLY DRIVEN, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS PARKED VERY CLOSE TO MR. SIMPSON'S PREMISES; ISN'T THAT SO?

NO.

NOW, IN QUESTIONING MR. KAELIN THERE WAS IN YOUR MIND A VERY URGENT MATTER TO WHICH YOU NEEDED AN ANSWER, WAS THERE NOT?

WHICH QUESTION WAS THAT?

THERE WAS SOMETHING YOU REALLY WANTED TO KNOW WHEN YOU WENT INTO HIS ROOM; ISN'T THAT TRUE?

NO.

WELL, ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS A DETECTIVE CAN ASK A WITNESS OR POTENTIAL WITNESS IS DID YOU NOTICE SOMETHING UNUSUAL, CORRECT?

I DON'T THINK THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT. IT IS A PRETTY GENERAL STATEMENT, SIR.

I SAID ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS A DETECTIVE CAN ASK OF A POTENTIAL WITNESS IS HAVING NOTICED ANYTHING EXTRAORDINARY OR UNUSUAL; ISN'T THAT SO?

EXTRAORDINARY I WOULD AGREE WITH.

OKAY. NOW, AND YOU PUT THAT QUESTION TO MR. KAELIN, DIDN'T YOU?

YES.

BUT THERE WAS ANOTHER ISSUE SO IMPORTANT THAT YOU HAD TO CUT HIM OFF AND PUT ANOTHER QUESTION BEFORE HE COULD RESPOND, TRUE?

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS THE SITUATION.

WELL, DO YOU NORMALLY ASK SOMEBODY A QUESTION AND THEN BEFORE THEY HAVE A FAIR CHANCE TO ANSWER YOU CUT THEM OFF WITH ANOTHER ONE?

SOMEBODY DOES.

MR. KAELIN WASN'T EXACTLY QUICKLY RESPONDING TO CERTAIN QUESTIONS, AND THAT IS TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION WHY I PROBABLY CAME UP WITH ANOTHER QUESTION.

BY MR. BAILEY: I NOW UNDERSTAND THAT THE REASON KATO GOT QUESTION 2 BEFORE HE ANSWERED QUESTION 1 WAS THAT HE WAS SLOW ON THE DRAW; IS THAT RIGHT?

YES.

WHEN DID YOU FIRST TELL SOMEBODY THAT, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

I WAS NEVER ASKED THAT.

YOU NEVER WERE?

NO, SIR.

WELL, YOU VOLUNTEERED THAT YOU CUT KATO OFF IN PRIOR TESTIMONY, DIDN'T YOU?

YES, SIR.

YOU DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HIM BEING SLOW TO RESPOND THEN, DID YOU?

NO.

IS THAT SOMETHING YOU RECENTLY REMEMBERED?

NO.

ALL RIGHT. IS IT SOMETHING YOU SIMPLY LEFT OUT?

NO, IT IS SOMETHING I WASN'T ASKED.

WAS THERE ANY OTHER REASON TO INTERJECT QUESTION 2 ABOUT THE BRONCO?

IT WAS A QUESTION THAT WE WANTED ANSWERED. I THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT TO KNOW IF MR. SIMPSON WAS HOME.

WELL, IT WAS IMPORTANT TO YOU, WASN'T IT?

IT WAS IMPORTANT TO ALL OF US.

HAD YOU BEEN DIRECTED BY ANYBODY TO MAKE THAT INQUIRY OF KATO KAELIN?

NO.

SO I TAKE IT NOW AT THIS POINT, HAVING BEEN TO THE BRONCO AND HURDLED THE WALL AND INTERROGATING KAELIN, YOU VIEWED YOURSELF AS A DETECTIVE VERY MUCH IN THE CASE?

WELL, I'M ALWAYS A DETECTIVE, YES.

IN THE SIMPSON CASE?

IS THAT YOUR PERCEPTION OF YOURSELF?

YES. I WAS ASKED TO ASSIST THOSE DETECTIVES, YES.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, MR. KAELIN TOLD YOU THAT THAT CAR NORMALLY WAS DRIVEN BY MR. SIMPSON, CORRECT?

YES. I BELIEVE HE SAID IT WAS O.J.'S VEHICLE.

AND YOU ASKED WHETHER HE HAD DRIVEN IT THAT NIGHT?

I BELIEVE I DID, YES.

AND MR. KAELIN RESPONDED HE THOUGHT SO, BUT HE WASN'T SURE?

CORRECT?

I BELIEVE SO, YES.

THEN YOU GOT BACK TO THE QUESTION OF -- ABOUT UNUSUAL OCCURRENCES, CORRECT?

YES, SIR.

AND THE WORD YOU USED IN SPEAKING WITH KATO WAS "UNUSUAL," WASN'T IT?

YES.

AND NOW THAT HE FINALLY DID GET A CHANCE TO ANSWER, WHAT DID HE SAY?

HE SAID AT ABOUT 10:45 HE HEARD A CRASHING ON HIS WALL AND HE THOUGHT THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN EARTHQUAKE. HIS PICTURE SHOOK. AND THEN HE CONTINUED TO SAY THAT HE WENT OUT TO INVESTIGATE IT AND HE SAW A LIMO AT THE GATE.

WELL, HE NEVER SUGGESTED TO YOU THAT HE WENT BACK ALONG THE WALL BETWEEN THE WALL AND THE FENCE TO THE AREA OF THE NOISE, DID HE?

NO, SIR.

DID HE TELL YOU HE STARTED TO DO THAT BEFORE MR. SIMPSON LEFT FOR THE AIRPORT, BUT BECAUSE THE DOG WOULDN'T GO WITH HIM HE WAS AFRAID AND CANCELLED THE INVESTIGATION? DID HE MENTION THAT TO YOU?

NO.

YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT AT THE TIME?

DIDN'T KNOW AT ANY TIME.

OKAY. YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAS HIS TESTIMONY IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?

NO, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. DID YOU DISCUSS WITH KATO WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD EVER HEARD SOUNDS LIKE THAT BEFORE?

NO.

DID YOU DISCUSS WITH HIM POSSIBLE CAUSES OF SUCH A SOUND?

NO.

DID YOU ASK HIM TO RELATE IT TO ANY OTHER EXPERIENCE SO THAT YOU MIGHT BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT COULD OR COULD NOT HAVE CAUSED THAT DISTURBANCE?

NO, SIR.

DID YOU THEN AND THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, DECIDE ON YOUR OWN TO GO OUT AND INVESTIGATE THE SOURCE OF THAT SOUND?

I DECIDED TO GO OUT AND TRY TO ORIENT MYSELF WITH THE PROPERTY AND SEE WHERE THAT SOUND COULD HAVE COME FROM, YES.

DID YOU DECIDE THAT YOU WOULD GO TO THE PROBABLE SOURCE AS DESCRIBED BY MR. KAELIN BY RELATING IT TO AN AIR CONDITIONER THAT PLAINLY STUCK THROUGH THE WALL?

I THINK WHEN I WENT TO THE SOUTH BORDER AND I SAW THE PATH, I WALKED DOWN THE PATH AS A CONTINUATION OF DISCOVERING WHERE THAT SOUND OF THAT WALL WAS LOCATED.

WE ARE STILL BACK IN KATO'S ROOM. I'M ASKING WHETHER OR NOT BEFORE YOU EVER LEFT THAT ROOM YOU MADE A DECISION THAT YOU WOULD GO INVESTIGATE THE SOURCE OF THE SOUND?

I BELIEVE WHEN I WALKED -- WHEN I WALKED HIM INTO THE HOUSE AND I WALKED THROUGH THE HOUSE, WHEN I TOLD PHIL, "WHY DON'T YOU TALK TO THIS GUY AT THE BAR," I THINK I HAD DECIDED TO GO OUT AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT SOUND CAME FROM ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE WALL, YES.

AM I TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WAS A DECISION MADE WHILE WALKING?

YES.

OKAY. WHEN YOU LEFT THE ROOM YOU HADN'T MADE THE DECISION?

I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN IT HAPPENED, BUT I WOULD -- TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION WOULD BE WHEN I WAS WALKING INTO THE HOUSE, YES.

BY THE TIME THAT YOU GOT TO THE HOUSE YOU HAD MADE THE DECISION, CORRECT?

I DIDN'T REALLY -- I CAN'T REALLY RECOLLECT EXACTLY AT WHAT STEP I DID, BUT I WAS WALKING HIM IN, ASKED HIM TO SIT DOWN. AND AS I WALKED OUT, I WALKED OUT TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT SOUND WOULD HAVE COME FROM ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL.

SO DURING THAT PERIOD BETWEEN -- BETWEEN KAELIN'S ROOM AND THE FRONT DOOR OF THE RESIDENCE OR TELLING VANNATTER IF HE WOULD TALK TO THE MAN AT THE BAR, BETWEEN THAT PERIOD I DID.

DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IS IT NOT TRUE THAT AS YOU DECIDED TO WALK OUT TO THE SOURCE OF THE NOISE YOU DECIDED TO GO ALONE?

I WAS ALREADY ALONE, SIR.

WELL, YOU WERE WITH KAELIN WHO COULD HAVE TAKEN YOU OUT THERE, I SUPPOSE, COULD HE NOT?

I'M SURE HE COULD HAVE.

YOU WERE WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER, THE LEAD, WITH WHOM YOU NEVER DISCUSSED YOUR PLANS, CORRECT?

NO, I WASN'T WITH HIM. I YELLED TO HIM. HE WAS IN THE KITCHEN.

YOU WERE IN THE SAME BUILDING WITH HIM, WERE YOU NOT?

YES.

YOU WERE THE GENTLEMAN THAT HAD TO STAND AT DOROTHY AND BUNDY FOR AN HOUR FOR LACK OF INSTRUCTION, ARE YOU NOT?

YES.

AND YOU DECIDED, WITHOUT CONFIDING IN ANYBODY, TO GO ALONE BEHIND THAT BUILDING, CORRECT?

CORRECT.

DID IT OCCUR TO YOU THAT MR. KAELIN MIGHT BE ABLE TO ASSIST YOU IN POINTING OUT THE EXACT SOURCE OF THE NOISE AS HE RECONSTRUCTED IT?

DID YOU THINK OF THAT?

NO.

NEVER THOUGHT OF IT?

NO.

DID IT OCCUR TO YOU THAT THERE MIGHT BE DANGER LURKING OUT THERE IN THE DARKNESS IN THE VICINITY OF THE SOUTH WALL?

AT THAT TIME?

YES.

NO.

THAT THOUGHT NEVER CROSSED YOUR MIND?

IT WASN'T PRESENT. IT WASN'T FOREMOST IN MY MIND, NO.

HAD IT UP TO THAT POINT CROSSED YOUR MIND THAT THERE MIGHT BE WHAT YOU CALL A SUSPECT IN THE VICINITY, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY, BUT IT SEEMED VERY REMOTE.

HOW DID YOU DISCARD THAT POSSIBILITY AT THE TIME YOU DECIDED TO MAKE THIS SOLO INVESTIGATION?

I DIDN'T DISCARD IT; IT JUST WASN'T FOREMOST IN MY MIND.

YOU ARE TELLING ME AS A POLICE OFFICER THAT HAVING ONCE BEEN APPREHENSIVE ABOUT POSSIBLE PHYSICAL HARM TO YOURSELF, YOU WERE ABLE TO TURN THAT ASIDE?

IS THAT CORRECT?

I DON'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE PHYSICAL HARM, SIR.

WHAT CAUSED YOUR CONCERN TO DISSIPATE, IF ANYTHING, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, ABOUT YOUR SAFETY?

I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND, SIR.

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION?

NO. AT WHAT POINT?

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT AT SOME POINT PRIOR TO CLIMBING THE WALL YOU EXPRESSED THE NOTION THAT THERE MIGHT BE SUSPECTS AROUND? DO YOU KNOW THAT?

YES.

ALL RIGHT. SUSPECTS ON THE PREMISES MEANS IN THIS CASE SOMEONE WHO MIGHT BE CONNECTED WITH A DOUBLE MURDER, DOESN'T IT?

YES.

THAT PERSON SHOULD ALWAYS BE CONSIDERED BY ANY INTELLIGENT OFFICER TO BE POTENTIALLY ARMED AND DANGEROUS; IS THAT NOT SO?

YES.

DID YOU GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE POSSIBLE EXISTENCE OUT THERE IN THE SIMPSON SHADOWS OF SOMEONE WHO WAS ARMED AND DANGEROUS?

AT THAT POINT IT WAS SOMEWHAT REMOTE, SINCE WE HAD ALREADY ENTERED THE HOUSE.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, HAVING ENTERED THE HOUSE SHIELDED YOU FROM ANY DANGER BY THE SOUTH WALL? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US?

OF COURSE NOT.

YOU UNDERSTOOD SOMETHING UNUSUAL HAD TAKEN PLACE OUT THERE, CORRECT?

NO. THAT WAS KATO'S DESCRIPTION, SOMETHING UNUSUAL. THAT WAS WHAT HE DESCRIBED.

WELL, YOU THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO GO RIGHT OUT THERE, DIDN'T YOU?

I THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED.

ALL RIGHT. DO YOU NORMALLY ORDER PHIL VANNATTER AROUND?

NO.

DID YOU IN THIS CASE?

NO.

DID YOU INSTRUCT KATO KAELIN TO SIT ON A BAR STOOL?

YES.

WHY DID YOU INSTRUCT HIM TO DO THAT IN A HOUSE WHERE YOU WERE THE GUEST AND HE WAS THE RESIDENT?

OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

SUSTAINED.

BY MR. BAILEY: HAD YOU LEARNED BY THAT TIME THAT HE LIVED IN THAT BUNGALOW?

I THINK, YES, I CONCLUDED THAT.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, WHY WOULD YOU INSTRUCT HIM TO SIT ON A BAR STOOL?

BECAUSE I WANTED HIM TO SIT THERE.

WHY DID YOU WANT HIM TO SIT THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

SO DETECTIVE VANNATTER OR ANOTHER DETECTIVE COULD TALK TO HIM.

THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF TWO OF THEM, WOULDN'T IT?

TWO OF WHO?

IF YOU INSTRUCT VANNATTER TO GO AND TALK TO KAELIN, THAT TIES UP TWO OF THE FOUR PEOPLE THAT WERE WITH YOU IN THE HOUSE, OR THE FIVE, DOESN'T IT, HAVING A CONVERSATION?

OBJECTION. THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

OVERRULED.

BY MR. BAILEY: DO YOU UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION?

NO.

ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, THAT EVERYBODY HAS GOT TO BE SOMEPLACE?

I AGREE.

AND THAT ONE PERSON CAN'T BE IN TWO PLACES?

AGREED.

SO THAT IF YOU CAUSED TWO PEOPLE TO JOIN TOGETHER IN A CONVERSATION AT A SPECIFIC PLACE, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THEY WILL BE AT ANY OTHER PLACE UNTIL THE CONVERSATION IS OVER?

I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.

OKAY. NOW, I WILL ASK YOU ONE MORE TIME. DID YOU USE WORDS OF INSTRUCTION TO PHIL VANNATTER TELLING HIM, WITHOUT SUGGESTING ANY SUBJECT MATTER, GO TALK TO KAELIN?

NOT IN THAT MANNER, BUT YES, I DID.

ALL RIGHT. YOU HAD ALREADY FORMULATED A PLAN THAT YOU WERE GOING TO LOOK OUT BEHIND THE BUILDING IN THE DARKNESS FOR SOMETHING, CORRECT?

NO.

YOU HAD NOT?

I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IF THAT WAS ACCESSIBLE FROM THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE.

DIDN'T YOU TELL US THAT AS YOU WALKED FROM THE BUNGALOW TO THE HOUSE YOU HAD MADE A DECISION THAT YOU WOULD GO LOOK AT THE SOURCE OF THE NOISE?

I WASN'T EVEN --

I'M SORRY, DID YOU SAY THAT?

YES.

OKAY. WELL, THEN AT THE TIME YOU SAID, "PHIL, GO TALK TO MR. KAELIN," YOU WERE ON YOUR WAY, WEREN'T YOU?

YES.

YOU DIDN'T HESITATE AT ALL? ONCE THAT UTTERANCE WAS OUT OF YOUR MOUTH YOU KEPT RIGHT ON MOVING?

YES.

YOU SAW PHILLIPS ON THE TELEPHONE?

YES, I BELIEVE SO.

AND DID YOU SEE DETECTIVE LANGE?

I DON'T RECALL IF I SAW HIM.

WAS HE IN THE PROXIMITY OF ARNELLE SIMPSON APPARENTLY ENGAGED IN CONVERSATION OF SOME SORT?

HE COULD HAVE BEEN.

ALL RIGHT. THAT IS FIVE PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE, CORRECT?

YES.

AFTER YOU LEAVE? ALL ENGAGED IN DOING SOMETHING, RIGHT?

YES.

NOW, TAKE US BACK, IF YOU WILL, TO YOUR INITIAL TRAINING ABOUT THE BUDDY SYSTEM, BOTH MILITARY AND POLICE.

DID YOU NOT SAY THAT IT IS AXIOMATIC THAT YOU DON'T GO IN ALONE IF DANGER COULD POSSIBLY BE PRESENT?

WELL, CONSIDERING CERTAIN SITUATIONS, THAT WOULD BE DESIRABLE, YES.

LET'S LOOK AT THIS SITUATION. YOU WERE INVESTIGATING, WHAT YOU HAVE CALLED FROM YOUR OWN TESTIMONY, AN EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT HOMICIDE, WEREN'T YOU?

YES.

OKAY. PROBABLY THE MOST SERIOUS THAT YOU HAD ENCOUNTERED AMONG THE ELEVEN ON WHICH YOU HAD WORKED? IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

YES, SIR.

OKAY. YOU HAD SEEN EVIDENCE THAT SOMEBODY, EITHER PSYCHOTIC OR PSYCHOPATHIC, HAD BRUTALIZED TWO HUMAN BODIES WITH SOMETHING, CORRECT?

YES.

AND YOU KNEW THAT THAT SOMEONE COULD BE UNPREDICTABLE AND DEADLY IF YOU WERE TO ENCOUNTER THEM, CORRECT?

I DON'T THINK WE KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT THE KILLER AT THAT TIME, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THEY WOULD BE DANGEROUS, CONSIDERING THE SCENE.

WOULDN'T YOU DRAW AN INFERENCE THAT SOMEBODY CAPABLE OF THAT KIND OF MURDER MIGHT NOT HESITATE TO TAKE YOU DOWN?

YES.

OKAY. SO AS YOU LEAVE THE BUILDING YOU LEFT THREE GUNS BEHIND, DIDN'T YOU?

THREE DETECTIVES, YES.

THREE DETECTIVES, EACH OF WHOM WAS CARRYING THE SAME SIDEARM THAT YOU ARE WEARING TODAY, CORRECT?

YES.

THAT IS A GLOCK AUTOMATIC PISTOL, IS IT?

NO.

WHAT IS IT?

I BELIEVE ALL THREE OF THOSE DETECTIVES, ONE WAS CARRYING A TWO-INCH .38 MODEL 36, ONE WAS CARRYING A SMITH AND WESSON STAINLESS STEEL, AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER, I DON'T RECALL WHAT HE WAS CARRYING. I WAS CARRYING A BERETTA.

ALL AUTOMATIC?

YES.

EACH CAPABLE OF FIRING SEVERAL SHOTS IN QUICK SUCCESSION?

YES.

NOW, HAD YOU THOUGHT ABOUT ASKING ONE OF THOSE FELLOWS TO GO WITH YOU, MAYBE SOMEONE WHO HAD A GROWN-UP FLASHLIGHT?

NO.

YOU NEVER CONSIDERED THAT FOR A MOMENT?

NO.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, I WILL ASK YOU ONCE AGAIN: WAS IT NOT YOUR PURPOSE TO BE IN THE AREA ALONG THE SOUTH WALL ALONE?

NO, IT WASN'T.

IT JUST WORKED OUT THAT WAY? IS THAT IT?

NO. IT JUST WORKED OUT THAT YOU LEFT THE HOUSE AND MADE YOUR INVESTIGATION FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES OR MORE ALONE?

YES.

AT THAT POINT YOU ARE SOLELY EXPECTING TO INQUIRE INTO POSSIBLE SOURCES OF SOMETHING THAT THUMPED THE WALL AND MADE A PICTURE SHAKE?

THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY, YES.

ALL RIGHT. DID YOU PROCEED SLOWLY AND WITH SOME CAUTION INTO THIS AREA?

YES.

HOW FAR AHEAD OF YOU WOULD THIS LITTLE TEENY FLASHLIGHT ILLUMINATE THE WAY?

FIVE, SIX FEET.

OKAY. BUT IT WAS BRIGHT ENOUGH TO ALERT ANYONE IN THAT DARKNESS THAT SOMEBODY WAS COMING CARRYING A LIGHT, WASN'T IT?

YES, IT WOULD.

YOU COULD SEE IT FROM QUITE A DISTANCE IF IT WERE POINTED AT YOU?

YES.

SO YOU PROCEED ALONG THE WALKWAY PAUSING TO LOOK AT THE STRUCTURE, WHAT YOU CALLED INDENTATIONS?

YES.

AND YOU COME UPON A GLOVE?

EVENTUALLY, YES.

YOU TOLD US THAT YOU LEARNED IN SCHOOL THAT FOOTPRINTS NOT VISIBLE TO YOU MIGHT BE RAISED BY A CRIMINALIST, TRUE?

THAT IS POSSIBLE, YES.

WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE DID IT OCCUR TO YOU THAT THERE COULD BE IN THAT AREA, EITHER WHERE YOU HAD JUST GONE OR IN THE OTHER DIRECTION, SOME FOOTPRINTS THAT COULD HELP IDENTIFY THE PERSON WHO MAY HAVE DROPPED IT THERE?

OBJECTION, YOUR. HONOR, THIS IS ASKED AND ANSWERED.

WE HAVE.

WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO PURSUE IT; FOUNDATIONAL.

BRIEFLY. BRIEFLY.

BY MR. BAILEY: DID IT OCCUR TO YOU?

THAT WASN'T ON MY MIND AT THAT TIME, NO.

DID IT OCCUR TO YOU THAT IF YOU WALKED BACK AND FORTH YOU MIGHT DAMAGE ANY EXISTING FOOTPRINT EVIDENCE IN THE LEAVES?

ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

SUSTAINED. WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS. THIS IS THE THIRD TIME WE HAVE BEEN ON IT.

BY MR. BAILEY: I ASKED YOU YESTERDAY WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD HAVE, HAD YOU CHOSEN TO DO SO, TAKEN THE DETECTIVES ALONGSIDE THE CHAINLINK FENCE ON THE OTHER SIDE AND SHOWN THEM THE GLOVE BY SHINING YOUR LIGHT THROUGH IT. COULD YOU HAVE DONE THAT?

AGAIN, ASKED AND ANSWERED.

I DON'T THINK WE COULD HAVE.

OVERRULED. GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THE QUESTION. SORRY.

I DON'T THINK ANY -- ANY OF THE DETECTIVES, INCLUDING MYSELF, COULD SEE IT THAT WELL FROM THAT LOCATION.

BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU MAKE ANY EFFORT TO DO THAT BEFORE WALKING OVER THE FOOT PATH?

NO.

DID YOU EVER GO DOWN THE CHAINLINK FENCE ON ITS SOUTH SIDE?

ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THAT RESIDENCE, YES.

NO, OF THE FENCE SO THAT YOU COULD LOOK BACK THROUGH IT TO THE SIMPSON PROPERTY?

YES.

YOU DID?

YES.

WHEN DID YOU DO THAT? THIS IS OFF THE SIMPSON PROPERTY I'M TALKING ABOUT NOW.

YES, SIR.

YOU DID WALK DOWN TO THE LITTLE GARAGE THAT IS THE HOME KNOW KNOWN TO BE OCCUPIED BY MISS LOPEZ?

YES.

OKAY. HOW FAR DOWN DID YOU GO?

I WENT DOWN ALONG THE CHAINLINK FENCE, ALONG THE WHOLE SOUTH BORDER OF THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE AND THAT RESIDENCE TO THEIR NORTH BORDER, WHICH WOULD BE THE SAME PROPERTY LINE. I WALKED TO THE BACKYARD. I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING OR ANY EXPOSED AREAS. AND I WALKED BACK TOWARDS THE CYCLONE FENCE BY THE BUILDING.

WHEN WAS THIS?

AFTER I RETURNED FROM BUNDY.

THIS IS IN DAYLIGHT?

YES.

BUT DID YOU EVER DO THAT PRIOR TO RUNNING THE DETECTIVES DOWN THE PATH TO LOOK AT THE GLOVE?

NO.

DID YOU NOTICE THAT WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE THERE WAS AN OBJECT EQUIDISTANT FROM THE FENCE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE THAT WAS VERY PLAINLY VISIBLE THROUGH IT?

YES.

SO THAT PRESUMABLY IF YOU HAD CHOSEN TO DO IT YOU COULD HAVE HAD THE DETECTIVE LOOK THROUGH THE FENCE AND HAD THE SAME VANTAGE POINTS WITH RESPECT TO THE GLOVE, COULDN'T YOU?

NO.

COULD NOT?

NO.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

IT WAS VERY OVERGROWN, VERY DIRTY. THE LEAVES WERE VERY THICK IN THE FLOWER BED AREA ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. IT WAS VERY HARD TO EVEN GET IN THERE. I PERSONALLY TRIED TO GET INTO THAT AREA AND IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT, VERY DIRTY.

COULD YOU DO THAT?

NOT BY CHOICE.

YOU MEAN IT WAS INCONVENIENT?

NO, IT WAS UNNECESSARY.

ALL RIGHT. IN ANY EVENT, YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE GLOVE AND ASSOCIATING IT WITH THE KILLER AND NO ONE ELSE, CORRECT?

I DIDN'T KNOW THAT, BUT I THINK I WAS LEANING TOWARDS THAT, YES.

WELL, YOU CERTAINLY DIDN'T THINK A VICTIM HAD TRAIPSED OVER THERE AND DROPPED THAT GLOVE THERE, DID YOU?

I DON'T KNOW, SIR.

DID YOU EVER FOR ONE MINUTE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHILE LOOKING AT THAT GLOVE, THINK, GEE, SOME VICTIM MAY HAVE DROPPED THIS HERE?

I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING THAT THE EVIDENCE --

I ASKED YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU THOUGHT FOR EVEN AN INSTANT THAT THAT MIGHT BE THE PRODUCT OF A VICTIM'S TRAVELS?

I CAN'T SAY A HUNDRED PERCENT THAT IT WOULD BE A SUSPECT, SO THERE IS A SMALL PERCENTAGE THAT I SAID IT IS A POSSIBILITY.

WELL, WHAT IS THE RATIO? 99 TO 1?

I WOULD PROBABLY LEAN 75/25 WITH A SUSPECT.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU THEN PROCEEDED DOWN A DARKENED AREA WHICH YOU NOW SAY HAD COBWEBS AT LEAST AT THE UPPER SECTION?

YES.

WHEN YOU ORIGINALLY DESCRIBED THIS VENTURE, YOU DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE COBWEBS BEING ONLY AT THE UPPER PART OF THE WALL, DID YOU?

I THINK THAT IS THE ONLY PLACE I FELT THEM, SO I WOULDN'T HAVE GONE INTO ANYTHING LOWER.

THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION. MY QUESTION WAS, WHEN YOU EARLIER DESCRIBED THIS IN JULY, YOU DIDN'T MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THE COBWEBS, OTHER THAN BEING EAST OF THE POINT WHERE THE GLOVE WAS, CORRECT?

I THINK THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, WOULD YOU REVIEW WITH US, PLEASE, WHAT YOU DID FOR THE FIFTEEN MINUTES -- NOW SEVEN AFTER 11:00 -- FOR THE FIFTEEN MINUTES THAT YOU STAYED OUT THERE ALONE AFTER YOUR DISCOVERY AND BEFORE YOU SOUGHT TO BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF ANYONE?

YES.

ALL RIGHT. I'M SURE A LOT HAPPENED IN FIFTEEN MINUTES AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DESCRIBE EVERY DETAIL, IF YOU CAN.

I WALKED SLOWLY DOWN THE PATHWAY GOING EAST TO THAT POTTING OR THAT LARGE PLANT AREA THAT IS PROBABLY 25-FOOT SQUARE.

HOW LONG DID THAT TAKE?

THAT WAS PROBABLY SEVERAL MINUTES BACK THERE BECAUSE IT IS VERY OVERGROWN. I TRIED TO SEE FROM THE EAST PROPERTY, IF THERE WAS A FENCE. IT WAS VERY OVERGROWN. I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS BUSHES OR IVY. I LOOKED IN THAT AREA, LOOKED FOR ANY EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING THAT HAD BEEN DROPPED OR ANY BLOOD EVIDENCE.

WHERE DID YOU LOOK?

ON THE GROUND, ON THE WALLS, THE PLANTS. I RETURNED BACK WESTBOUND ON THE PATH.

WAIT JUST A MINUTE. HOW MUCH OF YOUR FIFTEEN MINUTES WAS SPENT BACK IN THE SMALL YARD THAT YOU VIEWED AS A SITUS FOR POTTING PLANTS?

SEVERAL MINUTES, PROBABLY MORE THAN FIVE.

SEVERAL MOMENTS HAS NO REAL DEFINITIVE MEANING. COULD YOU PLEASE USE MINUTES OR SECONDS AND MINUTES TO DESCRIBE EACH STEP THAT YOU TOOK. HOW MANY MINUTES WERE YOU PRESENT ON THE FAR SIDE OR EAST SIDE BETWEEN THE ALLEYWAY BETWEEN THE FENCE AND THE BUILDING?

TALKING ABOUT THE PATHWAY, SIR?

YOU HAVE WALKED HOW MANY FEET FROM THE GLOVE TO THE END OF THE BUILDING?

75.

WELL, IF THE NORMAL WALKING RATE IS 350 FEET A MINUTE, WHAT WOULD YOU THINK YOUR RATE WAS AT THAT TIME THAT IT TOOK YOU SEVERAL MINUTES TO GO 75 FEET?

I DIDN'T TESTIFY TO THAT, SIR.

I THINK YOU JUST SAID IT TOOK SEVERAL MINUTES TO GET TO THE END OF THE BUILDING A FEW MOMENTS AGO, DID YOU NOT?

NO, I DID NOT.

TELL ME NOW HOW LONG DID IT TAKE?

I JUST WALKED TO THE END OF THE BUILDING AND I SPENT SEVERAL MINUTES BACK IN THAT AREA.

OKAY.

AT THE END OF THE BUNGALOWS.

ONCE AGAIN, WOULD YOU TRY TO HELP US AVOID THE USE OF THE WORD "SEVERAL" WHICH CAN MEAN SEVERAL THINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. HOW MANY MINUTES WAS IT FROM THE DEPARTURE OF THE GLOVE FROM THE TIME YOU LEFT THE SMALL YARD AT THE BACK OF THE BUILDING?

FIVE MINUTES.

YOU SPENT FIVE MINUTE THERE LOOKING AROUND WITH YOUR FLASHLIGHT?

APPROXIMATELY.

YOU LOOKED ON THE WALL, THE GROUND, YOU LOOKED FOR BLOOD AND WHAT ELSE?

ANYTHING THAT LOOKED OUT OF PLACE OR SOMETHING THAT DIDN'T BELONG.

WELL, IF THE GLOVE WAS DROPPED BY THE KILLER, WHY WERE YOU BACK AT THE WALL LOOKING FOR BLOOD?

FIRST I WAS LOOKING FOR SOMEBODY THAT MIGHT HAVE COLLAPSED OR LEFT THE GLOVE, BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING OBVIOUS IN THAT AREA.

OKAY. FIVE MINUTES IS ABOUT WHAT IT TOOK TO INVESTIGATE THAT LITTLE YARD?

APPROXIMATELY.

OKAY. WHAT DID YOU NEXT DO?

WALKED BACK WESTBOUND ON THE PATH.

TO WHERE?

TO THE AIR CONDITIONER. I LOOKED AROUND THAT AREA.

HOW LONG DID YOU SPEND LOOKING AROUND THE AREA OF THE AIR CONDITIONER?

I WOULD SAY A COUPLE MINUTES, BUT I HAD TO BRING IT DOWN TO MINUTES, TWO OR THREE MINUTES.

TWO OR THREE MINUTES. TELL US WHAT YOU DID DURING THAT PERIOD TO INSPECT THE AIR CONDITIONER AND IT SURROUNDINGS? WHAT DID YOU LOOK AT?

I LOOKED AT THE AIR CONDITIONER TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANYTHING DISTURBED, ANY BLOOD, ANYTHING LEFT THERE. I SHINED MY LIGHT ON THE BLUE PAPER OBJECT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. I LOOKED IN THAT AREA. I STEPPED PAST THAT AREA AND THEN WENT AROUND WHERE THE INDENTATION WAS FARTHER WEST.

UH-HUH. AND HOW LONG DID YOU SPEND THERE?

PROBABLY MORE TIME THAN I DID BACK IN THE AREA WITH --

IN MINUTES?

IN MINUTES, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN, SIR. PROBABLY MORE IN THAT AREA THAN IN THE POTTING AREA, SO I WOULD PROBABLY SAY IN EXCESS OF FIVE MINUTES, MAYBE AS MANY AS SEVEN OR EIGHT MINUTES.

ALL RIGHT. WHAT DID YOU DO BETWEEN FIVE AND SEVEN MINUTES BY THE INDENTATION AREA, AS YOU CALL IT, TO COMPLETE YOUR INVESTIGATION?

WELL, I BELIEVE THERE IS AN ELECTRICAL BOX THERE AND THERE SEEMS TO BE -- I THINK THERE IS AN ENTRY TO THE UNDERNEATH OF THE HOUSE. I OPENED THAT. I TRIED TO LOOK IN THERE. IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT WITH MY FLASHLIGHT. IT WASN'T VERY POWERFUL. I DECIDED NOT TO GO ANY FURTHER. I DIDN'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING AT THE ENTRY. THE VOLTAGE BOX, I LOOKED IN THAT. I LOOKED INTO THAT AREA FOR ANY TYPE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND I SAW NONE, SO I RETURNED TO THE HOUSE.

WHY WERE YOU LOOKING IN THE VOLTAGE BOX AT THAT POINT?

I DON'T KNOW, SIR. I WAS LOOKING FOR ANY AREA THAT COULD HAVE HOUSED SOMETHING OR SOMEBODY.

THE VOLTAGE BOX, YOU THOUGHT THERE MIGHT BE SOMEBODY IN IT?

IT WAS A VERY LARGE VOLTAGE BOX. I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS --

THAT IS WHY YOU OPENED IT?

YES.

NOBODY THERE?

NO.

DID YOU TRY TO GO INTO THE DOOR THAT IS ACCESSIBLE FROM THE FOOT PATH?

WHICH DOOR IS THAT?

ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. DID YOU NOTICE A DOOR THERE IN YOUR 15-MINUTE INVESTIGATION?

I NOTICED ONE ON THE GARAGE.

DID YOU NOTICE ANY DOOR THAT WOULD LEAD INTO THE HOUSE?

I DON'T RECALL IF THERE WAS ONE THERE, NO.

DID YOU TRY THE DOOR THAT YOU DID SEE TO SEE IF IT WOULD OPEN?

NO.

YOU WEREN'T INTERESTED IN WHETHER THE PERSON WHO DROPPED THE GLOVE MIGHT HAVE USED THAT DOOR FOR EGRESS?

I JUST DIDN'T TRY THE DOOR. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE DOOR ON THE GARAGE. I DON'T RECALL THE OTHER DOOR.

OKAY. BUT YOU DID SPEND, BY YOUR OWN ESTIMATE, FIFTEEN MINUTES LOOKING AROUND BEFORE NOTIFYING YOUR SUPERIORS OF WHAT COULD BE A VERY IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, TRUE?

YES.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, IT IS APPARENT, FROM THE WAY YOU HAVE DESCRIBED YOUR ACTIONS BACK THERE, THAT YOU HAD NOT THE SLIGHTEST CONCERN FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY; IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

NO.

WELL, YOU DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO PROTECT IT, DID YOU?

YES.

WHAT?

I'M CAPABLE OF PROTECTING MYSELF. ONCE I WAS COMMITTED I REALLY HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO GO FORWARD.

YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE OPTION, HAVING DISCOVERED WHAT COULD WELL HAVE BEEN THE DEPOSIT, WITTINGLY OR OTHERWISE, OF A DANGEROUS KILLER, TO GO BACK AND GET SOME HELP? THAT OPTION WASN'T THERE?

THE OPTION WAS THERE.

WHY DID YOU DECIDE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, THAT THERE WAS NO NEED TO GO GET ONE OF THE GUNS THAT WAS IN THE HOUSE TO ACCOMPANY YOU?

I DON'T THINK IT WAS A NEED. I THINK IT WAS A JUDGMENT CALL AT THAT TIME.

IT WAS A JUDGMENT CALL, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, BASED ON THE FACT THAT YOU WELL KNEW THERE WAS NO CAUSE FOR CONCERN; ISN'T THAT SO?

NO, THAT IS NOT SO.

DO YOU ORDINARILY CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS OF WHAT COULD BE A DANGEROUS NATURE IN THIS FASHION?

SOMETIMES.

AND YOU DO NOT PARTAKE OF THE ASSISTANCE OF YOUR MORE EXPERIENCED COLLEAGUES WHEN THEY ARE AVAILABLE, CORRECT?

IF THEY ARE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE, OF COURSE I WOULD.

WELL, IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE. WOULD YOU SAY WITHIN THIRTY SECONDS' TIME SATISFIES YOUR DEFINITION OF IMMEDIACY?

AT THAT TIME, NO.

COULD YOU NOT HAVE GONE FROM THAT GLOVE TO THE FRONT DOOR OR THE KITCHEN IN LESS THAN A MINUTE, VERY, VERY EASILY THAT NIGHT, IF YOU HAD CHOSEN TO DO SO?

YES, I COULD HAVE.

OKAY. THE DECISION NOT TO DO SO WAS YOURS, WAS IT NOT?

YES, IT WAS.

ALL RIGHT. DID YOU DO ANYTHING ELSE DURING THAT 15-MINUTE PERIOD THAT YOU HAVE NOT YET DESCRIBED TO US?

NO.

IN THE STUDIES OF BLOOD THAT YOU HAD IN THE SCHOOL WHERE YOU LEARNED ABOUT THE ROUND DROPS, DID YOU LEARN ANY OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES OF BLOOD THAT MIGHT BE OF INTEREST TO A DETECTIVE, PARTICULARLY ONE IN HOMICIDE CASES?

I DON'T BELIEVE THE SPECIFICS YOU ARE ASKING. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE ASKING, SIR.

WHAT HAPPENS TO BLOOD WHEN IT LEAVES THE BODY AND IS ON SOME SURFACE AND IS EXPOSED TO AIR?

I WOULD ASSUME THAT IT WOULD COAGULATE.

AND THEN?

DRY.

THE MOISTURE THAT IS PART OF THE BLOOD EVAPORATES IN TIME, DOES IT NOT?

YES.

WHAT DID YOU LEARN, IF ANYTHING, ABOUT THE RATE AT WHICH BLOOD DRIES AT SIXTY DEGREES FAHRENHEIT, AS IT WAS THAT NIGHT, BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT?

I DON'T RECALL ANYTHING IN THAT AREA.

DID YOU EVER LEARN ANY PARAMETERS OR FACTS ABOUT THE DRYING OF BLOOD?

NOT THAT I RECALL, NO.

WOULD YOU NOT AGREE, FROM YOUR OWN HUMAN EXPERIENCE, QUITE APART FROM WHAT YOU LEARNED IN DETECTIVE SCHOOL, THAT THE LONGER THE BLOOD IS EXPOSED, THE MORE LIKELY IT IS THAT IT WILL BE DRIED?

YES.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHEN YOU FIRST SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU ASSOCIATE IT WITH THE NOISE THAT KATO HAD HEARD OR SAID THAT HE HEARD AT 10:45 P.M.?

I BELIEVE WITH THE LOCATION OF THE AIR CONDITIONER, I THOUGHT YES.

DID YOU THINK THAT THAT NOISE MIGHT SOMEHOW HAVE BEEN TIED IN WITH THE EVENT THAT CAUSED THAT GLOVE TO BE THERE?

I THOUGHT IT COULD HAVE BEEN, YES.

PERHAPS SOMEONE WAS BACK THERE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE AREA AND BUMPED INTO THE WALL AND DROPPED THE GLOVE?

THAT WOULD BE ONE CONCLUSION, YES.

WELL, DID YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?

I BELIEVE THAT SOMEONE OBVIOUSLY HAD LEFT IT THERE.

DID YOU THINK THAT THAT MIGHT BE A PERSON BUMPING THE WALL WHO DROPPED THE GLOVE?

YES.

ALL RIGHT. SO THAT YOU THEN HAD A POSSIBLE TIME PIN OF THE EVENT ITSELF? IF THE NOISE AND THE DEPOSIT OF THE GLOVE OCCURRED TOGETHER, THEN THIS HAD BEEN THERE SINCE QUARTER OF 11:00, HADN'T IT?

YES, SIR.

YOU WERE THERE AT 6:15, WEREN'T YOU?

APPROXIMATELY, YES.

THAT IS SEVEN AND A HALF HOURS, ISN'T IT?

YES.

THAT IS ENOUGH FOR BLOOD TO DRY, ISN'T IT?

UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, YES, I'M SURE IT WOULD BE.

UNLESS IT IS ENCASED IN PLASTIC OR RUBBER AND EVAPORATION IS STOPPED, WOULDN'T YOU AGREE?

NO.

DIDN'T IT SEEM STRANGE TO YOU THAT AFTER SEVEN AND A HALF HOURS THAT GLOVE STILL SHOWED MOIST STICKY BLOOD, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

NO. I KNEW NOTHING AT THAT TIME WHEN IT WAS DEPOSITED OR LEFT THERE.

YOU DIDN'T?

NO.

IS THIS THE FIRST TIME TODAY THAT ANYONE HAS BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT APPARENT ANOMALY?

OBJECTION. THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE AND CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

SUSTAINED.

BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. IS IT THE FIRST TIME TODAY THAT YOU HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THE WET BLOOD ON THE GLOVE WHEN YOU SAW IT AT 6:15?

THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. THAT IS NOT THE TESTIMONY.

I'M SORRY?

THAT WASN'T THE TESTIMONY.

BY MR. BAILEY: WHEN DID YOU FIND THE GLOVE?

THE GLOVE ON ROCKINGHAM?

YES.

AT APPROXIMATELY SOMETIME BETWEEN 6:05, 6:10, 6:15.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, IS TODAY THE FIRST TIME THAT ANYONE HAS BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION POSSIBLE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PRESENCE OF MOIST OR STICKY BLOOD ON THE GLOVE AT THAT TIME ON THAT DAY?

YES.

OKAY. NO ONE HAS EVER DISCUSSED THIS WITH YOU BEFORE, I TAKE IT?

NO.

OKAY. DID YOU KNOW, BY THE WAY, WHEN YOU WERE BACK THERE DURING YOUR 15-MINUTE INVESTIGATION, THAT YOU APPARENTLY MISSED A DOOR THAT GOES INTO THE LAUNDRY ROOM OF THE HOUSE?

NO.

ARE YOU LEARNING FOR THE FIRST TIME TODAY THAT SUCH A DOOR EXISTED THAT MORNING?

I HAVE SEEN SCHEMATICS THAT I BELIEVE THERE IS A DOOR SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THE GARAGE AND THE AIR CONDITIONER, BUT I DID NOT REMEMBER SEEING IT AT THAT TIME.

OKAY. IN OTHER WORDS, AS YOU MADE YOUR INQUIRY OF THE INDENTATIONS, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A DOOR THERE THAT YOU NEVER SAW?

POSSIBLY, YES.

ALL RIGHT. WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT THE FIVE TO SEVEN-MINUTE INQUIRY THAT YOU MADE IN THAT AREA, INCLUDING AN ELECTRICAL BOX, WAS SOMEWHAT CURSORY, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

ABSOLUTELY, SIR.

OKAY. HAD YOU -- BY THE WAY, DID YOU SEE ANY STEPS BACK THERE LEADING SOMEWHERE?

ON THE PATH, SIR?

ADJACENT TO IT?

THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN TWO STEPS BY THE GARAGE DOOR.

ANYWHERE ELSE?

I DON'T RECALL.

DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE STEPS THAT LEAD UP TO THE LAUNDRY ROOM DOOR?

I CAN'T EVEN REMEMBER VISUALIZING THE DOOR, SO I COULDN'T TELL YOU.

IF THERE WERE, IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT IN YOUR FIVE TO SEVEN-MINUTE INQUIRY IN THAT AREA, YOU NEVER NOTICED THEM?

THAT WOULD BE FAIR TO SAY.

OKAY. NOW, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT AT NO TIME THAT NIGHT DID YOU INQUIRE AS TO THE WHEREABOUTS OF MR. SIMPSON DURING THE PRECEDING SIX OR EIGHT HOURS?

WELL, I HAD HEARD, BUT I DIDN'T DO MUCH INQUIRING, NO.

YOU NEVER INQUIRED OF KATO?

I'M SORRY?

YOU NEVER INQUIRED OF KATO?

THAT MORNING OR THAT AFTERNOON?

NO, THAT MORNING?

I NEVER TALKED TO MR. KAELIN EVER AGAIN.

NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE IN HIS BUNGALOW QUESTIONING HIM? YOU NEVER PUT THE QUESTION TO HIM ABOUT MR. SIMPSON?

I'M SORRY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND. MR. SIMPSON WHAT?

DID YOU EVER ASK KATO IF HE KNEW WHERE MR. SIMPSON HAD BEEN THE PRIOR EVENING?

I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO.

OKAY. AND WHEN HE TOLD YOU ABOUT SEEING A LIMO, DID YOU INFER OR INQUIRE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS TO TAKE MR. SIMPSON SOMEWHERE?

NO, I DIDN'T.

DID YOU LEARN AT SOME POINT THAT MR. PHILLIPS, DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, HAD REACHED HIM BY TELEPHONE IN CHICAGO?

YES, LATER IN THE MORNING I DID.

WHEN WAS THAT?

LATER IN THE MORNING, MAYBE AN HOUR LATER, A HALF HOUR.

DID YOU LEARN FROM OTHER WITNESSES IN THE COURSE OF THE DAY THAT HE HAD LEFT THE PROPERTY AT AROUND 11:00 TO GO TO THE AIRPORT?

I DON'T BELIEVE I HEARD A TIMELINE THAT DAY ABOUT WHEN HE LEFT. DETECTIVE VANNATTER WAS AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY AND DETECTIVE LANGE WAS ON BUNDY, SO I DIDN'T TALK TO ANYONE EXCEPT FOR PHILLIPS. HE MIGHT HAVE MENTIONED WHEN HIS FLIGHT LEFT, BUT THAT IS ABOUT IT.

OKAY. YOUR HONOR, I HAVE PREPARED, FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF COUNSEL AND THE COURT AND THE PARTIES, NINE COPIES OF THE TESTIMONY OF THIS WITNESS AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND I WOULD LIKE PERMISSION TO HAVE THEM PASSED OUT SO THAT WE CAN ALL FOLLOW THE NEXT PHASE OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION. MAY THAT BE DONE?

YES.