ALL RIGHT. BE SEATED, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD MORNING TO YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

GOOD MORNING.

MY APOLOGIES TO YOU AGAIN FOR THE DELAY IN GETTING STARTED THIS MORNING. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT I HAD TO DEAL WITH THIS MORNING SO FAR, PERHAPS TWENTY DIFFERENT ISSUES THAT WE'VE HAD TO ADDRESS AND I'VE HAD TO MAKE RULINGS ON OR MAKE DETERMINATIONS AND DISCUSS THINGS, AND AS LUCK WOULD HAVE IT, IT JUST TAKES A LONG TIME, SOME OF THESE THINGS. AND I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WHILE YOU ARE BACK THERE, I AM AWARE THAT YOU ARE BACK IN THAT SMALL LITTLE ROOM AND IT IS NOT THE MOST COMFORTABLE PLACE IN THE WORLD AND I DO HAVE IN THE BACK OF MY MIND CONSTANTLY THE PRESSURE KNOWING THAT YOU ARE BACK THERE, BUT THERE ARE JUST SOME THINGS THAT I HAVE TO DETERMINE OUT OF YOUR PRESENCE AND THEY GOT LONGER THAN I THOUGHT THEY WOULD TODAY. ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WOULD YOU PLEASE RESUME THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE.

MARK FUHRMAN, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE EVENING ADJOURNMENT, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN IS BACK ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAILEY. GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE.

GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH.

YES.

MR. BAILEY. YOU MAY RESUME.

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. BAILEY:

DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YESTERDAY YOU TOLD US ABOUT A CERTAIN TIME THAT YOU WERE IN THE GRAND JURY ROOM WITH OTHER LAWYERS WHOM YOU NAMED. HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO RECALL THE IDENTITIES OF ANY OF THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT YOU WERE UNABLE TO NAME YESTERDAY WHO WERE PRESENT DURING THIS EXERCISE?

NO.

OKAY. I TAKE IT YOU HAVE MADE NO INQUIRY AS TO WHO THEY WERE THEN?

NO, I HAVEN'T.

IS THIS THE ONLY TIME THAT YOU WERE QUESTIONED IN A MODIFIED COURT SETTING, SO TO SPEAK?

YES, SIR.

HOW MANY OTHER CONVERSATIONS DID YOU HAVE THIS YEAR, I TAKE IT THEY ARE ALL THIS YEAR, WITH MR. DARDEN, MISS CLARK, MISS LEWIS OR OTHER PROSECUTORS ABOUT THE FORTHCOMING TESTIMONY?

SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS. I WOULD HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME ON NUMBERS.

WE HAVE THE SAME DIFFICULTY WITH THE WORD "SEVERAL," OKAY? IF YOU COULD USE NUMBERS IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE HELPFUL TO US. WERE YOU ENGAGED IN AT LEAST TEN DIFFERENT VISITS WITH THE PROSECUTION IN PREPARATION FOR THIS CASE, INCLUDING THE ONE IN THE GRAND JURY?

I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE HIGH NUMBER. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE THAT MANY. I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH MAYBE EIGHT.

EIGHT YOU THINK WOULD BE MORE ACCURATE?

YES.

AND DOES THAT INCLUDE THIS SESSION THAT YOU DESCRIBED?

YES.

OKAY. NOW, THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SESSION WITH THE THREE LAWYERS WAS THE KATHLEEN BELL PROBLEM YOU TOLD US?

YES.

AND THAT WAS THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS SIMULATED CROSS-EXAMINATION?

TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, YES.

OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE QUESTIONING THAT WAS DONE TO YOU WAS TO ALLEVIATE YOUR CONCERN OVER REMARKS YOU SAY YOU NEVER MADE? WHAT WAS THE PLAN? CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT TO US?

NO, I CAN'T.

YOU CAN'T?

NO.

WELL, WERE YOU TOLD WHY YOU WERE BEING BROUGHT INTO THAT ROOM?

TO BE CONFRONTED WITH CROSS-EXAMINATION TYPE QUESTIONS.

ALL RIGHT. BUT I'M SURE IT WAS MORE EXPLICIT THAN THAT, WASN'T IT?

CONCERNING KATHLEEN BELL.

CONCERNING KATHLEEN BELL?

YES.

WERE YOU TOLD WHAT IT WOULD DO OR NOT DO WHEN QUESTIONS WERE PUT TO YOU?

NO.

DID ANY OF THE QUESTIONS CONTAIN THE NAME "KATHLEEN BELL"?

I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I'M NOT SURE ON THAT, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE -- I DON'T BELIEVE IT DID, NO.

DID IT CONTAIN THE NAME OF ANY OTHER LIVING PERSON RELATED TO THIS CASE?

NO, NOT THAT I REMEMBER, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. HOW MANY TOTAL QUESTIONS DO YOU SAY WERE PUT TO YOU TO ADDRESS THE KATHLEEN BELL PROBLEM?

NOT VERY MUCH. IT WOULD BE HARD TO ESTIMATE. IT WOULD BE ALSO LESS THAN TEN, I'M SURE.

LESS THAN TEN?

YES.

THREE LAWYERS ASKED YOU A TOTAL OF TEN QUESTIONS?

THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE LAWYERS; IT JUST WASN'T QUESTIONING.

MY QUESTION WAS DO YOU REPRESENT TO THE COURT AND JURY THAT THREE LAWYERS ASKED YOU A TOTAL OF TEN QUESTIONS?

YES.

IN THIS SESSION?

YES.

THAT WOULD BE THREE AND A FRACTION PER LAWYER?

YES.

DO YOU KNOW ANY LAWYER ON THIS EARTH WHO IS CAPABLE OF ASKING ONLY THREE QUESTIONS?

NOT CURRENTLY.

TOUCHE. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, HOW WAS IT POSSIBLE FOR THESE PEOPLE TO PREPARE YOU TO CONFRONT THE BELL PROBLEM, WHOEVER BROUGHT IT TO YOUR ATTENTION, MYSELF OR ANOTHER LAWYER, WITHOUT USING THE WORDS THAT YOU WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE USED IN HER PRESENCE? HOW DID THAT DO THAT?

I READ SOME ALLEGATIONS, I BELIEVE IT WAS ON A DECLARATION.

ALL RIGHT. DID YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU A DOCUMENT FILED IN THIS COURT SIGNED BY KATHLEEN BELL ALLEGING THE CONDUCT THAT WE DISCUSSED BEFORE THE CLOSE OF COURT YESTERDAY?

SIR, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT --

OBJECTION. THAT ASSUMES FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.

OVERRULED.

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WHAT I VIEWED ON THE --

BY MR. BAILEY: YES.

THAT LETTER IN FRONT OF ME?

YES.

I DID NOT HAVE --

NO, NO. I'M TALKING ABOUT A DECLARATION THAT WAS FILED IN COURT BY KATHLEEN BELL AS AN OFFER OF PROOF?

ON THAT DAY?

OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

SUSTAINED. NOTHING WAS FILED BY KATHLEEN BELL IN THIS COURT.

I'M SORRY, NOT BY KATHLEEN BELL.

IN HER BEHALF AS TO WHAT SHE WOULD SAY?

IN FRONT OF ME THAT DAY, SIR?

YES.

NO.

WHAT PAPER WERE YOU LOOKING AT THAT WAS THE BASIS OF THE QUESTIONS? CAN YOU TELL US?

I WAS LOOKING AT NO PAPER.

I THOUGHT SOMETHING WAS READ TO YOU OR THAT YOU READ THAT YOU CALLED A DECLARATION. CAN YOU TELL US WHAT YOU MEANT BY THAT?

I HAD READ IT PREVIOUSLY. I DON'T KNOW WHEN.

WERE YOU FAMILIAR WITH ITS CONTENTS?

I READ IT ONCE, YES.

WERE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE LANGUAGE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU BY MS. BELL IN THAT DECLARATION?

YES.

WAS ANY OF THAT LANGUAGE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE QUESTIONS PUT TO YOU BY COUNSEL?

THEY DID NOT USE THAT LANGUAGE, NO.

WELL, WHAT LANGUAGE DID THEY USE INSTEAD TO HELP YOU WITH THE BELL PROBLEM?

THEY USED THE TERM RACIAL SLURS.

OKAY. WELL, NOW DO YOU HAVE ANY MEMORY OF EVEN ONE OF THESE TEN QUESTIONS?

NO.

NOT A SINGLE ONE?

NO, SIR.

AND THIS HAPPENED WHEN, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

I BELIEVE IT WAS TWO OR THREE WEEKS AGO.

TWO OR THREE WEEKS AGO?

YES.

WELL, NOW YOU HAVE BEEN EXHIBITING A STARTLING MEMORY FOR DETAIL OF A CRIME THAT WAS EIGHT MONTHS AGO, HAVE YOU NOT?

OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE.

SUSTAINED.

BY MR. BAILEY: DID ANY OF THE QUESTIONS REQUIRE YOU TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT LANGUAGE OF THAT SORT WAS A PART OF YOUR VOCABULARY?

I MIGHT HAVE OFFERED THAT.

AH. TELL US, PLEASE, WHAT IT WAS YOU OFFERED THESE LAWYERS IN THAT ROOM ABOUT YOUR VOCABULARY, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

OBJECTION, OBJECTION. IRRELEVANT. WITHDRAWN.

OVERRULED.

BY MR. BAILEY: WOULD YOU ANSWER?

YES. THAT I DON'T USE ANY TYPE OF LANGUAGE TO DESCRIBE PEOPLE OF ANY RACE SUCH AS WHAT IS ALLEGED BY KATHLEEN BELL.

AND YOU NEVER HAVE?

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

BY MR. BAILEY: IS THAT RIGHT?

OBJECTION.

SUSTAINED. THAT QUESTION IS IRRELEVANT.

BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU SAY TO THE LAWYERS WHO WERE TRYING TO PREPARE YOU FOR THE BELL PROBLEM THAT YOU NEVER, NEVER USE THAT LANGUAGE?

SAME OBJECTION.

I WASN'T ASKED, SIR.

WITHDRAWN. I WILL BE MORE SPECIFIC.

ALL RIGHT.

BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU TELL THE LAWYERS IN THAT ROOM THAT YOU NEVER USED THE WORD "NIGGER"?

SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

OVERRULED.

IT WAS NEVER ASKED.

BY MR. BAILEY: I'M ASKING, DO YOU?

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THAT IS VAGUE. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

BY MR. BAILEY: DO YOU USE THE WORD "NIGGER" IN DESCRIBING PEOPLE?

SAME OBJECTION.

PRESENTLY?

YES.

OVERRULED.

NO, SIR.

BY MR. BAILEY: HAVE YOU USED THAT WORD IN THE PAST TEN YEARS?

NOT THAT I RECALL, NO.

YOU MEAN IF YOU CALLED SOMEONE A NIGGER YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN IT?

I'M NOT SURE I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION THE WAY YOU PHRASED IT, SIR.

YOU HAVE DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION?

YES.

I WILL REPHRASE IT. I WANT YOU TO ASSUME THAT PERHAPS AT SOME TIME, SINCE 1985 OR 6, YOU ADDRESSED A MEMBER OF THE AFRICAN AMERICAN RACE AS A NIGGER. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT ACT ON YOUR PART?

NO, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.

ARE YOU THEREFORE SAYING THAT YOU HAVE NOT USED THAT WORD IN THE PAST TEN YEARS, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

YES, THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING.

AND YOU SAY UNDER OATH THAT YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED ANY BLACK PERSON AS A NIGGER OR SPOKEN ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE AS NIGGERS IN THE PAST TEN YEARS, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, SIR.

SO THAT ANYONE WHO COMES TO THIS COURT AND QUOTES YOU AS USING THAT WORD IN DEALING WITH AFRICAN AMERICANS WOULD BE A LIAR, WOULD THEY NOT, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

YES, THEY WOULD.

ALL OF THEM, CORRECT?

ALL OF THEM.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER TRAINING SESSIONS OF THIS SORT?

I'M SORRY, SIR?

DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER TRAINING SESSIONS OF THIS SORT?

NO.

DID YOU HAVE OTHER SESSIONS WHEREIN THE WORD "NIGGER" WAS USED BETWEEN YOU AND COUNSEL?

NO.

NEVER?

NO.

OKAY. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, I'M SHOWING YOU WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE A REPLICA OF A FLASHLIGHT YOU DESCRIBED AS HAVING CARRIED THAT NIGHT, AND I WONDER IF YOU COULD TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT IT IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR OR APPEARS TO BE?

YES, IT IS EXACTLY.

ALL RIGHT.

DO YOU WISH IT TO BE MARKED?

DO YOU WANT TO MARK IT AS A DEFENSE EXHIBIT?

I DON'T CARE.

WHATEVER YOU LIKE.

MAY THIS JUST BE MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION, YOUR HONOR, IN CASE IT IS USED LATER ON?

1055.

BY MR. BAILEY: I REALIZE IT IS LIGHT IN HERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, BUT WOULD YOU CHECK THAT AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT BY ROTATING THE HEAD OF THE LIGHT NEAR THE BULB IT TURNS ON AND OFF AND ALSO CHANGES ITS PROJECTION? CAN YOU JUST POINT AT A DARK CORNER UNDER THE WITNESS STAND.

YES, IT DOES.

DOES IT APPEAR TO FUNCTION ABOUT THE SAME WAY?

YES, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU NARROW THE LIGHT TO A SPOT.

OKAY. WOULD YOU SHINE IT ON THE SCREEN.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, WOULD THAT LIGHT IN DARKNESS, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, ENABLE YOU TO SEE FOR A DISTANCE OF TEN TO FIFTEEN FEET, DO YOU THINK, TO SEE AN OBJECT?

I CAN SEE THE OBJECT AT THAT DISTANCE WITHOUT A LIGHT. WITH THE LIGHT, YES, IT WOULD AID ME GREATLY.

NO, IN TOTAL DARKNESS?

I WASN'T IN TOTAL DARKNESS.

I UNDERSTAND, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU KNOW YET WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, WHICH PLACE IN TIME, OR HAVE YOU ASSUMED THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT YOUR VISIT TO THE NORTH FENCE?

NO, I'M NOT ASSUMING THAT.

ASSUME IT.

ASSUMED.

YES. NOW, MY QUESTION IS WHEN YOU WERE AT THE NORTH FENCE AND YOU SAW THE GLOVE THAT YOU REFERRED TO PERHAPS MISTAKENLY AS "THEM" IN YOUR PRELIMINARY HEARING --

OBJECTION, ARGUMENTATIVE.

SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. YOU SAW ONE GLOVE THERE, CORRECT?

YES, SIR.

DID YOU LOOK AROUND THE AREA AT ALL IN ANY WAY?

WHAT AREA IS THIS, SIR?

THE AREA NEAR THE FENCE. THE GLOVE WAS ALMOST AT THE FENCE, WAS IT NOT?

NO, IT WASN'T. IT WASN'T EVEN CLOSE TO THE FENCE, SIR.

WHAT WAS IT CLOSE TO?

IT WAS CLOSE TO THE SIDEWALK.

ALL RIGHT. BUT WASN'T THERE SOME RAILINGS NEARBY NEAR GOLDMAN'S BODY?

YES, BY MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY BUT NOT BY THE GLOVE AND THE HAT.

DO YOU RECALL SAYING THAT LEAVES WERE CASCADING DOWN OVER THE GLOVE MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO SEE?

YES. THERE WAS A PLANT THAT HAD LEAVES THAT WENT UP AND THEN FELL DOWN, A BROAD LEAVE PLANT, AND YET COVERED PORTIONS OF IT STILL VISIBLE, BUT IT WAS CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE NORTH FENCE.

ALL RIGHT. COULD YOU SEE THAT WITHOUT THE AID OF THE FLASHLIGHT?

YOU COULD SEE THE OBJECTS BUT NOT AS WELL AS YOU COULD WITH THE FLASHLIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. IF YOU HAD SHINED THAT FLASHLIGHT ON THAT GLOVE, THE LEFT-HAND GLOVE, WOULD IT HAVE ILLUMINATED IT BETTER THAN THE AMBIENT LIGHT WAS DOING?

YES, SIR.

NOW, WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE TERRAIN IMMEDIATELY AROUND THE CRIME SCENE, AND I WISH YOU TO ELIMINATE THE SIDEWALK WHICH IS A CONCRETE OR TERRAZZO INLAY?

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT --

YES. WHAT DO YOU HAVE? DO YOU HAVE GRASS, DO YOU HAVE PLANTS, DO YOU HAVE SHRUBS?

AROUND MR. GOLDMAN?

NO, AROUND THE AREA CLOSED OFF BY THE FENCE, THE FENCE BEING THE ONE AGAINST WHICH HIS BODY WAS KIND OF PROPPED?

THAT IS MR. GOLDMAN.

YES.

DIRT, LARGE TREE BY I THINK THE -- BY HIS HIP, BUTTOCKS AREA. LARGE MEANING THREE OR FOUR INCHES IN TRUNK DIAMETER.

WERE THERE ANY OTHER -- WAS THERE ANY OTHER PLANT LIFE GROWING IN THAT AREA?

THERE WAS PLANT LIFE, BUT I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY WHERE IT WAS.

WAS IT SIMILAR TO THE PLANT THAT WAS PARTIALLY COVERING THE GLOVE AND THE CAP THAT WE HAVE SEEN IN SEVERAL PICTURES?

I DON'T RECALL, SIR.

DID IT STAND ABOUT THAT HIGH FROM THE GROUND, (INDICATING)?

INDICATING ABOUT TEN, TWELVE INCHES.

BY MR. BAILEY: ABOUT EIGHT, TEN INCHES OR MORE FROM THE GROUND?

WHICH PLANT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

I'M TALKING ABOUT PLANTS GROWING OUTSIDE THE FENCE ENCLOSURE WHERE THE CRIME OCCURRED.

OBJECTION, VAGUE.

BY MR. BAILEY: ADJACENT TO IT?

OBJECTION, VAGUE. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

OVERRULED.

I CAN'T REMEMBER ALL THE SMALL PLANTS IN THE AREA, NO, SIR.

BY MR. BAILEY: OKAY. WELL, CAN YOU TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THAT FENCE, AND IN THE GENERAL VICINITY WHERE THE CAP, GLOVE AND GOLDMAN WERE LOCATED, THERE WERE PLANTS SUFFICIENTLY HIGH TO CONCEAL ANOTHER OBJECT THE SIZE OF THE GLOVE THAT HAD BEEN LYING THERE?

OBJECTION. THAT IS VAGUE, CONFUSING, COMPOUND.

OVERRULED.

I COULDN'T SPECULATE ON THAT, SIR.

SPECULATION.

MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

BY MR. BAILEY: WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE THAT NIGHT -- AND I AM LOOKING FOR SOMETHING SO WE WILL COME BACK TO THIS AND PERHAPS GIVE YOU SOME HELP ON YOUR RECOLLECTION --

YES.

-- WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE THIS NIGHT, WERE YOU WEARING A COAT, A JACKET OF SOME SORT?

WHEN I FIRST ARRIVED AT THE SCENE, YES.

CAN YOU DESCRIBE IT?

A BLUE BLAZER.

ALL RIGHT. AND YOU WERE WEARING THE TROUSERS AND SHIRT THAT WE SEE YOU IN WITH YOUR WEAPON IN THE PICTURE POINTING AT THE LEFT-HANDED GLOVE?

YES, TAN SLACKS.

OKAY. NOW, AT SOME POINT DID YOU WALK BACK TO YOUR VEHICLE AND TAKE OFF YOUR BLAZER AND HANG IT OR LAY IT IN THE VEHICLE SOMEWHERE?

YES, SIR.

OKAY. CAN YOU TELL THE COURT AND JURY ABOUT WHAT TIME OF DAY THAT HAPPENED, BEARING IN MIND THAT YOU ARRIVED AT ABOUT 2:10?

IT WOULD BE AFTER I WAS RELIEVED FROM THE CASE.

ALL RIGHT. THAT WOULD BE CLOSE TO THREE O'CLOCK?

YES, SIR.

AND THAT IS WHEN YOU WALKED BACK TO THE VEHICLE AND LEFT THE JACKET AND STOOD WAITING FOR YOUR RELIEF?

YES, SIR.

CORRECT?

YES.

ALL RIGHT. DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER, IF IT PLEASE THE COURT.

1056. 1056.

BY MR. BAILEY: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU WHAT HAS BEEN MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION AS DEFENDANT'S 1056 WHICH IS A PHOTOGRAPH THAT YOU MAY RECOGNIZE. WOULD YOU LOOK AT THE MONITOR AND TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS A SCENE THAT YOU HAVE VIEWED BEFORE?

DOES THAT DEPICT THE ENTRANCE TO 875 BUNDY WITH NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY LYING IN THE REAR?

YES, IT IS, SIR.

YOUR HONOR, I ASSUME THE FEED IS OFF. I SHOULD HAVE REMINDED THE COURT.

MR. HARRIS WARNED ME.

BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DOES THAT HELP YOU TO RECALL THE NATURE OF THE SHRUBBERY WHICH WAS TO THE NORTH OF THE ENTRANCE WALKWAY AT 875 BUNDY ON THAT EVENING?

IT DIDN'T APPEAR THAT WAY FROM THE FENCE, NO.

WELL, DID YOU EVER STAND IN THIS VANTAGE POINT ON THE SIDEWALK ON BUNDY LOOKING WEST?

YES.

OKAY. WHEN YOU FIRST ARRIVED THERE, I BELIEVE IN A SIMILAR PHOTOGRAPH, YOU EXPLAINED THAT YOU AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, TOGETHER WITH OFFICER RISKE, APPROACHED THE GATEPOST WHICH WE SEE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH BY GOING THROUGH THE SHRUBBERY OFF TO THE LEFT OF THE PHOTO AND THEN ENTERING THE AREA SHOWN BY THE PHOTO AND WALKING UP TO THE GATEPOST?

YES, SIR.

CORRECT?

YES.

THAT WOULD HAVE GIVEN YOU AMPLE OPPORTUNITY, I TAKE IT, TO VIEW THE SHRUBBERY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE WALK FROM A DISTANCE OF A COUPLE OF FEET, DID IT NOT?

NOT REALLY, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU ARE AT THE GATEPOST. CAN YOU PUT AN ARROW ON THAT, PLEASE, JUST TO MAKE DOUBLY CERTAIN THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING. WHEN YOU REFERRED EARLIER IN YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, TO THE GATEPOST BEYOND WHICH YOU COULD NOT GO WITHOUT RISKING THE CONTAMINATION OF EVIDENCE, IS THIS THE APPROXIMATE AREA THAT YOU MEANT?

YEAH. A LITTLE MORE TO THE RIGHT, SIR, IS WHERE OFFICER RISKE WAS. IN THAT AREA, YES, (INDICATING).

OKAY. FROM THERE DID YOU HAVE A VIEW ACROSS THE WALKWAY AT THE SHRUBBERY THAT WE SEE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH?

IN THE PHOTOGRAPH, YES, SIR. THIS SHRUBBERY, YES.

WELL, ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THIS SHRUBBERY IS DIFFERENT THAN THE SHRUBBERY THAT EXISTED ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH?

NO. IF I COULD SEE A PICTURE FROM THE NORTH RESIDENCE LOOKING TOWARD MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION, IT WOULD BE EASIER TO EXPLAIN.

WE ARE GOING TO TRY AND LOCATE ONE, BUT FOR PURPOSES OF YOUR PRESENT EXAMINATION CAN YOU TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT, FROM THE POSITION YOU WERE STANDING, IF YOU LOOK ACROSS THE WALKWAY IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION, YOU COULD JUDGE THE HEIGHT OF THE SHRUBBERY THAT WE SEE IN THE PHOTO?

YES, SIR.

AND WAS THE SHRUBBERY THAT WE SEE IN THE PHOTO SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS WHAT YOU SAW WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT 2:10 A.M.?

YES, SIR.

AND WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THAT SHRUBBERY IS FULLY CAPABLE OF HIDING SMALL OBJECTS THAT MIGHT BE DROPPED INTO IT?

YES, SIR.

OBJECTION, VAGUE, WHICH --

OVERRULED.

MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR?

BY MR. BAILEY: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, BEFORE DISPLAYING IT, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO LOOK AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH AND TELL ME, IF YOU CAN, WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS TAKEN LOOKING IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION FROM THE WALKWAY AT THE BASE OF THE STAIRS IN THE APPROXIMATE POSITION WHERE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY WAS AFTER THE BODIES HAD BEEN REMOVED?

YES, SIR.

OKAY. THE AREA TO WHICH I WAS ATTEMPTING TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION IS ON THE RIGHT OR EAST SIDE OF THAT FENCE. NOW, IN LOOKING AT THAT PHOTO, DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER THE GLOVE AND THE CAP WERE FOUND CLOSE TO THE FENCE?

YES, SIR. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS FENCE THAT RUNS NORTH/SOUTH?

THAT'S CORRECT.

YES.

OKAY. AND YOU RECOGNIZE THIS AS BEING THE AREA WHERE DETECTIVE -- I MEAN WHERE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS FOUND WHEN YOU WERE THERE?

YES. THIS WAS THE AREA I WAS REFERRING TO AS SOMEWHAT CLEARED OUT.

ALL RIGHT. MAY THIS BE MARKED --

ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE'S 10 -- EXCUSE ME -- 1057.

1057, YOUR HONOR?

1057.

MAY IT BE DISPLAYED, YOUR HONOR?

ALL RIGHT. MR. HARRIS, I DON'T THINK WE NEED THE ARROW ON THAT.

I WOULD LIKE THE ARROW, YOUR HONOR, SO THAT I CAN POINT SOMETHING OUT TO THE WITNESS.

ALL RIGHT. PROCEED.

BY MR. BAILEY: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WE ARE NOW LOOKING NORTH INSIDE THE CRIME SCENE AREA AFTER THE REMOVAL OF THE BODIES, OR AT LEAST THE BODY OF MR. GOLDMAN, CORRECT?

YES, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. I WAS -- OH, WOULD YOU POINT OUT IN THAT PHOTO, AND I WILL ASK MR. HARRIS TO PUT AN ARROW ON IT WHEN YOU DO, THE AREA WHERE THE LEFT-HAND GLOVE AND CAP WERE FOUND.

YES, SIR.

WHAT HAPPENED?

THAT IS THE AREA RIGHT THERE, (INDICATING).

BY MR. BAILEY: SO THAT IS FAIRLY CLOSE TO THE FENCE, AS I SUGGESTED, BUT YOU HAD IN MIND A DIFFERENT FENCE WHEN YOU SAID IT WAS NOT?

YES, SIR. I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE NORTH FENCE.

THE NORTH FENCE?

YES.

WE ARE TALKING NOW ABOUT THE EAST FENCE?

YES.

WHAT I WAS TRYING TO LEARN IS THIS: NO. 1, WOULD THE SPOT OF YOUR FLASHLIGHT IN THE AMBIENT LIGHT CONDITIONS COMING FROM THE HOUSE -- I GUESS YOU FELLAS HADN'T ARTIFICIALLY LIGHTED ANYTHING WHEN YOU WERE THERE WITH SPOTS AND FLOODS, WERE YOU?

NO, SIR.

YOU WERE OPERATING WITH FLASHLIGHTS AND WHATEVER LIGHT COULD BE GAINED FROM THE OPEN DOOR OF THE HOUSE?

YES, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. WOULD THE LITTLE FLASHLIGHT THAT YOU HAVE BEEN HANDLING BEEN CAPABLE OF ILLUMINATING THE AREA IMMEDIATELY OUTSIDE THE EAST WALL OF THAT FENCE WHICH IS ON OUR RIGHT AS WE LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPH?

YES.

OKAY. THANK YOU. TAKE IT DOWN.

YOUR HONOR, WE NEGLECTED TO PRINT 1056 WITH THE ARROW WHERE MR. HARRIS PUT IT NEXT TO THE -- I'M SORRY. MR. HARRIS IS AHEAD OF ME. IT IS PRINTED. YES. MAY THAT BE 1056-A, YOUR HONOR?

YES. 1056-A.

AND THE OTHER ONE WOULD BE 1057-A.

YES. HARD COPY OF EACH.

MAY I HAVE A MOMENT?

BY MR. BAILEY: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, AS BEST YOU CAN, FROM YOUR RECOLLECTION, COULD YOU GO THROUGH THE MEETINGS THAT YOU HAD WITH PROSECUTORS SINCE JANUARY 1 AND SIMPLY TELL US WHO WAS PRESENT AND HOW LONG THEY TOOK?

I HAVE MET WITH MR. DARDEN.

START WITH THE FIRST ONE YOU CAN RECALL. DO YOU HAVE ANY DATE IN MIND AS TO WHEN THIS FIRST MEETING WITH MR. DARDEN MIGHT HAVE TAKEN PLACE?

I BELIEVE I PROBABLY MET WITH MISS LEWIS BEFORE MR. DARDEN.

MISS LEWIS?

YES.

OKAY. AND COULD YOU TELL US WHEN THAT OCCURRED?

NO. SOME TIME THIS YEAR.

WITHIN THE PAST WEEK?

WELL, I HAVE SEEN HER FREQUENTLY BECAUSE SHE IS IN THE D.A.'S OFFICE, BUT NOT ALL OF THE CONTACTS WERE TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING TO DO WITH TESTIMONY.

WAS ANY ONE LAWYER AT EACH OF THE MEETINGS WHERE TESTIMONY OR THE CASE, EITHER ONE, WAS DISCUSSED?

NO.

THE FIRST MEETING THAT YOU HAD WITH MISS LEWIS, WHEN WOULD YOU ESTIMATE THAT IT TOOK PLACE? IN JANUARY, FEBRUARY OR MARCH?

I'M NOT SURE, SIR.

YOU CAN'T TELL US WHETHER IT WAS MORE THAN THREE WEEKS AGO OR LESS?

WELL, I HAVE TALKED TO HER SEVERAL TIMES OVER SEVERAL MONTHS.

I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT I WOULD ASK THAT YOU USE YOUR BEST MEMORY TO INFORM US OF WHEN YOU FIRST MET WITH MISS LEWIS ABOUT THIS CASE, TESTIMONY OR OTHERWISE, AND HOW LONG THAT MEETING WAS?

I'M NOT SURE. AS FAR AS MOTIONS, IT COULD HAVE BEEN -- I MET HER LAST YEAR OR TALKED TO HER ON THE PHONE, BUT I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY.

DID YOU OR DIDN'T YOU MEET WITH THE PROSECUTION LAST YEAR ABOUT THE CASE AFTER THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?

I DID NOT.

OBJECTION. THAT IS ASKED AND ANSWERED.

OVERRULED.

I DID NOT.

BY MR. BAILEY: WELL, WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAID I MAY HAVE MET HER LAST YEAR OVER THE PHONE OR OTHERWISE ABOUT SOME MOTIONS?

WELL, I MIGHT HAVE BEEN ASKED ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS NO LONGER PART OF THIS TRIAL OR A MOTION THAT -- I GET PHONE CALLS, SIR. I DON'T WRITE THEM DOWN, I DON'T LOG THEM IN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO TELL YOU.

YOU ARE A DETECTIVE WHO DOESN'T ALWAYS TAKE NOTES?

I DON'T TAKE NOTES ABOUT PHONE CALLS OR THAT IS ALL I WOULD DO.

OKAY. WELL, HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SPEAK WITH THE PROSECUTION ON THE PHONE, AS OPPOSED TO PERSONALLY, ABOUT THIS CASE, STARTING IN 1994, IF YOU CAN?

I HAVE TALKED ON THE PHONE WITH THE PROSECUTORS ABOUT WHEN TO -- WE COULD GET TOGETHER OR MEET AND THAT IS -- THAT IS KIND OF DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF THE SCHEDULING.

ALL THAT ASIDE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHEN DID YOU TALK WITH A PROSECUTOR ABOUT A MOTION IN 1994?

SIR, I DON'T HAVE A DAY CALENDAR.

OBJECTION, THAT IS IRRELEVANT.

OVERRULED.

I DON'T HAVE A DAY CALENDAR I WRITE THOSE MEMOS IN.

BY MR. BAILEY: I UNDERSTAND. BUT YOU HAVE A MEMORY. YOU REMEMBER THIS CRIME OCCURRED IN JUNE OF '94, CORRECT?

YES, SIR.

TELL US AS BEST YOU CAN WHAT WAS THE MOTION THAT YOU WERE DISCUSSING ON THE PHONE?

OBJECTION. THAT IS IRRELEVANT.

OVERRULED.

SIR, THERE HAS BEEN SO MANY THINGS GOING ON I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHEN I TALKED TO SOME PEOPLE ABOUT --

BY MR. BAILEY: DIDN'T ASK YOU THAT. WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF MOTION THAT REQUIRED THAT YOU BE CONSULTED IF YOU KNOW?

I DON'T, SIR.

WAS IT A MOTION ABOUT KATHLEEN BELL?

OBJECTION.

OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER.

I HAVE TALKED TO --

YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

I HAVE TALKED TO MISS LEWIS ABOUT KATHLEEN BELL'S MOTION, YES.

BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. WAS THAT IN 1994 WHEN IT WAS PRESENTED OR FILED?

IT COULD HAVE BEEN.

DID YOU TALK ON JANUARY 3RD WHEN IT WAS ARGUED, OR THEREABOUTS?

I DON'T RECALL THE DATE, NO.

ALL RIGHT. WERE YOU IN THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY?

I BELIEVE SO, YES.

ON WHAT OCCASIONS, AND START WITH THE FIRST ONE, PLEASE.

SIR, I CANNOT REMEMBER A DATE. I COULDN'T GIVE YOU A TIME.

YOU KEPT NO RECORD WHATSOEVER OF YOUR VISITS?

WHY WOULD I DO THAT?

WERE YOU ON DUTY?

YES.

DID YOU HAVE TO ACCOUNT TO SOMEONE AS TO WHERE YOU WERE GOING AND WHY?

NO. WHEN THE D.A.'S OFFICE WANTS TO TALK TO A DETECTIVE, THEY OBVIOUSLY WILL TALK TO HIM. THERE IS NOBODY THAT WOULD NEED TO GIVE ME PERMISSION. I JUST SAY I'M GOING TO THE D.A.'S OFFICE.

WHO WOULD YOU TELL? SOMEONE HAD TO KNOW WHERE YOU WERE, DIDN'T THEY?

YES, SIR.

WELL, WHO IS YOUR BOSS?

RON PHILLIPS IS.

OKAY. DID YOU TELL DETECTIVE PHILLIPS ON THOSE OCCASIONS WHEN YOU WERE COMING DOWNTOWN TO WORK ON THIS CASE WHERE YOU WERE GOING?

YES.

OKAY. AND DO YOU KNOW IF ANY RECORDS OF ANY KIND ARE KEPT ABOUT THESE VISITS?

NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

WELL, ARE THE PROSECUTORS KEEPING ANY RECORD OF YOUR VISIT THAT YOU KNOW OF?

I DON'T KNOW, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, IF YOU HAD A MEETING WITH MISS LEWIS IN JANUARY, YOU ARE NOT CERTAIN OF THAT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

YOU JUST DON'T HAVE ANY MEMORY OF MEETING THIS WOMAN IN JANUARY, THE ONE SEATED AT THE TABLE HERE TO MY FAR RIGHT?

OBJECTION, THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

BY MR. BAILEY: OKAY. TRY AGAIN. DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT SEE MISS LEWIS IN JANUARY IN THIS BUILDING?

I WOULD SAY I COULD HAVE, BUT I COULDN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY WHEN, SO I CAN'T SAY FOR SURE.

IS SHE THE FIRST LAWYER THAT YOU MET AND TALKED TO?

AFTER THE PRELIM?

OBJECTION, VAGUE.

BY MR. BAILEY: IN 1995. LEAVE '94 ALONE FOR NOW.

I DON'T KNOW IF SHE IS THE FIRST, SIR.

YOU DON'T KNOW?

NO.

DOES ANYONE ELSE COME TO MIND AS BEING THE PERSON WHO STARTED OFF THIS WHOLE SERIES OF INTERVIEWS?

NO.

WAS IT MR. DARDEN?

NO.

WAS IT MISS CLARK?

NO.

ANY OTHER LAWYERS NOT SEATED HERE TODAY THAT YOU HAVE WORKED WITH ON THIS CASE?

NO.

MR. HODGMAN?

NO.

OKAY. SO JANUARY THEN I TAKE IT IS A BLANK?

NO.

MAY WE NOW TURN TO FEBRUARY. DO YOU HAVE ANY MEMORY OF COMING TO THIS BUILDING IN FEBRUARY AND MEETING WITH SOMEONE?

YES.

WHEN WAS THE FIRST MEETING IN FEBRUARY THAT YOU CAN RECALL, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

I CAN'T.

HUM?

I CAN'T REMEMBER WHEN IN FEBRUARY.

I'M NOT ASKING FOR DATE AND A MINUTE. CAN YOU SAY EARLY, MIDDLE LATE, GIVE US ANY HELP AT ALL?

I WOULD SAY IT WOULD BE FAIR TO SAY PROBABLY EARLY PART OF FEBRUARY AND THE LATTER PART.

ALL RIGHT. WHO WAS PRESENT AT THE MEETING, THE FIRST ONE?

I HAVE TALKED TO MR. DARDEN, I HAVE TALKED TO MISS CLARK, I HAVE TALKED TO MISS LEWIS.

DOES THAT MEAN YOU CANNOT REMEMBER WHO WAS PRESENT AT THE FIRST MEETING?

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND THAT WAS EARLY IN FEBRUARY YOU THINK?

YES.

OKAY. WHEN WAS THE ONE AFTER THAT?

I'M NOT SURE, SIR.

EARLY, MIDDLE OR LATE? CAN YOU HELP US AT LEAST THAT MUCH AS TO MEETING NO. 2 IN FEBRUARY, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

SOME TIME IN THE LATTER PART OF FEBRUARY.

ALL RIGHT. SO YOU HAD A MEETING IN THE EARLY PART OF FEBRUARY BEING THE FIRST ONE OF THAT MONTH, AND YOU DON'T REMEMBER WHO WAS AT THAT MEETING, CORRECT?

NO.

AND THEN YOU HAD A MEETING AT THE LATTER PART OF FEBRUARY WITH WHOM, IF YOU RECALL?

I HAVE TALKED TO ALL THESE PROSECUTORS THAT ARE SEATED BEFORE ME.

ALL AT ONCE?

NO. THEY WORK A TEAM. I COULD TALK TO ONE, I COULD SEE ANOTHER ONE THE NEXT DAY OR THE NEXT HOUR.

WELL, LET'S TRY AND APPROACH IT ANOTHER WAY. OF THE THREE PROSECUTORS FACING YOU, WITH WHOM DID YOU SPEND THE MOST TIME TALKING ABOUT THE CASE?

PROBABLY MISS CLARK.

ALL RIGHT. WHEN IS THE FIRST TIME YOU CAN REMEMBER SEEING MISS CLARK IN A MEETING THAT YOU ATTENDED IN THIS BUILDING IN FEBRUARY?

I BELIEVE -- I BELIEVE IN THE LATTER PART OF FEBRUARY.

OKAY. DO YOU REMEMBER HOW LONG THE MEETING WAS?

I DIDN'T -- WE DIDN'T HAVE MANY MEETINGS OR DISCUSSIONS THAT LASTED MUCH LONGER THAN AN HOUR ONCE WE GOT STARTED.

ALL RIGHT. DO YOU REMEMBER THE DAY OF THE WEEK THAT THE MEETING OCCURRED?

NO, I DON'T.

DO YOU HAVE ANY MEMORY OF THE TIME OF DAY THAT THE MEETING OCCURRED?

IT WOULD BE AFTER COURT OR MAYBE AN AFTERNOON ON A WEEKEND, BUT I CAN'T REMEMBER THAT PERIOD OF TIME OR DAY OF WEEK WITH THE PERSON.

YOU CAN'T REMEMBER?

NO.

OKAY. WHEN WAS THE NEXT FEBRUARY MEETING YOU HAD AFTER NO. 2 LATE IN THE MONTH WITH MISS CLARK?

SIR, I DON'T KNOW.

DON'T KNOW?

NO.

WELL, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHEN I ASKED YOU IF YOU HAD TEN MEETINGS AND YOU SAID EIGHT WOULD BE MORE LIKE IT, WHERE DID YOU GET THAT NUMBER?

I JUST FELT TEN WAS TOO MANY. IT JUST FELT LIKE I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH EIGHT.

DID YOU PICK EIGHT OUT OF THE AIR OR DO YOU REMEMBER HAVING APPROXIMATELY EIGHT MEETINGS WITH PROSECUTORS?

OBJECTION. THIS IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

SUSTAINED.

BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU HAVE A MEMORY, WHEN YOU GAVE US THAT ANSWER, OF ABOUT EIGHT MEETINGS WITH PROSECUTORS?

OBJECTION. THIS IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

OVERRULED.

BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. WHY DID IT FEEL COMFORTABLE?

SO FAR YOU HAVE DESCRIBED TWO. WERE THERE ANY MORE MEETINGS IN FEBRUARY OTHER THAN THE TWO THAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED THAT YOU CAN RECALL NOW, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

I CAN'T RECALL THE SPECIFICS. I DIDN'T TAKE NOTE OF THESE. MANY TIMES IT WAS INCONVENIENT AND SOMETIME WE GOT NOTHING ACCOMPLISHED BECAUSE OF SCHEDULING AND THINGS GOING ON WITH PEOPLE'S PERSONAL LIVES. SOMETIMES THEY WERE NOT MUCH OF MEETINGS AT ALL BECAUSE OF PEOPLE'S LIVES.

AND WERE THERE SOMETIMES WHEN DISAGREEMENTS PREVENTED ANYTHING FROM BEING ACCOMPLISHED?

I DON'T RECALL THAT.

DON'T RECALL HAVING ANY DISAGREEMENT?

NO.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, HOW ABOUT MARCH? DO YOU RECALL SOME MEETINGS IN MARCH?

WE HAVE MET, YES, IN MARCH.

THE FIRST ONE IN MARCH THAT YOU CAN RECALL? AND I ASSUME THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE EARLY OR MIDDLE?

YES, EARLY IN MARCH.

OKAY. ANY IDEA WHAT DATE?

I BELIEVE IT WAS ON A -- I DON'T KNOW THE DATE. IT WOULD BE ON A WEEKEND.

A WEEKEND IN MARCH?

YES.

WOULD THAT BE THE FIRST WEEKEND IN MARCH IF IT WAS EARLY IN MARCH?

IT COULD HAVE BEEN.

WAS IT DOWN HERE?

YES.

DO YOU RECALL A SATURDAY OR A SUNDAY?

I BELIEVE IT WAS A SATURDAY.

AND WHO WAS PRESENT?

MISS CLARK.

HOW LONG DID YOU TALK?

ABOUT AN HOUR, HOUR AND A HALF.

WAS ANYONE ELSE PRESENT DURING THAT HOUR TO HOUR AND A HALF?

PEOPLE CAME IN AND GAVE HER MESSAGES OR PAPERS THAT I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT SHE WAS RECEIVING AND THEN THEY LEFT.

ALL RIGHT. BUT WERE ANY OF THE OTHER LAWYERS SEATED AT THIS TABLE OR OTHER LAWYERS WORKING ON THIS CASE OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM PRESENT DURING THIS HOUR TO HOUR AND A HALF?

PERIODICALLY AN ATTORNEY WOULD COME IN AND GIVE HER SOMETHING. SOMETIMES THEY WOULD STAY FOR A MOMENT, THEN THEY WOULD LEAVE.

WELL, LET ME NARROW IT A LITTLE BIT, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. DURING THIS HOUR TO HOUR AND A HALF, DID ANY LAWYER CONNECTED TO THIS CASE COME IN AND PARTICIPATE IN WHAT YOU AND MISS CLARK WERE DOING?

NO.

ALL RIGHT. SO THAT YOU TALKED TOGETHER FOR SIXTY TO NINETY MINUTES?

YES.

ABOUT THE CASE?

YES, SIR.

NONE OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE EVER HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU ABOUT OTHER MATTERS, HAVE THEY?

WHAT ARE OTHER MATTERS? VAGUE.

BY MR. BAILEY: OTHER THAN THE CASE?

VAGUE. OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, VAGUE.

OVERRULED.

AND IRRELEVANT, BUT --

YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.

BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. LET ME REPHRASE IT. YOU HAVE TOLD US THAT YOU SPENT A NUMBER OF HOURS TALKING WITH THESE PEOPLE, AMONG OTHERS, ABOUT THE CASE?

YES.

YOU DON'T SOCIALIZE WITH ANY OF THESE LAWYERS, DO YOU?

NO.

YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THEM OUTSIDE THE WORK ENVIRONMENT, HAVE YOU?

NO.

AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER CASES GOING WITH THEM AT THE MOMENT, DO YOU?

NO, SIR.

OKAY. SO IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT ALL OF THE DISCUSSIONS YOU HAVE HAD WITH THESE PEOPLE IN 1995 HAVE BEEN ABOUT THE CASE?

NO.

IT IS NOT?

NO.

WHAT OTHER THINGS WERE TALKED ABOUT?

CHRIS DARDEN AND I TALKED ABOUT BASKETBALL.

OKAY.

MISS LEWIS TALKS ABOUT SCUBA DIVING.

ALL RIGHT. WERE THESE DOMINANT THEMES OR JUST SMALL TALK AS PART OF THE OVERALL CONVERSATION?

JUST CONVERSATION.

ALL RIGHT. BUT THE MAIN PURPOSE I TAKE IT OF EACH ENCOUNTER, EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OTHER SUBJECTS TOUCHED UPON, WAS THE CASE, PEOPLE AGAINST SIMPSON?

YES.

AND YOUR ROLE IN THAT CASE?

YES.

NOW, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MEETINGS IN MARCH THAT YOU CAN RECALL, EXCLUDING THE GRAND JURY SESSION?

TWO OR THREE.

ALL RIGHT. THE FIRST WAS WITH MISS CLARK FOR SIXTY TO NINETY MINUTES. WHEN WAS THE ONE THAT YOU MEANT WHEN YOU SAID TWO?

I BELIEVE THAT WAS DURING THE WEEKDAY AFTER COURT WITH MISS CLARK.

AND WHEN WAS THAT?

I BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING WEEK.

SO IF YOU MET ON A SATURDAY, THEN SOME DAY DURING THE FOLLOWING WEEK AFTER COURT HAD ADJOURNED? I TAKE IT IT WAS LATE IN THE DAY?

I BELIEVE SO, SIR.

AND HOW LONG DID THAT SESSION LAST?

I RECALL IT WAS ABOUT AN HOUR.

OKAY. AND WERE ANY OTHER LAWYERS INVOLVED TO THE EXTENT OF PARTICIPATING IN THAT CONVERSATION THAT YOU WERE HAVING?

I THINK PERIODICALLY MISS LEWIS CAME IN AND OUT.

DID SHE STAY LONG ENOUGH TO POSITION HERSELF IN THE CONVERSATION OR JUST DROP SOMETHING AND TAKE OFF?

WELL, A LOT OF TIME WHEN ANOTHER PERSON COMES INTO THE ROOM, MISS CLARK WILL STOP, TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS OR WAIT UNTIL THEY LEAVE AND THEN WE CONTINUE.

ALL RIGHT. MY QUESTION TO YOU WAS WAS MISS LEWIS ASSISTING MISS CLARK IN SOME WAY WITH THE PREPARATION OF THIS CASE OR SIMPLY COMING IN AND OUT ON OTHER MATTERS OTHER THAN THE FUHRMAN TESTIMONY?

NO, NO. MISS CLARK DEALT WITH ME DIRECTLY.

AND YOU SAID TWO OR THREE. IF THERE WAS A THIRD, WHAT IS YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO THAT?

CLOSE TO THE BEGINNING OF MY TESTIMONY OR CLOSE TO THAT WEEK.

YOUR TESTIMONY BEGAN I BELIEVE LAST THURSDAY.

YES, SIR.

SO HOW LONG PRIOR TO THAT WAS YOUR MEETING WITH MISS CLARK, IF IT OCCURRED? AND I AM NOW LOOKING FOR A THIRD ONE?

YES. THAT WAS VERY BRIEF.

HOW LONG PRIOR TO THE ONSET OF YOUR TESTIMONY DID IT OCCUR?

TWO, THREE DAYS.

NOT THE DAY BEFORE?

I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO.

YOU WEREN'T IN THE BUILDING THE DAY BEFORE?

I WAS IN THE BUILDING THE DAY BEFORE, YES.

WHAT WERE YOU DOING?

WAITING TO TESTIFY.

NOT TALKING WITH ANYONE?

NO.

OKAY. WAS YOUR LAWYER WITH YOU AT THE TIME?

NO. HE WAS WATCHING THE T.V. AND I WAS NOT.

NOW, HAVE YOU SPENT ANY TIME WITH HIM, WITHOUT GOING INTO ANYTHING THAT WAS SAID, PREPARING FOR YOUR TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE?

PREPARING FOR DIRECT TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE?

NO, PREPARING FOR THE CROSS-EXAMINATION YOU ASSUMED WOULD FOLLOW HARD ON THE HEELS OF DIRECT?

I THINK I HAVE GOTTEN SOME GENERAL ADVICE, MUCH THE SAME AS I HAVE GOTTEN FROM MOST THE PEOPLE I KNOW.

OKAY. AND YOU HAVE BEEN URGED TO REMAIN CALM, HAVE YOU NOT?

I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE COURT'S OWN OBJECTION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PREVIOUS --

I'M SORRY, I MEAN TO EXCLUDE MR. TOURTELOT FROM ANY QUESTION THAT HAS SUBSTANCE OF A CONVERSATION IN IT. I DO NOT ASK TO GO INTO ANYTHING HE SAID TO YOU.

BUT YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU HAD ADVICE FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE AND WHAT I MEANT TO ASK YOU WAS DID A LOT OF PEOPLE SAY IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO REMAIN CALM?

OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.

OVERRULED.

NO.

BY MR. BAILEY: NO. WERE ANY DOCUMENTS, BOOKS OR OTHER MATERIALS GIVEN TO YOU OR EXHIBITED TO YOU AT ANY OF THESE SESSIONS TO ASSIST YOU IN YOUR ROLE AS A WITNESS IN THIS CASE?

NO.

YOU HAVE READ NO BOOKS ON HOW TO BE A GOOD WITNESS?

WHO.

NONE ON CROSS-EXAMINATION?

NONE.

HAVE YOU WATCHED ANY FILMS OR TAPES THAT RELATE TO THAT SUBJECT?

NONE.

AND HAVE YOU DISCUSSED YOUR POSITION WITH FELLOW OFFICERS AND SOUGHT THEIR ADVICE AS TO HOW TO BE AN EFFECTIVE WITNESS?

NO.

NOW, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, IS IT NOT FAIR TO SAY THAT IN YOUR 19-YEAR CAREER THIS IS BY FAR THE MOST IMPORTANT CASE IN WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED?

YES.

IS IT NOT ALSO TRUE THAT YOU REALIZE NOW, AS YOU DID BACK ON JUNE 13, THAT THE RIGHT HAND LEATHER GLOVE WHICH YOU CLAIM TO HAVE FOUND ON ROCKINGHAM COULD BE A VERY SIGNIFICANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?

YES, SIR.

AND ARE YOU AWARE OF THE FACT THAT YOUR TESTIMONY, AS IT PERTAINS TO THAT EVIDENCE, MAY BE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO THIS COURT?

YES.

DID YOU ANTICIPATE, BASED ON WHAT YOU HAD BEEN TOLD, THAT SOME SORT OF ATTACK MIGHT BE VISITED UPON YOU WITH RESPECT TO ALLEGED RACIAL SLURS?

NO.

WAS IT A SURPRISE TO YOU WHEN THOSE QUESTIONS WERE PUT BY MARCIA CLARK AT THE VERY OUTSET OF YOUR TESTIMONY TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO DENY THE ALLEGATIONS BEFORE I HAVE TALKED TO YOU?

OBJECTION. OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE AND SPECULATION AS TO --

WITHDRAW THE QUESTION.

DO YOU RECALL THAT WHEN YOU TOOK THE STAND YOU EXPLAINED TO THE JURY AND TO THE COURT THAT YOU HAD HAD SOME SPECIAL SESSIONS BECAUSE OF A PROBLEM NOT RELATED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE?

MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

OVERRULED.

THE QUESTION IS --

BY MR. BAILEY: DO YOU RECALL THAT?

YES.

ALL RIGHT. DO YOU RECALL MISS CLARK THEN CAUSED TO BE DISPLAYED TO YOU PARTS OF A LETTER ALLEGEDLY WRITTEN BY KATHLEEN BELL TO JOHNNIE COCHRAN AND INVITED YOU TO EXAMINE THE TEXT OF THAT LETTER? DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

YES, SIR.

OKAY. HAD YOU DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN BEFORE YOU EVER CAME INTO THE COURTROOM?

YES. THAT LETTER, YES.

THIS WAS NO SURPRISE TO YOU, WAS IT?

NO, SIR.

AND WERE YOU NOT ADVISED THAT THE EFFORT IN DOING SO WAS TO STEAL THE THUNDER FROM THE INEVITABLE CROSS-EXAMINATION?

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS SPECULATION, IT IS IRRELEVANT.

SUSTAINED.

BY MR. BAILEY: WAS IT EXPLAINED TO YOU THAT THIS WAS AN EFFORT TO DIFFUSE THE IMPACT OF ANY ACCUSATIONS THAT MIGHT LATER BE MADE AGAINST YOU?

SAME OBJECTION. SAME OBJECTION.

SUSTAINED.

BY MR. BAILEY: WHY -- IF THERE WAS AN EXPLANATION, WAS IT EXPLAINED TO YOU THAT THIS METHOD OF INTRODUCING YOUR TESTIMONY WAS TO BE USED IN THIS CASE?

IT WASN'T EXPLAINED TO ME, NO.

WELL, IN OTHER WORDS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU WERE SIMPLY TOLD HERE IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, HERE IS THE ORDER IN WHICH THINGS WILL HAPPEN WHEN YOU HIT THE WITNESS STAND, AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO TELL YOU WHY?

I AM NOT THE PROSECUTOR, SIR.

I KNOW THAT YOU ARE NOT THE PROSECUTOR; YOU ARE THE WITNESS.

THAT WAS --

DID YOU HAVE ANY COMPREHENSION AS TO WHY THIS TACT WAS TAKEN BY THE PROSECUTION?

YES.

DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT IT RELATED TO POSSIBLE EXPERIENCES YOU MIGHT HAVE ON CROSS-EXAMINATION?

NO.

OKAY. WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHY THIS LETTER WAS SURFACED AT THE OUTSET OF YOUR TESTIMONY.

OBJECTION, THAT IS IRRELEVANT.

I THINK HIS FRAME OF MIND IS IRRELEVANT. OVERRULED.

AS TO THE REASON FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH I UNDERSTAND HIM --

SPEAKING OBJECTION.

NO. I HAVE RULED, COUNSEL. IT IS RELEVANT, HIS FRAME OF MIND. OVERRULED.

BY MR. BAILEY: GIVE US YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHY THIS WAS DONE IN THIS CASE.

BECAUSE THAT IS WHY MISS CLARK -- THE WAY SHE WANTED TO LITIGATE THIS CASE.