Cross-examination of Philip Vannatter (part 5)

📄 Cross-examination of Philip Vannatter (part 5) — Tuesday, March 21, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAR\21\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-PHILIP-VA.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 42 of 167

◀ Sidebar (1) Cross-examination of Philip Vannatter (part 2) ▶

Witness: Det. Philip Vannatter
Examiner: Robert Shapiro
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Tuesday, March 21, 1995 • Utterances: 26

A brief cross-examination by Robert Shapiro focused on the socks found in OJ Simpson's bedroom and the question of why they were not phenolphthalein (pheno) tested for blood on June 13th like other items. Shapiro also pressed Vannatter on whether he preserved the bedroom stairs for footwear impression evidence, which he did not.

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

# 2 THE COURT:

THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED.

# 3 Q:

BY MR. SHAPIRO: YOU DIRECTED THE CHEMIST -- I AM SORRY. YOU DIRECTED THE CRIMINALIST, MR. FUNG, TO DO CERTAIN TESTS FOR BLOOD ON THE 13TH; DID YOU NOT?

# 4 A:

YES.

# 5 Q:

AND MANY ITEMS WERE TESTED FOR BLOOD; WERE THEY NOT?

# 6 A:

YES.

# 7 Q:

IN FACT, 13 ITEMS THAT YOU HAD INTEREST IN WERE TESTED FOR BLOOD AT ROCKINGHAM; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 8 A:

I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER.

# 9 Q:

DID YOU EVER SEE THE SOCKS ON THE 13TH?

# 10 A:

NO, I -- NO, I DID NOT.

KEY QUOTE

# 11 Q:

DID MR. FUNG EVER REPORT TO YOU SEEING ANY BLOOD ON THE SOCKS ON THE 13TH?

# 12 MR. DARDEN:

OBJECTION.

# 13 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 14 Q:

BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU ORDER MR. FUNG TO PHENO TEST THE SOCKS ON THE 13TH?

# 15 A:

NO, I DID NOT.

# 16 Q:

ISN'T IT TRUE THAT'S THE ONLY ITEM THAT WAS RECOVERED ON THE 13TH FROM THE BEDROOM AREA THAT WAS NOT PHENO TESTED?

# 17 MR. DARDEN:

OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

# 18 THE COURT:

OVERRULED. IF YOU KNOW.

# 19 DET. PHILIP VANNATTER:

I DON'T KNOW THAT.

# 20 THE COURT:

PROCEED.

# 21 Q:

BY MR. SHAPIRO: DID YOU FIND ANY BLOOD ON THE STEPS LEADING UP TO MR. SIMPSON'S BEDROOM?

# 22 A:

NO, SIR.

# 23 Q:

DID YOU PRESERVE THAT AREA OF THE HOUSE FOR FOOTWEAR IMPRESSION EVIDENCE?

# 24 A:

NO.

# 25 MR. SHAPIRO:

NOTHING FURTHER.

# 26 THE COURT:

MR. DARDEN.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (3)

Phil Vannatter

NO, I DID NOT.

Vannatter admits he never saw the socks on June 13th, laying groundwork for the defense's planted evidence theory.

Phil Vannatter

NO, I DID NOT.

Vannatter confirms he never ordered Fung to pheno test the socks, distinguishing them from all other recovered items.

Phil Vannatter

I DON'T KNOW THAT.

Vannatter cannot confirm or deny whether the socks were uniquely excluded from phenolphthalein testing, weakening his command of the investigation details.

Evidence (3)

Informal

Socks recovered from OJ Simpson's bedroom on June 13th

challenged — defense highlights they were not pheno tested unlike other items

Informal

13 items tested for blood at Rockingham on June 13th

referenced to establish scope of testing

Informal

Steps leading to Simpson's bedroom

challenged — not preserved for footwear impression evidence

Notable Exchanges (2)

Robert Shapiro•Phil Vannatter

Shapiro systematically established that the socks were not seen by Vannatter, not reported on by Fung, and not ordered to be pheno tested — unlike every other item of interest — implying they were added to the scene later.

strategic

Robert Shapiro•Phil Vannatter

Shapiro closed by noting the bedroom stairs were not preserved for footwear impressions, suggesting investigative negligence or selective evidence collection.

revealing

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Phil Vannatter

omission / gaps in knowledge

Shapiro exposed that Vannatter had no direct knowledge of the socks on June 13th — didn't see them, didn't order testing, couldn't confirm their treatment differed from other items — undermining his oversight of the crime scene.

⚔ Phil Vannatter

investigative negligence

Vannatter admitted the bedroom stairs were not preserved for footwear impressions, suggesting incomplete or selective evidence collection.

Objections

2 objections (1 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 5355 • 26 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103