MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

BY MR. COCHRAN: THIS BAG AND THE ENVELOPE AND THE GREEN LIST IS NOW IN EVIDENCE -- IS NOW MARKED FOR EVIDENCE; IS THAT CORRECT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT. DO YOU KNOW WHO WROTE THAT LIST?

NO.

HAD YOU EVER SEEN THAT GREEN LIST BEFORE THIS?

NO, I HAVEN'T.

HAVE YOU LOOKED INSIDE THOSE CLOTHES, LOOKED IN THE POCKETS OF THOSE CLOTHES BEFORE?

I HAVE NOT.

CAN YOU DO THAT?

YOU HAVE NOW LOOKED INSIDE EACH OF THE POCKETS?

YES.

DID YOU FIND ANYTHING IN THERE?

NO.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE LIST, WE DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT WHOSE HANDWRITING THAT IS?

I DON'T. CORRECT.

AND IS THERE -- I WAS ASKING JUST BEFORE THE COURT CALLED US OVER, IS THERE A BANANA ON THE TOP OF THAT LIST ON THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE LIST?

YES.

THIS BONITA ECUADOR LABEL, IS THAT A LABEL FOUND ON BANANAS OFT TIMES?

I DON'T KNOW.

YOU'VE NEVER SEEN THAT?

NO.

NOW -- NOW, WITH REGARD TO THESE CLOTHES, WERE THESE CLOTHES RECOVERED BY THE TWO DETECTIVES FROM THE APARTMENT THAT NIGHT?

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

AND THEY THEN BOOKED IT INTO EVIDENCE THERE AFTER IN THE CONDITION WE JUST SAW IT; IS THAT RIGHT?

I BELIEVE SO.

DID YOU -- IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION AND THE GENTLEMEN THAT YOU USED IN THIS INVESTIGATION, DID YOU EVER TRY AND ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT AFTER MR. GOLDMAN LEFT WORK HE WENT SOMEPLACE AND ATE?

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT CAME UP DUE TO THE FACT WE BELIEVE HE WENT DIRECTLY TO HIS HOME AND CHANGED IN THE TIME THAT HE LEFT THE MEZZALUNA.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, IF HE HAD A FULL STOMACH OF FOOD, UNDIGESTED FOOD, WOULD THAT INDICATE TO YOU THAT IF HE DIDN'T EAT AT MEZZALUNA AND STILL HAD A FULL STOMACH OF FOOD AT THE TIME OF DEATH, THAT HE MAY HAVE EATEN SOMEPLACE?

IT'S POSSIBLE, SURE.

ALL RIGHT. AND AS SUCH, AS AN INVESTIGATOR --

OBJECTION. THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

OVERRULED.

BY MR. COCHRAN: AS AN INVESTIGATOR, DON'T YOU WANT TO DETERMINE ALL KINDS OF POSSIBILITIES, SIR? CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION?

ALL KINDS OF POSSIBILITIES IN REGARDS TO WHAT?

WELL, ALL THE VARIOUS POSSIBLE SCENARIOS. DON'T YOU WANT TO CONSIDER THAT?

SCENARIOS?

WELL, LET ME REPHRASE IT, SIR. WITH REGARD TO MR. GOLDMAN'S STOMACH CONTENTS, THAT'S AN INDICATION HE HAD EATEN SOMETHING SOMEWHERE THAT NIGHT. DID YOU GO BACK AND CHECK AT MEZZALUNA AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD A MEAL AT MEZZALUNA BEFORE HE LEFT?

I DON'T BELIEVE HE DID.

ALL RIGHT. SO YOUR ANSWER IS YES, YOU CHECKED THAT, AND HE DIDN'T. ALL RIGHT. IF HE DIDN'T EAT AT MEZZALUNA, AS AN INVESTIGATOR, DID YOU THEN SAY, WELL, I'D BETTER CHECK AND SEE WHERE HE HAD THIS MEAL, IF ANY? DID YOU CHECK THAT OUT IS MY QUESTION.

ALL RIGHT. SO YOU DIDN'T CHECK IT OUT. IS THAT YOUR ANSWER?

I HAD NO REASON TO.

ALL RIGHT. AND -- THE QUESTION IS, DID YOU CHECK IT OUT?

THE ANSWER IS NO.

ALL RIGHT. AND SO WHEN YOU WERE AT THE CORONER'S OFFICE AND AT THE TIME OF THE AUTOPSY, WITH REGARD TO THESE STOMACH CONTENTS, YOU HAVE NOT HAD ANYONE IN THE CORONER'S OFFICE TO TRY AND DETERMINE BY LOOKING AT THE STOMACH CONTENTS WHEN MR. GOLDMAN MIGHT HAVE HAD HIS LAST MEAL AS WE SIT HERE NOW; IS THAT CORRECT?

THAT'S WHAT THEY DO AT THE CORONER'S OFFICE. SO --

I'M ASKING YOU WHAT YOU DID IN THIS CASE.

I DIDN'T EXAMINE THE CONTENTS. I DON'T EXAMINE STOMACH CONTENTS.

ALL RIGHT. AND DID YOU HAVE ANY EXPERT MEDICAL FORENSIC PERSON LOOK AT THESE STOMACH CONTENTS TO TRY AND DETERMINE HOW LONG HE HAD HAD THIS MEAL BEFORE HE DIED? DID YOU DO THAT?

DID I DO THAT?

YES.

NO. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE CORONER'S OFFICE.

ALL RIGHT. DID YOU ASK THE CORONER, ANY CORONER TO DO THAT?

AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THEIR PURVIEW.

AND YOU WOULD NEVER MAKE THAT SUGGESTION TO THEM AT ALL?

TO --

TO THE CORONER'S OFFICE? DON'T YOU WORK TOGETHER WITH THEM?

WHAT SUGGESTION?

THAT THEY LOOK AT THE STOMACH CONTENTS TO TRY AND DETERMINE THE TIME OF DEATH.

I BELIEVE THE CORONER'S OFFICE DOES THAT. WE DON'T NORMALLY DICTATE TO THEM HOW TO DO THEIR INVESTIGATIONS.

AND YOU MADE NO SUGGESTION TO THEM AT ALL REGARDING THE STOMACH CONTENTS IN THIS CASE?

I DON'T BELIEVE I DID.

DO YOU HAVE ANY REPORTS FROM THEM REGARDING THE GOLDMAN STOMACH CONTENTS?

ANY REPORTS IN THAT --

FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE.

-- WOULD BE IN THE CORONER'S PROTOCOL.

DID YOU EVER HAVE OCCASION TO LOOK AT MR. GOLDMAN'S BEEPER ENTRIES? REMEMBER YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THAT HE HAD A BEEPER THERE AT THE SCENE? DID YOU GO BACK AND TRY TO LOOK AT EARLIER BEEPER ENTRIES ON JUNE 12TH, 1994?

YES. YES.

ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THAT?

THERE WERE NONE.

NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE ITEMS FOUND AT THE GOLDMAN APARTMENT, DID YOU FIND ANY INFORMATION WHERE MR. GOLDMAN HAD MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S PHONE NUMBER THEREON?

AGAIN, I DIDN'T INVESTIGATE OR EXAMINE ANYTHING AT THAT LOCATION. THAT MAY -- THAT MAY HAVE HAPPENED. I DON'T RECALL SEEING IT.

ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO LOOK AT THE NOTES OF ITEMS TAKEN FROM I GUESS THE GOLDMAN APARTMENT?

NOT IN SOME TIME.

ALL RIGHT. DO YOU RECALL THAT MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S PHONE NUMBER APPEARS TWICE IN THESE COPIES? DO YOU RECALL THAT?

THAT MAY WELL BE.

MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

YOU MAY.

BY MR. COCHRAN: IF I WERE TO SHOW YOU A COPY, WOULD THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION PERHAPS?

PERHAPS.

YOUR HONOR, MAY THE GOLDMAN'S RETURN TO THE COURTROOM NOW?

I WAS THINKING ABOUT THAT. BUT THEN WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THE APARTMENT AGAIN.

YOUR HONOR, I PLACE BEFORE -- I HAVE SHOWN THESE TO COUNSEL.

BY MR. COCHRAN: I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT THIS. READ THIS TO YOURSELF FIRST OF ALL. IT'S DA003953. YOU SEE THAT?

YES.

AND THERE'S APPARENTLY A PHONE NUMBER THERE. WITHOUT READING THAT PHONE NUMBER, THERE IS A PHONE NUMBER THERE ALSO, RIGHT?

YES.

AND LOOK ALSO NEXT AT DA003955. DO YOU SEE THAT NAME THERE?

YES.

SEE THAT PHONE NUMBER THERE?

THAT IS CORRECT.

OKAY. DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE NICOLE SIMPSON?

YES.

AND HER PHONE NUMBER?

YES.

AND SO YOU SEE AT LEAST ON TWO OCCASIONS HER NUMBERS FOUND ON THESE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE ALLEGEDLY FOUND IN MR. GOLDMAN'S APARTMENT?

YES.

AND IN FAIRNESS TO -- THERE ARE OTHER FEMALE NUMBERS -- OTHER FEMALE NAMES WITH NUMBERS THERE ALSO; IS THAT RIGHT?

YES, THERE ARE. YES.

BUT HER NUMBER IS IN THERE TWICE; IS THAT RIGHT?

THAT IS CORRECT.

DOES THIS REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?

YES.

BY THE WAY, HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO REVIEW THESE DOCUMENTS HERE WHICH PURPORT TO HAVE COME EITHER FROM SOME KIND OF A BOOKLET OR SOMETHING INSIDE THE APARTMENT?

NOT RECENTLY.

DID YOU EVER REVIEW THEM?

I BELIEVE INITIALLY I DID, YES.

DID YOU FOLLOW UP ON ANY OF THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE CONTAINED IN THIS -- THIS INFORMATION?

I DON'T RECALL IF I SPECIFICALLY DID OR TIPPIN AND CARR DID OR IF IT WAS DONE AT ALL.

DID YOU FIND OUT WHAT DESIGN WRAP IS?

DESIGN WRAP, W-R-A-P, YOUR HONOR.

NO.

BY MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT A BUSINESS THAT MR. GOLDMAN WAS INVOLVED IN?

I DON'T KNOW.

YOU NEVER LOOKED AT THAT EITHER?

NO.

DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT MR. GOLDMAN MAY HAVE BEEN THE TARGET OF THE ASSASSIN OR ASSASSINS THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT? DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT AT ALL?

THE TARGET OF AN ASSASSIN?

NO. WAS HE THE TARGET --

OBJECTION.

BY MR. COCHRAN: -- OF THE PERPETRATORS ON JUNE 12TH, THE PERPETRATOR OR PERPETRATORS ON JUNE 12TH, 1994 WHEN HE CAME TO MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE? DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT AS A POSSIBLE THEORY?

THAT HE WOULD BE THE TARGET?

YES. LET ME SEE IF I CAN MAKE IT SO YOU UNDERSTAND IT. DID YOU EVER, AS THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN THIS CASE, EVER CONSIDER ANY OTHER THEORY THAN THAT O.J. SIMPSON WAS THE ONLY PERPETRATOR IN THIS CASE?

ANY OTHER THEORY?

YES. ANY OTHER THEORY, ANY OTHER POSSIBILITIES?

DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT MR. GOLDMAN COULD HAVE BEEN A PERSON FOLLOWED TO THAT LOCATION? DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT AT ALL?

I THINK IT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE HE WAS FOLLOWED.

ALL RIGHT. DO YOU THINK -- DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT SOMETHING REGARDING HIM OR HIS BACKGROUND MAY HAVE LED SOME PERSON OR PERSONS TO FOLLOW HIM THERE TO THAT LOCATION?

I HAD NO EVIDENCE AT ALL TO SUGGEST THAT.

AND SO DID YOU EVER PURSUE THAT OR LOOK AT IT AT ALL?

THERE WAS NOTHING TO PURSUE. THERE WAS NOTHING TO SHOW ANY EVIDENCE TO THAT.

YOU NEVER LOOKED AT ANY -- YOU NEVER LOOKED AT ANY OF THE PEOPLE IN HIS BOOK OR MADE ANY DETERMINATIONS ABOUT HIS BACKGROUND. YOU DIDN'T DO THAT?

AGAIN, I BELIEVE I DID GO THROUGH THE BOOK INITIALLY. I BELIEVE TIPPIN AND CARR DID, BUT THERE WAS NOTHING IN THAT BOOK TO LEAD IN ANY OTHER DIRECTION.

ALL RIGHT. SO YOU DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT, RIGHT?

ABOUT --

ABOUT FOLLOWING UP ON ANY OTHER LEADS OR ANYTHING REGARDING MR. GOLDMAN.

I DIDN'T SEE ANY OTHER LEADS TO FOLLOW UP ON.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, WITH REGARD TO MR. GOLDMAN, YOU I BELIEVE SHARED WITH US THAT HE DROVE A VEHICLE TO MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE THAT NIGHT; IS THAT CORRECT?

YES.

AND YOU KNOW WHAT TIME HE GOT OFF WORK; IS THAT CORRECT?

YES.

YOU KNOW AT SOME POINT HE CAME HOME; IS THAT CORRECT?

I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED, YES.

AND WERE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER -- AND HE CHANGED CLOTHES; IS THAT CORRECT?

YES.

ARE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER OR NOT HE SHOWERED BEFORE HE LEFT HIS PLACE?

NO.

YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER?

NO.

DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT -- WHEN DID TIPPIN AND CARR GET THERE? WAS IT -- WERE THEY ABLE TO MAKE ANY KIND OF DETERMINATION BY GETTING TO THE SCENE OR MR. GOLDMAN'S RESIDENCE QUICKLY AFTER THESE BODIES WERE DISCOVERED?

THEY DIDN'T RESPOND TILL THE NEXT DAY I BELIEVE.

SO THE NEXT DAY WOULD HAVE BEEN WHAT DAY? THE 13TH OR THE 14TH?

I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY. I BELIEVE IT WAS THE 14TH.

SO THE 14TH OF JUNE?

IT MAY HAVE BEEN THE 13TH. I DON'T HAVE THEIR LOG AND I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT IN MONTHS.

ALL RIGHT. SO AT ANY RATE, YOU CAN'T TELL US WHETHER OR NOT HE SHOWERED OR WHATEVER; IS THAT CORRECT?

I CAN'T. THAT'S CORRECT.

YOU CAN NOT TELL US -- AND THEN YOU CAN'T TELL US WHETHER OR NOT HE WENT AND HAD A MEAL OR ATE WITH SOMEBODY, CAN YOU?

IT'S MY INFORMATION AND MY BELIEF THAT HE DIDN'T.

ALL RIGHT. BUT YET YOU KNOW THAT HE HAD A STOMACH OF FOOD, UNDIGESTED FOOD; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

I BELIEVE HE DID.

ALL RIGHT. YOU CAN'T -- AS YOU SIT HERE NOW, YOU CAN'T TELL US WHEN HE ATE THAT FOOD, CAN YOU?

SPECIFICALLY, NO.

YES. ALL RIGHT.

BUT I AM AWARE THAT HE WORKS AT A RESTAURANT AND PROBABLY ATE DURING THAT TIME.

BUT, SIR, DID YOU NOT TELL US YOU SPOKE AT MEZZALUNA AND THEY TOLD YOU HE HAD NOT EATEN THERE THAT EVENING? DID YOU CHECK ON THAT? DID YOU TELL US THAT?

NOT A -- NECESSARILY TO SIT DOWN AND HAVE A MEAL. BUT WHETHER HE WAS OBSERVED DURING HIS ENTIRE TOUR OF DUTY THERE, I DON'T KNOW. HE MAY HAVE WELL EATEN SOMETHING THERE.

WELL, PERHAPS HE DID. BUT IF HE ATE AT 6:00 O'CLOCK IN THE EVENING, YOU WOULD EXPECT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIGESTED; WOULD YOU NOT HAVE?

OBJECTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE OF HIS EXPERTISE.

OVERRULED.

WELL, THAT'S COMMON SENSE.

THIS IS NOT A DOCTOR. HE DOESN'T KNOW.

FOUNDATION?

NO FOUNDATION.

SUSTAINED.

BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO -- AS A HUMAN BEING, AS AN INVESTIGATOR, AS SOMEONE WITH COMMON SENSE, IF ONE EATS A MEAL AT 6:00 O'CLOCK P.M., WOULD YOU EXPECT THAT THAT MEAL THROUGH THE DIGESTIVE PROCESSES WOULD HAVE STARTED TO BECOME DIGESTED OVER A PERIOD OF FOUR OR FIVE HOURS?

SAME OBJECTION.

BY MR. COCHRAN: WOULD YOU EXPECT THAT?

NO FOUNDATION.

SUSTAINED. WHY DON'T YOU ASK A FEW FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS.

CERTAINLY.

BY MR. COCHRAN: AS A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR FOR 20 PLUS YEARS, YOU'VE ATTENDED A NUMBER OF AUTOPSIES; HAVE YOU NOT?

YES.

AND YOU'VE SEEN STOMACH CONTENTS ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS; HAVE YOU NOT?

YES.

AND YOU KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THE RATE AT WHICH THE BODY DIGESTS FOOD; DO YOU NOT?

YES.

AND YOU KNOW THAT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, THE BODY WILL DIGEST FOOD AND PROCESS THAT. YOU KNOW THAT, DON'T YOU?

YES.

AND YOU KNOW THAT IF A PERSON HAS RELATIVELY UNDIGESTED FOOD, THAT'S AN INDICATION THAT THEY HAVE RECENTLY HAD A MEAL; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR?

POSSIBLY.

SAME OBJECTION. WE HAVE NO FOUNDATION.

THERE'S FOUNDATION, YOUR HONOR.

ALL RIGHT. OVERRULED.

THANK YOU. I FORGOT WHAT THE QUESTION WAS NOW, YOUR HONOR.

IT'S SORT OF A RHETORICAL -- I MEAN ARGUMENTATIVE QUESTION IN THE SENSE THAT IF YOU HAVE FULL STOMACH CONTENTS --

WELL, LET ME SEE IF I CAN REPHRASE IT IN A FASHION THAT WILL NOT BE.

BY MR. COCHRAN: AND YOU KNOW BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE THAT IF A PERSON HAS A RELATIVELY FULL UNDIGESTED STOMACH OF FOOD, IT'S AN INDICATION THEY HAVE PROBABLY EATEN RECENTLY BEFORE THEY MET THEIR DEATH. ISN'T THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU MEAN BY RECENTLY.

WELL, WITHIN AN HOUR OR SO.

AGAIN, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY TRUE. THE DIGESTION CAN BE RETARDED.

SIR, IF YOUR DIGESTION -- OF COURSE, WHEN YOU DIE, THE DIGESTIVE PROCESS STOPS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

YES.

ALL RIGHT. AND IF YOU -- ARE YOU TELLING US THAT THIS STRESSFUL SITUATION OF THE FIGHT THAT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN MR. GOLDMAN AND WHOEVER THE PERPETRATOR OR PERPETRATORS WERE THAT NIGHT LASTED FOR HALF HOUR OR SO DO YOU THINK?

NO.

THINK IT WAS A STRESSFUL SITUATION THAT LASTED FOR 15 MINUTES OR MORE?

I DON'T BELIEVE IT DID.

LET'S TALK ABOUT THE TIME BEFORE THE STRESSFUL SITUATION WHEN YOUR BODY WOULD NORMALLY PROCESS AND DIGEST FOOD. OKAY? IN THAT INSTANCE, IN THIS CASE, HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO ANY EXPERT FORENSIC PATHOLOGISTS ABOUT THE STATE OF THE STOMACH CONTENTS OF MR. GOLDMAN THAT NIGHT AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT EXPERT CAN HELP US AND ASSIST US IN DETERMINING WHEN MR. GOLDMAN HAD HIS LAST MEAL?

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. IRRELEVANT, BEYOND THE SCOPE.

IT'S VERY RELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.

NO FOUNDATION.

OVERRULED.

SPEAKING OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

OVERRULED.

BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. YOU MAY ANSWER. HAVE YOU?

REGARDING TIME OF DEATH?

YES.

YES. THAT AND THE OTHER FACTORS, AND A TIME OF DEATH WAS GIVEN TO ME BETWEEN 9:00 P.M. AND 12:00 MIDNIGHT, CLOSER TO 9:00.

THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION I ASKED YOU. THE QUESTION --

I AM SORRY.

-- DID YOU TALK TO A FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST WITH REGARD TO MR. GOLDMAN'S STOMACH CONTENTS AND WHETHER THAT FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST WOULD BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THE STATE OF THOSE STOMACH CONTENTS AND ASSIST US IN DETERMINING WHEN MR. GOLDMAN HAD HIS LAST MEAL?

OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED.

OVERRULED.

SPECIFICALLY AS TO THE STOMACH CONTENTS?

BY MR. COCHRAN: YES.

NO.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STOMACH CONTENTS. NO IS THE ANSWER?

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND SO HERE WE ARE AND YOU -- STRIKE THAT. WHAT DOCTORS HAVE YOU TALKED TO WITH CONNECTION -- FORENSIC DOCTORS HAVE YOU TALKED TO IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CASE IN YOUR INVESTIGATION? CAN YOU GIVE US THEIR NAMES?

DR. GOLDEN.

HE'S THE GENTLEMAN WHO PERFORMED THE TWO AUTOPSIES?

CORRECT.

ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE CORONER'S OFFICE HAS PREPARED A LIST OF AT LEAST 16 ITEMS THAT THEY THEMSELVES --

OBJECTION.

SUSTAINED.

I WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THAT, YOUR HONOR.

SUSTAINED.

BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WITH REGARD TO DR. GOLDEN -- GIVE US THE NAME OF THE OTHER DOCTORS.

DR. LAKSHSMANAN.

HE IS THE CORONER?

YES.

ALL RIGHT. WHO ELSE?

DR. SHERRY.

SPELL THAT FOR US.

S-H-E-R-R-Y.

S-H?

S-H-E-R-R-Y.

ALL RIGHT. WHOM ELSE?

I BELIEVE THAT'S IT.

AT ANY RATE, WHEN YOU WERE AT THE SCENE AT BUNDY IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS, YOU WERE NEVER -- YOU NEVER DISPATCHED ANY POLICE OFFICERS TO GO TO MR. GOLDMAN'S HOME AND SEARCH FOR ANY CLUES AT THAT TIME, DID YOU?

I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE HE LIVED AT THAT TIME.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, YOU FOUND OUT SOMETIME THAT DAY; DID YOU NOT?

I BELIEVE IT WAS LATER, LATER ON.

IT WAS SOMETIME ON THE 13TH, WASN'T IT, OFFICER?

I DON'T RECALL WHEN IT WAS.

NOW, WITH REGARD TO MR. GOLDMAN, I BELIEVE YOU'VE INDICATED TO US THAT THERE WERE NO BLOODY FOOTPRINTS WHICH MATCHED HIS SHOES AT THE SCENE THERE AT BUNDY; IS THAT CORRECT?

YES.

AND HIS SHOES HAD QUITE A BIT OF MUD UNDER THE BOTTOM OF THEM; DID THEY NOT?

I BELIEVE THERE WAS MUD OR DIRT.

AND THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE AREA WHERE YOU SHOWED US EARLIER WHERE THIS ALTERCATION TOOK PLACE AND WHERE THE GROUND WAS DUG UP; IS THAT CORRECT?

I WOULD SAY SO.

AND WAS THERE SOME SORT OF -- DID YOU FIND SOME SORT OF A STAIN OR BLOOD DROP UNDER HIS SHOES AT ALL?

THERE WERE BLOOD DROPLETS ON THE SOLES OF HIS SHOES, YES.

AND WERE YOU -- IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, WERE YOU ABLE TO ASCERTAIN HOW THOSE BLOOD DROPS OR DROPLETS GOT UNDER HIS SHOES?

I HAVE AN OPINION HOW THEY GOT THERE.

YOU WERE NOT PRESENT OF COURSE, RIGHT?

WHEN THE BLOOD DROPLETS WERE DEPOSITED?

YOU WERE NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THIS ALTERCATION.

HOLD ON, COUNSEL. YOU GUYS ARE DRIVING THE COURT REPORTER NUTS THIS MORNING. YOU'RE BOTH TALKING OVER EACH OTHER.

ALL RIGHT. SORRY. LET ME START OVER.

BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU WERE NOT PRESENT --

LET ME STRIKE THAT, YOUR HONOR.

BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO -- WAS THERE MORE THAN -- WAS THERE ONE BLOOD DROP OR MORE THAN ONE BLOOD DROP UNDER MR. GOLDMAN'S SHOES?

MORE THAN ONE.

HOW MANY ALTOGETHER?

THERE WERE SEVERAL I BELIEVE ON BOTH -- SOLES OF BOTH SHOES.

ALL RIGHT. AND DID YOU CONDUCT SOME TESTS ON THOSE BLOOD DROPS OR TRY TO CONDUCT SOME TESTS TO DETERMINE WHEN THOSE BLOOD DROPS WERE PLACED THERE UNDER HIS SHOES?

I PERSONALLY DID NOT, BUT THERE WERE TESTS CONDUCTED.

ALL RIGHT. YOU DIDN'T DO IT PERSONALLY?

NO.

IT WAS CLEAR TO YOU HE HAD NOT WALKED THROUGH ANY BLOOD ON THAT WALKWAY THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT; IS THAT CORRECT?

I DON'T BELIEVE HE DID.

AND SO IN THAT INSTANCE, YOU NEVER -- YOU -- STRIKE THAT. YOU'VE DESCRIBED FOR US EARLIER THAT YOU DON'T RECALL SEEING ANY BLOOD UNDER THE FEET OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON EITHER; IS THAT CORRECT? DID YOU TELL US THAT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND ONCE YOU MADE YOUR -- ONCE YOU CAME TO YOUR CONCLUSION OR YOU DEVELOPED YOUR THEORY THAT SHE WAS KILLED FIRST, IT'S TRUE, IS IT NOT, YOU NEVER LOOKED AT ANY OTHER POSSIBLE THEORIES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

MY THEORY THAT SHE WAS KILLED -- THAT'S NOT MY THEORY, THAT SHE WAS KILLED FIRST. THAT WAS IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION AS TO SOMETHING THAT MAY HAVE POSSIBLY HAPPENED. I CAN'T TELL YOU WHO WAS KILLED FIRST.

IS THAT YOUR THEORY, THAT SHE WAS KILLED FIRST?

NO.

THAT'S NOT YOUR THEORY?

NO.

YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT?

I DON'T KNOW.

ALL RIGHT. YOU DON'T KNOW BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T THERE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

CERTAINLY.

AND ISN'T THE WHOLE REASON -- AS A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR, DON'T YOU TRY TO GATHER ALL OF THE FACTS TOGETHER AND THEN TRY TO PUT THOSE FACTS TOGETHER AND COME TO SOME KIND OF A WELL-REASONED CONCLUSION? DON'T YOU DO THAT?

WELL, CERTAINLY.

IN THE COURSE OF THAT, DON'T YOU NEED ALL THE FACTS AS IT RELATES TO THE CASE?

IT'S GOOD TO HAVE ALL THE FACTS, ALL THAT YOU CAN GET, YES.

IF YOU JUMP TO A CONCLUSION SOMETIMES, DON'T YOU FIND OUT LATER THAT THERE WERE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU COULD HAVE LOOKED AT BY MAKING A QUICK DECISION IN A PARTICULAR CASE? ISN'T THAT TRUE?

OBJECTION. THAT'S VAGUE, ARGUMENTATIVE.

SUSTAINED.

BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME THAT IT'S NOT GOOD INVESTIGATIVE PRACTICES TO RUSH TO JUDGMENT IN A CASE. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

CERTAINLY.

AND IN THIS CASE, YOU'VE DESCRIBED FOR US THAT THESE CRIMES OCCURRED ON THE EVENING HOURS OF JUNE 12TH, 1994; IS THAT CORRECT?

YES.

AND I BELIEVE YOU SHARED WITH US EARLY ON THAT THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE WAS FILED ON JUNE 17TH, 1994; IS THAT CORRECT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND THAT WAS ON A FRIDAY; IS THAT CORRECT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND WHO WAS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHO FILED THESE CHARGES?

MARCIA CLARK.

AND MISS CLARK WAS AT THE SCENE OF ROCKINGHAM ON WHAT DATE? WHAT'S THE FIRST TIME SHE CAME TO ROCKINGHAM THAT YOU KNEW OF?

I BELIEVE SHE WAS THERE ON THE 13TH.

ON THAT MONDAY?

YES.

AND APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME?

I WASN'T THERE. I DON'T KNOW.

WHEN YOU CAME BACK FROM BEING DOWNTOWN AT PARKER CENTER AFTER ABOUT 5:00 O'CLOCK IN THE EVENING, WAS SHE THERE AT THAT TIME OR HAD SHE LEFT BY THAT TIME, IF YOU KNOW?

I DON'T RECALL SEEING HER THERE.

YOU DO NOT RECALL SEEING HER THERE?

I DON'T RECALL SEEING HER THERE MONDAY EVENING.

ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT ROCKINGHAM. YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THAT YOU'RE GOING OVER TO ROCKINGHAM FROM BUNDY. YOU RECALL THAT.

YES.

AND WITH REGARD TO THIS SMALL RED SPOT ON THE BRONCO, DID YOU SEE THAT YOURSELF?

YES.

WHO POINTED THAT OUT TO YOU?

DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

MARK FUHRMAN POINTED THAT OUT TO YOU ALSO?

YES.

AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE JURY THE SIZE OF THAT -- THIS PURPORTED RED SPOT ON THE BRONCO?

I -- AS TO SIZE, I -- IT CERTAINLY WASN'T WHAT I WOULD CALL A DIME SIZE. IT WOULD PROBABLY BE MUCH SMALLER THAN THAT.

WOULD YOU SAY IT WAS SMALLER THAN AN ERASER HEAD OF A PENCIL?

I WOULD SAY PERHAPS ABOUT THAT SIZE, MAYBE SMALLER.

AND WHEN YOU WERE OUT THERE, DID YOU HAVE ANY PICTURES TAKEN OF THIS SPOT OR SPECK?

I LEFT BEFORE THE PHOTOGRAPHER SHOWED UP.

COULD YOU SEE THAT WITH THE NAKED EYE?

YES.

AND DID YOU -- WAS IT -- WHEN YOU WERE SHOWN THIS BY MARK FUHRMAN, DID YOU HAVE YOUR FLASHLIGHT OR WAS IT LIGHT OUT BY THIS TIME?

IT WAS LIGHT ENOUGH TO SEE.

AND WHEN YOU WERE SHOWN THIS BY FUHRMAN, WERE YOU THE ONLY ONE THERE AT THAT TIME?

I BELIEVE SO. I THINK PHILLIPS AND VANNATTER WERE DOWN THE STREET JUST A BIT.

AND IF YOU KNOW, WERE YOU THE FIRST ONE SHOWN THAT IN SEQUENCE?

I WAS THE CLOSEST TO FUHRMAN. SO I BELIEVE I WAS.

ALL RIGHT. AND HE CALLED YOU OVER TO SHOW THIS TO YOU. AND AFTER YOU SAW THIS SMALL PERHAPS ERASER HEAD SIZE SPOT OR SPECK, DID YOU AT THAT POINT LOOK INSIDE THE CAR YOURSELF, LOOK INSIDE THIS VEHICLE?

AT THAT POINT, NO.

YOU DIDN'T LOOK INSIDE WITH THE USE OF FLASHLIGHTS AT ALL?

NOT AT THAT POINT, NO.

AND THIS WAS THE VEHICLE THAT WAS PARKED KIND OF AT THIS FUNNY ANGLE; IS THAT CORRECT?

IT APPEARED TO BE JETTING OUT. THE REAR END APPEARED TO BE JETTING OUT A LITTLE BIT, YES.

NOW, YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE -- YOU HAD INFORMATION THAT YOU THOUGHT THAT THE MAID WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE. WHERE DID YOU GET THAT INFORMATION FROM?

IT WAS RELAYED TO ME BY DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AFTER SPEAKING WITH WESTEC.

THIS WAS A SUNDAY EVENING, EARLY MONDAY MORNING; IS THAT CORRECT?

THIS WAS EARLY MONDAY MORNING.

ALL RIGHT. AND YOU ARE AWARE THAT MAIDS HAVE DAYS OFF, ARE YOU?

SOME DO AND SOME DON'T I IMAGINE.

AND YOU -- THIS WAS HEARSAY INFORMATION YOU GOT FROM DETECTIVE PHILLIPS ABOUT THE MAID SUPPOSEDLY BEING THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

THAT WOULD BE PROBABLY HEARSAY, YES.

NOW, YOU SAW --

OBJECTION. THAT'S REALLY HEARSAY. THEY'RE NOT IN COURT.

SUSTAINED.

BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU SAW TWO VEHICLES IN THE DRIVEWAY THAT EVENING?

YES. THAT MORNING.

AND AT THE TIME THAT -- BEFORE -- AT THE TIME THAT YOU DIRECTED MARK FUHRMAN TO GO OVER THIS WALL, AT THAT POINT, HAD YOU FOCUSED ON MR. O.J. SIMPSON AS A SUSPECT IN THIS CASE?

NO.

SO THE THINGS YOU HAD SEEN UP TO THAT POINT DID NOT CAUSE YOU TO BELIEVE HE WAS A SUSPECT, RIGHT?

I SPECIFICALLY RECALL DISCUSSING IT WITH PHILLIPS, FUHRMAN AND VANNATTER THAT WE FELT WE HAD AN EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE AND THAT SOMEONE INSIDE COULD BE BLEEDING OR WORSE.

ALL RIGHT. SO YOU WERE GOING IN TO SAVE BODIES; IS THAT RIGHT?

WE WERE GOING IN TO INVESTIGATE IF ANYONE IN FACT HAD BEEN A VICTIM, YES.

AND BEFORE YOU WENT INSIDE, DID YOU LOOK INSIDE THE BRONCO ANYMORE AT ALL, EITHER VISUALLY OR THROUGH THE USE OF YOUR FLASHLIGHT?

I DON'T BELIEVE I DID AT THAT TIME, NO.

YOU BELIEVE WHAT?

AT THAT TIME, NO.

WHEN BOTH YOU AND VANNATTER WERE AT THE ROCKINGHAM SCENE BEFORE YOU WENT OVER -- HAD FUHRMAN CLIMB OVER THIS FENCE, WHO WAS IN CHARGE?

IT WOULD BE VANNATTER AND MYSELF WORKING AS PARTNERS. IT WASN'T ONE PERSON THAT WOULD BE IN CHARGE.

SO YOU WERE BOTH CO-PARTNERS OR CO-LEAD INVESTIGATORS AT THAT POINT?

YES.

NOW, YOU SHARED WITH US YOUR NOTES THAT WERE WRITTEN CHRONOLOGICALLY AT THE SCENE ON THAT PARTICULAR DATE, JUNE 13TH, 1994. WITH REGARD TO THE ALLEGED BLOOD SPOTS THAT WERE ON THE REAR GATE, DID YOU EVER WRITE DOWN OR LOG THAT THE BLOOD SPOTS WERE -- THAT THERE WERE BLOOD SPOTS ON THAT REAR GATE IN YOUR NOTES?

I DON'T BELIEVE I DID.

AND THAT -- WOULDN'T THAT HAVE BEEN AN IMPORTANT CIRCUMSTANCE?

NOT NECESSARILY. THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE CRIMINALISTS COLLECTING THEM.

I SEE. SO A REVIEW OF YOUR NOTES INDICATE YOU DIDN'T WRITE THAT DOWN, RIGHT?

I DON'T BELIEVE I DID.

AND THAT EVIDENCE, IF IT WAS THERE, WAS NOT COLLECTED UNTIL APPROXIMATELY THREE WEEKS LATER ON JULY 3RD; IS THAT RIGHT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND ON JULY 3RD, YOU WERE GOING TO SHOW THE D.A.'S WALK THROUGH AT THAT LOCATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

YES.

MISS CLARK AND THEN MR. HODGMAN; IS THAT CORRECT?

YES.

AND YOU CALLED, AS I UNDERSTAND, THE CRIMINALISTS TO THE SCENE AFTER YOU GOT OUT THERE ON JULY 3RD, IS THAT CORRECT, AFTER 10:00 CLOCK IN THE MORNING?

I BELIEVE THAT'S --

ARE WE GOING INTO SOMETHING NEW ON THIS BECAUSE WE VISITED THIS ONCE THOROUGHLY BEFORE.

YEAH. JUST -- THIS IS COMING IN, YOUR HONOR.

ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT CORRECT?

YES.

WITH REGARD TO THE LIGHTING THAT YOU SAW AT THE BUNDY LOCATION, DO YOU RECALL TESTIFYING BEFORE THE GRAND JURY IN THIS MATTER REGARDING THE LIGHTING AND THE CONDITION OF THE LIGHTING AT THE BUNDY SCENE?

I RECALL TESTIFYING AT THE GRAND JURY, BUT NOT AS TO SPECIFICS OF THE LIGHTING.

LET ME ASK YOU IF YOU WERE ASKED THESE QUESTIONS AND GAVE THESE ANSWERS. I THINK IT'S PAGE --

BY MR. COCHRAN: "QUESTION: SIR, WHEN YOU ARRIVED, CAN YOU TELL ME IF YOU NOTICED THE LIGHTING IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING THERE? WAS THERE ANY? "ANSWER: THERE WAS A PORCH LIGHT UP THE PORCH. "QUESTION: UP ON THE LANDING? "ANSWER: YES. "QUESTION: DOES THAT ILLUMINATE THE WALKWAY? "ANSWER: YES. "QUESTION: IN ANY EFFECTIVE WAY? "ANSWER: IT WOULD HAVE ILLUMINATED IT SOME WAY. THE LIGHTING I WOULDN'T SAY WAS EXCELLENT, BUT IT WAS FAR FROM BEING DARK. IT WAS ILLUMINATED." DOES THAT -- DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION OF YOUR TESTIMONY AT THE GRAND JURY?

I WOULD SAY THAT IF THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS, CERTAINLY THAT'S WHAT I SAID.

AND AS YOU THINK ABOUT IT AS YOU SIT HERE NOW, IS THAT A FAIR --

BY MR. COCHRAN: AND WENT ON TO SAY: "THAT WAS THE CONDITION YOU FOUND IT IN? "ANSWER: YES." NOW, AS YOU THINK ABOUT IT AS YOU SIT HERE NOW, IS THAT A FAIR AND ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF THE LIGHTING THAT YOU SAW OUT ON BUNDY ON THAT NIGHT OF JUNE 12TH, IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE 13TH?

NO. CERTAINLY THAT'S NOT ALL THE LIGHTING. THAT WAS THE PORCH LIGHT.

I KNOW THERE'S OTHER LIGHTS. BUT IS THAT A -- WITH REGARD TO THE LIGHTING THAT CAME FROM THE PORCH LIGHT, IS THAT A FAIR AND ACCURATE STATEMENT OF THE LIGHTING THAT CAME FROM THAT PORCH LIGHT?

AS TO THE WALKWAY, YES.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, THERE WERE OTHER LIGHTS ALSO; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

YES.

AND OVERALL, WOULD YOU SAY THE LIGHTING THERE WAS -- MADE THE PREMISES FAR FROM BEING DARK?

WELL, THAT WOULD BE A SUBJECTIVE CALL. I -- IT CERTAINLY WASN'T PITCH BLACK TO THE EXTENT YOU COULDN'T SEE ANYTHING. I WOULD SAY THE LIGHTING WAS POOR, BUT STILL LIGHT ENOUGH WHERE YOU COULD SEE CERTAIN THINGS.

ALL RIGHT. WITH REGARD TO THE BLOOD SPOTS THAT WERE GOING IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION TOWARD THE REAR OF THE 875 LOCATION, DO YOU REMEMBER THOSE?

YES.

YOU DESCRIBED FOR US I BELIEVE ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT AT ONE POINT, YOU SAW FOOTSTEPS THAT TURNED TOWARD THE HOUSE. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

THEY APPEARED TO, YES.

AND IT WAS -- CAN YOU POINT OUT IF I WERE TO SHOW YOU, WHICH I BELIEVE IS 43-A OR HAVE 43-A PUT UP.

CAN WE GET 43-A?

BY MR. COCHRAN: PERHAPS YOU CAN POINT THAT OUT FOR US.

YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE YOU'LL HAVE TO CUT THE FEED FOR THIS PHOTO.

WHILE MR. FAIRTLOUGH IS LOOKING AT THAT, MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

YOU MAY.

I'LL APPROACH AND PLACE A PHOTOGRAPH BEFORE HIM.

BY MR. COCHRAN: DETECTIVE LANGE, I AM GOING TO PLACE A PHOTOGRAPH BEFORE YOU. I'M NOT SURE OF THE NUMBER OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH, BUT I SEE THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S NUMBER 112 IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH OFF TO THE LEFT TOWARDS THE HOUSE. I'M GOING TO PLACE THIS BEFORE YOU. CAN YOU LOOK AT THAT PHOTOGRAPH? DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT'S DEPICTED THERE?

YES. THIS IS THE WALKWAY LOOKING WEST.

ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU LOOK AT THAT PHOTOGRAPH AND BEFORE I PUT IT ON THE ELMO, AND CAN YOU SHOW ME WHERE THOSE FOOTSTEPS ARE THAT POINT TOWARD THE HOUSE --

NO.

-- IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH? YOU CAN'T SHOW?

NO.

ALL RIGHT. I BELIEVE YOU WERE SHOWN THIS PHOTOGRAPH BEFORE AND YOU WERE ABLE TO SAY THERE WAS A DISTANCE OF PERHAPS THREE FEET BETWEEN WHERE THERE'S A FOOTPRINT AND WHERE YOU FOUND A DROP OF BLOOD; IS THAT CORRECT, APPROXIMATELY?

LOOKS LIKE A LITTLE MORE, BUT YES, APPROXIMATELY.

ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT IS YOUR RECOLLECTION REGARDING -- THERE WAS A BLOOD DROP FOUND AT THE NUMBER OF THE CARD THAT INDICATES 112; IS THAT CORRECT?

YES.

WHAT IS YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION OF HOW FAR BEHIND THAT PURPORTED BLOOD DROP WAS THE CLOSEST SET OF FOOTPRINTS?

I DON'T RECALL. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE STRIDE ANALYSIS OR THE SCHEMATIC OR SOME BETTER PHOTOGRAPHS THAN THIS.

DID YOU NOT TELL US THERE WAS SOME KIND OF A MEASUREMENT WITH REGARD TO THE TILE OR WHATEVER, HOW FAR EACH OF THOSE TILES -- WHAT'S THE DISTANCE OF EACH TILE?

I BELIEVE IT'S 11 AND A HALF BY 11 AND A HALF.

AND YOUR RECOLLECTION, YOUR BELIEF WAS THAT THAT 112 WAS PERHAPS THREE, THREE AND A HALF FEET FROM THE NEAREST FOOTPRINTS; IS THAT CORRECT?

I BELIEVE THE NEAREST FOOTPRINTS DEPICTED HERE. THIS IS A VERY POOR PHOTOGRAPH. IT'S HARD TO TELL WITH THE SUNLIGHT ON THERE.

ALL RIGHT. THIS IS ONE OF YOUR PHOTOGRAPHS, BUT I'LL SEE IF WE CAN GET A BETTER ONE.

ALL RIGHT.

NOW, CAN YOU LOOK ON THERE AND TELL US WHERE THE FOOTPRINTS WERE TURNED TOWARD THE HOUSE?

NO. AGAIN, IF I COULD SEE A SCHEMATIC OR A BETTER PHOTOGRAPH --

ALL RIGHT. NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE -- YOU MENTIONED A COUPLE OF TIMES A STRIDE ANALYSIS. DO YOU USE SOME KIND OF AN EXPERT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON WHO WAS -- DROPPED THIS BLOOD, WAS THAT PERSON RUNNING OR WALKING? DID YOU FIND -- USE SOMEBODY TO TRY TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION?

THERE WERE PERSONS WHO LOOKED AT THAT, YES.

AND YOU GOT A REPORT IN THAT CONNECTION? YOU CAN ANSWER THAT YES OR NO.

WELL, I HAVE A PARTIAL REPORT ON THE STRIDE ANALYSIS AS TO THE BLOOD. I DON'T --

PARTIAL REPORT ON STRIDE ANALYSIS?

YES.

IT'S YOUR OPINION THAT THE PERSON WHO WAS HEADING WESTBOUND TOWARD THAT ALLEYWAY WAS DRIPPING BLOOD; IS THAT CORRECT?

YES.

AND IN THAT CONNECTION, YOU AND I DISCUSSED THAT THAT WAS A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 120 FEET GIVE OR TAKE; IS THAT CORRECT?

APPROXIMATELY, YES.

AND IN THAT 120 FEET DISTANCE FROM THE FRONT TO THE BACK, YOU FOUND WHAT YOU BELIEVED TO BE FOUR BLOOD DROPS; IS THAT CORRECT?

WELL, IT WOULD BE FIVE INCLUDING THE ONE IN THE ALLEY.

WELL, THIS ONE IN THE ALLEY WHICH I'M SEPARATING OUT, THAT'S IN THE ALLEY. BUT FOUR IN THIS WALKWAY AREA; IS THAT RIGHT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

FOUR -- FOUR BLOOD DROPS IN THIS 120 FEET AREA; IS THAT CORRECT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND THEN A FIFTH ONE WOULD BE IN THE ALLEYWAY; IS THAT CORRECT?

YES.

AND WE'VE ESTABLISHED THERE'S NO WAY YOU COULD DATE THOSE FOOTPRINTS, RIGHT?

DATE THE FOOTPRINTS?

STRIKE THAT. THERE'S NO WAY YOU COULD DATE ANY BLOOD DROPS?

ONE CANNOT NECESSARILY TELL THE AGE OF BLOOD, NO.

AND WITH REGARD TO THIS MATTER, DID YOU HAVE AN EXPERT WHO DID ANY KIND OF BLOOD SPATTER ANALYSIS REGARDING THESE BLOOD DROPS?

THERE WAS SOMEONE WHO DID LOOK AT THE BLOOD SPATTER, YES.

AND DO YOU HAVE SUCH AN EXPERT?

I DON'T, NO.

BY THE WAY, WITH REGARD TO THE EYEGLASSES, WERE THE EYEGLASSES EVER CHECKED OR ANALYZED FOR ANY TRACE EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT BE ON THEM, ON THE GLASSES?

I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I BELIEVE IN FACT THAT THEY ARE STILL IN THE ENVELOPE BECAUSE TESTS ARE BEING CONDUCTED AND WERE BEING CONDUCTED ON THE ENVELOPE.

ALL RIGHT. SO YOUR ANSWER IS, YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE EYEGLASSES HAVE BEEN EXAMINED FOR TRACE EVIDENCE?

I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S BEEN IN THE CUSTODY OF THE CRIMINALISTS FOR SOME TIME.

ALL RIGHT. AGAIN -- BUT NOW, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE CRIMINALIST. THE CRIMINALIST WORKS HOWEVER UNDER YOUR DIRECTION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

AT THE CRIME SCENE, YES.

AND -- WELL, THE CRIMINALIST IS NOT A POLICE OFFICER.

THAT'S CORRECT. THEY'VE CIVILIAN.

CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE?

YES.

YOU CALL THEM TO THE SCENE; IS THAT CORRECT?

GENERALLY, YES.

AND IN THIS CASE, DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT TIME YOU CALLED THE CRIMINALIST TO THE SCENE?

I DID NOT CALL THE CRIMINALIST. THE CRIMINALIST I BELIEVE WAS CALLED BY SOMEONE ELSE TO THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION.

ALL RIGHT. AND WHO CALLED THEM TO THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?

I HAD RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM MY PARTNER THAT THE CRIMINALIST WAS EN ROUTE THERE. SO IT WAS EITHER HIM OR HE HAD SOMEONE DO IT.

SO YOU'RE NOT FOR SURE WHO CALLED?

NO.

BUT AT ANY RATE, SO WE'RE CLEAR, THE CRIMINALIST WENT TO THE ROCKINGHAM SCENE BEFORE EVER COMING TO THE BUNDY LOCATION, RIGHT?

YES.

AND WHAT WAS YOUR BEST APPROXIMATION OF WHAT TIME THE CRIMINALIST ARRIVED AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE?

THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, I BELIEVE THE CRIMINALIST ARRIVED AT APPROXIMATELY 10:00, 10:15, SOMEWHERE IN THERE.

AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROXIMATELY AN HOUR AFTER THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR ARRIVED THERE AT ABOUT 9:10; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

YES.

IN YOUR INVESTIGATIONS, DO YOU NORMALLY LIKE TO HAVE A CRIMINALIST THERE BEFORE THE CORONER ARRIVES?

UNDER IDEAL CIRCUMSTANCES, I WOULD LIKE EVERYONE THERE AS SOON AS THEY CAN GET THERE.

AND AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE. ISN'T THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

CERTAINLY.

HELPS YOU DO YOUR JOB BETTER; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

I WOULD SAY SO.

SO IN THIS INSTANCE, IF THE -- IF RISKE ARRIVED TO THE SCENE AT 12:10, THE FIRST CRIMINALIST ON THE SCENE WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE ABOUT -- AFTER 10:00 CLOCK, 10:15. SO PERHAPS THAT WOULD BE 10 HOURS AND FIVE MINUTES LATER; IS THAT RIGHT?

I BELIEVE THAT'S THE WAY IT FIGURES, YES.

THE BODIES HAD BEEN MOVED BY THE TIME THE TWO CRIMINALISTS GOT THERE?

I BELIEVE THEY ARRIVED AT THE TIME THAT THEY WERE GETTING EXAMINED BY THE -- AND MOVED, YES, ABOUT THAT TIME.

NOW --

YOUR HONOR, THERE'S AN EXHIBIT THAT I THINK -- I WANT TO CHECK WITH COUNSEL.

MAY I JUST HAVE A SECOND?

I HAVE IN MY HAND EXHIBIT DEFENDANT'S 1039, YOUR HONOR.

YOUR HONOR, CAN WE APPROACH?

ALL RIGHT, WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE.