THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE'VE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. DETECTIVE LANGE IS STILL ON THE WITNESS STAND ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MISS CLARK. AND, DETECTIVE LANGE, GOOD MORNING AGAIN. YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH.

YES, YOUR HONOR.

MISS CLARK.

THANK YOU.

BY MS. CLARK: SIR, WE WERE TALKING EARLIER ABOUT THE REEBOK'S THAT THE DEFENDANT POINTED OUT TO YOU ON JUNE THE 13TH?

YES.

OKAY. NOW, YOU -- YOU -- I THINK YOU ALREADY TESTIFIED THAT YOU TOOK THEM AT THAT POINT --

BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

OVERRULED. IT'S FOUNDATIONAL.

BY MS. CLARK: YOU TOOK THEM AT THAT POINT FROM HIS CLOSET; IS THAT CORRECT?

YES.

ALL RIGHT. AND THEN WHERE DID YOU GO?

I PROCEEDED DOWN -- DOWN TO THE FIRST LEVEL AND OUT TO MY VEHICLE.

DO YOU RECALL, SIR, ABOUT WHAT TIME IT WAS WHEN YOU DID THAT?

I BELIEVE IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 6:15, 6:30 P.M., SOMEWHERE IN THERE.

ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU LEFT THE RESIDENCE, WHEN YOU EXITED THE HOUSE AT ROCKINGHAM, DID YOU SEE MR. FUNG ANYWHERE?

NO.

DID YOU KNOW IF HE WAS EVEN STILL THERE AT ROCKINGHAM?

OBJECTION. LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

OVERRULED.

I DON'T BELIEVE HE WAS.

BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU WERE -- WE WERE TALKING EARLIER ABOUT THE -- JUST BEFORE THE BREAK ABOUT THE WALK THROUGH ON AUGUST 27TH WITH THE DEFENSE TEAM.

YES.

MR. COCHRAN MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT A KNIT CAP THAT WAS POINTED OUT TO YOU BY ONE OF THE INVESTIGATORS OR THE CRIMINALIST FOR THE DEFENSE.

I BELIEVE IT WAS BY MR. COCHRAN HIMSELF.

OKAY. AND DID YOU SEIZE THAT KNIT CAP THAT HE POINTED OUT TO YOU, SIR?

NO.

WHY NOT?

A CHILD'S CAP?

YES.

DID YOU EVER ASK THAT A TIRE TRACK EXPERT LOOK AT TIRE TRACKS IN THE REAR ALLEY BEHIND 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

NO.

P-38.

BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT, SIR. DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT'S SHOWN IN P-38 ON THE SCREEN NOW?

YES. IT'S LOOKING IN THE ALLEY IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION BEHIND THE BUNDY LOCATION.

AND IS THAT THE ALLEY BEHIND 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

YES.

OKAY. NOW, IS THAT ALLEY, IS IT CEMENT OR IS IT ASPHALT?

IT'S ASPHALT.

AND YOU INDICATED JUST NOW, SIR, THAT YOU DID NOT ASK THAT A TIRE TRACK EXPERT EXAMINE THE ALLEYWAY BEHIND THE LOCATION OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY.

THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY. COULD YOU PLEASE TELL THE JURY WHY NOT?

IT'S A VERY COMMONLY USED SURFACE. THERE ARE MANY, MANY TIRE TRACKS SUPERIMPOSED OVER ONE ANOTHER AND THERE WOULD JUST BE NO WAY TO DISTINGUISH ONE FROM ANOTHER.

AND HAVE YOU EVER -- WELL, WHEN YOU WERE OUT THERE, DID YOU LOOK AT THE ALLEYWAY BEHIND 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

YOUR HONOR, MAY I INTERPOSE AN OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO THIS AREA? BEYOND THE EXPERTISE OF THIS WITNESS. WE'RE TALKING TWO SEPARATE THINGS.

OVERRULED AT THIS POINT.

ALL RIGHT.

BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU YOURSELF LOOK AT THE ALLEYWAY BEHIND 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

YES.

WERE YOU ABLE TO OBSERVE ANY DISTINGUISHABLE TIRE TRACKS YOURSELF?

NOTHING DISTINGUISHABLE.

TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, SIR, IS THERE ANY WAY TO TELL WHEN TIRE TRACKS ARE MADE?

I DON'T KNOW OF ANY.

OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION. BEYOND THE SCOPE, NO FOUNDATION.

SUSTAINED. DO YOU WANT TO DO A LITTLE MORE FOUNDATION WITH THIS DETECTIVE AS TO TIRE TRACKS?

YES, YOUR HONOR.

BY MS. CLARK: SIR, HAVE YOU EVER ASKED THAT A TIRE TRACKS EXPERT BE CALLED OUT TO A SCENE TO EXAMINE --

YES.

AND HAVE YOU CONSULTED AND CONFERRED WITH THEM CONCERNING THEIR FINDINGS AT ANY PARTICULAR CRIME SCENES?

YES.

ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS, SIR, APPROXIMATELY?

I -- THERE HAVEN'T BEEN THAT MANY QUITE FRANKLY. EIGHT, 10 MAYBE TIMES AT THE MOST.

AND HAVE YOU CONSULTED WITH THEM ABOUT WHAT THEY LOOK FOR IN TIRE TRACKS?

YES.

AND HAVE YOU CONSULTED WITH THEM ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE ABLE TO TELL YOU BY LOOKING AT TIRE TRACKS?

YES.

AND HAVE YOU EVER -- HAVE THEY EVER TESTIFIED IN ANY OF THE CASES THAT YOU HAVE PREPARED OR CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATIONS IN?

YES.

BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE THEN WITH THEM, SIR, ARE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE ABLE TO TELL -- THEY ARE ABLE TO TELL WHETHER -- WHEN TIRE TRACKS ARE MADE?

NO.

OBJECT TO THE FROM OF THAT QUESTION. HEARSAY, NO FOUNDATION, IT'S HEARSAY.

OVERRULED. OVERRULED.

NO.

BY MS. CLARK: NO WHAT?

I NEVER HEARD ANYONE BE ABLE TO TESTIFY TO THE -- THE AGE OF THE TIRE TRACK.

ALL RIGHT, SIR. NOW, YOU WERE ASKED ALSO BY COUNSEL ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT ANY EXAMINATION WAS DONE ON THE DOG, NICOLE'S AKITA ON HIS TEETH TO SEE IF HE HAD BITTEN ANYONE RECENTLY.

YES.

ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY KIND OF EXAMINATION THAT COULD EVER TELL YOU THAT?

I'VE NEVER HEARD OF ONE.

NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT -- EARLIER ON CROSS-EXAMINATION AS WELL THAT THE DETECTIVE OR OFFICER HEIDER SPOKE TO SIDNEY SIMPSON, THAT'S THE LITTLE GIRL, NICOLE'S DAUGHTER?

ONE OF THE OFFICERS DID, YES. I DON'T RECALL THE NAME.

AND I THINK YOU INDICATED THAT YOU ASKED DENISE BROWN TO SPEAK TO HER, TO SIDNEY?

YES.

OBJECTION. LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

IT'S FOUNDATIONAL.

OVERRULED.

YES, I DID.

BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. AND DID YOU PREPARE A REPORT OF YOUR REQUEST OF DENISE BROWN TO SPEAK TO SIDNEY SIMPSON?

NO.

OKAY. FIRST OF ALL, WHY DIDN'T YOU WRITE A REPORT OF THAT REQUEST?

THE RESULTS OF THE INTERVIEW WERE NEGATIVE. THERE WAS NO REASON TO --

I OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. HEARSAY.

OVERRULED.

BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. WHY DIDN'T YOU HAVE AN OFFICER SPEAK TO SIDNEY?

OKAY. DOES THAT CONTINUE TO BE THE CASE, SIR?

TO MY KNOWLEDGE, YES.

LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

OVERRULED.

BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. ALSO, YOU INDICATED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, SIR, THAT YOU HAD -- YOU ASKED DETECTIVE RON PHILLIPS TO SPEAK TO OFFICER VASQUEZ CONCERNING SIDNEY SIMPSON AND THE CONTACT THAT SHE HAD WITH THE OFFICERS AT WEST L.A. STATION BEFORE SHE WAS PICKED UP LATER IN THE MORNING. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

I BELIEVE SO.

AND YOU INDICATED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT YOU MADE NO REPORT OF DETECTIVE PHILLIPS' CONVERSATION WITH OFFICER VASQUEZ CONCERNING SIDNEY SIMPSON'S BEHAVIOR AT THE STATION. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

YES.

WHY WAS THERE NO REPORT WRITTEN CONCERNING SIDNEY SIMPSON'S CONVERSATION OR BEHAVIOR AT THE POLICE STATION?

THERE WAS NOTHING MORE TO SAY. THE REPORT HAD ALREADY BEEN WRITTEN.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT, SIR?

THE REPORT WAS WRITTEN AS TO THE INTERVIEW BY THE FEMALE OFFICER. IT WENT NO FARTHER THAN THAT. FROM THAT, I MADE AN INQUIRY WITH THE BROWN FAMILY.

OKAY. AND THEN -- SO YOU ATTEMPTED TO FOLLOW UP WHAT WAS IN THAT REPORT THROUGH THE BROWN FAMILY?

THAT'S CORRECT.

LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

SUSTAINED.

BY MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY? SO AFTER YOU READ THAT REPORT, SIR, WHAT DID YOU DO?

I CONTACTED THE BROWN FAMILY.

OKAY. AND YOU MADE SOME REQUESTS OF SOMEONE IN THE FAMILY?

YES.

WHAT WAS THAT?

I REQUESTED THAT DENISE BROWN AND THE FAMILY TALK TO SIDNEY REGARDING THE STATEMENT.

AND DID THEY DO SO, SIR, AT YOUR REQUEST?

YES.

AND AS A RESULT OF HAVING DONE SO, WHAT HAPPENED?

I RECEIVED A CALL A FEW DAYS AFTER THAT FROM DENISE BROWN, AND SHE STATED THAT SHE --

OBJECTION. HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

THIS IS HEARSAY.

BY MS. CLARK: DID THE INFORMATION YOU RECEIVED FROM DENISE BROWN CAUSE YOU TO GENERATE ANY FURTHER REPORT, SIR?

NO.

OR CONDUCT ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION, SIR?

NO.

OR ATTACH ANY SIGNIFICANCE TO THE REPORT WRITTEN BY OFFICER HEIDER AND VASQUEZ?

NO.

OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT, SPECULATION.

SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE LAST QUESTION AND ANSWER.

BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. AT -- WHEN YOU WERE AT ROCKINGHAM, SIR, I BELIEVE YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WERE NEARBY WHEN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS MADE THE PHONE CALL TO CHICAGO TO NOTIFY THE DEFENDANT?

YES.

AND YOU WERE -- WHO WERE YOU WITH AT THAT TIME?

I WAS IN THE VICINITY OF ARNELLE SIMPSON.

OKAY. NOW, ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, SIR, YOU INDICATED IN RESPONSE TO ONE OF MR. COCHRAN'S QUESTIONS THAT ARNELLE TOLD YOU THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS IN CHICAGO BUT THAT SHE TOLD YOU THAT SUBSEQUENT.

OBJECTION. THIS IS LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

BY MS. CLARK: WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?

OVERRULED.

I THOUGHT I MEANT THAT ARNELLE SIMPSON TOLD ME THAT AFTER SHE MADE A TELEPHONE CALL TO CATHY RANDA.

BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. PRIOR TO THE PHONE CALL THAT ARNELLE MADE TO CATHY RANDA, DID YOU ASK HER THE DEFENDANT'S WHEREABOUTS?

I DON'T BELIEVE I DID.

DID SOMEONE ASK HER?

I BELIEVE MY PARTNER DID.

OKAY. AND WHAT WAS HER RESPONSE?

THAT'S HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

SUSTAINED.

BY MS. CLARK: DID YOU -- DID SHE GIVE YOU ANY INFORMATION CONCERNING WHERE THE DEFENDANT COULD BE FOUND?

HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

OVERRULED.

SHE DIDN'T KNOW.

THAT'S HEARSAY. MOVE TO STRIKE IT.

THAT WILL BE STRICKEN. THE QUESTION IS, DID SHE GIVE YOU ANY INFORMATION, YES OR NO.

AS TO HIS WHEREABOUTS, NO.

NEXT QUESTION.

BY MS. CLARK: WHEN YOU WERE AT THE LOCATION, SIR, AT THAT TIME, APPROXIMATELY 6:00 A.M., DID YOU GO UPSTAIRS TO LOOK FOR MR. SIMPSON OR ANY POSSIBLE INJURED VICTIMS?

NO.

WHY NOT?

BY THAT TIME, WE'D BEEN INFORMED THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS IN CHICAGO.

HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR. OBJECT TO THE FORM.

OVERRULED.

BY MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY?

HAD BEEN INFORMED THAT MR. SIMPSON WAS IN CHICAGO. WAS NO NEED TO GO UPSTAIRS.

SO WHEN YOU -- WHEN YOU FIRST ENTERED THE HOUSE, SIR, HOW LONG DID IT TAKE FROM THE POINT OF ENTRY INTO THE HOUSE WITH ARNELLE SIMPSON TO THE POINT WHEN THE PHONE CALL WAS MADE TO TRY TO LOCATE MR. SIMPSON?

IT WAS A MATTER OF MINUTES. IT WASN'T A LONG TIME AT ALL.

WAS THERE ANY SEARCH CONDUCTED PRIOR TO THAT PHONE CALL?

THE ONLY THING I DID CLOSE TO A SEARCH WAS, I ENTERED THE HOUSEKEEPER'S QUARTERS.

THE MAID'S ROOM?

YES.

AND WHY WAS THAT?

TO CHECK ON THE WELFARE OF THE HOUSEMAID IF SHE WERE THERE -- IF SHE WAS THERE OR INJURED OR WHATEVER.

SO WHAT EVENTS TRANSPIRED BETWEEN THE TIME YOU ENTERED THROUGH THE REAR DOOR AND YOU MADE THE PHONE CALL TO TRY AND LOCATE MR. SIMPSON?

I WALKED THROUGH THE HOUSE THROUGH THE KITCHEN INTO THE MAID'S QUARTERS. I CHECKED THAT. I CAME BACK OUT. ARNELLE SIMPSON WAS IN THE KITCHEN AREA WITH DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, AND AT THAT TIME, THEY WERE MAKING PHONE CALLS.

NOW, WHEN YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE, SIR, WHO WAS WITH YOU WHEN YOU FIRST WENT IN THROUGH THE BACK DOOR WITH ARNELLE?

DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND I BELIEVE DETECTIVE VANNATTER WAS BEHIND US AND FUHRMAN.

I AM SORRY. DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

YES.

WHERE WAS HE?

HE WAS BEHIND US WITH KATO KAELIN.

AND THEN YOU ENTERED THE HOUSE; IS THAT RIGHT?

YES.

AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE MAKING THAT -- EXCUSE ME -- DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WAS MAKING THE PHONE CALL TO -- WAS ON THE PHONE WITH CATHY RANDA AND THEN LATER THE DEFENDANT, WAS MARK FUHRMAN STANDING BY YOU?

I DON'T BELIEVE HE WAS.

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU SAW MARK FUHRMAN PRIOR TO MAKING THE PHONE CALLS?

AT THE TIME I ENTERED THE REAR OF THE HOUSE.

AFTER THAT POINT, DID YOU SEE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WHEN YOU WERE -- AT THE TIME THAT THE PHONE CALLS WERE BEING MADE?

I DON'T RECALL SEEING HIM AT THE TIME, NO.

WHEN WAS THE NEXT TIME THAT YOU ACTUALLY SAW DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AFTER YOU ALL ENTERED THE HOUSE THROUGH THE REAR DOOR?

IT WAS AT THE TIME THAT HE APPROACHED ME.

AND DID WHAT?

AND ASKED ME TO STEP OUTSIDE WITH HIM.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU WERE -- DID YOU SEE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH MR. KAELIN?

YES.

NOW, WERE YOU AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER THE LEAD INVESTIGATORS THERE THAT NIGHT?

YES.

SO DID -- WHAT DID THAT MEAN IN TERMS OF HOW YOU GUIDED THE ACTIONS OF THE OTHER OFFICERS PRESENT?

WHAT DID THAT MEAN IN HOW I GUIDED THE OTHER OFFICERS?

YEAH. WERE THEY ALLOWED TO JUST GO AHEAD AND DO ANYTHING THEY WANTED TO INVESTIGATION WISE AT ROCKINGHAM OR AT BUNDY?

NO. THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT WE WERE TAKING OVER THE INVESTIGATION.

YOUR HONOR, I MOVE TO STRIKE THAT, "THEY UNDERSTOOD." CALLS FOR SPECULATION, WHAT THEY UNDERSTOOD.

IT'S A CONCLUSION BY THE WITNESS AS TO WHAT THEY UNDERSTOOD. WHY DON'T YOU REASK THE QUESTION.

BY MS. CLARK: WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING, SIR, OF WHAT THEIR ABILITY TO INVESTIGATE AND MAKE DECISIONS AT ROCKINGHAM OR AT BUNDY ON THAT NIGHT?

THAT THE DECISIONS WOULD BE MADE BY MY PARTNER AND MYSELF.

OKAY. NOW, DID YOU SEE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN GO IN AND SPEAK TO MR. KAELIN?

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND DID YOU APPROVE OF HIM DOING SO?

YES.

AND WHY?

WE HAD MORE AREAS TO CHECK. MR. FUHRMAN WAS IN FRONT OF ME AND HE KNOCKED ON THE DOOR. IT WAS MOST LOGICAL THAT HE SPEAK TO KATO KAELIN.

AND HAD YOU NOT APPROVED OF HIM GOING IN TO SPEAK TO MR. KAELIN, WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE?

I WOULD HAVE PREVENTED IT.

YOUR HONOR, THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION. IT'S NOT RELEVANT. ALSO, IMMATERIAL.

HE KNOWS WHAT HE WOULD DO, YOUR HONOR.

OVERRULED.

I WOULD HAVE PREVENTED IT.

BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. SIR, I AM GOING TO ASK YOU A SERIES OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CROSS-EXAMINATION CONCERNING THE CORONER AND SHOW YOU SOME PICTURES.

YOUR HONOR, THIS IS GOING TO BE EXHIBIT 45.

ALL RIGHT.

BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. FIRST OF ALL, SIR, YOU SEE THAT ONE WHITE SHOE IN THE BOTTOM PORTION OF THE PHOTOGRAPH?

YES.

ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT -- DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF WHETHER THERE WAS ANY BLOOD IN THE AREA OF THAT WHITE SHOE?

THERE WAS NONE.

NEXT.

EXHIBIT 45-C.

BY MS. CLARK: AGAIN, YOU SEE THE WHITE SHOE IN THE BOTTOM OF THE PHOTOGRAPH?

YES.

DO YOU KNOW WHOSE SHOE THAT IS?

I BELIEVE IT'S THE PHOTOGRAPHER, MR. ROKAHR.

AND DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF WHETHER THERE WAS ANY BLOOD IN THE AREA WHERE THAT SHOE IS IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH?

THERE WAS NONE.

EXHIBIT 45-D.

BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU SEE THE SHOES IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, SIR?

YES.

AND ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE LOCATION -- WITH THE CONDITION OF THE LOCATION WHERE THOSE SHOES WERE ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH, EARLY MORNING HOURS, JUNE THE 13TH?

YES.

ANY BLOOD IN THOSE AREAS, SIR?

THE ONLY BLOOD IS --

OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. THE PICTURE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

OVERRULED. ANYTHING THAT APPEARS TO YOU TO BE BLOOD.

OKAY.

YOUR HONOR, CAN WE APPROACH WITH REGARD TO THIS PHOTOGRAPH BECAUSE I THINK IT'S VAGUE, THIS PART OF THE QUESTION.

OVERRULED.

HOW CAN THE PHOTOGRAPH BE VAGUE?

PROCEED.

OH, I AM SORRY.

BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF THE APPEARANCE OF THE LOCATION WHERE THOSE SHOES ARE SHOWN IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH FROM YOUR OBSERVATION ON THE NIGHT OF -- ON THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE THE 13TH?

YES. IT'S THE WALKWAY ABOVE THE BODIES GOING WEST.

OKAY. AND DO YOU RECALL BY LOOKING AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH WHERE ON THAT WALKWAY THESE SHOES ARE?

YES.

WAS THERE BLOOD IN THAT AREA, SIR?

NO.

YOUR HONOR, OBJECT. I MOVE TO STRIKE THAT ANSWER, "IN THAT AREA." THAT'S VAGUE.

WHERE THE SHOES ARE WAS THE QUESTION.

IN THAT AREA?

WHERE THE SHOES ARE.

WELL, THAT'S -- WELL, THE PICTURE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. I'LL WITHDRAW IT.

ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK.

BY MS. CLARK: THANK YOU. YOU WERE ALSO ASKED, SIR, WHETHER OR NOT THE HANDS OF THE VICTIMS WERE BAGGED.

THAT'S CORRECT.

DO YOU RECALL THAT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

WERE THEY BAGGED, SIR?

NO.

CAN YOU TELL US, PLEASE, WHY NOT?

IT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE THAT ONE WOULD BAG THE HANDS OF A VICTIM WHO'S INVOLVED IN A GUNSHOT FURY TO BE PRESERVED FOR GUNSHOT RESIDUE EXAMINATIONS. THESE HANDS AND THE ENTIRE BODIES WERE PRESERVED IN PLASTIC SHEETS. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY BAGGING OF HANDS OTHER THAN FOR GUNSHOT RESIDUE EXAMINATION.

CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN TO US, SIR, WHAT IS GUNSHOT RESIDUE?

GUNSHOT RESIDUE IS POWDER OR MOLTED METAL MATERIALS THAT COULD BE PART OF A BACK BLAST FROM A HANDGUN THAT COULD TRANSFER THEMSELVES IN ONE -- IN ONE'S HAND IF THEY WERE IN CONTACT WITH A FIREARM IF IT WERE -- IF IT WENT OFF.

OKAY. SO WHAT WILL -- WHAT WILL AN EXPERT DETECT IF HE EXAMINES THE HANDS OF A VICTIM WHO HAS BEEN SHOT OR FIRED A WEAPON?

OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. NO FOUNDATION, HEARSAY, SPECULATION.

OVERRULED. OVERRULED.

WHETHER THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS THAT THAT PARTICULAR PERSON WOULD HAVE BEEN HOLDING A HANDGUN WHEN IT WAS DISCHARGED.

BY MS. CLARK: IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, SIR, BY THE TIME THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATOR ARRIVED, WAS THERE SOME DETERMINATION MADE AS TO THE CAUSE OF DEATH?

YES.

AND WHAT WAS THAT?

SLASHING AND STAB WOUNDS.

AND WAS THERE A DETERMINATION MADE WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER OR NOT ANY FIREARM HAD BEEN USED?

YES.

AND WHAT WAS THAT?

IT'S MY OPINION NONE HAD BEEN USED.

SO WAS THERE ANY REASON TO BAG THE HANDS OF THE VICTIMS?

I SAW NONE.

OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION.

OVERRULED.

I SAW NONE.

BY MS. CLARK: NOW, THE ENTIRE BODIES OF THE VICTIMS WERE BAGGED?

CORRECT.

AND WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THAT?

TO PRESERVE ANY TRACE EVIDENCE OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT BE ON THE BODIES TO BE EXAMINED AT THE CORONER'S OFFICE.

AND WOULD -- WOULD THAT PROCEDURE OF BAGGING THE BODIES -- WHAT WOULD THAT DO WITH RESPECT TO ANY TRACE OR FIBER EVIDENCE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ON THE BODY?

IT WOULD MAINTAIN IT.

NOW, THE NAIL SCRAPINGS OF THE BLOOD FOUND UNDER NICOLE SIMPSON'S NAILS?

YES.

WAS DNA TESTING CONDUCTED ON THOSE SCRAPINGS, SIR?

YES.

AND ARE YOU AWARE OF THE RESULTS OF THOSE SCRAPINGS THAT -- THE DNA TESTS ON THE NAIL SCRAPINGS?

YES, I AM.

AND DID THAT TESTING REVEAL THE BLOOD TO BE HERS?

OBJECTION TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION.

YES.

SUSTAINED.

MOVE TO STRIKE THAT.

NO. CALLS FOR HEARSAY. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE LAST QUESTION AND ANSWER. PROCEED.

BY MS. CLARK: WITH --

BY MS. CLARK: DID THE RESULTS OF THE TEST OF THE NAIL SCRAPINGS UNDER NICOLE SIMPSON'S NAILS CAUSE YOU TO CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION INTO ANY OTHER SUSPECT?

NO.

NOW, YOU SPOKE EARLIER ABOUT WOUNDS ON THE HANDS OF RON GOLDMAN. DO YOU RECALL THAT, SIR?

YES.

AND I THINK YOU ALSO DISCUSSED SCOOPED OUT DIRT IN THE LOCATION THAT WAS NEAR TO HIS BODY?

YES.

WHAT IF ANYTHING DID THAT TELL YOU, THE WOUNDS ON THE HANDS AND THE SCOOPED OUT DIRT?

IN THE AUTOPSY, I OBSERVED CONTUSIONS AND ABRASIONS TO THE REAR OF THE HANDS OF MR. GOLDMAN, ON THE FINGERS AND TO THE REAR OF THE HAND AREA ITSELF. IT INDICATED TO ME THAT HE WAS PROBABLY INVOLVED IN A DEFENSIVE STRUGGLE AND HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO FIGHT BACK AND THAT HE WAS FLAILING HIS ARMS AND HIS HANDS, VERY POSSIBLY RUNNING THEM INTO THE TREE, PERHAPS THE METAL RUNG FENCE OR ONE OF THE STUMPS, SUSTAINING THOSE WOUNDS. I OBSERVED VERY LITTLE ABRASIONS OR CONTUSIONS DIRECTLY OVER THE KNUCKLES.

WHAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT? I MEAN, WHY WERE YOU LOOKING FOR ABRASIONS OR CONTUSIONS OVER THE TOP OF THE KNUCKLES?

IF ONE HAD ABRASIONS OR CONTUSIONS DIRECTLY OVER THE KNUCKLES, IT WOULD INDICATE TO ME THAT PERHAPS THAT PERSON STRUCK THEIR ASSAILANT WITH A CLOSED FIST.

AND DID YOU SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT ON THE HANDS OF RON GOLDMAN THAT -- ANY EVIDENCE THAT WOULD INDICATE TO YOU THAT HE HAD STRUCK THE PERSON WHO ATTACKED HIM WITH A CLOSED FIST?

NOTHING TO ME THAT WAS OVERLY SIGNIFICANT. AGAIN, THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF BRUISING, CONTUSIONS AND ABRASIONS ALL OVER THE HAND, BUT MOST OF IT WAS ON THE FINGERS AND THE BACK OF THE HAND.

NOW, WHAT ABOUT THOSE KEYS? YOU FOUND -- YOU INDICATED EARLIER ON DIRECT AND ON CROSS THAT YOU FOUND KEYS NEAR THE BODY OF RON GOLDMAN. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

YES.

COUNSEL WAS ASKING YOU WHETHER KEYS COULD BE USED AS A WEAPON. OKAY. NOW, FIRST OF ALL, SIR, HOW MANY CASES HAVE YOU HAD INVOLVING MURDER BY MEANS OF A KNIFE?

BY MEANS OF A KNIFE?

UH-HUH. YES.

I'D SAY IN EXCESS OF A HUNDRED.

ALL RIGHT. AND HOW EFFECTIVE DO YOU THINK A SET OF CAR KEYS OR A SET OF KEYS WOULD BE IN -- TO DEFEND ONE'S SELF AGAINST A KNIFE ATTACK?

I WOULD --

OBJECT TO THE FORM. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

OVERRULED.

I WOULD -- I WOULDN'T THINK IT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE AT ALL.

BY MS. CLARK: NOW, THE FACT THAT YOU FOUND THE KEYS BY THE BODY NEXT TO RON GOLDMAN, DID THAT TELL YOU ANYTHING WITH RESPECT TO OR WHETHER OR NOT THOSE KEYS IN FACT WERE USED IN ANY -- IN ANY WAY AS A WEAPON OR AS A DEFENSIVE MEASURE?

I DON'T BELIEVE THEY WERE. I BELIEVE IT INDICATES TO ME THAT THERE'S A STRONG POSSIBILITY MR. GOLDMAN WAS SURPRISED.

THIS IS SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR.

OVERRULED.

OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. SPECULATION.

OVERRULED.

BY MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY. CAN YOU SAY THAT --

AND DROPPED THE KEYS?

YES.

YOUR HONOR, THAT'S LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

BY MS. CLARK: AND AS A RESULT OF BEING SURPRISED, DID WHAT?

AND DROPPED THE KEYS.

LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING, SIR, ABOUT THE CONDITION IN WHICH YOU FOUND RON GOLDMAN.

YOUR HONOR, YOU ARE GOING TO NEED TO CUT THE FEED.

YES.

THIS IS EXHIBIT 43-E.

BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT, SIR. LOOK AT THE SHIRT OF MR. GOLDMAN. IS THAT THE CONDITION IN WHICH YOU FOUND HIM, SIR?

YES.

THE SHIRT APPEARS TO BE PULLED UP IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH; IS THAT RIGHT?

YES, IT DOES.

WHAT IF ANYTHING DID YOU CONCLUDE CONCERNING THE MOVEMENTS OF MR. GOLDMAN BASED ON THE CONDITION OF HIS CLOTHING AND THE POSITION OF THAT SHIRT PULLED UP AS IT IS?

YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THE FORM. THERE'S NO FOUNDATION FOR THIS, YOUR HONOR.

OVERRULED.

THAT HE WAS IN A DEFENSIVE STRUGGLE AND THAT THE ASSAILANT VERY POSSIBLY HAD GRABBED THAT SHIRT AND PULLED IT UP TO THAT -- TO WHERE YOU SEE IT.

BY MS. CLARK: WAS THE SHIRT -- WERE THE SLEEVES PULLED OVER HIS HAND OR THE SHIRT PULLED OVER HIS HAND, EITHER HAND OF MR. GOLDMAN?

I BELIEVE IT WAS PULLED DOWN A BIT.

DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY BASED ON YOUR OBSERVATIONS, SIR, THAT MR. GOLDMAN WAS DRAGGED AT ANY POINT BY THE ASSAILANT AT THE -- AT THAT SCENE?

I SAW NO EVIDENCE OF DRAG MARKS, NO.

BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. YOU WERE ASKED ALSO ABOUT LIVIDITY ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

YES.

CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN TO US WHAT THAT IS?

WELL, MORTIS LIVIDITY IS THE MOVEMENT OF THE BLOOD AND THE BODY TO ITS LOWEST POINT AFTER DEATH USUALLY OCCURRING WITHIN TWO TO THREE HOURS CAUSED BY A GRAVITATIONAL PULL.

NOW, WHAT DOES LIVIDITY HAVE TO DO WITH THE TIME OF DEATH?

THE TIME OF DEATH --

ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR.

WITHOUT FOUNDATION AT THIS POINT.

BY MS. CLARK: WHAT DOES LIVIDITY HAVE TO DO WITH THE TIME OF DEATH?

WITHOUT FOUNDATION, COUNSEL.

OH, I'M SORRY. HE HEARD YOUR RULING AND I DIDN'T. THAT'S WHY --

BY MS. CLARK: SIR, HOW MANY HOMICIDE CASES HAVE YOU HAD?

BEEN INVOLVED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN APPROXIMATELY 250 INVESTIGATIONS.

AND IN EACH OF THOSE CASES, SIR, HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO DISCUSS THE INVESTIGATION WITH THE CORONER?

YES.

AND HAVE YOU HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CORONER IN EACH OF THOSE CASES CONCERNING THE SUBJECT OF LIVIDITY?

AT TIMES.

HAVE YOU READ ARTICLES OR BOOKS ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF LIVIDITY?

YES.

AND HAVE YOU HEARD TESTIMONY FROM CORONERS CONCERNING THE SUBJECT OF LIVIDITY?

YES.

NOW, CAN YOU TELL US, SIR, WHAT DOES LIVIDITY HAVE TO DO WITH THE TIME OF DEATH?

I KNOW OF NONE.

WHAT IS LIVIDITY USED FOR?

LIVIDITY CAN BE USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A PERSON WAS MOVED AFTER THEY'VE BEEN KILLED.

AND HOW IS THAT DETERMINED?

AS AN EXAMPLE, IF ONE --

I OBJECT. NO FOUNDATION.

OVERRULED.

IF ONE WERE FOUND IN A SUPINE POSITION OR ON THEIR BACK AND LIVIDITY WAS PRESENT OVER THE FRONT PART OF THEIR BODY, IT WOULD INDICATE THAT THEY'D PROBABLY BEEN MOVED AFTER DEATH.

BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. WAS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT EITHER OF -- EITHER THE BODY OF RON GOLDMAN OR NICOLE BROWN HAD BEEN MOVED AFTER THE TIME OF DEATH?

I SAW NONE.

AND WAS ANY BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION BY THE CORONER AT THE TIME OF AUTOPSY?

NO.

NOW, WHEN YOU MADE YOUR OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING LIVIDITY, SIR, WHERE WERE YOU?

I WAS AT THE CRIME SCENE.

ALL RIGHT. AND I ASSUME THEN YOU WERE EXAM -- THAT WAS BASED ON YOUR OBSERVATIONS -- IT'S GOING TO BE LEADING. YOU MADE OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING LIVIDITY AT THE CRIME SCENE, SIR?

YES.

AND WERE THE BODIES OF EITHER RON GOLDMAN OR NICOLE BROWN WASHED OR UNCLOTHED AT THAT TIME?

NO.

WERE THEY BOTH CLOTHED?

YES.

ALL RIGHT. THE BLOOD THAT WAS IN THE WALKWAY LEADING UP FROM THE SIDEWALK TO THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN, WAS THERE -- YOU KNOW, THE BLOOD THAT TRICKLED DOWN, I THINK YOU INDICATED EARLIER YOU SAW PAW PRINTS IN THAT BLOOD?

YES.

OKAY. COULD YOU SEE -- WAS THERE AN OBVIOUS SOURCE TO YOU OF THAT BLOOD?

THE SOURCE TO ME WAS VICTIM NICOLE BROWN.

HOW MANY AUTOPSIES HAVE YOU ATTENDED, SIR?

PERHAPS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF A HUNDRED AND 50, MAYBE MORE.

IS IT -- WHOSE JOB IS IT, SIR, TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT STOMACH CONTENTS SHOULD BE SAVED?

CORONER'S OFFICE.

OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

OVERRULED.

BEYOND --

IT'S THE CORONER'S OFFICE.

BY MS. CLARK: ARE YOU A DOCTOR, SIR?

NO.

IS IT YOUR JOB TO TELL THEM WHAT TO DO WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER YOU SAVE THE STOMACH CONTENTS OR NOT?

LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

SUSTAINED.

BY MS. CLARK: HAVE YOU EVER TOLD THE CORONER TO SAVE STOMACH CONTENTS OR NOT TO SAVE THEM?

THAT'S IRRELEVANT AND LEADING.

OVERRULED.

NO.

BY MS. CLARK: NOW, IN YOUR PRESENCE -- WERE YOU PRESENT AT THE AUTOPSIES IN THIS CASE, SIR?

YES.

DID YOU OBSERVE WHAT IF ANYTHING THE CORONER DID WITH RESPECT TO THE STOMACH CONTENT OF RON GOLDMAN AND NICOLE BROWN?

NO.

YOU DID NOT OBSERVE THAT?

NO. WHAT THEY DID TO THEM SUBSEQUENT?

NO. DURING THE AUTOPSY.

I OBSERVED THE CORONERS EXAMINE THE CONTENTS.

OF EACH -- THAT IS FOR RON GOLDMAN AND FOR NICOLE BROWN?

YES.

THEY DID THAT IN YOUR PRESENCE, SIR?

YES.

AND DID THEY DISCUSS THE FINDINGS THAT THEY MADE BASED ON THEIR EXAMINATION OF THE STOMACH CONTENTS WITH YOU?

I BELIEVE SO.

WAS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT RON GOLDMAN HAD A FULL STOMACH AT THE TIME OF AUTOPSY?

YOUR HONOR, OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. HEARSAY.

OVERRULED. HE WAS THERE. YOU WERE THERE WHEN THIS WAS EXAMINED?

YES.

OVERRULED.

I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. WAS RON GOLDMAN'S STOMACH FULL AT THE TIME OF AUTOPSY, SIR?

I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

BASED ON THE EXAMINATION OF THE -- WELL, LET ME ASK YOU A DIFFERENT QUESTION. WHY -- YOU INDICATED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT YOU DID NOT INVESTIGATE THE ISSUE AS TO WHEN RON GOLDMAN HAD HIS LAST MEAL. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

YES.

CAN YOU TELL US WHY NOT?

IT APPEARED TO ME THAT HE HAD JUST LEFT HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS. THE RELEVANCE JUST WASN'T THERE.

WHY NOT?

BECAUSE I WASN'T AWARE THAT HE HAD HAD A MEAL. I WAS AWARE THAT HE JUST LEFT HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS. IT REALLY DIDN'T COME INTO PLAY.

WOULDN'T IT HAVE HELPED YOU TO DETERMINE TIME OF DEATH IF YOU HAD FOUND OUT WHEN HE HAD LAST EATEN?

IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, I DON'T SEE HOW.

WHY NOT?

BECAUSE IT DIDN'T COME INTO PLAY. I WAS MORE CONCERNED WHERE HE'D BEEN PRIOR TO BEING KILLED.

COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT? I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

COULD I HAVE THAT QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE?

SURE.

MAYBE -- MAYBE I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

YEAH. I ASKED YOU WHY YOU DIDN'T INVESTIGATE INTO WHETHER -- WHAT TIME HE HAD HIS LAST MEAL. I ASKED YOU WHY -- WHY YOU DIDN'T THINK THAT DETERMINATION WOULD HELP YOU TO DETERMINE MORE PRECISELY THE TIME OF DEATH.

BECAUSE I KNEW WHERE HE HAD BEEN AT APPROXIMATELY I BELIEVE 9:40 P.M. THAT TO ME WAS IMPORTANT. THE MEAL WASN'T. I KNEW THAT HE -- IT WAS APPARENT TO ME HE HAD GONE HOME AND CHANGED AND WENT TO THE BUNDY LOCATION.

AND WHAT DID THAT HAVE TO DO WITH -- WITH NOT INVESTIGATING WHEN HE HAD HIS LAST MEAL?

WHAT DID THAT HAVE TO DO WITH --

RIGHT. WHY DID THAT MAKE DETERMINING WHEN HE HAD HIS LAST MEAL LESS IMPORTANT TO YOU? THE FACT THAT YOU KNEW WHEN HE LEFT HIS PLACE OF WORK --

OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THIS QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

BY MS. CLARK: -- WHAT DID THAT HAVE TO DO WITH IT?

COUNSEL IS CROSS-EXAMINING THE WITNESS.

OVERRULED.

I'M SORRY. COULD YOU REPEAT THAT?

BY MS. CLARK: YES. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT BECAME LAST IMPORTANT TO FIND OUT WHEN RON GOLDMAN HAD HIS LAST MEAL BECAUSE YOU KNEW WHEN HE LEFT HIS PLACE OF WORK.

OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION. VAGUE. THIS IS --

DO YOU UNDERSTAND -- HOLD ON. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION?

I DON'T KNOW IF I FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS. NO.

IT'S VAGUE.

OKAY. IT MUST BE.

BY MS. CLARK: YOU SAID THAT YOU -- ALL RIGHT, SIR. YOU WERE ASKED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT -- QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER YOU INVESTIGATED INTO -- TO FIND OUT WHEN RON GOLDMAN HAD HIS LAST MEAL IN ORDER TO PINPOINT HIS TIME OF DEATH.

THAT'S CORRECT.

BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE IN ALL HOMICIDE CASES, HOW PRECISE IS -- IS THE DETERMINATION OF TIME OF DEATH BASED ON THE ANALYSIS OF STOMACH CONTENT?

IT'S NOT PRECISE.

OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. JUST A MOMENT. OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. I WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THAT. BEYOND THE SCOPE.

OVERRULED.

THERE'S NO FOUNDATION. BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS WITNESS' EXPERTISE, YOUR HONOR.

OVERRULED. HE SAID IT'S NOT PRECISE. THAT DOESN'T TELL US A LOT EITHER WAY. ANSWER WILL STAND. PROCEED.

BY MS. CLARK: IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, SIR, AND BASED ON THE PRIOR HOMICIDE EXPERIENCE YOU'VE HAD, WHAT IS THE MOST NARROW TIME FRAME YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO BE GIVEN BY A CORONER BASED ON THE ANALYSIS OF STOMACH CONTENTS?

OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT. IRRELEVANT AND MATERIAL AS TO WHAT'S HAPPENED. I WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THAT.

OVERRULED.

AS TO TIME OF DEATH, I'VE NEVER KNOWN TIME OF DEATH TO BE UNDER TWO TO THREE HOURS.

BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. NOW, I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT STOMACH CONTENTS.

STOMACH CONTENTS?

YEAH. STOMACH CONTENTS ALONE.

MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST ANSWER.

SUSTAINED. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE LAST QUESTION AND ANSWER. IT'S NONRESPONSIVE.

BY MS. CLARK: BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE, SIR, HUNDREDS OF HOMICIDE CASES, HOW MANY -- HOW PRECISE CAN THE CORONER -- HAS THE CORONER EVER BEEN WITH RESPECT TO TIME OF DEATH BASED SOLELY ON THE ANALYSIS OF STOMACH CONTENTS?

YOUR HONOR, THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED.

BY MS. CLARK: HAS IT EVER BEEN YOUR EXPERIENCE THAT A CORONER HAS BEEN ABLE TO PINPOINT THE TIME OF DEATH BASED ON THE ANALYSIS OF STOMACH CONTENT?

NEVER.

OBJECTION. IT'S LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE.

OVERRULED.

OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION.

THAT'S OVERRULED.

NEVER.

BY MS. CLARK: NEVER?

SO WHEN YOU DETERMINE THAT -- DID YOU MAKE SOME DETERMINATION BASED ON YOUR INVESTIGATION AS TO WHEN RON GOLDMAN WAS LAST SEEN ALIVE?

YES.

BY THE PUBLIC.

BY THE PUBLIC?

BY OTHER PEOPLE.

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND WHEN DID YOU DETERMINE THAT TO BE?

YOUR HONOR, OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. IT'S WITHOUT FOUNDATION. IT'S SPECULATION.

WELL, WE'VE ALREADY HAD TESTIMONY FROM THE PEOPLE FROM MEZZALUNA. COUNSEL, I MEAN -- I'M MAKING THAT POINT TO MISS CLARK. DON'T WE ALREADY HAVE THAT IN THE RECORD, WHEN HE WAS LAST SEEN?

THIS IS JUST FOUNDATIONAL, YOUR HONOR, TO -- I MEAN --

ALL RIGHT. PROCEED. HE'S ALREADY TESTIFIED TO THE TIME THOUGH.

HE HAS?

I THOUGHT HE SAID 9:40.

OH, OKAY.

ABOUT THREE MINUTES AGO.

OKAY.

BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. YOU DETERMINED THE TIME THAT MR. GOLDMAN LEFT MEZZALUNA, CORRECT?

APPROXIMATELY, YES.

OKAY. AND YOU -- DID YOU ALSO DETERMINE FROM THE FIRST OFFICER ON THE SCENE WHEN HE -- HIS BODY WAS FOUND?

YES.

AND WHAT WAS THE TIME LAPSE BETWEEN THOSE TWO TIMES, WHEN HE WAS LAST SEEN AND WHEN HIS BODY WAS FOUND?

APPROXIMATELY TWO HOURS AND 30 MINUTES.

OKAY. WHAT IS THE MOST -- IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, SIR, HAVE YOU EVER HAD A CORONER TESTIFY TO A PRECISE TIME OF DEATH TO THE MINUTE?

NEVER.

OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

OVERRULED.

IRRELEVANT, IMMATERIAL, CALLS FOR SPECULATION, HEARSAY.

OVERRULED.

NEVER.

BY MS. CLARK: WHAT IS -- IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, HAS A CORONER BEEN ABLE TO DO IN TERMS OF TIME FRAME IN ANY HOMICIDE CASE YOU'VE EVER HANDLED?

YOUR HONOR, OBJECT TO WHAT THE CORONER COULD DO.

I THINK WE OUGHT TO HAVE THE CORONER TELL US ABOUT THIS.

WELL, YOUR HONOR, IT WAS GONE INTO ON CROSS-EXAMINATION.

NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

THIS IS THE LAST QUESTION.

THE LAST QUESTION?

ON THIS AREA.

WHAT'S THE LAST QUESTION?

ON THE CORONER ISSUE. WHAT'S THE -- WHAT WAS IT?

BY MS. CLARK: WHAT IS -- IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, WHAT IS THE NARROWEST TIME FRAME THE CORONER HAS BEEN ABLE TO GIVE YOU WITH RESPECT TO TIME OF DEATH?

OBJECT TO THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THAT'S REALLY VAGUE BECAUSE THAT DEPENDS ON SO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS. EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE IS DIFFERENT.

RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHY -- I'M JUST ASKING FOR -- IN HIS EXPERIENCE, WHAT'S THE BEST HE'S EVER BEEN ABLE TO DO.

THE COURT'S RULED.

I KNOW. I THINK IT'S VAGUE AT THIS POINT. THERE'S A 352 OBJECTION. BECAUSE THEN HE'S GOT TO TELL US WHAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IN THAT CASE.

LET ME ASK A DIFFERENT ONE THEN.

ALL RIGHT. ASK A DIFFERENT LAST QUESTION.

A DIFFERENT LAST QUESTION.

BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. YOU DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS A TIME FRAME OF APPROXIMATELY TWO AND A HALF HOURS BETWEEN THE TIME RON GOLDMAN WAS LAST SEEN AND HIS BODY WAS FOUND; IS THAT CORRECT?

YES.

HAS THE CORONER IN YOUR EXPERIENCE EVER TESTIFIED TO A TIME RANGE LESS THAN THAT --

OBJECT, YOUR HONOR.

BY MS. CLARK: -- AS TO TIME OF DEATH?

CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED.

CAN WE MOVE ON?

BY MS. CLARK: MR. COCHRAN ASKED YOU ON CROSS-EXAMINATION SEVERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT TIME THE CORONER WAS CALLED. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

YES.

BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE, SIR, IF YOU HAD CALLED THE CORONER AT 4:30 WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE, COULD THE CORONER HAVE TOLD YOU WHETHER THE MURDER OCCURRED AT 10:15, 10:30 -- 10:15 VERSUS 10:30 VERSUS 10:45?

NO.

OBJECT TO THE FORM. JUST A MOMENT. CALLS FOR SPECULATION. MOVE TO STRIKE THE ANSWER.

SUSTAINED. HOLD ON. SUSTAINED. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE LAST QUESTION AND ANSWER.

MAY WE APPROACH?

YOUR HONOR, CAN WE APPROACH?

SURE.