THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED.

BY MR. COCHRAN: DETECTIVE LANGE, IN THE COURSE OF FORMING YOUR OPINION THIS WAS NOT A DRUG-RELATED -- THESE WERE NOT DRUG-RELATED KILLINGS, DID YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, IN FORMING THAT OPINION, WHETHER OR NOT FAYE RESNICK HAD MOVED IN WITH MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON ON JUNE 3RD, RESIDED THERE UNTIL JUNE 8TH, AT WHICH TIME SHE WENT THROUGH AN INTERVENTION WITH FRIENDS AND FAMILY INTO A DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY CALLED EXODUS WHERE SHE WAS STILL IN ON JUNE 12, 1994?

INITIALLY I DIDN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. SUBSEQUENTLY I RECEIVED INFORMATION SHE DID NOT IN FACT MOVE IN WITH HER PERMANENTLY.

I DIDN'T ASK YOU IF SHE MOVED IN PERMANENTLY, SIR. CAN YOU GET BACK TO MY QUESTION, IF YOU CAN? LET ME SEE IF I CAN GIVE IT BACK TO YOU SO YOU ARE CLEAR. THE QUESTION WAS WOULD -- IF SHE LIVED THERE FROM JUNE 3RD THROUGH JUNE 8TH, WHETHER PERMANENTLY OR NOT, BUT DURING THAT TIME FRAME AND ON JUNE 8TH SHE WENT INTO EXODUS, THE DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY, AND ON JUNE 12TH SHE WAS STILL IN THAT DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY, WOULD THAT HAVE AFFECTED YOUR OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS POSSIBLY A DRUG-RELATED KILLING?

I DIDN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.

YOU DIDN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. WE UNDERSTAND THAT. NOW, IF YOU HAD THAT INFORMATION WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO CHECK OUT?

IF I FELT THAT THERE WERE DRUGS AND THIS WAS A DRUG-RELATED MURDER, CERTAINLY.

ALL RIGHT.

BUT THAT WASN'T THE EVIDENCE THAT I HAD AND THAT WASN'T THE PATH THAT I HAD PURSUED. I HAD NOTHING TO LEAD ME IN THAT DIRECTION.

I UNDERSTAND. YOU HAVE SINCE SAID YOU FOUND OUT INFORMATION SINCE THIS HAPPENED AND YOU HAVE TOLD MISS CLARK, DID YOU NOT, THAT INVESTIGATIONS CONTINUE SOMETIMES EVEN WHEN THE CASE IS GOING ON; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

UP TO THE MINUTE THAT THIS JURY GETS THIS CASE THE INVESTIGATION MAY VERY WELL CONTINUE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

MAY WELL BEYOND THAT.

ALL RIGHT. AS A GOOD INVESTIGATOR DON'T YOU CONTINUE AND DON'T YOU, AS AN INVESTIGATOR, TRY TO DEVELOP EVIDENCE AS IT COMES FORWARD? ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

IF IT COMES FORWARD I CERTAINLY DO.

YOU DON'T TURN A BLIND EYE ON EVIDENCE JUST BECAUSE IT MIGHT POINT TOWARDS MR. SIMPSON, DO YOU?

JUST THE CONTRARY.

ALL RIGHT. SO YOU WOULD FOLLOW ANY PARTICULAR LEAD, AND ANY SUCH LEAD REGARDING POSSIBLE DRUG INVOLVEMENT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO YOU AS AN INVESTIGATOR; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

IF I FELT THAT THIS CASE INVOLVED DRUGS OR DRUG DEALERS, IT WOULD. THE FACT IS IT DOESN'T.

YOU SAID THERE IS NEW INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE AFTERWARDS SO THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY MADE THE CONCLUSION IN THIS CASE THAT NO MATTER WHAT YOU HEARD ABOUT DRUG INVOLVEMENT OR FAYE RESNICK YOU DON'T PLAN TO LOOK INTO THAT? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING TO THIS JURY?

NO. THE FACT THAT THE VICTIM MAY HAVE A FRIEND WHO USES DRUGS AND IN LIGHT OF NO OTHER EVIDENCE IN THAT REGARD HAS VERY LITTLE CONSEQUENCE TO ME. THE FACT THAT EVERY BIT OF THAT EVIDENCE THAT I HAVE IN THIS CASE POINTS TOWARD THE DEFENDANT HAS A LOT MORE TO DO WITH THIS.

EVERY BIT OF EVIDENCE YOU HAVE; IS THAT CORRECT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT. SO THAT YOU HAVE MADE YOUR OWN JUDGMENT -- IN FACT, IN THIS CASE YOU SUBMITTED THIS CASE TO MISS CLARK FOR FILING, DID YOU?

YES, I DID.

SO YOU SUBMITTED FOR A FILING ON JUNE 17TH TO MISS CLARK, RIGHT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND THEN SHE THEN FILED THIS CASE, RIGHT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND BEFORE YOU SUBMITTED THIS CASE YOU HAD HEARD OR SEEN MISS CLARK ON TELEVISION SAYING THIS WAS A SOLE MURDERER CASE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? YOU HAD HEARD THAT, HADN'T YOU?

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

HEARSAY. SUSTAINED.

BY MR. COCHRAN: WELL, DID YOU EVER HEAR MISS CLARK --

MOTION TO STRIKE.

IT IS A QUESTION. THERE IS NO ANSWER.

BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU EVER HEAR MISS CLARK SAY, WHEN YOU WERE PRESENT, THIS WAS A SOLE MURDERER CASE?

OBJECTION. SAME OBJECTION.

I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE COURT'S OWN OBJECTION. THAT IS IRRELEVANT WHAT HE HEARD MISS CLARK SAY.

WHEN HE GIVES HIS THEORY? I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. ALL RIGHT.

AT ANY RATE, WHEN YOU FILED THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND YOU TOLD US THIS THEORY OF THE SOLE MURDERER, WAS THAT YOUR THEORY OR MISS MARCIA CLARK'S THEORY?

MY THEORY HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE IS ONE MURDERER.

WAS THAT YOUR THEORY OR MISS MARCIA CLARK'S THEORY?

ASKED AND ANSWERED.

OVERRULED.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT HER THEORY IS. I BELIEVE HER THEORY IS THE SAME AS MINE.

BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU DISCUSSED THAT, DID YOU NOT, DURING YOUR MANY CONVERSATIONS?

AS TO THE ONE-PERSON THEORY?

YES.

THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP.

YOU DISCUSSED IT AND WENT OVER YOUR TESTIMONY LAST WEEK BEFORE YOU TESTIFIED, YESTERDAY YOU TALKED ABOUT THAT, DIDN'T YOU?

THE FACT THAT WE BELIEVE THERE IS ONE MURDERER?

TALKED ABOUT THE ONE-MURDERER THEORY, YES?

YES.

YOU WERE PREPARED WHEN SHE ASKED YOU THOSE QUESTIONS YESTERDAY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

YES.

NOW, IN THAT CONNECTION, YOU TOLD US THAT YOU READ FAY RESNICK'S BOOK, RIGHT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, YOU ARE SAYING TO US THAT EVEN IF YOU KNEW THAT FAYE RESNICK HAD LIVED AT THE RESIDENCE OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY AND HAD USED DRUGS AT THAT RESIDENCE BETWEEN THE PERIOD OF JUNE 3RD TO JUNE 8TH TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT SHE HAD TO GO INTO A DRUG REHABILITATION FACILITY AND THAT SHE HAD NO JOB BY WHICH TO PAY FOR THESE DRUGS --

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

BY MR. COCHRAN: -- AND THAT --

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

BY MR. COCHRAN: -- AND THAT --

ASSUMES FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.

OVERRULED.

BY MR. COCHRAN: -- AND THAT --

HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION.

-- AS OF JUNE 12 SHE IS STILL IN THAT FACILITY, YOU ARE TELLING US AS AN EXPERIENCED INVESTIGATOR THAT WOULDN'T EVEN CAUSE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT THIS MIGHT BE A DRUG KILLING; IS THAT RIGHT?

I DIDN'T BASE MY INVESTIGATION ON WHAT I READ IN THE BOOK. I BASED IT ON THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE THAT I HAD.

THAT IS WHAT I'M ASKING YOU ABOUT. BASED UPON THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE, IS THERE ANY DOUBT, AS YOU SIT THERE NOW, THAT FAYE RESNICK WAS IN EXODUS, A DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY, ON JUNE 12TH.

OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT, HEARSAY.

OVERRULED.

I DON'T KNOW IF SHE WAS OR NOT.

BY MR. COCHRAN: AS AN INVESTIGATOR HAVE YOU CHECKED THAT OUT?

PERSONALLY. NO.

ALL RIGHT. SO YOU HAVEN'T, SO WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT AS AN EXPERIENCED INVESTIGATOR WHO WANTED TO GET ALL THE FACTS, WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO CHECK THAT OUT?

NOT WHEN IT WAS BEING HANDLED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AFTER THE CASE WAS FILED.

NOT WHEN WHAT?

THE INTERVIEW OF MISS RESNICK AND HER BACKGROUND WAS BEING HANDLED BY THE L.A. DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SUBSEQUENT TO FILING.

BUT DIDN'T YOU TELL US THE OTHER DAY THAT VANNATTER INTERVIEWED HER ALSO, WAS PRESENT DURING THE INTERVIEW?

HE WAS PRESENT DURING THE INITIAL INTERVIEW; THAT IS CORRECT.

YOU ARE BOTH CO-LEAD INVESTIGATORS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

CORRECT.

DON'T THE TWO OF YOU EVER TALK ABOUT THIS CASE?

ALL THE TIME.

HAS HE EVER DISCUSSED WITH YOU WHAT FAYE RESNICK SAID?

NOT TO ANY GREAT DEGREE.

YOU NEVER TALKED ABOUT IT?

WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS, BUT AGAIN, NOT TO ANY GREAT DEGREE.

IT WAS OF NO INTEREST TO YOU SO THAT IT WOULD CAUSE YOU TO WANT TO GO OUT AND CHECK OUT THAT POSSIBILITY OF A RETALIATION FOR FAILING TO HAVE PAID FOR DRUGS OBTAINED AFTER JUNE 3RD, 1994?

OBJECTION. THIS ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

SUSTAINED. IT IS A HALL PROBLEM. THAT IS A HALL PROBLEM.

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

NOW, YOU MENTIONED ALSO THAT YOU SEARCHED THE -- NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON HOME FOR VARIOUS THINGS. WHEN DID YOU CONDUCT THIS SEARCH FOR THE DRUG PARAPHERNALIA AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE? WHEN WAS THAT?

I HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE HOUSE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, BEGINNING ON THE 13TH.

ALL RIGHT. ON THE 13TH I THOUGHT YOU TOLD US EARLIER THAT YOU JUST BASICALLY WENT THROUGH THE HOUSE AND YOU LEFT BY TWELVE O'CLOCK. WHEN WAS IT THAT YOU SEARCHED FOR DRUGS DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME?

ON THE 13TH I LOOKED FOR DRUGS, DRUG PARAPHERNALIA.

ALL RIGHT.

DRUG DEBRIS.

HAD DRUGS COME UP BY THAT TIME?

HAVE DRUGS COME UP?

HAD DRUGS COME UP BY THE TIME YOU WERE SEARCHING ON THE 13TH?

I SAW NONE.

NO. I'M ASKING YOU, YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE SEARCHING FOR DRUGS. WHAT WOULD MAKE YOU SEARCH FOR DRUGS ON JUNE 13?

THAT WAS PART OF MY SUPERFICIAL INVESTIGATION. I ALWAYS CHECK FOR THINGS SUCH AS DRUGS, HANDGUNS, LARGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY, THINGS OF THIS NATURE.

ALL RIGHT. AND PART OF YOUR SUPERFICIAL INVESTIGATION TOOK HOW LONG? ABOUT FIFTEEN MINUTES?

NO. I BELIEVE I WAS THERE FOR SEVERAL HOURS.

WE KNOW YOU WERE THERE FOR SEVERAL HOURS, BUT HOW LONG WERE YOU SEARCHING?

WITHIN THE HOUSE?

YES, INSIDE THE HOUSE, THE INTERIOR OF THE HOUSE?

I WAS PROBABLY IN AND OUT OF THERE SEVERAL TIMES, PERHAPS -- PERHAPS AS LONG AS AN HOUR AND A HALF, TWO HOURS, TWO HOURS AND 45 MINUTES. IT IS HARD TO SAY.

AND HOW MUCH OF THAT TIME WAS SPENT SEARCHING, DETECTIVE?

I WOULD SAY THE WHOLE TIME WAS SPENT LOOKING AT THINGS, NOTING THINGS.

AND WHILE YOU WERE DOING THIS -- YOU, BY THE WAY, DIDN'T TAKE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF THAT INTERIOR OTHER THAN THE KNIFE AND THE THING DOWN ON THE KITCHEN COUNTER; IS THAT RIGHT?

THE ONLY PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AT THAT TIME WERE OF THE KNIFE ON THE COUNTER, YES.

WAS THE ANSWER YES?

HE SAID YES.

ALL RIGHT.

SO YOU DIDN'T TAKE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS OF ANYTHING THAT YOU SEARCHED AND ANY DRAWERS YOU LOOKED IN UPSTAIRS; IS THAT CORRECT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

DID YOU ASCERTAIN AND FIND OUT WHICH ROOM FAYE RESNICK MIGHT HAVE LIVED IN IN THAT HOUSE FROM JUNE 3RD TO JUNE 8TH WHEN YOU WERE THERE ON THE 13TH?

I DIDN'T KNOW WHO MISS RESNICK WAS AT THAT TIME.

ALL RIGHT. SO YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHERE TO LOOK? IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

I DIDN'T KNOW WHO SHE WAS OR ANYONE ELSE AT THE LOCATION. WE HADN'T EVEN EARLIER HAD THE VICTIM IDENTIFIED UNTIL WE FOUND HER IDENTIFICATION IN A ROOM AND WE MADE POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION.

YOUR ANSWER IS YOU DIDN'T LOOK AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHERE TO LOOK AS TO WHICH ROOM FAYE RESNICK MAY HAVE OCCUPIED; IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?

I DIDN'T KNOW WHO FAYE RESNICK WAS.

WHEN YOU FOUND OUT WHO SHE WAS, DID YOU GO BACK AND LOOK?

NO.

HAVE YOU EVER PERSONALLY TALKED TO FAYE RESNICK YOURSELF?

YES.

AND WHEN WAS THAT?

TODAY?

THAT'S CORRECT.

OVER THE TELEPHONE?

SHE CALLED, YES.

WAS THAT OVER THE LUNCH HOUR?

YES, IT WAS.

WAS THAT THE FIRST TIME YOU EVER TALKED TO HER?

OTHER THAN IN PASSING AND IN GREETING, YES.

YOU WERE NOT PRESENT WHEN SHE WAS INTERVIEWED BEFORE; IS THAT RIGHT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

NOW, AS I UNDERSTOOD YOUR TESTIMONY THIS MORNING, DID YOU INDICATE THAT YOU CANNOT TELL US WHICH OF THE TWO INDIVIDUALS IN THIS CASE WERE KILLED FIRST, NEITHER MR. GOLDMAN OR MISS BROWN SIMPSON; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND WITH REGARD TO MR. GOLDMAN AND THE FIGHT THAT HE PUT UP PRIOR TO LOSING HIS LIFE, DR. IRWIN GOLDEN, G-O-L-D-I-N -- WHO IS THE FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST WHO DID THE AUTOPSIES IN THIS CASE; IS THAT CORRECT?

I BELIEVE IT IS G-O-L-D-E-N. DR. GOLDEN, YES.

G-O-L-D-E-N?

YES.

IS THE DOCTOR, THE EXPERT; IS THAT CORRECT?

YES, HE IS THE PATHOLOGIST WHO PERFORMED THE AUTOPSIES.

YOU WERE PRESENT AND YOU HAD SEEN HIM TESTIFY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND OTHER TIMES IN THIS CASE, WERE YOU NOT?

YES.

DO YOU RECALL DR. GOLDEN DESCRIBING THE BRUISES AND ABRASIONS ON MR. GOLDMAN'S KNUCKLES AS FOLLOWS, COUNSEL, FROM THE PRELIMINARY PAGE 96. "QUESTION: AND IN GENERAL, AS IN BRIEF, HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THOSE WOUNDS? "ANSWER: BASICALLY THEY ARE MULTIPLE ABRASIONS INVOLVING THE FOREARM, INCLUDING THE OUTER OR LATERAL ASPECT OF THE FOREARM WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE ABRASIONS, THAT MEANS SCRATCHES, WHO WERE NOT SCRATCHES, THEY WERE IRREGULAR IN CONFIGURATION. ON THE TOP OF THE HAND THERE WERE FRESH BRUISES, ABRASIONS ON THE KNUCKLES, AND I WENT INTO DETAIL ON WHICH FINGERS AND WHICH KNUCKLES." DO YOU REMEMBER HIM SO TESTIFYING?

NO.

YOU DON'T REMEMBER THAT?

I DON'T HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION. I'M NOT SAYING IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

WOULD IT BE HELPFUL FOR YOU TO READ IT YOURSELF?

NO.

ALL RIGHT. "THERE ARE ABRASIONS, BRUISES."

YOUR HONOR, THERE WILL BE AN OBJECTION. WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF THIS?

I WILL LINK IT UP, YOUR HONOR.

OVERRULED.

OBJECTION, HEARSAY.

BY MR. COCHRAN: THERE ARE ABRASIONS --

HEARSAY AT THIS POINT. SUSTAINED.

YOUR HONOR, THIS IS WITH REGARD TO -- EXCEPTION. MAY I APPROACH? NOT HEARSAY. WITH REGARD TO THIS WITNESS -- HIS EXPERT.

NO, NO, NO. SIDE BAR.

FIRST OF ALL, YOUR HONOR, WE DON'T HAVE WHAT HE IS READING TO THE JURY AND WE NEED TO HAVE A COPY OF THAT.

I HAVE --

I DON'T BRING THE PRELIMINARY HEARINGS DOWN WITH ME EVERYDAY.

THEY SHOULD BRING IT DOWN EVERYDAY FOR THESE WITNESSES.

I WILL BE BRINGING DOWN A CART EVERYDAY.

WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. I GET TO HEAR THE OBJECTION FIRST.

THANK YOU.

MY OBJECTION IS HE IS ATTEMPTING TO IMPEACH THIS OFFICER'S TESTIMONY WITH THE TESTIMONY OF ANOTHER WITNESS. THAT IS IMPROPER IMPEACHMENT. IT IS HEARSAY. THIS IS NOT A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT OF THIS WITNESS. SO WHAT IS -- I DON'T SEE HOW IT IS ADMISSIBLE IN THE LEAST.

JUDGE, VERY CLEARLY THIS IS RELEVANT. HE SAT THROUGH THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. HE IS THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER. IF THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER SAYS YOU CAN'T TELL WHAT THESE BRUISES WERE AND THESE BRUISES MAY HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY STRIKING SOMEBODY OR SUBJECT OR WHATEVER, HOW CAN HE GIVE US AN OPINION WHICH THE COURT ALLOWED YESTERDAY? I CAN IMPEACH HIM BASED UPON THE EXPERT.

THAT IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO. HAD YOU TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, WHEN YOU FORMED THAT OPINION --

THAT IS HEARSAY. WHAT -- MR. COCHRAN, WHAT SOMEBODY ELSE SAYS THAT IS CONTRARY TO THIS GUY'S --

JUDGE, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

HEARSAY.

I'M IMPEACHING HIM. I CAN ASK HIM IF HE HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, AS YOU INDICATED I CAN DO THAT. I GOT TO GIVE HIM WHAT DR. GOLDEN SAID ON THE SUBJECT AND ASK HIM IF HE TOOK THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN HE FORMED HIS OPINION YESTERDAY.

NO, NO. YOU CAN ASK HIM IF HE CONSIDERED THAT WITHOUT READING IT TO HIM.

WITHOUT READING IT TO HIM?

IT IS HEARSAY AT THIS POINT.

OKAY. OKAY. WELL, I WILL PUT IT IN THAT FRAME. THANKS.

OKAY.

YOUR HONOR, THERE IS A MOTION TO STRIKE. ASK JURY TO DISREGARD.

THE QUESTION?

AND ANSWER.

THERE WAS NO ANSWER.

THERE WAS NO ANSWER.

BY MR. COCHRAN: DETECTIVE, WITH REGARD TO DR. GOLDEN, YOU HAD INDICATED THAT YOU HAD HEARD HIS TESTIMONY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING; IS THAT CORRECT?

I WAS PRESENT, YES.

AND YOU ARE AWARE OF WHAT HE TESTIFIED ABOUT THESE BRUISES AND ABRASIONS ON MR. GOLDEN -- MR. GOLDMAN'S KNUCKLES; IS THAT CORRECT?

I AM AWARE HE TESTIFIED TO THAT, YES.

AND WITH REGARD TO THAT, DID YOU, PRIOR TO GIVING US YOUR OPINION YESTERDAY ABOUT HOW MR. GOLDMAN MAY HAVE GOTTEN THESE INJURIES TO HIS -- TO HIS HAND, DID YOU EVER DISCUSS TODAY WITH YOUR EXPERT FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST REGARDING WHAT THOSE BRUISES CONNOTED, WHAT THEY MEANT?

NO.

YOU GAVE US -- YOU ARE NOT A DOCTOR, RIGHT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND YOU GAVE US AN OPINION YESTERDAY WITHOUT TALKING TO THE DOCTOR WHO US ASSIGNED TO THIS CASE; IS THAT RIGHT?

THAT'S MY OPINION THAT I GAVE YOU. I WOULDN'T ELICIT MY OPINION FROM ANYONE.

THIS WAS YOUR OPINION, RIGHT?

CORRECT. THAT IS WHAT I WAS ASKED.

NOW, WITH REGARD TO WHETHER OR NOT THESE KILLINGS WERE DONE BY ONE INDIVIDUAL, AGAIN AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO LISTEN TO DR. GOLDEN AND HIS TESTIMONY OF WHETHER OR NOT HE BELIEVED THERE MAY HAVE BEEN TWO KNIVES INVOLVED OR USED?

OBJECTION.

BY MR. COCHRAN: AT THE TIME?

SUSTAINED.

OBJECTION.

WELL --

SUSTAINED.

BY MR. COCHRAN: LET ME STATE IT THIS WAY: DID YOU HEAR DR. GOLDEN'S TESTIMONY ABOUT THE NUMBER OF KNIVES THAT HE FOUND MAY HAVE BEEN USED AT THE TIME OF THESE KILLINGS AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?

SUSTAINED. SAME QUESTION. IF HE HEARD THE TESTIMONY OF DR. GOLDEN, YES OR NO. DID HE CONSIDER THAT?

BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU HEAR THE TESTIMONY OF DR. GOLDEN AGAIN AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?

YES.

AND DID YOU CONSIDER THAT TESTIMONY AS IT RELATES TO WEAPONS PRIOR TO FORMING YOUR OPINION THAT YOU GAVE US YESTERDAY?

YES.

AND DID YOU DISCUSS THAT TESTIMONY WITH DR. GOLDEN YESTERDAY BEFORE YOU GAVE US YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE NUMBER OF WEAPONS INVOLVED HERE?

I DIDN'T DISCUSS IT WITH HIM YESTERDAY. I HAVE DISCUSSED THE ONE OR TWO-WEAPON THEORY WITH DR. GOLDEN.

YOU HAVE DONE THAT IN THE PAST?

YES.

CAN YOU TELL US WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU DISCUSSED THAT WITH DR. GOLDEN -- STRIKE THAT. WAS IT -- DID YOU DISCUSS IT WITH HIM AFTER THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?

I BELIEVE IT WAS AFTER, YES.

DID YOU EVER DISCUSS IT WITH HIM BEFORE THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?

I DON'T RECALL IF THERE WAS ANY DISCUSSION DURING AUTOPSY OR NOT.

DID YOU WRITE A REPORT BASED UPON YOUR DISCUSSION WITH DR. GOLDEN?

I WROTE A REPORT, NOTES INITIALLY AT THE AUTOPSY, YES.

NOW, I WANTED TO KNOW, THIS WAS -- THE CONVERSATION YOU HAD AFTERWARDS THAT YOU SAY WHERE YOU TALKED ABOUT THE NUMBER OF WEAPONS, DID YOU WRITE A REPORT ABOUT THAT, THAT CONVERSATION?

NO.

SO THERE IS NO REPORT?

I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS. I'M NOT SAYING THERE IS NO REPORT. I DISCUSSED THIS WITH ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL, AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT INDIVIDUAL MADE A REPORT OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW.

IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION DID YOU FIND ANY DEBRIS OR ANY BARK FROM A TREE OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE ON MR. GOLDMAN'S HANDS OR ON ANY PORTION OF HIS BODY?

I DID NOT PERSONALLY EXAMINE HIS HANDS.

ALL RIGHT. IT IS YOUR ANSWER YOU DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE?

I DIDN'T EXAMINE HIS HANDS SO I DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING.

IF YOU WERE TO SEE A PHOTOGRAPHS OF HIS HANDS, WOULD YOU RECOGNIZE THAT PHOTOGRAPH FROM THE AUTOPSY AT ALL?

IF THERE WAS SOME IDENTIFIER PERHAPS. I COULDN'T JUST IDENTIFY A HAND, NO.

ALL RIGHT. YOU WERE PRESENT AT THE AUTOPSY AND YOU OBSERVED THESE THINGS, DID YOU NOT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE HANDS OF THESE TWO INDIVIDUALS, IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY YESTERDAY THAT NEVER IN YOUR EXPERIENCE AS A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR HAVE YOU EVER BAGGED HANDS, BAGGED THE HANDS OF A VICTIM, OTHER THAN IN A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THERE WAS A GUNSHOT WOUND? IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID?

MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN THAT WE BAG THE HANDS OF GUNSHOT VICTIMS.

OKAY. YOU TOLD US THAT. AND FROM THE STANDPOINT OF GOOD FORENSIC PROCEDURE -- AND HAVE YOU READ BOOKS ON THIS SUBJECT AT ALL?

ON WHAT, BAGGING HANDS?

BAGGING HANDS AND SAVING TRACE EVIDENCE?

SPECIFICALLY, NO.

YOU HAVE NEVER READ A BOOK ON THAT SUBJECT; IS THAT RIGHT?

SPECIFICALLY ON THAT SUBJECT, NO.

YES, SIR.

NO.

AND IN THAT CONNECTION WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE BEST WAY OR THAT EXPERTS AGREE THE BEST WAY TO PRESERVER TRACE EVIDENCE IS TO BAG HANDS AND KEEP THE HANDS SEPARATE? WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

I CAN'T SAY THAT, NO. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO ATTEMPT TO PRESERVE ANY EVIDENCE. THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT ONE WOULD GO ABOUT DOING THAT AND IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY INCLUDE BAGGING OF THE HANDS.

BUT YOU NEVER READ A BOOK WITH REGARD TO THAT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A BOOK ON BAGGING THE HANDS?

YES, A BOOK OR ANY PORTION OF A BOOK REGARDING BAGGING OF HANDS?

NO.

WITH REGARD TO THE SUBJECT OF LIVIDITY, WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT -- TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY, HAVE YOU EVER READ ANY ARTICLES OR PUBLICATIONS REGARDING LIVIDITY AND WHAT LIVIDITY IS?

YES.

AND WHAT DID YOU READ AND WHAT IS THE LAST THING YOU HAVE READ IN THAT CONNECTION?

OVER THE YEARS I HAVE READ SEVERAL BOOKS. I HAVE READ CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION, VARIOUS PUBLICATIONS.

HAVE YOU EVER -- DO YOU KNOW IF -- WHAT THE TERM "BLANCHING" IS?

YES.

WHAT IS BLANCHING?

BLANCHING IS THE TOUCHING OF THE SKIN AFTER DEATH IN THE AREA THAT HAS LIVIDITY AND IN AN ATTEMPT TO SEE IF THAT -- THE -- IT WOULD BLANCH IF THE -- IF YOU TOUCHED, SAY, A RED AREA THAT HAS LIVIDITY, YOU PRESS THAT AREA AND THE BLANCHING OR THE WHITENESS REMAINS, THERE IS A GOOD POSSIBILITY THAT THE PERSON HAS BEEN DECEASED FOR FOUR OR FIVE HOURS OR LONGER. GENERALLY IF THE REDNESS WOULD RETURN, IT MAY INDICATE THAT THAT PERSON HAS BEEN KILLED WITHIN TWO, THREE OR FOUR HOURS, SOMETHING UNDER THE FIVE OR SIX HOURS, THAT GENERAL GUIDE.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHAT TO YOU DOES THE TERM LIVIDITY MEAN?

LIVIDITY IS THE SINGING OF THE BLOOD IN THE HUMAN BODY SUBSEQUENT TO DEATH TO ITS LOWEST POINT CAUSED BY GRAVITATIONAL PULL.

AND IF YOU HAVE A FAIR SKINNED PERSON IT MIGHT SHOW UP MORE THAN SOMEBODY WHO HAS DARKER SKIN? IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

WELL, IT WOULD DEPEND. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE YOU HAD A VICTIM WITH VERY LITTLE BLOOD IN HER AND NOT NECESSARILY UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.

WELL, THAT WAS AS TO THE ONE VICTIM. YOU DID CHECK LIVIDITY TO BOTH VICTIMS, DID YOU NOT?

JUST FROM WHAT I COULD OBSERVE THE ONE VICTIM MR. GOLDMAN, WAS FULLY CLOTHED AND I COULDN'T OBSERVE ANY LIVIDITY.

AND MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WAS CLOTHED ALSO, WAS SHE NOT?

SHE WAS CLOTHED, YES.

ALL RIGHT. WITH REGARD TO HER BODY, WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU NOTICE REGARDING LIVIDITY?

UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES AT THE SCENE, NOTHING.

DID YOU TRY? DID YOU TOUCH HER SKIN?

I WOULDN'T HAVE TOUCHED HER SKIN, NO.

ALL RIGHT. YOU DID NOT DO THAT SO YOUR OBSERVATIONS WERE NOTHING REGARDING LIVIDITY IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE; IS THAT RIGHT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND LIVIDITY, SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, IS AGAIN ONE OF THOSE CONDITIONS WHICH ONE MIGHT USE TO TRY AND DETERMINE THE TIME OF DEATH; IS THAT CORRECT, ALONG WITH OTHER FACTORS?

IT IS A VERY GENERAL -- VERY GENERAL INDICATOR.

ALL RIGHT.

I WOULDN'T DEPEND ENTIRELY ON LIVIDITY TO DETERMINE TIME OF DEATH.

I DIDN'T ASK YOU TO DEPEND ENTIRELY. I SAID WAS THAT ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT YOU MIGHT USE TO DETERMINE THE TIME OF DEATH? IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?

ONE MIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. WHAT ABOUT YOU?

AGAIN, IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCE. IN THIS CASE, CERTAINLY NOT.

AND THAT WAS BECAUSE SHE HAD LOST SO MUCH BLOOD?

BECAUSE SHE LOST SO MUCH BLOOD. THERE WAS NO LIVIDITY THAT I COULD SEE CERTAINLY ON THE BACK PORTION OF HER OR HER LEGS THAT WERE VISIBLE.

ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU HAD MADE NO PALPABLE OR NO TOUCHING OF THAT BODY; IS THAT RIGHT?

I DID NOT TOUCH HER.

ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU EVER READ A BOOK PUT OUT BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE RESEARCH PROJECT ENTITLED "PLANT FOOD CELLS AND GASTRIC CONTENTS FOR FORENSIC INVESTIGATIONS AS A LABORATORY MANUAL"?

NO.

HAVE YOU EVER READ THAT?

NO.

BY BACH, LANE AND NORRIS?

NO.

HAVE YOU EVER READ ANY PUBLICATION AT ALL ABOUT HOW STOMACH CONTENTS MIGHT BE USED TO DETERMINE THE TIME OF DEATH IN INDIVIDUALS?

I READ LEMOINE SNYDER'S HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION THAT ADDRESSES THAT PARTICULAR THING, BUT AGAIN, IT IS ONE GENERAL INDICATOR.

AND LEMOINE SNYDER, WHEN DID YOU READ THAT LAST?

I HAVE REFERRED TO IT SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE YEARS.

WHEN DID YOU READ IT LAST?

I READ IT FROM COVER TO COVER SEVERAL YEARS AGO.

WHEN WAS THAT?

GOSH PROBABLY TEN, TWELVE, FIFTEEN YEARS AGO.

WAS THAT THE LAST TIME YOU READ IT?

WELL, I REFER TO IT FROM TIME TO TIME. THAT WOULD BE THE LAST TIME I READ IT COVER TO COVER.

AND AGAIN, IN THAT CONNECTION YOU HAVE TOLD US THAT ALL THESE THINGS ARE FACTORS BUT YOU TAKE ALL THESE FACTORS, WHETHER LIVIDITY OR STOMACH CONTENTS OR WHETHER THE PERSON HAD THEIR LAST MEAL, AND YOU PUT ALL THOSE THINGS TOGETHER AS AN INVESTIGATOR AND YOU TRY TO DETERMINE WHAT THE TIME OF DEATH IS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU DO? CAN YOU ANSWER THAT YES OR NO?

YOU ATTEMPT TO, YES, BUT AGAIN, IT IS VERY GENERAL. WITHOUT AN EYEWITNESS YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO PINPOINT THE TIME OF DEATH.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT, AND IF THERE ARE NO EYES, WE APPRECIATE THAT, BUT WHAT YOU DO, DO THE BEST YOU CAN WITH EACH HOMICIDE SCENE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR?

YOU CERTAINLY DO.

YOU DO YOU TRY TO ASSEMBLE A TEAM OF FORENSIC PATHOLOGISTS AND YOU TRY TO USE THAT TEAM; IS THAT CORRECT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND IF THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT MIGHT HELP YOU TO DETERMINE CERTAIN THINGS, YOU TRY TO PRESERVE THAT EVIDENCE? YOU DON'T THROW IT AWAY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

WELL, YOU ARE ALWAYS GOING TO ATTEMPT TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE, CERTAINLY.

YOU TRY TO DO THE BEST YOU CAN TO GATHER ALL THE FACTS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

YOU HAVE ALREADY SHARED WITH US THAT EACH CASE IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

ALL CASES ARE DIFFERENT.

NOW, YESTERDAY YOU DESCRIBED A TERM WHICH YOU -- I THINK YOU CALL IT A CAST OFF. HAVE YOU EVER QUALIFIED AS A BLOOD SPATTER EXPERT IN ANY COURT IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY BEFORE?

YES.

HOW MANY TIMES?

TWICE.

AND WHERE WAS THAT?

IN FEDERAL COURT ONCE AND IN THE COURT OF JUDGE JAMES BASCUE, L.A. COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT.

AND WHEN WAS THAT?

APPROXIMATELY FOUR -- FOUR YEARS AGO PERHAPS.

DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THE NAME OF THE CASE WAS?

YES. IT WAS THE KOWALL -- KOWALL WAS THE VICTIM. IT WAS THE -- KARIMALIS.

KARAMALIS?

K-A-R-I-M-A-L-I-S.

AND WITH REGARD TO THIS TERM "CAST OFF," HAVE YOU READ ANY PUBLICATIONS ON THAT PARTICULAR TERM?

YES, I HAVE READ BOOKS.

WHAT DID YOU READ?

BOOKS ON BLOOD SPATTER ANALYSIS, CRIME SCENE ANALYSIS.

ALL RIGHT. IN THAT CONNECTION, DOES THAT HAVE TO DO -- THE TERM "CAST OFF," DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH DESCRIBING THE VELOCITY WITH WHICH A SPLATTER MOVES FROM ONE OBJECT TO ANOTHER; IS THAT CORRECT?

NOT NECESSARILY THE VELOCITY. JUST DESCRIBING A DROPLET OF BLOOD FALLING FROM, SAY, A WEAPON.

ALL RIGHT. AND YOU -- CAN YOU TELL, BY LOOKING AT A SPLATTER, WHETHER OR NOT THE DROPLET WAS A FREE FALL OR WHETHER IT WAS THROWN FROM A DISTANCE? CAN YOU TELL THAT?

YES.

AND YOU -- IN THIS CASE DID YOU MAKE AN ANALYSIS IN THIS CASE AT THE SCENE THAT DAY?

AS TO BLOOD DROPLETS, YES.

YES, SIR.

AS TO THIS PARTICULAR -- ARE YOU REFERRING TO A PARTICULAR DROPLET OR ALL OF THE BLOOD?

TALKING ABOUT THE DROPLET YOU TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY ON RON GOLDMAN'S SHOE.

OKAY.

DID YOU MAKE AN ANALYSIS THAT DAY AT THAT TIME AT THE SCENE?

NO.

WELL, WHEN DID YOU MAKE YOUR ANALYSIS? AT A LATER TIME?

AS TO THE FACT IT WAS A CAST OFF?

YOUR BELIEF IT IS A CAST OFF?

SUBSEQUENT TO THAT DATE.

AND WHEN WAS THAT? WHEN DID YOU FIRST MAKE THAT ANALYSIS?

AND WHEN WAS THAT? GIVE US THE MONTH OR THE YEAR.

IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR.

1994?

YES.

NOW, IT IS TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT THE CONDITION OF MR. GOLDMAN'S SHOES CHANGED AFTER THEY WERE BAGGED BY THE CORONER'S OFFICE SO THERE WAS MORE BLOOD ON THESE SHOES AFTER THEY WERE BAGGED AND TAKEN TO THE CORONER'S OFFICE THAN THEY WERE BEFORE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT.

YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF THAT?

HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANY PICTURES THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT?

I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT.

DID YOU EVER TALK TO ANY EXPERT IN THE FIELD, A BLOOD SPATTER EXPERT, REGARDING THIS CAST OFF THEORY THAT YOU TOLD US ABOUT YESTERDAY?

YES.

AND DID YOU EVER WRITE A REPORT IN YOUR BOOK REGARDING YOUR BELIEF ABOUT THE CAST OFF THEORY?

NO.

WAS THAT EVER WRITTEN ANYWHERE IN ANY OF THESE VOLUMES OF BOOKS THAT YOU HAVE?

AS TO THAT DROPLET BEING A CAST OFF?

YES, YES.

NO, I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS.

DID YOU EVER TESTIFY ABOUT THAT BEFORE IN ANY PROCEEDING IN THIS CASE?

NO.

OBJECTION.

OVERRULED.

I WAS NEVER ASKED ABOUT THAT.

BY MR. COCHRAN: SO THE FIRST TIME YOU TESTIFIED ABOUT THAT WAS YESTERDAY, RIGHT?

THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I WAS ASKED ABOUT IT.

DID YOU ANSWER YES THE FIRST TIME YOU TESTIFIED?

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND IT IS NOT WRITTEN IN ANY PUBLICATION OR ANY REPORTS THAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN IN THIS CASE; IS THAT RIGHT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

WITH REGARD TO THIS SO-CALLED MIXTURE OF THE VICTIM'S BLOODS, DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS MORE CONCENTRATION OF ONE VICTIM'S BLOOD OVER THE OTHER IN THIS SO-CALLED SPLATTER?

NO.

DO YOU KNOW THAT?

NO.

YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT, DO YOU?

NO.

NOW, YOU TALKED TO US YESTERDAY ABOUT THE BODIES BEING IN A RATHER CLOSE AREA AND THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS CLOSE TO THE BODIES OR THE EVIDENCE WAS RIGHT AROUND THE BODIES. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

YES.

AND IN THAT CONNECTION THE CRIMINALIST IN THIS CASE, AS I RECALL IT, DID NOT ARRIVE UNTIL AFTER TEN O'CLOCK BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN OVER AT ROCKINGHAM; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

YES.

NOW, IN SOME OF THE VIDEOS WE HAVE SEEN WE SAW A MAN YOU IDENTIFIED I THINK AS JOHNSON, STEVE JOHNSON, WAS IT?

YES.

HE IS ONE OF THE CRIMINALISTS, A SUPERVISOR; IS THAT CORRECT?

YES.

THE LAPD LAB, SID LAB, HAS MORE THAN TWO CRIMINALISTS, DON'T THEY?

YES.

AND IF YOU HAD WANTED TO GET OTHER CRIMINALISTS OUT THERE TO START WORKING ON THAT SCENE AT BUNDY, YOU COULD HAVE DONE THAT, COULDN'T YOU?

THERE WAS NO NEED TO, BUT I COULD HAVE, I SUPPOSE.

YOU COULD HAVE DONE THAT?

PERHAPS I COULD HAVE, BUT I EXPECTED THE CRIMINALIST TO COME DIRECTLY OVER FROM ROCKINGHAM.

SO WHEN THEY GOT THERE AFTER TEN O'CLOCK, THAT WAS SOME TEN HOURS AFTER THESE BODIES HAD BEEN FOUND; IS THAT CORRECT?

APPROXIMATELY.

AND AT THAT TIME, SINCE THE CORONERS HAD FINALLY BEEN CALLED, THE CORONERS WERE THERE ALREADY WHEN THE CRIMINALISTS ARRIVED; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

CORRECT.

AND THEN ULTIMATELY YOU WERE PRESENT WHEN THESE BODIES WERE MOVED; IS THAT CORRECT?

YES, I WAS.

YOU DESCRIBED FOR US THAT YOUR BELIEF -- STRIKE THAT. DID YOU SEE THE EVIDENCE MOVE THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER WHEN THE BODIES WERE MOVED?

ONCE AGAIN --

DID YOU SEE THAT?

-- MY ANSWER WAS THEN AND IT STILL IS NOW, I DID NOT PHYSICALLY SEE THEM MOVE.

BUT AT ANY RATE, THE BODIES WERE MOVED, AND HAD THE CRIMINALISTS FINISHED THEIR WORK AT THE TIME THESE BODIES WERE MOVED?

NO.

SO FUNG CONTINUED TO -- FUNG AND MAZZOLLA CONTINUED TO DO THEIR WORK AFTER THE CORONERS AND CORONER'S REPRESENTATIVES TOOK THE BODIES AWAY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

NOW, I WANT TO SHOW YOU PART OF A VIDEO THAT WE HAVE SHOWN BEFORE WITH REGARD TO MR. FUNG AND HIS PRESENCE AT THE SCENE THERE THAT MORNING ON JUNE 13.