Thank you very much, your Honor. I would like the court to kindly ask to recall to the witness stand Los Angeles Police Department Detective Philip Vannatter.

All right. Detective.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

THE JURY: Good morning.

Philip Vannatter, called as a witness by the Defendant, pursuant to evidence code section 770, was sworn and testified as follows:

Please raise your right hand. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

I do.

Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.

Philip Vannatter, P-H-I-L-I-P V-A-N-N-A-T-T-E-R.

Thank you.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO

Detective Vannatter, on March the 16th of 1995, did you previously testify before this jury?

I believe that was the date, yes.

And were you asked questions on direct examination by the District Attorney regarding your reasons for going from Bundy to Rockingham?

Yes.

And have you had an opportunity to review that testimony?

I know what I testified to, yes.

Have you had an opportunity to review it since the time you testified?

To read the testimony?

To review it in any way?

No. I know what I testified to.

Have you gone over that testimony with anyone?

No, I have not.

Have you talked to either Mr. Kelberg or Mr. Hodgman recently about the credibility of that testimony?

Objection, your Honor, as to the characterization.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Have you talked to Mr. Hodgman or Mr. Kelberg recently about the testimony regarding why you went to Rockingham?

I didn't talk to them about that, no.

Was that discussed during a recent conversation with them?

The reason I went to Rockingham? No, it was not discussed.

Did they question you about why you went to Rockingham--well, let's put it in perspective. Were you called in to give a tape-recorded interview to Mr. Kelberg and Mr. Hodgman within the last ten days?

Yes, I was.

When was that?

I believe it was last Friday.

Did you give a tape-recorded interview?

I did, yes.

Was that under oath?

I don't think I was put under oath. I was interviewed on tape.

And was the subject matter of why you went to Rockingham discussed?

That was--that is in the context of the interview, yes.

Now, I want to direct your attention back to your trial testimony on March the 16th, and ask you, sir, if you were asked the following questions and gave the following answers to this jury under oath. And I want to--I have given Mr. Kelberg a copy of this and your Honor a copy of this.

Mr. Shapiro, are you going in sequence?

Yes, yes. We are going to go now to page 19169.

This was a question that was directed to you by Mr. Darden. "Now we have heard testimony that Commander Bushey ordered Detective Phillips to notify Mr. Simpson personally? "Answer: That's correct. "Question: Okay. During that discussion did any detective voice any opposition to scaling the wall? "Answer: No. "Question: At that point did you consider Mr. Simpson a suspect in the murder of Nicole Brown and the other man? "Answer: No. "Question: You told us that Detective Fuhrman did not convince you of anything? "Answer: Well, it would be--I think it would--I would take an independent look. I don't think I would be convinced of anything by anybody outside of my own." Do you recall being asked those questions by Mr. Darden?

Certainly.

Do you recall giving those answers?

Certainly.

On page 19265 were you asked--do you recall being asked the following question by Mr. Darden--

Excuse me, your Honor. I object to having this read. If counsel wants to go into alleged inconsistent statements, that is what I understand the witness to be here for.

Overruled.

"Now, you earlier told us that Mr. Simpson was not a suspect while you were at Bundy; is that correct? "Answer: At what point are you asking, sir? "Okay. Well, after your first walk-through at Bundy was he a suspect? "Answer: No. "And when you first arrived at Rockingham was he a suspect? "Answer: No. "During the time that you were ringing the buzzer at the front of the property was he a suspect then? "Answer: No. "And when you rang the front door at Rockingham, was he a suspect then? "Answer: No."

Mr. Shapiro, are you going to go on on that page?

I'm turning the page.

Are you going to a different--

Proceed, counsel.

Thank you very much, your Honor. "At some point in time did you consider him a suspect? "Answer: Absolutely, yes. "And at what point in time was it that you considered him a suspect? "He became a suspect as soon as I saw the glove at the side of the house. It appeared to be a match to the glove, the opposite glove to the glove I had seen earlier at Bundy."

Do you recall giving those answers to those questions regarding--

I don't believe that is the complete answer to that question, counsel.

That is all I have here, your Honor, so if there is more--

There is a continuation to that.

"Answer: He became a suspect as soon as I saw the glove at the side of the house. It appeared to match the glove, the opposite glove to the glove I had seen earlier at Bundy, and then after coming out of the driveway and finding the blood trail, he became a very strong suspect."

Do you recall being asked those lines of questioning when Mr. Simpson became a suspect?

Certainly I do.

And did you give those answers?

I certainly did.

And on page 19519, this is cross-examination by me, were you asked the following question: "Your purpose in taking four officers to go to the Rockingham estate was solely for notification; is that correct? "Answer: Our purpose for taking four officers was actually two-fold. No. 1, they could direct us to the location because Fuhrman had been there before. And no. 2, we intended on them helping us with the notification, helping Mr. Simpson to make a disposition of the children, for us to meet Mr. Simpson for a later interview." Do you recall being asked that question by me and giving that answer?

Yes.

Page 19536, questions by me. To put this in perspective: "Four detectives are now taking turns pushing the buzzer device on the gate? "Answer: Well, I think there were three of us that rang it. I don't recall of Fuhrman ringing the bell. "Question: Now, Fuhrman's role in coming there was purely to show you how to get there; is that your statement? "Answer: No. Question by me:

"Was he coming as a back-up unit for you? "Answer: No. "Question: Was he coming to help you investigate? "Answer: No. "Was he coming to introduce to you Mr. Simpson? "Answer: No. "Question: Was he coming to help you in the notification? "He was coming--we were going to make the notification and he was coming to assist Mr. Simpson if he needed assistance. "Question: And he had volunteered for that? "Answer: No. We asked him to accompany us." Do you recall being asked those questions and giving those answers?

I recall that line of questioning. If you are reading verbatim from the transcript, yes.

And do you recall finally on page 19537 that--to put this in proper context, you were talking about the difference between an emergency situation and a tactical situation and you gave this answer. "If I would have had a tactical situation and knew that I had a suspect or knew that I had a hostage or knew that I had a murder suspect in there, it would have been handled totally differently. This was a situation where I was worried that something had occurred there possibly like had occurred at Bundy." Do you recall being given--giving that answer?

Yes, I do.

And finally--I said finally, but on page 19709: "At some time you wanted to interview Mr. Simpson?" And you said: "Yes, at some point." My question was: "Well, did you consider him a suspect at that time? "Answer: No."

Your Honor, there is a difference in the page number between what Mr. Shapiro has from his printout and what are the actual page numbers.

Why don't you give me the actual page numbers.

We are still trying to find the last one.

Do you have it?

All right. We will correct that later.

"Did you have any notion at all that time that--"Answer: I didn't know who the suspect was. Anybody could have been a suspect at that point."

Okay. Did you give those answers?

Yes, I gave those answers.

Is there any doubt in your mind that you conveyed to the jury under oath that when you went to Rockingham Mr. Simpson was not a suspect?

There is no doubt in my mind. Mr. Simpson was no more of a suspect at that point than you were, Mr. Shapiro.

And you gave that same testimony before the grand jury under oath?

That is absolutely correct.

And you gave that same testimony at the preliminary hearing under oath?

That is absolutely correct, yes.

In January of 1995 were you in the company of an individual known as Craig Fiato, a Deputy District Attorney dale Davidson, an individual Larry Fiato and Detective Tom Lange?

Yes, I was.

Is that hotel located in the downtown Los Angeles?

No, it is not.

Where is that hotel located?

Your Honor, there is an objection based upon--

Sustained.

Just general area for reference.

Sustained. Not relevant. Somewhere in the Los Angeles area.

And at that meeting was--were you aware that Larry Fiato and Craig Fiato were brothers?

I was told that, yes.

And had you--you had known that your partner had had previous dealings with them; is that correct?

I had previously met them prior to that meeting.

And your partner had previously dealt with him?

My partner was investigating a case that involved them, yes.

How many times had you met them before?

I believe one time.

And at some point in time you were aware that Denise Brown--

Sustained. Not relevant.

You were aware that both Larry and Craig Fiato were certified as reliable informants?

Objection, your Honor.

Sustained. Legal conclusion, counsel. The issue is the statement.

Was there any discussion about your role in the O.J. Simpson case in the presence of those individuals?

There was a lot of discussion from Craig Fiato, yes.

Did you have any part in the discussions regarding your role in the O.J. Simpson case?

I think I responded to some questions that he asked me regarding the testimony that he had seen at the preliminary hearing, yes.

And they told you they had watched your testimony on television--did Mr. Craig Fiato tell you he had watched your testimony on television?

Yeah. The gist of his conversation was he was talking about the difference in personality of myself and my partner. That was the gist of the conversation.

During that conversation did you state that you went to the home of O.J. Simpson in the early morning hours of June the 13th, 1994, because he was a suspect?

Did I state that exactly? No, I did not.

In sum and substance, did you convey to anybody in that room that the reason you went to the O.J. Simpson residence was because he was a suspect?

Objection, your Honor, calls for speculation.

Overruled.

No, I didn't. There was general conversation going on. If something was taken out of context or if something was said in jest, I can't answer to that. I never said that O.J. Simpson was a suspect. O.J. Simpson was not a suspect when I went to the Rockingham location.

Did you say that of course he was a suspect, the husband is always a suspect?

Mr. Shapiro, no, I didn't say that. Anybody that has personal contact with a murder victim, before they are eliminated, is a potential suspect and can be a potential suspect. I wish I was good enough to go to a crime scene and within less than an hour be able to figure out who committed a murder. That would be great.

Did you state that the real reason was not to save lives but because O.J. Simpson was a suspect, the husband is always a suspect?

The real reason was not to save lives. I went to the location to make a death notification, to make a disposition of two small children, minor children that were in police custody, and in the furtherance of my murder investigation.

Do you know a Special Agent from the FBI by the name of Wacks?

Yes, I have met Mr. Wacks.

And how did you come in contact with Mr. Wacks?

Because Mr. Wacks is associated with the Fiatos and I met him through my partner who was investigating and working on the case that they are all involved in.

How is he associated with the Fiatos?

I believe my understanding is he is a Special Agent from the FBI that was working with the Fiatos in an undercover operation. That is my knowledge of it.

And how long had he been working--how long had the Fiatos been working with the FBI?

Objection, your Honor.

Sustained.

Do you have any information as to how long the Fiatos were working with the FBI?

Sustained.

Both hearsay and the objection on the other grounds.

Sustained.

And during February of this year were you up on the 18th floor with Larry Fiato?

Yes.

And did you go out on the balcony with Larry Fiato for the purpose of smoking a cigarette?

Yes.

And did you have a conversation with Larry Fiato and in that conversation discuss the O.J. Simpson case?

Larry Fiato was asking questions about a lot of things. I have not specifically discussed the O.J. Simpson case with anybody.

And did--

I don't discuss my murder cases with anybody other than people that are involved in the case.

And did you tell Larry Fiato that you did not--that you went to Rockingham because O.J. was a suspect, the husband is always a suspect, on the 18th floor of the balcony while smoking a cigarette in February of this year?

Again, if something is taken out of context, I don't have a specific recollection of making that statement. I don't believe I did make that statement.

Are you saying you didn't make that statement?

May I finish my answer, please?

Please.

Yes.

Again, any person that has personal contact with a murder victim is a potential suspect until they are eliminated, until the investigation is completed. He may have taken something out of context. I have no recollection of making that statement. That is not a true fact. I went to the location to make a death notification and a disposition of two minor children.

And you went to that location with four of the only lead homicide detectives and ignored the investigation at Bundy, and your testimony is for the purpose of only making a death notification? Is that your testimony, sir?

Objection, your Honor, compound and outside the scope of--

Sustained, sustained.

When you say you don't have a recollection of saying it, are you telling this jury you did not tell Larry Fiato that you went to Rockingham because O.J. Simpson was a suspect?

I'm saying I would never say that because O.J. Simpson was not a suspect at that time. O.J. Simpson became a suspect after I--I was shown the glove by mark Fuhrman and after I saw the blood drops in the driveway. That is when he became a very strong suspect.

During--

Up to that point he was not a suspect to me.

During your conversation with Larry Fiato on the 18th floor in February did Special Agent Wacks from the Federal Bureau of Investigation come out?

Well, he was out there a number of times.

Was he in a position to overhear what was being said in that conversation?

Objection, your Honor, that calls for speculation.

Sustained.

How large an area is this.

It is a very small area.

How large? Describe it to the jury.

Very small. Maybe six foot by six foot. Make seven foot by seven foot.

How close did Special Agent Wacks get to you while you were talking to Larry Fiato?

Well, there were many times that we were out there. It--everybody is in a small confined area.

Did Craig Fiato also come out during that period of time?

I don't recall ever seeing him out there.

Are you saying he didn't come out?

I'm saying I don't recall ever seeing him out there. I don't believe he ever was out there.

May I just have a moment, your Honor?

Yes.

Why did you go to the hotel to meet with the Fiato brothers in January?

Because I was requested to accompany my partner to that location.

For what purpose?

My partner informed me that he and Deputy District Attorney Davidson were going to interview them regarding their testimony in an upcoming trial.

Why were you going?

Because Detective Lange is my partner and he asked me to go with him.

Were you going there to work on the case?

No, I wasn't working on the case.

Were you going there to keep him company?

I think I answered the question. He asked me to go along in case he needed any kind of assistance. I accompanied him there.

All right. This is not particularly relevant, counsel.

May I just have one more moment, your Honor?

Sustained. Sustained.

Isn't it true that from the moment you learned about the circumstances of Nicole Simpson's death--

Your Honor, I have to object. It is argumentative and it is irrelevant.

Sustained.

May we just have a moment, your Honor? May we approach for a moment?

Proceed.

Detective Vannatter, I want to go into one other area just to clarify other testimony regarding a glove that you seized at Rockingham, if I might direct your attention in that area. As the lead detective in this case was Mr. Simpson's residence searched for clothes, shoes, gloves or anything else that may be significant to your investigation?

Yes, it was.

Other than a pair of socks and tennis shoes, were any other items of clothing seized?

Yes.

Was a brown glove identified as Los Angeles Police Department no. 94 seized from Mr. Simpson's house?

I know a brown glove was seized. I don't know whether it was item 94 or not, but I know a brown glove was seized.

Is that the glove that was displayed in the videotape shot by Willie Ford?

I believe so, yes.

Were any black--let me--one moment, please.

Let me show you a glove that was seized that has been marked as an exhibit.

I'm going to show you a brown leather glove that has been previously marked--

Do I need my glasses? Do I need to read anything?

As exhibit 609. Is that the glove that was seized?

It would appear to be, yes.

And finally, Detective Vannatter, were any black leather gloves seized from the Simpson residence?

There were two additional pair of gloves seized from the master closet on June the 28th. I believe--I believe one pair of them was black, yes.

And that was not a leather dress glove, was it? That was a ski glove?

The additional gloves that were seized?

Yes.

They were totally different than a leather men's dress glove.

Were any black leather men's gloves seized?

As I recall, the additional gloves that were seized were heavier than what I would consider a dress glove. It looked like they were cold whether gloves that a person would wear skiing or when they were really in gold whether.

Thank you. Mr. Kelberg.