Recross-examination of Comm. Keith Bushey (part 1)

📄 Recross-examination of Comm. Keith Bushey (part 1) — Wednesday, September 20, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\SEP\20\RECROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-COMM-KE.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 158 of 167

◀ Redirect examination of Comm. Keith Bushey (part 2) Redirect examination of Comm. Keith Bushey (part 3) ▶

Witness: Comm. Keith Bushey
Examiner: Johnnie Cochran
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Wednesday, September 20, 1995 • Utterances: 28

Cochran recrosses Commander Bushey on two key points: first, whether Fuhrman was the source of Bushey's knowledge that O.J. Simpson lived near the Bundy crime scene; and second, whether it was truly necessary to go to Simpson's Rockingham estate given that the children at the police station already knew where their father lived. Cochran closes by pressing Bushey on his 'competing interests' rationale, suggesting that standing in the street doing nothing at a homicide scene is not a legitimate competing interest.

# 1 MR. COCHRAN:

Thank you very kindly, your Honor.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY Mr. COCHRAN

# 2 MR. COCHRAN:

Who told you that O.J. Simpson lived nearby?

# 3 COMMANDER BUSHEY:

You know, I don't recall specifically, and I have asked myself that question several times, but I tried to separate what I knew that night from what I have subsequently learned, and I had the sense, as a result of my conversation with Ron Phillips, that he lived nearby and I--I can assume--I can make assumptions, if that is what you would like.

KEY QUOTE

# 4 MR. COCHRAN:

I don't want you to--

# 5 COMMANDER BUSHEY:

I cannot tell you exactly why I knew that.

# 6 MR. COCHRAN:

Could it have been that Detective Mark Fuhrman told you?

# 7 MS. CLARK:

Objection, hearsay, irrelevant, beyond the scope.

# 8 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 9 COMMANDER BUSHEY:

No, that did not occur.

# 10 MR. COCHRAN:

He didn't tell you that?

# 11 MS. CLARK:

Objection, your Honor.

# 12 COMMANDER BUSHEY:

I had no conversations with Fuhrman.

KEY QUOTE

# 13 MR. COCHRAN:

Now, would you find it unusual that the two minor children that you were so concerned about would know who their father was and where their father lived, would you, who were at the police station?

# 14 (No audible response.)

# 15 MR. COCHRAN:

That wouldn't be a mystery?

# 16 COMMANDER BUSHEY:

What about the police station?

# 17 MR. COCHRAN:

You would not find unusual these two minors, Sydney and Justin Simpson, who were at West Los Angeles Police Station, would know where their father lived, would you?

# 18 COMMANDER BUSHEY:

You would think that they certainly would.

# 19 MR. COCHRAN:

What you have told us here today, when Ron Phillips talked to you at 2:30, he told you that the female victim in this case was Nicole Brown Simpson; isn't that correct?

# 20 COMMANDER BUSHEY:

That is what I believe, yes.

# 21 MR. COCHRAN:

By the way, when you talked about these competing interests--

# 22 MS. CLARK:

Objection, your Honor. Motion to strike. That was hearsay.

# 23 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 24 MR. COCHRAN:

When you talk about these competing interests, one of these competing interests is not standing in the street doing nothing at a homicide scene, is it?

# 25 COMMANDER BUSHEY:

If another investigator is responding to take over the investigation, that is probably the thing that they should be doing.

# 26 MR. COCHRAN:

I'm talking about your competing interests, not about another investigator taking over. I'm asking you--you talked a lot about competing interests. I'm asking you specifically as a commander with the Los Angeles Police Department, one of the competing interests at the serious homicide scene that needs to be investigated is not standing in the street doing nothing, is it?

# 27 MS. CLARK:

Objection, argumentative asked and answered.

# 28 THE COURT:

Sustained.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (3)

Comm. Keith Bushey

I had no conversations with Fuhrman.

Direct denial that Fuhrman directed the decision to go to Rockingham — a central defense theory about Fuhrman's role in the investigation.

Johnnie Cochran

One of the competing interests is not standing in the street doing nothing at a homicide scene, is it?

Cochran challenges the justification Bushey offered for sending officers to Simpson's home, implying the 'competing interests' framing was pretextual.

Comm. Keith Bushey

I don't recall specifically, and I have asked myself that question several times, but I tried to separate what I knew that night from what I have subsequently learned.

Bushey concedes he cannot explain how he knew Simpson lived nearby, which is the factual foundation for the defense's Fuhrman-planted-evidence theory.

Notable Exchanges (2)

Johnnie Cochran•Comm. Keith Bushey

Cochran asks point-blank whether Fuhrman told Bushey that Simpson lived nearby; Bushey denies any conversation with Fuhrman whatsoever, but cannot explain how he actually knew.

strategic

Johnnie Cochran•Comm. Keith Bushey

Cochran highlights that Sydney and Justin Simpson were at the West LA police station and would obviously know where their father lived, undermining Bushey's stated rationale for going to Rockingham to notify next of kin.

revealing

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Comm. Keith Bushey

prior inconsistent/unexplained knowledge

Cochran presses Bushey on how he knew Simpson lived near Bundy, forcing Bushey to admit he cannot explain the source of that knowledge while denying it came from Fuhrman.

⚔ Comm. Keith Bushey

logical impeachment

Cochran dismantles Bushey's 'competing interests' and child-notification rationale by pointing out the children were already at the police station and would know their father's address.

Witness Demeanor

(No audible response.) — Bushey goes silent when Cochran asks whether the children at the police station would know where their father lived

Objections

4 objections (1 sustained, 2 overruled)

Proceeding 7791 • 28 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103