All right. I believe that detective Fuhrman is still on the witness stand. Sir, if you would retake the stand. You have previously been sworn and remain under oath. mark fuhrman, having been previously duly sworn, resumed the stand, was examined and testified further as follows:

With respect to the limitation of the scope of this motion, we would like to make it clear, for the record, that the defendant will then reserve a de novo hearing on the issues raised by the motion to quash the search warrant prior to trial. That is not being addressed in this motion.

That's correct. The people have indicated they are not offering any items recovered in the execution of the warrant and, therefore, the warrant would not be in issue in this proceeding.

Thank you.

All right.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. UELMEN:

Detective Fuhrman, we have located the notes that you made in the course of your investigation in the murder book at pages on 00198 through 00200. Did you review those before you testified?

No, I didn't.

Would you like to review them?

I don't think it would be necessary. Maybe during the questioning, if you need to show them to me.

All right. The notes begin with your observations upon your arrival at the scene at 2:10 -- right? -- In the morning?

Yes, sir.

Now, you indicate in these notes that Officer Riske received a radio call, quote, "possible 459 suspects there now, 874 south Bundy." Is that a direct quotation of the radio call?

Well, as much as it was relayed to me. And at that time I didn't know the weight of that call, if it was part of the homicide scene or it was something independent. That was Officer Riske giving me that information. I picked up on that. I just made a notation to question him later.

All right. A "possible 459" refers to a possible burglary; is that correct?

Yes, sir.

And it refers to, plural, "suspects." Was it your understanding that there were suspects who were observed at the scene?

I had no knowledge other than what he told me. I didn't pursue it at that point. He was just briefing us slightly on the scene, what he knew. Then he took us into the scene. So I just made a notation.

And you also noted where that original call came from, that a resident of 874 heard something across the street?

I'm sorry. Would you repeat that.

. . . Resident of 874 heard something across the street?

That's just what Officer Riske said. Again, the way I take notes is I put a numeral by each notation and then, as I go back and start doing the investigation, I will refer back to that note number and then write maybe as much as several pages on one area that I have to go back to. These are just quick notes I made the very first few minutes I was at the crime scene.

so these notes are actually prepared while you are there to keep track of all of your observations and information?

Yes; What to go back to, what should be noted at that time. There are no measurements involved in those preliminary notes. That is the first run through the scene and talking to the officers.

Excellent. And these three pages are all of the notes that you took on the morning of June 13; is that correct?

Well, I was stopped. I was in the process of taking notes, putting my notes to paper; and I was told that robbery-homicide would be taking over the case. I stopped taking notes at that point and gave those notes to detective phillips, who then passed them on to detective Vannatter.

So, essentially, you stopped taking notes because you believed you were off the case; is that correct?

No. I knew I was off the case; It was no longer my case. So I stopped there because the way they conducted the crime scene or their notes -- I would be giving them mine and they would be taking over from that point; They would review my notes up to that point and then they would continue making their own from the beginning -- when they arrived at the scene.

And the notes actually stop at 875 south Bundy?

Yes, sir.

That's correct.

When you left the scene at 875 Bundy and went to the Rockingham address, did you bring any of the evidence with you that you had encountered at the Bundy scene?

Now, you indicated yesterday that one of the reasons that your attention was drawn to the white bronco was because it was parked rather strangely, I believe is the quote?

When I was walking towards it, the front of the truck was facing my direction of travel; and it just Looked -- it just looked a little strange the way it was parked.

You indicated the front was much closer to the curb and the back was out into the roadway?

Well, it was just -- it wasn't parked parallel to the curb. It looked like it was parked hurriedly or haphazardly.

You indicated the wheels were turned in towards the curb?

They were turned in towards the curb; and that would be the way the vehicle was sitting -- with the rear end jutting out -- was my impression walking forward. I couldn't tell you how many degrees to the right they were.

All right.

Your Honor, could we mark officer Fuhrman's notes as exhibit E, defense exhibit E?

All right. You say that consists of three pages?

Three pages.

Yes. E.

BY MR. UELMEN:

I am handing you what we have marked as Exhibit E. Are those all of the notes you took of your investigation in this case?

Yes, sir.

All right.

Now, we also located among the photographs supplied to the defense four pictures of the bronco automobile taken the morning of June 13. If we could mark these defense exhibit F, your Honor.

Yes.

And they are numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Do those photographs accurately represent the position of the bronco automobile as you observed it in the early morning hours of June 13?

If I could point to the photos. Photo 1 we previously saw. Photo 2 really doesn't show the direction I was walking. Photo 3, it seems the camera is more to the left. When I was looking at the bronco, I was several feet back and I believe I was more to the right of the vehicle, where the line of the vehicle seemed like the rear end was out a little bit more. As you can see here in photo 4, the right tire is about 4 inches onto the concrete part of the asphalt roadway; where the rear tire is completely on the asphalt, with a couple inches to spare. And that's what I'm talking about. It looked like it wasn't casually parked or carefully parked. It wouldn't be how I would probably park my vehicle. It just looked a little strange walking up on it.

But these photographs do accurately depict how the car was parked?

I remembered that it was more extreme, and I am not sure that this photo shows the way my view of that was walking up towards it from a greater distance than this and a little more to the right; But I would say it would be fair to say --

Are you suggesting the automobile was moved between the time you saw it and the time these photographs were taken?

I am not suggesting that at all. I am just suggesting where our photographer took the photos from it doesn't really show where exactly I was walking. I was walking -- almost in the middle of the roadway walking down more to the right of the vehicle. I am not saying it was moved. It just seems my view might have given me a more extreme angle than these photos show.

OKAY. When you walked up to the automobile, did you check to see if the engine was warm?

I touched the hood, and it was not warm; but I also didn't feel any moisture. Of course, I am not sure how much of a dew there was that morning. I also didn't look at the lawns.

All right. When you first observed the stain on the door, did the stain appear to be wet, or damp?

I didn't touch it; and it didn't appear like it was flowing, or moving. I would say it was -- appeared to be dried.

I asked you yesterday about some coffee stains. You indicated you did not observe any food stains or possible coffee stains on the car?

That's true. I didn't observe them.

We have located three different impound reports which appear in the murder book at 00108, 00110 and 00111; and I would ask these be marked as exhibits G-1, -2 and -3.

All right.

by MR. UELMEN:

Now, these are all vehicle investigation reports related to a 1994 ford bronco, 3cwz788. That's the bronco in question; is that correct?

I believe it is. I don't recall the plate.

All right. Now, one of these reports is filled out when the automobile is moved; is that correct?

Well, yes. It could be filled out prior, too; but it generally is, yes, when the impound is complete.

The first of these reports indicates June 13 at 7:30 in the morning. Were you aware of the car being impounded at 7:30 in the morning?

No.

The second of these reports, which refers to a time of June 13 at 3:30 in the afternoon, 1530, notes: "special instructions: take vehicle to print shack P.A.B., across street from parker center. Two coffee stains on hood, disregard. Not related." What does that mean?

Officer Don thompson, who was handling security on the Rockingham gate, said when the media was at the scene and there was a rush of activity, one of the news people running by or walking by placed a cup on the hood of the bronco; They immediately grabbed it, admonished them, obviously, "don't do that again." and he informed me there was coffee stains. I believe he also informed other detectives at the scene of the same thing.

Now, had any yellow tape or crime scene tape been placed around the automobile?

No. And I believe the reason for that is we didn't want to draw more attention to the vehicle than we wanted at that point. We had two officers assigned to -- specifically just to that vehicle to secure it, and they did that; And when the rush of media came by, it was really something they couldn't foresee and couldn't do anything about.

Okay.

If we could mark these reports, your Honor, as G-1, G-2 and G-3.

Are these the vehicle reports?

I have never seen these reports, sir.

I want to take you back to your --

Sir, I might add, if I could, I do recognize the name on the bottom of the one report. One of the authors of this report is officer thompson, who talked to me at the scene about the coffee stains.

Is his name on the first of those reports, the

No. This is -- the time of occurrence is 1530. That is officer Thompson's report. I have no knowledge about the other two.

All right. When you were in the room of Mr. Kaelin immediately after you went to the back of the premises at Rockingham, were there any windows in that back wall of Mr. Kato's room -- or Mr. Kaelin's room? Let me get the chart out here.

I can answer that, sir. There are no windows to that wall in Mr. Kaelin's room.

OKAY. I want to have you --

Could we have defense exhibit A?

Your memory is no windows in the back wall?

No. There are windows in the back wall, but there was no window in the wall where the air conditioning duct was or west of that air conditioning duct on that wall of Mr. Kato's room. No, there wasn't.

Let's have you refer to where in the wall the duct was. Referring to defense exhibit a, would you point out where in that wall the air conditioning duct was.

Mr. Kato's room is the first bungalow. The air conditioning duct was probably just a little off center of this wall of his room, probably just to the right of his bed. There's no windows west of there. I am not sure if there is a window for the bathroom. I am positive there was a window, maybe two windows, for Arnelle's room; and I am not positive in the back. I see a window that is depicted here, but I don't recall that.

Did you make any effort to look through those windows at all to see if anyone was back there?

To look through which windows, sir?

The windows in the back wall of either the bathroom or Arnelle's room.

No, I didn't look through there. No. I believe -- excuse me, but I believe this window, the one window here, was the frosted type of opaque window; and I am not positive, but this, I think, was a higher window, elevated past my point of view. I am not positive on that.

All right. Would you like to write a "W" where you indicated there was a window in Mr. Kato's bathroom.

I am a little light of a pencil. You want a "W" where?

At the location where there was a window in Mr. Kato's room or the adjoining bathroom.

I don't recall a window in his bathroom. I said there possibly might have been one, but -- I know there were a couple of windows when I went past the air conditioner, but I don't recall if one of them was his window.

So you don't recall observing in the quarters occupied by Mr. Kato a window?

No, I don't.

Now, in preparing your testimony for yesterday and today, did you confer with the district attorneys who are prosecuting this case?

Yes. We talked.

Was this just a conference between yourself and the district attorneys, or were the other detectives involved in the case present?

No. We didn't talk about the case in the presence of the detectives. In fact, at one point marcia and I just talked between ourselves; but it was nothing very pointed, just about the tactics of the defense and that everything is going fine; "just tell everything that you did" and "you are doing fine."

Now, was this after the motion to suppress was filed a week ago today?

I'm sorry. Are you talking about -- which conversation?

The conversations with either Miss Clark or Mr. Hodgman?

We discussed my portion of this case prior to the motion to suppress. They asked me just exactly what went down; and they said, "well, we are comfortable with that." and that was pretty much it.

You did have not have any discussion of these events after the motion was filed on June 29?

We reiterated the same thing we talked about before. They said, you know, "what did you do then?" much the same as they would be bringing me through a testimony; And they felt comfortable with what transpired and what I had to say.

When you say "they," who were you meeting with?

Mr. Hodgman and Miss Clark.

And were any other detectives present at that time?

No. I talked to them by themselves.

Now, if you were giving someone directions to go to Mr. Simpson's home on Rockingham, how would you direct them?

From the Bundy location?

Yes.

I would say, probably, to go northbound on Bundy to -- there's two ways you could go: eastbound on San Vicente past Cliffwood to Rockingham or go up Cliffwood northbound from San Vicente -- that would probably be the easiest way -- Cliffwood northbound to sunset and sunset east to either Bristol circle or Rockingham and then go northbound once again. Bristol circle will eventually curve you around to Rockingham. Cliffwood, if you went northbound from sunset, would eventually bring you to Ashford; and Rockingham would go directly to the house.

Wouldn't the simplest way to be go up Bundy to sunset and then go left to Rockingham?

The simplest on those streets is lights to go across sunset and not get lost. If you get to Bristol circle, it is kind of confusing. There is Bristol circle, Bristol court. It is kind of confusing.

If you could reiterate for us the precise time, as you remember, that you first observed the glove on the premises at 360 Rockingham.

It is pretty hard to be precise, but I will get as close as I can. We arrived at approximately 5:10.

I would just like to know the time you observed the glove.

6:15 to 6:30?

Maybe it could be as early as 6; but, like I said, I didn't look at my watch at that point.

Thank you.