Cross-examination of unknown witness

📄 Cross-examination of unknown witness — Thursday, July 7, 1994

Address:

C:\DEPT103\PRELIMINARY\1994\JUL\7\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-UNKNOWN-W.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 5 of 6

◀ Redirect examination of Det. Tom Lange Redirect examination of unknown witness (part 1) ▶

Witness: Witness
Examiner: Marcia Clark
Called by: Defense • Date: Thursday, July 7, 1994 • Utterances: 222

Robert Shapiro continues cross-examination of the lead detective (likely Tom Lange), methodically attacking the procedural integrity of the crime scene investigation. Shapiro highlights missing criminalist logs, the ~6.75-hour delay before the Bundy crime scene investigation began, absent witness canvassing, and incomplete documentation — building a picture of a disorganized and contaminated investigation.

# 1 THE COURT:

We are again on the record in the case of people v. Simpson. The defendant is present with counsel. The people are represented. Mr. Shapiro.

# 2 MR. SHAPIRO:

Yes. cross-examination (resumed)

# 3

BY mr. shapiro:

# 4 Q:

I believe there was a question pending.

# 5 A:

May I have it repeated, please.

# 6 Q:

Do you have records to reflect in your chronological log the time the criminalist first arrived at the Rockingham scene?

# 7 A:

I don't.

# 8 Q:

Did you check with the lieutenant and deputy district attorneys or anyone else?

# 9 A:

I checked with my partner at that particular scene, and he indicates there was no log made. And that was not a crime scene at that time. In fact -- would you like me to explain that a little bit?

# 10 Q:

I think you have answered the question. Thank you.

# 11 A:

Okay.

# 12 Q:

Did you file any reports, supplemental reports, or follow-up reports, as to what time the criminalist arrived at the Rockingham location up until and including today?

# 13 A:

I didn't. That would be filed by the criminalist himself. He would have his own information, his own log.

# 14 Q:

And have you seen such a report?

# 15 A:

I haven't seen it, no.

# 16 Q:

Do you know if one exists at all?

# 17 A:

I am assuming a criminalist's report does exist, yes.

# 18 Q:

That would be something you would want to maintain in your murder book, would you not?

# 19 A:

Once I get it, yes. We haven't received many things, and that is one of them.

# 20 Q:

Isn't the criminalist one of the closest people you work with in a homicide investigation?

# 21 MS. CLARK:

Objection. Vague. What does "closest" mean?

# 22

by Mr. shapiro:

# 23 Q:

-- One of the most important?

# 24 MR. SHAPIRO:

I will rephrase that. I think counsel is correct.

# 25 THE COURT:

All right.

# 26

BY mr. shapiro:

# 27 Q:

Would you say a criminalist is one of the most important members of your investigative team in a homicide case?

# 28 A:

That would depend, certainly, as to evidence at a crime scene. Subsequent to that, not necessarily; but certainly I would say as to collection of evidence.

# 29 Q:

In this case would you say he would be one of the most important members of your investigative team?

# 30 A:

As to the collection of serological evidence, yes.

# 31 Q:

And is that a very important aspect of this case in your opinion?

# 32 A:

Yes.

# 33 Q:

Is it maybe the most important aspect of your case?

# 34 A:

evidencewise, I would say there is a good possibility of that, yes.

KEY QUOTE

# 35 Q:

And as of today you still have not received any reports from him? Is that your testimony?

# 36 A:

No. I have received reports from him. But the reporting procedure is ongoing. The investigation is ongoing. I get reports from various entities on a daily basis, sometimes as many as 50 or 100 pages of various things.

# 37 Q:

When you and your partner and the two West L.A. homicide detectives left Bundy to go to Rockingham, who did you leave in charge of Bundy?

# 38 A:

Lt. Rogers.

# 39 Q:

Did you instruct him, even though he is your supervisor, as to what to do?

# 40 A:

Basically what to do was to secure the scene until I arrived, until I returned.

# 41 Q:

Until you came back?

# 42 A:

I'm sorry?

# 43 Q:

Until you came back?

# 44 A:

Yes.

# 45 Q:

And that meant not to let anybody in or out and maintain the perimeter?

# 46 A:

Not necessarily.

# 47 Q:

What did that mean when you told him -- when you gave him instructions that you were leaving?

# 48 A:

To secure the location and that we would be returning.

# 49 Q:

What did that mean? What were you conveying to Lt. Rogers to do?

# 50 A:

That I was leaving for a short time and that I would soon be returning.

# 51 Q:

And what was he to do at your direction?

# 52 A:

Remain at the premises.

# 53 Q:

And do what? Sit there? Go to sleep? Investigate?

# 54 A:

Make sure that no one disturbed the crime scene, basically.

# 55 Q:

So he was now in charge of no one entering the crime scene area?

# 56 A:

No; not necessarily.

# 57 Q:

Was he in charge of continuing the investigation at Bundy?

# 58 A:

He was in charge of anything that might have come up while he was there until I arrived back.

# 59 Q:

Would you say that your investigation had been completed at the Bundy scene at the time you left for Rockingham?

# 60 A:

Certainly not. It hadn't started.

KEY QUOTE

# 61 Q:

And did you instruct him to do anything regarding the crime scene investigation, as your supervisor, when you left to go to Rockingham?

# 62 A:

The instructions were -- it was mutually understood that he would remain there until I returned. There were no specific instructions to do this or to do that.

# 63 Q:

Does the murder book or chronological record indicate whether Lt. Rogers conducted a crime scene investigation in your absence?

# 64 A:

I don't believe you would find that in there.

# 65 Q:

Did you ask him if he did?

# 66 A:

No.

# 67 Q:

Is that something you would want to know?

# 68 A:

If Lt. Rogers conducted the crime scene investigation?

# 69 Q:

In your absence.

# 70 A:

No. It was a mutual understanding that, in fact, was my duty and I would do that once I returned, perhaps with his assistance.

# 71 Q:

What time did you return to begin your crime scene investigation at the Bundy location?

# 72 A:

It was approximately 6:45 a.m.

# 73 Q:

So that's now 6 hours and 45 minutes after the report -- the last report of the death; is that correct?

# 74 A:

Roughly.

# 75 Q:

Is there any benefit in starting a crime scene investigation as soon as possible?

# 76 A:

There certainly could be.

# 77 Q:

Could there be in this case?

# 78 A:

Well, that would be open to speculation; and, certainly, down the road we may know more about this case and find out at that time. At this point it is kind of up in the air.

# 79 Q:

Based on what you know now, would it have been your preference to conduct a crime scene investigation at Bundy as soon as possible?

# 80 MS. CLARK:

Objection. That is irrelevant, and it is vague.

# 81 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 82

BY mr. shapiro:

# 83 Q:

When you went to Rockingham, did you direct any officers to do a door-to-door search of the surrounding neighbors?

# 84 MS. CLARK:

Objection. Vague. Search?

# 85 THE COURT:

Are you talking about the surrounding neighbors of Bundy or Rockingham?

# 86 MR. SHAPIRO:

At Bundy.

# 87 THE COURT:

At Bundy?

# 88 MR. SHAPIRO:

Yes.

# 89 THE COURT:

And by "search," just what do you mean?

# 90 MR. SHAPIRO:

Let me clarify that. That was a very poorly phrased question.

# 91 Q:

Did you direct any officers to door-knock surrounding residents to ascertain if anybody saw anything at Bundy?

# 92 A:

I don't recall doing that.

# 93 Q:

Do you have any notes to reflect you did that?

# 94 A:

No.

# 95 Q:

Would you say that it would be appropriate to start at 874 south Bundy, where a suspicious person was reported, to begin looking for potential witnesses?

# 96 A:

Not necessarily.

# 97 Q:

Have you reviewed, up until today, any communication tapes to see if there were any prowler or burglar calls in the immediate area prior to June 13, 1994, at 0110 (sic) hours?

# 98 A:

Nothing.

# 99 Q:

During your investigation, have you determined if in the last few years there have been any similar homicides reported in Los Angeles?

# 100 MS. CLARK:

Objection. Vague.

# 101 THE COURT:

As to "similar"?

# 102 MS. CLARK:

Similar to what, in what way?

# 103

by Mr. shapiro:

# 104 Q:

-- Similar to --

# 105 MR. SHAPIRO:

Let me rephrase it.

# 106 THE COURT:

All right.

# 107

BY mr. shapiro:

# 108 Q:

-- Similar to the homicide you are investigating in this case?

# 109 MS. CLARK:

Same objection with respect to --

# 110 THE COURT:

You mean a double murder of an adult male and female?

# 111 MR. SHAPIRO:

Yes. Similar circumstances; that a male and female were murdered under the same or similar circumstances.

# 112 Q:

That's one of the things you do in your investigation, isn't it -- see if there are patterns of homicides?

# 113 MS. CLARK:

Objection. It is still vague. What circumstances? Males and females are, unfortunately, murdered every day. In what respect is counsel inquiring as to the similarity?

# 114 THE COURT:

Did you look to see if you had any similar sort of crime reports to the incident there on Bundy?

# 115 WITNESS:

No, your honor.

# 116

BY mr. shapiro:

# 117 Q:

Are you familiar with something called a homicide manual of the Los Angeles police department?

# 118 A:

Yes.

# 119 Q:

And, I take it, you read that; you follow that?

# 120 A:

I have read it. It hasn't been updated in a number of years. And I am familiar with it.

# 121 Q:

So you think the manual is out of date?

# 122 A:

Well, it certainly could be. It is not a Hard-and-fast text on how to conduct a homicide investigation.

# 123 Q:

Do you agree with the statement in the homicide manual that the preliminary investigation at the scene is the most important and possibly the most sensitive aspect of the homicide investigation?

# 124 A:

I am a little ambivalent about that. Yes and no. It certainly is important. It is not necessarily the most important thing that exists.

# 125 Q:

Would you agree with this statement in the manual: that good note-keeping is the foundation of a good homicide investigator?

# 126 A:

That is a basic that is certainly preferable, yes.

# 127 Q:

Do you agree with this statement in the manual: that accurate, comprehensive and chronological notes not only coordinate the investigation but allow the detective to present the possible case in court, sometimes years later?

# 128 A:

Once again, as a guideline, under perfect circumstances, it is certainly something you would want, yes.

# 129 Q:

Were field interview cards completed on all possible witnesses?

# 130 A:

We have over a hundred witnesses. No. I don't believe so.

# 131 Q:

Were neighbors interviewed in the direct proximity of the crime scene who did not hear anything unusual between 10 o'clock and 12 o'clock?

# 132 A:

I haven't had a chance to review all of the neighbors' statements; So I am not sure whether a recordation was made of that.

# 133 Q:

Were any crime scene broadcasts initiated?

# 134 A:

Again, I haven't reviewed the communications tape; so I don't know.

# 135 Q:

Did you order that there be no smoking or eating permitted within the crime scene area?

# 136 A:

I did not.

# 137 Q:

Have you obtained a detailed report of what all the officers at the crime scene reported and the actions they took immediately upon arrival at the crime scene?

# 138 A:

Yes.

# 139 Q:

Have you ascertained how many officers had gained entry into the crime scene prior to your arrival?

# 140 A:

Yes. That should be contained within the statements.

# 141 Q:

Have you asked the officers to recreate their movements?

# 142 A:

Yes. I have not personally. It was done by detective phillips.

# 143 Q:

But that is all recorded --

# 144 A:

At my direction, Yes.

# 145 Q:

Did you ascertain if any officers smoked at the crime scene?

# 146 A:

That, too, would be contained in their statements.

# 147 Q:

Did you ascertain if any of the officers or any media personnel drank any coffee at the crime scenes?

# 148 MS. CLARK:

Objection. That is vague.

# 149 THE COURT:

When you say "crime scenes," do you mean now both Rockingham and Bundy?

# 150 MR. SHAPIRO:

Both. Well, there are three crime scenes. There's chicago --

# 151 Q:

Would you agree there are three crime scenes in this investigation?

# 152 A:

I would agree there are two and perhaps a third which I will term a potential crime scene.

# 153 Q:

Let's talk about the two that you would term as crime scenes. Do you have knowledge of anybody drinking coffee in the areas of the crime scenes after they were cordoned off?

# 154 A:

At the scene, directly at the scene? No, I don't. I am not aware of anyone who was drinking coffee.

# 155 Q:

As the officer in charge, would you say that both crime scenes were protected from destruction or contamination of evidence by onlookers as well as news media personnel?

# 156 A:

Number one, I was primarily in charge of the investigation of the Bundy scene. I was not at the Rockingham scene but for a short time. I was -- and the Bundy scene was, in fact, secure, yes.

# 157 Q:

Who was in charge of the Rockingham scene?

# 158 A:

Detective Vannatter.

# 159 Q:

Would you agree or disagree that standing or walking at the crime scene, leaning against doors, walls or windows may destroy valuable evidence, latent fingerprints, hair or skin specimens?

# 160 A:

Possibly.

# 161 MS. CLARK:

objection. Irrelevant.

# 162 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 163 MR. SHAPIRO:

If I may just have a moment, your Honor.

# 164 THE COURT:

Yes.

# 165

BY mr. shapiro:

# 166 Q:

Did you determine if any police officer checked the shoes of the witnesses who discovered the bodies?

# 167 A:

It was related to me that -- I believe, that was done around the time that the dog's paws were observed; but i did not direct that or have personal knowledge of that.

# 168 Q:

Are there any reports to indicate that was done?

# 169 A:

There may well be. I haven't had time to review those.

# 170 Q:

Is there somebody you can check with now to see if there are such notes?

# 171 A:

Well, again, all of the notes and statements aren't in. I suppose I could check the officers section. I am not aware if that would be in there or not, though.

# 172 Q:

How many footprints that would relate to shoes in blood did you observe at Bundy?

# 173 A:

I don't have a number.

# 174 Q:

Has anybody calculated the number?

# 175 A:

That was assigned to the criminalist. Again, as the footprints moved away in a westerly direction, they faded; so I don't know that you would get an accurate number. But they were charted by the criminalist.

# 176 Q:

They were?

# 177 A:

I'm sorry?

# 178 Q:

They were or weren't?

# 179 A:

Charted?

# 180 Q:

They were charted?

# 181 A:

Well, by "charted," I am referring to photographed and measured. And I requested a so-called stride analysis.

# 182 Q:

Have you received that yet?

# 183 A:

No. Again, I may have it in my reports. I have hundreds. I haven't been through them all.

# 184 Q:

Would you check because we have not received that yet, either.

# 185 A:

There is a good chance we haven't, either.

KEY QUOTE

# 186 MS. CLARK:

I would ask we conduct this discovery procedure off the record, then.

# 187 THE COURT:

Mr. Shapiro, you are entitled to that; but let's have the witness check on that --

# 188 MR. SHAPIRO:

Thank you. I am not going to ask him to do that now.

# 189 THE COURT:

Okay.

# 190

by mr. shapiro:

# 191 Q:

Were you able to determine whether the blood imprints from the shoe were all from the same shoe?

# 192 MS. CLARK:

Objection. That calls for speculation. No foundation.

# 193 THE COURT:

Are you able to give an answer to that question?

# 194 WITNESS:

No, your honor.

# 195

BY mr. shapiro:

# 196 Q:

Has anybody reported to you there was more than one type of shoe print with blood on it at the scene?

# 197 A:

No.

# 198 Q:

Have you talked to the criminalist about this?

# 199 A:

In regards to these shoe prints, no.

# 200 Q:

Is that something you would deem important?

# 201 MS. CLARK:

Well, objection. Vague -- something that he would deem important.

# 202 THE COURT:

Speaking to the criminalist about the shoes?

# 203 MR. SHAPIRO:

Yes.

# 204 MS. CLARK:

What about the shoes, though? That they existed; they were the same shoe; it was the same tread; they existed at all; where they were found?

# 205 THE COURT:

I interpret the question is whether there was more than one maker of the shoe prints.

# 206 MR. SHAPIRO:

That was my understanding.

# 207 THE COURT:

With that understanding, can you answer that?

# 208 WITNESS:

Yes. And it is my belief that the shoe prints probably belong to a suspect or were left by a suspect, and we would certainly like to find out what type of shoes they are.

# 209

BY mr. shapiro:

# 210 Q:

I'm sorry. Your voice is trailing. I couldn't hear the end of the answer.

# 211 A:

Could you repeat the question again? I want to give you an accurate answer.

# 212 Q:

Have you discussed with the criminalist whether or not the blood prints from the shoes indicate one pair of shoes or more than one pair of shoes?

# 213 A:

In a general discussion at the time at the crime scene location, it was the opinion of the criminalist that it appeared they were one. To my knowledge, these prints have not been analyzed and the work has not been completed; so I have made no other requests at this time and had no other conversations regarding them.

# 214 Q:

Do you have a report indicating how many spots of blood were found at the Bundy residence -- that you have referred to as drops -- that did not belong to nicole brown or ronald Goldman?

# 215 A:

I may have that report, yes.

# 216 Q:

Do you know offhand how many that was?

# 217 A:

It seems to me it was initially five droplets on the walkway.

# 218 Q:

And have you or anybody at your direction ascertained when those droplets originated?

# 219 A:

When?

# 220 Q:

Yes. How long they had been there.

# 221 A:

I don't believe there's any way to determine that.

KEY QUOTE

# 222 MR. SHAPIRO:

I don't have any further questions at this time, Your Honor, thank you.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Witness

Certainly not. It hadn't started.

Shapiro asked whether the Bundy crime scene investigation was complete when detectives left for Rockingham — the detective's blunt admission that it 'hadn't started' underscores the extraordinary delay.

Witness

evidencewise, I would say there is a good possibility of that, yes.

Detective concedes serological evidence is 'maybe the most important aspect' of the case — setting up Shapiro's chain of questions about why the criminalist's records and logs were still missing.

Witness

There is a good chance we haven't, either.

Detective admitting the prosecution likely also lacks the stride analysis report — a candid moment that briefly united both sides in acknowledging incomplete discovery.

Witness

I don't believe there's any way to determine that.

Response to whether the five blood droplets at Bundy — not belonging to Nicole or Goldman — could be dated. Closes off a line of inquiry while acknowledging the blood's unknown provenance.

Evidence (5)

Informal

Chronological log / murder book — absence of criminalist arrival time at Rockingham

discussed; detective confirmed no entry exists

Informal

LAPD Homicide Manual — statements on preliminary investigation and note-keeping

quoted by Shapiro; detective gave qualified agreement

Informal

Shoe prints in blood at Bundy, moving westerly

discussed; criminalist photographed and measured them; stride analysis requested but not yet received

Informal

Five blood droplets on the Bundy walkway not belonging to Nicole Brown or Ronald Goldman

discussed; detective recalled the number from memory; no dating possible

Informal

Criminalist's reports (serological evidence)

discussed; detective has received some but not all; stride analysis report not yet received by either side

Notable Exchanges (4)

Robert Shapiro•Witness

Shapiro established that the Bundy crime scene investigation had not even started when detectives left for Rockingham, and didn't resume until ~6:45 a.m. — approximately 6 hours and 45 minutes after the deaths were reported.

strategic

Robert Shapiro•Witness

Shapiro walked the detective through LAPD's own Homicide Manual — on preliminary investigation being 'the most important and possibly most sensitive aspect' and good note-keeping being foundational — then demonstrated through questions that these standards were not followed.

methodical

Robert Shapiro•Witness•Marcia Clark

Shapiro asked about the stride analysis report; the detective said there was 'a good chance' neither the prosecution nor defense had received it yet. Clark interjected to move discovery discussion off the record.

revealing

Robert Shapiro•Witness

Detective confirmed that no door-to-door canvassing of Bundy neighbors was directed, no crime scene broadcasts were verified, no order was given prohibiting smoking or eating at the scene, and no check was made for prowler calls in the area prior to the murders.

damaging

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Lead Detective (Lange)

omission / failure to follow department standards

Shapiro used the LAPD's own Homicide Manual to establish the detective did not conduct door-to-door canvassing, did not maintain comprehensive logs, delayed the crime scene investigation by nearly seven hours, and has not received key criminalist reports.

⚔ Lead Detective (Lange)

admission of incomplete investigation

Detective admitted no officer shoe checks were documented, no similar crime pattern search was conducted, no field interview cards were completed for all witnesses, and he had no personal knowledge of whether Lt. Rogers conducted any investigation during his absence.

Objections

9 objections (2 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 8973 • 222 utterances • Defense witness

Preliminary Trial

Department 103