But with my shiny skin, I know.
Nothing helps my feet like Plexol.
Helps me sleep.
Really penetrates.
Plexol 454.
If ProTrainers recommend it, you know it's the best.
Sassoon hair.
Hair that looks like it's never seen a dryer, never been teased or mistreated.
It's led a protected life.
Hair created at the Vidal Sassoon Academy, the world famous center for hair care.
Created at home with Sassoon shampoos and conditioners, with a protein and moisturizer
complex protecting hair to its cuticle edge.
So there's no brush it can't handle.
No dryer it can't shrug off.
Hair protected by the Sassoon protection system.
Professional care for your hair.
Hi, I'm Jim Palmer.
Although long-term interest rates have gone up, short-term rates are still very low.
That means adjustable rate mortgages are becoming more popular.
At the Money Store, more and more homeowners are refinancing their homes with a low adjustable
rate mortgage.
They're refinancing their mortgage and paying off high interest rate credit cards all in
one loan.
So for a low rate adjustable mortgage, even if your credit is less than perfect, call
the Money Store at 1-800-LOAN-YES.
For four generations, we have been the family other families rely on.
Since 1890, my family has worked hard to earn the confidence and the trust of the families
we serve.
We believe that our caring personal service, our award-winning funeral homes and cemeteries
along with our fair prices are the cornerstone of our future.
For information about funerals, cemeteries or cremation, dial Hunter.
The courtroom in Los Angeles is open.
The camera is on, but Judge Ito has not entered the courtroom yet.
We're told from Shepherd Smith, who is in Los Angeles, that Judge Ito is talking to
the defense attorneys about some notes that they should have turned over to the prosecution.
He wants those turned over to the prosecution immediately, and that's what they're discussing
right now.
In the meantime, the heated debate against Detective Mark Furman continues.
Is he a racist?
Kathleen Bell says he is and says a friend named Anita can back her claim.
Robert Vita reports on that friend who lives in another state.
It's a matter of she says.
He said he'd gather all the niggers together and burn them.
He says.
And that conversation that is described in this letter from Kathleen Bell, did that occur,
sir?
No, it didn't.
Do you remember meeting a woman named Kathleen Bell at that Marine recruiting office between
1985 and 1986?
No.
Those words appeared to steal the thunder from O.J. Simpson's defense team.
Plans to depict Los Angeles police detective Mark Furman as a racist.
Nobody ought to go around arranging Kathleen Bell's funeral just yet.
The reason lies here in Provo, Utah.
It may be hundreds of miles from the Simpson double murder trial, but a potential key defense
witness resides here.
A second witness who claims Furman made overtly racist remarks to her nearly a decade ago.
Andrea Terry moved to this neighborhood from Southern California eight years ago.
And though she refused to talk to me on camera, she did speak over the phone.
A Mormon, she attends this church here in Provo every Sunday with her family.
She says that religion is very important to her and so is telling the truth.
Terry grew up in Palos Verdes, a community south of Los Angeles, where she met and became
friends with Kathleen Bell.
According to Bell, it was a conversation with Furman at a Marine recruiting station almost
10 years ago about Terry's taste in men that sparked the detective's alleged anger about
interracial couples.
I did tell him that Andrea had a crush on Marcus Allen and that's kind of when the whole
thing started.
Terry is white.
Allen is an African-American pro football star and ironically a friend of O.J. Simpson.
Bell says she repeated the conversation to Terry and a few months later at this restaurant
bar south of Los Angeles, Bell says she saw Furman again.
But this time, Terry was with her.
And she thought she'd get a date and go over and talk to him.
Terry told me that she said to Furman how much she liked Marcus Allen and she says he
responded quote, a black man should never date a white woman because it's an act against
nature.
Terry added that Furman reiterated to her some of the things he said to Bell, including
an alleged statement that if he saw a black man and a white woman in a car, he would pull
them over.
But according to Terry, during that conversation, Furman never used racial epithets when referring
to African-Americans.
And Andrea Terry were to testify that she was with you in Hennessey's Tavern in 1986
with Kathleen Bell and heard remarks such as the one we've seen.
You would say that's a fabrication of a detective, Furman?
I don't know why she'd do it, but yes, I would.
But Terry says she doesn't want to leave Utah to testify in Los Angeles because she's
seven months pregnant and she says she's nervous.
She said she really does not want anything to do with the Simpson case.
In her words, we don't want to be dragged through the mud like Kathleen Bell.
Terry told me that Anthony Pelicano, a high profile investigator working to clear Furman's
name, called her last week on a conference call with someone from the Los Angeles District
Attorney's Office.
She said they wanted to discuss her potentially damning testimony about Furman.
Terry told me, quote, I have been subpoenaed by the Simpson defense, but I will not go
to California to testify unless I'm ordered to by a Utah court.
The Simpson defense team is expected to fight for Terry to testify.
She has relevant testimony and we think she's important with us.
She is the key to establishing Kathleen Bell's credibility and possibly tainting the image
of Detective Mark Furman.
Robert Vito, CNN, Provo, Utah.
Howard, is she going to have to testify?
If the defense serves her with a subpoena and they go through the Interstate Compact
Act, yes, they can force her to testify.
And if she doesn't want to come voluntarily, she can be placed in jail, she can be transported
and brought in handcuffs into that courtroom and made to testify.
Considering what O.J. Simpson's defense team has to work with, would you go out and get
her?
Yes, she's very important.
Based upon what we just heard in that interview with the CNN reporter, it's clear that she
backs up a lot of what Kathleen Bell says.
Although we don't have a lot of the racial slurs that Kathleen Bell heard, we do have
him talking about interracial couple dating being acts against nature, which strongly
support what the defense is stating.
But Howard, if you use the N-word and he said the things that he's alleged to have said,
what does that have to do with planting?
How do you get from there to planting a glove in the back of somebody's yard?
That's the hurdle for the defense.
Even if they prove that Mark Furman is a racist, that doesn't mean he planted the glove.
However, the fact that Mark Furman may be lying about Kathleen Bell, lying about his
racism, they can then argue he's lying to cover up his other criminal acts, but that's
a real difficult hurdle for the defense and I don't know if they're going to be able
to leap it.
All right, Howard, as you can see right now, Judge Edel's in the courtroom.
Let's go ahead and listen.
... people represented by Ms. Clark, Ms. Lewis, Mr. Darden.
Jury is not present.
Counsel, anything we need to address before we invite the jurors to rejoin us?
I thought we were going to discuss parameters of cross-examination or any other offers of
proof.
Anybody wish to be heard?
The witness shots should be out.
That's true.
Detective Furman, would you step out in the hallway, please?
Thank you.
Howard, what do they mean by parameters of cross-examination?
They've already gone for a full six hours.
Why discuss that now?
Any limits that the prosecution wants to place on the defense have to be done outside the
presence of the jury so that the defense lawyer doesn't go into it in front of the jury.
Parameters of relevance, one as late as 1993.
Police reports were turned over as to that incident.
There are no notes or other materials to turn over, but I have reviewed with you the circumstances
that would indicate a continuing strong anti-racial feeling where the male is black and the female
is white.
I think that's fair game for question as to why one would walk out in the middle of
an investigation in those circumstances.
I think that's a fair question.
As to the others, I've heard nothing from the court to suggest that any would be out
of limits except the one I struck.
Which was?
The one that was.
I just have the indication of the appearance of the counsel online.
Howard just to let you know the judge has issued a court order this morning.
The prosecution alleges that since January 30th the defense has not turned over any discovery
materials relating to defense's expert witnesses.
The defense argument concedes no defense expert witnesses have been disgorged since January
30th.
So they're arguing over evidence.
Let's listen here.
The one I told you I had some reservations about until further notice unless something
happens to corroborate or authenticate.
I will not run with that accusation.
Alright then let's address the police report issue then.
I'm sorry I've been corrected by Mr. Douglas.
There is a written report with respect to that witness.
It has not been turned over because the decision has not been made to call the witness.
Obviously if the incident is denied rather than explained the witness will be called.
If the incident is explained rather than denied there will be no need to call the witness.
Thus the winds up a contradiction and recollection as to what was said.
But we're not relying on what was said as you know from the proper.
Well I'm sorry I take that back.
Part of it was verbal.
Yes.
Part of it was current.
Alright but at this point you are not going to offer that witness.
Not unless there is a denial by this witness as to the incident.
If there is.
Wait a minute which one are we talking about here?
The one that you have told me that you had reservations about?
No no no.
Just strike that one from our discussion.
Alright.
This is the police report.
The police report.
Alright but there is a statement.
I'm told that there is.
I have not seen it.
Alright.
And it is dated January 23rd.
They've written a report.
Alright.
Let me see what the people's response is as to that incident.
Your council council has circumvented 1054.7 by saying if we get it based on the witness's
answer we'll know whether or not we need to call them.
That person is a witness.
They reasonably anticipate calling.
They can expect that if this is more of the same kind of nonsensical allegations that
they've brought out from Kathleen Bell and others of her ilk then it will be denied
because it is indeed false.
And they know that and that means they reasonably anticipate calling this person and they must
turn this statement over.
Alright Ms. Clark.
Let me ask Mr. Douglas.
Your notes indicate that that January 23rd statement has been turned over.
In the garden.
It was discussed.
In chambers the decision was approved that we would turn over the statement.
The police report statement.
Right but it was never represented to me that there was a statement.
It was represented to me that there was no statement.
There is a statement drawn from that.
Of that interview of that person.
Alright.
Hold on.
Let me get the proper then.
My recollection is that the proper that was given to me during the 1054.7 does not mention
a statement.
I have the proper witness.
Alright let me get my copy.
Because I had my notes on it.
Howard what do you make of that argument?
Should they be allowed to hold back waiting on what Detective Herman says?
In other words if he lies then they'll interview their witness?
This is a hotly debated area in California under the discovery rules.
See in Florida we don't have this problem because we have depositions whereby both sides
can speak to the other's witnesses take transcribed statements and know exactly what's going on.
In California they've got a new discovery law which basically states you've got to turn
over everything.
However in this case these are not direct witnesses but rebuttal witnesses and you only
use rebuttal witnesses if the witness you're questioning denies an event that you don't
know whether or not he's going to deny.
So the defense is making an argument which we really don't have clarity under the law
yet.
Alright Mr. Bailey is talking to the justice.
There is no statement from the witness.
There is an investigative report to Mr. Douglas.
That's the only writing apparently.
Alright then let me order this.
I'm going to direct that Mr. Douglas provide that statement to the prosecution forthwith.
Do you have a copy of it here?
I have an original copy made of it.
Mrs. Robertson.
We have three copies your honor.
And counsel what I propose to do is preclude discussion of that particular incident until
the prosecution has had the opportunity to review this.
They wish to make further objection we'll go into that.
I'm going to preclude you from going into that on cross examination at this time.
Understood.
Alright anything else?
Mr. Bailey.
I've given it to the court that was the ruling.
No that's not the ruling at all your honor.
The court ruled that we would discuss it side bar or outside the presence of the jury.
Correct.
In the presence of the people.
Any other offers as to other areas of cross examination.
We've already discussed Kathleen Bell.
The court has ruled that that is fair game.
You've been given the statement or you're aware of Andrea Terry.
We'd like to be heard about the miscibility of that crime.
We do not have a statement from the court.
We're aware of the news accounts.
We've heard about the miscibility of that.
Alright.
Ms. Clark.
Andrea Terry.
The best you'd mind is the statement of Andrea Terry is different than that of Kathleen Bell.
She allegedly met Kathleen Bell at Hennessey where Kathleen Bell introduced her to Mark
Furman at Hennessey's bar or tavern or whatever.
At that time allegedly made a comment that she was attracted to Marcus Allen and allegedly
Mark Furman in response in his crowded bar said I think that interracial couples are
against nature.
And that if he saw a black and white couple together in a car he would find a reason to
pull them over.
Howard Andrea Terry is the woman that they referred to yesterday and we saw in the report
today who doesn't want to testify.
Right she doesn't want to testify but you can bet if she's ruled admissible she will
be in that courtroom one way or the other.
That has been widely reported made by Detective Furman at the Marine Recruiting Office and
after she left in tears and hysterical after hearing that comment she then introduced Mark
Furman to her friend Andrea Terry.
She introduced her to Andrea Terry for the purpose of them going out on a date.
Andrea Terry then comes up some seven months later with this statement.
Her statement is not as probative as that of the statement attributed to Mark Furman
by Kathleen Bell.
In Kathleen Bell's statement she alleges that Mark Furman stated that he would make up a
reason in order to stop them.
That he would actually fabricate evidence was her statement.
Andrea Terry doesn't say that.
Andrea Terry states that he would find a reason.
That does not mean that one does not exist.
That means that he's looking for a reason and going with what he has.
The allegation that is important in the Kathleen Bell statement is fabrication that's missing
from the statement in Andrea Terry.
So Andrea Terry's statement is irrelevant and should be ruled inadmissible under 352.
I think Miss Clark is endeavoring to get you to decide credibility questions.
That's not what we anticipate Andrea Terry will say.
He made it very clear that he would pull them over because he was black and she was white.
Now for Miss Clark to suggest he would then try to find a legal reason to justify what
he'd already done is a little bit ludicrous.
Certainly that is probative in addition to corroborative of the same expression given
to Kathleen Bell on a prior occasion standing in front of the recruiting station after being
introduced to Furman by Joe Foss the Marine.
Now for a man who's never seen Kathleen Bell in his life as Furman claims having a witness
who's with Kathleen Bell in Hennessey's would be enough all by itself.
But his offer that it was a crime against nature for a black man to be with a white
woman should in and of itself be enough to allow cross-examination on his racial bias.
We claim that he's gone out of his way in this case to hurt a black man that he saw
with a white woman in 1985 and knew thereafter because of the 1989 incident of their relationship.
So I don't think Andrea Terry is even a plausible argument for prohibition.
All right.
Next matter is I believe Max Cordoba.
Max Cordoba is a black African-American as I indicated in the proffer.
Max Cordoba was standing in the recruiting station and Detective Furman came up with
some papers.
There will be evidence that Detective Furman was making application to join a reserve unit
and that the Marines or some of them were concerned about where in the world they could
put him that he wouldn't have to associate with African-Americans because he'd made
his feelings plain about that.
Now as Cordoba is standing there, the firm approaches with the papers.
Cordoba says I really don't know anything about this application.
You ought to see Ron, meaning Sergeant Ronald Rohr.
At about that moment, Rohr who likes to hang around at the place next door as another witness
will testify starts coming across the street and Cordoba says, hey Rohr, your boy is here.
And Furman turns on Cordoba and says, let's get something straight.
The only boy here is you nigger.
And then Cordoba leaves the building and Furman follows him out into the parking lot and repeats
the same epithet.
I think that showing of racial bias at the time we claim he was expressing similar views
to a witness he denies meeting not only stands on its own as evidence of the bias he's now
disclaiming but also corroborates the likelihood that Ms. Bell in the same period of time would
have heard these remarks.
These allegations get more outrageous by the minute and I'm stricken again by the preposterousness
of the claims of the defendant.
Not only did these alleged incidents never occur but the purpose for which they're being
admitted could never have occurred and Max Cordoba gave us a statement that says none
of that.
We've interviewed Max Cordoba long time ago.
He never made such a statement and he never alleged that Mark Furman never made such a
statement and if the defense has a statement that indicates that he is going to so testify,
we're entitled to see it especially in view of the fact that we have interviewed Max Cordoba
twice and he has never indicated any such thing to anyone who's interviewed him.
Now I think that what we have here is a false offer of proof by the defense, an offer that
they're going to use to slur Mark Furman again unfairly in the eyes of this jury and never
produce the witness to back up this statement because according to the statements he's given
us he never said anything like that.
I have an answer to that.
Would both sides have interviewed the same witness and gotten two completely opposite
stories or is somebody trying to mislead us here?
Something seems definitely wrong here and I'm not sure who's misleading who.
Mr. Cordoba was interviewed on television and indicated that he always got along with
Mark Furman.
He had an interview with Tony Pelicano in which he indicated he always got along with
Mark Furman.
Months and months later an interview was conducted in the district attorney's office where he
made reference to a joking comment exchanged about somebody said boy and Mark said boy.
The N word was never used by Mark Furman according to Max Cordoba and that was in all three statements
he has given over the past seven months.
His first two statements indicate there was no problem so that's where we start with Max
Cordoba and then belatedly in February I think or January of this year he vaguely recalls
some statement where there was an exchange of the term boy by two people there.
But the N word was never used by Mark Furman according to Max Cordoba.
So if the defense has a statement indicating that he will so testify we need to see it
and if they don't the court should refuse to allow it because this is definitely a false
offer of proof without some statement to back it up that they're going to use to inflame
the jury unfairly and never produce on.
Isn't this a footnote 14 issue where Max Cordoba is on the witness list as a prosecution witness.
Mr. Douglas I don't need the coaching here.
Where Mr. Cordoba, Sergeant Cordoba probably is a people's witness and this is an impeaching
statement of a prosecution witness so are they compelled to turn that over?
It's different your honor because that's talking about the impeachment of that witness himself.
They're not talking about impeachment of Max Cordoba.
They're talking about impeachment of a different witness.
The footnote 11 or 14 whichever one that is it refers to the impeachment of that witness
that they have the statement on.
So if they had a statement that impeached Max Cordoba that would be a different issue
but that's not the reason that's not the proffer and that's not why they want that statement
in.
They want to impeach Max Cordoba.
We have impeachment on Max Cordoba.
We have the prior inconsistent statements of Max Cordoba.
That's not the issue here.
So different situation and if they do have that statement we need to see it but at the
very least I think that the court should refuse to allow that statement in until Max Cordoba
testifies.
He can be questioned of course on whether he knows him but that statement that they
are now attributing to Mark Furman through Max Cordoba should not be permitted at this
time as unduly inflammatory without probative value and no basis in fact because it is being
admitted solely to inflame the jury.
I don't believe it will ever be produced.
Not at all.
And so if the court allows the jury to hear that epithet as attributed to Mark Furman
by the witness Max Cordoba that is something that is never going to be delivered on and
the court will not allow the jury to be inflamed by something that will evaporate into thin
air as soon as the words are going to be shouted through this courtroom by Mr. Bailey.
And I think that that does not produce anything near a fair trial and that is one statement
that should not be allowed in.
Let them call the witness.
I want to hear him say this.
The court is never going to hear it.
So I think that the court should not permit cross examination with respect to that specific
allegation on that witness.
Alright so there are actually two issues here whether or not it's appropriate fodder for
cross examination on the issue of racial bias and secondly a discovery issue whether or
not you're entitled to see this statement at some appropriate point in time.
Alright Mr. Bailey.
Miss Clark who so lightly cast suspensions on all the defense team for making up offensive
proof and furnishing to this court has rather dirty hands in this matter.
As you know from the proffer Max Cordoba wanted to tell Mr. Darden and Miss Lewis about this
incident and they shot him off.
They said we're only interested in what Miss Bell said and that's what he will testify
to and your honor I have spoken with him on the phone personally Marine to Marine.
I haven't the slightest doubt that he'll march up to that witness stand and tell the world
what Furman called him on no provocation whatsoever.
As far as discovery is concerned there is no written statement there are no notes that
I know of.
When I heard about this because he called us wanting to make it known that these people
had tried to suppress this information I spoke to him personally I don't ever take notes
and I didn't on that occasion.
Alright.
Howard I don't know if what he's saying is true or factual but he sure is entertaining.
He sure is strong he has a presence in that courtroom whether or not what he speaks is
the truth or he speaks with a forked tongue I don't know the answer to that.
Mr. Coleman drafted on his own it was turned over to the prosecution a long time ago and
promptly handed to the press by somebody.
So it's been aired but I think in view of what's in the letter and the essence of it
was that Mr. Coleman understood that Detective Furman was critical of the fact that white
women were undressing in a business run by a black partner and a white woman partner
the black person being Mr. Coleman.
He also understood that Mr. Furman had served in Vietnam and was applying to get back in
the Marine Corps and that he was very unhappy about Mr. Coleman situation Mr. Coleman himself
had served in Vietnam and wanted to try to dispel any suggestion of impropriety that
women were unclad in his store and that somehow was offensive.
And so at one point Sergeant Rohrer I believe it was it's in the report was standing with
Furman in the parking lot between the recruiting station and Coleman's store and he said hey
Vietnam come over here.
Obviously to make an introduction Mr. Coleman walked up stuck out his hand like a man and
Mark Furman folded his arms and turned like that away from him.
Certainly no clear act of disdain for a black person who associated with a white woman could
have been given absent any verbalization.
For that reason we think that that incident is admissible because once again it is close
in time to the Cordoba and Bell and Terry incidents wherein Detective Furman exhibited
his racial bias with very extreme nature and because these are proximate to one another
they tend to support one another.
That is to say if Detective Furman is going to say that Bell is a liar he never met her.
Terry is a liar he never met her if he did he never spoke to her and if he spoke to her
he never said those words.
Joe Foss is a liar because Foss never introduced Bell to Furman and Coleman is a liar because
this incident never happened and Cordoba is a liar because he never called him a nigger
then I think the jury is entitled to find that the world is out of step with Johnny
and everybody lies but Detective Furman if that's the story he wants to sell.
Certainly they're entitled to hear of the incidents.
You know your honor all we're getting here is a lot of very dramatic posturing because
when these witnesses take the witness stand if they ever do the court is going to see
a very different story than what Mr. Bailey has laid out for the court today.
You can rest assured I want this film clip saved forever because this is going to be
very funny when the actual witnesses take the stand.
Nevertheless with respect to Mr. Coleman all he has to offer is hearsay.
He himself never heard Mark Furman say anything about interracial couples.
He himself never heard Mark Furman say any racial epithet or slur.
He himself was never privy to the conversation allegedly that took place between Kathleen
Bell and Mark Furman.
He witnessed nothing.
He claims at some point in time that Mark Furman folded his arms when he was introduced.
However there's very little reliability to that statement and it's no coincidence by
the way that it all happened around the same time because Kathleen Bell, Andrea Terry,
Phil Coleman and Max Cordoba all worked in the same area and knew each other and so it's
not a real surprise that they've all cooked up these stories.
Not at all and what you will see when they testify trust me your honor is going to be
very different from what's been offered today.
At some point this gets cumulative and it gets ridiculous.
We have Andrea Terry's statement that isn't even probative because it does not go to the
issue that made the court compel the court to admit the Kathleen Bell statement.
It is missing that probative value.
Philip Coleman has nothing but hearsay and folded arms to offer which is under 352 of
no probative value whatsoever and it's an ambiguous gesture at best if ever believed
by the way which it will not be when all is said and done and with respect to the statement
by alleged by Max Cordoba we have zero reliability to that.
We have no statement, we have no notes, we have no takes, we have nothing to establish
that that conversation Mr. Bailey refers to ever occurred.
All we have are prior inconsistent statements, prior statements by this witness that are
vastly different than anything that has been offered by counsel today.
So we have a totally unreliable offer here that is cumulative to the issue and that absolutely
does not go to the interracial couple issue, the fabrication of evidence issue.
I mean we're talking about things that are way beyond the scope of what is, what should
be even dreamed about as being admissible as to this witness.
We get to the point that all we're doing is slinging mud at someone in an issue, in an
area where yes credibility is an issue but we have to attack on issues that are relevant
to credibility.
Whether or not Max Cordoba heard him say the words attributed to him, that does not go
to interracial couples, the fabrication of evidence or the planting of evidence.
The statement attributed to the detective by Andrea Terry does not go to the fabrication
of evidence and the refusal to shake the hand of Philip Coleman, another fantasy cooked
up by the defense which never transpired, that certainly does not go to interracial
couples or the fabrication of evidence.
The people respectfully submit to the court that what we have here is not a defense, it's
a smear campaign and this is not any of it relevant to the detective's credibility with
respect to the actions he took on the day in question.
Let's remember this is a double homicide case.
This is not a case concerning the character of Mark Furman with respect to the issues
of race.
This is a case involving the homicide of two murder victims and a junior detective who
found evidence based on the statement of a witness.
That's what we have here and it's very important that we all remember that.
Whatever anyone may ultimately decide about Mark Furman's personal life or personal views
of the world has nothing to do with whether or not he is credible as an officer and with
the issues that relate to his honesty and veracity and that is a much more narrow parameter
than counsel would have this court believe but the court knows better.
I know the court does because the court has indicated what its rulings are based on, wisely
so.
We are talking about the character for truth and veracity.
We are talking about whether there is a propensity to fabricate evidence with respect to interracial
couples.
That's what we are talking about here and let's not forget that.
Now the rest of the impeachment that has been proffered by counsel has zero relevance and
the court will ultimately find if they are ever called and the court does decide to admit
their testimony which I submit would not be proper.
No credibility whatsoever.
We have a situation here that is designed solely to inflame the jury and distract them
from the issues at hand and that is far more prejudicial than probative and all we are
going to do here is engage in this smear campaign so that the jury will forget that we have
two people murdered and an officer who found key evidence based on the testimony of a witness
who will not be able to be impeached with respect to what he heard and saw on the night
of June the 12th.
So I submit to the court respectfully that this is the court's opportunity to keep this
trial on track and prevent counsel from engaging in the smear campaign that will mislead, confuse
and inflame this jury.
Thank you Mr. Clark.
May the world long remember that Ms. Clark characterized this evidence as funny.
All right counsel, Ms. Clark let me just ask you an informational question.
You indicated the prosecution has interviewed Andrea Terry correct?
All right.
With regards to Andrea Terry I'm going to allow cross examination as to that issue.
It did involve interracial couples and it did involve the manipulation of probable cause
for the purposes of stopping which is similar enough to the facts and situation of the allegations
here.
As to Max Cordova I'm going to allow cross examination on that however only after the
prosecution has had the opportunity to re-interview Mr. Cordova as to this particular allegation
since there are no statements to be turned over.
I don't think this is a footnote 14 issue as Ms. Clark points out to the court.
This goes to the impeachment of another witness not to Max Cordova himself so I find that
that is discoverable and that the prosecution should have the opportunity to interview Mr.
Cordova regarding that second statement.
Mr. Furman as a result will not be released as a witness but will be kept on call and
subject to recall.
As to the Alan Martin matter the report since the prosecution has just received the report
regarding her statement that that particular issue will not be allowed for cross examination
until the prosecution has had the opportunity to review that report and conduct any additional
investigation as I indicated Detective Furman will likely be recalled if that is accomplished.
As to Mr. Coleman the court will deny cross examination on that issue.
The refusal to shake hands with an individual can be explained by any number of reasons
and that would be highly speculative.
The court finds that not to be relevant under evidence code section 350 and also an undue
consumption of the court's time under 352.
All right let's proceed.
All right let's take a quick break.
You are watching the people versus Simpson.
Two for the prosecution two for the defense.
Mark Furman now takes the stand as we return.
Experience you can trust.
They know what they're doing.
That's why I call it quite choice of the house sale now on.
They get the job done.
They guarantee their work is terrific.
They're friendly.
They're reliable.
They're professional.
Say 25 percent on carpet cleaning 20 percent on drapery cleaning quite always keep you
like a valued customer or save 30 percent when you do both.
Does your MCI friends and family call in circle work for you.
We had to work very hard to get the savings because you had to get everyone else into
this thing and to call and do the same thing.
And then they wanted you to update all the time and you're up and you're like this is
hard work.
After all this work are you saving what you expected.
You only get what they tell you if you can get other people to join.
And it's almost like pyramid thing.
There's no circles no work with AT&T True Savings.
Spend just ten dollars a month and you'll save 25 percent off your AT&T bill.
Guaranteed.
Call 1-800-PICK-ATT today.
I'm looking for something simple that it's going to save me money.
Simple is always better.
True Savings is simple.
Call anyone anytime anywhere in the U.S. and save 25 percent.
Guaranteed.
Just give me a good you know rate right off the bat.
Four out of five customers will save more with True Savings versus friends and family.
Watch today and we'll switch you free.
That's switched from AT&T to MCI and back to AT&T.
Your true voice.
If you've been injured in an accident whether it be in a car or motorcycle in a fall because
of a doctor or hospital on the job or even at play you may be entitled to a large cash
award.
To find out call 1-800-INJURED now.
The call is free, the advice is free and at Balkan and Doran we take your injuries personally.
Call us now at 1-800-INJURED.
Call Balkan and Doran at 1-800-INJURED.
Allied will insure anyone with a modest down payment for $29 a month.
How much do you pay?
$89 but I've got three tickets.
At Allied you'll only pay $29.
Dial 203 save.
$74 but I leave it to the pometo.
At Allied you'll only pay $29.
Dial 203 save.
Over $100 but I had an accident.
It just doesn't matter.
At Allied you'll only pay $29 a month.
Dial 203 save.
Nice day huh?
Maybe I'll do a few laps.
Nah, maybe later.
Good thing I've got a Medicare plan that helps keep me in shape.
Being on some prevention is worth a heck of a lot of fuel.
The way to stay healthy is to avoid stress.
Yep, I'm covered.
Back live to Los Angeles, Marcia Clark, before the jury is brought in telling the judge that
Ethley Bailey has these books in front of him.
Connecticut State Police, Physical Evidence and Forensic Science.
And she wants to be told what parts of those books he's going to use during his cross examination.
Little paranoid wouldn't you think Howard?
I think she's very paranoid.
I think it's because Mr. Bailey appears to be extremely confident.
Whether he has reason to be confident, whether she has reason to be paranoid, I'm not sure
yet.
Oh he has an answer.
Howard leaps before judging the size of the chasm.
These books are way over Furman's head.
They're not intended to be used on him.
Therefore my edification should the reason arise.
I like to ask questions of witnesses even though they may not be experts that are properly
grounded in scientific fact.
And these are reference materials for that purpose.
I'll be glad to loan them to the prosecution if they've come to admire the books.
But they don't have any need to have them now.
I would of course like to have the script that she's been using with Detective Furman
and have it been offered back.
I think I've probably read books of far more advanced technology than what are here.
These are very basic primers and so I'd like to know if Mr. Bailey intends to use them
with Detective Furman.
Is it his statement that he will not?
The indication I just heard was I think no.
Dr. Henry Lee will be glad to know about the insult he wrote off.
That's not insulting.
He writes a basic primer.
I take that as an answer is no.
All right let's proceed.
All right Deputy Russell let's have Detective Furman please.
Deputy McNair let's have the jurors please.
Madam reporter can you go to.
Howard the sad thing about watching all this is that the jury doesn't see it.
There's going to be so much evidence that's brought out at this trial that the jury doesn't
see it would probably help them make a better decision.
Why can't more of it be entered into evidence and let the jury decide?
Well the purpose of a judge is to determine what evidence is relevant.
Some evidence although it's relevant and may tend to prove something that's an issue in
the case is so prejudicial that a judge determines a jury shouldn't see it.
This is the way it's been done for over 200 years in our country and quite frankly the
system works very very well.
But what's wrong with allowing all the evidence?
They're talking about different people who say Furman said the same sort of thing.
Why not allow it all and let the jury decide?
Well although I think Marsha Clark was off base when she stated that racial animus had
nothing to do with whether or not Detective Furman acted properly I think she was wrong.
It clearly is relevant.
She was correct when she started arguing that the situation with Mr. Coleman when Detective
Furman wouldn't shake hands with him wasn't relevant because it could have been offered
for or the refusal could have been for a number of reasons.
The judge has to strike a balance.
What is necessary?
What is relevant?
What is not too prejudicial and what will help the jury determine the truth here?
Whether or not the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not Mr.
Simpson is guilty or innocent.
Alright Howard they are moving back into the courtroom.
Let's go live to Los Angeles.
Now Ethley Bailey talks it all.
Now he gets a chance to take a shot at Mark Furman for the second day.
In getting started we had a number of issues that we had to take up at the beginning of
the court day and we are just getting around now to the presentation of evidence.
I'm sure you understand the problems and difficulties that we often have.
Alright the president of the courtroom is Detective Mark Furman.
Detective Furman would you please resume the witness stand.
Alright the records reflect that Detective Furman is present on cross examination by
Mr. Bailey.
Good morning detective.
Good morning your honor.
Alright Mr. Detective Furman you are reminded you are still under oath.
Mr. Bailey you may resume with your cross examination.
Detective Furman I would like to review with you the steps you have taken to prepare yourself
for your testimony in this case.
When was the first time following the preliminary hearing that you met with one of the prosecutors,
those at the table and those not at the table that you know to be connected with this case
to discuss the case and or your testimony?
Are you saying post-prelims sir?
Post preliminary hearing.
Probably within the last month, month and a half.
Alright do I understand that there has been no contact between you and any of the prosecutors
in this case up until 1995?
We haven't talked about this testimony no.
About this case Detective Furman you are very much a part of this case aren't you?
Yes sir.
And you caused that by finding an important piece of evidence didn't you?
Yes sir.
You knew full well that once you came up with a piece of evidence of that sort it wasn't
anybody could get you out of this case because you are an absolutely essential witness right?
Did you know that?
Withdrawn.
Withdrawn?
Alright thank you.
The objection was withdrawn.
Sir the way you phrased that get me out of this case I wasn't trying to get out of this
case.
No but somebody was trying to get you out you told us that in some detail yesterday.
You were out you thought.
Oh you mean the responsibility of the case?
Yes sir.
Okay.
You thought you were off the case as a detective.
When you stood for an hour at the intersection of Dorothy and Bundy you thought you were
through didn't you?
I'm still a detective sir but as far as being the lead investigator yes that's correct.
You thought you were off the case isn't that what you told us yesterday?
Yes.
Okay.
But when you turned out to find this glove over at Rockingham you knew that you would
be on the case as long as it lasted didn't you?
No.
You didn't know that the glove could not be put in evidence in a criminal case without
the person who found it saying under oath where he found it?
This has not been evidence.
It's called the Inquiry of the conclusion of the separation.
Sustained.
Did you believe that you would be an essential witness if you were the first to find an important
piece of evidence?
Well I couldn't make that determination at that time sir.
I didn't even know what the implication of the glove was.
Well you told us the minute you saw it you thought it looked like the one on Bundy didn't
you?
Yes sir.
I thought it looked like it.
You're a trained detective.
From yesterday both of you detective Furman let him finish answering the question before
you start the answer Mr. Bailey let him finish the answer.
Alright.
Thank you.
You're driving the court reporter nuts.
Well that we certainly don't want to do.
Detective Furman had you finished the answer you were giving?
I'm not sure if you'd repeat the question I'll give you another answer.
Did you tell us yesterday that when you spotted this glove as you claimed that you recognized
it as one that looked similar to the one on Bundy?
Yes.
And that you knew that the one on Bundy I believe you said was a left handed glove or
believed it to be did you not?
No.
You did not.
You noticed that this appeared to be a right handed glove?
Yes.
And the reason that you had three detectives in three separate trips trample back along
that path was because you wanted to point out to them the fact that this glove looked
like a match for the one they had seen over at the crime scene on Bundy isn't that true?
Not entirely I just wanted to show them the evidence that I thought I found.
Didn't you say to them in my view this looks similar or words to that effect?
I believe I said that to Detective Phillips but I don't believe I went into that detail
with the other two detectives no.
Did you say anything when you took Mr. Van Adder back there?
Anything at all?
I'm not sure exactly what I would have said.
I believe Detective Phillips talked to Van Adder and Lang.
They joined me and I took them back the path.
I didn't ask you that sir.
What I asked you was whether or not during the trip you have described, trip number two,
actually number three if you count your own, with Detective Philip Van Adder the boss in
this case did you share with him your observations about the glove or did you just remain silent?
I could have shared those observations yes.
I don't recall specifically.
You recall Phillips but you don't recall Detective Van Adder is that right?
Initially I just remember talking to Phillips.
Now let's go to Detective Lang.
You thought it was important enough to bring the third member of the four man team back
to look didn't you?
Yes.
And did you tell Detective Lang your thoughts about the relevance of that glove to your
investigation?
I don't believe I talked about relevance.
Well without using the word relevance just police talk.
Did you say this looks important Tom?
No.
What did you say?
I said it looks like it could be similar to the one on Bundy.
Okay.
Now you have told us a number of times that one of the things you noticed about the glove
was that it was moist and sticky.
Yes.
Correct?
Yes.
And did you point that out to Detective Phillips that not only did it look like the glove from
Bundy but that it appeared to have a substance on it making it sticky which could well have
been blood?
I'm not sure if I did or I didn't.
But it been through your mind had.
Yes.
And the sticky part I take it you observed when you took that little tiny flashlight
of yours and shined it on the glove and saw something of a shiny nature as opposed to
a caked or dry surface.
It appeared that it had somewhat of a glean or a glisten to it.
Okay.
Now my question is did you bring that to the attention of Detective Phillips?
I could have.
Did you bring it to the attention of Detective Lang?
I could have.
Did you bring it to the attention of Detective Van Adder?
I could have.
You don't have a memory of any of those conversations as we sit?
I don't have a memory of a specific comment that I made to any of those detectives when
we were standing by the glove.
Were you more interested in showing each detective individually the glove or more interested
in trampling up the pathway?
Well obviously I was interested in showing each detective separately and get a separate
point of view of what they were viewing as I did.
Is it your practice when something is discovered to prohibit detectives except one or two
at a time to view your discovery?
Is that the way you usually operate?
As a crime scene you'd want to bring in as few people as possible into an area.
As few people as possible?
Eighteen sets of feet is a few people.
If we did it all at the same time it would have been even worse.
It would?
Yes.
Wouldn't you think the first four trips would be enough to blot out any footprints of a
perpetrator if any there were?
I didn't see any evidence of any footprints.
Well you wouldn't see footprints in leaves would you Detective?
You know that takes an expert don't you?
I don't believe you.
Do you have some training about what criminalists do?
Yes sir.
Did you tell us yesterday you had taken a course wherein footprints of various kinds
were discussed?
There was not a specific course but yes it was mentioned.
I said you took a course wherein footprints were discussed.
Is that true?
Not just footprints sir that was part of a...
I didn't say just footprints.
Excuse me.
Will I finish?
Oh okay.
It was part of a course or a school.
I understand that.
It was a course wherein footprints were discussed was it not?
Yes.
Alright.
Did you learn about latent footprints in that course?
It could have been mentioned.
And what is a latent footprint would you explain to the court and jury your understanding?
It's a print that is not visible to the naked eye.
How can it be viewed by an expert if you were taught so that it becomes perceivable?
I'm sure there's some type of a chemical process, oblique lighting, quite possibly maybe some
type of infrared or as I said chemical process but I'm not an expert in that area.
Now when you first saw what you claimed was a brown object laying on the ground as you
approached it and you noticed that it was a glove, perhaps a match or the one you had
seen at Bundy, did you stop and think about what you should next do?
Yes.
Did you then examine by the way the shrubbery over the chain link fence where someone could
conceivably have climbed over?
I didn't focus my attention to the shrubbery at that time, no.
Did you inspect it to see whether it was damaged in any way consistent with intrusion?
That whole area was overgrown and dirty.
That would be extremely difficult to make that conclusion.
Did you look for broken twigs or leaves that were damaged in the shrubbery above the chain
link fence at the situs where the glove was seen?
I did not look but I did not see any of that.
So you didn't have at that point any interest in whether or not someone had dropped the
glove coming over the fence?
My interest at that point was who left the glove and what condition they were in.
All right, let's analyze that.
You said what condition they were in.
What do you mean by that?
Well there appeared to be something on the glove that could be blood.
That's right.
Which could well have gotten there if a killer had worn it while slaughtering Nicole Brown
and Ronald Goldin, correct?
Possibly.
Well did you think of that, Detective Furnit?
I thought of a lot of things at that time.
Did you think of that?
That along with others.
All right.
Well let's take them one at a time.
You considered that this glove could have been used in those slings and that was its
significance, correct?
It could have, yes.
No.
Did you decide to inquire further as a detective to try to resolve the issue as to what it
was and how it got there?
At that point I was just looking for a person that left it.
Okay.
Now let's talk about the person that left it.
I'm sure that as you stood there looking at an instrumentality of a brutal murder who
scene you had just visited a short time before, you began to think about the nature of the
person that might have had control and custody of that glove, correct?
No.
You didn't?
No.
Well did you think a victim, some victim you hadn't discovered might have taken a glove
from the scene of the crime and deposited it on O.J. Simpson's property?
Sir, I had no knowledge of anything at that point.
Did you think that?
No.
Did you think that possibly someone who had been involved as a killer might have deposited
that glove wittingly or unwittingly on Mr. Simpson's property?
I did not think of any of these things at that time.
You didn't think of any of these things?
No.
Did you think that possibly whoever put that glove there, if it was put there, was somebody
dangerous?
Possibly.
What training do you have about what to do when you sense danger?
What's your first obligation?
I don't think I understand that.
You don't?
No.
The safety of the officer, I believe you said yesterday, is a paramount consideration in
police work.
If you phrase it like that, my own safety, correct?
Yeah.
Now what thoughts were you having about your safety when you were looking at what you thought
might have been dropped by a killer?
At that time I was thinking that who's watching me at this time?
Aha.
Did you have any concern at all that you might be attacked?
Possibly.
Your police officer standing there with his weapon sticking out for all to see, weren't
you?
Yes.
On your hip?
Yes.
That would represent, in your view, some kind of threat to somebody with blood on his hand,
wouldn't it?
Yes.
You had no reason to think that whoever was responsible for that glove was wounded, did
you?
Yes, I did.
Did you see any blood leading to or from the glove in any direction, Detective Fermin?
No.
Well, if they were wounded, did you think they'd been to a doctor and got fixed up?
I couldn't speculate on that, sir.
Well, why did you think they were wounded?
You tell me.
Someone leaving the scene at Bundy was bleeding from the left side of their body.
You're sure of that?
I'm not sure, but at that time, that was a conclusion that we had made.
A conclusion you had made.
Did you ever study anything about blood, Detective Fermin?
Blood and blood spatter, was that part of your course before you became a detective?
Briefly, yes.
Okay.
And did you learn something about weeding blood spots to determine their origin?
Their origins, sir?
Yes.
In other words, how they...
How they got there.
In a general sense, yes.
All right.
And the first thing you learned is that a spot which is round has been dropped from
some object or person that is not in motion, did you not?
That would be correct.
And when a spot is dropped by someone who is bleeding and moving, it leaves a different
shape on a hard surface such as the concrete of that walkway, correct?
Yes.
And the spots that you saw on the ones that were photographed for this case were round,
weren't they?
They appeared to be round, yes.
Yes.
And so if this was associated with a killer, what you were reconstructing and detecting
in your own mind was someone leaving the scene of a very bloody double assassination and
periodically stopping and dripping as he went.
Is that what you thought?
No.
Well, you knew that they weren't dropped by anyone who was running just from the shape,
didn't you?
I'm not an expert in that field, so I didn't know exactly what transpired on that walkway.
Just had enough training you told us.
I didn't say I had enough.
Sorry.
I hadn't finished the question.
May I finish the question?
Absolutely, sir.
I believe you said you had enough training to recognize that a round spot was not made
by something in motion.
Didn't you say that?
No.
I said a round spot was consistent with someone that is not in motion, but I never viewed
those drops to any more than extent than to say that they were round.
I never went back and inspected them.
I understand you were a detective in this case and the first one on the scene to do
any real detecting, weren't you?
Yes.
These were pointed out to you by a patrolman named Richie, right?
Yes, sir.
Well, did he take his rather powerful flashlight and stop at each drop and illuminate it so
that you could view it?
We did not pause at every drop, no.
What did you do?
As Eftle Bailey continues to try to break Detective Mark Ferman, we're going to take
a break.
We'll be right back.
Guarantee your place in the sun at Big Tree.
Plan now for your future.
Nothing gives you and your family the security like owning property.
Start enjoying a vacation lifestyle on your own beautiful one-acre wooded home site today.
Big Tree is located between Jackson Blood Gainesville next to Goldhead Branch State Park.
Now offering beautiful one-acre high and dry wooded home site from just $49.95.
$195 down only $55 monthly.
Call now for your free color brochure.
Call 1-800-228-OAKS.
Someone knows what it feels like to hide from the world.
Someone knows what it feels like to be afraid.
Someone knows what loneliness feels like.
What hopelessness feels like.
What secrets feel like.
Maybe that someone is you.
If you suffer from depression, call Charter and 1-800-CHARTER.
If you don't get help at Charter, please get help somewhere.
How many ways are there to enjoy life on a Lark three-wheeled scooter?
Hundreds of ways.
And the going gets tough.
The tough goes shopping.
That's me on my Lark.
Here, try one of these.
This is my idea of a little bit of heaven and my Lark puts me here.
You're doing real well, Kiki.
And so am I, thanks to my Lark.
People said I wouldn't be able to get around like I used to, but my Lark and I, we do just
fine.
My Lark taught me I could keep on learning and growing.
Hey, you did it, Tommy!
Looks like Lark's got me acting like a kid again.
How about you?
Isn't it time you got some mobility and freedom back into your life?
Join the club!
For a free color Lark brochure, call 1-800-424-3800.
1-800-424-3800.
I'm Howard Feinberg.
More than 80% of the personal injury cases I handle are settled right here in my office.
Very few clients of mine ever have to go into a courtroom to receive money for their damages.
I try my best to settle my clients' cases so they don't have to go through litigation.
If you've been injured as a result of someone else's negligence, call me today for a free
consultation.
Let me protect your legal rights.
Call Mr. Feinberg at 930-5959.
If you've ever thought about getting in shape or imagined what it would be like to finally
have a healthy body, then stop thinking about it and pick up the phone.
Because right now you can belong to Bally's for only $19 a month.
That's right, America's premier health club costs about 64 cents a day.
So stop just thinking about it and join the club.
Call Bally's Scandinavian now at 1-800-WORKOUT.
What do you think you'll do with that new body here?
F. Lee Bailey continues to try to make points against Detective Furman, but if they are
points, they're very subtle points.
Now he's discussing the cars outside O.J. Simpson's compound and if he ran a license
plate check on any of them.
No, I don't recall that, no.
No.
Okay.
When you went over the wall and let the other officers in, you proceeded ultimately to Kato
Kaelin's room, correct?
Yes.
Did you hear any of the other detectives inquire of Mr. Kaelin if he had seen Mr. Simpson that
evening?
I'm not sure if it was a conversation to that effect, more like do you know if Mr.
Simpson's in the house or the main house?
Yes.
But you did not hear any question about the whereabouts of Mr. Simpson as Mr. Kaelin might
be able to attest to it during the relevant period?
No.
When the others went to Arnell's room at Kato's suggestion, I take it, you stayed behind?
Yes.
Had anybody directed you to stay and question Kaelin?
No.
This is something you decided to do on your own, is it not?
Yes.
Did you go to the lead detective or any of them since they were all your superior and
ask permission to interrogate Kato Kaelin?
No.
Did you ask permission of any of them to test him for sobriety or drug use?
No.
Did you ask permission of any of them to search his premises?
No, sir.
Now when you began to talk to Kaelin, you said you didn't know who he was?
No.
Did you represent that you didn't understand that it was his car parked outside the Ashford
Gate?
No, I did not know that.
Did you ever question him about whether or not he had an automobile nearby?
I did not know.
Did you view him as a suspect?
He didn't appear to be so much a suspect, but then again I didn't really know what his
function was at the house.
Did you ask him what clothes he'd worn that night?
Yes.
Did he show you?
Yes.
Did you inspect him looking for signs that might in some way tie him to the homicide?
I looked at his clothes and his shoes, yes.
You turned his shoes over to look at the soles to see if there was any blood on or in between
the ridges of the soles, correct?
Yes.
What was the purpose in doing that, Detective Furn?
See if there's any blood on the soles.
Now in interrogating Kalin, were you watching him carefully to see if he did anything unusual
or made any little slips in his talks with you that might capture your interest?
Well, Mr. Kalin's Mr. Kalin, and I didn't know that then, but he's rather different
when he talks.
I'm sure that's interesting.
Would you try to answer now the question I put to you?
I was trying to, the specific question, sir, once again.
The specific question was why you questioned Mr. Kalin or spoke to him.
Were you observing him for the purpose of picking up any of the little signals that
interrogators look for?
Nervousness, contradiction, slips of the tongue, that sort of thing?
Not consciously, no.
By the way, had you felt the hood of the Kalin automobile, what turns out to be the Kalin
automobile as you did the Bronco?
I don't believe so.
You weren't concerned about the recent history of that vehicle, I take it?
Well, I didn't find anything on that vehicle or anything around that vehicle that was really
very suspicious.
And you weren't concerned whether it had been recently driven, even though it was parked
very close to Mr. Simpson's premises, is that so?
No.
Okay.
All right.
Now, in questioning Mr. Kalin, there was, in your mind, a very urgent matter to which
you needed an answer, was there not?
Which question was that?
Something you really wanted to know when you went into his room.
Isn't that true?
No.
Well, one of the most important questions a detective can ask a witness or potential
witness is, did you notice something unusual?
Correct?
I don't think that's the most important.
It's pretty general statement, sir.
I said one of the most important questions a detective can ask of a potential witness
is having noticed anything extraordinary or unusual.
Isn't that so?
Extraordinary, I would agree with.
Okay.
Now, and you put that question to Mr. Kalin, didn't you?
Yes.
That's another issue so important that you had to cut him off and put another question
before he could respond.
True?
I don't believe that's the situation.
Well, do you normally ask somebody a question and then before they have a fair chance to
answer you, cut them off with another one?
Mr. Kalin wasn't exactly quickly responding to certain questions and that's to the best
of my recollection while I probably came up with another question.
I now understand that the reason that Kato got question two before he answered question
one was that he was slow on the draw.
Is that right?
Yes.
When did you first tell somebody that detective from?
I was never asked that.
You never were?
No, sir.
Well, you volunteered that you cut Kato off in prior testimony, didn't you?
Yes, sir.
You didn't say anything about him being slow to respond then, did you?
No.
Is that something you recently remembered?
No.
Is it something you simply left out?
No, it's something I wasn't asked.
Was there any other reason to interject question two about the Bronco?
It was a question that we wanted answered.
I think it was important to know if Mr. Simpson was home.
It was important to you, wasn't it?
It was important to all of us.
Had you been directed by anybody to make that inquiry of Kato Kalin?
No.
So I take it now, at this point, having been to the Bronco and hurdled the wall and you're
interrogating Kalin, you viewed yourself as a detective very much in the case?
Oh, I'm always a detective, yes.
In the Simpson case.
Is that your perception of yourself?
Yes, I was asked to assist those detectives, yes.
Mr. Kalin told you that that car normally was driven by Mr. Simpson, correct?
Yes, I believe he said it was O.J.'s vehicle.
And you asked whether he had driven it that night?
I believe I did, yes.
And Mr. Kalin responded he thought so, but he wasn't sure, correct?
I believe so, yes.
Then you got back to the question about unusual occurrences, correct?
Yes, sir.
And the word you used in speaking with Kato was unusual, wasn't it?
Yes.
And now that he finally did get a chance to answer, what did he say?
He said at about 1045, he heard a crashing on his wall and he thought there was going
to be an earthquake.
His picture shook and then he continued to say that he went out to investigate it and
he saw a limo at the gate.
He never suggested to you that he went back along the wall, between the wall and the fence
to the area of the noise, did he?
No, sir.
Did he tell you he started to do that before Mr. Simpson left for the airport, but because
the dog wouldn't go with him, he was afraid and canceled the investigation?
Did he mention that to you?
No.
He didn't know that at the time?
Didn't know it any time.
Okay.
He didn't know that was his testimony in the preliminary hearing?
No, sir.
Did you discuss with Kato whether or not he'd ever heard sounds like that before?
No.
Did you discuss with him possible causes of such a sound?
No.
Did you ask him to relate it to any other experience so that you might better understand
what could or could not have caused that disturbance?
No, sir.
Did you then and there, Detective Furman, decide on your own to go out and investigate
the source of that sound?
I decided to go out and try to orient myself with the property and see where that sound
could have come from, yes.
Did you decide that you would go to the probable source as described by Mr. Kavan by relating
it to an air conditioner which plainly stuck through the wall?
I think when I went to the south border and I saw the path, I walked down the path as
a continuation of discovering where that sound or that wall was located.
But we're still back in Kato's room.
I'm asking whether or not before you ever left that room, you made a decision that you
would go investigate the source of the sound.
I believe when I walked him into the house and I walked through the house when I told
Phil, why don't you talk to this guy at the bar, I think I had decided to go out and try
to figure out where that sound came from on the opposite side of the wall, yes.
You might understand that this is a decision made while walking?
Yes.
Okay.
When you left the room, you hadn't made the decision.
I don't know exactly when it happened, but I would do the best my recollection would
be when I was walking into the house, yes.
By the time you got to the house, you had made the decision, correct?
I didn't really, I can't really recollect exactly at what step I did, but I was walking
him in, asking him to sit down.
And as I walked out, I walked out to try to figure out where that sound would have come
from on the other side of the wall.
So during that period between, between Kalin's room and the front door of the residence or
telling Van Adder if he would talk to the man at the bar between that period I did.
Detective Furman, is it not true that as you decided to walk out to the source of the noise,
you decided to go alone?
I was already alone, sir.
No, you were with Kalin who could have taken you out there, I suppose.
Could he not?
I'm sure he could have.
You were with Detective Van Adder, the lead with whom you never discussed your plans,
correct?
No, I wasn't with him.
I yelled to him.
He was in the kitchen.
You were in the same building with him, were you not?
Yes.
You are the gentleman that had to stand at Dorothy and Bundy for an hour for a lack of
instruction, are you not?
Yes.
And you decided without confiding in anyone to go alone behind that building, correct?
No.
Did it occur to you that Mr. Kalin might be able to assist you in pointing out the exact
source of the noise as he reconstructed it?
Do you think of that?
No.
Never thought of it?
No.
Did it occur to you that there might be danger working out there in the darkness in the vicinity
of the south wall?
At that time?
Yeah.
That thought never crossed your mind?
It wasn't present.
It wasn't at foremost in my mind, no.
Had it up to that point crossed your mind that there might be what you call a suspect
in the vicinity, Detective Furman?
There was a possibility, but it seemed very remote.
How did you discard that possibility at the time you decided to make this solo investigation?
I didn't discard it.
It just wasn't foremost in my mind.
You're telling me as a police officer that having once been apprehensive about possible
physical harm to yourself, you were able to turn that aside?
Is that correct?
I don't understand about the physical harm, sir.
What caused your concern to dissipate, if anything, Detective Furman, about your safety?
I still don't understand, sir.
You don't understand that quickly?
No.
At what point?
Do you understand that at some point prior to climbing the wall, you expressed the notion
that there might be suspects around?
Do you know that?
Yes.
All right.
Suspects in the premises means, in this case, someone who might be connected with a double
murder, doesn't it?
Yes.
That person should always be considered by any intelligent officer to be potentially
armed and dangerous.
Is that not so?
Yes.
Did you give consideration to the possible existence out there in the Simpson shadows
of someone who was armed and dangerous?
At that point, it was somewhat remote since we had already entered the house.
Now, having entered the house, shielded you from any danger by the south wall, is that
what you're telling me?
No, of course not.
You understood something unusual had taken place out there, correct?
No, that was Cato's description.
All right.
As Detective Mark Furman continues to verbally battle with F. Lee Bailey, we're going to
take a quick break.
We'll be right back to the People vs. Simpson live from Los Angeles.
For the law firm of William Troy, here's Bill Troy and John Schwartz.
If you or someone close to you has been injured or lost their life in an accident, let us
help you.
We'll fight to collect the money damages you may deserve.
We give each and every case our personal attention and collect a fee only when we succeed.
There's no cost to you unless you get paid.
Call toll free 1-800-TROY-LAW.
Coit, experience you can trust.
They know what they're doing.
That's why I call Coit.
Choice of the house sale now on.
They get the job done.
They guarantee their work.
It's terrific.
They're friendly.
They're reliable.
They're awesome.
Save 25% on carpet cleaning, 20% on drapery cleaning.
Coit always keeps you like a valued customer.
Or save 30% when you do vote.
Experience you can trust call Coit.
There are times when certain decisions shouldn't be made.
That's why our Jewish community counts on Lenora, the people who care for the peace
of mind that comes with personalized rearrangements.
Share the benefits of pre-planning with those you love, make the right decision at the right
time.
Visit one of our many locations or call us today.
Right now mausoleum entombment is as affordable as crown burial with Menorah's pre-meet offer
of $3,695 for two.
Menorah, the people who care.
I looked the other way when he got in trouble at school.
I didn't say a thing when he'd come home drunk.
When he ran away I always told myself he'd come back.
But now he's in so much trouble.
I don't understand him anymore.
If your teenager is out of control call charter at 1-800-CHARTER.
If you don't get help at charter please get help somewhere.
At Metropolitan Mortgage there are no long applications and no need for perfect credit.
They can usually give you an answer in 48 hours even without disturbing your good first
mortgage.
We're standing by 24 hours a day.
From anywhere in Florida dial 1-800-EASY-YES.
Our children, our responsibility, our future.
Child Watch, a station wide campaign sponsored by Volvo and 7 News.
We all worry about healthcare these days.
Fortunately there's PCA, a national company with more doctors and hospitals close to home.
Plans that big and small businesses can afford.
Greater benefits and quality care for seniors.
Unique services for those who need them most.
Plans as individual as you are.
From Physician Corporation of America.
PCA, healthcare solutions today.
Back live from South Florida to Los Angeles, Detective Furman still going head to head
with F. Lee Bailey.
Furman is way ahead.
Let's look.
You are investigating what you have called in your own testimony an extremely significant
homicide weren't you?
Yes.
Probably the most serious that you had encountered among the 11 on which you had worked.
Is that a fair statement?
Yes sir.
And you had seen evidence that somebody either psychotic or psychopathic had brutalized two
human bodies with something, correct?
Yes sir.
And you knew that that someone could be unpredictable and deadly if you were to encounter them,
correct?
I don't think we knew anything about the killer at that time but I'd say that they would be
dangerous considering the scene.
Wouldn't you draw an inference that somebody capable of that kind of murder might not hesitate
to take you down?
Yes.
Okay.
So, as you leave the building, you left three guns behind, didn't you?
Three detectives, yes.
Three detectives, each of whom was carrying the same side arm that you're wearing today,
correct?
Yes.
That's a Glock automatic pistol, is it?
No.
What is it?
I believe all three of those detectives, one was carrying a 2 inch 38 model 36, one was
carrying a Smith & Wesson stainless steel and Detective Van Etter, I don't recall what he
was carrying, I was carrying a Beretta.
Automatic weapon?
Yes.
Each capable of firing several shots in quick succession?
Yes.
Now, had you thought about asking one of those fellows to go with you?
Maybe someone who had a grown up flashlight?
No.
You never considered that for a moment?
No.
I'll ask you once again, was it not your purpose to be in the area along the south wall alone?
No, it wasn't.
It just worked out that way, is that it?
I didn't even know the south wall was accessible.
It just worked out that you left the house and made your investigation for 15 minutes
or more alone.
That's how it worked out.
You now walk back to the pathway toward what you think will be the wall with the air conditioner,
am I correct?
Yes.
At that point, you're solely expecting to inquire into possible sources of something
that thunk the wall and made a picture shape?
There was a possibility, yes.
Did you proceed slowly and with some caution into this area?
Yes.
How far ahead of you would this little teeny flashlight illuminate the way?
Five, six feet.
Okay.
So it was bright enough to alert anyone in that darkness that somebody was coming carrying
a light foot.
Yes, it would.
You could see it from quite a distance if it were pointed at you.
Yes.
So you proceed along the walkway pausing to look at the structure of what you call indentations.
Yes.
And you come upon the wall.
Eventually, yes.
Now, you have told us that you had learned in school that footprints not visible to you
might be raised by a criminalist, true?
It's possible, yes.
When you saw the glove, did it occur to you that there could be in that area, either where
you had just gone or in the other direction, some footprints that could help identify the
person who may have dropped it there?
We have.
Well, I'd like to pursue it.
Briefly.
Did it occur to you?
That wasn't on my mind at that time, no.
Did it occur to you that if you walked back and forth, you might damage any existing footprint
evidence in the leaves, any latent evidence?
Sustained.
We've been through this.
This is the third time we've been on it.
I asked you yesterday whether or not you could have, had you chosen to do so, taken the detectives
alongside the chain-link fence on the other side and shown them the glove by shining your
light through it.
Could you have done that?
I don't think we could have.
Oh, well.
I don't think we could.
Go ahead and answer the question.
Sorry.
I don't think any of the detectives, including myself, could see it that well from that location.
Did you make any effort to do that before walking over the footpath?
No.
Did you ever go down the chain-link fence on its south side?
On the south side of that residence?
Yes.
No.
Of the fence so that you could look back through it to the Simpson property?
Yes.
You did?
Yes.
When did you do that?
This is off the Simpson property I'm talking about now.
Yes, sir.
Okay.
You did walk down to the little garage that's the home down under the occupied by Ms. Lopez?
Yes.
How far down did you go?
I went down along the chain-link fence along the whole south border of the Simpson residence
and that residence to their north border, which would be the same property line.
I walked into the backyard.
I didn't see anything or any exposed areas, and I walked back towards the cyclone fence
by the building.
When was it?
After I returned from Bundy.
Okay.
This is in daylight.
Yes.
But did you ever do that prior to running the detectives down the path to look at the
glove?
No.
Did you notice that when you saw the glove, there was an object equidistant from the fence
on the other side of the fence that was very plainly visible through it?
Yes.
Okay.
So that presumably if you had chosen to do so, you could have had the detectives look
through the fence and had the same vantage point with respect to the glove, couldn't
you?
No.
You could not?
No.
What's the difference?
Well, it was very overgrown.
It was very dirty.
The leaves were very thick in the flowerbed area on the other side of the fence.
It was very hard to even get in there.
I personally tried to get into that area, and it was very difficult, very dirty.
Could you do it?
Not by choice.
You mean it was inconvenient?
No.
It was unnecessary.
All right.
Anyway, you are looking at the glove and associating it with the killer and no one else, correct?
I didn't know that, but I think I was leaning towards that, yes.
Well, you certainly didn't think a victim had traipsed over there and dropped that glove
there, did you?
I don't know, sir.
Did you ever for one minute, Detective Ferman, while looking at that glove, think, gee, some
victim may have dropped this here?
I didn't know anything with the evidence.
I asked you whether or not you thought, for even an instant, that that might be the product
of a victim's travels.
I can't say 100% that it would be a suspect, so there's a small percentage that I said
it's a possibility.
Well, what's the ratio, 99 to 1?
I probably leaned 75-25 with the suspect.
All right.
Yeah.
You then proceeded down a darkened area, which you now say had cobwebs at least at the upper
section.
Yes.
When you originally described this venture, you didn't say anything about the cobwebs
being only at the upper part of the wall, did you?
I think that's the only place I felt them, so I wouldn't have gone into anything lower.
But that wasn't my question.
My question was, when you earlier described this in July, you didn't mention anything
about the location of the cobwebs, other than being east of the point where the glove was,
right?
I think that's correct, yes.
Would you review with us, please, what you did for the 15 minutes, now 7 after 11, for
the 15 minutes that you stayed out there alone after your discovery and before you sought
to bring it to the attention of anyone?
Yes.
All right.
I'm sure a lot happened in 15 minutes, and I would like you to describe every detail
if you can.
I walked slowly down the pathway going east to that potting or that large plant area that's
probably 25 foot square.
How long did that take?
That was probably several minutes back there because it's very overgrown.
I tried to see where the east property, if there was a fence, was very overgrown.
I'm not sure if it was bushes or ivy.
I looked in that area, looked for any evidence of anything that had been dropped or any blood
evidence.
Where did you look?
On the ground, on the walls, the plants.
I returned back westbound on the path.
That might have just been it.
How much of your 15 minutes was spent back in the small yard that you viewed as a site
as for potting plants?
Several minutes, probably more than five.
And several, like moments, there's no real definitive meaning.
Could you please use minutes or seconds and minutes to describe each step that you took?
How many minutes were you present on the far side or east side of the alleyway between
the fence and the building?
Talking about the pathways, sir.
You have walked how many feet from the glove to the end of the building?
Seventy-five.
Well, if a normal walking rate is 350 feet a minute, what would you think your rate was
at that time, that it took you several minutes to go 75 feet?
I didn't testify to that, sir.
I think you just said it took several minutes to get to the end of the building a few moments
ago, did you not?
No, I did not.
All right.
Tell me now, how long did it take?
I just walked to the end of the building.
I spent several minutes back in that area at the end of the bungalow.
Once again, would you try to help us and avoid the use of the word several, which can mean
different things to different people?
How many minutes was it from the departure of the glove till the time you left the small
yard at the back of the building?
Five minutes.
You spent five minutes there looking around with your flashlight?
Approximately.
Looked on the wall, the ground, looked for blood, and what else?
Something that looked out of place or something that didn't belong.
Well, if the glove was dropped by a killer, why were you back on the wall looking for
the blood?
Well, first I was looking for somebody that might have collapsed or left the glove, but
I didn't see anything obvious in that area.
Okay.
Five minutes is about what it took to investigate that little yard.
Approximately.
What did you next do?
Walked back westbound on the path.
To where?
To the air conditioner.
I looked around that area.
How long did you spend looking around the area of the air conditioner?
I would say a couple minutes, but if I had to bring it down to minutes, two, three minutes?
Two or three minutes.
Tell us what you did during that period to inspect the air conditioner and its surround.
What did you look at?
I looked at the air conditioner to see if there's anything disturbed, any blood, anything
left there.
I shined my light on the blue paper object on the other side of the fence.
I looked in that area, I stepped past that area, and then went around where the indentation
was farther west.
And how long did you spend there?
Probably more time than I did back in the area where...
In minutes, Detective.
Trying to explain, sir.
Yes.
Maybe more than that area in the potting area, so I'd probably say in excess of five minutes,
maybe as many as seven or eight minutes.
What did you do between five and seven minutes by the indentation area, as you call it, to
complete your investigation?
I believe there's an electrical box there and there seems to be a...
I think there's an entry to the underneath of the house.
I opened that.
I tried to look in there.
It was very difficult with my flashlight.
It wasn't very powerful.
I decided to not go any further.
I didn't see any evidence of anything at the entry.
The voltage box, I opened that.
I looked in that area for any type of physical evidence.
I saw none, so I returned to the front of the house.
Why were you looking in a voltage box at that point?
I didn't know, sir.
I was just looking at any area that could have housed something or somebody.
In a voltage box, you thought there might be somebody in it?
It was a very large voltage box.
I didn't know what was behind it until I opened it.
Was that why you opened it?
Yes.
Okay.
Nobody there?
No.
Did you try to go in the door that's accessible from the footpath?
Which door was that?
On the south side of the house.
Did you notice a door there in your 15-minute investigation?
I noticed one on the garage.
Did you notice any door that would lead into the house?
I don't recall if there was one there, no.
Did you try the door that you did see to see if it would open?
No.
You weren't interested in whether the person who dropped the glove might have used that
door, were you, Graf?
I just didn't try the door.
I'm talking about the door in the garage.
I don't recall the other door.
You did spend, by your own estimate, 15 minutes looking around before notifying your superiors
of what could be a very important piece of evidence in this case, true?
Yes.
Okay.
Now, it is apparent from the way you have described your actions back there that you
had not the slightest concern for your own safety.
Is that a fair statement?
No.
Well, you didn't do anything to protect it, did you?
Yes.
What?
I'm capable of protecting myself.
Once I was committed, I really had no choice but to go forward.
You didn't have the option, having discovered what could well have been the deposit, willingly
or otherwise, of a dangerous killer to go back and get some help.
That option wasn't there?
The option was there.
Why did you decide, Detective Furman, that there was no need to go get one of the guns
that was in the house to accompany you?
I don't think it was a need.
I think it was a judgment call at that time.
It was a judgment call, Detective Furman, based on the fact that you well knew there
was no cause for concern.
Isn't that so?
No, it's not so.
Do you ordinarily conduct investigations of what could be a dangerous nature in this fashion?
Sometimes.
You do not partake of the assistance of your more experienced colleagues when they are
available, correct?
If they're immediately available, of course I would.
Immediately available.
Would you say within 30 seconds time satisfies your definition of immediacy?
At that time, no.
Could you not have gone from that room to the front door or the kitchen in less than
a minute very, very easily that night if you had chosen to do so?
Yes, I could have.
Yeah.
And the decision not to do so was yours, was it not?
Yes, it was.
Now, did you do anything else during that 15-minute period that you have not yet described
to us?
No.
In the studies of blood that you had in the school where you learned about the round drops,
did you learn any of the other properties of blood that might be of interest to a detective,
particularly one in homicide cases?
I don't believe the specifics you're asking.
I don't understand what you're asking, sir.
What happens to blood when it leaves the body and is on some surface and is exposed to air?
I would assume that it would coagulate.
And then?
Dry.
The moisture that is part of the blood evaporates in time, does it not?
Yes.
What did you learn, if anything, about the rate at which blood dries at 60 degrees Fahrenheit
as it was that night by your own statement?
I don't recall anything in that area.
Did you ever learn any parameters or facts about the drying of blood?
Not that I recall, no.
Would you not agree from your own human experience, quite apart from what you learned at detective
school, that the longer the blood is exposed, the more likely it is that it will be dry?
Yes.
Now, Detective Furman, when you first saw the glove, did you associate it with the noise
that Cato had heard or said that he heard at 10.45 p.m.?
I believe with the location of the air conditioner, I thought, yes.
Did you think that that noise might somehow have been tied in with the event that caused
that love to be there?
I thought it could have been, yes.
Perhaps someone was back there, unfamiliar with the area, and bumped into the wall and
dropped the glove?
That would be one conclusion, yes.
But did you think about that?
I believe that someone obviously had left it there.
Did you think that that might be a person bumping the wall who dropped the glove?
Yes.
So that you then had a possible time pin of the event itself?
If the noise and the deposit of the glove occurred together, then that had been there
since quarter of 11, hadn't it?
Yes, sir.
And you were there at 6.15, weren't you?
Approximately, yes.
That's seven and a half hours, isn't it?
Yes.
That's enough for blood to dry, isn't it?
Under certain conditions, yes.
I'm sure it would be.
Unless it's encased in plastic or rubber and evaporation is stopped, wouldn't you agree?
No.
Didn't it seem strange to you that after seven and a half hours, that glove still showed
moist, sticky blood, Detective Furman?
No, I knew nothing at that time when it was deposited or left there.
You didn't?
No.
Was this the first time today that anyone has brought to your attention that apparent
anomaly?
Yes, sir.
That's in fact not the case.
Sustained.
Is it the first time today that you've thought about the wet blood on the glove when you
saw it at 6.15?
I never had...
That is from Stadfond, I have it.
That's not the testimony.
I'm sorry?
That wasn't the testimony.
When did you find the glove?
The glove on Rockingham?
Yes.
At approximately sometime between 6.05, 6.10, 6.15.
All right.
Now, is today the first time that anyone has brought to your attention possible significance
of the presence of moist or sticky blood on the glove at that time on that day?
Yes.
Okay.
No one has ever discussed this with you before, I take it?
No.
Did you know, by the way, when you were back there for your 15-minute investigation that
you apparently missed a door that goes into the laundry room of the house?
No.
Are you learning for the first time today that such a door existed that morning?
I have seen schematics that I believe there is a door somewhere between the garage and
the air conditioner, but I did not remember seeing it at that time.
All right.
In other words, as you made your inquiry of the indentations, there may have been a door
there that you never saw?
Possibly yes.
Okay.
Would it be fair to say that the five to seven-minute inquiry that you made in that area, including
the electrical box, was somewhat cursory, detective Firm?
Absolutely, sir.
Okay.
By the way, did you see any steps back there leading somewhere?
On the pastor?
Adjacent to it.
We want to bring you back to Los Angeles and take a quick break.
You are watching the People vs. Simpson.
F. Lee Bailey and Mark Fuhrman.
We will be right back.
Okay.
You are injured in an accident.
You could be out of work and run up some pretty expensive medical bills.
At Cohen & Cohen, we are dedicated to serving your legal needs with confidence, professionalism
and personal attention.
If you are injured in any type of accident, one simple phone call to Cohen & Cohen can
help answer questions regarding your legal rights.
Call the attorneys at Cohen & Cohen now at 1-800-33-COHEN.
If you are over 65 years young, here is healthy advice from your elders.
When I get up in the morning, I have two choices.
I can be happy or unhappy.
I choose to be happy.
Call now to find out about the Humana Gold Plus Plan for seniors and anyone else who
is eligible for Medicare.
And I meet people and I talk to so many people and I think it is so easy to love.
Why must people hate me?
The Humana Gold Plus Plan provides the security of comprehensive care with all the benefits
of Medicare.
Plus, no monthly premium and no Medicare deductibles.
No charge for preventive checkups, eye exams or hearing tests, coverage for your prescriptions
and much more.
With the Humana Gold Plus Plan, it is all yours with no monthly premium and no Medicare
deductibles.
Between my youth and my old age, when spring has turned to fall, comes a sudden realization.
I'm really not old at all.
Call 1-800-258-4931 for this free booklet full of valuable advice on life, living and
the Humana Gold Plus Plan.
It's almost four.
We'll make it.
At Glidden, we know how hard it can be to find time to paint.
That's why spread satin is formulated to cover the first time so you can finish in less time.
Glidden, a better way to paint.
Guarantee your place in the sun at Big Tree.
Plan now for your future.
Nothing gives you and your family the security like owning property.
Start enjoying a vacation lifestyle on your own beautiful one-acre wooded home site today.
Big Tree is located between Jackson Blood Gainesville next to Goldhead Branch State Park.
Now offering beautiful one-acre high and dry wooded home site from just $49.95.
$195 down only $55 monthly.
Call now for your free color brochure.
Call 1-800-228-OAKS.
Coit.
Experience you can trust.
They know what they're doing.
That's why I call Coit.
Choice of the house sale now on.
They get the job done.
They guarantee their work.
It's terrific.
They're friendly.
They're reliable.
They're professional.
Save 25% on carpet cleaning, 20% on drapery cleaning.
Coit always keeps you like a valued customer.
Or save 30% when you do both.
Experience you can trust.
Call 1-800-228-OAKS.
Living by the old saying, it's better to be lucky than good, we took that break at a perfect
time because Effley Bailey is handing out testimony of Mark Furman during the preliminary
hearing.
Nine copies he wants to hand out so everyone can follow along with him.
Howard, so far, Effley Bailey's planning on knocking Mr. Furman out.
He hasn't done it.
So maybe the cross-examination using his preliminary hearing testimony will be the smoking gun.
He's going to have one?
I don't know that that's going to be the smoking gun.
However, he has made some headway in that you've got Detective Furman going into an
area where it's possible that a suspect who committed a brutal double homicide may be.
He sees this bloody glove.
He doesn't take any actions to protect himself.
He doesn't notify any officers.
He had a gun though, Howard.
He doesn't pull his gun.
He doesn't ask for backup.
He's not wearing a vest.
Then he makes a discovery of this bloody glove and it takes him 15 minutes to notify anybody.
Whether or not that's reasonable or not, the jury is going to have to determine, but what
the defense is doing is saying, hmm, that's strange.
Yeah, but how strange?
I mean, if you found one piece, why not look for some more evidence?
Well, if you found one piece and you thought a suspect was back there and was armed, I
don't know about you, but I'd certainly want someone to help me.
All right, spoken like a true defense attorney.
One was, did you ever go to the second floor of the Simpson home looking for bleeding,
otherwise troubled victims?
No.
Did any of your team, the four detectives to your knowledge, go and inspect the balance
of the house?
I do not know.
Was it not you who said to Detective Van Hatter, we have an emergency here?
There may be people bleeding to death inside.
Yes.
And once you got inside, you didn't go to see who might be bleeding to death on the
second floor.
Is that right?
I didn't make entry at that time.
Yesterday you related some blood stains that you saw at the bottom of the door of the Bronco.
My understanding was it was on the sill.
Yes, sir.
And you claim that these marks, brush marks, I think you described them as, were visible
with the door closed.
Yes.
It is your position that in your presence, at least, the Bronco was never opened or any
of its doors or windows while you were there, right?
That's correct.
And you never saw anyone else do it?
No, I did not.
Did you at some point get to show Criminalist Fung the location of the brush marks you have
described?
Yes, I did.
Could you tell the court and jury when that occurred and who was present?
Dennis Fung, I believe, arrived at the Rockingham estate, 7.30, 8 o'clock, somewhere around
that area.
It was then that I showed him the items on the Bronco.
You had come back from Bundy?
Yes, sir.
Did you take him out individually to the Bronco, point them out to him?
Yes, I did.
Was the door opened on this occasion by either of you?
No.
And you never saw that door open to this day, had you?
No, I did not.
Okay.
Detective Ferman, a preliminary hearing in this case took place early in July.
Yes, sir.
You testified both on July 5th and July 6th in response to questions by Ms. Clark and
Dean Obman for the defense.
Yes.
Several direct and several cross-examinations, you recall that?
Yes, sir.
And were you trying at that time, to the very best of your ability, to be accurate in each
of your various utterances?
Yes, I was.
Okay.
Now, would you turn, please, to page 41 of the transcript that's been placed in front
of you?
I ask you to look at line 14, where you were asked by Ms. Clark the nature of a certain
conversation with Detective Van Adder while you were still without the premises.
Yes, sir.
And your answer was, I told Detective Van Adder, I said, we got a real, we got an emergency,
we got a problem, we got, we don't know if we have people inside that are in danger,
dying, bleeding to death.
We have to do something.
I don't care whose house this is.
We have to do something.
We don't know if we have a murder, suicide, a kidnapping, another victim.
And Phil agreed, and we took our opinions to Detective Lang and Phillips and discussed
the possibility.
Do you recall that testimony?
Yes, sir.
Does that accurately describe the sequence in which you detectives became concerned,
or at least expressed your concern about possible victims inside?
Somewhat.
So that this idea was initiated by Detective Mark Fuhrman, was it not?
No, this was a conversation between Van Adder and myself, and that's a collective conversation.
This is collective?
Yes.
Those are my feelings, absent of the conversation, the reciprocal of Detective Van Adder.
I see.
So now do you see anything, beginning at line 15, about Van Adder speaking to you?
No sir.
And do you see that most of what I have just recited is in quotes and thus attributed by
the court reporter to you talking about yourself?
Do you notice that?
Yes sir.
Okay.
Is it not the fact that the first one to suggest an emergency and the need to do something
right now was you?
I don't know if it was me that first suggested it.
Van Adder and I were both talking about it.
I don't know how it came down exactly to that point.
After authority had been obtained from the necessary brass, I think Commander Bushey
was to go in without a warrant.
Commander Bushey had no say in that sir.
Oh he didn't?
No.
Van Adder didn't check with anyone?
No.
He made the decision?
He made the decision.
Okay.
When he decided that you were right and it was necessary to go in, how were you elected
to go over the wall?
How were you elected to be the one to go over the wall?
Phil made a statement that we're going to have to go in.
How are we going to do it?
I said we'll all go over the wall.
You volunteered to do that in response to his query, how can we accomplish it, correct?
Yes.
All right.
On page 46, line 15, while you are with Cato Cailin in his room, you say that you stayed
because you didn't know who Mr. Cailin was and I wasn't sure if he was even supposed
to be there.
I stayed with him and engaged him in a conversation about who he was and what he was doing there
and a few other things.
My question is, is that accurate?
I believe so, yes.
Did you determine that Cato Cailin, from talking to him, was a proper person to be in that
house at that time?
I never saw any identification as far as an address.
He might have said he lives there or he stays there.
Would you turn to page 48, Detective Fermin?
It's the latter part of a long answer, which goes almost two full pages.
I'm interested in only a few lines.
I will read the whole question and answer if you prefer.
Would you like me to do that?
Yes, sir.
Okay.
The original question was, did you have a conversation with him, meaning Cato Cailin
at that time, 47, line 12?
Answer, yes.
Simultaneous with, I was walking.
I walked to the bathroom, which I couldn't see into from where I was standing at the
doorway.
I walked in just to make sure nobody was in there, and I opened up the closets to make
sure no one was standing in the closet.
I engaged him in conversation while I was doing that.
I noticed a pile of clothes to the, if you were lying in the bed, it would be the right
side, next to the right side of the bed, and a pair of shoes.
I asked him if those were the clothes he wore, and he said, last night, and he said, yes.
I said, mind if I look at them?
He said, no.
I picked up the shoes, I looked at the soles.
I picked up the clothes, and I looked at the clothes.
There didn't appear to be anything unusual about them.
I put them back where they were, and I was still talking to Mr. Cailin.
I asked him if there's anything unusual that happened that night.
Before he answered, before I let him answer, I asked, who drives the Bronco?
He says, well, that's O.J.
I said, is that all?
Is that the only person that drives it?
And he goes, yeah.
I asked him if there was anything unusual that happened the previous night.
He said, well, about quarter to 11, I heard some crashing on my wall, and I thought there
was going to be an earthquake, but that was only noise just one time, and my picture shook.
And he pointed to a picture which was just to the west of his bed, which would be the
far right of his room looking into his room from the doorway.
And then he said, I went outside to see what was going on, and I saw a limo at the gate.
I'm sorry.
I went outside to see what was going on with the noise, and I saw a limo at the gate.
At that point, I interrupted him, and I took him into the house where now Mr. Simpson's
daughter and the three detectives had already entered the rear of the residence, and the
door was open.
Did you give that answer to that question on your direct examination by Ms. Clark on
July 5th?
Yes, sir.
So that, in fact, when you interrupted Mr. Kalin after asking him about unusual events,
you put two questions.
Number one, whose bronco is it?
And number two, is he the only one that drives it, correct?
Yes, sir.
Why was it important to know that then, Detective Fermin?
There was blood on the vehicle.
Okay.
Now, I suggested to you some time ago that you directed Detective Van Adder to go in
and interrogate Kalin, and you had some doubts about that.
Doubts of my presence of mind?
No, none at all.
No?
Doubts about whether you would give an order to a man as superior to you as the lead detective
in this case.
I did not give him any orders.
Well, when you describe bringing Kalin into the house, Ms. Clark asked, where did you
put him?
And you said, there's a bar inside that looks like a recreation room, a billiard room, and
just to the right of that, as you're entering the rear of the residence, there's four or
five bar stools.
I said, why don't you just sit here for a second?
One of the detectives is going to talk to you for a few minutes.
Just sit here and relax.
I continued towards the front of the residence, and right by the kitchen, I saw Detective
Van Adder, and I told him.
I says, talk to the man that was in the bungalow.
He's seated at the bar.
And I continued out the front of the residence.
Detective Fuhrman, you had been talking with Mr. Kalin before you decided to go outside
the building, had you not?
Yes.
Why did you find it necessary that another detective take up the interrogation?
I didn't think it necessary.
Why did you direct Detective Van Adder to do it?
I was going to investigate where the noise came from.
Why didn't you tell him the subject matter about which he ought to be concerned if he
was going to interrogate it with him?
No reason.
I wanted to go investigate the noise to see if we could even get to that south wall.
Why did you not tell him that you were going to go investigate a noise and he should finish
the interrogation?
No reason.
Okay.
On that same page.
Right after you said, on line 18, and I continued out the front of the residence, Ms. Clark
said, why?
And your response was, well, I was.
From the statement he made, the crashing sound and the time that he heard it combined with
the blood in the Bronco, the way I was feeling is there is a possibility there could be another
victim, a suspect that had collapsed or escaped via that route on the southern border of the
house.
Do you read the answer in front of you?
I do, sir.
You agree that I have recited it correctly as it appears in the transcript?
Yes.
How did you know at that juncture, Detective Furman, that there was or would be blood in
the Bronco?
I didn't.
Why did you use the word in?
I'm not sure I did.
Is this the first time it's been brought to your attention that you used the word in?
It's the first time you've read it, but I never used the word in as far as saying there
was blood in the Bronco.
You didn't use the word in?
I'm not sure, sir, but I did not see any blood in the Bronco.
If you used the word in the Bronco and it was unintentional, might that be, sir, a slip
of the tongue?
No, it might not.
Might not.
Unless it was a slip of the tongue and if you in fact said it, you have no explanation
whatsoever for that mistake.
Is that the way you wish to leave me?
No, I wish to leave to say that there was no blood that I observed inside the Bronco
prior to going into the residence that morning.
My question was, Detective Ferman, if you did in fact say that one of the things that
had you disturbed at that point was blood in the Bronco and it wasn't a slip of the
tongue, why would you have used that word?
I didn't see any blood in the Bronco, sir.
Why would you have used the word in, Detective Ferman, please?
I told you I'm not sure I did.
Well there's a videotape of your testimony.
Have you reviewed that recently?
No, never have.
Do you think that would help to determine whether or not the court reporter made this
mistake or you did?
Yes, sir.
Okay, we'll get to that.
On page 54.
We'll take advantage of this pause and shift in direction of questioning.
We'll be right back, you're watching the People vs. Simpson.
A lot of people when they get older, they give up independence, but it's very important
to be independent, to be on your own.
At Care Florida, financial independence means coverage, including unlimited hospitalization,
office visits, dental services, eyeglasses, prescriptions, and more.
They take care of all my prescriptions.
They take care of everything.
You don't have to worry about nothing.
At Care Florida, no worry means there are no copayments, no deductibles, and no monthly
planned fees.
If not, I would have to depend on my son.
I would have to depend on my daughter.
Well, I would worry all the time.
Financial independence.
Call Care Florida today.
Care Florida.
Care Florida for life.
We'd like to make a little boast concerning what we do the most.
At By Owner, it's easy for you.
At By Owner, it was really easy, and we saved over $5,000.
Thanks, By Owner.
The brokers tried for two and a half years.
We sold our home in only three months.
Thanks, By Owner.
It was easy.
And we saved a lot of money.
Thanks, By Owner.
And By Owner, it's easy for you.
Oh, no.
Norplant victims.
Your Norplant may entitle you to a large cash award, serious problems like scars, bleeding,
dizziness, nausea, ovarian cysts, weight gain, hair loss, facial hair.
I'm Jim Shapiro.
I'll get you all the money I can as fast as I can.
Call 1-800-546-7777, and I'll talk to you free.
Jim Shapiro, 1-800-546-7777.
We know Alzheimer's affects every race, religion, and socioeconomic background.
Hello, I'm Chugs Inc. with an important message about this devastating illness telling you
there is hope.
The Baumeleisner Neuro-Medical Institute is now accepting volunteers suffering with Alzheimer's
or memory loss to participate in treatment programs with new drugs.
For free information and counseling about these programs, call 1-800-755-1999.
We all worry about health care these days.
Fortunately, there's PCA, a national company with more doctors and hospitals close to home.
Plans that big and small businesses can afford.
Greater benefits and quality care for seniors.
Unique services for those who need them most.
Plans as individual as you are.
From Physician Corporation of America.
PCA, health care solutions today.
For the fourth time in two days, Effley Bailey is asking Mark Fuhrman about whether or not
he felt he was in danger when he was back behind O.J.'s home looking for the glove.
...and maybe encounter a killer than it was to get out of it.
Is that right?
That's correct.
Okay.
When you encountered the spider webs, did it occur to you that whoever dropped that
glove had come the way you had come and gone back out the same way?
It was possible, but I didn't know the condition that they were in when they left that glove.
I'm not talking about any condition of a person.
If there are spider webs across a passageway, the odds are fairly good that no one has run
through there recently.
True?
No one has run, yes, crawled, I know.
Did you see any marks on the ground indicating a human was crawling there?
I saw no marks on the path.
Okay.
All the world.
Now, Detective Fuhrman, in cross-examination, Mr. Ullman directed some questions to you
about your activities at Bumley.
And you described, as you did for us, page 64 at the top, that having been unable to
see the bodies from your original position to a satisfactory degree, risky took you around
Dorothy up the alley and in through the house so you could come out the front door and have
a better vantage point at the top of the steps without walking through the blood.
Correct?
Yes, sir.
And at the top of page 64, you are talking about that, aren't you?
Yes, I am.
Question how far would you say you were from where the bodies were located?
Answer.
If the body was directly above the female victim, which was probably three feet, the
male victim would have been 10 feet, 12 feet.
Question.
All right.
And from that vantage point, you first observed the glove that you told us about?
Answer.
Not first.
No.
Question.
When did you first observe it?
Answer.
We had flashlights.
We were looking at the female victim.
We looked at the male victim.
I noticed the glove when I walked around to the, after I exited the residence the first
time and walked around to the side or the north side, north perimeter of Bundy, of 875
Bundy.
There's an iron fence and through that iron fence, you can get very close to the male
victim.
And looking there, I could see them at his feet.
Did you use the word them in your answer?
Yes, sir.
Did you use the word them in your answer?
Yes, sir.
And was the last item to which them could have applied in your narrative the word glove?
Singular, yes.
I'm simply asking whether glove, line 14, was the item you were talking about just prior
to saying I saw them at his feet?
Them I was referring to the knit cap and the glove.
Show me anywhere on that page where the knit cap is mentioned.
Can you?
That page, no.
No.
Okay.
You see anything on the prior page, Detective Furman, about the knit cap?
Do you want me to look at the prior page?
Sure.
I don't know how you can answer the question without looking.
63.
I do not.
Okay.
Page 65, Detective Furman.
I'm sorry.
Your report needs to change the paper.
Okay.
Howard, that's a reasonable explanation for them, the cap and the glove.
Well, it's a reasonable explanation, Patrick, except there's no reference to the cap on
any of the two prior pages.
So yes, it's reasonable if you choose to believe it's reasonable, and it seems to be an escape
if you don't believe that his answer is reasonable.
All right.
How do you think he's doing so far today with F. Lee Bailey?
I think he's doing very well.
I think that Mr. Bailey has developed a couple of points, one that his behavior was somewhat
unorthodox and not responding for 15 minutes after finding the glove and going there all
by himself.
That doesn't mean he planted it, but it does raise a question about suspicion.
To the best of my recollection, yes.
Question.
All right.
And you didn't actually pick up the glove to examine it, did you?
Answer.
Not at that time.
No.
Did you give that answer?
Yes.
At what time did you pick up the glove?
I didn't.
I turned the glove over with a pen when I returned to the Bundy scene after being at
Rocking Inn.
And that's what you meant when you said didn't pick up the glove at that time.
You had in mind turning it over with a pen?
I believe that was Mr. Oman's words and the question.
I didn't use the word pick up.
But the question was put to you, Detective.
He said, and you didn't actually pick the glove up to examine it, did you?
Your answer was not at that time.
No.
Do you see anything in that answer that refers to turning it over with a pen at any time?
Not on that page, no.
You see another page where you indicated that that's what you meant by later picking up
the glove?
No, sir.
All right.
As Ethel and Bailey pointed out, you're not going to be able to answer that question.
You're going to be asked to answer it.
So you're going to have to pick up the glove.
No, sir.
All right.
All right, as Ethel Bailey pauses for a moment there, we need to take a quick break.
We will be right back.
You're watching the People vs. Simpson.
I'm Howard Feinberg.
If you've been injured in an automobile or slip and fall accident or as a result of medical
malpractice or from any incident where someone else may have been at fault, don't fail to
protect your legal rights to receive money for your damages.
A law is designed for your protection and probably gives you more rights than you may
know.
If you don't guess about your rights, call me for a free consultation.
Let me explain your rights to you.
Call Mr. Feinberg at 930-5959.
If you're over 65 years young, here's healthy advice from your elders.
Life is a kaleidoscope and the bits of glass in the tube produce a landscape that you didn't
see one second before.
Call now to find out about the Humana Gold Plus Plan for seniors and anyone else who
is eligible for Medicare.
The world is absolutely, intangibly beautiful.
Forget about the material things to a great extent.
The Humana Gold Plus Plan provides the security of comprehensive care with all the benefits
of Medicare, plus no monthly premium and no Medicare deductibles, no charge for preventive
checkups, eye exams or hearing tests, coverage for your prescriptions and much more.
With the Humana Gold Plus Plan, it's all yours with no monthly premium and no Medicare deductibles.
There is nothing static in life.
Life is a perpetual moving phenomenon.
Call 1-800-421-7862 for this free booklet full of valuable advice on life, living and
the Humana Gold Plus Plan.
Coit, experience you can trust.
They know what they're doing.
That's why I call Coit.
Choice of the house sale now on.
They get the job done.
They guarantee their work.
It's terrific.
They're friendly.
They're reliable.
They're professional.
They save 25% on carpet cleaning, 20% on drapery cleaning.
Coit always keeps you like a valued customer.
Or save 30% when you do vote.
It's here, Oakland Park, the newest Rooms to Go showroom on Oakland Park Boulevard.
Oakland Park Boulevard, exit I-95.
Rooms to Go, getting bigger to serve you better in Oakland Park.
A famed attorney, a controversial cop.
F. Lee Bailey cross examines Mark Furman.
Only one South Florida station is bringing it to you live from LA.
Seven News.
Back live to Los Angeles, F. Lee Bailey and Mark Furman.
They usually go till three.
We've got about 10 minutes left of this cross-examination.
From your perspective, the efforts, if you know, were made to determine Mr. Goldman's
identity so that his next of kin could be notified.
I have no knowledge of anything to do with that.
You were not involved in that effort?
No, sir.
Did you have anything to do with notice to Lee Brown?
No, sir.
About the adult.
When did you tell us yesterday that you learned where you were going on the trip to Rocky
Hill, was it when you were in the car with Phillips and he told you?
There was some conversation if I knew the way up there.
With the car?
I'm sorry.
Yes, sir.
Okay.
But were you already in the car?
When we knew the purpose?
Yes.
Okay.
Well, were you in the car when you knew where you were going?
I think it was somewhat simultaneous with getting back to the front of the location
and talking to Detective Phillips, Van Aderen Lang directing us to take us up there or something
to that effect.
I got in the car with Detective Phillips and it was discussed then.
Had you disclosed to either any of the three detectives as of the point you left for Rockingham,
your prior involvement with the Simpsons?
Yes.
To whom did you describe and when?
Detective Phillips.
When?
And Detective Phillips asked me if I knew how to get to the Simpson house or the Rockingham
house.
If that was at five in the morning or after?
I think it was a little before that.
That you actually left for Rockingham before five?
No, we left at five.
You asked me what time the conversation took place.
Slightly before five you disclosed to him that you'd had prior involvement.
I said I'd been on a radio call there a long time ago.
And up to that point you said nothing about that prior involvement?
No.
Okay.
All right, they're moving the sidebar.
Howard, this is the first sidebar that we've seen so far under cross-examination.
Why?
Well, Judge Yadow is starting to tighten the reign on the lawyers.
There's no more speaking objections.
He's ruling quite definitively on them.
He's giving the defense a lot of latitude.
Marcia Clark has basically been told that unless you've got an objection that's valid,
I'm not going to give you a sidebar and don't make any speaking objections.
And you recall the defense made absolutely no objections, not one objection during the
entire directive, Detective Berman.
Yeah, and Marcia Clark, during Effley Bailey's cross-examination, I was keeping track yesterday.
She made six objections in the first 18 minutes and then basically sat back and let him go.
Well, I think that she got the message from Judge Yadow that this is cross-examination
of the most important witness, at least from the defense perspective in the case.
And appellate courts do not look favorably upon trial court judges that limit cross-examination
of essential witnesses.
And that's the type of stuff that can cause a reversal.
So I think the judge is doing exactly what a smart astute trial judge should do, giving
the defense latitude where they need latitude.
Howard, a lot of this, if you want to believe that Mark Herman planted the glove, and we
don't know that yet, a lot of his, well, let's go ahead and listen to this.
See if our judges are ready.
Ladies and gentlemen, there's something I need to look at before we proceed any further.
And given the hour, we're going to take our recess for the lunch hour just a little bit
early.
Please remember my admonition to you.
Howard, my point being, a lot of the points that F. Lee Bailey is making are very small.
Why didn't you have backup when you went behind the alley?
Those sort of things.
All these could be explained by the simple fact that maybe Detective Furman is very aggressive,
very independent, and very alert.
Well, they could be explained that way.
Or they could be explained he's very aggressive, he's very independent, and he feels as though
he's been scorned when the case was removed.
He has an animosity towards interracial couples, and therefore he planted the glove.
All the defense has done up till now, they haven't hit any home runs, clearly.
But what they've done is shown that he may have had the opportunity to remove the glove,
and his behavior back there by the air conditioning vent in a dark area with a lot of overgrowth
where he can't see by going there knowing that there might be a suspect without a vest,
without his gun pulled, without any backup, and then finding a glove and then not reporting
to anyone for 15 minutes at least gives one pause to wonder is this ordinary.
They haven't gone further than that, but they're raising some questions.
But Howard, you use common sense.
It's like one of these facts has said, and we've been getting tons of facts, it's six
hours later.
You don't really expect the killer to be sitting behind that wall for six hours, do you?
No, and that's a good point.
You don't expect him to be back there for six hours, but Detective Furman is the one
that's testifying that he believes there might be a suspect back there.
And what the defense is saying is if you believe that there's a suspect back there, why don't
you get back up?
If you see a glove and you believe it might have been there and the perpetrator might
have dropped it there and you think he's back there, why are you taking actions inconsistent
with what you've described as officer safety and the proper course of conduct, and then
why did they take 15 minutes to report it?
The questions that they are raising are just that question, nothing more.
But all that F. Lee Bailey has promised he has yet to deliver anything that we would
consider.
Wow.
There have been no wows.
There have been no, oh my goodness, I can't believe that happened and they didn't tell
anybody about it.
That hasn't happened yet and it may not happen.
Howard, as one of our facts says, the dream team can dream on they have the murderer,
but he's not sitting in the witness chair.
Well, again, I caution everybody to wait.
We have to see the full cross examination.
We have to see the redirect examination, and then we need to see the rest of the case.
Don't make a judgment until it's all over.
All right, well, we're going to continue to watch Mark Ferman.
F. Lee Bailey says in his book that he writes, you saved the best for last.
He is probably about halfway through if we go by what the experts are saying.
So we'll see F. Lee Bailey when we return at four o'clock with Channel 7 News at four.
F. Lee Bailey and Mark Ferman back together at 430.
We'll see you then.
Thank you, dissociated gentlemen.
It's cold season.
for adult strength relief.
Many doctors recommend Dymatap.
What's more, in a recent study, the antihistamine and Dymatap Extent Taps relieved allergic
rhinitis symptoms better than a leading prescription antihistamine.
Doctors have recommended the Dymatap brand over 200 million times for sneezing, runny
noses and nasal congestion.
For adult strength cold and allergy relief, remember, doctors recommend Dymatap.
Enter Lottomobile 2 from the Florida lottery and you could win one of 50 new Jeep Cherokees.
Plus prizes from Universal Studios Florida like a one-year admission pass for four.
Just buy a $5 or more Florida Lotto ticket and enter.
You not only get a chance to win a new Jeep Cherokee.
Will Master Duke be joining us today, sir?
You get at least five chances to win Florida Lotto.
We were trapped, just us, Aunt Lila and Aunt Lila's chips.
So I broke out the Cheese Whiz Cheese and Salsa Dip.
Smooth and cheesy with a little kick of salsa.
There's never a boring bite with Cheese Whiz Cheese and Salsa Dip.
A famed attorney, a controversial cop, F. Lee Bailey cross-examines Mark Fuhrman.
Only one South Florida station is bringing it to you live from L.A.
At어줘
Oh.
I hear you got some kind of deal.
I'm listening.
Johnny, Johnny, we gotta talk so stiff.
Like corporation guys, like lawyers.
We used to live in my house. We were like brothers.
Yeah.
And now I got six blocks in Waikiki, brother.
So you got a proposition?
Spell it out with numbers.
Business, always business.
Hey, Johnny, remember the first job we ever pulled in 42?
You tripped on that burglar alarm and I got you out of there?
Big deal.
$62.20.
You stole me $60. You made off with two bucks, Johnny.
You made it up to yourself more than once.
Johnny, you've been away from family too long.
To Steve McGarrick, Hawaii Five-O, from Johnny Resko, Wallina Street, Waikiki.
Think of this letter like a voice from the dead.
You'll receive it only if I've been double-crossed by Puro Manoa, who I am gonna meet tomorrow.
If I don't come back from this meeting, my friends will put this letter in the mail.
In it, you'll find enough facts and proof to put Manoa away for life and throw away the key.
I know it all, because him and me were like brothers.
So if Manoa nice me in the back tomorrow, this letter to you, McGarrick, is my way of reaching up from the grave and pulling him down with me.
The original of the Resko letter, John.
And two copies for your assistance, Mr. Drummond, Mr. Lahani.
This letter was received in my office at 9.06 this morning.
Check the handwriting. The signature matches exactly the police record of Resko.
In addition, he hasn't been seen on the street in two days.
The first page sets forth his reason for writing and his fear of a double-cross by Manoa.
But we don't get to the meat of the accusation until page two.
In 1968, Puro Manoa shot Anna Raioto to death.
I can prove this three ways.
One is the gun that Manoa paid to have dumped in the ocean.
But I paid more.
The gun is in a steel box in a safe in my apartment at 22 Wailena Street.
A combination of the safe is left 86 three times and so forth and so forth.
Two, a tape recording of Anna Raioto begging Manoa not to kill her,
promising to give him back the 60,000 she owed him.
This tape is in the attic of my brother's beach house on the windward side of the island near Haleiwa on the beach road.
Three, an eyewitness to the killing, Sylvia Chang, a hustler.
Fourteen Hotel Street.
She used to work for Anna Raioto.
She was in the next room hiding when Anna got hit.
Sylvia's plenty scared, but she's a junkie.
Keep her off a fix for a day and she'll crack.
If this letter reaches you, McGarrett, it means I've been hit.
The sooner you get Manoa, the better I'll rest in my grave.
Signed, Johnny Resko.
Evidence like that is almost too good to be true.
How long have we been trying to nail Manoa? Six, seven years?
Now all of a sudden he's handed to us in a beautiful Christmas package.
Maybe it could be an empty box.
Well, then I suggest we open it up right away and find out.
But under strict ground rules.
Go ahead, Steve.
That we go for this evidence immediately and that nobody outside this room be told the contents of the Resko letter until after the raid.
I'm sorry, Steve, it's not possible. We have to obtain warrants before you can move.
But you can see Judge Kalei in chambers privately, can't you?
Yep.
The non-jury probe can be delayed.
The paperwork and the warrants can be done by Lahani, Drummond and myself.
Personally, no secretary.
Yes, can be done. Duke, you work this one with us.
To nail Manoa? My pleasure.
Very well. We'll stay here and wait for the warrants, then we'll hit all three touch points fast.
Okay, simultaneous raids at exactly 2.45.
You want to know what to do, right?
Okay.
Open up, police.
Open up.
All evidence destroyed before we got there.
Tape, a gun, a human being.
The implications are not present to contemplate, Governor.
All right, Steve, let's have it.
Outside of the people in this room, nobody knew what we were going after. Nobody.
Hold it, Steve, hold it. Are you accusing my staff?
There's got to be somebody on your staff. Or mine.
Not necessarily. There was a... there was a judge who signed the warrants.
Judge Arthur Calais.
Former presidential assistant.
Past president of our bar association.
The idea's preposterous.
And besides, I had some other matters to discuss with the judge after he signed the warrants.
I was with him from the time he signed them to the time the raids were over. I can verify that he contacted no one.
Wait a minute, was there another officer with you?
Yeah. Officer Fred Palio. I took him with me as an extra gun.
He didn't know where we were going or what we were looking for.
That brings us back to the people in this room.
There's one other possibility, sir. Someone else who knew what was in that letter or could have known.
Who's that?
Whoever mailed it.
Interesting theory, but it doesn't wash.
If that guy didn't want the evidence known, he would have never mailed the letter.
But he did mail the letter, and it got to your desk.
Sealed?
Sealed.
Came by registered mail. I signed for it myself.
Who photocopied it?
I did.
No secretaries? No file clerks?
Nobody else saw the letter. By my own instructions.
Nobody but the people in this room.
What's the answer, Steve?
All right, the starters.
Complete security check of everyone in this room. Everyone who had access to the Risco letters.
You investigate our staff, we investigate yours.
You agree to that?
With one provision.
Well?
That I personally be investigated along with my men.
You can count on that, brother. And I expect the same.
Well, Governor, do we proceed?
So ordered.
Hi, McGarrett, Duke.
I'm just getting something notorized.
I think I'll walk.
Wonder what that little pigeon is really after.
You just check the books. The books are beautiful. You can tell the company now.
I tell them what I find, Mr. Manoa. They'll make their own evaluation.
Mr. Manoa?
Ronnie?
You eating? No, I'll come back later.
No, no, that's okay, Ronnie.
Private maybe?
I guess not.
Ronnie Gross, say hello to the lady. Mrs. Simpson, Ronnie Gross.
At twice a year, she comes by, shines a little light in my house, audits the books.
I just got back from you know where.
They're running around like chickens without heads trying to figure where the leak is.
As if they could, huh, Mr. Manoa?
Yeah, but they won't.
Because only three people know. Me, the leak, and you, carrying messages back and forth.
Three people, Ronnie.
May I remind you of the cable you received today, Mr. Manoa?
I didn't forget, Mrs. Simpson.
Change of market situation requires immediate liquidation of R.G. Holdings.
R.G. That means you, Ronnie.
What does it mean?
It means we don't like odd numbers.
I fell on the beach one day that I wanted to walk without my cane and everything else.
I tripped and fell and my knee got like that.
And I went to the hospital.
With Care Florida, you're covered for medical emergencies, as well as unlimited hospitalization, office visits, dental services, eyeglasses, prescriptions, and more.
You go to a hospital for a couple of days and believe me, it's going to cost you.
And with Care Florida, you don't worry about that.
With Care Florida, there are no co-payments, no deductibles, and no monthly planned premiums.
I know about medicine.
That's why I appreciate the doctor I have, because he is one heck of a good doctor.
For peace of mind, call Care Florida today.
I became a member of Care Florida, and for me, it's the greatest thing I ever did.
It's almost four.
We'll make it.
At Glidden, we know how hard it can be to find time to paint.
That's why spread satin is formulated to cover the first time, so you can finish in less time.
Glidden, a better way to paint.
Punch-up McGarrett, Stephen Jay.
School records, 1944.
Close-up fun grade biology.
All right, gentlemen.
It took exactly 17 seconds for the computer to select and display that information.
Any other releases prepared, John?
Yes, right down to the comments.
Where's Ben Kukua?
He'll be here.
These releases give us permission to delve into every aspect of your lives.
Nobody is bound to sign, but when you do, you will be giving up all rights to privacy.
Nothing will be sacred to the computers, and I mean nothing.
All your records will be probed.
School, military, employment, financial, in-depth interviews with friends and neighbors.
All medical records, including history of sexual behavior.
You want bachelors to sign, too, Steve?
Bachelors to sign.
Why, you got something to hide, then?
Yeah.
Let me sign one of those things and get out of here.
You're just dropping in for a visit, brother?
We thought the news was going to move fast.
It won't catch any shocks, brother.
What is it, Ben?
There's talk on the street that Ronnie Gross was hit.
My favorite little stoolie. It would be too bad if he was. I'll be sorry about that.
So am I. He was valuable.
Well, if he was hit, you can be sure he was on to something big. Find out what it was.
Hi, Angie. Going somewhere?
What does it look like?
I'm sorry, Angie.
About what?
I hear Ronnie was hit.
You've caught to hear a lot of things.
Hey, this has been cool. Play it straight with me, huh?
I can't play it straight or upside down. I'm holding no cards.
I can't run away from it either. The world's not big enough.
So what do you want me to do? Stand in the middle of Waikiki and yell, I'm Ronnie's girl?
He used to talk to me when the lights were out. Maybe I know something, so hit me, too.
Listen, if that's what they're thinking, I'm thinking of now. Maybe I can help you, Angie.
Look, it's all over. I don't know nothing. So just let me out of here, okay?
Six years. Ronnie played both sides for six years and nobody cared.
He worked for them, he worked for us. And we all knew it. That was his insurance policy.
Then all of a sudden he's a threat to somebody. Why? Why now?
Because it's dirt all over, not just on Hotel Street. Diamond Head and Kahala, that fancy new government building, too.
People like us, we get the short end. But there's others just as dirty who come out smelling like a rose.
You want answers, mister? Ask higher up. Ask in your own office.
Hold it. Take it back to April 12. Who was the guest? Rita Malba.
She's got a criminal record of a mile long. How come William set her up?
No investigation of her as far as I can see.
I already checked that out. It was a national security matter. Five-O working with Naval Intelligence, strictly hush-hush.
That's why it doesn't show up in our files.
Civil service records. Drummond Paul, assistant district attorney.
Two years on account of force, 63 and 64. Where was he?
We know he applied for a passport. Got a leave of absence. It's all so far.
Okay, find out where he went, why he went, who he was working for, and why he came back. The works.
Bank statements and canceled checks. Sergeant Edward Duke-LaKella, January 1st to date.
Hold it.
Do you see what I see?
Yeah.
You don't know where it came from, do you? More than $19,000.
I don't know, Steve.
Well, here's the deposit, sir.
One check for $19,200 transferred to your account from the Outer Island Federal Bank in hero.
I don't have an account in that bank.
Well, the bank says you do. All transactions handled by mail with deposit slips in your own handwriting.
I didn't write them, Steve.
Do you have any business in Hilo? Any moonlighting? Any reasons for banking there?
No.
But you went there every six months, how come?
Well, just a minute, John. I'll handle this.
Duke, you did go to Hilo. We have the airline tickets to prove it. Now, you have no business there, no family.
I do have family there under a different name.
I've got a niece, Gladys, 21 years old, orphan, not married.
She had a baby three years ago. The guy took off.
I tried to help her set up a little shop in Hilo on the Big Island.
She lives there with a kid.
I go there a couple of times each year to see if she needs anything.
I never told anyone.
Steve, you know my folks, missionary stock.
If they found out, it would shame them.
Yeah, it gets worse, Steve.
Outer Island Federal Bank. My coff and Duke's name was just closed out there.
Two deposits a year for the last three years.
Dividends from the Sand & Surf Condominium Company in Honolulu. Total amount, 19,200.
I call the Sand & Surf. They acknowledged that Edward Duke LaKella acquired 400 shares of stock three years ago at $200 a share.
Yeah? Acquired from whom? And how?
According to the records, with cash.
$80,000? How was the money brought in?
They say he did.
Can anyone identify him?
No. No way. The woman who handled the transaction died two years ago of leukemia.
The $80,000 you've caught about it.
Steve, three years ago, Gladys' shop, I was broke.
Had to take a second mortgage on my house. You can check that with the bank.
$80,000. Where would I get money like that?
Yeah. No kidding. Oh, it's nice. Very nice.
Well, you'll be glad to know that Hawaii is safe with the hands of Five-O and the district attorney.
They found their security leak?
Yeah, they found them all right. Wouldn't you know it? Turned out to be a cop.
This is a 7 News Update.
I'm Marilyn Mitchell. Live in the 7 Newsflash stories we are following for you, F. Lee Bailey on the attack in Los Angeles, day two of grilling cross-examination of Detective Mark Berman.
7 is Shepard Smith. Only South Florida reporter in Los Angeles will bring us a live report at 4.
And bedsheets were nearly as key to freedom. Now, all in an inmate's fatal fall is prompting security questions in Fort Lauderdale. The details coming up at 4.
A famed attorney, a controversial cop, F. Lee Bailey cross-examines Mark Berman. Only one South Florida station is bringing it to you live from L.A.
7 News.
Yeah, right.
Florida's best value and lifestyle. Ask over 10,000 residents why you should join them at Sentry Village at Pembroke Pines, Florida.
It's a frame. I'll stake my life on it.
They're rough ones, Steve. Checks, signatures?
Got to be a crack in it somewhere. Got to be. Now, I want the book on the S.T.E.N. and Surf Condominium Company.
I want to know who they are, what they are. I want to know who's money behind it.
I want to know their banks, their stockholders, investment syndicates, now you name it.
If they're public, check them out with the S.E.C. Okay, split the work. Get on it fast.
Simpson here. Yes, that was expected. Of course. You're entirely welcome.
Who is that? Not important. Stand and surf condominium.
What do they want? Police were out there checking up on their man.
That's not important? Exactly what we expected, Mr. Manoa. We know how to protect our investments.
Hey, look, Miss Ice Cube. It's almost five o'clock. Now, why don't you knock it off and let's take a dip?
I'm not fond of this time, Mr. Manoa. Besides, I might freeze your $15,000 pool.
Okay, okay. I had it coming through. Now, look, it's okay to be cool sometimes, but you've got to make things happen to know you're alive.
Do you ever make things happen, Miss Simpson? Oh, does that interest you?
Yeah, it interests me. No one says you've got to work all night, Miss Simpson.
For once, why don't you put the numbers away and think about me as a man?
I already have. And I became violently ill.
Couldn't have been more cooperative. Books, ledgers, stockholder lists, everything we wanted, we got. And all faded to the iron brain.
Okay, who owns the company? It's a corporation, duly registered in the state of Hawaii. There are 11 owners, each one of them holding privately issued stock.
And who are they? Stockholders.
Each of the owners have between two and six hundred shares, the exception of Bryce Falls, Elimited. He has controlling interest at forty-one hundred shares.
As Duke's name, four hundred shares purchased May 17th, 1969. The total capitalization was one million six.
We were a chicken on each owner, nothing on them so far. Who's this Bryce Holds here?
An investment company based in Switzerland. We're having Interpol check them out.
I talked to some brokers here. They all heard of the name.
Okay. A corporation called Stan and Surf is formed three years ago. It's a who are you? Building center.
Now I walk in and I tell them that my name is Danny Williams, that I want to buy four hundred shares of their stock.
I give them cash. I tell them that I want the dividend sent to a post office box.
Now you would be listed as the owner and you wouldn't even know it.
That almost works except for one thing. My endorsement on the dividend check.
Stan and Surf condominiums to Edward Duke Lukellar.
Duke's endorsement on each check. Could be fortune. It is Steve, it's perfect. Put on a comparison shot.
Duke's signature on his police identification card. Twins.
Too good. Too slick. And why was the money transferred now?
From a hidden account in Hilo? It's almost as if somebody wanted that money to surface now. But why now?
Anything else? Any other reports on the other people? Yeah, just one Steve.
We have checked out those two years spent out of the country by assistant Deirdre Drummond.
Turned out to be hitching the Peace Corps. The Peace Corps?
He was a part of a team of lawyers. He helped a new nation in Africa set up their constitution.
Still at it Steve? Still at it John. Capricorn goat. Very stubborn.
Yeah. I'd be fighting too for just one of my men. But I'm afraid the fight's over.
We're going to court tomorrow. And frankly I've seldom had a stronger case.
I'm sorry. I won't ask you to wish me luck. Good night Steve.
Alright John, Chris, class fellows.
Aloha ahi ahi. Que al cua, no meoco.
Aloha brother. Que me que no coo, o lequino.
Translation? Good night and good health brother.
Yeah, I got the brother. You've known Chris a long time haven't you?
Yeah. We were kids together. Like brothers.
Yeah, but it's all here in the dossier. Same age, same school, same neighborhood.
Both kids. Sons of fishermen. And the little mehany docks.
Chris never forgot that you know. A lot of guys make it big and they don't know you.
Well he made it alright. Harvard Law School, graduated magna cum laude.
Scholarships all the way.
Yeah, mostly A's as far as I remember.
Let's see what the machine remembers. Chris Lahani, school records. Punch them up please.
The machine agrees with you Ben. A brilliant mind.
Yeah, he put us all to shame.
Hold it. Let's see the last year of that high school record please.
Those remarks at the bottom. Can we have a blow up for that?
Student offered full scholarship, University of Hawaii declined.
Offered full scholarship, Wisconsin declined.
Partial scholarship, Princeton declined.
Is that all?
For his Harvard.
Yeah, that's what I'd like to know.
It's gotta be. Maybe it just didn't show. He couldn't afford a school like that.
Dano, contact the registrar at Harvard. Make it an official via the Cambridge police.
I want to know who paid Chris Lahani's tuition.
From Chief of Police, Cambridge Mass to McGarrett, Hawaii 5-0.
Inspection of records at Harvard revealed tuition for Chris Lahani paid by Bryce Halsey Limited.
That's the investment company in Switzerland. Same outfit that has controlling interest in Sun and Surf condominium.
Sand and Surf, sir.
Sand and Surf condominium. Same outfit that put Chris Lahani through school.
And maybe, just maybe, put a foot inside the DA's office.
It was unwarranted.
Foundation pays for a man's education.
Has a few shares in a building syndicate.
Coincidence, maybe. There's nothing illegal about it.
Read the cable from Switzerland, Dano.
From Inspector Carl Albrecht Interpol to McGarrett, Hawaii 5-0.
At your request, we have checked Bryce Halsey Limited.
All inquiries are referred to a law firm in Zurich that stands on its right to privileged information.
Albrecht.
Okay. Hypothesis.
A long time ago, there was a meeting of the underworld. I'm talking top international level.
Now they're planning their strategy for decades to come.
Planning it like a war with deep planted spies inside the enemy camp.
Now how would you do that, given all the time and money that you need?
First you pick your people. You pick them in high school the way that big corporations do.
Young people with brilliant minds and empty pockets. You take care of the family. You ease the financial strain.
Then you invest a few thousand a year in a kid's education.
Tuition in the top mainland school. Plus clothes, a car, spending money.
You do better than all the other scholarships that are available to a poor kid.
Then you sit back and you wait for your investment to pay off.
The kid knows what he owes you.
He graduates with top honors and gets a degree.
Then you help open the right doors.
He gets the right job.
And you get his soul.
Fischler, honey.
I picked him myself.
No discredit to you, John. He was the best they were. They saw that.
That's why they invested so much in him.
That's why they protected their investment by planting a frame against a cop.
But not just any cop. A key officer.
Planted it three years ago when Lohani was appointed to the prosecutor's office.
If we ever got close to uncovering him, they would spring the trap on Duke. And that's what happened.
Theory. Hypothesis.
You're gonna have to prove it, Steve.
All right, I'll prove it. But my way, my ground rules.
I'll put Lohani to a test that is guaranteed to smoke him out, but I need full cooperation from your office, John.
No roadblocks, no making waves.
I get it?
All right, Steve. Go.
How are you today, Chris?
Just fine, Governor. Fine.
When Kate comes down with a cold, I trust the doctor's advice.
My dad is a doctor.
He's always recommended Dymatap Elixir.
Dymatap is the brand recommended by pediatricians more than all other cold medicines.
And Kate loves the grape taste. I wouldn't think of giving her anything but Dymatap.
Alcohol-free Dymatap. The cold medicine pediatricians recommend most.
And for younger children, ask your pediatrician about new Dymatap decongestant drops.
Cliff here with my brother Bill.
He's a good-looking one.
Right. Only way Mom could tell us apart was I like dinner at dinnertime.
Yeah, and I like breakfast at dinnertime.
So when we have dinner at IHOP, I can get a great T-bone steak.
And I can have fruity country griddle cakes or steak and eggs.
Dinner for dinner.
Or breakfast for dinner. Good thing we weren't triplets, huh, Cliff?
Yeah, one of us might want breakfast for lunch.
Ooh, yeah.
Enjoy a delicious, complete pork chopper pot roast dinner daily, including dessert crepe only $4.99.
Just arrived. Fabulous dresses, only $19.99 only at Ross.
These dresses sell elsewhere for $58 to $70, but at Ross, they're just $19.99.
This new collection includes petites and plus sizes, juniors and misses, the latest style, all at only $19.99.
Save 65% or more, but be warned, at just $19.99.
You're not shopping at Ross.
You're gonna miss out.
Um, how am I supposed to meet Mr. Drummond here?
They all left a few minutes ago. Big emergency meeting in Mr. Manicote's office.
Emergency? What about?
I don't know, sir. They left word for you to get over there right away.
Is she ready to talk before a grand jury?
Probably not for a day or two, but I have a feeling that...
Chris? Steve?
What's up?
Uh, sit down, Chris.
Glad you're here.
Uh, our case against Duke has been shaking pretty badly.
Steve?
Ronnie Gross, the informer, the girlfriend named Angela Carroll.
She's mad because Ronnie got hit. She's been talking to us.
According to her, the whole thing against Duke is a frame.
Angela Carroll. I thought she skipped to California.
Oh, you know her?
No, no, I never met her, but, uh, I heard Ben say that she skipped.
Well, she's back. She came back last night. We have her in protective custody.
Well, uh, what did she told you?
Well, it's coming out slowly in dribs and drabs. We haven't put it together yet.
We don't want to push her, Chris. She might climb up.
Yeah.
She keeps mentioning some outfit in Switzerland. Says they pull all the strings.
Yes. It looks like they set up the frame against Duke to protect someone else. Someone in the government.
That'll blow the lid off the state house. If it's true.
Yeah.
Steve, this, uh, this girl, uh, she's in a lot of danger, but she's well protected.
We've never lost a witness yet at the Mauna Kea Halle.
John, I think you should have someone go and see Judge Kalei about a postponement based on new evidence.
Yes, Chris. Will you take care of that?
Sure.
Music
Yes, may I help you?
Lohani, DA's office.
What is it?
I'm here to interview the witness.
I'm sorry, sir. No one sees you but Mr. Manico.
Oh, I'm Mr. Manico's assistant.
I'm sorry, sir.
Do I need credentials?
I know who you are. No one sees you but Mr. Manico.
Now look, officer, you're asking for trouble.
What's going on?
Is something wrong?
What is it?
Everything's fine, Miss Carroll.
Go back inside, please.
Music
I'd like a few minutes of computer time.
All yours, Mr. Lohani.
Dossier on Ronnie Gross.
Music
Any special part?
Photographs. Ronnie Gross and close associates.
Music
Hold it.
Go back to that, uh, that nightclub picture.
Ronnie Gross and a woman at a table.
Music
That's fine.
Thank you.
Music
Phone rings
Garrett.
Perfect.
Yeah, thanks, Mike.
He bought the picture.
Music
Phone rings
Yeah.
This is a very good friend.
I need him October 12th.
Today.
Must be important.
Very.
You got it.
That was Chris Lohani.
Sounds like trouble.
You're not going to meet him?
One hour from now.
Same time and place we met October 12th.
I'll take a slow ride to IE and back to make sure I'm not followed.
Mr. Minoa, this could be a trap.
You're supposed to be cool, Miss Simpson, remember?
It's a time for cool and a time for caution.
Interpol's been asking questions about Bryce Halsey Limited.
That's for them to worry about, not me.
Music
I'd like to send a cable, Graham.
Bryce Halsey Limited, 24, Croning South, Zurich, Switzerland.
Leading Hawaiian stocks in state of decline and taking appropriate action.
Signed, Simpson.
Music
It's Minoa.
The meter's on.
Gene, you read me?
Read you, Steve.
Both subjects are now in area one.
We'll wait until they meet before we make our move.
How is Route 7 on your side of the mountain?
Blocked off. Nobody gets through.
Except maybe a passing tank.
Right, right.
We got trouble, Doc.
Ronnie Gross's girl, she's talking her head off.
Now you've got to make a hit before she...
Hold it, hold it.
You made a mistake.
She's already been hit in L.A.
The company figured she knew too much.
It can't be. I saw her myself.
She's right here in Honolulu.
God damn. You know it was her?
Of course it was her. I checked it out myself on the...
Music
Come on, let's get out of here.
Let's go.
Dave!
Music
Bryce Halsey. Who else?
Central, this is McGarrett.
We're up on the Makapul Cliffs on the military road.
Send a couple of ambulances. We just had a massacre.
The honey and the Noah hit, Bryce Halsey goes on.
I guess no one wins this one, Steve.
Not so, Danno.
Duke wins.
Managing a family is like managing a business.
But moms don't get sick days.
There are deadlines.
You're late.
Cash flow issues.
No money.
So for fast-soothing cough relief, moms reach for Robitussin.
I trust Robitussin.
It's the brand doctors and pharmacists recommend most.
Now mom can handle crucial management decisions.
Mom, can we keep it?
Robitussin, recommended by Dr. Mom.
And also try Robitussin cough drops.
Cough drops from the cough experts.
We all worry about health care these days.
Fortunately, there's PCA, a national company with more doctors and hospitals close to home.
Plans that big and small businesses can afford.
Greater benefits and quality care for seniors.
Unique services for those who need them most.
Plans as individual as you are.
From Physician Corporation of America.
PCA. Health care solutions today.
Everybody has morning breath.
Unfortunately, not everybody has scope.
He protects all living things in the forest.
But he can't do it alone.
Please don't play with matches.
I never ever forget the words of Smokey Bear.
Only you can prevent forest fires.
Music
I haven't got a thing to wear.
Here's a solution. Hurry into Byron's for ladies day. Wednesday only.
Hey Byron's
It's time to get serious about dinner.
At Denny's?
It's prime cut prime rib.
Pickles of prime just $5.99.
Thick juicy prime rib.
Steaming baked potato just $5.99.
It's hard to believe.
Pickles of prime just $5.99.
This is prime rib.
$5.99 prime cut means our most popular size prime rib.
This can't last.
Pickles of prime just $5.99.
Only at Denny's where value hits a grand slam every day.
You don't have to be a bodybuilder.
You don't have to be an athlete to use metrics at all.
To use metrics.
You just got to be interested in number one in your health.
The difference.
It's a product that definitely works.
The gains have been proven.
They've been proven by me.
I feel that nutrition is especially important for athletes.
But I think it's important for all people in all walks of life.
I believe that metrics has something to offer to everybody.
Available at fine food and health stores everywhere.
A famed attorney. A controversial cop.
F. Lee Bailey cross examines Mark Fuhrman.
Only one South Florida station is bringing it to you live from LA.
7 News.
A daughter gives the gift of life to her father.
The story starting at 5 on 7 News.
Live from South Florida's news station.
WSBN7.
This is a special edition of 7 News.
The People vs. Simpson.
Defense attorney F. Lee Bailey trying to chip away at Mark Fuhrman.
But so far the detective is not crumbling.
Good afternoon and welcome to this special edition of 7 News.
The People vs. Simpson.
Detective Mark Fuhrman spending a fourth day on the witness stand.
Today his second straight day of intense cross examination by F. Lee Bailey.
Yesterday Bailey questioned the detective about his police training.
Today he moved on to more direct questioning about the night of the murders.
Some tense moments between the two.
But Fuhrman kept his cool.
Judge Lansito handed down some controversial rulings this afternoon.
The defense will be allowed to grill Fuhrman about new allegations of racism.
But not with as much leeway as the defense requested.
But the defense was ordered to turn over all notes, transcripts and information regarding expert witness findings.
And now there are rumors circulating that yet another juror may be in jeopardy of being kicked off the panel.
Now there's still no official word yet, but if this happens this will be the fifth juror to be removed.
And let's go live now to Los Angeles for the latest up to the minute developments.
7th Shepard Smith is the only South Florida TV reporter in LA.
Shepard, take it away.
Rob, a busy and inflammatory day in Los Angeles where today the race card has been played like never before.
It all goes back to an incident in 1985 when according to the defense,
Detective Fuhrman, who's been on the stand now for days, had a confrontation of sorts with at least four different people in a Marine recruiting station.
Among them was one man named Cordoba, whom he supposedly says some pretty nasty things to.
That's when the fireworks began. Listen in.
Fuhrman turns on Cordoba and says, let's get something straight. The only boy here is you, nigger.
And then Cordoba leaves the building and Fuhrman follows him out into the parking lot and repeats the same epithet.
These allegations get more outrageous by the minute.
And I'm stricken again by the preposterousness of the claims of the defense.
The N-word was never used by Mark Fuhrman, according to Max Cordoba.
And that was in all three statements he has given over the past seven months.
And, Your Honor, I have spoken with him on the phone personally, Marine to Marine.
I have the slightest doubt that he'll march up to that witness stand and tell the world what Fuhrman called him.
Detective Fuhrman, is it not true that as you decided to walk out to the source of the noise, you decided to go alone?
I was already alone, sir.
No, you were with Kalin, who could have taken you out there, I suppose. Could he not?
I'm sure he could have.
It just worked out that you left the house and made your investigation for fifteen minutes or more alone.
That's how it worked out.
I'm simply asking whether Glove, line fourteen, was the item you were talking about just prior to saying I saw them at his feet.
Them I was referring to the knit cap and the glove.
Show me anywhere on that page where the knit cap is mentioned. Can you?
That page, no.
On that page, no. The defense trying over and over again to point out inconsistencies, inconsistencies on Mark Fuhrman's part.
They did that in a number of different ways, including talking about them referring to the gloves, where Fuhrman now says he was talking about both the hat and the glove at the murder scene.
And by talking about the white bronco, when in preliminary testimony, according to the transcripts, Fuhrman said inside the bronco when referring to blood as opposed to outside.
Over and over, trying to point out inconsistencies, the jury is still out on whether he has succeeded.
Detective Fuhrman to be back on the stand again this afternoon and the fireworks are suspected to continue. We will be here to cover it for you live.
In Los Angeles, Shepherd Smith, Seven News.
All right, thank you very much, Shepherd. And from Shepherd in Los Angeles, our Team Seven coverage continues right here on the National Satellite News Center with Patrick Frazier. Patrick, take it away.
All right, Jessica. Eftely Bailey had hinted that he would paint this circumstance, this case of circumstantial evidence with a big brush instead of being like a feather.
Let's bring in Howard Finkelstein. And Howard, some of the circumstantial evidence that he's using to show that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove, such as you went behind the wall without backup,
things like that where there was a round blood spot on the walkway. And Mr. Fuhrman, isn't it true that round blood spots come from someone just standing there?
In other words, hinting that he had come back and dropped that blood. Is the jury going to buy this?
You know, it's difficult to determine what a jury is going to buy. I've said it over and over again that a person sees and hears what they want and they disregard the rest.
Depending upon what they want to see or hear, some of the issues that the defense has raised can give them grounds to have pause as to whether or not to believe Detective Fuhrman.
I don't think the defense has really laid a glove on him, though.
Speaking of the glove, Eftely Bailey mentioned that Mark Fuhrman found the bloody glove. It was bloody. It was sticky.
Should it have been dried out after seven hours or, as Mr. Bailey said, someone had stuck it in a plastic bag to keep it moist?
Well, that's an interesting point, and I'm sure they're going to have an expert testify that the blood should have coagulated and it would not have been moist and sticky at that time.
However, all that we have seen so far is Eftely Bailey planting the seeds of doubt through his questions, not through the evidence and not through the answers, only through his questions.
Howard, one more thing. What the jury doesn't see, what we saw in the beginning today when Eftely Bailey came out and said, I will have a witness that will say that Mark Fuhrman used the word that begins with an N.
And Marcia Clark came back and said, I interviewed the same witness. He says he never said it. One of the attorneys point blank is lying.
I think that both lawyers on both sides have taken some liberalities with the truth, if you will.
Where the truth is going to be found, we're not going to know until the witnesses take the stand.
However, Marcia Clark did equivocate when she got up the second time and state, well, it wasn't really quite like that.
So I don't know what these witnesses are going to say and I don't even know if these lawyers know what they're going to say until they get on the stand and say it.
Liberalities with the truth. Well, write that one down, Howard, another word for lying.
All right. We're going to monitor here at the Satellite Center. We'll have more for you and we will take you live to Los Angeles, Mark Fuhrman and Eftely Bailey.
Will Eftely Bailey come out with a smoking gun? We'll find out at 430. We'll see you then.
All right. Thank you very much, Patrick. On to the other day's news.
A prisoner works an elaborate scheme to break out of jail and then dies during this escape process.
Seven's Lynn Gordon is following this story. She's live at the Broward County Jail in Fort Lauderdale. Lynn.
Rob, security, a big concern at the Broward County Jail here tonight after a near escape attempt last night.
Now, a serial rapist nearly made it to freedom after he tried to slide down the side of the building, but instead he plunged 50 feet to his death when the bedsheets that he had tied together ripped apart.
Now, 33 year old John Fogelman fell to his death shortly after seven o'clock last night.
He managed to remove a plexiglass window from his eighth floor cell and tied bedsheets together to make a rope.
Cops say Fogelman lowered himself three stories before the sheet ripped.
A jail guard patrolling the grounds found Fogelman lying face down on the pavement. Despite the close call, corrections officials insist the jail is safe.
We're very concerned. It's very serious. It's a very serious breach of security and we're reviewing all matters associated with it. We're taking it extremely seriously.
We're going to find the answers we need to make sure that nothing even close to this ever happens again.
The jail's safe. It's been re-secured. As of midnight last night, every window's been examined, every security device has been examined, and it was one window that Mr. Fogelman worked on.
Now, Fogelman was considered very dangerous. He was serving seven life terms for numerous rapes and other violent crimes.
This is not the first time Fogelman tried to escape, apparently. He had been caught stockpiling sheets before.
And I will have more on that coming up at five o'clock. For now, reporting live in Fort Lauderdale, Lynn Gordon, 7News.
Alright, thank you very much, Lynn. Well, a Sunrise police officer accused of peeping at his two young boarders surrenders to authorities.
Officer Larry Greenberg turning himself in today. The police officer accused of filming the women with a secret video camera he set up in his home.
The officer has been released on $2,000 bond.
A seven-year-old behind a deadly game of child's play has been given a new home tonight.
Deputies say the boy started a fire Sunday in an abandoned van. The blaze killed both his brother and cousin.
The boy is said to have a history of playing with fire but was never enrolled in a fire prevention class.
Tonight the child is in the custody of his aunt.
A judge orders five accused video vandals to keep their mouths shut.
The media is anxious to interview the five Jacksonville teenagers accused of videotaping their destructive rampage.
But a judge has denied that. He has issued a restraining order barring them from leaving Jacksonville or appearing on any talk show until this case is solved.
Some developing stories coming out of the sports department about athletes and drugs including allegations against former UM defensive lineman Warren Sapp.
Here's Jason Jackson. Jason you've got the details.
Rob the National Football League denies reports that Warren Sapp tested positive for cocaine.
This announcement comes after today's New York Times report that Sapp flunked cocaine and marijuana tests at the league's combine last month.
The CSPN and the Associated Press citing league personnel both reported that Sapp was among seven players to test positive for marijuana.
Sapp's agent Miami-based Drew Rosenhouse along with the NFL denies reports that his client failed a cocaine test.
The issue of marijuana still exists.
Sapp the 1994 Lombardi Trophy winner is considered a top five pick in the NFL draft.
There's more drugs in sports news today. The fate of a former Miami Dolphin may be decided today.
The jury for wide receiver Mark Duper began deliberating earlier this afternoon.
He and his brother-in-law are charged with possession of cocaine with intent to sell.
If convicted each could face 10 years in prison and $4 million in fines.
Coming up on 7 News at 6 a look at the problem of drugs plaguing many sports stars.
Athletes and drugs coming up at 6.
Switching sports to baseball with opening day less than three weeks away the National Labor Relations Board is trying to make sure there is an opening day.
Today the NLRB announced its plans to seek a federal court injunction against the owners for unfair labor practices which could cause the players to end their strike.
However it is possible the owners will lock out the players if this does come to pass.
More, much more on these stories still to come live from the Sports Center. I'm Jason Jackson, 7 Sports.
Alright thank you very much Jason. Well Tanya Harding's ex is back in the news.
Jeff Gillilie walked away from prison in a year and a half early with a new name, a new truck and a new girlfriend.
Gillilie who last week changed his name to Jeff Stone had been sentenced to two years for his part in the attack on Nancy Kerrigan.
But he reduced that time by opting for a stint in an Oregon boot camp program.
Waiting for him at the prison gate today was his new girlfriend in a new pick up.
Music
Sneers around the nation beginning in Washington where things are heating up for Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros.
Attorney General Janet Reno wants a special prosecutor to investigate whether Cisneros lied to the FBI agents before he was nominated into Clinton's cabinet.
Cisneros has admitted making payments to an ex-lover Linda Medlar. What is at issue is the amount of those payments.
Cisneros told the FBI he paid Medlar $60,000. Medlar says it was three times that amount. Cisneros says he will not resign.
And we move on now to Colorado. A gas explosion flattens two houses in a suburban Denver neighborhood.
Three other homes engulfed in flames. A utility company says a subcontractor accidentally cut into a natural gas line.
No serious injuries were reported.
In Illinois two workers were killed today when an oil refinery burst into flames.
Investigators say the fire started from a malfunctioning butane heater.
Three other people were hurt as well. Witnesses say the flames shot 100 feet into the sky.
In South Carolina the woman who won a federal lawsuit against the Citadel Military College is now denying criticism she's destroying the school.
Shannon Faulkner speaking out last night says her fight to enroll has made that school better.
Faulkner is now suing for full admission to the all-male cadet corps.
Still ahead from the 7 News, thanks a daughter giving her father the gift of life. A heartwarming story you will see only on 7.
An aspiring dancer who lost her foot in an accident begins her journey down the road to recovery.
And will singer Vanity sing the praises of Detective Mark Furman?
And maybe we'll find out today when the People vs. Simpson trial resumes in that Los Angeles courtroom.
Here's the live picture coming to us from Los Angeles right now. Stay right here.
This special edition of 7 News is coming right back.
Like my new outfit? So I splurged a little. I don't have to pay for a Medicare supplement anymore.
I wised up, got a new plan. And it doesn't cost a thing. Now I can spend more money on myself.
Wow, Edna, you look great. You better believe it.
I'm covered.
Yup, I'm covered.
This is the season to fall in love. Long and lean, short and sexy. They each have their special charms.
Whether you're looking for fun or something more serious, just look for dresses at Target.
There are more styles and fabrics than ever before. At lower prices.
These are all under $30. So at Target, you can afford to be fickle.
You know, you can get a can of beans anywhere, but when you come in my store, I'm gonna bag them better than anybody else.
It's not a boring job.
Every day low price. For every day life.
Free Dents Chewers, here's what you've been asking for. A softer chewing Free Dent? Much, much softer. Longer lasting flavor? Much, much longer. Introducing new, better than ever, nonstick Free Dent.
This is softer. A lot easier to chew. And softer's only half the story. The flavor, it just keeps going and going. It really lasts. Yeah.
Softer chewing, longer lasting Free Dent. Now this, this is great gum. Try new nonstick Free Dent. It's better than ever.
Oh, that cat's got the life. Now she's got this state of the art scoop away litter that clumps where she wets. They scoop away the clump, bam, the box is fresh and clean. All I get is a rusty hydrant. Scoop away the litter that's day one clean every day.
My doctor said I didn't need surgery for my hemorrhoids. They weren't serious. And he used Preparation H. Preparation H is so effective it helps relieve my worst symptoms. Yet it's so gentle it soothes and protects. Preparation H. Doctors recommend it. More women trust it.
After 12 years of suffering from kidney problems, a South Florida man will finally get the transplant he desperately needs. His daughter wants to provide the life saving organ.
Don Lukomski flew in from Detroit to donate one of her kidneys to her father. Doctors say Luke Lukomski's kidneys are failing, both of them, and he's in desperate need of a kidney transplant. In November, Luke put himself on a waiting list, but his daughter decided to test her organs and found out that she is a perfect donor match. Now she's giving him the gift of life.
Well, I figure all your life your parents give to you, and it's one chance that I have to give back.
The operation will take place tomorrow morning at Jackson Memorial Hospital. Doctors expect both father and daughter will be okay. In fact, they say there is a 90% success rate in this type of transplant.
Well, another heartwarming story. Tonight, a dancer is back on her way to fulfilling a dream. Stephanie Bastos proving today that she has the courage to conquer and overcome a horrible accident. The ballerina going back to school for the very first time today since a car accident forced doctors to amputate her right foot.
Bastos vows to dance again, and with her determination and the support of her fellow students, she says she knows she will make it.
Now, time for 7 Weather with Bill Kamau.
Well, bad news for the nation's grocery bills. California's flooding in the Salinas Valley will probably mean higher food prices. More than half the nation's vegetables are grown here. The hardest hit crops are artichokes, lettuce, and strawberries. Now Florida's at the end of its own strawberry season.
The good news is the Napa Valley's vineyards aren't suffering much damage, but it has been one unbelievable time and now northern California getting hit hard again. For us, partly cloudy, 75, and the question, when is this wind going to subside? Well, today was not quite as windy inland. That's why we saw a little bit more in the way of sunshine.
Doppler radar is showing a few isolated showers now in Broward County, more in Palm Beach, some off the Dade County coastline, then from Key West to the Middle Keys and out into the Florida Straits. There are more showers. So later on tonight, on again, off again showers on those easterly winds, which by the way are still gusting at 20 miles an hour along the beaches.
Look at this massive cloudiness in the Gulf of Mexico. We'll get to that in a second. But all the sunshine today warmed us up a little bit more than we have seen. 78 in Miami, 77 Key West. It was 80 and 81 Orlando and Tampa respectively. Look at the 74 in West Palm Beach and look at how weird this weather pattern is.
74 was also the high in Chicago and St. Louis. It was warmer in Cincinnati than it was in West Palm Beach today. And in the 60s and 70s over a large chunk of the United States with many records, this is Florida's time when we get the rough weather out of the east and the whole eastern part of the country gets to have the nice weather.
It's their payback time, I guess. 70s again tomorrow from Pittsburgh back to St. Louis down to the Gulf of Mexico. The entire United States is on the warm side, but for us we've got a problem again and here it is.
There's a low spinning in Texas. It's a really strong low with powerful thunderstorms from the central Gulf up to the Tennessee Valley. Meanwhile, an area of high pressure over the mid-Atlantic, high pressure and low pressure to the west and the funneling effect is going to increase again our winds out of the east and southeast beginning tomorrow, tomorrow night into Thursday and Friday.
And as this low very slowly chugs its way eastward blocked by this big high pressure, we're going to see that gradient of wind increase and our chance for showers and storms increasing, especially later in the week as the actual center of low pressure gets closer to us.
So again, we may see some sunshine over the next couple of days, but we still have to keep the chance of rain in the forecast.
A few voters tomorrow use caution. East to southeast winds 20 knots, seas 5 to 7 feet higher in the Gulf Stream, partly cloudy, breezy, especially along the coast tonight. Occasional showers mainly late tonight and tomorrow morning, low of 67.
High tomorrow like today 78, intervals of sun, but breezy with more scattered showers, maybe some thunderstorms on Friday and then finally by the weekend it looks like it may be clearing out. Have a good evening.
Looking news around the world begins in France. Cuban leader Fidel Castro is touring Paris.
Castro visited the French Army Museum where Napoleon's tomb is located. Next on the agenda was the Louvre, followed by a brief visit to the Eiffel Tower.
After the tour comes business as usual where Castro will meet with business leaders to try to encourage them to invest in Cuba.
Italy, two trains collide in Cittadella. Police say two women were killed, more than 20 other people injured when it happened last night.
Both trains were traveling in the same direction on parallel tracks and crashed where those tracks crossed. Investigators think the driver of one of the trains may have missed a stop signal.
Bosnia, an accident, kills nine French peacekeeping soldiers. All were thrown 50 feet from their vehicle which went out of control on a mountain road.
Four other soldiers were injured and what officials say is the worst accident in the UN mission since 1992.
Japan, nearly a thousand war veterans gathering in Iwo Jima to remember one of the bloodiest battles in history.
Americans and Japanese together attending memorial services marking the 50th anniversary of World War II.
Among those attending, the U.S. Ambassador to Japan, Walter Mondale, and families of those who died in that bombing.
And we are still waiting for the players in the Simpson trial to return to the courtroom.
Right now, the Seal of California is still the focus of the courtroom camera. While we wait, we're going to give you new information about the latest mystery witness.
And here from Kathleen Bell. Today she talks about how this trial has changed her life.
A former Prince protege once again in the spotlight and she could redeem Detective Mark Fuhrman.
And we may be seeing the last of this woman, Marianne Gertrude. All the trial happening coming up next.
If you're over 65 years young, here's healthy advice from your elders.
Life is a kaleidoscope and the bits of glass in the tube produce a landscape that you didn't see one second before.
Call now to find out about the Humana Gold Plus Plan for seniors and anyone else who is eligible for Medicare.
The world is absolutely, intangibly beautiful. Forget about the material things to a great extent.
The Humana Gold Plus Plan provides the security of comprehensive care with all the benefits of Medicare.
Plus, no monthly premium and no Medicare deductibles.
No charge for preventive checkups, eye exams or hearing tests, coverage for your prescriptions, and much more.
With the Humana Gold Plus Plan, it's all yours with no monthly premium and no Medicare deductibles.
There is nothing static in life. Life is a perpetual moving phenomenon.
Call 1-800-421-7862 for this free booklet full of valuable advice on life, living, and the Humana Gold Plus Plan.
Let's see. 2.9% financing on all accords. Have we forgotten anything?
Oh, I guess you better hurry then. Go see your Honda dealer.
Spread 2000, one of the first petroleum solvent-free and virtually odorless paints on the planet. There are as many reasons to use Spread 2000 as there are children in your house.
Glidden, a better way to paint.
Welcome back to the special edition of 7 News, the People vs. Simpson.
Earlier today, Detective Mark Furman returned to the witness stand to face more of Eftle Bailey's cross-examination.
So far, it has been smooth going, but fireworks could soon be on the way.
While Furman sits in the hot seat, there's new information about the woman who says she can back up claims the detective is a racist.
But the so-called mystery witness can't hide her identity any longer.
Andrea Terry lives in this Provo, Utah condo with her husband, BYU All-American football player Evan Pilgrim.
Terry is a social worker who is now eight months pregnant. So far, she has avoided the media. Her husband has not.
Until they see that they absolutely need her, that it's imperative, flying is not safe because she's pregnant, and then traveling just isn't safe.
Well, no word yet if Terry will be forced to back up the claims of this woman, Kathleen Bell.
Bell claims Furman made racial comments in front of her. She says coming forward with the information has very much changed her life.
I'm very nervous. Sometimes I get very sad.
I didn't, people always say, you know, how could I be so naive to get myself involved with this? And I really did not know the consequences.
And then there is this woman, Vanity. The one-time singer may be able to dispute allegations that Furman is a racist.
Word is, she once exchanged phone numbers with a traffic cop believed to be Mark Furman. A New York Post reporter tells the story.
She said, why don't we go out on a date sometime to him, and they exchanged phone numbers, and that a few days later he called her.
But at that point she said, you know, she was with Prince, and she said she didn't really want to go out with the police officer, so she basically made an excuse and didn't go out with him.
So Vanity now goes by her real name, Denise Matthews. She's become a Christian minister. You may recognize her from scenes from this movie, Action Jackson.
Well, here's one person we will not be seeing in the courtroom. Her name is Mary Ann Gurchess. Her name has been removed from the witness list.
Gurchess claims she saw four men running from the crime scene the night of the murders.
Simpson lawyers have not given a reason for scrapping her from the list, and they say it may only be a temporary move.
A lot of developments coming into play with Furman taking the stand. Let's get a legal view of today's developments in court.
For that we turn things over to Seventh's Patrick Frazier and our legal expert Howard Finkelstein. Patrick is in the National Satellite Center. Patrick?
Alright, and before we ask Howard about some legal questions, Howard, here's one in reference to a story we just read.
We've gotten several facts like this, and by the way, people who have been calling and saying, we never get to talk to you, the messages you leave, we do hear, and we do ask Howard those questions.
Here's one that says, I'm an African American woman. Just because Detective Furman has asked a biracial woman for a date doesn't mean a thing after all.
Slave masters have always wanted and had black women. Howard, the reason I read that, it brings up the thing that Robert Shapiro swore this would not turn into a racial issue.
This trial is becoming more and more racially divisive every single day.
There's no doubt that race is a major issue in this case. It's a major issue in jury selection. It's a major issue in how the people on that jury are going to perceive this evidence.
The black experience and the white experience in America are completely different, and it may affect the way in which they hear and see the evidence. Just maybe, and maybe not.
Alright, Howard, and I want to play something for you later if we have a break here, but let's read some of the facts of today.
Again, you're a little bit surprised in some respects, but here, F. Lee Bailey is the only liar in the courtroom. He is a grandstander and a typical dishonest lawyer.
Well, I don't know about the typical dishonest lawyer. F. Lee Bailey is full of hot air. Mark Furman is a professional.
Mark Furman is lying through his teeth. F. Lee Bailey is brilliant.
Howard, how do you, if you're a defense attorney, if you're a prosecutor, how do you reconcile that with what's going on in the courtroom?
Someone watches one thing and sees something exactly the opposite of what someone else sees.
A lot of times, depending upon what life experiences you have, whatever you bring with you determines what, in fact, you see and hear.
Because the white experience and the black experience are so different in this country, it's very possible that based upon racial experiences, one may see and hear completely different things based upon this evidence.
But then again, we haven't heard all the evidence, and it may transcend all racial lines, and they may have a unanimous verdict one way or another before it's all over.
Talking about that reasonable doubt, here's one.
I find it very hard to believe that Mr. Simpson would brutally kill two people, have the presence of mind to go home and clean the massive amount of blood that covered his body off, get rid of the clothes he supposedly wore,
do not let anyone see, but was so sloppy to leave a primal piece of evidence at the crime scene and then be equally as sloppy as to drop unnoticed the matching glove on his property without at some point going to retrieve it.
Howard, that's actually a very good point. Why be so perfect in one respect and so absolutely horrible in another?
Well, you know, the interesting thing here is both sides are speaking out of both sides of their mouth.
The defense is sitting here saying that the police are a bunch of bumbling fools, yet they've engaged in this complicated, sophisticated conspiracy.
The prosecution is saying that this is a premeditated, carefully planned murder, but at the same time, you've got a bumbling fool dropping one glove at the scene and one glove in his backyard.
I don't think that either side can have it both ways.
Howard, with the detectives, the first few detectives that the defense cross-examined, they tore apart for not doing everything by the book. Here's a guy who went and did everything and they're going, why'd you do all that?
One of the things a defense lawyer does is when he knows what an officer did, he doesn't ask him what he did, he asks him what he didn't do.
And if he knows what it is he didn't do, and that's where he's going to highlight it, he bears in and focuses there.
So depending upon what they did or what they didn't do will determine the focus of the defense lawyer's questioning.
You talk about the dream team, here's a fact. The dream team needs to dream on. They have the murderer right beside them, but they are doing their best to defend them and put the blame on everyone else.
How stupid do they think the public really is?
Ms. Clark says that no matter what Detective Mark Fuhrman has done in the past, it does not matter. However, Rosa Lopez's background was important to the prosecution.
Howard, it's a good point. They went into hers, but yet they don't want to go into his.
Well, that's what both sides' job is. The side of a good advocate is to zealously represent their side, to keep out evidence which is damaging to their side and get in evidence which is beneficial to their side.
So both sides will sometimes find themselves on the opposite side of the same coin depending upon what the argument is.
And you're right, they wanted to go into every possible inconsistency and background discrepancy or problem with Rosa Lopez, and now they're arguing that the defense shouldn't do that with Fuhrman.
The defense didn't think the prosecution should do that to Rosa Lopez, and they want to do it to Detective Fuhrman.
So it depends upon the day, depends upon the issue, depends upon what the argument each side will take.
But Howard, what ever happened to, let me be naive, truth and justice?
Well, what's happened to truth or justice is, we as a people...
Truth and justice, not truth or justice, Howard.
Truth and justice, we as a people have decided to invest in a system rather than to leave it to one particular individual, whether it be a judge, whether it be a person, whether it be a lawyer.
And what we do is we put two sides clashing against each other in front of a jury, and from that chaos, that jury is supposed to be able to discern the truth.
We either believe in the system or we don't believe in the system, and by and large, it usually works.
It's got a tremendous number of flaws, but it's still the best system.
Alright, Howard, we're going to take a quick, we're going to turn it back over actually to Jessica, but we're going to monitor here at the Satellite Center.
As soon as they come to the courtroom, Effley Bailey and Detective Mark Fuhrman going right back at each other, we'll bring it to you live.
Jessica?
Alright, thank you very much, Patrick.
In the meantime, we want to bring you up to date on other stories we've been following for you this afternoon.
Correction officials investigating security at the Broward County Jail.
This after last night, a serial rapist tried to escape from that jail.
33-year-old John Fogelman made a rope out of his sheets.
He then removed a plexiglass window from his eighth floor cell and tried to lower himself to the ground.
However, corrections officers say the sheets ripped and Fogelman fell to his death.
Allegations involving a high-profile athlete and drugs.
Warren Saff, the 1994 Lombardi Trophy winner from the University of Miami, has reportedly flunked a drug test.
Today's New York Times, the Associated Press and ESPN are all reporting that Saff flunked a marijuana test.
The Times also reports he flunked the cocaine test, but the National Football League and Saff's agents are denying those charges.
Saff is considered a top-five pick in the NFL Draft.
A daughter gives the gift of life to her father.
A South Florida man has waited a long time for a new kidney.
So his daughter tested her organs and found out she is a perfect match.
The operation is scheduled for tomorrow at Jackson Memorial Hospital.
Doctors believe both father and daughter will be just fine.
Still no movement in the courtroom camera. That means the players are still not back, but we expect them back momentarily.
There it is, the seal of the state of California.
As soon as the judge, the jury, and the lawyers are all back in court, we're going to return their lives.
We are coming right back.
Just like in Sleepless in Seattle, they romanced at the Empire State Building.
But after Rosemary was shot and stabbed to death, Sergio left town.
A murder's unsolved in their Sleepless in Charleston on the next to come in the fair.
Join me, Penny Daniels, tonight at 7 on 7.
Be there, the fair, be there.
The Dade County Youth Barron Exposition. Be there.
A lot of people, when they get older, they give up independence.
But it's very important to be independent, to be on your own.
At CARE Florida, financial independence means coverage, including unlimited hospitalization, office visits, dental services, eyeglasses, prescriptions, and more.
They take care of all my prescriptions. They take care of everything. You don't have to worry about nothing.
At CARE Florida, no worry means there are no copayments, no deductibles, and no monthly planned fees.
If not, I would have to depend on my son. I would have to depend on my daughter. Well, I would worry all the time.
Financial independence. Call CARE Florida today.
CARE Florida. CARE Florida for life.
Time to get up. Come on.
Wake up to Folgers decaffeinated. It's naturally decaffeinated, but more than that, it's Folgers.
With the remarkable richness of mountain-grown beans, which give it all the aroma and taste of regular Folgers to help brighten your morning.
In fact, if you didn't know Folgers decaffeinated was decaffeinated, coffee.
I was thinking maybe we should start drinking decaffeinated coffee. Decaffeinated? But how could a decaffeinated wake me up like this, doctor?
Even decaffeinated.
Centrum, it's more complete, a more advanced multivitamin.
Centrum's commitment to ongoing research assures you the best nutritional support.
If a vitamin's in the news, it's in my Centrum.
Like they say, from A to Zinc. Centrum makes a science of being more complete.
Wap Fresner to stay not fade away. Don't spray it, mist it, play it, not be misted.
Glade-lasting mist air freshener has a concentrated mist that goes up, stays up, freshens for hours.
Ordinary sprays just go up and fade in minutes.
Wap Fresner to last not fade away. Don't spray it, mist it, play it, not be misted.
For hours of freshness, don't spray it, mist it, play it, not be misted.
In Newport's 2, fresh from Glade, SC Johnson Wax.
Back live to Los Angeles, Detective Mark Fuhrman has taken the stand.
Ethley Bailey asking him if when you interview a witness and they're inconsistent, does that mean they're not telling the truth?
And now he's going to point out what he means. Let's listen.
In response to a question that began on 20th line 24,
all right, with respect to finding the glove, after you found the glove, what did you do?
You saw the glove on the walk, then what did you do?
You answered, I continued eastbound on the path that went to the rear of the property.
And I spent, I'm not going to say a considerable amount of time, I'm going to say about 15 minutes,
looking for a person that could have left that glove there, which indicated somebody was injured.
I looked in all the places I believed a human could secret himself or collapse in that area,
and then I returned to the front of the residence.
And I assume the word secret was meant to be secrete.
Yes.
Okay.
Now here you say that the appearance of the glove convinced you that you were looking for an injured person and not a killer.
Would you tell us why that's so?
It could be one and the same.
Could be one and the same?
Yes.
Well, is that what you meant when you said someone who was injured?
Either a killer or evicted?
Could be either one.
Okay.
And why were you looking for someone that was injured based on a glove with a sticky substance on it?
What was the clue to the injury?
Well, there was blood evidence on the bronco.
Okay. So you thought that might have come from a person who was driving the bronco with an injury?
Possibly.
You had been told that the only one that used the bronco, according to your own testimony, was Mr. Simpson.
Yes.
You knew, did you not, that Mr. Simpson left town at 11 o'clock very close there too?
No, I didn't.
You knew that if the glove was connected with the thumb, it had been out there for a long period of time?
Yes.
Okay. And you were looking for places where a human being could secrete himself?
Yes.
All right. So as I take it from your reading of this answer, you're looking for a killer who is injured, who is hiding, and may have collapsed?
Or a victim.
Yes.
Okay. And this is the search that took you the 15 minutes?
Yes, sir.
Now, there was some question in your mind earlier today as to whether you had told Detective Van Adder and Lange about your thoughts when you took them down to see the glove. Do you recall that?
I recall the question, yes.
And you were unsure as to whether you had said anything to them when you were down at the scene of the glove?
Yeah, I don't recall if I did.
Okay. Would you look page 22, next one over, line 20. So then after taking Detective Phillips down to that area and describing everything that you saw, who did you take next?
Detective Van Adder. And did you do the same thing with him?
Yes, exactly the same thing. Does that tell you that you in fact gave Van Adder all of the detail you had just given Phillips?
No, I don't think verbal. I would...
Well, I'm starting to question about this one.
Sustained.
Pardon me?
Sustained. You need to ask them the full question and answer that full colloquy there. It relates to the same thing.
All right. So each time you went, you took the detective all the way down to where the glove was and brought them all the way back. Yes. And then did the same with Detective Lange. Yes.
Did you take any of the detectives all the way back to the area behind Arnell's room that you described going to yourself earlier? I don't believe so.
I described to Detective Phillips, I'm almost positive I did to both the other detectives, I scooted under the air conditioner.
Now back to my question. When you said exactly the same to Van Adder as to Phillips, did you mean that you'd said the same things to him?
I'm guessing.
Wait. 356. Correct? All right. Overruled.
Could you ask that question again, please? Yes. When you used the word exactly to describe your tour with Van Adder, did that mean it was essentially exactly the same as the tour with Phillips?
I don't.
I'm not sure I would have meant the verbiage, but describing where I walked, what I saw, what I sensed. Yes.
In other words, you may have said essentially the same thing without using exactly the same words. No, I didn't say that. Is that what you meant? No.
What does exactly mean to you, Detective? That I don't remember exactly what the conversation was. It seemed to be more lengthy with Ron Phillips.
I'm not sure about the other two detectives.
So that when you said, did you do the same thing with Van Adder, exactly, that's not what you meant. Yes, I let him down to the glove and showed him the glove.
After taking the detectives to view this glove, you went out to the front of the house and you just stood there, correct?
For a few moments, yes.
Now, was it at that point that Detective Van Adder announced that this was now a crime scene or was it later in the day, as you told us earlier?
There was discussion at that point, but at about that time we were sent back to Bundy, Detective Phillips and myself.
Did Van Adder say, we are going to have to handle this like a crime scene within minutes of seeing the glove that you had pointed out?
Yes, but I think that's different than this is now a crime scene.
Oh, I see. He was speculating about a future decision he thought he might make. Was that your understanding?
Yes.
What was your condition after you had taken the detectives back to view the glove and when you were standing in front of the building?
Was anything unusual going on with respect to you?
I think there was somewhat of an adrenaline rush that I experienced when I was in the rear and I believe when I was in front of the house I started realizing that this could have been a match to the glove on Bundy.
When you came out after taking all three detectives down there and telling them it was a match, you suddenly realized that it could be a match?
I didn't tell them it was a match. I got their opinion. And when they had the same opinion...
Didn't you discuss with each detective in turn the fact that this glove looked like a match on Bundy?
I'm sure, Detective Phillips. I'm not sure on Ben Eder and Lang.
Okay. And why do you tell us that you are now, after these tours are over, suddenly realizing that there may be a connection and thus experiencing a rush of adrenaline?
No, I was coming down from the adrenaline.
When did this rush start?
When I was going east on the path.
Okay.
On line seven of twenty-fourth, if you recall this question, this answer, if you'll follow me please, do you know approximately what time that was when you heard that discussion referring to the crime scene?
Answer, no. After that I came out front. To be honest with you, I was a little taken back by what had transpired.
We didn't enter with any intention of finding anything there, and I just kind of stood out there and I was really kind of collecting my thoughts.
When I found the glove back there on this pathway, I will have to, I have to admit to you that the adrenaline started pumping because I really didn't know what was going on.
And no matter if I found a victim or a suspect, I still had some type of very serious situation at that time, and I think I was coming down from that a little bit.
Question, when you say, quote, the adrenaline, I mean, unquote, you mean from seeing the crime scene, answer, no. Question from seeing the glove, answer, when I found the glove and actually realized this glove was very close in description and color to the glove
at the crime scene, my heart started pounding and I realized what I had probably found. When that gets going and you never get a chance to run it off or get rid of it, you get kind of a downtime.
And I think I was collecting my, not composure, but my thoughts a little bit out front. Question, so while you were collecting your thoughts and relaxing after your discovery, you heard a discussion going on inside the house.
And you answered, yes, I walked into the front of the residence and in the kitchen, Detective Lang and Van Adder were discussing what had been found.
I believe Detective Phillips was in there also, and they were discussing, quote, we really have got another crime scene here, unquote, and a search warrant was brought up, quote, we have to get a search warrant, unquote.
And Detective Van Adder said that, and I don't know exactly what time that was. Have I read your rather lengthy answer correctly? Yes, sir. Okay.
Now, you said when I found the glove and actually realized this glove was very close in description and color to the glove at the crime scene, can you tell us when that point was within this period?
I testified before several times that when I saw the glove, it looked very similar to the glove on Bundy. The connection was immediate in your mind? Yes. Is that correct? That connection that it looked very similar, yes. Okay.
Now.
All right, is definitely Bailey changes directions with his questioning. We're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back in two minutes.
People versus something.
The lost city of Atlantis, where the girls look like this and the guys look like this. Seven thirty takes you to a vacation hotspot tonight.
So I get this mail from progressive saying they have a smart new way to shop for auto insurance. Progressive. Can I help you? They give you their rates plus the rates of several other companies.
I wonder whose rates are going to be lowest. It looks like you could save over two hundred dollars if you went with what you're an insurance company. We know how hard it is to shop for auto insurance. A lot of times we're the lowest. Sometimes we're not. That's not what I expected from an insurance company. And then he said, well, maybe you should call one eight hundred auto pro or your authorized independent agent.
Byron's offers a solution. I haven't got a thing to wear. Well, hurry into Byron's for ladies day. Wednesday only. We've got incredible values like 40 percent off coordinates and swimwear. Nine ninety nine anchor blue denim shirt. Five ninety nine for pocket tees and tanks.
Twelve ninety nine every valley bra. Fifty percent off leather handbags. Sixty percent off all 14 karat gold. New wardrobe. Here I come. What am I going to wear to get there?
Want to borrow a barrel? It's cold season and for adult strength relief, many doctors recommend dimetapp.
What's more, in a recent study, the antihistamine and dimetapp extend tabs relieved allergic rhinitis symptoms better than a leading prescription antihistamine.
Doctors have recommended the dimetapp brand over 200 million times for sneezing, runny noses and nasal congestion for adult strength, cold and allergy relief. Remember, doctors recommend dimetapp.
Nature's own bread fresh from the wheat field to your table with no artificial preservatives, colors or flavors. At last, our daily bread. Try our latest variety of nutritious breads. Nature's own seven grain bread.
For the fifth time, F. Lee Bailey asking Mark Fuhrman why he went behind O.J.'s home by himself. I didn't have anything to believe that there was a suspect there other than the bloody glove.
You realize that you have told us earlier, testified under oath earlier, that the bloody glove made you think you would find a suspect. Or a victim. But by far the more likely a suspect, you said, did you not? Yes.
But here you said on your oath the only reason you proceeded unarmed and alone, or at least without a vest and alone, was because you didn't expect to find a suspect. You said that, didn't you? Yes, I did.
Does that mean that you did not think that you would be in danger if you proceeded eastbound through the cobwebby path because whoever you would find would be hurt and not dangerous? I don't believe that there was no feeling of danger, no.
But you did say, I must admit, I think the only reason I proceeded is I felt more that I might have had a victim than a suspect. Maybe that was a hope.
And I'll say that was a hope and not a thought. No, I'm saying maybe that was a hope. A presence of mind then and at the prelim.
You'll recall that yesterday we talked about your visit to the, what we have called the fence that is on the border of the two properties, 873 and 875. Yes.
You called it, I believe, the north border. The north border of the residence to the south, yes.
When you described this experience yesterday, you told us that you were standing, having been relieved, waiting for your replacement at the intersection of Dorothy and Bundy, correct?
We're talking at the Bundy location now? Yes. Oh, yes, sir. The north residence from Bundy.
Lieutenant Spangler, your ultimate boss in the Bureau of Detectives, came and brought you up to the fence where Goldman's body was crumpled? Yes. Without going through the tape or under it?
That's correct. There was no tape beyond that end of the fence, was there? No, that residence was not taped off in the front.
You were able to walk in a little walkway next to the dividing line? Yes. But outside the fence? Yes.
And there, Lieutenant Spangler, having invited you to take a look, you examined Goldman's body and found a laceration? That was observed by Lieutenant Spangler.
But you saw it too? Oh, yes, sir. And you thought it was a tear? I used the word laceration.
And when I asked you to describe it further, did you not say it was torn? No, I said laceration is tearing. It's not an incision.
In any event. And when I asked you if it was anything else that you saw at that point, you said no, didn't you? Yes.
Now, on July 5th, at page 64, we have reviewed when you described the same incident. There is no mention whatsoever of your having been relieved, is there?
Page 64, Detective Firm. You're going to have to give me a line, sir. Okay.
Starting at the top, just reading to yourself so that you can locate yourself, as you did this morning, on the steps, looking down at the female victim and not being able to clearly see the male victim.
That's correct. Okay. You said then, line 14, 12, we had flashlights, we were looking at the female victim, we looked at the male victim, you're still in the steps, right? Yes.
You said, I noticed the glove when I walked around to thee, after I exited the residence the first time and walked around to the side on the north side, north perimeter of 875 Bundy.
There's an iron fence, and through that iron fence, you can get a very close look at the male victim.
You can get very close to the male victim. Read the whole sentence again. And looking there, I could see them down at his feet. Wait, wait, wait. Read it again.
Okay. There's an iron fence, and through that iron fence, you can get very close to the male victim. We're going to take a quick break as we try to clear this up for the last break of the hour.
We're going to continue to stay with this interrogation of Detective Firm, as long as they're on the stand, we'll be here live.
I believe we live in an age where there's truth. In Turkey, I discovered this at Boston Chicken. It felt real, honest. That's the truth in Boston Chicken's new rotisserie turkey breast.
Turkey the way I like. Boneless, extra juicy, real turkey, real fat. It felt like Thanksgiving without Uncle Ed. This is not the feeling you get from a 10 cent taco.
New rotisserie turkey breast from Boston Chicken. This is different. This is progress. What do you want? Something home-baked that's big and fluffy and moist, with lots of real chocolate or luscious swirls of raspberry.
Surprise me. No one gives you the snack you want, like Duncan Hines' big new raspberry muffins or big chocolate chip muffins. Muffins?
The biggest lineup of muffins you can get from a mix. As easy to bake as they are to take. Duncan Hines' hot stuff.
No matter which kind of bandage you use, if you want those cuts to heal faster, use Neosporin every time you bandage. Testing shows Neosporin helps cuts heal faster. Four days faster than a bandage alone, and it helps prevent infection.
So whenever you use a bandage, use Neosporin. Together, they may get better, faster. And for fast healing plus pain relief, try Maximum Strength Neosporin Plus.
For evenings you wish would last till dawn, Maxwell House introduces a delightful excuse to linger. Ground coffee sweetened with smooth Irish cream, rich Swiss chocolate, and luscious French vanilla flavors.
Coffee's that taste as good as they smell. As long as the day turns into night, Maxwell House will always be good to the last drop.
From South Florida, via satellite back to Los Angeles, Epley Bailey asking Mark Furman why he said blood in the bronco is what he wanted tested. Was it a slip of the tongue?
Pardon me. What was your answer? Ask the question again, sir. You said the reporter didn't make a mistake, but the word is there somehow. I don't know. I just know what I meant when I testified.
All right. So that if you in fact use the word in, you misspoke yourself? Yes. Can we play that portion of the tape, Your Honor? Yep.
Talk to the man that was in the bungalow. He's singing it tomorrow. And I continued out performing the rest. Why? Why was from the statement he made the creation sound and the time that he heard it combined with the blood in the bronco.
Is that a reflection memory in any way of what you said on July 5th? Go ahead and play the rest of it to Mr. Harris.
The way I was feeling it, possibly there could be another victim or a suspect that had collapsed or escaped via that route on the southern border of the house.
Is that a reflection recollection? Absolutely, sir. Okay. What do you now say you said? In. Yes. Thank you.
Detective Herman, you're watching 7 News, first at five. I'm Rick Sanchez and I'm Marilyn Mitchell. Los Angeles detective Mark Furman is being grilled once again by Simpson attorney, Ethley Bailey. Let's go back to the testimony.
Is there any lawyer whose name is total or something like that? Yes, sir. Yes.
All right. With court reporter, please.
All right. They are moving to sidebar. Let's bring in Howard very quickly. Howard, why this sidebar? Are they allowed to talk about civil suits?
Well, you're allowed to talk about anything that might cause a witness to have a motive, a bias or an interest in the outcome.
The argument from the defense is going to be that he's planning on suing the defense lawyers and other people for disseminating defamatory remarks that he in fact is a racist and accordingly would have a motive to color his testimony to support a guilty verdict to further his civil lawsuit.
The prosecution, on the other hand, is going to sit there and say that's irrelevant because it all happened after this crime had occurred and therefore it's not probative of his motive or bias and Judge Edo is going to have to rule and he'll probably try and strike a balance. That's his style.
All right. From Howard, let's go to Rick and Marilyn to keep us updated on what's going on elsewhere. Rick, Marilyn.
All right. Thanks a lot, Patrick. We are obviously following the situation here. Let's go to Shepherd Smith. He's monitoring the trial over at our National Satellite Center. Shepherd, what's going on?
Shepherd, you're in Los Angeles. Pardon me, I misspoke. Long way from the Satellite Center. This morning, Rick, though, we certainly did see a lot of bantering back and forth as that race card was played like it never has been before.
Now remember, it relates back to an incident in 1985 when, according to the defense, one of four witnesses overheard Detective Furman launching racial slurs, some pretty serious ones, and that's how the, actually the defense began it all this morning.
It was the most heated exchange over race since the trial began. The target, Detective Mark Furman. We claim that he's gone out of his way in this case to hurt a black man that he saw with a white woman.
And he claims a man named Max Cordova can prove Furman has the tendency. Claiming an incident at a Marine recruiting station some 10 years ago is just the beginning.
And Furman turns on Cordova and says, let's get something straight. The only boy here is you, nigger. These allegations get more outrageous by the minute.
And I'm stricken again by the preposterousness of the claims of the defense. We have interviewed Max Cordova twice, and he has never indicated any such thing to anyone who's interviewed him.
Let them call the witness. I want to hear him say this. The court's never going to hear it.
I have spoken with him on the phone personally, Marine to Marine. I have the slightest doubt that he'll march up to that witness stand and tell the world what Furman called him on no provocation whatsoever.
But I want this film clip saved forever because this is going to be very funny where the actual witnesses take the stand.
And he well may. The judge ruling the testimony will be allowed. Now Bailey begins appointed probing cross examination of Furman beginning at the moment Cato Kaelin told the detective of the bumps in the night behind his room and Furman's subsequent search for an origin.
Detective Furman, is it not true that as you decided to walk out to the source of the noise, you decided to go alone?
I was already alone, sir.
Oh, you were with Kaelin who could have taken you out there, I suppose. Could he not?
I'm sure he could have.
You were with Detective Van Adder, the lead with whom you never discussed your plans, correct?
No, I wasn't with him. I yelled to him. He was in the kitchen.
You were in the same building with him, were you not?
Yes.
You are the gentleman that had to stand at Dorothy and Bundy for an hour for a lack of instruction. Are you not?
Yes.
And you decided without confiding in anyone to go alone behind that building, correct?
Correct.
I'll ask you once again. Was it not your purpose to be in the area along the south wall alone?
No, it wasn't.
It just worked out that you left the house and made your investigation for 15 minutes or more alone.
That's how it worked out.
That is how it worked out and that is the testimony of Detective Mark Furman.
We are still waiting for court to come back in session.
The players are still in sidebar discussing what was an interesting revelation just prior to that sidebar
when Detective Furman acknowledged that, yes, he was planning on a civil suit.
It certainly is the buzz here in the media pool as has been the talk all day long.
The talk today has been as the defense hammered away point by point at what it considers to be inconsistencies in Furman's testimony,
inconsistencies from the preliminary hearing to today's hearing.
He's gone over and over back to these books of the prior testimony and saying, look, this doesn't match up.
And in each case, Furman has never lashed out, has never become visibly upset,
and has done what many here consider to be a pretty fine job keeping control of himself.
Much more coming up at 7 News at 6.
For now, live in Los Angeles, I'm Shepard Smith.
All right, thanks a lot, Shepard.
We should remind you that they are in a sidebar right now, which is the reason we are moving on with our newscast.
And right now we want to go to Patrick Frazier.
He, of course, is monitoring this trial from our National Satellite Center.
Patrick, what have you got?
All right, from Shepard's summary of the day to Howard Finkelstein's analysis of that as they stay in this sidebar.
I want to remind you, by the way, as Howard comes in, we will go back to Los Angeles.
We want to carry Mark Furman's testimony for you live.
So we will be back there in just a second.
In the meantime, Howard, Detective Furman has been doing very well.
Eftle-Bailey's jabs are minor jabs.
Well, yes, he's doing superb.
And the reason he's doing well is he's keeping a demeanor, one that's cool, one that's laid back.
And as Bailey escalates his tone and tries to get more and more aggressive, Furman just sits there and answers simply, yes or no.
The only way a good cross-examiner can really beat up someone in a cross-exam is to engage them.
And if Detective Furman refuses to be engaged in a battle of wits or of words, then Detective Furman in all likelihood will win.
Eftle-Bailey made some points today.
He said that, well, the detective should have been afraid to go behind that alley.
The detective should have noticed the blood spots were round and not normal with the man walking away as Judge Ito enters back into his chair.
So Howard, he's making his points, but they're not the kind of points I'm sure the jurors are going to pick up on that easily.
Some of these points are fine points.
Some of these they may pick up.
He's making some headway.
It's not major headway.
But cross-examination still continues, and I'm going to kick it back to you because I see we're live in Los Angeles.
All right, Judge Ito, Detective Furman and Eftle-Bailey back in their places.
Let's go back to Los Angeles.
Detective Furman, for what purpose did you retain your lawyer Robert Turtel?
Because I was defamed in the media for planning evidence in a capital crime.
Some magazine or other?
Magazine, radio, TV, personal attacks.
Now, did you authorize your attorney to send a letter to certain of Mr. Simpson's counsel threatening a lawsuit for defamation when this case ended?
Yes, sir.
Did you review any such letters before they went?
I don't believe so.
I received copies, but I did not review them and approve them, no.
All right.
And you were complaining that you had been accused as a result of conduct for which you thought they were responsible of planning evidence in a capital case.
Is that right?
The first part of that question I don't think I understand.
You were complaining, as you've just told us, that you were being accused in the media.
Partly due to their responsibility, these lawyers, of planning evidence in a capital case.
Yes, sir.
Okay.
And that is a very serious crime, isn't it?
Yes.
Both state and federal.
Yes.
Okay.
Now, when this lawsuit is over, you have an intent to begin a defamation lawsuit of the civil nature against Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Cockman, correct?
I believe so, yes.
And to ask a jury for money damages for the damage to your reputation for being accused of planting the globe.
What's the objection?
No.
This is where I'm going.
It's the nature of the lawsuit, counsel.
Oh, well.
Is that not your intent?
Yes, sir.
Okay.
Now, in addition to that, have you sought to obtain money in any other fashion due to your connection in this case?
No.
Did you authorize Mr. Tortolo to send a letter to various police departments asking for contributions to Mark Furman?
I believe he started a defense fund, yes.
Well, the letter, which went to police, said Mark Furman needs help, didn't it?
There's nothing to it.
Oh, well.
That's what it said, isn't it?
I believe something to that effect.
One of the purposes for which the letter said you needed help was to pay Bob Tortolo $100,000 for advising you, wasn't it?
I don't recall any part of that letter.
Have you ever seen it?
I don't believe I've seen anything that says that.
Has it ever been read to you?
I don't believe so.
I don't recall $100,000 to advise me.
Well, $100,000 for fees.
Do you remember that part?
No, I don't, sir.
Do you remember any amount that was suggested in the letter of solicitation to help Mark Furman?
No, but if I could see the letter, I would like to.
Well, take it out, please.
Let's turn, if we may, Detective Furman, to the preparation that went into your appearance here last Thursday.
Objection, sir.
Can you see the letter?
Well, I'm asking counsel to dig it out. If we don't have it today, we'll have it in the morning.
All right, proceed.
Denied.
I would like to turn, Detective Furman, to preparation.
I believe you said that you had not seen any of the prosecutors for their assistance helping them with this case until 1995.
I did not come down to this building for that purpose until this year, that's correct.
That was not my question. My question was, how many times have you spent time with any of the prosecutors in this case relating to your testimony?
Just in 1995.
All right. At no time in all of 1994 did you sit down with any of the prosecutors and talk about what testimony you would give?
Before the prelim, I believe, Marsha Clark and Bill Hodgman sat down with me. They asked what happened.
After the prelim?
No, not after the prelim.
Did you get a transcript of your testimony at the prelim, the one that you are seeing in front of you at this moment?
Yes, sir.
When did you first get back?
I believe that was in 1994.
And could you tell me when?
No.
Well, was it close to the end of the prelim or close to the end of the year or somewhere in between?
I'd probably say somewhere in between.
September?
I don't know, sir. Somewhere in between. Could possibly.
Did you read in the paper this summer that this trial was scheduled to begin on September 19?
I don't recall, no.
You didn't pay attention to the Simpson case and the newspaper?
I don't read the newspaper.
Don't read the newspaper. Watch TV?
About this case? Not much, sir.
Listen to the radio?
Yes.
About this case?
About this case, it's kind of hard to avoid it.
Now, that being the case, may we assume that you knew that the trial date had been fixed by law, 60 days from the date of arraignment, or September 19?
I don't have any personal recollection of that, but I'll agree with it.
Did you feel any need to refresh your recollection as to the story you had told at the prelim during the summer of 1994 and after the prelim?
I'll just stand and phrase the question.
Did you, do you have a recollection of reading your testimony prior to September 19?
No, I don't recall, sir.
Have you viewed the videotape of the Mark Furman testimony of July 5th and 6th, 1994, at any time?
At no time.
At other than the snippet that we just looked at a few minutes ago, you have seen no videotape?
No.
Now, how about the other witnesses who testified at the prelim? Have you read any of their testimony?
None.
Have you watched any videotapes as to what they said?
No.
Were you watching at the time that they were testifying?
No.
None of them?
No, sir.
At any time?
No.
Okay.
How many times would you say you have read that transcript that's before you?
My transcript I probably read through once when I received it and then certain areas, back and forth, a few times, I'd say two, three times.
How many times have you been through it, page by page, with one or more of the prosecutors?
Through my transcript?
Mm-hmm.
Never?
Never.
Have you discussed the contents of your testimony at the prelim with any of the prosecutors?
Yes, sir.
How many times did you do that?
With the contents of what was testified to at the prelim without the transcript, probably twice.
With whom?
Marcia Clark and Chris Darden.
Were they both present on each of these occasions?
No, it was separate.
Once with one, once with the other?
Yes, sir.
Was there some question at that time as to who was going to handle you?
Irrelevant.
Sustained.
Although I don't need it from three lawyers at the same time.
All right, let's take a quick break.
There's a break in cross-examination.
Ethel E. Bailey and Mark Furman will be right back.
On average, you drive about 500 hours a year.
That's like 21 straight days, days and nights.
And that's the reason for the all-new interior of the new Regal for 1995.
21 days.
In most imports, that could be like a sentence.
In the Buick Regal, it's more like a three-week vacation.
Kaisu, sit down.
Still have five minutes left of break time.
You look a little down.
I just paid some bills.
These individual health care premiums are almost out of our budget.
You mean you, Bill, and the kids all have individual health coverage?
Yeah.
His job doesn't offer health benefits either.
You know, then you would be interested in this ad in the paper.
Look, Care Florida just introduced a new health care plan for individuals.
It's called Care One Health Plan.
Let me see that.
It says Care One offers low rates, no deductibles, and a choice of three flexible options.
All the benefits of their group plan without belonging to a group.
And you have access to Care Florida's large network of private physicians and well-known hospitals.
It's one of the best.
You know, I'd like to find out more about this Care One Health Plan.
Is there a number to call?
Yes, it's 930-7353.
930-7353.
Got it.
Care One Health Plan.
Finally, affordable health care coverage for individuals like us.
Here's a way to multiply your wardrobe without melting your credit cards.
Stop shopping for work clothes one place and casual clothes somewhere else.
Just come to Target.
Sure, you can get the best of the basics, but you can also make a serious statement without making a serious investment.
These soap pieces started only $14.99.
If you thought Target was just for play clothes, maybe you've been working too hard.
Introducing the hottest new car in America, the all-new Accent, starting at $80.79.
When you get into the Accent, you'll see why everyone wants one.
Maybe it's Accent's dual airbags or available Antiotte brake system, or the low-maintenance self-adjusting engine that delivers power and 38 highway miles per gallon.
Or maybe it's the special financing available with no down payment required
and low introductory payments as low as $99 a month for the first 12 months on approved credit through your South Florida Hyundai dealers.
Nature's Own Bread
Nature's Own Bread, fresh from the wheat field to your table.
With no artificial preservatives, colors or flavors, at last our daily bread.
Try our latest variety of nutritious breads, Nature's Own 7 Grain Bread.
From South Florida back to Los Angeles, Detective Mark Furman being questioned by F. Lee Bailey about the number of times he's practiced with a prosecutor
about his testimony today revealing in the last minute or so that they practiced once in the Grand Jury.
F. Lee Bailey called it a mock cross-examination. Furman said he wouldn't call it that.
Seven. Eight. Seven. Seven or eight.
How many were lawyers? If you know.
Four. Four or five.
How many questioned you?
There was a lot of discussion going on between them.
How many questioned you, Detective Furman?
I'm trying to get to that, sir. Okay.
Two. Two. Two.
Two, maybe three.
You remember who they were?
Yes.
Who were they?
Mr. Darden. Mr. White.
Mr. White. Could you help us with that one?
Terry White.
And I believe Mr. Yockelson.
Now, with these questions, how long did each one spend with you? Can you help us with that?
Oh, it was very brief. There would be a question or a comment and that would be it.
Was there any record made of this experience such as tape, audio tape, court reporter, notes, if you know?
I know and there wasn't.
Was a script prepared to assist you in delivering your testimony?
No.
Have you seen any script in this case?
A script?
Yes. Q&A.
I've seen questions that might be asked, but I don't have those now.
With whom did you review lists of questions that might be asked?
I didn't review those with anyone. There's questions that were asked and they were written down, but I don't have a copy of those.
But at some time prior to coming to this courtroom, did you see a written list of questions that you anticipated would be asked?
No.
Have you ever seen a written list of questions that pertains to your testimony?
I've seen questions that people were taking notes of, but as far as a list, this is what we're going to ask you now.
What did you mean a moment ago when you said you've seen a list of questions?
Well, people are reading questions or talking or discussing in front of me or with me.
Are you looking at questions written on a piece of paper at this time?
No.
Or assuming that they're written on paper because somebody's reading?
Well, I can see that there's writing and they're making notations in writing.
Now, when you were examined by the three lawyers you have named, what was the nature of their question?
Cross-examination.
These were leading questions and suggestive questions?
I don't think I know what you mean by that, sir.
A leading question is a question that suggests the answer.
For instance, you are Mark Fuhrman, not what is your name.
Do you understand the difference?
I understand the difference, but no, they weren't.
Were any of the questions abusive?
I don't know if I...
Insulting?
No.
Nasty?
No.
What were you told was the purpose of this exercise?
To prepare me for cross-examination.
Okay.
And what were you to guard against in cross-examination that this preparation would facilitate?
I don't think I was told...
Were the questions that were being put to you as simulated cross-examination in your mind an attempt to assist in preparing you to withstand a real cross-examination?
No.
I think there are areas and questions that have probably never been asked, most detectives are policemen.
Can you give me an example?
No, I can't.
Can you think of any language that was used in those questions that some might find offensive, Detective Fuhrman?
No.
None?
No.
Can you remember even one of the questions that these three lawyers put to you?
No, I do not, sir.
Not a single one?
No.
Did we then assume that you did not profit by the experience of preparation for cross-examination?
I don't think it was very productive, no.
Was there any effort on your part to reach certain goals as a result of this training session?
I don't understand that question, sir.
Did you start out, before the lawyers started in on you with their questions, with an objective in mind, something you wanted to achieve that would make you a better witness?
No.
Do not?
No.
Did they describe to you any objective that they had in mind that you should reach in order to be a better witness?
I don't recall they did, no.
When did this take place?
A few weeks ago.
What day of the week?
I want to say it was a Saturday or a Sunday.
The weekend?
Yes, I'd probably go on Sunday.
And who were the people there that you have not named, if you know?
I don't know a lot of the people by name.
Can you classify?
Well, I know the ones I do know by name was Mr. Yockelson, Mr. Darden, Ms. Lewis, Mr. White, Mr. Yockelson.
You named him?
Yes.
I'm just going through all of them.
Okay.
Mr. Runyon, and I don't know the names of a lot of the other people that were there, or the rest of the people.
Were they detectives or lawyers, if you know?
I'm not sure.
I didn't know the status of some of the people.
Were they participating in the discussion?
I don't believe they were, no.
Were they suggesting questions, if you remember?
No. They appeared to be observers.
Right. Now, Detective Furman, this is a one and only in your experience as a witness, isn't it?
Excuse me, sir.
This grand jury adventure where you were given trial cross-examinations by three different lawyers,
that's the only time in your career that's ever happened, isn't it?
Yes.
Did they tell you there was something that they were trying to prevent from happening?
The cross-examination.
As Detective Furman and F. Lee Bailey continue on, we're going to take a quick break.
You're watching the People vs. Simpson, live on 7 News.
Right.
There's a new car on the road. It's the Ford Contour.
With its unique styling and advanced engineering, it's about to run circles around the imports.
Right now, your South Florida Ford dealer has a huge selection of Ford Contours with all these features and a whole lot more.
For $2,100 less than a comparably equipped Nissan Altima, $2,200 less than a comparably equipped Honda Accord.
So see your South Florida Ford dealer today and test drive a new Contour.
It's a great value that's changing America's foreign policy.
Enter L'Automobile 2 from the Florida lottery, and you could win one of 50 new Jeep Cherokees.
Plus, prizes from Universal Studios Florida, like a one-year admission pass for four.
Just buy a $5 or more Florida Lotto ticket and enter.
You not only get a chance to win a new Jeep Cherokee...
Will Master Duke be joining us today, sir?
...you get at least five chances to win Florida Lotto.
Byron's offers a solution.
I haven't got a thing to wear.
Well, hurry into Byron's for Ladies Day. Wednesday only, we've got incredible values, like 40% off coordinates and swimwear,
$9.99 Anchor Blue denim shirt, $5.99 for pocket tees and tanks, $12.99 every bally bra,
50% off leather handbags, 60% off all 14-carat gold.
New wardrobe, here I come. But what am I gonna wear to get there?
Wanna borrow a barrel?
Hey, Byron's!
What goes into the Dodge Viper?
V10 engineering.
More horsepower than a Ferrari 348.
But not these impurities.
Every new Viper leaves the factory with Crystal Clear Amaco Ultimate,
the only premium refined and extra step to remove impurities.
For unsurpassed performance, proving a master stroke of engineering begins with your car,
but ends with your gasoline.
Wait! Nobody move!
Did you drop your content?
No. My 99-cent burger.
Tired of tiny burger deals?
Checkers 3 for 93 deal gives you three big tasty burgers just 93 cents each for a limited time.
The quarter pound champ burger, the quarter pound Cajun burger, and the quarter pound chili burger,
all bigger than a Big Mac, thicker than a Whopper, and just 93 cents each for a limited time.
Brown. Special sauce. Very small.
Checkers. Bigger, better burger deals.
Now at Pep Boys, get any four 35,000 mile Cornell 800 all-season tires at an incredible low 99.96.
That's right. Any size, any set of four, just 99.96. At Pep Boys, now.
No matter what you drive, Pep Boys motor oil meets or exceeds virtually all manufacturer specifications.
Now only 79 cents a quart, just 9.48 a case.
That's right. 79 cents a quart, 9.48 a case. Only at Pep Boys.
Back live from Los Angeles where they are in a sidebar right now.
Howard Finkelstein, I don't want to say that Judge Edo got caught not listening,
but they were talking about the so-called mock cross-examination,
but the prosecutors went after Detective Mark Furman.
He said, we discussed some of the irrelevant evidence that might be brought in,
and Mr. Bailey said, what irrelevant evidence?
And the prosecution objected, and Judge Edo said, I'm sorry, I wasn't listening, overruled.
And when he asked the question again, he went back, and I went to a sidebar.
And Judge Edo not listening, and just got caught with his pants down?
That's very possible, and also that's a very, very strange twist,
because irrelevant evidence isn't admissible, but here,
Detective Furman was stating that he was being questioned about evidence which was irrelevant.
So therefore, the question then isn't to admit the irrelevant evidence,
but what it was that they were asking about, which happens to be irrelevant.
That may be a distinction without a difference, but then again,
that's the fodder from which cross-examination comes.
Howard, explain something to me that maybe, well, not maybe, I'm not seeing here.
He says he was examined by the prosecutors, Mr. Bailey says, so it was a mock cross-examination.
He says, no, it wasn't. Why not admit it?
I think that there's probably a misunderstanding, a communication breakdown on the terms.
That's what lawyers would call a mock cross-examination,
which is a cross-examination that isn't really taking place in a courtroom.
So I think it had more to do with a misunderstanding than a implausible denial.
Where is F. Lee Bailey going here?
Hammering home, why do you keep talking about this examination? Why do that?
Because what Bailey is trying to get across to the jury is,
not only is he concerned about this officer's credibility, but the prosecutors are also concerned.
They're so concerned with this officer's credibility and his role in this case,
that they had three of their own get together and engage in a mock cross-examination
where they went into all these different areas,
and Detective Fuhrman admitted this has never happened in his career before.
That leaves an image in the jury's mind, a connotation, if you will,
that maybe, just maybe, there's something to be concerned about here.
But why not step forward and say, yeah, we did it. We've done it before.
You've talked to your witnesses, haven't you, Mr. Defense Attorney?
Well, the answer is that yes, you may talk to witnesses,
but in this case, this wasn't talking to witnesses.
This was a mock cross-examination.
Now, that isn't unheard of, and in many cases,
defense lawyers will do that with their own clients if they're going to put their client on the stand.
But it's very rare that you put a police officer, a trained police officer,
who's also trained in testifying, in a situation where he is examined by three prosecutors
because they're concerned.
And remember, this mock cross-examination wasn't about what he did at the crime scene.
It was about other matters, and it's the other matters that the defense wants the jury to focus on.
I've been watching Mark Fuhrman since Thursday.
This is the first time that he seems a little hesitant, a little unsure of himself.
Well, I think it's starting to wear in on him.
You know, Bailey has been at him. He's been at him with certain inconsistencies.
We've had a couple of either slips of the tongue or Freudian slips,
depending upon whether you believe the prosecution or the defense.
We've had him have his preliminary hearing testimony examined under a microscope to show some discrepancies.
So I think the cross-examination is starting to wear on him.
All right, thanks very much, Howard.
We're going to monitor here at the Satellite Center.
As soon as Mark Fuhrman returns to his chair and Judge Edo to his and Eftle Bailey to his,
we'll bring it right back to you.
In the meantime, let's go to 7 News at 5.30.
Live from South Florida's news station, WSBN7.
This is 7 News at 5.30.
Good evening. I'm Rob Hanrahan.
We're going to bring you up to date on some of the other news we're following in the news flex
as we keep an eye on the O.J. Simpson trial in Los Angeles.
We are learning more about a serial rapist who died trying to escape from the Broward County Jail.
Thirty-three-year-old Alan Fogelman of Hollywood removed a plexiglass window from the maximum security cell
and tried to slide down the side of the jail using a makeshift rope.
That rope broke, sending Fogelman plummeting seven floors and 50 feet to his death.
Fogelman was a serial rapist in and out of prison for the last 18 years.
He's been terrorizing and sexually assaulting women since the age of 15.
Corrections officials are looking into how Fogelman could collect enough bedsheets to make that rope,
plus how he removed the window without ever being noticed.
A Sunrise police officer accused of peeping at his two young boarders surrenders to authorities.
Officer Larry Greenberg turning himself in today.
He's also accused of filming the women with secret video cameras he set up in his home.
The officer has been released on $2,000 bond.
The seven-year-old behind a deadly game of child's play has a new home tonight.
Deputies say the boy started a fire Sunday in an abandoned van.
The blaze killed both his brother and cousin.
The boy is said to have a history of playing with fire, but was never enrolled in a fire prevention class.
Tonight, the child is in the custody of his aunt.
A judge orders the five video vandals from Jacksonville to keep their mouths shut.
The media is anxious to interview the five teenagers accused of videotaping their destructive rampage,
but the judge just says no.
He issued a restraining order barring them from leaving Jacksonville or appearing on any talk show until the case is closed.
A daughter decides to give the gift of life to her father, a kidney.
The South Florida man has waited long enough for a new kidney,
so his daughter, Dawn Lukomski, tested her organs and found out she is a perfect match.
The operation is scheduled for tomorrow at Jackson Memorial Hospital.
Doctors believe both Dawn and her father are going to be just fine.
More tonight on two stories involving athletes and drugs.
Former UM great Warren Sapp reportedly testing positive for drug use at a recent gathering of NFL draft hopefuls.
According to ESPN and the New York Times, Sapp, who played for the University of Miami
and was voted the best lineman in college football, flunked a test for marijuana.
No comment yet from Sapp or his agent.
The National Football League says if he is drafted by the pros, Sapp will have to enter drug treatment.
Testing positive, however, does not prevent a player from entering the NFL.
The fate of a former Miami Dolphin may be decided today.
The jury for wide receiver Mark Dufour began deliberating earlier this afternoon.
He and his brother-in-law are charged with possession of cocaine with intent to sell.
If convicted, each could spend 10 years in prison and pay $4 million in fines.
And we can switch sports on you now to baseball.
With opening day less than three weeks away, the National Labor Relations Board is trying to make sure there is an opening day.
Today the NLRB announced it plans to seek a federal court injunction against the owners for unfair labor practices,
which could end the player strike.
The Players Union seeks to return to 1994 working rules, meaning no salary cap and a restoration of salary arbitration.
The Union has said the players would end the seven-month strike if they got a legal ruling to their satisfaction.
However, it is possible the owners will lock out the players if this does come to pass.
We'll have much more on all of these stories, of course, coming up in seven sports.
But for right now, we want to get back to the OJ Simpson trial.
Patrick Frazier standing by in the Satellite Center. Patrick, what have you got?
Maryland, when we last left you, the jury had been sent out of the courtroom.
Detective Mark Perman, now explaining what irrelevant evidence that the defense wants to enter. Let's listen.
That's what I was afraid, that we were going to get something beyond Kathleen Bell.
Apparently not. That's an issue that we're familiar with, the jury's familiar with at this point.
Anything else? I told the jury I'd give them enough for a comfort break.
Jeffy, why don't you check and see if they're available?
All right, while he goes and gets the jury, we're going to take a quick break.
We will be back. The jury will be back. Detective Mark Perman back with Ethel Bailen.
You're bright, you're beautiful. You just need to accessorize. Now say, couldn't hug to the new you.
Bird's Eye, the fresh look for vegetables.
We were trapped, just us, Aunt Lila and Aunt Lila's chips.
So I broke out the Cheez Whiz cheese and salsa dip. Smooth and cheesy, with a little kick of salsa.
There's never a boring bite with Cheez Whiz cheese and salsa dip.
Sweet lullaby, I'll be free.
In the years to come, thousands of people will be protected because of a significant innovation from Volvo.
Volvo introduces the world's first side-impact airbag.
Drive safely.
I just had one of the best dinners I've ever had, and it was under $10.
Now, at Red Lobster, every day we have 15 dinners under $10, like a half pound of snow crab with a large portion of scampi just $9.99, only at Red Lobster.
Friends and Family Worldwide gives you the lowest international rates to everyone you choose, in every country, every single day of the year.
And with Friends and Family Worldwide, you always save over AT&T's best plan.
For the easiest way on earth to get unlimited savings, join MCI's Friends and Family Worldwide.
Introducing a remarkable achievement, shaped sculpted to make our appliances smarter.
It's the Contour Concept, a concept on the new Frigidaire Gallery refrigerator.
You'll find contouring makes every surface sleek, easy to clean, and gives the interior more custom flexibility than ever before possible in our refrigerator.
You've got to see it. Call 1-800-FRIGIDAIRE.
And look, a better performance is here.
Come on, admit it, you must have spent hours baking this incredible cheesecake.
Actually, I didn't.
Oh, come on, you did.
No, really, I didn't.
Come on. Jell-O fruit top cheesecake.
Okay, if I did, then you'd do the dishes.
Well, maybe you didn't.
The most important thing they sell is your trust, at Kidmoss, my dark dodge.
Do you want a car with class? Do you want a car that handles like a dream?
At Kidmoss, my dark dodge.
Are you looking for a car at the right price? You're looking for a Dodge Intrepid.
The most important thing they sell is your trust, at Kidmoss, my dark dodge.
Kidmoss, my dark dodge.
Back to Los Angeles. There is the picture. They are not in the middle of a break.
They have just zoomed up and shown the seal because they went to get the jury.
The jury is walking into the courtroom right now in the standard procedure to move the camera up top so they don't show any of the jurors.
Howard Finkelstein, the judge is going to allow them, I guess, to talk about Kathleen Bell now with Detective Mark Perman.
Mark Perman called it irrelevant evidence. The judge didn't agree with him.
Well, the issue of Kathleen Bell has always been ruled to be relevant, but what almost happened there was
Detective Perman almost opened the door to allow other evidence that the judge ruled to be irrelevant almost became admissible
because when he stated that they were talking about other irrelevant information, the question is,
did Detective Perman open the door to that which the judge had ruled the defense could not go into?
But did he or didn't he? Will they be allowed to ask those questions?
You're referring to the witnesses this morning that he couldn't talk about Coleman and people like that.
Exactly, and he also couldn't talk about the psychiatric reports in the 1981 civil suit wherein he sued the city
claiming he was emotionally imbalanced, did not function as a police officer as a result of working with blacks and Hispanics.
I see we're live. I'm back to you, Patrick.
All right, Ethley Bailey and Mark Perman back together.
Detective Perman, when you said earlier that you were concerned about the evidence that you viewed as irrelevant,
would you tell the court specifically which person you had in mind, which incident?
Yes, Kathleen Bell.
Okay. Now, are you telling us then, and did you know prior to this trial of any other claims that were made against you
of a type similar to Kathleen Bell, prior to taking the witness in?
Objection.
Well, you can answer that question, yes or no?
Yes or no is all I want.
Yes.
Okay. But was Kathleen Bell the focus of your concern?
Yes.
And were the questions that were put to you by two prosecutors focused on the Kathleen Bell problem?
Yes, I believe so.
Two of these prosecutors prosecuted Rodney King, didn't they?
I did not know that until I was told.
You did not know that?
Wait, wait, wait. Let him finish the answer, Mr. Perman.
Sorry, Your Honor.
I had known that Terry White was, but I didn't recognize Mr. Yockelson's name.
In any event, that was the purpose of the exercise, the Bell problem, and you did not feel that it was productive, correct?
I didn't feel it was really a useful exercise, no.
Okay. And you still don't know what their objective was in doing this, is that right?
Well, I assumed it was preparation.
Preparation for what?
Cross-examination, sir.
About Kathleen Bell?
Yes.
About certain language that some find offensive?
Yes.
Okay. And your concern about that then is what led to this tripartite simulated cross-examination, correct?
Sustained calls for facts not added with speculation, Your Honor.
Free lawyer, cross-examination in the grand jury room, correct?
Yes.
You recall on Thursday when you took the stand that almost immediately at the outset of your testimony, Ms. Clark displayed to you a part of a copy of a letter that had been sent by Kathleen Bell to Johnny Cochran sometime in 1994.
Yes, I did.
Had you ever looked at the entire letter rather than just that part?
No, sir.
Had you ever seen that letter before you came into this courtroom?
No.
Had you ever reviewed its contents with anyone before you came into this courtroom?
No.
Did you have any idea that Ms. Clark was going to begin your testimony by throwing the Bell letter up on the screen?
I knew the contents, but I had never read the letter.
No. Did you have any idea that your testimony would begin by putting the accusations of Kathleen Bell up on the screen?
No, I didn't.
Was that a surprise to you when she did that?
The letter, yes.
Was it a surprise to you when she developed in your testimony that you had had some practice session somewhere?
That wasn't a surprise, but I didn't know how it would be phrased.
Okay.
Now, Your Honor, I have 102, People's 102, I guess it is.
It starts at the top of the O-longus, Harris.
And tell me right at the top of the letter.
About that place, please.
Top of the letter.
What are these items that are on there?
Mr. Harris.
That's on the top of the letter.
Your Honor, a voice concerned about a certain subject.
All right.
Right at the top, please.
Are you going to hear Mr. Cochran?
All right.
My understanding is, Detective Furman, you have never held in your hand a piece of paper on which these words are written.
You've only discussed it.
That's correct.
Now, you notice in the second paragraph, it says that the author glanced up at the television and was quite shocked to see that Officer Furman was the man that I had the misfortune of meeting.
You were on television prior to this summer in connection with this case, were you not?
Yes.
And your testimony as a witness, you learned, was quite widely watched in the state and others, did you not?
Yes.
Okay.
You notice that the author says that she has left a message on Mr. Cochran's answering service.
Yes.
Okay.
Next paragraph, Mr. Harris.
Between 1985 and 1986, she says she worked as a real estate agent in Redondo Beach for Century 21 Bob Marher Realty.
Now out of business.
Period.
Number one, when you were at the recruiting station, did you become acquainted with a Century 21 real estate office located proximate to the recruiting station?
Did I become familiar with the fact that there was such an office?
I think there was one on the second floor.
Yes.
Did you have to go through the office to get to it or were the separate stairs?
I don't remember that at all.
Was there a coffee shop close by to these two offices?
A coffee shop in that small shopping area?
Yeah.
Not that I remember now.
You don't?
Okay.
Did you ever determine whether or not in 1985 and 6 a Kathleen Bell had been employed at the office described in the letter?
Did you confirm that she had been employed there?
No.
I never knew a Kathleen Bell, but no.
Did you ever make inquiry after you learned of this letter to find out whether there was a Kathleen Bell employed as she says at that time at the Century 21 office?
I did not.
Did you cause your lawyer, Mr. Turtelow, to do that?
No, I didn't.
And did you cause your investigator, Mr. Pelicanow, to do that?
No.
Pelicanow.
Pelicanow?
We all know how it's pronounced.
I see. All right. Did you cause him to do that?
No.
Okay.
We need to take a quick break. We're going to do it right now. The latter part of this letter is the very inflammatory part. It'll be interesting to see Detective Furman's reaction when Ashley Bailey reads it to us.
After today, I will worship my mom forever. She zips us here and zooms us there. She's totally incredible.
And now she even gets us our favorite chicken dinner for lunch. It's this new original recipe chicken sandwich from KFC. It's so good. It's this juicy, juicy white meat breast fillet, those 11 herbs and side foods, and the totally new secret recipe sauce.
Someday I should tell mom how cool she is. Yeah, right.
Try the new original recipe chicken sandwich from KFC.
Everybody needs a little KFC.
Just arrived. Fabulous dresses, only $19.99 only at Ross. These dresses sell elsewhere for $58 to $70, but at Ross, they're just $19.99. This new collection includes petites and plus sizes, juniors and misses, the latest styles, all at only $19.99.
Save 65% or more, but be warned, at just $19.99...
You're not shopping at Ross.
You're gonna miss out.
I want a Ford Aerostar.
Well, what family wouldn't want this wide and roomy minivan with its safety-conscious design and all these features, especially when you can get $1,000 cash back right now when you purchase any new Ford Aerostar?
To give your family the security and comfort of a minivan and get $1,000 cash back, just say to your South Florida Ford dealer...
I want a Ford Aerostar.
And it's yours.
Some people just aren't into yard work. And it shows. Get new yard basics. Just point and spray for great results. New yard basics from Ortho. The easy way out of yard work.
Oh yeah, you can connect the wires now.
Ow!
Why be in the dark? The Brother P-Touch electronic labeling system. It tells you what's what.
And now, stockholders, a message from our treasurer.
Happy birthday!
Why kid around? The Brother P-Touch electronic labeling system. It tells you what's what.
I haven't got a thing to wear.
Here's a solution. Hurry into Byron's for ladies' day, Wednesday only.
Hey, Byron's!
Shopping for a TV? The best place to buy one is Circuit City, with over 150 TVs to pick from.
Great big TVs.
And even TVs with built-in VCRs. And these guys really know TVs.
They'll show you the best from Sony, RCA, Hitachi, and more. Ooh, lots more. The right screen size, the right features.
Even exciting new home theater systems.
So get the picture. A big picture. The best place to buy your new TV is Circuit City right now.
Back live to Los Angeles, we'll be able to show you a letter of the paragraph that Mark Furman was just asked if he said the words written in the letter.
He said, absolutely not.
Now, you told us yesterday that you do not know, as I understand it, an Andrea Carey.
That's correct.
Can you recall at any time a blonde woman suggesting that she had an attractive but tall friend?
No.
Do you recall at any time in the presence of Joe Foss being asked by a woman if you were interested in a date?
No.
Never happened that you can recall?
No.
Is it the kind of thing that you would remember if it had occurred, being asked for a date in the presence of Joe Foss?
I think in the presence of anybody, if I was interested in the woman or it went farther than that, I think I would probably remember it.
Let's assume you weren't interested.
You said, hey, you're not my type. Brushed her off.
Would you remember being invited on a date if it had happened?
I would say not.
Okay. Would you remember, Detective Furman, if you had used the language that we have just reviewed?
Yes.
That is important enough language to you so that it would impress itself on your memory as did the meeting with the Simpsons in 85. Is that correct?
Yes, sir.
Okay.
You told us yesterday that you do go into Hennessey's temple.
Yes, sir.
You do not have a recollection of the name Andrea Terry being there?
All right. We're on Andy Carey now?
Yes, yes.
Mr. Carey?
Take it down.
You don't remember the name Andrea Terry, a woman over six feet high, or a woman in the company of someone you now know to be Kathleen Behm?
No, I do not.
Did you have a conversation in 85 and 86 in Hennessey's Tavern with a tall woman wherein you said that black men who have white women in their company are violating an act of nature?
No.
And that you would arrest them whenever you saw that occur?
No.
That did not occur at any time?
No.
And is that the kind of language or expression, Detective Ferman, that you would remember clearly if those statements had been made?
Yes.
So as of the moment, you would say that if either Kathleen Bell or Andrea Terry claims that you made those statements, that would necessarily be false?
Yes.
And that if Joe Foss, the Marine, says that he in fact introduced you to Kathleen Bell outside the recruiting station as she emerged from a coffee shop, and that the two of you talked about a date, that would necessarily be false?
That's correct.
How about that?
Howard, it's boiling down to the defense says every cop is either incompetent or corrupt.
Now the prosecution is saying everybody who says something about one of their witnesses is a liar.
It certainly seems to be boiling down that way, and usually the truth is somewhere in between the two extremes.
So how this is all going to boil down and play out in front of the jury, we're going to have to wait until Kathleen Bell testifies and this other woman testifies.
But then it's going to be who do you believe, Mark Ferman or Kathleen Bell, Andrea Turner, Mark Ferman?
Well, if Kathleen Bell and this other woman and Joe Foss and this other Marine testify, I think the jury will probably reject Detective Ferman's representations as to his statements and maybe even as to his racist beliefs.
But then that doesn't mean that he planted the glove.
So that's the second boundary that the defense has to get over.
And they haven't even gotten over the first obstacle yet.
We won't know until the other witnesses testify.
You think they've soiled Mark Ferman enough to cloud the jury's judgment?
I don't think they've soiled him enough yet.
When these other witnesses come in, I think he will be soiled.
But that in and of itself won't be enough to prove that he planted it, although they have opened up some questions as to his behavior behind the air conditioning vent.
The question then becomes, will they be able to reach one juror, two jurors, maybe 12 jurors?
Doubtful.
But it only takes one to hang the jury.
And then there are other theories that are floating out there.
So this is a long way from being over.
All right.
Mr. Bailey, with his photographic mind, is having a problem finding something here.
We approached him.
All right.
They're going to go to the sidebar.
Howard, how far is F. Lee Bailey from being finished, do you think?
I don't think that he is close to being finished.
If he is, then certainly this cross-examination was more than it was touted to be, and we certainly haven't seen what we expected to see.
My guess is there is still more material out there.
He still has a considerable amount to go, and they may be discussing whether or not they're going to break now and continue tomorrow or continue on further today.
What about the testimony there towards the very end with Kathleen Bell?
Why not read her statements or why not force him to read those statements?
Why, as inflammatory as they are, why brush through them so quickly?
Well, what Kathleen Bell says is here, see.
However, before you can have Kathleen Bell testify as to what Detective Furman says, you have to, under the evidence code in California, give Detective Furman an opportunity to either admit or deny.
Otherwise, you can't use what's called the impeaching character witness.
I see.
Howard, Mark Furman has been there now for the better part of four days.
If you go by what the people who watch this religiously think, a lot of people are very impressed with him.
A lot of people are very disgusted by him.
How do you ever gauge, as an attorney, what a jury is going to do?
The public opinion is so split.
You know, I hear lawyers and experts all the time talk about what they believe juries think and what they feel and how they'll perceive evidence.
In the 17 years that I've been doing this, I have yet to be able to figure out what any particular jury is going to do.
Each jury is unique.
Each juror is unique.
And then when 12 jurors get together, they take on a collective identity that in and of itself is unique.
So the answer to your question is, is we're going to have to wait to see what the jury does,
because I don't know that anybody can predict what they're thinking, what they're feeling, let alone what they're seeing and hearing.
And Howard, isn't it also true, excuse me, I sound like I'm F. Lee Bailey.
Don't juries usually surprise, not usually, quite often surprise attorneys with what they come up with?
It has been my experience that jurors, when it's all said and done, after all the haggling, after all the motions,
after all of either the misleading and leading nature of questions, generally speaking, do the right thing, sometimes for the right reasons,
sometimes maybe not for the right reasons.
But it's been my experience that the jury system really works.
We have a lot of faith in it, or most people do, and there's good reason to have faith in it.
And I see a lot of people now concerned that maybe one juror will get misled.
We don't know what this jury's thinking or doing. This trial is far from over.
We need to sit back, let the evidence unfold, let the jury reach a decision, and then we can judge it.
But when it's all said and done, it's still the best system in the world today.
Howard, your grade, give Mark Fuhrman a grade.
I think Mark Fuhrman has done an excellent job. I think he's remained unflappable.
I think that Mr. Bailey is trying to agitate him, trying to engage him.
He's sitting back, he's answering yes, he's answering no. He hasn't gotten a rise.
Mr. Bailey hasn't gotten a rise out of him yet.
The question's going to be, will these other witnesses be able to tarnish the credibility of Detective Fuhrman
so that when the jury looks back on him and says, you know, if he lied about this, he may be lying about that.
And if he lied about those two things, well, just maybe. Maybe he could have planted the glove.
I have a doubt. Now they have to determine if that doubt's reasonable.
So it is the beginning for the defense of attempting to plant the seeds of doubt.
Alright, thanks very much, Howard. We're going to continue to monitor here at the Satellite Center.
If the judge doesn't break at 6 o'clock as he has told the jury he's going to do, we'll take you back live to Los Angeles.
In the meantime, let's go to 7 News at 6.
Alright, thanks a lot, Patrick. I'm Rick Sanchez along with Jessica Gary.
This is 7 News at 6 o'clock. Obviously we're watching round two of Bailey versus Fuhrman.
In the meantime, what we want to do is we want to go out to California and Los Angeles where Shepherd Smith is the only South Florida reporter still covering this trial.
Let's turn it over to Shepherd.
Jessica, fireworks promised, fireworks del...