Murder in Brentwood (28 page)

CLARK: Okay, and is that the rear gale where you just described seeing the blood dropping on the lower rear- lower rung and the middle and then the smudge on the latch?

FUHRMAN: Yes.

CLARK: And what else were you able to see on that gate, sir?

FUHRMAN: Not at that time, but later, I saw a partial possible fingerprint that was on that knob area.

CLARK: Did you then walk through the rear gate, sir, with officer Riske and Detective Phillips?

I’m not an attorney, but I have been questioned in hundreds of criminal trials. To me the obvious next question should have been, “Did anyone see this possible fingerprint other than you?” But Marcia didn’t ask this.

Instead of following up on a seemingly obvious line of questioning, Marcia continued with the slow and methodical depiction of my movements, observations, and conduct at the Bundy scene. As Marcia led me through the facts, there came a point when the importance of my notes came to light.

CLARK: Okay, and when you say the first round of notes, sir, can you explain a little bit more what you mean by

that?

FUHRMAN: Most of these notes were what Officer Riske was pointing out to Detective Phillips and myself, and

what I observed.

CLARK: What did you intend to do-were these rough notes?

FUHRMAN: Yes.

CLARK: What did you intend to do with these notes later on?

FUHRMAN: Use them to go back to these areas and use them as a guide in what to go back to and prioritize them.

In her direct questions concerning my notes, Marcia actually had me describe what Vanillin should have done after receiving them. He should have analyzed the various evidence and put priority on fragile items such as the fingerprint, a piece of evidence that should have been isolated and recovered.

Marcia continued, asking questions about each item listed in my notes. When she arrived at item #15, the blood smudge and fingerprint, she asked what I saw, but once again did not ask what I thought about those items or who else observed them.

The trial progressed rather slowly, breaking down every thought, movement, and discovery into testimony. The trip to Rockingham was covered, as were the observations that first brought the Bronco into questionable light-the blood on the drivers door.

As the questioning reached the end of my second day of testimony on Friday, March 10, Clark had me introduce the shovel and plastic sheeting found in Simpson’s Bronco. Clark also had me introduce the piece of wood found near the Bronco on the parkway. The shovel was just as I remembered it, as was the piece of wood, but as I opened the package containing the plastic and unfolded it I realized that it was in fact a large bag. I had never been told anything about this item of evidence since I saw it on June 13, 1994. As I described to the court my actions of unwrapping and unfolding the plastic, you had to hear the surprise in my voice. I wondered why nobody had told me it was just a plastic bag.

Over the weekend, the prosecution learned that some Broncos, including Simpson’s, were equipped with these factory bags in which to place a flat tire to keep the dirt from soiling the interior if the tire needed to be transported. It was kind of embarrassing to introduce evidence the detectives, or SID, never even looked at, much less determined what it actually was.

On Monday, March 13, court was once again in session and I was on the stand.

Marcia had attempted to end Friday with the introduction of the Bronco evidence and the speculation of what it meant. By Monday she had to clear up an obvious mistake, and I was the witness she had to use.

CLARK: Okay, now that plastic, do you happen to know whether it belongs in a Bronco or anything about it?

FUHRMAN: Well, now I do.

CLARK: And what’s that?

FUHRMAN: It is the spare tire bag.

CLARK: Okay.

FUHRMAN: In other words, when a tire is taken off the vehicle and it is dirty, you place it in the bag so you can

place it in the cargo area.

CLARK: And that is standard equipment for a Ford Bronco, is it?

FUHRMAN: I was told it was, yes.

We should have known this information before trial. As it happened, we looked a little foolish that day.

The description of my movements, thoughts, and conclusions were reduced to testimony. From the scaling of the wall to the discovery of the Rockingham glove, Clark walked me through the case, step by step, as if she were clearing a minefield.

Judge Ito called a fifteen-minute break. When the court resumed, I once again took my place in the witness chair. Before the judge ordered the bailiff to summon the jurors, it was decided that Bailey would be heard on a motion. In his motion, citing the “Anthony P.” case, Bailey successfully argued that the people had opened me up for cross-examination on several issues, including race. Marcia’s preemptive strike had backfired.

Chapter 20

CROSSING THE LINE

Bailey’s continual use of the “n” word...did nothing but heighten racial tensions both inside and outside the courtroom, and it was completely unnecessary.

ROBERT SHAPIRO

THE MEDIA HYPE before I took the stand to face the great F. Lee Bailey was more like the cheap theatrics before a heavyweight fight. The famous trial lawyer said that “any lawyer in his right mind who would not look forward to cross-examining Mark Fuhrman is an idiot.” Then he compared me to Hitler. He promised that he would perform the most “annihilating, character-assassinating” cross-examination ever.

Of course all this hype was created, planned, and exploited by the defense. We listened, not in fear, but in amusement to Bailey’s claims that he would prove the Rockingham glove was planted. I knew that was impossible. But to say that I wasn’t nervous would be untrue. A lot of people were counting on me, and I certainly put a lot of pressure on myself. And despite everything she said later, Marcia Clark had confidence in me. I fell that if I look the stand, told the truth, and didn’t let Bailey shake me, everything would he all right.

During a statement to the court just prior to his cross-examination of me, Bailey made an assertion that he could never prove, and he knew it. He said I was “.. .definitely a suspect for having carried that glove from Bundy where he found it to Rockingham where he deposited it, and that’s what we intend to show by circumstantial evidence far stronger than the people will offer against O.J. Simpson on the murders.” Bailey had a better chance of being abducted by aliens at lunch than proving I had planted any evidence.

After Bailey guaranteed the court that he would produce evidence that I planted the Rockingham glove, he began his cross-examination of me. Bailey likes to think of himself as a tough guy. He struts around the courtroom like a thug, wearing elevator shoes to make himself look taller. Even when Bailey tries to appear civil, every smile seems planned and ingenuous. Meanwhile, he’s plotting his attack on some undeserving witness. Although he had a coffee cup and water glass at the defense table, he kept drinking from a short stainless steel thermos that he brought into the courtroom. I have no idea what was in that thermos, but it appeared to stimulate him.

He came out with questions regarding the shovel and the plastic, but did not ask about the piece of wood found lying on the parkway in front of the Rockingham estate. In review of the transcript, that seems odd-perhaps he wanted to play down its importance.

Then Bailey asked me about the taped interrogation of Simpson by Lange and Vannatter. Bailey became agitated that he couldn’t get me to admit that I had talked to Lange and Vannatter about the interview. But I hadn’t. I knew the important point of the interview without asking anyone its content, that Simpson hadn’t confessed.

Bailey shifted gears and began routine background questions to lay the foundation of his next line of questioning. Moving on to the Bundy crime scene, he questioned my abilities as a homicide detective in subtle ways. He made snide insinuations that I would lake Kiske’s word about evidence at the scene, or that I neglected to notice the word “Daddy” on the telephone speed dialer.

The cross-examination was not without its moments of humor. Bailey asked me about the grand jury room practice session, and I told him that I was asked only a total of maybe ten questions by three different lawyers. Bailey was flabbergasted.

BAILEY: Do you know of any lawyer on this earth who is capable of asking only three questions?

FUHRMAN: Not currently.

As the courtroom audience laughed, Bailey said, “Touché.”

At another point in the cross, Bailey went over my interview with Kato Kaelin. I described my technique of questioning, often changing topics to keep the subject off-guard, and sometimes interrupting his answers to ask new questions.

BAILEY: Do you normally ask somebody a question and then before they have a chance to answer, cut them off and ask another one?

The great trial lawyer had done this so often to me already that the audience simply broke out in laughter at Bailey. I answered his question, and for once Bailey did not cut me off.

Bailey slowly walked me through my observations, notations, and conclusions about the Bundy scene without any startling revelations. I continued to make eye contact with Bailey. Whenever he looked up to pose another question, I was staring him right in the eye. He did not intimidate me.

The cross-examination suddenly changed from the Bundy scene to the Kathleen Bell letter. Bailey dissected this issue six ways to Sunday, but I honestly could not remember Kathleen Hell or her friend Andrea Terry.

During this area of questioning, Bailey tried to compare the finding of the Rockingham glove with my memory of Kathleen Bell, by asking, “Now, Detective Fuhrman, are you as satisfied with the quality of the truth of your denial of knowing Kathleen Bell as you are of your claim that you found the right-handed glove on Mr. Simpson’s property? Is the quality of the truth of those two statements the same, or is one stronger than the other, if you know?”

If I know? Hell, I couldn’t figure out what he said. It didn’t make much sense, and if it did, what a whopper of a compound question! Luckily Clark objected that the question was vague, and Ito sustained the objection.

When the court recessed for lunch, I returned to the “O.J. room.” As I passed case coordinator Patty Jo Fairbanks s desk, she stopped me and told me I was doing great and handed me a fist full of florist cards. People were sending lots of flowers. Patty Jo and I talked briefly, and we decided that the flowers should be sent to the Children’s Hospital, and so she sent twenty-five or thirty arrangements there. I kept the cards.

I think everyone should know that this case could not even have gotten off the ground had it not been for Patty Jo. She was beyond indispensable, and probably the best source for accurate information. Patty Jo is a genuine “great person,” and I’m glad I know her and consider her a friend. She has called me several times since the verdict and reassured me that the failure of this case was not my fault. With some friends, this would not have the same impact because it is an emotional response, but Patty Jo knew the truth in this case.

Some of my friends were in the district attorney’s office watching my testimony, and at every break they offered support and praise. Retired Lieutenant Chuck Higbey, a legend in the LAPD who led the Officer Involved Shooting Team, sat with me and gave me confidence, laughed with me, and made me stand tall. I was honored and still am that this man gave me the time of day, let alone his friendship. My attorney Bob Tourtelot sat in the “O.J. room” throughout my testimony, especially important to me during Baileys questioning.

Back in court, Bailey continued his cross, still on the Bundy scene. While he asked a series of questions regarding the viewing of a wound on Ron Goldman’s body from the vantage point of the north fence, Bailey tried to establish that I took some evidence from the scene.

BAILEY: There is a problem that has been brought to your attention, isn’t there Detective Fuhrman?

FUHRMAN: No.

BAILEY: When discussing this event in the preliminary hearing and talking about the glove, your tongue slipped

and you said “them” didn’t you?

FUHRMAN: Yes.

BAILEY: And you have examined that in the transcript, haven’t you?

FUHRMAN: Yes.

BAILEY: And you know it has been played on video to the jury? The word “them” is clear?

FUHRMAN: Yes.

BAILEY: That is a slip of the tongue?

FUHRMAN: No.

BAILEY: It was not, okay. Now when Vannatter came, you were off the case?

Bailey infuriated me with his inference, trying to establish that I look a glove from Bundy. The word “them” referred to the one glove and a knit cap at the Bundy scene, not another glove. I thought there should have been an objection right there, as Bailey misstated the preliminary hearing testimony simply by not reading the testimony before and after my statement about them.”

Moving on to the Rockingham estate, Bailey went through the various items of evidence, Kato’s statements about the thumps on his wall, and my investigation of those noises which led to the discovery of the bloody glove behind Kato’s room. While appearing to focus on the pathway, reciting distances and estimates of a man’s walk in a minutes, he asked:

BAILEY: All right. Did you know there was blood in the Bronco?

FUHRMAN: No.

BAILEY: Have you ever testified that there was blood in the Bronco?

FUHRMAN: I’m not sure if we testified to that in the prelim or not.

BAILEY: Did you wipe a glove in the Bronco, Detective Fuhrman?

Bailey is using classic interrogation-type questioning, going down one path, and then without warning, switching gears to launch a new line of inquiry. I hope most people can see the fallacy of Baileys accusation here. He accuses me of wiping the bloody glove found at Rockingham in the Bronco to account for the blood inside.

Did Bailey even realize that what he claimed was impossible? The bloody glove contained blood from both victims and Simpson, so how could I wipe the glove on the driver’s side carpet in the Bronco and leave evidence of only Ron and Nicole’s blood? The driver of the vehicle had these two blood mixes on his shoe soles when he entered and drove the Bronco, transferring the blood to the carpet. Wiping the glove on anything would have left traces of all three. But Bailey conveniently forgot these crucial details in his attempt to paint his conspiracy scenario. Also, Bailey seemed to forget that Simpson admitted to Vannatter and Lange that he had bled in his home, on the driveway, and in the Bronco.