Domestic Violence, Duels & Calling Me a Liar

Apparently, there seems to be some issues regarding yesterdays post. Mainly, it seems to be a few people writing in to “discuss” some “glaring” factual inaccuracies in my post. Really?! Basically what’s happened here is I’ve been called out as having told an untruth. Were it to pass that I had been posting this blog in the 17th Century I would challenge the scoundrel to a duel… Duels have somewhat fallen out of fashion as of late, but for those uninitiated, the goal of the honourable duel was often not so much to kill the opponent as to gain “satisfaction”, that is, to restore one’s honour by demonstrating a willingness to risk one’s life for it….  So, beg pardon Sir/Madam, but count yourselves fortunate, as I am something of a skilled marksman.

.

I shall rise above the barbaric and resort to more modern means of proving the veracity of my claim… Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I implore you to look at the facts… I’ll have the court stenographer read the relevant part of the transcript back to you;

THE COURT: Okay. You may resume.

THOMAS LANGE, the witness on the stand at the time of the recess, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:

CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Now, Detective Lange, you wrote — co-authored a murder follow-up report, did you not?

A. I believe it was part of one. I’d have to see what you were referring to. There were several.

Q. And that’s a report that you co-authored, correct?

A. Actually, I’m the one who wrote it.

Q. You did write it?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, you indicated that you hadn’t known of any domestic violence before you went to Mr. Simpson’s estate, correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. Tell me if I’m reading this right: Upon arrival at the crime scene, detectives were met by Detective 3 – Ron Phillips, a West Los Angeles Division homicide coordinator. Phillips stated the victim Brown was the ex-wife of O.J. Simpson, the well-known athlete/actor. Additionally, Phillips stated that Mr. Simpson and victim 1 had been embroiled in previous domestic violence litigation, one of them resulting in the arrest of Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson resided at 360 North Rockingham Place in Brentwood, approximately two miles from the crime scene. You then continue on: Detectives followed up to the Simpson residence for the purpose of death notification and to check on Simpson’s welfare. That’s what you wrote in your murder follow-up report, is it not, sir?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And so you had knowledge before you went up to Simpson’s residence that, in fact, there had been a previous domestic abuse because you’d been told that by Detective Phillips, correct?

A. No, no, that’s not correct.

Q. Thank you very much, sir you’ve answered the question.

MR. MEDVENE: Court please?

THE WITNESS: I did. I said no. And I’ll gave you an explanation, if you’d like it.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Let me ask you a couple more questions. You then state in here that, I went up to the Simpson residence for the purpose of death notification and to check on Simpson. There’s no mention whatsoever of any welfare of the children, is there, sir?

A. I don’t believe in that paragraph that there is, no.

Q. Now, in terms of your being at the crime scene at 875 South Bundy, it was you, was it not, who requested somebody to get a blanket to place over the body of Nicole Brown Simpson?

A. Actually, I requested a sheet.

Q. And you, being a veteran detective, knew that if you put something over the body, that contamination can and does occur, correct?

A. Not necessarily, no.

Q. Well, you wanted to make every effort, did you not, Mr. Lange, to ensure that there would be no contamination that would inhibit in any way the finding of trace evidence, such as hair and fiber, true?

A. Contamination —

Q. True or untrue —

A. — compromise?

Q. — true or untrue.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, the witness should be able to answer the question, Your Honor. It’s only fair he be able to answer it.

THE COURT: You may answer that question.

Read that question back to the witness.

(The reporter read the record as follows:) “Q. Well, you wanted to make every effort, did you not, Mr. Lange, to ensure that there would be no contamination that would inhibit in any way the finding of trace evidence, such as hair and fiber, true?”

THE WITNESS: Certainly.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So you directed some officer to get a sheet, not a blanket?

A I originally said a sheet. I asked him for a sheet; that’s correct.

Q. They said a blanket. That was Officer Thompson — strike that. Yeah. It was Officer Thompson?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Yeah. If he said a blanket, he’d be mistaken?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. That’s not what the testimony is.

THE COURT: Sustained. That was not what the testimony was.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) When Officer Thompson came to you with the blanket, did you allow it to be placed over the body of Nicole Brown Simpson?

A. Yes. I sent him for a sheet; he returned with a blanket. He couldn’t find a clean sheet, so he returned with a clean blanket. That was his explanation to me.

MR. BAKER: Move to strike as nonresponsive, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It may remain.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you allow the blanket to be placed over the body of Nicole Brown Simpson?

A. Yes.

Ladies and Gentlemen, having the actual transcript read back to you — when confronted with this incontrovertible proof – It becomes clear that not only was my post of yesterday both factually correct and historically accurate but, one of the defining moments in american legal jurisprudence.

Dammit, sorry folks, the stenographer read back the wrong transcript. That was of course from the OJ Simpson trial. Cripes, don’t get me started on that whole mess — If we had more time I could tell you what really happened behind the scenes and how I ended up, well probably ended up, causing the LA Riots, unfortunately we are out of time for today. Perhaps another time…..

Have a Great Day.

Advertisements