Dispute Over Tape Interrupts Simpson Trial

The potentially crucial testimony of Rosa Lopez, a housekeeper who could bolster O.J. Simpson’s alibi but whose credibility is in question, was interrupted Tuesday by disclosure of the contents of a tape-recording that prosecutors say casts new doubt on Lopez’s truthfulness.

Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito, who has won Lopez’s repeated assurances that she will not leave the country until her testimony is completed, extracted yet another promise of cooperation from her Tuesday afternoon. But Lopez has grown increasingly assertive in the courtroom, and her latest pledge was delivered grudgingly and conditionally.

“I am very tired,” she told the judge. “I want to rest, sir. I don’t want any more questions.”

With that, Lopez wheeled and started to leave the courtroom, even though Ito had indicated that he wanted her to continue her special examination until the end of the day. Ito called her back and asked her whether she understood his order that she was to return Thursday for more testimony.

She said she did, and Ito allowed her to leave for the day, canceling the remainder of the session while the jury and alternates whiled away the afternoon at their hotel--where they probably will remain for the rest of the week.

Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., Simpson’s lead trial attorney, is expected to resume his questioning of Lopez on Thursday morning, to be followed by Deputy Dist. Atty. Christopher A. Darden’s cross-examination, a session that could last all day.

In part, the lengthy arguments and questioning reflect the potentially great significance of Lopez’s testimony. She is the only witness to emerge so far who claims to be able to support Simpson’s alibi in the June 12 murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman, to which Simpson has pleaded not guilty.

Lopez testified Monday that she saw Simpson’s vehicle outside his house shortly after 10 p.m. on June 12, roughly the time that prosecutors believe the murders were committed.

If true, that would cast grave doubt on the prosecution’s theory that Simpson committed the murders, then drove from the murder scene to his Brentwood estate in his Ford Bronco, which would account for bloodstains found inside that vehicle.

By contrast, if prosecutors can show that Lopez is lying, it would deprive the defense of Simpson’s only known alibi witness and could make the defense team appear desperate in its efforts to defend the former football star.

With the stakes so high over Lopez’s testimony, Ito has been unusually accommodating of her in the face of her threats to leave the country and become unavailable to testify. Some legal experts were particularly surprised to see Ito call off Tuesday’s session early just because Lopez said she was too tired to continue.

“This was so bizarre,” said USC law professor Erwin Chemerinksy. “When was the last time you saw a witness say to the judge, ‘I’m tired, I’m not answering any more questions,’ and leave the courtroom? Imagine if (Los Angeles Police Detective) Mark Fuhrman said at 3 o’clock on a Tuesday, ‘I’m tired, I’m not testifying any more today.’ ”

Chemerinksy added: “She is a material witness. She doesn’t get to dictate the court schedule.”

Lopez’s truthfulness has been the central preoccupation of the Simpson trial since she took the stand Friday, asking for permission to be questioned as soon as possible so that she could leave the country for her native El Salvador. In her initial appearance, prosecutors leaped on a number of inconsistencies in her claims that she was preparing to leave and not return.

Since then, they have accused Lopez of telling different stories about her observations on the night of the murders, and they have contended that the defense team coached her answers and covered up discrepancies by failing to turn over reports and tapes until the last minute.

Just before Lopez took the stand Monday, defense attorneys turned over a statement given to their investigator July 29 but not previously shared with the prosecution. Prosecutors were angered by the late disclosure, but defense lawyer Carl A. Douglas promised that the report marked the last of their material related to Lopez, who lived and worked next door to O.J. Simpson.

But that assurance was contradicted by their own private investigator, former Los Angeles Police Detective Bill Pavelic. Called into court at the end of the day, Pavelic revealed that he had a tape-recording of a July 29 interview with her.

Prosecutors were furious to learn of that tape so late in the process, and their anger was stoked again Tuesday after listening to the tape for the first time.

“I have never heard anything like that,” said Deputy Dist. Atty. Marcia Clark after listening to the 15-minute cassette. “I have never heard a witness basically coached and told what to say through every bend and turn.”

In court Tuesday, Clark pointed out two of what she said were many inconsistencies between the tape-recorded statement and later reports or testimony: Contrary to the investigator’s report of the interview, Lopez did not mention on the tape an acquaintance named “Sylvia” who could support her recollections; also contrary to Lopez’s testimony Monday, she claimed on the tape to have heard Simpson’s voice across the fence about 10 p.m., about when the murders were allegedly being committed.

Throughout both statements and the transcript of the tape-recording--copies of which were obtained by The Times--Lopez never wavers on the central point of her testimony, however: that she saw Simpson’s Ford Bronco outside his house about 8:30 p.m. on June 12 and that it did not appear to have been moved before the next morning, when she saw it in the same position.

When she testified Monday, Lopez said she heard Simpson’s voice from next door, but she placed the time at about 11 p.m., when Simpson was meeting a limousine that took him to the airport. Lopez, who testified that she had been looking at her bedside clock throughout the evening, never said she had seen or heard Simpson about 10 p.m., when she said she went outside.

In addition, copies of the two statements prepared by Pavelic reveal that they are substantially the same, but there are discrepancies as well. Most significantly, in the report of the July interview, Lopez never explicitly refers to seeing Simpson’s vehicle outside his house about 10:15 p.m. She merely states that it did not appear to have been moved between about 8:30 p.m. that night and the next morning.

In the July statement, Pavelic wrote: “Ms. Lopez stated that at approximately (10:15 p.m. to 10:20 p.m.), she took her dog for a walk and five minutes later she returned to her residence.”

The next notation in the July 29 report refers to hearing Simpson’s voice at about 11 p.m.

But in the Aug. 18 report, Pavelic added a sentence with a more specific account of Lopez’s observations while walking the dog: “During this time,” Pavelic wrote, “Ms. Lopez again observed O.J. Simpson’s Bronco to be parked in the same position near the Rockingham gate.”

The later report, with its more helpful version of Lopez’s testimony, was the only document shared with prosecutors before the day that Lopez took the stand.

A transcript of the tape-recording of the July interview, however, backs the defense’s contention that Lopez has all along maintained that the car was parked outside at that time.

According to the transcript, which also was obtained by The Times, Pavelic asked Lopez: “So you take your dog for a walk about 10:15?

“10:15,” she responded.

“10:30, OK.” Pavelic said.

“Yeah,” Lopez said.

“Now, when you took your dog for a walk, could you still see the Bronco outside?” Pavelic asked.

“Yes, yes,” she answered.

“The Bronco was in the same position?” the investigator continued.

“Same position, with the tires going out,” Lopez answered.

That transcript could strengthen Lopez’s credibility and head off prosecution arguments that she only remembered seeing the car in the second interview. The transcript does, however, suggest that Lopez, who speaks little English, was led through her answers by Pavelic, often merely answering yes or no as Pavelic posed detailed questions.

The July report also refers to “Sylvia,” a witness who Lopez allegedly told the investigator also saw Simpson’s Ford Bronco parked outside the house that evening. That would corroborate Lopez’s account, but prosecutors say that Sylvia Guerra disputes Lopez’s version and is prepared to testify.

Defense attorneys say the references to Sylvia, whose name does not appear in the transcript of the tape, were deleted from the Aug. 18 report at Lopez’s request because Sylvia, who is in the country illegally, did not want to be contacted by authorities.

Rarely at a loss for words, Clark was reduced to sputtering with anger about the late disclosure of those reports and the tape, which she said warranted severe sanctions against the defense for misconduct.

“To hear this tape was, was just, I’m speechless,” she said, shaking her head. “I’m speechless. To think that there was, I’m speechless. . . . I’ve never seen anything like it.”

Cochran accused Clark of overreacting to the tape’s contents and said the tape shows that Lopez was “entirely consistent,” not the coached liar that prosecutors portray her to be.

Although Cochran conceded that there were differences in the details of the reports written by Pavelic a few weeks apart, he downplayed the significance of the differences and noted that the reports were done in the investigator’s words. Only the tape is Lopez’s verbatim account, he said, adding that he is confident that it will not undermine the witness’s credibility with the jury.

“Let’s play it for the jury,” Cochran said.

Cochran said he too was surprised to learn of the existence of the tape in court Monday, and Pavelic told Ito that he had not told any of the attorneys about the tape before Monday’s hearing. Ito, however, seemed to doubt Pavelic’s truthfulness, noting that he got slightly different answers about the existence of additional reports or notes concerning Lopez before and after placing Pavelic under oath.

Although Ito acknowledged that he had not at first questioned Pavelic specifically about a tape-recording, Pavelic had not volunteered that information either, and Ito accused the investigator of not responding in the spirit of the question--which was intended to determine whether additional information existed.

Ito has asked lawyers and investigators to be in court today so that he can question them about compliance with state evidence-sharing laws. Prosecutors have asked that the defense be punished for withholding documents, reports, notes and other materials related to Lopez and to defense experts mentioned by Cochran in his opening statement.

Although few experts predict that Ito will resolve all the remaining evidence questions today, the session offers him an opportunity to grapple with the issue and to avoid wasting the day entirely.

Although Lopez is scheduled to continue her interrupted testimony Thursday, her respect for Ito and even his apologies have not softened her apparent determination to leave for El Salvador.

After Tuesday’s session, she appeared bitterly disappointed that she would not be able to leave today, as she had hoped. When the hearing concluded, she sat down on the edge of a hallway bench in the courthouse, buried her head in her hands and wept. She was comforted by Simpson’s friend Robert Kardashian and by various members of Simpson’s family.

The sight of the well-known figures hunched over the crying woman attracted a crowd of gawkers, and after a few minutes, the small contingent headed back into the courtroom. Lopez was allowed to leave the building by a special exit, avoiding the crowds of reporters and camera operators who have set up camp outside every day.

In another development Tuesday, a transcript released by the court offered the first official confirmation of the interest that the judge and lawyers have taken in allegations regarding one of the jurors, a 46-year-old African American man whom prosecutors want ousted from the panel. The Times reported last week that Ito had tentatively decided to excuse that juror because of a past incident of domestic abuse involving him that he did not disclose on his extensive juror questionnaire.

The lawyers have declined to comment on allegations of juror misconduct, saying Ito has asked them not to. But in the transcript of the discussion of Lopez’s testimony, Ito refers to the juror by his number and says, “We’ll worry about (him) and this other problem probably not until Wednesday.”

Prosecutors have been particularly concerned about that juror--who wore a San Francisco 49ers cap during a recent jury field trip and who paused over photographs of Simpson at the former football player’s house despite Ito’s admonition to jurors to ignore the pictures.

The prolonged arguing over Lopez’s testimony has left the jury out of court for several days and has delayed the long-anticipated appearance on the witness stand of Detective Fuhrman.

On Tuesday, Los Angeles Police Department sources confirmed that Deputy Dist. Atty. William Hodgman had asked the department’s Internal Affairs Division to investigate two allegations against the detective: that he had once possessed Nazi paraphernalia and that he had commented on Nicole Simpson’s anatomy and possibly suggested that he had had a relationship with her.

Police sources said those allegations were determined to be unfounded, however, and that their conclusions have been shared with the district attorney’s office.

Fuhrman’s background has been the subject of intense scrutiny for months, and his lawyer, Robert Tourtelot, wrote to the Los Angeles County Grand Jury on Tuesday asking for an investigation into how some of the detective’s personnel records had landed in the hands of journalists. There was no immediate response.

Times staff writer Henry Weinstein contributed to this article.