THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL : Limo Driver Says He Did Not See Simpson Bronco

Adding significant details to the account he gave last summer, the limousine driver who took O.J. Simpson to the airport June 12 said Tuesday that he had looked carefully at the curb outside Simpson’s house when he arrived at the estate and did not see the defendant’s white Ford Bronco parked there.

That testimony, bolstered by phone records and driver Allan Park’s observations and frequent glances at his watch that night, is potentially damaging to Simpson because it suggests that the defendant was not home just before 10:25 p.m., when Park arrived to take him to the airport. Prosecutors maintain that Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman were murdered about 10:15 p.m. and that Simpson rushed home in his Bronco after committing that attack.

Simpson has pleaded not guilty.

During cross-examination, Park offered a bit of testimony that also favors the defense: He said he had the opportunity to see Simpson’s hands that night and noticed no cuts, bandages or any other injuries. Park also acknowledged that he never heard a car pull up to Simpson’s house while he waited for Simpson to answer the door, and that his attention was not focused on looking for parked cars that evening but rather on delivering his customer to the airport.

Under questioning from Simpson attorney Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., Park also testified that Simpson helped the driver with directions to the airport, thought to give him a 20% tip and paused to sign an autograph while rushing for his plane--actions that defense attorneys say are inconsistent with the way a person would behave just an hour after committing a brutal double murder.

“You think a man who would be involved in a case like this would be worried about a 20% tip or would be worried about signing autographs at the airport with no blood or anything on his finger?” Cochran asked outside court, adding that he considered Park a “wonderful” witness.

Nevertheless, more than that of any other witness called so far, Park’s testimony helps prosecutors suggest that Simpson was out of his house during the time the murders were committed, especially because Park also testified that he saw a black person about six feet tall and weighing about 200 pounds stride through Simpson’s front door about 10:55 p.m.

Park said he had been ringing the intercom buzzer at the gate for several minutes before the person entered Simpson’s house. Once the person darted inside, Park said, he tried again, and this time Simpson answered, apologizing for having overslept and promising to be down in a few minutes.

*

After Park described that figure, Deputy Dist. Atty. Marcia Clark asked Simpson to stand, and the defendant quickly scooted his chair back and rose to his feet without waiting for direction from Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito. As he rose, Simpson grinned slightly and pulled on the buttons of his olive-green suit coat.

Asked whether Simpson resembled the shadowy figure who entered the house, Park replied: “Yes, around that size.”

Brian (Kato) Kaelin, Simpson’s house guest, testified last week that as far as he knew, only Simpson, Simpson’s daughter and a housekeeper had keys to that door.

Timing is essential to both sides in the case, as is testimony about where the defendant’s Bronco was at various times during the evening of June 12 when Goldman and Nicole Simpson were slashed and stabbed to death in Brentwood. Through his lawyers, Simpson has said he was home at the time of the killings, either napping or chipping golf balls in his front yard.

In his testimony, Park said Simpson’s yard was dark, an observation that might call into question whether the former football star was out practicing his golf swing. Cochran raised yet another possibility, however, asking Park whether the person he saw entering the house shortly before 11 p.m. might have been wearing a robe. Park said it was possible because he caught only a fleeting glimpse of the person, and the question suggested that defense lawyers may argue that Simpson was getting his bags together and showering just before answering the intercom.

Prosecutors have not yet had a chance to question Park about that scenario, but they have tried to establish that Simpson was not at home in part by suggesting that his car--which was stained with blood when examined after the murders--had been moved on the night of the killings. Park’s testimony Tuesday supported that contention by indicating that he had not seen the vehicle when he arrived to pick up Simpson and take him to the airport.

After making two passes by the Rockingham Avenue gate to Simpson’s estate, Park ended up waiting outside the other entrance to the property, around the corner on Ashford Street. The Bronco was found parked outside the Rockingham gate the next morning, but Park said he had not seen it there when he was arriving to pick up Simpson.

“Was that white Bronco there at the time you drove by at 10:22 p.m.?” Clark asked.

“I didn’t see it,” Park responded.

“And you were looking at that curb, were you not?” Clark asked.

“Yes,” said Park, who testified that he saw the number to Simpson’s house painted on the curb just a few feet from where police found the Bronco the next morning. To emphasize the point, Clark showed the jury a photograph of the Bronco parked near the number on the curb.

Park also testified that Simpson complained about the heat two or three times as the car rushed to the airport. Clark elicited those responses and emphasized their significance for the jury by asking whether it was a warm or a cool evening.

Park said it had been foggy and cool. “Normal June gloom,” he said.

Although Park had previously testified before the grand jury and at the preliminary hearing that he had not seen the car that night, Tuesday was the first time that he described looking for the address at the curb. That testimony strengthened his account by making it unlikely that he had simply overlooked the car as he drove past the residence.

Park said he had remembered that detail after discussing his actions that night with his mother, who surfaced several times during his testimony and who was in court Tuesday for her son’s testimony. She sat next to one of the investigating officers in the case.

As he had at last summer’s preliminary hearing, Park delivered his testimony in flat tones, and his even-tempered account and low-key mannerisms were especially notable on the heels of Kaelin’s animated, sometimes hyperkinetic testimony. Near the end of the day, Park made one small quip, joking that he had told his boss that Simpson asked him to tack a 50% tip onto the limousine tab for the rush trip to the airport that night.

*

But where Kaelin had relished his own occasional jokes, Park quickly stepped back from his one attempt at humor, insisting that he was just kidding. The actual amount, Park said, was 20%.

In most respects, Park’s testimony conformed to what he said during his two earlier appearances, but there were a few differences. Besides adding to his testimony the search for the numbers on the curb, Park also slightly altered his account of where he first saw the shadowy figure who strode into the Simpson house.

During the preliminary hearing, Park said he saw that figure in the driveway, while Tuesday he said he had only noticed the person just outside the entrance to Simpson’s home. Before the grand jury, Park said that person appeared to be a man, but at the preliminary hearing and the trial he has been more careful, saying that he could not be sure whether it was a man or a woman.

Pressed on that point at the preliminary hearing, Park responded that although he could not be absolutely sure whether it was a man or a woman, at six feet tall and 200 pounds, the person would have been a “pretty big female.”

Park’s testimony suggesting that Simpson’s car was not in front of the house at 10:25 p.m. contradicts the recollection of Rosa Lopez, a Salvadoran housekeeper who lived and worked next door to Simpson and who has testified that the car did not appear to have moved anytime between about 8 p.m. on the night of the murders and the next morning.

But the jury has not yet heard from Lopez, and it may never do so, given the credibility problems that prosecutors attempted to raise with respect to her. That makes the limousine driver’s account even more important as it is the only testimony that the jury has heard so far about the whereabouts of Simpson’s car during the key time frame.

Park also slightly altered his account of whether he had seen any car parked outside Simpson’s home when he left from the Rockingham gate shortly after 11 p.m. Earlier, Park had said he saw nothing there, but Tuesday he testified that something had obstructed his view, although he could not recall what it was.

Cochran, Simpson’s lead trial lawyer, gently pointed out to Park that he had never before told anyone in any official interview that something had obstructed his view. Ever agreeable, Park conceded that he had not, but did not explain that new wrinkle to his testimony.

Moreover, Park acknowledged under Cochran’s subtle cross-examination that he had not heard any cars pull up that evening, even though he was just around the corner. That could help bolster the defense account that the Ford Bronco was there all along and that Park merely overlooked it.

As he did at the preliminary hearing, Park testified carefully and methodically, noting that he had glanced frequently at his watch and clock in the car that evening because he was concerned about picking up Simpson and getting him to the airport on time. In addition, prosecutors produced phone records not used during the preliminary hearing that also support Park’s account by showing exactly what time he made calls when Simpson did not answer the intercom at his gate.

In each instance, the phone records backed up Park’s memory.

Cochran concluded the day’s session on a high note for Simpson. After taking Park quickly through the events that evening, Cochran homed in on whether the driver had found anything that would directly suggest Simpson’s involvement in a bloody homicide less than an hour before he got inside the limousine.

“There was no blood in the back of that car, was there?” Cochran asked.

“No,” he said.

“No blood on the carpet of that car, was there?” the defense attorney continued.

“No,” Park answered again.

“You didn’t see him bleeding that night, did you?” Cochran then asked.

“No,” came the same reply.

The limousine driver took the stand following the brusque conclusion of Kaelin’s testimony, which ended with prosecutor Clark launching a final blast at the credibility of a witness she had called. In her last round of questioning, Clark posed a series of queries about Kaelin’s legal representation and suggested that he had a financial stake in the case.

Several legal analysts took offense at that line of questioning, particularly because it seemed to imply that Kaelin’s attorney, William Genego, was somehow tainted by his representation of the aspiring actor. Genego is a highly respected criminal defense lawyer.

“I was offended by what Clark did Tuesday morning,” said Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor. “The inference she wanted the jury to draw was that Kato expects a monetary benefit from his testimony and that he is receiving benefits because he is getting free legal assistance. Bill Genego is the kind of lawyer who would represent someone for free because it’s the right thing to do.”

Barry Tarlow, a well-known Los Angeles defense attorney, agreed.

“It’s a cheap shot,” Tarlow said. “It’s an attempt to con the jury. Bill Genego is one of the lowest-priced lawyers in town, a law professor well known for doing pro bono work. Given the abusive way Marcia Clark treated Kaelin, it’s obvious why he needs a lawyer.”

Kaelin’s departure from the stand ended a five-day appearance in which he offered testimony that helped both sides. He told the jury about hearing thumps on his back wall at 10:40 or 10:45 p.m. on June 12, noises that prosecutors contend were made by Simpson stumbling around in the darkness that night and which police say led them to the discovery of a bloody glove behind Simpson’s house.

Kaelin also said he saw blood drops at Simpson’s house on the morning of June 13, hours before Simpson returned home from Chicago and gave police a blood sample; testimony that helps the prosecution rebut the defense suggestion that officers might have tainted evidence by smearing it with Simpson’s blood.

But the amiable if confused house guest also painted a largely favorable portrait of Simpson’s relationship with his ex-wife, undercutting the prosecution contention that the murders were the final act in an abusive and controlling relationship marred by periodic incidents of domestic abuse. Given that divergent testimony, Clark walked a tightrope and tried to suggest that Kaelin could be trusted to provide hard facts such as times and dates but should not be considered reliable when he gave more subjective descriptions of Simpson.

In part, she suggested Tuesday that Kaelin was indebted to Simpson for charging him no rent at the estate guest house and for giving his acting career a boost. Kaelin acknowledged that Simpson had allowed him to live rent-free, but disputed Clark’s suggestion that Simpson had helped him get acting roles.

At the same time that she attempted to discredit part of Kaelin’s testimony, Clark sought to bolster his account of the mysterious thumps on the night of June 12. To do that, she called Rachel Ferrara, who was dating Kaelin at the time and talking to him on the phone when he heard the thumps.

Nervous and giggling at the start of her testimony, Ferrara eventually settled down and backed up the essence of Kaelin’s account. She described her friend as trustworthy and “very moral” and agreed with his recollection of the times that he heard the thumping on his wall.

Park is scheduled to continue testifying when court resumes today.

Times legal affairs writer Henry Weinstein contributed to this article.