Neighbor Says He Did Not See Simpson Bronco

A surprise witness in the murder trial of O.J. Simpson testified Friday that he was walking his dog near Simpson’s home on the night of the murders and that he did not see the defendant’s car parked on Rockingham Avenue, corroborating the account of another important prosecution witness and sowing more doubt about Simpson’s alibi.

Friday’s witness, a neighbor of Simpson named Charles G. Cale, told the jury that he had driven by Simpson’s house on the morning after the June 12 killings and had been surprised to see Simpson’s car parked outside the gate on Rockingham. Cale, a self-employed investor who was a leader in the 1984 Olympics effort in Los Angeles, said the white Ford Bronco “very seldom if ever” had been parked on Rockingham.

Cale added that he had been walking his dog between 9:30 and 9:45 on the night of the murders and had come within about 60 yards of Simpson’s home as he walked south on Rockingham. Cale said he was sure that he had not seen the car then.

“Are you certain the Bronco was not parked near the gate at Rockingham that Sunday evening?” Deputy Dist. Atty. Christopher A. Darden asked.

“I’m very certain,” he said.

That is potentially important testimony for the Simpson prosecution because it supports the government’s contention that the car was not on Rockingham when the murders were being committed two miles away. According to the prosecution, the crimes were committed about 10:15 p.m. and blood was tracked back from the crime scene into the Ford Bronco and to Simpson’s estate--a trail that the government lawyers contend links Simpson to the murders.

Simpson has pleaded not guilty to murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Lyle Goldman.

*

Cale’s account also is valuable testimony for prosecutors because it backs up the recollection of limousine driver Allan Park, who said he did not see the car when he arrived at 10:22 p.m., and because it could help discredit the testimony of housekeeper Rosa Lopez because she said the car had not been moved all evening.

Seeking to raise questions about Cale’s account, Simpson attorney Robert L. Shapiro questioned him about the precision of his time estimates and attempted to suggest that Cale came forward months after the crime solely to bolster the prosecution’s case. Shapiro based that accusation partly on what he suggested was Cale’s unwillingness to meet with representatives of the defense before taking the witness stand.

Cale acknowledged that a private investigator working for Shapiro called him this week and that Shapiro himself left a message for him Thursday. But Cale said he was not feeling well and insisted that he was available to speak with Shapiro before the Friday morning session.

“I expected that you would come back,” Cale said. “You didn’t.”

Shapiro did not have any better luck attempting to convince Cale that his time estimate might have been off.

“It could have been before 9:30 that you were walking your dog, isn’t that correct?” Shapiro asked at one point.

“I don’t think it was,” Cale answered.

Sensing uncertainty, Shapiro asked: “Well, you’re not sure.”

“I’m very sure,” Cale then said.

Cale’s testimony forced a short postponement of the prosecution’s intention to proceed with the physical evidence phase of its case, which the government lawyers had hoped to debut Friday. Instead, they plan to proceed with that Monday, when they will begin to unveil the most important aspect of their case, the physical evidence that they say ties Simpson to the murders.

As the jury was excused for the day, Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito told the panelists that they could expect to begin hearing about evidence collection and testing next week.

“I’m advised that we are going to shift the focus of the case now to the collection of the physical evidence in the case,” Ito told the jurors before sending them back to their hotel for the weekend. “Before we do that, I need to look at some of the exhibits that are going to be presented, and I may need to make some rulings as to what will be presented to you during that phase of the trial since we’re going to be shifting gears here.”

Ito spent the remainder of the morning session taking testimony outside the jury’s presence from Police Department employees involved in making a videotape of Simpson’s home on the afternoon of June 13.

Police searched the house that day, and prosecutors have indicated that they would like to introduce the videotape made at roughly the same time as the search in order to illustrate portions of the testimony of Dennis Fung, a Police Department criminalist who is at the top of the prosecution’s list of evidence collectors and analysts.

Defense lawyers complain that the tape was not shared with them until March, more than eight months after it was made. Police say they did not make the tape as part of the evidence collection process but rather to have a record of Simpson’s possessions so that no one could claim later that police had stolen or damaged anything in their search.

As a result, prosecutors said, the tape merely was kept in a drawer for months and only surfaced in March. When it did, it was immediately shared with the defense, said Deputy Dist. Atty. Sheri Lewis, one of the Simpson case prosecutors.

Simpson’s lawyers doubt that explanation, and they want prosecutors punished for failing to turn over the tape earlier. At the same time, the defense lawyers believe that the tape could help their case.

The videotape, which lasts about half an hour, records the condition of Simpson’s house, inside and out, on the afternoon after the murders. As it documents Simpson’s bedroom, the camera shot passes over a rug--the same rug where police say they found a pair of bloody socks. According to prosecutors, subsequent DNA tests performed on those socks revealed blood with the genetic markers found in Nicole Simpson’s blood.

But the socks are not evident in the videotape, and defense sources said Simpson’s lawyers may use the tape to suggest that the socks were planted in the bedroom, a contention they have long insinuated. In court, Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. tried to lay the groundwork for that argument by showing the tape to the Police Department employee who made it and asking him about a time code showing it was shot about 3:30 p.m..

If that time were accurate, it could bolster the defense argument because the socks were not seized until after that time. But Willie Ford Jr., the man who shot the tape, said under oath that he believes the time code was off by an hour.

That could undermine the effectiveness of the defense’s attempt to capitalize on the tape, but the discrepancy still could benefit Simpson’s team by reinforcing its argument that the police investigation was sloppy.

Ito did not rule Friday on whether prosecutors may use the tape or on whether they should be punished for its late disclosure. At least one more police witness is expected to testify about making the tape when court resumes Monday.

The testimony on that tangential point all took place outside the jury’s presence and occupied the remainder of the court day Friday. That marked the second day in a row that jurors have heard testimony from just a single witness.

*

The trial’s slow pace has frustrated observers and some participants, and it has fueled concern for the jury, which is being sequestered for the duration of the trial. The panel was idle for almost a week while the two sides questioned one witness outside the jury’s presence, and even Ito’s attempts to lengthen the trial day have met with mixed success, as frequent interruptions have continued to limit the amount of testimony that the two sides have presented.

It has been more than three months since the opening statements. In that time, the jury has heard from 38 witnesses. More than 100 are expected to testify by the time the case is over.

“At this pace,” said UCLA law professor Peter Arenella, “the jury must be wondering if the ‘trial of the century’ will go into the next one.”