Defense Witness Testimony Called Into Question

A witness called by lawyers for O.J. Simpson to testify about strange noises he heard in the neighborhood where Simpson’s ex-wife and her friend were murdered admitted Wednesday that he had talked about trying to make money from his testimony, but denied he told other people that he heard Simpson’s voice that night.

The witness, Brentwood resident Robert Heidstra, spent all morning testifying, a marked departure from the lightning speed with which witnesses have completed their appearances in recent days. The pointed cross-examination by Deputy Dist. Atty. Christopher A. Darden was widely praised by legal analysts, and it succeeded in raising questions about many aspects of Heidstra’s account while at the same time eliciting testimony that could cut in the prosecution’s favor.

After testifying Tuesday about when he heard dogs barking, Heidstra acknowledged on Wednesday that he had not looked at his watch to be sure of those times. In addition, he said he had seen a white utility vehicle--he described it as a Jeep or Blazer, but conceded it could have been a Ford Bronco, the type owned by Simpson--rapidly leaving the area near where the crimes were committed, though he insisted that car was not headed in the direction of Simpson’s Brentwood estate.

Darden also presented Heidstra with statements of people who said he had told them of hearing Simpson’s voice at the murder scene. Heidstra vehemently denied it--”absurd,” he exclaimed at one point--but Darden pursued that line of questioning with vigor, sowing doubts about Heidstra’s truthfulness.

Testifying for the defense, Heidstra had said he had not heard dogs barking until roughly 10:30 p.m. in the Brentwood neighborhood where the murders were committed--an observation that helped bolster the Simpson team’s contention that the killings occurred well after 10:15 or 10:20, as the prosecution has previously alleged.

Simpson, who has pleaded not guilty to the June 12, 1994, murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman, was at home to meet an airport limousine just before 11 p.m., answering the bell inside his house after the limousine driver had been buzzing it without getting an answer for some time. That makes the timing issues crucial, and they have been the subject of debate almost since the week of Simpson’s arrest nearly 13 months ago.

But Heidstra’s testimony Wednesday made his estimates of timing appear less solid, and defense lawyers paid a heavy price for his appearance when Darden reminded him about his observations of a car resembling Simpson’s leaving the area.

The potential importance of Heidstra’s testimony was reflected in the heated debate that unfolded around it. At one point, Darden and Simpson attorney Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. squared off in a passionate disagreement about one question--an argument which began so fiercely that Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito cleared the stunned jury from the courtroom and that ended with him threatening to punish both men if they resumed their squabbling.

With his cross-examination, Darden succeeded in turning some of Heidstra’s observations to the prosecution’s favor, at least if jurors can be convinced that his time estimates are off. To that end, Darden suggested for the first time that prosecutors may try to be more flexible with their contention of when the murders were committed. Rather than asserting firmly that the killings took place at around 10:15 p.m., Darden asked a question suggesting that even if the murders were committed later, Simpson still could be the culprit.

“If someone left at 10:35, would they have enough time to drive to 360 North Rockingham and arrive by 10:52?” the prosecutor asked.

“Yes,” said Heidstra, who has driven the route himself. “He could.”

Former Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner, who called Darden’s cross-examination “superb,” noted the potential significance of that shift in prosecution emphasis.

“Up until today there was no indication that they would give up a single minute, and today Darden made it very clear that they could live with 10:40,” Reiner said. “That time frame works, but it’s tight.”

Credibility Challenged

Darden appeared to make his most telling points with the questions about Heidstra’s motives for testifying and with his inquiries about the witness’s apparently shifting statements to others--reporters, police, employers and friends.

At first, Heidstra denied ever talking about trying to profit from his testimony, but then he seemed to hedge when asked about specific people whom the prosecution had obviously interviewed.

“Didn’t you tell Patricia Baret, [a secretary for the veterinarian who cares for Heidstra’s two dogs] that when this case is finished you are going to make a lot of money?” Darden asked.

“I didn’t say that,” Heidstra answered, bringing his slightly trembling left hand to his cheek.

“You never told her that?” Darden persisted, obviously unconvinced.

“Maybe something might come out of it,” the witness acknowledged. “But I never said a lot of money.”

“So,” Darden continued, “you think you might make some money as a result of testifying in this case?”

“Maybe,” Heidstra answered. “I don’t know.”

Pressing his point, Darden noted that Heidstra makes his living detailing cars--with a hint of derision, the prosecutor described it as washing cars--that he lives alone in a small apartment and that he drives an old car in need of work. Heidstra acknowledged that he was disappointed when the prosecution elected not to call him as a witness, but said his disappointment was not because he looked forward to making money; rather, he insisted that he had expected to be a crucial witness and was merely surprised when not asked to testify.

And though Heidstra acknowledged that he might have told some people he hoped to make money off the case, the witness insisted that such comments were only jokes, not meant to be taken seriously.

Later, Cochran leaped on that line of questioning to suggest that the prosecutor was demeaning a hard-working laborer.

“You work hard to make your money?” Cochran asked.

“You bet,” Heidstra answered. “Six days a week.”

“You work six days a week?” Cochran asked.

“Six days,” he said firmly.

“Are you proud of what you do?” the lawyer then asked.

“I’m proud,” Heidstra said. “I’m happy.”

Cochran also elicited the witness’s testimony that he had rejected offers by tabloids and others seeking to pay for his story. Heidstra’s refusals to accept their money, according to the defense lawyer, show that his motives are pure, not mercenary, as prosecutors suggested.

Before concluding with Heidstra, however, the prosecution also zeroed in on another aspect of his testimony that raised questions about his credibility. The witness had testified confidently that the sound of a metal gate clanking had come from Nicole Simpson’s condominium, a conclusion he reached without being able to see the gate from where he stood.

Darden confronted Heidstra with a statement to police in which he said he came to that conclusion because Nicole Simpson’s condominium was the only one in the area with a metal security gate. But after Heidstra confirmed that he had said that, Darden showed him photographs of other complexes with similar gates.

In fact, Darden said there are 21 such metal gates in the immediate vicinity, and noted that police had found Nicole Simpson’s gate open when they came upon the bodies, raising the question of why it would have been heard clanking shut. Heidstra looked at the photographs and accepted Darden’s count of neighborhood gates, but stood by his assessment of where the sound seemed to originate.

When the examination of Heidstra concluded and Darden turned to sit down, he was greeted by a beaming colleague. Deputy Dist. Atty. Marcia Clark appeared to congratulate him, and outside court said she was confident that the cross-examination had thoroughly undermined Heidstra’s credibility.

“No one with half a brain,” she said, “would believe this guy.”

Simpson Demeanor During Trip

At the conclusion of Heidstra’s testimony, Simpson’s lawyers turned to the next phase of their defense, calling the first of a number of witnesses expected to testify about seeing the former football star on the night of the murders and on the following morning, as he traveled to and from Chicago.

First up was Capt. Wayne Stansfield, an American Airlines pilot who flew the plane that night. Questioned by defense lawyer F. Lee Bailey, the witness began with a brisk recitation of his civilian and military credentials, a topic that Bailey, himself a former Marine, milked with his evident enthusiasm for military vocabulary.

Stansfield, who sat ramrod straight and spoke in the clipped, comfortable cadence favored by pilots, told the jury that he had gotten up to stretch his legs about 2:45 a.m. on the red-eye and had introduced himself to Simpson.

Asked how Simpson appeared, the pilot responded: “Just looking out the window. If anything, I would say pensive, just lost in thought.”

Stansfield said he and Simpson chatted briefly and then Simpson agreed to sign an autograph for him. The signed log book was then displayed for the jury: “O.J. Simpson--Peace to You,” it read.

Stansfield added that he had not noticed any cuts on Simpson’s hands, but conceded under cross-examination that he had not been looking for any and so might have missed them.

The next two witnesses offered a striking contrast to Stansfield’s military bearing and precision. Two couriers, both of whom were at the airport when Simpson arrived in his limousine, took the stand to describe their brief encounter with the famous defendant--one that left both dazzled by the football Hall of Famer’s style and graciousness.

Michael Norris, one of the couriers, described Simpson’s stone-washed jeans and smooth clothing and said he “looked kind of young. He was just trying to look cool.”

Members of the audience laughed, and Simpson glanced away sheepishly, grinning.

“He was just walking through like: Hey, I’m O.J.,” the witness continued with a smile.

Norris, who also noticed no cuts but who also acknowledged that he was not looking for any, was followed by another courier, whose appearance on the stand was similarly casual. That witness, Michael Gladden, recalled yelling after Simpson: “Hey Juice, can I get an autograph?”

Despite his haste to meet a plane, Simpson agreed, gripping Gladden’s note pad with a hand so big it “just devoured it,” the witness testified. One juror, a black woman in the back row, laughed openly but quietly at that observation.

Simpson’s attorneys have long argued that their client’s behavior at the airport and on the plane--politely greeting fans and signing autographs--hardly seems the way a murderer would behave. But prosecutors have said that Simpson’s smoothly polished public persona has been carefully honed over the years and hides a violent other side.

As with other demeanor witnesses called by Simpson’s team, prosecutors pointed out to the jury that none can account for how Simpson appeared during the time that the murders were being committed. The suggestion clear from their questioning: That the testimony of those witnesses is irrelevant.

When court resumes this morning, prosecutors will try to block the defense from launching what may be the most provocative aspect of its case, the suggestion that the actual target of the murders was Faye Resnick, a friend of Nicole Simpson’s with an admitted drug problem. Simpson’s lawyers never have produced any evidence to support that argument. Prosecutors filed a motion Wednesday asking Ito to preclude “fictional, nonsensical” testimony suggesting that the murders were related to Resnick’s drug use.

Such testimony, they argued, “is a desperate attempt to sully the victims’ reputations and prove that some third party drug supplier(s) committed the murders.”

Ito did not rule on the prosecution motion but is expected to take it up this morning. His ruling could affect the day’s testimony, as Resnick’s ex-boyfriend is on the defense witness list and prepared to testify today if called.