[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 4/24/03
Time: 2:36:12 PM
Remote Name: 68.73.195.151
Kari,
Phillips testified on Feb 15, 16 and 17. The following excerpts are from this testimony on Feb 16:
Q: SO WHY WERE YOU STILL THERE? A: BECAUSE MY PARTNER, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WAS STILL SHOWING VANNATTER AND LANGE CERTAIN ITEMS THAT HE HAD FOUND AND WE HAD NOT LEFT THE LOCATION YET FROM WHEN WE ARRIVED….
Q: FOR A MOMENT -- YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT FUHRMAN. YOU AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ARE VERY, VERY CLOSE, AREN'T YOU? A: WE HAVE BEEN PARTNERS FOR FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AND I'VE GOTTEN TO CONSIDER MYSELF A FRIEND OF HIS, YES….
A: I THINK MARK CAME TO THE ROBBERY UNIT IN -- I WANT TO SAY PROBABLY '91. HE WORKED UP IN DETECTIVES, BUT I DID NOT HAVE HIM AS A PARTNER AT THAT TIME [the implication at this point is that he and Fuhrman were partners on June 12 – that’s what he said earlier]….
Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU KNEW WHO HE WAS BUT YOU BECAME CLOSE AND PARTNERS AFTER '91; IS THAT RIGHT? A: WE BECAME CLOSE AS PARTNERS, YES. Q: SO THERE WAS A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE YOU AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WERE PARTNERS IN CONJUNCTION WITH SOME OTHER DETECTIVES WHO WORKED THERE ALSO; IS THAT RIGHT? A: YES….
Q: IT'S TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT YOUR PARTNER, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, DID IN FACT MAKE SOME NOTES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT? A: I BELIEVE SO. Q: AND YOU RECOGNIZE THAT FROM YOUR PRIOR ASSOCIATION AND THE FACT THAT HE WAS YOUR PARTNER SOME NUMBER OF YEARS; IS THAT CORRECT? A: LOOKS LIKE HIS HANDWRITING, YES….
Q: DID YOU EVER DISCUSS THAT WITH YOUR PARTNER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN? A: NO.
So far Phillips has gone from directly asserting that Fuhrman was his partner to allowing Johnnie Cochran to make the assertion without correcting him. At this point the cross-examination it’s clear that Cochran is hammering Phillips on actions he took as Fuhrman’s “partner” Cochran is grilling him on Fuhrman’s notes and there is no way for Phillips to know where Cochran’s line of questioning is leading. It looks like it could be a trap to impeach his entire testimony based on the fact that Fuhrman was not Phillips’ partner. That wasn’t the case but Phillips didn’t know that. If the questions turned to Brad Roberts, who Phillips had suggested the day before was partnered with Tom Nolan, Phillips would have been subject to a charge of perjury and the entire prosecution case could have gone down the tubes right there. Put yourself if Phillips’ place….
Q: NOW, WHILE YOU WERE AT THE SCENE THERE AT BUNDY, DID YOU AND YOUR PARTNER FUHRMAN THEORIZE THAT THE SUSPECT OR SUSPECTS HAD RUN THROUGH THAT AREA, THAT WALKWAY AREA AND THAT THE SUSPECT OR SUSPECTS HAD POSSIBLY BEEN BITTEN BY THE AKITA, THE DOG? A: NOW, LET ME MENTION ONE THING. Q: DETECTIVE, BEFORE YOU MENTION ONE THING -- A: FUHRMAN IS NOT MY PARTNER. Q: HE'S NOT YOUR PARTNER? A: NO. I SUPERVISE MARK FUHRMAN'S WORK. SO HE'S AN INDIVIDUAL THAT WORKS FOR ME OR HE'S NOT MY PARTNER AT THIS TIME.
At this time? In fact, Fuhrman and Phillips were not partners – not for five years, not for three years and not at the time of the murders. They worked at the same table together in 1991 and sometimes assisted each other on various cases. They weren’t partners then, either. Up until the moment of truth Phillips was just following Fuhrman’s lead in the preliminary hearing where Fuhrman lied about being his partner. --Jasper