JANUARY 21, 1996

(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the jury.)
MR. LEONARD: Morning, Your Honor.
MR. LAMBERT: He's with us. He's going to help do the boards
(Indicating to individual sitting next to Elmo screen).
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. BAKER: Good morning.
MR. PETROCELLI: Good morning.
MR. BREWER: Good morning.
MR. LEONARD: Morning, Your Honor.
MR. KELLY: Good morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: We have an amendment and motion by counsel for plaintiff
Rufo and --
MR. LEONARD: No objection.
THE COURT: Okay. Amendment to the complaint and motion to strike or
withdraw portions of the complaint are granted. In regards to the
instructions, the parties have submitted some additional proposed
instructions at the request of the Court. With regards to the
instructions that concern presumptions, the defense has submitted
two instructions in that regard. I will hear from the defendant.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I think there's just a single instruction
maybe on two pages. If we had submitted an earlier instruction, we
withdraw it, but this is a -- it's a two-page instruction.
MR. LEONARD: First of all --
MR. BAKER: There's two --
MR. LEONARD: Oh, there is.
MR. BAKER: We submitted two.
MR. LEONARD: If it appears to be two, it should be a single one, and
the two paragraphs in the second page are a continuation of the
single instruction on the first page.

Your Honor, first of all, I want to make it clear to the Court
that we have taken the position in prior argument on instruction
that the 664 instruction should not be given at all in the case, so
I don't want to waive that argument at all by virtue of our filing a
proposed instruction in the event that Your Honor should decide that
the 664 presumption is applicable in this case.

Just briefly on that point, I think it would be highly unfair and
improper to give the presumption in this case, for this reason:

As you know, early on in the case, Your Honor limited our ability to
gauge the witnesses' performance of the various tests and or took in
their official duties by demonstrating what the standards are, the
protocols, the rules and regulations.

I can quote to you your own statement made in the beginning of the
case -- excuse me, during the testimony of -- I believe it was
Officer Riske in which this issue came up; we were trying to
cross-examine Riske and Rossi and other officers about what the
proper procedures were as to the crime scene, what the rules and
regulations are, what the protocols were, for instance, about
setting up a perimeter and so forth and so on.

And Your Honor said, among other things, whether or not the police
department did or did not act within certain protocols of police
investigation or not, other than the facts that if they spoiled some
evidence or affected the evidence of the case, some of the
evidence being offered, all their shortcomings, in the Court's
opinion, do not go to the issue of efficacy of plaintiffs' evidence,
and I'm going to continue to sustain objections thereon.

The problem now that we face is they want both the benefit of the
presumption, which as we put in our instruction presumes not that
various tests are reliable, not that there wasn't planting, not that
there wasn't alteration, not that there was any contamination, but
as the Court stated in Davenport, which is cited, the presumption of
664 is compliance with statutory and regulatory standards.

And our only burden in a 664 situation is to show that those
statutory and regulatory standard procedures or protocol guidelines
were in any respect not followed.

So how can we possibly do that now? Your Honor has foreclosed our
ability to do that, so in my view it would be patently unfair to
give this instruction because we weren't permitted to get behind the
actions of the police officers, the criminalists, and so forth, by
showing, for instance, what the -- what the official protocol was
for certain crime scene activities, both by the police and
criminalists, and lab personnel as well.

So I don't think if -- In other words, if they objected from the --
in the beginning to that and Your Honor sustained their objection,
how can they get the benefit of this presumption?

We had no opportunity to rebut it, so I think that the presumption
shouldn't be given.

Also, I think there's been no evidence of what the standards are
that are presumed under 664.

So I don't know how this is supposed to operate. If Your Honor is
inclined to give the instruction, we certainly think --
THE COURT: Let me -- hold on a second. Let me hear a response from
the plaintiffs.
MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, the instructions that you placed on the
defense mainly went to whether uncollected evidence, undone things,
not -- not so much what they did.

They were allowed -- you allowed them complete and thorough
examination of what was done in this case.

The witnesses testified what they did, how they did it. And that
fully complies with 664, because under 664 -- it certainly really
cannot be doubted that part of the duties of these police officers
is to refrain from planting or manufacturing evidence.

It cannot be doubted that part of the duties of a criminalist is to
properly collect evidence, part of the duties of a criminalist is to
properly test the evidence. Those duties certainly come within the
plain language of 664; their official duty as regularly performed.

And you did not restrict the defense in any way, shape, or form,
from going into -- examining in thoroughness and detail, and
certainly beyond what the plaintiffs thought was appropriate, every
step that they took in handling the actual evidence in this case,
which is, as you properly ruled repeatedly throughout this trial, is
the -- only the evidence in this case is the only issue in this
case, whether this is handled -- is the Andrea Mazzola video which
was not videotape of her collecting evidence in this case, but a
demonstration the prosecution put together before that was shown to
the jury. They got to show those. They got to see those procedures.
There was discussion about the procedures. There was thorough
discussion about what was done in this case.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, just one more point.

That is -- that's an absolute bootstrap argument when they say,
surely, planting and alteration and purpose for alteration of
evidence are presumed to not be part of official duty. But that's
the same thing as saying in a DUI case that the reliability of the
test is certainly presumed or that the test was undertaken in a
reliable fashion.

However, the Court said again -- Davenport says it's not the
reliability of the test in the DUI that's presumed, it's the fact
that the standards and regulations in administering the test were
followed. To the point where in Santos, Your Honor, that's -- I'll
give you the citation.

Santos versus Department of Motor Vehicles at 5. Cal.Ap. 4th 537,
1992 case. There was no -- The defense pierced the presumption
simply by showing that there was no time indicated as to when the
test was done, and the Court specifically said it doesn't -- the
defense doesn't have to rebut the reliability of the test, they just
have to show that the rules or regulations were not followed in any

Now, how I put the question to you -- again, put yourself in our
position, how were we supposed to do that when we weren't permitted
to even establish what the rules and standards and protocols were?
How were we supposed to do that? Now --
THE COURT: You want to respond to that argument?
MR. GELBLUM: I mean, again, the Mazzola video, they showed that.
THE COURT: You're not responding to his argument.
MR. GELBLUM: They showed that as an example -- I believe the purpose
in showing it was to show these are their procedures to be followed.

THE COURT: Excuse me.
MR. GELBLUM: I'm responding.
THE COURT: I want you to respond to my question. My question is what
is your response to Mr. Leonard's last argument.
MR. GELBLUM: Well, I believe his last argument was they weren't
allowed to put on evidence of what the procedure is.
THE COURT: What the standards were that in the beneficiaries of the
presumptions are seeking to -- or should have followed.
MR. GELBLUM: My reference to the Mazzola video is part of the
THE COURT: That's not very responsive.

Well, the only procedure -- standard we're talking about, and
procedures that we're talking about, in the instructions we've
requested, is a very broad standard which is thou shalt not plant
plaintiffs' evidence.

I don't know how anybody can argue that's not part of standard
procedures for the police department. They're not supposed to plant
or manufacture evidence. Okay. Same thing with collecting the
evidence. They're supposed to collect it properly. Same thing with
tests, they're supposed to conduct the tests properly.

I don't recall the defense coming in with any attempt to talk, in
fact, on the testing, Your Honor, they answered the request for
admissions, they admitted the tests were done properly. They
absolutely admitted those tests were done properly. They said there
was some problem with the blood before and this they admit the tests
were done properly.

A lot of this evidence came in and was allowed to come in.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'd like to respond to the final point.
That's absolutely not what we did in response to request for

Also, one final point. There's another reason why this instruction
shouldn't be given, and that is that they're getting the benefit of
both the presumption and putting on a witness.

There's a case analogous called Coe versus Southern Pacific Company,
an old railroad case from 1962. It involves due care by the

I'll give you the citation. It's 203 CalAp. 2, 509, 1962.

It's precisely the same issue except it involved the presumption of
due care by a railroad. The Court says in the end -- it's a similar
situation. They put the engineer on to say that he was exercising
due care at the same time they wanted the presumption. And the Court
says you can't get both, you've got to choose.

And that's what you should do in this case, Your Honor. They can't
have both. They can't. And they also can't have the benefit of
their restrictive view of the case, and their objections which were
sustained by you, and at the same time get the presumption. It's
just not fair.
MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, number one, obviously we had to put on
evidence. We didn't know -- we still don't know whether this
instruction is going to be given. We had to put on evidence. It's
ludicrous to say we can't have the presumption because we put on

Secondly, I think that Mr. Leonard greatly overstates the
restrictions that they were under. There were many, many
cross-examinations, questions by the defense, regarding proper
procedures and filling out the sheets for Andrea Mazzola. If they
were allowed to then -- if they fill out their sheets, a lot of that
wasn't allowed, you put limited restrictions. There wasn't any
lengthy questioning whether they went in properly. There were a lot
of questions about whether they did something properly. Properly
means based against some standard or procedure.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, if that's the case, I can't imagine in any
of these instances when we were somehow allowed to get in the
standards which were never articulated. If the witnesses admitted
they didn't follow the standards, then we obviously have proven that
they didn't follow the standards in any respect and then there's
no need to give the presumption now. End of matter.
THE COURT: Okay. Submitted.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
MR. GELBLUM: One last thing.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. GELBLUM: If as a -- as a backup, I guess, if you're inclined to
accept Mr. Leonard's position on his last point, that can be solved
by adding a paragraph to the instruction regarding if performed by a
preponderance of the evidence, that standards were not complied
with. That would handle that issue.
THE COURT: Well, based upon the Court's earlier ruling, which is
actually based upon a motion of plaintiff, I think the Court did
preclude the defendant from establishing standards on which the
presumption can be measured, as referred to in the Davenport case,
the Court is going to exclude all the instructions as to

There was one additional 14.50 that I have in this group that I have
marked as objected.

Did we continue the issue of measure of damages last Friday?
MR. GELBLUM: Yeah. We agreed finally after some discussion that we
would go with 14.50 putting in the names of the parties. That's what
we submitted.
THE COURT: So the batch that we gave you to work on over the
weekend, that's the 14.50 that you were offering?
MR. GELBLUM: No. We had -- we had combined 14.50 and 14.52.
THE COURT: That's what you're offering?
MR. GELBLUM: No. We're just offering straight 14.50. It says -- it
has the number at the top. See where it says 14.50 and 14.52, that
really should say just straight 14.50 with names put in as Your
Honor said we could, rather than saying deceased and heirs.
MR. BAKER: Well, you know --
MR. BAKER: They don't need the one on Rufo because Rufo is included
in the redundant. At least in the packet that they have favored me
with, they have.
MR. GELBLUM: There's two separate plaintiffs there to give an
aggregate. I assume they can consider them separately and add them
up together.
MR. BAKER: No, but look at your instruction. You have two
MR. BAKER: And then you go on the next one and then have --
THE COURT: Okay. That's satisfactory.
MR. BAKER: And, Your Honor, I object to the verdict form in its
present form.
MR. GELBLUM: Before --
THE COURT: Let me finish with the instructions.
MR. BAKER: Okay. I apologize. I thought you said you were satisfied,
meaning the instructions.
THE COURT: No, the 14.50.
MR. BAKER: Okay.
THE COURT: With regards to the instruction, with regards to the
proceeding in another county. It's been tagged, the clerk informs me
that you have an objection to that one.
MR. BAKER: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. GELBLUM: If I may explain, because I submitted it, just what it
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. GELBLUM: It tracks almost verbatim the instruction that you gave
the jury when we left on vacation, except with -- I added the end,
the judge in that proceeding did not consider any evidence regarding
the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, which I think
is taken almost verbatim from the opinion of the custody judge.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll give that.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, may I be heard? Let me put on the record my
objection to it.
MR. BAKER: This instruction, as stated, is not true, that the issues
and the ruling of the proceeding have nothing to do with this case.

Six witnesses testified, and they previewed those witnesses at the
custody hearing and brought them into this case.

And indeed, the circumstantial evidence regarding the deaths of
Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman were an issue and raised by the
-- the Browns in Orange County, No. 3, and the whole issue down
there was the relationship, but Alan Aguilar, Day OJ Simpson, Judy
Brown, all testified in that case.

So this is an inaccurate statement of what occurred down there.

I don't think we ought to highlight that proceeding.
THE COURT: That's the point of the instruction, so that I'll
highlight it.

I will give it.
MR. GELBLUM: A new instruction, Your Honor, was one requested about
Exhibit 732.
MR. GELBLUM: That's in there. I don't know if there's any objection
to that.
MR. BAKER: Yes. I object to that. I object to highlighting that.
You've given them an instruction that I objected to at the time, and
I object to this.
THE COURT: Okay. Admonished them at the time and now they're getting
an instruction.
MR. BAKER: I think you gave them an instruction before and you're
giving them a second instruction.
THE COURT: Well, I'll stand on the record.
THE COURT: Okay. State your objection to the verdict form.
MR. BAKER: Yes, Your Honor.

My objections to the verdict form are, No. 1, it doesn't give
adequate instructions to the jury as to what they're to do relative
to answering questions. It isn't in the proper order, in terms of
the questions, and I will propose an alternative verdict form.

For example, it reads -- question 1 is "Do you find by a
preponderance of the evidence the defendant Simpson willfully and
wrongfully caused the death of Ronald Goldman?

Then it asks to award damages.

Then it goes to the issue of battery. It doesn't suggest any damages
at all, and it doesn't tell them -- for example, at the end of
question 1 it says, if your answer is no, do not answer question 2.

It doesn't tell them where to proceed to answer the questions, never
gives them instructions when they're to sign and return the verdict

And the questions relative to damages, that should be at the
conclusion like it is in every other verdict form.

And the issue relative to the battery of Nicole Brown Simpson
should be question 3 rather than 6.

I will propose a new jury verdict form tomorrow.
MR. BREWER: Your Honor, Mr. Baker and I discussed early this morning
the verdict form, and rather than have both sides, why don't we
muddle through this form.

I think we can -- we started to do so earlier, and we'll see if we
can decide upon a special verdict form. Have that to you sometime
today. Agreed?
MR. BAKER: Well, I don't know if we're going to have it today.
MR. BREWER: We'll work on it today.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, may I request -- and I know you've made your
ruling, but may I request a -- I understand that you have previously
excluded Charlotte Blasier from the courtroom.

Bob Blasier, as you are well aware, has had some very serious back
surgery. She is really his attendant. And the infraction that she
had relative to when she was here earlier before the Christmas
break, I think was inadvertent, minor.

We would be most appreciative if she could be in the courtroom for
the remaining days while Mr. Blasier is here and gives his final
summation and opinion, she will be there, and there is no objection
from the plaintiffs' counsel, we would appreciate your
consideration in that regard, sir.
THE COURT: Well, I think the considerations that the Court had in
making its order doesn't really have anything to do with the
plaintiff, it has to do with maintenance of order in the Courtroom,
and the Court will not change its ruling. Bring the jury in.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may I request -- respectfully request that
we take a break at the time Judge Perez is taking a break. I'd like
to ask to bring this matter before him.
THE COURT: It's my courtroom, Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: I'm just making that as a request.
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
THE COURT: Morning, ladies and gentlemen.
JURORS: Good morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, you've heard the evidence in this
case and now we're about to hear closing arguments by the attorneys
for each side.

I want to remind you that what the attorneys argue to you, what they
state to you at this stage of the proceedings are not evidence.
Whatever they argue, whatever they refer to with regards to the
evidence, that it is their opinion as to what they believe the
evidence showed or did not show and how they feel that the jury
should rule with regards to the nature of the evidence, and how the
jury should apply the law to that state of the evidence as they
perceive it.

Evidence is only that which you heard from the witness stand and the
graphic and other types of evidence that we denote as evidence that
we've received in the trial.

You are the sole judges as to what the evidence means and what it
established, what it did not establish.

You must not consider what the attorneys state to you as the

The reason that the Court instructs you every day not to allow any
outside interference with the evidence gathering process by jurors
is precisely to ensure that you do not go outside of the trial for
your information.

What you decide this case upon has to be that which was received in
the trial and you cannot rely on any information received elsewhere.

So that is why you must not permit radio, television, newspaper,
magazine, or word of mouth information about this case, that was not
received in the trial itself, to affect your judgment in any way.

When I tell you that the statements of the attorneys do not
constitute evidence and the statements of what they say the law is
is not what the law is, it's not my intention to tell you to
disregard what the attorneys say. This is the last chance that they
have to directly talk to you about the case and it's very important
to both sides that you pay close attention to what their views are
of what the evidence was and how you should apply the law to this

At the end of the case, after the attorneys have argued to you, I
will instruct you as to what the law is that you will apply to the
evidence as you find it to be.

And I'll also be giving you a special verdict form which you will
fill out according to the instructions that are directly on the
instruction forms themselves.

And in this fashion, you will be reaching your decision in this

So at this time, Mr. Petrocelli, I will invite you or Mr. Kelly or
any other plaintiffs' counsel to commence their opening portion of
the closing argument.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
JURORS: Good morning.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, defense counsel, ladies and gentlemen of
the jury, I first would like to extend our appreciation to Your
Honor and your excellent staff. This has been a long trial and we
are greatly appreciative of the way that you have conducted these
proceedings. But it is you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, to
whom we owe the deepest debt of gratitude. You have given up the
last four months of your lives at great personal sacrifice to be
here and to make a commitment to serve on this jury. You have been
here every day, taking notes, listening attentively, focusing on all
the evidence that has come in, and for that we are extremely
grateful. We thank you.

We are here to determine responsibility for the deaths of Ronald
Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. Two vital people who had most of
their lives ahead of them.

Here they are in life.
(Indicating to Elmo). Steve.

By now, today, Ron Goldman would have been 29 years old, and I think
he would have had that restaurant that he wanted to open shaped in
the design of an ankh, the Egyptian symbol for eternal life, which
Ron always wore around his neck and even had tattooed on his

You want to put the other picture up?
(Indicating to Elmo). Nicole Brown Simpson would have been 37 years

Not on a day unlike today, I think she would have, like she did
every day, gotten up and taken care of her children, feed them, take
them to school, karate lessons, dance lessons, bring them home, feed
them dinner, play with them, put them to bed.


Ron Goldman will never get to open his restaurant, ladies and

And Nicole Brown Simpson will never see her children grow up.

Because on a Sunday evening in 1994, these two vital people, their
lives came to a sudden end in a few moments of uncontrollable rage.

Here they are in death
(indicating to Elmo).

I apologize for the photograph.

Nicole, as you can imagine, was helpless at the hands of this
enraged man, and she died within moments of the gaping cut to her
throat. Ron Goldman, instead of running from danger, tried to help
a friend, but he too was defenseless against this powerful man with
a 6-inch knife stabbing over and over and over again until Ron
collapsed to the ground and died with his eyes still open. Now, had
Ron lived, ladies and gentlemen, he'd have been on this witness
stand and he would have relived what happened that night and he
would have told us what he saw.
MR. BAKER: I object. This is improper evidence.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor --
THE COURT: Overruled. It's argument.
MR. PETROCELLI: But that is why Ron Goldman was killed. So he could
not tell you what he saw that evening.

But even though Ron and Nicole's voices will not be heard in this
courtroom, they will not be on that stand, their last struggling
moments to stay alive, ladies and gentlemen, provided us the key
evidence necessary to identify their killer.

They managed to get a glove pulled off, a hat to drop off, they
managed to dig nails into the left hand of this man, cause other
injuries to his hand, forcing him to drop his blood next to their
bodies as he tried to get away.

And by their blood, they forced him to step, step, step as he walked
to the back, leaving shoe prints that are just like fingerprints
in this case that tell us who did this, who did this unspeakable

So these crucial pieces of evidence after all are the voices of Ron
and Nicole speaking to us from their graves, telling us, telling all
of you, that there is a killer in this courtroom
(indicating to Mr. Simpson.)

That is the man who attacked them, who confronted them, and who
killed them on that Sunday evening in June. The defendant, Orenthal

You heard his voice on the witness stand, ladies and gentlemen. You
heard his voice on the witness stand. He took the stand about a week
or so ago, about one full day in his defense.

Now, by that time, we the plaintiffs had presented overwhelming and
highly incriminating evidence that Mr. Simpson committed these
murders on June 12.

We did not merely prove that he did these things by a preponderance
of the evidence, which, as you will hear later on as the Judge will
instruct you, is the burden of proof that we have to meet in this

We didn't prove it merely by clear and convincing evidence, which is
yet another burden of proof.

We didn't prove it merely by proof beyond a reasonable doubt,
which is the standard of proof that applies in criminal cases.

We proved it to a certainty. We proved it beyond any doubt.

So what did Mr. Simpson say about all this evidence when he took the

What did his fine lawyer, Mr. Baker, ask him about?

Did Mr. Simpson explain why his blood and his DNA were found dripped
on the ground near the two victims. Did he talk about that?

Did he explain why his glove was found next to these two murdered
people? Did he explain that?

Did he explain why his other glove was found back at his house? Did
he talk about that?

Did he explain why his hat, his knit cap, was at the murder scene?
Why it had his head hairs in it? Why it had his clothing fibers? Did
he explain any of that? Not one word.

Did he explain why his blood was in his car that night? Did he
explain why Ron Goldman's blood was in his car that night? Why
Nicole's blood was in his car that night? Did he say anything about

Did he talk about why his blood, O.J. Simpson's blood, was dripped
on the driveway of his property that night? In his foyer? Up in his
bathroom right next to his bedroom? Did he talk about that?

Did he explain why his socks had his blood, why his socks had
Nicole's blood on them, on both socks? Not one word did you hear
when we waited to hear.

Did he talk about what happened to those brown Aris leather light
gloves, size extra large, that we saw him wearing in those photos of
him at the football games? The ones that are identical to the murder

Now, if they are not the murder gloves, as he says, why didn't he
bring them to court? Why didn't he bring them here and say here are
my gloves. I am innocent. Did he say any of that? Did he talk about

Did he say anything about the 30 photographs, over 30 photographs in
fact, of him wearing those "ugly ass" Bruno Magli shoes that he
swore to you, under oath on that witness stand, that he never owned
and never wore? Did he talk about those photos?

No, he didn't.

Did he explain, by the way, how one of those photos could be a fake
if it was published eight months before the murders in a Buffalo
sports newspaper? Did you hear anything about that?

You didn't hear a word.

If those were not the shoes he was really wearing, as he said, did
he come here that day and bring his shoes that he did wear that day
at the football game? Did he bring them to court? Did he show them
to you? Did he say here are the shoes I was wearing; I wasn't
wearing those ugly ass shoes. I was wearing these shoes. Did he
bring those shoes here to show them to you to prove his innocence?

How about a photograph. Did he produce a single photograph?

This guy's got to be one of the most photographed people in the
world, perhaps. Sitting there on a side line, with thousands of
cameras, television cameras.

Did he bring a photograph wearing the shoes he claims he was really

Not one.

Did he explain to you how he could cut himself the night of the
murders between 10 and 11, at the time these murders occurred, on
his left finger, and yet not know how?

"I don't know how I cut myself."

Did he even talk about that?

Did he explain to you last week how he could cut himself so badly in
Chicago, he claims so bad as to leave a permanent scar on that
finger, and yet not know how he did it?

Did he talk about that?

This was his chance to tell us what the answers were. Confronted
with all this evidence, highly incriminating, conclusively
incriminating evidence, pointing right at him, and what did he
choose to say, what did he choose to tell you, ladies and gentlemen
of the jury?

Well, he talked about his accomplishments as a football player. How
he won the Heismann trophy. Ran 2,003 yards in one NFL season. How
he broke records and received awards. We heard all about that.

We heard about his work for Hertz, Chevrolet, the jobs as a
broadcaster, as an actor.

He dropped some names of famous people he socialized with. I'm sure
you remember that. Kareem Abdul Jabbar, and people like that.

Talked and talked and talked about golf. A lot about golf.

And he went to great lengths, ladies and gentlemen, to talk about
his character. Remember how he was asked, and you heard Mr. Baker
say in his opening statement about this Hall of Fame speech, about
how a guy's character will always endure.

Well, you heard about that.

We heard about how he always tries to help others.

We heard that he still goes to his mother for advice.

And then he talked of his honesty, and he told us, looking you
straight in the eye, right here, and said, I have never, ever
attempted to tell a lie about anything important in my life. Now, we
heard him say that. He talked about Nicole, too, of course. About
how he tried to be a good husband to her. About how he was a good
father to their children. And about how he would never harm her.
These are the things Mr. Baker asked him about and these are the
things he spoke about. The bottom line here, ladies and gentlemen,
is that they would like you to believe that that handsome man with
the charming smile, the expensive suit, who's lived the life of
fame, celebrity and fortune, and who claims to be dedicated to his
family, flawless in character, incapable of telling a lie, that that
man could not possibly be responsible for the deaths of Nicole Brown
Simpson and Ronald Goldman. But it is that very same sense of
superiority, ladies and gentlemen, that Mr. Simpson has attained
that explains why he has absolutely no sense of responsibility for
his actions or his obligation to tell the truth or for anything
else. He'll talk about responsibility. Can you put the picture up?
(Photo is displayed on Elmo.) What kind of man, ladies and
gentlemen, confronted with this bruised and battered picture of
Nicole, says, I take full responsibility for causing all those
injuries, but I didn't hit her, I didn't strike her, I didn't slap
her, I didn't do anything wrong, I was just defending myself, I was
just trying to get her out of my bedroom. What kind of man, who has
shared a bedroom with his wife for 10 years, calls it my bedroom, my
house, my property, me. What kind of man takes a baseball bat to his
wife's car, right in front of her, and then says he was not upset,
he was not out of control, he was not in a state of rage, and she
wasn't upset at all, not the slightest, even though she went to call
the police for help. What kind of man kicks open a door so hard as
to break it in pieces and then says it was just a reflex, and
actually went on to blame it on his kids, saying they had broken it
before. What kind of man says his deceased wife's, voice on a 911
tape, which we played in court, what kind of man says his wife is
lying on that tape when she says she's afraid and when she says that
he's going to beat the shit out of her, to use her words. What kind
of man says his deceased wife is lying when you heard her voice
trembling on that tape. What kind of man says cheating on your
wife isn't a lie, which is what he said. What kind of man says that
his wife's most private writings about her feelings and attitudes,
in fact her last written words, which I will show you later on, are
a, quote, pack of lies, end of quotes. What kind of man, when shown
30 photographs of him wearing those Bruno Magli shoes, looks you
straight in the eye with a straight face and says that's me, it's my
head, that's my jacket, that's my tie, that's my shirt, those are my
arms, that's my hands, that's my belt, pants, not my shoes, those
are people I know that I'm taking pictures with, but no, not my
shoes, I wasn't wearing those shoes. What kind of man says that to
you with a straight face? What kind of man says that virtually every
other person in this case who testified on the stand against him is
either lying or mistaken, and he's right. What kind of man would try
to ruin the lives of innocent people just doing their jobs, accusing
them of fabricating evidence, planting evidence, committing perjury,
just to protect himself. And what kind of man comes into court and
looks you straight in the eye and says I never lied about anything
important in my life, and then lied about everything important in
this case. Well, let me tell you what kind of man says those
things, ladies and gentlemen. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to
figure it out. You can take that down, Steve
(indicating to Elmo). A guilty man. A guilty man. A man with no
remorse. A man with no conscience. This man is so obsessed with
trying to salvage his image and protect himself that he'll come into
this courtroom, knowing the whole world is watching, and he will
smear the name and reputation of the mother of his children while
she rests in her grave. This is a man, ladies and gentlemen, who I
submit to you has lied and lied and lied to you about every
important fact in this case. Every one. Did you notice, by the way,
how Mr. Baker referred to Mr. Simpson on the witness stand as O.J.
and Juice, even though every other witness was addressed by his or
her formal name? We all know Mr. Baker is a very experienced lawyer,
and I'm sure that was no accident. O.J. Simpson has been marketing,
manufacturing, packaging and selling his image to the American
public for over 30 years. And know what they tried to do in this
courtroom, he and his defense team, to sell you an image, O.J.,
Juice, an image, a personality. I even asked him, are you an actor?
He says no, I'm a personality. Now, we are not here, though, in this
important trial to be sold anything and we're not here to talk about
O.J. and Juice and talk about images. We're here to talk about a man
named Simpson, a deeply flawed man named Simpson, and what he did on
June 12, 1994. And in the final analysis, that's what this case is
all about, ladies and gentlemen. It's about fixing responsibility
for the deaths of these two innocent victims. And we would all agree
that in this society we all have to accept responsibility, we all
have to be accountable for what we do. All of you folks, you are
responsible in your lives, to your families, at your jobs, on this
jury. You get up every morning, you come here, you listen, you
concentrate, you focus, you take notes. If you break the rules, you
know there are consequences such as being discharged from the jury.
You understand your responsibility. You accept it. Now, those are
the rules that we all have to abide by. Those rules don't change,
ladies and gentlemen, if a person has won the Heismann trophy or
has broken football records. You all agreed when this case began
that you would treat Mr. Simpson by the same standards and
responsibility, the same rules as anybody, as you would want to be
treated, and I have no doubt that you will do so. And I submit to
you that when you judge Mr. Simpson by the same rules, by the same
standards of responsibility that you would judge any other person,
what you saw in this courtroom, what you heard in this courtroom,
can only lead you to conclude, ladies and gentlemen, that this man
is responsible for killing two people on June 12, that he's utterly
incapable of accepting responsibility for his actions, that he can
not and will not tell the truth either. Therefore it is up to you,
all of you, to fix responsibility on him for what he did for the
sake of the victims, their families, and for some small measure of
justice. Now, I'd like to begin by looking at the most incriminating
of the evidence that we have presented to you. And that's the
evidence that was found at 875 South Bundy, which is of course where
Nicole lived, where the murders occurred, as we know. To summarize,
ladies and gentlemen, at Bundy we have a substantial amount of blood
evidence, DNA evidence matching Mr. Simpson's DNA. We have his
shoe prints, those unique shoe prints, one of a kind, size 12 Bruno
Magli shoes, leading away from the bodies to the back. These are the
shoes that Mr. Simpson owned, wore, and lied to you about, as you
saw from the photos and his testimony. We also have a single Aris
leather light brown glove, extra large, found at the scene between
the bodies, and of course Mr. Simpson owned such a glove, as you saw
from the photos. We have hair and fiber evidence at Bundy. We have
head hairs of Mr. Simpson in a hat just like hats that he owned. We
have blue-black -- dark blue-black cotton fibers found on Mr.
Goldman's shirt which matched fibers found on Mr. Simpson's socks in
his bedroom and on the glove that he dropped at his home in
Rockingham, the same blue-black cotton fiber matching, meaning that
he was the common source, the messenger between all three of these
places. We also had this rare unique carpet fiber that was found at
Bundy, and it was -- and it matched the carpet fiber in Mr.
Simpson's Bronco: You have blood; you have shoes, you have hair and
fiber; you have everything that you need. Now, I'm going to put up a
board in a second and go over this evidence in a little more detail,
but I want to mention a few things, a few sort of obvious
observations. Bundy is the home of Nicole Brown Simpson. These
murders didn't occur at -- in a dark alley or parking lot or
convenience store; they occurred right at her home, not far from her
front door, which was left wide open, with the lights on inside,
you'll remember the testimony. There's no evidence of a burglary
here, robbery, vandalism, or rape, or any kind of sexual assault.
We're not dealing with any of that here. Nothing on the victims'
person: Their jewelry, their personal effects, nothing was taken;
nothing was removed; nothing inside the home was touched or
disturbed; nothing was stolen; nothing was ransacked. Nicole had a
very expensive Ferrari out in the garage, another car out there, a
Jeep Cherokee. None of that was touched. The children were upstairs,
asleep in their bedrooms, unharmed. There's no evidence that anybody
touched or tried to hurt those children. There's no evidence that
Nicole was expecting anyone, either. Ron Goldman went there at the
very last minute, when he was asked by Nicole, right before 10
o'clock, to drop off a pair of glasses. Nobody knew Ron Goldman was
going to Nicole's condominium on his way to meet some friends; only
he knew, Nicole knew, and Karen Crawford, who worked at Mezzaluna.
She knew when she took the call from Nicole and saw Ron leave. So
it is very clear that Nicole Brown Simpson was the target of this
attack. By someone who knew she would be home and someone who knew
where she lived. It's not a gunshot killing. We're talking about a
killing by a knife, up close, by a person, obviously from these
wounds, in a state of rage, a rage killing. And all these signs,
ladies and gentlemen point directly to a person who knew Nicole,
knew where to find her, and had no reason to go to her house that
night except to confront her, and had no reason to expect Ron
Goldman, who showed up unexpectedly. There's no such person other
than O.J. Simpson, ladies and gentlemen. And all the physical
evidence proves that it was him. Can we put out the Bundy board.
(Exhibit referred to was displayed on the Elmo screen.)
MR. PETROCELLI: I'd like to go over this evidence in a little bit of
detail, because this is the most critical evidence in the case
(indicating to board displayed on the Elmo screen), all at Bundy,
all where the murders occurred. What we have, of course, are the
blood drops that were leaving the scene of the -- of where the
bodies were found, going out towards the alley
(indicating), and then one drop right over here on the other side of
the rear
(indicating), indicate -- we have the blood drops on the rear gate,
as the killer bled a few drops as he went through that gate. These
blood drops
(indicating), of course, are on the left side of the shoe prints.
They're on the left side of the shoe prints, indicating that the
person who dropped this blood was injured on his left side, such as
a left finger or left hand. We have the shoe prints. Of course, it's
unique prints made in Nicole's blood. What you need to understand,
ladies and gentlemen, is, that shoe made that footprint, that is a
perfect match -- and there's not any testimony in this case
disputing that; nobody challenges that -- that shoe made that shoe
print. If he's wearing that shoe, he did it. Those are the gloves
identical to one of the gloves found here. A left glove was found
here, and the right glove was found at Rockingham, gloves identical
to these two gloves which you see Mr. Simpson wearing. And indeed,
if these are not the murder gloves, he could have and should have
brought those gloves to court. And he didn't. You have here a hat
just like the hat Mr. Simpson has at his house, the one that was
recovered from his bedroom by the police, just like that one. In
that hat, we had various hair and fiber evidence, which I will go
over with you. And, of course, we have the cuts from the left finger
-- left fingers, dropping blood on the left side of the shoe prints.
So, you see, it's all here, ladies and gentlemen. There are some
fibers here -- there's some blue-black cotton fibers that were found
on Mr. Goldman's shirt, matching fiber found on the sock in Mr.
Simpson's bedroom, and another one on the glove at Rockingham: The
same blue-black cotton fiber which, we submit to you, is consistent
with a blue-black cotton sweat suit, which we have proved to you
that Mr. Simpson owned at the time.
MR. BAKER: I object. There's been no testimony of blue-black
MR. PETROCELLI: There has, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Simpson owned a sweat suit at the time. I'll go
over that with you in a bit. He tried to lie to you, to say he
didn't have one, until we called in witnesses to impeach him. And
we'll go over that. So, we have his gloves, his hat, the sweat
suit, his shoes, his cuts, his blood, his hair, his fibers. It's all
here; it's all at Bundy. Now, let me talk to you a little bit about
the blood evidence, because it obviously is so crucial and it is so
incriminating, and I just want to discuss it briefly. I won't do it
justice. Mr. Lambert put on that evidence through our expert
witnesses; and let me go over just a little bit with you. The five
blood drops that you have there that left a trail to the left of
shoe prints, were tested by three different laboratories: The Los
Angeles Police Department's Scientific Investigation Division, the
California Department of Justice, and the Cellmark Laboratory back
east, where Dr. Robin Cotton works. Gary Sims works for the
Department of Justice. And you heard from Collin Yamauchi, from the
LAPD's lab, the SID lab. All three labs tested these blood drops.
And all three got the very same results; there's no differences in
the results. All three separate labs, acting independently, got the
same results. And all three labs found that these blood drops
matched Mr. Simpson's DNA pattern. Okay. They tested these blood
drops at 12 different genetic markers: The DQ Alpha location, D1S80,
five polymarker locations, and five RFLP locations. All -- at all
12 of these genetic markers or locations where the DNA was tested,
the DNA pattern matched Mr. Simpson at all 12. Now, this alone,
ladies and gentlemen, is conclusive proof that that's his blood.
We'll bring out the frequency board in a minute. But at a minimum --
at a minimum, now -- only one out of a 170 million people in the
world would have these DNA patterns. And O.J. Simpson is one of
them. The defense in this case -- it's important you understand this
-- they don't contest these results; they don't contest that these
DNA test results matched Mr. Simpson's blood. Do you remember when
Mr. Lambert read to you something called Defendant's Responses to
Request for Admissions? I don't know if it was very exciting, but he
sat here and read to you -- those were the defense's admissions to
his -- those blood-test results. And they're conclusive on this
issue. And they establish that those blood drops are Mr. Simpson's
blood. And you have to accept that. They don't contest it.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object. That's improper. That isn't what we
admitted to.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: Understand something: All the defense can say --
they can say is -- they haven't presented any evidence -- all they
can say is that if you get around these test results, showing his
blood is at -- the evidence, these blood drops had to have been
planted or somehow contaminated. And if you don't buy into any of
that, and his blood's there, and he did it, unless they can prove to
you how his blood got in those labs. There hasn't been one, not one
iota of evidence, ladies and gentlemen, that any of those blood
drops were planted. In the first place, as you'll remember from the
police testimony and the criminalists, these blood drops were
collected on the morning of June 13 at Bundy, when Dennis Fung and
Andrea Mazzola went out there. Mr. Simpson didn't even give his
blood to the Los Angeles Police Department until 3:30 in the
afternoon that same day, after all the blood in this case was
collected. So they didn't have his blood to go to Bundy and start
dropping blood drops. They didn't have it. He didn't give them his
blood until 3:30. And these were all collected beforehand. So they
could not have been planted there. And remember the testimony that
the blood drops were fresh when they were found, that was given by
Dennis Fung, it was still reddish in color? And his testimony is
unrefuted about that. And, Mr. Simpson, of course, gave you no
explanation how his blood could have gotten there innocently. He had
no innocent explanation for why his blood was at Bundy. In fact, he
had no innocent explanation for any of this evidence, nothing. He
had no innocent explanation for anything. He tries to also say,
ladies and gentlemen, that why the blood -- these test results
showed my blood was because there was a contamination in the lab. He
tried to ask a lot of questions of witnesses about that. First of
all, as we proved from the experts, when blood is contaminated, it
doesn't turn somebody's blood into O.J. Simpson's blood. So just
saying contamination didn't mean much; his blood just didn't show up
because there's some contamination involved. Moreover, you heard the
evidence from Dr. Robin Cotton of Cellmark, Gary Sims of DOJ, Brad
-- Dr. Brad Popovich. There isn't any evidence of any contamination.
None. They reviewed the work in this case. Dr. Popovich reviewed all
blood work in this case, and said there's no evidence of any
contamination. None. The test results are reliable, they're
accurate, and they're unaffected by contamination. Those were his
words. And he came on the stand and he gave that testimony just last
week. And he reviewed all the work in this case, unaffected by
contamination. There's no evidence of contamination in this case.
I'm going to talk to you a little bit later on about why we have
these arguments of -- about conspiracy and planting and
contamination. And I'm going to show you how these arguments were
born. But let me just tell you something: There isn't any evidence
to support any of this stuff. Their expert, Dr. John Gerdes -- this
was the guy they put on the witness stand -- he's the guy that
represents mainly rapists and murderers if you recall. He's the guy
-- he testifies for them, I should say. He's the guy who said --
tried to say there was some contamination, but finally had to
concede that if there was contamination, it would have showed up on
the substrate controls. Throughout this whole process of collecting
blood evidence, there were these control swatches taken every step
of the way of collection and testing. If there's any contamination,
if Mr. Simpson's blood is somehow accidentally being put on the
various blood swatches in this case, it would also show up on
these control swatches. And every single one of these control
swatches, their expert had to admit in the end, was completely free
of contamination. Zero contamination on any control swatches. And
that's really the end of discussion about contamination. If Mr.
Simpson's blood is not on the control swatches, there's no
contamination. Blood stain 52, by the way, that one Robin -- Dr.
Robin Cotton of Cellmark testified -- that's the one right outside
the back gate -- on that stain alone, she was able to obtain what
she called a 5-probe RFLP match, which means she tested the DNA at
five different locations. That's a very, very significant match
under this RFLP test. And in the entire population, the number of
people who could have had this 5-probe RFLP match is somewhere
between one out of every 170 million and one out of every 2.2
billion. And Mr. Simpson is such a person who has that 5-probe
match. That blood stain alone, number 52, is sufficient to show Mr.
Simpson is responsible for these murders. He has no innocent
explanation why his blood and his DNA were found at Bundy right
after the murders. Now, on the back gate -- you heard a lot of
testimony about the blood on the back gate. Gary Sims, from the
Department of Justice, tested the back-gate blood, and he did a
9-probe RFLP match on that back-gate stain. And he found that it
matched Simpson's DNA pattern. A 9-probe match -- I'll show you the
frequencies. And they're very, very high. Again, their expert, Dr.
Gerdes, admitted that that result could not be the result of
contamination. That 9-probe match could not have come about by
contamination. It's conclusive proof that Simpson's blood is on the
back gate. They don't really quarrel with that. What they say is, it
was planted there. Let me explain something about this back-gate
planting argument, okay? If blood evidence at Bundy was checked on
the morning of June 13, and these three stains on the back gate were
overlooked and they were not collected until July 3 -- the
criminalists, Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola, did not go here and
here and here to pick up stains; they just didn't do it. However, we
know they were -- they were not planted, because four or five police
officers, who we brought in here to testify, said they saw blood on
the back gate. They saw blood, these blood stains on the back gate
when they came to the crime scene, to either secure it or to
investigate it. In fact -- I know it's been a long trial and it's
hard to remember all this -- but the very first officer on the
scene, Robert Riske, one of the first witnesses in our case, he saw
the blood on the back gate, and he wrote it down in his notes. And
it's right there in his notes, if you want to take a look at it. And
that's exhibit -- What's that, 833, Steve?
MR. PETROCELLI: 833. Okay. You want to bring out the results board
real fast? And I'll move on to the hair and fiber evidence.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, is this a good place for a break?
THE COURT: You want to take a break now?
MR. PETROCELLI: Let me get through the blood, and then before we go
to the next topic --
(Board entitled Results of DNA Analysis, Bundy Crime Scene, Exhibit
833, displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Again, these are the blood drops tested by the
various labs.
(Indicating.) It's five Bundy stains, and then it's three back-gate
stains, and you'll see the labs, DOJ and Cellmark, that did the
various tests, and the matches that they came up with. This is
(indicating). This is a shoe print in Nicole Brown Simpson's blood
(indicating). This is why it comes up with Nicole Brown. All the
rest of them are O.J. Simpson. No, the defense does not challenge
these results. They have had an expert who was around when some of
this testing was done. He didn't come in here and testify. They
don't contest any of these results; they agree with these results.
They have no evidence of contamination. Dr. Popovich reviewed our
experts' -- reviewed all this, and testified -- said no
contamination. Dr. Henry Lee testified for the defense. He said he
had no problems about DNA in this case. And you'll see the
frequencies up there. The defense did not challenge any of the
frequencies, either, ladies and gentlemen. They did not bring in a
geneticist, population geneticist or statistician. The frequencies
are undisputed. And they show that this blood is all O.J. Simpson's
blood. This is a good place, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen. Remember, during
argument -- you cannot discuss this case until the Court gives the
case to you, after instructions. Don't talk about the argument
among yourselves, or the evidence.
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
MR. PETROCELLI: We're trying to cool down a little here, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It's very warm.
MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah, thank you. Before the break I described to you
the overwhelming blood evidence that incriminates Mr. Simpson. I
would now like to talk briefly about what we call hair and fiber
evidence. You will remember we put on the witness stand Douglas
Deedrick from the FBI. He's the chief of the hair and fibers unit.
He's an undisputed expert in hair and fiber analysis. He testified
that Mr. Simpson's defense experts examined these hair and fiber
materials as well, and that he did not disagree with Mr. Deedrick's
conclusions. And remember, the defense did not call any expert
witnesses to refute or disagree with what Mr. Deedrick said about
these hair and fiber matches. So his testimony that there were
matches is completely unrefuted. Nobody disagrees with it. Now,
Agent Deedrick testified about the head hairs found in that cap up
there, the blue cap. And he said that there were 12 head hairs found
and they matched Mr. Simpson's head hair. That alone is very
incriminating. Why is his head hair in that hat right next to the
victim's bodies. Nine of the head hairs -- actually there were
twelve head hairs in all. Nine of them were found actually inside
the cap. What that means is that those head hairs, according to Doug
Deedrick, likely came right off of Mr. Simpson's head when the cap
came off or when he was using the cap. Call that a primary transfer.
The fact that those head hairs were inside the cap suggests that
they didn't just blow in there from some other source. The defense
liked to talk about the fact that there was a blanket that was
brought out from Nicole's house to use for the bodies. Well, they
never proved that that blanket had any head hairs of Mr. Simpson or
any fibers or anything regarding Mr. Simpson. And in fact, the
testimony about that blanket, as you will recall from Officer
Thompson, was that he examined it, it was clean and folded, and he
got it from a -- I think a linen closet upstairs. That blanket is
really irrelevant. The head hairs, Mr. Simpson's, nine of them,
inside the hat. That shows direct physical contact between Mr.
Simpson and that cap. Two -- yeah, two of these head hairs, by the
way, were actually intertwined in the fabric of that cap, which
shows that they had been there for some time. You'll recall Mr.
Deedrick's testimony; not something that could have just, again,
blown in there, but they had been in there some time. Two of Mr.
Simpson's head hairs intertwined in the cap indicating that that cap
was on his head. We showed you pictures or a picture, I believe,
when I cross-examined Mr. Simpson back in November, of a hat just
like that hat, the knit cap, that was recovered from his bedroom by
the police right after the murders. So we know that Mr. Simpson had
knit caps like that. In addition, there was also a head hair
matching Mr. Simpson's head hair on Ron Goldman's shirt. On his
shirt there was also a limb hair found, which Doug Deedrick found as
a limb hair and as a Negroid limb hair. These hairs on Ron Goldman's
shirt, again, show that Mr. Simpson was in contact with Ron Goldman.
There isn't any innocent explanation, ladies and gentlemen, for Mr.
Simpson's hair to be on Ron Goldman's shirt. Mr. Simpson says he
never met Ron Goldman. Well, why is his hair on Ron Goldman's shirt?
A few words about the carpet fiber evidence. You will recall there
was testimony that there was a rare carpet fiber that was found on
the Bundy knit cap and also on the glove found at Rockingham. This
carpet fiber was this medium mocha color which matched the same
medium mocha color of the fibers in Mr. Simpson's Bronco, his 1994
Bronco. There was testimony that this carpet fiber was produced by a
company called Masland Industries, who had an exclusive contract
with Ford beginning in May, 1993, that this particular type of
medium mocha color was only used in three types of cars; one of
which was a Ford Bronco. Mr. Simpson's Ford Bronco was manufactured
in October of 1993, further indicating that this rare carpet fiber
came from his car. And again, you have to think about it. Now, you
have carpet fibers from his Bronco on that hat, and on the gloves at
Rockingham. Again, indicating that Mr. Simpson's car was in contact
with that hat and in contact with the glove at Rockingham. Again,
putting Mr. Simpson and no one else right smack in the middle of all
of this evidence. And finally, on fibers; we have 24 blue-black
cotton fibers which Doug Deedrick said was a kind of unique fiber, a
bluish coloration when he looked at it very close under a
microscope. And fibers of this type were found on Ron Goldman's
shirt, again, on Mr. Simpson's socks, and in his bedroom, and on the
glove dropped at Rockingham. So you have matching blue-black fibers
on three objects; Ron Goldman's shirt, the glove that was used in
these murders found at Rockingham, and a pair of socks, Mr.
Simpson's socks. Again, Mr. Simpson and no one else is the common
source between these three objects. He's the messenger. He's the one
who had contact with all these things, ladies and gentlemen. Nobody
else. Now, there was some testimony about a sweat suit. I want to
get into that right now. And we suggest to you these blue-black
cotton fibers came from a sweat suit or sweat outfit or sweat
clothes that OJ Simpson was wearing on the night of these murders.
You will recall when I first examined Mr. Simpson on the witness
stand, I asked him whether he owned any dark sweat clothing as of
June 12, 1994, he said, no, he did not own a single piece of dark
sweat clothing. He gave that testimony on November 25. I then showed
him some photographs of him wearing dark sweat clothing taken on May
25, May 26, May 27, just a couple weeks before the murders, at his
house in the course of his filming an exercise video for Playboy.
Can you put up the photo.
(Photograph displayed on Elmo.)
MR. PETROCELLI: I showed these photos to Mr. Simpson, and some other
photos, and I said, well, what about this sweat suit, didn't you
have that as of June 12? And he said I didn't keep it. I got to wear
those outfits and I returned them to the wardrobe person. I didn't
keep any of them, okay. On December 4, couple of weeks later, we
called the wardrobe person Leslie Gardner, put her on the stand, and
she testified that Mr. Simpson did not in fact -- did not in fact
return any clothing to her. She testified how she acquired some
sweat suit items, gave them to Mr. Simpson, he used them, and to her
knowledge, they were never returned, certainly not to her. And she
did not know that they had been returned to anyone else. Now, a week
or so ago, Mr. Simpson returned to the witness stand under the
friendly questioning of his lawyer, Mr. Baker. And he said, you
know, I've been thinking about this sweat suit thing, and I did keep
a sweat suit top, but it was a cashmere top, okay. And I didn't keep
anything else. Did you keep any cotton outfits? No, I did not, just
this one cashmere top. And he said cashmere, of course, because
cotton fibers were found near there, and he would like you to
believe that he didn't have any cotton fiber outfits. He would like
you to believe that he never had, as of June 12, 1994, in his
possession, in his wardrobe, in his closet, any dark sweat suit made
with any cotton fibers. So we then -- despite this change in
testimony now by him, we then called Ms. Gardner back, if you will
recall, on -- on January 14. And she testified that she did, in
fact, order a cashmere sweat suit outfit for Mr. Simpson, but it was
too small, it didn't fit, and she returned it. She didn't leave it
with him, she didn't give it to him, she returned it. She then
testified that the item that she did give to Mr. Simpson, and that
he did wear, were cotton -- some cotton fleece items, okay, a black
cotton fleece zip-up front sweater. Can you put that up.
(Photograph of OJ Simpson wearing a sweat outfit displayed on Elmo.)

MR. PETROCELLI: She never got this back, ladies and gentlemen. She
never got this back. This has cotton fibers. I think she testified
it's some kind of blend; some of the fibers are cotton, the others
are polyester. O.J. Simpson, she said, never returned that outfit to
her. Despite what Mr. Simpson said on the witness stand. In
addition, she said she gave Mr. Simpson this outfit, which was taken
at the time of the video
(indicating to photo in magazine), and then published in this
magazine. Again, a cotton fleece-type pants, okay. Neither this
cotton-type pants or that cotton top was ever returned to Ms.
Gardner, or to anyone else associated with the production, to the
best of her knowledge.
MR. BAKER: I object, Your Honor. There's no evidence it wasn't
returned to anyone else.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: So, ladies and gentlemen, you have to ask yourself,
why is OJ Simpson so obviously lying about this sweat suit? Why is
he lying? Why is he changing his story? As we trap him, he changes
again. We trap him again, he changes it again. Why is he lying? Why
is he saying -- a guy with all the clothing that he has, why is he
saying I never had a dark sweat suit as of June 12? Why would he say
such a thing? Because he wore a dark sweat suit on June 12 when he
killed two people. That's why he's saying such a thing. That's why
he's lying to you. Let's go to the gloves. You heard the testimony
of the former executive of the Aris Isotoner Company, Richard Rubin.
And he testified that the glove found at Bundy was a brown men's
leather light extra large glove. It had SKU number 70263.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object. There was no testimony from Richard
Rubin about any numbers whatsoever.
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, there was, Your Honor.
MR. BAKER: No, there wasn't.
THE COURT: Okay. Approach the bench.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the
MR. PETROCELLI: This is the cite I have, Your Honor
(indicating to document).
MR. BAKER: What page are you referring to?
MR. PETROCELLI: Look on page 82 -- 91, November 6, 1996. Do you have
MR. BAKER: We'll get it.
MR. PETROCELLI: Computer people are better at it than I am.
MR. GELBLUM: Page 81 to 82. November 6.
THE COURT: Bring it up.
MR. PETROCELLI: Bring up the computer.
(Mr. Gelblum complies.)
(Court reviews transcript.)
MR. PETROCELLI: You have to page down, Your Honor.
MR. BAKER: Style number.
MR. PETROCELLI: It's right there.
MR. BAKER: It's the style number.
MR. PETROCELLI: You said there were no numbers, Mr. Baker.
MR. BAKER: No, no. I knew there was a style number, not an
individual number. But you're going to try to tell this jury that
that indicates that those gloves -- you're --
MR. PETROCELLI: I absolutely am telling them. That's absolutely what
he testified. It's unrebutted. You want to see it? It's page 93 to
(Counsel and Court review transcript on computer screen.)
MR. BAKER: 94, Phil.
MR. PETROCELLI: It's on page 93 to 94. Can I get on with my
argument now, Your Honor?
MR. BAKER: Can you guys move it up to 93, 94.
MR. PETROCELLI: This is not helpful. What's that? What's that number
just -- there. Go back to where it said the number.
(Indicating to computer screen.)
MR. BAKER: That's a style number.
MR. PETROCELLI: 70263, brown extra large.
MR. BAKER: I want a serial number.
MR. GELBLUM: That's in here.
MR. PETROCELLI: There's a cutter number, too, Your Honor.
(Mr. Gelblum adjusts screen.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Cutter No. 359 the sequence is 9. What exactly is
the cutter number?
MR. BAKER: Wait. Wait. Back up.
(Indicating to computer screen.)
MR. BAKER: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. PETROCELLI: Can I get on with my argument? Okay, thank you.
THE COURT: Overruled.
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
MR. PETROCELLI: As I was saying, Mr. Rubin, the glove expert, and
the only glove expert called in the case -- by the way, they didn't
call any glove expert -- said that the number on this glove, 70263,
on this Bundy glove, it had a cutter number of 359 and a sequence
control number of 9. While I'm here, the glove that he examined that
was found at Rockingham had the identical numbers. And he said they
are a pair. And there is no doubt about it, and don't let yourselves
be fooled by all these hokus-pokus photo games which the defense
likes to play, trying to say this is a hole. This is not a hole.
This is not what you see. We'll get into that. Okay. But all that is
designed to sort of confuse and distract you from the real evidence.
That's real simple. Okay. These are two matching gloves, and the
only glove expert that has testified has said so; they have the same
numbers, they're identical, they're a pair, the Bundy glove and the
Rockingham glove. And these numbers, by the way, that he testified
about, he said on the stand they are stenciled on the inside of the
glove. This isn't something that he is just pulling out of air.
These are in the glove itself, these numbers. Mr. Rubin explained
that these particular kind of gloves were manufactured by Aris
Isotoner and only sold exclusively to Bloomingdale's; a store where
Mr. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson shopped during the times they
were in and lived in New York City. Only Bloomingdale's, you could
get these gloves. And furthermore, to show how rare these gloves
are, there were only 200 to 240 of these gloves sold in the size and
color in 1990 and 1991; only 200 to 240 pairs of these gloves. Mr.
Simpson himself had to admit that, yes, Nicole did shop in
Bloomingdale's, he shopped in Bloomingdale's. But won't you know it,
wouldn't you come to expect that when I said and, of course, Nicole
would buy you gloves from time to time? Absolutely not, she never
bought me gloves. That's the one thing she never bought, was a pair
of those brown gloves. And -- do you have that receipt, by the way,
Exhibit 390
(indicating to Mr. Foster).
(Exhibit 390 displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: We have a receipt here showing Nicole purchasing two
pair of Aris leather light extra large gloves. That's Exhibit 390.
Mr. Simpson said she never bought him gloves. There's a receipt.
They sold for $55 a pair, 30 percent discount, that Nicole got when
she bought them on December 18, 1990. Now, Mr. Simpson wore this
black glove -- pair of black gloves, and a pair of brown gloves for
about three and a half years after they were bought because we were
able to see them in photographs. This isn't a pair of gloves that he
threw away after using them for the first time. He wore them at
football games when he worked there as an announcer, particularly in
cold and inclement weather, when it was raining, and he's seen with
an umbrella. See him holding the microphone. Particularly -- the
right glove had a lot of wear and tear to it, particularly in the
palm area, it's a little more worn out than the left glove. These
were his gloves. He's wearing them. Can you show the pictures.
(Exhibit No. 642 is displayed.)
MR. FOSTER: Yes. 643.
MR. FOSTER: This is 660.
(Exhibits are displayed on Elmo)
MR. PETROCELLI: 660. This one was taken by the way, January 15,
1994. Stay on that for a second. Mr. Rubin, our glove expert,
testified that this glove is an Aris leather light, extra large,
identical in make and style to the glove at the murder scene, except
this one's a black one, obviously. Nicole bought a black pair and a
brown pair. There's no -- by the way, there's no testimony that that
isn't an Aris leather light. Mr. Simpson doesn't deny it. Mr.
Simpson put on no evidence that that isn't such a glove. He can't
deny it. It's right there. Well, he could deny it, I guess. Now,
show us 655.
(Exhibit 655 displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: It's another one with the black gloves. Show us 646.

(Exhibit 646 displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Now, here's the brown gloves. And Mr. Rubin, the
glove expert, was able to say it's identical in make and style to
the glove at the murder scene. You're looking at gloves that were
used by -- when Mr. Simpson killed Ron Goldman and Nicole. You're
looking at them on his hands, ladies and gentlemen. And when I asked
him if you're innocent, Mr. Simpson, tell me where those gloves are,
where are they, bring them to court, show us, you know what he said.
I have no idea. Quote, I have no idea. No idea. You're going to hear
a little bit from Mr. Baker, I guess, about well, these gloves
didn't fit him, they're not his gloves. You know, he didn't have Mr.
Simpson try them on here, but he did show you a video from the
criminal case. Our expert, Mr. Rubin, said that those gloves have
shrunk. In the first place, they were purchased back in 1990. Mr.
Simpson is trying them on in court four, five years later. They
shrunk from use in rain and exposure to the elements. Mr. Rubin also
pointed out, because he was there in court, that when those gloves
were taken out to put on, they were all crumpled up, they had not
been refurbished, which is what you would do when you put on a pair
of gloves that's been sitting around for a long time, especially a
pair that's been encrusted in blood. I think you saw Mr. Rubin here
on the stand, refurbishing the glove. And also Mr. Rubin pointed out
how there was a requirement in the criminal case that Mr. Simpson
put on latex gloves underneath these gloves and that altered the
fit. Of course he wasn't wearing latex gloves on June 12. And
lastly, and you could tell, I don't have to tell you, you saw him
try those gloves on, on that video, this wasn't a guy anxious to
show anyone that those gloves fit. He was grimacing and trying to
get them on in front of the jury there. It's like trying to put a
pair of pants on a crying baby, or something, a pair of gloves on a
crying baby. He had his hands, fingers out, and wasn't making it
real easy. Those were his gloves, got them right there, they were
not his gloves, he -- did he tell you where they are and he can't,
he said, "I have no idea." Okay, Steve.
(Mr. Foster removes photo from Elmo.) Let's talk about those Bruno
Magli shoes. Pretty interesting piece of evidence, I'd say. Mr.
Simpson can say all that he wants, or his lawyer will say quite a
bit about contamination of blood, planting of blood, LAPD not doing
their job, can't trust the blood evidence, got to throw it all out.
You're going to hear all that stuff, okay. None of it is true. The
blood evidence is the single most incriminating evidence in the
case. It's his blood. He was there. He did it. But I'll tell you one
thing. They can't make that argument, even that lame argument, they
can't make about these shoe prints. They can't argue that the shoe
prints are planted. They can't argue that the sole was planted. They
have no argument about planting of shoe prints. They have no
contamination argument about shoe prints. This is one of the single
most crucial pieces of evidence in this case. And can you imagine
that O.J. Simpson last week didn't say one word about it. Not one
word. Heismann Trophy. But no Bruno Magli. These shoe prints were
discovered immediately when the police arrived after midnight on
June 13, and they were fresh and they were leading away from the
crime scene. It was obviously that it was the person taking the back
gate to escape detection, to not go out the front so he wouldn't be
seen. And we'll talk about that a little more later on. But when he
got in his Bronco to speed away, he didn't ride in front of the
murder scene, he drove the opposite direction and then turned to go
back home again. He did not want to be seen. And he had to get home
to save his alibi. We put on the stand the testimony of FBI Special
Agent William Bodziak. He is one of the most renown experts anywhere
on footwear images. He's been with the FBI for 23 years. And Mr.
Medvene put on that testimony. His opinion, ladies and gentlemen,
that the killer wore Bruno Magli shoe print size 12, is totally
unchallenged, totally undisputed. The defense concedes that point.
Mr. Baker said it in his opening statement: "We agree the killer
wore size 12 Bruno Magli shoes." There's not much talk about it.
The question is -- the only question is did Mr. Simpson have Bruno
Magli shoes, size 12. That's really it. And while I'm on this, let
me say something else. That's the photo taken by Harry Scull, ladies
and gentlemen, and before Mr. Baker and O.J. Simpson and the rest of
the defense team knew that 30 more photos were going to emerge, he
stood up, told this jury, both Mr. Baker and Mr. Simpson, "We agree
that the shoes in that photo are Bruno Magli shoes." Agent Bodziak
got on the stand, and he not only testified that that's a Bruno
Magli Lorenzo unique Silga sole size 12, he testified so is that
(indicating to photo). They didn't challenge his testimony, they
agreed with it, that is a Bruno Magli size 12 Lorenzo, and so is
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object. There's been no testimony that the
photo in the Scull photo, the photo
(sic) in Scull photo is a size 12.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: Their position, ladies and gentlemen, taken back at
the beginning of this trial, before they knew there was going to be
more photos that would come to light, was that this photo is a
phony. That's what Mr. Baker said, it's not real, it's doctored, and
we will prove it. So by his own reasoning, if that photo is real,
O.J. Simpson is the killer. The shoes are on his feet. If that photo
is real, O.J. Simpson is the killer. That's it. It's the end of the
ball game. There's nothing more to talk about. Not only that photo.
The 30 new photographs of him at that same game, if those photos are
real, O.J. Simpson's the killer. If those photos are real. We had
those negatives in court here. Did you see the defense call an
expert to talk about those 30 new photographs? Did you see them try
to challenge those 30 new photographs? Did you hear anybody come on
the witness stand for the defense and say those 30 photographs of
him wearing those shoes are phonies too? Did you get that testimony?
I didn't hear it. It didn't happen. There is no such testimony.
Bodziak testified that the shoes in the Flammer photographs are
Bruno Magli shoes of the same characteristics of those shoes.
They're the same characteristics of those shoes. It's the same pair
of shoes. It's either that, or he had two pair of Bruno Magli
shoes, size 12, and put two different pairs on in the game. They're
not saying that though it's one pair. And they did not call anybody
to say that the 30 photos are a fake. Nobody. They did call somebody
to say that this photo was a fake, and we'll talk about that guy and
what he said. But you didn't hear him come back -- not even him, you
didn't hear that guy come back and talk about the Flammer photos.
Not even he could get himself on this stand and say, you know what,
I think all 31 are fakes, every one's a fake. And of course you all
remember that one of the pictures Mr. Flammer took of Mr. Simpson
wearing the shoes was actually published in the newspaper eight
months before the murders. So how could it be a fake? It's not
possible. While I'm on the subject of the shoes, ask yourselves
this: If O.J. Simpson were innocent, ladies and gentlemen, why would
he deny owning those shoes. Why wouldn't he -- why didn't he say he
owned them, of course I had those shoes, they're in the picture,
here's 30 more pictures, of course I had those shoes, but I'm not
the killer, I didn't do it. Why is he going to take to his grave
that he didn't own those shoes, that he didn't wear those shoes?
'Cause he knows those are the shoes he wore when he killed my
client's son in a blind rage, and when he killed the mother of his
children in a blind rage. He knows he wore those shoes. We'll
never see those shoes. We don't know what he did with them. We don't
know where he hid them, how he destroyed them. We'll never see them,
but they're on his feet and they are the murder shoes. There's no
doubt about that. They can talk all they want about police
conspiracies, LAPD frame-ups, all these wild ideas, and they will
try to insult your intelligence by giving you crazy claims of
frame-ups and conspiracies. What are they going to do about this
evidence? This doesn't involve the Los Angeles Police Department.
What are they going to say? Oh, because they were selling pictures.
So if the pictures are a fraud, why didn't they bring anybody in to
say they were a fraud? Why didn't they bring somebody in on those
Flammer photos? Just because somebody sells something -- everybody
in this case has sold something. You've heard Mr. Baker ask witness
after witness about books and videos and television. That's one of
the unfortunate things about this case that's become such a big
media thing. The fact that somebody is a professional photographer
-- two people who are professional photographers, that's how they
made their money, would sell photographs, does that mean the
photographs aren't real? Of course not. When they're published eight
months before the murders, how can it be? It's impossible. Can you
bring in the Bronco board. While we're waiting for that board, the
next significant place besides Bundy, to summarize Bundy: We have
O.J. Simpson basically in all the clothes he wore to kill, hat,
gloves, sweatsuit, shoes, we'll talk about the socks, Nicole's blood
and his blood splashed on them, got the whole thing.
(Large board entitled "Bronco Evidence" is displayed.) Why is there
blood in O.J. Simpson's car? Think about that one. Why is it there?
There is blood in O.J. Simpson's car the night of the murders. Why
is there any blood? Is there any blood in your car that night, my
car? Why is there blood in his car that night? First of all, this
car was not parked where it's parked almost every single time he
parks it. He parks this car on Ashford, not Rockingham, right where
that mailbox is. He gets out of his car, he walks up to Ashford, he
jiggles the gates open, he goes inside the front door. It's the
shortest distance for him to park and go inside, and that's what
he does all the time. Especially if he were going out of town, he
would never park in some strange place. He told the police he
normally parks on Rockingham. We've had witnesses testify here that
he normally parks on -- excuse me. He told the police he normally
parks on Ashford. And we had other witnesses come in here and say
the same thing. Even his housekeeper, Gigi Guarin, testified he
usually parks on Ashford. And remember Dale St. John, his limousine
driver, the guy who wasn't available on the night of June 12 and so
he got Alan Park to sub for him. Dale St. John said he picked up
O.J. Simpson over 100 times, over 100 times, and never saw that
Bronco or Mr. Simpson's vehicles on Rockingham, they were on
Ashford. Remember the testimony of the neighbor, Charles Cale. He
testified that he had taken a walk that night from 9 o'clock --
excuse me -- 9:30, 9:45. He lives down the street on Rockingham. He
said he has a perfect view of Rockingham. He never sees O.J.
Simpson's car parked on Rockingham. It's always parked on Ashford.
So why is it parked on Rockingham on this night? On this night, the
night of the murders, why is it parked on Rockingham, where it's
never parked. Why does it have blood in it, which is -- usually an
automobile doesn't have, when he came home, when he returned from
the murders, rushing like hell, before that limousine driver left,
because if that limousine driver left, there goes any alibi. He had
to get home before that limo driver left, catch that plane to go to
the airport. And that limo driver was on the Ashford driveway parked
and looking in, wondering why nobody is home. Mr. Simpson knew that,
and he had to pull around the other way, park on Rockingham and get
onto his property, and that's why the car's parked on Rockingham,
and no other reason, ladies and gentlemen. It's obvious. Now, do you
recall I asked Mr. Simpson about this parking on Rockingham and he
had this convoluted explanation about his dog Chachi. It's really
easy to blame things on dogs. They can't testify. You can blame
things on people who are dead, as he has repeatedly. They can't
testify either. And he said oh, I parked on Rockingham because, you
know, I liked to watch the dog when I get out and then the gate
closes and I run back in. All this stuff about the dogs running
out. Well, the dog never runs out. How many witnesses did I have to
call to the stand to show that the dog never runs out, this old lame
arthritic dog. Couldn't get that dog to move. In fact, we showed you
a photograph of the Ashford gate wide open, wide open, strange man
taking pictures there, and the dog's not going anywhere, the dog's
sitting there, and he ain't moving, okay. That's Chachi. Well, this
is just something Mr. Simpson invented because he had to have an
explanation why he parked on Rockingham. Now, in terms of the blood
in his car when the police arrived on the morning of the 13th, to go
over to Mr. Simpson's house, you heard testimony from police
detectives, they saw the blood in the car early on the morning of
the 13th, including Lange talked about it and we had Donald Tippin
talk about it, Daniel Gonzalez talked about it, Detective Astin, I
think his name is, he talked about it. They saw blood outside of the
Bronco and inside the Bronco, by looking in with a flashlight,
especially when it got a little lighter on the morning of June 13.
Now, let me explain something to you. That blood could not have been
planted, right, because Mr. Simpson didn't give his blood to the
police until 2:30, 3 o'clock that afternoon -- actually it was 3:30.
So how did the blood get in there? It could not have been planted.
You understand it could not have been. They didn't have any of his
blood. And I asked Mr. Simpson when he sat right here
(indicating to witness stand), about that blood in that car and
asked whether he bled in that car the night before, whether he would
admit to that. He said no, no, no, I did not bleed in that car, I
did not bleed in that car. He has no innocent explanation for the
blood in that car. None. No innocent explanation for why there was
blood in the car the next morning. Zero. Now, you'll hear -- maybe
they'll talk about it when Mr. Baker gets up, but Mr. Simpson has
this story where he goes in to get his cell phone at the end of the
night, at 11 o'clock, before he runs off to the airport. He's now
changed the story to say cell phone accessories, but we're going to
talk about that later on. Goes in to get his cell phone, okay, and
he opens the door, limo's ready to take off, car's on Rockingham,
goes in, and he said he reached in with his right hand to get the
cell phone -- or whatever it was he said, windbreaker -- he never
put his left hand in the car. And I went through, very carefully,
the movements in the Bronco. When he went to get his things out,
he didn't get in and close the door, which you wouldn't do to take
something out; you go in -- open the door, you reach in. You try to
say he might have gotten in because it's a high car. But basically,
he said, I don't think I did. And I certainly didn't close the door.
And I reached in with my right hand, and I didn't touch the knob
where you pull the lights out, headlights. I didn't touch the inside
notch of the door handle; I didn't touch those places. Okay. So he
has no explanation about how blood got right there, for example.
(Indicating.) How do you get blood inside that notch? How do you get
blood in there if you're just reaching in and grabbing something or
closing the door? You'd never get your left hand in there unless
you're in the car, door closed, and you're going to open the door to
get out. That's the only way blood can get in there. That's his
blood, ladies and gentlemen, right in that notch there, number 23.
That blood was in his car from when the police came on the 13th, and
it was collected the next day. Blood there,
(indicating) right where the headlight knob is. How do you get
blood there? Left hand, left finger maybe. Left hand, left finger
maybe. I asked Mr. Simpson: Suppose you had just -- suppose you had
cuts on these fingers here. Could you have -- would your finger have
made contact with this inside notch area? And he had to say it would
have. And that is, of course, what happened when he came back from
Bundy and he opened the door to get out. He put blood here,
(indicating) on his left finger -- he put blood there,
(indicating) and he put blood there.
(Indicating.) Now, item 31 on that -- on that board -- First of all,
let me mention that the DNA analysis done on -- on the -- this blood
here, 23,
(indicating) that blood, I think that's -- Is that 24?
(Nods affirmatively.)
MR. PETROCELLI: And some of the other stains, DNA analysis, Gary
(Nods affirmatively.)
MR. PETROCELLI: That's O.J. Simpson's blood, again, not contested,
not challenged. That's his DNA; that's not someone else's blood;
that's Simpson's blood right there
(indicating) and right there
(indicating), here, too, 34.
(Indicating.) Number 31, is that -- that's Ron Goldman's blood,
ladies and gentlemen. DNA analysis of item 31, performed both by
Collin Yamauchi of SID and Gary Sims, and both independently,
confirmed that that blood, 31, is Ron Goldman's blood. Now, how does
Ron Goldman's blood get in O.J. Simpson's car? Do you really need to
ask it over and over again. No contamination is responsible for that
blood drop. That was the testimony of Dr. Brad Popovich. There's no
possible explanation -- no innocent explanation. The only
explanation is that Mr. Simpson got Mr. Goldman's blood on him when
he murdered him; and he got it on his car, and that's why it's
there. And finally, on this Bronco, item 33, this area right here on
the floor, where the emergency brake is
(indicating), that, ladies and gentlemen, is the blood of Nicole.
Again, DNA analysis confirms that. No challenge by the defense. They
don't have any contrary evidence. That is Nicole Brown's blood on
O.J. Simpson's carpet in his car. Mr. Bodziak testified that there
were certain lines, an outer line and inner line, parallel lines,
that make this stain area consistent with a shoe print, consistent
with the Bruno Magli shoe print, Silga sole. That was his
testimony. We know what happened. We know that Mr. Simpson, with
these shoes or shoes just like this -- For the record, I'm holding
up what?
MR. FOSTER: 395.
(Mr. Petrocelli displays Exhibit 395, Bruno Magli shoes, to the
MR. PETROCELLI: Exhibit 395, which is a sample of a Bruno Magli --
different color -- same color or different? Different -- Silga sole,
Lorenzo. And Mr. Bodziak testified that the shoe -- shoe print in
that car in Nicole's blood is consistent with this -- with these
Bruno Magli shoes. So, Mr. Simpson stepped in Nicole's blood, still
on his shoes, stepped there and left that, left that stain.
(Indicating.) Now, they can't claim, by the way, that this blood was
planted, either; because on June 14, that whole piece of carpet,
that entire piece of carpet was actually removed from the car, on
the morning of June 14, by the criminalist. And they wrapped it up
tightly in paper and they put it in a freezer at SID, Serology. And
that's where it stayed. There's been no evidence that anybody went
-- ever went in there and took it out and did anything to it. Zero
evidence of that. And then sometime later, it was taken out -- I
think on September 1 -- and Greg Matheson clipped off some fibers
that had the blood on it, right over here
(indicating) -- In fact, that's his hand doing it, right here,
clipping off the fibers from the -- from the blood. They sent that
blood out to be tested. They labeled those bloody fibers 293, the
carpet itself being 33. And DNA analysis confirmed that that blood
on that carpet in O.J. Simpson's car was Nicole's blood. Not even
Dr. Gerdes said that that was contaminated. No evidence of
contamination. So that's undisputed, ladies and gentlemen. You have
Nicole Brown's blood in O.J. Simpson's Bronco the night of the
murders. How did it get there? No one is -- no innocent explanation.
He doesn't tell us; he doesn't have it. He's guilty. Finally, on the
physical evidence, we go to Rockingham, Mr. Simpson's home. And
basically what we have at Rockingham, ladies and gentlemen -- we
have a couple things. We have blood on the outside the driveway
area, leading up to the front door. We have blood drops inside the
front door, on the hardwood floor, there in the foyer. We have some
blood drops in Mr. Simpson's bathroom, right off his bedroom. We
have blood in the shower. We have blood on the cable, from the back
wall behind Kato Kaelin's room. We have the glove at Rockingham,
behind Kaelin's room. And the glove I'll talk about separately. It
is loaded with evidence, the glove. And then we also have a pair of
socks in Mr. Simpson's bedroom with some dried, splashed blood.
Donald Thompson testified, ladies and gentlemen -- that's that very
large, 6-foot 6 officer -- that he was there early in the morning at
Rockingham, around 8 o'clock or so, and he saw these blood drops.
And he testified about them. And bear in mind these blood drops
could not have been planted, right? They didn't have O.J. Simpson's
blood; they couldn't have planted any of these blood drops. They had
no blood to plant. So they can't tell you that blood is planted. So
what's O.J. Simpson's blood doing dripped all over his driveway? And
why is it in his house? And he had no explanation. Zero. No innocent
explanation, I should say. Could you put up the next one.
(Exhibit displayed on the Elmo screen.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Again with various DNA tests that were done by the
various labs, all labs agree -- in other words, you can't just say
SID somehow comes up with all the wrong results, can't just blame it
on the LAPD labs. Separate, independent testing was done by Gary
Sims and by Robin Cotton. And they always, always, in this case,
came up with the same results. Okay. That's very important.
Everybody had the same results. All of these results, of all this
blood evidence on the outside of the property and on the inside of
the property of these various locations, all confirm to be O.J.
Simpson's blood, his DNA. His blood. No defense experts came in here
in court to tell you otherwise. The defense has admitted that these
blood results showed O.J. Simpson's blood. They don't dispute that.
And again, how could it be that there's blood in his house the night
of the murders? Now, let's go to the Rockingham glove. The testimony
in this case was that at about 10:51 p.m., Kato Kaelin heard a
loud crashing sound against his wall. And you all know where his
wall is; it's over here.
(Indicating.) And we are able to fix that time now because of Allan
Park's cell-phone records, which I'll talk about a little later on.
But we know that sound against the wall, which Mr. Kaelin thought
sounded like someone hitting against the wall -- hoped it would be
an earthquake, because he was, frankly, frightened if it wasn't an
earthquake -- right where he heard those sounds, the next morning,
when he told that to the police officers, a glove was found. A
glove. And that glove, of course, was the glove that matched the
Bundy glove, brown Aris leather, size extra large, number 70263,
stitched right in cutter number 359, sequence control number 9, the
glove expert Rubin said it matches exactly the glove found at Bundy.
And we know Mr. Simpson owns those gloves. Can you put up the
Rockingham glove board.
(Board entitled Rockingham Glove Results displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Now, this Rockingham glove, when it was taken into
the lab and analyzed, as I said, it was chock full of evidence. It
had blood on it; it had hair on it; it had fiber on it. This shows
the blood that the glove had on it.
(Indicating.) Three people -- all the blood in this case comes down
to three people: OJ Simpson, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ronald
Goldman. No better example than this glove right here. Ronald
Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, OJ Simpson. Blood mixtures. Some
of them have individual stains, blood all over this right-handed
glove which held the knife. And had blood sort of caked onto it. And
DNA analysis confirmed this is Simpson's blood, this is Nicole's
blood, Ron's blood. No debate about that. None whatsoever. In
addition to the blood on the glove, we also have head hair matching
Nicole and Ron. So we have strands of Nicole Brown Simpson's blood
and blond hair, and traces of Ronald Goldman's dark hair on these
gloves. They may try to talk to you later on about planting a glove,
which is completely preposterous. And this -- Just ask Mr. Baker
when he asks, in your mind -- when Mr. Baker tries to talk to you
about planting of this glove, ask in your mind, did anybody ever see
a second glove at Bundy? Was there ever a second glove at Bundy to
plant? How can there be planting of a glove at Rockingham unless
someone goes to Bundy and sees two gloves? And, without knowing
whose gloves they are, whether they fit Mr. Simpson, whether Mr.
Simpson had an alibi -- whether he was in front of a thousand
people, making a speech, or on national television, or on an
airplane, or anywhere else -- without knowing any of that, going to
pick it up and go plant it on his property? Okay. Well, that's just
silly. It's just silly. Beyond being silly, no one saw a second
glove at Bundy. The first officers to arrive, these young patrolmen,
not even detectives, Robert Riske Michael Terrazas -- and Mr.
Medvene examined them -- they looked around. And then David Rossi
came next. They never saw a second glove. These people were
surveying the crime scene while Mark Fuhrman was sleeping in bed.
There was no second glove there to plant. The second glove was where
Mr. Simpson dropped it, at Rockingham. And when he dropped it -- and
it was absolutely dark, by the way, in that back alley, no lighting.
Kato Kaelin was too frightened, even, to walk down. So when someone
was back there that night, he couldn't see anything. It had
Nicole's hair and it had Ron's hair on it. Who put that hair on it?
It also had some Negroid limb hair, as opposed to head hair. And it
also had blue-black cotton fibers that, we submit, are consistent
with the sweat suit. I've talked about that before. It had the same
fiber on this glove, that matched the fiber on the sock, that
matched the fiber on Ron's shirt, meaning they were all contacted by
one person, meaning OJ Simpson. And if that were not enough, the
glove also has those rare carpet fibers from Mr. Simpson's Bronco.
It's got everything on it, ladies and gentlemen. It's a glove that
belonged to Simpson. It's a glove that he used to hold the knife in
his right hand. It's the glove that has the victims' blood on it.
It's the glove that has his blood on it. It's a glove that has the
victims' hair on it. It's a glove that has fibers from his clothing
on it. It's a glove that has fibers from his car, when he dropped it
-- he dropped it at his house. And it could not have been planted
and it was not planted. And there's no evidence that that glove was
anywhere else, other than the back of Rockingham, where it was
THE COURT: Mr. Petrocelli.
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Noon recess, ladies and gentlemen. I remind you,
don't talk about the argument in this case or the evidence or
anything connected with this case until the case is finally given to
you. Okay. See you at 1:30.

(At 11:55 a.m., a luncheon recess was taken until 1:30 p.m. of the
same day.)

(Per Cover Page)
(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)
THE COURT: Counsel had a chance to look at the changes proposed by
the defense verdict form?
MR. BREWER: Yes. We would like to use the original verdict form that
we submitted. We think it's clear, concise, and basically, allows
the jury to follow the instructions and the issues that we have. Mr.
Baker is -- he believes that it's inconsistent for the jury to find
liability or not to find liability relative in a wrongful death
case, and proceed on to the question that relates to battery. In
theory, I guess the jury would come back and say there isn't a
wrongful death, find for the defense on wrongful death, but still go
on to the battery, and have to answer those questions.
MR. BAKER: You mean the two separate causes of action.
THE COURT: It seems to me the proposal by the defense is much more
logical than your argument.
MR. BREWER: Well, in a practical sense it is because, obviously, if
they come back with defense on wrongful death, it's unlikely they'll
find a battery. There are, none the less, two causes of action; one
for wrongful death, one for battery. Our verdict form allows the
jury to answer each of those questions separately. That's the basis
on which we would like the Court to use our verdict.
THE COURT: Tell me why the defense would not be entitled to a
directed verdict if they came back with a no on question No. 1.
MR. BREWER: Well, you know, they possibly could be entitled to a
directed verdict, but it would depend upon the factual
determinations that the jury makes. I mean, I agree with the Court
that in the very practical sense if they find for the defense on
wrongful death it is very unlikely they are going to proceed and
find for the plaintiffs on battery. However, there are two separate
cases here in the sense that there's a wrongful death case on behalf
of Mr. Goldman and Ms. Rufo, and there's a separate survivorship
action on behalf of the estate of Ron Goldman. Our verdict form just
treats those separately. That's all it asks the jury to do is
analyze each of those separately. If they find for defense on one,
logically, they'll find for defense on the other.
THE COURT: Any other plaintiffs counsel want to comment before I
MR. GELBLUM: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. I think question No. 1 is determinative of what the
jury is going to proceed to your subsequent questions, it would
appear to me the proposal of the defense is more logical and less
likely to mislead the jury.
MR. GELBLUM: I do. I'm sorry. I did have a thought in terms of --
THE COURT: You know, when I -- when I ask you to comment, I would
like a comment. Don't wait until I make a ruling and then comment.
MR. GELBLUM: Well, I apologize, Your Honor. The thought is, though,
that there are no punitive damages under the law allowable in the
wrongful death claim, only in the battery claim as a factual matter,
you're not going to separate the battery and wrongful death claims
as a legal matter if the jury is only answering a wrongful death
claim, then there would be no entitlement to punitive damages.
MR. BAKER: They -- if there's an answer -- if they find wrongful
death, they answer the punitive which gives rise to the punitive.
MR. GELBLUM: Right. If you answer --
THE COURT: If they answer no to question No. 1, what point is there
in going on to the remainder of the questions? Do you see a point?
THE COURT: I don't either.
MR. GELBLUM: That's fine. We will adopt the changes as proposed. You
didn't submit --
MR. BAKER: I wrote them out.
THE COURT: Did you see them?
MR. GELBLUM: Yeah. The handwritten ones?
MR. BREWER: We'll make those changes.
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon.
JURORS: Good afternoon.
MR. PETROCELLI: Little cooler. Before we left for lunch we were
talking about gloves, and I had one final point I wanted to say.
(Exhibit is displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: As you can see from this results board, this glove
was tested and found to have Mr. Simpson's blood on it -- various
locations. Now, that is further absolute proof that this glove could
not have been planted, 'cause if this glove was at Bundy, left by
another killer, how would it have OJ Simpson's blood on it? The fact
that it has OJ Simpson's blood on it, in and of itself shows it
could not have been planted. I want to turn to the socks now. Joe,
you can take that front board down. Thank you. Just to clarify that
last point. Since Mr. Simpson's blood, as I mentioned several times
before, wasn't available until later on in the day, until 3:30 in
the afternoon on the 13th, there wasn't any blood available to them
to put on the glove, to then plant at Bundy. That's what I meant in
case I was a little unclear. Now, turning to the socks. These socks
were collected off of Mr. Simpson's bedroom floor on the afternoon
of June 13, on that Monday, by the criminalists. The socks were
tested by the DNA laboratories and found to contain various spatters
of blood on them. Nicole Brown Simpson's blood was found on both
socks; both of them. OJ Simpson's blood was found on the toe and on
the heel of one of the socks. Again, DNA tests confirmed this is
Simpson's blood, this is Nicole's blood. What is it doing on his
socks? What is Nicole's blood doing on OJ Simpson's socks, ladies
and gentlemen? Why is his blood on his socks? And his blood appears
on the socks, by the way, in the toe and heal area where you might
get blood on if you were taking your socks off with a finger that
had some blood coming out of it, a cut finger. The defense expert,
John Gerdes, didn't have anything to say about contamination in
regard to these socks. There's no evidence at all that that blood
could have gotten on there by any theory of contamination. And, of
course, Mr. Simpson has zero explanation for why his blood is on his
socks and why Nicole's blood is on his socks. Again, absolute
evidence of his guilt. Blood of the victim and blood of himself on
his socks. Now, in desperation, the defense tries to say, well,
that blood was planted, the socks were planted on the floor. Excuse
me. And they went and put on the testimony of this videographer,
Willie Ford, from the Los Angeles Police Department, to show that
there weren't any socks on the rug when he filmed with his video.
Well, then we questioned Mr. Ford. And he explained that the socks
had already been collected --
MR. BAKER: I object, Your Honor.
MR. PETROCELLI: -- by the time he went in there and filmed --
MR. BAKER: I want a ruling.
MR. PETROCELLI: -- went in there --
MR. BAKER: I want the Court to rule on my objection. That's
THE COURT: Approach the bench.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the
MR. BAKER: That question was objected to and the Court sustained
that objection because there was obviously no foundation that Willie
Ford was there before he went in and videotaped.
MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Ford testified that by the time he went and
videotaped in that room, Your Honor, the collection of the socks and
the evidenced occurred already. Mr. Gelblum asked the most
(Mr. Gelblum displays computer screen to the Court.)
(Court reviews computer screen.)
MR. BAKER: That's true, but no socks --
MR. PETROCELLI: Keep going. "He just left but he just finished
collecting the evidence."
MR. P. BAKER: The objection was sustained.
MR. BAKER: What page?
MR. P. BAKER: 219.
MR. BAKER: 219.
MR. PETROCELLI: It's in the record, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Show me the objection.
MR. PETROCELLI: How does it overcome this question and answer? So
the socks weren't in there because they had already been picked up?
Answer yes.
MR. BAKER: Okay. Pick up.
THE COURT: Excuse me.
MR. P. BAKER: Says -- this is page 219, it says:
(Mr. P. Baker read a portion of the transcript of the testimony of
Willie Ford.) "The socks weren't there because they had already been
picked up. Objection, calls for speculation argumentative."
MR. PETROCELLI: He answered it already.
THE COURT: You may argue inference from this answer, the objection
with regards to -- because the socks were already picked up are you
attributing to testimony of Mr. Ford?
MR. PETROCELLI: Can I quote that answer there, Your Honor, which was
prior in time to this answer.
MR. P. BAKER: That's 219.
MR. BAKER: You just had that. That's the question that was objected
MR. PETROCELLI: And I just showed it to you.
MR. P. BAKER: Go above.
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. And I just showed it to you up above.
MR. BAKER: No, you didn't.
MR. PETROCELLI: Yes, I did. Look. He asked it again, and it was when
he asked it the third time it was objected to, Your Honor. We have
two answers in here, Your Honor, in the record.
THE COURT: You may argue his testimony with regards to Mr. Fung
having already been there and collected the evidence, and you may
not argue that Mr. Ford testified that Fung had picked up the socks.
You may argue the inferences from Mr. Ford's testimony.
MR. PETROCELLI: Tell me -- But Mr. Ford wasn't there when Mr. Fung
picked up the socks. When Mr. Ford went in to film the video, okay.
MR. PETROCELLI: His understanding that the evidence was already
collected. That's what he said.
THE COURT: You may argue that, but you may not argue that Ford said
he picked up the socks.
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. And also that his purpose was there to pick --
film after the collection of evidence.
THE COURT: That's fine.
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Thank you.
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
THE COURT: Are you ready?
THE REPORTER: I'm ready.
THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, from time to time objections
have been raised by the defense during Mr. Petrocelli's closing
argument to you. And it might occur that during the defense's
argument, the plaintiff might raise some objections. This has been a
long trial and there are, at times, differences as to how each side
perceived what the testimony was, and so we may have conferences up
here to iron out those differences. You're not to be concerned with
any objections made. You're only to be concerned with the argument
that is actually presented, and orders of the Court, whatever the
Court's ruling is, on excluding any portion of it. We've had a bench
conference here. We've informed counsel that counsel may argue the
logical inferences from the testimony of Mr. Ford. That portion of
Mr. Ford's -- Mr. Petrocelli's argument that Mr. Ford said that the
socks were picked up, that portion itself is stricken and you're to
disregard that. Okay. You may proceed.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thanks, Your Honor. Thanks for the clarification.
Mr. Ford testified that his purpose in going to Rockingham was to
film after the evidence had been collected to make sure that nothing
in Rockingham was taken or stolen after the police and the
criminalists were finished. And he testified that his job was to go
film various places, including Mr. Simpson's bedroom, after the
evidence was collected. When he went into the bedroom to film the
bedroom, you saw from the video that there were no socks there.
Okay. That's the video that was played for you. And the reason why
there were no socks there, ladies and gentlemen, is because the
socks had already been picked up by the criminalist. Okay. There's
nothing sinister about that. The criminalists pick up the evidence,
they take it to the laboratory for analysis. And the gentleman came
in and videotaped the house to make sure there wasn't any claim that
the police had damaged things or ransacked things. That video
doesn't prove anything else. It doesn't prove that the socks were
planted or anything like that. Now, the defense also argues that
blood on the socks was planted. And they base this argument --
because they say that when the folks at SID looked at the socks, I
believe it was on June 25, they didn't see blood. And then when they
examined them later on, on August 4, they saw blood. So they said
there's blood that must have been put on those socks. Otherwise
they would have seen it the first time. Well, the testimony that you
heard in court -- the testimony that you heard in court from the
people at SID, people like Greg Matheson, is that when those socks
were looked at for the first time on June 25, they were not examined
for blood. They were inventoried; took them out, looked at them

on it, and made a notation, none obvious. Then made another
notation, to be examined later on. That is, to be examined more
closely for blood. The socks were then put away, never looked at
again until August 4. On August 4, Collin Yamauchi testified that he
took the socks out and did the first real inspection of the socks,
looked up at the light, he examined them closely, did some
presumptive tests, and found blood. Well, that's the explanation for
that. Nothing sinister. Again, no planting of any blood. There
wasn't any proof, by the way, in addition to what I just told you,
that anybody would have had access to those socks to plant blood on
them. Who would have done it? Did they identify anybody that went
and took blood and put them on the socks. They were in the freezer
at serology. They didn't show you that there was any blood planted
on them. They didn't show you that someone did that. They're just
saying it, taking advantage of the fact that it wasn't observed
until August 4, and that's it, and nothing more than that. Okay. I'd
like to go now -- you can take that down -- to a different subject.
I've spent some time this morning talking about blood and blood
evidence because it's so crucial to this case. You know when someone
leaves their blood at the scene of a murder, that's usually the end
of the ball game, and that person did it. Now, if Mr. Simpson did
it, as we believe the proof shows, and if he left blood there, which
we believe the proof shows, then one would expect there to be some
injury to Mr. Simpson, something cut, something abraded, gouged,
whatever, but someplace where that blood came from. And in fact,
when Mr. Simpson returned from Chicago the next day and went down to
talk to the police, he had cuts or marks or gouges, whatever you
want to call them, but he had injuries. Where? Left hand. Left hand.
That's where the blood was dropped, to the left of various shoe
prints. He had injuries to his left hand. Do you know what kind of
an extraordinary coincidence it would be for O.J. Simpson's ex-wife
to be murdered by a killer who bled from the left hand and he has a
cut on the left hand and he didn't do it? And he got that cut that
night, at the time she's being murdered. So when he came back from
Chicago, he had a big problem. Big problem. Besides what he knew was
the truth inside. He could always hide that. I've heard he was an
actor. He could always hide that. But he couldn't hide this, could
(indicating to his own hand)? He couldn't hide this. This is a big
problem. What's he going to say
(holding up and indicating to his own hand)? Obvious sign of guilt.
Big problem. So when he came back to Los Angeles the next day, he's
talking to the police, the police tell him about, well, you know,
O.J., we got your blood at Rockingham and we got your blood on the
car and on the driveway. You got a cut. How did you get the cut? Did
he say, oh, I broke it on a glass in Chicago? Did he say that? No.
What did he say? He told the police no less than five times, ladies
and gentlemen, because he had no choice, he told the police no less
than five times that he cut himself before he went to Chicago, in
Los Angeles, he cut himself. He had to admit he cut himself. Why did
he have to admit it? The police -- he didn't want to admit it.
Because they told him they found blood dripped all over his house.
So he had to admit he cut himself. How's he going to explain why the
blood's there? So when the police pressed him, okay, how did you cut
it at your house, let me tell you what he said. Can you put page 23
on the Elmo, please. Steve.
(Page 23 is displayed on Elmo.) Mr. Simpson's statement to the
police -- can you back down a little bit more, come on down, other
(indicating to Elmo).
(Elmo is adjusted.) They're asking him when he cut it. "A week ago,
no. "So it's since then? "Oh, I'm pretty sure, yeah. "Yeah, just
last night, last night's the night of the murders. "Somewhere last
night you cut it? "Yeah, yeah. "Somewhere after the recital?
"Somewhere when I was rushing to get out of my house. "After the
recital? "Yeah. "What do you think happened? Do you have any idea?
"I have no idea, man." Now, what kind of person says they have no
idea how they cut themselves hours before. Come on. Let's get real.
Who says they have no idea how they cut themselves an hour before
when they're being interviewed concerning the death of his ex-wife.
Obviously a guilty man says he has no idea because he does not want
to admit how he did it. And the only reason he was asked to talk
about this at all is because he can't hide the cuts. He was able to
hide some of them, by the way, between his fingers, which he never
showed to anybody. You'll see when he takes the photograph, he keeps
his fingers together and he hid the one inside the fourth finger.
But he wasn't able to hide the one on the outside of the middle
finger. Now, is this the only evidence that Mr. Simpson cut himself
that night? Do you remember Skip Taft, his friend of 27 years, his
business associate, his lawyer. Do you remember when I had him on
the witness stand here and he told me -- I asked him, didn't you see
that fourth cut that Mr. Simpson had the day at the police station
on June 13? You saw it there, didn't you? 'Cause Mr. Taft had gone
to the police station with Mr. Simpson. And Mr. Taft said no, I
didn't. And then I pointed out to him, what are you talking about,
look what you said in your deposition. And I pulled out the
deposition. He testified in crystal clear terms that he saw the
fourth cut on Mr. Simpson's -- the cut on Mr. Simpson's fourth
finger that day while he was being interviewed by the police -- in
the office while they were waiting to take him in for the interview.
He was with Howard Weitzman and Mr. Simpson, and he saw that other
cut in addition to the cut on his middle finger. By the time he came
into court to testify, he knew Mr. Simpson had said he only had one
cut, and he knew he had a big problem, so he went to bat for his
buddy and lied under oath. That's Skip Taft. Michael Baden -- do you
remember him? That was the defense expert witness who was the
pathologist. Michael Baden came into Los Angeles the week of the
murders and met with Mr. Simpson and some other defense experts on
Friday, June 17, at the home of Robert Kardashian, and they took a
bunch of pictures of Mr. Simpson. He was supposed to be readying
himself for arrest. And Michael Baden asked Mr. Simpson -- you heard
him on the stand when Mr. Medvene examined him. Michael Baden asked
Mr. Simpson how he got these cuts, where he got the cut, and here is
what Mr. Baden said: "Q. Now, is it accurate, sir, that after
examining Mr. Simpson, he told you he received certain of those
marks on his hand while he was in Los Angeles on June the 12th,
preparing for his trip to Chicago? "A. Yes. "And he told you, did he
not, sir, that he wasn't quite sure how he cut himself? "A. Yes." So
Mr. Simpson told Michael Baden that he cut himself in Los Angeles
and -- but wouldn't tell him how, said he didn't know. Now, on top
of this testimony of Mr. Simpson and what Mr. Baden said, we also
have photographs. Steve, can we put up the photographs. First put up
the exhibit -- what's this? 172?
MR. FOSTER: 171.
(Exhibit 171 is displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Even though Mr. Simpson only talks about one cut,
there's the second cut there, right there, maybe even a third. Dr.
Spitz says these really aren't cuts, these are fingernail gouges.
These are victims trying to unclaw his fingers. Mr. Simpson was
asked on this witness stand, okay, tell us how you got these cuts?
You told the police you got them in L.A. before you left for
Chicago. And you heard me examine him for some time about those
cuts. And then what did he do? He said, I don't know how I cut
myself in L.A. In fact, I don't think I cut myself in L.A. And then
he denied cutting himself in L.A., he denied it on the witness
stand. Even though we have all this other evidence and these
photographs, he denied it. He said, oh, I just saw a little bit of
blood on my pinkie and on the kitchen counter. That's the only blood
I saw before I went off to Chicago. And I really cut myself in
Chicago. Forget what I told the police, I was wrong, I was assuming
things. Why is he assuming things? The last time in the world you'd
be assuming anything. So then I said, okay, let's say you cut it
in Chicago, as you now want to say. How did you cut it in Chicago?
Tell us exactly how you did it. And he couldn't tell us. I said, did
you -- he said something about a glass. I said, did you throw the
glass against the mirror, did you throw it on the floor? No. Did you
throw it in the shower? No. Did you throw it in the sink? No. How
did you cut yourself in Chicago? I don't know. All of the sudden
there was some glass and I was sweeping glass into a sink, and all
this convoluted stuff, which made zero sense. Scooping broken glass
into a sink. First of all, how does he get that cut sweeping broken
glass into a sink? He had no credible explanation for this -- for
these injuries to his finger. None. None. And the reason is because
he sustained these injuries while he was murdering two people.
That's the only reason he has those injuries on his finger. That's
why to this day he cannot tell you how he got those injuries. And
did Mr. Baker ask him? Did he try to set the record straight when he
testified a week or so ago. No, he did not, ladies and gentlemen. He
had every chance to explain it all to you. Even though I tried to
get it out of him for about a half-hour on this stand. Got nowhere.
I don't know. Mysterious cuts. Now, show the pictures taken on the
15th and the 17th. This is a cut on the inside of his fourth finger
as Dr. Spitz says appear to him to be fingernail gouges. Mr. Simpson
swears to this day that he did not have that cut when he left for
Los Angeles -- when he left Los Angeles for Chicago. He swears to
this day he did not have that cut in Chicago, that he did not get
that cut breaking any glass. 'Cause, obviously, he wouldn't -- you
wouldn't get such a cut like that, if it is a cut. And so then I
said, okay, tell us where you got that injury then. If not in L.A.
and if not in Chicago, how did you get that one? I don't know.
Another "I don't know." Then he -- he then had the audacity to
mention something about wrestling with his 6-year-old son, a
50-pound boy, maybe he did it to him. Can you believe that? Mr.
Simpson was examined by Dr. Huizenga on the 15th of June. He was
examined again by Dr. Huizenga on the 17th of June. Dr. Baden
examined him on the 17th of June. The testimony was there were three
cuts and seven abrasions on the left hand and one cut on the right
hand. He, to this day, ladies and gentlemen, has never given any of
us, and you're the only ones that count, he's never given any of you
a single explanation for any of these injuries. Not one. Not one.
What kind of man would be unable to tell you how he got 11 or 12
injuries to his hands, not be able to tell you how he got a single
one? What kind of man? A guilty man. No other kind of man. Okay.
We're now going to go to a different subject. I think I've reviewed
in sufficient detail for all of you the physical evidence. I've
talked about all the blood evidence, the gloves, the shoes, the
hair, the fiber, the cuts, the socks, the Bronco, blood in his
house. The list goes on. And it all points to him and no one else.
Nobody else. Just him. Just him. Because he did it. That's the only
explanation why it all points to him. Because he did it. Now,
what's his alibi? Let's talk about that. Does he have one? These
murders occurred, ladies and gentlemen, we know between 10 o'clock
p.m. and 10:55 p.m. That's the -- you know that Nicole was still
alive at 10 o'clock on June 12. We know that Ron Goldman was still
alive. If you remember the testimony at the very beginning of the
case -- I know it's a long time. It's not really in dispute, so I
won't dwell on it, but Nicole received -- Nicole called Mezzaluna
when she found out her mother left her glasses there, called the
restaurant and asked Ron to drop them off. And Ron left the
restaurant on his way to go meet some friends shortly before 10
o'clock. He left in his waiter uniform. He went home and changed
first. And then he drove over, parked his car on Dorothy and walked
up to the front gate. So we know it had to be sometime after 10
o'clock because he didn't leave Mezaluna until 9:50, at 10 to 10. It
would have taken him time to go home and change and do whatever he
has to do and then get in the car, drive over there, walk up to the
front door -- walk up to the front gate, excuse me, and as you know,
he never made it past that front gate. Never got past the front
gate. The envelope with Judy Brown's glasses, was dropped next to
him on the ground where his body lay. He never got past that front
gate to deliver those glasses. He was confronted, attacked and
killed right there in that tiny area right past the front gate, no
more than a four-by-six tiny caged area. At 10:55, by the way, is
the time when one of the neighbors, a man named Steven Schwab,
testified that he saw on the corner of Bundy and Dorothy, Nicole's
Akita, the dog named Kato, and it had blood on it. So we know that
the murders were over by then because this dog had blood on it and
was walking outside of the property and that's at 10:55. In fact,
another witness named Louis Karpf saw the dog around 10:50 in the
middle of the street. So that's the absolute outside time. We know
that the murders were over by 10:50, 10:55. We also heard from a man
named Robert Heidstra. He's a man that lives in the neighborhood and
he's a dog lover. Basically his life is washing cars and walking
dogs. And he was walking around the block that night and he heard
sounds -- heard the sounds of Nicole's dog, and he recognized
Nicole's dog because he was familiar with the dog. And it was a
very agitated sound. You'll recall his testimony. Not a kind of
sound where the dog might be barking at a stranger, but a very
agitated sound. And he heard that sound, that very loud and
insistent barking dog at around 10:30, 10:35. Remember that
testimony? And then instead of walking by Nicole's condominium, he
switched directions 'cause he was afraid his dogs might run into the
Akita. It was obviously very agitated. So he went back and decided
to cut across an alley way, and when he was halfway across, he heard
-- he heard the sounds, the young male voice saying, hey, hey, hey,
hey, followed by a deep, darker voice which he was unable to
decifer. Then he heard a gate clanking. Then he heard nothing more.
Then he walked to the end of the alley, stood there for a while,
waiting for his dog to do its business. He heard the sound of hey,
hey, hey between 10:35, 10:40, that area. And remember he didn't
have a watch on. These are people giving estimates of the time.
We're not talking about precise times here. If every one of you
looked at your watch right now, possibly would have a different time
on it, might be off by one or two minutes, maybe five or six
minutes. So he just gave the best estimate he could. Thought it was
10:30 or so, 10:35, when he heard the agitated dog. He thought it
was maybe 10:35, 10:40, when he heard hey, hey, hey. Now, when he's
on the other end of the alley, just standing there, looking down
toward the corner of Dorothy and Bundy where there's a street lamp,
he saw a car come out of the dark from Dorothy, approach Bundy and
then make a right, going away from the scene of the murder, and he
testified that that car looked like a Bronco, a white Bronco. And
so, the evidence strongly suggests that was OJ Simpson's Bronco.
That was OJ Simpson fleeing from two murders he had just committed,
not wanting to drive in front of the condo where two bodies lay,
made a right on Bundy, cut around the block, and went up around up
to his house. We put a witness that took the same route, not driving
as fast as you can do it, four minutes, easily. It's that close, no
traffic that time of night. And Mr. Heidstra testified that he
believes he saw that Bronco around 10:40, 10:45, at the very latest.
10:45, at the very latest. That's the general picture of what was
happening at Bundy during that time. Now, where is OJ Simpson,
ladies and gentlemen, during that time? Where is he between 10
o'clock and 10:45, when these murders occurred? Where is he? Well,
we asked him. He said he was home, of course. But all the evidence
in this case, ladies and gentlemen, tells us OJ Simpson was not home
at Rockingham between 10:00 and 10:45. He was not there. We know he
was not there. He was lying. Lying, lying, lying. And he got caught,
and he got caught, and he got caught, and he got caught. Like to go
through why we know he was not there? First of all, we know that Mr.
Simpson returned to the property after these murders, around 10:51.
How do we know that? Because that's when he banged into the wall
behind Kato Kaelin's house. Kato Kaelin was on the telephone. He was
frightened. He got off the phone. He went to check what was going
on. He ran into the limo driver; and, because we now have the limo
driver's cell-phone records, we were now able to figure out more
precisely when Mr. Kaelin heard these sounds. And Mr. Kaelin has
been very clear on this. In fact, his testimony has never, ever
wavered about when he heard those sounds. Going back to the very
first interview he gave in this case to OJ Simpson's lawyer, Robert
Shapiro. Okay. Where he told Mr. Shapiro that he heard those sounds,
and within three minutes or so, he was out in the front, checking to
see what happened, about three minutes after hearing those sounds.
And when he came out in the front, that's when the limousine driver,
Alan Parks saw him. And we know from Alan Parks' phone records, that
Alan Parks saw him at 10:54. So, we know -- we know that Kaelin
heard those sounds at 10:51. And even without ever looking at a
clock, okay? Listen, he's been extremely accurate in all the
testimony and interviews he's given. OJ Simpson gets on his property
at 10:51, bumps into, or crashes into, or runs into this wall, where
it's extremely dark and no light, drops a glove, comes back up the
alley to where his car is parked in the driveway, puts a bag there,
a bag never again seen to this day. And then he makes a bee-line
inside his front door. And that's when Alan Parks sees him for the
first time. And that is 10:55. So we know he's home around 10:51,
and he's actually seen at 10:55. But where was he before then? Well,
let's go back a little bit. Mr. Simpson said he went to McDonald's
with Kato Kaelin to get a hamburger. We know, from Kato Kaelin's
phone records, that Mr. Simpson and he left about 12 minutes after 9
o'clock and returned by about 9:35. Mr. Kaelin went in his room and
made a long-distance call at 9:37. By that time, he was already in
his room and back from McDonald's. Mr. Kaelin testified that when he
got out of that Bentley in the driveway, he turned as though he were
going into the house to talk to Mr. Simpson while he ate his dinner,
and Mr. Simpson never left the Bentley: Stood there, never left.
Just stood there. And for that reason, Mr. Kaelin thought better and
decided just to walk right around to his house, to his guest house,
and mind his own business and enjoy the night without Mr. Simpson.
Now, that's the last time anybody saw OJ Simpson, 9:35 p.m., until
he was seen again at 10:55. We asked Mr. Simpson whether he could
identify anybody who he saw or spoke to between 9:35 and 10:55. And
he said he cannot. He knows of no such person. Even though, as Mr.
Baker told you, this guy telephones people all the time: No
telephone calls during this time, either, except a cell-phone call,
which we're going to get to. He's an avid telephoner, Mr. Baker
says, and Mr. Simpson said on the stand, but no telephone calls, no
contact with anybody. All of a sudden, there's a big hole in the
night. When Mr. Simpson was interviewed the next day by the police,
they asked him what he did after the recital, ladies and gentlemen.
And he told the police that after the recital, he got in his car and
he drove over to Paula Barbieri's. Paula Barbieri, by that time, was
a woman he was starting to date again. He must have said that three
or four times in his police statement, that he was driving over to
Paula's house, and he was calling her on the way, and that she was
not home. Now, his phone is in the Bronco. He said he used his
Bronco to drive to Paula Barbieri's house. He said he used his
Bronco to make a cell-phone call as he was going. Well, the only
cell-phone call that we have from Mr. Simpson's records is a call at
10:03 p.m. So we know that Mr. Simpson was on his way someplace at
10:03 p.m. in the Bronco, and he -- that he was not at home. He
tried to lie to the police and tell them that he had been going over
to Paula's house earlier, like 7 o'clock, because he wanted to tell
the police he was home later, when the murders occurred. What he
got trapped by, his cell-phone records, ladies and gentlemen,
because they showed that the only time he made a phone call was at
10:03 from his cell phone. When I confronted Mr. Simpson with all of
that, he had no explanation. He said, oh, he was just wrong again,
assuming things. And then, for the first time, when Mr. Baker asked
him about this, he said, oh, you know what? I called Paula on the
way to her house on Saturday night. I was confusing Saturday and
Sunday. Saturday was June 11. Now, this is another lie to cover.
Another lie. The reason why this is a lie, you recall he went to
Paula's house to pick her up Saturday night to take her to some
fancy event, but he told the police, I was calling Paula and Paula
wasn't there. Well, Paula was there Saturday night. Paula was home.
He picked her up, and they went out. So we know that he wasn't
talking about Saturday night. That's just another lie. He's lying to
you to cover what he did. Can you put up on the Elmo, page 8. Excuse
me. Page 9.
(Transcript displayed on the Elmo screen.)
MR. PETROCELLI: I just want to make sure you see this. Can you focus
MR. FOSTER: I'm trying to.
MR. PETROCELLI: Right there. Where did you go from there? Home, and
got in my car for a while, tried to -- tried to find my girlfriend
for a while. Came back to the house. Okay. Go to page 9.
(Mr. Foster adjusts the Elmo.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Keep going. Then -- okay. Home. This is after the
recital. And then I called Paula, as I was going to her house, and
Paula wasn't home. Now, we know this wasn't Saturday night, because
Paula was home, so it was Sunday night. And we know that. Okay. He
-- Keep scrolling up there, Steve.
(Mr. Foster adjusts document on the Elmo.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Go to page 12.
(Mr. Foster adjusts document on the Elmo.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Like I say, I came home. I got in my car. I was
going to see my girlfriend. I was calling her, and she wasn't
around. Again he says it. Go to page 13.
(Mr. Foster adjusts document on the Elmo.)
MR. PETROCELLI: So you drove the Bronco? My phone was in the Bronco
and -- because the Bronco is what I drive; I'd rather drive it than
any other car. And I was going over there. I called her a couple of
times and she wasn't there. And she had left a message. And then I
checked my messages, and she had left me a message. Now, we're going
to talk about this a little later. This is another lie he tries now
to deny, that he picked up this message where Paula ended their
relationship. He wants to make -- paint the picture that he wasn't
upset that night. But, of course, he did pick up the message,
because he said it right here. And I also showed him a phone
record, a computer record, and he even denies that. So he called
Paula Barbieri as he was going over there. Now, it's -- the cell
phone record shows us it's at 10:03. Now, turn to page -- one
second. Page 15, Steve, at the end of page 15.
(Mr. Foster adjusts document on the Elmo.)
MR. PETROCELLI: This is further proof, ladies and gentlemen, that
Mr. Simpson made this call at 10:03 from inside his Bronco, out on
the road someplace. He told the police that the very last thing he
did before he left for the airport was to go to his Bronco and get
his phone out of the Bronco. This is around 11:05, 10 after 11:00.
Okay. So if the phone is in the Bronco at 11 o'clock, it's still
there at 10 o'clock, which meant he was in the Bronco at 10 o'clock.
And look what he says. The last thing I did before I left, when I
was rushing, was, went and got my phone out of the Bronco. Okay.
Do you see that? Last thing I did was get my phone out of the
Bronco. So that proves the phone was in the Bronco at 11:00, and it
is was in the Bronco at 10 o'clock. And at 10 o'clock, we have a
telephone call. Can you get the board out that's exhibit 2216.
(Exhibit 2216 displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Now, these are his calls on June 12, 1994. And by
the way, local calls are not available to us -- local telephone
records, I should say, because they were lost. There's no evidence
in this case anybody ever was able to retrieve Mr. Simpson's local
telephone calls, for example, from his house to Nicole's house. We
don't know about local phone calls, so we don't know how many calls
he made that night to her. We'll never know because he's not telling
us, and Nicole is dead and she can't tell us what really happened.
All we are able to do is reconstruct, to some extent, with his
cell-phone records and long-distance records and other things that
show up on computer records. The only cell-phone call that Mr.
Simpson made that evening after the recital was 10:03 p.m, as you
see right here. He said, well, I made this phone call from my
driveway. Well, we know it wasn't from his driveway. He was in his
Bronco, because he told the police he was in his Bronco. That's why.
And no other -- on no other occasion during that time -- entire
weekend, did he make any phone calls from his cell phone while he
was walking around. Every other time he used that cell phone, he was
in his Bronco. So, of course, it was in his Bronco at 10:03. This is
critical because it destroys his alibi. That's why he's lying about
it. Now, we know he's lying for some other reasons, as well. He
claimed his Bronco was parked the whole time on Rockingham, from
about 7:00 to 9 o'clock, all the way through the rest of the night,
and it never moved. So it would have been there for anybody to see,
right next to the curb, 360 North Rockingham, right where it's
painted on the curb. That's what he said. Okay. We brought you two
witnesses. One, Charles Cahill, who testified that between 9:30
and 9:45, he came for a walk, and he was able to look right in that
location where Mr. Simpson said his car was parked; he did not see
any Bronco 9:30 to 9:45. So I guess he must be lying or mistaken.
Alan Park is a real problem for Mr. Simpson. See, Mr. Simpson didn't
know there was going to be a new limo driver that night. See,
murderers always make mistakes. He figured his normal driver would
be coming over around quarter to 11:00, Dale St. John, and Dale St.
John was picking
(sic) a little league team, an all-star team, and we have Alan Park
show up at 10:23. And Alan Park drives up at 10:23 looking for the
address, 360 North Rockingham, never been here before, wants to make
sure -- this guy's a big shot; I don't wants to screw this up -- got
there early, drove up, looking outside the window, puts it up --
Steve, what's this exhibit?
MR. FOSTER: 191.
(Exhibit 191 is displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: 191. Drove right past here slowly, saw the curb.
This is the right place. Back up, Steve. This is now 10:23, when Mr.
Simpson says the car is right there. Alan Park testified there was
no car there. If you believe Alan Park, it's another reason why Mr.
Simpson is guilty. He says that car was there, and Alan Park is just
lying or wrong. All these people got to be lying or wrong. I'll see
a pattern here. 50, 60 people have to be lying or mistaken. Alan
Park drove past here at 10:23 p.m. It was early; went around the
corner, parked, smoked a cigarette, wanted to figure out -- now,
it's about time to get into the property. Which way should I go? So
what he did is, he got back in his car and drove back around this
(indicating) to check out this driveway, to see if he should use
this driveway or the other driveway. And he drove past here
(indicating) at 10:39, 10:40 p.m. No Bronco. How could he have
missed it? Look at that thing. It's huge. How could he have missed
it? There's no car there at 10:39, 10:40. Now, if that were not
enough -- Can you bring out Parks' phone records?
(Mr. Foster displays board entitled Calls Made by Alan Park, June
12, '94.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah. You can take that one down.
(Mr. Foster complies.)
MR. PETROCELLI: If that were not enough to prove Mr. Simpson was not
home, Alan Park then dutifully pulls up to Rockingham, pulls up to
the Ashford gate, and gets out of his car to start buzzing Mr.
Simpson in that little telephone outside the Ashford gate. He begins
at 10:40 to 10:43. He's buzzing, buzzing, buzzing, buzzing. Nobody's
home; nobody answered the phone. No one's home. What does he do?
He's confused. What's going on? Why isn't Mr. Simpson home? He gets
-- gets in his car and starts to make a phone call. The car is on;
he said the radio is on. He starts to make phone calls to find out
where's Mr. Simpson. He calls Dale St. John -- calls his mother to
get his number. And you can see the various attempts he made to get
in touch with somebody because Mr. Simpson's not home. He testified
that he started calling at 10:40 to 10:43, and then again 10:44 to
10:46. In between these various phone calls, he goes back out and
tries again. And then, finally, at 10:50, he rings. No answer last
time. He rang -- was in between this 10:49:53 call and this 10:50:39
call. There's about 30, 40 seconds. Got back out, rang the bell
again. Still no answer. Comes back in, and finally gets a call from
his boss at 10:52. And by the time -- he's on the phone now. He's
telling his boss at 10:52, look, nobody's home; what should I do?
And there's some discussion. Then, at 10:54 he sees Kaelin walk by
him. At 10:55, he sees Mr. Simpson walk by him, walk into the front
door area, all dark clothing, and he says, okay, he's home, and he
gets off the phone. Now, if OJ Simpson was really home, as he said,
why didn't he answer -- why didn't he answer the phone? Why didn't
he let Mr. Park in? Why didn't he let the limo driver in? Well, he
didn't let him in because he wasn't home. But what did he say? He
says, well, I was in the shower; I didn't want to get out. And I
thought it was my regular driver, Dale, and he knows how to let
himself in. Well, they put Dale St.John on the stand: Went to pick
up Mr. Simpson 100 times. You ever let yourself in? No. Did you know
how to let yourself in? No. He said, well, I didn't want to let him
in because I thought the dog might get out, because that dog runs
out all the time. I put all those witnesses on the stand to say the
dog never runs out. So these were all lies to cover up the fact that
he was not home. He has -- he has no alibi, ladies and gentlemen. OJ
Simpson is not home. One other thing on this point: At 10:51, we
hear those thumps in the wall, something crashing into the wall. Has
Mr. Baker of the defense ever explained to you what those noises
were from? They weren't OJ Simpson causing those noises. Have you
ever gotten a single explanation from the defense about what those
noises are? No, you haven't. There isn't any other explanation, and
you will never hear it. Is this a good time, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about
the case. Don't form or express any opinion.
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor. We were talking about the
crashes against the side of Mr. Kaelin's wall. I demonstrated to you
that they occurred at 10:51 when Mr. Simpson returned to the
property. You heard one witness whose testimony was read in from the
criminal case, Rachel Ferrara. She didn't actually show up in person
here. She said -- she estimated that those sounds on the wall
occurred at 10:40. Rachel Ferrara was a woman on the telephone with
Kato Kaelin when the sounds came crashing against the wall. We also
read from Mrs. Ferrara's testimony that she didn't look at any watch
or any clock and it was an estimate, and it was based purely on
things that Mr. Kaelin was telling her based on his estimates, and
he never looked at the clock. So we're dealing with an estimate of
10:40, in fact, by Ms. Ferrara. Kaelin says it was about 10:50 and,
in fact, he was very close to it. It was about 10:51. So that's when
those sounds occur. That's Mr. Simpson returning. Again, the defense
has never offered a single explanation for those sounds. If it isn't
Mr. Simpson, then who is it? One final point. I want to pick up on
this 10:03 phone call. Can you put up the board, Joe. Here, Steve,
put this on the Elmo. You have, at the bottom of page 15 -- You may
recall, when I was examining Mr. Simpson about his statement to the
police just hours after Nicole's murder, where he told the police
that he went to the Bronco right before he left for the airport to
get his phone, on the witness stand he said, well, I didn't really
mean phone, I meant phone accessories. That's another story that he
told now. And you have to understand, Mr. Simpson said between then
and now he has become incredibly familiar with all the evidence in
this case. He knows what everybody has testified to, what everybody
has said, witness statements. He testified on the stand that he
spent months reviewing discovery materials. Now, he's had a chance
to review phone records. So he knows everything now. And he's in a
position, now, to try to lie, to fabricate an explanation to meet
all of the evidence that he now understands exists against him. This
is a classic example of that. Obviously, he's talking about the
phone, not phone accessories, not a cell phone case, not a battery
charger, not anything else. And I said, well, what do you mean, you
didn't say anything about accessories. He says said, yes, I did,
look -- well, whatever that is. He says that's what he meant. The
officer had said, uh-hum, and Simpson said, well, whatever that is,
obviously referring to that. Now Simpson says oh, no, I meant phone
accessories, not phone. Okay. Turn the page. The very next question
was, okay, where's the phone now? In my bag. Does he say anything
about phone accessories there? Battery chargers or anything else?
You see, this is crucial because he's got to get the phone out of
the Bronco. If the phone is in the Bronco at 10:03, he's not at
home, and that destroys his alibi. That's why we have all these
lies, ladies and gentlemen. Now, just to make the final point on
this, OJ Simpson was questioned by Michael Baden, this expert
pathologist that they paid $100,000 in this case, who testified for
Mr. Simpson. He testified that when he asked Mr. Simpson how he cut
his hand when he was examining his hand and fingers on June 17th --
now that's four, five days after this police statement. You're going
to hear Mr. Baker tell you Mr. Simpson was confused and tired and
mixing things up and distraught, and that's why he made mistake
after mistake after mistake in this police statement. Well, now it's
the next Friday, he had four days to think about everything, and
he tells Michael Baden -- this is what Michael Baden testified.
Simpson told him he rummaged for his car phone. He was looking for
his cell phone when he cut his finger. So four days after this
statement he tells Michael Baden, when asked how he cut his finger,
I was looking for my car phone, rummaging for my car phone.
Referring to the Bronco. Referring to going to the Bronco to get out
his car phone. Once again, proving that this was in -- the car phone
was in the Bronco at 10:03. You see, Mr. Simpson didn't have these
cell phone records then, didn't know what they were going to say.
These were calls that were incomplete. Maybe he was hoping they'd
never even show up on the records. So we have it -- we have it on
the 13th and on the 17th that he told his people that he was getting
his car phone out of the Bronco, ladies and gentlemen. It was in the
Bronco at 11 o'clock. And he made that phone call driving someplace,
looking for Paula. He had picked up a message that she had left him.
He was enraged, outraged, and he ended up over at Nicole's where he
killed two people. Now, these murders occurred around 10:30 p.m., in
that neighborhood. Did Mr. Simpson have enough time to commit
these murders, drive back to Rockingham, and crash into a wall at
10:51? Did he have 25 minutes to do all this? Could it be done? You
heard a lot of testimony in this case, particularly from people like
Dr. Baden, and on our side from a man named Dr. Werner Spitz, about
the nature of the wounds, and about how long these murders might
have taken. Of course, nobody knows for a fact because they were not
there. Let's use a little bit of common sense here. OJ Simpson was a
man in a state of total rage, armed with a 6-inch knife. He's a
powerful man, over six feet, 200 pounds, played one of the most
violent sports in American sports; and not only played it, played it
well, excelled at it. He told you how great he was. In fact, he
might have been one of the greatest running backs of all time. This
is a man of extraordinary strength and power. And here he is with a
knife, enraged beyond belief, out of control. Think how much out of
control a person has to be to do this. He's up against a woman, 5'
5", 5' 6", 120 pounds, and he has the extraordinary audacity to say
she was one of the most well-conditioned women that I know. Can you
believe that? Nicole died in about 15 seconds. All those wounds
were delivered in rapid fire succession. And she died immediately
from a gaping cut to her throat, and she bled profusely out on the
ground. There was no struggle. Maybe -- maybe enough to get her
hand, fingernails perhaps, in his hands. Ronald Goldman came upon
this, didn't have any idea what was happening, thrust into this tiny
caged area. You saw Dr. Spitz and Mr. Medvene demonstrate it in an
area no bigger than this area right here
(indicating). With a big tree there
(indicating). Not able to move his arms. Somebody with a knife like
(indicating), and he's there with his hands trying to ward off the
knife. How long you think that lasted? What did he have? 30, 40
knife wounds? How long do you think it took Mr. Simpson to deliver
those? 30 seconds, 60 seconds. Dr. Spitz said possibly a minute.
They put on this testimony of Henry Lee. He did this fancy
demonstration of how blood was spattered all over the place. The
great Henry Lee. Blood was spattered all over this caged area, and
there was a hole, and there was this, and the pager was dropped, and
the envelope was dropped. And he tried to pretend like this was a
30, 40, 50-minute battle between two titans looking at all this
evidence all over the place; there's blood here, there's blood
there, there's blood on the fence. And then when Mr. Medvene finally
asked him, give us the bottom line, Dr. Lee, how long do you think
this took, in your opinion? You weren't there, how long do you think
this took? And Dr. Henry Lee said, at least one minute, anything
above a minute he doesn't know. So Dr. Lee agrees with Dr. Spitz.
About a minute. That's all he can say to any degree of scientific
certainty. And of course, it's common sense. Could you imagine that
a round of boxing -- professional boxing match, two well-conditioned
athletes, equally matched, going at each other, throwing hundreds of
blows. You know what one round is? Three minutes. Ron Goldman went a
round of heavyweight boxing with O.J. Simpson? Come on. Who's buying
that. This whole idea about how this was a long struggle -- the only
reason, ladies and gentlemen, that we're hearing about this is
because they want to try to come up with an argument that this thing
took so long that OJ Simpson couldn't have done it, he couldn't have
been engaged in a murder at 10:30 and home by 10:51 because it took
10, 15, 20 minutes. That's the only reason. He sat down and
figured out, you know, how do we come up with an argument here.
Well, let's say the struggle took 20 minutes, 15 minutes, 10
minutes, whatever. Then we can argue that he didn't do it 'cause he
didn't have enough time. Of course, he had enough time. Then they
bring out the $100,000 man, Dr. Baden. And after all the fancy
medical jargon, and all the opinions about the order of wounds, and
this is difficult to deal with, but the neck wound, the aorta
wounds, the chest wound, what does Dr. Baden say when it's all said
and done? Two to three minutes, Ron Goldman would have collapsed
onto the ground. Two to three minutes, Ron Goldman would have
collapsed on the ground. But then, because Dr. Baden is paid
$100,000, he says, but I think there were some more blows, maybe
five, ten minutes later. What are you saying, Dr. Baden? Ron Goldman
was slashed down to the ground and then the killer went and had a
cup of coffee, smoked a cigarette, made a phone call, came back, and
then delivered the last blow or two? Does that make any sense? It's
ridiculous. And he knows better. The struggle took a minute, two
minutes, three minutes. And it was over fast and furious.
Remember, this is not a cold, calculated, professionally planned
killing. This is a rage killing. Look at those wounds. Does that
look like a professional killer? Or does that look like someone
who's just out of control, in a blind rage, such deeply aroused
emotions, killing with a knife, up close, personal? And even if you
want to engage in the fantasy and assume it took ten minutes, OJ
Simpson still had enough time. He still had enough time. He still
had enough time to speed away at 10:40, 10:45, drive the four
minutes to Rockingham, get out of his car, go on to the property,
and run inside. Now, what happened, ladies and gentlemen, when Mr.
Simpson finally did return? What happened? First of all, let me
explain something to you. The law does not require us to prove each
and every detail about what happened that night. We can't tell you
exactly which victim he encountered first, whether he had an
argument there, what blows were delivered, the order of the blows.
We don't know. He knows and he's not telling and he will take this
to his grave. The law does not require us to know those things or
prove those things. Nor do we have to give you a murder weapon.
Because he hid it somewhere, disposed of it, and we don't know
where, and he's not telling us. Nor do we have to tell you what he
did with any clothing that might have been bloody. We know there's a
lot of clothing missing; there's no sweat suit, there's no shoes.
Can't account for those. The gloves he dropped, and the hat. We have
those. We don't have to know those details. The law doesn't require
us to know. And we don't know. Nor do we know exactly how he got on
to his property that night, ladies and gentlemen. We don't know if
he climbed the fence. And there is an opening back there, if you
wanted to go that way, in the foliage. Or if you want to use the
Rockingham gate, which you cannot see from the Ashford gate,
especially if you're Allan Park in a limousine, talking on a phone,
looking straight ahead, and not looking down towards the Rockingham
gate, clear on the other side of the property with shrubbery and
play equipment in between. He had no way to see what was happening
at the Rockingham gate. Mr. Simpson could have easily opened the
gate with his key and gotten in that way. And we see some blood
drops along the driveway there. We don't know exactly why he went
down that side of the house, what he was going to do back there, or
whether he was on the way back. We'll never know the answers to all
those questions, and we don't need to. All we need to do is prove to
you that he did it. And we know he did it 'cause every single piece
of evidence tells us he did it. And there isn't anything telling us
he didn't do it. Nothing. Now, when he came back to that property,
Allan Park saw him. You can take that down
(indicating to board). You want to give me a map of the property
(indicating to assistant).
(Map of 360 North Rockingham displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Allan Park saw him coming into the house. Alan Park
gets off the phone. Okay, he's home now. He waited to be buzzed in.
Does Mr. Simpson buzz him in? No, he never lets him in. Alan Park
gets out of the car. This is all the testimony that you heard from
him. He gets out of the car, calls Mr. Simpson back. Finally,
there's an answer. Mr. Simpson answers and he said, sorry, he
overslept, just got out of the shower. Now he denies he said he
overslept. But why would Alan Park make up any lies? Why would he
lie about anything? He has no ax to grind. He doesn't have anything
against OJ Simpson. Why would he lie about anything? There's only
one person in this whole case who has any reason to lie about
anything. He's got every reason to lie. That's the man sitting in
the courtroom here. So Alan Park says, okay. Mr. Simpson says he
overslept, he'll be right down. Does he let him in even then? To
Alan Park's astonishment, he's not even let in then by Mr. Simpson.
Why isn't Mr. Simpson letting Alan Park in? Ask yourself. Why isn't
he letting this guy -- why is he making him wait outside? It's not
this thing about the dog, which is what Mr. Simpson says, he doesn't
want the dog to get out. You have that picture
(indicating to Mr. Foster). Mr. Simpson says he didn't want to let
Park in 'cause the dog would get out. Here's the gate wide open. Is
that dog moving? That dog's not going anywhere
(indicating to photo). So that's another reason, ladies and
gentlemen, is when Mr. Simpson darted across the driveway, he
dropped a bag behind that Bentley, maybe shoes, maybe a knife, maybe
clothing. He dropped a bag there and he didn't want Park to come
into the property while it was unsecured and perhaps go over and
pick up that bag. And that's why he didn't let him in. And then
finally, Mr. Simpson comes downstairs out of breath. And by this
time Kato Kaelin had walked by. It was Mr. Kaelin, after all, who
let Mr. Park in. Mr. Kaelin's out there looking for who made these
noises back there. To his bewilderment, he sees a limo driver out
here, and he lets the driver in. Now, Mr. Simpson doesn't know that
'cause he's scrambling to get his stuff together. Kaelin lets Park
in. Park drives in. Kaelin's here. Simpson comes downstairs. And
then Kaelin goes to offer to pick up this bag which he sees behind
the Bentley. And Simpson says no, no, no, I'll get it, and he
overtakes Kaelin who's about to get it. And he goes and gets it
himself. He puts that bag in the back seat of the limousine when
he goes and leaves the property. At the airport, he takes that bag
and he puts it in his big golf bag. And Mr. Baker demonstrated to
you how big that golf bag is. And you can put things in there, that
travel bag. Now, the last time that bag was seen, that bag behind
the Bentley, was when it was put into that golf travel bag at the
airport. It has never been seen again. And Mr. Simpson produced that
bag in court. Or he says it's this bag. This was the bag he said
(indicating to bag). This was the bag behind the Bentley. This was
the bag he was running to get. The bag with all the new tags on it.
Someone made a mistake and forgot to take them off. Well, we showed
this bag to Kato Kaelin and we showed it to Alan Park, and we said
is this the bag that evening that you went to get, that Mr. Simpson
took into the back seat, that Mr. Simpson put in a golf bag? They
had no reason to lie about anything. They said, no, it is not. This
is not the bag. This is a ringer bag. I don't know where the other
bag is and we'll he never know. Mr. Simpson got caught a couple
times in lying about his activities when he came downstairs to get
in this limousine, and when he was going into the property. He told
this psychiatrist that was working on the defense team, Lenore
Walker, back in February of 1995, about his actions and movements
that night. Now, why Lenore Walker, who's a domestic violence
counselor, is talking to Mr. Simpson about movements that night,
escapes me. But I asked Mr. Simpson that, and he said -- and he
slipped, we were trying to figure out the evening. Figure out the
evening. Well, back in February of 1995, he told Lenore Walker that
when he came downstairs from taking a shower, he walked clear over
to this car while Alan Park was still out there and got some golf
shoes out of the car and then brought them here to the house. Now,
why did he say that? Because Mr. Simpson had already heard the
testimony of Alan Park in a preliminary hearing that he saw Mr.
Simpson go from like the Bentley to the front door where he was
standing in -- waiting in the car for Simpson to let him in, saw him
go right across the driveway from the Bentley to the front door. And
so Mr. Simpson had to come up with a reason why he went out to the
Bentley, so he said he was there to get shoes. He didn't want to
admit, of course, that he was coming back from a murder. Now, when
Alan Park testified at the criminal trial, after this meeting Mr.
Simpson had with his psychologist, Alan Park drew an X like right
around here, around under the W and the A, as literally the first
spot he picked up Mr. Simpson walking -- walking into the house, he
said he didn't put it here, he didn't put it here, he didn't put it
near the Bentley, but he put it here. So he had sort of a slightly
different perspective in that testimony. Now, when Mr. Simpson
testified in this case, instead of telling us that he took a shower,
came downstairs, went to the Bentley, walked in from the Bentley
inside his house, and that's when Alan Park saw him, Mr. Simpson
changed his story, 'cause he didn't have to say he went to the
Bentley any more, he now only had to come up with the reason why he
went this far, rather than this far. And this looks less guilty,
being out here, than it does out here, in the middle of the night,
when you're supposed to be getting ready. So now he changed this
story and said, well, I was only coming down to drop some stuff near
the golf bag, then I went back inside. It was when I went back
inside when Alan Park saw me, not when I was returning from a
murder. I was dropping something off between these benches and going
back inside. So originally he went out to the Bentley. Now he
changed his story. He only went as far as these benches. The story
changed as he studied the facts, tailored his testimony to what
other witnesses were saying. As the other witnesses changed their
story, he changed his story with it. That's what liars do. Did Mr.
Simpson show any genuine concern for this prowler, by the way, when
Kaelin told him, look, OJ, there's somebody back there I think,
let's go look, I heard these sounds, was it an earthquake? Couldn't
have been an earthquake. Nobody felt an earthquake. Mr. Simpson
never asked him to call the security, asked about looking out for
his daughter who was coming home that night. He showed no interest
in whether there was a prowler on the property because he knew there
was no prowler. Now, he's a very clever guy, a very shrewd guy, very
smart guy, but he made mistakes along the way, and finally and
eventually they catch up with you. A good example of this is this
golf bag. Okay, this golf bag that Mr. Simpson is so obsessed
with. He gets to Chicago, and his golf bag goes off with Mr.
Merrill, a guy he never met before who was picking him up at the
airport. Couple of hours later, Mr. Simpson learns from the police
that Nicole was murdered. And he was distraught. Instead of calling
for a cab immediately and leaving, he calls Merrill, not once, not
twice, not three times, get back here and pick me up and get me to
the airport. This guy lives 30 minutes, 40 minutes away in the
suburbs. You trying to tell me you can't get a cab in 45 minutes?
The second time, Mr. Merrill said, you know, Mr. Simpson, I'm not
making good progress, you might consider taking alternative
transportation. No, I want you to come here. He insisted. As it
turned out, Mr. Simpson had to get on that flight. Merrill didn't
make it. The golf bag followed on the next flight. Mr. Simpson comes
back to Los Angeles. Now, the next day is Tuesday, June 14, ladies
and gentlemen. Mr. Simpson goes to his office that morning. He
hasn't even seen his children. They have just lost their mother.
Think about that. They just lost their mother. Wouldn't he want to
come back and run into their arms? The first thing anybody would do.
Would you worry about collecting yourself first, as he claims, or
would you immediately run to be with them, to protect them, to
comfort them. He didn't see them until Tuesday afternoon. Then the
next day they were gone again. Now, I am not saying this man does
not love his children. I am saying this man was so obsessed and
immersed with the guilt of what he did, he was trying to scramble
every which way to cover his tracks. There was no time to be with
his children. He was huddling with lawyers. And when he was huddling
with lawyers, Tuesday, June 14, he asked one of them to take him to
the airport to go get his golf clubs. Now, why would a guy who just
lost the mother of his children, who possibly never in his life went
to the airport to pick anything up -- this is a man who uses
limousines and messengers and has servants. He's going to go pick up
his golf clubs. So when I asked him about that, he denied that under
oath: I did not ask anyone to pick up my golf clubs. I was out
with my lawyer and friend, Robert Kardashian, we were just driving
around and happened to be near the airport, and I said, hey, let's
stop by and get my golf clubs, why don't we, we're near by. That's
his story, if that makes any sense to you. But Mr. Kardashian, whose
deposition testimony we read in court to you, said he asked me in
his office Tuesday morning to go pick up the golf clubs and I said
okay and I did. And the two of them drove off. Directly impeached by
his own lawyer. Now, we don't know what's in the golf bag. Maybe
trace evidence, maybe some blood drops from the night before that he
might have been concerned someone could date and figure out when he
put the blood on
(sic). Who knows.
MR. BAKER: I object, Your Honor. There's absolutely no evidence of
MR. PETROCELLI: It is not --
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: It is not the conduct, ladies and gentlemen, of an
innocent man. An innocent man doesn't go get his golf clubs before
he sees his children. There's another curious suspicious fact
here, ladies and gentlemen. When he left that airport -- that hotel
in Chicago, he was wearing a blue jean outfit, the same outfit he
wore when he went to Los Angeles -- excuse me -- when he went to
Chicago the night before, blue jean outfit and top. The man who
drove him from the Chicago O'Hare Hotel to the Chicago airport
described this blue jean outfit. The man that he sat next to on the
plane for four hours -- and by the way, he took notes, this guy. His
name is Mark Partridge. We read his testimony. He said Mr. Simpson
had a blue jean outfit on, no socks and kind of loafer shoes. Mr.
Simpson shows up at Rockingham -- gets off that plane and goes to
Rockingham, and he's in a completely different outfit now. He's got
sneakers, he's got black pants and a white shirt. Where are the blue
jeans? He had them on on the airplane. He gets off the airplane
wearing blue jeans. Where are they? Where's the blue jean outfit?
What happened from the time he got off the airplane at LAX until the
time he got to Rockingham an hour later? Now, I asked him all these
questions, and of course he said, I didn't have blue jeans on, I had
another outfit, I had on the outfit you saw me with when I arrived
at Rockingham, I put that outfit on in my hotel room and I never
changed. Well, why did two witnesses say he had a different outfit?
Two witnesses who have no reason to lie. In fact, they're your
witnesses. You called them. Raymond Kilduff. Mark Partridge. Blue
jean outfit. Where's the blue jeans? They're missing. Maybe got
blood on them. Who knows? Why's he lying about all these things,
ladies and gentlemen? Why is he lying about the golf clubs? There's
nothing suspicious or incriminating about it. Why is he lying? Why
is he lying about the clothing? Why is he lying about all these
things? Why's he on an airplane, overheard by this man Partridge,
his witness, say to the very first man he called on that airplane,
Skip Taft, I can't talk now. Does that sound like something an
innocent man would say? Why is he talking -- why is he telling
Partridge all about his love of Nicole, getting into detail. This is
a perfect stranger. Is he trying to convince somebody on the
airplane that he's an innocent man. Why does he know details about
the murders? Why did he start talking about two victims in a
garden. How did he know about the garden? There was no testimony
anybody told him about the garden. In fact, he said just the
opposite. Nobody would tell him anything. He kept asking. They
wouldn't tell him anything. Made a few mistakes, I guess. And
finally on this subject of his conduct after the murders -- a couple
more points, actually. One is, on the evening of the 13th, when he
went back to his house again, instead of being with his children, he
had a whole bunch of people there, sort of all looking at the TV
screen, three TV's going on at once. I guess doing a little damage
control. And Kato Kaelin comes back that night. They asked him to
come back. They specifically asked him to come back. Howard Weitzman
and Mr. Simpson made a telephone call to Mr. Kaelin. He came --
comes back to Rockingham on the evening of Monday, June 13, and he
gets in there. A few minutes later, he's in the kitchen alone with
OJ Simpson. And OJ Simpson says to Kato Kaelin, you saw me go in the
house after McDonald's, didn't you, Kato? No, I didn't, OJ I didn't
see you go in the house. That's what Kato Kaelin testified to.
Simpson trying to make an alibi, obviously. Now, later that week,
Mr. Simpson was informed, Friday, to be specific, that he was going
to be arrested for a double murder, murdering Ronald Goldman and
Nicole Brown Simpson. And Mr. Simpson took off. He fled. He split
with his good buddy, Al Cowlings. And he claims he was suicidal and
he was going to Nicole's grave to kill himself. Well, let me talk a
little bit about that. First of all, why is it that he only leaves
the moment he's going to be arrested? Why didn't he go the night
before? Why didn't he kill himself on Tuesday, or on Wednesday, or
on Thursday? Why Friday, when the police are on their way to get
him? That's number one. Number two, why does he have a passport and
money and a disguise? Why did he have anything, except maybe a gun
if he wanted to kill himself? Why did he go and grab a bag to go
into the car to go kill himself? He says, well, it had some pictures
in there. Why didn't he just take the pictures out? Why did he
take the whole bag? Why is there a passport in there? He says it's
always in there. Well, we read you the testimony of his girlfriend,
Ms. Barbieri, who spent nights there with him that week, and she
said, no, I saw the passport on the bedside table. So that means Mr.
Simpson had to take it off the bedside table and put it in his bag.
Something he denies. Who knows what he was going to do, but is this
the conduct of an innocent man? Does an innocent man flee? Maybe Mr.
Simpson didn't know what he was going to do. But he knew one thing.
He knew if he stuck around and the police got there, he'd be going
to jail and he might never get out, he might spend the rest of his
life in jail for killing two people. That's what he knew. And that's
why he took off. Because he didn't know what else to do. He had run
out of time and that's why he split. Now he comes here and says, no,
I was going to kill myself over the loss of Nicole. The very same
Nicole that he said he didn't want to have anything to do with. Did
you hear him talk for four hours? He didn't want to have anything to
do with Nicole any more. She was out of his life. He didn't like
what she was up to, so he got out of the mix, as he likes to say.
He dumped her. She didn't dump me. He's real big about that. You
heard him go on and on about that. So he claims to have rejected
this woman as early as May 10. Yet he's going to kill himself now
because she's dead. He's going to orphan his two small children.
He's going to orphan -- he's got four children. He's going to orphan
two of them to go kill himself. Who does that? What kind of innocent
man does that? Not even 50 years old, everything to live for. Does
that make any sense? Whether he's fleeing the police, whether he's
going to pull the trigger, whatever he's doing, it shows one thing,
that he is not innocent, but he's guilty of killing two people.
That's what it shows. And this suicide note, what kind of suicide
note is that, ladies and gentlemen? There's not one word of sorrow
expressed in that note for Nicole. Is that extraordinary or what?
Who signs a suicide note with a happy face? Did you see that note?
It's signed "OJ," with a smiling "O." Does that show you how
obsessed he is with his image. Now, he's going to come in here and
tell us all about police frame-ups and conspiracies and fraudulent
photos. And I read you the transcript of the telephone call that he
had with Detective Tom Lange, a man who Mr. Simpson accuses of
perjury now and felonies and conspiring to frame him, planting of
evidence, lying, getting other police officers to lie. And you know
who Tom Lange is? Tom Lange is the man who saved OJ Simpson's life.
That's who Tom Lange is. Tom Lange is the man who pleaded with Mr.
Simpson while he was in that Bronco, apparently with a gun, pleaded
with him not to kill himself, not to pull the trigger, throw the gun
out, don't hurt yourself, and got him to drive, finally, home. And
but for Tom Lange of the Los Angeles Police Department, OJ Simpson
might not be here today. And do you know what OJ Simpson said to Tom
Lange? Did he say in outrage, why did you frame me? Why did you
conspire against me? Why did you plant evidence? Why is my blood
there? How did that glove get there? Why aren't you out looking for
the real killer who did this to my Nicole? Did he say any of that?
He did not. What did he say? I'm sorry that I did this to the police
department. Hey, you've been a good guy, too, man. Thank you. Let
me tell you, I know you're doing your job, you've been honest with
me right from the beginning, I appreciate that. That's what he said
to Tom Lange. And then perhaps he came as close as he ever will to
accepting responsibility for what he did in murdering two people,
two innocent people, when he said to Tom Lange, I'm the only one
that deserves it. And that's in the transcript before you. I'm the
only one that deserves it. Is it conceivable that an innocent man
would ever utter those words? Is this a good time, Your Honor?
THE COURT: I'll see counsel at bench.
THE COURT REPORTER: With the reporter, Judge?
(A bench conference was held which was not reported.)
THE BAILIFF: Quiet, please. Quiet.
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
MR. PETROCELLI: I'd like to turn to a different subject now. We've
shown you with overwhelming evidence, physical evidence and other
evidence, that Mr. Simpson, to a certainty, committed these murders,
ladies and gentlemen. The physical evidence cannot be explained as
absolutely conclusive and overwhelming. We talked about his guilty
conduct afterwards, his lies, his opportunity to commit the murders.
Now I would like to discuss a little bit about motive. What is
motive? You talk about motive, you usually talk about why did
somebody do it, what was their reason, did they have a reason. Let
me make clear that under the law, we don't have to prove motive. We
have no legal requirements to prove motive. We can stop right now.
But I'm going to talk a little bit about motive for a couple of
reasons. Number one, you're going to hear a lot about motive from
Mr. Simpson. He's going to talk to you about that he never had a
motive, and we heard a lot from him on the witness stand about he
had no animosity towards Nicole and there was nothing going on
between them and he would have no reason to harm her. The other
reason is because there was a motive here and there was evidence
of motive, and we think we should get out all the information on the
table for you, ladies and gentlemen, so you'll have the benefit of
it all, so you should know what was happening in the relationship
between this man and Nicole Brown Simpson in the last weeks and days
of her life that caused this man to do what he did to her. Now, we
don't know all the -- we don't know the whole story and we never
will. In any relationship, two people are involved. One of them is
dead and is not here to tell her side of the story. And the other
one is not telling the truth. But even so, we have a pretty clear
picture of what was happening in this relationship near the end and
why this man was driven to lose control one night, snap, and do what
he did. And I'd like to talk to you a little bit about that. You
have to understand, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Simpson's relationship
with Nicole from day one was always a turbulent relationship. This
was one of those classic love-hate relationships. Can't live with
her. Can't live without her. He told the police on June 13, when
they asked him about his relationship with Nicole, he said, it was
always a problem relationship. Those are his words. I've always had
problems with her. Our relationship has been a problem
relationship. And we gave you a flavor of that as best as we could,
about how she could press his buttons and he could press her
buttons. And when he got upset in this relationship, what did he do?
He hit her. He lashed out and hit her. And he hit her time and time
again, ladies and gentlemen. This goes on in the privacy of one's
home, and there are not normally witnesses to these things. And, of
course, when one of them gets beaten to death and the other one's
not telling the truth, it's almost impossible to know the full depth
of what happened. But we saw a few glimpses of it. We had a few
witnesses who managed to see things in public, the one woman, India
Allen, who saw Mr. Simpson slap Nicole in the parking lot. Another
time, she got slapped on the beach. And, of course, in 1989, it was
so bad, the police came out. I'm not going to get into those details
with you. Mr. Kelly's going to tell you about those details. I just
want you to have the picture. This was a relationship characterized
by violence when Mr. Simpson lost control and got upset. Not all the
times did he hit Nicole, but if he didn't hit Nicole, he hit
something else: Take a baseball bat to a windshield, knock down a
door. This is a guy who lashes out with his hands when he loses
control. And when he lost control on the evening of June 12 and
lashed out, he had a knife in his hand. And that's why Nicole is not
with us. That's why Ron Goldman is not with us. This was a yo-yo
relationship for Mr. Simpson. Nicole left him. She was heartbroken.
You'll hear a little bit more about that from Mr. Kelly. Some of her
private writings will show her state of mind, the depth of her
feelings. She left Mr. Simpson in early 1992, and he was
heartbroken, and he tried everything he could to get her back, to
prevent her from leaving, including walking over to her house at
night when she was with other men, saw Nicole one night -- went over
to the house uninvited and looked into a window for ten seconds,
knowing she was with another man, having seen them at a restaurant.
This is how obsessed he was with trying to get her back. Finally, he
moves on and gets involved with this woman named Paula Barbieri.
Nicole has moved on in her life. And wouldn't you know it, the
following year -- now we're into 1993 -- after the divorce, Nicole
wants to try to put her family back together. That's not atypical
of a woman in her situation, is it? Father of her two children, a
man that, in some ways, she could never stop loving, despite all the
pain and all the hurt. She had some therapy. She figured maybe this
can work again for the benefit of the family. And she went back to
Mr. Simpson and asked him if they could put their relationship back
together. And after a couple of months, they agreed they would do
so. And they started a one-year trial period of dating one another
again, in the hopes of maybe they'd get remarried, move back in, and
be a happy family, maybe for the first time ever. And that one-year
reconciliation attempt, until -- roughly from about May of 1993 to
May of 1994, even that one-year period had its ups and downs, even
when both sides or both parties were trying to put it together, even
though it was difficult. Even then, the police had to come out. They
came out on October 25, 1993, when Nicole called 911 because Mr.
Simpson was, once again, enraged at her and out of control. Now, he
didn't kill her that night; he killed her eight months later. He
didn't kill her that night. Of course, she was on the phone right
away, and had protection, she had a 911 operator. Kato Kaelin was in
the house. He had to control himself. And ultimately, the police
came out, and he did. But he kicked the door down and broke it.
You heard Nicole's trembling voice on the 911 tape, how afraid she
was. And Mr. Simpson said no, she wasn't; she wasn't afraid at all;
she was lying. By the way, you heard the tape of the officer who
tried to keep it low profile: We don't want to make a big deal out
of this, OJ; we want to keep this down, quiet. They bent over
backwards, the police department, to their fault, to protect this
guy. He never had a negative experience in his life with the Los
Angeles Police Department, except for this one guy in 1989 that came
out to the house when Nicole got beaten. He came out there, and Mr.
Simpson got into an argument. Outside that argument with that one
officer, he never had a negative experience with anybody of the Los
Angeles Police Department. They had a rosey relationship with him;
they adored him; they were at his house getting autographs,
memorabilia signed. He was the All-American guy. And he wants you
now to believe that they framed him. So they let this incident blow
over. And Nicole and OJ Simpson, around the beginning of 1994,
things started working out. And you heard Mr. Simpson say that in
April of 1994, he had such a great weekend with Nicole in Cabo San
Lucas, where they vacationed, and back in Los Angeles, that he
decided that this might work out after all. Nicole might be able to
now move back; we'll get remarried -- that's the idea here -- and be
a family again. And he even went so far as to call up Nicole's
mother, Judy Brown, and tell her that: You know, Judy, I think your
daughter and I are going to make it this time. I think it's now
going to work. Just -- just when he's feeling that way, feeling that
good, ready to have Nicole move back in with him, ready to be a
family again, what happens? The yo-yo. All of a sudden, Nicole
didn't want to commit to him anymore. He can't get any positive
response from her. Who knows what was going through her mind? She
was obviously having difficulty making this last, final commitment
to this man to move back in his house, and marry him. And so
relations began to get strained. Mr. Simpson says of Nicole, one day
she was nice, the next day she wasn't. They'd go out, she was great;
the next time, she wasn't. He, of course, blames it all on her, like
there's something wrong with her. He even said she was going have
a nervous breakdown. It's all her fault. It's all her weird
problems, not my fault. I'm normal. Something's wrong with Nicole.
That's his spin on everything. Of course, Nicole got double
pneumonia. Maybe that's why she was shaking one night when they were
supposed to go out. But he puts his whole spin on this, that this
was all Nicole's not -- not being grounded in reality anymore, just
losing it. That's what he would like you to understand and believe.
In reality, Nicole did not want to commit to this man just when he
wanted that commitment, and he could not accept it. That's what was
happening near the end of this relationship. You have to understand
something in this area of motive. Mr. Simpson likes to talk about it
a lot; he spent a good part of his testimony talking about it. You
know why? Because he can say anything he wants. He can say anything
he wants and does say anything he wants. She is not here to tell her
side of the story. He can lie, lie, lie, lie. And he does. It's a
little harder with physical evidence: With blood, with hair, with
fiber, with shoes. But in this motive issue, you know, it feels
good: Hey, I can sell this story. This relationship deteriorated
near the end because Nicole Brown Simpson did not want to commit to
this man again. And he retaliated. He retaliated, ladies and
gentlemen. He was angry he was upset. What did he do? He tried to
force the issue. He goes up to her house on the 22nd of May, after
they had held this picnic over at their home, and he was upset with
Nicole cause she had come to the house that day with close to two or
three hundred people. She was acting like she's his wife, went
upstairs and slept in his room, and -- like everything is normal.
And he couldn't handle this, either. You're in or you're out. Either
you're in or you're out. And he forced Nicole to make a decision
that night when he went over to her house on May 22. Nicole said,
I'm out. How do we know she said that? She wrote it down. She wrote
what her state of mind was. "We've officially will split up," she
wrote in her diary. She gave OJ Simpson back very expensive
earrings, expensive bracelet. That was it. May 22, 1994. Three
weeks later, she is dead. What does OJ Simpson do after this day,
May 22? Meanwhile, by the way, seeing things aren't going too well
with Nicole, he calls up his old flame, Paula Barbieri, tries to
bring her back into his life, maybe as a security blanket or
something, but there's a problem: He broke Paula's heart when he
left her to go back with Nicole when they tried to reconcile. Now
he's trying to bring Paula back in, and she doesn't want to be back
in unless Mr. Simpson is finally, once and for all, free of Nicole.
And guess what? He's not. You heard how they went off to Palm
Springs. And May 28, May 29, a couple weeks before Nicole's death --
you heard that testimony -- they had a fight, and Paula left. Mr.
Simpson said it was about golf. I put on the witness stand here, a
woman named Donna Estes, a friend of Mr. Simpson's. She had no
reason to come in here and lie. She said Mr. Simpson -- said Paula
and he fought over Nicole. Paula asked him point blank, do you still
love Nicole? Simpson said yes, I do. She left. He talked about
Nicole all night at dinner to this Donna Estes, his friend, and he
talked all day on the golf course about Nicole to his other
friend, Jackie Cooper he plays golf with and tennis with. Hey, these
are his friends; these aren't my friends; these aren't Nicole's
friends. These are his friends. They came in here and they testified
under oath -- they had nothing to lie about -- they said all he was
talking about at Palm Springs that Memorial Day weekend was Nicole,
Nicole, Nicole. And he told you just the opposite: He wasn't talking
about her at all, because he doesn't want you to think that he had
any kind of lingering bond, any kind of emotional attachment. He
wants to you think that he severed it -- he severed it early in May,
so that you won't believe he had any animosity and motive. That's
why you're hearing this story. He knows what's he's doing. When
Nicole gave him back that bracelet and those earrings and said that
was it, what did Mr. Simpson do? Well, he resorted to a little
economic leverage. He wrote a letter -- dictated a harsh letter to
Nicole, telling her that she had to -- she was going to get in
trouble with the IRS unless she paid 70, 80 thousand dollars, which
was all she had in a savings account. Why is he doing that? And he
writes it to -- gives it to his lawyer, and guess what? Put that
Skip Taft thing up.
(Mr. Foster complies.) What do you think his lawyers said when he
got that letter?
(Indicating to Elmo screen.) Mr. Taft got -- Mr. Simpson drafted the
letter to Nicole May 26, 1994. Now, four days after this official
break-up on May 22, Mr. Taft, Skip -- you remember him -- "made
changes you wanted, but did not get, revengeful." Took Mr. Simpson's
harsh letter and changed it, made sure it wasn't revengeful. Now, of
every single world in the English language, why is Mr. Taft picking
out the word "revengeful"? Why is revenge even mentioned in this
letter? Well, it's obvious why. Because Mr. Simpson's initial letter
must have smacked of hatred and revenge, retaliation. And Mr. Taft
toned it down. And by the way, when he toned it down, Mr. Simpson
wasn't satisfied, and he had it beefed up again. And the final
version of that letter went out on June 6, 1994, telling Nicole that
she had to change her address; that she could be getting in trouble
from misleading the IRS. He knew how Nicole would feel about that.
He knew. He knew how she was feeling. And he delivered on a threat
by sending that letter. He tried to tell you on the witness stand
that there was, in his words, no animosity between Nicole and him
near the end. Now, why did he say that in response to Mr. Baker's
questions? Because he doesn't want to you think he had any kind of a
reason to be upset with Nicole. He said no animosity. Well, you want
to see what Nicole's state of mind was? Put up the diary entry, 6/3.

(Mr. Foster complies.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Her last written words -- First of all, put up --
put up May 22. May 22, 1994.
(Mr. Foster complies.)
MR. PETROCELLI: What exhibit is this?
MR. FOSTER: 735.
MR. PETROCELLI: Exhibit 735. And you should take a very close look
at these. These are the words that Nicole left behind. And these
words, like so many other things, speak from the grave. Mr. Simpson
can say all he wants, but these are Nicole's words, not his. And she
says in here, "We've officially split, May 22, 1994." Goes on to
talk about the arrangement for the children. The reason is, Nicole
thought they could be civil about this and still deal with their
children, as a loving father and a loving mother would, despite
their inability to reconcile. And she's even encouraging him to be
with the children there. And then she talks about a blow-up on May
28 or thereabouts, with Cora Fischman. And let's go to June 3.
(Indicating to Elmo.)
(Mr. Foster adjusts Elmo.) June 3, nine days before her murder, OJ
Simpson says no animosity. Three days after this letter -- after
this entry, OJ sends this IRS letter. Can you get the IRS letter
(Mr. Foster complies, displays document on Elmo.)
MR. PETROCELLI: OJ came to pick up the kids -- this is a Friday
night -- 8:30 p.m. They wanted to stay home because I let them
organize sleep-overs. At last minute, thought daddy wasn't coming.
Told OJ I'd drop them off first thing in the morning. He said okay.
Then, quote, "You hung up on me last night. You're going to pay for
this, bitch. You're withholding money from IRS. You're going to
jail, you fucking cunt. You think you can do any fucking thing you
want. You've got it coming. I've already talked to my lawyers about
this, bitch." Go ahead, Steve.
(Mr. Foster adjusts the document on the Elmo screen.)
MR. PETROCELLI: "They'll get you for tax evasion, bitch. I'll see to
it. You're not going to have a fucking dime left, bitch," et cetera.
"This was all being said as Sydney's girlfriend, Allegra was being
dropped off. They may have already walked into the house. I'm not
sure if they heard all or any of this. I just turned around and
walked away." This is OJ Simpson's -- OJ Simpson's response to this
when I asked him on the witness stand, ladies and gentlemen, was
that everything in these two pages was true, except what Nicole
recounted on that June 3 entry. Everything else is true, but the
things she said about OJ Simpson, he says, are not true. And he
said, to use his words, they are a pack of lies. Imagine saying that
of the mother of your children as she lays in her grave: A pack of
lies. And following through on his threat, sure enough, June 6,
three days later, he sends this letter, where he tells Nicole how he
cannot take part in any course of action that might intentionally or
whatever -- what's the purpose of sending that letter? Because of
the change in our circumstances or -- obviously referring to the
fact that they're not going to be together again; that's the change
in their circumstances: They're not going to be together again, so
I'll show you. And you heard the testimony of one of Mr. Simpson's
good friends. A real reluctant guy came in here, named Ron Fischman,
a doctor. He said when Nicole got this letter, she was devastated
and crying in his kitchen, and she said, can you believe he would do
this to the mother of his children? Could you believe he could do
this to his children? And the rest of that week, Nicole wanted
nothing more -- this was the last straw for her -- she wanted
nothing to do with this guy, and there was no contact anymore. Not
because he was avoiding her, because she wouldn't have anything to
do with him, who would go so far to retaliate against her by sending
letter like that, that forced her to either come up with the -- all
the money she had or move out of her apartment -- her condo. Those
were the two choices. She had to come up with 70, 80 thousand
dollars or move out, because he wrote this letter. No contact that
week. She wants nothing to do with him. And tomorrow morning, we'll
talk about the recital. Your Honor. . .
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, 8:30 tomorrow morning. Don't talk
about the case. Don't form or express any opinions.
(At 4:31 p.m., an adjournment was taken until Wednesday, January 22, 1997, at 8:30 a.m.)