SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
JANUARY 22, 1997
VOLUME 47

THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
JURORS: Morning.
THE COURT: One of your number inquired whether we're going to be
dark Friday. Assuming that the argument concludes as predicted by
the attorneys, you will be deliberating Friday, so bear that in
mind.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor. I will be concluding this
morning in about an hour or so, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You said an hour at 4 o'clock yesterday.
MR. PETROCELLI: We're trying.

PLAINTIFF'S CLOSING ARGUMENT (continued)
MR. PETROCELLI: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
JURORS: Good morning.
MR. PETROCELLI: Bear with us, it's been a long trial, there's a lot
of evidence, and I'm working my way near the end. Okay.
MR. BAKER: Can you keep your voice up, sir. I can't hear you, Dan.
MR. PETROCELLI: I will. We were talking about, yesterday, before we
left, the animosity and hostility between Nicole Brown Simpson and
Mr. Simpson through the last week of Nicole's life. And I showed you
the vile argument that was recorded in Nicole's last written words.
MR. BAKER: I'm going to object, Your Honor, that's only been
admitted for her state of mind and not for the truth of the
argument.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: Jury's been admonished to that again.
MR. PETROCELLI: Hadn't even finished my next sentence, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Finish your next sentence.
MR. PETROCELLI: And I was about to say these written words of Nicole
show you how she was feeling about this relationship at this point
in her life, nine days before her death.

I showed you the letter that Mr. Simpson sent on June 6, three
days after the June 3rd diary entry, all about the IRS, and that
letter, on its face, in the words of Mr. Simpson, show acrimony and
hostility, and not a relationship as -- hunky-dory is, I guess, the
word that they like to use.

In addition, ladies and gentlemen, we have further evidence of
Nicole's state of mind, what she believed, what she thought, what
she feared around this time.

You heard the testimony of Nancy Ney from the battered women's
shelter. And you heard what Nancy Ney said about Nicole's state of
mind; how she feared her ex-husband. And there isn't any doubt that
Nancy Ney was talking to Nicole Brown Simpson.

Can you put on the exhibit.

And focus it up, Steve, a little bit.

Ex-husband has been -- has been stalking. Has called police over
eight times.

Do you remember the testimony of Officer Edwards in regard to the
1989 incident?

When he reported how Nicole told him in her sweats and brazier,
hysterical, you guys never do anything, been out here eight times
and you never do anything.

Low and behold, we have eight times here.

Length of relationship, eight years.

This is Nicole Brown Simpson and there's no question about it
(indicating to document on Elmo).

Can you go down to the end. And go to the beginning.
(Elmo adjusted.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Nicole. Keep going, slowly.
(Elmo adjusted)
MR. PETROCELLI: Children, two.

And then she gave you other details in her other notes, further
making clear that the person she was talking to was Nicole Brown
Simpson.

Has been abusive for many years. Police called a lot, nothing much
ever done.

Keep going (indicating to Elmo).

This is what Nicole was feeling.

What happened that week? Mr. Simpson went out of town, he missed his
son's elementary school graduation, he had missed his daughter's
communion.

He went out of town.

Did he have any conversation with Nicole that week? None.

Before he left town, he went over and saw the dog, to pick up the
dog. He went inside to do something for his son. He ran into Nicole
on two occasions.

Did he say a word to her? None.

Did she say a word to him? None.

These people were not talking to each other. They were at war with
each other.

Don't believe when this man gets on the stand, with his ex-wife not
here to defend herself, and let him tell you that he had no
hostility toward her and she had no hostility toward him.

That is an absolute lie.

You heard testimony from Mr. Simpson himself, that he spoke to a
friend in New York about his relationship with Nicole, how it had
just broke up, and that he was upset, and they talked about the
children.

And you heard Mr. Simpson say that he made a special trip to come
all the way back from New York to go to this recital on Sunday, then
he had to fly all the way back to Chicago.

And the reason he did that, is he knew how further angry Nicole
would be with him if he missed that recital. Having missed several
other events, and still hopeful in stopping the steady deterioration
of this relationship, and he came all the way back for that event,
all the way back from the East Coast only to have to fly to Chicago
that night.

Now, we'll talk about what happened when he made such a -- in his
mind, extraordinary, Herculean effort to be there for Nicole at
the recital.

Mr. Simpson returns from this trip on Friday night, June 10th. He
spends the evening with his friend, Paula Barbieri.

He gets up the next morning and he plays golf.

The next day he has a conversation -- excuse me, later that day he
has a conversation, after golf, with Kato Kaelin; and he's talking
about Nicole, he's talking about not being a family anymore, missing
the kids, the white picket fence, the whole image that he wanted so
desperately at this time in his life, to have his life back with
Nicole.

You heard Mr. Kaelin describe those conversations on that Saturday
afternoon. That evening he goes to this formal event with Ms.
Barbieri, it's a formal dinner party, and they have a conversation
about the recital, and here's another big lie Mr. Simpson tells.

At the end of that night, instead of going back to Rockingham and
spending the evening together as they did the night before, Ms.
Barbieri is taken home to her apartment on Wilshire. Mr. Simpson
goes to Rockingham.

I asked Mr. Simpson, now, you and Paula fought about Nicole that
night, didn't you?

No.

You and she had an argument because she wanted to go to the recital
and you wouldn't take her?

No.

She wanted to go to the recital, because once and for all, you're
having broken her heart a year ago when you left her for Nicole,
then you tried to bring her back in again, into your life, when
things were bad for Nicole.

Once and for all, she put her foot down, and she said to you, I'm
either going to be with you with Nicole there, or I'm not going to
be in your life at all. You have to make a choice here.

That's the conversation that happened, and he said, no, you can't
come. I don't want you there.

And he goes home alone and she goes home alone. And how do we know
that conversation occurred, and how do we know that they fought once
again over Nicole? And remember, they had fought a week or two ago
about Nicole when Paula left Palm Springs over the Memorial Day
weekend because Mr. Simpson told her he still loved Nicole. We heard
that from Donna Estes.

How do we know they fought on the evening of June 11, and why does
Mr. Simpson lie about it?

Well, we know they fought because the very next morning he went on
the golf course, as he does every morning, and he almost had a fist
fight with his good friend, Craig Baumgarten, who testified in
court.

Now, this is one of his closest friends. And he testified, first of
all, that he had never seen Mr. Simpson get that angry before.

Never.

They'd known each other a long time. That's how raw Mr. Simpson's
feelings were.

And secondly, Mr. Baumgartener
(sic), under oath, had to admit Mr. Simpson told him about having an
argument with Paula about the recital.

His own friend came in court and said they had an argument the night
before about Paula. And Mr. Simpson, with a straight face, is trying
to tell you, no, they didn't discuss it at all.

And then when Mr. Simpson spoke to this psychologist, this domestic
violence psychologist, back in 1995, he even told her -- he even
told her that Paula was upset because she couldn't go to the
recital.

Do you have those notes (indicating to Mr. Foster).
(Typed notes from Lenore Walker displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Simpson possibly never believed these notes
would ever show up. He said he thought that Paula wanted to be --
to go there, but he thought it was not appropriate.

Is there another reference, Steve?

That's a different one. We'll get to that.

It's even in his notes.

It was not appropriate. He didn't want Paula to go. He told her.
They fought about it. He told his friend Craig Baumgarten about it.

What happens the next morning?

7 o'clock in the morning -- we played you the videotape of Ms.
Barbieri's deposition. She left a long message on Mr. Simpson's
machine, his voice-mail, on his cell phone, breaking up with him;
that's it, it's over. And she also testified she went out of town
and didn't tell him where she was going.

Just left.

She had had it. She wasn't going to have her heart broken again.

And she also testified that she got several messages from Mr.
Simpson that day, that she checked in from Las Vegas where she ended
up going.

At least three messages from him, acknowledging her message breaking
up with him.

Now comes another big lie.

Mr. Simpson tells us, with a straight face, he never picked up that
message from Paula.

This avid telephoner, he never picked up that message.

Can you believe that?

Well, we asked him. He sat there with a straight face and said, no,
I didn't pick it up. And he wants you to believe he didn't pick it
up because he knows how much of an effect that hearing that message
had on him, and he knows what it did to his state of mind. See, we
can't get inside his mind 'cause only he knows. He knows what's
important and he knows what he doesn't want to tell you. And that's
one thing he doesn't want to tell you; that he picked up that
message. But we know he picked it up. We know from at least three
places that he picked it up. He was caught in this big lie at least
three places. No. 1, he told the police the next day he picked it up
when he came back from Chicago. You have that, Steve. Page 13. Want
to put that on the Elmo.
(Portion of Mr. Simpson's statement to police on June 13, 1994,
displayed on Elmo.)
MR. PETROCELLI: This is his statement to the police hours after
Nicole's death and about 24 hours or so after he picked up this
message. Less than that.
(Mr. Petrocelli read a portion of Mr. Simpson's statement to police
on June 13, 1994.) I was going over there, I called her a couple of
times, and she wasn't there and that she had left a message and then
I checked my messages. She had left me a message that she wasn't
there, that she had to leave town.
(Lenore Walker's notes displayed on Elmo.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Lenore Walker's notes. The notes he probably
believed would never come out. This is a private discussion between
his domestic violence counselor while Mr. Simpson was in jail. The
woman he hired to help him in his defense.
(Mr. Petrocelli is referring to Lenore Walker's notes.) He called
Paula when he got home from the recital. She was not home, call
forward on car phone. That's his voice-mail. That's where Paula said
she left the message. He listened to the message on Paula's -- phone
message from Paula. It was a whole long message about golf and
didn't see you. He wasn't sure in Arizona or Las Vegas if angry
with. He was listening to her phone message when Kato goes by in the
house, and Kato testified that he came by to see Mr. Simpson after
Mr. Simpson came back from the recital. Somewhere between 6:30 and 7
o'clock p.m., Mr. Kaelin walks in, apparently while Mr. Simpson is
picking up this message. So we know Mr. Simpson picked up this
message. If that were not enough -- put on the last exhibit, Steve.
Telephone computer record.
(Telephone computer log displayed on the Elmo.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Where's the 1856. 6:56. Right when Kaelin is in the
house after the recital. 6:56. There you have it. Mr. Simpson's
phone number. Paula's number. How could it be any closer? So he's
lying about picking up the message. After he came back from golf,
Mr. Simpson called Nicole on the way back from the Bronco -- in his
Bronco, on the way back from the golf course, and there's a cell
phone record. Can you get out the cell phone board.
(Cell phone record board displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: 2:18 to 2:22 p.m. We don't know everything that was
said in that conversation on the afternoon of the 12th. Mr. Simpson
did tell us a few things. He said he offered to take Justin, his
little boy, off Nicole's hands so she could get Sydney ready for the
recital. And Nicole said, no, that Justin's cousins were over there,
they were going to play. I suspect there was a little more said in
that conversation. But the bottom line is this: Mr. Simpson called
up and wanted his son, and Nicole says, no. That call is 2:18 to
2:22 to Nicole. As you can see, he's constantly trying to get in
touch with Paula all throughout the day, into the evening. Talked
about 10:03, while he's in the Bronco driving someplace, possibly
looking for Paula, probably going to Nicole's in his Bronco, as we
saw yesterday. Not at home. Mr. Simpson goes to this recital,
ladies and gentlemen, about 5 o'clock p.m., not a particularly
pleasant experience for him. He had come all the way back from the
East Coast to be there. Was he able to sit and enjoy his family? No.
Was he invited to go to dinner with them? No. Was he included as
part of the family? No. Did he have any contact with Nicole? No. Did
they talk? No. Did they kiss? No. Did they embrace? No. Was there
obvious hostility and animosity? Yes. Mr. Simpson barely had a
moment to see his daughter. Nicole had left the recital immediately
when it was over and taken Sydney with her, and I suggest to you
that this just contributed to Mr. Simpson's anger; that in his view,
Nicole was not even letting him see his daughter. In his view. And
the next day, what did he tell the police? Quote:
(Mr. Petrocelli read a portion of Mr. Simpson's statement to police
on June 13, 1994.) Nicole took kids away from recital so quick. So
quick. That's what he told the police the next day when the police
were asking him about this. She took the kids away so quick. Got a
picture taken of him and his daughter taken at that recital. Did
Nicole take that picture? No. That was a picture taken by a friend,
Ron Fischman, or his wife, Cora Fischman. You were shown a video of
Mr. Simpson smiling at the end of this recital. Let me say a few
things about that video. First of all, that video captures the last
30 seconds of what was a two-hour event for Mr. Simpson, from 5 to
6:30, probably an hour and a half. You're seeing the last 30 seconds
when he's saying good-bye. And they want you to say see, he's not
in a smoldering rage. They want you to believe that man's in a
smoldering rage. Well, if he were in a smoldering rage, then I'm
sure he wouldn't be showing it to everybody out in the front of a
school. When people are upset inside, and burning up, and confused,
and anger is building, they don't grow fangs and hair. That's the
image they want you to think you see here. This monster. Monster. I
suggest to you that far more accurate of Mr. Simpson's mood and
demeanor at that recital is not 30 seconds from a video where
they're in front of a lot of people -- and here's the guy who all
the time is smiling in front of people. He even puts a smile on a
suicide note. If he puts a smile on a suicide note, he's going to
smile in front of people. His good friend, a fellow he spent the
weekend talking to, Ronald Fischman, who testified here when Mr.
Brewer questioned him, Ronald Fischman said, quote:
(Mr. Petrocelli read a portion of the transcript from the civil
trial testimony of Ronald Fischman, examined by Mr. Brewer.)
Q. In all the years that you knew O.J. Simpson, he never appeared
the way he appeared at that recital to you, true?
A. That's true. So people who knew him knew something was bothering
this man and things were not going well. And indeed, when he was
asked about the recital by the police the next day, he said, look,
we have problems, always had problems. Problem relationship. When
Mr. Simpson returns from that recital, he returns alone, while his
family goes to dinner just a short distance away. He picks up this
message, and who knows what kind of impact that had on his state of
mind at that time, but we know one thing, it had such a profound
impact that he will lie to you in the face of absolute records and
notes from his own therapist or counselor and statements from his
own friends. It was that important an element, what happened to him
that night, that ultimately made him lose control at 10 o'clock or
10:30, that he wants to lie in the face of black-and-white records.
When he got home from that recital -- you heard Mr. Kaelin, who
bumped into him, who said that Mr. Simpson told him Nicole was
playing, quote, hardball, end of quotes, with him in regard to the
children. And I suspect Nicole was playing a little hardball with
him because Mr. Simpson was playing some big time hardball with her.
Writing her a letter, he gave her two options, come up with all your
savings and give it to the government right now or move out of the
house with the children. Those were the two options she had. So I
suspect he was playing a little hardball. After he picked up this
message, Mr. Simpson then, as you can see, made some other phone
calls. 7:32, he called Gretchen Stockdale, another name from the
past, a woman he had known, and he leaves a message saying that he's
-- hey, Gretchen, it's O.J., I'm unattached for the first time in my
life, or words to that effect. But right after he gets a message
from Paula dumping him, Nicole doesn't want to have anything to do
with him, he's trying to get in touch with somebody, make some
connection, have somebody, gets an answering machine, and he says
he's unattached for the first time in his life. I guess that further
shows us that he's lying about not having received Paula's message.
And then he makes more phone calls, and then we get to 9 o'clock.
You can see how incessantly he's trying to get in touch with
Paula. By the way, at 8:55 -- can you put that up -- he called his
message machine again, retrieved a phone call from Paula. 8:55. Can
you show the numbers? Not only 6:56, but 8:55, two times. God knows
what went through his mind when he hung up on that phone call. Then
he calls Nicole immediately, he said, at 9 o'clock. We don't see
phone calls from him to Nicole because we don't have local phone
call records. We don't know how many times he called her. We don't
know how long they spoke. The only thing we have, ladies and
gentlemen, the only thing we have to tell us what contact he had
with her is him. Nothing else, just his words. So what does he say
about the 9 o'clock phone call? Oh, he just called to congratulate
Sydney and say let's go to Knott's Berry Farm. He said he had
absolutely no conversation with Nicole at all, no argument, nothing.
In fact, they didn't talk, he said. He said, can I speak to Sydney,
is she asleep, or words to that effect. Sydney takes the phone. And
he hangs up after he speaks to his daughter and that's the end of
the call. That's what he says. There's nobody here to contradict
that. But I tell you that even accepting that version of the
conversation, that doesn't sound like things are all too well. How
about how is dinner? How did the kids enjoy dinner? How was the
family? What did your mom have to say? Where'd you guys go to eat?
Wasn't that recital terrific? Wasn't Sydney wonderful at the
recital? Wasn't she beautiful? Did you see how she danced? Did you
take any pictures? Do you have any video? How about all those
things? None of that was said. Isn't that normal conversation
between two people, even if -- even if their romantic relationship
has come to an end. Wouldn't that be normal conversation? Mr.
Simpson will probably never tell us what happened in that
conversation, nor will he ever tell us what happened in the next
hour and a half. But I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, and there's
absolutely no question about this, next time he saw Nicole Brown
Simpson after he hung up that phone, he had a knife to her throat.
That's the next time he saw her. He had a knife in his hand. And who
can imagine the words of hatred, revenge, that he last spoke to her.
Who can imagine? Rage. Words of rage.
(Pause.) In the end, it all comes down to this: There's blood,
there's hair, there's fibers, there's cuts, there's sweatsuits,
there's hats, there's no alibi, there's plenty of time, and there's
motive. And that's on our side of the scale. What's on his side? His
word that he didn't do it, his credibility, his truth telling. This
is what's on his side. Did he tell the truth to you? He's lied to
you about everything important in this case, covered his tracks and
hid his guilt. The Judge will read you a jury instruction that
states as follows. Forgive me for reading it. A witness willfully
false in one part of his or her testimony is to be distrusted in
others. Is to be distrusted. You may reject the entire testimony of
a witness who willfully has testified falsely on a material point
unless from all of the evidence you believe that the probability of
truth favors his or her testimony in other particulars. What this
means is that if you believe O.J. Simpson lied to you on just one
important point, and that's what the word material is, you can
reject his entire testimony. In fact, if you believe that he was
willfully false in one part of his testimony, you are obligated to
distrust his testimony in other parts. We have a case here where
this man has been willfully false in all parts of his testimony. Can
you bring out the board, Joe.
(Exhibit board is displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Apart from the physical evidence that tells us he is
lying, for him to be innocent and for him to be believed, you have
to disbelieve all of them. Either Simpson is lying or all of these
witnesses and documents are lying or mistaken or faked. All these
people, all these writings, all these photographs, they either have
to be fraudulent, lying, altered, mistaken. Bottom line, they all
have to be wrong, and only he is right. And here's the man who told
you that he never, ever even attempted to tell a lie about anything
important. A man who wrote in his autobiography, quote, I am a
pretty effective liar, end of quotes. And then tried to disavow it.
First by saying he didn't read it, and then by saying it was a joke.
I'm not going to take the time to go through this in the interests
of saving time. You've heard all these witnesses. You've seen all
these documents in one form or another. These people have to be
wrong. Whether it be Nicole's diaries, Nicole herself --
MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to that, Your Honor. That's improper
argument. That goes -- only goes to her state of mind.
THE COURT: You'll get your chance to argue. Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: As to her state of mind, Mr. Baker. These photos all
have to be false, police all have to be liars, mistaken about
everything they did. His own counselor, Lenore Walker, she's wrong,
all those things she wrote in her notes, they're wrong. Medical
records of Nicole's '89 beating, wrong. People who witnessed
domestic violence incidents, wrong. GTE telephone records showing he
picked up the message, wrong. His good friend, Jackie Cooper, about
obsessing about Nicole, wrong. His lawyer, Skip Taft, who saw the
cut on his fourth finger the day when he came back from Chicago,
wrong. And then he agreed to lie for Mr. Simpson. His lawyer friend
of, what, 20, 30 years, Robert Kardashian, wrong. Lied. He lied. He
lied when he said Simpson asked him to go get the golf clubs. That
was a lie. Everybody. I don't want to take the time. And Orenthal
James Simpson, I guess he's got to be a liar, too, because he told
us how mistaken he was when he told the police all those things that
he now wants to recant, all the things in the police statement, all
the times he said he cut his finger in Los Angeles. I was wrong. I
was assuming. When he said he was driving over to Paula's after the
recital. I was wrong, that wasn't Sunday, that was Saturday. When he
said he picked up Paula's message. Oh, I was wrong about that, too,
I didn't pick it up. So I guess he's a liar. Can you bring out the
next board.
(A demonstrative board containing of Flammer and Scull photos is
displayed.)
MR. PETROCELLI: And then if all that's not enough, this is just a
good illustration of how a liar gets trapped in his lies. As you
heard in Court, I took this man's deposition early in 1996, at a
time he believed it would never surface, a photograph of him wearing
the murder shoes. February 1996, January 1996, at a time when he
believed there would never surface a photograph, he felt confident,
because none had come to light. And so I asked him in his deposition
about those Bruno Magli shoes, and he was emphatic. I would never
wear those "ugly ass shoes." He was emphatic. Left no room, no room
for doubt. I would never wear them. Then a couple months later, a
young photographer finds a photograph among his many, many
photographs of O.J. Simpson over the years, young kid, 25 years old,
Harry Scull, and guess what, a couple months later, he's wearing the
shoes. He's got a problem now, doesn't he? What's he going to do?
How does he get out of this one? That picture came out in about
March or April. Well, maybe I could say those are not Bruno Magli.
That's not going to work. They're going to get an expert. You know
what, you can see the sole on that shoe. That is not going to work.
Think of something else. Hum, what else is there? That's a Bruno
Magli. That sure looks like me. I was at that game. Those are my
clothes. I got it. The picture's a fake, it's a fraud. Okay. Let's
work on that one. So what does he do? Better get somebody in here to
say that's a fraud. Scour the country. Let's get the -- let's find a
photographic expert, top guy. Hey, there's this guy used to work at
the FBI named Jerry Richards, let's call him up.
MR. BAKER: There's no evidence of this, Your Honor. He's just making
this up.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PETROCELLI: Who did he bring in here? Who did he bring in here?
He had the wherewithal, the motivation, the resources, to hire the
best person in the world to come in here and tell you that picture
was a -- picture is a fake. And I'm telling the truth. He has the
best lawyers in this courtroom. He could have hired the best
experts. He brought in a guy named Groden, I think, Robert Groden.
You heard Robert Groden. What did Robert Groden say? Well, first of
all, Robert Groden never testified as an expert before, ever, in
court. Never. First time. His occupation is writing about the
conspiracy to kill President Kennedy; and even so, sold autopsy
pictures of a deceased president to the tabloids. He was working
giving guided tours of the Kennedy assassination, complete with
sounds of bullets firing, peddling videos in Dealey Plaza. And this
guy comes in here 2,000 bucks a day -- that's why he came in here;
they paid him $2,000 a day -- gets up on this stand, tells us that
picture's a phony. That's what he did. Hey, that picture's a phony.
By it's why he didn't show you that picture was a phony; he told you
that picture was a phony. He said, the frame -- that frame was
longer than the others; it had a suspicious blue line; it was out
alignment; it had a false edge; and it had some strange marks on it.
That's what he said. Okay. We'll have to deal with that now because
we've got this expert on the stand. So we bring in a man named Gerry
Richards, a true experts witness. Who is Gerry Richards? He used to
work for the FBI for a lot of years, headed up their photo lab, held
high positions in numerous professional photographic organizations.
This man was not only -- Robert Groden was not only not a member
of those organizations, he never heard of them. He never heard of
these professional organizations. And Gerry Richards didn't tell
you; Gerry Richards showed you the key frame is exactly the same
length as the other frames. Many frames had blue lines because they
were typical of scratches. He showed you; he didn't tell you.
Several sets of frames were out of alignment because of a perfectly
natural movement of the film in the camera. And this so-called false
edge was merely the -- He wants to get this right, my partner. Mr.
Gelblum handled this, as you will remember. Underexposed photograph
of the lines of the football field, complete with the red, white,
and blue marks on the 20-yard line, nothing suspicious if you know
what you're doing. Robert Groden didn't even know, when he used his
own Xerox machine to blow up the negative, to try to measure it, and
that when it blows up three or four times, it distorts in dimensions
and proportions. He didn't even know that. So that's the guy they
come in here with and tell you -- and base their whole case on that
picture's a fraud. And remember what I said earlier. We have
evidence, after evidence, after evidence, after evidence. You can
find this man liable on the basis of one blood drop at Bundy. You
don't need anything more than that. But they rest their whole case
on that picture being a phony. If you think that picture is real, if
you believe Gerry Richards over Robert Groden, he is guilty; he is
the killer. And he's got nowhere to run anymore.
(Indicating to Mr. Simpson.) And if that were not enough, even
during this trial, we have 30 more pictures that a photographer has
undeveloped in his basement in Buffalo, where Mr. Simpson worked a
lot of years. And they'll try to tell you, oh, how suspicious it is
that these photos are emerging; how suspicious is this? Where were
they two and a half years ago? Well, do you think all this is
suspicious? These are people that know Mr. Simpson. He identified
some of them. You think all these pictures are frauds? So now, when
we confronted him with these photographs -- and understand
something: He took this witness stand in his own defense, with his
whole case riding on this one point; his case, not ours, his case,
his whole case riding on this one point. Did his lawyer ask him a
single question about these photographs? What's more telling than
that? Not even his lawyer would ask him. Did he ask him a single
question? No. I had to ask him. I walked up here and asked him about
those photographs. And maybe for the first time in life, I guess he
realized he was out of room to run. Yeah, I was there. Those --
That's me. Those are people I know. Those are my clothes, not my
shoes. Not my shoes. Wait a minute, Mr. Simpson. Can you reach that
for me, because I can't.
(Indicating to Joe.)
(Joe removes magazine from demonstrative display board)
Q. Are you saying these are all fakes?
A. Yes, I am. Well, wait a minute. This came out in the newspaper,
November 1993. How could this be a fake, wearing the shoes? And we
put on Mr. Bodziak, who testified these are Bruno Magli shoes. And
you've heard him testify these are, in effect, the same shoes in the
Scull photo. They have the same class characteristics. That was his
testimony. When we tried to cross-examine him, that's what happened.
These are the same class characteristics as the Scull photo. These
are the same shoes, ladies and gentlemen. Come on. It's like that
Groucho Marx story: He's in bed with another woman and his wife
walks in, and he bolts up and says, "Who you going to believe, me or
your lying eyes?" This is it for him. This is it. And not even
Robert Groden was called back to dispute these pictures. Not even
Robert Groden. Are you going to believe O.J. Simpson? We now come to
the final remarks I'm going make to you today. And for me, this is
the most difficult area. We're going to talk very, very briefly
about my client, Fred Goldman, my client's loss, the loss of his
son. And you will be called upon, if you agree Mr. Simpson is liable
for the death of Ronald Goldman -- there will be no question that
he is -- you will be asked to compensate Mr. Goldman for his loss.
And I don't need to tell you that there is no amount of money that
could ever compensate Fred Goldman for the loss of his son. We
cannot put a value on human life. You do not put a price on human
life, when there is a loss of life. There can never be true justice
for Fred Goldman. There can never be true justice for anyone. True
justice would be to see Ron Goldman walk through those doors right
now, or Nicole Brown Simpson, playing with her children. That's true
justice. That will never happen. They're gone forever. There's
nothing I can do; there's nothing you can do; there's nothing this
good judge can do; and there's nothing that man can do
(pointing to Mr. Simpson) to bring these people back. All you have
in your power to do is to bring about some small measure of justice
by recognizing the incalculable loss my client has suffered, and to
require the man who is responsible for this to pay for this, to pay
for the loss he caused this man. I would like to talk to you -- say
a few words about that loss. I think we would agree, whatever your
ethnic, racial, cultural background is, there isn't any loss greater
than a parent losing a child. That loss is no less if a child grows
into a young man. We don't have to look beyond this courtroom. In
fact, we don't have to look beyond counsel's table to see the love
and the pride that a father has for his grown man -- for his grown
child, his grown son. You've seen that right here in this courtroom.
And that is the love and pride that Fred Goldman will have only in
memory. In memory, in his heart, and his soul. He will never see the
beaming look of satisfaction on Ron's face as Ron might have ushered
him through his restaurant. He will never sit down with Ron at a
Fourth of July barbecue or Passover Seder, or a birthday party. He
will never share the joy of running off to the hospital to see his
grandchild, perhaps his first grandchild, a baby that Ron wanted to
name Dakota, if you remember. He will never see again the smile on
his son's face. You will never see any tears in his eyes
(indicating to Mr. Goldman). Fred has lost all of that and
infinitely more forever, and his life will never be the same. His
life will never be the same. I can't, you can't, give him back his
son. All you can do is make Mr. Simpson pay for what he did.
MR. BAKER: I'm going to object, Your Honor. That's not the law in
this state.
MR. PETROCELLI: You can make --
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: You can make Mr. Simpson compensate my client, that
man, that grieving man, for what he has suffered: The loss of
companionship, support, love, and affection that he enjoyed with his
son; gone forever, ladies and gentlemen. And I am not going to tell
you, or even suggest to you how much you should award him. I'm just
going to leave it up to your good judgment. I'd like to play for you
one more time, one of Fred Goldman's last treasures that he has, he
will always have to remember his son by. Can you play it, Steve.
(Videotape played.)
MR. PETROCELLI: There was a sixteenth-century poet, named Guillaume
Du Bartas, who best expressed a relationship between a father and
son in a few simple words. Let me read them to you. My lovely
living boy, My hope, my happiness, My love, my life, my joy. Fred
Goldman's lovely, living boy is no more.
THE COURT: Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen.
(Recess.)
(A bench conference was held which was not reported.)
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
THE COURT: Mr. Kelly.
MR. KELLY: Yes. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
JURORS: Good morning.

PLAINTIFF'S CLOSING ARGUMENT
MR. KELLY: I also want to thank you for the time and attention
you've given this case, and looking at all the notebooks each of you
have is a testimonial to all the time and effort you've put in on
this case. And we all understand that it's been an extraordinary
sacrifice for all of you, it's been a lot of hard work, not only in
the courtroom, but to avoid this outside the courtroom, too, which
called for a certain amount of effort. And we just all appreciate
your time and your effort, at this point. Now, the first thing I
want to reiterate right now is the fact that we will never know with
certainty, nor are we required to prove, what exactly caused Mr.
Simpson to kill Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman that night. To
wantonly and maliciously kill someone, to take someone's life, this
errant behavior, in and of itself, defies human sensibility. Unless
Mr. Simpson tells us, which he hasn't up to this point, we'll never
know what twisted his state of mind to act in that manner that
night. What we do ask of you is for you to use your collective human
experiences and common sense to weigh certain evidence you have here
before you, and make certain determinations. What I want to talk to
you about is the evidence regarding who Mr. Simpson was, who Nicole
Brown Simpson was, and the nature of that relationship over a course
of many years, because that also holds a lot of answers to this
case. I would suggest, that during the course of this trial, the
defense has staked out the position that Mr. Simpson loved Nicole,
that he was not capable of killing her, and would never be capable
of killing her with two children sleeping upstairs. What we believe
the evidence demonstrates is not only that he was capable of killing
her, but Nicole believed he was capable of killing her, even with
children sleeping upstairs. Now, during opening statements, and when
Mr. Simpson testified, himself, you heard a certain quote, and I
think it went something like this: Fame is a vapor, popularity is an
accident, money takes wings, but only one thing endures, and that's
character. And we agree that character endures. Whether it's good
character or bad character, it endures. And we've learned a lot
about Mr. Simpson's character; we know it was formidable, we know it
was complex, and we also know it was frightening. And we've seen
occasions when a sick, twisted mind would trigger the fury of an
animal and the actions of a coward. And Mr. Simpson is a coward.
You've heard about the public Mr. Simpson, the polished veneer. I
mean, how many times are you going to hear about the fact he won a
Heismann Trophy, he shattered professional football rushing records,
he was a spokesman for corporate America, and a commentator for
the networks. But, ladies and gentlemen, winning the Heismann Trophy
doesn't give you a license to kill. You also heard about the private
Mr. Simpson. You've seen and you've heard that he would not always
control his rage, his temper, during the course of this relationship
with Nicole; he battered her. And you've seen and heard from Nicole
herself, that she lived in fear of him. He did not treat Nicole the
way he expected the world to treat him. When we revisit this
evidence, we are not in any way suggesting simply that what happened
on June 12, 1994, was an instance of abuse that escalated to murder.
Nor are we trying to tell you simply that since he had hit her on
previous occasions, he killed her that night. Rather, what we
believe the evidence shows is that Nicole was the subject of violent
outbursts from this man, outbursts, and on occasion he could not
control regardless of what the circumstances were or who was there.
Before I get there, I want to address one other thing. When Mr.
Simpson was on the stand, and I think this says a lot about his
character and the kind of man Mr. Simpson is, he told you people
after he had separated from Nicole, when she had left him, that
Nicole came to him and indicated she was pregnant. This was never
corroborated by anybody or anything and had nothing to do with this
case, but I can tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that if that had
ever been true, the last person in the world Nicole would have told
was this man. And if he had ever found out, this man would never,
ever, have let that go. This man had a mind like Krazy Glue, and he
didn't let go of things. They stuck. He also told you about the time
he was shamelessly peeping into Nicole's window late at night,
sneaking around, looking in. What does he tell you? The next day, he
said, I shook the guy's hand. After that I'd see him, I'd talk to
him about his golf. If you listen to that 1993 tape, October '93, 18
months later and that man exploded about that incident. Exploded.
And the only reason Mr. Simpson talked about these things on the
stand, ladies and gentlemen, is to cheapen Nicole's life in front of
you people. To talk about the murdered mother of his children, the
mother that he murdered; that one purpose, to cheapen her life.
Don't buy it. Nicole was precious. She was a gem. She was a total
package. And to Mr. Simpson, she was the Heismann Trophy of women.
But just like that trophy, an object to him. She was a great mother.
You've heard that from everybody. She was a great daughter. She was
a great sister. She was a great friend. She was beautiful. She was
happy. And she was healthy. She was everything Mr. Simpson was not.
She was private. She was caring. She was sensitive. And during the
two incidences where the police got involved prior to the murders,
the one thing you'll hear is that Nicole's only concern was the fact
that these two children, Sydney and Justin, were in the house. And
diametrically opposed to Nicole's concern about those two children
in the house, was Mr. Simpson. His only concern was him and him and
more him. And one of the hardest things to understand and learn
about, probably, is a relationship between a man and woman, husband
and wife. That's been part of the exercise here. But at different
times both Nicole and Mr. Simpson have given us insight into this
relationship. Both of them, at different times, both of them in a
sense, both of them at unguarded moments. Mr. Simpson, on June 13,
1994, when he was talking to the police, he stated it's always been
a problem relationship. And Nicole, when she was talking to the
police on October 25, 1993, after things had calmed down there a
little bit, she says we haven't communicated in 15 years. One thing
Nicole and Mr. Simpson agreed upon, contrary to Mr. Simpson's
testimony on the stand here, was the relationship was less than
perfect. With regard to some of these incidences; first of all, you
heard that, back in 1983, from India Allen, she was at Dr. Shipp's
animal hospital, and Nicole was there, she was there, and her
two-seater Mercedes, the white one. India Allen testified how she
was bringing the two chows out to the car, walking along with her,
and Mr. Simpson pulled up in his dark-colored Rolls Royce, at that
time, and India Allen described Nicole; spandex, fur coat, headband,
sunglasses. With all due respect to my client, you couldn't make up
an outfit like that. But in any event, she described Mr. Simpson's
demeanor and his appearance as he pulled up in that car and parked
sideways to Nicole's car. And she described how he approached the
car; his anger, his clinched fist, how he grabbed the fur coat,
struggled with her, and slapped her, slapped her in public with
other people standing there, knocking her sunglasses off and her
headband off, right there in the middle of the day. India Allen
testified other people were there. Someone was loading dog food into
the car at the same time. She remembered clearly. She told the story
many times over the years to her family. For years. She remembered
it so clearly because of the celebrity status of Mr. Simpson. And
what did Mr. Simpson tell you on the stand? That it couldn't have
happened. Why? Because of Nicole's headband, because of the fur
coat, and because of her spandex. He said she only wore a headband
when she played tennis. You all heard that Nicole was a fitness
freak. She has spandex on. She wants to keep the hair out of her
eyes just like when you play tennis, you wear a headband. With
regard to the fur coat, he didn't deny she owned one. He learned his
lesson with the pictures. Obviously, he just said she would only
wear it in cold weather like in Colorado and places. It's
interesting when you hear what predicated this argument and
ultimately this physical fight, was that coat, that he didn't want
her wearing it. And finally, and most remarkably, Mr. Simpson said
that Nicole didn't own gold spandex. What I find so remarkable about
this is he can't remember his own designer shoes in 1993, but he
remembers what color spandex she owned in 1983. Next we hear in '84
where Mark Day of Westec Company is called to the Rockingham
residence. He arrives there; Nicole's upset, there's a bat, there's
damage to the car, there's a cracked windshield. Mr. Simpson doesn't
deny any of this happening. He just says it happened during a normal
conversation. Well, I would suggest that Mr. Simpson with a bat in
his hand and a cracked windshield could be quite menacing. And there
would be only one reason Nicole would call for security, and that
was because she was frightened. Mr. Simpson said I pay for
everything around Rockingham regardless of who broke it or what it
was, so I don't know why, in this instance, she would call security
to make sure he paid for this. She called for one reason only. In
1986 -- and you'll remember that Mr. Simpson testified specifically
that between 1985 and 1987 their relationship was great. In 1986
you heard that Mr. Aguilar was walking along the beach; Victoria
Beach. This is a man who knew Mr. Simpson from his days at USC, knew
very well who he was, familiar with him, saw him on the beach that
day. You heard Nicole and Mr. Simpson engaged in conversation. And
the next thing he sees is that same lighting quick right hand across
Nicole's face. The same right hand that India Allen had witnessed
three years ago. And that right hand, this time, drops Nicole like a
stone to the sand. Now, try to imagine the humiliation of being
struck in public, of lying in the sand, ears ringing, eyes tearing,
with your husband standing over you, eight inches taller, 100 pounds
heavier. This is a reflection of the relationship. This should let
you think about Nicole's state of mind with regard to this. Simpson
said -- he told us this long story about playing golf in the morning
and putting chairs out on the beach and everything else. Then he
went on to say specifically that he was not down in Victoria Beach
on July 3, 1987, he was not down in Victoria Beach on July 1, 1986,
but he never, ever, mentioned July 28th. You can have that checked
back and read back, if you want, ladies and gentlemen. Just
ignores that day which is around the time Mr. Aguilar testified that
this incident happened. Now, at this time, this '85 to '87 period,
is when Mr. Simpson, as I said, said the relationship was great. As
you recall, Sydney was born October of '85. In '87, Justin hadn't
been born yet. Now, contrary to how Mr. Simpson said the
relationship was -- I'd like you to look at something that reflects
on how Nicole saw the relationship at that time. Steve, 732
A.
(Exhibit 732A displayed on Elmo.)
MR. BAKER: I object to her -- the phraseology, this is not for the
truth.
THE COURT: Overruled.
(Mr. Kelly read a portion from Ms. Simpson's diary.) "There was also
that time before Justin, and a few months after Sydney, I felt
really good about myself getting back into shape. You beat the holy
hell out of me and we lied at the X-ray lab and said I fell off a
bike. Remember!??"
MR. KELLY: Exclamation point, question mark, question mark. Mr.
Simpson and Nicole were sharing a dirty little secret.
(Indicating to Mr. Simpson.)
MR. KELLY: You can take that down, Steve. I'd like to go to 1989. If
you could play that tape, please.
(911 tape played.)
MR. KELLY: Well lost our audio, Judge.
(Pause for tape to be played.)
MR. KELLY: Okay, Steve, that's fine. Now, you heard the testimony of
Sharon Gilbert, who is on the other end of that call, although it's
not clearly audible to you. What she told you was that she could
hear someone being hit at that time. And what she transmitted was.

(Counsel displayed board entitled 1989 Computer Printout of Police
Log.)
MR. KELLY: So you people would never think this was some sort of
fabrication, she brought into the courtroom to testify to at that
time, female being beaten at location, could be heard over the
phone. That call was changed to a high priority. And it was Police
Officer Edwards who went over there. And when he arrived -- he told
you exactly what he saw on his arrival there that day. And when he
pulled up, about that time, Nicole Simpson came running out of some
bushes from the house. She was wearing only a bra and sweat-type
pants, and she had mud down the right side of the pants. She ran to
a driveway, to a post containing the gate release button. She
collapsed on the post and pushed the button hard several times. She
was yelling during this time, he's going to kill me, he's going to
kill me. As she said this, the gate opened, and she ran out to me.
She grabbed me and hung on to it
(sic) as she cried nervously and repeated, he's going to kill me. At
this time, when Officer Edwards first saw her, she had a lump over
her right eye, she had abrasions on her face, she had a split lip,
and she had finger marks on her throat. Steve, do you have No. 4,
please.
(Photograph displayed.)
MR. KELLY: That's what he saw that morning. If you throw up No. 9,
Steve. This is one of the photos from Nicole's safety deposit box,
as you recall. Same injuries, massive bruise under her right arm
also. That was from wrestling. Now -- you can take that down, Steve.
He's going to kill me. That's in and of itself sort of an everyday
expression, often used, and I'd agree with you people with that. I
say it in terms of you've been dealing with kids to parents' going
to kill me if I get home too late, things like that. But in this
instance, I would suggest to you it was more than that. This wasn't
hysteria, the movement of Nicole, this was not just her present
state of mind at that particular time. On reflection, and after
that, she felt the same way. Steve, if I could see 732, please.
(Exhibit 732 displayed on Elmo) Could you move it up. Move the top
of the page, Steve. And since Justin's birth, the mad New Year's
Eve beat up, I just don't see how that compares to infidelity, wife
beating, verbal abuse. And if I wanted to hurt you or had it in me
to be anything like the person you are, I would have done so after
the New Year's -- flip the page, Steve -- after the New Year's
incident, but I didn't even do it then. I called the cops to save my
life, whether you believe it or not. So as opposed to Mr. Simpson
saying he would never be capable or have the state of mind to kill
Nicole, Nicole's state of mind was such that she had no doubt that
he had the capability of killing her. Now, after Edwards arrived
there in '89, Simpson came out to the car that Nicole had gotten
into, and what did he go out there for? He certainly wasn't contrite
about the injuries to Nicole. Certainly wasn't accepting
responsibility at that time. Nor was he concerned about Nicole.
Didn't even ask about her. Nor was he concerned about the kids in
the house. What did he tell Edwards, though? And what did he tell
you on the stand? He told Edwards at that time that it was a
family matter, that if you beat your wife in the house with the kids
in the house and you stay behind closed doors, it's a family matter,
no matter what you do, how you do it or when you do it. He then sent
his housekeeper out to try to fetch Nicole since he couldn't get her
out of the car himself. When that didn't work, he was told he was
going to be arrested for spousal battery. Mr. Simpson denies that he
was ever told that or knew that he was going to be arrested or the
cops were looking for him. But what does Al Cowlings tell you? He
comes in here and directly contradicts Mr. Simpson. This is his best
friend since they were about 8 years old. Mr. Cowlings. He tells how
Mr. Simpson switched cars at Schwartz's house and came back because
he said the cops were looking for him. Cowlings told you how Simpson
parked that car around the corner so he wouldn't be seen by the
cops. Mr. Cowlings told you how Mr. Simpson told him how he had
climbed over a fence, snuck through the backyard to get into the
house, and later when he asked Mr. Cowlings to drive him back there
again, Mr. Cowlings told you how Mr. Simpson instructed him to take
a particular route back to avoid the cops. When they saw a cop
car, they took off again. This is a man who is hiding from the cops,
and more importantly, he was lying to you people when he testified
about that incident. Now, I don't think there's any doubt in
anybody's mind that Mr. Simpson not only hit but battered Nicole on
that night in 1989. I think the photos speak for themselves. Nicole
told Edwards that Mr. Simpson had hit her, kicked her and pulled her
hair.
A.C. Cowlings came in here and testified that Nicole had told him
that Simpson had hit her and pulled her hair. You can look at the
medical records from that night, the night Mr. Cowlings took her to
the hospital, and she told the intake people that she had been hit
around the face by fist and open hands and assaulted by her husband.
And even in 1993, in October, on the tape, you hear her allude to
this assault again. Now, what's most interesting about that night,
and I mentioned earlier, is that when Mr. Simpson lost it, he
couldn't control himself. Didn't matter who was there or what the
circumstances. And on that particular night, Mr. Simpson wanted to
represent to you that this was just a wrestling match in his
bedroom. It ended when he got her out of the room. But you heard how
he not only got her out of his bed and then got her out of his room,
he followed her downstairs out of his house across his courtyard
into his maid's room, and attacked her in there and chased her out
of there, too. And that was even in Lenore Walker's notes, once
again his own expert, in talking to her, he admitted to all these
things. And when Nicole got out of the room, she was left outside,
cold, shivering, half naked, frightened, beaten, battered, muddy,
outside the house. And who was upstairs? The children. Mr. Simpson
would love you to believe that he would never do anything, anything
like that, with the children around. But they were right there in
his house. No one recognized the uncontrollable rage Nicole could
evoke from Mr. Simpson more than Mr. Simpson himself. And you people
have seen the agreement that he signed, Nicole signed, about eight
months later, that he referred to as a governor. A governor.
Something to help him control his own rage. And the reason that that
governor was necessary and the substance of that governor was
necessary was Mr. Simpson's own recognition of his own state of
mind. And what he knew and what he recognized was that he could not
control himself out of love and respect for Nicole, he could not
control himself out of love and respect for his children being
present when he lost it. What he recognized was the only thing that
could help him control himself was his possessions. Fear of losing
his worldly possessions, part of them, were the only things that he
felt could help him control his rage. Now, it's interesting, I think
Mr. Baker alluded to it earlier, that when they put a price tag of
about $5 million, this would be worth to Nicole if he violated this
again, $5 million. Now, all the writings you will see from Nicole,
or every time you will hear Nicole's voice in this courtroom, it was
either before this governor was put into effect or after Mr. Simpson
and Nicole were divorced. So there's absolutely no possibility, no
motive for fabrication in terms of any time you ever see Nicole's
writings or you hear her voice. The one thing Nicole Brown Simpson
never did, ever, for even $5 million, was to try to fabricate a lie
or say something that wasn't true. Now, on January 2, 1992, three
years after this, Nicole tells Mr. Simpson that she wants to
separate and move out. And you heard Mr. Simpson say that he was
caught off guard, that he was devastated. Now, here's a man who's
slapped, repeatedly hit his wife in public, driven her to the
ground, humiliated her, here's a man who totally humiliated her in
'89 in this police situation and what they witnessed at this time,
what she had to go through publicly after this incident, he's caught
off guard. But in any event, he indicates he tries to get her back
for three or four months, falls on deaf ears, and they're divorced.
Now, we also talked about how Nicole flew out to New York in --
Christmas in 1992. I'm sure you people remember that testimony. How
she called, she wanted to be out there with the kids and they had a
great time, and she wanted to speak to him afterwards. Well, I would
suggest to you people that Nicole did love Mr. Simpson at one time.
And for the sake of the kids -- just like when you lose a loved one
or you're separated for a long time, you tend to remember the good
times and forget the bad. I'm sure over that Christmas time, she saw
a part of Mr. Simpson she had loved for so many years, and she did
want to get back. But you will hear on the Lally tape, the '93
tape, that it wasn't quite as Mr. Simpson represented. It wasn't
just that she was desperate for him. She says it was for the sake of
the children. I would suggest it's quite normal for any woman with
children who's been married for a number of years to want to try to
put things aside again, start over again, for the sake of the
children. But the one thing she does not do is move back in. Now we
fast forward a little bit and we get to October of 1993. Do you
recall at this time Simpson was over at the house that night with
Nicole --
MR. BAKER: I object. This is cumulative, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELLY: Simpson's over at the house that night on October 25,
1993, and he just leaves, there's no explosion at that time,
nothing, he just walks out of the house. But subsequently, during
phone calls that night on October 25, 1993, Nicole leaves the phone
off the hook. Mr. Simpson is being ignored by Nicole. So what does
he do? He gets in his car, he drives over there, leaves the car in
the middle of the street, lights on. He was being ignored. Just
like at the recital on June 12, 1994. He was being ignored. Now, the
other thing Mr. Simpson told you on the stand, even in the face of
that 911 tape from 1993, is that Nicole wasn't frightened. Do you
have that tape, Steve.
(Audiotape is played.)
MR. KELLY: That's it, Steve.
(Audiotape is halted.) "The kids are upstairs sleeping and I don't
want anything to happen." This is a woman who's known this man for
16 years. She's gone from being a child to being a woman with him.
She's had two children with him. She spent all of her intimate
moments with him. But the one thing that she knows eight months
before these murders, children upstairs in the house or no children
upstairs in the house, nothing will deter this man, and she knows
it's not going to make any difference when he snaps, just like in
1989 when the kids were in the house, whether they're there that
night. And she knows it's not even a consideration. And she's
frightened. And she tells us that she's frightened later on. And
I'm sure Mr. Baker will probably play the rest of the tape where
Nicole calms down, but keep in mind, ladies and gentlemen, the 911
operator tells her to hang on to the phone till the cops get there.
That's her umbilical cord. That's her lifeline. And Kato shows up
also. Now, one other thing Mr. Petrocelli touched on, also in terms
of our ability to try this case, is the fact that the one thing Mr.
Baker's been able to do is put his client on the stand and explain
things. And we haven't had that opportunity. And he's been able to
say, O.J., tell us this, Juice, what about that. And we haven't been
able to do that. And one of the really, I think, interesting parts
of even being an attorney is learning your client. And, you know, I
can talk to Lou and I can talk to Judy and find out what kind of
daughter Nicole was. Or I can talk to her sisters and find out what
kind of sister she was. Or I can talk to friends and find out what
kind of friend she was. And everybody's been able to say what kind
of great mother she was. But I don't have Nick. And I'd love to be
able to say, Nick, they're saying things about you. Nick, they said
that in 1993, when you made that phone call, you weren't
frightened. Tell us about that. Or, Nick, they're saying, without
you here to respond, that you're running around with hookers, drug
users. What do you have to say about that? Or, Nick, they're saying
that Mr. Simpson would never have that state of mind, never have
that capability to kill you. What do you have to say about that,
Nick? Tell the jurors. Now, fortunately in this instance, she can
tell you. Steve, can you put up the picture first.
(Photo is displayed.)
MR. KELLY: Bring it up close. Nick
(indicating to Elmo screen), my client. First of all, I want her in
her own words to tell you people whether she was frightened, whether
she was scared, that night of October 25, 1993. Steve, can you play
that, please.
(Audiotape is played.)
MR. KELLY: "You're scared of him?" "Yes." What more would you want.
She tells you right there, from as close as we can get to her,
that she was scared that night. The next thing you heard a lot
about, whether it was Mr. Baker in his opening statement or Mr.
Simpson with his rambling testimony on the stand, was, in his
demented imagination, these things about her running around with
hookers, Heidi Fleiss, drug users. Well, Nicole, I want to know what
you have to say about that.
(Audiotape is played.)
MR. KELLY: "I don't know any of these people, I don't hang around
with them, they're not my friends." She's telling you that, ladies
and gentlemen of the jury, and in that tape she's telling you eight
months before the murders about those allegations regarding her. The
last thing I want to ask my client about is this fact of whether
she, in her state of mind, believed that Mr. Simpson was capable of
taking her life.
MR. BAKER: Objection, relevance, there's no testimony. I wasn't on
--
THE COURT: Excuse me?
MR. BAKER: I object on the grounds that it's irrelevant for state of
mind.
THE COURT: I'll see counsel.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the
reporter.)
THE COURT: It would appear inappropriate to offer her state of mind
as to Mr. Simpson's intentions. Sustained.
MR. KELLY: As to the relationship, Your Honor, this is -- Your
Honor, that's why this whole tape was admitted into evidence -- I'm
playing one more excerpt.
THE COURT: Excuse me; that's not what you told the jury.
MR. KELLY: I'll ask that be stricken and just put it to her state of
mind and her state of the relationship, eight months before the
relationship --
THE COURT: I'll strike it as to that.
MR. PETROCELLI: I believe this tape came in under not the
state-of-mind exception, I think this came in as spontaneous
statements for the truth of the matter asserted, Your Honor. I don't
think this tape came in for state of mind. I'd have to go back and
check, but I don't -- I don't think that's the record. I think this
came in as -- under another exception to the hearsay rule for the
truth of the matter asserted, and I don't think there's a
state-of-mind issue here at all.
MR. BAKER: I don't think that it's relevant for anything, how it
came, that it came in, a spontaneous declaration. It's not relevant
to her state of mind, then it's not relevant to what happened June
1994. You have an eight-month period.
THE COURT: Her state of mind as to her belief that Simpson's going
to kill her, I don't think that's appropriate. I'll sustain the
objection.
MR. KELLY: As to the state of relationship, is that okay?
THE COURT: Do I have trouble speaking?
MR. KELLY: No, not at all.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. KELLY: Your Honor, if I could, one more moment, please. Your
Honor, this is a tape that was properly laid in foundation. It's
material; it's relevant; it was offered.
THE COURT: Mr. Kelly, that's not the objection. The objection is
that you are offering it for an improper purpose. You want to offer
it for her state of mind and her fear, that's one thing; but you --
you're offering it to show Simpson's intent.
MR. KELLY: I'll rephrase the question.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the
presence of the jury.)
MR. KELLY: Ladies and gentlemen, the next thing you will hear is an
excerpt from a recording to reflect on what Nicole's state of mind
was and her view of the relationship eight months before the
murders. Steve?
(Audio tape played.)
MR. KELLY: That's all, Steve.
(Audio tape finishes playing.)
MR. KELLY: To will further corroborate what Nicole's state of mind
was, to show what her view of the relationship was. I also recall
that after her death, it went to her -- they went to her safety
deposit box, and in there, they found her writings and photographs
of her taken in 1989. And she wanted you to know how she felt and
what her view of this relationship was, if people needed to know
some day. Once again, as I said, the fact that she felt this way
wasn't -- was in spite of, in addition, to the fact that those two
children were sleeping upstairs that night too, eight months
before the murders. You can take the picture down, Steve.
(Mr. Foster complies.)
MR. KELLY: Now, you heard in November and December, 1993, Mr.
Simpson was busy finishing a movie. Then, in December of '93, he
went back to New York. And in January, February and March of 1994,
he said he was away most of the time, in New York. He said when he
was in L.
A., he saw Nicole, but most of the time, he was gone. And I just
want to reiterate the fact, in April, again, when he made that phone
call to the Browns, and he told them he thought it was going to
work, I would suggest that that is when Nicole got cold feet, and
what Mr. Simpson describes as erratic behavior was simply Nicole not
wanting to talk to him, not wanting to be around him. On the day
before Mother's Day, when he drove down there, on May 7 -- and I
described the tension in the Brown house. I would suggest it's
because he was not wanted down there by Nicole. And that night, when
he was supposed to go out with Nicole, and she said she just can't
do this, she just can't handle it, she wasn't having a nervous
breakdown; she didn't want to be with the man anymore. Simple as
that. Mr. Simpson, through his skewed view of the world, the world
through O.J. Simpson, saw this as something totally different. He
saw this behavior as bizarre, that this woman, who pulled him back
into the relationship, didn't want him anymore. And for that last
month, Mr. Simpson was like a coiled spring. And they were not
talking, and they were not interacting. And try as he may, Mr.
Simpson can say that he was ignoring Nicole, but she wasn't sending
him those musical tapes; she wasn't coming by with videos. There
were no cookies to Rockingham, no pictures of the kids. She wasn't
showing up at Riviera Country Club. She wasn't following him down to
Palm Springs because she wanted to be with him. And when he came by
her house to pick up the dogs or look at computer games or anything
that last couple weeks in June, she didn't even come out of her room
or come out of the house, and they didn't exchange a word. Don't let
him tell you there was no animosity at that time. With regard to the
recital, that was covered in some detail by Mr. Petrocelli, I just
want to make a couple comments. I'm sure that Mr. Baker is going
to play the infamous videotape again. And you know what? He can play
it a hundred times to you people. But just keep a couple things in
mind: That the tension wasn't between Mr. Simpson and Lou or Mr.
Simpson and Judy or Mr. Simpson and Dennis: It was between he and
Nicole. And you can play that video all night long, and every time,
it's going to have the exact same ending. And that ending is a black
Cherokee pulling up and Nicole Simpson not getting out or not saying
goodbye, and Sydney not getting out of the car and not saying
goodbye, and that car pulls away, and Mr. Simpson is left there,
ignored and alone. That's what that video tells you, ladies and
gentlemen of the jury. And it was the first time Nicole had publicly
humiliated him. And Mr. Simpson had flown all the way back from New
York, and she had made all the plans, and she had excluded him. She
was in charge. And she was happy. And she wanted nothing to do with
him. And he knew it. Now, a couple other things just about that
night, with regard to the time line, that window of opportunity
between 9 o'clock and 10:45. At 9 o'clock, we know that when Mr.
Simpson had made a phone call and spoke to Sydney, he was home
alone; the housekeeper wasn't coming back to Rockingham. He knew
Nicole was home alone. He knew the kids were going to bed.
Consider this in the context of what the killer did that night. He
put on soft-soled shoes to move quietly -- rare designer soft-soled
shoes -- to move quietly that night. He wore a ski cap to avoid
identification. He wore rare designer gloves so he wouldn't leave
fingerprints. And he used a knife to so he could kill quietly. But
if the killer took all these measures to avoid detection -- shoes,
the gloves, the hat, the knife -- why go out in a relatively early
hour, at 10:30 at night, when the lights are still on and people are
awake? And there's only one reason, ladies and gentlemen, and that's
because that killer had a plane to catch that night. And if Ron
Goldman had not shown up there when he did, Sydney and Justin would
have come down the next morning and found their mother in a pool of
blood, and Mr. Simpson was -- when Mr. Simpson was out playing golf.
Couple other things we talked about: Length of struggle. I think
struggle is one of the biggest misnomers of this case. You heard
Nicole received a blow to the brain with such velocity, that a
bruise --
MR. BAKER: I'm going to object. This is cumulative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELLY: A blow to the brain that bruised it. And Ron Goldman,
relaxed, unsuspecting, finished with work, off to meet his friends,
dropping off glasses, was ambushed in a pitch black area, pitch
black. And I won't repeat all the details. You people shouldn't have
to listen to them: The knife, the savagery, the rage, the size of
the area. It wasn't a struggle; it was a slaughter. And when the
police arrived, that first officer on the scene -- and people know
it, and I've got to say it again, and you've got to just keep
telling yourselves that he saw the same thing that the next 15
police officers saw, also. They saw Mr. Simpson's -- what they saw,
his glove. And they saw his size 12 Bruno Magli, Lorenzo-style,
Silga-soled footprints leading out there. They saw his blood there.
They saw his blood on the back gate and the trace evidence from his
clothes, his body, and his Bronco were all there and collected. And
don't think about a second glove ever being there or being
transported anywhere, because when you hold that knife in your right
hand, your gloved right hand, that glove -- that right-hand glove
cannot even come off when you're holding the knife. You can lose the
left glove; you're not going to lose the right. No detective saw
anything after 15 officers had been there. When they headed to
Rockingham, they didn't know if there was an eyewitness to the case,
whether someone was going to confess to the murders, or Mr. Simpson
had been in Europe for a year. I don't want to keep going over the
physical evidence. Mr. Petrocelli did a tremendous job on that. The
last thing I want to talk about is one of the last questions Mr.
Baker asked Mr. Simpson when he was on the stand this last time. And
I think the question was, Mr. Simpson, have you ever told anybody
that you were responsible for the death of Nicole? And obviously,
his answer was no. And had it been yes, I don't think we'd be
sitting here right now. But what I want to do is put it in context
of this conversation that Mr. Simpson had at the wake with Nicole's
brother, [sic] Judy. Now, you -- Judy, you heard, was very close
to Nicole, and she understood Mr. Simpson, too. In fact, Mr.
Simpson, himself, said she was like a shrink to him, and she was
suspicious. As Mr. Simpson said, Judy got in his face, and asked him
whether he had anything to do with these murders. Now, Judy didn't
know about any of the evidence in this case. She didn't know about
hair, fiber, trace evidence, blood, anything. What she did know, the
only thing she knew of, was the nature of the relationship. And she
asked him if he had anything to do with this. And the one thing Judy
wanted to be convinced of was whether this man, who Nicole had
dedicated her life to, who was the father of her grandchildren, had
not taken her baby from her. And when Mr. Simpson had said, I loved
your daughter, Judy, or -- no -- I loved your daughter, Judy, the
response in Judy's mind was the same. She wanted to see indignation,
outrage, hurt, out of Mr. Simpson. And when she didn't see it, when
she didn't hear it --
MR. BAKER: There's no evidence of it, Your Honor.
MR. KELLY: -- and she didn't feel it --
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KELLY: -- the question was not answered in her mind. And what
you people have to do is now answer that question: Did he kill
Nicole and did he kill Ron? And you have to look at all of the
evidence. And you can't rely on Mr. Simpson's testimony, because
he's not to be trusted. And you have to make this man understand --
understand things; that when you do things like -- you hop fences,
you hide things in trash cans, or you run from the cops, or you peep
in your wife's window late at night, without her knowing, you're a
sneak. And when you look at a photograph of you in the killing
shoes, and you say it's a fake, you're a liar. And when you are
unfaithful to your wife, you're a cheater. And when you kick her,
and when you hit her and you pull her hair, you're a batterer. And
when you slaughter two people in the primes of their lives, you're a
killer. And all Nicole and all Ron are asking you people to do is to
assign that responsibility to a man who refuses to accept it. Thank
you.
THE COURT: Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen.
(Recess.)
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
THE COURT: Mr. Brewer.
MR. BREWER: Thank you, Your Honor. PLAINTIFF'S CLOSING ARGUMENT
MR. BREWER: Morning.
JURORS: Good morning.
MR. BREWER: It's my pleasure to have the opportunity to address you
in this closing argument. Like my brethren, my colleagues, before
me, I'd like to extend the thanks of myself, my client, for
yourselves on service on this jury. This is a part of citizenship.
You come in, you dedicate yourself to perform functions as a juror.
We've watched you. You've been attentive, you've been here every
day, and for that we are deeply -- you have our deep gratitude. Mr.
Petrocelli and Mr. Kelly have talked to you about the evidence. I'm
going to talk to you a little bit about the law and take you through
what's called a special verdict form. Steve, can you put that on the
monitor.
(Special verdict form displayed on Elmo.)
MR. BREWER: Focus it a little bit. Now, when it's all said and done,
when you deliberate the evidence, and talk amongst yourselves, and
decide the issues of fact, evaluate the credibility of witnesses,
your verdict which you -- what you have say about this case will be
contained on this special verdict. And to start with, there are
essentially three cases here. There's a wrongful death case that is
brought by the parents of Ron; Sharon Rufo, my client, who's Ron's
mother, and Mr. Goldman, Ron's father. There are two other cases;
they're brought by really the victims themselves, Ron and Nicole.
But because they're dead, there has to be a legal entity. That's an
estate.
MR. BAKER: I object. They are not brought by Ron and Nicole. That's
a misstatement of the law because --
MR. BREWER: Can I finish? There has to be an estate in order for an
action to be filed, and there are such estates filed in this action;
one on behalf of Ronald Goldman, and Mr. Fred Goldman is the
administer of that estate, and the estate for Nicole Brown Simpson,
and her father, Louis Brown, is the administer for that estate.
Now, the wrongful death case basically asks you to find that Mr.
Simpson, on June 12, 1994, willfully and wrongfully took the life of
Ron Goldman. The estate cases are going to ask you to make a finding
that at that very same time, Mr. Simpson committed a battery. Now,
Steve, if you could put up the jury instruction on battery.
(Jury instructions displayed.)
MR. BREWER: Now, in a case where two people have been killed, it may
seem a little bit odd that you're being asked to make a finding of
battery. This is the legal definition, and I'll have these jury
instructions -- the judge will read these instructions to you. This
is the law that will govern this case. You'll have an opportunity to
have these back with you during the jury deliberations. Essentially,
what a battery is means the elements the defendant intentionally did
an act which resulted in harmful contact with Ron's person. No. 2,
Ron did not consent to the contact, and 3, the harmful contact
caused injury, damage, loss, or harm to Ron. Just to simplify your
analysis, I think the way you ought to approach this case is that
the battery -- this legal definition is really what we are talking
about -- is that the deaths of Ron and Nicole began with an attack
upon their person. That's what the battery is. The process of the
attack was the battery. That led to their respective deaths. The
death of Ron is the wrongful death action. So if we go back to the
special verdict form, Steve, if you would, please.
(Special verdict form displayed on Elmo.)
MR. BREWER: First question you've going to answer and this will walk
you through all of the questions you that have address in this case.
If you could turn the page, please
(indicating to Mr. Foster). This is the first question you're going
to be presented with after considering all of the evidence and all
of the jury instructions. "Do you find by a preponderance of the
evidence that defendant Simpson willfully and wrongfully caused the
deaths of Ronald Goldman?" Check either yes or no. If you check no,
then you'll see -- you will be given instructions with respect to
which question you should go on to next. If you check yes, then
you go on to the next question. Steve.
(Elmo adjusted.)
MR. BREWER: You go to question No. 2. This is a question that
relates to Ron's estate. "Do you find by a preponderance of the
evidence that defendant Simpson committed battery against Ronald
Goldman?" Now, if you answer question No. 1 yes, the logical
conclusion is you're going to answer question No. 2 yes, because if
he killed them, then certainly he committed the battery that
eventually led to their deaths. If you answer yes, which we believe
the evidence compels you to do, to 1 and 2, then you're to go to
question No. 3. Steve.
(Elmo adjusted.)
MR. BREWER: Question No. 3 is going to ask to you make a finding.
"Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson
committed oppression in the conduct upon which you have based your
finding of liability for battery against Ronald Goldman?" Again,
you must answer that question yes or no. You must indicate whether
you believe, given the facts and the evidence from this case,
whether Mr. Simpson, if you find that he killed Ronald Goldman --
MR. BAKER: I'm going to have to object. I apologize. That's not
correct. If they answer question No. 1, they don't answer that
question at all, Your Honor, so -- he said you have to answer that
question. That's -- he's misrepresenting the law to these people.
MR. BREWER: I indicated, Your Honor, that if they answered no, they
follow the instructions. If they answer yes, they go to 2. If they
answer yes, they go to 3.
THE COURT: Go ahead and argue.
MR. BREWER: Thank you, Your Honor. This is a question that you
answer yes or no based upon your finding of the evidence. If you
answer yes to question 2, proceed to question 4. Okay. Question 4:
"Do you find by clear and convincing evidence defendant Simpson
committed malice in the conduct upon which you base your finding of
liability for battery of Ronald Goldman?" You'll have a separate
instruction that will define malice. I'll talk to you about that in
a minute. You have to answer this question yes or no. There has to
be a finding by you, based upon all of the evidence, whether you
believe -- if you find Mr. Simpson is responsible for Ron Goldman's
death, whether he acted with malice. Move it up here, Steve, a bit,
so we can see the bottom.
(Elmo adjusted.)
MR. BREWER: After you answer question 4, as it tells you right here,
you will proceed to question 5. Now, this question relates to Mr.
Kelly's client, which is the estate of Nicole Brown Simpson. The
question you're going to have to answer there is the same question
you answered with Mr. Goldman. "Do you find by a preponderance of
the evidence that defendant Simpson committed battery against Nicole
Brown Simpson?" You must answer that simply yes or no. If you find
that Mr. Simpson is responsible for the death of Ron and Nicole,
this is a logical extension of that, you will find that he
committed a battery. If your answer -- it tells you right here. If
your answer to No. 5 is yes, you proceed to question 6. If your
answer to question Nos. 1 and 5 are no, you proceed to date, sign,
and return the verdict form. If you answer question 6, you're going
to have to make another finding with respect to Nicole Brown
Simpson's claim. "Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that
defendant Simpson committed oppression in the conduct upon which you
base your finding of liability for battery against Nicole Brown
Simpson?" Again, it tells you right here, yes or no. But you have to
make a specific finding one way or the other if you are answering
this question. Scroll up a little bit, Steve. If you answer yes to
question 5, you're going to go to question 7. Thank you. You're
going to have to answer -- "Do you find by clear and convincing
evidence that defendant Simpson committed malice in the conduct upon
which you base your finding of liability for battery against Nicole
Brown Simpson?" You must answer this question. You must indicate
yes or no. And if you answer yes, question number 1, then you go and
answer yes, question number 8, and this will be the last question on
the verdict form. And this will ask you to award damages against
defendant Simpson in favor of plaintiffs Goldman and Ruffo in the
aggregate, meaning a lump sum, as follows. And whatever you decide
that amount is, you will enter it here. You need not concern
yourself with a specific award with respect to the battery claims by
both of these estates. You simply have to make sure that you answer
the questions if you find liability against Mr. Simpson, against the
estates, on the questions that we showed you. Now, if we can go back
to question number 1, Steve, for a moment.
(Elmo is adjusted.)
MR. BREWER: You have to make a finding by a preponderance of the
evidence, and -- so that's the legal standard, and in this case, the
civil case, there's no presumption of innocence for a defendant.
This is not a criminal case. We're not held to a criminal burden of
proof or a criminal standard. And so what you have to do is, you
have to find liability based upon a preponderance of the evidence.
Well, what does that mean? You'll have an instruction -- Steve, put
that up on the board, please. The instruction you're going to have
is that -- it says preponderance of the evidence means evidence that
has more convincing force than that opposed to it. If evidence is so
evenly balanced that you're unable to say that the evidence on
either side of an issue preponderates, your finding on that issue
must be against the party who had the burden of proving it. You
should consider all of the evidence bearing upon every issue
regardless of who produced it. That doesn't go a long way to really
help. It's a legal definition. Let me give you some terminology that
we possibly use every day that you possibly used in this courtroom
that will help you sort through the evidentiary issues.
Preponderance means the same thing as a probability. Mr. Simpson
probably is responsible. He probably did it. Those are the terms
that I would use to reflect the preponderance standard. Another way
of representing it is, it's more likely than not that Mr. Simpson is
responsible for the deaths of Ron and Nicole. Numerically
expressed, 50.5 or 51 percent. That can reflect preponderance. And
if you find yourself saying, well, based upon the evidence, based
upon everything we've seen and heard over the past four months, Mr.
Simpson probably is responsible for these murders, then we have
proved our case, we have proved his responsibility by a
preponderance of the evidence. Now, we went way beyond that in this
case. We believe that we proved this case to a certainty without a
doubt. We had the choice of how we were going to present the
evidence in this case. We could, in our view, have presented a
fraction of the evidence, the blood evidence at Bundy, the shoe
evidence, the evidence of Mr. Simpson's cuts on his hands that he
can't explain, taken independently, in our view, those meet the
legal burden that we're obligated to prove to you in order to
prevail in this case, and we have gone well beyond that. Now,
another legal standard that you're going to be presented with as you
read through the special verdict form is clear and convincing
evidence. Can you put that up, please? There's two standards, and
you're going to see that you're going to have to evaluate
preponderance which we just talked about clear and convincing
evidence. Now, this is going to appear when you answer questions
with respect to whether Mr. Simpson acted with malice and
oppression. And it will say in the question itself, "clear and
convincing evidence." So what does that mean? How do you as jurors
evaluate this evidence? How do you take that legal standard and
apply it to the facts of this case. I'll start with the instruction.
Clear and convincing evidence means evidence of such convincing
force that it demonstrates a contrast to the opposing evidence, a
high probability of the truth of the facts for which it is offered
as proof. Such evidence requires a higher standard of proof than
proof by a preponderance of the evidence. You should consider all of
the evidence bearing upon every issue regardless of who produced it.
The best I can represent this standard is if we start with a
criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt, up here, and we have a
civil standard, preponderance of the evidence, right here, this one
falls somewhere in the middle, it falls somewhere between
preponderance and beyond a reasonable doubt, the criminal standard.
We believe that any of the evidence we presented during the course
of this trial taken independently satisfies this standard as well.
Taken collectively, all of the evidence you've heard from our side
and from the defense over the past four months indicates, without
a doubt, to a certainty that Mr. Simpson is responsible for the
deaths of two young people, two young people. When you're finished
with this verdict form, the special verdict form, you should sign
it, your foreperson will sign it, and it will be returned. The last
issue that you're going to have to decide when you go through the
verdict form -- Steve, if you'll put up the next instruction.
(Elmo is adjusted.)
MR. BREWER: -- is you're going to be asked -- we read through it.
What is oppression, what is malice, what does that mean as it's
reflected in the special verdict form you're going to have? This is
the legal definition of what malice means, oppression means,
despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust
hardship and conscious disregard of that person's rights. Malice
means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to
another or to despicable conduct which is carried on by the
defendant with a willful conscious disregard for the rights and
safety of others. A person acts with conscious disregard of the
rights and safety of others, which, when he is aware of the
probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, willfully and
deliberately fails to avoid those consequences. Despicable conduct
is conduct which is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, wretched
or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by
ordinary decent people. This instruction will help you define and
understand what the law means by malice and oppression, and those
are questions that you're going to have to answer as you proceed
through that special verdict form. This is not a case of an
accidental death. By no means was there any accidental or negligent
actions here. This is a willful, vicious, deliberate act of murder
against two people. If you find that Mr. Simpson is responsible, and
if you find that we've met our burden by a preponderance and by
clear and convincing evidence that he is responsible, you're going
to find that he acted with oppression and malice. The tragic murder,
the vicious murder, the brutal murder of two people certainly
satisfies any definition imaginable under the law as it relates to
these two issues, malice and oppression. Now, I'll say a few words
about my client, Ron's mother. 28 years ago, on a warm summer day,
in the early morning, Sharon Rufo gave birth to her first child and
her only son. On that day, a bond was created between a parent and a
child, a mother and a son. That's an unbreakable bond. Many of us
who have children can fully understand and appreciate the bond that
I'm talking about. And most of us -- certainly, all of us would
understand that the bond between the parents and the child is based
upon an absolute love for that child. It's based upon unconditional
love. And it's a love that my client, Sharon, had for her son from
the day of his birth to the day he was killed. Now, my client,
Sharon Rufo, will never see Ron Goldman again; she will never talk
to him again; she will never have any relationship with him again.
Because the case is not really -- it is about what was, and it's
also about what will never be. And will never be --
MR. BAKER: Objection, Your Honor. That's not the law.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BREWER: And what will never be is the chance for Ron's mother,
both of his parents to ever see, speak to, hug, love, touch, him
again. A kiss on the cheek, a hug during the holidays, an "I love
you," the comfort of a warm voice, a familiar voice. That's what we
look for in family. That's what a parent looks to in a child and a
child looks to in a parent. That's the essence of the loss that
parents and Mrs. Rufo suffered as a result of the loss of her son.
I'd like to read to you, ladies and gentlemen, a poem. In a large
garden on the other side of the wall, Stands my son, so very strong
and tall, Always so brave and quick to defend, The way you were, I'm
sure, to the bitter end. So, son, I want you to listen to what I'm
about to say, Because as we all know, we will not have another day.
I never saw the grass so green, the sky so peaceful and serene; I
never heard the robin's song till the day you came along. I believed
we could again come together; And when given the chance, you were
taken from me forever. So now I sit and wonder if any of this you
comprehend. And if you and I will be given the chance to meet again.
I can only hope that one day I see you, To hold and protect you from
all that I can. Until then, all this try to understand, Because you
will always be my special little man. I looked for a very long time
for something to read to you that would have the meaning, so I could
convey the feelings of Ron's mother to you. And I found that in her
own words. She wrote it for me to read to you. I could not better
express the loss that she feels with her son, and these are in the
words I just read you, because these are her words. Finally, ladies
and gentlemen, you will be given the opportunity to talk about this
case among yourselves. And shortly, Mr. Baker will get up here and
talk to you, and there may be some rebuttal from our side. And then
the case will be entrusted in your hands; it will be given to you,
for you to decide. And this is a case, as my colleagues have told
you ahead of me, that Mr. Simpson has not and will not take
responsibility for his actions. By your verdict, ladies and
gentlemen, in this courtroom, you can do what needs to be done; that
is, tell O.J. Simpson: Mr. Simpson, you killed two people, sir; you
killed two people on June 12, 1994, two young people in the prime of
their lives, who had everything to live for. And, sir, they did not
deserve to die. We're going to ask you to tell Mr. Simpson that with
your verdict. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll resume at 1:30. Don't talk
about the case. Don't form or express any opinions.
THE BAILIFF: Ladies and gentlemen, we are still in session. If you
are going to remain, please be seated. Quiet, please, until the jury
leaves.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the
presence of the jury.)
THE COURT: I have a note saying defendant wants to make some
argument.
MR. BAKER: I didn't want to make some argument; I wanted to know
whether or not we had got another jury instruction. I thought this
issue was decided by you yesterday.
THE COURT: So did I.
MR. BAKER: I just wanted to know whether or not there was going to
be any change, because it may affect my argument. That's all, sir. I
don't want to argue at all. We will submit.
THE COURT: I'll stand on my ruling yesterday.
MR. BAKER: Thank you.
MR. GELBLUM: May I be heard very briefly? I think the arguments --
THE COURT: No.
MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, the reason I don't feel too bad, the
defendants reopened their argument after you had ruled previously on
the argument, on the instruction. What I realized, perhaps belatedly
but accurately, is that discussion we had yesterday and the basis
for your ruling, that you had limited defendant somewhat in talking
about the proper procedures, that rationale doesn't apply at all to
planting. That's not what -- whether somebody followed proper
procedures about picking up evidence or testing evidence, whether
they did the right number of swatches collected, dirty evidence.
This has to do with deliberate, intentional misconduct. And that
argument just doesn't apply to that. We think this accurately states
the law. We have revised it, cut it down to its bare bones. I think
it clearly, accurately reflects the law. We did -- there are, in
fact, specific statutes that prohibit a police officers from filing
false reports. That's Penal Code Section 118.1. Preparing false
evidence, that's Penal Code Section 134, case of People versus
Gordon which expressly says it's not an official duty of a police
officer to frame innocent persons by planting evidence. It's clear
through an accurate statement of law. And again, it is not affected
by the argument. And the discussion and the ruling, I believe Your
Honor made yesterday, which was based on your prior ruling limiting
the instruction of evidence having to do with whether proper
procedures were followed -- that's why we took the time to resubmit
it and re-edit it.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
MR. LEONARD: I submit I can never remember what I argued yesterday.

(At 11:40 a.m., a luncheon recess was taken until 1:30 p.m. of the
same day.) SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1997
1:35 PM DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE APPEARANCES:

(Per Cover Page)
(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)
(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Couple things, Your Honor. No. 1, there's a board in
there or two that I object to. One board has a list of missing
witnesses, missing from this trial, and on that is Mark Fuhrman.
That is violative of motion in limine No. 13. There's a Fifth
Amendment invocation, and neither side is permitted to argue his
unavailability. I'd ask that name be stricken off the list, covered
up in some way. That's issue No. 1.
MR. BAKER: The plaintiffs precluded him from coming in. And forget
the Fifth Amendment. They precluded him from coming vis-a-vis the
testimony relative to the criminal trial. We had testimony including
that of Rachel Ferrara, who testified and was -- was never crossed,
and it was agreed to by the plaintiffs, and she was put on by the
prosecution in the criminal trial and testified as a prosecution
witness. Hence 1291
(a) or 1291
(b) do not apply, so we should be able to inform the jury of the
missing Detective Mark Fuhrman.
THE COURT: Within the context of BAJI 2.02, if that chart makes
reference to witness Fuhrman in that context, I will grant the
motion.
MR. P. BAKER: The chart doesn't refer to the Fifth Amendment. It has
a name, four names, persons who ought to be called.
THE COURT: Within 2.02 I would sustain the objection. With regards
to any additional comments as to him whatever reasonable inferences
there are from the evidence you may comment.
MR. BAKER: All right. Thank you.
MR. PETROCELLI: He simply can't comment that neither side attempted
not to call him. He's not here and those kind of arguments -- we
tried to notice his deposition. He took the Fifth. They noticed it.
He took the Fifth.
THE COURT: That's my ruling.
MR. PETROCELLI: Yesterday, I saw Mr. Baker with Mr. Simpson working
with the gloves. I see the gloves up there, and I don't know what
Mr. Baker has in mind, but I would absolutely object to any attempt
during closing to put any gloves on Mr. Simpson. That's
testimonial. It's evidentiary. I don't want to object in front of
the jury. I'd like a ruling on that now. He didn't do it in trial,
and I didn't have a chance to cross-examine him. He didn't ask our
expert to do that, so I just want to make sure we're not going to
get into that. I don't want to in front of the jury.
MR. BAKER: Well, Your Honor, he raised the issue that we didn't put
them on Mr. Simpson. I will put them on Mr. Simpson during my final
argument.
THE COURT: Sustain the objection.
MR. BAKER: It's demonstrative. It's not evidence.
THE COURT: That's called demonstrative evidence. Sustained.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor. That's it. Oh, lastly, Mr.
Baker.
MR. P. BAKER: I'm not going to put this up.
MR. PETROCELLI: He has some boards in there. I don't know that
they're admitted into evidence. I'm waiting for his word on that.
Okay.
THE COURT: Bring the jury in.
(Pause.)
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
THE COURT: Mr. Baker.
MR. BAKER: Thank you, Your Honor. DEFENDANT'S CLOSING ARGUMENT
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, Counsel, your wonderful support staff that
has served us so ably, and Gina, and Erin, Tess, Vicky, they've made
a grueling ordeal for all of the lawyers, my colleagues, my
adversaries, and myself, something that we could endure for these
months, and we thank you all. And, ladies and gentlemen, I thank you
for being here. I know my adversaries have done that, but it is
giving up something, it is giving up part of your lives, to spend
four months here in the courtroom everyday, get picked up, get
transported into the van, and be here, and be attentive and take
notes. It's your duty to do it as American citizens. There's no
question about that. But it is indeed, our thanks from all of us.
Now, you know, since the beginning of recorded time, human beings
have sought a way to find justice in our country, before even the
Constitution we adopted the English jury system. They've let it go a
little bit because they don't try civil trials by jury, but we
still do. You still, as jurors, get to decide the facts, filter it
through the law, and more importantly, filter it through your own
common sense. So that it is, in fact, justice by the people. It is,
in fact, a jury of peers of the persons that are litigating whatever
happens to be the subject at issue. Now, any one of us, all the
people in the gallery, can go down to the first floor of this
building, and for about $200, file a lawsuit, and they can charge
somebody else, another human being, or a corporation, with
malfeasance, doing something wrong, and seek to collect hundreds of
thousands of dollars, or millions of dollars. That's an enormous
privilege we have as citizens and non-citizens of this country. But
with that enormous and awesome privilege that is granted to us comes
the burden of proof. And the burden of proof is that the person
bringing the lawsuits, the plaintiffs, they must prove to you that
they're entitled to your verdict. And they must do that to your
satisfaction because they have this burden. They get to argue after
myself and my colleague, Bob Blasier, sit down. They get the last
word, and so I want to discuss that with you right at the outset for
a moment. You'll recall, Mr. Petrocelli, in opening statement, told
you in a very emotional fashion that this was Fred Goldman's last
chance to fight for justice. That's what he told you. And then
almost no sooner than those words had been spoken, then every
witness who got on the stand, they attempted to limit their
testimony so we have to bring them back. Justice? Why? Why didn't
they want you to hear? For example, why did Vannatter come up here
to this witness stand and testify about one thing when they brought
him on the stand? One thing. And that was the blood that he put in
an envelope, put it, he says, in a car, and took it to Rockingham.
That's all he testified about. We had to bring him back. He was the
lead detective on the whole investigation. And similarly, it's very,
very interesting, you've sat here, as you have for the last two
days, and I have listened, I think, dutifully to the remarks of my
adversaries, and I didn't hear one word about police malfeasance.
That has been in this case since before the criminal case even began
trial. Did you hear one word about it? Did you hear one mention of
EDTA? We've had witness after witness come up here and talk about
what the police did. We have cross-examined police officer after
police officer, and I'll talk about that in a few minutes, and they
contradict each other, and they lie, they lie from the witness
stand, and you know, you've got to ask yourself when Mr. Blasier and
I sit down, and Mr. Petrocelli gets up to rebut, are they attempting
to sandbag the defendants? Are they attempting to not -- ignore a
huge, huge issue in the case so that they can get up, argue that
issue knowing full well that I will not have the opportunity, nor
will Mr. Blasier, to address you. It's called sandbagging. It's an
old art. And if, in fact, Mr. Petrocelli gets up and starts talking
about his version of why the police conduct is exemplary -- I mean,
he's told you in this courtroom, he said there is absolutely no
evidence of planting. He said there's no evidence of corruption.
There is no evidence of tampering. There is nothing wrong with the
evidence. And we will demonstrate to you that there is an immense
amount wrong with the evidence. And that's their burden of proof;
they have to prove that evidence is reliable so you can base your
verdict on it. They talk about results of tests. And as you know,
what we talked about is contamination before the tests are ever
done. It doesn't matter if Mr. Petrocelli says that the blood was
collected before Mr. Simpson's blood vial was even taken. What did
they do with that blood after they picked it up at Bundy? That's the
question that you're going to have to answer. That's the issue.
There are a lot of other issues and we'll take them one at a time.
Now, there are, ladies and gentlemen, an immense amount of people
who want to see my client found responsible. They want to see you
render a verdict that Mr. Simpson killed Nicole Brown Simpson and
Ron Goldman. And I'm not just including the plaintiffs. I'm
including those people on either side. I'm including the media,
because, ladies and gentlemen, if, in fact, you find him not
responsible, the gravy train is over. The case is over. It's not in
the news everyday. It is gone. And so I bring this up because I
think it's important. I think it's important because if you have
channel surfed at all, if you have even glanced at the headline, you
might ask yourself, as I have when I have seen some of the nonsense
that has been put out by the media, was I in the same courtroom with
these people? They're all intelligent.
MR. PETROCELLI: I object. This is all outside the record.
THE COURT: It's argument.
MR. PETROCELLI: By definition, it's outside the record.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
MR. BAKER: Thank you. You have all told us that you will not allow
the media to affect your judgment. And I have no reason to
disbelieve you at all. And you have also told us that you will
listen with an open mind to police misconduct in this case. It is
all over the place. And I will show it to you, and Mr. Blasier will
show it to you, and we will demonstrate it for you. We will not
ignore it as Mr. Petrocelli, Kelly, and Brewer did. It's not going
to go away because they don't want to talk about it. It's here. It's
in this case. And at the conclusion, we'll ask you if you think if
that conduct is appropriate by certain members of LAPD. And this, as
has been said before by somebody a lot smarter than I am, to sit on
this jury you can't be faint of heart, but it is your duty, it is
your responsibility to listen to the evidence, to base your
verdict on the evidence that you hear, the laws as the Judge gives
it to you, and your common sense. What makes sense. And we'll get
into that. Now, one of the things that you cannot -- anymore than
you can put any media influence into your decision, you cannot put
sympathy, passion, or prejudice into your verdict. The Judge will
instruct you that that is forbidden. That's not what we're here
about. And you have just been subjected to a ploy for your sympathy.
You know, I was kind of amazed that Mr. Petrocelli had to bring up
myself and my son. I was kind of amazed that he had to do that. I
can tell you this, ladies and gentlemen, I would have a terrible
time if I lost him. But I wouldn't ever take $450,000 for a book, I
wouldn't ever prosecute an innocent man. That would never happen.
Now, I think that you have gotten the flavor of this case over the
four months. It's law enforcement versus O.J. Simpson. There's no
doubt about it. They're linked at the hip, or any other place you
want to join them. You know, it is amazing to me because I've been
doing this since 1971, and I've always believed in the justice
system, and I've always respected the justice system, and I always
felt that if you respect something, an entity or something, you
will get that respect in return. And then comes along this case, and
I see where the FBI and the Los Angeles Police Department give away
thousands upon thousands of dollars of their services. For what? To
assist a private litigant. To assist Mr. Goldman in getting a
judgment against my client. Is that fair? Is that what this is all
about? They have him pulled up in their suite across the street for
days, and the FBI, they don't do civil cases. Bodziak comes out here
twice. You and I pay for it. My client pays for it. Is that fair?
No. We have to go out -- we can't even get a police officer in this
courtroom without subpoenaing him. They get a phone call from him;
I'm ready, willing, and able to come over an sit in your suite and
chat about this thing. That's Matheson, after Dennis Fung was on the
line. Is this a level playing field? No. No, it's not a level
playing field. The FBI and the LAPD don't want a level playing
field. And they've done a pretty good job of making everybody
available that they can. I mean, think of it. Think. They could
just -- for example, Deedrick comes in and testifies about hair and
fiber evidence. And Bob Blasier will get into that with you in some
detail. And he -- on examination by Dan Leonard, he says it is
subjective and you have to maintain neutrality because you can taint
the outcome. And then Dan asked him, well, don't you have a
photograph of Fred Goldman and Kim Goldman with your arms around
them in your office? Yes. How did you know that? He wouldn't have
disclosed that. How do you know that? That's his question. And then
the next question, as I recall, was any other family of a victim
that you have ever had a photograph in your office of? No. But I'm
independent, you know. I flew out here from Washington paying my
bill. You, the taxpayers, are paying my bill, but I'm unbiased.
Well, you can call a stallion a cow, but you can't get milk from it.
He can call himself unbiased, but it isn't so. Now, I'm sure that
you have seen some of the testimony, observed the witnesses, and
observed their demeanor; the way they testify from this witness
stand. You can make your own judgments as to the credibility of
these people, as to whether or not, ladies and gentlemen, the
plaintiffs' attorneys have twisted, expanded the witnesses to fit
within the story that they want to be fit. For example, Dennis Fung,
he was on the witness stand; he says, I don't even know if this is
the glove that I picked up at Bundy. Boy, within three days he was
back here and his testimony was totally different. Take Kato Kaelin.
And we'll go through the chronology. Kato Kaelin testifies in the
criminal trial 10:40 the thumps, solid at 10:40. Rachel Ferrara, his
girlfriend, on the phone with him, solid at 10:40, come in here,
that doesn't fit their time line. So Kato's been over there, and he
now has a different version of not only the time of the thumps, but
what the thumps were. Preliminary hearing, grand jury, criminal
trial
(Mr. Baker knocks on witness stand with fist) -- here he says it's
kind of a rolling thump, like a guy on his back hitting the wall.
That's after he spent eight hours with Mr. Petrocelli. I don't know,
ladies and gentlemen, there's something -- as Henry Lee said,
there's something wrong. Now, this isn't -- this isn't a fight for
justice. It's a fight for money. It's a fight for the verdict. It's
a fight for your verdict, and you're allowing and having Mr. Simpson
transfer dollars to Mr. Goldman. That's what it's all about. We'll
talk about the other two plaintiffs in a few minutes. But let's go
back and discuss, if we can, a couple of enormous gaping holes in
the plaintiffs' case. And to hear Mr. Petrocelli talk about it, they
have conclusively proved that OJ Simpson murdered those two people.
I had to sit down. They don't need a preponderance of the evidence.
They've produced it by 100 percent, there is no room for doubt. It
is beyond reasonable doubt. We have conclusively proved that OJ
Simpson is the killer. Well, let's chat about that for a little bit.
Let's talk about motive. You do not kill two human beings if you are
OJ Simpson or Bob Baker or anybody else without motive. Doesn't
happen. Mr. Petrocelli gets up here and he says OJ Simpson was in a
rage. He was in a blind rage. But he didn't tell you why. Kelly
gets up here, does his bit on the character assassination,
misrepresents some things that we'll go into, and tells you that
it's a rage killing. What caused the rage? You've heard a couple of
explanations. They are as fallacious as anything I have ever heard.
OJ was in a blinding rage that would cause him, after getting a
hamburger with Kato Kaelin, to run down in his Bronco, after
changing into dress socks and $300 shoes, and kill Nicole Brown
Simpson and Ron Goldman, in the biggest white elephant that's been
made, the Ford Bronco. Mr. Kelly -- or Mr. Petrocelli says he
doesn't have an alibi. He wasn't seen. He wasn't seen between 9:30
to 10:55. And he does it with his righteous indignation, ladies and
gentlemen. He wasn't seen, he wasn't seen in the Bronco, he wasn't
seen on Bundy, he wasn't seen careening through Brentwood, he wasn't
seen anywhere. Now, which is more logical to assume? He would, as a
bachelor, not be seen while he's in his house. Or under the scenario
they have, which we'll go into in detail, not be seen while
careening at 60 miles an hour down San Vicente so he could get to
his house because he knew he had a limo driver coming, and of course
he was in such a blind rage that he had to kill his wife that night
and he had to do it that night, knowing full well he was going to
Chicago. It doesn't make any sense. It just doesn't make any sense.
And you have to filter these facts through your common sense. Now,
let's think about what we've witnessed in the last four months in
this case. We have witnessed a character assassination. They want
you to believe that OJ Simpson's a bad person. Kelly talks about not
knowing his client and would like to, and one of the greatest things
about practicing law is knowing your client. Well, I agree with
that. And I know my client very well. Never happened.
MR. PETROCELLI: He's vouching, Your Honor. I admonish the jury.
MR. BAKER: We had all of that from him.
MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me. There's a pending objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: Now, how did they paint -- well, let me put it this way.
How did they attempt to paint a picture that this man killed two
people? They attempted to paint the picture by bringing in five
incidences which occurred in their scenario from 1983 to 1993. And
each one of these incidences they want you to weigh as Mr. Simpson
being a time bomb, ready to go off. And let's talk about the India
Allen thing. My god. I mean, you know, if you want your 15 minutes
of fame, ladies and gentlemen, be a witness in this case. You can
get photographed going out of the hotel with these guys, you'll be
photographed going back in. You'll be on national television. You
can go on national television for the next two days. And India Allen
-- I mean, think about it in terms of realty. If, in fact, that had
ever occurred outside a veterinary where she says OJ slapped Nicole,
if that had ever occurred, didn't India Allen have some obligation
to report that to the police? She had witnessed an assault on
another human being. Why didn't she report it to the police? There's
no police report. Why wasn't she at the criminal trial? Oh, she
says, I didn't think that -- by the time, you know, it came really
to mind, I didn't think that the judge would let it in. Give me a
break. And here's the woman who says I don't want publicity, I don't
want publicity. I mean this woman wanted publicity more than
anybody. I don't know how you pose that way -- with me it doesn't
pay to advertise so I keep my clothes on -- I don't know how you
could do that and then come into this court and say I didn't want
publicity, and go right out on television. And that's what happened.
And why would -- OJ says Nicole never wore a fur coat in the
daytime. And that makes sense. Why wear a fur coat in the daytime.
Why wear a headband? She said gold spandex. OJ says she didn't have
gold spandex. So that's their first incident. I would suggest to you
that's a non-event, or the police would have been notified and Mr.
Simpson would have had some criminal penalty to pay, as well he
should had he ever done it, but he did not. But she did get her 15
minutes of fame. And then, ladies and gentlemen, we move on to Mr.
Aguilar. Now, Mr. Aguilar is an interesting, interesting fellow. He
gave a police report in the criminal trial. Police report says July
3 or July 4, I think it was '87, '88 -- no, I'm sorry, '86, '87.
Didn't have a clear recollection of it. Then he testifies in the
custody hearing in Orange County. Comes up here --
MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me, Your Honor, not supposed to have
references to that.
MR. BAKER: I think -- I disagree with that.
THE COURT: Counsel, we well refrain from any comments with regard to
what was said in Orange County.
MR. BAKER: I won't. Comes up here and has to testify differently
from the statement that he gave the D.
A. 'cause down there or the statement he says 3rd or 4th of July. OJ
Simpson isn't -- he's not in Laguna on the 3rd or 4th of July. He's
not in Victoria Beach. He's running a softball tournament that he
runs annually. So they had to cover that some way so they had to
move the date. And it makes no sense. The guy's in the water, but he
hears stuff, and he sees stuff, and he doesn't see stuff, and it's a
crowded beach, Victoria Beach, he said no, he heard Mr. Simpson he
lived there and that never happened. But that's here for one reason,
and that's to make you, ladies and gentlemen, dislike this man so
you'll render a verdict regardless of the evidence. And think
about it. Think about it for a minute. Nicole ran every morning with
Cora Fischman. She had some real good friends. And she was with
these people all the time. Where were they? They didn't come in here
and talk about stalking and hitting. You didn't see that. If they
can get Matheson and Fung to turn around, they can get any of her
friends in this courtroom. And they're not here 'cause they wouldn't
testify to what they want you to believe. And let's talk a little
bit about the -- well, I think we've got to talk certainly about the
July 18, 1989 event, 'cause this is the linchpin of everything for
the plaintiffs. Now, keep in mind we are talking four and a half
years before the murders took place. But that is the linchpin. They
want to demonize OJ Simpson because of that event. And they tell you
he's in a smoldering rage and he is out of control and he can't be
in control. Let's go back and look at January 1, 1989 with reality
and some reason. You know, when I sat here for days and days and
days, I thought this case, because of so much time spent on that,
was about the January 1, '89 event. I didn't think it was about the
July 12 murders. They've put on more evidence about the January 1,
1989 event than they did about the murders. You have, for example,
not heard one, one mention of how the crimes occurred in the area
where they occurred. You didn't hear that from him. He has an
obligation -- he says he doesn't. If he's going to prove to you that
these murders took place and Mr. Simpson did it alone, they have an
obligation to go through and tell you how those murders took place.
But they haven't. Nor did they ever call a criminalist such as Henry

'89 -- pardon me. I think I'm getting a little touch of the
whatever. With our gray weather here, I think we live in Portland
right now. In any event, July 1, '89 -- I'm sorry, I keep saying
July when it's January. You usually correct me.
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm not going to correct you this time.
MR. BAKER: Fair enough. January 1, 1989, they had gone to a New
Year's Eve party. They both had too much to drink. Nicole accuses OJ
of buying Kathryn, her name is Allen now, Marcus Allen's wife,
earrings. He said get her on the phone, call her, I didn't buy them,
Marcus bought them, I didn't buy them. An argument ensues. There's
no excuse for it. I'm not here to condone physical violence among
the same sex, much less the opposite sex, and I'm not here to tell
you that it should have happened, nor is Mr. Simpson here to tell
you it should have happened. Wrestling ensued. Did his hand come in
contact with her face, or his arm or his elbow? Sure. Something did.
Maybe it came in contact with the wall. Something happened. She got
injured. She should not have gotten injured. There isn't any
question about that. He's not here to tell you that his actions were
okay that night. They were not. They were out of line. And he knew
they were out of line. And he went downstairs and he was still mad.
Did he hit her? No. No. You know, Mr. Simpson has told -- when the
police were there the next day and he was discussing with Officer
Ferrell, I believe, the same story as he told you here. From
January 2 or 3, 1989, through his deposition, when he testified to
his trial -- deposition testimony to his trial testimony --
MR. PETROCELLI: Did he say Ferrell? There was no testimony from
Ferrell.
MR. BAKER: I think Mr. Simpson mentioned that.
MR. PETROCELLI: No testimony from that witness.
MR. BAKER: This is what OJ Simpson said to them. I didn't say Mr.
Ferrell came in to court and testified to anything. It's consistent.
Now, does he remember each event that occurred on January 1, 1989?
No. Nobody could. They were both a little inebriated. But did he
follow her outside? Did he push her down? Did she have mud on her
sweats because he was outside? Did she fall when she left his
bedroom? Yeah. That all happened. And did she wrestle with Mr.
Simpson? Yeah. But did she have a chance? Absolutely not. Of course
she didn't. He's a big, strong man. I will agree with that. That's
one of the few things I agree with Mr. Petrocelli. There's no
question he is strong, and he was strong in 1989. And because he's
strong, he owed her a higher degree of restraint than he exhibited
on January 1, 1989. There can be no doubt about it. And what did you
hear from Mr. Simpson about that incident? He was disappointed with
himself. Did he minimize it on national television? You bet. Of
course he did. I mean he makes his money in being a personality.
There's no question about that. We've never dodged that issue in
this courtroom. That's what he does. Did he take procedures to
ensure it never happened again? Yeah, he did. He immediately went to
counseling. He had his attorney draw up a document that would
absolutely wipe out -- vitiate his prenuptial agreement. Could have
been worth $5 million. Was never exercised. He did that. He did that
because he felt bad about the incident. And they went on with life.
They went on as a married couple. And by then, as you're well aware,
they had two children by that marriage. Sydney Brooke, born in
October o