DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. UELMEN, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK, MR. DARDEN AND MR. HODGMAN. COUNSEL, WE HAVE A FEW MATTERS TO DISPOSE OF BEFORE WE REACH OUR OPENING STATEMENT STAGE. COUNSEL, YESTERDAY THE JURORS, WHEN THEY RETIRED, ONE OF THE JURORS HANDED THE BAILIFFS A NOTE FOR THE COURT AND THEY WERE JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT WAS GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO WATCH THE SUPERBOWL THIS WEEKEND AND I INDICATED TO THEM THAT YES, THEY CAN, AND THAT WE WOULD ARRANGE THEIR VISITATION SCHEDULE ACCORDINGLY. SO I TAKE IT THERE IS NO COMMENT ON THAT?

MR. SHAPIRO: NO.

THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON, WOULD YOU CREATE A FILE FOR JUROR NOTES, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. FIRST ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED IS THE DEFENSE MOTION TO ALLOW MR. SIMPSON TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS THE JURY DURING THE COURSE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL'S OPENING STATEMENTS.

MR. COCHRAN: WOULD THE COURT HEAR FROM MR. UELMEN ON THAT?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

MR. UELMEN: YOUR HONOR, THE FIRST OBJECTION INTERPOSED BY THE PEOPLE IS THAT THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE, AND WE HAVE LOCATED AT LEAST TWO CALIFORNIA PRECEDENTS WHERE IT HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE. THE FIRST CAME IN PROBABLY THE FIRST CASE OF THE CENTURY OF THE CENTURY, WHICH WAS THE TRIAL OF CLARENCE DARROW HERE IN LOS ANGELES FOR JURY BRIBERY. EVEN THOUGH MR. DARROW WAS REPRESENTED BY EMINENT COUNSEL, EARL ROGERS, HE WAS ALLOWED TO DIRECTLY PARTICIPATE IN THE PRESENTATION OF THE OPENING STATEMENT AND CLOSING ARGUMENT TO THE JURY. THE SECOND EXAMPLE CAME IN 1972 IN THE TRIAL OF ANGELA DAVIS IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA IN WHICH, ALTHOUGH SHE WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, SHE ALSO WAS ALLOWED TO PRESENT OPENING REMARKS TO THE JURY. SO IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF PROPOSING SOMETHING THAT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO PRECEDENT. THE SECOND OBJECTION RAISED BY THE PEOPLE IS THAT THEY WILL BE DEPRIVED OF THEIR RIGHT OF CROSS-EXAMINATION, AND I THINK THAT REALLY MISCONCEIVES WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED HERE. FIRST OF ALL, MR. SIMPSON WILL NOT BE TESTIFYING, AND THE STANDARD INSTRUCTION GIVEN TO THE JURY WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF COUNSEL'S OPENING STATEMENTS THAT THEY ARE NOT EVIDENCE AND NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE BY THE JURY WILL CERTAINLY APPLY AS WELL TO MR. SIMPSON'S OPENING REMARKS. BUT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED REALLY IS NOT A PRESENTATION IN THE TRADITIONAL FORM OF AN OPENING STATEMENT. WHAT WE ARE SIMPLY PROPOSING IS THAT MR. SIMPSON BE ALLOWED TO INTRODUCE HIMSELF TO THE JURORS, TO INTRODUCE THE DEFENSE TEAM, THE LAWYERS WHO ARE REPRESENTING HIM, AND TO SIMPLY REITERATE HIS PLEA OF NOT GUILTY. NOW, OF COURSE THE PROSECUTION HAS NO OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE A PLEA AND WE BELIEVE IT WOULD BE QUITE APPROPRIATE FOR THE JURY TO HEAR THE PLEA OF NOT GUILTY THAT SETS THIS TRIAL IN MOTION DIRECTLY FROM THE LIPS OF THE DEFENDANT. THIS IS NOT REALLY ALL THAT REMARKABLE A REQUEST. WHAT IT REALLY SEEKS TO DO IS TO FOCUS THE ATTENTION OF THE JURY BACK WHERE IT BELONGS IN THE MIDST OF ALL OF THIS HOOPLA, AND THAT IS ON THE DEFENDANT WHO IS ON TRIAL, TO REMIND THEM THAT WHAT IS REALLY AT STAKE IN THIS TRIAL IS ONE MAN'S FREEDOM. WE WANT THEM TO SEE WHO THAT MAN IS. WE WANT THEM TO HEAR FROM HIM VERY BRIEFLY IN TERMS OF INTRODUCING HIMSELF, INTRODUCING COUNSEL AND REITERATING HIS PLEA. THE SECOND PART OF THE MOTION SIMPLY ADDRESSES A PHYSICAL DEMONSTRATION THAT IS ROUTINELY DONE IN TRIALS, ROUTINELY DONE BY THE PROSECUTION AS WELL AS THE DEFENSE, AND AGAIN WOULD NOT INVOLVE ANY TESTIMONY, BUT SIMPLY A PREVIEW OF EVIDENCE THAT WILL BE PRESENTED IN THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. UELMEN, IT WAS REPRESENTED TO ME THAT THAT PREVIEW WOULD BE MERELY OF THE DEFENDANT'S KNEES REGARDING CERTAIN SURGERIES THAT HE HAS UNDERGONE AS A RESULT OF HIS ATHLETIC CAREER; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. UELMEN: YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND HAVE YOU CONTEMPLATED THE SECURITY DESIRES OF THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, THAT THEY HAVE THEIR BAILIFF IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO MR. SIMPSON AT THE TIME THAT THIS IS DONE, AND HOW YOU WOULD DO THAT IN A MANNER THAT WOULD NOT CONVEY AN UNNECESSARILY NEGATIVE MESSAGE TO THE JURY?

MR. UELMEN: WELL, THAT WAS THE REASON WE BROUGHT THIS UP IN ADVANCE, YOUR HONOR, SO THAT ADEQUATE PREPARATION COULD BE MADE TO POST A DEPUTY ON THIS SIDE OF THE COURTROOM, IF THAT IS NECESSARY, BUT IT SIMPLY INVOLVES HIM WALKING FROM ONE SIDE OF THE COURTROOM TO THE OTHER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND UNFORTUNATELY THE LOGICAL PLACE TO DO THAT IS RIGHT BY PROSECUTION COUNSEL THERE.

MR. UELMEN: UH-HUH.

THE COURT: SO WE HAVE THAT PROXIMITY PROBLEM AS WELL. HAVE YOU CONTEMPLATED THE LOGISTICS OF OUR UNFORTUNATELY SMALL COURTROOM?

MR. UELMEN: WELL, IF THE PROSECUTION WANT TO JUST SWITCH SIDES WITH US, WE WILL BE GLAD TO MOVE OVER TO THIS SIDE OF THE COURTROOM.

THE COURT: YOU ASKED FOR THAT ALREADY.

MR. UELMEN: I DON'T THINK THAT THEY HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT BEING IN PROXIMITY OF THE DEFENDANT.

THE COURT: WELL, I JUST HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT AS A SECURITY CONCERN IS ALL. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR --

MR. UELMEN: COULD WE HAVE JUST A MOMENT?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. UELMEN: I AM UNIFORMED MR. COCHRAN HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE WITH THE BAILIFF AND THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH THE BAILIFF BEING IN PROXIMITY WHILE MR. SIMPSON ADDRESSES THE JURY OR DISPLAYS HIS KNEE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I WILL HEAR FROM THE PEOPLE.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU AND GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING.

MS. CLARK: FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS NOT AN OPENING THAT COUNSEL PROPOSES, IT IS SIMPLY AN ATTEMPT TO CAPITALIZE ON WHATEVER DEFENDANT'S STAR APPEAL CURRENTLY IS WITH THE JURY AND TO GET HIM TO HAVE CLOSE PROXIMITY WITH THEM TO IMPRESS THEM. WHAT IS THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF A SCAR? WHAT DOES IT PROVE TO THIS JURY IN TERMS OF HIS PHYSICAL CAPABILITIES ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994? IT PROVES NOTHING. IN FACT, WE ALL KNOW THAT THE MORNING OF JUNE THE 12TH HE WAS PLAYING GOLF. WE ALSO KNOW THAT WITHIN WEEKS BEFORE THE MURDER HE MADE AN EXERCISE VIDEO, SO THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF THAT SCAR IS NIL AND THE MISLEADING NATURE OF PRESENTING THAT SCAR TO THE JURY IS GREAT. THE INFERENCE THAT THE DEFENSE WILL SEEK TO DRAW FROM THAT SCAR IS THAT HE WAS INCAPABLE OF CERTAIN PHYSICAL ACTS. IF THAT IS WHAT THEY INTEND TO PRESENT, THAT IS FINE. LET THEM PRESENT TESTIMONY THAT IS CAPABLE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION. BUT TO HAVE THE DEFENDANT ESSENTIALLY TESTIFY BEFORE THE JURY WITHOUT TAKING THE WITNESS STAND AND BEING CROSS-EXAMINED IS INAPPROPRIATE. THE CASES IN WHICH THE DEFENDANTS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ADDRESS THE JURY IN OPENING STATEMENT IN PREVIOUS OCCASIONS HAVE BEEN CASES WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS ACTING IN PRO PER. THIS DEFENDANT IS NOT IN PRO PER. HE IS REPRESENTED BY MANY ATTORNEYS. IF HE DESIRES TO TESTIFY BEFORE THIS JURY, THEN LET HIM DO SO AS ALL WITNESSES DO ON THE WITNESS STAND AND BE SUBJECT TO FULL AND COMPLETE CROSS-EXAMINATION. CASE LAW IS COMPLETELY IN FAVOR OF THE PEOPLE'S POSITION IN THIS REGARD. PEOPLE VERSUS PEREZ, 216 CAL.APP.3D 346, IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT REQUESTED TO BE ALLOWED TO EXHIBIT HIS TATTOOS WITHOUT BEING SWORN OR GIVING TESTIMONY. THE COURT REFUSED HIS REQUEST AND RULED THAT THE EXHIBITION OF THE TATTOO WOULD BE TESTIMONIAL IF OFFERED TO IMPEACH THE TESTIMONY OF AN UNDERCOVER OFFICER, AND ESSENTIALLY THAT IS WHAT THE INJURIES NOW BEING PROPOSED TO BE DISPLAYED TO THE JURY IS BEING OFFERED TO SHOW, THAT HE COULD NOT IN FACT COMMIT CERTAIN ACTS THAT HE IS CHARGED WITH COMMITTING. IT IS TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE. LET'S MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT THAT. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OTHERWISE OF DEMONSTRATING THE SCAR OR OF TALKING ABOUT OR SHOWING THE JURY WHAT HE CAN AND CANNOT DO? IT IS GOING TO GIVE HIM THE ABILITY TO LIMP UP TO THE JURY BOX, GET CLOSE TO THE JURY AND TRY AND IMPRESS THEM WITH HIS PHYSICAL PRESENCE. THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE AND THERE IS NO LEGAL BENEFIT TO THIS IN TERMS OF WHAT IS APPROPRIATE IN A COURT OF LAW. IF THE DEFENDANT WOULD LIKE TO TESTIFY, THAT IS FINE, BUT TO DO THIS AND THEN SHIELD HIMSELF FROM CROSS-EXAMINATION, SAY, DON'T ASK ME ANY QUESTIONS, I JUST WANT TO GET UP THERE AND SHOW YOU SOMETHING, I WANT YOU TO DRAW INFERENCES FROM THIS, I WANT YOU TO TAKE EVIDENCE FROM THIS WITHOUT BEING SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION, IS ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE. THE PEOPLE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO DO THAT BECAUSE THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A FOUNDATION LAID. PEOPLE VERSUS PEREZ MAKES THAT VERY CLEAR. IT INDICATED THAT IT WOULD BE IRRELEVANT AS DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE AS WELL, WHICH IS WHAT THE DEFENSE CLAIMS IT IS PROPOSING HERE, ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE DISPUTE THAT AND REALLY IT IS A TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE KIND OF THING THEY ARE PROPOSING. NEVERTHELESS, EVEN IF IT DEMONSTRATIVE, THE COURT IN PEREZ RULED THAT BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD LAID NO FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE EVIDENCE, IT WAS APPROPRIATELY DENIED. IN THIS CASE AS WELL WHAT THE DEFENDANT PROPOSES TO DO REQUIRES EITHER HIS PRESENCE ON THE WITNESS STAND OR SOME TESTIMONY FROM THE WITNESS STAND TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR ITS ADMISSION. TO SIMPLY DISPLAY SOMETHING TO THE JURY WITHOUT ANY EVIDENTIARY BASIS GIVES THEM NOTHING RELIABLE AND NOTHING OF PROBATIVE VALUE. IT IS ONLY A BLATANT ATTEMPT TO IMPRESS THE JURY WITH HIS CHARISMA AND STAR APPEAL. THAT IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE VEHICLE IN THE OPENING STATEMENT. LET ME INDICATE ALSO THAT THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS WONG HELD SIMILARLY. IN PEOPLE VERSUS WONG THE TRIAL COURT INDICATED THAT IT WAS IMPROPER TO HAVE THE DEFENDANT EXHIBIT HIS ARMS TO THE JURY WITHOUT FIRST BEING SWORN AS A WITNESS. IN THAT CASE 35 CAL.APP.3D 812, THE DEFENDANT IN THAT CASE WANTED TO INDICATE THAT HE WAS NOT AN ADDICT, HE HAD NO TRACK MARKS ON HIS ARMS. THE TRIAL COURT REFUSED TO ALLOW HIM TO DO SO UNLESS HE SUBJECTED HIMSELF TO CROSS-EXAMINATION. ON APPEAL THE COURT WAS UPHELD AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT IF IT WAS A TESTIMONIAL -- IF IT WAS BEING OFFERED AS TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE IT WAS PROPERLY REFUSED WHEN THE DEFENDANT DECLINED TO BE SWORN AS A WITNESS AND SUBJECT HIMSELF TO CROSS-EXAMINATION. IT ALSO RULED THAT IF THE OFFER WAS A DEMONSTRATIVE ONE, THEN THE TRIAL COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING IT ON THE BASIS THAT IT WAS IRRELEVANT. AS I HAVE INDICATED TO THE COURT YESTERDAY, HIS ARM WAS BEING OFFERED ON MAY 12, 1971, TO SHOW THE CONDITION OF HIS ARM ON JUNE 5TH, 1970. THE DEFENDANT'S CONDITION TODAY OR THE EXISTENCE OF THAT SCAR, WITHOUT LAYING A FOUNDATION AS TO WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT SCAR AND HOW IT IMPACTED ON HIS PHYSICAL CAPABILITIES, IS SOMETHING THAT EXISTS WITHOUT FOUNDATION. IT HAS NO PROBATIVE VALUE IN AND OF ITSELF. IF THE DEFENSE WANTS TO DO IT AS PART OF AN OPENING STATEMENT, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ALSO PROFFER SOMETHING THAT LENDS IT SOME VALUE IN TERMS OF PROBATIVE VALUE. WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS THEY CAN OFFER A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE DEFENDANT'S KNEE, BUT SIMPLY HOLDING A PHOTOGRAPH UP ISN'T GOING TO GET THEM VERY MUCH, SHOULDN'T, BUT THE DEFENDANT -- IN TERMS OF ITS EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT, BECAUSE WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN TERMS OF HIS PHYSICAL CAPABILITIES OR HIS LIMITATIONS? HAVING THE DEFENDANT AS WELL GET UP TO TELL THE JURY THAT HE IS NOT GUILTY IS ANOTHER ATTEMPT, BLATANT ATTEMPT TO HAVE THE DEFENDANT ADDRESS THE JURY WITHOUT BEING CROSS-EXAMINED. IT IS LIKE ISSUING A BLANKET DENIAL AND THEN SAYING YOU CAN'T ASK ME ANY QUESTIONS. IN A COURT OF LAW, YOUR HONOR, WHEN A DEFENDANT SEEKS TO TESTIFY AND AN ISSUES A BLANKET DENIAL, THAT OPENS THE DOORS TO CROSS-EXAMINATION AS WIDE AS THEY CAN GO AND THE PEOPLE ARE PERMITTED VERY FAR AND WIDE-RANGING CROSS-EXAMINATION. THE DEFENDANT SEEKS TO DO THAT IN THIS CASE AND PRECLUDE ALL CROSS-EXAMINATION. HE SEEKS TO PROTEST HIS INNOCENCE AND YET NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO ASK HIM ANY QUESTIONS. THAT IS ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE, AND THE COURT I'M SURE IS VERY WELL AWARE OF THAT. IF HE WAS IN PRO PER, HE COULD GET UP AND SAY WHATEVER HE WANTED TO; HE IS NOT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHAT IS YOUR PAGE CITE ON PEOPLE VERSUS WONG?

MS. CLARK: 835.

THE COURT: WHAT IS YOUR PAGE CITE ON PEREZ?

MS. CLARK: 1348 AND GOES ON TO 1349. THE HOLDING -- 1348 AND 9 GIVE THE FACTUAL EXPOSITION AND 1350 GIVES THE RULING.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. CLARK: ALSO 1352, YOUR HONOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENT?

MS. CLARK: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. MR. UELMEN.

MR. UELMEN: THE SUGGESTION THAT A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY SUBJECTS A DEFENDANT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION IS SIMPLY NOT THE LAW. THE PLEA OF NOT GUILTY IS WHAT SETS THIS TRIAL IN MOTION AND PUTS THE BURDEN ON THE PEOPLE OF PROVING GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IT IS REALLY INCREDIBLE TO SUGGEST THAT SOMEHOW THE JURORS WILL BE PREJUDICED BY ACTUALLY HEARING THE PLEA OF NOT GUILTY FROM THE MOUTH OF THE DEFENDANT HIMSELF. ACTUALLY, THE ONLY PERSON WHO CAN ENTER THE PLEA IS THE DEFENDANT HIMSELF AND THAT PLEA IS WHAT SETS THESE PROCEEDINGS IN MOTION. AND WE ALSO BELIEVE IT IS QUITE APPROPRIATE AND DOES NOT OPEN UP ANY DOORS TO CROSS-EXAMINATION SIMPLY TO HAVE THE JURY OBSERVE THE DEFENDANT AND HEAR HIS PLEA OF NOT GUILTY FROM HIS OWN LIPS. THE SUGGESTION THAT THIS IS SOME SORT OF PLOY TO CAPITALIZE ON THE DEFENDANT'S CHARISMA OR CELEBRITY STATUS, IT IS JUST THE OPPOSITE. IT IS JUST THE OPPOSITE. WE DO NOT WANT THIS JURY TO VIEW THE DEFENDANT IN TERMS OF A CELEBRITY. WE WANT THEM TO VIEW HIM AS A HUMAN BEING, AND THAT SUGGESTS THE GREATER NEED IN THIS CASE TO DO IT, BECAUSE THERE IS JUST SO MUCH STAR STRUCK QUALITY ABOUT THIS -- ABOUT THIS WHOLE PROCEEDING AND WE THINK IT WOULD BE VERY HEALTHY TO REMIND EVERYONE, ESPECIALLY THE JURY, THAT WHAT IS AT STAKE HERE IS SIMPLY THE LIBERTY OF A MAN, A HUMAN BEING, AND HERE HE IS, O.J. SIMPSON. IN TERMS OF THE LACK OF FOUNDATION FOR THE PHYSICAL CAPABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT, THAT WILL BE PRESENTED IN THE COURSE OF TESTIMONY. OBVIOUSLY THE OPENING STATEMENT DOESN'T PRESENT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. IT IS A PREVIEW OF WHAT IS TO COME, AND THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PREVIEW FOR THE JURY. WHEN IT IS PRESENTED IN THE COURSE OF TRIAL THERE WILL BE FOUNDATIONAL TESTIMONY FROM MR. SIMPSON'S PHYSICIAN AS TO HIS PHYSICAL CAPABILITY TO CORROBORATE THE PHYSICAL DEMONSTRATION.

THE COURT: WELL, WHEN YOU SAY "DEMONSTRATION," NOW YOU GOT ME SCARED.

MR. UELMEN: EXHIBITION.

THE COURT: EXHIBITION OR A DEMONSTRATION?

MR. UELMEN: EXHIBITION.

THE COURT: TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

MR. UELMEN: RIGHT.

THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. UELMEN: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I HAVE REVIEWED THE CASES CITED BY THE PEOPLE, AND THE ONLY CASES THAT I COULD FIND THAT WERE OF INTEREST WERE A CASE OUT OF NEW YORK AND A CASE OUT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI THAT DEALT SPECIFICALLY WITH THE REQUEST OF A REPRESENTED CLIENT TO ADDRESS DIRECTLY A JURY. THE MOTION TO ALLOW THE DEFENDANT TO DIRECTLY ADDRESS THE JURY WILL BE DENIED. THE MOTION TO ALLOW HIM TO EXHIBIT TO THE JURY HIS KNEE INJURIES OR THE RESULT OF THE SCARRING AND THE SURGERIES WILL BE ALLOWED. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, WE NEED TO RESOLVE THEN THE LAST REMAINING ISSUES ON THE EXHIBITS AND WE WILL BE PREPARED TO GO FORWARD WITH OPENING STATEMENTS. MR. DOUGLAS.

MR. DOUGLAS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. GOOD MORNING. YESTERDAY EVENING, YOUR HONOR, WE WERE ATTEMPTING -- ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. DOUGLAS: YESTERDAY EVENING, YOUR HONOR, WE WERE DISCUSSING THE POSSIBILITY OF MAKING ALTERATIONS TO THE SOCK TIMELINE CHART OF WHICH THERE WAS AN OBJECTION. AS THE COURT WILL SEE, WE HAVE ALTERED THE OFFENDING LANGUAGE TO REFLECT THE DETAILS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF A REPORT THAT WAS PART OF AN ANALYZED EVIDENCE REPORT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT TO THE COURT AND WHICH I HAVE ALREADY GIVEN TO OPPOSING COUNSEL. WHAT IT SAYS BASICALLY, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT THERE IS A NOTATION REFERRING TO DIFFERENT PIECES OF EVIDENCE, THERE IS A NOTATION FOR SOCKS, NAVY BLUE SLASH BLACK.

THE COURT: IS THIS THE JUNE 29TH REPORT?

MR. DOUGLAS: THIS IS A REPORT, YOUR HONOR -- IF I MAY APPROACH?

THE COURT: JUST ANSWER MY QUESTION. IS IT THE JUNE 29TH REPORT?

MR. DOUGLAS: YES, IT IS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DOUGLAS: IT TALKS ABOUT THEIR BEING "DRESS SOCKS; BLOOD SEARCH (NONE OBVIOUS)," AND WE WOULD SUBMIT, YOUR HONOR, THAT THIS IS A FAIR REFLECTION OF WHAT WE THINK THE EVIDENCE IS GOING TO SHOW. WE WOULD SUBMIT THAT THAT CHART IS NOT UNDULY PREJUDICIAL AND WE WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE COURT SHOULD OVERRULE THE OBJECTIONS AND ALLOW THE ADMITTANCE OF THAT CHART.

THE COURT: WHO IS THE AUTHOR OF THAT REPORT?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. DOUGLAS: THIS REFERS, YOUR HONOR -- THIS DOCUMENT APPARENTLY WAS PREPARED FOR THE SPLIT HEARING. IT IS PEOPLE'S 2 AT THE SPLIT HEARING, AND YAMAUCHI, KESTLER AND MATHESON EACH TESTIFIED ABOUT THE PROCESS BY WHICH THEY TOOK OUT DIFFERENT PIECES OF EVIDENCE AND EXAMINED IT. AND THIS WAS A DOCUMENT THAT WAS PREPARED SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT HEARING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT DOESN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION. WHO PREPARED --

MR. DOUGLAS: WHO PREPARED THE REPORT?

THE COURT: WHO PREPARED THAT REPORT?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. DOUGLAS: MICHELE KESTLER, GREG MATHESON AND COLIN YAMAUCHI.

THE COURT: IS THAT THE INDEX PREPARED --

MR. DOUGLAS: IT SAYS "SUMMARIZED OF ANALYZED EVIDENCE BY ANALYSIS PERFORMED." THAT IS THE TITLE.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. DOUGLAS: IT IS EXHIBIT 2 AT THE SPLIT HEARING. THE REMAINING OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, WOULD BE IN RESPONSE TO THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE VIDEOTAPES AND THE SCENES THAT WERE REFLECTED OF DIFFERENT OFFICERS WALKING THROUGH THE CRIME SCENE AT VARIOUS TIMES. WE HAVE NOW OBTAINED THE REMAINING TAPE-RECORDINGS, AND YOUR HONOR, THERE WAS A MISSTATEMENT YESTERDAY. THE SCENES THAT WERE SHOWN IN THE TAPE THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN OVER TO THE PEOPLE ARE NOT SCENES THAT WERE TAKEN FROM CNN, BUT RATHER THEY ARE A COLLECTION OF DIFFERENT TAPES THAT WERE RECEIVED FROM DIFFERENT LOCAL NEWS MEDIA, SO THAT FOR US TO INTRODUCE THESE DIFFERENT SNIPPETS, IF YOU WILL, AT TRIAL, WE SIMPLY BE ABLE TO LAY THE FOUNDATION BY SUBPOENAING AND BRINGING IN TO TESTIFY THOSE OPERATORS OF I THINK IT IS LOCAL CHANNELS, 5, 7, 11 AND 13 FROM WHOM THESE PARTICULAR SNIPPETS WERE CULLED. THAT TAPE HAS NOW BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COURT AND THAT TAPE HAS ALSO BEEN PROVIDED TO THE PEOPLE. WE NOW HAVE THE TAPE FROM SAN FRANCISCO THAT HAD TWO OTHER BLIPS THAT WERE NOT SHOWN ON THE FIRST TAPE. I AM TOLD BY MR. HODGMAN THAT THE PEOPLE WOULD CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THEIR OBJECTION, SO WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT THE COURT ALLOW THE SHOWING OF THE SCENES THAT WERE DISPLAYED YESTERDAY. THEY ARE SCENES, YOUR HONOR, THAT ARE VERY CAPABLE OF BEING AUTHENTICATED. IN MANY WAYS IT IS SELF-AUTHENTICATING. IN MANY WAYS THEY ARE AUTHENTICATED BECAUSE THERE WILL BE AN EVIDENCE OR A POLICE LOG WHERE EACH INDIVIDUAL WHO COMES ON TO THE SCENE FIRST CHECKS IN WITH ONE OF THE POLICE OFFICERS THAT ARE THERE. THAT LOG WILL BE AN ITEM OF EVIDENCE. AND IT IS POSSIBLE BY SHOWING THE SCENES AND HAVING THOSE DEPICTED THERE, TESTIFY TO ESTABLISH CLEARLY WHEN THE VARIOUS PIECES OF SCENES WERE TAKEN AND WHAT SORTS OF THINGS WERE OCCURRING.

IT IS TRUE, YOUR HONOR, THAT IT IS THE PEOPLE'S CRIME SCENE. IT IS TRUE, YOUR HONOR, THAT THEY THEMSELVES DO NOT HAVE A VIDEOTAPE OF THE CRIME SCENE. THERE ARE CERTAIN DISCREET ACTS THAT ARE GOING ON, FOR EXAMPLE, DETECTIVE LANGE MEASURING A CERTAIN LOCATION. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU SEE CRIMINALIST FUNG PLACING DOWN PARTICULAR EVIDENCE TAGS. YOU WILL SEE, ALTHOUGH YOU WILL SEE DETECTIVES WALKING THROUGH -- DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND ROGERS WALKING THROUGH, AND QUITE CLEARLY THE SHEET IS THERE BECAUSE THE BODY HAS BEEN REMOVED, BUT THE SHEET REMAINS, AND IT SHOWS, YOUR HONOR, THE SORT OF SENSE THAT WE ARE GOING TO DEPICT IN WORDS. IT HELPS TO PROVIDE A VISUAL CONTEXT TO THE WORDS THAT MR. COCHRAN IS GOING TO SPEAK. HE IS GOING TO DISCUSS HOW THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THERE WAS CONTAMINATION OF THE CRIME SCENE. WE WOULD THEN HOPE TO SHOW PICTURES THAT DEMONSTRATE, THAT REFLECT THE CONTAMINATION OF THE CRIME SCENE. THEY ARE GOING TO OFFER EVIDENCE, I SUPPOSE, YOUR HONOR, HOW THE CRIME SCENE WAS NOT CONTAMINATED. PERHAPS THEY WILL SHOW THAT WHEN THESE SCENES WERE SHOWN ALL OF THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE HAD BEEN COLLECTED. PERHAPS THEY WILL SHOW OR THEY WILL OFFER EVIDENCE THAT WHEN THESE SCENES WERE SHOWN IT WAS THE NEXT DAY OR THE THIRD DAY AFTER.

THAT IS THE RISK THAT WE ARE GOING TO TAKE BY THE STATEMENTS THAT WE ARE GOING TO MAKE IN OUR OPENING STATEMENT, BUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE THE VISUAL REFLECTIONS OF CERTAIN WORDS, MR. COCHRAN I THINK QUITE PROPERLY WILL BE ABLE TO DISCUSS AND TO SPEAK ABOUT HOW THE CRIME SCENE WAS CONTAMINATED AND HOW WE CONTEND THESE SCENES ARE SIMPLY A SMALL REFLECTION FROM THE ONLY LIVE RECORD THAT IS AVAILABLE SHOWING THE CONDUCT OF DETECTIVES VANNATTER AND OTHER DETECTIVES AT BOTH THE ROCKINGHAM AND BUNDY CRIME SCENES ON JUNE THE 13TH. YOUR HONOR, THAT I THINK IS THE END OF MY OBJECTIONS TO THE CHARTS THAT THE -- THAT THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO OFFER AND MY EXPLANATION TO THE ITEMS THAT WERE REMAINING YESTERDAY.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, MR. DOUGLAS. MISS CLARK.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: I'M SORRY. EXCUSE ME. HOLD ON A SECOND.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: I THOUGHT THAT THE COURT HAD CONCLUDED ITS RULING YESTERDAY WITH RESPECT TO THE TAPE. MR. COCHRAN MADE A MOTION THAT WHEN A RULING IS ISSUED WE NOT REARGUE IT AND WE ALL AGREED TO THAT.

THE COURT: WHAT I SAID YESTERDAY IS THAT IF THE DEFENSE MAKES THE TAPE -- VIDEOTAPE AVAILABLE TO YOU AND AFTER REVIEWING THE TAPE YOU STILL MAINTAIN -- I MEAN, WHO KNOWS, AFTER LOOKING AT IT, YOU MIGHT HAVE CHANGED YOUR MIND.

MS. CLARK: THAT'S TRUE.

THE COURT: NOW THAT YOU HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY AND IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT HERE, WHAT IS YOUR POSITION?

MS. CLARK: WHAT HE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO SEE IT. THEY JUST GAVE IT TO US THIS MORNING WHEN WE WALKED INTO COURT.

THE COURT: HOW LONG ARE THESE VIDEOTAPES, MR. DOUGLAS?

MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, THE FIRST TAPE WAS PLAYED I THINK IN ITS ENTIRETY YESTERDAY. THE SECOND TAPE WE GOT THIS MORNING FROM SAN FRANCISCO, IT IS APPROXIMATELY 25 TO 30 MINUTES LONG; HOWEVER, A LOT OF THAT IS A PRESS CONFERENCE BY POLICE OFFICERS. THE FIRST FIVE OR TEN MINUTES CONTAINS THE THREE CLIPS THAT WE WANT TO USE IN OPENING STATEMENT.

THE COURT: THE FIRST FIVE OR TEN MINUTES OF THIS.

MR. BLASIER: YES, IN ADDITION TO THE ONES THAT WE SHOWED YESTERDAY.

MS. CLARK: THE SAME PROBLEM EXISTS NOW AS IT DID BEFORE. WE DON'T HAVE A FOUNDATION AS TO TIME AND TIME IS VERY IMPORTANT. THE BLOOD STAINS WERE COLLECTED AT A CERTAIN POINT AND THAT IS NOT ESTABLISHED WITH THE TAPE. SECONDLY, THERE IS A COUNTER AT THE BOTTOM OF THE TAPE THAT IS VERY MISLEADING BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT ACTUALLY PIECES OF TAPE WERE ONE CONTINUOUS SHOOT, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE. AS COUNSEL EVEN CONCEDES, THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE EDITING DONE ON THAT TAPE. AND THE PEOPLE MAINTAIN THEIR OBJECTION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DON'T YOU THINK THAT WE OUGHT TO AT LEAST LOOK AT THE FIRST FIVE TO TEN MINUTES TO SEE IF YOU STILL DO?

MS. CLARK: I WILL BE GLAD TO, YOUR HONOR. LET ME GO ON TO THE OTHER EXHIBIT. WITH RESPECT TO THE SOCK TIMELINE --

THE COURT: YES.

MS. CLARK: -- WHAT MR. DOUGLAS HAS REPRESENTED TO THIS COURT IS VERY MISLEADING. I CONFRONTED HIM THIS MORNING AND I EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT THIS IS NOT A BUSINESS RECORD. I SHOULD INDICATE TO THE COURT, FIRST OF ALL, IT WAS A CHART PREPARED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE GRIFFIN HEARING TO -- AND THE BLOOD SPLIT HEARING ACTUALLY AT MY REQUEST BECAUSE I WANTED THE -- TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT THEY PLANNED TO DO WITH ALL THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE AND WHAT SEEMED TO BE SUFFICIENT FOR A SPLIT, WHAT DID NOT, WHAT WAS CAPABLE OF PCR, WHAT SEEMED TO BE CAPABLE OF RFLP. IN THE BOX MARKED "COMMENTS" IT SHOWS "BLOOD SEARCH" BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY PLANNED TO DO. IT HAD NOT YET BEEN DONE. THESE ARE NAVY BLUE TO BLACK SOCKS WHICH IF YOU LOOK AT IT WITH THE NAKED EYE YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEE ANYTHING. IT WAS SCHEDULED FOR A BLOOD SEARCH AND IT WAS PUT DOWN THAT NONE WAS OBVIOUS BECAUSE ON A BLACK PAIR OF SOCKS YOU ARE NOT GOING TO SEE BLOOD. AT BEST YOU MIGHT SEE SOMETHING WET, BUT BEFORE A PERIOD OF TIME, AND WHEN IT DRIES YOU WON'T EVEN SEE THAT, SO IT WAS SCHEDULED FOR A BLOOD SEARCH. AND WHAT MR. DOUGLAS HAS ON THIS CHART IS VERY MISLEADING BECAUSE IT INDICATES THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY LOOKED FOR BLOOD AND THAT NONE IS OBVIOUS. THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. AND IF MR. DOUGLAS HAD SPOKEN TO MR. MATHESON HE WOULD TELL THEM WE PUT IT THERE, AS MANY OF THE OTHER ITEMS LISTED IN THIS "COMMENTS" COLUMN, AS A PROSPECTIVE PLAN. YOU CAN SEE ON THIS LIST IT SAYS JUST ABOVE IT THE ITEM NO. 12, "SWATCH, RFLP POSSIBLE" AND ON PREVIOUS ITEMS IT SHOWS "RFLP WOULD CONSUME, PCR ONLY." IT IS VERY OBVIOUS WHAT THIS IS. THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT IS CAPABLE OF BEING DONE AND WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO, NOT THAT IT HAS BEEN DONE. IT HADN'T BEEN, SO WHAT COUNSEL HAS PUT THERE IS AGAIN COMPLETELY MISLEADING. IT IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT OCCURRED.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE VIDEOTAPE AND SEE WHAT THERE IS.

MS. CLARK: MAY I ALSO REQUEST LEAVE OF THE COURT, THERE WAS ONE CHART WE HAD NOT YET SEEN THAT WE ONLY SAW A XEROX COPY OF. I WANTED TO ADDRESS THE COURT FURTHER ON IT AND I THINK I CAN DO THAT BETTER IF I HAVE THE CHART IN FRONT OF ME. THE THAT WAS THE CHART ENTITLED "DECEPTIONS, DISTORTIONS."

THE COURT: I THOUGHT YOU SAID YOU HAD NO OBJECTION TO THAT.

MS. CLARK: I HAD LOST MY COPY OF IT AT THE TIME, YOUR HONOR. THERE IS LANGUAGE ON IT THAT I WANTED TO OBJECT TO, NOT THE ENTIRE CHART, BUT CERTAIN LANGUAGE ON IT AND I NEED TO CONFIRM THAT IT IS ON IT. IF IT IS NOT, THERE WILL BE NONE, BUT THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH NOT HAVING EVERYTHING IN COURT ON FRIDAY.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, IS THERE A REASON YOU DIDN'T TELL ME THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU WHEN YOU ASKED ME TO RULE ON THAT?

MS. CLARK: I APOLOGIZE TO THE COURT.

THE COURT: I MEAN, I CAN'T KEEP DOING THESE THINGS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

MS. CLARK: I'M ONLY ASKING LEAVE TO SEE THE CHART AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS. I HAVE NOT SEEN THE FINAL HARD COPY. ALL WE SAW WAS A RENDERING ON AN 8-BY-10 PIECE OF PAPER. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT THE FINAL CHART SAYS.

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS, DO WE HAVE THAT AVAILABLE?

MR. DOUGLAS: WE ARE LOOKING, YOUR HONOR.

MR. BLASIER: I HAVE IT, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, THE CHART IS BEING MOUNTED RIGHT NOW AND IT WILL BE PICKED UP THIS MORNING, BUT IT JUST MIRRORS THIS PARTICULAR CHART.

MS. CLARK: DOES THE COURT HAVE A COPY OF THIS?

THE COURT: NO.

MS. CLARK: DO YOU HAVE AN EXTRA COPY?

MR. BLASIER: THAT IS THE ONLY ONE I HAVE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU HAND THAT TO MRS. ROBERTSON, PLEASE.

MS. CLARK: I WANT TO ADDRESS THE COURT ON CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THIS CHART.

MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, WE COULD PUT IT UP ON THE --

MS. CLARK: THAT WOULD BE GREAT. (BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. CLARK: OURS IS CUT OFF, YOUR HONOR, BUT LET ME FIRST INDICATE WITH RESPECT TO THE --

THE COURT: HOLD ON. I CAN'T SEE THE ENTIRE CHART.

MS. CLARK: YOU CAN'T EITHER?

THE COURT: NO.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS BETTER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. CAN WE FOCUS THAT A LITTLE?

MS. CLARK: WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST ENTRY, "MARK FUHRMAN AND THE GLOVES," IT INDICATES PLURAL. AT NO TIME DID MARK FUHRMAN SO TESTIFY AND THE CHART IS MISLEADING WITH RESPECT TO THAT LANGUAGE. THE PEOPLE OBJECT TO THE USE OF THE PLURAL. THAT NEVER OCCURRED. SECONDLY, "VANNATTER WARRANT." THE SEARCH WARRANT AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SEARCH ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE TRIAL BEFORE THE TRIER OF FACT. THAT IS A LEGAL ISSUE THAT THE COURT RULES UPON THAT IS IMPROPER TO RAISE IN OPENING STATEMENT, LET ALONE IN TRIAL. I WOULD FURTHER MENTION TO THE COURT, I THOUGHT THE COURT RULED THAT MARK FUHRMAN COULD NOT BE MENTIONED IN OPENING STATEMENT.

THE COURT: CORRECT.

MS. CLARK: THE PEOPLE OBJECT ON THAT BASIS AS WELL.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY I GET A CLARIFICATION, YOUR HONOR, ON THAT?

MS. CLARK: FURTHERMORE, THE RON PHILLIPS STATEMENT TO THE CORONER, "WE ARE KIND OF NOT FOLLOWING PROCEDURE BUT WE ARE KIND OF ASKING A FAVOR," A STATEMENT LIFTED OUT OF CONTEXT. THAT IS HEARSAY FROM A TRANSCRIPT THAT WAS ISSUED BY THE CORONER; NOT A STATEMENT MADE -- NOT A REPORT MADE BY RON PHILLIPS AND IT IS MISLEADING AND CONFUSING ON THAT BASIS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, BEFORE YOU GET TOO MUCH FURTHER, COUNSEL, THIS IS AN ARGUMENT. THIS IS NOT AN OPENING STATEMENT EXHIBIT.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I RESPOND JUST BRIEFLY?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. COCHRAN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, IN THIS MATTER, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING YESTERDAY THAT THE PEOPLE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING. WE DID SHOW THIS TO THEM AND MISS CLARK INDICATES SHE HAD NO OBJECTION. WE DON'T WANT TO BE ARGUMENTATIVE. THIS WAS PASSED WE THOUGHT. OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF PRECAUTION, IF THE COURT PLEASES, BECAUSE WE ANTICIPATED THAT SHE MIGHT CHANGE HER MIND, WE HAVE ANOTHER CHART WHICH I THINK THE COURT WILL FIND HOPEFULLY LESS ARGUMENTATIVE. I WOULD LIKE FOR THE COURT TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT. WHAT THIS IS BASICALLY IS A SUMMARY OF THE CONDUCT. AND I WANTED ONE OTHER QUERY OF THE COURT. WITH REGARD TO MR. FUHRMAN, THE COURT DID NOT SAY WE COULD NOT TALK ABOUT MARK FUHRMAN, I UNDERSTAND, IN OPENING STATEMENT. WHAT YOU INDICATED WAS THAT WITH REGARD TO THE KATHLEEN BELL INCIDENT I THINK YOU SAID, BUT YOU NEVER SAID WE COULDN'T TALK ABOUT MARK FUHRMAN. THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

THE COURT: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. COCHRAN: I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR. MAY I SHOW THIS TO MR. HODGMAN AND GIVE YOUR HONOR A COPY OF THIS PROPOSAL?

THE COURT: IS THIS A CHANGE TO THIS DOCUMENT?

MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU WANT ME TO PUT IT UP THERE FOR YOU?

THE COURT: PLEASE.

MR. COCHRAN: IT IS UP NOW.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. COCHRAN: WOULD THE COURT ALLOW ME, WITH REGARD TO THESE ITEMS, THE COURT WILL RECALL THAT AS PART OF THE EXHIBITS WE WILL HAVE A VIDEO CLIP OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. IF MISS CLARK OBJECTS TO THE USE OF THE WORDS "GLOVES," I WILL STIPULATE TO STRIKE -- MAKE IT "GLOVE," BUT WE STILL ARE GOING TO MAY THAT CLIP. WITH REGARD TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A TRANSCRIPT -- WE PASSED THIS YESTERDAY -- THAT IS ALREADY COMING IN AND WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE ANYTHING OUT OF CONTEXT. THE PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO SEE EXACTLY THE TRANSCRIPTS. NOTHING IS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. WITH REGARDS TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER WHERE THE STATEMENT WAS MADE THAT SIMPSON HAD LEFT ON AN UNEXPECTED FLIGHT TO CHICAGO, WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT RELITIGATING THE ISSUE, IF THE COURT PLEASES, OF THE ENTRY, BUT TO INDICATE THAT IN THE VERY FIRST CONTACT WITH THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AT 10:45 ON 6/12 AN UNTRUTH WAS TOLD. IN THAT WARRANT UNDER OATH THEY DID NOT TELL THE TRUTH AND WE HAVE THAT AND YOU SAW YESTERDAY KATO KAELIN'S STATEMENT. YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO SECURING, DOCUMENTING AND PRESERVING THE CRIME SCENE, EVERYONE HAS BEEN VERY MUCH AWARE OF THAT, THAT THE TRAINEE MAZZOLLA WAS -- THE THIRD CRIME SCENE-- WAS BASICALLY THE OFFICER IN CHARGE THERE. WITH REGARD TO THE BRONCO, WE HAVE LITIGATED THIS AND COUNSEL HAS KNOWN FOR SOME TIME AND WE HAVE MADE IT IN AS INNOCUOUS LANGUAGE AS WE CAN, THAT THEY FAILED TO GIVE THAT SPECIAL CARE FOR EVIDENCE PRESENTATION. WE SHOWED ALL THIS YESTERDAY, YOUR HONOR. WE WENT THROUGH IT. THEY HAD NO OBJECTION. THE DNA TESTING WE SAID CONSISTENTLY, THEY CAN TALK ALL THEY WANT ABOUT DNA, BUT ALL THE DNA EVIDENCE PASSED THROUGH THE LAPD BEFORE IT WENT TO ANY OTHER LAB AND WE THINK IT IS OUR RIGHT TO TALK ABOUT THAT. WE HAVE A CHART THAT WE HAVE ALREADY PASSED ON OF THE -- O.J.'S BLOOD VIAL, THIS MYSTERIOUS BLOOD VIAL AND ITS SAGA, WHERE IT WENT, INSTEAD OF BEING BOOKED APPROPRIATELY. AND FINALLY THE QUESTION OF THE SOCKS, WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS NONE OBVIOUS ON THE SOCKS. I DISAGREE WITH MY LEARNED ADVERSARY THAT BLOOD IS RED, ALBEIT DARK RED, IT IS NOT BLACK LIKE SOCKS, AND YOU WOULD BE ABLE I SUGGEST TO SEE IT. THE QUESTION IS IF THE PROSECUTION THINKS THAT THEY HAVE A THEORY AND IF WE DON'T AGREE WITH THAT THEORY THEY THINK THEY ARE ALWAYS RIGHT. THAT IS WHAT A TRIAL IS ABOUT. THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE, JUDGE. THEY ARE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT. THAT IS WHY THEY LOSE CASES SOMETIMES. THEY ARE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT. THE JURY WILL MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. AND THIS IDEA OF PROTECTING THIS JURY, THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO. YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY ABOUT DOING OUR JOBS AND THAT'S WHEN THE SYSTEM WORKS BEST, YOUR HONOR, AS YOU WELL KNOW. YOU DO YOUR JOB, WE DO OUR JOB, THEY DO THEIR JOB. WE DON'T NEED MISS CLARK TO DO THE JOB FOR THE JURY. THEY'LL DO THEIR JOB AND YOU'LL DO YOUR JOB, AND I PROMISE WE'LL DO OUR JOB, JUDGE, AND THAT IS WHAT YOU ASKED US TO DO AND THAT'S ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. THIS IS A MAN THAT WE HAVE CONTENDED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING IS WRONGFULLY ACCUSED AND WE -- THEY ARE IN FOR THE FIGHT OF THEIR LIVES, AND SO THIS IS NOT ANY -- IT IS NOT ANY GAME AND SO WE ARE VERY SERIOUS ABOUT THIS.

WE DON'T WANT TO BE ARGUMENTATIVE AND WE WANT TO JUST SPELL OUT -- AND WE LOOKED AT THIS LAST NIGHT AND EVEN THOUGH SHE PASSED ON THIS, WE THINK WE SPELLED THIS OUT AND WE THINK IT ADDRESSES ALL OF THE CONCERNS, YOUR HONOR, AND I THINK THAT CERTAINLY IN OPENING STATEMENT ONE CAN'T BE PRECLUDED ABOUT WHAT OUR THEORY OF THE CASE IS IN GOOD FAITH. AND SO WHAT WE ARE DOING NOW IS MUCH MORE THAN USUAL, JUDGE. THEY ARE HAVING A TOTAL PREVIEW OF THE THINGS WE EXPECT TO USE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S SEE THE VIDEOTAPE AS WELL.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE HEARD BRIEFLY?

THE COURT: LET ME SEE EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE TO CONSIDER AND THEN I WILL RULE.

MS. CLARK: I HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THE NEW CHART, THOUGH, THAT THEY JUST PUT UP.

THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE VIDEOTAPE. THANK YOU. DOES THIS CONTAIN ANY --

MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, THIS PRETTY MUCH STARTS WHERE THE OTHER ONE LEFT OFF YESTERDAY. THE BODIES HAVE BEEN REMOVED BUT THE CORONER IS STILL THERE AND MR. FUNG IS PUTTING DOWN HIS TAGS.

(A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.) THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE COURT AND THE CLERK.)

MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT CONTAINS ALL OF THE CLIPS THAT WE WISH TO SLOW IN OPENING. THERE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE AFTER THIS BUT --

THE COURT: STOP THE TAPE.

(THE VIDEOTAPE WAS STOPPED.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, I WILL HEAR YOUR OBJECTIONS.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. FIRST OF ALL, WITH RESPECT TO THE VIDEOTAPE, YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: YES.

MS. CLARK: -- AGAIN, THE SAME FOUNDATIONAL PROBLEMS WE HAVE WITH RESPECT TO TIME. WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHENTICATION IN TERMS OF THE TIMING AND THAT IS CRITICAL IN TERMS OF THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION. THE INFERENCE THAT THE DEFENSE WILL SEEK TO DRAW IS THAT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY LAPD WAS CONTAMINATED IN SOME MANNER BY THE METHOD -- BY THE ACTIONS THAT ARE SHOWN ON THE TAPE. IF THE EVIDENCE WAS ALREADY COLLECTED BY THE TIME THESE PEOPLE ARE SHOWN IN THE POSITIONS SHOWN IN THE VIDEO, THEN THERE IS IN FACT NO IMPACT AND THE INFERENCE THAT THEY ARE SEEKING TO DRAW IS DIRECTLY MISLEADING TO THE JURY AND THAT IS ONE THING THAT IN OPENING STATEMENT NEITHER SIDE IS PERMITTED TO DO. THE PEOPLE ARE NOT ATTEMPTING TO TELL THE DEFENSE HOW TO TRY THEIR CASE. THE PEOPLE ARE ASKING THIS COURT ONLY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE JURY IS NOT MISLED SO THAT THEY GET THE TRUTH, SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE EVIDENCE REALLY IS, NOT SPIN AND NOT DISTORTION AND NOT HALF TRUTHS OR STATEMENTS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, BUT THE TRUTH. AND THE PROBLEM WITH A VIDEO SUCH AS THIS ONE IS THAT WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHEN IT WAS SHOT. AND THE INFERENCE THAT THE DEFENSE SEEKS TO DRAW FROM IT MAY BE COMPLETELY FALSE, IN WHICH CASE THE JURY BEGINS THE CASE WITH A TOTAL MISCONCEPTION ABOUT THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE EVIDENCE WAS COLLECTED. AND THAT IS A VERY DAMAGING THING AND THAT IS WHY THE DEFENSE OF COURSE SEEKS TO DO IT, I UNDERSTAND, BUT IT IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE THING TO DO. THE JURY DESERVES TO GET THE TRUTH AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THE EVIDENCE REALLY IS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE OTHER ISSUES, THE SOCK CHART AND THE CONDUCT CHART?

MS. CLARK: YES. I THINK THE SOCK CHART I HAVE, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE ADDRESSED THAT. THAT IS AGAIN TOTALLY MISLEADING WITH RESPECT TO BLOOD SEARCH. WITH RESPECT TO THE CHART NOW, THE NEW ONE IS EVEN WORSE THAN THE OTHER. FIRST OF ALL, IT REPEATS THE MISLEADING AND COMPLETELY FALSE INFERENCE DRAWN ABOUT THE BLOOD SEARCH. THEY SEEK TO ARGUE IN DEROGATION OF REALITY, IN DEROGATION OF THE TRUTH. THE TRUTH IS THAT IT WAS SCHEDULED FOR A BLOOD SEARCH. WHAT THEY SEEK TO INFER FROM THIS IS THAT IT WAS ALREADY CONDUCTED AND NONE WAS OBVIOUS, AND THAT IS EXACTLY A HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DEGREES OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH, SO THAT IS A COMPLETE FALSEHOOD. WITH RESPECT TO MARK FUHRMAN AND THE GLOVES, AGAIN IT IS FALSE. THEY STATE -- THEY PUT ON THE PLURAL WHICH WAS NEVER STATED BY MARK FUHRMAN. THEY TAKE HIS STATEMENT OUT OF CONTEXT. THERE IS AN EXTENSIVE COLLOQUY BETWEEN HIMSELF AND COUNSEL IN WHICH HE REFERS TO ONE GLOVE THAT HE SAW AT THE FOOT OF RON GOLDMAN AND HE SAYS THAT REPEATEDLY, AND YET TAKING ONE STATEMENT OUT OF CONTEXT THEY SEEK TO DRAW INFERENCES FROM IT. IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE, IT IS NOT AN OPENING STATEMENT AND IT IS MISLEADING AND UNFAIR BECAUSE IT IS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT.

THE SAME WOULD GO FOR RON PHILLIPS TO THE CORONER. OF COURSE THESE ARE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. HOW COULD COUNSEL ARGUE TO THE CONTRARY WHEN YOU HAVE A LENGTHY TRANSCRIPT OF STATEMENTS THAT HAVE EXPLANATORY INFORMATION BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER. YOU HAVE A AND C AND YOU TAKE OUT B AND THAT IS WHAT COUNSEL HAS DONE, TAKEN IT OUT OF PROPER CONTEXT AND STUCK IT ON A CHART, AND AGAIN IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. WITH RESPECT TO THE VANNATTER WARRANT, THAT STATEMENT IS IRRELEVANT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT LANGUAGE IN A SEARCH WARRANT THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE COURT TO RULE ON. THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A JURY TO BE PRESENTED. THE JURY HAS TO BE THE TRIER OF FACT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OR INNOCENT, NOT WHETHER THE SEARCH WAS PROPER OR IMPROPER. THAT IS A LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT GOES TO THE COURT; NOT TO THE JURY. THAT STATEMENT IS INAPPROPRIATE AND IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE AS WELL. WITH RESPECT TO PRESERVING THE CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE, THE DEFENSE -- IF THEY ARE SAYING THE TRAINEE IS ANDREA MAZZOLLA, ANDREA MAZZOLLA WAS NOT IN CHARGE. SHE WAS A TRAINEE WHO WAS BEING SUPERVISED BY DENNIS FUNG, SO THIS IS FALSE. THIS IS A FALSE STATEMENT. IF THAT IS WHO THEY ARE CLAIMING WAS IN CHARGE OF THE CRIME SCENE, THAT IS UNTRUE AND MISLEADING. I THOUGHT THAT THE COURT'S RULING PERTAINING TO MARK FUHRMAN WAS THAT NEITHER SIDE COULD MENTION HIM. THAT WAS JUST KATHLEEN BELL?

THE COURT: THE KATHLEEN BELL IMPEACHMENT ISSUE.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. WITH RESPECT TO -- MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MS. CLARK: WITH RESPECT TO THE ITEMS "FAILED TO GIVE SPECIAL CARE," THAT IS MISLEADING AS WELL. THAT IS PUT IN QUOTES AS THOUGH IT COMES FROM A MANUAL OF SOME KIND, WHICH WE KNOW IS NOT TRUE, AND IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. YES, IT IS TRUE ALL EVIDENCE PASSED THROUGH LAPD. NO OBJECTION TO THAT. WITH RESPECT TO "ALL BLOOD NOT ACCOUNTED FOR," THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT. IF COUNSEL THINKS THEY CAN LAY A FOUNDATION THROUGH THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL, THAT IS CERTAINLY APPROPRIATE FOR ARGUMENT, BUT IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR OPENING STATEMENT AND AGAIN IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. IS THE COURT --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU FINISHED WITH YOUR COMMENTS?

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR, I AM FINISHED. MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: COUNSEL. I THINK WE NEED AN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER FOR THE LAWYERS.

MR. COCHRAN: WE WILL BE PATIENT AT ALL TIMES. YOUR HONOR, IN THIS -- FIRST OF ALL, LET ME AGAIN POINT OUT THIS IS AN OPENING STATEMENT AND WHEREAS THEY HAVE THEIR THEORIES AND WE HAVE NOT SAID THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE THEIR THEORIES, WE THINK WE HAVE THE FACTS, BUT CERTAINLY CONTINGENT UPON THAT WE HAVE CERTAIN INTERPRETATIONS OF WHAT WE THINK THE EVIDENCE IS, AS THE COURT HAS SO CORRECTLY STATED. WE WERE PERMITTED TO TALK ABOUT THOSE THINGS. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS CHART, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES PEOPLE SHOULDN'T OBJECT IF THEY HAVE NOTHING TO SAY. AND IN THIS INSTANCE, YOUR HONOR, I ALREADY CONCEDED WITH REGARD TO USING THE WORD "GLOVES." I DON'T WANT TO MISLEAD ANYBODY. WE WILL TAKE THE "S" OFF. WITH REGARD TO DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE AVAILABLE. THE COURT HAS RULED WE CAN USE IT.

WITH REGARD TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WE ARE NOT RELITIGATING ANYTHING. AS I SAID, IT IS ABOUT CREDIBILITY, AND WITH REGARD TO -- AND THIS IS WHERE COUNSEL, WHO SUPPOSEDLY KNOWS HER CASE, SHOULD REFER TO HER OWN DOCUMENTS. I WOULD LIKE THE COURT TO SEE THIS REGARDING OFFICER MAZZOLLA. WE HAVE A FORM 94-0817431 WHICH SAYS "OIC NAME." "OFFICER IN CHARGE, NAME, A. MAZZOLLA. ASSISTANT NAME, D. FUNG." WE DON'T MAKE THESE THINGS UP. AND I WILL BE GLAD TO HAVE THEM LOOK AT THAT. IT IS THEIR FORM. WE DON'T MAKE THESE THINGS UP. WITH REGARD TO "FAIL TO TAKE SPECIAL CARE," IN QUOTES, THAT IS FROM THE LAPD FORM, YOUR HONOR. REMEMBER YESTERDAY WHEN WE SHOWED YOU THE FORM, WE PULLED THAT UP WHERE THEY FAILED TO CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX WHEN THE BRONCO WAS LEFT BASICALLY UNATTENDED FOR ALL THOSE MONTHS. NOW, SHE CAN CONCEDED THE DNA DID PASS THROUGH LAPD. YES, IT DOES, YOUR HONOR. WITH REGARD TO THE BLOOD VIAL, THAT IS OUR BELIEF BASED UPON ALL THE DOCUMENTS WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN DISCOVERY, AND IF IT TURNS OUT WRONG, THIS IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO SAY. THIS IS BASED UPON THE DOCUMENTS WE HAVE HAD RECEIVED. SHE CAN'T TELL US WHAT OUR POSITION IS OR WHAT IT SHOULD BE. SHE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING. WITH REGARD TO THE SOCKS, WE WILL ACCEPT WHATEVER YOUR HONOR SAYS ABOUT THAT. AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS PARTICULAR FORM, YOUR HONOR, THIS FORM IS ENTITLED "O.J. SIMPSON SUMMARY OF ANALYZED EVIDENCE BY ANALYSIS PERFORMED." WE ARE USING THEIR OWN FORM. THEIR OWN FORM, YOUR HONOR, BY ANALYSIS PERFORMED, AND IT SAYS UNDER THERE "NONE OBVIOUS" AND SO WE TOOK THEIR OWN FORM. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A RECENT MOVIE, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS A LINE WHICH I THINK IS VERY APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE -- I THINK IT WAS A FEW GOOD MEN -- WE KEEP HEARING ABOUT THE TRUTH. I DON'T THINK THEY CAN STAND THE TRUTH. THAT IS WHAT JACK NICHOLSON SAID. YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR THE TRUTH.

AND THAT IS I THINK VERY APPROPRIATE IN THIS SITUATION. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE.

THE COURT: WASN'T HE THE BAD GUY?

MR. COCHRAN: HUM? THE BAD GUYS SAY SOMETHING WORTHWHILE SOMETIMES, YOUR HONOR, SO EVEN BAD GUYS -- EVEN BAD GUYS TELL THE TRUTH ON OCCASION. CERTAINLY WE AREN'T THE BAD GUYS IN THIS CASE, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO ONE OTHER THING YOU ASKED US TO DO AT THE END OF THE DAY AND I BELIEVE THIS IS ON PAGE 25 OF VOLUME 2 -- STRIKE THAT -- VOLUME 11 OF THE REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FROM THURSDAY, JULY 7, 1994, I WOULD ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO READ THIS. IT IS MR. SHAPIRO QUESTIONING.

"QUESTION: HOW MUCH BLOOD DID YOU WITHDRAW FROM MR. SIMPSON?

"ANSWER: APPROXIMATELY EIGHT CC'S.

"QUESTION: WHEN YOU SAY 'APPROXIMATELY,' DID YOU NOT MEASURE THE AMOUNT?

"ANSWER: WELL, IT COULD HAVE BEEN 7.9 OR IT COULD HAVE BEEN 8.1. I JUST LOOKED AT THE SYRINGE AND LOOKED AT ABOUT EIGHT CC'S."

YOU ASKED US TO FIND THAT FOR YOU AND I WILL GIVE THIS TO THE CLERK, BUT ALL WE ARE ASKING TO DO, YOUR HONOR, IS TO STOP ALL OF THIS HAGGLING AND LET'S START WITH THE OPENING STATEMENTS. AND WE PREVIEWED EVERYTHING AND I THINK IT IS TIME TO RESOLVE IT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. THE OBJECTION TO THE USE OF THE VIDEOTAPE IS SUSTAINED. THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN THAT THE -- THE CONCESSION HAS BEEN THAT THESE ARE SNIPPETS AND THAT THE DEFENSE IS WILLING TO TAKE THE RISK IN ARGUMENT THAT THEY CANNOT LAY AN ACCURATE FOUNDATION. THE PROBLEM IS THAT LEADS TO THE DANGER OF MISLEADING THE JURY, AND I'M NOT WILLING TO TAKE THAT RISK DURING THE COURSE OF AN OPENING STATEMENT, SO THAT OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED. AS TO THE SOCK CHART, THE LANGUAGE THAT COMES -- THAT IS ON THE SOCK CHART COMES FROM A SUMMARY OF REPORTS AND TESTING. IT IS NOT THE REPORT ITSELF. THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED AS TO THE LANGUAGE "BLOOD SEARCH NONE OBVIOUS." IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS THE SOCK TIMELINE CHART MAY BE USED. AS TO THE CONDUCT CHART, THE OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED. THESE QUOTES -- SOME OF THESE QUOTES ARE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT AND THERE IS A DANGER OF MISLEADING THE JURY AS A RESULT, SO THAT OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, I THINK THAT -- OH, I DID NOT RULE YESTERDAY ON THE -- MRS. ROBERTSON REMINDED ME I DID NOT RULE ON THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE DEFENDANT AND FOUR LADIES IN FORMAL DRESS.

MR. DOUGLAS: MY NOTES SAY THAT THE COURT DID RULE, YOUR HONOR, THAT --

THE COURT: I DIDN'T CHECK IT OFF ON MY LIST AND MRS. ROBERTSON INDICATED I DIDN'T RULE, SO THE OBJECTION ON THAT -- AS TO THAT IS OVERRULED, SO THE RECORD IS COMPLETE. ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, THAT TAKES CARE OF THAT. LET ME JUST ADVISE COUNSEL TOMORROW ONE OF OUR SEQUESTERED JURORS HAS A MEDICAL APPOINTMENT AND WE WILL ADJOURN TOMORROW AT 3:30.

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT TIME, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: 3:30, TO ACCOMMODATE THAT. AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO TALK TO COUNSEL AT SOME POINT IN TIME REGARDING YOUR PROPOSAL REGARDING A SCENE VIEW, WHEN YOU GET THE OPPORTUNITY. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO JOIN US?

MR. HODGMAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE HAVE A MOMENT?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

THE COURT: AND THE NEW CHART WILL BE PEOPLE'S NEXT IN ORDER, A PHOTOCOPY OF THAT, FOR THE RECORD PURPOSES. ALL RIGHT. MR. HODGMAN.

(COURT'S 3 FOR ID = CHART)

MR. HODGMAN: THANK YOU AND GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, FIRST OF ALL, THERE IS A MATTER THAT WE WILL NEED TO APPROACH SIDE BAR. I THINK THE COURT CAN HANDLE IT QUICKLY, BUT IT IS A POINT OF INFORMATION I THINK ALL OF COUNSEL NEED TO KNOW BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH OPENING STATEMENTS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. HODGMAN: BEFORE WE DO THAT, YOUR HONOR, BEFORE WE DO THAT -- I'M SORRY, I WAS JUST -- YESTERDAY WE RAISED A DISCOVERY CONCERN WITH REGARD TO THE DEFENSE. THIS MORNING I HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH ANOTHER WITNESS STATEMENT FROM THE DEFENSE, A MEMORANDUM FROM A MR. WILLIAM PAVELIC DATED NOVEMBER 2ND, 1994. I HAD ASKED THE COURT YESTERDAY THAT THE COURT ORDER THAT THE DEFENSE TURN OVER ALL DISCOVERY THAT IS IN THEIR PIPELINE, SO TO SPEAK, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO BE SURPRISED ANY MORE. NOW, I HAVE ASKED MR. DOUGLAS THIS MORNING IS THIS IT? IS THERE ANY OTHER WITNESS STATEMENT THAT THEY HAVE, REGARDLESS OF AGE, AND I BELIEVE HIS RESPONSE WAS THAT HE COULD NOT BE DEFINITIVE ABOUT IT. IS THAT CORRECT, MR. DOUGLAS?

MR. DOUGLAS: NO, THAT IS NOT CORRECT.

MR. HODGMAN: I WILL LET HIM SPEAK FOR HIMSELF, BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE THE COURT TO DO IS TO REMIND THE DEFENSE OF THEIR OBLIGATION TO TURN OVER TO US WITNESS STATEMENTS TIMELY FASHIONED. WE ARE ASKING THAT EVERYTHING BE DISGORGED, AS I DID YESTERDAY, AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT ORDER MADE CLEAR FOR THE DEFENSE.

THE COURT: MR. DOUGLAS.

MR. DOUGLAS: YOUR HONOR, YESTERDAY THERE WAS A SPECIFIC REFERENCE MADE TO AN INTERVIEW OF A SCOTT MATSUDA WHOSE NAME WAS ADDED TO THE WITNESS LIST AND I SPECIFICALLY HAD ASKED MY INVESTIGATOR FOR THAT PARTICULAR REPORT AND I ASKED HIM TO CHECK AND MAKE SURE THAT NONE OF THE NAMES THAT WERE ADDED THAT THERE WERE ANY REPORTS THAT HAD NOT BEEN TURNED OVER. THAT WAS THE REPORT THAT I WAS GIVEN. THAT WAS THE REPORT THAT I TURNED OVER AND I WILL AGAIN ENDEAVOR TO REVIEW MY FILES, TO REVIEW THE FILES OF THE OTHER COUNSEL, AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE NOT ANY OTHER REPORTS STILL OUTSTANDING THAT HAVE NOT BEEN TURNED OVER. AND IF I FIND SO, I WILL GIVE THEM TO MR. HODGMAN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO REPORT BACK TO THE COURT TOMORROW MORNING, MR. DOUGLAS, AS TO THAT SEARCH.

MR. DOUGLAS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. HODGMAN, CAN WE APPROACH NOW?

MR. HODGMAN: YES.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

(PAGES 11605 THROUGH 11606, VOLUME 74A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, WE WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 10:30 AND WE WILL BEGIN OPENING STATEMENTS AT 10:30.

(RECESS.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. UELMEN, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY, PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK, MR. DARDEN AND MR. HODGMAN. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, MAY WE HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.

THE BAILIFF: YES, YOUR HONOR.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL AND THE AUDIENCE, PLEASE BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: WE ARE GOING TO BEGIN WITH THE OPENING STATEMENTS MADE BY THE LAWYERS IN THE CASE. LET ME REMIND YOU FROM MY INSTRUCTIONS TO YOU YESTERDAY THAT ANY STATEMENTS MADE TO YOU BY THE ATTORNEYS DURING THE COURSE OF THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS SUCH BY YOU. THESE OPENING STATEMENTS ARE NORMALLY GIVEN BY THE ATTORNEYS TO SORT OF GIVE YOU AN OVERALL VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY INTEND TO PRESENT. IT'S TO GIVE YOU A ROAD MAP SO TO SPEAK AS TO HOW TO EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE. THIS CASE, AS YOU KNOW, WILL BE RELATIVELY LONG. AND BY NECESSITY, SOME OF THIS EVIDENCE WILL BE PRESENTED TO YOU OUT OF CHRONOLOGICAL OR LOGICAL ORDER. SO THEY'LL NEED TO EXPLAIN TO YOU THE CASE THAT THEY INTEND TO PRESENT. ALL RIGHT. ARE BOTH SIDES PREPARED TO GO FORWARD? MR. COCHRAN?

MR. COCHRAN: WE ARE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK?

MS. CLARK: YES, WE ARE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: DO THE PEOPLE WISH TO MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT?

MS. CLARK: YES, WE DO, THANK YOU.

THE COURT: YOU MAY PROCEED. MR. DARDEN.

MR. DARDEN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

OPENING STATEMENT

BY MR. DARDEN:

YOUR HONOR, JUDGE ITO, MR. COCHRAN AND MR. SHAPIRO AND DEAN UELMEN, TO MY COLLEAGUES SEATED HERE TODAY IN FRONT OF YOU AND TO THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST IN THIS CASE, THE BROWN FAMILY, THE GOLDMAN FAMILY AND THE SIMPSON FAMILY AND TO YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, GOOD MORNING.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

MR. DARDEN: I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT I HAVE THE TOUGHEST JOB IN TOWN TODAY EXCEPT FOR THE JOB THAT YOU HAVE. YOUR JOB MAY JUST BE A LITTLE BIT TOUGHER. IT'S YOUR JOB -- LIKE MY JOB, WE BOTH HAVE A CENTRAL FOCUS, A SINGLE OBJECTIVE, AND THAT OBJECTIVE IS JUSTICE OBVIOUSLY. IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG TRIAL AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW HOW MUCH WE APPRECIATE YOUR BEING ON THE PANEL. WE APPRECIATE THE PERSONAL SACRIFICES YOU'RE MAKING BY BEING SEQUESTERED. WE UNDERSTAND THAT CAN BE DIFFICULT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR KEEPING THE PROMISES YOU MADE TO US WHEN YOU WERE SELECTED FOR THE JURY INITIALLY. YOU PROMISED TO BE FAIR AND YOU PROMISED TO BE OPEN-MINDED AND YOU PROMISED TO HEAR AND SEE AND CAREFULLY CONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE AND YOU PROMISED TO FIND THIS CASE -- TO COME TO A VERDICT IN THIS CASE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE LAW GIVEN TO YOU BY JUDGE ITO. AND YOU PROMISED TO DO THAT BASED ON THE LAW, BASED ON THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE AND NOTHING ELSE. YOU PROMISED US THAT YOU HAD NO HIDDEN AGENDA, THAT YOU ONLY WANTED TO SEE JUSTICE DONE AND YOU PROMISED US THAT YOU WOULD DO EVERYTHING YOU COULD UNDER THE LAW TO SEE THAT JUSTICE WAS DONE. AND SO I THANK YOU FOR THAT AND I THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR THE VERDICT YOU WILL AT SOME POINT RENDER IN THIS CASE. NOW, WE'RE HERE TODAY OBVIOUSLY TO RESOLVE AN ISSUE, TO SETTLE A QUESTION, A QUESTION THAT HAS BEEN ON THE MINDS OF PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY THESE LAST SEVEN MONTHS. IT CERTAINLY HAS BEEN ON THE MINDS OF MY PEOPLE UP IN RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA AND FRIENDS IN FAYETTEVILLE, GEORGIA AND ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY. EVERYBODY WANTS TO KNOW AND EVERYBODY I KNOW OFTEN POSE A QUESTION TO ME, DID O.J. SIMPSON REALLY KILL NICOLE BROWN AND RONALD GOLDMAN. WELL, FINALLY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I AM HERE IN FRONT OF YOU THIS MORNING TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. AND WE'LL ANSWER THAT QUESTION FROM THE WITNESS STAND AND FROM THE EXHIBITS YOU'LL SEE IN THIS CASE AND FROM THE EVIDENCE. AND WHEN YOU SEE THE EVIDENCE AND WHEN YOU HEAR THE WITNESSES AND WHEN YOU PUT IT ALL TOGETHER AND CONSIDER THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE, THE ANSWER WILL BE CLEAR TO YOU AS WELL. THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS YES. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS YES, O.J. SIMPSON MURDERED NICOLE BROWN AND RONALD GOLDMAN. AND I'M SURE YOU WILL BE WONDERING WHY AS THE TRIAL PROCEEDS ON AND I'M SURE YOU ARE WONDERING WHY RIGHT NOW. AS THE JUDGE INSTRUCTED YOU ALREADY, OPENING STATEMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. OPENING STATEMENTS ARE GIVEN BY LAWYERS. AND IN AN OPENING STATEMENT, WE INFORM THE JURY OF WHAT WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW IN THIS CASE, WHAT WE BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW. BUT WE'RE LAWYERS. WE'RE NOT WITNESSES. WE'RE NOT UNDER OATH. NOTHING WE SAY IS EVIDENCE. THE THINGS WE SAY TO YOU TODAY ARE NOT THE THINGS THAT YOU SHOULD CARRY INTO THE JURY ROOM AND INTO DELIBERATIONS. YOU SHOULD CARRY INTO THE JURY ROOM AND INTO YOUR DELIBERATIONS THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, THE TESTIMONY FROM THE WITNESS STAND, THE EXHIBITS ADMITTED AT TRIAL, THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO YOU BY THE COURT. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THAT, WHEN YOU GO BACK AND REFLECT ON THE TESTIMONY AND THE EXHIBITS AND EVERYTHING YOU HEARD AND SAW IN THIS CASE, YOU WILL KNOW WHY HE KILLED NICOLE BROWN AND RONALD GOLDMAN. AND WHEN I GIVE YOU THE ANSWER, AS I HAVE, YOU STOP AND CONSIDER AND THINK WHY WOULD HE DO IT, WHY WOULD HE DO IT, NOT O.J. SIMPSON, NOT THE O.J. SIMPSON WE THINK WE KNOW, NOT THE O.J. SIMPSON WE'VE SEEN OVER THE YEARS. BUT THAT IS ANOTHER QUESTION, AND THAT QUESTION IS, DO YOU KNOW O.J. SIMPSON. WE'VE SEEN HIM PLAY FOOTBALL FOR USC. WE WATCHED HIM THRASH UCLA PLAYING THE ROSE BOWL. WE WATCHED HIM WIN THE HEISMAN TROPHY. HE MAY BE THE BEST RUNNING BACK IN THE HISTORY OF THE NFL. WE WATCHED HIM LEAP TURNSTILES AND CHAIRS AND RUN TO AIRPLANES IN THE HERTZ COMMERCIALS AND WE WATCHED HIM WITH A 15-INCH AFRO IN NAKED GUN 33-1/2 AND WE'VE SEEN HIM TIME AND TIME AGAIN AND WE CAME TO THINK THAT WE KNOW HIM. WHAT WE'VE BEEN SEEING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS THE PUBLIC FACE, THE PUBLIC PERSONA, THE FACE OF THE ATHLETE, THE FACE OF THE ACTOR. IT IS NOT THE ACTOR WHO IS ON TRIAL HERE TODAY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. IT IS NOT THAT PUBLIC FACE. IT IS HIS OTHER FACE LIKE MANY MEN IN PUBLIC. LIKE MANY PUBLIC MEN, THEY HAVE A PUBLIC IMAGE, A PUBLIC PERSONA, A PUBLIC SIDE, A PUBLIC LIFE AND THEY ALSO HAVE A PRIVATE SIDE, A PRIVATE LIFE, A PRIVATE FACE. AND THAT IS THE FACE WE WILL EXPOSE TO YOU IN THIS TRIAL, THE OTHER SIDE OF O.J. SIMPSON, THE SIDE YOU NEVER MET BEFORE. WE WILL EXPOSE IN THIS TRIAL AND SHOW TO YOU IN THIS TRIAL THAT OTHER FACE, THE FACE HE WORE BEHIND THE LOCKS AND THE GATES AND THE WALL AT ROCKINGHAM, THAT OTHER FACE, THE ONE THAT NICOLE BROWN ENCOUNTERED ALMOST EVERY DAY OF HER ADULT LIFE, THE ONE SHE ENCOUNTERED DURING THE LAST MOMENTS OF HER ADULT LIFE; THE SAME FACE RONALD GOLDMAN ENCOUNTERED DURING THE LAST MOMENTS OF HIS LIFE. WHEN WE LOOK UPON AND LOOK BEHIND THAT PUBLIC FACE, THE PUBLIC FACE OF THE MAN WHO SITS HERE IN COURT TODAY, YOU'LL SEE A DIFFERENT FACE. AND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE FACE YOU WILL SEE AND THE MAN THAT YOU WILL SEE WILL BE THE FACE OF A BATTERER, A WIFE BEATER, AN ABUSER, A CONTROLLER. YOU'LL SEE THE FACE OF RON -- OF RON'S AND NICOLE'S MURDERER. TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED AT BUNDY, WE NEED TO EXAMINE THIS DEFENDANT'S RELATIONSHIP WITH NICOLE. BECAUSE WHEN WE DO, WE CAN DISCERN FROM THAT, WE CAN SEE A MOTIVE, WE CAN SEE HIS MOTIVE FOR KILLING HIS EX-WIFE. AND I SUBMIT TO YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT AS THE TRIAL PROCEEDS ON AND AS YOU HEAR THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, THAT MOTIVE WILL BECOME CLEAR. HE KILLED NICOLE FOR A SINGLE REASON. NOT BECAUSE HE HATED HER. HE DIDN'T HATE NICOLE. HE DIDN'T KILL HER BECAUSE HE DIDN'T LOVE HER ANYMORE, BECAUSE IN HIS MIND, IN HIS MIND, HE DID. HE KILLED HER FOR A REASON ALMOST AS OLD AS MANKIND ITSELF. HE KILLED HER OUT OF JEALOUSY. HE KILLED HER BECAUSE HE COULDN'T HAVE HER; AND IF HE COULDN'T HAVE HER, HE DIDN'T WANT ANYBODY ELSE TO HAVE HER. HE KILLED HER TO CONTROL HER. CONTROL IS A CONTINUING THING. IT WAS A CONTINUING THING, THE CENTRAL FOCUS OF THEIR ENTIRE RELATIONSHIP. BY KILLING NICOLE, THIS DEFENDANT ASSUMED TOTAL CONTROL OVER HER. BY KILLING HER, HE COMMITTED THE ULTIMATE ACT OF CONTROL. BY KILLING HER, NO ONE ELSE COULD HAVE HER, NO ONE BUT HIM. AND HE KILLED RON GOLDMAN. AND HE KILLED RON GOLDMAN FOR ANOTHER REASON. HE KILLED RON GOLDMAN BECAUSE HE GOT IN THE WAY. HE KILLED NICOLE BECAUSE HE HAD A PROBLEM WITH HER AS MEN AND WOMEN SOMETIMES DO HAVE IN A RELATIONSHIP. THEY HAVE A PROBLEM. AND THIS DEFENDANT'S PROBLEM, THE MAN IN THE COURTROOM -- I THINK HE STATED HIS PROBLEM RATHER ELOQUENTLY AT HER WAKE AS HE STOOD OVER HER BODY AT HER WAKE, AND HE SAID THEN AND HE SAID ON OTHER OCCASIONS, AND I QUOTE, HE SAID WHILE STANDING OVER THAT CASKET, WHILE STANDING OVER NICOLE'S BODY, "MY PROBLEM WAS THAT I LOVED YOU TOO MUCH." BUT IT WASN'T REALLY LOVE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND THIS WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE EVIDENCE AND THE EVIDENCE WILL ESTABLISH THIS, THAT IT WASN'T REALLY LOVE. WHAT THIS DEFENDANT HAD FOR NICOLE BROWN WASN'T LOVE. IT WAS OBSESSION. HE BECAME OBSESSED WITH HER, AND HIS OBSESSION WAS SO GREAT THAT HE DEVELOPED A NEED TO CONTROL HER. AND HIS NEED TO CONTROL AND HIS FEELINGS OF OBSESSION AND HIS OBSESSION WAS SO GREAT THAT WHEN HE CAME TO REALIZE THAT HE COULD NOT KEEP HER, HE KILLED HER BECAUSE TO LET HER GO WOULD MEAN TO LOSE CONTROL OF HER. TO LET HER GO WITH RON GOLDMAN OR SOMEONE ELSE WOULD MEAN TO LOSE CONTROL. HE COULDN'T HAVE HER AND NEITHER COULD ANYONE ELSE. NOW, THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WILL ESTABLISH THAT THE MAN IN THE COURTROOM, THIS DEFENDANT IS AN EXTREMELY CONTROLLING AND POSSESSIVE MAN. AND AS I SAID BEFORE, CONTROL AND POSSESSIVENESS WAS A SINGLE DOMINANT THING THROUGHOUT THEIR RELATIONSHIP. AND HE CONTROLLED HER IN A VARIETY OF WAYS. HE CONTROLLED HER FINANCIALLY. AND WHEN THE DEFENDANT AND NICOLE FIRST MET, SHE WAS BARELY 18 YEARS OLD. HE WAS ALMOST 30. SHE SHARED AN APARTMENT. HE OWNED A MANSION. SHE WAITED TABLES AT A RESTAURANT. HE WAS A MILLIONAIRE. NO ONE HAD EVER HEARD OF NICOLE BROWN, BUT HE WAS ONE OF THE MOST RECOGNIZED MEN IN AMERICA. BUT AFTER HE MET HER, HE SLOWLY BEGAN TO CONTROL HER. SHE SHARED AN APARTMENT WITH A FRIEND. HE GOT HER HER OWN APARTMENT. HE BOUGHT HER THINGS. HE GAVE HER THINGS. BY THE TIME SHE WAS 19, SHE WAS DRIVING A PORSCHE. HE GOT IT FOR HER. HE BEGAN TO GAIN CONTROL OVER HER. AND THROUGHOUT THE YEARS, THROUGHOUT THEIR RELATIONSHIP, HE MAINTAINED THAT ECONOMIC CONTROL OVER HER, THAT FINANCIAL CONTROL. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT NICOLE NEVER REALLY HELD A JOB. SHE NEVER REALLY WORKED. SHE NEVER REALLY OPERATED A BUSINESS. SHE NEVER HAD AN INCOME REALLY OF HER OWN. THROUGHOUT HER ENTIRE ADULT LIFE, THIS MAN, DEFENDANT IN THE COURTROOM, HELD HER PURSE STRINGS IN HER LIFE. WHATEVER MONEY SHE GOT, WHATEVER MATERIAL POSSESSIONS SHE GOT, SHE GOT FROM THE DEFENDANT. PEOPLE CAN SOMETIMES BE BOUGHT. AND YOUNG PEOPLE SOMETIMES CAN BE EASILY MISLED. NICOLE WAS A VERY YOUNG WOMAN IF A WOMAN AT ALL WHEN SHE FIRST MET THIS DEFENDANT, THE MAN SEATED IN THE COURTROOM. AND AS THE YEARS WENT ON AND AS THEY CONTINUED TO DATE AND AS HE GAINED MORE AND MORE CONTROL OVER HER, THE MORE CONTROL HE GAINED, THE MORE ABUSIVE HE BECAME. AS YOU LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, YOU'RE GOING TO BE HEARING EVIDENCE REGARDING DOMESTIC ABUSE, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, STALKING, INTIMIDATION, PHYSICAL ABUSE, WIFE BEATING, PUBLIC HUMILIATION. AS YOU LISTEN TO THE TRIAL AND AS YOU HEAR THIS EVIDENCE AND SEE THIS EVIDENCE, PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT KINDS OF ABUSE WERE ALL DIFFERENT METHODS TO CONTROL HER. LET ME PROCEED ON. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW IN THIS CASE THAT HE ABUSED HER MENTALLY. HE STRIPPED HER OF HER SELF ESTEEM. THIS DEFENDANT DICTATED THE WAY NICOLE WOULD DRESS. HE DICTATED THE WAY SHE WOULD WEAR HER HAIR. AND WHEN HE DIDN'T LIKE HER APPEARANCE, HE WOULD CRITICIZE HER, HE WOULD HUMILIATE HER TO THE POINT WHERE SHE WOULD CRY. IF HE DIDN'T LIKE HER SHOES, HE WOULD GO OUT AND BUY SHOES. "THIS IS WHAT I WANT YOU TO WEAR. WEAR THIS. LOOK LIKE THIS." SHE WAS NOT A BARBIE DOLL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT HE WAS SO CONTROLLING THAT HE ATTEMPTED TO DEFINE HER IDENTITY. HE ATTEMPTED TO DEFINE WHO SHE WAS. WHEN SHE WAS PREGNANT AND PUT ON WEIGHT, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THIS DEFENDANT WAS SO ABUSIVE THAT HE CALLED HER NAMES. HE CALLED HER FAT. HE CALLED HER A PIG. AND HE DID THIS IN THE PRESENCE OF HER FAMILY AND IN THE PRESENCE OF HER FRIENDS AND HE HUMILIATED HER. THAT IS THE FACE WE INTEND TO EXPOSE IN THIS TRIAL. THAT'S THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS DEFENDANT WE'RE GOING TO SHOW YOU IN THIS TRIAL. AND BY DOING THESE THINGS AND BY HURTLING THESE INSULTS, HE STRIPPED HER OF HER SELF ESTEEM. AND WHEN YOU'RE CONTROLLING SOMEONE FINANCIALLY AND WHEN THEY HAVE NO SELF ESTEEM AND WHEN THEY HAVE NO IDENTITY, YOU HAVE THEM, YOU CONTROL THEM. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THIS DEFENDANT, THIS MAN IN THE COURTROOM WAS A VERY CONTROLLING AND POSSESSIVE MAN AND THAT THE DOMINANT THING THROUGHOUT THEIR RELATIONSHIP WAS HIS CONTROL OF NICOLE BROWN. BUT HE DID MORE. HE DID MORE THAN JUST DEMEAN HER IN THE PRESENCE OF OTHERS. HE ATTEMPTED TO ISOLATE HER SOMETIMES FROM SOME PEOPLE. WHEN CERTAIN MEN CAME AROUND, HE BECAME JEALOUS AND HE BECAME SO JEALOUS THAT HE GOT TO THE POINT WHERE SHE WOULD NOT AGREE OR WANT TO BE AROUND CERTAIN MEN BECAUSE SHE WAS CONCERNED THAT HE MIGHT GET JEALOUS BY THEIR MERE PRESENCE. AND AS TIME WENT ON AND AS HE BECAME JEALOUS AND MORE AND MORE JEALOUS, HE EVEN INSISTED THAT SHE NOT BE AROUND CERTAIN MEN. HE BEGAN TO ISOLATE HER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WHEN HER FRIENDS CAME AROUND, HER GIRLFRIENDS CAME AROUND AND WHEN HE FELT THAT SHE WAS SPENDING TOO MUCH TIME WITH THOSE GIRLFRIENDS, HE TALKED TO THE GIRLFRIENDS. HE LET THEM KNOW. HE DIDN'T LIKE THEM HANGING AROUND. HE DISSUADED HER GIRLFRIENDS FROM HANGING AROUND. HE ATTEMPTED TO ISOLATE HER FROM OTHER PEOPLE. AND WHEN YOU ISOLATE SOMEONE AND WHEN YOU HAVE ECONOMIC CONTROL OVER SOMEONE AND WHEN YOU STRIP SOMEONE OF THEIR SELF ESTEEM AND WHEN YOU ESTABLISH THEIR IDENTITY, YOU HAVE THEM. THEY'RE YOURS. YOU CAN CONTROL THEM. AND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW IN THIS CASE THAT THIS MAN IS AN EXTREMELY POSSESSIVE AND CONTROLLING INDIVIDUAL AND THAT HE IS AN EXTREMELY POSSESSIVE INDIVIDUAL WHEN IT CAME TO NICOLE, AND HIS OBSESSION WAS MANIFESTED BY THE THINGS HE DID TOWARD CONTROLLING HER. BY DEMEANING HER AND CONTROLLING THE PURSE STRINGS AND ISOLATING HER AND DEFINING WHO SHE WOULD SEE AND WHO SHE WOULDN'T SEE AND WHO HER FRIENDS WOULD BE AND WHO THEY WOULD NOT BE WASN'T ALL THIS DEFENDANT DID TO CONTROL THIS WOMAN. THERE ARE MORE POWERFUL FORMS OF CONTROL. THERE'S FORCE, THERE'S VIOLENCE, THERE'S FEAR, THERE'S INTIMIDATION. AND YOU WILL HEAR TESTIMONY, YOU WILL SEE EVIDENCE THAT IN HIS QUEST TO CONTROL NICOLE, THIS DEFENDANT USED ALL THESE THINGS. HE USED FEAR, HE USED INTIMIDATION AND HE USED VIOLENCE. AND HE INSTILLED SUCH A FEAR IN HER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU'LL HEAR TESTIMONY THAT HE COULD WALK INTO A ROOM -- HE WOULD WALK INTO A ROOM, AND NICOLE WOULD BE THERE, AND A MOMENT BEFORE HE WALKED IN, SHE WOULD JUST BE THE MOST CHARMING INDIVIDUAL THAT THERE IS, RELAXED; BUT WHEN HE WALKED IN, HER DEMEANOR CHANGED COMPLETELY. AS TIME WENT ON, HIS MERE PRESENCE BECAME INTIMIDATING TO HER. I MENTIONED EARLIER THAT THEY MET WHEN SHE WAS AROUND 18 YEARS OLD BACK IN 1977, AND THEY DATED FOR EIGHT YEARS AND THEY EVENTUALLY MARRIED IN 1985. AND THE MARRIAGE WAS A STORMY MARRIAGE AND IT WAS A MARRIAGE PUNCTUATED BY ACTS OF VIOLENCE. AND THAT VIOLENCE WOULD ALWAYS BE FOLLOWED BY AN APOLOGY. HE WOULD APOLOGIZE, GIVE HER JEWELRY, BUY HER FLOWERS. HE WOULD PROMISE TO DO BETTER, PROMISE, PROMISE TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OF HIMSELF AND HE WOULD PROMISE NOT TO DO IT AGAIN. AND THEN THOSE ACTS OF VIOLENCE WOULD BE FOLLOWED BY ADDITIONAL ACTS OF VIOLENCE, AND IT BECAME A CYCLE; VIOLENCE, APOLOGIES, A PERIOD OF QUIET AND CALM, THEN VIOLENCE AND APOLOGIES, QUIET AND CALM, VIOLENCE, APOLOGIES, QUIET, CALM. A CYCLE OF VIOLENCE CHARACTERIZED THEIR RELATIONSHIP. IT CHARACTERIZED THEIR MARRIAGE. AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT'S -- THAT'S A DIFFICULT TOPIC BECAUSE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS BEHIND THE GATES AND THE WALLS. IT HAPPENS IN THE BEDROOM AND INSIDE THE HOME AND PLACES WHERE THE PUBLIC CAN'T SEE. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A PRIVATE AFFAIR GENERALLY WHILE IT'S OCCURRING, AND SO IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE, TO GAIN PROOF THAT THE VIOLENCE OCCURRED AND IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE AND GAIN PROOF THAT THE RELATIONSHIP IS A VIOLENT RELATIONSHIP. BUT WE DO HAVE THAT PROOF. WE DO HAVE PROOF. WE DO HAVE EVIDENCE. YOU WILL HEAR TESTIMONY FROM WITNESSES IN THIS CASE, AND THEY WILL DISCUSS THE VIOLENT RELATIONSHIP, THE VIOLENT MARRIAGE THIS DEFENDANT HAD WITH NICOLE BROWN. IN 1985, THE POLICE RESPONDED TO THE DEFENDANT'S HOME ON ROCKINGHAM IN RESPONSE TO A CALL. AND WHEN THEY ARRIVED, THEY WERE MET BY NICOLE. SHE WAS CRYING, SHE WAS UPSET AND HER FACE WAS PUFFY AND SHE WAS NEAR HYSTERICS. SHE TOLD THESE PEOPLE, SHE SAID, "WE HAD A FIGHT. AFTER THE FIGHT, I WAS TRYING TO LEAVE. AND WHEN I TRIED TO LEAVE, THE DEFENDANT GRABBED A BASEBALL BAT, AND HE TOOK THAT BASEBALL BAT AND HE SMASHED THE WINDSHIELD TO MY CAR." THIS IS 1985. AND AS THEY LOOKED AROUND, THESE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, THEY LOOKED TO THE RIGHT AND THEY SAW A WHITE 450SL MERCEDES BENZ, AND THE WINDSHIELD WAS SMASHED OUT. JUST THEN, THE DEFENDANT CAME OUT OF THE HOUSE AND HE OFFERED AN EXPLANATION. WELL, THE POLICE DIDN'T ARREST HIM. THEY LEFT. THEY LEFT NICOLE THERE. THEY LEFT THE DEFENDANT THERE. AND THAT ISN'T AN ACT OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE TOWARD NICOLE, IS IT, OR IS IT? MAYBE IT IS. NICOLE BROWN WAS THERE TO WITNESS THIS ACT, THIS VIOLENCE ON HER VEHICLE. AND IF YOU'RE MARRIED TO SOMEONE AND YOU LOVE SOMEONE AND YOU HAVE A FIGHT WITH THEM AND THEY TAKE A BASEBALL BAT AND THEY DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO ONE OF YOUR PRIZED POSSESSIONS, COULD IT BE, COULD IT BE THAT THEY ARE SENDING A MESSAGE? THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THIS WAS A MESSAGE. IT WAS AN INDICATION, IT WAS A WARNING AS TO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN NEXT. IT WAS A WARNING THAT WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS MERCEDES BENZ COULD JUST AS WELL HAPPEN TO YOU. AND IT DID HAPPEN TO NICOLE. NOT WITH THE BASEBALL BAT; BUT JUST LIKE THAT MERCEDES GOT SMASHED AND DENTED, SO DID NICOLE. YOU WILL BE HEARING EVIDENCE, YOU WILL BE HEARING TESTIMONY, YOU WILL BE SEEING WITNESSES IN THIS CASE REGARDING AN INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED ON JANUARY 1, 1989. IT WAS ALMOST 4:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING ON JANUARY 1ST WHEN THE 911 OPERATOR RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL FROM ROCKINGHAM. AND THAT OPERATOR WILL BE HERE TO TESTIFY IN COURT AND THAT OPERATOR WILL BE HERE TO AUTHENTICATE THE TAPE OF THAT 911 CALL FROM ROCKINGHAM. AND WHEN THE OPERATOR APPEARS AND WHEN THE TAPE IS PLAYED, LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY, BECAUSE IF YOU LISTEN CAREFULLY, IN THE BACKGROUND, YOU WILL HEAR A WOMAN SCREAMING AND YOU WILL HEAR SOMETHING ELSE. YOU WILL HEAR THE SOUND OF THIS DEFENDANT, THIS MAN BEATING THIS WOMAN. YOU WILL HEAR THE SOUND OF HIS HAND SMACKING ACROSS HER FACE. YOU WILL HEAR THE SOUND OF THIS DEFENDANT BEATING HIS WIFE. WHEN THE POLICE ARRIVED, THEY ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM IN RESPONSE TO THAT TELEPHONE CALL. AND NICOLE NEVER GOT TO TELL THE 911 OPERATOR THAT, "COME AND HELP ME," OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. ALL SHE DID WAS SCREAM. AND THE OPERATOR COULD HEAR HER SCREAMING AND THE OPERATOR COULD HEAR HER BEING BEATEN, AND SHE ADVISED LAPD UNITS TO RESPOND TO 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM. "WE CAN HEAR THE SOUND OF A WOMAN BEING BEATEN NOW, RIGHT NOW." AND THE OFFICERS ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM A SHORT TIME LATER. AND WHEN THEY DID, THEY RANG THE BUZZER TO THE SECURITY GATE. AND AS THEY DID SO, THEY SAW SOMEONE RUN FROM THE BUSHES, RUN FROM THE DARKNESS IN THEIR DIRECTION. AND THE PERSON THAT THEY SAW WAS NICOLE. AND NICOLE CAME RUNNING OUT OF THE DARKNESS WEARING NOTHING BUT SWEAT PANTS AND A BRA RUNNING TOWARDS THE OFFICERS, AND SHE WAS COVERED WITH MUD AND SHE WAS DIRTY, SHE WAS FILTHY. AND SHE RAN TOWARDS THE OFFICERS. AND AS SHE RAN TOWARDS THE OFFICERS, SHE WAS SHOUTING AND YELLING, "HE'S GOING TO KILL ME. HE'S GOING TO KILL ME." AND THE OFFICERS STOOD THERE. THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO. IT'S 4:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. SHE IS OUT THERE IN HER BRA AND SWEAT PANTS COVERED WITH MUD. THEY JUST GOT A CALL, THERE'S A WOMAN AT ROCKINGHAM BEING BEATEN NOW. SHE COMES RUNNING OUT OF THE DARKNESS OUT OF THE MUD AND OUT OF THE BUSHES, AND SHE PUSHES A BUTTON TO THE SECURITY GATE AND SHE RUNS THROUGH THE GATE AND SHE COLLAPSES IN THE ARMS OF THE OFFICER. THE ENTIRE TIME, SHE IS YELLING, "HE'S GOING TO KILL ME. HE'S GOING TO KILL ME." AND THE OFFICER SAID, "WHO'S GOING TO KILL YOU?" SHE SAID, "O.J. IS GOING TO KILL ME." AND THE OFFICERS LOOKED, THEY LOOKED AT NICOLE. HER EYE WAS SWOLLEN, BRUISED, HER LIP WAS CUT. ONE OF THE OFFICERS, THE SENIOR OFFICER THERE, HE LOOKED AT HER NECK; AND WHAT HE SAW STARTLED HIM. ON HER NECK, HE COULD SEE THE IMPRINT OF A HAND, THE IMPRINT OF A HAND AROUND HER NECK. IT WAS THEN THAT THE DEFENDANT CAME OUT OF THE HOUSE. HE WAS WEARING NOTHING BUT HIS BATHROBE. AND HE DID NOT ADDRESS HIS WIFE AT THE TIME AND HE DID NOT ASK THE POLICE HOW SHE WAS DOING OR IF SHE WAS OKAY. AND WHAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW AND WHAT YOU WILL HEAR IN THIS CASE IS THAT HE DEMEANED AND HUMILIATED HER EVEN MORE. HE SHOUTED TO THE OFFICERS IN THE PRESENCE OF NICOLE, HIS WIFE, "I'VE GOT TWO WOMEN NOW. I DON'T NEED THAT ONE. I DON'T WANT THAT ONE IN MY BED ANYMORE." THIS WAS HIS WIFE, AND THIS IS WHAT HE SAID TO THESE OFFICERS, THESE STRANGERS TO HIM. THIS IS WHAT HE SHOUTED OUT TO THE POLICE. THE OFFICERS WERE ON ONE SIDE OF THE GATE, OF THE WALL AND THE DEFENDANT AT THAT TIME WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE. AND THE OFFICERS SAID, "MR. SIMPSON, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PLACE YOU UNDER ARREST. IT APPEARS THAT YOUR WIFE HAS BEEN BEATEN. SO PLEASE GO BACK INTO THE HOUSE AND PUT ON SOME CLOTHES AND COME WITH US. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE YOU TO THE STATION." WELL, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THAT DID NOT SIT WELL WITH THIS DEFENDANT, AND HE RESPONDED, "THE POLICE HAVE BEEN HERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE, AND NOW YOU'RE GOING TO ARREST ME FOR THIS?" EIGHT TIMES. THAT'S WHAT THE DEFENDANT SAID. THE POLICE HAD BEEN THERE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE? AND AS HE SAID, "YOU'RE GOING TO ARREST ME FOR THIS," THE DEFENDANT TOLD THE OFFICERS, "THIS IS A FAMILY MATTER." THAT'S WHAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW. THE DEFENDANT SAID TO THE OFFICERS, "THIS IS A FAMILY MATTER." AND HE ASKED, "WHY DO YOU WANT TO MAKE SUCH A BIG DEAL OUT OF IT? WE CAN HANDLE IT." THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE OFFICERS DID NOT LIKE THE WAY HE HAD HANDLED THINGS UP TO THAT POINT, AND THEY INSISTED THAT HE GET DRESSED AND THEY TOLD HIM THAT HE WAS UNDER ARREST AND THAT THEY WERE GOING TO TAKE HIM TO THE STATION. WELL, THIS WAS O.J. SIMPSON. AND HE DID GET DRESSED, BUT HE DIDN'T GO TO THE POLICE STATION. HE JUMPED IN HIS BENTLEY, HE SPED AWAY, THEY CHASED AFTER HIM, THEY DIDN'T CATCH HIM AND HE GOT AWAY. THE NEXT DAY, HE WENT TO THE ROSE BOWL. BUT DESPITE THIS, DESPITE '89, WHAT HAPPENED JANUARY 1, '89, DESPITE THE MERCEDES BENZ INCIDENT IN 1985, SHE STAYED. SHE STAYED WITH HIM. AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING AND THE EVIDENCE WON'T SUGGEST THAT EVERY DAY OF THEIR MARRIAGE OR THEIR RELATIONSHIP WAS STORMY, ROCKY AND FILLED WITH VIOLENCE. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE SUGGESTING HERE. WHAT WE ARE SUGGESTING, AND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, THAT THERE WAS A CYCLE OF VIOLENCE, A CYCLE OF VIOLENCE; AND THE DOMINANT THEME IN THAT RELATIONSHIP AND IN THAT CYCLE AND THE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE WAS ALWAYS CONTROL, CONTROL. WELL, AFTER THE '89 INCIDENT, AFTER THAT NIGHT, THEIR RELATIONSHIP CHANGED SOMEWHAT. SHE WAS CONCERNED AND THE DEFENDANT WAS CONCERNED. THE DEFENDANT IS A PUBLIC MAN, AND HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT HIS PUBLIC IMAGE. AND IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AND IN THE PUBLIC MEDIA BACK IN 1989, HE WAS INTERVIEWED BY ROY FIRESTONE ON ESPN. AND DURING THAT INTERVIEW, MR. FIRESTONE ASKED THE DEFENDANT ABOUT THAT INCIDENT ON THE MORNING OF JANUARY 1, AND THE DEFENDANT DOWNPLAYED IT. HE MINIMIZED THINGS, FLUFFED IT OVER. AND YOU'LL HEAR AND SEE THAT INTERVIEW. AND IN THAT INTERVIEW, THE DEFENDANT SAID IT WAS SORT OF A MUTUAL WRESTLING MATCH, SHE WAS WRONG, HE WAS WRONG, TA DA, NO BIG DEAL, AND THAT'S WHAT HE SAID TO THE PRESS AND TO THE PUBLIC. HE MINIMIZED THINGS. BUT YOU'LL HEAR TESTIMONY FROM INVESTIGATORS EMPLOYED WITH THE D.A.'S OFFICE AND THEY'LL TELL YOU ABOUT A DAY JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO WHEN THEY DRILLED A HOLE IN THE SAFE DEPOSIT BOX, NICOLE'S SAFE DEPOSIT BOX, AND THEY'LL TELL YOU ABOUT THE DAY THAT THEY RECOVERED PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN FROM NICOLE'S INCIDENT BACK IN '89 AND THEY'LL ALSO TELL YOU ABOUT THE RECOVERY OF SOME LETTERS THE DEFENDANT WROTE TO NICOLE AFTER THE 1989 BEATING. AND YOU'LL SEE THOSE LETTERS. THEY'LL BE HERE. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO READ THEM. AND YOU'LL NOTE THAT THE ACCOUNT THE DEFENDANT GAVE THE PRESS AND THE MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC WAS NOT THE SAME ACCOUNT HE GAVE NICOLE IN THOSE LETTERS DURING THAT APOLOGY PHASE, THE APOLOGY PHASE, THE CONTRITION PHASE, THE PHASE HE WAS GOING THROUGH. IN THE LETTER HE WROTE TO NICOLE, HE APOLOGIZED FOR HURTING HER. IN THE LETTER HE WROTE TO NICOLE, HE ADMITTED HE HAD LOST CONTROL. AND IN THE LETTER TO NICOLE, HE SAID THE SAME OLD THING HE'S BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG; AND THAT IS THAT, "I WILL DO BETTER. WE CAN GET THROUGH THIS." AND THAT HAPPENS IN BAD RELATIONSHIPS AND IN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS, DOESN'T IT? THINGS GET BAD, BAD THINGS HAPPEN. IT'S ALWAYS SOMEBODY'S FAULT, BUT NOBODY WANTS TO TAKE THE BLAME. AND IN THIS SITUATION, AND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT WHAT THE DEFENDANT DID WAS, HE MADE THESE PROMISES. HE SORT OF ROPED HER BACK IN. YOU KNOW HOW IT IS IN A BAD RELATIONSHIP, "I'LL DO BETTER. HERE'S A GIFT. I'M SORRY." THEY JUST ROPE YOU BACK INTO IT. AND IF YOU ARE THE OTHER PERSON IN NICOLE'S POSITION AS SHE WAS -- AND THIS WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE EVIDENCE -- SHE WANTED TO BELIEVE, SHE WANTED TO BELIEVE THAT HER MARRIAGE COULD SURVIVE. SHE WANTED TO HAVE HOPE, AND HE GAVE HER HOPE FOR A WHILE BECAUSE THIS IS A CYCLE. AND SO HE BEAT HER UP ON JANUARY 1. HE ADMITTED TO HER PRIVATELY IN HIS LETTERS THAT HE WAS RESPONSIBLE, AND HE APOLOGIZED AND HE GAVE HER THINGS AND HE TRIED TO MAKE IT ALL BETTER, AND HE GAVE HER HOPE AND HE ROPED HER BACK IN, AND SHE STAYED. SHE STAYED BECAUSE SHE HAD HOPE AND BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO BELIEVE THAT JANUARY 1, 1989 WOULD BE THE LAST TIME THAT HE WOULD ABUSE HER PHYSICALLY OR MENTALLY. AS YOU HEAR THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, SOMETHING VERY SAD BECOMES VERY APPARENT. THEY MET WHEN SHE WAS 18 AND HE WAS ALMOST 30, AND IN 1992, THEY DIVORCED. SHE WAS ONLY 33 YEARS OLD AND SHE DIED WHEN SHE WAS ALMOST 35. THROUGHOUT HER ADULT LIFE, THROUGHOUT MOST OF HER ADULT LIFE, HER CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP WAS DEFINED BY THIS DEFENDANT. THAT WAS ADULT LOVE. HER NOTION OF ADULT LOVE FOR 15 YEARS WAS WHAT THIS DEFENDANT GAVE HER, AND HE ABUSED HER THROUGHOUT THAT RELATIONSHIP. AS I SAID BEFORE, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES YOU GET ROPED IN. PEOPLE GET ROPED IN. NICOLE GOT ROPED IN BY THE DEFENDANT, AND SHE STAYED AND SHE STAYED. AND PEOPLE STAY IN THOSE SITUATIONS, THOSE ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS FOR YEARS AND YEARS UNTIL ONE OR TWO THINGS HAPPEN; ONE, THEY JUST CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE, OR, TWO, UNTIL THEY JUST CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE AND THEY WAKE UP TO REALITY. AND FINALLY, IN 1992, NICOLE WOKE UP TO THE REALITY OF HER SITUATION, AND IN JANUARY 1992, SHE MOVED FROM ROCKINGHAM, SHE LEFT THE DEFENDANT AND SHE FILED FOR DIVORCE. WELL, THIS DID NOT SIT WELL WITH THIS DEFENDANT AND THIS WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE EVIDENCE. HE DID NOT LIKE THIS. HE DID NOT LIKE THE FACT THAT NICOLE WAS LEAVING HIS HOUSE GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE TO LIVE IN HER OWN HOUSE AWAY FROM HIM. THERE IS THAT ISSUE OF CONTROL. HOW COULD HE CONTROL HER? SHE WASN'T RIGHT THERE WITH HIM. AND HE DIDN'T TAKE IT WELL AND HE LOST 20 TO 25 POUNDS LIKE THAT (SNAPS FINGERS). AND ALSO AND ALMOST ON A DAILY BASIS, HE WOULD CALL HER SISTERS, DOMINIQUE AND TONYA AND DENISE, AND HE WOULD CALL HER MOTHER AND HER FATHER SOMETIMES CRYING ON THE TELEPHONE AND HE WOULD CALL THEM AND HE WOULD WINE TO THEM AND, YOU KNOW, AND HE WOULD TELL THEM HOW MUCH HE LOVED HER AND WANTED HER BACK. HE WOULD USE THEM TO TRY AND ROPE HER BACK IN. WELL, SHE COULDN'T LET HIM GO, NOT COMPLETELY. AND HOW COULD SHE? SHE HAD BEEN UNDER HIS CONTROL FOR 15 OR 16 YEARS. AND SO SHE DIDN'T GO TOO FAR. SHE RENTED A HOUSE IN BRENTWOOD ON GRETNA GREEN. THEY SAW EACH OTHER. THEY HAD CHILDREN TOGETHER, LOVELY CHILDREN. YOU'LL PROBABLY BE SEEING A PICTURE OF ONE PRETTY SOON. BUT HE COULDN'T DEAL WITH THE LOSS OF NICOLE. HE COULDN'T DEAL WITH NOT HAVING HER THERE. HE COULDN'T DEAL WITH THE LOSS OF CONTROL AND HE COULDN'T HELP BUT PURSUE HER. YOU'LL HEAR TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE FROM NICOLE'S MOTHER, AND SHE'LL TELL YOU ABOUT SOME OF THE TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS SHE HAD WITH THE DEFENDANT IN 1992 AND SOME EVEN MORE RECENT. AND ONE CONVERSATION, HE TOLD HER, HE TOLD HER, HE SAID, "ALL MY FRIENDS TELL ME THAT I SHOULD JUST LEAVE HER ALONE, JUST FORGET ABOUT IT, JUST GO ON WITH MY OWN LIFE." AND WHEN MRS. BROWN SAID, "WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT, LET HER GO. IF YOU LET HER GO, THEN MAYBE SHE'LL COME BACK TO YOU. JUST LET HER GO, AND MAYBE SHE'LL COME BACK," AND HIS RESPONSE WAS, "I CAN'T. YOU KNOW I CAN'T. YOU KNOW I CAN'T HELP MYSELF. I CAN'T LET HER GO." HE COULDN'T LET HER GO. HE COULDN'T HELP BUT PURSUE HER. HE COULDN'T LEAVE HER ALONE. HE COULDN'T HANDLE THE LOSS OF CONTROL. AND BECAUSE SHE HAD LEFT HIS HOUSE AND MOVED SOMEWHERE ELSE AND ESTABLISHED HER OWN HOME, HER OWN HOUSE AND BEGAN ESTABLISHING HER OWN RELATIONSHIPS, HE DID THE ONLY THING HE COULD DO TO GAIN CONTROL, TO TRY TO GAIN CONTROL, TO TRY TO FIND OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH HER, AND SO HE STALKED HER. HE STALKED HER. WHEN SHE LEFT ROCKINGHAM IN JANUARY OF '92 AND SET UP A NEW HOUSEHOLD ON GRETNA GREEN ALSO IN BRENTWOOD, SHE BEGAN DATING A MAN NAMED KEITH, KEITH ZLOMSOWITCH, AND SHE GOT A BABYSITTER FOR THEIR TWO CHILDREN. WHENEVER KEITH AND NICOLE WOULD GO OUT, NOT EVERY TIME, BUT ENOUGH, HE WOULD SHOW UP. IF THEY WENT TO A NIGHTCLUB -- AND KEITH WILL TELL YOU ABOUT THIS. HE WILL BE HERE TO TESTIFY -- DEFENDANT SHOWED UP. THEY WENT TO A RESTAURANT CALLED THE TRIST, IT HAD JUST OPENED, NICOLE AND KEITH AND SOME OTHER FRIENDS. THEY WERE THERE, THEY GOT A TABLE, THEY BEGAN TO HAVE DINNER. AND AS THEY SAT THERE HAVING DINNER, GUESS WHO SHOWED UP? GUESS WHO ATTEMPTED TO GAIN CONTROL AGAIN? THE DEFENDANT SHOWED UP. AND THAT WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE EVIDENCE AND IN THE TESTIMONY. AND WHAT HE DID IS, HE WALKED INTO THE RESTAURANT, HE SAW NICOLE AND KEITH AND HER OTHER FRIENDS, HE WENT TO ANOTHER TABLE, HE GRABBED THE CHAIR -- THE CHAIR WAS FACING IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION -- HE GRABBED THE CHAIR, HE TURNED IT AROUND, HE SAT THERE STARING AT KEITH AND NICOLE AND THEIR DINNER PARTY. KEITH WILL BE HERE TO TELL YOU THAT THAT WAS AN AWFULLY INTIMIDATING EXPERIENCE. WHY? THERE WAS ANOTHER INCIDENT AT THE MEZZALUNA. NICOLE WAS THERE, KEITH WAS THERE. THE DEFENDANT SUDDENLY SHOWED UP, DROVE UP IN FRONT OF THE RESTAURANT, GOT OUT OF THE CAR, WALKED UP TO THE TABLE WHERE THEY WERE SEATED, PUT HIS HANDS ON AND SAID, "I AM O.J. SIMPSON AND SHE'S STILL MY WIFE." WELL, SHE HAD FILED FOR DIVORCE AND MOVED OUT OF HIS HOUSE. BUT THAT WAS INTIMIDATING. AND THERE'S MORE, AND YOU'LL HEAR ABOUT THE OTHER INCIDENTS. THERE'S MORE EVIDENCE OF STALKING IN THIS CASE AND YOU'LL HEAR ABOUT THAT. THERE WAS ONE EVENING WHEN KEITH AND NICOLE, THEY WENT TO A COMEDY SHOW, AND AFTER THE SHOW, THEY WENT TO NICOLE'S HOUSE ON GRETNA GREEN. IT WAS ABOUT 3:00 IN THE MORNING. AND THEY WERE SEATED ON THE SOFA IN HER LIVING ROOM. THE KIDS, THE KIDS WERE UPSTAIRS ASLEEP. IT'S 3:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. AND KEITH AND NICOLE MADE LOVE ON THE COUCH. BUT THEY WEREN'T ALONE. THERE WAS SOMEBODY WATCHING. THERE WAS SOMEONE WATCHING THROUGH THE WINDOW. IT WAS THE DEFENDANT. AT 3:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, HE WAS LOOKING THROUGH NICOLE'S WINDOW WATCHING HER MAKE LOVE TO ANOTHER MAN. AND THE NEXT DAY, WHEN KEITH AND NICOLE WERE TOGETHER, HE WALKED RIGHT INTO HER HOUSE, AND HE WAS BESIDE HIMSELF AND HE WAS ANGRY AND HE SAID SOME VERY NAUGHTY THINGS. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HE SAID TO KEITH AND NICOLE WAS THAT, HE SAID, "I WATCHED YOU LAST NIGHT. I WATCHED YOU AND I SAW EVERYTHING." THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THAT IS SOMEWHAT UNUSUAL BEHAVIOR TO SAY THE LEAST. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW ALSO THAT THIS IS ALL PART OF THIS CYCLE. IT'S ALL PART OF THIS DOMINANT THEME IN THEIR RELATIONSHIP. THIS IS ALL PART OF HIS NEED TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT HER, TO KNOW WHERE SHE IS, TO KNOW WHO SHE'S WITH, TO KNOW WHAT SHE'S DOING, TO CONTROL HER. IT'S CONTROL. IT'S ALL ABOUT CONTROL. AND THOUGH HE DID NOT INTERRUPT THEM DURING THE MIDDLE OF THE ACT AND HE DIDN'T PUNCH KEITH OUT AND HE DIDN'T PUNCH NICOLE OUT, HE STILL WATCHED SO THAT HE WOULD KNOW. AND TO CONTROL HER, HE HAD TO CONFRONT HER WITH WHAT HE KNEW, TO INTIMIDATE HER, TO KEEP HER FROM DOING IT AGAIN. IT'S ALL ABOUT CONTROL. WELL, OVER THE MONTHS, YOU KNOW, NICOLE STILL WANTED TO BELIEVE THAT THEY COULD BE A FAMILY AGAIN TOGETHER. AND THEY WOULD ATTEMPT RECONCILIATION AND THEY WOULD FAIL, AND THEY WOULD ATTEMPT AGAIN. AND NICOLE WAS AS MUCH A PARTY TO THAT AS THE DEFENDANT WAS. BUT THERE WAS A SITUATION IN OCTOBER OF 1993, AN INCIDENT, ANOTHER CONTROL INCIDENT. HE FORCED HIS WAY THROUGH THE BACK DOOR OF HER PLACE ON GRETNA GREEN. HE FORCED HER DOOR IN. HE ENTERED HER HOUSE WITHOUT HER PERMISSION, WITHOUT HER KNOWLEDGE AND HE CONFRONTED HER AND HE SCARED HER, HE FRIGHTENED HER. AND HE SCARED HER SO BADLY THAT SHE TELEPHONED 911, AND SHE ASKED FOR POLICE ASSISTANCE. AND YOU WILL HEAR THE TAPE OF THAT 911 CALL AND YOU WILL SEE THE 911 OPERATOR AND YOU WILL HEAR THE DEFENDANT IN THE BACKGROUND. THIS IS OCTOBER 1993. HE WATCHED KEITH AND NICOLE HAVE SEX IN APRIL OF 1992. AND WHEN YOU LISTEN TO THE OCTOBER 1993 911 TAPE, YOU CAN HEAR HIM IN THE BACKGROUND STILL YELLING AND SHOUTING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN APRIL OF 1992. BUT THAT 911 TAPE IS A TELLING GLIMPSE INTO THEIR RELATIONSHIP THAT'S FOR SURE, AND IT'S ALSO AN EXAMPLE OF THIS DEFENDANT'S PRIVATE SIDE, HIS PRIVATE FACE, THE OTHER MAN, THE MAN IN THE COURTROOM, THE MAN THAT'S ON TRIAL HERE TODAY. AND YOU WILL HEAR NICOLE ON THE TELEPHONE TALKING TO THE OPERATOR. AND AS YOU LISTEN TO HER, YOU CAN'T HELP BUT DISCERN FROM THE TONE OF HER VOICE AND THE THINGS THAT SHE SAYS THAT SHE IS A TOUGH WOMAN, BUT THAT SHE'S ALSO AFRAID AND INTIMIDATED. AND NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THAT SHE FEELS THAT HER SITUATION IS HOPELESS. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT BY OCTOBER OF 1993, NICOLE, HER SITUATION WAS HOPELESS AND SHE WAS HELPLESS. WAY BACK IN 1989, THE DEFENDANT SAID THAT THE POLICE HAD BEEN TO THE HOUSE EIGHT TIMES BEFORE AND NEVER DONE ANYTHING. NICOLE SAID THE SAME THING ON THE TELEPHONE TO THE 911 OPERATOR IN 1993. HER SITUATION WAS HOPELESS AND SHE WAS HELPLESS. AND YOU CAN INFER FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT NICOLE BROWN EXPECTED OR HAD NO EXPECTATION THAT ANYONE WOULD EVER DO ANYTHING TO THIS DEFENDANT BECAUSE HE BEAT HER. THERE WAS NO HELP COMING AND SHE DIDN'T EXPECT ANY HELP. BUT YOU WILL HEAR THAT TELEPHONE CALL AND YOU WILL HEAR THE DEFENDANT AND YOU WILL GET A TRUE SENSE OF THE FEAR HE INSTILLED IN HER. AND HE DIDN'T HIT HER THAT DAY. HE DIDN'T STRIKE HER. HE DIDN'T PUNCH HER. HE DID GO THROUGH THE HOUSE TO SEE WHO WAS THERE, BUT HE DIDN'T HURT HER THAT DAY. STILL, SHE STAYED. STILL, THEY REMAINED INVOLVED, NOT ONLY IN A SENSE THAT HE WAS THE FATHER OF HER CHILDREN, BUT THEY STILL ATTEMPTED TO RECONCILE. AND OVER THE MONTHS AFTER OCTOBER OF 1993, THEY TRIED TO GET TOGETHER AND THEY FAILED, THEY TRIED TO GET TOGETHER AND THEY FAILED. AND IN MAY OF 1994, IT WAS NICOLE'S BIRTHDAY, AND THE DEFENDANT GAVE HER A VERY NICE GIFT, A PIECE OF JEWELRY. AND THEY ATTEMPTED TO RECONCILE FOR LACK OF A BETTER DESCRIPTION, BUT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT IT WAS A VERY BRIEF ATTEMPT BECAUSE A FEW DAYS LATER, NICOLE CALLED IT QUITS. SHE WOKE UP TO THE TRUE REALITY OF HER SITUATION. SHE COULDN'T BE BALKED ANYMORE. SHE COULDN'T LIVE LIKE THAT. AND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT SHE LET THE DEFENDANT KNOW THAT IT WAS OVER. THIS IS IT, HASTA LA VISTA. AND THIS WAS SIGNIFICANT IN THE MIND OF THIS DEFENDANT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. IT WAS SOMETHING THAT HAD NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. HE WOULD DO THINGS TO HER AND HE WOULD TRY TO APPEASE HER BY GIVING HER THINGS, AND SHE WOULD ACCEPT THOSE THINGS AND THEY WOULD RECONCILE. BUT NOT THIS DAY. THIS DAY, SHE COULDN'T BE APPEASED. SHE COULDN'T BE BOUGHT. SHE COULDN'T BE BRIBED. SHE HAD HAD ENOUGH. AND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT SHE LET THE DEFENDANT KNOW THAT. AND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT FINALLY, AFTER 17 YEARS, HE FINALLY GOT THE MESSAGE. IT FINALLY BECAME CLEAR THAT SHE WANTED TO LIVE HER OWN LIFE AND THAT IN HER LIFE, THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO BE A PART OF IT. SHE COULDN'T HANDLE IT. SHE WOKE UP TO REALITY. SHE WANTED TO LIVE AND HAVE HER OWN IDENTITY. SHE NO LONGER WANTED TO BE UNDER HIS CONTROL, UNDER HIS THUMB. SHE LET HIM KNOW THAT IT WAS OVER, THAT IT WAS OVER, IT WAS OVER AND IT WAS FINAL, BUT THIS DEFENDANT'S PRIVATE SIDE, THE OTHER MAN, NOT THE ONE ON T.V., THE DEFENDANT, HE COULDN'T TAKE THAT. HE COULDN'T ACCEPT THAT. HE COULD NOT ACCEPT THAT LOSS OF CONTROL, AND HE WOULDN'T AND HE DIDN'T. ON JUNE 12, A DANCE RECITAL WAS HELD IN BRENTWOOD FOR THE DEFENDANT'S DAUGHTER SIDNEY. THE ENTIRE BROWN FAMILY WENT TO THE RECITAL AS DID SOME FRIENDS, CANDICE GARVEY FOR INSTANCE. THE AUDITORIUM WAS CROWDED. SO NOT EVERYONE COULD SIT, YOU KNOW, NEXT TO A FAMILY MEMBER. AND SO THEIR PARTY WAS, YOU KNOW -- THERE WERE PEOPLE BETWEEN THEM. THEY WERE SEPARATED SOMEWHAT AND DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAD TO SIT IN DIFFERENT ROWS AND NOT ALL TOGETHER. WELL, THE DEFENDANT ARRIVED LATE AND HE ARRIVED CARRYING A BOUQUET OF FLOWERS, FLOWERS HE HAD BOUGHT FOR HIS DAUGHTER. WELL, WHEN HE WALKED INTO THE AUDITORIUM, HE GREETED JUST ABOUT EVERYONE IN THE PARTY IN THE BROWN FAMILY. HE SAID HELLO TO THEM, HE KISSED DENISE ON THE CHEEK, "HOW ARE YOU, HOW YOU DOING," WHATEVER, AND HE PRETTY MUCH ADDRESSED EVERYBODY EXCEPT NICOLE. HE SAT BEHIND THE BROWN'S FOR A FEW MOMENTS. AND THEN HE GOT UP AND HE GRABBED A CHAIR AND HE DRAGGED IT IN THE CORNER OF THE AUDITORIUM AND HE TURNED THAT CHAIR AROUND AND HE SAT IN IT, AND HE SAT THERE FACING NICOLE AND HE JUST STARED AT HER. HE JUST SAT THERE STARING AT HER. AND YOU'LL HEAR TESTIMONY ABOUT THIS, AND THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THIS WAS A MENACING STARE, A PENETRATING STARE, IT WAS AN ANGRY STARE, AND IT MADE EVERYONE VERY UNCOMFORTABLE. WHEN THE RECITAL WAS OVER, THERE WAS A LITTLE ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT WAS ALLOWED TO GIVE SIDNEY SOME FLOWERS, AND HE GAVE HER SOME FLOWERS. BUT THE BROWN FAMILY HAD DECIDED TO GO OVER TO THE MEZZALUNA RESTAURANT FOR DINNER. AND AS THEY LEFT, THEY MADE IT CLEAR TO THE DEFENDANT THAT HE WAS NOT INVITED, AND HE WASN'T INVITED. AND BY NOT INVITING HIM, IT WAS A REAFFIRMATION OF WHAT HE HAD ALREADY BEEN TOLD, AND THAT IS THAT IT WAS OVER. HE WAS NO LONGER BEING TREATED AS A PART OF THE FAMILY. HE WAS NO LONGER THE CENTRAL CENTERPIECE OF EVERY FAMILY OUTING. NICOLE WAS GETTING ON WITH HER OWN LIFE. AND AS THE BROWN FAMILY LEFT, THEY LOOKED TOWARD THE DEFENDANT AND THEY SAW HIM, AND HE WAS ANGRY AND HE WAS DEPRESSED AND THEY WERE CONCERNED AND EVERYONE WONDERED WHAT IS HE UP TO NOW. MISS CLARK WILL TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT THE DEFENDANT WAS UP TO AS THE DAY PROCEEDED ON. BUT THERE'S SOME THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THIS EVIDENCE AS YOU HEAR IT. THIS IS NOT CHARACTER ASSASSINATION. THIS IS EVIDENCE OF A CONTROLLING PERSONALITY, OF A CONTROLLING RELATIONSHIP, THIS PROOF OF JEALOUSY. AND AS MISS CLARK TALKS AND THE EVIDENCE DEVELOPS IN THIS CASE AND AS YOU HEAR IT AND SEE IT AND PROCESS IT, YOU WILL SEE THAT CYCLE OF VIOLENCE. YOU WILL SEE HOW THINGS ESCALATED. YOU'LL SEE HOW CONTROLLING HE IS AND YOU'LL SEE WHY HE WOULD KILL ON JUNE 12. THIS IS NOT CHARACTER ASSASSINATION. THIS IS NOT SOME TABLOID PROSECUTION. THE EVIDENCE YOU HEAR IN THIS CASE WILL BE EVIDENCE OF THIS DEFENDANT'S LIFE, OF HIS CONDUCT, THE THINGS HE DID. YOU WILL HEAR EVIDENCE OF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH ONE OF THE VICTIMS. AND AS YOU HEAR IT, YOU WILL -- AS YOU HEAR THE EVIDENCE AND AS YOU LISTEN TO MISS CLARK, YOU'LL SEE HOW IT IS THAT RON GOLDMAN HAPPENED TO BE AT THE WRONG PLACE AT THE WRONG TIME. AS YOU LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCE, YOU WILL SEE THAT HIS DECISION TO KILL FINALLY WAS MERELY A FINAL LINK IN A PROGRESSIVE CHAIN OF ABUSIVE AND CONTROLLING CONDUCT, AND IT WAS A CHAIN THAT CONSISTED OF FEAR AND INTIMIDATION AND BATTERY AND EMOTIONAL AND MENTAL ABUSE AND ECONOMIC ABUSE AND CONTROL AND STALKING. AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE WAS A COMMON SCHEME AND COMMON PLAN IN ALL OF THIS, AND THAT WAS TO CONTROL, TO CONTROL HER. IT WAS ALL DESIGNED JUST TO CONTROL HER. AND IN CONTROLLING HER, IT WAS THE PRIVATE MAN, PRIVATE O.J. SIMPSON, IT WAS THE DEFENDANT WHO COMMITTED THAT FINAL ULTIMATE ACT OF CONTROL. SHE LEFT HIM. SHE WAS NO LONGER IN HIS CONTROL. HE WAS OBSESSED WITH HER. HE COULD NOT STAND TO LOSE HER, AND SO HE MURDERED HER. AND AS YOU HEAR THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, IT WILL BECOME CLEAR THAT IN HIS MIND, SHE BELONGED TO HIM; AND IF HE COULDN'T HAVE HER, THEN NOBODY COULD. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

OPENING STATEMENT

BY MS. CLARK:

GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

MS. CLARK: YOU'VE ALL SEEN ME FOR QUITE A WHILE, BUT YOU HAVEN'T SEEN MR. DARDEN. HE WAS BUSY WITH OTHER MATTERS. AND HE IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS CASE. LET ME INTRODUCE SOME OF THE LAWYERS YOU HAVEN'T MET, BUT YOU WILL BE SEEING THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL. MR. HANK GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: GOOD MORNING.

MS. CLARK: MR. WOODY CLARK AND MR. ROCHMOND HARMON. THEY WILL ALL BE PRESENTING THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE THAT RELATES TO THE BLOOD ANALYSIS AND DNA TESTING. WHEN YOU HEAR THE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE, YOU'LL UNDERSTAND WHY I NEED THE HELP. AND I THANK THEM VERY MUCH FOR THEIR ABLE ASSISTANCE THUS FAR. OF COURSE, YOU KNOW MR. HODGMAN. HE'S STILL HERE. YOU'VE NOW HEARD THE WHY. YOU'VE HEARD WHY. WHY WOULD ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, A MAN WHO SEEMINGLY HAD IT ALL, COMMIT SUCH HEINOUS CRIMES, THROW IT ALL AWAY? THE ONE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT THE EVIDENCE DESCRIBED TO YOU BY MR. DARDEN IS THAT IT SHOWS THAT MR. SIMPSON IS A MAN, NOT A STEREOTYPE, BUT FLESH AND BLOOD WHO CAN DO BOTH GOOD AND EVIL. BEING WEALTHY, BEING FAMOUS CANNOT CHANGE ONE SIMPLE TRUTH. HE'S A PERSON, AND PEOPLE HAVE GOOD SIDES AND BAD SIDES. WHETHER YOU SEE BOTH SIDES OR NOT, BOTH SIDES ARE ALWAYS THERE. NOW, WE WILL SHOW YOU THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SMILING FACE YOU SAW IN THE HERTZ COMMERCIAL, THE ONE YOU NEVER SAW ON CAMERA, THE ONE NONE OF US EVER WANTED TO SEE. AND THAT WAS THE SIDE THAT WENT FROM ROCKINGHAM AT HIS ESTATE TO NICOLE'S HOME AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994. NOW, ON THAT NIGHT, MANY EVENTS WERE HAPPENING AT THE SAME TIME. AND IN ORDER TO GIVE YOU A TRUE PICTURE, THE MOST CLEAR AND ACCURATE PICTURE OF WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, HOW THE EVENTS OCCURRED, I'M GOING TO GO BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND BETWEEN THE LOCATIONS. SO WHAT I WANT TO DO FIRST OF ALL IS DESCRIBE THE SETTING FOR YOU. AS OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994, NICOLE WAS LIVING AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY IN BRENTWOOD. THAT'S A CONDOMINIUM. IT WAS A DUPLEX. AND SO IT'S ONE BUILDING. SHE HAD ONE SIDE, HAD A COMMON WALL AND HER NEIGHBORS HAD ANOTHER SIDE. SHE LIVED THERE WITH HER TWO CHILDREN, JUSTIN AND SIDNEY. THE DEFENDANT WAS LIVING AT 360 ROCKINGHAM AVENUE IN BRENTWOOD. BRIAN KAELIN, KNOWN AS KATO -- YOU'VE -- SOME OF YOU ALREADY ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE NAME -- WAS LIVING IN ONE OF THE GUEST UNITS BEHIND THE DEFENDANT'S HOME ON ROCKINGHAM AVENUE. THE DEFENDANT'S DAUGHTER ARNELLE LIVED NEXT TO KATO IN ANOTHER ONE OF THE GUEST UNITS. I'LL SHOW YOU A DIAGRAM A LITTLE BIT LATER TO GET YOU MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE LOCATION. BUT THE GUEST UNITS ARE BEHIND AND APART FROM THE MAIN HOUSE AND THEY SHARE COMMON WALLS. IT'S KIND OF LIKE ONE LONG BUILDING. SO KATO HAD ONE AND THEN ARNELLE HAD THE NEXT ONE. NOW, THE BACKGROUND ON KATO AND WHAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW YOU IS THE FOLLOWING: KATO MET NICOLE IN 1992 AFTER SHE HAD LEFT THE DEFENDANT AT A PARTY IN ASPEN. THEY REMAINED FRIENDLY AFTER THAT POINT NOT ROMANTICALLY; PLATONIC, JUST FRIENDS. AND HE WENT TO A PARTY THAT SHE GAVE AT GRETNA GREEN IN 1993. HE NOTICED THAT THAT HOUSE HAD A GUEST UNIT BEHIND IT THAT WAS A SEPARATE LIVING QUARTERS, AND HE ASKED NICOLE IF HE COULD RENT THAT LOCATION. SHE SAID YES. SHE RENTED IT TO HIM FOR $450 TO $500 A MONTH AND HE WAS ALLOWED TO REDUCE THAT AMOUNT IF HE DID BABY-SITTING FOR HER. HE WAS VERY GOOD WITH THE CHILDREN. SO THAT WAS AN ARRANGEMENT THAT WORKED WELL FOR EVERYONE. HOWEVER, NICOLE DECIDED TO MOVE OUT OF GRETNA GREEN IN 1994, AND SHE FOUND THE RESIDENCE ON BUNDY THAT I'VE DESCRIBED TO YOU. NOW, THE BUNDY RESIDENCE DID HAVE SEPARATE QUARTERS WITH ITS OWN ENTRANCE AND EXIT, BUT IT WAS ALL UNDER ONE ROOF. IT DIDN'T HAVE A SEPARATE LIVING QUARTERS LIKE THE OTHER HOUSE DID ON GRETNA GREEN. THE DEFENDANT ASKED KATO NOT TO STAY THERE, NOT TO LIVE UNDER THE SAME ROOF AS NICOLE SAYING IT WOULDN'T BE APPROPRIATE, AND HE ASKED KATO TO COME STAY IN ONE OF THE GUEST UNITS AT HIS HOUSE ON ROCKINGHAM. HE TOLD KATO HE COULD STAY THERE FOR FREE. KATO OBVIOUSLY SAW A MUCH BETTER FINANCIAL SITUATION FOR HIMSELF AND AGREED. AND SO IN JANUARY OF 1994, KATO MOVED TO THE GUEST UNIT BEHIND THE DEFENDANT'S HOUSE ON ROCKINGHAM AND NICOLE MOVED TO 875 SOUTH BUNDY. LET ME SHOW YOU A BOARD NOW OF THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION.

THE COURT: MS. CLARK, WOULD YOU BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THAT FOR COUNSEL.

MS. CLARK: THE DEFENSE HAS SEEN IT.

THE COURT: JUST SO THEY KNOW WHICH ONE.

MS. CLARK: THIS ONE.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

THE COURT: SO WE CAN TELL WHICH ONE IT IS.

MS. CLARK: SHALL I MARK IT NOW? 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM AVENUE. SHALL I JUST DESCRIBE IT?

MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE HAVE THAT MARKED?

MS. CLARK: THIS IS AN OVERALL DIAGRAM OF THE DEFENDANT'S HOME ON ROCKINGHAM AVENUE IN BRENTWOOD. THIS LOCATION HERE, THIS AREA HERE IS THE MAIN HOUSE. THIS -- THESE ROOMS THAT ARE SHOWN DOWN HERE ARE THE GUEST UNITS (INDICATING). NOW, THE GUEST UNITS ARE CLOSED OFF. THEY ARE LOCKED OFF WITH A DOOR SO THAT YOU CAN'T ENTER FROM THE GUEST UNIT INTO THE MAIN HOUSE. YOU SEE THE AREA HERE. IT'S MARKED KAELIN'S ROOM. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN ALL READ IT. THAT'S WHY I'M POINTING IT OUT FOR YOU. THAT IS KATO'S GUEST UNIT (INDICATING). RIGHT NEXT TO HIS UNIT --

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. MISS CLARK, WOULD YOU ALLOW MR. COCHRAN TO STEP OVER TO YOUR RIGHT SO HE CAN SEE WHERE YOU'RE POINTING?

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU KINDLY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS AN OFFICE THAT KATO HAD ACCESS TO AND THIS WOULD BE ARNELLE'S ROOM RIGHT NEXT TO KATO'S (INDICATING). NOW, THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS ALSO HAD -- IT HAD A GATE THAT OPENED ON TO ASHFORD STREET ON THE NORTH AND A GATE THAT OPENED ON TO ROCKINGHAM ON THE WEST SIDE. I'LL GET INTO MORE DETAIL LATER. NOW, BEFORE I REALLY GET INTO THE EVENTS OF THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH AND INTO ALL THE DETAILS, THERE ARE A FEW KEY POINTS THAT I WANT TO BRING OUT TO YOU RIGHT NOW. I'LL COME BACK TO THEM AGAIN, BUT I WANT YOU TO BEAR THEM IN MIND. THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE TIMING OF THE EVENTS THAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT. YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR A LOT OF TALK ABOUT THAT THROUGHOUT THIS TRIAL. I THINK I CAN GUARANTEE THAT. WITH RESPECT TO THE TIMING, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH, 1994, THE DEFENDANT HAD AN HOUR AND 10 MINUTES OF TIME IN WHICH HIS WHEREABOUTS ARE UNACCOUNTED FOR. AND WE WILL SHOW THAT IT WAS DURING THAT HOUR AND 10 MINUTES THAT THE MURDERS WERE COMMITTED. AND SO THE EVIDENCE WILL PROVE THAT KATO LAST SAW THE DEFENDANT ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH AT 9:35 AT THE LATEST, HE DID NOT SEE THE DEFENDANT AGAIN UNTIL 10 -- EXCUSE ME -- AFTER 11:00 O'CLOCK. IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO TIMES, AT 10:15, A DOG IS HEARD BARKING THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW WAS NICOLE'S DOG, WHICH FIXES THE TIME AT WHICH THE MURDER OCCURRED. AT 10:45, KATO HEARD THUMPS ON HIS WALL. AND SHORTLY AFTER 11:00, HE SAW THE DEFENDANT. AN HOUR AND 10 MINUTES DURING WHICH THE MURDER OCCURRED -- MURDERS OCCURRED IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT'S WHEREABOUTS ARE UNACCOUNTED FOR. I'LL COME BACK TO THAT POINT. NOW, ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH, AS MR. DARDEN HAS ALREADY DESCRIBED TO YOU, THAT WAS THE RECITAL FOR SIDNEY. IT WAS A DANCE RECITAL FOR HER SCHOOL. ON THE MORNING OF JUNE THE 12TH, THE DEFENDANT PLAYED GOLF, PLAYED CARDS AND HE WAS SCHEDULED TO GO TO THE RECITAL AT 5:00 P.M. ON THE EVENING OF JUNE THE 12TH. MR. DARDEN DESCRIBED TO YOU HOW DEFENDANT BEHAVED THAT NIGHT. HE WAS IN AN UGLY MOOD, MOROSE, DEPRESSED AND CLEARLY FIXATED ON HIS EX-WIFE NICOLE BROWN. HE RETURNED HOME AFTER THE RECITAL AND HE SPOKE TO KATO. IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 6:30 TO 7:00 P.M. HE RETURNED HOME, TO HIS HOME ON ROCKINGHAM. NOW, ABOUT THAT SAME TIME, 6:30 TO 7:00 P.M., NICOLE WAS ARRIVING AT THE MEZZALUNA WITH HER PARTY, THAT WAS ALL OF HER FAMILY AND SIDNEY AND JUSTIN. NOW, BACK AT ROCKINGHAM, MR. SIMPSON SPOKE TO KATO. HE DISCUSSED A LITTLE BIT THE RECITAL, WHAT HE WANTED TO TELL HIM ABOUT IT AND HE MENTIONED TO HIM THAT NICOLE WAS WEARING A TIGHT DRESS AND HE WONDERED HOW SHE WOULD LOOK IN THAT TIGHT DRESS WHEN SHE GOT TO BE OLDER. DURING THE COURSE OF THAT DAY, HE ALSO TOLD KATO THAT HE AND NICOLE WERE THROUGH. IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THE DEFENDANT WOULD MAKE STATEMENTS SOUNDING LIKE HE WAS CAVALIER ABOUT IT. BUT THE TRUTH THAT WE LEARN FROM THE INSIDE IS THAT HE WAS NOT AT ALL CAVALIER ABOUT LOSING NICOLE. NOW, WHILE THE DEFENDANT IS TALKING TO KATO ON ROCKINGHAM, NICOLE AND HER PARTY ARRIVED AT THE MEZZALUNA FOR DINNER TO CELEBRATE SIDNEY'S RECITAL. RON GOLDMAN WAS A WAITER AT THE MEZZALUNA. HE DIDN'T WAIT ON HER TABLE THAT NIGHT, BUT HE WAS WORKING THERE THAT NIGHT. NICOLE WAS WEARING A BLACK HALTER DRESS AND A BLACK BLAZER. SHE LEFT THE RESTAURANT WITH HER FAMILY AT APPROXIMATELY 8:30 P.M. NOW, BETWEEN 8:30 AND 9:00 P.M., KATO WAS BACK IN HIS ROOM, AND THE DEFENDANT CAME OUT TO HIS ROOM TO ASK HIM FOR SOME CHANGE. THE DEFENDANT WAS SET TO TAKE A FLIGHT OUT THAT NIGHT TO CHICAGO, THE 11:45 RED EYE. HE INDICATED TO KATO THAT HE ONLY HAD HUNDRED DOLLAR BILLS AND HE NEEDED SMALLER CHANGE FOR THE SKY CAP. HE ASKED KATO IF HE HAD THAT SMALLER CHANGE AND KATO SAID HE DID. HE THEN TOLD KATO THAT HE WAS GOING TO GO OUT AND GET SOMETHING TO EAT. KATO ASKED IF HE COULD COME ALONG. THE DEFENDANT SAID OKAY. THEY THEN LEFT AND THEY WENT OUT TO THE DRIVEWAY. THE DEFENDANT DROVE TO MC DONALD'S IN HIS BLACK BENTLEY. THEY GOT SOME BURGERS. AND AS HE DROVE BACK, THE DEFENDANT ATE HIS FOOD WHILE HE WAS DRIVING. KATO DID NOT. THEY GOT BACK TO 365 ROCKINGHAM, AND THE DEFENDANT PARKED HIS BENTLEY IN THE DRIVEWAY IN THE SAME POSITION IN WHICH IT WAS FOUND BY THE POLICE IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE THE 13TH. WHEN KATO GOT OUT OF THE CAR, IT WAS 9:30 TO 9:35 AT THE LATEST. AND WHEN HE GOT OUT OF THE CAR, HE LAST SAW THE DEFENDANT STANDING NEAR THE BENTLEY. KATO WALKED THROUGH THE DRIVEWAY, THROUGH THE SIDE YARD AND BACK TO HIS ROOM. AS SOON AS HE GOT BACK TO HIS ROOM, HE MADE A CALL TO HIS FRIEND IN SAN DIEGO AT 9:37. SO WE KNOW THAT THE DEFENDANT GOT HOME BETWEEN 9:30 TO 9:35 AT THE VERY LATEST BASED ON THE TIMING OF THE PHONE CALL THAT KATO PLACED TO HIS FRIEND IN SAN DIEGO. WHEN KATO LEFT THE DEFENDANT STANDING AT THE BENTLEY AT 9:35, HE DID NOT SEE THE DEFENDANT AGAIN UNTIL AFTER 11:00 P.M. NOW, WHAT I'M ABOUT TO DESCRIBE TO YOU IS A SERIES OF EVENTS THAT PROVES THAT THE MURDERS OCCURRED BETWEEN 9:35 AND 10:45 ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE THE 12TH AND THAT DURING THAT TIME, THE DEFENDANT'S WHEREABOUTS ARE UNACCOUNTED FOR. AT 9:37, JUDITHA BROWN, THAT IS NICOLE'S MOTHER, CALLED THE MEZZALUNA TO SEE IF THEY HAD FOUND HER PRESCRIPTION GLASSES THAT SHE THOUGHT SHE HAD LEFT THERE AT DINNER THAT NIGHT. KAREN CRAWFORD, THE BAR MANAGER FROM MEZZALUNA, TOOK THAT CALL AND THEN WENT TO LOOK FOR THE GLASSES. SHE FOUND THEM OUT IN THE GUTTER NEAR WHERE THE FAMILY HAD GOTTEN OUT OF THEIR CAR TO COME INTO THE RESTAURANT. SHE BROUGHT THEM BACK INTO THE RESTAURANT, TOLD JUDITHA THAT SHE HAD FOUND THEM. JUDITHA ASKED HER TO KEEP THE GLASSES THERE. SO MISS CRAWFORD PUT THEM INTO AN ENVELOPE MARKED "NICOLE SIMPSON PRESCRIPTION GLASSES". WE'LL SHOW YOU PHOTOGRAPHS OF THAT ENVELOPE TODAY. NOW, JUDITHA CALLED NICOLE AT 9:40 P.M. AND TOLD HER THAT THE GLASSES HAD BEEN FOUND AND WERE BEING KEPT AT THE MEZZALUNA AT 9:40 P.M. AND THAT WAS THE LAST TIME JUDITHA EVER SPOKE TO HER DAUGHTER NICOLE. A FEW MINUTES LATER, MISS CRAWFORD RECEIVED A CALL FROM NICOLE, AND THEY SPOKE. MISS CRAWFORD THEN CALLED RON GOLDMAN OVER TO THE PHONE. RON GOLDMAN SPOKE TO NICOLE FOR A FEW MINUTES, AND WHEN HE WAS DONE AND HE HUNG UP, MISS CRAWFORD GAVE HIM THE GLASSES, AND HE TOOK THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THOSE GLASSES. SHORTLY THEREAFTER AT APPROXIMATELY 9:50 P.M., RON GOLDMAN LEFT THE RESTAURANT STILL DRESSED IN HIS WAITER'S UNIFORM, THE WHITE DRESS SHIRT, THE BLACK PANTS AND THE BLACK SHOES. AND HIS FRIENDS AT THE RESTAURANT NEVER AGAIN SAW HIM ALIVE.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, WHICH GRAPHIC IS THIS?

MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY?

THE COURT: WHICH GRAPHIC IS THIS?

MS. CLARK: THIS IS A VIEW OF THE ALLEY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHAT ITEM? WHAT EXHIBIT NUMBER?

MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY?

THE COURT: WHAT EXHIBIT NUMBER JUST FOR THE RECORD SO WE CAN DEMONSTRATE --

MS. CLARK: I AM SORRY. P-1. AT APPROXIMATELY 10:15 P.M., PABLO FENJVES, WHO LIVED DIAGONALLY ACROSS THE ALLEY BEHIND NICOLE'S CONDOMINIUM, HEARD A DOG BEGIN TO BARK. THE AREA YOU SEE HERE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH -- AND I'LL TRY TO DESIGNATE IT WITH THE RED LIGHT -- THIS IS THE ALLEY BEHIND HER HOUSE, BEHIND NICOLE'S HOUSE AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY. THIS JEEP THAT YOU SEE HERE IS HER JEEP (INDICATING). PABLO FENJVES, WHO I'VE JUST DESCRIBED, LIVED IN THE AREA WHERE YOU SEE THE POLICE CAR. THE LIGHTS THAT YOU SEE HERE ON THE BALCONY INDICATE WHERE NICOLE LIVED. THAT'S HER CONDOMINIUM (INDICATING). THIS IS A REAR VIEW AGAIN OF NICOLE'S -- THE REAR OF NICOLE'S CONDOMINIUM. THAT'S HER JEEP. THAT'S HER GARAGE THAT I'M INDICATING, AND THIS IS THE BALCONY AREA I INDICATED BEFORE AND THERE'S THE UPSTAIRS AREA (INDICATING).

THE COURT: IS THIS PEOPLE'S 2?

MS. CLARK: THIS IS P-2.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MS. CLARK: THIS GARAGE AND THESE LIVING QUARTERS HERE BELONG TO ANOTHER FAMILY (INDICATING). AS I INDICATED BEFORE, IT'S A DUPLEX. SO AT 10:15, PABLO FENJVES HEARD A DOG BARK. HE REMEMBERED IT CLEARLY BECAUSE THE BARK WAS LIKE A PLAINTIVE INSISTENT WAIL. IT WAS LIKE NOTHING HE EVER HEARD BEFORE. ALTHOUGH HE HEARD DOGS BARK IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS OTHER DOGS LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS WAS DIFFERENT. THIS DOG SOUNDED LIKE A DOG IN TROUBLE. AT 11:00 P.M., WHEN PABLO FENJVES WENT TO BED, THE DOG WAS STILL BARKING. HE WENT OVER TO HIS -- BACK TO HIS BEDROOM SHUTTERS AND OPENED THEM TO LOOK OUT IN THE DIRECTION THAT THE BARKING SEEMED TO BE COMING FROM AND HE LOOKED IN THE DIRECTION OF NICOLE'S CONDOMINIUM, WHICH IS THE DIRECTION THAT IT SEEMED TO BE COMING FROM, AND HE NOTICED THAT THERE WERE LIGHTS ON IN THE UPPER FLOOR OF HER CONDO. WHEN HE FELL ASLEEP SHORTLY AFTER 11:00 O'CLOCK, THE DOG WAS STILL BARKING. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THIS DOG WAILING AND BARKING SO INSISTENTLY WAS NICOLE'S WHITE AKIDA KATO. ANOTHER NEIGHBOR, STEVE SCHWAB, LEFT TO TAKE HIS DOG FOR A WALK AT APPROXIMATELY 10:30. AT ABOUT 10:55, WHEN HE GOT TO THE CORNER OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY, WHICH IS RIGHT ON THE CORNER OF NICOLE'S -- WHERE NICOLE LIVED, MAYBE ONE HOUSE DOWN, HE SAW KATO THE DOG WALKING ALONE. THE DOG WAS ACTING VERY AGITATED, SEEMED TO BE BARKING AT THE HOUSE ON THE CORNER OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY. HE COULDN'T TELL WHICH ONE, AND HE NOTICED THAT THE DOG HAD AN EXPENSIVE COLLAR. WHEN HE CHECKED IT FURTHER, LOOKING FOR TAGS, HE NOTICED THAT THERE WAS BLOOD ON THE PAWS AND ON THE LEGS OF THE DOG. ALTHOUGH AT THAT TIME HE SAW NO INJURY, HE ASSUMED THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A CUT ON THE PAW TO CAUSE ALL THAT BLOOD. AS HE CONTINUED TO WALK, THE DOG BEGAN TO FOLLOW HIM, BUT IT BEHAVED IN A VERY STRANGE MANNER BECAUSE AT THE WALKWAY TO EVERY HOUSE THAT THEY PASSED, THE DOG WOULD STOP AND BARK INSISTENTLY. WHEN STEVE GOT HOME AT APPROXIMATELY 11:05, HE AND HIS WIFE DISCUSSED WHAT TO DO WITH THIS DOG. THEY SAT OUTSIDE AND GAVE IT SOME WATER BECAUSE IT SEEMED VERY DEHYDRATED AND DECIDED TO TRY TO GET IT TO LEAD THEM TO ITS OWNER'S HOME. SO THEY TOOK IT OUT AND THEY STARTED TO WALK BACK. BUT AS THEY NEARED BUNDY, THE DOG RESISTED, THE DOG PULLED BACK AND THEY COULDN'T GET IT TO GO ANY FARTHER. SO HE TOOK THE DOG BACK TO THE COURTYARD OF THEIR APARTMENT BUILDING. NOW, IN THAT COURTYARD, THERE WAS MORE LIGHT AND THEY WERE ABLE TO SEE MORE CLEARLY THAT THERE WAS NO INJURY ON THE DOG, BUT THAT ITS PAWS AND ITS LEGS WERE CLEARLY BLOODY. NOW, STEVE SCHWAB LATER GAVE THAT DOG TO ANOTHER NEIGHBOR IN HIS APARTMENT BUILDING, SUKRU BOZTEPE. YOU WILL SEE THEM TESTIFY IN THIS COURTROOM. AND SUKRU BOZTEPE AGREED TO TAKE CARE OF THE DOG FOR THE NIGHT. BUT AGAIN, THE DOG WAS ACTING VERY AGITATED WITH SUKRU BOZTEPE. HE TRIED TO TAKE HIM INSIDE THE HOUSE AND HE WAS NICHING AND SCRATCHING AND TRYING TO GET OUT. SO HE TRIED TO DO THE SAME THING THAT STEVE DID, AND HE TOOK THE DOG OUT FOR A WALK HOPING IT WOULD LEAD HIM BACK TO THE OWNER'S HOME. AS THEY WENT SOUTH ON BUNDY, THE DOG STARTED PULLING HARDER AND HARDER UNTIL THEY GOT TO THE LOCATION OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY. AND THERE AT THE PATHWAY LEADING UP TO THAT HOME, THE DOG STOPPED AND THE DOG LOOKED UP THE PATHWAY. AND THAT MADE SUKRU LOOK UP THE PATHWAY, AND THERE HE SAW A SIGHT THAT HE'LL NEVER FORGET. HE SAW THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN LYING AT THE FOOT OF THE STEPS IN A POOL OF BLOOD. NOW, I'M GOING TO BACKTRACK FOR A MOMENT AND TALK ABOUT ROCKINGHAM. I LAST MENTIONED KATO AT 9:35. HE WAS ON THE PHONE TO HIS FRIEND IN SAN DIEGO. HE WAS ON THAT PHONE FOR SEVEN MINUTES. THAT CALL ENDED AT 9:44, AT WHICH POINT, AFTER TRYING TO USE THE TYPEWRITER IN THAT OFFICE I SHOWED YOU BEFORE, WHICH IS RIGHT NEXT TO HIS GUEST UNIT -- THIS MUST BE THE ROOM RIGHT HERE (INDICATING) -- HE CALLED HIS FRIEND RACHEL FERRARA.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU FINISH THE THOUGHT, MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: YOU WANT TO TAKE A BREAK? IT GOES INTO -- IT'S KIND OF BETTER TO BREAK HERE IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT WITH THE COURT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE LUNCH HOUR. MISS CLARK, COULD YOU TAKE THE POSTER DOWN, PLEASE?

MS. CLARK: YES.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE LUNCH HOUR. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITION TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, TALK TO ANYBODY ABOUT THE CASE OR ALLOW ANYBODY TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT. AND WE WILL SEE YOU BACK HERE AT 1:30. ALL RIGHT. HAVE A NICE LUNCH.

(AT 12:01 P.M., THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1995 1:30 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL. IS THERE ANYTHING WE NEED TO ADDRESS BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO REJOIN US? MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: JUST BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, YOUR HONOR, AND I WILL BE VERY BRIEF. THIS MORNING, YOUR HONOR, I HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL CALLS REGARDING THE WITNESS ROSA LOPEZ AND AT NOON I SPOKE WITH HER PERSONALLY. SHE INDICATES SHE HAS BEEN BESIEGED BY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE TRYING TO EITHER INTERVIEW HER, THE PRESS IS OUTSIDE OF HER HOUSE, SHE CAN'T GET OUT OF HER DRIVEWAY OR WHERE SHE WORKS. SHE IS VERY, VERY AFRAID THAT IN THESE HARSH ECONOMIC TIMES SHE MAY LOSE HER JOB. HER LAWYER, CARL JONES, HAS WRITTEN A LETTER ASKING, SHOULD THE PEOPLE WANT TO INTERVIEW HER, HE WILL ARRANGE IT AND NOT TO TRY TO COME ON HER JOB. SHE WORKS AS A HOUSEKEEPER. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE COURT CAN DO ABOUT THE PRESS, BUT SHE WAS REALLY EXASPERATED WHEN I TALKED TO HER, AND PERHAPS THE COURT CAN APPEAL TO THE GOOD SIDE OF THE PRESS AND ASK THEM IF THEY WOULD GIVE HER SOME PRIVACY. SHE IS VERY, VERY CONCERNED ABOUT HERSELF AND HER FAMILY AND SHE FEELS IT IS UNFAIR. I THOUGHT I SHOULD BRING IT TO YOUR HONOR'S ATTENTION BECAUSE I GOT A CALL HERE -- SEVERAL CALLS HERE IN COURT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. DARDEN, DO YOU HAVE SOME RESPONSIVE COMMENT ON THAT?

MR. DARDEN: YES, YOUR HONOR, THANK YOU, AND I APPRECIATE MR. COCHRAN'S COMMENTS. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO INDICATE THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN PART OF THE HARASSMENT, WE HAVEN'T ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT MISS LOPEZ, AS MR. DOUGLAS ALLUDED TO YESTERDAY, AND I WOULD JOIN IN MR. COCHRAN'S REQUEST THAT THIS WITNESS, AS OTHER WITNESSES IN THE CASE, NOT BE HARASSED BY THE MEDIA, BY THE PUBLIC. LEAVE THESE PEOPLE ALONE. IT IS NOT THEIR FAULT THAT THEY HAPPEN TO BE WITNESSES IN THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS SIMPSON. AND WE WILL CONTACT MR. JONES AT THE PROPER TIME AND BEFORE WE ATTEMPT TO INTERVIEW MISS LOPEZ.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU. WE JOIN AND AGREE ON SOMETHING, YOUR HONOR, AND WE WELCOME YOUR SUGGESTION TO THE PRESS IF YOU HAVE ONE.

THE COURT: I THINK IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. DARDEN: BEFORE THE JURY COMES IN, YOUR HONOR, IF WE COULD HAVE A MOMENT?

THE COURT: YES.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. DARDEN: WE ARE MISSING SOMEONE, IF I COULD JUST STEP OUTSIDE FOR ONE MOMENT.

THE COURT: SURE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. CLARK: MAY I USE THE PHONE, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: I'M SORRY?

MS. CLARK: MAY I USE THE PHONE?

THE COURT: BRIEFLY.

MS. CLARK: FOR THE SAME PURPOSE THAT MR. DARDEN IS GOING OUTSIDE.

THE COURT: WHO ARE WE MISSING?

MS. CLARK: OUR TECHNICAL SUPPORT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, ARE WE READY TO PROCEED? ARE WE READY TO PROCEED?

MS. CLARK: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. BE SEATED. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED. AND WE HAVE ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL AGAIN PRESENT WITH US. MISS CLARK, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE YOUR OPENING STATEMENT?

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

OPENING STATEMENT (RESUMED)

BY MS. CLARK:

GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.

THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.

MS. CLARK: I FORGOT TO INTRODUCE A VERY IMPORTANT MEMBER OF OUR TEAM, AND I SINCERELY APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. JONATHAN FAIRTLOUGH, WHO IS A NEW MEMBER OF OUR OFFICE, AND HE DOES ALL THE TECHNICAL WORK YOU ARE SEEING HERE AND I WOULDN'T HAVE A CLUE HOW TO OPERATE THESE THINGS. WITHOUT HIM I AM IN SERIOUS TROUBLE. I HOPE YOU ALL HAD A VERY GOOD LUNCH. LET ME REMIND YOU WHERE WE LEFT OFF SO THAT WE CAN PICK UP FROM THERE. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE TIMING AND I WAS DISCUSSING WITH YOU THAT KATO HAD LAST SEEN THE DEFENDANT AT 9:35 AT ROCKINGHAM AND THAT IT WAS AFTER 11:00 BEFORE HE SAW HIM AGAIN, SO HE SAW THE DEFENDANT AT 9:35, DID NOT SEE HIM AGAIN UNTIL AFTER 11:00, AND DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME THE DEFENDANT'S WHEREABOUTS ARE UNACCOUNTED FOR. NOW, LAST I SPOKE TO YOU KATO WAS ON THE PHONE WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND, RACHEL FERRARA. AT THAT TIME -- AT THAT SAME TIME THAT HE WAS ON THE TELEPHONE, AND THIS WAS PROBABLY 10:00 TO 10:15, ALLAN PARK, A LIMOUSINE DRIVER, WAS ON HIS WAY TO ROCKINGHAM TO PICK UP THE DEFENDANT TO TAKE HIM TO THE AIRPORT WHERE HE WOULD TAKE HIS FLIGHT AT 11:45 TO CHICAGO. NOW, ALTHOUGH HIS INSTRUCTIONS WERE TO ARRIVE AT ROCKINGHAM AT 10:45, HE HADN'T BEEN IN THE BRENTWOOD AREA BEFORE AND HE DIDN'T WANT TO BE LATE, SO HE LEFT EARLY AND HE ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM AT 10:25. NOW, I'M GOING TO USE THE DIAGRAM AGAIN.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. CLARK: WHEN ALLAN PARK PULLED UP ON ASHFORD STREET HE PARKED ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE DEFENDANT'S RESIDENCE, GOT OUT OF HIS CAR, SAT BEHIND IT ON THE CURB AND HAD A CIGARETTE. HE GOT BACK IN HIS CAR AT ABOUT 10:30, SAT IN HIS CAR FOR A FEW MINUTES LISTENING TO THE RADIO. AND AT 10:35 HE DECIDED THAT HE WOULD GO AND LOOK AT THE ROCKINGHAM GATE TO SEE IF THAT DRIVE IN WOULD BE EASIER FOR HIM THAN THE ASHFORD STREET GATE. WHAT I SHOULD TELL YOU RIGHT HERE IS THAT HE WAS DRIVING A STRETCH LIMOUSINE AND THAT HAS A VERY HARD TIME MAKING TIGHT CURVES. HE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO PULL UP IN FRONT OF THE FRONT DOOR TO AN AREA THAT WOULD BE EASIER TO LOAD THE BAGGAGE, SO HE WANTED TO SEE IF THE ROCKINGHAM ENTRANCE WOULD BE MORE EASY FOR HIM THAN THE ASHFORD STREET ADDRESS. SO HE DECIDED TO PULL DOWN TO ROCKINGHAM. HE PULLED THE LIMOUSINE DOWN TO ROCKINGHAM, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE POINT WHERE THE DRIVER'S SIDE WINDOW WOULD BE PARALLEL WITH THE ROCKINGHAM GATE, SO HE COULD LOOK INSIDE. NOW, IN DOING THAT HE HAD TO PASS RIGHT BY THE CURB AREA JUST NORTH OF THE ROCKINGHAM GATE AND WHAT HE NOTICED WHEN HE PULLED TO THAT AREA THAT WAS RIGHT IN HIS FIELD OF VIEW IS THAT THERE WAS NO CAR PARKED THERE, NO WHITE FORD BRONCO, AND IT WAS 10:39. THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT. WE WILL COME BACK TO THAT AGAIN. HE LOOKED DOWN THE DRIVEWAY AND HE SAW THAT THAT LOOKED LIKE A TIGHTER TURN EVEN THAN ASHFORD, SO HE BACKED THE LIMOUSINE UP ROCKINGHAM AVENUE AND MADE A LEFT TURN ONTO THE ASHFORD STREET AND PULLED RIGHT UP TO THE ASHFORD GATE. WHEN I SAY HE PULLED RIGHT UP TO THE ASHFORD GATE, ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH YOU SEE THE ASHFORD GATE OF THE DEFENDANT'S RESIDENCE. HE ACTUALLY HAD THE GRILLE OF THE CAR ALMOST TOUCHING THE GATE FACING INWARD TOWARD IT.

THE COURT: WHICH PHOTOGRAPH IS THIS?

MS. CLARK: I THOUGHT WE GAVE THE COURT --

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: IT IS P-29, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, SO THE COURT WON'T HAVE TO INQUIRE AFTER EVERY PHOTOGRAPH, WE HAVE GIVEN A LIST TO THE COURT FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE.

THE COURT: WELL, I THINK YOU SHOULD MAKE THE RECORD, COUNSEL. YOU SHOULD TELL US WHICH THIS IS. BECAUSE THE CLERK HAS THE LIST. SHE CAN'T SEE DIRECTLY THE VIDEO, SO YOU NEED TO TELL ME WHICH VIDEO -- WHICH GRAPHIC YOU ARE USING.

MS. CLARK: VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR. I WILL ASK THAT JONATHAN FAIRTLOUGH BE ALLOWED TO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. NOW, WHEN ALLAN PARK PULLED BACK TO THE ASHFORD GATE PARKING UP AGAINST IT FACING INTO THE DRIVEWAY, HE LOOKED AT HIS WATCH AND IT WAS 10:40 P.M. AT THAT POINT -- AT THAT POINT HE DECIDED TO GO AND RING THE BUZZER. I WANTED TO SHOW YOU SOMETHING ELSE ON THIS SO YOU WILL KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT WHEN I SAY RING THE BUZZER. I'M GESTURING WITH THIS RED LIGHT. YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE, THAT IS THE CALL BOX, (INDICATING), WHERE HE WILL BE PRESSING THE BUZZER, AND IT RINGS INSIDE THE HOUSE. THE PERSON INSIDE CAN THEN PRESS A BUTTON TO OPEN THE GATE. AT 10:40 HE BEGAN TO RING THE BUZZER. HE COULD HEAR IT SOUND, BUT THERE WAS NO ANSWER. THERE WERE LIGHTS ON IN THE UPSTAIRS. ONE LIGHT ON UPSTAIRS. THERE WERE NO LIGHTS ON DOWNSTAIRS. IT SEEMED TO HIM LIKE NO ONE WAS HOME AND HE WAS A LITTLE WORRIED ABOUT THAT, SO HE DECIDED TO PAGE HIS BOSS AND FIND OUT IF PERHAPS THE PLANS HAD CHANGED. AT 10:43 HE PAGED HIS BOSS. HE WAS THEN WORRIED THAT PERHAPS THE PAGE DIDN'T GO THROUGH, SO AT 10:49 HE CALLED HIS BOSS AT HOME, BUT THERE WAS NO ANSWER. HE THEN GOT OUT AND PUSHED THE BUZZER AT THE ASHFORD GATE A FEW MORE TIMES. STILL GOT NO ANSWER. NOW, DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME KATO IS STILL IN HIS ROOM ON THE PHONE WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND RACHEL. NOW, WHAT I HAVEN'T EXPLAINED TO YOU YET, THIS AREA HERE SHOWN, (INDICATING), THIS IS THE SOUTHERN BORDER OF THE DEFENDANT'S PROPERTY. THIS IS A WALKWAY HERE, BUT IT IS NOT LIKE A WALK, IT IS VERY NARROW AND IT IS VERY DARK, JUST A FEW FEET WIDE. IT IS COVERED WITH LEAVES AND IT HAS THE SHRUBBERY THAT IS INDICATED HERE IS ACTUALLY FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD AND THERE IS A CHAINLINK FENCE AND THE SHRUBBERY IS RIGHT UP AGAINST IT AND IT OVERHANGS THE WALK TO MAKE IT VERY DARK. HERE YOU CAN SEE WHAT IS INDICATED AS AN AIR CONDITIONER, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN ALL READ IT, BUT THAT IS WHAT IS WRITTEN HERE, THIS LITTLE BLACK BOX HERE. THIS AIR CONDITIONER ACTUALLY HANGS OVER THE WALKWAY QUITE A BIT. IT IS AN AIR CONDITIONER THAT IS SET INTO KATO'S WALL, SO YOU CAN SEE THE AIR CONDITIONER ON THE INSIDE AND THEN IT HANGS OUTSIDE THE WALL, OUTSIDE THE HOUSE OVER THAT WALKWAY, SO THAT THIS WALL OF KATO'S ROOM FACES ONTO THE SOUTH WALKWAY. THERE IS NO ENTRY OR EXIT THERE. HE CAN'T GO OUT THAT WAY. IF HE WANTS TO EXIT HIS ROOM HE HAS TO EXIT THROUGH THE DOORS THAT ARE RIGHT HERE, LIKE SHUTTERED DOORS, LIKE SHUTTERS, DOOR-LIKE SHUTTERS, AND HE GOES OUT THROUGH THOSE SHUTTERED DOORS TO THE POOL AREA AND THAT IS HOW HE EXITS. SO ON THAT NIGHT HE IS ON THE PHONE WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND RACHEL.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MS. CLARK: OKAY. WHAT IS INDICATED HERE --

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: P-4.

MS. CLARK: WHAT IS INDICATED HERE IS THE AREA I HAVE JUST DESCRIBED TO YOU. YOU SEE THE SHRUBBERY FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD AND THE CHAINLINK FENCE AND THIS IS THE AIR CONDITIONER RIGHT HERE THAT I'M CIRCLING. THAT AIR CONDITIONER IS TO KATO'S ROOM AND IT IS SET INTO THE WALL. YOU CAN SEE HOW DARK AND NARROW IT IS. THIS IS A SHOT TAKEN DURING THE DAYTIME. AT 10:45 KATO IS TALKING TO HIS GIRLFRIEND RACHEL WHEN SUDDENLY HE HEARD ON THE WALL WHERE THE AIR CONDITIONER WAS THREE LOUD THUMPS. THE THUMPS WERE SO LOUD THAT A PICTURE ON THAT WALL ACTUALLY MOVED. KATO WAS ALARMED. HE ASKED RACHEL, "HAVE WE HAD AN EARTHQUAKE?" WHEN SHE SAID SHE HADN'T FELT ANY, HE BECAME EVEN MORE ALARMED AND THEN HE WONDERED IF THERE MIGHT BE A PROWLER, SOMEBODY TRYING TO BREAK IN, BECAUSE IF IT WASN'T AN EARTHQUAKE, THAT IS WHAT IT HAD TO BE. HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT THE SOUND HE HAD HEARD. HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT THOSE THUMPING NOISES AND SO HE DECIDED THAT EVEN THOUGH HE WAS AFRAID AND IT WAS LATE AT NIGHT AND DARK HE SHOULD GO AND SEE WHAT THE CAUSES OF THOSE NOISES MIGHT BE. A FEW MINUTES LATER HE HUNG UP WITH RACHEL AND WENT OUT OF HIS ROOM TO GO AND LOOK.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: P-6.

MS. CLARK: THIS IS A PICTURE OF KATO'S ROOM. RIGHT UP HERE WHERE I'M INDICATING, THAT IS THE AIR CONDITIONER IN THE WALL. THE PART OF THE WALL THAT YOU CAN'T SEE IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, WHICH WOULD BE ACTUALLY OVER HERE, (INDICATING), THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE BED, IS WHERE THE PICTURE WAS HANGING THAT MOVED WHEN THE THUMPS WERE MADE. AND NOW, THE SHUTTERED DOORS I REFERRED TO, YOU CAN SEE THEM HERE AT THE LEFT EDGE OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH. YOU SEE THEM BETTER HERE. THIS IS TAKEN FROM THE HEAD OF THE BED FACING OUTWARD. THESE ARE THE SHUTTERED DOORS THAT LEAD OUT TO THE POOL AREA.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: P-5.

MS. CLARK: HE WALKED OUT OF THOSE SHUTTERED DOORS AND OUT THROUGH THE POOL AREA COMING OUT ONTO THE SIDE DOOR THAT BORDERS ASHFORD STREET. WHEN HE CAME OUT TO THAT SIDE YARD HE SAW THE LIMOUSINE THAT WAS PULLED UP TO THE ASHFORD GATE, BUT HE FIGURED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD ALREADY MADE CONTACT WITH HIM, WAS ABOUT TO LET HIM IN ANYWAY AND DIDN'T PAY ANY FURTHER ATTENTION, BECAUSE HE WAS VERY DISTRACTED BY WHAT THE CAUSE OF THOSE NOISES MIGHT BE. NOW, WITH HIM HE HAD A LITTLE DIM FLASHLIGHT THAT HE WAS GOING TO USE TO TRY AND SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON BACK THERE IN THE DARK. IN THE MEANTIME, JUST BEFORE KATO CAME OUT ONTO THE SIDE YARD, ALLAN PARK WAS STANDING AT THE ASHFORD GATE RINGING THE BUZZER, STILL GETTING NO ANSWER. FINALLY HE HEARD THE CAR PHONE RINGING INSIDE HIS CAR AND IT WAS 10:52. HE HAD STILL RECEIVED NO ANSWER TO THE BUZZING AT THE ASHFORD GATE, GOT BACK INTO THE CAR AND SPOKE TO HIS BOSS, TELLING HIS BOSS "I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS HOME. WHAT SHALL I DO?" HIS BOSS TOLD HIM TO WAIT A LITTLE LONGER. AND WHEN HE HAD BEEN SPEAKING TO HIS BOSS FOR THREE MINUTES HE SAW KATO COMING OUT THE SIDE YARD WITH HIS LITTLE FLASHLIGHT. ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY SEEING KATO IN THE SIDE YARD, HE SAW A PERSON SIX FOOT TALL, 200 POUNDS, WEARING ALL DARK CLOTHING, AFRICAN AMERICAN, WALK QUICKLY UP THE DRIVEWAY AND INTO THE FRONT DOOR ENTRANCE. IMMEDIATELY AS THAT PERSON ENTERED THE HOUSE THE DOWNSTAIRS LIGHTS WENT ON. ALLAN PARK HUNG UP THE PHONE AND WALKED OVER TO THE ASHFORD GATE AND BUZZED AGAIN. THIS TIME HE GOT AN ANSWER AND THE DEFENDANT SAID -- A VOICE SAID -- THAT ALLAN COULD RECOGNIZE AS THE DEFENDANT'S, THE DEFENDANT SAID, "SORRY, I OVERSLEPT. I JUST GOT OUT OF THE SHOWER. I WILL BE DOWN IN ONE MINUTE." NOW, KATO WHO WAS DISTRACTED BY THE POSSIBILITY OF A PROWLER, WASN'T LOOKING TO SEE IF ANYONE WAS COMING AND DIDN'T SEE, AND ALTHOUGH ALLAN PARK COULD NOT SEE WELL ENOUGH AT THE TIME THE PERSON ENTERED THE HOUSE TO IDENTIFY WHO IT WAS, CLEARLY THAT WAS THE DEFENDANT. NOW, WHILE ALLAN WAS STANDING AT THE GATE SPEAKING TO THE DEFENDANT ON THE INTERCOM, KATO DECIDED TO WALK AROUND TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE GARAGE AND HE WAS GOING TO ATTEMPT TO GO DOWN THAT NARROW WALKWAY TO SEE WHAT HAD HAPPENED, BUT WHEN HE ACTUALLY GOT BACK TO THIS CORNER OF THE GARAGE WITH THIS LITTLE DIM FLASHLIGHT, IT WAS VERY DARK AND HE WAS SCARED SO HE DECIDED NOT DO AND HE CAME BACK AROUND. WHEN HE CAME BACK AROUND HE REALIZED THAT THE LIMO DRIVER WAS STILL OUTSIDE THE GATE, SO EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANT HAD SPOKEN TO HIM AND SAID HE WAS COMING DOWN, HE DID NOT OPEN THE GATE FOR HIM. KATO HAD TO GO AND OPEN THE GATE. HE OPENED THE GATE AND HE LET HIM PULL IN. AS SOON AS ALLAN PARK PULLED THE LIMOUSINE INTO THE DRIVEWAY, KATO, WHO WAS STILL VERY WORRIED ABOUT THE SOUNDS, STARTED TALKING TO HIM, TELLING HIM HE HAD HEARD THE THUMPS ON HIS WALL, HIS PICTURE MOVED, HE THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE A PROWLER OR MAYBE IT WAS AN EARTHQUAKE, HAD ALLAN FELT AN EARTHQUAKE. ALLEN SAID, "NO, I HAVEN'T." KATO WAS VERY NERVOUS, BUT NOW WITH ALLAN PULLED INTO THE DRIVEWAY AND INSIDE THE GROUNDS, HE FELT A LITTLE SAFER, SO KATO DECIDED TO GO BACK TO THE AREA AND TRY AND CHECK OUT THE SOUNDS AND WHAT HAD CAUSED THEM. WHEN HE WENT BACK TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE GARAGE, HE WENT THROUGH A FIRST GATE THAT BASICALLY YOU JUST LIFT AND PUSH AGAINST THE WALL, IT IS NOT A LOCKING GATE, WENT UP AS FAR AS A SECOND GATE, BUT COULDN'T SEE ANYTHING. IT WAS STILL DARK, THE FLASHLIGHT WAS VERY DIM AND HE DECIDED TO COME BACK. HE WAS STILL TOO AFRAID TO GO BACK THERE BY HIMSELF. KATO CAME BACK OUT AROUND THE GARAGE, AND WHEN HE CAME OUT HE SAW THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD COME OUT OF THE HOUSE BY THAT TIME. THE DEFENDANT WAS NOW WEARING A LIGHT BLUE DENIM SHIRT AND LIGHT BLUE DENIM JEANS. AS HE CAME OUT KATO ALSO NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A SMALL DARK BAG PLACED NEAR WHERE THE ROLLS ROYCE -- EXCUSE ME -- THE BENTLEY WAS PARKED. REMEMBER I TOLD YOU THE DEFENDANT PARKED HIS BENTLEY THIS WAY, (INDICATING), FACING OUT TOWARD ROCKINGHAM. HE COULD SEE THAT THERE WAS A SMALL DARK BAG ON THE GRASS NEAR THAT BENTLEY. WHILE THEY WERE -- IT WAS ALLAN PARK AND KATO WHO WERE LOADING ALL OF THE BAGS INTO THE LIMOUSINE, AND WHILE THEY WERE LOADING THE BAGS INTO THE LIMOUSINE KATO SPOKE AGAIN OF THE THUMPS THAT HE HAD HEARD, AND BEING WORRIED THAT IT WAS A PROWLER, THINKING IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN AN EARTHQUAKE, HOPING IT WAS AN EARTHQUAKE, SO HE ASKED THE DEFENDANT FOR A BETTER FLASHLIGHT SO HE COULD GO AROUND TO THE BACK AREA AND CHECK OUT THE SOURCE OF THOSE SOUNDS AGAIN. HE AND THE DEFENDANT THEN WALKED INTO THE HOUSE VERY BRIEFLY, BUT THEN THE DEFENDANT SAID, "OH, IT IS LATE, I GOT TO GO" AND CAME BACK OUT. WHILE THEY WERE LOADING THE BAGS KATO OFFERED TO GO AND GET THAT SMALL DARK BAG ON THE GRASS AND PUT IT IN THE CAR FOR THE DEFENDANT. UNLIKE ANY OF THE OTHER BAGS, THE DEFENDANT SAID, "NO, NO, NO, I WILL GO GET THEM." HE WENT AND GOT THE BAG. THE DEFENDANT GOT THE BAG, AND PUT IT INTO THE CAR. NOW, THE DEFENDANT DID NOT GIVE KATO A BETTER FLASHLIGHT, AND WHEN HE LEFT, ALTHOUGH KATO STILL SEEMED CONCERNED ABOUT THE THUMPS, THE DEFENDANT SEEMED RELATIVELY UNCONCERNED. HE GOT INTO THE LIMOUSINE AND THEY LEFT FOR THE AIRPORT AT APPROXIMATELY 11:15.

NOW, LET ME BACK UP FOR A MINUTE. JUST BEFORE HE LEFT, THE DEFENDANT ASKED KATO TO SET THE ALARM. KATO SAID HE DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT. HE HAD NEVER SET THE ALARM BEFORE. HE DIDN'T KNOW THE CODE AND HE FELT VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY. HE TOLD THE DEFENDANT, "NO, I REALLY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT." THE DEFENDANT THEN LEFT. THEY TOOK OUT -- THEY LEFT AT THE ROCKINGHAM GATE AT 11:15. KATO WENT BACK TO HIS ROOM TO CALL BACK HIS GIRLFRIEND, RACHEL FERRARA, AS HE PROMISED TO DO. ON THE WAY TO THE AIRPORT THE DEFENDANT REPEATEDLY COMPLAINED OF BEING HOT. ALLAN PARK COULD SEE THAT HE WAS SWEATING AND HE ROLLED DOWN THE WINDOWS AND TURNED ON THE AIR CONDITIONER. THE TEMPERATURE THAT NIGHT WAS 63 DEGREES. DURING THAT DRIVE TO THE AIRPORT ALLAN COULD SEE THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS MOVING AROUND WITH HIS BAGS IN THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT, ALTHOUGH HE COULDN'T SEE EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS DOING. THEY ARRIVED AT THE AIRPORT AT 11:30 AND THAT SMALL DARK BAG THAT THE DEFENDANT INSISTED ON PUTTING IN THE CAR HIMSELF WAS NEVER SEEN AGAIN AFTER THE DEFENDANT LEFT FOR CHICAGO. NOW, DURING THE TIME THE DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING TO THE AIRPORT KATO WAS ON THE PHONE AGAIN WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND RACHEL. DURING THAT PHONE CALL THERE WAS A CALL WAITING INTERRUPTION. THE CALL WAS INTERRUPTED BY THE DEFENDANT. THE DEFENDANT TOLD HIM, "I NEED YOU TO SET THE ALARM. I FORGOT TO SET THE ALARM." HE HAD TO GIVE KATO THE SECURITY CODE AND TELL HIM WHERE TO GO AND