SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
JANUARY 27, 1997
VOLUME 49

THE COURT: Morning, ladies and gentlemen.
JURORS: Good morning.
ALL COUNSEL: Good morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
CLOSING ARGUMENT (continued)
MR. BAKER: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
JURORS: Good morning.
MR. BAKER: I apologize to you for taking so long. And I apologize to
you because this flu hangs on a long time and I still have it. But
we'll get through this. One of the things that has required us to
take a little longer than we anticipated is I certainly hadn't
anticipated that Mr. Petrocelli would get up here last week and tell
you -- and say to you that there was no -- absolutely no evidence of
planting, there was no evidence of contamination, and there was
absolutely no evidence of tampering. Because he says it, it doesn't
make it so. There's evidence all over the place. It's been
demonstrated to you. And we will go through it a little bit more as
the morning wears on. Just the same, when he says there's absolute
proof to a moral certainty that OJ Simpson committed these murders,
it doesn't make it so. It's his rhetoric that is, I would suggest to
you, hollow, and we are going to demonstrate that for you. The thing
that is amazing to me is that in a day and a half, the plaintiffs
never touched upon the crime scene at all. They didn't tell you how
these people met their demise, they didn't tell you about what the
police did. They totally ignored it as if this never occurred, as if
it didn't happen, as if what we do is we go from the fact that the
bodies were found at 12:10 on June 13, 1994, and we go directly to
Cellmark, SID, lab tests, and that's all the information you need to
know to determine whether or not Mr. Simpson committed these
murders. I want to -- pardon me. I want to talk about what happened
the night of June 13 as it relates to the Los Angeles Police
Department, what they did, and equally importantly, what they didn't
do, and how they went about justifying their conduct on the night of
June 13, 1994. Now, what we do know about that night is we know that
Ron Goldman was contacted after Karen Crawford was called by Nicole
Brown Simpson at around 10 o'clock. And we know that Nicole and Ron
had at least friendships before June -- June 12, 1994. He had her
phone number, and she, of course, after she talked to the manager,
Karen Crawford, had asked to talk to Ron Goldman there at the
Mezzaluna. And then what happened? Well -- I am really dry. Can you
get me some water. Pardon me. So what we know happens is that Ron
Goldman goes to his house, presumably showers, changes clothes,
comes over to 875 South Bundy. And the other thing that we know is
he's got the envelope, and he's got the glasses. We know that once
he gets there, the buzzer on the front gate doesn't work. We know
that from Lange's notes, because Lange went and tested it, and
determined that it didn't work, and put it in his notes. And so this
would necessitate Nicole coming out, opening the gate, and allowing
Ron Goldman in the front gate. So now we have both of the victims at
the front gate. When she opens it he comes in with the envelope, and
the glasses contained in that envelope. Now, what happens after that
at the front gate, where it swings open, we have showed you the
blood smears, and we'll put that picture back up on the Elmo. (Board
entitled Blood Stains From Closed-In Area at Bundy.) (Photograph
displayed on Elmo.)
MR. BAKER: Vertical or parallel line pattern on the gate post, and
interestingly enough, the hat underneath, almost as if it's placed
there, underneath the rail of the fence. How does it get there
without any dirt on it? How does it get there without being kicked?
Do you recall Werner Spitz up here on the stand, looking like he was
a rocket, trying to kick his legs saying how it kicked underneath
there. Ladies and gentlemen, that virtually looks like it was placed
there. And then, of course, you've got the glove at the initial
stage, the shoe print right there is within six or so inches of the
front gate. And we know that there are no Pautauqua shoe prints at
all on the walkway. And we remember the Pautauqua shoe prints are
the shoe prints of Ron Goldman. Now, what does that tell us in
trying to reconstruct what went on that night of June 12, 1994?
Well, one thing we know is that Nicole Brown Simpson was killed
first, because if she wasn't killed first, you'd have Chautauqua
shoe prints in the blood on the walkway. And there are absolutely
none. So she is killed. Let's examine that for just a moment. Werner
Spitz testified to you that it took 15 seconds for her to be killed.
15 seconds. Now, he did some pretty interesting physical maneuvers
up here to try to justify to you that that death could have occurred
in 15 seconds. You will recall that there are four vertical knife
marks on the left side of the neck of the body of Nicole brown
Simpson, with the blunt part of the knife up, and the sharp part of
the knife down, and I hate to remind you of this, but it's
important, and those went in a vertical line down the left side of
her neck. The perpetrator, the assailant, whoever it was was in
front of Nicole Brown Simpson -- and that took some time. And that
took some time. At the same time, concurrent with that happening,
Ron Goldman had to have been inside the closed-in area, and he had
to have been in there because we know the glasses are there, and he
brought the glasses. Then the assailant gets behind Nicole Brown
Simpson and does the final, heinous act of putting a knife through
both jugular veins. Her carotid arteries. I apologize. Through both
carotid arteries. Then what happens? The carotids are very close to
the heart. Blood is going everywhere. And superimposed upon all this
information that we have is the information that we absolutely know,
that it's quiet and sounds can be heard. And we know that because we
know that Mr. Heidstra, at 10:40, was directly opposite the
condominium of Nicole in the alley, and he heard the hey, hey, hey,
and that's all he heard. He didn't hear any other voices at all. He
didn't hear any screams. He didn't hear any shrieks. He didn't hear
any cries for help. And nobody else did. You'll recall, relating to
the noise, that after the bodies are discovered at 12:10, LAPD gets
people -- police officers, and they door-knock. They door-knock up
and down Bundy. Not one person heard a scream. Not one person heard
a cry for help. Not one person heard any kind of noise, except for
barking dogs. So we have -- we know that it took some period of time
for Nicole to be killed. And we know that Ron Goldman was there when
it occurred. And we know that not a sound was emitted. And as Dr.
Baden said to you from the witness stand, that to me says there had
to be at least two assailants. How could you keep them quiet? How
could you keep -- how can you keep Ron Goldman off of a single
assailant? If it's OJ Simpson or the biggest football player who
played in the Super Bowl yesterday? How can you keep him from
beating on him, from trying to inhibit him from doing this horrible,
horrible thing? The answer is clear. It couldn't if, in fact, there
was any truth in the accusation that one person did this and it was
OJ Simpson, of what Simpson would have looked like -- I mean Ron
Goldman if his back was turned to him while he was gouging with a
knife Nicole's neck. He have had body blows to his back. He would
have had a choke hold around his neck. He would have had -- he would
have had whatever. People would have done one of two things: They
would have run out of that gate to get help, or they would have had
a horrendous assault on this single assailant. And Mr. Simpson had
not a bruise on his body. Nothing. Not a bruise. Not one mark on his
body. The plaintiffs tried to assert that this mark underneath his
right -- on his biceps of the right arm, was some sort of a bruise.
That's been part of his physique since his football playing days.
And believe me, that's a long time ago. And let's be very clear. The
reason -- the reason Werner Spitz is here and testifying that it's a
minute and 15 seconds is because they have to have an absolute quick
double murder because there's no time -- there's simply no time for
Mr. Simpson or anybody else to commit these crimes, given when Mr.
Simpson was seen. So they've got to make them virtually instantly
occur. And the point of that is the more you do that, the more you
make them quick, the more I would suggest to you it would appear it
would have to be a professional killer or professional killers. Not
somebody who's in an uninitiated blind rage as they want to you
believe. Let's examine further the crime scene, because it has been
ignored by the police, but it can't be ignored in arriving at your
decision, which is to arrive at the truth. Not a sympathetic version
of reality painted by the plaintiffs. And we're going to get into
that in a little bit. We know that there was blood spatters all
around the closed-in or caged-in area. Have we got that other one
that shows the Bundy as well? Once you get by the gate, and you have
blood spatters at 3 feet, and LAPD took no pictures higher than
that, we don't know if there are blood spatters higher than that or
not. We certainly know that Ron Goldman was upright for a period of
time. He stepped into blood and dirt which is all in the caged-in
area, because there's not a shoe print of his on the walkway. We
know that there are an immense amount of -- of physical evidence
that indicates how long this struggle took once Ron Goldman was the
target to be killed. Blood smears at different locations. And we
have them all over. (Counsel indicates to board entitled Blood
Stains From Closed-In Area at Bundy.)
MR. BAKER: Blood drops at different locations. His blood spatters at
different locations. You've got Ron Goldman's shirt where there were
buttons yanked off, buttons pulled off, and the thread still on,
indicating that a struggle took place, and he was grabbed and his
shirt pulled. The evidence that he was upright at least three
minutes after his jugular vein was cut, the left jugular vein, that
he was upright. And, of course, he was upright because you have
blood here, the pool of blood down in this area, on the back, on the
north side, that he had to be basically upright for that blood to
have pooled there. He was there a long period of time. The cut on
his boot. Remember the cut on his boot where he had a -- it was a
fresh cut on the toe of the boot, indicating that he was kicking
around the knife? The hole that was dug. Now, that's a pretty good
size hole. Both Lange, Spitz, and Lee, agreed that that was a
product of the struggle. Now, that takes some period of time. That
dirt isn't soft. Werner Spitz says it's soft. Dr. Lee says I was out
there, that was an area that took a while to dig. And, of course,
it's right where the blood is pooled beeper is found, we have the
keys found at a different area. And ladies and gentlemen, we have 30
wounds in the body of Ron Goldman. 30 wounds. Including wounds,
defensive, to his hands, including bruises to his knuckles. Now,
where on Mr. Simpson are the results of him inflicting punishment
upon his assailant? It's not there. Doesn't exist. Doesn't exist
because Mr. Simpson, OJ Simpson, didn't do it. You've glove, got
vegetation with blood on it. You have indications that this took a
fair amount of time now. Now, Werner Spitz, interestingly enough,
said, well, I know it took a minute and 15 seconds. When we started
to cross-examine Werner Spitz, did you notice how he then started
testifying I'm not a criminalist, I'm a forensic pathologist. On
direct examination he could stand up here and he could show you
exactly what happened, and he could demonstrate with absolutely no
hesitation about how these murders occurred, about where everyone
was standing. And all of the sudden, when you start to get into the
details, when you start to press him, then he was a criminalist. He
didn't do the crime scene reconstruction because his testimony
doesn't fit. It doesn't make any sense. Sure, if nobody was fighting
back, and a hole wasn't dug, if blood spatters weren't everywhere,
if blood hadn't pooled, you could probably inflict those wounds in a
minute and 15 seconds. But you couldn't when you have two young
people who are fighting back. So how long did it take? Well, we know
a couple of things; we know that the assailants weren't in too big
of a hurry. They walk. (Board entitled Blood Drops at Bundy June 13,
1994 displayed.)
MR. BAKER: We'll have the shoe print board here in a minute. They
walked back up towards the front door, turned around, and there are
steps going back towards the bodies. They were not rushing through
the murder of these two individuals. You heard Bodziak say -- well,
that he had testified in the criminal trial, and it was his belief
that the -- let's put that one up. You can leave that one up, too --
that the assailant or assailants had walked back into the bushes to
perhaps not be seen, towards -- from the front of house, there are
steps going down here (indicating), shoe prints going back down
here, there are shoe prints over by the bodies, and there's a shoe
print four feet in front of the body of Nicole Brown Simpson; four
feet in front or east towards Bundy. There's 23 sets of unidentified
-- unidentified shoe prints. There's a shoe print that was found by
Henry Lee, back here, a parallel line pattern that was found after
the LAPD had already allowed the scene to be run amuck by the media
and Looky-loos. And Mr. Medvene would have you believe that Dr.
Henry Lee cannot tell whether or not that print was put on
subsequent to the murders. And, of course, Henry Lee is a very
honest man. He said I can't tell if it was put on after the murder
scene was released. But what he did tell you, and what he did -- put
the overlay -- that that is a shoe print, that was positive for
blood, the whole scene had been washed down, they had missed that,
that was positive for blood. So was it a shoe print that just
happened to be there as a result of somebody having blood on their
feet after the murders, or did it, in fact, occur during the
murders? Were there two assailants? And does it make more sense that
there were two assailants?
MR. BAKER: Phil, have you got that? (Photo is displayed on Elmo.)
MR. P. BAKER: That one?
MR. BAKER: I want to zero in on the shoe -- zero in on the shoe
prints. (Elmo is adjusted)
MR. BAKER: We know that, although Bodziak wouldn't agree to this one
as a shoe print, this is four feet in front of the body of Nicole
Brown Simpson, precisely the same shoe prints as he has identified
as being Bruno Magli. Now, what is -- these assailants were in such
a hurry to get out in a minute and 15 seconds, what is the assailant
doing four feet in front of the body of Nicole Brown Simpson, and
towards Bundy? And, ladies and gentlemen, there is -- then there is
another photo that turns up, and that photo turns up after the
criminal trial and it has -- shows seven blood drops out on the
walkway in an area where a dog has gone. The prosecution in the
criminal case did not -- can you zero in on these (indicating to
Elmo). Over here. There's blood -- oops, up a little bit, please.
These blood drops -- the prosecution cropped the photo. That photo
was never in existence during the criminal trial. It was. But it
wasn't in the hands of the defense. And there's seven blood drops,
vertical blood drops, going the same direction that the dog went,
same exact direction that the dog went, south on Bundy. No efforts
to ever take any of -- any smears from any of those blood drops, no
efforts to determine what is the significance of this by the LAPD.
But this indicates to you, ladies and gentlemen, that the assailant
was dropping blood out on the sidewalk. This crime -- these heinous
crimes took time. They weren't accomplished in a minute and 15
seconds. They were accomplished in 10 to 15 minutes. And why can't
the plaintiffs agree with that? Because if the plaintiffs agreed
with what is reasonable, they have eliminated OJ Simpson as the
perpetrator, and God knows, they don't want to do it, the LAPD never
wanted to do it. They had their man. They had the big fish from
basically the initial reporting of these crimes. They had the big
fish, and the big fish was OJ Simpson. Keep in mind, ladies and
gentlemen, the LAPD and the District Attorney's office, this is the
same duo, this is the same duo that couldn't win the McMartin case
after a year and a half. This is the same duo that couldn't win the
first Menendez case, even though they had a confession. And this
case they were going to win. They were going to get OJ Simpson and
they were going to get a conviction. And let's examine what happened
at 12:10 on the night of -- or early morning hours of June 13, 1994.
At that time, Riske discovers the -- and Rossi are there at the
scene. Riske goes in, as was indicated to you by Bob Blasier, picks
up a phone and destroys any last number dialed. And then what
happened? This becomes a cause celebre. Everyone in West L.
A. division has to come by 875 South Bundy. Everybody in the LAPD
has got to be a part of this double homicide involving -- involving
the ex-wife of OJ Simpson. There's one man that wants to be, more
than anybody, the linchpin of that case, and that's somebody who
you've, I'm sure, now felt there has been an effort to keep out of
this trial. Mark Fuhrman.
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PETROCELLI: Violates the Court's order.
THE COURT: Jury to disregard that comment.
MR. PETROCELLI: In bad faith. And he knows better.
MR. BAKER: I know the truth.
MR. PETROCELLI: You know better.
MR. BAKER: 12:10, 12:10 in the morning, Fuhrman and Phillips arrive,
and they're the lead detectives from West L.
A., and they walk through, they see the glove, they -- does Fuhrman
see more than one glove? Is there another glove over back by the
body of Ron Goldman that later ends up at 360 North Rockingham? You
bet. After they arrive, they are the detectives on the scene from --
approximately from 2:10 to 2:45, and they are then notified at 2:45
that robbery/homicide division is taking over, and robbery/homicide
division is Lange and Vannatter and that's the downtown group, and
they then stand down. They cannot do any investigation, they cannot
do any detective work. They then are relived of all of their duties.
This Fuhrman had to get in his car and drive home. And what happens
from 2:45 to 4:00? Nobody seems to know the whereabouts of Mark
Fuhrman. We know his jacket was off at one point. We know Spangler
says it was on at one point and we know that Lange and Vannatter say
it was off at one point at Rockingham. We also know that by 4
o'clock in the morning, still absolutely no detective work has been
done on this crime scene whatsoever. Nobody has done anything. This
is a double homicide. There are 25 LAPD detectives, sergeants and
officers at the scene, including all the brass. They're standing
outside. Not one sole is doing any detective work. Why not? Why, in
a crime scene that's rich in evidence, are they doing nothing? So
then -- so what then occurs? Vannatter gets there about 4:10 and he
takes a walk-through, and he walks through and he determines that,
yes, there is a double homicide, which has been known since 12:10,
and what then happened? Lange comes about 4:25 and he makes the same
interesting revelation, that this is a double homicide, that there's
a hat and glove that they see and that there's two bodies and
there's an immense amount of blood. And what do they then do? This
is the most incredulous thing I have ever heard. Then they decide,
with 25 -- with 25 LAPD officers, administrators, sergeants,
detectives, they decide that the four lead people -- the four lead
people are going to go to Rockingham, that is the two lead
detectives who had the job of doing detective work from 2:10 to
2:45, Detectives Phillips and Fuhrman, they're going to go, and the
two now lead detectives from robbery/homicide division, Lange and
Vannatter, are going to leave this crime, rich -- this evidence-rich
crime scene, 875 South Bundy, and they are going to go to 360 North
Rockingham. Isn't that incredible? And think of the reasons they
gave for their having to leave this crime scene and go to
Rockingham. One was personal notification. And you heard Phillips
testify. Well, we like to personally notify people of the death of a
loved one. And that sounds very good and it makes a lot of sense,
it's very considerate and it's very compassionate. So they -- do you
think any of the 21 people at LAPD who were at 875 South Bundy could
have gone to 360 North Rockingham, so that they could have
investigated that crime scene? You think one person could have? And
if they're so damn interested in personal notification, why is it
they didn't notify Fred Goldman until 5 o'clock in the afternoon on
the 13th? And then the LAPD didn't even do it. It was -- it was the
county coroner's office. Does that tell you how interested they are
in personal notification? And then the second reason. Second reason
is we wanted Fuhrman and Phillips because we may need help with the
kids, OJ may need help with the kids. That's what they testified to.
I agree with you. That makes no sense at all. And of course once
they get over there, did they give OJ any help with the kids? Did
they give Arnelle, who was there, any help with the kids? Absolutely
not. She had to call
A.C. Cowlings, and he helped her. LAPD did nothing. And I think you
can interpret and I think that you're bright people and I think you
understand that was absolute pretextual nonsense as to why they went
to Rockingham. They went to Rockingham for one reason, and one
reason alone, and that was the big fish was OJ Simpson. He was a
suspect. He was always a suspect. And he was the only suspect. And
anybody who doesn't believe that believes in the Easter bunny and
the tooth fairy. Because they went over there with one idea in mind,
and that is to get evidence and to get OJ Simpson. So let's follow
it through. They get over there -- two cars, they get over there
about 5 minutes after 5 in the morning. And what do they do? The
rogue Fuhrman's wandering off on his own, and he finds that
little-bitty speck above the left door handle and says, why, that
must be human blood. He didn't know if it was human blood. They
didn't know what it was. And they say that the Bronco is parked at
such an angle that it's just unusual, it's weird. Well, I've seen it
in the pictures. It's parked about 4 to 5 inches at an angle, which
doesn't look weird to me at all. But interestingly enough,
interestingly enough, Astin testified that it was 2 to 3 feet out in
the street. 2 to 3 feet out in the street. Which might make some
degree of sense when OJ pulled it out after dropping off his golf
clubs, he went around and got in his car before the gate was closed.
Did somebody move this? Did somebody move this vehicle? Certainly
that does not appear anything close to 2 to 3 feet. But at any rate,
there is absolutely no reason to go over the wall. Happened as a
conversation with six police officers. Fuhrman, Phillips, Lange,
Vannatter, Gonzalez, Lange and Astin. They're all there. Gonzalez
and Astin, as you recall, are in the black-and-white. Everybody
agrees that, gosh golly, gee whiz, there could be something heinous
going on inside. It could be an extreme situation in 360 North
Rockingham. And so they decide that they are justified in going over
the wall onto Mr. Simpson's property. One officer won't go along
with it. Astin. He wouldn't say it didn't occur. He wouldn't say --
he's standing right there. He says, I didn't hear no evil, I didn't
hear the conversation. And who goes over the wall? Fuhrman. Again,
the same gentleman, who is the only one to find justification for
going over the wall. Fuhrman. Fuhrman goes over the wall after
they've made telephone calls, nobody's answered the phone, they've
heard the phone ring from outside the gate. They know nobody's going
to answer the phone. They go in, they ring on the door bell, and lo
and behold, nobody comes to the door. What a shock. Nobody answered
the phone. Nobody's going to come to the door. They wander around
the back of -- they come in after Fuhrman climbs the wall, they come
in, go to the entrance. As I say, nobody answers the door, which is
not exactly a news flash. And then they go down around the north
path and around -- Phillips goes back, checking this door, the back
door on the east side, and they go and knock on Kato Kaelin's door.
Now, think about it. Two minutes before they went over the wall,
they were concerned -- at least they want you to believe they were
concerned about criminal activity, that this crime scene was linked
with the 875 South Bundy crime scene and that they were worried
about Mr. Simpson, he could be dying inside, bleeding to death. Not
one of them pulls their side arm. Not one of them. And they go
around and they get to Kato's room and they knock on the door. Kato
comes to the door. First thing Kato says, and Vannatter's standing
right there, "Did OJ's plane go down?" And of course the
significance of that will become apparent momentarily. The other
three go down to Arnelle's room, get Arnelle, and they leave Fuhrman
with Kato Kaelin, and he goes inside and he looks at Kato's clothes,
into the bathroom, and he goes and chats with him about -- does a
drug test on Kato, Kato Kaelin, wants to know what he's been doing,
because, even though Vannatter has testified here in this courtroom
that OJ Simpson wasn't a suspect when they went over the wall, OJ
Simpson was no more a suspect than Bob Shapiro, one of his lawyers,
Kato Kaelin was a suspect, they didn't even know who he was. I mean
it's absolute nonsense. So they go down, they get Arnelle, Arnelle
gets clothed, and they tell you that they all go in this door. Every
officer tells you they go in that door. And why? There isn't even a
key lock on it. When in truth and in fact, they couldn't have gone
in that door. It was locked. Kato Kaelin had set the alarm from the
night before. And they go out the north pathway and they come around
and they go in the front entrance. The reason they told you, they
want -- and lied to you on the witness stand, and Phillips did it,
Vannatter did it, and Lange did it, and the reason they did it is
because, you'll recall, they want you to believe that OJ Simpson
never asked about what happened and they want you to believe that
they have already called OJ Simpson inside the house before Arnelle
had ever been told what was going on. And it just isn't true.
Because Arnelle comes out of the driveway to get her address book to
find out exactly where OJ is. She knows her dad's out of town. She
doesn't know exactly where he is. She knows Kathy Randa will, in
fact, know exactly where he is. And so she says, I'm scared, you've
got to tell me what's going on. And they do. They say, did you know
Nicole? Of course she knew Nicole. She's been murdered along with
another victim. And she breaks down. That's viewed by Officer Daniel
Gonzalez and it's heard by him and he puts it in a report. And then
they go back in and they call Kathy Randa. They find out the exact
whereabouts of OJ Simpson and they call him and, he, ladies and
gentlemen, is given the phone from Arnelle and asked, what is going
on, what is happening. And she tells him. And they didn't want you
to know that. Do you remember Phillips right here on the witness
stand, he testifies to you, he testifies, he never asked, he never
asked what was wrong. And what is that meant to convey to you?
Consciousness of guilt. That he already knows what went on. In fact,
he didn't know what went on, and he asked. And it's even in
Phillips's report. And Dan Leonard said, did you try to mislead the
jury by leaving this out? You put it in your report. Did you try to
just mislead the ladies and gentlemen of the jury? Of course he did.
So then what occurs? I mean, think about it, ladies and gentlemen:
This is where they have just told you they want you to believe that
they, truthfully, in their heart of hearts, believe that there was
something going on in this house, and they let Arnelle walk in the
door first; they let Arnelle lead them into the maid's room. Not one
of them has their sidearm drawn. I mean, it is absolute,
unadulterated nonsense. They say they never went upstairs. No, we
didn't go upstairs. They're all by themselves, with the exception of
Arnelle and Kato, who are being taken care of, in a couple rooms.
They've never been upstairs to view -- to see whether anybody was up
there injured. Of course they didn't, because they didn't believe
anybody was up there. And then, Fuhrman, who had been interrogating
Kato Kaelin, all of a sudden says, I'm not going to interrogate him
anymore; you do it, Vanatter. I'm going to go look around. Now, here
we have, according to their version of events -- that is, the LAPD's
version of events -- we have this -- again, a possible linkage to a
crime scene, could be murderers, criminals on the premises -- what
does Fuhrman do? He doesn't ask for backup. He doesn't ask for
anybody to go with him. He doesn't ask for somebody to be right at
his side, and his partner to be there in case they meet up against
somebody with a -- armed or somebody with a knife. No. He wanders
off all by himself. And what does he find? He finds a glove back by
the air conditioner. Phil, you want to put up the picture of Fuhrman
pointing to the glove? (Mr. P. Baker displays photograph on the Elmo
screen.) That discovery can only be viewed in context of this
picture. With the hat underneath Mark Fuhrman pointing at the glove
-- it's at night; it's before they ever went back -- ever went to
Rockingham. You heard Rokahr, the photographer, 40 years, that was
taken at night. Why -- why would there be one picture out of all the
pictures taken at 875 South Bundy, Mark Fuhrman within a couple
inches of the glove, and he just happens to find another glove that
matches it at Rockingham, linking the two crime scenes. I believe in
serendipity, ladies and gentlemen, this is not serendipity. Mark
Fuhrman is the only person that is -- that is shown in any
photograph, whatsoever, pointing to any piece of evidence. And it's
a piece of evidence that he's pointing to before there is any
linkage to Rockingham whatsoever. Now, the plaintiffs brought in
somebody who said this: Well, gosh, golly. Rokahr and I were sitting
in a car. She never even saw Fuhrman. And Rokahr is a photographer
of 40 years. If he had seen this exact scene at night, he would have
been in this court telling you he had made a mistake. They twisted
everybody else, why not Rokahr? He would have been in this
courtroom. But, in fact, he took that picture at night. And it is so
telling, it's unbelievable. So what happens? To get back to 306
North Rockingham, Fuhrman sees this -- and I suggest to you it's a
glove that he sees because he has planted it there earlier, or at
the same time that he accidentally discovered it, one or the other.
That glove is wet, it's moist, it's tacky. It has absolutely no
insect activity on it, and it has not one -- not one blood spot
around it anywhere. If, in fact, that had been dropped by OJ Simpson
at 10:50 the night before, it would have been dry, not wet, not
tacky, and have insect activity all over it. It had none of the
above. And isn't it strange, ladies and gentlemen, that there is not
a blood drop around it? Here you have this bloody glove that's --
that's got blood all over it, not a piece -- piece, a drop, a
scintilla, a minute speck of blood on a leaf, on the concrete, on
nothing. And, interestingly -- interestingly, with their theory --
theory of him coming over the Cyclone Fence and running into the
wall and hitting the wall three times at 10:51, instead of at 10:40,
as Kato earlier testified to. There is not any residue, any hole in
the shrubbery about him coming through. In fact, Vannatter said, I
looked and I didn't see any. And Phillips said I didn't look. Can
you imagine this? They have all seen a glove at Bundy; every one of
them took the walk-through and saw the glove -- that's what they
testified to -- now they see a glove at Rockingham, sitting out in
the middle of a small concrete walkway on the side of somebody's
house, and they don't look to see if there is any residue from
somebody coming over that way. Ladies and gentlemen, that's
absolutely not credible. Phillips said, I didn't look. And then he
said -- he said, I didn't have any glasses on. A detective without
his glasses on. That's a pretty interesting concept. I mean, he's
there to do detective work. And Lange said, I didn't get closer than
six or eight feet; I didn't look. And we didn't have the benefit of
Fuhrman's testimony here. One thing we do know: There is not one
iota of evidence that anybody came over that wall. There's
absolutely nothing to indicate, actually, at the Cyclone Fence.
There's nothing that indicates that the hedge, which is incredibly
grown, was broken in any regard whatsoever. It just isn't there, so
it couldn't have occurred. How does this glove get back here if it
isn't planted? That's planted evidence; there's no question about
it. That's planted evidence, for one reason, to link 875 south Bundy
and 360 North Rockingham. And it's done by Fuhrman. And there's no
question about it. You think of the blood drops on the driveway that
go towards Mr. Simpson's front entranceway. How do you do this,
ladies and gentlemen? Under their theory of the case, how does it
work? We know that we -- we cut ourselves, we bleed more at the
beginning. So we have five drops at Bundy, we have eleven drops at
Rockingham, not one of them down this 180 feet or 30 feet or
whatever. There is not a single blood drop. And then of course, the
blood drops stop in the foyer; they don't go up the stairs, they
don't go into the bedroom, they don't go into the bathroom. There is
no such thing. Does he bleed and not bleed at will? It doesn't fit,
ladies and gentlemen. The evidence doesn't mesh at all. It doesn't
mesh any more than the fact that in the closed-in area at Bundy, you
have no blood of OJ Simpson. You have no prints of OJ Simpson. What
you have is, you have blood transfers from Nicole Brown Simpson to
Ron Goldman. There's her blood on his clothing and his blood on her
clothing, so they were together. But there is no blood of Mr.
Simpson's in that area. There is no blood of Mr. Simpson's that goes
up into his bathroom. There is no blood that goes up the stairs. I
guess if you were to use their theory, he can turn on and off the
ability to bleed or not to bleed. But one thing we do know for sure:
That, after the glove was discovered, Fuhrman, who already knows
it's a match -- he's planted the glove; he's put it there -- he gets
in his vehicle and he goes back to 875 South Bundy to determine
whether or not it's a match, and comes rights back and says it's a
match. And guess what? And he stays at Rockingham all day. The one
guy that discovered virtually all the evidence that's incriminating
is Mark Fuhrman. Where is he?
MR. PETROCELLI: Same objection: Improper argument, violates the
Court's order.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: We further know, ladies and gentlemen -- we further are
well aware that when they left Bundy at 5 o'clock to come over for
this pretextual [sic] notion -- this pretextual helping Mr. Simpson
with his kids, that they never called the coroner, they never called
the criminalist; they didn't do one thing to allow the 875 South
Bundy crime scene to be processed at all. Do you think that's just
happenstance? Do you think that after five hours -- and Vannatter
gets on the stand and says, we were only going to be there five
minutes -- they're only going to be there five minutes, why don't
they call the criminalist? Why don't they call a coroner? No. No.
Vannatter called the criminalist to Rockingham. And he then, ladies
and gentlemen, after Fuhrman comes back to Rockingham, he allows the
criminalist and the coroner to be called. And then Vannatter, the
lead detective, the most senior, detective 3 for this investigation,
what does he do? He leaves the scene and he has -- fills out an
affidavit, under penalty of perjury, to obtain a search warrant for
Simpson's estate, and he lies to the judge. Do you want to put that
up, Phil? (Mr. P. Baker displays document on the Elmo screen.)
MR. BAKER: It says there appears to be what is human blood -- later
confirmed by Scientific Investigation personnel -- to be human blood
on the door handle of the vehicle. That never happened. To this day,
that has never happened. SID has never determined that what appeared
to be human blood on the door handle was, in fact, human blood. And
then he says, it was determined that Simpson left on an unexpected
flight to Chicago during the early morning hours of June 13, and he
says by interviewing Simpson's daughter and a friend, Brian Kaelin.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, that is an absolute fabrication, and
Vannatter knew it when he said it. He lied under penalty of perjury.
And you can disbelieve everything Vannatter said pursuant to the
instructions of this Court because -- think about it for a second.
If, in fact, he knows anything about OJ Simpson's flight -- which he
had to, because Kato Kaelin says instantly, did OJ's plane go down
-- he knows that it's scheduled, and he knows that he was on an
American Airline flight, and he knows that OJ went to Chicago on a
Hertz outing, or he doesn't know he got on an airplane at all. Where
did he ever come up with an unexpected flight to Chicago? The fact
is, it wasn't unexpected; it was expected for weeks. And Vannatter
knew it. And Vannatter would do whatever it takes to make OJ Simpson
the target, the suspect, the only suspect. And think about it,
ladies and gentlemen. If you go through the investigative process in
this case, there was never any effort, not an iota of effort to find
anybody other than OJ Simpson as a suspect. Consider just Tallarino,
the roller-blader who roller-blades by at 9 o'clock and sees a man
in a suspicious pose right there where the seven drops of blood
were, right there at 875 at 9 o'clock. Lange goes out, interviews
Tallarino, and does absolutely nothing with it. Doesn't follow up,
doesn't do anything. Any lead that didn't lead to OJ Simpson was
discarded. Think about the phone call to Sergeant Merrin between
10:00 and 10:30. The woman says, are you sitting on two bodies in
West L.
A.? Incredible stuff, isn't it? That's before the murders had taken
place. Somebody knew those murders were going to take place. Some
female knew those murders were going to take place before they ever
happened, and LAPD does nothing. Because it doesn't fit. It can't be
a rage killing. It can't be a rage killing. Somebody knows it's
going to take place before they ever happen.
MR. BAKER: Is this a good point, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Okay. Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk
about the case. Don't form or express any opinions. (Recess.)
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
CLOSING ARGUMENT (continued)
MR. BAKER: Ladies and gentlemen, we left off and before the break,
and I wanted to take you back up to where we are at Rockingham.
(Diagram of 360 North Rockingham Avenue displayed.)
MR. BAKER: Vannatter leaves Rockingham. He goes over to Bundy and
gets the search warrant, based upon the lies that I just showed you
that he put in the search warrant. Fuhrman remains at Rockingham.
And during this period of time, as we know, LAPD Detective Ron
Phillips called OJ Simpson in Chicago, and told him that his ex-wife
has been murdered and they want him back in L.
A. for questioning. Mr. Simpson then does whatever he can do to get
on the first plane that he can get on, and he gets on a plane in
about -- under an hour from the hotel to the airport. It's during
that period of time that he cuts the middle finger of his left hand.
You've seen the pictures in Chicago, you've seen the towel, you've
seen the glass in the sink, you've seen that. And you have also seen
that there is not one person who saw a cut on his hand, either hand,
before the cut that he got in Chicago when he was rushing around on
the -- phone, and half they're trying to piece together what had
happened and trying to get out of town. So OJ Simpson flies back.
He's met at the airport by Skip Taft and Kathy Randa, and he goes to
Rockingham. At Rockingham he has his duffel bag when he gets out of
Skip's car and he goes into Rockingham. And that's all he has.
Kathy's got the Louis Vuitton bag. The police won't even let her
inside Mr. Simpson's place, nor will they take the bag. So she's
there with the bag. Skip's car is locked, and subsequently that bag
is given to Bob Kardashian. The police absolutely never asked for
it. Never asked for it at all. It is subsequently brought to the
criminal trial along with the golf bag, along with the bag that Mr.
Simpson had golf balls in; not at the request of the LAPD, not at
the request of anybody else, but the request of OJ Simpson. He then
goes into the compound. Well, let me just back up one minute. If any
one of those items had any blood in them at all, you would have
heard about it. You know they were tested by the LAPD, and you know
there was absolutely not one drop of blood in any of those items, or
it would have been in this case, in the criminal case. You would
have heard from the witness stand. You didn't because there was
none. So OJ Simpson gets into the compound. Vannatter tells Thompson
to cuff him. Vannatter lied. He said he didn't tell Thompson to
handcuff him. Thompson said, yes, he did. I wouldn't have done it on
my own. You can rest assured. Why do you think Vannatter wanted OJ
handcuffed? He wanted him handcuffed so he could take the handcuffs
off and be the good guy, and he could be OJ's pal; and then we'll go
down and we'll get a statement from you, OJ, and oh, don't have to
worry about a lawyer, you don't have to worry about anything, we
just want to get through this. Remember him saying that on the tape?
We just want to get through this and let you go, OJ We just want to
get through this. This was their guy. This was their big cahuna.
This was the guy they wanted to blame for this crime. And they were
going to do it. So they get the handcuffs off of OJ Obviously, he
agrees to go down to Parker Center. He agrees to have a statement
taken without his attorneys being present; says I've got nothing to
hide. This is not the consciousness of guilt, ladies and gentlemen,
this is the consciousness of innocence. What does he say? Mr.
Petrocelli indicated to you that he never mentioned that he was cut
in Chicago. Phil, put that up. Page 158, I think.
MR. P. BAKER: You have the statement.
MR. BAKER: I thought you had one too, Phil. Sorry. (Document
displayed on Elmo.)
MR. BAKER: Put it down. (Indicating to Elmo.)
MR. BAKER: How did you do it in Chicago. Oh, I broke a glass. It was
-- I just was -- you had what -- one of you guys had just called me.
I was in the bathroom. I kind of went bonkers for a little bit. I
cut it, it was cut before. I think I just opened it. Obviously, he
isn't sure exactly where, but he certainly mentioned that he has cut
his hand in Chicago and tells him. And he is certain that he has had
blood on his little finger when he's in his house the night before,
just before he's leaving. Think about it, ladies and gentlemen. When
he has this blood on his finger and -- he sees a drop of blood and
he takes a paper towel and wipes it off, think about it for an
instance. That's just after he's gotten back in from getting his
phone equipment out of the Bronco. That is the only thing that makes
any sense to explain blood drops down the driveway, exactly what Mr.
Simpson was doing. He cut himself in the Bronco and he dropped some
blood coming down the driveway. It makes no sense, absolutely none,
for him coming over the Cyclone fence, going down the south walkway,
without any blood whatsoever, and then all of the sudden, going --
being seen going in the entranceway. There's no blood. None
whatsoever. And yet there is blood here, which is fully explained by
Mr. Simpson's cut -- going out just before he's leaving to get his
charging equipment out of the Bronco. I want to go back to Parker
Center. Back at Parker Center the interrogation without Mr.
Simpson's lawyers goes on. And you heard Mr. Simpson tell you that
they stopped and started that tape before they ever restarted it and
tape-recorded it. And the point being that they interrogated him
first, then they interrogated him again. And he told them, ladies
and gentlemen, he told them, besides the cut, he said -- although
Vannatter and Lange testified he never asked what happened, what
went on, what was going on -- Phil, put up page 23. (Document
displayed on Elmo.)
MR. BAKER: He said (reading:) You guys haven't told me anything. I
have no idea what happened. When you said to my daughter -- said
something to me today that somebody else might have been involved, I
have absolutely no idea what happened. I don't know how, why or
what. You guys haven't told me anything. Every time I ask you guys,
you say you're going to tell me in a bit. Vannatter says, well, we
don't know a lot of answers to those questions yet ourselves, OJ Of
course, they knew the answers to the questions. They were lying to
him because he was the primary suspect. But OJ had asked them, and
asked them, and asked them; and they wouldn't tell him. Then they
come in here and say it's consciousness of guilt. Ladies and
gentlemen, that is a fraud. He asked them. They wouldn't admit it so
that they could use it in a courtroom to convict OJ Simpson. It
doesn't work then. It's not going to work now. Then they talk about
blood. Phil, you'll want to go up to the same page. I guess it's
down. I'm sorry. Phil, you take mine. (indicating to document.) We
got blood on and in your car. We got blood in your house. It's sort
of a problem. OJ says, well, take my blood test and we'll see. Is
that a guilty man? Immediately they mention blood, he says take my
blood, we'll see. And so, of course, they do, ladies and gentlemen.
They do take his blood. And we're going to talk about that in a
minute. One other thing. If he has such knowledge that he had been
to Nicole's house, he had killed these two people in cold blood that
evening, and he was asked, as he was asked --I think page 22, Phil
-- about whether he had ever left any blood at Nicole's house, what
would he have said? Sure. I'm over there, the dog and I, we got in a
scuffle, and I may have dropped some blood someplace. What did he
say? Do you recall having cut your finger last time you were at
Nicole's house. "
A. A week ago. Yeah. "
A. No. Now, he could have -- if he had been the killer, wouldn't he
have conformed his testimony -- wouldn't he have said, gee, I think
I did cut my hand. I was over there picking up the dog last week and
I cut my hand. But no, he didn't. He said, no, I didn't cut my hand,
because he didn't cut his hand, and because he wasn't the killer,
and he wasn't over there. Now, let's chat just a little bit about --
let's discuss what -- you can pull that down. Let's discuss the --
oh, I'm sorry. One more thing. I apologize for going back, but page
15 -- I'm sorry, the --
MR. P. BAKER: 382?
MR. BAKER: Go to 31 on there. (Elmo adjusted.)
MR. BAKER: When they're asking about how he cut himself. I didn't --
here's a man giving his statement, had very few hours sleep,
absolutely distraught, and they ask him about the cuts. Again, I
wasn't aware -- wasn't aware that I, you know, I was trying to get
out of the house. I didn't pay any attention to it. I saw it when I
was in the kitchen. I grabbed a napkin or something that was there.
Then I didn't think about it after that. That was -- that was last
night after you got home, after the recital when you were running
around. That was last night when I was -- I don't know what I was --
I was in and out of the car getting junk out of the car. I was in
the house. I was throwing hangers and stuff in my suitcase. I was
doing my little crazy -- what I do. I mean I do it. Everybody's ever
picked me up says that OJ's a whirlwind at the end, he's running,
he's grabbing things, and Vannatter says yeah. And when they asked
him about going to the Bronco, he says, I went to the Bronco to get
my phone or whatever, that is, meaning, of course, the phone
apparatus, because he already had his phone, he called at 10 o'clock
at night right next to his Bentley to Paula Barbieri and will you'll
recall that Mr. Petrocelli had said he was in his Bronco -- he was
in his Bronco when he made that 10:03 phone call to Paula Barbieri.
And you know and I know that if he had been in the car when that
call was made at 10:03, there would have been somebody on this
witness stand who would have said, I analyzed the sound from the
tape that was on Paula's answering machine when he left the message
--
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, zero evidence of any tape being in
evidence in this case. There is no such tape and he knows it. And he
is going way out of bounds.
MR. BAKER: That's not true, Your Honor.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, make him point to the evidence where
there's such a tape. Make him point to it.
THE COURT: Approach the bench.
MR. PETROCELLI: Point to it. (The following proceedings were held at
the bench with the reporter:) (Reporter reads the record as
follows:) . . . you'll recall that Mr. Petrocelli had said he was in
his Bronco -- he was in his Bronco when he made that 10:03 phone
call to Paula Barbieri.
MR. PETROCELLI: They didn't analyze anything Let's stay within the
record.
MR. P. BAKER: There was a tape made by Paula Barbieri's answering
machine. It was analyzed by the LAPD and they couldn't identify
whether there's a Bronco.
MR. PETROCELLI: Shhh. Keep your voice down.
MR. P. BAKER: You're the one.
MR. PETROCELLI: Can you control this guy, he's trying to make an
argument to the jury.
MR. BAKER: It's not your turn.
THE COURT: Excuse me, folks. Would you step out in the hallway.
(Indicating to jurors.) (Laughter from audience.) (Jurors leave
courtroom.) (The following proceedings resume at the bench:)
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. PETROCELLI: There is no such tape. There's been no evidence of
any tape. He's referring to a tape in the possession of the LAPD.
There's never been a drop of evidence in this case that they ever
had a tape, that they ever analyzed it. It's not true. And it's
certainly not in this record. They are trying to imply to the jury
that there was a tape that the police looked at it, they analyzed
it, and they determined that the call didn't come from the cell
phone. That's exactly what he's arguing. I want this jury
admonished.
MR. BAKER: Oh, be quiet.
MR. PETROCELLI: There's no evidence in this record.
MR. P. BAKER: There is a tape that was made from a 10:03 call left
on Paula Barbieri's answering machine. It was analyzed the by the
LAPD. They couldn't identify whether there were any car noises in
it. That information was leaked to CNN in October of 1994. Mr.
Petrocelli knows he gets on the stand he doesn't want to
cross-examine OJ Simpson about the letter on 732 and it's only
limited --
THE COURT: Excuse me.
MR. P. BAKER: I'm hot.
THE COURT: What's the matter with you?
MR. P. BAKER: I'm hot. There's a portion in this tape that was made,
he knows it, that was leaked to the LAPD. There was no Bronco
sounds. That evidence should be in front of the jury.
MR. PETROCELLI: Should be?
MR. P. BAKER: They talked about the other evidence which --
MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me.
THE COURT: Excuse me. Where is such a tape?
MR. P. BAKER: The LAPD maintains the tape.
THE COURT: Was there a tape?
MR. PETROCELLI: To my knowledge -- excuse me, let me answer the
Judge's questions. If there was such a tape, I'd be all over that
tape, and I'd bring it into Court, Your Honor. I don't know about
it. But that's not the point. It's not in evidence in this case.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. PETROCELLI: And I want the jury admonished.
MR. P. BAKER: If that's his standing I want all the portions of 732
--
THE COURT: Okay. I'm ruling just on this issue.
MR. P. BAKER: Okay.
THE COURT: I going to rule that there is no tape in evidence. Bring
the jury back in. (The following proceedings were held in open court
in the presence of the jury.) (Jurors resumed their respective
seats.)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, this is the end of the case. This
is closing argument, and like during the trial, even in the closing
argument phase, it is improper for attorneys to interject themselves
and make argument before you on questions that concern whether or
not something exists or does not exist. That should be done out of
your hearing because we don't know at the point they're making the
argument whether or not there is or is not -- the particular subject
matter that is being debated, exists or does not exist. So I am
admonishing both sides not to make speaking objections and speaking
argument. And even at side bench you heard voices raised. That's
improper. There are certain allowances I am making because of the
heat of the battle, but even making allowances for the heat of the
moment, the heat of the battle, these are supposed to be lawyers who
have been in practice for a long time, or even a short time, and
it's totally inappropriate to carry on in that fashion. It's getting
evidence or argument before you that ought not be before you. So
whatever you heard at the side bench or from counsel table during
the last interchange you are to disregard it. Everybody understand
that?
JURORS: Yes, sir. Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. There was an objection made with regards to Mr.
Baker's argument about some tape. There's been no evidence of any
tape. You are to disregard any argument regarding any tape with
respect to Ms. Barbieri. Everybody understand that?
JURORS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. BAKER: There's no evidence, but the imagination of Mr.
Petrocelli that OJ Simpson was in his Bronco at 10:03 driving the
vehicle. There is testimony from OJ Simpson that he was beside his
car, in the area, hitting golf balls out of his car and chipping
golf balls, a few of them, before he went out the gate, and around
and back in his front door. That's the evidence. His figment of his
imagination that he was in the Bronco is just that. Now, let me go
back to Parker Center and to the afternoon of June 13, 1994. Now, we
know that Lange and Vannatter, detectives of 40 plus years
experience -- and they've got their guy, they've got the suspect
they want right there, they've got OJ Simpson, and they've got a cut
on the middle finger of his left hand. They questioned him about it.
They then take him downstairs at Parker Center, draw blood, and have
him photographed. Now, Mr. Petrocelli would have you believe that
these experienced detectives of 40 plus years didn't look at his
hands. They had tunnel vision. They only looked at the cut on the
hand that they could see, in the middle of the left finger. Now,
ladies and gentlemen, that is ridiculous and it's ludicrous. They
looked, as OJ said, at both of his hands, turned them inside out and
looked at them, and inspected them, and there was one cut. One cut,
middle finger, on the joint. You've seen the pictures. They posed OJ
Simpson for the pictures. And the reason, of course, that he's got
to have more cuts on his hands is because he's got no bruises. If
he's got no cuts, it's clear he didn't do it. He's got to try to
elevate you to believe that these cuts were there. It just makes no
common sense. It makes no more common sense that these cuts were
there than it makes for Werner Spitz to tell you, ladies and
gentlemen, of this jury, that none of these are cuts; they are all
-- every one of them are fingernail gouges. And it's one that's on
the inside of his hand that was there after he was arrested, the
inside of the ring finger of the left hand, which seems to go from
outward to inward. In other words, it goes laterally, or the same
direction as the finger. And Werner Spitz couldn't figure out how
grabbing like this would have (indicating) gouged that particular
cut. And the reason, of course, he couldn't, is because it didn't
happen that way. And the gouge that is down here on the hand that
Dr. Spitz says is up here, and got totally confused -- but
everything according to him is a fingernail gouge mark, and it just
isn't so, he cut his hand, the middle finger of his left hand, in
Chicago. You've seen the glass. You've seen the bloody linen. You've
seen the towels. And that's what happened. And you also heard that
that's what occurred. When he walked out of the hotel and asked to
get a band-aid, when he's trying to get a cab in his fervent efforts
to try to get back to Los Angeles. And I suggest to you, ladies and
gentlemen, the cuts as well as the bruises are a problem that the
plaintiffs' try to work around. They can't get around it because OJ
Simpson simply is innocent. At 3:30 they get the blood. They get 8
cc's of OJ Simpson's reference blood. Vannatter, who we know has
misrepresented the truth under oath on this witness stand, and to a
Judge to get a search warrant, takes the blood. He can book it right
there. He can book it in Parker Center. He takes it. He can book it
at SID which is about a mile away. He doesn't do either. He
testifies to you on the witness stand that he takes the vial, takes
it upstairs to where his desk is, and gets an analyzed evidence
envelope out of his drawer and places it in his drawer and -- or in
the envelope, pardon me. Wait a minute. Did you ever take that
envelope down to Thano Peratis? No. It's got his signature. Oh, well
I guess I made a mistake. He never seals it. Why not? Why doesn't he
seal the envelope leave it with Peratis or in the alternative book
it right there at Parker Center or take it to S.I.D. and the reason
is it's because he wants to take blood out of it and does. You know
you can get Thano Peratis after he's only done this for about 20
years because now they've got a big hole in their case. There
missing 30,000 nanograms of DN
A. You can get him -- you can twist him, come in and say gee whiz,
it wasn't 7.9 to 8.1 as I testified under penalty of perjury on two
occasions. It was really only six and a half. And low and behold, we
are now not missing 30,000 nanograms of DN
A. Ladies and gentlemen, it doesn't wash. How could in one case all
of this happen if there wasn't some effort being made by Vannatter
and Fuhrman to frame OJ Simpson? How could it have happened? How
could you have all of these problems; missing blood? How could it be
that after the autopsy, never happened before. Siglar testified
never happened before. Vannatter gets the reference vials of Nicole
Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Never happened before. And lo and
behold on those vials, unlike the reference vial of OJ, there isn't
even a semblance of how much blood was in those vials. And think of
all of the items of evidence from the coroner's office after the
autopsies are done 60, 70, every one, every one of those items of
evidence is picked up by SID except the reference vials of blood of
Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman who's picked up by Vannatter.
Happenstance? I don't think so. Then what happens, ladies and
gentlemen? Then what happens? In this case, as you all know, it
seems to be like a fine wine; the evidence seems to get better as
the case goes on, for the prosecution. We have blood in the Bronco.
We have a lot of blood in the Bronco. We have blood at the most
amazing places. Back behind the console. We have blood on the
console. Drops on the console that turn into smears, and nobody's
been in it. How does that happen? It doesn't happen unless somebody
smears it. How are blood drops on the side rail of the driver's door
of the Bronco seen by Daniel Gonzalez unless he opens the door? You
absolutely can't see it. You saw where the -- like every other car
door in, there's a little seal, it goes up, then there's a little
seal so that water doesn't come directly into the automobile. Just
like every other automobile. Absolutely can't be seen. How does this
all happen in this case? And the socks, ladies and gentlemen, isn't
it absolutely incredulous that of the 32 pieces of clothes found at
Rockingham that purportedly incriminate OJ Simpson, both of them are
found, and there isn't one blood drop on any surrounding area, the
Rockingham glove and the socks. Isn't it incredulous? When you look
at those photos, there isn't one piece of clothing around them. They
sit like a sore thumb in the middle of this rug, right in the middle
of his bedroom, right aft -- right aft of his bed. Didn't look like
anybody sat on that bed to me. And I think Bob Blasier proved it to
you. Those socks were planted after Willie Ford had been in that
room. He didn't see them. How can you miss them? He never saw them.
And think about the socks. If you look at the recital tape, you'll
see OJ isn't in any Bruno Magli shoes. Goes home, changes, gets into
Reeboks, goes and gets a burger." Then he comes home and he changes
into Bruno Magli shoes. Give me a break. And he changes into dress
socks. And then these dress socks, I mean that's what you want, I
guess dress socks and then these dress socks, ladies and gentlemen,
are planted. And then to prove how much they're planted, you look at
June 22, 1994, when Baden and Wolf are there. These are two
criminalists. They have been requested to look at the evidence for
the defense. And Vannatter's standing over them and he won't let
them take them out of the cellophane holder that they're in. They
look at them. They can't find any blood. That's what they're looking
for. On the 29th, when three experienced criminalists are looking,
doing a blood search, those aren't my words, those are their words,
they're doing a blood search on those socks, Colin Yamauchi,
Michelle Kestler and Greg Matheson, "None obvious." Not any blood on
those socks. We wouldn't have held them up to the light, we're doing
a blood search, and we put them on dark carpet so we can see it or
something. I mean, come on, it makes no sense. Then, when they find
them on August 14, there is copious amounts of blood. It goes
through side 1 to side 2 to side 3, and then when it gets to side 3,
it is bonded in the fibers on side 3. And I want to talk to you a
little bit about the EDTA that's found on those socks, but I think
first we've got to talk just a little bit about more planted
evidence. And that's the back gate. Now, you went through with me
when Detective Lange was on the witness stand, and Lange had notes
of every blood drop down the walkway at Bundy, he had notes on every
one of them. He even draws a picture of the gate and indicates which
way it opens. Do you want to put that up, Phil. Here we're going
through the blood drops. Down here he puts the gate. Finds not one
drop of blood on the gate. And the next thing we know, July 3, 1994,
there's blood drops on the gate, and, ladies and gentlemen, they
have more nanograms of DNA than anything else except the socks. 16
Why is that? That is because it's planted. And so when the
allegations of planting come out, what happens? You've seen the
letter Rock Harmon writes to Roger Martz at the FBI to do a test to
determine if in fact EDTA is on the samples of the back gate and the
socks. This to me, ladies and gentlemen, is so crucial, and I want
to take my time and go through it with you. He says we want you to
determine the absence -- presence or absence of EDTA on the socks
and the back gate to refute the allegations of planting. So Roger
Martz does that. He does a test. And he finds EDTA on both samples.
That could only come from a purple-top test tube. This is obviously
absolutely devastating to the prosecution. It refutes what the
prosecution says. So what does the FBI do? Roger Martz said, I
tested my own blood, it came out with essentially the same reading.
But, contrary to FBI procedures, he erases his computer run so
nobody can come back and look, and at the time that he -- that he
says that, the time he says that, no one knows that EDTA is
undetectable in the human blood. Those tests haven't been devised
yet. So Martz believes he's got carte blanche to say, I tested my
own blood and it was about the same levels. That, therefore,
explains why there was EDTA on the back gate and the socks. They're
the same levels, so it isn't planted, okay. Now, think about it for
a minute. If he thought for one second there was any possibility of
ghosting or this cross-over effect you heard Terry Lee testify to,
if there was one second that he thought that that was, in fact, the
reason for the reading of EDTA, what would he have done? He would
have gone back and retested those items or tested some other items,
because he was 19 years in the laboratory, and he knew this wasn't
any cross-over effect, he knew that he had EDTA in these samples. It
was totally consistent with planting, because there was EDTA from a
purple-top test tube, and both of those samples are dynamite
evidence and they had to get rid of it somehow. Now, Mr. Petrocelli
-- we got that thing in opening -- there's a board in there, Phil.
This is what he told you in opening: A man named Roger Martz, a
scientist from the FBI, he has a machine called a mass spectrometer,
he can test blood samples to see if it has EDT
A. We will call Mr. Martz. He will testify he examined the blood
taken from the socks and the blood taken from the back gate to see
if there was EDTA in there that could have come from a reference
sample that had EDTA in it, that is, if there were high dosages or
high concentrations. Mr. Martz conducted these tests on his machine
and he determined conclusively, and will so testify, that the blood
on the back gate and on the socks could not have come from an
EDTA-treated test tube, and therefore could not have been planted.
Where was he? Mr. Lambert told you that he was going to bring it.
Where was he? He wouldn't come because of the fact that now it is
known that you can't have EDTA in your blood. And so his second test
relative to his blood to try to explain away the planting is
absolutely invalid. And he knows it, and he wouldn't come because he
wouldn't come in here and testify to you that a lab manager of 19
years got cross-over effect or ghosting, that is, residue from the
machine, EDTA in the machine came out on the next test. If these
people were so confident that EDTA wasn't in those samples, why
didn't they test everything? Why? They can get the FBI to jump
through hoops. We can't get them to return a phone call. Why didn't
they test everything? They didn't test everything because they
didn't want to know the answer. They figured that they could get
around this with you. They figured they could get Dr. Terry Lee to
come in here and tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that it was
ghosting, it was a cross-over effect from the machine. Remember what
he put in his notes? I thought it was very, very telling. We've got
to find a way to explain around it. That's basically what he said.
And his way to explain around it was it was left over in the
machine. Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence in this case is simply
not trustworthy. It is not trustworthy. It's not worthy of belief.
They had all the opportunity in the world to do that. They did not
do it. They wouldn't do it. And think about -- think about the
gloves for a minute. Mr. Petrocelli says, well, why didn't they have
OJ Simpson put on the gloves? You could see they were too tight. You
could see it on the video. He could have had him put on the gloves.
He didn't ask him. Those gloves are too tight. They wouldn't have
fallen off. They wouldn't have been dropped. You know, isn't it
absolutely incredible that they dropped one right at the beginning
of the crime scene so everybody can see it in Bundy. And the hat
stuck underneath the rail. And doesn't it defy credulity that the
other one just happens to be at their number one suspect's house, in
an area where nobody would be, where it doesn't belong. But it links
the crime scene. Incredible. And you didn't see any scratches on OJ
Simpson's hand. How can you pull those things off? Do you think that
some killer is going to be trying to pull off gloves or is he going
to be trying to attack. How did they come off and fall at such
convenient places, to link a crime scene? And, you know, I didn't --
I didn't have Mr. Fung say that there were cuts on both of those
gloves. He said that. When I switched subjects to the gloves, he
said, well, there were cuts on them. And then he said that the cut
was underneath this piece of stucco. And there is no cut underneath
the piece of stucco, the stucco's gone, there's no stucco, there's
no cut on the glove that's here. You look at the wear difference.
You make your own decision. But I'll tell you something, ladies and
gentlemen, the purported expert that they got in here to testify
that the gloves were solid, and that's evidence that you ought to
rely on, that man wanted to be in this case more than anybody. I
mean he flies out here, he wants to be invited to the victory party,
he wants everybody's cards, he wants memorabilia from the case. He's
not to be trusted. But the gloves do not link crime scenes, and the
reason they don't is, it's clear, it's beyond the pale, the
Rockingham glove is planted. There's just no question about it. Now,
you know, the contamination of the evidence, Bob Blasier told you
about that, and can you imagine how every bit of evidence in this
case, you take item 5823, it's got a 1.3 allele, to them that's
cross-hybridization. I mean there's an explanation for everything
that went wrong. And everything went wrong. And it went wrong
because somebody was playing with the evidence. Think about it. OJ
Simpson's reference vial, Nicole Brown Simpson's reference vial, Ron
Goldman's reference vial, these are clean samples, there is
absolutely no way contamination can get into those samples unless
LAPD contaminates them. And then you look at them, you have got OJ
Simpson's alleles in both Nicole Brown Simpson's blood and Ron
Goldman's blood. How does this happen? LAPD doesn't even have a
manual at SID. They really don't -- you know, they say the substrate
controls clear everything up. That is our defense, we couldn't have
contaminated everything because the substrate controls were all
clean. Now, isn't that incredible? Isn't that absolutely
unbelievable? This is a lab that has no set rules at all. For
example, brings OJ Simpson's reference vial out as the first thing
they work on, spills that, doesn't wash the table with bleach,
doesn't change paper, doesn't know when they change gloves. This lab
contaminated both reference vials of blood, and we've told you,
ladies and gentlemen, once it's contaminated, it doesn't matter who
tests it. I don't care if the FBI tests it, Cellmark tests it,
Department of Justice tests it, it's contaminated and it's going to
remain contaminated thereafter. And the substrate controls that they
say all were clean, they were all perfect, there was nothing on them
whatsoever. Now, can you imagine that? You saw the tape of Mazzola,
how she collects samples. You saw on the board, if there was one
substrate control, it was meaning not unlike diluted blood, and yet
everything wasn't just without any DNA, it was perfect. It was
immaculate, as if it had never been done, as if it had never been
accomplished at all, because it's their savior. And, ladies and
gentlemen, you can't trust it. If you can't trust the messenger --
and believe me, the messenger in this case -- we have one messenger
that came to testify. We have one messenger that didn't. The
messenger that came to testify is named Vannatter, and Vannatter is
not to be trusted, and he had all the blood. Every bit of it. And if
you can't trust the messenger, you can't trust the message. And
then, ladies and gentlemen, and I'm taking a lot of your time, and I
apologize, it is absolutely ridiculous to think that if Dennis Fung
is at SID and Phil Vannatter wants to get into SID and wants Dennis
Fung out of there and Dennis Fung is going to hold his ground and
protect the evidence of the People, that's absolutely ridiculous to
assume that. This evidence is contaminated, it's tampered with and
it's planted, it's not at all worthy of belief, it's not at all
worthy of belief to destroy a human being's life, and that's what
the LAPD and the plaintiffs want to do in this case. Now, one thing
you ought to put in perspective about the LAPD and the SID crime
lab, you've heard early on, within two days of these murders, OJ
Simpson makes available, at his cost, Dr. Henry Lee and Dr. Michael
Baden, two renowned criminalists -- one is a forensic pathologist,
rather, and Henry Lee, perhaps the most famous criminalist in the
world, is relied upon by the government of Taiwan, by virtually
every governor in the 50 states and by the FBI. Let the chips fall
where they may. Look at the evidence, examine the evidence, analyze
the evidence, and come to some conclusions. And LAPD turns them
away. LAPD wouldn't even let Henry Lee in the lab, wouldn't even
give him a microscope that he can see anything with. Why? Why, if
they have nothing to hide? Why? And the reason is, they have a lot
to hide. This evidence was contaminated early on. They knew it was
contaminated early on. And they didn't want anybody finding out
about it. They knew that they had tampered with, contaminated,
planted evidence. If not, why not let your lab and all of the
evidence be exposed to the light of day? Maybe they can tell you.
Now, I want to, just for a moment, talk about reality, and it may
seem somewhat harsh to do this, but this is a lawsuit. I just want
to talk a little bit about the parties in this lawsuit. Fred Goldman
is obviously a party, and you've heard that he has a wrongful death
claim and a battery claim, and the battery claim is the springboard
to try to get to the punitive damages phase or the second phase of
the trial against OJ Simpson. He stipulated that there's $100 in
damages. That is the amount of clothing that Ron Goldman was
wearing.
MR. PETROCELLI: He has not stipulated to $100 in damages on all
counts, Your Honor. That's incorrect.
MR. BAKER: On the battery count. And Mr. Petrocelli got up here and
told you in a very emotional appeal that Ron Goldman would probably
be opening his restaurant now and he would be going into his
restaurant. Let's examine reality. Fred Goldman, for reasons that he
called tough love, didn't help his son go through bankruptcy, and he
had to go through bankruptcy. Ron Goldman wouldn't have a restaurant
now. He'd be lucky to have a credit card. Don't buy into this
emotional idea, because it isn't reality. Mr. Petrocelli's well
aware that sympathy, passion and prejudice are not to be considered,
and yet he very dramatically wanted to read a poem to invoke your
sympathy. That's not part of your deliberations. I'd like to
introduce Mr. Kelly to his real client. He got up here before you
and said it was Nicole. His real client, ladies and gentlemen, as
was testified to correctly by Judy Brown on the witness stand, is
the estate of Nicole Brown Simpson. The two beneficiaries and the
only beneficiaries of that estate are Justin Simpson and Sydney
Brooke Simpson, Mr. Simpson's children. Children who he just got
back. That's who his real client is. But he wanted to talk about
Nicole and to talk about sympathy. And Sharon Rufo, Sharon Rufo
hadn't seen her son in about 12 to 14 years. She was -- and she
suffered a loss. I'm not saying she didn't. First time in the
history of my being in a trial that a plaintiff hasn't got on the
witness stand and testified. Sharon Rufo was here the other day. She
was here for final argument. She wasn't here to testify, to tell you
about her loss. She did that by way of deposition. She was here for
opening statement. But she didn't come to testify about what her
loss was. Hadn't had a phone call, talked to her son in a couple of
years. Now, those are the parties, those are the people suing OJ
Simpson. And it is interesting that -- you talk about not helping
your son through bankruptcy, not getting him out of jail, and that's
tough love. And it's interesting that you vilify OJ Simpson, Mr.
Petrocelli does, for trying to get his wife to pay her taxes so that
his ex-wife -- her house can never be taken away. That's something
to be vilified. That's just what has happened. What allows that to
occur, ladies and gentlemen, what allows that to occur is that the
media has told the world that it is politically correct to be
anti-OJ Simpson. And you, ladies and gentlemen, are the buffers, you
are justice by the people, you have the job of analyzing the
evidence in this case and weighing that evidence and whether it
makes any common sense, in determining whether or not OJ Simpson
committed these crimes. And, you know, we talked about -- we talked
about the week after the 12th, OJ Simpson is heavily medicated and
he's at his friend Kardashian's house and -- and he writes this
suicide note. And Mr. Petrocelli would have you conclude that he was
guilty, that he was trying to escape. And what I was able to
conclude from that, and you can as well, is, fortunately for Mr.
Petrocelli, he has never experienced the kind of grief that Mr.
Simpson was experiencing. It kind of wraps around your skull and it
presses on it and it's an omnipresent headache and it drops to the
pit of your stomach and you're depressed and it comes in waves and
you don't know if will ever leave and you don't know what to do and
you don't know how to do it, you don't know how to act, you don't
know what to do and you don't know if it will ever go away. And then
superimposed upon the grief from losing his ex-wife is the media,
convicting him in the court of public opinion of killing two people
that he had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with. And all of that
has been brought onto Mr. Simpson. And so he says to his friend,
take me to Nicole, and they get in Al Cowlings' Bronco and they go
down to the cemetery, and they can't get in, and OJ doesn't kill
himself, thank God. Mr. Petrocelli would have you believe that it
was Detective Lange who saved his life. Detective Lange didn't even
go upstairs to see if he was bleeding to death when he was there on
the 13th. Detective Lange didn't save his life at all. What saved
his life were two things, ladies and gentlemen: One is faith, and
two is innocence. And that's what saved his life. That was not a man
trying to escape. That was a man who was in total despair, who
wanted to end, as he told you, the pain. And, fortunately, he didn't
kill himself. I want to just discuss two final points and then --
you've indulged my speaking long enough. On the issue of motive,
which we have to go back to because they simply haven't proved any
motive, and they've taken an immense amount of your time, I want to
remind you of one other thing relative to that issue. And that is,
Nicole had close friends, she ran with them every morning, she had
nannies and housekeepers all her life, you didn't see one of them
come in here and testify to these what they would have you believe
to be seriatim abuses. And the reason that they didn't come in here
and testify is because they never occurred. They got people who
wanted their 15 minutes of fame. And we certainly would never deny
the '89 incident. But that '89 incident does not, five and a half
years later, manifest itself into a double murder, when there's
absolutely no motivation. And we have to go back and discuss briefly
-- briefly, the time line. And we have to discuss that because
before -- before it was politically correct to -- to be anti-OJ,
Heidstra testified that at 10:40 is when he was across the alley
from Nicole's condo. (Reading:)
Q. So that we're clear, Mr. Heidstra, is there any doubt in your
mind that you were in that alley and was walking parallel to Bundy
on the night of June 12, 1994?
A. No doubt. I'll never forget that.
Q. Any doubt in your mind that when you stopped behind the house, it
was approximately 10:40? Any doubt?
A. No, no doubt about it. And so from 10:40, if it took to 10 or 15
minutes, that it obviously had to take to do these heinous crimes --
you're at 10:50, 10:55, and another six minutes, and you're at 11
o'clock, to get from Bundy to Rockingham. And, of course, OJ Simpson
is seen, at the latest, 10:54, 10:55, walking into his house, after
he came down and dropped his garment bag, after he'd been upstairs
and dropped his garment bag over his golf bag. And that's when he is
seen. And there is absolutely no time -- And, ladies and gentlemen,
the car, the Blazer-like vehicle that turned right on Bundy that had
no relationship to the crime one way or the other, certainly, Mr.
Simpson would never have gone that way. And it was too early for the
crimes to have ever been completed. There simply wasn't any time
whatsoever for him to do it, because we knew, according to the
plaintiffs' theory, giving them -- we knew at 10:40, when you hear
the "hey, hey, hey," Ron Goldman's alive. The gate clangs, and he's
alive. There is no time, if it were Mr. Simpson, for him to do it,
go through all of that caged-in area and tussle, keep Ron Goldman
quiet while he allegedly murders Nicole, keep himself away from Ron
Goldman so he doesn't get a bruise on him. Not while he's murdering
Nicole and not while he's in this horrific struggle with Ron
Goldman's life, without a bruise, and then speed off in the wrong
direction, with no time to get to his house. And then, ladies and
gentlemen, follow through with -- follow with me, and let's go
through it. If he goes over the cyclone fence, and he got --
allegedly changed clothes -- what, in God's name, has he changed
into? If his clothes are already going into his bag, they're going
to be placed into the Bentley, what has he changed into, and where
did they go? Where would you leave the bag? In the direct light of
the parking lamps that were on of Allan Park? And how, in God's
name, ladies and gentlemen, did OJ Simpson, if he were the murderer,
come back from Bundy in this huge white elephant called a Bronco,
drive it up to Rockingham? And Allan Park, who is extra vigilant,
tying to find OJ Simpson, never hears the noise of that vehicle,
never hears -- never sees any lights, never hears a door slam,
nothing. How did it happen? Well, it doesn't happen, because that
car was sitting there the whole time, because Mr. Simpson had been
upstairs, taking a shower. And think about it. If he'd taken a
shower, and he had to take a shower after he came back, they didn't
find any blood in his plumbing, not one drop in the sink, no. They
took away the plumbing in his house. They did it in his wash room.
They scoured the sewers. They had every inch of the route from Bundy
to Rockingham scoured for clothing. They couldn't find any. Why not?
Because Mr. Simpson is innocent. He didn't do it. How could he have
possibly killed these people and dropped all his stuff around, got
rid of the murder weapon, the shoes, the clothes -- kept the socks,
though, kept the socks -- and how could it have happened? It clearly
didn't. It clearly didn't. And, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Petrocelli
has said to you, Mr. Goldman, Fred Goldman, can't get his son back;
he can't get his life back. That's very true. He can't. And that's
sad, and that is something we all feel for him. You can't give him
his son back. You can't give Ron Goldman's life back. But you can
give back Mr. Simpson his life. He has been ridiculed. He has been
tried in the press. And it's only the jury -- it's only justice by
the people who will listen to the facts of this case without an
agenda -- without an agenda to sell magazines, newspapers, or air
time -- that can render a verdict, like was done before, and give
him his life back, and give Justin and Sydney their dad back. Thank
you very much.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen -- Yes?
MR. KELLY: If we can take a five-minute break, I'll complete my
part.
THE COURT: Five minutes, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the
case. Don't form or express any opinions. (Recess.)
THE BAILIFF: Quiet in the audience. (Jurors resume their respective
seats.)
MR. KELLY: Thank you. If it please the Court. Morning, ladies and
gentlemen.
JURORS: Good morning.
MR. KELLY: Right now, what I'm getting up here for is to take part
of what we call rebuttal; that is, I just want to touch on some of
the arguments that Mr. Baker has made over the course of a couple
days here. And after I touch on these certain things in a more
general sense, Mr. Petrocelli and Mr. Lambert will be getting up and
responding in kind to the comments he made, and responding in some
detail to things he put out to you during the course of his
argument. The first thing I want to touch upon is the outrage that
Mr. Baker expressed by the fact that the first time around in our
closing arguments, that we, the plaintiffs, did not address the
issue of police malfeasance. Then Mr. Baker went on to implore you
people to simply look at the evidence and use your common sense. And
the fact of the matter is that, if you do look at the evidence and
you use your common sense, there is absolutely no indication of
police malfeasance. What we did hear from Mr. Baker and his cohorts,
both during their cross-examination of a number of witnesses and
during their closing argument, you heard a lot of what-ifs, could
have beens, maybes, possibles. But that's not evidence. You people
know you are not to engage in speculation, you are not to engage in
conjecture, and you are certainly not to engage in sheer fantasy.
And that's what the defense is asking you to do. Now, a couple other
things with regard to the Flammer photographs, which the defense
claim was a fake. The other line in the sand they drew was this
issue of Vannatter, with the blood, that it is -- it has been
planted. And they felt that because he had handled Mr. Simpson's
blood exemplar, and that he had handled Nicole's blood exemplar, and
he had handled Ron's blood exemplar, that there was something
extraordinarily sinister and wrong with what he did. And Mr. Baker
then complained that while we did, right up front -- we put
Vannatter on the stand and we took this issue head on. We wanted you
to see exactly when, and under what circumstances, Mr. Vannatter
came to be in possession of Mr. Simpson's blood exemplar. And then
we moved on. And we wanted to let you know when, why. And when he
transported that blood in the evidence envelope, straight out to
Rockingham to Dennis Fung, and lo and behold, you -- and people were
treated to a video of Detective Vannatter walking into Rockingham
with that vial in an evidence envelope in front of the entire world.
Also, when he was on the stand, we put the other issues right out
there. You heard about when he picked up Ron and Nicole's blood
exemplars. You saw the logbook, exactly when and under whose
supervision he signed out both of those blood exemplars. And only
minutes later, you also saw the logbook when he signed in and under
whose supervision, those blood exemplars at SID. Now, Mr. Baker
would prefer to talk about Rockingham in terms of Mr. Vannatter in
this jumping over the wall to you people, till you people are dizzy.
But it has nothing to do with the case. Couple other observations,
also. I will agree with Mr. Leonard that he is a hard-headed
Irishman, but even Mr. Leonard could not look you right in the eye
and say those 30 photos are a fake. What he did was work around it,
punch around the edges. And he coined a catchy phrase. He said, they
came too late and they cost too much. Well, ladies and gentlemen,
they came just in the nick of time, and those pictures are
priceless. They're priceless. And in their evidentiary value to you,
that you people, as fact-finders of the case, get to consider and
weigh during your deliberations. And Mr. Leonard, himself, after all
that, indicated that if you don't believe those photos are a fake,
then you're free to conclude that it was Mr. Simpson who waded
through those victims' blood that night on Bundy. Because --
MR. BAKER: I object. That was not said at all by Mr. Leonard.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELLY: Mr. Baker also urged you not to be guided by sympathy,
prejudice or passion. He said we've subjected you to a ploy played
upon your sympathies. Well, you know, ladies and gentlemen, we have,
and we have in a certain sense. We have in the sense that this case
and the facts of this case are sad. They're very, very, very sad.
And it's a fact, it's a true -- true fact that, when Sydney and
Justin wake up in the middle of the night, frightened, they won't
have Nicole to hold them. And when they're sick or they're lonely or
they're having trouble in school, it's a fact that she won't be
there to touch them or stroke their hair. And Ron Goldman, what a
great kid. It's a fact that he was cut down in his prime, just
trying to protect this woman, this mother. The only sympathy being
sought in this case is by the defense for Mr. Simpson, because in
the face of overwhelming evidence -- physical evidence, forensic
evidence, and testimonial evidence -- he's asking you to simply feel
-- feel that his client did not commit these murders. They want to
you be blinded to the evidence. Another thing Mr. Baker commented
upon was that this courtroom was not a level playing field. He wants
to you believe that. Well, Mr. Simpson had his battery of talented
lawyers in here. And they brought back any witnesses they wanted.
And they put up any experts they wanted to challenge any part of our
case. Not the Flammer photos, mind you, but any other part of their
case that they wanted to challenge, they wanted those experts in.
But I'll tell you: This courtroom is a level playing field; it's
only the score that's lopsided right now. Well, Mr. Baker addressed
five specific incidents that we presented where Mr. Simpson lost his
self-control, where sometimes he was physical, other times simply
frightening to Nicole. He talked about '83, India Allen. That
wouldn't have happened because she would have called the police.
Well, I think we know by now what would have happened -- the police
came in here and testified about that -- it would have been a
conspiracy; it would have been a frame-up. And this guy would have
been lying. Because in '84, Nicole did call security, and Mark Day
responded to the house, and he did come in here. And he was lying.
In '86, on Victoria Beach, Aguilar was lying. And in '89, New Year's
Eve morning, Nicole was lying. And in '93, the tapes are lying. The
tapes are lying when Nicole says she was scared. Now, Mr. Baker did
something else. He alludes to the fact that we should have brought
in Nicole's friends or housekeepers or people to talk about other
incidents. Now, just a little aside. If you people haven't figured
out by now, I'm from New York, and Mr. Baker sort of, I think,
suggested that in itself had some sinister connotations. Yeah, I'm
from New York. I grew up in the midwest. And we had a saying there.
The saying was, you can't ride the same horse going in two different
directions. That's what Mr. Baker wants to do: He wants to tell you
two different things out of each side of his mouth. On the one hand,
he wants to say you should have brought in every witness you had,
every piece of evidence you had; you should have brought in one more
witness. But no matter how many witnesses we brought in, how much
proof, he says they were lying; they wanted their 15 minutes of
fame; it was a frame-up; it was a conspiracy. Now, if we wanted to
start with Nicole's friends that certainly where we would
manufacture witnesses if we wanted to. But it also will suggest that
if Mr. Baker was so confident that Nicole's friends wouldn't say
these things, these were other people he could have brought in. He
knew how to do that. He knew how to do it, just the way we knew how
to do it. But what did we do? We didn't bring in Nicole's friends;
we brought in Mr. Simpson's very best friend, his life-long friend.
And what did he tell you? He wasn't lying. He told you that Nicole
had told him -- this is Al Cowlings I'm talking about -- Al Cowlings
got on the stand and finally admitted -- finally admitted that
Nicole had told him that Simpson had hit her and pulled her hair.
So, once again, either Mr. Cowlings, Simpson's best friend, is lying
about that, too, or Nicole was lying, and that it never happened.
And by the way, about these -- everybody -- how everybody gets on
the stand and lies. You even heard how Judy Brown was, in Mr.
Baker's words, busted. She was busted. The mother of her murdered
child being referred to as being busted. I think that speaks volumes
of the defense's attitude in this case. But what we did, ladies and
gentlemen, is, we presented you with the most unbiased witnesses you
could hear from: Mr. Simpson's closest friend, Nicole, in her
writings, in her letters, in her diaries, in her tapes. And from her
photographs. Now, importantly Mr. Baker keeps referring to the lack
of a motive here. And Mr. Petrocelli is going to address that in
some detail in the future, too. But what I think Mr. Baker was
trying to say is, what we have here is the absence of a good reason
to kill, and that this presumes that there was a logical mind inside
the head of someone who committed a most illogical act. He's saying
there should be some sort of cause and effect. Well, I'll tell you,
we've heard of many times where Mr. Simpson was moved to violence,
was moved to frightening actions, with no reason whatsoever. In '83,
he slapped Nicole in the face. Did he have a good reason? In '84, he
cracked her windshield. Did he have a good reason? In '86, he
slapped her in the face. Did he give you a good reason? In '89, he
beat and battered her. Did he give you a good reason? And in '93, he
scared her; he frightened her. Did he give you a good reason? No, he
did not. In '93, Nicole was scared. Scared to death. And for good
reason. Keep in mind that as of June 12, 1994, Nicole was rejecting
Mr. Simpson. She was keeping the kids away from him at the recital.
She publicly embarrassed him in front of family and in front of
friends. Now, I'm not saying that you would -- I'm not saying that
he would -- you know, I'm saying -- nor am I saying that anybody
would kill for that reason. But the bottom line is here, ladies and
gentlemen. You heard it was a problem relationship with the history
of violence; that Mr. Simpson was emotionally entangled with this
woman; he was angry at her. He had a reason to be angry at her, in
his mind, and he had the opportunity to kill. And lo and behold,
Nicole was found dead. And he wants us to give you a reason. When,
since the beginning of time, has a man killed a woman with a good
reason? When, since the beginning of time, has a husband killed a
wife or an ex-husband killed an ex-wife and had a good reason?
There's not a scintilla of evidence that Nicole had any problem
relationship with anybody else, that anybody else was violent
towards her, that anybody else was angry with her. And there's only
one person that she feared, and that fear was escalating, right up
to the last days of her life. The person she feared, the person that
caused her to call a shelter, was Mr. Simpson. Now, one other thing.
I'm a little surprised Mr. Baker brought it up. But like he said, we
can't tip-toe around these things; we have to address them. This was
about this cause of action, my client -- Mr. Baker indicated that he
wanted to introduce me to my client. Well, just a little bit about
that. You'll hear from the Court that this is what we call a
survival action, meaning that if Nicole survived the battery that
night, she would have had the right to bring this action herself.
Mr. Baker's right: His client murdered my client. She didn't
survive, so she's not my client right now. That sort of reminds me
of that old story about the young man who's getting ready to be
sentenced for the murder of his parents, and he's standing before
the judge, and when asked if there's anything else to say, the one
thing he comes up with is, Judge, be lenient with me; I killed my
parents, but forgive me. I'm now an orphan. That's basically what
Mr. Baker was saying. The estate brought the action; the children
are the beneficiaries. Since the beginning of time, one of nature's
most lasting lessons has been that a mother protects her young. In
life, Nicole couldn't do enough to love, protect and cherish these
kids. And she went one step further, though: She made provisions in
the event she died or was killed --
MR. BAKER: I'll object. This is not rebuttal; this is outside the
scope.
MR. KELLY: He brought it up. He talked about the cause of action. I
have a right to explain a little. He mentioned the kids and the
estate. And I'll be done in a minute.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this isn't evidence, Your Honor.
MR. KELLY: The estate is Nicole's legacy. It's her final effort to
protect these children. These children will never kiss their mother
goodnight again. Mother's Day will only mean putting flowers on
Nicole's grave. And all we're asking you now is for you to give
Nicole that eternal comfort, let her rest in peace, knowing that her
children are provided for in this one small way. Just bring these
children under Nicole's wing; let them be protected by an angel.
Thank you very much.
THE COURT: 1:30, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case.
Don't form or express any opinion about the case. (At 11:58 a.m., a
recess was taken until 1:30 p.m. of the same day.) SANTA MONICA,
CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 1997 1:40 PM DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON.
HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE APPEARANCES: (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL
REPORTER) (The following proceedings were held in open court outside
the presence of the jury.)
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, relative to the rebuttal argument, there's a
couple boards in the back that the plaintiffs apparently intends to
use, and it says "Simpson says," and then it has certain lines in
there put in quote marks. These are not what Mr. Simpson said. There
has been no testimony in all of the thousands of pages that Mr.
Simpson said these things. They are trying to essentially, I guess,
put these words in his mouth. I would object to any new boards
whatsoever in their rebuttal argument.
MR. PETROCELLI: It's completely appropriate, Your Honor, a board
listing his defense, his argument, and there's no way anybody could
ever think he said those things. I will make it absolutely clear he
didn't say those things. Those are his seven points. I would never
tell a lie, et cetera, the things that he said that we're going to
run through in our rebuttal.
THE COURT: All right. As long as you make it clear.
MR. PETROCELLI: Absolutely.
THE COURT: There's not quotations from any testimony or any other
source.
MR. PETROCELLI: Will do.
MR. BAKER: One other thing, Your Honor. I would object to Mr.
Lambert arguing. He didn't argue at the beginning. And it seems to
me in the rules that we have from September of 1996, that only one
person can argue that did the argument in the opening argument.
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier argued.
MR. BAKER: I know. He argued in our argument. This is rebuttal.
THE COURT: It's rebuttal, I assume, to Mr. Blasier. You may resume.
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you. Good afternoon everyone.
JURORS: Good afternoon. REBUTTAL ARGUMENT
MR. PETROCELLI: We're getting there. I'm going to speak to you for a
bit. Then I'm going to have my partner, Mr. Lambert, respond to some
of the points Mr. Blasier made. Then I'm going to come back and wrap
it up and I'll be the last lawyer you'll hear from. And then the
good Judge will instruct you. Then you'll retire for your
deliberations. But hang on, we're getting there. I'd like you to
think about this question; what does a man do when his blood is
found dripped all over the murder scene? When his hat is found next
to the victims bodies? When his glove is found there? When his hair
is found there? When his clothing fibers are found there? When
carpet fibers from his car are found there? When shoe prints in one
of the victims blood are found there; his shoe prints? When his
blood is found in his car? When his blood is found dripped all over
his driveway? When his blood is found dripped inside of his house?
When his blood is found on his socks? When one of the victim's blood
is found on his socks? When the other glove is found on his
property; and when that glove has on it his blood, the blood of each
of the victims, the hair from each of the victims, clothing, fibers,
carpet fibers? When he has no alibi? When he was involved in a
deeply conflicted relationship with one of the murdered victims?
When he is seen in photos wearing the possible murder clothes? When
he is seen in photos wearing the possible murder gloves? When he is
seen in photos wearing the murder shoes that he lied and lied about?
And when he has injuries all over his left hand? Now, what does he
do? What does this guy do; especially if this man has money and
resources? What does he do? He hires an army of lawyers, experts,
investigators, consultants, you name it; he hires them all, and they
sit down, and they figure out what to say about all of this
evidence. Just like Mr. Simpson admitted on that stand that Lenore
Walker figured out his words, figured out what to say about the
night of the murders, and about his alibi. And what you have heard
in this courtroom, ladies and gentlemen, from the defense over the
last four months, and from these lawyers over the last two days, is
what a guilty man has to say in response to all of this evidence. It
was all planted. It's all contaminated. All of the photos are fake.
All the law enforcement people are corrupt or incompetent. Every
witnesses who gets on that stand and testifies against me is lying
or mistaken. There's a conspiracy the likes of which has never
before been witnessed, all to get me. That's what a guilty man does.
And what's the reason? Why? Why would there be this conspiracy? Why
would people do such a thing? Why would they all gang up and
conspire to frame an innocent man; particularly a celebrity who's
got a lot of money and who's going to draw massive attention, maybe
the highest profile case ever? And people, innocent people who are
doing their jobs, criminalists, lab technicians, patrol officers,
rookies, seasoned detectives, FBI agents, coroner, assistant
coroner; all these people have to be in on this to one extent or
another, either they're in on it by planting and fabricating and
making up evidence, or they got on that witness stand and lied.
That's what you have to believe, ladies and gentlemen. That's what
they're trying to sell you. You know there's an old expression;
necessity is the mother of invention. I'm sure you've all heard
that. What does that mean? That means when it's necessary, you'd
better come up with something. And that's what you have heard;
inventions. Inventions. They have invented argument. They have
invented defenses that have no basis in reality. They have no facts
to support them. They have no evidence. They're made up. What you
just heard Mr. Baker describe for you were police officers, planted
evidence, and gloves, and this and that. And we're going to get into
that in detail because boy, we couldn't wait to hear him try to
explain this so we could get the opportunity to let you know, once
and for all, that this whole thing that we've heard about from the
moment Mr. Baker started asking you questions in jury selection,
from the moment he made his opening statement, and all the questions
he asked charged with all this inflammatory language about planting
and conspiracy and all this stuff. We couldn't wait for the day,
finally, when we got a chance to hear him lay it out. Ladies and
gentlemen, it's a fraud. It's a fraud on you. It's a big lie. It
never happened. It's what -- it never happened. It's what guilty men
do. They've been doing it for hundreds of years. They've refined it
to a new art form because they've got the money. They got big shot
experts, fancy lawyers come in here, figure out all the little
discrepancies in the documents. Oh, they didn't pick up this, they
didn't pick up that. Let's say this, let's say that. Making it up as
they go along. In fact, I don't know if you picked up on this, but
you saw with your very own eyes one of these invented defenses being
made up right here in Court. Do you remember this business about
Dennis Fung testifying about the glove, the Bundy glove, and he was
shown a photograph that he'd never seen before? He said hum, can't
tell what that is. This doesn't look like the glove I picked up. He
was speculating on the witness stand which he shouldn't be doing. He
hadn't seen these photos before. Now, no one has questioned since
day one, nobody, since the beginning of this case, the beginning of
the criminal case, that those two gloves, the one at Bundy and the
one at Rockingham, were worn by the killer; they're the murder
gloves. Mr. Simpson is trying to say they're not his, even though we
have photos. But nobody's ever questioned that they were the murder
gloves. Mr. Blasier sat here and said to you, and I quote, "And by
the way, we're not contesting that these are the murder gloves, if
anybody implied that to you, we certainly didn't." End of quotes.
Last week, page 75. Then after a break, after he got a chance to
speak to Mr. Baker and Mr. Simpson, he comes back and he says, oh,
got to make a correction, maybe we are challenging the Bundy glove.
Maybe we are. Wait a second. How can we challenge the Bundy glove?
He must have been thinking the same number is stitched into that
glove is stitched into the Rockingham glove. They're a pair.
Planting the Bundy glove isn't helpful. The Rockingham glove is
'cause that's put on Mr. Simpson's property. What is this theory? I
don't know. Minor detail. Don't worry about it. In that little
episode we caught a glimpse of what has been going on in this case
for two and a half years. Taking a witness's testimony out of
context, taking discrepant recollections, which happens all the
time. One police officer says, well, I saw it here. Another says I
saw it there. Taking all of this and trying to build this massive,
sinister, incredibly illegal conspiracy, and trying to sell that to
you to try to get you to pretend that all that physical evidence
that I described in the beginning of this argument doesn't exist.
Throw it all away. Ignore it all. Believe me, I'm telling the truth.
Everybody else is lying. And we're going to talk about how there is
zero evidence of any conspiracy. There is zero evidence of any
planting. We're going to talk about that. Let me tell you something
else the defense does. Another one of their techniques -- and you'll
see it when you go back and deliberate and say, well, what about
this, what about that, you'll remember that this is a technique that
they employ. They say, you know, on the one hand there's all this
evidence, extraordinary amounts of evidence, and it's all planted,
faked, contaminated, it's all no good. Then they say but on the
other hand there should be more evidence if Simpson is really
guilty. There should be more. Where's the knife? Where's the bloody
sweat suit? There should be more footprints. There should be a
greater blood trail. That's another argument they left. Ladies and
gentlemen, there's no requirement in the law that there be all this
evidence. Look in your jury instructions. You won't see it. There's
no requirement. One blood drop, if it's not planted -- if you
believe the blood drop was not planted, one blood drop is enough.
One hair in his hat at the crime scene is enough. One shoe print is
enough. One of those is enough. Let me make sure you're all clear on
something, 'cause they like to be vague about this. For Mr. Simpson
to be innocent, you have to find that every single bit of evidence
that we present, every bit of it --
MR. BAKER: That's absolutely untrue, Your Honor. That's not the law.

MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me. I have not --
MR. BAKER: I object to it.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MR. BAKER: That is not the law.
THE COURT: Do not interrupt him.
MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me, Mr. Baker. You have to find that every
single bit of evidence in this case that incriminates Mr. Simpson
was planted or contaminated. You have to find that, because he has
no explanation for it otherwise. He has no explanation for the Bundy
blood drops. He says he didn't put it there. This is an example. If
you don't find that those blood drops got there by planting or
somehow mysteriously got there by contamination, as Mr. Lambert will
explain, contamination doesn't turn someone's blood -- a real
killer's blood into O.J. Simpson's blood. Contamination is no
answer. That's just a word that they use. If you don't find that
those Bundy blood drops were planted or got there in some other way,
he's guilty. He's got no explanation. That's it. Same thing with the
shoe prints. And by the way, while I'm on the shoe prints, there is
no -- there is no argument that even these resourceful lawyers could
come up with to explain the shoe prints; they don't say the shoe
prints are planted. How could they possibly say that. The shoe
prints were seen, like all the other blood drops, right off the bat.
If those shoe prints matched shoes O.J. Simpson owned and wore and
lied about, he's guilty. You didn't hear any argument from Mr. Baker
about planting of shoe prints, did you? On those shoe prints, he's
guilty, because he's got no defense of those shoe prints. None.
Except he says the photos of him wearing them are fakes and we know
they're not fakes. You know 31 photos can't be fake. Eight months.
One of them was published eight months before the murders. On the
shoe prints alone, he's guilty. That's it. And they have no argument
about that. We don't have to prove why all the evidence is missing.
Isn't here because frankly he got rid of some of it. And by the way,
if we did have more evidence to present to you, let's say we had
some bloody clothes, let's say we found the bloody outfit; do you
think this defendant would say that was planted, too? Do you think
he might say that was planted? He says you don't have a nice little
neat blood trail leading from the glove down the pathway across the
driveway into the house up the stairs into his bedroom. He says
you're missing all those blood drops. Do you think if we had those
blood drops, he would say they were planted also? Of course, he
would. What if we had a photograph of Mr. Simpson at the murder
scene? What if we had a photograph of him at the murder scene on the
evening of June the 12th? If such a thing could ever exist, would
this man go so far to explain that that picture is a fake? How about
31 pictures of him at the murder scene? How about 31 incriminating
photographs? Is he capable of going so far in his zeal to get your
verdict that he would say they're all fake? What do you think? The
defense criticizes us for not having all the details. Okay. We don't
know exactly how the murders were committed; we don't know exactly
how Mr. Simpson got there, where he parked his car, when he went
inside to Nicole's condominium to the gated area, how he got away,
what all the blows were that were delivered, in what sequence were
they delivered. We don't know exactly how he got on his property to
avoid detection from the limousine driver. We don't know all these
details. But again, you know, the law doesn't require us to know all
those details. If you had to know all those details, you could never
find anybody responsible for having committed a crime. You might as
well shut down the courts. Again, one blood drop is enough, one shoe
print is enough. We don't need to know the details. Just like that
game, 20 Questions, you play where the person's thinking of
something and you have to ask 20 questions and figure out what's on
his mind. That's the kind of game they're playing here. We have to
keep trying to ask more and more questions to see if we can get the
story right. And we've tried. And we've asked 20,000 questions. But
Mr. Simpson isn't going to tell us everything; he isn't going to
tell us everything that happened, and he isn't going to tell us
everything that he knows. And we don't need to know. We're not
required to know. So don't be fooled by that. Don't get caught up
in, well, what about this, and what about that, and all these little
puzzles and riddles. We don't know the answer to all the questions.
But we sure know far more than we need to know. Far more. We have an
extraordinary amount of evidence in this case. Now, let's talk
specifically about this conspiracy theory. Mr. Simpson says, and his
lawyers say, that all the blood evidence is planted. I guess all the
victim's blood evidence is planted. The glove is planted. I'm not
sure to this day if they're saying the knit cap is planted. I don't
know. You may be more clear on -- on that than I am. But they have
no explanation for the knit cap being there with his hairs in it. Is
that planted, too? It was -- they weren't real clear on it. They
weren't real clear on the purpose because they don't have an
explanation or a theory, as bright as they are, to explain all these
things. But what they want you to believe is that essentially all of
the physical evidence was either planted or contaminated. Now, what
do we mean when we say planted, and let's stick with planted first.
What does that mean? Let's understand what we're talking about here.
We're talking about human beings, people, doing their jobs, waking
up one day, going to a crime scene, and deciding for no apparent
reason to risk their lives and engage in outrageous crimes; to frame
an innocent man for double murder. Let's understand what we're
talking about when we're talking about planting and conspiracy.
These are words that get thrown around. But you're talking about
people getting together and deciding to do things for which they
will have to spend the rest of their lives in jail if caught.
MR. BAKER: There's no evidence of that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: These things are all highly illegal. You can't put
evidence against an innocent man and get caught and expect to go to
work the next day. You're going to jail and you're not getting out.
And you got people working in a laboratory; Dennis Fung, Greg
Matheson, Collin Yamauchi. You saw these folks. You think they're
going to engage in this grand conspiracy and plant evidence against
Mr. Simpson, a guy they don't even know? That's what you have to
believe. You have to believe that. Someone they don't even know.
Now, this business about it could have been Vannatter and Fuhrman;
we'll talk about that, too. But that's just false. Absolutely false.
Vannatter and Fuhrman could not have planted all the evidence in
this case. Vannatter and Fuhrman could not have told all the lies on
the witness stand that all of these witnesses must be telling if
they were in on it. He wants to talk about Vannatter and Fuhrman
because he will assume that you will agree that they're bad people,
for whatever reason. And so he wants to make you think that
Vannatter and Fuhrman could do everything; they could be responsible
for everything. Except he never explained how. He never explained
how anybody could plant Mr. Simpson's blood at Rockingham, for
example, in the wee -- in the wee hours of the morning of the 13th
when they didn't even have access to this blood. How does that blood
get there? He didn't explain that, did he. How was that blood there?
How was the blood at Rockingham there on the morning of June 13th
when the police arrived? And the blood in the Bronco; how did that
all get there? They didn't have his reference sample until later in
the afternoon. How did the blood get on the sock? How did the blood
get at Bundy? What they're trying to say to you is that folks broke
into the lab, pulled out Mr. Simpson's reference sample and started
planting away. Who did that? Did he tell you the name of a person
who did that? How would he get into the lab; what kind of access
could he get? How would he know what swatches had Mr. Simpson's
blood on them? They don't have his name on them. If someone were
going in with a vial of blood to plant in the laboratory, how would
they know which swatches had Mr. Simpson's blood as opposed to the
victim's blood or somebody else's blood. There is just no way you
could do it. There's a lot people involved that laid it all out and
figured it out and said, well, this is the one I think we should
plant for Simpson, no, this is Ron Goldman's blood, let's put this
blood here and that blood there. An extraordinary enterprise. He
never once explained to you or suggested to you how it could be
accomplished. The reason is it can't be accomplished. It's nonsense.
It's absurd. It's absurd. It's nonsense. They don't have an answer
to the shoe prints. I've said that. They don't have an answer to the
hat. They don't have an answer to the hair. They want to say it's
basically the blood evidence, and we're going to go through why it
can't be the blood evidence. I want to start with Rockingham. Now,
this is very important that you understand this to see what's
happened here. Mr. Simpson told the police in the afternoon of June
13, for no less than five times, that he cut his finger and dripped
blood all over Rockingham. Mr. Simpson, when he took the witness
stand in this case, recanted that testimony, in effect. He now says
he doesn't recall seeing any blood at Rockingham. He doesn't recall
seeing any blood anywhere except on his finger and on the kitchen
counter. He doesn't recall seeing blood in the Bronco. He doesn't
recall seeing blood in the driveway. He doesn't recall seeing blood
anywhere before he went to the airport, except on his pinkie. Okay.
That's what Mr. Simpson's story is now on the witness stand. He had
told the police that he had cut himself, no less than five times in
the police statement, he had cut himself before he went to Los
Angeles. No less than five times he said that. Now, why did Mr.
Simpson change his story? He changed his story because he knows how
incriminating it is to admit that he has a cut finger and is
bleeding all over his property on the night of the murders, at the
time of the murders. He knows how damning that is. So he decided,
you know what, I'd better change my story and I'd better say that I
didn't see blood anywhere. And that's what he said. I didn't see
blood anywhere. Do you remember I asked him, when you went into your
Bronco right before you left to get your cell phone or your cell
phone equipment, did you reach in with your right hand or left hand?
Do you remember all those questions? The reason I asked those
questions is to see what he was going to say. And he said, no, I
only reached in with my right hand. I didn't put my left hand in the
car. I didn't put my left hand in the door notch where the handle
is. I didn't use my left hand to open up the light -- pull the light
knob out. Did you see any blood in there? No. Did you step on the
carpet in blood? No. So the way Mr. Simpson left it with you, ladies
and gentlemen, is that there was no blood in that Bronco when he
left for Chicago, he didn't bleed in that Bronco. That's the way he
wanted to leave it with you. He also left it with you that he didn't
drip blood on the driveway. I asked him all those questions, too. He
didn't see any blood nowhere. You can't be bleeding all over the
place and not know it. That's common sense. You can't be bleeding
all over your car and all over the driveway and not know it.
MR. BAKER: I'm going to object. This isn't rebuttal, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: So Mr. Simpson wants you to believe, because he
doesn't want to say anything that could hurt his case, he wants you
to believe that he had no blood other than on his pinkie that night.
Now, we got a problem. Here's the problem for the defense. Mr. Baker
said to you earlier this morning that the reason all that blood was
in the Bronco and all that blood was on the driveway when the police
got there on the morning of the 13th is because Mr. Simpson dripped
it there. That's what he said. He said Mr. Simpson dripped it there.
Mr. Simpson said he didn't drip it there. We got a problem here,
don't we? Mr. Baker saying one thing. Mr. Simpson saying another
thing.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I object. That isn't what Mr. Simpson said.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BAKER: I'll get the testimony if you want.
MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me. Your Honor, I'd appreciate it if he'd let
me finish my argument.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: It's a big problem, because they don't have a
coherent explanation for why all these blood drops are at Rockingham
early in the morning. They could not possibly have been planted. The
real killer could not have dropped the blood at Rockingham, 'cause
the real killer would have no reason to go to Rockingham, would he?
If there was another killer involved here, and he dripped the blood
at Bundy, how did the blood get at Rockingham? He couldn't be going
to Rockingham, drip some blood, and then leave. So the Rockingham
blood is one of the crucial pieces of evidence that ultimately
exposes that this whole planting and conspiracy theory is a big lie.
They've got no answer for it. None. You have to ask yourself, why is
there blood all over his property, his blood, on the night of the
murders. How can that be? How can that be? You just have to use your
common sense. How can that be? And how can Mr. Simpson now try to
recant his statement to the police? Five times he told the police, I
was bleeding at the house, I cut myself, I cut myself, I reopened it
in Chicago. He said, I reopened it. They have no answer for the
Rockingham blood and they have no answer for the shoe prints. So I'm
going to move on. Let's talk about the glove. Now, today we heard
from Mr. Baker that it was Mark Fuhrman who planted the glove. They
like to throw around the name Mark Fuhrman. I'm sure you heard it
over and over and over again throughout the trial. I guess they
think by just invoking the name of Mark Fuhrman