OCTOBER 23, 1996



9:00 A.M.



(The following proceedings occurred in the Judge's Chambers, in
camera, and this portion of the record is to be sealed.)


(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the
presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

AUDIENCE: Good morning, Your Honor.

THE COURT: We're going to address some motions made by both sides.
The first motion the Court will address is defendant's motion to
exclude expert witness Terry Lee on the ground that plaintiff has not
made him readily available for deposition.

MR. LAMBERT: Thomas Lambert. Thank you. Yes, Your Honor.
In regard to Terry Lee, the situation is as follows: On September 3,
the Court granted our motion to add Terry Lee as an expert witness.
On September 5, I wrote to Mr. Blasier, saying you've been trying to
reach him by telephone to schedule Terry Lee's deposition, and
suggesting September 9 as a deposition date.
Later that day, Mr. Blasier called me and said he would like to take
Mr. Lee's deposition the very next day, Friday, September the 6th.
I explained that because Mr. Petrocelli had gone out of town to assist
in the Henry Lee depositions -- you will remember at that time, Mr.
Medvene was a little incapacitated.
So Mr. Petrocelli had gone to assist in that deposition, and I was
responsible for filing a number of papers that were due Friday
morning, in limine briefs and joint trial statements, among others.
So I suggested to Mr. Blasier we do the deposition the following week.
He said that he was going to go home to Sacramento that week and
didn't want to do the deposition the following week, I then suggested
that we do it on Saturday.
He told me that he was leaving for Sacramento on Friday, so he really
couldn't do it any of those days.
I then suggested, well, let's file the papers Friday morning; we'll do
the deposition Friday afternoon.
He told me he had a one o'clock flight and didn't want to change his
So we then agreed that if we weren't able to schedule the deposition,
then we'd have to do it sometime later, during trial.
During jury selection, Mr. Blasier came to me and said that he would
like to now schedule Terry Lee's deposition.
I said fine, but I know he's in Japan on an extended trip right now,
because he told me when he left, he was going to be gone for a while;
I'll get you a date.
I called him on Monday, and his office told me he was still out of the
office. I called him this week; he is now back, and I have a proposed
date for him.

THE COURT: What's that.

MR. LAMBERT: A week from Saturday, November the 2.

MR. BLASIER: We want to have the deposition before opening.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, I'm perfectly willing to have you depose him.
Somebody's inability to depose him was not entirely the plaintiff's
fault or the witness's fault. It appears to have been some of your
So if you want to depose him, you can. If you don't want to depose
him, don't.

MR. BLASIER: We do. We ask that he not refer to him in opening. I
don't know whether they intend to or not.

THE COURT: Well, whether you depose him or not is going to be up to
you. He's going to be a witness in this case. You had the
opportunity to depose him. You're going to have to bend your schedule
a little bit to do that.

MR. BLASIER: We intend to.

THE COURT: Well, you have to. Let me give you the opportunity. He's
going to testify; you're going to have the opportunity to depose him.
If you don't depose him, that would be your election. Pick a date.

MR. BLASIER: What was the Date that was offered?

MR. LAMBERT: A week from Saturday, November the 2nd.

MR. BLASIER: That's fine.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, can we keep them from referring to him in
opening, because we've been trying to get expert depositions since
July of this year.

THE COURT: Well, you can refer to him because, Mr. Blasier, you could
have deposed him, I guess, in your schedule, and you didn't.
Defendant's motion to preclude reference on swatch drawing experiments
by Matheson, defendant contends that plaintiff designated Matheson as
an expert witness regarding tests performed by LAPD to determine blood
type and related matters, and that plaintiffs' expert, Fox, testified
that in deposition that he discussed with Matheson, and received notes
from him offered by someone having to do with some drawing tests he
did on bindle 47.
Is Matheson going to be testifying with regard to some drawing tests?

MR. LAMBERT: No, he's not, Your Honor.


MR. LAMBERT: We don't intend to offer his opinion on that subject.

THE COURT: Will there be some testimony regarding drawing tests by

MR. LAMBERT: By Fox, who has been deposed on that subject.

THE COURT: Okay. Motion to preclude reference to swatch experiment
drawing expert Matheson's -- testimony by Matheson is precluded.
Reference to any tests performed by him may or may not be admissible,
depending on what the foundation is.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may we reserve the right, since Mr. Fox is
going to testify about that, of withdrawing this motion so that we can
cross-examine Mr. Matheson?

THE COURT: Excuse me, though; you want to cross-examine Matheson?

MR. BLASIER: We want to preclude Mr. Fox from testifying, as well, as
a way of getting in the back door by having Mr. Fox testify to
something that some other expert did.
We are objecting to that, as well. But if he's going to be allowed to
testify about it, we --

THE COURT: Okay. As I understand the law on expert testimony, if Fox
testifies to some conclusions based upon data obtained by somebody
else, that's not impermissible. So if you want to cross-examine
Matheson about the data itself, you certainly may withdraw the motion.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you.

THE COURT: Defendant's motion to strike plaintiffs' supplemental
witness list.
Defendant moves to strike Goldman's supplemental witness list because
those witnesses were known to him before filing a joint amended
statement, which is, I believe, September 10, 1996, and they were
omitted from that joint amended statement.
I'll hear from the defendant.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, this is not at all the same situation we
faced when we were moving to strike witnesses from defendant's witness
The basis of that was failure to provide those names in discovery,
Your Honor, when they were requested. And the Court ruled that they
had not provided them in discovery, even though they knew about them.
So they should be stricken from the list on that basis. All of these
witnesses are people that have been known to the defendant for some
period of time.
The witness list, of course, will not change until long after
discovery closes, so that there's no prejudice, because they couldn't
have been deposed anyway.
The witness list, the parties of Goldman exchanging and supplementing
exhibit lists constantly. As late as yesterday, the defense filed an
additional exhibit list.
So there's absolutely no prejudice of the six people, Your Honor.
Mr. Miller, Vern Miller, slight misstatement in the defendant's
papers. He is a photographer, not a videographer. His sole purpose
will be to authenticate one or two photographs; that's all he'll be
doing. It's really not an issue of the authenticity of it; that's all
he'll be doing.
Mr. Peters they have known about for exactly the same length of time
that we have known about him. He was revealed in the deposition of
Harry Scull in this action on July 1, 1996.
They had the opportunity to depose him, investigate him, talk to him,
whatever they wanted to do.
Mr. Wilson is a photographer for the Los Angeles Police Department.
Again, he took pictures on June 13, 1994. The defense has known about
him for over two years.
Mr. Lovold is an LAPD officer whose sole participation in the case was
to open up Mr. Simpson's Bronco at the print shed on June 14, 1996,
very short witness that they've known about for two years.
The fifth and sixth is the Terrance Watson. Again, like Mr. Peters,
they learned about exactly when we did, at a deposition in March of
this year. So they've had all the opportunity in the world to talk to
him or even depose him if they wanted to.
And finally detective -- Commander Gartland is a -- Captain Gartland
is an officer with the LAPD, and he was involved in the original
investigation. And they, again, have known about him for two years.
No prejudice whatsoever to calling these people, because they've known
about all of them, some before we did, and certainly none later than
we did.

MR. BAKER: Phil Baker for the defense.
That's exactly the point. They knew about all these witnesses long
before the September 10 filing: Peters on July 1, 1996 deposition;
Terrance Watson on March 19, 1996 deposition, the Commander Gartland
on June 11, 1996; these photographers and print chip people were known
in November, December in 1995.
The purpose of the joint amended statement -- the purpose of Local
Rule 7.9 is to give the opposing party a chance to prepare for these
witnesses. And what we did is, when we were going to exchange our
witness list, we conversed with the other side and wound up exchanging
simultaneously, so neither side would be sand-bagged.
And the purpose is because we're going to prepare folders and prepare
attorneys to be ready to analyze -- examine these witnesses when they
come on the stand. They knew about these people as early as a year
ago. And now they're giving us new witnesses on October 4 and October
16, well after jury selection has commenced.
We have been prejudiced. And the point is, they knew about them and
they should have put them on their joint amended statement.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, may I, one brief --



THE COURT: The basis on which the Court struck the defendant's
amended witness list was the defendant's failure to comply with
discovery order; to wit, failure to disclose all witnesses and
interrogatories that defendant was ordered to respond to without
objection. And that was a ruling that was made by this Court on
September 4, 1996.
The defendant's motion, in this instance, relates to no such discovery
sanctions. It would appear to this Court that the defendant, in view
of all these witnesses, knew of all of these witnesses well in advance
of time, and was not the subject of a discovery sanction.
The motion to preclude is denied.
The motion to strike is denied.
Plaintiff Goldman's motion for order precluding defense from referring
in opening statement to Fuhrman's recent plea of nolo contendre to the
charge of perjury and conviction thereon, and Fuhrman's testimony in
the criminal trial, that he's expected to testify.
May I hear if moving -- I'm sorry. I'll hear from the defendants.

MR. LEONARD: Where I come, from this is called a sandbag, Your Honor.
We went through four weeks of jury selection in which Mark Fuhrman's
name came up early and often. It was referred to by both the defense
and the plaintiffs. Mr. Petrocelli indicated on more than one
occasion that the jury may very well hear from Mr. Fuhrman, either in
person or from his testimony being read in.
Obviously, the plaintiffs knew that this was going to be an issue.
They knew by virtue of the fact that Mr. Fuhrman had pled the Fifth on
two different occasions, and by virtue of the fact he was domiciled in
Idaho; that the only way, most likely, that we'd be able to get his
testimony in, would be through reading his prior -- his former
testimony at the criminal trial. And yet, they sat for months, almost
-- exactly 60 days after motions in limine were required to be filed.
And that led us to take positions in front of the jury -- in front of
every single juror, that will sit in this case. They took positions
themselves. And now, as an afterthought, Mr. Petrocelli, in open
court the other day, says, "Well, we don't think it's admissible."
The time for filing motions in limine was 60 days ago. It was an
extremely important reason that that be done.
This is, as Your Honor has noted, a principal witness in this case.
And we think that we've been absolutely had on this; and for that
reason alone, the motion should be denied.
As far as the merits of the plaintiffs' position, number one, the use
of the term "cross-examination" in the statute, I think, is incidental
to -- the purpose is collateral, if you will, to the purpose of the
The statute describes a hearsay exception that relies on the fact that
at the former hearing, that the declarant was cross-examined and
directly examined, that he was examined. So that now, when his
testimony is read in, the triers of facts will be able to determine --
will have the ability to determine whether or not, in fact, his
testimony is reliable.
I've cited a situation in the evidentiary code with regard to an
adverse witness, where the term "cross-examination" is used to simply
refer to the examination of a witness by the party who goes second.
And, in fact, I've also cited a case where the situation was, a
plaintiff in a insurance bad-faith case was utilizing testimony from a
prior worker's compensation hearing, where the judge was the person
who had put the questions to the plaintiff, not an adverse party.
It's just an examination. It had some -- I assume it had some
elements of cross-examination. But the point is that there was an
opportunity -- there was a similar interest in and motive to examine
the witness.
In this case, Detective Fuhrman was on the stand for five days.
He was subject to direct and redirect examination on the very same
issues that are in this case now, by the prosecutor, Marcia Clark.
She spent hours and hundreds of questions asking him about all the
facts and circumstances surrounding the manner in which he found the
glove, the manner in which he discovered the blood on the outside of
the Bronco, the manner in which he questioned Kato Kaelin, the
circumstances in which he entered the Rockingham property. These are
the very same issues that exist in this case.
I can't imagine that the plaintiffs would be in any different
position. I can't imagine that they could possibly conceive of any
questions that weren't already put to this witness.
Basically what's going on here, the plaintiffs want to have it both
ways. They want to be able to put on summary witnesses here to talk
about the chain of custody, to talk about the manner in which the
evidence was collected. By virtue of the public employee record
exception, they want this Court and the jury to assume, or to reach
the presumption that the evidence was collected in the ordinary course
of the policemen's duties; that the police, including Fuhrman, can be
relied upon; that the source of these documents with regard to chain
of custody is trustworthy.
At the same time, they actually state in their moving papers, on page
5, that they are not in the position to vouch for Fuhrman.
I don't understand that if Fuhrman -- on the one hand, they're looking
for presumption that relies on the fact that Fuhrman is trustworthy,
and at the same time they're saying they're not vouching for him, I
just don't understand that.
So, you know, that's one of the problems that exists here. This is,
admittedly, a unique situation.
The plaintiffs point out that there are no cases that address this.
And I would suggest there are no cases that address this, because it's
obvious that all the interests and purposes served by this hearsay
exception are served in a case like this, either personally, where you
have a witness who is subject to so much examination. So I would say
that there's the same motive and interest in these plaintiffs here as
there was for the prosecution.
You remember, Your Honor, during jury selection, you said, "Basically,
this is a civil murder case."
Well, these men are civil prosecutors. They stand in the same shoes
that Marcia Clark and Chris Darden stood in at that trial.
If they think -- let me put it to you this way: If Fuhrman took the
stand here, are they telling you that if they would cross-examine him,
that they would take an adverse position with him? They would do
precisely what the prosecution did.

THE COURT: Who would be calling him?

MR. LEONARD: We'd be calling him as an adverse witness, and they'd be
re-directing him. That's what we intend to do.

THE COURT: How would you call him as an adverse witness? Under what
code section?

MR. BAKER: 776.


THE COURT: That's adverse party, calling an adverse witness.

MR. LEONARD: All right, so we call --

THE COURT: That's not an adverse witness; it's your witness.

MR. LEONARD: Even if we call him on direct, we elicit not simply
impeachment, which is what they're suggesting, but a number of facts
that demonstrate his opportunity to plant, and certainly his motive to

THE COURT: This certainly is an interesting issue.

MR. LEONARD: I love it. But it's interesting -- but to me, with all
due respect, too, it's a no-brainer. I think that.

THE COURT: We'll see what the Supreme Court says about a no-brainer.
Let me hear from the other side.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, obviously, the use of cross-examine in the
statute is not collateral or incidental. That's highlighted by the
fact that a difference in 1291, which is used when you're trying to
introduce prior testimony, if the party who was a party to the prior
action, there's a specific subdivision that expressly allows somebody
to bring in testimony that was offered by that party in the prior
There's no similar provision in 1292.

THE COURT: Well, I just got defendant's oppositions right now, at the
beginning of this argument. They cite
Insurance_Company,_150_Cal.App.3d_610. I haven't had a chance to look
at it.
You have knowledge of that case?

MR. GELBLUM: Yes, Your Honor. I had a chance to look at it very
late last night. And it doesn't help the defendant for two reasons:
Number one, exactly opposite to this case. In that case, the
plaintiff, the same party offered the testimony in both cases.
Crucial distinction dispositive distinction here. They're going to
offer testimony against somebody who is not a party to the prior
action, and the other side is offering it.
The flip side is offering it -- the prosecution offering the first
case. The defense wants to offer it here. Moore was the opposite
situation where the plaintiff offered it in both cases. Second, even
though it wasn't an adverse party who cross-examined in the prior
proceeding, it was the worker's compensation appeals court judgment
cross-examined in the prior proceeding.
And that was deemed to be the party who was similar to the defendant
in the second proceeding.
Here, as we pointed out in our papers --

THE COURT: Why was that?

MR. GELBLUM: Excuse me?

THE COURT: Why is that?

MR. GELBLUM: Why are the parties similar? Because the -- I frankly am
not very familiar with the worker's compensation system; in fact, not
familiar at all. But the Court did say -- the Court in Moore said
that the worker's compensation appeals court judgment had an interest
in motive similar to the defendant in this case to cross-examine that
Here, the prosecution offered the testimony in the first case, had
absolutely no motive or interest whatsoever to cross-examine this Mr.
Fuhrman, none. It's a crucial distinction. The legislature obviously
by putting in the provision in 1291 saying you can offer testimony
against somebody who offered it in the first proceeding if they were a
party but leaving that provision out of 1292 meant what it said, meant
if you're not a party to the prior proceeding it can only be offered
against you. If it was offered against the party in the similar
position in the prior proceeding. I agree that it's a very clear
issue. And the clear issue is that it cannot be admitted here.

THE COURT: All right. I'll take it under submission and take a look
at this case.

THE COURT: We will take a recess while I read the case.

(A recess was taken.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside
the presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: I've had the opportunity of reading Moore versus American
United Life Insurance Company, and reading the 1292 evidence code.
And I am at the present time concerned that this particular point is
one of the more important issues in this case with regard to how a
ruling will affect the course of the case.
Moore_versus_American_United_Life is not a very satisfying case. The
court in that case -- there's the issue of, in 1292, almost
back-handed way, not exploring with any depth how the worker's
compensation judge's interest is actually similar to or the same as
that of the defendant, and the motivations are similar and the same as
the defendant.
It does not explain the parties that were involved in the worker's
compensation proceeding, other than the fact that American United Life
was not a party. It doesn't say who all the other parties were. So
it's not a very definitive case.
On the other hand, plaintiffs have really not cited any cases that
would explain in any detail at all, really, the operation of 1292,
other than citing People_versus_Green, which explains what
cross-examination means, as interpreted by the court.
It would appear that the evidence code is a statute that has its
genesis in a uniform code that has undoubtedly been adopted elsewhere
in this country. And if counsel are unable to find any cases in this
jurisdiction that deal with that, counsel could at least cite to the
Court some legislative history or legislative analysis and any other
outside jurisdiction's interpretation of that provision, to shed light
on how it would apply to the facts before this Court.
So, for the present time, the Court will preclude the defendant from
making any references to whether Fuhrman's testimony will be received
via his testimony in the criminal trial, or whether he is expected to
testify at all on this.
The defense has some indication from that witness that the witness is
going to appear voluntarily to testify.
The Court will reserve that issue for a future time, and the defendant
is ordered not to make any offer of that testimony to the jury until
it has received permission to do so by the Court.
And in anticipation of that, the Court will order both sides to
prepare further briefings on that issue.
When do you people -- plaintiffs expect to complete the case?

MR. GELBLUM: When did plaintiff expect to complete our case?

THE COURT: Well, I want to set up a briefing schedule with regards to
that issue before the defense puts on its case.

MR. GELBLUM: You want to give a couple weeks for briefing that will
certainly be think longer than that.

MR. BAKER: I want this issue resolved before I give my opening
statements. We've been five weeks --

THE COURT: Counsel, my order is, you're precluded from making any
reference to it at this time.

MR. BAKER: I move for a mistrial, based on five weeks of Fuhrman
before this jury trial and talking about the jury panel.

THE COURT: Motion denied.

MR. BAKER: I move for a stay to take a writ on the issue.

THE COURT: Denied.

MR. GELBLUM: We have a couple briefs for briefing, Your Honor.


MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, does your order also include, based on
whatever's given so far, no mention of the perjury plea, as well?

THE COURT: That's correct.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, we will brief this afternoon, and can we have
a hearing on it tomorrow.

THE COURT: I want to give the plaintiff an opportunity to brief it,

MR. BAKER: I notice the plaintiff can delay and delay. I've got to
make an opening statement in this case. And I think when they have
waited 60 days after motions in limine are to be heard, to spring this
on us on the eve of my opening statement that has been prepared for
some time and then say now you've got to change it, I think that's
prejudicial to us. I think we ought to get the issue resolved.

THE COURT: The Court will order the briefing to be completed by
November 1 and filed with the Court.
Bring the jury in.

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

JURORS: Good morning.

THE COURT: At this time, we are going to be addressed by the
attorneys with regard to their opening statements.
I want to inform you and advise you that opening statements are not
evidence; they are statements by the attorneys as to what they expect
the evidence is going to show, what their theory of the case is, and
how they hope to prove their case on -- their side of the case.
While what they say to you is not evidence, it is, nevertheless,
important for you to pay close attention to it, because this is one of
the two opportunities they're going to have to address you about this
case, at this time and also at the end of case, after all of the
evidence is in, when, at that time, they'll have the opportunity of
arguing to you and reasoning with you as to what they believe the
evidence did show or failed to show, and how the law should apply to
that state of the evidence, and why you should find in favor of their
So at this time, we'll hear if the plaintiffs.
You may proceed.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.
On a June evening, the 12th of June, 1994, Nicole Brown Simpson just
finished putting her ten-year-old daughter, Sydney, and her
six-year-old son, Justin, down to bed.
She filled her bathtub with water. She lit some candles, began to get
ready to take a bath and relax for the evening.
The phone rang. It was 9:40 p.m. Nicole answered. And it was her
mother, saying that she had left her glasses at the restaurant nearby
in Brentwood, where the family had all celebrated Sydney's dance
recital over dinner, just an hour before.
Nicole's mother asked if Nicole could please pick up her glasses from
the restaurant the next day. Nicole said, of course, good-bye, and
hung up.
Nicole then called the restaurant and asked to speak to a friendly
young waiter there. Nicole asked this young waiter if he would be kind
enough to drop her mother's glasses off.
The young man obliged and said he would drop the glasses off shortly
after work, on his way to meet his friend in Marina Del Rey. The
young man's name was Ron Goldman. He was 25 year old.
With the glasses in hand, Ron walked out of the restaurant, walked the
few minutes to his apartment nearby, to change. He left the
restaurant at 9:50 p.m.
After Ron changed, he got into his girlfriend's car parked in his
garage, and drove the short distance to Nicole Brown Simpson's home at
875 South Bundy Drive in Brentwood.
Ron parked the car on the side street, walked to the front of Nicole's
condominium, and turned up the walkway to the front gate. Just past
the front gate were steps leading to Nicole's condominium.
Ronald Goldman never made it past those steps. It was at that front
gate that Ron spent the last few savage minutes of his life. It was
there that his brutalized body was found next to Nicole Brown
Simpson's slain body, with her mother's glasses lying next to him on
the ground in an envelope.
Ron Goldman's young life ended because he agreed to do a friend a
favor, only to come upon her rageful killer and his.
He might have run from danger, but he did not. Ron Goldman died,
ladies and gentlemen, with his eyes open. And in the last furious
moment of his life, Ron saw through those open eyes the person who
killed his friend Nicole. And for that reason, he too had to die.
And the last person Ron Goldman saw through his open eyes was the man
who took his young life away: The man who now sits in this courtroom,
the defendant, Orenthal James Simpson.
Ladies and gentlemen, we will prove to you that Ronald Lyle Goldman
and Nicole Brown Simpson died at the hands of the defendant, Orenthal
Let me again introduce myself and my colleagues to you.
My name is Daniel Petrocelli. With me are Edward Medvene, Peter
Gelblum, Yvette Molinaro, Thomas Lambert. We all represent the Estate
of Ronald Goldman and Ronald's father, Fred, in this, his last fight
for justice for his son.
Mr. Brewer represents Ronald's mother, Sharon Rufo, and Mr. Kelly
represents the Estate of Nicole Brown Simpson. And they will each
talk to you after me.
In this trial, we will present to you an extraordinary amount of
evidence undeniably pointing to O.J. Simpson as the person who killed
Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson on the evening of June 12.
This evidence includes:
Mr. Simpson's blood leaving the scene of the murder at Nicole's
His blood dripping to the ground from the fingers of his left hand;
Mr. Simpson's blood on the glove he wore when he killed Ron and
Mr. Simpson's blood in his car that he used to drive from Bundy to his
home at Rockingham, five minutes away;
Mr. Simpson's blood on the driveway of his home;
Mr. Simpson's blood inside his home;
Ron's blood in Mr. Simpson's car;
Nicole's blood in Mr. Simpson's car;
Ron's blood on Mr. Simpson's glove;
Nicole's blood on Mr. Simpson's glove;
Nicole's blood on the socks in Mr. Simpson's bedroom;
Mr. Simpson's own blood on his socks;
Mr. Simpson's size 12 shoe prints in the blood of Nicole, leaving the
scene of the murder, exiting towards the back of the condominium;
Hair matching Mr. Simpson's hair in the knit cap he left behind at the
scene of the murders;
Hair matching Mr. Simpson's hair on Ronald Goldman's shirt;
Strands of Nicole's hair and Ron's hair on the glove Mr. Simpson
dropped on the side of his house, trying to get onto his property so
no one would see him;
Carpet fibers, rare carpet fibers from Mr. Simpson's Bronco found in
the knit cap that he left at the scene of the murders;
Matching blue-black cotton fibers found on Ronald Goldman's shirt;
The glove at Rockingham and Mr. Simpson's socks in the bedroom, tying
all three together.
Cuts and bruises to Mr. Simpson's left hand during his brief but
violent attacks on Ron and Nicole;
Cuts to this day that Mr. Simpson cannot and will not explain.
We will prove to you that Mr. Simpson has no alibi during the time
when the murders were committed.
He cannot identify a single person who can account for his whereabouts
during the time of the murders. Not one person will take this stand
and testify that he or she was with Mr. Simpson or spoke to Mr.
Simpson during the time of these murders.
We will prove how Ron and Nicole were killed quickly and savagely.
They were defenseless against a man so large, powerful, strong, armed
with a six-inch knife, and in a total state of rage.
Nicole had no chance to fight, and died within moments of the gaping
cut to her throat.
Ron tried to fight, but trapped in a small, caged area, he was cut
down swiftly.
We will prove to you that Mr. Simpson committed the murders and sped
back home, just in time to drive to the airport and catch a plane that
he desperately needed to catch to have any hope of an alibi. In his
extreme panic and hurry, Mr. Simpson left behind a trail of
incriminating evidence, starting right at the murder scene and leading
right into his bedroom.
We will prove to you that Mr. Simpson was embroiled in a deeply
emotional conflict with Nicole Brown Simpson after she had just ended
any last attempt at reconciliation between the two.
We will describe to you the rejection and pain this caused Mr. Simpson
in detail, the build-up of tension, emotion, and anger between Mr.
Simpson and Nicole in the last weeks and days leading up to her
We will prove that Mr. Simpson killed Ronald Goldman because he would
have been a witness to the rageful attack and murder of Nicole, a
witness who would have testified in this trial, a young man who
simply, and frankly, happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong
We will prove to you how Mr. Simpson's own words and actions following
the murders revealed then, and still reveal today, his guilt for these
You will hear Mr. Simpson on tape, just hours after the murder, unable
to explain his actions the night before, during the time of the
You will hear him make very incriminating statements, statements that
he will now try to contradict or vary.
We will tell you about Mr. Simpson's flight from the police when they
came to arrest him and his apparent thoughts of taking his life,
thoughts that are consistent, ladies and gentlemen, only with a person
who had killed, and that are totally inconsistent with a man whose
children had just lost their mother at the hands of a stranger.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. This is argument, not
opening statement.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.
You will hear how this man came back to Los Angeles on the day after
the murders and huddled with lawyers, rather than huddle with his

MR. BAKER: I object, Your Honor. That's argument.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. PETROCELLI: We will reveal to you lies and deceptions in the
sworn testimony of Mr. Simpson when questioned under oath for the
first time.

MR. BAKER: I'll object again, Your Honor. That's argument.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, this is what we will introduce.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. PETROCELLI: We will reveal to you lies and deceptions in the
sworn testimony of Mr. Simpson when questioned under oath for the
first time about his involvement in these murders.
We will prove to you that when asked all the important questions about
his involvement in these murders, O.J. Simpson could not, would not,
and did not tell the truth.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I'll object again. This is argument.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. PETROCELLI: And finally, ladies and gentlemen, we will show that
when faced with the truth of his blood, his hair, his clothing, his
gloves, his shoes, his Bronco, his rage, his motive, his words, and
his actions, you will see how Mr. Simpson in this trial will resort to
theories of police conspiracies, frame-ups, cover-ups and
incompetence, to try to explain away all of the incriminating
And we will show you that there is not one ounce of evidence, not one
ounce of proof, and not one ounce of truth to any of these things.
We will demonstrate to you that far from these theories born out of
desperation, there is only one.

MR. BAKER: I object. Again, this is simply argument theory. "Born
out of desperation" is argument.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. PETROCELLI: We will prove to you, ladies and gentlemen, that
there is only one real and true and honest answer why all the evidence
in this case points to O.J. Simpson. And that is because he is the
person who killed Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.
Now, let me review this evidence with you in detail.
I'd like to start with talking about the two victims in the case,
Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.
Your Honor, may I? (Indicating to photos)

(Counsel displays photos.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Ron grew up in Illinois. His parents got divorced
when he was a young boy. He and his little sister, Kimberly, went to
live with their father, Fred.
When Ron was 18, Ron, Kim, Fred, and Fred's new wife, Patty, all moved
to Agoura, California. Ron took to southern California like a fish to
water. He excelled at tennis; he loved to play softball. He got a
job taking care of cerebral palsy patients. He was the only person at
Pierce College who applied for a job taking care of -- helping to take
care of inner-city kids and helping to turn their lives around.
He was 20 years old when he moved out of his family's home, eventually
winding up in Brentwood, where he loved the friendly atmosphere. He
was a happy, outgoing, always smiling, handsome young man, who made
friends quickly.
He worked in odd jobs here and there to support himself. He did a
little modeling, and he dreamed of opening up a restaurant. And in
February of 1994, to pay the bills, he got a job at a trendy Italian
restaurant called Mezzaluna, as a waiter.
He was single. He had a girlfriend; he had lots of friends, he loved
his family; he was one of those people who was always there for
others, and ultimately died doing that. He was a young man, barely 25
years old, with his whole life ahead of him.
Nicole Brown Simpson was 35 years old when she was killed.
She was recently divorced from her ex-husband, O.J. Simpson. She had
her two children living with her, Sydney and Justin.
She was a full-time mother; she was a devoted mother. She lived in a
condominium in Brentwood. She met Mr. Simpson at the age of 18, right
after high school. And from that moment, they were together. They
lived together; they were married in 1985, and they had two children.
The evidence will show that they had a very tempestuous relationship,
passionate at times, violent at other times, one of those
relationships where they couldn't live with each other and they
couldn't live without each other.
Nicole left Mr. Simpson in January of 1992, filed for divorce, and
moved into her own apartment with her children.
A year or so later, the divorce was final. After the divorce was
final, she and Mr. Simpson decided to make another go of it, and they
decided they would try and reconcile, not living together, but they
would start dating.
This was about spring of 1993. They then spent the next year, till
about three weeks before her death, trying to make this reconciliation
Three weeks before she was killed, Nicole decided it was not working,
and she ended it. One month later, she was dead.
You will hear a lot more about the relationship and what was going on
between Mr. Simpson and Nicole from Mr. Kelly.
O.J. Simpson, the defendant, of course, was a celebrity football star,
film actor, and sports caster, a man who grew up poor and became rich
and famous, and charismatic and a charming man, but in the eyes of the
law, a man no different from anyone else.
Now, I'd like to begin the evidence proving the murders by talking
about the time when Ron and Nicole were killed. And the reason for
doing this is simple: After identifying when the murders occurred, we
will show you that Mr. Simpson had the opportunity and the time to
commit the murders.
We will show you that during this time, he has no alibi.
Nicole, as I said earlier, had gone to a dance recital for her
daughter, went to dinner at Mezzaluna, left at around 8:30, got some
ice cream with the kids, and got home before 9:00, and she put the
kids to bed.
She received a phone call from her mom at 9:40, asking about the
glasses. Her mom asked Nicole to pick them up for her the next day.
Instead of picking them up the next day, Nicole called Mezzaluna,
spoke to the manager, Karen Crawford, then asked to speak to Ron
Goldman, and asked Mr. Goldman to bring them over.
Ron left Mezzaluna at 9:50 to go home first, change, and then deliver
the glasses.
Before Ron left, he spoke to his friend at the restaurant who worked
there, who was tending bar that night, Stewart Tanner, and he made
plans with Stewart Tanner and another person to meet together after
work in Marina Del Rey, a place called Baja Cantina.
Ron then left the restaurant, walked a few minutes to his home, went
up to his apartment, and we know that he changed out of his waiter's
clothes, and we know that he put on a different set of clothes, a pair
of jeans, a shirt, and some new shoes.
It took Ron about five minutes to get to his apartment. Ron
apparently did not shave, from the autopsy pictures that we will show.
We do not know if he showered. He left his home and drove his
girlfriend's car a short distance to Nicole's condominium. He parked
on Dorothy Street, around the corner.
He walked up to Nicole's front gate. The time was sometime after ten
o'clock p.m.
Now, let's fast-forward. At 10:50 p.m., 50 minutes later or so, at
the very latest, a man named Louis Karpf, who lived right next door to
Nicole's condominium, walked out to his mailbox on Bundy to pick up
his mail, having just gotten back from the airport.
He saw Nicole's dog, a very large Japanese attack dog called an Akita,
out in the street, barking. In fact, the dog frightened Mr. Karpf, so
he retreated back up onto his property. Then, when the dog moved away,
Mr. Karpf continued to his mailbox an got his mail. The time was
about 10:50 p.m., no later than that.
A few minutes later, another man is walking his dog from his apartment
up the street and around the corner. His name is Steven Schwab. You
will hear these folks testify. They're just citizens living in
Brentwood. They have no axe to grind.
Mr. Schwab came by and saw the dog, Nicole's Akita, out in the middle
of street on Bundy and Gorham I'll show you in a few minutes, you can
see the geography. And he saw that the dog had blood had blood on his
paws, on his legs. The time was 10:55 p.m. Mr. Schwab, with his own
dog, saw the dog was wandering aimlessly and barking in a very
agitated way. And he decided to take the dog and go home, try to find
the owner, call up the animal shelter.
He got home, wasn't having any luck, and he asked a neighbor who lived
in the same complex, a fellow by the name of Sukru Boztepe, who will
also come here and testify, if he could take care of the dog.
Mr. Boztepe said sure, and he and his wife started to tend to the dog.
And then they decided to take the dog out for a walk because the dog
was agitated, and maybe they could find the dog's owner.
They then took the dog for a walk, and the dog pulled Mr. Boztepe on a
leash which Mr. Schwab gave Mr. Boztepe. The dog pulled Mr. Boztepe
in the direction of Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium. In fact,
right to the sidewalk where the walkway led up to her body.
And the dog stopped at that point, and the dog looked down the
walkway. And Mr. Boztepe saw that the dog was staring. And he then
looked, and it was extremely dark, even though he was right in front
of the sidewalk there. He will testify that he did not see anything
until the dog turned his head toward the bodies, and then Mr. Boztepe
looked and saw Nicole's body laying at the bottom of the stairs in a
pool of blood.
Mr. Boztepe then quickly raced across the street and knocked on
neighbors' doors to get somebody to call the police. And eventually,
the police were summoned. And they arrived at around 12:00, a little
after midnight.
So we know that these murders occurred, from the evidence that we will
present, sometime after 10:00, when Ron left his apartment, and
sometime before 10:, 50 when Mr. Karpf saw Nicole's dog out in the
street. And five minutes later, Mr. Schwab saw it with blood.
Between 10:00 and 10:50 -- we can even narrow it further than that,
ladies and gentlemen. There's another man who will come here and
testify. His name is Robert Heidstra. Mr. Heidstra is a dog lover.
He has a couple of dogs. He walks them several times a day, takes the
same route, knows every inch of the way.
He walked his dog on this evening, two of his dogs, and they were
older. He Left his house sometime after ten o'clock, closer to 10:15,
and he walked around the corner at this point. I think I will show
you a map.

(Counsel displays map.)

THE COURT: Can you all see this?


THE COURT: Here's Nicole's condominium; here's 875 South Bundy right
Mr. Heidstra lived on Dorothy.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, pardon me. Can you put it up next to those
pictures so that we can all see it?

MR. PETROCELLI: I don't know if it will stand up here, but we'll try.

THE COURT: Perhaps you can move the easel over.

MR. PETROCELLI: That's better.

MR. BAKER: Could you just put it up the next level; then everybody,
even in the back, can see it.


MR. BAKER: Thank you.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Mr. Heidstra lived right here. He left his
apartment around 10:15 and took this route, walking his dogs.
This is Nicole's condominium; this is Bundy.
This is an alleyway going from Bundy to Dorothy.
About 10:30, 10:35, Mr. Heidstra reached this point with his two dogs,
and he heard a very loud barking. He immediately recognized the dog
to be Nicole's dog, because he was familiar with Nicole's dog, having
walked by her condominium many times and seen the dog.
The dog was barking in a very agitated way, and Mr. Heidstra was
frightened that his animals might confront Nicole's dog, so he decided
not to walk in front of Nicole's condominium, but to take a detour.
And he went this way down the alleyway.
So instead of going this way, he cut down this alleyway so he wouldn't
have to go by the dog.
When he got to this point of the alleyway, directly opposite Nicole's
condominium, Mr. Heidstra will testify that he heard a man, young male
voice, yell, "Hey, Hey, Hey." Then he heard a deeper voice respond.
Then he heard the other man yell, "Hey, Hey." And then he heard a
clanging of a gate.
When he heard those sounds, he will testify that it was approximately
10:35 to 10:40 right here.
He then continued his walk across the alleyway until he reached
Dorothy, and he stopped and paused.
There's a big streetlight illuminating Dorothy and Bundy right here.
He looked down the street while his dogs were doing their business,
and he then saw a car pull up to this light, or to this stop sign, I
should say, and make a right turn, and he got a crystal clear view of
that car as it approached and turned right. That car, he will
testify, was a white utility-type or jeep-like automobile with tinted
windows, like a Ford Bronco.
The time was 10:40 to 10:45. At the latest, 1045.
We will prove through Mr. Heidstra testimony and other testimony, that
Mr. Hide take heard Ronald Goldman being confronted and attacked by
the defendant.
The time was 10:35 to 10:40, in that range, approximately.
Now, where was Mr. Simpson at that time? That's the next question.
Here's what we know:
Mr. Simpson had driven alone to his daughter's dance recital earlier
on Sunday, about five o'clock. He was not invited to dinner with the
Brown family and his children. And he went home alone after the
recital. They all went out to dinner at Mezzaluna Restaurant.
Mr. Simpson got to his house on Rockingham about 6:30 or seven
o'clock. He was home alone that evening, ladies and gentlemen.
Nobody else was in the house. His daughter, Arnel, was out for the
evening, and she would not return until about 1:00, 1:30 in the
Mr. Simpson had a house guest living in a guest room on the side of
the house. His name was Kato Kaelin. He was there in the room
passing time at 9:11 p.m., and we know this time exactly because
there's a phone record. Mr. Kaelin is on the phone long-distance to
San Diego to a friend, when Mr. Simpson comes to his door and knocks
on it. Mr. Kaelin gets off the phone. We know it's 9:11 p.m. from the
phone record.
Mr. Simpson told Mr. Kaelin that he needed change to go to the
airport, to tip the skycap. He said he was going to the airport and
needed change to tip the skycap.
Mr. Kaelin said all he had was a 20, and he gave it to Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson then said that he was going out to eat, to get a burger.
Mr. Kaelin then asked Mr. Simpson if he could go along, and Mr.
Simpson mumbled, "okay."
They then got in the car. Mr. Simpson had two automobiles: He had a
Ford Bronco and he had a Bentley. He got into the Bentley that was
parked in his driveway, and they drove to McDonald's.
It was sometime after 9:11 p.m.
They got to McDonald's, ordered the food. Mr. Simpson ate his
hamburger in the car very quickly, and drove back.
He got back to the house around 9:30, 9:35 at the very latest. How do
we know that? Mr. Kaelin was not invited to eat his food with Mr.
Simpson; Mr. Simpson already ate his food in the car. Mr. Kaelin got
his food and walked around to the back of the house and went into his
room and picked up the phone and made another long-distance phone call
to the same guy in San Diego. And that call is at 9:37 p.m. So we
know that Mr. Simpson and Mr. Kaelin are back by then.
So we can estimate it took a couple of minutes to get to the room from
where he got out of the car. So basically, Mr. Simpson is back at
Rockingham by 9:35 p.m.
Now, at 9:35 p.m. until 10:55 p.m., Mr. Simpson's whereabouts cannot
be corroborated by anybody.
9:35 p.m. to 10:55 p.m., Mr. Kaelin is the last person to see Mr.
Simpson at 9:35. Mr. Simpson was not seen by anybody alive, anybody
who will testify, until 10:55.
One hour and 20 minutes unaccounted for.
It was during this one hour and 20 minutes that the murders occurred.
Now, what happened at 10:55? Allan Park is a limousine driver who
will come here and he will testify. He had never driven before for
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson's regular driver was not available on this
evening to take Mr. Simpson to the airport for a red-eye flight.
Normally the driver would be there around quarter to 11:00 to get Mr.
Simpson to the airport.
Mr. Simpson had no idea that his normal driver was not going to show
up, and that this new person was going to show up.
Well Mr. Park had never picked up Mr. Simpson before, and he was a bit
nervous, and he wanted to be on time. He left his home at Torrance at
9:45 p.m. to get to Brentwood -- to Rockingham, 360 North Rockingham,
where Mr. Simpson lives, in plenty of time to get Mr. Simpson to the

(Counsel displays diagram of Rockingham Avenue.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Mr. Park comes driving -- this is Mr. Simpson's
property at 360 North Rockingham. You have Ashford Street and you have
Rockingham Avenue. And there are two driveways to this property. You
have this driveway on Ashford Street, and you have this driveway on
Rockingham. And there are gates here where you can be buzzed in, and
the gates open and come in. There's only one intercom, this one at
Ashford Street.
If you want to get into the house and you pull up to the gate on
Ashford, you have to pick up this phone that's right outside the gate,
and you call in and it rings on the telephone inside Mr. Simpson's
house on any number of phones. And there's even a little light that
lights up saying gate. So anybody inside knows it's the gate. They
can then press a button and then the gate opens automatically; the
person comes in, and the gate -- press another button, and the gate
closes. And that's how people routinely are let into the property.
And Mr. Park was given instructions by his boss, a man named Dale St.
John, to come to the property this way at this certain time, and then
buzz, and he'll be let in.
Again to be early, he drove up Rockingham, and he wasn't quite sure,
you know, which house was Mr. Simpson's, so he stopped and looked when
he got to this area, and he saw on the curb here, the numbers 360.
Now, that told him that this was Mr. Simpson's house, 360 North
He stopped and paused, looking out of the driver's side window, and
visibly saw the curb and the numbers. And he did not see, and he will
so testify, any cars parked there at that time. He did not see the
Bronco or any other automobile near the numbers or anywhere along this
curb. No cars were parked.
Now, what time was it when Allan Park drove up? According to him, it
was 10:20 p.m.
Now, understand something: Mr. Simpson will testify that he was home
at 10:20 p.m., and he will further testify that his car was right
here, where he claims he parked it earlier in the evening.
But Allan Park will destroy that alibi.

MR. BAKER: I object. That's argument. I object, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I'm going to ask you to save your argument for --


THE COURT: -- for closing argument.

MR. PETROCELLI: Allan Park will testify that when he drove up at
10:20, there was no car there.
Furthermore, Park pulls around the corner at Ashford -- it's about
10:25 -- stops the car right here, realizes it's too early to go
inside and call Mr. Simpson, so he smokes a cigarette. He then gets
ready to pull into that driveway and phone in. But instead of doing
that, he decides just to be sure, he makes one more pass around to
Rockingham, to make sure this is the right address, and he checks the
curb again. And it's 10:40 at this point in time, and there's no
Bronco there. And he sees the address, 360 North Rockingham.
Again, it's 10:40 p.m. or so. He pulls back around, comes back in,
pulls into the driveway, gets out of the car, and then picks up the
phone and calls in.
No one answers the phone. It rings and it rings, as he will testify,
two, three, four times. Nobody answers the phone. It's 10:40 p.m. He
then tried paging his boss, Dale St. John, to find out what -- you
know, what's going on: What should I do? He didn't get an answer from
his boss; he couldn't get through.
It's now about 10:45 p.m. Finally, well, what he did here is, he got
back out of the car, as he will testify and he rang the intercom
again: Second time he rang, another two, three, four times it rings.
No answer. Then gets back in the car, starts calling some people up.
Finally gets ahold of this guy, Dale St. John, and he makes a call to
him from the cell phone in the car, so there's a cell phone record
that establishes definitively when Mr. Park got in touch with his
boss. The time was 10:52. Okay. 10:52 and 17 seconds. That call
lasted until 10:55 and 17 seconds. So we have that time, for sure,
pinned down.
So Park will testify he's in the car, is talking to St. John at 10:52:
What should I do? He's not home.
Near the end of that call, he sees a man approach. He -- you see,
he's in the car. He has a -- he will testify that he has a clear
view. These trees do not stick out in the driveway. And you'll see
it in the photographs: He has a clear view here. Clear view. He's
looking straight ahead. His front bumper is touching up against the
gate. He's got his parking lights on, his headlights off, and he's
looking straight ahead as he's talking to his boss, and he can see the
front entrance way to Mr. Simpson's house.
All of a sudden, he sees a man approach here, a younger man, a male
with blond hair. He didn't know who this guy is. And he indicated to
his boss that he saw somebody. Continues to talk to his boss. And
then a moment later, he sees another person who he describes as large,
wearing dark clothing, six feet, 200 pounds, walking in this
direction, kind of at a brisk clip. Okay. Sees a guy -- first he
sees this guy, then a moment later, he sees this other person.
He then gets off the phone with his boss, he gets out of the car, and
he rings Mr. Simpson's house again, figuring he's home. And then Mr.
Simpson picks up for the first time, after he saw the figure heading
towards the front door.
He will also testify that once the figure headed towards the front
door, he saw some lighting on. He gets out of the car, and a moment
later, somebody answers the phone, and it's Mr. Simpson. And he
recognized his voice.
So we can tell from Allan Park's records, his phone records, that he
saw this person entering the house at around 10:55 p.m.
Mr. Simpson will admit that that was him entering the house at 10:55
So we know Mr. Simpson's whereabouts cannot be tracked, beginning at
10:55, back to 9:35. That's the hour and 20 minutes that he's not
accounted for.
Now, what will Mr. Simpson say about what he was doing during this
You will -- you will hear him say that he was home the entire time.
However, there's a cell phone record that shows a call that he made
from his cell phone at 10:03 p.m. to his friend, Paula Barbieri, tying
to track her down. We know he called her, but didn't make contact at
10:03 p.m.
Mr. Simpson, the next day when he came back from Chicago, told the
police when he gave a statement, that the very last thing he did
before he went off to Chicago, when the limousine was waiting for him,
was go out to the Bronco to get his cell phone. So Mr. Simpson
admitted to the police that his cell phone was in the Bronco when he
left for the airport, which was after eleven o'clock. So we know that
Mr. Simpson had to have been in his Bronco at 10:03 when he made that
Mr. Simpson will say that he was packing and rushing around during
this time frame. We will show that his trip was for only one day.
Mr. Simpson will say that he was lying on his bed, reading a book,
starting to nod off. We will show you that he was taking a red-eye,
where people usually sleep on the flight.
Mr. Simpson will say that he was chipping golf balls. We will show
you that it was nighttime. No one had seen him chip golf balls at
You will hear him say that he took his dog for a walk around the block
during this one-hour-and-20-minute period.
He can produce no witness who saw him taking that dog for a walk.
You will hear that he was home, up in his room, but he did not answer
two separate calls Alan Park, starting at 10:40, and then again at
Mr. Park said when Mr. Simpson picked up the phone, Mr. Simpson said
he had overslept, but he was taking a red-eye.
You will hear Mr. Simpson say a lot of other things about where he was
during that time. And we will have a lot more to say when we
cross-examine him. But the important thing to remember is this: About
this one hour and 20 minutes, there isn't anybody who can account for
his whereabouts. Nobody.
Now, there's one other thing I'd like to mention before I move on to
the next subject.
Mr. Kaelin was seen, as I told you, walking out of his room, onto the
property, was seen by Mr. Park around 10:45 p.m. The man with the
blond hair that Mr. Park saw and did not recognize was Kato Kaelin.
Now, why was Kaelin out there at 10:54 p.m., walking around about
three or four minutes earlier? Around 10:50, Mr. Kaelin heard loud
noises against the wall of his room. He was lying against the wall on
his bed, talking on the telephone, and he heard some loud noises. And
it shook the wall, and it even moved the picture; that's what he will
testify. He thought there was an earthquake.
He asked the person on the phone, was there an earthquake, talking to
a woman named Rachel Ferrara who lived locally. And she said she
didn't feel an earthquake.
He was a little frightened. He got off the phone; he got a light, a
little, small penlight, and he walked outside to go investigate where
those sounds came from and what had happened.
And I'll have to show you when we get another chart during the course
of his testimony, but he walked out of his room, which is back here,
came down this way, walks across here, and then went down to the side
of the garage to this point here, where he heard the noise.
You will hear Mr. Kaelin's testimony about going back to that side of
the house and what he saw.
What you will not hear, however, from the defense in this case will be
one shred of evidence either from Mr. Simpson or from any other
witness --

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. That's argument that you
will not hear from us.

MR. PETROCELLI: There will be no evidence in this case presented by
the defense as to what caused that noise that Kato Kaelin heard.
We will prove that was caused by Mr. Simpson returning to his property
by going on the side of the house, to avoid being detected by Alan
Park, who is waiting out on the street.
But you won't hear any other evidence as to what caused those noises.

THE COURT: We'll take a ten-minute recess.
Don't talk about the case; don't form or express any opinions, ladies
and gentlemen.


(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

THE COURT: You may resume.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor. What I'd like to do now,
ladies and gentlemen, is review for you the physical evidence found
when the murders were investigated and then I would like to show you
how we will prove that it links the defendant, Mr. Simpson, to the
Evidence was found, virtually all the evidence was found in three
locations. Nicole's condominium, 875 South Bundy, Mr. Simpson's
Bronco, and Mr. Simpson's home, 360 north Rockingham.
Let me start with the physical evidence at Bundy. I'm not going to
show you photographs now. I'm going to let the witnesses show you
The bodies of the victims, of course, were found at 875 south Bundy.
There's a walkway up to the steps and Nicole's body was found at the
bottom of the first step in the pool of blood.
She was still wearing the black dress she had worn for her recital.
She was bear foot. She had a watch on and she had rings on her
Ron was found slumped against a tree a few feet from Nicole's body in
a small caged-in area. And I say caged, you'll see photos of it, it's
caged because there's a fence that goes around this little dirt area
and there's a big street in the middle which sort of bisects this
area. And Mr. Goldman's body was found against the tree and it's a
very small area. And it's next to the stairs where Nicole's body was
Ron had a pager and the pager was found lying on the ground next to
him. Ron's keys to the car were found lying on the ground next to
The envelope with Judy Brown's glasses was found lying on the ground
next to him, obviously indicating that Ron had never got past the
stairs with the envelope.
In between Ron and Nicole's body, -- bodies, there was a single
leather glove on the ground. There was also a knit cap, a dark knit
cap, starting from where Nicole's body was and leading to the back of
the condominiums, a long walkway that goes to the back where there's a
There with shoe prints walking towards the back in blood, bloody shoe
prints. There were also some shoe prints in between Nicole's body and
Ron's body. All of these shoe prints are all of the same size, size
Next to the shoe prints going towards the back of the condominium were
drops of blood. To the left of the shoe prints, as though somebody
had cut themselves from the left hand or the left fingers, droplets of
blood, four or five.
At the end of the walkway, there's a gate that goes out to the back of
the house, then there were three blood stains found on this gate.
Later examination of some of this evidence showed that Ron's shirt had
some fibers on it and had some hair on it. The knit cap was found to
have some hair on it. There were also fibers found in the knit cap.
That's kind of the general picture of what we saw at Bundy.
By the way, while we're at Bundy, the door to Nicole's home, you go up
the steps, you walk a little past and there's a door, front door to
her condo. The door was open. The lights were on inside. There were
candles. There was a bathroom upstairs that she used near her
bedroom. It had water in it and her children were sleeping in the
None of Nicole's jewelry that she had on was taken. None of Ron's
possessions was taken. Nothing inside the house was disturbed or
removed. The house was not ransacked. The children were left unharmed
in their bed. Expensive automobiles in the garage, one being a
Ferrari, they were not taken. Everything was left intact. Obviously
indicating that there was no robbery here. No breaking and entry, no
burglary, no evidence of that will be presented in this case.
Nor will there be any evidence presented that this was -- there was
any sexual assault upon Nicole. Her clothes were not torn, nothing
was ripped. There will be no evidence of that.
We will prove from these facts that Nicole was the target of these
murders. These murders did not occur in a convenience store or an ATM
machine. They occurred at her home. We will prove that Ron Goldman
-- nobody knew Ron Goldman was going to be at Nicole's home except Ron
Goldman. Nicole and Karen Crawford at Mezzaluna, when Ron left at
9:50, he told Karen he was going to drop these glasses off and he got
them from Karen.
And then a half hour later or so, he's at Nicole's condo and he's
killed. Nobody -- there's no evidence that will be presented that
anybody knew Ron Goldman was going to Nicole's condominium. He went
there at the last minute unexpectedly.
Now, the physical evidence in the Bronco, let me talk about that. The
Bronco was found parked on -- on Rockingham when the police arrived in
the wee hours of the morning.
It was locked and it was parked right near this curb where it said 360
and you'll see photos of that. Right where Alan Park drove by and did
not see a Bronco.
It had blood, little stain of blood on the outside of the door near
the door handle, driver side door and it also had some stains of blood
down at the bottom of the door. And officers will testify, detectives
will testify, detective Lange, Detective Phillips, Detective
Vannatter, Detective Gonzalez and others that they could see inside
the Bronco through the windows and saw blood inside as well.
When the Bronco was towed the next day to the LA print shed and then
opened the following day, it had to be opened with a slim jim. Blood
was found in various places inside on the steering wheel, on the
instrument panel, on the seats, on the center console, and on the
driver side door panel, in the area where there's a little well, where
you open up the door to get out. The handle is as though one a
left hand or left finger was bleeding when they tried to open up the
handle to get out, right in that area, there was blood found. There
was also blood found on the carpet of the driver side in the shape of
a shoe print.
Now, at Rockingham itself, 360 north Rockingham, there is evidence
found both outside the house and inside the house.
Outside the house, there were blood drops outside the Bronco on the
ground and there were blood drops then up the driveway. There were
blood drops found inside the foyer of Mr. Simpson's house. When you
open up the front door, there's low a foyer there were blood drops
found on that floor.
There were blood drops found in Mr. Simpson's bathroom on the floor.
There were socks found, a pair of dark socks on a rug next to Mr.
Simpson's bed in his bedroom. Later examination of these socks showed
there were blood stains, discoloration not easily visible to the naked
Outside the house, on the side of the house were Kato Kaelin heard the
notices, there was a leather glove found for the right hand. The
leather glove found at Bundy was for the left hand. This leather
glove matched the glove at Bundy, one was right, one was left, both
brown leather gloves.
When this glove was examined, it was loaded with evidence. It had
blood stains on it. It had strands of hair and it had fiber on it.
Now, let me explain to you how this evidence that I just described
briefly to you ties into Mr. Simpson, how it identifies him.
First of all, I'd like to talk for a bit about the wound to the
victims, and this is obviously a difficult area to discuss and you
will be seeing some photographs, pictures during the course of the
Both victims died of knife wounds. We will call to the witness stand,
one of the nation's most renowned pathologist. His name is Dr. Werner
Spitz who we hired to independently examine the photographs, autopsy
reports and make some conclusions about the autopsies done on Ron and
Nicole in the nature of the wounds. I should say, the person who
performed the autopsy, Dr. Irwin Golden, is on the witness list for
this case. He is also available to testify if needed.
Now, a quick word of Dr. Spitz, he is one of the -- you will here he
is one of the most renowned pathologists, the author of numerous
authoritative works. He served on various committees, including
committees investigating the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Martin
Luther King, Junior.
Now, Dr. Spitz, after reviewing the materials, he will testify when
he's called that Nicole had some superficial defensive type wound,
very superficial, not very many. She had stab wounds to the neck, and
she had a gapping slash across her throat. This last wound was so
deep in such -- and such a devastating cut that it almost, the blade
almost hit her spinal cord. It was this last wound that caused her
death, caused her to bleed out massively and she died moments later.
Ronald Goldman, all of his wound were also knife wounds. He had one
wound that bled out onto his pants, a wound to his leg. He had a
wound to the neck that severed a vein. He had two wounds to his chest
below his armpits, and he had a deep wound in the abdominal area.
Those are the basic wounds that he had.
Dr. Spitz will testify that all of the wounds to Ron and Nicole were
consistent with one knife. And one assailant.
The blood testing done in this case also shows that there is a drop of
blood on Ron Goldman's boot, on the bottom of the boot which later
testing revealed to be a mixture of Ron's blood and Nicole's blood.
And this blood drop will show that one knife was used on both victims,
hence transferring one blood to the other.
As you will see from the photos of the crime scene, Nicole was kill at
one area at the bottom of the stairs and Ron was killed at a separate
area next to the stairs. And there are some bloody foot prints
between Ron's body and Nicole's body and we will offer this evidence
to prove Ron and Nicole were killed in sequence, meaning take they
were not confronted and killed together at the same time.
In addition, the evidence will show that there is only one set of foot
prints throughout the whole crime scene, all size 12. There will be
no evidence presented that anybody else that evening left any foot
prints. And there will be no evidence presented that anybody else was
involved that night in these murders.
The evidence that we will present will show that both Ron and Nicole
struggled very briefly before they were killed. There was no blood on
Nicole's feet. She was found laying down in a pool of blood and there
was no blood on her feet. None of her blood on her feet, meaning that
she was already down when she was cut across the neck and she bled
When she was cut on the neck, Dr. Spitz will testify that she lived no
longer than about 15 seconds or so from that point.
Dr. Spitz will explain that Ron Goldman did try to fight valiantly,
but he too was killed quickly. He was pinned in this small caged
area, taken by surprise and he did not have room to maneuver, to
defend himself let alone fight back.
His area is very small. And if you try to throw a punch or get your
arms up, there's not much you could do except ward off the knife blows
that were being delivered one after the other and that is why we see
cuts on Ron's hands.
One of the early wounds to Ron, as Dr. Spitz will testify, severed the
aorta in the abdominal area, the abdominal cavity. This caused an
instant loss of blood pressure, and an immense internal bleeding to
the surrounding tissue. After this wound, Ron was rendered totally
And Dr. Spitz will testify that he could have struggled about 60
seconds before collapsing to his death. It was during this struggle
with Ron most likely when the glove came off and the hat came off.
Also, Mr. Simpson sustained injuries to his left hand in the nature of
cuts and gouges. Dr. Spitz has examined photographs of these injuries
and he will testify that these are very likely, gouges caused by the
finger nails of either Ron or Nicole digging into Mr. Simpson's hand
in order to try to get free.
The evidence will also show that, as I said before, Nicole bled
outward after she was already down on the ground incapacitated, and
Ron bled largely internally. Therefore, the evidence does not suggest
that Mr. Simpson would have been drenched with blood nor does it
suggest that he would have bruises and marks all over his body.
Now, let me tie in something that we talked about earlier. We were
talking about the time. Okay. And Mr. Heidstra will testify that he
heard a voice of a man say hey, hey, hey around 10:35 or so.
Now, we will show that the struggle with Mr. Goldman was brief. The
struggle with Nicole was even briefer. That in a matter of minutes,
both were killed. Mr. Heidstra heard hey, hey, hey around 10:35 or
so. Couple of minutes later, the killings were done at the latest and
Mr. Simpson would have had plenty of time to leave the crime scene,
get into his car, get back to Rockingham in time to have made the
sounds that Kato Kaelin heard at 10:50 p.m. and to have been seen by
Alan Parks at 10:55 p.m.
The evidence will show that the person who did this left this crime
scene in an extreme hurry. They left behind all kinds of
incriminating evidence. Blood drops, bloody shoe prints, a single
glove, a hat. This was a person in a big hurry.
Now, the defense on this point, I'll just stick with it a few minutes
longer, will try to convince you --.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, this isn't argument what we're trying to
convince --

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. PETROCELLI: The defense will present evidence.

MR. BAKER: I object. This is opening as to what he's going to

THE COURT: That is correct. You cannot presuppose what evidence they
will present.

MR. PETROCELLI: They have a .

THE COURT: They may and or they may not offer the evidence.

MR. PETROCELLI: Very well, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It's a contention -- that was in a contention. You may
argue it.


THE COURT: Overruled. You may argue it. Overruled.

MR. PETROCELLI: The defense position, one of the defense says that
Mr. Simpson did not have enough time to commit the murders. And the
basis for the defense's position is that the struggle with Ron and
Nicole lasted too long.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. This is argument. I want
to be heard on this.

THE COURT: You may make up your contentions.

MR. PETROCELLI: Is the reporter .

THE COURT: The reporter.

(The following proceedings were held at bench:)

MR. PETROCELLI: One of their critical positions in this case is that
there was a long struggle.

THE COURT: My question to you was: Was there a contention
interrogatory that was responded to, to that effect?

MR. BAKER: Absolutely.

MR. PETROCELLI: I don't have it. Mr. Baker won't disavow that that's
not his position. He's just trying to say that he can't discuss it,
even though it's a contention.

MR. BAKER: Don't say what my --

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. BAKER: It's my position, in opening statements, they can show
what their evidence is going to present. They cannot argue that the
evidence or contention that we say is our case is ineffectual. That's
not opening statement. Opening statement is what their case is, what
their evidence is going to prove, what they have a burden of proving.
It is not to rebut what our position may or may not be at the time of
And for him to do that, it then becomes argument. And he's got to, in
my opinion, save that for the conclusion of his case.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, a good part of my opening is going to be
devoted to addressing the defense contentions. One is that there's a
long struggle and the time was insufficient to that there was a

THE COURT: Mr. Petrocelli, you may, in your opening statement, state
it in a form that if it is a -- if it is going to be a contention that
there was insufficient time or defense will show thus and thus and so
on, but I think it would be improper to presuppose that Mr. Baker is
going to offer any particular evidence on any particular subject
raised by his contentions. You may raise it as a hypothetical in
affect and you may state the evidence that you are going to offer that
a contention is made as to this. Or any contentions made to that.
You cannot say that he is going to actually raise that as a

MR. PETROCELLI: In this case, they're going to put on an expert that
will say that the struggle took 15 minutes.

THE COURT: Mr. Baker may decide not to call this man at all.

MR. PETROCELLI: Then I'd like to be able to say that if the defense
offers evidence that the struggle was wrong, then I would like to go

MR. BAKER: With great respect, I think he has to. He can say that
the evidence will show it doesn't take 10 to 15 minutes, but he can't
start presupposing what I'm going to put on. He can say all he wants
about why it took a minute or anything like that.

THE COURT: Mr. Petrocelli, I'm a sympathetic person to the defense
position. You're trying to shape his argument and shape his
presentation of his case and I don't think that's appropriate.

MR. PETROCELLI: We're going to get into this on the planning and
conspiracies. I intend to show that there's no evidence at all to
support any of those issues, Your Honor. I mean, that's what he's
been talking to the jury about for 30 days.

THE COURT: This is opening statement. You're going to be setting
forth what your evidence is going to be.

MR. PETROCELLI: I would also like to point out that there will be no
evidence presented with respect to other.

THE COURT: You don't know that.

MR. PETROCELLI: I do know that from the interrogatory answer that
there will be no evidence presented, for example, there were two
gloves at Bundy. There will be no evidence presented.

THE COURT: You may state that.

MR. PETROCELLI: Those are the kind of things.

THE COURT: But you cannot state Mr. Baker's defense.

MR. PETROCELLI: I'll try to.

MR. BREWER: If we say defense may contend the following then we can
address that in opening statements.

THE COURT: No, I think Mr. Baker's right. I think you cannot state
what his defense is going to be.

MR. BREWER: If it's raised in a hypothetical form.

THE COURT: No, I don't think so because --

MR. BREWER: I THOPBLG> thought you said if he raised it in a
hypothetical form.

THE COURT: I think Mr. Baker convinced me otherwise.

MR. PETROCELLI: That's the big part of the case, that the struggle
was 10, 20 minutes. Can I introduce that was their position that
there was struggle, lasted long enough to say that Simpson couldn't be
the person and I want to demonstrate why the evidence is such and so
you have to understand the context in which I'm talking about this?
They don't understand the context if I can't say it was fighting
around and at 10:35 that there was a 20 minutes fight. There's no way
it could be.

THE COURT: You can save it for your closing argument. You wanted to
-- want to explain to the jury what evidence you are going to offer,
you may. And you can state it for the purpose of showing that the
struggle lasted only such and such a minute. But your front loading
this and I don't think that's appropriate because we haven't heard any
evidence yet.

MR. PETROCELLI: We do have his specific contentions in this regard.

THE COURT: I understand that.

MR. PETROCELLI: Including the timing which I don't have with me but I
can show you after lunch.

MR. BAKER: That' not the issue.

MR. PETROCELLI: I'll move forward on this point for now.

THE COURT: Okay. Thanks.

(The following proceedings were resumed in open Court in the presence
of the jury.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Just to conclude this point, then I'm going to move
on to a different topic.
The evidence that we will present through the physical evidence at the
crime scene through the testimony regarding the wound delivered to the
victims, through the testimony of Dr. Spitz is that Ron and Nicole
struggled briefly and died quickly and that there was more than ample
time for Mr. Simpson to leave there 10:35, 10:40 and even as late as
10:45 to get back to Rockingham by 10:50.
Now, with respect to the specific evidence that was found at Bundy,
starting with the hair evidence, we will call to the stand a man named
Douglas Deedrick who's an agent with the FBI and he works in the
laboratory that deals with hair and fiber's. He examined the hair and
fiber evidence that was found in this case.
Starting with the hat, the knit cap found at Bundy, Mr. Deedrick will
testify. What Mr.` Deedrick did is he examined that hat, the hair,
the hair found in that hat and he examined some samples of Mr.
Simpson's hair provided by Mr. Simpson and he compared them.
And Mr. Deedrick will testify that there was in effect, a match
between the two. That they shared the same microscopic
characteristics, that is Mr. Simpson's hair and the hair found in the
hat at Bundy.
Mr. Deedrick will also testify, and by the way, Mr. -- We'll present
evidence showing that Mr. Simpson has knit caps and had knit caps at
that time just like the one found at Bundy.
Mr. Deedrick will also testify that hair found on Ron Goldman's shirt
matched Mr. Simpson's hair. He will testify that hairs found on the
Rockingham glove, the glove found behind the side of Mr. Simpson's
house, matched Nicole's hair and other hair on it matched Ron
Goldman's hair.
Mr. Deedrick will testify that he found certain rose beige fibers on
the knit cap at Bundy, particular rare type of carpet fiber that he
will say is found in very few Bronco automobiles. And he will testify
that after comparing the fibers, the carpet fibers found in the hat to
the carpet fibers in Mr. Simpson's car, that they matched. They
shared the same microscopic characterization.
He also examined the fibers, carpet fibers found on the Rockingham
glove and he said those carpet fibers are the same fibers as found in
Mr. Simpson's car.
He also found a different kind of fiber, a blue black cotton fiber in
several different places and it was the same blue black cotton fiber
found in these places: 1, Ron Goldman's shirt; 2, the glove found at
Rockingham; and 3, the socks in Mr. Simpson's bedroom. That again,
Mr. Deedrick will testify all these fibers matched indicating that
they all came from a common source.
On the gloves, one glove was found at Bundy, one glove was found at
Rockingham. Both gloves Aris leather like, extra large, color brown.
We will present evidence in this case that Nicole Brown Simpson on
December 18, 1990, purchased two pairs of Aris leather light gloves,
extra large, color brown and color black. She purchased them at
Bloomingdale's in New York city close to where she and Mr. Simpson had
an apartment.
Only Bloomingdale's, by the way, sold these gloves in the United
States and only two hundred pairs were sold in 1990 to 1991 when
Nicole bought them in Mr. Simpson's extra large size.
After December 18, 1990 when Nicole bought these gloves, we have
pictures that we will present showing Mr. Simpson wearing both pairs
of gloves. We have six photographs, somebody wearing the black
gloves, somebody wearing the brown gloves. By the way, these gloves,
stylewise, are made to be skin tight, so that you have dexterity when
you're using them. They're not big ski gloves. They're very
tight-fitting gloves. You will hear testimony from the woman who was
in charge of these gloves, of selling these gloves at Bloomingdale's.
Now, we have asked Mr. Simpson to produce the gloves that he was seen
wearing in the photographs and he will not be able to present, in
court, those gloves. Neither pair of them.
We will prove that the gloves that he was wearing in those photographs
and that Nicole bought on December 18, 1990, the brown pair, were the
ones he used when he killed Ron and Nicole leaving one at Bundy and
one at Rockingham.
Let me turn to the show prints. We will call to the stand, FBI agent
William Bodziak who is one of the country's most foremost experts in
shoe print impressions. And he will testify after reviewing all of
the evidence, the photographs and so forth, crime scene pictures,
taking measurements and doing lots of investigative work around the
world that these shoe prints that were left at Bundy were all the same
size, size 12. That there were no other shoe prints left behind that
night. He will explain that only nine percent of the population wears
size 12. Mr. Simpson wears size 12.
He was able to take an impression of the bloody shoe print and track
down the precise type of sole that made that bloody shoe print and
it's a Silga sole made in Italy that is used on a shoe called a Bruno
Magli or Bruno Magli as some people say, shoe. It's an expensive
casual shoe. It costs $160, sold in only 40 stores in the United
States in 1991 and 1992.
It's a casual shoe, sort of leather type shoe. It's dark in color,
particular style here is called the Lorenzo style and it has this
Silga sole which has like a waffle-type pattern to it. That is the
sole that William Bodziak will say made that shoe print, and that sole
is only used on a Bruno Magli shoe. So we know and can prove that
that shoe that left a shoe print was a Bruno Magli shoe, size 12,
Lorenzo style, dark in color.
At Mr. Simpson's deposition we asked him whether he wore those type of
shoes and his testimony is as follows on this and we will present it
to you at page 1305. Question was about whether he wore Bruno Magli
shoes, the kind that left the bloody shoe prints.
"Q. Did you ever buy shoes that you knew wore Bruno Magli shoes.
"A. No.
"Q. How do you know that?
"A. Because I know Bruno Magli makes shoes that look like the
shoes they had in court that's involved in this case I would have
never owned those ugly-ass shoe.
"Q. You thought those were ugly-ass shoes.
"A. Yes.
That deposition was taken back in February, 1996. A month or so later
after that deposition, a photograph appeared in the National Enquirer
taken by a photographer named Harry Scull, Jr., whose testimony you
will hear.
He's a sports photographer in Buffalo where Mr. Simpson used to play
football and go back and broadcast football games. He worked for the
Associated Press in 1993 and on September 26, 1993 there was a game
between the Buffalo Bills, the Miami Dolphins in Rich Stadium, New
York Buffalo's stadium and Mr. Scull working for the AP took
photographs of lots of players including some shots of Mr. Simpson
broadcasting on the sidelines interviewing athletes.
In the past Mr. Scull had taken many, many pictures of Mr. Simpson.
This was not the first time.
If the Associated Press didn't use the photographs as Mr. Scull will
testify, he would try to then sell them. That's how he earns his
In September of 1993, one of the pictures that he took is a picture
that shows Mr. Simpson in the end zone wearing a jacket, tie, shirt,
belt, pants, shoes that are clearly visible including the bottom of
the shoe, the sole.
We've had those shoes that picture shown to an expert by the way, an
expert who used to head the photographic and questioned documents unit
at the FBI for 25 years, a guy named Gerry Richards. He will testify
that the photograph is authenticated looked at the negative and no
question about the photograph.
We've also had the shoes shown in that photograph that Mr. Simpson is
wearing given to an expert Mr. Bodziak the shoe print expert and we've
asked him to identify the shoe based on his training and knowledge and
he can positively identify that the shoe Mr. Simpson is wearing in
that photograph is a Bruno Magli Lorenzo style size 12 that has the
Silga sole to it. That is the shoe that left the bloody shoe prints
on Bundy on June 12.
Once again we've asked Mr. Simpson to produce the shoes that he has
been shown wearing in that photograph taken in September, 1993, just
eight months or so before Nicole's death.
He cannot produce them. We've asked him where are the shoes and where
are the gloves that are seen in those photographs and his answers and
we will present them to you here in court in testimony, "I gave them
Asked him who he gave them to his answer, he can't identify who he
gave them to.
Your Honor, this is a good time.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen we'll adjourn to 1:30
don't talk about the case among yourselves or with anyone else and
don't form or express any opinion.

(At 11:58 A.M. an adjournment was taken until
1:35 P.M. of the same day.)




(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

THE COURT: Okay, you may resume.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you. When we last left off before the noon
hour, I was explaining to you the physical evidence that was found and
how it tied in to Mr. Simpson.
I'd like to resume.
Kato Kaelin will testify that on the evening of June the 12th, when he
saw Mr. Simpson and went to McDonald's, Mr. Simpson was wearing a dark
sweat suit with a white zipper to it.
Bear in mind also that the testimony of the hair and fiber expert,
Douglas Deedrick, is that he found blue-black cotton fibers on various
At his deposition, Mr. Simpson testified that he didn't recall owning
any dark sweat suit. We've asked him to produce the dark sweat suit
for us, and he has not been able to produce any dark sweat suit, even
though you will hear the testimony of Kato Kaelin that he was wearing
a dark sweat suit on the evening of June 12.
Now, the physical evidence that I've described so far at Bundy will
indicate that the killer had cuts or gouges on his left hand,
evidenced by the blood drops that fell to the left of the bloody shoe
Also, we know the left glove came off, because it was dropped there,
and that's probably how the left hand got injured.
Now, Mr. -- One other thing is, the Bronco had blood drops in the
door, where you open up the door, on the driver's side interior panel,
as I explained before.
Where you would open up the door there was some blood drops in that
little well there, also suggesting blood on the left fingers.
So the evidence will show that the killer had blood coming from his
left fingers or hand.
When Mr. Simpson returned from Chicago on June 13, he had cuts on his
left finger, two of his fingers. He went to the police that day and
gave a statement, and one of those cuts was very noticeable and was
photographed. And we have a picture of it, which we will show you.
His friend who was at the police station with him and with him during
that entire day will testify -- his name is Leroy Taft -- that he saw
at least two cuts on Mr. Simpson's fingers, the middle finger and the
fourth finger, on June 13. So we have Mr. Simpson coming back from
Chicago with cuts on his left hand, left fingers.
In his deposition in this case, we asked Mr. Simpson about his cuts on
his left hand, and he was unable to explain exactly how he got them.
His testimony in his deposition was that he cut himself in Chicago in
his hotel room. After he claims to have heard the news of Nicole's
death, he went into the bathroom and somehow cut himself on a glass, a
drinking glass, but does not remember exactly how he did it, and
cannot tell us how he cut himself in the bathroom in that Chicago
hotel room.
However, long before he gave his deposition in this case, on June 13,
when he went to speak to the police at Parker Center, he told the
police in a statement that he cut himself before going to Chicago.
And we will present that testimony or those statements to you.
So, we have his statement on June 13 admitting that he cut himself
before he went to Chicago. Now we have his testimony in this case
saying he cut him himself in the hotel room.
Now, probably the most important evidence that we will present in this
trial that identifies Mr. Simpson as the person who killed Ron and
Nicole is the blood evidence, although there's lots of other evidence,
as well, as you've heard me discuss.
The blood evidence was tested mainly through DNA tests, highly
reliable, scientific DNA tests. I'm going to talk to you a little bit
about DNA. First, before I do so, I want to describe what the blood
tests showed.
Starting with Bundy, again, Nicole's condominium, the blood drops to
the left of the shoe print were tested, and they matched Mr. Simpson's
blood. The blood found on the back gate of Nicole's condominium was
tested. They matched Mr. Simpson's blood.
At Rockingham, the blood on the driveway was tested. That matched Mr.
Simpson's blood.
The blood in his foyer was tested; that matched his blood. The blood
in the bathroom was tested; that matched his blood.
There were three different kinds of blood stains on the glove found at
Rockingham. One stain matched Mr. Simpson's blood. Another stain
matched Nicole's blood, and another stain matched Ron Goldman's blood.
The socks found in Mr. Simpson's bedroom were tested. Two different
kinds of stains were found on the socks: One matched Mr. Simpson's
blood; one matched Nicole's blood.
The blood in the Bronco was tested. The blood on the door panel that
I've been telling you about, where you open up the door, that matched
Mr. Simpson's blood.
There was blood found on the console that matched Mr. Simpson's blood,
the center console between the passenger and driver's seat.
There was blood found on the panel and on the console that also
matched Nicole's blood, and there was blood found there that matched
Ron's blood.
So you have in these three places, where most of the evidence was
found -- Bundy, Rockingham, in the Bronco -- only three types of
blood: Ronald Goldman's, Nicole Brown Simpson's, and O.J. Simpson's.
One other thing I'll mention about the Bronco: There was a carpet on
the driver's side that had blood stains on it. The blood was tested
and found to be Nicole's blood. The blood was located in an area on
the carpet where one would step into the Bronco with your foot, if
you're trying to enter into the car.
And there were marks in Nicole's blood in the Bronco consistent with a
shoe print. And FBI agent William Bodziak will say while there's not
enough marks to make an absolute identification, that the marks that
he does see on the carpet in Nicole's blood are consistent with the
unique Bruno Magli sole that made the shoe print at the Bundy crime
Furthermore, Mr. Bodziak will explain that, because of the thickness
of the carpet in the Bronco, if a person had blood on his shoes and he
was walking on concrete, and the blood started to wear off and not
leave anymore bloody shoe prints, once you step onto the rug, the
carpet, because of the thickness of it, the blood will squeeze out of
the sole and thereby leave an imprint.
And that's what we will show you.
Now, let me talk to you a little bit about the blood tests that I've
just described which produced results matching the defendant's blood,
as well as the victim's blood.
Most of these tests were DNA tests. Just a little background about
DNA that you will hear from our experts.
DNA is the genetic blueprint of life. It is the nucleus of every cell
in the human body; it's what makes us unique. No two persons except
identical twins have the same DNA profile.
Each of us has our own unique DNA.
When we say DNA acts as the blueprint of life, this is what we mean:
It is the DNA in our cells that causes us to have common
characteristics of human beings, such as arms, legs, hearts and
livers, et cetera. And it is also the DNA which causes us to have the
characteristics that make us different from everyone else: Brown
eyes, blue eyes, short, tall, right-handed, left-handed, et cetera.
Each person gets half of his or her DNA from his mother and the other
from his or her father.
DNA can be found throughout a person's body. Blood, sperm, hair,
saliva, bone, teeth, organ muscles, and other tissues all contain DNA
that can be tested by scientists. And particularly important in
forensic use that is using DNA to solve crimes is body fluids, such as
saliva and blood, that can be tested for the presence of DNA.
DNA obviously is not just used in forensic applications; it's used in
a great variety of areas, including diagnosis of disease, development
of new medicines, typing of tissues for organs and bone-marrow
transplants, and the study and breeding of endangered species,
increasing agricultural production, and others.
For example, it was because of DNA research that the scientific
community was able to determine that the disease known as sickle cell
anemia was caused by a genetic defect. So it's a very powerful,
powerful piece of science.
Now, in terms of the forensic use of DNA, scientists are using it to
solve crimes. DNA has been used to determine that people accused of
crimes could not have been the killer, are excluded as the killer,
because there is no DNA match. Sometimes people who have been wrongly
convicted and sentenced to jail can be released years later because of
DNA tests that are done.
And, of course, it works the other way, as well. DNA can be an
important indicator that a person is likely to be the person who
committed the crime.
Now, the DNA tests in this case, right from the beginning, there are
going to -- they're going to be very important, because there was a
lot of blood evidence. There was blood in the Bronco; there was blood
at Rockingham; and there was blood at Bundy.
Therefore, a decision was made to have DNA tests performed on the
blood found, not just at the Los Angeles Police Department's lab, but
also the State of California's Laboratory, Justice Department in
Sacramento, and one of the largest privately owned forensic
laboratories in the country, Cellmark Laboratories in Maryland. So
all three labs were used to do the blood tests in this case, to make
sure that there were no problems.
Most of the time a piece of blood was tested, it was tested by at
least two and sometimes three of the labs to see if the results would
all be the same.
There are two different kinds of DNA tests that you will be hearing
about. One test is called the RFLP test. It's a very, very powerful
DNA test that has the ability to establish a DNA profile to a very
high degree of uniqueness.
The other test is called the PCR test, and it is a test that's
especially developed when you have a smaller quantity of blood. Blood
comes in various sizes and stains. Sometimes there's more DNA in the
blood that can be extracted, and sometimes there's less DNA. When
there's a little bit of DNA, the PCR test is typically used. When
there's more DNA, the RFLP test is used.
The blood in this case that was tested was subjected to both forms of
tests, the RFLP test and the PCR test. You will be hearing from our
experts who did this and the other technicians what the results are,
but let me summarize them for you.
On the five Bundy blood drops that were along the walkway, all three
labs tested those blood drops and came up with the same results, all
three laboratories. The DNA profile of those Bundy blood drops
matched Mr. Simpson's.
On one of the blood drops, blood drop 52, which was outside past the
back gate, they were able to do an RFLP test because there was enough
DNA. And the results of that showed that only one out of 170 million
people could have had that DNA profile. And that profile, of course,
matched Mr. Simpson's.
The blood found on the back gate was subject to DNA tests, both RFLP
and PCR tests. Once again, it was determined that those blood drops
had DNA profiles that matched Mr. Simpson's.
One of those drops, number 117-- there's three drops on the back gate
-- had enough DNA to allow scientists to do the RFLP test. That test
established that the DNA profile in that blood drop matched that of
Mr. Simpson, and was of such a high degree of a match, that only one
out of every 57 billion people could have that same DNA profile.
Of course, there's only about 6 billion people in that neighborhood on
the face of the earth.
Now, going to Rockingham, the trail of blood that was found leading up
the driveway into Mr. Simpson's house, blood drops there were
subjected to both the PCR and the RFLP blood drops, again, by the
different laboratories.
All the labs agreed results were the same: All the results showed DNA
profile that matched Mr. Simpson's.
The glove that was found at Rockingham was tested at the California
Department of Justice Laboratory. The tests there on the glove found
some of the blood contained a DNA profile that matched Mr. Simpson's;
some of the blood contained a DNA profile that matched Ron Goldman's;
and some contained the DNA profile that matched Nicole Brown
The socks were tested. DNA profile matched Mr. Simpson; another stain
matched Nicole.
And finally, in the Bronco, again, DNA test results established that
the blood on the driver's-side door matched Mr. Simpson's DNA; the
other stains matched Mr. Simpson, Ron Goldman, and Nicole Brown
Now, the only witnesses who will be testifying in this case about
doing DNA tests of the blood in this case are witnesses that we will
be presenting.
You will hear no testimony from any witness by the defense who did a
DNA test. If they did, they're not going to testify about it.
The only witnesses who will testify about the DNA tests are the
witnesses that we will call.
There will be no evidence contradicting any of the findings of these
DNA tests.
Let me now turn to a different subject altogether. In addition to the
blood evidence, in addition to the physical evidence that points
directly to Mr. Simpson, we are going to put on other evidence to show
his responsibility for the murders on June 12. Among this evidence
will be evidence describing Mr. Simpson's activities and his behavior
after the murders.
And we will prove by this evidence that he did not act and behave like
an innocent man; that his behavior and his actions indicated a
consciousness of guilt.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this based upon the
Court's ruling.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. PETROCELLI: There are a couple of -- I'm not going to go through
all the evidence here; time doesn't permit it. And you will be
hearing it in the course of the trial. I'd like to highlight a few
things that we will present to you.
First of all, when Mr. Simpson packed that limousine, with Alan Park,
driving to the airport, Kato Kaelin was present, together with Alan
Park and Mr. Simpson. It was about 11:10 p.m. on June 12, and Mr.
Simpson had to get to a flight.
There will be testimony by Alan Park and separate testimony by Kato
Kaelin that after packing some pieces of luggage, there was a bag,
smaller dark bag, out near the Bentley that Mr. Simpson insisted on
picking up himself, not allowing Kaelin, who offered to pick it up and
put it in the car, insisted on picking it up himself and bringing it
into the car.
After Mr. Simpson returned, brought his luggage back, after all of the
legal proceedings, after all of the attempts to obtain all the
discovery in this case, that bag has never been seen again. There will
be no witness who will bring that bag into this court.
Mr. Simpson has produced some luggage that he claims he brought with
him to Chicago that night, including one he claims was this bag.
Kato Kaelin will testify that is not the bag he saw. Alan Park will
testify that is not the bag he saw. There is a bag that has never
been seen since June 12.
Mr. Simpson went to Chicago on a red-eye. There will be evidence that
despite the fact that almost everybody in first class slept, he did
not sleep.
He arrived in Chicago and was driven to a hotel a short distance away,
the Chicago O'Hare. He checked in. He was driven to the hotel by a
Hertz employee, a man named James Merrill, whose testimony you will
hear. He's a guy who works for Hertz in Chicago, and when there are
celebrities who come in -- Mr. Simpson was a Hertz paid celebrity --
this guy Merrill's job is to help out. And he picked Mr. Simpson up
at the airport early in the morning and brought him to the hotel,
packed up the luggage in Mr. Merrill's car -- Mr. Merrill lived 45
minutes, in the suburbs, away from the hotel, away from the airport.
Mr. Simpson left his golf bag in Mr. Merrill's car. Mr. Merrill went
off and went to bed.
The next morning, Mr. Simpson received a phone call from Officer --
from Detective Ron Phillips, in which Detective Phillips informed Mr.
Simpson of Nicole's death.
Now, Mr. Simpson is in his hotel room in Chicago.
We will present evidence showing that Mr. Simpson made a series of
phone calls -- at least three that we know about, and we have phone
records to prove them -- to this fellow, James Merrill, who lived 45
minutes away, in order to have him come back to the hotel and take Mr.
Simpson to the airport, even though there was cab and ground
transportation right downstairs, five minutes to the airport.
Mr. Merrill will testify that Mr. Simpson was frantic about Merrill's
picking him up. And Merrill jumped out of his house, got in his car,
tried to get to the airport -- tried to get to the hotel. Mr. Simpson
had an early flight. As it turned out, Merrill did not get to the
hotel in time, and Mr. Simpson had to get other transportation to the
airport, and flew to Los Angeles.
Merrill left the golf clubs with American Airlines. And they put them
on the next flight, and they were shipped back to L.A.
Now, on June 14, which is a Tuesday -- Mr. Simpson arrived in Los
Angeles on Monday, June 13, around eleven o'clock or so.
On Tuesday, Mr. Simpson got up and drove to his office in Brentwood
with his friend, Robert Kardashian, and they went up to Mr. Simpson
office. And Mr. Simpson had his assistant secretary, Cathy Randa, call
Mr. Merrill on the phone. And in that conversation, Mr. Simpson found
out what happened to his golf clubs. And he then requested Mr.
Kardashian to take him to the airport to get his golf clubs on
Tuesday, June 14, at around -- I guess before noon or so.
When questioned about this in his deposition, Mr. Simpson claimed he
did not ask to be taken to the airport to get his golf clubs; he just
happened to be riding around with Mr. Kardashian near the airport, and
decided he'd stop in and get his golf clubs.
We will present the testimony of not only Robert Kardashian, but Mr.
Simpson's other friend, Mr. Taft, who will testify that Mr. Simpson
specifically said, "Take me to the airport; I need to get my golf
Mr. Simpson, on Monday, when he came back, June 13, got to Rockingham
and then went down to the police station, where he gave a statement to
detectives Tom Lange and Phil Vannatter. He spoke on a tape for about
30 minutes or so.
And this was the first time, hours after Nicole's murder, that Mr.
Simpson had been questioned about what he did the night before, what
his whereabouts were, and so forth.
Now, you'll hear that tape, or you'll have the statement read in. You
will see that Mr. Simpson is unable to provide any clear explanation
for what he was doing the night before.
All he could say was, he was rushing and packing, and he was not able
to describe with any detail what he was doing, particularly in that
hour and 20 minutes. And again, as I mentioned before, when he was
told that blood was found at Rockingham, he said he cut his finger --
he must have cut his finger before going to Chicago, even though now
he says he cut his finger in Chicago in the hotel room.
We will also present to you further deposition testimony of Mr.
Simpson about that cut when we pressed him whether or not he saw any
blood before he went to Chicago, as he told the police. And all he
said in his deposition is that there was a tiny dab of blood that he
saw on a pinky one time before he got in the limousine, which he
dabbed, and threw the napkin away.
So we will present to you direct inconsistencies in his deposition, in
his police statement, about crucial events.
After he came back from the police statement, later that night, Mr.
Simpson had friends over to his house and family members. Kato Kaelin
had gone to stay with a friend. He was asked to come back to Mr.
Simpson's house.
He got there, and he ended up in the kitchen alone with Mr. Simpson
for a few moments. This is about eight or nine o'clock on the evening
of June 13. Mr. Simpson then said to Mr. Kaelin, alone in the
kitchen, words to this effect: You saw me go in the house after
McDonald's, didn't you?
And Kato Kaelin said no, I did not.
Kato Kaelin's testimony, as I mentioned previously -- maybe I didn't,
actually -- Kato Kaelin's testimony is that when he came back from
McDonald's, he did not see Mr. Simpson walk back into the house. Mr.
Kaelin walked into the house while Mr. Simpson stayed at the Bentley
in the driveway, and never moved from it. We will present this
testimony to, once again, show Mr. Simpson's attempt to build an
And finally -- and I will let Mr. Brewer talk to you more about this
-- on Friday, June 17 of that week, the police made a decision to
arrest Mr. Simpson for the murders of Ron and Nicole. And Mr. Simpson
was notified of this while he was staying at his friend's house,
Robert Kardashian.
We will present to you evidence, including the testimony of Mr.
Simpson, that when he found out that he was going to be arrested, he
and his friend, boyhood friend, Allen Cowlings, got into Mr. Cowling's
car and left the Kardashian home. And they took off.
And in that car was not only Mr. Simpson's personal effects, including
his passport, but he also had, between Cowlings and him, over $8,000
in cash, changes of clothing, of underwear, windbreaker, and other
items of clothing.
There was a disguise: fake goatee, and there was a loaded gun.
Now, Mr. Simpson will testify that he was suicidal because of the loss
of Nicole. We will present to you evidence and prove that Mr. Simpson
fled the police with Mr. Cowlings and contemplated suicide because he
knew he was responsible for these murders. We will show that there is
no other explanation.
Mr. Brewer will discuss this with you in greater detail when he
Now, people always ask when there's a killing, what's the motive. And
that's a good, important question.
Technically, the lawsuit does not require us to prove a motive. But
when there is a motive, it's important to bring out, because it helps
to explain why something happened, why a person would kill another
In this case, O.J. Simpson had a motive to kill Nicole, which I will
describe to you very briefly, and I will let Mr. Kelly recount to you
in greater detail.
He had a motive to kill Ron Goldman for the simple reason that Ron
would have been and eyewitness, or was and eyewitness to the murder of
his friend, Nicole.
Nicole was killed for a different reason. We will present evidence
showing that in this relationship between Nicole Brown Simpson and
O.J. Simpson, there was severe conflict, tension, anger, that had been
building up. There had been a recent estrangement, recent rejection
of Mr. Simpson. There was a history of abuse, and there was a history
of rage.
And after the divorce in 1992, Mr. Simpson and Nicole tried again to
make their relationship work. In a month before the murders, Nicole
ended it for the final time. And we will show that Mr. Simpson could
not accept this, was frustrated, was confused, was angry, and he
retaliated. He also tried to get her back, buying her expensive gifts
when she returned.
And in the end, there was a build-up of a lot of anger and a build-up
of a lot of hostility, to the point where we will present to you a
letter that Mr. Simpson sent to Nicole just six days before she was
killed, threatening -- putting her on notice about possible IRS
violations, knowing the impact that it would have on Nicole, and
knowing that it would cause her to have to sell her house because of
possible tax problems, and she would have to move with her two
And, in fact, one day before her murder, on Saturday, June 11, Nicole
hired a realtor and had found a place in Malibu that she was going to
move to.
On the date of the murders, June 12 -- and again, the details will be
laid out for you by Mr. Kelly -- I will just mention this: Mr.
Simpson had flown all the way back from the east coast. He was tired
he was exhausted. He wanted to go to his daughter's recital on Sunday
with the family. He was not invited to sit with the family.
By "the family," I mean his wife and her mother and father and
He was not invited to a celebration dinner after the recital, and he
was pretty much alone, maybe for the first time in his life.
The defendant claims that he tried calling the house at 9:00 p.m. that
evening, just to speak to Sydney, whom he had just seen at the
recital. He said he did not say anything to Nicole. We don't know
what happened in that call. But what we do know and what we can
prove, is that an hour later, Mr. Simpson went over there in dark
clothing, dark shoes, dark hat, dark gloves, with a knife, in a rage,
and killed Nicole and Ron.
Now, I've laid out for you the basic elements of our case. And Mr.
Kelly and Mr. Brewer will fill in. We have the evidence in this case,
ladies and gentlemen, that will show that Mr. Simpson had time and
opportunity to kill Nicole, that there were severe problems in his
relationship with Nicole at that time. In fact, the relationship was
That all of the physical evidence of the case points only to him and
no one else. All the evidence collectively points to him and nobody
We submit to you that establishes to a certainty that Mr. Simpson
killed Ron and killed Nicole.
Now, what I'd like to do now is talk a little bit about what the
defense will contend in response to -- or does contend in response to
all this evidence.

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. PETROCELLI: I need to be heard.


(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.)

MR. PETROCELLI: I'm now going to spend my remaining time dealing with
their defense of contamination and conspiracy, which is at the core of
their case.
Mr. Baker has said to the jury over and over again, if you're to find
Mr. Simpson innocent, basically, you would have to conclude that
evidence was planted or was contaminated. This is their contention;
it's in their interrogatories. And I'm going to go through the lack
of evidence of any conspiracy and any contamination, any planting of
evidence. This is, in effect, their affirmative defense. And I have
the right to detail what evidence that we will show that demonstrates
that these positions are not accurate.
Now I'm not going to say what evidence they're going to put on; I'm
simply going to say that this is their defense: Contamination and
conspiracy or planting of evidence. That's right out of their
interrogatory answers. Then I'm going to proceed to detail the
evidence that we will present to defeat those claims.

THE COURT: Well, what place does that have in the opening statement?

MR. PETROCELLI: His defense is like an affirmative defense.

THE COURT: Where is it? Is it in the pleading?

MR. PETROCELLI: It's in the contention to interrogatories that the
evidence was planted and the evidence was contaminated.

THE COURT: You don't address it in opening statements; you can argue
in it in closing.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, we want to lay out the evidence that
we're going to present, to show in this case that there was no
planting and there was no contamination. I want to go through the way
the crime scene --

THE COURT: If you want to do that, go ahead. You don't have to lay
out Mr. Baker's theory.

MR. PETROCELLI: I don't intend to lay out his theory at all, except
to identify their defense is conspiracy and planting of evidence and
contamination; that's what their defense is.

THE COURT: I'm not going to permit to you identify their defense as
their defense. And if you want to say this is our effort to show
there was no contamination, that there was no conspiracy, fine, go
ahead. But you can't speak for Mr. Baker.

MR. PETROCELLI: I would like -- fine. I won't say anything about the

(The following proceedings were held in open court,
in the presence of the jury.)

MR. PETROCELLI: In the last part of my remarks, I would like to spend
some time detailing the evidence: How the crime scenes were
processed, how the evidence was collected, so that you will see, based
on the evidence that we present, that there was no planting of
evidence, and there was no contamination of evidence, and that all of
the evidence that was collected was put there by the defendant, not by
members of the LAPD. And none of the evidence was contaminated and
none of the evidence mistakenly identified Mr. Simpson, in particular,
blood evidence.
First of all, on the subject of conspiracy, we will put on evidence
showing that members of the Los Angeles Police Department, if
anything, had a favorable impression of Mr. Simpson, and none of the
persons involved in this case had any axe to grind whatsoever. There
are a couple of insurance agents that point this out that we will
One time in 1984, Mr. Simpson took a baseball bat to Nicole's
windshield, and the police were called out, and the office that came
out to the to the house was Mark Fuhrman.
And Mr. Simpson himself will testify that Mark Fuhrman did not arrest
him; Mark Fuhrman did not frisk him, did not search him, did not
harass him. There was no mistreatment of him in connection with that
incident in 1984.
Three or four years later, in 1989, there was another incident in
which the police came out to Rockingham on the morning of January 1,
1989, because Nicole had been beaten. And you will hear evidence
about that incident.
The police arrived -- Fuhrman, by the way, was not -- was not involved
in that incident at all. There were other officers involved,
including Officer Edwards.
Police arrived and they told Mr. Simpson to get on his clothes, get
dressed; they were going to take him in, after seeing Nicole and
hearing from Nicole.
Mr. Simpson got dressed, got in his car and drove out the other way,
and fled the scene.
Okay. We will prove by the officers who were there, that Mr. Simpson
was never arrested for what he did for fleeing. Charges were never
filed against him; nothing happened to him for leaving the scene.
Just eight months before Nicole's death in October of 1993, once
again, the police were called out to Nicole's house, this time at her
own apartment in Brentwood on Gretna Green, where she lived right
before she went to Bundy.
There was another incident in which Mr. Simpson was upset, broke part
of a door down, and the police were called out.
We will present to you evidence of that incident, showing that the
police did everything in their power to keep it quiet so there
wouldn't be any problem for Mr. Simpson.
There will be no evidence presented that anybody had any motive to do
anything wrong to O.J. Simpson, let alone frame him for a double
Furthermore, we will show to you that most of the officers involved in
investigating this case didn't even know one another. People like
Phil Vannatter and Lange did not know Mark Fuhrman, for example, and
they will so testify.
We will prove to you that there were a large number of people involved
in this investigation; it wasn't one or two persons who found all the
evidence. Lots of people were involved. And I'm going to go through
some of those people in a minute.
There were lab technicians; there were criminalists; there were
scientists; there were coroner's assistants; there were people who
drive cars to and from; there were police officers who secure crime
scenes, people who put up crime-scene tape; officers who take care of
traffic; detectives, lead detectives, watch commanders, lots and lots
of people involved in this investigation collecting the evidence and
storing it and testing it and investigating the case.
And there will be no evidence that any of them did anything wrong to
harm Mr. Simpson, to prejudice Mr. Simpson, let alone to frame Mr.
The first officer who arrived at Bundy was Officer Robert Riske. He
came with his partner, officer Michael Terrazas, at 12:13 a.m., wee
hours of the morning, June 13. The bodies had been discovered by Mr.
Boztepe, with Nicole's dog, right after midnight, a couple of hours
after the police were summoned, and the first two officers who arrived
are Officers Riske and Terrazas. And you will hear them testify they
arrived at the scene; they saw what had happened; they saw two people
had been killed. And they immediately got on the phone and called
more officers to the scene.
And officers started arriving in units, in teams. And lots of them
And let me just pick a point: One o'clock in the morning, okay? By
one o'clock in the morning, there were about a dozen officers, or at
least six to a dozen officers, in that range, were coming or on their
way there. And you'll hear some of the these names as the officers
The crime scene was immediately secured. An officer was sent to secure
the back, so nobody would come in through the back and damage any
evidence. Officers were put on the front; officers were put around
the corner; crime-scene tape was put on this; it's what officers do
when they arrive at a crime scene.
Now, it's not the job of the police officers to start doing the
detective work, the investigators are. What they do is, they call and
get detectives assigned to the case.
At this time, it was a West L.A. case because it occurred in West L.A.
We will hear evidence that the West L.A. detective was summoned, and
his name was Ronald Phillips. He was asked to send a team of
detectives out to Bundy. And Detective Phillips called two people up:
Detective Roberts and Detective Fuhrman. It was about one o'clock
a.m. when he called them to say, "You better get here to the police
station; we have to go out to a crime scene." 1:00 a.m. Mark Fuhrman
is in bed 1:00 a.m. Detective Roberts is in bed 1:00 a.m.
Detective Tom Lange, who later got involved, he's in bed. Detective
Phil Vannatter, he's in bed. Dennis Fung, the criminalist who got
involved later on, he's in bed. His assistant, Andrea Mazzola, he's
in bed -- she's in bed. Excuse me.
The lab technician who did a lot of lab work, Collin Yamauchi, he's in
bed. His boss, Greg Matheson, he's in bed. The head of the lab,
Michele Kestler, she's in bed. So you get the picture.
Now, while all these people are in bed, the first officers on the
scene see the all the basic evidence that I've just described to you.
They see the two bodies; they see fresh blood drops on the walkway.
They see the blood on the back gate. We will prove to you from these
officers' observations and their notes, that that blood was not
planted on the back gate and could not have been planted, because the
officers saw it at 12:30 in the morning.
Riske saw it; Terrazas saw it. They showed it to other officers who
came. And there's even a photograph that picks up at least one stain
of the three. So with this evidence, not only the officers'
observations, not only their notes but a photograph. We will
demonstrate that there is no conceivable way that any blood on the
back gate was planted.
The first officers on the scene saw it. In addition, these officers
saw the other evidence that had been left behind. They saw the knit
cap lying on the ground, and they saw a single leather glove.
When the other teams of officers came and finally the detectives
arrived, everybody was pointing out the basic evidence so they
wouldn't touch it or interfere with it, just look at it.
Now, Detective Phillips, who called Fuhrman out of bed and called
Roberts out of bed, Detective Phillips got over to Bundy at around ten
after 2:00 with Mark Fuhrman, and they were going to be the initial
detectives who would handle the case.
After they surveyed the crime scene, detective Fuhrman sat down to
make out his report, and then was told -- and you will hear this from
the testimony of Detective Phillips -- that a decision had been made,
because it was probably going to be a big case, high-profile case and
so forth, that it was going to be transferred downtown, from West L.A.
to downtown, to the robbery/homicide division, and that new detectives
would be coming and taking over.
And Phillips finds that out around, I don't know, 20 to 3:00, quarter
to 3:00 in the morning. He then waited around with Fuhrman, with
Roberts, with 14, 15 other people who are there by that time, for the
detectives to come over, just making sure the crime scene is secure.
Now, let's first focus on the time period before Detective Fuhrman got
there at ten after 2:00. Everybody who looked at the evidence at the
crime scene saw only one glove. And they saw the knit hat; they saw
the blood drops and the victims' bodies, of course,
Nobody who was there before Detective Fuhrman arrived or Detective
Phillips, ever saw a second glove. Nobody ever saw a second glove
After Detective Phillips arrived with Fuhrman, other detectives and
people who came were shown the crime scene. And those people didn't
see a second glove.
In other words, the point I'm making here is, there is no evidence
that there was ever a second glove at Bundy. And we will present
evidence to you that there was only a single glove at Bundy; that
everybody who was there, saw only one glove. And I don't mean right
at the walkway or right in the dirt area where Ron's body was found; I
mean anywhere around the area, including in the back and in the front,
wherever the officers went to secure the scene to keep out people, to
look around. No one ever saw a second glove at Bundy. If there is no
second glove at Bundy, there can be no planting of a glove.
Detective Lange and Detective Vannatter arrived at the Bundy crime
scene a little after 4:00 in the morning. They were the
robbery/homicide detectives who were asked to come down and take over
the case.
Detective Fuhrman was waiting with Detective Phillips and others,
after stopping writing his report, and was told he was not going to be
working on the case any longer. He stopped writing his report, and
for about and hour or so, he's with Fuhrman; that is, with Phillips
and others waiting for Vannatter and Lange to arrive.
Now, during that hour, we will present testimony of the officers that
Mark Fuhrman was never alone with any crucial piece of evidence; that
he was always with other people, or didn't really have the ability to
take evidence, even if he wanted to; that he was generally with other
people and wasn't alone with crucial evidence, assuming there ever was
a second glove.
And you'll hear those officers testify.
Now, when Vannatter and Lange arrived -- these are seasoned
detectives, been on the force many years: Lange over 20 years, 25
years or so, and Detective Vannatter about 26, 27 years.
They surveyed the situation and then they decided, with collaboration
with others up the chain of command, that Mr. Simpson ought to be
given personal notification of what had happened to Nicole.
Now, when the initial officers arrived, the initial instructions were
given out. Sydney and Justin were still sleeping in their beds. And
the officers awakened them, took them in a separate car to the West
L.A. Police Station, and one or two officers sat there with Sydney and
Justin, entertained them, and fed them and played with them and so
forth. So the children were at the police station.
The officers determined that detectives -- determined that Detectives
Lange and Vannatter ought to go over and give personal notification to
Mr. Simpson because he was a VIP and an important person; he was a
celebrity. Frankly, they were going to go out of their way to give
him a little extra preferential treatment in the case.
They brought with them -- Lange and Vannatter, they brought with them
Phillips and Fuhrman for a reason. And that is, they were going to
ask Phillips and Fuhrman -- you'll hear Phillips testify about that --
they were going to have Phillips and Fuhrman stay with Mr. Simpson and
have them help him with his children, help make arrangements to get
his children, and see if he had any needs that needed to be tended to.
Detective Tom Lange and Phil Vannatter wanted to meet Mr. Simpson.
They wanted to establish the beginning of a relationship with him, so
that they can start talking to him and getting leads from him, to
investigate who killed his ex-wife.
And that is why you have all four of those people going over to
When Tom Lange and Phil Vannatter went to Rockingham, they believed --
and they will testify that they're going to return shortly; they're
not going to be gone long -- they're going to introduce themselves to
Mr. Simpson, make sure that his needs are met, and return, because it
had gotten light out, because it's now 4:00 or 5:00 in the morning, to
start processing the evidence, to pick it up, collect it, put it in
the evidence truck, and start to get the crime scene, you know,
analyzed and broken down. They only expected to be at Rockingham for
a short time.
When Detectives Vannatter and Lange and Phillips and Fuhrman got to
Rockingham around 5:00 in the morning from Bundy -- and by the way,
Bundy was left secure, with lots of other officers there to make sure
everything was kept intact -- when they got to Rockingham, they tried
to call in to the house, but nobody was home.
They saw a car parked on Rockingham. They were trying to figure out if
anybody was home. Eventually, Detective Fuhrman, looking at the car,
saw a blood spot on the side of the door, and also saw some blood at
the bottom of the door.
He informed the other detectives of this. They took a look at it.
Meantime, even some other detectives, including a fellow named Daniel
Gonzalez, had come over, and he saw the blood outside the Bronco, as
So you have more than just the four of them. And now you have
additional people coming to Rockingham, unable to get in touch with
anybody in the house. An attempt was made to contact Westec Security,
who was responsible for doing security for the house, and see if they
can find out some information through Westec.
Eventually, a decision was made to go onto the property to see if what
was going on, if everything was okay, given the fact that blood was
found on the Bronco on the outside door and at the bottom, and given
the fact that nobody was answering.
They went out -- they went onto the property, Detectives Fuhrman,
Phillips, Vannatter, and Lange, then went to see if anybody was home.
They found the guest house around the back. They knocked on the door
and they awakened Kato Kaelin.
And they spoke to Kaelin briefly about where Mr. Simpson was, if
everything was okay, and even checked Mr. Kaelin out to see if -- what
his situation was. They checked his boots; they gave him a drug test
by putting a light in his eye. They wanted to make sure that perhaps
he didn't have anything to do with any of this.
Then they went and woke up Mr. Simpson's daughter, Arnelle, who was
living in the guest room next to Mr. Kaelin, and then they went inside
the house. Arnelle Simpson brought them all inside the house to find
out where Mr. Simpson was. And Arnelle was able to track him down
through Mr. Simpson's secretary, Cathy Randa, who knew Mr. Simpson was
in Chicago at this hotel, and eventually, they found out where he was.
And Detective Phillips called Mr. Simpson around a little after 6:00
in the morning LA time -- it's 8:00 in the morning Chicago time -- and
advised Mr. Simpson of what had happened to Nicole.
And Mr. Simpson told the police that he would come back.
Now, when they got onto Mr. Simpson's property, they notified the
police detectives that there was blood. They had asked a criminalist
to come down and check out what the blood was on the Bronco door that
they saw. That criminalist was Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola, who
works for LAPD. They came out and -- they do crime scenes and they
collect the evidence.
When the police officers saw the blood on the Bronco door, they made a
call to get some criminalists down here, let's see what this blood is
about. The criminalists Fung and Mazzola, got to Rockingham at about
7:00 in the morning. By the time they got there, the officers had
gotten on the property, and they also saw that there was blood on the
The original plan was that the criminalist would just pick up the
blood on the Bronco door and head over to Bundy. The officers had no
idea that they were going to encounter, in effect, a second crime
scene at Rockingham. So when they got there, and as events unfolded,
they realized that this is a second crime scene, there's blood here,
there, blood on the driveway. There's blood on the Bronco. So
instead of sending Fung and Mazzola to Bundy, they kept Fung and
Mazzola at Rockingham, to pick up the blood on the outside of the
property only, and in the Bronco.
And in the meantime, Detective Vannatter went downtown to get a search
warrant to look inside the house, to see if there was anything inside
the house that needed to be investigated.
Now, while they were at Rockingham, Detective Fuhrman spoke to Kato
Kaelin, as did Detective Vannatter, and Kato Kaelin told Mr. Fuhrman
about the noises that he had heard from the side of his house the
night before, around, you know, a little before eleven o'clock.
Detective Fuhrman, with that information, was checking around and
ultimately worked himself around the side of the house and found on
the other side of the wall, where Kaelin heard those noises, found a
glove, a leather glove, a dark brown leather glove, just sitting there
on the ground.
He didn't touch it; he immediately told the other people, the other
detectives -- Lange and Vannatter were the two detectives in charge --
and Detective Vannatter said to Mr. Fuhrman, I want you and Mr.
Phillips to go back to Bundy and see if that glove looked like the one
at Bundy. And he didn't bring the glove with him. Take a look at it.
Go back to Bundy and take a look at the glove at Bundy and see if
it's the same glove.
And following Detective Vannatter's instructions, Detective Phillips
got in a car with Detective Fuhrman. They drove over to Bundy. They
went and they looked at the glove that was still lying on the ground,
exactly where it was found. And they took a picture of it. And it
did, in fact, look to be the same glove that matched the glove at
Detective Fuhrman then went back to Rockingham and told Detective
Vannatter that the glove matched. Then Vannatter decided he would go
get a search warrant.
And then again, there will be no witnesses who will testify not
Vannatter, not Lange, not Phillips, that Detective Fuhrman had --

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object. This is argument, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. PETROCELLI: None of these witnesses whom we will call will
testify that Detective Fuhrman came to Rockingham with the second
glove, that he had any ability or opportunity to plant a glove.
The story that will be told by the witnesses is as I have just
outlined it to you. There will be no evidence that that glove was
planted there.
None of the officers who went to Bundy who will testify in this case
knew where O.J. Simpson was at the time of the murders. They didn't
know if he had an airtight alibi or not. There will be no evidence
that any officers at Bundy knew of Mr. Simpson's whereabouts the night
before. Nobody knew. For all they knew, he could have been on
national television.
And they will so testify that they didn't know where he was the night
before, and were in no position to frame him, assuming they were
inclined to do such a thing.

THE COURT: Excuse me. Ten-minute recess.
Don't talk about the case.


(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

THE COURT: You may resume.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.
Going to wrap up the chronology of how both Rockingham and Bundy were
processed by the police officers.
When we last left off, before the important break at Rockingham,
Detective Fuhrman had come back with Detective Roberts to tell
Detective Vannatter that the glove -- the Bundy glove, Detective
Vannatter then went to get a search warrant so that additional
evidence could be served inside Mr. Simpson's house. Dennis Fung and
Andrea Mazzola, the criminalist, began picking up all the blood that
they found on the driveway and on the Bronco and they finished up
around 10 o'clock and they then drove over to Bundy to begin picking
up all that evidence there.
In the mean time, Detective Lange left Rockingham to leave that in
charge of Detective Vannatter and he, Detective Lange, took charge of
Bundy. That's how they split it up.
Detective Lange went back to Bundy, which he had left about 5:00 in
the morning thinking he would only be gone for a short time. He gets
back closer to 7:00 now and he now takes control of the Bundy crime
scene and begins the process of writing up his report, checking out
all the evidence and getting everything processed.
The coroner's office calls to send a coroner down to pick up the
victim's bodies, called at 6:49. They're called again at 8:09 and
they get down there a little after 9:00 in the morning, two coroner
assistants, and they begin to prepare the two victims bodies to be
removed and taken to the coroner's office.
In the mean time, Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola got to Bundy at
around 10:15 in the morning and they began picking up all the blood
evidence, very careful procedure that they employ that you will hear
about. A trail by which all the blood is collected. That's important.
They pick out representative samples of blood and they take that and
they put it in special containers and they take it back to the police
lab for storing and then for testing.
They finish their job around 3:00 in the morning, excuse me 3:00 in
the afternoon. They were at Bundy from like 10:00 to 3:00, picking up
all the evidence and carefully putting it in the evidence truck.
Their day wasn't over yet. They then had to return to Rockingham
because by this time a search warrant had been issued and more blood
was found inside Mr. Simpson's house on the foyer, when you go in the
front door and in the bathroom. And some other evidence was found.
So Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola went back to Rockingham and they
picked up the evidence on the inside of Mr. Simpson's house. And by
the time they finish with all their work that day, it was about 5:30
and they were ready to go back to deliver the evidence to the lab at
Parker Center.
Now, around noon time that afternoon, 11:00 or noon, Mr. Simpson had
arrived in the airport at Rockingham. He then went downtown to Parker
center and he gave a statement to Detective Lange and Detective
Vannatter and I've spoken about that.
After he gave that statement, he then gave a blood sample. That was
drawn by a nurse named Thano Peratis.
I guess the time was around 2:30 p.m. or so in the presence of
Detective Vannatter.
Now, Mr. Peratis originally believed that he had drawn about 8 cc's of
blood into the vial but when he recently testified in this case, he
believes it was less than that.
He didn't measure. By the way, he didn't measure the blood. He drew
it, estimated it, thought it was 8 cc's. Now he thinks it was less
than 8 cc's because as he now recalled he used a particular device, a
different kind of device in drawing Mr. Simpson's blood from Mr.
Simpson's arm which he uses on certain people who have larger more
muscular arms. Instead of a single syringe vacutainer device, he used
a separate syringe, drew the blood and put the blood from the syringe
into a second vial.
So his testimony will be that it was likely less than 8 cc's but he
never measured it.
The blood was then put, given to Detective Vannatter, Mr. Simpson's
blood, in the vial with the top on it, sealed. Detective Vannatter
put it in an evidence envelope. Detective Vannatter had a meeting
with Detective Lange and others including Captain Gartland to decide
what to do next in the case.
And they talked about the investigation and what they would do and
then a decision was made that the Detective Lange and Detective
Vannatter would leave Parker center and go to Rockingham where
Detective Vannatter would deliver the criminalist before he left the
blood vial so that it would be with all the other evidence. And so
that it would all be booked and policed at the same time.
In addition, Detective Lange wanted to ask Mr. Simpson about shoes
that he had worn the night before.
So Detective Vannatter, Detective Lange left Parker Center around 4:00
in the afternoon after interviewing Mr. Simpson, after taking blood,
other things that happened. There's a photograph of one of Mr.
Simpson's cuts taken as well.
Detective Vannatter and Lange had a meeting, as I said, and then they
left Parker center and with traffic they got to Mr. Simpson's house
around 5:15 p.m. on Monday. Now, we were still on June 13. At that
time the criminalist, Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola have just
finished up all the work that I described they had been doing and they
were getting ready to leave. Detective Vannatter handed Dennis Fung
the Simpson blood vial again sealed and in an envelope.
That was then put by Fung into a black plastic bag. He then gave it
to Mazzola, walked out to the truck. Everything was put in the truck
and then Fung and Mazzola drive to the laboratory downtown where they
then unloaded the evidence, put it in what they call the evidence
process room and began laying out the blood evidence to dry, which is
what their normal procedure is.
Now, this is the point I want to make that we will establish here, the
blood evidence at Bundy had been collected by Dennis Fung between 10
o'clock and 2:00 Or 3:00 in the afternoon. The blood evidence at
Rockingham had been collected early in the morning on the outside and
later in the afternoon on the inside.
All of this blood was collected before Mr. Simpson ever gave his blood
to the place.
Mr. Simpson did not give his blood to the police until Thano Peratis
drew it out of his arm 2:30 p.m. downtown LA and then gave that, Mr.
Peratis gave the blood sealed in an envelope, was put and given to Mr.
All the blood had been picked up by this time. By the time Detective
Vannatter arrives back to Rockingham and gives the blood sample to
Dennis Fung, all the blood is picked up. All the blood at Bundy and
all the blood at Rockingham, with one exception at Bundy which I'll
get to in a minute.
The blood in the Bronco was seen on the outside and on the inside.
The Bronco blood was not collected by Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola
at Rockingham because the car was locked.
So what they did is they got a tow truck who towed it down to the
police station or to the print shed actually. And the next morning,
the next morning with a slim jim, several people, including diagnosis
Fung, opened up the car and then they were able to get into the blood
on the inside and collect it. But the Bronco blood had been seen
before Mr. Simpson gave his blood and the blood had been collected at
Rockingham and Bundy before Mr. Simpson gave his blood. This proves
that none of that blood could have ever been planted.
Now, on the back gate, we will show the back gate blood was not
planted because as I pointed out previously, a number of officers,
including the very first ones that got there, saw the blood on the
back gate that night long before Mr. Simpson had come back and long
before he had given his blood to the police.
That blood wasn't collected by the criminalist because they simply
neglected to collect it. They were, as I told you, started at 7:00 in
the morning at Rockingham, went to Bundy, went back to Rockingham. It
was a long day. They didn't collect three stains on the back gate.
But those stains were seen by officers and written down in their
Now, that blood was collected three weeks later on July 3, the three
stains on the back gate. And the way that happened was one of the
members of the District Attorney's office was walking the scene in
connection with the criminal case with some of the detectives and he
noticed it. And he said, well, why hasn't this blood been collected?
This is July 3 now. And then a decision was made to send Dennis Fung
out to Bundy right away to collect the blood and it was collected and
then brought back to the lab with all the other blood.
So that's the story on the back gate.
Now, on the socks, we will prove to you that there was no planting of
the socks and there was no planting of blood on the socks. These are
the socks that showed Mr. Simpson's blood and Nicole's blood that were
found on the rug from Simpson's bedroom.
Those socks were photographed by a police photographer at Rockingham
named Michael Wilson at 12:30 p.m. on Monday once the search warrant
had issued and the officers were allowed to go in and search and start
to collect evidence. 12:30 p.m. the socks were photographed.
There will be no witness who will testify that anybody took those
socks out of Mr. Simpson's trunk and drawer and put them down on the
rug. And nobody will refute what Mr. Wilson saw at 12:30, one of the
first people to see the socks and took a pictures of it.
Now, those socks -- photographers job, by the way, is not to pick
anything up. He just takes pictures. Later on that afternoon when
Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola came back from Bundy, they began to
check the evidence inside the house and they then picked up the socks
and they collected them right around 4:00 4:30 in the afternoon. One
of the last items that they checked, been lying on the rug all day.
They put it with all the other evidence in the truck and brought it --
brought it to the lab.
And again, there will be no witness who will testify that anybody
pulled those socks out or did anything else to them.
Now, I'd like to talk a bit about this EDTA which we're going to hear
about. We will -- let me tell you what EDTA is. First, it is a
chemical preservative that appears in a lot of things that we eat and
even appears in detergent and things like that.
It's also used in storing blood samples. When it's used in food
stuffs, it's used in very, very tiny quantities. When it's used for
purposes of storing blood, it 's used in larger quantity and larger
concentrations. When it's used for purposes of storing blood, it acts
as an anticoagulant. It prevents the blood from coagulating. So if
you were to draw blood out of somebody's arm and put it in a test tube
with no EDTA in it, the blood will begin clotting and coagulating and
you can't use it to conduct tests.
But if you put EDTA in a -- that vial, it mixes with the blood and it
keeps it loose and viscous and you can test it. That's the idea.
That's why they use EDTA. And in fact, when you draw blood, you
usually draw it right into a tube that already is treated with EDTA.
It already has the EDTA in it. So that the blood won't clot at all
and then it can be used for testing, for storing and so forth.
Now, we will prove that the blood on the back gate and the blood on
the socks was not planted. Because if it had been planted from Mr.
Simpson's reference sample, if somebody, even though there's no
witness to any of this, if anybody had taken Mr. Simpson reference
sample and sprinkled blood around, it would have high concentrations
of EDTA in it.
A man by the name of Rodger Martz a scientist who works for the FBI,
and he has there a machine called a mastspectrometer which he can use
to test blood samples to see if it has EDTA in it or not.
And we will call Mr. Martz and he will testify that 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 of EDTA.
And Mr. Martz conducted these tests on his machine and he determined
conclusively, he will so testify, that the blood in the back gate and
on the socks could not have come from an EDTA treated test tube and
could therefore not have been planted.
There will be no evidence, in other words, that EDTA was present in
such sufficient quantities that it could have come from an EDTA tested
test tube.
If there is evidence of a tiny trace amount of EDTA, that doesn't mean
it comes from a test tube with EDTA in it that was used to store blood
because EDTA would have to be in much larger quantities. And Martz
will testify that none of the blood he found in the socks and none of
the blood he found on the back gate had any large quantities of EDTA.
In fact, he didn't think he saw any EDTA in it at all. If he did see
any EDTA, it would be the most tiny residual trace and you would have
to have a pronounced amount of EDTA in the blood for it to have come
from a test tube with EDTA in it.
That will establish that there was no planting of any blood.
Now, I think I've talked about the planting issue and given you some
of the evidence that we will present to show that no evidence in this
case was planted or could have been planted. None.
I'd like to now deal with the final subject of contamination.
And what we -- what do we mean by contamination? What did that mean?
Well, it means this: It means that could all these test results
showing Mr. Simpson's blood could have come out as a result of
mistakes by which his blood mistakenly got onto the blood samples and
swatches that were tested as opposed to deliberately planted.
Could they have been contaminated somehow onto the swatches and when
the swatches were tested, that's why they showed up in Mr. Simpson's
What -- but we will call witnesses to the witness stand who will
testify that there is no conceivable way that any contamination could
have occurred such that Mr. Simpson's DNA tests could have come out,
the tests on Mr. Simpson's blood could have matched his blood, could
have matched the evidence blood under any kind of contamination
scenario. There will be no evidence of that. Our witnesses will
testify that it could not have happened.
One of those witnesses we'll be calling, Collin Yamauchi, the fellow
who works at the lab and did some of the tests in the LAPD lab and did
some of the tests on the blood was one of the first persons to start
working with the blood and process the blood.
And he will explain how he carefully conducted himself in working with
first Mr. Simpson's blood sample and then with all the other samples
that had been checked from the crime scene. Now, for this
contamination theory to work, somehow Mr. Simpson's blood has got to
get on all these blood swatches that were picked up from the crime
scene and Mr. Yamauchi was the fellow who was working with all of
this, so he would have had to have somehow spilled Mr. Simpson's blood

all over the place, sort of like the person falling on a banana peel
and all the blood is spilling all over the place and getting on
And he will testify obviously that that did not happen and exactly how
he did handle the evidence swatches that were taken from Rockingham
and Bundy and Mr. Simpson's -- What he -- blood. What he did was
work with Mr. Simpson's blood on one end of the table using plastic,
latex blood, little Chem Wipe.
He had opened Mr. Simpson's tube to get some blood out to make a
sample. He's honest enough to admit that a little dab of blood got on
his latex glove and the Chem Wipe actually got on the Chem wipe. When
you pop open the tube, a little of Mr. Simpson's blood got on the Chem
Wipe from the vial.
What did he do when he finished closing up the tube? He threw away
the Chem Wipe and threw away the plastic gloves and put on new latex
gloves before he continued his work. Then when he was finished with
Mr. Simpson's sample, he went down to the other end and worked with
all the other evidence samples and he will testify that there's no way
any of Mr. Simpson's blood got on any of the blood that was picked up
from the crime scene.
So there's no way it could have been accidentally transferred to the
crime scene samples.
Furthermore, our experts will testify that even if it did get
accidentally transferred, even if Mr. Simpson's blood did spill all
the over these samples taken from Bundy and Rockingham and the Bronco,
that would not have caused any false reading. What you would have seen
would be two persons' blood, the person who really did the killing if
it wasn't Mr. Simpson's blood at the crime scene. His blood would
have shown up on the swatches and Mr. Simpson's blood, if it somehow
spilled on the swatches, would have shown up on the on the test. The
test would have revealed a mixture of two person's blood.
If Mr. Simpson's blood contaminates someone else's blood, it didn't
turn it into Mr. Simpson's blood. You still have two People's blood
on the swatch. So our experts will testify that even from this
scenario, that never happened -- could have happened. It still would
not have produced any false reading identifying Simpson's blood as a
result of the DNA tests.
Actually, I'll mention one other thing then I'm going conclude.
On Wednesday, the autopsies of Ron and Nicole were performed. And as
part of those autopsies, blood was taken and put in reference samples,
one for Ron and one for Nicole. Detective Vannatter watched the
autopsies the next day. He came over to pick up the blood samples of
Ron and Nicole. He brought those blood samples directly to the lab and
checked them in with the criminalist to be put with all the other
We have the booking documents to show exactly when Ronald, Nicole's
blood left the coroner's department and when it got to the lab five,
ten minutes later. I think it's five minutes, something like that.
So there's no evidence that Mr. Vannatter took anybody's blood
anywhere and did anything with it.
Now, I believe that the evidence that we have presented to you shows a
compelling case to liability against Mr. Simpson. And if you find Mr.
Simpson is liable for the murders of Ron and Nicole in -- this is a
civil case and the jury, what you'll be asked to do is you'll be asked
to award damages on account of his conduct. Let me talk for a minute
or two about damages.
As you know, Mr. Goldman lost his only son and that is something that
can never be returned to him, can never be perfect justice or real
justice cause that would mean Ron comes back and Nicole comes back.
The only thing that you have in your power to do is to award damages
to compensate Fred for the loss of his relationship with his son. The
other plaintiffs will speak to issues of damages for their own
clients, but speaking just on behalf of Fred, all that you can do is
come up with some award in your heart that you think is just or
appropriate --

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. This is argument.

THE COURT: You may conclude.

MR. PETROCELLI: -- To award damages. Now, how does one do that? In
a case like this, what we are required to do and will do under the law
is we will present evidence to you. You'll have Mr. Goldman take the
stand and he will testify about his relationship with his son.
And then your job will be to listen to that evidence, listen to the
kind of relationship that he had, make a determination as to the
nature and quality of that relationship and what that loss meant to
Fred. And you will be asked to award damages in an amount that could
compensate him. Of course, no amount could compensate him for losing
his son, but that's what we do in cases like this.
At the end of this trial, I will not stand before you and presume to
give you any kind of a number. I will not give you any kind of an
amount. You will hear Mr. Goldman talk about his son and the life they
had together and the life that they will no longer have together and
it will be up to you to do what is just. And that's about all you're
going to hear about from me right now.
Thank you very much.

THE COURT: Mr. Brewer.

(Opening statements by Mr. Brewer on behalf of Plaintiff Sharon Rufo:)

MR. BREWER: Thank you, Your Honor, defense counsel, co-plaintiff's
counsel, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, good afternoon.

JURORS: Good afternoon.

MR. BREWER: I'm going to start talking late in the afternoon but I
hope and expect that I'll be brief.
Let me reintroduce myself. My name is Michael Brewer and I represent
Sharon Rufo. Sharon is Ron's mother.
Now, as Mr. Petrocelli indicated to you during his opening remarks
when Ron died, Ron was not married. He did not have any children.
And out of a law in California, his heirs are his two parents, Mr.
Goldman and Sharon Rufo.
And in a case like this, that's a wrongful death case, the heirs are
joined together and proceed as the plaintiffs. So you may hear them
being referred to during the course of this case as the plaintiffs.
That simply means that they are the individuals that have initiated
this case. Mr. Simpson is the defendant against whom the case has been
Petrocelli talked to you about the physical evidence that was found at
the Bundy and Rockingham crime scene. That included evidence of the
gloves, blood drops, shoe prints. He spoke at length about the
scientific evidence and I think that the evidence that he described to
you undeniably points to the responsibilities of Mr. Simpson.
What I'm going to do?

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to that argument, Your Honor, him
saying what he believes that evidence.

MR. BREWER: That's what I believe the evidence shows.

THE COURT: Counsel, this is opening statement and I will ask you to
restrict your comments to the opening statements rather than closing

MR. BREWER: Thank you, Your Honor.
Ladies and gentlemen, what I will talk about for the next few moment
is a concept called consciousness of guilt. Consciousness of guilt is
essentially looking at a person's actions and making some conclusions
based upon those actions whether they indicate that that person is
acting as an innocent person would act or acting as a guilty person
would act.
And my comments will relate to specifically to June 17, 1994 where a
number of things happened. First, June 17, 1994, was the same date
that the Bronco chase occurred.
That was an event where Mr. Simpson was traveling down the freeway in
a Bronco with his boyhood friend, Mr. A. C. Cowlings.
It is also the same day that Mr. Simpson drafted what is being called
the so called suicide note that I'm going to read in a little bit and
highlight for you. But ultimately, it will either be read to you or
you'll have the opportunity to review that note yourself and make some
judgments about. That note is exactly what Mr. Simpson's state of
mind is and what he's telling us.
I'm also going to talk a little bit about what was found in the Bronco
when Mr. Simpson was arrested on the 17th and the meaning of those
items that were found. Exactly what it did it mean when he was found
to have a disguise and a large sum of money and his passport, what
implications, what are the reasonable inferences that we can all draw
from that information.
And I'm going to even title my discussion as it relates to the event
of June 17, "Mr. Simpson's flight from justice."

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object. This is argument, Your Honor. To
say what inferences to be drawn at this point in the trial is not

THE COURT: I'm going to sustain that. I presume that's an objection.

MR. BAKER: I think so.

THE COURT: In part. That sounds in the nature of an argument Mr.
Brewer. You may outline for the jury the course of the evidence you
intend to produce and the purpose for which you are producing it.
However, to make an argument at this stage would be inappropriate.

MR. BREWER: Absolutely, Your Honor. Thank you very much.
Before I get into the event of June 17 a little more, let me just say
a few words about the relationship between Sharon and her son. As
you've already heard at the time of Ron's death, he was 25 years of
He wasn't married. He lived in an apartment in Brentwood. He worked
as a waiter in a restaurant and in fact had dreamed some day of
opening his own restaurant. For a 25 year old young man, he had gone
so far as to actually develop somewhat of a business plan, outlining
his hopes and dreams on that business plan.
Ron moved to California when he was 18 years of age with his father
who had remarried and remained in California up until the time of his
Sharon remarried after she was divorced with Mr. Goldman and in the
late 1980's, moved to a small town outside St. Louis in Missouri.
Now, you're going to hear evidence in this case that after Mr. Goldman
came to California and Sharon was in Missouri that Sharon did not see
Ron Goldman and that's absolutely true.
You're also going to hear evidence in this case that the contacts that
Sharon had with Ron Goldman after he came to California consisted of
phone contacts and sending letters to him and enclosing personal
mementos such as photographs.
Conversations that they had generally included updating one another
with respect to what was going on in each lifetime. Ron told Sharon
about his work with United Cerebral Palsy. He described that he had
become a proficient tennis player. He described essentially what was
going on in his life, his dreams, hopes and expectations in 1990 and
The last contact that Sharon had with Ron, they talked about Ron's
hope, dreams and expectations and also Ron was going to appear on a
national television program called Studs. He was exited. He wanted
to make sure that Sharon had the channel, the date so that she could
watch to see him. And at that time, he was doing some modeling and
hoping that this may take him in the direction of that type of a
Now, the evidence in this case will confirm, and you will hear Sharon
testify about how she feels about the loss of her son. And it will
confirm the death of a child is rarely quantifiable by any measurable
standard and that you will have to evaluate her loss because it is
just that her loss, and that will be through her testimony, describing
how she feels, what her relationship was with her son and the feelings
that she has as a result of losing her son.
And in order to get to that point, what we first have to establish
with you is that Mr. Simpson is legally responsible for the death of
Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.
Now, when Mr. Simpson returned from Chicago to his house at
Rockingham, he returned on June 13, 1994. Now at that time, he spent
that evening at his home at Rockingham and the following day, at the
suggestion of his friend, Mr. Kardashian, who later became his
attorney, he spent that evening, which is Tuesday, June 14 through the
morning of the 17 at Mr. Kardashian's house.
Now Mr. Simpson was joined on the 15th by Paula Barbieri, someone that
he had dated. Ms. Barbieri stayed with Mr. Simpson from the 15th to
the morning of the 17th.
Now, you're going to hear that on the morning of June 17, 1994, Mr.
Simpson was advised by his attorney, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Kardashian that
he was going to be arrested and he was going to be arrested for the
allegations that he had killed Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.
At that time, Paula Barbieri returned to Florida at about 8:30 after
being so advised that he was going to be arrested by Mr. Kardashian
and Mr. Shapiro. Mr. Simpson was further advised that he was to turn
himself into the Los Angeles police department at 11 o'clock that
Now, it was only after Mr. Simpson was advised that he was going to be
arrested and that he had to turn himself in on the 17th that he sat
down and began to draft a four page document which has been referred
to as his suicide note or letter.
This document contained the final touches of his thoughts and really
is the best evidence of his feelings and sentiment as of June 17,
At that time, as the evidence will show in this case, Mr. Simpson
contemplated two things, both of which we contend the evidence will
show, were things to flee from. What he knew was the inevitable
arrest, prosecution and perhaps, incarceration for the murders that he
The first thing that Mr. Simpson contemplated was actually committing
suicide. And in order to do that, he had to have the means by which
to accomplish that act. And he did. Mr. Simpson had taken with him
from Rockingham, a handgun. And that handgun was with him and Mr.
Kardashian house on the morning of the 17th.
Mr. Simpson's other choice was to leave the country, to flee. In
order to do that, he also needed to -- needed the means by which he
could do that. And he had those items with him.
He had a passport, he had a disguise which was essentially a goatee
and a mustache. And he had a very large sum of money that was found
after he was arrested, that between he and Mr. Cowlings, he had in
excess of 8,000 dollars.
Now, all of this evidence, we contend, will lead to the notion that
Mr. Simpson recognizing that he was going to be arrested and
prosecuted, was taking measures in order to flee the inevitable.
Now, let me talk for a moment about the disguise that was found on Mr.
Simpson's person and in his car, in the Bronco when he was arrested.
Mr. Simpson testified at his deposition that never in his life has he
ever worn a disguise to conceal his identity.
Never in his life has he worn a disguise to conceal his identity. At
most, he has worn a hat and sunglasses, but not to conceal his
There will be witnesses in this case that will tell you that Mr.
Simpson loved his celebrate status. He loved to be recognized. He
loved the perks associated with being recognized. And that the last
thing that he would want to do was to do anything that would conceal
his identity as O.J. Simpson.
Notwithstanding that evidence, you will find that when he was arrested
on the 17, in a piece of luggage that he had with him, he had a
disguise that he claims, and will claim during this trial that he
purchased because he wanted to wear it to an amusement park so that he
would not be recognized because he wanted to go with his children.
Now, one of the things that we will show you during the course of this
case that relates to this consciousness of guilt is the actual suicide
note and its content. We believe the evidence will show that the
content of this note establish a man that is riddled with guilt and
filled with denial.
Let me just read to you a few of the excerpt highlights, a few of the
excerpt so that you'll see what I mean.
In the suicide note, Mr. Simpson in talking about a 1989 domestic
violence incident with his ex-wife Nicole where he beat her he says
the following. In connection with that incident, quote, "I took the
heat because that is what I was supposed to do," unquote.
Now, you're going to see through the evidence, Mr. Simpson doesn't
state anything about regrets, sorrow, shame, because he beat his wife.
He states denial, denying -- the deniability that he took the heat
because that was what he was supposed to do.
Also in talking about the 1989 incident and the relationship with his
ex-wife, Mr. Simpson's so called suicide note refers to himself.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm going to object to his characterization of
this note as that, that's argument.

THE COURT: You may read the note.

MR. BAKER: I'm not objecting to him reading the note, it's his
characterization of this.

MR. BREWER: Let's, for the sake of argument, let's call it a
document. In this document, that I'm explaining to you, Mr. Simpson
refers to himself in connection with talking about this 1989 domestic
violence incident wherein he beat his wife. In talking about the
relationship, he refers to himself as a battered spouse, as a battered
boyfriend. Deniability, denial.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, again this is just argument.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BREWER: The evidence in this case will show that this document,
this so-called suicide note, illustrates that Mr. Simpson is mourning,
not the loss of Nicole, but mourning his own predicament.
Let me give you a few examples.

MR. BAKER: This is argument again, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BREWER: Let me give you a few examples.

MR. BAKER: I object that -- he can just read the note but examples
when he gives a preface is argument.

MR. BREWER: Your Honor, I'm offering -- the purpose for which the
evidence is being --

THE COURT: Well, you may do that but you are arguing rather than
stating a purpose for which you are giving it. If you persist in this
manner, I am going to terminate it.

MR. BREWER: Thank you, Your Honor.
Mr. Simpson states the following in his note, quote, no matter what
the outcome, people will look and point, unquote.
He also ends this document, this letter by stating the following,
quote, please think of the real O.J. not this lost person.
Now, it is our contention through this evidence that this illustrates
Mr. Simpson's consciousness.

MR. BAKER: Argument, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BREWER: Mr. Simpson's consciousness of guilt.
After Mr. Simpson completed this letter, he handed it to Robert
Kardashian. Now at the time, at Mr. Kardashian's house, let me give
you a little bit of information about the way the house is laid out.
It is upstairs. There is an office which is a working office for Mr.
Kardashian who at the time was a lawyer slash business person.
Also upstairs was Mr. Kardashian daughter's bedroom which is the
bedroom that Mr. Simpson stayed in between the 14 and 17. Again, the
17 being the date that he was arrested.
Now, after Mr. Simpson handed Mr. Kardashian this note, Mr. Simpson
had a conversation with Mr. Cowlings. This conversation occurred
after Mr. Simpson was told that he was going to be arrested and that
he had to turn himself in later that morning.
In this conversation, it was agreed that Mr. Simpson and Mr. Cowlings
would leave Mr. Kardashian's house, and according to Mr. Simpson, that
they would go to the -- to Nicole's grave.
Now, at this time, Mr. Simpson left with Mr. Cowlings. Mr. Simpson
did not tell anyone, including Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Kardashian or anyone
else at that home that he was leaving, despite the fact that he knew,
number 1, that he was going to be arrested that day and that number 2,
that he was supposed to turn himself in later that morning.
Now, Mr. Simpson will testify that they went down to Nicole's grave
which is south of Laguna Nigel and that at that time they couldn't get
into the cemetery because there was a police vehicle blocking the
They therefore sat in Mr. Cowlings vehicle. Mr. Simpson contemplated
suicide at that time, but did not obviously follow through with that
Instead. Shortly after they arrived there Mr. Cowlings and Mr.
Simpson turned on the radio and determined for the first time that
they were wanted by the police that there is an all point bulletin for
the arrest of O.J. Simpson.
It was only after Mr. Simpson learned this information that he and Mr.
Cowlings headed back north, towards Rockingham where they were
eventually identified and then followed by a number of different
police vehicles. This has been commonly referred to as the slow speed
chase. This is how it came about.
When they got back to Rockingham Mr. Simpson was arrested. The bag
that he had taken with him in Mr. Cowling's vehicle was seized and it
was served.
To say a few things about this bag, this bag was what Mr. Simpson will
refer to as a grip -- it's a back -- A black luggage bag that he had
taken with him when he left his home in Rockingham and went over to
Mr. Kardashian's house.
Now Mr. Simpson will tell you that when he left that morning, he went
back up to the bedroom, Mr. Kardashian daughter's bedroom, grabbed his
grip or his piece of luggage, put that in the vehicle of Mr. Cowlings
and they headed south to the cemetery where Nicole was buried.
When the police searched that bag later in the afternoon, they found
the following items: Mr. Simpson's passport; a disguise, it's a beard
and the goatee that I told you about; $8700 in cash which was on the
person of Mr. Cowlings. That Mr. Simpson had given Mr. Cowlings
earlier that day. They also found a set of keys which the police
later determined were the keys to Nicole's property.
Now, Mr. Simpson has testified in deposition that as of June 12, 1994,
he did not have any keys to Nicole's property and that when he was
arrested and his luggage was seized on the 17, it was determined that
Mr. Simpson did in fact have keys to Nicole's property.
And more importantly, as Mr. Petrocelli described to you during his
opening remarks, the physical evidence indicated that the killer
probably entered and exited through the rear gate. Now, this is a
rear gate that requires a key to get in and to get out.
The keys that were taken from Mr. Simpson on June 17, 1994 fit that
gate. That would have permitted Mr. Simpson and he agrees, to
Nicole's property through the rear gate.
Now Mr. Simpson will testify that the event that I have described to
you on June 17 were due to the pain that he felt and did feel
associated with the loss of his ex-wife Nicole.
He will also explain to you, his explanation with respect to why he
had a passport and goatee, a large sum of money on his person at the
time that he was arrested.
We believe that the evidence in this case will show that these
explanations are not plausible. We believe that the evidence in this
case will show that Mr. Simpson, on the 17th, knew and was aware that
he was going to be arrested. We believe that the evidence in this
case will show that all of Mr. Simpson's actions on June 17 were an
attempt to avoid what he knew was going to be the inevitable
prosecution and incarceration of him for these murders.
We believe in summary that this evidence will show that Mr. Simpson's
actions were done in furtherance of his flight and that they were done
to avoid what he believed was his public humiliation and stripping of
his image.
And the evidence that we will offer will be the best evidence of that
and that is Mr. Simpson's own words. The words that are contained in
this document, the words from Mr. Simpson's own thoughts and own
Finally, ladies and gentlemen, the ultimate conclusion that we expect
to draw from the evidence that we will introduce in this case,
principally the suicide note, the chase, Mr. Simpson's suicidal
actions that day, is take Mr. Simpson was trying to preserve the image
of O.J. Simpson, not the person who we now met on June 12, 1994.
Because that person, as the evidence will show, is a cold blooded
killer who murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. Thank you
very much, appreciate it.

THE COURT: Okay. Five minutes, ladies and gentlemen.


(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

THE COURT: Mr. Kelly, you may proceed.

(Opening argument by Mr. Kelly on behalf of Plaintiff, Louis Brown:)

MR. KELLY: Thank you. May it please the court, ladies and gentlemen
of the jury.
First of all, I could have caught you earlier. I could have caught
you late. I'm catching you late today. I'm going to ask you to stick
with me a little bit. First of all, as a reminder, my name is John
Kelly. As a mentioned to you before, I represent the estate of Nicole
Brown Simpson and working with me also is Paul Callan, you'll see
working with me here during the course of the trial.
Now today you've heard a lot about DNA, RFLP, PCR, DNA, EDTA and lot
of other terminology. What I'm going to try to do now is put all that
aside and get focused a little bit more on people in relationships.
Both Petrocelli, Mr. Brewer have given you a detailed overview of both
the quality and the quantity of the evidence you're going to hear in
this case.
With that aspect having been addressed already, what I want to do is
just basically look at what the evidence will demonstrate in terms of
the nature of the relationship between Nicole Brown Simpson and Mr.
Simpson. Namely, the ebbs and flows, the good and the bad. The
passion that was there, the rejection that was exhibited and the
irreversible deterioration of the relationship with which ultimately
led to murder.
During this trial you're also going to hear a lot about Nicole.
You're going to hear about her as a mother, you're going to hear about
her as a daughter. As a sister, as a friend, and as a wife. People
loved Nicole. Her family loved her, her friends loved her. She loved
them. Men, women and children loved her. She loved them.
They were black people that loved her, and black people that she loved
as well as white. And so many people were deprived of the -- of a
substantial and irreplacable part of their lives when she left us.
And with regard to the evidence in this case, as I indicated to you,
I'm not going to put you through revisiting the whole thing.
But I think as you sit there, what I'm going to ask you to do is keep
the simplest and clearest of all evidence in mind at all times.
And I just want to mention a couple of things again. One of them is
the Brown leather, extra large Aris leather, light glove that was
found at Bundy on 12, 13, AM on June 13, 1994.
The second thing that was seen there right as a first officer arrived
on the scene were those bloody impressions and the bloody foot prints
made by the size 12 Bruno Magli Lorenzo, style Silga soled shoes
leaving the premise and leaving the murder scene.
The third thing to keep in mind are those drops.

MR. BAKER: I'm going to ask the -- object to him asking the jury to
keep anything in mind. This is opening statements.

THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead and finish your opening statement.

MR. KELLY: The third thing I'd ask you to keep in mind are the drops
of blood of Mr. Simpson leaving the scene. The final thing when Mr.
Simpson returned from Chicago, he had cuts and gouges on his left
hand. Keeping that in mind, what you will see put into evidence in
this case is photographs of Mr. Simpson wearing those identical Brown
Aris leather light extra large gloves as well as Nicole's receipt in
purchasing them prior to the murders.
You will also see put into evidence of this case, Mr. Simpson wearing
those exact Bruno Magli Lorenzo style Silga soled shoes, photographs
taken prior to these murders. These photographs that evidence is not
planted, it is not tainted. It is not contaminated.
You will see the gloves on Mr. Simpson's hands and the shoes on his
feet before these murders occurred. And I will ask you to just keep
that evidence in mind and consider it in the context of Mr. Simpson's
unique strength and agility and his previously exhibited rage.
You will also hear during the course of the trial that Mr. Simpson had
the unique opportunity to commit these murders.
He and Nicole were alternating every other weekend the care of their
two children. And on Saturday and Sunday nights at Nicole's house,
that is when her housekeeper would not be home on Sunday nights when
these murders occurred on a Sunday night also.
The second thing is, and you will hear this from Mr. Simpson's
testimony himself that he had called Nicole's house, Bundy at
approximately 9 p.m. on June 12, 1994. And he knew that Nicole was
home at that time and that the children were getting ready to go to
You've also heard that Mr. Simpson had the keys to her property and
that he did not have to leave for Chicago until after 11 p.m. that
You've heard all the other evidence also as if Mr. Simpson left a note
pinned to these two bodies indicating that he committed these two

MR. BAKER: I object to that.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: I request that be stricken from the record.

THE COURT: It is stricken.

MR. KELLY: As you heard before, we are not required to prove why Mr.
Simpson committed these murders. No one can explain the most complex
integrate workings of the human mind, especially one that snaps in
that fashion.
But I'm sure, as you people sit here with your collective human
sensibility, you're going to ask that very question why these murders

occurred. And I want to address that.
I will suggest to you that the evidence you will hear during the
course of this case indicates that the answer lies in Mr. Simpson's
own larger than life ego that was publicly pierced its core, not once
but twice by Nicole Brown Simpson. In that -- in June, 1994, after
she had left him for the second time, that it was his frustration, his
growing loss of control and his exclusion from her life in that family
that resulted in these murders.
You're going to hear testimony of a complicated dynamic and passional
relationship of extremes between these two human beings.
And no one is going to question whether these two people loved each
other for more than a decade. And when things were good between them,
they were really good. But when things were bad between these people,
they were very bad also. And like many good relationships, and
despite the good qualities, it was fatally flawed. You are going to
hear that Mr. Simpson was possessive of Nicole. He was controlling of
Nicole. And he constantly required public adulation.
On the contrary, Nicole Brown Simpson was devoted, loyal, a very
private person and committed primarily to her family above all else.
And because of these fundamental differences in their relationship, it
slowly and irrevocably started to unravel. The passion died and the
anger, the hostility and the resentment grew.
What we'll do is we'll start with the look at the outer veneer of Mr.
Simpson. The charismatic individual, the impeccable dress
irresistible smile.
But then the evidence and the testimony will take you beneath the
polished veneer to a sometimes dark and a violent an frightening world
of uncontrollable rage. It was a world that Nicole Brown Simpson
lived in and tried to leave. And she was finally able to do so but in
a time in a place and in a manner selected by Mr. Simpson. Not
What you are going to hear is evidence that is going to demonstrate
that Mr. Simpson did have the propensity, the mind set and the
requisite disposition to commit such a heinous act as these murders
were, even with the children there in the house at that time.
Mr. Simpson and Nicole met in Beverly Hills in 1977. She had just
moved out of her paraphernalia's house down in Orange county and was
working up in a restaurant in Beverly Hills. Nicole was just 18 years
old. A teenager, a kid. She was a beautiful young girl and she was
full of life. She was also down to earth. She was casual, she was
fun, she loved being with her family, her sisters, and she had good
Likewise, Mr. Simpson was older. He was 30 years old and he was
bigger than life. He was a super star on the football field and he
was a darling of corporate America. Mr. Simpson was married at that
time and had two children. But that marriage you'll hear, ended in
separation and then divorce.
But by all accounts, when Mr. Simpson first met Nicole, he was -- it
was literally love at first sight. This was a passionate and
immediate bonding of the two. You'll also hear there was a strong
relationship, that it was kept private during Mr. Simpson's pending
separation and divorce, but that when that divorce became final,
Nicole moved into his residence at Rockingham. And it was there that
Nicole lived with Mr. Simpson for approximately five years during this
period of time, up through 1984, where they lived as a couple and
lived without children.
During this period of time, going up through 1984, you'll hear of
confrontational incidents between them during this period of time,
some more commonplace that you people might be able to identify with.
You'll hear about Nicole repeatedly, after being in fights with Mr.
Simpson, packing up her belongings, throwing them in the car, and
going back home to mom and dad and her sisters.
You're also going to hear some strange things. For example, you're
going to hear all of Nicole's clothes being thrown out of an apartment
window, scattered and strewn over parked cars and on the street, up in
San Francisco.
But in spite of these instances, these flare-ups, Nicole loved Mr.
Simpson. She wanted to marry him; she wanted to have children. But
at that time, Mr. Simpson did not want to get in another legally
binding relationship, and insisted on a prenuptial agreement before
they could ever get married.
On the other hand, Nicole Brown Simpson wanted children, but she
didn't want them unless she was married.
These differences were ironed out; the problems were solved, and these
two were married on February 2, 1985. Now, this marriage between
Nicole Brown Simpson and Mr. Simpson represented everything that could
be good in our society.
You had two families, one black, one white, accepting each other.
Mr. Simpson was a super celebrity, and Nicole was as sweet an as
beautiful as they come.
They were constantly surrounded by their friends, whether it was at
Rockingham or whether they were on vacations.
And within four years, they had two beautiful children, Sydney and
Justin, who were growing up in a color-blind world.
Just prior to them getting married and after they were married, the
complexion of the relationship changed. And when they did get married,
and Nicole was pregnant, after she had children, Mr. Simpson's
controlling personality took over.
You are then going to hear of incidents that exhibited unacceptable
behavior for a husband, for a father, for a man. You're going to
hear, for example, of the time Mr. Simpson broke the windshield of
Nicole's car with a baseball bat.
You're also going to hear on several other occasions where Mr. Simpson
was demeaning and abusive to Nicole in the presence of others.
And you have to ask yourself, Mr. Simpson has the temerity and the
gall and the lack of self-control to act this way in public.

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to this argument, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KELLY: We need not speculate as to what may have gone on in
private between Nicole Brown Simpson and Mr. Simpson, because on the
early morning hours of New Year's Day, 1989, Nicole Brown Simpson
opened the iron gates to the entrance of Rockingham and gave us a look
And this is what the evidence will show and the testimony will show as
to what happened on that particular day:
At approximately 3:30 a.m. on that morning, police officer Edwards
responded to a 911 emergency radio call at 310 North Rockingham, which
was the Simpson estate.
As police officer Edwards pulled up to the gate, he exited the car and
pushed the electric call-box button by the front gate.
First, the housekeeper answered. A female said, "Everything is fine;
the police are not needed." But Edwards told her that he needed to
speak to the woman that made the 911 call and he was not leaving until
he did.
Officer Edwards' presence of mind to stay there then may have saved
Nicole's life that night.

MR. BAKER: I object. Move that be stricken from the record.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELLY: At the same time that this was going on, Nicole came
running out of some bushes near the house, wearing only a bra and some
sweat-type pants, with some mud down the right leg. Nicole then ran
across the driveway to the post containing the gate release button.
She collapsed on the post, pushing the button several times.
All the time while she was doing this, she was yelling, "He's going to
kill me. He's going to kill me." And as she said this, the gate
opened, and Nicole ran out to police officer Edwards.
Edwards asked Nicole who was going to kill her, and she replied, O.J.
Police officer Edwards, not knowing that he was at the home of
Orenthal James Simpson, asked Nicole if she meant O.J. Simpson, the
football player, and she said yes.
Edwards will testify that at that time when Nicole ran out to him and
was yelling, he's going to kill me, he's going to kill me. He will
testify that Nicole's face was badly beaten, with a cut lip, a
swollen, black and left eye and cheek, and that Nicole had a hand
imprint on her neck.
Edwards asked Nicole what had happened to her, and she replied that
Mr. Simpson had slapped and kicked her.
Nicole was shaking. Police officer Edwards gives her his uniform
jacket and puts her in the patrol car. As she was interviewed by
Edwards' partner, she said, "You never do anything about him; you just
talk to him and then you leave."
She indicated to the police officers that she wanted him arrested; she
wanted Mr. Simpson arrested, and she wanted him out of there so she
could get back to her kids.
At this time, while Nicole was in the car, Mr. Simpson came out to the
gate just inside the yard and started yelling. Even with the police
there and with the two small children upstairs in this house, Mr.
Simpson could not control his rage.
He screamed at Nicole and he screamed at police officer Edwards.
After, when Simpson stopped yelling, Edwards told Mr. Simpson that
Nicole wanted to press charges for his beating her. Mr. Simpson lost
his temper again and started yelling that he did not beat her up, that
he simply pushed her out of the bedroom, nothing more.
Edwards indicated that he could clearly see the evidence of a beating
on Nicole's face and that he was going to have to arrest Mr. Simpson.
And Mr. Simpson's response to that was, the police have been out here
before, and now you're going arrest me for this? This is a family
matter. Why do you want to make a big deal out of it? We can handle
it ourselves.
Because Mr. Simpson was only wearing a robe, police officer Edwards
gave him the courtesy of allowing him to go back inside the house by
himself and change before he's going to be arrested and taken down to
the station.
While this was going on, the housekeeper came out to the car, tried to

pull Nicole out of the car and told Nicole, don't do this. Come back
inside now.
Police officer Edwards told the housekeeper she was interfering with
an investigation and to get out of there. The housekeeper went back
inside the house.
Perhaps three minutes after the housekeeper then left, police officer
Edwards saw Mr. Simpson, now dressed, peek over the wall. Mr. Simpson
again complained that Edwards was the only one to make a big deal out
of something like this.
Edwards once again told Mr. Simpson that, based on Nicole's visible
injuries, he was going to have to arrest him.
When Edwards' supervisor then arrived on the scene, Mr. Simpson
disappeared. As Edwards explained the situation to his supervisor, he
saw Mr. Simpson get in his Bentley, go out the other gate, and take
off at 35 to 45 miles an hour.
He fled the scene at this time after this incident. The police
officers searched for a period of time for Mr. Simpson, but they could
not find him.
Nicole declined to go downtown and press charges at that time, or
receive medical treatment or have photographs taken downtown. All she
wanted to do was get back to her kids.
What Edwards did was get her to a local police station and take three
photographs of her, her physical appearance reflecting the way she
appeared when he dove up that morning. And you'll see those three
Nicole was returned home, and a second call came in to the police
again, another 911 call from Nicole, saying that Simpson had returned
to the residence again. The police went out there again. They waited
up the street, hoping to catch Mr. Simpson. After a period of time
when they didn't see anybody, they checked the house again. Nicole
told them that he had fled a second time.
I'd like to talk about some of the implications of this.
First of all, it's quite clear from the evidence --

MR. BAKER: This is argument, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KELLY: The evidence will reflect, first of all, and the testimony
will reflect -- and you've heard already that the police officers on
the scene tolerated Mr. Simpson's screaming at them and screaming at
others in the situation.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. This is just argument.

THE COURT: It's opening statement, Counsel. This is not closing

MR. KELLY: I understand that, Your Honor. I'm indicating what the
testimony will be with regard to this incident.

MR. BAKER: He's just arguing the case, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Baker, I heard you the first time.
Restrict your statements to an opening statement, Counsel.

MR. KELLY: Yes, Your Honor.
What you will hear is the LAPD didn't push Nicole to press charges at
this time; they didn't publicize the occurrence, and they did nothing
to get Mr. Simpson at that time.
Likewise, did Mr. Simpson respond in kind to the courtesies and the
deference shown him? Absolutely not. He took off in his car.
And I think what you have to keep in your minds on top of is Nicole
hiding in the bushes, half naked.

MR. BAKER: Objection. Argument.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KELLY: After the police left the second time, you'll hear how
Nicole was left alone to care for Sydney and Justin. You will hear
that what Mr. Simpson did this day, on New Year's Day, was not to
return to the house. What he did was, he went to the Rose Bowl to
watch a football game with his friends. And in doing that, you will
hear that although Mr. Simpson may not have been concerned about
Nicole, Mr. Simpson's best friend was. And you will hear testimony to
this effect.
It was A. C. Cowlings who kept an eye on Nicole that day, who worried
about her, who checked on her well-being. And it was A. C. Cowlings
who, after watching Nicole's face swell and darken with bruises, took
her to the emergency room that New Year's Day evening, for fear she
had a concussion.
And Mr. Cowlings, like Mr. Simpson, was a professional football
player. And you will hear from his own testimony that it was his own
familiarity with the injuries, that of bruises to the head, that can
cause -- that gave rise to his concern for Nicole. This was no pushing
or shoving incident; this was a beating.
This incident in 1989 was the beginning of the end for this
There is no doubt that the fear and humiliation that Nicole suffered
that day was permanently impressed in her mind. You'll see letters
from Nicole to in Simpson in 1990 and 1991 expressing exactly that.
And there's no indication that Mr. Simpson ever struck Nicole again,
physically struck her again after this date, until June of 1994. But
you'll also see evidence that after this incident in '89, there was a
written agreement entered into that Mr. Simpson's antenuptial
agreement would be voided if he ever struck her again.
Your Honor, is this a good time.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KELLY: Thank you.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, I understand that there was inquiry
of the clerk or bailiff when the court will be dark.
At the outset, when we went through hardship, we gave you a schedule
on the back of the hardship declaration. The only substantial changes
I would see would be the Thanksgiving holiday and Christmas holidays.
If you have some definite plans with regards to Thanksgiving that is
going to take you out of town the day before Thanksgiving, or you're
going to have any difficulty coming back by Sunday night following
Thanksgiving, we'll not change the schedule.
Originally we scheduled November 27 through December 2 as
Thanksgiving, allowing for long-distance travel that family reunions
may call for. I know it's difficult to get air flights both out and
back from Los Angeles.
Do any of the jurors have those plans in mind?

JURORS: (Nod negatively.)

THE COURT: Nobody?

JURORS: (Nod negatively.)

THE COURT: You have plans that --

JUROR 78: They're tentative. I didn't know what dates.

THE COURT: Is it out-of-town traveling?

JUROR 78: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Would that be by air or...

JUROR 78: Plane.

THE COURT: Would you prefer that it not be changed?

JUROR 78: They took the hardship forms back from us, and at the time,
we didn't even know.

THE COURT: The 27TH would be the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, and
the 2nd would be the Monday following Thanksgiving. If you need those
as travel days, I will leave it as court recess days.

JUROR 78: The Tuesday after Thanksgiving?


JUROR 78: Oh. Monday. That would be fine.

THE COURT: That would be the Wednesday preceding -- before
Thanksgiving and the Monday following Thanksgiving. So that would be
Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday. Okay.
Everybody understand that?

JURORS: (Nod affirmatively.)

THE COURT: I'll have the bailiff give you a written schedule.
And then assuming were's still in session at Christmas, that would be
December 23 through January 3. Okay.
Other than that, the holidays would be Veteran's Day. The courtroom
-- the whole court building is dark. That's November 11.
And should this case go into January, January 20 is Dr. Martin Luther
King holiday. The court building is dark also on that date.

JUROR 266: What about election?

THE COURT: Election day is?

JUROR 266: It's the 5th. It's the 4th.


THE COURT: It's the 5th. We can adjourn half a day, if you like.
Normally the voting places are open, I think, till eight o'clock, so I
would like to go the whole day.

JUROR 266: That's fine.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Then, we shall see you tomorrow morning
at 8:30. You're excused. Don't talk about the case with anyone; don't
form or express any opinion; don't do any research.
Thank you.
Counsel, would you remain.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the
presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: In terms of scheduling, Mr. Baker, are you going to make
an opening statement, or are you going to reserve it until it's time
you put your defense on? You may do that if you like.

MR. BAKER: Well, I'll be making an opening statement, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And with regards to the deferring of the issue that I did,
let me just simply state that should it result in the court ruling
permitting that evidence, having foreclosure from referring to that at
the present time, you may at such time before you present your defense
and make opening statement in that regard.

MR. BAKER: Can I just address one issue with you to the court?


MR. BAKER: Petrocelli now, in his opening statement, has told the
jury at least three things that come from Mark Fuhrman's lips: He
told him Mark Fuhrman was asleep. Only Mark Fuhrman can testify to
He told them Mark Fuhrman alone found the glove. Only Mark Fuhrman
can testify to that.
He told them Mark Fuhrman found the Rockingham glove alone. And he
testified, or he told the jurors, that Fuhrman was the interrogator of
Kato Kaelin, and that was after the testimony. And this is after the
other Detective had left.
I think he has opened the door to the issue, and I think I ought to be
able to do it in my opening.
I will submit, Your Honor, Mr. Petrocelli was very careful, Your
Honor, to only confine my remarks about Mr. Fuhrman to evidence that
will be elicited from witnesses other than Mr. Fuhrman in every single
case. For example, Mark Fuhrman was asleep. He was called by officer
Ron Phillips, and Ron Phillips will so testify.

THE COURT: Okay. Order remains.

(At 4:35 P.M., an adjournment was taken until Thursday, October 24,
1996, at 8:30 A.M.)